Softpanorama

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

Softpanorama Media Skeptic Bulletin, 2015

 Main page 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001

Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Jun 17, 2019] Student Loan Debt Is the Enemy of Meritocracy

In 1980, the states subsidized 70% of the cost per student. Today it is less than 30% and the amount of grants and scholarships has likewise declined. Tax cuts for rich people and conservative hatred for education are the biggest problem.
Notable quotes:
"... "easy" student loans are a subsidy to colleges, ..."
"... 1965 median family income was $6900, more than 200% of the cost of a year at NU. Current median family income is about 75% of a year at NU. ..."
"... Allowing young adults to avoid challenging and uncomfortable and difficult subjects under the guise of compassion is the enemy of meritocracy. Financial illiteracy is the enemy of meritocracy. ..."
"... The specific market dynamics of health care expenditures are obviously different, but as categories of expenses they have some things in common. First, both are very expensive relative to most other household expenditures. Second, unlike consumer merchandise, neither lends itself very well to cost reduction via offshoring or automation. So in an economy where many consumer prices are held down through a corresponding suppression of real wage growth, they consume a correspondingly larger chunk of the household budget. ..."
"... JUST HAD AN IDEA THAT MIGHT LIMIT THE DAMAGE OF THESE PHONEY ONLINE COLLEGES (pardon shouting, but I think it's justified): ..."
"... of-paying) IF a built for that purpose government agency APPROVES said loan. What do you think? ..."
"... Kaplan Ed is among the worst of the worst of internet federal loan and grant sucking diploma mills. ..."
"... Because every event in today's economy is the wish of the wealthy. Do you see why they suddenly wish to deeply educate the proles? ..."
economistsview.typepad.com
Thomas Piketty on a theme I've been hammering lately, student debt is too damn high!:
Student Loan Debt Is the Enemy of Meritocracy in the US: ...the amount of household debt and even more recently of student debt in the U.S. is something that is really troublesome and it reflects the very large rise in tuition in the U.S. a very large inequality in access to education. I think if we really want to promote more equal opportunity and redistribute chances in access to education we should do something about student debt. And it's not possible to have such a large group of the population entering the labor force with such a big debt behind them. This exemplifies a particular problem with inequality in the United States, which is very high inequality and access to higher education. So in other countries in the developed world you don't have such massive student debt because you have more public support to higher education. I think the plan that was proposed earlier this year in 2015 by President Obama to increase public funding to public universities and community college is exactly justified.
This is really the key for higher growth in the future and also for a more equitable growth..., you have the official discourse about meritocracy, equal opportunity and mobility, and then you have the reality. And the gap between the two can be quite troublesome. So this is like you have a problem like this and there's a lot of hypocrisy about meritocracy in every country, not only in the U.S., but there is evidence suggesting that this has become particularly extreme in the United States. ... So this is a situation that is very troublesome and should rank very highly in the policy agenda in the future in the U.S.

DrDick -> Jeff R Carter:

"college is heavily subsidized"

Bwahahahahahahaha! *gasp*

In 1980, the states subsidized 70% of the cost per student. Today it is less than 30% and the amount of grants and scholarships has likewise declined. Tax cuts for rich people and conservative hatred for education are the biggest problem.

cm -> to DrDick...

I don't know what Jeff meant, but "easy" student loans are a subsidy to colleges, don't you think? Subsidies don't have to be paid directly to the recipient. The people who are getting the student loans don't get to keep the money (but they do get to keep the debt).

DrDick -> to cm...

No I do not agree. If anything, they are a subsidy to the finance industry (since you cannot default on them). More basically, they do not make college more affordable or accessible (his point).

cm -> to DrDick...

Well, what is a subsidy? Most economic entities don't get to keep the money they receive, but it ends up with somebody else or circulates. If I run a business and somebody sends people with money my way (or pays me by customer served), that looks like a subsidy to me - even though I don't get to keep the money, much of it paid for operational expenses not to forget salaries and other perks.

Just because it is not prearranged and no-strings (?) funding doesn't mean it cannot be a subsidy.

The financial system is involved, and benefits, whenever money is sloshing around.

Pinkybum -> to cm...

I think DrDick has this the right way around. Surely one should think of subsidies as to who the payment is directly helping. Subsidies to students would lower the barrier of entry into college. Subsidies to colleges help colleges hire better professors, offer more classes, reduce the cost of classes etc. Student loans are no subsidy at all except to the finance industry because they cannot be defaulted on and even then some may never be paid back because of bankruptcies.

However, that is always the risk of doing business as a loan provider. It might be interesting to assess the return on student loans compared to other loan instruments.

mrrunangun -> to Jeff R Carter...

The cost of higher education has risen relative to the earning power of the student and/or the student's family unless that family is in the top 10-20% wealth or income groups.

50 years ago it was possible for a lower middle class student to pay all expenses for Northwestern University with his/her own earnings. Tuition was $1500 and room + board c $1000/year. The State of Illinois had a scholarship grant program and all you needed was a 28 or 29 on the ACT to qualify for a grant that paid 80% of that tuition. A male student could make $2000 in a summer construction job, such as were plentiful during those booming 60s. That plus a low wage job waiting tables, night security, work-study etc could cover the remaining tuition and expense burden.

The annual nut now is in excess of $40,000 at NU and not much outside the $40,000-50,000 range at other second tier or elite schools.

The state schools used to produce the bedrock educated upper middle class of business and professional people in most states west of the seaboard. Tuition there 50 years ago was about $1200/year and room and board about $600-800 here in the midwest. Again you could put yourself through college waiting tables part-time. It wasn't easy but it was possible.

No way a kid who doesn't already possess an education can make the tuition and expenses of a private school today. I don't know what the median annual family income was in 1965 but I feel confident that it was well above the annual nut for a private college. Now it's about equal to it.

mrrunangun -> to mrrunangun...

1965 median family income was $6900, more than 200% of the cost of a year at NU. Current median family income is about 75% of a year at NU.

anne -> to 400 ppm CO2...

Linking for:

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Presentation-National-Debt.png

Click on "Share" under the graph that is initially constructed and copy the "Link" that appears:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=13Ew

March 22, 2015

Federal debt, 1966-2014

This allows a reader to understand how the graph was constructed and to work with the graph.

ilsm:

The US spends half the money the entire world spends on war, that is success!

Massive student debt, huge doses poverty, scores of thousands [of annual neglect related] deaths from the wretched health care system etc are not failure!

tew:

Poor education is the enemy of meritocracy. Costly, bloated administrations full of non-educators there to pamper and pander to every possible complaint and special interest - that is the enemy of meritocracy.

Convincing kids to simple "follow their dreams" regardless of education cost and career potential is the enemy of meritocracy. Allowing young adults to avoid challenging and uncomfortable and difficult subjects under the guise of compassion is the enemy of meritocracy. Financial illiteracy is the enemy of meritocracy.

Manageable student debt is no great enemy of meritocracy.

cm -> to tew...

This misses the point, aside frm the victim blaming. Few people embark on college degrees to "follow their dream", unless the dream is getting admission to the middle class job market.

When I was in elementary/middle school, the admonitions were of the sort "if you are not good in school you will end up sweeping streets" - from a generation who still saw street cleaning as manual labor, in my days it was already mechanized.

I estimate that about 15% or so of every cohort went to high school and then college, most went to a combined vocational/high school track, and some of those then later also went college, often from work.

This was before the big automation and globalization waves, when there were still enough jobs for everybody, and there was no pretense that you needed a fancy title to do standard issue work or as a social signal of some sort.

Richard H. Serlin:

Student loans and college get the bulk of the education inequality attention, and it's not nearly enough attention, but it's so much more. The early years are so crucial, as Nobel economist James Heckman has shown so well. Some children get no schooling or educational/developmental day care until almost age 6, when it should start in the first year, with preschool starting at 3. Others get high quality Montessori, and have had 3 years of it by the time they enter kindergarten, when others have had zero of any kind of education when they enter kindergarten.

Some children spend summers in high quality summer school and educational programs; others spend three months digressing and learning nothing. Some children get SAT prep programs costing thousands, and high end educational afterschool programs; others get nothing after school.

All these things should be available in high quality to any child; it's not 1810 anymore Republicans, the good old days of life expectancy in the 30s and dirt poverty for the vast majority. We need just a little more education in the modern world. But this also makes for hugely unequal opportunity.

Observer -> to Observer...

Data on degree by year ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States

Observer -> to Syaloch...

One needs to differentiate between costs (total dollars spent per student credit hour or degree, or whatever the appropriate metric is) and price (what fraction of the cost is allocated to the the end-user student).

Note that the level of state funding impacts price, not cost; that discussion is usually about cost shifting, not cost reduction.

I'd say that the rate of increase in costs is, more or less, independent of the percent of costs borne by the state. You can indeed see this in the increase in private schools, the state funding is small/nil (particularly in schools without material endowments, where actual annual fees (prices) must closely actual match annual costs). Price discounts and federal funding may both complicate this analysis.

I think much more effort should be spent on understanding and controlling costs. As with health care, just saying "spend more money" is probably not the wise or even sustainable path in the long term.

Costs were discussed at some length here a year(?) or so ago. There is at least one fairly comprehensive published analysis of higher education costs drivers. IIRC, their conclusion was that there were a number of drivers - its not just food courts or more administrators. Sorry, don't recall the link.

Syaloch -> to cm...

Actually for my first job out of college at BLS, I basically was hired for my "rounded personality" combined with a general understanding of economic principles, not for any specific job-related skills. I had no prior experience working with Laspeyres price indexes, those skills were acquired through on-the-job training. Similarly in software development there is no degree that can make you a qualified professional developer; the best a degree can do is to show you are somewhat literate in X development language and that you have a good understanding of general software development principles. Most of the specific skills you'll need to be effective will be learned on the job.

The problem is that employers increasingly want to avoid any responsibility for training and mentoring, and to shift this burden onto schools. These institutions respond by jettisoning courses in areas deemed unnecessary for short-term vocational purposes, even though what you learn in many of these courses is probably more valuable and durable in the long run than the skills obtained through job-specific training, which often have a remarkably short shelf-life. (How valuable to you now is all that COBOL training you had back in the day?)

I guess the question then is, is the sole purpose of higher education to provide people with entry-level job skills for some narrowly-defined job description which may not even exist in a decade? A lot of people these days seem to feel that way. But I believe that in the long run it's a recipe for disaster at both the individual and the societal level.

Richard H. Serlin -> to Observer...

"Observer"

The research is just not on you side, as Heckman has shown very well. Early education and development makes a huge difference, and at age 5-7 (kindergarten) children are much better off with more schooling than morning to noon. This is why educated parents who can afford it pay a lot of money for a full day -- with afterschool and weekened programs on top.

Yes, we're more educated than 1810, but I use 1810 because that's the kind of small government, little spending on education (you want your children educated you pay for it.) that the Republican Party would love to return us to if they thought they could get away with it. And we've become little more educated in the last 50 years even though the world has become much more technologically advanced.

anne:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=14T9

January 30, 2015

Student Loans Outstanding as a share of Gross Domestic Product, 2007-2014


http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=14Ta

January 30, 2015

Student Loans Outstanding, 2007-2014

(Percent change)

anne:

As to increasing college costs, would there be an analogy to healthcare costs?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/

July 25, 2009

Why Markets Can't Cure Healthcare
By Paul Krugman

Judging both from comments on this blog and from some of my mail, a significant number of Americans believe that the answer to our health care problems - indeed, the only answer - is to rely on the free market. Quite a few seem to believe that this view reflects the lessons of economic theory.

Not so. One of the most influential economic papers of the postwar era was Kenneth Arrow's "Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Health Care," * which demonstrated - decisively, I and many others believe - that health care can't be marketed like bread or TVs. Let me offer my own version of Arrow's argument.

There are two strongly distinctive aspects of health care. One is that you don't know when or whether you'll need care - but if you do, the care can be extremely expensive. The big bucks are in triple coronary bypass surgery, not routine visits to the doctor's office; and very, very few people can afford to pay major medical costs out of pocket.

This tells you right away that health care can't be sold like bread. It must be largely paid for by some kind of insurance. And this in turn means that someone other than the patient ends up making decisions about what to buy. Consumer choice is nonsense when it comes to health care. And you can't just trust insurance companies either - they're not in business for their health, or yours.

This problem is made worse by the fact that actually paying for your health care is a loss from an insurers' point of view - they actually refer to it as "medical costs." This means both that insurers try to deny as many claims as possible, and that they try to avoid covering people who are actually likely to need care. Both of these strategies use a lot of resources, which is why private insurance has much higher administrative costs than single-payer systems. And since there's a widespread sense that our fellow citizens should get the care we need - not everyone agrees, but most do - this means that private insurance basically spends a lot of money on socially destructive activities.

The second thing about health care is that it's complicated, and you can't rely on experience or comparison shopping. ("I hear they've got a real deal on stents over at St. Mary's!") That's why doctors are supposed to follow an ethical code, why we expect more from them than from bakers or grocery store owners.

You could rely on a health maintenance organization to make the hard choices and do the cost management, and to some extent we do. But HMOs have been highly limited in their ability to achieve cost-effectiveness because people don't trust them - they're profit-making institutions, and your treatment is their cost.

Between those two factors, health care just doesn't work as a standard market story.

All of this doesn't necessarily mean that socialized medicine, or even single-payer, is the only way to go. There are a number of successful healthcare systems, at least as measured by pretty good care much cheaper than here, and they are quite different from each other. There are, however, no examples of successful health care based on the principles of the free market, for one simple reason: in health care, the free market just doesn't work. And people who say that the market is the answer are flying in the face of both theory and overwhelming evidence.

* http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/2/PHCBP.pdf

anne -> to anne...

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SEEB01?output_view=pct_12mths

January 30, 2015

College tuition and fees, 1980–2015

(Percentage change)

1980 ( 9.4)
1981 ( 12.4) Reagan
1982 ( 13.4)
1983 ( 10.4)
1984 ( 10.2)

1985 ( 9.1)
1986 ( 8.1)
1987 ( 7.6)
1988 ( 7.6) Bush
1989 ( 7.9)

1990 ( 8.1)
1991 ( 10.2)
1992 ( 10.7) Clinton
1993 ( 9.4)
1994 ( 7.0)

1995 ( 6.0)
1996 ( 5.7)
1997 ( 5.1)
1998 ( 4.2)
1999 ( 4.0)

2000 ( 4.1)
2001 ( 5.1) Bush
2002 ( 6.8)
2003 ( 8.4)
2004 ( 9.5)

2005 ( 7.5)
2006 ( 6.7)
2007 ( 6.2)
2008 ( 6.2)
2009 ( 6.0) Obama

2010 ( 5.2)
2011 ( 5.0)
2012 ( 4.8)
2013 ( 4.2)
2014 ( 3.7)

January

2015 ( 3.6)


Syaloch -> to anne...

I believe so, as I noted above. The specific market dynamics of health care expenditures are obviously different, but as categories of expenses they have some things in common. First, both are very expensive relative to most other household expenditures. Second, unlike consumer merchandise, neither lends itself very well to cost reduction via offshoring or automation. So in an economy where many consumer prices are held down through a corresponding suppression of real wage growth, they consume a correspondingly larger chunk of the household budget.

Another interesting feature of both health care and college education is that there are many proffered explanations as to why their cost is rising so much relative to other areas, but a surprising lack of a really authoritative explanation based on solid evidence.

anne -> to Syaloch...

Another interesting feature of both health care and college education is that there are many proffered explanations as to why their cost is rising so much relative to other areas, but a surprising lack of a really authoritative explanation based on solid evidence.

[ Look to the paper by Kenneth Arrow, which I cannot copy, for what is to me a convincing explanation as to the market defeating factors of healthcare. However, I have no proper explanation about education costs and am only speculating or looking for an analogy. ]

anne -> to Syaloch...

The specific market dynamics of health care expenditures are obviously different, but as categories of expenses they have some things in common. First, both are very expensive relative to most other household expenditures. Second, unlike consumer merchandise, neither lends itself very well to cost reduction via offshoring or automation. So in an economy where many consumer prices are held down through a corresponding suppression of real wage growth, they consume a correspondingly larger chunk of the household budget.

[ Nicely expressed. ]

Peter K. -> to anne...

"As to increasing college costs, would there be an analogy to healthcare costs?"

Yes, exactly. They aren't normal markets. There should be heavy government regulation.

Denis Drew:

JUST HAD AN IDEA THAT MIGHT LIMIT THE DAMAGE OF THESE PHONEY ONLINE COLLEGES (pardon shouting, but I think it's justified):

Only allow government guaranteed loans (and the accompanying you-can-never-get-out-of-paying) IF a built for that purpose government agency APPROVES said loan. What do you think?

Denis Drew -> to cm...

A big reason we had the real estate bubble was actually the mad Republican relaxation of loan requirements -- relying on the "free market." So, thanks for coming up with a good comparison.

By definition, for the most part, people taking out student loans are shall we say new to the world and more vulnerable to the pirates.
* * * * * * * * * *
[cut and paste from my comment on AB]
Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post.

According to an article in the Huffington Post At Kaplan University, 'Guerrilla Registration' Leaves Students Deep In Debt, Kaplan Ed is among the worst of the worst of internet federal loan and grant sucking diploma mills. Going so far as to falsely pad bills $5000 or so dollars at diploma time - pay up immediately or you will never get your sheepskin; you wasted your time. No gov agency will act.

According to a lovely graph which I wish I could patch in here the Post may actually be currently be kept afloat only by purloined cash from Kaplan:

earnings before corporate overhead

2002 - Kaplan ed, $10 mil; Kaplan test prep, $45 mil: WaPo, $100 mil
2005 - Kaplan ed, $55 mil; Kaplan test prep, $100 mil; WaPo, $105 mil
2009 - Kaplan ed, $255 mil; Kaplan test prep, $5 mil; WaPo negative $175 mil

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/22/kaplan-university-guerilla-registration_n_799741.html

Wonder if billionaire Bezos will reach out to make Kaplan Ed victims whole. Will he really continue to use Kaplan's pirated money to keep WaPo whole -- if that is what is going on?

Johannes Y O Highness:

"theme I've been hammering lately, student debt is too damn high!: "

Too damn high
but why?

Because! Because every event in today's economy is the wish of the wealthy. Do you see why they suddenly wish to deeply educate the proles?

Opportunity cost! The burden of the intelligentsia, the brain work can by carried by robots or humans. Choice of the wealthy? Humans, hands down. Can you see the historical background?

Railroad was the first robot. According to Devon's Paradox, it was overused because of its increment of efficiency. Later, excessive roadbeds were disassembled. Rails were sold as scrap.

The new robots are not heavy lifters. New robots are there to do the work of the brain trust. As first robots replaced lower caste jokers, so shall new robots replace upper caste jokers. Do you see the fear developing inside the huddle of high rollers? Rollers now calling the play?

High rollers plan to educate small time hoods to do the work of the new robots, then kill the new robots before the newbie 'bot discovers how to kill the wealthy, to kill, to replace them forever.

Terrifying fear
strikes

Observer:

Good bit of data on education costs here

http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/

This chart shows state spending per student and tuition ...

" overall perhaps the best description of the data is something along the lines of "sometimes state appropriations go up and sometimes they go down, but tuition always goes up." "

http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/2012/12/04/chart-of-the-week-state-appropriations-and-public-tuitions/

[Jun 17, 2019] Student Loan Debt Is the Enemy of Meritocracy

In 1980, the states subsidized 70% of the cost per student. Today it is less than 30% and the amount of grants and scholarships has likewise declined. Tax cuts for rich people and conservative hatred for education are the biggest problem.
Notable quotes:
"... "easy" student loans are a subsidy to colleges, ..."
"... 1965 median family income was $6900, more than 200% of the cost of a year at NU. Current median family income is about 75% of a year at NU. ..."
"... Allowing young adults to avoid challenging and uncomfortable and difficult subjects under the guise of compassion is the enemy of meritocracy. Financial illiteracy is the enemy of meritocracy. ..."
"... The specific market dynamics of health care expenditures are obviously different, but as categories of expenses they have some things in common. First, both are very expensive relative to most other household expenditures. Second, unlike consumer merchandise, neither lends itself very well to cost reduction via offshoring or automation. So in an economy where many consumer prices are held down through a corresponding suppression of real wage growth, they consume a correspondingly larger chunk of the household budget. ..."
"... JUST HAD AN IDEA THAT MIGHT LIMIT THE DAMAGE OF THESE PHONEY ONLINE COLLEGES (pardon shouting, but I think it's justified): ..."
"... of-paying) IF a built for that purpose government agency APPROVES said loan. What do you think? ..."
"... Kaplan Ed is among the worst of the worst of internet federal loan and grant sucking diploma mills. ..."
"... Because every event in today's economy is the wish of the wealthy. Do you see why they suddenly wish to deeply educate the proles? ..."
economistsview.typepad.com
Thomas Piketty on a theme I've been hammering lately, student debt is too damn high!:
Student Loan Debt Is the Enemy of Meritocracy in the US: ...the amount of household debt and even more recently of student debt in the U.S. is something that is really troublesome and it reflects the very large rise in tuition in the U.S. a very large inequality in access to education. I think if we really want to promote more equal opportunity and redistribute chances in access to education we should do something about student debt. And it's not possible to have such a large group of the population entering the labor force with such a big debt behind them. This exemplifies a particular problem with inequality in the United States, which is very high inequality and access to higher education. So in other countries in the developed world you don't have such massive student debt because you have more public support to higher education. I think the plan that was proposed earlier this year in 2015 by President Obama to increase public funding to public universities and community college is exactly justified.
This is really the key for higher growth in the future and also for a more equitable growth..., you have the official discourse about meritocracy, equal opportunity and mobility, and then you have the reality. And the gap between the two can be quite troublesome. So this is like you have a problem like this and there's a lot of hypocrisy about meritocracy in every country, not only in the U.S., but there is evidence suggesting that this has become particularly extreme in the United States. ... So this is a situation that is very troublesome and should rank very highly in the policy agenda in the future in the U.S.

DrDick -> Jeff R Carter:

"college is heavily subsidized"

Bwahahahahahahaha! *gasp*

In 1980, the states subsidized 70% of the cost per student. Today it is less than 30% and the amount of grants and scholarships has likewise declined. Tax cuts for rich people and conservative hatred for education are the biggest problem.

cm -> to DrDick...

I don't know what Jeff meant, but "easy" student loans are a subsidy to colleges, don't you think? Subsidies don't have to be paid directly to the recipient. The people who are getting the student loans don't get to keep the money (but they do get to keep the debt).

DrDick -> to cm...

No I do not agree. If anything, they are a subsidy to the finance industry (since you cannot default on them). More basically, they do not make college more affordable or accessible (his point).

cm -> to DrDick...

Well, what is a subsidy? Most economic entities don't get to keep the money they receive, but it ends up with somebody else or circulates. If I run a business and somebody sends people with money my way (or pays me by customer served), that looks like a subsidy to me - even though I don't get to keep the money, much of it paid for operational expenses not to forget salaries and other perks.

Just because it is not prearranged and no-strings (?) funding doesn't mean it cannot be a subsidy.

The financial system is involved, and benefits, whenever money is sloshing around.

Pinkybum -> to cm...

I think DrDick has this the right way around. Surely one should think of subsidies as to who the payment is directly helping. Subsidies to students would lower the barrier of entry into college. Subsidies to colleges help colleges hire better professors, offer more classes, reduce the cost of classes etc. Student loans are no subsidy at all except to the finance industry because they cannot be defaulted on and even then some may never be paid back because of bankruptcies.

However, that is always the risk of doing business as a loan provider. It might be interesting to assess the return on student loans compared to other loan instruments.

mrrunangun -> to Jeff R Carter...

The cost of higher education has risen relative to the earning power of the student and/or the student's family unless that family is in the top 10-20% wealth or income groups.

50 years ago it was possible for a lower middle class student to pay all expenses for Northwestern University with his/her own earnings. Tuition was $1500 and room + board c $1000/year. The State of Illinois had a scholarship grant program and all you needed was a 28 or 29 on the ACT to qualify for a grant that paid 80% of that tuition. A male student could make $2000 in a summer construction job, such as were plentiful during those booming 60s. That plus a low wage job waiting tables, night security, work-study etc could cover the remaining tuition and expense burden.

The annual nut now is in excess of $40,000 at NU and not much outside the $40,000-50,000 range at other second tier or elite schools.

The state schools used to produce the bedrock educated upper middle class of business and professional people in most states west of the seaboard. Tuition there 50 years ago was about $1200/year and room and board about $600-800 here in the midwest. Again you could put yourself through college waiting tables part-time. It wasn't easy but it was possible.

No way a kid who doesn't already possess an education can make the tuition and expenses of a private school today. I don't know what the median annual family income was in 1965 but I feel confident that it was well above the annual nut for a private college. Now it's about equal to it.

mrrunangun -> to mrrunangun...

1965 median family income was $6900, more than 200% of the cost of a year at NU. Current median family income is about 75% of a year at NU.

anne -> to 400 ppm CO2...

Linking for:

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Presentation-National-Debt.png

Click on "Share" under the graph that is initially constructed and copy the "Link" that appears:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=13Ew

March 22, 2015

Federal debt, 1966-2014

This allows a reader to understand how the graph was constructed and to work with the graph.

ilsm:

The US spends half the money the entire world spends on war, that is success!

Massive student debt, huge doses poverty, scores of thousands [of annual neglect related] deaths from the wretched health care system etc are not failure!

tew:

Poor education is the enemy of meritocracy. Costly, bloated administrations full of non-educators there to pamper and pander to every possible complaint and special interest - that is the enemy of meritocracy.

Convincing kids to simple "follow their dreams" regardless of education cost and career potential is the enemy of meritocracy. Allowing young adults to avoid challenging and uncomfortable and difficult subjects under the guise of compassion is the enemy of meritocracy. Financial illiteracy is the enemy of meritocracy.

Manageable student debt is no great enemy of meritocracy.

cm -> to tew...

This misses the point, aside frm the victim blaming. Few people embark on college degrees to "follow their dream", unless the dream is getting admission to the middle class job market.

When I was in elementary/middle school, the admonitions were of the sort "if you are not good in school you will end up sweeping streets" - from a generation who still saw street cleaning as manual labor, in my days it was already mechanized.

I estimate that about 15% or so of every cohort went to high school and then college, most went to a combined vocational/high school track, and some of those then later also went college, often from work.

This was before the big automation and globalization waves, when there were still enough jobs for everybody, and there was no pretense that you needed a fancy title to do standard issue work or as a social signal of some sort.

Richard H. Serlin:

Student loans and college get the bulk of the education inequality attention, and it's not nearly enough attention, but it's so much more. The early years are so crucial, as Nobel economist James Heckman has shown so well. Some children get no schooling or educational/developmental day care until almost age 6, when it should start in the first year, with preschool starting at 3. Others get high quality Montessori, and have had 3 years of it by the time they enter kindergarten, when others have had zero of any kind of education when they enter kindergarten.

Some children spend summers in high quality summer school and educational programs; others spend three months digressing and learning nothing. Some children get SAT prep programs costing thousands, and high end educational afterschool programs; others get nothing after school.

All these things should be available in high quality to any child; it's not 1810 anymore Republicans, the good old days of life expectancy in the 30s and dirt poverty for the vast majority. We need just a little more education in the modern world. But this also makes for hugely unequal opportunity.

Observer -> to Observer...

Data on degree by year ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States

Observer -> to Syaloch...

One needs to differentiate between costs (total dollars spent per student credit hour or degree, or whatever the appropriate metric is) and price (what fraction of the cost is allocated to the the end-user student).

Note that the level of state funding impacts price, not cost; that discussion is usually about cost shifting, not cost reduction.

I'd say that the rate of increase in costs is, more or less, independent of the percent of costs borne by the state. You can indeed see this in the increase in private schools, the state funding is small/nil (particularly in schools without material endowments, where actual annual fees (prices) must closely actual match annual costs). Price discounts and federal funding may both complicate this analysis.

I think much more effort should be spent on understanding and controlling costs. As with health care, just saying "spend more money" is probably not the wise or even sustainable path in the long term.

Costs were discussed at some length here a year(?) or so ago. There is at least one fairly comprehensive published analysis of higher education costs drivers. IIRC, their conclusion was that there were a number of drivers - its not just food courts or more administrators. Sorry, don't recall the link.

Syaloch -> to cm...

Actually for my first job out of college at BLS, I basically was hired for my "rounded personality" combined with a general understanding of economic principles, not for any specific job-related skills. I had no prior experience working with Laspeyres price indexes, those skills were acquired through on-the-job training. Similarly in software development there is no degree that can make you a qualified professional developer; the best a degree can do is to show you are somewhat literate in X development language and that you have a good understanding of general software development principles. Most of the specific skills you'll need to be effective will be learned on the job.

The problem is that employers increasingly want to avoid any responsibility for training and mentoring, and to shift this burden onto schools. These institutions respond by jettisoning courses in areas deemed unnecessary for short-term vocational purposes, even though what you learn in many of these courses is probably more valuable and durable in the long run than the skills obtained through job-specific training, which often have a remarkably short shelf-life. (How valuable to you now is all that COBOL training you had back in the day?)

I guess the question then is, is the sole purpose of higher education to provide people with entry-level job skills for some narrowly-defined job description which may not even exist in a decade? A lot of people these days seem to feel that way. But I believe that in the long run it's a recipe for disaster at both the individual and the societal level.

Richard H. Serlin -> to Observer...

"Observer"

The research is just not on you side, as Heckman has shown very well. Early education and development makes a huge difference, and at age 5-7 (kindergarten) children are much better off with more schooling than morning to noon. This is why educated parents who can afford it pay a lot of money for a full day -- with afterschool and weekened programs on top.

Yes, we're more educated than 1810, but I use 1810 because that's the kind of small government, little spending on education (you want your children educated you pay for it.) that the Republican Party would love to return us to if they thought they could get away with it. And we've become little more educated in the last 50 years even though the world has become much more technologically advanced.

anne:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=14T9

January 30, 2015

Student Loans Outstanding as a share of Gross Domestic Product, 2007-2014


http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=14Ta

January 30, 2015

Student Loans Outstanding, 2007-2014

(Percent change)

anne:

As to increasing college costs, would there be an analogy to healthcare costs?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/

July 25, 2009

Why Markets Can't Cure Healthcare
By Paul Krugman

Judging both from comments on this blog and from some of my mail, a significant number of Americans believe that the answer to our health care problems - indeed, the only answer - is to rely on the free market. Quite a few seem to believe that this view reflects the lessons of economic theory.

Not so. One of the most influential economic papers of the postwar era was Kenneth Arrow's "Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Health Care," * which demonstrated - decisively, I and many others believe - that health care can't be marketed like bread or TVs. Let me offer my own version of Arrow's argument.

There are two strongly distinctive aspects of health care. One is that you don't know when or whether you'll need care - but if you do, the care can be extremely expensive. The big bucks are in triple coronary bypass surgery, not routine visits to the doctor's office; and very, very few people can afford to pay major medical costs out of pocket.

This tells you right away that health care can't be sold like bread. It must be largely paid for by some kind of insurance. And this in turn means that someone other than the patient ends up making decisions about what to buy. Consumer choice is nonsense when it comes to health care. And you can't just trust insurance companies either - they're not in business for their health, or yours.

This problem is made worse by the fact that actually paying for your health care is a loss from an insurers' point of view - they actually refer to it as "medical costs." This means both that insurers try to deny as many claims as possible, and that they try to avoid covering people who are actually likely to need care. Both of these strategies use a lot of resources, which is why private insurance has much higher administrative costs than single-payer systems. And since there's a widespread sense that our fellow citizens should get the care we need - not everyone agrees, but most do - this means that private insurance basically spends a lot of money on socially destructive activities.

The second thing about health care is that it's complicated, and you can't rely on experience or comparison shopping. ("I hear they've got a real deal on stents over at St. Mary's!") That's why doctors are supposed to follow an ethical code, why we expect more from them than from bakers or grocery store owners.

You could rely on a health maintenance organization to make the hard choices and do the cost management, and to some extent we do. But HMOs have been highly limited in their ability to achieve cost-effectiveness because people don't trust them - they're profit-making institutions, and your treatment is their cost.

Between those two factors, health care just doesn't work as a standard market story.

All of this doesn't necessarily mean that socialized medicine, or even single-payer, is the only way to go. There are a number of successful healthcare systems, at least as measured by pretty good care much cheaper than here, and they are quite different from each other. There are, however, no examples of successful health care based on the principles of the free market, for one simple reason: in health care, the free market just doesn't work. And people who say that the market is the answer are flying in the face of both theory and overwhelming evidence.

* http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/2/PHCBP.pdf

anne -> to anne...

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SEEB01?output_view=pct_12mths

January 30, 2015

College tuition and fees, 1980–2015

(Percentage change)

1980 ( 9.4)
1981 ( 12.4) Reagan
1982 ( 13.4)
1983 ( 10.4)
1984 ( 10.2)

1985 ( 9.1)
1986 ( 8.1)
1987 ( 7.6)
1988 ( 7.6) Bush
1989 ( 7.9)

1990 ( 8.1)
1991 ( 10.2)
1992 ( 10.7) Clinton
1993 ( 9.4)
1994 ( 7.0)

1995 ( 6.0)
1996 ( 5.7)
1997 ( 5.1)
1998 ( 4.2)
1999 ( 4.0)

2000 ( 4.1)
2001 ( 5.1) Bush
2002 ( 6.8)
2003 ( 8.4)
2004 ( 9.5)

2005 ( 7.5)
2006 ( 6.7)
2007 ( 6.2)
2008 ( 6.2)
2009 ( 6.0) Obama

2010 ( 5.2)
2011 ( 5.0)
2012 ( 4.8)
2013 ( 4.2)
2014 ( 3.7)

January

2015 ( 3.6)


Syaloch -> to anne...

I believe so, as I noted above. The specific market dynamics of health care expenditures are obviously different, but as categories of expenses they have some things in common. First, both are very expensive relative to most other household expenditures. Second, unlike consumer merchandise, neither lends itself very well to cost reduction via offshoring or automation. So in an economy where many consumer prices are held down through a corresponding suppression of real wage growth, they consume a correspondingly larger chunk of the household budget.

Another interesting feature of both health care and college education is that there are many proffered explanations as to why their cost is rising so much relative to other areas, but a surprising lack of a really authoritative explanation based on solid evidence.

anne -> to Syaloch...

Another interesting feature of both health care and college education is that there are many proffered explanations as to why their cost is rising so much relative to other areas, but a surprising lack of a really authoritative explanation based on solid evidence.

[ Look to the paper by Kenneth Arrow, which I cannot copy, for what is to me a convincing explanation as to the market defeating factors of healthcare. However, I have no proper explanation about education costs and am only speculating or looking for an analogy. ]

anne -> to Syaloch...

The specific market dynamics of health care expenditures are obviously different, but as categories of expenses they have some things in common. First, both are very expensive relative to most other household expenditures. Second, unlike consumer merchandise, neither lends itself very well to cost reduction via offshoring or automation. So in an economy where many consumer prices are held down through a corresponding suppression of real wage growth, they consume a correspondingly larger chunk of the household budget.

[ Nicely expressed. ]

Peter K. -> to anne...

"As to increasing college costs, would there be an analogy to healthcare costs?"

Yes, exactly. They aren't normal markets. There should be heavy government regulation.

Denis Drew:

JUST HAD AN IDEA THAT MIGHT LIMIT THE DAMAGE OF THESE PHONEY ONLINE COLLEGES (pardon shouting, but I think it's justified):

Only allow government guaranteed loans (and the accompanying you-can-never-get-out-of-paying) IF a built for that purpose government agency APPROVES said loan. What do you think?

Denis Drew -> to cm...

A big reason we had the real estate bubble was actually the mad Republican relaxation of loan requirements -- relying on the "free market." So, thanks for coming up with a good comparison.

By definition, for the most part, people taking out student loans are shall we say new to the world and more vulnerable to the pirates.
* * * * * * * * * *
[cut and paste from my comment on AB]
Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post.

According to an article in the Huffington Post At Kaplan University, 'Guerrilla Registration' Leaves Students Deep In Debt, Kaplan Ed is among the worst of the worst of internet federal loan and grant sucking diploma mills. Going so far as to falsely pad bills $5000 or so dollars at diploma time - pay up immediately or you will never get your sheepskin; you wasted your time. No gov agency will act.

According to a lovely graph which I wish I could patch in here the Post may actually be currently be kept afloat only by purloined cash from Kaplan:

earnings before corporate overhead

2002 - Kaplan ed, $10 mil; Kaplan test prep, $45 mil: WaPo, $100 mil
2005 - Kaplan ed, $55 mil; Kaplan test prep, $100 mil; WaPo, $105 mil
2009 - Kaplan ed, $255 mil; Kaplan test prep, $5 mil; WaPo negative $175 mil

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/22/kaplan-university-guerilla-registration_n_799741.html

Wonder if billionaire Bezos will reach out to make Kaplan Ed victims whole. Will he really continue to use Kaplan's pirated money to keep WaPo whole -- if that is what is going on?

Johannes Y O Highness:

"theme I've been hammering lately, student debt is too damn high!: "

Too damn high
but why?

Because! Because every event in today's economy is the wish of the wealthy. Do you see why they suddenly wish to deeply educate the proles?

Opportunity cost! The burden of the intelligentsia, the brain work can by carried by robots or humans. Choice of the wealthy? Humans, hands down. Can you see the historical background?

Railroad was the first robot. According to Devon's Paradox, it was overused because of its increment of efficiency. Later, excessive roadbeds were disassembled. Rails were sold as scrap.

The new robots are not heavy lifters. New robots are there to do the work of the brain trust. As first robots replaced lower caste jokers, so shall new robots replace upper caste jokers. Do you see the fear developing inside the huddle of high rollers? Rollers now calling the play?

High rollers plan to educate small time hoods to do the work of the new robots, then kill the new robots before the newbie 'bot discovers how to kill the wealthy, to kill, to replace them forever.

Terrifying fear
strikes

Observer:

Good bit of data on education costs here

http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/

This chart shows state spending per student and tuition ...

" overall perhaps the best description of the data is something along the lines of "sometimes state appropriations go up and sometimes they go down, but tuition always goes up." "

http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/2012/12/04/chart-of-the-week-state-appropriations-and-public-tuitions/

In Defense of Difficulty By Steve Wasserman

March 18, 2015 | The American Conservative

A phony populism is denying Americans the joys of serious thought.

... ... ...

Universities, too, were at fault. They had colonized critics by holding careers hostage to academic specialization, requiring them to master the arcane tongues of ever-narrower disciplines, forcing them to forsake a larger public. Compared to the Arcadian past, the present, in this view, was a wasteland.

It didn't have to be this way. In the postwar era, a vast project of cultural uplift sought to bring the best that had been thought and said to the wider public. Robert M. Hutchins of the University of Chicago and Mortimer J. Adler were among its more prominent avatars. This effort, which tried to deepen literacy under the sign of the "middlebrow," and thus to strengthen the idea that an informed citizenry was indispensable for a healthy democracy, was, for a time, hugely successful. The general level of cultural sophistication rose as a growing middle class shed its provincialism in exchange for a certain worldliness that was one legacy of American triumphalism and ambition after World War II. College enrollment boomed, and the percentage of Americans attending the performing arts rose dramatically. Regional stage and opera companies blossomed, new concert halls were built, and interest in the arts was widespread. TV hosts Steve Allen, Johnny Carson, and Dick Cavett frequently featured serious writers as guests. Paperback publishers made classic works of history, literature, and criticism available to ordinary readers whose appetite for such works seemed insatiable.

Mass circulation newspapers and magazines, too, expanded their coverage of books, movies, music, dance, and theater. Criticism was no longer confined to such small but influential journals of opinion as Partisan Review, The Nation, and The New Republic. Esquire embraced the irascible Dwight Macdonald as its movie critic, despite his well-known contempt for "middlebrow" culture. The New Yorker threw a lifeline to Pauline Kael, rescuing her from the ghetto of film quarterlies and the art houses of Berkeley. Strong critics like David Riesman, Daniel Bell, and Leslie Fiedler, among others, would write with insight and pugilistic zeal books that often found enough readers to propel their works onto bestseller lists. Intellectuals such as Susan Sontag were featured in the glossy pages of magazines like Vogue. Her controversial "Notes on Camp," first published in 1964 in Partisan Review, exploded into public view when Time championed her work. Eggheads were suddenly sexy, almost on a par with star athletes and Hollywood celebrities. Gore Vidal was a regular on Johnny Carson. William F. Buckley Jr.'s "Firing Line" hosted vigorous debates that often were models of how to think, how to argue, and, at their best, told us that ideas mattered.

As Scott Timberg, a former arts reporter for the Los Angeles Times, puts it in his recent book Culture Crash: The Killing of the Creative Class, the idea, embraced by increasing numbers of Americans, was that

drama, poetry, music, and art were not just a way to pass the time, or advertise one's might, but a path to truth and enlightenment. At its best, this was what the middlebrow consensus promised. Middlebrow said that culture was accessible to a wide strat[um] of society, that people needed some but not much training to appreciate it, that there was a canon worth knowing, that art was not the same as entertainment, that the study of the liberal arts deepens you, and that those who make, assess, and disseminate the arts were somehow valuable for our society regardless of their impact on GDP.

So what if culture was increasingly just another product to be bought and sold, used and discarded, like so many tubes of toothpaste? Even Los Angeles, long derided as a cultural desert, would by the turn of the century boast a flourishing and internationally respected opera company, a thriving archipelago of museums with world-class collections, and dozens of bookstores selling in some years more books per capita than were sold in the greater New York area. The middlebrow's triumph was all but assured.

The arrival of the Internet by century's end promised to make that victory complete. As the Wall Street Journal reported in a front-page story in 1998, America was "increasingly wealthy, worldly, and wired." Notions of elitism and snobbery seemed to be collapsing upon the palpable catholicity of a public whose curiosities were ever more diverse and eclectic and whose ability to satisfy them had suddenly and miraculously expanded. We stood, it appeared, on the verge of a munificent new world-a world in which technology was rapidly democratizing the means of cultural production while providing an easy way for millions of ordinary citizens, previously excluded from the precincts of the higher conversation, to join the dialogue. The digital revolution was predicted to empower those authors whose writings had been marginalized, shut out of mainstream publishing, to overthrow the old monastic self-selecting order of cultural gatekeepers (meaning professional critics). Thus would critical faculties be sharpened and democratized. Digital platforms would crack open the cloistered and solipsistic world of academe, bypass the old presses and performing-arts spaces, and unleash a new era of cultural commerce. With smart machines there would be smarter people.

Harvard's Robert Darnton, a sober and learned historian of reading and the book, agreed. He argued that the implications for writing and reading, for publishing and bookselling-indeed, for cultural literacy and criticism itself-were profound. For, as he gushed in The Case for Books: Past, Present, and Future, we now had the ability to make "all book learning available to all people, or at least those privileged enough to have access to the World Wide Web. It promises to be the ultimate stage in the democratization of knowledge set in motion by the invention of writing, the codex, movable type, and the Internet." In this view, echoed by innumerable worshippers of the New Information Age, we were living at one of history's hinge moments, a great evolutionary leap in the human mind. And, in truth, it was hard not to believe that we had arrived at the apotheosis of our culture. Never before in history had more good literature and cultural works been available at such low cost to so many. The future was radiant.

Others, such as the critics Evgeny Morozov and Jaron Lanier, were more skeptical. They worried that whatever advantages might accrue to consumers and the culture at large from the emergence of such behemoths as Amazon, not only would proven methods of cultural production and distribution be made obsolete, but we were in danger of being enrolled, whether we liked it or not, in an overwhelmingly fast and visually furious culture that, as numerous studies have shown, renders serious reading and cultural criticism increasingly irrelevant, hollowing out habits of attention indispensable for absorbing long-form narrative and sustained argument. Indeed, they feared that the digital tsunami now engulfing us may even signal an irrevocable trivialization of the word. Or, at the least, a sense that the enterprise of making distinctions between bad, good, and best was a mug's game that had no place in a democracy that worships at the altar of mass appeal and counts its receipts at the almighty box office.

... ... ...

...Today, America's traditional organs of popular criticism-newspapers, magazines, journals of opinion-have been all but overwhelmed by the digital onslaught: their circulations plummeting, their confidence eroded, their survival in doubt. Newspaper review sections in particular have suffered: jobs have been slashed, and cultural coverage vastly diminished. Both the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post have abandoned their stand-alone book sections, leaving the New York Times as the only major American newspaper still publishing a significant separate section devoted to reviewing books.

Such sections, of course, were always few. Only a handful of America's papers ever deemed book coverage important enough to dedicate an entire Sunday section to it. Now even that handful is threatened with extinction, and thus is a widespread cultural illiteracy abetted, for at their best the editors of those sections tried to establish the idea that serious criticism was possible in a mass culture. In the 19th century, Margaret Fuller, literary editor of the New York Tribune and the country's first full-time book reviewer, understood this well. She saw books as "a medium for viewing all humanity, a core around which all knowledge, all experience, all science, all the ideal as well as all the practical in our nature could gather." She sought, she said, to tell "the whole truth, as well as nothing but the truth."

The arrival of the Internet has proved no panacea. The vast canvas afforded by the Internet has done little to encourage thoughtful and serious criticism. Mostly it has provided a vast Democracy Wall on which any crackpot can post his or her manifesto. Bloggers bloviate and insults abound. Discourse coarsens. Information is abundant, wisdom scarce. It is a striking irony, as Leon Wieseltier has noted, that with the arrival of the Internet, "a medium of communication with no limitations of physical space, everything on it has to be in six hundred words." The Internet, he said, is the first means of communication invented by humankind that privileges one's first thoughts as one's best thoughts. And he rightly observed that if "value is a function of scarcity," then "what is most scarce in our culture is long, thoughtful, patient, deliberate analysis of questions that do not have obvious or easy answers." Time is required to think through difficult questions. Patience is a condition of genuine intellection. The thinking mind, the creating mind, said Wieseltier, should not be rushed. "And where the mind is rushed and made frenetic, neither thought nor creativity will ensue. What you will most likely get is conformity and banality. Writing is not typed talking."

The fundamental idea at stake in the criticism of culture generally is the self-image of society: how it reasons with itself, describes itself, imagines itself. Nothing in the excitements made possible by the digital revolution banishes the need for the rigor such self-reckoning requires. It is, as Wieseltier says, the obligation of cultural criticism to bear down on what matters.

♦♦♦

Where is such criticism to be found today? We inhabit a remarkably arid cultural landscape, especially when compared with the ambitions of postwar America, ambitions which, to be sure, were often mocked by some of the country's more prominent intellectuals. Yes, Dwight Macdonald famously excoriated the enfeeblements of "mass cult and midcult," and Irving Howe regretted "This Age of Conformity," but from today's perspective, when we look back at the offerings of the Book-of-the-Month Club and projects such as the Great Books of the Western World, their scorn looks misplaced. The fact that their complaints circulated widely in the very midcult worlds Macdonald condemned was proof that trenchant criticism had found a place within the organs of mass culture. One is almost tempted to say that the middlebrow culture of yesteryear was a high-water mark.

The reality, of course, was never as rosy as much of it looks in retrospect. Cultural criticism in most American newspapers, even at its best, was almost always confined to a ghetto. You were lucky at most papers to get a column or a half-page devoted to arts and culture. Editors encouraged reporters, reviewers, and critics to win readers and improve circulation by pandering to the faux populism of the marketplace. Only the review that might immediately be understood by the greatest number of readers would be permitted to see the light of day. Anything else smacked of "elitism"-a sin to be avoided at almost any cost.

This was a coarse and pernicious notion, one that lay at the center of the country's longstanding anti-intellectual tradition. From the start of the republic, Americans have had a profoundly ambivalent relationship to class and culture, as Richard Hofstadter famously observed. He was neither the first nor the last to notice this self-inflicted wound. As even the vastly popular science-fiction writer Isaac Asimov understood, "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"

... ... ...

When did "difficulty" become suspect in American culture, widely derided as anti-democratic and contemptuously dismissed as evidence of so-called elitism? If a work of art isn't somehow immediately "understood" or "accessible" by and to large numbers of people, it is often ridiculed as "esoteric," "obtuse," or even somehow un-American. We should mark such an argument's cognitive consequences. A culture filled with smooth and familiar consumptions produces in people rigid mental habits and stultified conceptions. They know what they know, and they expect to find it reinforced when they turn a page or click on a screen. Difficulty annoys them, and, having become accustomed to so much pabulum served up by a pandering and invertebrate media, they experience difficulty not just as "difficult," but as insult. Struggling to understand, say, Faulkner's stream-of-consciousness masterpiece The Sound and the Fury or Alain Resnais's Rubik's Cube of a movie "Last Year at Marienbad" needn't be done. The mind may skip trying to solve such cognitive puzzles, even though the truth is they strengthen it as a workout tones the muscles.

Sometimes it feels as if the world is divided into two classes: one very large class spurns difficulty, while the other very much smaller delights in it. There are readers who, when encountering an unfamiliar word, instead of reaching for a dictionary, choose to regard it as a sign of the author's contempt or pretension, a deliberate refusal to speak in a language ordinary people can understand. Others, encountering the same word, happily seize on it as a chance to learn something new, to broaden their horizons. They eagerly seek a literature that upends assumptions, challenges prejudices, turns them inside out and forces them to see the world through new eyes.

The second group is an endangered species. One reason is that the ambitions of mainstream media that, however fitfully, once sought to expose them to the life of the mind and to the contest of ideas, have themselves shrunk. We have gone from the heyday of television intellection which boasted shows hosted by, among others, David Susskind and David Frost, men that, whatever their self-absorptions, were nonetheless possessed of an admirable highmindedness, to the pygmy sound-bite rants of Sean Hannity and the inanities of clowns like Stephen Colbert. Once upon a time, the ideal of seriousness may not have been a common one, but it was acknowledged as one worth striving for. It didn't have to do what it has to today, that is, fight for respect, legitimate itself before asserting itself. The class that is allergic to difficulty now feels justified in condemning the other as "elitist" and anti-democratic. The exercise of cultural authority and artistic or literary or aesthetic discrimination is seen as evidence of snobbery, entitlement and privilege lording it over ordinary folks. A perverse populism increasingly deforms our culture, consigning some works of art to a realm somehow more rarified and less accessible to a broad public. Thus is choice constrained and the tyranny of mass appeal deepened in the name of democracy.

... ... ...

Steve Wasserman, former literary editor of the Los Angeles Times, is editor-at-large for Yale University Press.

This essay is adapted with permission from his chapter in the forthcoming The State of the American Mind: Sixteen Critics on the New Anti-Intellectualism, edited by Adam Bellow and Mark Bauerlein, to be published by Templeton Press in May 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

... ... ...

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

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

... ... ...

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

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

Jun 22, 2015 | rt.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Russian leader said.

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

Read more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Snob: What are the symptoms of this cancer?

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

Snob: Empire from sea to sea.

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

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

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

But that's the topic for another post

ThatJ, July 21, 2015 at 2:50 am

Does Andrey Vasiliev live in Brighton Beach now?

yalensis, July 21, 2015 at 3:24 am

No, Vasiliev lives in Geneva, Switzerland.

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

He is of Russian ethnicity.

yalensis, July 21, 2015 at 3:27 am

Dear Lyttenburgh:

Thanks for this find.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My wife is the same.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was: for Russia and my wife and children

Home is where the heart is.

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

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

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

Absolutely Mr. Celik Absolutely! ..

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

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

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

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

Absolutely Mr. Celik Absolutely! ..

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

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

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

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

Absolutely Mr. Celik Absolutely! ..

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

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

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

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

Absolutely Mr. Celik Absolutely! ..

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

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

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

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

Absolutely Mr. Celik…Absolutely!……..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vladimir

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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


kingn500

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

smlslk

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

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

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

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

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

Ramsis

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

stefan

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

J M

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

DAVID

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

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

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

Paul

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


The

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

Kevin

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

Detritus of Sloth

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

Vicious

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

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

RT

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

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

jane

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

Peetie

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

Hezbollah:

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

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

Yep, "moderate rebels" all right.

J. de Molay

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

Davin

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

Relja

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

Reyter

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

CRL

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

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

Ramsis

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

Mark

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

TruthMonger

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

Scott

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

analogy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Not an 'enemy state' -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alderbaran -> Popeyes 28 Dec 2015 16:21

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

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

Laurence Johnson 28 Dec 2015 16:19

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

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

KoreyD -> dyst1111 28 Dec 2015 16:19

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

Popeyes 28 Dec 2015 16:18

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

Popeyes 28 Dec 2015 15:54

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

Fallowfield -> MTavernier 28 Dec 2015 16:16

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

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

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

Fallowfield -> Alderbaran 28 Dec 2015 16:10

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

Alderbaran -> SHappens 28 Dec 2015 16:03

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

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

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

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

Equidom 28 Dec 2015 16:02

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

Rantalot 28 Dec 2015 15:42

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

Fallowfield 28 Dec 2015 15:29

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

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

SHappens -> apacheman 28 Dec 2015 15:26

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

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

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


Alderbaran -> WalterCronkiteBot 28 Dec 2015 15:20

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

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

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

Peter Evans -> Alderbaran 28 Dec 2015 15:10

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

Fallowfield -> CoinBiter 28 Dec 2015 15:09

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

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

WalterCronkiteBot -> Alderbaran 28 Dec 2015 15:04

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

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

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

If that makes me a Kremlin shill so be it.

Not4TheFaintOfHeart 28 Dec 2015 14:59

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

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


Fallowfield -> Metronome151 28 Dec 2015 14:49

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

apacheman -> Fallowfield 28 Dec 2015 14:48

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

WalterCronkiteBot 28 Dec 2015 14:46

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

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

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

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


Peter Evans 28 Dec 2015 14:34

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


mgeary -> rcil2003 28 Dec 2015 14:33

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

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


Chuckman 28 Dec 2015 14:25

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

Readers may enjoy:

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

presstheredbutton 28 Dec 2015 14:14

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

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

rcil2003 -> euphoniumbrioche 28 Dec 2015 14:16

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

presstheredbutton -> nonanon1 28 Dec 2015 14:15

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

Parangaricurimicuaro -> Metronome151 28 Dec 2015 14:20

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

Parangaricurimicuaro -> hermionegingold 28 Dec 2015 14:01

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

greatapedescendant -> Strummered 28 Dec 2015 13:46

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

ID7586903 28 Dec 2015 13:45

Putin is the savior of Europe, and its culture

[Dec 27, 2015] 2016 will be a year of living dangerously for the global economy

Notable quotes:
"... WW I happened after 20 yrs during which the the superpower Britain had been blatantly replacing their dwindling economic influence by demonstrations of military powers. Now which nation today is siphoning off by ever more military means the products and raw materials of others, while not even caring a bit about welfare for the majority of their own citizens? ..."
"... But it's so much easier to make propaganda against Mr Putin's public appearances than seriously address the point that this guy is genuinely popular at home precisely because he refuses his country to be a sellout to USA's 1O %. ..."
Dec 27, 2015 | The Guardian

marketingexpert -> HorseCart 27 Dec 2015 14:38

If the big borrower nations like GB and USA were honest, it would be electoral suicide because all they could promise is massive reduction in living standards back to a level we can afford

And that will happen either by progressive erosion or catastrophic bubble burst and economiccollapse.

But It is so much easier Lefty fashion to promise jam today for everyone, and invent bogus bogeymen to pay for it all, or pretend you can borrow or print to prosperity. Anyone north of a five year old can see through such nonsense from the day they trade mars bars for marbles,

Buy gold, or farmland.

lingyai -> SrdeAth 27 Dec 2015 14:25

that's what the US has all those military bases around the world for.. can't have the world reserve currency being threatened...

KillerMarmot -> Lafcadio1944 27 Dec 2015 14:25

Neoliberalism is going to provide prosperity when clear-eyed analysis shows Neoliberalism to be little more than subjugation to oligarch rule and the most egregious inequity the world has ever known.

Actually the world is more prosperous than it has ever been. Over the last few decades, billions of people have been lifted out of abject poverty into something resembling a modern lifestyle. Infant mortality has been falling steadily. Life expectancy has been raising steadily. It is resounding triumph, but one that is little recognized,

Marjallche -> gilesjuk 27 Dec 2015 13:02

Yes I actually think it is, as dependencies breed fear of being exploited, breeds distrust as to whether the other side does or does not threaten with blackmail etc. I got the idea from Keynes, who saw stability in self-reliance of nations and instability in population import, which threw the balance in favour of big capital.

Marjallche -> JudiHoskyn885 27 Dec 2015 12:57

WW I happened after 20 yrs during which the the superpower Britain had been blatantly replacing their dwindling economic influence by demonstrations of military powers. Now which nation today is siphoning off by ever more military means the products and raw materials of others, while not even caring a bit about welfare for the majority of their own citizens?

But it's so much easier to make propaganda against Mr Putin's public appearances than seriously address the point that this guy is genuinely popular at home precisely because he refuses his country to be a sellout to USA's 1O %. Another pre WWI parallel. PS it seems to be a very anglo-saxon notion that the upper 10% belong to a better and preferable breed of humans. The rest being granted the "freedom" to crawl in the dirt and die in the name of "freedom" for the preservation of their "democratic" 1%ers privilege.

Iconoclastick 27 Dec 2015 12:54

It was bad in 2012, it's got far worse.

as the chart below shows, if there is anything the global financial system needs, is for the rating agencies, bond vigilantes, and lastly, general public itself, to realize that the UK's consolidated debt (non-financial, financial, government and household) to GDP is... just under 1000%. That's right: the UK debt, when one adds to its more tenable sovereign debt tranche all the other debt carried on UK books (and thus making the transfer of private debt to the public balance sheet impossible), is nearly ten times greater than the country's GDP. To call that "game over" is an insult to game overs everywhere.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/psssst-france-here-why-you-may-want-cool-it-britain-bashing-uks-950-debt-gdp

Sammy Johnston -> gilesjuk 27 Dec 2015 12:41

All political parties follow the will of the banking families and corporate elites. The economy is in it's intended state, gearing up for the third world war, the formation of world government and the eventual digitalization of currency world wide.

To state that cameron has any control is naive. To say corbyn can be effective to oppose it is naive. We need to eliminate our current elite and start a new paradigm to have any sense of freedom again.

MancuMan -> eveofchange 27 Dec 2015 12:50

Aye, a few million people got murdered by the Communists but apart from that and the lack of joy in life for the survivors it all went very well indeed and we should give it another go.

ldopas -> eveofchange 27 Dec 2015 12:37

I see you have been studying the socialist comics again.

Evidence tells us, evidence, that capitalism has problems. Lots of them. But it does work for the most part, and the model of capitalism also when there is a disruption mostly recovers like a cut in the skin that heals. Socialism wherever tried ALWAYS has produced poor if not catastrophic results, and once a downward spiral is established there is nothing to stop it, no mechanism in place to heal it like capitalism.

So my money, pun intended, is with capitalism.

Look if you are fed up of our capitalist first world services, infrastructure and healthcare there are still a few deluded places where some sort of socialism exists; Cuba for example where everyone is equal in poverty and their infrastructure is non existent, perhaps N Korea?

Ask yourself this. when a country that is poor and gets the chance for democracy, why do they always go more capitalistic?

eveofchange -> jonsnow92 27 Dec 2015 12:25

I have told you what would happen if capitalism continues.

I opposed Stalin and his ilk, and his corruption of socialism. But under even he, Russia escaped the economic collapse of the thirties, and was invaded by a country that had been ravaged by capitalism's collapse . Russia even emerged stronger.

The nationalised economy worked perfectly, and defeated capitalist Germany (although Hitler himself,introduced aspects of socialism--as did the UK and US). But without a workers and working class democracy, nationalisation will not work for any length of time .

jonsnow92 -> eveofchange 27 Dec 2015 12:17

unless consciously overthrown by a working class takeover for socialism, would still carry on. What do you want?

It didn't work in USSR did it? The working class took over and it didn't end up in milk and honey on the streets. Same for East Germany - apart from the genius of Trabant not much else going on until the people started voting with their feet jumping walls and going to capitalism. And I didn't mention Albania, Cuba, North Korea and other great success stories from socialism.

BTW - in socialist countries you couldn't have a strike as the working class was in power and as Stalin said: "why would the working class strike if they are in power?"

eveofchange 27 Dec 2015 12:02

The problem is capitalism, as Marx correctly pointed out and analysed. One "solution" always leads to a worse problem---and it cannot be resolved,or solved Eventually there is either a major war, between desperate capitalist states fighting over shrinking markets, or there is a gigantic crash.--or both.This literally wipes out productive capacity, and thus the problem of "overproduction" is temporarily "solved". The same cycle is then repeated, to it's inevitable conclusion--again.
Millions, throughout the world, even in the UK, are made destitute by this, or even die--but capitalism, unless consciously overthrown by a working class takeover for socialism, would still carry on. What do you want?

> newsfreak 27 Dec 2015 13:33

The ambiguity of economic and financial forecasters tend to reach proverbial limits. They make a living out of ambiguity and what later end up being frustrated expectations: "2016 will be a year of living dangerously for the global economy" yet "there will be no explosion in 2016, but a fuse will be lit." How dangerous is a lit fuse? The whole financial world system is a sham based on printing currencies with no backing standard. At some point there will be a wake up call, a reality check, and a devastating free fall.

ID7829806 27 Dec 2015 11:58

Economic forecasting is a mug's game.

But a lot of people get paid a lot of money to do it. Forecasting is of course, at best, an inexact and purely speculative effort (I nearly wrote 'an inexact science', but there is nothing scientific about it, at all).

Those who have the confidence/cheek/arrogance to predict, tend to stick close to the average of an (emerging) consensus, if there is one. Commentators keep looking around and over their shoulders - no one wants to look silly - and so feed-on and affirm each other. Few stick their necks out - but then, if they do, they are likely unknown or a maverick, and does anyone therefore notice, or care?

A broken clock is right twice a day, but who wants to predict that the clock will fall off the wall (unless they have inside knowledge)?

Larry, you may be right. Or you may be wrong. 2016 is an Election Year in the US, which suggests 'nothing to see here' for the next 12 months. But then again, it didn't stop the last crash happening.

But the feeling in your water could be right, precisely because we are in unknown and unprecedented territory. The historic economic 'rule-book' hasn't so much been torn-up in recent years, rather - quietly - put back on the shelve, and self-consciously ignored.

These are unprecedented times. So: who knows what might happen? An unprecedented economic implosion round about 2017 is possible. Or not. But on a balance of probabilities: something without precedent is likely to happen (for good or ill): and none of us will have predicted it.

Dan_de_Macy 27 Dec 2015 11:58

Prediction:

Going South: Why Britain will have a Third World Economy by 2014 Paperback – 14 Jun 2012

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Going-South-Britain-Third-Economy/dp/0230392547

Reality:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/17/imf-chief-praises-british-governments-handling-of-economy

Iconoclastick 27 Dec 2015 11:50

Other stuff building up a storm on the horizon...

Forget About Junk Bonds, This Is the New Credit-Equity Disconnect Investors Should Be Watching
Can contagion spread to stocks?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-15/forget-about-junk-bonds-this-is-the-new-credit-equity-disconnect-investors-should-be-watching

This Junk Bond Derivative Index Is Saying Something Scary About Defaults. Markit's CDX index is pricing in a 2008-like selloff.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-16/this-junk-bond-derivative-index-is-saying-something-scary-about-defaults

[Dec 27, 2015] Summer Rerun Why America Will Need Some Elements of a Welfare State

Notable quotes:
"... Wolf concludes that America cannot do without some form of a welfare state, specifically improved training, education, and universal health care. ..."
"... Our problem is that we are asking for concessions that are beyond the acceptable limit for elites in any historical epoch. We're asking the powerful and the rich to give up their money and power for the greater good of all mankind. This is not likely to happen unless a powerful enough segment of the elite comes to the inescapable conclusion that they're literally dead meat if they don't and therefore opts for survival over position. ..."
"... Welfare etc are social services that can only be funded through the world-wide looting operation of the American empire ..."
Dec 27, 2015 | naked capitalism

An excellent column by Martin Wolf in the Financial Times, where he is the lead economics editor. Starting with principles put forward by Ben Bernanke in his recent speech on income inequality, Wolf concludes that America cannot do without some form of a welfare state, specifically improved training, education, and universal health care.

James Levy, December 26, 2015 at 4:32 pm

I have no idea if Marx was right, in the long run, or wrong–the verdict is still out on the long-term viability of industrial capitalism, which is less than 250 years old and creaking mightily as I write this. It may be that when Rosa Luxemburg said that the choice was between Socialism and Barbarism, she underestimated how likely barbarism was. What I do know is that capitalism today isn't just too ugly to tolerate, it is downright murderous. Its imperatives are driving the despoliation of the planet. It's love of profit over all else is cutting corners and creating externalities that are lethal. But it has made a few percent of the global population comfortable and powerful, and they are holding onto that comfort and that power come hell or high water (and, ironically, if things continue apace both are on the menu).

Our problem is that we are asking for concessions that are beyond the acceptable limit for elites in any historical epoch. We're asking the powerful and the rich to give up their money and power for the greater good of all mankind. This is not likely to happen unless a powerful enough segment of the elite comes to the inescapable conclusion that they're literally dead meat if they don't and therefore opts for survival over position. I am not enthusiastic that this will happen before it is way too late to save more than a fraction of the current world population, and send those people back to the lifestyles and thought patterns of 30 Year's War Europe.

    1. digi_owl

      Its a generational thing. Right after WW2, many of the elite had just that epiphany that unless they have the common people behind them, they are toast. But now they are dead or dying, and their grandkids are basically once more thinking that they can go it alone. This because they have not had the required experiences that help develop the wisdom.

      Reply
  1. Paul Tioxon

    What Marx saw long ago, we can see today, and without relegating ourselves to his analysis, come to our own conclusions. Contradictions, summed up well by Lincoln as a house divided against itself cannot stand is just as true today. Millions of guns to protect the citizenry from tyranny have only resulted in a 1/4 million murders and 5 times as many shootings since Jan 1, 2000, some placing people in wheel chairs and other crippling gunshot afflictions, and more and more institutionalized state oppression, economic exploitation and miserable lives propped up in an alcoholic haze until the liver or brain gives out. We have more food than we know what to do with so we throw away almost as much as we eat. And we have eaten ourselves into morbid obesity, diabetes and heart disease. The contradictions abound from the kitchen table to the kitchen cabinet of the White House where there seems to be nothing passed so freely as bad advice.

    The Welfare State arose from the sacrifices of the population in giving their sweat, blood and tears to defend their nation during war, to be rewarded for their sacrifices, rewards which were demands for power sharing and more in the paycheck, more benefits and more time to enjoy the life spent in a more prosperous world. It seems to me that Obamacare is not simply in death spiral all of its own making, but even more so, because it is the best attempt capitalism can produce in an America that is the most capitalist of societies down to the marrow its bones. Little competition from the Church or the social relations between nobles and subjects set for in the laws that were disestablished to free markets for commodification and money making. Money making enterprises structured the laws from slavery, to the voting franchise with little from the state to cushion any of the hardships of life in America.

    Health care is the largest industry we have. It is approaching 20% of the GNP. I remember the great national freak out in the late 1970s when congress realized it was approaching 10%. Nothing seems to be stopping the costs from spiraling upward and onward. No risk of deflation here where nothing is spared to save a life, operate on some poor little afflicted child, or buy a piece of equipment the size of an office building that shoots a proton beam at cancer, one cancer cell at a time.

    When Obama Care becomes a clear burden to even the democrats who can point to it now as some sort of accomplishment, and it is an accomplishment for the people who finally get to see a doctor, get into a hospital, get that operation or diagnosis that saves their lives, when even those accomplishments number in the millions, it will be part of a health care industry for which $Trillions of dollars can no longer be justified or even funded. As that financial collapse approaches, it would be better for politicians to declare the defeat of a program better rolled into one universal single payer system currently operating as Medicare, than try to reform, shore up or the old tried and true public lie, get rid of its waste and corruption.

    Declare victory with Medicare as the solution and put everyone into it. The only paper work left should be each person's medical history with diagnosis and healing as the happy ending to the story.

    Reply
  2. jgordon

    There is a fundamental error in perception in the Western world that is so pervasive that people can't even see it. As a most basic component of a healthy society people need to be able to survive at a local community level without outside support. Only after that is taken care of should people concern themselves with luxuries, inter-community and international relations.

    Welfare–not to mention other government services–can appear to have positive impacts if one only looks at their effects in isolation, however I think there is a devastating and pernicious impact on people's ability to form community bonds and have local resilience with things like welfare.

    Also, let's also not forget that Americans consume far more of the earth's precious resources than any other group in the world. Welfare etc are social services that can only be funded through the world-wide looting operation of the American empire. Do these recipients of empire benefits have a moral right to share in the loot of empire? Perhaps instead of domestic welfare it would be more ethical for the American empire to provide social benefits for the indigenous peoples who are forced from their lands to work like slaves for the empire's benefit. Although admittedly if the American empire used it's loot for the benefit of the foreign peoples whose lives it destroyed then there'd probably be nothing left to spread around to the military, or to pacify and police the domestic population. So I suppose that's not a serious proposal.

    Reply
    1. Left in Wisconsin

      Welfare etc are social services that can only be funded through the world-wide looting operation of the American empire

      This is obviously not true. Unless every social democratic country in the world is considered as a piece of the American empire. And even then, I would argue that we can easily afford a generous welfare state with a small shift in priorities away from (globally destabilizing) defense spending to social productive spending on human development.

      Reply
      1. jgordon

        Obvious to who? America lavishes so much money on its military not only because of corruption, but also because it has the world reserve currency and is a guarantor of the safety of international shipping. These facts are inextricably linked to the America's status as the world hegemon. The empire provides order and structure, and enforces the extraction of resources from the periphery to the center. The bread and circuses are inextricably linked to the empire's military activities and trying to tease them apart will only lead to collapse of the entire system sooner than it will otherwise happen.

        "Social Democratic"–now that's an interesting phrase. Did you know that Syria is a democracy, and was an extremely prosperous and well-education nation prior to 2011?

        Reply
        1. Vatch

          "Did you know that Syria is a democracy"

          Here's a telling paragraph from the Wikipedia article about Syria:

          Hafez al-Assad died on 10 June 2000. His son, Bashar al-Assad, was elected President in an election in which he ran unopposed.[68] His election saw the birth of the Damascus Spring and hopes of reform, but by autumn 2001 the authorities had suppressed the movement, imprisoning some of its leading intellectuals.[84] Instead, reforms have been limited to some market reforms.

          [Dec 27, 2015] The Sneaky Way Austerity Got Sold to the Public Like Snake Oil

          Notable quotes:
          "... When children don't get good educations, the production of knowledge falls into private control. Power gets consolidated. The official theoretical frameworks that benefit the most powerful get locked in. ..."
          "... Not only were the politicians worried about votes but also the welfare state was a way to head off a left wing revolution. ..."
          "... the change began in 1976 with the election of Rockefeller-funded Jimmy Carter, who immediately launched an austerity program. Support for Keynesian economics was further eroded by the 70's stagflation which we now know was caused by Mid East oil but at the time the "left" were like deer in the headlights, with no clue what to do. ..."
          "... The final nail in the coffin was the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR, discrediting communism. After that, "there was no alternative" to corporate capitalism. Or more accurately, the left was slow to formulate an alternative and to this day is still struggling with an alternative as we have observed with Syriza. It's not enough to oppose austerity, you have to have a constructive plan to fix things. ..."
          Dec 27, 2015 | naked capitalism
          LP: You indicate that this approach to budgeting was invented as a way of making the New Deal acceptable to the business community. How did that work? Over time, who has benefitted from it? Who has lost?

          OC: Back in the 1940s, workers were fighting for their rights, class struggle was heating up, and soldiers would soon be returning from the fronts. At that point, a new business organization, the Committee for Economic Development (CED), came together. Led by Beardsley Ruml and other influential business figures, the CED played a crucial role in developing a conservative approach to Keynesian economics that helped make policies that would help put all Americans to work acceptable to the business community.

          The idea was that more consumers would translate into more profits - which is good for business. After all, the economic experts and budget technicians said so, not just the politicians. And the business leaders were told that economic growth and price stability would go along with this, which they liked.

          But things changed progressively over the 1970s and early 1980s. Firms went global. They became financialized. The balance of power between workers and owners started to shift more towards the owners, the capitalists. People were told they needed to sacrifice, to accept cuts to social spending and fewer rights and benefits on the job - all in the name of economic science and capitalism. The CAB was turned into a tool for preventing excessive spending - or justifying selected cuts.

          Middle class folks were afraid that inflation would erode their savings, so they were more keen to approve draconian measures to cut wages and reduce public budgets. People on the lower rungs of the economic ladder felt the pain first. But eventually the middle class fell on the wrong side of the fence, too. Most of them became relatively poorer.

          I suppose this shows the limits of democracy when information, knowledge, and ultimately power are unequally distributed.

          LP: You're really talking about birth of austerity and the way lies about public spending and budgets have been sold to the public. Why is austerity such a powerful idea and why do politicians still win elections promoting it?

          OC: Austerity is so powerful today because it feeds off of itself. It makes people uncertain about their lives, their debts, and their jobs. They become afraid. It's a strong disciplinary mechanism. People stop joining forces and the political status quo gets locked down.

          Even the
          name of this tool, the "cyclically adjusted budget," carries an aura of respect. It diverts our attention. We don't question it. It creates a barrier between the individual and the political realm: it undermines democratic participation itself. This obscure theory validates, with its authority, a big economic mistake that sounds like common sense but is actually snake oil - the notion that the federal government budget is like a household budget. Actually, it isn't. Your household doesn't collect taxes. It doesn't print money. It works very differently, yet the nonsense that it should behave exactly like a household budget gets repeated by politicians and policymakers who really just want to squeeze ordinary people.

          LP: How does all this play out in the U.S. and in Europe?

          OC: The European Union requires its members to comply with something called a cyclically adjusted budget constraint. Each country has to review its economic and fiscal plans with the European Commission and prove that those are compatible with the Pact. It's a ceiling on a country's deficit, but it's also much more than that.

          Thanks to the estimate, the governments of Italy or Spain, for example, are supposed to force the economy toward some ideal economic condition, the definition of which is obviously quite controversial and has so far rewarded those countries that have implemented labor market deregulation, cut pensions, and even changed the way elections happen. Again, it's a control mechanism.

          In the U.S. this scenario plays out, too, although less strictly. Talk about the budget often relies on the same shifty and politically-shaded statistical tools to support one argument or the other. Usually we hear arguments that suggest we have to cut social programs and workers' rights and benefits or face economic doom. Tune in to the presidential debates and you'll hear this played out - and it isn't strictly limited to one party.

          LP: How do we stop powerful players from co-opting economics and budgets for their own purposes?

          OC: Our education system is increasingly unequal and deprived of public resources. This is true in the U.S. but also in Europe, where the crisis accelerated a process that was already underway. When children don't get good educations, the production of knowledge falls into private control. Power gets consolidated. The official theoretical frameworks that benefit the most powerful get locked in.

          In the economic field, we need to engage different points of view and keep challenging dominant narratives and frameworks. One day, human curiosity will save us from intellectual prostitution.

          craazyboy, December 25, 2015 at 10:10 am

          Most people don't eat, go to college, use healthcare, rent or buy housing on the east or west coast, or purchase military equipment (except perhaps small time stuff like assault rifles), so the BLS greatly underweights(or hedonics prices, or just pulls rent data outta their butts) these things in the inflation data they create. The Fed then goes into a tizzy if the data comes in a few tenths of a percent below 2%, even if the data spent years above 2%, and floods the country in liquidity so our job creators – banks and large corporations – will hire us and give us raises, and once they finish doing that, the BLS will signal that inflation is 2% and the Fed will then know all our problems are solved. It just takes time.

          See the book "Treasure Island" for how things are going on the revenue side. But more tax breaks for large corporations and the wealthy are needed so we don't force them to do any illegal tax avoidance stuff and they will then happily pay whatever they think their fair should be. Might be zero. They will then have money to buy stuff too, which is a big plus as well, when you think about it.

          So clearly, you can see why deficit spending almost seems inevitable.

          Then the next problem is we still have unemployment, and something needs to be done about that. For instance, lots of room for more government contracts for social purposes. Take Obamacare. Place a single source contract, now estimated between $1 and $2 billion, with a Canadian systems company that employs independent contractor Indian programmers. Eventually, we have Obamacare!

          We can do this if we just get serious about this and say "No More Austerity In America!"

          likbez, December 27, 2015 at 9:31 pm

          Emperor Severus is famously said to have given the advice to his sons: "Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, and scorn all other men"

          Brooklin Bridge

          Can education provide the solution?

          I suspect that the educational bias occurs at all levels in the sense that much the same misinformation is provided regardless of neighborhood but progressively wrapped in more elegant pedagogical flim-flam-ery for the owner class. Basically, the bias changes, but not the message, as one goes from poor (austerity – this is your lot in life) to wealthy (austerity – you were born to make the tough decisions, it's in your genes – and you'll just have to accept the rewards, man up to your destiny and toss em a quarter on Sundays). The upper class does get a far better education, but the bias is or becomes unconscious over time.

          Basically, aristocracy is a nasty brutish cycle that keeps upping the ante of consequences.

          washunate, December 26, 2015 at 8:09 am

          Yves, INET and NEP and others have been lecturing that topic for years. How many trillions of dollars do we have to deficit spend before the failure of things to improve indicts the hypothesis itself?

          Maybe what matters is not the amount of the spending, but rather, the distribution.

          And what is so bad about deflation? The attachment of moral judgment to inflation and deflation is rather bizarre outside of establishment monetary economics. The basic monetary problem confronting the bottom 80% or so of American households is inflation, not deflation.


          Dan Lynch, December 25, 2015 at 11:27 am

          I don't buy the article's historical narrative.

          Conservatives have ALWAYS opposed spending on social programs and ALWAYS used the deficit as an excuse (unless the deficit was due to war or tax cuts for the rich). This was true during the New Deal; FDR himself was a deficit hawk.

          Nonetheless for years the public supported social programs and no politician dared to cut them. Not only were the politicians worried about votes but also the welfare state was a way to head off a left wing revolution.

          What changed? I would say the change began in 1976 with the election of Rockefeller-funded Jimmy Carter, who immediately launched an austerity program. Support for Keynesian economics was further eroded by the 70's stagflation which we now know was caused by Mid East oil but at the time the "left" were like deer in the headlights, with no clue what to do.

          The final nail in the coffin was the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR, discrediting communism. After that, "there was no alternative" to corporate capitalism. Or more accurately, the left was slow to formulate an alternative and to this day is still struggling with an alternative as we have observed with Syriza. It's not enough to oppose austerity, you have to have a constructive plan to fix things.

          Vatch, December 25, 2015 at 12:40 pm

          History teaches us that peacetime austerity can be horribly disastrous. Some examples:

          British austerity during the 19th century included the Great Irish Famine of 1845-1849: The Irish population was about 8 million people in 1841, and the death toll of the famine was at least a million. This is a huge percentage loss of life. Due to the combination of deaths with emigration and births that did not occur, the 1851 population of 6.5 million was estimated to be about 2.5 million lower than expected. Since food was exported during the famine, this was definitely an extreme case of austerity.

          Soviet austerity during the 1930s: Millions died, and food was exported during the famine period of 1931-1933. Austerity is often associate with conservatives, so I guess conservative austerity enthusiasts must be pleased with the performance of the eminent conservative Josef Stalin.

          Chinese austerity during the Great Leap Forward of 1958-1962: Tens of millions died - perhaps as many as 45 million. The same irony about conservatives and Stalin is true about conservatives and Mao, but on a far greater scale.

          Merry Christmas.

          ben chifley

          july 24 2015: Krugman:Ignore the 'MIT gang' at US economy's peril Paul Krugman says while economists of the '70s discarded Keynes, he never went away at MIT.‏
          http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Krugman-Ignore-the-MIT-gang-at-US-economy-s-6404243.php

          MIT: Libertarian Haven | Independent Political Report‏
          http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/01/mit-libertarian-haven/

          Soros | MIT Global Education & Career Development‏
          https://gecd.mit.edu/go-abroad/distinguished-fellowships/explore-fellowships/soros

          washunate

          This is a pretty remarkable piece of rambling drivel. To the extent coherent points can be taken away from this, it appears there are at least two major flaws:

          1) There is absolutely no link between public opinion and CAB. Germany chooses to have national healthcare, passenger rail, and renewable energy. The US chooses to have national security, predatory medicine, and car-dependent sprawl.

          2) There is absolutely no link between austerity and concentration of wealth and power. France has a much more equal distribution of wealth than the US. Yet the US has run enormous deficits while France is supposedly constrained by the techno mumbo jumbo nonsense of the EU.

          The notion that 'austerity' is sold to the public is just a blatant falsehood. Americans don't support the budget priorities in Washington. It's a collective action problem, not a public opinion problem.

        2. [Dec 24, 2015] The Fed Has Created A Monster And Just Made A Dangerous Mistake, Stephen Roach Warns

          Zero Hedge
          Stephen Roach is worried that the Fed has set the world up for another financial market meltdown.

          Lower for longer rates and the proliferation of unconventional monetary policy have created "a breeding ground for asset bubbles, credit bubbles, and all-too frequent crises, so the Fed is really a part of the problem of financial instability rather than trying to provide a sense of calm in an otherwise unstable world," Roach told Bloomberg TV in an interview conducted a little over a week ago.

          To be sure, Roach's sentiments have become par for the proverbial course. That is, it may have taken everyone a while (as in five years or so) to come to the conclusion we reached long ago, namely that central banks are setting the world up for a crisis that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park, but most of the "very serious" people are now getting concerned. Take BofAML for instance, who, in a note we outlined on Wednesday, demonstrated the prevailing dynamic with the following useful graphic:

          Perhaps Jeremy Grantham put it best: "..in the Greenspan/ Bernanke/Yellen Era, the Fed historically did not stop its asset price pushing until fully- fledged bubbles had occurred, as they did in U.S. growth stocks in 2000 and in U.S. housing in 2006."

          Indeed. It's with that in mind that we bring you the following excerpts from a new piece by Roach in which the former Morgan Stanley chief economist and Yale fellow recounts the evolution of the Fed and how the FOMC ultimately became "beholden to the monster it had created".

          * * *

          From "The Perils of Fed Gradualism" as posted at Project Syndicate

          By now, it's an all-too-familiar drill. After an extended period of extraordinary monetary accommodation, the US Federal Reserve has begun the long march back to normalization.

          A majority of financial market participants applaud this strategy. In fact, it is a dangerous mistake. The Fed is borrowing a page from the script of its last normalization campaign – the incremental rate hikes of 2004-2006 that followed the extraordinary accommodation of 2001-2003. Just as that earlier gradualism set the stage for a devastating financial crisis and a horrific recession in 2008-2009, there is mounting risk of yet another accident on what promises to be an even longer road to normalization.

          The problem arises because the Fed, like other major central banks, has now become a creature of financial markets rather than a steward of the real economy. This transformation has been under way since the late 1980s, when monetary discipline broke the back of inflation and the Fed was faced with new challenges.

          The challenges of the post-inflation era came to a head during Alan Greenspan's 18-and-a-half-year tenure as Fed Chair. The stock-market crash of October 19, 1987 – occurring only 69 days after Greenspan had been sworn in – provided a hint of what was to come. In response to a one-day 23% plunge in US equity prices, the Fed moved aggressively to support the brokerage system and purchase government securities.

          In retrospect, this was the template for what became known as the "Greenspan put" – massive Fed liquidity injections aimed at stemming financial-market disruptions in the aftermath of a crisis. As the markets were battered repeatedly in the years to follow – from the savings-and-loan crisis (late 1980s) and the Gulf War (1990-1991) to the Asian Financial Crisis (1997-1998) and terrorist attacks (September 11, 2001) – the Greenspan put became an essential element of the Fed's market-driven tactics.

          The Fed had, in effect, become beholden to the monster it had created. The corollary was that it had also become steadfast in protecting the financial-market-based underpinnings of the US economy.

          Largely for that reason, and fearful of "Japan Syndrome" in the aftermath of the collapse of the US equity bubble, the Fed remained overly accommodative during the 2003-2006 period. The federal funds rate was held at a 46-year low of 1% through June 2004, before being raised 17 times in small increments of 25 basis points per move over the two-year period from mid-2004 to mid-2006. Yet it was precisely during this period of gradual normalization and prolonged accommodation that unbridled risk-taking sowed the seeds of the Great Crisis that was soon to come.

          Today's Fed inherits the deeply entrenched moral hazard of the Asset Economy. The longer the Fed remains trapped in this mindset, the tougher its dilemma becomes – and the greater the systemic risks in financial markets and the asset-dependent US economy.

          Full post here

          * * *

          Roach goes on to say that we're already seeing the beginnings of what may very well turn out to be a dramatic unwind as high yield rolls over and the emerging world struggles to cope with a soaring dollar (remember, even though EM has largely avoided "original sin" i.e. borrowing in dollars, at the sovereign level, corporates are another story).

          As an aside, those interested in a comprehensive account of what Roach covers in the article cited above are encouraged to reach David Stockman's "The Great Deformation."

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

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

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

          Trends: Malaysia MH17 plane crash, Ukraine turmoil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          ... .... ....

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

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

          ... ... ...

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

          Thus Israel's position becomes critical in this debate.

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

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

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

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

          ... ... ...

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

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

          So where Turkey is vulnerable is in its economy.

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

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

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

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

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

          Amvet on December 15 2015 said:

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

          Jim on December 15 2015 said:

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

          Chris on December 15 2015 said:

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

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

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

          Colonel Matt Lee receiving instructions from his superiors

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

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

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

          [Dec 23, 2015] How America Lost the Rest of the World

          Notable quotes:
          "... I'm still trying to think through the implications but they are certainly disquieting. Without trying to hard I'd summarize that "the masks are coming off." ..."
          "... The question then is, what happens after "the masks come off?" ..."
          "... Short-sighted western pundits will still be penning deadline copy headlined "How Putin lost Ukraine" while those with real vision will be putting the finishing touches on "How America Lost the Rest of the World" ..."
          marknesop.wordpress.com
          Cortes, December 18, 2015 at 3:38 am
          Michael Hudson on IMF manoeuvres

          http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/18/the-imf-changes-its-rules-to-isolate-china-and-russia/

          Tim Owen, December 18, 2015 at 6:24 am
          Hard to overstate the importance of this article. Thanks for spotting it.

          There's a lot here but this passage is kind of free-standing in its value by simply condensing how the IMF has contorted itself:

          "The IMF thus is breaking four rules:

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

          I'm still trying to think through the implications but they are certainly disquieting. Without trying to hard I'd summarize that "the masks are coming off."

          The question then is, what happens after "the masks come off?"

          … war.

          (Sometimes it's best just to blurt out what's worrying you.)

          marknesop, December 18, 2015 at 10:36 am
          Short-sighted western pundits will still be penning deadline copy headlined "How Putin lost Ukraine" while those with real vision will be putting the finishing touches on "How America Lost the Rest of the World".

          [Dec 23, 2015] The Big Short Every American Should See This Movie

          Notable quotes:
          "... Enjoyed the movie, but in typical Hollywood fashion, the role of the Federal Reserve and government in pushing housing down to those unable to afford it was not even mentioned once. ..."
          Zero Hedge
          The Big Short opens nationwide today. But it happened to have one showing last night at a theater near me. My youngest son and I hopped in the car and went to see it. I loved the book by Michael Lewis. The cast assembled for the movie was top notch, but having the director of Anchorman and Talledaga Nights handle a subject matter like high finance seemed odd.

          The choice of Adam McKay as director turned out to be brilliant. The question was how do you make a movie about the housing market, mortgage backed securities, collateralized debt obligations, collateralized debt swaps, and synthetic CDOs interesting for the average person. He succeeded beyond all expectations.

          Interweaving pop culture icons, music, symbols of materialism, and unforgettable characters, McKay has created a masterpiece about the greed, stupidity, hubris, and arrogance of Wall Street bankers gone wild. He captures the idiocy and complete capture of the rating agencies (S&P, Moodys). He reveals the ineptitude and dysfunction of the SEC, where the goal of these regulators was to get a high paying job with banks they were supposed to regulate. He skewers the faux financial journalists at the Wall Street Journal who didn't want to rock the boat with the truth about the greatest fraud ever committed.

          ...Ultimately, it is a highly entertaining movie with the right moral overtone, despite non-stop profanity that captures the true nature of Wall Street traders. This is a dangerous movie for Wall Street, the government, and the establishment in general. They count on the complexity of Wall Street to confuse the average person and make their eyes glaze over. That makes it easier for them to keep committing fraud and harvesting the nation's wealth.

          This movie cuts through the crap and reveals those in power to be corrupt, greedy weasels who aren't really as smart as they want you to think they are. The finale of the movie is sobering and infuriating. After unequivocally proving that Wall Street bankers, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve, Congress, the SEC, and the mainstream media, destroyed the global financial system, put tens of millions out of work, got six million people tossed from their homes, and created the worst crisis since the Great Depression, the filmmakers are left to provide the depressing conclusion.

          No bankers went to jail. The Too Big To Fail banks were not broken up – they were bailed out by the American taxpayers. They actually got bigger. Their profits have reached new heights, while the average family has seen their income fall. Wall Street is paying out record bonuses, while 46 million people are on food stamps. Wall Street and their lackeys at the Federal Reserve call the shots in this country. They don't give a fuck about you. And they're doing it again.

          Every American should see this movie and get fucking pissed off. The theater was deathly silent at the end of the movie. The audience was stunned by the fact that the criminals on Wall Street got away with the crime of the century, and they're still on the loose. I had a great discussion with my 16 year old son on the way home. At least there is one millennial who understand how bad his generation is getting screwed.

          wee-weed up

          I read the book last year... It is outstanding! Highest recommendation. If you have not read this book, you cannot understand how today's market really works.

          JRobby

          This subject matter has to be put in a form that can be understood by the masses. Hopefully the popular actors and this director is a step in that direction.

          Main stream Hollywood as an informer? Hmmmmm? This adds to the current assumptions and rumors of fractures among the elite groups.

          We are reasonable people. If the banking elite is sacrificed and the other corporate oligarchs come into a more socially acceptable line, we may be satisfied. However, the banking elite must be sacrificed. There is no negotiation on that point.

          Of course some will say I am over optimistic, they are throwing it in our faces to make $$$ and it ends up a total police state so enjoy your "entertainment" for now.

          Time goes on. Time will tell.

          chunga

          First you'd have to believe that politicians give a fuck about any damn thing but themselves. REAL concern for minorities or communities LOL! Then you'd have to believe banks were forced to do *anything* they don't want.

          Then, you'd have to fall right to sleep and miss the part where all this crap was sold on Wall Street while at the same time betting against all the "shitty deals" they made, then the whole thing getting bailed out @ par. With par being at the absurd fraudulent property appraisals that were made by the lenders or their agents. It's just nuts.

          This was all planned, beginning with Greenspan. AIG's Greenberg KNEW their CDS paper was no damn good, but didn't care because the also KNEW there would be a bailout. The only problem for him was Paulson and Blankfein conspired to steal the bailout money...and they did!

          That's why all this money went looking for people...it was all planned.

          chunga

          Hundreds of scandals have gone by since then, thoroughly unpunished, so I wonder why this movie is coming out now. I looked into some of the cronies calling the shots at the GSE's back then and saved it. A lot is outdated by now. Seems like a fairly bi-partisan effort.

          FRANKLIN RAINES [D] – FNMA CEO (1999 – 2004) Raines accepted "early retirement" from his CEO position while the SEC pretended to investigate accounting irregularities. Fannie's own OHFHEO also accused him of abetting widespread accounting errors, including the shifting of losses, so he and his fellow execs could "earn" large bonuses. The WSJ reported back in 2008 that Raines was one of several cronies that received below market rates for mortgages from Countrywide. Raines alone receive loans for over $3 million while CEO of FNMA. Raines' compensation for his "work" at FNMA - $90 million.

          RAINES GRADE – F

          DANIEL MUDD [R] – FNMA CEO (2005 – 2008) Before becoming CEO of FNMA, Mudd worked at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, was an advisor to Asia-Pacific Economic Corp., "served" on the board of the Council of Foreign Relations, "consulted" at the World Bank, and held many positions at GE Capital including president and CEO. Mudd was dismissed as CEO of FNMA when FHFA became conservator in 2008. In 2011 Mudd and other GSE execs were charged by SEC with securities fraud. After his career at FNMA Mudd became CEO of a NYC hedge fund named "Fortress". Fortress invested in purchasing tax liens on delinquent property taxes from local governments under many benign corporate names such as "Pleasant Valley Capital" and "Travis Farm Investments". Cozy. Mudd's compensation for his "work" at FNMA - $80 million.

          MUDD GRADE – F

          NEEL KASHKARI [R] – FNMA CEO (Tenure is murky) Kashkari was a former investment banker for Goldman Sachs, was tapped by Hank "The Shank" Paulson to lend his skills over at TARP HQ, and now rather ironically, continues God's work as a Managing Director at PIMCO. Kashkari's compensation for his "work" at FNMA is also murky; I'll just assume it was too much.

          KASHKARI GRADE - F

          HERB ALLISON [D] – FNMA CEO (2008 – 2009) The esteemed Mr. Allison was quickly whisked off to oversee the wildly successful TARP program. I didn't find much on his compensation during his brief stint as FNMA CEO. Allison served in various positions at Merrill Lynch and became a member of the board in 1997. He was a director of the NYSE from 2003 – 2005.

          ALLISON GRADE – F

          MICHAEL WILLIAMS [?] – FNMA CEO (2009 – Jan 1, 2012) Mr. Williams is a 20 year veteran at FNMA. While "serving" as FNMA CEO, Williams managed to scrape by on less than $6 million in 2011 alone. This could and should be considered a hardship, given the complexities involved in purloining ~ $60 billion of Fed bailout money.

          WILLIAMS GRADE – F

          FANNIE'S MAJOR DANCE PARTNER, FREDDIE MAC, HAS ALSO PERFORMED VERY POORLY.

          Charles (my friends call me "Ed") Haldeman has announced his retirement plans but intends to be a good sport and stay on with insolvent FHLMC until another crony can be found to fill his wing-tips.

          That might take a while. "Serving" as CEO of the ultimate backstops for the lion's share of the MBS Ponzi is very stressful.

          We'll have to accept former Freddie exec David Kellermann's testimony posthumously. Mr. Kellermann was found hanging by the neck in the basement of his posh Vienna, VA home in the affluent suburb of Washington. D.C. way back in April of 2009. It is presumed he had no help and local police have stated there was no evidence of foul play.

          Urban Redneck

          GREED is non-partisan. And all sides agreed MOAR "home ownership" was desirable. The left got its SJW colorblind automation, while the underwriters were able to increase volumes by thousands of percent while reducing overall headcount. Securitization wasn't actually "automated" since the fuckwits were using MS-Excel, but it was commoditized with Blackrock's pricing model.

          These were the days of the original algorithms of mass financial destruction, which were primitive and largely FICO-centric, but everyone wanted to minimize the cost (of logic coding and external data sources) so they coding decisioning based solely on information contained in the mortgage application and the applicant's electronic credit report.

          khakuda

          Enjoyed the movie, but in typical Hollywood fashion, the role of the Federal Reserve and government in pushing housing down to those unable to afford it was not even mentioned once.

          Keynesians

          Wall Street is laughing at all the clowns who think this movie will "wake up America". It would have never came out if it was any kind of danger to Wall Street, the FED, or the establishment.

          Agent P

          Directed by Adam McKay (Anchorman, Step Brothers, The Other Guys....), so ... yeah I'm going to go see it. Remember the end credits for The Other Guys? He hates Wall Street....

          GoldenDonuts

          Perhaps you should read the book. These are real characters from a non fiction book. They may have changed a name or two but these are real people. I will lend you my copy if you can't afford one.

          conraddobler

          Yeah I can't imagine a commercially successful movie out of this that would actually tell the truth and make it to the screens.

          What someone should do is write one of those fantastical novels where everything is a symbol for something else and jazz it up, put some romance, danger, intrigue and of course big boobs in it.

          The real message ala the olden days usually had to be hidden to avoid the wrath of those it was really aimed at.

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

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

          Colonel Matt Lee receiving instructions from his superiors

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

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

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

          [Dec 22, 2015] Destruction of the financial system of Ukraine is complete

          Essentially it got "below junk" rating...
          Notable quotes:
          "... How could Ukraine's government deficit only be 4.1% when its currency has crashed, it has lost most of its sources of income and it has just defaulted on its debt? What the fuck are they talking about? ..."
          "... First, there is no way on God's green earth that there is a negative difference of only 4.1% between Ukraine's annual revenues and its annual expenditures, especially since it has almost no revenues except from taxation. ..."
          marknesop.wordpress.com

          marknesop, December 19, 2015 at 6:43 pm

          According to Madame Jaresko, their decision not to pay the $3 Billion bond to Russia has set Ukraine free, free as a bird, and allowed it to now be in full compliance with the financing requirements of the IMF program.

          Start shovelin' in the money, IMF, because Ukraine has the magic formula – just refuse to pay what you owe, call it a 'temporary suspension of payments' instead of 'a default', and reap the reward for your display of responsibility.

          I foresee the mileage Russia is going to get out of this will far exceed the value of the $3 Billion.

          marknesop, December 19, 2015 at 8:47 pm

          How could Ukraine's government deficit only be 4.1% when its currency has crashed, it has lost most of its sources of income and it has just defaulted on its debt? What the fuck are they talking about?

          "The proposed budget would work to reduce the government's deficit from 4.1% to 3.7%, with measures including an increase in revenue by widening the tax base."

          First, there is no way on God's green earth that there is a negative difference of only 4.1% between Ukraine's annual revenues and its annual expenditures, especially since it has almost no revenues except from taxation.

          And now the IMF expects to realize more revenue from widening the tax base – yes, I can imagine what a popular initiative that is. Now you know how Yushchenko felt, Yatsie, when the IMF denied him a second big loan because he refused to eliminate the gas subsidies to residents.

          Now the IMF has finally realized that triumph through a different leader, and it wants to see even more tax revenue. You are about to be as popular as a turd in the punch bowl; have fun with that.

          kirill, December 20, 2015 at 12:58 pm

          I would not trust any GDP numbers from the Kiev regime either. They lost 25% of the economy in the Donbas alone not counting Crimea. This has knock on effects to the rest of Banderastan. Yet they are yapping about some 12% contraction in 2015 after a 7% contraction in 2014. I see no clear indication that they are counting the GDP only for regime controlled Banderastan.

          As for the budget, according to regime officials, Banderastan lost 30% of its hard currency revenues with the loss of the Donbass. I estimate the tax loss to Kiev to be about 30% as well.

          The Donbass was the industrialized part of the country while western Banderastan is primarily agrarian. So talk about 4% shortfalls in revenue is utter rubbish. In most countries the money making parts of the economy subsidize the rest and sure as hell it was not western Banderastan that was subsidizing the Donbass. That was just virulent blood libel such as the claim that Russians settled eastern Ukraine only after the Holodomor.

          marknesop, December 20, 2015 at 1:13 pm

          Europe deserves Ukraine. Let them have it, the quicker the better. It's fine when Yats is selling that stinking mess to his simple-minded constituents, but European policymakers will see through it right away. Unfortunately, Brussels knows better than to bring Ukraine any closer into the fold, because if they get a visa-free regime, the place will empty out in a week as Ukrainians flee throughout Europe (which is already, everyone must know, full of refugees) looking for jobs.

          [Dec 22, 2015] Americas Double Standard on Trade

          Dec 22, 2015 | naked capitalism
          Yves here. If you followed the TransPacific Partnership negotiations closely, you may recall that Japan looked like it was going along only to placate Washington, and then it signed up only because the US allowed it to drop its "defense only" posture (remember that Japan is a military protectorate of the US) and gave major concession on agriculture (Japan's farmers are a famously powerful voting block). But even then, Japan is not firmly in the US fold. It has made clear that the US needs to get a deal done pronto.

          By contrast, this post describes the US foot-dragging and gamesmanship to protect US agricultural interests from competition from developing economies.

          Yesterday, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman delivered his plenary statement to the trade ministers gathered in Nairobi for the World Trade Organization's tenth ministerial conference. His statement, which calls for the abandonment of the Doha Development Round in favor of negotiations on new issues of more strategic interest to the United States, deserve a response from a countryman.

          Mr. Froman calls on trade representatives "to move beyond the cynical repetition of positions designed to produce deadlock." Yet this is precisely what Mr. Froman has come to Nairobi to repeat: U.S. positions designed to produce deadlock.

          He decries the lack of progress in the last 15 years of Doha negotiations, yet he fails to acknowledge that the United States has been, and remains, the principal reason for that failure. Since 2008, when negotiations broke down, the U.S. has refused to continue negotiating on the key issues central to the development agenda – reducing agricultural subsidies, allowing developing countries special protection measures for agriculture, eliminating export subsidies and credits, and a host of other issues.

          Those issues remain critical to developing countries, and U.S. intransigence in addressing those concerns is the main reason Doha has stagnated. In addition, the U.S. has introduced new issues to create further obstacles to progress, such as its objection to India's ambitious and laudable public stockholding program to provide food security to fully two-thirds of its people.

          The draft declaration on agriculture in Nairobi offers no progress on resolving this issue, despite the explicit commitment in Bali and later in Geneva to find a permanent solution that can allow India and other countries to pursue such programs.

          That is not the only developing country issue left unaddressed. The declaration offers nothing to developing countries to allow them to protect sensitive sectors from unfair or sudden import surges, the Special Safeguard Mechanism. It offers no meaningful cuts in U.S. export credits, which have favored U.S. exporters to Africa with some $1.25 billion in credits over the last six years.

          Perhaps most notably, the declaration makes no mention of the key issue in the Doha Round: reductions in rich country agricultural subsidies and supports. With crop prices low and a new Farm Bill authorizing rising levels of support to U.S. farmers and exporters, this omission is a direct blow to those developing countries which see their farmers and export prospects harmed by underpriced U.S. exports.

          Nor does Mr. Froman mention cotton subsidies, an issue which the United States and the WTO membership committed to address "expeditiously" ten long years ago in Hong Kong. The issue remains unresolved, and the draft agriculture text fails to offer anything to Africa's C-4 cotton producing countries, which have millions of poor farmers desperately in need of relief.

          Instead, the U.S. Farm Bill promises further price suppression. According to a recent study, cotton subsidies could total $1.5 billion, increasing U.S. exports 29% and suppressing prices by 7%. All cotton producers in the rest of the world will suffer an estimated $3.3 billion in annual losses, with India projected to lose $800 million per year.

          The C-4 countries as a group stand to lose $80 million a year in reduced income, a huge blow to struggling farmers in low-income countries.

          Mr. Froman touts the ways U.S. policy has moved forward beyond Doha. He says the United States extended the African Growth and Opportunity Act by a decade, "the longest extension in that program's history." That limited extension of trade preferences to African countries last year provided a paltry $264,000 in benefits to the C-4 countries. The projected losses from U.S. cotton dumping are 300 times greater.

          Mr. Froman concludes that with a new approach that abandons the development round while taking up issues of investment, procurement, and other matters of priority to the United States, "we can ensure that global trade will drive development and prosperity as strongly this century as it did in the last."

          The U.S. Trade Representative seems to have conveniently forgotten that the Doha Development Round he wants to sweep aside was a direct response to the fact that global trade rules in the last century failed to drive development and prosperity, at least for many developing countries.

          As a U.S. researcher long engaged with the issues of concern to developing countries, I find Mr. Froman's approach shameful. Multilateralism demands engagement and compromise, particularly in a "development round" designed to address past inequities. Mr. Froman is unfortunately offering nothing more than "the cynical repetition of positions designed to produce deadlock." The latest in a steady stream of U.S. hypocrisy.

          By Timothy Wise, Director of the Research and Policy Program at the Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University. Originally published in The Standard (Nairobi, Kenya)

          [Dec 22, 2015] Orwells Nightmare Is Here - China Just Gamified Obedience To The State (And Soon Itll Be Mandatory)

          That's something new and pretty Orwelian : computerized score of "political correctness" made similar for FICO score and based on data about you in social media.
          Notable quotes:
          "... Among the things that will hurt a citizen's score are posting political opinions without prior permission, or posting information that the regime does not like, such as about the Tiananmen Square massacre that the government carried out to hold on to power, or the Shanghai stock market collapse. ..."
          "... "Imagine the social pressure against disobedience or dissent that this will create." ..."
          "... "very ambitious in scope, including scrutinizing individual behavior and what books people read. It's Amazon's consumer tracking with an Orwellian political twist." ..."
          "... "Coming soon to a New World Order near you: social credit! Earn points by behaving like the government wants you to behave! Get penalized if you don't act like a doubleplusgood citizen! What could be more fun?" ..."
          "... Applying for a passport? Buy my book and learn how to boost your patriotism score by 400 points in 6 months! We can even give you a spambot to do the work for you! ..."
          "... At this point, any good developer can write a program that reads Twitter/Facebook/Renren/WeChat feeds, gives the posts to IBM's Watson (or some simpler algorithm), and have the program spit out a score. And this program would take at most a month to make. I know, I write similar stuff ;) ..."
          "... What scares me is how the initial assumptions that go into querying data can give you radically different results at the end, and these intelligence agencies do not exactly explain what methods they are using to determine who is a 'bad guy.' ..."
          "... Patriot Points. ..."
          "... The article has taken some real, some proposed and some imaginary credit tracking programs and smushed them into one 'terrifying', freedom-destroying blob. In other words, it's irresponsible b.s. intended to make the Chinese government look even more diabolical and oppressive than our own. ..."
          "... The underlying cultural truth, though, is that Chinese are willing to cooperate with – and trust – their government much more than we are. They've always respected and looked up to their national leaders and expected those leaders to actually lead – morally and practically. It works for them, as we see. ..."
          "... Digital will end up being our worse nightmare and our undoing. It is the Perfect tool for the crazed sociopaths around us and the insane psychopaths that want to control our every breath (literally). ..."
          "... The social networks are piped right into governments security complex. ..."
          Dec 22, 2015 | Zero Hedge

          As if further proof were needed Orwell's dystopia is now upon us, China has now gamified obedience to the State. Though that is every bit as creepily terrifying as it sounds, citizens may still choose whether or not they wish to opt-in - that is, until the program becomes compulsory in 2020. "Going under the innocuous name of 'Sesame Credit,' China has created a score for how good a citizen you are," explains Extra Credits' video about the program. "The owners of China's largest social networks have partnered with the government to create something akin to the U.S. credit score - but, instead of measuring how regularly you pay your bills, it measures how obediently you follow the party line."

          Zheping Huang, a reporter for Quartz, chronicled his own experience with the social control tool in October, saying that

          "in the past few weeks I began to notice a mysterious new trend. Numbers were popping up on my social media feeds as my friends and strangers on Weibo [the Chinese equivalent to Twitter] and WeChat began to share their 'Sesame Credit scores.' The score is created by Ant Financial, an Alibaba-affiliated company that also runs Alipay, China's popular third-party payment app with over 350 million users. Ant Financial claims that it evaluates one's purchasing and spending habits in order to derive a figure that shows how creditworthy someone is."

          However, according to a translation of the "Planning Outline for the Construction of a Social Credit System," posted online by Oxford University's China expert, Rogier Creemers, it's nightmarishly clear the program is far more than just a credit-tracking method. As he described it,

          "The government wants to build a platform that leverages things like big data, mobile internet, and cloud computing to measure and evaluate different levels of people's lives in order to create a gamified nudging for people to behave better."

          While Sesame Credit's roll-out in January has been downplayed by many, the American Civil Liberties Union, among others, urges caution, saying:

          "The system is run by two companies, Alibaba and Tencent, which run all the social networks in China and therefore have access to a vast amount of data about people's social ties and activities and what they say. In addition to measuring your ability to pay, as in the United States, the scores serve as a measure of political compliance.

          Among the things that will hurt a citizen's score are posting political opinions without prior permission, or posting information that the regime does not like, such as about the Tiananmen Square massacre that the government carried out to hold on to power, or the Shanghai stock market collapse. It will hurt your score not only if you do these things, but if any of your friends do them."

          And, in what appears likely the goal of the entire program, added, "Imagine the social pressure against disobedience or dissent that this will create."

          Social pressure, of course, can be highly effective given the right circumstances. China seems to have found exactly that in the intricate linking of people's scores to their contacts, which can be seen publicly by anyone - and then upping the ante through score-based incentives and rewards. Rick Falkvinge pointed out a startling comparison:

          "The KGB and the Stasi's method of preventing dissent from taking hold was to plant so-called agents provocateurs in the general population, people who tried to make people agree with dissent, but who actually were arresting them as soon as they agreed with such dissent. As a result, nobody would dare agree that the government did anything bad, and this was very effective in preventing any large-scale resistance from taking hold. The Chinese way here is much more subtle, but probably more effective still."

          As Creemers described to Dutch news outlet, de Volkskrant,

          "With the help of the latest internet technologies, the government wants to exercise individual surveillance. The Chinese aim […] is clearly an attempt to create a new citizen."

          Chinese internet specialist at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, Johan Lagerkvist, said the system is

          "very ambitious in scope, including scrutinizing individual behavior and what books people read. It's Amazon's consumer tracking with an Orwellian political twist."

          James Corbett has been tracking the implementation of Sesame Credit for some time. Introducing the ubiquitous tracking system for a recent episode of the Corbett Report, he mused:

          "Coming soon to a New World Order near you: social credit! Earn points by behaving like the government wants you to behave! Get penalized if you don't act like a doubleplusgood citizen! What could be more fun?"

          Indeed, because mandatory enrollment in Sesame Credit is still a few years away, its true effectiveness won't be measurable for some time. But even a reporter's usual wariness appears knocked off-kilter, as Zheping Huang summarized his personal experience,

          "Even if my crappy credit score doesn't mean much now, it's in my best interest I suppose to make sure it doesn't go too low."

          And that, of course, is precisely why gamifying State obedience is so terrifying.

          Cornfedbloodstool

          We just have FICO scores in the US, that measures how obidient you are to the banks, the true rulers of the country.

          ToSoft4Truth

          And Facebook 'Likes'. Can't get laid without the Likes, man.

          CAPT DRAKE

          It is already here. There is a thing called an "NSA Score", based on your habits, contacts, and email/posts. Fortunately, porn surfing, even addiction, is not a negative. Only anti state stuff counts, and no, most of the posts on ZH don't count as they are seen as venting and not actionable intel.

          knukles

          I love Big Brother...

          Miffed Microbiologist

          "The children and adults, including his own parents, tiptoe nervously around him, constantly telling him how everything he does is "good," since displeasing him can get them wished away into a mystical "cornfield", an unknown place, from which there is no return. At one point, a dog is heard barking angrily. Anthony thinks the dog is "bad" and doesn't "like [him] at all," and wishes it into the cornfield. His father and mother are horrified, but they dare not show it."

          Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

          Miffed

          Old Poor Richard

          You beat me to it on FICO score. If you're off the grid, out of the electronic money system or not paying sufficient fealty to banksters, you are NOT being obedient to the state.

          NoDebt

          I'm as off the grid as you can get and still live a middle class lifestyle with electricity and a cell phone. I assure you they still score me and I'm usually over 800. I don't use credit much these days but what I use says nothing but "pays as agreed".

          Now, if you start to factor in the "slightly to the right of the John Burke Society" shit I post on ZH I'd be down around -500.

          Uchtdorf

          http://qz.com/519737/all-chinese-citizens-now-have-a-score-based-on-how-...

          Dated October 9th of this year.

          savagegoose

          thats it, in the communist version of facebook you can vote on gov post's, ie you can like them.

          Government needs you to pay taxes

          Cmon its China, where numbers are faked everyday. Ya think this number will be any different? And even if its effective in China, when the US .govbots roll this out, how effective can it be when US .gov employees 'at the wheel'?

          The US .gov can fuck ANYTHING up.

          roisaber

          It will be funny to see who gets a low citizen loyalty oath score for unpredictable reasons, or from hacks, and their increasing radicalization as their honest efforts to try to get themselves back into good standing only makes them register as more anti-social.

          techpriest

          The other question is, how many services are going to pop up to help you boost your score, just like there are books, guides, and services for your credit score currently?

          "Applying for a passport? Buy my book and learn how to boost your patriotism score by 400 points in 6 months! We can even give you a spambot to do the work for you!"

          SgtShaftoe

          China doesn't have enough enforcers to control the population. They will lose control. That is only a matter of time. They may be able to delay the inevitable for a while but eventually reality will arrive. Keep pushing that volatility into the tail and see what happens. When it goes, it will blow your fucking socks off.

          Tick tock motherfuckers, and that goes for the US as well...

          tarabel

          That is the (evil) genius of this scheme. It is collectively enforced by the proletarians themselves. If you do anti-social things, that will reflect badly on your friends and family so they will excoriate you and, if necessary, shun you until you get with the program. Really, it's just a crowd-sourced Communist Block Warden program gone digital.

          I don't worry about the Chinese. They're fooked any which way you slice it. But China invents nothing, merely imitates. So where did they get this idea from, hmmm?

          techpriest

          At this point, any good developer can write a program that reads Twitter/Facebook/Renren/WeChat feeds, gives the posts to IBM's Watson (or some simpler algorithm), and have the program spit out a score. And this program would take at most a month to make. I know, I write similar stuff ;)

          With that in mind, what would you be able to accomplish with a team of 40-50 developers and several months? What scares me is how the initial assumptions that go into querying data can give you radically different results at the end, and these intelligence agencies do not exactly explain what methods they are using to determine who is a 'bad guy.'


          cherry picker

          "I have nothing to hide"

          Well, the bozos who coined the above term, have fun. You think keeping up with mortgage, car payments, Obama Care, taxes, raising kids and keeping a spouse happy is stressful, wait til .gov does a 'test' on you.

          Me, I'm not worried. I'm a non conformist, live in the boonies and am too old. I tell my children and grandchildren they need to get rid of this 'evil eye' government encroachment.

          They think I am crazy now, but I think they may be coming around.

          techpriest

          I would love to turn that "You shouldn't be afraid if you have nothing to hide" around by pointing out that the Fed shouldn't be afraid of an audit if they have nothing to hide.

          Amish Hacker

          Patriot Points.

          Bopper09

          Is this not what assface is? (facebook for people plugged in). I admit I went on it for the simple fact I couldn't find anything better for talking to my Russian fiance. But even a year before she got here, I said fuck it. Tried cancelling, but if you click a link that has something to do with facebook, your profile becomes active again. Fucking criminals. I left a computer for 3 weeks (not that I haven't done that before. TRY IT, no cell phone or computer for ONE WEEK. Take vacation days and see what's important in your life. Seriously, I've never owned a cell phone. Where I work I don't need one. Cell phones do not 'save your life'.

          Consuelo

          Interesting the references to FB, especially when one considers who's at the head and his position on censorship. Then again, what happened in Mao's China descended from the likes of Trotsky, so it kinda sorta follows...

          Gantal

          The article has taken some real, some proposed and some imaginary credit tracking programs and smushed them into one 'terrifying', freedom-destroying blob. In other words, it's irresponsible b.s. intended to make the Chinese government look even more diabolical and oppressive than our own.

          The underlying cultural truth, though, is that Chinese are willing to cooperate with – and trust – their government much more than we are. They've always respected and looked up to their national leaders and expected those leaders to actually lead – morally and practically. It works for them, as we see.

          The underlying lie is that the Chinese government needs to repress its people. It doesn't. Anyone purporting to be China 'experts' like Messrs. Lagerkvist and Creemers, should know that China's government is the most popular, most trusted government on earth.

          By why let facts get in the way of a good story?

          Fuku Ben

          The score is created by Ant Financial

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lcUHQYhPTE#t=36s

          FedFunnyMoney

          Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer...Chinese style.

          rejected

          Digital will end up being our worse nightmare and our undoing. It is the "Perfect" tool for the crazed sociopaths around us and the insane psychopaths that want to control our every breath (literally).

          Sure, it's cool, you can play games and other useless crap but even a blind man could see how governments are going to be useing it. The social networks are piped right into governments security complex. Wouldn't surprise me if everything we post even here on ZH is stored on some digital crap machine somewhere.

          For sure it's on ZH servers and thus available to any Tom, Dick or Harry LEO. I myself am very close to going dark. This stuff isn't laughable anymore. It's getting DEADLY serious.

          [Dec 21, 2015] Ignorance is Strength

          Notable quotes:
          "... " it's also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries" ..."
          "... It's okay to bullshit if the Culturally Superior Westerner ™ is dissing with libelious claims Inferior Non-Westerner. See, who needs any proof that "Putin kills journalists"? No one! Not even trump or their auditory – They Know It For Fact ™. ..."
          marknesop.wordpress.com
          et Al, December 19, 2015 at 11:02 am
          Butnits Insider: Donald Trump left Joe Scarborough stunned after being asked about Vladimir Putin killing journalists
          https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-praises-vladimir-putin-125622048.html

          …Scarborough pointed to Putin's status as a notorious strongman.

          "Well, I mean, it's also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries. Obviously that would be a concern, would it not?" Scarborough asked.

          "He's running his country, and at least he's a leader," Trump replied. "Unlike what we have in this country."

          "But again: He kills journalists that don't agree with him," Scarborough said.

          The Republican presidential front-runner said there was "a lot of killing going on" around the world and then suggested that Scarborough had asked him a different question.

          "I think our country does plenty of killing, also, Joe, so, you know," Trump replied. "There's a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe. A lot of killing going on. A lot of stupidity. And that's the way it is. But you didn't ask me [that] question, you asked me a different question. So that's fine."

          Scarborough was left visibly stunned.

          "I'm confused," the MSNBC host said. "So I mean, you obviously condemn Vladimir Putin killing journalists and political opponents, right?"

          "Oh sure, absolutely," Trump said…

          …But Friday during his "Morning Joe" interview, Trump said he always "felt fine" about Putin and touted the Russian president's poll numbers. Putin's position in his country is bolstered by the Russian government's control over much of the Russian news media.

          "I always felt fine about Putin," Trump said. "I think that he's a strong leader. He's a powerful leader … He's actually got a popularity within his country. They respect him as a leader."

          Trump contrasted Putin's numbers with President Obama's.

          "I think he's up in the 80s. You see where Obama's in the 30s and low 40s. And he's up in the 80s," Trump said. "And I don't know who does the polls. Maybe he does the polls, but I think they're done by American companies, actually."
          ####

          When I read stuff like this, I'm so glad the US is so far away. Damn modern technology.

          Lyttenburgh, December 19, 2015 at 11:50 am
          " it's also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries"

          It's okay to bullshit if the Culturally Superior Westerner ™ is dissing with libelious claims Inferior Non-Westerner. See, who needs any proof that "Putin kills journalists"? No one! Not even trump or their auditory – They Know It For Fact ™.

          P.S. "Ignorance is Strength"

          [Dec 21, 2015] Journalists are really mouthpieces for political factions within their own government power structure but the best journalists choose faction that actually embraces reality

          "... Regarding Patrick Lang, I noticed that he posted a quite vehement attack against conspiracy theorists postings on his blog who were – if I recall correctly – claiming that the military were involved in the subterfuge to arm extremists in Syria. (Probably cocked up the details but too tired to check.) It struck me as noteworthy as it suggested an internecine intra-Washington struggle between Military / CIA who was going to "own" the debacle in Syria at the very least. It is utterly reminiscent of the struggle between Dulles / CIA power structure (think: institutional group think) and the incoming JFK administration / New Frontiersman during and after the Cuban Missile Crisis. ..."
          "... Of course it's worth noting that Hersh had to revert to publishing this "intimate" conversation between American power structures in a foreign publication. What does that tell you about the "freedom index"? Samizdat here we come! ..."
          marknesop.wordpress.com

          Tim Owen, December 20, 2015 at 1:53 pm

          Sy Hersh's latest via M of A:

          http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military

          marknesop, December 20, 2015 at 7:58 pm
          Washington does not care who assumes power in Syria – whether it be feuding warlords or an Islamic mullah or Assad's cat. Washington knows that Islamic State needs money to survive and keep power, as does any individual or group who will rule, and that to remain in power, it will sell oil. Good enough, as far as Washington is concerned. If the place remains a seething cauldron of destabilizing hatreds, so much the better.
          Tim Owen, December 20, 2015 at 8:50 pm
          I read this carefully earlier today and wish I had made some notes.

          It's an interesting article just in what it says about the politics of American journalism at this point in time almost regardless of the subject matter in a kind of Kremlinology vein. It almost reads like a ransom note. My impression is that Hersh is pulling punches at some key points in order not to overplay his hand.

          My suggestion: don't get bogged down in the details. From my recollection of the piece from earlier today Hersh is basically championing a few figures and – most importantly – their perspectives here:

          • Michael Flynn, who led the DIA revolt against Syria policy
          • Dempsey, a pragmatic cold warrior who is allergic to making the enemy into a cardboard super-villan (good enough for this Putinista)
          • Patrick Lang (more below)
          • and that wonderfully clear-headed Hawaiin congress-critter (can't be arsed to look her up)

          It's worth remembering that Hersh's articles on the Ghoutta attack immediately predated the great stand-down by Obama from all out air-war to destroy Syria.

          Given that it's axiomatic that journalists are really mouthpieces for political factions within their own government power structure and that the BEST journalists – like Hersh – actually embrace this reality, what does the appearance of this article augur?

          I especially like the sign off:

          "The Joint Chiefs and the DIA were constantly telling Washington's leadership of the jihadist threat in Syria, and of Turkey's support for it. The message was never listened to. Why not?"

          That sounds kind of threatening. In a good way.

          * Regarding Patrick Lang, I noticed that he posted a quite vehement attack against conspiracy theorists postings on his blog who were – if I recall correctly – claiming that the military were involved in the subterfuge to arm extremists in Syria. (Probably cocked up the details but too tired to check.) It struck me as noteworthy as it suggested an internecine intra-Washington struggle between Military / CIA who was going to "own" the debacle in Syria at the very least. It is utterly reminiscent of the struggle between Dulles / CIA power structure (think: institutional group think) and the incoming JFK administration / New Frontiersman during and after the Cuban Missile Crisis.

          In other words: we, the west, have basically made no progress fighting for reform of our leadership and political structures. Meanwhile the Russians seem to have gone "right round the horn" – as the dinosaur in Toy Story might put it.

          Tim Owen, December 20, 2015 at 9:08 pm
          Of course it's worth noting that Hersh had to revert to publishing this "intimate" conversation between American power structures in a foreign publication. What does that tell you about the "freedom index"? Samizdat here we come!

          [Dec 21, 2015] Australians has doubts about Dutch safety board conclusion about the type of monitions that destroyed the aircraft

          Notable quotes:
          "... "initial information that the aircraft was shot down by a [Buk] surface to air missile" did not meet the Australian or international standard of evidence …." ..."
          "... What will happen to the resolve of the holdouts if the narrative on MH17 begins to veer away from rock-solid Russian ownership of the tragedy? Because that was the whole backbone of the sanctions – Crimea was not enough to get Germany and France on board, and they still needed the little push that MH17 provided. If that rationale vanished, or even if serious doubt was introduced, the whole EU position on sanctions could fall apart. ..."
          "... It's bigger than I thought – there is some sort of internal power struggle going on, and West refuses to change his findings – which still point to Russia for responsibility – in spite of Donoghoe's testimony. ..."
          marknesop.wordpress.com
          Jen, December 19, 2015 at 7:12 pm
          Wooooh, this news is a doozy:

          http://johnhelmer.net/?p=14787
          http://investmentwatchblog.com/mh17-australia-say-russia-not-to-blame-evidence-tampered-with/

          First two paragraphs:
          "The Australian Federal Police and Dutch police and prosecutors investigating the cause of the crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17 believe the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) has failed to provide "conclusive evidence" of what type of munition destroyed the aircraft, causing the deaths of 283 passengers and 15 crew on board.

          Testifying for the first time in an international court, Detective Superintendent Andrew Donoghoe, the senior Australian policeman in the international MH17 investigation, said a "tougher standard than the DSB report" is required before the criminal investigation can identify the weapon which brought the aircraft down, or pinpoint the perpetrators.

          Their criminal investigation will continue into 2016, Donoghoe told the Victorian Coroners Court (lead image) on Tuesday morning. He and other international investigators are unconvinced by reports from the US and Ukrainian governments, and by the DSB, of a Buk missile firing. "Dutch prosecutors require conclusive evidence on other types of missile," Donoghoe said, intimating that "initial information that the aircraft was shot down by a [Buk] surface to air missile" did not meet the Australian or international standard of evidence …."

          marknesop, December 19, 2015 at 7:31 pm
          Great catch, Jen!! Wow, you're right – this is big, especially in view of the wavering by some EU members on sanctions. I wonder what Merkel has up her sleeve; she says Germany – while going ahead with Nord Stream II, which is "first and foremost a business proposition" – is "seeking ways to ensure that Ukraine is not completely excluded as a transit country".

          Ummm…what role would that be? Because if, in exchange for pushing ahead on Nord Stream, Russia is maneuvered into still sending gas through Ukraine so that Ukraine can collect transit fees, the project would be self-defeating. I trust the business minds in Russia are sharp enough to stay ahead of that one. Ukraine will still receive gas from Russia, if it wants it and can pay in advance for it, but it will be for domestic supplies only and consequently not subject to transit fees. Russia must not weaken on this, because the EU still hopes to rebuild Ukraine using Russian money, and it cannot do it without Russian help and support. If that is withheld, Russia only needs to wait them out.

          Needless to say, Tusk supports Renzi's position, not because he is an Italiophile but because he supports Ukraine and would like to see it remain a transit country, and pocketing $2 Billion a year in Russian cash.

          What will happen to the resolve of the holdouts if the narrative on MH17 begins to veer away from rock-solid Russian ownership of the tragedy? Because that was the whole backbone of the sanctions – Crimea was not enough to get Germany and France on board, and they still needed the little push that MH17 provided. If that rationale vanished, or even if serious doubt was introduced, the whole EU position on sanctions could fall apart.

          marknesop, December 19, 2015 at 8:37 pm

          It's bigger than I thought – there is some sort of internal power struggle going on, and West refuses to change his findings – which still point to Russia for responsibility – in spite of Donoghoe's testimony. There were revelations in the original post such as that Australia had sought permission from the Novorossiyan authorities to collect evidence and artifacts, as well as Kiev – thereby implicitly recognizing Novorossiya – and that when it solicited witnesses to testify, some agreed only on the condition their names would not be revealed, that the Ukrainian authorities would not be involved and that the investigators would protect them. Sure sounds like they want to say something they know the Ukrainian government will punish them for saying, if it can identify them. This whole inquiry just got interesting again.

          At the moment it looks like a faction of the Australian investigation disagrees with the pat finding of the Dutch, but the Victorian state coroner is totally on board with the "Russia did it" scenario and is determined to have his way no matter how foolish it makes him look. This one could go anywhere from here.

          Moscow Exile, December 19, 2015 at 11:28 pm

          Clearly that Aussie cop is in the pocket of the Evil One!

          Isn't he the one who said earlier that the Russian-backed terrorists at the MH-17 crash site behaved like decent human beings and treated the crash victims' remains with dignity and did not loot their belongings?

          I mean, what a ludicrous thing to say!

          Everyone knows that these Russian beasts are ….blah, blah, blah ...

          davidt, December 20, 2015 at 2:03 pm

          Donoghue is not the only AFP cop speaking up for the crash site locals. Their sensitivity and humanity is a rather at odds with a disparaging comment about the AFP on these pages over a year ago (and which I objected to at the time). I noticed last week that Patrick Armstrong is now reconsidering the Sukhoi did it scenario because of an apparent lack of fragments from a Buk warhead.

          This has always been a serious concern to the Russian investigators, see
          http://www.nst.com.my/news/2015/10/russians-angered-dutch-probe


          [Dec 21, 2015] Weak president, neoliberal Obama and housing bubble

          Notable quotes:
          "... The relationship between low interest rates and bubbles has nothing to do with the above. Low interest rates RAISE asset prices. Through the magic of low discount rates, the future earnings and cash flows are worth a lot higher today. This is why Bernanke cut rates and kept them low. Raising asset prices and the resultant higher net worth was supposed to lead to higher spending today. But outsized returns also attracts speculation. what is so difficult to understand? John Williams of SF Fed has shown how positive returns in asset markets raises the speculators expected returns. when this dynamic gets out of control, it is a bubble. ..."
          "... That is exactly the point. Expected returns in stocks have nothing to do with earnings growth. http://www.frbsf.org/our-district/press/presidents-speeches/williams-speeches/2013/september/asset-price-bubbles-tomorrow-yesterday-never-today/ ..."
          "... You think a rise in stock prices created by a fall in the cost of capital is a bubble. ..."
          "... keeping the risk free rate at zero for 7 years is not a change in fundamentals. and if it is and it rises leading to a large fall in equity prices, you will be the first one crying uncle. so why put the economy through this? ..."
          "... Rising stock prices allow corporations to raise debt, because the stock is put up as collateral. This makes funding easier, but it doesnt favor any particular purpose of the funding. It could be to buy back stock, for example. Said buy back can raise the stock price even more, which in turn can pay off the borrowing. Didnt cost a dime. ..."
          "... It always seem to me that right wing economists credit businessmen with superhuman foresight and sophistication, except when it comes to the actions of the Fed and then something addles their brains and they become completely stupid. As I once put, it seems investors cant understand what the Fed is doing, even though they tell you. ..."
          "... Thats it exactly. Markets are efficient, unless the government does anything, and then markets lose their minds and its the governments fault. ..."
          "... Here is how they evaluate models: Good model; one that reaches the right good conclusions. Bad model; one that ends up saying stuff nobody should believe in. ..."
          "... Obama could have at least made the investigations a high priority...but he let Holder, a Wall Street attorney, consign them to the lowest. ..."
          "... Democrats filibuster-proof majority consisted of 58 Democrats and two independents who caucused with them. Only an inept President and Senate majority leader could have failed to take advantage of such a majority to implement significant parts of the party platform. ..."
          "... Gullible folks like pgl and his coterie believe what these Democrats say and waste our time defending their neoliberal behavior. ..."
          economistsview.typepad.com
          reason said... December 18, 2015 at 02:20 AM
          I wish Krugman would attack the view that is being propagated at the moment that low nominal interest rates (it seems irrespective of the reason for them) foster bubbles. It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense - leverage doesn't just magnify the gains, it magnifies the losses as well - what really counts is expectations regardless of nominal interest rates.)

          The distribution of the use of credit between pure financial speculation and productive investment is not a function of interest rates, but of things like bank culture, bank regulation and macro-economic and technological prospects.

          JF said in reply to reason... December 18, 2015 at 05:19 AM

          Great comment. I especially liked this point: "The distribution of the use of credit between pure financial speculation and productive investment is not a function of" ....

          Supervising regulators need to look carefully at the ratio of credit used for financial trading compared to credit used for what we've called real-economy matters. They should adjust the level of monitoring based on this view while they also inform policy makers including those in the legislature.

          There may be an opportunity in 2017 to revise the statutes so the public plainly says what the rules of Commerce are in these financial 'inter-mediation' areas - society is better served if more of such credit offerings go to investments in the real economy where inputs are real things like employees, supplies, equipment/technologies. The public's law can effect this change.

          david said in reply to JF...

          except that a significant chunk of institutional investors have sticky nominal targets for return thanks to the politics of return expectation setting (true for pension fund and endowments) -- low interest rates do encourage chasing phantoms or looking to extract some rents, for those subject to that kind of pressure

          sanjait said in reply to david... December 18, 2015 at 02:47 PM

          Are there enough of those to dominate securities prices?

          I don't see how there possibly could be. For everyone trying to reach for yield there are a lot of people happy to arbitrage or otherwise exploit those inefficiencies.

          pgl said in reply to reason... December 18, 2015 at 05:53 AM

          Nice comment. I think Krugman is letting others take out the bubble brains. But if he's reading your excellent comment - maybe he will go the fray.

          BenIsNotYoda said in reply to reason... December 18, 2015 at 06:35 AM

          "The distribution of the use of credit between pure financial speculation and productive investment is not a function of interest rates, but of things like bank culture, bank regulation and macro-economic and technological prospects."

          The relationship between low interest rates and bubbles has nothing to do with the above. Low interest rates RAISE asset prices. Through the magic of low discount rates, the future earnings and cash flows are worth a lot higher today. This is why Bernanke cut rates and kept them low. Raising asset prices and the resultant higher net worth was supposed to lead to higher spending today. But outsized returns also attracts speculation. what is so difficult to understand? John Williams of SF Fed has shown how positive returns in asset markets raises the speculator's expected returns. when this dynamic gets out of control, it is a bubble.

          Sanjait said in reply to BenIsNotYoda... December 18, 2015 at 07:35 AM

          It's hard to see how to your claim that expected returns are high when earnings yields across the board are historically low.

          BenIsNotYoda said in reply to Sanjait... December 18, 2015 at 07:38 AM

          That is exactly the point. Expected returns in stocks have nothing to do with earnings growth. http://www.frbsf.org/our-district/press/presidents-speeches/williams-speeches/2013/september/asset-price-bubbles-tomorrow-yesterday-never-today/

          BenIsNotYoda said in reply to BenIsNotYoda... December 18, 2015 at 07:38 AM

          I mean earnings yields not earnings growth.

          Sanjait said in reply to BenIsNotYoda... December 18, 2015 at 07:48 AM

          So you say. And yet, stock values today conform very well with the standard model Williams says doesn't historically fit the data. While you are talking bubbles, the equity risk premium is parked in the normal range.

          How do you explain that?

          BenIsNotYoda said in reply to Sanjait... December 18, 2015 at 07:54 AM

          so says Williams. dividend yields, earnings yields and risk premiums are not necessarily weighted heavily in investors' formation of expected returns. past returns do, to a great extent. that is what Williams shows.

          BenIsNotYoda said in reply to BenIsNotYoda... December 18, 2015 at 07:56 AM

          our prehistoric brains are wired to trend follow patterns.

          pgl said in reply to BenIsNotYoda... December 18, 2015 at 09:13 AM

          Williams actually tries to model the rise in stock prices and defines any increase the model cannot explain a bubble. Of course maybe his modeling is not entirely spot on and fundamentals can explain the rise stock prices.

          But this is not what you do as you see any asset price increase as a bubble. Which is beyond stupid. Of course it would help if you ever bothered to do what Williams attempted - use a basic model of financial economics. Then again my guess is that is beyond your understanding of basic financial economics. So troll on!

          BenIsNotYoda said in reply to pgl... December 18, 2015 at 10:40 AM

          You think a rise in stock prices created by a fall in the cost of capital is a bubble. But no - it is a change in fundamentals.

          keeping the risk free rate at zero for 7 years is not a change in fundamentals. and if it is and it rises leading to a large fall in equity prices, you will be the first one crying uncle. so why put the economy through this?

          JohnH said in reply to pgl... December 18, 2015 at 04:22 PM

          The first thing pgl did when stocks corrected this summer was to call for QE4...he panicked because his portfolio was threatened...but claimed that he was only worried about workers!

          Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to reason... December 18, 2015 at 10:57 AM

          It does not seem reasonable or
          fair to pay practically no interest
          on savings, which is a consequence
          of Fed policy.

          A consequence of this is that people
          go into risky investments that lead
          to catastrophe, sometimes widespread.

          If the goal was to get people to spend
          (i.e. consume) more, it seems that they
          are persistently & stubbornly frugal.

          Chris Herbert said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... December 18, 2015 at 02:31 PM

          Rising stock prices allow corporations to raise debt, because the stock is put up as collateral. This makes funding easier, but it doesn't favor any particular purpose of the funding. It could be to buy back stock, for example. Said buy back can raise the stock price even more, which in turn can pay off the borrowing. Didn't cost a dime.

          sanjait said in reply to reason...

          Let me be the fourth person to compliment that comment.

          "leverage doesn't just magnify the gains, it magnifies the losses as well - what really counts is expectations regardless of nominal interest rates."

          QFT!

          The one hypothetical caveat (as BINY alluded to, knowingly or not) is that expectations often get out of whack based on momentum trading. So hypothetically, lowering rates could possibly feed that.

          But guess what? Rates are already at zero. They can't go lower. It's not even a question of lowering rates, but rather whether to keep them where they are. So a bubbles-from-monetary-fed-momentum argument falls completely flat. We've been at zero for 7 years now!

          reason said...

          It always seem to me that right wing economists credit businessmen with superhuman foresight and sophistication, except when it comes to the actions of the Fed and then something addles their brains and they become completely stupid. As I once put, it seems investors can't understand what the Fed is doing, even though they tell you.

          Sanjait said in reply to reason...

          That's it exactly. Markets are efficient, unless the government does anything, and then markets lose their minds and it's the government's fault.

          And somehow the RW economists see no problem with this model

          DeDude said in reply to Sanjait...

          Here is how they evaluate models: Good model; one that reaches the "right" good conclusions. Bad model; one that ends up saying stuff nobody should believe in.
          likbez said in reply to Sanjait...
          "Markets are efficient, unless the government does anything"

          This is a dangerous neoliberal dogma. Total lie.

          === quote ===
          The efficient market hypothesis (EMH) is a flavor of economic Lysenkoism which became popular for the last 30 years in the USA. It is a pseudo scientific theory or, in more politically correct terms, unrealistic idealization of market behavior. Like classic Lysenkoism in the past was supported by Stalin's totalitarian state, it was supported by the power of neoliberal state, which is the state captured by financial oligarchy (see Casino Capitalism and Quiet coup for more details).

          Among the factors ignored by EMH is the positive feedback loop inherent in any system based on factional reserve banking, the level of market players ignorance, unequal access to the real information about the markets, the level of brainwashing performed on "lemmings" by controlled by elite MSM and market manipulation by the largest players and the state.

          Economics, it is said, is the study of scarcity. There is, however, one thing that certainly isn't scarce, but which deserves the attention of economists - ignorance.
          ...Conventional economics analyses how individuals choose - maybe rationally, maybe not - from a range of options. But this raises the question: how do they know what these options are? Many feasible - even optimum - options might not occur to them. This fact has some important implications. ...
          Slightly simplifying, we can say that (financial) markets are mainly efficient in separation of fools and their money... And efficient market hypothesis mostly bypasses important question about how the inequity of resources which inevitably affects the outcomes of market participants. For example, the level of education of market players is one aspect of the inequity of resources. Herd behavior is another important, but overlooked in EMH factor.

          http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Financial_skeptic/Casino_capitalism/Pseudo_theories/Permanent_equilibrium_fallacy/Efficient_market_hypothesys/index.shtml

          Peter K. said in reply to reason...

          And/or the markets are telling the Fed something, like they don't believe the Fed's forecasts about growth and inflation and are betting otherwise, but the hawks at the Fed dismiss the markets and say we need to raise rates now.

          It's all very convenient reasoning about markets.

          Vile Content said...

          "
          constant repetition, especially in captive media, keeps this imaginary history in circulation no matter how often it is shown to be false.
          "
          ~~pK~

          ... ... ...

          anne said...

          http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/23/shorts-subject/

          November 23, 2015

          Shorts Subject
          By Paul Krugman

          Last night I was invited to a screening of "The Big Short," which I thought was terrific; who knew that collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps could be made into an edge-of-your-seat narrative (with great acting)?

          But there was one shortcut the narrative took, which was understandable and possibly necessary, but still worth noting.

          In the film, various eccentrics and oddballs make the discovery that subprime-backed securities are garbage, which is pretty much what happened; but this is wrapped together with their realization that there was a massive housing bubble, which is presented as equally contrary to anything anyone respectable was saying. And that's not quite right.

          It's true that Greenspan and others were busy denying the very possibility of a housing bubble. And it's also true that anyone suggesting that such a bubble existed was attacked furiously - "You're only saying that because you hate Bush!" Still, there were a number of economic analysts making the case for a massive bubble. Here's Dean Baker in 2002. * Bill McBride (Calculated Risk) was on the case early and very effectively. I keyed off Baker and McBride, arguing for a bubble in 2004 and making my big statement about the analytics in 2005, ** that is, if anything a bit earlier than most of the events in the film. I'm still fairly proud of that piece, by the way, because I think I got it very right by emphasizing the importance of breaking apart regional trends.

          So the bubble itself was something number crunchers could see without delving into the details of mortgage-backed securities, traveling around Florida, or any of the other drama shown in the film. In fact, I'd say that the housing bubble of the mid-2000s was the most obvious thing I've ever seen, and that the refusal of so many people to acknowledge the possibility was a dramatic illustration of motivated reasoning at work.

          The financial superstructure built on the bubble was something else; I was clueless about that, and didn't see the financial crisis coming at all.

          * http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/housing_2002_08.pdf

          ** http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/that-hissing-sound.html

          anne said in reply to anne...

          http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/16/opinion/mind-the-gap.html

          August 16, 2002

          Mind the Gap
          By PAUL KRUGMAN

          More and more people are using the B-word about the housing market. A recent analysis * by Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic Policy Research, makes a particularly compelling case for a housing bubble. House prices have run well ahead of rents, suggesting that people are now buying houses for speculation rather than merely for shelter. And the explanations one hears for those high prices sound more and more like the rationalizations one heard for Nasdaq 5,000.

          If we do have a housing bubble, and it bursts, we'll be looking a lot too Japanese for comfort....

          * http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/housing_2002_08.pdf

          anne said in reply to anne...

          http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/that-hissing-sound.html

          August 8, 2005

          That Hissing Sound
          By PAUL KRUGMAN

          This is the way the bubble ends: not with a pop, but with a hiss.

          Housing prices move much more slowly than stock prices. There are no Black Mondays, when prices fall 23 percent in a day. In fact, prices often keep rising for a while even after a housing boom goes bust.

          So the news that the U.S. housing bubble is over won't come in the form of plunging prices; it will come in the form of falling sales and rising inventory, as sellers try to get prices that buyers are no longer willing to pay. And the process may already have started.

          Of course, some people still deny that there's a housing bubble. Let me explain how we know that they're wrong.

          One piece of evidence is the sense of frenzy about real estate, which irresistibly brings to mind the stock frenzy of 1999. Even some of the players are the same. The authors of the 1999 best seller "Dow 36,000" are now among the most vocal proponents of the view that there is no housing bubble.

          Then there are the numbers. Many bubble deniers point to average prices for the country as a whole, which look worrisome but not totally crazy. When it comes to housing, however, the United States is really two countries, Flatland and the Zoned Zone.

          In Flatland, which occupies the middle of the country, it's easy to build houses. When the demand for houses rises, Flatland metropolitan areas, which don't really have traditional downtowns, just sprawl some more. As a result, housing prices are basically determined by the cost of construction. In Flatland, a housing bubble can't even get started.

          But in the Zoned Zone, which lies along the coasts, a combination of high population density and land-use restrictions - hence "zoned" - makes it hard to build new houses. So when people become willing to spend more on houses, say because of a fall in mortgage rates, some houses get built, but the prices of existing houses also go up. And if people think that prices will continue to rise, they become willing to spend even more, driving prices still higher, and so on. In other words, the Zoned Zone is prone to housing bubbles.

          And Zoned Zone housing prices, which have risen much faster than the national average, clearly point to a bubble....

          EMichael said in reply to anne...

          Yeah, the only thing he missed was the timing of the collapse.

          The day he wrote this the Fed had already raised rates 250% in one year, on the way to a total of 400% in the next 6 months.

          Yet prices accelerated until the top was reached a year after the column.

          anne said in reply to EMichael...

          http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/opinion/25krugman.html

          August 25, 2006

          Housing Gets Ugly
          By PAUL KRUGMAN

          Bubble, bubble, Toll's in trouble. This week, Toll Brothers, the nation's premier builder of McMansions, announced that sales were way off, profits were down, and the company was walking away from already-purchased options on land for future development.

          Toll's announcement was one of many indications that the long-feared housing bust has arrived. Home sales are down sharply; home prices, which rose 57 percent over the past five years (and much more than that along the coasts), are now falling in much of the country. The inventory of unsold existing homes is at a 13-year high; builders' confidence is at a 15-year low.

          A year ago, Robert Toll, who runs Toll Brothers, was euphoric about the housing boom, declaring: "We've got the supply, and the market has got the demand. So it's a match made in heaven." In a New York Times profile of his company published last October, he dismissed worries about a possible bust. "Why can't real estate just have a boom like every other industry?" he asked. "Why do we have to have a bubble and then a pop?"

          The current downturn, Mr. Toll now says, is unlike anything he's seen: sales are slumping despite the absence of any "macroeconomic nasty condition" taking housing down along with the rest of the economy. He suggests that unease about the direction of the country and the war in Iraq is undermining confidence. All I have to say is: pop! ...

          EMichael said in reply to anne...

          "Mr. Toll now says, is unlike anything he's seen: sales are slumping despite the absence of any "macroeconomic nasty condition""

          You gotta love builders and RE agents. It wasn't macro that caused it, it was default rates across the board on supposedly safe investments that caused mortgage money supply to totally disappear.

          One day people will understand that payments are the key to all finance.

          JohnH said...

          "and it is an outrage that basically nobody ended up being punished ."

          Yes, indeed. And who do we have to blame for that? Obama and Holder, of course. They made the investigation of mortgage securities fraud DOJ's lowest priority. Krugman's Democratic proclivities prevent him from stating the obvious.

          I' m sure that pgl and his band of merry Obamabots will try to spin this in Obama's favor...I.e. Congress prevented him from implementing the law, even though Congress has nothing to do with it.

          Fact is, Obama has intentionally been a lame duck ever since he took office. He was even clueless on how to capitalize on a filibuster-proof majority in the midst of an economic crisis...which brings us to Trump. Many are so desperate for leadership after Obama's hollow presidency that they'll even support a racist demagogue to avoid another empty White House.

          JohnH said in reply to anne...

          Oh, please...Krugman could barely criticize Obama, even when Obama introduced an austerity budget back in 2011.

          The tendency of people like Krugman to overlook Democrats' bad behavior only encourages more bad behavior. If Krugman really cared about the policies he champions, he would let the chips fall wherever...and not let empty suits like Obama get away with austerity and failure to enforce the law when Wall Street willfully violates it.

          pgl said in reply to JohnH...

          Did you forgot to read the post before firing off your usual hate filled fact free rant? Here - let me help you out:

          "some members of the new commission had a different goal. George Santayana famously remarked that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." What he didn't point out was that some people want to repeat the past - and that such people have an interest in making sure that we don't remember what happened, or that we remember it wrong. Sure enough, some commission members sought to block consideration of any historical account that might support efforts to rein in runaway bankers."

          It seems Krugman indeed bashed how the government sort of let this crooks off the hook. We know you have an insane hatred for President Obama. But do you also hate your poor mom? Why else would you continue to write such incredibly stupid things?

          JohnH said in reply to pgl...

          As I expected, rationalizations for Obama's refusal to enforce the law...since when does the buck no longer stop at the White House? And what's with trying to defend people who refuse to do their job and uphold the rule of law?

          pgl said in reply to JohnH...

          Krugman did not rationalize that. Neither have I.

          Either you know you are lying or you flunked preK reading.

          JohnH said in reply to pgl...

          Of course pgl rationalizs Obama's failures...he spent a lot of time denying that Obama introduced and signed off on austerity...and that he proposed cutting Social Security. And now he can't admit that Obama and Holder have refused to defend the rule of law by not prosecuting...or even seriously investigating...Wall Street criminality.

          RGC said in reply to William...

          Prosecutions don't require congressional action.

          Most of the New Deal was accomplished in 100 days.

          Promotion by a president can galvanize action.

          pgl said in reply to EMichael...

          The lack of prosecutions was a bad thing. Of course any prosecutor would tell you putting rich people in jail for anything is often difficult. Rich people get to hire expensive, talented, and otherwise slimy defense attorneys. I have to laugh at the idea that JohnH thinks he could have pulled this off. The slimy defense attorneys would have had his lunch before the judge's gavel could come down.

          JohnH said in reply to pgl...

          Obama could have at least made the investigations a high priority...but he let Holder, a Wall Street attorney, consign them to the lowest.

          pgl is intent on explaining away Obama's failure to enforce the law...thereby encouraging more lawlessness.

          JohnH said in reply to William...

          Democrats' filibuster-proof majority consisted of 58 Democrats and two independents who caucused with them. Only an inept President and Senate majority leader could have failed to take advantage of such a majority to implement significant parts of the party platform. Even Lieberman had a good record on many issues. Except for ACA, it turned out to be a do-nothing Congress, reflecting an abject lack of leadership...which is why many are so desperate for leadership. Having lacked it for seven years, many are willing to turn to anybody, even Trump, to provide it. Pathetic!

          RGC said in reply to William...

          No vitriol, just facts. And Obama had the example of FDR to follow - why didn't he follow it? I have been deeply disappointed in Obama.

          JohnH said in reply to pgl...

          pgl conveniently forgets my choice words about Bill Clinton, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. What I object to is Democrats who position themselves to sound like FDR and then prosecute a neo-liberal agenda.

          Gullible folks like pgl and his coterie believe what these Democrats say and waste our time defending their neoliberal behavior.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          The Blowback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          The Dollar Bloc's Financial Iron Curtain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          ... .... ....

          RabidGandhi December 18, 2015 at 9:16 am

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

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

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

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

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

          Dino Reno December 18, 2015 at 9:48 am

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

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

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

          Nick December 18, 2015 at 10:15 am

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

          Alejandro December 18, 2015 at 10:41 am

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

          OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL December 18, 2015 at 2:50 pm

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

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

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

          global123 December 18, 2015 at 9:47 am

          stellar article michael hudson

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

          camelotkidd December 18, 2015 at 9:49 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          SocietalIllusions December 18, 2015 at 11:17 am

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

          The game of brinksmanship continues…

          Jim Haygood December 18, 2015 at 11:18 am

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

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

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

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

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

          Steven December 18, 2015 at 1:56 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          [Dec 20, 2015] Paul Krugman: The Big Short, Housing Bubbles and Retold Lies

          Notable quotes:
          "... I get the feeling that if doing a film review of The Force Awakens , most economists would be rooting for the Empire to win - after all the empire will bring free trade within its borders, like the EU. ..."
          "... In market fundamentalist world, markets dont fail. They can only be failed. Though its still not clear how they think a little bit of government incentive for loans to low income borrowers caused the entire financial sector to lose its mind wrt CDOs. ..."
          "... The distribution of the use of credit between pure financial speculation and productive investment is not a function of interest rates, but of things like bank culture, bank regulation and macro-economic and technological prospects. ..."
          "... ....Supervising regulators need to look carefully at the ratio of credit used for financial trading compared to credit used for what weve called real-economy matters. They should adjust the level of monitoring based on this view while they also inform policy makers including those in the legislature. ..."
          "... except that a significant chunk of institutional investors have sticky nominal targets for return thanks to the politics of return expectation setting (true for pension fund and endowments) -- low interest rates do encourage chasing phantoms or looking to extract some rents, for those subject to that kind of pressure ..."
          "... The relationship between low interest rates and bubbles has nothing to do with the above. Low interest rates RAISE asset prices. Through the magic of low discount rates, the future earnings and cash flows are worth a lot higher today. This is why Bernanke cut rates and kept them low. Raising asset prices and the resultant higher net worth was supposed to lead to higher spending today. But outsized returns also attracts speculation. what is so difficult to understand? John Williams of SF Fed has shown how positive returns in asset markets raises the speculators expected returns. when this dynamic gets out of control, it is a bubble. ..."
          "... Yes, indeed. And who do we have to blame for that? Obama and Holder, of course. They made the investigation of mortgage securities fraud DOJs lowest priority. Krugmans Democratic proclivities prevent him from stating the obvious. ..."
          "... Fact is, Obama has intentionally been a lame duck ever since he took office. He was even clueless on how to capitalize on a filibuster-proof majority in the midst of an economic crisis...which brings us to Trump. Many are so desperate for leadership after Obamas hollow presidency that theyll even support a racist demagogue to avoid another empty White House. ..."
          "... Yes you are correct. From 2001 into 2008 when all of the liar and ninja loans were being made, not one government official stepped forward to investigate the possibility of fraud, the predatory lending, the misrepresentation of loans taking place, the loans with teaser rates which later ballooned, the packing of loans with deceptive fees, the illegal kick backs, etc. Not one. To make matters worst, the administration from 2001-2008 aligned itself with the banks along with the maestro hisself Greenspan. ..."
          "... When state AGs took on the burden of investigating the flagrant violations, the administration moves to block them saying they had no jurisdiction to do so. It did this through the OCC issuing rules preventing the states from prosecuting the banks. Besides blocking any investigation, the OCC failed in its mission to audit the banks for which it was by law to do. ..."
          economistsview.typepad.com

          Why are Murdoch-controlled newspapers attacking "The Big Short?"

          'The Big Short,' Housing Bubbles and Retold Lies, by Paul krugman, Commentary, NY Times: In May 2009 Congress created a special commission to examine the causes of the financial crisis. The idea was to emulate the celebrated Pecora Commission of the 1930s, which used careful historical analysis to help craft regulations that gave America two generations of financial stability.

          But some members of the new commission had a different goal. ... Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute, wrote to a fellow Republican on the commission ... it was important that what they said "not undermine the ability of the new House G.O.P. to modify or repeal Dodd-Frank"...; the party line, literally, required telling stories that would help Wall Street do it all over again.

          Which brings me to a new movie the enemies of financial regulation really, really don't want you to see.

          "The Big Short" ... does a terrific job of making Wall Street skulduggery entertaining, of exploiting the inherent black humor of how it went down. ... But you don't want me to play film critic; you want to know whether the movie got the underlying ... story right. And the answer is yes, in all the ways that matter. ...

          The ...housing ... bubble ... was inflated largely via opaque financial schemes that in many cases amounted to outright fraud - and it is an outrage that basically nobody ended up being punished ... aside from innocent bystanders, namely the millions of workers who lost their jobs and the millions of families that lost their homes.

          While the movie gets the essentials of the financial crisis right, the true story ... is deeply inconvenient to some very rich and powerful people. They and their intellectual hired guns have therefore spent years disseminating an alternative view ... that places all the blame ... on ... too much government, especially government-sponsored agencies supposedly pushing too many loans on the poor.

          Never mind that the supposed evidence for this view has been thoroughly debunked..., constant repetition, especially in captive media, keeps this imaginary history in circulation no matter how often it is shown to be false.

          Sure enough, "The Big Short" has already been the subject of vitriolic attacks in Murdoch-controlled newspapers...

          The ... people who made "The Big Short" should consider the attacks a kind of compliment: The attackers obviously worry that the film is entertaining enough that it will expose a large audience to the truth. Let's hope that their fears are justified.

          btg said in reply to pgl...

          I get the feeling that if doing a film review of "The Force Awakens", most economists would be rooting for the Empire to win - after all the empire will bring free trade within its borders, like the EU. Krugman would not, however.

          Sanjait said...

          In market fundamentalist world, markets don't fail. They can only be failed. Though it's still not clear how they think a little bit of government incentive for loans to low income borrowers caused the entire financial sector to lose its mind wrt CDOs.

          Are markets efficient or not? I feel like the fundiesndont really have a coherent explanation for what happened, other than insisting the government somehow did it.

          reason said...

          I wish Krugman would attack the view that is being propagated at the moment that low nominal interest rates (it seems irrespective of the reason for them) foster bubbles. It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense - leverage doesn't just magnify the gains, it magnifies the losses as well - what really counts is expectations regardless of nominal interest rates.)

          The distribution of the use of credit between pure financial speculation and productive investment is not a function of interest rates, but of things like bank culture, bank regulation and macro-economic and technological prospects.

          reason said... December 18, 2015 at 02:32 AM

          It always seem to me that right wing economists credit businessmen with superhuman foresight and sophistication, except when it comes to the actions of the Fed and then something addles their brains and they become completely stupid. As I once put, it seems investors can't understand what the Fed is doing, even though they tell you.

          Sanjait said in reply to reason... December 18, 2015 at 08:06 AM

          That's it exactly. Markets are efficient, unless the government does anything, and then markets lose their minds and it's the government's fault.

          And somehow the RW economists see no problem with this model

          DeDude said in reply to Sanjait... December 18, 2015 at 08:18 AM

          Here is how they evaluate models:

          Good model; one that reaches the "right" good conclusions. Bad model; one that ends up saying stuff nobody should believe in.

          likbez said in reply to Sanjait...

          "Markets are efficient, unless the government does anything"

          This is a dangerous neoliberal dogma. Total lie.

          === quote ===
          The efficient market hypothesis (EMH) is a flavor of economic Lysenkoism which became popular for the last 30 years in the USA. It is a pseudo scientific theory or, in more politically correct terms, unrealistic idealization of market behavior. Like classic Lysenkoism in the past was supported by Stalin's totalitarian state, it was supported by the power of neoliberal state, which is the state captured by financial oligarchy (see Casino Capitalism and Quiet coup for more details).

          Among the factors ignored by EMH is the positive feedback loop inherent in any system based on factional reserve banking, the level of market players ignorance, unequal access to the real information about the markets, the level of brainwashing performed on "lemmings" by controlled by elite MSM and market manipulation by the largest players and the state.

          Economics, it is said, is the study of scarcity. There is, however, one thing that certainly isn't scarce, but which deserves the attention of economists - ignorance.
          ...Conventional economics analyses how individuals choose - maybe rationally, maybe not - from a range of options. But this raises the question: how do they know what these options are? Many feasible - even optimum - options might not occur to them. This fact has some important implications. ...
          Slightly simplifying, we can say that (financial) markets are mainly efficient in separation of fools and their money... And efficient market hypothesis mostly bypasses important question about how the inequity of resources which inevitably affects the outcomes of market participants. For example, the level of education of market players is one aspect of the inequity of resources. Herd behavior is another important, but overlooked in EMH factor.

          http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Financial_skeptic/Casino_capitalism/Pseudo_theories/Permanent_equilibrium_fallacy/Efficient_market_hypothesys/index.shtml

          JF said in reply to reason...

          Great comment. I especially liked this point: "The distribution of the use of credit between pure financial speculation and productive investment is not a function of"

          ....Supervising regulators need to look carefully at the ratio of credit used for financial trading compared to credit used for what we've called real-economy matters. They should adjust the level of monitoring based on this view while they also inform policy makers including those in the legislature.

          There may be an opportunity in 2017 to revise the statutes so the public plainly says what the rules of Commerce are in these financial 'inter-mediation' areas - society is better served if more of such credit offerings go to investments in the real economy where inputs are real things like employees, supplies, equipment/technologies. The public's law can effect this change.

          david said in reply to JF...

          except that a significant chunk of institutional investors have sticky nominal targets for return thanks to the politics of return expectation setting (true for pension fund and endowments) -- low interest rates do encourage chasing phantoms or looking to extract some rents, for those subject to that kind of pressure

          BenIsNotYoda said in reply to reason...

          "The distribution of the use of credit between pure financial speculation and productive investment is not a function of interest rates, but of things like bank culture, bank regulation and macro-economic and technological prospects."

          The relationship between low interest rates and bubbles has nothing to do with the above. Low interest rates RAISE asset prices. Through the magic of low discount rates, the future earnings and cash flows are worth a lot higher today. This is why Bernanke cut rates and kept them low. Raising asset prices and the resultant higher net worth was supposed to lead to higher spending today. But outsized returns also attracts speculation. what is so difficult to understand? John Williams of SF Fed has shown how positive returns in asset markets raises the speculator's expected returns. when this dynamic gets out of control, it is a bubble.

          Sanjait said in reply to BenIsNotYoda...

          It's hard to see how to your claim that expected returns are high when earnings yields across the board are historically low.

          BenIsNotYoda said in reply to Sanjait...

          That is exactly the point. Expected returns in stocks have nothing to do with earnings growth.

          http://www.frbsf.org/our-district/press/presidents-speeches/williams-speeches/2013/september/asset-price-bubbles-tomorrow-yesterday-never-today/

          Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to reason...

          It does not seem reasonable or fair to pay practically no interest on savings, which is a consequence of Fed policy. A consequence of this is that people go into risky investments that lead to catastrophe, sometimes widespread. If the goal was to get people to spend (i.e. consume) more, it seems that they are persistently & stubbornly frugal.

          anne, December 18, 2015 at 06:37 AM

          http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/23/shorts-subject/

          November 23, 2015

          Shorts Subject
          By Paul Krugman

          Last night I was invited to a screening of "The Big Short," which I thought was terrific; who knew that collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps could be made into an edge-of-your-seat narrative (with great acting)?

          But there was one shortcut the narrative took, which was understandable and possibly necessary, but still worth noting.

          In the film, various eccentrics and oddballs make the discovery that subprime-backed securities are garbage, which is pretty much what happened; but this is wrapped together with their realization that there was a massive housing bubble, which is presented as equally contrary to anything anyone respectable was saying. And that's not quite right.

          It's true that Greenspan and others were busy denying the very possibility of a housing bubble. And it's also true that anyone suggesting that such a bubble existed was attacked furiously - "You're only saying that because you hate Bush!" Still, there were a number of economic analysts making the case for a massive bubble. Here's Dean Baker in 2002. * Bill McBride (Calculated Risk) was on the case early and very effectively. I keyed off Baker and McBride, arguing for a bubble in 2004 and making my big statement about the analytics in 2005, ** that is, if anything a bit earlier than most of the events in the film. I'm still fairly proud of that piece, by the way, because I think I got it very right by emphasizing the importance of breaking apart regional trends.

          So the bubble itself was something number crunchers could see without delving into the details of mortgage-backed securities, traveling around Florida, or any of the other drama shown in the film. In fact, I'd say that the housing bubble of the mid-2000s was the most obvious thing I've ever seen, and that the refusal of so many people to acknowledge the possibility was a dramatic illustration of motivated reasoning at work.

          The financial superstructure built on the bubble was something else; I was clueless about that, and didn't see the financial crisis coming at all.

          * http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/housing_2002_08.pdf

          ** http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/that-hissing-sound.html

          anne said in reply to anne... December 18, 2015 at 06:43 AM

          http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/16/opinion/mind-the-gap.html

          August 16, 2002

          Mind the Gap
          By PAUL KRUGMAN

          More and more people are using the B-word about the housing market. A recent analysis * by Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic Policy Research, makes a particularly compelling case for a housing bubble. House prices have run well ahead of rents, suggesting that people are now buying houses for speculation rather than merely for shelter. And the explanations one hears for those high prices sound more and more like the rationalizations one heard for Nasdaq 5,000.

          If we do have a housing bubble, and it bursts, we'll be looking a lot too Japanese for comfort....

          * http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/housing_2002_08.pdf

          anne said in reply to anne... December 18, 2015 at 06:44 AM

          http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/that-hissing-sound.html

          August 8, 2005

          That Hissing Sound
          By PAUL KRUGMAN

          This is the way the bubble ends: not with a pop, but with a hiss.

          Housing prices move much more slowly than stock prices. There are no Black Mondays, when prices fall 23 percent in a day. In fact, prices often keep rising for a while even after a housing boom goes bust.

          So the news that the U.S. housing bubble is over won't come in the form of plunging prices; it will come in the form of falling sales and rising inventory, as sellers try to get prices that buyers are no longer willing to pay. And the process may already have started.

          Of course, some people still deny that there's a housing bubble. Let me explain how we know that they're wrong.

          One piece of evidence is the sense of frenzy about real estate, which irresistibly brings to mind the stock frenzy of 1999. Even some of the players are the same. The authors of the 1999 best seller "Dow 36,000" are now among the most vocal proponents of the view that there is no housing bubble.

          Then there are the numbers. Many bubble deniers point to average prices for the country as a whole, which look worrisome but not totally crazy. When it comes to housing, however, the United States is really two countries, Flatland and the Zoned Zone.

          In Flatland, which occupies the middle of the country, it's easy to build houses. When the demand for houses rises, Flatland metropolitan areas, which don't really have traditional downtowns, just sprawl some more. As a result, housing prices are basically determined by the cost of construction. In Flatland, a housing bubble can't even get started.

          But in the Zoned Zone, which lies along the coasts, a combination of high population density and land-use restrictions - hence "zoned" - makes it hard to build new houses. So when people become willing to spend more on houses, say because of a fall in mortgage rates, some houses get built, but the prices of existing houses also go up. And if people think that prices will continue to rise, they become willing to spend even more, driving prices still higher, and so on. In other words, the Zoned Zone is prone to housing bubbles.

          And Zoned Zone housing prices, which have risen much faster than the national average, clearly point to a bubble....

          EMichael said in reply to anne... December 18, 2015 at 06:59 AM

          Yeah, the only thing he missed was the timing of the collapse. The day he wrote this the Fed had already raised rates 250% in one year, on the way to a total of 400% in the next 6 months.

          Yet prices accelerated until the top was reached a year after the column.

          anne said in reply to EMichael... December 18, 2015 at 07:43 AM

          http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/opinion/25krugman.html

          August 25, 2006

          Housing Gets Ugly
          By PAUL KRUGMAN

          Bubble, bubble, Toll's in trouble. This week, Toll Brothers, the nation's premier builder of McMansions, announced that sales were way off, profits were down, and the company was walking away from already-purchased options on land for future development.

          Toll's announcement was one of many indications that the long-feared housing bust has arrived. Home sales are down sharply; home prices, which rose 57 percent over the past five years (and much more than that along the coasts), are now falling in much of the country. The inventory of unsold existing homes is at a 13-year high; builders' confidence is at a 15-year low.

          A year ago, Robert Toll, who runs Toll Brothers, was euphoric about the housing boom, declaring: "We've got the supply, and the market has got the demand. So it's a match made in heaven." In a New York Times profile of his company published last October, he dismissed worries about a possible bust. "Why can't real estate just have a boom like every other industry?" he asked. "Why do we have to have a bubble and then a pop?"

          The current downturn, Mr. Toll now says, is unlike anything he's seen: sales are slumping despite the absence of any "macroeconomic nasty condition" taking housing down along with the rest of the economy. He suggests that unease about the direction of the country and the war in Iraq is undermining confidence. All I have to say is: pop! ...

          EMichael said in reply to anne... December 18, 2015 at 07:52 AM

          "Mr. Toll now says, is unlike anything he's seen: sales are slumping despite the absence of any "macroeconomic nasty condition""

          You gotta love builders and RE agents. It wasn't macro that caused it, it was default rates across the board on supposedly safe investments that caused mortgage money supply to totally disappear.

          One day people will understand that payments are the key to all finance.

          JohnH said...

          "and it is an outrage that basically nobody ended up being punished ."

          Yes, indeed. And who do we have to blame for that? Obama and Holder, of course. They made the investigation of mortgage securities fraud DOJ's lowest priority. Krugman's Democratic proclivities prevent him from stating the obvious.

          I' m sure that pgl and his band of merry Obamabots will try to spin this in Obama's favor...I.e. Congress prevented him from implementing the law, even though Congress has nothing to do with it.

          Fact is, Obama has intentionally been a lame duck ever since he took office. He was even clueless on how to capitalize on a filibuster-proof majority in the midst of an economic crisis...which brings us to Trump. Many are so desperate for leadership after Obama's hollow presidency that they'll even support a racist demagogue to avoid another empty White House.

          run75441 said in reply to JohnH...

          Yes you are correct. From 2001 into 2008 when all of the liar and ninja loans were being made, not one government official stepped forward to investigate the possibility of fraud, the predatory lending, the misrepresentation of loans taking place, the loans with "teaser" rates which later ballooned, the packing of loans with deceptive fees, the illegal kick backs, etc. Not one. To make matters worst, the administration from 2001-2008 aligned itself with the banks along with the maestro hisself "Greenspan."

          When state AGs took on the burden of investigating the flagrant violations, the administration moves to block them saying they had no jurisdiction to do so. It did this through the OCC issuing rules preventing the states from prosecuting the banks. Besides blocking any investigation, the OCC failed in its mission to audit the banks for which it was by law to do.

          What was the SEC doing during this time period? What was the administration doing with Enron in 2002? Didn't Cheney get sued by the GAO to find out who he was talking to at Enron?

          Yes there is the matter of not prosecuting banking execs after 2008; however, the issue was allowed to grow during the prior administration and left on the next administration's doorstep. Closing the barn door after the perps have escaped is a bit late and it should have been stopped dead in its tracks during the prior 8 years.

          So keep going down that path and we can also talk about fraud with tranching, CDS, Naked CDs, reserves, etc.

          So, where was the administration during this time period?

          DeDude said...

          Subprime loans in poor communities represented a very small fraction of the total subprime volume and defaulted loans. I mean talk about the mouse and the elephant. Yet the FoxBots are being convinced to look at those scary mice and all that thundering noise they are making.

          Alex H said in reply to Peter K....
          In the book, one of the supposed villains went to the division of AIG that was selling CDSes (i.e. "insuring" the toxic crap) and explained to a direct subordinate of the division exactly how his bank and the other companies of Wall Street were suckering them into taking on absurd risks. In *2005*.

          Because he was massively short in this market, and AIG pulling the plug would have popped the bubble. Nobody else was selling CDSes (then), and Wall Street couldn't have pretended that their risks were covered without them. That doesn't make him a hero, but seriously, if AIG had listened, no collapse.

          Several of the characters effectively called up the ratings agencies to shout at them. Others called NYT and WSJ reporters, who ignored them. Then they called the SEC's enforcement division, who ignored them.

          Besides, if the other side in all of those bets were foreign "widows and orphans", then it wouldn't have wrecked the financial system. If Bear Stearns had been sitting as the middleman between a Korean pension fund and Steve Eisman, they'd have just taken their cut and moved on.

          [Dec 19, 2015] Russia opens black box of jet downed by Turkey

          Notable quotes:
          "... I believe it was not there on patrol, but specifically to shoot the Russian plane down and come back ..."
          "... Although I believe the Turkish map, I still think the Turks proved themselves on the side of the terrorists. ..."
          "... Crossing that strip of Turkish territory by a friendly plane should not have been reason for shooting it down, only a PRETEXT. That may be the reason why the plane was shot down, because the Russians were not expecting the Turks to shoot at them. ..."
          news.yahoo.com

          Mister 2 hours ago 0

          [The air force commander said 14 countries had been invited to monitor the (Russian) investigation but only China and Britain had accepted the official offer]

          Shameful.

          Shelly Winters 1 day ago 5

          Not sure what information this "black box" contains, but CVR's and FDR's in most all aircraft (especially commercial jetliners) records only what the flight crew says in the cockpit and what operational parameters the aircraft experienced i.e. throttle settings, aileron positions, pitch, etc. It's questionable if the downed fighter aircraft's actual flight path would be stored internally in any such device, especially a fighter aircraft operating in hostile airspace. This data the Russians claim to have, if it really exists, could be certainly manipulated. The only true data for flight path would be a ground radar tape pulled from two different locations in the area.

          James

          I said it before, I believe the radar map the Turks showed with the paths was correct. And here are the military, but also their Religious reasons.

          "War of the maps: Turkey released a map showing where Russia violated its airspace, and Russia countered"

          /finance[dot]yahoo[dot]com/news/war-maps-turkey-released-map-210422386.html

          You can see there is a very narrow strip of Turkish territory, about a mile wide, protruding deep into the Syrian territory. I don't know exactly the frequency of the sweep of the Turkish radar, but still, looking at the distances between dots, you can figure out the speed. The time to cross the Turkish strip must have been no longer than 20seconds, my initial estimate was 8, the Turks later said 17, but that's not important. The Russian plane is seen to make a wide circle near the Syrian border, flying much below it's maximum speed, probably looking for terrorist bases and convoys, and which circles crossed that limb. It was flying slow and probably low, and in circles, to get a good look. During the next cycle, I do believe the Turks warned it while flying over Syria, 10 times during 5' not to cross that 1 mile strip again. The Russian Su-24 bomber is seen heading for the strip the second time. Notice the Su-24 is a bomber not a dog-fighter like the F-16 and it's older. And there were two F-16's. The Turkish map shows only one path though. But the Russian maps shows only one too! On the Turkish map though, the F-16 is seen lurking in the air, and at some point accelerated sharply, approaching very close and very fast, probably in full afterburner, which is specifically reserved for attack.

          I believe it was not there on patrol, but specifically to shoot the Russian plane down and come back. At (probably) the same time, the Russian path is seen with a very sharp small quirk. A sort of a mini-loop. I am sure they were trying to avoid incoming missiles. Their plane got hit, and it is seen trying to accelerate, probably to flee, and then the record ends.

          HOWEVER ----------------- Although I believe the Turkish map, I still think the Turks proved themselves on the side of the terrorists.

          After all, if the Russian plane was trying to get rid of the terrorists at the Turkish border, and no HONEST state wants terrorists at it's border, and the Russians were trying to do the "dirty job" of getting rid of them, Turkey should have been glad the Russians are helping them. But the fact they shot the Russian plane down, proves Turkey is harboring and abetting terrorists, if not recruits and send them itself.

          Crossing that strip of Turkish territory by a friendly plane should not have been reason for shooting it down, only a PRETEXT. That may be the reason why the plane was shot down, because the Russians were not expecting the Turks to shoot at them.

          So the Turks are not technically lying, but they ARE! The Russians probably did go through that miserable strip, and that's the technical truth. But Turkey is defending terrorists, and claiming it is not, that's the lie!

          There are very sharp Religious reasons why they should do that, and still show the correct map. INTERESTING.. Ever heard of Tawriyya? Let me explain it for you in short. The Koran forbids a Muslim to lie, under penalty of the white-hot fires of Hell. But.. We already know if he becomes a Martyr, all his sins including lies will be forgotten.

          But.. for a lie, you will be forgotten, if it's technically, a truth. What does that mean? Say, a Muslim has a $100 bill in his pocket. Somebody comes and asks him for a nickel. He will say: I don't have a nickel in my pockets! That's Tawriya, and Allah will have no reason to send him to Hell, because indeed he does not have a nickel in his pockets! That's a technical truth.

          Erdogan, if he were asked "Are the terrorists working for you"? He could answer "Not a single terrorist is working for me". Indeed. Not one, but thousands. Allah won't punish him for that.

          He could be asked: "Why did you shoot the plane down"? and he could answer "It was flying over our territory". He will not mention the reason was to protect his terrorists and their oil convoys. That's "Kitman". Saying half the truth. Allah won't punish him for that either.

          As for lying to the Infidels, Allah won't punish him if he does it out of fear of the Infidels. Yes, but Islam is at perpetual war with the Infidels, until they either convert or disappear from the face of the Earth by any means, so orders Allah. So being at war with ANY infidel, a Muslim can lie to an Infidel all day and all night long! BUT THEY ARE ALWAYS AT WAR WITH ALL INFIDELS, UNTIL THERE ARE NO MORE INFIDELS! SO ORDERS ALLAH! DO YOU REALIZE WHAT THAT MEANS?

          BUT THE TOUGHEST OF ALL IS THE "MURUNA" DOCTRINE. That literally explains terrorism. If you get to understand, you will be very surprised, of how you didn't know it.

          If you want to find what terrorism is, and why Erdogan himself, said "There is no moderate and extremist Islam. There is only Islam". And he knew what he was talking about, learn more. So find the MURUNA concept or doctrine. You can find a better explanation here:

          You can look on Google for this: "Knowing Four Arabic Words May Save Our Civilization from Islamic Takeover"

          And save it before it disappears.

          Remember, you won't win any battle not knowing your enemy first.

          BTW, did you know where the expression "the writing is on the wall" comes from? I's origin is also explained there.

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

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

          Algis

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

          Robert

          This is the new Globalist Business Model.

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

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

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

          Algis

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

          new_federali...

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

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

          Commenter

          Good faith? They actually mean bait and switch

          Algis

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

          RonP

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

          [Dec 19, 2015] The Enduring Relevance of "Manias, Panics, and Crashes"

          Notable quotes:
          "... Manias, Panics, and Crashes ..."
          "... The New International Money Game ..."
          "... Manias, Panics and Crashes ..."
          "... Why Minsky Matters ..."
          "... Manias, Panics and Crashes ..."
          "... Manias, Panics and Crashes ..."
          December 17, 2015 | Angry Bear

          by Joseph Joyce

          The Enduring Relevance of "Manias, Panics, and Crashes"

          The seventh edition of Manias, Panics, and Crashes has recently been published by Palgrave Macmillan. Charles Kindleberger of MIT wrote the first edition, which appeared in 1978, and followed it with three more editions. Robert Aliber of the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago took over the editing and rewriting of the fifth edition, which came out in 2005. (Aliber is also the author of another well-known book on international finance, The New International Money Game.) The continuing popularity of Manias, Panics and Crashes shows that financial crises continue to be a matter of widespread concern.

          Kindleberger built upon the work of Hyman Minsky, a faculty member at Washington University in St. Louis. Minsky was a proponent of what he called the "financial instability hypothesis," which posited that financial markets are inherently unstable. Periods of financial booms are followed by busts, and governmental intervention can delay but not eliminate crises. Minsky's work received a great deal of attention during the global financial crisis (see here and here; for a summary of Minksy's work, see Why Minsky Matters by L. Randall Wray of the University of Missouri-Kansas City and the Levy Economics Institute).

          Kindleberger provided a more detailed description of the stages of a financial crisis. The period preceding a crisis begins with a "displacement," a shock to the system. When a displacement improves the profitability of at least one sector of an economy, firms and individuals will seek to take advantage of this opportunity. The resulting demand for financial assets leads to an increase in their prices. Positive feedback in asset markets lead to more investments and financial speculation, and a period of "euphoria," or mania develops.

          At some point, however, insiders begin to take profits and withdraw from the markets. Once market participants realize that prices have peaked, flight from the markets becomes widespread. As prices plummet, a period of "revulsion" or panic ensues. Those who had financed their positions in the market by borrowing on the promise of profits on the purchased assets become insolvent. The panic ends when prices fall so far that some traders are tempted to come back into the market, or trading is limited by the authorities, or a lender of last resort intervenes to halt the decline.

          In addition to elaborating on the stages of a financial crisis, Kindleberger also placed them in an international context. He wrote about the propagation of crises through the arbitrage of divergences in the prices of assets across markets or their substitutes. Capital flows and the spread of euphoria also contribute to the simultaneous rises in asset prices in different countries. (Piero Pasotti and Alessandro Vercelli of the University of Siena provide an analysis of Kindleberger's contributions.)

          Aliber has continued to update the book, and the new edition has a chapter on the European sovereign debt crisis. (The prior edition covered the events of 2008-09.) But he has also made his own contributions to the Minsky-Kindleberger (and now –Aliber) framework. Aliber characterizes the decades since the early 1980s as "…the most tumultuous in monetary history in terms of the number, scope and severity of banking crises." To date, there have been four waves of such crises, which are almost always accompanied by currency crises. The first wave was the debt crisis of developing nations during the 1980s, and it was followed by a second wave of crises in Japan and the Nordic countries in the early 1990s. The third wave was the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, and the fourth is the global financial crisis.

          Aliber emphasizes the role of cross-border investment flows in precipitating the crises. Their volatility has risen under flexible exchange rates, which allow central banks more freedom in formulating monetary policies that influence capital allocation. He also draws attention to the increases in household wealth due to rising asset prices and currency appreciation that contribute to consumption expenditures and amplify the boom periods. The reversal in wealth once investors revise their expectations and capital begins to flow out makes the resulting downturn more acute.

          These views are consistent in many ways with those of Claudio Borio of the Bank for International Settlements (see also here). He has written that the international monetary and financial system amplifies the "excess financial elasticity," i.e., the buildup of financial imbalances that characterizes domestic financial markets. He identifies two channels of transmission. First, capital inflows contribute to the rise in domestic credit during a financial boom. The impact of global conditions on domestic financial markets exacerbates this development (see here). Second, monetary regimes may facilitate the expansion of monetary conditions from one country to others. Central bankers concerned about currency appreciation and a loss of competitiveness keep interest rates lower than they would otherwise, which furthers a domestic boom. In addition, the actions of central banks with international currencies such as the dollar has international ramifications, as the current widespread concern about the impending rise in the Federal Funds rate shows.

          Aliber ends the current edition of Manias, Panics and Crashes with an appendix on China's financial situation. He compares the surge in China's housing markets with the Japanese boom of the 1980s and subsequent bust that initiated decades of slow economic growth. An oversupply of new housing in China has resulted in a decline in prices that threatens the solvency of property developers and the banks and shadow banks that financed them. Aliber is dubious of the claim that the Chinese government will support the banks, pointing out that such support will only worsen China's indebtedness. The need for an eighth edition of Manias, Panics and Crashes may soon be apparent.

          cross posted with Capital Ebbs and Flows

          [Dec 19, 2015] Turkey Blasts Breakthrough UN Resolution On Syria It Lacks Perspective. Assad Must Go!

          Notable quotes:
          "... "Now, is there a way of us constructing a bridge, creating a political transition, that allows those who are allied with Assad right now, allows the Russians, allows the Iranians to ensure that their equities are respected, that minorities like the Alawites are not crushed or retribution is not the order of the day? I think that's going to be very important as well." ..."
          "... Seymour Hersh Links Turkey to Benghazi, Syria and Sarin ..."
          "... The assessment of the Defense Intelligence Agency is that the sarin was supplied by Turkey to elements in Ghouta with the intent of "push[ing] Obama over the red line. " Intercepted transmissions from Turkish operators in the aftermath of the attack are jubilant, and the success of their covert mission must have seemed well in hand. Obama's implicit call to war in the coming month was proof of that. ..."
          Dec 19, 2015 | Zero Hedge
          Following June elections in which AKP lost its absolute parliamentary majority thanks in part to a stronger than expected showing at the polls by the pro-Kurdish HDP, Turkish President Recip Tayyip Erdogan began to lose his mind.

          The vote put in jeopardy Erdogan's bid to effectively rewrite the country's constitution on the way to consolidating his power in an executive presidency. That decisively undesirable outcome could not stand and so Erdogan did what any respectable autocrat would do: he nullified the election. First, the President undermined the coalition building process so he could call for new elections. Next, he fanned the flames of civil war and reignited a long-simmering conflict with the PKK. The idea was to scare the electorate into believing that a "strong" AKP government was the only antidote to domestic and international terror. Finally, Erdogan cracked down on the press and anyone else critical of his rule. AKP was also suspected of covertly backing attacks on HDP offices and newspapers. Some (i.e. the PKK) went so far as to suggest that Erdogan secretly worked with Sunni extremists to orchestrate suicide bombings - in other words, there's speculation Erdogan terrorized his own people.

          Sure enough, AKP had a better showing at re-do elections last month, but by that point, Erdogan was on the fast track to dictatorial delirium. On November 24, he shot down a Russian fighter jet near the border with Syria in the first such direct military confrontation between Russia and a NATO member in at least six decades. And the madness didn't stop there. After Putin and the Russian MoD laid out their case against Ankara's role in financing Islamic State via Turkey's complicity in the group's lucrative oil trafficking business, Turkey sent hundreds of troops and around two dozen tanks to Bashiqa in Iraq which is right on the crude smuggling route. The deployment infuriated Baghdad and after Turkey refused to pull the troops out, Iraq went to the UN Security Council. Subsequently, Turkish troops were "attacked" by Islamic State.

          The Turks claim that Iraq invited them in the past, a contention Baghdad vehemently denies. Thanks to Barzani and the Kurds, Ankara gets to claim that at least someone welcomes the Turkish troop presence (remember, despite Erdogan's hatred of the PKK and the YPG, Turkey is friendly with Erbil, which relies on Turkey to get some 630,000 b/d of what is technically illegal crude to market).

          Well, for anyone who thought Turkey might be set to bow to international pressure by moving its troops north and thus back towards the Turkey-Iraq border, think again because on Saturday, Turkish PM Ahmet Davutoglu was out with a series of declarations that seem to suggest Turkey is going full-belligerent-retard as Erdogan scrambles to preserve the "Assad must go" narrative on the way to securing whatever Ankara's interests are in both Iraq and Syria.

          First, Davutoglu said that the provision of training to the Peshmerga and Mosul militiamen is "in line with a request from Iraq authorities and as such, the mission in Iraq will continue "until Mosul is freed" from ISIS.

          Ok, so two things there. The deployment is not "in line with a request from Iraq." At this point, Turkey's position has moved from comically absurd to maddeningly obstinate. How many times does Baghdad have to say that Turkey isn't invited before NATO forces Turkey to drop the "they told us we could be here" line? Further, the idea that Turkey will stay until Mosul "is liberated" from ISIS, means Erdogan plans to remain in Iraq indefinitely. As we've documented on several occasions, an operation to retake Mosul is for all intents and purposes a pipe dream and if Turkey intends to wait it out, the troops and tanks could be there for years.

          Next, Davutoglu claims that the Islamic State attacks on Turkish positions in Bashiqa prove Turkey "is right." "Right" about what, it's not clear, but what's interesting is that the attacks came just as ISIS launched its first major offensive in northern Iraq since July in a move that US officials say was likely designed to disrupt preparations for an assault on Mosul. The point: all of this is rather conveniently timed.

          Davutoglu then slammed a UN Security Council resolution agreed in New York on Friday. The meeting of foreign ministers was tipped by John Kerry in Moscow on Tuesday and when discussions ended, diplomats adopted a resolution which purports to draw a road map for ending the war in Syria. As WSJ notes, the resolution "left unresolved divisions among world powers on key issues in the conflict."

          Which "key issues", you ask? Well, the only ones that matter - namely, i) the fate of Bashar al-Assad and ii) which groups should be recognized as "terrorists" and which should be awarded the "moderate opposition" badge.

          "Both issues were left out of the resolution after an hourslong meeting of foreign ministers in New York on Friday failed to reach a compromise and at one point verged on collapse," WSJ goes on the recount, adding that "Russian and Iranian diplomats said the question of Mr. Assad wasn't discussed on Friday because neither of their countries would accept a deal that calls for Mr. Assad's exit, even at the end of a political transition period."

          As we've said on too many occasions to count, Syria is absolutely critical for Tehran when it comes to preserving Iranian influence and ensuring that the so-called "Shiite crescent" doesn't wane. For Russia, this is a chance to supplant the US as Mid-East superpower puppet master and Moscow isn't about to see it slip away by agreeing to a resolution that makes Assad's ouster a foregone conclusion.

          For Turkey, the absence of a decision on Assad's future is maddening. The Security Council resolution "lacks realistic perspective," Davutoglu said on Saturday, before adding that the "Syria crisis can only be solved if Bashar al-Assad leaves power."

          Consider that, and consider the fact that, as we reported yesterday, Ankara is now establishing a military base in Qatar in order that the two country's might work more closely on tackling "common enemies."

          What we're beginning to see here is the formation of three alliances in the Mid-East: 1) Russia, Iran, Syria, and Iraq; 2) Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar; 3) Britain, France, and Germany. The first alliance is pro-Assad, anti-terror. The second is anti-Assad, pro-Sunni extremist. The third is anti-Assad (although less vehemently so), anti-terror (conspiracy theories aside). Note that we've left the US out. Why? Because Washington is now stuck. The US wants desperately to maintain coordination with Ankara, Riyadh, and Doha, but between stepped up media coverage of Saudi Arabia's role in underwriting extremism (via the promotion of Wahhabism) and hightened scrutiny on Erdogan's role in financing terrorists, the position is becoming increasingly untenable. But aligning solely with the UK, France, and Germany entails adopting a more conciliatory approach to Assad - just ask Berlin which, as we reported on Friday, is now working with Assad's intelligence police and may soon establish a base in Damascus.

          With that in mind, we'll close with the following from Obama, which underscores the extent to which the US is now thoroughly confused as to what to do next:

          "Now, is there a way of us constructing a bridge, creating a political transition, that allows those who are allied with Assad right now, allows the Russians, allows the Iranians to ensure that their equities are respected, that minorities like the Alawites are not crushed or retribution is not the order of the day? I think that's going to be very important as well."

          JustObserving

          First try the sarin gas supplying war criminal, Erdogan

          Turkey supplied the sarin that killed over 1300 Syrians in Ghouta to try to get the Nobel Prize Winner to bomb Assad into oblivion

          Seymour Hersh Links Turkey to Benghazi, Syria and Sarin

          The assessment of the Defense Intelligence Agency is that the sarin was supplied by Turkey to elements in Ghouta with the intent of "push[ing] Obama over the red line." Intercepted transmissions from Turkish operators in the aftermath of the attack are jubilant, and the success of their covert mission must have seemed well in hand. Obama's implicit call to war in the coming month was proof of that.

          http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/05/06/seymour-hersh-links-turke...

          WTFRLY

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

          Turkey killed and American reporter to protect the lies. British reporter Jackie Sutton was found dead a year to the day in Istanbul airport...

          DeadFred
          There aren't that many Turkish troops in Iraq, they can be removed with Iraqi Army and Shiite militia ground troops. The Russian can fly CAP but they shouldn't be involved beyond that. The purpose of Erdogan's insanities is to goad Putin into doing something that will bring NATO against him. He's been wise enough to avoid that so far. The Western economies are a gnats eyelash from collapse so all he needs to so is wait. Maybe selling a few shares of SPY at the right time would help or giving a few billion to some untracable players who call for delivery on their gold futures. I hope he's patient, the end-game is upon us but the fewer nukes that get used the better.
          two hoots

          Israel, where are you in all of this? Oh, see below:

          Forget Qatar/Russia pipelines.

          Israel/Turkey/US/NATO connection found here: "That would allow Turkey to reduce its energy dependence on Russia and open up a new market for Israeli and U.S. developers of a new natural gas project off the Israeli coast." (WSJ)

          http://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-turkey-poised-to-renew-diplomatic-relations-1450438539

          Nat Gas in Israel waters: "Israel has proposed that EU countries invest in a multi-billion euro pipeline to carry its natural gas to the continent, noting that the supply from Israel would reduce Europe's current dependence on natural gas from Russia." (Start Up-Israel)

          http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-pitches-massive-natural-gas-pipeline-plan-to-europe/

          It could be a whole new NG game? And what thinks Russia/Qatar in all of this?

          [Dec 19, 2015] The Washington Post's Non-Political Fed Looks a Lot Like Wall Street's Fed

          Notable quotes:
          "... Any serious discussion of Fed policy would note that the banking industry appears to have a grossly disproportionate say in the country's monetary policy. ..."
          Dec 19, 2015 | Beat the Press

          ... ... ...

          But what is even more striking is the Post's ability to treat the Fed a neutral party when the evidence is so overwhelming in the opposite direction. The majority of the Fed's 12 district bank presidents have long been pushing for a rate hike. While there are some doves among this group, most notably Charles Evans, the Chicago bank president, and Narayana Kocherlakota, the departing president of the Minneapolis bank, most of this group has publicly pushed for higher rate hikes for some time. By contrast, the governors who are appointed through the democratic process, have been far more cautious about raising rates.

          It should raise serious concerns that the bank presidents, who are appointed through a process dominated by the banking industry, has such a different perspective on the best path forward for monetary policy. With only five of the seven governor slots currently filled, there are as many presidents with voting seats on the Fed's Open Market Committee as governors. In total, the governors are outnumbered at meetings by a ratio of twelve to five.

          Any serious discussion of Fed policy would note that the banking industry appears to have a grossly disproportionate say in the country's monetary policy. Furthermore, it seems determined to use that influence to push the Fed on a path that slows growth and reduces the rate of job creation. The Post somehow missed this story or at least would prefer that the rest of us not take notice.

          * https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-federal-reserve-makes-a-good-judgment-call-in-raising-interest-rates/2015/12/18/7954e1c6-a4f8-11e5-ad3f-991ce3374e23_story.html

          -- Dean Baker

          [Dec 18, 2015] The Upward Redistribution of Income: Are Rents the Story?

          Looks like growth of financial sector represents direct threat to the society
          Notable quotes:
          "... Perhaps the financialization of the economy and rising inequality leads to a corruption of the political process which leads to monetary, currency and fiscal policy such that labor markets are loose and inflation is low. ..."
          "... Growth of the non-financial-sector == growth in productivity ..."
          "... In complex subject matters, even the most competent person joining a company has to become familiar with the details of the products, the industry niche, the processes and professional/personal relationships in the company or industry, etc. All these are not really teachable and require between months and years in the job. This represents a significant sunk cost. Sometimes (actually rather often) experience within the niche/industry is in a degree portable between companies, but some company still had to employ enough people to build this experience, and it cannot be readily bought by bringing in however competent freshers. ..."
          December 18, 2015 | cepr.netDean Baker:
          Working Paper: : In the years since 1980, there has been a well-documented upward redistribution of income. While there are some differences by methodology and the precise years chosen, the top one percent of households have seen their income share roughly double from 10 percent in 1980 to 20 percent in the second decade of the 21st century. As a result of this upward redistribution, most workers have seen little improvement in living standards from the productivity gains over this period.

          This paper argues that the bulk of this upward redistribution comes from the growth of rents in the economy in four major areas: patent and copyright protection, the financial sector, the pay of CEOs and other top executives, and protectionist measures that have boosted the pay of doctors and other highly educated professionals. The argument on rents is important because, if correct, it means that there is nothing intrinsic to capitalism that led to this rapid rise in inequality, as for example argued by Thomas Piketty.

          Flash | PDF

          RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Fair Economist, December 18, 2015 at 11:34 AM

          "...the growth of finance capitalism was what would kill capitalism off..."

          "Financialization" is a short-cut terminology that in full is term either "financialization of non-financial firms" or "financialization of the means of production." In either case it leads to consolidation of firms, outsourcing, downsizing, and offshoring to reduce work force and wages and increase rents.

          Consolidation, the alpha and omega of financialization can only be executed with very liquid financial markets, big investment banks to back necessary leverage to make the proffers, and an acute capital gains tax preference relative to dividends and interest earnings, the grease to liquidity.

          It takes big finance to do "financialization" and it takes "financialization" to extract big rents while maintaining low wages.

          RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron, December 18, 2015 at 11:42 AM
          [THANKS to djb just down thread who supplied this link:]

          http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021305040

          Finance sector as percent of US GDP, 1860-present: the growth of the rentier economy

          [graph]

          Financialization is a term sometimes used in discussions of financial capitalism which developed over recent decades, in which financial leverage tended to override capital (equity) and financial markets tended to dominate over the traditional industrial economy and agricultural economics.

          Financialization is a term that describes an economic system or process that attempts to reduce all value that is exchanged (whether tangible, intangible, future or present promises, etc.) either into a financial instrument or a derivative of a financial instrument. The original intent of financialization is to be able to reduce any work-product or service to an exchangeable financial instrument... Financialization also makes economic rents possible...financial leverage tended to override capital (equity) and financial markets tended to dominate over the traditional industrial economy and agricultural economics...

          Companies are not able to invest in new physical capital equipment or buildings because they are obliged to use their operating revenue to pay their bankers and bondholders, as well as junk-bond holders. This is what I mean when I say that the economy is becoming financialized. Its aim is not to provide tangible capital formation or rising living standards, but to generate interest, financial fees for underwriting mergers and acquisitions, and capital gains that accrue mainly to insiders, headed by upper management and large financial institutions. The upshot is that the traditional business cycle has been overshadowed by a secular increase in debt.

          Instead of labor earning more, hourly earnings have declined in real terms. There has been a drop in net disposable income after paying taxes and withholding "forced saving" for social Security and medical insurance, pension-fund contributions and–most serious of all–debt service on credit cards, bank loans, mortgage loans, student loans, auto loans, home insurance premiums, life insurance, private medical insurance and other FIRE-sector charges. ... This diverts spending away from goods and services.

          In the United States, probably more money has been made through the appreciation of real estate than in any other way. What are the long-term consequences if an increasing percentage of savings and wealth, as it now seems, is used to inflate the prices of already existing assets - real estate and stocks - instead of to create new production and innovation?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization

          pgl said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron, December 18, 2015 at 03:25 PM
          Your graph shows something I've been meaning to suggest for a while. Take a look at the last time that the financial sector share of GDP rose. The late 1920's. Which was followed by the Great Depression which has similar causes as our Great Recession. Here is my observation.

          Give that Wall Street clowns a huge increase in our national income and we don't get more services from them. What we get is screwed on the grandest of scales.

          BTW - there is a simple causal relationship that explains both the rise in the share of financial sector income/GDP and the massive collapses of the economy (1929 and 2007). It is called stupid financial deregulation. First we see the megabanks and Wall Street milking the system for all its worth and when their unhanded and often secretive risk taking falls apart - the rest of bear the brunt of the damage.

          Which is why this election is crucial. Elect a Republican and we repeat this mistake again. Elect a real progressive and we can put in place the types of financial reforms FDR was known for.

          Peter K. said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron, December 18, 2015 at 11:50 AM

          " and it takes "financialization" to extract big rents while maintaining low wages."

          It takes governmental macro policy to maintain loose labor markets and low wages. Perhaps the financialization of the economy and rising inequality leads to a corruption of the political process which leads to monetary, currency and fiscal policy such that labor markets are loose and inflation is low.

          djb said...

          http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021305040

          I don't know about the last couple years but this chart indicates a large growth in financials as a share of gdp over the years since the 40's

          RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to djb, December 18, 2015 at 12:03 PM
          [Anne gave you FIRE sector profits as a share of GDP while this gives FIRE sector profits as a share of total corporate profits.]

          *

          [Smoking gun excerpt:]

          "...The financial system has grown rapidly since the early 1980s. In the 1950s, the financial sector accounted for about 3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. Today, that figure has more than doubled, to 6.5 percent. The sector's yearly rate of growth doubled after 1980, rising to a peak of 7.5 percent of GDP in 2006. As finance has grown in relative size it has also grown disproportionately more profitable. In 1950, financial-sector profits were about 8 percent of overall U.S. profits-meaning all the profit earned by any kind of business enterprise in the country. By the 2000s, they ranged between 20 and 40 percent...

          [Ouch!]

          [Now the whole enchilada:]

          http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novemberdecember_2014/features/frenzied_financialization052714.php?page=all

          If you want to know what happened to economic equality in this country, one word will explain a lot of it: financialization. That term refers to an increase in the size, scope, and power of the financial sector-the people and firms that manage money and underwrite stocks, bonds, derivatives, and other securities-relative to the rest of the economy.

          The financialization revolution over the past thirty-five years has moved us toward greater inequality in three distinct ways. The first involves moving a larger share of the total national wealth into the hands of the financial sector. The second involves concentrating on activities that are of questionable value, or even detrimental to the economy as a whole. And finally, finance has increased inequality by convincing corporate executives and asset managers that corporations must be judged not by the quality of their products and workforce but by one thing only: immediate income paid to shareholders.

          The financial system has grown rapidly since the early 1980s. In the 1950s, the financial sector accounted for about 3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. Today, that figure has more than doubled, to 6.5 percent. The sector's yearly rate of growth doubled after 1980, rising to a peak of 7.5 percent of GDP in 2006. As finance has grown in relative size it has also grown disproportionately more profitable. In 1950, financial-sector profits were about 8 percent of overall U.S. profits-meaning all the profit earned by any kind of business enterprise in the country. By the 2000s, they ranged between 20 and 40 percent. This isn't just the decline of profits in other industries, either. Between 1980 and 2006, while GDP increased five times, financial-sector profits increased sixteen times over. While financial and nonfinancial profits grew at roughly the same rate before 1980, between 1980 and 2006 nonfinancial profits grew seven times while financial profits grew sixteen times.

          This trend has continued even after the financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent financial reforms, including the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Financial profits in 2012 were 24 percent of total profits, while the financial sector's share of GDP was 6.8 percent. These numbers are lower than the high points of the mid-2000s; but, compared to the years before 1980, they are remarkably high.

          This explosion of finance has generated greater inequality. To begin with, the share of the total workforce employed in the financial sector has barely budged, much less grown at a rate equivalent to the size and profitability of the sector as a whole. That means that these swollen profits are flowing to a small sliver of the population: those employed in finance. And financiers, in turn, have become substantially more prominent among the top 1 percent. Recent work by the economists Jon Bakija, Adam Cole, and Bradley T. Heim found that the percentage of those in the top 1 percent of income working in finance nearly doubled between 1979 and 2005, from 7.7 percent to 13.9 percent.

          If the economy had become far more productive as a result of these changes, they could have been worthwhile. But the evidence shows it did not. Economist Thomas Philippon found that financial services themselves have become less, not more, efficient over this time period. The unit cost of financial services, or the percentage of assets it costs to produce all financial issuances, was relatively high at the dawn of the twentieth century, but declined to below 2 percent between 1901 and 1960. However, it has increased since the 1960s, and is back to levels seen at the early twentieth century. Whatever finance is doing, it isn't doing it more cheaply.

          In fact, the second damaging trend is that financial institutions began to concentrate more and more on activities that are worrisome at best and destructive at worst. Harvard Business School professors Robin Greenwood and David Scharfstein argue that between 1980 and 2007 the growth in financial-industry revenues came from two things: asset management and loan origination. Fees associated either with asset management or with household credit in particular were responsible for 74 percent of the growth in financial-sector output over that period.

          The asset management portion reflects the explosion of mutual funds, which increased from $134 billion in assets in 1980 to $12 trillion in 2007. Much of it also comes from "alternative investment vehicles" like hedge funds and private equity. Over this time, the fee rate for mutual funds fell, but fees associated with alternative investment vehicles exploded. This is, in essence, money for nothing-there is little evidence that hedge funds actually perform better than the market over time. And, unlike mutual funds, alternative investment funds do not fully disclose their practices and fees publicly.

          Beginning in 1980 and continuing today, banks generate less and less of their income from interest on loans. Instead, they rely on fees, from either consumers or borrowers. Fees associated with household credit grew from 1.1 percent of GDP in 1980 to 3.4 percent in 2007. As part of the unregulated shadow banking sector that took over the financial sector, banks are less and less in the business of holding loans and more and more concerned with packaging them and selling them off. Instead of holding loans on their books, banks originate loans to sell off and distribute into this new type of banking sector.

          Again, if this "originate-to-distribute" model created value for society, it could be a worthwhile practice. But, in fact, this model introduced huge opportunities for fraud throughout the lending process. Loans-such as "securitized mortgages" made up of pledges of the income stream from subprime mortgage loans-were passed along a chain of buyers until someone far away held the ultimate risk. Bankers who originated the mortgages received significant commissions, with virtually no accountability or oversight. The incentive, in fact, was perverse: find the worst loans with the biggest fees instead of properly screening for whether the loans would be any good for investors.

          The same model made it difficult, if not impossible, to renegotiate bad mortgages when the system collapsed. Those tasked with tackling bad mortgages on behalf of investors had their own conflicts of interests, and found themselves profiting while loans struggled. This process created bad debts that could never be paid, and blocked attempts to try and rework them after the fact. The resulting pool of bad debt has been a drag on the economy ever since, giving us the fall in median wages of the Great Recession and the sluggish recovery we still live with.

          And of course it's been an epic disaster for the borrowers themselves. Many of them, we now know, were moderate- and lower-income families who were in no financial position to borrow as much as they did, especially under such predatory terms and with such high fees. Collapsing home prices and the inability to renegotiate their underwater mortgages stripped these folks of whatever savings they had and left them in deep debt, widening even further the gulf of inequality in this country.

          Moreover, financialization isn't just confined to the financial sector itself. It's also ultimately about who controls, guides, and benefits from our economy as a whole. And here's the last big change: the "shareholder revolution," started in the 1980s and continuing to this very day, has fundamentally transformed the way our economy functions in favor of wealth owners.

          To understand this change, compare two eras at General Electric. This is how business professor Gerald Davis describes the perspective of Owen Young, who was CEO of GE almost straight through from 1922 to 1945: "[S]tockholders are confined to a maximum return equivalent to a risk premium. The remaining profit stays in the enterprise, is paid out in higher wages, or is passed on to the customer." Davis contrasts that ethos with that of Jack Welch, CEO from 1981 to 2001; Welch, Davis says, believed in "the shareholder as king-the residual claimant, entitled to the [whole] pot of earnings."

          This change had dramatic consequences. Economist J. W. Mason found that, before the 1980s, firms tended to borrow funds in order to fuel investment. Since 1980, that link has been broken. Now when firms borrow, they tend to use the money to fund dividends or buy back stocks. Indeed, even during the height of the housing boom, Mason notes, "corporations were paying out more than 100 percent of their cash flow to shareholders."

          This lack of investment is obviously holding back our recovery. Productive investment remains low, and even extraordinary action by the Federal Reserve to make investments more profitable by keeping interest rates low has not been able to counteract the general corporate presumption that this money should go to shareholders. There is thus less innovation, less risk taking, and ultimately less growth. One of the reasons this revolution was engineered in the 1980s was to put a check on what kinds of investments CEOs could make, and one of those investments was wage growth. Finance has now won the battle against wage earners: corporations today are reluctant to raise wages even as the economy slowly starts to recover. This keeps the economy perpetually sluggish by retarding consumer demand, while also increasing inequality.

          How can these changes be challenged? The first thing we must understand is the scope of the change. As Mason writes, the changes have been intellectual, legal, and institutional. At the intellectual level, academic research and conventional wisdom among economists and policymakers coalesced around the ideas that maximizing returns to shareholders is the only goal of a corporation, and that the financial markets were always right. At the legal level, laws regulating finance at the state level were overturned by the Supreme Court or preempted by federal regulators, and antitrust regulations were gutted by the Reagan administration and not taken up again.

          At the institutional level, deregulation over several administrations led to a massive concentration of the financial sector into fewer, richer firms. As financial expertise became more prestigious than industry-specific knowledge, CEOs no longer came from within the firms they represented but instead from other firms or from Wall Street; their pay was aligned through stock options, which naturally turned their focus toward maximizing stock prices. The intellectual and institutional transformation was part of an overwhelming ideological change: the health and strength of the economy became identified solely with the profitability of the financial markets.

          This was a bold revolution, and any program that seeks to change it has to be just as bold intellectually. Such a program will also require legal and institutional changes, ones that go beyond making sure that financial firms can fail without destroying the economy. Dodd-Frank can be thought of as a reaction against the worst excesses of the financial sector at the height of the housing bubble, and as a line of defense against future financial panics. Many parts of it are doing yeoman's work in curtailing the financial sector's abuses, especially in terms of protecting consumers from fraud and bringing some transparency to the Wild West of the derivatives markets. But the scope of the law is too limited to roll back these larger changes.

          One provision of Dodd-Frank, however, suggests a way forward. At the urging of the AFL-CIO, Dodd-Frank empowered the Securities and Exchange Commission to examine the activities of private equity firms on behalf of their investors. At around $3.5 trillion, private equity is a massive market with serious consequences for the economy as a whole. On its first pass, the SEC found extensive abuses. Andrew Bowden, the director of the SEC's examinations office, stated that the agency found "what we believe are violations of law or material weaknesses in controls over 50 percent of the time."

          Lawmakers could require private equity and hedge funds to standardize their disclosures of fees and holdings, as is currently the case for mutual funds. The decline in fees for mutual funds noted above didn't just happen by itself; it happened because the law structured the market for actual transparency and price competition. This will need to happen again for the broader financial sector.

          But the most important change will be intellectual: we must come to understand our economy not as simply a vehicle for capital owners, but rather as the creation of all of us, a common endeavor that creates space for innovation, risk taking, and a stronger workforce. This change will be difficult, as we will have to alter how we approach the economy as a whole. Our wealth and companies can't just be strip-mined for a small sliver of capital holders; we'll need to bring the corporation back to the public realm. But without it, we will remain trapped inside an economy that only works for a select few.

          [Whew!]

          Puerto Barato said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron,
          "3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. Today, that figure has more than doubled, to 6.5"
          ~~RC AKA Darryl, Ron ~

          Growth of the non-financial-sector == growth in productivity

          Growth of the financial-sector == growth in upward transfer of wealth

          Ostensibly financial-sector is there to protect your money from being eaten up by inflation. Closer inspection shows that the prevention of *eaten up* is by the method of rent collection.

          Accountants handle this analysis poorly, but you can see what is happening. Boiling it down to the bottom line you can easily see that wiping out the financial sector is the remedy to the Piketty.

          Hell! Financial sector wiped itself out in 008. Problem was that the GSE and administration brought the zombie back to life then put the vampire back at our throats. What was the precipitating factor that snagged the financial sector without warning?

          Unexpected
          deflation
          !

          Gimme some
          of that

          pgl said in reply to djb...

          People like Brad DeLong have noted this for a while. Twice as many people making twice as much money per person. And their true value to us - not a bit more than it was back in the 1940's.

          Rock O Sock O Choco said in reply to djb... December 18, 2015 at 06:26 PM

          JEC - MeanSquaredErrors said...

          Wait, what?

          Piketty looks at centuries of data from all over the world and concludes that capitalism has a long-run bias towards income concentration. Baker looks at 35 years of data in one country and concludes that Piketty is wrong. Um...?

          A little more generously, what Baker actually writes is:

          "The argument on rents is important because, if correct, it means that there is nothing intrinsic to capitalism that led to **this** rapid rise in inequality, as for example argued by Thomas Piketty." (emphasis added)

          But Piketty has always been very explicit that the recent rise in US income inequality is anomalous -- driven primarily by rising inequality in the distribution of labor income, and only secondarily by any shift from labor to capital income.

          So perhaps Baker is "correctly" refuting Straw Thomas Piketty. Which I suppose is better than just being obviously wrong. Maybe.

          tew said...

          Some simple math shows that this assertion is false "As a result of this upward redistribution, most workers have seen little improvement in living standards" unless you think an apprx. 60% in per-capita real income (expressed as GDP) among the 99% is "little improvement".

          Real GDP 2015 / Real GDP 1980 = 2.57 (Source: FRED)
          If the income share of the 1% shifted from 10% to 20% then The 1%' real GDP component went up 410% while that of The 99% went up 130%. Accounting for a population increase of about 41% brings those numbers to a 265% increase and a 62% increase.

          Certainly a very unequal distribution of the productivity gains but hard to call "little".

          I believe the truth of the statement is revealed when you look at the Top 5% vs. the other 95%.

          cm said in reply to tew...

          For most "working people", their raises are quickly eaten up by increases in housing/rental, food, local services, and other nondiscretionary costs. Sure, you can buy more and better imported consumer electronics per dollar, but you have to pay the rent/mortgage every months, how often do you buy a new flat screen TV? In a high-cost metro, a big ass TV will easily cost less than a single monthly rent (and probably less than your annual cable bill that you need to actually watch TV).

          pgl said in reply to tew...

          Are you trying to be the champion of the 1%? Sorry dude but Greg Mankiw beat you to this.

          anne said...

          In the years since 1980, there has been a well-documented upward redistribution of income. While there are some differences by methodology and the precise years chosen, the top one percent of households have seen their income share roughly double from 10 percent in 1980 to 20 percent in the second decade of the 21st century. As a result of this upward redistribution, most workers have seen little improvement in living standards from the productivity gains over this period....

          -- Dean Baker

          anne said in reply to anne...

          http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/

          September 16, 2015

          Real Median Household Income, 1980 & 2014


          1980 ( 48,462)

          2014 ( 53,657)


          53,657 - 48,462 = 5,195

          5,195 / 48,462 = 10.7%


          Between 1980 and 2014 real median household income increased by a mere 10.7%.

          anne said in reply to don...

          I would be curious to know what has happened to the number of members per household....

          http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/

          September 16, 2015

          Household Size

          2014 ( 2.54)
          1980 ( 2.73)

          [ The difference in household size to real median household incomes is not statistically significant. ]

          anne said in reply to anne...

          http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/families/index.html

          September 16, 2015

          Real Median Family Income, 1948-1980-2014


          1948 ( 27,369)

          1980 ( 57,528)

          2014 ( 66,632)


          57,528 - 27,369 = 30,159

          30,159 / 27,369 = 110.2%


          66,632 - 57,528 = 9,104

          9,104 / 57,528 = 15.8%


          Between 1948 and 1980, real median family income increased by 110.2%, while between 1980 and 2014 real median family income increased by a mere 15.8%.

          cm said...

          "protectionist measures that have boosted the pay of doctors and other highly educated professionals"

          Protectionist measures (largely of the variety that foreign credentials are not recognized) apply to doctors and similar accredited occupations considered to be of some importance, but certainly much less so to "highly educated professionals" in tech, where the protectionism is limited to annual quotas for some categories of new workers imported into the country and requiring companies to pay above a certain wage rate for work visa holders in jobs claimed to have high skills requirements.

          A little mentioned but significant factor for growing wages in "highly skilled" jobs is that the level of foundational and generic domain skills is a necessity, but is not all the value the individual brings to the company. In complex subject matters, even the most competent person joining a company has to become familiar with the details of the products, the industry niche, the processes and professional/personal relationships in the company or industry, etc. All these are not really teachable and require between months and years in the job. This represents a significant sunk cost. Sometimes (actually rather often) experience within the niche/industry is in a degree portable between companies, but some company still had to employ enough people to build this experience, and it cannot be readily bought by bringing in however competent freshers.

          This applies less so e.g. in medicine. There are of course many heavily specialized disciplines, but a top flight brain or internal organ surgeon can essentially work on any person. The variation in the subject matter is large and complex, but much more static than in technology.

          That's not to knock down the skill of medical staff in any way (or anybody else who does a job that is not trivial, and that's true for many jobs). But specialization vs. genericity follow a different pattern than in tech.

          Another example, the legal profession. There are similar principles that carry across, with a lot of the specialization happening along different legislation, case law, etc., specific to the jurisdiction and/or domain being litigated.

          [Dec 18, 2015] How low can oil prices go? Opec and El Niño take a bite out of crudes cost

          Oil is a valuable chemical resource that is now wasted because of low prices... "The obvious follow-up question is, how long will the sane people of the world continue to allow so much fossil-fuel combustion to continue? An exercise for readers."
          Notable quotes:
          "... Iran wont flood the market in 2016. Right now Iran is losing production. It takes time to reverse decline and make a difference. ..."
          "... Those who predict very low prices dont understand the industry (I do). The low price environment reduces capital investment, which has to be there just to keep production flat (the decline is 3 to 5 million barrels of oil per day per year). At this time capacity is dropping everywhere except for a few select countries. The USA is losing capacity, and will never again reach this years peak unless prices double. Other countries are hopeless. From Norway to Indonesia to Colombia to Nigeria and Azerbaijan, peak oil has already taken place. ..."
          "... If oil prices remain very low until 2025 itll either be because you are right or because the world went to hell. ..."
          "... But Im with Carambaman - prices will go up again. Demand is and will still be there. The excess output will eventually end, and the prices stabilises. And then move up again. ..."
          "... Time to examine the real question: how long can the Saudis maintain their current production rates? Theyre currently producing more than 10 Mbarrels/day, but lets take the latter figure as a lower bound. They apparently have (per US consulate via WikiLeaks--time for a followup?) at least 260 Gbarrels (though it seems no one outside Saudi really knows). You do the math: 260 Gbarrels / (10 Mbarrels/day) = 26 kdays ~= 70 years. @ 15 Mbarrels/day - 47.5 years. @ 20 Mbarrels/day - 35 years. ..."
          "... The obvious follow-up question is, how long will the sane people of the world continue to allow so much fossil-fuel combustion to continue? An exercise for readers. ..."
          "... Saudi Arabia, a US ally, using oil production and pricing to crush US oil shale industry? Did I read that correctly? ..."
          "... Yeah, but I suspect it was *written* incorrectly. Im betting the Saudis real target is the Russians. ..."
          "... In 1975 dollars, thats $8.31 / bbl (with a cumulative inflation factor of 342% over 40 years), or $.45 / gal for gas (assuming a current price of $2.00 / gal). ..."
          "... I spent 30 years in the oil industry and experienced many cycles. When it is up people cannot believe it will go down and when it is down people cannot believe it will go up. It is all a matter of time ..."
          Dec 16, 2015 | The Guardian

          Fernando Leza -> jah5446 15 Dec 2015 06:12

          Iran won't flood the market in 2016. Right now Iran is losing production. It takes time to reverse decline and make a difference.

          Those who predict very low prices don't understand the industry (I do). The low price environment reduces capital investment, which has to be there just to keep production flat (the decline is 3 to 5 million barrels of oil per day per year). At this time capacity is dropping everywhere except for a few select countries. The USA is losing capacity, and will never again reach this year's peak unless prices double. Other countries are hopeless. From Norway to Indonesia to Colombia to Nigeria and Azerbaijan, peak oil has already taken place.

          Fernando Leza -> SonOfFredTheBadman 15 Dec 2015 06:05

          If oil prices remain very low until 2025 it'll either be because you are right or because the world went to hell. I prefer your vision, of course. But I'm afraid most of your talk is wishful thinking. Those of us who do know how to put watts on the table can't figure out any viable solutions. Hopefully something like cheap fusion power will rise. Otherwise you may be eating human flesh in 2060.

          Fernando Leza -> p26677 15 Dec 2015 06:00

          Keep assuming. I'll keep buying Shell stock.

          MatCendana -> UnevenSurface 14 Dec 2015 03:36

          Regardless of the breakeven price, producers with the wells already running or about to will keep pumping. Better to have some income, even if the operation is at a loss, than no income. This will go on and on right until the end, which is either prices eventually go up or they run out of oil and can't drill new wells.

          But I'm with Carambaman - prices will go up again. Demand is and will still be there. The excess output will eventually end, and the prices stabilises. And then move up again.

          Billy Carnes 13 Dec 2015 19:52

          Also this hurts the states...Louisiana is now in the hole over 1.5 Billion or more

          TomRoche 13 Dec 2015 12:31

          @Guardian: Time to examine the real question: how long can the Saudis maintain their current production rates? They're currently producing more than 10 Mbarrels/day, but let's take the latter figure as a lower bound. They apparently have (per US consulate via WikiLeaks--time for a followup?) at least 260 Gbarrels (though it seems no one outside Saudi really knows). You do the math: 260 Gbarrels / (10 Mbarrels/day) = 26 kdays ~= 70 years. @ 15 Mbarrels/day -> 47.5 years. @ 20 Mbarrels/day -> 35 years.

          That's just Saudi (allegedly) proven reserves. But it's plenty long enough to push atmospheric GHG levels, and associated radiative forcing, to ridiculously destructive excess.

          The obvious follow-up question is, how long will the sane people of the world continue to allow so much fossil-fuel combustion to continue? An exercise for readers.

          TomRoche -> GueroElEnfermero 13 Dec 2015 12:14

          @GueroElEnfermero: 'Saudi Arabia, a US ally, using oil production and pricing to crush US oil shale industry? Did I read that correctly?'

          Yeah, but I suspect it was *written* incorrectly. I'm betting the Saudis' real target is the Russians.

          Sieggy 13 Dec 2015 11:49

          In 1975 dollars, that's $8.31 / bbl (with a cumulative inflation factor of 342% over 40 years), or $.45 / gal for gas (assuming a current price of $2.00 / gal).

          Carambaman 13 Dec 2015 10:25

          I spent 30 years in the oil industry and experienced many cycles. When it is up people cannot believe it will go down and when it is down people cannot believe it will go up. It is all a matter of time

          [Dec 17, 2015] Please Don't Shut Down the Internet, Donald Trump

          The New Yorker

          Still, two interesting-and vexing-issues for the technology industry, and for the politicians who regulate it, emerged in the debate. The first came up in John Kasich's response to Trump's proposal. "Wolf, there is a big problem-it's called encryption," he said. "We need to be able to penetrate these people when they are involved in these plots and these plans. And we have to give the local authorities the ability to penetrate, to disrupt. That's what we need to do. Encryption is a major problem, and Congress has got to deal with this, and so does the President, to keep us safe."

          The central question is whether American technology companies should offer the U.S. government, whether the N.S.A. or the F.B.I., backdoor access to their devices or servers. The most important companies here are Apple and Google, which, in the fall of 2014, began offering strong encryption on the newer versions of Android and iOS phones. If you keep your passcode secret, the government will be unable to, for instance, scroll through your contacts list, even if it has a warrant. This has, naturally, made the government angry. The most thorough report on the subject is a position paper put out last month by Cyrus Vance, Jr., Manhattan's district attorney. In the previous year, Vance wrote, his office had been "unable to execute approximately 111 search warrants for smartphones because those devices were running iOS 8. The cases to which those devices related include homicide, attempted murder, sexual abuse of a child, sex trafficking, assault, and robbery."

          The solution isn't easy. Apple and Google implemented their new encryption standards after Edward Snowden revealed how the government had compromised their systems. They want to protect their customers-a government back door could become a hacker's back door, too-and they also want to protect their business models. If the N.S.A. can comb through iPhones, how many do you think Apple will be able to sell in China? In the debate, Carly Fiorina bragged about how, when she ran Hewlett-Packard, she stopped a truckload of equipment and had it "escorted into N.S.A. headquarters." Does that make you more or less eager to buy an OfficeJet Pro?

          The second hard issue that came up indirectly in the debate-and, more specifically, in recent comments by Hillary Clinton-is how aggressive American companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google (with YouTube) should be in combatting the use of their platforms by ISIS. Again, there's no simple answer. You can't ban, say, everyone who tweets the hashtag #ISIS, because then you'd have to ban this guy. The algorithms are difficult to write, and the issues are difficult to balance. Companies have to consider their business interests, their legal obligations to and cultural affinities for free speech, and their moral obligations to oppose an organization that seeks to destroy the country in which they were built-and also kill their C.E.O.s.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          [Dec 17, 2015] A Blind Eye Toward Turkey's Crimes

          Notable quotes:
          "... The Official Story of the sarin attack – as presented by Secretary of State John Kerry, Human Rights Watch and other "respectable" sources – firmly laid the blame for the Aug. 21, 2013 atrocity killing hundreds of civilians outside Damascus on Assad. That became a powerful "group think" across Official Washington. ..."
          December 16, 2015 | consortiumnews.com

          A Blind Eye Toward Turkey's Crimes

          To make the story even more compelling, an opposition leader braves the wrath of the autocrat by seeking to expose these intelligence schemes, including the cover-up of key evidence. The autocrat's government then seeks to prosecute the critic for "treason."

          But the problem with this story, as far as the American government and press are concerned, is that the autocratic leader, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is in charge of Turkey, a NATO ally and his hated neighbor is the much demonized Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Major U.S. news outlets and political leaders also bought into the sarin deception and simply can't afford to admit that they once again misled the American people on a matter of war.

          The Official Story of the sarin attack – as presented by Secretary of State John Kerry, Human Rights Watch and other "respectable" sources – firmly laid the blame for the Aug. 21, 2013 atrocity killing hundreds of civilians outside Damascus on Assad. That became a powerful "group think" across Official Washington.

          Though a few independent media outlets, including Consortiumnews.com, challenged the rush to judgment and noted the lack of evidence regarding Assad's guilt, those doubts were brushed aside. (In an article on Aug. 30, 2013, I described the administration's "Government Assessment" blaming Assad as a "dodgy dossier," which offered not a single piece of verifiable proof.)

          However, as with the "certainty" about Iraq's WMD a decade earlier, Every Important Person shared the Assad-did-it "group think." That meant - as far as Official Washington was concerned - that Assad had crossed President Barack Obama's "red line" against using chemical weapons. A massive U.S. retaliatory bombing strike was considered just days away.

          ... ... ...

          But the "group think" was resistant to all empirical evidence. It was so powerful that even when the Turkish plot was uncovered by legendary investigative reporter Seymour M. Hersh, his usual publication, The New Yorker, refused to print it. Rebuffed in the United States – the land of freedom of the press – Hersh had to take the story to the London Review of Books to get it out in April 2014. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Was Turkey Behind Syria Sarin Attack?"]

          ... ... ...

          In statements before parliament and to journalists, Erdem cited a derailed indictment that was begun by the General Prosecutor's Office in the southern Turkish city of Adana, with the criminal case number 2013/120.

          Erdem said the prosecutor's office, using technical surveillance, discovered that an Al Qaeda jihadist named Hayyam Kasap acquired the sarin.

          At the press conference, Erdem said, "Wiretapped phone conversations reveal the process of procuring the gas at specific addresses as well as the process of procuring the rockets that would fire the capsules containing the toxic gas. However, despite such solid evidence there has been no arrest in the case. Thirteen individuals were arrested during the first stage of the investigation but were later released, refuting government claims that it is fighting terrorism."

          Erdem said the released operatives were allowed to cross the border into Syria and the criminal investigation was halted.

          Another CHP deputy, Ali Şeker, added that the Turkish government misled the public by claiming Russia provided the sarin and that "Assad killed his people with sarin and that requires a U.S. military intervention in Syria."

          Erdem's disclosures, which he repeated in a recent interview with RT, the Russian network, prompted the Ankara Prosecutor's Office to open an investigation into Erdem for treason. Erdem defended himself, saying the government's actions regarding the sarin case besmirched Turkey's international reputation. He added that he also has been receiving death threats.

          "The paramilitary organization Ottoman Hearths is sharing my address [on Twitter] and plans a raid [on my house]. I am being targeted with death threats because I am patriotically opposed to something that tramples on my country's prestige," Erdem said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Cohen again:

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

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

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

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

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

          [Dec 16, 2015] Congress just revived the surveillance state in the name of cybersecurity

          Notable quotes:
          "... Whistleblower: "Every Time There Is a Terrorist Attack, What We Really Need to Do Is Demand that They CUT the Budgets of All the Intelligence Agencies" - William Binney ..."
          Dec 16, 2015 | The Guardian
          Stumphole 16 Dec 2015 17:44

          Use a VPN and Start Page as a search engine. Nothing is saved from your search.

          Fgt 4URIGHTS -> lefthalfback2 16 Dec 2015 19:44

          Only the brain dead idiots who are deceived and under collective Stockholm syndrome are fine with it. Yeah, all the illegal surveillance in the world didn't stop the San Bernadinos attack. Also, let's not forget the treason and terrorism being conducted against innocent Americans (Cointelpro/Gangstalking) and hidden from the American people while their asleep to the crimes happening in secret all around them. Yeah for a fascist, totalitarian police state, isn't it cool?? I feel so safe knowing my criminal government is there to protect me because they love me so much.

          Whistleblower: "Every Time There Is a Terrorist Attack, What We Really Need to Do Is Demand that They CUT the Budgets of All the Intelligence Agencies" - William Binney

          sand44 16 Dec 2015 18:26

          "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
          -Benjamin Franklin 1755

          How far has the standard of American politicians managed to fall?

          AvZweeden 16 Dec 2015 14:53

          Edward Snowden might as well not have blown any whistle, and saved himself a lot of trouble.
          Most Americans think America is a democracy, but it is really an oligarchy in disguise. Probably always was. I read this earlier this year:
          https://theintercept.com/2015/07/30/jimmy-carter-u-s-oligarchy-unlimited-political-bribery/

          [Dec 16, 2015] Big Banks Caught Using Credit Default Swaps To Destroy Nations

          Notable quotes:
          "... when the Big Banks were caught and convicted of conspiring to manipulate the $500 trillion, LIBOR debt market ..."
          "... when the Big Banks were caught and convicted of conspiring to launder trillions for the global drug cartels and "terrorist" entities, despite the supposed "wars" the U.S. claims to be fighting against drugs and terrorism ..."
          "... The Vampire Squid Firmly Attached To The Face Of Humanity ..."
          "... As far as I can gather, the World Bank and the IMF are apart of the very same Cartel that own/control the Central Banks. ..."
          Dec 16, 2015 | Zero Hedge

          Then we have the confessions of the criminals. A full one-quarter of Wall Street's and London's senior banking executives freely admit that crime is a way of life in their industry -- organized crime. Even in our justice system (or what remains of it), once armed with confessions, the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" no longer applies – the guilt is conceded.

          The Big Banks manipulate credit default swaps to perpetrate economic terrorism against other nations in the world, where they literally destroy the economies of those victim-nations. It used to be a theory, but now the proof is finally emerging. You heard it here first.

          LawsofPhysics

          So what? Has any of the bank management/leaders gone to prison and lost all their wealth?

          Ghordius

          good article

          "when the Big Banks were caught and convicted of conspiring to manipulate the $500 trillion, LIBOR debt market"

          (Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Barclays Plc and Royal Bank of Scotland Plc agreed to plead guilty to felony charges of conspiring to manipulate the price of U.S. dollars and euros)

          "when the Big Banks were caught and convicted of conspiring to launder trillions for the global drug cartels and "terrorist" entities, despite the supposed "wars" the U.S. claims to be fighting against drugs and terrorism"

          (Wells Fargo and JPMorgan)

          and of course, The Vampire Squid Firmly Attached To The Face Of Humanity, Goldman Sachs, The Great Destroyer

          commoncourtesy

          Fancy-free please will you explain further.

          As far as I can gather, the World Bank and the IMF are apart of the very same Cartel that own/control the Central Banks. All are controlled by the BIS who is run/controlled by pretty much all the same criminals on a merry-go-round. Throw in the Vatican, The Crown (BAR) Temple - The City of London, Washington DC, the Rothschild's et al, puppet Governments (and their military) on the same payroll and the world is pretty much screwed.

          Who are the Board of Governors you are talking about?

          Who is this coalition?

          Please name names.

          Can you vouch for their credibility or are they part of the corrupt cartel?

          There is far TOO MUCH SECRECY going on.

          If everything was more transparent, out of the shadows and open the world would not be in the state is in today.

          Closed dealings, complexity and behind the curtain negotiations promote corruption.

          How can justice be served when most public jurors would not be able to understand the fraudulent accounting practices being utilised?

          What is the TRUTH?

          andrewp111

          A big load of bullshit. The US has its own currency and that currency is backed by military power. Greece is a subordinate vassal state of the EU. There is no comparison between the two.

          [Dec 14, 2015] Barack Obama warns leaders of Islamic State in speech: 'you are next'

          Notable quotes:
          "... There is no "far left" in Europe any more. Since the Merkels, Hollandes, Blairs and Rasmussens of this world were planted in prominent positions because of their excruciatingly statusquo orientation, even the moderate "left" has practically ceased to exist. We now have rabid right or moderately rabid right to choose from, except for a few notable exceptions. ..."
          "... Obama does not have a clue, he has lost the plot. He is backing Saudi Arabia who are the biggest instigators of terrorism in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is announcing a 34-state military alliance to fight terrorism. ..."
          "... Seems to me that IS was created, either accidentally or deliberately, by the US and its success has gone beyond the US administrations worst nightmare? When the US refuses slam Turkey for it's recent shoot-down of the Russian plane, and do anything to support Iraq in getting rid of unwanted Turkish military near Mosul, within Iraq and near the IS capital, nor wanting to know about Turkish involvement supplying Sarin gas agents to IS, or stopping Turkey supplying food and arms to IS, and receiving stolen Syrian and Iraqi oil as payment, nor preventing Turkey from being the transit centre and R & R centre for IS recruits, then maybe its time to assume that IS is the deliberate brainchild of the US, and that Turkey is playing to the US tune and protection, for promises of territory in a future carve up of Iraq and or Syria. ..."
          "... Seems that ISIL, ISIS, IS and Daesh are all names invented by the US to spread the narrative through the media. They all mean US proxy army to me. Just my opinion. ..."
          "... Perhaps that is because ISIS doesn't actually occupy "territory" as such. As Mr. Knight says, they are an ideology, an idea. An idea, unfortunately in this case, doesn't live in houses in prescribed areas any more than Republicanism lives in Chicago. The way forward has to involve NOT creating another 10,000 new mortal enemies in the Middle East every day. Even if only twelve innocent people had died in Iraq in 2003, instead of the hundreds of thousands who actually did, one could understand very large groups of people related to the victims cursing the US for its irresponsible meddling. ..."
          "... Incredibly ignorant of the president. The US lives in sin with the Saudis. As long as the Saudis keep importing Wahhabism out of their country to others, the problem will exist. ..."
          "... We bombed the Taliban. We bombed Al Qaeda. Neither lead to anything more than establishing the rise of ISIS in the destabilised areas we had bombed. ..."
          "... The biggest contribution America can make to getting rid of Isis is to "persuade" its friends and allies - Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey mainly - to turn off the tap of finance, munitions and logistics to Isis, Al Qaeda in Syria (Al Nusra) and its allies like Ahrar Al Sham. No American ground troops needed; they would be counter-productive. ..."
          "... The secular Syrian government, with women in its ranks, is fighting for its life against a most ruthless and abominable enemy: fanatical jihadist mercenaries financed by an execrable mediaeval tyranny, Saudi Barbaria. This is the enemy of all we stand for, the enemy that perpetrated 9/11 and 7/7 and their latest clone that bombed Paris concert-goers and Russian holiday-makers. They are paid and trained by Riyadh. And armed to the teeth with modern American weapons, passed to them by the newest demagogue, Turkey's Erdoğan. ..."
          "... The sworn enemy of all these head-chopping bigots is Assad's secular republic of Syria because it challenges the ideological dogmatism of Sharia Law. This law is as rigid as Hitler's Nazism or Stalin's communism. ..."
          "... I wonder if because 'a few weeks' was finally taken to supposedly destroy this critical infrastructure - if the 'evasive' ISIL oil business - along with revenues - will suffer? I also wonder why the air campaign hasn't been extended to include the purchasers of ISIL's oil supplies - at sea and in their home countries. ..."
          "... Isis must ultimately be defeated by Muslim forces, or we'll be manufacturing radical faster than we can kill them. ..."
          "... The Muslims seem to be manufacturing radicals quickly enough without any help from us. ..."
          "... What have they been doing for the last two years then? No attacks on ISIS trucks transporting oil, no sanctions on countries that have been buying that oil. We only get some action now that Russia has been attacking ISIS in Syria and of course there is minimal reporting of the successes of the Russians in Western media. As far as Libya is concerned, there are very ominous signs that ISIS is moving to set up headquarters in that country, a country a lot closer to Europe than Syria or Iraq are. There is also the problem that the Russians will not be involved in Libya, unlike Syria, they do not have a functioning government to ask them in. Libya is the nightmare created by NATO and the US, they will have to take full responsibility for their dreadful actions there and fight the barbarians they created, no sitting back and allowing them to flourish this time. ..."
          "... What a farce, who does Obama think he's kidding? If the US was serious about ISIS it would have been finished off a year ago, now that Russia has called the US's bluff they now have to pretend to step up to the plate. Pathetic. ..."
          "... More drivel from the counterfeit president. His allies in the middle east are disgusting butchers. Take Turkey: it is a great shame for Turkey that 32 journalists are imprisoned in the 21st century. Some were arrested on Nov. 26 after being charged in May with espionage, revealing confidential documents and membership in a terrorist organization. The charges are related to a report published by a leading newspaper claiming weapons-loaded trucks that were discovered in January 2014 en route to Syria actually belonged to the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) and had been sent to provide support to rebel groups. ..."
          The Guardian


          ricohflex 14 Dec 2015 22:26

          Talk big but no action. Hot air. Everybody knows now.
          After the Syria red line fiasco, the whole world knows US president makes empty promises.
          In the next TV broadcast, he will give excuses why he cannot do it. Then he will repeat "No Boots On The Ground". Then the US president will blame Congress for not giving him permission to do the most basic things.
          ...
          Now in end-2015 Obama has only ONE thing on his mind.
          He wants to preserve the legacy of his presidency.
          He does not want to do anything to risk the presidency being blamed.
          He does not want to take any mis-step.
          It is a Zero Risk environment in the White House now.
          He dares not even reveal the truth on what country's air space the SU-24 was flying in, when it was shot down.
          It will just be TALK from now on until the next president takes over in 2016.


          wardropper -> LupusCanis 14 Dec 2015 22:21

          There is no "far left" in Europe any more. Since the Merkels, Hollandes, Blairs and Rasmussens of this world were planted in prominent positions because of their excruciatingly statusquo orientation, even the moderate "left" has practically ceased to exist. We now have rabid right or moderately rabid right to choose from, except for a few notable exceptions.


          GerdT 14 Dec 2015 22:21

          Looking out the window I can see the hills that mark the border to Cambodia and not far away Vietnam. I still remember the speeches given during the Vietnam War and how close victory was. The bombs dropped on these countries including North Vietnam during the war exceeded what was dropped during WWII in the Atlantic/European and the Pacific theater of war. Still, it was a US helicopter that left from the American Embassy in Saigon that concluded that war, with the US going home and into denial about the outcome of that war.

          The apocalypse foreseen by the prophets of doomsday painting a picture of an Asian continent that would turn into a communist infested threat to human kind didn't happen.

          I have been recently in Vietnam and Cambodia and seen that people get on with their lives and economies that try to improve for the coming ASEAN community. Without help from western countries they have started to rebuild what was left of their countries after the champion of democracy had left. As the peanut farmer and former President Jimmy Carter said, the destruction was mutual and hence Vietnam didn't deserve any compensation for the unbelievable collateral damage caused by US intervention in this country. If the US was really trying to protect democracy or as Bill Clinton described it protecting National Security, which he defined as US business interests and given the US a right to interfere in any country that tries to threaten them, is a debatable point.

          During the following decades the US again would raise terror and war in countries to ensure that the branding of democracy they preferred would be exported. South Vietnam hadn't been a democracy when the US decided to send troops across and the political leaders of that country came from the military, granting themselves the titles of president and minister, but holding the country in the same grip as in the North the communist did. From South America to the Middle East the US supported groups and leaders that were favorable to US business interests. The Taliban were a useful tool to drive out the Soviet Union only to become a haven for Bin Laden and his followers. Iraq has turned into a political and humanitarian nightmare and ISIL that was as a startup supplied with weapons and training by the US to drive out Assad from Syria is now the greatest threat to world peace according to the US.

          We only have to take a look at the close friends and allies of the US in the Middle East and South America to understand how they spell democracy and human rights. Maybe it is time to listen to the millions of people with families that want to live in peace and are tired of foreign interference in their countries. Instead of supplying arms and support to people that favor the western or eastern political view, we should start to invest and rebuild these countries to ensure they can become equal and respected partners within the global community.

          Phil Atkinson 14 Dec 2015 22:18

          What a joke! Ashton Carter to visit the Middle East to jockey along the Arab states - the same people that the USA supplies weapons to, that end up with terrorists. Or Turkey, that erstwhile NATO member which has been stealing Syrian oil and selling it to Israel and speaking of Israel, that country still illegally occupying the Golan Heights in Syria and aiding and abetting Al-Nusra Front fighters and bombing inside Syria.

          Ashton Carter is a dangerous fool, who believes his own government's propaganda. He should be kept at home.

          SomersetApples 14 Dec 2015 22:08

          Obama does not have a clue, he has lost the plot. He is backing Saudi Arabia who are the biggest instigators of terrorism in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is announcing a 34-state military alliance to fight terrorism.

          Informed17 14 Dec 2015 22:08

          If ISIS does not do what Obama says, US-led coalition of 60+ countries will destroy another pair of Islamist excavators. I am sure ISIS leaders are scared shitless.

          RocketSurgeon 14 Dec 2015 22:03

          Seems to me that IS was created, either accidentally or deliberately, by the US and its success has gone beyond the US administrations worst nightmare?
          When the US refuses slam Turkey for it's recent shoot-down of the Russian plane, and do anything to support Iraq in getting rid of unwanted Turkish military near Mosul, within Iraq and near the IS capital, nor wanting to know about Turkish involvement supplying Sarin gas agents to IS, or stopping Turkey supplying food and arms to IS, and receiving stolen Syrian and Iraqi oil as payment, nor preventing Turkey from being the transit centre and R & R centre for IS recruits, then maybe its time to assume that IS is the deliberate brainchild of the US, and that Turkey is playing to the US tune and protection, for promises of territory in a future carve up of Iraq and or Syria.

          Seems that ISIL, ISIS, IS and Daesh are all names invented by the US to spread the narrative through the media. They all mean US proxy army to me.
          Just my opinion.

          readerofgrauniad -> Stephen_Sean 14 Dec 2015 22:01

          But who are the good boys in this? To end the war, Asad is probably the best option, and compared to IS he looks like a saint.


          wardropper -> Lech1980 14 Dec 2015 21:59

          Perhaps that is because ISIS doesn't actually occupy "territory" as such. As Mr. Knight says, they are an ideology, an idea. An idea, unfortunately in this case, doesn't live in houses in prescribed areas any more than Republicanism lives in Chicago. The way forward has to involve NOT creating another 10,000 new mortal enemies in the Middle East every day. Even if only twelve innocent people had died in Iraq in 2003, instead of the hundreds of thousands who actually did, one could understand very large groups of people related to the victims cursing the US for its irresponsible meddling. I would imagine our enemies over there number about 50 million by now, and nobody in human history has been able to survive having that many enemies...

          Thomas Hancock 14 Dec 2015 21:55

          Incredibly ignorant of the president. The US lives in sin with the Saudis. As long as the Saudis keep importing Wahhabism out of their country to others, the problem will exist. The thing you learn from history is that no one learns anything from history. Maybe someone can get a time machine and go back to kill Ho Chi Minh, and Vietnam will be a capitalist paradise. This is the same strategy that helped create ISIS in the first place.

          Bernard Knight 14 Dec 2015 21:55

          We bombed the Taliban. We bombed Al Qaeda. Neither lead to anything more than establishing the rise of ISIS in the destabilised areas we had bombed. What is the point?

          1ClearSense -> Stephen_Sean 14 Dec 2015 21:48

          Is that right? You mean when they hit 1050 oil tanker trucks, that's nothing? US followed up hitting 300. They stopped oil revenues for ISIS, and reduced their revenues by 50 %. The number of sorties they have run on ISIS has been considerably more than US. They have also hit other terrorists to secure the rear, so Syrian troops can move on ISIS. You guys are brainwashed.


          Budovski Ximples -> AaronClausen 14 Dec 2015 21:42

          http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-crisis-turkey-and-saudi-arabia-shock-western-countries-by-supporting-anti-assad-jihadists-10242747.html


          pierotg LupusCanis 14 Dec 2015 21:42

          "the US has killed 23,000 ISIL members in airstrikes"

          Who told you? Disney Channel? Anyone can lie to you as long as you are behind a TV screen. It's quite an easy task (having sufficient intelligence resources and money of course)... It's incredibly obvious it would be sufficient hitting the financing of those mercenaries or not to buy the oil they are selling. You know all that "intelligence resources, analysts, linguists, SIGINT experts...". If only the US government wanted really. And yet what is ISIS? Quite a volatile entity... looks like franchising terror... IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh will "desappear" when it won't be useful anymore. And they will only find a new name whenever a new proxy ground army should be required.

          "Kremlinbot"? The cold war revamping has seduced you. Let me rimand you this facts:

          • In 2014 the USA has spent in its military expenditure more than 600 Bn $.
          • Russia is around 80.
          • It's been estimated that after WWII the USA caused the death of about 30 million people all over the planet (challenging Stalin scores).

          You'll find the facts... Not on Disnet Channel though.

          After the dissolution of USSR it was clear that it was not "the enemy" anymore. Yet the Ministry of Defence (and its industry) need powerful and fearsome enemies!
          Et voilà, despite what the Ministry fo Truth says, after 20 years of tranquillity it's Russia getting sourranded by military bases along its borders, losing Ukraine (and possibly its strategic Crimea) and now directly challenged in Syria (where they have military bases). Doesn't Russia have the right to "defend" itself and have allies? They have a Ministry of Defense too...

          What if Russia had intervened to topple king Salman of Suadi Arabia because of him being a fearsome dictator? Yet no one did nothing when the "arab spring" was brutally repressed in the region (with the help of the USA).

          It's quite hard not to admit the USA has been quite agressive and active ... So whose to blame for this warfare and new cold war tensions? You might be more biased and less Whitehousebot.

          PS
          Of course I'm not russian.

          Bernard Knight 14 Dec 2015 21:40

          At it's core ISIS, ISL, DEASH, call them what you will, are a murderous death cult using jihad and the establishment of a califate as their raison d'etre. They are an ideology, an idea. No amounts of bombing or taking territory will annihilate that idea. Perhaps it should be the Islamic world that tackles this threat, starting with first and foremost, our foremost arms purchasers, Saudi Arabia.

          Shatford Shatford 14 Dec 2015 21:34

          Asked if Obama had consciously chosen to make his rhetoric more aggressive for public benefit, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said when the president meets the national security council, "he is not looking at public opinion polls".

          Obvious bullshit. It's this kind of Hilary Clinton-like waffling rhetoric and pandering to opinion polls is what is driving the popularity of Donald Trump's campaign.

          Nolan Harding 14 Dec 2015 21:25

          The Islamic state is surrounded by hostile forces, they are under siege so how are they getting ammunition, refined gasoline, food, internet service and all thier Toyota trucks. Obviously the forces surrounding them are not that hostile. A real siege would have seen them starving to death years ago. Like in Leningrad...now THAT was a siege and REAL war, not this strategic game the deluded masses think is a ' war'.


          JMWong 14 Dec 2015 21:24

          Obama has missed the opportunity to announce that hw would the bunch of criminals consisting of Bush, Cheney, Blair, Rumsfeld, Allbright, McCain, Cameron, Hollande, etc. to the International Tribunal for trial for their crimes against humanity. They have murdered millions of people.


          bunkusmystic -> burnel 14 Dec 2015 21:18

          Have a look at the latest Isis videos they have all the latest American weapons ... How do you think they get them? Is it private citizens in Saudi who buy them or the government ... The Saudis want the Iraqi and Syrian oil fields and they are using this Isis fabrication to get them. If the coalition is so serious about fighting Isis how is it that thousands of oil tankers pass through turkey each day? With no one noticing??? It's only Russia who is taking real action


          tjmars 14 Dec 2015 21:17

          This is to draw the heat-seeker foreign press away from the Mad Turk Erdogan who is fake-begging the Russians to prove the accusations that Erdogan Jr is running "red-stained oil" to major buyers on the Turkish black market...
          Ooops!...don't want to know who those 'terrorist supporting capitalists" are!...
          Is this an example of 'laissez-faire" in Late Capitalism...a "bubble" for risk-taking investors?
          Whew! Its a good thing "Soylent Green" was a fictional commodity in movies or the funeral homes would be void of any "dead meat" for ritual burials..
          Thanlks to Capitalism, we will one day see the mythical "dog-eat-dog" aphorism come to light with "god-damned" good profits...
          The western central bankers weren't 'standing behind the curtain" pulling the levers of power again were they?
          Do a litmus test on their 'red tooth and claw' mentality...
          Hey where did they go?
          Obama made them disappear with his speech!


          clashcr 14 Dec 2015 21:14

          Hmm, not a word about Assad. Well US policy about radical Islam - take your pick there are nearly 20 groups in Syria - is about it being overt and not covert. So, they are pleased when radicals show their faces and establish territory because it attracts more radicals to leave the west to go there to be killed. The other result may be that the moderates like the Muslim Brotherhood who may seriously have been talking about a pan-Islamic Caliphate and Sharia law have seen their cause put back by decades.


          JMWong -> sage10 14 Dec 2015 21:12


          If the USA wants to fight ISIS, it must attack ISIS at its source, that is, the countries where the ISIS fighters originate. This means Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the USA itself, UK, France, etc. Bomb these countries and the sources of ISIS fighters will dry up.

          sashasmirnoff 14 Dec 2015 21:09

          I apologize for deviating slightly from this story, but I have a link to share concerning what would usually be considered a sensational story, but this paper has neglected to cover it. A Turkish Parliamentarian has come forward with documented proof that in 2013 Turkey supplied IS with the components to manufacture Sarin gas and facilitated their transport to the IS in Syria. I have no idea why the Guardian doesn't consider this to be newsworthy.

          https://www.rt.com/news/325825-sarin-gas-syria-turkey/

          sage10 14 Dec 2015 20:59

          I still see nothing but a PR blitz here. The strategy has not changed. The claims of success are over-rated. ISIS still controls large swathes of territory; and more importantly, it has shown it can project power internationally...all the way to the US...through sleeper cells and lone wolf attacks. The only way to deal with such a pernicious organization is a full on-the-ground massive combined arms assault: armor, air power, and heavy infantry. It won't take a Desert Storm type campaign, as ISIS is no where near as large as Saddam's army; but it will take a real coordinated military campaign with boots-on-the-ground to seize and hold territory. No question about that. Obama won't commit to that type strategy, so it will be up to the next President to do so, as ISIS will still be around by then, given Obama's reliance solely on air power.


          giorgio16 14 Dec 2015 20:59

          ...is Obama aware that Russia is already fighting isis,...and from the right side?... or he is pretending he is in charge now?
          ...Saudis are fighting shias in Yemen on one side, creating a humanitarian disaster no one wants to acknowledge, and Assad in Sirya on the other creating another disaster convenniently blamed on Assad by Obama and co...interesting times ahead...


          TomGray 14 Dec 2015 20:43

          Obama used the same decapitation tactic against Al Queda. Al Queda destabilized because of it and morphed into ISIS. There is no shortage of people who want to become leaders in any organization. Obama's tactics may hinder ISIS but they will not cause the organized violence that it currently represents to disappear. The players may change but the game remains the same.

          Decapitation can only be part of an effective strategy and so far Obama has not demonstrated that he has the capability to draw together the other essential elements


          ID4352889 -> DogsLivesMatter 14 Dec 2015 20:41

          Saudi flew thousands of Jihadists out of Syria a while ago and sent them to Libya. It is well documented. The West did not interfere. Presumably for the same reasons they didn't interfere with the Turkey/Daesh oil scam.


          DelOrtoyVerga 14 Dec 2015 20:35

          Hurry up Obama before the Ruskies steal your thunder! or the few sparks that are left by now that is...
          Mwahahaha...

          I'm sure these special forces, these token "boots on the ground" you are sending will be exclusively focusing on ISIL and are not being sent to undermine the Syrian government or their allies, I repeat the special forces ARE NOT BEING SENT TO UNDERMINE THE SYRIAN GOVERNMENT OR THEIR ALLIES.

          HowSicklySeemAll 14 Dec 2015 20:26

          Why did the US wait until now to 'drop more bombs than ever before'?

          Russian foreign minister recently stated that:

          "We have noticed that the US-led coalition stepped up its fight against IS only after Russia dispatched a combat air group to Syria. The coalition efforts undertaken in Syria earlier could be described as odd, to say the least This brings to mind NATO's operations in Afghanistan We don't want the fight to be feigned."

          DomesticExtremist 14 Dec 2015 20:13

          Can we assume from this that the fix is in: Kilary has been selected for Pres and Obomber has to roll the pitch on her behalf so that she can hit the ground running?

          "We came, we saw, they died. (insane cackle)."

          Look out for some killer blow to be landed on the Donald soon.

          Sualdam -> meewaan 14 Dec 2015 20:10

          The biggest contribution America can make to getting rid of Isis is to "persuade" its friends and allies - Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey mainly - to turn off the tap of finance, munitions and logistics to Isis, Al Qaeda in Syria (Al Nusra) and its allies like Ahrar Al Sham. No American ground troops needed; they would be counter-productive.

          MrJanuary 14 Dec 2015 19:55

          Well done Russia for mobilizing the worlds second largest military force, the USA, in Syria against ISIS.


          robertthebruce2014 -> MasonInNY 14 Dec 2015 19:48

          We love Putin here in Europe, at least he defends European interests. The USA is only defending Saudi and Israeli interest. We are currently in the process of breaking up the NATO coalition. The USA can stick with Turkey, Israel, and the Saudis.


          pierotg 14 Dec 2015 19:43

          December 2015: "We are hitting Isil harder than ever" .

          July 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2NkjNvwuaU

          !!! Look at the eys of that general behind, please! He was falling almost asleep and then ... frozen! Is it just my impression? That would be really hilarious if we weren't talking about war and crimes against humanity.

          Please, stop lying this way.
          This is far too much. This is alienating.

          The USA and UK governments are loosing all that was left of their credibility and reliability in the last decade and the only strategy left seems to make the big lie bigger than ever. This is like shouting at the world "I can do whatever suits me and f**k the rest!"
          Even their relationships with their EU partners have proved slick.

          I've been listening to politicians speeches and interviews lately and found myself thinking: "That autocrat and ex KGB agent ruling Russia sounds much less hypocrite and far more competent". What if you could choose between Putin or Trump to represent your country (just as if they were sport pros you could hire for your team)?

          This is far too much. This won't do any good and nuclear weapons can still destroy our planet in 30 minutes. Whoever is behind this mess what's going to profit then? This is obscene incompetence and fearsome irresponsibility.

          In my teens Steve Stevens's Top Gun Theme got me goosebumps... On my Strat guitar there has been a Union Jack pickguard for 25 years... What shall I tell my son when he will ask me why I removed the original white one? I'm getting quite embarrassed.

          Is it the End of the World as We know it? Yet I don't feel fine.


          1ClearSense 14 Dec 2015 19:40

          Yemen is the poorest Arab country with limited resources. The Saudis, along with a slew of other Arab regimes have been bombing the Yemeni military and Houthi militia who were clearing up Al Qaeda out of Yemen pretty good, for 9 months.

          In the summer the Saudis and UAE sheiks decided to send ground forces to "liberate" Yemen. Other than taking some part of southern Yemen with the help of separatists and jihadis of all sort, they failed in their mission. A single attack on Saudi military caused dozens of Saudi and Emarati dead. The Emaratis decided on Colombian mercenaries, the Saudi paid Sudanese military to send troops. Yesterday the Yemenis killed a large number of these mercenaries (anywhere between 80 to 150) including the Saudi commander and another high official and a Emarati officer.

          Southern Yemen, the "Saudi liberated" areas is being taken over by al Qaeda piece by piece, and also ISIS has become very active. The idea that these Arab regimes can be productive in anything to defeat jihadi terror is a pipe dream. It is all about public relations and having "Sunni Arabs" along to defeat "Sunni Arabs" jihadis. This is so completely miscalculation that will backfire. Saudis and their crew have no desire or ability to defeat the wahhabi terrorists. The time has come to see it as what it is, the only way to defeat the jihadi terrorists is teaming up with the people who are being successful, and that doesn't include the Arab tyrannies.


          Panda Bear -> Steven Wallace 14 Dec 2015 19:33

          Did your father know offices controlled by the \British at Suez were apparently given over to the Moslem Brotherhood? UK used Islamic extremists back then and US has continued the policy it appears.

          I was recently reminded of Churchill's speech about the possibility of Germans invading Britain... "We'll fight them on the beeches" etc. Wonder if the Germans would have considered the British fighters terrorists if they had managed to occupy Britain?
          Occupation by foreign forces is ok if it's our forces or our allies and our enemies cannot resist or they are designated as terrorists... National Sovereignty is disregarded whole sale by US/NATO and allies.

          One rule for us, another for 'them'! Hypocrisy reigns supreme.


          Steven Wallace -> Zara Thustra 14 Dec 2015 19:32

          haha ok well thats too simplistic Mr Zarathustra . The issue with Islamic fundamentalism is that it uses a religion to kill innocents without targeting anyone of any real importance . The Koran has not changed like the New Testament but I really do not believe that modern day Muslims who pray would all wish to kill me because I am not a Muslim .

          That scare mongering is simply a distraction ,as George Bush said " Who is this Bin Laden ?" Well I would have said " You know him George ,his family financed your oil business ,they are friends of your family ".

          All Muslims are scary to us while the real issues are being ignored 24/7

          The Bible is full of evil concepts ,why not consider ourselves in the West as evil Christians ?

          Not me though ,I'm an atheist


          LewisFriend -> Miramon 14 Dec 2015 19:32

          Well Assad wasn't massacring people either till their was an uprising.. Yet in Syria people were a lot more free than Saudi.. They also don't have the CIA on the ground encouraging one. Be under no illusions the ruling Saudi clique are animals.


          WatchEm 14 Dec 2015 19:30

          Barack Obama warns leaders of Islamic State in speech: 'you are next'

          Threats like that are enough to get my parrot squawking with laughter - forget any "terrorists" or anyone with a live brain cell.

          Yet more tries to reassure a domestic audience, who unlike the majority of nations, apparently live in fear, and need convincing that the USG is doing something and "leading the way" in their declared "War on Terrorism". It's like having to tolerate listening to the banality of what purports to be US "news networks".

          Unfortunately, after around 10,000 bombing runs and predictable time-wasting talk, the message is still not sinking in that the Grand Master Plan of 'leading the way' is a failure and reduced to hope that they can stop terrorism by 'taking out' some leadership. Yep, heard that one before. The USG 'defeated terrorism' by 'taking out' Al Queda leaders - a number of them 34+ times. Al Queda no longer exists - not.

          Instead of 'leading from the rear' and expecting other nations to clean up the carnage and havoc left over by US adventures into the Middle East, perhaps the USG could find a few non-torturers, non rapists and no members of US death squads and clean the region up with their own trash collectors as 'boots on the ground'. Well... no harm in dreaming and fantasising it might work and "we can win, win, win" ...

          So, bottom line, order more bombs with taxpayers funds Carter, and pretend you matter while the 'leader' continues the infantile rhetoric for US consumption, just as his predecessor did. May the US people and people in other victim nations be saved from US 'little men' - both 'generals' and politicians.


          PS Try not to bomb innocent men, women and children on the ground during the bombing runs. They never deserved your slaughter, carnage, death squads and torture the last time around and don't need a US euphemism, "collateral damage", to justify their deaths. But of course, counting bodies is not a topic of conversation in the Rogue Regime of the West. It only matters if it is US men, women and children who are slaughtered while the US regime role play fighting for "democracy and freedom" by "leading from the rear".


          Panda Bear -> MRModeratedModerate 14 Dec 2015 19:21

          Some of them are very busy bombing Yemen to destruction and recruiting mercenaries in places such as Columbia to help! The situation for citizens in Yemen is dire, some areas described as on the verge of famine partly due to the embargo that is also imposed.

          JMWong 14 Dec 2015 19:09

          This speech shows the hypocrisy of the Americans. In fact, as it was made clear many times before, the real objective of the USA is to invade Syria, to destroy Syria and to murder as many Syrians as possible, including its President, Assad. The USA had the same objective with regards to Iraq and Lybia. Iraq was invaded and destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were murdered by the coalition of the willing led by the USA. The lives of tens of millions Iraqis have been destroyed. Its President, Saddam Hussein was murdered. In the case of Libya, the same coalition of the willing, led by the same USA, bombed Libya for six months. It was the greatest terrorist attack over the last ten years. It was six months of terror for millions of Libyans everyday for over six months. More than thirty thousand Libyans were murdered in this exceptional terror attack, including its President, Kaddafi. Now, the USA is leading the same coalition of the willing to murder hundreds of thousand Syrians. Assad must go, chant the USA and its f...king partners. We heard the same chant with regrda to Saddam Hussein and Kaddafi. Saddam Hussein must go. Kaddafi must go. As if the USA with its f.. Partners are the ones to choose who should and should not rule Iraq, Libya and Syria. ISIS was created, is funded, trained armed and supported by the USA and its willing partners. For more than one year that they are bombing Syria, they did not see the thousands and thousands of trucks carrying robbed oil from Syria to Turkey. And now Obama, flanked by thecriminal Ash Carter, a creature of McCain, claims that he is determined to fight ISIS. Since many of the ISIS fighters come from the USA, UK, France, why do you not start by bombing the USA, UK, France. Why start with Syria?

          Steven Wallace 14 Dec 2015 19:05

          Because truth has no place in the modern political theatre . Truth is down to perception and when you control the media you control the truth .Remember NORID ,when the US funded the IRA against the UK ? The IRA used bombs to kill many innocents in their resistance to the British occupation . My brother was a soldier in the British Army and believed he was doing the right thing by going to Northern Ireland . After reflection he now feels he was wrong to be a part of that situation .My father served in Egypt during the Suez Crisis and felt he was right to be there and later questioned why so many young lads were sent to such a inhospitable foreign land . The reason always comes down to money .

          MRModeratedModerate 14 Dec 2015 19:04

          "in recent weeks we've unleashed a new wave of strikes on their lifeline, on their oil infrastructure..."

          I don't see no bombs falling on Turkey?

          illbthr22 -> ObambiBot 14 Dec 2015 18:54

          Your country provides nothing positive to the world. I watch American movies, eat American food, listen to American music. Russia doesn't exist to me. The only time i hear Russia mentioned is when Russia is threatening war with someone or 2 drunks are beating each other up on youtube.


          supercool -> BG Davis 14 Dec 2015 18:49

          Again read my comment. The way the war on drugs is waged and fought. It is never ending, murky and with so many dubious allegiances.

          The war on terror is never ending, murky and with so many dubious allegiance. For example we exported Jihadism to Afghanistan to defeat the invading communist Soviet's, they eventually morphed to the Taliban who then gave sanctuary to Al-Qaeda. Which formed an affiliate branch in Iraq after our invasion in 2003 and which morphed into the Islsmic state.


          HollyOldDog -> stonedage 14 Dec 2015 18:48

          Obama is the first black American President but that doesn't mean that he is the first sensible one.


          Whitt -> supercool 14 Dec 2015 18:46

          As someone who is old enough to have lived under two great Presidents and three great-but-flawed Presidents, I'm saying that Obama is a 2nd-rater at best. A hundred years from now he'll be a triva-question President like Millard Fillmore or Grover Cleaveland.

          OscarAwesome 14 Dec 2015 18:44

          Sure, this is typical political spruiking. Obama doing the Commander in Chief thing, proclaiming PROGRESS, reaffirming how bad the 'enemy' are, saying tough things as a response to the accusations of weakness by US conservatives (who are coy about what their actual alternative to Obama's approach is because it probably looks very much like catastrophic full invasion foolishness of George W's Iraq war), blah, blah, we've seen it all before on countless occasions.

          The situation in Syria in particular is ridiculously complex and consists of a plethora of detail and options for action about which we will all have wildly divergent opinions.

          But there is a part of this that is simple. There are practically zero options for dealing with ISIL/IS/ISIS/whatever besides killing them. They seek no negotiations, offer no potential compromise position and their take on politics is to simply kill everyone who isn't them. The lack of alternate, peaceful/diplomatic options ISIS and similar groups offer, with their preposterous Dark Ages philosophies, is in a macabre way almost refreshing.

          The hard bit is how to kill/capture/degrade their capability without a) slaughtering bystanders and b) causing such carnage as to act as an ISIS recruitment agency.
          For all the great many faults and excesses of the West and the larger Muslin world, ISIS

          do not in any way offer a comprehensive socio-political alternate system of government with a vestige of logical appeal to humanity (unlike, say the threat communism represented in the 20th century). They have some vague pipe dream of apocalyptic conflict where the other 99.999% of the human race is either slaughtered or magically converted to embracing the reversal of human history by 1,500 years. Not going to happen. Silly.

          The threat ISIS represent is largely emotional. Unless you are lightning-strike like unfortunate (or they get hold of nuclear weapons) ISIS disturb our assumptions of physical safety in a symbolic way only. The histrionics generated by that fear is our real enemy.

          Popeyes 14 Dec 2015 18:44

          What a disappointment, I was waiting for Obama to explain just why he didn't bomb IS oil facilities, and why the U.S. are still best buddies with Saudi who it seems supplies and finances most of the terrorists in Syria and Iraq. Nothing new here move along.

          Horst Faranelli 14 Dec 2015 18:43

          ...but the spot oil price is squeezing the heart out of Russia.

          Panda Bear -> GustavoB 14 Dec 2015 18:43

          There have been reports for a while (since Russia began bombing) that Isis have been fleeing Syria and many commanders have relocated to Libya. Isis have overtaken one of the so called governments and are making gains, oil assets their next target I read yesterday.


          Seasuka -> DoomGlitter 14 Dec 2015 18:41

          Whatever America's position now, for decades they have supported and helped to arm Salafist jihadis through Saudi and the Muslim World league in opposition to any secular or perceived communist movements in the region which might threaten oil supplies. Ditto uk.


          jmNZ 14 Dec 2015 18:40

          The secular Syrian government, with women in its ranks, is fighting for its life against a most ruthless and abominable enemy: fanatical jihadist mercenaries financed by an execrable mediaeval tyranny, Saudi Barbaria. This is the enemy of all we stand for, the enemy that perpetrated 9/11 and 7/7 and their latest clone that bombed Paris concert-goers and Russian holiday-makers. They are paid and trained by Riyadh. And armed to the teeth with modern American weapons, passed to them by the newest demagogue, Turkey's Erdoğan.

          The sworn enemy of all these head-chopping bigots is Assad's secular republic of Syria because it challenges the ideological dogmatism of Sharia Law. This law is as rigid as Hitler's Nazism or Stalin's communism.

          And we wonder whether we should support Assad?
          For the record, here are some undisputed facts:

          30 countries, including South Africa, sent election observers to Syria and found them to be "reasonably free and fair". This was in 2014 when Basher al-Assad got 88% of the vote in the first multi-party presidential elections. Nearly half the population of Syria actually made it to the polls. Not half the electorate, half the population.

          Syria is governed by 5 parties in coalition opposed by a 2 party coalition of 5 members and 77 "Independents". Assad's Baqath Party has a majority, 134 out of 250.

          Syria is today's Czechoslovakia.


          Whitt -> supercool 14 Dec 2015 18:34

          "Compare his Presidency with George Bush or most previous American President's if recent years." - supercool
          *
          Considering that most of the Presidents that we've had over the last few decades have been mediocrities and that Bush Jr. was downright incompetent, that is truly an example of damning with faint praise.
          *
          *
          "Obama goes into the history books as a great President who achieved so many first's"
          *
          To paraphrase the immortal Douglas Adams, this is obviously some strange usage of the word "great" that I was not previously aware of.


          ByThePeople 14 Dec 2015 18:10

          "in recent weeks'...'destroying hundreds of their (ISIL's) tanker trucks, wells and refineries. So far, ISIL has lost about 40% of the populated area it once controlled n Iraq."

          Anyone else a bit shocked that after having several countries dropping bombs on ISIL for an extended period of time - that ISIL would still be in possession of hundreds of tanker trucks, wells and refineries - their 'life line'....?

          A full fledged oil business in up, running and in the market to sell oil - which is obviously all being bought up and these revenues, combined with other revenue streams, have been supporting ISIL's efforts for an extended period of time.

          I wonder if because 'a few weeks' was finally taken to supposedly destroy this critical infrastructure - if the 'evasive' ISIL oil business - along with revenues - will suffer? I also wonder why the air campaign hasn't been extended to include the purchasers of ISIL's oil supplies - at sea and in their home countries.

          Panda Bear -> supercool 14 Dec 2015 18:10

          Homs has a cease fire, the 'moderate' terrorists have left. Syrian Arab Army and it's allies are making gains, an airport retaken yesterday. Much Isis oil trading infrastructure destroyed.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PauFSKZafr4
          http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/syrian-army-retakes-key-airbase-rebel-forces-eastern-ghouta-1589655831
          I'm fascinated to know what the Henry Jackson Society is doing there/reporting...


          ohhaiimark -> JackGC 14 Dec 2015 18:03

          And here in lies the problem. The US is not serious about taking down ISIS. They are a convient bunch of psychopaths that can be used for various agendas the US has in mind. Including but not limited to weakening/removing Assad, getting Iran embroiled in costly war, terrifying domestic populations into giving up freedoms, justifying more military interventions that go against international law.

          The list goes on


          1ClearSense 14 Dec 2015 17:59

          The cult of Wahhabi terrorist supported by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Turkey need to be defeated. With all the public information available, we are here because of all the wrong moves by the US. It is about time to nip this in the bud. The root problem is in Saudi Arabia. In no uncertain terms US needs to tell the Arab tyrannies to stop the jihadi terror. It is obviouse US has listened to the Saudis and Qataris to create a Sunni militia in Iraq, Syria to "confront" Iran. The imaginary ghost that constantly scares Saudi tyranny. The result has been all the various head chopping terror groups. The "Sunni" Arab tyrannies will never supply troops to take over areas occupied by terrorists. Qatar demands sanitizing al Qaeda terrorist in Syria and giving them a say. It is stupid to even consider these as allies in fight against the wahhabi Islamist terrorists. Time has come to forget about removing Assad, just cooperate with Russia, Syria, Iran and Iraq to take back land from all terrorists step by step, and have the legitimate government in Syria and Iraq, with their pro government militia control the ground.

          TheBorderGuard -> gunnison 14 Dec 2015 17:55

          Isis must ultimately be defeated by Muslim forces, or we'll be manufacturing radical faster than we can kill them.

          The Muslims seem to be manufacturing radicals quickly enough without any help from us.

          TonyBlunt 14 Dec 2015 17:51

          "We are hitting Isil harder than ever."

          Here is how hard the US and their regional allies have been hitting ISIL and the other jihadi terrorists:

          bolobo -> impartial12 14 Dec 2015 17:50

          Good docu about that recently. Might still be available on BBCiplayer. The Americans bought Saudi drilling rights for 2cents and the Brits bought Iraqi rights for tuppence. Twenty years later the middle easterns thought "hold on a minute," and offered a fifty-fifty split. The Americans pragmatically accepted, thus their relationship with the House of Saud, the Brits got all uppity at the natives and got kicked out.

          TheSindhiAbbasi -> gunnison 14 Dec 2015 17:45

          What about billions of US military equipment in Iraq, that was captured by Daesh?

          gunnison 14 Dec 2015 17:40

          Freeze Saudi assets and blockade all their exports until they send all that gee-whiz military equipment we sold them into this fight, and all the Saudi military we trained too.

          Isis must ultimately be defeated by Muslim forces, or we'll be manufacturing radical faster than we can kill them.

          Panda Bear -> Jools12 14 Dec 2015 17:36

          "We only get some action now that Russia has been attacking ISIS in Syria and of course there is minimal reporting of the successes of the Russians in Western media."

          Exactly. Russia is the old enemy, it is interfering and questioning US actions and has huge natural resources. Putin called them out in his speech at the UN...
          US has been provoking Russia for some time, and is also provoking China. This may not end well for any of us and no one will stand up and demand it stops!

          HAGGISANCHIPS -> ame1ie 14 Dec 2015 17:34

          The nazi ideology was removed militarily. It couldn't survive because it was morally wrong and repugnant, like Daesh.

          Edward Frederick Ezell 14 Dec 2015 17:27

          Sending our professional agents of coercion and terror to kill people in foreign countries over which we somehow more or less claim jurisdiction is not something that is clearly beneficial in the long term although it does respond appropriately to the call for vengeance and blood from our own political actors.

          Panda Bear -> Taku2 14 Dec 2015 17:27

          US has turned it into a proxy war with Russia and Iran and has called in the NATO allies to back them up. Obama seems to work differently to previous presidents like Bush, he seems to like to work quietly using drones and not much publicized actions and calls in the NATO and allied troops to cover their actions.

          Taku2 14 Dec 2015 17:23

          America will do this America will do that. Well, guess what; you cannot do it on your own. You cannot make a successful strategic plan to fight Daesh without the Russians, Iranians and Syrian government forces being integral elements of such a plan.

          Daesh is like an Hydra, so bombing alone cannot defeat it, it just spread it to new areas. You need to do an honest review of how Daesh was created; albeit, unintentionally, by ill-conceived American and EU/NATO policies in the Middle East and Africa.

          America and EU/NATO cannot effective fight the war being waged by Daesh and Al Qaeda, until they have learned the lessons to be learned from their misguided policies, and openly acknowledged the mistakes they have made.

          Sunrise_Song 14 Dec 2015 17:18

          What would it be like to live in a truly peaceful and free world? All it takes is strength, foresight and the guts to be honest.

          All the things the West is failing at. Obama like most Western leaders is a weaver of lies and half-truths.

          How can we ever have peace until we challenge the core issue? This is an ideological fight. It's a war of minds. ISIS believe the West is a basin of sin. That our liberal and secular ways need to be destroyed and replaced by their ideologies and way of life.

          Only, we can see they're wrong. That even with our faults and flaws, our belief in freedom, democracy and equality is the best way, still we defend that same ideology in our own nations.

          Obama is failing the American people. Just like Merkel and Co are failing the European people.

          Bombs won't stop IS.


          Jools12 14 Dec 2015 17:18

          What have they been doing for the last two years then? No attacks on ISIS trucks transporting oil, no sanctions on countries that have been buying that oil. We only get some action now that Russia has been attacking ISIS in Syria and of course there is minimal reporting of the successes of the Russians in Western media. As far as Libya is concerned, there are very ominous signs that ISIS is moving to set up headquarters in that country, a country a lot closer to Europe than Syria or Iraq are. There is also the problem that the Russians will not be involved in Libya, unlike Syria, they do not have a functioning government to ask them in. Libya is the nightmare created by NATO and the US, they will have to take full responsibility for their dreadful actions there and fight the barbarians they created, no sitting back and allowing them to flourish this time.


          TheBorderGuard 14 Dec 2015 17:13

          Obama told reporters: "This continues to be a difficult fight. Isil is dug in, including in urban areas, and they hide behind civilians, using defenceless men, women and children as human shields. So even as we're relentless, we have to be smart, targeting Isil surgically, with precision."

          Good luck, boss. Ask Netanyahu how it went for the Israelis when they tried to end Hamas' rocket attacks from Gaza. Because that's the kind of foe you'll be up against.


          poechristy 14 Dec 2015 17:10

          Someone has obviously told Obama that his Mr Nice Guy act was merely encouraging Islamic State and their supporters in the US. It's time for all Western nations to make clear that anyone involved in any way with Islamic State-funding them, promoting them, or returning from fighting for them- will feel the full force of the law. I can't understand why those returning from Syria are not immediately arrested and held to account.
          I rather suspect we wouldn't be seeing the same appeasement if white supremacists were returning from a foreign land having been involved in the torture,rape and murder of ethnic minorities.


          lefthalfback2 DogsLivesMatter 14 Dec 2015 17:06

          NYT said a few days back that ISIS are looking to Surt in Libya as the spot to which they can decamp if the Heat comes down in Iraq. Does not seem likely to me since it is on the coast and could easily be struck from the sea.


          Whitt DogsLivesMatter 14 Dec 2015 17:03

          Weren't you paying attention?

          (1) We have a coalition of the willing in the international War on Terror.
          (2) ISIS is on their last legs. There's nothing left but a bunch of dead-enders.
          (3) We're squeezing their heart in Iraq, their balls in Syria, and their spleen in Libya.
          (4) There's a light at the end of the tunnel.
          (5) Ve are vinning ze var!

          Now get with the program and quit interfering with the narrative or it's off to Gitmo with you, me lad!


          ohhaiimark 14 Dec 2015 16:58

          Want to stop ISIS? It's rather simple. Sanction those who fund them. Sanction those who spread Wahhabism. Sanction those who buy oil off them....Basically sanction all of America's allies in the region.

          Then work together with the Russians, the Syrians, the Iranians and whoever else is willing to send ground troops in to take each town and city occupied by these scumbags one by one.

          You can't defeat ISIS if your goal is also to remove Assad. That will only help ISIS. It's time to wake up from that delusion that Assad is going anywhere. Once the war is over, then we can let the Syrian people decide who will lead them through democratic elections.


          Djinn666 14 Dec 2015 16:56

          They've squeezed so hard that it oozed into Libya and other points on the compass, including San Bernardino.

          Note to CIC Obama, However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results (Winston Churchill).


          Fence2 14 Dec 2015 16:54

          What a farce, who does Obama think he's kidding? If the US was serious about ISIS it would have been finished off a year ago, now that Russia has called the US's bluff they now have to pretend to step up to the plate. Pathetic.


          DogsLivesMatter 14 Dec 2015 16:50

          Meanwhile in Libya....http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/world-leaders-push-libya-peace-isil-fills-vacuum-151214044020934.html
          Apparently there are 3,000 ISIL fighters in Libya at the moment. It's time President Obama and John Kerry gave us the whole story, but I guess with Saudi Arabia and Turkey being allies the US can't rock the boat too much.


          dikcheney 14 Dec 2015 16:48

          More drivel from the counterfeit president. His allies in the middle east are disgusting butchers. Take Turkey: it is a great shame for Turkey that 32 journalists are imprisoned in the 21st century. Some were arrested on Nov. 26 after being charged in May with espionage, revealing confidential documents and membership in a terrorist organization. The charges are related to a report published by a leading newspaper claiming weapons-loaded trucks that were discovered in January 2014 en route to Syria actually belonged to the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) and had been sent to provide support to rebel groups.

          The USA has been seduced and conned for decades until its entire policy is focused on fighting proxy wars to keep the middle east ablaze in the interests of others. SHAME on the dumb USA.

          laguerre 14 Dec 2015 16:39

          A load of rubbish. US supports the Saudis, who support ISIS. US attacks on ISIS are not serious, as the speech suggests.

          [Dec 14, 2015] No Turkish fabric to make anti-Turkish T-shirts, say Russian designers

          There are two possibilities here: iether Guardian pressitutes sometimes try to play degenarates or they consider their readers to be degenerates...
          Notable quotes:
          "... Typical The Moscow Times garbage. ..."
          "... Hmmm, some really sophisticated comments and analysis apropos of current issues in geopolitics and international relations. Nuanced, objective, and informative. Excuse me but I have to go watch some more esoteric reportage from Fox News. ..."
          www.theguardian.com

          cvneuves 13 Dec 2015 21:12

          Typical The Moscow Times garbage.

          Scipio1 13 Dec 2015 18:54

          Hmmm, some really sophisticated comments and analysis apropos of current issues in geopolitics and international relations. Nuanced, objective, and informative.

          Excuse me but I have to go watch some more esoteric reportage from Fox News.

          [Dec 14, 2015] The long-cherished neocon dream of "regime change" in Syria is blocking a possible route out of the crisis

          consortiumnews.com
          anne,
          https://consortiumnews.com/2015/12/12/blocking-democracy-as-syrias-solution/

          December 12, 2015

          Blocking Democracy as Syria's Solution By Robert Parry

          The long-cherished neocon dream of "regime change" in Syria is blocking a possible route out of the crisis – a ceasefire followed by elections in which President Assad could compete. The problem is there's no guarantee that Assad would lose and thus the dream might go unfulfilled.
          By Robert Parry

          The solution to the crisis in Syria could be democracy – letting the people of Syria decide who they want as their leaders – but it is the Obama administration and its regional Sunni "allies," including U.S.-armed militants and jihadists, that don't want to risk a democratic solution because it might not achieve the long-held goal of "regime change."

          Some Syrian opposition forces, which were brought together under the auspices of the Saudi monarchy in Riyadh this past week, didn't even want the word "democracy" included in their joint statement. The New York Times reported on Friday, "Islamist delegates objected to using the word 'democracy' in the final statement, so the term 'democratic mechanism' was used instead, according to a member of one such group who attended the meeting."

          Even that was too much for Ahrar al-Sham, one of the principal jihadist groups fighting side-by-side with Al Qaeda's Nusra Front, the two key elements inside the Saudi-created Army of Conquest, which uses sophisticated U.S.-supplied TOW missiles to kill Syrian government troops.

          Ahrar al-Sham announced its withdrawal from the Riyadh conference because the meeting didn't "confirm the Muslim identity of our people." Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has sought to maintain a secular government that protects the rights of Christians, Alawites, Shiites and other religious minorities, but Sunni militants have been fighting to overthrow him since 2011.

          Despite Ahrar al-Sham's rejection of the Saudi-organized conference, all the opposition participants, including one from Ahrar al-Sham who apparently wasn't aware of his group's announcement, signed the agreement, the Times reported.

          "All parties signed a final statement that called for maintaining the unity of Syria and building a civil, representative government that would take charge after a transitional period, at the start of which Mr. Assad and his associates would step down," wrote Times' correspondent Ben Hubbard.

          But the prospects of Assad and his government just agreeing to cede power to the opposition remains highly unlikely. An obvious alternative – favored by Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin – is to achieve a ceasefire and then have internationally supervised elections in which the Syrian people could choose their own leaders.

          Although President Barack Obama insists Assad is hated by most Syrians – and if that's true, he would presumably lose any fair election – the U.S. position is to bar Assad from the ballot, thus ensuring "regime change" in Syria, a long-held goal of Official Washington's neoconservatives.

          In other words, to fulfill the neocons' dream of Syrian "regime change," the Obama administration is continuing the bloody Syrian conflict which has killed a quarter million people, has created an opening for Islamic State and Al Qaeda terrorists, and has driven millions of refugees into and through nearby countries, now destabilizing Europe and feeding xenophobia in the United States.

          For his part, Assad called participants in the Saudi conference "terrorists" and rejected the idea of negotiating with them. "They want the Syrian government to negotiate with the terrorists, something I don't think anyone would accept in any country," Assad told Spanish journalists, as he repeated his position that many of the terrorists were backed by foreign governments and that he would only "deal with the real, patriotic national opposition."

          Kinks in the Process

          Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters on Friday that he was in contact with senior Saudi officials and noted, "there are some questions and obviously a couple of – in our judgment – kinks to be worked out" though expressing confidence that the problems could be resolved.

          A key problem appears to be that the Obama administration has so demonized Assad and so bought into the neocon goal of "regime change" that Obama doesn't feel that he can back down on his "Assad must go!" mantra. Yet, to force Assad out and bar him from running in an election means escalating the war by either further arming the Sunni jihadists or mounting a larger-scale invasion of Syria with the U.S. military confronting Syrian and now Russian forces to establish what is euphemistically called "a safe zone" inside Syria. A related "no-fly zone" would require destroying Syrian air defenses, now supplied by the Russians.

          Obama has largely followed the first course of action, allowing Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and other Sunni "allies" to funnel U.S. weapons to jihadists, including Ahrar al-Sham which fights alongside Al Qaeda's Nusra Front as the two seek to transform Syria into a Islamic fundamentalist state, a goal shared by Al Qaeda's spinoff (and now rival), the Islamic State.

          Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, has termed Obama's choice of aiding the jihadists a "willful decision," even in the face of DIA warnings about the likely rise of the Islamic State and other extremists.

          In August 2012, DIA described the danger in a classified report, which noted that "The salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq, later ISI or ISIS and then the Islamic State] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." The report also said that "If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared salafist principality in eastern Syria" and that "ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria."

          Despite these risks, Obama continued to insist that "Assad must go!" and let his administration whip up a propaganda campaign around claims that Assad's forces launched a sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013. Though many of the U.S. claims about that attack have since been discredited – and later evidence implicated radical jihadists (possibly collaborating with Turkish intelligence) trying to trick the U.S. military into intervening on their side – the Obama administration did not retract or clarify its initial claims.

          By demonizing Assad – much like the demonization of Russian President Putin – Obama may feel that he is deploying "soft power" propaganda to put foreign adversaries on the defensive while also solidifying his political support inside hawkish U.S. opinion circles, but false narratives can take on a life of their own and make rational settlements difficult if not impossible....

          ilsm -> anne...
          The Syria terror consortium was in Riyadh checking in with their bankers. To the Sunni democracy is apostate anathema.
          anne -> ilsm...
          I understand the frustration and beyond, after all I read about Yemen being bombed with American bombs and target sightings and I cannot imagine the policy incentives driving us.

          Nonetheless, the Yemen bombings go on day on day on day.

          anne -> ilsm...
          Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen? Who could possibly ever understand, but our policy makers act as though they do.

          [Dec 14, 2015] Marine Le Pen is not alone, and that is a real problem for the EU

          European nationalism is an allergic reaction to neoliberalism. Guardian does not mention Ukraine and Baltic states. also far right nationalist goverment with Baltic states imposing "Baltic version of apartheid" to Russian speaking minority.
          Dec 07, 2015 | The Guardian

          Such is the picture in western Europe. In eastern Europe, the nationalist right is already in power in Hungary and in Poland. Viktor Orbán in Budapest is the pioneering cheerleader. He has no opposition to speak of. His main "opposition" comes not from the centre-left but from the neo-fascist Jobbik movement. In Poland, Jarosław Kaczyński and his Law and Justice party in Poland are wasting little time in aping Orbán's constitutional trickery to entrench itself in power.

          On the critical issues of the day – immigration, security and Euroscepticism – there is little to separate Orbán and Kaczyński from President Miloš Zeman in Prague and Robert Fico, prime minister of Slovakia, both on the left. Besides, on economics, the role of the state and welfare, the far-right parties are way to the left of social democracy, seeking to turn the clock back to state interventionism, full employment, generous pensions and welfare systems (for native whites, not immigrants).

          What these far-right parties in east and west all share are chipped shoulders heaving with grievance – summed up as hostility to and rejection of globalisation and multiculturalism. They do not like modern life. They are anti-Muslim, anti-immigration, anti-EU, anti-American (Poland excepted), illiberal. And they like Vladimir Putin (again, except Kaczyński).

          They are nationalists. This also militates against making common cause despite all the similarities in outlook, because nationalists usually see foes rather than friends in other nationalists.

          ... It is a tall order. The European Union has never looked so temporary and fragile.

          [Dec 13, 2015] Deregulation of exotic financial instruments like derivatives and credit-default swaps and corruption of Congress and government

          Notable quotes:
          "... Can you list all of the pro- or anti- Wall Street reforms and actions Bill Clinton performed as President including nominating Alan Greenspan as head regulator? Cutting the capital gains tax? Are you aware of Greenspans record? ..."
          "... Its actually pro-neoliberalism crowd vs anti-neoliberalism crowd. In no way anti-neoliberalism commenters here view this is a character melodrama, although psychologically Hillary probably does has certain problems as her reaction to the death of Gadhafi attests. The key problem with anti-neoliberalism crowd is the question What is a realistic alternative? Thats where differences and policy debate starts. ..."
          "... Events do not occur in isolation. GLBA increased TBTF in AIG and Citi. TBTF forced TARP. GLBA greased the skids for CFMA. Democrats gained majority, but not filibuster proof, caught between Iraq and a hard place following their votes for TARP and a broader understanding of their participation in the unanimous consent passage of the CFMA, over objection by Senators James Inhofe (R-OK) and Paul Wellstone (D-MN). ..."
          "... It certainly fits the kind of herd mentality that I always saw in corporate Amerika until I retired. The William Greider article posted by RGC was very consistent in its account by John Reed with the details of one or two books written about AIG back in 2009 or so. I dont have time to hunt them up now. Besides, no one would read them anyway. ..."
          "... GS was one of several actions taken by the New Deal. That it wasnt sufficient by itself doesnt equate to it wasnt beneficial. ..."
          "... "Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century," said then-Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. "This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy." ..."
          "... The repeal of Glass Steagal was a landmark victory in deregulation that greased the skids for the passage of CFMA once Democrats had been further demoralized by the SCOTUS decision on Bush-v-Gore. The first vote on GLBA was split along party lines, but passed because Republicans had majority and Clinton was willing to sign which was clear from the waiver that had been granted to illegal Citi merger with Travelers. Both Citi and AIG mergers contributed to too big to fail. The CFMA was the nail in the coffin that probably would have never gotten off the ground if Democrats had held the line on the GLBA. Glass-Steagal was insufficient as a regulatory system to prevent the 2008 mortgage crisis, but it was giant as an icon of New Deal financial system reform. Its loss institutionalized too big to fail ..."
          "... Gramm Leach Biley was a mistake. But it was not the only failure of US regulatory policies towards financial institutions nor the most important. ..."
          "... It was more symbolic caving in on financial regulation than a specific technical failure except for making too big to fail worse at Citi and AIG. It marked a sea change of thinking about financial regulation. Nothing mattered any more, including the CFMA just a little over one year later. Deregulation of derivatives trading mandated by the CFMA was a colossal failure and it is not bizarre to believe that GLBA precipitated the consensus on financial deregulation enough that after the demoralizing defeat of Democrats in Bush-v-Gore then there was no New Deal spirit of financial regulation left. Social development is not just a series of unconnected events. It is carried on a tide of change. A falling tide grounds all boats. ..."
          "... We had a financial dereg craze back in the late 1970s and early 1980s which led to the S L disaster. One would have thought we would have learned from that. But then came the dereg craziness 20 years later. And this disaster was much worse. ..."
          "... This brings us to Lawrence Summers, the former Treasury Secretary of the United States and at the time right hand man to then Treasury Security Robert Rubin. Mr. Summers was widely credited with implementation of the aggressive tactics used to remove Ms. Born from her office, tactics that multiple sources describe as showing an old world bias against women piercing the glass ceiling. ..."
          "... According to numerous published reports, Mr. Summers was involved in. silencing those who questioned the opaque derivative product's design. ..."
          "... The Tax Policy Center estimated that a 0.1 percent tax on stock trades, scaled with lower taxes on other assets, would raise $50 billion a year in tax revenue. The implied reduction in trading revenue was even larger. Senator Sanders has proposed a tax of 0.5 percent on equities (also with a scaled tax on other assets). This would lead to an even larger reduction in revenue for the financial industry. ..."
          "... Great to see Bakers acknowledgement that an updated Glass-Steagall is just one component of the progressive wings plan to rein in Wall Street, not the sum total of it. Besides, if Wall Street types dont think restoring Glass-Steagall will have any meaningful effects, why do they expend so much energy to disparage it? Methinks they doth protest too much. ..."
          "... Yes thats a good way to look it. Wall Street gave the Democrats and Clinton a lot of campaign cash so that they would dismantle Glass-Steagall. ..."
          "... Slippery slope. Ya gotta find me a business of any type that does not protest any kind of regulation on their business. ..."
          "... Yeah, but usually because of all the bad things they say will happen because of the regulation. The question is, what do they think of Clintons plan? Ive heard surprisingly little about that, and what I have heard is along these lines: http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/08/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street-plan/ ..."
          "... Hillary Clinton unveiled her big plan to curb the worst of Wall Streets excesses on Thursday. The reaction from the banking community was a shrug, if not relief. ..."
          "... Iceland's government is considering a revolutionary monetary proposal – removing the power of commercial banks to create money and handing it to the central bank. The proposal, which would be a turnaround in the history of modern finance, was part of a report written by a lawmaker from the ruling centrist Progress Party, Frosti Sigurjonsson, entitled "A better monetary system for Iceland". ..."
          economistsview.typepad.com

          RGC said...

          Hillary Clinton Is Whitewashing the Financial Catastrophe

          She has a plan that she claims will reform Wall Street-but she's deflecting responsibility from old friends and donors in the industry.

          By William Greider
          Yesterday 3:11 pm

          Hillary Clinton's recent op-ed in The New York Times, "How I'd Rein In Wall Street," was intended to reassure nervous Democrats who fear she is still in thrall to those mega-bankers of New York who crashed the American economy. Clinton's brisk recital of plausible reform ideas might convince wishful thinkers who are not familiar with the complexities of banking. But informed skeptics, myself included, see a disturbing message in her argument that ought to alarm innocent supporters.

          Candidate Clinton is essentially whitewashing the financial catastrophe. She has produced a clumsy rewrite of what caused the 2008 collapse, one that conveniently leaves her husband out of the story. He was the president who legislated the predicate for Wall Street's meltdown. Hillary Clinton's redefinition of the reform problem deflects the blame from Wall Street's most powerful institutions, like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, and instead fingers less celebrated players that failed. In roundabout fashion, Hillary Clinton sounds like she is assuring old friends and donors in the financial sector that, if she becomes president, she will not come after them.

          The seminal event that sowed financial disaster was the repeal of the New Deal's Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which had separated banking into different realms: investment banks, which organize capital investors for risk-taking ventures; and deposit-holding banks, which serve people as borrowers and lenders. That law's repeal, a great victory for Wall Street, was delivered by Bill Clinton in 1999, assisted by the Federal Reserve and the financial sector's armies of lobbyists. The "universal banking model" was saluted as a modernizing reform that liberated traditional banks to participate directly and indirectly in long-prohibited and vastly more profitable risk-taking.

          Exotic financial instruments like derivatives and credit-default swaps flourished, enabling old-line bankers to share in the fun and profit on an awesome scale. The banks invented "guarantees" against loss and sold them to both companies and market players. The fast-expanding financial sector claimed a larger and larger share of the economy (and still does) at the expense of the real economy of producers and consumers. The interconnectedness across market sectors created the illusion of safety. When illusions failed, these connected guarantees became the dragnet that drove panic in every direction. Ultimately, the federal government had to rescue everyone, foreign and domestic, to stop the bleeding.

          Yet Hillary Clinton asserts in her Times op-ed that repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with it. She claims that Glass-Steagall would not have limited the reckless behavior of institutions like Lehman Brothers or insurance giant AIG, which were not traditional banks. Her argument amounts to facile evasion that ignores the interconnected exposures. The Federal Reserve spent $180 billion bailing out AIG so AIG could pay back Goldman Sachs and other banks. If the Fed hadn't acted and had allowed AIG to fail, the banks would have gone down too.

          These sound like esoteric questions of bank regulation (and they are), but the consequences of pretending they do not matter are enormous. The federal government and Federal Reserve would remain on the hook for rescuing losers in a future crisis. The largest and most adventurous banks would remain free to experiment, inventing fictitious guarantees and selling them to eager suckers. If things go wrong, Uncle Sam cleans up the mess.

          Senator Elizabeth Warren and other reformers are pushing a simpler remedy-restore the Glass-Steagall principles and give citizens a safe, government-insured place to store their money. "Banking should be boring," Warren explains (her co-sponsor is GOP Senator John McCain).
          That's a hard sell in politics, given the banking sector's bear hug of Congress and the White House, its callous manipulation of both political parties. Of course, it is more complicated than that. But recreating a safe, stable banking system-a place where ordinary people can keep their money-ought to be the first benchmark for Democrats who claim to be reformers.

          Actually, the most compelling witnesses for Senator Warren's argument are the two bankers who introduced this adventure in "universal banking" back in the 1990s. They used their political savvy and relentless muscle to seduce Bill Clinton and his so-called New Democrats. John Reed was CEO of Citicorp and led the charge. He has since apologized to the nation. Sandy Weill was chairman of the board and a brilliant financier who envisioned the possibilities of a single, all-purpose financial house, freed of government's narrow-minded regulations. They won politically, but at staggering cost to the country.

          Weill confessed error back in 2012: "What we should probably do is go and split up investment banking from banking. Have banks do something that's not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that's not going to be too big to fail."

          John Reed's confession explained explicitly why their modernizing crusade failed for two fundamental business reasons. "One was the belief that combining all types of finance into one institution would drive costs down-and the larger institution the more efficient it would be," Reed wrote in the Financial Times in November. Reed said, "We now know that there are very few cost efficiencies that come from the merger of functions-indeed, there may be none at all. It is possible that combining so much in a single bank makes services more expensive than if they were instead offered by smaller, specialised players."

          The second grave error, Reed said, was trying to mix the two conflicting cultures in banking-bankers who are pulling in opposite directions. That tension helps explain the competitive greed displayed by the modernized banking system. This disorder speaks to the current political crisis in ways that neither Dems nor Republicans wish to confront. It would require the politicians to critique the bankers (often their funders) in terms of human failure.

          "Mixing incompatible cultures is a problem all by itself," Reed wrote. "It makes the entire finance industry more fragile…. As is now clear, traditional banking attracts one kind of talent, which is entirely different from the kinds drawn towards investment banking and trading. Traditional bankers tend to be extroverts, sociable people who are focused on longer term relationships. They are, in many important respects, risk averse. Investment bankers and their traders are more short termist. They are comfortable with, and many even seek out, risk and are more focused on immediate reward."

          Reed concludes, "As I have reflected about the years since 1999, I think the lessons of Glass-Steagall and its repeal suggest that the universal banking model is inherently unstable and unworkable. No amount of restructuring, management change or regulation is ever likely to change that."

          This might sound hopelessly naive, but the Democratic Party might do better in politics if it told more of the truth more often: what they tried do and why it failed, and what they think they may have gotten wrong. People already know they haven't gotten a straight story from politicians. They might be favorably impressed by a little more candor in the plain-spoken manner of John Reed.

          Of course it's unfair to pick on the Dems. Republicans have been lying about their big stuff for so long and so relentlessly that their voters are now staging a wrathful rebellion. Who knows, maybe a little honest talk might lead to honest debate. Think about it. Do the people want to hear the truth about our national condition? Could they stand it?

          http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-is-whitewashing-the-financial-catastrophe/

          EMichael -> RGC...
          "She claims that Glass-Steagall would not have limited the reckless behavior of institutions like Lehman Brothers or insurance giant AIG, which were not traditional banks."

          Of course this claim is absolutely true. Just like GS would not have affected the other investment banks, whatever their name was. And just like we would have had to bail out those other banks whatever their name was.

          Peter K. -> EMichael...
          Can you list all of the pro- or anti- Wall Street "reforms" and actions Bill Clinton performed as President including nominating Alan Greenspan as head regulator? Cutting the capital gains tax? Are you aware of Greenspan's record?

          Yes Hillary isn't Bill but she hasn't criticized her husband specifically about his record and seems to want to have her cake and eat it too.

          Of course Hillary is much better than the Republicans, pace Rustbucket and the Green Lantern Lefty club. Still, critics have a point.

          I won't be surprised if she doesn't do much to rein in Wall Street besides some window dressing.

          sanjait -> Peter K....
          "Can you list all of the pro- or anti- Wall Street "reforms" and actions Bill Clinton performed..."

          That, right there, is what's wrong with Bernie and his fans. They measure everything by whether it is "pro- or anti- Wall Street". Glass Steagall is anti-Wall Street. A financial transactions tax is anti-Wall Street. But neither has any hope of controlling systemic financial risk in this country. None.

          You guys want to punish Wall Street but not even bother trying to think of how to achieve useful policy goals. Some people, like Paine here, are actually open about this vacuity, as if the only thing that were important were winning a power struggle.

          Hillary's plan is flat out better. It's more comprehensive and more effective at reining in the financial system to limit systemic risk. Period.

          You guys want to make this a character melodrama rather than a policy debate, and I fear the result of that will be that the candidate who actually has the best plan won't get to enact it.

          likbez -> sanjait...

          "You guys want to make this a character melodrama rather than a policy debate, and I fear the result of that will be that the candidate who actually has the best plan won't get to enact it."

          You are misrepresenting the positions. It's actually pro-neoliberalism crowd vs anti-neoliberalism crowd. In no way anti-neoliberalism commenters here view this is a character melodrama, although psychologically Hillary probably does has certain problems as her reaction to the death of Gadhafi attests. The key problem with anti-neoliberalism crowd is the question "What is a realistic alternative?" That's where differences and policy debate starts.

          RGC -> EMichael...
          "Her argument amounts to facile evasion"

          Fred C. Dobbs -> RGC...

          'The majority favors policies to the left of Hillary.'

          Nah. I don't think so.

          No, Liberals Don't Control the Democratic Party http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/no-liberals-dont-control-the-democratic-party/283653/
          The Atlantic - Feb 7, 2014

          ... The Democrats' liberal faction has been greatly overestimated by pundits who mistake noisiness for clout or assume that the left functions like the right. In fact, liberals hold nowhere near the power in the Democratic Party that conservatives hold in the Republican Party. And while they may well be gaining, they're still far from being in charge. ...

          Paine -> RGC...

          What's not confronted ? Suggest what a System like the pre repeal system would have done in the 00's. My guess we'd have ended in a crisis anyway. Yes we can segregate the depository system. But credit is elastic enough to build bubbles without the depository system involved

          EMichael -> Paine ...

          Exactly.

          Most people think of lending like the Bailey Brothers Savings and Loan still exists.

          RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> EMichael...

          Don't be such a whistle dick. Just because you cannot figure out why GLBA made such an impact that in no way means that people that do understand are stupid. See my posted comment to RGC on GLBA just down thread for an more detailed explanation including a linked web article. No, GS alone would not have prevented the mortgage bubble, but it would have lessened TBTF and GS stood as icon, a symbol of financial regulation. Hell, if we don't need GS then why don't we just allow unregulated derivatives trading? Who cares, right? Senators Byron Dorgan, Barbara Boxer, Barbara Mikulski, Richard Shelby, Tom Harkin, Richard Bryan, Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders all voted against GLBA to repeal GS for some strange reason and Dorgan made a really big deal out of it at the time. I doubt everyone on that list of Senators was just stupid because they did not see it your way.

          RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> EMichael...
          I ran all out of ceteris paribus quite some time ago. Events do not occur in isolation. GLBA increased TBTF in AIG and Citi. TBTF forced TARP. GLBA greased the skids for CFMA. Democrats gained majority, but not filibuster proof, caught between Iraq and a hard place following their votes for TARP and a broader understanding of their participation in the unanimous consent passage of the CFMA, over "objection" by Senators James Inhofe (R-OK) and Paul Wellstone (D-MN). We have had a Republican majority in the House since the 2010 election and now they have the Senate as well. If you are that sure that voters just choose divided government, then aren't we better off to have a Republican POTUS and Democratic Congress?

          sanjait -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

          "I ran all out of ceteris paribus quite some time ago. Events do not occur in isolation. GLBA increased TBTF in AIG and Citi. TBTF forced TARP. GLBA greased the skids for CFMA. "

          I know you think this is a really meaningful string that evidences causation, but it just looks like you are reaching, reaching, reaching ...

          RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> sanjait...

          Maybe. No way to say for sure. It certainly fits the kind of herd mentality that I always saw in corporate Amerika until I retired. The William Greider article posted by RGC was very consistent in its account by John Reed with the details of one or two books written about AIG back in 2009 or so. I don't have time to hunt them up now. Besides, no one would read them anyway.

          I am voting for whoever wins the Democratic nomination for POTUS. Bernie without a like-minded Congress would not do much good. But when we shoot each other down here at EV without offering any agreement or consideration that we might not be 100% correct, then that goes against Doc Thoma's idea of an open forum. Granted, with my great big pair then I am willing to state my opinion with no consideration for validation or acceptance, but not everyone has that degree of a comfort zone. Besides, I am so old an cynical that shooting down the overdogs that go after the underdogs is one of the few things that I still care about.

          RGC -> Paine ...

          GS was one of several actions taken by the New Deal. That it wasn't sufficient by itself doesn't equate to it wasn't beneficial.

          RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RGC...

          [Lock and load.]

          http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2015/05/13/glass-steagall-one-democratic-senator-who-got-it-right/

          Glass-Steagall: Warren and Sanders bring it back into focus

          Madonna Gauding / May 13, 2015

          Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are putting a new focus on the Glass-Steagall Act, which was, unfortunately, repealed in 1999 and led directly to the financial crises we have faced ever since. Here's a bit of history of this legislative debacle from an older post on Occasional Planet published several years ago :

          On November 4, 1999, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) took to the floor of the senate to make an impassioned speech against the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, (alternately known as Gramm Leach Biley, or the "Financial Modernization Act") Repeal of Glass-Steagall would allow banks to merge with insurance companies and investments houses. He said "I want to sound a warning call today about this legislation, I think this legislation is just fundamentally terrible."

          According to Sam Stein, writing in 2009 in the Huffington Post, only eight senators voted against the repeal. Senior staff in the Clinton administration and many now in the Obama administration praised the repeal as the "most important breakthrough in the world of finance and politics in decades"

          According to Stein, Dorgan warned that banks would become "too big to fail" and claimed that Congress would "look back in a decade and say we should not have done this." The repeal of Glass Steagall, of course, was one of several bad policies that helped lead to the current economic crisis we are in now.

          Dorgan wasn't entirely alone. Sens. Barbara Boxer, Barbara Mikulski, Richard Shelby, Tom Harkin, Richard Bryan, Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders also cast nay votes. The late Sen. Paul Wellstone opposed the bill, and warned at the time that Congress was "about to repeal the economic stabilizer without putting any comparable safeguard in its place."

          Democratic Senators had sufficient knowledge about the dangers of the repeal of Glass Steagall, but chose to ignore it. Plenty of experts warned that it would be impossible to "discipline" banks once the legislation was passed, and that they would get too big and complex to regulate. Editorials against repeal appeared in the New York Times and other mainstream venues, suggesting that if the new megabanks were to falter, they could take down the entire global economy, which is exactly what happened. Stein quotes Ralph Nader who said at the time, "We will look back at this and wonder how the country was so asleep. It's just a nightmare."

          According to Stein:

          "The Senate voted to pass Gramm-Leach-Bliley by a vote of 90-8 and reversed what was, for more than six decades, a framework that had governed the functions and reach of the nation's largest banks. No longer limited by laws and regulations commercial and investment banks could now merge. Many had already begun the process, including, among others, J.P. Morgan and Citicorp. The new law allowed it to be permanent. The updated ground rules were low on oversight and heavy on risky ventures. Historically in the business of mortgages and credit cards, banks now would sell insurance and stock.

          Nevertheless, the bill did not lack champions, many of whom declared that the original legislation - forged during the Great Depression - was both antiquated and cumbersome for the banking industry. Congress had tried 11 times to repeal Glass-Steagall. The twelfth was the charm.

          "Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century," said then-Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. "This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy."

          "I welcome this day as a day of success and triumph," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, (D-Conn.).

          "The concerns that we will have a meltdown like 1929 are dramatically overblown," said Sen. Bob Kerrey, (D-Neb.).

          "If we don't pass this bill, we could find London or Frankfurt or years down the road Shanghai becoming the financial capital of the world," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "There are many reasons for this bill, but first and foremost is to ensure that U.S. financial firms remain competitive."

          Unfortunately, the statement by Chuck Schumer sounds very much like it was prepared by a lobbyist. This vote underscores the way in which our elected officials are so heavily swayed by corporate and banking money that our voices and needs become irrelevant. It is why we need publicly funded elections. Democratic senators, the so-called representatives of the people, fell over themselves to please their Wall Street donors knowing full well there were dangers for the country at large, for ordinary Americans, in repealing Glass-Steagall.

          It is important to hold Democratic senators (along with current members of the Obama administration) accountable for the significant role they have played in the current economic crisis that has caused so much suffering for ordinary Americans. In case you were wondering, the current Democratic Senators who voted yes to repeal the Glass-Steagall act are the following:

          Daniel Akaka – Max Baucus – Evan Bayh – Jeff Bingaman – Kent Conrad – Chris Dodd – Dick Durbin – Dianne Feinstein – Daniel Inouye – Tim Johnson – John Kerry – Herb Kohl – Mary Landrieu – Frank Lautenberg – Patrick Leahy – Carl Levin – Joseph Lieberman – Blanche Lincoln – Patty Murray – Jack Reed – Harry Reid – Jay Rockefeller – Chuck Schumer – Ron Wyden

          Former House members who voted for repeal who are current Senators.

          Mark Udall [as of 2010] – Debbie Stabenow – Bob Menendez – Tom Udall -Sherrod Brown

          No longer in the Senate, or passed away, but who voted for repeal:

          Joe Biden -Ted Kennedy -Robert Byrd

          These Democratic senators would like to forget or make excuses for their enthusiastic vote on the repeal of Glass Steagall, but it is important to hold them accountable for helping their bank donors realize obscene profits while their constituents lost jobs, savings and homes. And it is important to demand that they serve the interests of the American people.

          *

          [The repeal of Glass Steagal was a landmark victory in deregulation that greased the skids for the passage of CFMA once Democrats had been further demoralized by the SCOTUS decision on Bush-v-Gore. The first vote on GLBA was split along party lines, but passed because Republicans had majority and Clinton was willing to sign which was clear from the waiver that had been granted to illegal Citi merger with Travelers. Both Citi and AIG mergers contributed to too big to fail. The CFMA was the nail in the coffin that probably would have never gotten off the ground if Democrats had held the line on the GLBA. Glass-Steagal was insufficient as a regulatory system to prevent the 2008 mortgage crisis, but it was giant as an icon of New Deal financial system reform. Its loss institutionalized too big to fail.]

          pgl -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

          Gramm Leach Biley was a mistake. But it was not the only failure of US regulatory policies towards financial institutions nor the most important. I think that is what Hillary Clinton is saying.

          RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> pgl...

          It was more symbolic caving in on financial regulation than a specific technical failure except for making too big to fail worse at Citi and AIG. It marked a sea change of thinking about financial regulation. Nothing mattered any more, including the CFMA just a little over one year later. Deregulation of derivatives trading mandated by the CFMA was a colossal failure and it is not bizarre to believe that GLBA precipitated the consensus on financial deregulation enough that after the demoralizing defeat of Democrats in Bush-v-Gore then there was no New Deal spirit of financial regulation left. Social development is not just a series of unconnected events. It is carried on a tide of change. A falling tide grounds all boats.

          pgl -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

          We had a financial dereg craze back in the late 1970's and early 1980's which led to the S&L disaster. One would have thought we would have learned from that. But then came the dereg craziness 20 years later. And this disaster was much worse.

          I don't care whether Hillary says 1999 was a mistake or not. I do care what the regulations of financial institutions will be like going forward.

          RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> pgl...

          I cannot disagree with any of that.

          sanjait -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

          "Deregulation of derivatives trading mandated by the CFMA was a colossal failure and it is not bizarre to believe that GLBA precipitated the consensus"

          Yeah, it is kind of bizarre to blame one bill for a crisis that occurred largely because another bill was passed, based on some some vague assertion about how the first bill made everyone think crazy.

          RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> sanjait...
          Democrats did not vote for GLBA until after reconciliation between the House and Senate bills. Democrats were tossed a bone in the Community Reinvestment Act financing provisions and given that Bill Clinton was going to sign anyway and that Republicans were able to pass the bill without a single vote from Democrats then all but a few Democrats bought in. They could not stop it, so they just bought into it. I thought there was supposed to be an understanding of behaviorism devoted to understanding the political economy. For that matter Republicans did not need Democrats to vote for the CFMA either, but they did. That gave Republicans political cover for whatever went wrong later on. No one with a clue believed things would go well from the passage of either of these bills. It was pure Wall Street driven kleptocracy.
          likbez -> sanjait...
          It was not one bill or another. It was a government policy to get traders what they want.

          See

          Bruce E. Woych | August 6, 2013 at 5:45 pm |

          http://www.imackgroup.com/mathematics/989981-the-untold-story-brooksley-born-larry-summers-the-truth-about-unlimited-risk-potential/

          The Untold Story: Brooksley Born, Larry Summers & the Truth …
          http://www.imackgroup.com/mathematics/989981-the-untold-story-brooksley-born-larry...
          Oct 5, 2012 … Larry Summers is attempting to re-write history at the expense of … and they might just find one critical point revealed in Mr. Cohan's article.
          [PERTINENT EXCERPT]: Oct 5, 2012

          "As the western world wakes to the fact it is in the middle of a debt crisis spiral, intelligent voices are wondering how this manifested itself? As we speak, those close to the situation could be engaging in historical revisionism to obfuscate their role in the design of faulty leverage structures that were identified in the derivatives markets in 1998 and 2008. These same design flaws, first identified in 1998, are persistent today and could become graphically evident in the very near future under the weight of a European debt crisis.

          Author and Bloomberg columnist William Cohan chronicles the fascinating start of this historic leverage implosion in his recent article Rethinking Robert Rubin. Readers may recall it was Mr. Cohan who, in 2004, noted leverage issues that ultimately imploded in 2007-08.

          At some point, market watchers will realize the debt crisis story will literally change the world. They will look to the root cause of the problem, and they might just find one critical point revealed in Mr. Cohan's article.

          This point occurs in 1998 when then Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) ChairwomanBrooksley Born identified what now might be recognized as core design flaws in leverage structure used in Over the Counter (OTC) transactions. Ms. Born brought her concerns public, by first asking just to study the issue, as appropriate action was not being taken. She issued a concept release paper that simply asked for more information. "The Commission is not entering into this process with preconceived results in mind," the document reads.

          Ms. Born later noted in, the PBS Frontline documentary on the topic speculation at the CFTC was the unregulated OTC derivatives were opaque, the risk to the global economy could not be determined and the risk was potentially catastrophic. As a result of this inquiry, Ms. Born was ultimately forced from office.

          This brings us to Lawrence Summers, the former Treasury Secretary of the United States and at the time right hand man to then Treasury Security Robert Rubin. Mr. Summers was widely credited with implementation of the aggressive tactics used to remove Ms. Born from her office, tactics that multiple sources describe as showing an old world bias against women piercing the glass ceiling.

          According to numerous published reports, Mr. Summers was involved in. silencing those who questioned the opaque derivative product's design. "

          RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Paine ...

          TBTF on steroids, might as well CFMA - why not?

          Bubbles with less TBTF and a lot less credit default swaps would have been a lot less messy going in. Without TARP, then Congress might have still had the guts for making a lesser New Deal.

          EMichael -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

          TARP was window dressing. The curtain that covered up the FED's actions.

          pgl -> RGC...

          Where have I heard about William Greider? Oh yea - this critique of something stupid he wrote about a Supreme Court decision:

          www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/06/how-many-errors-can-william-greider-make-in-two-sentences-describing-lochner-v-new-york/

          pgl -> RGC...

          "Exotic financial instruments like derivatives and credit-default swaps flourished, enabling old-line bankers to share in the fun and profit on an awesome scale."

          These would have flourished even if Glass-Steagall remained on the books. Leave it to RGC to find some critic of HRC who knows nothing about financial markets.

          RGC -> pgl...

          Derivatives flourished because of the other deregulation under Clinton, the CFMA. The repeal of GS helped commercial banks participate.

          RGC -> pgl...

          The repeal of GS helped commercial banks participate.

          Fred C. Dobbs -> pgl...

          Warren Buffet used to rail about how risky derivative investing is, until he realized they are *extremely* important in the re-insurance biz, which is a
          big part of Berkshire Hathaway.

          Peter K. said...

          http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-and-cracking-down-on-wall-street

          Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Cracking Down on Wall Street
          by Dean Baker

          Published: 12 December 2015

          The New Yorker ran a rather confused piece on Gary Sernovitz, a managing director at the investment firm Lime Rock Partners, on whether Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton would be more effective in reining in Wall Street. The piece assures us that Secretary Clinton has a better understanding of Wall Street and that her plan would be more effective in cracking down on the industry. The piece is bizarre both because it essentially dismisses the concern with too big to fail banks and completely ignores Sanders' proposal for a financial transactions tax which is by far the most important mechanism for reining in the financial industry.

          The piece assures us that too big to fail banks are no longer a problem, noting their drop in profitability from bubble peaks and telling readers:

          "not only are Sanders's bogeybanks just one part of Wall Street but they are getting less powerful and less problematic by the year."

          This argument is strange for a couple of reasons. First, the peak of the subprime bubble frenzy is hardly a good base of comparison. The real question is should we anticipate declining profits going forward. That hardly seems clear. For example, Citigroup recently reported surging profits, while Wells Fargo's third quarter profits were up 8 percent from 2014 levels.

          If Sernovitz is predicting that the big banks are about to shrivel up to nothingness, the market does not agree with him. Citigroup has a market capitalization of $152 billion, JPMorgan has a market cap of $236 billion, and Bank of America has a market cap of $174 billion. Clearly investors agree with Sanders in thinking that these huge banks will have sizable profits for some time to come.

          The real question on too big to fail is whether the government would sit by and let a Goldman Sachs or Citigroup go bankrupt. Perhaps some people think that it is now the case, but I've never met anyone in that group.

          Sernovitz is also dismissive on Sanders call for bringing back the Glass-Steagall separation between commercial banking and investment banking. He makes the comparison to the battle over the Keystone XL pipeline, which is actually quite appropriate. The Keystone battle did take on exaggerated importance in the climate debate. There was never a zero/one proposition in which no tar sands oil would be pumped without the pipeline, while all of it would be pumped if the pipeline was constructed. Nonetheless, if the Obama administration was committed to restricting greenhouse gas emissions, it is difficult to see why it would support the building of a pipeline that would facilitate bringing some of the world's dirtiest oil to market.

          In the same vein, Sernovitz is right that it is difficult to see how anything about the growth of the housing bubble and its subsequent collapse would have been very different if Glass-Steagall were still in place. And, it is possible in principle to regulate bank's risky practices without Glass-Steagall, as the Volcker rule is doing. However, enforcement tends to weaken over time under industry pressure, which is a reason why the clear lines of Glass-Steagall can be beneficial. Furthermore, as with Keystone, if we want to restrict banks' power, what is the advantage of letting them get bigger and more complex?

          The repeal of Glass-Steagall was sold in large part by boasting of the potential synergies from combining investment and commercial banking under one roof. But if the operations are kept completely separate, as is supposed to be the case, where are the synergies?

          But the strangest part of Sernovitz's story is that he leaves out Sanders' financial transactions tax (FTT) altogether. This is bizarre, because the FTT is essentially a hatchet blow to the waste and exorbitant salaries in the industry.

          Most research shows that trading volume is very responsive to the cost of trading, with most estimates putting the elasticity close to one. This means that if trading costs rise by 50 percent, then trading volume declines by 50 percent. (In its recent analysis of FTTs, the Tax Policy Center assumed that the elasticity was 1.5, meaning that trading volume decline by 150 percent of the increase in trading costs.) The implication of this finding is that the financial industry would pay the full cost of a financial transactions tax in the form of reduced trading revenue.

          The Tax Policy Center estimated that a 0.1 percent tax on stock trades, scaled with lower taxes on other assets, would raise $50 billion a year in tax revenue. The implied reduction in trading revenue was even larger. Senator Sanders has proposed a tax of 0.5 percent on equities (also with a scaled tax on other assets). This would lead to an even larger reduction in revenue for the financial industry.

          It is incredible that Sernovitz would ignore a policy with such enormous consequences for the financial sector in his assessment of which candidate would be tougher on Wall Street. Sanders FTT would almost certainly do more to change behavior on Wall Street then everything that Clinton has proposed taken together by a rather large margin. It's sort of like evaluating the New England Patriots' Super Bowl prospects without discussing their quarterback.

          Syaloch -> Peter K....

          Great to see Baker's acknowledgement that an updated Glass-Steagall is just one component of the progressive wing's plan to rein in Wall Street, not the sum total of it. Besides, if Wall Street types don't think restoring Glass-Steagall will have any meaningful effects, why do they expend so much energy to disparage it? Methinks they doth protest too much.

          Peter K. -> Syaloch...

          Yes that's a good way to look it. Wall Street gave the Democrats and Clinton a lot of campaign cash so that they would dismantle Glass-Steagall. If they want it done, it's probably not a good idea.

          EMichael -> Syaloch...

          Slippery slope. Ya' gotta find me a business of any type that does not protest any kind of regulation on their business.

          Syaloch -> EMichael...

          Yeah, but usually because of all the bad things they say will happen because of the regulation. The question is, what do they think of Clinton's plan? I've heard surprisingly little about that, and what I have heard is along these lines: http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/08/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street-plan/

          "Hillary Clinton unveiled her big plan to curb the worst of Wall Street's excesses on Thursday. The reaction from the banking community was a shrug, if not relief."

          pgl -> Syaloch...

          Two excellent points!!!

          sanjait -> Syaloch...

          "Besides, if Wall Street types don't think restoring Glass-Steagall will have any meaningful effects, why do they expend so much energy to disparage it? Methinks they doth protest too much."

          It has an effect of shrinking the size of a few firms, and that has a detrimental effect on the top managers of those firms, who get paid more money if they have larger firms to manage. But it has little to no meaningful effect on systemic risk.

          So if your main policy goal is to shrink the compensation for a small number of powerful Wall Street managers, G-S is great. But if you actually want to accomplish something useful to the American people, like limiting systemic risk in the financial sector, then a plan like Hillary's is much much better. She explained this fairly well in her recent NYT piece.

          Paine -> Peter K....

          There is absolutely NO question Bernie is for real. Wall Street does not want Bernie. So they'll let Hillary talk as big as she needs to . Why should we believe her when an honest guy like Barry caved once in power

          Paine -> Paine ...

          Bernie has been anti Wall Street his whole career . He's on a crusade. Hillary is pulling a sham bola

          Paine -> Paine ...

          Perhaps too often we look at Wall Street as monolithic whether consciously or not. Obviously we know it's no monolithic: there are serious differences

          When the street is riding high especially. Right now the street is probably not united but too cautious to display profound differences in public. They're sitting on their hands waiting to see how high the anti Wall Street tide runs this election cycle. Trump gives them cover and I really fear secretly Hillary gives them comfort

          This all coiled change if Bernie surges. How that happens depends crucially on New Hampshire. Not Iowa

          EMichael -> Paine ...

          If Bernie surges and wins the nomination, we will all get to watch the death of the Progressive movement for a decade or two. Congress will become more GOP dominated, and we will have a President in office who will make Hoover look like a Socialist.

          Syaloch -> EMichael...

          Of course. In politics, as they say in the service, one must always choose the lesser of two evils. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4PzpxOj5Cc

          pgl -> EMichael...

          You should like the moderate Democrats after George McGovern ran in 1972. I'm hoping we have another 1964 with Bernie leading a united Democratic Congress.

          EMichael -> pgl...

          Not a chance in the world. And I like Sanders much more than anyone else. It just simply cannot, and will not, happen. He is a communist. Not to me, not to you, but to the vast majority of American voters.

          pgl -> EMichael...

          He is not a communist. But I agree - Hillary is winning the Democratic nomination. I have only one vote and in New York, I'm badly outnumbered.

          ilsm -> Paine ...

          I believe Hillary will be to liberal causes after she is elected as LBJ was to peace in Vietnam. Like Bill and Obomber.

          pgl -> ilsm...

          By 1968, LBJ finally realized it was time to end that stupid war. But it seems certain members in the State Department undermined his efforts in a cynical ploy to get Nixon to be President. The Republican Party has had more slime than substance of most of my life time.

          pgl -> Peter K....

          Gary Sernovitz, a managing director at the investment firm Lime Rock Partners? Why are we listening to this guy too. It's like letting the fox guard the hen house.

          sanjait -> Peter K....

          "The piece is bizarre both because it essentially dismisses the concern with too big to fail banks and completely ignores Sanders' proposal for a financial transactions tax which is by far the most important mechanism for reining in the financial industry."

          This is just wrong. Is financial system risk in any way correlated with the frequency of transactions? Except for market volatility from HFT ... no. The financial crisis wasn't caused by a high volume of trades. It was caused by bad investments into highly illiquid assets. Again, great example of wanting to punish Wall Street but not bothering to think about what actually works.

          Peter K. said...

          Robert Reich to the Fed: this is not the time to raise rates.

          https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1116088268403768

          RGC said...

          Iceland's Radical Money Plan

          Iceland, too, is looking at a radical transformation of its money system, after suffering the crushing boom/bust cycle of the private banking model that bankrupted its largest banks in 2008. According to a March 2015 article in the UK Telegraph:

          Iceland's government is considering a revolutionary monetary proposal – removing the power of commercial banks to create money and handing it to the central bank. The proposal, which would be a turnaround in the history of modern finance, was part of a report written by a lawmaker from the ruling centrist Progress Party, Frosti Sigurjonsson, entitled "A better monetary system for Iceland".

          "The findings will be an important contribution to the upcoming discussion, here and elsewhere, on money creation and monetary policy," Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson said. The report, commissioned by the premier, is aimed at putting an end to a monetary system in place through a slew of financial crises, including the latest one in 2008.

          Under this "Sovereign Money" proposal, the country's central bank would become the only creator of money. Banks would continue to manage accounts and payments and would serve as intermediaries between savers and lenders. The proposal is a variant of the Chicago Plan promoted by Kumhof and Benes of the IMF and the Positive Money group in the UK.

          Public Banking Initiatives in Iceland, Ireland and the UK

          A major concern with stripping private banks of the power to create money as deposits when they make loans is that it will seriously reduce the availability of credit in an already sluggish economy. One solution is to make the banks, or some of them, public institutions. They would still be creating money when they made loans, but it would be as agents of the government; and the profits would be available for public use, on the model of the US Bank of North Dakota and the German Sparkassen (public savings banks).

          In Ireland, three political parties – Sinn Fein, the Green Party and Renua Ireland (a new party) - are now supporting initiatives for a network of local publicly-owned banks on the Sparkassen model. In the UK, the New Economy Foundation (NEF) is proposing that the failed Royal Bank of Scotland be transformed into a network of public interest banks on that model. And in Iceland, public banking is part of the platform of a new political party called the Dawn Party.

          December 11, 2015
          Reinventing Banking: From Russia to Iceland to Ecuador

          by Ellen Brown

          http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/11/reinventing-banking-from-russia-to-iceland-to-ecuador/

          pgl -> RGC...

          "Banks would continue to manage accounts and payments and would serve as intermediaries between savers and lenders."

          OK but that means they issue bank accounts which of course we call deposits. So is this just semantics? People want checking accounts. People want savings accounts. Otherwise they would not exist. Iceland plans to do what to stop the private sector from getting what it wants?

          I like the idea of public banks. Let's nationalize JPMorganChase so we don't have to listen to Jamie Dimon anymore!

          sanjait -> pgl...

          I don't know for sure (not bothering to search and read the referenced proposals), but I assumed the described proposal was for an end to fractional reserve banking. Banks would have to have full reserves to make loans. Or something. I could be wrong about that.

          Syaloch said...

          Sorry, but Your Favorite Company Can't Be Your Friend

          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/upshot/sorry-but-your-favorite-company-cant-be-your-friend.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

          To think that an artificial person, whether corporeal or corporate, can ever be your friend requires a remarkable level of self-delusion.

          A commenter on the Times site aptly quotes Marx in response:

          "The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom - Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

          "The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers."

          https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

          [Dec 12, 2015] Visualizing The Worlds Hot Money

          Notable quotes:
          "... Goldman Sachs buzz-acronym BRICS are five of the largest exporters of hot money . It amuses me to no end how so many buy the idea that the BRICS are gonna take over the world... ..."
          "... Better definitions would have black money correspond to any government/public spending, declared capital and proceeds from violent crime (i.e. money that is acquired through or enables violence) and honest money to all the undeclared savings, underground economy/trade proceeds and non-institutional drug money. ..."
          "... the most of China money leaves through HK do you think HK is a dump ? ..."
          "... Over the years I have written several brief explanations of how offshore havens work. The one at the link below covers the basic-basics reasonably well. http://barlowscayman.blogspot.com/2013/01/offshore-tax-havens-what-they-do.html ..."
          "... once again, we see banksters and corrupt corporate sector players colluding with corrupt individuals and assorted criminals - many inside .gov itself - to move ill-gotten gains to safer places out of reach of law enforcement in their own countries. ..."
          "... Banksters facilitate virtually every financial crime. ..."
          Zero Hedge

          Every year, roughly $1 trillion flows illegally out of developing and emerging economies due to crime, corruption, and tax evasion. This amount is more than these countries receive in foreign direct investment and foreign aid combined.

          This week, a new report was released that highlights the latest data available on this "hot" money. Assembled by Global Financial Integrity, a research and advisory organization based in Washington, DC, the report details illicit financial flows of money from developing countries using the latest information available, which is up until the end of 2013.

          Chart The World's Hot Money

          The cumulative amount of this "hot money" coming out of developing countries totaled just over $7.8 trillion between 2004 and 2013. On an annual basis, it breached the $1 trillion mark each of the last three years of data available, which is good for a growth rate of 6.5% rate annually.

          In Asia, illicit financial outflows are growing even quicker at an 8.6% clip. It's also on the continent that five of the ten largest source economies for these flows can be found, including the largest offender, which is Mainland China.

          How does this "hot" money leave these countries? Global Financial Integrity has calculated that 83% of illicit financial flows are due to what it calls "trade misinvoicing".

          It's defined as the following:

          The misinvoicing of trade is accomplished by misstating the value or volume of an export or import on a customs invoice. Trade misinvoicing is a form of trade-based money laundering made possible by the fact that trading partners write their own trade documents, or arrange to have the documents prepared in a third country (typically a tax haven), a method known as re-invoicing. Fraudulent manipulation of the price, quantity, or quality of a good or service on an invoice allows criminals, corrupt government officials, and commercial tax evaders to shift vast amounts of money across international borders quickly, easily, and nearly always undetected.

          Trade misinvoicing accounted for an average of $654.7 billion per year of lost trade in developing markets over the data set covered by the report.

          Source: Visual Capitalist

          38BWD22

          Goldman Sachs buzz-acronym "BRICS" are five of the largest exporters of "hot money". It amuses me to no end how so many buy the idea that the BRICS are gonna take over the world...

          markmotive

          6 signals for an impending bear market:

          http://www.planbeconomics.com/2015/12/6-signals-for-impending-bear-marke...

          jefferson32

          What the fuck is "illicit" money? Savings that weren't looted away?

          Better definitions would have "black" money correspond to any government/public spending, declared capital and proceeds from violent crime (i.e. money that is acquired through or enables violence) and honest money to all the undeclared savings, underground economy/trade proceeds and non-institutional drug money.

          avenriv

          the most of China money leaves through HK do you think HK is a dump ?

          did you ever leave your small town ?

          38BWD22

          I found Hong Kong rather nice some 20 years ago, Beijing not so much.

          We just came back from India.

          So, yes, I have been to four of those BRICS, and am not impressed. Sorry.

          Feel free to tell me more though. Especially about your travels. ;)

          BarnacleBill

          As a (retired) tax-haven professional in three countries, and a former Manager of the Cayman Islands Chamber of Commerce, I must caution against the term "mis-invoicing" - with or without the hyphen...More properly, it's re-invoicing, and no more illicit than the procedure by which any trader buys goods at one price and sells them at another.

          When a corporate buyer is owned by the same people as own the seller, their transaction may raise an eyebrow or two, but usually it would be permitted by the published taxation laws of all the relevant companies, as those laws are interpreted by both private-sector lawyers and the tax authorities. With transactions of that kind, it is beneficial for the owners if the tax-rates are different in the two jurisdictions. Well, of course; but that situation is always - always - allowed by the laws of those jurisdictions, whether they are developed or developing.

          Over the years I have written several brief explanations of how "offshore" havens work. The one at the link below covers the basic-basics reasonably well. http://barlowscayman.blogspot.com/2013/01/offshore-tax-havens-what-they-do.html

          Duc888

          "Every year, roughly $1 trillion flows illegally out of developing and emerging economies due to crime, corruption, and tax evasion"

          Yea, that would be banksterz, CIA and their drug running, NGO's and their child trafficking....... etc... Might want to throw a few more zero's in there too.

          Bob who runs the deli down the street and pockets $500 "illicit" dollars a week is not your worry or concern you stupid fuckkkerz.


          zeroboris

          The Russian central bank every year publishes a report of how many billions of dollars have stolen from our economy, and... does nothing, nothing at all to stop this.

          smacker

          There are good arguments to say that what people do with their own money is nothing to do with .gov.

          But once again, we see banksters and corrupt corporate sector players colluding with corrupt individuals and assorted criminals - many inside .gov itself - to move ill-gotten gains to safer places out of reach of law enforcement in their own countries.

          Banksters facilitate virtually every financial crime.

          [Dec 11, 2015] Why Its Tricky for Fed Officials to Talk Politically

          "There is no reason for central banks to have the kind of independence that judicial institutions have. Justice may be blind and above politics, but money and banking are not." Economic and politics are like Siamese twins (which actually . If somebody trying to separate them it is a clear sign that the guy is either neoliberal propagandists or outright crook.
          Notable quotes:
          "... I think FED chairman is the second most powerful political position in the USA after the POTUS. Or may be in some respects it is even the first ;-) So it is quintessentially high-power political position masked with the smokescreen of purely economic (like many other things are camouflaged under neoliberalism.) ..."
          "... I think that is a hidden principle behind attacks on FED chair. A neoliberal principle that the state should not intrude into economics and limit itself to the police, security, defense, law enforcement and few other related to this functions. So their point that she overextended her mandate is an objection based on principle. Which can be violated only if it is used to uphold neoliberalism, as Greenspan did during his career many times. ..."
          "... This kind of debate seems to be a by-product of the contemporary obsession with having an independent central bank, run according to the fantasy that there is such a thing as a neutral or apolitical way to conduct monetary policy. ..."
          "... A number of commenters and authors have recently pointed out that inequality may not just be an unrelated phenomenon to monetary policy, but actually, in part at least, a byproduct of it. ..."
          "... The theory is that the Fed in the Great Moderation age has been so keen to stave off even the possibility of inflation that it chokes down the vigor of recoveries before they get to the part where median wages start rising quickly. The result is that wages get ratcheted down with the economic cycle, falling during recessions and never fully recovering during the recoveries. ..."
          "... Two Things: (i) The Fed should be open and honest about monetary policy. No one wants to return to the Greenspan days. (ii) Brad Delong is a neoliberal hack. ..."
          "... As to why risk a political backlash in the piece, the short answer is: to invoke the debate on whether politics or fact (science) is going to dominate. Because they can't both. See: Romer. Let's have this out once and for all. ..."
          Dec 11, 2015 | Economist's View
          anne said...
          Fine column, with which I agree. Federal Reserve policy as such is difficult and contentious enough to avoid wandering to social-economic analysis or philosophy from aspects of the Fed mandate.

          As for the use of the word "hack" in referring to Janet Yellen, that needlessly insulting use was by a Washington Post editor and not by columnist Michael Strain.

          anne -> RW (the other)...

          As Brad notes, many Fed Chairs before Yellen have opined on matters outside monetary policy so why is Yellen subject to a different standard?

          [ Fine, I have reconsidered and agree. No matter how the headline was written, the headline was meant to be intimidating and was willfully mean and that could and should have been made clear immediately by the writer of the column. ]

          likbez -> anne...

          "Federal Reserve policy as such is difficult and contentious enough to avoid wandering to social-economic analysis or philosophy from aspects of the Fed mandate."

          Anne,

          I think FED chairman is the second most powerful political position in the USA after the POTUS. Or may be in some respects it is even the first ;-) So it is quintessentially high-power political position masked with the smokescreen of "purely economic" (like many other things are camouflaged under neoliberalism.)

          That's why Greenspan got it, while being despised by his Wall-Street colleagues...

          He got it because he was perfect for promoting deregulation political agenda from the position of FED chair.

          pgl -> likbez...

          Greenspan was despised on Wall Street? Wow as he tried so hard to serve their interests. I guess the Wall Street crowd is never happy no matter how much income we feed these blow hards.

          anne -> likbez...

          So it is quintessentially high-power political position masked with the smokescreen of "purely economic" (like many other things are camouflaged under neoliberalism.)

          [ I understand, and am convinced. ]

          Peter K. said...

          I respectfully disagree. Republicans are always working the refs and despite what the writer from AEI said, they're okay with conservative Fed chairs talking politics. They have double standards.

          Greenspan testified to Congress on behalf of Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Something about how since Clinton balanced the budget, the financial markets had too little safe debt to work with. (maybe that's why they dove into mortgaged-backed securities). But tax cuts versus more government spending? He and Rubin advised Clinton to drop his middle class spending bill and trade deficit reduction for lower interest rates. That's economics which have political outcomes.

          So if the rightwing is going to work the the refs, so should the left. We shouldn't unilaterally disarm over fears Congress will gun for the Fed. There should be more groups like Fed Up protesting.

          The good thing about Yellen's speech is that it's a signal to progressives that inequality is problem for her even as she is raising rates in a political dance with hawks and Congress.

          The Fed is constantly accused of increasing inequality so it's good Yellen is saying she thinks it's a bad thing and not American.

          Bernie Sanders is right that for change to happen we'll need more political involvement from regular citizens. We'll need a popular movement with many leaders.

          The Fed should be square in the sights of a progressive movement. A high-pressured economy with full employment should be a top priority.

          Instead I saw Nancy Pelosi being interviewed by Al Hunt on Charlie Rose the other night. Hunt asked her about Yellen raising rates.

          Pelosi said no comment as she wasn't looking at the data Yellen was and didn't want to interfere. The Fed should be independent, etc. Perhaps like Thoma she has the best of motives and doesn't want to motivate the Republicans to go after the Fed and oppose what she wants.

          Still I felt the Democratic leadership should be committed to a high-pressure economy. Her staff should know what Krugman, Summers etc are saying. What the IMF and World Bank are sayings.

          She should have said "they shouldn't raise rates until they see the whites of inflation's eyes" as Krugman memorably put it. She should have said that emphatically.

          We need a Democratic Party like that.

          Instead Peter Diamond is blocked from becoming a Fed governor by Republicans and Pelosi is afraid to comment on monetary policy.

          Peter K. -> Peter K....

          A longer reply from DeLong:

          http://www.bradford-delong.com/2015/12/must-read-i-would-beg-the-highly-esteemed-mark-thoma-to-draw-a-distinction-here-between-inappropriate-and-unwise-in-m.html

          Must-Read: I would beg the highly-esteemed Mark Thoma to draw a distinction here between "inappropriate" and unwise. In my view, it is not at all inappropriate for Fed Chair Janet Yellen to express her concern about excessive inequality. Previous Fed Chairs, after all, have expressed their liking for inequality as an essential engine of economic growth over and over again over the past half century--with exactly zero critical snarking from the American Enterprise Institute for trespassing beyond the boundaries of their role.

          But that it is not inappropriate for Janet Yellen to do so does not mean that it is wise. Mark's argument is, I think, that given the current political situation it is unwise for Janet to further incite the ire of the nutboys in the way that even the mildest expression of concern about rising inequality will do.

          That may or may not be true. I think it is not.

          But I do not think that bears on my point that Michael R. Strain's arguments that Janet Yellen's speech on inequality was inappropriate are void, wrong, erroneous, inattentive to precedent, shoddy, expired, expired, gone to meet their maker, bereft of life, resting in peace, pushing up the daisies, kicked the bucket, shuffled off their mortal coil, run down the curtain, and joined the bleeding choir invisible:

          Mark Thoma: Why It's Tricky for Fed Officials to Talk Politically: "I think I disagree with Brad DeLong...

          pgl -> Peter K....

          "my point that Michael R. Strain's arguments that Janet Yellen's speech on inequality was inappropriate are void, wrong, erroneous..."

          DeLong is exactly right here. Strain's argument has its own share of partisan lies whereas Yellen is telling the truth. Brad will not be intimidated by this AEI weasel.

          sanjait said...

          Why would Yellen not talk about inequality? It's an important macroeconomic topic and one that is relevant for her job. It's both an input and an output variable that is related to monetary policy.

          And, arguably I think, median wage growth should be regarded as a policy goal for the Fed, related to its explicit mandate of "maximum employment."

          But even if you think inequality is unrelated to the Fed's policy goals, that doesn't stop them from talking about other topics. Do people accuse the Fed of playing politics when they talk about desiring reduced financial market volatility? That has little to do with growth, employment and general price stability.

          likbez -> sanjait...

          I think that is a hidden principle behind attacks on FED chair. A neoliberal principle that the state should not intrude into economics and limit itself to the police, security, defense, law enforcement and few other related to this functions. So their point that she overextended her mandate is an objection based on principle. Which can be violated only if it is used to uphold neoliberalism, as Greenspan did during his career many times.

          Sandwichman said...

          I think I disagree with Mark Thoma's disagreement with Brad DeLong. Actually, ALL economic discourse is political and efforts to restrain the politics are inevitably efforts to keep the politics one-sided

          Dan Kervick said...

          This kind of debate seems to be a by-product of the contemporary obsession with having an "independent" central bank, run according to the fantasy that there is such a thing as a neutral or apolitical way to conduct monetary policy.

          But there really isn't. Different kinds of social, economic and political values and policy agendas are going to call for different kinds monetary and credit policies. It might be better for our political health if the Fed were administratively re-located as an executive branch agency that is in turn part of a broader Department of Money and Banking - no different from the Departments of Agriculture, Labor, Education, etc. In that case everybody would then view Fed governors as ordinary executive branch appointees who report to the President, and whose policies are naturally an extension of the administration's broader agenda. Then if people don't like the monetary policies that are carried out, that would be one factor in their decision about whom to vote for.

          There is no reason for central banks to have the kind of independence that judicial institutions have. Justice may be blind and above politics, but money and banking are not. Decisions in that latter area should be no more politics-free than decisions about taxing and spending. If we fold the central bank more completely into the regular processes of representative government, then if a candidate wants to run on a platform of keeping interest rates low, small business credit easy, bank profits small, etc., they could do so without all of the doubletalk about the protecting the independence of the sacrosanct bankers' temple.

          We could also then avoid unproductive wheel-spinning about that impossibly vague and hedged Fed mandate that can be stretched to mean almost anything people want it to mean. The Fed's mandate under the political solution would just be whatever monetary policy the President ran on.

          likbez -> Dan Kervick...

          "The Fed's mandate under the political solution would just be whatever monetary policy the President ran on"

          Perfect !

          Actually sanjait in his post made a good point why this illusive goal is desirable (providing "electoral advantage") although Greenspan probably violated this rule. A couple of hikes of interest rates from now till election probably will doom Democrats.

          Also the idea of FEB independence went into overdrive since 80th not accidentally. It has its value in enhancing the level of deregulation.

          Among other things it helps to protect large financial institutions from outright nationalization in cases like 2008.

          Does somebody in this forum really think that Bernanke has an option of putting a couple of Wall-Street most violent and destructive behemoths into receivership (in other words nationalize them) in 2008 without Congress approval ?

          Dan Kervick -> Sanjait ...

          Sanjait, with due respect, you are not really responding to the reform proposal, but only affirming the differences between that proposal and the current system.

          Yes, of course fiscal policy is "constrained" by Congress. Indeed, it is not just constrained by Congress but actually made by Congress, subject only to an overridable executive branch veto. The executive branch is responsible primarily for carrying out the legislature's fiscal directives. That's the point. In a democratic system decisions about all forms of taxation and government spending are supposed to be made by the elected legislative branch, and then executed by agencies of the executive branch. My proposal is that monetary policy should be handled in the same way: by the elected political branches of the government.

          You point out that under current arrangements, central banks can, if they choose, effect large monetary offsets to fiscal policy (or at least to some of the aggregate macroeconomic effects of those policies). I don't understand why any non-elected and politically unaccountable branch of our government should have the power to offset the policies of the elected branches in this way. Fiscal and monetary policy need to be yoked together to achieve policy ends effectively. Those policy ends should be the ones people vote for, not the ones a handful of men and women happen to think are appropriate.

          JF -> Dan Kervick...

          "In a democratic system" is what you wrote.

          It is more proper to refer to it as republicanism. The separation of powers doctrine, underlying the US constitution, is a reflection of James Madison's characterization in the 51st The Federalist Paper, and it is a US-defined republicanism that is almost unique:

          "the republican form, wherein the legislative authority necessarily predominates."

          - or something like that is the quote.

          In the US framers' view, at least those who constructed the re-write in 1787 and were the leaders - I'd say the most important word in Madison's explanation is the word "necessarily" - this philosophy has all law and policy stemming from the public, it presumes that you can't have stability and dynamic change of benefit to society without this.

          Arguably, aristocracies, fascists, totalitarians, and all the other isms, just don't see it that way, they see things as top-down ordering of society.

          The mythology of the monetary theorizing and the notions about a central bank being independently delphic has some of this top-down ordering view to it (austerianism, comes to mind). Well, I don't believe in a religious sense that this is how it should be, nor do you it seems.

          It will be an interesting Congress in 2017 when new legislative authorities are enacted to establish clearer framing of the ministerial duties now held by the FRB.

          Are FED officials scared that this will happen, and as a result they circle the wagons with their associates in the financial community now to fend off the public????

          I hope this is not true. They can allay their own fears by leading not back toward 1907, in my opinion.

          Of course, I could say where I'd like economic policies to go, and do here often, but this thread is about Yellin and other FED officials.

          I recognize that FRB officials can say things too, and should, as leaders of this nation (with a whole lot of research power and evidence available to them their commentary on political economics should have merit and be influential).

          Thanks for continuing to remind people that we govern ourselves in the US in a US-defined republican-form. But I think the people still respect and listen to leadership - so speak out FED officials.

          JF -> Dan Kervick...

          But Dan K, then you'd de-mythologize an entire wing of macroeconomics in a wing referred to as monetary theory based on a separate Central Bank, or some non-political theory of money.

          Don't mind the theory as it is an analytic framework that questions and sometimes informs - but it is good to step back and realize some of the religious-like framing.

          It is political-economy.

          Peter K. -> pgl...

          Yellen really lays it out in her speech.

          "The extent of and continuing increase in inequality in the United States greatly concern me. The past several decades have seen the most sustained rise in inequality since the 19th century after more than 40 years of narrowing inequality following the Great Depression. By some estimates, income and wealth inequality are near their highest levels in the past hundred years, much higher than the average during that time span and probably higher than for much of American history before then.2 It is no secret that the past few decades of widening inequality can be summed up as significant income and wealth gains for those at the very top and stagnant living standards for the majority. I think it is appropriate to ask whether this trend is compatible with values rooted in our nation's history, among them the high value Americans have traditionally placed on equality of opportunity."

          And even links to Piketty in footnote 42.

          "Along with other economic advantages, it is likely that large inheritances play a role in the fairly limited intergenerational mobility that I described earlier.42"

          42. This topic is discussed extensively in Thomas Piketty (2014), Capital in the 21st Century, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press). Return to text

          Sanjait said...

          A number of commenters and authors have recently pointed out that inequality may not just be an unrelated phenomenon to monetary policy, but actually, in part at least, a byproduct of it.

          The theory is that the Fed in the Great Moderation age has been so keen to stave off even the possibility of inflation that it chokes down the vigor of recoveries before they get to the part where median wages start rising quickly. The result is that wages get ratcheted down with the economic cycle, falling during recessions and never fully recovering during the recoveries.

          Do I believe this theory? Increasingly, yes I do. And seeing the Fed right now decide to raise rates, citing accelerating wage growth as one of the main reasons, has reinforced my belief.

          A Boy Named Sue said...

          Two Things: (i) The Fed should be open and honest about monetary policy. No one wants to return to the Greenspan days. (ii) Brad Delong is a neoliberal hack.

          A Boy Named Sue -> A Boy Named Sue...

          I do admit, Delong is my favorite conservative economist. He is witty and educational, unlike most RW hacks.

          Jeff said...

          As to "why risk a political backlash" in the piece, the short answer is: to invoke the debate on whether politics or fact (science) is going to dominate. Because they can't both. See: Romer. Let's have this out once and for all.

          [Dec 11, 2015] How Far Can The Syria Conflict Spiral Out Of Control

          Notable quotes:
          "... By James Stafford, Editor in Chief of OilPrice. Originally published at OilPrice ..."
          "... • How far the Russia-Turkey spat can go economically ..."
          "... • The fallout effects for countries caught in between ..."
          "... • What Russia wants ..."
          "... • What Turkey wants ..."
          "... • What other geopolitical purposes ISIS serves ..."
          "... • Why ISIS can't be controlled ..."
          "... • How Shi'ite radical groups differ ..."
          "... • Why we're looking at a possible remapping of a significant part of the energy arena ..."
          "... • Why we shouldn't listen to billionaire buffoons ..."
          "... Larger picture of what's really going on with Turkey's intentions driven by Ergodan, Bensh's correct description of Ergo's character and flaws, and less explicitly stated US (he says "west") 1/2 ass efforts to defeat IS despite US leaders (from WH to Congress) emphatic claims otherwise… ..."
          "... "Coupled with unparalleled levels of socioeconomic insecurity, Sunni marginalization produced a real social base whose attraction to ISIS goes beyond religious or ideological factors." ..."
          "... ISIS may project a utopic promise of stability and prosperity, but this is far from the reality on the ground. We can be absolutely certain that it will experience its own internal revolts, as similarly declarative examples of Islamic "states" have faced in the past. ..."
          "... Yet, from the point of view of Washington, a geostrategic problem lingered: how to break the Tehran-Damascus alliance. And ultimately, how to break the Tehran-Moscow alliance. ..."
          "... The "Assad must go" obsession in Washington is a multi-headed hydra. It includes breaking a Russia-Iran-Iraq-Syria alliance (now very much in effect as the "4+1" alliance, including Hezbollah, actively fighting all strands of Salafi Jihadism in Syria). But it also includes isolating energy coordination among them, to the benefit of the Gulf petrodollar clients/vassals linked to US energy giants. ..."
          "... Thus Washington's strategy so far of injecting the proverbial Empire of Chaos logic into Syria; feeding the flames of internal chaos, a pre-planed op by the CIA, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, with the endgame being regime change in Damascus. ..."
          "... Of course Turkey is the wild card – Erdogan is increasingly looking like he might be the spark that sets off a much larger conflict. To answer the question, I think there are a lot of really bad scenarios that could happen here, and they are a lot closer than people think (Turkey shutting down the Bosphorus, for starters.) ..."
          "... It is way past time for the arrogant stupidity of Washington's neoconservatives to be exposed and for them to at a minimum be removed from the levers of power – if not tried for crimes against humanity. And that includes Obama if he is really one of them, i.e. if he believes in anything but the politics of power. ..."
          "... Specifically with respect to Syria, it looks like about the best the 'West' (i.e. the US and its vassals) can hope for is some pipeline arrangement providing Europe with an alternative, a competing supplier for its energy needs. In exchange, the 'West' can agree to end its economic war against Russia, Iran et.al and get back to the business of business, i.e. exporting something other than debt and bombs. ..."
          "... I remember reading years ago that the rise of the AKP, and the rising standard of living with it, was fueled directly by a large stream of cash that was funneled from the House of Saud. ..."
          "... The interest must be paid… ..."
          "... I think the waffling on ISIS is due to their location among Sunnis. The US would like to win Sunnis over, so they're cautious about bombing, which of course is to ISIS' advantage. ..."
          "... From where I sit, the Syria conflict is an important part of a much larger one – between the 'West' and Russia. Things have been heating up again in the Ukraine. Biden gave a speech there just a couple of days ago in which he insisted that 'NATO would not rest until Crimea was returned to the Ukraine.' That's not going to happen without a war. ..."
          naked capitalism

          By James Stafford, Editor in Chief of OilPrice. Originally published at OilPrice

          ...No one can fight a war without oil, according to Robert Bensh, partner and managing director of Pelicourt LLC oil and gas company. But while the politically unhinged are coming out the woodwork, the more important aspects of this story remain elusive to the public. Is the dangerously unspoken theory that ISIS is a bulwark against Iran what's keeping the West from tackling the Islamic State wholeheartedly on its territory?

          ... ... ...

          In an exclusive interview with James Stafford of Oilprice.com, Bensh discusses:

          • How far the Russia-Turkey spat can go economically
          • The fallout effects for countries caught in between
          • What Russia wants
          • What Turkey wants
          • What other geopolitical purposes ISIS serves
          • Why ISIS can't be controlled
          • How Shi'ite radical groups differ
          • Why we're looking at a possible remapping of a significant part of the energy arena
          • Why we shouldn't listen to billionaire buffoons

          ... ... ...

          Robert Bensh: Russia and Turkey have a great deal of economic interdependence, and nowhere more than in the energy sector. There has been no talk of cutting Russian gas to Turkey, and I don't see how Russia can afford this right now. Turkey is not only a significant customer for Russia, but it's also a key gas-transit point.

          James Stafford: So what does Turkey want?

          Robert Bensh: The better question is: "What does Erdogan want?" You know, Putin's probably not too far off in his statement referring to Erdogan's loss of "mind and reason". Erdogan has been going down this path little by little for some time and it's no secret that he has some megalomaniacal tendencies that grow more and more out of control every year. It would seem that he has dreams of a return of the Ottoman Empire-and that ISIS could be a logical ally to that end. Of course, ISIS is not likely looking to be beholden to another Ottoman Empire controlling a greater Sunni-Arab dominion. Many, many Turks fail to share this dream with their leader, and his ambitions will also be his eventual downfall unfortunately.

          For the Turkish regime, there is also the idea that ISIS will ostensibly give them more power against the rise of the Kurds, both in southeastern Turkey and in northern Syria. It will even raise the Turks' status in the face of the Saudis whose oil wealth has make them more powerful than the Turks in many ways.

          Jim McKay

          Yves: I think your "quibble" is… indeed minor.

          Larger picture of what's really going on with Turkey's intentions driven by Ergodan, Bensh's correct description of Ergo's character and flaws, and less explicitly stated US (he says "west") 1/2 ass efforts to defeat IS despite US leaders (from WH to Congress) emphatic claims otherwise…

          These are realities. Whatever small portion of US electorate reads here, at least a few are being introduced to this. We are heading into another election with… in my view, more deeply entrenched public opinions on this based on lies, then maybe any time I recall my entire life. It's just, the game is bigger now with more potential for longer lasting catastrophe if we don't find a way to right our ship.

          I appreciate this article… it's on the right track. Only other thing I'd mention: amidst all this, we've had recent international climate meetings with little progress. Clearly, this is bigger problem for entire planet that nobody will escape. I'm stuck by Bensh's comments on protecting their investments (oil) and how the various players he mentions all make decisions based on… oil. It over rides, it seems…everything else that matters.

          The planet needs to get behind renewables, and develop them… fast. It's not so hard to see how doing so would change these other geo-political games forever.

          financial matters

          I think taking the 'businessman' look at this is not a bad way to look at it. As Adam Hanieh has pointed out

          https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/12/isis-syria-iraq-war-al-qaeda-arab-spring/

          "Coupled with unparalleled levels of socioeconomic insecurity, Sunni marginalization produced a real social base whose attraction to ISIS goes beyond religious or ideological factors."

          and also

          "ISIS may project a utopic promise of stability and prosperity, but this is far from the reality on the ground. We can be absolutely certain that it will experience its own internal revolts, as similarly declarative examples of Islamic "states" have faced in the past.

          Despite all the setbacks of the last few years, the potential growth of a genuinely left alternative has not been extinguished and, most importantly, has never been more necessary."

          --

          William Polk echoes this idea of the importance of a non-military and non-police response.

          https://consortiumnews.com/2015/11/17/falling-into-the-isis-trap/

          "–The results of insurgency are described in my book Violent Politics. There I have shown that in a variety of societies over the last two centuries in various parts of Africa, Asia and Europe, guerrillas have nearly always accomplished their objectives despite even the most draconian counterinsurgency tactics."

          His point being that dealing with the fundamental socioeconomic imbalances/repression can be more effective.

          Eureka Springs

          Interesting to me as much for what is not considered by oil businessmen.

          A few quick points:

          • No mention of human suffering, not even in cost/opportunity terms.
          • No mention of rule of law.
          • No mention of what happens to the earths climate/ecosystem if all the oil and gas at stake is unleashed.
          • No mention of who many of the business players are, certainly not in detail. No mention of Erdogans family, Tony Hayward, trafficking / selling this stolen oil…
          • Nor mention of Israel being the major end buyer.
          • When mentioning Assad buys oil from IS (U.S Turk Israel Saudi Qatari Qaeda Nusra) no mention of the point Assad is buying his countries own oil at the point of a gun from the thieves who stole it.
          • No mention that this uncertainty/chaos is both deliberate and a constant feature of big oil and MIC's business model.
          • No concern that more tyrants of the head chopping variety are bound to achieve or maintain power.
          cassandra

          …and

          • No mention of strategic significance of naval base at Tartus
          • No mention of "legal" Saudi arms purchasing and trafficking, and extremist support in Syria, Yemen and about the globe.

          Brooklin Bridge

          This is a good interview. Along with other posts on the subject, this is bringing a little clarity to why there is no clarity.

          participant-observer-observed

          Hmmm. No mention of Saudi and others in the dynamic…

          for more details, read above with Escobar's Pipelineistan,
          here c/o Tom Dispatch.

          Jack Heape

          Thanks for that link. Escobar always has some good insights. I also suggest Juan Cole. He recently had a good piece on President Erdogan.

          camelotkidd

          Pepe Escobar has been all over the back story of what he calls pipelineistan– http://counterpunch.org/2015/12/08/syria-ultimate-pipelineistan-war /

          "Yet, from the point of view of Washington, a geostrategic problem lingered: how to break the Tehran-Damascus alliance. And ultimately, how to break the Tehran-Moscow alliance.

          The "Assad must go" obsession in Washington is a multi-headed hydra. It includes breaking a Russia-Iran-Iraq-Syria alliance (now very much in effect as the "4+1" alliance, including Hezbollah, actively fighting all strands of Salafi Jihadism in Syria). But it also includes isolating energy coordination among them, to the benefit of the Gulf petrodollar clients/vassals linked to US energy giants.

          Thus Washington's strategy so far of injecting the proverbial Empire of Chaos logic into Syria; feeding the flames of internal chaos, a pre-planed op by the CIA, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, with the endgame being regime change in Damascus."

          participant-observer-observed

          Yes, thanks for that most recent Escobar piece at Counterpunch; the one i linked above is already old but still interesting.

          The regime change recipe of DC has already been tried and has failed in Iraq, Libya, etc., no one can fathom any improvements replacing Assad + Isis with Isis alone, aka rag tag coalitions of jihadis! Even Saudis can hardly wish for it.

          ChrisFromGeorgia

          Based on reported facts on the ground (well, reported by non-US media that is) the SAA is making slow but steady progress in retaking key towns and the highway between Aleppo and Damascus. No doubt Russian air and logistical support has made a difference.

          If things keep going this way, Assad will likely regain the upper hand and the Saudi/US sponsored jihadis will be confined to the eastern part of the country. It's looking like Washington will have to make a choice – accept Assad as the legitimate ruler (for now) or continue to provoke the situation with guerrilla tactics. We know from history that there is precedent for long wars against legitimate governments that displease Washington (see Daniel Ortega, Sandanistas.) My guess is they go this route and hope to eventually install a stooge.

          Of course Turkey is the wild card – Erdogan is increasingly looking like he might be the spark that sets off a much larger conflict. To answer the question, I think there are a lot of really bad scenarios that could happen here, and they are a lot closer than people think (Turkey shutting down the Bosphorus, for starters.)

          Steven

          It is way past time for the arrogant stupidity of Washington's neoconservatives to be exposed and for them to at a minimum be removed from the levers of power – if not tried for crimes against humanity. And that includes Obama if he is really one of them, i.e. if he believes in anything but the politics of power.

          This 'Arrogance of Power' has characterized US foreign policy making since the end of WWII. The U.N. was sold to the public as an arrangement for collective security so the U.S. would not have to 'make the world safe for democracy' (sic) a third time. It has been in reality nothing more than a tool for the pursuit of (perceived) US interests, promptly discarded when the principles in its charter became inconvenient.

          Short of initiating the world's Mutually Assured Destruction, the U.S. is running out of options – in Syria and around the world. It may be too late for the U.S. to get serious about collective security, to tell the world 'this time we really mean it'. Having squandered economic and "too good to waste" military power in a successive string of needless wars, it may no longer be possible to convince especially those who hold the levers of power in Russia and China that we are serious about collective security and willing to accept a multi-polar world.

          Specifically with respect to Syria, it looks like about the best the 'West' (i.e. the US and its vassals) can hope for is some pipeline arrangement providing Europe with an alternative, a competing supplier for its energy needs. In exchange, the 'West' can agree to end its economic war against Russia, Iran et.al and get back to the business of business, i.e. exporting something other than debt and bombs.

          kgw

          I remember reading years ago that the rise of the AKP, and the rising standard of living with it, was fueled directly by a large stream of cash that was funneled from the House of Saud.

          The interest must be paid…

          susan the other

          This was really to the point, without actually making it. One thing is becoming clear – the oil wars are distilling down to natural advantage. It currently belongs to SA – but the future looks like it prefers to use Levant & east Mediterranean oil because it will be easier to pipe to southern Europe. And maybe cleaner? So everybody and their dog is fighting for access to it.

          It explains Netanyahu's trip to Moscow & the French clearly in league with Russia for achieving access to this resource (why else?). And it is partly being driven by decisions to leave current oil reserves in the ground. As Palast said it is a "war for no oil."

          Which in turn makes sense of Kerry's admonishing the Senate about the Iran deal – that if they want to continue to be oil brokers (petrodollar brokers) they have to come to terms with Iran because there are plenty of other nations who can step up; and of course we want our EU cousins to get a cut of Levant oil, and etc. And Russia is clearly protecting its oil interests. I wonder how long this feeding frenzy will continue.

          Horatio Parker

          I think the waffling on ISIS is due to their location among Sunnis. The US would like to win Sunnis over, so they're cautious about bombing, which of course is to ISIS' advantage.

          tgs

          From where I sit, the Syria conflict is an important part of a much larger one – between the 'West' and Russia. Things have been heating up again in the Ukraine. Biden gave a speech there just a couple of days ago in which he insisted that 'NATO would not rest until Crimea was returned to the Ukraine.' That's not going to happen without a war.

          [Dec 11, 2015] Caught On Tape Ukraine Premier Assaulted In Parliament

          Notable quotes:
          "... lawmaker Oleh Barna walked over to him with a bunch of red roses and then grabbed him around the waist and groin, lifting him off his feet and dragging him from the rostrum. ..."
          "... As The FT reports, ..."
          Zero Hedge
          & Fighting broke out in parliament among members of Ukraine's ruling coalition on Friday after a member of President Petro Poroshenko's bloc physically picked up Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk and pulled him from the podium.

          Yatseniuk was defending his embattled government's record when lawmaker Oleh Barna walked over to him with a bunch of red roses and then grabbed him around the waist and groin, lifting him off his feet and dragging him from the rostrum.

          Members of Yatseniuk's People Front party waded in, pushing Barna and throwing punches, sparking a brawl in the assembly.

          You just can't make this up...

          https://www.youtube.com/embed/2zgTl6-KWqg

          The PM later said there were "a lot of morons," so he would not comment on the incident.

          * * *

          As The FT reports,

          Ukraine's parliament has indefinitely postponed a vote of no-confidence in the government of Arseniy Yatseniuk, but not without highlighting the fragility of the country's pro-western coalition.

          Citing a flurry of corruption scandals and the lacklustre pace of reforms, an increasing number of MPs - even within the ruling majority - have in recent weeks called for the ousting of Mr Yatseniuk via a no-confidence vote on Friday.

          Ukraine's western backers, namely the US and EU, feared such a move could plunge the war-torn and recession-ravaged country into a deep political crisis as it continues to battle Russian-backed separatists in eastern regions - and jeopardise a $40bn international bailout led by the International Monetary Fund.

          Such concerns are believed to have been expressed by US vice president Joe Biden in closed door discussions during a visit to Kiev early this week in which he publicly called for political unity, swifter reforms and deeper anti-corruption efforts.

          And this is the nation's government who US-taxpayer-backed IMF just forgave their debt, implicitly backing them, and entering The Cold War...

          Instead, the IMF is backing Ukrainian policy, its kleptocracy and its Right Sector leading the attacks that recently cut off Crimea's electricity. The only condition on which the IMF insists is continued austerity. Ukraine's currency, the hryvnia, has fallen by a third this years, pensions have been slashed (largely as a result of being inflated away), while corruption continues unabated.

          Despite this the IMF announced its intention to extend new loans to finance Ukraine's dependency and payoffs to the oligarchs who are in control of its parliament and justice departments to block any real cleanup of corruption.

          For over half a year there was a semi-public discussion with U.S. Treasury advisors and Cold Warriors about how to stiff Russia on the $3 billion owed by Ukraine to Russia's Sovereign Wealth Fund. There was some talk of declaring this an "odious debt," but it was decided that this ploy might backfire against U.S. supported dictatorships.

          In the end, the IMF simply lent Ukraine the money.

          By doing so, it announced its new policy: "We only enforce debts owed in US dollars to US allies." This means that what was simmering as a Cold War against Russia has now turned into a full-blown division of the world into the Dollar Bloc (with its satellite Euro and other pro-U.S. currencies) and the BRICS or other countries not in the U.S. financial and military orbit.

          [Dec 10, 2015] Special Report Buybacks enrich the bosses even when business sags

          Notable quotes:
          "... Most publicly traded U.S. companies reward top managers for hitting performance targets, meant to tie the interests of managers and shareholders together. At many big companies, those interests are deemed to be best aligned by linking executive performance to earnings per share, along with measures derived from the company's stock price. ..."
          "... But these metrics may not be solely a reflection of a company's operating performance. They can be, and often are, influenced through stock repurchases. In addition to cutting the number of a company's shares outstanding, and thus lifting EPS, buybacks also increase demand for the shares, usually providing a lift to the share price, which affects other performance markers. ..."
          "... Pay for performance as it is often structured creates "very troublesome, problematic incentives that can potentially drive very short-term thinking." ..."
          "... As reported in the first article in this series, share buybacks by U.S. non-financial companies reached a record $520 billion in the most recent reporting year. A Reuters analysis of 3,300 non-financial companies found that together, buybacks and dividends have surpassed total capital expenditures and are more than double research and development spending. ..."
          "... "There's been an over-focus on buybacks and raising EPS to hit share option targets, and we know that those are concentrated in the hands of the few, and that the few is in the top 1 percent," said James Montier, a member of the asset allocation team at global investment firm GMO in London, which manages more than $100 billion in assets. ..."
          "... The introduction of performance targets has been a driver of surging executive pay, helping to widen the gap between the richest in America and the rest of the country. Median CEO pay among companies in the S P 500 increased to a record $10.3 million last year, up from $8.6 million in 2010, according to data firm Equilar. ..."
          "... At those levels, CEOs last year were paid 303 times what workers in their industries earned, compared with a ratio of 59 times in 1989, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based nonprofit. ..."
          finance.yahoo.com

          NEW YORK(Reuters) - When health insurer Humana Inc reported worse-than-expected quarterly earnings in late 2014 – including a 21 percent drop in net income – it softened the blow by immediately telling investors it would make a $500 million share repurchase.

          In addition to soothing shareholders, the surprise buyback benefited the company's senior executives. It added around two cents to the company's annual earnings per share, allowing Humana to surpass its $7.50 EPS target by a single cent and unlocking higher pay for top managers under terms of the company's compensation agreement.

          Thanks to Humana hitting that target, Chief Executive Officer Bruce Broussard earned a $1.68 million bonus for 2014.

          Most publicly traded U.S. companies reward top managers for hitting performance targets, meant to tie the interests of managers and shareholders together. At many big companies, those interests are deemed to be best aligned by linking executive performance to earnings per share, along with measures derived from the company's stock price.

          But these metrics may not be solely a reflection of a company's operating performance. They can be, and often are, influenced through stock repurchases. In addition to cutting the number of a company's shares outstanding, and thus lifting EPS, buybacks also increase demand for the shares, usually providing a lift to the share price, which affects other performance markers.

          As corporate America engages in an unprecedented buyback binge, soaring CEO pay tied to short-term performance measures like EPS is prompting criticism that executives are using stock repurchases to enrich themselves at the expense of long-term corporate health, capital investment and employment.

          "We've accepted a definition of performance that is narrow and quite possibly inappropriate," said Rosanna Landis Weaver, program manager of the executive compensation initiative at As You Sow, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit that promotes corporate responsibility. Pay for performance as it is often structured creates "very troublesome, problematic incentives that can potentially drive very short-term thinking."

          A Reuters analysis of the companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index found that 255 of those companies reward executives in part by using EPS, while another 28 use other per-share metrics that can be influenced by share buybacks.

          In addition, 303 also use total shareholder return, essentially a company's share price appreciation plus dividends, and 169 companies use both EPS and total shareholder return to help determine pay.

          STANDARD PRACTICE

          EPS and share-price metrics underpin much of the compensation of some of the highest-paid CEOs, including those at Walt Disney Co, Viacom Inc, 21st Century Fox Inc, Target Corp and Cisco Systems Inc.

          ... ... ...

          As reported in the first article in this series, share buybacks by U.S. non-financial companies reached a record $520 billion in the most recent reporting year. A Reuters analysis of 3,300 non-financial companies found that together, buybacks and dividends have surpassed total capital expenditures and are more than double research and development spending.

          Companies buy back their shares for various reasons. They do it when they believe their shares are undervalued, or to make use of cash or cheap debt financing when business conditions don't justify capital or R&D spending. They also do it to meet the expectations of increasingly demanding investors.

          Lately, the sheer volume of buybacks has prompted complaints among academics, politicians and investors that massive stock repurchases are stifling innovation and hurting U.S. competitiveness - and contributing to widening income inequality by rewarding executives with ever higher pay, often divorced from a company's underlying performance.

          "There's been an over-focus on buybacks and raising EPS to hit share option targets, and we know that those are concentrated in the hands of the few, and that the few is in the top 1 percent," said James Montier, a member of the asset allocation team at global investment firm GMO in London, which manages more than $100 billion in assets.

          The introduction of performance targets has been a driver of surging executive pay, helping to widen the gap between the richest in America and the rest of the country. Median CEO pay among companies in the S&P 500 increased to a record $10.3 million last year, up from $8.6 million in 2010, according to data firm Equilar.

          At those levels, CEOs last year were paid 303 times what workers in their industries earned, compared with a ratio of 59 times in 1989, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based nonprofit.

          SALARY AND A LOT MORE

          Today, the bulk of CEO compensation comes from cash and stock awards, much of it tied to performance metrics. Last year, base salary accounted for just 8 percent of CEO pay for S&P 500 companies, while cash and stock incentives made up more than 45 percent, according to proxy advisory firm Institutional Shareholder Services.

          ...In 1992, Congress changed the tax code to curb rising executive pay and encourage performance-based compensation. It didn't work. Instead, the shift is widely blamed for soaring executive pay and a heavier emphasis on short-term results.

          Companies started tying performance pay to "short-term metrics, and suddenly all the things we don't want to happen start happening," said Lynn Stout, a professor of corporate and business law at Cornell Law School in Ithaca, New York. "Despite 20 years of trying, we have still failed to come up with an objective performance metric that can't be gamed."

          Shareholder expectations have changed, too. The individuals and other smaller, mostly passive investors who dominated equity markets during the postwar decades have given way to large institutional investors. These institutions tend to want higher returns, sooner, than their predecessors. Consider that the average time investors held a particular share has fallen from around eight years in 1960 to a year and a half now, according to New York Stock Exchange data.

          "TOO EASY TO MANIPULATE"

          Companies like to use EPS as a performance metric because it is the primary focus of financial analysts when assessing the value of a stock and of investors when evaluating their return on investment.

          But "it is not an appropriate target, it's too easy to manipulate," said Almeida, the University of Illinois finance professor.

          ...By providing a lift to a stock's price, buybacks can increase total shareholder return to target levels, resulting in more stock awards for executives. And of course, the higher stock price lifts the value of company stock they already own.

          "It can goose the price at time when the high price means they earn performance shares … even if the stock price later goes back down, they got their shares," said Michael Dorff, a law professor at the Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles.

          Exxon Corp, the largest repurchaser of shares over the past decade, has rejected shareholder proposals that it add three-year targets based on shareholder return to its compensation program. In its most recent proxy, the energy company said doing so could increase risk-taking and encourage underinvestment to achieve short-term results.

          The energy giant makes half of its annual executive bonus payments contingent on meeting longer-term EPS thresholds. Since 2005, the company has spent more than $200 billion on buybacks.

          ADDITIONAL TWEAKS

          While performance targets are specific, they aren't necessarily fixed. Corporate boards often adjust them or how they are calculated in ways that lift executive pay.

          [Dec 09, 2015] Are Windows and OS X malware

          May 26, 2015 | ITworld
          Are Windows and OS X malware?

          Richard Stallman has never been...er...shy about sharing his opinions, particularly when it comes to software that doesn't adhere to his vision. This time around he has written an opinion column for The Guardian that takes on Microsoft Windows, Apple's OS X and even Amazon's Kindle e-reader.

          Richard Stallman on malware for The Guardian:

          Malware is the name for a program designed to mistreat its users. Viruses typically are malicious, but software products and software preinstalled in products can also be malicious – and often are, when not free/libre.

          Developers today shamelessly mistreat users; when caught, they claim that fine print in EULAs (end user licence agreements) makes it ethical. (That might, at most, make it lawful, which is different.) So many cases of proprietary malware have been reported, that we must consider any proprietary program suspect and dangerous. In the 21st century, proprietary software is computing for suckers.

          Windows snoops on users, shackles users and, on mobiles, censors apps; it also has a universal back door that allows Microsoft to remotely impose software changes. Microsoft sabotages Windows users by showing security holes to the NSA before fixing them.

          Apple systems are malware too: MacOS snoops and shackles; iOS snoops, shackles, censors apps and has a back door. Even Android contains malware in a nonfree component: a back door for remote forcible installation or deinstallation of any app.

          Amazon's Kindle e-reader reports what page of what book is being read, plus all notes and underlining the user enters; it shackles the user against sharing or even freely giving away or lending the book, and has an Orwellian back door for erasing books.

          More at The Guardian

          As you might imagine, Stallman's commentary drew a lot of responses from readers of The Guardian:

          JohnnyHooper: "The Android operating system is basically spyware, mining your personal information, contacts, whereabouts, search activity, media preferences, photos, email, texts, chat, shopping, calls, etc so Google can onsell it to advertisers. Nice one, Google, you creep."

          Ece301: "What the free software movement needs is more than just the scare stories about 'capability' - without reliable examples of this stuff causing real-world problems for real people such detail-free articles as this are going to affect nothing.

          I'm quite willing to make the sacrifice of google, apple, the NSA etc. knowing exactly where I am if it means my phone can give me directions to my hotel in this strange city. Likewise if I want the capability to erase my phone should I lose it, I understand that that means apple etc. can probably get at that function too.

          Limiting_Factor: "Or for people who don't want to mess about with command lines and like to have commercially supported software that works. Which is about 99% of the home computer using population. You lost, Richard. Get over it."

          CosmicTrigger: "Selling customers the illusion of security and then leaving a great gaping hole in it for the government to snoop in return for a bit of a tax break is absolutely reprehensible."

          Liam01: "This guy is as extreme as the director of the NSA , just at the other end of the spectrum. I'd be more inclined to listen if he showed a hint of nuance, or didn't open with an egoistic claim of "invented free software"."

          AlanWatson: "My Kindle doesn't report anything, because I never turn the WiFi on. Just sideload content from wherever I want to buy it (or download if there is no copyright), format conversion is trivial, and for the minor inconvenience of having to use a USB cable I'm free of Amazon's lock-in, snooping and remote wipes. Simple."

          Rod: "Here's my crazy prediction: Stallman's diatribes will continue to have zero measurable impact on adoption rates of Free software. Time to try a different approach, Richey."

          Quicknstraight: "Not all snooping is bad for you. If it enhances your experience, say, by providing you with a better playlist or recommendations for things you like doing, what's the big deal?

          Consumers don't have it every which way. You either accept a degree of data collection in return for a more enjoyable user experience, or accept that no data collection means you'll have to search out everything for yourself.

          The average user prefers the easier option and has no interest in having to dig away through loads of crap to find what they want.

          They key question should be what happens to data that is mined about users, not whether mining such data is bad per se."

          Bob Rich: "As an author, I LIKE the idea that if a person buys a copy of my book, that copy cannot be freely distributed to others. With a paper book, that means that the original owner no longer has access to it. With an electronic book, "giving" or "lending" means duplicating, and that's stealing my work. The same is true for other creators: musicians, artists, photographers."

          Mouse: "Stallman's a hero and we wouldn't have the level of (low-cost) technology all we enjoy today without him. I remember reading an article by him years ago and he said that the only laptop he'd use was the Lemote Yeeloong because it was the only system that was 100% open, even down to the BIOS - he was specifically paranoid about how government agencies might modify proprietary code for their own ends - and at the time I thought "Jeez, he's a bit of a paranoid fruitcake", but post-Snowden he's been proven to be right about what the security services get up."

          More at The Guardian

          [Dec 08, 2015] France's cowardly elite is to blame for the rise of Marine Le Pen

          That looks like a French backlash against neoliberal globalization, Against the society that cares only about top 1%.
          Notable quotes:
          "... Contrary to what we are told by the transnational business-political-media elite, there is nothing inevitable about ever-increasing 'globalisation'. It is simply a race to the bottom for ever-cheaper labour and erasure of sovereign national obstructions to corporate profit. ..."
          "... the impact of the third globalisation wave on any given country is the result of very deliberate political choices (many of which were taken by French governments rather later than their neighbours), not of some sort of inevitable natural fact. You do not, for instance, have to espouse unmitigated cross-border capital transfers. ..."
          "... the sooner the European Left admits that it was right in the 70s, when it correctly identified the EEC as an anti-worker construct, the better. Unless you fancy having a smattering of far right governments all over the EZ, that is. ..."
          "... France has terrible foreign policy. They completely destroyed Libya. France is responsible for the rise of far-right. ..."
          "... The elite's disregard for anyone's opinion apart from their own is largely the cause of the rise of the Front National. It is difficult to see how allowing millions of immigrants to settle in Europe can end well in the short to long term. ..."
          "... Not a bad article, this. Still, I wish this newspaper's writers would stop defining democracy as "that with which I agree". The FN is a Democratic Party. Deal with it. ..."
          "... If mainstream liberal and conservative parties will not listen to the citizenry's very real and very legitimate concerns about immigration and Islam, that citizenry will hold their collective nose and vote for right wing populists who will. ..."
          "... What we saw in France is being repeated in Sweden, the Netherlands and much of Eastern Europe. It is fueling Donald Trumps presidential run and Nigel Faranges parliamentary ambitions. ..."
          "... For the older generation in particular, Britain has changed out of all recognition in hte last 50 years. Although change can be a good thing, it can also be extremely unsettling. ..."
          "... Democracy in action. Unlike the UK whereby the politicians execute policy that they either lied about during the election, or they simply changed their mind in contempt of the electorate safe in the knowledge that the electorate will have to wait years to kick them out again. ..."
          "... Agreed, any grand coalition of the French ruling elite created as a blocker will only prove to many of the French people that there is very little real difference between the established parties; possibly driving those who do want real change towards the FN. ..."
          "... Globalisation depends on no borders - Factories and production have moved to avail of cheaper production. Shareholders and investment funds have benefited. Many, many citizens of sovereign nations have not. Now some European politicians and institutions have determined that immigration and multiculturalism is the new agenda anyway. There is to be no consultation by the political elite or the media with the people of the sovereign nations of Europe - It is to be forced on people whether they like it or not. ..."
          "... The rise of Front National is happening for the same reason the rise of the far right (or just plain right wing) parties is happening all over Europe: Moderate parties on both sides of the political spectrum refuse to have anything even resembling a discussion on the negative side of immigration or multiculturalism. It's really as simple as that. The far right has been handed a complete monopoly on an issue which is becoming an increasingly hot topic. They have an open goal. ..."
          www.theguardian.com
          umbofreddy smarty78, 7 Dec 2015 22:01

          Nougarayde was a journalist at the" Monde"; you know, this "french elite newspaper", who hate the front national and despise its supporters!

          viscount_jellicoe, 7 Dec 2015 21:39

          Contrary to what we are told by the transnational business-political-media elite, there is nothing inevitable about ever-increasing 'globalisation'. It is simply a race to the bottom for ever-cheaper labour and erasure of sovereign national obstructions to corporate profit.

          Daniele Gatti, 7 Dec 2015 21:46

          Your economic history is missing a few very important details, namely:

          1) the impact of the third globalisation wave on any given country is the result of very deliberate political choices (many of which were taken by French governments rather later than their neighbours), not of some sort of inevitable natural fact. You do not, for instance, have to espouse unmitigated cross-border capital transfers.

          2) there is no mention at all of the failed European monetary experiments, namely the ERM and the euro. The first was de facto dismantled in 1993 (by setting ridiculous oscillation bands) to avoid a French Black Wednesday after it had destroyed competitiveness pretty much everywhere apart from Germany and the Deutschemark area, the second is doing pretty much the same, only it was slower to compromise France than other countries because its economy is stronger than others.

          The fact remains that while relatively high public spending, in violation of the Maastricht parameters, directly translates into higher inflation than Germany, which leads to loss of competitiveness, which leads to a CA deficit.

          Sorry, but the French school system has absolutely nothing to do with all of the above, and the sooner the European Left admits that it was right in the 70s, when it correctly identified the EEC as an anti-worker construct, the better. Unless you fancy having a smattering of far right governments all over the EZ, that is.

          Andu68, 7 Dec 2015 21:49

          Why exactly is the FN far right? The only controversial position they have is their belief there is an urgent need to restrict immigration, yet this is a position held by the majority of European's public opinion, though not by mainstream politicians and certainly not by members of the left intellectual elite like Miss Nougareyde.

          LouSmorels, 7 Dec 2015 21:49

          If I were French, I would vote FN! Why should the French give up their country to become something else. Not everyone wants to end up like Sweden...

          finnrkn -> LouSmorels, 7 Dec 2015 22:22

          Not even Sweden wants to end up like Sweden nowadays.

          ClaudeNAORobot,

          Perhaps the rise of the FN reflects its offering to the electorate something that they want. It's something you don't want, so, rather in the spirit of the EU's rejection of result of a referendum that gives the 'wrong' result, you seek some excuse for that that you perceive to be the ill judgement of a portion of the electorate. Democracy can be irritating, can't it?

          euphoniumbrioche, 7 Dec 2015 20:46

          France's cowardly elite is to blame for the rise of Marine Le Pen

          France has terrible foreign policy. They completely destroyed Libya. France is responsible for the rise of far-right.

          allom8 -> euphoniumbrioche, 7 Dec 2015 20:55

          An inadequate explanation given the far right's continued rise all over Europe. The elephant in the room gets bigger with every passing day.

          GodzillaJones, 7 Dec 2015 20:48

          It's a reflection of politics in the West at the moment. When voters are not represented by their politicians, they look for something else, even if it's a bit unsavoury.

          ID9969553, 7 Dec 2015 20:48

          The elite's disregard for anyone's opinion apart from their own is largely the cause of the rise of the Front National. It is difficult to see how allowing millions of immigrants to settle in Europe can end well in the short to long term.

          WagerObe -> gunforhire, 7 Dec 2015 22:01

          Interestingly though, LR did not get the voting shares lost by the PS. They went to the FN. This is not a vote. against socialism, indeed on economic questions the FN is closer to the communists than classic right-wing parties.

          This is a vote against the main stream parties, and frankly it is not surprising. A succession of UMP - PS governments have changed nothing. Remains to be seen if FN can confirm the try next Sunday. If they win PACA

          finnrkn, 7 Dec 2015 20:49

          Not a bad article, this. Still, I wish this newspaper's writers would stop defining democracy as "that with which I agree". The FN is a Democratic Party. Deal with it.

          ID7475021 -> finnrkn, 7 Dec 2015 20:57

          The Nazi party in Germany used democracy to help itself climb to power... one of the problems democracy has not managed to address is how to deal with parties who use that democracy with the ultimate aim of destroying it.

          finnrkn -> ID7475021, 7 Dec 2015 21:04

          True enough; communist parties also subverted democracy in Eastern Europe. Beyond nationalism, though, I can't see there's much of a comparison to be made between the FN and the Nazis.

          elliot2511, 7 Dec 2015 20:49

          If mainstream liberal and conservative parties will not listen to the citizenry's very real and very legitimate concerns about immigration and Islam, that citizenry will hold their collective nose and vote for right wing populists who will.

          What we saw in France is being repeated in Sweden, the Netherlands and much of Eastern Europe. It is fueling Donald Trumps presidential run and Nigel Faranges parliamentary ambitions.

          ltm123 elliot2511, 7 Dec 2015 21:09

          Unfortunate those very real concerns about immigration are not very legitimate. You only have to do a small amount of research to realise that immigration isn't to blame for most of the things the main stream media would have you believe.

          huzar30 ltm123, 7 Dec 2015 21:14

          That really isn't the point. For the older generation in particular, Britain has changed out of all recognition in hte last 50 years. Although change can be a good thing, it can also be extremely unsettling.

          elliot2511 -> ltm123, 7 Dec 2015 21:23

          "You only have to do a small amount of research to realise that immigration isn't to blame for most of the things "
          You may be right...but people do not want mass immigration, and more particularly, do not want mass immigration from Islamic countries. That might be fair or unfair, justified or unjustified, but surely the greater population should have some say in what their country looks like.

          Laurence Johnson, 7 Dec 2015 20:50

          Democracy in action. Unlike the UK whereby the politicians execute policy that they either lied about during the election, or they simply changed their mind in contempt of the electorate safe in the knowledge that the electorate will have to wait years to kick them out again.

          Dave Beardsly -> Laurence Johnson, 7 Dec 2015 21:13

          Democracy in action. Unlike the UK

          Is it a better democracy? Or is it something to do with a more impartial, fairer, press? Because however bad our democracy is or isn't, we know for sure our press can make and break anyone it chooses.

          Sachaflashman, 7 Dec 2015 20:51

          "But the fact that such a question can now legitimately be raised is in itself a trauma for all those who care about democracy."

          In plain English: a democratic party that has managed to purge its past, re-defined itself and convinced 6 million citizens to vote for it....is nothing more than a trauma. If anything, the democratic trauma is a system whereby party A. can win the most votes only to be knocked out in round two by party B. dropping out and lending its votes to party C.

          This is a recipe for allowing bland, elitist politicians to stay in power forever.

          Mark Steven -> Conway Sachaflashman, 7 Dec 2015 22:22

          Agreed, any grand coalition of the French ruling elite created as a blocker will only prove to many of the French people that there is very little real difference between the established parties; possibly driving those who do want real change towards the FN.

          Magicmoonbeam2, 7 Dec 2015 20:53

          The so called elite have become accustomed to ruling independently of their electorates because for years their electorates had nowhere else to go. Now that their electorates have somewhere else to go, the brown squishy stuff is hitting the fan.


          Quiller -> Dave Beardsly, 7 Dec 2015 21:29

          Globalisation depends on no borders - Factories and production have moved to avail of cheaper production. Shareholders and investment funds have benefited. Many, many citizens of sovereign nations have not. Now some European politicians and institutions have determined that immigration and multiculturalism is the new agenda anyway. There is to be no consultation by the political elite or the media with the people of the sovereign nations of Europe - It is to be forced on people whether they like it or not.

          Any nation, people or politician who questions the new ideology is categorised as backward and reactionary. Secret meeting are held to push the issues forward. People of the sovereign nations of Europe have not signed up to the Federal Europe - France and other nations rejected the European Constitution. Nonetheless the ideologues press the issues forward onto the people.

          The latest revolt has been over the issue is immigration by Germany and Sweden - their initial action was - "we can do it !". When it dawned on them that they could not, they have tried to bully their way through the other sovereign nations via government structures, the European Union and the UN.

          Following the atrocities in France, Beirut, Ankara, Nigeria, Syria - the people are deciding they do not want to be a part of the change to the multicultural environment. Why would they when they perceive the change to be a retrograde step. If the current political party that one has voted for does not serve one's interests or they appear to be a political party with no clothes, then it is time to move on to a different political representative party. Of course - the smear continues against political parties that do not have the ideologues view.

          allom8, 7 Dec 2015 20:57

          The rise of Front National is happening for the same reason the rise of the far right (or just plain right wing) parties is happening all over Europe: Moderate parties on both sides of the political spectrum refuse to have anything even resembling a discussion on the negative side of immigration or multiculturalism. It's really as simple as that.

          The far right has been handed a complete monopoly on an issue which is becoming an increasingly hot topic. They have an open goal.

          Koolio, 7 Dec 2015 21:03

          "none of the mainstream parties have been able to address the many social and economic ailments"

          They've never tried. French politicians promise bold visions of the past as they keep trying to reheat and perpetuate policies that generate the record unemployment and entrenched structural inequalities while hoping if they say "républicain" ten times a day nobody will question their consistent failure.

          Even the politicians are stale, for example the Républicains are fighting over whether to back proven failure Sarkozy or convicted criminal Juppé (albeit gifted a crony-style presidential pardon by his ex-boss Chirac). Given choices like this no wonder millions of voters dissatisfied by Hollande and Valls skip to the FN.

          bally38, 7 Dec 2015 21:08

          Marine Le Pen has no solution for France's problems, her economic programme is all about retreating from the outside world and Europe.

          My understanding of the FN economic policy. Withdraw from the Euro. Close the borders. Put up a high tariff wall around france. (Which would mean de facto withdrawal from the Single Market).

          Quite how they think jobs are created in a global economy I really don't know. In some ways it would be great if they did win. Currently the eurosceptics can act all cosy with each other. Whereas in fact, their policies would amount to a mutual trade war.

          MrBojangles007, 7 Dec 2015 21:08

          Political dogma from the EU federalists and the invite from Merkel to all the worlds refugees is naive in the extreme. The people still love their country and most do not want a country called Europe.

          Too much too soon, we do not even speak the same language around 28 countries, until we do - a country called Europe is for the birds. The Euro has not worked, open borders have not worked, the EU is in an utter mess.

          FN - will always make progress when chaos reigns.

          PrinceEdward, 7 Dec 2015 21:29

          "The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules; it is a philosophy ... and a very correct one. History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous." -- Captain Jean-Luc Picard, USS Enterprise

          flowerssoft, 7 Dec 2015 21:32

          France's cowardly elite are responsible because they have refused to tackle issues which negatively affect the white working class in France.

          PrinceEdward, 7 Dec 2015 21:35

          People across the West are still scratching their heads as to why, given the large numbers of un and under employed young people, we need mass immigration, even in the face of austerity.

          The only answer I ever here is: If you're not for it, you're a xenophobe. Regardless of the sharp cuts to social programmes and the lack of housing throughout Europe. And if a European Country genuinely needs unskilled workers, there are plenty of Eastern and Southern Europeans who would be happy to bridge the gap.

          haunsk PrinceEdward, 7 Dec 2015 21:54

          There you have it in a nutshell. We are being spun,we are being played.

          smarty78, 7 Dec 2015 21:37

          'France's cowardly elite...'

          Natalie, it's rare I agree with you, so I'll focus on our consensus with the headline.

          That the other parties are now looking to form a block against FN demonstrates quite perfectly the arrogance of the French political elite and their utter contempt for democracy.
          I dearly wish FN the very best of luck - at least they attend to the legitimate grievances of a significant proportion of people.
          Fascist, Nazi, extremist blahblah... Bring it on and watch this space.

          André Pampel, 7 Dec 2015 21:51

          Ironic being that as far as economics goes extreme left and right speak almost from the same page....Mainly protectionism. What Nougayréde conviently does not say is how many people from the extreme left have gone over to the fn and that their vote is extremely high in the 18-34 age group, and the well educated in that group too. And herself was and is still part of the "establishment" so ironic criticising her chums like that....

          Anneke Ruben, 7 Dec 2015 21:52

          If people feel threatened, they tend to be more conservative. And frankly, I don't see a reason why France or the rest of Europe shouldn't feel threatened.. Mass unemployment, the Euro zone mess, thousands of migrants that pose as "refugees", migrants that mostly follow an unreformed religion, the mass shootings in Paris... So... Why is the left blaming the "elite" and not the ones responsible for creating this mess?

          [Dec 08, 2015] Nepotism and corruption on high levels of US government

          Notable quotes:
          "... As Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. aims to curb corruption in Ukraine, his son, Hunter, sits on the board of a Ukrainian company that the American ambassador has accused of having illicit assets. ..."
          "... What is he, sort of a wayward, neer-do-well playboy type? Not really. Hes a graduate of Yale Law School and a former senior vice-president at MBNA America Bank. Good for him. During the Clinton administration he worked in the US Department of Commerce. Hes presently a partner in an investment firm. And counsel for a national law firm. And an adjunct professor at Georgetown University. I get it: he likes to keep busy. He has even found the time to join the board of a gas company called Burisma Holdings Ltd. Never heard of it. Perhaps thats because its a Ukrainian gas company; Ukraines largest private gas producer, in fact. Hes taking charge of the companys legal unit. Isnt that a bit fishy? Why do you say that? Because hes the vice-presidents son! Thats a coincidence. This is totally based on merit, said Burismas chairman, Alan Apter. ..."
          "... Who? Devon Archer, who works with Hunter Biden at Rosemont Seneca partners, which is half owned by Rosemont Capital, a private equity firm founded by Archer and Christopher Heinz. ..."
          "... Who? Christopher Heinz … John Kerrys stepson. ..."
          "... I think Putins propaganda people can take a long weekend; their work is being done for them. ..."
          economistsview.typepad.com
          anne said... Tuesday, December 08, 2015 at 10:30 AM
          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/world/europe/corruption-ukraine-joe-biden-son-hunter-biden-ties.html

          December 8, 2015

          Biden, His Son and the Case Against a Ukrainian Oligarch
          By JAMES RISEN

          As Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. aims to curb corruption in Ukraine, his son, Hunter, sits on the board of a Ukrainian company that the American ambassador has accused of having "illicit assets."

          anne said in reply to anne...
          http://www.theguardian.com/business/shortcuts/2014/may/14/hunter-biden-job-board-ukraine-biggest-gas-producer-burisma

          May 14, 2014

          Why shouldn't Hunter Biden join the board of a gas company in Ukraine?
          The son of the US vice-president has been chosen to take charge of energy firm Burisma's legal unit – a decision based purely on merit, of course.

          Name: Hunter Biden.

          Age: 44.

          Appearance: Chip off the old block.

          His names rings a bell. Is he related to someone famous? He's the son of Joe Biden, the US vice president.

          What is he, sort of a wayward, ne'er-do-well playboy type? Not really. He's a graduate of Yale Law School and a former senior vice-president at MBNA America Bank. Good for him. During the Clinton administration he worked in the US Department of Commerce. He's presently a partner in an investment firm. And counsel for a national law firm. And an adjunct professor at Georgetown University. I get it: he likes to keep busy. He has even found the time to join the board of a gas company called Burisma Holdings Ltd. Never heard of it. Perhaps that's because it's a Ukrainian gas company; Ukraine's largest private gas producer, in fact. He's taking charge of the company's legal unit. Isn't that a bit fishy? Why do you say that? Because he's the vice-president's son! That's a coincidence. "This is totally based on merit," said Burisma's chairman, Alan Apter.

          He doesn't sound very Ukrainian. He's American, as is the other new board member, Devon Archer.

          Who? Devon Archer, who works with Hunter Biden at Rosemont Seneca partners, which is half owned by Rosemont Capital, a private equity firm founded by Archer and Christopher Heinz.

          Who? Christopher Heinz … John Kerry's stepson.

          I think Putin's propaganda people can take a long weekend; their work is being done for them. What do you mean?

          Hasn't Joe Biden pledged to help Ukraine become more energy independent in the wake of its troubles with Russia? Well, yes.

          And isn't Burisma, as a domestic producer, well positioned to profit from rising gas prices caused by the conflict? Possibly, but Hunter Biden is a salaried board member, not an investor. According to anonymous sources in the Wall Street Journal, neither Rosemont Seneca nor Rosemont Capital has made any financial investment in Burisma.

          So it's not fishy at all? No one's saying that.

          Do say: "Somebody needs to get involved in Ukraine's corporate governance, and it might as well be a clutch of rich, well-connected American dudes with weird first names."

          Don't say: "Thanks, Dad."

          -- Guardian

          [Dec 08, 2015] The importance of the global financial cycle in creating boom and bust cycles in emerging markets

          economistsview.typepad.com

          Syaloch -> sanjait..., December 08, 2015 at 08:31 AM

          Meta-criticism of reports in this case is neither here nor there, since it's possible to track down the original sources.

          The Times summary of Ms. Rey's Jackson Hole paper is accurate; in it she does discuss the importance of the global financial cycle in creating boom and bust cycles in emerging markets. (This isn't news to anyone who's followed Krugman's writings on global financial crises over the years.)

          http://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat/sympos/2013/2013Rey.pdf

          When Yellen announced that the Fed would not raise rates in September, she did cite "heightened uncertainties abroad" as a factor. While I cannot find her mentioning China specifically, a lot of the discussion in financial sources prior to the announcement cite the Chinese devaluation as an important factor leading to Yellen's decision.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/18/business/economy/fed-leaves-interest-rates-unchanged.html

          As for economists warning that a rate increase combined with uncertain exchange rates in China and other countries would weaken global growth, that was most likely a reference to the IMF's World Economic Outlook report, which does indeed make this argument.

          http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/RES100615A.htm

          [Dec 07, 2015] The key prerequisite of casino capitalism is corruption of regulators

          Economist's View

          likbez said...

          When capital became unable of reaping large and fairly secure profits from manufacturing it like water tries to find other ways. It starts with semi-criminalizing finance -- that's the origin of the term "casino capitalism" (aka neoliberalism). I see casino capitalism as a set of semi-criminal ways of maintaining the rate of profits.

          The key prerequisite here is corruption of regulators. So laws on the book does not matter much if regulators do not enforce them.

          As Joseph Schumpeter noted, capitalism is not a steady-state system. It is unstable system in which population constantly experience and then try to overcome one crisis after another. Joseph Schumpeter naively assumed that the net result is reimaging itself via so called "creative destruction". But what we observe now it "uncreative destruction". In other words casino capitalism is devouring the host, the US society.

          So all those Hillary statements are for plebs consumption only (another attempt to play "change we can believe in" trick). Just a hot air designed to get elected. Both Clintons are in the pocket of financial oligarchy and will never be able to get out of it alive.

          GeorgeK said...

          I believe I'm the only one on this blog that has actually traded bonds, done swaps and hedged bank portfolios with futures contracts. Sooo I kinda know something about this topic.

          Hilary is a fraud; her daughter worked at a Hedge fund where she met her husband Marc Mezvinsky, who is now a money manager at the Eaglevale fund. Oddly many of the Eaglevale investors are investors in the Clinton Foundation and have also given money to Hilary's campaign. The Clinton Foundation gets boat loads of money from Hedge funds and will not raise taxes on such a rich source of funding.

          The grooms mother is Marjory Margolies (ex)Mezvinsky, she cast the final vote giving Clinton the winning vote to raise taxes. She subsequently lost her run for reelection to congress, then her husband was convicted of fraud and they divorced.

          This speech is an attempt to pry people away from Bernie, it won't work with primary voters but might with what's left of rational Republicans in the general election.

          [Dec 07, 2015] Hillary Clinton How I'd Rein In Wall Street

          Economist's View

          likbez said...

          When capital became unable of reaping large and fairly secure profits from manufacturing it like water tries to find other ways. It starts with semi-criminalizing finance -- that's the origin of the term "casino capitalism" (aka neoliberalism). I see casino capitalism as a set of semi-criminal ways of maintaining the rate of profits.

          The key prerequisite here is corruption of regulators. So laws on the book does not matter much if regulators do not enforce them.

          As Joseph Schumpeter noted, capitalism is not a steady-state system. It is unstable system in which population constantly experience and then try to overcome one crisis after another. Joseph Schumpeter naively assumed that the net result is reimaging itself via so called "creative destruction". But what we observe now it "uncreative destruction". In other words casino capitalism is devouring the host, the US society.

          So all those Hillary statements are for plebs consumption only (another attempt to play "change we can believe in" trick). Just a hot air designed to get elected. Both Clintons are in the pocket of financial oligarchy and will never be able to get out of it alive.

          GeorgeK said...

          I believe I'm the only one on this blog that has actually traded bonds, done swaps and hedged bank portfolios with futures contracts. Sooo I kinda know something about this topic.

          Hilary is a fraud; her daughter worked at a Hedge fund where she met her husband Marc Mezvinsky, who is now a money manager at the Eaglevale fund. Oddly many of the Eaglevale investors are investors in the Clinton Foundation and have also given money to Hilary's campaign. The Clinton Foundation gets boat loads of money from Hedge funds and will not raise taxes on such a rich source of funding.

          The grooms mother is Marjory Margolies (ex)Mezvinsky, she cast the final vote giving Clinton the winning vote to raise taxes. She subsequently lost her run for reelection to congress, then her husband was convicted of fraud and they divorced.

          This speech is an attempt to pry people away from Bernie, it won't work with primary voters but might with what's left of rational Republicans in the general election.

          [Dec 07, 2015] If you don't read a newspaper every day, you are uninformed. If you do, you are misinformed

          ourfiniteworld.com
          Fast Eddy, December 6, 2015 at 1:11 am
          "If you don't read a newspaper every day, you are uninformed. If you do, you are misinformed." – Mark Twain

          We all like to know what's happening in the world, and for good reason… understanding our surroundings is essential to survival. We instinctively seek information… we need information. There is, however, a problem that we face:

          No matter how much "news" you consume, you won't really know what's going on in the world.

          We can't know, because 'the news' is half illusion, provided by government-dependent corporations that are paid to keep you watching and to keep you joined to the status quo.

          Granted, they are quite good at providing pictures from disaster areas, but when it comes to explaining why the disaster happened, they mislead almost every time. Yes, some truth makes its way through the news machine, but most of it is wrapped in layers of manipulation. If, for example, you watch the news feeds all day, you'll find a good deal of truth, but you'll find it amongst a pile of half-truths. Do you really have enough time to analyze them all?

          [Dec 07, 2015] Did Erdogan Commit Political Suicide Shahir ShahidSaless

          www.huffingtonpost.com
          Erdogan, desperate and angry over his losing battle to oust Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, ordered the shooting down of a Russian fighter jet. Erdogan has been actively pursuing the ouster of Assad since 2012, but Russia's recent intervention in Syria, in alliance with Iran and its highly ideologically and politically motivated proxies, has resulted in a serious setback for Erdogan's plans.

          Putin's determination to destroy Turkey's proxies at the Syrian borders and to thwart Erdogan's plan to create a no-fly/buffer zone in the area has derailed Erdogan's plans for Syria. Erdogan hoped to use the buffer zone as an operational hub aimed at bringing down President Assad.

          Russian attacks on Turkmen-dominated areas in Bayirbucak, where the Russian plane was downed, would also inflict serious collateral damage to Turkey. The Turkish government regards the area in north-west Syria, presently under the control of the Bayirbucak Turkmens, as an important buffer zone preventing the territorial expansion of Syria's Kurdish-minority militias, whom it regards as terrorists linked to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK).

          Erdogan's objective in shooting down the plane was to provoke Russia into a harsh response. He hoped the response would bring Russia into conflict with the whole of NATO, which would help reverse Turkey's declining fortunes in the Syrian war.

          Erdogan's calculations went terribly wrong. Following the incident, Turkey requested an emergency meeting with NATO members. Contrary to Erdogan's expectations, although, members did not support Russia, neither did they wholeheartedly support Turkey. Many members questioned Turkey's action and, according to Reuters, "expressed concern that Turkey did not escort the Russian warplane out of its airspace." In a clear indication of the suspicion among NATO members regarding Turkey's real intention behind its adventurism, some diplomats told Reuters, "There are other ways of dealing with these kinds of incidents."

          Not only didn't Cold War II happen, French President Francois Hollande, who promised "merciless" revenge in the aftermath of Paris attacks, met with Putin and they agreed to form an alliance against Daesh (also known as ISIS/ISIL) in Syria. The outcome of such an alliance is that the "Assad must go" mantra will be overshadowed by the war against Daesh--something that Erdogan hated to occur. Erdogan's plan to bring the West and Russia into conflict became even more unattainable when France's move was followed by Britain and then Germany.

          Turkey also lost significant room to maneuver in the post-shootdown of the Russian fighter jet. Russia, by deploying the powerful S-400 surface-to-air missile system in Hmeymim airbase near Latakia, sent a strong signal to Turkey--a de facto no-fly zone already in effect south of the Turkish-Syrian border.

          Russia also sent Turkey and NATO a clear message by arming its fighter jets with air-to-air missiles. On November 30, the Russian Air Force announced that "today, for the first time ‪Su34‬ fighter-bombers departed for combat sorties with air-to-air short- and medium-range missiles.... The usage of such weaponry is necessary for providing security of the aircraft of the Russian" air force, the announcement read. ‬‬‬

          Moscow also authorized numerous economic sanctions against Ankara ranging from tourism to agricultural products as well as sanctions on energy and construction projects.

          Erdogan took a conciliatory stance after the incident. In a speech in Ankara, he said, "We are strategic partners ... 'Joint projects may be halted, ties could be cut'? Are such approaches fitting for politicians?" Erdogan even requested a meeting with Putin while both leaders were in Paris for the COP21 climate change conference on November 30, but Putin rejected the request.

          Russians launched a heavy campaign to damage Erdogan's credibility and reputation. Vladimir Putin and numerous other Russian politicians leveled accusations regarding Turkey's sponsorship and cooperation with ISIS as well as allegations of buying oil smuggled by ISIS.

          On November 30, on the sidelines of the climate change summit in Paris, Putin stated, "At the moment we have received additional information confirming that that oil from the deposits controlled by Islamic State militants enters Turkish territory on industrial scale." He even went further to say, "We have every reason to believe that the decision to down our plane was guided by a desire to ensure security of this oil's delivery routes to ports where they are shipped in tankers."

          In response, Erdogan said he will resign as the country's president if Russia provides evidence that implicates Turkey in any oil trade with ISIS.

          Later, Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, said, "We have repeatedly publicly stated that oil from the IS-controlled territories is transported abroad, particularly to Turkey. The facts that substantiate these claims will be formally presented in the UN in particular, and to all parties concerned."

          Then on December 2, the Russian Defense Ministry held a briefing concerning ISIS funding. During the briefing, which included a PowerPoint presentation, satellite images, and videos, Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said, "According to our data, the top political leadership of the country - President Erdogan and his family - is involved in this criminal business."

          Antonov added, "In the West, no one has asked questions about the fact that the Turkish president's son heads one of the biggest energy companies, or that his son-in-law has been appointed energy minister. What a marvelous family business."

          On December 3, without mentioning specifics, Putin declared there was more evidence to come. "We are not planning to engage in military saber-rattling," he said. "But if anyone thinks that having committed this awful war crime ... are going to get away with some measures concerning their tomatoes or some limits on construction and other sectors, they are sorely mistaken."

          At this point, it is apparent that Putin's ultimate objective is to take advantage of the opportunity presented to him to severely damage Erdogan's name and trustworthiness, both domestically and internationally, or, even better, bring him and his regime down as a perceived power behind the extremists and the anti-Assad forces in Syria. This is in line with Russia's plan for realizing its strategic objectives in Syria.

          [Dec 06, 2015] With allies like Turkey, who needs enemies

          Notable quotes:
          "... Turkey and the U.S. State Department scoffed when Russia accused the Turkish government of being involved with smuggling ISIS oil. However, after Moscow presented convincing proof of Turkey's involvement, the Obama Administration changed its story. ..."
          "... "If the American colleagues are not satisfied with those ones, they should watch videos gained by their own UAVs," the Russian Defense Ministry said on Facebook. ..."
          "... The ever-changing political spin in Washington to avoid admitting the obvious looks increasingly dishonest. ..."
          "... The deal regarding the base was signed between Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) President Massoud Barzani and Turkish Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioğlu, during the latter's visit to northern Iraq on Nov. 4. ..."
          www.dailykos.com

          Turkey has sent 2,000 troops into Iraq without getting permission from Baghdad.

          The Iraqi government has demanded they withdraw, calling it a "hostile act", but Ankara has decided to ignore Baghdad's wishes.

          This is only the latest act that undermines the wisdom of having Turkey as a military ally.

          Turkey and the U.S. State Department scoffed when Russia accused the Turkish government of being involved with smuggling ISIS oil. However, after Moscow presented convincing proof of Turkey's involvement, the Obama Administration changed its story.

          While the US has long hyped the problem of ISIS oil smuggling, the recent Russian Defense Ministry presentation, showing significant evidence of Turkey being involved in buying ISIS oil and taking it to refineries run by the Turkish government, has changed their tune.
          After a previous denial of the allegation against Turkey, the US is now admitting that the oil is ending up smuggled into Turkey, but insists it is "of no significance" because so much of the oil produced in ISIS-controlled parts of Syria is consumed inside Syria.
          "The amount of oil being smuggled is extremely low and has decreased over time," claimed US special envoy Amos Hochstein, a stunning admission which suggests the US was well aware of oil smuggling into Turkey even before the Russian evidence.

          Just in case we don't want to believe the Russian videos, Moscow has a solution.

          "If the American colleagues are not satisfied with those ones, they should watch videos gained by their own UAVs," the Russian Defense Ministry said on Facebook.

          The ever-changing political spin in Washington to avoid admitting the obvious looks increasingly dishonest.

          With the U.S. government knowing about Turkey's government involvement (Russia's photos show ISIS oil smuggling trucks passing through border crossings without stopping), it begs the question of what our objectives actually are?

          gjohnsit

          Erdogan Moves To Annex Mosul

          Should Mosul be cleared of the Islamic State the Turkish heavy weapons will make it possible for Turkey to claim the city unless the Iraqi government will use all its power to fight that claim. Should the city stay in the hands of the Islamic State Turkey will make a deal with it and act as its protector. It will benefit from the oil around Mosul which will be transferred through north Iraq to Turkey and from there sold on the world markets. In short: This is an effort to seize Iraq's northern oil fields.

          That is the plan but it is a risky one. Turkey did not ask for permission to invade Iraq and did not inform the Iraqi government.

          The Turks claim that they were invited by the Kurds:

          Turkey will have a permanent military base in the Bashiqa region of Mosul as the Turkish forces in the region training the Peshmerga forces have been reinforced, Hürriyet reported.

          The deal regarding the base was signed between Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) President Massoud Barzani and Turkish Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioğlu, during the latter's visit to northern Iraq on Nov. 4.

          There are two problems with this. First: Massoud Barzani is no longer president of the KRG. His mandate ran out and the parliament refused to prolong it. Second: Mosul and its Bashiqa area are not part of the KRG. Barzani making a deal about it is like him making a deal about Paris.

          mookins

          Al-masdar news-feed-thing had guncam footage of a night attack, by frogfoots with their cannons, on an ISIS truck park. Magnified view at first so you could see they were full-sized like semi's; and no casual agglomeration, these were parked efficiently in a herringbone pattern, at least 400 and I think closer to a thousand. At the film's end the whole thing is just large, neat rectangles of brightness.

          So little did ISIS have to fear from an American-coalition airstrike that they had it set up like this. And now these White House statements that it was no big deal.

          And Europe sees all this on the news, the ISIS we didn't fight, the flood of refugees that resulted, and sees Russia and Iran being the good guys.

          I read where Putin was worried, called Merkel and Hollande to see if they were still on board with 'Minsk 2', the current ceasefire agreement in Ukraine, and they said yes they were. He was worried because Ukraine's President had said he rejected it and the U.S. had said we support that, we reject it too.

          We've lost Europe. World getting better fast.

          MrWebster, Dec 06 · 04:28:32 PM

          Your observations are right on, but only if you assume that thee enemy is IS and Al Queda in Syria. At this point, I don't believe it is. Assad/Russians are perceived as the bigger and more important enemy for the Obama administration and the neocons to focus on. In this case, what Turkey is doing is acceptable-they are enabling opposition forces to Assad/Russians. Heck, when the Russians started bombing, the Al Nusrat Front (Al Queda in Syria) was magically transformed by the administration and the mass media into "rebels", "moderate rebels", "insurgents", "opposition".

          native -> MrWebster

          I wonder who gets to claim Mosel, after all the dust settles? Abadi seems to have lost all control over his nominal countrymen in the north. But will the Iraqi Kurds side with Turkey, and against their brethren just across the border?

          [Dec 06, 2015] US elite strategy toward Russia is replica of UK strategy a century before

          Notable quotes:
          "... The relationship between Russia and Western Europe's far right may be a marriage of convenience... ..."
          "... Closer ties with rising political parties in the EU will give Putin more leverage against NATO. For its part, the European right sees the Russian leader as a staunch defender of national sovereignty and conservative values who has challenged US influence ..."
          russia-insider.com

          merchantsofmenace

          The relationship between Russia and Western Europe's far right may be a marriage of convenience...

          Closer ties with rising political parties in the EU will give Putin more leverage against NATO. For its part, the European right sees the Russian leader as a staunch defender of national sovereignty and conservative values who has challenged US influence...

          https://medium.com/the-eastern-project/greece-s-nazi-problem-continues-5b92ca57dc6d#.kfiaixvdm 1

          YoringeTBE -> merchantsofmenace
          russia-insider.com

          Stratfor Chairman Straight-Talking: US Policy Is Driven by Imperative to Stop Coalition between Germany and Russia

          George Friedman, Founder and Chairman of Stratfor, or what is called by many "private/shadow CIA" for its well known connections and close cooperation with the CIA, gave a very interesting speech to the Chicago Council of Foreign Affairs on subject Europe: Destined for Conflict? in February of this year.

          [Dec 06, 2015] More Planes Than Targets Why the Air War on ISIS Will Fail

          www.counterpunch.org
          Even if Britain's role is symbolic at this stage, it has joined a very real war against an enemy of great ferocity and experience, not least of air attacks. The highly informed Turkish military analystMetin Gurcan, writing on Al-Monitor website, says that air strikes may have been effective against Isis communications and training facilities, but adds that "it is extraordinary that there is not a single [Isis] control facility that has been hit by allied air strikes".

          This is not for lack of trying and shows that talk of destroying Isis command and control centres in Raqqa is wishful thinking, given that 2,934 American air strikes in Syria have failed to do so over the last 14 months.

          Air strikes have had an impact on Isis's tactics and casualty rate, above all when they are used in close co-operation with a well-organised ground force like the Syrian Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG). Isis may have lost as many as 2,200 fighters at Kobani which is a small and closely packed city. On the other hand, the length of time it took to drive Isis out of it with 700 air strikes demonstrated their fighters' willingness to die.

          Many Isis commanders reportedly regard their tactics at Kobani as a mistake which cost the group too many casualties and which it should not repeat. To do so it sacrificed two of its most important military assets which are mobility and surprise. This does not mean that it will not fight to the last bullet for cities like Raqqa and Mosul, but it did not do so for Tikrit and Sinjar where it used snipers, booby traps and IEDs, but did not commit large detachments of troops.

          Isis has modified its tactics to take account of the continuing risk of air strikes. It now has a decentralised command structure, with tactical decisions being taken by leaders of small units of eight to 10 men, whose overall mission is determined from the centre – but not how it should be accomplished. This limits the ability of its opponents to monitor its communications.

          Its forces assemble swiftly and attack soon afterwards with multiple diversionary operations, as was seen when Mosul was captured in June 2014 and again when they took Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, this May.

          They had been fighting their way into Baiji refinery, but this turned out to be a diversion and Isis units pulled back from there as soon as Ramadi fell.

          Isis's approach is to use a mixture of conventional, guerrilla and terrorist tactics, none unique in themselves, but they have never been used before in combination. Air strikes mean that it is less able to use captured tanks or big concentrations of vehicles packed with fighters. Instead it uses IEDs, booby traps, snipers and mortar teams in even greater numbers.

          Public martyrdom as an expression of religious faith is such a central part of its ideology that it can deploy suicide bombers on foot or in vehicles in great numbers to destroy fortifications and demoralize the enemy. Some 28 suicide bombers were reportedly used in the final stages of the battle for Ramadi. Psychological warfare has always been an important element of Isis's tactical armory. It has sought to terrify opposition forces by showing videos in which captured Iraqi or Syrian soldiers are filmed being ritually decapitated or shot in the head.

          Sometimes, the families of Syrian soldiers get a phone call from their son's mobile with a picture of his body with his severed head on his chest. Mass killings of prisoners have taken place after all Isis's victories (the al-Qaeda affiliate, al-Nusra Front, does the same thing).

          Heavy air attack will increase Isis's losses and it will be more difficult to bring in foreign volunteers through Turkey because most of the border is now closed. But Isis rules an area with a population of at least six million and conscripts all young men, who often want to become fighters because there is no other employment. Isis may have a fighting force of 100,000 men, as is strongly suggested by the very long front lines it holds and its ability to make multiple attacks simultaneously. Whatever Britain's role, we will be fighting a formidable military machine.

          [Dec 06, 2015] CIA personnel and assets had the strongest motives to murder Kennedy

          www.nakedcapitalism.com
          Vatch

          JKF? I didn't know that the historian John King Fairbank was assassinated.

          roadrider

          Then I guess you have solid evidence to account for the actions of Allen Dulles, David Atlee Phillips, William Harvey, David Morales, E. Howard Hunt, Richard Helms, James Angleton and other CIA personnel and assets who had

          1) perhaps the strongest motives to murder Kennedy

          2) the means to carry out the crime, namely, their executive action (assassination) capability and blackmail the government into aiding their cover up and

          3) the opportunity to carry out such a plan given their complete lack of accountability to the rest of the government and their unmatched expertise in lying, deceit, secrecy, fraud.

          Because if you actually took the time to research or at least read about their actions in this matter instead of just spouting bald assertions that you decline to back up with any facts you would find their behavior nearly impossible to explain other than having at, the very least, guilty knowledge of the crime.

          skk

          Ruby claimed he was injected with cancer in jail, which ultimately rendered his second trial (after winning appeal overturning his death sentence) moot. It sounded crazy, but so did the motive proffered at his first trial-- that he wanted to save Mrs. Kennedy the anguish...

          that is such an amazing story.. i've yet to watch the video of Lyndon Johnson's swearing in - where Marr states he's seen to be winking and smiling etc -

          Jim Marrs - Kennedy Assassination Lecture

          those who wish - Pick it up at around 12 minutes. actually in that lecture he may well be showing videos of it - I wdn't know cos just listen to the audio.

          skk

          JFK is the one 'safe' conspiracy to talk about without getting the extreme whacko label.

          fascinating "lectures" - British Humanist Society and all - still you gotta listen to everything especially the other side:

          https://www.youtube.com/embed/V6s_Jw3RU9g?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque&list=PL44BEE83ED9D841A8

          Make a note of the names - rising stars in the I'm "left" but I'm not a conspiracist gaggle - ist a standard gaggle - Chomsky, Monbiot are in it ( to win it of course - their fabled "socialist" kingdom" ) - yeah yeah its BritLand so yeah why I care I suppose.

          [Dec 04, 2015] German Financialization and the Eurozone Crisis

          Notable quotes:
          "... Bundenstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht ..."
          naked capitalism
          Many studies of the Eurozone crisis focus on peripheral European states' current account deficits, or German neo-mercantilist policies that promoted export surpluses. However, German financialization and input on the eurozone's financial architecture promoted deficits, increased systemic risk, and facilitated the onset of Europe's subsequent crises.

          Increasing German financial sector competition encouraged German banks' increasing securitization and participation in global capital markets. Regional liberalization created new marketplaces for German finance and increased crisis risk as current accounts diverged between Europe's core and periphery. After the global financial crisis of 2008, German losses on international securitized assets prompted retrenchment of lending, paving the way for the eurozone's sovereign debt crisis. Rethinking how financial liberalization facilitated German and European financial crises may prevent the eurozone from repeating these performances in the future.

          After the 1970s, German banks' trading activity came to surpass lending as the largest share of assets, while German firms increasingly borrowed in international capital markets rather than from domestic banks. Private banks alleged that political subsidies and higher credit ratings for Landesbanks, public banks that insured household, small enterprise, and local banks' access to capital, were unfair, and, in response, German lawmakers eliminated state guarantees for public banks. Landesbanks, despite their historic role as stable, non-profit, providers of credit, consequently had to compete with Germany's largest private banks for business. Changes in competition restructured the German financial system. Mergers and takeovers occurred, especially in commercial banks and Landesbanks. German financial intermediation ratios-total financial assets of financial corporations divided by the total financial assets of the economy-increased. Greater securitization and shadow banking relative to long-term lending increased German propensity for financial crisis, as securities, shares, and securitized debt constituted increasing percentages of German banks' assets and liabilities.

          Throughout this period, Germany lacked a centralized financial regulatory apparatus. Only in 2002 did the country's central bank, the Bundesbank, establish the Bundenstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (Federal Financial Supervisory Authority, known as BaFin), which consolidated the responsibilities of three agencies to oversee the whole financial sector. However, neither institution could keep pace with new sources of financial and economic instability. German banking changes continued apace and destabilizing trends in banking grew.

          German desire for financial liberalization at the European level, meanwhile, helped increase potential systemic risk of European finance. Despite some European opposition to removing barriers to capital and trade flows, Germany prevailed in setting these preconditions for membership in the European economic union. Germany's negotiating power stemmed from its strong currency, as well as French, Italian, and smaller European economies' desire for currency stability. Germany demanded an independent central bank for the union, removal of capital controls, and an expansion of the tasks banks could perform within the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). The Second Banking Coordination Directive (SBCD) mandated that banks perform commercial and investment intermediation to be certified within the EMU; the Single Market Passport (SMP) required free trade and capital flows throughout the EMU. The SMP and SBCD increased the scope of activity that financial institutions throughout the union were expected to provide, and opened banks up to markets, instruments, and activities they could neither monitor nor regulate, and hence to destabilizing shocks.

          Intra-EMU lending and borrowing subsequently increased, and total lending and borrowing grew relative to European countries' GDP from the early 1990s onward. Asymmetries emerged in capital flows between Europe's core, particularly the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands, to Europe's newly liberalized periphery. German banks lent increasing volumes to EMU member states, especially peripheral states. Though this lending on a country-by-country basis was a small percentage of Germany's GDP, it constituted larger percentages of borrowers' GDPs. In 2007, Germany lent 1.23% of its GDP to Portugal; this represented 17.68% of Portugal's GDP; in 2008, Germany lent 6% of its GDP to Ireland; this was 84% of Irish GDP. Germany, the largest European economy, lent larger percentages of its GDP to peripheral EMU nations relative to its lending to richer European economies. These flows, more potentially disruptive for borrowers than for the lender, reflected lack of oversight in asset management. German lending helped destabilize European financial systems more vulnerable to rapid capital inflows, and created conditions for large-scale capital flight in a crisis.

          Financial competition increased in Europe over this period. Financial merger activity first accelerated within national borders, and later grew at supra-national levels. These movements increased eurozone access to capital, but increased pressure for banks to widen the scope of the services and lending that they provided. Rising European securitization in this period increased systemic risk for the EMU financial system. European holdings of U.S.-originated asset-backed securities increased by billions of dollars from the early 2000s until shortly before 2008. German banks were among the EMU's top issuers and acquirers of such assets. As banks' holdings of these assets increased, European systemic risk increased as well.

          European total debt as a percentage of GDP rose in this period. Financial debt relative to GDP grew particularly sharply in core economies; Ireland was the only peripheral EMU economy with comparable levels of financial debt. Though government debt relative to GDP fell or held constant for most EMU nations, cross-border acquisition of sovereign debt increased until 2007. German banks acquired substantially larger portfolios of sovereign debt issued by other European states, which would not decrease until 2010. Only in 2009 did government debt relative to GDP increase throughout the eurozone, as governments guaranteed their financial systems to minimize the costs of the ensuing financial crisis.

          The newly liberalized financial architecture of the eurozone increased both the market for German financial services and overall systemic risk of the European financial system; these dynamics helped destabilize the German financial system and economy at large. Rising German exports of goods, services, and capital to the rest of Europe grew the German economy, but divergence of current account balances within the EMU exposed it to sovereign debt risk in peripheral states. Potential systemic risk changed into systemic risk after the subprime mortgage crisis began. EMU economies would not have subsequently experienced such pressure to backstop national financial systems or to repay sovereign loans had German banks not lent so much or purchased so many sovereign bonds within the union. Narratives that fail to acknowledge Germany's role in promoting the circumstances that underlay the eurozone crisis ignore the destabilizing power of financial liberalization, even for a global financial center like Germany.

          susan the other, December 3, 2015 at 1:06 pm

          This is very interesting. It describes just how the EU mess unfolded beginning in 1970 with deregulation of the financial industry in the core. Big fish eat little fish. It is as if for 4 decades the banks in Germany compensated their losses to the bigger international lenders by taking on the riskier borrowers and were able to do so because of German mercantilism and financial deregulation. Like the German domestic banks loaned the periphery money with abandon, and effectively borrowed their own profits by speculating on bad customers. As German corporations did business with big international banksters, who lent at lower rates, other German banks resorted to buying the sovereign bonds of the periphery and selling CDOs, etc. The German banks were as over-extended looking for profit as consumers living on their credit cards. Deregulation enriched only the biggest international banks. We could call this behavior a form of digging your own grave. In 2009 the periphery saw their borrowing costs threatened and guaranteed their own financial institutions creating the "sovereign debt" that the core then refused to touch. Hypocrisy ruled. Generosity was in short supply. The whole thing fell apart. Deregulation was just another form of looting.

          washunate, December 3, 2015 at 1:28 pm

          German losses on international securitized assets prompted retrenchment of lending, paving the way for the eurozone's sovereign debt crisis.

          I agree with the general conclusion at the end that German financialization is part of the overall narrative of EMU, but I don't follow this specific link in the chain of events as described. The eurozone has a sovereign debt crisis because those sovereign governments privatized the profits and socialized the losses of a global system of fraud. And if we're assigning national blame, it's a system run out of DC, NY, and London a lot more than Berlin, Frankfurt, and Brussels.

          Current and capital account imbalances cancel each other out in the overall balance of payments. As bank lending decreases (capital account surplus shrinks) then the current account deficit shrinks as well (the 'trade deficit'). The problem is when governments step in and haphazardly backstop some of the losses – at least, when they do so without imposing taxes on the wealthy to a sufficient degree to pay for these bailouts.

          [Dec 04, 2015] Congressional Aid to Multinationals Avoiding Taxes

          EconoSpeak

          The OECD's Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) initiative is an effort by the G20 to curb the abuse of transfer pricing by multinationals. Senator Hatch is not a fan:

          Throughout this process we have heard concerns from large sectors of the business community that the BEPS project could be used to further undermine our nation's competitiveness and to unfairly subject U.S. companies to greater tax liabilities abroad. Companies have also been concerned about various reporting requirements that could impose significant compliance costs on American businesses and force them to share highly sensitive proprietary information with foreign governments. I expect that we'll hear about these concerns from the business community and others during today's hearing.
          Indeed we heard from some lawyer representing The Software Coalition who was there to mansplain to us how BEPS is evil. I learned two startling things. First – Bermuda must be part of the US tax base. Secondly, if Google is expected to pay taxes in the UK, it will take all those 53,600 jobs which are mainly in California and move them to Bermuda:
          in particular how the changes to the international tax rules as developed under BEPS will significantly reduce the U.S. tax base and create disincentives for U.S. multinational corporations (MNCs) to create R&D jobs in the United States
          Yes – I find his testimony absurd at so many levels. Let's take Google as an example. When they say foreign subsidiaries – think Bermuda. Over the past three year, Google's income has average $15.876 billion per year but its income taxes have only average $2.933 billion for an effective tax rate of only 18.5%. How did that happen? Well – 55% of its income is sourced to these foreign subsidiaries and the average tax rate on this income is only 6.5%. Nice deal! Google's tax model is not only easy to explain but is also a very common one for those in the Software Coalition. While all of the R&D is done in the U.S. and 45% of its sales are in the U.S. – U.S. source income is only 45% of worldwide income. Very little of the foreign sourced income ends up in places like the UK even 11% of Google's sales are to UK customers. Only problem is that income ends up on Ireland's books with the UK getting a very modest amount of the profits. Now you might be wondering how Google got to the foreign taxes to be only 6.5% of foreign sourced income since Ireland's tax rate is 12.5%. But think Double Irish Dutch Sandwich and you'll get how the profits ended up in Bermuda as well as perhaps a good lunch! But what about that repatriation tax you ask. Google's most recent 10-K proudly notes:
          "We have not provided U.S. income taxes and foreign withholding taxes on the undistributed earnings of foreign subsidiaries".
          In other words, they are not paying that repatriation tax. Besides the Republicans want to eliminate. Let's be honest – Congress has hamstringed the IRS efforts to enforce transfer pricing. The BEPS initiative arose out of this failure. And now the Republicans in Congress are objecting to even these efforts. And if Europe has the temerity of expecting its fair share of taxes, U.S. multinationals will leave California and relocate in Bermuda? Who is this lawyer kidding? Myrtle Blackwood
          The development model in nation after nation is dependent upon global corporations. What is happening is simply a byproduct of this.
          Jack
          Would the problem of transfer mythical corporate location and the resulting lost taxes be resolved if taxes were based on point of revenue? Tax gross income where it is earned instead of taxing profits where they are not earned.

          [Dec 04, 2015] China vows to drive smart aleck lecturers from its universities

          Notable quotes:
          "... Corruption happen everywhere, just look at US. They merely make it legal to bribe the politician, it is call lobbying. Look at all those who cheated their clients by selling them CDOs and betting against them. It became a financial worst crisis for the world, yet none of them was jailed and they all get to keep the billions. ..."
          The Guardian

          KarlBC g_reader_1, 4 Dec 2015 09:43

          Corruption happen everywhere, just look at US. They merely make it legal to bribe the politician, it is call lobbying. Look at all those who cheated their clients by selling them CDOs and betting against them. It became a financial worst crisis for the world, yet none of them was jailed and they all get to keep the billions.

          Estimate the cost to win 2016 president election = USD 1bn. Even Bush, not a front runner, had already spend USD30millions. Contribution of fund in return for IOU favors, look like corruption to me too.

          NigelJ, 4 Dec 2015 10:53

          some of this anti-corruption campaign would certainly not go amiss in the UK.

          TheHighRoad isabey, 4 Dec 2015 09:29

          Perhaps the difference is that many academics in the UK are contracted to do a certain number of hours teaching and must support the university's reputation with research but are also permitted - contractually - to work in industry and with NGOs to supplement their income and to expand their knowledge of current practice to make their teaching and research more relevant. It isn't illegal or even unusual or suspect and if you are envious of it I suggest you spend 8 years working your way through an ordinary degree, a master's and a doctorate so that you too can participate in it - though don't get your hopes up for "raking it in".

          Oh, and they don't work in a system where corruption investigations are used as a pretext to weed out "unreliable elements" who talk about dangerous things that might lead impressionable young people to ask difficult questions about the government in a one-party state.

          [Dec 03, 2015] Russia won't forget downed jet, Putin warns Turkey in annual address

          The Guardian

          Russian president says Ankara will not 'get away with a tomato ban' in response to 'cynical war crime'

          ... ... ...

          The Russian president said he was still bemused by the Turkish decision to shoot down the Su-24. He said: "Perhaps only Allah knows why they did this. And it seems Allah decided to punish the ruling clique in Turkey by relieving them of their sense and judgment."

          Russia has implemented a series of economic sanctions against Turkey, including banning fruit and vegetable imports and ordering Russian tour operators not to send tourists to the country. Putin emphasised that this limited response was not an attempt to move on and start afresh, however.


          "There will not be a nervous, hysterical reaction, that would be dangerous for us and for the whole world," he said. "We will not engage in sabre rattling. But if people think that after carrying out a cynical war crime, killing our people, they'll get away with a tomato ban or some limits in the construction sector, they're very wrong. We will keep remembering what they did. And they will keep regretting it."

          The day before, Russia's defence ministry had called journalists to a briefing at its command centre, showing slides and satellite imagery claiming to show proof that Turkey was profiting from the trade in Isis oil.

          "A unified team of bandits and Turkish elites operates in the region to steal oil from their neighbours," deputy defence minister Anatoly Antonov said on Wednesday. Erdoğan later dismissed the accusations as "slander".

          ... ... ...

          Putin again called for a unified coalition to fight terrorism, and said it was unacceptable to delineate between different terrorist groups. The Russian airstrikes have hit many groups that western countries do not consider terrorists. Putin also made it clear once again who he blames for the current terrorist threat.

          "Iraq, Libya and Syria have turned into zones of chaos and anarchy which threaten the whole world," he said. "And of course we know why this happened. We know who wanted to change inconvenient regimes, and crudely impose their rules. And what was the result? They made a mess, ruined the states, turned different peoples against each other and then, as we say in Russia, washed their hands of the places, opening the road for radicals, extremists and terrorists."

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

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

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

          Just announced:

          Too Late for Apologies: Russia Halts Turk Stream Gas Pipeline

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

          marknesop, December 3, 2015 at 7:37 am

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

          kirill, December 3, 2015 at 2:13 pm

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

          likbez, December 3, 2015 at 8:21 pm

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

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

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

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

          [Dec 03, 2015] Who are those moderate rebels in Syria

          marknesop.wordpress.com
          yalensis, December 3, 2015 at 4:48 pm

          You are burying the lede, which is Congressman Ed Royce's not-so veiled threat against Russia:

          "I think what Vladimir Putin should think on, for a minute, is the fact that Moscow itself IS a target. The attack on the Metro-Liner from Russia over Egypt clearly is another message from ISIS. So, at this point what we would like to see is a recalibration on the part of the Russian military. So that instead of attacking the Free Syrian Army and the more secular Syrian forces, they should begin to attack ISIS. So far we haven't seen that."

          Translation from American B.S. into plain talk:
          "Putin: Stop attacking our guys, we know they are ISIS but we have to pretend they're not. If you keep attacking them, we'll have them commit ever more terror attacks against the Russian people."

          marknesop , December 3, 2015 at 6:15 pm

          The USA is perhaps the worst choice on the planet to ask who is a "moderate rebel" and who is ISIS, as witnessed by their sad-sack training plan for moderate rebels which produced 5 or so whom they say are reliable after spending $500 Million. Obviously they trained many more than 5, but they have no idea where those people or their equipment are now. The real hot button in that article is the mention of General Steven Groves and his operation to "oversee the suppression of assessments showing the war on a perilous trajectory." That's what the American intelligence organs do now – blow smoke up people's asses so they can't see reality.

          [Dec 03, 2015] Germany Rebukes Its Own Intelligence Agency for Criticizing Saudi Policy

          Notable quotes:
          "... "The cautious diplomatic stance of the older leading members of the royal family is being replaced by an impulsive policy of intervention," said the memo, which was titled " Saudi Arabia - Sunni regional power torn between foreign policy paradigm change and domestic policy consolidation" and was one and a half pages long. ..."
          "... Since taking the throne early this year, King Salman has invested great power in Prince Mohammed, making him defense minister and deputy crown prince and giving him oversight of oil and economic policy. The sudden prominence of such a young and untested prince - he is believed to be about 30, and had little public profile before his father became king - has worried some Saudis and foreign diplomats. ..."
          "... Prince Mohammed is seen as a driving force behind the Saudi military campaign against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, which human rights groups say has caused thousands of civilian deaths. ..."
          "... In its memo, the BND said that Saudi rivalry with Iran for supremacy in the Middle East, as well as Saudi dependency on the United States, were the main drivers of Saudi foreign policy. ..."
          "... The Saudi-Iranian rivalry plays out throughout the region, the memo said, most recently and strikingly in the Saudi military intervention in Yemen. There, it said, "Saudi Arabia wants to prove that it is ready to take unprecedented military, financial and political risks in order not to fall into a disadvantageous position in the region." ..."
          "... In Syria, Saudi Arabia's aim was always to oust President Bashar al-Assad, and that has not changed, the memo said. ..."
          "... "The concentration of economic and foreign policy power on Mohammed bin Salman contains the latent danger that, in an attempt to establish himself in the royal succession while his father is still alive, he could overreach with expensive measures or reforms that would unsettle other members of the royal family and the population," the memo observed, adding, "That could overstrain the relations to friendly and above all to allied states in the region." ..."
          The New York Times

          The intelligence agency's memo risked playing havoc with Berlin's efforts to show solidarity with France in its military campaign against the Islamic State and to push forward the tentative talks on how to end the Syrian civil war. The Bundestag, the lower house of the German Parliament, is due to vote on Friday on whether to send reconnaissance planes, midair fueling capacity and a frigate to the Middle East to support the French.

          The memo was sent to selected German journalists on Wednesday. In it, the foreign intelligence agency, known as the BND, offered an unusually frank assessment of recent Saudi policy.

          "The cautious diplomatic stance of the older leading members of the royal family is being replaced by an impulsive policy of intervention," said the memo, which was titled "Saudi Arabia - Sunni regional power torn between foreign policy paradigm change and domestic policy consolidation" and was one and a half pages long.

          The memo said that King Salman and his son Prince Mohammed bin Salman were trying to build reputations as leaders of the Arab world.

          Since taking the throne early this year, King Salman has invested great power in Prince Mohammed, making him defense minister and deputy crown prince and giving him oversight of oil and economic policy. The sudden prominence of such a young and untested prince - he is believed to be about 30, and had little public profile before his father became king - has worried some Saudis and foreign diplomats.

          Prince Mohammed is seen as a driving force behind the Saudi military campaign against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, which human rights groups say has caused thousands of civilian deaths.

          ... ... ...

          In its memo, the BND said that Saudi rivalry with Iran for supremacy in the Middle East, as well as Saudi dependency on the United States, were the main drivers of Saudi foreign policy.

          The Saudi-Iranian rivalry plays out throughout the region, the memo said, most recently and strikingly in the Saudi military intervention in Yemen. There, it said, "Saudi Arabia wants to prove that it is ready to take unprecedented military, financial and political risks in order not to fall into a disadvantageous position in the region."

          In Syria, Saudi Arabia's aim was always to oust President Bashar al-Assad, and that has not changed, the memo said.

          But it suggested that the recent shift in Saudi leadership has added new factors in the Middle East. "The concentration of economic and foreign policy power on Mohammed bin Salman contains the latent danger that, in an attempt to establish himself in the royal succession while his father is still alive, he could overreach with expensive measures or reforms that would unsettle other members of the royal family and the population," the memo observed, adding, "That could overstrain the relations to friendly and above all to allied states in the region."

          [Dec 03, 2015] Murder And Mayhem In The Middle East

          Notable quotes:
          "... Because you live in the real world, you know that NATO knew exactly where Gaddafi was at all times and that he was in that convoy attempting to escape NATOs bombing raid. Further, you wont be surprised to learn that many of these vehicles were pickup trucks that really posed no military threat to NATO. The point was to kill Gaddafi, and numerous resources were brought to bear on that mission. ..."
          "... Gaddafis killing was the assassination of a foreign leader by Western interests. In this case, Gaddafi was just yet another target in a long line of leaders that attempted to keep those same interests at bay. ..."
          "... While imperfect by many standards, all of these countries were stable and increasingly prosperous before outside interests came in and turned them into a living nightmare. ..."
          "... It is this context that explains why such reactionary and violent groups as ISIS arose. They are the natural response of violated people seeking to assert some control over lives that otherwise have no hope and even less meaning. ..."
          "... Islamic State militants have consolidated control over central Libya, carrying out summary executions, beheadings and amputations, the United Nations said on Monday in a further illustration of the North African states descent into anarchy. ..."
          "... All sides in Libyas multiple armed conflicts are committing breaches of international law that may amount to war crimes, including abductions, torture and the killing of civilians, according to a U.N. report. ..."
          "... Islamic State (IS) has gained control over swathes of territory, committing gross abuses including public summary executions of individuals based on their religion or political allegiance , the joint report by the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and the U.N. Support Mission in Libya said. ..."
          "... The U.N. had documented IS executions in their stronghold city of Sirte, in central Libya along the Mediterranean coast, and in Derna to the east, from which they were later ousted by local militias. Victims included Egyptian Copts, Ethiopians, Eritreans and a South Sudanese, the report said. ..."
          Dec 1, 2015 | Safehaven.com

          Why it matters to those living in the West

          To understand what's happening in Syria right now, you have to understand the tactics and motivations of the US and NATO -- parties sharing interwoven aims and goals in the Middle East/North African (MENA) region.

          While the populations of Europe and the US are fed raw propaganda about the regional aims involved, the reality is far different.

          Where the propaganda claims that various bad dictators have to be taken out, or that democracy is the goal, neither have anything at all to do with what's actually happening or has happened in the region.

          For starters, we all know that if oil fields were not at stake then the West would care much much less about MENA affairs.

          But a lot of outside interests do care. And their aims certainly and largely include controlling the region's critical energy resources. There's a lot of concern over whether Russia or China will instead come to dominate these last, best oil reserves on the planet.

          Further, we can dispense with the idea that the US and NATO have any interest at all in human rights in this story. If they did, then they'd at least have to admit that their strategies and tactics have unleashed immeasurable suffering, as well as created the conditions for lots more. But it would be silly to try and argue about or understand regional motivations through the lenses of human rights or civilian freedoms -- as neither applies here.

          Divide And Conquer

          Instead, the policies in the MENA region are rooted in fracturing the region so that it will be easier to control.

          That's a very old tactic; first utilized to a great extent by Britain starting back in the 1700s.

          Divide and conquer. There's a reason that's a well-worn catch phrase: it's hundreds of years old.

          But to get a handle on the level of depravity involved, I think it useful to examine what happened in Libya in 2011 when NATO took out Muamar Gaddafi and left the country a broken shell -- as was intended.

          I cannot really give you a good reason for NATO involving itself in taking out Gaddafi. I only have bad ones.

          The official reason was that after the Arab Spring uprising in Libya in early 2011 (with plenty of evidence of Western influences in fanning those flames) things got ugly and protesters were shot. This allowed the UN to declare that it needed to protect civilians, and the ICC to charge Gaddafi with crimes against humanity, declaring that he needed to stand trial.

          Here's how it went down:

          On 27 June, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam, and his brother-in-law Abdullah Senussi, head of state security, for charges concerning crimes against humanity.[268] Libyan officials rejected the ICC, claiming that it had "no legitimacy whatsoever" and highlighting that "all of its activities are directed at African leaders".[269]

          That month, Amnesty International published their findings, in which they asserted that many of the accusations of mass human rights abuses made against Gaddafist forces lacked credible evidence, and were instead fabrications of the rebel forces which had been readily adopted by the western media.

          Source

          After the ICC's indictment, it was a hop, skip and a jump to declaring a NATO-enforced 'no fly zone' over Libya to protect civilians.

          From there it was just a straight jump to NATO actively shooting anything related to the Gaddafi government. NATO had thereby chosen sides and was directly supporting the rebellion.

          The pattern in play here is always the same: cherry-picked events are used as a pretext to support the side seeking to topple the existing government and thereby leave a sectarian wasteland to flourish in the inevitable power vacuum.

          If you are like most people in the West, you know almost nothing of any of this context. It's not well reported. And Libya is rarely in the news even though it's going through increasingly desperate times.

          I found a speech given by Gaddafi a few months before he was killed to be especially compelling and revealing. I will reproduce it in its entirety here:

          For 40 years, or was it longer, I can't remember, I did all I could to give people houses, hospitals, schools, and when they were hungry, I gave them food. I even made Benghazi into farmland from the desert, I stood up to attacks from that cowboy Reagan, when he killed my adopted orphaned daughter, he was trying to kill me, instead he killed that poor innocent child. Then I helped my brothers and sisters from Africa with money for the African Union.

          I did all I could to help people understand the concept of real democracy, where people's committees ran our country. But that was never enough, as some told me, even people who had 10 room homes, new suits and furniture, were never satisfied, as selfish as they were they wanted more. They told Americans and other visitors, that they needed "democracy" and "freedom" never realizing it was a cut throat system, where the biggest dog eats the rest, but they were enchanted with those words, never realizing that in America, there was no free medicine, no free hospitals, no free housing, no free education and no free food, except when people had to beg or go to long lines to get soup.

          No, no matter what I did, it was never enough for some, but for others, they knew I was the son of Gamal Abdel Nasser, the only true Arab and Muslim leader we've had since Salah-al-Deen, when he claimed the Suez Canal for his people, as I claimed Libya, for my people, it was his footsteps I tried to follow, to keep my people free from colonial domination - from thieves who would steal from us.

          Now, I am under attack by the biggest force in military history, my little African son, Obama wants to kill me, to take away the freedom of our country, to take away our free housing, our free medicine, our free education, our free food, and replace it with American style thievery, called "capitalism," but all of us in the Third World know what that means, it means corporations run the countries, run the world, and the people suffer. So, there is no alternative for me, I must make my stand, and if Allah wishes, I shall die by following His path, the path that has made our country rich with farmland, with food and health, and even allowed us to help our African and Arab brothers and sisters to work here with us, in the Libyan Jamahiriya.

          I do not wish to die, but if it comes to that, to save this land, my people, all the thousands who are all my children, then so be it.

          Let this testament be my voice to the world, that I stood up to crusader attacks of NATO, stood up to cruelty, stood up to betrayal, stood up to the West and its colonialist ambitions, and that I stood with my African brothers, my true Arab and Muslim brothers, as a beacon of light. When others were building castles, I lived in a modest house, and in a tent. I never forgot my youth in Sirte, I did not spend our national treasury foolishly, and like Salah-al-Deen, our great Muslim leader, who rescued Jerusalem for Islam, I took little for myself...

          In the West, some have called me "mad", "crazy", but they know the truth yet continue to lie, they know that our land is independent and free, not in the colonial grip, that my vision, my path, is, and has been clear and for my people and that I will fight to my last breath to keep us free, may Allah almighty help us to remain faithful and free.

          Source

          Gaddafi's great crime seems to be giving away too much oil wealth to his people. Was he a strongman? Yes, but you have to be to rule in that region right now. Was he the worst strong man? No, not by a long shot.

          As bad as he was, at least he didn't kill a million Iraqis on trumped up charges of non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Nor was he chopping off 50 heads per week and stoning females for adultery as is the case with Saudi Arabia right now.

          But again, whether he killed protestors or not, or committed war crimes or not, is irrelevant to the power structure. What mattered was that he had locked out Western interests, and instead used his country's oil wealth to provide free or extremely cheap health care, education and housing to a wide swath of Libyans.

          So let's cut to the murder scene. Here's how it went down:

          At around 08:30 local time on 20 October, Gaddafi, his army chief Abu-Bakr Yunis Jabr, his security chief Mansour Dhao, and a group of loyalists attempted to escape in a convoy of 75 vehicles.[7][8] A Royal Air Force reconnaissance aircraft spotted the convoy moving at high speed, after NATO forces intercepted a satellite phone call made by Gaddafi.[9]

          NATO aircraft then fired on 11 of the vehicles, destroying one. A U.S. Predator drone operated from a base near Las Vegas[8] fired the first missiles at the convoy, hitting its target about 3 kilometres (2 mi) west of Sirte. Moments later, French Air Force Rafale fighter jets continued the bombing.[10]

          The NATO bombing immobilized much of the convoy and killed dozens of loyalist fighters. Following the first strike, some 20 vehicles broke away from the main group and continued moving south. A second NATO airstrike damaged or destroyed 10 of these vehicles. According to the Financial Times, Free Libya units on the ground also struck the convoy.[11]

          According to their statement, NATO was not aware at the time of the strike that Gaddafi was in the convoy. NATO stated that in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1973, it does not target individuals but only military assets that pose a threat. NATO later learned, "from open sources and Allied intelligence," that Gaddafi was in the convoy and that the strike likely contributed to his capture.[11]

          Source

          To believe NATO, it had no idea Gaddafi was in that convoy (honest!), but just managed to have a Predator drone handy as well as a large number of jets armed for ground targets (not anti-aircraft missiles, as a no-fly zone might imply). It merely struck all of these vehicles over and over again in their quest to kill everyone on board because they were "military assets that posed a threat."

          Because you live in the real world, you know that NATO knew exactly where Gaddafi was at all times and that he was in that convoy attempting to escape NATO's bombing raid. Further, you won't be surprised to learn that many of these vehicles were pickup trucks that really posed no military threat to NATO. The point was to kill Gaddafi, and numerous resources were brought to bear on that mission.

          Gaddafi's killing was the assassination of a foreign leader by Western interests. In this case, Gaddafi was just yet another target in a long line of leaders that attempted to keep those same interests at bay.

          After NATO was finished making a mess of Libya by taking out Gaddafi and leaving a right proper mess of a power vacuum, it simply departed -- leaving the country to fend for itself. Libya descended, of course, into an outright civil war and has remained ever since a hotbed of sectarian violence and increasing ISIS control and presence.

          If NATO/US had to follow the Pier I rule of "you break it, you buy it" they would still be in Libya offering money and assistance as the country settles down and begins the long process of rebuilding.

          But no such luck. That's absolutely not how they operate. It's disaster capitalism in action. The idea is to break things apart and then make money off of the pieces. It's not to help people.

          Otherwise, how do we explain these images?

          While imperfect by many standards, all of these countries were stable and increasingly prosperous before outside interests came in and turned them into a living nightmare.

          It is this context that explains why such reactionary and violent groups as ISIS arose. They are the natural response of violated people seeking to assert some control over lives that otherwise have no hope and even less meaning.

          I'm not justifying ISIS; only explaining the context that led to its rise.

          Speaking of which, let's turn back to Libya:

          ISIS is tightening its grip in Libya

          Nov 15, 2015

          GENEVA (Reuters) - Islamic State militants have consolidated control over central Libya, carrying out summary executions, beheadings and amputations, the United Nations said on Monday in a further illustration of the North African state's descent into anarchy.

          All sides in Libya's multiple armed conflicts are committing breaches of international law that may amount to war crimes, including abductions, torture and the killing of civilians, according to a U.N. report.

          Islamic State (IS) has gained control over swathes of territory, "committing gross abuses including public summary executions of individuals based on their religion or political allegiance", the joint report by the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and the U.N. Support Mission in Libya said.

          The U.N. had documented IS executions in their stronghold city of Sirte, in central Libya along the Mediterranean coast, and in Derna to the east, from which they were later ousted by local militias. Victims included Egyptian Copts, Ethiopians, Eritreans and a South Sudanese, the report said.

          Some were accused of "treason", others of same-sex relations, but none were given due legal process, according to the report, which covered the year through October.

          Four years after the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya is locked in a conflict between two rival governments - an official one in the east and a self-declared one controlling the capital Tripoli - and the many armed factions that back them.

          Source

          After that atrocious summary, how bad does life under Gaddafi sound now? Again, he was targeted for execution by Western interests and the resulting mess is of little surprise to anybody with even modest curiosity about how violent overthrows tend to work out in the MENA region.

          But where is the UN security council denouncing the war crimes? And where is the ICC leveling crimes against humanity charges? Nowhere. There's no more Western political interest in Libya now that it has been broken apart.

          As they say in the military: once is bad luck, twice is a coincidence, but three times is enemy action. This pattern of eliminating "a very bad man" and leaving the country in a complete mess has happened three times of late, with Syria targeted to be the fourth. So enemy action it is.

          ISIS and other extreme jihadist groups arose because of brutal conditions that made such harsh interpretations of ancient religious texts make sense by comparison. When you have nothing left to believe in, one's belief system can compensate by becoming rather inflexible.

          I know I have greatly simplified a terribly complex dynamic, but -- speaking of beliefs -- I don't believe that terrorists are born, I believe they are raised. When one has nothing left to lose, then anything becomes possible, including strapping on a suicide belt and flicking the switch.

          What I am saying is that this is not a battle between Christians and Muslims, nor is it a battle between good and evil, both characterizations that I've read recently in great abundance. That's all nonsense for the masses.

          This is about resources and true wealth that is being siphoned from the people who have had the misfortune to be born on top of it, and towards other regions with greater power and reach.

          There's nothing different in what I am reading today from what the British redcoats did in India from the late 1700's throughout the 1800's. Their military might assured that the East India Tea Company could continue to extract resources from the locals.

          At the time the locals were called heathens, implying they were subhuman and therefore could be safely dispatched. Now they are called terrorists -- same thing. Dehumanize your foe to help rationalize one's behaviors. It's a tried and true practice of war propaganda.


          How This Affects You

          While we might be tempted to sit in our Western environs, secure in the idea that at least we aren't 'over there' where all the bad things are happening, it would be a mistake to think that this turmoil will not impact you.

          I'm not talking about the ultra-remote chance of being a victim of blow-back terrorism either. I am referring to the idea that it would be a mistake to think that any government(s) that think nothing of ruining entire MENA countries will hesitate to throw anybody else under the bus that gets in their way.

          Ben Bernanke gave no thought to throwing granny under the bus in order to help the big banks get even bigger. He willingly and knowing transferred over a trillion dollars away from savers and handed it to the big banks.

          Similarly, we shouldn't expect enlightened behavior to emerge from the shadows of leadership once things get even dicer on the world stage. In fact, we should expect the opposite.

          It would be a mistake to think that powers in charge would not turn their malign intent inwards toward their own populace if/when necessary. Today it's Syria, yesterday it was Libya, but tomorrow it might be us.

          The people of France recently got a small taste of the horror that has been visited upon the people of Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya. And while I have no interest in seeing any more violence anywhere, perhaps the people of France will finally begin to ask what happened and why. I don't mean the fine details of the night of the massacre, but how it came to be considered a 'thing to do' at all by the people who did it. (For those unaware, France has been particularly involved for years in fomenting revolt within Syria)


          Conclusion

          My intention in stringing these dots together is so that we can have an informed discussion about what's happening in Syria and the Middle East at large. I am not at all interested in trying to understand events through the framing lenses of religion and/or 'terrorism', both of which are tools of distraction in my experience.

          Instead, I want to understand the power dynamics at play. And to try to peel back the layers, to understand why the powers that be consider this region so important at this moment in history.

          I think they know as well as we do that the shale oil revolution is not a revolution at all but a retirement party for an oil industry that has given us everything we hold economically dear but is on its last legs.

          I think that the power structures of the next twenty years are going to be utterly shaped by energy - who has it, who needs it and who's controlling it.

          Saudi Arabia is acting increasingly desperate here and I think we know why. They have a saying there: "My father rode a camel, I drove a car, my son flies a jet and his son will ride a camel."

          They know as well as anyone that their oil wealth will run out someday; and so, too, will the West's interest in them. With no giant military to protect them, the royalty in Saudi Arabia should have some serious concerns about the future.

          Heck, it's even worse than that:

          Saudi Wells Running Dry -- of Water -- Spell End of Desert Wheat

          Nov 3, 2015

          Saudi Arabia became a net exporter of wheat in 1984 from producing almost none in the 1970s. The self-sufficiency program became a victim of its own success, however, as it quickly depleted aquifers that haven't been filled since the last Ice Age.

          In an unexpected U-turn, the government said in 2008 it was phasing out the policy, reducing purchases of domestic wheat each year by 12.5 percent and bridging the gap progressively with imports.

          The last official local harvest occurred in May, although the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization projects that a small crop of about metric 30,000 tons for traditional specialty bakery products will "prevail" in 2016. At its peak in 1992, Saudi Arabia produced 4.1 million tons of wheat and was one of the world's top 10 wheat exporters.


          Source

          The Saudis did something very unwise - they pumped an aquifer filled over 10,000 years ago and used it to grow wheat in the desert. Now their wells are running dry and they have no more water.

          And yet their population is expanding rapidly even as their oil fields deplete. There's a very bad intersection for Saudi Arabia, and the rulers know it.

          It helps to explain their recent actions of lashing out against long-standing regional foes and helps to explain the increasing desperation of their moves to help destabilize (and even bomb) their neighbors.

          My point here is that as resources become tight, the ruling powers can be expected to act in increasingly desperate ways. This is a tenet of the Long Emergency of which James Kunstler wrote.

          The only response that makes any sense to me, at the individual level, is to reduce your needs and increase your resilience.

          This is something we cover in great detail in our new book, Prosper!: How To Prepare for the Future and Create a World Worth Inheriting, so I won't go into all the details here. Instead, my goal is to help cast a clarifying light on recent events and add some necessary detail that can help us more fully appreciate what's happening around the world and why taking prudent preparations today is becoming increasingly urgent.

          [Dec 03, 2015] ISIS Oil Plot Thickens Turkish MP Has Evidence Erdogans Son-In-Law Involved In Illegal Crude Trade

          Notable quotes:
          "... Underscoring that contention is CHP lawmaker Eren Erdem who says he, like Moscow, will soon provide proof of Erdogan's role in the smuggling of Islamic State oil. I have been able to establish that there is a very high probability that Berat Albayrak is linked to the supply of oil by the Daesh terrorists," Erdem said at a press conference on Thursday (see more from Sputnik ). ..."
          "... There is one company, headquartered in Erbil, which in 2012 acquired oil tankers, and which is currently being bombarded by Russian aircraft," Erdem said. "I am now studying this companys records. It has partners in Turkey, and I am checking them for links to Albayrak. ..."
          "... Note that this is entirely consistent with what we said last week , namely that in some cases, ISIS takes advantage of the Kurdish oil transport routes, connections, and infrastructure in Turkey. It will certainly be interesting to see if theres a connection between Albayrak, the energy ministry, and Bilal Erdogans BMZ Group. ..."
          "... Many loose ends now for Erdogan popping up. How long he can play whack-a-mole until one illuminates paper trail implication between ISIS and Erdogans masters like McCain, Graham, Nuland? ..."
          "... Maybe Erdogan will come up with a massive distraction that makes oil-thievery insignificant. Hope not. ..."
          Zero Hedge
          ... ... ...

          Underscoring that contention is CHP lawmaker Eren Erdem who says he, like Moscow, will soon provide proof of Erdogan's role in the smuggling of Islamic State oil. "I have been able to establish that there is a very high probability that Berat Albayrak is linked to the supply of oil by the Daesh terrorists," Erdem said at a press conference on Thursday (see more from Sputnik).

          Berat Albayrak is Erodan's son-in-law and is Turkey's Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

          Erdem isn't the only person to mention Albayrak this week. Recall that in his opening remarks at the dramatic Russian MoD presentation on Wednesday Deputy Minister of Defence Anatoly Antonov said the following:

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

          "There is one company, headquartered in Erbil, which in 2012 acquired oil tankers, and which is currently being bombarded by Russian aircraft," Erdem said. "I am now studying this company's records. It has partners in Turkey, and I am checking them for links to Albayrak."

          Note that this is entirely consistent with what we said last week, namely that in some cases, ISIS takes advantage of the Kurdish oil transport routes, connections, and infrastructure in Turkey. It will certainly be interesting to see if there's a connection between Albayrak, the energy ministry, and Bilal Erdogan's BMZ Group.

          If you know anything about Erdogan, you know that he doesn't take kindly to this kind of thing and as Erdem goes on to account, he's already been the subject of a smear campaign:

          "Today, the Takvim newspaper called me an American puppet, an Israeli agent, a supporter of the [Kurdish] PKK, and the instigator of a coup…all in the same sentence. I am inclined to view this attack on me as an attempt to belittle my significance, to attack my reputation in the eyes in the public, given that my investigation is a real threat to the government. Such a sharply negative reaction suggests that my assumptions are fair, and I am moving in the right direction to find the truth."

          The lawmaker says that type of attack has "only convinced [him] further on the need to carry this investigation through to the end."

          In the meantime, we can only hope that, for the sake of exposing the truth, "the end" doesn't end up being a Turkish jail cell, or worse for Erdem.

          Troll Magnet

          Do they make nail guns in Turkey?

          Truther

          Yep, with top brands for JPM, Goldman, RBS, WF, CITI and Deutche. They even self point at you too.

          Baby Bladeface

          Many loose ends now for Erdogan popping up. How long he can play whack-a-mole until one illuminates paper trail implication between ISIS and Erdogan's masters like McCain, Graham, Nuland?

          o r c k

          Maybe Erdogan will come up with a "massive" distraction that makes oil-thievery insignificant. Hope not.

          Anonymous User

          The shit is hitting the fan for the turks

          GhostOfDiogenes

          Go figure huh?

          http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/israel-main-buyer-isis-oil-report/...

          [Dec 03, 2015] The history of the Arab conquest of Byzantium is purposefully ignored

          economistsview.typepad.com
          Syaloch said in reply to anne...,

          Yep. I sometimes think that the history of the Arab conquest of East Roman (Byzantine) provinces is purposefully ignored because it doesn't fit into a Western narrative of what Arab Muslim peoples are like.

          The modern Islamic fundamentalist movements we see today are actually a fairly recent invention -- Wahhabism for example originated in the 18th century. And their rise to dominance is largely due to meddling by Western governments, which backed these groups to prevent Soviet expansion into the Middle East and southern Asia and to undermine nationalist movements that might oppose Western interests.

          [Dec 03, 2015] ISIS oil hub with 3000 parked oil trucks escaped detection by the USA and its eagle-eyed coalition

          marknesop.wordpress.com
          marknesop, December 2, 2015 at 2:10 pm
          Here's the evidence that the USA rejects. I particularly enjoyed the satellite imagery of the "ISIS oil hub", at which were parked 3,000 oil trucks. Apparently it escaped detection by the USA and its eagle-eyed coalition. Does it seem realistic that a country which was offered a major and legitimate pipeline deal would rather move its oil around in thousands of tanker trucks? If the oil trucking business were benefiting Assad's regime, don't you think ISIS would have blown it sky-high by now? It's in a region they control and apparently in the middle of open ground, completely unguarded.

          The battle lines have been drawn in yet another field of conflict – Russia aims to take down Erdogan, and Washington aims to keep him in his position. It remains to be seen just how embarrassing that will become.

          marknesop, December 2, 2015 at 1:10 pm
          Moscow is not backing away at all from accusations that Erdogan's family is personally involved in receiving and trafficking in ISIS oil. In a phenomenon pointed out by others of late, Yahoo comments are now overwhelmingly supportive of Russia on these issues. Not only that, mainstream news are picking up the accusation rapidly. The USA may reject Russia's evidence, but we knew they would do that anyway – the USA would reject a signed confession by Erdogan if they got it from Russia. I don't know why Moscow even bothers to show evidence to the Americans, it would do far better to approach Europeans – especially Germany and France – with its proof. If it could convince Germany, the USA would look a lot more foolish if it said it was all more Russian propaganda and lies.

          The USA will shield Erdogan for so long as it can, because his country is in a tremendous strategic position and is studded with NATO military installations. Washington certainly does not want to be confronted with a leadership transition it cannot micromanage. It might throw Erdogan under the bus, but not until it has identified and groomed a successor.

          It is also significant that rather than groveling for mercy, Russia continues to attack the alliance's credibility, and it is scoring hits.

          Patient Observer, December 2, 2015 at 2:11 pm
          The comment with the most "likes" on a yahoo article on Russian claiming that Turkey is buying ISIS oil (lost the link):
          " 542 – likes
          First it does not require a high school education to understand in order for ISIS to sell any oil from captured oil fields and or refineries it must have buyers of said oil. Our govt claims to watch everyone and know everything yet with all their tax payer space observations, massive fleet of drones to track ants in the sand they cannot figure out where all the oil goes to fund ISIS?
          Our govt is intentionally not stopping this oil from being sold and our leaders aware of this need to be exposed then put on trial then executed. In fact political figures in our country need to be facing firing squads monthly until they tell the truth and serve just our citizens. This in turn makes for a huge employment opportunity both in firing squads and new politicians."
          marknesop, December 2, 2015 at 2:21 pm
          The European Union voted to give itself permission to buy oil from "Syrian rebels" to help them overthrow Assad. The only stipulations of who could not benefit from it were "regime-associated" individuals and companies. The agency that must be consulted – the Syrian National Coalition – is based in Turkey and its president is chummy with Erdogan. Come on. Washington is ready to indict and convict Moscow on a hell of a lot less evidence than this on any day you care to name.
          et Al, December 2, 2015 at 2:43 pm
          Neuters: Russia says it has proof Turkey involved in Islamic State oil trade
          http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/12/02/mideast-crisis-russia-turkey-idUKL8N13R2KV2015120

          …U.S. officials say coalition air strikes have destroyed hundreds of IS oil trucks while the Russian campaign has mainly targeted opponents of the Syrian government who are not from Islamic State, which is also known as ISIL.

          "The irony of the Russians raising this concern is that there's plenty of evidence to indicate that the largest consumer of ISIL oil is actually Bashar al-Assad and his regime, a regime that only remains in place because it is being propped up by the Russians," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.

          The State Department's Toner said U.S. information was that Islamic State was selling oil at the wellheads to middlemen who were involved in smuggling it across the frontier into Turkey…

          …The ministry said the Western route took oil produced at fields near the Syrian city of Raqqa to the settlement of Azaz on the border with Turkey.

          From there the columns of tanker trucks pass through the Turkish town of Reyhanli, the ministry said, citing what it said were satellite pictures of hundreds of such trucks moving through the border crossing without obstruction.

          "There is no inspection of the vehicles carried out … on the Turkish side," said Rudskoy.

          Some of the smuggled cargoes go to the Turkish domestic market, while some is exported via the Turkish Mediterranean ports of Iskenderun and Dortyol, the ministry said.

          Another main route for smuggled oil, according to the ministry, runs from Deir Ez-zour in Syria to the Syrian border crossing at Al-Qamishli. It said the trucks then took the crude for refining at the Turkish city of Batman….

          …The defence ministry officials said the information they released on Wednesday was only part of the evidence they have in their possession, and that they would be releasing further intelligence in the next days and weeks.
          ####

          I can't wait for that twitter evidence from the State Department and the Pentagon. It should be devastating.

          [Dec 03, 2015] Why did Turkey shoot down the Russian Soukhoï 24

          Notable quotes:
          "... It was agreed that the Turkish army would be allowed to penetrate Syrian territory, within a limit of 8 kilometres, in order to ensure that the PKK could not fire mortars from Syria. ..."
          "... Since the beginning of the current aggression against Syria, the Turkish army has used and abused this privilege - no longer to prevent attacks by the PKK, but to set up training camps for jihadists. ..."
          "... In October 2015, when the Russian military campaign was just starting, and Salih Muslim was beginning the operation of forced Kurdisation of Northern Syria, the famous Turkish whistle-blower, Fuat Avni, announced via Twitter that Turkey was preparing the destruction of a Russian aircraft. This occurred on the 24th November. ..."
          www.voltairenet.org

          At the end of the Turkish civil war, Turkey threatened to invade Syria with the help of NATO if it continued to offer asylum to the leader of the PKK, Abdullah Öcallan. President Hafez el-Assad thus asked Öcallan to find another refuge, and was obliged to conclude an oral agreement with Turkey. It was agreed that the Turkish army would be allowed to penetrate Syrian territory, within a limit of 8 kilometres, in order to ensure that the PKK could not fire mortars from Syria.

          Since the beginning of the current aggression against Syria, the Turkish army has used and abused this privilege - no longer to prevent attacks by the PKK, but to set up training camps for jihadists.

          In October 2015, when the Russian military campaign was just starting, and Salih Muslim was beginning the operation of forced Kurdisation of Northern Syria, the famous Turkish whistle-blower, Fuat Avni, announced via Twitter that Turkey was preparing the destruction of a Russian aircraft. This occurred on the 24th November.

          From the perspective of the Third Syrian War [1], the attack was designed to send a message to Russia in order to scare it into defending only Damascus and Lattakia, leaving the rest of the country in the hands of Turkey and its allies.

          Technically, the aerial defence of Turkey, like that of all NATO members, is co-ordinated by the CAOC in Torrejón (Spain). The chief of the Turkish air force, General Abidin Ünal, should therefore have given advance warning of his decision to CAOC commander General Rubén García Servert. We do not know if he did so [2]. In any case, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan confirmed that he himself had validated the order to destroy the Russian plane.

          The Russian chief of staff had provided NATO with the flight plans of their aircraft in advance, so that neither the Alliance nor Turkey could ignore the fact that the plane was Russian, despite Turkish allegations to the contrary. Besides this, a NATO AWACS had taken off beforehand from the Greek base in Aktion (close to Preveza) in order to survey the area [3].

          The Russian army bombarded the Sultan Abdülhamid Brigade – from the name of the last Ottoman sultan, infamous for organising the massacre of Oriental Christians. Since the beginning of the war against Syria, the Turkish secret services have never stopped supplying weapons to the Turkmen militias in Northern Syria, and overseeing their operations. The Turkish Press has documented the transfer of at least 2,000 truck-loads of weapons and ammunition - which President Erdoğan has admitted [4] – the majority of which was immediately distributed to Al-Qaïda by the Turkmen militias. In particular, in 2011, these militias dismantled the 80,000 factories in Aleppo, the Syrian economic capital, and sent the machine tools to Turkey [5]. So, contrary to Turkish allegations, the Russian bombing was not intended to target the Turkmen, but effectively to destroy a terrorist group guilty of organised pillage, according to the definition in international conventions [6]. The Russian bombardment had provoked the flight of 1,500 civilians and caused vigourous protests by Turkey [7], which addressed a letter to the Security Council [8].

          The Turkish – not Syrian – jihadist, member of the Grey Woves, Alparslan Çelik, is commander of the Turkmen militias in Syria.

          The main leader of the Turkmen militias in Syria is Alparslan Çelik, a member of the Grey Wolves, the Turkish neo-fascist party, which is historically linked to the NATO secret services [9]. He claims to have given the order to kill the Russian pilots as they parachuted down [10].

          The Russian plane which was shot down only entered Turkish air-space for 17 seconds, and was hit after it was already in Syrian air-space. However, since Turkey considered that it had annexed the 8-kilometre corridor which it was authorised to enter according to the agreement with ex-President Hafez el-Assad, it may have believed that the intrusion lasted longer. In any case, in order to shoot down the Sukhoï 24, the Turkish fighter had to enter Syrian air-space for 40 seconds [11].

          The Russians had taken no particular measures to protect their bombers, considering that Turkey is an official participant in the fight against terrorist organisations. And an intrusion lasting only a few seconds has never been considered as a " threat to national security " " particularly since Turkey had been informed of the flight plan, and also that it regularly violates the air-space of other states, such as Cyprus.

          Immediately solicited by Turkey, NATO called a meeting of the North Atlantic Council, which was unable to issue a resolution, but did its best by asking for a reading of a brief declaration by their General Secretary which called for ... de-escalation -- [12]. Various sources reported profound disagreement within the Council [13].

          The official Saudi Press published an audio recording of an appeal by Turkish military air controllers to the Russian plane warning it against an entry into Turkish air-space [14]. Several AKP politicians commented on this recording and denounced the risks taken by the Russian army. However, the Russian military has denied the authenticity of the recording, and has proved that it is a fake. The Turkish government then denied any implication in the publishing of the recording.

          President Putin qualified the destruction of the Soukhoï 24 as a " knife in the back ". He publicly questioned the rôle of Ankara in the financing of Daesh, particularly because of the free transit of stolen petrol across Turkey. The Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs has asked the 4.5 million Russians who had planned to travel to Turkey to cancel their trip, and has restored entry visas for Turkish nationals. By decree, the Kremlin has forbidden all new contracts between Russian persons or organisations and Turkish persons or organisations, including the employment of personnel, the import/export of merchandise, and tourism [15].

          [Dec 03, 2015] Putin says Turkey 'will regret' shooting down of Russian bomber

          www.hurriyetdailynews.com

          Turkey will regret "more than once" about its shooting down of a Russian bomber jet near the Syrian-Turkish border, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Dec. 3.

          President Vladimir Putin said Turkey's shooting down of a Russian military jet was a "war crime" and that the Kremlin would punish Ankara with additional sanctions, signaling fallout from the incident would be long-lasting and serious.

          Putin, who made the comments during his annual state of the nation speech to his country's political elite on Dec. 3, said Russia would not forget the Nov. 24 incident and that he continued to regard it as a terrible betrayal.

          "We are not planning to engage in military saber-rattling [with Turkey]," said Putin, after asking for a moment's silence for the two Russian servicemen killed in the immediate aftermath of the incident, and for Russian victims of terrorism.

          "But if anyone thinks that having committed this awful war crime, the murder of our people, that they are going to get away with some measures concerning their tomatoes or some limits on construction and other sectors, they are sorely mistaken."

          Turkey would have cause to regret its actions "more than once," he said, promising Russia's retaliatory actions would be neither hysterical nor dangerous.

          In his aggressive remarks unusual in diplomatic tongue, Putin said "it appears that Allah decided to punish the ruling clique of Turkey by depriving them of wisdom and judgment."

          Putin said Moscow's anger over the incident was directed "at particular individuals" and not at the Turkish people.

          [Dec 03, 2015] Tomgram Andrew Bacevich, An Invitation to Collective Suicide

          Notable quotes:
          "... Aside from long-shots Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul, any candidate likely to enter the Oval Office in January 2017 will be committed to some version of much-more war, including obviously Donald Trump, Marco (" clash of civilizations ") Rubio, and Hillary Clinton, who recently gave a hawkish speech at the Council on Foreign Relations on her version of war policy against the Islamic State. ..."
          "... Assume that the hawks get their way -- that the United States does whatever it takes militarily to confront and destroy ISIS. Then what? Answering that question requires taking seriously the outcomes of other recent U.S. interventions in the Greater Middle East. In 1991, when the first President Bush ejected Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait, Americans rejoiced, believing that they had won a decisive victory. A decade later, the younger Bush seemingly outdid his father by toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan and then making short work of Saddam himself -- a liberation twofer achieved in less time than it takes Americans to choose a president. After the passage of another decade, Barack Obama got into the liberation act, overthrowing the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in what appeared to be a tidy air intervention with a clean outcome. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton memorably put it , "We came, we saw, he died." End of story. In fact, subsequent events in each case mocked early claims of success or outright victory. Unanticipated consequences and complications abounded. "Liberation" turned out to be a prelude to chronic violence and upheaval. ..."
          "... Indeed, the very existence of the Islamic State (ISIS) today renders a definitive verdict on the Iraq wars over which the Presidents Bush presided, each abetted by a Democratic successor. A de facto collaboration of four successive administrations succeeded in reducing Iraq to what it is today: a dysfunctional quasi-state unable to control its borders or territory while serving as a magnet and inspiration for terrorists. ..."
          "... Were it not for the reckless American decision to invade and occupy a nation that, whatever its crimes, had nothing to do with 9/11, the Islamic State would not exist. ..."
          "... True, in both Syria and Iraq the Islamic State has demonstrated a disturbing ability to capture and hold large stretches of desert, along with several population centers. It has, however, achieved these successes against poorly motivated local forces of, at best, indifferent quality. ..."
          "... Time and again the unanticipated side effects of U.S. military action turned out to be very bad indeed. In Kabul, Baghdad, or Tripoli, the Alamo fell, but the enemy dispersed or reinvented itself and the conflict continued. Assurances offered by Kristol that this time things will surely be different deserve to be taken with more than a grain of salt. Pass the whole shaker. ..."
          "... American Interest ..."
          "... Now I happen to think that equating our present predicament in the Islamic world with the immensely destructive conflicts of the prior century is dead wrong. Yet it's a proposition that Americans at this juncture should contemplate with the utmost seriousness. ..."
          "... With so much on the line, Cohen derides the Obama administration's tendency to rely on "therapeutic bombing, which will temporarily relieve the itch, but leave the wounds suppurating." The time for such half-measures has long since passed. Defeating the Islamic State and "kindred movements" will require the U.S. to "kill a great many people." To that end Washington needs "a long-range plan not to 'contain' but to crush" the enemy. Even with such a plan, victory will be a long way off and will require "a long, bloody, and costly process." ..."
          "... Nor were Americans sufficiently willing to die for the cause. In South Vietnam, 58,000 G.I.s died in a futile effort to enable that country to survive. In Iraq and Afghanistan, where the stakes were presumably much higher, we pulled the plug after fewer than 7,000 deaths. ..."
          "... In the meantime, U.S. forces would have to deal with the various and sundry "kindred movements" that are already cropping up like crabgrass in country after country. Afghanistan -- still? again? -- would head the list of places requiring U.S. military attention. But other prospective locales would include such hotbeds of Islamist activity as Lebanon, Libya, Palestine, Somalia, and Yemen, along with several West African countries increasingly beset with insurgencies. Unless Egyptian, Pakistani, and Saudi security forces demonstrate the ability (not to mention the will) to suppress the violent radicals in their midst, one or more of those countries could also become the scene of significant U.S. military action. ..."
          "... At first glance, $1.8 trillion annually is a stupefyingly large figure. To make it somewhat more palatable, a proponent of World War IV might put that number in historical perspective. During the first phases of World War III, for example, the United States routinely allocated 10% or more of total gross domestic product (GDP) for national security. With that GDP today exceeding $17 trillion, apportioning 10% to the Pentagon would give those charged with managing World War IV a nice sum to work with and no doubt to build upon. ..."
          "... In other words, funding World War IV while maintaining a semblance of fiscal responsibility would entail the kind of trade-offs that political leaders are loathe to make. Today, neither party appears up to taking on such challenges. That the demands of waging protracted war will persuade them to rise above their partisan differences seems unlikely. It sure hasn't so far. ..."
          "... In my view, Cohen's World War IV is an invitation to collective suicide. Arguing that no alternative exists to open-ended war represents not hard-nosed realism, but the abdication of statecraft. Yet here's the ultimate irony: even without the name, the United States has already embarked upon something akin to a world war, which now extends into the far reaches of the Islamic world and spreads further year by year. ..."
          "... Andrew J. Bacevich, a ..."
          "... , is professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University. He is the author of ..."
          "... , among other works. His new book, ..."
          "... is due out in April 2016. ..."
          "... on Twitter and join us on Facebook . Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Nick Turse's ..."
          "... , and Tom Engelhardts latest book, ..."
          Dec 03, 2015 | TomDispatch

          Let's consider the two parties in Washington. I'm not referring to the Republican and Democratic ones, but our capital's war parties (there being no peace party, of course). They might be labeled the More War Party and the Much (or Much, Much) More War Party. Headed by President Obama, the first is distinctly a minority grouping. In a capital city in which, post-Paris, war seems to be the order of the day, it's the party of relative restraint, as the president has clearly grasped the obvious: for the last 14 years, the more wholeheartedly the U.S. has gone into any situation in the Greater Middle East, militarily speaking, the worse it has turned out.

          Having promised to get us out of two wars and being essentially assured of leaving us in at least three (and various other conflicts on the side), he insists that a new invasion or even a large-scale infusion of American troops, aka "boots on the ground," in Syria or Iraq is a no-go for him. The code word he uses for his version of more war -- since less war is simply not an option on that "table" in Washington where all options are evidently kept -- is "intensification." Once upon a time, it might have been called "escalation" or "mission creep." The president has pledged to merely "intensify" the war he's launched, however reluctantly, in Syria and the one he's re-launched in Iraq. This seems to mean more of exactly what he's already ordered into the fray: more air power, more special forces boots more or less on the ground in Syria, more special ops raiders sent into Iraq, and perhaps more military advisers ever nearer to the action in that country as well. This is as close as you're likely to get in present-day America, at least in official circles, to an antiwar position.

          In the Much (or Much, Much) More War party, Republicans and Democrats alike are explicitly or implicitly criticizing the president for his "weak" policies and for "leading from behind" against the Islamic State. They propose solutions ranging from instituting "no-fly zones" in northern Syria to truly intensifying U.S. air strikes, to sending in local forces backed and led by American special operators (à la Afghanistan 2001), to sending in far more American troops, to simply putting masses of American boots on the ground and storming the Islamic State's capital, Raqqa. After fourteen years in which so many similar "solutions" have been tried and in the end failed miserably in the Greater Middle East or North Africa, all of it, as if brand new, is once again on that table in Washington.

          Aside from long-shots Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul, any candidate likely to enter the Oval Office in January 2017 will be committed to some version of much-more war, including obviously Donald Trump, Marco ("clash of civilizations") Rubio, and Hillary Clinton, who recently gave a hawkish speech at the Council on Foreign Relations on her version of war policy against the Islamic State. Given that stark reality, this is a perfect moment to explore what much-more war (call it, in fact, "World War IV") might actually mean and how it might play out in our world -- and TomDispatch regular Andrew Bacevich is the perfect person to do it. Tom

          Beyond ISIS: The Folly of World War IV
          By Andrew J. Bacevich

          Assume that the hawks get their way -- that the United States does whatever it takes militarily to confront and destroy ISIS. Then what?

          Answering that question requires taking seriously the outcomes of other recent U.S. interventions in the Greater Middle East. In 1991, when the first President Bush ejected Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait, Americans rejoiced, believing that they had won a decisive victory. A decade later, the younger Bush seemingly outdid his father by toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan and then making short work of Saddam himself -- a liberation twofer achieved in less time than it takes Americans to choose a president. After the passage of another decade, Barack Obama got into the liberation act, overthrowing the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in what appeared to be a tidy air intervention with a clean outcome. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton memorably put it, "We came, we saw, he died." End of story.

          In fact, subsequent events in each case mocked early claims of success or outright victory. Unanticipated consequences and complications abounded. "Liberation" turned out to be a prelude to chronic violence and upheaval.

          Indeed, the very existence of the Islamic State (ISIS) today renders a definitive verdict on the Iraq wars over which the Presidents Bush presided, each abetted by a Democratic successor. A de facto collaboration of four successive administrations succeeded in reducing Iraq to what it is today: a dysfunctional quasi-state unable to control its borders or territory while serving as a magnet and inspiration for terrorists.

          The United States bears a profound moral responsibility for having made such a hash of things there. Were it not for the reckless American decision to invade and occupy a nation that, whatever its crimes, had nothing to do with 9/11, the Islamic State would not exist. Per the famous Pottery Barn Rule attributed to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, having smashed Iraq to bits a decade ago, we can now hardly deny owning ISIS.

          That the United States possesses sufficient military power to make short work of that "caliphate" is also the case. True, in both Syria and Iraq the Islamic State has demonstrated a disturbing ability to capture and hold large stretches of desert, along with several population centers. It has, however, achieved these successes against poorly motivated local forces of, at best, indifferent quality.

          In that regard, the glibly bellicose editor of the Weekly Standard, William Kristol, is surely correct in suggesting that a well-armed contingent of 50,000 U.S. troops, supported by ample quantities of air power, would make mincemeat of ISIS in a toe-to-toe contest. Liberation of the various ISIS strongholds like Fallujah and Mosul in Iraq and Palmyra and Raqqa, its "capital," in Syria would undoubtedly follow in short order.

          In the wake of the recent attacks in Paris, the American mood is strongly trending in favor of this sort of escalation. Just about anyone who is anyone -- the current occupant of the Oval Office partially excepted -- favors intensifying the U.S. military campaign against ISIS. And why not? What could possibly go wrong? As Kristol puts it, "I don't think there's much in the way of unanticipated side effects that are going to be bad there."

          It's an alluring prospect. In the face of a sustained assault by the greatest military the world has ever seen, ISIS foolishly (and therefore improbably) chooses to make an Alamo-like stand. Whammo! We win. They lose. Mission accomplished.

          Of course, that phrase recalls the euphoric early reactions to Operations Desert Storm in 1991, Enduring Freedom in 2001, Iraqi Freedom in 2003, and Odyssey Dawn, the Libyan intervention of 2011. Time and again the unanticipated side effects of U.S. military action turned out to be very bad indeed. In Kabul, Baghdad, or Tripoli, the Alamo fell, but the enemy dispersed or reinvented itself and the conflict continued. Assurances offered by Kristol that this time things will surely be different deserve to be taken with more than a grain of salt. Pass the whole shaker.

          Embracing Generational War

          Why this repeated disparity between perceived and actual outcomes? Why have apparent battlefield successes led so regularly to more violence and disorder? Before following Kristol's counsel, Americans would do well to reflect on these questions.

          Cue Professor Eliot A. Cohen. Shortly after 9/11, Cohen, one of this country's preeminent military thinkers, characterized the conflict on which the United States was then embarking as "World War IV." (In this formulation, the Cold War becomes World War III.) Other than in certain neoconservative quarters, the depiction did not catch on. Yet nearly a decade-and-a-half later, the Johns Hopkins professor and former State Department official is sticking to his guns. In an essay penned for the American Interest following the recent Paris attacks, he returns to his theme. "It was World War IV in 2001," Cohen insists. "It is World War IV today." And to our considerable benefit he spells out at least some of the implications of casting the conflict in such expansive and evocative terms.

          Now I happen to think that equating our present predicament in the Islamic world with the immensely destructive conflicts of the prior century is dead wrong. Yet it's a proposition that Americans at this juncture should contemplate with the utmost seriousness.

          In the United States today, confusion about what war itself signifies is widespread. Through misuse, misapplication, and above all misremembering, we have distorted the term almost beyond recognition. As one consequence, talk of war comes too easily off the tongues of the unknowing.

          Not so with Cohen. When it comes to war, he has no illusions. Addressing that subject, he illuminates it, enabling us to see what war entails. So in advocating World War IV, he performs a great service, even if perhaps not the one he intends.

          What will distinguish the war that Cohen deems essential? "Begin with endurance," he writes. "This war will probably go on for the rest of my life, and well into my children's." Although American political leaders seem reluctant "to explain just how high the stakes are," Cohen lays them out in direct, unvarnished language. At issue, he insists, is the American way of life itself, not simply "in the sense of rock concerts and alcohol in restaurants, but the more fundamental rights of freedom of speech and religion, the equality of women, and, most essentially, the freedom from fear and freedom to think."

          With so much on the line, Cohen derides the Obama administration's tendency to rely on "therapeutic bombing, which will temporarily relieve the itch, but leave the wounds suppurating." The time for such half-measures has long since passed. Defeating the Islamic State and "kindred movements" will require the U.S. to "kill a great many people." To that end Washington needs "a long-range plan not to 'contain' but to crush" the enemy. Even with such a plan, victory will be a long way off and will require "a long, bloody, and costly process."

          Cohen's candor and specificity, as bracing as they are rare, should command our respect. If World War IV describes what we are in for, then eliminating ISIS might figure as a near-term imperative, but it can hardly define the endgame. Beyond ISIS loom all those continually evolving "kindred movements" to which the United States will have to attend before it can declare the war itself well and truly won.

          To send just tens of thousands of U.S. troops to clean up Syria and Iraq, as William Kristol and others propose, offers at best a recipe for winning a single campaign. Winning the larger war would involve far more arduous exertions. This Cohen understands, accepts, and urges others to acknowledge.

          And here we come to the heart of the matter. For at least the past 35 years -- that is, since well before 9/11 -- the United States has been "at war" in various quarters of the Islamic world. At no point has it demonstrated the will or the ability to finish the job. Washington's approach has been akin to treating cancer with a little bit of chemo one year and a one-shot course of radiation the next. Such gross malpractice aptly describes U.S. military policy throughout the Greater Middle East across several decades.

          While there may be many reasons why the Iraq War of 2003 to 2011 and the still longer Afghanistan War yielded such disappointing results, Washington's timidity in conducting those campaigns deserves pride of place. That most Americans might bridle at the term "timidity" reflects the extent to which they have deluded themselves regarding the reality of war.

          In comparison to Vietnam, for example, Washington's approach to waging its two principal post-9/11 campaigns was positively half-hearted. With the nation as a whole adhering to peacetime routines, Washington neither sent enough troops nor stayed anywhere near long enough to finish the job. Yes, we killed many tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans, but if winning World War IV requires, as Cohen writes, that we "break the back" of the enemy, then we obviously didn't kill nearly enough.

          Nor were Americans sufficiently willing to die for the cause. In South Vietnam, 58,000 G.I.s died in a futile effort to enable that country to survive. In Iraq and Afghanistan, where the stakes were presumably much higher, we pulled the plug after fewer than 7,000 deaths.

          Americans would be foolish to listen to those like William Kristol who, even today, peddle illusions about war being neat and easy. They would do well instead to heed Cohen, who knows that war is hard and ugly.

          What Would World War IV Look Like?

          Yet when specifying the practical implications of generational war, Cohen is less forthcoming. From his perspective, this fourth iteration of existential armed conflict in a single century is not going well. But apart from greater resolve and bloody-mindedness, what will it take to get things on the right track?

          As a thought experiment, let's answer that question by treating it with the urgency that Cohen believes it deserves. After 9/11, certain U.S. officials thundered about "taking the gloves off." In practice, however, with the notable exception of policies permitting torture and imprisonment without due process, the gloves stayed on. Take Cohen's conception of World War IV at face value and that will have to change.

          For starters, the country would have to move to something like a war footing, enabling Washington to raise a lot more troops and spend a lot more money over a very long period of time. Although long since banished from the nation's political lexicon, the M-word -- mobilization -- would make a comeback. Prosecuting a generational war, after all, is going to require the commitment of generations.

          Furthermore, if winning World War IV means crushing the enemy, as Cohen emphasizes, then ensuring that the enemy, once crushed, cannot recover would be hardly less important. And that requirement would prohibit U.S. forces from simply walking away from a particular fight even -- or especially -- when it might appear won.

          At the present moment, defeating the Islamic State ranks as Washington's number one priority. With the Pentagon already claiming a body count of 20,000 ISIS fighters without notable effect, this campaign won't end anytime soon. But even assuming an eventually positive outcome, the task of maintaining order and stability in areas that ISIS now controls will remain. Indeed, that task will persist until the conditions giving rise to entities like ISIS are eliminated. Don't expect French President François Hollande or British Prime Minister David Cameron to sign up for that thankless job. U.S. forces will own it. Packing up and leaving the scene won't be an option.

          How long would those forces have to stay? Extrapolating from recent U.S. occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, something on the order of a quarter-century seems like a plausible approximation. So should our 45th president opt for a boots-on-the-ground solution to ISIS, as might well be the case, the privilege of welcoming the troops home could belong to the 48th or 49th occupant of the White House.

          In the meantime, U.S. forces would have to deal with the various and sundry "kindred movements" that are already cropping up like crabgrass in country after country. Afghanistan -- still? again? -- would head the list of places requiring U.S. military attention. But other prospective locales would include such hotbeds of Islamist activity as Lebanon, Libya, Palestine, Somalia, and Yemen, along with several West African countries increasingly beset with insurgencies. Unless Egyptian, Pakistani, and Saudi security forces demonstrate the ability (not to mention the will) to suppress the violent radicals in their midst, one or more of those countries could also become the scene of significant U.S. military action.

          Effective prosecution of World War IV, in other words, would require the Pentagon to plan for each of these contingencies, while mustering the assets needed for implementation. Allies might kick in token assistance -- tokenism is all they have to offer -- but the United States will necessarily carry most of the load.

          What Would World War IV Cost?

          During World War III (aka the Cold War), the Pentagon maintained a force structure ostensibly adequate to the simultaneous prosecution of two and a half wars. This meant having the wherewithal to defend Europe and the Pacific from communist aggression while still leaving something for the unexpected. World War IV campaigns are unlikely to entail anything on the scale of the Warsaw Pact attacking Western Europe or North Korea invading the South. Still, the range of plausible scenarios will require that U.S. forces be able to take on militant organizations C and D even while guarding against the resurgence of organizations A and B in altogether different geographic locations.

          Even though Washington may try whenever possible to avoid large-scale ground combat, relying on air power (including drones) and elite Special Operations forces to do the actual killing, post-conflict pacification promises to be a manpower intensive activity. Certainly, this ranks as one of the most obvious lessons to emerge from World War IV's preliminary phases: when the initial fight ends, the real work begins.

          U.S. forces committed to asserting control over Iraq after the invasion of 2003 topped out at roughly 180,000. In Afghanistan, during the Obama presidency, the presence peaked at 110,000. In a historical context, these are not especially large numbers. At the height of the Vietnam War, for example, U.S. troop strength in Southeast Asia exceeded 500,000.

          In hindsight, the Army general who, before the invasion of 2003, publicly suggested that pacifying postwar Iraq would require "several hundred thousand troops" had it right. A similar estimate applies to Afghanistan. In other words, those two occupations together could easily have absorbed 600,000 to 800,000 troops on an ongoing basis. Given the Pentagon's standard three-to-one rotation policy, which assumes that for every unit in-country, a second is just back, and a third is preparing to deploy, you're talking about a minimum requirement of between 1.8 and 2.4 million troops to sustain just two medium-sized campaigns -- a figure that wouldn't include some number of additional troops kept in reserve for the unexpected.

          In other words, waging World War IV would require at least a five-fold increase in the current size of the U.S. Army -- and not as an emergency measure but a permanent one. Such numbers may appear large, but as Cohen would be the first to point out, they are actually modest when compared to previous world wars. In 1968, in the middle of World War III, the Army had more than 1.5 million active duty soldiers on its rolls -- this at a time when the total American population was less than two-thirds what it is today and when gender discrimination largely excluded women from military service. If it chose to do so, the United States today could easily field an army of two million or more soldiers.

          Whether it could also retain the current model of an all-volunteer force is another matter. Recruiters would certainly face considerable challenges, even if Congress enhanced the material inducements for service, which since 9/11 have already included a succession of generous increases in military pay. A loosening of immigration policy, granting a few hundred thousand foreigners citizenship in return for successfully completing a term of enlistment might help. In all likelihood, however, as with all three previous world wars, waging World War IV would oblige the United States to revive the draft, a prospect as likely to be well-received as a flood of brown and black immigrant enlistees. In short, going all out to create the forces needed to win World War IV would confront Americans with uncomfortable choices.

          The budgetary implications of expanding U.S. forces while conducting a perpetual round of what the Pentagon calls "overseas contingency operations" would also loom large. Precisely how much money an essentially global conflict projected to extend well into the latter half of the century would require is difficult to gauge. As a starting point, given the increased number of active duty forces, tripling the present Defense Department budget of more than $600 billion might serve as a reasonable guess.

          At first glance, $1.8 trillion annually is a stupefyingly large figure. To make it somewhat more palatable, a proponent of World War IV might put that number in historical perspective. During the first phases of World War III, for example, the United States routinely allocated 10% or more of total gross domestic product (GDP) for national security. With that GDP today exceeding $17 trillion, apportioning 10% to the Pentagon would give those charged with managing World War IV a nice sum to work with and no doubt to build upon.

          Of course, that money would have to come from somewhere. For several years during the last decade, sustaining wars in Iraq and Afghanistan pushed the federal deficit above a trillion dollars. As one consequence, the total national debt now exceeds annual GDP, having tripled since 9/11. How much additional debt the United States can accrue without doing permanent damage to the economy is a question of more than academic interest.

          To avoid having World War IV produce an endless string of unacceptably large deficits, ratcheting up military spending would undoubtedly require either substantial tax increases or significant cuts in non-military spending, including big-ticket programs like Medicare and social security -- precisely those, that is, which members of the middle class hold most dear.

          In other words, funding World War IV while maintaining a semblance of fiscal responsibility would entail the kind of trade-offs that political leaders are loathe to make. Today, neither party appears up to taking on such challenges. That the demands of waging protracted war will persuade them to rise above their partisan differences seems unlikely. It sure hasn't so far.

          The Folly of World War IV

          In his essay, Cohen writes, "we need to stop the circumlocutions." Of those who would bear the direct burden of his world war, he says, "we must start telling them the truth." He's right, even if he himself is largely silent about what the conduct of World War IV is likely to exact from the average citizen.

          As the United States enters a presidential election year, plain talk about the prospects of our ongoing military engagement in the Islamic world should be the order of the day. The pretense that either dropping a few more bombs or invading one or two more countries will yield a conclusive outcome amounts to more than an evasion. It is an outright lie.

          As Cohen knows, winning World War IV would require dropping many, many more bombs and invading, and then occupying for years to come, many more countries. After all, it's not just ISIS that Washington will have to deal with, but also its affiliates, offshoots, wannabes, and the successors almost surely waiting in the wings. And don't forget al-Qaeda.

          Cohen believes that we have no alternative. Either we get serious about fighting World War IV the way it needs to be fought or darkness will envelop the land. He is undeterred by the evidence that the more deeply we insert our soldiers into the Greater Middle East the more concerted the resistance they face; that the more militants we kill the more we seem to create; that the inevitable, if unintended, killing of innocents only serves to strengthen the hand of the extremists. As he sees it, with everything we believe in riding on the outcome, we have no choice but to press on.

          While listening carefully to Cohen's call to arms, Americans should reflect on its implications. Wars change countries and people. Embracing his prescription for World War IV would change the United States in fundamental ways. It would radically expand the scope and reach of the national security state, which, of course, includes agencies beyond the military itself. It would divert vast quantities of wealth to nonproductive purposes. It would make the militarization of the American way of life, a legacy of prior world wars, irreversible. By sowing fear and fostering impossible expectations of perfect security, it would also compromise American freedom in the name of protecting it. The nation that decades from now might celebrate VT Day -- victory over terrorism -- will have become a different place, materially, politically, culturally, and morally.

          In my view, Cohen's World War IV is an invitation to collective suicide. Arguing that no alternative exists to open-ended war represents not hard-nosed realism, but the abdication of statecraft. Yet here's the ultimate irony: even without the name, the United States has already embarked upon something akin to a world war, which now extends into the far reaches of the Islamic world and spreads further year by year.

          Incrementally, bit by bit, this nameless war has already expanded the scope and reach of the national security apparatus. It is diverting vast quantities of wealth to nonproductive purposes even as it normalizes the continuing militarization of the American way of life. By sowing fear and fostering impossible expectations of perfect security, it is undermining American freedom in the name of protecting it, and doing so right before our eyes.

          Cohen rightly decries the rudderless character of the policies that have guided the (mis)conduct of that war thus far. For that critique we owe him a considerable debt. But the real problem is the war itself and the conviction that only through war can America remain America.

          For a rich and powerful nation to conclude that it has no choice but to engage in quasi-permanent armed conflict in the far reaches of the planet represents the height of folly. Power confers choice. As citizens, we must resist with all our might arguments that deny the existence of choice. Whether advanced forthrightly by Cohen or fecklessly by the militarily ignorant, such claims will only perpetuate the folly that has already lasted far too long.

          Andrew J. Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular, is professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University. He is the author of Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country, among other works. His new book, America's War for the Greater Middle East (Random House), is due out in April 2016.

          Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Nick Turse's Tomorrow's Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

          Copyright 2015 Andrew J. Bacevich

          [Dec 02, 2015] When it comes to Wall Street buying our democracy you just need to follow the money

          Notable quotes:
          "... Let's compare donations from people who work at Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton, has received $495,503.60 from people who work on Wall Street Bernie Sanders, has received only $17,107.72. Hillary Clinton may have Wall Street, ..."
          "... The false promise of meritocracy was most disappointing. It basically said that meritocracy is hard to do, but never evaluates whether it is the right thing to do. Hint - it isn't enough. We need to worry about (relative) equality of outcome not just (relative) equality of opportunity. An equal chance to starve is still an equal chance. ..."
          "... Making economies games is how you continued rigged distribution apparatus. Question all "rules"! ..."
          economistsview.typepad.com

          RGC, December 02, 2015 at 05:55 AM

          Bernie's latest pitch:

          When it comes to Wall Street buying our democracy, you just need to follow the money. Let's compare donations from people who work at Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton, has received $495,503.60 from people who work on Wall Street Bernie Sanders, has received only $17,107.72. Hillary Clinton may have Wall Street, But Bernie has YOU! Bernie has received more than 1.5 million contributions from folks like you, at an average of $30 each.

          pgl -> RGC, December 02, 2015 at 05:58 AM
          $17,107.72? Jamie Dimon spends more than that on his morning cup of coffee. Go Bernie!
          EMichael -> RGC, December 02, 2015 at 06:03 AM
          To be fair, don't you think we should count donations for this election cycle for Clinton?

          Y'know, she was the Senator from New York.

          pgl -> EMichael,
          Some people think anyone from New York is in bed with Wall Street. Trust me on this one - not everyone here in Brooklyn is in Jamie Dimon's hip pocket. Of course those alleged liberals JohnH uses as his sources (e.g. William Cohan) are in Jamie Dimon's hip pocket.
          EMichael -> pgl,
          I hate things like this. No honesty whatsoever. This cycle.

          http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000019

          RGC -> EMichael,
          How is there no honesty whatsoever?

          The total for Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan and Bank of America is $326,000.
          That leaves Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to contribute $169,000.

          EMichael -> RGC,
          I stand corrected, somewhat.

          Let me know how much comes from those organizations PACs.

          reason said,
          The false promise of meritocracy was most disappointing. It basically said that meritocracy is hard to do, but never evaluates whether it is the right thing to do. Hint - it isn't enough. We need to worry about (relative) equality of outcome not just (relative) equality of opportunity. An equal chance to starve is still an equal chance.
          ilsm -> reason,

          Making economies games is how you continued rigged distribution apparatus. Question all "rules"!

          von Neumann should have been censored.

          [Dec 02, 2015] When it comes to Wall Street buying our democracy you just need to follow the money

          Notable quotes:
          "... Let's compare donations from people who work at Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton, has received $495,503.60 from people who work on Wall Street Bernie Sanders, has received only $17,107.72. Hillary Clinton may have Wall Street, ..."
          "... The false promise of meritocracy was most disappointing. It basically said that meritocracy is hard to do, but never evaluates whether it is the right thing to do. Hint - it isn't enough. We need to worry about (relative) equality of outcome not just (relative) equality of opportunity. An equal chance to starve is still an equal chance. ..."
          "... Making economies games is how you continued rigged distribution apparatus. Question all "rules"! ..."
          economistsview.typepad.com

          RGC, December 02, 2015 at 05:55 AM

          Bernie's latest pitch:

          When it comes to Wall Street buying our democracy, you just need to follow the money. Let's compare donations from people who work at Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton, has received $495,503.60 from people who work on Wall Street Bernie Sanders, has received only $17,107.72. Hillary Clinton may have Wall Street, But Bernie has YOU! Bernie has received more than 1.5 million contributions from folks like you, at an average of $30 each.

          pgl -> RGC, December 02, 2015 at 05:58 AM
          $17,107.72? Jamie Dimon spends more than that on his morning cup of coffee. Go Bernie!
          EMichael -> RGC, December 02, 2015 at 06:03 AM
          To be fair, don't you think we should count donations for this election cycle for Clinton?

          Y'know, she was the Senator from New York.

          pgl -> EMichael,
          Some people think anyone from New York is in bed with Wall Street. Trust me on this one - not everyone here in Brooklyn is in Jamie Dimon's hip pocket. Of course those alleged liberals JohnH uses as his sources (e.g. William Cohan) are in Jamie Dimon's hip pocket.
          EMichael -> pgl,
          I hate things like this. No honesty whatsoever. This cycle.

          http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000019

          RGC -> EMichael,
          How is there no honesty whatsoever?

          The total for Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan and Bank of America is $326,000.
          That leaves Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to contribute $169,000.

          EMichael -> RGC,
          I stand corrected, somewhat.

          Let me know how much comes from those organizations PACs.

          reason said,
          The false promise of meritocracy was most disappointing. It basically said that meritocracy is hard to do, but never evaluates whether it is the right thing to do. Hint - it isn't enough. We need to worry about (relative) equality of outcome not just (relative) equality of opportunity. An equal chance to starve is still an equal chance.
          ilsm -> reason,

          Making economies games is how you continued rigged distribution apparatus. Question all "rules"!

          von Neumann should have been censored.

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

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

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

          How did it all happen?

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

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

          That is, to determine how defenseless was our plane?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Did our pilots have a chance to save their plane?

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

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

          Did it really happen that smoothly?

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

          [Dec 02, 2015] Wolf Richter: Financially Engineered Stocks Drag Down S P 500

          All this neoliberal talk about "maximizing shareholder value" is designed to hide a redistribution mechanism of wealth up. Which is the essence of neoliberalism. It's all about executive pay. "Shareholder value" is nothing then a ruse for getting outsize bonuses but top execs. Stock buybacks is a form of asset-stripping, similar to one practiced by buyout sharks, but practiced by internal management team. Who cares if the company will be destroyed if you have a golden parachute ?
          Notable quotes:
          "... By Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist, and author, with extensive international work experience. Originally published at Wolf Street . ..."
          "... IBM has blown $125 billion on buybacks since 2005, more than the $111 billion it invested in capital expenditures and R D. It's staggering under its debt, while revenues have been declining for 14 quarters in a row. It cut its workforce by 55,000 people since 2012. ..."
          "... Big-pharma icon Pfizer plowed $139 billion into buybacks and dividends in the past decade, compared to $82 billion in R D and $18 billion in capital spending. 3M spent $48 billion on buybacks and dividends, and $30 billion on R D and capital expenditures. They're all doing it. ..."
          "... Nearly 60% of the 3,297 publicly traded non-financial US companies Reuters analyzed have engaged in share buybacks since 2010. Last year, the money spent on buybacks and dividends exceeded net income for the first time in a non-recession period. ..."
          "... This year, for the 613 companies that have reported earnings for fiscal 2015, share buybacks hit a record $520 billion. They also paid $365 billion in dividends, for a total of $885 billion, against their combined net income of $847 billion. ..."
          "... Buybacks and dividends amount to 113% of capital spending among companies that have repurchased shares since 2010, up from 60% in 2000 and from 38% in 1990. Corporate investment is normally a big driver in a recovery. Not this time! Hence the lousy recovery. ..."
          "... Financial engineering takes precedence over actual engineering in the minds of CEOs and CFOs. A company buying its own shares creates additional demand for those shares. It's supposed to drive up the share price. The hoopla surrounding buyback announcements drives up prices too. Buybacks also reduce the number of outstanding shares, thus increase the earnings per share, even when net income is declining. ..."
          "... But when companies load up on debt to fund buybacks while slashing investment in productive activities and innovation, it has consequences for revenues down the road. And now that magic trick to increase shareholder value has become a toxic mix. Shares of buyback queens are getting hammered. ..."
          "... Me thinks Wolf is slightly barking up the wrong tree here. What needs to be looked at is how buy backs affect executive pay. "Shareholder value" is more often than not a ruse? ..."
          "... Interesting that you mention ruse, relating to "buy-backs"…from my POV, it seems like they've legalized insider trading or engineered (a) loophole(s). ..."
          "... On a somewhat related perspective on subterfuge. The language of "affordability" has proven to be insidiously clever. Not only does it reinforce and perpetuate the myth of "deserts", but camouflages the means of embezzling the means of distribution. Isn't distribution, really, the only rational purpose of finance, i.e., as a means of distribution as opposed to a means of embezzlement? ..."
          "... buybacks *can* be asset-stripping and often are, but unless you tie capital allocation decisions closer to investment in the business such that they're mutually exclusive, this is specious and a reach. No one invests if they can't see the return. It would be just as easy to say that they're buying back stock because revenue is slipping and they have no other investment opportunities. ..."
          "... Perhaps an analysis of the monopolistic positions of so many American businesses that allow them the wherewithal to underinvest and still buy back huge amounts of stock? If we had a more competitive economy, companies would have less ability to underinvest. Ultimately, I think buybacks are more a result than a cause of dysfunction, but certainly not always bad. ..."
          "... One aspect that Reuters piece mentions, but glosses over with a single paragraph buried in the middle, is the fact that for many companies there are no ( or few) reasons to spend money in other ways. If capex/r d doesn't give you much return, why not buy out the shareholders who are least interested in holding your stock? ..."
          "... Dumping money into R D is always risky, although different industries have different levels, and the "do it in-house" risk must be weighed against the costs of buying up companies with "proven" technologies. Thus, R D cash is hidden inside M A. M A is up 2-3 years in a row. ..."
          November 21, 2015 | naked capitalism

          By Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist, and author, with extensive international work experience. Originally published at Wolf Street.

          Magic trick turns into toxic mix.

          Stocks have been on a tear to nowhere this year. Now investors are praying for a Santa rally to pull them out of the mire. They're counting on desperate amounts of share buybacks that companies fund by loading up on debt. But the magic trick that had performed miracles over the past few years is backfiring.

          And there's a reason.

          IBM has blown $125 billion on buybacks since 2005, more than the $111 billion it invested in capital expenditures and R&D. It's staggering under its debt, while revenues have been declining for 14 quarters in a row. It cut its workforce by 55,000 people since 2012. And its stock is down 38% since March 2013.

          Big-pharma icon Pfizer plowed $139 billion into buybacks and dividends in the past decade, compared to $82 billion in R&D and $18 billion in capital spending. 3M spent $48 billion on buybacks and dividends, and $30 billion on R&D and capital expenditures. They're all doing it.

          "Activist investors" – hedge funds – have been clamoring for it. An investigative report by Reuters, titled The Cannibalized Company, lined some of them up:

          In March, General Motors Co acceded to a $5 billion share buyback to satisfy investor Harry Wilson. He had threatened a proxy fight if the auto maker didn't distribute some of the $25 billion cash hoard it had built up after emerging from bankruptcy just a few years earlier.

          DuPont early this year announced a $4 billion buyback program – on top of a $5 billion program announced a year earlier – to beat back activist investor Nelson Peltz's Trian Fund Management, which was seeking four board seats to get its way.

          In March, Qualcomm Inc., under pressure from hedge fund Jana Partners, agreed to boost its program to purchase $10 billion of its shares over the next 12 months; the company already had an existing $7.8 billion buyback program and a commitment to return three quarters of its free cash flow to shareholders.

          And in July, Qualcomm announced 5,000 layoffs. It's hard to innovate when you're trying to please a hedge fund.

          CEOs with a long-term outlook and a focus on innovation and investment, rather than financial engineering, come under intense pressure.

          "None of it is optional; if you ignore them, you go away," Russ Daniels, a tech executive with 15 years at Apple and 13 years at HP, told Reuters. "It's all just resource allocation," he said. "The situation right now is there are a lot of investors who believe that they can make a better decision about how to apply that resource than the management of the business can."

          Nearly 60% of the 3,297 publicly traded non-financial US companies Reuters analyzed have engaged in share buybacks since 2010. Last year, the money spent on buybacks and dividends exceeded net income for the first time in a non-recession period.

          This year, for the 613 companies that have reported earnings for fiscal 2015, share buybacks hit a record $520 billion. They also paid $365 billion in dividends, for a total of $885 billion, against their combined net income of $847 billion.

          Buybacks and dividends amount to 113% of capital spending among companies that have repurchased shares since 2010, up from 60% in 2000 and from 38% in 1990. Corporate investment is normally a big driver in a recovery. Not this time! Hence the lousy recovery.

          Financial engineering takes precedence over actual engineering in the minds of CEOs and CFOs. A company buying its own shares creates additional demand for those shares. It's supposed to drive up the share price. The hoopla surrounding buyback announcements drives up prices too. Buybacks also reduce the number of outstanding shares, thus increase the earnings per share, even when net income is declining.

          "Serving customers, creating innovative new products, employing workers, taking care of the environment … are NOT the objectives of firms," sais Itzhak Ben-David, a finance professor of Ohio State University, a buyback proponent, according to Reuters. "These are components in the process that have the goal of maximizing shareholders' value."

          But when companies load up on debt to fund buybacks while slashing investment in productive activities and innovation, it has consequences for revenues down the road. And now that magic trick to increase shareholder value has become a toxic mix. Shares of buyback queens are getting hammered.

          Citigroup credit analysts looked into the extent to which this is happening – and why. Christine Hughes, Chief Investment Strategist at OtterWood Capital, summarized the Citi report this way: "This dynamic of borrowing from bondholders to pay shareholders may be coming to an end…."

          Their chart (via OtterWood Capital) shows that about half of the cumulative outperformance of these buyback queens from 2012 through 2014 has been frittered away this year, as their shares, IBM-like, have swooned:

          Mbuna, November 21, 2015 at 7:31 am

          Me thinks Wolf is slightly barking up the wrong tree here. What needs to be looked at is how buy backs affect executive pay. "Shareholder value" is more often than not a ruse?

          ng, November 21, 2015 at 8:58 am

          probably, in some or most cases, but the effect on the stock is the same.

          Alejandro, November 21, 2015 at 9:19 am

          Interesting that you mention ruse, relating to "buy-backs"…from my POV, it seems like they've legalized insider trading or engineered (a) loophole(s).

          On a somewhat related perspective on subterfuge. The language of "affordability" has proven to be insidiously clever. Not only does it reinforce and perpetuate the myth of "deserts", but camouflages the means of embezzling the means of distribution. Isn't distribution, really, the only rational purpose of finance, i.e., as a means of distribution as opposed to a means of embezzlement?

          Jim, November 21, 2015 at 10:42 am

          More nuance and less dogma please. The dogmatic tone really hurts what could otherwise be a fine but more-qualified position.

          "Results of all this financial engineering? Revenues of the S&P 500 companies are falling for the fourth quarter in a row – the worst such spell since the Financial Crisis."

          Eh, no. No question that buybacks *can* be asset-stripping and often are, but unless you tie capital allocation decisions closer to investment in the business such that they're mutually exclusive, this is specious and a reach. No one invests if they can't see the return. It would be just as easy to say that they're buying back stock because revenue is slipping and they have no other investment opportunities.

          Revenues are falling in large part because these largest companies derive an ABSOLUTELY HUGE portion of their business overseas and the dollar has been ridiculously strong in the last 12-15 months. Rates are poised to rise, and the easy Fed-inspired rate arbitrage vis a vis stocks and "risk on" trade are closing. How about a little more context instead of just dogma?

          John Malone made a career out of financial engineering, something like 30% annual returns for the 25 years of his CEO tenure at TCI. Buybacks were a huge part of that.

          Perhaps an analysis of the monopolistic positions of so many American businesses that allow them the wherewithal to underinvest and still buy back huge amounts of stock? If we had a more competitive economy, companies would have less ability to underinvest. Ultimately, I think buybacks are more a result than a cause of dysfunction, but certainly not always bad.

          NeqNeq, November 21, 2015 at 11:44 am

          One aspect that Reuters piece mentions, but glosses over with a single paragraph buried in the middle, is the fact that for many companies there are no ( or few) reasons to spend money in other ways. If capex/r&d doesn't give you much return, why not buy out the shareholders who are least interested in holding your stock?

          Dumping cash into plants only makes sense in the places where the market is growing. For many years that has meant Asia (China). For example, Apple gets 66% (iirc) of revenue from Asia, and that is where they have continued investing in growth. If demand is slowing and costs are rising, and it looks like both are true, why would you put even more money in?

          Dumping money into R&D is always risky, although different industries have different levels, and the "do it in-house" risk must be weighed against the costs of buying up companies with "proven" technologies. Thus, R&D cash is hidden inside M&A. M&A is up 2-3 years in a row.

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

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

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

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

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

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

          • RUSSIA'S DEFENCE MINISTRY SAYS RUSSIA'S AIR STRIKES IN SYRIA HELPED TO ALMOST HALVE ILLEGAL OIL TURNOVER
          • RUSSIA'S DEFENCE MINISTRY SAYS TURKISH PRESIDENT AND FAMILY INVOLVED IN BUSINESS WITH ISLAMIC STATE OIL
          • RUSSIAN DEFENCE MINISTRY SAYS WILL CONTINUE STRIKES IN SYRIA ON ISLAMIC STATE OIL INFRASTRUCTURE
          • RUSSIA'S DEFENCE MINISTRY SAYS KNOWS OF THREE ROUTES BY WHICH ISLAMIC STATE OIL IS DIRECTED TO TURKEY
          • RUSSIAN DEFENCE MINISTRY SAYS TO PRESENT NEXT WEEK INFORMATION SHOWING TURKEY HELPING ISLAMIC STATE

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

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

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

          ... ... ...

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

          * * *

          Full statement from Anatoly Antonov (translated)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Latina Lover

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

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

          The9thDoctor

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

          two hoots

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

          Gaius Frakkin' ...

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

          farflungstar

          NATO cunts supporting terrorists deserve whatever they get.

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

          LOL AmeriKans concerned over civilian casualties.

          Kirk2NCC1701

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

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

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

          MERCENARY =

          a. You Volunteered 1,

          b. You are getting Paid,

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

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

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

          McMolotov

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

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

          rwe2late

          UndergroundPost

          Su-24 you say?

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

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

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

          The Chief

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

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

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

          847328_3527

          Canada could take 50,000 refugees by end of 2016

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

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

          "Yes we can!"

          kralizec

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Ha!

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

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

          Life of Illusion

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

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

          Goldman Sachs buys into Turkish Petkim's Aegean port 21.07.2014

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

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

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

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

          Urban Redneck

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

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

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

          moonshadow

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

          Noplebian

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

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

          JustObserving

          Will Erdogan resign?

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

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

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

          JustObserving

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


          Calmyourself

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

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

          RockySpears

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

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

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

          Calmyourself

          Only against civilians and nobody signed on anyway.

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

          Chairman

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

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

          margincall575

          Follow up

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

          zeroboris

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


          ThanksChump

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

          Paveway IV

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

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

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

          krispkritter

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

          ThanksChump

          Occam's Razor.

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

          That's the easy obvious part.

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

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

          Mike Masr

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

          US pal and NATO ally Turkey

          • 12:26 GMT

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

          • 12:31 GMT

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

          • 12:35 GMT

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

          SoDamnMad

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

          fel.temp.reparatio

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

          Yttrium Gold Nitrogen

          Statements available in English here:

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

          Duc888

          ....another interesting point here...

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

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

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

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

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

          no1wonder

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

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

          cn13

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

          I have never seen anything like this before.

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

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

          MadVladtheconquerer

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

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

          gregga777

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

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

          dot_bust

          Then there's this rather enlightening bit of information:

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

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

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

          Amun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          [Nov 30, 2015] The Spanish General could give the order to shoot down Russian su-

          This is not very probably hypothesis, but if this is true then it was NATO organized provocation...
          "All the airspace in southern Europe from the Azores to the Eastern border of Turkey (Syria, Iraq, Iran) controlled by the radars mounted on towers airbase in Torrejon near Madrid. Command there 57-year-old General Ruben Garcia Servert. The final decision in the center of the Combined Air Operations takes it.
          Notable quotes:
          "... There is, of course, is an option that responsibility for the attack on "Drying" took over the Turkish General 62-year-old Abidin Unal, but in this case, a high-ranking Spanish military became the main witness giving orders. "If you want to shoot down the aircraft of the enemy, I is the person taking final decision" is a quote from an interview Garcia of Servert given in January of this year to the newspaper "El Mundo". ..."

          "All the airspace in southern Europe from the Azores to the Eastern border of Turkey (Syria, Iraq, Iran) controlled by the radars mounted on towers airbase in Torrejon near Madrid. Command there 57-year-old General Ruben Garcia Servert. The final decision in the center of the Combined Air Operations takes it.

          There is, of course, is an option that responsibility for the attack on "Drying" took over the Turkish General 62-year-old Abidin Unal, but in this case, a high-ranking Spanish military became the main witness giving orders. "If you want to shoot down the aircraft of the enemy, I is the person taking final decision" is a quote from an interview Garcia of Servert given in January of this year to the newspaper "El Mundo".

          Who actually gave the order to shoot down the su-24, still we do not know. But do know that the recent crash of the UAV happened at the command of a Turkish General unknown, what was not slow to inform the military. In October two cases of violation by Russian planes of air space of Turkey Abidin conceded right to make the final decision to the Spaniard".

          [Nov 30, 2015] Paul Craig Roberts Rages At The Arrogance, Hubris, Stupidity Of The US Government

          Notable quotes:
          "... No, except make a fool of itself by supporting ISIS. We brought ISIS in there (to Syria) - everybody knows that. Just the other day the former head the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency said on television that 'Yes, we created ISIS and we used them as henchmen to overthrow governments.' (Laughter). ..."
          "... And the polls in Europe show that the people are on Russia's side regarding the shooting down of their aircraft. They don't believe (the West's) story at all. So I think what you are seeing here is the arrogance, hubris, and stupidity of the United States government. They are just handing every possible advantage over to the Russians. ..."
          "... Read more here and listen to the full interview... ..."
          Zero Hedge

          On the heels of the Chinese stock market plunging 5.5%, continued turmoil in the Middle East and the price of gold hitting 5 year lows, former U.S. Treasury official, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts told Eric King of King World News that Putin and the Russians are now dominating in Syria and the Middle East as the West destroys itself.

          Dr. Paul Craig Roberts: "It could well be that this is going to work out so much in Russia's favor that Putin will send a letter of thanks to the Turkish President and say, 'Thank you very much. You've done us a huge favor. (Laughter). We lost a pilot and a naval marine but we sure have gained a lot. That was only two deaths for winning a war."…

          "So that looks to me like the most likely outcome. The unintended consequence of this are so positive for Russia that it's got Washington quaking and Europe wondering about the idiocy of being in NATO."

          Eric King: "What I'm hearing from you Russia is dominating in Syria. The Russians have completely taken over and there's really nothing Washington can do."

          Paul Craig Roberts: "No, except make a fool of itself by supporting ISIS. We brought ISIS in there (to Syria) - everybody knows that. Just the other day the former head the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency said on television that 'Yes, we created ISIS and we used them as henchmen to overthrow governments.' (Laughter).

          And the polls in Europe show that the people are on Russia's side regarding the shooting down of their aircraft. They don't believe (the West's) story at all. So I think what you are seeing here is the arrogance, hubris, and stupidity of the United States government. They are just handing every possible advantage over to the Russians.

          This American government is the most incompetent government that has ever walked the earth. Those people don't have any sense at all. Just look at what they've done. In 14 years they've destroyed 7 countries, killed millions of people, and displaced millions of people. And where are those displaced people? They are overrunning Europe.

          This is all because those Europeans were stupid enough to enable our wars. Now the political parties in Europe are under tremendous pressure from these refugees and the populations who object to them, and from the rising dissident parties who are saying, 'Look at what these people who you trusted have done. They've changed your country. It's not Germany anymore - it's Syria.' (Laughter).

          This is a disaster. Only the stupid Americans could have produced such a disaster. Does Putin need to do anything? We're doing it all for him. So he doesn't need to do anything. He's not going to attack anybody. What does he need to attack anybody for? The idiot Americans are destroying themselves and their allies. This is an amazing fiasco."

          Read more here and listen to the full interview...

          Chupacabra-322

          "This American government is the most incompetent government that has ever walked the earth. Those people don't have any sense at all. Just look at what they've done. In 14 years they've destroyed 7 countries, killed millions of people, and displaced millions of people. And where are those displaced people? They are overrunning Europe."

          So true, it must be repeated.

          chubbar

          It's so incompetent it is looking deliberate.

          KingFiat

          King World News always says the price of gold is going to the moon tomorrow when the financial system collapses. After a while you realize no real news comes from there, and ignore them.

          Not the same for Paul Craig Roberts, And I am glad to read his insights here, even if originated from KWN.

          CaptainDanite

          There is no denying that the KWN site is hokey, and that Eric King has a limited repertoire of "stunning" adjectives, and that the frequent employment of bold red and blue fonts can be annoying, etc., etc. However, the simple fact remains that he CONSISTENTLY conducts well-directed and well-edited interviews with some of the most respected voices in the alternative media arena. I routinely look forward to his interviews with Nomi Prins, Eric Sprott, Ronald Stoeferle, and Bill Fleckenstein -- among many, many others. At least KWN is not entirely inundated with ads like ZH is, nor is the mobile version of the site repeatedly susceptible to adware browser hijacks like ZH's mobile version is.

          Furthermore, while I frequently find points of disagreement with Paul Craig Roberts, this most recent interview is PCR at his ever-loving best; it strikes to the heart of the matter of the increasingly frightening conflict brewing between the US, NATO, and the Russians. I highly recommend this interview to everyone out there who is starting to get very uncomfortable about the foreign policy incompetence of the Obama administration as it appears to be deliberately steering us into the maw of WWIII.

          Lore

          PATHOCRACY

          "The ultimate cause of evil lies in the interaction of two human factors: 1) normal human ignorance and weakness and 2) the existence and action of a statistically small (4-8% of the general population) but extremely active group of psychologically deviant individuals. The ignorance of the existence of such psychological differences is the first criterion of ponerogenesis. That is, such ignorance creates an opening whereby such individuals can act undetected.

          The presence of such 'disease' on the individual level is described in the Almost Human section of this website. However, depending on the type of activity of psychopathic and characteropathic individuals, evil can manifest on any societal level. The greater the scope of the psychopath's influence, the greater harm done. Thus any group of humans can be infected or 'ponerized' by their influence. From families, clubs, churches, businesses, and corporations, to entire nations. The most extreme form of such macrosocial evil is called 'pathocracy'.

          Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes

          "If the many managerial positions are assumed by individuals deprived of sufficient abilities to feel and understand the majority of other people, and who also exhibit deficiencies in technical imagination and practical skills - (faculties indispensable for governing economic and political matters) - this then results in an exceptionally serious crisis in all areas, both within the country in question and with regard to international relations. Within, the situation becomes unbearable even for those citizens who were able to feather their nest into a relatively comfortable modus vivendi. Outside, other societies start to feel the pathological quality of the phenomenon quite distinctly. Such a state of affairs cannot last long. One must then be prepared for ever more rapid changes, and also behave with great circumspection." (2nd. ed., p. 140)

          LetThemEatRand

          It's long by today's standards, but another great PCR link for those who are interested. Intelligent and thoughtful debate where the two participants actually allow each other to make their points. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/11/25/pcr-debates-the-intelligent-a...

          Killdo

          this is a pretty good book on how to spot psychos and prevent being screwed over by them:

          http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0767915828?keywords=the%20sociopath%20n...

          I've read about 10 books on the subject and I find this one very intresting, well written and based on realaity (I think the author is a prof frm harvard).

          It really helped me connect the dots while I lived in LA (according to the author one of 3 world'scapitals of psychopathy together with London and NY)

          [Nov 30, 2015] Erdogan Says Will Resign If Oil Purchases From ISIS Proven After Putin Says Has More Proof

          Notable quotes:
          "... "There are security officers who are sympathizing with ISIS in Turkey. They are allowing them to go from Istanbul to the borders and infiltrate ... Syria and Iraq." ..."
          Nov 30, 2015 | Zero Hedge
          "I've shown photos taken from space and from aircraft which clearly demonstrate the scale of the illegal trade in oil and petroleum products," Vladimir Putin told reporters earlier this month on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Antalya. Putin was of course referencing Islamic State's illicit and highly lucrative oil trade, the ins and outs of which we've documented extensively over the past two weeks:

          Turkey's move to shoot down a Russian Su-24 warplane near the Syrian border afforded the Russian President all the motivation and PR cover he needed to expose Ankara's alleged role in the trafficking of illegal crude from Iraq and Syria and in the aftermath of last Tuesday's "incident," Putin lambasted Erdogan. "Oil from Islamic State is being shipped to Turkey," Putin said while in Jordan for a meeting with King Abdullah. In case that wasn't clear enough, Putin added this: "Islamic State gets cash by selling oil to Turkey."

          To be sure, it's impossible to track the path ISIS oil takes from extraction to market with any degree of precision. That said, it seems that Islamic State takes advantage of the same network of smugglers, traders, and shipping companies that the KRG uses to transport Kurdish crude from Kurdistan to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. From there, the oil makes its way to Israel and other markets (depending on which story you believe) and if anyone needs to be thrown off the trail along the way, there's a ship-to-ship transfer trick that can be executed off the coast of Malta. The maneuver allegedly makes the cargoes more difficult to track.

          Some believe Erdogan's son Bilal - who owns a marine transport company called BMZ Group - is heavily involved in the trafficking of Kurdish and ISIS crude. Most of the ships BMZ owns are Malta-flagged.

          In light of the above, some have speculated that Turkey shot down the Su-24 in retaliation for Russia's bombing campaign that recently has destroyed over 1,000 ISIS oil trucks. Here's what Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zoub said on Friday:

          "All of the oil was delivered to a company that belongs to the son of Recep [Tayyip] Erdogan. This is why Turkey became anxious when Russia began delivering airstrikes against the IS infrastructure and destroyed more than 500 trucks with oil already. This really got on Erdogan and his company's nerves. They're importing not only oil, but wheat and historic artefacts as well."

          Al-Zoub isn't alone in his suspicions. In an interview with RT, Iraqi MP and former national security adviser, Mowaffak al Rubaie - who personally led Saddam to the gallows - said ISIS is selling around $100 million of stolen crude each month in Turkey. Here are some excerpts:

          "In the last eight months ISIS has managed to sell ... $800 million dollars worth of oil on the black market of Turkey. This is Iraqi oil and Syrian oil, carried by trucks from Iraq, from Syria through the borders to Turkey and sold ...[at] less than 50 percent of the international oil price."

          "Now this either get consumed inside, the crude is refined on Turkish territory by the Turkish refineries, and sold in the Turkish market. Or it goes to Jihan and then in the pipelines from Jihan to the Mediterranean and sold to the international market."

          "Money and dollars generated by selling Iraqi and Syrian oil on the Turkish black market is like the oxygen supply to ISIS and it's operation," he added. "Once you cut the oxygen then ISIS will suffocate."

          "There isn't a shadow of a doubt that the Turkish government knows about the oil smuggling operations. The merchants, the businessmen [are buying oil] in the black market in Turkey under the noses – under the auspices if you like – of the Turkish intelligence agency and the Turkish security apparatus."

          "There are security officers who are sympathizing with ISIS in Turkey. They are allowing them to go from Istanbul to the borders and infiltrate ... Syria and Iraq."

          "There is no terrorist organization which can stand alone, without a neighboring country helping it – in this case Turkey."

          That's pretty unequivocal. But it gets better.

          On Monday, Putin was back at it, saying that Russia has obtained new information that further implicates Turkey in the Islamic State oil trade. "At the moment we have received additional information confirming that that oil from the deposits controlled by Islamic State militants enters Turkish territory on industrial scale," Putin said on the sidelines of the climate change summit in Paris. "We have traced some located on the territory of the Turkish Republic and living in regions guarded by special security services and police that have used the visa-free regime to return to our territory, where we continue to fight them."

          "We have every reason to believe that the decision to down our plane was guided by a desire to ensure security of this oil's delivery routes to ports where they are shipped in tankers," he added, taking it up another notch still.

          As for Erdogan, well, he "can't accept" the accusations which he calls "not moral":

          • ERDOGAN: TURKEY CAN'T ACCEPT RUSSIA CLAIMS THAT IT BUYS IS OIL

          Hilariously, the man who just finished starting a civil war just so he could regain a few lost seats in Parliament and who would just as soon throw you in jail as look at you if he thinks you might be a threat to his government, now says he will resign if Putin (or anyone else) can present "proof": "We are not that dishonest as to buy oil from terrorists. If it is proven that we have, in fact, done so, I will leave office. If there is any evidence, let them present it, we'll consider [it]."

          Hold your breath on that.

          And so, the Turkey connection has been exposed and in dramatic fashion. Unfortunately for Ankara, Erdogan can't arrest Vladimir Putin like he can award winning journalists and honest police officers who, like Moscow, want to see the flow of money and weapons to Sunni militants in Syria cut off.

          The real question is how NATO will react now that Turkey is quickly becoming a liability. Furthermore, you can be sure that the US, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar (who are all heavily invested in the Sunni extremist cause in Syria), are getting nervous. No one wants to see this blown wide open as that would mean the Western public getting wise to the fact that it is indeed anti-ISIS coalition governments that are funding and arming not only ISIS, but also al-Nusra and every other rebel group fighting to wrest control of the country from Assad. Worse, if it gets out that the reason the US has refrained from bombing ISIS oil trucks until now is due to the fact that Ankara and Washington had an understanding when it comes to the flow of illicit crude to Cehyan, the American public may just insist on indicting "some folks."

          Remember, when it comes to criminal conspiracies, the guy who gets caught first usually ends up getting cut loose. It will be interesing to see if Erdogan starts to get the cold shoulder from Ankara's "allies" going forward.

          [Nov 30, 2015] Is Balanced Growth Really the Answer

          Notable quotes:
          "... I can only add, that our economic system already redistributes income upward to capital and management, whose contribution to productivity is far below what they are paid. ..."
          "... That's the idea of neoliberal transformation of society that happened since 80th or even earlier. Like John Kenneth Galbraith noted "Trickle-down theory is the less than elegant metaphor that if one feeds the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows" ..."
          "... "The sense of responsibility in the financial community for the community as a whole is not small. It is nearly nil." John Kenneth Galbraith, The Great Crash of 1929 ..."
          "... Just as was the case with his work on financial instability, Hyman Minsky's analysis of the problems of poverty and inequality in a capitalist economy, as well as his understanding of the political dysfunctions that would result from treating these problems in the wrong way, were prophetic. See this piece by Minksy's student L. Randall Wray, especially Section 2: http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_515.pdf ..."
          "... it is unjust to tell the poor that they must change before they will be entitled to work-whether it is their skills set or their character that is the barrier to work... Minsky always argued that it is preferable to "take workers as they are," providing jobs tailored to the characteristics of workers, rather than trying to tailor workers to the jobs available before they are allowed to work ..."
          "... Further, NIT (and other welfare programs) would create a dependent class, which is not conducive to social cohesion (Minsky 1968). Most importantly, Minsky argued that any antipoverty program must be consistent with the underlying behavioral rules of a capitalist economy (Minsky no date, 1968, 1975a). One of those rules is that earned income is in some sense deserved. ..."
          "... This misreads the politics. People who are disconnected from the job market very easily get disconnected from the political process. They don't vote. ..."
          "... The problem in thinking here is the equilibrium paradigm. Equilibrium NEVER exists. If there is a glut the price falls below the marginal cost/revenue point, if the seller is desperate enough it falls to zero! Ignoring disequilibrium dynamics means this obvious (it should be obvious) point is simply ignored. The assumption of general equilibrium leads to the assumption of marginal productivity driving wages. You are not worth what you produce, you are worth precisely what somewhat else would accept to do your job. ..."
          "... Never say never. There some stationary points at which equilibrium probably exists for a short period of time. But as the whole system has positive feedback loop built-in and is unstable by definition. So you are right in a sense that disequilibrium is the "normal" state of such a system and equilibrium is an exception. ..."
          "... And the problem is more growth, is more growth is a trick we cannot always do in a finite resource technologically sophisticated world. (At least not growth as it is currently seen.) We need to start thinking in much longer term time scales. Saying that we have enough oil for 30 years, is not optimistic - it is an imminent crisis - or do we want our grandchildren to see the end of the world? ..."
          Nov 30, 2015 | Economist's View

          DrDick said...

          "then more growth will simply lead to even more inequality."

          Which is exactly what we have seen for the past 40 years, Great analysis here. I can only add, that our economic system already redistributes income upward to capital and management, whose contribution to productivity is far below what they are paid.

          ikbez -> DrDick...

          "then more growth will simply lead to even more inequality."

          That's the idea of neoliberal transformation of society that happened since 80th or even earlier. Like John Kenneth Galbraith noted "Trickle-down theory is the less than elegant metaphor that if one feeds the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows"

          And another relevant quote:

          "The sense of responsibility in the financial community for the community as a whole is not small. It is nearly nil." John Kenneth Galbraith, The Great Crash of 1929

          anne -> likbez...

          "The sense of responsibility in the financial community for the community as a whole is not small. It is nearly nil." John Kenneth Galbraith, The Great Crash of 1929

          [ Perfect. ]

          Dan Kervick, November 30, 2015 at 11:12 AM

          Just as was the case with his work on financial instability, Hyman Minsky's analysis of the problems of poverty and inequality in a capitalist economy, as well as his understanding of the political dysfunctions that would result from treating these problems in the wrong way, were prophetic. See this piece by Minksy's student L. Randall Wray, especially Section 2: http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_515.pdf

          The centerpiece of Minsky's preferred approach was based on a government commitment to "tight full employment". He believed that neither human capital investment, economic growth, nor redistribution would be sufficient on their own to address the problem.

          As part of the critique of the human capital approach, Minsky argued that:

          "it is unjust to tell the poor that they must change before they will be entitled to work-whether it is their skills set or their character that is the barrier to work... Minsky always argued that it is preferable to "take workers as they are," providing jobs tailored to the characteristics of workers, rather than trying to tailor workers to the jobs available before they are allowed to work (Minsky 1965, 1968, 1973)."

          Minsky accurately foresaw the way in which a welfare approach to poverty, as opposed to a full employment approach, would politically divide working people among themselves:

          "Further, NIT (and other welfare programs) would create a dependent class, which is not conducive to social cohesion (Minsky 1968). Most importantly, Minsky argued that any antipoverty program must be consistent with the underlying behavioral rules of a capitalist economy (Minsky no date, 1968, 1975a). One of those rules is that earned income is in some sense deserved."

          "With the perspective of the 1980s and 1990s now behind us, it is hard to deny Minsky's arguments-President Reagan successfully turned most Americans against welfare programs and President Clinton finally "eliminated welfare as we know it." According to Minsky, a successful antipoverty program will need to provide visible benefits to the average taxpayer."

          We can note that this political problem has only gotten worse, as can be seen from the deepening ugliness of our domestic politics, and the poll results that MacGillis cites.

          Minsky also understood the unhealthy political and economic dynamics of an undirected aggregate demand approach to poverty, and promoted, following ideas of Keynes, a measure of socialized investment and direct job creation:

          "Minsky feared that using demand stimulus to reduce poverty would necessarily lead to "stop-go" policy. Expansion would fuel inflation, causing policy makers to reverse course to slow growth in order to fight inflation (Minsky 1965, 1968). Because wages (and prices) in leading sectors would rise in expansion, but could resist deflationary pressures in recession, there would be an upward bias to rising wages in those sectors. However, in the lagging sectors, wage increases would come slowly-only with adequate tightening of labor markets -- and could be reversed in recession. Hence, Minsky argued that a directed demand policy would be required-to raise demand in the lagging sectors and for low wage and unemployed workers. For this reason, he concluded that a direct job creation program would be required."

          All this adds up to a more activist role for the government sector.

          likbez -> Dan Kervick...

          My impression is that "human capital" is one of the most fundamental neoliberal myths. See, for example What Exactly Is Neoliberalism by Wendy Brown https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/booked-3-what-exactly-is-neoliberalism-wendy-brown-undoing-the-demos

          As for people betraying their own economic interests, this phenomenon was aptly described in "What's the matter with Kansas" which can actually be reformulated as "What's the matter with the USA?". And the answer he gave is that neoliberalism converted the USA into a bizarre high demand cult. There are several characteristics of a high demand cult that are applicable. Among them:

          • "The group is preoccupied with making money."
          • "Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished."
          • "Mind-numbing techniques (for example: meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, debilitating work routines) are used to suppress doubts about the group or its leader(s)." Entertainment and, especially sport events in the US society serves the same role.
          • "The group's leadership dictates – sometimes in great detail – how members should think, act, and feel." Looks like this part of brainwashing is outsourced to economy departments ;-)
          • "The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity)."
          • "The group has a polarized, "we-they" mentality that causes conflict with the wider society."
          • "The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, clergy with mainstream denominations)."
          • "The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means (for example: collecting money for bogus charities) that members would have considered unethical before joining."
          • "The group's leadership induces guilt feelings in lower members for the lack of achievement in order to control them."
          • "Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group."
          • "Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members."

          It is very difficult to get rid of this neoliberal sect mentality like is the case with other high demand cults.

          cm -> likbez...

          What has any of this to do with human capital? "Capital" is basically a synonym for productive capacity, with regard to what "productive" means in the socioeconomic system or otherwise the context that is being discussed.

          E.g. social or political capital designates the ability (i.e. capacity) to exert influence in social networks or societal decision making at the respective scales (organization, city, regional, national etc.), where "productive" means "achieving desired or favored outcomes for the person(s) possessing the capital or for those on whose behalf it is used".

          Human capital, in the economic domain, is then the combined capacity of the human population in the domain under consideration that is available for productive endeavors of any kind. This includes BTW e.g. housewives and other household workers whose work is generally not paid, but you better believe it is socially productive.

          likbez -> cm...

          "Human capital, in the economic domain, is then the combined capacity of the human population in the domain under consideration that is available for productive endeavors of any kind. This includes BTW e.g. housewives and other household workers whose work is generally not paid, but you better believe it is socially productive."

          This is not true. The term "human capital" under neoliberalism has different semantic meaning: it presuppose viewing a person as a market actor.

          See the discussion of the term in http://www.jceps.com/wp-content/uploads/PDFs/10-1-07.pdf

          kthomas

          "...it's driven be resentment..."

          No, its driven by racism. White trash will take with one hand, then walk right into a voting both and screw themselves because they think they sticking it to blacks, mexicans, gays, etc.

          Syaloch -> kthomas...

          Racism is certainly part of it, but it's really more fundamental than that.

          "This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. That wealth and greatness are often regarded with the respect and admiration which are due only to wisdom and virtue; and that the contempt, of which vice and folly are the only proper objects, is often most unjustly bestowed upon poverty and weakness, has been the complaint of moralists in all ages."

          Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments

          http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Smith/tms133.html

          cm -> kthomas...

          What is racism if not an expression of resentment?

          bakho said...

          This misreads the politics. People who are disconnected from the job market very easily get disconnected from the political process. They don't vote. The people who do have jobs and are worried about keeping them and being paid too little are voting against the "losers" who they see as parasites. Never mind that the Malefactors of Great Wealth are the true parasites. Elections in the US are won or lost on voter turnout.

          The Rage said...

          I guess it depends on what kind of economy you want.

          Growth of all kinds is not good. The 2001-2007 "growth" was badly constructed. I think America itself is in a bad rut....and has been since 1974. That itself will not be popular. The consensus belief was everything was rosy up until 2001. That is lie. They used to have a saying "nothing really happens on the X-files anymore". It really applies to America since 1974. It goes beyond "inequality".

          I mean, we could have 3% wage growth in 2016 and 4% wage growth in 2017. That doesn't mean a damn thing for a economy's health. The infrastructure is bad. It shows up in pop culture apathy.

          pgl -> The Rage...

          "The 2001-2007 "growth" was badly constructed."

          Glenn Hubbard might quarrel with this. He was well constructed for George W. Bush's base - rich people.

          On the whole - great comment!!!

          cm -> The Rage...

          The Y2K/dotcom boom unraveled in 2000, but not all at once. It is difficult to impossible to disentagle the boundary between dotcom bust, 9/11 and the prolonged reaction to it, and the start of the Bush presidency (and the top policymaking figures that came with that, I don't want to necessarily tie it to Bush himself).

          At the same time, the global rollout of the internet, telecommunication, (start of) commodity videoconferencing, broadband and realtime data exchange, etc. enabled the outsourcing and offshoring of large and growing segments of blue and white collar jobs, and much increased fungibility of variously skilled labor altogether.

          On that foundation, a lot of things will appear as badly constructed. Or from a different angle, given that foundation, how would you arrange for things to be well constructed?

          likbez -> cm...

          I would view 9/11 as a perfect cure for dot-com bust. Soon after invasion of Iraq stock market returned to almost precrash levels. War is the health of stock market. And since probably 1998 nobody cared about real economy anyway.

          Also housing boom started around this period as conscious, deliberate effort of Fed to blow the bubble to cure the consequences of the crash at all costs and face the day of reckoning later (without Mr. Greenspan at the helm)

          reason said...

          The problem in thinking here is the equilibrium paradigm. Equilibrium NEVER exists. If there is a glut the price falls below the marginal cost/revenue point, if the seller is desperate enough it falls to zero! Ignoring disequilibrium dynamics means this obvious (it should be obvious) point is simply ignored. The assumption of general equilibrium leads to the assumption of marginal productivity driving wages. You are not worth what you produce, you are worth precisely what somewhat else would accept to do your job.

          Lafayette -> reason...

          I could not agree more. A Market-Economy is a dynamic in constant disequilibrium, changing positively and negatively around a mean. The mean is very rarely an "equilibrium".

          likbez -> reason...

          Never say never. There some stationary points at which equilibrium probably exists for a short period of time. But as the whole system has positive feedback loop built-in and is unstable by definition. So you are right in a sense that disequilibrium is the "normal" state of such a system and equilibrium is an exception.

          reason said...

          And the problem is more growth, is more growth is a trick we cannot always do in a finite resource technologically sophisticated world. (At least not growth as it is currently seen.) We need to start thinking in much longer term time scales. Saying that we have enough oil for 30 years, is not optimistic - it is an imminent crisis - or do we want our grandchildren to see the end of the world?

          [Nov 30, 2015] Secular stagnation and the financial sector

          Notable quotes:
          "... Surely the answer is "risk transfer" ..."
          "... Is what you're saying here is that, by extending a lot of credit, the financial sector allowed households to maintain consumption in the face of a permanent decline in income (at least relative to expectation)? That's an important part of the story, I agree. ..."
          "... the FIRE sector in particular, are parasitic on the economy. ..."
          "... Perhaps financialization isn't so much a thing-in-itself as the mechanism through which wealth concentrates in periods of slow growth? ..."
          "... As in the official theory of efficient markets, the financial sector is actually earning its keep by allocating capital to the most productive investments, and by spreading and managing risk. I don't see how anyone can argue this with a straight face in the light of the last 20 years of bubbles and busts." ..."
          "... Did Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina and North Korea do better than the financialized economies of the world? Did the hand of the State in Russia, China and other countries secure better outcomes than the global financial sector in countries that allowed it to operate (albeit with heavy regulation)? ..."
          "... The financial system can engage in usury, lending money with no connection to productive investment, by simply creating a parasitic claim on income. There are straightforward ways of doing this: credit cards with high rates of interest or payday lending. There are slightly more complicated approaches: insurance that by design doesn't pay off for the nominal beneficiary. ..."
          "... "The biggest economic policy decision of the last thirty years has been the decision to de-socialise a lot of previously socially insured risks and transfer them back to the household sector (in their various capacities as workers, homeowners and consumers of healthcare). The financial sector was obviously the conduit for this policy decision." ..."
          "... My feeling (based on nothing but intuition) is that the answer is (d). The government is a tool of moneyed interests. I know, it sounds awfully libertarian, but it is what it is. And I can't foresee any non-catastrophic end to it. ..."
          November 29, 2015 | Crooked Timber

          In my last post on private infrastructure finance and secular stagnation, I suggested a bigger argument that

          The financialization of the global economy has produced a hugely costly financial sector, extracting returns that must, in the end, be taken out of the returns to investment of all kinds. The costs were hidden during the pre-crisis bubble era, but are now evident to everyone, including potential investors. So, even massively expansionary monetary policy doesn't produce much in the way of new private investment.
          This isn't an original idea. The Bank of International Settlements put out a paper earlier this year arguing that financial sector growth crowds out real growth. But how does this work and what can be done about it? I'm still organizing my thoughts on this, so what I have are some ideas rather than a fully formed argument.

          First, if the financial sector is unproductive, how can it be so large and profitable in a market economy?

          There are a few possible explanations

          (a) As in the official theory of efficient markets, the financial sector is actually earning its keep by allocating capital to the most productive investments, and by spreading and managing risk. I don't see how anyone can argue this with a straight face in the light of the last 20 years of bubbles and busts.

          (b) Tax evasion: the global financial sector allows corporations to greatly reduce their tax liabilities. Most of the savings in tax is captured in the financial sector itself, but the amount flowing to corporations is sufficient to offset the high costs of the modern financial sector, relative to (for example) old-style bank finance and simple corporate structures financed by debt and equity

          (c) Volatility: the financialization of the economy has produced greatly increased volatility (in exchange rates, asset prices and so on). The financial sector amplifies and profits from this volatility, partly through regulatory arbitrage, and partly through entrenched and systematic fraud as in the LIBOR and Forex scandals.

          (d) Political capture: The financial sector controls political outcomes in both traditional ways (political donations, highly revolving door jobs for future and former politicians) and through the ideology of market liberalism, which is perfectly designed to support policies supporting the financial sector, while discrediting policies traditionally sought by other parts of the corporate sector, such as protection for manufacturing industry. The shift to private finance for infrastructure, discussed in the previous post is part of this. The construction part of the infrastructure sector (which was always private) has suffered from the reduced flow of projects, but the finance part (previously managed through government bonds) has benefited massively.

          The result of all this is that the financial sector benefits from an evolutionary strategy similar to that of an Australian eucalypt forest. Eucalypts are both highly flammable (they generate lots of combustible oil) and highly fire resistant. So eucalypt forests are subject to frequent fires which kill competing species, and allow the eucalypts to extend their range.

          dsquared 11.29.15 at 1:24 pm

          Surely the answer is "risk transfer". The biggest economic policy decision of the last thirty years has been the decision to de-socialise a lot of previously socially insured risks and transfer them back to the household sector (in their various capacities as workers, homeowners and consumers of healthcare). The financial sector was obviously the conduit for this policy decision. Their role is to provide insurance to the rest of society and this is what they did – in fact, they provided too much of it, with too little capital which is why they went bust, and why their bankruptcy was so disastrous (there's nothing worse than an insurer bankruptcy, because it hits you with a big loss at exactly the worst time). I think c) above is particularly unconvincing, as the biggest stylised feature of the period of financialisation was the Great Moderation – in fact, the financial sector stored up volatility that would otherwise have been experienced by other people, including the intermediation of some genuinely historically massive imbalances associated with the industrialisation of China, and stored it up until it couldn't hold any more and exploded.

          I also don't think LIBOR and FX fit into that pattern at all very well either. Financial systems have two kinds of problem, which is why they often have two kinds of regulators. They have prudential problems and conduct problems. Both LIBOR and FX were old-fashioned profiteering and cartel arrangements, which could happen in any industry (hey let's talk about drug pricing and indeed university tuition some time). In actual fact, as I wrote a while ago, it's only LIBOR that can really be considered a scandal – FX was very much more a case of customers who wanted the benefits of tight regulation but didn't want to pay for them, and were lucky enough to find a political moment in which the time was right for an otherwise very unpromising case.

          In other words, the answer to all your questions is "leverage". That's why financial systems grew so fast, that's why they're associated with poor economic performance, and that's why they tend to show up in periods of secular stagnation – a secular stagnation is almost defined as a period during which people try to maintain their standard of living by borrowing. Of course, if the financial sector had been required to hold enough equity capital in the first place, it would never have grown so big in the first place, and we could all be enjoying the thirteenth year of the post-dot-com bust[1] in relative contentment.

          [1] I am never going to shut up about this. The real estate bubble was a policy-created bubble. It was blown up in real time and intentionally, by a Federal Reserve which wanted to cushion the blow of the tech bust. If the financial sector had refused to finance it, the financial sector would have been trying to run a monetary policy directly opposed to that of the central bank.

          John Quiggin 11.29.15 at 1:55 pm 2

          I agree that risk transfer is a big deal. On the other hand, it's not obvious that the financial sector did a lot to insure households against most of the additional risk, or that the Great Moderation corresponded to a reduction in the volatility faced by households. On the first point, despite massive financial innovation since 1980, the set of financial instruments easily available to households hasn't changed all that much. Most obviously, there's no insurance against bad employment and wage outcomes and home equity insurance hasn't really happened either.

          Is what you're saying here is that, by extending a lot of credit, the financial sector allowed households to maintain consumption in the face of a permanent decline in income (at least relative to expectation)? That's an important part of the story, I agree.

          The secular stagnation framing of the question leads me to think more about why investment hasn't responded to monetary policy rather than directly about households.

          Eggplant 11.29.15 at 2:04 pm, 3

          (e) Principle-agent problem.
          (f) Implicit government backing allowing the underpricing of risk.

          dsquared 11.29.15 at 2:32 pm. 4

          Yeah, that's my point – the massive extension of credit to households was the financial sector's role in the big policy shift. At the end of the day, although we might with the benefit of hindsight agree that "subprime mortgages with no income verification at teaser rates" were a pretty stupid product that should never have been offered, they were a brand new financial product that had never been offered to households before! Even the example you mention – "insurance against bad employment and wage outcomes" – was sort of sold, albeit that what I'm referring to here is Payment Protection Insurance in the UK, which sort of underlines that it wasn't done well or responsibly.

          I guess my argument here is that it's the combination of deregulation and stagnation that was necessary to create the 2000s policy disaster. But if we hadn't had the bad products we got, we'd have had something else go wrong, probably outside the regulated sector. Because the high debt levels were a policy goal (or at least, were the inevitable and forseeable consequence of trying to do demand management without fiscal policy), and as I keep saying in different contexts, you can't get to a stupid debt ratio by only doing sensible things.

          The secular stagnation framing of the question leads me to think more about why investment hasn't responded to monetary policy rather than directly about households.

          Isn't the answer to this just the definition of a Keynesian recession? Investment hasn't responded to monetary policy because there's no interest rate at which it makes sense to produce goods that can't be sold.

          DrDick 11.29.15 at 2:32 pm 5

          Capital generally, and the FIRE sector in particular, are parasitic on the economy. They provide some minimal benefits if kept strongly in check, but quickly become destructive if allowed to grow unchecked, as they have now.

          Eggplant 11.29.15 at 2:37 pm 6

          (g) Rising inequality leading to an ever increasing savings glut, providing the financial industry with a target-rich environment.

          yastreblyansky 11.29.15 at 3:22 pm, 7

          Dumb outsider thought, turning Eggplant @6 upside down: What about r > g? Perhaps financialization isn't so much a thing-in-itself as the mechanism through which wealth concentrates in periods of slow growth?

          T 11.29.15 at 3:31 pm, 8

          "But if we hadn't had the bad products we got, we'd have had something else go wrong, probably outside the regulated sector."

          A more sophisticated version of the widely debunked theory that Fannie and Freddie blew up the housing sector by giving loans to poor people. Rule 1: It's never ever the bankers' fault. Rule 2: see Rule 1. At least d-squared has been consistent…

          Or maybe there has been a systematic continuous effort to use political influence to garner rents by gutting both the regulatory and judicial constraints on their behavior. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/us/politics/illinois-campaign-money-bruce-rauner.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

          yastreblyansky 11.29.15 at 3:35 pm, 9

          Or rather through which rent-claimers concentrate wealth (@t) bringing long-term low growth.

          bjk 11.29.15 at 3:43 pm, 10

          Which direction is financialization heading? It looks to be decreasing. The mutual fund industry is in terminal decline, losing market share to ETFs. There are fewer financial advisors today than in 2008, yet the number of millionaires has increased. Stock trading has broken a 40 year trend of increasing volumes. Electronic and exchange trading of bonds and derivatives is increasing, driving down margins. Bots have driven human traders out of jobs (Dark Pools has a good account of this). Banks are earnings low single digit returns in their trading divisions, which suggests they will be shut down if things don't improve. It looks like finance is doing a good job of shrinking itself, with a little help from Elizabeth Warren.

          T 11.29.15 at 4:50 pm, 16

          There were several issues and arguments posed in the OP. I'm addressing this:

          "First, if the financial sector is unproductive, how can it be so large and profitable in a market economy?
          There are a few possible explanations

          (a) As in the official theory of efficient markets, the financial sector is actually earning its keep by allocating capital to the most productive investments, and by spreading and managing risk. I don't see how anyone can argue this with a straight face in the light of the last 20 years of bubbles and busts."

          D-squared response is of course it's the risk transfer. That flat out contradicts JQ, but d-squared is a master of the straight face. And then he proceeds - "there has been a decision to desocilaize"; "the financial sector was obviously the conduit for this policy decision"; and "the real estate bubble was a policy-created bubble."

          So JQ, here's your answer of FIRE's ascendancy from an insider: You know me and my friends were standing around just doing nothin' and then these policy guys come around. Next thing ya know, we've doubled our share of GDP and put our bosses in the top 0.01%. Who woulda known? Crazy shit, huh? Hey and if anyone asks, tell 'um "risk transfer." And if they press, tell 'um "secular stagnation." In fact, tell 'um frickin' anything. It just wasn't our fault.

          Rakesh Bhandari 11.29.15 at 4:51 pm, 17

          I know that I shall have to read John Kay's Other People's Money at some point. I am wondering what people make of the old the then Marxist Hilferding's concept of promoters' profit as a way to understand some financial sector activity. I posted this here a few years back.

          Here's his example, and I am trying to figure out to the extent that it throws light on the recent activity of Wall Street.

          Start with an industrial firm with a capital of 1,000,000 marks that makes a profit of 150,000 marks with the average profit of 15 percent.

          With an interest rate of 5% straight capitalization of income of 150,000 marks will have an estimated price of 3,000,000 marks (150,000/.05=3,000,000 marks)

          A deduction of 20,000 marks for the various administration costs and directors fees would make the actual payment to shareholders 130,000 rather 150,000 marks

          A risk premium of, say, 2% would be added to a fixed safe rate of interest of 5% in estimating the actual stock price

          So what, then, is the stock price (130,000/.07)? 1,857,143 or roughly 1,900.000 marks

          This 900,000 is free after deducting the initial investment of 1,000,000 marks

          The balance of 900, 000 marks appears as promoters' profit which arises from the conversion of profit-bearing capital into interest bearing capital.

          In 1910, Hilferding called this promoters profit, an economic category sui generis; it is earned by the promoter by selling of stocks or the securitizing of income on the capital market.

          For Hilferding the investment bank, which promotes the conversion of profit-bearing to interest-bearing capital, claims the promoters profit.

          The analysis seems pertinent to the securitization process today, and I would love to hear Henwood's and others' thoughts about this.

          As Roubini and Mihm have pointed out, we have seen the securitization of mortgages, consumer loans, student loans, auto loans, airplane leases, revenues from forests and mines, delinquent tax liens, radio tower loans, boat loans, state revenues, the royalties of rock bands!

          We have seen, in their words, an explosion in the selling of future income of dependable projected revenue streams such as rents or interest payments on mortgage payments as securities.

          That securitization been driven by investors' quest for yield lift given the low rate of interest, itself the result of the global savings glut and Fed policy.

          And it seems that Wall Street, with the connivance of the credit agencies, was able to appropriate value from the purchasers of securities by understating the risk premia.

          The risk premium and promoters' profit are inversely correlated so there is a strong incentive to understate the former. This is what Hilferding did not say, but seems worth emphasizing today.

          Aaron Brown 11.29.15 at 5:43 pm. 18
          I sincerely do not understand your point here. I'm not arguing, just asking for clarification:

          (a) As in the official theory of efficient markets, the financial sector is actually earning its keep by allocating capital to the most productive investments, and by spreading and managing risk. I don't see how anyone can argue this with a straight face in the light of the last 20 years of bubbles and busts.

          For one thing, I don't see that the two bubbles and one bust of 1996 – 2015 are self-evidently worse than the more numerous bubbles and busts of 1976 – 1995. You might say the 2008 brush with Great Depression outweighs the hyperinflation and multiple deep recessions of the earlier era, but certainly the Internet and housing bubbles were more productive and less threatening than the commodity, Japan, emerging debt and other bubbles. Anyway, it's a close enough comparison that someone could certainly keep a straight face while saying that in the last 20 years financial volatility inflicted less real economic damage than in the preceding 20 years.

          But the bigger issue is no one claims the financial system encourages steady growth. Creative (bubble) destruction (bust) is the rule. It is command economies that outlaw bubbles and busts–and inflation and unemployment–at the cost of unproductive employment, empty shelves, stifled innovation, loss of freedom and other consequences.

          If you want to argue that the financial system did not earn its profits in the last 20 years, it seems to me you have to argue that economic growth was slow, or that more people in the world are in poverty today, or that there was not enough innovation; not that the ride was too volatile. Did Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina and North Korea do better than the financialized economies of the world? Did the hand of the State in Russia, China and other countries secure better outcomes than the global financial sector in countries that allowed it to operate (albeit with heavy regulation)?

          It is certainly possible to argue that we could have had more growth and innovation and poverty reduction; and less volatility; with some third way that's better than both our current financial system and the alternatives practiced in the world today. But that point is not so obvious that any defender of the global financial system must be joking.

          Why do you think the booms and busts of the last 20 years are such a clear and damning indictment of the financial system that the point needs no further elaboration?

          Bruce Wilder 11.29.15 at 6:11 pm, 19

          The financial system can engage in usury, lending money with no connection to productive investment, by simply creating a parasitic claim on income. There are straightforward ways of doing this: credit cards with high rates of interest or payday lending. There are slightly more complicated approaches: insurance that by design doesn't pay off for the nominal beneficiary.

          There are really complicated ways of doing this: derivatives, for example, which blow up (and as an added bonus, undermine the informational efficiency of financial markets).

          I keep thinking of Piketty's r > g: the ever-accumulating pile of money rising like a slow, but unstoppable tide. It has to be invested or "invested" - that is, it can buy the assembly of resources into productive capital assets that represent financial claims on the additional income generated by business innovation and expansion . . . OR . . . it can be used to finance the parasitic and predatory manipulations of an emergent neo-feudalism.

          Where the secular stagnation thesis is not pure apologetic fraud, I would interpret it as saying, there are currently few opportunities to invest in additional productive "real" capital stock. For technological reasons, the new systems require much less capital than the old systems, so when an old telephone company replaces its expensive copper wire with fiber optics and cellphone towers, it may be able to fund a large part of the transition out of current cash-flow, even while maintaining the value of the bonds that once represented investment in a mountain of copper, but are now just rentier claims on an obsolete world.

          In the brave new world, a handful of companies, who have lucked into commercial positions with high rents, throw off a lot of cash. So, the Apples and Intels do not need to be allocated new capital, but their distribution of cash to people who don't need it, is generating a lot of demand for "financial product". The rest of the business world is just trying to manage a slow decline, able to throw off modest amounts of cash, desperate to find sources of political power that might yield reliable rents, but without opportunities to innovate that would actually require net investment in excess of current cashflows from operations.

          So, the financial system is just responding to this enlarged demand for non-productive investment in financial products that generate return from parasitic extraction.

          In the interest of parasitic extraction, the financial system pursues the politics of neoliberal privatization as a means of generating financial products to satisfy demand.

          Does that sound like a plausible narrative?

          Dipper 11.29.15 at 6:30 pm, 20

          re volatility, the thing you really want to worry about is liquidity. Pre-crash banks could warehouse risk and so provide liquidity. One consequence was volatility was recorded because liquid markets allowed prices to be observed.

          Regulators have observed the conflict of interest caused by banks providing a financial service but also participating in the markets with their own money, and have acted to restrict banks from holding risk for proprietary trading (the Volcker rule). This is fine, but there has been a noticeable decrease in liquidity in what were once deep markets. The EURCHF un-pegging in Jan this year is a good example of reduced liquidity resulting in a massive move. There may well be more of this to come.

          Sebastian H 11.29.15 at 6:34 pm, 21
          "The biggest economic policy decision of the last thirty years has been the decision to de-socialise a lot of previously socially insured risks and transfer them back to the household sector (in their various capacities as workers, homeowners and consumers of healthcare). The financial sector was obviously the conduit for this policy decision."

          I can't tell if you are arguing with John or agreeing with him. Is this agreement with his d) [the political capture explanation]? I don't know very much about the deep history of financial regulation, but I'm fairly certain that most voters have never put desocialization of risk in their top 5 concerns. Is it possible that the financial sector was the obvious conduit because they were among the important authors of the ideas?

          MisterMr 11.29.15 at 6:50 pm, 22

          Previously commented here as Random Lurker.

          In my opinion, finance had a passive role in the build up of the crisis.
          Others have said similar things uptread, however this is my opinion:

          1) the wage share of GDP depends largely on political choices; since the late seventies there has been a trend of a falling wage share more or less everywhere, as countries with a lower wage share are more competitive on the world market.
          2) a falling wage share means a rising profit share, and "capitalists" tend to reinvest part of their profits, so a falling wage share caused a worldwide saving glut.
          3) this worldwide saving glut caused an increased financialisation and a bubbling up of the price of some assets, particularly those assets whose supply is inelastic (for example, the value of distribution chains or of famous consumer brands).
          4) this in turn causes an increased volatility of financial markets, and worse financial crises.

          This situation is what we perceive as a secular stagnation, and IMHO depends mostly on a low worldwide wage share.
          Unfortunately, I have no idea of how to reach an higher wage share, and I don't think "the market" has any mechanism to push up said wage share.

          Rakesh Bhandari 11.29.15 at 7:08 pm, 23

          Bruce,
          What you are saying makes sense to me. Steven Pressman has also raised the question of how r is to be maintained with "an abundance of capital and its need for high rates of return." (Understanding Piketty's Capital in the Twenty First Century).

          It's almost as if Piketty in his criticism of the rentier has a rentier's disregard for how the returns are actually to be made. To the extent that he considers production it is through marginal productivity theory. Piketty claims that marginal rate of substitution of capital for labor will remain above unity (and too bad Piketty dismissed the Cambridge Capital critique because Ian Steedman has used Sraffian theory to show the possibilities of high profits in even a fully automated economy).

          Of course as Pressman implies, this "technical" view may blind us to the higher exploitation that may be necessary for returns to continue to remain high as capital becomes more abundant. Pressman also implies that Piketty also does not consider how finance can make higher rates of return by making higher-interest loans to weaker parties while having them absorb most of the risk (this would be your second kind of investment).

          Search for the several paragraphs on the rentier in this section. It is remarkable that no one has yet compared Piketty's criticism of the rentier to this.
          https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1927/leisure-economics/introduction.htm

          felwith 11.29.15 at 8:31 pm, 24

          " I don't know very much about the deep history of financial regulation, but I'm fairly certain that most voters have never put desocialization of risk in their top 5 concerns."

          Of course not, but there are actors here other than "the public" and "the banks". In this case, I'm pretty sure Daniel is referring to the destruction of unionized middle class jobs with pensions and cheap-to-the-worker health insurance, which was carried out by their employers. While I doubt I could pick a bank owner out of a lineup filled out with captains of industry, they aren't actually interchangeable.

          Peter K. 11.29.15 at 9:43 pm, 25

          @1 Dsquared:

          "Of course, if the financial sector had been required to hold enough equity capital in the first place, it would never have grown so big in the first place, and we could all be enjoying the thirteenth year of the post-dot-com bust[1] in relative contentment."

          Secular stagnation to me just means not enough macro (monetary/fiscal) policy to keep up aggregate demand for full employment and target inflation.

          Monetary and fiscal policy is being blocked by politics partly because filthy rich financiers are buying their way into politics:

          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/us/politics/illinois-campaign-money-bruce-rauner.html

          The question about Dsquare's alternate history I would have is: what is the response of fiscal and monetary policy to the "domestication" of the financial sector via higher capital requirements and leverage regulations, etc.?

          If fiscal and monetary policy keeps the economy at a high-pressure level with full employment and rising wages, I don't see why secular stagnation is a problem.

          But politics is blocking fiscal and monetary policy. Professor Quiggin talks of "massive" monetary policy, but it wasn't massive given the need. (It was massive compared to past recoveries.) It was big enough to avoid deflation despite unprecedented fiscal austerity. It wasn't big enough to hit their inflation target in a timely matter.

          Ze K 11.29.15 at 9:53 pm, 27

          My feeling (based on nothing but intuition) is that the answer is (d). The government is a tool of moneyed interests. I know, it sounds awfully libertarian, but it is what it is. And I can't foresee any non-catastrophic end to it.

          [Nov 29, 2015] Former CIA Deputy Director Gives A Stunning Reason Why Obama Has Not Attacked ISIS Oil Infrastructure

          Notable quotes:
          "... As the Daily Caller adds, Morell also said the White House was concerned about destroying infrastructure that could be used by the Syrian people. Such profound concern for a people which has been traumatized for the past 5 years courtesy of a US-funded effort to destabilize the nation courtesy of US-armed "rebels" whose only purpose has been the deposition of yet another elected president, and where the emergence of the CIA-created Islamic State has led to the biggest wave of refugees to emerge, and flood Europe, since World War II. ..."
          "... Meanwhile, the real reasons behind ISIS massive wealth build up: the illicit oil trade facilitated by, and involving NATO-member state Turkey, whose president and his son collect billions in illegal profits by arranging the charter of Islamic State oil to Israel and other international buyers of ISIS' cheap oil, and which involves such "highly respected" commodity traders as Trafigura and Vitol , continues to this day, and only Putin has done anything to put a dent in it. ..."
          "... Depleted Uranium And The Iraq War's Legacy Of Cancer ..."
          "... Depleted Uranium Contamination: A Crime against Humanity ..."
          "... when 'baby`bush' raided iraq in 2003, he and his filthy scum cronies destroyed [bombed, etc.] every last bit of iraqis antiquities, libraries, religious monuments, museums etel, and... guarded with total authority the Ministry of Energy, oil infrastructure, and Iraq's Central bank with a small army of specialized forces ranging from 12k-18k soldiers. ..."
          Zero Hedge

          As we pointed out a week ago, even before the downing of the Russian jet by a Turkish F-16, the most important question that nobody had asked about ISIS is where is the funding for the terrorist organization coming from, and more importantly, since everyone tacitly knows where said funding is coming from (as we have revealed in an ongoing series of posts "Meet The Man Who Funds ISIS: Bilal Erdogan, The Son Of Turkey's President", "How Turkey Exports ISIS Oil To The World: The Scientific Evidence" and "ISIS Oil Trade Full Frontal: "Raqqa's Rockefellers", Bilal Erdogan, KRG Crude, And The Israel Connection") few on the US-led Western Alliance have done anything to stop the hundreds of millions in oil sale proceeds from funding the world's best organized terrorist group.

          We concluded by asking "how long until someone finally asks the all important question regarding the Islamic State: who is the commodity trader breaching every known law of funding terrorism when buying ISIS crude, almost certainly with the tacit approval by various "western alliance" governments, and why is it that these governments have allowed said middleman to continue funding ISIS for as long as it has?"

          To be sure, the only party that actually did something to halt ISIS' oil infrastructure was Russia, whose bombing raids of Islamic State oil routes may not only have contributed to the fatal attack by Turkey of the Russian Su-24 (as the curtailment of ISIS' oil flows led to a big hit in the funds collected by the biggest middleman in the region, Turkey, its president and his son, Bilal not to mention Israel which may have been actively buying ISIS oil over the past year) but prompted questions why the bombing campaign by the US-led alliance had been so woefully incapable of hitting ISIS where it truly hurts: its funding.

          This past week, someone finally came up with a "reason" why the Obama administration had been so impotent at denting the Islamic State's well-greased oil machine. In an interview on PBS' Charlie Rose on Tuesday, Rose pointed out that before the terrorist attacks in Paris, the U.S. had not bombed ISIS-controlled oil tankers, to which the former CIA deputy director Michael Morell responded that Barack Obama didn't order the bombing of ISIS's oil transportation infrastructure until recently because he was concerned about environmental damage.

          Yes, he really said that:

          We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage, and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure.

          In other words, one can blame such recent outbreaks of deadly terrorist activity as the Paris bombings and the explosion of the Russian passenger airplane over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula on Obama's hard line stance to not pollute the atmosphere with the toxic aftermath of destroyed ISIS infrastructure.

          Brilliant.

          As the Daily Caller adds, Morell also said the White House was concerned about destroying infrastructure that could be used by the Syrian people. Such profound concern for a people which has been traumatized for the past 5 years courtesy of a US-funded effort to destabilize the nation courtesy of US-armed "rebels" whose only purpose has been the deposition of yet another elected president, and where the emergence of the CIA-created Islamic State has led to the biggest wave of refugees to emerge, and flood Europe, since World War II.

          But back to Obama's alleged decision that not polluting the environment is more important than halting the funding artery that keeps ISIS in business.

          Morell continued "Prior to Paris, there seemed to be a judgment that look, we don't want to destroy these oil tankers because that's infrastructure that's going to be necessary to support the people when ISIS isn't there anymore, and it's going to create environmental damage. And we didn't go after oil wells - actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls because we didn't want to do environmental damage and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure, right."

          Then we started asking questions, others joined in, and everything changed: "So now we're hitting oil in trucks and maybe you get to the point where you say we also have to hit oil wells. So those are the kind of tough decisions you have to make."

          Of course, the lunacy gets even more ridiculous when one recalls that none other than one of the democrat frontrunners for president, Bernie Sanders, suggested in all seriousness that the real cause for terrorism is climate change, an allegation subsequently echoed by both UK's Prince Charles and none other than the chief of the UN, Ban Ki-moon himself.

          So here is the purported logic: climate change leads to terrorism, but one can't eradicate the primary funding source of the biggest terrorist threat in the world, the Islamic State, because of dangers it may lead to even more environmental damage and climate change.

          We are truly speechless at this idiocy.

          Meanwhile, the real reasons behind ISIS massive wealth build up: the illicit oil trade facilitated by, and involving NATO-member state Turkey, whose president and his son collect billions in illegal profits by arranging the charter of Islamic State oil to Israel and other international buyers of ISIS' cheap oil, and which involves such "highly respected" commodity traders as Trafigura and Vitol, continues to this day, and only Putin has done anything to put a dent in it.

          For those who can't believe any of this (and it took us quite a while to realize this is not some elaborate prank) here is the clip proving the former CIA deputy director actually said it all.

          Looney

          Morell is the same spook who "edited" Susan Rice's Benghazi SNAFU. Why don't all these assholes like Morell, Greenspan, Bernanke, just shut up, crawl under a rock, and hope they're never found? ;-)

          Buckaroo Banzai

          The media is in the tank for cunts like this, and most people just don't bother paying attention anyway. If Charlie Rose asked tough questions, his career would have ended before it even began. Instead he makes a wonderful living playing the kindly avuncular shill.

          Ignatius

          There is no lie these murderous cunts won't tell. I guess depleted uranium is not an environmental concern? Fuck 'em. Fuck all of 'em.

          Pladizow

          • ----> Not OK to spill oil
          • ----> OK to spill blood

          JustObserving

          2400 tons of depleted uranium used in Iraq and 1000 tons in Afghanistan.

          Fallujah cancer rates worse than Hiroshima due to use of depleted uranium. Leukemia rates 38 times higher than normal https://vimeo.com/38175279

          Depleted Uranium And The Iraq War's Legacy Of Cancer

          http://www.mintpressnews.com/depleted-uranium-iraq-wars-legacy-cancer/19...

          Depleted Uranium Contamination: A Crime against Humanity

          http://www.globalresearch.ca/depleted-uranium-contamination-a-crime-agai...

          prmths2

          It's not that simple:

          "In a follow up study, in which Dr Busby was a co-author, hair, soil and water samples were taken from Fallujah and tested for the presence of heavy metals. The researchers expected to find depleted uranium in the environmental samples. It is well known that the US used depleted uranium weapons in Iraq during the 1991 Gulf war; and Iraqis, at least, are well aware of the increases in cancers and infant mortality rates in the city of Basrah, which was heavily bombarded during Desert Storm. However, what the researchers found was not depleted uranium, but man-made, slightly enriched uranium."

          http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/25/fallujah-iraq-healt...

          "Whilst the results seem to qualitatively support the existence of serious mutation-related health effects in Fallujah, owing to the structural problems associated with surveys of this kind, care should be exercised in interpreting the findings quantitatively. "

          "Finally, the results reported here do not throw any light upon the identity of the agent(s) causing the increased levels of illness and although we have drawn attention to the use of depleted uranium as one potential relevant exposure, there may be other possibilities and we see the current study as investigating the anecdotal evidence of increases in cancer and infant mortality in Fallujah."

          http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/htm

          It is possible that there may be a synergistic effect involving heavy metals in general (i.e., Pb, U, Hg)

          http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00128-012-0817-2.pdf

          Urban Redneck

          It's not necessarily a lie, but it is necessarily a straw man and red herring, which distracts from a conversation of the forgone alternatives to achieve the (supposedly) desired ends. Charlie cocksucker and his mindless followers apparently buy the implicit argument the only tools in the almighty CIA's chest to combat ISIS's operations funding with oil revenues was "bombing Syria's (relatively tiny) oil fields" and creating an environmental catastrophe somehow akin to Saddam in Kuwait...

          'Muricans are getting exactly the government the (collectively) deserve.

          Lore

          I think the psychopaths don't give a shit. Remember the scale of MONEY and CONTROL at stake. If you want to disable an insubordinate regime for standing up to your plans for regional hegemony and energy supply, you punish the host population by taking out key infrastructure. So for starters, place the launch triggers for all the drone strikes and aircraft sorties in the hands of obedient lackies who follow orders without giving a shit, assemble a list of strategic targets, and then announce "Aha! ISIS happens to be standing directly in front of this strategically-important piece of infrastructure" (bridge, refinery, storage tank, whatever), and then press the button. Proxy war is simply the policy of blaming somebody else for your own rotten behaviour. If the Syrian people are displaced, so much the better, because mass migration conveniently handicaps the economies of nations in Europe that might get in the way of continued button-pushing.

          It's fucking evil, from start to finish. There was a time when it was a compliment to be called a Company Man, but nowadays it just means you're a pathological liar and a whore and a louse.

          NoDebt

          So they'll blow up wedding parties and whatever innocent civilians happen to be around their "targets" but they won't dare touch an oil well.

          That speaks volumes. Delusional is the wrong word. Makes it sound like it's not their fault or something.

          KesselRunin12Parsecs

          "We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage"

          So now explain 'SCORCHED EARTH POLICY' after you presumably rescued babies from incubators in 1991 you POS mF'er.

          Kirk2NCC1701

          Actually, he's telling you everything he can and you need to know or figure out.

          Y'all must be 'Mericans, cause you can't read between the lines or read the situation/context. Allow me to translate for you:

          1. He's under an NDA, and must keep his Oath of Secrecy.

          2. If he gives you a blatantly BS answer, it is YOUR job to figure out that he (a) can't tell you the truth and (b) that it's Code for "Yes we support them to the hilt, and use Middle-men and Cutouts as SOP, but also we deny everything as SOP."

          Normalcy Bias

          He reminds me of his movie counterpart, the 'Robert Ritter, CIA Deputy Director' character from Clear and Present Danger.

          Evil, arrogant, smug, and devoid of any conscience...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKsDjpKr2Mk

          me or you

          Meanwhile:US and Turkey cease flights over Syria, as Russia deploys 7000 troops to Turkish border with Armenia

          Chris88

          We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage, and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure.

          ..damage a perfectly good CIA creation.

          Junerberno

          After the attack by Boko Haram (Al Qaeda) on the shopping mall in Nairobi, the US moved to seize a senior Al Qaeda operative living in a mansion in North Africa. We knew where he was all along, but never went after him, until after the attack. He was "made" by the Saudis and we were appeasing him while he was "doing good" (killing Shia) but when he stepped out of line we punished him. It's certain we asked for permission before arresting him finally, of course.

          Pausing, because it must sink in: Al Qaeda. Who attacked us 9-11. Our brownshirts.

          So now we suddenly care about ISIL after they "step out of line" in Paris. They were our friends when they were sawing the heads off Shia. But they stepped out of line so we used a stick on their hands.

          The US knows where all of ISIL are at all times. ISIL has been permitted to slaughter everyone in its path because they are focused on killing Shia, and Israel supports a holocaust against Shia muslims.

          earleflorida

          when 'baby`bush' raided iraq in 2003, he and his filthy scum cronies destroyed [bombed, etc.] every last bit of iraqis antiquities, libraries, religious monuments, museums etel, and... guarded with total authority the Ministry of Energy, oil infrastructure, and Iraq's Central bank with a small army of specialized forces ranging from 12k-18k soldiers.

          Raymond_K._Hessel

          No, isis is not fairly described as comprised of former Baathists. Thats some neocon propaganda.

          Its mostly Libyans and Saudis and Yemenis and some Iraqis and Turks, cats herded by the us and israel and saudi.

          Isis is a proxy for these states and turkey.
          http://www.voltairenet.org/article189385.html
          http://ftmdaily.com/what-jerry-thinks/whysyria/

          coast

          But they can bomb the fuck out of Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. setting those countries back to the stone age, displacing and killing millions, destroying historical buildings, build nuke plants on fault lines, gmo food, flouride poison in our water, spraying shit in the skies etc....but NOOOO!!, we cant bomboil oil infrastructures that are helping arm the terrorists...what a fucking liar piece of shit..

          marcusfenix

          this is some epic and absurd bullfuckingshit to the highest degree right here.

          if they had no plans to hit IS in the one way it would really hurt them, in the only way it would make any difference then it begs the question....

          why bother bombing them at all?

          these people are not stupid, they know exactly how war works, how to wage it properly and how to defeat an enemy. and yet they try and sell the idiotic idea that they did not go after the most valuable and vulnerable of IS assets out of environmental concerns?

          really?

          and this is exactly why the "coalition" warned the Syrian air force against carrying out missions in these areas, outright threatened them in fact. to provide air cover and a safe route for IS oil to find it's way into Turkey and Iraq. and it worked, it was smooth sailing and billions all around right up until Moscow stepped in and literally started blowing up the program.

          the "save the environment" excuse doesn't play on any level and WFT good does it do the Syria people for this infrastructure to exist so long as IS controls it, they sure as shit are not benefiting from it. in fact it only hurts them more because the longer IS can make billions off the sale of this oil the longer this war will drag on.

          the longer the war drags on the more innocent Syrian's die so it would in fact be better for the common people of Syria for this oil pipeline to be destroyed and ISIS starved to death. then afterwords the Syrians can go ahead and start rebuilding the infrastructure. but there won't be an afterwords so long as IS can make that money and fund there whole drug soaked, murderous operation.

          and I wonder what the citizens of Paris think about the environmental concerns vs wiping out the islamic states revenue stream?

          all this sudden care and concern flowing from DC about civilians, about oil smugglers, civilian infrastructure and mother earth makes me want to vomit.

          because it's all just a never ending stream of bullshit and lies.

          sometimes, in the darkest corners of my mind, I do sincerely wonder weather nuclear war might just the only thing that will bring this lunacy to an end. not saying i want it to happen or that i want to live through it but it might just be the only way for somebody, somewhere in the world to get a fresh start free of this insane asylum we all live in.

          Johnny Horscaulk

          http://original.antiwar.com/dan_sanchez/2015/10/05/seize-the-chaos/
          https://medium.com/dan-sanchez/clean-break-to-dirty-wars-d5ebc5fda9f9

          http://leaksource.info/2015/01/17/the-yinon-plan-greater-israel-syria-ir...

          Isis is a name for us/israeli/saudi/Israeli mostly foreign mercenaries there to destroy Syria as a functioning state.

          For Israel.

          http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=western_support_for_islam...

          And to block the Iran pipeline
          http://www.mintpressnews.com/migrant-crisis-syria-war-fueled-by-competin...

          But for the us deep state, the zog, its really basically about Greater Israel.

          http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/zionist2.html

          [Nov 29, 2015] Former CIA Deputy Director Gives A Stunning Reason Why Obama Has Not Attacked ISIS Oil Infrastructure

          Notable quotes:
          "... As the Daily Caller adds, Morell also said the White House was concerned about destroying infrastructure that could be used by the Syrian people. Such profound concern for a people which has been traumatized for the past 5 years courtesy of a US-funded effort to destabilize the nation courtesy of US-armed "rebels" whose only purpose has been the deposition of yet another elected president, and where the emergence of the CIA-created Islamic State has led to the biggest wave of refugees to emerge, and flood Europe, since World War II. ..."
          "... Meanwhile, the real reasons behind ISIS massive wealth build up: the illicit oil trade facilitated by, and involving NATO-member state Turkey, whose president and his son collect billions in illegal profits by arranging the charter of Islamic State oil to Israel and other international buyers of ISIS' cheap oil, and which involves such "highly respected" commodity traders as Trafigura and Vitol , continues to this day, and only Putin has done anything to put a dent in it. ..."
          "... Depleted Uranium And The Iraq War's Legacy Of Cancer ..."
          "... Depleted Uranium Contamination: A Crime against Humanity ..."
          "... when 'baby`bush' raided iraq in 2003, he and his filthy scum cronies destroyed [bombed, etc.] every last bit of iraqis antiquities, libraries, religious monuments, museums etel, and... guarded with total authority the Ministry of Energy, oil infrastructure, and Iraq's Central bank with a small army of specialized forces ranging from 12k-18k soldiers. ..."
          Zero Hedge

          As we pointed out a week ago, even before the downing of the Russian jet by a Turkish F-16, the most important question that nobody had asked about ISIS is where is the funding for the terrorist organization coming from, and more importantly, since everyone tacitly knows where said funding is coming from (as we have revealed in an ongoing series of posts "Meet The Man Who Funds ISIS: Bilal Erdogan, The Son Of Turkey's President", "How Turkey Exports ISIS Oil To The World: The Scientific Evidence" and "ISIS Oil Trade Full Frontal: "Raqqa's Rockefellers", Bilal Erdogan, KRG Crude, And The Israel Connection") few on the US-led Western Alliance have done anything to stop the hundreds of millions in oil sale proceeds from funding the world's best organized terrorist group.

          We concluded by asking "how long until someone finally asks the all important question regarding the Islamic State: who is the commodity trader breaching every known law of funding terrorism when buying ISIS crude, almost certainly with the tacit approval by various "western alliance" governments, and why is it that these governments have allowed said middleman to continue funding ISIS for as long as it has?"

          To be sure, the only party that actually did something to halt ISIS' oil infrastructure was Russia, whose bombing raids of Islamic State oil routes may not only have contributed to the fatal attack by Turkey of the Russian Su-24 (as the curtailment of ISIS' oil flows led to a big hit in the funds collected by the biggest middleman in the region, Turkey, its president and his son, Bilal not to mention Israel which may have been actively buying ISIS oil over the past year) but prompted questions why the bombing campaign by the US-led alliance had been so woefully incapable of hitting ISIS where it truly hurts: its funding.

          This past week, someone finally came up with a "reason" why the Obama administration had been so impotent at denting the Islamic State's well-greased oil machine. In an interview on PBS' Charlie Rose on Tuesday, Rose pointed out that before the terrorist attacks in Paris, the U.S. had not bombed ISIS-controlled oil tankers, to which the former CIA deputy director Michael Morell responded that Barack Obama didn't order the bombing of ISIS's oil transportation infrastructure until recently because he was concerned about environmental damage.

          Yes, he really said that:

          We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage, and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure.

          In other words, one can blame such recent outbreaks of deadly terrorist activity as the Paris bombings and the explosion of the Russian passenger airplane over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula on Obama's hard line stance to not pollute the atmosphere with the toxic aftermath of destroyed ISIS infrastructure.

          Brilliant.

          As the Daily Caller adds, Morell also said the White House was concerned about destroying infrastructure that could be used by the Syrian people. Such profound concern for a people which has been traumatized for the past 5 years courtesy of a US-funded effort to destabilize the nation courtesy of US-armed "rebels" whose only purpose has been the deposition of yet another elected president, and where the emergence of the CIA-created Islamic State has led to the biggest wave of refugees to emerge, and flood Europe, since World War II.

          But back to Obama's alleged decision that not polluting the environment is more important than halting the funding artery that keeps ISIS in business.

          Morell continued "Prior to Paris, there seemed to be a judgment that look, we don't want to destroy these oil tankers because that's infrastructure that's going to be necessary to support the people when ISIS isn't there anymore, and it's going to create environmental damage. And we didn't go after oil wells - actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls because we didn't want to do environmental damage and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure, right."

          Then we started asking questions, others joined in, and everything changed: "So now we're hitting oil in trucks and maybe you get to the point where you say we also have to hit oil wells. So those are the kind of tough decisions you have to make."

          Of course, the lunacy gets even more ridiculous when one recalls that none other than one of the democrat frontrunners for president, Bernie Sanders, suggested in all seriousness that the real cause for terrorism is climate change, an allegation subsequently echoed by both UK's Prince Charles and none other than the chief of the UN, Ban Ki-moon himself.

          So here is the purported logic: climate change leads to terrorism, but one can't eradicate the primary funding source of the biggest terrorist threat in the world, the Islamic State, because of dangers it may lead to even more environmental damage and climate change.

          We are truly speechless at this idiocy.

          Meanwhile, the real reasons behind ISIS massive wealth build up: the illicit oil trade facilitated by, and involving NATO-member state Turkey, whose president and his son collect billions in illegal profits by arranging the charter of Islamic State oil to Israel and other international buyers of ISIS' cheap oil, and which involves such "highly respected" commodity traders as Trafigura and Vitol, continues to this day, and only Putin has done anything to put a dent in it.

          For those who can't believe any of this (and it took us quite a while to realize this is not some elaborate prank) here is the clip proving the former CIA deputy director actually said it all.

          Looney

          Morell is the same spook who "edited" Susan Rice's Benghazi SNAFU. Why don't all these assholes like Morell, Greenspan, Bernanke, just shut up, crawl under a rock, and hope they're never found? ;-)

          Buckaroo Banzai

          The media is in the tank for cunts like this, and most people just don't bother paying attention anyway. If Charlie Rose asked tough questions, his career would have ended before it even began. Instead he makes a wonderful living playing the kindly avuncular shill.

          Ignatius

          There is no lie these murderous cunts won't tell. I guess depleted uranium is not an environmental concern? Fuck 'em. Fuck all of 'em.

          Pladizow

          • ----> Not OK to spill oil
          • ----> OK to spill blood

          JustObserving

          2400 tons of depleted uranium used in Iraq and 1000 tons in Afghanistan.

          Fallujah cancer rates worse than Hiroshima due to use of depleted uranium. Leukemia rates 38 times higher than normal https://vimeo.com/38175279

          Depleted Uranium And The Iraq War's Legacy Of Cancer

          http://www.mintpressnews.com/depleted-uranium-iraq-wars-legacy-cancer/19...

          Depleted Uranium Contamination: A Crime against Humanity

          http://www.globalresearch.ca/depleted-uranium-contamination-a-crime-agai...

          prmths2

          It's not that simple:

          "In a follow up study, in which Dr Busby was a co-author, hair, soil and water samples were taken from Fallujah and tested for the presence of heavy metals. The researchers expected to find depleted uranium in the environmental samples. It is well known that the US used depleted uranium weapons in Iraq during the 1991 Gulf war; and Iraqis, at least, are well aware of the increases in cancers and infant mortality rates in the city of Basrah, which was heavily bombarded during Desert Storm. However, what the researchers found was not depleted uranium, but man-made, slightly enriched uranium."

          http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/25/fallujah-iraq-healt...

          "Whilst the results seem to qualitatively support the existence of serious mutation-related health effects in Fallujah, owing to the structural problems associated with surveys of this kind, care should be exercised in interpreting the findings quantitatively. "

          "Finally, the results reported here do not throw any light upon the identity of the agent(s) causing the increased levels of illness and although we have drawn attention to the use of depleted uranium as one potential relevant exposure, there may be other possibilities and we see the current study as investigating the anecdotal evidence of increases in cancer and infant mortality in Fallujah."

          http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/htm

          It is possible that there may be a synergistic effect involving heavy metals in general (i.e., Pb, U, Hg)

          http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00128-012-0817-2.pdf

          Urban Redneck

          It's not necessarily a lie, but it is necessarily a straw man and red herring, which distracts from a conversation of the forgone alternatives to achieve the (supposedly) desired ends. Charlie cocksucker and his mindless followers apparently buy the implicit argument the only tools in the almighty CIA's chest to combat ISIS's operations funding with oil revenues was "bombing Syria's (relatively tiny) oil fields" and creating an environmental catastrophe somehow akin to Saddam in Kuwait...

          'Muricans are getting exactly the government the (collectively) deserve.

          Lore

          I think the psychopaths don't give a shit. Remember the scale of MONEY and CONTROL at stake. If you want to disable an insubordinate regime for standing up to your plans for regional hegemony and energy supply, you punish the host population by taking out key infrastructure. So for starters, place the launch triggers for all the drone strikes and aircraft sorties in the hands of obedient lackies who follow orders without giving a shit, assemble a list of strategic targets, and then announce "Aha! ISIS happens to be standing directly in front of this strategically-important piece of infrastructure" (bridge, refinery, storage tank, whatever), and then press the button. Proxy war is simply the policy of blaming somebody else for your own rotten behaviour. If the Syrian people are displaced, so much the better, because mass migration conveniently handicaps the economies of nations in Europe that might get in the way of continued button-pushing.

          It's fucking evil, from start to finish. There was a time when it was a compliment to be called a Company Man, but nowadays it just means you're a pathological liar and a whore and a louse.

          NoDebt

          So they'll blow up wedding parties and whatever innocent civilians happen to be around their "targets" but they won't dare touch an oil well.

          That speaks volumes. Delusional is the wrong word. Makes it sound like it's not their fault or something.

          KesselRunin12Parsecs

          "We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage"

          So now explain 'SCORCHED EARTH POLICY' after you presumably rescued babies from incubators in 1991 you POS mF'er.

          Kirk2NCC1701

          Actually, he's telling you everything he can and you need to know or figure out.

          Y'all must be 'Mericans, cause you can't read between the lines or read the situation/context. Allow me to translate for you:

          1. He's under an NDA, and must keep his Oath of Secrecy.

          2. If he gives you a blatantly BS answer, it is YOUR job to figure out that he (a) can't tell you the truth and (b) that it's Code for "Yes we support them to the hilt, and use Middle-men and Cutouts as SOP, but also we deny everything as SOP."

          Normalcy Bias

          He reminds me of his movie counterpart, the 'Robert Ritter, CIA Deputy Director' character from Clear and Present Danger.

          Evil, arrogant, smug, and devoid of any conscience...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKsDjpKr2Mk

          me or you

          Meanwhile:US and Turkey cease flights over Syria, as Russia deploys 7000 troops to Turkish border with Armenia

          Chris88

          We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage, and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure.

          ..damage a perfectly good CIA creation.

          Junerberno

          After the attack by Boko Haram (Al Qaeda) on the shopping mall in Nairobi, the US moved to seize a senior Al Qaeda operative living in a mansion in North Africa. We knew where he was all along, but never went after him, until after the attack. He was "made" by the Saudis and we were appeasing him while he was "doing good" (killing Shia) but when he stepped out of line we punished him. It's certain we asked for permission before arresting him finally, of course.

          Pausing, because it must sink in: Al Qaeda. Who attacked us 9-11. Our brownshirts.

          So now we suddenly care about ISIL after they "step out of line" in Paris. They were our friends when they were sawing the heads off Shia. But they stepped out of line so we used a stick on their hands.

          The US knows where all of ISIL are at all times. ISIL has been permitted to slaughter everyone in its path because they are focused on killing Shia, and Israel supports a holocaust against Shia muslims.

          earleflorida

          when 'baby`bush' raided iraq in 2003, he and his filthy scum cronies destroyed [bombed, etc.] every last bit of iraqis antiquities, libraries, religious monuments, museums etel, and... guarded with total authority the Ministry of Energy, oil infrastructure, and Iraq's Central bank with a small army of specialized forces ranging from 12k-18k soldiers.

          Raymond_K._Hessel

          No, isis is not fairly described as comprised of former Baathists. Thats some neocon propaganda.

          Its mostly Libyans and Saudis and Yemenis and some Iraqis and Turks, cats herded by the us and israel and saudi.

          Isis is a proxy for these states and turkey.
          http://www.voltairenet.org/article189385.html
          http://ftmdaily.com/what-jerry-thinks/whysyria/

          coast

          But they can bomb the fuck out of Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. setting those countries back to the stone age, displacing and killing millions, destroying historical buildings, build nuke plants on fault lines, gmo food, flouride poison in our water, spraying shit in the skies etc....but NOOOO!!, we cant bomboil oil infrastructures that are helping arm the terrorists...what a fucking liar piece of shit..

          marcusfenix

          this is some epic and absurd bullfuckingshit to the highest degree right here.

          if they had no plans to hit IS in the one way it would really hurt them, in the only way it would make any difference then it begs the question....

          why bother bombing them at all?

          these people are not stupid, they know exactly how war works, how to wage it properly and how to defeat an enemy. and yet they try and sell the idiotic idea that they did not go after the most valuable and vulnerable of IS assets out of environmental concerns?

          really?

          and this is exactly why the "coalition" warned the Syrian air force against carrying out missions in these areas, outright threatened them in fact. to provide air cover and a safe route for IS oil to find it's way into Turkey and Iraq. and it worked, it was smooth sailing and billions all around right up until Moscow stepped in and literally started blowing up the program.

          the "save the environment" excuse doesn't play on any level and WFT good does it do the Syria people for this infrastructure to exist so long as IS controls it, they sure as shit are not benefiting from it. in fact it only hurts them more because the longer IS can make billions off the sale of this oil the longer this war will drag on.

          the longer the war drags on the more innocent Syrian's die so it would in fact be better for the common people of Syria for this oil pipeline to be destroyed and ISIS starved to death. then afterwords the Syrians can go ahead and start rebuilding the infrastructure. but there won't be an afterwords so long as IS can make that money and fund there whole drug soaked, murderous operation.

          and I wonder what the citizens of Paris think about the environmental concerns vs wiping out the islamic states revenue stream?

          all this sudden care and concern flowing from DC about civilians, about oil smugglers, civilian infrastructure and mother earth makes me want to vomit.

          because it's all just a never ending stream of bullshit and lies.

          sometimes, in the darkest corners of my mind, I do sincerely wonder weather nuclear war might just the only thing that will bring this lunacy to an end. not saying i want it to happen or that i want to live through it but it might just be the only way for somebody, somewhere in the world to get a fresh start free of this insane asylum we all live in.

          Johnny Horscaulk

          http://original.antiwar.com/dan_sanchez/2015/10/05/seize-the-chaos/
          https://medium.com/dan-sanchez/clean-break-to-dirty-wars-d5ebc5fda9f9

          http://leaksource.info/2015/01/17/the-yinon-plan-greater-israel-syria-ir...

          Isis is a name for us/israeli/saudi/Israeli mostly foreign mercenaries there to destroy Syria as a functioning state.

          For Israel.

          http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=western_support_for_islam...

          And to block the Iran pipeline
          http://www.mintpressnews.com/migrant-crisis-syria-war-fueled-by-competin...

          But for the us deep state, the zog, its really basically about Greater Israel.

          http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/zionist2.html

          [Nov 29, 2015] Former CIA Deputy Director Gives A Stunning Reason Why Obama Has Not Attacked ISIS Oil Infrastructure

          Notable quotes:
          "... As the Daily Caller adds, Morell also said the White House was concerned about destroying infrastructure that could be used by the Syrian people. Such profound concern for a people which has been traumatized for the past 5 years courtesy of a US-funded effort to destabilize the nation courtesy of US-armed "rebels" whose only purpose has been the deposition of yet another elected president, and where the emergence of the CIA-created Islamic State has led to the biggest wave of refugees to emerge, and flood Europe, since World War II. ..."
          "... Meanwhile, the real reasons behind ISIS massive wealth build up: the illicit oil trade facilitated by, and involving NATO-member state Turkey, whose president and his son collect billions in illegal profits by arranging the charter of Islamic State oil to Israel and other international buyers of ISIS' cheap oil, and which involves such "highly respected" commodity traders as Trafigura and Vitol , continues to this day, and only Putin has done anything to put a dent in it. ..."
          "... Depleted Uranium And The Iraq War's Legacy Of Cancer ..."
          "... Depleted Uranium Contamination: A Crime against Humanity ..."
          "... when 'baby`bush' raided iraq in 2003, he and his filthy scum cronies destroyed [bombed, etc.] every last bit of iraqis antiquities, libraries, religious monuments, museums etel, and... guarded with total authority the Ministry of Energy, oil infrastructure, and Iraq's Central bank with a small army of specialized forces ranging from 12k-18k soldiers. ..."
          Zero Hedge

          As we pointed out a week ago, even before the downing of the Russian jet by a Turkish F-16, the most important question that nobody had asked about ISIS is where is the funding for the terrorist organization coming from, and more importantly, since everyone tacitly knows where said funding is coming from (as we have revealed in an ongoing series of posts "Meet The Man Who Funds ISIS: Bilal Erdogan, The Son Of Turkey's President", "How Turkey Exports ISIS Oil To The World: The Scientific Evidence" and "ISIS Oil Trade Full Frontal: "Raqqa's Rockefellers", Bilal Erdogan, KRG Crude, And The Israel Connection") few on the US-led Western Alliance have done anything to stop the hundreds of millions in oil sale proceeds from funding the world's best organized terrorist group.

          We concluded by asking "how long until someone finally asks the all important question regarding the Islamic State: who is the commodity trader breaching every known law of funding terrorism when buying ISIS crude, almost certainly with the tacit approval by various "western alliance" governments, and why is it that these governments have allowed said middleman to continue funding ISIS for as long as it has?"

          To be sure, the only party that actually did something to halt ISIS' oil infrastructure was Russia, whose bombing raids of Islamic State oil routes may not only have contributed to the fatal attack by Turkey of the Russian Su-24 (as the curtailment of ISIS' oil flows led to a big hit in the funds collected by the biggest middleman in the region, Turkey, its president and his son, Bilal not to mention Israel which may have been actively buying ISIS oil over the past year) but prompted questions why the bombing campaign by the US-led alliance had been so woefully incapable of hitting ISIS where it truly hurts: its funding.

          This past week, someone finally came up with a "reason" why the Obama administration had been so impotent at denting the Islamic State's well-greased oil machine. In an interview on PBS' Charlie Rose on Tuesday, Rose pointed out that before the terrorist attacks in Paris, the U.S. had not bombed ISIS-controlled oil tankers, to which the former CIA deputy director Michael Morell responded that Barack Obama didn't order the bombing of ISIS's oil transportation infrastructure until recently because he was concerned about environmental damage.

          Yes, he really said that:

          We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage, and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure.

          In other words, one can blame such recent outbreaks of deadly terrorist activity as the Paris bombings and the explosion of the Russian passenger airplane over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula on Obama's hard line stance to not pollute the atmosphere with the toxic aftermath of destroyed ISIS infrastructure.

          Brilliant.

          As the Daily Caller adds, Morell also said the White House was concerned about destroying infrastructure that could be used by the Syrian people. Such profound concern for a people which has been traumatized for the past 5 years courtesy of a US-funded effort to destabilize the nation courtesy of US-armed "rebels" whose only purpose has been the deposition of yet another elected president, and where the emergence of the CIA-created Islamic State has led to the biggest wave of refugees to emerge, and flood Europe, since World War II.

          But back to Obama's alleged decision that not polluting the environment is more important than halting the funding artery that keeps ISIS in business.

          Morell continued "Prior to Paris, there seemed to be a judgment that look, we don't want to destroy these oil tankers because that's infrastructure that's going to be necessary to support the people when ISIS isn't there anymore, and it's going to create environmental damage. And we didn't go after oil wells - actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls because we didn't want to do environmental damage and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure, right."

          Then we started asking questions, others joined in, and everything changed: "So now we're hitting oil in trucks and maybe you get to the point where you say we also have to hit oil wells. So those are the kind of tough decisions you have to make."

          Of course, the lunacy gets even more ridiculous when one recalls that none other than one of the democrat frontrunners for president, Bernie Sanders, suggested in all seriousness that the real cause for terrorism is climate change, an allegation subsequently echoed by both UK's Prince Charles and none other than the chief of the UN, Ban Ki-moon himself.

          So here is the purported logic: climate change leads to terrorism, but one can't eradicate the primary funding source of the biggest terrorist threat in the world, the Islamic State, because of dangers it may lead to even more environmental damage and climate change.

          We are truly speechless at this idiocy.

          Meanwhile, the real reasons behind ISIS massive wealth build up: the illicit oil trade facilitated by, and involving NATO-member state Turkey, whose president and his son collect billions in illegal profits by arranging the charter of Islamic State oil to Israel and other international buyers of ISIS' cheap oil, and which involves such "highly respected" commodity traders as Trafigura and Vitol, continues to this day, and only Putin has done anything to put a dent in it.

          For those who can't believe any of this (and it took us quite a while to realize this is not some elaborate prank) here is the clip proving the former CIA deputy director actually said it all.

          Looney

          Morell is the same spook who "edited" Susan Rice's Benghazi SNAFU. Why don't all these assholes like Morell, Greenspan, Bernanke, just shut up, crawl under a rock, and hope they're never found? ;-)

          Buckaroo Banzai

          The media is in the tank for cunts like this, and most people just don't bother paying attention anyway. If Charlie Rose asked tough questions, his career would have ended before it even began. Instead he makes a wonderful living playing the kindly avuncular shill.

          Ignatius

          There is no lie these murderous cunts won't tell. I guess depleted uranium is not an environmental concern? Fuck 'em. Fuck all of 'em.

          Pladizow

          • ----> Not OK to spill oil
          • ----> OK to spill blood

          JustObserving

          2400 tons of depleted uranium used in Iraq and 1000 tons in Afghanistan.

          Fallujah cancer rates worse than Hiroshima due to use of depleted uranium. Leukemia rates 38 times higher than normal https://vimeo.com/38175279

          Depleted Uranium And The Iraq War's Legacy Of Cancer

          http://www.mintpressnews.com/depleted-uranium-iraq-wars-legacy-cancer/19...

          Depleted Uranium Contamination: A Crime against Humanity

          http://www.globalresearch.ca/depleted-uranium-contamination-a-crime-agai...

          prmths2

          It's not that simple:

          "In a follow up study, in which Dr Busby was a co-author, hair, soil and water samples were taken from Fallujah and tested for the presence of heavy metals. The researchers expected to find depleted uranium in the environmental samples. It is well known that the US used depleted uranium weapons in Iraq during the 1991 Gulf war; and Iraqis, at least, are well aware of the increases in cancers and infant mortality rates in the city of Basrah, which was heavily bombarded during Desert Storm. However, what the researchers found was not depleted uranium, but man-made, slightly enriched uranium."

          http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/25/fallujah-iraq-healt...

          "Whilst the results seem to qualitatively support the existence of serious mutation-related health effects in Fallujah, owing to the structural problems associated with surveys of this kind, care should be exercised in interpreting the findings quantitatively. "

          "Finally, the results reported here do not throw any light upon the identity of the agent(s) causing the increased levels of illness and although we have drawn attention to the use of depleted uranium as one potential relevant exposure, there may be other possibilities and we see the current study as investigating the anecdotal evidence of increases in cancer and infant mortality in Fallujah."

          http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/htm

          It is possible that there may be a synergistic effect involving heavy metals in general (i.e., Pb, U, Hg)

          http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00128-012-0817-2.pdf

          Urban Redneck

          It's not necessarily a lie, but it is necessarily a straw man and red herring, which distracts from a conversation of the forgone alternatives to achieve the (supposedly) desired ends. Charlie cocksucker and his mindless followers apparently buy the implicit argument the only tools in the almighty CIA's chest to combat ISIS's operations funding with oil revenues was "bombing Syria's (relatively tiny) oil fields" and creating an environmental catastrophe somehow akin to Saddam in Kuwait...

          'Muricans are getting exactly the government the (collectively) deserve.

          Lore

          I think the psychopaths don't give a shit. Remember the scale of MONEY and CONTROL at stake. If you want to disable an insubordinate regime for standing up to your plans for regional hegemony and energy supply, you punish the host population by taking out key infrastructure. So for starters, place the launch triggers for all the drone strikes and aircraft sorties in the hands of obedient lackies who follow orders without giving a shit, assemble a list of strategic targets, and then announce "Aha! ISIS happens to be standing directly in front of this strategically-important piece of infrastructure" (bridge, refinery, storage tank, whatever), and then press the button. Proxy war is simply the policy of blaming somebody else for your own rotten behaviour. If the Syrian people are displaced, so much the better, because mass migration conveniently handicaps the economies of nations in Europe that might get in the way of continued button-pushing.

          It's fucking evil, from start to finish. There was a time when it was a compliment to be called a Company Man, but nowadays it just means you're a pathological liar and a whore and a louse.

          NoDebt

          So they'll blow up wedding parties and whatever innocent civilians happen to be around their "targets" but they won't dare touch an oil well.

          That speaks volumes. Delusional is the wrong word. Makes it sound like it's not their fault or something.

          KesselRunin12Parsecs

          "We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage"

          So now explain 'SCORCHED EARTH POLICY' after you presumably rescued babies from incubators in 1991 you POS mF'er.

          Kirk2NCC1701

          Actually, he's telling you everything he can and you need to know or figure out.

          Y'all must be 'Mericans, cause you can't read between the lines or read the situation/context. Allow me to translate for you:

          1. He's under an NDA, and must keep his Oath of Secrecy.

          2. If he gives you a blatantly BS answer, it is YOUR job to figure out that he (a) can't tell you the truth and (b) that it's Code for "Yes we support them to the hilt, and use Middle-men and Cutouts as SOP, but also we deny everything as SOP."

          Normalcy Bias

          He reminds me of his movie counterpart, the 'Robert Ritter, CIA Deputy Director' character from Clear and Present Danger.

          Evil, arrogant, smug, and devoid of any conscience...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKsDjpKr2Mk

          me or you

          Meanwhile:US and Turkey cease flights over Syria, as Russia deploys 7000 troops to Turkish border with Armenia

          Chris88

          We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage, and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure.

          ..damage a perfectly good CIA creation.

          Junerberno

          After the attack by Boko Haram (Al Qaeda) on the shopping mall in Nairobi, the US moved to seize a senior Al Qaeda operative living in a mansion in North Africa. We knew where he was all along, but never went after him, until after the attack. He was "made" by the Saudis and we were appeasing him while he was "doing good" (killing Shia) but when he stepped out of line we punished him. It's certain we asked for permission before arresting him finally, of course.

          Pausing, because it must sink in: Al Qaeda. Who attacked us 9-11. Our brownshirts.

          So now we suddenly care about ISIL after they "step out of line" in Paris. They were our friends when they were sawing the heads off Shia. But they stepped out of line so we used a stick on their hands.

          The US knows where all of ISIL are at all times. ISIL has been permitted to slaughter everyone in its path because they are focused on killing Shia, and Israel supports a holocaust against Shia muslims.

          earleflorida

          when 'baby`bush' raided iraq in 2003, he and his filthy scum cronies destroyed [bombed, etc.] every last bit of iraqis antiquities, libraries, religious monuments, museums etel, and... guarded with total authority the Ministry of Energy, oil infrastructure, and Iraq's Central bank with a small army of specialized forces ranging from 12k-18k soldiers.

          Raymond_K._Hessel

          No, isis is not fairly described as comprised of former Baathists. Thats some neocon propaganda.

          Its mostly Libyans and Saudis and Yemenis and some Iraqis and Turks, cats herded by the us and israel and saudi.

          Isis is a proxy for these states and turkey.
          http://www.voltairenet.org/article189385.html
          http://ftmdaily.com/what-jerry-thinks/whysyria/

          coast

          But they can bomb the fuck out of Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. setting those countries back to the stone age, displacing and killing millions, destroying historical buildings, build nuke plants on fault lines, gmo food, flouride poison in our water, spraying shit in the skies etc....but NOOOO!!, we cant bomboil oil infrastructures that are helping arm the terrorists...what a fucking liar piece of shit..

          marcusfenix

          this is some epic and absurd bullfuckingshit to the highest degree right here.

          if they had no plans to hit IS in the one way it would really hurt them, in the only way it would make any difference then it begs the question....

          why bother bombing them at all?

          these people are not stupid, they know exactly how war works, how to wage it properly and how to defeat an enemy. and yet they try and sell the idiotic idea that they did not go after the most valuable and vulnerable of IS assets out of environmental concerns?

          really?

          and this is exactly why the "coalition" warned the Syrian air force against carrying out missions in these areas, outright threatened them in fact. to provide air cover and a safe route for IS oil to find it's way into Turkey and Iraq. and it worked, it was smooth sailing and billions all around right up until Moscow stepped in and literally started blowing up the program.

          the "save the environment" excuse doesn't play on any level and WFT good does it do the Syria people for this infrastructure to exist so long as IS controls it, they sure as shit are not benefiting from it. in fact it only hurts them more because the longer IS can make billions off the sale of this oil the longer this war will drag on.

          the longer the war drags on the more innocent Syrian's die so it would in fact be better for the common people of Syria for this oil pipeline to be destroyed and ISIS starved to death. then afterwords the Syrians can go ahead and start rebuilding the infrastructure. but there won't be an afterwords so long as IS can make that money and fund there whole drug soaked, murderous operation.

          and I wonder what the citizens of Paris think about the environmental concerns vs wiping out the islamic states revenue stream?

          all this sudden care and concern flowing from DC about civilians, about oil smugglers, civilian infrastructure and mother earth makes me want to vomit.

          because it's all just a never ending stream of bullshit and lies.

          sometimes, in the darkest corners of my mind, I do sincerely wonder weather nuclear war might just the only thing that will bring this lunacy to an end. not saying i want it to happen or that i want to live through it but it might just be the only way for somebody, somewhere in the world to get a fresh start free of this insane asylum we all live in.

          Johnny Horscaulk

          http://original.antiwar.com/dan_sanchez/2015/10/05/seize-the-chaos/
          https://medium.com/dan-sanchez/clean-break-to-dirty-wars-d5ebc5fda9f9

          http://leaksource.info/2015/01/17/the-yinon-plan-greater-israel-syria-ir...

          Isis is a name for us/israeli/saudi/Israeli mostly foreign mercenaries there to destroy Syria as a functioning state.

          For Israel.

          http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=western_support_for_islam...

          And to block the Iran pipeline
          http://www.mintpressnews.com/migrant-crisis-syria-war-fueled-by-competin...

          But for the us deep state, the zog, its really basically about Greater Israel.

          http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/zionist2.html

          [Nov 29, 2015] Turkish militants kill russian pilot while he is decending

          yudenich.ru

          watch-v=tiR8E-SwVeI

          Terrorism is typically ideologically driven and as such has no nationality. But this case looks like an e4xception: Turkish media machine has already asssigned this crime to certain mythical "Syrian Turkomans".

          But in reality this looks like Grey Wolfs not "Turkomans", and their leader is a Turkish neo-fascist Alpaslan Celik - son of the mayor of a small Turkish town. Golden youth so to speak.

          http://ntv.livejournal.com/426110.html?mode=reply#add_comment

          So, all those dances over the body of pilot are very similar to explosions in Suruç and Ankara.

          [Nov 29, 2015] Turkey hands over body of Russian pilot to Russia

          www.hurriyetdailynews.com

          Turkey has initiated the process to hand over the body of a Russian pilot to Moscow after his jet was shot down by Turkey, a day before a United Nations climate conference starts in Paris that could bring a "saddened" Turkish president and his Russian counterpart together.

          In a press briefing held at Ankara's airport prior to his departure for a EU-Turkey Summit in Brussels on Nov. 29, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu said the body of Russian pilot Oleg Peshkov, who died after his plane was downed by Turkish F-16s on Nov. 24 when it reportedly breached Turkish airspace for 17 seconds, had been taken by Turkey and would be sent to Russia on its request.

          [Nov 29, 2015] How ISIS is financed

          Notable quotes:
          "... Their main source of income is oil sales, but they also resource to taxes to the population, sales of antiquities, bank raids, appropriation of part of Iraq salaries to government employees in occupied areas that are still being paid, extortion to businesses, appropriation of part of crops, ransoms and slave sales. Some of the magnitudes are estimated. ..."
          "... The income from oil is estimated at 1.5 million dollars per day from 34-40,000 barrels per day at 20-35 $ per barrel. ..."
          "... Their main expense is calculated at 10 million dollars per month (0.33 mill $/day) in salaries. They pay almost a fifth of their income in salaries, and that is one of the reasons of their popularity. ..."
          "... Recently the international coalition, with France taking a very active role, has started bombing their oil facilities, thus attacking the jugular of ISIS. They must be desperate because they see no way of protecting their oil financing from air attacks. After a very long time of successes, ISIS is now having problems to hold its ground in parts of Syria and Kurdistan. ..."
          peakoilbarrel.com

          Javier, 11/14/2015 at 11:03 am

          OFM,

          This article in Spanish from one of the main journals explains how ISIS is financing. Their main source of income is oil sales, but they also resource to taxes to the population, sales of antiquities, bank raids, appropriation of part of Iraq salaries to government employees in occupied areas that are still being paid, extortion to businesses, appropriation of part of crops, ransoms and slave sales. Some of the magnitudes are estimated.

          The income from oil is estimated at 1.5 million dollars per day from 34-40,000 barrels per day at 20-35 $ per barrel.

          Their main expense is calculated at 10 million dollars per month (0.33 mill $/day) in salaries. They pay almost a fifth of their income in salaries, and that is one of the reasons of their popularity.

          http://www.elmundo.es/papel/historias/2015/11/11/56422776268e3efc608b45e5.html

          Recently the international coalition, with France taking a very active role, has started bombing their oil facilities, thus attacking the jugular of ISIS. They must be desperate because they see no way of protecting their oil financing from air attacks. After a very long time of successes, ISIS is now having problems to hold its ground in parts of Syria and Kurdistan.

          I have family in Paris. My niece, her husband and all his family are in Paris. None of them was present in the attacks, but we are all shocked by the magnitude.

          Caelan MacIntyre, 11/13/2015 at 8:02 pm

          "Fourth-generation warfare (4GW) is conflict characterized by a blurring of the lines between war and politics, combatants and civilians.

          The term was first used in 1989 by a team of American analysts, including William S. Lind,[citation needed] to describe warfare's return to a decentralized form. In terms of generational modern warfare, the fourth generation signifies the nation states' loss of their near-monopoly on combat forces , returning to modes of conflict common in pre-modern times." ~ Wikipedia

          Ironically, much of it is and will be the result of the nation states' monopolies on violence enacted.

          [Nov 29, 2015] Top U.S. Air Defense Commander Turkey's Shootdown of Russian Jet "Had to Be PRE-PLANNED"

          See also Ambush of Russian Su-24 over Syria
          Notable quotes:
          "... Yesterday, McInerney told Fox News – much to the surprise of the reporter interviewing him – that assuming the Turkish version of the flight path of the Russian jet is accurate, Russia wasn't ..."
          "... As the International Court of Justice ruled in the seminal Nicaragua case (1986), any use of force even in alleged self-defense must also fulfill the basic customary international law requirements of (1) necessity and (2) proportionality. Even accepting the government of Turkeys version of events, it does not appear that there was any necessity for Turkey to destroy the Russian jet. ..."
          "... From another [International Court of Justice] case, the basic test for "necessity" is that the necessity of self-defense must be instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation. Clearly, that was not the case here. ..."
          Zero Hedge
          In his role as Norad commander for Alaska, McInerney dealt with more Russian fighter jet incursions (which he calls "bear penetrations") than anyone else in the world.

          So McInerney knows how to tell innocent from hostile incursions by foreign fighter jets, standard rules of engagement of foreign fighter jets, how to read radar tracks, and the other things he would need to know to form an informed opinion about the shootdown of a foreign jet.

          Yesterday, McInerney told Fox News – much to the surprise of the reporter interviewing him – that assuming the Turkish version of the flight path of the Russian jet is accurate, Russia wasn't threatening Turkey, and that Turkey's shoot down of the Russian jet "had to be pre-planned", as the jet wasn't in Turkish air space long enough for anything other than a premeditated attack to have brought it.

          Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

          McInerney is right … especially given that a U.S. official told Reuters that the Russian jet was inside of Syria when it was shot down:

          The United States believes that the Russian jet shot down by Turkey on Tuesday was hit inside Syrian airspace after a brief incursion into Turkish airspace, a U.S. official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

          ... ... ...

          International law expert Francis Boyle - Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign, who was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 – said by email:

          The Russian bombing of Syria is technically legal because they have the explicit permission of the Syrian government, but of course Putin will ultimately act in accord with his interests, not what is best for the Syrian people.

          ***

          As the International Court of Justice ruled in the seminal Nicaragua case (1986), any use of force even in alleged self-defense must also fulfill the basic customary international law requirements of (1) necessity and (2) proportionality. Even accepting the government of Turkey's version of events, it does not appear that there was any "necessity" for Turkey to destroy the Russian jet.

          Washington's Blog asked Boyle whether this is analogous to the "use of force" by someone with a gun who claims he was threatened by someone else. He answered affirmatively, explaining:

          Necessity and Proportionality are each separate requirements for the use of force in self-defense.

          From another [International Court of Justice] case, the basic test for "necessity" is that the necessity of self-defense must be instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation. Clearly, that was not the case here.

          [Nov 28, 2015] Most of What You Learned in Econ 101 Is Wrong

          Greg Mankiw is not a scientist in any meaningful sense. As a member of "Harvard mafia" he is hired propagandist that camouflages as an economist and works for financial oligarchy which promotes neoliberalism. And under neoliberalism like in Marxism the economics serves as a tool to justify social theory.
          Notable quotes:
          "... Mankiw's book, like every introductory econ textbook I know of, has a big problem. Most of what's in it is probably wrong. ..."
          "... But for Econ 101 classes, explaining only a small slice of reality isn't good enough. If economics majors leave their classes thinking that the theories they learned are mostly correct, they will make bad decisions in both business and politics. We shouldn't train tomorrow's business elite to have faith in theories that have only a small amount of empirical success. ..."
          "... Current textbooks, including Mankiw's, almost all play down the role of data and evidence. ..."
          "... so basically all the supply siders and libertarians and the like are preaching the same sort of economics theories that were taught prior to Keynes ..."
          "... yea maybe we should call the supply siders the flat earthers ..."
          "... Not every economic class is taught using Mankiw. Thankfully. ..."
          "... but there is also the issue of whether in reality the employee could survive on the given wage if the pay does not allow the worker to survive, then him/her agreeing to work for the less than living wage doesn't help ..."
          "... It is not a viable situation. The workers will not be able to perform their duties. It will not work anyway. We didn't treat horses this way, as if their cost could approach zero without consequences, why do we treat people as if they could survive on less and less resources with no limit. ..."
          "... Then if they don't accept that impossible situation and ask for help from the government or form unions, then they are the ones "causing all the problems" ..."
          "... How about this? A $15 minimum raise hike is more likely to close down jobs in the mid wage category than in the low wage. A hike probably means income will come from the mid overall to the low overall because low wage produced goods were relatively under priced (not marked to market because of prior monopsony). ..."
          Bloomberg View

          Harvard's Greg Mankiw, author of the most popular college introductory economics textbook, is often regarded as America's econ teacher. He famously refers to his "Principles of Economics" as "my favorite textbook," and I must admit that it's also my favorite. It's written in a clear, explanatory style and covers the basics of most important theories in modern economics.

          But Mankiw's book, like every introductory econ textbook I know of, has a big problem. Most of what's in it is probably wrong.

          In the last three decades, the economics profession has undergone a profound shift. The rise of information technology and new statistical methods has dramatically increased the importance of data and empirics. This means that many professional economists are no longer, as empirical pioneer David Card put it, "mathematical philosophers." Instead, they are more like scientists, digging through mountains of evidence to find precious grains of truth.

          And what they have found has often been revolutionary. The simple theories we teach in Econ 101 classes work once in a while, but in many important cases they fail.

          For example, Econ 101 theory tells us that minimum wage policies should have a harmful impact on employment. Basic supply and demand analysis says that in a free market, wages adjust so that everyone who wants a job has a job -- supply matches demand. Less productive workers earn less, but they are still employed. If you set a price floor -- a lower limit on what employers are allowed to pay -- then it will suddenly become un-economical for companies to retain all the workers whose productivity is lower than that price floor. In other words, minimum wage hikes should quickly put a bunch of low-wage workers out of a job.

          That's theory. Reality, it turns out, is very different. In the last two decades, empirical economists have looked at a large number of minimum wage hikes, and concluded that in most cases, the immediate effect on employment is very small. It's only in the long run that minimum wages might start to make a big difference.

          That doesn't mean the theory is wrong, of course. It probably only describes a small piece of what is really going on in the labor market. In reality, employment probably depends on a lot more than just today's wage level -- it depends on predictions of future wages, on long-standing employment relationships and on a host of other things too complicated to fit into the tidy little world of Econ 101.

          For academic economists, that's no problem. If existing theories explain only a sliver of reality, they simply roll up their sleeves and get to work. Many labor economists are now working on complex theories that model the process of employees looking for work and employers looking for people to hire. For professional theorists, empirical failures simply mean more work to do.

          But for Econ 101 classes, explaining only a small slice of reality isn't good enough. If economics majors leave their classes thinking that the theories they learned are mostly correct, they will make bad decisions in both business and politics. We shouldn't train tomorrow's business elite to have faith in theories that have only a small amount of empirical success.

          Another example is welfare. Econ 101 theory tells us that welfare gives people an incentive not to work. If you subsidize leisure, simple theory says you will get more of it.

          But recent empirical studies have shown that such effects are usually very small. Occasionally, welfare programs even make people work more. For example, a study in Uganda found that grants for poor people looking to improve their skills resulted in people working much more than before.

          This has big political implications. If we train tomorrow's business elites to think that welfare encourages laziness, they may block support for policies that really improve the lives of the poor -- and the economic productivity of the whole nation. But this is precisely what Econ 101 is now doing.

          So what's the solution? Complex theories sometimes do a better job of explaining reality than simple ones, but these theories are way beyond the mathematical skill of most undergrad econ majors. A better alternative is to start teaching empirics in 101.

          Current textbooks, including Mankiw's, almost all play down the role of data and evidence. They sometimes refer to the results of empirical studies, but they don't give students an in-depth understanding of how those studies worked. Yet this wouldn't be very hard to do. The kind of empirical analysis now taking over the econ profession -- often called the "quasi-experimental" approach -- isn't that hard to understand. Simple examples could even be done in the classroom, or as homework assignments.

          In other words, the economics profession has gotten real, and it's time for Econ 101 to do the same. We now have an academic economics profession focused on examining evidence and an Econ 101 curriculum that focuses on telling pleasant but often useless fables. Econ education needs to get with the times.

          This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

          To contact the author of this story:

          Noah Smith at [email protected]

          Selected Skeptical Comments (Economist View, November 25, 2015)

          Anonymous said... Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 05:34 AM

          "Most of What You Learned in Econ 101 Is Wrong"

          To this crowd, it should be - Most of what we taught you in Econ 101 is Wrong.

          djb -> Peter K....

          from the smith article

          "For example, Econ 101 theory tells us that minimum wage policies should have a harmful impact on employment. Basic supply and demand analysis says that in a free market, wages adjust so that everyone who wants a job has a job -- supply matches demand."

          if this is what they are teaching in econ 101 then of course it is wrong and I would not be surprised if mankiws book is teaching this

          as Keynes showed 80 years ago

          so basically all the supply siders and libertarians and the like are preaching the same sort of economics theories that were taught prior to Keynes

          Say's law, invisible hand, always at full employment, no such thing as involuntary unemployment, no possibility of inadequate aggregate demand

          amazing

          Peter K. -> djb...

          Agreed. I would divide the world into the Keynesians and supply siders. Mankiw is a strange hack in that he gets the "new Keynesian" view but often puts out propaganda on behalf of the supply siders.

          Anonymous, Kervick and their ilk argue that some Keynesians are just as bad as the supply siders.

          But they have no grounds.

          pgl -> Peter K....

          It is more than the macroeconomic debates. The minimum wage debate comes down to whether all markets are perfectly competitive. Any economist worth his salt realizes that they are not.

          Dan Kervick -> Peter K:

          Not sure what that means exactly - since I don't know what kinds of supply siders you are talking about. But since Mankiw is one of the leading figures of New Keynesianism, and is pretty bad, then yeah .. I guess it follows that some Keynesians are as bad as supply siders.

          Keynes suggested a social philosophy that followed from his economic analysis. The social philosophy was based on the idea that the lack of full employment and arbitrary and inequitable distributions of income were "faults" of our economic society - bad things. But if someone doesn't think those are bad things, then I suppose they could completely accept Keynes's analysis of how the economy works, but not go in for the Keynesian social philosophy and the policy choices it leads to.

          anne said in reply to Dan Kervick...

          Keynes suggested a social philosophy that followed from his economic analysis. The social philosophy was based on the idea that the lack of full employment and arbitrary and inequitable distributions of income were "faults" of our economic society...

          [ Nice passage. ]

          William said in reply to djb...

          Imagine if other courses were taught like econ.

          History would start with reading Herodotus as fact, flat earth, giant ants and all.

          Psychology 101 would teach you only the ideas of Freud. Sure none of his ideas are taken seriously anymore, but he is easy to understand and the foundation of modern, complex theories, so it's all good right?

          djb said in reply to William...

          yea maybe we should call the supply siders the flat earthers

          pgl said in reply to William...


          Not every economic class is taught using Mankiw. Thankfully.

          pgl said in reply to djb...

          Noah really wrote this? "That doesn't mean the theory is wrong, of course. It probably only describes a small piece of what is really going on in the labor market. "

          Noah needs to take a time out from blogging until he reads Dani Rodrik's Economist Rules. Dani notes we have lots of theories but the real trick is to figure out which one to use for a particular situation.

          I have not looked at a Mankiw text for a long time (overpriced from an arrogant Harvard Republican homeboy) so I don't know if he only presents the perfectly competitive model of employment. If he does - no wonder his book is so clueless on the minimum wage debate.

          When I took undergraduate principles, I read Paul Samuelson's excellent book and it did talk about things like monopsony power. Put a wage floor on a monopsonist and employment rises.

          So the real issue is are we presenting students with the full array of models and then having them read Dani's excellent book.

          djb said in reply to pgl...

          one issue regarding minimum wages issues. The classical school says if only the person would work for less we would have full employment

          (Keynes proved this false)

          but there is also the issue of whether in reality the employee could survive on the given wage if the pay does not allow the worker to survive, then him/her agreeing to work for the less than living wage doesn't help

          It is not a viable situation. The workers will not be able to perform their duties. It will not work anyway. We didn't treat horses this way, as if their cost could approach zero without consequences, why do we treat people as if they could survive on less and less resources with no limit.

          Then if they don't accept that impossible situation and ask for help from the government or form unions, then they are the ones "causing all the problems"

          but seriously, that is what the theoretical idea that workers should take less and less and less with no limit gives us in reality

          Denis Drew, November 25, 2015 at 07:14 AM

          Re: Most of What You Learned in Econ 101 Is Wrong - Noah Smith

          How about this? A $15 minimum raise hike is more likely to close down jobs in the mid wage category than in the low wage. A hike probably means income will come from the mid overall to the low overall because low wage produced goods were relatively under priced (not marked to market because of prior monopsony).

          Consumers tend to purchase more of goods produced by employees at their own wage level. Ergo, when income flows overall from the mid to the low -- the low may spend that new money disproportionately among themselves. While some mid wage producers will lose out on business gone south and be forced to lay off workers.

          Easy way to make this loss from mid to low painless as possible: hybrid redistribution via tax hikes for the (really) top with matching tax cuts for the mids.

          I am thinking (just to throw something out) 90% taxes on all income over $2 million dollars. Maybe 50% over $650,000 (the entry to the top 1%?).

          Under the theory that people will enthusiastically work for $200 a week if that is the best their economic place and time can do -- but the same people will not work for $400 a week if their era could and should be paying $800.

          I'm thinking grossly underpaid Chicago retail clerk ($800 a week by collective bargaining marked to market) and Chicago gangs which now have 100,000 out of my guesstimate 200,000 gang-age, minority males. I'm also thinking old American born taxi drivers like myself who wont work 60 grueling hours for $500 a week (I did for $750). I'm thinking family raising adults who no longer show up for two-tier (thanks to Walmart) contract supermarket work.

          Today's time and US place CEOs, professional athletes (who basically just retain feral animal skills), TV news anchors and movie stars earn 20 times what their 50s and 60s predecessors did -- they can certainly pay similarly high tax rates (though not from as low a starting point -- double per capita income in this era). They will work just as hard once they get used to the new (hybrid) redistribution regime representing the most anybody can squeeze out of their era.

          PPaine said in reply to PPaine ...

          Brad Delong is the iconic merit elite culprit. Why? Larry S and Stan fish cake are handsomely rewarded. Plutonian über hacks . Brad is flying solely on merit fumes

          Peter K. said in reply to PPaine ...

          If DeLong has been listened to the recovery would have been much better.

          Both he and Summers argue policymakers have squandered one year's worth of GDP. That's a damning statement. They're on the job class side more than not. Same with Krugman and Thoma.

          "As well they should. U.S. output is now about 10 percent below a trend estimated through 2007. If one attributes even half of this figure to the effects of recession and assumes no catch up on this component until 2030, the cost of the financial crisis in the U.S. is about one year's gross domestic product. And matters are worse in the rest of the industrial world.

          As macroeconomics was transformed in response to the Depression of the 1930s and the inflation of the 1970s, another 40 years later it should again be transformed in response to stagnation in the industrial world.

          Maybe we can call it the Keynesian New Economics."

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/03/larry-summers-advanced-economies-are-so-sick-we-need-a-new-way-to-think-about-them/

          They're not like Varoufakis and Zizek but so what there will be a broad coalition.

          http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2015/11/24/europe-is-kaputt-long-live-europe-royal-festival-hall-woth-slavoj-zizek-julian-assange/

          [Nov 28, 2015] Russias Intervention in Syria and What Washington Should Do

          Standard neocon drivel... Standard Republican hawk mentality (he is a junior senator from Arkansas). The only interesting detail is that this guy was both in 1977.
          Notable quotes:
          "... In Syria, Putin professes that he wants to fight ISIS, but this is mere posturing. Even with new Russian strikes on ISIS-controlled areas in the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks and the downing of the Russian airliner over the Sinai Peninsula, Russian forces have trained the large majority of its bombs on coalition-backed opposition fighters. Putin has also explicitly stated that he wants to prop up Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime, which directly contrasts with stated U.S. policy. Turkey, a NATO ally, has suffered repeated violations of its airspace as Russia pursues its offensive against Syrian opposition forces. ..."
          "... Putin is very consciously challenging the United States and the U.S.-led international order, and is now waging a proxy war against it. It is well past time for the West to recognize his challenge, rise up to it, and move to win the proxy war ..."
          Nov 28, 2015 | Foreign Affairs
          he attacks by the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) in Paris have forced a major rethinking of U.S. strategy in the Syrian conflict. A part of that rethinking must be U.S. President Barack Obama's unwise decision to treat Russia as a legitimate partner in negotiations over Syria's future.

          At the G-20 meeting in Turkey this week, Russia quickly offered itself as a key partner in the fight against ISIS and the stabilization of Syria, and Obama again expressed his willingness to entertain that notion.

          This is a grave mistake. Rather than being a constructive partner, President Vladimir Putin's Russia has been engaged in a proxy war against the United States in Syria, despite Obama's protestations to the contrary. And when an enemy wages war against the United States, it does not get to choose whether it is at war; its only choice is to win or lose. Right now, the United States is losing the proxy war in Syria-and a wider competition for regional influence-against Russia. And it will continue to do so without a dramatic shift in policy to confront Russian aggression.

          A PROXY WAR AND THE WIDER STRUGGLE

          In Syria, Putin professes that he wants to fight ISIS, but this is mere posturing. Even with new Russian strikes on ISIS-controlled areas in the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks and the downing of the Russian airliner over the Sinai Peninsula, Russian forces have trained the large majority of its bombs on coalition-backed opposition fighters. Putin has also explicitly stated that he wants to prop up Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime, which directly contrasts with stated U.S. policy. Turkey, a NATO ally, has suffered repeated violations of its airspace as Russia pursues its offensive against Syrian opposition forces.

          Russia is engaged in a shooting war against the United States' clients to undermine U.S. policy. If that's not a proxy war, what is?

          But this proxy war is only the most recent and dramatic front in a wider competition between the United States and Russia. Ukrainians overthrew former President Viktor Yushchenko, who was aligned with Putin, in 2013 and sought to reorient their country toward the West. In short order, Russia invaded Crimea-which it still illegally occupies-and fomented the ongoing civil war in the Donbass. Likewise, Russia illegally occupies the Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions in Georgia, one of the most pro-Western countries in Eastern Europe. In fact, Russia has continued to seize more Georgian territory in recent months.

          Russia also continues a campaign of provocations against NATO allies in northern and Eastern Europe, threatening their air and naval boundaries and putting civil aviation at risk. Meanwhile, Central and Eastern European countries-who suffered under Soviet domination-report that Russian propaganda in traditional and social media has become pervasive.

          Russia has become so emboldened that it does not even demur from direct provocations against the United States. Last month, Russian ships and submarines operated near U.S. undersea data cables and Russian bombers buzzed the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier, forcing it to scramble for fighters. And last week, it was revealed by Russian media-perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not-that the Russian military is developing an unmanned underwater vehicle capable of carrying nuclear payloads that is invulnerable to interception. A nuclear attack on U.S. port cities is the only reasonable rationale for such a weapon.

          ... ... ...

          Finally, assertive diplomacy must be a part of U.S. policy toward Russia. The Department of State should create a new "country-at-risk" designation that would entitle nations under threat from external destabilization to a basket of U.S. and NATO assistance programs, including the intelligence assistance described above. This basket of assistance could also include programs aimed at helping these nations diversify their industrial bases and their sources of energy to be less dependent on trade with Russia. The overall effect of the new designation would signal increased commitment from the United States, and indicate to Putin that any escalation by Russia would automatically invite greater Western engagement.

          The United States should also energize its public diplomacy and information strategies. It could take the lead in funding translation services to make Western media available in Russia. The United States needn't create content. Unlike in Russia, robust debate and diverse viewpoints already exist in U.S. media. The United States simply needs to ensure that this content is disseminated widely in Russia and Eastern Europe to provide a counter-narrative to Russian-controlled media and an example to the Russian people of what free media looks like.

          ... ... ...

          Putin is very consciously challenging the United States and the U.S.-led international order, and is now waging a proxy war against it. It is well past time for the West to recognize his challenge, rise up to it, and move to win the proxy war. Otherwise, Washington may find itself in a genuine war against a nuclear peer

          Tom Cotton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

          Thomas Bryant "Tom" Cotton[1] (born May 13, 1977) is an American politician who is the junior United States Senator from Arkansas. A member of the Republican Party, Cotton has been serving in the Senate since January 3, 2015.

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

          www.counterpunch.org

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

          ... ... ...

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

          ... ... ...


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

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


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

          [Nov 28, 2015] Violence Erupts In Turkey After Prominent Lawyer Is Assassinated On Live TV

          Notable quotes:
          "... While Erdogan is indeed a nasty piece of work, it does seem like someone IS trying to topple him and destablize Turkey. As a vassal, he doesnt quite know his place and had actually contemplate joining the East as shown by Blue Stream and negotiations to purchase Chinese Red Flag missile system. ..."
          "... Quite possilbly being encoraged to shoot down the Russian fighter and led to believe NATO would back him up. Once relationship with Russia is being torn and completely isolated in teh world by having his relationship with ISIS exposed, Turkey is ready for destablisation and eventual carved-up. Its no wonder the western press has only good things to say about the Kurds. ..."
          "... Reminds me of Iraq/Kuwait. ..."
          "... The only regional power counter to Iran on the ground is Turkey, so now you will see that place put through the wringer as well. Population is around 75 million, so its heavy density, old culture, access to NATO and western security interests and all the other trappings compel Turkey to fill the vacuum to be created in Syria. ..."
          "... The arrival of the Russians in Syria seems to have awoken NATO. NATO has started its response to Russia and will penalize it for the support for the Assad government. ..."
          "... We know that Turknam commander Alparslan Celik, deputy commander of a Syrian Turkmen brigade turned out to be the son of a mayor of a Keban municipality in Turkey's Elazig province. He is a member of the Grey Wolves. ..."
          "... We know that use of the BGM-71 TOW missiles – which cost $50,000 a piece – is up over 850% in October with the American-made weapons responsible for the destruction of scores of Syrian army tanks. These are being passed through Turkey. ..."
          "... They dont share our values Maybe not your values but certainly Washingtons values ..."
          "... the bigger question is why is there even a NATO at all? The big bad Soviet Union Warsaw Pact are long gone. Truth is NATO now is the Atlanticists + some puppet regimes in eastern Europe/Turkey. ..."
          "... It is obvious the west is trying to stretch Russia via Ukraine and Syria and now Turkey; the further you stretch an any, the more difficult it is to focus on the bigger picture. China better step up to the Russian plate and soon if anyone expects to reign in the NATO terrorists. ..."
          "... Seems like everything in the Middle East is going tribal, sectarian, and vigilante. Bad day for established government and power for the people in a general sense ..."
          Zero Hedge
          Dame Ednas Possum

          I read the UK's weekend FT (Financial Times) over lunch. There was no mention whatsoever of the Russian bomber being shot down several days ago.

          This paper supposedly prides itself on objective analysis of important events.

          Not one single mention of this blatant, premeditated act of war.

          Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot?

          No mention of Turkey's active support of Isis.

          No mention of the oil sales or the arms supplies.

          The mainstream media is complicit in the crimes.

          Pathetic, piece of shit shill presstitutes.

          trader1

          Dame,

          Last updated: November 24, 2015 6:44 pm
          Turkey shoots down Russian fighter jet on Syrian border
          FT reporters

          http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d2b1abb0-9287-11e5-94e6-c5413829caa5.html

          Optimusprime

          And I have friends--staunch "progressives"--who think reading FT and The Economist (both Rothschild organs) somehow keeps one realistically abreast of the news.

          Killdo

          you are right - FT is pathetic - I stopped reading it about 6 months ago after many years. Even their best books of they year section is not that good any more.

          I've noticed the Guardian is pretty anti-Russian (but comments are almost like ZH)

          fleur de lis

          Ergodan is giving us a real time profile of the typical violent psychopath dragging entire nations into a ditch. It is rare that they spin out of control in public so badly. The Matrix must be furious. He wrecked their little scheme and gave the Russians the upper hand.

          Psychopaths are everywhere at the helms of power, destroying entire social structures, looting resources, triggering wars and leaving a trail of bloodshed to keep the NWO in control.

          But these things must be done quietly. The target populations must not be alerted that they are being terrorized and robbed. They might catch on and revolt.

          That is why NATO is so angry with him -- they don't care about the Russian jet or the murders of the pilot and the marine. It's just that Ergodan made such an absolute mess of it. Maybe it was being planned along those lines anyway but he got out in front and did things his way, thus overplaying his hand and NATO's.

          By becoming the biggest loose cannon on Earth he has attracted the negative attention of his handlers. He will be reprimanded in no uncertain terms.

          Fractal Parasite

          Well, the Erdogan regime has scored so many own goals lately, it's hard not to imagine that he is being purposefully chucked under the bus.

          rwe2late

          A familiar road travelled often. Erdogan strives to retain power by a crackdown on domestic dissent coupled with expansionist war abroad.

          Major US news media champion for Turk-run "safe zone" inside Syria. Turk troops as well as operatives have already invaded Syria.

          Turk media has proclaimed: "Aleppo to become the 82nd province of Turkey"

          https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/08/09/18775960.php

          US about to back escalated Turk invasion/annexation of Northern Syria??

          http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-turkey-edging-up-to-syrian-border-pretex...

          To Hell In A Handbasket

          Turkey invented the DEEP STATE. Everything is fucked and our generation will be officially be viewed as fucking USELESS, as it was on our watch that tyranny and plutocracy made a come back. How many good men and women around the world have died standing up to political bullying and the plebs have stood by and did nothing?

          Cindy6

          While Erdogan is indeed a nasty piece of work, it does seem like someone IS trying to topple him and destablize Turkey. As a vassal, he doesn't quite know his place and had actually contemplate joining the East as shown by Blue Stream and negotiations to purchase Chinese Red Flag missile system.

          Quite possilbly being encoraged to shoot down the Russian fighter and led to believe NATO would back him up. Once relationship with Russia is being torn and completely isolated in teh world by having his relationship with ISIS exposed, Turkey is ready for destablisation and eventual carved-up. It's no wonder the western press has only good things to say about the Kurds.

          Reminds me of Iraq/Kuwait.

          If he has any brain cell left, he should immediately patch up relationship with Russia and China. Else he's toast and Eurasia having another failed state.

          Parrotile

          Well, it seems that Erdogan may NOT have any functioning brain cells left - russia-turkey-war-of-words-escalates.

          So we have:

          1. Shootdown of Russian aircraft in Syrian airspace;
          2. "Pretence" that the aircraft "violated" Turkish airspace for a few seconds (this is the same Turkey that regards 2000 violations of Greek airspace to be perfectly OK;
          3. Support of oil smuggling – let's be honest, oil THEFT, by a known terrorist group (and we know who is a direct beneficiary from this trade – "Keep it in the Family".)

          This being an Aussie MSM publication, notice that none of the above points have been mentioned even in passing. Got to keep feeding the masses "Government Approved" information, lest that might have ideas of their own . . . .

          Linoleum Blownapart

          In my mind, there's a difference between an ongoing feud with tension and jabs, vs. an all-out fist fight to the death.

          Events so far have been isolated enough that diplomats can still sit around the table and talk. Personally, I'm not calling WW3 until U.S. and Russia have severed diplomatic relations, which they haven't at all:

          http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/g20-barack-obama-and-vladim...

          bankonzhongguo

          The only regional power counter to Iran on the ground is Turkey, so now you will see that place put through the wringer as well. Population is around 75 million, so its heavy density, old culture, access to NATO and western security interests and all the other trappings compel Turkey to fill the vacuum to be created in Syria.

          That's a tall order to fill, but one easily paid for using the same model in Saudi and Egypt over the decades.

          Good time to be in the black markets in Turkey witness all the refugees in the pipeline to Berlin and Washington.

          Not sure of what kind of Alevi-Sufi capacity Quds has in the east, but given how the Sons of Noah operate in Chechnya who knows what the future holds.

          atthelake

          www.kingworldnews.com has some good tapes, including Paul Craig Roberts on Russia and Turkey.

          SgtShaftoe

          Agreed, I just got done listening to the PCR piece about an hour ago. It was very good analysis.

          Ms No

          People will start disappearing in mass and they will find them 15 years down the road in mass graves. This is a pattern which is constant throughout history any time there is a military dicatorship or tyranny of whatever variety... and yes they will likely be tortured. This is right out of the CIAs South America playbook. Same MO every time with only slight variations.

          Moccasin

          Things are moving quickly, what's next is what's important. Each criminal act inside a NATO country is used by NATO to its advantage in the escalation of war in Syria. With emphasis on Turkey where its most recent criminal activities appear premeditated. NATO is rushing to war in Syria after the recent criminal act in Paris. The arrival of the Russians in Syria seems to have awoken NATO. NATO has started its response to Russia and will penalize it for the support for the Assad government.

          The criminal act in Turkey, the assassination of a "Prominent Kurdish Lawyer" is just another move that will be used to justify more war. The slippery slope of war is getting steep. I will expect Turkish ground troops to arrive in Syria soon to create a 'buffer zone' and that slice of dirt will be the ground where the Turks will put the Kurds backs to the wall again. What's next is what is important. War Pigs!

          flapdoodle

          I suspect the problem for Turkey invading Syria is that Putin told Erdogan that anything that crosses into Syrian territory near Latakia will have the shit bombed out of it.

          The US and NATO is trying desperatly to put in ground troops (hence the Paris false flag to try to get the French (NATO) in, but I still think Turkey (also NATO) is reluctant to do this openly), and they may succeed in getting troops into Eastern Syria, but Putin, with SAA, Quds, and Hezbullah, has the advantage in Western Syria and will make a move there very difficult for NATO. If Western Syria was a crucial part of the Zionazi gameplan, they better come up with something else quick. Putin has reached the high ground first.

          The fact that Turkey has grounded their flights into Syria is telling. They don't know what the fuck to do.

          Its quite possible that Putin maneuvered the Turks into downing the Su-24. or at least set up the environment propitious to its occurring - unfortunately for Turkey.

          Putin really knows his judo and used his opponents own move against him. The S-400 timing was just right, and the downing gave Russians the perfect excuse to smash the hell out of the Turkey/Syria border.

          Whatever happened to Turkey's vaunted 5mi exclusion zone at the border??? Its gone, baby, gone...

          GreatUncle

          Think most people know what Erdogan is about ...

          Cynically the US pipes up condemming the killing but support Erdogan. US foreign policy is a fucking shambles ain't that the truth. So once again Turkey shows it should never be allowed to join the EU because it does not support human rights.

          2 pillars of the EU are already crumbling, the euro and the schengen agreement, then allowing Turkey into the EU club you just dismantled a 3rd pillar and the EHCR.

          So which supporting pillar of the EU crumbles next then ? Or alternatively you might want to consider the Lisbon Treaty a worthless piece of paper.

          debtor of last ...

          So the gas pipeline from Quatar stops at the Syrian-Turkish border. For now.

          Dutch Geert Wilders (our Marine le Pen) called Erdogan a madman, about 3 years back. But he's raciss of course....

          green dragon

          We know that Turknam commander Alparslan Celik, deputy commander of a Syrian Turkmen brigade turned out to be the son of a mayor of a Keban municipality in Turkey's Elazig province. He is a member of the Grey Wolves.

          We know that use of the BGM-71 TOW missiles – which cost $50,000 a piece – is up over 850% in October with the American-made weapons responsible for the destruction of scores of Syrian army tanks. These are being passed through Turkey.

          We know that Turkey has focused their bombing efforts on Kurdish sites.

          We know that so called nice Terrorists supported by Turkey seized Kurds from buses travelling from the town of Afrin to the city of Aleppo.

          We know that Erdogan's government is planned to place reporters who exposed weapons in Aid shipments from Turkey in jail.

          We know much but do nothing!

          I-am-not-one-of-them

          they won't denounce their own foreign policy, they want that policy to succeed

          you seem to think criminals should have a concience or morals

          smacker

          Westerners should boycott all travel and tourism to Turkey. Too much civil unrest, cold blooded street assassinations, riots, police violence etc. "Turkey has become a terrorist country and is unsafe"

          Dark Daze

          Why are the Turks in NATO? They don't deserve to be. They don't share our values, our traditions, our religion or our style of government. They are nothing more than evil, back stabbing, slimey bags of Sunni shit, and always have been. And now that Erdogan is becoming a dictator things are only going to get worse. I would not support my government sending one soldier, one plane or one ship to defend those animals. Let the Russians have at them I say.

          Omen IV -> Dark Daze

          "They don't share our values" Maybe not your values but certainly Washington's values

          ross81 -> Dark Daze

          the bigger question is why is there even a NATO at all? The "big bad" Soviet Union & Warsaw Pact are long gone. Truth is NATO now is the Atlanticists + some puppet regimes in eastern Europe/Turkey. They want the entire Middle East and wont tolerate a Russian or BRICS influence there at all. Good to see though that the Shiite Bloc are tired of all this fucking chaos & mayhem and are joining the Russian side.

          Joe Plane

          The Warsaw pact was created after NATO and as a counter act.

          Don't know how many people know this but in 1954 the USSR, Belorussia and Ukraine (the latter two being seperate members of the UN) applied for membership in NATO. And were rejected.

          Crocodile

          It is obvious the west is trying to stretch Russia via Ukraine and Syria and now Turkey; the further you stretch an any, the more difficult it is to focus on the bigger picture. China better step up to the Russian plate and soon if anyone expects to reign in the NATO terrorists.

          ... ... ...

          farflungstar

          Kurdistan is being groomed to be israel's latest manufactured ally in the region - they've been stroking the Kurds for quite some time.

          http://www.voltairenet.org/article189385.html

          I wonder just how willing Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey (nations with significant Kurdish pops.) are going to be to cede territory to what will be an israeli ally - a little? not too much? not at all?

          Eventually they may have no choice.

          nah

          Seems like everything in the Middle East is going tribal, sectarian, and vigilante. Bad day for established government and power for the people in a general sense


          [Nov 28, 2015] Remaking the Middle East: How the US Grew Tired and Less Relevant

          Notable quotes:
          "... In reality, this perception is misleading; not that Kerry is a warmonger on the level of George W. Bush's top staff, such as Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. The two were the very antithesis of any rational foreign policy such that even the elder George H. W. Bush described them with demeaning terminology , according to his biographer, quoted in the New York Times . Cheney was an "Iron-ass", who "had his own empire … and marched to his own drummer," H.W. Bush said, while calling Rumsfeld "an arrogant fellow" who lacked empathy. Yet, considering that the elder Bush was rarely a peacemaker himself, one is left to ponder if the US foreign policy ailment is centered on failure to elect proper representatives and to enlist anyone other than psychopaths? ..."
          "... comparing the conduct of the last three administrations, that of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, one would find that striking similarities are abundant. In principle, all three administrations' foreign policy agendas were predicated on strong militaries and military interventions, although they applied soft power differently. ..."
          "... In essence, Obama carried on with much of what W. Bush had started in the Middle East, although he supplanted his country's less active role in Iraq with new interventions in Libya and Syria. In fact, his Iraq policies were guided by Bush's final act in that shattered country, where he ordered a surge in troops to pacify the resistance, thus paving the way for an eventual withdrawal. Of course, none of that plotting worked in their favor, with the rise of ISIS among others, but that is for another discussion. ..."
          "... In other words, US foreign policy continues unabated, often guided by the preponderant norm that "might makes right", and by ill-advised personal ambitions and ideological illusions like those championed by neo-conservatives during W. Bush's era. ..."
          "... The folly of W. Bush, Cheney and company is that they assumed that the Pentagon's over $1.5 billion-a-day budget was enough to acquire the US the needed leverage to control every aspect of global affairs, including a burgeoning share of world economy. ..."
          "... The Russian military campaign in Syria, which was halfheartedly welcomed by the US. has signaled a historic shift in the Middle East. Even if Russia fails to turn its war into a major shift of political and economic clout, the mere fact that other contenders are now throwing their proverbial hats into the Middle East ring, is simply unprecedented since the British-French-Israeli Tripartite Aggression on Egypt in 1956. ..."
          "... It will take years before a new power paradigm fully emerges, during which time US clients are likely to seek the protection of more dependable powers. In fact, the shopping for a new power is already under way, which also means that new alliances will be formed while others fold. ..."
          November 14, 2015 | original.antiwar.com
          US Secretary of State, John Kerry, is often perceived as one of the "good ones" – the less hawkish of top American officials, who does not simply promote and defend his country's military adventurism but reaches out to others, beyond polarizing rhetoric.

          His unremitting efforts culminated partly in the Iran nuclear framework agreement in April, followed by a final deal, a few months later. Now, he is reportedly hard at work again to find some sort of consensus on a way out of the Syria war, a multi-party conflict that has killed over 300,000 people. His admirers see him as the diplomatic executor of a malleable and friendly US foreign policy agenda under President Obama.

          In reality, this perception is misleading; not that Kerry is a warmonger on the level of George W. Bush's top staff, such as Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. The two were the very antithesis of any rational foreign policy such that even the elder George H. W. Bush described them with demeaning terminology, according to his biographer, quoted in the New York Times. Cheney was an "Iron-ass", who "had his own empire … and marched to his own drummer," H.W. Bush said, while calling Rumsfeld "an arrogant fellow" who lacked empathy. Yet, considering that the elder Bush was rarely a peacemaker himself, one is left to ponder if the US foreign policy ailment is centered on failure to elect proper representatives and to enlist anyone other than psychopaths?

          If one is to fairly examine US foreign policies in the Middle East, for example, comparing the conduct of the last three administrations, that of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, one would find that striking similarities are abundant. In principle, all three administrations' foreign policy agendas were predicated on strong militaries and military interventions, although they applied soft power differently.

          In essence, Obama carried on with much of what W. Bush had started in the Middle East, although he supplanted his country's less active role in Iraq with new interventions in Libya and Syria. In fact, his Iraq policies were guided by Bush's final act in that shattered country, where he ordered a surge in troops to pacify the resistance, thus paving the way for an eventual withdrawal. Of course, none of that plotting worked in their favor, with the rise of ISIS among others, but that is for another discussion.

          Obama has even gone a step further when he recently decided to keep thousands of US troops in Afghanistan well into 2017, thus breaking US commitment to withdraw next year. 2017 is Obama's last year in office, and the decision is partly motivated by his administration's concern that future turmoil in that country could cost his Democratic Party heavily in the upcoming presidential elections.

          In other words, US foreign policy continues unabated, often guided by the preponderant norm that "might makes right", and by ill-advised personal ambitions and ideological illusions like those championed by neo-conservatives during W. Bush's era.

          Nevertheless, much has changed as well, simply because American ambitions to police the world, politics and the excess of $600 billion a year US defense budget are not the only variables that control events in the Middle East and everywhere else. There are other undercurrents that cannot be wished away, and they too can dictate US foreign policy outlooks and behavior.

          Indeed, an American decline has been noted for many years, and Middle Eastern nations have been more aware of this decline than others. One could even argue that the W. Bush administration's rush for war in Iraq in 2003 in an attempt at controlling the region's resources, was a belated effort at staving off that unmistakable decay – whether in US ability to regulate rising global contenders or in its overall share of global economy.

          The folly of W. Bush, Cheney and company is that they assumed that the Pentagon's over $1.5 billion-a-day budget was enough to acquire the US the needed leverage to control every aspect of global affairs, including a burgeoning share of world economy. That misconception carries on to this day, where military spending is already accounting for about 54 percent of all federal discretionary spending, itself nearly a third of the country's overall budget.

          However, those who are blaming Obama for failing to leverage US military strength for political currency refuse to accept that Obama's behavior hardly reflects a lack of appetite for war, but a pragmatic response to a situation that has largely spun out of US control.

          The so-called "Arab Spring", for example, was a major defining factor in the changes of US fortunes. And it all came at a particularly interesting time.

          First, the Iraq war has destroyed whatever little credibility the US had in the region, a sentiment that also reverberated around the world.

          Second, it was becoming clear that the US foreign policy in Central and South America – an obstinate continuation of the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which laid the groundwork for US domination of that region – has also been challenged by more assertive leaders, armed with democratic initiatives, not military coups.

          Third, China's more forceful politics, at least around its immediate regional surroundings, signaled that the US traditional hegemony over most of East and South East Asia are also facing fierce competition.

          Not only many Asian and other countries have flocked to China, lured by its constantly growing and seemingly more solid economic performance, if compared to the US, but others are also flocking to Russia, which is filling a political and, as of late, military vacuum left open.

          The Russian military campaign in Syria, which was halfheartedly welcomed by the US. has signaled a historic shift in the Middle East. Even if Russia fails to turn its war into a major shift of political and economic clout, the mere fact that other contenders are now throwing their proverbial hats into the Middle East ring, is simply unprecedented since the British-French-Israeli Tripartite Aggression on Egypt in 1956.

          The region's historians must fully understand the repercussions of all of these factors, and that simply analyzing the US decline based on the performance of individuals – Condoleezza Rice's hawkishness vs. John Kerry's supposed sane diplomacy – is a trivial approach to understanding current shifts in global powers.

          It will take years before a new power paradigm fully emerges, during which time US clients are likely to seek the protection of more dependable powers. In fact, the shopping for a new power is already under way, which also means that new alliances will be formed while others fold.

          For now, the Middle East will continue to pass through this incredibly difficult and violent transition, for which the US is partly responsible.

          Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is a media consultant, an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father was A Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press).

          [Nov 28, 2015] Most of What You Learned in Econ 101 Is Wrong

          Greg Mankiw is not a scientist in any meaningful sense. As a member of "Harvard mafia" he is hired propagandist that camouflages as an economist and works for financial oligarchy which promotes neoliberalism. And under neoliberalism like in Marxism the economics serves as a tool to justify social theory.
          Notable quotes:
          "... Mankiw's book, like every introductory econ textbook I know of, has a big problem. Most of what's in it is probably wrong. ..."
          "... But for Econ 101 classes, explaining only a small slice of reality isn't good enough. If economics majors leave their classes thinking that the theories they learned are mostly correct, they will make bad decisions in both business and politics. We shouldn't train tomorrow's business elite to have faith in theories that have only a small amount of empirical success. ..."
          "... Current textbooks, including Mankiw's, almost all play down the role of data and evidence. ..."
          "... so basically all the supply siders and libertarians and the like are preaching the same sort of economics theories that were taught prior to Keynes ..."
          "... yea maybe we should call the supply siders the flat earthers ..."
          "... Not every economic class is taught using Mankiw. Thankfully. ..."
          "... but there is also the issue of whether in reality the employee could survive on the given wage if the pay does not allow the worker to survive, then him/her agreeing to work for the less than living wage doesn't help ..."
          "... It is not a viable situation. The workers will not be able to perform their duties. It will not work anyway. We didn't treat horses this way, as if their cost could approach zero without consequences, why do we treat people as if they could survive on less and less resources with no limit. ..."
          "... Then if they don't accept that impossible situation and ask for help from the government or form unions, then they are the ones "causing all the problems" ..."
          "... How about this? A $15 minimum raise hike is more likely to close down jobs in the mid wage category than in the low wage. A hike probably means income will come from the mid overall to the low overall because low wage produced goods were relatively under priced (not marked to market because of prior monopsony). ..."
          Bloomberg View

          Harvard's Greg Mankiw, author of the most popular college introductory economics textbook, is often regarded as America's econ teacher. He famously refers to his "Principles of Economics" as "my favorite textbook," and I must admit that it's also my favorite. It's written in a clear, explanatory style and covers the basics of most important theories in modern economics.

          But Mankiw's book, like every introductory econ textbook I know of, has a big problem. Most of what's in it is probably wrong.

          In the last three decades, the economics profession has undergone a profound shift. The rise of information technology and new statistical methods has dramatically increased the importance of data and empirics. This means that many professional economists are no longer, as empirical pioneer David Card put it, "mathematical philosophers." Instead, they are more like scientists, digging through mountains of evidence to find precious grains of truth.

          And what they have found has often been revolutionary. The simple theories we teach in Econ 101 classes work once in a while, but in many important cases they fail.

          For example, Econ 101 theory tells us that minimum wage policies should have a harmful impact on employment. Basic supply and demand analysis says that in a free market, wages adjust so that everyone who wants a job has a job -- supply matches demand. Less productive workers earn less, but they are still employed. If you set a price floor -- a lower limit on what employers are allowed to pay -- then it will suddenly become un-economical for companies to retain all the workers whose productivity is lower than that price floor. In other words, minimum wage hikes should quickly put a bunch of low-wage workers out of a job.

          That's theory. Reality, it turns out, is very different. In the last two decades, empirical economists have looked at a large number of minimum wage hikes, and concluded that in most cases, the immediate effect on employment is very small. It's only in the long run that minimum wages might start to make a big difference.

          That doesn't mean the theory is wrong, of course. It probably only describes a small piece of what is really going on in the labor market. In reality, employment probably depends on a lot more than just today's wage level -- it depends on predictions of future wages, on long-standing employment relationships and on a host of other things too complicated to fit into the tidy little world of Econ 101.

          For academic economists, that's no problem. If existing theories explain only a sliver of reality, they simply roll up their sleeves and get to work. Many labor economists are now working on complex theories that model the process of employees looking for work and employers looking for people to hire. For professional theorists, empirical failures simply mean more work to do.

          But for Econ 101 classes, explaining only a small slice of reality isn't good enough. If economics majors leave their classes thinking that the theories they learned are mostly correct, they will make bad decisions in both business and politics. We shouldn't train tomorrow's business elite to have faith in theories that have only a small amount of empirical success.

          Another example is welfare. Econ 101 theory tells us that welfare gives people an incentive not to work. If you subsidize leisure, simple theory says you will get more of it.

          But recent empirical studies have shown that such effects are usually very small. Occasionally, welfare programs even make people work more. For example, a study in Uganda found that grants for poor people looking to improve their skills resulted in people working much more than before.

          This has big political implications. If we train tomorrow's business elites to think that welfare encourages laziness, they may block support for policies that really improve the lives of the poor -- and the economic productivity of the whole nation. But this is precisely what Econ 101 is now doing.

          So what's the solution? Complex theories sometimes do a better job of explaining reality than simple ones, but these theories are way beyond the mathematical skill of most undergrad econ majors. A better alternative is to start teaching empirics in 101.

          Current textbooks, including Mankiw's, almost all play down the role of data and evidence. They sometimes refer to the results of empirical studies, but they don't give students an in-depth understanding of how those studies worked. Yet this wouldn't be very hard to do. The kind of empirical analysis now taking over the econ profession -- often called the "quasi-experimental" approach -- isn't that hard to understand. Simple examples could even be done in the classroom, or as homework assignments.

          In other words, the economics profession has gotten real, and it's time for Econ 101 to do the same. We now have an academic economics profession focused on examining evidence and an Econ 101 curriculum that focuses on telling pleasant but often useless fables. Econ education needs to get with the times.

          This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

          To contact the author of this story:

          Noah Smith at [email protected]

          Selected Skeptical Comments (Economist View, November 25, 2015)

          Anonymous said... Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 05:34 AM

          "Most of What You Learned in Econ 101 Is Wrong"

          To this crowd, it should be - Most of what we taught you in Econ 101 is Wrong.

          djb -> Peter K....

          from the smith article

          "For example, Econ 101 theory tells us that minimum wage policies should have a harmful impact on employment. Basic supply and demand analysis says that in a free market, wages adjust so that everyone who wants a job has a job -- supply matches demand."

          if this is what they are teaching in econ 101 then of course it is wrong and I would not be surprised if mankiws book is teaching this

          as Keynes showed 80 years ago

          so basically all the supply siders and libertarians and the like are preaching the same sort of economics theories that were taught prior to Keynes

          Say's law, invisible hand, always at full employment, no such thing as involuntary unemployment, no possibility of inadequate aggregate demand

          amazing

          Peter K. -> djb...

          Agreed. I would divide the world into the Keynesians and supply siders. Mankiw is a strange hack in that he gets the "new Keynesian" view but often puts out propaganda on behalf of the supply siders.

          Anonymous, Kervick and their ilk argue that some Keynesians are just as bad as the supply siders.

          But they have no grounds.

          pgl -> Peter K....

          It is more than the macroeconomic debates. The minimum wage debate comes down to whether all markets are perfectly competitive. Any economist worth his salt realizes that they are not.

          Dan Kervick -> Peter K:

          Not sure what that means exactly - since I don't know what kinds of supply siders you are talking about. But since Mankiw is one of the leading figures of New Keynesianism, and is pretty bad, then yeah .. I guess it follows that some Keynesians are as bad as supply siders.

          Keynes suggested a social philosophy that followed from his economic analysis. The social philosophy was based on the idea that the lack of full employment and arbitrary and inequitable distributions of income were "faults" of our economic society - bad things. But if someone doesn't think those are bad things, then I suppose they could completely accept Keynes's analysis of how the economy works, but not go in for the Keynesian social philosophy and the policy choices it leads to.

          anne said in reply to Dan Kervick...

          Keynes suggested a social philosophy that followed from his economic analysis. The social philosophy was based on the idea that the lack of full employment and arbitrary and inequitable distributions of income were "faults" of our economic society...

          [ Nice passage. ]

          William said in reply to djb...

          Imagine if other courses were taught like econ.

          History would start with reading Herodotus as fact, flat earth, giant ants and all.

          Psychology 101 would teach you only the ideas of Freud. Sure none of his ideas are taken seriously anymore, but he is easy to understand and the foundation of modern, complex theories, so it's all good right?

          djb said in reply to William...

          yea maybe we should call the supply siders the flat earthers

          pgl said in reply to William...


          Not every economic class is taught using Mankiw. Thankfully.

          pgl said in reply to djb...

          Noah really wrote this? "That doesn't mean the theory is wrong, of course. It probably only describes a small piece of what is really going on in the labor market. "

          Noah needs to take a time out from blogging until he reads Dani Rodrik's Economist Rules. Dani notes we have lots of theories but the real trick is to figure out which one to use for a particular situation.

          I have not looked at a Mankiw text for a long time (overpriced from an arrogant Harvard Republican homeboy) so I don't know if he only presents the perfectly competitive model of employment. If he does - no wonder his book is so clueless on the minimum wage debate.

          When I took undergraduate principles, I read Paul Samuelson's excellent book and it did talk about things like monopsony power. Put a wage floor on a monopsonist and employment rises.

          So the real issue is are we presenting students with the full array of models and then having them read Dani's excellent book.

          djb said in reply to pgl...

          one issue regarding minimum wages issues. The classical school says if only the person would work for less we would have full employment

          (Keynes proved this false)

          but there is also the issue of whether in reality the employee could survive on the given wage if the pay does not allow the worker to survive, then him/her agreeing to work for the less than living wage doesn't help

          It is not a viable situation. The workers will not be able to perform their duties. It will not work anyway. We didn't treat horses this way, as if their cost could approach zero without consequences, why do we treat people as if they could survive on less and less resources with no limit.

          Then if they don't accept that impossible situation and ask for help from the government or form unions, then they are the ones "causing all the problems"

          but seriously, that is what the theoretical idea that workers should take less and less and less with no limit gives us in reality

          Denis Drew, November 25, 2015 at 07:14 AM

          Re: Most of What You Learned in Econ 101 Is Wrong - Noah Smith

          How about this? A $15 minimum raise hike is more likely to close down jobs in the mid wage category than in the low wage. A hike probably means income will come from the mid overall to the low overall because low wage produced goods were relatively under priced (not marked to market because of prior monopsony).

          Consumers tend to purchase more of goods produced by employees at their own wage level. Ergo, when income flows overall from the mid to the low -- the low may spend that new money disproportionately among themselves. While some mid wage producers will lose out on business gone south and be forced to lay off workers.

          Easy way to make this loss from mid to low painless as possible: hybrid redistribution via tax hikes for the (really) top with matching tax cuts for the mids.

          I am thinking (just to throw something out) 90% taxes on all income over $2 million dollars. Maybe 50% over $650,000 (the entry to the top 1%?).

          Under the theory that people will enthusiastically work for $200 a week if that is the best their economic place and time can do -- but the same people will not work for $400 a week if their era could and should be paying $800.

          I'm thinking grossly underpaid Chicago retail clerk ($800 a week by collective bargaining marked to market) and Chicago gangs which now have 100,000 out of my guesstimate 200,000 gang-age, minority males. I'm also thinking old American born taxi drivers like myself who wont work 60 grueling hours for $500 a week (I did for $750). I'm thinking family raising adults who no longer show up for two-tier (thanks to Walmart) contract supermarket work.

          Today's time and US place CEOs, professional athletes (who basically just retain feral animal skills), TV news anchors and movie stars earn 20 times what their 50s and 60s predecessors did -- they can certainly pay similarly high tax rates (though not from as low a starting point -- double per capita income in this era). They will work just as hard once they get used to the new (hybrid) redistribution regime representing the most anybody can squeeze out of their era.

          PPaine said in reply to PPaine ...

          Brad Delong is the iconic merit elite culprit. Why? Larry S and Stan fish cake are handsomely rewarded. Plutonian über hacks . Brad is flying solely on merit fumes

          Peter K. said in reply to PPaine ...

          If DeLong has been listened to the recovery would have been much better.

          Both he and Summers argue policymakers have squandered one year's worth of GDP. That's a damning statement. They're on the job class side more than not. Same with Krugman and Thoma.

          "As well they should. U.S. output is now about 10 percent below a trend estimated through 2007. If one attributes even half of this figure to the effects of recession and assumes no catch up on this component until 2030, the cost of the financial crisis in the U.S. is about one year's gross domestic product. And matters are worse in the rest of the industrial world.

          As macroeconomics was transformed in response to the Depression of the 1930s and the inflation of the 1970s, another 40 years later it should again be transformed in response to stagnation in the industrial world.

          Maybe we can call it the Keynesian New Economics."

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/03/larry-summers-advanced-economies-are-so-sick-we-need-a-new-way-to-think-about-them/

          They're not like Varoufakis and Zizek but so what there will be a broad coalition.

          http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2015/11/24/europe-is-kaputt-long-live-europe-royal-festival-hall-woth-slavoj-zizek-julian-assange/

          [Nov 28, 2015] Turkey's Erdogan Expresses Regret Over Russian Plane Downing

          He already flip-flopped his reaction on staged by his government ambush several times. This is probably not the last.
          www.huffingtonpost.com

          Turkey (AP) -- Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Saturday voiced regret over Turkey's downing of a Russian warplane, saying his country was "truly saddened" by the incident and wished it hadn't occurred.

          It was the first expression of regret by the strongman leader since Tuesday's incident in which Turkish F-16 jets shot down the Russian jet on grounds that it had violated Turkey's airspace despite repeated warnings to change course. It was the first time in half a century that a NATO member shot down a Russian plane and drew a harsh response from Moscow.

          "We are truly saddened by this incident," Erdogan said. "We wish it hadn't happened as such, but unfortunately such a thing has happened. I hope that something like this doesn't occur again."

          Addressing supporters in the western city of Balikesir, Erdogan said neither country should allow the incident to escalate and take a destructive form that would lead to "saddening consequences."

          He renewed a call for a meeting with President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of a climate conference in Paris next week, saying it would be an opportunity to overcome tensions.

          [Nov 28, 2015] ISIS Oil Trade Full Frontal Raqqas Rockefellers, Bilal Erdogan, KRG Crude, And The Israel Connection

          Notable quotes:
          "... "All of the oil was delivered to a company that belongs to the son of Recep [Tayyip] Erdogan. This is why Turkey became anxious when Russia began delivering airstrikes against the IS infrastructure and destroyed more than 500 trucks with oil already. This really got on Erdogan and his company's nerves. They're importing not only oil, but wheat and historic artefacts as well. ..."
          "... "First and foremost, the Turks help the militants sell stolen Iraqi and Syrian oil for $20 a barrel, which is half the market price. ..."
          "... According to a European official at an international oil company who met with al-Araby in a Gulf capital, Israel refines the oil only once or twice because it does not have advanced refineries. It exports the oil to Mediterranean countries - where the oil gains a semi-legitimate status - for $30 to $35 a barrel. ..."
          "... The oil is sold within a day or two to a number of private companies, while the majority goes to an Italian refinery owned by one of the largest shareholders in an Italian football club [name removed] where the oil is refined and used locally, added the European oil official. ..."
          "... Israel has in one way or another become the main marketer of IS oil. Without them, most IS-produced oil would have remained going between Iraq, Syria and Turkey. Even the three companies would not receive the oil if they did not have a buyer in Israel, said the industry official. ..."
          Zero Hedge
          One person who definitely thinks the Erdogans are trafficking in ISIS oil is Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi who said the following on Friday:

          "All of the oil was delivered to a company that belongs to the son of Recep [Tayyip] Erdogan. This is why Turkey became anxious when Russia began delivering airstrikes against the IS infrastructure and destroyed more than 500 trucks with oil already. This really got on Erdogan and his company's nerves. They're importing not only oil, but wheat and historic artefacts as well."

          And then there's Iraq's former National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie who posted the following to his Facebook page on Saturday:

          "First and foremost, the Turks help the militants sell stolen Iraqi and Syrian oil for $20 a barrel, which is half the market price."

          Meanwhile, the US is preparing for an all-out ISIS oil propaganda war. As WSJ reported on Wednesday, "the Treasury [has] accused a Syrian-born businessman, George Haswani, who his a dual Syrian-Russian citizen, of using his firm, HESCO Engineering and Construction Co., for facilitating oil trades between the Assad regime and Islamic State." Why Assad would buy oil from a group that uses the cash at its disposal to wage war against Damascus is an open question especially when one considers that Assad's closest allies (Russia and Iran) are major oil producers. Of course between all the shady middlemen and double dealing, there's really no telling.

          Ultimately we'll probably never know the whole story, but what we do know (and again, most of the evidence is either circumstantial, anecdotal, of largely qualitative) seems to suggest that in addition to providing guns and money to the FSA and al-Nusra, Turkey may well be responsible for facilitating Islamic State's $400+ million per year oil enterprise. And as for end customers, consider the following bit from Al-Araby al-Jadeed:

          According to a European official at an international oil company who met with al-Araby in a Gulf capital, Israel refines the oil only "once or twice" because it does not have advanced refineries. It exports the oil to Mediterranean countries - where the oil "gains a semi-legitimate status" - for $30 to $35 a barrel.

          "The oil is sold within a day or two to a number of private companies, while the majority goes to an Italian refinery owned by one of the largest shareholders in an Italian football club [name removed] where the oil is refined and used locally," added the European oil official.

          "Israel has in one way or another become the main marketer of IS oil. Without them, most IS-produced oil would have remained going between Iraq, Syria and Turkey. Even the three companies would not receive the oil if they did not have a buyer in Israel," said the industry official.

          Finally, you'll note that this is all an effort to answer what we called "the most important question about ISIS that no one is asking" - namely, "who are the middlemen?" As we noted more than a week ago, "we do know who they may be: the same names that were quite prominent in the market in September when Glencore had its first, and certainly not last, near death experience: the Glencores, the Vitols, the Trafiguras, the Nobels, the Mercurias of the world." Consider that, and consider what Reuters says about the trade in illicit KRG oil: "Market sources have said several trading houses including Trafigura and Vitol have dealt with Kurdish oil. Both Trafigura and Vitol declined to comment on their role in oil sales."

          Similarly, FT notes that "both Vitol and Trafigura had paid the KRG in advance for the oil, under so-called 'pre-pay' deals, helping Erbil to bridge its budget gaps."

          Indeed, when Kurdistan went looking for an advisor to assist in the effort to circumvent Baghdad, the KRG chose "Murtaza Lakhani, who worked for Glencore in Iraq in the 2000s, to assist finding ships."

          "He knew exactly who would and who wouldn't deal with us. He opened the doors to us and identified willing shipping companies to work with us," Ashti Hawrami (quoted above) said.

          Indeed. And given everything said above about the commingling of illegal KRG crude and illicit ISIS oil shipments, it's probably a foregone conclusion that these same firms are assisting in transport arrangements for Islamic State

          Noplebian

          Interesting, but not surprising......

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

          Occident Mortal

          Outstanding work. And Raqqafellers will stick.

          I pointed to these assholes yesterday...

          http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-27/how-turkey-exports-isis-oil-wor...

          quintago

          Right after 9/11, the Israelis swept in and starting building links with the Kurds. Google it. They are using the Kurds as a destabilizer and as a source for oil. Ashkelon and Haifa moving oil to europe is their grand dream.

          BuddyEffed

          If there has been ship to ship transfers I bet someone, and maybe several recon capable countries have spy photos. That could be part of the over the top game here. Let's bargain or we will release photos.

          BuddyEffed

          This just in : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/erdogan-russian-plane-downing_5659bd...
          Erdogan expressing regrets for the downed plane. Also probably regretting ZH analysis.

          I'm guessing the photos of the ship to ship transfers won't be released at this time.

          jefferson32

          Once again Meyssan's analysis proves extremely accurate. In July 2014, he writes:

          On June 20, Israel bought the oil that the local Kurdish government had stolen in Kirkuk despite the international opinion voiced by the Iraqi federal government. The transit of the oil had been facilitated by the ISIL which controls the pipeline and Turkey which allowed the goods to be loaded onto a tanker at the port of Ceyhan.

          http://www.voltairenet.org/article184669.html

          jefferson32

          To understand how Turkey can, on one hand, cooperate with the Kurds in northern Irak - and enable their oil commerce - and, on the other hand, be fighting Kurds in Syria (and Turkey itself), it is important to realize these two populations, although both ethnically kurdish, have little in common.

          For starters, they don't speak the same language, and killed each other throughout the Cold War.

          Nowadays, the Iraki Kurds are pro-West and lead by Barzani (admitedly a Mossad agent put in place by the Americans and British). The Syrian Kurds are aligned with Iran and Russia.

          Thierry Meyssan's exposé is much better than mine:

          http://www.voltairenet.org/article189385.html

          Paveway IV

          Half of all Turks live under the poverty line. A quarter of those live underneath the starvation line = eat from dumpsters. Erdogan and his crime family live in a three-quarters of a billion dollar palace.

          The Kurds have it worse, from Be Very Worried About Barzani Family Power Struggle

          "...Masud Barzani is president and lives in a palace complex in a resort inherited from Saddam Hussein. His nephew, Nechirvan Barzani, is prime minister. His uncle, Hoshyar Zebari, was Iraq's foreign minister and is now finance minister. Masud's eldest son, Masrour Barzani, leads the intelligence service; and his second son Mansour is a general, as is Masud's brother Wajy. Barzani's nephew Sirwan owns the regional cell phone company which, while purchased with public money, remains a private holding. Barzani's sons are frequently in Washington D.C. They have their wives give birth in Sibley Hospital in order to ensure the next generation has American citizenship, and Masrour Barzani acquired an $11 million mansion in McLean, Virginia. Hanging out in Tyson's Corner, Virginia, some of Masoud Barzani's daughters-in-law have, according to Kurdish circles, been known to introduce themselves as "Princesses of Kurdistan" as they visit high-end shops accompanied by their own rather unnecessary (while in the United States) security details..."

          Kurds hate Barzani - he's in power because Israel and the U.S. back him. Time to strip the Barzani babies of their U.S. citizenship and bar their entire clan from ever setting foot on U.S. soil for the rest of their lives.

          Everything the U.S. touches turns to shit. Every country we have anything to do with is ruled by psychopathic, money-grubbing gangsters. Every country we "freedomize and liberate" ends up knee-deep in the blood of their own citizens while the wars have turned out to be neocon chickenhawks grudge against a leader they don't like.

          When Syria and Iraq have been sufficiently destroyed, U.S. and U.K. oil companies will own the oil and gas production destined for the EU or Israel. The U.S. will continue to turn a blind eye to the tin-pot dictators they have empowered and made profanely rich while their 'little people' eat out of garbage cans. If those peons rise up to kick the dictator's asses (Erdogan, Barzani, and whoever is in charge if the Iraqi hell-hole of death), then we will be there with weapons, armor, aircraft and troops to kill those dumpster-diving terrorists.

          If we don't like the Saddam Husseins or Bashar al-Assads of the world, WHY THE FUCK DO WE KEEP MAKING MORE OF THEM?


          Paveway IV

          The Tylers do a good job of showing the trail of breadcrumbs in these oil operations. If you need a PowerPoint deck and streaming video of Israeli brokers negotiating legally-questionable and terrorist-supporting stolen oil purchases and scans of bill-of-sales from ISIS from Erdogan's son, then you're probably on the wrong site.

          There are plenty of accounts of Israel buying Kurdish oil directly, or acting as a middleman for EU sales. Any Israeli brokers can legally claim ignorance of the source of the oil, but everyone involved knows exactly where some it comes from and why it's so cheap. The legality of ANY Kurdish oil sales are still in legal limbo - the U.S. courts won't permit its import. The fact that a substantial quantitiy of Kurdish (or Turkish terminal spot sales of 'Kurdish') oil is in fact ISIS oil stolen in Syria and Iraq really isn't a secret to anybody. To show what is (or should be) obvious to a reasonably intelligent person is not the same thing as concrete proof with a documented legal trail. Israel probably regrets the ISIS connection, but ISIS won't be around forever. Israel plans on buying oil from the Kurds for a long, LONG time, so I don't expect them to ask too many questions now.

          We're talking a few Israeli brokers and refinery buyers, not ten million Israelis conspiring to buy and sell ISIS oil. If it wasn't Israeli oil dealers, it would be someone else.

          Urban Redneck

          It's not tenuous, it's politely phrased, but there are actually a lot more people and institutions involved. The physical oil trade is a black art, and all the practitioners know each other, and as many times as a title to cargo may trade hands at sea, ONE party is responsible for legitimizing black market product (after which it can be traded more freely). Unfortunately, the simplest and least bloody solution is unlikely at this point, international sanctions on Turkey and an embargo on all oil from Ceyhan not originating from the Baku pipeline.

          Lurk Skywatcher

          Why Assad would buy oil from a group that uses the cash at its disposal to wage war against Damascus is an open question especially when one considers that Assad's closest allies (Russia and Iran) are major oil producers.

          Only an open question for trolls and dullards. Syria has lost a lot of its oil infrastructure, and it needs oil to operate. The Assad government probably isn't buying directly, but unscrupulous middlemen will try to make a profit no matter what their nationality.

          Watch how the MSM will pump the US version, and ignore the Russian version, of who benefits from ISIS oil sales... it fits their agenda like a glove.

          Kayman

          Perversely Obama was correct in saying ISIS is the JV team. A small cog in a very illegal, immoral but lucrative trade in stolen oil. A lot of dirty money to pass around, deposit in Swiss bank accounts in Potus' name, or members of the family, Congress vendors, etc.

          If the U.S. and Nato wanted to- they could strangle the neck of the ISIS chicken by cutting off all oil going through Turkey and all newbie ISIS recuits and arms heading back into Raqqa.

          But there is too much dirty money being made by the real players in the game. Can't have a peace settlement with dirty hands in the game. I now wonder if the ISIS internet recruitment videos are being made in Turkey, Israel or Hollywood.

          Neochrome

          http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b8234932-719b-11e5-ad6d-f4ed76f0900a.html#axzz...

          According to this it is Syrian REBELS who are dependent on ISIS oil, it would also partially explain why is US unhappy with turn of events. It is safe to say that the line between ISIS and "rebels" is practically non-existent:

          "It's a situation that makes you laugh and cry," said one Syrian rebel commander in Aleppo, who buys diesel from Isis areas even as his forces fight the group on the front lines. "But we have no other choice, and we are a poor man's revolution. Is anyone else offering to give us fuel?"

          Indeed, diesel and petrol produced in Isis areas are not only consumed in territory the group controls but in areas that are technically at war with it, such as Syria's rebel-held north: the region is dependent on the jihadis' fuel for its survival.

          "At any moment, the diesel can be cut. No diesel - Isis knows our life is completely dead," says one oil trader who comes from rebel-held Aleppo each week to buy fuel and spoke to the Financial Times by telephone.

          Palladin

          According to this article the US destroyed 116 oil trucks, and the Russians destroyed another 500. I don't know how many barrels of oil that is but that has to make a real mess with all that oil leaking all over the place.

          Where are all the Envrionmentlists wringing their Dawn covered hands over all of this. Probably no Seagulls were harmed, but still somebody has to clean up the mess.

          And it seems to me the MSM should be paying more attention to this "Envrrionmental Disaster" like they love to do whenever an offshore oil rig spills any amount of oil.

          Kayman

          Palladin

          Obama couldn't risk killing "innocent" truck drivers- a direct acknowledgement that everyone but the public knew Turkey was the oil conduit. Now you are offering him the opportunity to stop incinerating the trucks for environmental reasons- you ought to be on Obama's staff.

          I-am-not-one-of-them's picture

          the US used Russian footage of destroying 116 oil trucks as proof. I doubt they did, it's their mercenaries and their operation

          that's why nothing happened in the 2 years they pretended to destroy ISIS and Russia has immediate success, one is genuine and the other is fake

          harleyjohn45

          This article says 1300 transports have been destroyed. I read an article that ISIS is using smaller trucks as tankers now, instead of 36,000 liters to 9000 liters per load. Soon they will be carrying oil in 5 gallon buckets.

          Noplebian

          This just about sums up the whole ISIS situation......

          http://beforeitsnews.com/global-unrest/2015/11/cowardly-isiss-terrorist-...

          Perfecthedge

          This is outstanding, investigative journalism. Not the trash that we get from CNN, Fox and the BBC.

          I just checked Trafigura.com and whenever I see a corporation talking about "ethics and transparency" (on their home page). I get suspicious. I am sure KPMG or whatever hooker-accounting firm is auditing this firm, is doing a fine job.

          On another side note, Paypal thinks I am a terrorist and money-laundering criminal, because I wanted to transfer 20 Euros from my Bank account to my Paypal, to buy swimwear on Ebay.

          FUCK THEM. FUCK THEM HARD IN THE ASSHOLE.

          Herdee

          Americans need to look at the world through different perspectives.Use alternative media and open up your minds:

          http://russia-insider.com/en

          Teh Finn

          Russian media claims the men are "ISIS leaders who it is [thought] participated in massacres in Syria's Homs and Rojava, the Kurdish name for Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan."

          How do you say "Chris Matthews" in Rus?

          PoasterToaster

          The other unasked question is, "After they trade the oil for money, who the hell is selling them all the weaponry?".

          smacker

          "[...] the trucks that haul oil north just might have, maybe, a teensy-weensy, tiny, itsy-bitsy chance of carrying weapons back from Turkey."

          I think you're right. Recall that convoy Russian jets bombed yesterday which ended up in flames.

          Erdogan bellyached about it in a press interview claiming it was "humanitarian aid" (ho-ho). Too bad. Video pix showed the trucks had crates of shells and other weaponry. Some of the shells appeared to have Ukraine/Cyrillic markings on them.

          green dragon

          Veterens Today makes a case that

          [Turkey did this all during the Bush era, having cut a deal with US "manager" Paul Bremmer, a deal VT insiders helped manage for Bremmer and that I was witness to personally.

          The game involved playing Baghdad against Erbil and bleeding off oil revenues from the Kirkuk Oil Fields, largest oil reserves in the world, as they moved by pipeline through Kurdistan and into Turkey. There they were offloaded onto American tankers in the Mediterranean where these huge ships, largest in the world, were filled with oil but it was never recorded and the oil never paid for.

          Turkey got their cut, certain Turkish naval officers became fabulously wealthy while the Bush cabal poured billions into their Cayman offshore accounts managed by Bain Capital.]

          [Nov 28, 2015] John Helmer The Classic Rules for Combatting Turkish Aggression

          Even if it was some forces not controlled by Erdogan committed this ambush, his reaction was a typical reaction of ultranationalist, panturkist. All this talk about out turkish brothers is just a smoke screen for territorial and regional ambitions of Erdogan government. He is becoming kind of Saudi Arabia Nop.1 but without oil. and that spell trobles for the edonomy and his regime.
          Notable quotes:
          "... To me Erdogan and his government more and more look like members of Grey Wolf organization, a copycat of Ukrainian Svoboda with the same level of ultra-nationalism and neofascism in their brains. ..."
          "... Has anyone considered the possibility this was not Erdogan's decision – perhaps his son's oil partners in ISIS had the right connections in the Turkish military, or suppose Uncle Sam just directed Erdogan to ratchet it up or watch his career dissolved by that same military, or maybe something worse, for males. ..."
          "... It's not like going after Syria was Erdogan's idea – he'd had good relations with Assad for years ..."
          naked capitalism
          ... Igor Sechin, the former deputy to President Vladimir Putin, was a leading advocate of forgetting Russia's historical lessons for dealing with the Turks, and disdaining to learn new ones. Putin was reluctant to learn them until yesterday.

          Here they are:

          1. Turkey never makes a military move without getting Pentagon approval first. In order for yesterday's shoot-down of the Su-24 to take place as it did, a battery of signals intelligence and other electronic warfare means would have been deployed by a joint US-Turkish command unit, giving the Turkish F-16 pilot confidence he was taking the Russian pilot unprepared. It was not, as the Turkish Government has announced, "an automatic response to our airspace being violated" because the airspace was Syrian, unilaterally claimed by the Turks to be their "exclusion zone". Neither was it, as Putin has announced, a "stab in the back" from the Turks. Nor was it, as Putin added, "despite the agreement we have signed with our American partners to prevent air incidents". What happened was full frontal – it was because of the agreement the Turks have with the US military command. Nor can Putin have been genuinely surprised that "instead of immediately establishing contacts with us, as far as we know Turkey turned to its NATO partners to discuss this incident." Had Putin said he suspected that Turkey turned to "its NATO partners" before the "incident", he would have been closer to the truth.

          2. Aggression by Turkey and the US can be defeated by a smaller force, but it must be in constant readiness, employing every form of early warning and disguising its force by surprise. Putin has said the Russian Su-24 was struck by a missile fired by a Turkish F-16 when the Russian aircraft was one kilometre inside the Syrian side of the border. That being true, Russian air defence support for the fighter must have been tracking the Turkish aircraft from the second it started its take-off roll. It ought to have tracked its course upward, and monitored its missile-arming electronics and such fire orders as came from elsewhere. The Russian warning and control operators and the Su-24 crew should have detected the hostile fire-radar, and had the option to jam it. If none of these things was done on the Russian side, alerting the Su-24 crew to their peril, the Russian forces weren't ready, and the Su-24 was taken by surprise. The consequences cannot be explained by the commander-in-chief telling a visitor – the King of Jordan pretending to call the Russian president his "brother": "we will never turn a blind eye to such crimes as the one that was committed today." Blind is the word for it – before, not after.

          THE RUSSIAN SU-24 FLIGHT PATH – TURKISH, BBC VERSION

          SU-24-FLIGHT-PATH-

          THE RUSSIAN DEFENCE MINISTRY VERSION

          RDMmap

          Source: http://sputniknews.com/military/20151124/1030695406/mod-su-24-flight-path.html

          3. In western Europe, in the Balkans, and in the Middle East the Turks have no durable friend or ally. For Russian strategy not to be ambushed by the Turks, it must have strong allies like Iran, weak ones like Cyprus and Serbia, and vacillating ones like the Bulgarians, and listen to their experience of warfighting with the Turks. It is a waste of breath to try reassuring Ankara that Russia's "plane and our pilots were in no way a threat to the Turkish Republic in any way." That's because the Turks know we know they are threatening, as well as financing the break-up of the Russian Caucasus. It's because they know Russia is committed to blocking Turkish expansion, and to protecting Shiite Iraq and the Kurds from Turkish attack. If these aren't the new strategic commitments, then Russia should hasten to withdraw its forces before it falls into more bloody ambushes. If they are the new commitments, then the consequences are as obvious as they are immediate.

          All Russians are now at risk if they travel to Turkey, so President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's exclusion zone should stop all Russian flights and all Russian nationals from entering the country.

          Time, too, for the Turks to warm their houses and cook their dinners with someone else's gas.

          liberal, November 26, 2015 at 10:08 am

          IMHO Turkey didn't consult with the US first. It smells of a stupidity that Ergodan would commit.

          I mean, here's the idiot who apparently didn't game out the overthrow of Assad, and the likely impact it would have on the Kurds.

          timbers, November 26, 2015 at 10:33 am

          Great article. It's implication of how Russia should respond might be:

          Russia should concentrate on protecting it's fighters near Turkish border and be prepared to protect and respond to head off Turkish aggression, and not directly escalate militarily but instead stay focused on it's original mission.

          Putin's past behavior may suggest he will choose a good course not unlike the above, weather he knows of the lesson Helmer describes, or not. Putin is not rash, realizes that while Russia is powerful and has options it is not the only powerful nation and faces constraints as well (if only the US did, too), considers before he moves. Hopefully this will keep him focused on what he wants to achieve in Syria and not get side tracked with Turkey even if it makes him look "weak" in the media. Read that Putin is looking at sealing the Syrian-Turkish border, which would freeze out the biggest influx of trouble makers in Syria. Am thinking Putin should slowly move to freeze out all Western access to Syrian airspace, perhaps with the much discussed S-400's and another methods.

          Positioning more defensive missiles, jet fighter escorts, and using the radar warning Helmer discusses to deter and preemptively defend against Turkey repeating this incident, is the best corse IMO. It appears Russia is doing at least some of these things from what I'm reading.

          mike, November 26, 2015 at 3:16 pm

          Fair enough assessment; I would not expect a second Russian plan to be shot down! Your right Putin is not rash!

          kl, November 26, 2015 at 10:59 am

          The West forgot Turkey. We forgot something it never did, that its main role is ultra-nationalism and ripping off the West.
          Apparently, Russians forgot this too. As a Russian passport offers few travel opportunities, Turkey and Egypt are prime destinations. I see Russian women suck up to Turkish and other middle Eastern men regularly. It's sad and shows a complete lack of understanding of the Turkish aggression, including enslaving slaves not that any centuries ago (officially) and the extant burgeoning sex slave trade (unofficially) today.

          al apaka, November 27, 2015 at 1:43 am

          uhhh regarding Russian passports, that is just plain wrong. go to Asia sometime. or Africa.
          the rest of your screed is sad, you've obviously got issues with swarthy folks, me senses projection in your focus on Russian women…lose your wife to a raghead, did you?

          digi_owl, November 26, 2015 at 3:16 pm

          Turkey has always been a wild card in NATO. Heck, the reason they are a member at all is that USA needed a standing ground army near the USSR that was not made up of US troops. And turkey had the biggest such after WW2 (and still has the biggest one next to USA within NATO). Their physical location also provided a "second front" deterrent to a land war in Europe.

          Then again while a land war was perhaps a risk during Stalin, afterwards it was more about having a buffer between Russia and Germany than anything else. the Soviet leadership was more worried about a offense from USA than planning some kind of grand takeover of Europe.

          kj1313, November 26, 2015 at 9:44 pm

          Tbh Turkey is the one country where I would have trusted the military to depose the tin pot dictator.

          Jon, November 27, 2015 at 8:33 am

          Turkey is no longer the solid Nato member and unflinching US ally that it was during the Cold War, or indeed even 15 years ago. The AKP government has new friends in the World and is happy play its cards against the EU and US when it chooses.

          Most like this move was part of Turkey's soft-on-ISIS/hard-on-PKK-and-other-Kurds playbook and most unlikely to be cleared with the US – though of course playing the Nato membership card after the event makes sense.

          Mustafa, November 27, 2015 at 2:58 pm

          Whenever Russian and Turks are fighting our enemies win. When they come together the history is changing its direction. This the a lesson from the history. There is a saying in Russian " The Russian-Turkish war from 1877 is a war where we have lost 100 million golden rubles and 100.000 lives and won nothing." Turkey have lost the Balkans and Cyprus in this very same war. But Atatürk and Lenin made it differently and the course of the history has changed. The battle in Galipoli where Atatürk defeated the super powers at that time the British and French and opened the door for the success of the Soviet revolution in 1917. Then Lenin gave his hand to Atatürk in 1920 and opened the door for the establishment of the Republic of Turkey. This was the end of British and French dominance in the east. Putin and Erdogan have to learn from the history…

          likbez, November 27, 2015 at 11:16 pm

          To me Erdogan and his government more and more look like members of Grey Wolf organization, a copycat of Ukrainian Svoboda with the same level of ultra-nationalism and neofascism in their brains.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Wolves_(organization)

          Looks like in several countries we are returning to 1930th. Talleyrand complain about the restoration of the monarchy "These people have learned nothing and for­gotten nothing" is perfectly applicable to nationalism Renaissance we experience today. It this an allergic reaction on neoliberalism or may be nationalism is once in a century epidemics that hit mankind to regulate its numbers is unclear to me.

          The sad side of this incident is that will damage Russia economically by increasing economic isolation. So the winner of Peace Nobel Price and all neocons around him got a good Thanksgiving present. Or, from another point of view, Putin's decision to save Alawite community from extermination by Islamic radicals backfired. No good deed is left unpunished in high politics.

          Fiver, November 28, 2015 at 4:47 am

          Has anyone considered the possibility this was not Erdogan's decision – perhaps his son's oil partners in ISIS had the right connections in the Turkish military, or suppose Uncle Sam just directed Erdogan to ratchet it up or watch his career dissolved by that same military, or maybe something worse, for males.

          It's not like going after Syria was Erdogan's idea – he'd had good relations with Assad for years, but he (and everyone else outside and in) was relentlessly pushed from the 'west' (yes, no capital 'W' earned this century) even as the European portion of it again failed to open for Turkey – the big payoff of Admission to the EU/EZ that is just recently promised yet anew for Turkey, but with events will recede again as the ink dries. So Erdogan cast his lot with Uncle re the 'Arab Regime Change Spring' and like the US, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar, GCC et al, Erdogan took deeply of the sort of Kool Aid that makes bad ideas look good – and so Erdogan got religion in both supporting ISIS by enabling ISIS oil operations and trade in Syria and profiting from it, even while assuring the west it was taking the fight to ISIS.

          This is what they call a 'fluid' situation, and I can well imagine other events that place one or more other allied leaders in even worse political jams. The collateral damage this confrontation has already inflicted is stupendous, and being borne by all the wrong people. I'm sure this will give Erdogan plenty of future reasons for him want to flip back to a more pro-Syria, or pro-Russia footing. Or more.

          [Nov 28, 2015] Who is buying ISILs oil

          Al Jazeera English
          On the face of it, it looks like any state-run oil industry. Engineers, managers and traders all help extract, refine and distribute oil, which makes its way across Syria and Iraq, as well as overseas. But this is no state-run company. This is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant's (ISIL) lifeline - a business that provides the armed group with more revenue than any other source.

          Oil helps to fund its war in Syria and Iraq, as well as to provide electricity to the 10 million people living under ISIL control. But despite the oil trade being targeted by the US-led coalition against ISIL, the business continues to thrive. And many people are increasingly asking why.

          Russia has accused Turkey of buying oil from the armed group. Ankara in turn threw this allegation back at Moscow because of Russian support for Bashar al-Assad, who is also accused of buying oil from ISIL.

          And to complicate matters, ISIL oil is also being sold to other rebel groups in Syria, most of whom are opposed to ISIL but have no alternative sources of fuel.

          So, who are the individuals and groups involved in refining and selling ISIL's oil? And where does that oil end up?

          http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2015/11/buying-isil-oil-151127173736852.html

          Presenter: Hazem Sika

          Guests:

          Shwan Zulal - Managing Director of Carduchi Consulting

          Carole Nakhle - Director of Crystol Energy

          Afshin Shahi - Director of the Centre for the Study of Political Islam

          [Nov 28, 2015] Jonathan Marshall

          Nov 27, 2015 | The Scott Horton Show

          Jonathan Marshall, an independent researcher living in San Anselmo, California, discusses the Obama administration's failure to broker a peace deal in Syria due to its neocon-like focus on regime change.

          [Nov 28, 2015] Shooting down the Russian jet a symptom of Turkey's central malaise - GÜVEN SAK

          Notable quotes:
          "... President Recep Tayyip Erdo an has said he would do it again if he could go back, but he also said we might have reacted differently had we known that the unidentified aircraft was Russian. I'm not sure which statement to believe. ..."
          "... In Turkish, we sometimes say "I am telling this to my daughter with the hope that my daughter-in-law will get the message." People in this part of the world communicate obliquely. What is Turkey's overriding concern in Syria? It is keeping the PKK/PYD in check, plain and simple. ..."
          "... Thanks to the civil war, the PYD has in some ways surpassed Öcalan's dreams. It has become a governing institution of the Syrian Kurds, and the YPG, its armed wing, has become the main instrument of the Western coalition against ISIL. That means Turkey cannot fight it directly. Meanwhile, Turkey's reconciliation process with its own Kurdish population has come to an abrupt halt. Why? Because the civil war in Syria shifted the balance of power in the Kurds' favor. ..."
          www.hurriyetdailynews.com

          The million dollar question is: Why did Turkey do it? The Russians were violating Turkish airspace on an almost daily basis. Did it feel like it had to make good on its threats for earlier violations? Why now?

          Since the start of this war in Syria, Turkey has wanted to be taken seriously. Syria shot down a Turkish plane in 2012, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) took Turkish Consulate staff in Mosul hostage for months, and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)-affiliated Democratic Union Party (PYD) is steadily gaining ground with Western backing. Russia's blatant disregard for Ankara's concerns was only the straw that broke the camel's back. The Turkish leadership felt it necessary to show it means business, and shooting down a Russian plane, they thought, might have been a way to show that. But was it the right move? President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has said he would do it again if he could go back, but he also said we might have reacted differently had we known that the unidentified aircraft was Russian. I'm not sure which statement to believe.

          In Turkish, we sometimes say "I am telling this to my daughter with the hope that my daughter-in-law will get the message." People in this part of the world communicate obliquely. What is Turkey's overriding concern in Syria? It is keeping the PKK/PYD in check, plain and simple. Turks are obsessed with this, to the extent that talking about fighting ISIS makes them uncomfortable, not necessarily because they like the group, but because they don't want to overshadow the threat of the PYD. They have not forgotten that the PYD was established by Abdullah Öcalan during his exile as a small Syrian arm of his operations. Thanks to the civil war, the PYD has in some ways surpassed Öcalan's dreams. It has become a governing institution of the Syrian Kurds, and the YPG, its armed wing, has become the main instrument of the Western coalition against ISIL. That means Turkey cannot fight it directly. Meanwhile, Turkey's reconciliation process with its own Kurdish population has come to an abrupt halt. Why? Because the civil war in Syria shifted the balance of power in the Kurds' favor.

          Why did Turkey down that Su-24? Because it needed its Western allies to know that it means business, even if it won't hit PYD bases directly. That would not normally be a problem, but the range of responses from Ankara shows that it was not a very calculated step. Rather, it was a product of our tangled feelings toward Kurdish politics, which manifested obliquely in the debris of that plane. Similar to the Mavi Marmara incident, the episode will probably be useful in domestic politics but it will end up disproportionately hurting Turkey's foreign policy.

          Ankara must learn to measure its actions based on realities out there on the ground, not its emotional and ideological echo chamber at home. In the case of Syria, this means facing up to our feelings about the Kurds, at home and across the border, once and for all.

          [Nov 28, 2015] Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern

          Notable quotes:
          "... It's no secret by now that both Turkey and Saudi Arabia are funding Islamic extremists in Syria and Iraq ..."
          "... Frida Ghitis says the Syrian conflict "pitted moderates against extremists, and then extremists against ultra-extremists." http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/24/opinions/ghitis-russia-jet-shot-down/index.html So I suppose the United States is now on the side of the "extremists." We certainly would never approve of backing the "ultra-extremists," the way our allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia do. ..."
          "... Not Turkmen commander-Turkish ..."
          "... So Putin may have to put some of his other goals in the region on the back burner in order to actually wage war on ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups. ..."
          "... Putin is right in saying that Turkey, a NATO member, is backing ISIS, not only financially but militarily. For Turkey their main interest is in Syrian Kurds not getting organized, armed, and in control of their own territory. When Turkey says they are fighting ISIS, they are dropping most of the bombs on Syrian Kurds. And they have never respected Iraq borders when attacking Iraqi Kurds. ..."
          "... Saudi Arabia is also supporting ISIS, not only because they also defend an extremist Sunni Islam as Wahabbist Saudi Arabia, but also because it is part of their proxy wars against Shia Iran, and Syria is one of the Shia States with Sunni majority. Saudi Arabia is probably the biggest supporter of Islamic terrorism. ..."
          "... Holland stupidly wants to march on ISIS, but nobody else wants to put troops on the ground. The only ones with troops on the ground fighting ISIS are Syrian army and Kurds. The latter ones are unacceptable to Turkey, so the former ones might become our new ally. ..."
          "... Alawites, the core of the Syrian army, are paying a very high price for the war. About a third of their manpower has died in the 5 year war. They only keep fighting because they know they face extermination if they lose the war, whether from Syrian Sunnies or from ISIS. ..."
          "... who want higher oil prices might have had their wish granted today after the downing of the russian SU-24 inside syria from a turkish F-16 (you will hear loads of shit in CnnAbcFoxNbcNewYotkTimes…please feel free to complete the alphabet soup here …they are all the SAME! that it was in turkish air space but THAT IS A LIE!!!!) ..."
          "... It is your right to believe that Erdogan/Turkey -and they alone- are "brave" enough to shoot down a Russian aircraft while flying OUTSIDE their territory; It is your right to believe that Maidan/Kiev protests and the ousting of Yanukovich happened/grew genuinely from the Ukrainian people; It is your right to believe that the pro-russian rebels shut down the MH17 in Ukraine; It is your right to believe that our army and air force cannot destroy a bunch of white-basketball-shoe-wearing-mid-eval -lunatics after a year of bombing campaign and that we cannot disrupt their tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of barrels of oil per day production/selling which brings them millions of dollars per day in hard currency (…yet somehow russians did it in a month); It is your right to believe that russians are threatening Europe even though we are expanding NATO right at their borders; It is your right to believe that a bunch of illiterate, ugly, smelly morons with rusted AK-47 can defeat France and Belgium; It is your right to believe that: "…they hate us for our freedoms…" and "…our troops are fighting over there to keep us safe over here…" and other "lovely" narratives as such. It is your right! ..."
          "... Are you absolutely sure of that? The Russians are saying that's not true, that the plane never entered Turkish air space. Russia's side is presented in this video: https://www.rt.com/news/323369-turkey-downed-russian-jet/ ..."
          "... If a person is indeed on a truth-finding mission, is it not incumbent upon that person to listen to what all sides have to say, and then make up one's mind based on the evidence which is presented? ..."
          "... RT, for instance, has a short clip of an interview with retired U.S. Airforce general Thomas McInery where he asserts that the downing of the Russian jet "had to be pre-planned." ..."
          "... If what General McInery says is correct - that the downing of the Russian jet "had to be pre-planned" - then there was plenty of time for Anakra to get Washington's approval before the pre-planned attack occurred. I'm not saying that this happened, only that it is not outside the realm of possiblity. ..."
          "... Well as far as I am concerned, President Obama circling the wagons around Turkey hardly qualifies him as being one the brightest lights on the Christmas tree. Obama is attempting to defend the indefensible. Why do you believe that is? ..."
          "... It is clear that this was an hostile deliberate act by Turkey against Russia regardless of where that plane was at the moment. Where the plane was is only relevant to see if it was legal or illegal, but the deliberate hostile act remains either case. ..."
          "... Turkey doesn't like the way Russia is helping the Syrian government, but they just proved to NATO that they are unreliable and more a liability than a trustworthy ally. This is how wars start, by unjustified escalation. ..."
          "... If one watches the RT video I linked above, Erdogan can be heard saying exactly that same thing back in 2012 after Syria shot down a Turkish jet because of an air space violation. Here's what Erdogan said then: ..."
          "... But whether the US might have given the green light for such an act, and the potential reasons for such a thing. Well, now that's interesting, despite Ron's insistence that it's absolutely untenable position. I say, very tenable for a country that has invaded and overthrown dozens of governments in just my short lifetime. ..."
          "... personally think Ves' comment below about Turkey's desperation about losing their proxies is probably closer to the mark though. I've seen over the past couple decades Turkey has seen itself as a regional player linking the middle east and Europe and global economic hub. ..."
          "... Hey Petro, yeah, just on the face of it I didn't see your comment as being that outlandish. the united states has a very very very long history of making moves that seem quite "beyond the pale" ..."
          "... To say, if he did, that the US directly said, "shoot a plane down ASAP" is probably unlikely. But Turkey, a member of NATO, might be a little hesitant to take such an action unless it felt that the United States had its back. Now Turkey has been a bit "rogue" in recent years – http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/turkey-denies-agreement-open-air-bases-us-isis . I mean the final answer is really above my pay grade, but I think you are beginning to see that there are a lot of moving parts to this equation and I'm beginning to agree with wimbi – can we go back to how much drag there would be on a bomber if it lost its tail section? ..."
          "... That Turks are so desperate to stop their proxies in Syria being annihilated within next few months? Shooting down Russian plane is what desperate party does in order to change war dynamics on the ground. ..."
          "... Unlike US, Russia is very active attacking oil trucks that smuggle ISIS oil to Turkey. Those trucks belong to a shipping company BMZ that belongs to the son of Erdogan. Russia is causing a personal economic loss to the Erdogan family. ..."
          "... The international coalition against Syria and Russia is beginning to crack on the wake of the Paris attacks by ISIS. Turkey doesn't want that to happen. This explains the shooting of the plane and the rushed going of Turkey to NATO to ask for support. It is intended to dynamite any possibility of understanding between US-lead coalition in Syria and Russia against ISIS. Obama has his hands tied, as he needs to use his base in Turkey. ..."
          peakoilbarrel.com

          Glenn Stehle, 11/24/2015 at 5:34 pm

          Opening up natural gas supplies to Turkey and Europe which are not controlled by Russia and its allies? This requires a pipeline across Syria but Assad nixed the deal.

          No wonder Saudi Prince…told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

          THE GUARDIAN, "Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern"

          http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

          Jimmy, 11/24/2015 at 7:55 pm

          Something tells me Putin is gonna turn up the dial on Turkeys little Kurdish problem. Putin has a lot of levers to choose from in dealing with Turkey. Whilst Russia does need Turkey perhaps more than Turkey needs Russia they certainly don't need Erdogan.

          Watcher, 11/24/2015 at 5:18 pm

          btw given these short time periods quoted, you also have to add the seconds req'd for all these alleged warnings.

          ZH commenters are saying Turkish PM's son is the primary recipient of ISIS oil flowing thru Turkey. That was motivation, allegedly. Shrug.

          I can say one thing for sure, no way in hell there were 10 warnings of this jet in the time frame available.

          Jimmy, 11/24/2015 at 8:00 pm

          Russia seems to be getting in the way of the Turkish Presidents family business of smuggling ISIS oil. FOX missed it.

          http://olympia.gr/2015/11/24/erdogans-son-bilal-erdogan-smuggles-illegal-isiss-oil-russianplane-syria/

          Glenn Stehle, 11/25/2015 at 7:18 am

          It's no secret by now that both Turkey and Saudi Arabia are funding Islamic extremists in Syria and Iraq:

          Turkey and Saudi Arabia are actively supporting a hardline coalition of Islamist rebels against Bashar al-Assad's regime that includes al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria….

          The decision by the two leading allies of the West to back a group in which al-Nusra plays a leading role has alarmed Western governments and is at odds with the US, which is firmly opposed to arming and funding jihadist extremists in Syria's long-running civil war.

          http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-crisis-turkey-and-saudi-arabia-shock-western-countries-by-supporting-anti-assad-jihadists-10242747.html

          Frida Ghitis says the Syrian conflict "pitted moderates against extremists, and then extremists against ultra-extremists." http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/24/opinions/ghitis-russia-jet-shot-down/index.html

          So I suppose the United States is now on the side of the "extremists." We certainly would never approve of backing the "ultra-extremists," the way our allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia do.

          twocats,11/25/2015 at 9:28 pm

          I thought Russia and US both agreed to start bombing oil shipments. Of course, the US didn't WANT to do that as it weakens their proxy allies. It's an a great game of thrones episode that's for sure.

          Opritov Alexandr, 11/25/2015 at 9:25 am

          "A Turkmen commander said they shot the pilots."
          --–
          Not Turkmen commander-Turkish : http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2491068.html#comments

          twocats,11/25/2015 at 9:23 pm

          I'm calling "completely irrelevant due to the fact that it's irrelevant". Is Turkey at war with Russia? Are they in a direct conflict in any way really? Does ISIS have bombers? So there's absolutely positively no way they could have "mistaken" the bomber for something else. And unless they are ready to declare war directly with Russia, the attack is on the verge of insanity.

          I know sovereignty is important and all, and they could certainly buzz and even fire "shots across the bow" pretty easily. If we are disputing between 19 and 10 seconds of air space violations, we are idiots. Geeky idiots, but idiots nonethe less.

          Fernando Leanme, 11/26/2015 at 5:06 am

          The Turks were defending Turkmen on the Syrian side. Erdogan said so. The Russians may sit down with turkey and concede a portion of Latakia to Turkey. The excuse will be the fact that it's populated by Turkmen. If Turkey agrees and redraws the border it will be huge win for Russia. It will give them the precedent to justify taking over the Crimea and the Donbas.

          Glenn Stehle says: 11/25/2015 at 6:49 am

          Germany apparently has come to a similar conclusion.

          German Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel said:

          This incident shows for the first time that we are to dealing with an actor who is unpredictable according to statements from various parts of the region – that is not Russia, that is Turkey.

          https://www.rt.com/news/323240-russia-turkey-warplane-downed/

          NATO, however, has closed ranks with Turkey. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that the alliance backs Ankara:

          We stand in solidarity with Turkey and support the territorial integrity of our NATO ally.

          https://www.rt.com/news/323240-russia-turkey-warplane-downed/

          Obama joined NATO in closing ranks with Turkey:

          http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/plane-shootdown-could-lead-to-nato-conflict-with-russia/

          and

          http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/hollande-and-obama-address-isis-threat/

          The MSM talking heads are also swinging into action to defend Turkey, arguing that even if the Russian jet was not shot down over Turkey (something an anonymous Pentagon official told Reuters is the case, since video evidence makes further denials by Anakra and Washington unplausible) then Russia still had it coming. Nick Burns, former National Security Council Director for Russian Affairs, charged:

          There's an important principle at stake here… Every nation has a right to protect its own borders. And President Obama sided with the Turks today in saying that they have that right. It was a gross violation of international law for the Russians to even fly close to that border…

          The Russians may have thought that the Turks weren't serious but they found out today they were.

          http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/analysis-of-russian-plane-shootdown/

          This incident should shed light on the fact that neither the great powers (like the US, France or Russia) nor the regional players (like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or Iran) are participating in this conflict to fight a common enemy, ISIS. They are there for other reasons.

          Russia, however, is in a tough spot. Pepe Escobar, for instance, noted in Asia Times that Russia has eight times the Islamic extremists living on its soil as does France:

          Bajolet tells us that at least 500 French jihadis from "Syraq" might present a threat; compare it with 4,000 in respect to Russia (and that explains Putin's determination to go after all shades of jihadism).
          http://www.sott.net/article/306819-Pepe-Escobar-Paris-terror-attacks-who-profits

          So Putin may have to put some of his other goals in the region on the back burner in order to actually wage war on ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups.

          Javier, 11/25/2015 at 7:37 am

          Glenn,

          It is a very complex issue as every player has different interests. Putin is right in saying that Turkey, a NATO member, is backing ISIS, not only financially but militarily. For Turkey their main interest is in Syrian Kurds not getting organized, armed, and in control of their own territory. When Turkey says they are fighting ISIS, they are dropping most of the bombs on Syrian Kurds. And they have never respected Iraq borders when attacking Iraqi Kurds.

          Saudi Arabia is also supporting ISIS, not only because they also defend an extremist Sunni Islam as Wahabbist Saudi Arabia, but also because it is part of their proxy wars against Shia Iran, and Syria is one of the Shia States with Sunni majority. Saudi Arabia is probably the biggest supporter of Islamic terrorism.

          The Alawites of Syria (including the al-Assad family) are also happy that ISIS is in Syria. Without them they have no chance of keeping power, but in a three sides war with one of them being unacceptable to Occident, they are no longer looking so bad.

          Syrian opposition is the big loser here. They are bombed by Turkey and Russia (different targets) and attacked on land by Alawites and ISIS as each one wants to expand first at their expense.

          This is why refugees are coming out in droves now as the war is getting much worse.

          Turkey feels pretty safe. NATO has no choice but to close ranks, and the European Union is paying big money to Turkey to keep a lid on the refugee problem, as Spain does with Morocco.

          Holland stupidly wants to march on ISIS, but nobody else wants to put troops on the ground. The only ones with troops on the ground fighting ISIS are Syrian army and Kurds. The latter ones are unacceptable to Turkey, so the former ones might become our new ally.

          Alawites, the core of the Syrian army, are paying a very high price for the war. About a third of their manpower has died in the 5 year war. They only keep fighting because they know they face extermination if they lose the war, whether from Syrian Sunnies or from ISIS.

          Ves, 11/25/2015 at 8:40 am

          Javier,
          You got all ingredients right but all your conclusions are not correct.

          Paulo, 11/26/2015 at 10:33 am

          I wonder what Obama will say about the right of a country to shoot down an aircraft for airspace violation….when one of theirs gets shot down over the Spratleys by China?

          Petro, 11/24/2015 at 4:04 pm

          A bit off topic Ron, but maybe not by much:

          -Shallow Sand et al.

          who want higher oil prices might have had their wish granted today after the downing of the russian SU-24 inside syria from a turkish F-16 (you will hear loads of shit in CnnAbcFoxNbcNewYotkTimes…please feel free to complete the alphabet soup here …they are all the SAME! that it was in turkish air space but THAT IS A LIE!!!!)

          Let us ALL hope and pray that Putin does not take this at face value (Act of WAR!….which indeed is….probably ordered by your and my tax dollars in DC)….for if He does, oil prices are going to be the last thing we have to worry about, dear Shallow Sand!!!!

          Be well,

          Petro

          P.S.: sorry for the off topic comment Ron and thank you for the post!

          Ron Patterson , 11/24/2015 at 5:17 pm

          (Act of WAR!….which indeed is….probably ordered by your and my tax dollars in DC)…

          Petro, that that the shooting down of this Russian plane was probably ordered by the President, or the Pentagon, is the most ignorant thing I have ever read on this blog. Any goddamn fool with half a brain would know better than that.

          Sorry for the strong language but when someone posts something so utterly stupid just to take a swipe at our President, or government, really pisses me off.

          That being said, I agree that Turkey shooting down that Russian plane was a very stupid and dangerous thing for Turkey to do. But to say such action was ordered by the US is beyond belief.

          Petro, 11/24/2015 at 10:45 pm

          Dear Ron,

          First, I would like to apologize for being caught in your "cross-hairs" as the result of my unorthodox comment. It will not happen again!

          Second, I genuinely respect the tremendous amount of time and information with which you so generously enable all of us frequenting this great forum each and every week! As I have mentioned on numerous comments of mine here, I feel lucky and empowered every time I read one of your well written "mind-teasers".
          I truly do!
          -For those reasons (and a couple of others) I will not engage on answering:
          "…is the most ignorant thing I have ever read on this blog. Any goddamn fool with half a brain would know better than that…."
          and
          "…when someone posts something so utterly stupid…".

          I would sincerely hope however, that in this forum we refrain from using word concoctions such as : "goddamn fool", "utterly stupid", "most ignorant thing I have ever read" aimed at the PERSONAL level – even when scientifically and logically (with regard to this blog) they are "deserved"

          – i.e. when Peter writes "If 2015 is the peak Oil year, then it is the $45 per barrel peak.

          This should give people pause for thought. How on earth can we really be at peak oil, with prices this low. We cannot."

          -or RDG writes "Peak Oil is irrelevant because the world's methane potential is underestimated…"

          -or Arceus writes"I suspect if the Saudis could double their production to 20 million boepd they could almost double their market share. The only downside would be oil would likely be selling at 20 dollars per barrel."

          -to which you (to my delight-I might add) replied:

          "That's the funniest thing I have read in weeks."

          It is your right to believe that Erdogan/Turkey -and they alone- are "brave" enough to shoot down a Russian aircraft while flying OUTSIDE their territory;
          It is your right to believe that Maidan/Kiev protests and the ousting of Yanukovich happened/grew genuinely from the Ukrainian people;
          It is your right to believe that the pro-russian rebels shut down the MH17 in Ukraine;
          It is your right to believe that our army and air force cannot destroy a bunch of white-basketball-shoe-wearing-mid-eval -lunatics after a year of bombing campaign and that we cannot disrupt their tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of barrels of oil per day production/selling which brings them millions of dollars per day in hard currency (…yet somehow russians did it in a month);
          It is your right to believe that russians are threatening Europe even though we are expanding NATO right at their borders;
          It is your right to believe that a bunch of illiterate, ugly, smelly morons with rusted AK-47 can defeat France and Belgium;
          It is your right to believe that: "…they hate us for our freedoms…" and "…our troops are fighting over there to keep us safe over here…" and other "lovely" narratives as such.
          It is your right!

          What I am trying to suggest however, is that there is quite a bit of very logical and credible evidence that points to other versions of the "truth".
          …and NO!
          I do not follow idiots akin to Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh…, nor do I wear a tin foil hat.
          You say: "…our President, or government…"
          I say that the LAST president to be considered truly OURS was JFK.
          How did we go from Jefferson/Adams/Payne/…..JFK to ReaganBushClintonBushWO and worse- seriously considering idiots like TrumpHillarious – is beyond me and only Heavens know (I guess A.Bartlet applies even with regard to "worse" and "worse-er" and "worse-rer-rer" people).
          What is really done in our name and with our money dear Ron, shall give a "heart attack" to us all …very soon.

          In any case, I tried to follow up with Shallow since he was worried about oil prices and I have replied to him (and others) about that on several previous comments.

          Again, I apologize for my unorthodox comment and for any unintentional insult.

          Be well,

          Petro

          Ron Patterson, 11/25/2015 at 6:59 am

          Petro, I stand by my comment. The plane was in Turkish air space for seconds. If you think someone in Washington said "shoot the goddamn thing down" then you are a fool.

          There was not time to notify anyone except Turkish officials on the ground. Turkey does not take orders from Washington.

          Nothing else going on in France, Belgium or anywhere else had anything to do with what I wrote or what I was replying to. You simply saw an opportunity to blame the US government for something they very obviously had nothing to do with. I would have agreed with everything you wrote in that one post had you not took the opportunity to blame it on Washington. If you are going to post on this blog then you have the obligation to use a little common sense.

          Glenn Stehle, 11/25/2015 at 8:39 am

          Ron Patterson said:

          The plane was in Turkish air space for seconds.

          Are you absolutely sure of that? The Russians are saying that's not true, that the plane never entered Turkish air space. Russia's side is presented in this video: https://www.rt.com/news/323369-turkey-downed-russian-jet/

          If a person is indeed on a truth-finding mission, is it not incumbent upon that person to listen to what all sides have to say, and then make up one's mind based on the evidence which is presented?

          RT, for instance, has a short clip of an interview with retired U.S. Airforce general Thomas McInery where he asserts that the downing of the Russian jet "had to be pre-planned."

          One could probably do no better than to heed the advice which Thomas Jefferson gave his nephew in a letter dated August 10, 1787:

          [S]hake off all the fears and servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear….

          Caelan MacIntyre, 11/25/2015 at 8:52 am

          The Fog of War

          Ron Patterson, 11/25/2015 at 8:59 am

          Hey, that was not my point. My point was that the shoot down was not ordered by the US Government in Washington.

          Shooting down that Russian warplane was an extremely stupid thing for Turkey to do. But what is even more stupid is to say that the shoot down was ordered by Washington.

          Glenn Stehle, 11/25/2015 at 11:37 am

          Ron,

          I was referring to your argument:

          The plane was in Turkish air space for seconds. If you think someone in Washington said "shoot the goddamn thing down" then you are a fool.

          If what General McInery says is correct - that the downing of the Russian jet "had to be pre-planned" - then there was plenty of time for Anakra to get Washington's approval before the pre-planned attack occurred. I'm not saying that this happened, only that it is not outside the realm of possiblity.

          I have a feeling like these cat-and-mouse games between pilots probably go on continuously during conflict situations. However, I have no experience in these matters, and oddly enough, the only fighter pilot I've ever known in my entire life was transgendered:

          I also worked for "T" vets inclusion in GLBVA during those years and VA support of "T" vets (which finally happened recently) – I'm a retired USAF Major and Command Pilot. During the '90s I was a rather prolific writer; although, quite a bit of it is probably lost to transgender antiquity. I've been lecturing on gender, gender roles, and the "T" topic at Trinity University for the past 16 years.

          http://research.cristanwilliams.com/2012/03/09/tere-fredrickson-interview/

          Ron Patterson, 11/25/2015 at 12:08 pm

          there was plenty of time for Anakra to get Washington's approval before the pre-planned attack occurred. I'm not saying that this happened, only that it is not outside the realm of possiblity.

          Goddammit, will the stupid shit never stop. It is just down in the dirt stupid to suggest that the President would want such a thing. It could lead to the break-up of NATO. Also, the very idea that Turkey would cot-tow to Washington's wishes is also stupid.

          To shoot this plane down was the stupidest thing Turkey could possibly do. But a lot stupider things have been done by Middle East Islamic rulers causing things to get a lot worse. But to suggest that our President is just as stupid is beyond the pale. Can you guys just not use a little common sense?

          To suggest that Washington was behind this smacks of a conspiracy theory. I think all conspiracy theorists have a screw loose.

          Glenn Stehle, 11/25/2015 at 4:06 pm

          Ron,

          Well as far as I am concerned, President Obama circling the wagons around Turkey hardly qualifies him as being one the brightest lights on the Christmas tree. Obama is attempting to defend the indefensible. Why do you believe that is?

          And you don't believe that reinforces the appearance of impropriety, of him being complicit in Turkey's shooting down the plane? Talk about bad optics!

          Mark Ames minces no words:

          Russia will just have to play and replay the shooting down of its jet, and the Syrian rebels gloating over the dead pilots, to see Putin's already sky-high popularity ratings push even higher….

          Point being: this is working out wonderfully for Putin.

          In fact, if there's any conspiracy I can make sense of with what's gone on over the past year and a half, it's that anti-Russia neocons and their pals have been doing everything possible to increase Putin's popularity and power at home, in order to build him up as an even more plausible villain over here. Or maybe they're straight-up Putin moles. But that of course gives everyone, especially these idiots, too much credit.

          https://pando.com/2015/11/24/turkey-shoots-down-russian-plane-wars-have-funny-way-taking-life-their-own/eba0108e463df65f823e3f435b3eead1d41c6e25/

          Ron Patterson, 11/25/2015 at 5:05 pm

          Glenn, the idea that Obama ordered the shooting down the Russian plane is pure ignorance, stupidity gone to seed. I will not lower myself by arguing such an utterly stupid scenario.

          One more point. This is not a conspiracy theory website. We do not discuss conspiracy theories here.

          Bye now.

          twocats, 11/26/2015 at 12:08 am

          What if this conversation happened:

          Turkey, "A lot of recent missions by Russia has put them very close to our borders if not outright in our airspace. What do you want us to do."

          White House, "You have the right to defend the sovereignty of your airspace by any means you deem necessary. We feel that Russia is being very reckless in their choice of targets and are endangering stability in the area."

          NATO, "You do realize that if Turkey provokes Russia it could draw us directly into the conflict."

          White House, "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it."

          I mean, if you can't see some version of the above dialogue happening then all I can say to you that you'll understand is, "God Bless America, the greatest country that ever existed."

          Javier, 11/25/2015 at 9:09 am

          Glenn,

          Does it really matter? There is international consensus that planes are not shot down for briefly entering foreign airspace without permit when the nations are not belligerent. Airspace is not clearly delimited up in the air and pilots are often too busy to check.

          It is clear that this was an hostile deliberate act by Turkey against Russia regardless of where that plane was at the moment. Where the plane was is only relevant to see if it was legal or illegal, but the deliberate hostile act remains either case.

          To me it looks like the Russian plane was flying in circles and was passing over a small tip (~2 km wide) of Turkish territory each time. This was used as an excuse to shoot down the plane in what cannot be claimed as a self-defense act, but clearly a hostile warning.

          Turkey doesn't like the way Russia is helping the Syrian government, but they just proved to NATO that they are unreliable and more a liability than a trustworthy ally. This is how wars start, by unjustified escalation.

          Ron Patterson, 11/25/2015 at 9:26 am

          This time I agree 100% with Javier's assessment of the situation.

          Glenn Stehle, 11/25/2015 at 11:02 am

          Javier said:

          There is international consensus that planes are not shot down for briefly entering foreign airspace without permit when the nations are not belligerent. Airspace is not clearly delimited up in the air and pilots are often too busy to check.

          If one watches the RT video I linked above, Erdogan can be heard saying exactly that same thing back in 2012 after Syria shot down a Turkish jet because of an air space violation. Here's what Erdogan said then:

          A short-term border violation can never be a pretext for an attack.

          https://www.rt.com/news/323369-turkey-downed-russian-jet/

          Now, however, the Ministry of Truth in Washington, Anakra and Brussels is saying just the opposite.

          Ves, 11/25/2015 at 11:06 am

          Blowback. Sinking fast due to their own narrative.

          Javier, 11/25/2015 at 11:56 am

          Hahahaaa, that's a good one.

          Politicians, or the art of defending one thing and the opposite without any blush.

          twocats, 11/26/2015 at 12:02 am

          fuck an A glen, you're back to the minutiae of that!! stop derailing these conversations about whether or not the plane was in airspace of turkey. I mean really does it matter?! 1km, 40 km, I don't know, irrelevant.

          But whether the US might have given the green light for such an act, and the potential reasons for such a thing. Well, now that's interesting, despite Ron's insistence that it's absolutely untenable position. I say, very tenable for a country that has invaded and overthrown dozens of governments in just my short lifetime.

          I personally think Ves' comment below about Turkey's desperation about losing their proxies is probably closer to the mark though. I've seen over the past couple decades Turkey has seen itself as a regional player linking the middle east and Europe and global economic hub.

          Or it could just be the pilot took the wrong pills getting into the cockpit.

          Petreo, 11/25/2015 at 11:04 pm

          "If you are going to post on this blog then you have the obligation to use a little common sense."

          Dear Ron,
          I clearly was!
          Not just a little, but a lot of common sense.
          In my comment to Shallow I wrote: "…sorry for the off topic comment Ron…"
          In my second comment to you I wrote: "…First, I would like to apologize for being caught in your "cross-hairs" as the result of my unorthodox comment.
          It will not happen again!…"

          I did that, for I did not want to remind you of our first exchange on this site -in which you got a taste of how good I am at "shooting back" (just as Erdogan shall taste how good Putin is at shooting back …very soon!)
          -Yet, you continued with your hysterical, inflammatory bursting!
          I am not certain what pricked your "bubble" -holiday shopping not going well, perhaps – my condolences!
          In any event, you GROSSLY misunderstood and misrepresented what I wrote.
          Nowhere did I write that: " …ourPresident ordered: shoot the goddamn thing down…" – as you so eloquently put it.
          Let me repeat to you what I wrote (short term amnesia – especially when one is enraged – is a bitch!):
          "….probably ordered by your and my tax dollars in DC…".

          -What I was trying to convey (obviously fruitlessly!) was that even though Erdogan/Turks pulled the trigger (or maybe you prefer: "pushed the button") and shot the SU24 down, our un-Kosherly dumb (at the very best!) policies for the last 15 years (and maybe longer!) in the region (and wider), have GREATLY empowered "Erdogan" types.
          Key word is "at the very best" here, for there is unmistakable and unambiguous evidence to suggest the other extreme of that spectrum (hint: intent)!

          -Whether you consider a senior senator (i.e.McCain) posing with known international criminal be-headers, or viceSercretaryOfState (i.e.V.Nuland) hand picking puppets for the head of KievGovrmt after orchestrating, directing and financing a CLASSIC "coup d'etat" to overthrow the previous govmt there, part of ourGovrmt, or NOT – is your business.
          However, that does not give you the moral and social (let alone the common sense one!) right to engage in hysterical, inflammatory and wildly accusational burstings against somebody – even on your blog site!
          If that is your idea of patriotism, you surely missed it!

          -Yes!
          It was theTurks who shot down theRussian aircraft – not us!
          But to put it in a historical context, SIMPLER for you to understand:
          it was NOT Great Britain, France and US (among others) that in 1933 made Adolf Hitler Reich Chancellor;
          it was the Germans – whether they be German elites, or German plebes!

          Behavior(s) and decisions by political and economical/financial leaders in those Countries however, GREATLY facilitated Hitler's ascend to power!
          In December 1938, less than 10 months before starting the carnage that killed 100 million people worldwide , Hitler was Time Magazine's "Man of the Year".

          I would strongly suggest to you sources other than NYT and Fox for your world news updates – you would be enlightened!
          If you do not want me to comment here and this is personal, be a man and say so without wild explosions of nastiness!
          We are all adults here (one can only hope!) and can take it.
          And stop throwing the "conspiracy" label around, as well!
          Makes you sound very foolish and brainwashed.

          -Have a good Thanksgiving tomorrow and maybe/hopefully by Friday feel more relaxed…

          Be well,

          Petro

          twocats, 11/26/2015 at 12:50 am

          Hey Petro, yeah, just on the face of it I didn't see your comment as being that outlandish. the united states has a very very very long history of making moves that seem quite "beyond the pale"

          http://www.amazon.com/KILLING-HOPE-William-Blum/dp/B007K517VE

          in this specific case, ron's point that this move seems really really stupid does ring true for me. but i think we need to wait a little longer and see how it plays out to know for sure.

          Ron Patterson, 11/26/2015 at 8:00 am

          Back in 2010 I was living in Pensacola, FL. Right after the Deep Water Horizon disaster everyone was pointing the finger, blaming somebody. And there was a lot of blame to go around but I met several folks here that blamed Obama. Yes, they said, Obama planned and ordered the whole disaster. Just why he would order such a thing no one seemed to know. A few came up with a reason, but no one had the same reason as the other nut cases.

          I see the same thing in almost every other disaster throughout the world, "Obama planned and ordered the whole disaster". So whenever I see someone blaming Obama, or Washington, for this or that disaster, it really pisses me off.

          And like the other nut cases that blamed Obama for the Macondo disaster, they cannot come up with a reason that Obama would do such a thing, but he is the US president and they hate everything that comes out of Washington so he must have been somehow responsible.

          Some people never ever miss a chance to blame Obama, or Washington, for some evil act especially when it cannot be proven otherwise.

          twocats, 11/26/2015 at 11:45 am

          Yep I'll definitely give you the anti-Washington, and vehement anti-Obama thing (gotta be a lot of rascism wrapped up in that). But I'm assuming you are aware of the fairly well known shenanigans of the United States in terms of intervening and influencing countries in order to make terrible terrible things happen:

          1) training Saddam to help overthrow Qasim which led to, well Saddam
          2) overhthrowing Mossadeg to install Shah which led to Iranian Revolution
          3) giving Saddam chemical weapons to kill 100s thousands of Iranians
          4) training Al-Qaeda to fight Russia in Afghanistan, and latter trained again to fight in Kosovo
          5) Backed wahabi tribe of Saud and backed their play for power in Arabian penninsula which led to of course Saudi Arabia, despised totalitarian regime which regularly beheads and then crucifies people.

          i mean i could go on for hours. so the idea that United States hinted to Turkey that it wouldn't be upset if it 1) defended its border, 2) defended Turkmen majority cities on Syrian side (thanks Fernando), these are not such crazy notions. (see article from oriental review – http://orientalreview.org/2015/11/25/whys-the-us-hanging-turkey-out-to-dry/)

          twocats, 11/26/2015 at 12:00 pm

          and just for giggles here is a more direct corollary

          http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/01/09/wikileaks-april-glaspie-and-saddam-hussein/

          Petro's post was a little long and poorly written so i didn't read it all and he may have been overstating it.

          To say, if he did, that the US directly said, "shoot a plane down ASAP" is probably unlikely. But Turkey, a member of NATO, might be a little hesitant to take such an action unless it felt that the United States had its back. Now Turkey has been a bit "rogue" in recent years – http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/turkey-denies-agreement-open-air-bases-us-isis. I mean the final answer is really above my pay grade, but I think you are beginning to see that there are a lot of moving parts to this equation and I'm beginning to agree with wimbi – can we go back to how much drag there would be on a bomber if it lost its tail section?

          Ron Patterson, 11/26/2015 at 12:05 pm

          but I think you are beginning to see that there are a lot of moving parts to this equation

          I am beginning to see there is a lot of bullshit in this equation and it is getting deeper and deeper. As I said, it is very easy to throw out bullshit when it cannot be proven otherwise. You can seem like a master of knowledge when all you really are is a master of bullshit.

          Reply

          AlexS, 11/25/2015 at 7:37 am

          Russian jet hit inside Syria after incursion into Turkey: U.S. official

          http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/25/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-impact-idUSKBN0TE04M20151125

          The United States believes that the Russian jet shot down by Turkey on Tuesday was hit inside Syrian airspace after a brief incursion into Turkish airspace, a U.S. official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

          The official said that assessment was based on detection of the heat signature of the jet.
          ---------------

          Russia to move S-400 air defense system to Syria - defense minister

          http://tass.ru/en/defense/839109

          MOSCOW, November 25. /TASS/. Russia will move its air defense system S-400 Triumf to the Hmeimim air base in Syria, accommodating its air and space group, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said on Wednesday.
          The Russian General Staff has warned that Russia will be destroying all potentially dangerous targets over Syria and moved towards the Syrian shores its guided missile cruiser The Moskva armed with the Fort system (the sea-launched equivalent of S-300).
          -----------------–
          Second pilot of downed Su-24 jet safe, brought to Russian base - Russian defense minister

          http://tass.ru/en/defense/839080

          MOSCOW, November 25. /TASS/. The second pilot of the Su-24 bomber downed by Turkey has been rescued by the Russian and Syrian forces and is safe and sound, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said on Wednesday.
          "The operation ended successfully. The pilot has been taken to our base. Safe and sound," Shoigu said.
          He said the rescue operation lasted for 12 hours.
          -------------------–

          Turkey's Erdogan says does not want escalation after Russian jet downed

          http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/25/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-erdogan-idUSKBN0TE0QT20151125

          President Tayyip Erdogan said on Wednesday that Turkey did not want any escalation after it shot down a Russian warplane near the Syrian border, saying it had simply acted to defend its own security and the "rights of our brothers" in Syria.
          But while neither side has shown any interest in a military escalation, Russia has made clear it will exact economic revenge through trade and tourism. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said on Wednesday that important joint projects could be canceled and Turkish firms could lose Russian market share.
          Increased tensions could have significant economic and political repercussions which are in neither Moscow nor Ankara's interests, analysts warned. But both Putin and Erdogan are strong-willed leaders ill-disposed to being challenged.

          "If Erdogan becomes involved a cycle of violence, FDI (foreign direct investment), tourism, and relations with the EU and U.S. will all be in jeopardy," risk analysis firm Eurasia Group said in a note.
          "Our bet is that the episode will not escalate … National interest will probably prevail over emotion, but given the players, that's not a sure bet."
          Turkey imports almost all of its energy from Russia, including 60 percent of its gas and 35 percent of its oil. Russia's state Atomic Energy Corporation (Rosatom) is due to build Turkey's first nuclear power station, a $20 billion project, while plans are on the table for a gas pipeline from Russia known as TurkStream.
          Turkish building and beverage companies also have significant interests in Russia.
          Shares in Enka Insaat, which has construction projects in Russia and two power plants in Turkey using Russian gas, fell for a second day on Wednesday. Brewer Anadolu Efes, which has six breweries in Russia and controls around 14 percent of the market, also saw its shares fall on Tuesday.
          Russians are second only to Germans in terms of the numbers visiting Turkey, bringing in an estimated $4 billion a year in tourism revenues. But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Tuesday advised them not to visit and one of Russia's largest tour operators to the country said it would temporarily suspend sales of trips.

          Javier, 11/25/2015 at 8:52 am

          Interesting, Alex,

          Turkish might have built themselves a no-fly zone at their Syrian border. Russians have Syrian permit to fly their space, while Turkish have not. After what has happened any Turkish plane over Syrian space can be considered a dangerous target by the Russians and shot down.

          I don't understand Turkish actions. If it was a military decision from some commander, they should have tried to apologize, and not run to NATO for cover. If it was a presidential decision, I fail to see what good can come from it for Turkey.

          Anyway, I hope those Russian tourists going to Egypt or Turkey can find some solace in Spain [grin].

          Ves, 11/25/2015 at 11:18 am

          Javier: " I don't understand Turkish actions."

          It is very obvious what they want. They want NATO boots on the ground. Do you want to go? Do you know any of Germans that want to go? Greeks, Italians? There are no takers in Europe. Even Obama is not biting.

          Javier, 11/25/2015 at 12:13 pm

          I've never been in favor of bombing other countries, much less of sending troops.

          NATO is a defensive pact in theory. I could understand NATO troops in Turkey if invaded by Russia, but not NATO troops in Syria because Turkey shoots down Russian planes. And I don't believe Turkey is trying to trigger a Russian aggression. Too much to lose.

          Your words still don't make sense to me.

          Ves, 11/25/2015 at 12:23 pm

          What part does not make sense?

          That Turks are so desperate to stop their proxies in Syria being annihilated within next few months? Shooting down Russian plane is what desperate party does in order to change war dynamics on the ground.

          Javier, 11/26/2015 at 5:10 am

          Found a much better explanation than yours over at Euan Mearn's blog in a Syrian drought article in the comments.

          Unlike US, Russia is very active attacking oil trucks that smuggle ISIS oil to Turkey. Those trucks belong to a shipping company BMZ that belongs to the son of Erdogan. Russia is causing a personal economic loss to the Erdogan family.

          The international coalition against Syria and Russia is beginning to crack on the wake of the Paris attacks by ISIS. Turkey doesn't want that to happen.

          This explains the shooting of the plane and the rushed going of Turkey to NATO to ask for support. It is intended to dynamite any possibility of understanding between US-lead coalition in Syria and Russia against ISIS. Obama has his hands tied, as he needs to use his base in Turkey.

          Putin is probably too smart to respond. He'll find another way. Perhaps supporting Kurds.

          Ves, 11/26/2015 at 8:22 am

          Javier,
          Drought? So we have all armadas of the world, including Lichenstain's one plane, circling Middle East for the last 30 years because of – drought??!!!
          No wonder you believe that one of the stated EU goals is for everybody to hold hands and sing Kumbaya at Eurovison contest. Javier, it's always having been delusions of power, control and mucho dinero that caused the conflict- not drought.

          Glenn Stehle, 11/26/2015 at 10:27 am

          https://twitter.com/ijattala/status/669389283225026560?refsrc=email&s=11

          Ves, 11/26/2015 at 10:54 am

          Glenn,
          that is exactly what explained to Javier. Cutting the oil line for the finance of the Turkish proxies. Once the money line is cut even the proxies don't fight for free.

          Javier, 11/26/2015 at 11:33 am

          Ves

          Did I say anything about drought being related to the conflict?
          I just pointed where I got the information.

          You seem to like to engage in straw man arguments. Please continue, don't let yourself be bothered by reality.

          Ves, 11/26/2015 at 1:48 pm

          Javier said: "Found a much better explanation than yours over at Euan Mearn's blog in a Syrian drought article "

          I am sorry but I don't know who is Euarn Mearn's and what Syrian drought article has to do with all this. Leave a link or something.

          Javier, 11/26/2015 at 2:06 pm

          Ves,

          Euan Mearns is a frequent visitor and commenter in this blog. He was also a frequent contributor of The Oil Drumm. He has a very good blog on Energy and also some Climate. If you just google his name you get there. The link to the article is this:
          http://euanmearns.com/drought-climate-war-terrorism-and-syria/
          The information I posted was in one of the comments.
          The article actually argues against the climate change-Syrian war-ISIS connection that has appeared in some media.

          Ves, 11/26/2015 at 3:25 pm

          Thanks Javier. Okey with that little bit of info from you I know what to expect when I click on that link. I will read it.

          You have to understand that I limit my reading to only few limited sources just not to corrupt my mind. You see there are expert internet oil "analysts" who claim that US is oil exporter so there are very dangerous stuff out there in cyber space.

          Ves, 11/26/2015 at 9:33 pm

          Javier,
          I agree with article but I am floored that he actually spent all that energy debunking that nonsense that drought caused all this. Who armed all these people, who financed illegal oil operations, where thousands oil tankers are from, why after 4 years of civil war refugees just suddenly start flowing to Europe this summer, so someone let them purposely go, who is blackmailing Europe?

          twocats, 11/26/2015 at 2:59 am

          the most ignorant, craziest, stupidest, outrageously reasonably explained plausible fitting into global and regional goals possible thing that's ever been said on this blog:

          http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-25/guest-post-why-us-hanging-turkey-out-dry

          [Nov 28, 2015] Experts Turkey might be tried for financing ISIL, arms trafficking

          www.todayszaman.com
          Russia's pledge to take the issue of Turkey's alleged financing of terrorist factions within Syria -- such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) -- to the United Nations after Turkey recently shot down its jet, has stirred speculation that Turkey could be tried in international courts.

          Tensions between Turkey and Russia have been running amok over the past few days, as on Tuesday NATO's second largest army the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) downed a Russian Su-24 jet near the Syrian border, after repeatedly warning it over airspace violations.

          Moscow blames Turkey and has set about bolstering its military presence in the region, dispatching several S-400 air defense systems to bolster its Khmeimim air base in Syria's Latakia province. The Kremlin is also determined to punish its one-time friend with economic sanctions such as refusing to buy poultry from Turkey and ordering Russian tourists not to visit the country.

          However, the biggest damage Turkey may incur in the fallout of the fallen jet may come after the statements made by Russian leaders, which claim that they will take the issue of ISIL's financial avenues to the UN Security Council -- and that may cause Turkey a much-unneeded headache.

          President Vladimir Putin called the downing of the jet a stab in the back administered by "the accomplices of terrorists," referring to Turkey and ISIL.

          Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov echoed Putin, when he said on Wednesday that the Turkish action came after Russian planes successfully targeted the oil infrastructure used by ISIL.

          More importantly, Lavrov alleged that Turkey benefited from the oil trade and said Russia will ask the UN Security Council to examine information on how terrorists are financed.

          President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan defied those claims on Thursday saying, "Those who claim we [AK Party] have brought petrol from Daesh [the Arabic term for ISIL], are required to prove their claims, otherwise I will call them [Russian leaders] slanderers."

          This is not the first time Turkey has been accused of intermediating ISIL's oil. In July a senior Western official claimed that information gathered at the compound of Abu Sayyaf, ISIL's officer responsible for oil smuggling operations, pointed to high-level contacts between Turkish officials and high-ranking ISIL members, according to a report by the UK-based Guardian newspaper.

          Turkey, which only started to take an active part in the international coalition against ISIL, reluctantly, and after two years, has also been accused of turning a blind eye to the crossing of militants into Syria to join ISIL, if not openly facilitating militants' border crossings to join ISIL in Syria.

          While giving voice to veiled criticisms of Turkey's dubious dealings with ISIL, Western officials had refrained, until very recently, from directly critiquing Turkish authorities. Russia's recent disclosures indicate that Turkey may be the target of international scrutiny.

          Law professor gives al-Bashir example, says trial of Turkey ruler may be possible in future

          Günal Kurşun, a professor of criminal law and the president of the Association for Human Rights Agenda, maintained that the current administration could only be tried in international tribunals if and when a new administration comes along and wants to clear the name of the country.

          Kurşun gave the example of Omar al-Bashir, the internationally ostracized leader of Sudan, who is currently being tried on 10 counts of crime, including five counts of crimes against humanity, two counts of war crimes, and three counts of genocide according to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

          The law professor added that even though the legal aspects of Turkey's rulers such as Erdoğan being tried in the ICC may not be certain, the political ramifications will be far reaching, even as far as to confine the rulers within Turkey by way of entry restrictions to other countries.

          He explained to Today's Zaman that there are three parties that can bring up a court case in the ICC against an individual.

          To begin with, the prosecutor of the ICC can initiate an investigation, as can a state party to the Rome statute and also the UN Security Council (UNSC) may refer investigations to the ICC, acting to address a threat to international peace and security.

          There are four instances where individuals can be tried at the ICC. Those are on charges of genocide, aggression, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Kurşun said it is possible for the UNSC to ascertain Turkey as aiding ISIL, which is held as an international terrorist organization, but added that without the cooperation of the member state, not much could be done in terms of the investigation.

          Erdoğan's tacit acknowledgment of weapons filled trucks en-route Syria

          Also, the question of whether President Erdoğan should be tried at the (ICC) as an individual stemming from allegations that he had knowledge of, if not actively facilitated, the transfer of weapons-filled trucks to radical groups in Syria, claimed by many to be ISIL.

          The issue of Turkey's transportation of arms to Syria came to the fore early in 2014, when an anonymous tip led to the search of a number of trucks on the suspicion of weapons smuggling. It was later discovered that the vehicles where actually en route to Syria and belonged to the National Intelligence Organization (MİT).

          The first stop-and-search took place in Hatay province on Jan. 1, 2014. Another anonymous tip led to three more trucks being intercepted in Turkey's southern Adana province on Jan. 19, 2014.

          Erdoğan who was prime minister at the time, said in a TV program immediately after the search of the trucks became public that they were carrying aid supplies to Turkmens in Syria. On the program, Erdoğan appeared to be particularly angry with the prosecutor for having demanded the search of the trucks to be recorded on video and described the search as "treason."

          However, Syrian-Turkmen Assembly Vice Chairman Hussein al-Abdullah said in January 2014 no trucks carrying aid had arrived from Turkey.

          Then, this Tuesday, Erdoğan seemingly validated claims that the Turkish government was sending weapon-filled trucks to radical groups in Syria by sarcastically asking, "So what if MİT trucks were filled with weapons?"

          Speaking to a room full of teachers on Tuesday gathered for Teachers' Day, Erdoğan said, "You know of the treason regarding MİT trucks, don't you? So what if there were weapons in them? I believe that our people will not forgive those who sabotaged this support."

          In May, Selahattin Demirtaş, the leader of the Pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democracy Party (HDP) said in an election rally in the run up to the June 7 general election; "They [the AK Party and Erdoğan] have committed many crimes. They have committed grave sins domestically and internationally, and now there is the possibility that they may be tried at the ICC."

          Former ECtHR judge says US-Nicaragua case sets precedent

          Rıza Türmen, a former judge at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and one of Turkey's leading expert in international law, told Today's Zaman that a powerful country like the United States was in the past tried and found guilty by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of aiding and abetting militants in the Central American country of Nicaragua, and that Turkey is no exception.

          In 1984, the hitherto relatively unknown country of Nicaragua took the US to the ICJ on the ground that it was responsible for illegal military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua between 1981 and 1984.

          In April 1981, US terminated aid to Nicaragua and in September 1981, according to Nicaragua, the United States "decided to plan and undertake activities directed against Nicaragua."

          The armed opposition to the new Nicaraguan government was mainly conducted by the Fuerza Democratica Nicaragüense (FDN) and Alianza Revolucionaria Democratica (ARDE). Initial US support to these groups fighting against the Nicaraguan government (called "contras") was covert.

          "Turkey does not have the right to intervene in the affairs of another state. However, if the trucks of weapons may be true, as the President [Erdoğan] said, then Turkey will have intervened in the internal affairs of another country," Türmen said.

          He added that the UN Security Council is able to initiate the investigations at the ICC, which tries individuals who are charged with committing crime against humanity rather than countries, such as the example with Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir.

          The former judge did note however that Turkey does not recognize the ICC and that it was very unlikely for Erdoğan to be tried there, but added that even being uttered in the same breath as such allegations would be enough to tarnish the reputation of any leader in the international forum.

          Professor: Erdoğan hoped to lead bloc of countries from Tunisia to Syria

          According to Baskın Oran, a professor at Ankara University's Faculty of Political Sciences, Erdoğan hoped, after the Arab Spring revolts began in 2011, to lead a bloc of countries, ranging from Tunisia to Syria, all headed by Islamist Muslim Brotherhood governments.

          Oran wrote in a June article that when Erdoğan saw "Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was blocking this dream; [he] gave orders that arms were to be sent to opposition forces in Syria with the intent of helping to topple Assad."

          Oran stated that in sending those weapons, the Erdoğan government clearly violated the United Nations General Assembly's Resolution 2,625 made on Oct. 24, 1970.

          Resolution 2,625 clearly reads that "no State shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State."

          Hariri Tribunal set up UN Security Council serves as reminder

          In 2005 the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1,595, to establish a commission to assist Lebanese authorities in their investigation of the assassination of former Prime Minister Refik Hariri in Beirut, which took place on Feb. 14, 2005.

          Under the resolution, the United Nations International Independent Investigation Commission (UNIIIC) was formed and investigated the assassination for four years, but was later superseded by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), also referred to as the Hariri Tribunal, in March 2009.

          The United Nations investigation initially implicated high-level Lebanese and Syrian security officers in Hariri's killing, according to the online news portal gulfnews.com. Arrest warrants were issued by the tribunal, demanding the arrests of four Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists.

          [Nov 28, 2015] The Iraqi Pissing Match - John Kiriakou on RAI (4-10)

          therealnews.com
          JAY: It's crazy. There's an interview with Lyndon Johnson near the end of his presidency in the Vietnam War, and he's asked, why do you keep continuing this? What is this about? And he actually, apparently, pulls down his fly and brings out his organ--as this is how it's described by one of his biographers--and he says, this is what it's about.

          KIRIAKOU: I believe that story.

          JAY: At the time, how much do you understand that's what it's about, that it's just a pissing match?

          KIRIAKOU: I did understand it, and I grew frustrated with it. I grew frustrated with American policy toward Iraq and decided I've got to do something completely different. And that's when I began looking for new job.

          JAY: Within the CIA

          KIRIAKOU: Within the CIA

          JAY: And you go to Greece.

          KIRIAKOU: Well, there was a position advertised that called for either a Greek or Arabic speaker. And it turned out that at the time--.

          JAY: You know what? I'm sorry. I want to go back to where you said you can believe the Johnson story.

          Alright. So you're a professional analyst. You're analyzing what's going on in Iraq, what should be done. I mean, it sounds like you're coming to the conclusion, like, all of this is unnecessary in terms of real U.S. national interest. You're saying this is essentially a pissing match. I mean, and I don't think we should make that too banal. What I mean by that: it isn't just a personality thing. I think ingrained in U.S. foreign policy is this, that we must make everyone believe we are stronger than they are. And it's sort of like a loan shark. I said this in another interview. If you let someone get away with not paying back their interest that week, then everyone else isn't going to pay back. That's the theory. So you've got to break some knees, and if somebody's really defiant, for that, for its own sake, you have to prove you can put that person in their place.

          But, as an analyst, you can see this isn't good foreign policy.

          KIRIAKOU: No, it was quite bad foreign policy. It was a waste of resources and people were getting killed. But at the same time, it goes beyond the president and the State Department and the Defense Department. You have congressional leaders hammering the president for being weak on Iraq and to bomb more and to fight harder and to make sure that Saddam is humiliated. And so you have this spiral of bad policy that you just can't get out of.

          JAY: And how much do you think that for certain sectors of the economy--'cause it's certainly not true for all of the economy, but if you're in fossil fuels or if you're in military production and associated high tech, war's damn good for business.

          KIRIAKOU: It is good for business. And when you think about it, though, if we--. Look at it this way. We bought much, much more Libyan oil than we ever bought Iraqi oil. Iraqi oil mostly went to Europe. And when Libya collapsed and their oil industry came to a screeching halt, it had virtually no effect on our own economy. Virtually none. So did we really need to hammer the Iraqis like this over more than a decade to protect the oil? We really didn't need the oil anyway.

          JAY: But by fossil fuel I mean as long as there's conflict, the price of oil's high.

          KIRIAKOU: Mhm. It stays high.

          JAY: We know big oil companies make more money the higher the price of oil.

          KIRIAKOU: That's right.

          JAY: People selling arms, the more stuff you blow up, the more stuff you've got to buy to replace it, and the more threat of conflict, the more--.

          KIRIAKOU: Right. It's good for business.

          JAY: How much do you think that drives U.S. foreign policy?

          KIRIAKOU: I think that's an integral part of U.S. foreign policy. I really do. You know, we've got not just arms manufacturers, but now we have drone manufacturers, for example, that are having to compete against Israeli drones and Chinese drones and Russian drones. So we need for there to be conflicts so we can sell our drones. It's the same with aircraft. You know, Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers would go under if we couldn't sell F-15s and F-16s and F-whatever they are, 23s, the new ones that are coming out, both for our own military and for foreign militaries. So war is good for business.

          JAY: I mean, if you're thinking of the current situation, the more potential conflict there is between the Saudis and the Iranians, that's a gold mine If you're selling arms.

          KIRIAKOU: Especially when the Saudis have a bottomless pit of money that they can dip into. The same with the Qataris and the Emiratis. It's very lucrative for us to be in the Gulf.

          JAY: Now, let's go back. As you're leaving, you go back to Arlington. You're back on the Iraq file. You're starting to see how crazy all this stuff is. Are you starting to question now? KIRIAKOU: Yeah, now I'm starting to get frustrated. This policy is broken, it's not working, and there's no hope of changing it. So I decided to do something completely different. JAY: Okay. KIRIAKOU: And that was operations. JAY: So--oh. Now you're going to leave analysis go to operations. Now, this to me sounds a little contradictory. You're starting to see the pattern of some of the underlining rot of the policy, but now you're going to go over to operations, where some of the dark stuff gets done. KIRIAKOU: Yeah, but some of the dark stuff was meant to save and to protect American lives, and that's really what I wanted to focus on. I ended up going to Greece and spending two years in Greece. And my job in Greece was to try to disrupt terrorist attacks committed by a group that was called Revolutionary Organization 17 November. 17 November had murdered the CIA station chief in Athens in 1975. They murdered two defense attaches. They had shot and severely wounded several embassy officers. And they murdered an American Air Force technical sergeant who was just--the poor guy was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. And they had murdered almost two dozen Greek nationals as well, important people--cabinet ministers, the heads of the central bank, university professors, prominent business leaders. And I thought, this is something I could sink my teeth into. JAY: But when you decide to join ops, you don't know that's where you're going. KIRIAKOU: Oh, yeah. JAY: You do? KIRIAKOU: Oh, yeah. JAY: Oh, you know it's Greece. KIRIAKOU: I applied specifically for that job. JAY: And what's the training? KIRIAKOU: It was all of the traditional operational training at--. JAY: Tradecraft they call it. Is that right? KIRIAKOU: Tradecraft, right,-- JAY: Yeah. KIRIAKOU: --at a facility they call "the Farm", which is located south of here. JAY: And how long is the training? KIRIAKOU: Well, because I was midcareer, I didn't have to go through what they called CIA 101. So I went straight into the shooting and the car crashing and the explosives training. And that lasted four and a half months.

          [Nov 27, 2015] Russia imposes sanctions on Turkey over downed plane

          Notable quotes:
          "... He earlier called the act a "stab in the back by the accomplices of terrorists" and promised "serious consequences" ..."
          www.theguardian.com

          ...the country's tourist board has suspended all tours to Turkey, a move that it estimated would cost the Turkish economy $10bn (£6.6bn). Russia also said it was suspending all military cooperation with Turkey, including closing down an emergency hotline to share information on Russian airstrikes in Syria.

          Putin accused Turkey of deliberately trying to bring relations between Moscow and Ankara to a standstill, adding that Moscow was still awaiting an apology or an offer of reimbursement for damages. He earlier called the act a "stab in the back by the accomplices of terrorists" and promised "serious consequences"

          ... ... ...

          Russia has insisted that its plane never strayed from Syrian airspace, while Turkey says it crossed into its airspace for 17 seconds. The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said that even if this was the case, shooting the plane down was an extreme over-reaction and looked like a pre-planned provocation.

          [Nov 27, 2015] Russia continues to block Turkish goods amid lingering jet crisis

          www.todayszaman.com
          Trucks carrying Turkish products on international routes have been facing numerous obstacles encouraged by Russia over the four days since Turkey shot down a Russian jet, and many drivers are waiting in long lines to enter Russia at border crossings in Ukraine and Georgia.

          "Earlier, Russian custom officials used to take samples from each truck and let them cross the border but now they have halted all entrances saying that they need to check the whole load even though no inspection has been underway since Tuesday," said Fatih Şener, the executive president of the İstanbul-based International Transporters' Association (UND).

          Turkish and international media reported after the outbreak of the crisis that Russia immediately launched economic retaliatory steps on its southern border after Turkey's military shot down a Russian fighter near the country's Syrian border. Official statements from Russia revealed that joint economic projects had been placed under risk while many Turkey-bound tourism ventures were cancelled. Amid such restrictions, product transporters have been complaining of the new barriers they have been facing for the past three days. On Friday, Turkish lira hit 2.9345 versus the US dollar, its lowest since Oct. 29.

          "I need to underline that barriers are being imposed not only on Turkish trucks but also on Bulgarians and others that carry Turkish products to Russia," Şener added.

          Explaining that most of the trucks were loaded with fresh fruits and vegetables, Şener said exported machinery products that had been on their way to Russia, were also hampered.

          But the Kremlin has said it will not impose official sanctions on Turkish products, a statement that Şener said the UND was pinning all its hopes on, adding that he hopes the barriers will not be here to stay in the long-term.

          Tension threatens $1 bln worth in produce exports


          Of the $2.3 billion in fresh fruit and vegetable exports of Turkey in 2014, Russia-bound sales made up 40 percent of the total, or roughly $1 billion. Turkey mostly exports tomatoes, citrus fruits, grapes, pomegranates and cherries to its northern neighbor.

          "I don't want to predict disaster but the situation is very gloomy," Hasan Yılmaz, the head of Aegean Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Exporter Unions told the Cihan news agency.

          Cihan also reported on Friday that exporters of produce in the southern province of Antalya, who conducted sales worth around $350 million to Russia in 2014, resorted to releasing their goods on the domestic market.

          Necati Zengin, a representative at the Antalya-based Kalyoncu Group, a giant exporter company that used to send around a hundred truckloads of produce to Russia via its seven to eight freighters before the crisis, reportedly said all his trucks are now waiting idle at Russian borders. "It is hard to calculate the losses given that a truck is loaded with some $45,000 worth of goods a day," Zengin said.

          [Nov 27, 2015] James Winnefeld, the deputy chief of General Staff of the US military, was in Ankara when the incident occurred

          marknesop.wordpress.com
          marknesop, November 25, 2015 at 11:16 pm

          Great post up at Moon of Alabama on the possibility of American involvement in this caper – James Winnefeld, the deputy chief of General Staff of the U.S. military, was in Ankara when the incident occurred. Although it appeared yesterday to have been Erdogan acting on his own, who knows? If he was persuaded into it, you can chalk up another country that will be an avowed enemy of the USA before a year is out, because it is the Turks who will pay for it in lost revenue and economic reprisals. I agree with a lot of B's conclusions as well.

          yalensis, November 26, 2015 at 6:00 am

          Of course Americans were involved – duh!

          Americans played on Erdogan's Islamist streak and flattered the regional ambitions of this "sick man of Europe".
          Under Erdie's incompetent rule, Turkey has become just another two-bit goon to put into play against Russia.
          Americans sub-contracted out to Erdogan, to control other Turk-based "goon franchises" such as Djemiliev's fake "Crimean Tatars", Chechen "Caliphate" types such as Osmaev, some Azerbaijani types, and obviously the "Turkmen" sub-brigades of ISIS.
          Erdogan is the designated "Team Leader" for all of these dubious elements.
          Erdogan himself reports back to the "big guy", shown here pardoning a Turkey owned by a certain Dr. Jihad. Coincidence? I think not!

          kirill, November 26, 2015 at 2:14 pm

          Thanks for the link and great post! Outside of science and other non-politicized parts of academia, all these academics are regime bootlicks. One such "academic" is Nina Khruscheva. They all spew intellectually insulting drivel.

          ucgsblog, November 26, 2015 at 1:35 am

          Beautiful article Mark! I completely agree with it. Of note:

          1. The Turkmen on the Syrian side of the border, who enjoy Erdogan's protection and intervention, machine-gunned the Russian fighter's pilot and navigator while they were hanging in their parachutes, falling from the sky. Is that a war crime? You bet it is.
          2. This knee-jerk defense of a lying shitbag like Erdogan is why Russians are grim and filled with resolve.
          3. Lavrov likely does have a point, and the Turks were probably lying in ambush for a Russian plane.
          4. [The] official response from Washington was that Turkey has a right to defend its territory and its air space, and President Obama blamed the incident on "an ongoing problem with Russian operations near the Turkish border."

          These are the reasons why Russia is going to overreact. Add to this that the EU, at the behest of Obama, the only political national leader who didn't offer condolences to Russia after ISIS bombed a Russian civilian plane, imposed sanctions on Russia over an accidental shooting, that Erdogan's been excessively aggressive, and that Russia is just sick and tired of being treated without any respect by the same elites that back Erdogan, it's no surprise that Erdogan will be hit hard from all directions. The economic damages from the tourism market alone is going to be at least $9 billion. Turkish Stream is probably going to be cancelled, as will generous loans. I'm surprised that there's no official break off in relations just yet, but I think that's also coming. And if Erdogan goes into Syria, well, then it gets interesting.

          [Nov 27, 2015] Syrian Turkmen commander who killed Russian pilot turns out to be Turkish ultranationalist

          RT News
          A Syrian rebel commander who boasted of killing a Russian pilot after Turkey downed Russian jet on Tuesday appeared to be Turkish ultranationalist and a son of former mayor in one of Turkish provinces.

          Alparslan Celik, deputy commander of a Syrian Turkmen brigade turned out to be the son of a mayor of a Keban municipality in Turkey's Elazig province.

          He also turned out to be the member of The Grey Wolves ultranationalist group, members of which have carried out scores of political murders since 1970s.

          READ MORE: Russian Su-24 pilots shot dead while parachuting over Syria - Turkmen militia

          Celik came under spotlight after he announced that as the two Russian pilots descended by parachute after the Su-24 jet was downed by Turkish military, both were shot dead by Turkmen forces on Tuesday.

          A graphic video posted earlier on social media purported to show a Russian pilot lying on the ground surrounded by a group of armed militants.

          [Nov 27, 2015] Turkish F-16 attacked Russian Su-24 without warning, both were above Syria – commander

          Notable quotes:
          "... "unprecedented backstab." ..."
          "... Both aircraft remained in the area for 34 minutes. During this time there was no contact between the crews of the Russian bombers and the Turkish military authorities or warplanes. ..."
          "... Commander Bondarev noted that a pair of Turkish F-16Cs had been in the area close to the attack zone for more than an hour prior to the attack, which explains their presence in the area. The time needed to get the aircraft ready at the Diyarbak r airfield and travel to the attack zone is an estimated 46 minutes. ..."
          "... One of Turkish F-16Cs stopped its maneuvers and began to approach the Su-24M bomber about 100 seconds before the Russian aircraft came closest to the Turkish border, which also confirms the attack was pre-planned, Commander Bondarev stressed. ..."
          "... The chief of Russia's Air Force also called attention to the readiness of the Turkish media, which released a professionally-made video of the incident recorded from an area controlled by extremists a mere 1.5 hours after the Su-24 was downed. ..."
          "... The Turkish military not only violated all international laws on protecting national borders, but never delivered an apology for the incident or offered any help in the search and rescue operation for the Su-24 crew. ..."
          "... "more than massive, devastating" ..."
          Nov 27 , 2015 | RT News
          Get short URL A Turkish fighter jet launched a missile at a Russian bomber on Tuesday well ahead of the Su-24 approaching the Turkish border, the chief of Russia's Air Force said. The bomber remained on Turkish radars for 34 minutes and never received any warnings. TrendsSu-24 downing

          The attack on the Russian Su-24 bomber was intentional and had been planned in advance, Viktor Bondarev, the chief of Russia's Air Force, announced Friday, calling the incident an "unprecedented backstab."

          The commander shared with the media previously unknown details of what happened on Tuesday.

          On November 24, a pair of Russian Sukhoi Su-24 tactical bombers took off from Khmeimim airbase in Latakia at 06:15 GMT, with an assignment to carry out airstrikes in the vicinity of the settlements of Kepir, Mortlu and Zahia, all in the north of Syria. Each bomber was carrying four OFAB-250 high-explosive fragmentation bombs.

          Ten minutes later, the bombers entered the range of Turkish radars and took positions in the target area, patrolling airspace at predetermined heights of 5,800 meters and 5,650 meters respectively.

          Both aircraft remained in the area for 34 minutes. During this time there was no contact between the crews of the Russian bombers and the Turkish military authorities or warplanes.

          Some 20 minutes after arriving at the designated area, the crews received the coordinates of groups of terrorists in the region. After making a first run, the bombers performed a maneuver and then delivered a second strike.

          Immediately after that, the bomber crewed by Lieutenant-Colonel Oleg Peshkov and Captain Konstantin Murakhtin was attacked by a Turkish F-16 fighter jet operating from the Diyarbakır airfield in Turkey.

          Read more FSA video claims Russian-made helicopter hit with US-made TOW missile near Su-24 crash site

          To attack the Russian bomber with a close-range air-to-air missile, the Turkish fighter jet had to enter Syrian airspace, where it remained for about 40 seconds. Having launched its missile from a distance of 5-7 kilometers, the F-16 immediately turned towards the Turkish border, simultaneously dropping its altitude sharply, thus disappearing from the range of Russian radars at the Khmeimim airbase.

          The Turkish fighter moved two kilometers into Syrian airspace while the Russian bomber at no stage violated Turkish airspace, Bondarev stressed.

          The crew of the second Su-24M had a clear view of the moment the missile was fired from the Turkish F-16, and reported this to base.

          Commander Bondarev noted that a pair of Turkish F-16Cs had been in the area close to the attack zone for more than an hour prior to the attack, which explains their presence in the area. The time needed to get the aircraft ready at the Diyarbakır airfield and travel to the attack zone is an estimated 46 minutes.

          One of Turkish F-16Cs stopped its maneuvers and began to approach the Su-24M bomber about 100 seconds before the Russian aircraft came closest to the Turkish border, which also confirms the attack was pre-planned, Commander Bondarev stressed.

          The chief of Russia's Air Force also called attention to the readiness of the Turkish media, which released a professionally-made video of the incident recorded from an area controlled by extremists a mere 1.5 hours after the Su-24 was downed.

          Commander Bondarev also mentioned the memorandum of understanding regarding the campaign in Syria, signed by Moscow and Washington on October 26. In accordance with this agreement, the Russian side informed its American counterparts about the mission of the two bombers in the north of Syria on November 24, including the zones and heights of operation.

          Read more A Russian Aerospace Defense Force jet bombs Islamic State facilities in Syria © Terrorists in Su-24 search operation area killed - Russian Defense Ministry

          Taking this into account, the Turkish authorities' statement on not knowing which aircraft were operating in the area raises eyebrows, Bondarev said.

          The Turkish military not only violated all international laws on protecting national borders, but never delivered an apology for the incident or offered any help in the search and rescue operation for the Su-24 crew.

          The Su-24's pilot, Lieutenant-Colonel Oleg Peshkov, was shot dead by militants while parachuting to the ground, having ejected from the stricken aircraft. His partner, navigator Captain Konstantin Murakhtin, survived being shot at while parachuting and managed to stay alive on the ground in an area full of terrorists.

          The rescue operation took several hours and eventually recovered Murakhtin, although one Russian Marine in the team was killed when the rescue helicopter was destroyed by a US-made tank missile launched by the extremists – an incident they filmed and published online.

          Commander Bondarev specifically stressed that the Russian pilot who survived the attack was actively looked for not only by the jihadists, but also by a number of unidentified and technically well-equipped groups.

          After Captain Murakhtin was rescued, the Russian Air Force delivered "more than massive, devastating" airstrikes against the militants in the region where the operation had been taking place, Bondarev reported.

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

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

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

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

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

          [Nov 27, 2015] Russian economic retaliation rains down on Turkey as tension lingers

          Notable quotes:
          "... Turkeys economy will grow only under 3 percent this year, below the governments target, weighed down by political uncertainty at home and conflict in the Middle East. ..."
          "... There are also a whole range of deals, investments and commercial relationships that could be threatened in the fallout from the downing of the Russian jet. ..."
          "... Tourism is already being hit. After Russian officials on Tuesday advised holidaymakers against traveling to Turkish resorts ..."
          www.todayszaman.com
          Moscow made public a series of economic retaliation steps against Turkey on Thursday, after efforts to defuse tensions between Ankara and Moscow over the downing of a Russian jet fighter on Tuesday failed to pay off.

          Russia said on Thursday it may impose various economic restrictions on Turkey, including measures to restrict the planned TurkStream gas pipeline, ending cooperation in building Turkey's first nuclear plant and limiting civilian flights to and from Turkey. Such moves would heap serious pain on either Turkey or Russia, both of which are already struggling economically, experts agree.

          Russia said on Thursday it would be looking to cut economic ties with Turkey and scrap investment projects in a matter of days in the aftermath of the Turkish downing of a Russian warplane. The televised statement by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev came a day after Russian media reported hundreds of trucks bringing Turkish goods stranded at the border. Medvedev ordered the Russian government to draw up measures that would include freezing some joint investment projects with Turkey, in retaliation for the downing of a Russian warplane by Turkey. He also told a meeting of Cabinet ministers on Thursday that the measures would include restrictions on food imports from Turkey.

          Shortly after Medvedev, Russian Economy Minister Alexei Ulyukayev said on Thursday that the restrictions against Ankara may include the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant, which is currently under construction in the southern province of Mersin in Turkey. He said the restrictions, drawn up in retaliation for the downing of a Russian warplane by Turkey, may also include limits to civil flights to and from Turkey and a halt to preparations for a Free Trade Zone. Moscow will also halt the creation of a single Turkish-Russian investment fund, Ulyukayev added. Meanwhile, cooperation between Russia and Turkey in tourism will "obviously" be halted, the head of Russia's tourism agency, Rostourism, said on Thursday, the Interfax news agency reported. Separately on Thursday, local authorities in Crimea also said a dozen of planned Turkish investment projects in the region were cancelled.

          President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, however, on Thursday dismissed as "emotional" and "unfitting of politicians" the suggestions that projects with Russia could be canceled.

          Turkish stocks fell more than 2 percent while the lira weakened to above 2.9 against the US dollar on Thursday.

          Crackdown on Turkish food imports

          Russia has increased checks on food and agriculture imports from Turkey, its Agriculture Ministry said on Thursday, in the first public move to curb trade in a dispute with Ankara for downing a Russian fighter jet.

          The government told food safety watchdog Rosselkhoznadzor to increase controls after Agriculture Ministry research showed about 15 percent of agriculture imports from Turkey did not meet regulations, the ministry said.

          Rosselkhoznadzor normally only checks some food deliveries. The decision to start checking all supplies from Turkey means that while imports will continue, they could be significantly delayed. Moscow often uses Rosselkhoznadzor regulations in diplomatic spats, imposing bans on imports of certain products, citing health reasons. Officials deny the agency's actions are politically driven.

          Moscow banned most Western food imports in 2014 when Western countries imposed sanctions on Russia over its role in the Ukraine crisis.

          Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Thursday the government was not planning to impose any embargo on Turkish imports. Turkey accounts for about 4 percent of Russia's total food imports, supplying mainly fruits, nuts and vegetables. Agricultural and food product imports from Turkey were worth $1 billion in the first 10 months of 2015, according to customs data. But 20 percent of Russia's vegetables come from Turkey.

          Russian Agriculture Minister Alexander Tkachev said any shortfall could be made up with supplies from Iran, Morocco, Israel and Azerbaijan. Citrus imports could come from South Africa, Morocco, China and other countries if necessary, he said in a statement. Russia's biggest food retailer Magnit said it was still buying fruits and vegetables from Turkey and declined to provide further comment. Food retailer Dixy said it would do its best to find other suppliers if needed.

          Russian retailers were forced to find new suppliers in 2014 after Russia banned most Western food imports.

          Fragile economies

          Russia's economy will shrink around 4 percent this year from the combined effects of the low oil price and sanctions over the conflict in Ukraine.

          Andrei Kostin, the head of Russian state-owned bank VTB, told reporters at a forum in the Russian city of Yekaterinburg that politics and economics should be kept separate. "I would not be inclined to whip up the situation right now," he said, adding: "I think that one has to approach this very calmly. There are always negative events going on in the world."

          Meanwhile, Turkey's economy will grow only under 3 percent this year, below the government's target, weighed down by political uncertainty at home and conflict in the Middle East. "Erdoğan is a tough character, and quite emotional, and if Russia pushes too far in terms of retaliatory action, I think there will inevitably be a counter reaction from Turkey [like] tit-for-tat trade sanctions," Nomura strategist Timothy Ash wrote in a note. "But I think there is also a clear understanding that any such action is damaging for both sides, and unwelcome."

          There are also a whole range of deals, investments and commercial relationships that could be threatened in the fallout from the downing of the Russian jet.

          Russia's state Atomic Energy Corporation, known as Rosatom, is due to build Turkey's first nuclear power station, a $20 billion project. Rosatom said it has no comment on the issue.

          Shares in Turkish firm Enka İnşaat, which has construction projects in Russia and two power plants in Turkey using Russian gas, fell for a second day on Wednesday. Turkish brewer Anadolu Efes, which has six breweries in Russia and controls around 14 percent of the market, also saw its shares fall on Tuesday.

          Tourism is already being hit. After Russian officials on Tuesday advised holidaymakers against traveling to Turkish resorts, at least two large Russian tour operators said they would stop selling packages to Turkey. Russians are second only to Germans in terms of the numbers visiting Turkey, bringing in an estimated $4 billion a year in tourism revenues.

          [Nov 27, 2015] Kremlin Cutting Economic Links With the Turks

          Notable quotes:
          "... Oh, Turkey is in a lot of trouble, but this country essentially committed succeed de and I cannot fathom the lack of decent press coverage on that fact. First, Turkey's account of a 17 second overflight of Turkish airspace is mathematically impossible. Worse, Russian, in an attempt to cooperate with the Obama White House, released details of the flight path of that Russian plane to the Turks. Someone in the US government told Turkey exactly when and where that plane would be and Turkey, shot it down for them. WikiLeaks attributes this madness directly to Obama. ..."
          "... Claiming Russia gave flight information to the US and therefore Turkey (isn't this a real coalition, he asks, mockingly?) further exacerbates one tension in this complex matrix of relations. ..."
          "... President Bush said Saddam must go! That led to a catastrophe in Iraq with unfathomable losses on all sides. President Obama said Assad must go! Now we another catastrophe evolving in Syria and it's neighbors. ..."
          "... This superficial assessment of things fails to capture the great gravity of the current situation caused by Turkey's foolish crime. ..."
          "... It also reveals that Turkey sides with the Daesh Takfiri terrorists, the same ones who blew up a filled Russian plane just a few weeks ago. ..."
          "... The decision to down the Russian plane regardless of whether it was in Turkish airspace for 20 seconds or not, was a major error on the part of Erdogan. He is rapidly losing what few friends in the West and the Middle East he may ever have had. The Turks were doing OK before this guy came on the scene. ..."
          "... Obama was in Turkey one week before this incident. His remarks following the incident implicitly threatened Russia with more of the same. It is unlikely that Erdogan would have taken such a step without the support of his buddy Obama. ..."
          "... Erdogan is trying to calm the storm and hold France 24 television: "We might have been able to prevent this violation of our airspace differently." ..."
          "... Perhaps he realises that Ankara might have over-reacted. Turkish airforce could have fired warning shots, without hitting the plane. It was essential to remind Russia of violating Turkish air-space, although Russian planes are not a direct threat to Turkey. ..."
          "... Turkey staged a provocation with full knowledge of where and when this Russian airplane will be. And after that NATO fully supported their member. I wonder why Russia sees NATO as threat. The message is loud and clear - NATO countries may provoke Russia under the protection of the allies. ..."
          Nov 27, 2015 | www.nytimes.com
          The New York Times

          "One gets the impression that the Turkish leaders are deliberately leading Russian-Turkish relations into a gridlock," Mr. Putin said, adding later in the day: "Turkey was our friend, almost an ally, and it is a shame that this was destroyed in such a foolish manner."

          ... ... ...

          During a news conference with Mr. Hollande late Thursday, Mr. Putin suggested that the United States, an ally of Turkey, was responsible for the fate of its warplane, since Moscow had passed on information about where and when its bombers would fly.

          "What did we give this information to the Americans for?" Mr. Putin asked, rhetorically, before adding: "We proceed from the assumption that it will never happen again. Otherwise we don't need any such cooperation with any country."

          ... ... ...

          Maria Zakharova, the spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, objected to the failure of Turkish or NATO officials to offer condolences over the two Russian military men who died after the plane was shot down. She also demanded an explanation from Turkey about the death of the pilot, who was killed after he parachuted from the plane. It is believed he was shot by Turkmen insurgents who live along the border on the Syrian side and who are supported by Ankara.

          ... ... ...

          Hundreds of trucks bearing Turkish fruits, vegetables and other products were lining up at the Georgian border with Russia, Russian news media reported, as inspections slowed to a crawl and Russian officials suggested there might be a terrorist threat from the goods.

          "This is only natural in light of Turkey's unpredictable actions," Dmitri S. Peskov, the presidential spokesman, told reporters.

          jamil simaan, Boston

          If you compare Russia as a whole today to a person reacting to unexpected slights and/or attacks from people they used to trust, I don't think its response would seem irrational. Russia will definitely take an economic hit for applying sanctions to Turkey, but who respects a person who always prioritizes making money over self-respect? The way Turkey took down this jet made it all but impossible for Russia not to respond very aggressively because the Russian military has quickly become a moral pillar of Russian society, where the economy is flagging and politics stagnant. What did they expect Russia to do, just take it?

          No matter how you slice it, though, Turkey's behavior has been much much worse for Turkey than anybody else. The American perspective is pretty pragmatic, and I'm sure a lot of people in the Obama administration are thinking they'd be pretty angry, too, if that happened to the US. It appears that behind closed doors the American and NATO leadership is not happy with Turkey, especially Erdogan. It couldn't be clearer right now how little any other NATO country would like to go to war for Turkey, especially when it is doing stupid things like this.

          Wandering Jew, Israel 1 hour ago

          It was reckless and dangerous move on the part of Turkey as a member of NATO. There was no reason to escalate the already sensitive situation shooting down Russian plane that was no real threat for Turkey's security.
          Erdogan is more dangerous as a partner than he is as an enemy.

          ngop, halifax, canada 4 hours ago

          Erdogan is hardly in a position to criticize Russia for violating Turkish airspace (for all of 20 seconds at most) when his forces routinely do much worse things in Syria. His unconscionable and indiscriminate bombing of Kurds, both in Turkey and Syria, as well as doing everything possible to dislodge Assad has the objective result of helping the Islamic State. And speaking of territorial integrity, let's not forget about the forty years of illegal Turkish occupation of Cypress. With friends like Erdogan and his Saudi mentors, we don't need any enemies.

          courther, USA 3 hours ago

          Can we bottom line this situation? Turkey has really messed up by not only shooting down the bomber but killing the Russian pilot while he was in his parachute floating to the ground. I guess the barbaric Turkmen didn't realize that they were violating the Geneva Convention when they shot the pilot.

          The US has also messed up when Russia gave the US its flight plan for the bombers in which the US apparently shared with Turkey. Both the US and Turkey have now backed themselves into a corner with Russia in Syria.

          Putin has ordered the S-400 anti-missile defense system to be located 30 miles from the border of Turkey. The S-400 is one of the most advanced anti-missile systems in the world. The US military doesn't have an answer for this powerful and precise anti-defense system. The system is designed to target and destroy 75 targets simultaneously. This include Tomahawks missiles, stealth fighter planes such as the F-22 and the F-35 fighter jets. The system is accurate and precise. It doesn't miss its target. It is fully effective within a 250 miles radius.

          Here is where most of you missed the point. With this type of weapon Putin can establish a no-fly zone in Syria and any plane that violate Syrian airspace can be shot down and there is nothing NATO or the US can do because of international law. Russia is a legitimate ally to Syria and can act on Syria's behalf. Whoever let Turkey join NATO messed up.

          Julien, Canada

          Turkey Violated only Greek Airspace 2,244 Times Last Year!!! Not to mention vialation of other countries.

          http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/24/turkey-violated-greek-airspace-2244-ti...

          A formation of Turkish fighter jets violated Greek airspace a total of 20 times!!! in a sigle day engaging in dogfight with Greek defenders. Clear provocation.
          http://www.businessinsider.com/turkish-and-greek-jets-engaged-in-dogfigh...

          Moreover when Syrian air defence downed Turkish F-4 Phantom, as a reaction Erdogan said in 2012: "Brief Airspace Violations Can't Be Pretext for Attack".

          I let you decide what you think about it.

          Paul, Virginia 3 hours ago

          Considering the facts that both the US and Russia are nuclear powers and that Turkey is a member of NATO requiring NATO to go to war if Turkey was attacked, Turkey's shooting down the Russian jet and calling for an emergency NATO meeting was at the height of irresponsibility and recklessness and stupidity. The tepid reaction from the US and NATO indicates that Turkey was acting alone or without explicit consent from NATO. Russia's reaction so far has been confined to trade and tourism but Russia will surely and shortly begin to take actions that will intimidate Turkey short of an outright military attack, which will again raise at worst verbal tension with NATO for NATO will not risk a war with Russia over Turkey's behavior. It's overdue for the US and NATO to assess and downgrade alliance with Turkey.

          Simon, Tampa 3 hours ago

          I just hope that Putin takes revenge on Turkey, the Saudis, and other Gulf States by having the FSB leak to the media all the evidence that they are the ones financially supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda. This will embarrass our government, the French and other European countries doing business with them as they support terrorists who kill their citizens. Hollande wants to stop ISIS, then he should do stop doing business with these countries and call for international sanctions against them until they stop their indefensible behavior.

          Knorrfleat Wringbladt, Midwest 3 hours ago

          Turkey is lying in their effort to support Daesh and appropriate Syian territory. As the conflict worsens Turkey hopes to gain through suppression of its own citizens (Kurds) as well as stealing resources from surrounding weakened states. The fact that their strategy may cause serious setbacks for Western Civilization is an added bonus.
          The West is foolish to ally themselves with a nation that for thousands of years has been the pivot between east and west. Turkey has learned to play both sides against each other. We need to do an end run apology to Russia (on Turkeys behalf), severely sanction Turkey for their non cooperation or kick them out of NATO altogether. If we do nothing they will continue to undermine us.

          Mike Brooks, Eugene, Oregon 5 hours ago

          Oh, Turkey is in a lot of trouble, but this country essentially committed succeed de and I cannot fathom the lack of decent press coverage on that fact. First, Turkey's account of a 17 second overflight of Turkish airspace is mathematically impossible. Worse, Russian, in an attempt to cooperate with the Obama White House, released details of the flight path of that Russian plane to the Turks. Someone in the US government told Turkey exactly when and where that plane would be and Turkey, shot it down for them. WikiLeaks attributes this madness directly to Obama.

          Hamid Varzi, Spain 3 hours ago

          Let us view the world, for as second, from an Iranian and Russian perspective:

          The U.S. directly caused the rise of Islamic Extremism with 60 years of oppressive geopolitical policies in the Middle East. The U.S.'s current allies in the "War on Terror" are Wahhabi-infested Saudi Arabia, Palestine-baiting Israel, increasingly regressive Turkey and Al Qaeda refuge Pakistan. (Instead of focusing on the 50 nuclear weapons that already exist in the nation that created and supported the Taleban, the U.S. is focused on the nuclear programme of Iran that helped it defeat the Taleban in Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11!).

          Having seen the disastrous results of removing Middle Eastern dictators in Iraq and Libya, the West has now decided to remove the dictator in Syria, but in the expectation of different results.

          All the while, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey are laughing their heads off at the discomfort faced by Iran and Russia as a result of crashing oil prices, seemingly ignorant of the far greater threat to their own security posed by the so-called Islamic State. The West, like deer caught in the Saudi, Israeli and Turkish headlights, has become paralyzed and has become easy pickings for radical Islamists, as we saw recently and tragically in Paris.

          The West must realize it has become the victim of its own policies: It must urgently reappraise its geopolitical strategies by tackling Islamic Extremism at the source.

          Tom, Fl Retired Junk Man 3 hours ago

          Turkey is way out of line with their actions, they should apologize immeadiately and never be so foolish as to play with people's lives as though they were chess pieces.
          This is not a game, if you screw with Russia there will be a strong response, and it is so unneccesary.

          The Obama administration has messed up this relationship with Russia, that stupid reset button that Hillary presented to the Russian's should be reset again.

          You get a lot more of a result with honey than with vinegar, and don't forget " Bears like Honey ".

          So leave that Russian Bear alone.


          This is news? Eugene, OR

          Ignore Putin's pleas of outrage in this instance. This is about something other than a lost Russian pilot.

          It is all about driving a wedge among NATO members, most specifically France and others inclined to cooperate with Putin in Syria, both practically and in terms of optics, and Turkey.

          European-Turkish relations were already strained (human rights, Turkey abetting fighters travelling to join Daesh, rifts over the Kurds, failure to make progress on EU membership, and on) and Putin, believing he is needed by the West newly-energized to attack Daesh, is pressing on the sore point. He knows, for instance, that Turkey is 1) absolutely committed to Assad succession and 2) unwilling to see anything that doesn't hurt the Kurds develop.

          With France leading Europe closer to Putin, the previous Western insistence on Assad leaving is weakening (for better or worse), giving way to the desire for tighter coop with Russia. Putin is framing this diplomatically as the only "serious" way to combat Daesh, putting Europe and Turkey increasingly on opposite sides of the Assad question in the short-term.

          Claiming Russia gave flight information to the US and therefore Turkey (isn't this a real coalition, he asks, mockingly?) further exacerbates one tension in this complex matrix of relations.

          Unlike Republicans I do not see Putin as some master strategist but this play is reasonably smart if transparently obvious.

          Concerned. Michigan 2 hours ago

          Plain and simple.

          The only way ISIS criminals can get in and out of Syria is through Turkey. Why is it so hard to see how complacent are the Turks in allowing free access for these thugs in and out of Syria? It is high time for the world to confront the obvious. The Saudis and Qataris with their financial might have lobbied the Turks and the rest of the world to allow this to go on. Isis existence depends on human flow and money supply from gulf Arab donors and its oil trade through the Turkish border, address these main issues and Isis will be easier to defeat....

          Dr. MB, Irvine, CA 4 hours ago

          In the land of the Great Atarturk, this gentleman Mr. Erdogan does not fit in! Nations suffer when cynical persons wiggle into power, Turkey will not be an exception, unfortunately!

          Barrie F. Taylor, Miami, Florida 4 hours ago

          I was born in 1939 and have always been optimistic that war would eventually disappear after WW2 as a method for resolution of disputes between humans. Also I never thought that a nuclear war was likely to happen. The current state of discord in the world is astounding when one considers what we know about our world and existence. Religion should have died out by now but there are still ignorant people who still believe in God and immortality! Warfare and violence only beget violence and warfare - that should clear to anyone. Clearly our educational systems have failed.
          As for warfare, it is always the average people who pay the price not our "leaders" who keep well out of harms way. They no longer lead the cavalry charge.
          The West should keep out of the Middle East and let them resolve their problems - we've already messed up the area with colonialism , and that includes the US. The most important problem is the is a real likelihood of nuclear conflict due the abundance of nuclear weapons in the region. Because of the lunacy of religion this is probably bound to happen sometime soon.

          NY 4 hours ago

          The only way to ease the tensions is that Erdogan offers an apology to the Russian people and pays for the damage of the fighter Jet and compensation to the Pilots family. Bar the above he and the Turks will pay a much bigger price.

          I would not be surprised if a Turkish F-16 or two being shot down in the future. Erdogan do the smart thing go down on your knees and apologize.

          Byron Jones, Memphis, Tennessee 4 hours ago

          Points to ponder
          1. The Russian jet was in Turkish airspace for a few seconds in face of Turkish allegations that the pilots were warned for several minutes in advance.
          2. Why shoot down the jet when a strong, morally outraged response from the Turks would play better internationally?
          3. Both Putin and Erdogan have problems at home and there is a long history of bad blood between the two countries.

          Putin and Erdogan -- two bullies playing a dangerous game of chicken.

          Sridhar Chilimuri, New York 2 hours ago

          What a mess!

          President Bush said Saddam must go! That led to a catastrophe in Iraq with unfathomable losses on all sides. President Obama said Assad must go! Now we another catastrophe evolving in Syria and it's neighbors.

          There is lesson for us to learn. We or any other country should not be participating in leadership changes of other countries - let their people do it!

          MN, New York 1 hour ago

          Russia had a choice between Assad and Turkey and they chose Assad. They started bullying Turkey repeatedly since their campaign in Syria begun, they went as far as putting eight Turkish F-16s under radar lock by both MiG-29 and anti-aircraft missiles in October. They also specifically targeted Turkmen villages and Turkey backed rebels on Syrian-Turkish borders since October. The list of provocation goes on and on. The Russian ambassador was summoned by Turkey at least 5 times since Russia started its campaign in Syria. Turkey complained to UN more than one time too about Russia.

          So if you think Russia has not been asking for this, you're wrong. It's exactly what Russia wants. The provocation started by Russia and Turkey was patient with Russia until they started to bomb the Turkmen. Despite Turkey's effort to de-escalate after the incident, Russia has cut economic ties and the Kremlin even rejected a request to Putin-Erdogan meeting in upcoming Paris convention. Russia continued their path of further provocation by intensifying air strikes on every single Syrian-Turkish border held by Syrian rebels and on Turkmen villages. They even started giving air support to Kurd's PYD in their new push against Syrian rebels.

          Turkey on the other hand is under pressure to respond to Russia provocation especially by nationalists who voted to the AKP government for the first time instead of their preferred extreme nationalist MHP party.


          ZHR, NYC 2 hours ago

          Turkey is not very accurate. Last week Turkish nationalists -- no doubt at the behest of the Erdouan government--protested Russian air strikes in Syria in front of the Dutch Consulate. They got the wrong consulate.

          In July, it was reported that Turkish "demonstrators angry about the Chinese government's treatment of its Muslim Uighur minority attacked a Chinese restaurant. It turned out to be owned by a Turk, and worse still the chef was in fact an Uighur Muslim."

          Don't blame the Turks. They probably thought they were downing a Bulgarian plane or maybe one from Lichtenstein.


          Syed Abbas, Dearborn MI 4 hours ago

          What Russia could not do in 70 years, ISIL has done in 1. Break up NATO.

          Now, it is France, Russia, Germany Iran against Turkey, US, and ISIL, a conflict that will go on for the rest of the century.

          Today, it is not the end, but beginning of the end.


          Buckeye, Ohio 1 hour ago

          This superficial assessment of things fails to capture the great gravity of the current situation caused by Turkey's foolish crime. This is the first time in over 50 years in which a NATO force attacked and destroyed a Soviet/Russian military target with fatal consequences. This reckless military aggression by Turkey deserves the condemnation, to support, of the USA and all other NATO countries.

          It also reveals that Turkey sides with the Daesh Takfiri terrorists, the same ones who blew up a filled Russian plane just a few weeks ago. The most rational outcome of this criminal act of war by Turkey is to expel it from NATO which needs to join the Syrian government in annihilating the Daesh terrorists, their roots and current sources of support. Tragically, rationality does not guide the US verbal war on the Daesh terrorists, who, like it, still has regime change in Syria as their irrational goal.

          Kosovo, Louisville, KY 2 hours ago

          I'm with the Russians, the Turks are double dealing. They support ISIS and are becoming more of an Islamic state themselves...

          Simon Sez, Maryland 2 hours ago

          Turkey is being relentlessly pulled deeper and deeper into the morass of Islamism from which there is no return.

          Ironic that all that Kemal Ataturk, the father of modern, secular Turkey, fought for is now being undone by Erdogan, an Islamic dictator who will brook no dissent.

          While Putin is no saint, quite the opposite, his response is less aggressive than it might be. Many Russian nationalists, and there are a lot of them, are loudly criticizing him for not responding more forcefully to the downing of the Russian plane and murder of one of the survivors.

          Turkey is going to lose more than Russia from all of this.

          The decision to down the Russian plane regardless of whether it was in Turkish airspace for 20 seconds or not, was a major error on the part of Erdogan. He is rapidly losing what few friends in the West and the Middle East he may ever have had. The Turks were doing OK before this guy came on the scene.

          Moral of the story: Be careful when you tangle with the Russian Bear.

          Especially, when it is wearing the mask of Putin.

          Victor O, NYC 2 hours ago

          Obama was in Turkey one week before this incident. His remarks following the incident implicitly threatened Russia with more of the same. It is unlikely that Erdogan would have taken such a step without the support of his buddy Obama.

          Does the U.S. truly wish to be drawn into a showdown with Russia? While it may be true that Russia is outclassed when it comes to conventional arms, Russia will resort to nuclear weapons if sufficiently challenged. Putin does not see the world through rose-colored glasses, and does not see gay marriage and global warming as the seminal issues of our time.

          FromBrooklyn, Europe 2 hours ago

          Yes, and the US, Russia and Europe should cooperate without reviving cold-war posturing and work together to defeat ISIS. Turkey can't be trusted; the Erdogans are getting rich from illegal oil and covertly support the terrorists.

          anthony weishar, Fairview Park, OH 2 hours ago

          There is a glaring problem with the Turkish version of the incident. The pilots ejected and landed in Syria, where "terrorist" captured or killed them. The Turkish map is not valid. If the pilots did land in Turkey, that would mean Turkey is protecting ISIS members and Syrian rebels.

          Nick Zucker, San Francisco, CA 1 hour ago @Tolga

          Nice revisionism there. All meant to justify a bellicose Turkish military of course. And what about the disputed landbetwwen syria and turkey this article talks about?

          Turkey is the only country that doesn't not respect Greek territorial integrity and the only country that recognizes the northern regime in Cyprus. Face it, in the absence of true democracy, Turkish politicians have been feeding Turks a steady diet of imagined external threats (really, from Greece?) to consolidate public opinion around nationalist sentiment.

          j. von hettlingen, is a trusted commenter switzerland 4 hours ago

          Erdogan is trying to calm the storm and hold France 24 television: "We might have been able to prevent this violation of our airspace differently."

          Perhaps he realises that Ankara might have over-reacted. Turkish airforce could have fired warning shots, without hitting the plane. It was essential to remind Russia of violating Turkish air-space, although Russian planes are not a direct threat to Turkey.

          But since Russia embarked on the intervention in Syria, its arbitrary shelling of Turkmens in Syria, who are Turkish allies and rebels, backed by the West and the Arabs, has set the cat among the pigeons.

          The US stands by NATO, which defended Turkey's action, because nobody wants to upset Ankara and jeopardise its access to the vital Turkish airbase at Incirlik.
          That the Kremlin is considering severe economic ties to Turkey may just be rhetoric for domestic consumption because the Imperial Russia and the Ottoman Empire had fought a series of wars in the 17th-19th century. In recent years Moscow's support for Nagorno-Karabakh, the Armenian-controlled breakaway enclave in Azerbaijan, is a thorn in Ankara's side, because Azerbaijan and Turkey are seen as "one nation with two states. The annexation of Crimea has led to the marginalisation of the Tartars, a Turkic ethnic group, for whose wellbeing Ankara sees itself responsible.

          Maxim, Canada, BC 2 hours ago

          Please read what really happened:
          https://www.rt.com/news/323651-turkey-su24-downing-syria/
          Turkey staged a provocation with full knowledge of where and when this Russian airplane will be. And after that NATO "fully supported" their member. I wonder why Russia sees NATO as threat. The message is loud and clear - NATO countries may provoke Russia under the protection of the allies.

          John Warnock, Thelma KY 2 hours ago

          Webster can add a new definition to the dictionary for "Middle East"; Quagmire. We need to seriously weigh our long term strategic interests in regard to this region. Put rhetoric aside. Put the infatuation of some with the Holy Land aside. Keep our support for Israel in balance with our commitment to Human Rights.
          Ultimately the Moslem Nations of the Middle East need to sort this mess out. The continued interjection of the USA, Russia and Europe only delays the sorting out that must come to pass.

          This sorting out must neutralize ISIS and similar groups and probably result in new national boundaries and new nation states. So be it. ISIS is an idea, a terrible idea, not territory.

          You cannot destroy it by bombing physical things. The Moslem world must sort it out; just as we have some adherents to various forms of fundamentalism in this country that we need to address. We attract the attention of ISIS because we are there and foolishly do things like maintain the prison at Guantanamo. We are not and should not consider ourselves the World's Cop!

          Syed Abbas, Dearborn MI 5 hours ago

          The world has decided Russia is clearly on the right on this one.

          However, Putin should not punish Turkish (and Russian) people for the sins of Erdogan. Moral high ground is to protest, provide evidence, forgive, and forget, and move on.

          Let the universe unfold as it should. Soon the sins of Erdogan will catch up with him.

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

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

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

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

          strannick

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

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

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

          God bless and keep Vladimir Putin.

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

          America ruins the world to rule it.

          God help us all.

          turtle

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

          HowdyDoody

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

          Is it April 1 already?

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

          socalbeach

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

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

          Rakshas

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

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

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

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

          France has since released video of their strikes against ISIS.

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

          O Tempora O Morons

          Directly from the troll house

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

          Western Media is a Troll Army

          [Nov 27, 2015] Turkeys attack on Russian jet is foreign policy nightmare Austrian ex-chancellor

          Notable quotes:
          "... Turkey can do much more to fight ISIS, but they are concentrated to fight or to separate or to isolate the Turkish fighters. The Peshmerga, as you know, is a staunch ally against ISIL or ISIS, and Turkey could also do more to stop the influx of foreign recruits a route to Syria. You mentioned the oil smuggling... so I think, a lot can be done, also to stop refugees, uncontrolled flow of refugees from Turkey to Europe. So I think Turkey should do more and on the summit of the EU and Turkey, Im sure a lot of our member-states will ask Turkey to do much more. ..."
          RT - SophieCo
          Sophie Shevardnadze: Wolfgang Schussel former Chancellor and foreign minister of Austria, welcome to the show, it's really great to have you with us. Now, a NATO country, Turkey, has shot down a Russian bomber in Syria, claiming it strayed into Turkish airspace. When a Turkish plane was shot for violating Syrian airspace, mr. Erdogan dubbed it an "attack with no excuse" - now, when a Russian plane is shot by Turkey in similar circumstances, it's an "appropriate self-defence". How this ambiguous stance of a NATO member and an EU candidate is viewed in Europea? Why is Turkey changing its stance when it feels like it? What's European take on that?

          Wolfgang Schussel: I think it's a nightmare incident, what happened a few days ago. This is exactly what some military experts warned about - there were repeated warning that there could be a clash between two nations in this already overcrowded Syrian sky. I think, what is needed is more cooperation and coordination. And, I think, the response of Turkey, even if there would be some incidents, let's say, for 2-5 seconds crossing a border land, it's not an appropriate reaction for that. So, I think, what is needed is a military coordination in this very disputed area.

          SS: But also, the way we look at it, this incident with the fighter jet has only highlighted Turkey's dubious behaviour towards ISIS. I mean, the alleged buying of smuggled oil from terrorists, allowing militant movement back and forth over the border and attacking Kurds who are fighting ISIS. Why has this been tolerated by members of the anti-ISIS coalition for so long?

          WS: I think it was criticised. Turkey can do much more to fight ISIS, but they are concentrated to fight or to separate or to isolate the Turkish fighters. The Peshmerga, as you know, is a staunch ally against ISIL or ISIS, and Turkey could also do more to stop the influx of foreign recruits a route to Syria. You mentioned the oil smuggling... so I think, a lot can be done, also to stop refugees, uncontrolled flow of refugees from Turkey to Europe. So I think Turkey should do more and on the summit of the EU and Turkey, I'm sure a lot of our member-states will ask Turkey to do much more.

          SS: So you think on that summit Turkey is going to be asked by the allies to get its anti-terror act together? Because, "criticising" and actually pressuring Turkey to do this are two different things.

          WS: Yeah, but you know, summit is a diplomatic effort to bring up different ideas and to coordinate the political actions, and I think it's an important meeting. I would not underestimate the impetus and a potential influx on the Turkish policy. I hope it will work.

          SS: NATO said in October it is ready to defend Turkey against Russia. It now has taken a much more cautious tone. Why the change?

          WS: It should not be, so to say, confrontation of NATO and Russia. I think what is needed is direct talks between Turkey and Russia and I hope, I got some information that there's an already planned meeting between Foreign Minister Lavrov and the Turkish foreign minister. They should discuss it, and, anyway, there is a strong need to coordinate military efforts. If Russia - and I would support it - would become a member of the coalition against ISIS and ISIL, there's a need to coordinate the actions, the moves, the targets, et cetera.

          SS: Now, while the anti-terror campaign in Syria is ramping up, in Europe operations following the Paris attacks are also in full swing. All of Austria's neighbors - Italy, Hungary, Germany - they're on high terror alert in case of another attack. Why isn't Austria on such an alert? Is Austria confident it's safe, I mean, feeling no need to raise the threat level? Is Austria equipped to handle such a threat?

          WS:I think, everybody is on alert and rightly so: because nobody can feel safe and secure or exempt from terror attacks from Al-Qaeda, Daesh, ISIL, ISIS - call it what you want. I think what we learned during the last years, months, or weeks or days is that nothing is guaranteed. We're fighting for our way of life, to entertain us, to love, to listen to music, to meet, to speak freely. This is an attack against all of us, an attack against our values. So I think we all have to be united and no one should think he or she is exempt from being a target of these terrorists. This is our common enemy, and we should also prioritise our action. In the moment, the most urgent priority is to fight against ISIS, and then the rest should be settled. Political, diplomatic effort to settle something, a diplomatic or political solution for Syria - that's for sure, this is needed, but now the most important priority is to fight the Islamic forces.

          [Nov 27, 2015] If these other foreign goupes searching for pilot include Americans and that might be the reason that after the plane was shot down, Russia was slapped with additional sanctions

          marknesop.wordpress.com

          Erika, November 26, 2015 at 11:21 am

          Russian Pilot Rescued by Iran's General Soleimani

          http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940905000553

          I am wondering if these other foreign forces they refer to are Americans and perhaps be the reason that after the shooting of the plane, Russia ended up getting additional sanctions.

          [Nov 27, 2015] Reckless Turkey

          Interesting discussion, Opinion of Charles Shoebridge is quite interesting.
          Notable quotes:
          "... Russia fighting ISIS, among other purposes, can divide NATO in Russia's interest. Downing of Russia fighter is to distract Russia focus under encouragement of U.S. Russia must not lose sight of the ball and fall into the trap by revenging Turkey. ..."
          RT CrossTalk
          And now for the consequences: In the wake of Turkey's intentional downing of a Russian military aircraft over Syrian airspace, the Russia-Turkey relationship is in steep decline. Ankara says it merely acted in self-defense, but it appears to be protecting Islamic State.

          CrossTalking with Charles Shoebridge and Yenal Kucuker.

          William Bellah

          The bigger picture is at stake and it all depends on China. The bigger picture is world domination and Russia alone is not enough of a deterrent to stop the U.S. And NATO but with China onboard, backing Russia in Syria, it is a whole different ball game

          George Rizk -> Yancey Tobias

          Yancey Tobias

          Kucuker: "Turkey misunderstood,..." ???? This is nonsense. In the ME, the role of Turkey is well understood. more...

          You are correct. A couple of years ago, Egypt ousted a Muslim Brotherhood President, who had sent terrorist to Syria, and looked the other way as Islamists in Egypt torched 75 churches. Mr. Erdoghan at the UN podium chose to condemn Egypt's more than 30 millions revolution against the Muslim extremists. Erdoghan, has exposed himself as a supporter of Muslim extremism, barbarism right at the UN a couple of years ago, and the news are full of information about the terrorist training camps and arms smuggling from Turkey into Syria.

          George Rizk

          The way this issue should be framed is: gangs of savages have been armed and encouraged by Muslim Sunni fanatic countries to oust Assad. The savages behaved in extremely barbaric fashion, and went after European targets, which made the West repulsed by their actions. Nevertheless, no country had enough guts to send forces to support these barbarians.

          Russia decided after four years of such devastation to fight them. Hence Russia is attempting to protect human kind from such subhuman gangs. Any one defending these subhumans is a supporter of forces of darkness. Tukey should be ousted from the UN, and NATO.

          Chunde Shi

          Russia fighting ISIS, among other purposes, can divide NATO in Russia's interest. Downing of Russia fighter is to distract Russia focus under encouragement of U.S. Russia must not lose sight of the ball and fall into the trap by revenging Turkey.

          Vidas Jack

          One i can say , Russia is not Great World Power as it was USSR, and that the reason how NATO took down Su-24 in the manner of engagement Russia to WW3.

          [Nov 27, 2015] Turkish President Erdo an warns Russia not to play with fire

          Notable quotes:
          "... Erdo an also touched on the joint press conference held by Putin and French President François Hollande on Nov. 26, describing the former's comments as "unacceptable." Denying allegations that Turkey has been purchasing oil from ISIL, Erdo an said the oil trade between ISIL, Russia and the Syrian regime had been documented by the United States. ..."
          www.hurriyetdailynews.com

          President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has warned Russia "not to play with fire" in the wake of a crisis between Ankara and Moscow following the downing of a Russian jet by Turkey on Nov. 24 near the Syrian border.

          "[Russian President Vladimir] Putin says 'those who have double standards on terrorism are playing with fire.' I totally agree with him," Erdoğan said Nov. 27 in the northern province of Bayburt.

          "Indeed, supporting the [Bashar] al-Assad regime in Syria, which has killed 380,000 people, is playing with fire. Striking opposition groups that have international legitimacy with the excuse of fighting against Daesh [an acronym of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL] is playing with fire. Using an incident in which Turkey's righteousness is accepted by the whole world as an excuse to torment our citizens who were in Russia to attend a fair is playing with fire. Irresponsibly hitting trucks in the region that are there for trade or humanitarian reasons is playing with fire. We sincerely advise Russia not to play with fire," he added.

          Erdoğan also expressed his willingness to meet Putin during the upcoming climate change summit in Paris in order to find common ground and avoid a further escalation of tension.

          "We are uncomfortable with efforts to take the dispute over the downed jet into other areas of relations. Let's not allow that to happen," he said, underlining that maintaining good relations was beneficial for both countries.

          Claiming that Turkey's shooting down of the Russian jet was not "intentional" but simply a result of an automatic enforcement of rules of engagement, Erdoğan nevertheless argued that Turkey was right to do so.

          "Turkey has proved its honesty" by releasing audio recordings of the warnings issued to the Russian pilots, he added.

          Erdoğan also touched on the joint press conference held by Putin and French President François Hollande on Nov. 26, describing the former's comments as "unacceptable." Denying allegations that Turkey has been purchasing oil from ISIL, Erdoğan said the oil trade between ISIL, Russia and the Syrian regime had been documented by the United States.

          [Nov 27, 2015] Turkish minister says trade retaliation by Russia will hurt its farmers

          www.hurriyetdailynews.com

          Any trade retaliation by Russia over Turkey's downing of a jet flying sorties in Syria would hurt Russian farmers more, Turkish Agriculture Minister Faruk Çelik said on Nov. 27, pointing to import-export figures.

          Turkey has not yet received official notification of any embargo by Russia, Çelik also told reporters.

          However, it would be wrong to let the tensions between Russia and Turkey impact farming, commercial and economic ties, he said.

          Russia has increased checks on food and agriculture imports from Turkey, the Agriculture Ministry said on Nov. 26, in the first public move to curb trade in a dispute with Ankara for the downing a Russian fighter jet.

          The Russian government told Russia's food safety watchdog Rosselkhoznadzor to increase controls after agriculture ministry research showed about 15 percent of agriculture imports from Turkey did not meet regulations, the Russian ministry said.

          Çelik said Turkey exports around $1.3 billion of agricultural goods to Russia and buys $.2.9 billion of agricultural products from Russia.

          "Any trade retaliation move will hurt mainly Russian farmers, not Turkish farmers," he said.

          [Nov 27, 2015] Russia imposes sanctions on Turkey over downed plane

          Notable quotes:
          "... He earlier called the act a "stab in the back by the accomplices of terrorists" and promised "serious consequences" ..."
          www.theguardian.com

          ...the country's tourist board has suspended all tours to Turkey, a move that it estimated would cost the Turkish economy $10bn (£6.6bn). Russia also said it was suspending all military cooperation with Turkey, including closing down an emergency hotline to share information on Russian airstrikes in Syria.

          Putin accused Turkey of deliberately trying to bring relations between Moscow and Ankara to a standstill, adding that Moscow was still awaiting an apology or an offer of reimbursement for damages. He earlier called the act a "stab in the back by the accomplices of terrorists" and promised "serious consequences"

          ... ... ...

          Russia has insisted that its plane never strayed from Syrian airspace, while Turkey says it crossed into its airspace for 17 seconds. The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said that even if this was the case, shooting the plane down was an extreme over-reaction and looked like a pre-planned provocation.

          [Nov 27, 2015] Suspiciously well-equipped group of militants was looking for a catapult of the Navigator the fallen in Syria bomber su-24,

          Notable quotes:
          "... Suspiciously "well-equipped" group of militants was looking for a catapult of the Navigator the fallen in Syria bomber su-24, RIA "Novosti". This was stated by the VC commander-in-chief Viktor Bondarev. ..."
          "... According to the military, the pilot was serach by a few "well-equipped" armed groups. Their origin is unknown. ..."
          www.gazeta.ru
          Suspiciously "well-equipped" group of militants was looking for a catapult of the Navigator the fallen in Syria bomber su-24, RIA "Novosti". This was stated by the VC commander-in-chief Viktor Bondarev.

          According to the military, the pilot was serach by a few "well-equipped" armed groups. Their origin is unknown.

          November 24 in the Syrian province of Latakia has fallen downed Russian bomber su-24. This responsibility took on the Turkish authorities, accusing Russia of violating its airspace. Moscow claims that the plane was flying solely over the territory of Syria.

          [Nov 27, 2015] Guest Post Why Is The US Hanging Turkey Out To Dry

          Notable quotes:
          "... It can safely be assumed that the US influenced Turkey into shooting down the Russian jet over Syrian airspace, predicting quite accurately that this would immediately lead to the deterioration of ties between the two states. An elementary forecast of the specific counter-measures that Russia may take stipulates that these will likely relate to the diplomatic, economic, and energy sectors, which is just what the US wants. ..."
          "... Furthermore, Turkish Stream looks to be indefinitely put on hold, thus delaying Russia's game-changing pivot to the Balkans. ..."
          Zero Hedge

          Authored by Andrew Korybko via OrientalReview.com,

          Turkey's shooting down of the Russian anti-ISIL aircraft was an unprecedentedly direct aggression against Moscow that trumps even the tense and hostile militarism of the Old Cold War era. The world stands on edge in the immediate aftermath of this attack, with tabloid-esque commentators warning that the beginning of World War III awaits. President Putin, for his part, has been much more measured in responding to the incident, but still couldn't contain his shock at having received this "stab in the back delivered by accomplices of the terrorists."

          The question now comes down to how Russia will respond to what happened, but perhaps even more important for observers to ponder is why the US is unofficially distancing itself from its ally's aggression. Despite both NATO and Obama giving full backing to Turkey's fateful decision, Reuters has quoted an anonymous American military official that purposely leaked that the Russian plane was downed while over Syrian airspace, basing the assessment on heat signature detection. This raises questions about why the US is playing both sides of the fence – on one hand, publicly supporting Turkey, while on the other, strategically releasing information that conflicts with Turkey's official depiction of events.

          The Setup:

          This dichotomy is suggestive of a Machiavellian plan whereby the US manipulates both Turkey and Russia into behaving according to what it has already forecast as their most likely responses, knowing full well that these could be guided into supporting grander American strategic interests. For starters, the US likely intimated to Erdogan that not only does he have the 'legal' right to shoot down any Russian aircraft he chooses, but that the US would actually prefer for him to take this course of action sooner than later. This is reminiscently similar to how the US put Sakkashvili up to bombing Tskhinval and invading South Ossetia – it may not have directly issued an official, on-paper order for this to occur, but it left no ambiguity as to how it wanted its proxy to act in each situation.

          According To Plan:

          For the most part, this explains the public pronouncements of NATO and the US' support for Turkey's actions, and it also goes a long way in soothing Erdogan's nerves and reassuring him that he did the right thing. The predicted aftereffect of the plane's downing was an immediate deterioration of Russian-Turkish relations, with the full consequences potentially affecting the diplomatic, military, economic, and energy spheres. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov cancelled his upcoming trip to Turkey and advised Russian tourists to refrain from visiting the country due to the terrorism level being similar to Egypt's. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has spoken about the possibility of barring Turkish companies from the Russian market and cancelling planned nuclear and gas projects with the country.

          All of these prospective actions are fully justifiable and grounded in the self-respect that Russia feels in not aiding what has proven itself to be a militantly hostile state no matter the economic stakes involved, but at the same time, one can't help but wonder whether this is exactly what the US wanted. There's no doubt that Russia would react this way, as even a cursory glance of its potential 'response toolkit' indicates that these are the most likely to be taken amidst any deterioration of relations. Therefore, it can't be discounted that the US put Erdogan up to shooting down the Russian jet precisely to provoke the predictable Russian response in threatening to cancel its forthcoming energy projects with Turkey, the core of the strategic partnership between the two. If this is the case, and it certainly seems likely, then it shows exactly how far the US is willing to go to make sure that Russian energy (and subsequently, all of the soft power and multipolar advantages that come with it) doesn't enter the Balkans through the Turkish Stream megaproject, likely because it understands the transformative impact that this would eventually have on the entire region.

          The Curveball:

          Thus far, everything seems reasonable and well within the realm of predictability, but the curveball comes with the Reuters revelation that an unnamed American military source is essentially saying that the Russian position is justified. Unexpectedly, it now seems as though the US is also playing to Russia's side to an extent, and this raises questions about what it really wants. After all, it's been proven beyond any doubt that American-supplied TOW anti-tank missiles were used to down the Russian rescue helicopter that attempted to retrieve the two pilots. With this indisputable evidence of indirect American aggression against Russia, it certainly is a curious fact that the US establishment would purposely leak a statement saying that the Turkey downed the Russian plane in Syrian airspace, and basically take Russia's side on this behind the scenes.

          Playing The Kurdish Card:

          Explaining this diplomatic twist requires knowledge about the popular response that Russian citizens and global supporters worldwide are requesting to Turkey's aggression. They quite reasonably propose that Russia intensify its arms shipments to anti-ISIL Kurdish fighters, with the wink-and-a-nod approval that some of them would be siphoned off to the PKK and be used against the Turkish military. This is an effective and pragmatic plan, and in reality, it actually doesn't even require a policy shift from Moscow because support is already being rendered to some Kurdish groups as part of their joint cooperation in the anti-ISIL struggle. The Kurdish Insurgency hasn't gone away since Erdogan unwittingly unearthed it this summer as an electioneering tool, and the fact that it's still going strong even after the elections has scared him so much that he might have been the one who ordered the recent assassination attempt against pro-Kurdish HDP co-chairman Selahattin Demirtas. Thus, if Russia chooses to inflict an asymmetrical response to Turkey by beefing up its indirect support for the PKK and other Turkish-based anti-government Kurds or disrupting Blue Stream gas supplies in order to provoke an intensified rebellion, then it could certainly inflict a heavy amount of strategic damage to Erdogan and increase the likelihood either of a military coup in Turkey (explained more in detail as part of a different article accessible here) and/or the creation of an independent Kurdistan.

          That being said, the US has traditionally been the out-of-regional power that has the greatest interest in Kurdistan, seeing the possible state as a 'geopolitical Israel' from which it can simultaneously exert influence on the rump portions of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. The strategic trajectory of a theorized Kurdish state has been complicated by the anti-ISIL campaign, however, since many Kurds have shown themselves to be pragmatic in cooperating with Russia and Iran against this shared threat. The positive multipolar cooperation that each of these countries has engaged in with the Kurds challenges the US' planned hegemony over them and their territory, and it thus means that any forthcoming independent Kurdish political entity could theoretically go either towards the multipolar or the unipolar camps. At this point in time, and given all of the dynamic military and diplomatic developments of the past couple of months, the loyalty of a future Kurdish state (no matter if its boundaries are confined only to present-day Turkey and/or Iraq) is totally up for grabs, and it's impossible to accurately forecast which way it will go.

          The strategic ambiguity that this entails means a few things to the US and Russia. For the US, it indicates that the time is now for it to bunker down and support Kurdistan's independence before it loses the strategic initiative to Russia, which might be moving in this direction (whether formally or informally) out of grand geopolitical spite for Turkey. Moscow, as was just mentioned, seems inclined to hit Ankara where it hurts most, and that's through supporting the Kurdish Insurgency in one way or another. However, it's not yet known how far this would go, and whether Russia would pursue this strategy as a form of short-term vengeance or if it would resolutely go as far in recognizing Kurdish Independence if it could ever be de-facto actualized. Of course, Russia wouldn't do anything that could endanger the territorial integrity of its Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian allies, but if the Turkish-based Kurds contained their ambitions solely within the borders of Russia's historical rival, then it might be able to rectify itself with this reality, especially if they even refrain from legal independence and instead seek a sort of broadly de-facto independent federative or autonomous status within a unified Turkey (which could only realistically be brought about by an intensified insurgency and/or a coup in Ankara).

          Joining Hands For Kurdistan:

          Having explained all of this, it's now clear that a remarkable convergence of strategic interests has developed between the US and Russia focusing on Turkish-administered Kurdistan. Understanding the changing calculations that Russia may now be having towards this topic as a response to Turkey's aggression against it, one can't necessarily preclude the possibility that the Reuters leak was actually a strategic overture to Russia. Washington might be sending a signal that it wants to speak to Moscow about ways to cooperate in this regard, knowing that each of them possibly have an interest now in seeing the proto-state rise to the fore of the global arena. A shared understanding has likely developed by now that a New Cold War competition for Kurdistan's loyalty could be fought after the entity is legally formalized (whether as an independent state or a de-facto independent sub-state entity modeled off of the Kurdish Regional Government in Iraq), and that the two Great Powers need to put aside some of their differences in joining hands to see this happen first.

          Such a strong signal could have been discretely and secretly communicated to Russia via secure diplomatic and intelligence channels, but the reason it was so publicly broadcast via Reuters, the global newswire service, is because the US also wants to send a signal to Turkey as well. Despite taking its side on the matter before the global eye, the US is also "stabbing its ally in the back", to channel President Putin, by purposely leaking the information that the Russian jet was shot down over Syrian airspace. It's not news that the US has been unhappy with Erdogan for not behaving more submissively in the past and refusing to blindly go along with the previous plans to invade Syria (rendered useless after Russia's anti-terrorist military intervention there), so it might be trying to convey the message it's had enough of his games and is now playing their own in return. Of course, the US has always been manipulating Turkey ever since it joined NATO and allowed the Americans to operate out of Incirlik airbase, but this time, the treachery is being taken to a higher level by implicitly throwing out suggestions to Russia, Turkey's new foe (and only because the US manipulated Turkey into taking aggressive action against it), that it might want to team up in undermining Ankara's control over its volatile southeast.

          Concluding Thoughts:

          It can safely be assumed that the US influenced Turkey into shooting down the Russian jet over Syrian airspace, predicting quite accurately that this would immediately lead to the deterioration of ties between the two states. An elementary forecast of the specific counter-measures that Russia may take stipulates that these will likely relate to the diplomatic, economic, and energy sectors, which is just what the US wants. Because of Turkey's aggression against Russia, the strategic partnership between the two is now broken (although not necessarily irreversibly), and Ankara has become the fourth and perhaps most geopolitically significant member of the anti-Russian Intermarum coalition. Furthermore, Turkish Stream looks to be indefinitely put on hold, thus delaying Russia's game-changing pivot to the Balkans. While the 'unintended' consequence of the crisis has been Russia's foreseeable and absolutely legitimate decision to deploy the S-400 SAM system to Syria, this in a way also plays to the manipulated Turkish-Russian rivalry that the US wanted to produce in order to solidify the completion of the Intermarum project and simultaneously counter Russia's growing influence in the Mideast.

          The reaction that no one could have predicted, however, is the US purposely leaking comments to Reuters that support the Russian version of events, namely, that the anti-terrorist jet was shot down while flying over Syrian airspace. This completely conflicts with what the US and NATO have said in public, but it shows that the US has had enough time to game out the plane-shooting scenario well in advance, and that it's playing a sinister divide-and-conquer game against Turkey and Russia. Put in the position where its decision makers are scrambling for responses to the unprecedented aggression against them, Russia can now more easily be led into supporting the Kurdish struggle for sovereignty (whether formally independent or de-facto so) in Turkey, which coincides with one of the US' premier geopolitical projects.

          From an American perspective, a divided Turkey is doubly useful for its grand strategic designs, as the large pro-NATO Turkish military would remain mostly intact, while the US could gain a major base for force projection (both hard and soft) right in between some of the most important states in the region. It can't, however, go fully forward with this project unless it has the support of the diplomatic leader of the multipolar world, Russia, otherwise Kurdistan will be just as illegitimate as Kosovo is and might not even come to geopolitical fruition if Moscow and Tehran work to stop it.

          Seen from the Russian standpoint, the US' intimations actually seen quite attractive. An increase of Russian support to anti-ISIL Kurdish fighters would be a plausibly deniable but strategically obvious way to funnel weapons and equipment to anti-Turkish PKK insurgents. Weakening Turkey from within would be a strong asymmetrical response to a country that has lately been a major thorn in Moscow's side, and it might create the conditions either for a military coup against Erdogan, a divide between him and Davutoglu (which could be used to Russia's diplomatic advantage so long as the constitution remains unchanged and Davutoglu legally remains more powerful than Erdogan), or a weakening of Erdogan and a tempering of his anti-Russian and anti-Syrian positions.

          Importantly, the emergence of an independent or semi-independent Kurdish entity in Turkey could create a tempting piece of geopolitical real estate in the New Cold War, but of course, it would then be contested between the multipolar and unipolar worlds. Still, however, it would represent a positive multipolar development in the Mideast, since under the present state of affairs, the entirety of Turkish territory is under unipolar control. If a large chunk of it suddenly became the object of competition between both blocs, then it would definitely signify a strategic advancement at the expense of unipolarity. Of equal importance, this would also significantly impact on the Turkish state and whatever government is in power by that time, and it could possibly make it more amenable to returning to the previously pragmatic relationship with Russia and perhaps even resurrecting Turkish Stream.

          Therefore, Russia surprisingly has nothing to lose and everything to gain by covertly supporting the Kurdish cause in Turkey, no matter if it's full-out independence or relatively more restrained autonomy, and even if this is objective is shared by the US and done in semi-coordination with it. Turkey would immediately be put on the defensive (although it could try desperately responding by supporting Tatar terrorists in Crimea), the multipolar world have a chance at competing for the loyalty of an ultra-strategically positioned entity, and the consequences that this has for the Turkish government (whether it remains the same or is changed via a [military] coup) could recreate the political conditions for Turkish Stream's feasibility.

          Main_Sequence

          The shooting down of the Russia's SU-24 that had allegedly crossed into Turkish airspace was highly likely architected by the USSA and executed directly by CIA assets to drive a wedge between Russia and Turkey to further isolate Russia, and try to prevent any construction of natural gas pipelines from Russia via Turkey, that will eventually feed into Europe.

          Due to Turkey's geo-strategic location between the Middle East, Europe, and Central Asia for gas pipelines, Turkey becomes the lynchpin for controlling the entire energy distribution network across the aforementioned regions.

          DeadFred's picture

          Whoa! Who says this un-named military official was doing what the Kenyan guy wanted? There are a lot of them left who detest him and some even remember that their oaths were to the constitution. Not much left of it but that's what they swore to protect.

          pretty bird

          America is doing the right thing. Obama wants to take charge of a chaotic situation. He's playing both sides against each other. Then the USA will take the lead role. God bless America. And God bless Israel.

          Main_Sequence

          I wish there was a timestamp for the post at the link below, since I called it earlier.

          Moscow Warns CIA, Not Turkey, Downed Russian Fighter Plane Over Syria: http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1946.htm

          The Navigator
          America always fucks over their "friends". It's only when you're their enemy that you know where you stand. After 60 years on this spinning globe and having lived and seen from abroad, it's all a lie, American Pie, American Dream.

          Welder

          I'd love to see the Turks driven out of Asia Minor back to the steppes of Central Asia where they came from. And Istanbul's name changed back to Constantinople. It's a nice piece of real estate. Strategic too.

          Coke and Hookers

          This is an interesting analysis though. The only real action the US has apparently taken against ISIS is to support the Kurdish offensive. It seems clear that the US has some sort of plan for future Kurdistan and that ain't the same plan Turkey has. This discrepancy has gotten little attention so far. It makes sense that the US is grooming Kurdistan as a future client state in the area. The Kurds have been semi allied with Iran and Assad for a long time and neutralizing that would be a major bonus.

          r0mulus

          I don't buy the argument in this article.

          The leaking of info to the media by the US general does not necessarily signify the desire of the US to undercut Turkey- it just as easily could suggest a power struggle between elite circles within the overall power structure, or it could simply be a whistleblower coming forward.

          The author seems to have jumped to conclusions with their assertion regarding the intention of the leak.

          fleur de lis

          NATO is hellbent for a war with Russia.

          Notice how none of the other NATO club members dare to rough up the Russians. But they needed a point man so they somehow convinced Turkey to shoot down a fighter jet. They must have promised something very sweet to the Turks. What could go wrong?

          Did they mention that the FSA, ISIS, etc., would be on the ground waiting? And the cold blooded murder of a Russian pilot was part of the deal? And that their kinfolk the ethnic Turkmen would be so stupid as to boast about it on video for all the world to see?

          Now the Turks realize that they have been poisoned. And they have been abandoned by their NATO friends and left to face a very angry bear all alone. The Turks had better wake up and realize that they have never been respected by NATO and are considered expendable by Western warmongers.

          Winston Churchill

          As I said on the other article, I'm begining to think that shooting down the jet was aimed at getting the S400's deployed. The west doesn't want anymore Russian surprises like
          the radar jamming tech Breedlove keeps whining about.

          No way this pre planned ambush was not OKed by Uncle Scam. Deploying 400's instead of the nearly obsolete S300's may have been a mistake.

          [Nov 27, 2015] Who's-who--Syria's-terror-list

          Al-Ahram Weekly

          When the foreign ministers of 17 countries met in Vienna on 30 October, they agreed, among other things, that "Daesh [Islamic State] and other terrorist groups, as designated by the UN Security Council, and further, as agreed by the participants, must be defeated."

          With this rallying cry in mind, Russia's chief diplomat, Sergei Lavrov, is now pressing for preparation of a list of all terrorist groups operating in Syria, so that the country may be rid of them through concerted international action.

          When the same ministers convened again in Vienna, on Saturday, 14 November, the idea had gained some traction.

          "It is time to deprive the terrorists of any single kilometre in which to hide," US Secretary of State John Kerry said.

          The Russians are now pressing for two lists to be prepared: one for terrorist groups that must be annihilated, and one for friendly groups that can take part in the fight against the former. Jordan has been asked to prepare the list of terrorist groups.

          But Syrian opposition groups are wary of the Russian approach. They fear that what Moscow is trying to obtain is not a list of groups involved in human rights abuses, but a list of groups opposed to Bashar Al-Assad's regime.

          Sifting through the 800 or so armed groups operating in Syria today the Russians identified only 40 groups that they consider to be "moderate".

          However, opposition figures told Al-Ahram Weekly that there are many more groups that have never been accused of human rights violations, never hired foreign fighters and never committed atrocities. These groups have for the past four years fought against both Islamic State (IS) and the regime.

          Many of these groups are small, often operating within the perimeters of their villages or towns. They operate mostly in self-defence, and many have sworn to abide by the international laws of war and human rights principles.

          At the recent meeting in Vienna, it was clear that neither Russia nor Iran is willing to discuss the fate of President Hafez Al-Assad. Indeed, Iran's Foreign Minister Mohamed Javad Zarif threatened to pull out of the Vienna talks if Al-Assad's fate was placed on the agenda.

          So, without tackling this thorny issue, the foreign ministers came up with an 18-month plan, starting from early next year, to form an interim government and hold elections.

          UN special envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura described the plan as "challenging but possible."

          According to the plan, delegates from the government and the "whole spectrum of opposition forces" should meet no later than 1 January 2016 to discuss the formation of an interim government. This interim government, the ministers agreed, will draft a new constitution and hold new elections within the next 18 months.

          This will be a "Syrian-led process", Lavrov said during the talks, which were infused with a sense of urgency in the aftermath of the Paris attacks.

          Mohamed Sabra, chief of the Syrian Republic Party, took issue with the Russian proposals. "The Russian proposal is based on dividing combatant groups into those who agree to a political deal and those who oppose it," he told the Weekly.

          "Once the UN Security Council endorses [the terror lists], this would allow the shelling and extermination of those armed groups that Moscow seeks to destroy," he added.

          According to Sabra, Moscow is also trying to isolate Islamic groups that disagree with the principles of a democratic and secular state, and thus exclude them from the political process.

          "This will lead to a realignment of forces, change the essence of the military conflict in Syria, and sow the seeds of civil war in the country," Sabra remarked.

          Among the many armed groups working in Syria today are some that have Gulf backing, others that are supported by Turkey, and some that are homegrown. Kurdish groups have taken up arms, as have the Turkmen, Assyrians, Druze, Christians, Sunnis and Shias.

          Then there is the Free Syrian Army (FSA), which is an alliance of all of the above. Some of these groups have no more than 100 members, while some have tens of thousands of men under arms.

          Deciding which of these groups is terrorist in nature is not going to be an easy task. Sayeed Muqbil, a prominent Syrian opposition figure, said that well-defined criteria must be set to differentiate between terrorists and non-terrorists.

          "Before preparing the lists, we must bear in mind that the Syrian regime is responsible for 96 per cent of civilian casualties," Muqbil said, adding that the remaining four per cent were killed by other armed groups, including IS.

          "So the forces of the regime and its affiliated militia should be subject also to the same norms. Also, the Lebanese, Iraqi and Iranian outfits fighting in Syria must be brought under the same scrutiny," said Muqbil.

          In the flurry of diplomatic efforts to find a quick fix for the war in Syria it must not be forgotten that officials in the current regime have ordered massacres to be carried out, barrel bombs to be dropped from planes, and chemical weapons to be used against civilians.

          Armed groups affiliated with the regime have killed and abducted its opponents and pillaged areas deemed hostile to the regime. These groups include the National Defence Militia (Milishyat Al-Difaa Al-Watani), Baath Battalions (Kataeb Al-Baath), People's Committees (Al-Ijan Al-Shaabiya), Tempest Eagles (Nosour Al-Zawbaah), Orchard Society (Jamiet Al-Oustan), Hatay Liberation Movement (Harakat Tahrir Iskandarun) and Syria's Hezbollah.

          Iraqi groups affiliated with Iran have also committed atrocities. These include the Brigade of Abul Fadl Al-Abbas (Liwa Abul Fadl Al-Abbas), Fatimids Brigade (Liwa Fatimiyun), Zeinab Followers Brigade (Liwaz Zeinabiyun), Mahdi Army (Jeish Al-Mahdi) and Iraq's Hezbollah.

          Palestinian factions fighting alongside the regime have also committed human rights abuses, including documented massacres. These groups include the Popular Front Militia (Milishia Al-Jabha Al-Shaabiya), Quds Brigade (Liwa Al-Quds), Thunderbolt Forces (Quwat Al-Saiqa) and Palestine Liberation Army (Jeish Al-Tahrir Al-Filastini).

          The IRGC (the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) and Lebanon's Hezbollah have also been implicated in war crimes.

          Members of Syria's opposition that the Weekly spoke with say that the international community must examine all these groups. If terror is to be isolated, it must be done using clear criteria - criteria that is applied to all parties in the conflict.

          [Nov 27, 2015] Downing of Russian Jet Over Turkey was Inevitable

          Notable quotes:
          "... Ankara may have simply decided it had to nip Russia's incremental aggressions in the bud, with the ruling AK Party feeling particularly confident on the heels of an election sweep last month. ..."
          "... Ankara may also have been acting under domestic political pressure to defend the Syrian Turkmen rebels - who are considered ethnic Turks - active on the Syrian side of the border in Hatay province ..."
          "... At the very least, many expect an escalation in Russian strikes on Turkey-backed rebels in Syria, including the Turkmens, in retaliation. ..."
          "... increase Russian assistance to the Syrian Kurds, whom Turkey views as "a clear and present danger" due to their ties to the Kurdish PKK insurgency in southeast Turkey. ..."
          Al Jazeera America

          ... Ankara may have simply decided it had to nip Russia's incremental aggressions in the bud, with the ruling AK Party feeling particularly confident on the heels of an election sweep last month.

          Soner Cagaptay, a Turkey analyst at the Washington Institute think thank in Washington, D.C., noted that Ankara may also have been acting under domestic political pressure to defend the Syrian Turkmen rebels - who are considered ethnic Turks - active on the Syrian side of the border in Hatay province, where the plane was shot down. Russian targeting of Turkmen fighters, who are said to number in the thousands, has been a sore spot for many Turks.

          But Turkey didn't appear to have NATO's backing in its decision to shoot down the plane, analysts said...

          ... Still, analysts said there was a sense of inevitability that this sort of incident could happen again. The Kremlin has sent out signals that Tuesday's events won't deter its mission in northern Syria, where Russian air power has been critical in rolling back rebel gains against Moscow's client, the Assad regime. At the very least, many expect an escalation in Russian strikes on Turkey-backed rebels in Syria, including the Turkmens, in retaliation. Fadi Hakura, a Turkey analyst at the Chatham House think tank in London, pointed out that an even more provocative step would be to increase Russian assistance to the Syrian Kurds, whom Turkey views as "a clear and present danger" due to their ties to the Kurdish PKK insurgency in southeast Turkey.

          [Nov 27, 2015] Turkey has spent years allowing jihadist groups to flourish - so beware its real reasons for shooting down a Russian plane

          independent.co.uk

          Turkey is getting desperate. Under President Recep Tayip Erdogan and his party, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), its policies toward the conflict in Syria over the past four years have been misguided and costly. When conflict broke out in 2011, Ankara mistakenly under-estimated the strength of the Assad regime and supported hardline Islamist groups seeking its downfall. In the process, Turkey also marginalised the Kurds and alienated regional powers like Iran.

          Four years on, Assad looks set to hold onto power and his regime will be a central part of a transition plan, one that foreign powers were negotiating last weekend. Turkey's regional rival, Iran, is a key player which can no longer be ignored by the West. Not only does the pro-Assad alliance now have Russian support firmly on its side, but the international community is no longer focused on defeating the regime – instead, it is concerned with defeating jihadist groups like Isis.

          The shift in focus is a significant drawback for Erdogan. Years of support for, and investment in, Islamic fundamentalist groups like Jabhat al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria) and Ahrar al-Sham are about to go to waste. Ankara has played a significant role in allowing Isis and other jihadists to flourish in Syria and the region. Turkey has acquiesced to jihadist groups entering Syria via Turkey as well as their use of Turkey as a transit point for smuggling arms and funds into Syria.

          ...The Kurds in Syria, meanwhile, have established themselves as a reliable Western ally and have created, in the process, an autonomous Kurdish region that has reinvigorated Kurdish nationalism in Turkey and across the region - much to Turkey's dismay as it continues a brutal military campaign to repress the Kurds.

          \...The West appeased and bolstered Erdogan in Turkey in the run-up to the country's elections, with the aim of securing a deal with Ankara on the refugee crisis. It may now regret that. Erdogan is not only likely to drive a hard bargain but he may also walk away.

          [Nov 27, 2015] President Erdogan hits out at 'shameful' accusations Turks profit from Isis

          Notable quotes:
          "... Western diplomats believe that, at best, Turkey for too long turned a blind eye to jihadist fighters using Turkey as a conduit for fighters and weapons. ..."
          independent.co.uk

          He hit back at claims that Turkish officials profited financially from the sale of oil from Isis-held territory, telling his critics: "Shame on you."

          In a claim likely to raise eyebrows not only in Moscow but also in Washington, Mr Erodogan insisted that Turkey's fight against jihadists was "undisputed". Western diplomats believe that, at best, Turkey for too long turned a blind eye to jihadist fighters using Turkey as a conduit for fighters and weapons.

          [Nov 27, 2015] We need an asymmetrical responce

          Notable quotes:
          "... All journalists in one voice say that the resulting shooting - professional, and obviously not filmed with a single camera. ..."
          "... That is, the provocation was really well prepared. But then the question arises, what we want to achieve this provocation? And whose is it? Erdogan? Or the United States? Or NATO? Or military Turkish intelligence? ..."
          "... Now Erdogan clumsily backtrack his previous statements. He stated that the Turkish authorities did not know what brought down the Russian plane, thinking it was Syrian. This is an outright lie. Erdogan gave in to the pressure of his corrupt son who asked his father to avenge for the the trucks burned by Russia's air strikes. ..."
          "... Ambush of Russian aircraft is not accidental and is rooted in the psychology of Erdogan. He just won the parliamentary elections: for this purpose he destroyed the peace with the Kurds and started a war with them - in fact, only in order to obtain a parliamentary majority. He is very militant. And due to successes he lost the sense of reality. Now he says that he does not want escalation of the conflict. ..."
          izvestia.ru

          I think, for anybody not a secret that the impact on Russian aircraft was a well-calculated provocation. Recently I visited "al-Jazeera international, al-Jazeera, the Them", Sky News and other international channels. I had the opportunity to consult with different and very professional operators. All journalists in one voice say that the resulting shooting - professional, and obviously not filmed with a single camera.

          That is, the provocation was really well prepared. But then the question arises, what we want to achieve this provocation? And whose is it? Erdogan? Or the United States? Or NATO? Or military Turkish intelligence?

          Before you respond to provocation, you need to comprehend the situation. However, it is clear that this was a treacherous blow and the lies of the officials. Turkish plane flew into Syrian territory for the attack by Russian aircraft. Even in NATO, Turkey has presented evidence that Russian aircraft flew for 17 seconds. During this time, 10 times no one would be able to warn our pilot.

          Turkish officials, of course, completely lost face. They lie that the plane was shot down over Turkish territory. Even if the plane flew for 17 seconds when he got hit, he was away over Syria. Lie that warned of the Russian pilots. Lying, that didn't mean it. It is clear that this is a trap. They lie that they do not consider Russia as the enemy. Lying that Russian planes, when they even flew into Turkish territory, pose a threat to the security of Turkey. The same Erdogan has repeatedly said that short-flown aircraft is not an excuse to open fire.

          Now Erdogan clumsily backtrack his previous statements. He stated that the Turkish authorities did not know what brought down the Russian plane, thinking it was Syrian. This is an outright lie. Erdogan gave in to the pressure of his corrupt son who asked his father to avenge for the the trucks burned by Russia's air strikes.

          Ambush of Russian aircraft is not accidental and is rooted in the psychology of Erdogan. He just won the parliamentary elections: for this purpose he destroyed the peace with the Kurds and started a war with them - in fact, only in order to obtain a parliamentary majority. He is very militant. And due to successes he lost the sense of reality. Now he says that he does not want escalation of the conflict.

          And Russia does not want escalation, but to forgive treacherous murder of our pilot Russia too. Erdogan needs to understand that. He has a chance to apologize and pay the damages. To do this, Turkey should recognize that shot down Russian aircraft over Syrian territory. Erdogan should apologize to the family of the Russian pilot and assign her a huge lifetime pension. He also needs to give the order to stop military support to Islamic state terrorists and to prosecute those who organized the attack on the Russian plane.

          If you meet those conditions, Russia might be satisfied. If Erdogan going to insist that the Turkish military have the right to kill any Russian citizen, whenever and wherever you want, then Russia needs to radically change its position on all issues which are sensitive for Erdogan. And first of all on Kurds.

          Russia's response should be asymmetric. We need to fins set of measures the most painful for Erdogan, while maximally avoiding the negative consequences for the Russian population and for Turkish. First of all, the response must be to change the attitude of Russia to the Kurdish resistance and struggle of the Kurds with Turkey. Even minor efforts of Russia in this direction can jeopardize the stability of Erdogan regime and, most likely, will lead to its collapse.

          But what we don't need is anti-Turkish hysteria. Neither Russia nor Turkey as the government is not interested to be drawn into conflict with each other. Only our strategic opponents profitable to pit Russia and Turkey against each other ans see from the sidelines the destructive effects of this.

          Responsibility for this crime lies with the President Erdogan and the elite around him. It is foolish to blame the Turkish people. We should stop insulting a whole nation.

          But the answer should follow. The answer should be tough but limited. And it should hit both Erdogan and his close associates guilty of this vile provocation. In no case we need a prepetition of events near the Turkish Embassy with stones knocking out Windows. Embassies in Russia of all countries should be inviolable. Only in this case we can claim a similar relationship to our embassies abroad.

          I would also like to warn against hasty measures in trade and the economy. Cooperation with Turkey is beneficial not only her, but also of Russia and Russian citizens. Any economic sanctions should be applied only in case if we are confident that they minimally affect our population. Again, good work with the Kurds, and the destruction of the joint Turkish-ISIS oil transportation channel might help to created problems for Erdogan regime.

          [Nov 26, 2015] Russian Foreign Ministry recommended Russian not to fly to Turkey

          svpressa.ru

          tour operators and travel agents have been asked to refrain from selling tours that involve flights (including commercial flights) from the Russian Federation to Turkey

          The Russian foreign Ministry confirms the recommendation for Russian citizens to refrain from visiting Turkey, and those who are on the territory of the Republic, advises to return to their Homeland. This is stated in an official statement the Russian foreign Ministry.

          The report stressed that it involves "continuing in Turkey for terrorist threats".

          Earlier, the Minister of foreign Affairs of Russia Sergey Lavrov has decided to celebrate his visit to Turkey. Also he recommended that the Russians to refrain from traveling to this country. However, he stressed that this recommendation is not even involved with the crash of the Russian plane su-24.

          [Nov 26, 2015] Russia targets Turkish economy in retaliation for downing of warplane

          The Washington Post

          Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev on Thursday called for tough sanctions against Turkey that could bite into more than $30 billion in trade ties between the two countries, as police here began seizing Turkish products and deporting Turkish businessmen.

          Russian officials are seething after Turkish F-16s downed a Russian warplane over the Syrian border in a debacle that ultimately left two Russian servicemen dead. Turkey says that the Russian plane breached its airspace and was warned five times to turn back, charges that Russia denies.

          Russian President Vladimir Putin has described the act as "a stab in the back from the accomplices of terrorists," and on Thursday said in televised remarks that Turkey still had not apologized over the incident.

          On Thursday, it became clear that the Russian government was now turning its ire on whatever extensions of the Turkish economy it could get its hands on.

          At a cabinet meeting, Medvedev said that joint investment projects with Turkey would be frozen or canceled. Negotiations over a proposed preferential trade regime with Turkey would also be scrapped, he said. Medvedev called for recommendations from government agencies to be submitted within two days.

          [Nov 26, 2015] Why did it take Turkey just 17 seconds to shoot down Russian jet?

          Galeotti is just a tool...
          Notable quotes:
          "... In this respect, it is understandable that the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, called the attack a provocation and an ambush. ..."
          "... This is a conflict that Ankara triggered and while it is being managed it is not going to go away. ..."
          "... USer5555 26 Nov 2015 10:37 ..."
          "... Yet another country Russia declares as "hostile" on the global stage : ) With only Assad, Hiz'bollah and Iran providing material comfort ..."
          "... I just recorded my warnings to Russia over airspace violations in my bedroom. "Hello, you are heading in the wrong direction. Stop immediately!" No response whatsoever from the Russians. Can post the original recording if anyone is interested. ..."
          "... Turkish claims that parts of the plane fell and injuried some Turks , it a joke too far. As is their uncorroborated claim about a warning. ..."
          "... "The bearded, turban wearing throat-cutters danced around the dead body of the pilot whom they had killed while he was parachuting down. Is this your understanding of humanity, Ankara? Are these the ones you are protecting, Erdogan?" ..."
          "... Yeah, it is fighting against another adventure of US/EU/those ME countries to have regime change to their liking in the region and against ISIS-which was created thanks to that adventure. ..."
          "... The question, as posed in the article, is why, in a very short space of time Turkey decided to shoot down an aircraft whose identity they must have known? ..."
          "... Erdogan admits giving the order, clear evidence of a deliberate set-up. ..."
          "... A more interesting question than pointlessly discussing the morality of it, is what the motivation for the Turks was. I personally think that they wanted to derail the possibility of Russia making some type of détente with the West after the Paris attacks. ..."
          "... In addition to son Bilal's illegal and lucrative oil trading for ISIS, Sümeyye Erdogan, the daughter of the Turkish President apparently runs a secret hospital camp inside Turkey just over the Syrian border where Turkish army trucks daily being in scores of wounded ISIS Jihadists to be patched up and sent back to wage the bloody Jihad in Syria, according to the testimony of a nurse who was recruited to work there until it was discovered she was a member of the Alawite branch of Islam, the same as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who Erdogan seems hell-bent on toppling. ..."
          "... They were waiting for the Russian bomber to cross this tiny bit of Turkish airspace that extends far to the South into Syrian territory. The Turks wanted to make a statement. ..."
          "... Are you serious? They could not be in a more suitable company - NATO members killed close to 5 million people since WWII worldwide, polluted the countries they attacked with uranium and therefore will kill another couple of millions in decades to come, their corrupted banks caused the world recession, their corrupt politicians make life bitter for both their citizens and people in countries their banks have issues with...this is a fucked up world, there are no good guys. ..."
          "... Does it matter? in reality one does not shoot a partner on the fight against terrorists who burn people alive, chop their heads, rape women and sell kids into slavery, and if the fucking yanks are incapable of naming who are these moderates they are also fair game. ..."
          "... The way I look at it is that the Turks had two tactics a) wanted the involvement of NATO and Putin did not oblige by starting a conflict with and b) wanting to defend its pals in ISIS and all the offshoots that these despicable people are represented by. ..."
          "... The US and Turkey have very different purposes in Syria and Iraq. The US uses "Kurds" as its main force in both Iraq and Syria. ..."
          "... Since 2011 Erdogan has gone off the top and has resumed Turkey's war against the Kurds. That's all that matters to him. ..."
          "... Both the US (through its Persian Gulf "friends") and Turkey were inventing and backing ISIS in 2011. The Russian newcomers began with steps that might save lives, but have also gotten caught up in the absurd US effort to remake the borders. More dead and refugees to follow. ..."
          www.theguardian.com

          ...Airspace incursions, granted usually in less politically tense contexts, happen all the time, and generally you'd expect warning shots to be fired and then attempts to force the intruder to leave or to land.

          That the Turks shot down the jet and did so within 17 seconds – with the president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, saying he gave the order to fire himself – suggests very strongly they were waiting for a Russian plane to come into or close enough to Turkish airspace with the aim of delivering a rather pyrotechnic message.

          Turkish military releases audio recordings said to be warnings to Russian jet

          In this respect, it is understandable that the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, called the attack a provocation and an ambush.

          ... ... ...

          Moscow may put greater emphasis on countering Turkey's efforts to establish regional influence (Azerbaijan is an obvious place of contention) and could support problematic non-state actors inside Turkey, from Kurds to criminals (at least, those criminals not already tied to the Turkish state).

          This is a conflict that Ankara triggered and while it is being managed it is not going to go away. Nor is it just going to become another chapter in the histories of Russo-Ottoman rivalry. Expect to see this play out in snide, deniable, but nonetheless bitter actions for months to come.


          samstheman 26 Nov 2015 10:40

          How the West can excuse the reaction of Turkey to a 17 second incursion is beyond me

          As for the Turkmen rebels killing the pilot as he descended in possible "self defence" according to US State Department spokesman, please spare us the sophistry if such a description is apt

          Vladimir Makarenko -> Dweezle 26 Nov 2015 10:40

          ...to shoot fish in a barrel. Unarmed bomber going under 300 mph. Well, we see what kind of training is really there now when Russians setting up S 400. This will be fun to watch, especially for Kurds.

          psygone USer5555 26 Nov 2015 10:37

          Yet another country Russia declares as "hostile" on the global stage : ) With only Assad, Hiz'bollah and Iran providing material comfort - its became a rather comical routine.

          Nivedita 26 Nov 2015 10:37

          It's obvious that Turkey shot the Russian plane to defend the ISIS barbarians. Why would any decent country would want dangerous criminals like Turkey or GCC tyrants for allies?

          copyniated 26 Nov 2015 10:36

          I just recorded my warnings to Russia over airspace violations in my bedroom. "Hello, you are heading in the wrong direction. Stop immediately!" No response whatsoever from the Russians. Can post the original recording if anyone is interested.

          SallyWa 26 Nov 2015 10:35

          and could support problematic non-state actors inside Turkey, from Kurds. Are Kurds more problematic than Turks? It seems they are more helpful, at least, when it comes to ISIS.

          If_Not_Why_Not -> DarthPutinbot 26 Nov 2015 10:34

          Russia denies it was in Turkish airspace. The wreckage was found well in Syria.(as were the pilots.)
          Turkish claims that parts of the plane fell and injuried some Turks , it a joke too far. As is their uncorroborated claim about a warning.
          Both sides map production proves nothing also.

          USer5555 26 Nov 2015 10:30

          I think that Mr. Erdogan will be terribly disappointed with what awaits him in the coming months and years. And I find it positive that Russia is no longer necessary to keep moral standards towards Turkey as Turkey never did it.


          SallyWa 26 Nov 2015 10:30

          Wow, quite harsh article towards Turkey.

          Also, Turkey won't apologize for downing Russian warplane, Erdogan says.

          It is nice that Erdogan not even shows any condolences to those dead and their families.

          Proves, that Turkey planned it in advance and it wasn't about airspace or accident.


          FGMisNOTOK -> Hottentot 26 Nov 2015 10:29

          You are totally correct. There is no way it could be done. They were waiting to fire on the Russian plane as soon as it even slightly overshot the border. Give me a break... 17 seconds. Turkey itself (as the article above says) claimed that this was no cause for attack when its own planes flew over Syria. Hypocrites and liars.


          photosymbiosis 26 Nov 2015 10:29

          According to many reports, Erdogan's son is a central figure in ISIS cash-for-oil smuggling into Turkey, (which is incidentally heavily reliant on Russian oil and gas imports, for which they must pay full market price, unlike the 50% discount ISIS offers). Maps of the oil smuggling routes to Turkey show that the oil tanker convoys must pass through "moderate rebel anti-Assad" forces, to which should be appended, 'pro-ISIS?'
          http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-25/meet-man-who-funds-isis-bilal-erdogan-son-turkeys-president

          "The reason we find this line of questioning fascinating is that just last week in the aftermath of the French terror attack but long before the Turkish downing of the Russian jet, we wrote about "The Most Important Question About ISIS That Nobody Is Asking" in which we asked who is the one "breaching every known law of funding terrorism when buying ISIS crude, almost certainly with the tacit approval by various "western alliance" governments, and why is it that these governments have allowed said middleman to continue funding ISIS for as long as it has?" - Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge

          So was this Turkey's effort to stop Russian attacks on the oil tanker convoys (which supply ISIS with several million dollars a day - perhaps several hundred tanker trucks a day, that is)? Is this retaliation by Erdogan for lost revenue?


          Jeremn 26 Nov 2015 10:27

          Would NATO stand by Turkey even if Turkey acted against the law? Probably, but an interesting question (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/261300-russians-may-have-a-strong-case-in-turkish-shootdown)

          In short, it appears at this point that the Turkish case justifying the use of deadly force is, at best, weak. Nevertheless, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that NATO stands "in solidarity with Turkey." However, it may have been more prudent to withhold judgment until all the facts are definitively known and a full legal analysis is complete. Why? Article 5 of the NATO treaty governing self-defense tracks almost exactly with the Article 51 of the U.N. charter, so if the facts show illegality under international law, that would undercut the wisdom of NATO standing "in solidarity" with any nation.

          ChristianAnsgar -> Rahere2015 26 Nov 2015 10:27

          You missed the shooting of the pilots while parachuting bit in your rant,isn't that a war crime?


          cheetah43 26 Nov 2015 11:08

          "The bearded, turban wearing throat-cutters danced around the dead body of the pilot whom they had killed while he was parachuting down. Is this your understanding of humanity, Ankara? Are these the ones you are protecting, Erdogan?" - Russian Foreign Office spokeswoman today during press briefing.

          SallyWa -> MTavernier 26 Nov 2015 11:07

          Russia is fighting a different, conflicting war to everyone else in Syria.

          Yeah, it is fighting against another adventure of US/EU/those ME countries to have regime change to their liking in the region and against ISIS-which was created thanks to that adventure.

          Russia repeatedly violated Turkish airspace,

          Turkey should learn from better countries how to act in this. European ones. They showed proper examples, while Turkey screwed up.


          dyatel42 26 Nov 2015 11:07

          It's almost as if Turkey was waiting for an SU24 to stray over it's border for a few seconds. How could they have issued 10 warnings to turn south in 17 seconds and asked the president for his OK to shoot it down in that time? Fairy stories. Given that the aircraft fell into Syria it must have been heading there when it was hit and was obviously not on a surprise mission to bomb Ankara for example. Two men's lives terminated for no real reason at all.

          It would seem possible that Turkey was acting on a request from the USA to carry out this murderous attack - what other logical reason could they have had to do it? Given the US hatred of Russia / The Soviet Union and their growing irritation at Russia's involvement in Syria, (at the request of the ruling government of that country) it would be a way of punishing Putin without putting their own aircraft at risk from retaliation and possibly a dangerous escalation in the ongoing American persecution of Russia.


          ID4352889 -> MTavernier 26 Nov 2015 11:06

          And obviously you were in the cockpit to verify the warning that has been belatedly claimed by a notorious terror state which has been in cahoots with Daesh all along?


          Hoppolocos -> MTavernier 26 Nov 2015 11:03

          As is usual in these cases it may be they are both telling a version of the truth, credible deniability? The Turks may well have broadcast warnings, but on which frequency? The Russians may have elected to not be listening to any frequency the Turks may use ergo it's the other's that were at fault. The question, as posed in the article, is why, in a very short space of time Turkey decided to shoot down an aircraft whose identity they must have known?

          In the current situation the possibility of an aircraft straying into the wrong airspace must be a consideration, thus as strong diplomatic protect would have seemed the more obvious reaction. Have there been such incursions in the recent past? Has Russia been pushing it's luck? If not then one has the feeling that Turkey is deliberately trying to push it's luck and push Russia away from the Turkmen bases. Would they have dared if they weren't confident of NATO support and if so, who has allowed them to think this would automatically be forthcoming given the circumstances?

          Roger Hudson -> Ipek Ruacan 26 Nov 2015 11:00

          Turkey violates Syrian airspace at will, it also violated Greek airspace over 2000 times last year.
          The Russian plane flew over a small 'appendix' of true Turkey that is 2 miles wide, somebody worked out a jet can't fly slow enough to do it in 17 seconds. How long did the warning take?.' Erdogan admits giving the order, clear evidence of a deliberate set-up.

          kritter 26 Nov 2015 11:00

          Galeotti talks about this like there are good guys and bad buys here, when clearly there aren't.

          It is simply another play in a proxy war between two very countries, led by two very similar presidents. A more interesting question than pointlessly discussing the morality of it, is what the motivation for the Turks was. I personally think that they wanted to derail the possibility of Russia making some type of détente with the West after the Paris attacks.

          fireangel 26 Nov 2015 10:58

          The smashing of ISIS' oil industry will not only be a blow to the entire ISIS death squad project, but will directly affect Turkey, widely thought to be involved in the transportation of ISIS-produced oil, and even Erdogan's family itself, as it is the company run by his son Bilal that is believed to be running the illicit trade.
          Well well well....Bilan Erdogan

          http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-25/meet-man-who-funds-isis-bilal-erdogan-son-turkeys-president

          *Bilal Erdo?an owns several maritime companies. He has allegedly signed contracts with European operating companies to carry Iraqi stolen oil to different Asian countries. The Turkish government buys Iraqi plundered oil which is being produced from the Iraqi seized oil wells. Bilal Erdo?an's maritime companies own special wharfs in Beirut and Ceyhan ports that are transporting ISIS' smuggled crude oil in Japan-bound oil tankers.*

          In addition to son Bilal's illegal and lucrative oil trading for ISIS, Sümeyye Erdogan, the daughter of the Turkish President apparently runs a secret hospital camp inside Turkey just over the Syrian border where Turkish army trucks daily being in scores of wounded ISIS Jihadists to be patched up and sent back to wage the bloody Jihad in Syria, according to the testimony of a nurse who was recruited to work there until it was discovered she was a member of the Alawite branch of Islam, the same as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who Erdogan seems hell-bent on toppling.

          camerashy -> blogbath 26 Nov 2015 10:58

          Listen, as an American I'm telling you, you're wrong and a victim of the billionaire owned propaganda machine they call the news media. You've got your facts all wrong, it's the US who's constantly sticking it to Russia/others because somehow we can't stand anyone opposing us and has independent opinions. From the cooked up US backed coup in Ukraine to provoking China in Asia, and shooting down Russian jets over Syria, look no further than the US/NATO alliance to find your answer.

          Erdogan on his own couldn't kill time let alone shooting down Russian jets. Just imagine what would happen if one of our jets had been shot down, they'd have made movies on it already. Also I don't think you really know much about any of these other countries you so freely label! Don't be naive, things aren't always what they seem, you have access to the Internet, well, don't take my word for it, use it and find out from different sources ... here's one:

          https://www.facebook.com/BenSwannRealityCheck/videos/882104321854519/

          SallyWa -> USer5555 26 Nov 2015 10:57

          Please note with the level of happiness and delight with which British journalists and readers described as the two nations will destroy each other

          There is nothing jolly about it, actually. Even this article says situation is not looking hunky dory, it could fester underneath for quite some time.

          secondiceberg 26 Nov 2015 10:54

          1. "Smuggling weapons in the guise of humanitarian convoys (something we saw the Russians doing in Ukraine)". The constant repetition of unfounded charges against Russia seem to have become engrained in arsenal of MSM writers. If they have received and read the OSCE daily reports from Ukraine, they should note that those humanitarian convoys were opened and examined at a Russian checkpoint, at Customs, and by a Ukrainian checkpoint before crossing the border. If the Ukrainian officials found any weapons, where is the evidence?

          2. "Turks are acting in support of their national interests in Syria with equal ruthlessness." An objective journalist would balance this with the claim by Russia and others that the Turks are illegally buying oil from ISIS, thereby funding them and that their "interests" are in continuing to buttress ISIS existence and actions. We still wait for journalistic investigation of the information given to G20 leaders that some of their own countries are similarly buying oil from ISIS thus keeping funding for that group flowing and giving them strong incentive not to "defeat" ISIS despite their ostensible reason for bombing Syria in the first place.

          3. When are we going to find out exactly who the "moderate" Syrian rebels are? And where is the investigation regarding Putin's claim that a lot of the groups fighting with ISIS and against the Assad regime are, in fact, mercenaries? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQuceU3x2Ww

          Newmacfan 26 Nov 2015 10:54

          But it took longer than that according to Mr Erdogan, so many warnings, so many different time parameters quoted by Turkey, even their own maps would suggest that there was not enough time to warn the aircraft, await a reply, fire the weapon and for it to hit the target within the time it was in Turkeys air space, according to Mr Erdogan......in short it is a pack of lies, like the ISIS oil, the porous borders, this is something which should be followed up. There is more to this and Turkeys connection with ISIS and the destabilisation of Syria that warrants a cursory glance.....something possibly very deep and very nasty could well be lurking here and it would be foolhardy not to look!

          LiviaDrusilla -> If_Not_Why_Not 26 Nov 2015 10:51

          My only doubt is, did NATO know of this before hand?

          Good question. I think the answer is 'no'.

          To me, it's fairly obvious that the Turks had itchy fingers waiting for a chance to shoot down a Russian jet on the pretext of 'invading their airspace'. They then hoped to trigger the NATO 'an attack on one is an attack on all' clause, something which would, at the very least, lead to the closure of the Bosphurus to Russian shipping, hence making it extremely difficult for them to re-supply their troops. Look at how the very first thing they did was run crying to NATO.

          However, it appears their cunning plan backfired. Even the Americans seemed to want to play down the 'violation', saying that the Russian jet was only over Turkish airspace for a grand total of 17 minutes. So Erdogan didn't get the declaration of war he has hoping for, and Turkey is now almost certain to be subjected to various retaliatory measures by Russia.

          Bad move, Erdogan. Bad move.

          IndependentScott -> raffine 26 Nov 2015 10:50

          Wrong. The Turks can shoot down one single plane. They were waiting for the Russian bomber to cross this tiny bit of Turkish airspace that extends far to the South into Syrian territory. The Turks wanted to make a statement.

          The Islamic extremists on the ground, be it ISIS or Al Qaeda (in this case it was an Al Qaeda affiliate) cannot do anything against the planes. They do not have anti aircraft weapons which are effective.

          nishville -> UralMan 26 Nov 2015 10:52

          Now that we have established that Ankara is as murderous, cheating, morally corrupt and evil as Moscow, what are the reasons nowadays for Turkey to remain a member of the NATO

          Are you serious? They could not be in a more suitable company - NATO members killed close to 5 million people since WWII worldwide, polluted the countries they attacked with uranium and therefore will kill another couple of millions in decades to come, their corrupted banks caused the world recession, their corrupt politicians make life bitter for both their citizens and people in countries their banks have issues with...this is a fucked up world, there are no good guys.

          mkwasp -> will2010 26 Nov 2015 10:48

          The radar tracks of both sides show the downed plane flying parallel to the frontier, not into Turkey. Regardless of where it actually was (i.e which track is correct, if either of them were), it manifestly wasn't threatening Turkey. Turkey can't really claim provocation here. Le Monde is also reporting that the Turkish pilots couldn't identify the plane they shot at - which is even more worrying, given very few (US, French, Russian) air forces are operating over Syria.

          IndependentScott 26 Nov 2015 10:48

          Russia is bombing Turkmen. Turkey is protecting them.

          The problem is, these Turkmen are allies of Al Nusra, the al Qaeda affiliate which is strong right next to the Turkmen areas. They, alongside the Islamic Front in the area, are fighting Assad troops just a few km away from the largest Russian navel base outside of Russia. Of course, Russia is bombing them. And of course Turkey wants to protect them.

          Whether or not that Su-24 actually passed through Turkish airspace for 17 secs or not is completely irrelevant. This was a statement by Turkey to its own people and the Turkmens in the area that they will "help their fellow Turks".

          The real awful thing is that a Russian pilot died in the process.

          USer5555 26 Nov 2015 10:48

          Please note with the level of happiness and delight with which British journalists and readers described as the two nations will destroy each other. Something like that British journalists probably experienced in 1941, when Adolf Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, and Turkey, by the way, was with him in alliance.

          callaspodeaspode -> anatianblogger 26 Nov 2015 10:42

          It is a decent bit of kit, even though old, but it not equipped to fend off fighters in actual combat. It will presumably have some ECM and ability to dispense flares to act as decoy when attacked by heat-seeking missiles, but I've no idea how effective it is against Western NATO standard fighters like up to date block versions of F-16s, which Turkey uses.

          And it certainly isn't capable of 2000mph. I don't know where you get that from.
          That's nearly Mach 3. Very few military aircraft are able to go at such speeds.
          The Fencers top out at around Mach 1.35 at altitude. Are you perhaps confusing it with a Mig-31 fighter?

          What I want to know is why the Turkish F16s didn't fly alongside to make themselves visually present and demand to the Russian pilots that they leave the area and then escort them out.

          Like the UK's Typhoons do when Russian bombers come too near.

          spearsshallbebroken -> anarxist 26 Nov 2015 10:19

          Does it matter? in reality one does not shoot a partner on the fight against terrorists who burn people alive, chop their heads, rape women and sell kids into slavery, and if the fucking yanks are incapable of naming who are these moderates they are also fair game.

          The way I look at it is that the Turks had two tactics a) wanted the involvement of NATO and Putin did not oblige by starting a conflict with and b) wanting to defend its pals in ISIS and all the offshoots that these despicable people are represented by.

          I think the unrepresented swill that is Turkey is going to be done very slowly by Putin.

          Leondeinos 26 Nov 2015 10:17

          The US and Turkey have very different purposes in Syria and Iraq. The US uses "Kurds" as its main force in both Iraq and Syria. Once again the Kurds are being used and soon will be pounded by all hands. Five years ago Turkey was declaring its desire to be at peace with all its neighbors and doing well at it. It stayed out of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. Since 2011 Erdogan has gone off the top and has resumed Turkey's war against the Kurds. That's all that matters to him.

          Both the US (through its Persian Gulf "friends") and Turkey were inventing and backing ISIS in 2011. The Russian newcomers began with steps that might save lives, but have also gotten caught up in the absurd US effort to remake the borders. More dead and refugees to follow.

          It's easy to make a handy ex post facto recording of pilots talking. Happens all the time after premeditated air attacks.

          anarxist 26 Nov 2015 10:11

          Are you sure about the 17 seconds? Does anyone do the math here?

          1.15 miles / 17 seconds x 60 x 60 = 243 miles/hour = 391 km/hour

          The Su-24's max speed is 1,320 km/hour.

          So if we assume the Su-24 was actually going much faster, was 17 seconds more like 5 seconds? Or perhaps even less?

          [Nov 26, 2015] Russia says 'destroyed' Syria rebels in area where jet brought down News , Middle East

          THE DAILY STAR

          Russia Thursday said its forces had wiped out Syrian rebel groups operating in the area where one of its jets was brought down, unleashing a huge bombardment after rescuing a pilot.

          "As soon as our pilot was safe, Russian bombers and artillery of the Syrian government forces carried out massive strikes in the indicated area for an extended period," military official Igor Konashenkov told Russian news agencies.

          "The terrorists operating in that area and other mysterious groups were destroyed," he said.

          Turkey on Tuesday shot down a Russian jet in northern Syria alleging that it had crossed over into its air space and sparking a war of words with Moscow.

          One pilot that parachuted out was later rescued by Russian and Syrian special forces, while a second pilot from the jet and a soldier sent to rescue him were killed by rebels on the ground.

          Konsahenkov said that over the past three days its jets carried out 134 combat sorties over the war-torn country and struck 449 targets in the Aleppo, Damascus, Idlib, Latakia, Hama and Homs and Deir al-Zor provinces.

          [Nov 26, 2015] Turkey would have acted differently if it had known jet was Russian Erdogan News , Middle East

          dailystar.com.lb

          THE DAILY STAR

          ISTANBUL: President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Thursday that Turkey would have acted differently if it had known that a warplane its forces downed on the Syrian border this week was Russian.

          "If we had known if it was a Russian plane maybe we would have warned it differently," Erdogan told France 24 television, adding that Russian President Vladimir Putin had not answered his call after Tuesday's incident that has seriously damaged ties.

          [Nov 26, 2015] Incorporating the Rentier Sectors into a Financial Model

          Notable quotes:
          "... Finance is not The economy ..."
          "... In the real world most credit today is spent to buy assets already in place, not to create new productive capacity. Some 80 percent of bank loans in the English-speaking world are real estate mortgages, and much of the balance is lent against stocks and bonds already issued. ..."
          "... Debt-leveraged buyouts and commercial real estate purchases turn business cash flow (ebitda: earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) into interest payments. Likewise, bank or bondholder financing of public debt (especially in the Eurozone, which lacks a central bank to monetize such debt) has turned a rising share of tax revenue into interest payments. ..."
          "... even government tax revenue is diverted to pay debt service ..."
          "... Contemporary evidence for major OECD economies since the 1980s shows that rising capital gains may indeed divert finance away from the real sector's productivity growth (Stockhammer 2004) and more generally that 'financialization' (Epstein 2005) has hurt growth and incomes. Money created for capital gains has a small propensity to be spent by their rentier owners on goods and services, so that an increasing proportion of the economy's money flows are diverted to circulation in the financial sector. Wages do not increase, even as prices for property and financial securities rise – just the well-known trend that we have seen in the Western world since the 1970s, and which persists into the post-2001 Bubble Economy. ..."
          economistsview.typepad.com

          RGC said in reply to JF... November 25, 2015 at 08:34 AM

          Incorporating the Rentier Sectors into a Financial Model

          Wednesday, September 12, 2012

          by Dirk Bezemer and Michael Hudson

          As published in the World Economic Association's World Economic Review Vol #1.

          .......

          2. Finance is not The economy

          In the real world most credit today is spent to buy assets already in place, not to create new productive capacity. Some 80 percent of bank loans in the English-speaking world are real estate mortgages, and much of the balance is lent against stocks and bonds already issued. Banks lend to buyers of real estate, corporate raiders, ambitious financial empire-builders, and to management for debt-leveraged buyouts. A first approximation of this trend is to chart the share of bank lending that goes to the 'Fire, Insurance and Real Estate' sector, aka the nonbank financial sector. Graph 1 shows that its ratio to GDP has quadrupled since the 1950s. The contrast is with lending to the real sector, which has remained about constant relative to GDP. This is how our debt burden has grown.

          Graph 1: Private debt growth is due to lending to the FIRE sector: the US, 1952-2007

          Source: Bezemer (2012) based on US flow of fund data, BEA 'Z' tables.

          What is true for America is true for many other countries: mortgage lending and other household debt have been 'the final stage in an artificially extended Ponzi Bubble' as Keen (2009) shows for Australia. Extending credit to purchase assets already in place bids up their price. Prospective homebuyers need to take on larger mortgages to obtain a home. The effect is to turn property rents into a flow of mortgage interest. These payments divert the revenue of consumers and businesses from being spent on consumption or new capital investment. The effect is deflationary for the economy's product markets, and hence consumer prices and employment, and therefore wages. This is why we had a long period of low cpi inflation but skyrocketing asset price inflation. The two trends are linked.

          Debt-leveraged buyouts and commercial real estate purchases turn business cash flow (ebitda: earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) into interest payments. Likewise, bank or bondholder financing of public debt (especially in the Eurozone, which lacks a central bank to monetize such debt) has turned a rising share of tax revenue into interest payments. As creditors recycle their receipts of interest and amortization (and capital gains) into new lending to buyers of real estate, stocks and bonds, a rising share of employee income, real estate rent, business revenue and even government tax revenue is diverted to pay debt service. By leaving less to spend on goods and services, the effect is to reduce new investment and employment.

          Contemporary evidence for major OECD economies since the 1980s shows that rising capital gains may indeed divert finance away from the real sector's productivity growth (Stockhammer 2004) and more generally that 'financialization' (Epstein 2005) has hurt growth and incomes. Money created for capital gains has a small propensity to be spent by their rentier owners on goods and services, so that an increasing proportion of the economy's money flows are diverted to circulation in the financial sector. Wages do not increase, even as prices for property and financial securities rise – just the well-known trend that we have seen in the Western world since the 1970s, and which persists into the post-2001 Bubble Economy.

          It is especially the case since 1991 in the post-Soviet economies, where neoliberal (that is, pro-financial) policy makers have had a free hand to shape tax and financial policy in favor of banks (mainly foreign bank branches). Latvia is cited as a neoliberal success story, but it would be hard to find an example where rentier income and prices have diverged more sharply from wages and the "real" production economy.

          The more credit creation takes the form of inflating asset prices – rather than financing purchases of goods and services or direct investment employing labor – the more deflationary its effects are on the "real" economy of production and consumption. Housing and other asset prices crash, causing negative equity. Yet homeowners and businesses still have to pay off their debts. The national income accounts classify this pay-down as "saving," although the revenue is not available to the debtors doing the "saving" by "deleveraging."

          The moral is that using homes as what Alan Greenspan referred to as "piggy banks", to take out home-equity loans, was not really like drawing down a bank account at all. When a bank account is drawn down there is less money available, but no residual obligation to pay. New income can be spent at the discretion of its recipient. But borrowing against a home implies an obligation to set aside future income to pay the banker – and hence a loss of future discretionary spending.

          3. Towards a model of financialized economies

          Creating a more realistic model of today's financialized economies to trace this phenomenon requires a breakdown of the national income and product accounts (NIPA) to see the economy as a set of distinct sectors interacting with each other. These accounts juxtapose the private and public sectors as far as current spending, saving and taxation is concerned. But the implication is that government budget deficits inflate the private-sector economy as a whole.

          http://michael-hudson.com/2012/09/incorporating-the-rentier-sectors-into-a-financial-model-3/

          pgl said in reply to anne...

          Peter Dorman's excellent rebuttal of John Harwood:

          http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2015/11/tax-policy-and-magic-investment-channel.html

          [Nov 26, 2015] Turkey and Russia on collision course in Syria

          Al Arabiya News

          ...Ankara and Moscow, given their diametrically opposed political and operational roadmaps for the conflict in Syria, have been on a clashing trajectory since Russia entered the Syrian military fray last September. One of Russia's many objectives in Syria is to cut into Turkish influence in order to boost the Assad regime, and now that they are in each other's crosshairs, more clashes directly or via proxies seem inevitable.

          ...Moscow is attempting to shore up the authoritarian security structure of the Assad regime as it flirts with key minorities, while Turkey has pitted itself on the side of the anti-Assad rebels and is embracing the Islamist factions from the country's Sunni majority.

          ...Almost 1.5 million Syrians are members of the Turkmen community, including the head of the largest Syrian opposition coalition Khaled Khoja. The Turkmen community is historically, linguistically and culturally close to Turkey and their brigades are critical in the fighting against both Assad and ISIS. If Turkey has any hopes of securing a 100-km long safe zone "west of the Euphrates River and reaching into the province of Aleppo" as reported last summer by the Washington Post, the weight of governing and securing it from ISIS and Assad would fall on the Turkmen brigades, Ahrar Sham and Kurdish forces cooperating with Ankara.

          ...In their statements from the White House on Tuesday, both U.S. Presidents Barack Obama and his French counterpart Francois Hollande called on Russian President Vladimir Putin to focus his strikes on ISIS and refrain from targeting the rebel forces near Turkey's border. Hollande even hinted indirectly at possibility of a humanitarian safe zone, stating that "Turkey plays an important role, and it is together with Turkey that we must find solutions so that the refugees can stay close to their country of origin." Erdogan went a step further, saying Ankara "will soon put into practice humanitarian safe zone between Jarablus and Mediterranean coast" according to CNN Turk.

          Easier set than done, however, as the task of securing any safe zone in Syria and managing the day to day services will be threatened by both Russia's and Assad's air force, as well as questions surrounding the opposition's ability to govern those areas.

          ... ... ...

          _________________
          Joyce Karam is the Washington Correspondent for Al-Hayat Newspaper, an International Arabic Daily based in London. She has covered American politics extensively since 2004 with focus on U.S. policy towards the Middle East. Prior to that, she worked as a Journalist in Lebanon, covering the Post-war situation. Joyce holds a B.A. in Journalism and an M.A. in International Peace and Conflict Resolution. Twitter: @Joyce_Karam

          [Nov 26, 2015] France's Hollande Calls for Anti-isil Coalition

          It' unclear who in the West exactly is supporting IISIS/ISIL and Al Nusra.
          Notable quotes:
          "... Both Obama and Hollande, however, insisted that a political transition in Syria must lead to Assad's departure. Russia, on the other hand, has been Assad's staunchest ally. ..."
          Al Jazeera America

          French President Francois Hollande told Russia's Vladimir Putin on Thursday that world powers must create a "grand coalition" to combat Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) fighters who control swathes of territory in Syria and Iraq.

          ...Germany, meanwhile, has decided to send reconnaissance aircraft, tanker planes and a warship to help in the fight against ISIL.

          Following his meeting with the French president, Obama said Russian cooperation in the fight against IS would be "enormously helpful." Both Obama and Hollande, however, insisted that a political transition in Syria must lead to Assad's departure. Russia, on the other hand, has been Assad's staunchest ally.

          Last week, Hollande called for the U.S. and Russia to set aside their policy divisions over Syria and "fight this terrorist army in a broad, single coalition." But his office acknowledges that "coordination" sounds like a far more realistic goal.

          [Nov 26, 2015] Putin: Turkey 'knew downed fighter jet was Russian'

          The most interesting part is " President Putin even suggested that Turkey had shot down the Russian bomber this week after receiving information about its location from the US." The USA elite like British elite in the past are master of." To pull the hot potato from the hot ashes using somebody else hands" Taking into account Obama warnings, t he USA government was clearly interested that such accident happened and may well play the role of facilitators via AWACS planes (according to Russian military two were in the air: one from Turkish and one for Saudis side) Erdogan is now lying trying to avoid consequences: consequences that are extremely beneficial to the USA not so much to Turkey and Erdogan personally. In other words Sultan of Turkey was used. And the events are very detrimental to Russians. But Russians are masters to even the game even when they have bad cards on hands. The incident is bad for Turkey and Erdogan in sense that it highlighted the fact that Turkey is the chief sponsor of radicals (the assertion provable by the available facts) and one of the major financial backer of ISIS and Al Nusra. It also highlighted the fact that Erdogan son is involved in smuggling oil from ISIS. "A stab in Russia's back by the accomplices of terrorists." is a very precise description of what happened. "There was no warning. Not via radio, or visually. There was no contact at all," the surviving co-pilot of the plane told journalists, safely back at Russia's airbase in Syria after his emergency mid-air ejection. He says the jet was shot down from behind. "If they had wanted to warn us, then they could have shown themselves - flown in parallel," Captain Murakhtin said. President Putin has already accused Ankara of siding with Islamic State (IS) by hitting the Russian jet; he also claimed some in Turkey are benefitting from the illicit sale of IS oil exports. The message to Turkey and its allies is clear: don't dare try it again.
          Notable quotes:
          "... Speaking at a news conference after the talks, President Putin even suggested that Turkey had shot down the Russian bomber this week after receiving information about its location from the US. ..."
          "... Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has rejected calls by Russia to apologise, saying Turkey does not need to say sorry for the violation of its airspace. ..."
          "... But Mr Putin insisted it was impossible for Turkey not to have known it was shooting at a Russian plane. It's got insignia, and you can see that very clearly . He went on: In advance, in accordance with our agreement with the US, we gave information on where our planes would be working - at what altitude, and in what areas. Turkey is part of that coalition and they had to know it was the Russian airforce working in that area. ..."
          www.bbc.com

          Russia has rejected Turkey's claims that it did not know the plane it shot down on the Syria border was Russian.

          President Vladimir Putin said Russian planes were easily identifiable and the jet's flight co-ordinates had been passed on to Turkey's ally, the US.

          Turkey's president said earlier if it had known the plane was Russian "maybe we would have warned it differently".

          Mr Putin was speaking after meeting his French counterpart and pledging closer co-operation against Islamic State.

          Russia and France have agreed to co-operate more closely in fighting terrorism in Syria. The two countries will exchange intelligence on Islamic State - and co-ordinate air strikes.

          But differences remain over the fate of the Syrian leader. President Hollande made it clear that Bashar al-Assad could play no role in his country's future. President Putin said that was up to the Syrian people to decide.

          And there is no sign of the kind of "grand coalition" against terror that France had been calling for, one that would include America.

          Speaking at a news conference after the talks, President Putin even suggested that Turkey had shot down the Russian bomber this week after receiving information about its location from the US.

          Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has rejected calls by Russia to apologise, saying Turkey does not need to say sorry for the violation of its airspace. However, he told France 24 television: "If we had known it was a Russian plane, maybe we would have warned it differently".

          But Mr Putin insisted it was "impossible" for Turkey not to have known it was shooting at a Russian plane. "It's got insignia, and you can see that very clearly". He went on: "In advance, in accordance with our agreement with the US, we gave information on where our planes would be working - at what altitude, and in what areas. Turkey is part of that coalition and they had to know it was the Russian airforce working in that area.

          "If it was an American aircraft, would they have struck?"

          Earlier on Thursday, Russia's military suspended all communication channels with the Turkish military, including a "hot line" to help avoid air accidents.

          Russia's prime minister also warned the government was planning wide-ranging economic sanctions against Turkey within the coming days.

          He warned that food products, Turkish interests in Russia and a number of joint investment projects could be affected.

          Russia has also advised its nationals against visiting Turkey, and urged those already there to return home "due to the terrorist threats that remain on Turkish territory".

          Turkey and Russia have important economic links. Russia is Turkey's second largest trading partner, while Turkey is the biggest foreign destination for Russian tourists.

          On the ground inside Syria the changes have been more immediate. A cruiser has been despatched to help bolster air defences around the Russian base. The sophisticated S400 anti aircraft system is also being deployed and Russian planes will now be protected on bombing raids by fighter jets. The message to Turkey and its allies is clear: don't dare try it again. As for the rescued co-pilot, he says he is impatient to return to the skies. "I want to stay here," he said, referring to the Russian airbase. "I want payback for my commander."


          [Nov 26, 2015] Argentine Election a Setback, But Not Likely to Reverse Latin America's 21st Century Trend

          Neoliberalism counterattacked and scored a victory in Argentina. the trick is to use economic difficulties caused by neoliberalism to bring to power a neoliberal candidate (or more liberal candidate, if the current was already neoliberal buy stayed Washington consensus). That trick was used previously in Ukraine.
          Notable quotes:
          "... Washington has maintained a policy of "rollback" and "containment" against almost all of the left governments that have won elections in the 21st century. So there is quite a bit of excitement here among the business and foreign policy elite ..."
          "... Argentina and the region have changed too much over the past 15 years to return to the neoliberal, neocolonial past. The Washington foreign policy establishment may not understand this, but Macri's handlers did. That's why they took the trouble to package him as something very different from what he is. ..."
          "... State Corruption is ever and always a pre text for reassertion of plutocratic hegemony ..."
          cepr.net

          The election of right-wing candidate Mauricio Macri as Argentina's president on Sunday, which just a few months ago was unexpected, is a setback for Argentina and for the region.

          ... ... ...

          Washington has maintained a policy of "rollback" and "containment" against almost all of the left governments that have won elections in the 21st century. So there is quite a bit of excitement here among the business and foreign policy elite, with Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff facing a recession and political crisis, and Venezuela's Chavismo confronting an economic crisis and possible loss of its first national election in 17 years. So naturally they are happy about this unprecedented right-wing electoral victory in Argentina. Articles are already sprouting up, welcoming the long-awaited demise of the Latin American left.

          But reports of this demise, to paraphrase Mark Twain, are somewhat exaggerated. A more likely outcome is like that of Chile, where a lackluster candidate was unable to take advantage of Socialist Party President Michelle Bachelet's 80 percent approval rating, and lost to a right-wing billionaire in 2010. He lasted four years, and then the country went back to Bachelet.

          Argentina and the region have changed too much over the past 15 years to return to the neoliberal, neocolonial past. The Washington foreign policy establishment may not understand this, but Macri's handlers did. That's why they took the trouble to package him as something very different from what he is.

          anne -> anne...

          https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1AK7

          August 4, 2014

          Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Mexico, 2000-2014

          (Percent change)


          https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1AK8

          August 4, 2014

          Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Mexico, 2000-2014

          (Indexed to 2000)

          anne:

          http://www.cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/argentine-election-a-setback-but-not-likely-to-reverse-latin-america-s-21st-century-trend

          November 24, 2015

          Argentine Election a Setback, But Not Likely to Reverse Latin America's 21st Century Trend
          By Mark Weisbrot

          The election of right-wing candidate Mauricio Macri as Argentina's president on Sunday, which just a few months ago was unexpected, is a setback for Argentina and for the region. In the last 13 years, Argentina had made enormous economic and social progress. Under the Kirchners (first Néstor and then Cristina Fernández de Kirchner), poverty fell by about 70 percent, and extreme poverty by 80 percent. (This is for 2003 to mid-2013, the last year for which independent estimates are available; they are also based on independent estimates of inflation.) Unemployment fell from more than 17.2 percent to 6.9 percent , according to the IMF.

          But Daniel Scioli, the candidate of the Peronist "Front for Victory", who represented the governing coalition including President Fernández, did not do a good job defending these achievements. He also didn't seem to make clear what he would do to fix the country's current economic problems. In the past four years, growth has been slow (averaging about 1.1 percent annually), inflation has been high (with private estimates in the 20s), and a black market for the dollar has developed. This gave Macri (and his "Cambiemos" or "Let's Change" coalition) an opening to present himself as the candidate of a better future.

          With skilled marketing help from an Ecuadorean public relations firm, he also succeeded in defining himself as something far more moderate than he is likely to be, thus winning over voters who might otherwise be afraid of a return to the pre-Kirchner depression years.

          Some of the things he has indicated he would do could have a positive impact, if done correctly. He will likely cut a deal with vulture funds who have been holding more than 90 percent of Argentina's creditors hostage since New York judge Thomas Griesa ruled in 2014 that the government is not allowed to pay them. If the cost is not too high, it could be a net positive by re-opening a path for Argentina to return to international borrowing - something that Scioli would likely have also done.

          A liberalization of the exchange rate that got rid of the black market could be a big step forward. But much depends on how it is done: If it causes inflation to spike and the government does nothing to protect poor and working people, they could lose a lot.

          Macri may also take measures to bring down inflation, which is something that needs to be done. But here especially there are great dangers, because he is likely to do so by shrinking the economy. He wants to reduce the central government budget deficit, which will grow as a percent of GDP with austerity. Given his ideology and politics, there is serious risk of a downward spiral of austerity and recession, as the country suffered from 1998-2001. If there is inflation from the devaluation, and they are eager to get rid of that too, this could make matters worse.

          His campaign statements and positions indicate that he is against a government role in promoting industry, so the country's development is likely to suffer as a result. He has proposed tax cuts for upper- income groups, and so budget cuts are likely since he has pledged to reduce the government budget deficit. If you add it all up, the majority of Argentines are likely to suffer from any economic transition that he can engineer.

          But he will not have a working majority in Congress, so it remains to be seen how much he can do. Internationally, he has moved immediately to demonstrate his overwhelming loyalty to the United States government, which had been previously demonstrated in confidential U.S. embassy cables published by WikiLeaks. One of his very first statements after being elected was to denounce Venezuela and threaten to have them suspended from Mercosur. Since this is not an issue that was pressing to Argentine voters, it is clear that it is part of the U.S.-led international campaign leading up to Venezuela's December 6 elections, which seeks to delegitimize the government and the elections.

          Macri's willingness to join this campaign is something that no other South American president would do. On the contrary, in the past decade South American presidents have repeatedly joined together to defend democracy in the region when it was under attack, with Washington on the other side - not only in Venezuela, in 2014, 2013, and 2002; but in but in Bolivia (2008); Honduras (2009); Ecuador (2010); and Paraguay (2012). If Macri continues down this road, he will not only bring shame to Argentina, but he will damage hemispheric relations.

          Washington has maintained a policy of "rollback" and "containment" against almost all of the left governments that have won elections in the 21st century. So there is quite a bit of excitement here among the business and foreign policy elite, with Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff facing a recession and political crisis, and Venezuela's Chavismo confronting an economic crisis and possible loss of its first national election in 17 years. So naturally they are happy about this unprecedented right-wing electoral victory in Argentina. Articles are already sprouting up, welcoming the long-awaited demise of the Latin American left.

          But reports of this demise, to paraphrase Mark Twain, are somewhat exaggerated. A more likely outcome is like that of Chile, where a lackluster candidate was unable to take advantage of Socialist Party President Michelle Bachelet's 80 percent approval rating, and lost to a right-wing billionaire in 2010. He lasted four years, and then the country went back to Bachelet.

          Argentina and the region have changed too much over the past 15 years to return to the neoliberal, neocolonial past. The Washington foreign policy establishment may not understand this, but Macri's handlers did. That's why they took the trouble to package him as something very different from what he is.

          Narwhal -> anne:

          too much here to comment on.

          Weisbrot couches his analysis in right vs left wing politics which played only a minor part.

          The election was about the incompetence of the Kirchners. Argentinians have had enough and finally kicked the incompetents out.

          "with Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff facing a recession and political crisis" THAT HER INCOMPETENCE AND TOTAL CORRUPTION CAUSED....the vast majority has had enough.

          Has this guy actually visited Argentina and Brazil...

          anne -> Narwhal:

          Do set down a focused argument and references when possible.

          When "incompetence" and "total corruption" assertions are made, and even capitalized, they should be referenced. As for the "vast majority" in Argentina who had had enough, would that be the 51.4% who voted for President Macri?

          Narwhal -> anne:

          Sorry, Anne, I am not going to post a university research paper with references and footnotes (been there and done that).

          Argentine politics are so convoluted that I do not pretend to understand them. Suffice to say that the are far more nuanced than simple liberal vs conservative. Only that those of us here in Brazil breathed huge sigh of relief when the election results were announced.

          OTOH his indirect references to Brazil showed even less knowledge of the region. I have made a very small attempt to give readers a tiny view of the Brazilian politics and corruption in my other comment.

          anne -> Narwhal:

          On the other hand [Mark Weisbrot's] indirect references to Brazil showed even less knowledge of the region.

          [ I set down the direct references to Brazil by Mark Weisbrot, Franklin Serrano and Ricardo Summa. Possibly the work they have done on Brazil reflects little knowledge as supposedly the work done by Weisbrot on Argentina does, but I find the work carefully done and persuasive. ]

          PPaine -> anne:

          He has none. He's reacting like the usual middle brow bourgeois. Whatever he or she really is

          Nuance here is just enough muddle to confuse the outsider. So long as that outsider salivates with every reference to corruption and incompetence

          PPaine -> Narwhal:

          No don't hide the hand grenade here. This is class struggle. Nuances are nonsense. State Corruption is ever and always a pre text for reassertion of plutocratic hegemony

          The point will be clear once this agent of the haute bourgeoise. Starts rectifying more then a decade of improved welfare systematics

          anne -> PPaine :

          State Corruption is ever and always a pre text for reassertion of plutocratic hegemony

          The point will be clear once this agent of the haute bourgeoise

          Starts rectifying more then a decade of improved welfare systematics

          [ Interesting and all too reasonable historically for Latin America. ]

          Reply Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 04:44 PM
          anne -> anne:

          https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1AK7

          August 4, 2014

          Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Mexico, 2000-2014

          (Percent change)
          https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1AK8

          August 4, 2014

          Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Mexico, 2000-2014

          (Indexed to 2000)

          Reply Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 05:52 AM
          anne -> anne:

          https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1AK9

          November 1, 2014

          Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Mexico, 2000-2011


          https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1AKc

          November 1, 2014

          Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Mexico, 2000-2011

          (Indexed to 2000)

          Reply Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 05:54 AM
          Narwhal -> anne:

          This economist article gives a more complete review of Brazil's economic situation.

          http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/10/economic-backgrounder

          -- the real has devalued from about 2.1/US$ to 3.6/US$ today.

          --bribes and kickbacks from Petrobras amounting to uncounted HUNDREDS of billions of reais had their origin when President Dilma was Chairwoman of the Board of Directors.

          --Ex President Lula's closest aid is serving a jail term for corruption. The government's leader in the Senate was arrested today... the list goes on.

          --The government took no steps to prevent the ecological disaster of two dam collapses this month. Many are dead and will never be found or even counted. Thousands are homeless. 60 million tons of toxic mud have completely destroyed 400 km of the Rio Doce. The mud reached the sea Sunday and is now killing the ocean habitat.

          --Pres Dilma signed a decree declarion the disaster an act of god, thereby absolving the mining companies and the government of all legal responsibility.

          PPaine -> anne:

          The economist -- Now there's a source we can rely on --

          anne -> anne:

          http://www.cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/brazil-needs-new-economic-program-to-jump-start-growth-and-employment

          September 4, 2015

          Brazil Needs New Economic Program to Jump-Start Growth and Employment
          By Mark Weisbrot

          Finance Minister Joaquim Levy says that unemployment is going to increase in Brazil and that Brazilians should "face some realities." No country should have a finance minister with this attitude towards one of its population's most important needs – employment. And even worse, someone who is acting on these twisted beliefs in order to make them reality. His own job should be the first to go.

          The vast majority of Brazilians are still hugely better off than they were before the Workers Party assumed the presidency in January of 2003. Poverty was reduced by 55 percent and extreme poverty by 65 percent from 2003-2012 and real (inflation-adjusted) wages grew by 35 percent – including a doubling of the real minimum wage. From 2004-2010, the economy grew twice as fast as it had over the previous 23 years, and the gains from growth were much more equally distributed.

          But these gains are being eroded, as the economy sinks into recession and unemployment rises. Why has this happened? A new report * by Brazilian economists Franklin Serrano and Ricardo Summa shows that it is not primarily due to external factors – for example, the slowdown of global economic growth and trade. Rather it is mainly a result of government policies that have reduced aggregate demand since the end of 2010: tighter budgets, cuts in public investment, higher interest rates, and tighter credit.

          Austerity is not working in Brazil -- any more than it has been working in Europe. These policies are not only creating unnecessary unemployment and poverty in the present, they are also sacrificing Brazil's future. Brazil needs public investment in transportation and other infrastructure, but this is the spending that is first to be sacrificed.

          The Central Bank has raised short-term interest rates from 7.5 percent in April 2013 to 14.25 percent today. As a result of having exorbitant interest rates for many years, the government pays more than 6 percent of GDP – about 20 percent of federal spending – in net interest. This is among the world's highest government interest burdens.

          Lowering interest rates could free up money in the budget for public investment. It is clear that the government needs to increase spending in order to jump-start the economy. This is what it did, successfully, when the global financial crisis and recession hit in 2009.

          Brazil does not yet have to worry about external financial constraints, as it currently has $369 billion in reserves. Its net public debt is only about 34 percent of GDP (This is low by any comparison; the problem is the exorbitant interest rates, averaging 11 percent on outstanding government bonds). The economy has plenty of reason to grow, but it is clear that the private sector is not going to lead this growth.

          Dilma won re-election in 2014 by promising to stand up to the oligarchy, and continue the successful policies that brought considerable economic and social progress to Brazil for the first time in decades. Levy and his friends in Brazil's powerful financial sector may prefer higher unemployment and lower wages, but that is not what Brazilians voted for. There is no reason for the government to commit political suicide by continuing to implement the failed economic program of its opposition.

          * http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/Brazil-2015-08.pdf

          anne -> anne:

          http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/Brazil-2015-08.pdf

          August, 2015

          Aggregate Demand and the Slowdown of Brazilian Economic Growth from 2011-2014
          By Franklin Serrano and Ricardo Summa

          Executive Summary

          This paper looks in detail at the sharp slowdown in the Brazilian economy for the years 2011-2014, in which economic growth averaged only 2.1 percent annually, as compared with 4.4 percent in the 2004-2010 period. The latter level of growth was also more than double Brazil's average annual growth rate over the prior 23 years (although it was much lower than the pre-1980 period). It is important to understand why the higher rate of growth experienced from 2004 to 2010 was not sustained over the past few years.

          The authors argue that the slowdown is overwhelmingly the result of a sharp decline in domestic demand, rather than a fall in exports and even less any change in external financial conditions. The sharp fall in domestic demand, in turn, is shown to be a result of deliberate policy decisions made by the government. This decision to slow the economy was not necessary, i.e., it was not made in response to some external constraint such as a balance-of-payments problem.

          Brazil's exports, and the change in their quantity between the two periods, was too small to account for most of the large slowdown in GDP growth. From 2011-2014, exports amounted to 11.3 percent of GDP, as compared with 11.9 percent for 2004-2010.

          The idea that a deterioration in external financial conditions could have driven the slowdown is also contradicted by the data. For example, the total foreign debt-to-exports ratio dropped from 4.7 in 1999 to 1.27 by the end of 2010, and was 1.54 in 2014. The ratio of total external debt to foreign reserves was reduced from 6.5 in 2000 to 0.89 in 2010 (and was 0.93 in 2014). Also, the percent of Brazilian foreign liabilities that are denominated in dollars fell from around 75 percent in 2003 to a minimum of 35 percent in 2010, and was about 40 percent in 2014.

          All of this indicates that the economy had room to expand after 2010. But the government decided to reduce aggregate demand through changes in monetary, fiscal, and macroprudential policies. For example, the Central Bank began a cycle of interest rate increases after February 2010 that lasted until August 2011, raising the basic nominal interest rate from 8.75 percent to 12.5 percent. The nominal interest rate increases and the macroprudential measures – which reduced the growth of credit -- helped to a certain extent to end the consumption boom (especially of durable goods). Private consumption growth decelerated sharply until mid-2012, partially as a result of these measures.

          At the end of 2010, the government also decided to promote a strong fiscal adjustment in order to increase the primary surplus and to meet the full target of 3.1 percent of GDP in 2011. Another sign of this contractionary commitment of the new government was the decision, after years of high increases, not to raise the real minimum wage at all in 2011, something that had not occurred in Brazil since 1994. And despite the global economic slowdown in early 2011, the signs of which were evident from the first quarter, fiscal adjustment was maintained throughout 2011 and the full target for the primary surplus was achieved.

          This rapid increase in the primary surplus was only possible thanks to a strong reduction in the growth of public spending. In 2011, public investment, both of the central government and the state-owned companies, fell dramatically, by 17.9 percent and 7.8 percent in real terms, respectively. The government's contractionary policies led to a pronounced decline in private investment as well, so that total investment (public and private) fell sharply. After growing at an average annual rate of 8.0 percent between 2004 and 2010, peaking at 18 percent in 2010, gross fixed capital formation over 2011-2014 grew by just 1.8 percent annually.

          Thus it was the strong reduction in investment growth-not a process of "deindustrialization" related to the real exchange rate, as some have maintained-that explains the slowdown in industrial production since 2011. Manufacturing industry grew in the years 2007-2008 and in 2010, when the exchange rate was already appreciated. It is also worth noting that during the 2004-2010 period of higher growth, the appreciated real exchange rate was very important for controlling inflation and thus also for increasing real wages and the growth rate of household consumption.

          This paper also shows that the analysis put forth to justify the government's post-2010 strategy was wrong. Even though the economy was already slowing in 2010, the argument was made that fiscal tightening was necessary in order to have a large reduction in interest rates. The lower interest rates, combined with tax cuts and other incentives for businesses, were expected to then allow the private sector to lead growth by stimulating private investment and also export-led growth as the real exchange rate depreciated due to the lower interest rates. However, as the pro-cyclical policies shrank aggregate demand, private investment plummeted; and for reasons explained below, export-led growth did not occur either. And the supposed link between public debt and sovereign risk also turned out to be an unfounded assumption.

          The result is that the government's efforts to encourage the private sector to lead economic growth, through contractionary macro-economic policies, tax-cuts, and public-private partnerships, had the opposite result. To return growth and employment creation to the levels of the 2004-2010 period, the government will have to change course and return to some of the policies and strategy of those years, in which the government took responsibility for ensuring the growth of investment, consumption, formal sector employment, and necessary infrastructure.

          Reply Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 07:17 AM
          pgl -> anne:

          These authors are not buying this conventional wisdom:

          "This paper also shows that the analysis put forth to justify the government's post-2010 strategy was wrong. Even though the economy was already slowing in 2010, the argument was made that fiscal tightening was necessary in order to have a large reduction in interest rates. The lower interest rates, combined with tax cuts and other incentives for businesses, were expected to then allow the private sector to lead growth by stimulating private investment and also export-led growth as the real exchange rate depreciated due to the lower interest rates."

          Neither am I but maybe for different reasons. While I'm not expert on Brazil, its macroeconomic data paints a picture of nominal rates being high more because inflation is high not high real interest rates. Its currency is devaluing in nominal terms for similar reasons. Why a nation with a depressed economy has this high inflation is a mystery.

          The conventional wisdom seems to be that Brazil should do a 1993 Clinton-Greenspan macroeconomic mix with fiscal austerity. This is akin to what Volcker tried to get the clueless Reagan White House to do in 1983. But it strikes me that Brazil's issues are different and that the fiscal austerity did not have the effects from this conventional wisdom.

          Narwhal -> pgl:

          Inflation is as much result of devaluation as a cause of devaluation. The major driver is the flow of funds; 1) The slow down and reversal of corporate investment from abroad; 2)Repatriation of accumulated corporate profits to sustain home country weaknesses and avoid probable devaluation before it occurred. 3)Outflow of 'hot money',speculative, portfolio investments. 4)The fall in value of commodity exports (oil). 4) Increased cost of servicing and rolling over foreign debt.

          Other factor include: downgrading of Brazilian sovereign debt, the HUGE cost of the Petrobras and other scandals, total loss of confidence both internally and externally in the ability of the government to understand or much less deal with the political/economic situation.

          Reply Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 09:40 AM
          PPaine -> anne:

          This analysis leads to one conclusion

          Intervene to lower the borrowing rate; that should also lower the forex rate

          Brazil needs to attack inflation directly with controls on price increases

          See the Abba club
          Site now under construction for ultimate solutions
          But for now price freezes ala Nixon

          This won't happen
          Because worker party compromises with the haute bourgeoise prevent this

          Recall if dilma goes off he reservation
          the coup birds still exist in brazil

          Reply Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 10:50 AM
          PPaine -> PPaine :

          The melodrama here was built right into the limits on worker party actions

          Take the cut to state deficits

          Totally toxic

          But like here austerity is viewed as prudence by the respectable class

          Reply Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 10:53 AM
          ilsm -> PPaine :

          losers is losers

          if "they" cannot win at austerity

          losers is losers

          Anonymous:

          "Most of What You Learned in Econ 101 Is Wrong"

          To this crowd, it should be - Most of what we taught you in Econ 101 is Wrong.

          [Nov 26, 2015] Meet The Man Who Funds ISIS Bilal Erdogan, The Son Of Turkey's President

          Notable quotes:
          "... And people STILL don't understand this whole ISIS thing is entirely scripted. As if the us govt doesn't know exactly who is doing what with this illicit oil trade. Of course, maybe they don't. Maybe they are too busy spying on innocent us citizens to be bothered with actually doing their fucking jobs.... ..."
          "... I'm sure we will get a press conference from Obama soon, where he will tell us that he just learned this by reading the newspaper and is just as shocked as we are. What a fucking clownshow we live in. ..."
          "... It is inconceivable that the CIA does not already know all of this and a whole lot more. There are geostationary satellites over Iraq spamming Tb/s of data back to Langley. You only need to see the resolution of Google Maps over Iraq to know how much installed aerial surveillance covers that part of the world. Iraq has higher resolution than Manhattan. ..."
          "... I would not be surprised if the CIA was tracking and analysing the movements of every single vehicle in Mosul. The technology to do it exists, it's the same technology that will manage driverless car fleets. ..."
          "... What makes you think he doesn't know? Like that leading from behind propaganda in Libya so that Obama gets blamed for being a wimp or incompetent rather than the warmonger he really is. It is well known that Obama regularly fails to heed real experts advice or ignores it completely. It's claimed that in many briefings he doesn't even pay attention. His close circle of advisors, like the Kagan family, Victoria Nuland, Valerie Jarret, and such are war mongering conquer the planet types. ..."
          "... For the US ISIS serves a purpose thus the pure propaganda that most US air strikes against ISIS are not approved because they might hurt civilians. Obama could care less about civilians or he never would have bombed Libya into a failed state and walked away, would not have supplied arms and money to Syrian foreign jihadists which comprise 90% of those fighting Assad, and he certainly would never run his drone campaign in at least 7 countries that has killed thousands of innocent people. ..."
          "... Better to be looked upon in the history books as a tragic figure inexperienced and overwhelmed by the enormity of the office rather than the real Obama who loves spilling blood in world conquest. Recently the head of the UN called on all parties to stop this stuff in Syria and let the Syrians decide for themselves who leads them. Obama's reply was Assad must go which meant business as usual supplying weapons and cash for Syrian terrorists. ..."
          "... As per videos and published reports Turkish trucking companies are making nice money hauling goods into Syria, especially to ISIS, with long lines at the border waiting to get across. The Russians are po'd about the Turks taking down their plane so they are targeting convoys entering Syria. Some nice videos of this. It's a wake up call for those trucking companies that it is now too dangerous and unprofitable to continue. They may be insured but close to all insurance companies will not pay off for damages in a war zone. ..."
          "... When the Russians first entered the fray in Syria Obama's response was to drop over 100 pallets of weapons, and promises of anti tank and plane weapons, in the Syrian desert and hoped the proper rebels retrieved them. Look it up, it was all over the news. Does this sound like a peace loving leader to you? ..."
          "... The US was *never* attacking ISIS (before the Bear showed up) - rather they were carrying out air-strikes on pro-Assad forces and claiming they were ISIS. Nobody outside of the MIC or on the ground there could tell the difference, so they got away with it ... until they didn't. ..."
          "... This is directly related the the Su-24 shoot-down. The U.S. has turned a blind eye to Turkey's overt and covert military intervention through its Turkmen Jihadis because one of the main CIA arms-smuggling rat-lines is through the Turkmen Mountain region. The U.S. has willingly and eagerly supplied TOW-2As to the Turkmen jihadis there in order to preserve those smuggling routes. There were probably plenty of Xe/Academi military advisors helping the Turkmen and they were getting killed by Russian air strikes. The CIA is frantic to do something to prevent Syria/Russia from closing those routes, and will back any hair-brained Turkish scheme in desperation. CIA arms smuggling routes IN are also Turkish jihadi smuggling routes IN and ISIS stolen oil routes OUT. They're all related and all threatened by Russia. Same as the Aleppo-Aziz-Killis route - it's multi-purpose for many kinds of smuggling. ..."
          "... Erdogan's crime family is a complex issue in already complex environment of Turkish politics - you did a great job of breaking down Bilal's motivations and the oil angle. I feel sorry for all the unfortunate Turks saddled with these psychopathic losers in charge (and I speak from the authority of experience here in the U.S.). ..."
          "... Shim said she was among the few journalists obtaining stories of militants infiltrating into Syria through the Turkish border, adding that she had received images from militants crossing the Turkish border into Syria in World Food Organization and other NGOs' trucks. ..."
          "... Plus, makes all the sense as to why NATO immediately bought off on the Rooskie fighter shoot-down ..."
          "... Wow. I must say. Thanks a lot for this informative article ZH. I always taught that Erdogans many evil plots and insane schemes was really bad , but all the things that are brought into light now are even worse than I imagined. It all makes sense now and it actually explains why Obama and the rest of the western world has done about nothing to stop ISIS and their many war crimes around the globe. ..."
          "... What Erdogan and his gangs of thugs are doing is plain out illegal and they should have been prosecuted and treated as ordinary criminals in the war criminal court in haag , but as the article tells us, also former France politicians and Obama has things to explain. ..."
          "... If the Turkish President is shooting down anti-ISIS planes in order to save his son's business, and the NATO nations are excusing that action, then we really are in a filthy swamp of criminality. It's going to be very hard to climb out of it. Any high moral ground is way out of NATO's reach - now, if not before. ..."
          "... A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdogan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.) ..."
          "... Alain Juppe is pursuing the other movements privatizations initiated between 1986 and 1988 and since 1993 with the metallurgical group Pechiney and Usinor Sacilor in 1995, the French Foreign Trade Bank (BFCE, sold over the counter at the National Credit to give birth to Natixis), the Compagnie Générale Maritime (CGM also sold over the counter to the charter shipping company to create the group CMA - CGM), the General Insurance of France (AGF with the purse-up 51% of the capital, the State retaining only 2%) and the French Rhine Shipping Company (RNFL, sold over the counter at the Technical Association of the coal import ATIC) in 1996 . ..."
          Nov 26, 2015 | Zero Hedge

          Erdogan's Dirth Dangerous ISIS Games

          More and more details are coming to light revealing that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, variously known as ISIS, IS or Daesh, is being fed and kept alive by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish President and by his Turkish intelligence service, including MIT, the Turkish CIA Turkey, as a result of Erdogan's pursuit of what some call a Neo-Ottoman Empire fantasies that stretch all the way to China, Syria and Iraq, threatens not only to destroy Turkey but much of the Middle East if he continues on his present path.

          In October 2014 US Vice President Joe Biden told a Harvard gathering that Erdogan's regime was backing ISIS with "hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons…" Biden later apologized clearly for tactical reasons to get Erdo?an's permission to use Turkey's Incirlik Air Base for airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, but the dimensions of Erdogan's backing for ISIS since revealed is far, far more than Biden hinted.

          According to French geopolitical analyst, Thierry Meyssan, Recep Erdogan "organised the pillage of Syria, dismantled all the factories in Aleppo, the economic capital, and stole the machine-tools. Similarly, he organised the theft of archeological treasures and set up an international market in Antioch…with the help of General Benoît Puga, Chief of Staff for the Elysée, he organised a false-flag operation intended to provoke the launching of a war by the Atlantic Alliance – the chemical bombing of la Ghoutta in Damascus, in August 2013. "

          Meyssan claims that the Syria strategy of Erdo?an was initially secretly developed in coordination with former French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé and Erdogan's then Foreign Minister Ahmet Davuto?lu, in 2011, after Juppe won a hesitant Erdogan to the idea of supporting the attack on traditional Turkish ally Syria in return for a promise of French support for Turkish membership in the EU. France later backed out, leaving Erdogan to continue the Syrian bloodbath largely on his own using ISIS.

          greenskeeper carl

          And people STILL don't understand this whole ISIS thing is entirely scripted. As if the us govt doesn't know exactly who is doing what with this illicit oil trade. Of course, maybe they don't. Maybe they are too busy spying on innocent us citizens to be bothered with actually doing their fucking jobs....

          I'm sure we will get a press conference from Obama soon, where he will tell us that he just learned this by reading the newspaper and is just as shocked as we are. What a fucking clownshow we live in.

          strannick

          Ahh. It all makes sense now.

          The Russian Su24 Bomber wasnt violating Turkish airspace much as it was violating Baby Bilal Erodagans dirty oil concession and destroying his supply tankers.

          Daddy Erodagan risks WW3 so his precious can exploit a NATO oil embargo and sell oil for ISIS . Fork out on your own and get a real job and make poppa proud, Go be a Chambermaid in Munich, or show some real grit and open a kebab stand in Berlin, and so spare the planet a nuclear winter.

          Ghordius

          cosmos, is that the same French government that is currently in Moscow talking with Russia about how to bomb ISIS in Syria? You know, the ISIS that is producing propaganda videos accusing France and Russia to be an "Alliance Of Devils"? This while Germany is discussing about how to support this Franco-Russian cooperation?

          giovanni_f

          "while Germany is discussing"

          "Germany" doesn't "discuss" anything, with Merkel a full-fledged CIA asset. Germany exists as economic exploitation area for Anglosaxon Fiat-money. Forget Germany. I know for I have lived in this country probably for longer time than anyone on ZH.

          remain calm

          So how hard is it Mr Obama to kill this dude, after all you said, "we are going to hunt down isil where every they are and destroy them and their infrastructure" Well if you kill the money guy the operation falls apart. But you don't want that, do you? You want little crisis's all over the world so you can divert attention from the economy and use the terrorism as a scapegoat. You and your policies are evil.Isil if it really wanted to be powerful needs to kill its true leader and that is you.


          Occident Mortal

          It is inconceivable that the CIA does not already know all of this and a whole lot more. There are geostationary satellites over Iraq spamming Tb/s of data back to Langley. You only need to see the resolution of Google Maps over Iraq to know how much installed aerial surveillance covers that part of the world. Iraq has higher resolution than Manhattan.

          I would not be surprised if the CIA was tracking and analysing the movements of every single vehicle in Mosul. The technology to do it exists, it's the same technology that will manage driverless car fleets.

          The problem here is that for whatever reason, the US intelligence agencies are clearly NOT sharing information with the US executive government.

          Something has clearly broken in the chain of command inside .gov, and the rest of the world can see this clear as day. Obama is not being told anything.

          Maybe to maintain plausible deniability, maybe for some other reason? But I don't think Obama knows squat about any of this. John Kerry must know, he is the guy who gets sent to meet ALL of the involved parties. Notice that they always send Kerry, never Obama. Kerry must hear it from the other side, he meets Lavrov, Assad, Bandar, Erdogan, et al.

          This whole 5yr period is just weird.

          I think that come 2017, the apple cart is gonna get flipped 50ft in the air as the USA strides back into geopolitics.

          not dead yet

          What makes you think he doesn't know? Like that leading from behind propaganda in Libya so that Obama gets blamed for being a wimp or incompetent rather than the warmonger he really is. It is well known that Obama regularly fails to heed real experts advice or ignores it completely. It's claimed that in many briefings he doesn't even pay attention. His close circle of advisors, like the Kagan family, Victoria Nuland, Valerie Jarret, and such are war mongering conquer the planet types.

          For the US ISIS serves a purpose thus the pure propaganda that most US air strikes against ISIS are not approved because they might hurt civilians. Obama could care less about civilians or he never would have bombed Libya into a failed state and walked away, would not have supplied arms and money to Syrian foreign jihadists which comprise 90% of those fighting Assad, and he certainly would never run his drone campaign in at least 7 countries that has killed thousands of innocent people.

          Better to be looked upon in the history books as a tragic figure inexperienced and overwhelmed by the enormity of the office rather than the real Obama who loves spilling blood in world conquest. Recently the head of the UN called on all parties to stop this stuff in Syria and let the Syrians decide for themselves who leads them. Obama's reply was Assad must go which meant business as usual supplying weapons and cash for Syrian terrorists. If he really was serious about peace he would have dropped all funding and arms for Syrian terrorists and forced others doing the same to stop and would have all parties join Assad to irradicate ISIS and the rest. The US has never seriously bombed ISIS, just around the edges to contain not kill them. ISIS has been selling oil for years yet the US never seriously bombed their tankers until the Russians did. Obama lost face and was compelled to finally take out a few tankers and broadcast it to the world to "prove" he was serious about stopping ISIS. Many times Obama claimed the war against ISIS was going to take 20 to 30 years yet the Kurds, who are on the ground fighting, claim if all parties make the effort ISIS could be destroyed in a few weeks.

          As per videos and published reports Turkish trucking companies are making nice money hauling goods into Syria, especially to ISIS, with long lines at the border waiting to get across. The Russians are po'd about the Turks taking down their plane so they are targeting convoys entering Syria. Some nice videos of this. It's a wake up call for those trucking companies that it is now too dangerous and unprofitable to continue. They may be insured but close to all insurance companies will not pay off for damages in a war zone.

          When the Russians first entered the fray in Syria Obama's response was to drop over 100 pallets of weapons, and promises of anti tank and plane weapons, in the Syrian desert and hoped the "proper rebels" retrieved them. Look it up, it was all over the news. Does this sound like a peace loving leader to you?

          new game

          never underestimate the enemy, they know wtf is going on. isis is the new commie to fuel the fear needed to keep the juice flowing. moar war, moar fiat financed by banksters. reasons vary depending on the hatred stirred. we are bystanders funding this shit show with our taxes, all captivated by fiat/debt in a closed system with no exits, unless of course, you live in a wood burning, no electric home w/ hand pump well, outdoor shitter, and exist like it is 1850, garden, root cellar and all that.

          Trogdor

          Like that leading from behind propaganda in Libya so that Obama gets blamed for being a wimp or incompetent rather than the warmonger he really is...

          I seem to remember the Halfrican bragging, "I'm really good at killing people" which is something only an infantile psychopath would be proud of. Believing that he's just a simple dupe - or incompetent - is the result of not paying attention.

          The US was *never* attacking ISIS (before the Bear showed up) - rather they were carrying out air-strikes on pro-Assad forces and claiming they were ISIS. Nobody outside of the MIC or on the ground there could tell the difference, so they got away with it ... until they didn't.

          Oldwood

          Plausible deniability

          Obama doctrine: nothing that happens under his administration is his responsibility. Even his Obamacare, with all of its disasters, is blamed on him. Nothing. He always claims to be the outsider when in actuality he is in charge of everything.

          Kayman

          As if the U.S. isn't complicit in this. Look at a map- the oil can't go west thru Assad territory, it can't go south thru Shia Iraq, and it isn't going east thru Iran. So it has no other way to go but thru Turkey.

          Turkey is a NATO member. The U.S. and Europe are supporting Turkey, therefore the U.S. and NATO are supporting ISIS. Period. Full stop.

          Kick Turkey out of NATO and Blockade Turkey. And ISIS will wither and die.

          Coke and Hookers

          There will be three priorities now for Russia: 1) No-fly zone south of the Turkish-Syrian border enforced with S 400, 2) Hitting everything moving on every transit route from Turkey and 3) Bombing the shit out of the border area and the Turkmen scum/CIA agents hanging out there and then capturing it.

          assistedliving

          34 up arrows nowwithstanding, stick to the coke & hookers.

          1. S400 deployment will be delayed

          2. Nothing more will be hit from Turkey

          3. less bombing now let alone "Bombing the shit out....?

          Hard to imagine more wrong analysis; Easy to see ZH chickenhawk, Putin loving adoration

          OldPhart

          Ok, just an observation from the linked video. Your convoy just got bombed by a first world nation's advanced technologies.

          You're fucking lucky to be alive. Yet you bunch up all the rest of the convoy, then stand around in the middle of it all watching, recording, the burning of some trucks. Doesn't it occur to these ignorant mother-fucks that what they just created is the biggist classical military strike of all time?

          Russia is being merciful to fly by shit like this without strike. I thought Putin was a hard ass, maybe he does have a heart. Well, being a decent person in politics could make one look pretty fuckin' odd in these days of elected psychopaths.

          Paveway IV

          The ISIS-miniE oil sales are temporary. It was a bone the U.S. (and indirectly Israel) threw to Erdogan so the CIA could run arms through Turkey without questions. Same thing for the Barzani crime cartel in Iraqi Kurdistan. It's all just temporary because, long-term, U.S./U.K./Israeli interests will own and control every oil asset in Syria and Kurdistan. Genel is sliming their way into control of the oil fields stolen first from Iraq and soon from the Kurds. Tony "Deepwater Horizon" Hayward runs that shop for the Rothschilds. At the appropriate time, Mini-Erdogan and Barzani will cease to be useful to the Anglo-Zio cabal and liquidated, just like al Nusra and ISIS. Israel wants to replace Ceyhan with Haifa and control all the oil from their port, and they want to make sure nobody can turn the tap to them off. Rothschild and the U.K./U.S. Israeli-firsters just want their cut of the eventual loot and to preserve their dying petrodollar. They let Qatar and Saudi Arabia in the club for funding, and probably promised them their pipelines through Syria.

          This is directly related the the Su-24 shoot-down. The U.S. has turned a blind eye to Turkey's overt and covert military intervention through its Turkmen Jihadis because one of the main CIA arms-smuggling rat-lines is through the Turkmen Mountain region. The U.S. has willingly and eagerly supplied TOW-2As to the Turkmen jihadis there in order to preserve those smuggling routes. There were probably plenty of Xe/Academi military advisors helping the Turkmen and they were getting killed by Russian air strikes. The CIA is frantic to do something to prevent Syria/Russia from closing those routes, and will back any hair-brained Turkish scheme in desperation. CIA arms smuggling routes IN are also Turkish jihadi smuggling routes IN and ISIS stolen oil routes OUT. They're all related and all threatened by Russia. Same as the Aleppo-Aziz-Killis route - it's multi-purpose for many kinds of smuggling.

          The backup act of desperation is already playing out. While Syria/Russia tries to take back the two main corridors mentioned above, Turkey and the U.S. are trying to create an entirely new corridor through Afrin canton before Russia gets there. The U.S. may abhor another Kurd slaughter like they were party to in Kobane and Sinjar, but the CIA needs new rat-lines, damn it - that means some Afrin Rojava are going to have to die. Minne-E needs new oil smuggling routes (and a few new tankers), and daddy needs a reliable route to funnel Uighur, Uzbek and Chechen head-choppers to keep the pressure on Assad. Erdogan himself probably has a boner at the thought of another 25,000 dead Kurds. Barazani won't complain too much. The Rojava Kurds don't want to join his criminal gang and swear obedience to him, so he has no use for them. He just needs to convince the world that he is the supreme leader of the Kurdish cause, not the Kurds. See why he likes Erdogan so much?

          For the anglo-zio oil cartel, the Syrian war isn't so much about replacing Assad right away. They would be delighted if that happened, but now they just want to preserve what they have in Syria in the face of Russian involvement. If worse comes to worse, all the parties will just retract their jihadis back across Turkish borders and wait for another opportunity. There's plenty of land-grabbing and bribery work in Iraqi Kurdistan to keep them busy for now. The long game is to own all the oil and gas possible in Syria and Iraq when the smoke clears, and then 100% control where it flows to and who sells it for what price. They'll kill every last Syrian, Iraqi and Kurd if necessary to make sure they control the spice.

          Paveway IV

          That was a damn fine article, Tyler. +1000. I should have offered that thought first before scratching out my rant.

          Erdogan's crime family is a complex issue in already complex environment of Turkish politics - you did a great job of breaking down Bilal's motivations and the oil angle. I feel sorry for all the unfortunate Turks saddled with these psychopathic losers in charge (and I speak from the authority of experience here in the U.S.).

          Escrava Isaura

          Turkey needs this conflict to distract its population. Second, Turkey is a main supported of jihadi organizations such as al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham. Even the US trained rebels were killed by these jihadists with the help of Turkey.

          http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/08/03/pentagon-syria-rebels-trained-by-us-to-get-defensive-air-cover.html

          Noplebian

          WW3 – Turkey/ISIS/Russia – The Countdown Has Begun......
          http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/11/us-gives-their-prox...

          Nostradumbass

          The reason people have not talked about Turkey is because they tend to end up dead from accidents and suicides while passing through that country.

          Yes, tragically, yes they do.

          Press TV's correspondent in Turkey, Serena Shim, has been killed in a suspicious car accident near the Turkey-Syria border.

          Shim was killed on Sunday as she was on a working mission in Turkey to cover the ongoing war in the strategic Syrian town of Kobani.

          She was going back to her hotel from a report scene in the city of Suruç in Turkey's Urfa Province when their car collided with a heavy vehicle. The identity and whereabouts of the truck driver remain unknown.

          Shim, an American citizen of Lebanese origin, covered reports for Press TV in Lebanon, Iraq, and Ukraine.

          On Friday, she told Press TV that the Turkish intelligence agency had accused her of spying probably due to some of the stories she has covered about Turkey's stance on the ISIL terrorists in Kobani and its surroundings, adding that she feared being arrested.

          Shim said she was among the few journalists obtaining stories of militants infiltrating into Syria through the Turkish border, adding that she had received images from militants crossing the Turkish border into Syria in World Food Organization and other NGOs' trucks.

          Shim flatly rejected accusations against her, saying she was "surprised" at this accusation "because I have nothing to hide and I have never done anything aside my job."

          Kobani and its surroundings have been under attack since mid-September, with the ISIL militants capturing dozens of nearby Kurdish villages.

          Turkey has been accused of backing ISIL militants in Syria.

          http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/10/19/382854/press-tv-reporter-in-tur...

          MrBoompi

          Well of course Turkey sides with ISIS. Many of the ISIS fighters come across the border into Syria from Turkey, where they have been trained. Turkey is on board with the US and the rest of NATO. I suppose we have no choice but wait and see what the US pulls to get rid of Assad now. It won't be pretty.

          Main_Sequence

          Erdogan has a raging hard-on for the multiple gas pipelines from Libya, Egypt, Israel, and Qatar that will provide tens of billions of dollars in revenues in transit fees. Of course Turkey will do whatever it takes to ensure that Assad falls as it is literally costing Turkey billions of dollars every month that Assad is in power. None of what I have read about Turkey supporting ISIS surprises me in the slightest knowing what Turkey is losing.

          knukles

          Plus, makes all the sense as to why NATO immediately bought off on the Rooskie fighter shoot-down even though via the NATO documents, it technically puts NATO in a HOT war with Russia aside from the Hot Proxy wars...

          Oh my....

          REQUIRED READING: Tells it like it really is

          http://turoks.net/Cabana/PoohGoesApeshit.php

          Rusty Shorts

          This U.S. Army film describes Turkey's history, economy, urban areas, industry, and its role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsUEEPN9gWc

          Bay of Pigs

          Yeah, okay. The US is totally solvent, is that what youre saying....lol.

          PeakOil

          ^This. But I would go further - Russia is fighting for its very existence.

          The psychotic megalomaniacal Anglo-Zionist hegemon wishes to rule the world. Totally. Who is standing in their way? Pretty obvious what this is all about wouldn't you say?

          AlaricGaudiTheSecond

          So Russia is funding terrorists around the globe for profits too? Give me a f*** break!!! Liar!!

          captain-nemo

          Wow. I must say. Thanks a lot for this informative article ZH. I always taught that Erdogans many evil plots and insane schemes was really bad , but all the things that are brought into light now are even worse than I imagined. It all makes sense now and it actually explains why Obama and the rest of the western world has done about nothing to stop ISIS and their many war crimes around the globe.

          What Erdogan and his gangs of thugs are doing is plain out illegal and they should have been prosecuted and treated as ordinary criminals in the war criminal court in haag , but as the article tells us, also former France politicians and Obama has things to explain.

          I am simply overwhelmed over how bad it all turns out to be in reality. It explains why the western world was so reluctant to welcome the Russians in their fighting against ISIS, they were afraid that all their little secrets and rotten plots probably would come out. Thanks to Russia, that's exactly what has happened now.

          There are absolutely no news about these things in my country, the mainstream media are only publishing the western political correct version of everything, and thus most people are probably still unaware of the real truth.

          ISIS is responsible for terror attacks and the lifes of thousands of civilians all around the world. They are off course to blame and should be routed out. However. It is actually Erdogan and his thugs that are their real generals. It is Erdogan who has blood on his hands. It is Erdogan that should be wanted by the courts in Haag.

          I am looking forward to read more about Erdogans son and the evil activities these people are involved in. Thank you ZH an keep up the good work.

          Fuku Ben

          This guy is shaping up to be like another Uday Hussein, Saddam's son. Does he have any rape, torture or murder under his belt, like Uday, in addition to his alleged war crimes and terrorist activities? Do the Turks realize they're going to be ceding a portion of their country for the greater glorious mission of rebuilding The Levant if ISIS/ISIL/Israel (see below) succeed in Syria?

          Here is an old quote from a Kurd on the alleged details of the ISIS operation. "Housed in Turkey, trained in Jordan, logistics by Pakistan, literature from Saudi Arabia, funding from Qatar and Saudi Arabia, on the ground day to day running by Israel, arms by the U.S., intelligence by the British, Germans and French and original arms for ISIS came from the Muslim Brotherhood helping them take it from Libya."

          One big happy family isn't it. This seems very plausible and explains why they would all be so pissed off at what Russia has done. Again at the last press conference Hollande and Obama openly refused to cooperate with Russia. Obama again insisting that Russia work through his coalition and that Assad be removed.

          I wonder how many U.S. citizens even realize they are
          under a declared state of Nation Emergency due to that deadliest of threats to the U.S. known as Syria. What a fraudulent joke.

          https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/05/06/notice-continuati...

          Is anyone operating inside Syrian airspace yet actually doing so lawfully besides Russia? Or are lawful authority and international law now just more fraudulent misrepresentations and treated as a joke? Similar to how the global corporations fraudulently act as Countries and pretending that by being a Citizen you have freedoms that they protect.

          I'm struggling to find any U.N. authorization for the lawful use of force inside Syria without the consent of the Syrian government. Not that the U.N. has that authority anyway. If anyone finds any please feel free to post it.

          http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc12132.doc.htm


          XXL66

          The ISIS-Turkey list :

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/research-paper-isis-turke...

          smacker

          That's a good document.

          It places Turkey up to its neck at the scene of the ISIS crime.

          Turkey are actively involved in supporting ISIS: recruitment, training, financing, supplying weapons and other goods to ISIS. Recep Erdogan himself is in control and his son Bilal is handling ISIS stolen oil.


          Volkodav

          US Sanctions Syria for buying oil from Islamic State...

          https://in.news.yahoo.com/us-sanctions-syria-buying-oil-163505807.html

          HowdyDoody

          Syrian uses Syrian oil - sanctions.

          Turkey deals in Syiran oil stolen by ISIS - no sanctions.

          css1971

          "Turkey's actions appear premeditated, planned, and undertaken with a specific objective."

          Or put another way. We think you're evil, not stupid.

          localizer

          To sum it up: Erdogan has put his family income above his country's interests since the math is simple - family pockets gain a fraction of the billions that will not be collected by the Turkish companies now due to "sanctions" imposed by Russia, this has already begun - no Russian tourists (that is about $3 billion/year), suspended construction contracts in Russia for Turkish companies, extra "inspections" on ALL Turkish goods (textiles, food) entering Russia etc...

          Lumberjack

          You forgot Hillary

          viator

          And RT chimes in:

          https://www.rt.com/business/323391-isis-oil-business-turkey-russia/

          Maybe this is among the reasons that some people are mad: "Islamic State is selling oil at $15–25 per barrel"

          https://twitter.com/hashtag/StopTurkeySuppportOfISIS

          Hannibal

          Mystery over who bombed Turkish convoy allegedly carrying weapons to militants in Syria

          https://www.rt.com/news/323538-turkey-convoy-syria-attack/

          BarnacleBill

          If the Turkish President is shooting down anti-ISIS planes in order to save his son's business, and the NATO nations are excusing that action, then we really are in a filthy swamp of criminality. It's going to be very hard to climb out of it. Any high moral ground is way out of NATO's reach - now, if not before.

          When I wrote about the famous ISIS Toyotas a year ago (link below), I reckoned the CIA might have bought them on ISIS's behalf - but now I wonder if perhaps Turkey's top oligarch didn't do it on his own. I also presumed the Toyotas had been manufactured in the US, but I've since learned that the Toyota company also manufactures left-hand-drive trucks in Thailand. This story has a lot of angles still to uncover - and not just which tax-haven was used to facilitate the transactions. More likely Hong Kong or Singapore than any one over in this part of the world, in this instance.

          http://barlowscayman.blogspot.com/2014/10/who-sold-isis-all-those-toyotas.html

          viator

          "Russia is preparing wide-ranging economic sanctions against Turkey over the downing of one of its jets on the Turkey-Syria border."

          http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34933608

          "Mr Medvedev said: "The government has been ordered to work out a system of response measures to this act of aggression in the economic and humanitarian spheres."He said the focus would be on "introducing limits or bans" on Turkish economic interests in Russia and a "limitation of the supply" of products, including food.He said tourism, transport, trade, labour and customs as well as "humanitarian contacts" could all be affected. "The same rules may apply to a whole range of investment projects," he said."

          Wahooo

          Do not focus on Ergodan, focus on the US:

          Seymour Hersh, April 2014:

          A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdogan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)

          Wrascaly Wabbit

          The following article is an eye opener in terms of how ISIL finances itself!

          http://journal-neo.org/2015/11/03/isis-financial-sources/

          The bottom line is you can't sell anything, unless you have someone willing to buy it!

          Whoa Dammit

          Hey Tyler (or anyone else who wants to do the research,

          It might not be a bad idea to look further into Alain Juppe who was mentioned in Engdahl's article. He was responsible for the privatization of a French foreign trade bank and two French shipping companies years back. But old ties run deep in politics and shady deals.

          This is what I found from a cursory look at French Wiki:

          Alain Juppe is pursuing the other movements privatizations initiated between 1986 and 1988 and since 1993 with the metallurgical group Pechiney and Usinor Sacilorin 1995, the French Foreign Trade Bank (BFCE, sold over the counter at theNational Credit to give birth to Natixis), the Compagnie Générale Maritime (CGM also sold over the counter to the charter shipping company to create the group CMA -CGM), the General Insurance of France (AGF with the purse-up 51% of the capital, the State retaining only 2%) and the French Rhine Shipping Company (RNFL, sold over the counter at the Technical Association of the coal import ATIC) in 1996.

          https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Jupp%C3%A9

          ISIS support in Turkey could have nothing at all to do with any of these companies today, but then again it might. Seeing the foreign trade bank and shipping connections here just alerted my spidey senses.

          Joenobody12

          http://journal-neo.org/2015/11/25/israeli-colonel-caught-with-is-pants-d...

          It is about oil and the disintegration of the Arab countries. Destruction of nations and killing of their people mean absolutely nothing to these psycopaths. In fact , the chosen people have planned the destruction of the Arab countries just so there will be no centralized pwer to threaten Israel.

          Gulag

          Turkey is facilitating selling ISIS stolen oil from Iraq and Syria oilfields to G20 membership countries on the black market at a dumping price. Has been estimated that as much as $800mil of oil has been sold in Turkey by ISIS using Turkey / Syrian border in direct dealings between Turkish officials and ISIS members under the blind eye of UK and USA.

          Turkey is a corrupt, jihadist sh*t hole that hosts, protects, finances and offer intelligence and logistics to ISIS under cover of NATO membership and alliance with USA.

          Turkey is considered a USA ally while ISIS is considered a terrorist faction in war with America.

          Turkey is s state sponsor of ISIS with a NATO membership. NATO is harboring a state that sponsors ISIS. That makes NATO and all nations within NATO membership accomplices of sponsoring terrorism.

          ... ... ...

          me or you

          Turkey is buying and selling ISIS oil while NATO is smuggling Taliban opium.

          johmack2

          What irks me the most is the lack of investigative journalism during this whole middle east fiasco. It was as if after the watergate scandal, washington vowed never again and thus began the death of journalism. In the day and age when you have have alternative media giving more indept analysis than CNN/BBC on geopolitical issues and sites like muddywaters using investigation as means of peeling away the corporate veil of corruption, one has to wonder the nature of the illusion we find ourselves in.

          As i have assimilated more information, the words from morpheous in the matrix to neo in the training simulation continuously ring true.

          "The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it. "

          [Nov 26, 2015] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Who Is Protecting ISIS And Why

          Notable quotes:
          "... The US and its allies have allowed their desire for regime change in Syria to outweigh their stated desire to get rid of ISIS. What does that result in? Implicit or explicit protection for ISIS and related extremist groups inside Syria. Turkey was enjoying big business in Syrian underground oil shipments...until the Russians bombed ISIS's oil infrastructure. Then Turkey attacked a Russian plane. What does it mean? ..."
          ronpaulinstitute.org

          The US and its allies have allowed their desire for regime change in Syria to outweigh their stated desire to get rid of ISIS. What does that result in? Implicit or explicit protection for ISIS and related extremist groups inside Syria. Turkey was enjoying big business in Syrian underground oil shipments...until the Russians bombed ISIS's oil infrastructure. Then Turkey attacked a Russian plane. What does it mean? Tune in to the Liberty Report:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvFQ_Kp-GwU

          Copyright © 2015 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
          Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

          [Nov 26, 2015] Syrian Rebels Make Intensive Use of US Missiles

          Nov 26, 2015 | Antiwar.com

          US provision of advanced missiles to Syrian rebel factions once again came into close focus this week, when a faction affiliated with the Free Syrian Army (FSA) attacked and destroyed a Russian helicopter trying to rescue pilots from a plane shot down by Turkey.

          According to Syrian military officials, however, the US TOW missiles are not the rare sight they once were in the war, and many factions, including those allied with al-Qaeda, are making "intensive" use of the US missiles in northwestern Syria.

          TOW missile shipments are seen going through Turkey, with Saudi Arabia subsidizing the program. The US escalated the shipments after Russia began its involvement in the Syrian Civil War, despite insistence that the arms are purely targeted at the Syrian military.

          Russia has warned the US the provision of those arms is a "major mistake," and that those arms are going to inevitably wind up in the hands of terrorist organizations, and not just the "vetted" groups. This has been the case in past US arms shipments, and hardly a terror faction exists in Syria anymore that isn't awash in US arms.

          [Nov 26, 2015] Turkey won't apologize for downing Russian jet Erdo an

          www.hurriyetdailynews.com

          President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said on Nov. 26 that Turkey would not apologize for the Nov. 24 downing of a Russian jet near the Syrian border.

          "I think that if there is a party that needs to apologize, it is not us," Erdoğan said in an interview with CNN International.

          He also added that the Turkish pilots who shot down the Russian jet had "done their duty within the rules of engagement."

          "Those who violated our airspace are the ones who need to apologize. Our pilots and our armed forces, they simply fulfilled their duties, which consisted of responding to ... violations of the rules of engagement. I think this is the essence of the issue," Erdoğan said.

          [Nov 25, 2015] Is Vladimir Putin right to label Turkey accomplices of terrorists ?

          Notable quotes:
          "... You have to laugh when you hear Erdogan and that puppy he's got for a Prime Minister solemnly saying that their airspace is sacrosanct and that they would never do the same to another sovereign nation. Yet, every week or so Turkish jets violate Greek airspace over the Aegean. And their jets don't stay for 30 seconds either. Personally I wouldn't believe anything that the Turks say about this incident. ..."
          "... Bravo. Pumping out endless western propaganda for the moronic. The Americans and NATO are the biggest warmongers in history: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/.../turkey-has-destroyed.../ ..."
          "... Erdogan is a bad guy, who receives western political cover due to Turkey's NATO membership. ..."
          "... According to Seymour Hersch it was Turkey that was behind the Ghouta gas attack (well it certainly wasn't Assad). There was also a plan to attack a Turkish shrine inside Syria to be used as a pretext for a full invasion. The video clip is available on youtube. In the recording you can hear the defence minister and the head of intelligence discussing the plan, agreeing to do it, even though they don't like the idea, while lamenting the fact that everything is politics in modern Turkey. Nobody ever talks about this. Erdogan's response to this was to shut down Youtube for a day. ..."
          "... ISIS fighters move in and out of Turkey with ease, receive medical treatment there and selling their oil at very competitive prices to people close to the Erdogan regime. Because NATO have gone along with Turkey in the "Assad must go" mantra they've been stuck covering up for his antics. But shooting down a Russian jet that clearly wasn't threatening Turkey was extremely reckless - maybe regime change in Ankara may be on the cards. ..."
          "... "Over the past two years several senior Isis members have told the Guardian that Turkey preferred to stay out of their way and rarely tackled them directly." ..."
          "... Martin Chulov is certainly not biased in his reporting in favour of Russia or against Turkey. He has reported mostly in favour of the rebels in Syria and only recently realised what the outcome of all this is. ..."
          "... His facts about the ISIS-Turkish connection are not imagination presented against reason. Isis i.e. was free to attack the Kurds inside Turkey and the government did nothing to stop them, even when they knew about them very well. ..."
          "... Believing that Erdogan, whose country's human rights record is pretty unenviable (in particular with regard to journalists), fell out with Assad because he was appalled by the latter's repression is like believing that Mussolini's decision to aid Franco in the Spanish Civil War was largely motivated by his horror at the bad behaviour of Spanish Anarchists and Communists. ..."
          "... Turkey is a conduit, the Turkish presidents son is buying the oil from ISIS, just like US Vice President Joe Bidens son joined the board of Ukraines largest Gas producer after Nato expanded into the Ukraine. ..."
          "... Was the downing of the jet by Turkey a tit for tat exercise as Russia destroyed some of the hundreds of lorry oil tankers parked up in ISIS territory heading for Turkey 6 days ago? ..."
          "... Al Qaeda was created and used by the usa to do terror on Russia. No reason tho think things have changed, when clearly they have not. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, all have fallen....more to come. There is no "wondering" at all about the orogon an dpurpose of the ISIS when they admit they are al qaeda re packaged ...When the US admits al qaeda has melded into the ISIS. ..."
          "... Terrorists in the middle east are a western supported geo-political tool to allow us to bomb, invade, destabilizen and balkanize soverign nations who refuse globalist ideology and orders. ..."
          "... All a bit too convenient with the film crew at the ready. Clearly Erdogan is looking to further his agenda and set his sights on expanding Turkey's borders and it looks as though he's using NATO's protection to do it. ..."
          "... It's ironic that NATO affords Turkey so much protection given that Turkey funds ISIS, it trades with them, it allows IS fighters free travel across Turkish borders and it also fights IS enemies for them - the Kurds. Outside of the Gulf, Turkey is the jihadist's biggest ally. ..."
          "... Well, at least we have seen that those K-36 ejection seats do work; they have reportedly never failed. Of course Turkey, and Western Europe for that matter, has been playing a double game. Just like in Afghanistan in the 1980s, they prefer the acid-throwers and head-choppers to a Russian-backed secular regime. ..."
          "... Even the Western MSM has openly reported about and from the staging areas in Turkey, where the jihadists gather before entering Syria. The US-lead "coalition" is now boasting about bombing ISIL oil convoys, but where has it been for the past few years? Everybody with a single functioning grey cell knows that Turkey is involved in the ISIS oil smuggling business and allowing the jihadist to train on its territory. ..."
          "... The Turkmen who Turkey is protecting have been attacking Kurds. The Turks have been bombing the Kurds, who are fighting ISIS. ..."
          "... The Turks have been buying ISIS' oil and giving other funding. Weapons funded by Gulf States have almost certainly been crossing the Turkish border for ISIS. It is suspected the Turkey has been providing a safe haven for ISIS fighters. Tens of thousands have crossed Turkeys borders to join rebel groups, the chances that some of them have not joined ISIS is nil. ..."
          "... Lest anyone forget, Al Qaeda are themselves have orchestrated huge scale terrorist attacks. But becausing they are fighting Assad in Syria, who is hated by the Gulf States, Turkey and Israel, unquestioned or criticised almost regardless what they do by the West allies of the West, apparently Al Qaeda are now fine. ..."
          "... I wonder if the leaders of NATO were involved in anyway at all??? ..."
          "... And - does this lend weight to those who have shown that ISIS is a result of the Libyan, Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and that they are mercenaries who have formed an insurgency within Syria for a regime change? A war crime, definitely against international law. ..."
          "... In the warnings at no point do the turks actually say the russians are in turkish airspace, just that they are heading towards it; they also do not threaten to fire upon the Russians like the RAF do over here when they issue a warning. Normally the defending plane would come alongside the transgressor to escort them out the airspace, here they just just shoot at the russians without issuing a warning. It also appears that there just so happened to be a tv crew there perfectly poised to film it - what a coincidence. There is no way we are getting dragged into a war over this. ..."
          "... The whole rotten scam is coming undone. No one believes the mainstream media any more. I skip the articles and go straight to the comments. That's where you find out what's really going on. Thank you for all the insightful comments. The truth will set us free ..."
          "... 'It is in West's interest that ISIS would spill into Russia one day and do the dirty job there for US and its associates.' ..."
          "... Oh, and the "rebels" shooting the pilots as they made their descent is a war crime. ..."
          "... "Turkey said one of its US-made F-16 fighters fired on the Russian plane when it entered Turkish airspace after having been warned on its approach to the Turkish border through a 13-mile no-fly zone inside Syria it had declared in July." ..."
          "... By what right does Turkey declare a 13 mile no fly zone inside Syria? This is clearly grounds for believing that the Russian jet was in fact shot down over Syria and not Turkey. ..."
          "... Turkey has overplayed its hand and Erdogan's strategy and tactics in respect of Syria are now in tatters. NATO will be scrambling to put the frighteners on Erdogan who is clearly a loose cannon and totally out of his depth. ..."
          "... Quite interestingly, yesterday, Russians claimed that in the past two previous days they have made 472 attacks on oil infrastructure and oil-trucks controlled by ISIS, which is obviously the right thing to do if you want to derange their sources of financing - but, apparently, the 'training partners' of ISIS are reacting... ..."
          "... Russia was invited into support Assad by Syrias leader whether we or Nato like it or not. Turkey France and US were not. Turkeys Air force will have to watch itself now as I suspect Russia will deploy fighter aircraft to protect there bombers and the Kurds. As for the original question I think Putin may be right and Turks do have a foot in both camps. Nato should be very aware of the consequences of playing the whose to blame game when the stakes are so high. ..."
          "... So, Turkey downs a Russian bomber and immediately runs to its daddies ?!?! C'mon! What a joke!! ..."
          "... Concerns continued to grow in intelligence circles that the links eclipsed the mantra that "my enemy's enemy is my friend" and could no longer be explained away as an alliance of convenience. Those fears grew in May this year after a US special forces raid in eastern Syria, which killed the Isis official responsible for the oil trade, Abu Sayyaf. A trawl through Sayyaf's compound uncovered hard drives that detailed connections between senior Isis figures and some Turkish officials. Missives were sent to Washington and London warning that the discovery had "urgent policy implications". ..."
          "... Payback for the Russians bombing ISIS oil convoys? Would Turkey shoot down a Russian air force jet without the nod from allies? Situation getting very dangerous I would think. ..."
          "... "the US could potentially extract a lot out of it " ..."
          "... And even if something is extracted in return, at the end of the day, NATO and the US will be defacto protecting the islamists, which is Turkey's goal. You can say NATO and the US are fucked now because they will have to do what they didn't want to do at all. ..."
          "... Attacking people parachuting from an aircraft in distress is a war crime under Protocol I in addition to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. ..."
          "... From a Russian perspective the opening paragraphs of article speak for themselves. Russian entry into the 'game' meant Turkey became a second category power in a region they have sought to dominate, the strike is a sign of weakness and not strength and whoever sanctioned it (done so quickly you'd wonder if Ankara was aware) is an amateur player because it weakened Turkey and strengthened the Russian hand. ..."
          "... Of course Putin is right but he only tells part of the story. The main accomplice of terrorists and other non-existent so called "moderate" head-choppers is the United States, and Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel are merely facilitating this policy on behalf of the US and in accordance to their independent regional pursuits, that converge however on the removal of Assad and the use of ISIS as a proxy army to remove Assad. ..."
          "... Events like today's become a useful window on an otherwise murky, indecipherable geopolitics. In the fraught aftermath of the Paris attacks, we should do our best to see ISIS for what they are and have always been: the entree to the main course proxy war between Russia and Western allied interests. ..."
          "... Today a Russian plane goes down and first of all it's Turkey's fault, but Turkey wouldn't have done that without explicit permission to do so from either NATO or the US, but then a few hours later as it all looks really bad for Turkey (and by association everyone else in the "coalition") it turns out to have been Turkmen, but which ones? There's two factions, one is a "rebel" group backed by the US, the other is a "terrorist" group (aligned with "ISIS") and backed by the US. They are both fighting Assad. ..."
          "... Senator John McCain can be thankful the North Vietnamese were not as bad as these Turkmen Turks. "Turkmen militiamen in Syria claimed to have shot the pilots as they descended on parachutes from the stricken Su-24 bomber." What the Turkmen brag about having done is something neither the North Vietnamese nor the actual Nazis would have condoned. ..."
          "... Let's assume that this lying ISIS loving terrorist, Erdogan, is speaking the truth. He says Russia has been attacking Syrian Turkoman who are defending their land. One should ask this blood-thirsty ape this question: What then are Kurdish people in Turkey doing? ..."
          "... That's the whole problem. The banksters and corporations that run the US have too much to lose in Saudi Arabia and the Persian gulf. And they want that pipeline from the Gulf to the Levant but Syria (with its secular ruler, hated by the jihadists) won't play ball with the banksters. Hence, with American corporations' blessing, Turkey and Arabia loose the Daesh on them . And al-Qeada and al-Nusra and all the other "moderate" rebels supplied with modern weapons by American arms corporations. ..."
          "... "Turkish businessmen struck lucrative deals with Isis oil smugglers, adding at least $10m (£6.6m) per week to the terror group's coffers, and replacing the Syrian regime as its main client." ..."
          "... Why doesn't The Guardian grow a pair and investigate the role of Turkish President Erdogan in this illegal oil trade, specifically through his son Bilal Erdogan, whose shipping company (jointly owned with two of Erdogan's brothers) BMZ Group has a rapidly expanding fleet of oil tankers... ..."
          www.theguardian.com

          The relationship hinted at by Russian leader after warplane was shot down is a complex one, and includes links between senior Isis figures and Turkish officials

          Wirplit 24 Nov 2015 20:43

          Turkey under Erdogan is turning out to be a real problem for the West. Supporting Isis and other jihadist groups and attacking the Kurds. Maybe now the Russians will support the PKK. Tragedy for the liberal Turks that Erdogan won


          Phil Atkinson moreblingplease 24 Nov 2015 19:57

          The evidence is out there if you want to look for it. Erdogan's son runs a shipping company that transports - guess what? Oil.

          Alexander Marne 24 Nov 2015 19:53

          It is an obvious attempt of Turkey trying to make the European+American+Christian Civilization wage war against Russia with the NATO war pact argument. NATO at these times is the perfect ingredient needed for a Christian Winter, having Christian Nations disobey the whims of a secular NATO alliance that has everything bus dissolved since the Iron Curtain fell. We all know the radical Muslims and their cousins are our enemy now, not the Soviet WARSAW pact which NATO was created to defend against. NATO members that go to war against Russia would risk internal revolution lead by the Majority Christian Population that has grown evermore dissatisfied of their Frankenstein Secular Ethic governments and sellout leadership.

          hfakos Fiddle 24 Nov 2015 19:51

          No Russian gas pipeline and, thus transit fees, to Hungary either. Germany shut down SouthStream, only to sign a deal with evil Putin to double the capacity of NorthStream. Who wouldn't love an EU like that? We are all equal, but Germany and Western Europe are more equal than others.

          Phil Atkinson -> marph70 24 Nov 2015 19:50

          Agreed. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) is a misnomer, given its current membership (28 countries). NATO was formed by 12 countries in 1949 and today, is a tool for encirclement of Russia.

          yianni 24 Nov 2015 19:47

          You have to laugh when you hear Erdogan and that puppy he's got for a Prime Minister solemnly saying that their airspace is sacrosanct and that they would never do the same to another sovereign nation. Yet, every week or so Turkish jets violate Greek airspace over the Aegean. And their jets don't stay for 30 seconds either. Personally I wouldn't believe anything that the Turks say about this incident.

          somethingbrite -> KevinKeegansYfronts 24 Nov 2015 19:46

          I think we can probably ask that chap in his semi in Coventry where ISIS plan to attack next...the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is it? The man seems to have a hotline to Raqqa and every other ISIS held territory.

          That said....the Guardian doesn't appear to have quoted him for a week or so....

          Have they been unable to reach him since Paris?

          Is he on the run? Hiding out in Belgium maybe?

          SystemD 24 Nov 2015 19:40

          I listened to Ashdown on Today yesterday. His comments about links between Gulf states and the Tories were extremely interesting and unexpected. The same questions should be asked regarding Turkey. Why has the report about the funding of jihadism in the UK not been published?

          Phil Atkinson -> GemmaBlueSkySeas 24 Nov 2015 19:38

          Would Turkey have shot down the SU-24 if Turkey wasn't a NATO member? Think on it.

          camerashy -> Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 19:31

          Yeah right, that's the western propaganda machine for you. They were saying the same thing last year ... Only misguided minds believe such nonsense!

          Neutronstar7 -> Adrian Rides 24 Nov 2015 19:31

          Bravo. Pumping out endless western propaganda for the moronic. The Americans and NATO are the biggest warmongers in history: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/.../turkey-has-destroyed.../

          I cannot believe it, but I feel ashamed of my own country and all the other western governments and our proxy's involved in this vile conspiracy. Blow us up, we deserve it.

          WankSalad 24 Nov 2015 19:30

          All of this should just make us more furious about the Paris attacks.

          The attackers; ISIS, are quite literally being armed, supported and facilitated by our "friends and allies" Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

          Meanwhile Turkey directs it's fire at the Kurds - a group of moderate Muslims and secularists who have only ever wanted independent statehood - whom we are supposed to be helping fight ISIS.

          Saudi Arabia has also been quite clearly the source of most of the extremist Islamism that has repeatedly attacked our civil societies. They have funded and set up Islamist mosques all throughout Europe and the rest of the world.

          Are we really getting good value out of our relationships with these nations?

          ^Our leaders refuse to say any of this openly. It's infuriating. Sooner or later something has to give.

          Omniscience -> James Brown 24 Nov 2015 19:30

          How can a dictator, who took over from his father (a dictator) be called a legitimate government ? Even by a Russian...

          hfakos -> Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 19:28

          Sounds like everyday Western duplicity. Car bombs and suicide bombers are fine as long as they only target Damascus. But when the people the West has nurtured attack Paris, the world ends.

          camerashy -> Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 19:27

          You're such a feeble minded person! At least Puting didn't sell $hitloads of arms to Saudi Arabia enabling them to support and nurture Isis. Look in the mirror once in a while, will ya ...

          camerashy 24 Nov 2015 19:19

          There's nothing to worry about here ... Putin is one cool customer, he'll have his revenge when time is right, and it'll be nothing like a Cameroneasque thoughtless, hurried, knee jerk reaction. Turkey on its own wouldn't dare do anything like they've done, they're just being manipulated by NATO warmongers who are desperate to justify their existence.

          DrKropotkin 24 Nov 2015 19:17

          Erdogan is a bad guy, who receives western political cover due to Turkey's NATO membership. But he has strayed very far from the path of sanity and I think NATO will soon start looking for ways to get rid of him.

          According to Seymour Hersch it was Turkey that was behind the Ghouta gas attack (well it certainly wasn't Assad). There was also a plan to attack a Turkish shrine inside Syria to be used as a pretext for a full invasion. The video clip is available on youtube. In the recording you can hear the defence minister and the head of intelligence discussing the plan, agreeing to do it, even though they don't like the idea, while lamenting the fact that everything is politics in modern Turkey. Nobody ever talks about this. Erdogan's response to this was to shut down Youtube for a day.

          ISIS fighters move in and out of Turkey with ease, receive medical treatment there and selling their oil at very competitive prices to people close to the Erdogan regime. Because NATO have gone along with Turkey in the "Assad must go" mantra they've been stuck covering up for his antics. But shooting down a Russian jet that clearly wasn't threatening Turkey was extremely reckless - maybe regime change in Ankara may be on the cards.

          KevinKeegans -> Yfronts 24 Nov 2015 19:17

          "Over the past two years several senior Isis members have told the Guardian that Turkey preferred to stay out of their way and rarely tackled them directly."

          So people in the Guardian are in contact with "senior" members of Isis? Was it a meeting over tea and scones? Perhaps you could stop being their mouthpiece and ask them which public area they intend to blow up next. After that you could give the authorities their contact details so that they can solve this issue quickly. That would be most helpful. Of course you might lose a couple of years worth of potential headlines.

          moria50 -> Rubear13 24 Nov 2015 19:14

          ISIS started back in 2009.Jordan has a Centcom underground training centre, and 2,000 US special Forces came to train them.Gen Dempsey oversaw this training camp.

          Jordanian special forces were instructors along with the US.

          James Brown 24 Nov 2015 19:10

          Four years of providing money, transport, training, air and artillery cover against legitimate Syrian government forces to terrorists and Guardian asks this question? Turkey = #1 supporter of Islamic terrorism. Open your damn eyes.

          hfakos -> Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 19:09

          Given that ISIS was created with significant Western help, why would Putin do anything about it? He finally acted when the head-choppers got totally out of control and started to threaten Russia too. The downing of the Russian airliner, the several failed terror attacks in France, and the Paris massacre should have opened your eyes.

          NATO has an abysmal foreign policy record. In a mere decade they managed to turn Europe into a place where one has to fear going to the Christmas market. Well done, "winners" of the Cold War.

          pdutchman -> PMWIPN 24 Nov 2015 19:07

          Martin Chulov is certainly not biased in his reporting in favour of Russia or against Turkey. He has reported mostly in favour of the rebels in Syria and only recently realised what the outcome of all this is.

          His facts about the ISIS-Turkish connection are not imagination presented against reason. Isis i.e. was free to attack the Kurds inside Turkey and the government did nothing to stop them, even when they knew about them very well.

          Once you see what is going on and what the results are, you have to consider the possibility Europe is threatened by fundamentalists, also inside Turkey and Turkish government.

          Just read the political program of grand vizier Davutoğlu, or the speeches of Erdoğan on the glorious pas of the Ottoman empire when he visits former territory.

          His vision is one of a regional Islamic state run by Turkey, that would be a superpower.

          He detests western democracy and 'European' western humanitarian values and has not made a secret of this. He is a convinced islamist and his support for ISIS and Al Nusra has sadly enough been very successful.

          elvis99 -> tr1ck5t3r 24 Nov 2015 19:06

          I agree. Its all about the oil.
          Not only that there is a huge fracking industry at risk. It costs approx. $80 a barrel to produce and it selling approx.$50 at present. They are running at a loss as most finance for these enterprises were secured when it was $120 a barrel. Yellen could not afford to raise interest rates as it would crush a fossil fuel industry within the USA. Get the war machine moving though and watch the price climb and save that profit margin

          hfakos -> kohamase 24 Nov 2015 19:01

          It's mostly the Western establishment, not the people. Hungary is not the West but we are in the EU and unfortunately NATO as well, and the vast majority of the population supports Russia on this imho. Russia made the mistake of trusting the West under Yeltsin. What you have to understand, and Putin has got it I think, is that Western Europe has a paranoid obsession to bring Russia to its knees. It's been like this for centuries, just think about how many times the civilized West has invaded your country. And old habits die hard. They prefer head-choppers and acid-throwers to having a mutually beneficial civilized relationship with Russia. But you are not alone, Eastern Europe, although formally in the EU, is also looked down upon by the West.

          ID9793630 24 Nov 2015 19:01

          It's possible Erdogan is rattled at the possibility that the Russians might be about to pull off a secretive realignment of external participants against ISIS - the possibility of unstated coordination between American, Russian and French armed actions in the air and on the ground, with various local allies - and this incident shooting down the jet, created for the cameras, is also intended to overturn that potential applecart.

          underbussen -> DenisOgur 24 Nov 2015 19:00

          Yeah, so what then, countries violate others airspace all the time - we don't see them downing each others aircraft do we? Maybe sometimes it happens, this is action by Turkey is outrageous, and very, very aggressive. Turkey will pay, one way or the other, lets see if that gas price goes up and now might they fare should they loose it?

          Angelis Dania 24 Nov 2015 18:55

          "The influx has offered fertile ground to allies of Assad who, well before a Turkish jet shot down a Russian fighter on Tuesday, had enabled, or even supported Isis. Vladimir Putin's reference to Turkey as "accomplices of terrorists" is likely to resonate even among some of Ankara's backers."

          Assad's allies enabled and supported ISIS? Such an embarrassing thing to say.

          "Assad, who had, until his brutal response to pro-democracy demonstrations in 2011, been a friend of the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. "After that he became an enemy," said one western official. "Erdoğan had tried to mentor Assad. But after the crackdown [on demonstrations] he felt insulted by him. And we are where we are today."

          Armed infiltrators in the protest groups fired first at police according to numerous eyewitnesses. How poor a journalist do you have to be to continue to write articles on the basis of widely debunked allegations? Lol, "Erdoğan tried to mentor President Bashar Al-Assad". What on Earth would motivate you to even quote that? Like an inferiority-complex ridden backwards terrorist supporter like Erdoğan can approach the sagacity and popularity of Dr. Bashar Al-Assad.

          MelRoy coolGran 24 Nov 2015 18:55

          He did use his spy power to find out the source of Isis funding and was told the funding was coming from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey.


          hfakos Gaudd80 24 Nov 2015 18:53

          Because we, our governments that is, are not serious about tackling Islamist extremism. Scoring points against Russia is still the main motivation of the West. This strategy had a low cost for the West in 1980s far-away Afghanistan. But Syria is in our neighborhood and the world has become much more open. The yanks can still play this nasty game without repercussions, because they are an island protected by two oceans. But it's a mystery to me why Europeans are stupid enough to favor the nearby chaos of the head-choppers to secular regimes. ME oil and gas could be replaced to a large extent by Russia, but this again would go against the paranoid Western desire to see that crumble. So you see France, the UK, and the US bombing ISIS with one hand and giving it money through Saudi and Qatar with the other. It's insanity.

          NotWithoutMyMonkey 24 Nov 2015 18:45

          This is all you need to know:

          Vice President Joe Biden stated that US key allies in the Middle East were behind nurturing ISIS

          MelRoy 24 Nov 2015 18:43

          Yes, I'm afraid he's right.

          The problem is, nobody else is able to say it, because the Obama and Cameron administrations are up to their necks in it. They knew that Turkey was responsible for the gas attacks on civilians in Syria. They know (who doesn't?) that the Turks are killing the people who are fighting terrorists inside Syria. They know that the money, the weapons and the foreign fighters are being funnelled into Syria through Turkey, with the Turkish government's not just knowledge, but cooperation and even facilitation.

          They can't say it, because over and over again they have bald-faced lied to the public. They can't say that the "good guys" in the fight against Isil are not just the Kurds, but the Iranians, Hezbollah, Assad and the Russians - our supposed "enemies", and the "bad guys" are the ones we are sending all the money and munitions to - our supposed "allies".

          tr1ck5t3r northsylvania 24 Nov 2015 18:41

          Oil.

          Nothing more, nothing less.

          Without oil, the Western economies would crash, we are so dependent on it, but the US military are the biggest dependents.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_States_military
          http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174810/

          the Pentagon might consume as much as 340,000 barrels (14 million gallons) every day. This is greater than the total national consumption of Sweden or Switzerland.

          Take away the oil and you will see the US military industrial complex die on its knees.

          salfraser 24 Nov 2015 18:40

          It would be as well to understand the ultimate motives of the current day Saladin. Look what was said in May this year.
          27th. May 2015 : President Erdogan And The Prime Minister Of The Turkey Dovotogolu Just Made This Declaration To The Entire Islamic World:
          'We Will Gather Together Kurds And Arabs, And All Of The Muslim World, And Invade Jerusalem, And Create A One World Islamic Empire' By Allah's will, Jerusalem belongs to the Kurds, the Turks, the Arabs, and to all Muslims. And as our forefathers fought side by side at Gallipoli, and just as our forefathers went together to liberate Jerusalem with Saladin, we will march together on the same path [to liberate Jerusalem]."

          Erdogan and Dovutoglu at their speech in which they spoke of the revival of the Ottoman Empire and the conquest of Jerusalem The amazing speeches by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu were given at the inauguration ceremony at the country's 55th airport in Yuksekova district of southeastern border province of Hakkari, in which they made an entire declaration to the Islamic world, on their desire to conquer Jerusalem and form a universal Islamic empire.

          Looks like our American friends are about to create yet another conflict of interest!


          Rubear13 Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 18:39

          ISIS was created in 2013-2014 and proclaimed itself chalifate after taking much territory in 2014. During this year russian had a lot of problems with crisis, civil war and ~2-3 millions of refugeers from Ukraine. And he did much. Both in terms of weapons and policy.
          By the way, Assad was actually winning war during 2012-2013 before creation of ISIS in Iraq.


          RudolphS 24 Nov 2015 18:37

          So the jet flew allegedly for 17 seconds in Turkish airspace. As Channel 4 News' international editor Lindsey Hilsum accurately asked today 'How come a Turkish TV crew was in the right place, filming in the right direction as a Russian plane was shot down? Lucky? Or tipped off?'

          R. Ben Madison -> leonzos 24 Nov 2015 18:35

          I suspect that Erdoğan switched sides when the West began to look like it was going to impose 'regime change' on Syria and wanted to be on the winning side. It took a herculean, bipartisan effort here in the US to keep Obama from obtaining Congressional support for a war on Syria. At the time, I (and many others) condemned the normally warmongering Republicans for tying the president's hands purely out of hypocritical spite, but the Democrats were against it too and the whole effort collapsed.

          Having taken an early lead in the "get rid of Assad" race, Erdoğan seems to have had the rug pulled out from under him. Sorry for the mixed metaphor.


          johnmichaelmcdermott -> BigNowitzki 24 Nov 2015 18:33

          How about evidence such as an article from the notorious 'troofer' site, The Jerusalem Post, quoting that other infamous conspiracy site, The Wall Street Journal?

          http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Israel-treating-al-Qaida-fighters-wounded-in-Syria-civil-war-393862


          Robert Bowen -> hfakos 24 Nov 2015 18:31

          Gladio B.
          http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/whos-afraid-of-sibel-edmonds/


          Celtiberico 24 Nov 2015 18:27

          "Erdoğan had tried to mentor Assad. But after the crackdown [on demonstrations] he felt insulted by him. And we are where we are today."

          Believing that Erdogan, whose country's human rights record is pretty unenviable (in particular with regard to journalists), fell out with Assad because he was appalled by the latter's repression is like believing that Mussolini's decision to aid Franco in the Spanish Civil War was largely motivated by his horror at the bad behaviour of Spanish Anarchists and Communists.


          tr1ck5t3r 24 Nov 2015 18:25

          Turkey is a conduit, the Turkish presidents son is buying the oil from ISIS, just like US Vice President Joe Bidens son joined the board of Ukraines largest Gas producer after Nato expanded into the Ukraine.

          Was the downing of the jet by Turkey a tit for tat exercise as Russia destroyed some of the hundreds of lorry oil tankers parked up in ISIS territory heading for Turkey 6 days ago?
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6oHbrF8ADs

          Theres a pattern here.

          Likewise Russia have released their version of events regarding the shot down jets route, claiming it didnt enter Turkish airspace.

          Whats interesting is this Russian data was released at 8pm UK time, and yet the British press are still running with the rhetoric from this morning, where at 4am UK time a Russia jet was shot down according to Reuters..

          So it would seem the UK press are sitting on this latest inconvenient news, perhaps trying to come up with a way to spin it or waiting for the UK Govt to advise how to spin it if its even to be mentioned so the Govt looks innocent in the eyes of the electorate.

          Whilst the availability of data from Turkey was very quickly made available, perhaps it was fabricated and released too quickly in order to maintain momentum with todays news agenda?

          All the while GCHQ and NSA sock puppets & other Nato countries flood various media outlets comments sections to drown out critical analysis.

          I wonder if I'll be approached by more US and UK military personal "unofficially" whilst out walking the dog in Thetford forest, and be spoken to?

          Its interesting watching the news from other countries, certainly watching Russia Today and their spin is interesting.

          I can only conclude there will be another massive financial crisis coming for one or more countries, so in order to divert the masses a war is needed, as wars always boost economies.


          Hyperion6 -> BigNowitzki 24 Nov 2015 18:24

          Sensible people would realise that only one of ISIS and Assad can be brought to the negotiating table. Sensible people would realise that Turkey is playing the same duplicitous game that Pakistan played, namely supporting the most despicable fundamentalists while being an 'ally' of the West.

          Frodo baggins -> Gaudd80 24 Nov 2015 18:24

          Al Qaeda was created and used by the usa to do terror on Russia. No reason tho think things have changed, when clearly they have not. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, all have fallen....more to come. There is no "wondering" at all about the orogon an dpurpose of the ISIS when they admit they are al qaeda re packaged ...When the US admits al qaeda has melded into the ISIS.

          Terrorists in the middle east are a western supported geo-political tool to allow us to bomb, invade, destabilizen and balkanize soverign nations who refuse globalist ideology and orders.

          Jan Burton 24 Nov 2015 18:23

          Cut the bullshit.

          Turkey is little more than an ISIS and al Qaeda support base, and now they're even providing an Air Force.

          Get these scumbags out of NATO now

          kohamase 24 Nov 2015 18:19

          I don't understand you western guys. Am Russian and not a big fun of Putin but in this situation Russia fights terrorists , same people who organized massacre in Paris . Why , why shoot them down??? What is the meaning of this ? We can disagree on many questions but we should agree on One : ISIS must GO !!! If you don't want to do it then at list don't stand on our way cleaning up the mess you've created!!!


          Tiberius2 24 Nov 2015 18:17

          Crystal clear, the Turks are profiteering from stolen oil, the whole Turkish establishment is involved on this corrupted trade namely : border guards, police and the military, all of them being involved, plus business men with political connections .

          ISIS get also weapons and training, Jihadist from the world over, gets red carpet treatment and supply with passports.

          The Jihadist can travel unmolested, to and from Syria via Turkey in order to carry out atrocities like Paris and Tunisia.

          The West looks the other way to this situation and try to ignore it ,until it gets hit in the hearth, like Paris.

          fantas1sta -> BigNowitzki 24 Nov 2015 18:17

          Oh, I do think Russia was wrong to send troops into Crimea, but I also think the west was wrong to back the coup against Ukraine's democratically elected government. NATO gambled that they could interfere in Ukraine and lost, now they know that Putin is difficult to intimidate and that Russia defends its sphere of influence like the US defends its own. All powers are hypocrites, such is the nature of their global interests, but Turkey are both hypocrites and cowards, shooting down a plane and then hiding their heads under Uncle Sam's sweater.

          grish2 Tommy Thrillbigger 24 Nov 2015 18:16

          Majority of people in Europe support the Russians. The governments are making excuses for the turks. And the turks are with the head choppers.

          theoldmanfromusa -> ID9309755 24 Nov 2015 18:15

          You have a strange opinion of the situation. The major problem is that the ruling classes (politicians, imams, etc.) use the most inflammatory rhetoric to stir up the population (most of it) that is not intellectual and/or clever. These intellectual/clever types can then make obscene profits from their rabble rousing.

          Apollonian 24 Nov 2015 18:12

          All a bit too convenient with the film crew at the ready. Clearly Erdogan is looking to further his agenda and set his sights on expanding Turkey's borders and it looks as though he's using NATO's protection to do it.

          It's ironic that NATO affords Turkey so much protection given that Turkey funds ISIS, it trades with them, it allows IS fighters free travel across Turkish borders and it also fights IS enemies for them - the Kurds. Outside of the Gulf, Turkey is the jihadist's biggest ally.

          Gaudd80 24 Nov 2015 18:11

          If we are really serious about tackling Islamic extremists, then why is it that we are allied those states directly aiding them? Cameron is demanding the right to bomb Syria, while at the same time he's grovelling to the Saudis, crawling to the Gulf States and defending Erdogan. Hammond nearly bust a blood vessel when Skinner said what everyone knows. The whole thing is an utter sham, you have to wonder if ISIS and the other extremist groups aren't actually hugely convenient for some.

          ElDanielfire -> Canuckistan 24 Nov 2015 18:05

          Yes the Saudi's created ISIS. but the west helped build them up thinking they were something else because the west kept their fingers in their ears because they had a gard -on for yet anotehr regime change in the middle east, despite none of the previous ones (Afghan, Iraq, Libya) having worked and become hell for the citixens of those countries. Also the west always let Saudi and Qutar get awya with anything, even if they fund groups who attack western citizens. It's tragic.

          hfakos 24 Nov 2015 18:04

          Well, at least we have seen that those K-36 ejection seats do work; they have reportedly never failed. Of course Turkey, and Western Europe for that matter, has been playing a double game. Just like in Afghanistan in the 1980s, they prefer the acid-throwers and head-choppers to a Russian-backed secular regime.

          Even the Western MSM has openly reported about and from the staging areas in Turkey, where the jihadists gather before entering Syria. The US-lead "coalition" is now boasting about bombing ISIL oil convoys, but where has it been for the past few years? Everybody with a single functioning grey cell knows that Turkey is involved in the ISIS oil smuggling business and allowing the jihadist to train on its territory.

          But Western Europe is complicit too. With all the spying reported by Snowden how is it impossible to prevent thousands of European citizens from traveling to Turkey and onward to Syria and getting radicalized? It is obvious that we have turned a blind eye to the jihadi tourism. Funny that only after the Paris attacks did Hollande and co. start to take this constant flow of Europeans into Syria seriously.

          NATO says, two minutes after this incident, that Turkey is right and its airspace has been violated. But all powerful NATO countries cannot track the returning jihadists and the mastermind of the Paris attacks has just been reported to have mingled with Paris policemen after the Bataclan massacre. And one guy is still on the run. The first chickens have come home to roost and there will be more to follow. The West has been playing with fire and will get burned. This is a much more global world with open borders than what we had in the 1980s, when NATO was supporting the Bin Ladens and Gulbudding Hekmatyars in Afghanistan. These jihadists will cause more havoc in Europe for certain. And Russia is more right again than NATO, when it comes to jihadists in Syria.

          ID9309755 24 Nov 2015 18:04

          Turkey's territorial expansionist ambitions have backfired, just as the ambitions of their Islamism has. The emperor has no clothes and yet it's difficult to deal with this maniac Erdog effendy who is pushing Turkey towards chaos internally and internationally... A country which has intellectuals and clever people has fallen under the power of a group of thugs, the story of the region.

          i_pray thinkorswim 24 Nov 2015 18:03

          One actually feels sorry for Putin. He is bound by a Treaty he signed along time ago with Assad. He is doing what he is obliged to do under that Treaty and at
          the same time he is helping to destroy ISIS.

          Then he is attacked up by Turkey a member of NATO, who are supposedly also committed to destroying ISIS .

          If I were Putin, I would just walk away and leave the West to sort the mess out . I am sure that Russia feels that it has already lost too many lives.


          Wehadonebutitbroke -> Roland Paterson-Jones 24 Nov 2015 18:00

          Erm, yes. The Turkmen who Turkey is protecting have been attacking Kurds. The Turks have been bombing the Kurds, who are fighting ISIS.

          The Turks have been buying ISIS' oil and giving other funding. Weapons funded by Gulf States have almost certainly been crossing the Turkish border for ISIS. It is suspected the Turkey has been providing a safe haven for ISIS fighters. Tens of thousands have crossed Turkeys borders to join rebel groups, the chances that some of them have not joined ISIS is nil.

          Many of the 'moderate' rebels are Al Qaeda by another name or Al Qaeda affiliates. The Turkmen are Al Qaeda affiliates. The line between Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria is vague and has been crossed both ways on numerous occasions.

          Lest anyone forget, Al Qaeda are themselves have orchestrated huge scale terrorist attacks. But becausing they are fighting Assad in Syria, who is hated by the Gulf States, Turkey and Israel, unquestioned or criticised almost regardless what they do by the West allies of the West, apparently Al Qaeda are now fine.

          anewdawn 24 Nov 2015 18:00

          I wonder if the leaders of NATO were involved in anyway at all???

          And - does this lend weight to those who have shown that ISIS is a result of the Libyan, Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and that they are mercenaries who have formed an insurgency within Syria for a regime change? A war crime, definitely against international law.


          Roland Paterson-Jones 24 Nov 2015 17:56

          Dudes, Turkey is losing some valuable oil supply due to Russia's 'indiscriminate' bombing of ISIS oil-field territory.

          Turkey has some real-politik collateral in the form of 'refugees' to mainland Europe. So Turkey, politically, is in a strong position - EU is shoving money towards them.

          Will NATO stand behind Turkey's real-politik?

          twosocks 24 Nov 2015 17:54

          Just watched the videos and listened to the turkish warnings. The SU24 appears to have been heading south as requested by the turks and in syria when it was hit. It also looks like the turks entered Syrian airspace before they fired on the Russians - just like the 1000+ times they have entered greek airspace in the last year, including one time with 8 planes at the same time.

          In the warnings at no point do the turks actually say the russians are in turkish airspace, just that they are heading towards it; they also do not threaten to fire upon the Russians like the RAF do over here when they issue a warning. Normally the defending plane would come alongside the transgressor to escort them out the airspace, here they just just shoot at the russians without issuing a warning. It also appears that there just so happened to be a tv crew there perfectly poised to film it - what a coincidence. There is no way we are getting dragged into a war over this.

          Adrian Rides 24 Nov 2015 17:54

          The whole rotten scam is coming undone. No one believes the mainstream media any more. I skip the articles and go straight to the comments. That's where you find out what's really going on. Thank you for all the insightful comments. The truth will set us free

          rumelian -> kmw2402 24 Nov 2015 17:49

          YES, and the lesson for the West should be: Please stop supporting Erdogan and his fellow islamists. Watching events for a decade and praising the relentless efforts of a single party and it's (now former) leader to suppress secular Turks and eroding the pillars of the secular Turkish Republic, in the name of stability in the region, you actually create much instability and threat, both for the region, and for Europe. Squeeze down these so called "moderate" islamists, and with real pro-European Turks taking lead again, you will not have unexpected and complicated acts from Turkey .

          thorella -> BigNowitzki 24 Nov 2015 17:48

          'It is in West's interest that ISIS would spill into Russia one day and do the dirty job there for US and its associates.'

          Totally logical

          jaybee2 24 Nov 2015 17:46

          Well said Pres Putin and hats off to Denis Skinner in parliament!

          Turkey is a disgrace and should be booted out of NATO.

          It bombs the Kurds fighting lsis barbarians, buys oil from lsis, protects anti Assad terrorists from the Syrian army, helps finance various 'moderate' terrorists as to its shame does this Tory government!

          As the 'heir to Blair' Cameron is drooling at the thought of joining in on the bloodlust!

          Thank you Mr Skinner, and Hammond, what a silly man!


          MatthewH1 24 Nov 2015 17:46

          Is Vladimir Putin right to label Turkey 'accomplices of terrorists'?

          Yes.

          Oh, and the "rebels" shooting the pilots as they made their descent is a war crime.

          quaidesbrumes 24 Nov 2015 17:43

          Guardian reports:

          "Turkey said one of its US-made F-16 fighters fired on the Russian plane when it entered Turkish airspace after having been warned on its approach to the Turkish border through a 13-mile no-fly zone inside Syria it had declared in July."

          By what right does Turkey declare a 13 mile no fly zone inside Syria? This is clearly grounds for believing that the Russian jet was in fact shot down over Syria and not Turkey.

          Turkey has overplayed its hand and Erdogan's strategy and tactics in respect of Syria are now in tatters. NATO will be scrambling to put the frighteners on Erdogan who is clearly a loose cannon and totally out of his depth.

          lisbon_calling 24 Nov 2015 17:43

          The answer to the question in the title is absolutely clear after reading the very informative text.

          Quite interestingly, yesterday, Russians claimed that in the past two previous days they have made 472 attacks on oil infrastructure and oil-trucks controlled by ISIS, which is obviously the right thing to do if you want to derange their sources of financing - but, apparently, the 'training partners' of ISIS are reacting...

          MrMeinung DavidJayB 24 Nov 2015 17:38

          Turkish fighters are violating Greek airspace habitually since decades. And not for mere seconds. The Greeks intercept them but do not shoot them down. The Greeks have brought all kinds of electronic documentation to both NATO and EU - no result.

          It is ironic that Turkey of all nations is raising such arguments.

          This action is inexcusable and the barbarity that followed (by all information) - the execution of the pilot/pilots - by Turkish friendly fighters, even more so.

          LordJimbo -> CommieWealth 24 Nov 2015 17:38

          Countries are operating on the basis of their national interests, Assad and Kurds represent threats to Turkey, Russia wants Assad to remain and sees IS and rebel groups (some of whom are reportedly backed by Turkey) as threats, so we see a classic clash of national interests in an already complicated region of the world, topped off by a brutal civil war that has cost the lives of over 200,000 and seen one of the worst humanitarian crises since WWII. The very definition of a perfect political and military storm. I suspect the Russian position will eventually win out in Syria especially now that Hollande wants IS targeted by a 'grand coalition'. For Turkey the major headache has to be the Kurds who will get arms, training and are winning huge amounts of territory.

          powercat123 24 Nov 2015 17:36

          Russia was invited into support Assad by Syrias leader whether we or Nato like it or not. Turkey France and US were not. Turkeys Air force will have to watch itself now as I suspect Russia will deploy fighter aircraft to protect there bombers and the Kurds. As for the original question I think Putin may be right and Turks do have a foot in both camps. Nato should be very aware of the consequences of playing the whose to blame game when the stakes are so high.

          ManxApe 24 Nov 2015 17:36

          Which Turkish businessmen did they strike deals with? Specifically which Turkish businessman's shipping company had their oil tankers bombed the other day by Russia? Is this businessman actually a very close relative of Erdoğan? A clue perhaps?Allegedly the shipping company is BMZ.


          196thInfantry -> Artur Conka 24 Nov 2015 17:35

          The Russian plane was never in Turkish airspace. ATC systems have recorders that record voice communications, radar tracks and controller actions all synchronized. You can be sure that the Turks will not release the raw recorded data.

          aLLaguz 24 Nov 2015 17:32

          So, Turkey downs a Russian bomber and immediately runs to its daddies ?!?! C'mon! What a joke!!
          This is the long awaited war for the Syria-Turkey border, a border that must be closed. Whether for stop jihadists joining ISIS or to stop oil sales.

          No fly-zone in northern Syria ?! The only affected parties with this is Assad allies and it is the same reason.... the Syria-Turkey border. For Assad, It is a key region, Kurds must be stopped to reach the Mediterranean sea, the border must be closed to stop jihadists or rebels to join the fight, to stop the oil sales of ISIS, etc, etc, etc.
          Russia will fight for the control of the border whether NATO like it or not. Once it is Russian, Kurds will be pushed back.

          Cecile_Trib -> penguinbird 24 Nov 2015 17:32

          Turkey must learn to stop invading Greece airspace. Or you think it's OK for them as a member of NATO to do that? Or will you say it's OK for Greece to down a couple of Turkish jets?

          "In the first month of 2014 alone, Turkish aircraft allegedly violated Greek airspace 1,017 times, Gurcan reports."

          http://greece.greekreporter.com/2015/07/17/turkish-fighter-jets-violate-greek-airspace-again/

          vivazapata38 -> penguinbird 24 Nov 2015 17:31

          Ha ha, your post is bordering on...no is, sheer arrogance and complete ignorance.The Russian planes are defined as entering "an area of our interest".Which is really vague and is really international airspace.Both the US and UK do the same but more often.Moreover Russia is being surrounded by NATO firepower,missile systems and US paid for coups!


          NezPerce 24 Nov 2015 17:31

          Is Vladimir Putin right to label Turkey 'accomplices of terrorists'? Yes

          Turkey are directly linked to Al Qaeda as is Saudi Arabia yet they are our allies in the never ending war against terrorism, a war it seems we forgot about when the terrorists became repackaged as freedom fighters. Many of us have been warning that this would inevitably lead us to become victims of the Jihadists but Cameron would not listen, he has a mania to get rid of Assad and has been prepared to get into bed with some of the nastiest people in the world. A New take on the Nasty party.

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11697764/Isil-reenters-key-Syria-border-town-of-Kobane-live.html

          Turkey 'let Isil cross border to attack Kobane': as it happened

          Today's early morning, a group of five cars, loaded with 30-35 of Isil elements, wearing the clothes and raising the flag of the FSA [Free Syrian Army rebels] has undertaken a suicide attack.

          The nationalist Southern Front, which includes US-trained fighters, has confirmed that it is taking part in the fight for Daraa, alongside the powerful Islamist groups Ahrar al-Sham and the Al Qaida-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra.


          BigNowitzki -> BeatonTheDonis 24 Nov 2015 17:29

          Turkish government giving military support to ethnic Turks in a neighbouring country = good.

          Russian government giving military support to ethnic Russians in a neighbouring country = bad.

          Good point. I imagine the Putinbots will try and rationalise it away via cognitive dissonance, or some other bogus reason. As I said, Russia's position would be much stronger had they not invaded and occupied part of Ukraine. They were warned....

          MaxBoson 24 Nov 2015 17:26

          Thanks to the author for pointing out the role Turkey has played in the rise of ISIS, and its instrumentalization of the conflict in Syria for its own ends. Taking this, and Turkey's support for the Turkmen rebels-or terrorists, or freedom fighters, depending on which alliance one is supporting-into account, it is pretty obvious that the main reason why Turkey shot down the Russian planes was that they were bombing Turkmen targets in what Turkey has the cheek to call a no-fly zone, not because their wings were in its airspace for a few milliseconds.

          deathbydemocracy 24 Nov 2015 17:23

          Is Vladimir Putin right to label Turkey 'accomplices of terrorists'?

          Answer below.

          Concerns continued to grow in intelligence circles that the links eclipsed the mantra that "my enemy's enemy is my friend" and could no longer be explained away as an alliance of convenience. Those fears grew in May this year after a US special forces raid in eastern Syria, which killed the Isis official responsible for the oil trade, Abu Sayyaf.

          A trawl through Sayyaf's compound uncovered hard drives that detailed connections between senior Isis figures and some Turkish officials. Missives were sent to Washington and London warning that the discovery had "urgent policy implications".

          That would be a 'Yes'.

          Of course Turkey has a right to defend it's borders. In this case though, their borders were not under attack. The Russian plane strayed into Turkish air space for just a few seconds, and it was clearly not part of an attack force against Turkey. The correct move would have been to complain about the Russians, not shoot them down.

          robitsme -> BillyBitter 24 Nov 2015 17:23

          Most states would show some restraint under the tinderbox circumstances. Erdogan is either completely insane, or he is playing a game, he as an agenda to provoke Russia in some way

          rumelian -> JaneThomas 24 Nov 2015 17:21

          You are right. Erdogan with his "conservative" comerades is rapidly and relentlessly ruining the the pillars of the secular Turkey for more than a decade, and for much of this time he was actively aided by the Western powers, frequently praized and portrayed as a "moderate" islamist and a reliable partner. The more power he gained, the more he showed his real nature.

          Dreaming of becoming a "leader" of the muslim world (in the Middle East), countless times he showed his sympathy towards the fellow "islamists" in the whole region. USA and Western European leaders, still assume that Erdogan is better option than anyone else in Turkey, providing stability and a "buffer zone" to Europe, they ignore the fact, that Turkey was indeed a reliable partner for decades, when ruled by secular governments ,backed by a secular army, but now that's not the case. Western governments now don't know how to deal with it. When you look at the photos of the current Turkish ministers, and their wives (almost all are headscarved) you realize that they had nothing in common with millions of Turkish people who embraced Western lifestyle and customs. Ataturk has created a secular nation, suppressed these islamists almost a century ago for good, knowing their true nature, but now Turkey needs a new Ataturk-style leader to eradicate this pestilence. Until then, Turkey will not be a stable and reliable partner in the Middlle East.

          Darook523 24 Nov 2015 17:20

          Payback for the Russians bombing ISIS oil convoys? Would Turkey shoot down a Russian air force jet without the nod from allies? Situation getting very dangerous I would think.

          vr13vr -> WarlockScott 24 Nov 2015 17:19

          "the US could potentially extract a lot out of it "

          It could but at the end of the day, can't and won't. The US is not going to split NATO so it will have to offer its support for Turkey. Nor can Europeans do much as they have this "refugees" problem to which Turkey hold the key. And even if something is extracted in return, at the end of the day, NATO and the US will be defacto protecting the islamists, which is Turkey's goal. You can say NATO and the US are fucked now because they will have to do what they didn't want to do at all.


          PaniscusTroglodytes -> MrConservative2015 24 Nov 2015 17:18

          NATO has had no legitimate purpose for 25 years now. Will this finally give the nudge to wind it up? One can but hope.

          Yarkob -> Gglloowwiinngg 24 Nov 2015 17:17

          The first reports said it was a Turkish F-16 with an AA missile. Some reports are still saying that. Damage limitation or diversion by Erdogan? The 10th Brigade Turkmen that Debka said carried out the attack are aligned with the US. That conveniently shifts the blame from Turkey back to the US by proxy. Back stabbing going on. Julius Ceasar shit going down I reckon

          vgnych 24 Nov 2015 17:10

          It is in West's interest that ISIS would spill into Russia one day and do the dirty job there for US and its associates. Syria and Asad has been just a dry run of the concept.

          Putin must be seeing it very clear at this point.

          Yarkob Gglloowwiinngg 24 Nov 2015 17:07

          Attacking people parachuting from an aircraft in distress is a war crime under Protocol I in addition to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

          LordJimbo 24 Nov 2015 17:06

          From a Russian perspective the opening paragraphs of article speak for themselves. Russian entry into the 'game' meant Turkey became a second category power in a region they have sought to dominate, the strike is a sign of weakness and not strength and whoever sanctioned it (done so quickly you'd wonder if Ankara was aware) is an amateur player because it weakened Turkey and strengthened the Russian hand.


          Gideon Mayre 24 Nov 2015 17:05

          Of course Putin is right but he only tells part of the story. The main accomplice of terrorists and other non-existent so called "moderate" head-choppers is the United States, and Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel are merely facilitating this policy on behalf of the US and in accordance to their independent regional pursuits, that converge however on the removal of Assad and the use of ISIS as a proxy army to remove Assad.


          Michael Cameron 24 Nov 2015 17:05

          Events like today's become a useful window on an otherwise murky, indecipherable geopolitics. In the fraught aftermath of the Paris attacks, we should do our best to see ISIS for what they are and have always been: the entree to the main course proxy war between Russia and Western allied interests.

          The idea they're an imminent threat and immediate concern of Cameron and co suddenly hoves into view as hogwash on stilts. Their grandstanding over bombing ISIS while at once supporting their biggest enabler (Can anyone doubt Turkey's laissez-faire stance?) makes sense as an admission of complete powerlessness to resolve an issue above his pay grade i.e. taking on Putin. The extent to which all of these actors are clueless is terrifying. Foreign policy operations as fitful and faltering as anything this side of the Christmas board game.

          fantas1sta 24 Nov 2015 17:04

          Turkey has been looking for reasons to invade Syria for a long time:

          http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/europe/high-level-leaks-rattle-turkey-officials.html?_r=0

          Artur Conka 24 Nov 2015 17:03

          A quote from Erdoğan about todays events.

          "The reason why worse incidents have not taken place in the past regarding Syria is the cool-headedness of Turkey," Erdoğan said. "Nobody should doubt that we made our best efforts to avoid this latest incident. But everyone should respect the right of Turkey to defend its borders."

          The arrogance of this man is beyond belief, as Al Jazeera reported that the plane, believed to be a Russian-made Sukhoi Su-24, crashed in Syrian territory in Latakia's Yamadi village and NOT in Turkish Airspace. What I love about this statement is the "cool-headedness of Turkey".

          What about the headless act of supporting ISIS, and what about the fact that Turkey has some of the worst crackdown of journalist and freedom of speech of any country. Far worse then China.

          I truly don't understand how Nato and Turkey's allies support its actions, especially the US. Could someone please explain.

          WarlockScott 24 Nov 2015 17:03

          Turkey is kinda fucked now, the US could potentially extract a lot out of it in return for 'protection'... For instance stop murdering Kurds or cut off all ISIS links, hell maybe even both. There's no way Erdoğan can play Putin as the counterbalance card now.


          arkob 24 Nov 2015 17:02

          Methinks the wheels are falling off the Syrian project and there is a scramble for the door and people are getting stabbed in the back all over the shop.

          Look at the leaks over the last few weeks implicating the US DoD, Turkey, France and soon the UK, now Obama is telling us his intel assessments were "tainted" *cough*

          Today a Russian plane goes down and first of all it's Turkey's fault, but Turkey wouldn't have done that without explicit permission to do so from either NATO or the US, but then a few hours later as it all looks really bad for Turkey (and by association everyone else in the "coalition") it turns out to have been Turkmen, but which ones? There's two factions, one is a "rebel" group backed by the US, the other is a "terrorist" group (aligned with "ISIS") and backed by the US. They are both fighting Assad.

          More to come in the next few days, I reckon.

          Branislav Stosic 24 Nov 2015 17:01

          Cards can definitely be open to see :who wisely silent is on the terrorists side( read USA) and who is really against. There wont be some of the current uncertainties and media acting in this struggle. I hope that at least the European countries together wake up their unhealthy slumber after the terrorist actions in the neighborhood and together, not only in words ,start to put out the source of the fire and of terrorism in which some cunning players constantly topping oil on the fire.

          madtoothbrush -> QueenElizabeth 24 Nov 2015 17:00

          It's a well known fact that Turkey purchases oil from ISIS occupied territory. Not to mention they bomb Kurds that are fighting ISIS.

          Vizier 24 Nov 2015 16:56

          Perhaps Russia would like to provide air cover to the Kurds who are under murderous assault by Turkey in their own country. Carving about 20% off Turkey would be a good start.

          Gglloowwiinngg 24 Nov 2015 16:55

          Senator John McCain can be thankful the North Vietnamese were not as bad as these Turkmen Turks. "Turkmen militiamen in Syria claimed to have shot the pilots as they descended on parachutes from the stricken Su-24 bomber." What the Turkmen brag about having done is something neither the North Vietnamese nor the actual Nazis would have condoned.

          NezPerce 24 Nov 2015 16:55

          By then, Isis had become a dominant presence in parts of north and east Syria.

          This is the problem, Turkey is in a struggle with Iran and the Kurds. Assad is seen as the enemy because he is closer to Iran.

          It should be remembered that the Turks see the Kurds as biggest the threat and ISIS as an ally and that the U.S. not Russia has been arming the Kurds. It looks as if the Turks also want to send a message to the US and Europe, a message via air to air missile.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/europe/despite-crackdown-path-to-join-isis-often-winds-through-porous-turkish-border.html?_r=0

          The issue has highlighted the widening gulf between Turkey and its Western allies, who have frequently questioned why Turkey, a NATO member with a large military and well-regarded intelligence service, is not doing more to address the jihadist threat.
          In recent testimony in Washington before Congress, James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, was asked if he was optimistic that Turkey would do more in the fight against the Islamic State.

          "No, I'm not," Mr. Clapper said in an unusually blunt public criticism. "I think Turkey has other priorities and other interests."

          Georwell -> musterfritz 24 Nov 2015 16:54

          nop, just an pair of fighters patrolling the zone 24/7 , since the radars told them the russians daily pattern on bombing the terrorists, AND an green-card to kill a russian plane on first occasion, even if that mind to (again) enter on syrian air space, for the matter. Fact is, the russian pilots do not believe the turks will really open fire - now they know - in the hard way; Was that an planed ambush ? I bet was.

          Was a war crime to execute on mid-air the pilots descending on parachute ? Yes it was. Was a war crime to assault the body of the dead pilot ? (are several pictures on the net showing the pilot body stripped and pieces of flesh missing) - yes, was another war crime. All on the line of liver-eaters and "moderate" terrorists.

          Maybe when those animals will target another EU capital the peoples will realize who its the true enemy here. For (to many..) bigots here the tragedy on Paris was not enough to bring them the the real picture.

          Aneel Amdani -> musterfritz 24 Nov 2015 16:50

          Russia did coordinate with other coalition members of US so I suppose Turkey should have been aware of this. F-16 should have bene in air and giving 10 warnings is utter nonsense. Russia has said no warning was given and their plane was in Syria territory. Turkey has a rule of engagement that their territory and threat are well in 5 km of Syria itself. So they take it as a threat. Turkey has gone nuts. they have first increased terrorism and now officially become the Air Force of SIIS. or more, they should have shown a response to Russians for busting more than 1000 oil tnakers that supply cheap oil to Turkey.

          rumelian -> jonsid 24 Nov 2015 16:49

          Surely, Russia will respond to that incident. I supposed it was not at all expected by Russians, and they will figure out a strategy on what kind of response it will be. I think too, that consequences for Turkey could be serious . But maybe it is a destiny for a country where almost half of the population votes for the corrupt, backward islamists, and their megalomaniac leader.

          copyniated 24 Nov 2015 16:48

          Let's assume that this lying ISIS loving terrorist, Erdogan, is speaking the truth. He says Russia has been attacking Syrian Turkoman who are defending their land.
          One should ask this blood-thirsty ape this question: What then are Kurdish people in Turkey doing?

          HuggieBear -> Mindmodic 24 Nov 2015 16:47

          "I get the impression that a greater proportion of people in the US are blinded by patriotism" - patriotism would actually require disengaging with the mediaeval oil monarchies of the Middle East and butting out of the world's hot spots. Something Pat Buchanan has advocated for aged.

          Aneel Amdani 24 Nov 2015 16:44

          the residents of France and Belgium should ask their governments why did they let it to happen in the first place. ISIS was created by West and funded extensively by the Saudis, Turley and Qatar. US is not a kid that after spending more than a 100 billion on intelligence and CIA networks globally, never knew ISIS was getting rich. And now so when everyone knows Turkey buys cheap Oil from ISIS, why aren't they being sectioned or why individuals donating funds to these terrorists being sanctioned.

          US is very prompt in going and sanctioning nations that are not with them, but they never sanction dictators like the kings and presidents that support terrorism. the blood of those who died in Paris and those all along since the war in Iraq are all to be blamed on these war hawks in west. If even now Paris cannot ask questions on their governments involvement in destabilizing Libya now, then I guess they will again see Paris happen again. West should be stopped from using the name of terrorism and a Muslim Jihad for their own strategic gains.

          jmNZ -> earthboy 24 Nov 2015 16:38

          That's the whole problem. The banksters and corporations that run the US have too much to lose in Saudi Arabia and the Persian gulf. And they want that pipeline from the Gulf to the Levant but Syria (with its secular ruler, hated by the jihadists) won't play ball with the banksters. Hence, with American corporations' blessing, Turkey and Arabia loose the Daesh on them . And al-Qeada and al-Nusra and all the other "moderate" rebels supplied with modern weapons by American arms corporations.


          fantas1sta Roger -> Hudson 24 Nov 2015 16:36

          Turkey has spent a lot of time and money to cultivate an image of itself as a modern, secular, democratic state - it is none of those. It's an ally of the US like Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US, it's a marriage of convenience, nothing else. The US knows that both countries fund terrorists, but they need some kind of presence in that region. The Turks and Saudis need a customer for their oil and someone to run to when they need their autocratic regimes propped up.

          Roger Hudson 24 Nov 2015 16:29

          Turkey buys ISIL oil.
          Turkey helps foreign terrorists to get to ISIL.
          Turkey attacks Kurds fighting ISIL.
          Turkey facilitates the route of people including terrorists into Europe.
          Turkey is run by a megalomaniac.
          Turkey got into NATO as a US/CIA anti -Russian (USSR) puppet.
          What the sort of corrupt people like Hammond think of their people, fools. Of course Turkey is on the 'wrong side'.

          fantas1sta -> MaryMagdalane 24 Nov 2015 16:29

          There's no reason for the US to directly antagonize one of the few countries in the world that has a military strong enough to enact its policy goals without the backing of another power - see Crimea. Why would Obama order a Russian plane to be shot down and then call for de-escalation?


          jonsid Budovski -> Ximples 24 Nov 2015 16:28

          They do have history;-
          http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/europe/high-level-leaks-rattle-turkey-officials.html?_r=0


          altergeist Pupkin 24 Nov 2015 16:23


          Erm on balance, yes. Empirically, provably more repugnant. Russia hasn't killed well over a million civilians since 2001, nor laid waste to an entire region, causing untold misery and suffering, screwing allies and enemies alike and helping (both by accident and design) the rise of ISIS. I'm no fan of Putin, and let's be honest, there's no nice people at that level in politics, but the US is far and away ahead of Russia on the dick-ometer these last 20-30 years.


          Budovski Ximples 24 Nov 2015 16:23

          Yes, of course he's right. What's wrong is that its taken journalists this long to even dare to look at the relationship between Turkey and Islamic State. Or specifically, Erdogan and Islamic State.

          Turkey has been directly dealing with various terrorist groups in Syria, supplying weapons, fighters, intelligence and arms as well as buying massive amounts of oil from ISIS refineries (which Russia just pulverized).

          They have left their borders open, allowing terrorists to go in and out of Syria as they please.

          Their claims to be fighting ISIS are a joke. In their first week of 'fighting ISIS' they did 350 strikes on the Kurds and literally 1 on ISIS.

          The terrorist attack by ISIS, aimed at Erdogans opponents, was timed so perfectly to help Sultan Erdogan get elected that I'd go as far as suspect direct Turkish intelligence involvement.

          Bonnemort 24 Nov 2015 16:21

          Turkey are complicit in terrorism, but then so are the Gulf States/Saudis/US and UK. They're just a bit closer and their hands a bit bloodier. Putin is correct,

          Just think, only two years ago Cameron wanted us to join the Syrian civil war on ISIS' side.

          And also think - Cameron and Boris Johnson want Turkey to be a full EU member as soon as possible.

          Roger Hudson -> Samir Rai 24 Nov 2015 16:21

          Turkey was let (pulled) into NATO during the cold war just so US missiles and spy bases could get up on the USSR border. Turkey was run by a military junta at that time.
          Same old CIA/US nonsense.

          Turkey should be kicked out of NATO and never be allowed near the EU.

          photosymbiosis -> kahaal 24 Nov 2015 16:04

          Ah, the oil smuggling route to Turkey runs right through a zone controlled by these 'moderates' - perhaps middlemen is a better word? - and so you can't really cut off the flow of oil out of ISIS areas without bombing those convoys even if they are under the temporary protection of "moderates" - so it looks like Turkish oil smugglers and their customers (Bilal Erdogan's shipping company? commodities brokers? other countries in the region?) are working hand in hand with ISIS and the moderates to deliver some $10 million a week to ISIS - and that's how terrorists in Brussels can establish safe houses, purchase weapons and explosives on the black market, and stage attacks - isn't it?

          Alexander Hagen 24 Nov 2015 16:02

          That is interesting that Erdogan and Assad were on good terms previously. That is hard to fathom. I cannot imagine two people with more differing world views. I did not meet a single Turk while travelling through Turkey that had a kind word about Erdogan, so elevating him to a higher level (mentor) might require some qualification. Though it is true the Turkish economy grew enormously under Erdogan, "The lights of free expression are going out one by one" - paraphrasing Churchill.

          cop1nghagen 24 Nov 2015 16:01

          "Turkish businessmen struck lucrative deals with Isis oil smugglers, adding at least $10m (£6.6m) per week to the terror group's coffers, and replacing the Syrian regime as its main client."

          Why doesn't The Guardian grow a pair and investigate the role of Turkish President Erdogan in this illegal oil trade, specifically through his son Bilal Erdogan, whose shipping company (jointly owned with two of Erdogan's brothers) BMZ Group has a rapidly expanding fleet of oil tankers...

          photosymbiosis 24 Nov 2015 16:01

          Would anyone be surprised to find that the accomplices of ISIS in Turkey - i.e. the oil smugglers who operate with the full knowledge of the Turkish government - are also transferring cash on behalf of ISIS to their 'recruiters and activists' (aka: 'terrorists') in places like London, Paris, Brussels, etc.?

          The lure of oil profits make relationships with terrorists very attractive, it seems - kind of like how Royal Dutch Shell and Standard Oil kept selling oil to the Nazi U-boat fleet right up to 1942, when the US Congress finally passed the Trading With The Enemy Act.

          [Nov 25, 2015] Turkish military releases recording of warning to Russian jet

          www.theguardian.com

          Konstantin Murakhtin, a navigator who was rescued in a joint operation by Syrian and Russian commandos, told Russian media: "There were no warnings, either by radio or visually. There was no contact whatsoever."

          He also denied entering Turkish airspace. "I could see perfectly on the map and on the ground where the border was and where we were. There was no danger of entering Turkey," he said.

          The apparent hardening of both countries' versions of events came as Russian warplanes carried out heavy raids in Syria's northern Latakia province, where the plane came down. Tuesday's incident – the first time a Nato member state has shot down a Russian warplane since the Korean war – risks provoking a clash over the ongoing conflict in Syria, where Russia has intervened to prop up the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

          ... ... ...

          Later, in a telephone call with John Kerry, the US secretary of state, Lavrov said Turkey's actions were a "gross violation" of an agreement between Moscow and Washington on air space safety over Syria. The state department said Kerry called for calm and more dialogue between Turkish and Russian officials.

          ... ... ...

          Russian officials made it clear that despite the fury the reaction would be measured. There is no talk of a military response, and no suggestion that diplomatic relations could be cut or the Turkish ambassador expelled from Moscow. However, the tone of relations between the two countries is likely to change dramatically.

          ... ... ...

          A Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, hit out at the US state department official Mark Toner, who said the Turkmen fighters who shot the Russian airman as he parachuted to the ground could have been acting in self defence. "Remember these words, remember them forever. I will never forget them, I promise," Zakharova wrote on Facebook.

          [Nov 25, 2015] The shooting down of a Russian jet tangles the diplomatic web still further

          Notable quotes:
          "... Recently, Moscow's rapprochement with the Syrian Kurds, the PYD, only added to the huge complexity of the situation. ..."
          "... any solution of the Syrian conflict will be based on a precondition that the US and Russia put aside their differences, ..."
          "... At least one good thing has come from all of this. At least it took Putin to be the first leader to openly say exactly what turkey actually is. A despicable, Islamist supporting vile wolf in Sheep's clothing. ..."
          "... well , just think for a second .... all the image - they were shooting him while he was in the air , shouting "Allah Akbar " then they showed a photo with dead pilot , being proud of that ..... Those ppl are the "hope" for a Syria post-Assad....don't you feel that something is wrong here ? ..."
          "... Also as soon as the noble Turkman started shooting at the pilot and navigator once they'd bailed out of the plane they showed themselves to be the terrorists they are. Playing "no prisoners" against Russia. ..."
          "... At the G20 Antalya summit of Nov 15, Putin embarrassed Obama publicly showing satellite pictures of ridiculously long tanker lines waiting for weeks to load oil from ISIS, as the coalition spared them any trouble. "I've shown our colleagues photos taken from space and from aircraft which clearly demonstrate the scale of the illegal trade in oil," said Putin. ..."
          "... So there you have it. For 15 months, the US didn't touch the oil trade that financed ISIS affairs, until Russia shamed them into it. Then, the mightiest army in the world bombs 400 trucks, while Russia destroys 1000. Then Russia provides videos of its airstrikes, while the US doesn't, and PBS is caught passing off Russian evidence as American. ..."
          "... Of course Turkey did not need to down this jet: well planned and a clear provocation to start the propaganda war against Russia which actually wants to stop this war before a transition without a pre-planned (US) outcome. ..."
          "... With Saudi and Turkish support for ISIS , just who have they bothered saving and sending out into Europe amongst their name taking and slaughters ? Wahabists? How many cells set up now globally? ..."
          "... The turkmen are illegally staging war. Russia is the only country legally in Syria. That's why CIA, Saudi, Turk, Israel etc etc etc operate clandestine. But they all enjoy bombing hotheads. A pity so many of them think their brands of religion or old stories from centuries ago of enemies have any bearing today. Or perhaps they just believe rich mens newspapers and media too much. Maybe all their educations and futures were lost by gangsters that were funded and protected and given country ownership for oil and now forces clean up their centuries long mess for newer deals. ..."
          "... I thought Russia was INVITED by the Syrian Gov. to assist them in eradicating ALL rebel factions including a bunch of Turkmen rebels funded by Erdogan. No others operating in Syria are legitimate. Any cowards shouting Allah uakbar and killing POWs should be eradicated ..."
          "... According to the BBC the Turkmen fight with Al Nusra. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34910389 UN Resolution 2249 calls not only for action against IS but also Al Nusra and other AQ associated groups. ..."
          "... I also know Turkey has been "laundering" ISIS oil from Syria and Iraq to the tune of $2 million/day. ..."
          "... Well, a US Air Force has now also suggested that the Turkish shooting down of the Russian had to have been a pre-planned provocation. Also US officials have said it cannot be confirmed that the Russian jet incurred into Turkish territory. And of course there is the testimony of the Russian pilot. ..."
          "... What ethnic cleansing??? Assad has a multi sect and multi ethnic government. Meanwhile western and Turkish backed jihadist have openly said they will massacre every last Kurd,Christian,Alawi and Druze in the country. ..."
          "... Shooting down the Russian plane was Turkey's way of flexing its muscles. The murder of the pilot in the parashoot was a cowardly act. These are the people the US are backing. They can be added to Obama's list of most favored and join the ranks of the Saudis who behead and crucify protesters ..."
          "... Erdogan is playing both NATO and Russia for fools. Trying to create a wedge and sabotage the restoration of stability in Syria. ..."
          "... It is all a giant make-believe. They are only using ISIS as a pretext to occupy and breakup Syria. And Western populations swallow all these lies without blinking and feel victimized by refugees. ..."
          "... Now, I'd bet that Putin has no plans to exacerbate the current situation by shooting down any Turkish jets out of revenge for yesterday's incident. But it will be unsettling for Turkish flyboys and their bosses to know that a good chunk of their a airspace is totally vulnerable and they fly there only because Russia lets them. ..."
          "... it's astonishing how many of the Putin hating NATObots from the Ukrainian-themed CIF threads turn out to be ISIS supporters. ..."
          "... indeed, with the "stench" of US grand mufti all over them.. How far do you think Obama will bow on his next visit to Saudi. ..."
          "... Yup the FT estimated before the Russians got involved that ISIS were producing between 30,000 and 40,000 barrels of oil a day. You would need over 2000 full size road tankers just to move one days output. Now its fair to assume after filling up it takes more than a day before it gets back to the pump. Surprisingly the US has neither noticed all these tankers and even more surprisingly the oil tanks and installations. ..."
          "... The whole regime change plan is hanging in the balance and every day Russia solidifies Assad's position. If this continues for even another month it will be virtually impossible for the Western alliance to demand the departure of Assad. ..."
          "... Their bargaining position is diminishing by the day and it is great to watch. Also good to read that the Russians have been pounding the shi*e out of those Turkmen areas. Expect those silly buggers to be slaughtered whilst Erdogan and the Turks watch on helplessly. If they even try anything inside the Syrian border now the Russians will annihilate them. ..."
          "... Erdogan's reaction to Syria shooting down a Turkish jet in 2012. "Erdogan criticized Syria harshly on Tuesday for shooting down the Turkish fighter jet, saying: "Even if the plane was in their airspace for a few seconds, that is no excuse to attack." "It was clear that this plane was not an aggressive plane. Still it was shot down," the corrupt ISIS supporting scumbag said" ..."
          www.theguardian.com

          The nervousness displayed by the AKP administration, in Ankara, has a lot to do with Turkey's Syria policy being in ever-growing disarray, and its failure to set priorities to help resolve the conflict. As the Syrian quagmire deepened, old anti-Kurdish fixations in Ankara came to the surface, and clashed with the priorities of its allies, centred on Isis. Ankara's blocking moves against the only combat force on ground, the PKK-YPG axis, has impeded the fight against jihadists, and its constant redrawing of red-lines (Kurds, Turkmens, no-fly zone, Assad gone etc) may have been frustrating the White House, but does not seem to affect Moscow. Recently, Moscow's rapprochement with the Syrian Kurds, the PYD, only added to the huge complexity of the situation.

          In the recent G20 summit, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was once more keen to underline that "terror has no religion and there should be no our terrorist and your terrorist"

          ... ... ...

          So, the tension now rises between one determined and one undecided, conflicted player – one lucid on strategy, the other lacking it. If any, the lesson to be drawn from this showdown is this: any solution of the Syrian conflict will be based on a precondition that the US and Russia put aside their differences, agree in principle on the future of the region, build a joint intelligence gathering and coordinated battle scheme against jihadists, and demand utter clarity of the positions of their myopic, egocentric allies. Unless they do so, more complications, and risks beyond turf wars will be knocking at the door

          Eugenios -> André De Koning 25 Nov 2015 23:24

          Assad is targeted because it is a necessary prelude to an attack on Iran. Pepe Escobar called that long ago. What is sought is a Syria in the imperialist orbit or in chaos.

          Attack on Iran by whom--you ask? Actually several in cahoots, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, et al.

          Lyigushka -> trandq 25 Nov 2015 23:22

          BBC maps show ISIS controlled territory only a few miles from the Turkmen area where the shooting down took place.
          Your not very good at this are you
          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27838034

          Lyigushka -> trandq 25 Nov 2015 23:11

          A brief search on the internet shows many items referring to Turkish support for IS.

          Now the SAA with Russian support is on the border dealing with the jihadist Turkmen, Turkey's duplicity is in danger of being revealed .

          Hence the impotent rage and desperate pleas for support to its other US coalition partners and the strange reluctance of the complicit western MSM to fully reveal the lies and double standards of the western allies in this foul business.

          Only the other day a US TV program was trying to con its viewers that the US was bombing ISIS oil trucks, with video from a Russian airstrike.

          http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/11/pbs-uses-russian-airstrike-videos-to-claim-us-airstrike-successes.html

          James H McDougall 25 Nov 2015 23:09

          At least one good thing has come from all of this. At least it took Putin to be the first leader to openly say exactly what turkey actually is. A despicable, Islamist supporting vile wolf in Sheep's clothing. Who else was buying ISIS oil....the tooth fairy ? Never in my life did I think I'd be defending the red team yet here I am.

          AtelierEclatPekin -> murati 25 Nov 2015 23:06

          well , just think for a second .... all the image - they were shooting him while he was in the air , shouting "Allah Akbar " then they showed a photo with dead pilot , being proud of that ..... Those ppl are the "hope" for a Syria post-Assad....don't you feel that something is wrong here ?

          Shankman -> ianhassall 25 Nov 2015 23:02

          He was awfully quick to accept Turkey's version of events.

          As for his Nobel "Peace" Prize, Alfred Nobel is probably still turning in his grave.

          Lyigushka -> trandq 25 Nov 2015 23:02

          Of course Turkey supports ISIS and has done for all its existence as part of an opposition to its main enemies, Assad and the Kurds.

          A brief search of the internet provides countless articles on this without even having to quote Russian sources. Examples
          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/research-paper-isis-turke_b_6128950.html
          http://www.infowars.com/former-nato-commander-turkey-is-supporting-isis/

          iusedtopost 25 Nov 2015 23:01

          .....and the censors are out again.....SHAME on you Guardian.

          I say again.....MSM now referring to "Turkmen" like they are cuddly toys FFS

          They are head chopping....moon howling....islamo-terrorists.

          Russia has the right idea....kill the lot them

          ianhassall -> ianhassall 25 Nov 2015 22:56

          Also as soon as the noble Turkman started shooting at the pilot and navigator once they'd bailed out of the plane they showed themselves to be the terrorists they are. Playing "no prisoners" against Russia.

          And as for the US - they can bomb a Medicin sans Frontiers field hospital in Afghanistan for 37 minutes and the best excuse they come out with is "the plane's email stopped working, it didn't know where the target was, they didn't know where they were, so they just attacked something that looked like". So much for US military's navigation abilities.

          NikLot -> LordMurphy 25 Nov 2015 22:44

          Dear Lord, where did I defend it?!! How do you read that?!!! Of course it is appalling!!!

          I wanted to point out that the 'good terrorist' Turkmen militia or whoever else did it would have done the same to NATO pilots and that the story should be explored from that angle too. Statement by Turkey's PM today, if true, confirms my concern:

          "Davutoglu told his party's lawmakers on Wednesday that Turkey didn't know the nationality of the plane that was brought down on Tuesday until Moscow announced it was Russian."

          ianhassall 25 Nov 2015 22:38

          Its amazing that NATO have been bombing ISIS for 2 years and did very little to halt its progress.

          Russia's been doing it for a month and have bombed ISIS, the military supplies NATO have been giving ISIS, and the illegal oil racket that Turkey's been running with ISIS - all at a fraction of the cost that's going into supporting ISIS and other Syrian terrorist groups.

          I can see why Turkey's upset. Also anyone who thinks Turkey shot down this plane without the approval of NATO and Obama is kidding themselves. Obama has blood up to his armpits with what's been going on in Syria, despite his Peace Prize credentials.


          luella zarf -> ArundelXVI 25 Nov 2015 22:28

          OK I did some research and I was somewhat wrong, Russia did initiate the bombing of the oil delivery system, but at the G20 summit. This is the actual chronology:

          At the G20 Antalya summit of Nov 15, Putin embarrassed Obama publicly showing satellite pictures of ridiculously long tanker lines waiting for weeks to load oil from ISIS, as the coalition spared them any trouble. "I've shown our colleagues photos taken from space and from aircraft which clearly demonstrate the scale of the illegal trade in oil," said Putin.

          The next day, on Nov 16, the US bombed a truck assembly for the first time in the history of the coalition and then claimed to have hit 116 oil tankers. In the meantime, Russia carried on its own airstrike campaign, destroying more than 1,000 tankers and a refinery in a period of just five days, and posting video footage of the airstrikes.

          Because the US never made available any recordings, on Nov 19 PBS used footage of Russian fighter jets bombing an oil storage facility and passed it off as evidence of the US hits. The Moon of Alabama website was the first to notice. On Nov 23, a second American air raid claimed to have destroyed 283 oil tankers.

          So there you have it. For 15 months, the US didn't touch the oil trade that financed ISIS affairs, until Russia shamed them into it. Then, the mightiest army in the world bombs 400 trucks, while Russia destroys 1000. Then Russia provides videos of its airstrikes, while the US doesn't, and PBS is caught passing off Russian evidence as American.

          idkak -> John Smith 25 Nov 2015 22:17

          Currently 18 aircraft are patrolling the area on a daily basis, they must have misread the memo.... Downing a Turkish plane over Turkish soil, or attacking a NATO aircraft on mission in Syria within the alliance that is currently bombing ISIS or other terrorist variants... won't be favorable for Russia or their forces in Syria. Even without NATO, Turkey has a very large military and the location we are talking about is about 2-5 minutes to bomb, and 1-2 minutes to intercept.. so the attack would be about the same level of strategic stupidity as attacking Russia from the Ukraine.

          André De Koning -> trandq 25 Nov 2015 22:16

          How naive: downing a jet who fights al-Nusra. Of course Turkey has supported terrorist there for a long time and left the border between Turkey and Syria porous, so the proxy war can be fought against Assad (just one man (?) always features in the multi-factorial warfare, which is easy on the ears of simpletons). There were already plans in 1957 and more modern ones in the US to ruin Syria and take the land and resources and use it for the oil pipelines from Saudi to Turkey (Assad did not sign off in 2009, so war was bound to happen).

          André De Koning 25 Nov 2015 22:11

          Imagine a US fighter being shot down? From the beginning of the war Russia and Syria said there were not just peaceful demonstrators, but people who were shooting and grew into ISIS and Al-Nusra and al-Qaeda. This did not fit the western propaganda and the Divide and Ruin policy (title of Dan Glazebrook's recent book of articles) which is that Syria was a on the Ruin-map for a long time. Turkey's Erdogan is intellectually an Islamist and together with Saudi they and the terrorists are fighting this proxy war the US can hardly afford.

          In 7 weeks Russia destroyed more of ISIS infrastructure and oil tankers than the US did in a year (the superpower has managed to make ISIS increase seven-fold). The only objective is one man: Assad and the ruin of Syria to be 'rebuilt' (plundered) by western investments and domination of the entire region of the Middle East. The rest is lies to prop up propaganda and doing as if they bring democracy (like the West does in Saudi?! the biggest friend and weapons buyer. Just like Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, which did not play ball, it will be destroyed by the West. It gets harder with Russia actually wishing to stop the proxy war: Syria itself deciding what their future will be? No way as far as US and UK are concerned (and the weak EU following with their businessmen contingent to reap the benefits). Absolutely disgusting that the people have to suffer it.

          Of course Turkey did not need to down this jet: well planned and a clear provocation to start the propaganda war against Russia which actually wants to stop this war before a transition without a pre-planned (US) outcome.

          EightEyedSpy -> Eugenios 25 Nov 2015 21:59

          Meanwhile, Turkey just gave the Russians a no-fly zone--against Turks.

          Not true - unless Russia intends to breach the resolution unanimously passed by the UN Security Council authorising all member nations to fight against ISIS on territory controlled by ISIS in Syria.

          Pursuant to the Security Council resolution, which Russia voted for, all member nations have the legal right to use Syrian airspace and traverse Syrian territory for the purpose of fighting ISIS in Syria.

          If Russia attempts to impose a no-fly zone against Turkey in Syria, Russia will violate the Security Council resolution ...

          btt1943 25 Nov 2015 21:59

          Forget about whether Russian jet has infiltrated Turkey's airspace or not as claimed by one and denied by other, the bottom line is Turkey has been wanting to play a big and decisive role in Syrian conflict and ISIS's rise. Ankara does not wish to see Russian's growing influence and intervention in the messy region.


          Jimmi Cbreeze -> Normin 25 Nov 2015 21:49

          With Saudi and Turkish support for ISIS , just who have they bothered saving and sending out into Europe amongst their name taking and slaughters ? Wahabists? How many cells set up now globally?


          Jimmi Cbreeze EightEyedSpy 25 Nov 2015 21:17

          The turkmen are illegally staging war. Russia is the only country legally in Syria. That's why CIA, Saudi, Turk, Israel etc etc etc operate clandestine. But they all enjoy bombing hotheads. A pity so many of them think their brands of religion or old stories from centuries ago of enemies have any bearing today. Or perhaps they just believe rich mens newspapers and media too much. Maybe all their educations and futures were lost by gangsters that were funded and protected and given country ownership for oil and now forces clean up their centuries long mess for newer deals.

          And then you have the Murdochs and the Rothchilds and the arms industries.

          Because where the people are'nt divided by cunning for profit, they are too lunatic and gangster minded to live in peace with each other anyway.
          The whole matter is a multi joint taskforce of opportunism. And wealth is going for broke stamping and taking as much corporate ground as possible worldwide.

          What chance is there of calling peace? Where and when are all these lunatics going to live in peace and constructively? How would they with half the the globe shitstirring and funding trouble amongst them for profit and gain?

          Turkey has attacked Russia on Syrian soil and Russia is the only country legally at arms in Syria. Makes you wonder that Turkey does'nt like Turkmen or consider them a problem. That they provoke getting them wiped out of Syria. How could Assad or anyone govern getting undermined from a dozen directions.

          Who knows, the place is a mess. It's no use preaching peace inside the turmoil. It has to come from outside and above. But it appears with this lot-what peace ever.

          Bosula trandq 25 Nov 2015 21:07

          Since you can't or don't bother to actually read the Guardian or other papers you probably missed that UN Resolution 2249 calls not only for action against IS but also Al Nusra and other AQ associated groups in Syria. The Syrian Free Army is linked with these groups, particularly Al Nusra.

          Now you have learned something.


          Eugenios 25 Nov 2015 21:04

          It seems more likely than not that the Russians will make an effort to capture and try the moderate terrorists who shot the Russian pilot parachuting. It is a war crime after all. The old Soviets would have dispensed with such niceties as trials, but the RF is more legalistic. Nicely enough the moderate terrorists identified themselves on video, don't you know?

          There may also be several legal cases brought against Erdogan and Turkey.

          Meanwhile, Turkey just gave the Russians a no-fly zone--against Turks.


          ozhellene -> trandq 25 Nov 2015 20:57

          I thought Russia was INVITED by the Syrian Gov. to assist them in eradicating ALL rebel factions including a bunch of Turkmen rebels funded by Erdogan. No others operating in Syria are legitimate. Any cowards shouting Allah uakbar and killing POWs should be eradicated


          luella zarf -> ArundelXVI 25 Nov 2015 20:54

          US air strikes destroys 283 oil tankers used for smuggling to fund terror group. You were saying? I don't know why some people around here just feel free to make things up.

          Give us a break. The US hit ISIS oil tanks 6 full days after Russia released footage which showed its fighter jets targeting 200 oil trucks and a refinery. In 15 months of bombing ISIS, there were no American airstrikes on oil tanks until Russia came along and showed them how it's done. Even PBS pointed out when reporting the attack "For the first time, the US is attacking oil delivery trucks."

          ozhellene 25 Nov 2015 20:35

          will this be a "turkey shoot"? Big mistake Mr Erdogan! You just condemned you Turkmen buddies to be bombed by the Russian bears.
          Turkey will never avoid the Kurdish finally taking back their rightful lands, stolen during the Ottoman rule.
          Never forget that Kurds make up a lot of your population.....waiting for the right moment...

          WalterCronkiteBot 25 Nov 2015 20:32

          According to the BBC the Turkmen fight with Al Nusra. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34910389 UN Resolution 2249 calls not only for action against IS but also Al Nusra and other AQ associated groups.

          These guys advertise and run jihadist training camps for children. http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/09/uighur-jihadist-group-in-syria-advertises-little-jihadists.php

          They might not be explicitly AQ affiliated or Al Nusra itself but they share similar doctrines and fight together. Attacking them may not be by the word of the resolution but its certainly in the spirit of it.


          ianhassall -> ianhassall 25 Nov 2015 20:13

          Whether I think the Turkman should be wiped out is generally irrelevent.

          I just know in the past 24 hours I've seen Turkey shoot down a Russian plane over Syria to defend the Turkmen. I also saw the Turkmen shooting at 2 Russian pilots why they attempted to parachute to safety, and one was killed. And I've seen the Turkmen fire a Saudi Arabia-supplied TOW missile at a Russian rescue helicopter, destroying it and killing two pilots.

          I also know Turkey has been "laundering" ISIS oil from Syria and Iraq to the tune of $2 million/day.

          You reap what you sow.

          nnedjo 25 Nov 2015 19:49

          In the recent G20 summit, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was once more keen to underline that "terror has no religion and there should be no our terrorist and your terrorist".

          Yes, just when Erdogan says this, he thinks only on the Kurds, and wonder why the rest of the world considers the Kurds as freedom fighters, and only Turkey considers them as [its] terrorists.

          However, the main message of this article is correct. In order to achieve peace in the Middle East, first the rest of the world must come to terms. The divisions in the world, inherited from the times of the Cold War were reflected also on the Islamic world, and so deepened or even provoked a new sectarian Sunni-Shia divisions and conflicts. So although it's "a chronic disease", it is fallen now into an acute phase in Syria and Iraq. And the urgency of the case requires that really has to come to some deal, primarily between the US and Russia, that it could reach the end of the civil war in Syria, but also in Iraq, because it's all inter-connected. Otherwise, this problem will become even more complicated and prolonged, with unforeseeable consequences.

          Eugenios 25 Nov 2015 19:58

          Well, a US Air Force has now also suggested that the Turkish shooting down of the Russian had to have been a pre-planned provocation. Also US officials have said it cannot be confirmed that the Russian jet incurred into Turkish territory. And of course there is the testimony of the Russian pilot. No doubt the Guardian will be covering these points, yes?

          ianhassall -> EightEyedSpy 25 Nov 2015 19:47

          Yes, I know. Why shouldn't Turkey defend terrorits and shoot down a Russian jet while its flying missions in Syria and not incur any wrath.

          Russians have been fighting Islamic extremists for a bit longer than the West, who have generally only ever funded or armed them. I'd believe Putin 99 times out of a 100 before I'd believe Obama once.

          illbthr22 -> EightEyedSpy 25 Nov 2015 19:21

          What ethnic cleansing??? Assad has a multi sect and multi ethnic government. Meanwhile western and Turkish backed jihadist have openly said they will massacre every last Kurd,Christian,Alawi and Druze in the country.

          Andrew Nichols -> Jeremn 25 Nov 2015 19:14

          We don't have a clear, clear understanding of everything that happened today, okay? I've said that and I can keep saying it all day. We're still trying to determine what happened. It's easy to rush to judgments and to make proclamations and declarations after an incident like this.

          Which is exactly what the US did - by supporting Turkeys side of the story. Dont you wish the journalist would point this out?

          Cecile_Trib -> Spiffey 25 Nov 2015 19:12

          Turkmen terrorists backed by Turkey (now from the air) are there not to fight with Assad but to wipe out Kurds in this region - Edorgan's sweet dream to get the political weight back.

          http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/08/12/world/middleeast/turkey-kurds-isis.html?_r=0

          spitthedog -> centerline 25 Nov 2015 18:43

          Amazing how Russia attacking the ISIS oil operation can suddenly embarrass the Yanks into doing the obvious. Why didn't they do it before? If ISIS and their FSA buddies loses they can't get rid of Assad for Bibi, simples. The good old FSA, chanting Jihad and carrying white on black Al Qaeda flags. We have an interesting idea of what "moderate" is. Then again Blair was a moderate and he.... ummm....errrr....oops!

          luella zarf -> TheOutsider79 25 Nov 2015 18:38

          are France the only honest brokers in all of this, the only ones actually doing what they say they are doing - targeting ISIS

          No, of course not. It's all spin. France, which was Syria's colonial master, is hoping to regain some of its former influence. ISIS is just a pretext, and they really have no incentive of destroying their only justification for being there in the first place.

          When France launched its first airstrikes in Sep, Reuters wrote: "Paris has become alarmed by the possibility of France being sidelined in negotiations to reach a political solution in Syria. A French diplomatic source said Paris needed to be one of the "hitters" in Syria - those taking direct military action - to legitimately take part in any negotiations for a political solution to the conflict."

          http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/27/us-mideast-crisis-france-syria-idUSKCN0RR07Y20150927

          This is why they are participating - to get a seat at the table when the great powers break up Syria and hand out land rights for pipelines to big oil.

          SallyWa -> HHeLiBe 25 Nov 2015 18:46

          Turkey has no interest in the peaceful settlement to the conflict in Syria that world powers are negotiating. As it gets desperate, Turkey will attempt to bring focus back on the Assad regime and reverse the losses it has made both in Syria and geopolitically.


          SallyWa -> FelixFeline 25 Nov 2015 18:45

          Really? I guess I'll have to take your word for that.

          Really. That's sort of your issue, not mine.

          Do you have any links to support your claims about these lost ISIS territories?

          For example http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/12/russian-airstrikes-support-syrian-troops-to-push-back-rebels-in-strategic-town
          Article tried to call ISIS as rebels, though, it happens sometimes as those are always "good terrorists" or just "rebels" if they do what we need, like in this case if they are anti-Assad .


          midnightschild10 25 Nov 2015 18:33

          Although there has been a war of words between Greece and Turkey, with Turkey charging the Greeks with invading its air space, Turkey has yet to fire on a Greek plane. The turkmen are considered "moderates, and the US arm them to fight the Assad government. Shooting down the Russian plane was Turkey's way of flexing its muscles. The murder of the pilot in the parashoot was a cowardly act. These are the people the US are backing. They can be added to Obama's list of most favored and join the ranks of the Saudis who behead and crucify protesters, one upmanship over ISIS gruesome beheadings, and of course there is alSiSi, who executes all opposition. Petroshenko, wants to freeze the people of Crimea, and has over 6500 Ukrainian deaths notched on his belt since Nuland and Obama gave him the keys to Kiev.

          Turkey feels feisty right now, but he obviously isn't aware of the talk coming from Washington about dividing up Syria among four leaders like they did to Berlin.

          Turkey will have no part to play, and the US really wants to keep Russia out of the picture. They blame Assad for ISIS but the vacuum left by the US and the coalition left in Iraq is what gave birth to ISIS. Easy to depose governments, and then let chaos reign. Since Obama keeps bringing up the right of a sovereign nation to protect its borders, he should realize that the Syrian government never invited the US onto its soil. The Turkmen through their actions have shown they are terrorists, and Russia will treat them accordingly.

          HHeLiBe 25 Nov 2015 18:32

          Erdogan is playing both NATO and Russia for fools. Trying to create a wedge and sabotage the restoration of stability in Syria.

          Branko Dodig 25 Nov 2015 18:26

          The Russian plane was shot over Syrian airspace. Even if it had strayed over Turkish airspace, it was not shot down there. Basically, an act of revenge for bombing their "rebel" buddies.

          SallyWa -> FelixFeline 25 Nov 2015 18:24

          It is "Turkey screwed up and overreacted". Not confusing at all.

          SallyWa -> FelixFeline 25 Nov 2015 18:23

          Sorry, but I'm not Russian and also where have you been - Russia has been fighting ISIS in Syria better than US/coalition, though US/coalition did it like for a whole year.The result is that ISIS lost territories which it gained under US's "watch".

          centerline 25 Nov 2015 18:12

          Since the G20 meeting, Russia has photographed and destroyed the Turkish/ISIS oil convoys.

          In the day or so since Turkey shot down the Russian plane in defence of al Qaeda, Russia has for the first time attacked a Turkish logistics convoy to ISIS and al Qaeda right at the main border crossing to Allepo. A number of trucks destroyed and 7 killed in that operation. turkey will pay dearly in the days to come, without Russia ever having to move into Turkish territory.

          Any Turks running errands for AQ and ISIS within Syria will now be an endangered species. Or more to the point they will simply be eradicated like the vermin they are.

          luella zarf -> TonyBlunt 25 Nov 2015 18:10

          What a joke.

          In one year of bombing, August 2014-July 2015, the coalition conducted 44,000 airstrikes in Syria-Iraq and killed 15,000 ISIS fighters, which comes at 3 sorties per terrorist!

          It is all a giant make-believe. They are only using ISIS as a pretext to occupy and breakup Syria. And Western populations swallow all these lies without blinking and feel victimized by refugees.


          pfox33 25 Nov 2015 17:49

          The US and Israel were totally freaking when Russia first considered selling Iran S-300 systems, even though they're defensive. It would have taken the feasibility of bombing Iran's nuclear infrastructure to an unknown place. Russia sold these systems to select customers, like China. The S-400 is not for sale. Any search of Youtube will explain why.

          When the S-400 is set up around Latakia they will effectively own the surrounding skies for 400 miles in every direction. That extends well into Turkey.

          Now, I'd bet that Putin has no plans to exacerbate the current situation by shooting down any Turkish jets out of revenge for yesterday's incident. But it will be unsettling for Turkish flyboys and their bosses to know that a good chunk of their a airspace is totally vulnerable and they fly there only because Russia lets them.

          So maybe the Turks pissed in the pickles. This little problem is keeping the Nato nabobs up at night. They haven't said a fucking word.


          Geraldine Baxter -> SallyWa 25 Nov 2015 17:47

          it's astonishing how many of the Putin hating NATObots from the Ukrainian-themed CIF threads turn out to be ISIS supporters.

          indeed, with the "stench" of US grand mufti all over them.. How far do you think Obama will bow on his next visit to Saudi.


          Liesandstats -> luella zarf 25 Nov 2015 17:47

          Yup the FT estimated before the Russians got involved that ISIS were producing between 30,000 and 40,000 barrels of oil a day. You would need over 2000 full size road tankers just to move one days output. Now its fair to assume after filling up it takes more than a day before it gets back to the pump. Surprisingly the US has neither noticed all these tankers and even more surprisingly the oil tanks and installations.

          jonsid 25 Nov 2015 17:33

          An article about Syria is now infested with Banderites. They need to worry more about their own long-time disaster of a country instead of stalking every article mentioning Russia.

          Anette Mor 25 Nov 2015 17:29

          Russians spent all this time signing the rules of engagement and recognition of each other air crafts over Syria with the US, only to be shot by Turkey. Does NATO even exist as a unit other than in the headquarter offices? They constantly refer to the terms which could allegedly force then to support each other in case of external threat, while clearly they will fuck each other on technicalities for years before doing anything practically viable. Russia waste their time talking to NATO, instead had to bribe Turkey separately into a workable local deal. I am sure Turkey got just the same conclusion after wasting time in NATO talks. Corruption and complicity eaten away common sense in western politician and military heads. They only think how weak or strong they would look imitating one or another decision.

          aretheymyfeet -> psygone 25 Nov 2015 17:22

          Hilarious, checkmate Putin? The only reason the Turks took this drastic action is because the Western alliance has lost the initiative in Syria and they are desperately trying to goad Russia into overreacting. But, as we have seen time and again from the Russians (Lavrov is an incredibly impressive Statesman) that they are cool headed, and restrained.

          The whole regime change plan is hanging in the balance and every day Russia solidifies Assad's position. If this continues for even another month it will be virtually impossible for the Western alliance to demand the departure of Assad.

          Their bargaining position is diminishing by the day and it is great to watch. Also good to read that the Russians have been pounding the shi*e out of those Turkmen areas. Expect those silly buggers to be slaughtered whilst Erdogan and the Turks watch on helplessly. If they even try anything inside the Syrian border now the Russians will annihilate them. I'd say if anything, the Turks have strengthened the Russians providing them with the perfect excuse to close the Syrian air space to "unfriendly" forces. Check.


          thatshowitgoes 25 Nov 2015 16:56

          Erdogan's reaction to Syria shooting down a Turkish jet in 2012. "Erdogan criticized Syria harshly on Tuesday for shooting down the Turkish fighter jet, saying: "Even if the plane was in their airspace for a few seconds, that is no excuse to attack." "It was clear that this plane was not an aggressive plane. Still it was shot down," the corrupt ISIS supporting scumbag said"

          SallyWa -> psygone 25 Nov 2015 16:56

          means he's politically impotent, militarily boxed in a corner and incompetent for self-inflicting

          You know you just described Obama and all his policies in a nutshell.

          Bob Nassh -> keepithuman 25 Nov 2015 16:54

          I believe there's conditions within the NATO treaty that prevent them from defending another member nation providing the conflict was instigated by war crimes committed by the member nation.


          MRModeratedModerate 25 Nov 2015 16:50

          But of course Turkey was exposed last year...Yet our governments continue to ignore and cover.
          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/research-paper-isis-turke_b_6128950.html?ir=Australia

          luella zarf Jeremn 25 Nov 2015 16:45

          The US doesn't bomb ISIS, only pretends it does. Actually nobody bombs ISIS there except Russia.

          Only between August 2014 and July 2015 the coalition aircraft have flown nearly 44,000 sorties, according to USNews, and Airwars said the strikes have killed more than 15,000 Islamic State militants during this period.

          http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/07/21/stealthy-jet-ensures-other-war-fighting-aircraft-survive

          So they needed 3 sorties per terrorist! I have no idea how they manage to be this ineffective unless a) they are world's worst airforce b) it's all make-believe. My money is on option b).

          Yury Kobyzev -> Valois1588 25 Nov 2015 16:41

          Now fact - turkey government is on ISIS side. Its simplifies situation. Russia now quite free to clean the Turkey border from interface with ISIS. It's half a job in fight.

          I don't see why Russia can be damaged by so stupid current west policy. I think that clever part of west will change policy towards Russia in near future and will find there friends as it was during ww2. You can repeat mantra Pu... tin as I use Ooom ... but is he of your level?

          Chummy15 25 Nov 2015 16:30

          Turkey has made it pretty clear where its primary loyalties lie, with ISIS and the other anti-Assad elements. It was a foolish move shooting down the Russian plane which clearly was no threat to the security of Turkey whether or not it had violated Turkish airspace, something that happen around the world regularly. It adds a further dimension to an already complicated war

          [Nov 25, 2015] Russian jet incident planned, Turkish opposition member says

          www.hurriyetdailynews.com

          The Nov. 24 downing of a Russian fighter jet that violated Turkey's border with Syria by the Turkish military was planned, according to a senior figure from the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP).

          "It is seen that the downing of the Russian jet was decided and planned earlier, and it was just implemented yesterday," said İdris Baluken, the opposition party's deputy chair, on Nov. 25.

          "What we saw yesterday is a scene from a planned policy," he said.

          The AKP [Justice and Development Party] has shown in its insistent practices that it is a part of the war in Syria," he said.

          "The real matter about the downing of the jet is that the AKP feels the need to intervene in operations against some gangs such as Ahrar al-Sham and al-Nusra" he said, claiming that the AKP was not actually concerned about Syria's Turkmens.

          The government and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan have said recent Russian operations in Syria were not targeting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) but Turkmens in the north of the country.

          "The AKP did not raise its voice when Turkmens were being killed in Mosul and Telafar in 2014," Baluken said, referring to 2014 ISIL attacks targeting Iraq's heavily-populated Turkmen areas.

          Baluken was speaking at a press conference in parliament before the announcing of the new government program and said the Turkish people had already seen the content of the program in the government's recent moves.

          Baluken also stated eight civilians were killed in the town of Nusaybin, which entered its 13th day under curfew. The town is located in the southeastern province of Mardin

          [Nov 25, 2015] Poking the 'Russian Bear' comes at a cost

          Notable quotes:
          "... The fate of the Russian pilots in the downed jet will also play a key role here. If it is true that one of the pilots was killed while parachuting down by Turkmen fighters, as Moscow claims, there will be a clamoring for merciless revenge by the Russian public against this group. ..."
          "... we had reports of members of Turkey's secret service, the National Intelligence Organization (MIT), scurrying to the region desperately trying to find the pilots after the SU-24 was downed. It is questionable, therefore, whether this move by Turkey, legal as it may be, will have bolstered the position of the Turkmens. The immediate impression one gets is that it will make it worse. ..."
          "... It is not clear whether Moscow will use the economic card against Turkey, which has a great dependence on Russian natural gas, and the Russian market, not to mention the millions of Russian tourists that stream into Turkey every year. ..."
          "... The economic card cuts both ways of course. Russia needs to sell its gas to earn money. But Russian preparedness to sacrifice, once nationalist sentiments are aroused in that country, is a historic fact. ..."
          "... it is clear why President Recep Tayyip Erdo an is saying that Turkey has no interests in escalating the crisis with Russia. He has undoubtedly been made aware that poking the "Russian Bear" comes at a cost. ..."
          www.hurriyetdailynews.com

          There is no doubt that the happiest person because of this unprecedented crisis between Turkey and Russia is Syria's Bashar al-Assad. He must have been delighted at the extremely angry remarks by President Putin aimed at Turkey, and his dire warning that the downing of their jet will have serious consequences for Turkish-Russian ties.

          It is also clear that Russia will not be deterred by this affair in either its support for Assad or its operations north of Latakia where it is hitting groups supported by Turkey, including Turkmens. Russia will also take added precautions to bolster its air defense systems in the region, and will back its operations there with support from its military assets in the eastern Mediterranean.

          As long as it does not violate Turkish airspace again, there is little, if anything, Turkey can do to ensure that Russia does not bomb the Turkmens with added intensity and ferocity. Turkey can send surface air missiles to the Turkmens, of course, but it is doubtful its NATO allies will allow this, given the risk of these weapons falling into the wrong hands.

          The simple fact is that no one in the West is clear about whom these Turkmens really are, and whether they are radical Sunni jihadists or "moderate Islamists." Turkey has to help clarify this point if it wants sympathy in the West for the Turkmens.

          The fate of the Russian pilots in the downed jet will also play a key role here. If it is true that one of the pilots was killed while parachuting down by Turkmen fighters, as Moscow claims, there will be a clamoring for merciless revenge by the Russian public against this group.

          It was not for nothing that we had reports of members of Turkey's secret service, the National Intelligence Organization (MIT), scurrying to the region desperately trying to find the pilots after the SU-24 was downed. It is questionable, therefore, whether this move by Turkey, legal as it may be, will have bolstered the position of the Turkmens. The immediate impression one gets is that it will make it worse.

          Then there is the economic dimension, which is being widely covered by the media and need not be repeated here. It is not clear whether Moscow will use the economic card against Turkey, which has a great dependence on Russian natural gas, and the Russian market, not to mention the millions of Russian tourists that stream into Turkey every year.

          The economic card cuts both ways of course. Russia needs to sell its gas to earn money. But Russian preparedness to sacrifice, once nationalist sentiments are aroused in that country, is a historic fact.

          Looking at all of this, it is clear why President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is saying that Turkey has no interests in escalating the crisis with Russia. He has undoubtedly been made aware that poking the "Russian Bear" comes at a cost.

          [Nov 25, 2015] Airplane crisis raising questions about future of close economic, trade ties between Russia and Turkey

          Notable quotes:
          "... Russia may consider cancelling some important joint projects with Turkey after the downing of the Russian jet by Turkish F-16s near the Syrian border on Nov. 24, raising questions about the future of the countries' intimate economic and trade relations. ..."
          "... Turkish companies could lose Russian market share due to the jet fighter incident, Medvedev said in a statement published on the government website. He suggested it may lead to the barring of Turkish companies from the Russian market. ..."
          www.hurriyetdailynews.com

          Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said Nov. 25 that Russia may consider cancelling some important joint projects with Turkey after the downing of the Russian jet by Turkish F-16s near the Syrian border on Nov. 24, raising questions about the future of the countries' intimate economic and trade relations.

          Turkish companies could lose Russian market share due to the jet fighter incident, Medvedev said in a statement published on the government website. He suggested it may lead to the barring of Turkish companies from the Russian market.

          "The direct consequences are likely to be the renunciation of a number of important joint projects and Turkish companies losing their position on the Russian market," Medvedev said.

          The joint projects that immediately come to mind are a number of existing and planned energy projects between Russia and Turkey.

          Turkey commissioned Russia's state-owned Rosatom in 2013 to build four 1,200-megawatt reactors in a project worth $20 billion.

          Russia and Turkey are also working on the Turkish Stream pipeline project, an alternative to Russia's South Stream pipeline, which was to transport gas to Europe without crossing Ukraine. The South Stream plan was dropped last year due to objections from the European Commission.

          The talks over the pipeline have been postponed due to Turkey's election agenda and disagreements over a gas price discount, as officials from the both countries had earlier mentioned.

          "It is quite difficult to start the talks again. If a reconciliatory step is not taken, Russia will most likely not continue this project. Even Russia could even scrap this project and start an alternative project, like, for example, a Nord Stream 2 Gas Pipeline project," said a sector representative, anonymously quoted by daily Hürriyet on Nov. 25.

          ... ... ...

          Turkish-Russian economic and trade ties in figures

          • ENERGY: Turkey meets around 55 percent of its gas demand from Russia. Turkey is the second biggest consumer of Russian gas after Germany
          • CONSTRUCTION: Turkish companies undertook a total of 47 projects worth around $4 billion in Russia in 2014
          • RETAIL: Turkish retailers have over 700 stores in Russia
          • HOUSING: Russian citizens are the third largest foreign buyers of property in Turkey, with 1,750 units over this year
          • TOURISM: Russia is the second largest tourism provider for Turkey, with around 3.3 million Russian tourists visiting the country over this year
          • TRADE: Turkey's exports to Russia in 2014: $5.9 billion, with around 20 percent of Turkey's food exports and 15 percent of its textile exports going to Russia

          Russia's exports to Turkey in 2014: $25 billion

          [Nov 25, 2015] Russian nationalists attack Turkish Embassy in Moscow

          www.hurriyetdailynews.com

          An ultra-nationalist group of protestors targeted the Turkish Embassy in Moscow on Nov. 25 following demonstrations at Turkey's Nov. 24 downing of a Russian fighter jet near the Syrian border.

          Around 500 protestors of the Russian political party LDPR carrying Russian, Syrian and party flags first shouted slogans against Turkey in front of the Turkish embassy in the afternoon before pelting the building with stones.

          Windows on the first two floors of the four-story building were completely broken, according to diplomats at the embassy.

          Diplomats said no one was injured in the attack, adding that the Russian police failed to stop the attack.

          Protesters also pelted the embassy's external wall with tomatoes and eggs.

          The ultra-nationalist protestors also chanted "We will come again tomorrow" after the attack.

          [Nov 25, 2015] Russia and Turkey refuse to back down News , Middle East

          Notable quotes:
          "... President Recep Tayyip Erdogan made no apology, saying his nation had simply been defending its own security and the "rights of our brothers in Syria." He made clear Turkish policy would not change. ..."
          "... Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described it as a planned act and said it would affect efforts towards a political solution in Syria. Moscow would "seriously reconsider" its relations with Ankara, he said. ..."
          "... But the Russian response was carefully calibrated, indicating Moscow did not want to jeopardize its main objective in the region: to rally international support for its view on how the conflict in Syria should be resolved. ..."
          "... "We have no intention of fighting a war with Turkey," Lavrov said. ..."
          THE DAILY STAR
          Russia sent an advanced missile system to Syria Wednesday to protect its jets operating there and pledged its air force would keep flying missions near Turkish airspace, sounding a defiant note after Turkey shot down a Russian fighter jet.

          Underscoring the message, Russian forces launched a heavy bombardment against insurgent-held areas in Latakia Wednesday, near where the jet was downed, rebels and a monitoring group said.

          The United States and Europe both urged calm and continued dialogue in telephone conversations with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, a sign of international concern at the prospect of any escalation between the former Cold War enemies.

          President Recep Tayyip Erdogan made no apology, saying his nation had simply been defending its own security and the "rights of our brothers in Syria." He made clear Turkish policy would not change.

          Russian officials expressed fury over Turkey's action and spoke of retaliatory measures that were likely to include curbing travel by Russian tourists to Turkish resorts and some restrictions on trade.

          Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described it as a planned act and said it would affect efforts towards a political solution in Syria. Moscow would "seriously reconsider" its relations with Ankara, he said.

          Jets believed to be Russian also hit a depot for trucks waiting to go through a major rebel-controlled border crossing with Turkey, Bab al-Salam, the head of the crossing said.

          Syrian jets have struck the area before, but if confirmed to have been carried out by Russia, it would be one of Moscow's closest airstrikes to Turkish soil, targeting a humanitarian corridor into rebel-held Syria and a lifeline for ordinary Syrians crossing to Turkey.

          But the Russian response was carefully calibrated, indicating Moscow did not want to jeopardize its main objective in the region: to rally international support for its view on how the conflict in Syria should be resolved.

          "We have no intention of fighting a war with Turkey," Lavrov said.

          Erdogan also said that Ankara had no intention of escalating tensions with Russia.

          In Paris, President Francois Hollande expressed concern over the war of words raging between Ankara and Moscow.

          "We must all work to make sure that the situation [between Russia and Turkey] de-escalates," Hollande told a joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

          Merkel said in response she would act "swiftly" to see how Germany could take up "additional responsibilities" to assist in the fight against terror.

          [Nov 25, 2015] Downing of Russian plane reveals potential for more conflict

          Notable quotes:
          "... Russia will choose from a menu of asymmetric responses in retaliation against Turkey, including informal economic sanctions and providing military aid to Turkey's enemies, including the Kurds. ..."
          Nov 25, 2015 | The Washington Post

          In Moscow at least, the event is being seen as something larger than an attack on an errant jet.

          ... ... ...

          The Russian Defense Ministry announced in a statement Wednesday that Russian fighter jets will now escort the bombers, and Moscow will move into Syria powerful new ground-to-air missiles that can reach across the country and far into Turkey from the Russian air base in the province of Latakia on Syria's Mediterranean coast.

          Additionally, analysts say, Russia will choose from a menu of asymmetric responses in retaliation against Turkey, including informal economic sanctions and providing military aid to Turkey's enemies, including the Kurds.

          ... ... ...

          Russian attitudes toward Turkey, which were reasonably friendly a year ago, have turned cold with alarming speed. Most Russian tour operators stopped selling travel packages to Turkey on Wednesday. Protesters in Moscow pelted the Turkish Embassy with eggs and rocks, shattering windows. Russian lawmakers introduced a bill that would criminalize denying that the mass killings of Armenians in 1915 by the Ottoman Empire was a "genocide." The issue remains highly sensitive: Turkey acknowledges that atrocities occurred but has long denied that what took place constituted a genocide.

          ... ... ...

          Russia will seek retribution against Turkey but wants to avoid antagonizing the West, Baunov said. "If this becomes a fight between Russia and the West, then that goes against the goals of the intervention in the first place: to escape international isolation connected to sanctions," he said.

          [Nov 25, 2015] The motive How Russias enemies benefit from the downing of Su-24

          Notable quotes:
          "... The nightmare of the birth of Kurdistan hangs over Turkey like a sword of Damocles for many decades. The emergence after the collapse of Saddam Hussein of de facto independent Iraqi Kurdistan has made the situation especially dangerous for Turkey, and the sudden appearance of ISIS aggressively fighting the Kurds, the ISIS army led by former Saddam generals, of course, made Turks more than happy. Turkish troops and the air force strike the Kurdish militias in Syria directly. ..."
          "... In a sense, our policy today is paying the price for refusing to be consistent in solving geopolitical issues. We entered the game in Syria, with the outstanding issue of Crimea-Novorossia, as a result, today we have an exacerbation in Donetsk, energy and transport blockade of Crimea, a front against ISIS and a looming front against Turkey, which is a NATO member. ..."
          "... So, today we are faced with the threat of war on several fronts, in which Turkey has assumed the role of lead instigator and aggressor who must lay siege to Russia. ..."
          "... So the situation is really extreme. In a sense, we are cornered. ..."
          "... If Russia wants to look good in this conflict it would have to force Turkey to publicly apologize for which it needs a set of effective sanctions and threats - from supporting Kurdistan to breaking the economic and tourist relations, and most importantly - be prepared for fierce stand-off of defense systems at the Syrian border. Then Russia can forget about supplying our group through the Bosphorus. In conclusion, we got another major front in addition to the already existing. ..."
          "... And without the support of Washington Turkeys capabilities will shrink to the scale of the state, the power of which is simply not comparable with Russia. We must play not against the player, but against the game technicians. ..."
          Fort Russ

          ...Historically, Turkey owns "the keys of our house," as the Straits of Bosporus and Dardanelles were called in the XIX century by the first Russian geopoliticians. Only with great difficulty in the XVII-XIX centuries Russia has managed to squeeze Turkey from Northern Black Sea coast, Novorossia and Crimea.

          By an amazing coincidence the provocation occurred on the birthday of Alexander Suvorov. However, all attempts of the Russian Empire to gain control over the straits and over the ancient Byzantine capital Constantinople met with united resistance of the European powers led by Britain, supporting Turkey. The latest attempt to control the straits by Russia was carried out by Stalin, a response to which was the withdrawal of Turkey under the NATO umbrella.

          By controlling the straits Turkey controls most of the supply of our military group in Syria. Montreux Convention makes the peacetime regime of the straits free for all the Black Sea countries, but in time of war Turkey gets the legal right to block the straits to the enemies and open them to the allies.

          Turkey allies are NATO countries, and the enemy, judging by the downed aircraft, may be Russia. That is, a provocation with the Su-24 puts supply of our troops in Syria under jeopardy. The only other routs left - much more uncomfortable through Iran and potentially problematic through Iraq, where the United States have a big influence.

          ... Neo-islamist and neo-ottoman Erdogan carries out a very aggressive policy, not appealing to either Washington or Berlin or Brussels, in fact, seeking to restore the Ottoman Empire.

          ... Erdogan was the most fanatical enemy of Assad, as he hoped that Islamized Sunni Syria would become a vassal of Turkey, and perhaps even return inside its borders. Turkey was one of the midwives at the birth of ISIS - it is extremely interested in the local oil, and in the ISIS fight with the Iraqi and Syrian Kurds.

          The nightmare of the birth of Kurdistan hangs over Turkey like a sword of Damocles for many decades. The emergence after the collapse of Saddam Hussein of de facto independent Iraqi Kurdistan has made the situation especially dangerous for Turkey, and the sudden appearance of ISIS aggressively fighting the Kurds, the ISIS army led by former Saddam generals, of course, made Turks more than happy. Turkish troops and the air force strike the Kurdish militias in Syria directly.

          Russian operation in Syria mixed all the cards for Erdogan.

          • First, it ensures the political future of Assad, or at least a successor agreed with Assad. Restored Syria will become Alawite-Christian-Shia-Sunni and certainly anti-Turkish. Oil extraction has been pulled out from under his nose, and Erdogan began resembling a furious Sherkhan ...
          • Secondly, Russia, and now France, made it their ultimate goal the complete eradication of ISIS, which automatically means strengthening the Kurds and the reduction of the Turkish influence in the region.
          • Moreover, Russia is doing this in tandem with Iran, which is de facto a key ally of Russia in the Middle East, an alliance of the type, where both sides are mutually reinforcing, both working for the common cause, and both sides benefit from the union.
          • And Iran is Turkey's main rival in the struggle for regional dominance. And it also developed historically. Byzantium (the place of which is geographically occupied by Turkey) against the Iranian Sassanids, then Ottomans against Safavids and Qajar, and today Sunni Erdogan against the Shiite ayatollahs. That is, the strengthening of Iran by Russia would be tantamount to the collapse of the entire imperial policy of Turkey.

          Naturally, the Turkish government is furious and wants to somehow kick Russia out of Syria. Turkey has repeatedly made threatening statements and gestures regarding alleged violations of Turkish borders by our aviation operating against Syrian terrorists.

          No other country, including even the United States, made so many attacks against Russian foreign policy. Some experts do not rule out even the involvement of Turkish and Qatari security services in the tragedy with the Russian airplane in Sinai, though officially this hypothesis has never been voiced.

          ... ... ...

          And here comes the next move - the downing of the Russian plane targeting the terrorists, under the pretext of its entry into the Turkish airspace. According to the Turkish version, the Russian Su-24 was shot down after warnings by the Turkish F-16s. According to our Ministry of Defense, the plane never left Syrian airspace.

          There is no reason to believe that the Russian side is just being defensive and the Turkish is speaking the truth. The tactical goal of the Turks is with this plane crash to indicate an actual "no-fly zone" in northern Syria, which would save the militants from ultimate annihilation, which in Latakia, (where our plane was shot down) was quite close.

          This idea of a no-fly zone was supported by the US hawks, who consider Russia an enemy number one. The last straw, apparently, was the demonstrative destruction by our air-space forces of oil convoys coming from ISIS territory to Turkey.

          Most of all the incident with the plane crash is reminiscent of a classic provocation. The Turkish side showed a diagram in which the Russian bomber is flying over microscopic wedge of the Turkish territory deep into Syria. Turkish geographic wedge into Syria - is the so-called area of ​​Alexandretta, which Turkey annexed from France, which controlled Syria after World War I.

          In 1938, parliament of this region declared the area an independent republic of Hatay - it was the last foreign policy operation of Kemal Ataturk before his death. In 1939, Turkey annexed Hatay.

          This is how the Turkish wedge into the Syrian territory was formed, covered with a multitude of small protrusions. That a Russian plane could fly over one of them is, in principle, not impossible, as the border is very complex and elusive. But it only means that this time it was expected to be knocked down.

          The triumphant demonstration of the body of our pilot on Turkish TV and generally surprisingly high preparedness by Turkish media to broadcast the incident in real time, speaks for it being a direct provocation against Russia.

          ... ... ...

          Escalation of the conflict could also be in Turkey's interest, as this will allow it to cut the sea communications of our group in Syria, and perhaps even try to block it with ground forces, which Turkey has much more of in the region (although I would not overestimate the fighting capacity of the Turkish army) .

          Turkey can carry out the aggressive actions under the NATO umbrella, because the alliance will likely have to intervene if the Turks employ article 5 of the "North Atlantic Treaty". The Western countries are seriously annoyed by Erdogan, but it is hardly enough to refuse to perform the obligations of the NATO treaty.

          Russia's military options to influence Turkey are limited by the weakness of our Black Sea fleet, and most importantly - by the threat of escalating to a global conflict, and, moreover, by extremely disadvantageous configuration of the possible theater of the conflict, as our air-space forces are operating in the Turkish rear and their land communications and air bridge options depend on the politically unstable Iraq, just recently occupied by the US.

          That is, before our forces in Syria looms the very threat of severing communications, which was seen from the outset as serious, in contrast to the mythical "militant attacks."

          In a sense, our policy today is paying the price for refusing to be consistent in solving geopolitical issues. We entered the game in Syria, with the outstanding issue of Crimea-Novorossia, as a result, today we have an exacerbation in Donetsk, energy and transport blockade of Crimea, a front against ISIS and a looming front against Turkey, which is a NATO member.

          So, today we are faced with the threat of war on several fronts, in which Turkey has assumed the role of lead instigator and aggressor who must "lay siege" to Russia. This role for Turkey is historically organic. Here we can recall the war of 1787-1891, which was directly provoked by the Western powers in response to the strengthening of Russia and its occupation of Crimea.

          No sooner had Mother Catherine rode to Crimea with foreign delegations, and Potemkin showed his villages, as Turkey declared war on Russia, which made Suvorov and Ushakov famous. Moreover, for Russia it was a war on two fronts - simultaneously Sweden declared war on Russia, and its attack was repelled by the Baltic fleet with almost no involvement of ground forces.

          So Russia finally managed, and with the Treaty of Jassy Turkey recognized Crimea Russian, and the Russian border has been pushed beyond the Dniester. But do not forget that Russia was then supported by Austria, but today there are not many of those who wish to go against Turkey in the European Union.

          So the situation is really extreme. In a sense, we are cornered. If Russia flushes the incident, it would mean a public apology from our side, then all the Western media publications have already prepared the headlines that the cocky Russia has been put in its place by Turkey, reminding who is who.

          If Russia wants to look good in this conflict it would have to force Turkey to publicly apologize for which it needs a set of effective sanctions and threats - from supporting Kurdistan to breaking the economic and tourist relations, and most importantly - be prepared for fierce stand-off of defense systems at the Syrian border. Then Russia can forget about supplying our group through the Bosphorus. In conclusion, we got another major front in addition to the already existing.

          The most promising, in my opinion, would be to treat the situation as a systemic problem. That is, Turkish issue should be solved not in Syria but in Ukraine and Novorossia, because Turkey is just a piece of the puzzle in a global confrontation and its aggression will immediately lose its meaning for Washington, if we win at the front nearest to us.

          And without the support of Washington Turkey's capabilities will shrink to the scale of the state, the power of which is simply not comparable with Russia. We must play not against the player, but against the game technicians.

          [Nov 25, 2015] Sultan Erdogans War on Russia

          sputniknews.com

          Let's cut to the chase. The notion that Turkey's downing of a Russian Su-24 by a made in USA F-16 was carried out without either a green light or at least pre-arranged "support" from Washington invites suspension of disbelief.

          Turkey is a mere vassal state, the eastern arm of NATO, which is the European arm of the Pentagon. The Pentagon already issued a denial - which, considering their spectacular record of strategic failures cannot be taken at face value. Plausibly, this might have been a power play by the neocon generals who run the Pentagon, allied with the neocon-infested Obama administration.

          The privileged scenario though is of a vassal Turkey led by Sultan Erdogan risking a suicide mission out of its own, current, desperation.

          Here's Erdogan's warped reasoning in a nutshell. The Paris tragedy was a huge setback. France started discussing close military collaboration not within NATO, but with Russia. Washington's unstated aim was always to get NATO inside Syria. By having Turkey/NATO - clumsily, inside Syrian territory - attacking Russia, and provoking a harsh Russian response, Erdogan thought he could seduce NATO into Syria, under the pretext (Article 5) of defending Turkey.

          As Bay-of-Pigs dangerous as this may be, it has nothing to do with WWIII - as apocalyptic purveyors are braying. It revolves around whether a state which supports/finances/weaponizes the Salafi-jihadi nebulae is allowed to destroy the Russian jets that are turning its profitable assets into ashes.

          President Putin nailed it; it was "a shot in the back". Because all evidence is pointing towards an ambush: the F-16s might have been actually waiting for the Su-24s. With Turkish TV cameras available for maximum global impact.

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

          independent.co.uk

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

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

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

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

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

          [Nov 25, 2015] Washington using Turkey as a tool to destabilize Russia

          Notable quotes:
          "... "I don't think the Turkish government would have undertaken such an action against a military superpower like Russia without the consent of the US. It's simply ridiculous to suggest the Turkish military would have acted alone," ..."
          "... "So they were carrying out this attack certainly with the backing of the US," ..."
          "... "Until 2011, Turkey had a policy in the Middle East which was considered quite diplomatic and progressive; it had a good-neighborly policy," ..."
          "... "In the future you're going to see Turkey emerge as a new maritime power." ..."
          "... "... You have a Turkish speaking population in Central Asia and in the North Caucasus region. So Turkey has a lot of levers to pull with Russia, and what we're seeing with these attacks is an attempt to raise the tension with Russia," ..."
          "... "Of course Russia is destroying the Islamic State, and Turkey needs to keep the IS going in Syria. They have been openly backing it, and that had been openly admitted by the western press," ..."
          "... "This is much less about violating Turkish airspace and much more about the fact that both Russia and Turkey are backing different sides in the conflict in Syria. And we effectively have a proxy war. And these types of clashes and conflicts were completely predictable and inevitable", ..."
          "... "advances US interests in this particular conflict, so they have no problem with those missiles being used in that capacity and in that direction." ..."
          "... "extending and perpetuating the crisis." ..."
          "... "The US has no particular problem in allowing its missiles to be used by rebel forces that it considers friendly," ..."
          "... "It explains why there has been relative silence with respect to the use of its own missiles in this particular context." ..."
          "... "Well, I think right now it's avoiding escalation and cooler heads hopefully will prevail so that Turkey doesn't try to invoke Article 5 under the NATO treaty [Collective Defence]," ..."
          "... "But again cooler heads prevailed and they just decided to invoke Article 4 which was to have a consultation. Hopefully that will happen again," ..."
          "... "What happened was that the Russian jet got too close to some very serious interests of Turkey, and that is why they probably took action," ..."
          "... "It is probably one of the routes through which they send their forces in through Turkey into Syria to fight on behalf of the jihadist groups," ..."
          "... "since it was aiming at possibly Al-Nusra or one of the other jihadist groups that was on the ground." ..."
          "... "Turkey has tremendous relations and exchanges with Russia from energy to a lot of trade," ..."
          "... "It is only right that the two sides get together and talk this thing out. But I don't see NATO getting engaged in this except to have consultations, because the last thing the European countries want - including the US – is an armed conflict with Russia," ..."
          RT Op-Edge
          NATO member state Turkey seems strangely committed to keeping Islamic State going strong in Syria, thus willing to take dangerous risks in confronting Russia in the region. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail, a group of experts told RT.

          "I don't think the Turkish government would have undertaken such an action against a military superpower like Russia without the consent of the US. It's simply ridiculous to suggest the Turkish military would have acted alone,"O'Colmain told RT.

          "So they were carrying out this attack certainly with the backing of the US," he added.

          The political analyst argues we need to look at the region in general. "Until 2011, Turkey had a policy in the Middle East which was considered quite diplomatic and progressive; it had a good-neighborly policy," said O'Colmain.

          The expert suggested that the long-term strategy of the US is to use Turkey as a tool to destabilize Russia, and that was confirmed recently by the head of Stratfor, George Friedman, who said: "In the future you're going to see Turkey emerge as a new maritime power."

          "... You have a Turkish speaking population in Central Asia and in the North Caucasus region. So Turkey has a lot of levers to pull with Russia, and what we're seeing with these attacks is an attempt to raise the tension with Russia," O'Colmain told RT.

          "Of course Russia is destroying the Islamic State, and Turkey needs to keep the IS going in Syria. They have been openly backing it, and that had been openly admitted by the western press," analyst added.

          Turkey-Russia proxy war in Syria

          We effectively have a proxy war, says Nader Hashemi, Assistant Professor of Middle East Politics at the University of Denver.

          "This is much less about violating Turkish airspace and much more about the fact that both Russia and Turkey are backing different sides in the conflict in Syria. And we effectively have a proxy war. And these types of clashes and conflicts were completely predictable and inevitable", he told RT.

          Nader Hashemi thinks US-made TOW missiles are being used in a way that "advances US interests in this particular conflict, so they have no problem with those missiles being used in that capacity and in that direction."

          Meanwhile, the US holds the opinion that Bashar al-Assad is the primary source of the problem in Syria and Russia's policy in supporting Bashar al-Assad is "extending and perpetuating the crisis."

          "The US has no particular problem in allowing its missiles to be used by rebel forces that it considers friendly," Hashemi continued.

          "It explains why there has been relative silence with respect to the use of its own missiles in this particular context."

          Turkey committed 'foolish and rash decision' in attacking Russian jet

          Turkey feels a political need to show its strength inside the country as well as in the Middle East region, Senior Policy Consultant from British American Security Information Council Ted Seay told RT.

          "In fact in early October there were supposedly a couple of incursions by Russian military aircraft into Turkish airspace – they were chased away," said Seay.

          "What has happened now, I believe, is that Turkey is feeling some kind of political need, whether it is domestically or for its regional sort of audience, to show its strength in these things, and it has made a very foolish and rash decision in firing missiles at a Russian aircraft just to do this," he added.

          He argues that "Turkey is in the unfortunate position of being a frontline state with the Syrian civil war, on the one hand, and a NATO ally, on the other."

          "It looks to me, as someone who has worked in NATO for several years – that there was ineffective coordination beforehand with NATO authorities and with the allies about how Turkey ought to be ready to respond if, for example, future incidents along the lines of early October again with, again, these alleged airspace incursions happened again," Seay told RT.

          He said that there should have been a rehearsal for what is and isn't acceptable under these circumstances. "Quite frankly, apart from self-defense, firing of air-to-air missiles is not acceptable," the expert added.

          Acting against Russia not in Erdogan's interest

          Ankara took action against a Russian fighter jet because the plane got too close to some serious interests of Turkey, former senior security policy analyst in the office of the US Secretary of Defense Michael Maloof told RT.

          It is not in Erdogan's interest to escalate conflict with Russia any further, former senior security policy analyst in the office of the US Secretary of Defense Michael Maloof told RT.

          "Well, I think right now it's avoiding escalation and cooler heads hopefully will prevail so that Turkey doesn't try to invoke Article 5 under the NATO treaty [Collective Defence]," Maloof told RT.

          He said they tried that a few years ago when they shot down a Syrian jet. "But again cooler heads prevailed and they just decided to invoke Article 4 which was to have a consultation. Hopefully that will happen again," he added.

          "What happened was that the Russian jet got too close to some very serious interests of Turkey, and that is why they probably took action," Maloof said.

          "It is probably one of the routes through which they send their forces in through Turkey into Syria to fight on behalf of the jihadist groups," he told RT.

          Maloof suspects the Russian jet was getting too close "since it was aiming at possibly Al-Nusra or one of the other jihadist groups that was on the ground."

          Expert believes that it is really not in Erdogan's interest to escalate this thing any further. "Turkey has tremendous relations and exchanges with Russia from energy to a lot of trade," he said.

          "It is only right that the two sides get together and talk this thing out. But I don't see NATO getting engaged in this except to have consultations, because the last thing the European countries want - including the US – is an armed conflict with Russia," Maloof added.

          READ MORE: Downing of Russian Su-24 looks like a planned provocation - Lavrov


          [Nov 25, 2015] Turkish jets gave us no warning before shooting

          The sole survivor of the downed Russian warplane, its navigator no less, categorically denies that his aircraft crossed into Turkish airspace. He also says no visual or radio warning was given before his aircraft was fired at.
          www.rt.com

          The navigator of the Russian Su-24 shot down by a Turkish fighter jet on Tuesday insists that his plane did not cross into Turkey's airspace, and says he was given no visual or radio warning before being fired at.

          "It's impossible that we violated their airspace even for a second," Konstantin Murakhtin told RT and other Russian media. "We were flying at an altitude of 6,000 meters in completely clear weather, and I had total control of our flight path throughout."

          As well as denying Ankara's assertions that the plane was in Turkey's airspace, Murakhtin, who says he knows the mission area "like the back of my hand," also refuted Turkish officials' claims that the pilots were warned repeatedly.

          "In actual fact, there were no warnings at all. Neither through the radio, nor visually, so we did not at any point adjust our course. You need to understand the difference in speed between a tactical bomber like a Su-24, and that of the F16. If they wanted to warn us, they could have sat on our wing," said Murakhtin, who is currently recuperating at Russia's airbase in Latakia, northern Syria.

          "As it was, the missile hit the back of our plane out of nowhere. We didn't even have time to make an evasive maneuver."

          READ MORE: Leaked Ankara UN letter claims Su-24's 'air space violation' lasted 17 seconds

          As the plane was hit and went down in Syria, the two pilots ejected. Captain Sergey Rumyantsev was killed, with a rebel Turkmen brigade claiming they shot him to death while he was still parachuting.

          Murakhtin was extracted in a 12-hour joint operation by Russian and Syrian special forces, in which a Russian marine died.

          [Nov 25, 2015] NATO Is Harboring ISIS, And Heres The Evidence

          Notable quotes:
          "... Conspicuously missing from President Hollande's decisive declaration of war, however, was any mention of the biggest elephant in the room: state-sponsorship. ..."
          "... Earlier this year, the Turkish daily Meydan reported citing an Uighur source that more than 100,000 fake Turkish passports had been given to ISIS. The figure, according to the US Army's Foreign Studies Military Office (FSMO), is likely exaggerated, but corroborated "by Uighurs captured with Turkish passports in Thailand and Malaysia." ..."
          "... direct dealings between Turkish officials and ranking ISIS members was now 'undeniable.' ..."
          "... The same official confirmed that Turkey, a longstanding member of NATO, is not just supporting ISIS, but also other jihadist groups, including Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria. "The distinctions they draw [with other opposition groups] are thin indeed," said the official. "There is no doubt at all that they militarily cooperate with both." ..."
          "... The former ISIS fighter told Newsweek that Turkey was allowing ISIS trucks from Raqqa to cross the "border, through Turkey and then back across the border to attack Syrian Kurds in the city of Serekaniye in northern Syria in February." ISIS militants would freely travel "through Turkey in a convoy of trucks," and stop "at safehouses along the way." ..."
          "... In January, authenticated official documents of the Turkish military were leaked online, showing that Turkey's intelligence services had been caught in Adana by military officers transporting missiles, mortars and anti-aircraft ammunition via truck "to the al-Qaeda terror organisation" in Syria. ..."
          "... According to other ISIS suspects facing trial in Turkey, the Turkish national military intelligence organization (MIT) had begun smuggling arms, including NATO weapons to jihadist groups in Syria as early as 2011. ..."
          "... Documents leaked in September 2014 showed that Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan had financed weapons shipments to ISIS through Turkey. ..."
          "... A report by the Turkish Statistics Institute confirmed that the government had provided at least $1 million in arms to Syrian rebels within that period, contradicting official denials. Weapons included grenades, heavy artillery, anti-aircraft guns, firearms, ammunition, hunting rifles and other weapons?-?but the Institute declined to identify the specific groups receiving the shipments. ..."
          "... Turkey has also played a key role in facilitating the life-blood of ISIS' expansion: black market oil sales. Senior political and intelligence sources in Turkey and Iraq confirm that Turkish authorities have actively facilitated ISIS oil sales through the country. ..."
          "... Last summer, Mehmet Ali Ediboglu, an MP from the main opposition, the Republican People's Party, estimated the quantity of ISIS oil sales in Turkey at about $800 million?-?that was over a year ago. ..."
          "... Meanwhile, NATO leaders feign outrage and learned liberal pundits continue to scratch their heads in bewilderment as to ISIS' extraordinary resilience and inexorable expansion. ..."
          "... "Had Turkey placed the same kind of absolute blockade on Isis territories as they did on Kurdish-held parts of Syria… that blood-stained 'caliphate' would long since have collapsed?-?and arguably, the Paris attacks may never have happened. And if Turkey were to do the same today, Isis would probably collapse in a matter of months. Yet, has a single western leader called on Erdo?an to do this?" ..."
          "... The consistent transfers of CIA-Gulf-Turkish arms supplies to ISIS have been documented through analysis of weapons serial numbers by the UK-based Conflict Armament Research (CAR), whose database on the illicit weapons trade is funded by the EU and Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. ..."
          "... ISIS, in other words, is state-sponsored?-?indeed, sponsored by purportedly Western-friendly regimes in the Muslim world, who are integral to the anti-ISIS coalition. ..."
          "... Remember when neocon intellectuals were talking about using proxy forces to roll back Syria in 1996? Good thing for Israel most mouth breathing morons only get their news from the zio box. ..."
          www.zerohedge.com

          Zero Hedge

          For the better part of a year, Turkey remained on the sidelines in the "fight" against ISIS.

          Then, on July 20, a powerful explosion ripped through the town of Suruc. 33 people were killed including a number of Socialist Party of the Oppressed (ESP) and Socialist Youth Associations Federation (SGDF) members who planned to assist in the rebuilding of Kobani.

          The attack was promptly attributed to Islamic State who took "credit" for the tragedy the next day.

          To be sure, the attack came at a rather convenient time for President Tayyip Erdogan. A little over a month earlier, the ruling AKP party lost its absolute parliamentary majority in part due to a strong showing at the ballot box for the pro-Kurdish (and PKK-aligned) HDP. What happened in the wake of the Suruc bombing was nothing short of a largely successful attempt on Erdogan's part to use fear and violence to scare the electorate into restoring AKP's dominance in snap elections that took place earlier this month.

          In short, Erdogan used Suruc as an excuse to begin a "war on terror." Part and parcel of the new campaign was an invite from Ankara for Washington to use Turkey's Incirlik air base. Subsequently, Erdogan reminded the world that the PKK is also considered a terrorist organization and as such, the anti-ISIS campaign would also include a crackdown on Kurdish militants operating in Turkey. Erdogan proceeded to focus squarely on the PKK, all but ignoring ISIS while simultaneously undercutting the coalition building process on the way to calling for new elections. Unsurprisingly, AKP put on a much better showing in the electoral redo, and with that, Erdogan had succeeded in using ISIS as a smokescreen to start a civil war with the PKK, in the process frightening voters into restoring his party's grip on power.

          Through it all, the PKK has suggested that Ankara is and always has been in bed with Islamic State. That contention will come as no surprise to those who frequent these pages. It's common knowledge that Turkey backs the FSA and participates in the US/Saudi-led effort to supply Syrian rebels with weapons, money, and training. Indeed, those weapons were on full display Tuesday when the FSA's 1st Coastal Brigade used a US-made TOW to destroy a Russian search and rescue helicopter. That came just hours after the Turkmen FSA-allied Alwiya al-Ashar militia posted a video of its fighters celebrating over the body of an ejected Russian pilot.

          In short, Turkey has made a habit out of supporting anyone and everyone who opposes Assad in Syria and that includes ISIS. In fact, if one were to rank the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar in order of who is suspected of providing the most assistance to Islamic State, Turkey would likely top the list. Here's what Vladimir Putin had to say earlier today after Turkey downed the Russian Su-24:

          • PUTIN: OIL FROM ISLAMIC STATE IS BEING SHIPPED TO TURKEY
          • PUTIN SAYS ISLAMIC STATE GETS CASH BY SELLING OIL TO TURKEY
          • PUTIN: ISLAMIC STATE GETS MILITARY SUPPORT FROM MANY STATES

          It's with all of this in mind that we bring you excerpts from a new piece by Nafeez Ahmed who, you're reminded, penned a lengthy expose earlier this year explaining how the US views ISIS as a "strategic asset." In his latest, Ahmed takes a close look at the relationship between Ankara and Islamic State. The evidence is truly damning.

          * * *

          From "NATO is harbouring the Islamic State: Why France's brave new war on ISIS is a sick joke, and an insult to the victims of the Paris attacks," by Nafeez Ahmed, originally published in Medium

          "We stand alongside Turkey in its efforts in protecting its national security and fighting against terrorism. France and Turkey are on the same side within the framework of the international coalition against the terrorist group ISIS." --Statement by French Foreign Ministry, July 2015

          The 13th November Paris massacre will be remembered, like 9/11, as a defining moment in world history.

          The murder of 129 people, the injury of 352 more, by 'Islamic State' (ISIS) acolytes striking multiple targets simultaneously in the heart of Europe, mark a major sea-change in the terror threat.

          For the first time, a Mumbai-style attack has occurred on Western soil?-?the worst attack on Europe in decades. As such, it has triggered a seemingly commensurate response from France: the declaration of a nationwide state of emergency, the likes of which have not been seen since the 1961 Algerian war.

          ISIS has followed up with threats to attack Washington and New York City.

          Meanwhile, President Hollande wants European Union leaders to suspend the Schengen Agreement on open borders to allow dramatic restrictions on freedom of movement across Europe. He also demands the EU-wide adoption of the Passenger Name Records (PNR) system allowing intelligence services to meticulously track the travel patterns of Europeans, along with an extension of the state of emergency to at least three months.

          Under the extension, French police can now block any website, put people under house arrest without trial, search homes without a warrant, and prevent suspects from meeting others deemed a threat.

          "We know that more attacks are being prepared, not just against France but also against other European countries," said the French Prime Minister Manuel Valls. "We are going to live with this terrorist threat for a long time."

          Hollande plans to strengthen the powers of police and security services under new anti-terror legislation, and to pursue amendments to the constitution that would permanently enshrine the state of emergency into French politics. "We need an appropriate tool we can use without having to resort to the state of emergency," he explained.

          Parallel with martial law at home, Hollande was quick to accelerate military action abroad, launching 30 airstrikes on over a dozen Islamic State targets in its de facto capital, Raqqa.

          [...]

          Conspicuously missing from President Hollande's decisive declaration of war, however, was any mention of the biggest elephant in the room: state-sponsorship.

          Syrian passports discovered near the bodies of two of the suspected Paris attackers, according to police sources, were fake, and likely forged in Turkey.

          Earlier this year, the Turkish daily Meydan reported citing an Uighur source that more than 100,000 fake Turkish passports had been given to ISIS. The figure, according to the US Army's Foreign Studies Military Office (FSMO), is likely exaggerated, but corroborated "by Uighurs captured with Turkish passports in Thailand and Malaysia."

          [...]

          A senior Western official familiar with a large cache of intelligence obtained this summer from a major raid on an ISIS safehouse told the Guardian that "direct dealings between Turkish officials and ranking ISIS members was now 'undeniable.'"

          The same official confirmed that Turkey, a longstanding member of NATO, is not just supporting ISIS, but also other jihadist groups, including Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria. "The distinctions they draw [with other opposition groups] are thin indeed," said the official. "There is no doubt at all that they militarily cooperate with both."

          In a rare insight into this brazen state-sponsorship of ISIS, a year ago Newsweek reported the testimony of a former ISIS communications technician, who had travelled to Syria to fight the regime of Bashir al-Assad.

          The former ISIS fighter told Newsweek that Turkey was allowing ISIS trucks from Raqqa to cross the "border, through Turkey and then back across the border to attack Syrian Kurds in the city of Serekaniye in northern Syria in February." ISIS militants would freely travel "through Turkey in a convoy of trucks," and stop "at safehouses along the way."

          The former ISIS communication technician also admitted that he would routinely "connect ISIS field captains and commanders from Syria with people in Turkey on innumerable occasions," adding that "the people they talked to were Turkish officials… ISIS commanders told us to fear nothing at all because there was full cooperation with the Turks."

          In January, authenticated official documents of the Turkish military were leaked online, showing that Turkey's intelligence services had been caught in Adana by military officers transporting missiles, mortars and anti-aircraft ammunition via truck "to the al-Qaeda terror organisation" in Syria.

          According to other ISIS suspects facing trial in Turkey, the Turkish national military intelligence organization (MIT) had begun smuggling arms, including NATO weapons to jihadist groups in Syria as early as 2011.

          The allegations have been corroborated by a prosecutor and court testimony of Turkish military police officers, who confirmed that Turkish intelligence was delivering arms to Syrian jihadists from 2013 to 2014.

          Documents leaked in September 2014 showed that Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan had financed weapons shipments to ISIS through Turkey. A clandestine plane from Germany delivered arms in the Etimesgut airport in Turkey and split into three containers, two of which were dispatched to ISIS.

          A report by the Turkish Statistics Institute confirmed that the government had provided at least $1 million in arms to Syrian rebels within that period, contradicting official denials. Weapons included grenades, heavy artillery, anti-aircraft guns, firearms, ammunition, hunting rifles and other weapons?-?but the Institute declined to identify the specific groups receiving the shipments.

          Information of that nature emerged separately. Just two months ago, Turkish police raided a news outlet that published revelations on how the local customs director had approved weapons shipments from Turkey to ISIS.

          Turkey has also played a key role in facilitating the life-blood of ISIS' expansion: black market oil sales. Senior political and intelligence sources in Turkey and Iraq confirm that Turkish authorities have actively facilitated ISIS oil sales through the country.

          Last summer, Mehmet Ali Ediboglu, an MP from the main opposition, the Republican People's Party, estimated the quantity of ISIS oil sales in Turkey at about $800 million?-?that was over a year ago.

          By now, this implies that Turkey has facilitated over $1 billion worth of black market ISIS oil sales to date.

          [...]

          The liberal Turkish daily Taraf quoted an AKP founder, Dengir Mir Mehmet F?rat, admitting: "In order to weaken the developments in Rojova [Kurdish province in Syria] the government gave concessions and arms to extreme religious groups…the government was helping the wounded. The Minister of Health said something such as, it's a human obligation to care for the ISIS wounded."

          The paper also reported that ISIS militants routinely receive medical treatment in hospitals in southeast Turkey-?including al-Baghdadi's right-hand man.

          [...]

          Meanwhile, NATO leaders feign outrage and learned liberal pundits continue to scratch their heads in bewilderment as to ISIS' extraordinary resilience and inexorable expansion.

          [...]

          As Professor David Graeber of London School of Economics pointed out:

          "Had Turkey placed the same kind of absolute blockade on Isis territories as they did on Kurdish-held parts of Syria… that blood-stained 'caliphate' would long since have collapsed?-?and arguably, the Paris attacks may never have happened. And if Turkey were to do the same today, Isis would probably collapse in a matter of months. Yet, has a single western leader called on Erdo?an to do this?"

          [...]

          In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in September 2014, General Martin Dempsey, then chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked by Senator Lindsay Graham whether he knew of "any major Arab ally that embraces ISIL"?

          General Dempsey replied:

          "I know major Arab allies who fund them."

          In other words, the most senior US military official at the time had confirmed that ISIS was being funded by the very same "major Arab allies" that had just joined the US-led anti-ISIS coalition.

          These allies include Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and Kuwait in particular.

          [...]

          Porous links between some Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebels, Islamist militant groups like al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham and ISIS, have enabled prolific weapons transfers from 'moderate' to Islamist militants.

          The consistent transfers of CIA-Gulf-Turkish arms supplies to ISIS have been documented through analysis of weapons serial numbers by the UK-based Conflict Armament Research (CAR), whose database on the illicit weapons trade is funded by the EU and Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs.

          [...]

          ISIS, in other words, is state-sponsored?-?indeed, sponsored by purportedly Western-friendly regimes in the Muslim world, who are integral to the anti-ISIS coalition.

          Which then begs the question as to why Hollande and other Western leaders expressing their determination to "destroy" ISIS using all means necessary, would prefer to avoid the most significant factor of all: the material infrastructure of ISIS' emergence in the context of ongoing Gulf and Turkish state support for Islamist militancy in the region.

          WTFRLY

          Every alternative theory about Syria and ISIS, Serena Shim proved, on video. They killed her the same day as those airdrops to the Kurds where one was confirmed to fall into ISIS hands...

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

          Hugh G Rection

          Remember when neocon intellectuals were talking about using proxy forces to "roll back" Syria in 1996? Good thing for Israel most mouth breathing morons only get their news from the zio box.

          http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1438.htm

          earleflorida

          "Azerbaijan?' and Oil-- smack in the middle of the 'Silk Highway'...

          http://us.wow.com/wiki/Israel-Azerbaijan_relations

          http://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/israel-and-azerbaijan-geopolitical-reasons-for-stronger-ties-2/

          this should give some color on a creepy`Mossad' Bibi

          (does *cuibono want a 'bibi?) southpark

          earleflorida

          "Paris: Made in Libya, not Syria?" by Peter Lee

          http://atimes.com/2015/11/paris-made-in-libya-not-syria/

          [Nov 25, 2015] Turkeys Shootdown of Russian Jet What You Need to Know

          Notable quotes:
          "... Overt military response is unlikely, except that from now on any Turkish AF aircraft that enters Syrian airspace would be summarily destroyed. ..."
          "... Obama remarked that if Putin stopped bombing "moderate" Syrian rebels, then Russian planes wouldn't get shot down. Judging from that remark, it would seem that the Turks and USA want to force the Russians to back away from bombing Nusra positions anywhere near the Turkish border, i.e. a de facto no-fly zone. ..."
          "... Certainly there was nothing accidental or unforeseen about the Turkish attack. The Turks fully intended to attack some Russian aircraft and were waiting for an opportunity. ..."
          "... The Syrian War is growing past the stage of proxy war. This is now heading toward conventional confrontation between powers. Few of the current world leaders have relevant experience during their lifetimes of either waging such wars, or of avoiding them. ..."
          "... Obama's remarks certainly made me wonder if the the Turks had the green light from Washington. He also returned to the standard demand that Assad must go. His remarks appeared to put the blame on Russia and certainly won't help matters. I wouldn't put it pass the neocons that shooting down a Russian plane is all just part of the gameplan. ..."
          "... What gets me is that this likely means that Erdogan is getting a much stronger grip on Turkish military, which historically was the only thing that held Turkey secular (in fact, it felt it was its mission from Kemal Ataturk). Or, in what could be even scarier is that military did this deliberately assuming any Putin's reaction would target Erdogan much more than the military, in which case a phrase "rogue generals playing with a nuclear power" comes to mind. ..."
          "... As mentioned above, the best response Russia could make right now is to help Kurds with weapons/supplies and establishing no-fly zone over Syria's Kurds. Since Kurds are officially seen by most of the West as "good" (let's ignore the need to have everything black and white for a second), it would be very hard for Turkey to object, even if Russia shoots down some Turkish planes/helicopters over Syria. ..."
          "... The governments of "new" members in the Balkans and even Central Europe may say whatever they want, they are figureheads. The populace will not allow any situation where they enter a war against Russia on behalf of Turkey. Too much bad history there, for six centuries now. In Bulgaria the man on the street is right now in a very bad mood and very anti-turk. ..."
          "... Here, on the street, everyone see Turkey as an emerging Islamist menace, looking to grab some land in Europe. ..."
          "... The Russian bomber shot down is one of the cascade of catastrophic events that started with the West's determination to destabilize Eurasia with proxy neo-Nazi and Jihadist forces and Russia's counter intervention into Syria. ..."
          "... Its pretty clear that the Turks deliberately decided to attack a Russian plane in revenge for earlier Russian incursions, hoping that NATO membership protects them from a counter response. The historical analogies that come to mind are numerous – from Armenians carrying out attacks on Turks hoping that 'Christian powers' would come to their aid when the Turks retaliated, to Paul Pot attacking the Vietnamese assuming that China would come to his aid. Both those didn't exactly end well. ..."
          "... He can do lots of things to make things more difficult for Turkey. Other people in this thread noted gas deliveries, tourist income, exports and those are a nice place to start. And how about arming the YPG/PKK; now that would be some poetic justice right there. ..."
          "... I think Putin is probably, unfortunately, the most rational leader out of a sad bunch. I think the Russian response will be graduated: Cutting tourism, sabotaging Turkish exports with bureaucracy, Russian gas contracts will face sudden bureaucratic difficulties, later the Kurds may suddenly be much better armed and Russia will certainly bomb the everliving shit out of the entire "Turkish terrorist infrastructure" right along the borders, this time going with fighter escorts and perhaps even full ECM support (If they go with ECM support, *that* would be ominous indeed, once these systems are used, they get measured and analyzed, counter-counter measures come up and it's back to the lab for another 20 years). ..."
          "... The danger to Russia is that the Turks close the Bophorus. Huge amounts of Russian trade and oil, and their supplies to Syria, ship through this point. ..."
          "... The Turks can't and won't close the Bosphorus over economic sanctions. They can try over an eventual shoot-down of a Turkish jet over Syria, but then again the very presence of Turkish jets conducting bombing runs inside Syria is an act of aggression and unless Erdogan wants a Kurdish insurgency armed by Russia inside Turkey proper he won't try to close the shipping lanes. ..."
          "... 'The difference between "attack" and "defense" can be infinitesimal, especially if you control the media.' ..."
          "... Are the Turks the wild card or is this NATO's project green light? This seems more in line with the Russians must pay for Snowden, Crimea, and Assad than Turkey going off the reservation. ISIL is once again a secondary consideration as Russia must be further backed into a corner. Holland's request that Obama join Russia seems to have been conveniently preempted by world events. Putin is learning that there is no greater crime than embarrassing the West. ..."
          "... McInerney said that while he was a NORAD commander in Alaska they would never have done anything like this. ..."
          "... If one believes Sibel Edmonds analysis on Operation Gladio B, specifically centered on NATO and the CIAs fostering of criminal organizations to do their dirty work for them, extending so far as to breaking Interpols most wanted criminals out of prisons to work for them, then Turkeys role in fostering ISIS in Syria and the Uyghurs in Xinjiang make perfect sense. ..."
          "... The question remains, who is actually conducting this asymmetric warfare? Who are the real puppet masters? My money is on the neocons and the MIC. ..."
          "... Fast forward to last month and it is a Russian passenger jet blown up with 224 lives on board by ISIS - which most people know by now is funded, trained, and supplied by various parties including Langley. This week and this time it is a Russian jet fighting ISIS and its ilk shot down over the Syrian border by an actual NATO Turkish F16 jet. Then Youtube videos emerge of FSA rebels killing its ejected pilot and navigator. To crown the whole thing off, a Russian Search and Rescue helicopter is blown up with a US-made TOW missile. Provocations rarely come this extreme and so serendipitously for the provocateurs. ..."
          naked capitalism
          Krell,

          Does Turkey think that Russia will just shut up and accept their dead? Seriously? Some of the articles in our Western media have been truly bad on this development and have been mocking both Putin and the Russians. The whole thing absolutely reeks of a set-up, including the destruction of that rescue helicopter. Whatever the Russians decide to do it will not end well for Turkey.

          Putin might just decide to establish a protective umbrella over the Syrian Kurds and stop the Turks from bombing them. Will the Turks then complain to the UN or NATO when some of their aircraft are taken out whilst illegally flying uninvited over a foreign country (Syria) and bombing its citizens (Syrian Kurds)?

          As for the Turkmen in Syria, I would not want to be them after murdering those pilots. Especially when they could have traded them to Russia for only 'light' treatment by the Russian military. Turkey apparently, has been wanting to take this part of Syria and fold it into Turkey. Not gunna happen now but I am guessing that the Islamist militants will be marked for special targeting now.

          OIFVet, November 25, 2015 at 12:28 am

          Overt military response is unlikely, except that from now on any Turkish AF aircraft that enters Syrian airspace would be summarily destroyed. There will be a huge pressure from on Putin to send a few turks to meet their allah but such didn't work in Ukraine and won't work now.

          Rather, the huge Russian tourist stream to Turkey will disappear, Turkish exports to Russia will be banned, gas supplies will be disrupted due to 'technical reasons' and 'pipeline maintenance', and various financial and government institutions will find themselves under a sustained electronic attacks.

          In private Europe is horrified, regardless of what poodle Stoltenberg might say, and most blame Sultan Erdogan for the migrant crisis and for the subsequent blackmail of Europe by the neo-ottoman idiocracy in Ankara. This went too far, and came too soon after Paris, for even the lemmings not to notice whose side Turkey is really on. I am next door right now, and let's just say that the 'man on the street' opinion is harshly and violently anti-turk. Europe will soon be making a choice either way, and 0bama is not helping the US much with his peevish belligerence.

          Bill Smith, November 25, 2015 at 7:00 am

          Might be tricky doing that as other countries aircraft are staging out of Turkey to bomb targets in Syria.

          OIFVet, November 25, 2015 at 7:17 am

          If Russia and Syria declare that any aircraft entering Syrian airspace from Turkey will be considered hostile and is therefore subject to being shot down, US and French aircraft will bug out and use the Med corridor, pending Russian and Syrian approval. Either way, it will be open season on Turkish jets in Syrian airspace. And rightly so, all Turkey does is enable ISIS by bombing the PKK and arming/oil trading with IS. Putin did not just state that Russia was stabbed in the back by terrorist enablers for nothing.

          Roland, November 25, 2015 at 1:10 am

          Obama remarked that if Putin stopped bombing "moderate" Syrian rebels, then Russian planes wouldn't get shot down. Judging from that remark, it would seem that the Turks and USA want to force the Russians to back away from bombing Nusra positions anywhere near the Turkish border, i.e. a de facto no-fly zone.

          Certainly there was nothing accidental or unforeseen about the Turkish attack. The Turks fully intended to attack some Russian aircraft and were waiting for an opportunity.

          The Syrian War is growing past the stage of proxy war. This is now heading toward conventional confrontation between powers. Few of the current world leaders have relevant experience during their lifetimes of either waging such wars, or of avoiding them.

          My prediction is that Russia will fight much harder in Syria than would seem "rational." For Russia the question is whether or not they can sustain an alliance. For Russia the Syrian War is not just about Syria, it is about Belarus and other former Soviet republics.

          I will be surprised if the Russians back off here. I wonder what the Turks will do when a future batch of Russian air strikes near the Turkish border all have proper fighter escort? Would the Turks engage in a full-fledged air superiority battle at the Syrian frontier?

          Would the Russians risk exposing valuable electronic countermeasures assets to enemy observation and assessment, in anything less than a major war?

          At any rate, ISIS leaders are chortling. These stupid big lugs are about to lurch into one another and send themselves brawling and sprawling. And all they had to do was shoot some concertgoers!

          William C, November 25, 2015 at 8:50 am

          The FT is reporting that Turkey has imposed an exclusion zone over Syrian airspace that runs fifteen miles into Syria.

          Those whom the Gods wish to destroy?

          Jagger, November 25, 2015 at 9:47 am

          Obama remarked that if Putin stopped bombing "moderate" Syrian rebels, then Russian planes wouldn't get shot down.
          judging from that remark, it would seem that the Turks and USA want to force the Russians to back away from bombing Nusra positions anywhere near the Turkish border, i.e. a de facto no-fly zone.

          Obama's remarks certainly made me wonder if the the Turks had the green light from Washington. He also returned to the standard demand that Assad must go. His remarks appeared to put the blame on Russia and certainly won't help matters. I wouldn't put it pass the neocons that shooting down a Russian plane is all just part of the gameplan.

          Fajensen, November 25, 2015 at 2:22 am

          Europe has been at war with Turkey – on and off – for about 1300 years.

          It is pretty unlikely (and certain political suicide) that any European country will enter a war *for* Turkey, regardless of any NATO onligations. It's just not done!
          The joker is of course the new NATO members (and Sweden) they are always gagging to have go at Russia – if they could just get the US to do all the work for them. Unfortunately, The US have enough bellicose crazies to like this idea.

          vlade, November 25, 2015 at 4:16 am

          The general feeling in what you call the "new NATO" countries (i.e. ex Soviet block) is that Turkey massively overstepped. They have deep seated (and historically very much justified) suspicion of Russia and its actions, but they like islamists even less, and Turkey's shift from secularism went much less unnoticed than in the rest of Europe/US. After all, Russia isn't the only one who invaded/occupied most of them during the last few hundreds of years..

          What gets me is that this likely means that Erdogan is getting a much stronger grip on Turkish military, which historically was the only thing that held Turkey secular (in fact, it felt it was its mission from Kemal Ataturk). Or, in what could be even scarier is that military did this deliberately assuming any Putin's reaction would target Erdogan much more than the military, in which case a phrase "rogue generals playing with a nuclear power" comes to mind.

          As mentioned above, the best response Russia could make right now is to help Kurds with weapons/supplies and establishing no-fly zone over Syria's Kurds. Since Kurds are officially seen by most of the West as "good" (let's ignore the need to have everything black and white for a second), it would be very hard for Turkey to object, even if Russia shoots down some Turkish planes/helicopters over Syria.

          OIFVet, November 25, 2015 at 5:36 am

          Exactly. I imagine you are Serbian, I am from Bulgaria by birth and currently there on a short vacation. The governments of "new" members in the Balkans and even Central Europe may say whatever they want, they are figureheads. The populace will not allow any situation where they enter a war against Russia on behalf of Turkey. Too much bad history there, for six centuries now. In Bulgaria the man on the street is right now in a very bad mood and very anti-turk. Accordingly even the government figureheads are unusually subdued and cautious in what they say in reaction to the downing of the Russian jet. To put not too fine a point on it, people are scared of a nuclear conflagration and the situation is explosive.

          fajensen, November 25, 2015 at 6:18 am

          Sorry my mistake for generalizing.

          I was thinking about Georgia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – which only last week (according to Danish media) were eager for "steps to be taken against Russia". Sweden would be totally eager to prove to the world (which actually don't care about Sweden) that they are *so totally not racists* that they (well, "they" being the official Sweden) will readily step up and defend any belief system, the more alien, obnoxious and perverse the better, for "proof of non-racistness". It's really, really weird and strange.

          Here, on the street, everyone see Turkey as an emerging Islamist menace, looking to grab some land in Europe.

          VietnamVet, November 25, 2015 at 3:57 am

          The Russian bomber shot down is one of the cascade of catastrophic events that started with the West's determination to destabilize Eurasia with proxy neo-Nazi and Jihadist forces and Russia's counter intervention into Syria. There are five nuclear countries flying sorties over Syria; Russia, USA, Israel, France and the United Kingdom. World War III is underway but it is unacknowledged. If the rulers headquartered in London, Frankfurt, New York and Washington DC don't fear extinction from the ignition of hydrogen bombs overhead, then that is exactly what will happen. The War will inevitably escalate with no one trying to damp it down.

          One alternative to destroying the Northern Hemisphere is to forget regime change and join in an alliance with Russia and the rest of the world to eliminate the Islamic State and quarantine radical Islam.

          Plutoniumkun, November 25, 2015 at 5:32 am

          Its pretty clear that the Turks deliberately decided to attack a Russian plane in revenge for earlier Russian incursions, hoping that NATO membership protects them from a counter response. The historical analogies that come to mind are numerous – from Armenians carrying out attacks on Turks hoping that 'Christian powers' would come to their aid when the Turks retaliated, to Paul Pot attacking the Vietnamese assuming that China would come to his aid. Both those didn't exactly end well.

          I think the key danger here is Russia. Putin knows full well that Germany and France will not respond to a request for help from Turkey, no matter what NATO's agreements state. He may see it as an ideal opportunity to rip NATO apart. He may gamble that a strike against Turkey strong enough to humiliate it, but calculated enough to ensure that the the Germans/French won't join in (the UK will do whatever Obama tells them) would make the NATO agreement a dead letter. He may well succeed. The problem comes if he miscalculates.

          drexciya, November 25, 2015 at 5:48 am

          Turkey needs to be taken down a bit, so I wouldn't mind Putin learning Erdogan a lesson. But I think Putin is more subtle. He can do lots of things to make things more difficult for Turkey. Other people in this thread noted gas deliveries, tourist income, exports and those are a nice place to start. And how about arming the YPG/PKK; now that would be some poetic justice right there.

          vlade, November 25, 2015 at 5:59 am

          strike directly against Turkey? that would escalate massively, and could backfire like Polish invasion in WW2, where Hitler thought allies would just roll over as ever before. Except they didn't. Rest assured that this similarity would be drawn out very quickly.

          On the other hand, shooting down a Turkish jet or three over Syria, especially if the jets were bombing Kurds, now that would make a different story. Mind you, even that would be a large esaclation but unlikely to draw in NATO...

          fajensen, November 25, 2015 at 6:40 am

          NATO should have croaked along with the USSR. I'm quite fine with NATO splitting at the seams – because – right now it's a bunch of obsolete war-planners looking for some fight to justify their continued existence, any fight, in fact, NATO today is pretty much a mercenary force for the USA. No way nearly enough equipped for taking on any serious opponent, but good enough for bombing the shit out of places with poor air defense and weak friends. Of course 50% of the population feels the exact opposite way.

          I think Putin is probably, unfortunately, the most rational leader out of a sad bunch. I think the Russian response will be graduated: Cutting tourism, sabotaging Turkish exports with bureaucracy, Russian gas contracts will face sudden bureaucratic difficulties, later the Kurds may suddenly be much better armed and Russia will certainly bomb the everliving shit out of the entire "Turkish terrorist infrastructure" right along the borders, this time going with fighter escorts and perhaps even full ECM support (If they go with ECM support, *that* would be ominous indeed, once these systems are used, they get measured and analyzed, counter-counter measures come up and it's back to the lab for another 20 years).

          Maybe the Greek's will see an opportunity to pop one off at one of the many, many Turkish violations of Greek airspace?

          OIFVet, November 25, 2015 at 6:54 am

          The turks violate Greek airspace several thousand times a year. It's the turkish version of American exceptionalism.

          Jim Haygood, November 25, 2015 at 9:24 am

          'NATO – right now it's a bunch of obsolete war-planners looking for some fight to justify their continued existence, any fight.'

          Amen, bro. WW I demonstrated how strategic alliances with mutual defense guarantees could escalate disastrously.

          NATO lost its reason for existence when the USSR collapsed. Then it began violating its own treaty with "out of area" aggression (Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan).

          Clearly, NATO has degenerated into a rogue organization, serving as a fig leaf for US military occupation of Europe 70 years after the war ended. Will Europe ever develop enough backbone to expel its American occupiers?

          russell1200, November 25, 2015 at 8:40 am

          The danger to Russia is that the Turks close the Bophorus. Huge amounts of Russian trade and oil, and their supplies to Syria, ship through this point.

          It is the obvious response to a too forceful response, and obviously escalates in an extreme way.

          OIFVet, November 25, 2015 at 8:54 am

          The Turks can't and won't close the Bosphorus over economic sanctions. They can try over an eventual shoot-down of a Turkish jet over Syria, but then again the very presence of Turkish jets conducting bombing runs inside Syria is an act of aggression and unless Erdogan wants a Kurdish insurgency armed by Russia inside Turkey proper he won't try to close the shipping lanes. Erdogan is nuts but I don't think he is that stupid. In any case, as a native Bulgarian I view a non-Kemalist, islamist, sultan erdogan-led turkey as a danger for regional and global peace and in such case I won't mind one bit the return of Constantinople to Greece and to Orthodox christendom.

          nothing but the truth, November 25, 2015 at 7:12 am

          you will definitely see SAM missiles being launched against Turkish aircraft from Syrian border areas.

          The way NATO is set up it will inevitably lead to a member country pulling everyone into a world war.

          The difference between "attack" and "defense" can be infinitesimal, especially if you control the media.

          NATO members will push Russia till it retaliates, then all NATO says "game on" and WWW3 is in full mode.

          Turkey wouldnt dare do this unless it was part of NATO. So NATO basically has increased member bellicosity and misadventurism.

          Jim Haygood, November 25, 2015 at 9:31 am

          'The difference between "attack" and "defense" can be infinitesimal, especially if you control the media.'

          Our brave stenographers on the front lines of the media battle already are producing telling strikes, such as this morning's NYT article asserting Turkey's 'nuanced reasons' for attacking Russia's aircraft.

          Huddled in our bomb shelters, we can draw comfort from the majestic chords of the media's Mighty Wurlitzer.

          ex-PFC Chuck, November 25, 2015 at 7:29 am

          The Russian responses under Putin will be subtle, strategic surprises, and most likely effective just as they have been in the Ukraine situation. But they will be short of anything that gives cause to the Erdogan regime to formally declare war. Otherwise Turkey will be legally entitled to close the Bosphorus and Dardanelles to Russian shipping, which would greatly complicate their conduct of operations in Syria. As has been said many times in the past two years, he is playing chess while his opponents are at best capable of something between tic tac toe and checkers.

          hemeantwell, November 25, 2015 at 8:35 am

          Right. Putin has a many options and he will not react in so headstrong a way as to lose them. Erdogan was able - accusations of vote rigging aside - to boost AKP support through crisis escalation. The shoot down is in a strong sense more of the same. But now Putin can work to isolate Turkey from the rest of NATO, undercut Turkey's already struggling economy, justify aid to the Kurds. I wonder what Erdogan's domestic opposition will do with this. Does anyone know what Gulen and his supporters think?

          Jagger, November 25, 2015 at 9:59 am

          Right. Putin has a many options and he will not react in so headstrong a way as to lose them.

          The problem is public opinion in Russia. They will expect a response and Putin must respond in such a manner that he doesn't get assassinated or couped out of a job because he did not respond forcefully. Putin is a competent or better leader but not invulnerable.

          ltr, November 25, 2015 at 7:40 am

          An absolute disgrace. Turkey has been encouraging and supporting the destruction of the Syrian government for years and is supporting the destructive insurgents in Syria. Turkey has betrayed the rest of NATO and betrayed Russia.

          Dino Reno, November 25, 2015 at 8:43 am

          Are the Turks the wild card or is this NATO's project green light? This seems more in line with the Russians must pay for Snowden, Crimea, and Assad than Turkey going off the reservation. ISIL is once again a secondary consideration as Russia must be further backed into a corner. Holland's request that Obama join Russia seems to have been conveniently preempted by world events. Putin is learning that there is no greater crime than embarrassing the West.

          Cabreado

          "Meanwhile, NATO leaders feign outrage and learned liberal pundits continue to scratch their heads in bewilderment as to ISIS' extraordinary resilience and inexorable expansion."

          The most important dynamic in play...

          And the most important response is to (re)arrange your thinking to vigorously protect the Principles, because this next war is also set to rip this place apart from within.

          Demdere

          Pretty clear case of Treason, I believe.

          http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A3Sec3.html

          Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

          The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder ofTreason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

          ------

          The problem will be sorting out who to charge. If the CIA has cooperated with ISIS, and is therefore, as an agency, guilty of Treason, are all of the other people in government who gave any in the CIA aid and comfort also guilty?

          I think we should err on the side of justice here, and charge them all.

          https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/ghandis-terrorists/

          Just to remind everyone that this is a psyops game, and that anyone can play. As a systems guy and player of games, I assure you that our distributed side of a periphery-vs-cental side of an evolutionary arms race is a guaranteed win. It is our ingenuity against theirs, them mostly bureaucracies.

          But we will become very poor.

          https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/patriot-games/

          news printer
          McInerney: Turkey Shooting Down Russian Plane Was a 'Very Bad Mistake'

          McInerney said that while he was a NORAD commander in Alaska they would never have done anything like this.

          "This airplane was not making any maneuvers to attack the territory," McInerney said. "It was probably pressing the limits, that's fair. But you don't shoot 'em down just because of that."

          http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/11/24/lt-gen-mcinerney-turkey-shooting-down-russian-plane-was-very-bad-mistake

          YHC-FTSE

          If one believes Sibel Edmond's analysis on Operation Gladio B, specifically centered on NATO and the CIA's fostering of criminal organizations to do their dirty work for them, extending so far as to breaking Interpol's most wanted criminals out of prisons to work for them, then Turkey's role in fostering ISIS in Syria and the Uyghurs in Xinjiang make perfect sense. It compliments the efforts of the war hawks in Washington who benefit from conflict: The neocon zionazis, the MIC and others (Israel foremost, but Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Turkey who use the fear of terrorism as a pretext to keep them in power and excuse their military expansion)

          The question remains, who is actually conducting this asymmetric warfare? Who are the real puppet masters? My money is on the neocons and the MIC.

          Whoever it may be, a pattern of behaviour is emerging to start a major world war by poking at Russia to the extreme point of no return. Consider Ukraine and its PM: Yatsenyuk (Supported by US State Dept Victoria Nuland and NATO as the face of the Kiev coup) announcing on national tv that he would burn all Russian speakers alive. Then this actually taking place all over Ukraine, most famously at Odessa perpetrated by another Zionazi and Israeli dual national Igor Kolomoisky. Even the current president Poroshenko now admits that the 2014 euromaidan "revolution" was a coup d'etat. As if this wasn't incitement enough, we've had almost a continuous diet of MSM demonization of Putin with several hundred fake "Russian invasion" reports and the downing of MH17. At the same time, NATO mechanized troops have been gathering (In the case of Baltic States) a mere few hundred feet from the Russian border.

          Fast forward to last month and it is a Russian passenger jet blown up with 224 lives on board by "ISIS" - which most people know by now is funded, trained, and supplied by various parties including Langley. This week and this time it is a Russian jet fighting ISIS and its ilk shot down over the Syrian border by an actual NATO Turkish F16 jet. Then Youtube videos emerge of FSA rebels killing its ejected pilot and navigator. To crown the whole thing off, a Russian Search and Rescue helicopter is blown up with a US-made TOW missile. Provocations rarely come this extreme and so serendipitously for the provocateurs.

          My two cents: There is a pattern to provoke a direct major war with Russia by Victoria Nuland/Kagan and her ilk. It's insane and it's happening. This latest incident is a lure to force Russia into rash action that will be used as the "proof" that has been so lacking to date to demonize Putin in the msm worldwide to hearten the public to taste the blood of war. Sadly, it is delusional to think anyone will survive the full scale nuclear exchange this war may initiate. The tiny portion of humanity left will most likely be rendered sterile by the radiation from thousands of broken and unattended nuclear power stations around the globe. It's game over if this is allowed to continue. But maybe sanity will prevail and it will be a footnote in the annals of close calls.

          HowdyDoody

          Turkey was also up to its neck in supporting Chechen jihadists used against Russia. They were both a transit route and a location for training camps.

          Anunnaki

          http://atimes.com/2015/11/turkey-gets-toehold-on-syrian-territory-finally/

          It's worse than we think. Obama has given Erdogan the go ahead to seize Syrian Turkmen villages at the G20 gathering

          Shooting the plane down in Syrian territory is ipso facto a Turkish No Fly Zone

          That is why it has happened now. Expect Turkish vs Russian air battles as Turkey defends its ill gotten gains.

          Dr. Bonzo

          Very credible mainstream-available evidence links the 9/11 attacks to the CIA, Mossad, Pakistani intelligence and Saudi Arabia. Why should we be surprised? The PNAC policy paper stated plain as day for all to read regime change in Syria, Iraq and Iran. A casual look back at the mideast wars of the last 14 years suggest this very dynamic was at play and remains at play. That the mideast becomes even more destabilized isn't considered an issue of consequence. This is the chief miscalculation by the Masters of the Universe. Israel is territorially not large enough to survive a serious nuclear attack, and the increased nuclear proliferation and enmity engendered by this fucktarded regime change obsession all but guarantees this outcome. It's not an issue of if, but when.

          Phillyguy

          The goal of US/NATO (including France)/GCC is regime change in Syria. This goal has not changed, Paris attacks notwithstanding. Turkey functions as a US/NATO vassal state, doing the west's bidding. Sultan Erdogan's dreams of a neo-Ottoman empire may well end up turning Turkey in a smoldering mass of rubble.

          dogismycopilot

          ISIS is setting up a Consulate in Istabul: http://awdnews.com/top-news/islamic-state-isis-to-open-its-first-consula...

          grunk

          It's time for the media to rehabilitate the ISIS image from fanatical extremists into fierce fighters for liberty.

          JohnFrodo

          The takeover of Rushbaldi revealed the facts above long ago.

          Mike Masr
          What is ISIS? A U.S. smokescreen for regime change and war ops

          http://novorossia.today/what-is-isis-a-u-s-smokescreen-for-regime-change...

          [Nov 25, 2015] Russian foreign minster calls plane downing 'planned provocation'

          www.washingtonpost.com

          Lavrov's comments offered the clearest signals that Moscow views the downing as more than an accidental mishap while Russia steps up its airstrikes in Syria to support the embattled government of President Bashar al-Assad.

          Turkey and its Western allies have backed rebel groups seeking to topple Assad in Syria's nearly five-year civil war. Pentagon officials, meanwhile, have raised worries about possible mishaps between Russia's air campaign and a U.S.-led coalition conducting airstrikes against the Islamic State.

          ... ... ...

          "We have serious doubts this was an unintended incident and believe this is a planned provocation," Lavrov said after discussions with Turkey's foreign minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu. Lavrov did not elaborate on Moscow's claims.

          ... ... ...

          Moscow further alleged at Turkey was sheltering the Islamic State from Russian attacks. "A stab in the back from the accomplices of terrorism," said Putin on Tuesday.

          Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev on Wednesday warned that the "damage will be hard to repair." Russian officials have raised possible responses such as a ban on Turkish airlines or canceling a proposed gas pipeline between the two countries.

          So far, however, Russia has not taken any steps other than to recommend Russian tourists not visit Turkey. Russian tour operators have cancelled most of their packages to Turkish resorts, the Interfax news service reported. More than 3 million tourists visited the popular vacation destination from Russia last year.

          [Nov 25, 2015] An Invisible US Hand Leading to War Turkey's Downing of a Russian Jet was an Act of Madness

          www.counterpunch.org

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

          I'm sure there are plenty of other options available to Russia also to turn the screws against both Turkey and NATO, without openly pushing buttons that could lead to a direct confrontation with the US and its NATO fiction. Working in Russia's favor is that the US aside, the European nations of NATO have no desire to be at war with Russia. There are clearly hotheads in the US Congress, the Pentagon, and perhaps even within the neo-con-infested Obama administration, who are pushing for just such a mad showdown. But in Europe, where the actual fighting would mostly occur, and where memories are still strong of the destructive power of war, there is no taste for such insanity. It could, in fact, have been a big error in the long run for the US to push Turkey into such a deadly provocation, if it leads to more anti-American sentiment among the citizens of such key NATO countries as France, Germany, Italy and Britain.

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

          [Nov 25, 2015] 17 Seconds That Changed The World - Leaked Letter Exposes Turkeys Hair-Trigger Reality

          Notable quotes:
          "... Either way, Turkey seems to have tipped their hand, and that is probably VASTLY more important to how this plays out than the death of a pilot in an armed conflict. ..."
          "... All Russia has to do is stay a few miles from the border and keep blowing shit up and killing assholes. ..."
          "... Economics and finance is how this war is being fought. Syria is just the hot spot. Look for action on the banking, finance, trade, and economic front. It is coming. ..."
          "... Stop all the chatter and simply as, Cui Bono? The answer... as always in deceptive operations like this - is the same. ..."
          "... Erdogan set a fucked up precedent for world stability and the West hasn't heard the last of the rhetoric it used in defending his insane actions. Turkey, like every country, has a right to defend its territory and its airspace. -Barack Obama ..."
          "... [stated after Turkey destroyed a Russian jet, which resulted in the death of at least one of the pilots, while the jet was conducting anti-terror operations in Syria against ISIS - admitted bombers of a Russian civilian airliner] ..."
          "... Russia, Iran, Syria will prevail because they must prevail. There is no alternative for them. Putin is a very cautious man despite being displayed as hazardeur by western presstitute media. He knows exactly what he is doing and he will be doing it until the logical goal has been reached. For a psychopath like Erdogan, longing for Ottoman empire 2.0 ruled by a mixture of muslim brothers like himself and Turkey-style Wahabists, losing control over the airspace over Syria near the border to Turkey is absolutely inacceptable. By ordering to shoot down that SU-24 Erdogan made a big strategic miscalculation and simply accelerated his complete loss of control, i.e., what he fears most. ..."
          "... For Russia it comes as a gift: It has now all reasons to set up a total no-fly zone over North Syria referring to today's incident. And no power in the world can prevent Russia from doing this. ..."
          "... That F16 was on an intercept course, it wasn't patrolling up and down the border. That shooting was a deliberate act especially as it took place inside Syrian airspace. ..."
          "... You really think Turkey did this without American neocon plotting via NATO via Turkey? All on their own? ..."
          "... Apparently Russians are a big source of Tourist income for Turkey. And then, there is all that ISIS blood-oil flowing through Turkey which will now be stopped by Russian carpet bombing of ISIS tankers. ..."
          "... Also its going to be awfully hard for Turkish planes to raid into Syria, what with the Russians waiting to mistakenly shoot them down and have local rebels shoot Turkish pilots. ..."
          "... One thing I keep meaning to look into, before all my mentors and sources kick the bucket... and I can no longer kick the can, is what the level of Turkish involvement in the various disturbances in the Caucasus actually after the collapse of the Soviet Union. People write about Saudi Arabia's ideological ties, but in the rush to extract Caspian energy for the west, some of those projects took suspicious turns for the strategic benefit of Ankara. ..."
          "... The F16 was loitering waiting for the chance to pounce. No way was this anything innocent and baloney about Turkey defending its air space is retard-spew. ..."
          "... The preponderance of facts as we now have them would indicate in Russia's favor. ..."
          "... They seem to indeed be trying to pull NATO in on Article 5. ..."
          "... Mr Erdogan spoke of Turkey's rage at the decision to shoot down the F-4 Phantom on 22 June and described Syria as a clear and present threat . A short-term border violation can never be a pretext for an attack, he said. ..."
          Zero Hedge
          The highlighted passage reads: "Disregarding these warnings, both planes, at an altitude of 19,000 feet, violated Turkish national airspace to a depth of 1.36 miles and 1.15 miles in length for 17 seconds from 9:24:05 local time."

          So, as RT notes, even if we buy Turkey's story (i.e. if we accept that Russia actually did violate Turkish airspace), then it would appear that Ankara has something of an itchy trigger finger. That is, Turkey was apparently willing to risk sparking a wider conflict between NATO and Russia over a 17 second incursion.

          But something doesn't sound right.

          In other words, as Sputnik put it earlier this evening, "according to those numbers, the Su-24 would have had to be flying at stall speed."

          The Su-24's max speed is 1,320 km/hour.

          So if we assume the Su-24 was actually going much faster, was 17 seconds more like 5 seconds? Or perhaps even less?

          It's important not to forget the context here. Ankara is fiercly anti-Assad and in addition to being generally displeased with Russia's efforts to support the regime, just four days ago, Turkey summoned Russian ambassador Andrey Karlov over the alleged bombing of Turkish villages near the border. "Turkey has asked Russia to 'immediately end its operation,'" AFP reported, adding that "Ankara warned bombing villages populated by the Turkmen minority in Syria could lead to 'serious consequences.'"

          Of course Russia wasn't just bombing Turkish civilians for the sheer hell of it. It's likely Moscow was targeting the very same FSA-affiliated Alwiya al-Ashar militiamen who shot and killed the parachuting Russian pilot earlier today.

          In short, it looks like Ankara saw an opportunity to shoot down a Russian jet in retaliation for strikes on Turkish rebel fighters who are operating alongside anti-Assad forces. Erdogan is essentially gambling that Russia will not retailiate militarily against Turkey because doing so would open the door for a direct confrontation with NATO.

          Time will tell whether that gamble pays off or whether Moscow decides that the next time a Turkish F-16 gets "lost" over Latakia, a little payback is in order.

          Femme Fatale

          You got it all wrong. That's not what happened at all. Erdogan told Putin: "the Israelis wagged the Americans who wagged me, so what's a poor Turk to do?" >> https://goo.gl/qazI3V

          -.-'s picture

          Physics are a bitch Erdogan.

          TahoeBilly2012

          That's some cheeze whiz shit right there, Turkey supports ISIS, so does France....bastards, you kill your own people in cafes!!

          Chuckster

          Exactly...if you watch the Russians they are always slow to release information. It's like they enjoy letting the rest of the world make asses out of themselves then they come forth with powerful evidence. They have satellites so I expect to see some evidence of what they are saying in the future. In the meantime paybacks are a bitch.

          highandwired

          Russian defense ministry has already released the satellite info:

          https://youtu.be/KGlJFoIBKQw?t=1m16s

          CrazyCooter

          In war, people die. Equipment is lost. It is fscking reality people. Maybe the pilot fscked up. Maybe they crossed the border and thought it wouldn't matter. Maybe they didn't and just got ambushed.

          Either way, Turkey seems to have tipped their hand, and that is probably VASTLY more important to how this plays out than the death of a pilot in an armed conflict. Or, to quote Stalin, "One death is a tragedy, a million a statistic." Y'all won't be pity partying for the next 1,000 dead Russian pilots.

          All Russia has to do is stay a few miles from the border and keep blowing shit up and killing assholes.

          Economics and finance is how this war is being fought. Syria is just the "hot" spot. Look for action on the banking, finance, trade, and economic front. It is coming.

          Good thing Turkey doesn't need Russia for goods, services, parts, energy, food, and shit like that.

          Regards,

          Cooter

          J S Bach

          Stop all the chatter and simply as, "Cui Bono?" The answer... as always in deceptive operations like this - is the same.

          Supernova Born

          They'll be some chagrin in Western capitals the day China starts quoting all this right of self-defense and defense of territory stuff when the next military ship intentionally cruises right past a Chinese base on the Senkakus or Spratleys.

          "You are within Chinese territorial waters. You have 17 seconds to depart."

          Erdogan set a fucked up precedent for world stability and the West hasn't heard the last of the rhetoric it used in defending his insane actions. "Turkey, like every country, has a right to defend its territory and its airspace." -Barack Obama

          [stated after Turkey destroyed a Russian jet, which resulted in the death of at least one of the pilots, while the jet was conducting anti-terror operations in Syria against ISIS - admitted bombers of a Russian civilian airliner]

          giovanni_f

          No (I am unsure how such a US-centric crap even deserves the label "assessment"). Russia, Iran, Syria will prevail because they must prevail. There is no alternative for them. Putin is a very cautious man despite being displayed as hazardeur by western presstitute media. He knows exactly what he is doing and he will be doing it until the logical goal has been reached. For a psychopath like Erdogan, longing for Ottoman empire 2.0 ruled by a mixture of muslim brothers like himself and Turkey-style Wahabists, losing control over the airspace over Syria near the border to Turkey is absolutely inacceptable. By ordering to shoot down that SU-24 Erdogan made a big strategic miscalculation and simply accelerated his complete loss of control, i.e., what he fears most.

          For Russia it comes as a gift: It has now all reasons to set up a total no-fly zone over North Syria referring to today's incident. And no power in the world can prevent Russia from doing this.

          The answer to "cui bono" is Russia but as in chess it was the enemy to make the gift.

          Hope that helps for you amateur geopoliticians.

          Wile-E-Coyote

          That F16 was on an intercept course, it wasn't patrolling up and down the border. That shooting was a deliberate act especially as it took place inside Syrian airspace. Now I expect Russia to hit anything with a pulse in that area, your move Turkey, but be careful Xmas is coming you could get a right stuffing.

          an_indian

          You really think Turkey did this without American neocon plotting via NATO via Turkey? All on their own?

          Apparently Russians are a big source of Tourist income for Turkey. And then, there is all that ISIS blood-oil flowing through Turkey which will now be stopped by Russian carpet bombing of ISIS tankers.

          Look for more such Turkish villages to be bombed in future and some of those bombs/missiles losing their way (like the cruise missile that supposedly landed in Iran) and landing on Turkish soil.

          Also its going to be awfully hard for Turkish planes to raid into Syria, what with the Russians waiting to "mistakenly" shoot them down and have local rebels shoot Turkish pilots.

          This is going to get really complicated real fast.

          Urban Redneck

          Perhaps nominally, but I think Turkey had the most, relatively, to lose. Petroleum is somewhat fungible, and the current glut notwithstanding, a buyer generally be can found near the current market price. The Turks, however, are traders and if a pipeline doesn't flow through Turkey, their cut is eliminated. One thing I keep meaning to look into, before all my mentors and sources kick the bucket... and I can no longer kick the can, is what the level of Turkish involvement in the various disturbances in the Caucasus actually after the collapse of the Soviet Union. People write about Saudi Arabia's ideological ties, but in the rush to extract Caspian energy for the west, some of those projects took suspicious turns for the strategic benefit of Ankara.

          Max Steel

          Here is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccENeRldkW4

          The F16 was loitering waiting for the chance to pounce. No way was this anything innocent and baloney about "Turkey defending its air space" is retard-spew.

          Most importantly they are not at war with each other so Turkish plane could have escorted them out but NOPE.

          Turkey's airspace was violated 114 times in one year by Greek, Israeli, and Italian aircraft They somehow avoided shooting any down. "Air space violations are incidents that happen almost every day, and are resolved in a matter of minutes within international law," the Turkish General Staff said in a statement. Six airplanes violated Turkish airspace last week alone, the General Staff said, of which none were shot down and left Turkey's airspace after they were warned by Turkish personnel.

          A violation of one to two kilometers is accepted as "natural" given the speed of aircraft, the statement said. This year's violations of Turkish airspace lasted between 20 seconds and nine minutes, which showed "airspace violations can be resolved by warning and interceptions," the statement said."

          cheech_wizard

          On a bright note:

          http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/11/25/russia-halts-gas...

          Last line in the article is priceless.

          Temperatures in Ukraine where most homes rely on piped gas for central heating were below freezing Wednesday morning.

          SmittyinLA

          Russia won't retaliate against Turkey, they'll target Erdogan and his donors-personally like Israelis, behind the jihad are businessmen with assets and interests-that they're gonna lose shortly.

          Financial punishment is coming for "friends of Erdogon"

          Putin will make it personal, Russia doesn't do "calm", they do "stoic".

          css1971

          Sampling period. The turkish account of 17 seconds could be related to the sampling period on their monitoring system, but it looks like a large overestimation.

          Now, if you look at the Russian realtime tracking, they clipped the border maybe, but didn't enter Turkish airspace :

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cs8jdJKSGo

          So it comes down to how accurate are the monitoring systems whether the plane entered Turkish airspace or not. He said, she said.

          There's a different question though, even if you take the Turkish explanation. As a NATO member, do you shoot down planes :

          1. That has entered your airspace literally for seconds and has clearly exited by the time you shoot it down that part is quite clear.

          2. From a country which had an agreement in place ahead of time explicitly to prevent exactly this situation.

          No, you don't. Unless you are explicitly and deliberately and cynically attempting to escalate the situation.

          lakecity55

          The preponderance of facts as we now have them would indicate in Russia's favor.

          At the least, it would have taken more time for the Turks to set up the shot than any time the bomber may have been in their airspace. A needless provocation on Turkey's part. The math is very telling; at the claimed speed, the bomber would indeed be flying too slow. You can look the bomber's specs up on the intertubes.

          They seem to indeed be trying to pull NATO in on Article 5.

          jughead

          Mr Erdogan spoke of Turkey's "rage" at the decision to shoot down the F-4 Phantom on 22 June and described Syria as a "clear and present threat". "A short-term border violation can never be a pretext for an attack," he said.

          whoopsie

          Noplebian

          The Road to WW3......
          http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/11/us-gives-their-prox...

          Last of the Middle Class

          Definitely a speed trap waiting, got perfect video footage of the event too. hmmmmm. Turkey was protecting their RADICAL muslim brothers they do NOT want bombed. That is what happened and now the want NATO to intervene on their behalf. Fuck them to hell and back let Putin bomb their radical muslim asses too.

          [Nov 25, 2015] Russia to deploy S-400 air defense system in Hmeimim airbase

          sana.sy
          Russian President Vladimir Putin approved deploying S-400 air defense system at the Russian airbase in Hmeimim in Lattakia, the Kremlin announced on Wednesday.

          Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the President approved the Russian Defense Ministry's proposal to deploy the S-400 system, Russia's most advanced anti-aircraft defense system.

          Earlier, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said at a Defense Ministry meeting that S-400 will be deployed in Hmeimim airbase after a Russian Su-24 aircraft was downed yesterday by an air-to-air missile launched from a Turkish F-16 fighter jet when it was returning from an anti-terrorist mission in the northern countryside of Lattakia.

          The S-400 is employed to ensure air defense using long- and medium-range missiles that can hit aerial targets at ranges up to 400 kilometers. The S-400 is capable of hitting tactical and strategic aircraft as well as ballistic and cruise missiles. The system includes a set of radars, missile launchers and command posts, and is operated solely by the Russian military.

          [Nov 25, 2015] Alarm bells toll for Turkish tourism sector over Russia crisis

          www.hurriyetdailynews.com

          Turkish tourism representatives have voiced concern after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov advised Russians on Nov. 24 not to visit Turkey, after Turkey downed of a Russian plane on the Syrian frontier.

          Lavrov also said the threat of terrorism in Turkey was no less than in Egypt, where a bomb attack brought down a Russian passenger plane last month.

          Russia's tourism agency then recommended the suspension of package holiday sales to Turkey.

          "This is no good. We cannot lose the Russian market, which is the second largest source of Turkey's tourism sector. We have already lost over 800,000 Russian tourists over this year due to economic woes in [Russia], and had to make significant cuts in hotel prices to overcome our losses in addition to other concessions. Despite this, we still cannot close the gap," said the head of the Turkish Hoteliers Federation (TUROFED), Osman Ayık.

          ... ... ...

          While 3.3 million Russian tourists visited Turkey in 2014, Turkey saw a decrease of approximately 25 percent in the number of tourists from Russia and its neighbors over this year. However, Turkey did become more attractive for Russian tourists after Moscow suspended flights to Egypt.

          Turkey's tourism revenues declined 4.4 percent, reaching only $12.29 billion in the third quarter, the Turkish Statistics Institute (TÜİK) said on Oct. 30, amid security concerns and a decrease in the number of Russian tourists visiting the country.

          [Nov 25, 2015] Why it was done? The simple answer is to put pressure on Russia to force it to withdraw from Syria

          www.kp.ru
          That Turkish F16 fighter pilot alone could not take a decision about the attack. Especially in the border area. Usually every opportunity is used to resolve the situation peacefully. The pilot of a Turkish fighter definitely got the order to land from very high command. But it is unlikely Turkey independently decided about the attack on Russian military aircraft. Most likely, the approval of this provocation was given on the Potomac river. Question: for what?

          The simple answer is to put pressure on Russia to force it to withdraw from Syria. But the authors of this provocation here clearly miscalculated. First, in the near future we should expect increase of air strikes on sites under the control of the ISIS.

          Secondly, bombers in Syria will no longer fly without cover of fighters, and every attempt of attack on our aircraft will get an adequate response. And finally, third, because Russia is the only invited to the military presence and aid the country's only legitimate government of Syria, now our air defenses and will be hard to clap each attempt any incursion into Syrian airspace by forces that we ourselves define as hostile.

          [Nov 25, 2015] Turkey's Stab in the Back

          Nov 25, 2015 Antiwar.com

          This incident has revealed what the real sides are in the Syrian civil war: who is fighting whom, and for what. The Russian plane crashed into Syrian territory and one of the pilots was shot from the skies as he parachuted: this barbaric act was captured on video by the rebels, who are being reported as affiliated with the Turkmen "10th Brigade." This is just for public consumption, however: in reality, the area is controlled by an alliance of rebel forces dominated by the al-Nusra Front, which is the official Syrian affiliate of al-Qaeda. The jihadists took control of the area in March of this year, and it has been the focal point of recent fighting between al-Qaeda and Syrian government forces backed by the Russian air offensive.

          ... ... ...

          Putin's accusation that this is "a stab in the back by the accomplices of terrorists" is absolutely correct – but he isn't just talking about Turkey, whose Islamist regime has been canoodling with the terrorists since the start of the Syria civil war. Washington and its allies, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar – who have been directly aiding ISIS as well as the "moderate" head-choppers – is indirectly responsible for the downing the Russian plane – including a barbaric attack on the rescue helicopter, which was downed by a US-provided TOW missile launcher.

          ... ... ...

          it's the Americans who want a repeat of the Cuban missile crisis, not Putin....

          NOTES IN THE MARGIN

          You can check out my Twitter feed by going here. But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

          I've written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon (ISI Books, 2008).

          You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here

          [Nov 25, 2015] Why Did Turkey Attack a Russian Plane

          Notable quotes:
          "... Why would the Turks do that? Because Russia is supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, apparently with considerable success, and Turkey has been extremely persistent in their demands that he be removed. Al-Assad is seen by Turkey, rightly or wrongly, as a supporter of Kurdish militancy along the long and porous border with Turkey. This explains why Ankara has been lukewarm in its support of the campaign against ISIS, tacitly cooperating with the terrorist group, while at the same time focusing its own military effort against the Kurds, which it sees as an existential threat directed against the unity of the Turkish Republic. ..."
          "... Would Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan do something so reckless? ..."
          "... if his objective was to derail the creation of a unified front against terrorist and rebel groups in Syria and thereby weaken the regime in Damascus, he might just believe that the risk was worth the potential gain. ..."
          The American Conservative

          Why would the Turks do that? Because Russia is supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, apparently with considerable success, and Turkey has been extremely persistent in their demands that he be removed. Al-Assad is seen by Turkey, rightly or wrongly, as a supporter of Kurdish militancy along the long and porous border with Turkey. This explains why Ankara has been lukewarm in its support of the campaign against ISIS, tacitly cooperating with the terrorist group, while at the same time focusing its own military effort against the Kurds, which it sees as an existential threat directed against the unity of the Turkish Republic.

          Would Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan do something so reckless? Only he knows for sure, but if his objective was to derail the creation of a unified front against terrorist and rebel groups in Syria and thereby weaken the regime in Damascus, he might just believe that the risk was worth the potential gain.

          Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

          [Nov 24, 2015] Nato meets as Russia confirms one of two pilots dead after jet shot down - live updates

          Notable quotes:
          "... Turkey's international airports have also been busy. Many, if not most, of the estimated 15,000-20,000 foreign fighters to have joined the Islamic State (Isis) have first flown into Istanbul or Adana, or arrived by ferry along its Mediterranean coast. ..."
          "... The influx has offered fertile ground to allies of Assad who, well before a Turkish jet shot down a Russian fighter on Tuesday, had enabled, or even supported Isis. Vladimir Putin's reference to Turkey as "accomplices of terrorists" is likely to resonate even among some of Ankara's backers. ..."
          "... Lavrov, speaking to reporters in the southern Russian city of Sochi, advised Russians not to visit Turkey and said the threat of terrorism there was the no less than in Egypt, where a bomb attack brought down a Russian passenger plane last month. ..."
          "... One of the possible retaliatory measures Russia could take would be ban flights to Turkey, as Moscow did with Egypt after the Metrojet bombing over Sinai last month, writes Shaun Walker. There are dozens of flights a day between the two countries, so such a move would undoubtedly seriously affect trade and tourism. ..."
          www.theguardian.com

          Martin Chulov

          When Putin labeled Turkey "accomplices of terrorists," he was hinting at complex relationship which includes links between senior Isis figures and Turkish officials, explains the Guardian's Martin Chulov in this analysis.
          Turkey's international airports have also been busy. Many, if not most, of the estimated 15,000-20,000 foreign fighters to have joined the Islamic State (Isis) have first flown into Istanbul or Adana, or arrived by ferry along its Mediterranean coast.

          The influx has offered fertile ground to allies of Assad who, well before a Turkish jet shot down a Russian fighter on Tuesday, had enabled, or even supported Isis. Vladimir Putin's reference to Turkey as "accomplices of terrorists" is likely to resonate even among some of Ankara's backers.

          From midway through 2012, when jihadis started to travel to Syria, their presence was apparent at all points of the journey to the border. At Istanbul airport, in the southern cities of Hatay and Gaziantep – both of which were staging points – and in the border villages.

          Foreigners on their way to fight remained fixtures on these routes until late in 2014 when, after continued pressure from the EU states and the US, coordinated efforts were made to turn them back.

          Lavrov cancels planned visit to Turkey
          No great surprise this, but Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has cancelled a planned visit to Turkey.

          Lavrov was due to visit Ankara on Wednesday for bilateral talks. Turkish officials had insited it would go ahead as planned.

          Lavrov, speaking to reporters in the southern Russian city of Sochi, advised Russians not to visit Turkey and said the threat of terrorism there was the no less than in Egypt, where a bomb attack brought down a Russian passenger plane last month.

          One of the possible retaliatory measures Russia could take would be ban flights to Turkey, as Moscow did with Egypt after the Metrojet bombing over Sinai last month, writes Shaun Walker. There are dozens of flights a day between the two countries, so such a move would undoubtedly seriously affect trade and tourism.

          (That's it from me. I'm handling the live blog over to Mark Tran).

          Shaun Walker

          ...Writing on Twitter Alexei Pushkov, the head of the Russian parliament's international relations committee, said: "Ankara clearly did not weigh the consequences of its hostile acts for Turkey's interests and economy. The consequences will be very serious."

          Here's video of Putin's response to the downing of the Russia jet:

          http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/nov/24/vladimir-putin-turkey-russian-jet-video

          Here are the key quotes from Putin's statement:

          • "The loss today is a stab in the back, carried out by the accomplices of terrorists. I can't describe it in any other way."
          • "Our aircraft was downed over the territory of Syria, using air-to-air missile from a Turkish F-16. It fell on the Syrian territory 4km from Turkey."
          • "Neither our pilots nor our jet threatened the territory of Turkey."
          • "Today's tragic event will have significant consequences, including for Russia-Turkish relations ... Instead of immediately getting in contact with us, as far as we know, the Turkish side immediately turned to their partners from Nato to discuss this incident, as if we shot down their plane and not they ours."
          • "Do they want to make Nato serve ISIS? ... We hope that the international community will find the strength to come together and fight against the common evil."

          Summary

          ... ... ...

          Russia's president Vladimir Putin has warned Turkey of 'serious consequences' after a Russia fighter jet was shot down close to Turkey's border with Syria. Putin described the incident as a "stab in the back" and accused Turkey of siding with Islamic State militants in Syria.

          ... ... ...

          [Nov 24, 2015] Russo-Syrian Forces Close to Cutting Off ISILs Supply Routes From Turkey

          Notable quotes:
          "... "The endgame is at hand, and only the most desperate measures can hope to prevent Russia and Syria from finally securing Syria's borders. Turkey's provocation is just such a measure," he emphasizes. ..."
          "... "As in the game of chess, a player often seeks to provoke their opponent into a series of moves," Cartalucci notes. ..."
          sputniknews.com

          Geopolitical analyst Tony Cartalucci draws attention to the fact that over the recent weeks Russian and Syrian forces have been steadily gaining ground in Syria, retaking territory from ISIL and al-Qaeda.

          "The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has even begun approaching the Euphrates River east of Aleppo, which would effectively cut off ISIS [ISIL] from its supply lines leading out of Turkish territory," Cartalucci narrates in his latest article for New Eastern Outlook.

          He explains that from there, Syrian troops with Russian air support would move north, into the very "safe zone" which Washington and Ankara have planned to carve out of Syria. Cartalucci points out that the "safe zone" includes a northern Syria area stretching from Jarabulus to Afrin and Al-Dana.

          If Syrian troops establish their control over this zone, the Western plan of taking and holding the territory (with the prospect of further Balkanization of the region) would fall apart at the seams. In light of this, the regime change project, harbored by the West since the very beginning of the Syrian unrest, would be "indefinitely suspended," Cartalucci underscores.

          "The endgame is at hand, and only the most desperate measures can hope to prevent Russia and Syria from finally securing Syria's borders. Turkey's provocation is just such a measure," he emphasizes.

          "As in the game of chess, a player often seeks to provoke their opponent into a series of moves," Cartalucci notes.

          According to the geopolitical analyst, Russia's best choice now is to continue winning this war, eventually taking the Jarabulus-Afrin corridor. By fortifying this area Russian and Syrian forces would prevent NATO from invading Syria, at the same time cutting off the ISIL and al-Nusra Front supply route from Turkey.

          Russo-Syrian victory would have far-reaching consequences for the region as a whole. "With Syria secured, an alternative arc of influence will exist within the Middle East, one that will inevitably work against Saudi and other Persian Gulf regimes' efforts in Yemen, and in a wider sense, begin the irreversible eviction of Western hegemony from the region," Cartalucci underscores.

          [Nov 24, 2015] Putin condemns Turkey after Russian warplane downed near Syria border

          Notable quotes:
          "... "We have always treated Turkey as a friendly state. I don't know who was interested in what happened today, certainly not us. And instead of immediately getting in contact with us, as far as we know, the Turkish side immediately turned to their partners from Nato to discuss this incident, as if we shot down their plane and not they ours." ..."
          www.theguardian.com

          A government official said: "In line with the military rules of engagement, the Turkish authorities repeatedly warned an unidentified aircraft that they were 15km or less away from the border. The aircraft didn't heed the warnings and proceeded to fly over Turkey. The Turkish air forces responded by downing the aircraft.

          More on this topic: Turkey caught between aiding Turkmen and economic dependence on Russia

          "This isn't an action against any specific country: our F-16s took necessary steps to defend Turkey's sovereign territory."

          The Turkish UN ambassador, Halit Cevik, told the UN Security Council in a letter that two planes had flow a mile into Turkey for 17 seconds. "Following the violation, plane 1 left Turkish national airspace. Plane 2 was fired at while in Turkish national airspace by Turkish F-16s performing air combat patrolling in the area," he wrote.

          ... ... ...

          Putin said there would be "serious consequences" for Russia-Turkish relations.

          "We have always treated Turkey as a friendly state. I don't know who was interested in what happened today, certainly not us. And instead of immediately getting in contact with us, as far as we know, the Turkish side immediately turned to their partners from Nato to discuss this incident, as if we shot down their plane and not they ours."

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

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

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

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

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

          [Nov 24, 2015] Sultan Erdogan has been served notice

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7343nXyGS0s
          Notable quotes:
          "... However, it is wrong to conclude that the Turkish demarche is a mere tactical ploy. There is also the backdrop of the robust Turkish push for establishing a 'no-fly zone' in northern Syria to be kept in view. The demarche is linked to a live broadcast by Erdogan on Wednesday where he underscored that the creation of 'no-fly' and 'safe' zones is crucial to resolving the Syrian crisis… ..."
          "... …Put differently, the race for Aleppo has begun. The point is, the Turkish-American operation comes at a time when with Russian air cover, Syrian government forces are struggling to retake Aleppo, which has been under the control of opposition groups for two years. To be sure, the Turkish demarche on Friday threatening Russia with "serious consequences" falls in perspective. ..."
          "... The US role in this daring Turkish enterprise remains hidden from view. Senior US officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, are credited with privately expressing views supportive of the Turkish proposal on free-trade zone, and leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has openly backed the idea, but President Barack Obama has so far preferred to stand in the shade with an ambivalence that appeared to weigh against the 'no-fly zone'… ..."
          "... Russia's best bet is to simply continue winning the war. Taking the Jarabulus-Afrin corridor and fortifying it against NATO incursions while cutting off ISIS and other terrorist factions deeper within Syria would be perhaps the worst of all possible retaliations. ..."
          "... Such a provocation is exactly what the West would do if it were losing in Syria. And Putin doesn't have to prove anything to the Russian people. ..."
          "... Erdogan is feeling especially froggy. He says he will establish a humanitarian safe zone between Jarabulus and the Mediterranean with his allies. God help us all. ..."
          "... Turkey's territorial integrity cannot include 5 miles of Syrian territory to which it helps itself as a security zone. And Stoltenberg is a tool who should never be taken seriously. He would institute a NATO tax and pour the money directly into arms purchases if he could – he is a dream leader if you are a defense contractor. ..."
          "... At the WH news today ….Obama was his usual watermouth in chief clown self…..He kept referring to Hollande as "Francois"….as if they were frat boys smokin' a joint and swillin' beer… ..."
          "... But he still is not thru running his unhelpful and provocative trap…He then tries to marginalize the Russkie anti ISIS coalition effort…and condescendingly chides and berates Putin for not toeing the line that Obama hasn't even thought out as to what or where to tow to begin with!!! Then Hollande chimes in with the usual 'Assad must go' mantra…. ..."
          "... The NATO freaks have to keep a steadying hand on Francois, lest he wander off the reservation… ..."
          "... War is continuation of politics by other means. Diplomatic successes of Russia created backlash and Russia was backstabbed. So one way to look at this incident is that it was a Russian sacrifice on the altar of victory over ISIS. Shooting down of a Russian plane is to be expected in such a war and the fact that it happened just now and the shooter was Turkish F14 changed very little. But if this was a provocation, then timing was perfect. ..."
          "... This hysterical gesture also might reflect existence of a split in Turkish leadership and effort of one wing of government to enforce its political plans on the nation. The part who are willing to sacrifice economic ties with Russia to achieve their political goals in Syria Their immediate goal is that the pro-Turkish forces not government forces liberate Rakka (Al-Raqqah) ..."
          "... I would add that breaking economic ties with Turkey will hurt Russia no less then Turkey. Closure of Dardanelles by turkey also will not help Russian efforts to defeat ISIS. ..."
          "... In any case the partition Syria along religious and ethnic lines was planned from the very beginning by the very same players who are behind this incident. Nobody has any doubts that Turkey was one of the main instigators of Syrian civil war and along with Qatar and Saudis served and still serves the financial hub for the armed opposition and first of all salafists. The fact salafists fighters from the rest of the world travel to Syria via Turkey is an open secret. ..."
          marknesop.wordpress.com
          et Al, November 24, 2015 at 5:30 am
          A very interesting, appropriate and very good response.

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

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

          et Al, November 24, 2015 at 12:55 pm

          via a comment by GoraDiva on the Moon of Alabama post above:

          Asia Times: Turkey gets toehold on Syrian territory, finally
          http://atimes.com/2015/11/turkey-gets-toehold-on-syrian-territory-finally/

          he cloud of uncertainty is lifting about any new directions of Turkish policies on Syria following the parliamentary elections three weeks ago, which led to a great political consolidation by President Recep Erdogan. The policies will run in the old directions – regime change in Syria – as per Erdogan's compass, which was set four years ago, but they will be vastly more visible in the 'kinetics'…

          …An easy explanation is possible that Turkey decided to set the agenda for Lavrov's talks on coming Wednesday that would devolve upon the parameters of the Russian operations in northern Syria that will not cross Turkey's 'red lines'. The exceptionally strong words used by Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu regarding the "bloody and barbarian" Syrian regime leaves very little to the imagination as to how Erdogan views the prospect of Assad's future role. The last known Turkish stance is that Erdogan can tolerate Assad for a maximum period of six months during the transition.

          However, it is wrong to conclude that the Turkish demarche is a mere tactical ploy. There is also the backdrop of the robust Turkish push for establishing a 'no-fly zone' in northern Syria to be kept in view. The demarche is linked to a live broadcast by Erdogan on Wednesday where he underscored that the creation of 'no-fly' and 'safe' zones is crucial to resolving the Syrian crisis…

          …Put differently, the race for Aleppo has begun. The point is, the Turkish-American operation comes at a time when with Russian air cover, Syrian government forces are struggling to retake Aleppo, which has been under the control of opposition groups for two years. To be sure, the Turkish demarche on Friday threatening Russia with "serious consequences" falls in perspective.

          The US role in this daring Turkish enterprise remains hidden from view. Senior US officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, are credited with privately expressing views supportive of the Turkish proposal on free-trade zone, and leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has openly backed the idea, but President Barack Obama has so far preferred to stand in the shade with an ambivalence that appeared to weigh against the 'no-fly zone'…
          ####

          A good piece by M.K. Bhadrakumar but I wouldn't call it anything like a toe hold yet. While the Americans haven't expressed open support for Turkey, they haven't either condemned Turkey., so I will modify my earlier and a bit rash opinion that the US has hung Turkey out to dry. On reflection, it seems far more reasonable that as usual, if it works out, the US will try to claim some sort of credit, but if it all goes Pete Tong, Turkey is all on its lonesome. NATO is being kept out of this one because the US certainly wouldn't get the unanimity need from all NATO members for such a plan, though I'm sure the Brits and others were informed unofficially.

          et Al, November 24, 2015 at 1:03 pm

          http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/11/the-two-versions-of-the-latakia-plane-incident.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01bb0894fb5d970d

          If Russia doesn't respond severely, the attacks on Russian and Syrian assets in Syria will escalate.

          I think Tony Cartalucci gets it right: http://journal-neo.org/2015/11/24/russian-warplane-down-natos-act-of-war/

          Russia's best bet is to simply continue winning the war. Taking the Jarabulus-Afrin corridor and fortifying it against NATO incursions while cutting off ISIS and other terrorist factions deeper within Syria would be perhaps the worst of all possible retaliations.

          My "Russian intuition" tells me that this is what Russia will do. Such a provocation is exactly what the West would do if it were losing in Syria. And Putin doesn't have to prove anything to the Russian people.

          Cortes, November 24, 2015 at 1:58 pm

          The Twisted Genius, a regular poster on the "Turcopolier " blog Sic Semper Tyrannis of Col. Pat Lang,

          After the NATO meeting, Jens Stoltenberg stated, "we stand in solidarity with Turkey and support its territorial integrity." After this and the statements of supplication out of Washington this morning, Erdogan is feeling especially froggy. He says he will establish a humanitarian safe zone between Jarabulus and the Mediterranean with his allies. God help us all.

          Northern Star, November 24, 2015 at 3:00 pm

          http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/11/24/belgium-counterterrorism

          Here's a little insight into Belgium…that may surprise you….
          This is the fourth day that the country has been under a virtual martial law lockdown…

          Brussels is in Belgium……NATO can't even secure-cover- its home base ass!!!!!!!

          marknesop, November 24, 2015 at 3:04 pm

          Turkey's territorial integrity cannot include 5 miles of Syrian territory to which it helps itself as a security zone. And Stoltenberg is a tool who should never be taken seriously. He would institute a NATO tax and pour the money directly into arms purchases if he could – he is a dream leader if you are a defense contractor.

          Northern Star, November 24, 2015 at 2:50 pm

          At the WH news today ….Obama was his usual watermouth in chief clown self…..He kept referring to Hollande as "Francois"….as if they were frat boys smokin' a joint and swillin' beer…

          It should have been on this grim occasion "Mr. President"..Not "Francois….Then he continues to flippantly refer to The Russian leader as "Putin"…not President Putin…..How fucking smart (wise) is it to antagonize PRESIDENT Putin…in ANY way….especially when on a global forum addressing billions at a time of imminent potential crisis…AKA WW3.

          But he still is not thru running his unhelpful and provocative trap…He then tries to marginalize the Russkie anti ISIS coalition effort…and condescendingly chides and berates Putin for not toeing the line that Obama hasn't even thought out as to what or where to tow to begin with!!! Then Hollande chimes in with the usual 'Assad must go' mantra….

          marknesop, November 24, 2015 at 3:12 pm

          The NATO freaks have to keep a steadying hand on Francois, lest he wander off the reservation….

          likbez, November 24, 2015 at 6:10 pm

          Hotheads want immediate Russian reaction now. But it will be better if Russians behaved like in well known Russian proverb " mount the horse very slowly and then ride really fast, "

          It might be prudent to ignore this incident for now. Here is approximate version of opinion of one Russian analyst about the situation
          ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2YtDQhpkJI )

          War is continuation of politics by other means. Diplomatic successes of Russia created backlash and Russia was backstabbed. So one way to look at this incident is that it was a Russian sacrifice on the altar of victory over ISIS. Shooting down of a Russian plane is to be expected in such a war and the fact that it happened just now and the shooter was Turkish F14 changed very little. But if this was a provocation, then timing was perfect. Relocation US F15 interceptors in the light of this incident looks now strangely well-timed preemptive move. Let's assume that this was accidental "perfect timing" of "our American partners" like Putin like to say.

          In case of open democratic elections Assad will win and that's why the game "Assad must go" is played. Turkey tried to force her own plan of settlement. And this incident might well be a part of political game of the most radically pro-Islamist part of Turkish leadership. This hysterical gesture also might reflect existence of a split in Turkish leadership and effort of one wing of government to enforce its political plans on the nation. The part who are willing to sacrifice economic ties with Russia to achieve their political goals in Syria Their immediate goal is that the pro-Turkish forces not government forces liberate Rakka (Al-Raqqah)

          I would add that breaking economic ties with Turkey will hurt Russia no less then Turkey. Closure of Dardanelles by turkey also will not help Russian efforts to defeat ISIS.

          In any case the partition Syria along religious and ethnic lines was planned from the very beginning by the very same players who are behind this incident. Nobody has any doubts that Turkey was one of the main instigators of Syrian civil war and along with Qatar and Saudis served and still serves the financial hub for the armed opposition and first of all salafists. The fact salafists fighters from the rest of the world travel to Syria via Turkey is an open secret. As Wikipedia notes:

          The Syrian opposition, represented by the Syrian National Coalition, receives financial, logistical, political and in some cases military support from major Sunni states in the Middle East allied with the U.S., most notably Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey.

          …The Salafist groups are partially supported by Turkey, while the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant received support from several non-state groups and organizations from across the Muslim World.

          This incident also changes nothing in this set of facts. So continuing to work against the plan to partition Syria and "Assad must go" gambit which includes the creation of buffer zone on the border with Turkey probably is the best option Russians have right now. Like French used to say "revenge is a dish that best served cold".

          Turkey and Erdogan will be on the same place the next year too, And probably two years from now too. When there will be much less, if any, Russian tourists in Turkey. And Kurds will exist in the exact the same number and with exactly the same political goals. Fragmentation and internal squabbles within Turkish leadership also will exist in foreseeable future. So future might presents more options for the meaningful reaction then exist today. Loss of the face in this case (and Turkey itself) are much less important then the winning over ISIS.

          [Nov 24, 2015] Russian jet downed over Syria, Putin This is a stab in the back by terrorism backers… Lavrov cancels Turkey visit Syrian Ara

          Notable quotes:
          "... Putin said Russia respects the regional interests of other nations, but warned the atrocity committed by Turkey would not go without an answer. Before Putin's statements came out, his spokesman Dmitry Peskov had said Turkish army's downing of the Russian plane over Syria is "a very serious incident." ..."
          sana.sy
          Sochi, SANA – Russian President Vladimir Putin said the downing of the Russian aircraft over Syria is a stab in the back delivered by the forces backing terrorism.

          "This incident stands out against the usual fight against terrorism," said Putin during a meeting with King of Jordan Abdullah II in the Russian city of Sochi.

          "Our troops are fighting heroically against terrorists, risking their lives. But the loss we suffered today came from a stab in the back delivered by accomplices of the terrorists," he added.

          Putin said the plane was hit by an air-to-air missile launched by a Turkish jet and crashed in the Syrian territory four kilometers from the border with Turkey, stressing that the Russian plane was flying at an altitude of 6000 meters about a kilometer from the Turkish border.

          He stressed that the plane and pilots posed no threat to Turkey as they were carrying out a mission against ISIS in mountainous areas targeting terrorists, most of whom came from Russia.

          "ISIS has big money, hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, from selling oil. In addition they are protected by the military of an entire nation. One can understand why they are acting so boldly and blatantly. Why they kill people in such atrocious ways. Why they commit terrorist acts across the world, including in the heart of Europe," the Russian President said.

          The downing of the Russian warplane happened despite Russia signing an agreement with the US to prevent such incidents in Syria, Putin stressed. Turkey claims to be part of the US-led coalition fighting against ISIS in Syria, he added.

          The incident will have grave consequences for Russia's relations with Turkey, Putin warned.

          "We have always treated Turkey as not only a close neighbor, but also as a friendly nation," he said. "I don't know who has an interest in what happened today, but we certainly don't."

          Putin said Russia respects the regional interests of other nations, but warned the atrocity committed by Turkey would not go without an answer. Before Putin's statements came out, his spokesman Dmitry Peskov had said Turkish army's downing of the Russian plane over Syria is "a very serious incident."

          Peskov told reporters in a statement that Russia has confirmed information showing that the aircraft was all the time flying within the borders of Syria, adding that this was registered by electronic monitoring means

          Asked about any possible consequences the incident might have on the Russian-Turkish relations, Peskov said it was too early to draw conclusions until the whole situation is clear.

          Meanwhile, the Russian Defense Ministry announced that it has summoned the Turkish military attaché in Moscow over the incident.

          Earlier, the Ministry said a Russian Su-24 fighter jet had been shot down in Lattakia province.

          The Ministry confirmed that the plane hadn't violated Turkish airspace and was flying at an altitude of 6,000 meters.

          The pilots managed to eject from the downed jet, the ministry said, adding that their fate is still unknown.

          Lavrov cancels Turkey visit over downing of Russian military jet

          In a relevant context, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov canceled his visit to Turkey, due on Wednesday, after a Russian Su-24 jet was downed within the Syrian airspaces by a Turkish air force.

          "It's necessary to emphasize that the terror threats have been aggravated and that's true even if we don't take into account what happened today," Lavrov said, adding "We estimate the threats to be no less than in Egypt.

          The minister also pointed out the increasing level of the terror threat in Turkey which is "not lower than in Egypt, recommending Russians to refrain from visiting Turkey.

          [Nov 24, 2015] Turkey Shoots Down Russian Warplane Near Syrian Border

          Looks like it was Turkish way to enforce no fly zone over border villages... Like was initial US-Turkish plan. But now its a different game...
          Notable quotes:
          "... And so, the NYT continues its stenography for the Neocons, by refusing to report that whether the Russian jet actually violated Turkish airspace is in dispute. Even CNN has presented both possibilities. ..."
          "... So, Turkey is attacking and oppressing Kurds, won't attack ISIS, seems to be provoking Russia, acts as a middle-man for ISIS oil revenues, is imposing increasingly intolerant religious laws, threatens Israel, and allows thousands of refugees to stream into Europe. ..."
          "... Erdogan is playing a dangerous game, he's essentially banking on NATO to come to his aid if Russia retaliates ..."
          "... The Syrian crisis started when Turkey, with the backing of Saudi, tried to get rid of Assad. It backfired and created a refugee crisis. Then one day, suddenly, all of the refugees decided to leave for Europe. The question is - how did the refugees take this decision on their own? It was Turkey's secret plan to bring back the glory of the Ottoman empire to Europe. Note that all the terrorists from UK, Australia and other countries who joined ISIS first went to Turkey. Turkey, backed by Saudi, has been supporting ISIS. Turkey has created this mess and its a pity that Angela Merkel does not understand! ..."
          "... In war, truth is the first casualty. The strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must. Not much has changed since ancient times, just more destructive technology. ..."
          The New York Times

          Mr. Putin, clearly angry, responded that the Russian jet had never violated Turkish airspace and was shot down over Syria. Speaking in Sochi, he called the downing of the plane a "stab in the back delivered by the accomplices of terrorists," warning that it would have "serious consequences for Russian-Turkish relations."

          Mr. Putin said that instead of "immediately making the necessary contact with us, the Turkish side turned to their partners in NATO for talks on this incident. It's as if we shot down the Turkish plane and not they, ours. Do they want to put NATO at the service of the Islamic State?"

          ... ... ...

          What may make matters worse is that those same tribesmen said they shot both Russian pilots as they floated to earth in their parachutes, having apparently ejected safely after the plane was hit by air-to-air missiles. The Russian minister of defense said that the navigator of the warplane is alive and has been rescued by Syrian and Russian special forces, but that the pilot was killed by ground fire.

          ... ... ...

          Russia's retaliation so far has been largely symbolic. Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov canceled a Wednesday visit to Turkey, and a large Russian tour operator, Natalie Tours, announced it was suspending sales to Turkey. Russians accounted for 12 percent of all tourists to Turkey last year.

          The two countries are also significant trade partners. But "Russia-Turkey relations will drop below zero," Ivan Konovalov, director of the Center for Strategic Trends Studies, said on the state-run Rossiya 24 cable news channel.

          David, Brisbane, Australia 5 hours ago

          Turks are lying. According to the tracks they published the downed plane crossed a sliver of Turkish territory no more than 3 km wide. That should take a slowly flying jet less than 15 seconds, nowhere near 5 min the Turks claim it took them to issue 10 warnings. That was a premeditated provocation by the Turks, they were waiting for that plane. It is hard to believe that they would go for such major escalation without getting a go-ahead from US/NATO first.

          Peisinoe, New York 4 hours ago

          Excuse me NYT - but Turkey is not 'The West'.

          It is a country that aligns itself with Wahabism-oriented nations that support and finance terrorism (ie Saudi Arabia).

          Lets keep things clear: We cannot fight ISIS by allying ourselves with countries which support it.

          It is about time the US stops selling itself for Saudi money - doesn't matter on which side of the aisle you're from - that is plain and simple corruption - corruption of values, of morality, of money, of power...

          Jayne Cullen, Anytown, USA

          "Turkish fighter jets on patrol near the Syrian border shot down a Russian warplane on Tuesday after it violated Turkey's airspace..."

          And so, the NYT continues its stenography for the Neocons, by refusing to report that whether the Russian jet actually violated Turkish airspace is in dispute. Even CNN has presented both possibilities.

          Brian, Toronto

          So, Turkey is attacking and oppressing Kurds, won't attack ISIS, seems to be provoking Russia, acts as a middle-man for ISIS oil revenues, is imposing increasingly intolerant religious laws, threatens Israel, and allows thousands of refugees to stream into Europe.

          What is the process for kicking someone out of NATO?

          Ajatha Shatru,

          Erdogan is playing a dangerous game, he's essentially banking on NATO to come to his aid if Russia retaliates.

          If Russia doesn't retaliate, Putin will loose face in Arab world and Erdogan will be crowned the modern age Saladin.

          Western Europe knows Erdogan controls the refugee tap and his leverage is that tens of thousands of refugees will flood into Europe if they don't back him up against Russia.

          Putin cares about his macho and decisive image and to maintain it there will be Russian war answer to this downing.

          America and NATO needs to call Turkey's bluff and let it face Russian music alone or we are heading towards world war III.

          Aay, Sydney

          The Syrian crisis started when Turkey, with the backing of Saudi, tried to get rid of Assad. It backfired and created a refugee crisis. Then one day, suddenly, all of the refugees decided to leave for Europe. The question is - how did the refugees take this decision on their own? It was Turkey's secret plan to bring back the glory of the Ottoman empire to Europe. Note that all the terrorists from UK, Australia and other countries who joined ISIS first went to Turkey. Turkey, backed by Saudi, has been supporting ISIS. Turkey has created this mess and its a pity that Angela Merkel does not understand!

          Dan O'Brien, Massachusetts

          In war, truth is the first casualty. The strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must. Not much has changed since ancient times, just more destructive technology.

          This is going to end very badly for everyone.

          [Nov 24, 2015] We shot the pilots while they were landing with parachutes

          This is in incorrect information. One pilot was rescued by Russian and Syrian special forces...
          hurriyetdailynews.com

          Speaking to the Doğan News Agency, Turkmen Deputy Commander to the 2nd Coast Division Alpaslan Çelik had claimed that both pilots were killed.

          "We shot the pilots while they were landing with parachutes. Their bodies are here," Çelik said.

          "Our friends are carrying the bodies from the other side of the mountains. Their IDs will probably be found on them," he added.

          [Nov 24, 2015] The Two Versions Of The Latakia Plane Incident

          Notable quotes:
          "... Now I believe that the jet was in the Syrian airspace. It is not difficult to figure out that is purposeful action/plan by NATO and their faithful executioner Turkey. The plan might be to shut down Bosporus and Dardanelles to Russian Navy. ..."
          "... "There were three villages left to us from Hassa. Others were Teyek, Ekbez, Beylan, the boroughs of skenderun, the township of Reyhaniye, the Antakya district, the Ordu district, the Bay r, Bucak and Hazine townships, a major portion of the Kilis borough, the Elbeyli and Turkmen districts south of Çobanbey-Cerablus region of Antep… This is all Turkish soil that constitutes integrity with the motherland…" ..."
          "... This then was not legitimate air-defense but an ambush. ..."
          "... Exactly. The context. It happened in the wake of Putin's visit to Iran, which cemented the alliance Russia/Iran for time to come, and strengthened their ties at strategic levels. This is Turkey's declaration of war against both Russia and Iran for supporting Syria. ..."
          "... Turkey was one of the G-20 countries denounced by Russia as sponsors of terrorism. Further investigations should expose Turkey et al financial links to takfiri terrorists, possibly creating a diplomatic/political downfall, and with UN sanctions in sight, a preemptive black flag operation was planned. It started with the circus of the Turkmen, calling Russia's envoy to protest, revival of the so-called safe-zone, and the shooting of the Russian jet is the logical consequence of a carefully developed choreography. ..."
          "... Russia cannot just take the hit to avoid further escalation. As we all know, restraint and moderation is embedded in Russia's art of diplomacy, but if rabid dog Erdogan is not caged by his US/NATO handlers, the possibility of an escalation is high. However, in the aftermath of France 13/11, and the French/Russian collaboration, another coup from Russian diplomacy, we can expect NATO's response to be measured. ..."
          M of A

          Bart | Nov 24, 2015 7:42:49 AM | 11

          I really don't think this was a whim of Erdogan - he must have had the go-ahead of Obama or even all of NATO to do this - it is a little test case to see what Russia will do. This kind of 5- or 10-second 'trespassing' must be going on on a daily basis, given the very limited aitrspace in which all htese operations take place...

          Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 24, 2015 7:50:59 AM | 12

          Russia has plenty of options and there's no rush. Turkey will still be there next week /month /year. I hope Vlad keeps Emperor Erdogan in suspense for a while.
          AFTER announcing that the shoot-down won't go un-answered.
          Everyone likes a good thriller...
          Oui | Nov 24, 2015 8:04:03 AM | 13

          Live RT – statement by Putin: "We were stabbed in the back by terrorists' supporters. Serious consequences for tragic events on Syrian border."

          Further, quite irritated with Turkey, Putin said they talked to their NATO allies first before contacting Russian foreign diplomats to discuss the event.

          NATO holding emergency session after Turkey shoots down Russian warplane

          Oui | Nov 24, 2015 8:05:11 AM | 14
          Mount Turkmen has not fallen to Assad: Turkmen commander

          Omar Abdullah, commander of the Sultan Abdulhamit Han Brigade in Syria, said on Monday that the Turkmen brigades have recaptured a strategic point on Mount Turkmen from Assad forces backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.

          "Mount Turkmen has not fallen to Assad forces. They only seized a part of Kızıldağı," Abdullah said.
          In recent days, Syrian regime forces started a heavy assault on Mount Turkmen in Bayır Bucak, a Turkmen populated area in Latakia province.

          Turkmens were under intensified Russian airstrikes while Iranian forces and Hezbollah from Lebanon launched a joint land attack with Assad forces. Russian warships fired missiles as tanks and cannons attacked unarmed civilians in Mount Turkmen area.

          never mind | Nov 24, 2015 8:12:18 AM | 17
          From RT's live coverage
          12:53 GMT
          Turkey backstabbed Russia by downing the Russian warplane and acted as accomplices of the terrorists, Russian President Vladimir Putin said.

          The plane was hit by a Turkish warplane as it was travelling 1 km away from the Turkish border, Putin said. The plane posed no threat to Turkish national security, he stressed.

          Putin said the plane was targeting terrorist targets in the Latakia province of Syria, many of whom came from Russia.

          Russia noticed of the flow of oil from Syrian territory under the control of terrorists to Turkey, Putin said.

          Apparently, IS now not only receives revenue from the smuggling of oil, but also has the protection of a nation's military, Putin said. This may explain why the terrorist group is so bold in taking acts of terrorism across the world, he added.

          The incident will have grave consequences for Russia's relations with Turkey, Putin warned.

          The fact that Turkey did not try to contact Russia in the wake of the incident and rushed to call a NATO meeting instead is worrisome, Putin said. It appears that Turkey want NATO to serve the interests of IS, he added.

          Putin said Russia respects the regional interests of other nations, but warned the atrocity committed by Turkey would not go without an answer.

          Putin was speaking at a meeting with King of Jordan Abdullah II in Sochi, who expressed his condolences to the Russian leader over the loss of a Russian pilot in Tuesday's incident, as well as the deaths of Russians in the Islamic State bombing of a passenger plane in Egypt.

          The two leaders discussed the anti-terrorist effort in Syria and Iraq and the diplomatic effort to find a political solution to the Syrian conflict.

          Strong words. It looks like Putin will hold Turkey to account for the downing of one of their jets (and the death of at least one of their own) regardless. The russian intervention in Syria will no doubt continue unabated, maybe even intensify, near the turkish border.

          I wonder what assurances Turkey will get in turn from NATO.

          Neretva'43 | Nov 24, 2015 8:20:52 AM | 20

          In all honesty I think that the Russian "intervention" is way exaggerated. When I see the whole picture I believe it is have been designed to save face of the West Death Squad aka regime change policy. The western media offensive, hence the ruling establishment's policy, give us picture of we-have-nothing-to-do-with-mercenaries. We are now to believe so-called IS is organic product of Islam. And refuges are all terrorist or means to inflitrate into Europe, and their "way of life". The West doesn't wont to be remembered by history department that it is them who instigate of what we have today. Lessons from Central America is learned.

          Remember, A HREF="http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/leni-riefenstahl/">Leni Riefenstahl's words.

          ...the "messages" of her films were dependent not on "orders from above," but on the "submissive void" of the German public. Did that include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie? "Everyone," she said.

          Russia and the West has one thing in common, that is hate for Islam. While the West uses Islam as a tool for social engineering and to promote own goals, Russia sees it as existential threat. The West and Russia are alarmed by (unwelcome) refuges in condition of economic malaise.

          Downing of Russian jet, if that what's really happened, is new development. As if the crisis actors were unaware of danger which Russian action pose. Do we remember of shooting down mysterious Turkish jet four years ago, of the coast of Latakia and not that far from now downed jet? How come do not see the parachutes, and how come that "independent" channel filmed that as if per order?

          Neretva'43 | Nov 24, 2015 8:33:38 AM | 25

          Now I believe that the jet was in the Syrian airspace. It is not difficult to figure out that is purposeful action/plan by NATO and their faithful executioner Turkey. The plan might be to shut down Bosporus and Dardanelles to Russian Navy.

          harry law | Nov 24, 2015 8:51:55 AM | 30

          Putin said "This is a stab in the back and instead of immediately getting in contact with us, as far as we know, the Turkish side immediately turned to their partners from NATO to discuss this incident, as if we shot down their plane and not they ours". If the jet was shot down in an action against an enemy at war, it would be acceptable. In these circumstances Turkey's action itself was an act of war, since in no way could that Russian jet be threatening Turkey.

          Neretva'43 | Nov 24, 2015 8:56:47 AM | 32

          @ somebody | Nov 24, 2015 8:46:13 AM | 28

          nope!

          "The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do."

          Samuel Huntington, US Gov./CIA brain trust member.

          Oui | Nov 24, 2015 8:57:17 AM | 33

          Who Are These Turkmen?

          The Turkmens of Bayırbucak | Hürriyet Daily News |

          The current Turkish-Syrian border was drawn with the Oct. 20, 1921, agreement signed between France, the mandatary of Syria, and the Ankara government; regions such as Hatay as well as Bayır and Bucak were on the Syrian side. This was approved in Lausanne.

          Mersin deputy Niyazi (Ramazanoğlu) Bey delivered a very important speech in the parliament on the day of Aug. 21, 1923. He stated that while the 1921 agreement was signed, Ankara was still in a very troubled situation and criticized the acceptance of the border agreed upon in 1921.

          In his speech, Niyazi Bey explained the Turks who were left on the Syrian side as such:

            "There were three villages left to us from Hassa. Others were Teyek, Ekbez, Beylan, the boroughs of İskenderun, the township of Reyhaniye, the Antakya district, the Ordu district, the Bayır, Bucak and Hazine townships, a major portion of the Kilis borough, the Elbeyli and Turkmen districts south of Çobanbey-Cerablus region of Antep… This is all Turkish soil that constitutes integrity with the motherland…"

          They were all on the Syrian side.

          Neretva'43 | Nov 24, 2015 8:58:53 AM | 34

          Re: guest77 | Nov 24, 2015 8:54:40 AM | 30

          Partially true. What is full truth is that Without Iran's Support the Syrian Gov. would fall.

          Lone Wolf | Nov 24, 2015 9:28:44 AM | 39

          This then was not legitimate air-defense but an ambush.

          Exactly. The context. It happened in the wake of Putin's visit to Iran, which cemented the alliance Russia/Iran for time to come, and strengthened their ties at strategic levels. This is Turkey's declaration of war against both Russia and Iran for supporting Syria.

          Turkey was one of the G-20 countries denounced by Russia as sponsors of terrorism. Further investigations should expose Turkey et al financial links to takfiri terrorists, possibly creating a diplomatic/political downfall, and with UN sanctions in sight, a preemptive black flag operation was planned. It started with the circus of the Turkmen, calling Russia's envoy to protest, revival of the so-called "safe-zone," and the shooting of the Russian jet is the logical consequence of a carefully developed choreography.

          As predicted, we have entered "Deadly Ground" (Sun Tzu).

          Russia cannot just take the hit to avoid further escalation. As we all know, restraint and moderation is embedded in Russia's art of diplomacy, but if rabid dog Erdogan is not caged by his US/NATO handlers, the possibility of an escalation is high. However, in the aftermath of France 13/11, and the French/Russian "collaboration," another coup from Russian diplomacy, we can expect NATO's response to be measured.

          The next few days are crucial, and will test the extent of the US empire and its minions commitment to destroy Syria and control the ME. It will also test Russia and the 4+1 will to the strategic defense of the ME and by extension, of the Eurasian mass.

          alkomv | Nov 24, 2015 9:45:53 AM | 42

          @24

          The plan might be to shut down Bosporus and Dardanelles to Russian Navy

          This has been a plan known to Russia for some time, Turkey/US/NATO have actively sought ways to break Montreux and stop the supply of necessary equipment to both Assad and the Russian Federation Forces active in Syria via the "Syria Express".

          harry law | Nov 24, 2015 10:02:39 AM | 50

          Lone Wolf@38. "The next few days are crucial, and will test the extent of the US empire and its minions commitment to destroy Syria and control the ME". The US in alliance with Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Gulfies are determined to have hegemony over the middle east. The battle over Syria is crucial in that respect. In my opinion the Syrians with the help of Russia, Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah will triumph over the forces of medieval Wahhabism, and its enablers. The US position in the middle east is at stake, so they will go all in. In the case of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah this battle is existential, and so they will fight this battle to the bitter end.

          Claud | Nov 24, 2015 10:05:53 AM | 51
          Apropos question of degree of US "nudge," I'm basically on the side of those who think no, first, and, anyway, Erdogan (user here as metonymy for Turkish "deep state") doesn't need nudge, and is used to US retroactively agreeing or covering-up whatever he decides to do, so there's no need to think Turkey's acting on behalf of anyone except itself.

          HOWEVER, one news bit I've been reading here and there has been roughly to the effect that the CIA/other-three-letter-agencies people tasked with supplying/transporting/training the "moderate rebels" in Turkey have been in a very ugly "Bay of Pigs", Obama-fucked-us mood (a quote a journalist heard was, "Putin just made us his prison bitch"), and I imagine it's with those people that Turkish security types "interface" most from day to day. That might contribute to an odd idea of what DC would "really" want Turks to do.

          All this obviously wildly speculative, and in a sense unnecessary in Occan's Razor terms (Erdogan quite capable of thinking this a good idea on his own). However, thought I'd bring up (possibly irrelevant) factor of a good number of pissed-off paramilitaries/contractors with little to do since Russia effectively shut down their "training" boondogle.

          Jackrabbit | Nov 24, 2015 10:23:00 AM | 57

          You can bet that USA and France were well aware of Turkey's support for ISIS - and well before the Charlie Hebdo attack. Yet it is Russia that: details the funding for ISIS; seriously attacks oil trucks; publicly names Turkey as an ISIS 'accomplice'.

          The West should have demanded that Turkey cease their support of ISIS long ago. Instead, we get political/police theatre: troops in the streets, mild airstrikes, aircraft carrier deployments, MSM's amplifying of Islamophobia (ISIS is everywhere!, refugees = ISIS!, oh-hum reporting of attacks on refugees),etc.

          Prediction: NATO will support Turkey's defending of its airspace.

          Tom Welsh | Nov 24, 2015 10:39:17 AM | 61

          @RTE:

          "Once you're In - it's hard to get out again".

          As the Russians say, "it's a kopeck to get in, but a rouble to get out". Where a rouble may mean a life.

          harry law | Nov 24, 2015 11:10:01 AM | 84

          RTE @59. "by all International laws and standards they had every right to do what they did". I disagree, Russia is not at war with Turkey, violation of someones airspace, [if it happened] should be dealt with diplomatically. What Turkey did was a act of war, there can be no doubt about that.

          Mina | Nov 24, 2015 11:39:32 AM | 92

          RTE: could you stop being paranoid and giving people intentions they don't have?

          Good article about the Turkmen villages.
          http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2015/11/24/qui-sont-les-turkmenes_4816573_3218.html
          Turkey is trying to provoke a crisis in Hatay because it is afraid of losing this buffer zone it wants to create on a soil which never belonged to it (see the links of OUI above)

          somebody | Nov 24, 2015 11:44:31 AM | 95
          Re: RTE | Nov 24, 2015 11:29:02 AM | 88 Problem with your reasoning is that the Russian plane seems to have been shot down in Syrian not in Turkish airspace so the violation is Turkish - if there has been a Russian violation before or not. To shoot down an airplane is an act of war. Turkey dares to do it because they are part of NATO. NATO's reaction will tell if they back this provocation of Russia or not.

          [Nov 24, 2015] Putin's response

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

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

          A very interesting, appropriate and very good response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          How did it ever come to this?

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

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

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

          [Nov 24, 2015] PM Turkey has right to take all kinds of measures

          www.turkishpress.com

          ANKARA - Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has said that Turkey has the right to take "all kinds of measures" against border violations.

          He was speaking amid reports that Turkish fighter jets downed a Russian military plane violating Turkish airspace earlier on Tuesday.

          Speaking during an engagement in Ankara, Davutoglu said:

          "We would like the entire world to know that we will take all necessary measures and make any sacrifices when it comes to the lives and dignity of our citizens and for the security of our borders while our country is in a circle of fire."

          Davutoglu said Turkey had exercised its "international right and national duty" by downing the plane which the authorities say was flying over the country's southern Hatay province.

          The Turkish premier called on the international community to act regarding the ongoing conflict in Syria.

          "Let's put out the fire in Syria," Davutoglu said, adding: "Our message is clear for the Syrian regime forces, terrorist organizations or other foreign forces that are involved in pouring fire over Bayirbucak Turkmens, Aleppo Arabs or Azaz Arabs, Kurds or Turkmens, instead of putting out the fire in Syria.

          "While carrying out effective counter-terrorism we are aware that the prerequisite for counter-terrorism is the growing up of young generations within peace and their love for each other," he added.

          Turkish, UK PMs discuss downing of Russian jet

          Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu had a phone conversation with his British counterpart David Cameron on Tuesday after Turkish Air Force shot down a Russian warplane.

          "Our prime minister has expressed that UN and NATO countries will be informed in detail about the issue," said the Turkish Prime Ministry's press office in a statement.

          "It was told [to Cameron] that the ambassadors of the P5 countries [China, France, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S.] were also informed by our Foreign Ministry," the statement added.

          "The Prime Minister strongly encouraged Prime Minister Davutoglu to make sure there was direct communication between the Turks and Russians on this, so a clearer understanding could be formed of what had happened and how to avoid this happening in the future and to avoid an escalation," said a Downing Street spokeswoman.

          "We respect Turkey's right to protect its airspace. There are procedures in place for flying through a country's airspace - you need to seek permission and have it granted and there should be communication between the authorities on the ground and the pilot. All those steps need to be properly followed," she added.

          The two leaders agreed to meet on Sunday at the Turkey-EU summit in Brussels, according to the statement.

          A Russian warplane was shot down at the Turkish-Syrian border earlier Tuesday after repeatedly ignoring warnings that it was violating Turkish airspace.

          Cameron is expected to address parliament Thursday to extend U.K. strikes against Daesh in Syria. The U.K. targets the organization in Iraq.

          Thousands of Turkmens have recently been displaced due to simultaneous air and ground attacks by Syrian government forces and Russian jets. Approximately 2,000 Syrian Turkmens have arrived in southern Turkey in the past several days.

          Russian warplanes previously violated Turkish airspace twice in October. The incidents came within a few days of the start of Russia's air campaign in Syria on Sept. 30 and led to international condemnation.

          Copyright © 2015 Anadolu Agency

          [Nov 23, 2015] The Pentagon expands an inquiry into Central Command over allegations that officials overstated the progress of airstrikes against the Islamic State

          Notable quotes:
          "... Obomber is an interventionista, owned by Lockheed. He at least has not had to duck shoes thrown at him, otherwise we have a repeat of W in the white house.e. Obomber also gets on the board of ARAMCO later in life ..."
          www.nytimes.com

          anne said...

          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/22/us/politics/military-reviews-us-response-to-isis-rise.html

          November 21, 2015

          Military Reviews U.S. Response to Rise of ISIS
          By MATT APUZZO, MARK MAZZETTI, and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT

          The Pentagon has seized a trove of emails from military servers as it expands an inquiry into Central Command over allegations that officials overstated the progress of airstrikes against the Islamic State.

          anne ->anne...

          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/17/opinion/the-elusive-truth-about-war-on-isis.html

          September 16, 2015

          The Elusive Truth About War on ISIS

          During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, American military officials often provided misleadingly upbeat assessments of battlefield efforts and belittled reporting that contradicted their narrative. Their take on the progress of the troops was frequently at odds with the conclusions of civilian intelligence analysts and reporting by journalists in the field. The opposing views were important because they sometimes forced the Pentagon to face unpleasant truths and change course.

          The war against the Islamic State terrorist group, which the Obama administration launched more than a year ago, however, has unfolded out of sight by design....

          anne ->anne...

          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/us/politics/analysts-said-to-provide-evidence-of-distorted-reports-on-isis.html

          September 15, 2015

          Reports on ISIS Were Distorted by Military, Analysts Say
          By MARK MAZZETTI and MATT APUZZO

          The Pentagon's inspector general is examining claims that senior military officers manipulated conclusions about progress against the Islamic State.

          anne ->anne...

          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/world/middleeast/pentagon-investigates-allegations-of-skewed-intelligence-reports-on-isis.html

          August 25, 2015

          Inquiry Weighs Whether ISIS Analysis Was Distorted
          By MARK MAZZETTI and MATT APUZZO

          WASHINGTON - The Pentagon's inspector general is investigating allegations that military officials have skewed intelligence assessments about the United States-led campaign in Iraq against the Islamic State to provide a more optimistic account of progress, according to several officials familiar with the inquiry....

          ilsm ->anne...

          Everything that is done inside the pentagon-capitol-K St axis is distorted to sell more weaponry and plunder the US.

          ilsm ->anne...

          The same misinformation campaign brought you: 10 years of misguided war profiteering in Southeast Asia for Saigon thugs' survival, the nuclear TRIAD to assure the US could kill everything on earth in its dying throes, and the past 40 years of expensive imperialism around the world.

          im1dc said... November 22, 2015 at 08:45 AM Ohhhh, someone is not happy with CENTCOM's 'manipulation of (ISIL) intelligence'

          Heads to Roll, Careers to be Ended, and hopefully some time in the brig for the top brass who ordered the bogus INTEL too

          Fight against Islamic State militants - 8h ago

          "Obama on manipulation of intelligence about Islamic State: 'I don't know what we'll discover in regards to what happened at CENTCOM'"

          im1dc said...

          islm, the President thinks your belief of SA ISIL financial support is wrong

          Fight against Islamic State militants - 9h ago

          "Saudi Arabia is helping to co-ordinate the fight against financing for Islamic State, Obama says"

          Fred C. Dobbs ->im1dc...

          The Saudi guv'mint may
          be cooperating, while
          the vast Saudi wealth
          may be at cross purposes.

          ilsm ->im1dc...

          Obomber is an interventionista, owned by Lockheed. He at least has not had to duck shoes thrown at him, otherwise we have a repeat of W in the white house.e.
          Obomber also gets on the board of ARAMCO later in life


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          -----

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

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

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

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

          -----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Selected Skeptical Comments from Economist's View blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Could be the other parties were otherwise engaged.

          ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs...

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

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

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

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

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

          November 6, 2015

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

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

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

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

          Not so much stealth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          A story on Iran F-14.

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

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

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

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

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

          Related?

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

          Peter Holley Washington Post November 21, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          [Nov 22, 2015] The Political Aftermath of Financial Crises Going to Extremes

          Notable quotes:
          "... The typical political reaction to financial crises is as follows: votes for far-right parties increase strongly, government majorities shrink, the fractionalisation of parliaments rises and the overall number of parties represented in parliament jumps. ..."
          "... In the light of modern history, political radicalization, declining government majorities and increasing street protests appear to be the hallmark of financial crises. As a consequence, regulators and central bankers carry a big responsibility for political stability when overseeing financial markets. Preventing financial crises also means reducing the probability of a political disaster. ..."
          "... If you look at the Republican Party and, especially, Republican candidates, now it is not the question of radicalization, but the question of sanity that arises. They are so completely detached from reality that Marxists look like "hard core" realists in comparison with them. ..."
          "... The whole party looks like an extreme and bizarre cult that intends to take over the country: another analogy with Marxists. Like Marx quipped: History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. ..."
          "... Democrats are not that different either. With Sanders representing probably the only candidates which can be classified as "center-left" in European terms. For all practical reasons Hillary is a center-right, if not far-right (and as for foreign policy agenda she is definitely far right) candidate. ..."
          "... So the key question is about sanity of the US society under neoliberalism, not some form of "radicalization". ..."
          Nov 22, 2015 | Economist's View

          mrrunangun:

          Given that honesty in politics and government is relative, I wonder if relatively honest politics and relatively honest regulation of financial systems prevents financial crises.

          pgl

          Hillary Clinton hedges on a key issue:

          http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/hillary-clinton-break-up-big-banks

          She says she would break up the mega banks ... if needed. It is needed - so no hedging on this issue.

          JohnH -> pgl...

          Once again pgl shows how gullible he is...believing what Hillary says not what she has done. What has she done? Well, Wall Street made her a millionaire.

          http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/13/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street/

          Second, she announced her run for Senator from New York (Wall Street) immediately after Bill did Wall Street the mother of all favors...ending Glass-Steagall. In his naivete, pgl certainly believes that there was no quid pro quo!!!

          Third, lots of people doubt whether she can be trusted to rein in Wall Street.
          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/22/us/politics/wall-st-ties-linger-as-image-issue-for-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

          Of course, pgl believes lots of silly things...like his claim that Obama never proposed and signed off on austerity in 2011...or that he has proposed cutting Social Security...or that trickle down monetary policy hasn't overwhelmingly benefited the 1%.

          I wonder when somebody will finally get to sell him the Brooklyn Bridge [better act now, pgl, get a really cheap loan while you still can!!!]

          JohnH -> JohnH...

          pgl thinks that Obama NEVER proposed cutting Social Security's! What a rube!

          anne:

          http://www.voxeu.org/article/political-aftermath-financial-crises-going-extremes

          November 21, 2015

          The political aftermath of financial crises: Going to extremes
          By Manuel Funke, Moritz Schularick, and Christoph Trebesch

          Implications

          The typical political reaction to financial crises is as follows: votes for far-right parties increase strongly, government majorities shrink, the fractionalisation of parliaments rises and the overall number of parties represented in parliament jumps. These developments likely hinder crisis resolution and contribute to political gridlock. The resulting policy uncertainty may contribute to the much-debated slow economic recoveries from financial crises.

          In the light of modern history, political radicalization, declining government majorities and increasing street protests appear to be the hallmark of financial crises. As a consequence, regulators and central bankers carry a big responsibility for political stability when overseeing financial markets. Preventing financial crises also means reducing the probability of a political disaster.

          anne -> anne...

          What strikes me, is that the political response to the short-lived international financial crisis but longer lived recession was quite restrained in developed countries. Leadership changes struck me as moderate, even moderate in beset Greece as the political stance of Syriza which looked to be confrontational with regard to the other eurozone countries quickly became accepting.

          European developed country governments have been and are remarkably stable. Japan has been stable. There is political division in the United States, but I do not attribute that to the financial crisis or recession but rather to social divisions.

          The essay is just not convincing.

          likbez said...

          "What strikes me, is that the political response to the short-lived international financial crisis but longer lived recession was quite restrained in developed countries"

          If you mean that the goal of the state is providing unconditional welfare for financial oligarchy (which actually is true for neoliberalism), then I would agree.

          But if you use any common sense definition of "restrained" this is a joke. Instead of sending criminals to jail they were awarded with oversized bonuses.

          I think the authors are way too late to the show. There is no much left of the New Deal anyway, so radicalization of the US society was a fait accompli long before crisis of 2008.

          If you look at the Republican Party and, especially, Republican candidates, now it is not the question of radicalization, but the question of sanity that arises. They are so completely detached from reality that Marxists look like "hard core" realists in comparison with them.

          The whole party looks like an extreme and bizarre cult that intends to take over the country: another analogy with Marxists. Like Marx quipped: History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.

          Democrats are not that different either. With Sanders representing probably the only candidates which can be classified as "center-left" in European terms. For all practical reasons Hillary is a center-right, if not far-right (and as for foreign policy agenda she is definitely far right) candidate.

          So the key question is about sanity of the US society under neoliberalism, not some form of "radicalization".

          [Nov 21, 2015] Wolf Richter: Financially Engineered Stocks Drag Down S P 500

          All this neoliberal talk about "maximizing shareholder value" and hidden redistribution mechanism of wealth up. It;s all about executive pay. "Shareholder value" is nothing then a ruse for getting outsize bonuses but top execs. Who cares if the company will be destroyed if you have a golden parachute ?
          Notable quotes:
          "... IBM has blown $125 billion on buybacks since 2005, more than the $111 billion it invested in capital expenditures and R D. It's staggering under its debt, while revenues have been declining for 14 quarters in a row. It cut its workforce by 55,000 people since 2012. ..."
          "... Big-pharma icon Pfizer plowed $139 billion into buybacks and dividends in the past decade, compared to $82 billion in R D and $18 billion in capital spending. 3M spent $48 billion on buybacks and dividends, and $30 billion on R D and capital expenditures. They're all doing it. ..."
          "... Nearly 60% of the 3,297 publicly traded non-financial US companies Reuters analyzed have engaged in share buybacks since 2010. Last year, the money spent on buybacks and dividends exceeded net income for the first time in a non-recession period. ..."
          "... This year, for the 613 companies that have reported earnings for fiscal 2015, share buybacks hit a record $520 billion. They also paid $365 billion in dividends, for a total of $885 billion, against their combined net income of $847 billion. ..."
          "... Buybacks and dividends amount to 113% of capital spending among companies that have repurchased shares since 2010, up from 60% in 2000 and from 38% in 1990. Corporate investment is normally a big driver in a recovery. Not this time! Hence the lousy recovery. ..."
          "... Financial engineering takes precedence over actual engineering in the minds of CEOs and CFOs. A company buying its own shares creates additional demand for those shares. It's supposed to drive up the share price. The hoopla surrounding buyback announcements drives up prices too. Buybacks also reduce the number of outstanding shares, thus increase the earnings per share, even when net income is declining. ..."
          "... But when companies load up on debt to fund buybacks while slashing investment in productive activities and innovation, it has consequences for revenues down the road. And now that magic trick to increase shareholder value has become a toxic mix. Shares of buyback queens are getting hammered. ..."
          "... Interesting that you mention ruse, relating to "buy-backs"…from my POV, it seems like they've legalized insider trading or engineered (a) loophole(s). ..."
          "... On a somewhat related perspective on subterfuge. The language of "affordability" has proven to be insidiously clever. Not only does it reinforce and perpetuate the myth of "deserts", but camouflages the means of embezzling the means of distribution. Isn't distribution, really, the only rational purpose of finance, i.e., as a means of distribution as opposed to a means of embezzlement? ..."
          "... "Results of all this financial engineering? Revenues of the S P 500 companies are falling for the fourth quarter in a row – the worst such spell since the Financial Crisis." ..."
          November 21, 2015 | naked capitalism

          By Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist, and author, with extensive international work experience. Originally published at Wolf Street.

          Magic trick turns into toxic mix.

          Stocks have been on a tear to nowhere this year. Now investors are praying for a Santa rally to pull them out of the mire. They're counting on desperate amounts of share buybacks that companies fund by loading up on debt. But the magic trick that had performed miracles over the past few years is backfiring.

          And there's a reason.

          IBM has blown $125 billion on buybacks since 2005, more than the $111 billion it invested in capital expenditures and R&D. It's staggering under its debt, while revenues have been declining for 14 quarters in a row. It cut its workforce by 55,000 people since 2012. And its stock is down 38% since March 2013.

          Big-pharma icon Pfizer plowed $139 billion into buybacks and dividends in the past decade, compared to $82 billion in R&D and $18 billion in capital spending. 3M spent $48 billion on buybacks and dividends, and $30 billion on R&D and capital expenditures. They're all doing it.

          "Activist investors" – hedge funds – have been clamoring for it. An investigative report by Reuters, titled The Cannibalized Company, lined some of them up:

          In March, General Motors Co acceded to a $5 billion share buyback to satisfy investor Harry Wilson. He had threatened a proxy fight if the auto maker didn't distribute some of the $25 billion cash hoard it had built up after emerging from bankruptcy just a few years earlier.

          DuPont early this year announced a $4 billion buyback program – on top of a $5 billion program announced a year earlier – to beat back activist investor Nelson Peltz's Trian Fund Management, which was seeking four board seats to get its way.

          In March, Qualcomm Inc., under pressure from hedge fund Jana Partners, agreed to boost its program to purchase $10 billion of its shares over the next 12 months; the company already had an existing $7.8 billion buyback program and a commitment to return three quarters of its free cash flow to shareholders.

          And in July, Qualcomm announced 5,000 layoffs. It's hard to innovate when you're trying to please a hedge fund.

          CEOs with a long-term outlook and a focus on innovation and investment, rather than financial engineering, come under intense pressure.

          "None of it is optional; if you ignore them, you go away," Russ Daniels, a tech executive with 15 years at Apple and 13 years at HP, told Reuters. "It's all just resource allocation," he said. "The situation right now is there are a lot of investors who believe that they can make a better decision about how to apply that resource than the management of the business can."

          Nearly 60% of the 3,297 publicly traded non-financial US companies Reuters analyzed have engaged in share buybacks since 2010. Last year, the money spent on buybacks and dividends exceeded net income for the first time in a non-recession period.

          This year, for the 613 companies that have reported earnings for fiscal 2015, share buybacks hit a record $520 billion. They also paid $365 billion in dividends, for a total of $885 billion, against their combined net income of $847 billion.

          Buybacks and dividends amount to 113% of capital spending among companies that have repurchased shares since 2010, up from 60% in 2000 and from 38% in 1990. Corporate investment is normally a big driver in a recovery. Not this time! Hence the lousy recovery.

          Financial engineering takes precedence over actual engineering in the minds of CEOs and CFOs. A company buying its own shares creates additional demand for those shares. It's supposed to drive up the share price. The hoopla surrounding buyback announcements drives up prices too. Buybacks also reduce the number of outstanding shares, thus increase the earnings per share, even when net income is declining.

          "Serving customers, creating innovative new products, employing workers, taking care of the environment … are NOT the objectives of firms," sais Itzhak Ben-David, a finance professor of Ohio State University, a buyback proponent, according to Reuters. "These are components in the process that have the goal of maximizing shareholders' value."

          But when companies load up on debt to fund buybacks while slashing investment in productive activities and innovation, it has consequences for revenues down the road. And now that magic trick to increase shareholder value has become a toxic mix. Shares of buyback queens are getting hammered.

          Citigroup credit analysts looked into the extent to which this is happening – and why. Christine Hughes, Chief Investment Strategist at OtterWood Capital, summarized the Citi report this way: "This dynamic of borrowing from bondholders to pay shareholders may be coming to an end…."

          Their chart (via OtterWood Capital) shows that about half of the cumulative outperformance of these buyback queens from 2012 through 2014 has been frittered away this year, as their shares, IBM-like, have swooned...

          ... ... ...

          Selected Skeptical Comments

          Mbuna, November 21, 2015 at 7:31 am

          Me thinks Wolf is slightly barking up the wrong tree here. What needs to be looked at is how buy backs affect executive pay. "Shareholder value" is more often than not a ruse?

          ng, November 21, 2015 at 8:58 am

          probably, in some or most cases, but the effect on the stock is the same.

          Alejandro, November 21, 2015 at 9:19 am

          Interesting that you mention ruse, relating to "buy-backs"…from my POV, it seems like they've legalized insider trading or engineered (a) loophole(s).

          On a somewhat related perspective on subterfuge. The language of "affordability" has proven to be insidiously clever. Not only does it reinforce and perpetuate the myth of "deserts", but camouflages the means of embezzling the means of distribution. Isn't distribution, really, the only rational purpose of finance, i.e., as a means of distribution as opposed to a means of embezzlement?

          Jim, November 21, 2015 at 10:42 am

          More nuance and less dogma please. The dogmatic tone really hurts what could otherwise be a fine but more-qualified position.

          "Results of all this financial engineering? Revenues of the S&P 500 companies are falling for the fourth quarter in a row – the worst such spell since the Financial Crisis."

          Eh, no. No question that buybacks *can* be asset-stripping and often are, but unless you tie capital allocation decisions closer to investment in the business such that they're mutually exclusive, this is specious and a reach. No one invests if they can't see the return. It would be just as easy to say that they're buying back stock because revenue is slipping and they have no other investment opportunities.

          Revenues are falling in large part because these largest companies derive an ABSOLUTELY HUGE portion of their business overseas and the dollar has been ridiculously strong in the last 12-15 months. Rates are poised to rise, and the easy Fed-inspired rate arbitrage vis a vis stocks and "risk on" trade are closing. How about a little more context instead of just dogma?

          John Malone made a career out of financial engineering, something like 30% annual returns for the 25 years of his CEO tenure at TCI. Buybacks were a huge part of that.

          Perhaps an analysis of the monopolistic positions of so many American businesses that allow them the wherewithal to underinvest and still buy back huge amounts of stock? If we had a more competitive economy, companies would have less ability to underinvest. Ultimately, I think buybacks are more a result than a cause of dysfunction, but certainly not always bad.

          [Nov 21, 2015] On the Lack of Courage in Regulators

          Notable quotes:
          "... Can courage trump careerism? I believe that for the forseeable future the answer is "No". People are highly incentivized to take the path of least resistance and simply go along to get along. ..."
          "... It would be wrong to excuse the inaction of the Obama DOJ and SEC crews as being the result of some larger "corrosion of our collective values." The capos in those crews are the people doing the corroding, and not one of them was forced to (not) do what they did. Notice that every last one of the initial bunch is presently being paid, by Wall Street, to the tune of millions of dollars per year. They opted to cover up crimes and take a pay-off in exchange. And they are owed punishment. ..."
          Nov 21, 2015 | naked capitalism
          I'm embedding the text of a short but must-read speech by Robert Jenkins, a former banker, hedge fund manager, and regulator (Bank of England) who is now a Senior Fellow at Better Markets. If nothing else, be sure to look at the partial list of bank misconduct and activities currently under investigation.

          Jenkins points out that regulatory reform has fallen short on multiple fronts, and perhaps the most important is courage. Readers may understandably object to him giving lip service to the idea that Bernanke acted courageously during the crisis (serving the needs of banks via unconventional means is not tantamount to courage), but he is a Serious Person, and making a case against Bernanke would detract from his bigger message about the lack of guts post-crisis.

          Now there have been exceptions, like Benjamin Lawsky, Sheila Bair, Gary Gensler, Kara Stein, and in a more insider capacity, Danny Tarullo. Contrast their examples with the typical cronyism and lame rationalizations for inaction, particularly by the Department of Justice and the SEC. It's not obvious how to reverse the corrosion of our collective values. But it is important to remember than norms can shift much faster than most people think possible, with, for instance, the 1950s followed by the radicalism and shifts in social values of the 1960s, which conservative elements are still fighting to roll back.

          Michael G

          A link to a text version of the speech for those with uncooperative computers
          http://www.ianfraser.org/why-well-all-end-up-paying-for-the-feeble-response-to-the-banking-crisis/
          Worth reading

          James Levy

          We do not live in an economy or a polity that breeds or rewards the kind of public-mindedness and civic virtue that gives you courage. The author thinks the system needs courageous people, but posits no conception of where they would come from and how they would thrive in the current system (news flash: they won't). So this is a classic "I see the problem clearly but can't see that the solution is impossible under the current system" piece.

          TMock

          Agreed.

          For those who desire real solutions, try this…

          The Universal Principles of Sustainable Development

          http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/02/universal-principles-sustainable-development/

          Norb

          In Tavis Smiley's book, My Journey with Maya Angelou, he recounts an ongoing discussion the two of them entertained throughout the years concerning which trait, Love or Courage, was more important in realizing a full life. Angelou argued that acting courageously was the most important. Smiley saw love as the moving force. While important and moving, the discussion has the dead-end quality of not being able to move past the current system of injustice. I say this because in the end, both support incremental change to the existing system as the means to bring about social justice. The powerful elite have perfected the manipulation of incremental change to render it powerless.

          When trying to change a social system, courage is needed. Courage to form a vision of the future that is based on public-mindedness and civic virtues that bring justice into the world. Our current leaders are delivering the exact opposite of civic justice. Its time to call them out on their duplicity, and ignore their vision of the future.

          The courage that is needed today is not the courage to stand up to the criminals running things and somehow make them change. It is the courage to make them irrelevant. Change will come from the bottom up, one person at a time.

          cnchal

          And when one shows up, look what happens.

          The disturbing fact is that laws have been broken but law breaking has not touched senior management.

          If they knew, then they were complicit. If they did not, then they were incompetent. Alternatively, if the deserving dozens have indeed been banned from the field let the list be known – that we might see some of that "professional ostracism" of which Governor Carney speaks. One person who did lose his position and quite publicly at that was Martin Wheatley, the UK's courageous conduct enforcer.

          Meanwhile the chairman of Europe's largest bank, Douglas Flint at HSBC, remains in situ – despite having been on the board since 1995; despite having signed off on the acquisition of Household Finance; and despite having had oversight of tax entangled subsidiaries in Switzerland and money laundering units in Mexico. Oh, and you'll love this: the recently retired CEO of Standard Chartered is reportedly an advisor to Her Majesty's Government. Standard Chartered was among the first to be investigated for violations of rogue regime sanctions. The bank was fined heavily and may be so again.

          Courageous people get fired, which leads to no courageous people left.

          GlassHammer

          Can courage trump careerism? I believe that for the forseeable future the answer is "No". People are highly incentivized to take the path of least resistance and simply go along to get along.

          susan the other

          By extreme necessity (created by total dysfunction) we will probably wind up with planned and coordinated economies that do not rely on speculation & credit to come up with the next great idea. Those ideas will be forced to come from the top down. And the problems of unregulated capitalism frantically chumming for inspiration and extreme profits will shrink back down from a world-eating monster to just a fox or two.

          Oliver Budde

          It would be wrong to excuse the inaction of the Obama DOJ and SEC crews as being the result of some larger "corrosion of our collective values." The capos in those crews are the people doing the corroding, and not one of them was forced to (not) do what they did. Notice that every last one of the initial bunch is presently being paid, by Wall Street, to the tune of millions of dollars per year. They opted to cover up crimes and take a pay-off in exchange. And they are owed punishment.

          Malcolm MacLeod, MD

          Oliver: I believe that you hit the nail on the head, and
          I wholeheartedly agree.

          [Nov 21, 2015] Ilargi The Great Fall Of China Started At Least 4 Years Ago

          Notable quotes:
          "... The biggest market in the world today is derivatives, money making money without a useful product or service in sight. With the market in derivatives being ten times larger than global GDP we can see that making useful products and providing useful services is nearly irrelevant even today. ..."
          "... "When Capitalism reaches its zenith, everyone will be an investor and no one will be doing anything." ..."
          "... This problem of debt vs income seems to reflect the ongoing financialization (extraction, not to be confused with financing) of the global economy rather than a focus on capital development of people and the social and productive infrastructure. ..."
          "... The "new model" was inefficient (too many fingers in the pie, all of them extracting value), highly risky (often Ponzi finance from the beginning with reverse amortization), and critically dependent on rising home prices. Even leaving aside the pervasive fraud, the model was diametrically opposed to the public interest, that is, the promotion of the capital development of the economy. It left behind whole neighborhoods of abandoned homes as well as new home developments that could not be sold. ..."
          "... In my understanding, the Great Depression was an implosion of the credit system after a period of over investment in productive capacity. The investors failing to pay the workers enough to buy the extra goods produced. The projected returns never materialised to pay back the debt… Boom! ..."
          "... China still has implicit state control of the banking sector, they may still have the political will to make any bad debt disappear with the puff of a fountain pen. That option is always available to a sovereign. ..."
          "... They specialized in mass production the way agribusiness has here, where the production is not where the consumption is. It's as if all the pig farmers of North Carolina and corn growers in Iowa woke up one morning and found out that the people of the Eastern Seaboard had all been put on a starvation diet. The economic results in the grain belt would not be pretty. Ditto China. ..."
          "... Except that China ain't Iowa, they can create a middle class as big as Europe and US combined. ..."
          "... It's just anathema for the ruling class to give the little guys a break. ..."
          "... The global glut of oil and other resources can't just be attributed to rising production in "tight oil". Somehow the Powers that be are hiding a great deal of economic contraction. If the world economy were growing it would need oil, copper, lead, zinc, wood and wood pulp, gold, and other metals as inputs. What I want to know is the extent of the cover-up, and what the global economy really looks like. ..."
          "... We are not competent to forecast the future yet. Even the weather surprises us. Its also the case that people who do have relevant data are quite likely to convert that into profit rather than share it. ..."
          "... It's the collapse of bonded warehouse copper/aluminum/etc. lending frauds and all that rehypothecation. I don't think it's just a problem in end demand. It's a problem in the derivatives/futures market. ..."
          "... Here is a very good case study for why people are always wrong about economy and markets. What happen to all the currency manipulators like Paul Krugman? ..."
          Nov 20, 2015 | naked capitalism
          Keith, November 20, 2015 at 7:41 am

          We shouldn't be too surprised at falling commodity prices.

          Using raw materials to make real things is all very 20th Century, financial engineering is the stuff of the 21st Century.

          When Capitalism reaches its zenith, everyone will be an investor and no one will be doing anything.

          Central Bank inflated asset bubbles will provide for all.

          The biggest market in the world today is derivatives, money making money without a useful product or service in sight. With the market in derivatives being ten times larger than global GDP we can see that making useful products and providing useful services is nearly irrelevant even today.

          We are nearly there.

          fresno dan, November 20, 2015 at 10:59 am

          "When Capitalism reaches its zenith, everyone will be an investor and no one will be doing anything."

          +1000
          Ah, that glorious day when we're all rich, rich, RICHer than Midas from interest, dividends, and rents!!!
          Just to amuse myself, I intend to be a dog poop scooper – and pick up some pocket change of 1 million dollars a poop…

          MyLessThanPrimeBeef, November 20, 2015 at 12:37 pm

          Money making money.

          Be careful.

          It's like 'light seeking light doth light of light beguile.'

          Money seeking money and money will be of money beguiled.

          skippy, November 20, 2015 at 8:29 am

          Who cares about Brent when transport is going poof….

          financial matters, November 20, 2015 at 8:45 am

          This problem of debt vs income seems to reflect the ongoing financialization (extraction, not to be confused with financing) of the global economy rather than a focus on capital development of people and the social and productive infrastructure.

          I liked how Wray and Mazzucato linked the two in their Mack the Turtle analogy.

          "Underlying all of this financialization was the homeowner's income-something like Dr. Seuss's King Yertle the Turtle-with layer upon layer of financial instruments, all of which were supported by Mack the turtle's mortgage payments. The system collapsed because Mack fell delinquent on payments he could not possibly have met: the house was overpriced (and the mortgage could have been for more than 100% of the price!), the mortgage terms were too unfavorable, the fees collected by all the links in the home mortgage finance food chain were too large, Mack had to take a cut of pay and hours as the economy slowed, and the late fees piled up (fraudulently, in many cases as mortgage servicers "lost" payments).

          The "new model" was inefficient (too many fingers in the pie, all of them extracting value), highly risky (often Ponzi finance from the beginning with reverse amortization), and critically dependent on rising home prices. Even leaving aside the pervasive fraud, the model was diametrically opposed to the public interest, that is, the promotion of the capital development of the economy. It left behind whole neighborhoods of abandoned homes as well as new home developments that could not be sold."

          Mission Oriented Finance

          Carlos, November 20, 2015 at 9:34 am

          Interesting, the supposition here is that China is heading for a depression similar to the Great Depression.

          In my understanding, the Great Depression was an implosion of the credit system after a period of over investment in productive capacity. The investors failing to pay the workers enough to buy the extra goods produced. The projected returns never materialised to pay back the debt… Boom!

          China could well be headed down that road, there isn't enough money getting into the pockets of ordinary Chinese that's for sure. Elites everywhere just can't bring themselves to give a break for those at the bottom.

          China still has implicit state control of the banking sector, they may still have the political will to make any bad debt disappear with the puff of a fountain pen. That option is always available to a sovereign.

          Then again they may just realize in time, someone needs to be paid to buy all the junk.

          James Levy, November 20, 2015 at 12:51 pm

          They were counting on us and the Europeans, but we've let them down. The race to the bottom erased the global middle class that could buy Chinese consumer products.

          They specialized in mass production the way agribusiness has here, where the production is not where the consumption is. It's as if all the pig farmers of North Carolina and corn growers in Iowa woke up one morning and found out that the people of the Eastern Seaboard had all been put on a starvation diet. The economic results in the grain belt would not be pretty. Ditto China.

          Carlos, November 21, 2015 at 1:54 am

          So the corn growers need to eat more corn, that's my logic.

          Except that China ain't Iowa, they can create a middle class as big as Europe and US combined.

          It's just anathema for the ruling class to give the little guys a break.

          James Levy, November 20, 2015 at 12:56 pm

          The global glut of oil and other resources can't just be attributed to rising production in "tight oil". Somehow the Powers that be are hiding a great deal of economic contraction. If the world economy were growing it would need oil, copper, lead, zinc, wood and wood pulp, gold, and other metals as inputs. What I want to know is the extent of the cover-up, and what the global economy really looks like.

          susan the other, November 20, 2015 at 2:22 pm

          Where were you in 2011? I was here reading NC. One of the Links posted was a graph of the abrupt shutdown of China's economy – It was a cliffscape.

          Very long vertical drop off. So dramatic I could hardly believe it and I said I was having trouble catching my breath. Another commenter said it looked like a tsunami. Of exported deflation as it turns out.

          Things have been extreme since 2007 when the banksters began to fall; 2008 when Lehman crashed (just after the Beijing Olympics, how convenient for China…) and credit shut down. China was doin' just fine until then. In spite of the irrational mess in global capitalist eonomix.

          The only way to remedy it was to shut it down I guess. That's really not very fine-tuned for a system the whole world relies on, is it?

          ewmayer, November 20, 2015 at 6:09 pm

          Related, this Pollyanna-ish laff-riot op-ed from Ross Gittins, the economics editor of the Sydney Morning Herald:

          Don't buy the China doom and gloom stories just yet

          Proceeds from the laughable assumption that official China economic numbers 'may not be as reliable as we'd like' rather than being 'persistently and hugely faked,' (especially during slowdowns) and ignores that the housing-market slowdown and huge unsold-RE-overhang will also necessarily be accompanied by a price crash, hence a huge amount of toxic debt being exposed – really basic boom/bust dynamics.

          And no demographic boom coming to the rescue, either. (But he does repeatedly invoke the magic 'service economy boom' mantra mentioned by Ilargi.) Thankfully most of the commenters rightly take the author to task.

          MyLessThanPrimeBeef, November 20, 2015 at 6:32 pm

          Not too long ago, some here were still not buying the doom and gloom stories.

          I don't have if they have been persuaded otherwise since.

          RBHoughton, November 20, 2015 at 7:50 pm

          Couple of thoughts:

          Firstly, its only China's buying that stops oil falling even further Sr Ilargi.

          Secondly its a Peoples' Republic – employment must be maintained.

          We are not competent to forecast the future yet. Even the weather surprises us. Its also the case that people who do have relevant data are quite likely to convert that into profit rather than share it.

          Don't worry, be happy. It will be OK.

          ewmayer, November 21, 2015 at 2:29 am

          Tangential Friday night funny: What's in a name?

          Received a small airmail parcel today containing some replacement attachments for my Dremel moto-tool … package was addressed from Shenzen, specifically the "Fuming Manufacturing Park".

          Wade Riddick, November 21, 2015 at 4:57 am

          It's the collapse of bonded warehouse copper/aluminum/etc. lending frauds and all that rehypothecation. I don't think it's just a problem in end demand. It's a problem in the derivatives/futures market.

          Ggg, November 21, 2015 at 6:53 am

          Here is a very good case study for why people are always wrong about economy and markets. What happen to all the currency manipulators like Paul Krugman?

          [Nov 21, 2015] The REALLY ANNOYING Don't-Wanna-Subsidize-Wealthy-Kids'-College-Tuition Canard

          Notable quotes:
          "... Can anyone really imagine Bernie Sanders in the White House? , ..."
          "... I said here yesterday that Clinton is running a Republican-style campaign. But it's not only its style–its tactics–that are Republican. Watch her edge ever closer on substance as well. Which is the way she began her campaign last spring and early summer, until it became clear that Sanders' campaign was catching on. ..."
          November 20, 2015 | naked capitalism

          Yves here. Readers know I have a weakness for righteous rants…

          By Beverly Mann. Originally published at Angry Bear

          Hillary Clinton's performance wasn't as clean or as crisp as her last one. Among other things, she invoked 9/11 in order to dodge a question about her campaign donors. But she effectively made the case that, though Sanders speaks about important questions, his solutions are ultimately simplistic and hers are better. Instead of railing about breaking up the big banks, focus on identifying and moderating the biggest risks to the financial system. Instead of making college free for everyone, increase access to those who need it and decline to subsidize wealthy kids' tuition.

          Can anyone really imagine Bernie Sanders in the White House?, Stephen Stromberg, Washington Post, Nov. 15

          Stromberg, a Washington Post editorial writer who also blogs there, is an all-but-official Clinton campaign mouthpiece who last month, in a blog post and (unforgivably) a Post editorial (i.e., commentary with no byline, published on behalf of the Post's editorial board) baldly misrepresented what Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon on Tuesday misrepresented about Sanders' single-payer healthcare insurance plan, but from a different angle: Stromberg said that the cost of the single-payer plan would be in addition to the cost of healthcare now. Actual healthcare, not just insurance premiums.

          According to Stomberg and the Post's editorial board then, hospitals, physicians and other healthcare provides would receive full payment from private insurers and also full payment from the government. And employers, employees and individual-market policyholders would continue to pay premiums to private insurers while they also paid taxes to the federal government for single-payer-double-payer?-insurance.

          A nice deal for some but not, let's say, for others. Also, a preposterous misrepresentation of Sanders' plan.

          Fast-forward a month and Stromberg, this time speaking only for himself (as far as I know; I don't read all the Post's editorials) and for the Clinton campaign, picks up on Clinton's invocation of the horror of the public paying college tuition for Donald Trump's kids. But since he probably knows that Trump's kids no more went to public colleges than did Clinton's kid, he broadens it.

          Instead of making college free for everyone, increase access to those who need it and decline to subsidize wealthy kids' tuition. Good line! At least for the ears of voters who are unaware that public universities, like private ones, quietly skew their admissions processes to favor the kids of parents who likely can pay full tuition simply by switching the funds from a CD or other savings account into a checking account at the beginning of each semester, thus removing the need for the school to dig into its endowment fund to provide financial assistance. Or to worry about whether the student will have that loan money ready at the beginning of each semester.

          Which is why Jennifer Gratz, salutatorian at her working class Detroit suburb's high school, whose extracurriculars included cheerleading but probably not a summer in Honduras assisting the poor, was denied admission to the University of Michigan back in 1995. And why she sued the University in what eventually became a landmark Supreme Court case challenging the constitutionality under the equal protection clause of UM's affirmative action program.

          She did not challenge the constitutionality of the U's almost-certain, but unstated, admissions policy that would ensure that the freshman class had a substantial percentage of students from families wealthy enough to pay the full tuition.

          Y'know, the ones wealthy enough to pay for SAT tutoring, SAT practice courts, and if necessary more than one SAT exam.

          What especially angers me about this let's-not-subsidize-wealthy-kids'-college-tuition canard is that it uses disparities in ability to pay the tuition as a clever way to ensure the admissions status quo. Or something close to the status quo.

          In her and her campaign spokesman's statements in the last several days-most notably her "Read My Lips; No New Taxes on the Middle Class, Even $1.35/wk to Pay for Family and Medical Leave" declaration, but other statements too-she's overtly declaring herself a triangulator. And some progressive political pundits are noticing it. Yes!* They!** Are!*** And Sanders needs to start quoting these articles, in speaking and in web and television ads.

          I said here yesterday that Clinton is running a Republican-style campaign. But it's not only its style–its tactics–that are Republican. Watch her edge ever closer on substance as well. Which is the way she began her campaign last spring and early summer, until it became clear that Sanders' campaign was catching on.

          [Nov 18, 2015] Can Anything Stop Companies From Loading Up on Debt UBS Says No.

          Notable quotes:
          "... When it comes to the hubris of corporate chief financial officers, who have been more than happy leveraging up balance sheets in order to reward shareholders, the analysts didn't mince words. We find that corporate CFOs historically are inherently backward-looking when setting corporate financing decisions, relying on past extrapolations of economic activity, even when current market pricing suggests future investment returns may be lower, they wrote. ..."
          "... That leaves downgrades by credit-rating agencies as one catalyst that could spark a turn in the cycle; downgrades of corporate credit have already exceeded upgrades this year at some of the bond graders. ..."
          "... Might the rating agencies spoil the party? they asked. In the end we believe strong economic interests will overwhelm rationale considerations. Rating agencies remain heavily dependent on new issuance activity, face significant competitive pressures (as issuers will select two of three ratings) and appear unconcerned with where we are in the credit cycle (e.g., see Moody's latest conference call). ..."
          "... With UBS having taken all those potential catalysts firmly off the table, that leaves just fundamentals to worry about. Who, for the past few years, has been worrying about those? [Sarcasm? - Editor] ..."
          finance.yahoo.com

          It's no secret that companies have been taking advantage of years of low interest rates to sell cheap debt to eager investors, locking in lower funding costs that have allowed them to go on a spree of share buybacks and mergers and acquisitions.

          With fresh evidence that investors are becoming more discerning when it comes to corporate credit as they approach the first interest rate rise in the U.S. in almost a decade, it's worth asking whether anything might stop the trend of companies assuming more and more debt on their balance sheets.

          ... ... ...

          For a start, they note that higher funding costs are unlikely to dissuade companies from continuing to tap the debt market since, even after a rate hike, financing costs will remain near historic lows. "The predominant reason is the Fed[eral Reserve] is anchoring low interest rates," the analysts wrote.

          When it comes to the hubris of corporate chief financial officers, who have been more than happy leveraging up balance sheets in order to reward shareholders, the analysts didn't mince words. "We find that corporate CFOs historically are inherently backward-looking when setting corporate financing decisions, relying on past extrapolations of economic activity, even when current market pricing suggests future investment returns may be lower," they wrote. "Several management teams have been on the road indicating higher funding costs of up to 100 to 200 basis points would not impede attractive M&A deals, in their view."

          Higher market volatility has often been cited as one factor that could knock the corporate credit market off its seat...

          That leaves downgrades by credit-rating agencies as one catalyst that could spark a turn in the cycle; downgrades of corporate credit have already exceeded upgrades this year at some of the bond graders. Here, Mish and Caprio offered some stunningly blunt words. "Might the rating agencies spoil the party?" they asked. "In the end we believe strong economic interests will overwhelm rationale considerations. Rating agencies remain heavily dependent on new issuance activity, face significant competitive pressures (as issuers will select two of three ratings) and appear unconcerned with where we are in the credit cycle (e.g., see Moody's latest conference call)."

          With UBS having taken all those potential catalysts firmly off the table, that leaves just fundamentals to worry about. Who, for the past few years, has been worrying about those? [Sarcasm? - Editor]

          "Bottom line, we struggle to envision an end to the releveraging phenomenon-absent a substantial correction in corporate earnings and/or broader risk assets," concluded the UBS analysts.

          [Nov 16, 2015] Bankrupt British Empire Keeps Pushing To Overthrow Putin

          Notable quotes:
          "... Lyndon LaRouche has observed that anybody acting according to this British agenda with the intention of coming out on top is a fool, since the British financial-political empire is bankrupt and its entire system is coming down. ..."
          "... EU: British imperial interests are intent on destroying Prime Minister Putins bid for the Presidency, and throwing Russia into deadly political turmoil. ..."
          "... In her testimony, Diuk came off like a reincarnation of a 1950s Cold Warrior, raving against the Russian government as authoritarian, dictators, and so forth. She said, The trend lines for freedom and democracy in Russia have been unremittingly negative since Vladimir Putin took power and set about the systematic construction of a representation of their interests within the state. She announced at that point that the elections would be illegitimate: [T]he current regime will likely use the upcoming parliamentary elections in December 2011 and presidential election in March 2012 with the inevitable falsifications and manipulations, to claim the continued legitimacy of its rule. ..."
          "... The British-educated Nadia Diuk is vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy, from which perch she has spread Cold War venom against Putin and the Russian government. ..."
          "... Rafal Rohozinski and Ronald Deibert, two top profilers of the Russian Internet, noted that the Runet grew five times faster than the next fastest growing Internet region, the Middle East, in 2000-08. ..."
          "... NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny (inset), the online anti-corruption activist and cult figure of the December demonstrations. Addressing crowds on the street, Navalny sounds more like Mussolini than a proponent of democracy. A Russian columnist found him reminiscent of either Hitler, or Catalina, who conspired against the Roman Republic. Shown: the Dec. 24 demonstration in Moscow. ..."
          January 1, 2012 | http://schillerinstitute.org/russia/2012/0122_overthrow_putin.html
          This article appears in the January 20, 2012 issue of Executive Intelligence Review and is reprinted with permission.

          [PDF version of this article]

          January 9, 2012 -Organizers of the December 2011 "anti-vote-fraud" demonstrations in Moscow have announced Feb. 4 as the date of their next street action, planned as a march around the city's Garden Ring Road on the 22nd anniversary of a mass demonstration which paved the way to the end of the Soviet Union. While there is a fluid situation within both the Russian extraparliamentary opposition layers, and the ruling circles and other Duma parties, including a process of "dialogue" between them, in which ex-Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin is playing a role, it is clear that British imperial interests are intent on-if not actually destroying Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's bid for reelection as Russia's President in the March 4 elections-casting Russia into ongoing, destructive political turmoil.

          Lyndon LaRouche has observed that anybody acting according to this British agenda with the intention of coming out on top is a fool, since the British financial-political empire is bankrupt and its entire system is coming down.

          Review of the events leading up to the Dec. 4, 2011 Duma elections, which the street demonstrators demanded be cancelled for fraud, shows that not only agent-of-British-influence Mikhail Gorbachov, the ex-Soviet President, but also the vast Project Democracy apparatus inside the United States, exposed by EIR in the 1980s as part of an unconstitutional "secret government,"[1] have been on full mobilization to block the current Russian leadership from continuing in power.

          Project Democracy

          Typical is the testimony of Nadia Diuk, vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), before the Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs last July 26. The NED is the umbrella of Project Democracy; it functions, inclusively, through the International Republican Institute (IRI, linked with the Republican Party) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI, linked with the Democratic Party, and currently headed by Madeleine Albright).

          Diuk was educated at the U.K.'s Unversity of Sussex Russian studies program, and then taught at Oxford University, before coming to the U.S.A. to head up the NED's programs in Eastern Europe and Russia beginning 1990. She is married to her frequent co-author, Adrian Karatnycky of the Atlantic Institute, who headed up the private intelligence outfit Freedom House[2] for 12 years. Her role is typical of British outsourcing of key strategic operations to U.S. institutions.

          EU: British imperial interests are intent on destroying Prime Minister Putin's bid for the Presidency, and throwing Russia into deadly political turmoil.

          In her testimony, Diuk came off like a reincarnation of a 1950s Cold Warrior, raving against the Russian government as "authoritarian," "dictators," and so forth. She said, "The trend lines for freedom and democracy in Russia have been unremittingly negative since Vladimir Putin took power and set about the systematic construction of a representation of their interests within the state." She announced at that point that the elections would be illegitimate: "[T]he current regime will likely use the upcoming parliamentary elections in December 2011 and presidential election in March 2012 with the inevitable falsifications and manipulations, to claim the continued legitimacy of its rule."

          Diuk expressed renewed hope that the disastrous 2004 Orange Revolution experiment in Ukraine could be replicated in Russia, claiming that "when the protests against authoritarian rule during Ukraine's Orange Revolution brought down the government in 2004, Russian citizens saw a vision across the border of an alternative future for themselves as a Slavic nation." She then detailed what she claimed were the Kremlin's reactions to the events in Ukraine, charging that "the leaders in the Kremlin-always the most creative innovators in the club of authoritarians-have also taken active measures to promote support of the government and undermine the democratic opposition...."

          Holos Ameryky

          The British-educated Nadia Diuk is vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy, from which perch she has spread "Cold War" venom against Putin and the Russian government.

          While lauding "the democratic breakthroughs in the Middle East" in 2011, Diuk called on the Congress to "look to [Eastern Europe] as the source of a great wealth of experience on how the enemies of freedom are ever on the alert to assert their dominance, but also how the forces for freedom and democracy will always find a way to push back in a struggle that demands our support."

          In September, Diuk chaired an NED event featuring a representative of the NED-funded Levada Center Russian polling organization, who gave an overview of the then-upcoming December 4 Duma election. Also speaking there was Russian liberal politician Vladimir Kara-Murza, who predicted in the nastiest tones that Putin will suffer the fate of President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. In this same September period, Mikhail Gorbachov, too, was already forecasting voting irregularities and a challenge to Putin's dominance.

          The NED, which has an annual budget of $100 million, sponsors dozens of "civil society" groups in Russia. Golos, the supposedly independent vote-monitoring group that declared there would be vote fraud even before the elections took place, has received NED money through the NDI since 2000. Golos had a piecework program, paying its observers a set amount of money for each reported voting irregularity. NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny-the online anti-corruption activist and cult figure of the December demonstrations-since 2006, when he and Maria Gaidar (daughter of the late London-trained shock therapy Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar) launched a youth debating project called "DA!" (meaning "Yes!" or standing for "Democratic Alternative"). Gorbachov's close ally Vladimir Ryzhkov, currently negotiating with Kudrin on terms of a "dialogue between the authorities and the opposition," also received NED grants to his World Movement for Democracy.

          Besides George Soros's Open Society Foundations (formerly, Open Society Institute, OSI), the biggest source of funds for this meddling, including funding which was channeled through the NDI and the IRI, is the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Officially, USAID has spent $2.6 billion on programs in Russia since 1992. The current acknowledged level is around $70 million annually, of which nearly half is for "Governing Justly & Democratically" programs, another 30% for "Information" programs, and only a small fraction for things like combatting HIV and TB. On Dec. 15, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs Philip Gordon announced that the Obama Administration would seek Congressional approval to step up this funding, with "an initiative to create a new fund to support Russian non-governmental organizations that are committed to a more pluralistic and open society."

          Awaiting McFaul

          White House/Pete Souza

          The impending arrival in Moscow of Michael McFaul (shown here with his boss in the Oval Office), as U.S. Ambassador to Russia, is seen by many there as an escalation of Project Democracy efforts to destabilize the country.

          People from various parts of the political spectrum in Russia see the impending arrival of Michael McFaul as U.S. Ambassador to Russia as an escalation in Project Democracy efforts to destabilize Russia. McFaul, who has been Barack Obama's National Security Council official for Russia, has been working this beat since the early 1990s, when he represented the NDI in Russia at the end of the Soviet period, and headed its office there.

          As a Russia specialist at Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and Hoover Institution, as well as the Carnegie Endowment, and an array of other Russian studies think tanks, McFaul has stuck closely to the Project Democracy agenda. Financing for his research has come from the NED, the OSI, and the Smith-Richardson Foundation (another notorious agency of financier interests within the U.S. establishment). He was an editor of the 2006 book Revolution in Orange: The Origins of Ukraine's Democratic Breakthrough, containing chapters by Diuk and Karatnycky.

          In his own contribution to a 2010 book titled After Putin's Russia,[3] McFaul hailed the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine-which was notoriously funded and manipulated from abroad-as a triumph of "people's political power from below to resist and eventually overturn a fraudulent election."

          Before coming to the NSC, one of McFaul's many positions at Stanford was co-director of the Iran Democracy Project. He has also been active in such projects as the British Henry Jackson Society which is active in the drive to overthrow the government of Syria.

          The Internet Dimension

          The December 2011 street demonstrations in Moscow were organized largely online. Participation rose from a few hundred on Dec. 5, the day after the election, to an estimated 20,000 people on Bolotnaya Square Dec. 10, and somewhere in the wide range of 30,000 to 120,000 on Academician Sakharov Prospect Dec. 24.

          Headlong expansion of Internet access and online social networking over the past three to five years has opened up a new dimension of political-cultural warfare in Russia. An EIR investigation finds that British intelligence agencies involved in the current attempts to destabilize Russia and, in their maximum version, overthrow Putin, have been working intensively to profile online activity in Russia and find ways to expand and exploit it. Some of these projects are outsourced to think tanks in the U.S.A. and Canada, but their center is Cambridge University in the U.K.-the heart of the British Empire, home of Bertrand Russell's systems analysis and related ventures of the Cambridge Apostles.[4]

          The scope of the projects goes beyond profiling, as can be seen in the Cambridge-centered network's interaction with Russian anti-corruption crusader Alexei Navalny, a central figure in the December protest rallies.

          While George Soros and his OSI prioritized building Internet access in the former Soviet Union starting two decades ago, as recently as in 2008 British cyberspace specialists were complaining that the Internet was not yet efficient for political purposes in Russia. Oxford University's Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism produced a Soros-funded report in 2008, titled "The Web that Failed: How opposition politics and independent initiatives are failing on the Internet in Russia." The Oxford-Reuters authors regretted that processes like the Orange Revolution, in which online connections were crucial, had not gotten a toehold in Russia. But they quoted a 2007 report by Andrew Kuchins of the Moscow Carnegie Center, who found reason for optimism in the seven-fold increase in Russian Internet (Runet) use from 2000 to 2007. They also cited Robert Orttung of American University and the Resource Security Institute, on how Russian blogs were reaching "the most dynamic members of the youth generation" and could be used by "members of civil society" to mobilize "liberal opposition groups and nationalists."

          Scarcely a year later, a report by the digital marketing firm comScore crowed that booming Internet access had led to Russia's having "the world's most engaged social networking audience." Russian Facebook use rose by 277% from 2008 to 2009. The Russia-based social networking outfit Vkontakte.ru (like Facebook) had 14.3 million visitors in 2009; Odnoklassniki.ru (like Classmates.com) had 7.8 million; and Mail.ru-My World had 6.3 million. All three of these social networking sites are part of the Mail.ru/Digital Sky Technologies empire of Yuri Milner,[5] with the individual companies registered in the British Virgin Islands and other offshore locations.

          The Cambridge Security Programme

          Rafal Rohozinski and Ronald Deibert, two top profilers of the Russian Internet, noted that the Runet grew five times faster than the next fastest growing Internet region, the Middle East, in 2000-08.

          Two top profilers of the Runet are Ronald Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski, who assessed its status in their essay "Control and Subversion in Russian Cyberspace."[6] At the University of Toronto, Deibert is a colleague of Barry Wellman, co-founder of the International Network of Social Network Analysis (INSNA).[7] Rohozinski is a cyber-warfare specialist who ran the Advanced Network Research Group of the Cambridge Security Programme (CSP) at Cambridge University in 2002-07. Nominally ending its work, the CSP handed off its projects to an array of organizations in the OpenNet Initiative (ONI), including Rohozinski's SecDev Group consulting firm, which issues the Information Warfare Monitor.

          The ONI, formally dedicated to mapping and circumventing Internet surveillance and filtering by governments, is a joint project of Cambridge (Rohozinski), the Oxford Internet Institute, the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, and the University of Toronto.

          Deibert and Rohozinski noted that the Runet grew five times faster than the next fastest growing Internet region, the Middle East, in 2000-08. They cited official estimates that 38 million Russians were going online as of 2010, of whom 60 had broadband access from home; the forecast number of Russia-based Runet users by 2012 was 80 million, out of a population of 140 million. Qualitatively, the ONI authors welcomed what they called "the rise of the Internet to the center of Russian culture and politics." On the political side, they asserted that "the Internet has eclipsed all the mass media in terms of its reach, readership, and especially in the degree of free speech and opportunity to mobilize that it provides."

          This notion of an Internet-savvy core of the population becoming the focal point of Russian society is now being hyped by those who want to push the December demonstrations into a full-scale political crisis. Such writers call this segment of the population "the creative class," or "the active creative minority," which can override an inert majority of the population. The Dec. 30 issue of Vedomosti, a financial daily co-owned by the Financial Times of London, featured an article by sociologist Natalya Zubarevich, which was then publicized in "Window on Eurasia" by Paul Goble, a State Department veteran who has concentrated for decades on the potential for Russia to split along ethnic or other lines.

          Zubarevich proposed that the 31% of the Russian population living in the 14 largest cities, of which 9 have undergone "post-industrial transformation," constitute a special, influential class, as against the inhabitants of rural areas (38%) and mid-sized industrial cities with an uncertain future (25%). Goble defined the big-city population as a target: "It is in this Russia that the 35 million domestic users of the Internet and those who want a more open society are concentrated."

          The Case of Alexei Navalny

          In the "The Web that Failed" study, Oxford-Reuters authors Floriana Fossato, John Lloyd, and Alexander Verkhovsky delved into the missing elements, in their view, of the Russian Internet. What would it take, they asked, for Runet participants to be able to "orchestrate motivation and meaningful commitments"? They quoted Julia Minder of the Russian portal Rambler, who said about the potential for "mobilization": "Blogs are at the moment the answer, but the issue is how to find a leading blogger who wants to meet people on the Internet several hours per day. Leading bloggers need to be entertaining.... The potential is there, but more often than not it is not used."


          Creative Commons
          Creative Commons/Bogomolov.PL

          NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny (inset), the online "anti-corruption" activist and cult figure of the December demonstrations. Addressing crowds on the street, Navalny sounds more like Mussolini than a proponent of democracy. A Russian columnist found him reminiscent of either Hitler, or Catalina, who conspired against the Roman Republic. Shown: the Dec. 24 demonstration in Moscow.

          It is difficult not to wonder if Alexei Navalny is a test-tube creation intended to fill the missing niche. This would not be the first time in recent Russian history that such a thing happened. In 1990, future neoliberal "young reformers" Anatoli Chubais and Sergei Vasilyev wrote a paper under International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) auspices, on the priorities for reform in the Soviet Union. They stated that a certain personality was missing on the Soviet scene at that time: the wealthy businessman. In their IIASA paper, Chubais and Vasilyev wrote: "We now see a figure, arising from historical non-existence: the figure of a businessman-entrepreneur, who has enough capital to bear the investment responsibility, and enough technological knowledge and willingness to support innovation."[8]

          This type of person was subsequently brought into existence through the corrupt post-Soviet privatization process in Russia, becoming known as "the oligarchs." Was Navalny, similarly, synthesized as a charismatic blogger to fill the British subversive need for "mobilization"?

          Online celebrity Navalny's arrest in Moscow on Dec. 5, and his speech at the Academician Sakharov Prospect rally on Dec. 24 were highlights of last month's turmoil in the Russian capital. Now 35 years old, Navalny grew up in a Soviet/Russian military family and was educated as a lawyer. In 2006, he began to be financed by NED for the DA! project (see above). Along the way-maybe through doing online day-trading, as some biographies suggest, or maybe from unknown benefactors-Navalny acquired enough money to be able to spend $40,000 (his figure) on a few shares in each of several major Russian companies with a high percentage of state ownership. This gave him minority-shareholder status, as a platform for his anti-corruption probes.

          It must be understood that the web of "corruption" in Russia is the system of managing cash flows through payoffs, string-pulling, and criminal extortion, which arose out of the boost that Gorbachov's perestroika policy gave to pre-existing Soviet criminal networks in the 1980s. It then experienced a boom under darlings of London like Gaidar, who oversaw the privatization process known as the Great Criminal Revolution in the 1990s. As Russia has been integrated into an international financial order, which itself relies on criminal money flows from the dope trade and strategically motivated scams like Britain's BAE operations in the Persian Gulf, the preponderance of shady activity in the Russian economy has only increased.

          Putin's governments inherited this system, and it can be ended when the commitment to monetarism, which LaRouche has identified as a fatal flaw even among genuinely pro-development Russians, is broken in Russia and worldwide. The current bankruptcy of the Trans-Atlantic City of London-Eurozone-Wall Street system means that now is the time for this to happen!

          Yale Fellows

          In 2010, Navalny was accepted to the Yale World Fellows Program, as one of fewer than 20 approved candidates out of over a thousand applicants. As EIR has reported, the Yale Fellows are instructed by the likes of British Foreign Office veteran Lord Mark Malloch-Brown and representatives of Soros's Open Society Foundations.[9] What's more, the World Fellows Program is funded by The Starr Foundation of Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg, former chairman and CEO of insurance giant American International Group (AIG), the recipient of enormous Bush Jr.-Obama bailout largesse in 2008-09; Greenberg and his C.V. Starr company have a long record of facilitating "regime change" (aka coups), going back to the 1986 overthrow of President Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. Navalny reports that Maria Gaidar told him to try for the program, and he enjoyed recommendations from top professors at the New Economic School in Moscow, a hotbed of neoliberalism and mathematical economics. It was from New Haven that Navalny launched his anti-corruption campaign against Transneft, the Russian national oil pipeline company, specifically in relation to money movements around the new East Siberia-Pacific Ocean pipeline. The ESPO has just finished the first year of operation of its spur supplying Russian oil to China.

          Navalny presents a split personality to the public. Online he is "Mr. Openness." He posts the full legal documentation of his corruption exposés. When his e-mail account was hacked, and his correspondence with U.S. Embassy and NED officials about funding him was made public, Navalny acknowledged that the e-mails were genuine. He tries to disarm interviewers with questions like, "Do you think I'm an American project, or a Kremlin one?"

          During the early-January 2012 holiday lull in Russia, Navalny engaged in a lengthy, oh-so-civilized dialogue in Live Journal with Boris Akunin (real name, Grigori Chkhartishvili), a famous detective-story author and liberal activist who was another leader of the December demonstrations, about whether Navalny's commitment to the slogan "Russia for the Russians" marks him as a bigot who is unfit to lead. Addressing crowds on the street, however, Navalny sounds like Mussolini. Prominent Russian columnist Maxim Sokolov, writing in Izvestia, found him reminiscent of either Hitler, or Catalina, who conspired against the Roman Republic.

          Navalny may well end up being expendable in the view of his sponsors. In the meantime, it is clear that he is working from the playbook of Gene Sharp, whose neurolinguistic programming and advertising techniques were employed in Ukraine's Orange Revolution in 2004.[10] Sharp, a veteran of "advanced studies" at Oxford and 30 years at Harvard's Center for International Affairs, is the author of The Politics of Nonviolent Action: Power and Struggle, which advises the use of symbolic colors, short slogans, and so forth.

          While at Yale, Navalny also served as an informant and advisor for a two-year study conducted at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, one of the institutions participating in the OpenNet Initiative, launched out of Cambridge University in the U.K. The study produced a profile titled "Mapping the Russian Blogosphere," which detailed the different sections of the Runet: liberal, nationalist, cultural, foreign-based, etc., looking at their potential social impact.

          Allen Douglas, Gabrielle Peut, David Christie, and Dorothea Bunnell did research for this article.


          • [1] "Project Democracy: The 'parallel government' behind the Iran-Contra affair," Washington, D.C.: EIR Research, Inc., 1987. This 341-page special report explored the connection between the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the illegal gun-running operations of Col. Oliver North, et al., which had been mentioned in cursory fashion in the Tower Commission report on that "Iran-Contra" scandal. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.'s introduction to the report identified the roots of North's "Irangate" gun-running in Henry A. Kissinger's reorganization of U.S. intelligence under President Richard M. Nixon, in the wake of post-Watergate findings by the 1975 Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (Church Committee). The process of replacing traditional intelligence functions of government with National Security Council-centered operations, often cloaked as promoting ``democracy'' worldwide, was continued under the Trilateral Commission-created Administration of Jimmy Carter. Supporting ``democracy''--often measured by such criteria as economic deregulation and extreme free-market programs, which ravage the populations that are supposedly being democratized--became an axiom of U.S. foreign policy. The NED itself was founded in 1983.
          • [2] "Profile: 'Get LaRouche' Taskforce: Train Salon's Cold War Propaganda Apparat," EIR, Sept. 29, 2006, reviews the Truman-era roots of relations among Anglo-American intelligence figures John Train, James Jesus Angleton, Jay Lovestone, and Leo Cherne, all of whom were later active against LaRouche and his influence. Cherne's International Rescue Committee (IRC) was described by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, its one-time director of public relations, as an instrument of "psychological warfare." The closely related Freedom House project was directed by Cherne for many years. Geostrategists such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, who has written that Russia is destined to fragment as the Soviet Union did, have sat on its board.
          • [3] Stephen K. Wegren, Dale Roy Herspring (eds.), After Putin's Russia: Past Imperfect, Future Uncertain, Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010, p. 118.
          • [4] Craig Isherwood, "Universal Principles vs. Sense Certainty," The New Citizen, October/November 2011, p. 12 (http://cecaust.com.au/pubs/pdfs/cv7n6_pages12to14.pdf). Founded as the Cambridge Conversazione Society in 1820, by Cambridge University professor and advisor to the British East India Company, the Rev. Charles Simeon, the Apostles are a secret society limited to 12 members at a time. Its veterans have held strategic intelligence posts for the British Empire, both in the heyday of overt colonialism, and in the continuing financial empire and anti-science "empire of the mind," for nearly two centuries, during which Cambridge was the elite university in Britain, Trinity College was the elite college within Cambridge, and the Apostles were the elite within Trinity. Isherwood reported, "Among other doctrines, the Apostles founded: Fabian socialism; logical positivism specifically against physical chemistry; most of modern psychoanalysis; all modern economic doctrines, including Keynesianism and post-World War II 'mathematical economics'; modern digital computers and 'information theory'; and systems analysis. They also founded the world-famous Cavendish Laboratory as the controlling priesthood for science, to attack Leibniz, Gauss, and Riemann, in particular.... John Maynard Keynes, a leader of the Apostles, ... traced the intellectual traditions of the Apostles back to John Locke and Isaac Newton, and through Newton back to the ancient priesthood of Babylon." The group's abiding focus on influencing Russia is exemplified by not only Bertrand Russell himself, but also the involvement of several members of the Apostles, including Lord Victor Rothschild of the banking family, and future Keeper of the Queen's Pictures Sir Anthony Blunt, in the Anglo-Soviet spy rings of the mid-20th Century.
          • [5] Billionaire Milner is a self-described failed physicist. He worked for the World Bank on Russian banking issues in the 1990s, before making his fortune as one of Russia's newly minted "oligarchs"-a business partner of now-jailed Mikhail Khodorkovsky in the Menatep banking group, among other projects.
          • [6] In Access Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace, an OpenNet Initiative (ONI) book, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2010.
          • [7] David Christie, "INSNA: 'Handmaidens of British Colonialism'," in The Noösphere vs. the Blogosphere: Is the Devil in Your Laptop?, LaRouchePAC, 2007, page 20.
          • [8] Anatoliy Chubais and Sergei A. Vasiliev, "Privatization in the USSR: Necessary for Structural Change," in Economic Reform and Integration: Proceedings of 1-3 March 1990 Meeting, Laxenberg, Austria: IIASA, July 1990. The authors' notion of a charismatic businessman-entrepreneur comes straight from Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter who coined the term Unternehmergeist, or "entrepreneur-spirit," to describe people he called agents of "creative destruction."
          • Lord Malloch-Brown: Soros Man Is British Conduit to Obama," EIR, Aug. 22, 2008 reports the earlier collaboration of these two in support of the Rose Revolution in Georgia, in 2003.
          • Ukraine: A Post-modernist Revolution," EIR, Feb. 11, 2005. Sharp's Albert Einstein Institution received grants from the NED and the IRI.
          Related pages:

          [email protected]

          The Schiller Institute
          PO BOX 20244
          Washington, DC 20041-0244
          703-771-8390

          [Nov 15, 2015] Election 2016 Democratic debate transcript Clinton, Sanders, OMalley in Iowa

          Hillary tried to play the gender card and the 9/11 card in an attempt to escape to accusation (actually a provable fact) that she is a Wall Street sheel. "Why has Wall Street been the major campaign contributor to Hillary Clinton?" Sanders asked loudly, concluding that big contributors only give because "They expect to get something. Everybody knows it."
          ...Clinton asserted that under her bank-regulation plan, if Wall Street institutions don't play by the rules "I will break them up."
          Sanders minced her defense into peaces: "Wall Street play by the rules? Who are we kidding?! The business model for Wall Street is fraud," Sanders fired back.
          A short time later, the moderators got a tweet calling her out for "invoking 9/11" to justify taking donations from Wall Street. One tweeter said they'd never seen a candidate "invoke 9/11 to champion Wall Street. What does that have to do with taking big donations," Clinton was asked.
          Sanders said that there's no getting around the fact that Wall Street has become a dominant political power and its "business model is greed and fraud, and for the sake of our economy major banks must be broken up."
          Bernie compared himself to Ike, scoring one of the few real laugh lines of the night. CBS News moderator Nancy Cordes asked Sanders how he's going to pay for expensive programs such as his tuition-free college plan. By taxing the wealthy and big corporations, he says. Asked how much of a tax hike he's planning to stick them with, he responded, "We haven't come up with an exact number yet … But it will not be as high as the number under Dwight D. Eisenhower which was 90%," Sanders said of the Republican president.
          "I'm not that much of a socialist compared to Eisenhower," Sanders concluded, to guffaws from the crowd.
          CBS News

          JOHN DICKERSON:

          Senator Sanders, let me just follow this line of thinking. You've criticized then Senator Clinton's vote. Do you have anything to criticize in the way she performed as secretary of state?

          BERNIE SANDERS:

          I think we have a disagreement. And-- the disagreement is that not only did I vote against the war in Iraq, if you look at history, John, you will find that regime change-- whether it was in the early '50s in Iran, whether it was toppling Salvador Allende in Chile or whether it was overthrowing the government Guatemala way back when-- these invasions, these-- these toppling of governments, regime changes have unintended consequences. I would say that on this issue I'm a little bit more conservative than the secretary.

          JOHN DICKERSON:

          Here, let me go--

          MARTIN O'MALLEY:

          John, may I-- may I interject here? Secretary Clinton also said that we left the h-- it was not just the invasion of Iraq which Secretary Clinton voted for and has since said was a big mistake, and indeed it was. But it was also the cascading effects that followed that.

          It was also the disbanding of-- many elements of the Iraqi army that are now showing up as part of ISIS. It was-- country after country without making the investment in human intelligence to understand who the new leaders were and the new forces were that are coming up. We need to be much more far f-- thinking in this new 21st century era of-- of nation state failures and conflict. It's not just about getting rid of a single dictator. It is about understanding the secondary and third consequences that fall next.

          JOHN DICKERSON:

          Governor O'Malley, I wanna ask you a question and you can add whatever you'd like to. But let me ask you, is the world too dangerous a place for a governor who has no foreign policy experience?

          MARTIN O'MALLEY:

          John, the world is a very dangerous place. But the world is not too dangerous of a place for the United States of America provided we act according to our principles, provided we act intelligently. I mean, let's talk about this arc of-- of instability that Secretary Clinton talked about.

          Libya is now a mess. Syria is a mess. Iraq is a mess. Afghanistan is a mess. As Americans we have shown ourselves-- to have the greatest military on the face of the planet. But we are not so very good at anticipating threats and appreciating just how difficult it is to build up stable democracies and make the investments in sustainable development that we must as the nation if we are to attack the root causes of-- of the source of-- of instability.

          And I wanted to add one other thing, John, and I think it's important for all of us on this stage. I was in Burlington, Iowa and a mom of a service member of ours who served two duties in Iraq said, "Governor O'Malley, please, when you're with your other candidates and colleagues on-- on stage, please don't use the term boots on Iraq-- on the ground. Please don't use the term boots on the ground. My son is not a pair of boots on the ground."

          These are American soldiers and we fail them when we fail to take into account what happens the day after a dictator falls. And when we fall to act with a whole of government approach with sustainable development, diplomacy and our economic power in-- alignment with our principles.

          BERNIE SANDERS:

          But when you talk about the long-term consequences of war let's talk about the men and women who came home from war. The 500,000 who came home with P.T.S.D. and traumatic brain injury. And I would hope that in the midst of all of this discussion this country makes certain that we do not turn our backs on the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend us. And that we stand with them as they have stood with us.

          JOHN DICKERSON:

          Senator Sanders, you've-- you've said that the donations to Secretary Clinton are compromising. So what did you think of her answer?

          BERNIE SANDERS:

          Not good enough. (LAUGH) Here's the story. I mean, you know, let's not be naive about it. Why do-- why over her political career has Wall Street a major-- the major-- campaign contributor to Hillary Clinton? You know, maybe they're dumb and they don't know what they're gonna get. But I don't think so.

          Here is the major issue when we talk about Wall Street, it ain't complicated. You got six financial institutions today that have assets of 56 per-- equivalent to 50-- six percent of the GDP in America. They issue two thirds of the credit cards and one third of the mortgages. If Teddy Roosevelt, the good republican, were alive today you know what he'd say? "Break them up. Reestablish (APPLAUSE) (UNINTEL) like Teddy Roosevelt (UNINTEL) that is leadership. So I am the only candidate up here that doesn't have a super PAC. I'm not asking Wall Street or the billionaires for money. I will break up these banks, support community banks and credit unions-- credit unions. That's the future of banking in America.

          JOHN DICKERSON:

          Quick follow-up because you-- you-- (APPLAUSE) Secretary Clinton, you'll get a chance to respond. You said they know what they're going to get. What are they gonna get?

          BERNIE SANDERS:

          I have never heard a candidate, never, who's received huge amounts of money from oil, from coal, from Wall Street, from the military industrial complex, not one candidate, go, "OH, these-- these campaign contributions will not influence me. I'm gonna be independent." Now, why do they make millions of dollars of campaign contributions? They expect to get something. Everybody knows that. Once again, I am running a campaign differently than any other candidate. We are relying on small campaign donors, $750,000 and $30 apiece. That's who I'm indebted to.

          BERNIE SANDERS:

          Here's-- she touches on two broad issues. It's not just Wall Street. It's campaigns, a corrupt campaign finance system. And it is easy to talk the talk about ending-- Citizens United. But what I think we need to do is show by example that we are prepared to not rely on large corporations and Wall Street for campaign contributions.

          And that's what I'm doing. In terms of Wall Street I respectfully disagree with you, Madame Secretary in the sense that the issue is when you have such incredible power and such incredible wealth, when you have Wall Street spending five billion dollars over a ten year period to get re-- to get deregulated the only answer that I know is break them up, reestablish Glass Steagall.

          JOHN DICKERSON:

          Senator, we have to get Senator O'Malley in. But no-- along with your answer how many Wall Street-- veterans would you have in your administration?

          MARTIN O'MALLEY:

          Well, I'll tell you what, I've said this before, I-- I don't-- I believe that we actually need some new economic thinking in the White House. And I would not have Robert Rubin or Larry Summers with all due respect, Secretary Clinton, to you and to them, back on my council of economic advisors.

          HILLARY CLINTON:

          Anyone (UNINTEL PHRASE).

          MARTIN O'MALLEY:

          If they were architects, sure, we'll-- we'll have-- we'll have an inclusive group. But I won't be taking my orders from Wall Street. And-- look, let me say this-- I put out a proposal-- I was on the front line when people lost their homes, when people lost their jobs.

          I was on the front lines as the governor-- fighting against-- fighting that battle. Our economy was wrecked by the big banks of Wall Street. And Secretary Clinton-- when you put out your proposal (LAUGH) on Wall Street it was greeted by many as quote/ unquote weak tea. It is weak tea. It is not what the people expect of our country. We expect that our president will protect the main street economy from excesses on Wall Street. And that's why Bernie's right. We need to reinstate a modern version of Glass Steagall and we should have done it already. (APPLAUSE)

          KATHIE OBRADOVICH:

          And I will also go after executives who are responsible for the decisions that have such bad consequences for our country. (APPLAUSE)

          BERNIE SANDERS:

          Look, I don't know-- with all due respect to the secretary, Wall Street played by the rules. Who are we kidding? The business model of Wall Street is fraud. That's what it is. And we-- we have-- (APPLAUSE) and let me make this promise, one of the problems we have had I think all-- all Americans understand it is whether it's republican administration or democratic administration we have seen Wall Street and Goldman Sachs dominate administrations. Here's my promise Wall Street representatives will not be in my cabinet. (APPLAUSE)

          BERNIE SANDERS:

          But let's-- let me hear it-- if there's any difference between the secretary and myself. I have voted time and again to-- for-- for the background checks. And I wanna see it improved and expanded. I wanna see them do away with the gun show loophole. In 1988 I lost an election because I said we should not have assault weapons on the streets of America.

          We have to do away with the strong man proposal. We need radical changes in mental health in America. So somebody who's suicidal or homicidal can get the emergency care they need. But we have-- I don't know that there's any disagreement here.

          MARTIN O'MALLEY:

          John, this is another one of those examples. Look, we have-- we have a lot of work to do. And we're the only nation on the planet that buries as many of our people from gun violence as we do in my own state after they-- the children in that Connecticut classroom were gunned down, we passed comprehensive-- gun safety legislation, background checks, ban on assault weapons.

          And senator, I think we do need to repeal that immunity that you granted to the gun industry. But Secretary Clinton, you've been on three sides of this. When you ran in 2000 you said that we needed federal robust regulations. Then in 2008 you were portraying yourself as Annie Oakley and saying that we don't need those regulation on the federal level. And now you're coming back around here. So John, there's a big difference between leading by polls and leading with principle. We got it done in my state by leading with principle. And that's what we need to do as a party, comprehensive gun--

          MARTIN O'MALLEY:

          John, there is not-- a serious economist who would disagree that the six big banks of Wall Street have taken on so much power and that all of us are still on the hook to bail them out on their bad debts. That's not capitalism, Secretary Clinton-- Clinton, that's crummy capitalism.

          That's a wonderful business model if you place that bet-- the taxpayers bail you out. But if you place good ones you pocket it. Look, I don't believe that the model-- there's lots of good people that work in finance, Secretary Sanders. But Secretary Clinton, we need to step up. And we need to protect main street from Wall Street. And you can't do that by-- by campaigning as the candidate of Wall Street. I am not the candidate of Wall Street. And I encourage--

          BERNIE SANDERS:

          No, it's not throwing-- it is an extraordinary investment for this country. In Germany, many other countries do it already. In fact, if you remember, 50, 60 years ago, University of California, City University of New York were virtually tuition-free. Here it's a new (?) story.

          It's not just that college graduates should be $50,000 or $100,000 in debt. More importantly, I want kids in Burlington, Vermont, or Baltimore, Maryland, who are in the six grade or the eighth grade who don't have a lot of money, whose parents that-- like my parents, may never have gone to college. You know what I want, Kevin? I want those kids to know that if they study hard, they do their homework, regardless of the income of their families, they will in fact be able to great a college education. Because we're gonna make public colleges and universities tuition-free. This is revolutionary for education in America. It will give hope for millions of young people.

          BERNIE SANDERS:

          It's not gonna happen tomorrow. And it's probably not gonna happen until you have real campaign finance reform and get rid of all these super PACs and the power of the insurance companies and the drug companies. But at the end of the day, Nancy, here is a question. In this great country of ours, with so much intelligence, with so much capabilities, why do we remain the only (UNINTEL) country on earth that does not guarantee healthcare to all people as a right?

          Why do we continue to get ripped off by the drug companies who can charge us any prices they want? Why is it that we are spending per capita far, far more than Canada, which is a hundred miles away from my door, that guarantees healthcare to all people? It will not happen tomorrow. But when millions of people stand up and are prepared to take on the insurance companies and the drug companies, it will happen and I will lead that effort. Medicare for all, single-payer system is the way we should go. (APPLAUSE)

          BERNIE SANDERS:

          Well-- I had the honor of being chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veteran Affairs for two years. And in that capacity, I met with just an extraordinary group of people from World War II, from Korea, Vietnam, all of the wars. People who came back from Iraq and Afghanistan without legs, without arms. And I've been determined to do everything that I could to make VA healthcare the best in the world, to expand benefits to the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend (UNINTEL).

          And we brought together legislation, supported by the American Legion, the VFW, the DAV, Vietnam Vets, all of the veterans' organizations, which was comprehensive, clearly the best (UNINTEL) for veterans' legislation brought forth in decades. I could only get two Republican votes on that. And after 56 votes, we didn't get 60. So what I have to do then is go back and start working on a bill that wasn't the bill that I wanted.

          To (UNINTEL) people like John McCain, to (UNINTEL) people like Jeff Miller, the Republican chairman of the House, and work on a bill. It wasn't the bill that I wanted. But yet, it turns out to be one of the most significant pieces of veterans' legislation passed in recent history. You know, the crisis was, I lost what I wanted. But I have to stand up and come back and get the best that we could.

          JOHN DICKERSON:

          All right, Senator Sanders. We end-- (APPLAUSE) we've ended the evening on crisis, which underscores and reminds us again of what happened last night. Now let's move to closing statements, Governor O'Malley?

          MARTIN O'MALLEY:

          John, thank you. And to all of the people of Iowa, for the role that you've performed in this presidential selection process, if you believe that our country's problems and the threats that we face in this world can only be met with new thinking, new and fresh approaches, then I ask you to join my campaign. Go onto MartinOMalley.com. No hour is too short, no dollar too small.

          If you-- we will not solve our nation's problems by resorting to the divisive ideologies of our past or by returning to polarizing figures from our past. We are at the threshold of a new era of American progress. That it's going to require that we act as Americans, based on our principles. Here at home, making an economy that works for all of us.

          And also, acting according to our principles and constructing a new foreign policy of engagement and collaboration and doing a much better job of identifying threats before they back us into military corners. There is new-- no challenge too great for the United States to confront, provided we have the ability and the courage to put forward new leadership that can move us to those better and safer and more prosperous (UNINTEL). I need your help. Thank you very, very much. (APPLAUSE)

          BERNIE SANDERS:

          This country today has more income and wealth inequality than any major country on earth. We have a corrupt campaign finance system, dominated by super PACs. We're the only major country on earth that doesn't guarantee healthcare to all people. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty. And we're the only in the world, (UNINTEL) the only country that doesn't guarantee paid family and medical leave. That's not the America that I think we should be.

          But in order to bring about the changes that we need, we need a political revolution. Millions of people are gonna have to stand up, turn off the TVs, get involved in the political process, and tell the big monied interests that we are taking back our country. Please go to BernieSanders.com, please become part of the political revolution. Thank you. (CHEERING) (APPLAUSE)

          [Nov 15, 2015] The New Brand of Authoritarianism

          Notable quotes:
          "... Political Institutions under Dictatorship ..."
          "... Competitive authoritarianism: hybrid regimes after the cold war ..."
          "... Journal of Economic Perspectives ..."
          "... Political Science Quarterly ..."
          "... The Pinochet Effect: Transnational Justice in the Age of Human Rights ..."
          "... the US needs to only be mildly interventionist, since moneyed interests will own the megaphones and censor their own workers; and since the one-sidedness of information is no threat to the regime. ..."
          "... In light of the New American Police State, post 9-11, it is clear to me that the United States has undergone a coup d'etat. ..."
          "... Most of us back Chavez, Morales, or Correa for the policies they have followed in their own countries to the benefit of the great masses of the poor and their refusal to put the interests of international capital ahead of their people. ..."
          economistsview.typepad.com
          From Vox EU:

          The new authoritarianism, by Sergei Guriev, Daniel Treisman, Vox EU: The changing dictatorships Dictatorships are not what they used to be. The totalitarian tyrants of the past – such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot – employed terror, indoctrination, and isolation to monopolize power. Although less ideological, many 20th-century military regimes also relied on mass violence to intimidate dissidents. Pinochet's agents, for instance, are thought to have tortured and killed tens of thousands of Chileans (Roht-Arriaza 2005).

          However, in recent decades new types of authoritarianism have emerged that seem better adapted to a world of open borders, global media, and knowledge-based economies. From the Peru of Alberto Fujimori to the Hungary of Viktor Orban, illiberal regimes have managed to consolidate power without fencing off their countries or resorting to mass murder. Some bloody military regimes and totalitarian states remain – such as Syria and North Korea – but the balance has shifted.

          The new autocracies often simulate democracy, holding elections that the incumbents almost always win, bribing and censoring the private press rather than abolishing it, and replacing comprehensive political ideologies with an amorphous resentment of the West (Gandhi 2008, Levitsky and Way 2010). Their leaders often enjoy genuine popularity – at least after eliminating any plausible rivals. State propaganda aims not to 'engineer human souls' but to boost the dictator's ratings. Political opponents are harassed and defamed, charged with fabricated crimes, and encouraged to emigrate, rather than being murdered en masse.

          Dictatorships and information

          In a recent paper, we argue that the distinctive feature of such new dictatorships is a preoccupation with information (Guriev and Treisman 2015). Although they do use violence at times, they maintain power less by terrorizing victims than by manipulating beliefs. Of course, surveillance and propaganda were important to the old-style dictatorships, too. But violence came first. "Words are fine things, but muskets are even better," Mussolini quipped. Compare that to the confession of Fujimori's security chief, Vladimir Montesinos: "The addiction to information is like an addiction to drugs". Killing members of the elite struck Montesinos as foolish: "Remember why Pinochet had his problems. We will not be so clumsy" (McMillan and Zoido 2004).

          We study the logic of a dictatorship in which the leader survives by manipulating information. Our key assumption is that citizens care about effective government and economic prosperity; first and foremost, they want to select a competent rather than incompetent ruler. However, the general public does not know the competence of the ruler; only the dictator himself and members of an 'informed elite' observe this directly. Ordinary citizens make what inferences they can, based on their living standards – which depend in part on the leader's competence – and on messages sent by the state and independent media. The latter carry reports on the leader's quality sent by the informed elite. If a sufficient number of citizens come to believe their ruler is incompetent, they revolt and overthrow him.

          The challenge for an incompetent dictator is, then, to fool the public into thinking he is competent. He chooses from among a repertoire of tools – propaganda, repression of protests, co-optation of the elite, and censorship of their messages. All such tools cost money, which must come from taxing the citizens, depressing their living standards, and indirectly lowering their estimate of the dictator's competence. Hence the trade-off.

          Certain findings emerge from the logic of this game.

          • First, we show how modern autocracies can survive while employing relatively little violence against the public.

          Repression is not necessary if mass beliefs can be manipulated sufficiently. Dictators win a confidence game rather than an armed combat. Indeed, since in our model repression is only used if equilibria based on non-violent methods no longer exist, violence can signal to opposition forces that the regime is vulnerable.

          • Second, since members of the informed elite must coordinate among themselves on whether to sell out to the regime, two alternative equilibria often exist under identical circumstances – one based on a co-opted elite, the other based on a censored private media.

          Since both bribing the elite and censoring the media are ways of preventing the sending of embarrassing messages, they serve as substitutes. Propaganda, by contrast, complements all the other tools.

          Propaganda and a leader's competency

          Why does anyone believe such propaganda? Given the dictator's obvious incentive to lie, this is a perennial puzzle of authoritarian regimes. We offer an answer. We think of propaganda as consisting of claims by the ruler that he is competent. Of course, genuinely competent rulers also make such claims. However, backing them up with convincing evidence is costlier for the incompetent dictators – who have to manufacture such evidence – than for their competent counterparts, who can simply reveal their true characteristics. Since faking the evidence is costly, incompetent dictators sometimes choose to spend their resources on other things. It follows that the public, observing credible claims that the ruler is competent, rationally increases its estimate that he really is.

          Moreover, if incompetent dictators survive, they may over time acquire a reputation for competence, as a result of Bayesian updating by the citizens. Such reputations can withstand temporary economic downturns if these are not too large. This helps to explain why some clearly inept authoritarian leaders nevertheless hold on to power – and even popularity – for extended periods (cf. Hugo Chavez). While a major economic crisis results in their overthrow, more gradual deteriorations may fail to tarnish their reputations significantly.

          A final implication is that regimes that focus on censorship and propaganda may boost relative spending on these as the economy crashes. As Turkey's growth rate fell from 7.8% in 2010 to 0.8% in 2012, the number of journalists in jail increased from four to 49. Declines in press freedom were also witnessed after the Global Crisis in countries such as Hungary and Russia. Conversely, although this may be changing now, in both Singapore and China during the recent decades of rapid growth, the regime's information control strategy shifted from one of more overt intimidation to one that often used economic incentives and legal penalties to encourage self-censorship (Esarey 2005, Rodan 1998).

          The kind of information-based dictatorship we identify is more compatible with a modernized setting than with the rural underpinnings of totalitarianism in Asia or the traditional societies in which monarchs retain legitimacy. Yet, modernization ultimately undermines the informational equilibria on which such dictators rely. As education and information spread to broader segments of the population, it becomes harder to control how this informed elite communicates with the masses. This may be a key mechanism explaining the long-noted tendency for richer countries to open up politically.

          References

          Esarey, A (2005), "Cornering the market: state strategies for controlling China's commercial media", Asian Perspective 29(4): 37-83.

          Gandhi, J (2008), Political Institutions under Dictatorship, New York: Cambridge University Press.

          Guriev, S and D Treisman (2015), "How Modern Dictators Survive: Cooptation, Censorship, Propaganda, and Repression", CEPR Discussion Paper, DP10454.

          Levitsky, S, and L A Way (2010), Competitive authoritarianism: hybrid regimes after the cold war, New York: Cambridge University Press.

          McMillan, J, and P Zoido (2004), "How to subvert democracy: Montesinos in Peru", Journal of Economic Perspectives 18(4): 69-92.

          Rodan, G (1998), "The Internet and political control in Singapore", Political Science Quarterly 113(1): 63-89.

          Roht-Arriaza, N (2005), The Pinochet Effect: Transnational Justice in the Age of Human Rights, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.


          Peter K. said...

          "A final implication is that regimes that focus on censorship and propaganda may boost relative spending on these as the economy crashes."

          Instead of military Keynesianism, it's "police state" Keynesianism.

          More social spending coupled with more social control.

          ilsm said...

          The corporation runs the governors.....

          "Investor State Dispute Settlement" is a new twist where the actions of government, like investor "losses" from shuttering frackers would be compensated by a standing unelected nor appointed by the locals "board" filled with corporate cronies to take sovereignty from governments when foreign investors are denied pillaging "rights".

          "Investor State Dispute Settlement" is why you should oppose TPP fast track.

          The kleptocarcy is well advanced in the US!

          GeorgeK said...

          ..."This helps to explain why some clearly inept authoritarian leaders nevertheless hold on to power – and even popularity – for extended periods (cf. Hugo Chavez"...

          Guess your definition of authoritarian leaders depends on who's Ox is being gored. If you were wealthy or upper middle class Chavez was a failure, if you were poor or indigenous he was a savior.

          ..."Chávez maintains that unlike other global financial organizations, the Bank of the South will be managed and funded by the countries of the region with the intention of funding social and economic development without any political conditions on that funding.[262] The project is endorsed by Nobel Prize–winning, former World Bank economist Joseph Stiglitz, who said: "One of the advantages of having a Bank of the South is that it would reflect the perspectives of those in the south," and that "It is a good thing to have competition in most markets, including the market for development lending."[263]"...
          Guess nobody told Stiglitz about Chavez's authoritarian incompetence.

          Julio said in reply to anne...

          Seems clear enough to me. Consider "freedom of the press": the US needs to only be mildly interventionist, since moneyed interests will own the megaphones and censor their own workers; and since the one-sidedness of information is no threat to the regime.

          But in a government attempting left-wing reforms, and where the government is less stable, there is less room for the government to accept the unanimity and hostility of the press; it may need to intervene more strongly to defend itself. Take e.g. Ecuador where Correa has been accused of suppressing press liberties along these very lines.

          anne said in reply to Julio...

          Seems clear enough to me. Consider "freedom of the press": the US needs to only be mildly interventionist, since moneyed interests will own the megaphones and censor their own workers; and since the one-sidedness of information is no threat to the regime....

          [ Thinking further, I realize that the United States is wildly aggressive with governments of countries considered strategic and does not hesitate to use media in those countries when our "needs" do not seem met. I am thinking even of the effort to keep allied governments, even the UK, France and Germany, from agreeing to become members of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank that China has begun. ]

          Peter K. said in reply to GeorgeK...

          "Guess your definition of authoritarian leaders depends on who's Ox is being gored."

          This is how I see it. There are no objective standards.

          Lefties criticize Obama for going after whistle blowers. Snowden is treated as a hero. Then guys like Paine and Kervack defend the behaviro of a Putin or Chavez because the U.S. doesn't like them.

          Peter K. said in reply to Peter K....

          I think a lot of the older left is stuck in a Cold War mind set.

          Opposing America is good because you're opposing multinational capitalism. So they'll provide rhetorical support to any nutjob who opposes the West no matter how badly he mistreats his people.

          Peter K. said in reply to Peter K....

          It's the flipside to the Dick Cheney-Security State rationalizations of torture and police state tactics like warrantless surveillence.

          It's okay if we do it, because they're trying to destroy us.

          The ends justify the means.

          hyperpolarizer said in reply to Peter K....

          I am the older left (born right after WW II). I grew up with the cold war, but -- despite its poisonous legacy (particularly the linking of the domestic labor movement to international communism)-- I have assuredly left it behind.

          In light of the New American Police State, post 9-11, it is clear to me that the United States has undergone a coup d'etat.

          Roger Gathmann said in reply to anne...

          Defending Chavez doesn't seem like a bad thing to do. So, Peter K., do you defend, say, Uribe? Let's see - amended constitution so he could run again - Chavez, check, Uribe check. Associated with paramilitaries, Uribe, check, Chavez, demi-check. Loved by the US, Uribe, check, Chavez, non-check. Funny how chavez figures in these things, and Uribe doesn't.
          https://www.citizen.org/documents/TalkingPointsApril08.pdf

          Peter K. said in reply to Roger Gathmann...

          I never said a thing about Uribe. I said there should be single standards across the board for Uribe, America, Chavez, Putin, China, etc...

          Roger Gathmann said in reply to Peter K....

          Right. Double standard. That is what I am talking about. The double standard that allows US tax dollars to go into supporting a right wing dictator like Uribe. I don't have to piss off. You can piss off. I doubt you will. I certainly won't. It is adolescent gestures like that which make me wonder about your age.

          Are you going to slam the door next and saY I hate you I hate you I hate you?
          You need to get a little pillow that you can mash. Maybe with a hello kitty sewed on it.

          Nietil said in reply to Roger Gathmann...

          I don't see how any of these criteria has anything to do with being an autocrat.

          Autocracy is an answer to the question of the source of legitimacy (democratic, autocratic, or theocratic). It has nothing to do with either the definition of the sovereign space (feudal, racial or national) or with the number of people running the said government (anarchy, monarchy, oligarchy).

          The UK for example was a national and democratic monarchy for a long, long time. Now it's more of a national and democratic oligarchy. And it can still change in the future.

          DrDick said in reply to Peter K....

          I really do not think that is at all accurate. While there are certainly some like that, it is far from the majority. Most of us back Chavez, Morales, or Correa for the policies they have followed in their own countries to the benefit of the great masses of the poor and their refusal to put the interests of international capital ahead of their people.

          Much of that support is also conditional and qualified, for reasons that have been mentioned here. All evaluations of current leaders is conditioned by both past history in the country and region, as well as the available alternatives. By those standards, all of the men I mentioned look pretty good, if far from perfect.

          anne said...

          http://www.cepr.org/active/publications/discussion_papers/dp.php?dpno=10454

          March, 2015

          How Modern Dictators Survive: Cooptation, Censorship, Propaganda, and Repression
          By Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman

          We develop an informational theory of dictatorship. Dictators survive not because of their use of force or ideology but because they convince the public--rightly or wrongly--that they are competent. Citizens do not observe the dictator's type but infer it from signals inherent in their living standards, state propaganda, and messages sent by an informed elite via independent media. If citizens conclude the dictator is incompetent, they overthrow him in a revolution. The dictator can invest in making convincing state propaganda, censoring independent media, co-opting the elite, or equipping police to repress attempted uprisings -- but he must finance such spending with taxes that depress the public's living standards. We show that incompetent dictators can survive as long as economic shocks are not too large. Moreover, their reputations for competence may grow over time. Censorship and co-optation of the elite are substitutes, but both are complements of propaganda. Repression of protests is a substitute for all the other techniques. In some equilibria the ruler uses propaganda and co-opts the elite; in others, propaganda is combined with censorship. The multiplicity of equilibria emerges due to coordination failure among members of the elite. We show that repression is used against ordinary citizens only as a last resort when the opportunities to survive through co-optation, censorship, and propaganda are exhausted. In the equilibrium with censorship, difficult economic times prompt higher relative spending on censorship and propaganda. The results illuminate tradeoffs faced by various recent dictatorships.

          [ This is the discussion paper, which I find more coherent than the summary essay. ]

          JayR said...

          Wow quite a few countries, maybe even the US with Obama's war on whistle blowers, could fit this articles definition if the authors actually though more about it.

          Roger Gathmann said in reply to Peter K....

          Yes, the people of Greece can vote to leave the Eurozone, just like the people of Crimea can vote to leave the Ukraine, or the people of Kosovo could vote to leave Serbia. There are many ways, though, of looking at soft dictatorship. I think the EU bureaucrats have been busy inventing new ones, with new and ever more onerous chains. To say Greece can vote to leave the EU is like saying the merchant can always defy the mafioso, or the moneylender. It isn't that easy.

          Roger Gathmann said...

          and then of course there are the death squads:
          https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/wikileaks-on-colombia-uribe-%E2%80%9Cviews-military-success-in-terms-of-kills%E2%80%9D-army-commander-ospina-tried-to-initimidate-witnesses-to-extrajudicial-executions/

          [Nov 15, 2015] Nomi Prins Wall Street, the Imperial Presidency, Political Corruption, and Crony Capitalism

          Notable quotes:
          "... The connection between democracy and free markets is interesting though. Democracy is predicated on the idea that every vote counts equally, and in the utopian perspective, the government adopts policies that benefit or adhere to the majority of those votes. In fact, its the minority of elite families and private individuals that exercise the most control over Americas policies and actions. ..."
          "... The myth of a free market is that every trader or participant is equal, when in fact the biggest players with access to the most information and technology are the ones that have a disproportionate advantage over the smaller players. What we have is a plutocracy of government and markets. The privileged few dont care, or need to care, about democracy any more than they would ever want to have truly free markets, though what they do want are markets liberated from as many regulations as possible. In practice, that leads to huge inherent risk. ..."
          Jesse's Café Américain

          Too big to fail is a seven-year phenomenon created by the most powerful central banks to bolster the largest, most politically connected US and European banks. More than that, it's a global concern predicated on that handful of private banks controlling too much market share and elite central banks infusing them with boatloads of cheap capital and other aid.

          Synthetic bank and market subsidization disguised as 'monetary policy' has spawned artificial asset and debt bubbles - everywhere. The most rapacious speculative capital and associated risk flows from these power-players to the least protected, or least regulated, locales.

          There is no such thing as isolated 'Big Bank' problems. Rather, complex products, risky practices, leverage and co-dependent transactions have contagion ramifications, particularly in emerging markets whose histories are already lined with disproportionate shares of debt, interest rate and currency related travails.

          The notion of free markets, mechanisms where buyers and sellers can meet to exchange securities or various kinds of goods, in which each participant has access to the same information, is a fallacy. Transparency in trading across global financial markets is a fallacy. Not only are markets rigged by, and for, the biggest players, so is the entire political-financial system.

          The connection between democracy and free markets is interesting though. Democracy is predicated on the idea that every vote counts equally, and in the utopian perspective, the government adopts policies that benefit or adhere to the majority of those votes. In fact, it's the minority of elite families and private individuals that exercise the most control over America's policies and actions.

          The myth of a free market is that every trader or participant is equal, when in fact the biggest players with access to the most information and technology are the ones that have a disproportionate advantage over the smaller players. What we have is a plutocracy of government and markets. The privileged few don't care, or need to care, about democracy any more than they would ever want to have truly "free" markets, though what they do want are markets liberated from as many regulations as possible. In practice, that leads to huge inherent risk.

          Michael Lewis' latest book on high frequency trading seems to have struck some sort of a national chord. Yet what he writes about is the mere tip of the iceberg covered in my book. He's talking about rigged markets - which have been a problem since small investors began investing with the big boys, believing they had an equal shot.

          I'm talking about an entirely rigged political-financial system.

          Nomi Prins

          [Nov 15, 2015] Paris attacks Andrew J. Bacevich A war the West cannot win

          "It's past time for the West, and above all for the United States as the West's primary military power, to consider trying something different.
          Rather than assuming an offensive posture, the West should revert to a defensive one. Instead of attempting to impose its will on the Greater Middle East, it should erect barriers to protect itself..."
          Notable quotes:
          "... Today, notwithstanding the Obama administration's continuing appetite for military piddling - air strikes, commando raids, and advisory missions - few Americans retain any appetite for undertaking further large-scale hostilities in the Islamic world. ..."
          "... In proposing to pour yet more fuel on that fire, Hollande demonstrates a crippling absence of imagination, one that has characterized recent Western statesmanship more generally when it comes to the Islamic world. There, simply trying harder won't suffice as a basis of policy. ..."
          "... Rather than assuming an offensive posture, the West should revert to a defensive one. Instead of attempting to impose its will on the Greater Middle East, it should erect barriers to protect itself from the violence emanating from that quarter. Such barriers will necessarily be imperfect, but they will produce greater security at a more affordable cost than is gained by engaging in futile, open-ended armed conflicts. Rather than vainly attempting to police or control, this revised strategy should seek to contain. .. ..."
          Nov 14, 2015 | The Boston Globe

          French President Francois Hollande's response to Friday's vicious terrorist attacks, now attributed to ISIS, was immediate and uncompromising. "We are going to lead a war which will be pitiless," he vowed.

          Whether France itself possesses the will or the capacity to undertake such a war is another matter. So too is the question of whether further war can provide a remedy to the problem at hand: widespread disorder roiling much of the Greater Middle East and periodically spilling into the outside world.

          It's not as if the outside world hasn't already given pitiless war a try. The Soviet Union spent all of the 1980s attempting to pacify Afghanistan and succeeded only in killing a million or so Afghans while creating an incubator for Islamic radicalism. Beginning in 2003, the United States attempted something similar in Iraq and ended up producing similarly destabilizing results. By the time US troops withdrew in 2011, something like 200,000 Iraqis had died, most of the them civilians. Today Iraq teeters on the brink of disintegration.

          Perhaps if the Russians had tried harder or the Americans had stayed longer they might have achieved a more favorable outcome. Yet that qualifies as a theoretical possibility at best. Years of fighting in Afghanistan exhausted the Soviet Union and contributed directly to its subsequent collapse. Years of fighting in Iraq used up whatever "Let's roll!" combativeness Americans may have entertained in the wake of 9/11.

          Today, notwithstanding the Obama administration's continuing appetite for military piddling - air strikes, commando raids, and advisory missions - few Americans retain any appetite for undertaking further large-scale hostilities in the Islamic world. Fewer still will sign up to follow President Hollande in undertaking any new crusade. Their reluctance to do so is understandable and appropriate.

          It's difficult to imagine the nihilism, and contempt for humanity, that could motivate such cold-blooded rage.

          The fact is that United States and its European allies, to include France, face a perplexing strategic conundrum. Collectively they find themselves locked in a protracted conflict with Islamic radicalism, with ISIS but one manifestation of a much larger phenomenon. Prospects for negotiating an end to that conflict anytime soon appear to be nil. Alas, so too do prospects of winning it.

          In this conflict, the West generally appears to enjoy the advantage of clear-cut military superiority. By almost any measure, we are stronger than our adversaries. Our arsenals are bigger, our weapons more sophisticated, our generals better educated in the art of war, our fighters better trained at waging it.

          Yet most of this has proven to be irrelevant. Time and again the actual employment of that ostensibly superior military might has produced results other than those intended or anticipated. Even where armed intervention has achieved a semblance of tactical success - the ousting of some unsavory dictator, for example - it has yielded neither reconciliation nor willing submission nor even sullen compliance. Instead, intervention typically serves to aggravate, inciting further resistance. Rather than putting out the fires of radicalism, we end up feeding them.

          In proposing to pour yet more fuel on that fire, Hollande demonstrates a crippling absence of imagination, one that has characterized recent Western statesmanship more generally when it comes to the Islamic world. There, simply trying harder won't suffice as a basis of policy.

          It's past time for the West, and above all for the United States as the West's primary military power, to consider trying something different.

          Rather than assuming an offensive posture, the West should revert to a defensive one. Instead of attempting to impose its will on the Greater Middle East, it should erect barriers to protect itself from the violence emanating from that quarter. Such barriers will necessarily be imperfect, but they will produce greater security at a more affordable cost than is gained by engaging in futile, open-ended armed conflicts. Rather than vainly attempting to police or control, this revised strategy should seek to contain. ...

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

          'Rather than assuming an offensive posture, the West should revert to a defensive one. Instead of attempting to impose its will on the Greater Middle East, it should erect barriers to protect itself from the violence emanating from that quarter. Such barriers will necessarily be imperfect, but they will produce greater security at a more affordable cost...'

          The question remains: Is it possible to do this?

          Granted, the Mediterranean Sea is an insufficient barrier.

          anne ->Fred C. Dobbs... November 14, 2015 at 12:35 PM
          'Rather than assuming an offensive posture, the West should revert to a defensive one. Instead of attempting to impose its will on the Greater Middle East, it should erect barriers to protect itself from the violence emanating from that quarter. Such barriers will necessarily be imperfect, but they will produce greater security at a more affordable cost...'

          The question remains: Is it possible to do this?

          Granted, the Mediterranean Sea is an insufficient barrier.

          [ My understanding is that such a barrier is only possible to maintain when there are working governments in countries through the Middle East. Destroying the governments of Iraq and Libya proved disastrous strategic mistakes, destroying the government of Syria would be another such mistake but we have been determined to do just that. Yemen, the same.

          Iraq was a strategic disaster but we learned nothing and went after Libya and now Syria and Yemen. ]

          pgl ->Fred C. Dobbs... November 14, 2015 at 12:46 PM
          ISIS is doing a lot of boosting now. Osama bin Laden was doing a lot of past late in 2001. What ever happened to that guy? Pissing off both the French and the Russians by killing 100s of their citizens is a good way to get yourself killed.

          [Nov 12, 2015] The Emperor Has No Clothes and Nobody Cares

          www.howtogeek.com

          ... ... ...

          Ever since we found out just how much government spying is going on, the security community has been systematically looking into every piece of technology that we use, from operating systems to network protocols, and we've learned just how insecure everything is.

          ... ... ...

          That's the good news. The bad news is that nothing has fundamentally changed as far as the spying is concerned, despite all of the stories and media attention online. Organizations like the ACLU have tried, and failed, to even bring cases to figure out what's actually going on. Very few politicians even talk about it, and the ones that do have no power to change anything. People not only haven't exploded in anger, they don't even know the details, as John Oliver illustrated brilliantly in his interview with Snowden.

          Everybody knows the government is probably spying on everything, and nobody really cares.

          [Nov 12, 2015] These 425 Goldman Bankers Just Hit The Jackpot

          Zero Hedge

          It's that time of year.... when the bank-that-does-God's-work chooses who to bless with mass affluence. This year 425 Goldman Sachs' employees were annointed "Managing Directors" which according to Emolumnet.com means an average annual comp of approximately $1 million.

          [Nov 12, 2015] Oil Industry Needs Half a Trillion Dollars to Endure Price Slump

          Notable quotes:
          "... I agree. Excellent point on the frack log, but at some point with the reduced rate of drilling the frack log will dwindle. Let's take the Bakken where we have the best numbers, Enno estimates around 800 DUC wells (rough guess from memory), to make things simple let's assume no more wells are drilled because prices are so low. If 80 wells per month are completed the DUCs are gone in July 2016. Now the no wells drilled is probably not realistic. If 40 wells per month are drilled (though at these oil prices I still don't understand why) the 800 DUCs would last for 20 months rather than only 10 months, so your story makes sense at least for the Bakken. ..."
          "... One thing to be careful with the fracklog, is that not all of these will be good wells. ..."
          "... I agree that high cost will be likely to reduce demand. The optimistic forecasts assume there will be low cost supply judging by the price scenarios. For AEO 2013 Brent remains under $110/b (2013$) until 2031 and only reaches $141/b (2013$) in 2040. ..."
          "... "Debt repayments will increase for the rest of the decade, with $72 billion maturing this year, about $85 billion in 2016 and $129 billion in 2017, according to BMI Research. About $550 billion in bonds and loans are due for repayment over the next five years. ..."
          "... U.S. drillers account for 20 percent of the debt due in 2015, ..."
          peakoilbarrel.com

          ChiefEngineer , 11/09/2015 at 2:46 pm

          Saudi Arabia will not stop pumping to boost oil prices

          http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/09/

          "Mr Falih, who is also health minister, forecast the market would come into balance in the new year, and then demand would start to suck up inventories and storage on oil tankers. "Hopefully, however, there will be enough investment to meet the needs beyond 2017."

          Other officials also estimated that it would probably take one to two years for the market to clear up the oil market glut, allowing prices to recover towards $70-$80 a barrel."

          Greenbub, 11/09/2015 at 2:54 pm

          Chief, that link went dead, this might be right:
          http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/09/reuters-america-update-1-saudi-arabia-sees-robust-oil-fundamentals-as-rival-output-falls.html

          Ron Patterson, 11/09/2015 at 4:40 pm

          From your link, bold mine:

          "Non-OPEC supply is expected to fall in 2016, only one year after the deep cuts in investment," he said.

          "Beyond 2016, the fall in non-OPEC supply is likely to accelerate, as the cancellation and postponement of projects will start feeding into future supplies, and the impact of previous record investments on oil output starts to fade away."

          I thought just about everyone was expecting a rebound in production by 2017?

          AlexS, 11/09/2015 at 7:50 pm
          Ron, Dennis

          The EIA. IEA. OPEC and most others expect non-OPEC production, excluding the U.S. and Canada to decline in 2016 and the next few years due to the decline in investments and postponement / canceling of new projects. Production in Canada is still projected to continue to grow, but at a much slower rate than previously expected.

          Finally, U.S. C+C production is expected to rebound in the second half of 2016 due to slightly higher oil prices ($55-57/bbl WTI). Also, U.S. NGL production proved much more resilient, than C+C, despite very low NGL prices.

          Non-OPEC ex U.S. and Canada total liquids supply (mb/d)
          Source: EIA STEO October 2015

          Dennis Coyne, 11/10/2015 at 9:10 am

          Hi AlexS,

          Thanks. I don't think oil prices at $56/b is enough to increase the drilling in the LTO plays to the extent that output will increase, it may stop the decline and result in a plateau, it's hard to know.

          On the "liquids" forecast, the NGL is not adjusted for energy content as it should be, each barrel of NGL has only 70% of the energy content of an average C+C barrel and the every 10 barrels of NGL should be counted as 7 barrels so that the liquids are reported in barrels of oil equivalent (or better yet report the output in gigajoules (1E9) or exajoules(1E18)). The same conversion should be done for ethanol as well.

          AlexS, 11/10/2015 at 9:54 am

          Dennis,

          Note that not only the EIA, but also the IEA, OPEC, energy consultancies and investment banks are projecting a recovery in US oil production in the later part of next year.

          That said, I agree with you that $56 WTI projected by the EIA may not be sufficient to trigger a fast rebound in drilling activity. However there is also a backlog of drilled but uncompleted wells that could be completed and put into operation with slightly higher oil prices.

          Most shale companies have announced further cuts in investment budgets in 2016, so I think it is difficult to expect significant growth in the U.S. onshore oil production in 2H16.

          If and when oil prices reach $65-70/bbl, I think LTO may start to recover (probably in 2017 ?). I think that annual growth rates will never reach 1mb/d+ seen in 2012-14, but 0.5 mb/d annual average growth is quite possible for several years with oil prices exceeding $70.

          Dennis Coyne, 11/10/2015 at 1:33 pm

          Hi AlexS,

          I agree. Excellent point on the frack log, but at some point with the reduced rate of drilling the frack log will dwindle. Let's take the Bakken where we have the best numbers, Enno estimates around 800 DUC wells (rough guess from memory), to make things simple let's assume no more wells are drilled because prices are so low. If 80 wells per month are completed the DUCs are gone in July 2016. Now the no wells drilled is probably not realistic. If 40 wells per month are drilled (though at these oil prices I still don't understand why) the 800 DUCs would last for 20 months rather than only 10 months, so your story makes sense at least for the Bakken.

          I have no idea what the frack log looks like for the Eagle Ford. If its similar to the Bakken and they complete 130 new wells per month, with about 61 oil rigs currently turning in the EF they can drill 80 wells per month, so they would need 50 wells each month from the frack log. If there are 800 DUCs, then that would last for 16 months.

          The economics are better in the Eagle Ford because the wells are cheaper and transport costs are lower, but the EUR of the wells is also lower (230 kb vs 336 kb), the well profile has a thinner tail than the Bakken wells. I am not too confident about the EIA's DPR predictions for the Eagle Ford, output will decrease, but perhaps they(EIA) assume the frack log is zero and that only 75 new wells will be added to the Eagle Ford each month. If my guess of 150 new wells per month on average from Sept to Dec 2015 is correct, then decline from August to Dec 204 will only be about 100 kb/d and 255 kb/d from March to Dec 2015 (155 kb/d from March to August 2015).

          Toolpush, 11/11/2015 at 12:45 pm

          Dennis,

          One thing to be careful with the fracklog, is that not all of these will be good wells. It is fair enough that companies like EOG will have some good DUCs, (should there be a "k" in that?) in their fracklogs. But as the fracklog is worked through, I am sure there will be a some very ugly DUCklings, that nobody wants to admit to.
          How many fall into this category, will be anybodies guess, but not all DUC, will turn out to be beautiful swans?

          Dennis Coyne, 11/10/2015 at 1:57 pm

          Hi AlexS,

          On the predictions of the EIA and IEA, they also expect total oil supply to be quite high in 2040. For example the EIA in their International Energy Outlook reference case they have C+C output at 99 Mb/d in 2040.

          Their short term forecasts are probably better than that, but my expectation for 2040 C+C output is 62 Mb/d (which many believe is seriously optimistic, though you have never expressed an opinion as far as I remember).

          So I take many of these forecasts with a grain of salt, they are often more optimistic than me, others are far more pessimistic, the middle ground is sometimes more realistic.

          AlexS, 11/10/2015 at 9:08 pm
          Dennis,

          You said above that estimated URR of all global C+C (ex oil sands in Canada and Venezuela) is 2500 Gb. And about 1250 Gb of C+C had been produced at the end of 2014. So the remaining resources are 1250 Gb.

          BP estimates total global proved oil reserves as of 2014 at 1700 Gb, or 1313 excluding Canadian oil sands and Venezuela's extra heavy oil. Their estimate in 2000 was 1301 Gb and 1126 Gb. Hence, despite cumulative production of 419 Gb in 2001-2014, proved reserves increased by 187 Gb, or 400 Gb including oil sands and Venezuela's Orinoco oil. Note that BP's estimate is for proved (not P+P) reserves, but it includes C+C+NGLs. My very rough guess is that NGLs account for between 5% and 10% of the total.

          You may be skeptical about BP's estimates, but the fact is that proved reserves or 2P resources are not a constant number; they are increasing due to new discoveries and technological advances.

          BTW, the EIA's estimate of global C+C production increasing from 79 mb/d in 2014 to 99 mb/d in 2040 implies a cumulative output of 836 Gb, about 2/3 of your estimate of remaining 2P resources of C+C or BP's estimate of the current proved reserves. Given future discoveries and improvements in technology, I think that further growth of global oil production to about 100 mb/d by 2040 should not be constrained by resource scarcity.

          What can really make the EIA's and IEA's estimates too optimistic is not the depleting resource base, but the high cost of future supply, political factors and/or lower than expected demand.

          Dennis Coyne, 11/11/2015 at 11:05 am
          Hi AlexS,

          Thanks.

          You are quite optimistic. Note that I add 300 Gb to the 2500 Gb Hubbert Linearization estimate to account for reserve growth and discoveries.

          The oil reserves reported in the BP Statistical review are 1312 Gb. Jean Laherrere estimates that about 300 Gb of OPEC reserves are "political" to keep quotas at appropriate levels with respect to "true" reserve levels. So the actual 2P reserves are likely to be 1010 Gb. Some of the cumulative C+C output is extra heavy oil so the cumulative C+C-XH output is 1240 Gb so we have a total cumulative discovery (cumulative output plus 2P reserves) of 2250 Gb through 2014.

          My medium scenario with a URR of 2800 Gb of C+C-XH plus 600 Gb of XH oil (3400 Gb total C+C) assumes 550 Gb of discoveries plus reserve growth.

          What do you expect for a URR for C+C?

          Keep in mind that at some point oil prices rise to a level that substitutes for much of present oil use will become competitive, so oil prices above $175/b (in 2015$) are unlikely to be sustained in my view.

          In a wider format below I will present a scenario with what extraction rates would be needed for my medium scenario to reach 99 Mb/d in 2040.

          Dennis Coyne, 11/11/2015 at 4:20 pm
          Hi Alex S,

          I agree that high cost will be likely to reduce demand. The optimistic forecasts assume there will be low cost supply judging by the price scenarios. For AEO 2013 Brent remains under $110/b (2013$) until 2031 and only reaches $141/b (2013$) in 2040.

          Depleting resources will raise production cost to more than these prices and demand will be reduced due to high oil prices. There will be an interaction between depletion and the economics of supply and demand. It will be depletion that raises costs, which will raise prices and reduce demand.

          AlexS, 11/11/2015 at 4:41 pm
          It will be depletion of low-cost reserves that raises marginal costs and prices. High-cost reserves may be abundant, but prices will rise.
          AlexS, 11/09/2015 at 7:55 pm
          corrected chart:

          TechGuy, 11/10/2015 at 10:19 am
          Oil Industry Needs Half a Trillion Dollars to Endure Price Slump
          http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-26/oil-industry-needs-to-find-half-a-trillion-dollars-to-survive

          "Debt repayments will increase for the rest of the decade, with $72 billion maturing this year, about $85 billion in 2016 and $129 billion in 2017, according to BMI Research. About $550 billion in bonds and loans are due for repayment over the next five years.

          U.S. drillers account for 20 percent of the debt due in 2015, Chinese companies rank second with 12 percent and U.K. producers represent 9 percent."

          [These are just the bonds that have yields higher than 10%]

          [Its very unlikely that prices will recover in time to save many of the drillers, and even if prices recover, even $75 oil will not help since they need $90 to break even to service the debt. Also not sure who is going to buy maturing debt so it can be rolled over. Even if prices slowly recover, there is likely to be fewer people willing to loan money drillers.]

          Watcher, 11/10/2015 at 5:18 pm
          Don't bet on it. Probably be even better if the price declines more. Apocalypse will not be permitted.

          [Nov 11, 2015] Four US Firms With $4.8 Billion In Debt Warned This Week They May Default Any Minute

          Zero Hedge

          agent default

          It's not just the oil. The oil is convenient to point at because the US can pretend that they got SA to cause the drop in order to stick it to Russia. Makes the US look really smug. Meanwhile the truth is, copper down, zinc down, iron ore down, you name it down.

          Baltic Dry almost crashing, soft commodities gone to hell. I guess SA can also influence these markets as well.

          [Nov 11, 2015] Questions for Monetary Policy

          Notable quotes:
          "... Looking at the recent moves in exchange rates based on a simple switch in expectation of whether or not the Fed would raise rates in December or wait one or two meetings its seems obvious that the markets are not very good at anticipation. So I would not put much money on the ability of the markets to anticipate the trajectory and endpoint of raising rates - or the ability of anybody to guess where the exchange rates will go next. ..."
          "... The drop in hours worked data in the productivity report is very confusing. ..."
          "... I think lower oil prices has lead to a stronger consumption boost than initially thought. ..."
          economistsview.typepad.com
          James Bullard, president of the St. Louis Fed, says there are five questions for monetary policy:

          The five questions

          • What are the chances of a hard landing in China?
          • Have U.S. financial market stress indicators worsened substantially?
          • Has the U.S. labor market returned to normal?
          • What will the headline inflation rate be once the effects of the oil price shock dissipate?
          • Will the U.S. dollar continue to gain value against rival currencies?

          I would add:

          • Will wage gains translate into inflation (or something along those lines)?

          Anything else?

          sanjait said in reply to Anonymous...

          Markets move based on expectations of both economic fundamentals and the Fed's reaction function. So both can create surprises.

          In this case, a relatively stronger than expected US economy could push the dollar up quite a bit. The central bank would be expected to dampen but not eliminate this effect, even without changing their perceived reaction function.

          DeDude said in reply to Anonymous... , November 10, 2015 at 02:35 PM

          Looking at the recent moves in exchange rates based on a simple switch in expectation of whether or not the Fed would raise rates in December or wait one or two meetings its seems obvious that the markets are not very good at anticipation. So I would not put much money on the ability of the markets to anticipate the trajectory and endpoint of raising rates - or the ability of anybody to guess where the exchange rates will go next.

          What we can say is that the strengthening of the US$ that has happened recently will hurt the economy - whether it will hurt enough to slow the Fed is anybodies guess. Whether those guesses have already been baked into the exchange rates is impossible to predict.

          Bert Schlitz said...

          On Angry Bear, there is a post about 3rd quarter hours and Spencer's remark:

          "The drop in hours worked data in the productivity report is very confusing.

          The employment shows several measures of hours worked and they increased in the third quarter from 0.5% to 1,08 for aggregate weekly payrolls.

          Something is really change.

          The productivity report also had unit labor cost rising more than prices,
          This implies falling profits, what the S&P 500 shows."

          Basically wages accelerated rapidly in the 3rd quarter. The BLS didn't start catching up to it until October. My guess the hours drop and employment picks up trying to hold down costs. However, this will probably only level off things off for a few quarters, which would be good enough to profits catch back up until the labor market becomes so tight, they simply have no choice but to raise prices and hours worked surge again. Classic mid-cycle behavior (which Lambert should have noticed).

          This is what triggered the 3rd quarter selloff and inventory correction. That foreign stuff was for show. I think lower oil prices has lead to a stronger consumption boost than initially thought.

          am said...

          Clicked on this link for the answers but it is 34 blank pages, so i'll go for:
          1. No, they'll just devalue when need be to soften the landing. I think they will do another one before the end of the year.
          2. No idea.
          3. Near it if you believe the Atlanta Fed. They have a detailed analysis on their blog.
          4. 2.2 if you believe the St Louis Fed, end of December for the oil price decline washout from the system. So inflation will creep up by the end of the year.
          5. Yes and more so if they raise the rate.
          6. No. because it will just be oil led not wages (see 4).
          Anything else: the weather with apologies to PeterK.

          anne said...

          I am really having increasing trouble understanding, how is it that having a Democratic President means making sure appointments from the State or Defense Department to the Federal Reserve are highly conservative and even Republican. Republicans will not even need to elect a President to have conservatives strewn about the government:

          http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-neel-kashkari-federal-reserve-minneapolis-20151110-story.html

          November 10, 2015

          After failed GOP bid to be California's governor, Neel Kashkari will head Minneapolis Fed
          By Jim Puzzanghera - Los Angeles Times

          anne said in reply to anne...

          Neel Kashkari is another Goldman Sachs kid, what would you expect?

          anne said in reply to anne...

          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/business/ex-treasury-official-kashkari-named-minneapolis-fed-president.html

          November 10, 2015

          Neel Kashkari, Ex-Treasury Official, Named Minneapolis Fed President
          By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM

          Neel Kashkari is the third new president of a regional reserve bank named this year, and all three previously worked at Goldman Sachs.

          [ Really, well, creepy comes to mind. ]

          [Nov 11, 2015] Valentin Katasonov - Banks Rule the World, but Who Rules the Banks (II)

          Notable quotes:
          "... do not just own shares in American banks, they own mainly voting shares. It these financial companies that exercise the real control over the US banking system. ..."
          Strategic Culture Foundation
          Financial holding companies like the Vanguard Group, State Street Corporation, FMR (Fidelity), BlackRock, Northern Trust, Capital World Investors, Massachusetts Financial Services, Price (T. Rowe) Associates Inc., Dodge & Cox Inc., Invesco Ltd., Franklin Resources, Inc., АХА, Capital Group Companies, Pacific Investment Management Co. (PIMCO) and several others do not just own shares in American banks, they own mainly voting shares. It these financial companies that exercise the real control over the US banking system.

          Some analysts believe that just four financial companies make up the main body of shareholders of Wall Street banks. The other shareholder companies either do not fall into the key shareholder category, or they are controlled by the same 'big four' either directly or through a chain of intermediaries. Table 4 provides a summary of the main shareholders of the leading US banks.

          Table 4.

          Leading institutional shareholders of the main US banks

          Name of shareholder company Controlled assets, valuation (trillions of dollars; date of evaluation in brackets) Number of employees
          Vanguard Group 3 (autumn 2014) 12,000
          State Street Corporation 2.35 (mid-2013) 29,500
          FMR (Fidelity) 4.9 (April 2014) 41,000
          Black Rock 4.57 (end of 2013) 11,400

          Evaluations of the amount of assets under the control of financial companies that are shareholders of the main US banks are rather arbitrary and are revised periodically. In some cases, the evaluations only include the companies' main assets, while in others they also include assets that have been transferred over to the companies' control. In any event, the size of their controlled assets is impressive. In the autumn of 2013, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) was at the top of the list of the world's banks ranked by asset size with assets totaling $3.1 trillion. At that point in time, the Bank of America had the most assets in the US banking system ($2.1 trillion). Just behind were US banks like Citigroup ($1.9 trillion) and Wells Fargo ($1.5 trillion).

          [Nov 11, 2015] Friction is Now Between Global Financial Elite and the Rest of Us

          Notable quotes:
          "... But the standard explanation, as well as the standard debate, overlooks the increasing concentration of political power in a corporate and financial elite that has been able to influence the rules by which the economy runs ..."
          "... This means that the fracture in politics will move from left to right to the anti-establishment versus establishment. ..."
          "... In most cases, international agreements are negotiated by elites that have more in common with each other than with working people in the countries that they represent. ..."
          "... when we negotiate economic agreements with these poorer countries, we are negotiating with people from the same class. That is, people whose interests are like ours – on the side of capital ..."
          "... Accordingly, the fundamental purpose of the neo-liberal polices of the past 20 years has been to discipline labor in order to free capital from having to bargain with workers over the gains from rising productivity. ..."
          "... Moreover, unregulated globalization in one stroke puts government's domestic policies decisively on the side of capital. In an economy that is growing based on its domestic market, rising wages help everyone because they increase purchasing power and consumer demand – which is the major driver of economic growth in a modern economy. But in an economy whose growth depends on foreign markets, rising domestic wages are a problem, because they add to the burden of competing internationally. ..."
          "... Both the international financial institutions and the WTO have powers to enforce protection of investors' rights among nations, the former through the denial of financing, the latter through trade sanctions. But the institution charged with protecting workers' rights – the International Labor Organization (ILO) – has no enforcement power. ..."
          Economist's View

          Friction is now between global financial elite and the rest of us, The Guardian:

          ... ... ...

          But the standard explanation, as well as the standard debate, overlooks the increasing concentration of political power in a corporate and financial elite that has been able to influence the rules by which the economy runs. ...

          Dan Kervick said...

          "This means that the fracture in politics will move from left to right to the anti-establishment versus establishment."

          I think this is probably right, but the established parties are doing their best to prevent it. Each of them has an interest in continuing to divide people along various cultural, religious and ethnic identity lines in order to prevent them from achieving any kind of effective solidarity along class lines.

          Anyway, I fear we may be headed toward a turbulent and very unpleasant future.

          Kenneth D said...

          "Rethinking the Global Political Economy" By Jeff Faux April 24, 2002

          In most cases, international agreements are negotiated by elites that have more in common with each other than with working people in the countries that they represent. As a retired U.S. State Department official put it to me bluntly a few years ago, "What you don't understand," he said, "is that when we negotiate economic agreements with these poorer countries, we are negotiating with people from the same class. That is, people whose interests are like ours – on the side of capital."

          Accordingly, the fundamental purpose of the neo-liberal polices of the past 20 years has been to discipline labor in order to free capital from having to bargain with workers over the gains from rising productivity.

          But labor is typically at a disadvantage because it usually bargains under conditions of excess supply of unemployed workers. Moreover, the forced liberalization of finance and trade provides enormous bargaining leverage to capital, because it can now threaten to leave the economy altogether.

          Moreover, unregulated globalization in one stroke puts government's domestic policies decisively on the side of capital. In an economy that is growing based on its domestic market, rising wages help everyone because they increase purchasing power and consumer demand – which is the major driver of economic growth in a modern economy. But in an economy whose growth depends on foreign markets, rising domestic wages are a problem, because they add to the burden of competing internationally.

          Both the international financial institutions and the WTO have powers to enforce protection of investors' rights among nations, the former through the denial of financing, the latter through trade sanctions. But the institution charged with protecting workers' rights – the International Labor Organization (ILO) – has no enforcement power.

          [Nov 09, 2015] Supervising Culture and Behavior at Financial Institutions

          Notable quotes:
          "... Organizational culture and behavior is a critical factor in the success of any business. The intense emphasis most American businesses place on numbers to the exclusion of almost any other consideration is a major contributor to the vast amount of corporate control fraud we have witnessed in the past decade or so. ..."
          "... One of the fundamental tenets of Reaganism/Libertarianism is that "The Ends Justify the Means." The financial sector is not the only institution in our civilization that is failing due to this mind-set. The best form of regulation is simply holding up a mirror to a firm or agency and asking questions such as, "In this organization, when is it OK to lie?" ..."
          Nov 09, 2015 | naked capitalism

          John Zelnicker, November 7, 2015 at 9:49 am

          Fascinating research. Thanks for posting this, Yves.

          Organizational culture and behavior is a critical factor in the success of any business. The intense emphasis most American businesses place on numbers to the exclusion of almost any other consideration is a major contributor to the vast amount of corporate control fraud we have witnessed in the past decade or so.

          Unfortunately, I don't see any of these executive psychopaths putting themselves through the self-assessment that is one of the necessary steps mentioned in the study. At least, not voluntarily.

          Sluggeaux, November 7, 2015 at 11:39 am

          Important.

          One of the fundamental tenets of Reaganism/Libertarianism is that "The Ends Justify the Means." The financial sector is not the only institution in our civilization that is failing due to this mind-set. The best form of regulation is simply holding up a mirror to a firm or agency and asking questions such as, "In this organization, when is it OK to lie?"

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

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

          Written by Jeff Nielson (CLICK FOR ORIGNAL)

          ... ... ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          In a perverse twist of fate, the American Empire now mirrors the Soviet Union, in almost every respect. In the Soviet Union, voters were given the choice of two candidates, in what it called "elections". However both of those candidates represented the Communist Party.

          In the American Empire, voters are also given the choice of two candidates, they simply pretend to represent two, different parties. Incredibly, this political charade has managed to persist for at least a century.

          "There is no material difference now in the old political parties, except which shall control the patronage."

          - (former Congressman/prosecutor) Charles Lindbergh Sr., The Economic Pinch (p.61), 1923

          Perhaps more significantly, the American Empire now bears considerable resemblance to the Roman Empire, as well. Historians are in agreement that at the time the Roman Empire was at the absolute peak of its military might that "the decline of the Roman Empire" had already been underway for centuries.

          Where the ancient Roman Empire differs from the modern American Empire is that in the 21 st century, events – including the rise-and-fall of empires – progress much, much more rapidly. Roughly speaking, what used to stretch over centuries now takes place in decades. Instant communication, rapid global transportation, computerization, and numerous, other technological advances are responsible for this accelerated pace of political/economic/social evolution.

          Morally and economically bankrupt, the American Empire now relies more and more heavily on its Big Stick, which it wields with ever more impunity and recklessness. Statesmen such as Ron Paul and Paul Craig Roberts have regularly warned that the current generation of Neo-Cons (who wield all, real power in the U.S. government) are marching relentlessly toward World War III.

          However, while we see Psychopaths on the left/West, we see an entirely opposite political dynamic in the East. The strengthening alliance between China and Russia, represents two, large, global powers which (at least at this point in time) demonstrate no imperial aspirations. But this is only one significant way in which the East differs from the West.

          In an essay titled Grandmaster Putin's Trap , Russian writer Dmitry Kalinichenko provides us with aninsightful allegory . Cold War II is not a militarily-oriented confrontation, rather it is a geopolitical chess match. The important point here is that only one "side" understands how to play (and win) a chess match.

          How does a skilled chess-player achieve victory? Positioning, positioning, and more positioning. It is only once one's opponent has been completely out-positioned that any thought is given to overt attack. Chess is a game of patience, and (often) a game of simply waiting for one's opponent to self-destruct, via strategic error, or mere impatience.

          This brings us back to the current geopolitical stage. In the East, we see Russia and China constantly engaged in improving their position. Unlike the American Empire, they are improving their economies – notcannibalizing them. They are relentlessly adding to their gold reserves ("He who has the gold makes the rules" – The Golden Rule), while the American Empire has squandered most of its own reserves .

          While the U.S., and the West, in general, unremittingly alienates the Rest of the World, Russia and China have been rapidly improving their political and economic cooperation with other nations. While the political/economic institutions created or sponsored by the American Empire lose their legitimacy due to corruption, Russia and China are creating parallel, corruption-free institutions – to replace them.

          If this was a real chess match, the player on the left would have already 'pushed over his King' (i.e. capitulated). The player on the right now has such superior position that the outcome of the game is no longer in doubt. However, this is not a game, but rather real life – where one side has utterly no respect for anything resembling "rules".

          Russia and China are clearly headed for victory-by-default in Cold War II. The psychopaths of the American Empire have demonstrated that they are ready-and-willing to do literally anything to prevent this seemingly inevitable outcome. For this reason, the warnings of people such as Ron Paul and Paul Craig Roberts should be given our most serious consideration.

          GreatUncle

          Russia & China, you might want to add India too.

          It is called mutual support because as each year passes the US becomes more and more aggressive and to be out on your own and a threat to those in power there you will be turned upon to keep you in your place.

          If anything I expect this coalition of nations to only get stronger because if any become isolated and seems to be current foreign policy with Russia you are in for a bit of brutality. Then once one side or the other is eliminated and that can be economically too they will turn on the another to keep them in their place.

          Top dog is always going to have an inferiority complex against any who may challenge it.

          Consequence? In the last decade reckon under its own steam the US has magnificently turned a substantial portion of the global population against it. It might not be in the MSM, it will be undercurrents of all the brutality like killing innocent citizens with drones or a shoot to kill policy by the US military and the if you are not with us you are against us mentality.

          laomei

          Russia and China are clearly headed for victory-by-default in Cold War II.

          Lol, the Russian economy is collapsing, it relies entirely on oil and oil is dirt cheap. Russia gave the EU an out with sanctions to tear up the contracts and will soon be able to turn to alternative sources. That leaves China as their main partner for oil, while Russia buys up cheap Chinese garbage. But, at the same time, China is more or less in the same position as Mexico was, combined with systemic problem that are virtually identical to the Japan bust. It's a ticking time bomb and the government is literally locking up anyone who dares to even suggest that such a thing is even possible now. Purely out of fear that someone might be listening. China is still dealing with record outflows of cash and is rapidly liquidating those vast reserves. Once the economic growth drops (official numbers or not), there will be no choice left but to devale, which is great for exporters, but toxic for all companies that have borrowed USD. It's enough to destroy entirely their advanced sectors, and they do not have the willing labor at competitive rates to rush back to manufacture like they used to.

          Setarcos

          Actually oil accounts for only about 15% of the Russian economy, which is rapidly diversifying because of the impetus provided by sanctions.

          Ironically too, because oil is still mainly traded in inflated USD and the ruble devalued, the price drop is not as great as it seems at first glance, and because internal trade, manufacturing, etc. is conducted in rubles, the impact is lessened even more.

          bthunder

          If corruption is what brings empires down, then considering level of corruption in China and Russia vs in the US of A, Russia and China will collapse long before USA will.

          As far as Putin's "grandmaster" skills supposedly demonstrated by Russia's "positioning, positioning, and more positioning", during 15 years of his rule Russia's economy has been positioned for oil exports, nat gas exports, and more oil exports. That takes some grndmaster-like skills indeed.

          Now that he's involved in 2 conflicts and China is refusing to pay previously negotiated prices for oil and nat gas (china demands discounts to reflect current low prices) it will be interesting to see how he can conduct and pay for 2 wars at the same time.

          Crash N. Burn

          "As far as Putin's "grandmaster" skills..."

          Perhaps you should have clicked the link in that paragraph:

          "After realizing its failure in Ukraine, the West, led by the US set out to destroy Russian economy by lowering oil prices, and accordingly gas prices as the main budget sources of export revenue in Russia and the main sources of replenishment of Russian gold reserves....

          ..Putin is selling Russian oil and gas only for physical gold.

          Putin is not shouting about it all over the world. And of course, he still accepts US dollars as an intermediate means of payment. But he immediately exchanges all these dollars obtained from the sale of oil and gas for physical gold!..

          ..in the third quarter the purchases by Russia of physical gold are at all-time high record levels. In the third quarter of this year, Russia had purchased an incredible amount of gold in the amount of 55 tons. It's more than all the central banks of all countries of the world combined"


          Grandmaster Putin's Trap

          strangewalk

          The USSR collapsed because the people, the foundation of support, were disgusted and disillusioned with a system with pervasive corruption at the top, while the majority suffered deprivation. Now things have reversed, it is Americas turn.

          Freddie

          The USSR was totally corrupt just like the USA today. The USA has been on a slipperly slope since before the Banksters - Civil War. I pretty much expected when Obola was selected by Soros and other zios that the uSA was headed towards an implosion like the old USSR.

          Phillyguy

          Actually the Soviet Union was dismantled from above. The ruling (elite) group - in government, managers of large industries, academics, etc. wanted the economic privileges available in capitalist countries. Circa 80% of the population (i.e., working people) supported the Soviet Union and socialism and were the ones whose living standards collapsed following the conversion to capitalism. See- Revolution From Above: The Demise of the Soviet System by David Kotz and Fred Weir

          GC

          Now, I'm pretty pro-Russia these days, but..

          "Only Mother Russia remained intact."

          I suggest checking an atlas, or googlemap. "mother Russia" most certainly included Belarus and, arguably, some if not all of Ukraine. They don't seem to be part of the Russian federation nowadays.

          "Unlike the American Empire, they are improving their economies – not cannibalizing them."

          That's, unfortunately, very arguable about Russia. Russia lived on the oil price highs of the last 10 years, but its economy is largely unchanged, imports are rampant, agriculture can't keep up with internal demand and infrastructures, in general but in particular in the immense Asian part, has not much changed since the 90s, or maybe even 60s (with the exception of the oil related projects) and corruption is omnipresent.

          datura

          you don't seem to know much about Russia.

          1] Belarus is not technically part of Russia, but in many way it is and still heading for greater integration. Belarus is now part of what is legally called Union State of Russia and Belarus. Interestingly, although economic integration has proved difficult at this point, the two states are integrated militarily. Besides, Belarus is a member of the Eurasian Union, which is a Russian parallel to the European Union. It is perhaps more easy for Russia to have this Union instead of incorporating the former Soviet countries directly into Russia again. Although there are regions, who would very much like to rejoin Russia directly, but cannot do so, because it would provoke fury of the American Empire. So all the integration and rejoining must be done very quietly and under the blanket for now.

          2) asian part, has not much changed since the 90s: ummm....this has been true for entire thousands of year long history of Russia. It is incredibly difficult for Russia to develop all its territory, because it is huge. Russia will need help of China and other Asian states to do this. But cities like Vladivostok have changed for better already and are booming. There are plans for greater development of those regions and many projects in place. One of them is the new Russian cosmodrome, which will provide jobs and centre of life for many people, once it is completed. But of course, developing those regions is an enormous effort for generations to come, which Putin can only start and his successors will have to continue.

          3) Apart from Far East, Russia is also positioning itself in the Artics, building bases and projects. This is also task for future generations.

          4) Russian economy is certainly not unchanged! Russia jumped higher in the ranking of easy to do business chart and the World Bank says that d oing Business in Russia is now easier than in China. Russian debts (both state and external) are still decreasing and gold reserves growing. Agriculture is self-sufficient already (no Russians dying from hunger and import bans still in place). It also has much to improve, but Russians can now feed themselves without the help of the West. For example dairy production has grown 26%. And more than that, for example Russia is now surpassing USA in wheat export. Poorer regions like Africa and Middle-Eastern countries like Egypt and Iran are buying more and more food from Russia, as it is cheaper.

          5) Imports rampant? I don't get what rampant means, but imports are much smaller than last year and still dropping. And most imports are now undertandably coming from China. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/imports

          6) Corruption is also decreasing and it is nowhere as terrible as in the USA (if only for the simple reason that Russia does not print money and does not increase its debts, so the amount of money to steal from is limited). This should be an example for future Americans. Corruption will always exist, but it will be much less, if you don't print money out of nothing and if you don't increase debts to pass them on to your children.

          People tend to forget that Russia, despite being an old civilization, is actually a very young as a state in the current form. Its economy and capitalism have had far less time to develop than USA! The Russian Constitution was created only in 1993, so even its political system is very young. So it is logical that everything is still in its beginnings and evolving. Russia is now where USA was in, say, 1791:-) But that is not necessarily a bad thing, as Russians still have a lot of space for creativity and building of their state - they are in the beginning of a new cycle, while USA is in the end of a cycle.

          GC

          And you don't seem to understand the arguments made.

          1) The writer said that "mother Russi has remained intact". Belarus and Ukraine are part of teh concept of "MOther Russia". ukraine goes without saying, considering that it is where the whole concept of Russia begun (you know, Kievan Rus?). Now, Belarus was part of Kievan Rus and Minsk itself was settled by Russians in the 9th century (the city proper was created in the 11th, still by Russians). yes, it could be argued is that the polonization process that happened once it came under the Polish-Lithuanian union when the Russian state had been conquered by the mongols set belarus culturally and linguistically apart for a few centuries, but ideally, Belarus is undoubtly part of "mother Russia". You seem to know little of the history of the place yourself for accusing othes not to know much of it.

          2) yes, indeed... but still, not even you countered my argument that infrastructure is basically what it used to be. of course, not exactly what it used to be.. note that I used "largely the same". there are a few exceptions.

          3) true, but artict exploration is like the space age race of the 60s: a show of power and a technological feat, with large upfront costs and with limited impact on the real economy (or rather, a large impact, but on a very long timeframe since the technologies ended up mainstream).

          4) saying that doing business in Russia in easier than in China is not saying much, considering how closed to foreigners the Chinese economy is (the fact that it is open to FDI doesn't mean it is an open economy, even if many confuse the two things). Russia can feed itself with grain and potatoes, of course, and it can also export them (as it has done for decades in its history), but it cannot actually produce for a diversified internal demand, forcing people to either pay a large premium for imports (even larger now with sanctions, hence the reduction of imports) or go for second line products via import substitution. the reason why food prices jumped with sanctions is that Russia wasn't able to produce enough to make do for the food it imported and prices raised as goods were to few to meet demand. There's simply no easier evidence than that AND the fact that just last july the ministry of agricolture for Russia promised MASSIVE subsidies to the agricolture sector to stimulate production. So, are we really arguing the insufficiency of Russian agricoltural sector? Which brings as to...

          5) ...You confuse the fact that imports are slowing due the economic crisis and ruble depreciation with economic strenght, which is funny. Truth is, if you remove oil from russian exports, the balance of trade of Russia is utterly negative and getting worse. Russia is not Saudi Arabia, of course, where everythign revolves around oil, but most of the economic resurgence of the Putin era is due to oil windfall and not much has been done to improve other sectors of the economy. proof is, there is no major company that is considered a major player which has been born in Russia in the last 20 years. All top russian companies are oil related (Gazprom, Rosnef and Lukoil) or financial (which raised due the financial needs and revenues of oil), while there is a (relative) desert in services and computer technology. Russia has been and largely continue to be, a raw material exporting country with heavy industries tied to raw materials and armaments, not much of an advanced tertiary or high value added items economy. And I add, unfortunately so, as nothing would please me more to see a strong enough Russia to limit the American idiocy around Europe and teh middle East. The world has gone insane since the loss of a counterweight.

          6) your understanding of corruption is.. well, not understanding. Corruption isn't tied to money production, it is tied with money transfers within an economy. If you have to pay for a permission or a to move goods around, that is a net loss for the economy. In transpareny international index, Russian CPI was 24 in 2014, ranking it 136 of 175 countries, in 2012 it was 28. It IS improving, but it's still one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

          One can be a Russian fan (I am), but denying the limits of the country's economy doesn't help. Putin himself understands the limits and that's the reason why Russian isn't, differently than the US id in Iraq and Afghanistan, going with its army in Ukraine or Syria: they don't have the financial means to sustain a ground war. I wish Russia a bright future, but they have much to improve and their economy has much to diversify to self sustain.

          Btw, Russia has another, immense bordering on the catastrophic, problem and that is demography. Between very low natality and, until very recently, a lowering life expectancy (which is still one of the lowest , if not the lowest, of all advanced economies) Russians risk to go extincted to irrilevance by the end of the century (but at least, they are not following the folly of our Europeans to substitute disappearing locals with muslims from the middle east and Africa). I really hope they will manage to reverse the trend.

          Lucky Leprachaun

          Destruction from within? Undoubtedly. Caused by Americans themselves? More problematical. You see the agents of this destruction - Neocons, banksters, Cultural Marxist degenerates - are largely the 'rootless cosmopolitans' of legend, with at best a transient attachment to the country.

          [Nov 06, 2015] Facebook Revenue Surges 41%, as Mobile Advertising and Users Keep Growing

          In after Snowden world, is this a testament that most smartphone users are idiots, or what ?
          Notable quotes:
          "... The company said mobile advertising in the third quarter accounted for a colossal 78 percent of its ad revenue, up from 66 percent a year ago. ..."
          "... ... ... ... ..."
          Nov 06, 2015 | The New York Time

          Facebook is so far defying concerns about its spending habits - a criticism that has at times also plagued Amazon and Alphabet's Google - because the social network is on a short list of tech companies that make money from the wealth of mobile visitors to its smartphone app and website. The company said mobile advertising in the third quarter accounted for a colossal 78 percent of its ad revenue, up from 66 percent a year ago.

          ... ... ...

          Revenue was also bolstered by Facebook increasing the number of ads it showed users over the past year, said David Wehner, the company's chief financial officer. And video advertising, a growth area for Facebook, is on the rise: More than eight billion video views happen on the social network every day, the company said.

          Hand in hand with the increased advertising is more users to view the promotions. The number of daily active users of Facebook exceeded one billion for the first time in the quarter, up 17 percent from a year earlier, with monthly active mobile users up 23 percent, to 1.4 billion.

          ... ... ...

          Beyond the properties it owns, Facebook is dabbling in partnerships with media companies that could prove lucrative in the future. In May, the company debuted a feature called Instant Articles with a handful of publishers, including The New York Times, which lets users read articles from directly inside the Facebook app without being directed to a web browser.

          [Nov 06, 2015] The C word is a Hidden Tax on Growth

          Corruption == inequality: "Corruption is a tax on growth just as inequality is a tax on growth. Money that could be spent on improving conditions overall winds up in the hands of a small wealthy oligarchy. The only real difference is legalistic. Technically corruption involves some type of illegality, but the end results are the same."
          Notable quotes:
          "... Deregulation, of course. A semantic trick so typical of the IMF. Openness is fair and to manage openness you may need a clear regulatory framework that provides rules and clarity with strong institutions that can ensure compliance. Pushing all the time for deregulation is ideological bias. ..."
          "... I like the idea of economist studying the economic effects of corruption. One of the benefits, of course, is that it will bring more to light these rationalizations like the one Ignacio brings up. So if only we didnt have laws against shoplifting then the shoplifter would not have to hide what he was doing or be guilty of a crime ..."
          "... Corruption is a tax on growth just as inequality is a tax on growth. Money that could be spent on improving conditions overall winds up in the hands of a small wealthy oligarchy. The only real difference is legalistic. Technically corruption involves some type of illegality, but the end results are the same. ..."
          "... This may sound a bit strong, but if you do the math, corruption and relentless upward distribution are the same thing in terms of national accounting. Do the math and youll see. ..."
          "... When talking about corruption, everybody focuses on illicit flows of payments, which is of course a primary factor, but I would say the greasing of hands is not the most damaging part, rather it is the associated dereliction of duty and shaping policy and decision making, and initiation, selection, or prioritization of projects not to serve the public benefit (or that of the organizations involved) but to arrange private advantages. ..."
          "... the largest problem is not the driving up of the cost though thats bad enough, but the corruption of the very decision making which inevitably leads to not delivering what was needed or requested, but something counterproductive (and not rarely in a way that conveniently enables the next round of graft). ..."
          "... In the days of the notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall they used to talk about honest corruption and dishonest corruption. The idea is that honest corruption got the thing built or done, even if the cost was incredibly bloated. Tammany Hall made a point of distributing the loot up and down the line. The big guys would get millions, but every worker on the job got bonus pay, fake overtime and spare parts . ..."
          Nov 05, 2015 | Economist's View

          From IMF-direct:

          The "C word": A Hidden Tax on Growth, by Vitor Gaspar and Sean Hagan: In recent years, citizens' concerns about allegations of corruption in the public sector have become more visible and widespread. From São Paulo to Johannesburg, citizens have taken to the streets against graft. In countries like Chile, Guatemala, India, Iraq, Malaysia and Ukraine, they are sending a clear and loud message to their leaders: Address corruption!
          Policymakers are paying attention too. Discussing the "C word" has long been a sensitive topic at inter-governmental organizations like the International Monetary Fund. But earlier this month at its Annual Meetings in Lima, Peru, the IMF hosted a refreshingly frank discussion on the subject. The panel session provided a stimulating debate on definitions of corruption, its direct and indirect consequences, and strategies for addressing it, including the role that individuals and institutions such as the IMF can play. This blog gives a flavor of the discussion. ...

          Ignacio said...

          Here goes the IMF:

          "Openness of the economy through deregulation and liberalization will also help since overly-regulated economies create strong incentives to maintain corrupt practices."

          Deregulation, of course. A semantic trick so typical of the IMF. Openness is fair and to manage openness you may need a clear regulatory framework that provides rules and clarity with strong institutions that can ensure compliance. Pushing all the time for deregulation is ideological bias.

          djb -> anne...

          I like the idea of economist studying the economic effects of corruption. One of the benefits, of course, is that it will bring more to light these rationalizations like the one Ignacio brings up. So if only we didn't have laws against shoplifting then the shoplifter would not have to hide what he was doing or be guilty of a crime

          am

          Professor Stephenson of Harvard has a very good blog on corruption well worth a look. http://globalanticorruptionblog.com/

          kaleberg said...

          Corruption is a tax on growth just as inequality is a tax on growth. Money that could be spent on improving conditions overall winds up in the hands of a small wealthy oligarchy. The only real difference is legalistic. Technically corruption involves some type of illegality, but the end results are the same.

          This may sound a bit strong, but if you do the math, corruption and relentless upward distribution are the same thing in terms of national accounting. Do the math and you'll see.

          cm -> kaleberg...

          When talking about corruption, everybody focuses on illicit flows of payments, which is of course a primary factor, but I would say the greasing of hands is not the most damaging part, rather it is the associated dereliction of duty and shaping policy and decision making, and initiation, selection, or prioritization of projects not to serve the public benefit (or that of the organizations involved) but to arrange private advantages.

          If it were only about the money, it would be more like being slightly overcharged on the bill, but still getting what you ordered or needed.

          cm -> cm...

          Of course not to forget the lining of pockets. But my main point still stands - the largest problem is not the driving up of the cost though that's bad enough, but the corruption of the very decision making which inevitably leads to not delivering what was needed or requested, but something counterproductive (and not rarely in a way that "conveniently" enables the next round of graft).

          kaleberg -> cm...

          In the days of the notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall they used to talk about honest corruption and dishonest corruption. The idea is that honest corruption got the thing built or done, even if the cost was incredibly bloated. Tammany Hall made a point of distributing the loot up and down the line. The big guys would get millions, but every worker on the job got bonus pay, fake overtime and "spare parts".

          likbez said...

          IMF neoliberal perspective on governance failed to highlight the major source of corruption -- neoliberalism as a social system.

          Over recent years, IMF and World Bank have been promoting an artificially constructed discourse on corruption that separates it from its historic narrative -- the neoliberal political system under which it now flourish. They use pretty elaborate smoke screen designed to hide the key issues under the set of fuzzy terms such as "transparency", "accountability", "governance", "anticorruption initiatives". Ignoring the socio-political role of corruption as the key mechanism of the neoliberal debt enslavement of peripheral nations (see Confessions of an Economic Hit Man - Wikipedia )

          Privatization might well be the most widespread type of corruption which occurs when an office-holder or other governmental employee acts in an official capacity to sell government property for pennies on the dollar to local oligarchs of international companies. With delayed payment via the "revolving door" mechanism.

          If we assume that corruption is 'illegitimate use of public power to benefit a private interest" then neoliberalism is the most corrupt social system imaginable.
          But in neoliberal ideology only the state is responsible for corruption. The private sector under neoliberalism is immune of any responsibility. In reality it is completely opposite and state represents a barrier to private companies especially international sharks to get unfair advantage. And they can use the USA embassy as a source of pressure instead of bribing government officials. Neoliberals argues without any proof that if the market is let to function through its own mechanisms, and the role of state diminished to a minimum regulatory role, "good governance" could be realized and corruption be diminished. As US subprime crisis has shown this is untrue and destroys the stability of the economy.

          Actually the term "governance" serves as the magical universal opener in neoliberal ideology. It is ideologically grounded up the narrative of previous mismanagement of economy ("blame the predecessor" trick).

          This assumes the ideal economic sphere, in which players somehow get an equal opportunities automatically without regulatory role of the state and in case of peripheral nations without being strong armed by more powerful states. Under neoliberalism ethical responsibilities on players are reduced to the loyalty to contract.

          Moreover antisocial behavior under liberalism is explicitly promoted (" greed is good") and the West serves as a "treasure vault" for stolen money and provides "safe heaven" for corrupt officials that face prosecution. At least this is true for Russian oligarchs when each crook automatically became "fighter for freedom" after landing in London airport and stolen money are indirectly appropriated by British state and never returned to Russia.

          The USA is very similar. It likes to condemn corruption but seldom returns that money stolen -- for example it never returned to Ukraine money stolen by Ukrainian Prime minister under President Kuchma Pavlo Lazarenko (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlo_Lazarenko) .

          gunste said...

          Applied Republican ideology is operating and legislating in favor of money donors and their businesses. It is America's legalized corruption and bribery.

          [Nov 06, 2015] How Firefox's New Private Mode Trumps Chrome's Incognito

          11/05/15 | Observer

          Comment

          Firefox ups its privacy game with version 42.

          Mozilla made a bit of a splash this week with the announcement of its updated "private mode" in Firefox, but it's worth spelling out exactly why: Firefox's enhanced privacy mode blocks web trackers.

          Users familiar with Chrome's "Incognito Mode" may assume that's what it does as well, but it doesn't. It's no fault of Google or the Chromium Project if someone misunderstands the degree of protection. The company is clear in its FAQ: all Incognito Mode does is keep your browsing out of the browser's history.

          'We think that when you launch private browsing you're telling us that you want more control over the data you share on the web.'

          Firefox's new "Private Mode" one-ups user protection here by automatically blocking web trackers. Nick Nguyen, Vice President for Product at Mozilla, says in the video announcement, "We think that when you launch private browsing you're telling us that you want more control over the data you share on the web." That sounds right. In fact, most people probably think private modes provide more safety than they do.

          Firefox has been working to educate web users about the prevalence of trackers for a long time. In 2012, it introduced Collusion to help users visualize just how many spying eyes were in the background of their browsing (a tool now known by the milquetoast name 'Lightbeam') and how they follow you around.

          Privacy nuts might be thinking, "Hey, isn't the new Private Mode basically doing what the Ghostery add-on/extension does already? It looks that way. Ghostery was not immediately available for comment on this story. This reporter started using Ghostery in earnest in the last few weeks, and while it does bust the odd page, overall, it makes the web much faster. As Mr. Nguyen says in the video, Firefox's new mode should do the roughly the same.

          The best way to update Firefox is within the 'About Firefox' dialogue. Open it and let it check for updates (if it doesn't say version 42.0 or higher, the browser doesn't have it). On Macs, find "About Firefox" under the "Firefox" tab in the menu bar. On a PC, find it in the hamburger menu in the upper right.

          Competition in the browser battles keeps improving the functionality of the web. When Chrome first came along, Firefox had become incredibly bloated.

          Notice of what's new in 'Private Mode' when opened in Firefox, after updating. (Screenshot: Firefox)

          Notice of what's new in 'Private Mode' when opened in Firefox, after updating. (Screenshot: Firefox)

          Then, Chrome popularized the notion of incognito browsing, back when the main privacy concern was that our roommate would look at our browsing history to see how often we were visiting Harry Potter fansites (shout out to stand-up comic, Ophira Eisenberg, for that one).

          As the web itself has become bloated with spyware, incorporating tracker blocking directly into the structure of the world's second most popular browser is a strong incentive for web managers to be more judicious about the stuff they load up in the background of websites.

          Don't forget, though, that even with trackers blocked, determined sites can probably identify visitors and they can definitely profile, using browser fingerprinting. If you really want to hide, use Tor. If you're mega paranoid, try the Tails OS.

          [Nov 06, 2015] Egypt's Dismissal of Terrorism in Russian Plane Crash Creates a Rift

          Why western MSM push so hard the version about the bomb ? Investigation just started and there are multiple version including now known far there that were war games by NATO the same day in the same area.
          Notable quotes:
          "... Egypt faces an economic disaster if tourism and business travel stops, and you don't think they will say it was just a simple accident -- move along now, nothing to see here ..."
          "... The reality is the West ruined Libya, abandoned Tunis, and chickened out by backing Sisi in Egypt. Therefore, there are alot of armed Jihadis looking for Westerners to shoot. Its also about to get worse since now its Russia's turn to ruin things even more...... ..."
          "... I am in no way a fan of Putin, but recently he explained his issue with the West pretty clearly. Most Russians subscribe to that. Russia does not see West as a threat, but as a trouble maker at large, causing havoc and destabilizing the world. Listen to him if you want to understand the other side ..."
          The New York Times

          Tom Mariner, Bayport, New York

          Egypt faces an economic disaster if tourism and business travel stops, and you don't think they will say it was just a simple accident -- "move along now, nothing to see here".

          njglea, is a trusted commenter Seattle

          Tension in the Middle East is rising and it is very frightening because it's a no-win situation as it stands now. Everybody loses. I am reminded of a song from the 1960s that addresses this situation perfectly and is a message that should go to every world leader and hater. "One Tin Soldier". Please listen and read the lyrics and, if you agree, forward this message to everyone you know. WE can live in a peaceful world if enough of us take small actions to make it so.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKx0tdlxMfY

          della, cambridge, ma 52 minutes ago

          I just flew back from Istanbul -- four layers of security -- superior to US.

          Matthew Abbasi, Los Angeles 52 minutes ago

          Why would any Westerner in his/her right mind go to Egypt, Tunisia, or Libya for a vacation? These are unstable nations with ongoing civil wars so Western nations really need to ban tourist for a bit for until things calm down. Its not enough to say that these nations need the tourist money. The risk should not be discounted just because of that. The reality is the West ruined Libya, abandoned Tunis, and chickened out by backing Sisi in Egypt. Therefore, there are alot of armed Jihadis looking for Westerners to shoot. Its also about to get worse since now its Russia's turn to ruin things even more......

          Abbas -> Matthew Abbasi, San Francisco, CA 43 minutes ago

          Egypt does not have a civil war. Statistically, it is far safer to visit than many places in the U.S.

          Rohit, New York

          Quoting another poster

          "I am in no way a fan of Putin, but recently he explained his issue with the West pretty clearly. Most Russians subscribe to that. Russia does not see West as a threat, but as a trouble maker at large, causing havoc and destabilizing the world. Listen to him if you want to understand the other side"

          https://youtu.be/OQuceU3x2Ww

          And what is fascinating is that every word spoken by Putin could just as easily have been said by Noam Chomsky or even by President Eisenhower.

          PS, Vancouver, Canada

          I have little faith in airport security checks in the middle east. Was in Morocco this summer - put my bags on the conveyor belt. Fine - but there was nary a soul manning the monitors. Yes, it was screened (given that it passed through an x-ray machine, but there were no human eyes checking it) . . . also, no one bothered to take my water bottle (which I had inadvertently carried with me.

          [Nov 06, 2015] If Journalism Were Run Like Science, Would It Be More Believable?

          10/21/15 | Observer
          A lesson from Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson on scientific method and the value of news

          Science, circa 1955 (Photo: Orlando /Three Lions/Getty Images)

          Our biggest challenge in journalism is not ad blockers or declining print circulation or Silicon Valley. It is value. What are we worth to the public we serve? Are we reliable? Trustworthy? Useful? We are not as liked as we would like to believe.

          Last week, I had the fun privilege of interviewing Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson-astrophysicist, podcaster, tweeter, TV star, and debunker of stupidity-when he received the Knight Innovation Award at CUNY's Graduate School of Journalism.

          https://www.youtube.com/embed/SJbhl_OO-nk

          As I wrote in these pages recently, we decided to give the award to Mr. Tyson precisely because he is not a journalist, because he brings explanation, fact, and discipline to the process of informing and educating the public. We saw him as an example to journalists as they innovate in their own craft.

          ... ... ...

          That goal-an informed society-does not mesh with our methods, business models, and metrics. So long as we earn our money attracting as many people as possible to our content, then wholesaling their eyeballs by the ton to advertisers, then we are motivated to grab attention with stories and headlines that report just the latest, not necessarily the preponderance, of facts relating to any given question or dispute. We measure our success on the basis of how much audience attention we grabbed, not by measuring how much we informed and educated the public-not in our impact, our utility, our value.

          We must shift our business toward value, toward proving our worth in people's lives. We must measure our success on whether the public ends up better informed through our efforts-not whether they merely gave us their attention and certainly not when they only calcify their previously held and uninformed beliefs. We in journalism-like Mr. Tyson-need to act and judge ourselves more as scientists trafficking in evidence and as educators making impact. Or else, why bother?

          [Nov 06, 2015] Wikileaks' Hacked Stratfor Emails Shed Light on Feds Using License Plate Readers

          Oct 01, 2015 | observer.com

          Federal law enforcement began planning to use license plate readers in 2009 to track cars that visited gun shows against cars that crossed the border into Mexico, according to notes from a meeting between United States and Mexican law enforcement, released on Wikileaks. The notes were taken by Marko Papic, then of Stratfor, a company that describes itself as a publisher of geopolitical intelligence.

          License plate readers are becoming a standard tool for local and national law enforcement across the country. In 2013, the ACLU showed that state and local law enforcement were widely documenting drivers' movements. Ars Technica looked at license plate data collected in Oakland. In January, the ACLU described documents attained from the Drug Enforcement Agency under the Freedom of Information Act that showed that agency has been working closely with state and local law enforcement. Many of the findings in these latter documents corroborate some of the insights provided by the 2009 meeting notes on Wikileaks.

          Wikileaks began publishing these emails in February 2012, as the "Global Intelligence Files," as the Observer previously reported. The documents have to be read with some caution. These were reportedly attained by hackers in December 2011. A Stratfor spokesperson declined to comment on the leaked emails, referring the Observer instead to its 2012 statement, which says, "Some of the emails may be forged or altered to include inaccuracies; some may be authentic. We will not validate either."

          While it's hard to imagine that such a giant trove could be completely fabricated, there is also no way to know whether or not some of it was tampered with. That said, details about federal license plate reader programs largely square with subsequent findings about the surveillance systems.

          The meeting appears to have been primarily concerned with arms control, but related matters, such as illegal drug traffic and the Zetas, come up as well. The focus of the meeting appears to be information sharing among the various authorities, from both countries. Among other initiatives, the notes describe the origins of a sophisticated national system of automobile surveillance.

          Here are some findings on law enforcement technology, with an emphasis on tracking automobiles:

          • The program wasn't fully live in 2009. The notes read, "Mr. 147 asked about the License Plate Reader program and Mr. 983 from DEA responded that they were still in the testing phase but that once completed the database would be available for use by everyone." However, an email found by the ACLU from 2010 said that the DEA was sharing information with local law enforcement as of May 2009. (People at the meeting are largely referred to by numbers throughout the notes)
          • Gun shows. The officials in the meeting suspect that a lot of guns that reach Mexico come from American gun shows. The Ambassador from Mexico is cited as believing that shows were the main source of firearms coming into his country. The ATF then says that investigating gun shows is "touchy."
          • Cross-referencing. Despite the sensitivity, the ATF hoped to be able to identify vehicles that visited gun shows and then crossed the border. The notes read, "[Mr. 192] noted that they would do the check once they came into Mexico. Mr. 009 stated part of the new ways that are being looked at is incorporating that type of information into license plate readers for local law enforcement. He added that DEA is going to provide more and more license plate readers especially southbound." This last point squares with ACLU's finding, which found a 2010 document that said the DEA had 41 readers set up in southern border states.
          • ATF and the NRA. Apparently law enforcement checks in with the gun rights advocates. Mr. 123 is identified as an ATF employee in the hacked email. In a conversation about the federal government's gun tracking system, eTrace, the notes attribute to him the following, "He added that they are in constant communication with Mr. Templeton who has the Cross Roads of the West Gun Show as well as NRA attorneys and that there had been no complaints on how things were moving." Bob Templeton is shown as the President of the National Association of Arms Shows on this op-ed and runs the gun show mentioned, according to its site.
          • Other data. The notes also indicate that the ATF was working on ways to identify people who bought more guns at gun shows than their income should allow. It also indicated that the United States' gun tracking system was being translated into Spanish, so that Mexican authorities could check guns against American records.

          The notes themselves are not dated, but the email containing them is dated September 4, 2009. It provides no names, but it cites people from the Mexican Embassy, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firerearms, DEA, Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and others. The only person named is Marko Papic, who identifies himself in this hacked email. Stephen Meiners circulated Mr. Papic's notes from the summit's morning and afternoon session in one email.

          The Supreme Court of California is set to review police's exemption to sharing information on how they use license plate reader data in that state. A court in Fairfax County, Virginia, is set to consider a suit against police there over local law enforcement keeping and sharing of data about people not suspected of a crime.

          The DEA and the ATF did not reply to a request for comment for this story.

          [Nov 06, 2015] An Entire City Trolled NSA Spies Using an Art Project

          Notable quotes:
          "... This created an open communication network, meaning that with the use of any wifi-enabled device, anyone could send anything (text messages, voice calls, photos and files) anonymously for those listening to hear. ..."
          "... "If people are spying on us, it stands to reason that they have ..."
          "... To no surprise, there was a ton of trolling. ..."
          observer.com

          When it was revealed in 2013 that the NSA and its UK equivalent, GCHQ, routinely spied on the German government, artists Mathias Jud and Christoph Wachter came up with a plan.

          They installed a series of antennas on the roof of the Swiss Embassy in Berlin and another giant antenna on the roof of the Academy of Arts, which is located exactly between the listening posts of the NSA and GCHQ. This created an open communication network, meaning that with the use of any wifi-enabled device, anyone could send anything (text messages, voice calls, photos and files) anonymously for those listening to hear.

          "If people are spying on us, it stands to reason that they have to listen to what we are saying," Mr. Jud said in a TED Talk on the subject that was filmed at TED Global London in September and uploaded onto Ted.com today.

          This was perfectly legal, and they named the project "Can You Hear Me?"

          To no surprise, there was a ton of trolling. One message read, "This is the NSA. In God we trust. In all others we track!!!!!" Another said, "Agents, what twisted story of yourself will you tell your grandchildren?" One particularly humorous message jokingly pleaded, "@NSA My neighbors are noisy. Please send a drone strike."

          Watch the full talk here for more trolling messages and details about the project:

          ... ... ...

          [Nov 06, 2015] Putin Suspends Flights To Egypt As World Blames ISIS For Plane Crash

          Is this a replay on MH17? Looks like like was the case on 9/11 and MH17 there were war games the same day in the same air space.
          Notable quotes:
          "... Conspicuously absent from MSM is the fact that Israel, USA, Poland, Greece were having war game air dogfights 40 miles from where the plane was shot down. ..."
          "... I caught that too, and it has gotten no play at all in western media. I heard it mentioned in Russian media. These are regular air superiority exercises. Air to Air combat using air superiority fighters and air to air missiles. Should this be investigated? Of course. It has already done this once before in 1980 during air to air exercises of NATO. ..."
          "... On 23 January 2013 Italys top criminal court ruled that there was abundantly clear evidence that the flight was brought down by a missile ..."
          "... Putin has proven in Ukraine that he cannot be goaded into action. This is an attempt to get Russian popular opinion ,to force his hand. ..."
          "... The contradictions are getting so massive, even sheeple might begin to notice. ..."
          "... Force his hand to do what? I dont exactly understand what youre suggesting. I guarantee you this airliner downing has only made Russians dislike ISIS more...it hasnt made them suddenly think oh we should not mess around there anymore. ..."
          "... Something done in rage, rather than his cool, calculating lawyerly approach. Anything that can be portrayed as terrible to the RoW to disuade them from crossing into his camp. Its a Hail Mary pass IMO, but it shows how desperate they are getting. ..."
          "... I have not confirmed myself but reports are that Israeli firms supplied the security for that airport. Some reports say the Saudis also have some component of the security or operations. ..."
          "... Nope. Not while sportsball is on the teebee they wont. The trough of stupidity is a sweet, intoxicating slurry of false promises, self promotion and uplifting exceptionalism. ..."
          "... I just know you voiced equal measures of concern over the 2+ million killed and the countless more driven out, crippled or orphaned by USSA warmongering in the region, not to mention all the noise Im sure you raised about israel killing thousands of civilians in Palestine too? ..."
          "... Your lazy sarcasm aside - Russian media comports strangely with independent media, and it is no less trustworthy than the absolute nonsense in the pages of the NYT, Wa Post and other, indeed, Zionist {and Establishment media}. ..."
          "... NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine ..."
          "... The notion that American media is more trustworthy is absolutely absurd. One simply has to read from as broad an array as possible and assume that everyone has an agenda, everyone is trying to convince you of a *version*. Only its the US and its allies that have gone around the world bombing and killing based on pretext and lies, not the Russians. ..."
          "... in Kiev itself it is now public information that most sniper shoots were fired from the Ukraine Hotel that was headquarters to Right Sector Fascists. ..."
          "... Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Because this fraud guy in his small house in England has been exposed again and again as a liar and fraud, anyone using him as a source is making themsleves highly suspect. As if a fake source, as long as it says what you one wants, is good enough . ..."
          "... ISIS(ISIL) Completely Fabricated Enemy by US: Former CIA Contractor! Socio-Economics History Blog ..."
          "... The Russians are asking British Intel after making the statement that if they have some supporting intel they would like to hear it. They refuse to share any intel; For a disaster and possibly a terrorist attack investigation? Hmmmm Wonder why? What are they hiding from? Why would you not want to help an investigation? Why do they want to promote an unproven story? To deflect the blame? Somebody has something to hide. ..."
          "... The US/UK has amazingly good information on what IS is doing, n est ce pas? And fantastic surveillance data, right out of the chute, in stark contrast to the seeming complete inattention paid to Malaysian jetliners. ..."
          "... If the British and American governments are saying it was a bomb, then you can be sure it was NOT a bomb. I am leaning toward believing that it was an act taken by the US and Israel during their war games from a location nearby the downing. Too much of a coincidence. ..."
          "... Lets harken back to MH-17. The instant and coordinated lies across all western media within hours, suggests a link between all Media Corporations and their Editorial Staffs. A German journalist wrote a book about his work for the CIA as a German journalist. He was under the impression that CIA was active across all media corporations and their editorial staff. I think MH-17 proved the fact that CIA does control much of what we read and hear. Otherwise, who can explain the exact same stories in all western media appearing before any of them even had a chance to read each others work! Odds of replication without prior knowledge are zero! ..."
          "... Whether or not it was a bomb matters a lot less than who knew when and how they knew it. Like, for instance, if they knew it was a bomb before it blew up. The details and pattern of the media operation are pretty interesting, but more matters of art than fact. ..."
          "... Is it not the case that a Russian passenger plane was downed after the Russian air force bombed ISIS for a month, while no US planes were terrorized after the US air force bombed ISIS for a year. ..."
          Nov 06, 2015 | Zero Hedge
          detached.amusement

          Conspicuously absent from MSM is the fact that Israel, USA, Poland, Greece were having war game air dogfights 40 miles from where the plane was shot down.

          Jack Burton

          I caught that too, and it has gotten no play at all in western media. I heard it mentioned in Russian media. These are regular air superiority exercises. Air to Air combat using air superiority fighters and air to air missiles. Should this be investigated? Of course. It has already done this once before in 1980 during air to air exercises of NATO.

          Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870

          the cause of the crash to a missile fired from a French Navy aircraft, despite contrary evidence presented in Frank Taylor's 1994 report. On 23 January 2013 Italy's top criminal court ruled that there was "abundantly" clear evidence that the flight was brought down by a missile.[1] To date, this remains the deadliest aviation incident involving a DC-9-10/15 series."

          cougar_w

          When everything is a false flag operation then nothing is.

          ISIS is perfectly capable to pulling this off, and seems to enjoy the infamy, and they couldn't wait to claim credit. Looks good to me, no need to go any further than that.

          ... ... ...

          Winston Churchill

          The gambit is pretty obvious.

          Putin has proven in Ukraine that he cannot be goaded into action. This is an attempt to get Russian popular opinion ,to force his hand.

          They keep on telling us he's a dictator, so why would that affect him ?

          The contradictions are getting so massive, even sheeple might begin to notice.

          Glasnost -> Winston Churchill

          Force his hand to do what? I don't exactly understand what you're suggesting. I guarantee you this airliner downing has only made Russians dislike ISIS more...it hasn't made them suddenly think oh we should not mess around there anymore.

          Winston Churchill -> Glasnost

          Something done in rage, rather than his cool, calculating lawyerly approach. Anything that can be portrayed as terrible to the RoW to disuade them from crossing into his camp. Its a Hail Mary pass IMO, but it shows how desperate they are getting.

          Blankone

          I have not confirmed myself but reports are that Israeli firms supplied the security for that airport. Some reports say the Saudi's also have some component of the security or operations.

          Maybe they should focus on that as well.

          trulz4lulz

          Now the sympathisers are trying to "pass the buck!"... an american tradition. much akin to "indian giving" but better.

          dear american gubmit: Who created ISIS?

          american gubmit: uhhh uhhhh, they did it!!! yeah! it was them all along, ya see?!

          Yttrium Gold Nitrogen

          France 2 reports that a sound of an explosion was recorded by the blackboxes, according to official who had access to the recordings.

          trulz4lulz -> Winston Churchill

          The contradictions are getting so massive, even sheeple might begin to notice.

          Nope. Not while sportsball is on the teebee they wont. The trough of stupidity is a sweet, intoxicating slurry of false promises, self promotion and uplifting exceptionalism. The world is an aweful place when there isnt anyone there to tell you how exceptional you are. Murikistanians will NOT look away from the trough. Its just too delicious.


          El Vaquero -> trulz4lulz

          Having them distracted with bread and circuses is a double edged sword.

          Winston Churchill -> El Vaquero

          Yep, distraction beats jingo.

          It was much easier to whip up a blood frenzy before kim Kardasians ass blocked out the horizon.

          trulz4lulz -> Winston Churchill

          I agree, but it also helps promote patriotism and consumerism, which also is good for the economy because it focuses on the packadged food sector which is where a lot of jobs data comes from. . The model for the distraction workings is fascinating to me.

          forputin

          So which sources are credible? Only those russian? Yes, I also thought so. Only those sources that are controlled by Putin can be trusted. All other are controled by Anglo Zion Banking NWO Lizzard People Elite. Thank God Putin protects us from that information!

          farflungstar -> forputin

          Voactiv uses Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, so yeah it's probably bullshit. Reuters @ Buiness Insider too, more bullshit, Hymie.

          I just know you voiced equal measures of concern over the 2+ million killed and the countless more driven out, crippled or orphaned by USSA warmongering in the region, not to mention all the noise I'm sure you raised about israel killing thousands of civilians in Palestine too?

          Fuckin dickmouth

          Raymond_K._Hessel

          the Syrian Observatory is absolutely not credible - its one guy being used as a quote factory.

          Your lazy sarcasm aside - Russian media comports strangely with independent media, and it is no less trustworthy than the absolute nonsense in the pages of the NYT, Wa Post and other, indeed, Zionist {and 'Establishment' media}.

          NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine
          https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/06/nyt-still-pretends-no-coup-in-ukra...

          The notion that American media is more trustworthy is absolutely absurd. One simply has to read from as broad an array as possible and assume that everyone has an agenda, everyone is trying to convince you of a *version*. Only its the US and its allies that have gone around the world bombing and killing based on pretext and lies, not the Russians.

          So the false equivalency ploy makes sense - until you give it a moment's thought.

          Cookie?

          Jack Burton

          30,000 trained, paid and organized fascists appeared on the Madian in the matter of a couple days, armed and outfitted in body armor. But Euro Maidan is not a Coup according to NYT. Every peaceful protest gets a 30,000 man army arrive to help it along. Also, in Kiev itself it is now public information that most sniper shoots were fired from the Ukraine Hotel that was headquarters to Right Sector Fascists.

          Jack Burton

          Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Because this fraud guy in his small house in England has been exposed again and again as a liar and fraud, anyone using him as a source is making themsleves highly suspect. As if a fake source, as long as it says what you one wants, is good enough".

          Western Media refuses to expose this guy for what he is. He hides up in his house, claiming people are out to kill him, and puts out posts about war crimes. He hasn't been to Syria for over a decade, and admits No First Hand Knowledge of his Syrian sources, he gets his information second hand from so called friends of friends in Syria. RT caught up to him and made a fool out of him on camera.

          Yet he is the West's Top Source on Syrian war crimes.

          Johnny Horscaulk

          ISIS(ISIL) Completely Fabricated Enemy by US: Former CIA Contractor! Socio-Economics History Blog

          alphahammer

          Here is an excellent source of what happening there -- down to the minute.

          BTW. This nugget jumps out.

          ----

          Big impact of Russia's suspension of Egypt flights

          Roland Oliphant, our correspondent in Moscow, writes:

          Quote

          It's not just the Egyptian economy that will hurt after this. Russia's association of tour agencies says today's decision cuts off their biggest market and sets them on a "direct path to bankruptcy."

          "Egypt is the single biggest selling destination on the Russian tourism market, and right now it is peak season. It's the main destination for all the large tour operators," said Irina Tyurina, a spokeswoman for the Russian Union of Tour Operators.

          "There's 50,000 Russians there now, and those who have to come home early or have bought tickets but now can't travel, should get their money back from the tour operators. It's a direct path to bankruptcy for many firms."

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11978962/Russian...

          trulz4lulz

          Heavily invested in the tourist industry, are we? America is about to trigger a world warand you people are screeming aout lost vacation revenue? You are either one of the dumbest humans on earth that has learned to word good, or you are just plan software. Im guessing software. Nothiing but a program can be so blatantly stupid.

          alphahammer

          Dumb?

          BBBWWWAAAAHHHAAAA!!!!!

          I cut and paste the direct words from Roland Oliphant, our correspondent in Moscow, writes:

          If you had a lick of mental capacity, you would understand the comment is about RUSSIAN investment in tourism because Egypt is Russias #1 spot for vacationing Russians.

          ITS THE RUSSIANS SCREAMING ABOUT LOST TOURIST REVENUE EINSTEIN...

          Dumb? Yes, look it up in the dictionary and there will be your picture...

          swmnguy

          Oliphant is doing a good job in his role, helping to bait the hook the Zbigniew Brzezinski acolytes are jiggling out there. Oliphant's editorial comments about the Russian people's unwillingness to take casualties suggests he's gotten his Garanimals mixed up. Russians aren't Americans.

          farflungstar

          Because ISIS, Manischewitz Land, the US and UK "intelligence" agencies said they did it, does this mean it's true? Who would reasonably believe these serial liars at this point in time? Credibility is shot.

          I'd like to hear what the Russians have to say after a thorough investigation.

          SSRI Junkie

          this works out well for obola. he hates egypt for tossing out his muslim brotherhood lackeys and gets putin to cancel their flights in and out of egypt. his bung brothers in saudi arabia keep pumping oil even if it's unprofitable to stomp out our domestic oil production as well as russia's oil production. obola is a plague of unprecendented proportion even if the cdc doesn't recognize it

          cowdiddly

          Britain and the Us both are trying to say that this was a bomb planted by ISIS. The Russians are saying they will wait for the data.

          The Russians are asking British Intel after making the statement that if they have some supporting intel they would like to hear it. They refuse to share any intel; For a disaster and possibly a terrorist attack investigation? Hmmmm Wonder why? What are they hiding from? Why would you not want to help an investigation? Why do they want to promote an unproven story? To deflect the blame? Somebody has something to hide.

          Somebody is involved here that is going to reveal a nasty truth and I would not want to be them cause right now the bear is just smiling at you and he is all ears.

          THE DORK OF CORK

          The Tunisia beech job was very effective.

          It inflated the Spanish and Italian economies over the summer.

          It seems like part of the banks armoury.

          The Dogs of Moar

          An update of the Tourney between Langley and Moscow this first week of November.

          As you know, on Wednesday the Big Big Three, Barack Obama, President of the US, David Cameron, Prime Minister of the UK, and Doofus al-Evil, the US appointed Emir of ISIL, tried to co opt the investigation of the crash of the Russian plane in Sinai.


          "I don't think we know yet" what caused the crash, Obama said ... But it is certainly possible that there was a bomb on board."

          British Prime Minister David Cameron says it's "more likely than not."

          ISIS released a message on November 4 with claims that the group was responsible for the Russian plane crash in Sinai, and said its method will be revealed soon.

          ISIS first claimed credit for the downing of the Russian passenger jet an hour after the plane went down. Six days later they're telling the world that "their method will be revealed soon."

          WHAT THEY ARE REALLY SAYING IS THAT THEIR METHOD WILL BE REVEALED AS SOON AS THE CIA TELLS THEM WHAT METHOD THE CIA USED AND THAT ISIS SHOULD CLAIM THE SAME.

          THE CIA'S FEAR IS THAT THE INVESTIGATORS WILL UNCOVER A SOPHISTICATED EXPLOSIVE THAT THE RETARDNIKS IN ISIS COULD ONLY HAVE GOTTEN FROM LANGLEY OR MI6.

          But Russian and Egyptian authorities pushed back Thursday on suggestions that a bomb brought down Metrojet Flight 9268 over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, saying there's no evidence yet to support that theory.

          Today the National Anti-Terrorist Committee said it deems it necessary to stop all Russian flights to Egypt until the causes of the A321 plane crash are established. Russian experts are taking wipe-samples from the plane fragments and passengers' luggage to trace possible explosives.

          If this investigation gets troublesome, there will be a fight in Langley between those who wanted the plane to go down in the drink and those who wanted it down in the desert for the propaganda value.

          Atticus Finch

          " RETARDNIKS IN ISIS COULD ONLY HAVE GOTTEN FROM LANGLEY OR MI6."...

          You forgot Mossad.

          trulz4lulz

          If this investigation gets troublesome, there will be a fight in Langley between those who wanted the plane to go down in the drink and those who wanted it down in the desert for the propaganda value.

          that sums it up right there. arguing over which aspect of treason to commit and cover up. this is whats wrong. exactly.

          swmnguy

          The US/UK intelligence guys screwed up the timeline this past week, putting out new rules for their people and announcing they had intel proving IS did it before cluing in the Russians.

          It was a surprisingly blatant mistake. Let's see, whom do we know in a position of power in Russia who would be intimately familiar with the way this game is played? Who would know immediately exactly what this timeline error signifies?

          The US/UK has amazingly good information on what IS is doing, n' est ce pas? And fantastic surveillance data, right out of the chute, in stark contrast to the seeming complete inattention paid to Malaysian jetliners.

          Telling.

          The Dogs of Moar

          On October 27, 1964 -- here's what Ronald Reagan said

          "If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what's at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars.

          Did he realize how prescient he was, in thus describing the United States of America?

          Grandad Grumps

          If the British and American governments are saying it was a bomb, then you can be sure it was NOT a bomb. I am leaning toward believing that it was an act taken by the US and Israel during their war games from a location nearby the downing. Too much of a coincidence.

          The video was not clear enough for me to determine if a missile was involved or the altitude a missile might have originated from.

          Jack Burton -> Grandad Grumps

          That's a valid thought. We should be asking "why the USA and UK are in such a hurry to claim bomb". It was a Russian plane, and the US and UK have no interest in this, unless they do have a hidden interest in this.

          Lets harken back to MH-17. The instant and coordinated lies across all western media within hours, suggests a link between all Media Corporations and their Editorial Staffs. A German journalist wrote a book about his work for the CIA as a German journalist. He was under the impression that CIA was active across all media corporations and their editorial staff. I think MH-17 proved the fact that CIA does control much of what we read and hear. Otherwise, who can explain the exact same stories in all western media appearing before any of them even had a chance to read each others work! Odds of replication without prior knowledge are zero!

          swmnguy -> Jack Burton

          Whether or not it was a bomb matters a lot less than who knew when and how they knew it. Like, for instance, if they knew it was a bomb before it blew up. The details and pattern of the media operation are pretty interesting, but more matters of art than fact.

          farflungstar

          The Mockies over at Charlie Hebdo seemed to find it funny that this plane crashed, not so funny when a bunch of their people got killed at work back in January:

          http://sputniknews.com/cartoons/20151106/1029698946/JeNeSuisPasCharlie.html

          One of the pictures shows a jihadist of the Islamic State (IS) militant group and plane's debris falling around him. The caption says "IS: Russian Aviation intensifies its bombing campaign.

          Mocking a plane crash where 224 people were killed, such a rich source of humor hahahaha so fucking hysterical fucking faggot frogs

          http://sputniknews.com/world/20151106/1029683872/plane-crash-charlie-heb...

          Jack Burton

          I saw this yesterday. Honestly, given what we call "Western Values" I fully expected the guardians of culture in France to come up with something like this. When their people die, it's a world wide event. When others die, it is a joke. Let's be clear, this story has made it deep into Russian media. Need I tell you what the mood is now?

          The Dogs of Moar

          Is it not the case that a Russian passenger plane was downed after the Russian air force bombed ISIS for a month, while no US planes were terrorized after the US air force bombed ISIS for a year.

          ... ... ...

          KashNCarry

          Meanwhile off the coast of Libya:

          Gaddafis Ghost Laughs In Your Face - YouTube

          [Nov 05, 2015] This 19th-Century Invention Could Keep You From Being Hacked

          Just typing your correspondence on disconnected from internet computer and pointing it on connected via USB printer is enough. Or better writing letter using regular pen.
          observer.com

          The most secure and, at the same time, usable, method of creating, sharing and storing information is to write it up on a manual typewriter and store it in a locked filing cabinet

          If the CIA's Director John Brennan can't keep his emails private, who can? Sadly, the fact that email and instant messaging are far more convenient than communicating via papers in envelopes or by actually talking on the phone, or (God forbid) face to face, these technologies are far more insecure. Could it be that the old ways protected both secrecy and privacy far better than what we have now?

          The men and women in the United States government assigned to protect our nation's most important secrets have good reason to quote Allen Ginsberg, the Beat poet who proclaimed, "The typewriter is holy." For that matter so are pens, pencils, carbon paper and ordinary paper. In the digital age privacy as we once knew it, is dead, not just for ordinary citizens, but for government officials including, apparently, the head of the CIA-not to mention our former Secretary of State. Neither the NSA nor the U.S. military have been able to keep their secrets from being exposed by the likes of WikiLeaks or Edward Snowden.

          ... ... ...

          Given America's failures to protect our own secret information, one hopes and wishes that the U.S. is as successful at stealing information from our potential foes as they are at stealing from us.

          In the private sector, hackers steal information from countless companies, ranging from Target to Ashley Madison. The banks rarely let on how badly or how often they are victimized by cybercrime, but rumor has it that it is significant. At least for now, the incentives for making and selling effective cyber security systems are nowhere near as powerful as the incentives for building systems that can steal secret or private information from individuals, as well as from corporations and governments. In the digital age, privacy is gone.

          Increasingly, organizations and individuals are rediscovering the virtues of paper. Non-digital media are simply invulnerable to hacking. Stealing information from a typewriter is harder than stealing it from a word processor, computer or server. A physical file with sheets of paper covered in words written either by hand or by typewriter is a safer place to store confidential information than any electronic data storage system yet devised.

          [Nov 04, 2015] Surveillance Q A: what web data is affected – and how to foil the snoopers

          Notable quotes:
          "... The government is attempting to push into law the ability for law enforcement agencies to be able to look at 12 months of what they are calling "internet connection records", limited to the website domains that UK internet users visit. ..."
          "... It does not cover specific pages: so police and spies will not be able to access that level of detail. That means they would know that a person has spent time on the Guardian website, but not what article they read. ..."
          "... Information about the sites you visit can be very revealing. The data would show if a person has regularly visited Ashley Madison – the website that helped facilitate extramarital affairs. A visit to an Alcoholics Anonymous website or an abortion advice service could reveal far more than you would like the government or law enforcement to know. ..."
          "... In using a VPN you are placing all your trust in the company that operates the VPN to both secure your data and repel third parties from intercepting your connection. A VPN based in the UK may also be required to keep a log of your browsing history in the same way an ISP would. ..."
          "... One way to prevent an accurate profile of your browsing history from being built could be to visit random sites. Visiting nine random domains for every website you actually want to visit would increase the amount of data that your ISP has to store tenfold. But not everybody has the patience for that. ..."
          The Guardian

          Critics call it a revived snooper's charter, because the government wants police and spies to be given access to the web browsing history of everyone in Britain.

          However, Theresa May says her measures would require internet companies to store data about customers that amount to "simply the modern equivalent of an itemised phone bill".

          Who is right? And is there anything you can do to make your communications more secure?

          What exactly is the government after?

          The government is attempting to push into law the ability for law enforcement agencies to be able to look at 12 months of what they are calling "internet connection records", limited to the website domains that UK internet users visit.

          This is the log of websites that you visit through your internet service provider (ISP), commonly called internet browsing history, and is different from the history stored by your internet browser, such as Microsoft's Edge, Apple's Safari or Google's Chrome.

          It does not cover specific pages: so police and spies will not be able to access that level of detail. That means they would know that a person has spent time on the Guardian website, but not what article they read.

          Clearing your browser history or using private or incognito browsing modes do nothing to affect your browsing history stored by the ISP.

          What will they be able to learn about my internet activity?

          Information about the sites you visit can be very revealing. The data would show if a person has regularly visited Ashley Madison – the website that helped facilitate extramarital affairs. A visit to an Alcoholics Anonymous website or an abortion advice service could reveal far more than you would like the government or law enforcement to know.

          The logged internet activity is also likely to reveal who a person banks with, the social media they use, whether they have considered travelling (eg by visiting an airline homepage) and a range of information that could in turn link to other sources of personal information.

          Who will store my web browsing data?

          The onus is on ISPs – the companies that users pay to provide access to the internet – to store the browsing history of its customers for 12 months. That includes fixed line broadband providers, such as BT, TalkTalk, Sky and Virgin, but also mobile phone providers such as EE, O2, Three and Vodafone.

          ... ... ...

          Don't ISPs already store this data?

          They already store a limited amount of data on customer communications for a minimum of one year and have done for some time, governed by the EU's data retention directive. That data can be accessed under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa).

          The new bill will enshrine the storage of browsing history and access to that data in law.

          Can people hide their internet browsing history?

          There are a few ways to prevent the collection of your browsing history data, but each way is a compromise.

          The most obvious way is the use of virtual private networks (VPNs). They channel your data from your computer through your ISP to a third-party service before immersing on the internet. In doing so they can obfuscate your data from your ISP and therefore the government's collection of browsing history.

          Companies routinely use VPNs to secure connections to services when off-site such as home workers. Various companies such as HotspotShield offer both free or paid-for VPN services to users.

          Using the Tor browser, freely available from the Tor project, is another way to hide what you're doing from your ISP and takes things a stage further. It allows users to connect directly to a network of computers that route your traffic by bouncing it around other computers connected to Tor before emerging on the open internet.

          Your ISP will see that you are connected to Tor, but not what you are doing with it. But not everybody has the technical skills to be comfortable using Tor.

          Is there any downside to using a VPN?

          In using a VPN you are placing all your trust in the company that operates the VPN to both secure your data and repel third parties from intercepting your connection. A VPN based in the UK may also be required to keep a log of your browsing history in the same way an ISP would.

          The speed of your internet connection is also limited by the VPN. Most free services are slow, some paid-for services are faster.

          Tor also risks users having their data intercepted, either at the point of exit from the Tor network to the open internet or along the path. This is technically tricky, however. Because your internet traffic is bounced between computers before reaching you, Tor can be particularly slow.

          Can I protest-browse to show I'm unhappy with the new law?

          One way to prevent an accurate profile of your browsing history from being built could be to visit random sites. Visiting nine random domains for every website you actually want to visit would increase the amount of data that your ISP has to store tenfold. But not everybody has the patience for that.

          At some point it will be very difficult to store that much data, should everyone begin doing so.

          ... ... ...

          [Nov 04, 2015] Fifty Shades of Tax Dodging: How EU Helps Support Unjust Global Tax Systems

          www.nakedcapitalism.com

          Yves here. Tax is a major way to create incentives. New York City increased taxes dramatically on cigarettes, and has tough sanctions for trying to smuggle meaningful amounts of lower-taxed smokes in. Rates of smoking did indeed fall as intended.

          Thus the debate about whether corporations should pay more taxes is not "naive" as the plutocrats would have you believe; in fact, they wouldn't be making such a big deal over it if it were. In the 1950s, a much larger percentage of total tax collections fell on corporations than individuals. And the political message was clear: the capitalist classes needed to bear a fair share of the total tax burden. Similarly, what has been the result of the preservation of a loophole that allows the labor of hedge fund and private equity fund employees to be taxed at preferential capital gains rates? A flood of "talent" into those professions at the expense of productive enterprise.

          And the result of having lower taxes on companies has been a record-high corporate profit share of GDP, with none of the supposed benefits of giving businesses a break. Contrary to their PR, large companies have been net saving, which means liquidating, since the early 2000s. The trend has become more obvious in recent years as companies have borrowed money to buy back their own stock.

          Originally published at the Tax Justice Network

          In the past year, scandal after scandal has exposed companies using loopholes in the tax system to avoid taxation. Now more than ever, it is becoming clear that citizens around the world are paying a high price for the crisis in the global tax system, and the discussion about multinational corporations and their tax tricks remains at the top of the agenda. There is also a growing awareness that the world's poorest countries are even harder impacted than the richest countries. In effect, the poorest countries are paying the price for a global tax system they did not create.

          A large number of the scandals that emerged over the past year have strong links to the EU and its Member States. Many eyes have therefore turned to the EU leaders, who claim that the problem is being solved and the public need not worry. But what is really going on? What is the role of the EU in the unjust global tax system, and are EU leaders really solving the problem?

          This report – the third in a series of reports – scrutinises the role of the EU in the global tax crisis, analyses developments and suggests concrete solutions. It is written by civil society organisations (CSOs) in 14 countries across the EU. Experts in each CSO have examined their national governments' commitments and actions in terms of combating tax dodging and ensuring transparency.

          Each country is directly compared with its fellow EU Member States on four critical issues: the fairness of their tax treaties with developing countries; their willingness to put an end to anonymous shell companies and trusts; their support for increasing the transparency of economic activities and tax payments of multinational corporations; and their attitude towards letting the poorest countries have a seat at the table when global tax standards are negotiated. For the first time, this report not only rates the performance of EU Member States, but also turns the spotlight on the European Commission and Parliament too.

          This report covers national policies and governments' positions on existing and upcoming EU level laws, as well as global reform proposals.

          Overall, the report finds that:

          • Although tweaks have been made and some loopholes have been closed, the complex and dysfunctional EU system of corporate tax rulings, treaties, letterbox companies and special corporate tax regimes still remains in place. On some matters, such as the controversial patent boxes, the damaging policies seem to be spreading in Europe. Defence mechanisms against 'harmful tax practices' that have been introduced by governments, only seem partially effective and are not available to most developing countries. They are also undermined by a strong political commitment to continue so-called 'tax competition' between governments trying to attract multinational corporations with lucrative tax reduction opportunities – also known as the 'race to the bottom on corporate taxation'. The result is an EU tax system that still allows a wide range of options for tax dodging by multinational corporations.

          • On the question of what multinational corporations pay in taxes and where they do business, EU citizens, parliamentarians and journalists are still left in the dark, as are developing countries. The political promises to introduce 'transparency' turned out to mean that tax administrations in developed countries, through cumbersome and highly secretive processes, will exchange information about multinational corporations that the public is not allowed to see. On a more positive note, some light is now being shed on the question of who actually owns the companies operating in our societies, as more and more countries introduce public or partially public registers of beneficial owners. Unfortunately, this positive development is being somewhat challenged by the emergence of new types of mechanisms to conceal ownership, such as new types of trusts.

          • Leaked information has become the key source of public information about tax dodging by multinational corporations. But it comes at a high price for the people involved, as whistleblowers and even a journalist who revealed tax dodging by multinational corporations are now being prosecuted and could face years in prison. The stories of these 'Tax Justice Heroes' are a harsh illustration of the wider social cost of the secretive and opaque corporate tax system that currently prevails.

          • More than 100 developing countries still remain excluded from decision-making processes when global tax standards and rules are being decided. In 2015, developing countries made the fight for global tax democracy their key battle during the Financing for Development conference (FfD) in Addis Ababa. But the EU took a hard line against this demand and played a key role in blocking the proposal for a truly global tax body.

          Not one single EU Member State challenged this approach and, as a result, decision-making on global tax standards and rules remains within a closed 'club of rich countries'.

          A direct comparison of the 15 EU countries covered in this report finds that:

          • France, once a leader in the demand for public access to information about what multinational corporations pay in tax, is no longer pushing the demand for corporate transparency. Contrary to the promises of creating 'transparency', a growing number of EU countries are now proposing strict confidentiality to conceal what multinational corporations pay in taxes.
          • Denmark and Slovenia are playing a leading role when it comes to transparency around the true owners of companies. They have not only announced that they are introducing public registers of company ownership, but have also decided to restrict, or in the case of Slovenia, avoided the temptation of introducing, opaque structures such as trusts, which can offer alternative options for hiding ownership. However, a number of EU countries, including in particular Luxembourg and Germany, still offer a diverse menu of options for concealing ownership and laundering money.
          • Among the 15 countries covered in this report, Spain remains by far the most aggressive tax treaty negotiator, and has managed to lower developing country tax rates by an average 5.4 percentage points through its tax treaties with developing countries.
          • The UK and France played the leading role in blocking developing countries' demand for a seat at the table when global tax standards and rules are being decided.

          To read a summary of the report, please click here.

          A summary of the report is here.

          The full report is here or here.

          Stephen Rhodes, November 3, 2015 at 11:00 am

          Or try this, kids:

          Class Actions vs. Individual Prosecutions
          Jed S. Rakoff NOVEMBER 19, 2015 NYRB
          Entrepreneurial Litigation: Its Rise, Fall, and Future
          by John C. Coffee Jr.
          Harvard University Press, 307 pp., $45.00

          http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/nov/19/cure-corporate-wrongdoing-class-actions/

          [Nov 02, 2015] Foreign Banks Such as Deutsche Using Variant of Lehman Repo 105 Balance-Sheet Tarting Up Strategy

          Notable quotes:
          "... Lehman was engaging in blatant misreporting, treating these "repos" (in which a bank still shows them on its balance sheet as sold with the obligation to repurchase) as sales ..."
          "... "It also emerges that the NY Fed, and thus Timothy Geithner, were at a minimum massively derelict in the performance of their duties, and may well be culpable in aiding and abetting Lehman in accounting fraud and Sarbox violations…." ..."
          "... Although I hope the bank's newly appointed CEO is able to implement measures to rectify these problems, if DB "goes Lehman", I suspect it will occur much as Lehman did: quite suddenly. ..."
          "... The 5% "fee" referred to in the fourth paragraph of the FT excerpt above is not the interest rate charged on the loan but instead is the over-collateralization amount provided by Lehman in exchange for a short-term cash loan. A normal repo loan is over-collateralized at perhaps 2%. Lehman's and its outside auditors Ernst Young's 'genius' was in discovering some language in 2001 or so in the then recently amended FAS 157 accounting guidance (all such guidance has been revised and renumbered in the meantime) which suggested indirectly that if the rate of over-collateralization was bumped up enough, you could pretend you sold the collateral instead of pledging it as collateral. So instead of pledging the normal 102% of the loan amount in collateral, Lehman asked lenders to please take more than that: 105%, hence "Repo 105." ..."
          "... Most of Lehman's lenders wouldn't touch the scam because it was so obvious, but a few non-U.S. banks were happy to oblige Lehman. One was Deutsche Bank, to the tune of many billions of dollars over the years. Not that that had anything to do with ex-Deutsche General Counsel for the Americas Rob Khuzami's decision, once he became Obama's Enforcement Head at the SEC beginning in 2009, to give Lehman, EY, Deutsche and the other lenders a pass on all that. ..."
          "... In no way did the drafters of the accounting guidance ever say, here's a way to scam the market, have at it. But then again those drafters are a committee of CPAs from all the big firms and elsewhere, including several from EY. So who knows how deliberate the set up was. ..."
          "... Deutsche Bank has hugely profited from the end of the Deutschland AG at which head it once was. Thanks to chancellour Schroeder and his finance minister Eichle (the successor after Lafontaine was kicked who went on to found the left party) Deutsche and the other big German banks got to sell their industry portfolios without paying a penny of tax. It is common knowledge among industry watchers that this money ended up as bonuses for the "masters of the universe" at the Anglo-Saxon part of the bank which basically took over the whole bank. First invisibly and then all to visible when Jain became CEO. German industry is now owned by Blackrock and the like. Homi soit qui mal y pense ..."
          "... Geithner's amorality and dereliction of duty has been apparent since his testimony in Starr v USA. Somehow these big names are protected by the supine media. ..."
          "... Couldn't the NY State Superintendent of Financial Services pull Deutsche's U.S. Banking License? I thought this is what Ben Lawsky was intimating in this (nearly) one year old interview on Bloomberg, in which he (hints at?) the pulling of Deutsche's license, even though he was not at the time talking about Repo 105 ..."
          Nov 02, 2015 | naked capitalism
          Deep Thought

          Lehman was engaging in blatant misreporting, treating these "repos" (in which a bank still shows them on its balance sheet as sold with the obligation to repurchase) as sales

          Thank you for writing this bit. All the explanations I've read of Repo 105 seemed to be missing the step where liabilities were actually reduced – because what's the difference between an asset and an obligation/contract to buy said asset in X hours time?

          So I'm glad a more financially astute mind than mind wrote down what I'd suspected, that real liabilities weren't actually reduced by Repo 105 and it's just window dressing to fool the regulators. I'd hazard that it actually makes the situation worse, because it's pretty expensive window dressing and that's real cash that has to head out the door once a quarter.

          tawal

          Turning all the brokerages into bank holding companies, where now they all have a calendar year end and can't temporarily hide their trash on each other's books, but can all hide it on the Fed's unaudited balance sheet.

          Why isn't Deutsche Bank doing this too, and are UBS, Barclays and HSBC the next to fail?

          fresno dan

          "It also emerges that the NY Fed, and thus Timothy Geithner, were at a minimum massively derelict in the performance of their duties, and may well be culpable in aiding and abetting Lehman in accounting fraud and Sarbox violations…."

          Upon finding this out, tire squeal, sirens wail, lights flash, and grim faced men rush to take into custody little Timmy Geithner and serve warrants a the New York FED….

          LOL – of course not. Most government officials, of BOTH parties, would say Timmy Geithner and his ilk performed fantastically….
          After all, he worked hard to prop it up…. If you remove the corruption, the double and self dealing, price fixing, fraud, ad infinitum, and how could the system continue as constituted? And the people at the top of the system thinks it works very well indeed.

          Chauncey Gardiner

          This issue is unsurprising to me. Many signs over the past couple years of deeply troubling matters at this TBTF: CEO resignations, NY Fed criticisms of systems and financial reporting (as Yves pointed out), participation in market manipulations, billions in writedowns, suicide death of bank's regulatory lawyer, massive derivatives exposures, central bank calls for increased capital, etc.

          Although I hope the bank's newly appointed CEO is able to implement measures to rectify these problems, if DB "goes Lehman", I suspect it will occur much as Lehman did: quite suddenly.

          Recalling Ernest Hemingway in "The Sun Also Rises":
          "How did you go bankrupt?" Bill asked.
          "Two ways," Mike said. "Gradually and then suddenly."

          JustAnObserver

          • Deutche Bank = Germany's RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) ?
          • All the Eurozone's nightmares since 2010 have been down to a desperate attempt to postpone DB's "Minsky Moment" ?

          I did see a report that DB is withdrawing from a number of countries but Wall Street wasn't on that list. Interestingly the list includes all the Scandinavian countries as well as the usual suspects – Mexico, Turkey, Saudi, etc.

          Oliver Budde

          The 5% "fee" referred to in the fourth paragraph of the FT excerpt above is not the interest rate charged on the loan but instead is the over-collateralization amount provided by Lehman in exchange for a short-term cash loan. A normal repo loan is over-collateralized at perhaps 2%. Lehman's and its outside auditors Ernst & Young's 'genius' was in discovering some language in 2001 or so in the then recently amended FAS 157 accounting guidance (all such guidance has been revised and renumbered in the meantime) which suggested indirectly that if the rate of over-collateralization was bumped up enough, you could pretend you sold the collateral instead of pledging it as collateral. So instead of pledging the normal 102% of the loan amount in collateral, Lehman asked lenders to please take more than that: 105%, hence "Repo 105."

          Most of Lehman's lenders wouldn't touch the scam because it was so obvious, but a few non-U.S. banks were happy to oblige Lehman. One was Deutsche Bank, to the tune of many billions of dollars over the years. Not that that had anything to do with ex-Deutsche General Counsel for the Americas Rob Khuzami's decision, once he became Obama's Enforcement Head at the SEC beginning in 2009, to give Lehman, EY, Deutsche and the other lenders a pass on all that.

          The few banks who did dare to help out Lehman of course charged higher than market rates for those loans, even though they held an extra 3% in collateral, which was always made up of high quality Treasury bonds and the like. Those lenders charged more anyway, because they knew what Lehman was up to and knew they could wring out some extra cash in exchange for 'aiding' Lehman in its needs. Lehman gladly paid the higher interest.

          In no way did the drafters of the accounting guidance ever say, here's a way to scam the market, have at it. But then again those drafters are a committee of CPAs from all the big firms and elsewhere, including several from EY. So who knows how deliberate the set up was.

          The scam began in 2001 or so and while it may not have been what blew up Lehman in 2008, it did importantly mislead a lot of people in 2007 and 2008, when its use was ramped up dramatically. And it put extra bonus money into the Lehman executives' pockets, year in and year out. No wonder others seek to emulate it.

          Tom

          Deutsche Bank has hugely profited from the end of the Deutschland AG at which head it once was. Thanks to chancellour Schroeder and his finance minister Eichle (the successor after Lafontaine was kicked who went on to found the left party) Deutsche and the other big German banks got to sell their industry portfolios without paying a penny of tax. It is common knowledge among industry watchers that this money ended up as bonuses for the "masters of the universe" at the Anglo-Saxon part of the bank which basically took over the whole bank. First invisibly and then all to visible when Jain became CEO. German industry is now owned by Blackrock and the like. Homi soit qui mal y pense

          RBHoughton

          Geithner's amorality and dereliction of duty has been apparent since his testimony in Starr v USA. Somehow these big names are protected by the supine media.

          Thank Heavens for NC – one of the most important of a handful of sites that fearlessly report. Fingers crossed we can build a new media industry around this nexus of quality.

          Pearl

          Yves,

          Couldn't the NY State Superintendent of Financial Services pull Deutsche's U.S. Banking License? I thought this is what Ben Lawsky was intimating in this (nearly) one year old interview on Bloomberg, in which he (hints at?) the pulling of Deutsche's license, even though he was not at the time talking about Repo 105:

          http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2014-12-11/banks-are-taking-cybersecurity-seriously-lawsky-says-video

          I know it may not be likely that Deutsche's U.S. banking license would get pulled, but it is possible, isn't it?

          (btw, here is what Lawsky is doing now:)

          http://nypost.com/2015/05/20/ny-financial-watchdog-ben-lawsky-leaving-to-start-firm/

          If enough folks became vocal (enough) about the issue–couldn't we make a difference this time? ("We," as in ordinary housewives from Roswell, GA and humble bloggers such as the illustrious Yves Smith?".) ;-)

          I think you are waaaay more famous than you think you are, Yves. Indeed, you are universally one of the most well-respected and straight-shooting authors/academics/authorities on such subjects. And I think Mr. Lawsky would take your call or reply to an email if written by you.

          I spoke with his staff (yes, me–a housewife from Roswell, GA) when he was at DFS during my "Ocwiteration Perseveration" days of yore, and his staff was unusually generous with their time and they seemed genuinely appreciative to get info and feedback from just regular folks.

          I think Mr. Lawsky himself would be thrilled to hear from someone like you. And I think the two of you would be an extremely formidable team.

          I just don't want to give up on this. It's too important. At the very least, I will forward to him this post of yours.

          Thanks again for everything you do, Yves.

          [Nov 02, 2015] Dilemmas of Domination The Unmaking of the American Empire

          Notable quotes:
          "... Dilemmas of Domination contends that the US has entered into a period of decline as the world's hegemon. ..."
          "... Because the US dominates international financial institutions like the IMF, World Bank and most of the regional development banks, their imposition of neo-liberal structural adjustments programs has led to a revolt against their destructive policies as witnessed by the left ferment especially in Latin America but also in the rest of the global South. ..."
          "... I've read lots of books about globalization and free trade but none exposes the uneven playing field of free trade as good as Walden Bello. He shows that not only the evenness of playing field but also how the way U.S. is imprudently trying to dominate the world by adapting short sighted policies. These kind of policies have become the distinctive mark of recent American ideology domestically and foreign. ..."
          American Empire Project
          • File Size: 854 KB
          • Print Length: 270 pages
          • Publisher: Metropolitan Books (November 19, 2013)
          • Publication Date: November 19, 2013

          Tom Mertes - See all my reviews

          Dilemmas indeed, April 28, 2005

          The problems of the US mount daily from a ballooning deficit to heightened opposition from multiplying points on the globe. Walden Bello's Dilemmas of Domination is a tour de force dissection of the causes of these mounting problems.

          He argues from an objective and non-partisan position in the global South. Because he primarily works outside of the US and because his method relies heavily on history, his account is compelling.

          Dilemmas of Domination contends that the US has entered into a period of decline as the world's hegemon. Three crises characterize the loss of power and prestige.

          • The first crisis is the problem of manufacturing and raw materials overproduction that leads to a decline in profits, and as wages are squeezed to stabilize profits demand falls further. Added to these problems is the fact that the US, the consumer of last resort, cannot continue to borrow and buy forever. The IOUs to the rest of the world will eventually have to be repaid.
          • A second critical problem is military overextension. According to Bello, the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate the US is not invincible. If it were, how could guerillas continue to move about these occupied nations so freely and make nation-building into such a farce? The US military is so strained that it has to hire mercenaries from companies like Blackwater to protect its corporate interests abroad because a draft would undermine all of its imperial adventures.
          • The third crisis, perhaps the most enduring, is legitimacy. Ideologically, the US has lost its currency to lead the world. Because the US dominates international financial institutions like the IMF, World Bank and most of the regional development banks, their imposition of neo-liberal structural adjustments programs has led to a revolt against their destructive policies as witnessed by the left ferment especially in Latin America but also in the rest of the global South. Furthermore, the US bullying and sometimes insulting treatment of the UN has further sullied the US's reputation. Added to this international delegitimation is the quagmire of domestic politics from the surrender of civil liberties to the patently obvious corporate control of both major parties. For readers looking for a rich and clear formulation of why the US government is detested and feared by much of the earth's population this is the best primer.

          Khalid S. Al Khateron October 26, 2005

          Free trade as a tool for domination

          I've read lots of books about globalization and free trade but none exposes the uneven playing field of free trade as good as Walden Bello. He shows that not only the evenness of playing field but also how the way U.S. is imprudently trying to dominate the world by adapting short sighted policies. These kind of policies have become the distinctive mark of recent American ideology domestically and foreign.

          Luc REYNAERT, November 4, 2005

          The weak must hang together, otherwise they hang separately

          In this stringent view from the South, Walden Bello discerns three different crisis levels beleaguering the US world domination: a military, a judicial and an economical level.

          On the military front, the Iraq war shows clearly the limits of interventions: 'today the entire US military is either in Iraq, returning from Iraq or getting ready to go.' The lesson for the South is that the US military supremacy can be brought to a halt with guerrilla warfare. A sledgehammer is useless in swatting flies.

          On the judicial front, the US is loosing its legitimacy. In Western societies, enhancement of individual freedom and democratic representation are the ideological cornerstones of the regime. Nationally, recognized human rights (no access to personal information, privacy) are jeopardized in the US by the Patriot Act in the name of the war against terrorism. For Walden Bello, the US government is becoming authoritarian, because it is in the hands of the military-industrial complex, which functions on a risk-free, cost-plus basis and grabs one half of the US budget. He quotes judiciously William Pfaff: 'The military is already the most powerful institution in the US government, largely unaccountable to the executive branch.'

          Internationally, consensus and multilateralism are needed through international institutions. However, the US behaves unilaterally. Dealings with the South are subordinated to strategic considerations (R. Zoellick: 'countries that seek free trade agreements with the US must cooperate on its foreign policy goals.') Walden Bello's analysis of the WTO agreements is devastating. He calls them a free trade monopoly in the hands of corporate interests. WTO's agreement on Agriculture is not less than 'Socialism for the Rich'. The result is that the US democratic messianism is seen as sheer hypocrisy by the rest of the world.

          Economically, some of Walden Bello's arguments are a little of the mark. Finite natural resources and ecological space are demographic problems. The conflict between a minority in command of assets and the majority of the population is a trade union and an election problem. But some of his arguments are to the point. There is a widening inequality gap in the US: the richest 1% of the population pocketed more than half the benefit of the latest tax reduction. The actual US budget and trade deficits are unsustainable in the long run and certainly if the inflow of foreign capital comes to a halt.

          Finally, there is a new hegemon at the horizon: China with its state-assisted capitalism. The author summarizes brilliantly China's behavior: 'nations have no permanent friends, only permanent interests.'

          But what should the South do in the meantime: regional economic blocks, G-20, South-South cooperation, because 'the weak must hang together, otherwise they will hang separately'.

          Walden Bello's hard hitting analysis of current events should be a vademecum for all politiciams and laymen. A must read. In this context, I also recommend the works of Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed and Noreena Hertz.

          [Nov 02, 2015] The Fatal Blindness of Unrealistic Expectations

          Notable quotes:
          "... Snowden revealed some outrageous practices and constitutional abuses and the Obama administration - yes the same one that has not managed to bring a single criminal charge against a single senior banker - wants to charge Snowden with espionage. ..."
          "... The fact is that Mr Snowden committed very serious crimes, and the US government and the Department of Justice believe that he should face them." ..."
          Peak Prosperity
          cmartenson
          Speaking of not having a clear strategy or vision

          Snowden revealed some outrageous practices and constitutional abuses and the Obama administration - yes the same one that has not managed to bring a single criminal charge against a single senior banker - wants to charge Snowden with espionage.

          It bears repeating; US Bankers committed literally hundreds of thousands of serious felonies and *not one* was ever charged by the Justice Dept. under Obama's two terms.

          Recently the White House spokesman said "The fact is that Mr Snowden committed very serious crimes, and the US government and the Department of Justice believe that he should face them."

          Well, either you believe serious crimes should be prosecuted or you don't.

          Pick one.

          But to try and be selective about it all just makes one something of a tyrant. Wielding power when and how it suits one's aims instead of equally is pretty much the definition of tyranny (which includes "the unreasonable or arbitrary use of power")

          However, the EU has decided to drop all criminal charges against Snowden showing that the US is losing legitimacy across the globe by the day.

          EU parliament votes to 'drop any criminal charges' against whistle-blower

          The European parliament voted to lift criminal charges against American whistle-blower Edward Snowden on Thursday.

          In an incredibly close vote, EU MEPs said he should be granted protection as a "human rights defender" in a move that was celebrated as a "chance to move forward" by Mr Snowden from Russia.

          This seems both right and significant. Significant because the US power structure must be seething. It means that the EU is moving away form the US on important matters, and that's significant too. Right because Snowden revealed deeply illegal and unconstitutional practices that, for the record, went waaaaAAaaay beyond the so-called 'meta-data phone records' issue.

          And why shouldn't the EU begin to carve their own path? Their interests and the US's are wildly different at this point in history, especially considering the refugee crisis that was largely initiated by US meddling and warmongering in the Middle East.

          At this point, I would say that the US has lost all legitimacy on the subject of equal application of the laws, and cannot be trusted when it comes to manufacturing "evidence" that is used to invade, provoke or stoke a conflict somewhere.

          The US is now the Yahoo! of countries; cheerleading our own self-described excellence and superiority at everything when the facts on the ground say something completely different.

          Quercus bicolor

          cmartenson wrote:

          Recently the White House spokesman said "The fact is that Mr Snowden committed very serious crimes, and the US government and the Department of Justice believe that he should face them."

          And this "serious crime" was committed by Snowden because he saw it as the only viable path to revealing a systematic pattern of crimes by none other than our own federal government that are so serious that they threaten the basic founding principles on which our REPUBLIC was founded.


          lambertad

          Truth is treason

          You know how the old saying goes "truth is treason in the empire of lies". I'm a staunch libertarian, but I wasn't always that way. Before that I spent most of my 20's in Special Operations wanting to 'kill bad guys who attacked us' on 9/11. It wasn't until my last deployment that I got ahold of Dr. Ron Paul's books and dug through them and realized his viewpoint suddenly made much more sense than anyone else's. Not only did it make much more sense, but it was based on Natural Law and the founding principals of our country.

          A lot has been made of the fact that Snowden contributed money to Dr. Paul's 2008 presidential campaign and that this was an obvious tell that he was really an undercover (insert whatever words the media used - traitor, anarchist, russian spy, etc.). The part that I find troubling is the fact that Snowden revealed to the world that we are all being watched, probably not in real time, but if they ever want to review the 'tapes' they can see what we do essentially every minute of every day. That's BIG news to get out to the citizenry. If you've got access to that kind of data, you don't want that getting out, but here's the kicker - Very few in this country today even care. Nothing in this country has changed that I'm aware of. GCHQ still spies on us and passes the info to the NSA. The NSA still spys on everyone and the Brits and passes the info to GCHQ. Austrialia and NZ and Canda still spy on whoever and pass the info on to whoever wants it. It's craziness.

          At the same time, as Chris and others have pointed out, we're bombing people (ISIS/Al Nusra/AQ) we supported ('moderate rebels) before we bombed them (AQ) after we bombed Sadaam and invaded Iraq. Someone please tell me the strategy other than the "7 countries in 5 years plan". Yup, sounds a lot like Yahoo!.

          I'm looking forward to Christmas this year because I get to spend 5 days with my wife's family again. My father-in-law is a smart man, but thinks the government is still all powerful and has everything under control. It should make some interesting conversations and debating.

          Thanks for the article Adam, interesting parallel between TPTB and Yahoo!.

          [Nov 02, 2015] Engineering of consent

          Notable quotes:
          "... "successful social and political management often depends on proper coordination of propaganda with coercion, violent or non-violent; economic inducement (including bribery); diplomatic negotiation; and other techniques." ..."
          "... So beginning around the turn of the century, the scientific engineers of consent unleashed a Weltanschauungskrieg ("worldview war") on an unsuspecting public, Simpson argues, in which they sought "a shift in which modern consumer culture displaced existing social forms." ..."
          "... Automobile marketers, for example, do not simply tout their products for their usefulness as transportation; they seek to convince their customers to define their personal goals, self-esteem, and values in terms of owning or using the product…. ..."
          "... Ordinary people are to be kept voiceless, Simpson concludes, "voiceless in all fields other than selection of commodities." ..."
          "... The interesting thing is that is also part and parcel of the cultural memes presently prevalent in the industrialized societies of wealthy western industrialized nations. These memes have been spreading throughout the world at a very rapid rate and it is MHO that this meme is spreading what amounts to a terminal cultural pathology. In other words it is a dead end with an expiration date. ..."
          "... Technological shifts occurring now because of perfect storm of maturing technologies and the end of age of oil, are bringing us the Uberization of many facets of our civilization that we had taken for granted as almost eternal and immutable. "Like we all need a car to be free!" ..."
          Oct 30, 2015 | Peak Oil Barrel

          US Oil Production by State

          Glenn Stehle,10/31/2015 at 9:15 am

          So one is left wondering what is causing the downward mobility of most Americans. Is it caused by increasingly less abundant natural resources, making it more costly to exploit those that remain? Or is it caused by one group of humans which is more aggressively exploiting another group?

          Most Americans seem to believe it's the latter. The Economist reports that:

          The country faces a crisis of mutual resentment… Sharply-delineated voter blocs are alarmingly willing to believe that rival groups are up to no good or taking more than their fair share.
          http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21591180-americas-political-divisions-have-deeper-social-consequences-why-americans-are-so-angry

          So Americans are mad as hell. And as they descend into an orgy of victimization, even rich white straight protestant men can be heard bellowing for victim status.

          Where will it all lead, and especially if the politicians are no longer able to bring the bacon home?

          I'm reading Christopher Simpson's the Science of Coercion where he notes that Harold Lawswell, one of the seminal "scientific engineers of consent" in the United States, claimed that "successful social and political management often depends on proper coordination of propaganda with coercion, violent or non-violent; economic inducement (including bribery); diplomatic negotiation; and other techniques."

          So beginning around the turn of the century, the scientific engineers of consent unleashed a Weltanschauungskrieg ("worldview war") on an unsuspecting public, Simpson argues, in which they sought "a shift in which modern consumer culture displaced existing social forms."

          "We have thought in terms of fighting dictatorships-by-force," Donald Slesinger noted of the new strategy and tactics, "through the establishment of dictatorship-by-manipulation."

          As Simpson goes on to explain, for the scientific engineers of consent

          the simple sale of products and services is not enough. Their commercial success in a mass market depends to an important degree on their ability to substitute their values and worldview for those previously held by their audience, typically through seduction and deflection of rival worldviews. Automobile marketers, for example, do not simply tout their products for their usefulness as transportation; they seek to convince their customers to define their personal goals, self-esteem, and values in terms of owning or using the product….

          Ordinary people are to be kept voiceless, Simpson concludes, "voiceless in all fields other than selection of commodities."

          So now, after a century of hammering the values and worldview of a mass consumer culture into the peoples' heads, how quickly can the public's worldview be turned around?

          And if we remove "economic inducement" and "vocie in the selection of commodities" from the toolbox of the scientific engineers of consent, what's left? Propaganda; coercion (violent or non-violent); diplomatic negotiation; and "other techniques"?

          Fred Magyar,10/31/2015 at 11:09 am
          "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the I'm reading Christopher Simpson's the Science of Coercion where he notes that Harold Lawswell, one of the seminal "scientific engineers of consent" in the United States, claimed that "successful social and political management often depends on proper coordination of propaganda with coercion, violent or non-violent; economic inducement (including bribery); diplomatic negotiation; and other techniques."

          That sounds an awful lot like this crap!

          organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."
          ― Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda circa 1928

          There is no doubt that this way of thinking is the basis of the so called capitalist infinite growth paradigm. Which only has a chance of working up until the point that physical limits of our finite planet are reached. Then the shit tends to hit the fan for all concerned.

          The interesting thing is that is also part and parcel of the cultural memes presently prevalent in the industrialized societies of wealthy western industrialized nations. These memes have been spreading throughout the world at a very rapid rate and it is MHO that this meme is spreading what amounts to a terminal cultural pathology. In other words it is a dead end with an expiration date.

          The good news is, that it isn't written stone that the current culture itself can not be deeply disrupted and profoundly changed.

          Technological shifts occurring now because of perfect storm of maturing technologies and the end of age of oil, are bringing us the Uberization of many facets of our civilization that we had taken for granted as almost eternal and immutable. "Like we all need a car to be free!"

          Well, a lot of young people are no longer buying into that world view. So the old guard and power brokers of the linear consumer society such as the Oil Majors, Automobile manufactures, and producers of unnecessary useless consumer goods are losing their grip on economic power to the new crop of digital entrepreneurs who are ushering in a totally new economic, political and social paradigm.

          Technology is changing the way we interact and form connections within society.

          This video a the end of my post might seem a bit off topic but to me it underscores how different this new world has the potential to be. I especially love the example of an expensive commercial failure of a consumer product that suddenly became cheap enough for use as a musical instrument in a computer orchestra and the fact that a thousand people can suddenly come together in a show of support by singing together… And If I could travel back in time, I'd murder Eduard Bernays.

          Ge Wang:
          The DIY orchestra of the future

          https://www.ted.com/talks/ge_wang_the_diy_orchestra_of_the_future

          We need to stop thinking linearly!

          Glenn Stehle, 11/01/2015 at 9:12 am

          Fred Magyar said:

          The good news is, that it isn't written stone that the current culture itself can not be deeply disrupted and profoundly changed.

          Technological shifts occurring now because of perfect storm of maturing technologies and the end of age of oil, are bringing us the Uberization of many facets of our civilization that we had taken for granted as almost eternal and immutable….

          So the old guard and power brokers of the linear consumer society such as the Oil Majors, Automobile manufactures, and producers of unnecessary useless consumer goods are losing their grip on economic power to the new crop of digital entrepreneurs who are ushering in a totally new economic, political and social paradigm.

          The idea of cultural transformation has been with us for a long time. It's very much part of the Christian evangelical tradition, and we can see how the idea played out in practice after Spain's and Portugal's conquest of the Americas.

          Combining cultural revolution with technological transformation, however, seems to be a purely 20th-century innovation. And the idea has been no less appealing to left Hegelians than it has been to right Hegelians.

          On the left, we see the notion of a combined cultural-technological revolution emerge first with the Russian nihilists. "Drawing heavily on the German materialists Jacob Moleschott, Karl Vogt, and Ludwig Buchner," Michael Allen Gillespie explains in Nihilism Before Nietzsche, "the nihilists argued that the natural sciences were preparing the way for the millennium."

          "This turn to materialism was also bound up with the growth of atheism," Gillespie adds, which was "given a concrete reality by materialism, especially in combination with the Darwinism that became increasingly popular with the nihilists."

          "We are witnesses of the greatest moment of summing-up in history, in the name of a new and unknown culture, which will be created by us, and which will also sweep us away," Sergey Diaghilev gushed in 1905.

          This nihilist brand of Futurism, combining cultural revolution with technological revolution, was to prove highly attractive to the later Bolsheviks, even though the Russian avant-garde which occurred under Lennin would be quite different from the Socialist Realism which took place later under Stalin.

          Anatoli Lunacharsky, Lennin's Commissar for Education and Enlightenment, wrote in 1917, "If the revolution can give art its soul, then art can endow the revolution with speech."

          "There was a need to explain, encourage, teach and enthuse the masses," Victor Awars explains in The Great Russian Utopia. "Agit-Prop was to be the means."

          In the catalogue for the Tenth State Exhibition organized by Lunacharsky in 1919, El Lissitzky wrote:

          Technology…was diverted by the war from the path of construction and forced on to the paths of death and destruction. Into this chaos came Suprematism… We, on the last stage of the path to Suprematism blasted aside the old work of art… The empty phrase 'art for art's sake' had already been wiped out and in Suprematism we have wiped out the phrase 'painting for painting's sake.'

          In May 1924 Vladimir Tatlin in his lecture "Material Culture and Its Role in the Production of Life in the USSR" offered a synoptic statement of what was still the task at hand:

          …to shed light on the tasks of production in our country, and also to discover the place of the artist-constructor in production, in relation to improving the quality both of the manufactured product and of the organization of the new way of life in general."

          The same sentiment is heard again a year later when Vladimir Maiakovskii declared that: "To build a new culture a clean sweep is needed. The sweep of the October revolution is needed."

          What is happening is "the conversion of revolutionary effort into technological effort," is how Asja Lacis summed it up in 1927.

          In this poster, one can see how the worker's revolution was melded with the technological revolution, all under the banner of the Russian Revolution.

          Nikolai Dolgorukov
          Transport Worker! Armed with a Knowledge of Technology.

          [Nov 02, 2015] The End of the President Erdogans AKP Era in Turkey – Part I

          Notable quotes:
          "... By T. Sabri Öncü ( [email protected] ), an economist based in Istanbul, Turkey. ..."
          "... Sounds like "Neo-Ottomanism" is of the same genera as "Neo-Liberalism." ..."
          November 1, 2015 | naked capitalism
          Lambert here: AKP stands for Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi in Turkish, which translates to Justice and Freedom Party. I admit that I don't know much about Turkey's domestic politics - which is why we're very glad to have this very timely post - but Erdogan's newly built palace (images here) seems like a fine operational definition of "wretched excess"; Erdogan's making that Ukrainian dude with the private zoo in his palace, Viktor Yanukovych, look like a mendicant monk.

          By T. Sabri Öncü ([email protected]), an economist based in Istanbul, Turkey.

          The worst terrorist attack in the history of the Republic of Turkey took place on October 10, 2015 in Ankara. The Ankara massacre. Two suicide bombers killed 102 of the participants in a Peace and Democracy rally and hundreds were wounded.

          Why did this happen?

          To give some answers, let us go back to 2002.

          Turkey's ruling Sunni Islamist party, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), took power in 2002. From 2002 until 2015, it had won four general elections in a row and secured enough seats in the national assembly to form a single party government in the first three.

          Although the AKP won about 50% of the votes in the third of these elections that happened in 2011, it has been in decline since then. And, in the last general election that took place on June 7, 2015, it failed to secure enough seats to form the government on its own. However, the AKP is still the ruling party, at least practically, because it is the only party in the caretaker government until the coming "repeat" election on November 1. The other parties either refused to join the interim government or left it after a while.

          A milestone between the 2011 and 2015 general elections was the presidential election of August 10, 2014. Despite the ongoing decline of the AKP, its leader and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan won 51.8% of the vote in the first round to become the first elected Turkish President. Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, the joint candidate for the opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) and Nationalist Action Party (MHP) received 38.4% whereas Selahattin Demirtaş, the candidate of the mainly Kurdish nationalist People's Democracy Party (HDP), received 9.8%.

          However, this election was of very low turnout by Turkish standards, essentially because İhsanoğlu is a known Islamist also. When a devotedly secularist section of the CHP voters resented İhsanoğlu and boycotted the election, the participation turned out to be a measly 74%. This was the lowest turnout since the coup d'état of 1980; even lower than the 79% turnout of the 2002 election that took place after a major economic collapse in 2001.

          But the main event of this presidential election was the 9.8% vote the HDP candidate Demirtaş received. The 10% national threshold imposed by the 1980 military junta has been in place since the 1983 general election and no Kurdish party had ever been able to cross that threshold until June 7, 2015.

          Indeed, in the 2002 election, that is, when the AKP took power, only three parties (AKP, CHP and MHP) managed to cross the threshold. With the 2007 election, a fourth party started to appear in the national assembly because the Kurdish parties and their leftist allies managed to bypass the threshold through candidates entering the elections as independents and then reassembling a party in the national assembly. However, despite that they usually secured between 5% and 7%, this trick always led to their underrepresentation in the assembly, because a big chunk of the votes on the independents were wasted.

          When Demirtaş received 9.8%, indicating a high probability of crossing the 10% threshold, the HDP entered the 2015 general election as a party rather than as a collection of independent candidates. The significance of this was that had they crossed the threshold, they would have had a much larger representation in the national assembly.

          And they crossed the threshold in the June 7 general election, receiving an unexpected 13%. When the HDP got 80 representatives and pushed the AKP below 276 by 18 in a 550 member national assembly, the AKP rule was over, at least legally.

          This was a defining moment in the history of the Republic of Turkey.

          Coming out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire in 1923, the Republic of Turkey inherited the Empire's diverse identities and added a new one.

          A major identity divide in the Empire had been along the religious lines: Muslim versus non-Muslim. However, there has been a conscious cleansing of the country from non-Muslims since the early 20th century and, as a result, this divide is currently about 99% to 1%, although it was more like 70% to 30% in the beginning.

          The new identity the Republic added was that of the secular. So the new and more important religious divide in the country is the pious versus secular divide created by the founders of the Republic (although the origins of this goes way back). Of course, the founders were secularists, and their interest was to engineer a secular, capitalist nation-state along the lines of most advanced capitalist states of the West. Named after their charismatic leader, and the first president of the Republic, Mustafa Kemal, their ideology is called Kemalism.

          Interestingly, they defined the nation of this nation-state – that is, the Turkish nation – based on religious identities. Who we call Turkish today – if by that we mean the citizens of the Republic of Turkey – are essentially the grandchildren of the (mostly Sunni) Muslim subjects of the Ottoman Empire, many of whom sought refuge in current-day Turkey from other parts of the Empire to avoid religious persecution. They can be from any of the many ethnicities in the former Empire as long as their grandparents were or became (preferably Sunni) Muslims.

          But, the mostly Sunni Kurds (themselves a collection of many ethnicities) have never bought this definition. And, despite that Sunni Islam has been the "unofficial" religion of this "secular" Republic from the beginning, the Alevites – some of whom are Kurdish – remained, although their number decreased some as percentage.

          To sum up, the most notable current identity divides include – but are not limited to – Turkish versus Kurdish, Sunni versus Alevite and pious versus secular.

          Lastly, there is the military, out of which most founders of the Republic including Mustafa Kemal came. Until recently, the military had been viewed by many as guardian of the secular Republic. It took power three times: in 1960, 1971 and 1980, although there had been a number of other coup attempts also. Seen as an arch-rival, the military had been "attacked" by the AKP government as of 2010 in the courts captured by the Islamists. Many of its high ranking officers got jailed for a variety of (as recently confessed by President Erdogan, mostly made-up) reasons and the institution has been weakened. Despite this, however, whether the military is now fully under the AKP control is debatable for a variety of reasons including that there still are many Kemalists in its ranks.

          Although the conflict between Turks and Kurds goes way before the start of the Republic, the most recent armed conflict started in 1984. Since then, the Turkish military and Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) have been fighting on and off (most intensely in the early 1990s) and the total death toll is at the order of tens of thousands. In a nutshell, this is the so-called "Kurdish question" in Turkey

          The PKK (founded in 1978) is an armed organization considered by many including the Turkish Government to be a terrorist organization. The HDP (founded in 2013), on the other hand, defines itself as a leftist and anti-nationalist party. Further, there are many non-Kurds in the party. However, many consider the HDP as the political wing of the PKK and whether this perception is reality or not is hotly debated in the country.

          Enter President Erdoğan and Prime Minister Davutoğlu.

          A darling of the West until about three years ago, Erdoğan and the AKP have evidently been running a programme whose objectives were not so obvious to some. That this had been the case can easily be deduced from the recent confessions of many nationally prominent figures – mostly liberal intellectuals – who had been ardent supporters of Erdoğan and the AKP until recently. Over the last year, it has seemed as though not a single day passed without one such figure coming out and claiming that he or she had been cheated by Erdoğan and/or the AKP.

          The existence of the programme became obvious to all shortly after Erdoğan won the presidential election. This was because Erdoğan's handpicked heir – former Foreign and current Prime Minister – Ahmet Davutoğlu publicly named it on August 21, 2014: the "restoration programme." According to Davutoğlu and his aides, the term does not refer to restoring the Ottoman Empire but to repairing the republic, democracy, foreign policy and a model of the economy that had been "injured" for the past 92 years.

          But, what did happen 92 years ago?

          Well, the Ottoman Empire ended and the Republic of Turkey was founded.

          Indeed, in 2001, a year before the AKP took power, the then academic Davutoğlu published a book, "Strategic Depth," that set out the basics of this programme, so why these liberal intellectuals feel cheated is difficult to understand.

          According to the Davutoğlu doctrine, Turkey is one of those countries which are "central powers." Because of its Ottoman legacy, Turkey is a Middle Eastern, Mediterranean, Balkan, Caucasian, Caspian, Central Asian, Gulf and Black Sea country. It can exercise influence in all these regions and thus become a global strategic player. Or so said Davutoğlu in his "Strategic Depth." And his now badly failed "zero problem policy with neighbours" was about Turkey's capitalising on its soft power potential culminating from its historic and cultural links with all these regions, as well as its "democratic institutions" and "thriving market economy"

          Given these and that Davutoğlu appeared to be objecting to the Huntingtonian theory of clash of civilisations, his doctrine had often been labelled as neo-Ottomanism. But this label was incorrect because Ottomanism was a nineteenth-century liberal political movement whose objective was to form a civic Ottoman national identity overarching ethnic, linguistic and religious identities. Any careful reading of Davutoğlu's book could have revealed that his doctrine had nothing to do with any form of Ottomanism. Furthermore, his objection to Huntington's theory was not to that there was a clash of civilisations. He agreed with Huntington there. Where he differed was that Islam was the better civilisation. Put differently, his doctrine was not neo-Ottomanism but pan-Islamism.

          It now appears clear even to many of his unquestioning former supporters as well as Western powers such as the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) that not only Davutoğlu but also Erdoğan agreed with Huntington's clash of civilizations thesis. Except that Erdoğan also believed in superiority of the Islamic civilization. It now appears clear to them also that becoming the leader of the Muslim world and (there are even rumours that) caliph of the Sunni Muslims were two of Erdoğan's three major fantasies.

          Of course, these two fantasies have always been beyond Erdoğan's reach, if only for the simple reason that they are based on a third fantasy that Davutoğlu invented: the unifying character of the Ottoman Empire. Ask any Arab or Balkan nation who had lived under the Ottoman rule to see how they feel about the Empire. And there are strong rivals such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran and even ISIL (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, also known as ISIS), and Syria, Iraq and Libya are in shambles, so forth. No doubt, Davutoğlu's "zero problem policy with neighbours" eventually deformed into his current foreign policy of "honourable loneliness."

          Erdoğan's third major fantasy was becoming the sultan of Turkey. This was a potentially realizable fantasy because, after his presidency, all he needed was to get the constitution changed to introduce a presidential system which would decorate him with executive powers. Had this happened, he could have become the effective sultan to continue the restoration process through which Turkey would become some sort of repressive Islamic state (which would be even more repressive than Turkey is currently).

          For this, the AKP had to win at least 330 deputies in the national assembly.

          And Erdoğan had a fear. Had the AKP failed to form a single party government, several legal cases could have been filed against him at the Supreme Council of Judges for a host of reasons with severe criminal consequences.

          To avoid this, the AKP had to win at least 276 deputies in the national assembly.

          Now, I can offer some answers to the first question I asked, that is, why the Ankara massacre happened. And I will do that in the next part, after the November 1 election.


          JTMcPhee, November 1, 2015 at 7:41 am

          Sounds like "Neo-Ottomanism" is of the same genera as "Neo-Liberalism."

          And given how individual motivations that, for people who actually have the skills and talents and incentives to be actual Power Players in the world, all resolve to "way more for me, and as near as possible nothing for the rest of you," no surprise that the "neo" kleptocratic agenda is everywhere in the ascendant.

          Erdoğan's palace, Obama's Presidential Library and Theme Park, the well documented excesses and thieveries and frauds of the ruling class pretty much everywhere - all of a piece. And where's the organizing principle and flag, for the 99% to form up and organize around? Our Betters are all reading out of the same implacable insatiable playbook– where's the book for people who just seek decency, comity, and a "modest competence" for themselves and their children, who diligently and intelligently in the Hope of Change, minimize their "footprints" (so there's more slack for the Few to consume and use up)?


          PlutoniumKun, November 1, 2015 at 12:23 pm

          There has been a huge boom in Turkey under Erdogan, although its a moot point as to how much he can take credit for it – certainly Turkey was a major beneficiary of QE, etc. My understanding is that he and his party was a major facilitator for the construction industry, including most notoriously of all, pretty much handing over one of the last public parks in Istanbul to a shopping mall developer.


          PlutoniumKun, November 1, 2015 at 1:15 pm

          Possibly. But Erdogans political base is rural and small town regular folks – the type of people who keep their cards close to their chests. Its entirely possible that this was a classic case of voters being unwilling to admit to pollsters who they will vote for. And also a case that people may reluctantly feel they should vote for a corrupt strongman over the alternative of possible chaos. Reminds me a bit of the UK election where pollsters and commentators got it very badly wrong.

          Its interesting though that nobody seems to be alleging fraud (so far) – seems that Turkey has a pretty robust voting system.


          susan the other, November 1, 2015 at 1:48 pm

          It is clear that politix in Turkey is chaos. God only knows what the freedom and justice freaks are looking to gain. Erdogan is on the outs with everyone; NATO, Russia, the Saudis, the USA and etc. That can only mean one thing: there is no consensus and therefore there is no government. And Erdogan is just vamping around on the stage until he wears out his fishnets and high heels.

          Sabri Oncu -> Synoia, November 2, 2015 at 5:55 am

          Turkey and Saudi Arabia are not rivals for the new Caliphate. They are rivals for regional hegemony. So, I was combining two things together. Given that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iran are rivals of Turkey, Turkey cannot be the leader of the Muslim world. At least these three will not accept Turkey's leadership. As for the Caliphate ISIL is the competitor. But, more importantly, Arabs will not accept a Turkish as their caliph. That was what I had in mind. But, the article is already quite long even as it is so I was economizing, I guess.

          Synoia, November 1, 2015 at 4:23 pm

          It is not clear that Erdogan and the Saudi's are rivals for the new Caliphate.

          The Saudi's will aim for the religious capital (Mecca) and the Turks the Legislative Capital as under the Ottomans, and the Rules will exchange family member in marriage as is common among royalty.

          Ergogan's planace looks like it if fit for a Caliph.

          Turkish Observer,

          When I read articles online about this recent election people keep referring to Erdogan as having "savvy" or making some sort of "gambit".

          Perhaps you could say this, if it was in any way a fair competition. But nothing about this election was fair.

          Only days before the election, the government appointed trustees to 22 different companies that were part of a holding company that wasn't so keen on the government. This included two television stations and two newspapers. Immediately after seizing control of them, in clear violation of the constitution of Turkey which prohibits the seizing of media regardless of whether or not it helped enable a crime, they fired all employees who had refused loyalty to the new trustees. The next editions of these newspapers did a 180 coming out in full support of AKP and the ruling party.

          The amount of media time spent on covering AKP rallies/political events was far greater in all state media than that given to the other three main parties. I believe in previous elections, and most probably this one as well, the ratio is something like 90% of all campaign airtime was given to their party.

          In addition, President Erdogan repeatedly abused his power as president. This position is one that is supposed to be unpartisan and ceremonial, but instead he has turned every public appearance into an occasion to gain support for the AKP.

          The ruling government has continued to systematically dismantle bastions of opposition: whether they be found in industrial, financial or media sectors. They have attacked academics, fomented assaults of media channels and stations by armed groups, and refused to provide adequate protection for opposition rallies and events.

          They continue to spread lies, disinformation and enflame racial hatred on pro-government media outlets. Several weeks ago, the result of this were three or four nights of militant-nationalist rallies across different areas of Turkey including Istanbul. One of the chilling calls heard by myself and others was "we don't want war, we want genocide" while they occasionally destroyed a kurdish-looking business or stabbed/beat a kurdish-looking person to death. These were government sanctioned outbursts. If the opposition tried to rally for peace, within 30min plain clothes police officers and riot police would stop them. But rallies for genocide? Completely acceptable in Erdogan's Turkey – you could even see some of the security forces smiling.

          What comes next will be more of the same, but I can only imagine what will happen when the economy here starts to crumble…

          I expect all or some of the following to happen in the next year politically:

          • - further attacks on the HDP, perhaps pushing them below 10% and using this as an opportunity to get to the 330 seat level needed to change the constitution
          • - the withering away of the militant nationalist MHP, as supporters and politicians within this party have fewer differences with the policies and positions of the AKP. Perhaps a split, with half of the members crossing the aisle to the AKP.
          • - attacks on media interests/financial interests of the CHP, so that any presidential system becomes a two party one, where one party always wins (guess which). (you can expect some problems to arise with IS Bank, if they want this outcome)

          Financially:

          • - continued fall in visitor/tourist numbers
          • - further contraction of industrial production as the sanctity or property rights a revealed to be a farce
          • - a complete collapse of the construction sector, if and only if the FED starts to hike rates
          • - lira reaching 4 to the dollar by May

          Socially:

          • - exodus of anyone who can get out of Turkey, a significant brain drain
          • - greater conservatism within society, the imposition of more moral/social controls
          • - a dramatic increase in the breadth and width of the conflict between the Turkish military and PKK. (if and only if the HDP is dismantled as a political outlet)

          [Nov 02, 2015] Turkey election Erdo an's AKP wins outright majority – as it happened Discussion

          Yes another case of a global trend of resurgence of nationalism in action... Turkey now pretend for the role of of the leader of Islamic world and that paradoxically it is nationalism that stimulates shift toward more militant Islamism.
          Notable quotes:
          "... The only ones who had anything to gain from the bombings were AKP. That's undeniable. But, its not proof, sadly. ..."
          "... The 'play caliphate jibe' was a reference to his support for ISIS and to the growing importance of religious custom in Turkey and its influence everywhere, including on law. ..."
          "... BREAKING NEWS: Tonight scenes of joy in Raqqa, Mosul and Palmira...Daesh men are in a good mood...anyone knows the reason? ..."
          "... Superstition prevails in some islamic and Christian states nowadays. ..."
          "... That would explain why so many AK trolls have mobilised under the comments section of every major news agency. But doesn't quite explain where the AKP got its extra 1 million votes in Istanbul where the CHP took over 280k of the 268k votes lost by the HDP and MHP. ..."
          "... Turkey has strong hand, many, many refugees eager to get to Europe. At the same time, it is a country which is not without its own internal problems, not least the old contradiction between Islam and modernization. One thing remains certain, Turkey is the key state in the Near East and will be courted more than ever by the USA and EU. ..."
          "... The problem isn't those celebrating, it's the way the AKP party has sold itself as the party that God wants people to vote for. ..."
          "... Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi sends Erdogan his congratulations from Raqqa ..."
          "... Interesting how a country that couldn't count how many were killed in the Ankara suicide attack for 3 days counted 54million votes in 3 hours. ..."
          "... http://www.prisonplanet.com/breaking-germanys-dw-reports-isis-supply-lines-originate-in-natos-turkey.html ..."
          "... I live in Turkey and I can tell you that here is a culture of submission and complacency about any kind of real change-they will vote out of fear, vote out of intentional ignorance of the reality of things. At least half the nation are happy to live in a cloud of lies and delusion, sadly ..."
          "... However it seems like this taking a lot of money from Saudi and somehow Turkish nationalist does not see it as a problems . ..."
          "... This is like when Netanyahu's party won the Israeli election that followed after they incited Rabin's murder. Warmonger violence is rewarded by the voters. Unless Erdogan shows unexpected moderation, this is a grave development. ..."
          "... I don't think you understand the point I am making, I never said his goal is peace with the Kurds. His goal was to win back the votes he lost in June and he did that. He got the nationalist vote back by bombing the crap out of the PKK and threatening the PYD in Syria. ..."
          "... Where in all this do you get the idea that I am an AKP supporter. I am criticizing the man saying he capitalized on the deaths of soldiers to win back the important nationalist vote. Him winning in this fashion is a terrible thing, he will change the constitution and plant himself on his throne. Erdogan now has more power over Turkey than Ataturk ever did. HE is basically Putin with a moustache. ..."
          "... Erdogan sweeps to power on the back of security and safety fears. His claim of intervention against Daesh (a shame) and the PKK (real); coupled with his silencing of the media critics (real); made a tremendous difference. Expect Daesh to have the welcome mat out for the black market deals - trucks and weapons and supplies for oil and concentration on the PKK and YPK. ..."
          "... Turkey, whether they know it or not, voted for a Muslim Brotherhood dictatorship and ethnic war. The crumbling economic performance and the religious agenda parallel the path of Morsi in Egypt ... but here Erdogan has already neutered any threat from the military with all the treason trials. ..."
          "... The war against the PKK was obviously a calculated risk. Voters usually rally behind the status quo in troubled times. The terror attacks reinforced this message. ..."
          "... Yes, yet another disaster. The recent farcical goings on in Portugal, the swing to the right in Poland and Denmark and a seemingly ever increasing necessity to deal with despots and dictators. ..."
          "... That is cos Erdogan controls the pools in Turkey just as the Tories controlled the polls in Britain. To get the right-wing vote out they have the polls announcing that the election is in doubt. Modern Capitalism doesn't just own the media. It owns the polls too. ..."
          "... Because left is so attracted to internationalist and multi cultural garbage that lost its appeal to average people . Left used to stand for workers and better working conditions ,but now stands for pure weirdness! ..."
          "... If there has been no ballot rigging, then the Turks are no different from the Americans who voted for Bush the second time or the British who voted Cameron a second time. People will vote for oligarchs and authoritarians when they are fearful or full of hate. ..."
          "... I am not so sure about turkey. A country that embrace Kemal attaturk and consider him as national hero but goes against his Reforms. Attaturk changed the Arabic alphabet to Latin and closed many masques to undermine Arabic influence there but turkey now is infested with Isis and Arabic culture. I simply do not get it. ..."
          "... This result is a disaster for the EU. Erdogan has Merkel and her acolytes across Europe over a barrel, and will drive a hard bargain for agreeing to help stem the migrant/refugee flood. ..."
          "... America has gone along with the strategy of forming ISIS to overthrow Assad, from the very beginning. The goal was to have these mostly criminals do the dying and when they achieve overthrowing Assad, send an army to clean them out and become heroes. But reality has a way of working itself out, then ISIS got out of hand. ..."
          "... Indeed. As an ardent, self-enriching neoliberal, Erdogan's hardly a threat to the West. And it probably suits the West's strategic interests better for Turkey to remain a mild Islamist democracy than for it to return to Kemalism. ..."
          "... Needless to say the socialist regime of the 50s in Iran taken out by Britain and the US of the time for oil reasons was a much better vehicle for metropolitan aspirations than the shah's conservative and authoritarian regime, because the whole country, including the rural poor outside Tehran had much more of a stake in in it. A tragedy indeed. ..."
          "... The west, come on, who are you exactly talking about? The west supports Saudi tyranny and their jihadi underlings, Erdogan is doing the west's bidding in Syria, and played along in Libya. ..."
          "... EU supported jihadis to destroy Libya and Syria, I hope you can handle a few chanting God is great. ..."
          "... Erdogan: BFF of ISIS, Nemesis of Kurds. Yep, America's ally. Feckin' perfect. Business as usual. ..."
          "... Geopolitically, Turkey is an ally and partner in NATO. Turkey is a training ground and safe zone for moderate jihadis. Turkey hates Syria and agrees with Obama that Assad must go . The Guardian agrees with all these positions. Ergo the victory is legitimate . Just ask Portugal ..."
          "... There will soon be comments describing AK party supporters as poor, uneducated, religious nutters from enlightened Europeans. With everything going in Turkey, Erdogan is popular because out of all the candidates he is the one the Turks think will offer economic prosperity. I think that is what matters the most to majority of voters I guess. ..."
          "... Nationalism is reaction itself. It doesn't need PKK or whatever. Was Lukashenko observing these elections? Balls to them ..."
          "... Erdogan was a polarising figure in Turkish politics he won't lose heavily (in fact he actually won more votes through his cynical act of social imperialism) because the political opposition to him is too incompetent and cliquey (ie non are interested in broadening their political support beyond their base, MHP for instance call Alevites heretics and want a death list of all Kurdish activists, CHP are uninterested in courting religious Turks or Kurds, HDP is still a nationalist party despite its liberal pretentions) to beat Erdogan and it seems my predictions have come true. ..."
          www.theguardian.com

          Candide60 -> AdemMeral 1 Nov 2015 16:29

          The institutionalized religion AKP built is a dangerous tool in the hands of those who have absolute power, or any power, and no real pragmatism, nor any desire to govern all citizens fairly and equally. If you research human rights records of Turkey, you will find out how much abuse is perpetrated in the name of religion, in the name of sect, in the name of gender, in the name of party affiliation.

          Having superficial knowledge of these matters and claiming to speak for all Turks, what is best for Turks is wrong. Voting for a party formed by thieves, that is perpetrating abuses, corruption, killing its own citizens, and claiming there isn't any alternative is a lame excuse. When there is no alternative, one creates its choices.

          Hesham Abdelhafez -> Alfie Silva 1 Nov 2015 16:28

          Just like that! where are the democracy of the "civilised" west gone? so all these talks about democracy and human rights that the western media gave us headache are all crap!

          AdemMeral -> Alfie Silva 1 Nov 2015 16:25

          Erdogan is not Islamist. Erbakan was. Nobody can touch republic in Turkey. Even a hint of it and Erdogan is history.

          In fact Gulen was the most dangerous one and he had good people in the army. But he is history now.

          missythecat -> AdemMeral 1 Nov 2015 16:13

          I agree with you that the the opposition in Turkey isn't doing a great job. But this doesn't justify why one should vote for erdogan. This is really interesting, I always wanted to understand why people vote for him. Are you really not aware that he and his party members are actually breaking the law and acting against the constitution by spending public funds for their personal or the AKP's gain?

          Are you really not aware that while people of Turkey suffer from unemployment, poor education and poverty, he can somehow spend our money on a palace, luxury cars, etc. and his wife can close a luxury boutique in Brussels to shop privately?

          Are you really not aware that his relatives somehow always manage to land on the government's juicy construction projects? Are you really not aware that everyone who is against him is silenced by force (e.g. journalists)? Are we really talking about the same country and the same person?

          Necati Geniş -> laticsfanfromeurope 1 Nov 2015 16:12

          "Reports"..? By whom ? You must have followed the news about the co-operation of US an Turkish Air Forces.
          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/world/middleeast/isis-is-target-of-turkish-bombing-raids.html?_r=0

          JimMcBride 1 Nov 2015 16:10

          they learned elections from the U.S.A. and U.K. The winners are decided before the elections. What Turkey did not learn was to have the patience to make the elections to be a product of the will of the people which would then mean there would be less trouble with the electorate and very little need to control them with harsh measures since they would have more confidence that their votes actually counted and they could make a difference at the next election..

          when you remove all hope of voting in a change you create more trouble for yourself.

          littlewoodenblock -> Necati Geniş 1 Nov 2015 15:45

          So prove him wrong, my friend. I would love to see some definitive evidence. But it is not there. What we have everytime is some AKP jerk atanding up and saying its PKK before the police have even opened the case to investigate! Davutoglu even came up with the stupid suggestion that PKK and ISIS were partners in the Ankara bombing!

          The only ones who had anything to gain from the bombings were AKP. That's undeniable. But, its not proof, sadly.

          littlewoodenblock -> AdemMeral 1 Nov 2015 15:40

          The 'play caliphate jibe' was a reference to his support for ISIS and to the growing importance of religious custom in Turkey and its influence everywhere, including on law.

          Whether sharia law is where Turkey arrives is unlikely, i agree, but the country will certainly not become more liberal ...

          laticsfanfromeurope 1 Nov 2015 15:39

          BREAKING NEWS: Tonight scenes of joy in Raqqa, Mosul and Palmira...Daesh men are in a good mood...anyone knows the reason?

          RossNewman -> Gazzy312 1 Nov 2015 15:37

          Mein Kampf was also quite popular there not so long ago, where it was a best seller.
          http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/mar/29/turkey.books

          As result I don't find this news surprising.

          Candide60 1 Nov 2015 15:36

          "It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."
          Joseph Stalin

          Erdogan is a dictator using religion to brainwash masses, a corrupt evil man surrounded by weak, corrupt, ignorant yes men and women.


          missythecat -> AdemMeral 1 Nov 2015 15:16

          Democracy? Republic? They've already been crushed by Erdogan. He is a lonely lunatic leaving in his something thousand room palace. Please don't troll here. On another note, yes, the only few remaining newspapers which haven't been raided by erdogan yet, do talk about the YSK's dodgy play with the numbers (Cumhuriyet and Sozcu) go and do some reading.

          Hesham Abdelhafez 1 Nov 2015 15:10

          shut up hypocrite western! you don't open your fucking mouse after what you did to Egypt and supporting a bloody military coup and inviting the criminal in Europe!


          andresh -> Alfie Silva 1 Nov 2015 15:07

          Superstition prevails in some islamic and Christian states nowadays.

          Mmmoke 1 Nov 2015 14:58

          Taking in more than 4 million refugees and still getting the same party voted in with a majority, is a testament to the greatness of the Turkish people. Bless them. And Europe, USA who caused the crisis, complain about a few thousand refugees. Shame.

          Gazzy312 1 Nov 2015 14:39

          Really disgusted with some of the Guardians coverage always trying to imply that Erdogan will try to rig. He is popular in Turkey you need to accept that, this is the reason the Millitary which hate him dare not launch a coup against him.

          littlewoodenblock -> Ilker Camci 1 Nov 2015 14:39

          Interestingly AKP overtook MHP in the fascist-look-a-like competition. So much so that 4% of its vote increase this election came directly from MHP!

          Ozgen Killi -> Necati Geniş 1 Nov 2015 14:26

          That would explain why so many AK trolls have mobilised under the comments section of every major news agency. But doesn't quite explain where the AKP got its extra 1 million votes in Istanbul where the CHP took over 280k of the 268k votes lost by the HDP and MHP.

          BlueJayWay -> Ilker Camci 1 Nov 2015 14:23

          Yeah, the reality of keeping that Islamist clown Erdogan and his fascist goons in power. This election reeks of fraud. How can the votes have been counted that quickly?

          andresh 1 Nov 2015 14:21

          Erdogan has allowed new recruits to reach IS through the "porous border". He sent supplies for IS. He ordered the security forces to look the other way when young Turkish students from Adiyaman organized the terrorists mass murdres in Sucuk, Ankara and Diyarbakir. At the same time he ordered killing the Kurds in Diyarbakir and tried to precent the YPG from liberating the Kurdish Syria from IS. Erdogan is a criminal.

          ID9179442 RJSWinchester 1 Nov 2015 14:19

          Turkey has strong hand, many, many refugees eager to get to Europe. At the same time, it is a country which is not without its own internal problems, not least the old contradiction between Islam and modernization. One thing remains certain, Turkey is the key state in the Near East and will be courted more than ever by the USA and EU.

          littlewoodenblock Peter Conti 1 Nov 2015 14:18

          Dont joke, at the beginning of a football match a minutes silence was held for the victims of the ankara bombings and AKP supporters started chanting "Allah Akbar!"
          Sick Fucks

          SHA2014 -> abf310866 1 Nov 2015 14:06

          Just two lines of proof:
          1. Turkey has renewed the fight against PKK one of the most effective anti-IS firces in Northern Syria.
          2. Instead of assisting civilians in Kobani when it was under siege by IS, Turkey closed the borders to any refugees.
          3. Where do you think all these foreigners who go to fight for IS from Europe pass through? It is Turkey of course. There is no apparent attempt to stop this traffic.
          There is other evidence also.

          YouHaveComment -> abf310866 1 Nov 2015 14:05

          The problem isn't those celebrating, it's the way the AKP party has sold itself as the party that God wants people to vote for.

          That's bad news for democracy. It's also bad news for the secular space and religious freedom that allows people of any faith or none to be members of the same community.

          GoloManner Trabzonlu 1 Nov 2015 14:04

          Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi sends Erdogan his congratulations from Raqqa

          Abu Al-Izz Hanoun -> killerontheroad 1 Nov 2015 13:56

          By the way ISIS consider Erdogan and his party Kafirs and vow to fight them. ..just in case you were wondering.

          1ClearSense 1 Nov 2015 13:56

          Will US now support both Erdoganite Turks and YPG/PKK Kurds while they fight each other?

          andresh -> decisivemoment 1 Nov 2015 13:55

          Allah Akbar! Stop fascism! It was the turkish security forces that allowed young supporters of IS from adiyaman to stage the murderes if Sucuk, Ankara and Diyarbakir. Erdogan is a cynical murderer, inciting violence to remain i power.

          thatshowitgoes -> abf310866 1 Nov 2015 13:54

          Put it this way. The bank robbers leave from your house, go to rob the bank with guns you have given them, then come back to your house with the loot - you support the bank robbers. Or perhaps you think Turkey has no control of its borders, in which case I invite you to swan in without a visa next time you go on holiday and see how far you get.

          Trabzonlu 1 Nov 2015 13:53

          As predicted, HDP and PKK have shot themselves in the foot by backing violence instead of peace and their actions have led to this AKP majority, no one should be surprised by the result. As you can see, free and fair elections seem reason enough for violence in the Kurdish areas as per usual, quite how these people dream of governing a Kurdistan is beyond me. Hopefully this government will finally grow some balls and eliminate these PKK terrorists once and for all - the people have voted, time to shut this threat down unilaterally and with determination.

          Super Tramp 1 Nov 2015 13:53

          The good have lost by the hands of fraud. Foxy smile of the triumph of ignorance, brutality and lies.. Such a dystopia it is; watching my beautiful country helpless while it's evolving to the 3rd world for the last decade. now this is the end of the way of secularism. me and my bereaved youthfulness lets have another bottle of wine isnt it a perfect day for the losers?


          RJSWinchester 1 Nov 2015 13:52

          "Democracy" wrapped in Erdogan's iron fist.

          Ozgen Killi 1 Nov 2015 13:52

          Interesting how a country that couldn't count how many were killed in the Ankara suicide attack for 3 days counted 54million votes in 3 hours.

          decisivemoment 1 Nov 2015 13:51

          It's not necessarily that bad a result. Under the circumstances it's hardly surprising the party promising law and order would gain seats, but they have not gained enough to amend the constitution and the HDP has made it past Turkey's ridiculously high threshold and secured their place in parliament.

          Growing pains, certainly, but not primitivism. With this somewhat conditional seal of approval -- authority to govern without having to form a coalition with crazies, but not so much authority as to silence mainstream opposition and use the constitution to promote authoritarianism -- we'll have to see what Erdogan does.

          thatshowitgoes -> abf310866 1 Nov 2015 13:48

          http://www.prisonplanet.com/breaking-germanys-dw-reports-isis-supply-lines-originate-in-natos-turkey.html

          istanbul10 -> siff 1 Nov 2015 13:23

          I live in Turkey and I can tell you that here is a culture of submission and complacency about any kind of real change-they will vote out of fear, vote out of intentional ignorance of the reality of things. At least half the nation are happy to live in a cloud of lies and delusion, sadly

          Afshin Peyman -> SHA2014 1 Nov 2015 13:22

          Was it the sultanate was corrupt and backward ?

          That is why young Turks and attaturk tried to change the system and replace it with modern and secular government?

          However it seems like this taking a lot of money from Saudi and somehow Turkish nationalist does not see it as a problems .

          ChristineH 1 Nov 2015 13:21

          Does anyone know how such a huge and populous country as Turkey counts its votes so quickly? Only article I could find was about people counting votes by tractor headlights, having voted at the side of the road, which makes the speed even more surprising.

          http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/villagers-vote-on-road-in-turkeys-northwestern-district.aspx?pageID=238&nid=90576&NewsCatID=341

          newageblues 1 Nov 2015 13:17

          This is like when Netanyahu's party won the Israeli election that followed after they incited Rabin's murder. Warmonger violence is rewarded by the voters. Unless Erdogan shows unexpected moderation, this is a grave development.

          Mr_HanMan -> littlewoodenblock 1 Nov 2015 13:13

          I don't think you understand the point I am making, I never said his goal is peace with the Kurds. His goal was to win back the votes he lost in June and he did that. He got the nationalist vote back by bombing the crap out of the PKK and threatening the PYD in Syria. After the Suruc bombing the killing of the two police officers by the PKK wasn't the first time the PKK killed during the supposed ceasefire. They shot and killed soldiers in Diyarbakir last year and the government back then did nothing. The only reason they did something now was to get back the nationalist vote. So it's all one big dirty game and the PKK were in on it, or they are just too stupid to realise this as their actions harmed the HDP.

          Where in all this do you get the idea that I am an AKP supporter. I am criticizing the man saying he capitalized on the deaths of soldiers to win back the important nationalist vote. Him winning in this fashion is a terrible thing, he will change the constitution and plant himself on his throne. Erdogan now has more power over Turkey than Ataturk ever did. HE is basically Putin with a moustache.

          Edmund Allin -> RayMullan 1 Nov 2015 13:08

          186,000 ballot boxes. About 750,000 independent (i.e. opposition) observers. 57m voters, of whom apparently 45mn turned up. 45mn/186,000 = 241 votes per ballot box. Easy enough.

          owl905 1 Nov 2015 13:06

          Erdogan sweeps to power on the back of security and safety fears. His claim of intervention against Daesh (a shame) and the PKK (real); coupled with his silencing of the media critics (real); made a tremendous difference. Expect Daesh to have the welcome mat out for the black market deals - trucks and weapons and supplies for oil and concentration on the PKK and YPK.

          Turkey, whether they know it or not, voted for a Muslim Brotherhood dictatorship and ethnic war. The crumbling economic performance and the religious agenda parallel the path of Morsi in Egypt ... but here Erdogan has already neutered any threat from the military with all the treason trials.

          Putin and al-Baghdadi are probably thinking the Cheshire Cat got into their mirror this morning.

          Stechginster -> Trancedesk 1 Nov 2015 13:04

          Merkel, the architect of one catastrophe, will shortly usher in another, as she promotes the entry of Turkey into the EU, in return for Erdogan's assistance.

          I should turn this into a drinking game… no, she won't. She made some positive noise about supporting Turkey in the accession process, what was actually on the table were visa waivers for Turkish travellers visiting the EU and (likely, although unofficially) delaying the publication of a negative report on Turkish human rights violations.


          SHA2014 -> Michael Yeovil 1 Nov 2015 13:02

          The war against the PKK was obviously a calculated risk. Voters usually rally behind the status quo in troubled times. The terror attacks reinforced this message.

          ErnaMsw 1 Nov 2015 12:57

          At least Turkey won't become a presidential republic. With 96.48% of votes now counted, HDP stands at 10.47% and is guaranteed to pass the threshold.

          ChemicalArif 1 Nov 2015 12:53

          Quite hilarious reading the comments from most BTL posters... Simple fact is, the AKP has been a "popular" government in Turkey for the last decade and even won the majority of votes in the last election. Did urbane elite seriously think that they were going to be ousted from power by a fractured, dysfunctional opposition? Beggars belief.

          Of course the urbane city dwelling elite can always take to the streets to protest the result, much like the Egyptians did. Democracy is only palatable when the city dweller's preferred candidate is elected to power...

          Tim Gray 1 Nov 2015 12:52

          A very disturbing result, it is difficult to believe the vote or that the ruling party hasn't had a hand in the unrest across the country since the voters rejected AKP in the last election. Turkey's government will now use this result as a green light to continue its war against the Kurds, attack trade unions, women and those opposed to this conservative, nationalist government.

          Stechginster -> jharz15 1 Nov 2015 12:50

          The Turkish people I personally know would share that opinion, but young Turkish expats and the young people in the big cities such as Istanbul and Ankara are far more liberal than the average Turkish voter in the east. I don't think it was necessarily rigged, in uncertain times, many people vote for stability (the devil you know..) over anything else.

          irem demir 1 Nov 2015 12:44

          Majority of Turks are not secular, modern or democratic. But there are still so many open minded people living in Turkey, unlike in other muslim countries. But sadly this didn't really help the future of the country.

          Phil Porter Trancedesk 1 Nov 2015 12:42

          Yes, yet another disaster. The recent farcical goings on in Portugal, the swing to the right in Poland and Denmark and a seemingly ever increasing necessity to deal with despots and dictators.

          TonyBlunt Phoenix9061210 1 Nov 2015 12:41

          That is cos Erdogan controls the pools in Turkey just as the Tories controlled the polls in Britain. To get the right-wing vote out they have the polls announcing that the election is in doubt. Modern Capitalism doesn't just own the media. It owns the polls too.

          Afshin Peyman gregmitchell87 1 Nov 2015 12:38

          Because left is so attracted to internationalist and multi cultural garbage that lost its appeal to average people .
          Left used to stand for workers and better working conditions ,but now stands for pure weirdness!

          Michael Yeovil 1 Nov 2015 12:35

          So six months the AKP Government obtained it's worst ever result to it's best . In that six months, the worst terror attack on the country happened, civil war was resumed with the PKK, inflation rose to it's worse rate since the AKP came to power, unemployment rose, - but then the AKP obtain the best ever result it is obtained !

          Make of that what you will !!

          GordonBrownStain 1 Nov 2015 12:35

          The Poles voted for a shower of ignorant pricks and so did us Brits, that's democracy, the Muslims are no different from us after all

          Simon100 1 Nov 2015 12:34

          If there has been no ballot rigging, then the Turks are no different from the Americans who voted for Bush the second time or the British who voted Cameron a second time. People will vote for oligarchs and authoritarians when they are fearful or full of hate.

          Trancedesk -> studious1 1 Nov 2015 12:34

          And to think we were entertaining Turkey joining the EU not that long ago.

          Erdogan is now in an even stronger position, and will demand entry in return for helping Merkel deal with the consequences of her idiocy.

          Afshin Peyman 1 Nov 2015 12:33

          I am not so sure about turkey. A country that embrace Kemal attaturk and consider him as national hero but goes against his Reforms. Attaturk changed the Arabic alphabet to Latin and closed many masques to undermine Arabic influence there but turkey now is infested with Isis and Arabic culture. I simply do not get it.

          Trancedesk 1 Nov 2015 12:32

          This result is a disaster for the EU. Erdogan has Merkel and her acolytes across Europe over a barrel, and will drive a hard bargain for agreeing to help stem the migrant/refugee flood. Merkel, the architect of one catastrophe, will shortly usher in another, as she promotes the entry of Turkey into the EU, in return for Erdogan's assistance. Western Europe, the cradle of Western civilisation, is doomed and we should probably leave.

          glad2baway 1 Nov 2015 12:30

          Well, if that is democracy then we have to sometimes accept that this is bad news. I am surprised at the result. What does Turkey do now? Have a revolution just because lots of people don't like the result? As the saying goes, people get the governments they deserve. So something has gone badly wrong somewhere.

          1ClearSense -> TeeJayzed Addy 1 Nov 2015 12:29

          America has gone along with the strategy of forming ISIS to overthrow Assad, from the very beginning. The goal was to have these mostly criminals do the dying and when they achieve overthrowing Assad, send an army to clean them out and become heroes. But reality has a way of working itself out, then ISIS got out of hand.

          djhurley -> SUNLITE 1 Nov 2015 12:27

          Indeed. As an ardent, self-enriching neoliberal, Erdogan's hardly a threat to the West. And it probably suits the West's strategic interests better for Turkey to remain a mild Islamist democracy than for it to return to Kemalism.

          Mr_HanMan -> littlewoodenblock 1 Nov 2015 12:26

          Lets go back, the bombing in Suruc happened, the HDP and PKK blamed the AKP and then went on a killing spree of Turkish police officers and soldiers. Then in cities in the south east HDP members declaring autonomy, trenches being dug in the middle of the streets using machinery owned by the local government authority (HDP).

          No matter which way you look at it the PKK is the reason why the HDP lost a lot of votes. To add any operation done against the PYD in Syria is a boost for the AKP when it comes to the nationalist vote.

          GreatUncleEuphoria -> GreatUncleEuphoria 1 Nov 2015 12:26

          Needless to say the socialist regime of the 50s in Iran taken out by Britain and the US of the time for oil reasons was a much better vehicle for metropolitan aspirations than the shah's conservative and authoritarian regime, because the whole country, including the rural poor outside Tehran had much more of a stake in in it. A tragedy indeed.

          1ClearSense -> littlewoodenblock 1 Nov 2015 12:22

          The west, come on, who are you exactly talking about? The west supports Saudi tyranny and their jihadi underlings, Erdogan is doing the west's bidding in Syria, and played along in Libya.

          GreatUncleEuphoria -> Paul Easton 1 Nov 2015 12:22

          Iran is, broadly. split between a metropolitan urban and ( urbane ) group, and a religious rural, provincial and suburban group, like Turkey, Egypt and elsewhere. The Islamic revolution traded the influence of the former for the latter, like the brief rule in Egypt of the MBrotherhood.

          riceuten64 birdcv 1 Nov 2015 12:20

          He's a gradualist. He will make it more and more difficult, say, to drink alcohol, as he has already done. He will put pressure on the few remaining independent news outlets. He will further censor the internet. He will change electoral systems to suit the AKP. He has already made his wish for an Executive Presidency clear.

          1ClearSense -> LittleMsGggrrrrr 1 Nov 2015 12:19

          EU supported jihadis to destroy Libya and Syria, I hope you can handle a few chanting God is great.

          TeeJayzed -> Addy 1 Nov 2015 12:18

          Erdogan: BFF of ISIS, Nemesis of Kurds. Yep, America's ally. Feckin' perfect. Business as usual.

          DiplomaticImmunity 1 Nov 2015 12:17

          Geopolitically, Turkey is an "ally and partner" in NATO. Turkey is a training ground and "safe zone" for "moderate" jihadis. Turkey hates Syria and agrees with Obama that "Assad must go". The Guardian agrees with all these positions. Ergo the victory is "legitimate". Just ask Portugal


          littlewoodenblock -> atkurebeach 1 Nov 2015 12:12

          Rubbish. AKP reignited the war with Kurds to polarise the nation and it is AKP that locked cities down for days on end, who is killing kurds with out any legal process whatsoever, it is allegedly AKP supporters that are threatening on television opposition journalists with violence. Then when that violence occurs im exactly the way threatened the supporter - a ministerial candidate - is not even questioned by police, by he took the stage with Davutoglu just 2 days ago.

          AKP is allegedly courting mercenaries and thugs to achieve its aims ...

          AKP is attacking kurds in northern syria and iraq because they are too strong and they are closing the gap across the Euphrates and further west - AKP have made it very clear they will not tolerate that. Why, i wonder. ISIS supply lines allegedly.

          And you are still taliking about PKK.

          Hilarious

          littlewoodenblock -> Paul Easton 1 Nov 2015 12:06

          Civil war, terrorism, providing water to Cyprus, making the parliamentary election about him, the President, silencing fully opposition media, blaming the wests fear of a strong turkey to explain economic woes ... When you have complete control you can achieve what you want easily.

          The Turks are not fools, they are being lied to blatantly and they are scared

          Lathan Ismail 1 Nov 2015 12:04

          There will soon be comments describing AK party supporters as poor, uneducated, religious nutters from "enlightened" Europeans. With everything going in Turkey, Erdogan is popular because out of all the candidates he is the one the Turks think will offer economic prosperity. I think that is what matters the most to majority of voters I guess.

          Down2dirt -> atkurebeach 1 Nov 2015 11:56

          Nationalism is reaction itself. It doesn't need PKK or whatever. Was Lukashenko observing these elections? Balls to them

          Newcurrency 1 Nov 2015 11:49

          There is no ethnic pressure above Kurds for at least 10 years. You are the ones who turned our country into a bloodbath -- Killing innocent teachers, newly graduated doctors, officer's wifes who's only fault is sitting in their house, know your facts before you talk about peace.

          Don't expect people to support a man who talks of peace while his brother is in mountains fighting with states army.

          Newcurrency 1 Nov 2015 11:42

          I cant believe why major media sites like guardian is backing up a separatist like Selahattin Demirtaş. Do you really think a man who threatens people with violent street acts if hdp cant pass the election threshold is a peace talker ? The Tsipras of Turkey ? Don't mock with peoples intellegence...

          KK47 1 Nov 2015 11:42

          Few days ago I was berated by some posters for pointing out that though Erdogan was a polarising figure in Turkish politics he won't lose heavily (in fact he actually won more votes through his cynical act of social imperialism) because the political opposition to him is too incompetent and cliquey (ie non are interested in broadening their political support beyond their base, MHP for instance call Alevites heretics and want a death list of all Kurdish activists, CHP are uninterested in courting religious Turks or Kurds, HDP is still a nationalist party despite its liberal pretentions) to beat Erdogan and it seems my predictions have come true.

          Now here's my next prediction - watch for a more aggressive/militaristic approach towards Syria by the Turkish government.

          [Nov 01, 2015] Erdogan's party enjoys decisive election victory in Turkey

          Looks like neo-Islamism = neoliberalism and radical Islam is a part of neoliberal fifth column... a definition of neo-Islamism includes these key characteristics: non-traditional religiosity, gradualism, Islam modernization, nationalism and pragmatic relations with the West. They are trying to rally a larger constituency than hard-core devout Muslims, recasting religious norms as more vague conservative values (family, property, work ethic, honesty) adopting a neoliberal approach to the economy, and endorsing a constitution, and parliament and regular elections. (Roy 2011a 31. Roy, O., 2011a. The paradoxes of the re-Islamisation of Muslim societies, 10 years after september 11. Available from: http://essays.ssrc.org/10yearsafter911/the-paradoxes-of-the-re-islamization-of-muslim-societies/ [accessed 14 October 2014]. See also Neo-Islamism in the post-Arab Spring - Contemporary Politics - Volume 20, Issue 4 The Turkish ruling party AKP provided an interesting example of this trend which changed their priorities merging "shariatization" with the nationalism and expansion of nation state (Nationalist Islamism)
          Notable quotes:
          "... I share the frustration expressed by other posts with WAPO and other Western journalism on Turkey. Luckily for me, the strategy behind the AKP victory was explained to me several days priors to the election by a fellow with intimate knowledge of Turkey. Erdogan looked at the Nationalist MHP and Islamist SP and figured out that his only way for strengthen his support would be by moving as many of their voters to the AKP. ..."
          "... He figured that a rift with the Kurds will attract the nationalists and more Islamist positions will attract the latter. If you compare the results of the Nov 1 elections with the June 7 elections, you can see that it worked brilliantly. ..."
          "... The great experiment in westernized Islam is dead. ..."
          "... I would be only relieved if Turkish government would come up and speak all of those words you have mentioned. Iran did it. I have to respect that. They said what they stood for and that they do not like any others very clearly. This is at least honest and brave. If Turkey can pronounce its standing in between West and East, if you will, I will the most proud person even though I will be standing against here. Very well said. ..."
          "... byetki - Exactly! At least a snake has dignity. A rat will do anything to survive! ..."
          "... Remember the cynical adage about Democracy? Many of us rooted for, supported the campaign of, and voted for Obama. And what did we get? Obama and Erdogan and King Salman: and ongoing wars as far the eye can see. ..."
          "... Bombing your own people wins elections. The Americans taught us this.. ..."
          The Washington Post

          Josh26

          I share the frustration expressed by other posts with WAPO and other Western journalism on Turkey. Luckily for me, the strategy behind the AKP victory was explained to me several days priors to the election by a fellow with intimate knowledge of Turkey. Erdogan looked at the Nationalist MHP and Islamist SP and figured out that his only way for strengthen his support would be by moving as many of their voters to the AKP.

          He figured that a rift with the Kurds will attract the nationalists and more Islamist positions will attract the latter. If you compare the results of the Nov 1 elections with the June 7 elections, you can see that it worked brilliantly.

          Thus, Erdogan moved Turkey even further from the Western/democratic world in order to realize his unrelenting ambition for more and more power.
          The US needs now to rely much more on the Kurds to defend US interests in the area, but it will be a real surprise if the current WH will do it.

          Oscargo, 9:38 PM EST [Edited]

          Turkey has chosen a religious Islamist state and an intolerant regime that jails reporters and journalists, even foreign, and does not accept dissent, over the pluralism, inclusiveness and freedom of speech of the European democracies.

          Bye Bye EU!

          Steve Willer

          Who says corruption, murder, nullifying elections that don't come out your way, jailing the media etc doesn't pay? It did for Erdogan. Turkey should be removed from NATO as long as Erdogan is Sultan.

          realityboy

          The great experiment in "westernized" Islam is dead.

          byetki

          I would be only relieved if Turkish government would come up and speak all of those words you have mentioned. Iran did it. I have to respect that. They said what they stood for and that they do not like any others very clearly. This is at least honest and brave. If Turkey can pronounce its standing in between West and East, if you will, I will the most proud person even though I will be standing against here. Very well said.

          ed_bx__

          byetki - Exactly! At least a snake has dignity. A rat will do anything to survive!

          MACLANE

          Optimist on Democracy. Remember the cynical adage about Democracy? Many of us rooted for, supported the campaign of, and voted for Obama. And what did we get? Obama and Erdogan and King Salman: and ongoing wars as far the eye can see.

          FalseProphet

          So Turkey moves closer to being a autocratic theocracy. can't be good

          ed_bx__, 4:14 PM EST

          Bombing your own people wins elections. The Americans taught us this..

          ed_bx__, 4:06 PM EST

          It's not too late to get behind Al Assad. He is a more natural ally to the west than Erdogan.

          [Nov 01, 2015] The Rise and Decline of the Turkish "Deep State": The Ergenekon Case

          Notable quotes:
          "... The Theory of Distributional Coalitions Mancur Olson's theory of distributional coalitions holds that, as societies establish themselves, group interests become more identifiable, and subsets of the society organize in an effort to secure these interests. ..."
          "... This exclusivity factor is of special importance in the way these rent-seeking (or special-interest) groups operate, since, unlike highly-encompassing organizations, exclusive organizations do not have an incentive to increase the productivity of the society. This is due to the disproportion between the sizes of the exclusive organization and the population. To use Olson's idiom, such organizations are in a position either to make larger the pie the society produces or to obtain larger slices for their members. ..."
          "... That is still the case even when the organization's cost to the society is significantly more than the benefits it seeks for its members. Such behavior is not at all unexpected of exclusive organizations, since it is the very policy of exclusion itself that enables the group to distribute more to its members.In that respect, disproportional allocation of resources goes hand in hand with barriers to entry into the favored areas of the special-interest group. ..."
          "... The genesis of the Turkish deep state is traceable to the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP, ttihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti ), a secret society founded in Istanbul in 1889 by a group of medical students who had a passion for reform in the Ottoman Empire.3 The CUP organized so extensively that, in less than two decades, it became a revolutionary political organization with branches inside and outside the Ottoman Empire.4 Within the organization existed numerous factions, and the body of membership was ethnically and even ideologically diverse. ..."
          "... The CUP used the Fedaiin to have its political opponents assassinated, among other things, and later on, employed the Special Organization in the mass killings of the Ottoman- Armenians in 1915.8 The CUP disbanded in 1918, a year that also marked the beginning of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. ..."
          "... "Unionism" ( ttihatç l k ) has persisted in the political culture of Turkey, and has manifested itself primarily in (1) ultranationalism, (2) military involvement/ intervention in politics, and (3) justification of extrajudicial activities and violence in the name of the fatherland ( vatan ). ..."
          "... Of particular importance among these clandestine operations were those by the Gendarmarie Intelligence and Counter-terror Unit (J TEM, Jandarma stihbarat ve Terörle Mücadele ), which is allegedly responsible for thousands of extrajudicial executions and assassinations of PKK sympathizers and supporters. ..."
          derinsular.com

          This paper argues that Mancur Olson's theory of distributional coalitions largely explains this network's raison d'être. The paper first outlines the main tenets of the theory, and then examines the historical roots of the Turkish deep state, as well as the paradigm shift its exposure caused in the public opinion. The network's

          • exclusive character,
          • impacts on the workings of the Turkish society, and finally
          • efforts to sustain its dominating influence, which is manifested especially in its attempts to reverse the country's democratization process,

          demonstrate that the emergence, influence, and the incentives of the Turkish deep state confirm the fundamental assumptions of Olson's theory.

          The Theory of Distributional Coalitions Mancur Olson's theory of distributional coalitions holds that, as societies establish themselves, group interests become more identifiable, and subsets of the society organize in an effort to secure these interests. Since these interests are best served by coordinated action, institutions emerge. Yet, such institutions tend to be exclusive by nature, and pursue only the interests of their own members, who account to a very small minority.

          This exclusivity factor is of special importance in the way these rent-seeking (or special-interest) groups operate, since, unlike highly-encompassing organizations, exclusive organizations do not have an incentive to increase the productivity of the society. This is due to the disproportion between the sizes of the exclusive organization and the population. To use Olson's idiom, such organizations are in a position either to make larger the pie the society produces or to obtain larger slices for their members.

          "Our intuition tells us," Olson says, "that the first method will rarely be chosen."2 Because, on the one hand, it is very costly to increase the productivity of society as a whole, and on the other, even if this is achieved, the The Rise and Decline of the Turkish "Deep State": The Ergenekon Case 101 members of the minuscule organization will accordingly reap only a minuscule portion of the benefits.

          Therefore, exclusive groups aim to present their own interests as being the interests of their constituencies, and to use all of their organizational power for collective action in that direction.

          That is still the case even when the organization's cost to the society is significantly more than the benefits it seeks for its members. Such behavior is not at all unexpected of exclusive organizations, since it is the very policy of exclusion itself that enables the group to distribute more to its members.In that respect, disproportional allocation of resources goes hand in hand with barriers to entry into the favored areas of the special-interest group.

          Yet the existence of barriers to entry further damages the society by reducing the economic growth.

          When coupled with the interferences of the special-interest groups with the possibilities of change in the existing state of affairs, the level of the reduction in economic growth can be large.

          In order to achieve their goals, special-interest groups engage in lobbying activities and collusion – both of which, by creating special provisions and exceptions, further increase not only inefficiency but also (1) the complexity of regulation, (2) the scope of government, and (3) the complexity of understandings.

          The Formation and the Evolution of the Turkish Deep State The genesis of the Turkish deep state is traceable to the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP, İttihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti), a secret society founded in Istanbul in 1889 by a group of medical students who had a passion for reform in the Ottoman Empire.3 The CUP organized so extensively that, in less than two decades, it became a revolutionary political organization with branches inside and outside the Ottoman Empire.4 Within the organization existed numerous factions, and the body of membership was ethnically and even ideologically diverse.

          Yet it was the commonly-shared goal of changing the regime rather than conformity that bound the members together, and they successfully achieved that goal with the Young Turk Revolution of 1908, which restored the Constitution of 1876 (Kanun-ı Esasi) that restricted the powers of the Sultan, and made the Ottoman Empire a constitutional monarchy again after 32 years of absolutism.

          The genesis of the Turkish deep state is traceable to the Committee of Union and Progress, a secret society founded in Istanbul in 1889 by a group of medical students who had a passion for reform in the Ottoman Empire SERDAR KAYA 102 What makes the CUP extraordinary as a case is that it never fully transformed into a genuine political party even after the revolution it brought about.

          Instead, it continued to operate as the secret committee it always was.5 Back then, in reference to this fact, some of the critics of the CUP had coined the phrase "invisible people" (rical-i gayb).6 In the end, this code of conduct rendered the committee as a clandestine force that exerted influence by informal means in order to change the course of affairs the way it saw fit.

          The reflections of that proclivity are traceable in many of the major occurrences of the time.

          In what is today commonly referred to as the coup of 1913, for example, a group of CUP operatives broke into the Sublime Porte as the Cabinet was in session, murdered the minister of defense and two prominent government officials, and forced the Grand Vizier, the head of the Cabinet, to resign immediately.

          The coup of 1913 is also important in that it set a precedent in the country for military interventions and ultimatums, the latest of which occurred on April 27, 2007.

          A second example to the code of conduct of the CUP may be the clandestine activities of the Special Organization7 (Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa).

          Although the CUP established the Special Organization in 1913, ten months after the coup of 1913, it was in fact the continuation of the Fedaiin, the secret organization the CUP established in 1905 – that is, before the Young Turk Revolution of 1908.

          The CUP used the Fedaiin to have its political opponents assassinated, among other things, and later on, employed the Special Organization in the mass killings of the Ottoman- Armenians in 1915.8 The CUP disbanded in 1918, a year that also marked the beginning of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after World War I.

          However, many of its members as well as the political culture it created survived within the Republic of Turkey.

          To this day, "Unionism" (İttihatçılık) has persisted in the political culture of Turkey, and has manifested itself primarily in (1) ultranationalism, (2) military involvement/ intervention in politics, and (3) justification of extrajudicial activities and violence in the name of the fatherland (vatan).

          Nevertheless, different aspects of this political culture have gained primacy in different periods, and with the influence of the changes in the domestic and international conjuncture, it more or less evolved. For example, during the One Party Era (1925-45), the influence of interwarperiod fascism further radicalized the nationalist ideology of the ruling cadre. Then, in the 1960s, variations of the same Unionist background found expression The Rise and Decline of the Turkish "Deep State": The Ergenekon Case 103 in the rightist and leftist political movements, which, unsurprisingly, entered into violent conflict in the 1970s.

          In the mid-1980s, the Kurdish question reemerged with the terrorist activities of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), the separatist guerilla group, which became a source of instability in the southeast region of the country, and in so doing, provided a new fertile ground for the clandestine operations of the Turkish deep state.

          Of particular importance among these clandestine operations were those by the Gendarmarie Intelligence and Counter-terror Unit (JİTEM, Jandarma İstihbarat ve Terörle Mücadele), which is allegedly responsible for thousands of extrajudicial executions and assassinations of PKK sympathizers and supporters.

          Yet the same decade also marked the time period in which Turkey opened its borders and started to integrate with the rest of the world. As a result, after the 1980s, new social, political and economic perspectives started to emerge. However, this new West that Turkey came to closer contact with during and after the 1980s was fundamentally different from the West of the interwar period in that the former was democratic, and the latter fascist.

          The increasing interaction with the West did not instantly trigger the demands for democratization in the country. It was the Susurluk scandal and a combination of other events that occurred approximately a decade later that started to dramatically shift the prevalant paradigms. On the one hand, these experiences created a more profound societal cognizance of questioning authority, and on the other, in line with these experiences, people came to attach new meanings to the nature of the state-society relations in Turkey in a manner which provided a more convenient ground for the democratization process in the country.

          Apparently, these paradigm shifts also coincided with the developments since the Helsinki European Council of 1999, where the European Union (EU) formally referred to Turkey as a candidate and thus invigorated the country's accession process.

          [Nov 01, 2015] Anatomy of the Deep State

          Notable quotes:
          "... During the time in 2011 when political warfare over the debt ceiling was beginning to paralyze the business of governance in Washington, the United States government somehow summoned the resources to overthrow Muammar Ghaddafi's regime in Libya, and, when the instability created by that coup spilled over into Mali, provide overt and covert assistance to French intervention there. ..."
          "... Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not ..."
          "... Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." ..."
          "... The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street. All these agencies are coordinated by the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council. Certain key areas of the judiciary belong to the Deep State, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose actions are mysterious even to most members of Congress. ..."
          "... The Party is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted , appeared in paperback on August 27, 2013. ..."
          "... "These men, largely private, were functioning on a level different from the foreign policy of the United States, and years later when New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan read through the entire documentary history of the war, that history known as the Pentagon Papers, he would come away with one impression above all, which was that the government of the United States was not what he had thought it was; it was as if there were an inner U.S. government, what he called 'a centralized state, far more powerful than anything else, for whom the enemy is not simply the Communists but everything else, its own press, its own judiciary, its own Congress, foreign and friendly governments – all these are potentially antagonistic. ..."
          "... The IMF/World Bank scam was working for a while. It doesn't work any more: South American countries simply reject it. And the US has no power to muscle South American countries any more; I'm not quite sure how they managed to become immune to US military intervention, but they have. They have had about 200 years of trial and error in figuring out how. ..."
          "... Just before the Civil War, we saw the same dynamic: most of the country was completely disillusioned about the "slavocracy", as they called the corrupt US government dominated by slaveholders. This led to the election of Lincoln, the destruction of the Whig Party, and finally, the Civil War. ..."
          February 21, 2014 | billmoyers.com

          Rome lived upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face. Industry is the only true source of wealth, and there was no industry in Rome. By day the Ostia road was crowded with carts and muleteers, carrying to the great city the silks and spices of the East, the marble of Asia Minor, the timber of the Atlas, the grain of Africa and Egypt; and the carts brought out nothing but loads of dung. That was their return cargo.

          The Martyrdom of Man by Winwood Reade (1871)


          There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power. [1]

          During the last five years, the news media has been flooded with pundits decrying the broken politics of Washington. The conventional wisdom has it that partisan gridlock and dysfunction have become the new normal. That is certainly the case, and I have been among the harshest critics of this development. But it is also imperative to acknowledge the limits of this critique as it applies to the American governmental system. On one level, the critique is self-evident: In the domain that the public can see, Congress is hopelessly deadlocked in the worst manner since the 1850s, the violently rancorous decade preceding the Civil War.

          Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country…

          As I wrote in The Party is Over, the present objective of congressional Republicans is to render the executive branch powerless, at least until a Republican president is elected (a goal that voter suppression laws in GOP-controlled states are clearly intended to accomplish). President Obama cannot enact his domestic policies and budgets: Because of incessant GOP filibustering, not only could he not fill the large number of vacancies in the federal judiciary, he could not even get his most innocuous presidential appointees into office. Democrats controlling the Senate have responded by weakening the filibuster of nominations, but Republicans are sure to react with other parliamentary delaying tactics. This strategy amounts to congressional nullification of executive branch powers by a party that controls a majority in only one house of Congress.

          Despite this apparent impotence, President Obama can liquidate American citizens without due processes, detain prisoners indefinitely without charge, conduct dragnet surveillance on the American people without judicial warrant and engage in unprecedented - at least since the McCarthy era - witch hunts against federal employees (the so-called "Insider Threat Program"). Within the United States, this power is characterized by massive displays of intimidating force by militarized federal, state and local law enforcement. Abroad, President Obama can start wars at will and engage in virtually any other activity whatsoever without so much as a by-your-leave from Congress, such as arranging the forced landing of a plane carrying a sovereign head of state over foreign territory. Despite the habitual cant of congressional Republicans about executive overreach by Obama, the would-be dictator, we have until recently heard very little from them about these actions - with the minor exception of comments from gadfly Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. Democrats, save a few mavericks such as Ron Wyden of Oregon, are not unduly troubled, either - even to the extent of permitting seemingly perjured congressional testimony under oath by executive branch officials on the subject of illegal surveillance.

          These are not isolated instances of a contradiction; they have been so pervasive that they tend to be disregarded as background noise. During the time in 2011 when political warfare over the debt ceiling was beginning to paralyze the business of governance in Washington, the United States government somehow summoned the resources to overthrow Muammar Ghaddafi's regime in Libya, and, when the instability created by that coup spilled over into Mali, provide overt and covert assistance to French intervention there. At a time when there was heated debate about continuing meat inspections and civilian air traffic control because of the budget crisis, our government was somehow able to commit $115 million to keeping a civil war going in Syria and to pay at least £100m to the United Kingdom's Government Communications Headquarters to buy influence over and access to that country's intelligence. Since 2007, two bridges carrying interstate highways have collapsed due to inadequate maintenance of infrastructure, one killing 13 people. During that same period of time, the government spent $1.7 billion constructing a building in Utah that is the size of 17 football fields. This mammoth structure is intended to allow the National Security Agency to store a yottabyte of information, the largest numerical designator computer scientists have coined. A yottabyte is equal to 500 quintillion pages of text. They need that much storage to archive every single trace of your electronic life.

          Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an "establishment." All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only the Deep State's protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude. [2]

          How did I come to write an analysis of the Deep State, and why am I equipped to write it? As a congressional staff member for 28 years specializing in national security and possessing a top secret security clearance, I was at least on the fringes of the world I am describing, if neither totally in it by virtue of full membership nor of it by psychological disposition. But, like virtually every employed person, I became, to some extent, assimilated into the culture of the institution I worked for, and only by slow degrees, starting before the invasion of Iraq, did I begin fundamentally to question the reasons of state that motivate the people who are, to quote George W. Bush, "the deciders."

          Reactions: Andrew Bacevich on Washington's Tacit Consensus

          Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

          A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer dead weight of the ordinariness of it all once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the 10,000th time. Government life is typically not some vignette from an Allen Drury novel about intrigue under the Capitol dome. Sitting and staring at the clock on the off-white office wall when it's 11:00 in the evening and you are vowing never, ever to eat another piece of takeout pizza in your life is not an experience that summons the higher literary instincts of a would-be memoirist. After a while, a functionary of the state begins to hear things that, in another context, would be quite remarkable, or at least noteworthy, and yet that simply bounce off one's consciousness like pebbles off steel plate: "You mean the number of terrorist groups we are fighting is classified?" No wonder so few people are whistle-blowers, quite apart from the vicious retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes: Unless one is blessed with imagination and a fine sense of irony, growing immune to the curiousness of one's surroundings is easy. To paraphrase the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, I didn't know all that I knew, at least until I had had a couple of years away from the government to reflect upon it.

          The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street. All these agencies are coordinated by the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council. Certain key areas of the judiciary belong to the Deep State, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose actions are mysterious even to most members of Congress. Also included are a handful of vital federal trial courts, such as the Eastern District of Virginia and the Southern District of Manhattan, where sensitive proceedings in national security cases are conducted. The final government component (and possibly last in precedence among the formal branches of government established by the Constitution) is a kind of rump Congress consisting of the congressional leadership and some (but not all) of the members of the defense and intelligence committees. The rest of Congress, normally so fractious and partisan, is mostly only intermittently aware of the Deep State and when required usually submits to a few well-chosen words from the State's emissaries.

          I saw this submissiveness on many occasions. One memorable incident was passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008. This legislation retroactively legalized the Bush administration's illegal and unconstitutional surveillance first revealed by The New York Times in 2005 and indemnified the telecommunications companies for their cooperation in these acts. The bill passed easily: All that was required was the invocation of the word "terrorism" and most members of Congress responded like iron filings obeying a magnet. One who responded in that fashion was Senator Barack Obama, soon to be coronated as the presidential nominee at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. He had already won the most delegates by campaigning to the left of his main opponent, Hillary Clinton, on the excesses of the global war on terror and the erosion of constitutional liberties.

          As the indemnification vote showed, the Deep State does not consist only of government agencies. What is euphemistically called "private enterprise" is an integral part of its operations. In a special series in The Washington Post called "Top Secret America," Dana Priest and William K. Arkin described the scope of the privatized Deep State and the degree to which it has metastasized after the September 11 attacks. There are now 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances - a number greater than that of top-secret-cleared civilian employees of the government. While they work throughout the country and the world, their heavy concentration in and around the Washington suburbs is unmistakable: Since 9/11, 33 facilities for top-secret intelligence have been built or are under construction. Combined, they occupy the floor space of almost three Pentagons - about 17 million square feet. Seventy percent of the intelligence community's budget goes to paying contracts. And the membrane between government and industry is highly permeable: The Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper, is a former executive of Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the government's largest intelligence contractors. His predecessor as director, Admiral Mike McConnell, is the current vice chairman of the same company; Booz Allen is 99 percent dependent on government business. These contractors now set the political and social tone of Washington, just as they are increasingly setting the direction of the country, but they are doing it quietly, their doings unrecorded in the Congressional Record or the Federal Register, and are rarely subject to congressional hearings.

          Reactions: Danielle Brian on Legalized Corruption

          Washington is the most important node of the Deep State that has taken over America, but it is not the only one. Invisible threads of money and ambition connect the town to other nodes. One is Wall Street, which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary marionette theater. Should the politicians forget their lines and threaten the status quo, Wall Street floods the town with cash and lawyers to help the hired hands remember their own best interests. The executives of the financial giants even have de facto criminal immunity. On March 6, 2013, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric Holder stated the following: "I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy." This, from the chief law enforcement officer of a justice system that has practically abolished the constitutional right to trial for poorer defendants charged with certain crimes. It is not too much to say that Wall Street may be the ultimate owner of the Deep State and its strategies, if for no other reason than that it has the money to reward government operatives with a second career that is lucrative beyond the dreams of avarice - certainly beyond the dreams of a salaried government employee. [3]

          The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well trodden highway for the personalities we have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others. Not all the traffic involves persons connected with the purely financial operations of the government: In 2013, General David Petraeus joined KKR (formerly Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) of 9 West 57th Street, New York, a private equity firm with $62.3 billion in assets. KKR specializes in management buyouts and leveraged finance. General Petraeus' expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however, is a known and valued commodity. Unlike Cincinnatus, the military commanders of the Deep State do not take up the plow once they lay down the sword. Petraeus also obtained a sinecure as a non-resident senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course, the preferred bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy. [4]

          Petraeus and most of the avatars of the Deep State - the White House advisers who urged Obama not to impose compensation limits on Wall Street CEOs, the contractor-connected think tank experts who besought us to "stay the course" in Iraq, the economic gurus who perpetually demonstrate that globalization and deregulation are a blessing that makes us all better off in the long run - are careful to pretend that they have no ideology. Their preferred pose is that of the politically neutral technocrat offering well considered advice based on profound expertise. That is nonsense. They are deeply dyed in the hue of the official ideology of the governing class, an ideology that is neither specifically Democrat nor Republican. Domestically, whatever they might privately believe about essentially diversionary social issues such as abortion or gay marriage, they almost invariably believe in the "Washington Consensus": financialization, outsourcing, privatization, deregulation and the commodifying of labor. Internationally, they espouse 21st-century "American Exceptionalism": the right and duty of the United States to meddle in every region of the world with coercive diplomacy and boots on the ground and to ignore painfully won international norms of civilized behavior. To paraphrase what Sir John Harrington said more than 400 years ago about treason, now that the ideology of the Deep State has prospered, none dare call it ideology. [5] That is why describing torture with the word "torture" on broadcast television is treated less as political heresy than as an inexcusable lapse of Washington etiquette: Like smoking a cigarette on camera, these days it is simply "not done."

          Reactions: Heidi Boghosian on Mass Surveillance

          After Edward Snowden's revelations about the extent and depth of surveillance by the National Security Agency, it has become publicly evident that Silicon Valley is a vital node of the Deep State as well. Unlike military and intelligence contractors, Silicon Valley overwhelmingly sells to the private market, but its business is so important to the government that a strange relationship has emerged. While the government could simply dragoon the high technology companies to do the NSA's bidding, it would prefer cooperation with so important an engine of the nation's economy, perhaps with an implied quid pro quo. Perhaps this explains the extraordinary indulgence the government shows the Valley in intellectual property matters. If an American "jailbreaks" his smartphone (i.e., modifies it so that it can use a service provider other than the one dictated by the manufacturer), he could receive a fine of up to $500,000 and several years in prison; so much for a citizen's vaunted property rights to what he purchases. The libertarian pose of the Silicon Valley moguls, so carefully cultivated in their public relations, has always been a sham. Silicon Valley has long been tracking for commercial purposes the activities of every person who uses an electronic device, so it is hardly surprising that the Deep State should emulate the Valley and do the same for its own purposes. Nor is it surprising that it should conscript the Valley's assistance.

          Still, despite the essential roles of lower Manhattan and Silicon Valley, the center of gravity of the Deep State is firmly situated in and around the Beltway. The Deep State's physical expansion and consolidation around the Beltway would seem to make a mockery of the frequent pronouncement that governance in Washington is dysfunctional and broken. That the secret and unaccountable Deep State floats freely above the gridlock between both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue is the paradox of American government in the 21st century: drone strikes, data mining, secret prisons and Panopticon-like control on the one hand; and on the other, the ordinary, visible parliamentary institutions of self-government declining to the status of a banana republic amid the gradual collapse of public infrastructure.

          The results of this contradiction are not abstract, as a tour of the rotting, decaying, bankrupt cities of the American Midwest will attest. It is not even confined to those parts of the country left behind by a Washington Consensus that decreed the financialization and deindustrialization of the economy in the interests of efficiency and shareholder value. This paradox is evident even within the Beltway itself, the richest metropolitan area in the nation. Although demographers and urban researchers invariably count Washington as a "world city," that is not always evident to those who live there. Virtually every time there is a severe summer thunderstorm, tens - or even hundreds - of thousands of residents lose power, often for many days. There are occasional water restrictions over wide areas because water mains, poorly constructed and inadequately maintained, have burst. [6] The Washington metropolitan area considers it a Herculean task just to build a rail link to its international airport - with luck it may be completed by 2018.

          It is as if Hadrian's Wall was still fully manned and the fortifications along the border with Germania were never stronger, even as the city of Rome disintegrates from within and the life-sustaining aqueducts leading down from the hills begin to crumble. The governing classes of the Deep State may continue to deceive themselves with their dreams of Zeus-like omnipotence, but others do not. A 2013 Pew Poll that interviewed 38,000 people around the world found that in 23 of 39 countries surveyed, a plurality of respondents said they believed China already had or would in the future replace the United States as the world's top economic power.

          The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war on terrorism, the financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy, the rise of a plutocratic social structure and political dysfunction. Washington is the headquarters of the Deep State, and its time in the sun as a rival to Rome, Constantinople or London may be term-limited by its overweening sense of self-importance and its habit, as Winwood Reade said of Rome, to "live upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face." "Living upon its principal," in this case, means that the Deep State has been extracting value from the American people in vampire-like fashion.

          We are faced with two disagreeable implications. First, that the Deep State is so heavily entrenched, so well protected by surveillance, firepower, money and its ability to co-opt resistance that it is almost impervious to change. Second, that just as in so many previous empires, the Deep State is populated with those whose instinctive reaction to the failure of their policies is to double down on those very policies in the future. Iraq was a failure briefly camouflaged by the wholly propagandistic success of the so-called surge; this legerdemain allowed for the surge in Afghanistan, which equally came to naught. Undeterred by that failure, the functionaries of the Deep State plunged into Libya; the smoking rubble of the Benghazi consulate, rather than discouraging further misadventure, seemed merely to incite the itch to bomb Syria. Will the Deep State ride on the back of the American people from failure to failure until the country itself, despite its huge reserves of human and material capital, is slowly exhausted? The dusty road of empire is strewn with the bones of former great powers that exhausted themselves in like manner.

          Reactions: Henry Giroux on Resisting the Neoliberal Revolution

          But, there are signs of resistance to the Deep State and its demands. In the aftermath of the Snowden revelations, the House narrowly failed to pass an amendment that would have defunded the NSA's warrantless collection of data from US persons. Shortly thereafter, the president, advocating yet another military intervention in the Middle East, this time in Syria, met with such overwhelming congressional skepticism that he changed the subject by grasping at a diplomatic lifeline thrown to him by Vladimir Putin. [7]

          Has the visible, constitutional state, the one envisaged by Madison and the other Founders, finally begun to reassert itself against the claims and usurpations of the Deep State? To some extent, perhaps. The unfolding revelations of the scope of the NSA's warrantless surveillance have become so egregious that even institutional apologists such as Senator Dianne Feinstein have begun to backpedal - if only rhetorically - from their knee-jerk defense of the agency. As more people begin to waken from the fearful and suggestible state that 9/11 created in their minds, it is possible that the Deep State's decade-old tactic of crying "terrorism!" every time it faces resistance is no longer eliciting the same Pavlovian response of meek obedience. And the American people, possibly even their legislators, are growing tired of endless quagmires in the Middle East.

          But there is another more structural reason the Deep State may have peaked in the extent of its dominance. While it seems to float above the constitutional state, its essentially parasitic, extractive nature means that it is still tethered to the formal proceedings of governance. The Deep State thrives when there is tolerable functionality in the day-to-day operations of the federal government. As long as appropriations bills get passed on time, promotion lists get confirmed, black (i.e., secret) budgets get rubber-stamped, special tax subsidies for certain corporations are approved without controversy, as long as too many awkward questions are not asked, the gears of the hybrid state will mesh noiselessly. But when one house of Congress is taken over by tea party Wahhabites, life for the ruling class becomes more trying.

          If there is anything the Deep State requires it is silent, uninterrupted cash flow and the confidence that things will go on as they have in the past. It is even willing to tolerate a degree of gridlock: Partisan mud wrestling over cultural issues may be a useful distraction from its agenda. But recent congressional antics involving sequestration, the government shutdown and the threat of default over the debt ceiling extension have been disrupting that equilibrium. And an extreme gridlock dynamic has developed between the two parties such that continuing some level of sequestration is politically the least bad option for both parties, albeit for different reasons. As much as many Republicans might want to give budget relief to the organs of national security, they cannot fully reverse sequestration without the Democrats demanding revenue increases. And Democrats wanting to spend more on domestic discretionary programs cannot void sequestration on either domestic or defense programs without Republicans insisting on entitlement cuts.

          So, for the foreseeable future, the Deep State must restrain its appetite for taxpayer dollars. Limited deals may soften sequestration, but agency requests will not likely be fully funded anytime soon. Even Wall Street's rentier operations have been affected: After helping finance the tea party to advance its own plutocratic ambitions, America's Big Money is now regretting the Frankenstein's monster it has created. Like children playing with dynamite, the tea party and its compulsion to drive the nation into credit default has alarmed the grown-ups commanding the heights of capital; the latter are now telling the politicians they thought they had hired to knock it off.

          The House vote to defund the NSA's illegal surveillance programs was equally illustrative of the disruptive nature of the tea party insurgency. Civil liberties Democrats alone would never have come so close to victory; tea party stalwart Justin Amash (R-MI), who has also upset the business community for his debt-limit fundamentalism, was the lead Republican sponsor of the NSA amendment, and most of the Republicans who voted with him were aligned with the tea party.

          The final factor is Silicon Valley. Owing to secrecy and obfuscation, it is hard to know how much of the NSA's relationship with the Valley is based on voluntary cooperation, how much is legal compulsion through FISA warrants and how much is a matter of the NSA surreptitiously breaking into technology companies' systems. Given the Valley's public relations requirement to mollify its customers who have privacy concerns, it is difficult to take the tech firms' libertarian protestations about government compromise of their systems at face value, especially since they engage in similar activity against their own customers for commercial purposes. That said, evidence is accumulating that Silicon Valley is losing billions in overseas business from companies, individuals and governments that want to maintain privacy. For high tech entrepreneurs, the cash nexus is ultimately more compelling than the Deep State's demand for patriotic cooperation. Even legal compulsion can be combatted: Unlike the individual citizen, tech firms have deep pockets and batteries of lawyers with which to fight government diktat.

          This pushback has gone so far that on January 17, President Obama announced revisions to the NSA's data collection programs, including withdrawing the agency's custody of a domestic telephone record database, expanding requirements for judicial warrants and ceasing to spy on (undefined) "friendly foreign leaders." Critics have denounced the changes as a cosmetic public relations move, but they are still significant in that the clamor has gotten so loud that the president feels the political need to address it.

          When the contradictions within a ruling ideology are pushed too far, factionalism appears and that ideology begins slowly to crumble. Corporate oligarchs such as the Koch brothers are no longer entirely happy with the faux-populist political front group they helped fund and groom. Silicon Valley, for all the Ayn Rand-like tendencies of its major players, its offshoring strategies and its further exacerbation of income inequality, is now lobbying Congress to restrain the NSA, a core component of the Deep State. Some tech firms are moving to encrypt their data. High tech corporations and governments alike seek dominance over people though collection of personal data, but the corporations are jumping ship now that adverse public reaction to the NSA scandals threatens their profits.

          The outcome of all these developments is uncertain. The Deep State, based on the twin pillars of national security imperative and corporate hegemony, has until recently seemed unshakable and the latest events may only be a temporary perturbation in its trajectory. But history has a way of toppling the altars of the mighty. While the two great materialist and determinist ideologies of the twentieth century, Marxism and the Washington Consensus, successively decreed that the dictatorship of the proletariat and the dictatorship of the market were inevitable, the future is actually indeterminate. It may be that deep economic and social currents create the framework of history, but those currents can be channeled, eddied, or even reversed by circumstance, chance and human agency. We have only to reflect upon defunct glacial despotisms such as the USSR or East Germany to realize that nothing is forever.

          Throughout history, state systems with outsized pretensions to power have reacted to their environments in two ways. The first strategy, reflecting the ossification of its ruling elites, consists of repeating that nothing is wrong, that the status quo reflects the nation's unique good fortune in being favored by God and that those calling for change are merely subversive troublemakers. As the French ancien régime, the Romanov dynasty and the Habsburg emperors discovered, the strategy works splendidly for a while, particularly if one has a talent for dismissing unpleasant facts. The final results, however, are likely to be thoroughly disappointing.

          The second strategy is one embraced to varying degrees and with differing goals, by figures of such contrasting personalities as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Charles de Gaulle and Deng Xiaoping. They were certainly not revolutionaries by temperament; if anything, their natures were conservative. But they understood that the political cultures in which they lived were fossilized and incapable of adapting to the times. In their drive to reform and modernize the political systems they inherited, their first obstacles to overcome were the outworn myths that encrusted the thinking of the elites of their time.

          As the United States confronts its future after experiencing two failed wars, a precarious economy and $17 trillion in accumulated debt, the national punditry has split into two camps. The first, the declinists, sees a broken, dysfunctional political system incapable of reform and an economy soon to be overtaken by China. The second, the reformers, offers a profusion of nostrums to turn the nation around: public financing of elections to sever the artery of money between the corporate components of the Deep State and financially dependent elected officials, government "insourcing" to reverse the tide of outsourcing of government functions and the conflicts of interest that it creates, a tax policy that values human labor over financial manipulation and a trade policy that favors exporting manufactured goods over exporting investment capital.

          Mike Lofgren on the Deep State Hiding in Plain Sight

          All of that is necessary, but not sufficient. The Snowden revelations (the impact of which have been surprisingly strong), the derailed drive for military intervention in Syria and a fractious Congress, whose dysfunction has begun to be a serious inconvenience to the Deep State, show that there is now a deep but as yet inchoate hunger for change. What America lacks is a figure with the serene self-confidence to tell us that the twin idols of national security and corporate power are outworn dogmas that have nothing more to offer us. Thus disenthralled, the people themselves will unravel the Deep State with surprising speed.

          [1] The term "Deep State" was coined in Turkey and is said to be a system composed of high-level elements within the intelligence services, military, security, judiciary and organized crime. In British author John le Carré's latest novel, A Delicate Truth, a character describes the Deep State as "… the ever-expanding circle of non-governmental insiders from banking, industry and commerce who were cleared for highly classified information denied to large swathes of Whitehall and Westminster." I use the term to mean a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process.

          [2] Twenty-five years ago, the sociologist Robert Nisbet described this phenomenon as "the attribute of No Fault…. Presidents, secretaries and generals and admirals in America seemingly subscribe to the doctrine that no fault ever attaches to policy and operations. This No Fault conviction prevents them from taking too seriously such notorious foul-ups as Desert One, Grenada, Lebanon and now the Persian Gulf." To his list we might add 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

          [3] The attitude of many members of Congress towards Wall Street was memorably expressed by Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), the incoming chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, in 2010: "In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks."

          [4] Beginning in 1988, every US president has been a graduate of Harvard or Yale. Beginning in 2000, every losing presidential candidate has been a Harvard or Yale graduate, with the exception of John McCain in 2008.

          [5] In recent months, the American public has seen a vivid example of a Deep State operative marketing his ideology under the banner of pragmatism. Former Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates - a one-time career CIA officer and deeply political Bush family retainer - has camouflaged his retrospective defense of military escalations that have brought us nothing but casualties and fiscal grief as the straight-from-the-shoulder memoir from a plain-spoken son of Kansas who disdains Washington and its politicians.

          [6] Meanwhile, the US government took the lead in restoring Baghdad's sewer system at a cost of $7 billion.

          [7] Obama's abrupt about-face suggests he may have been skeptical of military intervention in Syria all along, but only dropped that policy once Congress and Putin gave him the running room to do so. In 2009, he went ahead with the Afghanistan "surge" partly because General Petraeus' public relations campaign and back-channel lobbying on the Hill for implementation of his pet military strategy pre-empted other options. These incidents raise the disturbing question of how much the democratically elected president - or any president - sets the policy of the national security state and how much the policy is set for him by the professional operatives of that state who engineer faits accomplis that force his hand.

          Mike Lofgren is a former congressional staff member who served on both the House and Senate budget committees. His book about Congress, The Party is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted, appeared in paperback on August 27, 2013.

          BillMoyers.com encourages conversation and debate around issues, events and ideas related to content on Moyers & Company and the BillMoyers.com website.

          • The editorial staff reserves the right to take down comments it deems inappropriate.
          • Profanity, personal attacks, hate speech, off-topic posts, advertisements and spam will not be tolerated.
          • Do not intentionally make false or misleading statements, impersonate someone else, break the law, or condone or encourage unlawful activity.

          If your comments consistently or intentionally make this community a less civil and enjoyable place to be, you and your comments will be excluded from it.

          We need your help with this. If you feel a post is not in line with the comment policy, please flag it so that we can take a look. Comments and questions about our policy are welcome. Please send an email to [email protected]

          Find out more about BillMoyers.com's privacy policy and terms of service.

          • Anonymous

            Another attribute of the "Deep State" is that is highly nepotistic. Entry into it relies on connections rather than skill. Many positions within it exist simply to provide suitably lucrative work for the children of the ruling class.

          • Nisswapaddy

            Lofgren has certainly provided a good overview of the situation, although what he postulates is by no means original thinking. However, it is particularly heartening to have this analysis come from a fellow who could easily have sold his soul like David Petraeus, to name just one in an endless line of the well connected who have cashed in. Yet I believe our situation is more dire than even Lofgren suggests. As the philosopher John Ralston Saul characterized it, we have undergone a coup d'etat in slow motion and now live, not in a constitutional democracy but 'Democracy Inc.' (described in detail in a book by the same name by Prof. Sheldon Wolin). LIke Lofgren, neither of these thinkers sees some carefully contrived conspiracy at work. It is merely the inevitable result of following a rigid ideology that allows unfettered corporate capitalism to have its way unopposed and essentially unregulated. Now that massive corporation have taken control of all the levers of power (as Lofgren summarizes above) it will be very, very difficult for 'the people' to take them back. Remember what Upton Sinclair observed over 100 years ago:

            "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him NOT understanding it."

            I give you men like Dave Petraeus, or Jamie Dimon or (fill in the blank) who are subject to this 'lack of understanding'. They are not co-conspirators, at least not in any active, conscious sense. However, the corporations they work for, whose only function is to maximize profits for the benefit of their shareholders and investors and to 'externalize' any and all costs and expenses possible, are, by definition, sociopaths. And those corporations, run by men and women simply doing their jobs and going home to a loving family, also have a 'lack of understanding'. When the corporation you work for has only reason for being, to make a profit 'come heck or high water', and that corporation and hundreds of others with the she mission, control the executive, congress, the judiciary and their regulators (who are now required to call the corporations they supposedly regulate "their customers" ) it doesn't take much imagination to see how we got where we are. Nor how it is that corporations get what they need, the rest of us be dammed. In short, the 'deep state' Lofgren shines a light on is much deeper than he indicates. And it will take more than spats between large corporations to bring it to an end.

          • William Jacoby

            Good essay but everybody should know this by now. In the next elections, in which good candidates will by definition not be viable because they won't be bankrolled by the Deep State, we must use the alternative media to coalesce around a few non-negotiable demands. Things like prosecuting Clapper for lying, immediate prohibition of the intelligence community's revolving door, nationalization of companies like Booz Allen, creation of public banks as suggested by Ellen Brown and nationalization of banks too big to fail, a student loan debt strike, and a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United. Failure to grant these demands must be met with withdrawal from the two-party system; go Green or go Libertarian, whichever you prefer, but put a monkey wrench in the system. Keep using the alternative media, defend them from the Deep State, educate yourself, network with the growing numbers of people who are onto the Deep State, or the National Security State, or whatever you want to call it. But get over talking about how the Constitution is in danger; it's dead, and if there's anything you liked about it, you'll have to bring it back from the graveyard. Take action, and support others who do.

          • cross1242

            Unfortunately, I don't see anything changing the Deep State or the government in Washington until there is some kind of revolution. That revolution might be bloodless but nothing guarantees that. If the Deep State ultimately feels threatened, it will defend itself with all the national security forces at its command.

          • Yes. An example. Paper granted PhD's are "promised" suitably lucrative work in academia. So it's not just corporate.

          • http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/ abbeysbooks

            Time for you to read Foucault's Discipline and Punish and all the rest of his work. Include Virilio, Baudrillard and the rest of Continental Philosophy. Lofgren is just catching up with a long way to go. Check out Zizek.

          • Kibik

            Look up "Bohemian Club" too.

          • Peter Michaelson

            The fact that an invisible government of elites is in charge of our democracy is entirely predictable. This political arrangement simply depicts the state of our psychological development. We have a "Deep State" within our unconscious mind. Our thoughts, desires, aspirations, and beliefs are all under the influence of this inner "Deep State." Through our ego we're each like a puppet prince, thinking we're in charge of the show. Both liberals and conservatives have too much invested in self-image and are afraid of facing what amounts to an inner tyranny. We're too egotistical and narcissistic; we don't want to be humbled by inner truth. We've produced superficial psychologies (behavioral, positive, cognitive, etc.) that refuse to face the inner reality. We'll have real democracy in America and the world when we establish inner democracy. It can be done, and it needs to be done soon. Start by tossing out all the so-called "scientific psychology" that academic psychologists are pedaling. Go back to Freud and understand what he's really saying, that we'll go on generating suffering and self-defeat until we become more conscious of our inner conflicts, psychological defenses, and entanglements in negative emotions.

          • Anonymous

            As has been mentioned the greatest power is the people. Without the cooperation of the people none of the pathological behavior described would be possible. The West Coast Strike of 1934 is an example of what can be done. A major way that the 1% control the 99% is through debt. That control could actually be reversed. What would happen if only 10% of the 99% decided to no longer to pay their debts? A movement like that could rapidly escalate once people realize that there is no system that could cope with massive non payment of debt.
            What would happen if the pilots, truck drivers, rail workers and dock workers decided to strike? or the telecommunication workers? All or any of those could be implemented peacefully. No need to hit the streets. Just stay home and contribute nothing to the deep state. Imagine how long it could survive the massive non cooperation of the 99%. There is a multitude of possibilities.

          • Charles Shaver

            'How can I thank thee [Bill Moyers], let me count the ways…' and now, too, Mike Lofgren. For some time I've been thinking that vastly superior aliens from deep space might be holding the U.S. Government hostage and causing all of the recent illegal, immoral, unconstitutional and just plain stupid national self-destruction. What a relief to learn it is only too-typical low IQ humanity that is responsible. Seriously, now, that which gives me the audacity and courage to comment on these things about which I personally know so little, is my lay acquired understanding of the basics. To me, in early 2014, these are mere, obvious, matters of the hierarchy of law, relevant laws and violations thereof.

            Ignoring most of the basics and my personal lack of qualifications, suffice it to say for now that above and beyond the laws of man are those self-evident in nature. Insightfully, since August of 1975, I have observed not only do the higher laws apply to both machine and man but the U.S. Constitution is imbedded with them, intentionally or not. So, to finally get to the point, when Mike Lofgren says 'Groupthink' I think of The Universal Law of Order: "Whenever two or more individuals unite to form an organization the survival of the organization becomes paramount to the survival of the individual." and how the Constitution was ignored again. When someone says 'there's nothing I can do' I think of The Third Rule of Human Behavior: "Self-determination shall prevail." and how the Constitution was ignored again. Deep space, or 'Deep State,' it 'don't look good' for us when a vast majority keeps enabling a selfish minority to impose rule. Now, it will probably take a paradigm shift to fix what's broke but, fortunately, naturally, 'shift happens.'

          • http://leisureguy.wordpress.com Leisureguy

            Magnificent article-greatly extends the range of my awareness, since I was just starting to get a glimpse of this.

            It should definitely be noted in the article that Senator Barack Obama pledged and promised that he would vote against telecom immunity and then he voted in favor of it. That did not auger well, albeit accurately.

          • http://leisureguy.wordpress.com Leisureguy

            This is why bloody revolutions happen: the course of last resort would certainly be violence, which hurts everyone. Elections were supposed to allow an orderly way to bring about change without violence, but once that mechanism is jammed and will no longer respond, violence is lapping at our heels.

          • http://leisureguy.wordpress.com Leisureguy

            I have the same feeling. We thought we had a mechanism that would enable us to respond to the need for revolutionary change in an orderly way, but that mechanism has been deliberately broken. That is very, very bad.

            Although one must allow that much of this is driven by our deep nature: social animals acting as social animals do, with all sorts of social-driven instincts and responses. Biology is destiny?

          • rleighton27

            I am not part of the hallelujah chorus greeting this article. Some, if not most of it, smacks of the apologia of a professional bureaucrat who suddenly has found a conscience. Also, his claim that President Obama was itching to start a war in Syria, but was only held back from doing so by "overwhelming Congressional skepticism"…as if that wasn't a daily occurrence to be dealt with from day one of his tenure. I am convinced that it was part of his strategy from the outset…to rattle sabres loudly enough to frighten a bellicose Putin, who knew his own military prowess was hampered by an ill-trained and poorly equipped manpower pool, into making his lapdog Assad stop playing nasty with his population–and it worked. I agree with much of the article's commentary about the "boys in the back room" who, in fact, have commandeered the running of the country out of the hands of elected officials, but condemn it's tone of "it really doesn't matter who's in charge." It does matter. Articles of this type just encourage voter apathy, and that plays into the schematic laid out by the Powell Memorandum for the usurping of Democracy, placing it into the hands of the ALEC/Koch consortium of Plutocratic traitors.

          • http://leisureguy.wordpress.com Leisureguy

            This helps me understand why such an intensive effort is underway to destroy our educational system and the low value we seem to place on education. I'm thinking of privatization, charter schools, constant pressure to pay public money to religious schools, defunding of higher education, closures of departments of humanities and non-applied science and art-that sort of thing. And now I get it: the last thing the corporate state wants is people "wasting" time and effort on a bunch of abstract principles and reasoning and critical thinking, especially since it just causes trouble in the workplace and makes people question orders. Better to do away with that: turn the focus to what will make the most money, and your problem's solved. And then you can cut costs-always the imperative-by closing departments that seem to create the most troublemakers. Two birds, one stone.

          • Bob Baldock

            Peter Dale Scott articulated this first, and has it deeper and darker. Check his website.

          • Anonymous

            As I read the final sentence,

            "What America lacks is a figure with the serene self-confidence to tell us that the twin idols of national security and corporate power are outworn dogmas that have nothing more to offer us. Thus disenthralled, the people themselves will unravel the Deep State with surprising speed."

            I remembered the demise of individuals who fit "figure with serene self-confidence"…..

            John F. Kennedy
            Martin Luther King
            Robert Kennedy
            Malcolm X
            Paul Wellstone

          • Joan Harris

            It's been awhile since I have had anyone refer to Freud. Never mind the "new age" psychology. Defenses have always been the problem. In a perfect world we would all live consciously and greed and prejudices would give way to peace and harmony. In the meantime we must address all the ills, if for no other reason then to prevent us from becoming complacent. I shall retain a little healthy cynicism until the world is healthy.

          • I. Spoke Umbra

            Let's be clear about what the "group-think" means when speaking about the NSA:

            As someone who was once in the bowels of the NSA beast, I observed a number of disturbing traits permeate every nook and cranny of the operation. If those traits were applied to an individual, they would be considered a very serious characterological disorder, perhaps warranting hospitalization:

            1. Paranoid
            2. Obsessive compulsive
            3. Sociopathic
            4. Grandiose
            5. Narcissistic (self-rationalizing)
            6. Uber-patriotic (self-justifying)

            The groupthink scenario in that place is as toxic as it can get for a human enterprise. It is a clear and present danger to the security of Democracy as we know it.

          • Pamela Zuppo

            This was no stroke of genius, this was Greenspan, Reagan, and the Bush clan. The better term for contemporary capitalism is "disaster capitalism" as coined by Naomi Klein. The big question is what are we to do about this? Do what Kiev has done? Due to "group think", or brain-washing of the masses who have lost their own control via their televisions, it seems the zombies outnumber the enlightened. It's clear to me something must be done.

          • SufferinSuccotash,Pivoting

            Randolph "War is the Health of the State" Bourne is also worth a read. Not to mention Jack London's The Iron Heel. These All-American doods had the National Security-Oligarchy State pretty much nailed down a century ago. Why people concerned with our current predicament skip over these Progressive Era radicals in favor of Continental Philosophy (which reminds me of a skimpy breakfast) is beyond me. I've been watching the emancipatory elements in this country floundering around for the past four decades now and it's pretty depressing, especially the seemingly chronic inability to connect with the USA's radical past. No historical knowledge=no sense of history=no political judgement=the Bad Guys keep on winning.
            Ukrainians are my favorite people at the moment and you can bet that their sense of history is pretty sharp.
            This concludes this Sunday morning rant.

          • Joseph Brant

            It is commendable to preserve hope among reformers, but hopes do not solve problems.

            While security agencies can serve democracy when better regulated, the failure to regulate is the result of failed democratic institutions which have not themselves been "vulnerable to a vigilant public." The dark state invisible power corrupts invisibly, but gold is the invisible power which had already corrupted the visible institutions.

            We need more than a "self-confident figure" to tell us that "national security and corporate power are outworn dogmas" so that "the people themselves will unravel the Deep State." The "deep…hunger for change" was deeper in 2008 when so easily destroyed by its self-confident Obama by simply not mentioning what "outworn dogmas" he would change. The hawkish Hillary is not about to "unravel the Deep State" and mere self-confidence will not finance campaigns or buy media support to do more than split the vote of reformers. The media and elections must first be freed of gold, and the people cannot do that without free media and free elections.

            While history is full of surprises, the succession of cold-war fearmongering by global war upon diffuse "terrorist" backlash and political opposition to half-witted right wing imperialism does not suggest a passing reaction, nor that any lesson was learned from three generations of failed military adventures with no relationship to the declared national principles. The cancerous dark state has grown in proportion to the failure of right wing foreign policy, the failure of its own rationales. It is the triumphant institution of right wing tyranny as the immune sovereign over a failed democracy.

            Democracy may make further ultimate progress in China than in the US, or may survive only in micropowers of no interest to the right wing. But we must have faith in the power of the people, or we lose hope and take no action.

          • Barbara Mullin

            I call it vulture capitalism.

          • jrdel

            Since the People of United States overthrew British ruling class government of our country and after the revolution, through wise government, and luck we got out from under the thumb of any rulers whether clerics, nobility, landlords, businessmen, political dictators, banks, etc. etc. these forces have been working to reestablish their control over our lives and by gradual steps have done so. Great Americans turned back the tide here and there for a while, Jackson ended the national bank, T. Roosevelt broke up monopoly corporations, F. Roosevelt supported efforts for economic democracy, etc. but the enemies of liberty never rest and always find new ways to undermine it.
            So every few generations the People are faced with another fight if they are to keep their liberties. This time the odds look particularly bad, Enemies stronger, richer, more devious, more insidious, more corrupt; the People weaker, more divided, confused, distracted. What the hell do we do? Voting just doesn't do much. Big money floods the media with their point of view. The People, relatively poorer than ever; don't have enough money to reply.
            Petitions, reforms, protests, revolution? All impractical, or impossible (imagine a revolution in the streets against the power of the U.S. military.) The days when we can grab our muskets and go out and make a revolution have long gone folks.
            I think humanity will have to wait for another age, and another nation to see real liberty and real democracy in control of the world again.

          • SufferinSuccotash,Pivoting

            Given that back in his day "merchants" were often interchangeable with "bankers" Smith certainly scored a bulls-eye with that one. The perfect Horrible Example in the 1770s was the East India Company, which couldn't govern Bengal without trashing its economy and couldn't keep off the financial rocks either. Eventually the British government put the Company on a shorter leash and still later the Company lost its monopoly over East Indian trade. But one short-term measure to bail out the Company was to give it a monopoly over selling tea to the dumb colonists over in America. Oops. That was a real "tea party", not some bogus affair staged by geezers in funny hats.

          • SufferinSuccotash,Pivoting

            Of course. I spent quite a few years rationalizing and pretending that Everything Was Pretty Much OK In These Here United States myself. The problem with being a history teacher–at least in this case–is that the past, which as William Faulkner famously said wasn't only not dead but not even past, can catch up with you. This country is paying and will continue to pay pretty heavily for decades of folly which anyone with a sense of history could have predicted at least 40 years ago.

          • joanne

            We have had millenia to "cage the beast", tame the beast, train, heal, and/or defang the beast. Predatory behavior is mediated, never extinguished. The Deep State is both institutionalized predation and paradoxically, a grotesque attempt to protect itself from itself.

          • Anonymous

            The ideology is hinted at throughout the article. Capitalism; The premise that money is a form of commodity and the winner is whomever has the most. Unfortunately money is a contract and while such notional promises seemingly can be manufactured to infinity, through the creation of the other side of the ledger, debt, their underlaying value is dependent on the increasingly precarious solvency of those taking on that debt. It is what is referred to in hindsight as a bubble. If you want to see the future of the US in about fifty years, it will likely be in the states and regions.

          • J Timothy

            The US military-intelligence-industrial aparatus is filled with loyal American patriots who love this country and have sworn to uphold the US Constitution. Unfortunately, they don't seem to understand that the system is extremely expensive and is impoverishing the middle class of America. We have nine air craft carrier groups while the next closest military has just two. Air craft carriers are incredibly expensive.

            In my opinion, the next revalation to hit the mainstream media will be that SOME of the covert, clandestine, black budget projects have been financed via securities fraud. They've done it before. Arms for hostages, Hmong drug running in Vietnam, etc, are examples of this. Catherine Austin Fitts has also made a great point that HUD, of all agencies, has funded some black budget procurements.

            Clearly, either the CIA or the NSA are at the center of the cabal. So, what is the justification for all of this secracy? What is soooo important that the adult eagle scout christians of America can't tell us? What could it be? Terrorism? Russians? Soverign citizens? Shoe bombers?

            Here is where i will lose most people over 50 years old. IN MY OPINION, a the core of the military industrial aparatus and its wall street enablers is a desperate race to achieve near technological parity with….(pregnant pause) (dramatic pause) other entities, species, e.t. collectives, etc, who are visiting sol 3 (earth). This effort is extremely expensive and involves spending trillions of dollars covertly to build spacecraft and weapons systems based on both advanced human originated technology and also technology from the reverse engineering of recovered alien vehicles.

            Many people belive that securities fraud funds this effort. It sounds crazy, but, YES, building trillion dollar weapon systems and spaceships is at the core of the secrecy cult. Nothing else makes sense. What else could possibly require siphoning trillions out of the US economy? Many many authors are written on the subject and it is most definitely NOT a joke. Yes, Bill, lets ask the awkward questions.

            Is there a secret space program funded via securities fraud? Have we received help from ET visitors?

            One man who asked the awkward question was Congressman Steve Schiff of New Mexico. He asked the Congressional General Accounting Office to inquire about the alleged Roswell alien craft recovery. He got the USAF to give us a third story – (first was a disc, second a weather baloon and third was project mogul) This all took place in the mid 90's.

            He was only about 50 yrs old when he caught agressive skin cancer. He resigned from congress and was dead soon after. He was 51.

          • aTomsLife

            I disagree that Mr. Lofren's article provokes apathy. It sheds light on the duopoly that is the two-party system and encourages voters to seek an alternative, namely a more libertarian, decentralized form of government.

            "Overwhelming Congressional skepticism" to Syria included party-line Democrats as well: Unlike the usual D vs. R bickering, it was D's and R's forced to contradict the military industrial complex. It was a powerful moment.

            Syria proved the American people - and perhaps only the American people - are capable of muzzling the Deep State. The only reason we didn't intervene there was because constituencies throughout the country stood united, not because of potential international condemnation. The irony of Putin's victory is that he achieved it because he had the backing of the American people. He morphed into our de-facto representative.

            Even for the plutocrats, Putin represented the the lesser of two evils. It would have been a catastrophic loss of face to have to admit that D.C. remains beholden to the American people when, united, we're unwilling to follow the script.

            Until there's meaningful campaign finance reform, "it really doesn't matter who's in charge." That's the simple truth. But it's a reason to become more engaged in politics, not less.

          • J Timothy

            One of the problems with dealing with the intelligence services is that they have people embeded within the media to get their point of view across. So, when Moyers talks about asking "Awkward Questions" he underestimates how difficult this is.

            Ed Bernays and Walter Lippman were the gentleman geniuses who showed us that marketing and propaganda could be used to manage public opinion without limits.

            Yes, lets ask the awkward questions. What is so important to the military-industrial-complex that it needs to siphon, literally, trillions of dollars out of the US economy?

            One man asked an awkward question. His name was Congressman Steve Schiff. After he asked his question, he died of agressive skin cancer. He was 51 years old. Sure. It cold have been coincidence. But he was the only one asking awkward questions at the time and he was the only one who got agressive skin cancer. Meanwhile, the CIA's top spooks like George HW Bush and Kissinger are still alive into their 90's. Go figure.

          • http://daybrown.org Dale H. (Day) Brown

            Mother Nature bats last. When we look at the list of empires crashed because bad weather ruined crops, we see it includes all of them. People will put up with appalling corruption- until they are hungry. The Deep State has not picked up on the risk of unusual weather on agriculture, altho the price of crop insurance rose dramatically. Agribusiness will do fine with govt checks, but people cant eat insurance.

            Part of the problem is that ag policy is set to reduce the cost of the hobby operations of politicians, like Bush's ranch, but failing to support the backbone of American agriculture, the family farm. The average age of farmers now is over 60, and because of land speculation by friends of elected representatives, the next generation cant afford to buy farms. The result is land owned by absent aristocracy and worked by men whose only interest is their immediate benefit and not the condition of land to be inherited by sons.

            Another of the many reasons we need a Gnu Party not run by lawyers.

          • Thomas Milligan

            Can't blame you for feeling ripped off. You have been. We all have been, except for those in the very top income brackets. Lofgren does a pretty good job of detailing the forces that have perpetrated the heist. I've come to call it The Money; it includes the actors Lofgren details, plus billionaire types like the Koch brothers and Richard Mellon Scaife, plus the mainstream media (even much of PBS, unfortunately), which has become the Ministry of Propaganda for The Money. All Is Well. The USA Is Number 1. The Government Is Keeping Us Safe from Terrorism. Buy More Stuff. Whistleblowers Are Traitors. The Economy Is Recovering. Buy More Stuff. If Things Aren't Getting Better for You It's Because You're a Loser. So Buy More Stuff.

            Don't romanticize the '50's too much. The discontent that exploded in the 60's was just under the surface even then. To the extent that it was "better" then it was because the prosperity of the nation *was* more broadly shared. A single "breadwinner" (usually Dad) could feed a family, with enough left over to save for old age, and Mom was available to nurture the kids. Do you know *any* families for whom that could be true today? And the mainstream media was populated by actual journalists rather than mouthpieces for The Money who look good in suits and understand what their owners want said. Bill Moyers, obviously, is an exception to this rule. One of the few.

            I'm surprised you're not angry. You have every reason to be.

          • Thomas Milligan

            Mr. Lofgren does a pretty good job of detailing the forces that have perpetrated the sad parody of self-government into which our nation has devolved, but he left out a couple. I've come to calling the whole thing "The Money." It includes the actors Lofgren details, plus billionaire types like Scaife and the Koch brothers, plus the mainstream media (even much of PBS, unfortunately), which has become the Ministry of Propaganda for The Money and the so-called "Washington Consensus." Where once we had journalists, now we have (with the almost-sole exception of Bill Moyers) pretty people who look good in suits and like to be on TV, reading the scripts they're given.

          • Anonymous

            Well, that's rather a 'rose colored glasses' view of the Tea Party given their current platform position. While I agree there are some redeeming qualities – not because I deem them to be but because they do contribute to the discussion – But, by-n-large the solutions offered by the Tea Party platform will only serve to weaken any hopes of salvaging the Democracy. One such example is this meme that 'all Govt. is bad' which only someone disingenuous would suggest does not prominently inhabit the TP. Another would be the position on so called 'entitlements'. Yet another would be the Tea Party backing of the likes of Ted Cruz or Rand Paul who adopt a position on health care that is antithetical toward a robust Democracy. (And spare me the notion that private enterprise provides better health care etc. – it's simply untrue and there's no evidence to support these fictions.).

            One has to examine a few things about the Tea Party – It is quite clear why individuals such as the Koch brothers have gone to great lengths to fund the Tea Party because it is the entrenched Plutocrats and Corporate elite who benefit the most from a weakened Govt. Many TP members see their quality of life eroding and have chosen to go after the wrong entity why? Well, those reasons are numerous – for some it is fear, for others racism, others an inability to grasp the weight of their decisions, etc. and Irrespective of their reasons the actions of the party, quite ironically, will only strengthen the grasp of the very problems you wish to suggest they will address. While a nice sentiment to feel the Tea Party could work with others the reality is much different.

          • Anonymous

            Wow, how do you create such a canvas of revisionist history? I also found it quite tragic that you espouse 'we need to stop this R vs L' dichotomy but you make every effort to assault the left – exclusively. While that would be with merit if it were true (indeed both parties have played a role in where we now sit) it becomes quite another matter when viewed against, oh idk, the backdrop of reality. A.) Historically it is regulation that keeps corporate interests in check and deregulation promotes the 'crony capitalism' you mention. It's hysterical to assume the inverse. B.) Progressive policies have, again in reality, led to the greatest moments of growth and prosperity in this country. I"m sorry you don't believe those facts. And, why didn't you mention the inequality gap on steroids since Reagan? or the Bush tax cuts that benefitted the richest Americans? Or the subsidization of big pharma. and big oil? Both parties have no interest in representing people without money and every incentive not to. But, don't prattle on this nonsense about the dangers of progressivism. it's ill-thought and smells of ideological belief hungering to trump facts and history; it smells.

          • Anonymous

            It is quite disheartening and the road forward most uncertain. I'm fairly confident those you allude to will not act from a position of reason and evidence that is fact based. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine circumstances in which those guided by fantasy, belief, and hate (one or all) will shift ideological positions and address the problems that inhabit this country by the corporate state. Individuals like Ted Cruz, Jamie Dimon (more subtly), the Koch brothers are gifted in their cunning ability to take advantage of these, what Thom Hartmann calls 'low information voters' – I've little reason for optimism and plenty of evidence for pessimism without hope.

          • Anonymous

            After reading this all I can say God help us. I think I can speak for millions of Americans who grew up in a different country. We use to believe that hard work, play by the rules and everything would work out for the Middleclass American. All could share in the American dream. Those beliefs are not what I hear anymore. Apathy and fear are rampant..I fear for the country my children with inherit.

          • fenway67

            yeah, i don't think that is his main point. it's the corporations and the banks that have infiltrated and that is the fault of both sides of the aisle. The author notes that the bipartisan divide is mostly noise obscuring the bigger picture.

          • fenway67

            i am hopeful that firstlook.org will be a source of honest journalism. Scahill, Poitras, Greenwald and Taibbi are real journalists working toward finding the truth.

          • Anonymous

            Wars forced us into debt slavery to the Big banks that financed them, thus we are slaved to the NWO BANKS and corporations Federal Reserve Banks buys and owns most of our debt, they are international now We are controlled by the bankers and the secret NWO financial network running the governments of the world. Everything trickles down from these taskmasters. Follow the money and everything is controlled by where it leads. Globalization, one financial system running the world into their vision of one world government controlled by their big money. They been ruling us for a long time now. CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM would fix us election process and would scare them knowing they can't put their bag men in office anymore.

          • Anonymous

            So you believe the blame for big government lies only with the liberals? Give me a break. Here are just four Presidents who expanded Government. They are named Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush. Flaming liberals to you I would assume.

          • John Gregor

            Looking forward to odering some of those books. Have read all Foucault's books. The author wrote quite a nice essay about contemporay American politics. Our majot export seems to be Dollars, like manure they have some value, but I imagine alot of the people who are getting them are not entirely happy

          • Anonymous

            I saw Mike on c-span Sunday and enjoyed his comments, and now reading this piece I have trouble with a GOP former congressional analysis troubled about how the govt is working or not working beginning in 2009.

            As with many of former GOP legislators or analysts never do they dig deeper into the underlying problems that cause the congress to not work. Mentioning the Deep State reminds me of Washington Post investigation exposing the 2nd govt in DC. It's where all the retired legislators or lost elections legislators, the congressional staff, the retired military generals go. They pop up in media (tv, radio, newspapers) spewing out a talking point for their respective 2nd govt think tank in DC. C-span is a major platform that they use, and 99% of them promote some corporation dealing with the 1st govt.

            Too bad we don't see the name tags of the corporations they represent. Now that we have citizens united we're back into the age of the Robber Barons.

          • Andrew Kloak

            This insightful essay shows that Silicon Valley is not be what it claims to be. Neither is Wall Street or the massive build-up of federal government power around Washington, D.C.

            The article also alludes to the notion that these companies in Silicon Valley are waking and trying to resist Deep State regime. California can't save American society. We are only 12% of the entire population. Plus, they don't want to, they have to answer to shareholders. Profit is the highest good for companies and government. They want influence and money.

            All this is like marionette theatre. James Clapper from the NSA used misdirection when reporters started to zero-in on the scale of the deception and breach of trust last Fall. Enormous change is just ahead but not without enormous turmoil. People intuitively know that national security and corporate power are worn out dogmas.

            There is an urgency to all this. Many of these people in these positions of power have no soul. It doesn't have to be this way, it just is. I think they want it this bad because they profit and garner influence when it is this ineffectual.

            The biggest changes are within anyway. We have to go deeper in ourselves. That shift in consciousness is already underway. The confluence of forces will sweep away these external constructs. The hidden factors not discussed in the article are the unconscious forces (emotion). Once people are more aware of the light and darkness in themselves things will open up. There is dynamic tension (a good thing) in each person. Self-awareness, integrity and connection to others will change everything.

            This article makes interesting connections to something that is hidden in
            plain sight. It will change.

          • richard anderson

            I have been giving the political system another chance since Vietnam. Each time we have an election I hear some good things. But when these people are in office they change. When Ralph Nader ran for office he was kept out by various means and not allowed to debate. The system is rigged. This talk of voting for the right person is not going to cut it. With the problems this deep and the protection that has been set up to keep this system in place there is NOT a way to change it. In other words voting will not work. Something more is needed. Demonstrations don't work either. Just look at how long the Vietnam war was protested and when Bush stumped for invasion of Iraq. They didn't care. Resistance may be the answer.

          • Anonymous

            Rothschild family made their banking trillions beginning from financing Napoleon's wars up until now. Their family owns media houses, governments, etc and their influence knows no bounds. You will never see their family listed on Forbes richest people lists because they own the media and do not want to see their names or advertise their wealth. The Bankers truly own the world and War debt was the fastest way to do it.

          • Anonymous

            lol. good comment and link.

            I will be interested in seeing what First Look does, but I really don't trust the bazillionaire who is starting it up – or at least his motives. Once a plutocrat, always a plutocrat. I predict it will start like Arianna Huffington's HuffPo, initially game changing and valuable, then slowly just another click generating tabloid profit machine with a bubble like mentality forced on contributers, moderators and commentors alike. Time will tell.

          • Ellie

            We have all this information, but nothing ever comes of it! No one goes to jail The laws are changed to help the criminals . We still have a two party system which is a joke. Unless people are hungry and cold and willing to die for a cause nothing is going to change in this country.

          • J.G. Sandom

            We have become almost as much a plutocracy as our former Cold War nemesis, Russia. Tech, Big Oil and Wall Street oligarchs, combined with the military-industrial complex (which Eisenhower tried to warn us against) collude (in spirit, if not in actual boardrooms) to keep the people's power in check via libertarian deregulation, union-busting, Citizens United (and other activist SCOTUS rulings), privatization of the Intelligence Community (IC), the opiate of digital media that pushes the idolatry of money & all things celebrity to distract us, and our collective fear of terrorism (hence our perpetual war footing). This is what my forthcoming novel, 404, is all about-not just how IP tech is invading our lives, but how this invasion is a metaphor for the larger invasion. (HAL2, in my book, IS what Mike Lofgren calls the Deep State.) Wake up, America! Our country is being stolen from us in plain sight. Thank you Bill Moyers, and thank you Mike Lofgren for helping to alert the American public. You are 21st century Paul Reveres! Al Qaeda is less of a threat to America because of some future possible terrorist threat, and more because the collective American fear it engenders helps the Deep State sink its claws more effectively into our national flesh.

          • Anonymous

            What rings clear is we now have a non-elected government operating outside our constitutional government and is purposely gridlocked. Our government and judicial system have been hijacked and steps must be taken to remove Big Hidden money that is controlling our constitutional government. Great interview Bill, thanks as always!

          • Jack Wolf

            Mike forgot something. There is a simple fact that rules the deep state, the reformists, and the declinests, whether they accept it or not: Natural Law. Abrupt climate change can not be controlled now. To suggest that any of these groups are in control or have the ability to make substantial change belies what is really going on. From now on, all these groups can only react and as far as I can tell, today will be the best day of the rest of our lives. It's all downhill from here and there is irreversible.

          • Thomas Milligan

            Oh, I know about those guys and I love what they do. The trouble is, somehow *their* work doesn't, as a rule, get picked up, amplified and developed in the mass media the way, say "Watergate" was back when we had real journalists. Meanwhile every load of BS that comes out of the Heritage Foundation, Cato et. al. somehow becomes received wisdom. I'm also a bit concerned that by going off on their own they're setting themselves up to be marginalized and ignored. Trees may fall, but very few people will hear them.

          • Thomas Milligan

            Somehow your response above… to *my* response… to your original post… got posted under a *separate* post I offered… scroll down far enough, you'll find your original post & my response.

            Can't blame you for wanting to shield your children. The thing is, you can't, neither from the anger nor from global climate change. I have grandchildren and grieve when I look at them for the world they're apparently going to inhabit.

            One last thing: it's possible… theoretically at least… to have anger without hatred. Anger at what's been done can be a spur to action… and effective action could be taken while still treating the perpetrators with the compassion we know all sentient beings deserve. I'm not sure *I* could manage it because truth to tell I'm not a very good Christian… or Buddhist either… but it's at least theoretically possible.

          • Thomas Milligan

            Good point about our old nemesis, The Evil Empire.

            I always found it ironic that as the Soviet Union was collapsing, the United States was moving toward one-party rule. You can write the Nov. 5 headline right now: "Republocrats Win Yet Again!"

          • fenway67

            Agreed, the MSM has a vested interest in having their product on the shelf at eye-level and it's hard for the little guy to buy space in this market. I'll be doing my part by re-posting and tweeting important stories that they cover and I just hope the quality will get them noticed. I'm sure the smear campaign against them will begin soon.

          • fenway67

            I wasn't aware of his motives beyond providing a platform for real journalists. What have you heard? I am hopeful that the high quality work of the people he has hired so far will keep it in the same company as the Moyers people.

          • Kenneth Killiany

            This is an issue that concerns me greatly actually. Both sides have adopted policies that have fed it. I find it interesting that you mention Allen Drury, who was my uncle. Al was a dogged reporter, uncovering, in his day, the Manhattan Project, which he did not report on because of World War II. Should he have? He never doubted his judgment. However, he was very concerned about how the State just grew and operated on its won. You can see mentions of it in ADVISE AND CONSENT and MARK COFFIN, where he discusses the whole public-private daisy chain and how irresponsible it is. It's true, you can't get drama out of it, but he mentions it, but in PENTAGON, he wrote a whole book about a bureaucracy can be diverted from what it is meant to do by concerns for its own prerogatives. A&C and MARK COFFIN have just been re-released, and PENTAGON will follow next year. This kind of reporting in your article is the kind he admired and it is a great service.

          • freelance-writer

            A.k.a.:Ukraine 2014. Though there are many factors and stake-holders at work in the Ukraine issue, it behooves the citizenry of all western nations tainted by the same `deep-state' tyranny to bear witness. It will take bricks against bullets to resolve this global crisis once and for ever.

          • Mary Brown

            The only terrorists we have to face in the USA are our own government and the ones that government is purposely importing to continue their reign of fear. Problem is a large part of America is now well armed and a terrorist would die rather quickly long before any government police forces arrives.

          • Len

            Most of us frogs are in a pot of water that is getting hotter and hotter and we don't feel it. As quoted from this essay "After
            a while, a functionary of the state begins to hear things that, in another
            context, would be quite remarkable, or at least noteworthy, and yet that simply
            bounce off one's consciousness like pebbles off steel plate". Replace "a functionary of the state" with "we the people".

            This essay was terrific.

          • Anonymous

            I am worried that the boiling pot will lead to the elimination of Social Security. For years now politicians been saying it will end to each generation. When it does, a very high percentage of Americans will be at poverty level. I don't want to be living in American cities when that happens, crime and robberies will be common place.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, this is not a new development… The funny thing is that Bill Moyers' Iran-Contra era expose entitled "The Secret Government" actually covers this subject better than the piece we are commenting on. And iirc, he interviews Peter Dale Scott about the CIA in that report…

          • Anonymous

            There is a world of difference between bailouts and nationalization. I cannot begin to quantify the folly of calling this system "Marxist" when the party on the left of the two party system has moved so far to the right as to make Eisenhower seem like Trotsky by comparison.

          • Anonymous

            For Gods sake, not this again. What Banking family who made the bulk of their fortune from War debt and being worth $500 Trillion dollars are you referring to? Everybody is afraid to print anything on these influential banking members. Their influence in this world has no bounds. As we all know Bankers always protect their money and are devising new ways to make more money. If you naively think that Bankers in this world are Godly benevolent people, you better look around the state of the world again and formulate a revised opinion. but there you go, I got my opinion and you have yours and we will respectfully leave it as that. Thanks for your comment!

          • Anonymous

            Last time I looked capitalism is buying and bought our election process. In fact, in the past the main focus of our government has been on business priorities and concerns. Doesn't look anything as Marxism to me.

          • Jimmy Solomon

            I read this article and watched your interview. Both are most enlightened. What happened, however, on the eleventh day of the ninth month thirteen years ago was clearly a result of this deep state and it is too bad you won't recognize this glaring example of the corruption of which you write.

          • Anonymous

            "the party on the left of the two party system"

            There is little or no difference between the two faces of the party of state power. They use different words, and then enact the same policies.

            Politics is about power, nothing more. There is no "left" or "right", only power.

          • Antonio Germano

            Again, what filibusters? You have provided no examples. Except for the (unfortunately) pathetic attempts of Cruz, Paul and Lee to derail Obamacare and the recent debt ceiling/government shutdown (I wish) affair, where has there been any effective Republican opposition to any of Obama's agenda?
            You are typical of the person who blames one side for our problems, when it's both sides (i.e., the government) that is the problem. Both sides are playing their respective constituencies like a Stradivarius. get over your obsession with partisanship and see the real issue – the whole system is corrupt and needs to be abolished.
            Your pining for 'majority rules' is a recipe for tyranny. The filibuster rules were put into place to prevent temporary majorities from steam-rolling temporary minorities. I think it should be even harder to pass laws, not easier, so mischief is avoided.
            I repeat – the State is the enemy of us all. get over blaming one side or the other. You are being played.

          • Anonymous

            amazing that such a powerful article was written. too bad its several years too late, and ever so slightly off the mark. you need to let go of the rhetoric of bipartisanship. the DNC and GOP establishments are both operating on the same basic policies. while they offer crumbs to their bases, they are both pushing the agenda of the deep state.they are both to blame, and until people declare that both have no clothes, the powers behind the curtain will continue to rule.

          • Anonymous

            Thanks, well said.

            There's also the "Shallow State" of American campaign consultants like David Axelrod and Mark Penn who make big money in places like Ukraine and Georgia because the locals assume they wield influence over their clients in Washington. If American foreign policy became less aggressive, foreigners wouldn't pay them so much money:

            http://isteve.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-shallow-state.html

          • Auntie Analogue

            "F]inancialization, outsourcing, privatization, deregulation and the commodifying of labor."
            Yes, "commodifying of labor" thanks to Teddyquiddick pushing the 1965 Hart-Cellers act that began the importation of million Third World unskilled laborers per year, thanks also to the Deep State paralyzing all efforts of us, the People, to force our so-called "representatives" to close, fortify, and defend our borders – to stop the massive flow of scores of millions of illegal immigrants. Immigration has done more to stagnate and reduce Americans' wages and to destroy what had been our historically unprecedented middle class affluence and economic-political power.
            Objective One for those of us who would dismantle the Deep State and restore our democracy is obvious: Stop All Immigration. Accomplish this by these measures: one, end birthright citizenship (and thus also end birth tourism); two, abolish State Department power to import refugees and government funding of NGO's that "resettle" refugees; deport all illegal aliens; impose massive, draconian fines on employers that hire illegal alien labor. Why are these measures Objective One? Simple: when we allow our Dear Rulers to displace and dispossess us on our own soil, we forfeit – we surrender – our power to control our representatives and their appointees and their wealth transfer from ourselves to foreigners.

          • Mil

            This is just a small list. But it at least provides some of the examples you are asking to see.

            http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/bills-blocked-by-republican-filibusters

          • rgrisham

            This is not a revelation. Noam Chomsky has been pointing this out clearly for the past 40 years… There a couple public documents that might help explain to the educated class exactly what has been going in the U.S. for the past 40 years… The Powell Memo written by Lewis Powell in 71 and the Crisis of Democracy a document publicly published by the Trilateral Commission in the mid 70's these are both damning omissions by powerful groups that control both the business world and governments at all levels of governance. These two documents that we know about are internal look at the dogma of the ruling class.. Neo Liberalism is the term they used but it sure aint new and it sure aint liberal. It just another way for the ruling class to re-institute Feudalism.

          • Anonymous

            What you say is essentially true. Fascism by definition is the merger of corporations and the military. Another amusing quote: "A capitalist will sell you the rope you hang him with." Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

            These Deep State proponents will succeed in fully displaying their stupidity when the global environment collapses under the weight and consequence of their actions and humanity becomes extinct. In the meantime, they will be having fun and braying like jackasses as they descend into the abyss.

          • Anonymous

            What about the level of organization required to create the Trilateral Commission and its formal takeover of the US executive branch when Carter took office? The majority of the cabinet (all but one) were Trilateralists in the newly created group of only 300 worldwide members. Trilateralists were placed in high level international corporate and political positions and this paradigm holds today. Scholars Antony Sutton and Patrick Wood wrote extensively on this international power dynamic with its influence now extending to every part of the globe. It was Trilateralist Larry Summers, former US Secretary of Treasury and Goldman Sachs executive, who was sent to Russia when it's economy imploded to advise Putin on how to privatize the Russian peoples' state owned assets leading the to rise of eight powerful oligarchs with internationalist sensibilities, a very deliberate centralization of capital and a means to control Russian political power players. From the beginning of the transfer of the US manufacturing sector to China, it became Brzezinski's model Technocracy, Brzezinski being the a founder of the Trilateralists, Carter's National Security Adviser, and author of The Grand Chessboard. (reference: Patrick Wood's augustforecast.com) These actions and the concomitant level of organization goes beyond the Deep State model.

          • Anonymous

            .. if there were no abuses by the IRS, then why did IRS official Lois Lerner plead the fifth ? If my boss asked me to explain possible abuses of power at my job and I pleaded the fifth, my new office would be on the curb.

          • Anonymous

            The meetings happen in Rancho Mirage and other places for Koch Brothers, and ALEC, etc. They are the ones paying the Pols and they definitely meet and plan conspiracies to disenfranchise voters. And, William Pepper wrote a book that reveals the conspiracies within those security agencies that control pols. It is great the Lofgren is talking about the Deep State. But, to deny the conspiracies within it is naive. The crashing of the Obama garden party by Robert Gates associates is a case in point. The Supreme Court ultimately is the last point of call to stop this Deep State within all the branches. They have judicial oversight, and they are not using it.

          • scratphd

            The great swamp philosopher Pogo got it right. "I have meet the enemy and he is us."
            A complacent America.

          • Christanne

            Lofgren: What America lacks is a figure with the serene self-confidence to tell us that the twin idols of national security and corporate power are outworn dogmas that have nothing more to offer us. Thus disenthralled, the people themselves will unravel the Deep State with surprising speed.

            This essay echoes Ivan Illich's "Tools for Convivality," which, although written in the '70s is even more applicable today. This is not new. Lofgren is an important wedge to cauterize the deep state and dispell delusions of unending "progress." However, I don't see any evidence for his assertion that the people themselves will unravel the Deep State. What we've done so far is just buy a new toy, both literally and figuratively, even when so many of us are going hungry.

          • Anonymous

            Excellent essay. A very good (semi-) insider's look at happenings within the Beltway. However, my instinct tells me that the real nexus of power doesn't lie there, but that the Deep State operatives are allowed to continue their game-playing at public expense in order to serve a larger agenda–the ultimate bankrupting of the US and the ushering in of a new world order which has been in the making for centuries by the real powers-that-be. Uber-conspiratorial? Maybe, but I just can't shake the feeling.

          • The One

            There is no doubt that the great american experiment has ended in ruin. There is hope on the horizon though. Due to technological progression and its rapid increase in power, the very fabric of society will change. Our social and economic models must change radically due to technological improvements. There is no end in sight to the technological pace we have been blazing at, and if there is an end it seems to be distant. The tremendous benefits of creative AI and the automation of white and blue collar workers must be built into a new social and economic model in which the benefits are distributed evenly and equally among the peoples of planet earth. Even now, if we used our technology wisely, we could unshackle large swaths of the labor markets with automated robots.

            The current state of unimaginable corruption which is inflicting the world, not just the US, is a dying last grasp for air as the oligarchies face a new powerful threat, the connection of all things. The internet has the power to upend these corrupt power structures which lie at the heart of society, and thus at the heart of every human life on this planet. Our current economic model is not situated in reality. I can't say if the market will be up or down tomorrow, but what I know for certain is that earth is 196.9 million square miles. Which is a finite space. Not a good place for an economic model which requires economic expansion for survival. The labor markets will be greatly dis-stressed due to technological displacement. The current scientific revolution is unlike any that has ever happened on the surface of this planet. Even highly skilled workers such as surgeons have the capacity to be replaced by highly advanced robots specializing in surgery. People will see awaken to the fact that this "annoying high unemployment" is actually the new normal and will only get worse. This REQUIRES a new economic model.

            If a business refused to integrate their business with the latest automation technology, a rival that had enough foresight to not oversee this would drive his competitor out of business. Then, in our current economic model, that rival that just won the market would reap all the rewards. BUT, it will also be in the best interest of that company, if in some new economic manner, a portion of those profits would go into a general citizens fund which would provide all humans with a basic income. This type of model will be absolutely necessary due to mass unemployment. This leaves the motive for profit intact which also leads a motive for innovation, creation, and competition that humans need. With scarcity gone, and universal income for all, the future will look very very bright for our young human species. The seas of interstellar space beckon.

          • Anonymous

            "…another thing" – yup – if they changed the rule so they could get what they claimed was their agenda passed, the Reps might have been able to do the same – however the Reps could do that anyway themselves if they regained power –

            In any case, what does that say about a Party that would refuse to advance a decent agenda just so the other party couldn't advance its own at another date – in essence, cutting off our noses to spite the Reps face – they could have done what they knew we sent them there to do, and they refused, hiding behind rules they could have changed – more and more folks are waking up …

            ISTM it oughta be obvious by now that this "struggle" between the Reps and the Dems isn't about principle or ideology and it certainly isn't about representing us – it is about who gets to be in charge of handing out the perks and who gets the perks – those in power are the ones who get both ….

          • Charles Shaver

            Nice to keep learning of a plethora of ambiguous symptoms but, short of too costly general strikes or domestic insurrection, only voting proved corrupt politicians of both major parties out of high office every other November will eventually restore legal functionality to the U.S. Government. So, vote in every general election and vote against those who stray. 'How to know' one might ask? Simply vote 'out with the old; in with the new,' every time, until we have the kind of America the Founders prescribed in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

          • Anonymous

            It only depends on your definition of "the US." Yes, a panel of CEOs famously declined Ralph Nader's invitation to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance, but in the State Department memo that outlined the policy of containment of the USSR, George Kennan said the vast wealth disparity between the US and the rest of the world must be maintained, while civil rights and democracy could be neglected.

            By then, the post-World War One idealists who'd joined calls for socialism and one-world government, to prevent another such catastrophe, had seen things differently once Russia turned Eastrrn Europe into a barricade against further invasions from the West. They could not bring themselves to reb against their banker fathers, but they still believed in a one-world government – it would simply be the government of the United States. The entire world would be brought into the economc system we ran, no matter what citizens and their elected governments wanted.

            During the Cold War, NATO was used to bring European intelligence agencies and militaries under domnance by the CIA and the Pentagon. Putting ordnance, money and men in place to resist a Soviet takeover made perfect sense, but it operated in peacetime to keep left-wingers out of Continental governments. We overthrew an Italian government, for example. Not by ourselves, of course: the secret "stay-behind" troops were nitorious right-wing fanatics, who could be trusted to carry out their missions regardless of law, Constitutionality or morality. False-flag shootings and bombings in public squares and supermarkets killed many innocent civilians and were blamed on leftist radical groups which had been thoroughly penetrated already anyway. This was to win public support for stricter security policies and, perhaps, punish citizens for voting in liberal-to-left governments. This was admitted in the Italian parliament by the Prime Minister in 1990. Operation GLADIO, as it was called, involved every NATO country. Investigations were promised, but were aborted or came to mothing.

            This is what Putin knows will happen if Ukraine joins NATO, for instance, so don't expect him to take it lying down. He operates a Russian version.

            In the US, a group of Wall Street financiers discussed literally overthrowing FDR in order to end the New Deal regulatory state, but didn't get past the talking stage. The Senate held hearings but J. Edgar Hoover declined to investigate becayse "no crime was committed." This is the same FBI director who opened pressure dossiers on citizens who carried protest signs or wrote letters to newspapers or the government opposing our war policies, and tried to get Martin Luthed King to commit suicide.

            Note the secrecy surrounding current trade-agreement negotiations, and accompanying high security. This dates back to the fiaco of the world trade talks in Seattle some years ago, when street protests neatly brought them to a halt. An Italian citizen was killed during protests against trade talks in Genoa yeats later.

          • Anonymous

            This was a superb essay–one I have been awaiting for years. One minor addition: there is another non DOD component to the aforementioned group, which is DOE. Admittedly,
            it's rather easy to forget about them–but one should not. Ever.

          • Anonymous

            But I really wonder if voting is a sufficient tool for the citizenry to tell the government what it thinks.
            Elections are not very frequent, they are deeply manipulated by complex "strategists" (look at the connection between the now-slowly-debunked gay marriage referenda and the re-election of Bush Jr).
            Though I find it tedious and at times inefficient I wouldn't mind being part of a citizenry like France that literally shuts the country down until the government says "uncle".

          • Anonymous

            I believe the fourth estate and the way the US government interacts with it have a lot to do with the opacity of the veil I find floating between myself and whatever happens inside the beltway.

            The US government keeps journalists begging for the tiniest crumbs. No one is willing to leak anything for fear of being caught.

            When I asked a friend in the diplomatic corps what was the most striking about his stint in DC he said the depth at which government officials changed with each new administration compared to other countries. DC's moving business is booming beyond anything imaginable. This is also a tidy way to keep a tight grip on "messaging" – a skill each administration seems to get better and better at.

            There is a reason wikileaks has emerged and parody has replaced the stale format of the evening news.

          • Charles Shaver

            Voting is still an effective tool. Unfortunately, statistically, a majority of manipulated voters will only dirty their hands to install and re-install soluble Democrats and Republicans when seeking water tight integrity; insane, by Einstein's definition. Now is well past the best time to make some real repairs but, perhaps, not yet too late to save a sinking ship. And, shutting the engine down won't plug the leaks.

          • Pat Kittle

            We Americans are already plenty overcrowded, but Israel lobby billionaires want open borders and they've paid big bucks to both Republicans & Democrats. So open borders and endless population growth it is, ecological sustainability be damned.

            And don't give me that "anti-Semitic" hooey, I'm just stating facts.

            Zuckerberg, Bloomberg, Soros, Gelbaum, Adelson, etc., etc., Israel lobby, all of them.

            No serious discussion of the "deep state" would ignore that elephant in the living room.

          • Anonymous

            This is not a valid critique. The Deep State serves organized wealth and works to further increase inequality and social stratification. Thus the Deep State represents entrenched right-wing power. It is a matter of state capture. Both parties support this consensus and are thus supremely conservative. The same goes for the media which is owned by these same centers of organized wealth.

          • Matt P.

            It's not a matter of keeping one's mouth shut, but actions speak louder than words. Being angry and contentious all the time is not the same as being productive about the issues you believe in. Whenever I see an inequality in the street, on the subway, or at a party I react. I stand up for the person, I intervene and get involved. The rest of the time I do keep my mouth shut because there's nothing to say. It doesn't help anyone to spread unhappiness around. In fact it drains your energy so you're not ready or as effective for the next opportunity.

          • Sean Kurnow

            I get a laugh at people who yell, whine and complain about politicians and party politics….It's like yelling at a ventriloquist dummy instead of the person controlling it. America became a plutocracy in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created. Since then, we all know that special interest groups control almost every aspect of government policy.

          • Anonymous

            I will assume you simply did not understand what I wrote or what 'slouching' wrote – ironic eh?
            Lets remove Thom Hartmann from the equation, as it seems to be where you flew off the rails…what then is your defense of the idiots we allude to?

          • Anonymous

            I well understand the argument about brainwashing – have heard it a gazillion times ….

            The "idiots" you refer to – who are these folk? And while the corp media was brainwashing them, what were the rest of us doing? Sitting on our hands?

          • Bill Wesley

            well for once I have no comment, its not required in that the writer has made the case with expert precision, I find no flaws, no omissions, no theory or dogma obstructing the writers view. Its nice to see such well presented intellectual compitance, it allows me to feel relief, I can take a break since others are seen to be on the ball

          • FroboseTF

            Charles:
            Voting used to be an effective tool. Unfortunately with the advent of "Electronic Voting Machines" which must be "Programmed", and leave no paper trail to allow a recount; I fear that if the truth be known our elections are probably rigged on a regular basis to reflect the will of those in actual power now.

            I believe it was Joseph Stalin who said "It's not who casts the votes that's important. It's who counts them.

          • Anonymous

            Actually, it was a Mossad (Israeli Intel)/US Intel op. US organized it and funded the Al Qaeda end of it via Paki intel officer General Mahmoud Ahmed, while the Mossad prepped the US targets and ran the anthrax mail op. I'm not sure that Mossad didn't dream it up in the first place, but, whatever the details, Al Qaeda was definitely just a bit player in the op with the real culprits being our own fearless leaders.

          • Reuben_the_Red

            Winner-takes-all elections (as opposed to proportional representation) and the Electoral College are inherently undemocratic and present the illusion of voter participation without the danger of undue voter influence.

          • Reuben_the_Red

            Excellent discussion of the intersection of money, power, and early 21st century technology in the US today. Food for thought, especially paired with Moyer's recent documentary about ALEC.

            One caveat: Paragraph 21 starts out saying, "the Deep State is so heavily entrenched, so well protected by
            surveillance, firepower, money and its ability to co-opt resistance that
            it is almost impervious to change," but in paragraph 22, "there are signs of resistance to the Deep State and its demands." Paragraph 21 has already made the case that resistance is irrelevant and impotent in the face of the Deep State apparatus, power/wealth reserves, and democracy-subverting methodology. And that's probably true. There may be no way to actually extricate the Deep State from The Superficial State.

            We are left in the final few paragraphs with a series of reasons that the Deep State might reverse course voluntarily, or unravel of its own accord, but in the end what we really need is "a figure with the serene self-confidence to tell
            us that the twin idols of national security and corporate power are
            outworn dogmas that have nothing more to offer us": in other words, some kind of charismatic, messianic Jesus-person, to save us from ourselves. I don't object to the author trying to end with a hopeful note of optimism, but how would this person reach us with that message? Are there not already a host of people who have been saying exactly that for decades, from Noam Chomsky to Angela Davis, from Daniel Quinn to Arundhati Roy, from Mark Twain to John Lennon? Have we not managed to ignore and disregard a notable and widely-published list of people trying to tell us that national security and corporate power are outworn dogmas that do nothing to elevate humanity nor the human condition?

            "Thus disenthralled,
            the people themselves will unravel the Deep State with surprising speed." It seems clear that we will be forever enthralled with our credit scores and our televised sporting events and other televised virtual realities until the government of the US actually collapses due to a variety of currently known and unknown factors (economic, ecological, etc). And that's not gonna be pretty either. And even then there is the further possibility that in such an event of complete destabilization (not unthinkable, has happened throughout history, around the world), the Deep State could become simply The State.

          • Reuben_the_Red

            Agreed. Presumably there is no incentive in the Deep State to undermine the omnipotence of the Deep State.

            There are ways to increase voter participation (non-participation fines and penalties as I understand Australians are subject to; make voting day a federal holiday or even better a three-day weekend; give the right to vote back to felons and inmates alike; etc.) but wouldn't we still be left to choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee?

          • Charles Shaver

            I haven't voted for Tweedledee or Tweedledum for President since Ronald Reagan and, since learning of Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 2012, I don't vote for either for Congress. I'd rather take a chance on a third, fourth or fifth party unknown, a blank ballot or a write-in candidate than on another known destroyer from one of the two major parties. Participation alone is not enough; it has to be informed participation, referenced against the clear, plain and simple language of the U.S. Constitution. So, how do we get the word out?

          • Reuben_the_Red

            It would have been a very different election in 2012 if the Republican establishment and the corporate media machine had not colluded to rig the primaries so that Mitt Romney was the nominee, and not the one that the majority of voting Republicans wanted, Ron Paul, who ran on a platform that ironically appealed to many leftists, because of his insistence that foreign military interventions and US global military incursions cease immediately.

            It's possible that the realistic threat of a viable third party candidate on the outer fringe of the left or the right could be enough to force that respective party to yield to those fringe demands, incorporating those demands into a mainstream platform, more or less like the Tea Party did with the Republican party in recent years, threatening to take their votes elsewhere.

            At the same time, more Americans voted for left wing platforms than right wing platforms in 2000, but due to the winner-takes-all elections, we didn't get a government that was 5% Nader, 45% Gore, 45% Bush, majority leftist reflecting the vote. We got 100% Bush. We got corporate welfare, tax cuts for the uber wealthy which did not result in higher employment, we got two decade-long unprovoked foreign wars riddled with war crimes, and we got persistent recession. Some of these things, if not all of them, would not and could not have happened under a Nader/Gore-led government. The Deep State expanded massively with the Bush/Cheney administration's complicity. I wish that it was worthwhile to vote for third-party candidates, but we can expect them to receive no media coverage, few votes overall despite the possibly broad appeal of their platform, and in the end it would be irrelevant because of the Electoral College. If I live in Oregon and vote for Romney my vote is thrown away as surely as if I live in Utah and vote for Obama.

            In answer to your question, how do we get the word out, I think the only answer is media ownership. Our lives are more consumed by media today than ever before in the history of the world, and all of the media is concentrated in fewer hands, with more consensus among those few hands, than ever before.

          • Charles Shaver

            It would be a very different election every time, and nation, if the majority would simply quit believing in the now defunct two-party system, corporate owned media and an extremist capitalist system that values the gains of the uber wealthy over the lives and limbs of workers and the poor. It's okay to question the status quo, ignore corporate media, do independent research, vote totally independent of family tradition and elect questionable strangers (as opposed to proved bipartisan failures) to defund the Deep State. Need a little more direction? Review the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It pretty well sums it all up in rather clear, plain and simple English, if you keep in mind that not just millionaires, billionaires and multi-national corporations (allegedly) are 'people.' Good conversation.

          • jeffries

            Mike Lofgren wrote the essay. Bill Moyers was allowed to interview him. PBS has its hands tied by the "deep state" too. If you doubt this talk ask PBS why they pulled the plug on the Koch Brothers expose.

          • jeffries

            The "deep state," like a parasite, will continue until its host is dead. My guess is they are in a state of panic-their host is on life support. The party is over- the rest of the world has had enough of the U.S. The petro dollar has been broken. The dollar will be dethroned as the world reserve currency and the torch will be passed to China no later than 2018. The players of the "deep state" will not be able to infiltrate and latch onto this new host and so they will fight to the death, more accurately our sons and daughters death, to keep the U.S. in its position. Resist war is all we can do and not buy into the steady stream of propaganda that will be bombarding us at every turn.

          • Hatha Sunahara

            I haven't read all 328 comments so far, but I just wonder if anybody has picked up on the reason the deep state has developed. I think it's development stems from the evolution of the United States from a Republic into an Empire. No empire can exist with restrictions on its power like those put on the United States by the Constitution. So, instead of discarding the Constitution, the United States was subsumed into an 'extra-constitutional government'. Of course, nobody bothered to tell the people of the United States that their power had been usurped by a lawless Imperial overlord. Responsibility for that egregious oversight can be laid to the mainstream media, which is owned by the owners of the extra-constitutional government. These are the global media corporations.

            If you view politics this way, it explains a lot of things. Empire relies on it's military power and the acceptance of its money. Anyone who does not accept the empire's money generates hostility from the empire. The empire wages war without any declaration of war. The extra constitutional government allows that. The empire cannot tolerate privacy because that would allow people to plot against the empire without interference. So the empire puts everyone under surveillance. The empire cannot tolerate resistance or disobedience, so it develops a police state to instil fear and obedience in people. There are many many more examples of how empire rules America and usurps the US government–which exists for the people of the United States. Americans, and the people of the other countries in the world understand this viscerally, but are unable to express this in coherent thought because their language has been corrupted by the forces of empire. Mike Lofgren doesn't make this connection because iit violates the rules of political correctness. Everyone's career is tied to strict adherence to political correctness, and

          • Anonymous

            And many of the voters have been brainwashed by the 5 or 6 corporations that control the media. Fear entertainment.

          • Anonymous

            After I read Top Secret America I came to the conclusion that since 9/11 Homeland Security has become so incredibly humongous and so political it will keep growing until the US is bankrupt. The was the goal of Benladen. Europe did not fall for it be we did.

          • Anonymous

            Some contemporary books Blackwater, Bloodmoney, and especially Confessions if a Economic Hit Man. Also Top Secret America.

          • Charles Shaver

            I think a better name for 'Homeland Security' is 'elitist money addict insecurity.' And, it and treasonous corporate media propaganda will keep growing until we as an injured people finally 'Just say NO!' to the 'perpetraitors.' Thanks for commenting, above and below.

          • Anonymous

            There is a small very readable book written by John Perkins named Confessions of an Economic hit Man. This is the way the Corporatocracy has used the IMF and World Bank to take over the assets of less developed countries. And if their leaders do not agree to go along well then read what happens to them.

          • Anonymous

            In many states felons are legally allowed to vote if they have served their sentences. And if they moved to Florida their vote was legal. But Jeb Bush broke the law and did not allow their vote to count in the Bush/Gore election. The Republicans also paid a fortune to a company named Choice Point to scrub the polls. They also did this in the latest election for Governor. How can they get away with these tactics? The tactics that are being used in North Carolina lately are extremely difficult to counteract.

          • Anonymous

            Funny (not ha ha) when I try to tell friends what is going on within Homeland Security (the redundancy, the extreme size of it and the number of government and private buildings all around the Washington suburbs) they respond by stating that they approve of all this. Homeland security is so political that this state if affairs will be sucking up our tax dollars forever.

          • Neil Kitson

            "These men, largely private, were functioning on a level different from the foreign policy of the United States, and years later when New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan read through the entire documentary history of the war, that history known as the Pentagon Papers, he would come away with one impression above all, which was that the government of the United States was not what he had thought it was; it was as if there were an inner U.S. government, what he called 'a centralized state, far more powerful than anything else, for whom the enemy is not simply the Communists but everything else, its own press, its own judiciary, its own Congress, foreign and friendly governments – all these are potentially antagonistic.

            It had survived and perpetuated itself,' Sheehan continued, 'often using the issue of anti-Communism as a weapon against the other branches of government and the press, and finally, it does not function necessarily for the benefit of the Republic but rather for its own ends, its own perpetuation; it has its own codes which are quite different from public codes.

            Secrecy was a way of protecting itself, not so much from threats by foreign governments but from detection from its own population on charges of its own competence and wisdom.' Each succeeding Administration, Sheehan noted, was careful, once in office, not to expose the weaknesses of its predecessor. After all, essentially the same people were running the governments, they had continuity to each other, and each succeeding Administration found itself faced with virtually the same enemies.

            Thus the national security apparatus kept its continuity, and every outgoing President tended to rally to the side of the incumbent President.

            "Out of this of course came a willingness to use covert operations; it was a necessity of the times, to match the Communists, and what your own population and your own Congress did not know was not particularly important; it was almost better if they did not know…"

            David Halberstam
            The Best and The Brightest

          • Charles Shaver

            Very typically, you appear to be better informed and better read on some aspects of our failed and failing nation-state than I. Admittedly, I don't have all the answers. Briefly, though, respective of all you cite, I find the vast majority of Americans just don't want to be burdened any more with good citizenship (e.g., election statistics). Most recently, another symptom of the underlying problem was highlighted when the billionaire owner of a mere commercial (as opposed to 'professional') basketball team in a society that tolerates abject poverty and illegal war was severely chastised and sanctioned for only elitist, racist remarks. Summarily, let me say that my America took a big turn for the worse when the 'Pied Piper' was bribed to play the National Anthem. Nope, not 'ha ha' funny, at all. And, I don't know whether to dread or rejoice the day when the coerced laughter finally ends, and the music dies.

          • Anonymous

            During the 2nd Bush administration I started to notice all the books listed in the Washington Post book section about his administration. After awhile I thought maybe I should start reading. The first page turner was one by Bob Woodward about the lead up to the Iraq war. It showed me that we were not getting truth from the media so I kept on reading books. First about Iraq-Fiasco, The man who got is into the war Amad Chalabi, Blackwater, Bloodmoney and many others. I keep telling people to read more but they choose not to. They are either working too hard or if retired playing too hard. They just want to be spoon fed and are addicted to outrage entertainment. I continued my reading on economics, finance, climate change and understand much more than I did before. Keynes vs Hyeck explains the history of the two economic theories. Also how the shift to the right happened during The Reagan and Thatcher administrations. Age of Greed explains how a few very greedy men influenced congress to repeal laws and pass laws in their favor. Tim Flannerys book The Weather Makers explains Climate change. And there are too many books written on income disparity and the danger to democracy. What is happening is out of control and a nightmare. I don't think people understand that when a government service for the commons is privatized it becomes a corporation with lobbyists that influence Congress and that we taxpayers must pay their employees at a much higher rate. Like the army contractors, prisons and so on. People do not put on their thinking caps. Sorry for the rant.

          • Charles Shaver

            Interesting, impressive; different paths, one destination; better a rant than a sell-out or surrender. Beware of putting too much faith in the opinions of others, myself included. We all are products of our past and there is a natural tendency for the adult progeny to emulate the parent; the student to mimic the teacher; the reader to quote the author. I find the U.S. Constitution is the best source of information about how America should function but I don't hear or see much of that from any of the so-called 'experts.' If electrical engineers treated Ohm's Law like authors, bankers, government, lawyers and the 'people' treat the U.S. Constitution, you'd be reading this in script on parchment by candlelight, if at all. And, don't let me discourage you; where I fail you may succeed. Let reason prevail. Thanks for the stimulating conversation.

          • Anonymous

            Yes we all have the tendency to read whatever validates our worldview. I read Gretchen Morgensterns book named Reckless Endangerment about Fannie Mae. Saw her talk on Cspan book channel. Needed to get to the bottom of that mess. Jim Johnson was and still is a very shady character. It is strange however that the Republicans reduced the entire 2008 recession down to two sound bites Fannie Mae and the CRA (I think that is the acrynom) for the program to stop the redlining. No one knows anything about the history and purpose of Fannie Mae and it's original purpose until Johnson got his hands on it. If one has critical thinking one can sift out the truth. I just cannot believe that people will believe a sound bite without any hesitation.

          • Charles Shaver

            Been 'deep thinking' a lot more about the Deep State but, without yesterday's lost credentials or celebrity (good or bad), there's not much I can presently do. One clever sound-bite might do the trick but none I've composed and tried so far have caught on. Still, probably, is tomorrow.

          • Anonymous

            I actually thought of a really good sound bite and communicated it to the White House. No one took me up on it. Wish I could remember what it was. If you have any you could try. But they are not very confrontational.

          • Charles Shaver

            I liked candidate Obama's words but never voted for him, because he already belonged to one of two already proved dysfunctional major political parties. Writing the Obama White House and even getting a few generic replies while watching him fail the office, too, I do not regret 'wasting' my vote on a 'green' third party candidate. After rereading The Anatomy of the Deep State, today, I'm sure I could read more and probably phrase things better but am still confident in my decades of working-class experience-based conclusions and suggestions.

          • sorval

            "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave"

            has become

            Land of the "Free", Home of the "Brave".

          • johnnyomaha

            Privatization of the US constitution to serve the elite…..

          • http://www.rrstevens.net/ Robert Stevens

            … OR is it "Land of the Greed, Home of the Knave" -- Let's sing it all together before the next Football Game and Circus: ♫ "o'er the Land of the Greed …" ♫

          • Anonymous

            Where's the who, what, when, where, and why? Collected everyday simple observations will awaken one to the existence of a higher controlling entity. No more problem identification or descriptions, thank you very much. We need 1) facts and 2) solutions.

          • unheilig

            Lofgren gives both. Did you read the article? Confirmation is easy enough too: all you need is a browser and a few hours searching off-off-lamestream information sources.

          • Jocelyn Hawley

            To both dn7904 and Charles Shaver, I read your back and forth discussion and realize that I so crave that type of intelligent, informed and aware discussion within my interactions in my daily life, but none can really exist. Most people are so concerned with the outcomes of the game, or fantasy football, or the latest t.v. series, and how on earth to pay rent and other minutia. The little bit of news comes from prime time networks like Fox, NBC and CNN and they think they know what is happening in the world, but don't actually want to know what is really happening. The trick to an article like this one, is not yet how we change the problem, but how we get people to notice, be aware and to care. That is the real question and the first- most prominent problem to be solved.

          • Anonymous

            I think there are more creative ways for the citizenry to communicate their discontent than to wait four years for the next highly-funded election.
            I remember being in an international conference and the minister of Health from a major developed country came on stage just days after making a very unpopular move. One person stood up and simply turned her back on the Minister, then another, then a dozen, then the whole auditorium of major players in the scientific community.
            It made headlines.
            I resent the fact that a movement like MoveOn now just asks me for money like all the other PAC's. They used to send out flyers and have photos posted of people all over the country holding the same flyer.
            What comes to mind is that we remain the developed country in which the fewest people take vacation. How can we possibly stop and think about creative democracy? Ironically the revolutionary thought that was the spark that set off the flames of this country came from the leisure class who had plenty of time to think and write about things like freedom and liberty.

          • Charles Shaver

            Thank you for prodding me to do some additional 'Deep Thinking.' The harm is done. Thanks to the apathetic and/or ignorant majority of a voting minority, the balance of power in the U.S. has now been transferred from the left hand of organized crime to the right hand, for the next two years. At least the majority is consistent in its failure to self-govern by voting, and voting wisely.

            While (if) still allowed, voting wisely is the only reasonable solution. Creative protesting (e.g., 'occupy' them, pass out flyers, shout them down, turn your back or throw them a shoe) means nothing when the final vote is counted to determine who actually makes and enforces the rules. Not omniscient or perfect, either, I'm open to suggestions but with very little to work with after several decades of too-typical abuse, betrayal, exploitation and oppression, served in the pseudonyms of loyalty, patriotism, sacrifice and service. If mere reasoning worked then Bill Moyers and 'company' would have already solved most of the major problems. Don't let me discourage you, though, keep on with your own deep thinking.

          • John Schoneboom

            Two flaws jump out at me from this otherwise rather good and useful article. The first is that Mr. Lofgren implies that the Deep State is mainly a Republican thing. In the picture he paints, it's the Republicans who want to pay the national security state, while the poor hapless Democrats just want to increase social spending. Similarly, he makes excuses for Obama in footnote 7. (Presidents are surely mostly puppets, but Obama's 2008 FISA vote as Senator betrays his own predilections well enough.) At best, this is the farcical veneer of Deep State Theatre. I suspect Mr. Lofgren knows better and didn't mean to imply otherwise.

            Secondly, government shutdowns and budgetary problems may be an inconvenience to the Deep State, but no accounting of the Deep State is complete without figuring in off-the-books revenue from the global drug trade. International partnerships and oil interests also help diversify the income stream nicely. There are many billions feeding this thing that have nothing to do with the US budget.

            It's also somewhat criminal not to name-check Peter Dale Scott in this subject area. But I'm nitpicking. I'll not bother criticizing the piece for not addressing Deep State ties with terrorism, that kettle of fish deserves its own barrel. Like I said, nice piece, useful, well done, thank you.

          • Douglas Harris

            does no one see there is a reason for the immense defense spending as America becomes #2 in world economy and the dollar might be replaced as the reserve currency?
            The Chinese own enough treasury paper to close the American economy, alone or with several willing partners. BUT…America even as a declining economic dictator will still have the arms to maintain world control…

          • Anonymous

            I had no real a-ha moment reading this well written piece. Nothing jumped out at me as something foreign or unknown. Instead, I had the sense of deja vu, the kind of deja vu I'd rather not have. All these things have been known if the consumer of this good piece has been paying attention to the not-mainline press. What is so exciting about this is the writer put all the information in one place and drew out the connections that weren't always so obvious. Though Mr. Lofgren paints a somewhat plausible picture of how this State may rather suddenly crumble, I'm a bit dubious.

            What seems missing are the global links among many of these actors especially the oligarchs reach and connection to many things terrorism. What I'm saying is that I'm not terribly optimistic that a leader will come along who is sufficiently unbeholden to the state and who can remain un-co-opted and call this state for what it is thus raising our fellow Americans sustained interest and desire to see through the mess it will take to overthrow this Deep State.. In any case, thanks so much for such a thoughtful and creepy picture.

          • Anonymous

            None of this is news. A President who cared could smash the Deep State in, probably, nine months. The key lockhold the Deep State has at the moment is on the nomination process, which is used to filter out any Presidents, and most Congressional nominees, who show signs of independent thought. They've been doing this since Reagan (Carter was the last President with independent thought; Reagan was ideal, being an actor with Alzheimer's and so not thinking much at all.) There are two ways this can play out: either they lose their lockhold on the nomination process, or the entire system is discredited and we get a revolution.

            The Deep State is actually very fragile due to their fundamental incompetence. But they're quite capable of wrecking our existing system, at which point there will be an opening for a Caesar or a Napoleon or a Lenin who *is* competent. That is the true danger moment. The worst scenario is revolving-door coups, such as Mexico suffered for decades in the 18th and 19th century.

          • Anonymous

            The American Empire is, however, in decline phase. You can identify that by the inability to conquer territory and the slow loss of territory from the edges. The peak of the American Empire was actually in the late 19th century… A collapsing empire follows a weird trajectory. Many comparisons have been made to the Roman Empire. That worked out poorly.

          • Anonymous

            You could also read the much older "War is A Racket" by Smedley Butler.

            The IMF/World Bank scam was working for a while. It doesn't work any more: South American countries simply reject it. And the US has no power to muscle South American countries any more; I'm not quite sure how they managed to become immune to US military intervention, but they have. They have had about 200 years of trial and error in figuring out how.

            Now, the rest of the world just needs to copy the South American model and the US IMF/World Bank scam becomes untenable.

          • Anonymous

            Proportional representation is critical, but I haven't figured out how to get anyone to pay attention to it. Even at the local level, where the deep state has no traction because it's paying no attention.

          • Anonymous

            Thankfully the fight against electronic voting machines is already pretty strong. This is something people understand viscerally and this is a key plank for whatever party is going to dethrone the Rs & Ds. Basically, if electronic "voting" machines are delegitimized (as they should be), this means people will actually fight for their paper ballots…

          • Anonymous

            I think you're wrong about how most Americans will react. The levels of disillusionment are very, very high now and you can measure them in polls.

            Just before the Civil War, we saw the same dynamic: most of the country was completely disillusioned about the "slavocracy", as they called the corrupt US government dominated by slaveholders. This led to the election of Lincoln, the destruction of the Whig Party, and finally, the Civil War.

            This is the sort of situation we have now. The Deep State can't win; it will be smashed as Americans unite behind a Lincoln-like figure. The only questions are when this will happen, and more importantly *what comes next*. Things are wide open after that happens: Sun Yat-Sen led (unfortunately) to Mao.

          • jeffries

            Well it will be interesting how the Greece situation plays out. It seems strange we don't hear much or read much in main stream media about it. They are challenging the status quo. At first the banks gave them until the 28th and then cut it to 10 days. It would be in everyone's best interest if this was the beginning of the end for the EU. Diffused power is the best power. If the EU fails we won't be pressured into a union with Canada and Mexico. I think that was the plan of the global deep state. Aggregate nations into regions and then larger regions and then it would not be such a jump to global government.

          • Anonymous

            "….. Americans sustained interest…."
            Lack of interest is the real killer of all empires.

          [Nov 01, 2015] Why has American national security policy changed so little from the Bush administration to the Obama

          America's "Madisonian institutions," namely, the Congress, the presidency, and the courts have been supplanted by a "Trumanite network" of bureaucrats who make up the permanent national security state. National security policymaking has been removed from public view and largely insulated from law and politics.
          Notable quotes:
          "... national security policy is determined largely by "the several hundred managers of the military, intelligence, diplomatic, and law enforcement agencies who are responsible for protecting the nation and who have come to operate largely immune from constitutional and electoral restraints." The president, congress and the courts play largely a symbolic role in national security policy ..."
          "... You can read a Harvard National Security Journal article that outlines Glennon's argument at this link: http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Final.pdf . The paper is not an especially easy read, but I found it to be well researched and – for me – persuasive. ..."
          "... National Security and Double Government ..."
          "... "Glennon shows how the underlying national security bureaucracy in Washington – what might be called the deep state – ensures that presidents and their successors act on the world stage like Tweedledee and Tweedledum." ..."
          "... "In our faux democracy, those we elect to govern serve largely ornamental purposes, while those who actually wield power, especially in the realm of national security, do so chiefly with an eye toward preserving their status and prerogatives. Read this incisive and richly documented book, and you'll understand why." ..."
          "... U.S. national security policy is in fact conducted by a shadow government of bureaucrats and a supporting network of think tanks, media insiders, and ambitious policy wonks. ..."
          "... "is that the United States government has enduring institutional interests that carry over from administration to administration and almost always dictate the position the government takes." ..."
          "... And now IMO the DEEP STATE is about to DEEP SIX the Career military in the US as it organizes violence and the SURVEILLANCE STATE outside the ARMED FORCES. ..."
          "... My short answer is that Government of the people, by the people, and for the people [the Lincoln formulation] probably expired with the dead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki! ..."
          "... I think we could make as much of the supine legislature that lends weight to Glennon's argument as he does the "permanent" executive agency security apparatus. If they're to be properly responsive to public will, executive agencies need better written laws. ..."
          January 20, 2015 | Homeland Security Watch

          That's the question Michael J. Glennon asks in his book "National Security and Double Government."

          His answer: national security policy is determined largely by "the several hundred managers of the military, intelligence, diplomatic, and law enforcement agencies who are responsible for protecting the nation and who have come to operate largely immune from constitutional and electoral restraints." The president, congress and the courts play largely a symbolic role in national security policy, Glennon claims.

          You can read a Harvard National Security Journal article that outlines Glennon's argument at this link: http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Final.pdf. The paper is not an especially easy read, but I found it to be well researched and – for me – persuasive.

          His book adds more analysis to the argument, using (from Graham Allison's Essence of Decision) the rational actor model, the government politics model, and the organizational behavior model. Glennon extends that framework by discussing culture, networks, and the myth of alternative competing hypotheses. The book is richer, in my opinion. But the core of Glennon's position is in the paper.

          This link takes you to a video of Glennon talking about his book at the Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/events/national-security-double-government (the talk starts at the 5:20 mark).

          From the Cato site:

          In National Security and Double Government, Michael Glennon examines the continuity in U.S. national security policy from the Bush administration to the Obama administration. Glennon explains the lack of change by pointing to the enervation of America's "Madisonian institutions," namely, the Congress, the presidency, and the courts. In Glennon's view, these institutions have been supplanted by a "Trumanite network" of bureaucrats who make up the permanent national security state. National security policymaking has been removed from public view and largely insulated from law and politics. Glennon warns that leaving security policy in the hands of the Trumanite network threatens Americans' liberties and the republican form of government.

          Some blurb reviews:

          • "If constitutional government is to endure in the United States, Americans must confront the fundamental challenges presented by this chilling analysis of the national security state."
            Bruce Ackerman
          • "Glennon shows how the underlying national security bureaucracy in Washington – what might be called the deep state – ensures that presidents and their successors act on the world stage like Tweedledee and Tweedledum." John J. Mearsheimer
          • "National Security and Double Government is brilliant, deep, sad, and vastly learned across multiple fields–a work of Weberian power and stature. It deserves to be read and discussed. The book raises philosophical questions in the public sphere in a way not seen at least since Fukuyama's end of history." David A. Westbrook
          • "In our faux democracy, those we elect to govern serve largely ornamental purposes, while those who actually wield power, especially in the realm of national security, do so chiefly with an eye toward preserving their status and prerogatives. Read this incisive and richly documented book, and you'll understand why." Andrew J. Bacevich
          • "…Michael Glennon provides a compelling argument that America's national security policy is growing outside the bounds of existing government institutions. This is at once a constitutional challenge, but is also a case study in how national security can change government institutions, create new ones, and, in effect, stand-up a parallel state…." Vali Nasr
          • "Instead of being responsive to citizens or subject to effective checks and balances, U.S. national security policy is in fact conducted by a shadow government of bureaucrats and a supporting network of think tanks, media insiders, and ambitious policy wonks. Presidents may come and go, but the permanent national security establishment inevitably defeats their efforts to chart a new course…."Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer

          I've spoken to three people I consider to be members of the "shadow national security state." One person said Glennon's argument is nothing new. The second told me he's got it exactly right. The third said it's even worse.

          William R. Cumming, January 20, 2015 @ 8:38 am

          ah! the deep state analyzed correctly imo!

          and imo only the nuclear priesthood rivals the deep state but not exactly part of it yet its original source!

          like the mayan priests only those in it know how accurate this book is in its analysis!

          and a congress marches on in complete ignorance!

          Mike Mealer, January 21, 2015 @ 7:48 pm

          Great article. Read it a few months ago. I didn't know whether I should feel more secure or afraid. Looking the items I highlighted and a few standout.

          "The dirty little secret here," a former associate counsel in the Bush White House, Brad Berenson, explained, "is that the United States government has enduring institutional interests that carry over from administration to administration and almost always dictate the position the government takes."178 P34

          Its cohesion notwithstanding, the Trumanite network is curiously amorphous. It has no leader. It is not monolithic. It has no formal structure. P32

          The maintenance of Trumanite autonomy has depended upon two conditions. The first is that the Madisonian institutions appear to be in charge of the nation's security. The second is that the Madisonian institutions not actually be in charge. P34

          Public opinion is, accordingly, a flimsy check on the Trumanites; it is a manipulable tool of power enhancement. It is therefore rarely possible for any occupant of the Oval Office to prevail against strong, unified Trumanite opposition, for the same reasons that members of Congress and the judiciary cannot; a non-expert president, like a non-expert senator and a non-expert judge, is intimidated by expert Trumanites and does not want to place himself (or a colleague or a potential political successor) at risk by looking weak and gambling that the Trumanites are mistaken. So presidents wisely "choose" to go along. P70

          John Comiskey, January 22, 2015 @ 7:14 am

          Civic Education 101

          Glennon laments as did Justice Souter, the pervasive civic ignorance of the citizenry. Democracy requires an informed and engaged citizenry. The recent and ongoing debates about the role the police in society raise similar question and doubts about our social contract and governance for the 21st century.

          Where to from here?

          A national conversation about civics and K-12 civic education.

          What is the proper role of citizens in society?
          What is the proper role of our polity?

          William R. Cumming, January 22, 2015 @ 8:53 am

          Again interesting thread and comments. The use of the term "Trumanite" is unfortunate and totally inaccurate IMO! Truman reluctantly signed the National Security Act of 1947 to resolve the documented failures of Jointness between the Army and Navy in WWII [the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy--Stimson and King]! Truman was personally opposed to the establishment of the CIA for many good reasons.

          What is the real failure is the creation of the Nuclear Priesthood which largely failed to guard its secrets from other Nation-States and individuals and the warping into the DEEP STATE [the better term than DOUBLR GOVERTNMENT]!

          And now IMO the DEEP STATE is about to DEEP SIX the Career military in the US as it organizes violence and the SURVEILLANCE STATE outside the ARMED FORCES.

          A close study of the overturning of the ALIEN AND SEDITION Acts of 1798 which destroyed chances for a second term for John Adams and created the first real Presidential Election in the USA, the Presidential Election of 1800, which brought into officer Jefferson, but almost brought Aaron Burr to real power.

          Study of James Madison so-called VIRGINIA RESOLUTION opposing the ASA is fully warranted. Too bad John Yoo did not know this history.

          William R. Cumming, January 22, 2015 @ 2:43 pm

          I need to mention that I did read the article and listened to the Cato Institute Panel.

          The Panel presentations might lead one to argue that Double or nothing or the DEEP STATE what difference does it make past, present, or future?

          My short answer is that Government of the people, by the people, and for the people [the Lincoln formulation] probably expired with the dead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki! Perhaps not but until argued and proven otherwise that is my conclusion! Perhaps wrong and hoping so!

          Jack, January 24, 2015 @ 2:47 pm

          A fascinating and needful argument, though I think we could make as much of the supine legislature that lends weight to Glennon's argument as he does the "permanent" executive agency security apparatus. If they're to be properly responsive to public will, executive agencies need better written laws.

          The Critical Infrastructure Protection Act or CIPA, which passed the house in 2014, would, "require the Assistant Secretary of the National Protection and Programs Directorate to: (1) include in national planning scenarios the threat of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) events…" (emphasis mine). The national planning scenarios were rescinded in 2011, making CIPA either a very easy or very hard law to execute.

          Likewise, the Biggert-Waters flood insurance reform act of 2012 altered regulatory definitions for "substantial damage" and "substantial improvement" by misunderstanding the way field damage assessments are performed under the National Flood Insurance Program.

          Which means, I suppose, that we need more able legislators…which may be unlikely if more Americans don't know Publius from Curly.

          [Oct 31, 2015] No Real Chance of Another Financial Crisis - Silly

          Notable quotes:
          "... The difficulty we have in the economics profession, I fear, is a great deal of herd instinct and concern about what others may say. And when the Fed runs their policy pennants up the flagpole, only someone truly secure in their thinking, or forsworn to some strong ideological interpretation of reality or bias if we are truly honest, dare not salute it. ..."
          "... But it makes the point which I have made over and again, that all of the economic models are faulty and merely a caricature of reality. And therefore policy ought not to be dictated by models, but by policy objectives and a strong bias to results, rather than the dictates of process or methods. In this FDR had it exactly right. If we find something does not stimulate the broader economy or effect the desired policy objective, like tax cuts for the rich, using that approach over and over again is certainly not going to be effective. ..."
          "... Economics are a form of social and political science. And with the political and social process corrupted by big money, what can we expect from would be philosopher kings. ..."
          "... The interconnectedness of the global system with its massive and underregulated TBTF Banks, the widespread and often fraudulent mispricing of risk, all make cause for a financial system to be fragile. In this thinking Nassim Taleb is far ahead of the common economic thought as a real systems thinker. The Fed is not a systemic thinking organization because they are owned by the financial status quo, and real systemic reform rarely comes from within. ..."
          "... So Mr. Baker, rather than looking for the bubble, lets say we have a fragile system still disordered and mispricing risk, with a few very large banks engaging in reckless speculation, mispricing risk for short term profits, manipulating markets, and distorting the processes designed to maintain a balance in the economy. Rather than hold out for a new bubble as your criterion, perhaps we may also consider that the patient is still on full life support after the last bubble and crisis. Why do we need to find a new source of malady when the old one is still having its way? ..."
          "... A new crisis does not have to happen. This is the vain comfort in these sorts of black swan events, being hard to predict. But they can be more likely given the right conditions, and I fear little will be done about this one until even those who are quite personally comfortable with things as they are begin to feel the pain, ..."
          "... neither Irwin nor anyone else has even identified a serious candidate. Until someone can at least give us their candidate bubble, we need not take the financial crisis story seriously. ..."
          "... If we take this collapse story off the table, then we need to reframe the negative scenario. It is not a sudden plunge in output, but rather a period of slow growth and weak job creation. This seems like a much more plausible story... ..."
          jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com

          I like Dean Baker quite well, and often link to his columns. On most things we are pretty much on the same page.

          And to his credit he was one of the few 'mainstream' economists to actually see the housing bubble developing, and call it out. Some may claim to have done so, and can even cite a sentence or two where they may have mentioned it, like Paul Krugman for example. But very few spoke about doing something about it while it was in progress. The Fed was aware according to their own minutes, and ignored it.

          The difficulty we have in the economics profession, I fear, is a great deal of herd instinct and concern about what others may say. And when the Fed runs their policy pennants up the flagpole, only someone truly secure in their thinking, or forsworn to some strong ideological interpretation of reality or bias if we are truly honest, dare not salute it.

          Am I such a person? Do I actually see a fragile financial system that is still corrupt and highly levered, grossly mispricing risks? Or am I just seeing things the way in which I wish to see them?

          That difficulty arises because economics is no science. It involves judgment and principles, and weighs the facts far too heavily based upon 'reputation' and 'status.' And of course I have none of those and wish none.

          But it makes the point which I have made over and again, that all of the economic models are faulty and merely a caricature of reality. And therefore policy ought not to be dictated by models, but by policy objectives and a strong bias to results, rather than the dictates of process or methods. In this FDR had it exactly right. If we find something does not stimulate the broader economy or effect the desired policy objective, like tax cuts for the rich, using that approach over and over again is certainly not going to be effective.

          Economics are a form of social and political science. And with the political and social process corrupted by big money, what can we expect from would be 'philosopher kings.'

          The housing bubble was no 'cause' of the latest financial crisis. More properly it was the tinder and the trigger event. The S&L crisis was just as great, if not greater. Why then did it not bring the global financial system to its knees?

          The interconnectedness of the global system with its massive and underregulated TBTF Banks, the widespread and often fraudulent mispricing of risk, all make cause for a financial system to be 'fragile.' In this thinking Nassim Taleb is far ahead of the common economic thought as a real 'systems thinker.' The Fed is not a systemic thinking organization because they are owned by the financial status quo, and real systemic reform rarely comes from within.

          I see the same fragility which existed from 1999 to 2008 still in the system, only grown larger, global, and more profoundly influencing the political processes.

          The only question is what 'trigger event' might set it spinning, and how great of a magnitude will it have to be in order to do so. The more fragile the system, the less that is required to knock it off its underpinnings.

          And a crisis is not a binary event. There is the 'trigger' and the dawning perception of risks, and the initial responses of the political, social, and regulatory powers.

          There is no point in debating this, because the regulators and powerful groups like the Fed are caught in a credibility trap, which prevents them from seeing things as they are, and saying so.

          So Mr. Baker, rather than looking for the bubble, let's say we have a fragile system still disordered and mispricing risk, with a few very large banks engaging in reckless speculation, mispricing risk for short term profits, manipulating markets, and distorting the processes designed to maintain a balance in the economy. Rather than hold out for a 'new bubble' as your criterion, perhaps we may also consider that the patient is still on full life support after the last bubble and crisis. Why do we need to find a new source of malady when the old one is still having its way?

          I think if one exercises clear and open judgement, they can see that we have stirred up the same pot of witches brew that has made the system fragile and vulnerable to an exogenous shock, and has kept it so.

          A new crisis does not have to happen. This is the vain comfort in these sorts of 'black swan' events, being hard to predict. But they can be more likely given the right conditions, and I fear little will be done about this one until even those who are quite personally comfortable with things as they are begin to feel the pain,

          The problem is not a 'bubble.' The problem is pervasive corruption, fraud, and lack of meaningful reform. The 'candidate' is the financial system itself, with its outsized hedge funds and the TBTF Banks with their serial crime sprees and accommodative regulators in particular.

          And if one cannot see that in this rotten system with its brazenly narrow rewarding of a select few with the bulk of new income, then there is little more that can be said.

          Neil Irwin, a writer for the NYT Upshot section, had an interesting debate with himself about the likely future course of the economy. He got the picture mostly right in my view, with a few important qualifications.

          "First, his negative scenario is another recession and possibly a financial crisis. I know a lot of folks are saying this stuff, but it's frankly a little silly. The basis of the last financial crisis was a massive amount of debt issued against a hugely over-valued asset (housing). A financial crisis that actually rocks the economy needs this sort of basis.

          If a lot of people are speculating in the stock of Uber or other wonder companies, and reality wipes them out, this is just a story of some speculators being wiped out. It is not going to shake the economy as a whole. (San Francisco's economy could take a serious hit.)

          Anyhow, financial crises don't just happen, there has to be a real basis for them. To me the housing bubble was pretty obvious given the unprecedented and unexplained run-up in prices in the largest market in the world. Perhaps there is another bubble out there like this, but neither Irwin nor anyone else has even identified a serious candidate. Until someone can at least give us their candidate bubble, we need not take the financial crisis story seriously.

          If we take this collapse story off the table, then we need to reframe the negative scenario. It is not a sudden plunge in output, but rather a period of slow growth and weak job creation. This seems like a much more plausible story...

          Anyhow, a story of slow job growth and ongoing wage stagnation would look like a pretty bad story to most of the country. It may not be as dramatic as a financial crisis that brings the world banking system to its knees, but it is far more likely and therefore something that we should be very worried about."

          Dean Baker, Debating the Economy with Neil Irwin, 31 October 2015

          [Oct 31, 2015] Another Black Swan? Turkey Holds Snap Elections Amid NATO-Backed Civil War

          Notable quotes:
          "... Turkey is suspected of supplying the chemical weapons used in Ghouta in August 2013 as reported by Seymour Hersh here . In May 2013, Nusra fighters were arrested in possession of sarin but quickly and quietly released by Turkish authorities. ..."
          zerohedge.com
          JustObserving

          Supporting the Kurds will lead to more terrorism per Erdogan. But it is fine and dandy to support ISIS terrorists and to be at war with Syria. Turkey will soon be a failed state:

          The following examples show the extent of Turkish involvement in the war on Syria:

          • –Turkey hosts the Political and Military Headquarters of the armed opposition. Most of the political leaders are former Syrians who have not lived there for decades.
          • –Turkey provides home base for armed opposition leaders. As quoted in the Vice News video "Syria: Wolves of the Valley": "Most of the commanders actually live in Turkey and commute in to the fighting when necessary."
          • –Turkey's intelligence agency MIT has provided its own trucks for shipping huge quantities of weapons and ammunition to Syrian armed opposition groups. According to court testimony, they made at least 2,000 trips to Syria.
          • Turkey is suspected of supplying the chemical weapons used in Ghouta in August 2013 as reported by Seymour Hersh here. In May 2013, Nusra fighters were arrested in possession of sarin but quickly and quietly released by Turkish authorities.
          • –Turkey's foreign minister, top spy chief and senior military official were secretly recorded plotting an incident to justify Turkish military strikes against Syria. A sensational recording of the meeting was publicized, exposing the plot in advance and likely preventing it from proceeding.
          • –Turkey has provided direct aid and support to attacking insurgents. When insurgents attacked Kassab Syria on the border in spring 2014, Turkey provided backup military support and ambulances for injured fighters. Turkey shot down a Syrian jet fighter that was attacking the invading insurgents. The plane landed 7 kilometers inside Syrian territory, suggesting that Turkish claims it was in Turkish air space are likely untrue.
          • –Turkey has recently increased its coordination with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

          more at:

          https://consortiumnews.com/2015/06/25/turkeys-troubling-war-on-syria/

          [Oct 31, 2015] All Knew That This Interest Was Somehow The Cause of the War

          Notable quotes:
          "... encouraging ..."
          "... Wage slavery is VERY different from chattel slavery. The danger of ignoring that difference is that it obscures the intimate connection between the two, which is the legal institution of private property. ..."
          "... The Roman law of property derived by analogy from conditions of slave ownership. Owning land is an analog of owning slaves. ..."
          "... Born in debt. Live in debt. Die in debt. The one thing they got right: human slavery is so distasteful we can't do it openly anymore. But wage slavery is just fine, especially debt peonage. No one can complain if you get yourself into debt, just if someone else puts you there. ..."
          "... I hate my job. I am de facto a day laborer, delivering items as and when my boss tells me to. As a former university professor, this is a hard blow. But to say I and 99.9% of the population are coffled is pure nonsense. My situation is lousy. But comparing what the black slaves went through with what I am going through is like saying the internment camps which held the Japanese-Americans were the same as the death camps in Nazi Germany. One was bad, the other indescribably worse. Not all evils are identical or commensurate. ..."
          "... Any adequate reading of the history of the Civil War will show that the 11 Confederate States destroyed themselves out of lust to extend slavery to the northwestern states. They had through "compromises" extended slavery to the states south of Missouri already. The threat of urbanization and immigration creating enough free voters to outvote their 1.6 people gerrymanders terrified the Southern powers-that-be to the point of pre-emptive war. Read the Secession declarations of each state; believe them for what they say, not the subsequent reunion-period histories. ..."
          "... The economic benefits of the internal slave breeding industry were matched by the political benefits; they could try to outbreed the Northern increase through immigration and make profits off sales to western states. ..."
          "... David Graeber's book (Debt: The first 5000 years) convincingly relates debt directly to slavery, real slavery. Creditors ("masters") rigged the game, took all their debtors assets, and when there was nothing left for them to take, they took them, as slaves. Or their wives, daughters, sons. I know, ancient slavery was different in some respects; slaves could earn their way out or be "redeemed" by a family member or other creditor. (And there was the Jubilee year – I have to read Michael Hudson on that someday.) I can accept that American chattel slavery was distinct and diabolical, but it was an intense form of something that seems to have been with us, humanity, for a long time. ..."
          "... The westward expansion after the War of 1812 and the closure of the overseas slave trade in 1808 created the conditions for the internal slave breeding industry with its generation of roving coffles and slave traders, it major slave markets, a good many of which have been preserved, and its new forms of finance and legal entities. ..."
          "... Yes, Graeber's book is excellent on this point: "Slavery is the ultimate form of being ripped from one's context, and thus from all social relationships that make one a human being. Another way to put this is that the slave is, in a very real sense, dead." ..."
          "... The important point. The United States of America (Lincoln) did not want to fight. The abolitionists were a minority. The Southern media (newspaper editors) freaked out like to media shock jocks did over the election of Barack Obama. Unlike this time around, at least so far, the Southern states were stampeded by their elites into seceding; the state legislatures and governors were part of those elites. In the midst of the tension Edmund Ruffin, a pro-secessionist rabble-rouser from Virginia went to Charleston SC, and with the help of military school Citadel and Arsenal cadets, and SC militia, conducted a coast artillery attack on the closest military installation – Fort Sumter. And reactions escalated, very much like the diplomatic environment after the the 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. And they escalated because the Southern hotheads wanted war. ..."
          "... Regarding the coffle, it seems this is early capitalism's answer to the "Trail of Tears" and the famous "Bataan Death March". Then again, maybe it's not "early" capitalism at all….I'm thinking of Malaysia and the TPP. ..."
          "... Many years ago I visited a small slavery museum out in the cotton fields somewhere around Memphis - I forget which side of the river it was on. It was in an old house that might be found anywhere, but more likely in a suburb than far out in the cotton fields, with no other house in view. Even the nearest line of trees was hundreds of yards away. In the largest room they had a lot of chains with large, heavy links, bigger than you would think would be necessary to hold even a very active human being. ..."
          "... Slavery in the US was rather tame and short lived in comparison to the slavery practiced by the Muslims and Africans themselves. ..."
          "... It was not until 1960 that slavery was outlawed in Saudi Arabia although it may well continue to this day. To really understand large scale slavery we need to go back to the origins of the Muslim movement. ..."
          "... Hi Lambert, the book that first put the scope of the slave trading and breeding industries into context for me was The World That Made New Orleans by Ned Sublette. It's a fascinating and terrible account and if I recall correctly, describes some of the slave breeding operations carried out by Thomas Jefferson. ..."
          naked capitalism

          … About a quarter of those trafficked southward were children between eight and fifteen, purchased away from their families. The majority of coffle prisoners were male: boys who would never again see their mothers, men who would never again see wives and children. … The only age bracket in which females outnumbered males in the trade was twelve to fifteen, when they were as able as the boys to do field labor, and could also bear children. Charles Bell, forcibly taken from Maryland to South Carolina in 1805, recalled that

          The women were merely tied together with a rope, about the size of a bed cord, which was tied like a halter round the neck of each; but the men…. were very differently caparisoned. A strong iron collar was closely fitted by means of a padlock around each of our necks. A chain of iron, about a hundred feet in length, was passed through the hasp of each padlock, except at the two ends, where the hasps of the padlock passed through a link in the chain. In addition to this, we were handcuffed in pairs, with iron staples and chains, with a short chain, uniting the handcuffs and their wearers in pairs.

          As they tramped along, coffles were typically watched over by whip- and gun-wielding men on horseback and a few dogs, with supply wagons bringing up the rear… The captives were not generally allowed to talk among themselves as they tramped along, but sometimes, in the midst of their suffering, they were made to sing. The English geologist G. W. Featherstonehaugh, who in 1834 happened upon the huge annual Natchez-bound chain gang led by trader John Armfield, noted that "the slave drivers… endeavour to mitigate their discontent by feeding them well on the march, and by encouraging them" - encouraging them? - "to sing 'Old Virginia never tire,' to the banjo. Thomas William Humes, who saw coffles of Virginia-born people passing through Tennessee in shackles on the way to market, wrote; "It was pathetic to see them march, and to hear their melodious voices in plaintive singing as they went."…

          From the first American coffles on rough wilderness treks along trails established by the indigenous people, they were the cheapest and most common way to transport captives from one region to another.

          The Federally built National (or Cumberland) Road, which by 1818 reached the Ohio River port of Wheeling, Virginia (subsequently West Virginia), was ideal for coffles. It was the nation's first paved highway, with bridges across every creek. Laying out approximately the route of the future US 40, its broken-stone surface provided a westward overland transportation link that began at the Potomac River port of Cumberland, Maryland. From Wheeling, the captives could be shipped by riverboat down to the Mississippi and on to the Deep South's second-largest slave market at Natchez, or further on to the nation's largest slave market, New Orleans.

          I'll stop at the demonstration of how Federal infrastructure improve the slave trade's supply chain.

          From my vantage point (starting with my family history and where I live), the coffle seems like a work of fiction, a dystopian nightmare written by a demeted sadist. Imagine a hundred or so slaves chained together and being driven down the main street of my small town by dogs and men with whips. And now imagine this scene was normal, and kids coming home from school walked right past it. When do I wake up? (Sure, Rome. But that was thousands of years ago!)

          And yet this is not science fiction stuff, or fantasy. It's history. Here's a list of the Presidents who owned slaves:

          • George Washington (between 250-350 Slaves)
          • Thomas Jefferson (about 200)
          • James Madison (more than 100)
          • James Monroe (about 75)
          • Andrew Jackson (fewer than 200)
          • Martin Van Buren (one)
          • William Henry Harrison (eleven)
          • John Tyler (about 70)
          • James Polk (about 25)
          • Zachary Taylor (fewer than 150)
          • Andrew Johnson (probably eight)
          • Ulysses S. Grant (probably five)[1]

          ... ... ...

          Conclusion

          I focused on the long passage from the Sublette's book because it seemed to me to be an objective correlative for living in the midst of a slave power, and that experience is an important - a critical - part of American history, and I believe that getting the history right is important.

          And although I've written I prefer human gift to human rental (wage labor), and human rental to human sale (slavery), I don't have any grand policy pronouncements to make. I do think we need to be leery of using slavery as a metaphor; "wage slavery" is not slavery; where's the coffle? Ditto "debt slavery." (That's not to say that wages and debt are not power relations, because of course they are, but the human reality of the power relations is different.)

          So all I can do is ask you to get the image of the coffle firmly in your mind, and children watching one go by. The coffle was a thing. That was what was going on. The whole thing makes me want to take a bath. And we're still living with the complicated and painful consequences of slavery today.

          NOTE

          Title quotation from Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address.

          NOTES

          • [1] On Grant and slaves, see here, here, and here.
          • [2] The twenty-first century word to describe this attribute is "passion."


          Eric Patton, October 28, 2015 at 11:33 am

          And wage slavery isn't all that different from chattel slavery. The propaganda is much better, though.

          Plantation owners: capitalists; overseers: coordinators; slaves: workers.


          Sandwichman, October 28, 2015 at 1:46 pm

          Wage slavery is VERY different from chattel slavery. The danger of ignoring that difference is that it obscures the intimate connection between the two, which is the legal institution of private property.

          The Roman law of property derived by analogy from conditions of slave ownership. Owning land is an analog of owning slaves.

          David Wayne, October 28, 2015 at 3:06 pm

          The thing that stands out to me in this article is the reference that all this is a function of capitalism. All that we are and all that we know is dictated by the needs of capitalism. We don't run capitalism, it runs us. So much so that it is impossible to conceive past that little box you're in to imagine – is this the only way we can live. Born in debt. Live in debt. Die in debt. The one thing they got right: human slavery is so distasteful we can't do it openly anymore. But wage slavery is just fine, especially debt peonage. No one can complain if you get yourself into debt, just if someone else puts you there.

          Synoia, October 28, 2015 at 12:27 pm

          he had felt it was his patriotic duty as a Virginian

          His patriotism was founded on his state, not his country?

          a soldier fights for his country-right or wrong-he is not responsible for the political merits of the course he fights in" and that

          Was repudiated at Nuremberg, and enshrined on the concept of "War Crimes." However, the attitude it suits many in Washington, DC today.

          James Levy, October 28, 2015 at 4:04 pm

          I hate my job. I am de facto a day laborer, delivering items as and when my boss tells me to. As a former university professor, this is a hard blow. But to say I and 99.9% of the population are coffled is pure nonsense. My situation is lousy.

          But comparing what the black slaves went through with what I am going through is like saying the internment camps which held the Japanese-Americans were the same as the death camps in Nazi Germany. One was bad, the other indescribably worse. Not all evils are identical or commensurate.

          Working for a wage is tough, but the number of workers flogged to death, publically whipped, or who had their thumbs legally broken in thumbscrews last year was pretty low. And the number of American workers last year who got raises or left one job for a better one was pretty high in comparison with your average black slave.

          So cut the crap about how your job today is "just as bad" as being a slave in pre-1865 America. I can't tell if you sound more like crybabies or idiots.

          Jef, October 28, 2015 at 12:31 pm

          Cheap almost free oil effectively gives every american 100 to 1000 slaves. Giving up oil will be as or more difficult than giving up the slaves back then.

          TarheelDem, October 28, 2015 at 4:15 pm

          Any adequate reading of the history of the Civil War will show that the 11 Confederate States destroyed themselves out of lust to extend slavery to the northwestern states. They had through "compromises" extended slavery to the states south of Missouri already. The threat of urbanization and immigration creating enough free voters to outvote their 1.6 people gerrymanders terrified the Southern powers-that-be to the point of pre-emptive war. Read the Secession declarations of each state; believe them for what they say, not the subsequent reunion-period histories.

          The economic benefits of the internal slave breeding industry were matched by the political benefits; they could try to outbreed the Northern increase through immigration and make profits off sales to western states.

          The financial system relative to international monetary relations was so different in the ante-bellum period that the creation of Confederate money offered little incentive to punishment. Negotiation with foreign financial centers disputing the credibility of the money, yes. Would you take currency from a putative new country that was engaged in a war of secession? But as a causus belli, not likely.

          The attempt to frame the United States with the responsibility for the war was primarily a post-bellum propaganda effort in support of restoring white supremacy.

          Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg, October 28, 2015 at 5:47 pm

          Yeah- the southern gentlemen were fully aware that even with the stupid 3/5 compromise, they were going to be on the losing end of a demographic shift if they couldn't expand the slave states. Hence the weird plots to annex Cuba and take over Mexico.

          Oguk, October 28, 2015 at 2:43 pm

          I don't know if I posted about this or not, but David Graeber's book (Debt: The first 5000 years) convincingly relates debt directly to slavery, real slavery. Creditors ("masters") rigged the game, took all their debtors assets, and when there was nothing left for them to take, they took them, as slaves. Or their wives, daughters, sons. I know, ancient slavery was different in some respects; slaves could earn their way out or be "redeemed" by a family member or other creditor. (And there was the Jubilee year – I have to read Michael Hudson on that someday.) I can accept that American chattel slavery was distinct and diabolical, but it was an intense form of something that seems to have been with us, humanity, for a long time.

          2nd comment is that slave narratives, like Solomon Northrup's or Frederick Douglass's, really drive the point of this post home. It is a chilling history.

          TarheelDem, October 28, 2015 at 7:43 pm

          Graeber's book is excellent on the relationship between debt and slavery, a relationship useful to exploring post-bellum country-store and private debt selling and the debt slavery or working off debt for third parties. Part of this examination of debt slavery should pay attention to the way that debt was accounted for and who did the accounting. Company stores in isolated rural areas were notorious in mining, manufacturing. logging, and agriculture for false books in order to keep people in debt bondage.

          But chattel slavery in America has origin in war raids, not indebtedness, war raids that were encouraged by the slave traders and in North America involved aboriginal peoples raiding other aboriginal peoples to provide Amerindian slave for transport from North America to the West Indies even into the 1700s. That arose aside and independent of English traders trading European goods on credit for deerskins (in Virginia and Carolina) and slaves. [Alan Gallay, The Indian Slave Trade: The Rise of the English Empire in the American South, 1670-1717]

          The political triangulation of the sweeping frontier balance this slavery, white indentured servitude, and African chattel slavery as balances of forces to preserve the local aristocracy. So three forms of servitude co-existed until 1717, two persisted until African chattel slavery was dramatically profitable in the Tidewater tobacco plantations and Carolina rice and indigo plantations and internal increase of the plantations caught up with labor demand. And the growth of the political confederations of the "Five Civilized Tribes" in the mid-1700s shut down the Indian slave trade. The westward expansion after the War of 1812 and the closure of the overseas slave trade in 1808 created the conditions for the internal slave breeding industry with its generation of roving coffles and slave traders, it major slave markets, a good many of which have been preserved, and its new forms of finance and legal entities. This industry is even visible in census records. Recording the occupations in the 1850 or 1860 census of slave areas in the Carolinas or Virginia, one comes upon a patter in the vicinity of major plantation slaveowners. There are scattered settlements that comprise an overseer, a number of blacksmiths, a waggonmaker, and a wheelwright in close propinquity in a ratio of about one settlement for ever 150 slaves listed as property of the slaveowner. The blacksmiths made and maintained the coffles. The wagon technicians made and repaired the planters fleet for hauling bales or hogsheads. The census lists free men, who rarely are identified as black or mulatto in these areas, generally not in sensitive occupations, such as blacksmith.

          Slave traders are generally listed as "merchant". You have to look from specific ads for slaves to figure out how extensive their trading business was.

          Justicia, October 28, 2015 at 9:44 pm

          Yes, Graeber's book is excellent on this point: "Slavery is the ultimate form of being ripped from one's context, and thus from all social relationships that make one a human being. Another way to put this is that the slave is, in a very real sense, dead."

          Dead, perhaps, to the slave-owner and the laws that protected his property but very much alive and human to their companions in suffering and to those not blinded by greed, prejudice, propaganda and social convention.

          TarheelDem, October 29, 2015 at 9:16 am

          The notion of being dead as far as the law is concerned about his person and his property puts a very interesting twist on knowing one's "place". And greed, prejudice, propaganda, and social convention are not as much a primary issue as is the power to plunder and abuse regardless of the particular motive. It is the institutions that defend the behaviors that hold in being the attitudes. Rush Limbaugh, the shock jocks, Sheriff Clarke of Milwaukee County, and their like defend the behaviors of abusive police; that is to let black people know that the law is dead to them and to "stay in their place". Focusing on the attitude reduces the issue to an individualist one of "personal responsibility" and the action of one or a few cops instead of a pervasive network of abusive institutions held in place by a seamless nationwide network of racist propaganda, material support for abusers, and legal defenses.

          Darthbobber, October 28, 2015 at 11:42 pm

          Another take on Graeber's book, from the Brit libertarian (no not those libertarians) Marxists who publish Aufheben. I only agree with a portion of their critique, but its worth a read.
          http://libcom.org/library/5000-years-or-debt

          nobody

          About those textbooks… not those in the state of Texas, but those in use in the other states, Morris Berman's got some interesting insights:

          When you think about it, nearly everything in modern American history turns on the Civil War, because the ideology I have been describing (which can be more accurately described as a mythology, or grand narrative) requires us to 'fix' traditional societies and eliminate obstacles to progress. With the Civil War these two goals converged, making it the paradigm case of how we carry out, or attempt to carry out, these two projects. What the North did to the South is really the model of what America in general did and does to 'backward' (i.e., traditional) societies, if it can. You wipe out almost the entire indigenous population of North America; you steal half of Mexico; you bomb Vietnam 'back to the Stone Age' (in the immortal words of Curtis LeMay); you 'shock and awe' Iraqi civilians, and so on. In what follows, then, I want to look at the War Between the States in a completely different way than the one found in the typical American history textbook. This, in fact, is what generated the energy that led to a four-year battle and the death of 625,000 individuals. What follows is an elaboration of this argument.

          Let's start with the view of the South as seen from the North. The popular image of the antebellum South, as it was presented in American history textbooks and classes when I went to high school in the North, was pretty much the same then as it is now. That is to say, we were taught that the South, as the home of slavery, was a backward and immoral place, and its refusal to abandon that institution was the cause of the Civil War. Under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln (pretty much depicted as a saint), the virtuous Union armies defeated the evil Confederate ones, and the slaves were finally set free. Mutatis mutandis, this remains the politically correct version, as well as the liberal academic version, of the war down to the present time.

          [However…]

          All the evidence suggests that the North's 'nobility' in fighting slavery was a long-after-the-fact justification, an attempt to portray the conflict as a victory of morality and equality over depravity. It's a thesis that gets people all worked up, but it finally doesn't wash.

          […]

          In reality, the treatment of the South by the North was the template for the way the United States would come to treat any nation it regarded as an enemy: not merely a scorched earth policy, but also a 'scorched soul' policy (the destruction of the Native American population was, of course, a preview of this). From Japan to Iraq, the pattern is the same, to the extant that we have been able to impose it: first destroy the place physically (in particular, murder huge numbers of civilians, as the North did to the South during the Civil War-fifty thousand of them by 1865), and then 'Americanize' it. Humiliation, the destruction of the identity of the defeated party, has always been an important part of the equation.

          […]

          Sure, the war was about slavery; it was hardly a minor issue. But it was part of a much larger one about two very different and incompatible civilizations, and a fixation on the moral question of slavery can blind us to the larger (world) context of the Civil War, which was really the American version of the global modernization process. No, I have no wish to live in a slave society; I regard it as an abomination. But the South saw a different type of abomination on the horizon, one that is now with us; and quite frankly, I have no wish to live in that one either.

          Bits of chapter 4 from: Why America Filed: The Roots of Imperial Decline

          TarheelDem, October 28, 2015 at 7:57 pm

          The important point. The United States of America (Lincoln) did not want to fight. The abolitionists were a minority. The Southern media (newspaper editors) freaked out like to media shock jocks did over the election of Barack Obama. Unlike this time around, at least so far, the Southern states were stampeded by their elites into seceding; the state legislatures and governors were part of those elites. In the midst of the tension Edmund Ruffin, a pro-secessionist rabble-rouser from Virginia went to Charleston SC, and with the help of military school Citadel and Arsenal cadets, and SC militia, conducted a coast artillery attack on the closest military installation – Fort Sumter. And reactions escalated, very much like the diplomatic environment after the the 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. And they escalated because the Southern hotheads wanted war.

          The area between the two capitals Washington and Richmond was the cockpit of the war. The first movement was offensive, towards Washington. The Southern planters wanted Lincoln out of there.

          JohnnyGL, October 28, 2015 at 3:34 pm

          Regarding the coffle, it seems this is early capitalism's answer to the "Trail of Tears" and the famous "Bataan Death March". Then again, maybe it's not "early" capitalism at all….I'm thinking of Malaysia and the TPP.


          Anarcissie, October 28, 2015 at 4:24 pm

          Many years ago I visited a small slavery museum out in the cotton fields somewhere around Memphis - I forget which side of the river it was on. It was in an old house that might be found anywhere, but more likely in a suburb than far out in the cotton fields, with no other house in view. Even the nearest line of trees was hundreds of yards away. In the largest room they had a lot of chains with large, heavy links, bigger than you would think would be necessary to hold even a very active human being.

          The largest chain had been arranged in a spiral on the floor with the collars around it, and there was a picture on the wall showing a coffle, the use to which such chains would have been put. The links of the big chain had a rough, pitted surface, and were a sort of rusty reddish-black. The elderly White woman in charge told me it had been taken from a long-gone barn or shed not far away exactly as it was, where it had probably rested since slavery days. In other words, unless the wind and the rain had washed them off, you could still find the blood and sweat of slaves on the links. There was some other agricultural gear about, like the hand tools the slaves would have used.

          There was not a lot of signage and no glossy brochures. Pictures on the walls depicted a plantation house and outbuildings none of which remained, with the exception of the one the museum was in. I wondered who had put the museum together. When I asked how it had come to be, the woman only said, 'It's our history. We think people should know about it.'

          Felix47, October 28, 2015 at 9:27 pm

          Slavery in the US was rather tame and short lived in comparison to the slavery practiced by the Muslims and Africans themselves. The Somalians enslaved the Bantus etc. etc. The Arabs enslaved everyone and I recall seeing slaves even in 1991 in Saudi Arabia…..doing the labor since descendents of Mohammed avoid physical labor if they can since they see it as demeaning. The big difference was that the Arabs did not seem to see breeding slaves as a business…..they had them castrated in Africa often before they were imported. It was not until 1960 that slavery was outlawed in Saudi Arabia although it may well continue to this day. To really understand large scale slavery we need to go back to the origins of the Muslim movement.

          Liz, October 29, 2015 at 6:33 pm

          Hi Lambert, the book that first put the scope of the slave trading and breeding industries into context for me was The World That Made New Orleans by Ned Sublette. It's a fascinating and terrible account and if I recall correctly, describes some of the slave breeding operations carried out by Thomas Jefferson.

          Thanks for sharing your thoughts on these titles.

          [Oct 31, 2015] Congresswoman Calls US Effort To Oust Assad Illegal, Accuses CIA Of Backing Terroists

          Neocon Wolf Blitzer against Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
          Notable quotes:
          "... This is one incredible person, she stands in a league of her own. The only pol Ive heard in a decade that makes a bit of sense. I now despise only 534 members of CONgress. ..."
          "... Former CIA director Allen Dulles ordered JFKs assassination because he was a threat to national security, a new book has claimed. ..."
          "... Allen Dulles most certainly was involved with the murder of JFK, and ensuing coverup. Dulles was central in the Warren Commission whitewash as well ..."
          "... Elected in 2012, she is the first American Samoan[3] and the first Hindu member of the United States Congress,[4] and, along with Tammy Duckworth, one of its first female combat veterans.[5] ..."
          "... She has a lot of guts unlike the shitty little vile NeoCons like McCain and Lindsay Graham and the Neo-Zio-Libs like Feinstein and Schumer who are dual shit-i-zens. ..."
          "... fighting against Islamic extremists. ..."
          "... What the CIA, et alia, ..."
          "... Islamic extremist groups, ..."
          "... terrorism, ..."
          "... uccessfulness ..."
          "... insanities. ..."
          "... AFGHAN OPIUM PRODUCTION INCREASES 35-FOLD SINCE U.S. INVASION ..."
          "... http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/02/10/afghan-opium-produ... ..."
          "... "Hoisted on their own petard" is an apt aphorism. ..."
          "... Petard action happens at 6 minutes in, when Tulsi explains how if the U.S. repeats the same action as Iraq and Libya, the results will equal. ..."
          "... That seed was already planted ..."
          "... not a good interview for zio Wolfe ... ..."
          Oct 31, 2015 | Zero Hedge
          One point we've been particularly keen on driving home since the beginning of Russian airstrikes in Syria is that The Kremlin's move to step in on behalf of Bashar al-Assad along with Vladimir Putin's open "invitation" to Washington with regard to joining forces in the fight against terrorism effectively let the cat out of the proverbial bag.

          That is, it simply wasn't possible for the US to explain why the Pentagon refused to partner with the Russians without admitting that i) the government views Assad, Russia, and Iran as a greater threat than ISIS, and ii) Washington and its regional allies don't necessarily want to see Sunni extremism wiped out in Syria and Iraq.

          Admitting either one of those points would be devastating from a PR perspective. No amount of Russophobic propaganda and/or looped video clips of the Ayatollah ranting against the US would be enough to convince the public that Moscow and Tehran are a greater threat than the black flag-waving jihadists beheading Westerners and burning Jordanian pilots alive in Hollywood-esque video clips, and so, The White House has been forced to scramble around in a desperate attempt to salvage the narrative.

          Well, it hasn't worked.

          With each passing week, more and more people are beginning to ask the kinds of questions the Pentagon and CIA most assuredly do not want to answer and now, US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is out calling Washington's effort to oust Assad both "counterproductive" and "illegal." In the following priceless video clip, Gabbard accuses the CIA of arming the very same terrorists who The White House insists are "our sworn enemy" and all but tells the American public that the government is lying to them and may end up inadvertently starting "World War III."

          Enjoy:

          https://youtu.be/IHkher6ceaA

          For more on how Russia and Iran's efforts in Syria have cornered the US from a foreign policy perspective, see "ISIS In 'Retreat' As Russia Destroys 32 Targets While Putin Trolls Obama As 'Weak With No Strategy'"

          aint no fortunate son's

          This is one incredible person, she stands in a league of her own. The only pol I've heard in a decade that makes a bit of sense. I now despise only 534 members of CONgress.

          Paveway IV

          "...Gabbard accuses the CIA of arming the very same terrorists who The White House insists are "our sworn enemy" and all but tells the American public that the government is lying to them and may end up inadvertently starting "World War III."..."

          Oh, then you're saying that that's future PRESIDENT Gabbard...

          Sergeiab

          Damn, you might be right. Look: see the public opinion is totally shifting (Easy when you have access to all the comments of all medias, including the moderated ones). Find someone among the democrats who voice it. Give her/him "random" media exposure (she was on Bill Maher few days ago) "Sudden rise of an outsider". She's a soldier/veteran/surfer 32yo. "Incredible American story". And at some point, she says she's transgender. Instant POTUS. That fits. That fits the "change/let's do something wild for once" that everybody's craving for (Trump). And it can't be random that a dissident voice is given media exposure. And she's beyond democrat/gop... That's a lot.

          Is there a closing date for the primaries?

          If not, she/he might well be the 45th president.

          Sergeiab

          Actually she's gonna be 35 in 2016...

          And she did it again:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSnXtapv9oQ

          G.O.O.D

          Accuses CIA Of Backing Terroists.

          She left out Mossad, mI6, Saudis, Turkey and how many other zionist controlled CUNTries.

          Dick Buttkiss

          "Accuses CIA Of Backing Terroists."

          Backing terrorist? How about being terrorists?

          dot_bust

          I agree. Good point.

          I'd like to add that President John F. Kennedy issued an NSAM forbidding the CIA from conducting an further paramilitary operations and turned those operations over to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

          President Truman only intended the CIA to analyze data from the other U.S. intelligence agencies, not to engage in any field operations. Here's his original op-ed piece about that very subject: http://www.maebrussell.com/Prouty/Harry%20Truman's%20CIA%20article.html

          In the op-ed, Truman said that the CIA had begun making policy instead of simply analyzing data. He also emphasized his discomfort with the idea of the Agency participating in cloak-and-dagger operations.

          SWRichmond

          Thanks for the link. Truman says:

          I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity-and I assume this is true of all those who continue in charge.

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3271482/Did-CIA-Director-Allen-D...

          Former CIA director Allen Dulles ordered JFK's assassination because he was a 'threat to national security', a new book has claimed.

          Bay of Pigs

          Allen Dulles most certainly was involved with the murder of JFK, and ensuing coverup. Dulles was central in the Warren Commission whitewash as well. People forget he was dumped after the Bay of Pigs fiasco with JFK saying at the time that he would "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds".

          Author David Talbot interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anYqrPRvhgo

          km4

          Lookout because Tulsi Gabbard has some impressive credentials

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

          Elected in 2012, she is the first American Samoan[3] and the first Hindu member of the United States Congress,[4] and, along with Tammy Duckworth, one of its first female combat veterans.[5]

          Military service (2004–present)

          https://www.votetulsi.com/tulsi-gabbard

          In 2004, when Tulsi's fellow soldiers from the 29th Brigade were called to war in Iraq, Tulsi volunteered to join them. She didn't need to put her life on the line. She could have stayed in the State House of Representatives, but in her heart, she felt it was more important to stand in solidarity with her fellow soldiers than to climb the political ladder.

          Her two deployments to the war-torn and dangerous Middle East revealed both Tulsi's natural inclination to self-less service and her ability to perform well in situations demanding confidence, courage, and the ability to perform well as a member of a team. The same maturity and character that served Tulsi well in the Middle East makes her exceptionally effective in the political world.

          Freddie

          These banksters wars like all wars are total shit but I like her.

          She is half Samoan and was a Catholic but became a Hindu.

          She has a lot of guts unlike the shitty little vile NeoCons like McCain and Lindsay Graham and the Neo-Zio-Libs like Feinstein and Schumer who are dual shit-i-zens.

          SWRichmond

          Graham is the quintessential chickenhawk.

          Radical Marijuana

          While I agreed with your overview, WTFRLY, at the 1:25 mark I think she is seriously mistaken about the priority being fighting against Islamic extremists. The real enemy of the American People has been the international bankers, who have almost totally captured control over the government of the USA, through POLITICAL FUNDING ENFORCING FRAUDS.

          Her basic opinion regarding 9/11 deliberately ignores that 9/11 was an inside job, false flag attack, which was aided and abetted by the Deep State Shadow Government. Everything that the USA has been doing has been actually carrying out the international bankers' agenda. The countries targeted for regime change were obstacles to the consolidation of the globalized hegemony of the international bankers, who are the best organized gangsters, the banksters, that have already captured control over all NATO governments, as is painfully obvious to anyone who thinks critically about how and why those governments ENFORCE FRAUDS by privately controlled banks.

          What the CIA, et alia, having been doing, since the overthrow of the government of Iran back in 1953, has been creating "Islamic extremist groups," as the responses of the various Islamic countries having been controlled by the European invasions, and later American invasions, which were always directed at capturing control over the development of the natural resources, through maintaining the control over the monetary systems through which that was done.

          The whole of human history has been the exponential growth of social pyramid systems based upon being able to back up lies with violence, becoming more sophisticated and integrated systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, which have become globalized systems of electronic money frauds, backed by the threat of force from atomic bombs. There is indeed a serious risk of NATO countries, already almost totally controlled by the international bankers, getting into conflicts with the national interests of various countries which no longer are so easy for the banksters to continue to control.

          The banksters have been pushing through their agenda of wars based on deceits, in order to back up their debt slavery systems, and those were primarily the reasons for the series of regime changes, which appear to have stalled with respect to Syria. That Russia has decided that it is geopolitically able, along with the propaganda cover of fighting "terrorism," to step in with significant military support of the Syrian regime is indeed in severe conflict with the agenda of the international banksters, who are collectively a group of trillionaire mass murderers.

          Human history has become the excessive successfulness of the application of the methods of organized crime to control governments, through the vicious spirals of POLITICAL FUNDING ENFORCING FRAUDS, to develop to the point of runaway criminal insanities. While the Congresswoman above provided more penetrating analysis than one is used to be presented on the mainstream mass media, and she did that fairly well, she still is presenting the political problems only on very superficial levels ...

          JLee2027

          When a Hindu women who rides a surfboard starts making more sense than the President, and the entire Democratic Party I become speechless.

          scrappy

          She is an example of integrity standing up for what is right. I see many people of heart doing the same as this unfolds. We are supposed to support the "Underdog" Remember?

          UNDERDOG Cartoon Intro

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHej4ZqZDwo&html5=1

          WTFRLY

          White House, Media Silent One Year After Murder of US Reporter Who Exposed Western Links to ISIS October 20, 2015

          JustObserving

          Heroin production up only 3500% since US invaded:

          AFGHAN OPIUM PRODUCTION INCREASES 35-FOLD SINCE U.S. INVASION

          http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/02/10/afghan-opium-produ...

          MEFOBILLS

          "Hoisted on their own petard" is an apt aphorism.

          https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoist_by_one%27s_own_petard

          To be hurt or destroyed by one's own plot or device intended for another; to be "blown up by one's own bomb"

          The beautiful Tulsi Gabbard excerpt from Wikipedia:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

          Her father is of Samoan/European heritage and is a practicing Catholic who is a lector at his church, but also enjoys practicing mantra meditation, including kirtan.[7] Her mother is of Euro-American descent and a practicing Hindu.[7] Tulsi fully embracedHinduism as a teenage

          At 5 minutes in to video, Wolf B. mentions that Tulsi is a combat veteran. She is also on Senate Arms services committee.

          The not so beautiful Wolf Blitzer:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Blitzer

          Blitzer was born in Augsburg, Germany] the son of Cesia Blitzer (née Zylberfuden), a homemaker, and David Blitzer, a home builder. His parents were Jewish refugees from O?wi?cim, Poland, and Holocaust survivors… While at Johns Hopkins, Blitzer studied abroad at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he learned Hebrew.

          Petard action happens at 6 minutes in, when Tulsi explains how if the U.S. repeats the same action as Iraq and Libya, the results will equal.

          "Things that are being said right now about Assad, were said about Ghadaffi.., they were said about Saddam Hussein, by those who were advocating for the U.S. to intervene, to go overthrow those regimes and dictators. The fact is, if that happens here in Syria,….far worse situation, persecution of religious minorities and Christians."

          Who advocated to start ME wars? Wolf then puts words in her mouth, suggesting that Hezbollah and Russians are doing the U.S. a favor.

          To give Wolf full credit, he doesn't explode when Tulsi mentions persecution of the Christians, as said Christians MUST be his enemy and color Wolf's wordview, given his parents refugee history. Oh the web we weave, when we intend to deceive.

          rejected

          Well, she managed to get in the meme "We were attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11". They push that meme every chance they get.

          The spooks at the CIA know how to push propaganda. She will get all kinds of credibility appearing to oppose the spooks and very few will notice the 9/11 comment but the seed will be fertilized and grow stronger.

          ebear

          "....very few will notice the 9/11 comment but the seed will be fertilized and grow stronger."

          I beg to differ. That seed was already planted. Why are we supporting the people who attacked us? - keeps it nice and simple. Turns the entire narrative against them.

          One dragon at a time.

          Omega_Man

          not a good interview for zio Wolfe ...

          I didn't like this girl before, but starting to like her.

          She needs a security team... to protect her from the US Gov... no joke

          [Oct 30, 2015] Russia Takes Over The Mid-East Moscow Gets Green Light For Strikes In Iraq, Sets Up Alliance With Jordan

          A lot of wishful thinking. The USA still remain world only superpower and (in somewhat diminished way) as well as a technological leader. And the USA is still the most powerful (neoliberal) empire (that does not contradict dismal state of the USA infrastructure; that's typical for empire on late stage of development). It just overextended itself due to neocon dominance in the US politics.
          And remember that Russia is neoliberal state too. And it was Putin who got Russia into WTO. Putin is a unique leader, but his rule is not eternal. An there is nobody after him to continue defiant course. actually Russia will face crisis of leadership after he is gone. So in a way TINA (or PAX Americana) still hold.
          Notable quotes:
          "... Zero fucking accountability. Greenspan and Bernanke didnt get it for blowing the Mother of All Bubbles. Clinton didnt get it for NAFTA and tearing down Glass-Steagal. Bush didnt get it for being asleep at the switch for 9/11 and then the wonderful Iraq and Afghan wars. Hilary didnt get it for creating all-terror zones in Libya. And Obama wont get it for destroying health care and doubling the national debt. ..."
          "... think some of you are missing the big picture. Say that US Plan-B failed-take over Syria after Iraq. Isis are Sunnis. US have always supported Sunnis. So, Isis controls Iraq, with US and Saudi support (Plan-C). Now, say that in a couple years US, Saudi, and Israel manage a Coup D'état in Syria. ..."
          "... As difficult as it is for most westerners to wrap their heads around... we are on the wrong side. Our side is really and truly the dark side. The side that is ruled by the banking cabal and who is hell bent on causing war after war after war in the name of expanding their hold on the entire planet. ..."
          "... This is an unending war, if the US and the west pulls out of it and now Russia owns the mess. Russias economy is rather fucked at the moment and they are in no position to be fighting endless wars. ..."
          "... ---Thanks to the fact that the Western media has held up ISIS as the devil incarnate........... ..."
          "... ......... ..."
          "... For now, however, expect ISIS to gradually disappear from the mainstream medias front pages. ..."
          "... youve got a whole pentagon full of neocons whose heads are about to pop off; the urge in that building to intervene, er help, and blow shit up has to be extreme; if i was prezzy purple dank, id be maybe a little nervous of the suicide bug if you get it. ..."
          "... The US and the House of Saud created, by accident or design, all the gangs of Muslim mass murderers currently terrorizing the planet. You want order restored and something done about Muslim mass murderers in your region, you bring in the Russians. ..."
          "... With dirty Saudi oil money removed from the politics of Western nations, maybe something will finally be done to reverse Islamisation in the West. ..."
          "... I agree with most of your comment, but Israel has never shown any interest in peace. If anything, they want the same kind of peace the US gave to the Native Americans (in this case, the Palestinians). ..."
          "... Jordan? HAHAHA! Will they have their anti-ISIS intelligence center three blocks away from their USA sponsored ISIS training centers, or would that be taboo? What shameless whores those people must be. Its astonishing how quickly the wind can change direction. ..."
          "... The US-led rules, which enforces verification of targets, regularly give IS militants time to save their supplies, equipment and fighters, they said. I dont see any similar constraint by US forces when it comes to bombing hospitals and wedding parties... ..."
          "... Dont forget ISISs tanker trucks providing both income to ISIS and a increased oil supply to the market to keep prices down and ruin Russia economically. ..."
          "... I suppose yesterday you noticed the US Syrian dwarfs came out out of the woodwork to tell the western MSM how many hospitals the Russians had bombed. ..."
          "... You really have to hand it to the idiots (neocons) running DC. They totally blew it with the orchestration and training of ISIS to overthrow Assad, all the while having the MSM demonize ISIS as the bogeyman of the Middle East. Personally, I think the Ruskies are a bit slow on the uptake here. Why they didnt pull this off a year ago is beyond me. Maybe they have more patience than I do. ..."
          "... Jordan has no choice but to join the Syrian/Russian/Iraq/Iran coalition. ISIS supply lines to and from Turkey will be cut. While the coalition nulifies US backed Anti-Assad moderate opposition , ISIS will be pushed southeast into eastern Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Jordan cant protect itself from US backed ISIS and sees Russia as its only savior. ..."
          "... I agree that the Saudis will never ally with Iran, but we should clarify that the conflict you are describing is not Sunni vs Shia. but Wahhabi cultists versus mainstream Sunni and Shia. The Syrian army is 60% Sunni ..."
          "... Egypt is also traditional Sunni and will likely move toward Russia and abandon the Saudis. ..."
          "... Yes, the sectarian civil war nonsense was created to hide and counter the guerrilla war in Iraq. Iraq never had a civil war before, and there hadnt been a sectarian civil war anywhere. That the heavily intermarried anti-occupation Arabs needed to be fragmented into ghettos (just like the Palestinians naturally) ..."
          "... Obama vowed to wage an unrelenting war on ISIL/ISIS. He said it would be a long haul, but terrorists would never hide from the USA. Fast forward to a full year of ISIL advances on the ground backed by a flood of US supplied TOW Anti Tank Guided Missiles, in use by Al-Qaeda and ISIL both. So Russia steps in to the fight. Obama demands they stop their sir strikes, stop arming Assad, and go home. ..."
          "... Thats the best part about solving a problem that youve created. The severity of the problem will conveniently wax and wane to suit your needs. Need to scare the sheeple and keep foreign vassals loyal? Step #1 Create a pet bogeyman. Step #2: Defeat the pet bogeyman. Repeat as often as needed to maintain hegemony. ..."
          "... I admire Putin for his steadfast defense of his country in the face of covert terrorism from the west. I fear the ME might be a quagmire although surely he better understands it than I do. As for the neocunts, everyone of you should die for the destruction youve sewn ..."
          "... List of GCC countries, Gulf countries *Great Data Site-- Note: It is the NGOs belonging to the UAE Qatar that fund the jihadist throughout the *muslim-sunni world... with Saudi Arabia at the helm. The geographic landscape is telling...[Qatar and Bahrain have gargantuan R R military base outpost for USSA military brass] while most jihadist are recruited throughout the worlds muslim-sunni communities and trained in Jordan, and Pakistan etel! ..."
          "... It should not be surprising that Putin, who has an excellent grasp of foreign affairs and intellectually far above most, if not all US policy makers, will exploit this situation. Further, ISIS can easily create major problems in Jordan, (where do they go once they are driven out of Syria?) something the King of Jordan, is no doubt well aware. Bottom line- the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq may well go down as the biggest military and economic disaster in world history. ..."
          "... And just when are Germans, Italians, French and the Eastern European wanna-bes going to demand that NATO be dissolved and the American MIC permanently removed from their landscape(s) after 70 years of hovering ?... ..."
          "... Lay the blame at the feet of those most responsible for this crisis who were coerced, bribed and threatened if they didnt do with impunity what the American IC and military demanded them to do and not the innocent begging for refuge while your government(s) assisted in the looting operation of their sovereign Countries! ..."
          Oct 24, 2015 | Zero Hedge

          OpenThePodBayDoorHAL

          Zero fucking accountability. Greenspan and Bernanke didn't get it for blowing the Mother of All Bubbles. Clinton didn't get it for NAFTA and tearing down Glass-Steagal. Bush didn't get it for being asleep at the switch for 9/11 and then the wonderful Iraq and Afghan wars. Hilary didn't get it for creating all-terror zones in Libya. And Obama won't get it for destroying health care and doubling the national debt.

          WTF are you gonna do. The United States of Amnesia.

          BTW Turkey is the next Syria, you heard it here first.

          jeff montanye

          Bush was not asleep at the switch on 9-11. he just played one on teevee.

          Escrava Isaura

          I think some of you are missing the big picture. Say that US Plan-B failed-take over Syria after Iraq. Isis are Sunnis. US have always supported Sunnis. So, Isis controls Iraq, with US and Saudi support (Plan-C). Now, say that in a couple years US, Saudi, and Israel manage a Coup D'état in Syria.

          ... ... ...

          Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived(s).......

          http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1781680795?refRID=B3QFWNTPC57XETC7CW56&ref_=pd_ybh_a_1

          ... ... ...

          1033eruth

          The writer of this comment is really stupid, ignorant and moronic. The middle east isn't ours. Its not our toy. Russia didn't steal our toy. Its not the taxpayers job to fund a global playground for the US military to "exert our will".

          Everything in the above article was PURE PROPAGANDA designed to promote some type of kneejerk response to Russia stealing our "toy".

          Leave it alone. The middle east is like a big turd pile. We've got to learn to stop playing in it. Apparently readers of ZH think that playing King of the Turd Pile is exactly what taxpayers are supposed to finance.

          Pure Evil

          Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov's saying about selling the capitalists the rope to hang themselves seems almost apropos in this situation.

          After 9-11 the Russians allowed the former Soviet Republics to open up forward operating bases for the US to supply its foray into Afghanistan. When we went a bridge to far they then applied the pressure to deny access to these former airfields and our only supply route is now through Pakistan. And, undoubtedly the Pakistanis would more than be willing to sell us out to the Chinese and Russians.

          With Iraq they sat back and watched us waste not only men and war fighting material but bleed the US Treasury dry.

          They also stood down as we stoked the Arab Spring from Tunisia to Libya to Syria. Now Europe suffers from their own Arab Spring as millions of Sunni with no place to live invade Europe.

          We overturn Saddam only to replace him with Shia leaders in control and we can only sit back and wonder why the Iranians control the Iraqi army.

          We've spent trillions upon trillions of dollars only to hand over Syria and Iraq on a silver platter to Russia and Iran.

          ... ... ...

          The neocons who consider themselves the best and brightest have totally botched everything and they're about to finish the take down of the US via amnesty, Obamacare, TPP, gun control, more and even higher immigration, and Wall Street corruption.

          Can America afford anymore of their hubris?

          Albertarocks

          I think most of the world can see what's going to happen once Putin is finished putting the pieces all back together again. Peace is going to break out. And that's something that the US admin. just can't comprehend. [And I don't mean 'the American people'. It's the admin. acting as the puppet for the global banking mafia.] Can they accept peace in the Middle East? Hard to say, but when there is peace in the world, the US military industrial complex, the bankers, the fascist corporations, the dark side in general can't rule and make obscene amounts of money robbing the rest of the world.

          As difficult as it is for most westerners to wrap their heads around... we are on the wrong side. Our 'side' is really and truly the dark side. The side that is ruled by the banking cabal and who is hell bent on causing war after war after war in the name of expanding their hold on the entire planet.

          It's also considered a mortal sin in the west to cheer for the enemy. And maybe that's the proper and loyal stance to have, but cheering for Putin's success is not cheering for the enemy. The dark side, 'our side', is the world's enemy. Your children's enemy. Your grand children's enemy. The enemy of all of humanity and what is 'right'. Then enemy of this entire once-beautiful planet.

          So ya, I want to see Putin be left alone to reassemble the god damned mess the bankers have caused. And then I want to see westerners turn our furious gaze inward... at the real cause of all the world's trouble. Our governments' day of reckoning is what westerners should be focusing on.

          Paveway IV

          "...It's also considered a mortal sin in the west to cheer for the enemy..."

          Critical thinking ability is also a mortal sin in the West. Which would quickly lead one to surmise that the term 'enemy' is a neurolinguistic trick used by psychopaths to make you do something against your will, morals or better judgement. Replace 'enemy' with a more succinct term: 'evil'. Is Russia evil? No. Would you cheer for evil? Of course not. See how easy it is to untwist the psychopath's perverted logic?

          California Nightmares

          Some great comments, here. I'm afraid to thunbs up some of these. Microsoft and Google are probably capturing my every mouse click.

          I offer only one thought: were the Russians (God bless 'em) to attain control of most of the Middle East's oil, we zeros in the USA would find ourselves living back in 1850.

          ThroxxOfVron

          "I think most of the world can see what's going to happen once Putin is finished putting the pieces all back together again. Peace is going to break out. And that's something that the US admin. just can't comprehend. "

          I don't think that the War Profiteers are going to just shrug, stop taking our money from us, and find useful productive activities with which to earn honest livings so easily...

          It's right about next year that South America should start to disintegrate.

          Argentina., Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico: are ALL in serious trouble due to excessive/corrosive mismanagement and corruption, narco trade and human trafficing dynamics, commodities cycle collaps/reversions, resource depletions, etc..

          Texas will have it's 'Hungarian' border moment soon enough as large populations finally give up any hope for political order and economic stability in their homelands and migrate north to the relative political stability and economic health ( and the generous social/welfare benefits! ) offered by the political ideologues in the US and Canada...

          I expect that the usual political/policy factions the US will each welcome a wave of several millions of migrants, and launch military incursions into convulsing failed or failing South American states, albeit for differently stated reasons or ideological affinities...

          IF the South American situation is not a large enough crisis to merit interventions and migrations it will be aggravated/enhanced to the point where it is worth of interventions by the Warfare/Welfare State nexus.

          trulz4lulz

          This is amazing!! Murikistan totally has lost control of their petrodollar superiority in 5 WEEKS! The rest will just be formalities of setting up the re republics of Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Afghanistan for russia and iran to reside over. This is the best cock-up in the history of the modern era!

          Masterclass geopolitical strategy, Russia and Iran. Not like it wasn't handed to you on a silver platter or anything by obombya and his nerry band of mentally retarded sycophants, but still. Well played.

          P.S. Murikistan doesn't survive this. Im hoping the great lakes region goes to the canadians though.

          chunga

          I've been thinking for a while that for USSA to maintain the petro-dollar reserve status it needs it's military to have at least an aura of invinciblity. Without that it would be tough to keep doing tricks like QE. And without the QE financial tricks it would be tough to pay for the giant military so catch-22.

          Since USSA has fucked with just about everybody over there, their list of allies is pretty bad mainly just cutthroat Saudi Arabia and Israel. With the Russians giving Uncle Scam the finger it might embolden others to do the same. That's why I fear 'Murika might fly off the handle over this and really escalate the shooting because it has no choice. They've burned up all their goodwill internationally so only tool they have is a hammer.

          Albertarocks -> chunga

          I couldn't possibly agree with you more. You nailed it. Sam is in such a pickle. The bankers have led the US down the garden path, using it as it's 'bully branch', and this is more or less what I meant by our government being held to account. 90% of Congress should be charged with treason, given a fair trial and be made to suffer the consequences. If any one of them are found 'not guilty', then the judge should be charged with treason as well since it is already 100% obvious that when any one of them who signs bills, unread, at midnight, they have just committed an act of treason in that irresponsible act alone. I mean it's just incredible how evil the admin. has become. It's time to shake that house apart and bring 'rule of law' back into the forefront where it belongs. And then the oversight agencies like the SEC and the FDA... it's time to tear those demonic agencies to shreds and deal with their leaders accordingly. Those are the people who should probably pay the ultimate penalty first.

          Freddie

          the speed - 5 weeks - makes me think this has all been planned out. The installation of See Eye Aye NWO shit like Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obola makes me wonder. All four are See Eye Aye Moles.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTuuPx0hFYM

          All four are related. See video above. The USSA is a joke filled with idiots brainwashed by TV and Zollywood.

          Omen IV

          So the usa circles Russia and China with most of the 700 bases it operates and Iran in motion with Russia's help to circle Saudi Arabia with its own sphere of operation - pushing ISIS / ISIL / Daesh / Free Syrian Army / Al Nusra et al = Sunni's - to recognize the big prize that SA represents to ALL Sunni

          The Princes right now have Mecca ???

          laomei

          I'm failing to see the downside to any of this. The US gets bitched at no matter what it does now. It's always wrong in some way or another, so fuck it I guess. Russia, which is MUCH CLOSER than the US is to this mess now gets to stick their dick into this bee hive and see what comes of it. This is an unending war, if the US and the west pulls out of it and now Russia owns the mess. Russia's economy is rather fucked at the moment and they are in no position to be fighting endless wars.

          monk27

          Russia's economy is much less fucked than America's economy. Printing USD with abandon (with and without issuing corresponding debt), and stuffing them into your own banks, hardly qualifies as "economy". By any measure you choose, US is in worse shape than Russia, corruption included...

          At this point, probably the best thing US could hope for would be to clean up it's act internally (filling the jails with financial crooks would help), and do nothing as foreign policy, at least for a while. Detoxification is essential for survival...

          Usurious

          Tyler Durden----''Thanks to the fact that the Western media has held up ISIS as the devil incarnate''...........

          can somebody make a youtube video montage of the talking heads, retired generals, republican debate freak show contestants, PNAC ZIO-CONs telling us how evil ISIS is/are ..........because ISIS has disappearded from the MSM headlines as Tyler predicted 2 weeks ago.....

          Tyler Durden--''For now, however, expect ISIS to gradually disappear from the mainstream media's front pages.''

          http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-11/end-isis-iraq-air-force-claims-...

          pliny the longer -> laomei

          re laomei: allow me to take a stab at 'splaining this: the reason it matters is because you've got a whole pentagon full of neocons whose heads are about to pop off; the urge in that building to intervene, er help, and blow shit up has to be extreme; if i was prezzy purple dank, i'd be maybe a little nervous of the suicide bug if you get it.

          also, for how long does anyone think israel is going to stand by and let this shit show build? they're playing it cool for now. but so did Putin until about 60 days ago . . .

          this all of course is just a guess; WTF do i know, i'm just a dumb sum bitch that pays my bills and half of everyone else's;

          Niall Of The Nine Hostages

          It's not a "foolproof cover story." It's the truth. The US and the House of Saud created, by accident or design, all the gangs of Muslim mass murderers currently terrorizing the planet. You want order restored and something done about Muslim mass murderers in your region, you bring in the Russians.

          On to Riyadh, Doha and Dubai. After the House of Saud and Thani are driven from power and liquidated, you won't hear another word about the war on terror. With dirty Saudi oil money removed from the politics of Western nations, maybe something will finally be done to reverse Islamisation in the West.

          And there will be peace in Israel for forty years.

          grekko -> Niall Of The Nine Hostages

          You really have to eliminate Bibi first, and his whole neocon cadre. He incites the other side to be stupid, so he can reap the votes of the stupid. Then there will be peace.

          Caleb Abell

          I agree with most of your comment, but Israel has never shown any interest in peace. If anything, they want the same kind of peace the US gave to the Native Americans (in this case, the Palestinians).

          Jack's Raging Bile Duct

          Jordan? HAHAHA! Will they have their anti-ISIS intelligence center three blocks away from their USA sponsored ISIS training centers, or would that be taboo? What shameless whores those people must be. It's astonishing how quickly the wind can change direction.

          smacker

          [copied over from previous article]

          This looks like it's one of the tactics used by US forces in Syria/Iraq to minimise any bombing damage to its ISIS terrorist friends:

          from that article at http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iraq-authorises-russia-strike-islamic-...

          " "They [the US-led coalition] refuse to strike private cars, mosques, bridges, schools despite the fact Daesh militants are mainly using these places as headquarters," a senior military officer [...] told MEE."

          "The US-led rules, which enforces verification of targets, regularly give IS militants time to save their supplies, equipment and fighters, they said." I don't see any similar constraint by US forces when it comes to bombing hospitals and wedding parties...

          bid the soldier

          Don't forget ISIS's tanker trucks providing both income to ISIS and a increased oil supply to the market to keep prices down and ruin Russia economically.

          smacker

          Yep, it'll be good if Putin's bombers locate a few ISIS oil convoys and deal with them. That won't please the Turkish middle-men.

          bid the soldier... -> smacker

          I suppose yesterday you noticed the US Syrian dwarfs came out out of the woodwork to tell the western MSM how many hospitals the Russians had bombed.

          Apparently unnewsworthy until the US bombed the MSF hospital in Afghanistan.

          Its hard to say which is more pathetic: the US military or US propaganda.

          Lea

          "Iraq allows Russia to strike ISIL" is nowhere but on this Turkish site. I call BS. The whole of the Russian media would make this headlines. There is zilch, nada on Sputnik, RT or TASS.

          grekko

          You really have to hand it to the idiots (neocons) running DC. They totally blew it with the orchestration and training of ISIS to overthrow Assad, all the while having the MSM demonize ISIS as the bogeyman of the Middle East. Personally, I think the Ruskies are a bit slow on the uptake here. Why they didn't pull this off a year ago is beyond me. Maybe they have more patience than I do.

          dustyfin

          There's a time for everything.

          A year ago Russia had other concerns, its military was a year less well prepared and a year ago, I think that Putin and his government still thought that some form of rapprochement could be made with The West.

          Also, to get this far has required a whole heap of planning, negotiating, horse trading and arm twisting. Think of this as being the 'overnight success' that took a decade to achieve!

          sudzee

          Jordan has no choice but to join the Syrian/Russian/Iraq/Iran coalition. ISIS supply lines to and from Turkey will be cut. While the coalition nulifies US backed Anti-Assad "moderate opposition", ISIS will be pushed southeast into eastern Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Jordan can't protect itself from US backed ISIS and sees Russia as its only savior.

          Saudi Arabia will have no choice soon but to join the coalition as well.

          Get ready to price oil in Rubles or gold as the US is completely forced out of the entire middle east.

          PrimalScream

          I will differ with you on that one. The Saudis will never join Russia and Iran - that would be a union between Sunnis and Shiites. It is not going to happen. This new power struggle pits Sunni nations directly against the Shiites. It will be big and it will be bloody.

          Rhett72

          I agree that the Saudis will never ally with Iran, but we should clarify that the conflict you are describing is not Sunni vs Shia. but Wahhabi cultists versus mainstream Sunni and Shia. The Syrian army is 60% Sunni, and the Jordanian Hashemites are traditional Sunnis descended from Prophet Muhammad who were expelled from Mecca by the Saudis. Egypt is also traditional Sunni and will likely move toward Russia and abandon the Saudis.

          Zadig

          Yes, the sectarian civil war nonsense was created to hide and counter the guerrilla war in Iraq. Iraq never had a civil war before, and there hadn't been a 'sectarian civil war' anywhere. That the heavily intermarried anti-occupation Arabs needed to be fragmented into ghettos (just like the Palestinians naturally), but the pro-occupation Kurds didn't should have made things obvious to everyone.

          Jack Burton

          Obama vowed to wage an unrelenting war on ISIL/ISIS. He said it would be a long haul, but terrorists would never hide from the USA. Fast forward to a full year of ISIL advances on the ground backed by a flood of US supplied TOW Anti Tank Guided Missiles, in use by Al-Qaeda and ISIL both. So Russia steps in to the fight. Obama demands they stop their sir strikes, stop arming Assad, and go home.

          Wanna see what Russia at war looks like? Want to see how they answer ISIL chopping heads off, eating organs etc. Watch the FULL video below of the Syrian Arab Army employ their new Russian supplied TOS-1 thermobaric weapon.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SrKZd5tpNo

          Zadig

          That's the best part about solving a problem that you've created. The severity of the problem will conveniently wax and wane to suit your needs. Need to scare the sheeple and keep foreign vassals loyal? Step #1 Create a pet bogeyman. Step #2: Defeat the pet bogeyman. Repeat as often as needed to maintain hegemony.

          Russia jumping in at Step #2 to reap the plaudits (and weapon sales!), is probably what Mordor hates the most about all this.

          taopraxis

          People who think Russia and China and the USA are enemies probably think Republicans and Democrats are enemies. Step back and it seems fairly obvious that someone behind the scene is moving these pieces around on the global chess board and the political puppets are merely implementing the new policies.

          Obama looks like a Marketing Prez. Putin acts more like a COO. Abe is CFO, apparently, a frightening thought. Not sure what the Chinese and Saudi top dogs are all about...real players, maybe. All just conjecture, but the way the USA pulled out and the Russians moved in looked too well coordinated to be anything other than that...coordinated.

          rejected

          Hopefully President Putin doesn't put too much on his plate. The ussa is setting up fresh arms deliveries to the terrorists as we ponder.

          It's going to be tough going for the Russian Federation to clean up the mess the ussa has made of the ME over the last 25 years. The whole damn place is a complete disaster with Arabs killing each other and Israel killing as many Palestinians as they can.

          It's astonishing the Arabs, like the Ukrainians, can't seem to understand the ussa modus operandi that is,,, start a bunch of crap then back off and watch the fun. Sort of like the bar fight scenes in movies where the perp that starts the brawl exits once everyone is fighting.

          Berspankme

          I admire Putin for his steadfast defense of his country in the face of covert terrorism from the west. I fear the ME might be a quagmire although surely he better understands it than I do. As for the neocunts, everyone of you should die for the destruction you've sewn

          earleflorida

          Why waste valuable resources dividing and conquering in a medieval world, when religion can do the trick without unsheathing a sword? All but[t] for,... only the might being in the hands of the dual-mine'd pen'heads[?], is all one needs as a metaphoric representation of a classical 'Damocles Dilemma' victory? Why tell your right hand what your doing when the left will do it for you in a asymmetric 'syncreticism'!

          "Sunni - Shia Split the Mideast new great divide" http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/09/06/sunnishia_split_the_mideasts_new_great_divide.html

          "List of GCC countries, Gulf countries' *Great Data Site-- Note: It is the 'NGOs' belonging to the UAE & Qatar that fund the jihadist throughout the *muslim-sunni world... with Saudi Arabia at the helm. The geographic landscape is telling...[Qatar and Bahrain have gargantuan R&R military base outpost for USSA military brass] while most jihadist are recruited throughout the worlds muslim-sunni communities and trained in Jordan, and Pakistan etel!

          http://www.dubaifaqs.com/list-of-gcc-countries.php

          "Sunnis and Shia in the Middle`East" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25434060

          Lastly, a read-between-the-lines of myopic misinformation atavistic Machiavellian protean...[?] "Obams Regime's Support of Al Qaeda and ISIS" http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39005.htm

          Sandmann

          http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/10/21/breaking-story-israeli-general-c...

          "There is a strong cooperation between MOSSAD and ISIS top military commanders...Israeli advisors helping the Organization on laying out strategic and military plans, and guiding them in the battlefield"

          The terrorist organization also has military consultants from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Jordan. Saudi Arabia has so far provided ISIS with 30,000 vehicles, while Jordan rendered 4500 vehicles. Qatar and United Arab Emirates delivered funds for covering ISIS overall expenditure.

          The planes belonging to the aforesaid countries are still landing in the Mosel airport, carrying military aid and fighters, especially via the Jordanian borders.

          Phillyguy

          Key events in US Iraq campaign

          1. Judy Miller and Michael Gordon publish their piece in the paper of record (NYT) about Sadam Hussein's attempts to obtain parts for nuclear weapons in 2002 (later shown to be nonsense).
          2. Colin Powell uses above "intelligence" in his UN speech, effectively creating a casus belli for Bush II invasion/occupation of Iraq.
          3. Don Rumsfeld claims the Iraq war will cost circa $ 70 billion, paid for with Iraqi oil revenue. Reality check- the Iraq campaign will end up costing US taxpayers $4-6 trillion.
          4. Immediately following the US invasion, US military disbands the Iraqi armed forces, many of whom later join ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.

          The arrogance, dishonesty and outright incompetence of this campaign is breathtaking. Despite spending significant lives and treasure, the US failed to obtain any imperial rent (oil concessions, etc) from this war.

          It should not be surprising that Putin, who has an excellent grasp of foreign affairs and intellectually far above most, if not all US policy makers, will exploit this situation. Further, ISIS can easily create major problems in Jordan, (where do they go once they are driven out of Syria?) something the King of Jordan, is no doubt well aware. Bottom line- the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq may well go down as the biggest military and economic disaster in world history.

          Son of Captain Nemo

          Regardless of your stance on whether the EU should be receptive to the millions of asylum seekers fleeing the war-torn Mid-East, the simple fact is that if you remain in Syria, you are risking your life on a daily basis, caught in the crossfire between a bewildering array of state actors, rebel groups, and proxy armies, all with competing agendas.

          And just when are Germans, Italians, French and the Eastern European wanna-bes going to demand that NATO be dissolved and the American MIC permanently removed from their landscape(s) after 70 years of "hovering"?...

          Lay the blame at the feet of those most responsible for this crisis who were coerced, bribed and threatened if they didn't do with impunity what the American IC and military demanded them to do and not the innocent begging for refuge while your government(s) assisted in the looting operation of their sovereign Countries!

          P.S.

          If PIGIDA were ever to wage that kind of a campaign and align themselves with the "left" that is already anti-American the U.S. will be finished!

          [Oct 28, 2015] US Ground Troops In Syria Is Illegal, Big Mistake, Russia Warns Obama Of Unpredictable Consequences

          Zero Hedge

          Newbie lurker

          "He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

          Manthong

          ..this should be Lit 101

          TheReplacement

          More like Modern American History 101.

          Escrava Isaura

          The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

          2015 - IT IS 3 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT

          http://thebulletin.org/clock/2015

          Reg Morrison: "The human brain remains a piece of stone-age machinery, however you look at it, and no amount of culture can make it otherwise. Genetically speaking we are a finished product, not a prototype. What you see is what you get-there will be no bright utopian future."- The Spirit in the Gene, page 247.

          Haus-Targaryen

          So we have Russian soldiers on the ground fighting ISIS & the "moderate" rebels alongside Iran & Syria -- while Russia blows said head choppers to smithereens. While the US will have soldiers on the ground fighting Assad & Hezbollah blowing them up from the air.

          What happens when Russia troops take on American troops, thinking they are ISIS and the Americans thinking they are Hezbollah. What happens then? (Then they call air strikes on one another and everyone figures out shit just went real wrong really quickly).

          HowdyDoody

          "What happens when Russia troops take on American troops, thinking they are ISIS and the Americans thinking they are Hezbollah" That's a feature, not a bug. And that is why the Russians are calling out on it beforehand.

          ZippyDooDah

          Russia is providing air cover to Iran and Hezbollah in Syria, so that the USAF can't bomb the Shiite ground troops. America is providing ground troops in Syria to embed with "rebels," so that Russia can't bomb the Sunni ground troops. Proxy war at its most insane, cause it just went beyond proxies.

          The Sunni-Shiite divide is centuries old, and not a fight we should ever have gotten involved with. Dumbassery at its most insane.

          You might think the U.S. military might someday rebel against this kind of wanton waste of its resources. But no, I guess we are just going to grind ourselves away to nothing in the Middle East meat chopper.

          TheReplacement

          Wikileaks Ukraine has leaked a conversation regarding planning false flag shoot downs that involved a certain sitting US Senator who happens to have met with the Nazis in Ukraine and the terrorists in Syria. I believe the plan is to shoot down a US/NATO jet and then a Russian.

          lakecity55

          Russia needs to state the legal case before the UN Security Council and force the USG to veto the Resolution, thus making Vichy DC even more in the wrong internationally!

          Paveway IV

          Russia was already holding the UN's feet to the fire. Things just got a whole lot worse in the last two days.

          The Golan Heights is not Israeli territory according to the UN - ever since 1949. They recognize Israel is occupying it, but under international law (such as it were) the Golan Heights are still Syrian soverign territory. Technically, Syria and Israel are still at war. They are only maintaining a cease-fire/truce along a UNDOF neutral zone (= safe zone = no-fly zone) established in 1974. The 1974 truce didnt' 'give' Israel the Golan land. It was simply an agreement that Israel and Syria would stop attacking eachother and stay out of a neutral zone between each country's armies.

          Herein lies the problem: Israel has been directly supporting al Nusra and ISIS forces hiding inside that neutral zone. The place is so over-run with head-choppers that the 1300 UN observers LEFT their own camps in that zone and have relocated to the Israeli side of the cease-fire line. They openly acknowledge that they can't do anything about defending the zone because Nusra/ISIS are not parties to the ceasefire, and Israel is covertly supplying them so there's no proof that they are violating the cease-fire.

          Israel has repeatedly bombed SAA troops chasing al Nusra/ISIS into the neutral zone. This is a direct violation of the 1974 truce. Russia has always been pissed about that, but on Monday they bitch-slapped Israel without anything but a ridiculous cover story spewed by the MSM (the paraglider thing). Nobody seems to understand the profound implications of RUSSIA flying combat missions IN THE UNDOF ZONE to bomb Israeli's little al Nusra buddies. They just did this in al Qunaitra, which juts out into the occupied Golan Heights in such a way that it would be difficult to bomb anything there without overflying the neurtral zone into the Israeli side. Israel loves to use the word 'border' to suggest some kind of international recognition, but there is none. There is (was) only a UNDOF-maintained cease-fire zone arranged well into Syrian territory in 1974. Israel never left Syrian land and simply claim it as theirs.

          Russia keeps reiterating how it is adhering to international law. Something tells me that this is in preparation for chasing any al Nusra/ISIS head-choppers into the Golan Heights as far as they need to. They are not 'violating' Israeli airspace or soverign lands because it is - by international recognition - still Syrian territory.

          Everyone is waiting for a false flag, and it's been brewing right under our noses. Al Nusra and ISIS will retreat into the Golan Heights because they think it will offer them immunity from Russian air attacks. Russia recognizes (as does the world) that Syria STILL LEGALLY extends to the Jordan river - the Golan Heights IS SYRIAN SOVERIGN TERRITORY. Russia is not 'provoking' Israel - Israel shouldn't be there according to international law and UN recognition.

          I think Russia is going to drive al Nusra and ISIS INTO the Golan Heights to force this issue - an issue that Israel has already LOST in the eyes of the international community. Would the U.S. go nuclear to 'defend' Israel's land-theft? Answer: Who cares. Dick Cheney's oil company just found a huge deposit there - of course the U.S. would go nuclear to protect his money. That's what the U.S. does.

          cowdiddly

          What's even funnier is Iraq has already said "NO THANKS" to ground troops in Iraq. They have seen enough of your so called help.

          Also the little hero raid the other day was a complete farce. The Pershmerga was supposed to lead the raid and do all the dirty work while US troops come in behind. Of the casualties, The one US soldier that got wacked got a little to rambunctious and got out in front.

          Yea hero, lead from behind and you Kurds charge the hill and we look like we did the raid and take the credit. WHATEVER.

          The US is trying real hard to look relevent here. Just like the single ship to China crap. OOOOHHHHHH SCARY, No one is Intimidated, it makes you look weak ,and they just think your insane.

          GO big or GO HOME. But mostly GO HOME WITH SOME DIGNITY LEFT. You can't afford to Play and you look sad and no one wants your help.

          palmereldritch

          http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151028/1029209074/golan-heights-oil-...

          We've found an oil stratum 350 meters thick in the southern Golan Heights. On average worldwide, strata are 20 to 30 meters thick, and this is 10 times as large as that, so we are talking about significant quantities," Afek Oil & Gas chief geologist Yuval Bartov claimed in an interview to a local broadcaster as quoted by Engdahl.

          "The Netanyahu government [is now] more determined than ever to sow chaos and disorder in Damascus and use that to de facto create an Israeli irreversible occupation of Golan and its oil," the expert stressed.

          "Now an apparent discovery of huge volumes of oil by a New Jersey oil company whose board includes Iraq war architect, Dick Cheney, neo-con ex-CIA head James Woolsey, and Jacob Lord Rothschild… brings the stakes of the Russian intervention on behalf of Syria's Assad against ISIS [ISIL], al-Qaeda and other CIA-backed 'moderate terrorists' to a new geopolitical dimension," Engdahl underscored.

          Raymond_K._Hessel

          Do the Iraqis have a say in this matter?

          NOTE: Alphahammer and Yomatti wants everyone to spend a half hour doing some research into the origins of ISIS: http://bfy.tw/2VnO

          Raymond_K._Hessel

          Iraq to Washington: We Don't Want Your Troops

          What a difference a day makes. Just 24 hours ago US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter was telling the Senate Armed Services Committee all about the Obama Administration's new military strategy for the Middle East. The headline grabber from his testimony was the revelation that the US military would begin "direct action on the ground" in Iraq and Syria.

          "We won't hold back from supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL (ISIS)," he told the Committee. The new strategy would consist of "three R's," he said: more US action, including on the ground, with Syrian opposition partners to take the ISIS stronghold in Raqqa, Syria; more intense cooperation with the Iraqi army including with US-embedded soldiers to retake Ramadi from ISIS in Iraq; and the beginning of US military raids, "whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground."

          That was news to the Iraqis, it turns out. And it wasn't very good news at that. Today Sa'ad al-Hadithi, spokesman for Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, said "thanks but no thanks" to a third US invasion of his country. "We have enough soldiers on the ground," he said.

          This raises the question of whether the US administration intends to insert US soldiers into Iraq against the wishes of its elected government, as it has done and promises to continue to do in Syria. In that case, the US would be shooting at ISIS and the Iraqi government, as well as the Iran-backed Shi'ite militias who are coming to increasingly control large parts of the Iraqi military. Presumably all these forces would be shooting back at US troops on the ground as well. The US would likely be partnering in this task with the anti-ISIS Sunni fighters highlighted in Defense Secretary Carter's testimony yesterday. In other words, the US would be backing forces closer to those of Saddam Hussein, who they overthrew twelve years ago.

          The Iraqi government had requested Russian assistance against ISIS earlier this month, after Russian strikes in Syria appear to have made a significant impact on the battlefield. But Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford told the Iraqis if they accept Russian assistance they can forget about any more US aid.

          It appears the US threat was not enough to put the Iraqis off asking for Russian help, as earlier this week the Iraqi parliament approved Russian airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq.

          So the big roll-out of the new US Middle East military strategy seems to have fizzled, as none of the intended beneficiaries of US assistance seem all that enthused about the partnership. For the moment, the US finds itself backing Iranian militias in Iraq while fighting them next door in Syria, while planning to place US troops in with "moderate" anti-Assad rebels in the path of falling Russian bombs. All the while, of course, the US is aiding the Kurds in Syria and Iraq which are currently being bombed by NATO ally Turkey.

          What else could possibly go wrong?

          http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2015/octob...

          Crocodile

          Since ISIS, ISIL, IS or the word of the day is a Pentagon formed, trained & funded operation, then the Pentagon is using the US Military, a Pentagon organization, against another Pentagon organization.

          Only proves the insanity of it all and the devaluing of life of the ordinary person.

          Then again Satan attacks the ordinances of God given to man for the good of all which is not limited to, marriage, family and the sanctity of life and unfortunately most people agree as shown by their personal behaviors.

          [Oct 28, 2015] How the U.S. Wrecked the Middle East

          Notable quotes:
          "... Whatever world order the U.S. may be fighting for in the Middle East, it seems at least an empire or two out of date. Washington refuses to admit to itself that [as a preverse reaction on neoliberalism] the ideas of Islamic fundamentalism resonate with vast numbers of people. ..."
          "... No one is predicting a world war or a nuclear war from the mess in Syria. However, like those final days before the Great War, one finds a lot of pieces in play inside a tinderbox. ..."
          "... Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on State Department waste and mismanagement during the Iraqi reconstruction in ..."
          "... regular he writes about current events at ..."
          "... We Meant Well ..."
          "... . His latest book is ..."
          "... . His next work will be a novel, ..."
          October 22, 2015 | The American Conservative

          A once stable region descends into chaos thanks to continuing repercussions from the 2003 Iraq invasion. (via TomDispatch)

          Whatever world order the U.S. may be fighting for in the Middle East, it seems at least an empire or two out of date. Washington refuses to admit to itself that [as a preverse reaction on neoliberalism] the ideas of Islamic fundamentalism resonate with vast numbers of people. At this point, even as U.S. TOW missiles are becoming as ubiquitous as iPads in the region, American military power can only delay changes, not stop them. Unless a rebalancing of power that would likely favor some version of Islamic fundamentalism takes hold and creates some measure of stability in the Middle East, count on one thing: the U.S. will be fighting the sons of ISIS years from now.

          ... No one is predicting a world war or a nuclear war from the mess in Syria. However, like those final days before the Great War, one finds a lot of pieces in play inside a tinderbox.

          Now, all together: What could possibly go wrong?

          Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on State Department waste and mismanagement during the Iraqi reconstruction in We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People. A TomDispatch regular he writes about current events at We Meant Well. His latest book is Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99Percent. His next work will be a novel, Hooper's War.

          [Oct 28, 2015] The Senate, ignorant on cybersecurity, just passed a bill about it anyway

          Notable quotes:
          "... a spying bill that essentially carves a giant hole in all our privacy laws and allows tech and telecom companies to hand over all sorts of private information to intelligence agencies without any court process whatsoever. ..."
          "... Make no mistake: Congress has passed a surveillance bill in disguise, with no evidence it'll help our security. ..."
          "... They were counting on nobody paying much attention. Didnt you hear somebody got killed on Walking Dead? Whos got time to talk about boring nonsense like a Congressional bill? ..."
          "... Inverse totalitarianism. Read Sheldon Wolin. Were sliding down the slippery slope. ..."
          "... On Tuesday afternoon, the Senate voted 74 to 21 to pass a version of CISA that roughly mirrors legislation passed in the House earlier this year, paving the way for some combined version of the security bill to become law. ..."
          www.theguardian.com

          This is the state of such legislation in this country, where lawmakers wanted to do something but, by passing Cisa, just decided to cede more power to the NSA

          Under the vague guise of "cybersecurity", the Senate voted on Tuesday to pass the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (Cisa), a spying bill that essentially carves a giant hole in all our privacy laws and allows tech and telecom companies to hand over all sorts of private information to intelligence agencies without any court process whatsoever.

          Make no mistake: Congress has passed a surveillance bill in disguise, with no evidence it'll help our security.

          eminijunkie 28 Oct 2015 17:34

          Being competent requires work. Actual work.

          You can't honestly say you expected them to do actual work, now can you?

          david wright 28 Oct 2015 13:44

          'The Senate, ignorant on cybersecurity, just passed a bill about it anyway '

          The newsworthy event would be the Senate's passage of anything, on the basis of knowledge or serious reflection, rather than $-funded ignorance. The country this pas few decades has been long on policy-based evidence as a basis for law, rather than evidence-based policy. Get what our funders require, shall be the whole of the law.

          Kyllein -> MacKellerann 28 Oct 2015 16:49

          Come ON! You are expecting COMPETENCE from Congress?
          Wake up and smell the bacon; these people work on policy, not intelligence.

          VWFeature -> lostinbago 28 Oct 2015 13:37

          Bravo!

          "...There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. ... Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing." -- Daniel Webster, June 1, 1837

          "If once [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions." -- Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787

          lostinbago -> KhepryQuixote 28 Oct 2015 12:09

          We became the enemy when the people started attacking the Military Industrial Corporate complex and trying to regain our republic from the oligarchs.

          lostinbago 28 Oct 2015 12:07

          Congress: Where Catch 22 melds with Alice in Wonderland

          Phil429 28 Oct 2015 11:44

          we now have another law on the books that carves a hole in our privacy laws, contains vague language that can be interpreted any which way, and that has provisions inserted into it specifically to prevent us from finding out how they're using it.

          They were counting on nobody paying much attention. Didn't you hear somebody got killed on Walking Dead? Who's got time to talk about boring nonsense like a Congressional bill?

          guardianfan2000 28 Oct 2015 08:53

          This vote just showed the true colors of the U. S. Government,...that being a total disregard for all individuals' privacy rights.

          newbieveryday 28 Oct 2015 02:11

          Inverse totalitarianism. Read Sheldon Wolin. We're sliding down the slippery slope. Who's going to be der erster Fuehrer? David Koch?

          Triumphant George -> alastriona 27 Oct 2015 18:55

          From elsewhere:

          On Tuesday afternoon, the Senate voted 74 to 21 to pass a version of CISA that roughly mirrors legislation passed in the House earlier this year, paving the way for some combined version of the security bill to become law.

          CISA still faces some hurdles to becoming law. Congressional leaders will need to resolve remaining differences between the bills passed in the Senate and the House.

          President Obama could also still veto CISA, though that's unlikely: The White House endorsed the bill in August, an about-face from an earlier attempt at cybersecurity information sharing legislation known as CISPA that the White House shut down with a veto threat in 2013.

          --"CISA Security Bill Passes Senate With Privacy Flaws Unfixed", Wired

          [Oct 27, 2015] OECD Chief Economist: Its Time To Temper The Frothiness In Markets

          www.zerohedge.com
          "... if you look at what is supporting equity prices - how much of that support is coming from real economic activity versus from using stock buybacks, using cash on balance sheet for stock buybacks, or mergers and acquisitions, to reduced competition in the marketplace.

          These are the sort of stories that if there were a small increase in interest rates, you would temper some of that frothiness.

          Eliminating the incentive to engage in that kind of activity seems to me to be a good idea... There would be a proportion of the population that would have less capital gains - but they've been enjoying very big capital gains, and it is a narrow segment of the population."

          [Oct 24, 2015] The best lesson China could teach Europe: how to play the long game

          Notable quotes:
          "... There is a lot that is positive about China's transformation. However, it is quite telling that many of China's new rich cant get their money out of the country quickly enough. ..."
          "... It isn't so much a case of whether the UK will become a province, I suspect the whole world will. China is close to the GDP of the USA and will overtake it in about 18 months, with GDP per head only about $8k. If Chinese GDP per head even doubles, it's economy will at least double, and that isn't taking into account population growth. China's economy has already grown by about 1000% since 2002. ..."
          "... China is a very fascinating place with a very fascinating history... But this misguided sinophilia is exasperating. Half the time the Chinese government doesn't even know what it's doing. ..."
          "... If you talk to Chinese people in private most of them take a pretty dim view of the invasion of Iraq and western interventionist foreign policy in general. Their government, however, don't put out grand press releases about it because that's not the way the Chinese do foreign diplomacy. ..."
          "... Gunboat diplomacy, opium wars, putting down mutinies in India and elsewhere, black hole of Calcutta,thrashing the native language out of the Maori and Aborigines-forcing them to speak English, World War One and World War Two, suez, the Falklands. ..."
          "... They will have to reject US inspired economic voodoo if they are to ever prosper again. There is little to no chance of a federal state. The cultural, language and political differences are insurmountable. ..."
          "... Stopped reading at that point, author is obviously a neoliberal rent-a-mouth. If it's rights against interests there's nothing to balance, to suggest otherwise is agenda setting. ..."
          "... The public opinion in France should remember about Frances' real place in the world, and mind its own business avoiding poking its long nose in other peoples' affaires. ..."
          "... Bonapartism is an old French mental disorder. ..."
          "... I didn't say the US completely controlled Europe, I just said that the US can bend Europe to its will in certain circumstances. For example it currently forces European banks to disclose customer information to the US Treasury and it is trying to get European countries to agree to allow US border control in European airports, so that the US can question UK citizens in London. ..."
          "... i want to see a chinese century, at least the chinese wont invade other countries with the excuse of democracy or human rights ..."
          "... LOL European democracy was born in Greece which is now under the full control of ECB and IMF The EU is a silly clown at the US court What are you talking about? ..."
          "... To be fair to the Chinese, at least they're not evangelical about spreading their 'Authoritarianism with Chinese Characteristics' now are they? In fact, it's quite the opposite with their non-interference mantra. ..."
          "... The rise of China is largely a good thing for Europe. The US will not hesitate to use its power to bend Europe to its will where necessary (and who can blame it, all countries do this when they can) and the cultural and political diversity of Europe means the EU is unlikely to rival the US or China anytime soon. But the rise of China allows Europe to play one great power off against the other to resist bullying and extract concessions from one or both. ..."
          "... You can have democracy with a long memory see periods before 1970's (neoliberalisation requires a small memory). ..."
          "... If Europe continues to have a long term strategy the 'long-term' has not started yet. It is currently in the process of internal devaluation and the morons in charge happily attack labor conditions which weakens spending which further degrades potential GDP increases hidden unemployment and stagnation. Germany did this first and now continues to leverage the small head start it got during the 90's for doing so. ..."
          "... It has nothing to do with that reasoning. It was always predicted the West will self destruct. Inventing Globalisation and then closed down places of work for its citizen and export them la, la lands benefiting very few people, the beneficiaries who end up sending their monies to tax havens un-taxed and sponsoring some selected people to power to do their biding was always self defeating. ..."
          "... We gave China our jobs and cheap technologies that have taken us centuries to develop in of getting cheap goods. As a result China did not have to pass through the phases we passed through in our early industrial age when Machines were more expensive than humans before the reverse. ..."
          "... Who speaks for Europe? No-one is the answer. It is the single largest economy on the plant. Biggest exporter on the planet. Arguably the richest middle class on the planet; combined, possibly the biggest defense budget on the planet, and all this with a central government driving foreign policy, defense, economic strategy, monetary policy, nor any of the other institutions of a Federal State. China knows this, the Americans know this; and Europe keeps getting treated as the "child" on the international scene. It's too bad, because Europe, as a whole, has many wonderful positives to contribute to the world. ..."
          Oct 23, 2015 | The Guardian

          SystemD -> paddyd2009 23 Oct 2015 23:13

          The problem is how do you define civilization? The urban centres were in the Middle East, and long pre-date China. 6,000 years ago, the world's largest towns and cities were in the Balkans - the Tripolye-Cucuteni culture. Because of the conventions of nomenclature, they don't count as a civilization. This raises the question, when does a culture become a civilization? There are certainly well attested archaeological cultures in China going back a long way, but there are equally ancient cultures in Europe. Should we then say that Europe has 4,000 or 5,000 or more years of civilization?

          Good records for Chinese history go back about 3,000 years. Anything before that becomes archaeological rather than historical, based on artifacts rather than records. References to different dynasties don't help - there are no records comparable to Near Eastern king lists, or the Sumerian or Hittite royal archives. China set up the Three Kingdoms Project to try to find the 'missing' 2,000 years of Chinese history - i.e. the history that they claim to have, but have no direct evidence. They didn't find it.

          Adetheshades 23 Oct 2015 22:52

          There is a lot that is positive about China's transformation. However, it is quite telling that many of China's new rich cant get their money out of the country quickly enough.

          They obviously know more than the average Guardian reader, and apparently don't feel their cash is safe. This causes problems of its own, when they start splashing this cash in the UK property market, causing further price escalation if any were needed.

          There isn't much we can do about the size and wealth of China.

          It isn't so much a case of whether the UK will become a province, I suspect the whole world will. China is close to the GDP of the USA and will overtake it in about 18 months, with GDP per head only about $8k. If Chinese GDP per head even doubles, it's economy will at least double, and that isn't taking into account population growth. China's economy has already grown by about 1000% since 2002.

          At what point will we drop French from the school curriculum in favour of Mandarin is the question.

          To say Beijings influence is growing is a lovely little piece of understatement.

          Adamnuisance 23 Oct 2015 21:22

          China is a very fascinating place with a very fascinating history... But this misguided sinophilia is exasperating. Half the time the Chinese government doesn't even know what it's doing. Being passive aggressive and claiming to be 'unique' are their real specialties. I have little doubt that China will become even more powerful with time... I just hope their backwards politics improves with their economy.

          Thruns 23 Oct 2015 20:44

          The first long game was Mao's coup.
          The second long game was the great leap forward.
          The third long game was the cultural revolution.
          The fourth long game was to adopt the west's capitalism and sell the west its own technology.
          At last the "communist" Chinese seem to have found a winner.

          tufsoft Maharaja -> Brovinda Singh 23 Oct 2015 20:30

          If you talk to Chinese people in private most of them take a pretty dim view of the invasion of Iraq and western interventionist foreign policy in general. Their government, however, don't put out grand press releases about it because that's not the way the Chinese do foreign diplomacy.

          nothell -> Laurence Johnson 23 Oct 2015 20:16

          Your comment about the British Empire must be tongue in cheek.

          Gunboat diplomacy, opium wars, putting down mutinies in India and elsewhere, black hole of Calcutta,thrashing the native language out of the Maori and Aborigines-forcing them to speak English, World War One and World War Two, suez, the Falklands.

          Anything but peaceful and anything but fair. Europe had the past, let Asia have the future.

          slightlynumb -> theoldmanfromusa 23 Oct 2015 20:10

          They will have to reject US inspired economic voodoo if they are to ever prosper again. There is little to no chance of a federal state. The cultural, language and political differences are insurmountable.

          Rasengruen 23 Oct 2015 20:05

          All of this presents well-known dilemmas for Europeans, such as how to balance human rights and economic interests.

          Stopped reading at that point, author is obviously a neoliberal rent-a-mouth. If it's rights against interests there's nothing to balance, to suggest otherwise is agenda setting.

          philby87 23 Oct 2015 18:50

          public opinion in France, which had been shocked by an outbreak of violent repression in Tibet

          The public opinion in France should remember about Frances' real place in the world, and mind its own business avoiding poking its long nose in other peoples' affaires. A good example is Japan which is twice larger than France, but never lectures its neighbors about what they should and shouldn't do. Bonapartism is an old French mental disorder.

          skepticaleye -> midaregami 23 Oct 2015 18:04

          The Yue state was populated mostly by the members of the Yue people who were not Han. The South China wasn't completely sinicized well into the second millennium CE. Yunnan wasn't incorporated into China until the Mongols conquered Dali in the 13th century, and the Ming dynasty eradicated the Mongols' resistance there in the 14th century.

          PeterBederell -> Daniel S 23 Oct 2015 17:54

          I didn't say the US completely controlled Europe, I just said that the US can bend Europe to its will in certain circumstances. For example it currently forces European banks to disclose customer information to the US Treasury and it is trying to get European countries to agree to allow US border control in European airports, so that the US can question UK citizens in London.

          Europe often has to agree to these indignities because it needs access to the US market and to keep the US sweet. But with a strong China, it can use the threat of following China in some way the US doesn't like as a bargaining chip, like joining China's Development Bank, which put the US in a huff recently.

          Chriswr -> AdamStrange 23 Oct 2015 17:54
          What we in the West call human rights are creations of the Enlightenment and only about 300 years old. As a modern Westerner I am, of course, a big supporter of them. But let's not pretend they are part of some age-old tradition.
          sor2007 -> impartial12 23 Oct 2015 17:48
          i want to see a chinese century, at least the chinese wont invade other countries with the excuse of democracy or human rights
          ApfelD 23 Oct 2015 17:42
          China can rightly point out that it was already a civilisation 4,000 years ago – well ahead of Europe – and it uses that historical depth to indicate it will never take lessons on democracy.
          LOL European democracy was born in Greece which is now under the full control of ECB and IMF The EU is a silly clown at the US court What are you talking about?

          HoolyK BabylonianSheDevil03 23 Oct 2015 17:34

          To be fair to the Chinese, at least they're not evangelical about spreading their 'Authoritarianism with Chinese Characteristics' now are they? In fact, it's quite the opposite with their non-interference mantra. When the Chinese see the following:

          1. the West preaches democracy and human rights
          2. is evangelical about it and spreads it by hook or crook into the Middle East
          3. this causes regimes to be changed and instability to spread
          4. the chaos causes a massive refugee crisis, washing these poor huddled masses onto the shores of Europe
          5. the human rights preached by the West demands that the the refugees receive help
          6. the native population is slowly being displaced
          7. native population is further screwed, with austerity, financial crisis and now said Syrian refugees
          8. Fascist and Nazis parties are elected into office, civil strife ensues

          Now, what do you think the Chinese, who ABHOR chaos, think about democracy and human rights ??

          PeterBederell 23 Oct 2015 16:47

          The rise of China is largely a good thing for Europe. The US will not hesitate to use its power to bend Europe to its will where necessary (and who can blame it, all countries do this when they can) and the cultural and political diversity of Europe means the EU is unlikely to rival the US or China anytime soon. But the rise of China allows Europe to play one great power off against the other to resist bullying and extract concessions from one or both.

          HoolyK -> AdamStrange 23 Oct 2015 16:30

          Anatolia is inhabited by Turks from Central Asia who settled in the 11th century, Iraq/Syria was overrun by Muslims in the 7th century. China is still Han Chinese, as it was 5000 years ago.

          'human rights' really? then do you support the human rights of tens of thousands of refugees from Syria to settle in Britain and Europe then? I ask this awkward question only because I know the Chinese will ask ....

          dev_null 23 Oct 2015 16:23

          China deploys a long-term strategy in part because it has a very long memory, and in part because its ruling elite needn't bother too much about electoral constraints.

          The two are not mutially exclusive. You can have democracy with a long memory see periods before 1970's (neoliberalisation requires a small memory).

          China's longest 'strategy' was to leverage its currency artificially lower than it should be in order to net export so many manufactured goods. Nothing else.

          If Europe continues to have a long term strategy the 'long-term' has not started yet. It is currently in the process of internal devaluation and the morons in charge happily attack labor conditions which weakens spending which further degrades potential GDP increases hidden unemployment and stagnation. Germany did this first and now continues to leverage the small head start it got during the 90's for doing so.
          Eurozone = Dystopia

          China can rightly point out that it was already a civilisation 4,000 years ago – well ahead of Europe

          No sorry europe contained many advanced cultures going back just as far. This is incompetent journalism. China was not 'china' it was many kingdoms and cultures 4000 years ago, as was Europe at the time. Fallacy of decomposition.

          MeandYou -> weka69 23 Oct 2015 16:11

          It has nothing to do with that reasoning. It was always predicted the West will self destruct. Inventing Globalisation and then closed down places of work for its citizen and export them la, la lands benefiting very few people, the beneficiaries who end up sending their monies to tax havens un-taxed and sponsoring some selected people to power to do their biding was always self defeating.

          We gave China our jobs and cheap technologies that have taken us centuries to develop in of getting cheap goods. As a result China did not have to pass through the phases we passed through in our early industrial age when Machines were more expensive than humans before the reverse. We gave China all in a plate hence the speed neck speed China has risen. The Consumerism society the political class created they were stupid enough to forget people still need money to buy cheap goods. Consumerism does not run on empty purse.

          wintpu 23 Oct 2015 15:57

          You are preaching a China Containment strategy:
          [1] This is racist viciousness, colonial mentality, or white supremacist conspiracy, believing that containment is your moral right. You seem to be wallowing still in the stiff upper lipped notions that you are the betters versus the east. Colonialism is over and still you cling to the notion that the EU should get together and try to destroy China's social system because it is different from yours. Your records on human rights, governance and effectiveness are all droopy examples to be object lessons rather than role models for emulation by developing countries. Your opium war denials [simply by not mentioning it] give you very little high ground to hector China and the Chinese people.

          [2] Recent Behavior. Putting aside your opium war robbery, your behavior in the run up to 1997 Hong Kong hand back shows your greedy sneakiness. Chris Patten infamously tried to throw a monkey wrench into an agreed-upon process by trying to steal the Hong Kong treasury, then planting the seeds of British wannabees. You passed a special law to deny the 1.36 million Hong Kong residents who had become British Citizens was one of the most shameful racist acts of your colonial record. Cameron is now bending over backwards post haste in order to side-step the long long memory of the Chinese people.

          [3] Crying about getting other EU nations to do aiding and abetting of your vendetta against a rising China? Trying to reduce and contain China does you no good. So it is a simple case of mendacity. But you forget that the Germans have already gone to China honestly and co-operated since the time of Helmut Kohl and the CPC has not forgotten their loyal friends. Today most CPC leaders drive Audis. There is no turning Germany away from their key position in Chinatrade to become enemies of China because of your self-serving wishes. Even now, France has jumped in on the nuclear niche to present you with a package you cannot refuse.

          samohio 23 Oct 2015 15:51

          Who speaks for Europe? No-one is the answer. It is the single largest economy on the plant. Biggest exporter on the planet. Arguably the richest middle class on the planet; combined, possibly the biggest defense budget on the planet, and all this with a central government driving foreign policy, defense, economic strategy, monetary policy, nor any of the other institutions of a Federal State. China knows this, the Americans know this; and Europe keeps getting treated as the "child" on the international scene. It's too bad, because Europe, as a whole, has many wonderful positives to contribute to the world.

          [Oct 24, 2015] Turkish Parliament Members Turkey Provided Chemical Weapons for Syrian Terrorist Attack

          Notable quotes:
          "... The purpose was to create the perception that, according to speaker, "Assad killed his people with sarin and that requires a US military intervention in Syria." ..."
          "... Turkish government ..."
          "... 'We knew there were some in the Turkish government,' a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, 'who believed they could get Assad's nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat.' ..."
          "... And as recently as yesterday a State Department flac was stil asserting that Assad was responsible for the Sarin attack. Those boys and girls no longer remember how to tell the truth, even to save their own skins. ..."
          "... The following examples show the extent of Turkish involvement in the war on Syria: ..."
          "... –Turkey hosts the Political and Military Headquarters of the armed opposition. Most of the political leaders are former Syrians who have not lived there for decades. ..."
          "... –Turkey provides home base for armed opposition leaders. As quoted in the Vice News video "Syria: Wolves of the Valley": "Most of the commanders actually live in Turkey and commute in to the fighting when necessary." ..."
          "... –Turkey's intelligence agency MIT has provided its own trucks for shipping huge quantities of weapons and ammunition to Syrian armed opposition groups. According to court testimony, they made at least 2,000 trips to Syria. ..."
          "... – Turkey is suspected of supplying the chemical weapons used in Ghouta in August 2013 as reported by Seymour Hersh here . In May 2013, Nusra fighters were arrested in possession of sarin but quickly and quietly released by Turkish authorities. ..."
          "... – Turkey's foreign minister, top spy chief and senior military official were secretly recorded plotting an incident to justify Turkish military strikes against Syria . A sensational recording of the meeting was publicized, exposing the plot in advance and likely preventing it from proceeding. ..."
          "... –Turkey has provided direct aid and support to attacking insurgents. When insurgents attacked Kassab Syria on the border in spring 2014, Turkey provided backup military support and ambulances for injured fighters. Turkey shot down a Syrian jet fighter that was attacking the invading insurgents. The plane landed 7 kilometers inside Syrian territory, suggesting that Turkish claims it was in Turkish air space are likely untrue. ..."
          "... – Turkey has recently increased its coordination with Saudi Arabia and Qatar . ..."
          "... "We were some of the first people on the ground –if not the first people – to get that story of…militants going in through the Turkish border…I've got images of them in World Food Organization trucks. It was very apparent that they were militants by their beards, by the clothes they wore, and they were going in there with NGO trucks," ..."
          Oct 24, 2015 | Zero Hedge

          Two members of the Turkish parliament gave a press conference this week saying that they have wiretapped recordings and other evidence showing that Turkey supplied the sarin used in Syria. As reported by Turkey's largest newspapers, Today's Zaman:

          CHP deputies Eren Erdem and Ali ?eker held a press conference in Istanbul on Wednesday in which they claimed the investigation into allegations regarding Turkey's involvement in the procurement of sarin gas which was used in the chemical attack on a civil population and delivered to the terrorist Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) to enable the attack was derailed.

          Taking the floor first, Erdem stated that the Adana Chief Prosecutor's Office launched an investigation into allegations that sarin was sent to Syria from Turkey via several businessmen. An indictment followed regarding the accusations targeting the government.

          "The MKE [Turkish Mechanical and Chemical Industry Corporation] is also an actor that is mentioned in the investigation file. Here is the indictment. All the details about how sarin was procured in Turkey and delivered to the terrorists, along with audio recordings, are inside the file," Erdem said while waving the file.

          Erdem also noted that the prosecutor's office conducted detailed technical surveillance and found that an al-Qaeda militant, Hayyam Kasap, acquired sarin, adding: "Wiretapped phone conversations reveal the process of procuring the gas at specific addresses as well as the process of procuring the rockets that would fire the capsules containing the toxic gas. However, despite such solid evidence there has been no arrest in the case. Thirteen individuals were arrested during the first stage of the investigation but were later released, refuting government claims that it is fighting terrorism," Erdem noted.

          Over 1,300 people were killed in the sarin gas attack in Ghouta and several other neighborhoods near the Syrian capital of Damascus, with the West quickly blaming the regime of Bashar al-Assad and Russia claiming it was a "false flag" operation aimed at making US military intervention in Syria possible.

          Suburbs near Damascus were struck by rockets containing the toxic sarin gas in August 2013.

          The purpose of the attack was allegedly to provoke a US military operation in Syria which would topple the Assad regime in line with the political agenda of then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his government.

          CHP deputy speaker spoke after Erdem, pointing out that the government misled the public on the issue by asserting that sarin was provided by Russia. The purpose was to create the perception that, according to speaker, "Assad killed his people with sarin and that requires a US military intervention in Syria."

          He also underlined that all of the files and evidence from the investigation show a war crime was committed within the borders of the Turkish Republic.

          "The investigation clearly indicates that those people who smuggled the chemicals required to procure sarin faced no difficulties, proving that Turkish intelligence was aware of their activities.

          Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh – who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam – previously reported that high-level American sources tell him that the Turkish government carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government.

          As Hersh noted:

          'We knew there were some in the Turkish government,' a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, 'who believed they could get Assad's nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat.'

          Indeed, it's long been known that sarin was coming through Turkey. And a tape recording of top Turkish officials planning a false flag attack to be blamed on Syria as a causus belli was leaked … and confirmed by Turkey as being authentic. Turkey is a member of NATO. There are previous instances where Turkish government officials have admitted to carrying out false flag attacks. For example:

          • The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.

          Turkey has also been busted massively supporting ISIS. And see this.

          And other NATO members have also admitted to carrying out false flag terror to stir up war.

          Reaper

          Cui bono from the sarin attack in Syria? Not Assad. The educational training for American sheeple is to emote first, think way later, maybe.

          jeff montanye

          once more with feeling:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyQ1RoEotPk

          "they don't want a population capable of critical thinking" george carlin

          Macon Richardson

          And as recently as yesterday a State Department flac was stil asserting that Assad was responsible for the Sarin attack. Those boys and girls no longer remember how to tell the truth, even to save their own skins.

          JustObserving

          Turkey has been at war with Syria for years now.

          The following examples show the extent of Turkish involvement in the war on Syria:

          –Turkey hosts the Political and Military Headquarters of the armed opposition. Most of the political leaders are former Syrians who have not lived there for decades.

          –Turkey provides home base for armed opposition leaders. As quoted in the Vice News video "Syria: Wolves of the Valley": "Most of the commanders actually live in Turkey and commute in to the fighting when necessary."

          –Turkey's intelligence agency MIT has provided its own trucks for shipping huge quantities of weapons and ammunition to Syrian armed opposition groups. According to court testimony, they made at least 2,000 trips to Syria.

          Turkey is suspected of supplying the chemical weapons used in Ghouta in August 2013 as reported by Seymour Hersh here. In May 2013, Nusra fighters were arrested in possession of sarin but quickly and quietly released by Turkish authorities.

          Turkey's foreign minister, top spy chief and senior military official were secretly recorded plotting an incident to justify Turkish military strikes against Syria. A sensational recording of the meeting was publicized, exposing the plot in advance and likely preventing it from proceeding.

          –Turkey has provided direct aid and support to attacking insurgents. When insurgents attacked Kassab Syria on the border in spring 2014, Turkey provided backup military support and ambulances for injured fighters. Turkey shot down a Syrian jet fighter that was attacking the invading insurgents. The plane landed 7 kilometers inside Syrian territory, suggesting that Turkish claims it was in Turkish air space are likely untrue.

          Turkey has recently increased its coordination with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

          more at:

          https://consortiumnews.com/2015/06/25/turkeys-troubling-war-on-syria/

          Parrotile

          Rest assured Russia is fully aware of all the clandestine goings-on.

          Interesting that Turkey is keen on snuggling up close with those bastions of civil rights - SA and Qatar, just at the same time as they are making very loud noises re the involvement of what is Hezbollah in the Syrian conflict . . . .

          Easy to see which side Turkey's desperately backing.

          conscious being

          Serena Shim, Shim had been reporting that IS militants had crossed the border from Turkey into Syria in trucks apparently affiliated with NGOs, some of which allegedly bore World Food Organization symbols. She claimed that she had received images from Islamic militants crossing the Turkish border and was one of the few reporters focusing on the matter.

          "We were some of the first people on the ground –if not the first people – to get that story of…militants going in through the Turkish border…I've got images of them in World Food Organization trucks. It was very apparent that they were militants by their beards, by the clothes they wore, and they were going in there with NGO trucks," she said.

          lakecity55

          I also remember the Terrorists taking over a pool supply/industrial supply house of Chlorine gas. They may have manufactured the chlorine at the same facility, so there was no shortage of ways for them to get ahold of poison gas.

          The ideation that Assad would gas his own people is absurd. He throws some dissidents inot jail, but so does the USSA.

          George Washington

          Whistleblower: Powerful Congressman Hastert's Corruption Goes FAR Beyond Sex With a Student

          Ms. Edmonds also told me that Hastert and other high-ranking officials helped funnel money for Gladio B false flag operations.

          [Oct 24, 2015] Snowden NSA, GCHQ Using Your Phone to Spy on Others (and You)

          that's pretty superficial coverage. Capabilities of smartphone mike are pretty limited and by design it is try to suppress external noise. If your phone is in the case microphone will not pick up much. Same for camera. Only your GPS location is available. If phone is switched off then even this is not reality available. I think the whole ability to listen from the pocket is overblown. There is too much noice to make this practical on the current level of development of technology. At the same time I think just metadata are enough to feel that you are the constant surveillance.
          Notable quotes:
          "... the most part intelligence agencies are not really looking to monitor your private phone communications per se. They are actually taking over full control of the phone to take photos or record ongoing conversations within earshot. ..."
          "... According to Snowden, the UK's spy agency, the Government Communications Headquarters, uses NSA technology to develop software tools to control almost anyone's smartphone. He notes that all it takes is sending an encrypted text message to get into virtually any smartphone. Moreover, the message will not be seen by the user, making it almost impossible to stop the attack. ..."
          "... Reprinted with permission from WeMeantWell.com . ..."
          Oct 15, 2015 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
          You are a tool of the state, according to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

          The NSA in the U.S., and its equivalent in the UK, GCHQ, are taking control of your phone not just to spy on you as needed, but also to use your device as a way to spy on others around you. You are a walking microphone, camera and GPS for spies.

          Snowden, in a BBC interview, explained that for the most part intelligence agencies are not really looking to monitor your private phone communications per se. They are actually taking over full control of the phone to take photos or record ongoing conversations within earshot.

          According to Snowden, the UK's spy agency, the Government Communications Headquarters, uses NSA technology to develop software tools to control almost anyone's smartphone. He notes that all it takes is sending an encrypted text message to get into virtually any smartphone. Moreover, the message will not be seen by the user, making it almost impossible to stop the attack.

          GCHQ calls these smartphone hacking tools the "Smurf Suite." The suite includes:

          • "Dreamy Smurf" is the power management tool that turns your phone on and off with you knowing.
          • "Nosey Smurf" is the hot mic tool. "For example," Snowden said, "if the phone is in your pocket, NSA/GCHQ can turn the microphone on and listen to everything that's going on around you, even if your phone is switched off because they've got the other tools for turning it on.
          • "Tracker Smurf" is a geolocation tool which allows spies to follow you with a greater precision than you would get from the typical triangulation of cellphone towers.
          • "Paranoid Smurf" is a defensive mechanism designed to make the other tools installed on the phone undetectable.
          Snowden said the NSA has spent close to $1 billion to develop these smartphone hacking programs.

          Reprinted with permission from WeMeantWell.com.

          [Oct 23, 2015] The Devils Chessboard Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of Americas Secret Government

          Notable quotes:
          "... Talbot focusses extensively on James Jesus Angleton, the shadowy counterintelligence figure at the heart of the domestic assassinations of the 1960s, and examines the inner-workings of Dulles' ambitious (and dastardly) plot to consolidate and control global political power. "The Devil's Chessboard" is a startling and revelatory masterwork. In terms of easy-to-access assassination research, this book is second only to James Douglass' "JFK and the Unspeakable." In terms of biographies of Dulles and Angleton, two of history's most infamous figures, this work is second to none. ..."
          "... A heretofore unanswered question about the JFK assassination is what was Allen Dulles was doing between the time he was fired by JFK as Director of the CIA in 1961 until the moment of the assassination on November 22, 1963. A related question is how was it conceivable for Dulles to have been appointed to the Warren Commission that eventually produced the conclusions that are still accepted by mainstream historians and the media? Talbot's intensive research helps to shed on light on those questions by tracing the arc of development of the career of Allen Dulles as a high-powered attorney at the center of the elitist East Coast establishment, his shocking collaboration with the Nazis while working in the OSS, and his career in clandestine activities at the CIA ..."
          "... Talbots research probes not merely the activities of Dulles as Director of the CIA, but explores the broader context of his function over three decades as a power broker, whose efforts were directed not against hostile governments but against his own. ..."
          "... the more recent book on Dulles covers the broader scope of how the American government was transformed into the national security state in the years following World War II. Talbots goal in preparing this book is to demonstrate the urgency of coming to terms with our past and how it is essential that we continue to fight for the right to own our history. (p. xii) An excellent place to begin that quest is to own this book. ..."
          Amazon

          J. Roth on October 14, 2015

          A Groundbreaking Resource, Second Only to "JFK and the Unspeakable"

          A tremendous resource of breathtaking depth and clarity. Talbot builds on the now decades-old body of research - initiated by investigative reporters Tom Mangold ("Cold Warrior") and David Wise ("Molehunt"), and largely developed by assassination researchers James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease ("The Assassinations") - and adds groundbreaking new information.

          Talbot focusses extensively on James Jesus Angleton, the shadowy counterintelligence figure at the heart of the domestic assassinations of the 1960s, and examines the inner-workings of Dulles' ambitious (and dastardly) plot to consolidate and control global political power. "The Devil's Chessboard" is a startling and revelatory masterwork. In terms of easy-to-access assassination research, this book is second only to James Douglass' "JFK and the Unspeakable." In terms of biographies of Dulles and Angleton, two of history's most infamous figures, this work is second to none.

          Note: Be wary of one-star reviews for this book. Some trace back to commissioned-review services, the same services that give five-star reviews to shady/suspicious health and beauty products. Go figure.

          James Norwood on October 14, 2015

          The Shadow Government of Allen Dulles: Organized Irresponsibility

          To read this magnificent book by David Talbot is to understand how the JFK assassination occurred and how the truth was concealed by officialdom in the Warren Report. Unlike his brother, John Foster Dulles, the younger Allen Welsh Dulles rarely makes it into American history textbooks. In this extremely detailed study, the singular importance of Allen Dulles is demonstrated as being central to a watershed period in the American Century.

          First and foremost, "The Devil's Chessboard" is a beautifully written and meticulously researched volume. Talbot drew upon archives at Princeton University, where the Allen Dulles papers are housed. He also conducted research in other archives across the country. The documentary work is buttressed and amplified by interviews with the surviving daughter of Dulles, as well as interviews with the children of Dulles' colleagues and over 150 officials from the Kennedy administration. Nearly forty pages of notes serve to document the author's sources.

          One of the most revealing moments about Allen Dulles was when he was ten years old and spending time at the family's lake home in upstate New York. After his five-year-old sister fell into the lake and was drifting away from him, Allen stood stock still, "strangely impassive. The boy just stood on the dock and watched as his little sister drifted away." (p. 19) Fortunately, the child was rescued by the mother. The behavior of young Allen is representative of a lifelong predilection for observing the imponderables of life as an insider while looking to others to "risk their skins." For this little boy, the world was already forming into a chessboard with pawns to manipulate for his self-serving needs. Talbot describes Dulles' rogue actions in allowing Nazi war criminals to avoid prosecution at the Nuremberg Trials in these chilling words: "Even in the life-and-death throes of wartime espionage, Dulles seemed untouched by the intense human drama swirling around him." (p. 120)

          In one of the most riveting moments of the book, Talbot describes an interchange between Dulles and researcher David Lifton at a colloquium on the JFK assassination at the campus of UCLA in 1965. Lifton came prepared to challenge Dulles on major deficiencies of the Warren Report. By the end of the evening, the students attending the session were more interested in Lifton's findings than Dulles' unsuccessful attempts to deflect the tough questions. In retrospect, Lifton apparently claimed that he "was in the presence of 'evil' that night." (p. 591)

          A heretofore unanswered question about the JFK assassination is what was Allen Dulles was doing between the time he was fired by JFK as Director of the CIA in 1961 until the moment of the assassination on November 22, 1963. A related question is how was it conceivable for Dulles to have been appointed to the Warren Commission that eventually produced the conclusions that are still accepted by mainstream historians and the media? Talbot's intensive research helps to shed on light on those questions by tracing the arc of development of the career of Allen Dulles as a high-powered attorney at the center of the elitist East Coast establishment, his shocking collaboration with the Nazis while working in the OSS, and his career in clandestine activities at the CIA

          Talbot's research probes not merely the activities of Dulles as Director of the CIA, but explores the broader context of his function over three decades as a power broker, whose "efforts were directed not against hostile governments but against his own." (p. 3) Talbot cites revelations from the Columbia University sociology professor C. Wright Mills about the secret government of Allen Dulles, which was comprised of a "power elite" and based on the anti-Constitutional premise of "organized irresponsibility."

          In many ways, "The Devil's Chessboard" is a companion volume to Talbot's essential study "Brothers," which focuses on the relationship of John and Robert Kennedy, the assassination of JFK, and the aftereffects on RFK. But the more recent book on Dulles covers the broader scope of how the American government was transformed into the national security state in the years following World War II. Talbot's goal in preparing this book is to demonstrate the urgency of coming to terms with our past and how "it is essential that we continue to fight for the right to own our history." (p. xii) An excellent place to begin that quest is to own this book.

          [Oct 23, 2015] Putin Just Warned Global War Is Increasingly More Likely Heres Why

          Notable quotes:
          "... "Why play with words dividing terrorists into moderate and not moderate. Whats the difference?," Putin asked, adding that "success in fighting terrorists cannot be reached if using some of them as a battering ram to overthrow disliked regimes [because] its just an illusion that they can be dealt with [later], removed from power and somehow negotiated with." ..."
          "... hypothetical nuclear threat from Iran is a myth. The US was just trying to destroy the strategical balance, [and] not to just dominate, but be able to dictate its will to everyone – not only geopolitical opponents, but also allies. ..."
          "... We had the right to expect that work on development of US missile defense system would stop. But nothing like it happened, and it continues. This is a very dangerous scenario, harmful for all, including the United States itself. The deterrent of nuclear weapons has started to lose its value, and some have even got the illusion that a real victory of one of the sides can be achieved in a global conflict, without irreversible consequences for the winner itself – if there is a winner at all." ..."
          "... the US believes it not only has the capacity to win a war against the nations Washington habitually places on its various lists of bad guys (i.e. Russia, Iran, and China), but that Washington believes America can win without incurring consequences that are commensurate with the damage the US inflicts on its enemies. That, Putin believes, is a dangerous miscalculation and one that could end up endangering US citizens. ..."
          "... They did this after the White House ... ... decided to move patriot batteries to E. Europe then blew him off and claimed they were pointed at Iran. Remember the Interview where Putin bust out laughing at the reporter who suggested this? ..."
          www.zerohedge.com

          Zero Hedge

          ... ... ...

          ... Washington, Riyadh, Ankara, and Doha are left to look on helplessly as their Sunni extremist proxy armies are devastated by the Russian air force. The Kremlin knows there's little chance that the West and its allies will step in to directly support the rebels - the optics around that would quickly turn into a PR nightmare.

          ... ... ...

          Speaking today at the International Valdai Discussion Club's 12th annual meeting in Sochi, Putin delivered a sweeping critique of military strategy and foreign policy touching on everything from the erroneous labeling of some extremists as "moderates" to the futility of nuclear war.

          "Why play with words dividing terrorists into moderate and not moderate. What's the difference?," Putin asked, adding that "success in fighting terrorists cannot be reached if using some of them as a battering ram to overthrow disliked regimes [because] it's just an illusion that they can be dealt with [later], removed from power and somehow negotiated with."

          "I'd like to stress once again that [Russia's operation in Syria] is completely legitimate, and its only aim is to aid in establishing peace," Putin said of Moscow's Mid-East strategy. And while he's probably telling the truth there, it's only by default. That is, peace in Syria likely means the restoration of Assad (it's difficult to imagine how else the country can be stabilized in the short-term), and because that aligns with Russia's interests, The Kremlin is seeking to promote peace - it's more a tautology than it is a comment on Putin's desire for goodwill towards men.

          And then there's Iran and its nascent nuclear program. Putin accused the US of illegitimately seeking to play nuclear police officer, a point on which he is unquestionably correct: The "hypothetical nuclear threat from Iran is a myth. The US was just trying to destroy the strategical balance, [and] not to just dominate, but be able to dictate its will to everyone – not only geopolitical opponents, but also allies."

          Speaking of nukes, Putin also warned that some nuclear powers seem to believe that there's a way to take the "mutually" out of "mutually assured destruction."

          That is, Putin warned against the dangers of thinking it's possible to "win" a nuclear war. Commenting on US anti-missile shields in Europe and on the idea of MAD, Putin said the following:

          "We had the right to expect that work on development of US missile defense system would stop. But nothing like it happened, and it continues. This is a very dangerous scenario, harmful for all, including the United States itself. The deterrent of nuclear weapons has started to lose its value, and some have even got the illusion that a real victory of one of the sides can be achieved in a global conflict, without irreversible consequences for the winner itself – if there is a winner at all."

          In short, Putin is suggesting that the world may have gone crazy. The implication is that the US believes it not only has the capacity to win a war against the nations Washington habitually places on its various lists of "bad guys" (i.e. Russia, Iran, and China), but that Washington believes America can win without incurring consequences that are commensurate with the damage the US inflicts on its enemies. That, Putin believes, is a dangerous miscalculation and one that could end up endangering US citizens.

          ... ... ...

          ZerOhead

          Putin is really pushing the "nuclear war" angle hard. I guess his good friend Henry Kissinger must have told him that power is the only thing that NeoCon fucknuts like himself understand...

          El Vaquero

          For any who want to read it, here is some detailed information on what the USSR's nuclear strategy was during the Cold War:

          http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb285/

          While some things will have changed due to changes in technology, what kinds of targets the Russians would pick is likely much the same as it was when it was part of the USSR. If you live near a target, this might be helpful:

          http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

          sushi

          The people of the Falklands voted to remain associated with the UK. The citizens of Quebec, Canada nearly voted themselves out of Canada, the citizens of Scotland nearly voted themselves out of the the UK, Self Determination is respected by the UN as being a fundamental right of all peoples, so of course when the the citizens of Crimea undertake exactly the same process and vote to join Russia it is a Russian imperialist land grab.

          Watch more MSM. They will explain it all to you.

          Occident Mortal

          Russian ICBM's can't be shot down with air defense missiles.

          Russian ICBM's constantly recalculate their trajectory following a continually regenerated 'random path' through 3D space all the way to their target. The downside is that the missles need 20% more fuel.

          All air defense systems work by tracking a missle and projecting it's trajectory then triangulating an intercept location and launching an interceptor to that location.

          But by the time the interceptor reaches the intercept location the Russian ICBM will have changed course several times and is likely to be thousands of meters away.

          In order to intercept a Russian ICBM the interceptor needs to travel at over 35,000mph. Good luck with that.

          George Bush decided he wanted a Star Wars missle defense system and after spending a boat load of cash.. the Kremlin called in the US amabasador and told them all Russian missle had just received a software upgrade that would render Star Wars obsolete before it was even built. The Star Wars program was scrapped within a month.

          Anasteus

          A shockingly open Putin's summary of the current situation that every American should hear

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQuceU3x2Ww

          Mr.BlingBling

          They'd be practically useless on this continent because of the decoys accompanying the 'physics packages.' The sine qua non of an effective ABM system is the ability to destroy the missiles during the boost phase. The importance of eastern Ukraine is its proximity to Russian ICBM bases, which is why 'our' government spent $5 billion to foment the coup.

          cowdiddly

          Oh dont worry it is Carl. That little Caspian missile shoot off the shrimp boats has caused these morons to realize there may be a few gaping ass holes in the curtain has them scrambling. I present you their panic contract to "protect the homeland" just issued to..........Yep. Lockheed Martin. purveyors of the fine F35 aircraft.

          http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/21/lockheed-radar-missile-defense...

          I feel safer already

          Speaking of military contracts, Last year Russia upgraded and refurbished over 5000 underground atomic bomb shelters built in the old Soviet days that are located in every province of Russia for their people. He knows what kind of nimcompoops he is dealing with. They did this after the White House ... ... decided to move patriot batteries to E. Europe then blew him off and claimed they were pointed at Iran. Remember the Interview where Putin bust out laughing at the reporter who suggested this?

          Now ask yourself how many underground shelters has your government provided for us, other than the huge complex in Utah for the President and politicians to move safely too? I certainly don't know where one is in my state unless I was to dig it myself. The only thing I know of that they did to prepare for disaster is Fema built millions of plastic coffin like things that are being stored around everywhere.

          They are only worried about protecting themselves and don't give a rats ass about you other than taxes. Their only concern for you is you might lay around to long stinking up the place.


          [Oct 22, 2015] Why the U.S. Is Selling Saudi Arabia $13 Billion Worth of New Weapons

          finance.yahoo.com

          Seeking to bolster its Persian Gulf allies in the wake of the nuclear deal with Iran, the Obama administration this week notified Congress that it plans to sell up to $11.25 billion in warships and related equipment to Saudi Arabia.

          [Oct 22, 2015] The Vineyard of the Saker Putin's speech at the Valdai Club - full transcript

          Notable quotes:
          "... Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies. ..."
          "... International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white. ..."
          "... In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group's ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case. ..."
          "... The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of 'supra-legal' legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that 'big brother' is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance. ..."
          "... They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists' invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region's countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11. ..."
          "... As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries. ..."
          "... What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels' ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states' affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organisations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain. ..."
          "... Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR's old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world's biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower. ..."
          "... Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalisation based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalisation. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States' prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalisation are visible now in many countries. ..."
          "... Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalising our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries. ..."
          "... Ukraine, which I'm sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defence system. ..."
          "... Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. ..."
          "... Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify. ..."
          vineyardsaker.blogspot.com

          ... ... ...

          What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it the new realities in the system of international relations.

          But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold War, saw no need for this. Instead of establishing a new balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability, they took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.

          The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression that the so-called 'victors' in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of international relations, international law and the checks and balances in place got in the way of these aims, this system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition.

          Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies.

          We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate silences in world politics. International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.

          In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group's ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case.

          The very notion of 'national sovereignty' became a relative value for most countries. In essence, what was being proposed was the formula: the greater the loyalty towards the world's sole power centre, the greater this or that ruling regime's legitimacy.

          We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to answer your questions and would also like to use my right to ask you questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I just set out during the upcoming discussion.

          The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of 'supra-legal' legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that 'big brother' is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.

          Let's ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States' exceptional position and the way they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax and enjoy it all?

          Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.

          A unilateral diktat and imposing one's own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.

          Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.

          They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists' invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region's countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11.

          During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always spoke of the need to fight terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our partners expressed agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.

          Only the current Egyptian leadership's determination and wisdom saved this key Arab country from chaos and having extremists run rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?

          As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries.

          Where do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the state's institutions, including the army, were left in ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful. You are driving people out into the street, and what will they do there? Don't forget (rightfully or not) that they were in the leadership of a large regional power, and what are you now turning them into?

          What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels' ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states' affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organisations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain.

          We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.

          Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly demonstrated that having only one power centre does not make global processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of unstable construction has shown its inability to fight the real threats such as regional conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking, religious fanaticism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the same time, it has opened the road wide for inflated national pride, manipulating public opinion and letting the strong bully and suppress the weak.

          Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR's old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world's biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.

          Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put together coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this leadership, or diktat if you wish. The situation was presented this way during the Cold War. We all understand this and know this. The United States always told its allies: "We have a common enemy, a terrible foe, the centre of evil, and we are defending you, our allies, from this foe, and so we have the right to order you around, force you to sacrifice your political and economic interests and pay your share of the costs for this collective defence, but we will be the ones in charge of it all of course." In short, we see today attempts in a new and changing world to reproduce the familiar models of global management, and all this so as to guarantee their [the US'] exceptional position and reap political and economic dividends.

          But these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and are in contradiction with the world's diversity. Steps of this kind inevitably create confrontation and countermeasures and have the opposite effect to the hoped-for goals. We see what happens when politics rashly starts meddling in the economy and the logic of rational decisions gives way to the logic of confrontation that only hurt one's own economic positions and interests, including national business interests.

          Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring countries closer together and help to smooth out current problems in relations between states. But today, the global business community faces unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business, economic expediency and pragmatism can we speak of when we hear slogans such as "the homeland is in danger", "the free world is under threat", and "democracy is in jeopardy"? And so everyone needs to mobilise. That is what a real mobilisation policy looks like.

          Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalisation based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalisation. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States' prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalisation are visible now in many countries.

          The well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated sanctions have only strengthened the trend towards seeking to bolster economic and financial sovereignty and countries' or their regional groups' desire to find ways of protecting themselves from the risks of outside pressure. We already see that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less dependent on the dollar and are setting up alternative financial and payments systems and reserve currencies. I think that our American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on. You cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always thought and still think today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject later.

          We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the pressure. But let me stress that Russia is not going to get all worked up, get offended or come begging at anyone's door. Russia is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic environment that has taken shape, develop domestic production and technology and act more decisively to carry out transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only consolidate our society, keep us alert and make us concentrate on our main development goals.

          Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalising our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries.

          Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back on Europe - such words were probably spoken already here too during the discussions - and is looking for new business partners, above all in Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been following for a good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we can afford to overlook these developments.

          Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so to, all the more so as a large part of our country is geographically in Asia. Why should we not make use of our competitive advantages in this area? It would be extremely shortsighted not to do so.

          Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint integration projects also creates big incentives for our domestic development. Today's demographic, economic and cultural trends all suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively decrease. This is something that European and American experts have been talking and writing about too.

          Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the developments we are seeing in the global economy, namely, intensive competition for specific niches and frequent change of leaders in specific areas. This is entirely possible.

          There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education, science, healthcare and culture are playing a greater role in global competition. This also has a big impact on international relations, including because this 'soft power' resource will depend to a great extent on real achievements in developing human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda tricks.

          At the same time, the formation of a so-called polycentric world (I would also like to draw attention to this, colleagues) in and of itself does not improve stability; in fact, it is more likely to be the opposite. The goal of reaching global equilibrium is turning into a fairly difficult puzzle, an equation with many unknowns.

          So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the rules – even if they may be strict and inconvenient – but rather live without any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely possible; we cannot rule it out, given the tensions in the global situation. Many predictions can already be made, taking into account current trends, and unfortunately, they are not optimistic. If we do not create a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements, if we do not build the mechanisms for managing and resolving crisis situations, the symptoms of global anarchy will inevitably grow.

          Today, we already see a sharp increase in the likelihood of a whole set of violent conflicts with either direct or indirect participation by the world's major powers. And the risk factors include not just traditional multinational conflicts, but also the internal instability in separate states, especially when we talk about nations located at the intersections of major states' geopolitical interests, or on the border of cultural, historical, and economic civilizational continents.

          Ukraine, which I'm sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defence system.

          Colleagues, friends,

          I want to point out that we did not start this. Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. In absence of legal and political instruments, arms are once again becoming the focal point of the global agenda; they are used wherever and however, without any UN Security Council sanctions. And if the Security Council refuses to produce such decisions, then it is immediately declared to be an outdated and ineffective instrument.

          Many states do not see any other ways of ensuring their sovereignty but to obtain their own bombs. This is extremely dangerous. We insist on continuing talks; we are not only in favour of talks, but insist on continuing talks to reduce nuclear arsenals. The less nuclear weapons we have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament – but only serious discussions without any double standards.

          What do I mean? Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify.

          The next obvious threat is the further escalation of ethnic, religious, and social conflicts. Such conflicts are dangerous not only as such, but also because they create zones of anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos around them, places that are comfortable for terrorists and criminals, where piracy, human trafficking, and drug trafficking flourish.

          Incidentally, at the time, our colleagues tried to somehow manage these processes, use regional conflicts and design 'colour revolutions' to suit their interests, but the genie escaped the bottle. It looks like the controlled chaos theory fathers themselves do not know what to do with it; there is disarray in their ranks.

          We closely follow the discussions by both the ruling elite and the expert community. It is enough to look at the headlines of the Western press over the last year. The same people are called fighters for democracy, and then Islamists; first they write about revolutions and then call them riots and upheavals. The result is obvious: the further expansion of global chaos.

          Colleagues, given the global situation, it is time to start agreeing on fundamental things. This is incredibly important and necessary; this is much better than going back to our own corners. The more we all face common problems, the more we find ourselves in the same boat, so to speak. And the logical way out is in cooperation between nations, societies, in finding collective answers to increasing challenges, and in joint risk management. Granted, some of our partners, for some reason, remember this only when it suits their interests.

          Practical experience shows that joint answers to challenges are not always a panacea; and we need to understand this. Moreover, in most cases, they are hard to reach; it is not easy to overcome the differences in national interests, the subjectivity of different approaches, particularly when it comes to nations with different cultural and historical traditions. But nevertheless, we have examples when, having common goals and acting based on the same criteria, together we achieved real success.

          Let me remind you about solving the problem of chemical weapons in Syria, and the substantive dialogue on the Iranian nuclear programme, as well as our work on North Korean issues, which also has some positive results. Why can't we use this experience in the future to solve local and global challenges?

          What could be the legal, political, and economic basis for a new world order that would allow for stability and security, while encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new monopolies that hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could provide absolutely exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will need extensive work with participation by a wide range of governments, global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours.

          However, it is obvious that success and real results are only possible if key participants in international affairs can agree on harmonising basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and set the example of positive and responsible leadership. We must clearly identify where unilateral actions end and we need to apply multilateral mechanisms, and as part of improving the effectiveness of international law, we must resolve the dilemma between the actions by international community to ensure security and human rights and the principle of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any state.

          Those very collisions increasingly lead to arbitrary external interference in complex internal processes, and time and again, they provoke dangerous conflicts between leading global players. The issue of maintaining sovereignty becomes almost paramount in maintaining and strengthening global stability.

          Clearly, discussing the criteria for the use of external force is extremely difficult; it is practically impossible to separate it from the interests of particular nations. However, it is far more dangerous when there are no agreements that are clear to everyone, when no clear conditions are set for necessary and legal interference.

          I will add that international relations must be based on international law, which itself should rest on moral principles such as justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect for one's partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply following it could radically change the global situation.

          I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the effectiveness of the international and regional institutions system. We do not even need to build anything anew, from the scratch; this is not a "greenfield," especially since the institutions created after World War II are quite universal and can be given modern substance, adequate to manage the current situation.

          This is true of improving the work of the UN, whose central role is irreplaceable, as well as the OSCE, which, over the course of 40 years, has proven to be a necessary mechanism for ensuring security and cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic region. I must say that even now, in trying to resolve the crisis in southeast Ukraine, the OSCE is playing a very positive role.

          In light of the fundamental changes in the international environment, the increase in uncontrollability and various threats, we need a new global consensus of responsible forces. It's not about some local deals or a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic diplomacy, or somebody's complete global domination. I think that we need a new version of interdependence. We should not be afraid of it. On the contrary, this is a good instrument for harmonising positions.

          This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and growth of certain regions on the planet, which process objectively requires institutionalisation of such new poles, creating powerful regional organisations and developing rules for their interaction. Cooperation between these centres would seriously add to the stability of global security, policy and economy. But in order to establish such a dialogue, we need to proceed from the assumption that all regional centres and integration projects forming around them need to have equal rights to development, so that they can complement each other and nobody can force them into conflict or opposition artificially. Such destructive actions would break down ties between states, and the states themselves would be subjected to extreme hardship, or perhaps even total destruction.

          I would like to remind you of the last year's events. We have told our American and European partners that hasty backstage decisions, for example, on Ukraine's association with the EU, are fraught with serious risks to the economy. We didn't even say anything about politics; we spoke only about the economy, saying that such steps, made without any prior arrangements, touch on the interests of many other nations, including Russia as Ukraine's main trade partner, and that a wide discussion of the issues is necessary. Incidentally, in this regard, I will remind you that, for example, the talks on Russia's accession to the WTO lasted 19 years. This was very difficult work, and a certain consensus was reached.

          Why am I bringing this up? Because in implementing Ukraine's association project, our partners would come to us with their goods and services through the back gate, so to speak, and we did not agree to this, nobody asked us about this. We had discussions on all topics related to Ukraine's association with the EU, persistent discussions, but I want to stress that this was done in an entirely civilised manner, indicating possible problems, showing the obvious reasoning and arguments. Nobody wanted to listen to us and nobody wanted to talk. They simply told us: this is none of your business, point, end of discussion. Instead of a comprehensive but – I stress – civilised dialogue, it all came down to a government overthrow; they plunged the country into chaos, into economic and social collapse, into a civil war with enormous casualties.

          Why? When I ask my colleagues why, they no longer have an answer; nobody says anything. That's it. Everyone's at a loss, saying it just turned out that way. Those actions should not have been encouraged – it wouldn't have worked. After all (I already spoke about this), former Ukrainian President Yanukovych signed everything, agreed with everything. Why do it? What was the point? What is this, a civilised way of solving problems? Apparently, those who constantly throw together new 'colour revolutions' consider themselves 'brilliant artists' and simply cannot stop.

          I am certain that the work of integrated associations, the cooperation of regional structures, should be built on a transparent, clear basis; the Eurasian Economic Union's formation process is a good example of such transparency. The states that are parties to this project informed their partners of their plans in advance, specifying the parameters of our association, the principles of its work, which fully correspond with the World Trade Organisation rules.

          I will add that we would also have welcomed the start of a concrete dialogue between the Eurasian and European Union. Incidentally, they have almost completely refused us this as well, and it is also unclear why – what is so scary about it?

          And, of course, with such joint work, we would think that we need to engage in dialogue (I spoke about this many times and heard agreement from many of our western partners, at least in Europe) on the need to create a common space for economic and humanitarian cooperation stretching all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.

          Colleagues, Russia made its choice. Our priorities are further improving our democratic and open economy institutions, accelerated internal development, taking into account all the positive modern trends in the world, and consolidating society based on traditional values and patriotism.

          We have an integration-oriented, positive, peaceful agenda; we are working actively with our colleagues in the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, BRICS and other partners. This agenda is aimed at developing ties between governments, not dissociating. We are not planning to cobble together any blocs or get involved in an exchange of blows.

          The allegations and statements that Russia is trying to establish some sort of empire, encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbours, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive place in the world – I want to emphasise this. While respecting the interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken into account and for our position to be respected.

          We are well aware that the world has entered an era of changes and global transformations, when we all need a particular degree of caution, the ability to avoid thoughtless steps. In the years after the Cold War, participants in global politics lost these qualities somewhat. Now, we need to remember them. Otherwise, hopes for a peaceful, stable development will be a dangerous illusion, while today's turmoil will simply serve as a prelude to the collapse of world order.

          Yes, of course, I have already said that building a more stable world order is a difficult task. We are talking about long and hard work. We were able to develop rules for interaction after World War II, and we were able to reach an agreement in Helsinki in the 1970s. Our common duty is to resolve this fundamental challenge at this new stage of development.

          [Oct 22, 2015] Energy Crash - 97% of Fracking Now Operating at a Loss at Current Oil Prices

          This is an old article (from Jan 2015), but most observations look quite current...
          Notable quotes:
          "... Some will point out correctly that oil sales from production is sold months or years ahead of time, so a temporary drop, no matter how steep, doesnt have an immediate effect. That statement is true, but it comes with two big caveats. First of all, there is no way of knowing when those oil futures were agreed to. They could expire tomorrow, or three years from now. The other caveat is specific to the geology of fracking. Unlike traditional oil drilling, shale oil taps out very quickly . That is simple geology. ..."
          "... the average decline of the worlds conventional oil fields is about 5 percent per year. By comparison, the average decline of oil wells in North Dakotas booming Bakken shale oil field is 44 percent per year. Individual wells can see production declines of 70 percent or more in the first year. ..."
          "... The IEA states that the shale oil business needs to bring 2,500 new wells into production every year just to sustain production, and these shale fields will increasingly become more expensive to drill , a rising percentage of supplies…require a higher breakeven price. ..."
          "... With the current price of oil, almost none of the frackers will be sinking new wells. So if oil prices stay down, most of the frackers will simply be out of business in a year because they will have stopped producing enough oil for their business model. This is a big reason why the Saudis, with their conventional oil production can wait out the frackers. ..."
          "... Of course, there is another factor that needs to be considered when it comes to the fracking industry, and that is high-yield debt . ..."
          January 6, 2015 | Alternet
          The majority of Texas energy production is still by conventional means. North Dakota, on the other hand, relies heavily on fracking, so they are looking at hard times. Already oil rigs are being shut down at the fastest pace in six years.
          "At $50 oil, half the U.S. rig count is at risk," R.T. Dukes, an upstream analyst at Wood Mackenzie Ltd., said by telephone from Houston. "What happened in the last quarter foreshadows what's going to be a tough year for operators. It's looking worse and worse by the day."
          Employment in the support services for oil and gas operations has risen 70% since mid-2009. Employment in oil and gas extraction has risen 34% over the same time period. The thing to remember is that most job creation in the fracking industry comes up-front, so job losses will hit long before production falls.
          The most labor-intensive aspect of the oil-field industry is the construction and completion process for new wells, which requires the bulk of investment and provides the most income to the local economy.
          He predicts ramifications of the oil slide to show up in three to six months, because companies will complete works in progress according to contract.
          The price began crashing a couple months ago so the layoffs notices will really pick up on the oil patches any day. The Dallas Federal Reserve projects Texas will lose 125,000 jobs by the middle of this year. This slowdown is already projected to effect the state budgets of Texas, Wyoming, Louisiana, Oklahoma, North Dakota and Alaska.

          Some will point out correctly that oil sales from production is sold months or years ahead of time, so a temporary drop, no matter how steep, doesn't have an immediate effect. That statement is true, but it comes with two big caveats. First of all, there is no way of knowing when those oil futures were agreed to. They could expire tomorrow, or three years from now. The other caveat is specific to the geology of fracking. Unlike traditional oil drilling, shale oil taps out very quickly. That is simple geology.

          the average decline of the world's conventional oil fields is about 5 percent per year. By comparison, the average decline of oil wells in North Dakota's booming Bakken shale oil field is 44 percent per year. Individual wells can see production declines of 70 percent or more in the first year.

          Shale gas wells face similarly swift depletion rates, so drillers need to keep plumbing new wells to make up for the shortfall at those that have gone anemic.

          The IEA states that the shale oil business needs to bring 2,500 new wells into production every year just to sustain production, and these shale fields will increasingly become more expensive to drill, "a rising percentage of supplies…require a higher breakeven price."

          With the current price of oil, almost none of the frackers will be sinking new wells. So if oil prices stay down, most of the frackers will simply be out of business in a year because they will have stopped producing enough oil for their business model. This is a big reason why the Saudis, with their conventional oil production can wait out the frackers.

          Of course, there is another factor that needs to be considered when it comes to the fracking industry, and that is high-yield debt.

          [Oct 21, 2015] An invitation to Putin regarding Ukraine Do the maths

          Notable quotes:
          "... Ukraine has given Russia a deadline of October 29 to accept the restructuring offer made to private sector investors; assuming it continues to refuse, Russia is threatening legal action if it is not repaid in full on December 20. So all of this is really coming to a head. It will all end up in the British courts - perhaps offering London it's own pari passu-type saga - unless something like the Lerrick compromise is adopted. ..."
          "... Funny , but I have read the notorious IEA energy overview of Ukraine published a few years ago. It promised to add value (collapse the economy) by adding costs..........funny enough but it has. Not a fan of People the Great style centralized capitalism but the objectives of finance capitalism are far from pretty either. ..."
          "... Im still not sure how a country can do a deal over bond restructuring with a country that it is at war with when the war is partly causing the need for bond restructuring. ..."
          "... This loan assumed that there wouldnt be a coup and that Ukraine would pay its way under Russian subsidies as it had done in the past. Then the Western encouraged coup, and the collapse. And then an IMF loan of a lot more. Go figure... A fine lesson in how instability destroys an economy. I wish the West would not encourage this. Its here they should have to pay. They managed not to do so, so far in Libya. They are paying in Iraq, but in arms not in development which the Iraqis deserve. I wish the West would support stability - things in the world change slowly if it is to be for the benefit of all... ..."
          Oct 21, 2015 | FT Alphaville

          Martin Wolf was fuming about Russia on Wednesday - incensed specifically about its stance towards Ukraine's attempted debt restructuring. He really doesn't like the fact that Russia's refusal to join August's $18bn deal with private bond holders will block Ukraine's access to IMF money, promising to collapse the country's economy.

          Along the way, Wolf notes that there's a solution on the table here, albeit one that Russia is unlikely to accept. It comes from Adam Lerrick of the American Enterprise Institute - a man with some form in coming up with elegant solutions amid sovereign debt crises. (See Iceland, Greece and also Argentina.)

          Here's Lerrick's detail on Ukraine, along with a table for Putin and pals…

          Ukraine has given Russia a deadline of October 29 to accept the restructuring offer made to private sector investors; assuming it continues to refuse, Russia is threatening legal action if it is not repaid in full on December 20. So all of this is really coming to a head. It will all end up in the British courts - perhaps offering London it's own pari passu-type saga - unless something like the Lerrick compromise is adopted.

          The American academic's approach actually accepts a core Russian claim - that the concessional terms of Russia's original loan put it on a different footing from private creditors in that Ukraine signed up to pay a coupon of 5 per cent, at a time when regular bond market investors would have demanded 12 per cent or more. But Lerrick then suggests that Russia be compensated for this concession (in the form of higher interest rates on newly issued replacement bonds), before then accepting the private creditor restructuring terms.

          You can read the two options in full below. They look fair to all involved, which probably means there's no chance of Russia accepting the idea at all!

          The Dork of Cork.

          Funny , but I have read the notorious IEA energy overview of Ukraine published a few years ago. It promised to "add value" (collapse the economy) by adding costs..........funny enough but it has. Not a fan of People the Great style centralized capitalism but the objectives of finance capitalism are far from pretty either.

          Upaswellasdown

          What exactly will Russia do if it is not repaid? invade?

          Pseudonym

          I'm still not sure how a country can do a deal over bond restructuring with a country that it is at war with when the war is partly causing the need for bond restructuring.

          ukrainewatcher

          Really angers me, as this was political loan to finance last dying days of Yanukovich's regime. Probably used to pay towards the violence of the following months and to the cash that was taken out of the country in trucks. Russia consequently cost Ukraine's economy billions of dollars, through invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine against very explicit guarantees provided by most superpowers (including US, Russia and UK) provided in return for dismantling world's third largest nuclear arsenal. Obligations that are in my books pretty much worthless, yet Ukraine continues to fulfil today (still destroying long term missiles as we speak)

          And Ukraine still needs to deal with them as though they are normal creditors?

          Something very wrong with the world of you ask me.

          violet17

          It was a political loan...correct! And it is a sovereign loan. And that is what the fuss is about!! This loan assumed that there wouldn't be a coup and that Ukraine would pay its way under Russian subsidies as it had done in the past. Then the Western encouraged coup, and the collapse. And then an IMF loan of a lot more. Go figure... A fine lesson in how instability destroys an economy. I wish the West would not encourage this. Its here they should have to pay. They managed not to do so, so far in Libya. They are paying in Iraq, but in arms not in development which the Iraqis deserve. I wish the West would support stability - things in the world change slowly if it is to be for the benefit of all...
          FearTheTree
          @ukrainewatcher Isn't the same true of Argentina. How much of its 80B in contested debt was used to support Menem and his cronies, thinking that the dollar-peso peg would hold indefinitely?

          [Oct 21, 2015] CIA chief's emails exposed Key things we learned from WikiLeaks' Brennan dump

          Notable quotes:
          "... A 2007 draft position paper on the role of the intelligence community in the wake of the 9/11 attacks shows that Brennan was already aware that numerous federal agencies – the FBI, CIA, NSA, Defense Department and Homeland Security – "are all engaged in intelligence activities on US soil." He said these activities "must be consistent with our laws and reflect the democratic principles and values of our Nation." ..."
          "... Brennan added that the president and Congress need "clear mandates" and "firm criteria" to determine what limits need to be placed on domestic intelligence operations. When it comes to situations beyond US borders, Brennan said sometimes action must be taken overseas "to address real and emerging threats to our interests," and that they may need to be done "under the cover of secrecy." He argued that many covert CIA actions have resulted in "major contributions" to US policy goals. ..."
          "... "enhanced interrogation" ..."
          "... Some of the techniques Bond suggested that Congress ban included: forcing the detainee to be naked; forcing them to perform sexual acts; waterboarding; inducing hypothermia; conducting mock executions; and depriving detainees of food, water, or medical care. ..."
          "... "Limitations on Interrogation Techniques Act of 2008." ..."
          "... The bill prohibited the use of many of the same techniques listed in the previous document, though it was not passed. Ultimately, President Obama issued an executive order banning officials from using techniques not in the Army Field Manual. ..."
          Oct 21, 2015 | RT USA

          US government 'engaged' in spying activities on US soil

          • A 2007 draft position paper on the role of the intelligence community in the wake of the 9/11 attacks shows that Brennan was already aware that numerous federal agencies – the FBI, CIA, NSA, Defense Department and Homeland Security – "are all engaged in intelligence activities on US soil." He said these activities "must be consistent with our laws and reflect the democratic principles and values of our Nation."
          • Brennan added that the president and Congress need "clear mandates" and "firm criteria" to determine what limits need to be placed on domestic intelligence operations.
          • When it comes to situations beyond US borders, Brennan said sometimes action must be taken overseas "to address real and emerging threats to our interests," and that they may need to be done "under the cover of secrecy." He argued that many covert CIA actions have resulted in "major contributions" to US policy goals.

          Debate over torture restrictions

          • WikiLeaks published two documents related to the CIA's use of so-called "enhanced interrogation" techniques, though notably neither was written by Brennan.
          • One was written by then-Senator Kit Bond (R-Missouri), vice chairman on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which outlined a proposal to limit the CIA's torture techniques without restricting the development of new techniques complying with the law.
          • The document suggests listing the types of techniques that the CIA is barred from using instead of restricting the agency to only those explicitly listed in the Army Field Manual.
          • Some of the techniques Bond suggested that Congress ban included: forcing the detainee to be naked; forcing them to perform sexual acts; waterboarding; inducing hypothermia; conducting mock executions; and depriving detainees of food, water, or medical care.

          Bond's suggestions get a bill

          • The final document appears to show Bond's suggestions making their way into a legislative proposal titled "Limitations on Interrogation Techniques Act of 2008."
          • The bill prohibited the use of many of the same techniques listed in the previous document, though it was not passed. Ultimately, President Obama issued an executive order banning officials from using techniques not in the Army Field Manual.

          [Oct 21, 2015] The CIA director was hacked by a 13-year-old, but he still wants your data

          Notable quotes:
          "... With a properly run service provider, neither the helpdesk drones nor the admin staff should be able to see any user's password, which should be safely stored in an encrypted form. ..."
          "... This is a turf war between bureaucrats who are born incompetent. The NSA has been increasing its share of budgetary largesse while the CIA and other security units have each been fighting to keep up. Politicians, being bureaucrats themselves, engage in the turf war. To them its all great fun. ..."
          "... Lets be clear: it is very hard to see how blanket surveillance of American citizens is beneficial to American citizens. It tips over the power balance between government and citizen - it is undemocratic. It is unAmerican. ..."
          "... It would be funny if it wasnt for the fact that the kid will most likely regret this for the rest of his life and nothing will change for Government or Brennan. ..."
          "... Ive said it before and Ill say it again: incompetence is the main bulwark against tyranny. So let us be grateful for John Brennan. ..."
          www.theguardian.com

          Paul C. Dickie 20 Oct 2015 12:32

          With a properly run service provider, neither the helpdesk drones nor the admin staff should be able to see any user's password, which should be safely stored in an encrypted form.

          AmyInNH -> NigelSafeton 21 Oct 2015 11:59

          You seriously underestimate the technical incompetence of the federal government. They buy on basis of quantity of big blue arrows, shown on marketing slideware.

          Laudig 21 Oct 2015 05:31

          This is great. This man is a serial perjurer to Congress. Which does eff-all about being lied to [they lie to everyone and so don't take offense at being lied to] and now he's hacked by a 13 year-old who, until a few weeks ago was protected by the The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998.
          Well done, CIA or whatever you are.

          So your well constructed career gets collapsed by someone who is still in short pants. The Age of Secrets is over now.

          Stieve 21 Oct 2015 02:54

          Er, why has no-one mentioned, why has there been no press coverage, why has not a single presidential candidate been asked to comment on the fact that The USA has been the victim of a military coup?

          All pretence of government oversight has been dropped. The NSA, CIA and most likely every other arm of the "intelligence service" have simply taken over the elected government, ripped up The Constitution and transformed The US into a police state. Seven thousand people disappeared in Chigaco? Exactly why have there not been massive arrests of these Stasi? Or riots on the streets? Exactly why has there not been an emergency session of The Senate or Congress to find out why Chicago is being run like an Eastern Bloc dictatorship? Exactly why are police departments been given military hardware designed to be used by an occupying army?
          I'll tell you exactly why.

          Because The US actually has been taken over

          Glenn J. Hill 21 Oct 2015 01:28

          LOL, the Head of the CIA put sensitive info on an personal AOL ACCOUNT !!!!! What an total idiot. Just proves the " Peter Principle", that one gets promoted to one`s point of incompetent!

          Can he be fired ? Locked up for gross stupidity ?? Will he come hunting for me, to take me out for pointing out his asinine stupidity ??

          Fnert Pleeble -> Robert Lewis 20 Oct 2015 23:42

          Congressmen are self motivating. They want the gravy train to continue. The carrot is plenty big, no need for the stick.

          Buckworm 20 Oct 2015 21:51

          Those old, tired, incompetent, ignorant, trolls are asking for more and more access to citizens data based on the assumption that they can catch a terrorist or another type of psycho before they act out on something. Don't they realize that so far, after 15 years of violating the citizen's constitutional rights, they HAVE NEVER CAUGHT not even ONE single person under their illegal surveillance.

          This is the problem: they think that terrorists are as stupid as they are, and that they will be sending tons of un-encrypted information online- and that sooner or later they will intercept that data and prevent a crime. How many times have they done so? Z E RO . They haven't realized that terrorists and hackers are waaaaayyy ahead of them and their ways of communicating are already beyond the old-fashioned government-hacked internet. I mean, only a terrorist as stupid as a government employee would think of ever sending something sensitive through electronic communications of any kind - but the government trolls still believe that they do or that sooner or later they will!! How super-beyond-stupid is that? Congress??

          Don't even talk about that putrid grotesque political farce - completely manipulated by the super-rich and heated up by the typical white-trash delusional trailer park troll aka as the "tea party". We've had many killing in the homeland after 9/11 - not even one of them stopped by the "mega-surveillance" - and thousands committed by irresponsible and crooked cops - and this will continue until America Unites and fight for their constitutional rights. That will happen as soon as their priority is not getting the latest iPhone with minimal improvement, spends endless hours playing candy crush,stand in long lines to buy pot, get drunk every evening and weekends, and cancel their subscription to home-delivered heroin and cocaine. So don't hold your breath on that one.

          Wait until one of those 13-yr old gets a hold of nuclear codes, electric grid codes, water supply or other important service code - the old government farts will scream and denounce that they could have prevented that if they had had more surveillance tools - but that is as false as the $3 dollar bills they claim to have in their wallets. They cannot see any further from their incompetence and ignorance.

          Robert Lewis -> Giants1925 20 Oct 2015 18:38

          Did the FSB cook data so the US would invade Iraq and kill 1,000,000 civilians?

          yusowong 20 Oct 2015 18:20

          This is a turf war between bureaucrats who are born incompetent. The NSA has been increasing its share of budgetary largesse while the CIA and other security units have each been fighting to keep up. Politicians, being bureaucrats themselves, engage in the turf war. To them it's all great fun.

          Triumphant -> George Giants1925 20 Oct 2015 14:41

          Are you saying that because you aren't in a concentration camp, everything's pretty good? That's a pretty low bar to set.

          Most people probably didn't vote for your current leader. To compare, in the UK, only 37% of the popular vote went for the current government. And once you leader is voted in, they pretty much do as they please. Fortunately, there are checks and balances which are supposed to prevent things getting out of control. Unfortunately, bills like the cybersecurity bill are intend to circumvent these things.

          Let's be clear: it is very hard to see how blanket surveillance of American citizens is beneficial to American citizens. It tips over the power balance between government and citizen - it is undemocratic. It is unAmerican.


          Red Ryder -> daniel1948 20 Oct 2015 14:16

          The whole freakin government is totally incompetent when it comes to computers and the hacking going on around this planet. Hillary needs to answer for this email scandal but currently she is making jokes about it as if nothing happened. She has no clue when she tried to delete her emails. Doesn't the government know that this stuff is backed up on many computers and then stored it a tape vault somewhere. Hiding emails is a joke today.

          mancfrank 20 Oct 2015 13:27

          It would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that the kid will most likely regret this for the rest of his life and nothing will change for Government or Brennan.

          Giants1925 20 Oct 2015 12:53

          I still don't understand why Russia is allowed to have the FSB but the US is forbidden from having the CIA Who makes these rules again? Because frankly I'm tired of the world being run by popular opinion.


          bcarey 20 Oct 2015 12:33

          The bill is so bad that the major tech companies like Google and Amazon all came out against it last week, despite the fact that it would give them broad immunity for sharing this information with the government.

          The usual show... "We're totally against it, but it's okay."


          Donald Mintz 20 Oct 2015 12:02

          I've said it before and I'll say it again: incompetence is the main bulwark against tyranny. So let us be grateful for John Brennan.

          [Oct 21, 2015] Son of two Australian MH17 victims says Ukraine should have closed airspace

          Oct 13, 2015 | The Guardian
          www.theguardian.com

          The report, even in its highly-politized form, gives the families of the victims the right to file lawsuits against Ukraine for its criminal negligence in complying with flight safety rules. These suits can cost Ukraine billions of dollars.


          idance 14 Oct 2015 12:51

          Partly repeating my comment to another article here I must admit this POV agrees with today's (but not yesterday's) US standards.

          The US has just refused to accept the UNSC statement condemning the shelling of the Russian Embassy in Damascus. They said the responsibility for the security of diplomatic missions lies on the receiving party, that is on Damascus.

          Applying this standard it doesn't matter who shot down MH17. The responsibility lies on Ukraine cause it was Ukraine who should have ensured security of the flight.
          Yeah! How do you like it!

          SHappens 14 Oct 2015 03:31

          "Russia's got a role and they haven't been very helpful," he said. "So I blame Russia partially but not completely. There are many other players that are also to blame."

          Some people see through. Rightly, as highlighted by the report, Ukraine failed to its obligations, by not closing its airspace, rerouting a flight which casually got shot. They bear the main responsibility in this disaster.

          DeConstruct -> Putzik 13 Oct 2015 23:05

          You are 100% on the money in relation to shorter route length and air navigation fees. The penny should have dropped when it became obvious from the altitudes of previous military shoot downs that medium range (up to 70,000' +) weapons were being employed and not just low altitude MANPADS.

          summaluvva -> Putzik 13 Oct 2015 22:35

          Quoting Guardian's article, "Many of the world's best-known airlines – including British Airways, Qantas and Cathay Pacific – had been avoiding Ukrainian airspace due to safety fears for months before the downing of flight MH17.".

          http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/airlines-avoid-ukraine-airspace-mh17

          [Oct 19, 2015] The Banksters and American Foreign Policy by Justin Raimondo

          Notable quotes:
          "... But bankers are inherently inclined toward statism. ..."
          "... , engaged as they are in unsound fractional reserve credit, are, in the free market, always teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Hence they are always reaching for government aid and bailout. ..."
          "... Both sets of bankers, then, tend to be tied in with government policy, and try to influence and control government actions in domestic and foreign affairs. ..."
          "... Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy ..."
          "... The great turning point of American foreign policy came in the early 1890s, during the second Cleveland Administration. It was then that the U.S. turned sharply and permanently from a foreign policy of peace and non-intervention to an aggressive program of economic and political expansion abroad. At the heart of the new policy were America's leading bankers, eager to use the country's growing economic strength to subsidize and force-feed export markets and investment outlets that they would finance, as well as to guarantee Third World government bonds. The major focus of aggressive expansion in the 1890s was Latin America, and the principal Enemy to be dislodged was Great Britain, which had dominated foreign investments in that vast region. ..."
          "... In a notable series of articles in 1894, ..."
          "... set the agenda for the remainder of the decade. Its conclusion: if 'we could wrest the South American markets from Germany and England and permanently hold them, this would be indeed a conquest worth perhaps a heavy sacrifice.' ..."
          "... Long-time Morgan associate Richard Olney heeded the call, as Secretary of State from 1895 to 1897, setting the U.S. on the road to Empire. After leaving the State Department, he publicly summarized the policy he had pursued. The old isolationism heralded by George Washington's Farewell Address is over, he thundered. The time has now arrived, Olney declared, when 'it behooves us to accept the commanding position… among the Power of the earth.' And, 'the present crying need of our commercial interests,' he added, 'is more markets and larger markets' for American products, especially in Latin America.' ..."
          July 15, 2011 | Antiwar.com

          In a free economy, the banks that invested trillions in risky mortgages and other fool's gold would have taken the hit. Instead, however, what happened is that the American taxpayers took the hit, paid the bill, and cleaned up their mess – and were condemned to suffer record unemployment, massive foreclosures, and the kind of despair that kills the soul.

          How did this happen? There are two versions of this little immorality tale, one coming from the "left" and the other from the "right" (the scare-quotes are there for a reason, which I'll get to in a moment or two).

          The "left" version goes something like this:

          The evil capitalists, in league with their bought-and-paid for cronies in government, destroyed and looted the economy until there was nothing left to steal. Then, when their grasping hands had reached the very bottom of the treasure chest, they dialed 911 and the emergency team (otherwise known as the US Congress) came to their rescue, doling out trillions to the looters and leaving the rest of America to pay the bill.

          The "right" version goes something like the following:

          Politically connected Wall Streeters, in league with their bought-and-paid-for cronies in government, destroyed and looted the economy until there was nothing left to steal. Then, when their grasping hands had reached the very bottom of the treasure chest, they dialed BIG-GOV-HELP and the feds showed up with the cash.

          The first thing one notices about these two analyses, taken side by side, is their similarity: yes, the "left" blames the free market, and the "right" blames Big Government, but when you get past the blame game their descriptions of what actually happened look like veritable twins. And as much as I agree with the "right" about their proposed solution – a radical cut in government spending – it is the "left" that has the most accurate analysis of who's to blame.

          It is, of course, the big banks – the recipients of bailout loot, the ones who profited (and continue to profit) from the economic catastrophe that has befallen us.

          During the 1930s, the so-called Red Decade, no leftist agitprop was complete without a cartoon rendering of the top-hatted capitalist with his foot planted firmly on the throat of the proletariat (usually depicted as a muscular-but-passive male in chains). That imagery, while crude, is largely correct – an astonishing statement, I know, coming from an avowed libertarian and "reactionary," no less. Yet my leftist pals, and others with a superficial knowledge of libertarianism, will be even more surprised that the founder of the modern libertarian movement, also an avowed (and proud) "reactionary," agreed with me (or, rather, I with him):

          "Businessmen or manufacturers can either be genuine free enterprisers or statists; they can either make their way on the free market or seek special government favors and privileges. They choose according to their individual preferences and values. But bankers are inherently inclined toward statism.

          "Commercial bankers, engaged as they are in unsound fractional reserve credit, are, in the free market, always teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Hence they are always reaching for government aid and bailout.

          "Investment bankers do much of their business underwriting government bonds, in the United States and abroad. Therefore, they have a vested interest in promoting deficits and in forcing taxpayers to redeem government debt. Both sets of bankers, then, tend to be tied in with government policy, and try to influence and control government actions in domestic and foreign affairs."

          That's Murray N. Rothbard, the great libertarian theorist and economist, in his classic monograph Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy. If you want a lesson in the real motivations behind our foreign policy of global intervention, starting at the very dawn of the American empire, you have only to read this fascinating treatise. The essence of it is this: the very rich have stayed very rich in what would otherwise be a dynamic and ever-changing economic free-for-all by securing government favors, enjoying state-granted monopolies, and using the US military as their private security guards. Conservatives who read Rothbard's short book will never look at the Panama Canal issue in the same light again. Lefties will come away from it marveling at how closely the libertarian Rothbard comes to echoing the old Marxist aphorism that the government is the "executive committee of the capitalist class."

          Rothbard's account of the course of American foreign policy as the history of contention between the Morgan interests, the Rockefellers, and the various banking "families," who dealt primarily in buying and selling government bonds, is fascinating stuff, and it illuminates a theme common to both left and right commentators: that the elites are manipulating the policy levers to ensure their own economic interests unto eternity.

          In normal times, political movements are centered around elaborate ideologies, complex narratives that purport to explain what is wrong and how to fix it. They have their heroes, and their villains, their creation myths and their dystopian visions of a dark future in store if we don't heed their call to revolution (or restoration, depending on whether they're hailing from the "left" or the "right").

          You may have noticed, however, that these are not normal times: we're in a crisis of epic proportions, not only an economic crisis but also a cultural meltdown in which our social institutions are collapsing, and with them longstanding social norms. In such times, ideological categories tend to break down, and we've seen this especially in the foreign policy realm, where both the "extreme" right and the "extreme" left are calling for what the elites deride as "isolationism." On the domestic front, too, the "right" and "left" views of what's wrong with the country are remarkably alike, as demonstrated above. Conservatives and lefties may have different solutions, but they have, I would argue, a common enemy: the banksters.

          This characterization of the banking industry as the moral equivalent of gangsters has its proponents on both sides of the political spectrum, and today that ideological convergence is all but complete, with only "centrists" and self-described pragmatists dissenting. What rightists and leftists have in common, in short, is a very powerful enemy – and that's all a mass political movement needs to get going.

          In normal times, this wouldn't be enough: but, as I said above, these most assuredly aren't normal times. The crisis lends urgency to a process that has been developing – unfolding, if you will – for quite some time, and that is the evolution of a political movement that openly disdains the "left" and "right" labels, and homes in on the main danger to liberty and peace on earth: the state-privileged banking system that is now foreclosing on America.

          This issue is not an abstraction: we see it being played out on the battlefield of the debt ceiling debate. Because, after all, who will lose and who will win if the debt ceiling isn't raised? The losers will be the bankers who buy and sell government bonds, i.e. those who finance the War Machine that is today devastating much of the world. My leftie friends might protest that these bonds also finance Social Security payments, and I would answer that they need to grow a spine: President Obama's threat that Social Security checks may not go out after the August deadline is, like everything out that comes out of his mouth, a lie. The government has the money to pay on those checks: this is just his way of playing havoc with the lives of American citizens, a less violent but nonetheless just as evil version of the havoc he plays with the lives of Afghans, Pakistanis, and Libyans every day.

          This isn't about Social Security checks: it's about an attempt to reinflate the bubble of American empire, which has been sagging of late, and keep the government printing presses rolling. For the US government, unlike a private entity, can print its way out of debt – or, these days, by simply adding a few zeroes to the figures on a computer screen. A central bank, owned by "private" individuals, controls this process: it is called the Federal Reserve. And the Fed has been the instrument of the banksters from its very inception [.pdf], at the turn of the 19th century – not coincidentally, roughly the time America embarked on its course of overseas empire.

          There is a price to be paid, however, for this orgy of money-printing: the degradation, or cheapening, of the dollar. Most of us suffer on account of this policy: the only beneficiaries are those who receive those dollars first, before it trickles down to the rest of us. The very first to receive them are, of course, the bankers, but there's another class of business types who benefit, and those are the exporters, whose products are suddenly competitive with cheaper foreign goods. This has been a major driving force behind US foreign policy, as Rothbard points out:

          "The great turning point of American foreign policy came in the early 1890s, during the second Cleveland Administration. It was then that the U.S. turned sharply and permanently from a foreign policy of peace and non-intervention to an aggressive program of economic and political expansion abroad. At the heart of the new policy were America's leading bankers, eager to use the country's growing economic strength to subsidize and force-feed export markets and investment outlets that they would finance, as well as to guarantee Third World government bonds. The major focus of aggressive expansion in the 1890s was Latin America, and the principal Enemy to be dislodged was Great Britain, which had dominated foreign investments in that vast region.

          "In a notable series of articles in 1894, Bankers' Magazine set the agenda for the remainder of the decade. Its conclusion: if 'we could wrest the South American markets from Germany and England and permanently hold them, this would be indeed a conquest worth perhaps a heavy sacrifice.'

          "Long-time Morgan associate Richard Olney heeded the call, as Secretary of State from 1895 to 1897, setting the U.S. on the road to Empire. After leaving the State Department, he publicly summarized the policy he had pursued. The old isolationism heralded by George Washington's Farewell Address is over, he thundered. The time has now arrived, Olney declared, when 'it behooves us to accept the commanding position… among the Power of the earth.' And, 'the present crying need of our commercial interests,' he added, 'is more markets and larger markets' for American products, especially in Latin America.'"

          The face of the Enemy has long since changed, and Britain is our partner in a vast mercantilist enterprise, but the mechanics and motivation behind US foreign policy remain very much the same. You'll note that the Libyan "rebels," for example, set up a Central Bank right off the bat, even before ensuring their military victory over Gadhafi – and who do you think is going to be selling (and buying) those Libyan "government" bonds? It sure as heck won't be Joe Sixpack: it's the same Wall Streeters who issued an ultimatum to the Tea Party, via Moody's, that they'll either vote to raise the debt ceiling or face the consequences.

          But what are those consequences – and who will feel their impact the most?

          It's the bankers who will take the biggest hit if US bonds are downgraded: the investment bankers, who invested in such a dodgy enterprise as the US government, whose "full faith and credit" isn't worth the paper it's printed on. In a free market, these losers would pay the full price of their bad business decisions – in our crony-capitalist system, however, they win.

          They win because they have the US government behind them - and because their strategy of degrading the dollar will reap mega-profits from American exporters, whose overseas operations they are funding. The "China market," and the rest of the vast undeveloped stretches of the earth that have yet to develop a taste for iPads and Lady Gaga, all this and more will be open to them as long as the dollar continues to fall.

          That this will cripple the buying power of the average American, and raise the specter of hyper-inflation, matters not one whit of difference to the corporate and political elites that control our destiny: for with the realization of their vision of a World Central Bank, in which a new global currency controlled by them can be printed to suit their needs, they will be set free from all earthly constraints, or so they believe.

          With America as the world policeman and the world banker – in alliance with our European satellites – the Washington elite can extend their rule over the entire earth. It's true we won't have much to show for it, here in America: with the dollar destroyed, we'll lose our economic primacy, and be subsumed into what George Herbert Walker Bush called the "New World Order." Burdened with defending the corporate profits of the big banks and exporters abroad, and also with bailing them out on the home front when their self-created bubbles burst, the American people will see a dramatic drop in their standard of living – our sacrifice to the gods of "internationalism." That's what they mean when they praise the new "globalized" economy.

          Yet the American people don't want to be sacrificed, either to corporate gods or some desiccated idol of internationalism, and they are getting increasingly angry – and increasing savvy when it comes to identifying the source of their troubles.

          This brings us to the prospects for a left-right alliance, both short term and in the long run. In the immediate future, the US budget crisis could be considerably alleviated if we would simply end the wars started by George W. Bush and vigorously pursued by his successor. Aside from that, how many troops do we still have in Europe – more than half a century after World War II? How many in Korea – long after the Korean war? Getting rid of all this would no doubt provide enough savings to ensure that those Social Security checks go out – but that's a bargain Obama will never make.

          All those dollars, shipped overseas, enrich the military-industrial complex and their friends, the exporters – and drain the very life blood out of the rest of us. Opposition to this policy ought to be the basis of a left-right alliance, a movement to bring America home and put America first.

          In the long term, there is the basis for a more comprehensive alliance: the de-privileging of the banking sector, which cemented its rule with the establishment of the Federal Reserve. That, however, is a topic too complex to be adequately covered in a single column, and so I'll just leave open the intriguing possibility.

          "Left" and "right" mean nothing in the current context: the real division is between government-privileged plutocrats and the rest of us. What you have to ask yourself is this: which side are you on?

          [Oct 19, 2015] An alliance of Russian liberasts Western pundits and putinslivsiks

          Notable quotes:
          "... It was predictable that by going to Syria Russia will make itself more of a target for terrorist attacks than before, as Russia now has a lot more enemies than it did before. ..."
          "... They fail to understand one simple fact – Russia already was a target of these groups. ..."
          "... I would also add, that Russian does NOT have more enemies than before. Russia has the same number of enemies, in the exact same quantity and quality as before. The only difference is that Russia was warned in advance this time, by one of Americas poodles. Remember Gerashchenkos warning, on Mirotvorec ? ..."
          "... On Wednesday A. Piontkovskiy, D. Bykov and I shall represent Russia at a meeting in Kiev entitled Slavs Against the Moscow terror . It will be a live transmission. ..."
          "... – I was sitting in a cafe last night, right across the Montparnasse station. Suddenly I saw, from the side of the hall came out a lot of elderly Jews speaking in Russian. Im interested in, stopped one of them and asked what was it … And it turns out, there was a meeting of young Russian poets. ..."
          marknesop.wordpress.com
          Lyttenburgh, October 12, 2015 at 3:23 am
          It was predictable that by going to Syria Russia will make itself more of a target for terrorist attacks than before, as Russia now has a lot more enemies than it did before.

          Indeed it was Nostradamized from the day 1 by the unlikely common opinion alliance of:

          1) Russian liberasts.
          2) Western pundits.
          3) "Russian" patriotic putinslivsiks

          They fail to understand one simple fact – Russia already was a target of these groups. And the fact that terract was prevented is a reason not for concern but for a sense of pride of one's Security Services doing their job. For Russia "not to have any enemies" means to curl up and give up on any foreign policy, allowing "the adults" to run their freak show of "Here comes the Freedom and 'Mocracy. bitches!".

          yalensis, October 12, 2015 at 7:35 am
          I would also add, that Russian does NOT have more enemies than before. Russia has the same number of enemies, in the exact same quantity and quality as before. The only difference is that Russia was "warned" in advance this time, by one of America's poodles. Remember Gerashchenko's warning, on "Mirotvorec" ?
          Patient Observer, October 12, 2015 at 10:50 am
          Yes, the only difference now is that the masks are slipping revealing the truly hideous face of the Western empire. Other than that, business as usual.
          Moscow Exile, October 12, 2015 at 2:26 am
          Guardian accused of passing off terrorist "hell cannon" as "barrel bombs"

          Please share this as widely as possible and feel free to write your own emails or letters to the Guardian if you feel it is appropriate.

          So iIhave done.

          Warren, October 12, 2015 at 3:50 am

          Published on 10 Oct 2015
          Article here – http://ukrainewarlog.blogspot.com/p/b

          Warren, October 12, 2015 at 3:51 am
          British Citizen Exposed as a Tool of Russia's FSB

          http://ukrainewarlog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/british-citizen-exposed-as-tool-of.html

          Moscow Exile, October 12, 2015 at 4:05 am
          "Exposed" and then there follows a string of allegations.

          "Russia's FSB and GRU (military intelligence) are mostly likely assigning Phillips 'mini-ops' to attack western organizations, journalists, reporters and researchers who debunk the Kremlin's propaganda narrative."

          Case proven, m'lud?

          marknesop, October 12, 2015 at 7:17 pm
          Sad. So young – I'm assuming – and his mind already gone. Only in such an oxygen-deficient atmosphere could the FSB deliberately recruit somebody because they are "bumbling and incompetent" and speak Russian at the third-grade level or less. Lots of good press for Graham, though.
          Pavlo Svolochenko, October 12, 2015 at 7:53 pm
          It's even funnier because if the Ukrainians weren't the Goddamned barbarians they are, Philips would almost certainly have ended up on their side.
          Moscow Exile, October 12, 2015 at 4:39 am
          Remember this kreakl?

          Dmitry Bykov.

          Know this bloke?

          He's Andrei Piontkovskiy, former member of that very short-lived Coordinating Council of the Russian Opposition, you know – Navalny's parliament in waiting that met a couple of times in kreakl cafés: even Udaltsov (remember him?) called its members a "committee of wankers".

          Well lookeee here:

          On Wednesday A. Piontkovskiy, D. Bykov and I shall represent Russia at a meeting in Kiev entitled "Slavs Against the Moscow terror". It will be a live transmission.

          The Tweet is off a certain Sasha Sotnik of Sotnik TV.

          Sotnik TV is not a typical Russian television channel: It is only available on the web, not on television screens. It has no live broadcasts. And it is run primarily by just two people: husband and wife Sasha Sotnik, the reporter, and Mariya Orlovskaya, the camera operator (both pictured above).

          But what's most different about Sotnik TV is its outspoken criticism of Russian President Vladimir Putin, which has led to Sotnik and Orlovskaya being arrested briefly and accused of possessing explosives.

          Strong views

          Sasha Sotnik is a believer in the liberal "European values" that Putin has forcefully rejected in recent months, and does not flinch from expressing strong views in his videos, which are mainly distributed through the couple's YouTube channel.

          Bet they love Sasha at Auntie BBC.

          If he likes liberal "European values" so much, then why doesn't he stay in Banderastan?

          After all, the Ukraine is Europe, is it not?

          Moscow Exile, October 12, 2015 at 4:53 am
          Do you think Sotnik and Piontkovskiy and Bykov will be shot dead in the street when they return to Mordor, thereby becoming yet more tragic statistics attributed to the Dark Lord's reign of terror?

          After all, Lord Putin's ever watchful eye not only knows what everyone is thinking, but also of what they are going to think and plan and usually punishes his enemies before they even think of doing something that he will not like, such is his awesome power and majesty that holds this once mighty nation in sway ….

          These brave opposition souls must live a life of perfectly abject terror and despair.

          I mean, look at Bykov: he looks like a really worried man – doesn't he?

          I believe he's lost pounds since Putin seized control of the state, such has been his worry and concern over what has been going on here since 2000.

          marknesop, October 12, 2015 at 7:26 pm
          Too late, probably. Their personal addresses and the names of family members are probably all over whatyoucallem, that Russian squealer database that encourages people to inform on other people for anti-government views. There was a name for it…separatist! That's it, separatists who harbor anti-government attitudes!! I read all about it a while ago, but I forget the name of it. You could go there and rat out people for their personal views and then some wet-man from Putin's personal kill squad would go round to his house, make some excuse to get him outside and then cap him right there in the street. Poor Sotnik and Bykov and Piontkovskiy: they're as good as done for, like that murdered martyr Yulia Latynina.
          Lyttenburgh, October 12, 2015 at 4:56 am
          "On Wednesday A. Piontkovskiy, D. Bykov and I shall represent Russia at a meeting in Kiev entitled "Slavs Against the Moscow terror". It will be a live transmission."

          During her emigration in Paris, famous pre-Revolutionary satirical writer Nadezhda Teffi (nee Lokhvitskaya, in marriage – Buchinskaya) once became a witness to such a scene:

          "- Сижу я вчера вечером в кафе, против монпарнасского вокзала. Вдруг вижу, из бокового зала выходят много пожилых евреев, говорят по-русски. Я заинтересовалась, остановила одного и спрашиваю, что это было такое… А это, оказывается, было собрание молодых русских поэтов"."

          – I was sitting in a cafe last night, right across the Montparnasse station. Suddenly I saw, from the side of the hall came out a lot of elderly Jews speaking in Russian. I'm interested in, stopped one of them and asked what was it … And it turns out, there was a meeting of young Russian poets. "

          [Oct 19, 2015] John Helmer US Strategy In The Middle East Is Dying, Along With Its Authors, Carter And Brzezinski; Putin, Al-Assad Get To Dan

          Notable quotes:
          "... This. The most infuriating part about Obomba is the smug "smarter-than-you" certainty he has. He was a community organizer and one-term state Senator but somehow he started sniffing all the farts the sycophants were wafting his way about just how clever he really was. Then he installed a bunch of also-smart groupthinker Berkeley-ites from the "duty to protect" and "humanitarian bombing" crowd, Chanel-suited exceptionalist egomaniacs who thought they were Kissinger (Samantha Powers, Hilary, Susan Rice et al.) ..."
          "... BHO thought he could triangulate and "out-clever" everyone on everything, from health care, where he managed the worst of all worlds that fattened Big Insurance AND screwed up the cost of care…to Wall St where he fattened TBTF AND screwed up Dodd-Frank. In the ME he thought he could cleverly play all sides off against each other, the Turks, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Israelis, the Saudis... and stunningly also al-Qaeda themselves were just another co-optable pawn. ..."
          "... But as Warren Buffet says "when the tide goes out you can see who's swimming naked". Tide's heading out…and as far as I can see the Russia/Iran/Iraq/Israel/Syria/Kurd team, with Brother China, fed-up Pakistan and resurgent India backing things up, is looking pretty good. Sclero-Europe has long ago ceded their sovereignty and relevance, LatAm as usual is absent from consideration…what am I missing? ..."
          "... Interesting things are happening with Russian involvement in Syria. Are we seeing the global balance of power tip before our eyes? The U.S. is losing it's sole hegemony status and that could be a good thing if Washington can realize this and accept that and adopt diplomacy and cooperation to maintain what position it still has instead of denial followed by escalating aggression. ..."
          "... The FSA = al Nusrah = al Qaeda in Syria. The re-labeling was invoked so that BHO could send weapons to al Nusrah… the player that currently has snapped up EVERY weapon the President sent into the fight. Most recently that's meant TOW missiles. ..."
          "... Good lord. Stratfor is well-known as politicized propaganda machine that works in concert with large multinational corporations to further their interests in foreign countries. It's not a secret. ..."
          "... Stratfor is Neocon central, I should think. They stock gasbags in quantity. ..."
          "... The question I must ask: what happens to all these Islamic fighters after they are run out of Syria and Iraq? Only safe territory for them – away from the Russian air force – will be US allies, like Jordan and Arabia. ..."
          "... Israel, with its excuse of no peace partners, may end up with enemies from hell. ..."
          "... Suppose that Obama just decides to flood Syria with weapons? Anti-tank, anti-air, medium-range missiles with cluster bombs that can hit the Russian bases… America may not have any sense of long-range strategy but we are very good at breaking things, and our leaders throw fits and take it personally when their plans go awry… ..."
          "... Of course giving all sorts of advanced weapons to the mostly jihadist Syrian 'rebels' would in the long run certainly cause a lot of blowback to the United States, but that's never stopped us before… ..."
          "... U.S. air superiority is based on air superiority, not anti-aircraft weaponry. Afghanistan and Syria are radically different much like Vietnam and Iraq were different. It's much easier for the Russians to supply their bases than in Afghanistan where they had to rely on helicopters flying around mountain valleys. ..."
          "... Advanced weaponry will be seen by Russian eyes in the sky and can be hit by missiles from the Caspian apparently. I hate to break it to you, but the U.S. R D budget has been wasted on projects like F-35 and contracting fraud. ..."
          "... Why does my Spidy Sense tell me that the foundation of the Saudi oil ministry policy of continuing to flood a depressed market with low cost oil was a secret agreement between Obomber and the Saudi ruling family? The plan was to bankrupt Russia by a two-pronged attack- the fraudulent US sponsored sanctions based upon manufactured reality events in Ukraine and the Saudi capacity to control the marginal price of oil. The carrot offered by the US was a piece of the action in the trans Syrian gas pipeline- and continued protection against internal opposition. ..."
          "... Saudi Arabia wants Putin to suffer - as he's the patron of Assad - of whom they hate the most. Low crude pricing has pounded the Russian ruble. Putin's crew is also going insolvent. The flight capital out of Russia is relentless. ..."
          "... Contracting fraud, where the real money is made. It was never about oil, just contracts and egos. Oil has to be sold at an honest price for a variety of reasons, but I can't judge a cruise missile's price behind a veil of secrecy. ..."
          "... Then there is the natural failing of leaders domestically who search for scapegoats. Half of the foreign policy pronouncements are full of whispered hisses of "China." Don't pay attention to me. It's those red Chinese and their currency manipulation. ..."
          "... The Russian expeditionary force in Syria is indeed highly vulnerable, but only if the Western Bloc wants to risk a major war. Now the Western Bloc can prevail against Russia, at any level of escalation, albeit at mounting risk. Nobody should expect today's Russia to be able to match the might of the Western Bloc. ..."
          "... I expect the Western Bloc will presume that they can prevail through politico-economic attrition against Russia. They probably can. However, the longer this complex regional war in the Middle East continues, the more likely things are to veer off unpredictably. ..."
          "... "In my read, Russia and Iran have just popped open the door to a solution in Syria. All the pieces are in place but one: Washington's capacity to acknowledge the strategic failure now so evident and to see beyond the narrowest definition of where its interests lie. This brings us to the paradox embedded in those questions Putin and Zarif and a few others now pose: American primacy is no longer in America's interest. Get your mind around this and you have arrived in the 21st century." ..."
          "... The CIA began a covert operation in 2013 to arm, fund and train a moderate opposition to Assad. Over that time, the CIA has trained an estimated 10,000 fighters, although the number still fighting with so-called moderate forces is unclear. ..."
          "... No kidding -- Both involved CIA proxy armies that had no operational security to speak of. Both were authorized by the Oval Office. And we know how much BHO admires JFK. ..."
          "... It is important to get Russian viewpoint especially since most Americans are monolingual. Also, it is hard for us not to root for the home team. Still Syria is a gigantic SNAFU. It is so far beyond incompetence it has to be purposeful. This is the ultimate expression of the Shock Doctrine. Collapse Russia and gain control its energy resources ..."
          "... There are 1.6 billion Sunni Muslims. Want-to-be Jihadists will flock to Syria to fight the Russian Crusaders. Barrack Obama has already warned Vladimir Putin of a quagmire. His continued arming the Sunnis is a purposeful act to ensure this. World War III starts when Russia shoots down an American aircraft on a combat mission over Syria. ..."
          "... Give the Russians some credit for finesse. All they need do is shoot down an Israeli jet attacking a Syrian government position in support of some Syrian "Moderates" near Damascus. I'll be watching for a Russian campaign to rid the Syrian skies of 'Western' drones. That would be a sign of serious intentions on the part of Russia. ..."
          www.nakedcapitalism.com

          Russia has established a no-fly zone on every one of Syria's frontiers, and will make an Alawite fortress along the coastal plain. As for what happens in the northern and western deserts, that's up to the Shiite armies of Iran and Iraq to decide, with or without Russian air cover, but with the assurance of no American, NATO, Turkish, Saudi, Jordanian or Emirati air cover.

          Gennady Nechaev, a military analyst at Vzglyad in Moscow, explains: "There is airspace, but either it is controlled by the US or by our Air Force. But today there is no issue of control of air space. We are talking about control of ground space. There operations can be of two types: direct destruction from the air and from insulation of the area of operations by air in order to avoid movements of the enemy and incoming reserves. In this case, the task is hardly feasible, as there is an open border with Iraq on the side of Turkey. The boundaries are not controlled. The problem could be solved [by Russia] if a blow can be dealt along the entire depth of the space under the control of ISIS. At the moment there is an operation against the infrastructure of ISIS. Infrastructure is a fairly loose concept, because they don't have civilian infrastructure. There are military links and connexions which must [operate] to supply weapons. For these purposes Russia is now applying its strokes."

          ... ... ...

          What if the Saudis shift their forces from bombing southward and eastward in the Yemen towards the west, and they invite US forces to defend their sorties from Saudi airfields or from carriers in the Persian Gulf? An Egyptian military source comments: "The king [Salman] has Alzheimer's, and his son [Mohammad bin Salman], the real ruler of the kingdom, is too young; too insecure in the royal succession; and too vulnerable domestically. If either of them makes so much as a nervous twitch towards the Syrian frontier, the oil price will return to the level Russia wants, and needs. There will be no support for the Saudis against the Russians from their only real Arab guarantor, [Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-] Sisi. And long ago, when Obama installed the Moslem Brotherhood in Cairo, [Sisi] realized the American strategy, Obama's promises, are the gravest threat to Egyptian and Arab security there is. That's because he can't control the Washington Amazons who run his warmaking machine, or the jihadists he employs to fight. Without air cover, supply lines, and dollars, they are doomed. The Saudi sheikhs won't risk trying to save them."

          For more on Putin's management of the Saudi relationship, read this.

          London sources familiar with Israeli politics add that Russian strategy has the tacit backing of Israel. "This is because [President Vladimir] Putin has told [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu that Israel can count on a no-threat zone running from Damascus south and east to the Golan. No threat means no Syrian Army, no jihadists. Russia and Israel will now have what [Israeli Prime Minister David] Ben-Gurion once explained was Israel's long-term objective – the breakup of the large, potentially powerful secular Arab states into small sectarian territories too weak to do anything but threaten each other."

          blert October 10, 2015 at 5:38 am

          Dr. Zbig. must be totally off his medication.

          There is not the slightest chance that BHO has any interest in squaring off with Putin.

          What the President has been doing is to support al Qaeda fronts - most particularly al Nusrah.

          Both al Nusrah and IS are joined at the hip and do not fight each other - much. Dr. Zawahiri is their mutal mediator, with plenty of correspondence to his credit.

          ISIS // ISIL // IS wouldn't be a serious factor if it was not for the UK, US, and Jordan. These three patron powers trained the core block of al Baghdadi's boys - in the northern Jordanian desert - just a few years back - remember ?

          It was all over the news - particularly in the Arab Middle East.

          They graduated - and promptly went rogue - taking out Mosul - probably by simply phoning ahead. For the US had given them first class communications gear - that they were supposed to be using in Syria. It, however, worked its magic even better - intercepting Iraqi cell phone frequencies - so that al Baghdadi could threaten the generals and their families quite directly.

          In this, they were entirely aping the USAF's gambit in Libya. Remember Commando Solo ? It was exactly such phone calls to Libyan generals that broke up Kaddafy's entire army. We admitted that we'd called just about everyone in the dictator's immediate family, to boot.

          Well, the fanatics in Libya couldn't miss any of that.

          And our Pentagon gave them the same tools// toys that the big boys have.

          Without this communications gear, ISIS would never have been able to roll fast, roll large, and co-ordinate everything - pretty much without a hitch.

          The FSA is a fictive fig leaf dreamed up by the spin smiths at the White House. There never has been a Free Syrian Army. There are NO secular fighters in the field. This is a flat out religious war. One has to be deliberately dense to repress that reality.

          Every single item ever given to the so called FSA has been deeded over to the fanatics - probaly with kisses, too.

          All of the above is idiot obvious. The only place that reality has no traction is in the West.

          When it can't be denied, the public will come to know that BHO has treasonously enabled al Qaeda in war time.

          That both of these fronts have direct AQ connections is out on the open record. Both are still in communication with Dr. Zawahiri. The only split is that al Baghdadi wants to be the caliph and run the ever expanding caliphate… a Napoleon, a Hitler for our time.

          BHO has been vectoring weapons to al Nusrah - by the flimsy pretext that they were intended for moderate rebels. That lie won't hold water.

          The TOW missiles that al Nusrah has received were entirely responsible for the massive reverses that Assad suffered of late. Go to YouTube to see the jihadi footage. It's a pretty good bet that the Russians have targeted the ammo dumps most likely to have these missiles. The Russians have put their hits up on YouTube, too.

          The only player that's going to be backing down: BHO. That's who.

          BTW, at any time Putin can pull the President's card house flat. I suspect Putin is going for maximum embarrassment. His treasonous support of AQ could finally lead to impeachment and conviction… throwing Biden into the Oval Office. Such a travail would be triggered indirectly - so that Putin's fingerprints would not be at all obvious.

          In the meantime, Putin likes the fool right where he sits.

          TedWa, October 10, 2015 at 11:58 am

          I must say, nice lay out of the facts. There's so many things O should be impeached and jailed for and if you think this one has him dead to rights, well…. cumbaya bro

          James Levy, October 10, 2015 at 12:28 pm

          I would bet the farm that the leadership in the House and Senate are, at this moment, unindicted co-conspirators and Obama can prove it. There will be no impeachment over any of this. It would bring down the whole system.

          ohmyheck, October 10, 2015 at 2:13 pm

          Not necessarily…

          http://www.opednews.com/articles/Putin-s-Endgame-in-Syria-by-Mike-Whitney-Assad_Isis_NATO_Obama-151009-339.html

          "Turkish officials claimed a third incident on Monday, when an unidentified MiG-29 fighter jet locked its radar for four and a half minutes on eight Turkish F-16 jets that were on patrol on their side of the border, in apparent preparation to open fire."…

          This is a wake-up call. Moscow is indicating that there's a new sheriff in town and that Turkey had better behave itself or there's going to be trouble. There's not going to be any US-Turkey no-fly zone over North Syria, there's not going to be any aerial attacks on Syrian sites from the Turkish side of the border, and there certainly is not going to be any ground invasion of Turkish troops into Syria. The Russian Aerospace Defence Forces now control the skies over Syria and they are determined to defend Syria's sovereign borders. That's the message. Period."

          My guess is the Russian Air Force has a few more "messages" up its sleeve…

          OIFVet, October 10, 2015 at 2:20 pm

          There are no Russian Mig-29s in Syria.

          blert, October 10, 2015 at 2:33 pm

          The 'mistaken' Russian penetrations into Turkish air space are designed to 'brush back' the Turks. ( Baseball term: a pitch is thrown very close by the batter to get him to inch away from the plate. )

          And it has suceeded. While not given much publicity in the Western press Erdogan has been injecting his air force directly over Syria - about 30 kilometers - give or take.

          He has also deployed SAMs rather foreward, too.

          The net effect has been to drive Assad's air force out of the skies all along the border.

          But, much further south, Syria is a total desert with but one river running through it, the Euphrates.

          So Erdogan's play has been effectively shielding ISIS from Assad's pitiful air force. ( All downed pilots are assassinated via torture by the fanatics.

          Putin is terminating Erdogan's gambit.

          Putin is simultaneously protecting the Kurds - as Erdogan can't beat them up any more with his air force. One can reasonably expect that 'somehow' the Kurds will experience a shift in fortunes - as Putin becomes their devious patron. He'll want to arm them in such a manner that Iran and Iraq don't 'kick.'

          That should now be easy. He can over fly ISIS turf from the Caspian sea - spitting weapons out the back window like Zardoz, when over Kurdish positions. (1974, Sean Connery)

          Jesper, October 10, 2015 at 8:29 am

          The US has stopped doing strategy so while short term victories can be had the long-term is only obtained by chance…. The ones in US with strategies are the ones who are pursuing personal strategies, those strategies sometimes happen to align with US interests.

          & to be seen as a reliable ally (and therefore an ally wished for) then a country needs to back up their allies even(!) when times get tough. Russia is doing that in Syria. France is doing that in Mali:
          http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13881978

          UK & the US has been doing the same numerous times throughout history, Maybe even the backing of the current regimes in Afghanistan & Iraq would fall into the category of backing up an ally, or maybe those are more 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.


          blert, October 10, 2015 at 2:50 pm

          Both Obama and Clinton are big into 'triangulation.'

          Meaning that they are too clever by half - and ALWAYS mistake domestic political tactics and tricks for viable gambits in international affairs.

          With Bill Clinton you had a president that spun on a dime, famously flip-flopping four times in a single day on this or that domestic issue.

          With Obama you have a president that just CAN'T accept and adopt - straight out - ANY recommended policy suite proferred by his own professionals. Instead, he runs it by Axelrod and the other spin smiths - gauging it for domestic and media impact.

          He really thinks that he's the smartest man in Washington, and that his 'play' has been brilliant. He is a bit perturbed that the rest of the world is not following his scripts.

          His 'clever' scheme to use the CIA (et. al.) to sustain a proxy anti-Assad army has blown up like a Roadrunner gag.

          The jibes from Putin and others are particularly irritating.

          No-one now is kissing his Islamic ring.

          ( Yes, his marriage ring is ornately inscribed with Islamic iconography. Google around for it. He's worn it since Harvard, long before Michelle.)

          binky Bear, October 10, 2015 at 3:45 pm

          Not only deeply informed but a telepath to boot. How fortunate to be near-omniscient, and to support so deeply such complex arguments with provable facts.

          blert, October 10, 2015 at 6:01 pm

          Where have you been ?

          Clinton's 'triangulation' was a term of art brought up largely by himself.

          As for the proxy army… Now even the AP is willing to 'fess up.

          http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dfe1547ba36f4f968deee227d467dc08/officials-russian-bombs-cia-rebels-had-syrian-gains

          The big error in the AP article is dating it to 2013. The project was started even earlier.

          Telepath ?

          Reading their local press did the trick. You will find Indian and Pakistani English language publications hitting right on target - realities that 'elude' the NY Times.

          OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 10, 2015 at 6:14 pm

          This. The most infuriating part about Obomba is the smug "smarter-than-you" certainty he has. He was a community organizer and one-term state Senator but somehow he started sniffing all the farts the sycophants were wafting his way about just how clever he really was. Then he installed a bunch of also-smart groupthinker Berkeley-ites from the "duty to protect" and "humanitarian bombing" crowd, Chanel-suited exceptionalist egomaniacs who thought they were Kissinger (Samantha Powers, Hilary, Susan Rice et al.)

          BHO thought he could triangulate and "out-clever" everyone on everything, from health care, where he managed the worst of all worlds that fattened Big Insurance AND screwed up the cost of care…to Wall St where he fattened TBTF AND screwed up Dodd-Frank. In the ME he thought he could cleverly play all sides off against each other, the Turks, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Israelis, the Saudis... and stunningly also al-Qaeda themselves were just another co-optable pawn.

          But as Warren Buffet says "when the tide goes out you can see who's swimming naked". Tide's heading out…and as far as I can see the Russia/Iran/Iraq/Israel/Syria/Kurd team, with Brother China, fed-up Pakistan and resurgent India backing things up, is looking pretty good. Sclero-Europe has long ago ceded their sovereignty and relevance, LatAm as usual is absent from consideration…what am I missing?

          Unfortunately after the Hilary coronation we'll have another serial "third way" triangulator in charge who never saw a war, arms program, or covert adventure she didn't like. Except when she didn't like it, which was right after she did like it, and right before the previous time she didn't like it.

          Jim McKay October 10, 2015 at 8:53 am

          Good article… gives (from all I've read elsewhere) good, accurate context to what's going on now, and why (IMO) Putin's actions make sense. That is, if "solutions" (eg. ending blood shed, restore sustainable stability) in Syria is the objective.

          I'm also struck by some retrospective considerations, beyond what author (with limited space) hits very generally (eg: Brzezinski/Carter). In particular, all the secret prisons and indiscriminate detentions by BushCo (torture), much of it seemingly continued by BO. And, the "unintended" consequences of that.

          Reading Wikipedia's bio on al-Baghdadi this morning, seems he was a very well educated cleric (doctorate in both Islamic Studies and Education) even well after Bush's Iraq adventure began. He was non-descript, low key… seems little evidence he had violtent inclinations:

          "I was with Baghdadi at the Islamic University. We studied the same course, but he wasn't a friend. He was quiet, and retiring. He spent time alone. Later, when he helped found the Islamic Army, Mr Dabash fought alongside militia leaders who were committing some of the worst excesses in violence and would later form al-Qaeda… [but] Baghdadi was not one of them, I used to know all the leaders (of the insurgency) personally. Zarqawi (the former leader of al-Qaeda) was closer than a brother to me… But I didn't know Baghdadi. He was insignificant. He used to lead prayer in a mosque near my area. No one really noticed him."

          This bio also says this (which I didn't know):

          Bakr al-Baghdadi was arrested by US Forces-Iraq on 2 February 2004 near Fallujah and detained at Camp Bucca detention center under his name Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim al-Badry[22] as a "civilian internee" until December 2004, when he was recommended for release by a Combined Review and Release Board.[24][29][30] In December 2004, he was released as a "low level prisoner".[22]

          A number of newspapers and cable news channels have instead stated that al-Baghdadi was interned from 2005 to 2009. These reports originate from an interview with the former commander of Camp Bucca, Colonel Kenneth King, and are not substantiated by Department of Defense records.[31][32][33] Al-Baghdadi was imprisoned at Camp Bucca along with other future leaders of ISIL. (emphasis added)

          Would be hugely informative to have a means of cross checking records (if they exist?) of U.S. detainees as "illegal combatants", their violent "proclivities" prior to incarceration, and how many of them became Jihadists after release. The utter injustice of this, in the face of nothing more then an invasion and occupation of Iraq… this cause & affect is ignored and unacknowledged by leadership/policy makers on our shores. And making "exception" for these policies guarantees the continued disastrous results, ad infinitum.

          Global conventions against torture have stood for a long time, with a strong moral grounding… based on understanding, that abrogating them WILL produce the kinds of results we've seen, expanding like dominoes.

          Somehow, someway… if U.S. is ever to get on a course other then collapsing from within, this stuff needs to be examined thoroughly and cut out of public and official "acceptance" like the cancer that it is.

          blert October 10, 2015 at 2:59 pm

          The problem with any bio on al Baghdadi is that the CIA// Pentagon has re-used that name// title over and over. This is topped off by the fact that the Muslims use that nome-de-guerre over and over, too.

          So one is always left puzzling over whether this or that reference is getting crossed over with yet another al Baghdadi. The Pentagon, itself, admits that they have made that exact error many, many, times. They've 'killed' al Baghdadi numerous times - only for another elusive al Baghdadi to pop up.

          Some analysts contend that the name is really more towards a title - just like Caesar. After he died, all of his successors were so labeled. The only folks that seem to have the slightest clue about what's up are the desert Arabs. (Jordan, KSA, Kuwait - and the Awakening Movement in Iraq.)

          Everyone else is 'stupid' - counter-informed - like Dr. Zbig. What a gas bag. Dangerous, too.

          Procopius October 10, 2015 at 8:07 pm

          I don't think it's useful to refer to "al Baghdadi" as a "nom de guerre." It's a nickname, "the guy from Baghdad," in a culture where names are rather indeterminate. OK, I'm not an Arabic linguist, but I know that a guy may be known by some of his friends as "Son of X," by others of his friends as "Father of Y," and by others as "Abdu al [insert attribute of Allah]." I think this makes it problematic for many Americans, who are not known for language ability.

          blert October 11, 2015 at 8:08 pm

          Actually, adopting a 'nom de guerre' is extremely popular for the fanatics.

          1) Like all super heros, they don't want blow back upon their non-combatant family members. This is especially evident with their infamous executioners. But the tic is not at all limited.

          2) The fake persona permits the jihadist easy travel when outside the war zone. Many of the fanatics are claiming to flit to and fro - from America to Syria - with grace and ease. This ease of travel was confirmed by an elderly German journalist, (75) who visited ISIS. They scared the Hell out of him. It also terrified him that he could, himself, flit from Germany to Syria, with little to inconvenience him. (!) It was all too easy. Yikes !

          In his opinion, the fanatics are shuttling all over the place. Current border controls are wholly ineffective with these players. If a slow moving retiree can make the transit, that's telling.

          timbers October 10, 2015 at 8:58 am

          Interesting things are happening with Russian involvement in Syria. Are we seeing the global balance of power tip before our eyes? The U.S. is losing it's sole hegemony status and that could be a good thing if Washington can realize this and accept that and adopt diplomacy and cooperation to maintain what position it still has instead of denial followed by escalating aggression.

          A reborn Russia/Iran/Iraq/Syria alliance could check the brutality of the current U.S./Israel/Saudi Arabia/Turkey axis. Have seen articles that Iraq is impressed with Russian effectiveness against U.S. funded ISIS that is creating chaos in Iraq, and they may ask Putin to do the same thing there he is doing in Syria. Wonder if O's ego can handle that?

          Even signs that some in Europe see Russia is helping them by intervening in Syria and connecting the dots, as in "WTF are we doing hurting ourselves pissing off Russia in service of U.S.?"

          With all that going on, I was dumbfounded seeing headlines that the U.S. is preparing a major naval challenge to China's islands, as if we don't have enough conflict on our hands already.

          Steve H. October 10, 2015 at 9:08 am

          "If either of them makes so much as a nervous twitch towards the Syrian frontier, the oil price will return to the level Russia wants, and needs."

          ""This is because [President Vladimir] Putin has told [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu that Israel can count on a no-threat zone running from Damascus south and east to the Golan."

          Those are a couple of very interesting points that look win-win for Russia. Especially with the Saudi and Turkish regimes having internal problems as well.

          Here's an analysis from the other side of the aisle:

          stratfor.com/analysis/syria-loyalist-offensive-begins

          The bone I'll pick with it is that the 'far' position taken is "negotiated settlement". The U.S. and Saudis appear over-extended and thus under-committed. Russia has advanced a Knight, and S-400's and cruise missiles are discomforting if NATO tries to advance the Queen of overwhelming air power (see the Stratfor map of U.S. vs Russian air strikes). When the BATNA is a win-win, all negotiations are just plays for time.

          blert October 10, 2015 at 3:05 pm

          Stratfor totally lost me with their fantasy Free Syrian Army schtick. It does not exist.

          That scribe is pipe dreaming. Absolutely no-one in the field identifies with the FSA. Not. A. One.

          The FSA = al Nusrah = al Qaeda in Syria. The re-labeling was invoked so that BHO could send weapons to al Nusrah… the player that currently has snapped up EVERY weapon the President sent into the fight. Most recently that's meant TOW missiles.

          Go to YouTube to see countless jihadi videos uploaded showing how al Nusrah has been driving Assad into retreat.

          The rest of the article is pure jibberish… counter-factual… aka lies.

          ltr October 10, 2015 at 10:19 am

          This is an especially important post, as it is all but impossible to gain a balance in analysis or reporting from the press in the United States on the Russian initiative and engagement in Syria.

          Mel Fish October 10, 2015 at 10:56 am

          Stratfor is great reading…polished and confident, always written with a hint of being' in the know' , and yet is less useful as a forecasting tool than a dart board (without any darts). Also amusing is to wonder about the irony of the president's Nobel peace prize and what effect the fear of the resurfacing of the irony/hypocrisy each time the president engages the country in yet another "conflict". If you imagine the president being issued a certain number of conflict cards at the beginning of terms, well, they must be used judiciously….especially when one has that damned prize to think about. Wonder if that's another reason the Russians got to go Russian in Syria first.

          sd October 10, 2015 at 4:09 pm

          Good lord. Stratfor is well-known as politicized propaganda machine that works in concert with large multinational corporations to further their interests in foreign countries. It's not a secret.

          Lambert Strether October 11, 2015 at 1:12 am

          I don't see how that contradicts Fish's comment. We expect the elites to be polished and confident, do we not?

          blert October 11, 2015 at 8:12 pm

          Stratfor is Neocon central, I should think. They stock gasbags in quantity.

          EoinW October 10, 2015 at 1:01 pm

          Russian operations in Syria began right before Bibi was due to visit Moscow. Now it's a nice, neat package to assume Russia made Israel an offer it couldn't refuse, however Putin can't make deals with everyone. After all, he's not Donald Trump.

          My guess would be that Hizbollah will be rewarded for their support and be able to keep the arms they get from Russia. Israel will simply have to stay out of southern Lebanon for good. That's going to be a tough one for the Jewish Taliban, with their Greater Israel project, to swallow. Ben-Gurion may have wanted peaceful borders but it is the last thing modern Israel wants. The Assads kept the peace on the Golan border for 40 years – fat lot of good that did them. Peaceful borders means no excuse for Israel to avoid making peace with the Palestinians.

          The question I must ask: what happens to all these Islamic fighters after they are run out of Syria and Iraq? Only safe territory for them – away from the Russian air force – will be US allies, like Jordan and Arabia. Hamas is not as extreme as ISIS, however the Palestinian situation becomes more extreme every day. Could ISIS end up working with the Palestinians? Israel, with its excuse of no peace partners, may end up with enemies from hell. Even if ISIS doesn't take up the Palestinian cause, it still has to go somewhere. Seems the chickens will come home to roost.

          OIFVet October 10, 2015 at 1:10 pm

          Russian operations in Syria began right before Bibi was due to visit Moscow. Wrong, Bibi visited on September 20th.

          blert October 10, 2015 at 3:09 pm

          Bibi and al Sisi romanced Putin once Obama showed his colors. The President intended to take America down a peg… okay… many pegs. Instead, the down-pegging has occurred to himself.

          He's now totally ineffective in foreign affairs. He is scorned and ridiculed… universally.

          TG October 10, 2015 at 2:09 pm

          Interesting. But I wouldn't hand Putin the victory cup just yet.

          Suppose that Obama just decides to flood Syria with weapons? Anti-tank, anti-air, medium-range missiles with cluster bombs that can hit the Russian bases… America may not have any sense of long-range strategy but we are very good at breaking things, and our leaders throw fits and take it personally when their plans go awry…

          Of course giving all sorts of advanced weapons to the mostly jihadist Syrian 'rebels' would in the long run certainly cause a lot of blowback to the United States, but that's never stopped us before…

          OIFVet October 10, 2015 at 2:18 pm

          I suspect that the Kurds and Houthis, as well as the Shia in KSA's oil producing regions will suddenly find excellent source of weapons, plunging Turkey, KSA, and the emirates in quite the chaos.

          NotTimothyGeithner October 10, 2015 at 3:13 pm

          The issue is moving the weapons. Jordan's border is open desert. Iraq is warming to the Russians with an active war zone along the border. Israel doesn't want weapons running through their territory without control. The water is locked up, and Lebanon is full of Hezbollah.

          After today's events, who knows where Turkey is?

          Where is the money coming from? Americans aren't brining up Syria on the campaign trail except to note they were opposed to intervention. The Saudis are suffering from low oil prices and their own quagmire.

          U.S. air superiority is based on air superiority, not anti-aircraft weaponry. Afghanistan and Syria are radically different much like Vietnam and Iraq were different. It's much easier for the Russians to supply their bases than in Afghanistan where they had to rely on helicopters flying around mountain valleys.

          Advanced weaponry will be seen by Russian eyes in the sky and can be hit by missiles from the Caspian apparently. I hate to break it to you, but the U.S. R&D budget has been wasted on projects like F-35 and contracting fraud.

          OIFVet October 10, 2015 at 3:28 pm

          It's Time for the United States to Start Worrying About a Saudi Collapse. I thought the plunge in oil prices would bring down the Ruskies?

          Besides the shale operations, the overextended KSA is now in trouble, particularly with rising domestic oil consumption and internal Al-Saud family dissent growing.

          Then there is the appalling poverty that may no longer be alleviated with oil revenue subsidies. In the 1980s the Saudis matched CIA spending for the mujaheddin 1:1, which really made a huge difference. If the US wants to launch a proxy war on Russia in Syria, and wants the Saudis to help pay for it, it may find itself with a disintegrating KSA, one where the oil fields are in predominantly Shia areas. Blowback might be putting it quite mildly.

          NotTimothyGeithner October 10, 2015 at 4:09 pm

          There are only 10,000 non-wealthy Saudi men and only half are of fighting age. The House of Saud doesn't have a great faction to stand for the regime if anything were to go to South. I'm sure the Hajj stampede and crane collapse aren't sitting well with the king in the hospital. From the rumors, King Fahd's party are trying get to retake power. Fahd was pals with the old man Assad.

          The Royal Guard is roughly the size of the national army, so there are two separate armies in Saudi Arabia with separate Com and structures which demonstrates the lack of faith in the army. Costs aside, I wonder if the real aim is to keep much of the Saudi military as possible occupied I stead of at home where they can cause trouble. With only 30,000 or so members, the House of Saud can be replaced at any old time.

          Crazy Horse October 10, 2015 at 10:56 pm

          Why does my Spidy Sense tell me that the foundation of the Saudi oil ministry policy of continuing to flood a depressed market with low cost oil was a secret agreement between Obomber and the Saudi ruling family? The plan was to bankrupt Russia by a two-pronged attack- the fraudulent US sponsored sanctions based upon manufactured reality events in Ukraine and the Saudi capacity to control the marginal price of oil. The carrot offered by the US was a piece of the action in the trans Syrian gas pipeline- and continued protection against internal opposition.

          Worked about as well as most US foreign policy "initiatives". Wouldn't it be ironic if the end game was the overthrow of the decadent Saudi ruling family and a post revolutionary Saudi Arabia in the Russian/Chinese axis?

          OIFVet October 10, 2015 at 11:06 pm

          It is amusing to contemplate, up to a point. I am not sure that potential Saud family collapse is necessarily good for peace.

          ambrit October 11, 2015 at 8:37 am

          What I fear from all this is a 'Caliphate' extending from Mosul down around Basra (got to give those Sixers credit,) and on into The (Former) Kingdom. Ben-Gurions' Arab 'splintered' states could come back to bite his successors as one big confederation of "The Faithful."

          blert October 11, 2015 at 8:30 pm

          The Saudi royal house is furious with Obama.

          It's the Iran deal. After that, nothing else really matters to the Saudis.

          The low oil price was never co-ordinated with anybody.

          It's targets are - in no particular order:

          Assad
          Iran
          Russia
          American frackers

          The Saudis have been disrupting Iranian oil exports to Asia - by under cutting them on price and quality.

          Until Obama released the Shah's old deposits ( my how they have compounded into real money ) Iran was going insolvent.

          Saudi Arabia wants Putin to suffer - as he's the patron of Assad - of whom they hate the most. Low crude pricing has pounded the Russian ruble. Putin's crew is also going insolvent. The flight capital out of Russia is relentless.

          American frackers represent a dire strategic threat to the Saudi clan. Such methods have every prospect of making Saudi oil an insignificant resource.

          For, on the math, fracking ( like flotation cells a century ago ) figure to increase the resource base – – crude recoveries - by a factor of one-hundred.

          That last figure may astonish, but it's true. All this time drillers have discovered vast oil deposits - that were too thin to work - with vertical bore holes. Some of these thin deposits don't actually need fracking, per se. They just need the super accurate aimable drilling tips America now produces.

          The kicker - on the economics - is that such thin deposits are extensive. So if you punch down - you are sure to hit the strata - to strike oil - about 100% of the time. Your only risk is if this or that effort is not quite what you hoped for.

          Such resource economics are entirely upside down from conventional drilling. They strongly resemble the economics of coal mining. Everybody is uniformly 'lucky.'

          The total amount of 'thin strata' oil in the ground is staggeringly larger than all conventional deposits. The Saudi royals know this. The general public does not.

          It's against the economic interests of any of the players to level with the press or the public. Everybody is lying about everything to everybody else. This behavior is classic - typical of mining everywhere. When was the last time you heard a gold miner telling all where he'd found a massive strike ?

          Heh.

          Medon October 10, 2015 at 3:15 pm

          Why does the US need to be in the Middle East at all. We can just buy oil from the lowest cost supplier and have it shipped over. What am I missing here?

          NotTimothyGeithner October 10, 2015 at 3:32 pm

          Contracting fraud, where the real money is made. It was never about oil, just contracts and egos. Oil has to be sold at an honest price for a variety of reasons, but I can't judge a cruise missile's price behind a veil of secrecy.

          cwaltz October 10, 2015 at 3:53 pm

          http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/house-votes-to-lift-oil-export-ban/ar-AAfhPdk

          Heck if we wanted to we wouldn't even have to ship it over. What's the fun in that though? Yay, capitalism where no one ever gets to lift the stupid veil!

          NotTimothyGeithner October 10, 2015 at 4:21 pm

          Then there is the natural failing of leaders domestically who search for scapegoats. Half of the foreign policy pronouncements are full of whispered hisses of "China." Don't pay attention to me. It's those red Chinese and their currency manipulation.

          It's not that much different than medieval kings who blamed jews for the ills of society. Oh sure, we have tablets and Facebook, but we are still the same people after all these years.

          cwaltz October 10, 2015 at 4:43 pm

          The currency manipulation thing always makes me laugh. Good Lord, what do they think the Fed does when it lowers and increases interest rates and what QE did to the dollar?

          People WANT a scapegoat though. They want to believe that it's someone else's fault. Our domestic leaders are giving the people what they want, a culpable body, when playing the blame game.

          optimader October 10, 2015 at 5:28 pm

          Why does the US need to be in the Middle East at all
          It doesn't
          What am I missing here?
          stock in http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Top-100-Defense-Contractors-2014.html
          ill admit, the relative positions of 11-13 surprised me, but then not.

          Roland October 10, 2015 at 4:28 pm

          The Russian expeditionary force in Syria is indeed highly vulnerable, but only if the Western Bloc wants to risk a major war. Now the Western Bloc can prevail against Russia, at any level of escalation, albeit at mounting risk. Nobody should expect today's Russia to be able to match the might of the Western Bloc.

          But the Russian government indicates that they are willing to go to war, even if they know in advance that they will lose that war. Willingness to lose means willingness to fight, and the willingness to fight is a crucial element in deterrence.

          In both Georgia and Ukraine, the Russians have physically demonstrated their willingness to go to war wherever NATO tries to expand into any more of the former Soviet republics. There is no question of Russian credibility as far as NATO expansion into former SR's is concerned. That means war, period.

          Syria's importance to Russia lies in the fact that it's Russia's only ally that is not territorially contiguous to Russia. If Russia is to retain any real sovereign capacity to make or preserve meaningful alliances abroad, then they must support the Syrian government, even if a military deployment there is precarious.

          Russia was very slow to engage in direct intervention in Syria. For years, Russia confined its efforts to political support, technical advice, and resupply of the existing Syrian arsenal. Russia even disarmed Syria of its chemical weapons, in a failed effort to mediate the conflict.

          However, Russia's long reluctance also means that their current action is long-considered. A government that is slow to go to war is usually a government that will fight hard in that war.

          I expect the Western Bloc will presume that they can prevail through politico-economic attrition against Russia. They probably can. However, the longer this complex regional war in the Middle East continues, the more likely things are to veer off unpredictably. The real God of war is neither Athena nor Mars. It's Tyche.

          Chauncey Gardiner October 10, 2015 at 4:28 pm

          Patrick Smith wrote an interesting article that was published in Salon on October 6th, I recommend it as worthwhile reading and food for thought. An extract:

          "In my read, Russia and Iran have just popped open the door to a solution in Syria. All the pieces are in place but one: Washington's capacity to acknowledge the strategic failure now so evident and to see beyond the narrowest definition of where its interests lie. This brings us to the paradox embedded in those questions Putin and Zarif and a few others now pose: American primacy is no longer in America's interest. Get your mind around this and you have arrived in the 21st century."

          http://www.salon.com/2015/10/06/thomas_friedman_read_your_chomsky_the_new_york_times_gets_putinobama_all_wrong_again/

          Hmmm… A multi-polar world?

          blert October 10, 2015 at 5:49 pm

          "The CIA began a covert operation in 2013 to arm, fund and train a moderate opposition to Assad. Over that time, the CIA has trained an estimated 10,000 fighters, although the number still fighting with so-called moderate forces is unclear.

          The effort was separate from the one run by the military, which trained militants willing to promise to take on IS exclusively. That program was widely considered a failure, and on Friday, the Defense Department announced it was abandoning the goal of a U.S.-trained Syrian force, instead opting to equip established groups to fight IS."

          http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dfe1547ba36f4f968deee227d467dc08/officials-russian-bombs-cia-rebels-had-syrian-gains

          Even this AP story is largely inaccurate. The CIA had been active even before 2013. It's original proxy army went rogue and is the cadre for al Baghdadi's ISIS horror show. ONLY NOW is the MSM breaking the story that is idiot obvious across the Middle East. ZeroHedge is comparing this to Bay of Pigs II.

          No kidding -- Both involved CIA proxy armies that had no operational security to speak of. Both were authorized by the Oval Office. And we know how much BHO admires JFK.

          Stefan October 10, 2015 at 6:31 pm

          This article's quotes from various foreign quarters are informative, but its characterization of American strategy is a bit "breathless."

          The US maintained a fairly hands off approach to Syria over the past few years on the advice of Israel. In essence, the US didn't have a dog in that fight, and the general intention was to allow the regime and its enemies to weaken each other interminably.

          Obama's empty threats about chemical weapons were a mistake, of course. But the Russians helped him out of that one. And in some way, they are helping him out again. The blitzkrieg success of Sunni/ISIS took observers by surprise, and all those gruesome beheadings seem to call for something. But again where is the real strategic value of Syria? Every sensible Syrian who can is on his way to a new life in Europe.

          While the article's author seems to wish to ridicule him, Brzezinski is right. The US has stupendous firepower, more than the rest of the world combined. But as we have seen, that does not guarantee success in every situation, and is hardly effective if half-hearted.

          By the way, the Israelis could "take out" Assad any time they wish to. They could as well probably cripple the Russian force in Syria in a day, if they chose. But they do not prefer the consequences.

          VietnamVet October 10, 2015 at 9:58 pm

          It is important to get Russian viewpoint especially since most Americans are monolingual. Also, it is hard for us not to root for the home team. Still Syria is a gigantic SNAFU. It is so far beyond incompetence it has to be purposeful. This is the ultimate expression of the Shock Doctrine. Collapse Russia and gain control its energy resources at the risk of exterminating Homo sapiens. Russia will do well for a while carving out enclaves for the minority Shiites, Christians and Alawites then they will in a tough slog of fighting Sunni Arabs in a regional Holy War.

          There are 1.6 billion Sunni Muslims. Want-to-be Jihadists will flock to Syria to fight the Russian Crusaders. Barrack Obama has already warned Vladimir Putin of a quagmire. His continued arming the Sunnis is a purposeful act to ensure this. World War III starts when Russia shoots down an American aircraft on a combat mission over Syria.

          ambrit October 11, 2015 at 8:48 am

          Give the Russians some credit for finesse. All they need do is shoot down an Israeli jet attacking a Syrian government position in support of some Syrian "Moderates" near Damascus. I'll be watching for a Russian campaign to rid the Syrian skies of 'Western' drones. That would be a sign of serious intentions on the part of Russia.

          Another possibility is a peaceful change of leadership within Assad's Syrian government. Does anyone know if there is a suitable successor to Assad Jr. in the 'family?' Such an event would remove even the fig leaf presently being waved in front of the West's attempted rape of Syria.

          Russell Scott Day/Transcendia October 11, 2015 at 1:02 am

          So I was hoping that the Russians would go in there and kill ISIS and then they turn around and start killing the rebels trying to kill Assad, who ISIS wouldn't mind killing as well. So much for wishful thinking which last I noted hasn't worked well in war except when called dumb luck, which is fortunate weather events never anticipated by anyone.

          Well it sort of makes sense that if you have an enemy with an army and they threaten you, enough, you kill them. Unfortunately for allies of the US, it doesn't really matter that much for the US long as the Petrodollar, the gift of Nixon and Kissinger is the reserve currency. If all the Syrian draft dodgers go to Germany, well that will serve Volkswagen right, not to mention make Greece and Hungary thinking so while any minute I'll look good telling the Netherlands to go for it with my Insurodollar.

          Well it sure did work out well about that Euro. And things would be great if it was actually oil coming from the 3,900 drill rigs, if it was oil instead of leaky ass methane wrecking the climate even more than oil getting burned things would be better. A 4,000 dollar CNG gas tank that takes up the trunk makes batteries look good.
          But who knows what all since piddling around has halfway or a third worked out, so far.

          It's not how many nukes you have, but who uses them first, if you have them see. They didn't really have them till the end of the second world war, which was a war, still, and why I call what's in store next for us an apocalyptic riot.

          If only capitalism was working and Russia was just offered a land transit corridor for a price to Sevastopol? So what if they get to access more better in the Black Sea, It's Black right?

          Remember the Zaporizia! Remember that Hunter Biden! Remember Antares! Remember Christophe de Margerie and the drunk that got there just in time for a plane that never crashes except for the other one that was shot down! And remember thinking too much, since what you know is lots of lies, and the rest is cowardly, or stupid.

          [Oct 19, 2015] Syrian Gambit: US at Pains to Create 'Another Afghanistan' for Russia

          This is a very dangerous gambit for Russia. The USA and allies represents overwhelmingly stronger alliance economically, politically and technologically.
          Notable quotes:
          "... And finally, overall tribalism and chaos in the region helps the US, and particularly Israel gain strength in the region by weakening neighbors, ..."
          "... We will see fewer conventional offensives in the future, and far more localized attacks, the Pentagon will try and create another Afghanistan ..."
          "... While US military doctrine these days is set to avoid direct confrontation, on the other hand America and citizens in the West have been primed for it. Consider that most Americans, have been brainwashed substantially to believe Vladimir Putin has already invaded half a dozen countries. As crazy as this sounds, pretend you live in small American town and you listen to CNN or Fox before bed every night. This potential, to be dragged into a wide conflagration set up by Washington, is why you see Vladimir Putin making very conservative and precise moves on the stage, he told Sputnik. ..."
          "... given all we have seen since 9/11, it would take a fairly major incident to excuse such a confrontation ..."
          Oct 18, 2015 | sputniknews.com

          In September 2014, Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA intelligence analyst, proposed a plan entitled "An Army to Defeat Assad." The CIA analyst envisaged the creation of a US Syrian proxy army that would take over the Syrian government forces (and deal a blow to Islamic State). However, the toppling of Bashar al-Assad was marked by Pollack as the overriding priority.

          "Once the new army gained ground, the opposition's leaders could formally declare themselves to represent a new provisional government. The United States and its allies could then extend diplomatic recognition to the movement, allowing the US Department of Defense to take over the tasks of training and advising the new force – which would now be the official military arm of Syria's legitimate new rulers," Pollack elaborated.

          In January 2015, the Pentagon announced that it kicked off a plan aimed at training Assad's opposition fighters, strikingly similar to that offered by Pollack in September 2014. So, nothing hinted at any trouble until September 30, when Russia suddenly threw a wrench in Washington's ingenious plan.

          "To get to the root of the current crisis in Syria and the Middle East overall, we must look at US policy overall," Germany-based American political analyst Phil Butler explained in an exclusive interview to Sputnik.

          "The current divisions within Syria and Northern Iraq are to a degree fabricated. Secular, religious, and even tribal differences in this region have been leveraged for centuries to divide Syria, as well as other nations in the region. You've mentioned Ken Pollack, and appropriately, I might add. Pollack, who's held many official positions within the Washington policy making establishment, is actually one of the authors of chaos in this region. Discussing such "bred" academics is a deep well, but suffice it to say the division of Yugoslavia, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Arab Spring overall, the Georgia war, and the current Ukraine mess are all facets of the same flawed gem of US hegemony," the analyst told Sputnik.

          According to Butler, the current mission in Syria is not intended to be a splintering as we saw with Kosovo, in the Balkans.

          "As for the 'plan' in Syria, I believe there were 'contingencies' mapped out. As amoral as these schemes may be, they are not concocted by idiots. Contingency 1, in my view, was the literal overthrow of Assad. Vladimir Putin's moves, Russia's, have thwarted this potential at every turn. Contingency number two obviously involves another Yugoslavia in the making. And finally, overall tribalism and chaos in the region helps the US, and particularly Israel gain strength in the region by weakening neighbors," the political analyst stressed.

          Meanwhile, Western reputable media sources have reported of an upcoming offensive on Raqqa, ISIL's "capital," the Pentagon is preparing to launch along with its Arab and Kurdish military allies.

          However, Middle East Eye reported on October 14 that there is no sign of such preparations on the ground: "The US-led anti-IS coalition dropped 50 tons of weapons to the newly created Syrian Arab Coalition on Monday in the Hasakah province, in order to avoid angering Turkey. But so far, no US weapons can be seen on the frontlines close to Raqqa, nor any sign of rebel troop preparations."

          "The reason we have not seen these latest weapons shipments being used, is the complexity of strategy on the ground has changed. No standing force, Al-Nusra, ISIL, or other jihadists put together, could withstand Russian air power. I believe we are about to see Assad's opposition morph their strategy to full guerrilla warfare as was the case in Afghanistan. We will see fewer conventional "offensives" in the future, and far more localized attacks, the Pentagon will try and create another Afghanistan," Butler explained commenting on the issue.

          However, in contrast to the US' covert war against the USSR in Afghanistan, there were no US jet fighters in the region and thus far, no threat of a direct confrontation between the two global powers.

          Today, there are many military "actors" in the skies of Syria and Iraq. Does it mean the Pentagon's Afghani strategy may unexpectedly transform into a direct confrontation between US/NATO and Russia?

          "As for the threat of direct confrontation between the US and Russia in Syria, the possibility does exist. In this case however, I believe such a confrontation is actually another contingency for Washington," the American political analyst underscored.

          "While US military doctrine these days is set to avoid direct confrontation, on the other hand America and citizens in the "West" have been primed for it. Consider that most Americans, have been brainwashed substantially to believe Vladimir Putin has already invaded half a dozen countries. As crazy as this sounds, pretend you live in small American town and you listen to CNN or Fox before bed every night. This potential, to be dragged into a wide conflagration set up by Washington, is why you see Vladimir Putin making very conservative and precise moves on the stage," he told Sputnik.

          "Having said this, given all we have seen since 9/11, it would take a fairly major incident to excuse such a confrontation," Phil Butler concluded.

          [Oct 19, 2015] After failing to set new Afghanistan for Russia in Ukraine

          After failing to set new Afghanistan for Russia in Ukraine, it looks like Syria is on the mind of Washington strategists as a suitable replacement. The problem is that ground forces are not Russian.
          "... From one fiasco to another: Washington has failed to change the regime in Syria, failed to effectively fight ISIS, and now wants Russia to fail. At the same time, Obama appears to be willing to arm any anti-regime fighter who can carry a gun. What could possibly go wrong with that? ..."
          marknesop.wordpress.com
          Warren, October 18, 2015 at 12:27 pm

          Published on 16 Oct 2015

          From one fiasco to another: Washington has failed to change the regime in Syria, failed to effectively fight ISIS, and now wants Russia to fail. At the same time, Obama appears to be willing to arm any anti-regime fighter who can carry a gun. What could possibly go wrong with that?

          CrossTalking with Philippe Assouline, Marcus Papadopoulos, and Roshan Muhammed Salih.

          [Oct 18, 2015] US and Russia Should Form Coordinated Coalition in Syria – Stephen Cohen

          Notable quotes:
          "... The professor noted that some analysts are convinced that Vladimir Putin is about to sell out Donbass, eastern Ukraine, in return for Syria. According to Cohen, it is naïve to believe that Moscow would give up ethnic Russians suffering from Kiev's hostilities in return for protecting Assad ..."
          "... [Ukrainian authorities are worried] that Washington may kind of forget Ukraine or lessen its commitment to the Kiev government. So, I would not be surprised if Kiev stages a provocation to inflame the crisis which is at a very low level at the moment in Ukraine, ..."
          "... if Washington continues to indulge the neocons' plan to arm Ukraine and encourage Kiev's warmongering against Russia, the United States will finally face an equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis in Eastern Europe. ..."
          sputniknews.com

          "My hope is that [US President] Obama and [Russian President] Putin will rise above themselves and form a substantial coalition in Iraq and in Syria. But let's be realistic… There are enormous obstacles," Professor Cohen noted in an interview with US progressive political commentator Thomas Carl "Thom" Hartmann.

          The professor noted that some analysts are convinced that Vladimir Putin is about to sell out Donbass, eastern Ukraine, in return for Syria. According to Cohen, it is naïve to believe that Moscow would give up ethnic Russians suffering from Kiev's hostilities in return for protecting Assad. "That won't happen," the professor underscored.

          ... ... ...

          "It [the Ukrainian crisis] could flare up at any moment in a way that could disrupt any fragile agreement between Putin and Obama," the professor stressed.

          According to Cohen, the US-backed regime in Kiev is sweating bullets about the possibility of close cooperation between Moscow and Washington in the Middle East.

          "[Ukrainian authorities are worried] that Washington may kind of forget Ukraine or lessen its commitment to the Kiev government. So, I would not be surprised if Kiev stages a provocation to inflame the crisis which is at a very low level at the moment in Ukraine," Cohen warned.

          Meanwhile, the grim specter of World War III is prowling across Europe and the Middle East. Professor Cohen has repeatedly stressed that if Washington continues to indulge the neocons' plan to arm Ukraine and encourage Kiev's warmongering against Russia, the United States will finally face an equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis in Eastern Europe.

          Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151003/1027976725/us-russia-syria-coalition-cohen.html#ixzz3oz03EHB3

          [Oct 18, 2015] A journal of the Ukrainian National Academy of Science publishes the truth about Donbass. Panic ensues

          Notable quotes:
          "... Huge amounts of money were spread around in it, and not just those Nuland cookies ... Its main participants were outcasts from across the country, who, in fact, had nothing to lose. The outcasts very much wanted to take the property not just from Donetskis , but also from Kievskis , Lvivskis , Rivnenskis and others, wrote, in particular, the author of the scientific publication. ..."
          "... Today, the population of Donbass en masse is being systematically, and brutally destroyed by the Armed Forces and the National Guard of Ukraine, including through means and methods of warfare that are prohibited by international law ..."
          Fort Russ
          Enrique Ferro's insight:

          "Today, the population of Donbass en masse is being systematically, and brutally destroyed by the Armed Forces and the National Guard of Ukraine, including through means and methods of warfare that are prohibited by international law," - wrote A. Lopata.

          ... ... ...

          According to the scientist, this revolution was nothing more than a coup.

          "Huge amounts of money were spread around in it, and not just those Nuland cookies ... Its main participants were outcasts from across the country, who, in fact, had nothing to lose. The outcasts very much wanted to take the property not just from "Donetskis", but also from "Kievskis", "Lvivskis", "Rivnenskis" and others," wrote, in particular, the author of the scientific publication.

          In addition, Lopata qualified the war in the Donbass as the genocide of the people in the east of the country by the army of Ukraine. "Today, the population of Donbass en masse is being systematically, and brutally destroyed by the Armed Forces and the National Guard of Ukraine, including through means and methods of warfare that are prohibited by international law," - wrote A. Lopata.

          The author also points out that "the authorities of the country have made a decision to urgently direct the entire Maidan "fuel" material to Eastern Ukraine;" and that "there is no aggression of Russia against Ukraine, but instead there is a US war with Russia in Donbass "to the last Ukrainian."

          [Oct 18, 2015] Irrational Unrequited Love of Ukrainians for the West

          This is how neocolonialism works: "global village' wants to move to "global town", while global town mercilessly exploits it.
          Notable quotes:
          "... There is also an important factor: several million Ukrainians work in Russia and in Europe. Comparing, they see that life in the European Union is more comfortable. And this also affects their geopolitical preferences . Finally, most of the residents of Ukraine, especially in the center and the west of the country perceived the reunion of the Crimea with the Russian Federation as an occupation of part of their country. And in relation to the events in Donbass the propaganda has convinced many people that it was not a rebellion against the new regime in Kiev, but Russia's aggression. Unfortunately, revanchist sentiments towards our country in Ukraine can last for a long time. I would even say that it is impossible to exclude the possibility of war between Russia and Ukraine. At least today it is bigger than zero. And even 2 years ago this assumption might seem an absurd fantasy. ..."
          "... Yes, there are still strong illusions of average Ukrainians in relation to Europe. Many people think that joining the EU and NATO would quickly help Ukraine improve the living standards of the population, to solve social problems and so on. Others, more realistically minded Ukrainians, think like this: yes, we know that Europe will not solve our problems, but we have no other choice. Now, Russia, if not an enemy, is at least an unfriendly state. And they do not believe in the economic prospects of the alliance with us. ..."
          "... public consciousness in Ukraine is largely irrational. Ive already talked about the persisting illusions of Ukrainian men from the street. It seems to him that only the West is able to protect Ukraine from the Russian aggression . This explains such a persistent and irrational focus on Europe. ..."
          "... it seems to me that the real percentage of Ukrainians who are in favor of strengthening cooperation with Russia on the territories controlled by Kiev is not much higher than what was revealed by the survey. ..."
          Oct 15, 2015 | Fort Russ
          Most citizens of "independent" Ukraine are disappointed with Maidan, but they still believe in Europe

          The public consciousness in Ukraine continues to amaze with its irrationality. This is confirmed by the poll conducted by the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES).

          Despite the fact that the majority of Ukrainians acknowledge that Euromaidan did not meet their expectations, a dominant sentiment in Ukraine is in favor of the pro-Western geopolitical course.

          49% of respondents are of the opinion that Ukraine should better strive to deepen relations with Europe, while the percentage of those who prefer a closer relationship with Russia is only 8%.

          At the same time 56% of Ukrainians believe that the country is moving in the wrong direction, and only 20% hold the opposite opinion. The notion that the country is moving in the wrong direction is spread across the country and is shared by the majority of citizens in each region.

          The survey was conducted on the territory of Ukraine, controlled by the Kiev government, without regard to the views of some four million people living in the LPR and the DPR.

          It would seem that in the last eighteen months Europe has demonstrated that it is in no hurry to recognize Ukraine as its "own". Western aid is given precisely in those volumes that prevent the final collapse of Ukraine's statehood. At the same time, due to the influx of Western goods and severance of economic ties with Russia hundreds of Ukrainian enterprises are closed. The latest news in this regard: in Ukraine it has become unprofitable to produce even sugar leading to the closing of 15 sugar mills.

          The situation in the post-Maidan economy of Ukraine is much worse, however it has not affected the unrequited love of Ukrainians to the West. Why is this the case and what will be the outcome?

          - We must understand that the process of Ukraine's reorientation to the West began long before the Maidan, - says the Head of the Center for Political Research of the Institute of Economics, Head of the Department of International Relations of the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Federation Boris Shmelev. - For a quarter century that has passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union, more than one generation of Ukrainians has grown who are convinced that it is necessary not to be friends with Russia, but with Europe. That only this friendship with the West will ensure the prosperity of Ukraine.

          There is also an important factor: several million Ukrainians work in Russia and in Europe. Comparing, they see that life in the European Union is more comfortable. And this also affects their "geopolitical preferences". Finally, most of the residents of Ukraine, especially in the center and the west of the country perceived the reunion of the Crimea with the Russian Federation as an occupation of part of their country. And in relation to the events in Donbass the propaganda has convinced many people that it was not a rebellion against the new regime in Kiev, but Russia's aggression. Unfortunately, revanchist sentiments towards our country in Ukraine can last for a long time. I would even say that it is impossible to exclude the possibility of war between Russia and Ukraine. At least today it is bigger than zero. And even 2 years ago this assumption might seem an absurd fantasy.

          "SP": - Why a year and a half since the "February coup" have not convinced Ukrainians that the EU is not going to make Ukraine a member state and that the West is helping Kiev only to the extent that the pro-Western regime does not collapse?

          - Yes, there are still strong illusions of average Ukrainians in relation to Europe. Many people think that joining the EU and NATO would quickly help Ukraine improve the living standards of the population, to solve social problems and so on. Others, more realistically minded Ukrainians, think like this: yes, we know that Europe will not solve our problems, but we have no other choice. Now, Russia, if not an enemy, is at least an unfriendly state. And they do not believe in the economic prospects of the alliance with us.

          "SP": - But it is impossible to escape the logic: as long as Ukraine maintained relatively good relations with Russia, the situation in the Ukrainian economy was more or less tolerable. And as soon as Kiev finally turned towards the West, the economy began to crumble ...

          - All this is true. But public consciousness in Ukraine is largely irrational. I've already talked about the persisting illusions of Ukrainian men from the street. It seems to him that only the West is able to protect Ukraine from the "Russian aggression". This explains such a persistent and irrational focus on Europe.

          "SP": - And can we explain such a low percentage of Russian sympathizers by the fact that some respondents, especially in the South-East of Ukraine are afraid to openly express their opinions?

          - Yes, it is possible. Although, it seems to me that the real percentage of Ukrainians who are in favor of strengthening cooperation with Russia on the territories controlled by Kiev is not much higher than what was revealed by the survey.

          [Oct 18, 2015] A Strong Press is the Best Defense Against Crony Capitalism

          Oct 18, 2015 | Economist's View

          Second Best, Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 12:28 PM

          a strong press is the best offense in support of crony capitalism since there is no good guy with a press to defend against a bad guy with a press

          Ignacio, Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 12:46 PM

          "When the media outlets in any country fail to challenge power, not only are they not part of the solution, they become part of the problem."

          That is the conclusion, unfortunately correct. Most media are part of the problem. Mary R marked another problem with media: Who are their clients? The advertisers or the readers/viewers?

          Dan Kervick, Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 01:58 PM

          "It is a corrupt form, in which incumbents and special-interest groups shape the rules of the game to their advantage, at the expense of everybody else: it is crony capitalism."

          Well, maybe. But the alternative, idealized non-corrupt form has probably never existed in the actual world - ever.

          Even if it did exist for a little while, it wouldn't last. You know what happens when people compete? Some people *win the competition*. And the winners acquire the power to make the rules, since there is no way of separating wealth from power. The tendency toward oligopoly, monopoly and the concentration of power is inherent in the normal functioning of capitalism. The ideal of maintaining some regulated perfect competition economy in which the playing field is perfectly level and none of the competitors has an institutional power advantage, is like trying to create a Monopoly game perpetually frozen in place at the first roll of the dice.

          Even if we had a perfect, perpetual balanced competition economy, it wouldn't be great, because life is about more than the struggle for victory and domination. The laissez faire nostalgists are still working to fit a 18th and 19th century mentality and reality into a 21st century world. A society based on free-wheeling entrepreneurial innovation, competition and exploitation might have made sense in a world of a few hundred million people moving out into the open spaces to exploit a planet filled with resources that earlier technology had been unable to acquire or use. But in our tight, crowded and environmentally stressed world, that no longer makes sense. We're going to have to get more organized and less competitive.

          Most intelligent people in the 20th century had gotten this. Then we in the US had a bit of a neoliberal holiday from history when we offshored industry elsewhere (along with its organized labor), and had a brief turbo period of high octane capitalism driven by financial games and services. But that era ended in 2008, and we're back to dealing with the inexorable crunch of history on a finite globe.

          likbez said in reply to Dan Kervick, Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 02:56 PM

          Great observation: "the alternative, idealized non-corrupt form has probably never existed in the actual world - ever."

          In a way free press is an ideal which can temporary exists when there are two countervailing forces of equal political power. So in a way free press can exist temporary in a very unstable society. So some level of suppression of "free press" is a norm. That does not mean that it this suppression should not be challenged. But the political stability of society probably requires a certain level of brainwashing and thus "unfree press".

          But existence of nation states with conflicting interests presuppose existence of some semblance, surrogate of "free press" coverage across the borders. like in court the testimony of each side should be given equal attention, for most people it can provide some minimal level of "alternative coverage" of major events.

          I noticed that despite GB being a vassal of the USA, British press provides much better, more realistic picture of major problems in the USA society and even better, more realistic coverage of both foreign and some, less connected with GB geopolitical interests, internal events such as presidential elections. If you add to your menu the press from "less friendly" states such as Iran, China and Russia you probably can be dig out some real information about events despite for of disinformation of MSM. Coverage of MH17 tragedy is the most recent example were relying of the USA MSM coverage would be totally unwise. Even The Guardian is a better deal.

          In the USSR Voice of America and BBC were great sources of information despite the fact people understand that they are government propaganda outlets. But since agenda of the USA and British government were different they still were valuable source of information about internal events and developments in the USSR.

          And I would dare to say the level of propaganda in coverage of foreign events today that we see in the USA MSM would let Pravda propagandists blush.

          Julio said in reply to likbez...

          Good observations. My own experience is that coverage in other countries often has a different perspective, and I feel more informed after viewing it. Even CNN in Spanish often provides somewhat different viewpoints!

          My favorite example is the runup to the Iraq war. To my surprise, the most balanced and informed articles I could find were in English versions of Iranian newspapers.

          pgl said...

          The ideal:

          "Inquisitive, daring and influential media outlets willing to take a strong stand against economic power are essential in a competitive capitalist society. They are our defense against crony capitalism."

          Our sad current situation:

          "When the media outlets in any country fail to challenge power, not only are they not part of the solution, they become part of the problem."

          Yes - many of the current media outlets are bought and paid for by the elites. That was his point!

          cm said in reply to pgl, Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 05:27 PM

          I suspect reliance on advertising revenue is the larger factor (and it is also a large factor in consolidation). Advertisers (and the corporate/business clients they represent) want to reach audiences likely to be convinced to buy the advertised products and services. This will work to suppress any "content" that is incompatible with ad placement or the ad's target audience, or not palatable to the ad client.

          Even "progressive" outlets are subject to this and have to at least tone down the controversy, i.e. self-censorship.

          Larry, Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 03:27 PM

          A strong, independent press would be a fine thing. Looking at the huge crowd of journalists who are so far in the tank for Clinton, it isn't obvious to me that corporatism is that big an issue. Did you see that Cheryl Mills was working at State while negotiating a deal for NYU with Abu Dhabi?

          Where is the press scrutiny/outrage over that? Journalism yawns!

          anne said in reply to Larry... Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 04:34 PM

          Do set down references:

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/while-at-state-clinton-chief-of-staff-held-job-negotiating-with-abu-dhabi/2015/10/12/e847b3be-6863-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html

          October 12, 2015

          While at State, Clinton chief of staff held job negotiating with Abu Dhabi
          By Rosalind S. Helderman

          likbez

          The first victim of war is truth. Similarly the first victim of neoliberalism (aka casino capitalism aka crony capitalism) is press.

          This nice dream of "free press" is incompatible with reality of neoliberal society which, is its core is a flavor of corporatism. Under corporatism free press exists only for people who own it.


          btg said... October 18, 2015 at 08:04 PM

          The problem is the the media is no longer a variety of owners with integrity but an oligopoly of Wall Street conglomerates or mega-media corporations run by ideologues pushing the agenda (Murdock, talk radio, etc.) - so we get coverage that is either gutless because it tries to give equal time to patently absurd right wing ideas, is rabidly pro-business or actively pushing for the right.

          Ben Groves said...

          All capitalism is crony. From the beginning through the 400 years of dialectics since 1630's Amsterdam when the Iberian Sephardic Immigrants brought it there.


          DeDude said... October 19, 2015 at 07:08 AM

          A strong press, in contrast to a corporate press, can indeed be a critical part of the defense of our democracy. But it can also be an enemy of democracy and a tool for the plutocrats - try to turn on Fox if you need an example.

          reason said...

          There is a crucial word missing - independent.

          [Oct 18, 2015] MH17 downed by outdated BUK missile fired from Kiev-controlled area – Defense system manufacturer

          Notable quotes:
          "... if you can explain any single interest of Russia to destroy civilian plane and kill 300 innocent people to gain public support from world, then I am curious to know it; sure, in totally crazy scenario, somebody can orchestrate it all and motivate somebody to target 777 by mistake or there can be some special services for false flag, but I am sure that this is absolutely risky business with the same bad PR as first case; far more, I can imagine, that somebody stupid tried to modulate it upon MH370 case media wave while escalating warfare and hate of somebody else; truth will be known, soon or later, be sure ..."
          Oct 13, 2015 | RT News

          In October, the BUK manufacturer conducted a second full-scale experiment using the missile and a decommissioned Ilyushin Il-86 passenger airliner. The simulation of the attack on the Boeing "unequivocally proved that if the plane was brought down by a BUK system, it was done with an outdated 9M38 missile from the village of Zaroshchenskoye," in Ukrainian military-controlled territory.

          The company also said that the last missile of this type was produced in the Soviet Union in 1986, that its life span is 25 years including all prolongations, and that all missiles of this type were decommissioned from the Russian Army in 2011.

          According to Almaz-Antey experts, the Dutch side does not explain why the investigation insists that the possible launch of the surface-to-air missile was executed from the settlement of Snezhnoye, controlled by rebel forces.

          A missile launched from Snezhnoye could not have inflicted damage to Boeing's left side and not a single element would have hit the aircraft's left wing and engine, insist the Almaz-Antey experts.

          ... ... ...

          The main proof that the aircraft was shot down from the direction of Snezhnoye was [the Dutch commission's] modeling of that process and interpretation of the damage to the fuselage. It does provide a quite visual imagery of how a missile on a head-on course could damage certain areas, yet this kind of modeling does not explain at all the real-incidence angles of striking elements [hitting the aircraft]," Novikov said.

          Analysis of the photos of MH17 debris led the company's experts to believe that the blast of the warhead damaged not only the cockpit of the Boeing 777 that crashed in Ukraine, but also the left wing and stabilizer.

          The detonation of the missile occurred at a distance of more than 20 meters from the left-wing engine and most of the strike elements were moving along the fuselage of the aircraft.

          ... ... ...

          The left wing and stabilizer also bear traces of damage, the size of which provides an opportunity to define them as inflicted by the strike elements of a BUK missile complex," adviser of the general constructor of Almaz-Antey, Mikhail Malyshevsky, said.

          The Almaz-Antey experts paid special attention to the fact that some of the damage registered on the MH17 debris was caused by disruption of the aircraft's structural components and not by the striking elements of the missile.

          The experts of Almaz-Antey also said that Ukraine possesses 9M38 missiles, but fell short of accusing either the Kiev authorities or the rebels in the east of Ukraine of causing the catastrophe.

          ... ... ...

          Simultaneously with the investigation of the Dutch Safety Board, the Dutch prosecutor's office is conducting a separate criminal investigation of its own aimed at establishing the perpetrators of the attack on passenger aircraft.

          A Malaysia Airlines Boeing-777 flight MH17 passenger aircraft left from Amsterdam to the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur on July 17, 2014. The airliner was shot down and fell to Earth over the Donetsk Region in eastern Ukraine. All 298 people, 283 passengers and 15 crew, on board were killed. There were 80 children among the passengers. Most, 193 people, were Dutch nationals; altogether the airliner was carrying citizens from 10 countries.

          djajakondomis 4 days ago 06:12

          As I said. Just read the report and supplements! The specified area consists mainly out of Rebel area...

          Almaz-Antei director Yan Novikov was involved during the investigation. There were even three main/big meetings, and every meeting took three days!
          At the second meeting Almaz-Antei director Yan Novikov even presented the 9N314M warhead himself. The investigation team was even happy that there was consensus. On the third meeting Yan Novikov suddenly said; well, it was only an example we presented.

          However, based for instance on the butterfly shape, the whole research team (of all countries) were convinced it was a 9N314M warhead, except suddenly the Russian delegation.

          This investigation was based on the parts found within the bodies!! Not something found on the ground or whatsoever...
          Read the report!

          Sergio Teixeira 4 days ago 02:05

          hanspy

          Show me the video from the blast and ad a speed of let us say 2000 kmh from the rocket(probably

          higher speed) plus 700 kmh from the plane and tell me than again how it looks. A blast with zero kmh speed looks totally different than a blast patron with 2700kmh or more. You Russians know exactly who did it and with what rocket and from where. So stop playing around and start to be real journalists and not some propaganda machine from Putin or Almaz-Antey .

          next they will say Sadam did it.

          Sergio Teixeira 4 days ago 02:04

          Af Veth
          Whatever, anyway Russian Forces downed MH17. Thats was it counting.
          not Russian but CIA to justify they needs.

          Sergio Teixeira 4 days ago 02:03

          Message deleted

          EU is slave from USA

          vladffff 4 days ago 01:03

          Took these rats 1 year to find this out?

          alrobigglesworth 5 days ago 21:01

          "[Almaz-Antey] added that among the materials received and examined by their experts were heavy fraction sub munitions, which only the older 9M38M1 missile modification is equipped with."

          That's a direct quote from the RT article from June 2015 regarding Almaz-Antey's first test.

          alrobigglesworth 5 days ago 20:32

          After their first "experiment" in June, Almaz-Antey said that "If a surface-to-air missile system was used [to hit the plane], it could only have been a 9M38M1 missile of the BUK-M1 system." Why is he changing his story, especially now that the Dutch Safety Board reached the same conclusion? Seems fishy.

          Petr Antoš 5 days ago 17:45

          hanspy

          Show me the video from the blast and ad a speed of let us say 2000 kmh from the rocket(probablymore...

          ummm, ok, they even offered to buy old 777 a let it be downed while flying on AP over military area to proof their analysis; if you can explain any single interest of Russia to destroy civilian plane and kill 300 innocent people to gain public support from world, then I am curious to know it; sure, in totally crazy scenario, somebody can orchestrate it all and motivate somebody to target 777 by mistake or there can be some special services for false flag, but I am sure that this is absolutelly risky business with the same bad PR as first case; far more, I can imagine, that somebody stupid tried to modulate it upon MH370 case media wave while escalating warfare and hate of somebody else; truth will be known, soon or later, be sure

          hanspy 5 days ago 17:28

          Show me the video from the blast and ad a speed of let us say 2000 kmh from the rocket(probably higher speed) plus 700 kmh from the plane and tell me than again how it looks. A blast with zero kmh speed looks totally different than a blast patron with 2700kmh or more. You Russians know exactly who did it and with what rocket and from where. So stop playing around and start to be real journalists and not some propaganda machine from Putin or Almaz-Antey .

          Norma Brown 5 days ago 15:04

          this is a good result for Russia, as the only government involved that can be sued for criminal stupidity is Kiev, for allowing the flight into a war zone.

          [Oct 18, 2015] Zaroshchenske vs Snizhne as a launch point: early controversy

          After MH17 was shot done all intelligence services of NATO (with a lot of high tech) as well as Ukrainian SBU (with a lot of people on the ground; enough to monitor all major roads) were on alert. So the hypothesis that they were unable to locate the launch platform is a very weak hypothesis. It was next to impossible for rebels to move it from Snizhne to, say, Russia. This is a serious problem with version that it was BUK, unless it was a Ukrainian BUK.
          Looks like Snizhne was pushed as a smoke screen to deflect attention from Ukrainians.
          Notable quotes:
          "... The US release of this illustration (below) of the area lacks resolution and scale, so no launcher can be seen. The firing location and the green line of trajectory are unverified guesswork. The US has not presented evidence that on July 17 a Buk-M1 battery was in Snizhne. ..."
          "... the Russian evidence for a Ukrainian military launcher at Zaroshchenske puts the distance between this pre-firing location and the purported Snizhne launch position at less than 25 kilometres. ..."
          July 23, 2014 | Dances With Bears
          Russian generals Andrei Kartapolov (Army) and Igor Makushev (Air Force) have presented satellite pictures showing that on or before July 17 the Ukrainian military moved at least three Buk-M1 missile batteries – comprising a tracked launcher and a target acquisition radar van – out of their depot north of Donetsk, and into positions, all of which were within 30 kilometres of the Boeing's flight path; the SA-11's range is 30 kilometres. One unit in particular was photographed at the village of Zaroshchenske, south of the bigger settlement of Shakhtarsk, and south of the main road H21. This position is about 15 kilometres from the M17 flight path and from the impact site.

          The Russian location evidence can be seen on this Google map:

          ua_map
          Click for wider view of locations: https://www.google.co.uk/

          The US release of this illustration (below) of the area lacks resolution and scale, so no launcher can be seen. The firing location and the green line of trajectory are unverified guesswork. The US has not presented evidence that on July 17 a Buk-M1 battery was in Snizhne. But the Russian evidence for a Ukrainian military launcher at Zaroshchenske puts the distance between this pre-firing location and the purported Snizhne launch position at less than 25 kilometres. There is also a gap of several hours between the time of the Russian photograph and the confirmed firing time at 1720. Between the two locations, highway H21 would allow a mobile launcher unit and radar van to redeploy within 45 to 60 minutes.

          surface_map

          The Russian radar tracks identify the presence of a small Ukrainian aircraft with Su-25 identifiers on the Boeing flight path, and within range of the ground missile launcher within minutes of the shoot-down. The US intelligence briefing neither confirms nor denies the presence in the air of the Su-25; no US satellite or radar records have been released to corroborate the point. Instead, the US briefing denies the Su-25 fired rockets at the Boeing.

          Responding to the Russian radar presentation, President Petro Poroshenko told CNN the presentation was the "irresponsible and false statement of the Russian [defense] minister". Poroshenko appeared not to be familiar with the Russian radar evidence. He said: "When the Russian [Defense] ministry makes such a statement, it must provide proof. The sky over Ukraine is monitored by many satellites and air defense systems. Everyone knows that all Ukrainian planes were on the ground several hundred kilometres away [from the crash site]

          [Oct 17, 2015] Assad thinks that an independent state working for the interests of people is better then the state working for the interests of the West

          "... The Syrian government maintains a commitment to a strong welfare state, for example ensuring universal access to healthcare (in which area its performance has been impressive) and providing free education at all levels. It has a long-established policy of secularism and multiculturalism, protecting and celebrating its religious and ethnic diversity and refusing to tolerate sectarian hatred …" ..."
          "... Yes, Walter Cronkite remarked in his autobiography on the harmonious secularism of Syria from an actual visit, in which he said he noted various religious denominations living in one another's neighbourhoods with no apparent religious acrimony or intolerance at all. ..."
          "... The USA is determined to get control of the gas supply to Europe because it perceives that Russia has too much influence there because of said supply, as well as the popular trope that Russia has nothing but oil and gas and if the USA could capture their markets, they'd be paupers in a year. ..."
          "... 12 headline stories listed. None about the Ukraine, MH17 and Syria. ..."
          "... Parubiy, who founded the Social National Party of Ukraine together with Oleh Tyahnybok (the current leader of the far-right Svoboda party), will be speaking at RUSI whilst visiting London. ..."
          "... I remain convinced that the army of humanitarian interventionists fetishise 'democracy promotion' abroad largely to avoid looking at how it's playing out at home. ..."
          marknesop.wordpress.com
          Jen, October 15, 2015 at 9:54 pm

          BTW for anyone who is interested, here is a June 2015 article by Jay Tharappel on political reforms made in Syria in 2012 and the new constitution that was approved by the Syrian public via referendum in that year:
          https://ingaza.wordpress.com/2015/06/04/tharappel-how-has-syrias-political-system-changed-over-the-course-of-the-war/#_blank

          What Tharappel says:

          " … The new constitution introduced a multi-party political system in the sense that the eligibility of political parties to participate isn't based on the discretionary permission of the Baath party or on reservations rather on a constitutional criteria.

          As such, the new constitution forbids political parties that are based on religion, sect or ethnicity, or which are inherently discriminatory towards one's gender or race (2012: Art.8) – this means the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is still banned.

          What hasn't changed is the constitutional requirement that half the People's Council be comprised of 'workers and peasants' (1973: Art.53 | 2012: Art.60), which in practice means that the ballot paper contains two lists, one with candidates who qualify as 'workers and peasants', and another one with other candidates …

          … The Baath party no longer enjoys constitutional privilege. Presidential elections are contested between multiple candidates, and are no longer referendums seeking the electorate's binary (yes or no) approval for the Baath party's internally nominated candidate.

          The participation of political parties is based on an objective constitutional criteria [sic], not on the arbitrary powers of the executive to permit or exclude them.

          Finally, the Supreme Constitutional Court is significantly more independent."

          Another interesting article on Syria, this one by Carlos Martinez in 2013:

          http://www.invent-the-future.org/2013/09/decriminalising-bashar/#_blank

          " … In the words of its president, Syria is "an independent state working for the interests of its people, rather than making the Syrian people work for the interests of the West." For over half a century, it has stubbornly refused to play by the rules of imperialism and neoliberalism … [In] spite of some limited market reforms of recent years, "the Ba'athist state has always exercised considerable influence over the Syrian economy, through ownership of enterprises, subsidies to privately-owned domestic firms, limits on foreign investment, and restrictions on imports. These are the necessary economic tools of a post-colonial state trying to wrest its economic life from the grips of former colonial powers and to chart a course of development free from the domination of foreign interests."

          The Syrian government maintains a commitment to a strong welfare state, for example ensuring universal access to healthcare (in which area its performance has been impressive) and providing free education at all levels. It has a long-established policy of secularism and multiculturalism, protecting and celebrating its religious and ethnic diversity and refusing to tolerate sectarian hatred …"

          So in other words, there is now no longer any justification for the US-led overthrow of Bashar al Assad because he is a "dictator".

          marknesop , October 16, 2015 at 7:35 am
          Yes, Walter Cronkite remarked in his autobiography on the harmonious secularism of Syria from an actual visit, in which he said he noted various religious denominations living in one another's neighbourhoods with no apparent religious acrimony or intolerance at all.

          I have suggested before that Assad doomed himself when he refused Qatar's offer to run a gas pipeline across Syria and so to Turkey and Europe, for the expressed reason that he would not stab Russia in the back, and double-doomed himself when he accepted a similar offer from Iran, with whom Russia has no issues because it is not under American control.

          The USA is determined to get control of the gas supply to Europe because it perceives that Russia has too much influence there because of said supply, as well as the popular trope that Russia has nothing but oil and gas and if the USA could capture their markets, they'd be paupers in a year.

          Moscow Exile , October 16, 2015 at 4:35 am

          An alleged experiment in cutting off Russia from the Internet as part of "preparations for an information blackout in the event of a domestic political crisis". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11934411/Russia-tried-to-cut-off-World-Wide-Web.html

          A domestic political crisis?

          In your wet dreams, arseholes!

          Unbeknown to Western know-nothings about matters Russian, very many Russians are well aware of the lies spewed out by the Western mass media: the same cannot be said of Westerners and their knowledge of what Russians read in their media.

          See: inoСМИ.Ru

          I notice that in the British lying rags, the Ukraine has been pushed off the front page, as has the MH17 story and now Syria is being shunted to the sidelines.

          Nothing to see here! Move along now!

          In today's Telegraph, a German big-game hunter's shooting of a massive bull elephant overrides a Syria story on the front online page. MH17 and the Ukraine gets no mention at all.

          Today's headlines:

          Scenes of devastation as huge mudslide strikes California leaving thousands stranded
          Hatton Garden raider 'shows police where he hid jewels'
          'Half empty' private jets carry failed asylum seekers home
          SNP accused of 'happy clappy smothering' of second Scottish independence referendum debate
          Pc Dave Phillips murder: two women and a man charged with assisting offender

          12 headline stories listed. None about the Ukraine, MH17 and Syria.

          Jeremn, October 16, 2015 at 7:57 am

          Parubiy, who founded the Social National Party of Ukraine together with Oleh Tyahnybok (the current leader of the far-right Svoboda party), will be speaking at RUSI whilst visiting London.

          https://www.rusi.org/events/ref:E5617D97483FB3/

          Moscow Exile , October 16, 2015 at 11:12 am

          How the number of Ukrainians in Russia has grown:

          Всего в период с 1 апреля 2014 г. на территорию Российской Федерации въехало и не убыло по состоянию на указанную дату 1 089 618 граждан юго-востока Украины.

          Just in the period starting 1 April 2014, into the territory of the Russian Federation have entered and not left as of a specified date 1,089,618 citizens of South-East Ukraine.

          Fern , October 16, 2015 at 7:39 pm

          I remain convinced that the army of humanitarian interventionists fetishise 'democracy promotion' abroad largely to avoid looking at how it's playing out at home.

          [Oct 17, 2015] Russia's 'Import Substitution' Isn't Working

          Mark Adomanis became a turncoat and defected to the "dark side". Some problems for Russia are given. Still it is pretty valiant attempt in view of the dominance of the USA in world economy and, especially, finance. Also this is form of economic attack of EU: some European firms lost Russian market "forever". So far American firms are fared better but Coca-cola, Pepsi, chicken producers, and McDonalds might suffer.
          Oct 15, 2015 | http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2015/10/15/russias-import-substitution-isnt-working/

          Some very intelligent people saw this coming a long way off, accurately predicting that heightened tensions with America and the European Union would empower precisely those areas of the Russian economy that the West wants to see weakened

          ... ... ...

          From the second quarter of 2014 through the second quarter of 2015, the ruble value of Russia's imports decreased by almost 30% (the ruble value of exports, meanwhile, actually increased). That's actually not terribly surprising. When a currency depreciates as much as the ruble has over the past year you would expect imports to take a significant hit.

          But what has happened to domestic manufacturing? Has Russian business stepped into the space vacated by Western goods that are no longer affordable to many Russian consumers?

          So far, at least, the answer is a definite no. Official Rosstat data show that through the first half of 2015, Russian manufacturing actually shrunk by about 2.8%. The only sectors of the economy to show any growth were agriculture (up 2.4%), natural resource extraction (up 2.4%), and public administration (up 0.7%). The areas of the Russian economy where private business predominates, particularly consumer retail, have been absolutely walloped, with the overall retail sector shrinking by almost 9% over the past six months.

          ... ... ...

          Victor Lar 2 days ago

          Russian Cheese Production Surges 30% After Ban on Western Imports: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russian-cheese-production-surges-30-after-ban-on-western-imports/521891.html

          [Oct 16, 2015] Just three pieces of shrapnel supposedly points to BUK by John Helmer

          For some reason they investigate only version of surface to air missile. Possibility of air to air missile was not investigated. Dutch reps could attend Almaz-Antey experiments and collect shrapnel from them. They did not do this. Also they demonstrated provable negligence in collecting evidence (Ukraine at this point was EU vassal state and one phone call from Brussel would exclude any shelling of the area). The question why the plane was brought to the particular area was answered "to avoid thunderstorms". I doubt that at this altitude they can affect the plane. All this points to a cover up of Ukrainian false flag operation.
          "... According to the DSB, "no unalloyed steel fragments were found in the remains of the passengers". ..."
          "... 20 were found on analysis to include layers of aluminium or glass. The DSB's explanation is that the external explosion of a missile warhead had propelled these fragments through the cockpit windows and aluminium panels of the fuselage, fusing with the glass and aluminium before striking the three crew members in the cockpit at the time. ..."
          "... The DSB conclusion is that these fragments came from a missile warhead, but not conclusively from a Buk missile warhead type 9N314M. The evidence for this Buk warhead comes, the DSB reports, from 4 – repeat four – fragments. ..."
          "... Because Buk shrapnel is understood to have such cubic and bow-tie shapes, there are just four fragments to substantiate it. If the autopsy evidence is regarded as the only source that could not have been contaminated on the ground, or in the interval between the crash and the forensic testing in The Netherlands, there are just three fragments which fit the Buk bill. ..."
          "... By failing to identify the location of these parts, the finders, or the dates on which they were sent to Holland, the DSB does not rule out that this evidence may have been fabricated. ..."
          johnhelmer.net

          AUTOPSY OF THE MH17 CRASH - DUTCH SAFETY BOARD REVEALS 3 POSSIBLE PIECES OF BUK SHRAPNEL IN THE BODIES OF THE COCKPIT CREW, AND CHEMICAL EVIDENCE IT CANNOT SUBSTANTIATE - AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE ISSUE PUBLIC REJECTION OF AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT ALLEGATIONS

          Eight pages of the DSB report – pages 88 to 95 - focus on the metal fragments. The number of these starts at "over 500 recovered from the wreckage of the aeroplane, the remains of the crew members and passengers." Many, apparently most, of these fragments turned out to be "personal belongings, aeroplane parts or objects that originated from the ground after impact." According to the DSB, "many were metal fragments that were suspected to be high-energy objects." Of these just 72 were investigated further because they were "similar in size, mass and shape." 43 of this 72 were "found to be made of unalloyed steel". The term "shrapnel" may be a synonym for "unalloyed steel fragments", but the word doesn't appear at all in the DSB report. According to the DSB, "no unalloyed steel fragments were found in the remains of the passengers".

          Of the 43 steel fragments investigated thoroughly - all of them recovered from the bodies of the cockpit crew or in the wreckage of the cockpit - 20 were found on analysis to include layers of aluminium or glass. The DSB's explanation is that the external explosion of a missile warhead had propelled these fragments through the cockpit windows and aluminium panels of the fuselage, fusing with the glass and aluminium before striking the three crew members in the cockpit at the time.

          The DSB conclusion is that these fragments came from a missile warhead, but not conclusively from a Buk missile warhead type 9N314M. The evidence for this Buk warhead comes, the DSB reports, from 4 – repeat four – fragments. These, "although heavily deformed and damaged, had distinctive shapes; cubic and in the form of a bow-tie". The DSB's exact count is two cubic shapes, two bow-ties. One bow-tie was recovered from the cockpit wreckage; one from the body of a cockpit crew member. Both cubic fragments were found in the bodies of the crew members.

          Because Buk shrapnel is understood to have such cubic and bow-tie shapes, there are just four fragments to substantiate it. If the autopsy evidence is regarded as the only source that could not have been contaminated on the ground, or in the interval between the crash and the forensic testing in The Netherlands, there are just three fragments which fit the Buk bill.

          Source: http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf -- page 92

          In addition, the DSB says it has examined chemical residues of the warhead explosive, and paint particles from the surface of missile parts reportedly recovered from the ground. Exactly where, when, and by whom the purported missile parts were found the DSB does not identify. In Section 2:12:2:8 of the report, the DSB says that "during the recovery of the wreckage, a number of parts that did not originate from the aeroplane and its content were found in the wreckage area. The parts found appeared to be connected with a surface-to-air missile. The parts that were suspected to be related to a surface-to-air missile were transported to the Gilze-Rijen Air Force Base [in The Netherlands; also reported as the Hilversum Army Base] in the same way as the aeroplane wreckage was. On arrival the parts underwent the same examination as the pieces of aeroplane wreckage." By failing to identify the location of these parts, the finders, or the dates on which they were sent to Holland, the DSB does not rule out that this evidence may have been fabricated. At page 53 the DSB admits that "many pieces of the wreckage" were either not examined physically "until four months after the crash", or not recovered for examination for up to nine months after the July 17, 2014, downing.

          Source: http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf -- page 81

          [Oct 16, 2015] "Almaz-Antey" have accused the Netherlands of falsifying the map of where the Boeing crashed

          "... Even though "Almaz-Antey" had informed the Netherlands board in advance that the "Buk" SAM could have only been launched at the Boeing from the area of the village of Zaroshchenskoe (which at the time was under the control of the Ukrainian military) and that this had been confirmed by field tests, the Dutch coloured the launch area of the missile in a very different place on the map. (see map). ..."
          www.kp.ru
          Moscow Exile, October 15, 2015 at 9:37 pm

          "Almaz-Antey" have accused the Netherlands of falsifying the map of where the Boeing crashed

          This time the Netherlands Commission of Inquiry has been caught lying red-handed about the Russian concern "Almaz-Antey", which developed the "Buk" anti-aircraft missile systems. "Almaz-Antey" has announced that a map covering the 320 square kilometer area from where a missile targeted against the Boeing could have been launched is not only erroneous but also that the Dutch in their report had indicated that their data were supposedly consistent with "Almaz-Antey"calculations. That is, they covered up their concoctions with the authoritative report of the Russian company.

          Even though "Almaz-Antey" had informed the Netherlands board in advance that the "Buk" SAM could have only been launched at the Boeing from the area of the village of Zaroshchenskoe (which at the time was under the control of the Ukrainian military) and that this had been confirmed by field tests, the Dutch coloured the launch area of the missile in a very different place on the map. (see map).

          [Oct 16, 2015] Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 'most likely' it was shot down from ground Discussion

          The US key strategy is the same as British -- to cut Europe from Russia. This time it again work brilliantly... The fact the USA are withholding evidence implicates Kiev.
          "... Because it was supposed to clearly show that rebels did it . No need to rely on social media and other unreliable sources. Plus it was classified before ut was mentioned about. So you fake democrat and liberal really wasn't to live in the world where you will be prosecuted on sure information that is so secret that nobody can know about it ;) ..."
          "... How guys like you can pretend to love Orwell so much? Don't you realize today the joke is on you? ..."
          "... Do you understand that this is not a regular crash incident? Based on the unsupported assumptions there are already economic sanctions imposed and the world is gearing up for the WW3. How dumb can you be not to notice the difference? ..."
          "... Ukies shot the plane down stupidly hoping the blame will fall on Russia and NATO will declare war on Putin amidst worldwide uproar and indignation. They now may realize they had committed murder most foul for nothing. This kinda reminds of the play 'Macbeth'. What's done cannot be undone. ..."
          "... Almost all the damage concentrated in cockpit/front fuselage. Now how does that tie to the BUK scenario exactly? how does the damage from High energy objects conform to sharpnel from BUK especially as there are both entry and exit holes? ..."
          "... "The specific area where the fatal missile was fired is not in fact under control of the "pro-Russia rebels". It is run by a neo-nazi private mercenary army, raised by Ukrainian billionaire Ihor Kolomoisky. ..."
          "... Kolomoisky stinks of being an asset of the US and Israeli intelligence services, at minimum. ..."
          "... Dutch Prime Minister Rutte had to acknowledge on TV on September 12th that the Netherlands had refused to even communicate with the Separatist. This extreme partisan position of the Dutch government disqualifies it from leading the investigation and has obviously hampered the investigation up till now. ..."
          "... This extreme partisan position of the Dutch government also clarifies why the role of UkSATSE isn't questioned. ..."
          "... the question 'who launched a missile' is actually less relevant than 'who created the situation by allowing MH17 to fly there'. ..."
          "... UkSATSE failed to close that airspace after july 14 whena AN-24 was downed from 6500m and only restricted up to 10km. 6500m is beyond the man portable system range. ..."
          "... The report section 2.4.3 issued by the investigation simply stated that MH17 complied to the restrictions issued by UkSATSE. By ignoring the most obvious question the investigation was now under serious doubt but the extreme partisan positioning as revealed by the Dutch minister put that report in the 'beyond doubt partisan category'. ..."
          "... On the other hand, if Kiev can shoot down the airliner and blame the separatists, or even better, Russia, then they would be backed by the west. Who has the most to gain? ..."
          "... Then we have an investigation where all members have to agree with the report or a single member can veto the release, which is why they are not allowed to assign blame, and why they have not been allowed to state anything more than they have. ..."
          "... I doubt any hard evidence will ever come out, and we will have to settle for innuendo and finger pointing, allowing the west to isolate Russia even further till the missile shield network sits right on their borders. ..."
          "... What I find a bit troubling is that the obvious conclusion -- that the plane was hit by a ground fired missile -- isn't backed up by any intelligence. Its reasonable to think that the US's NRO is watching the Ukraine closely so they should have been able to get almost real time confirmation of the launcher's position and use. ..."
          "... Nobody willingly takes down an airliner unless there's serious propaganda to be made from it. So its either a serious screwup by the rebels or something rather more evil by the blackops types. (I'd regard the latter as a tinfoil helmet theory except that we've found out time and again that these people are capable of doing anything provided it achieves their goal.) ..."
          "... Yes indeed, US satellite data is highly secret unless it backs up the US Government's claims. I don't suppose you're old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis and the release of all sort of reconnaissance on the matter. ..."
          "... Some suggest that an air to air missile might then be the cause of the fragmentation...but this also is problematic, most AA missiles are not powerful enough to take out a large civil aircraft. Many instances of smaller less well built passenger planes surviving AA strikes have been recorded...But 2 or 3 might do it..but the pilots would surely called Mayday.. They didn't, suggesting they had no idea what hit them, ..."
          "... Conclusion: Still no closer to knowing which side brought it down, whether it was just a cock up, or a black flag. Plenty of propaganda, accusations, denials, but any real evidence so far is very thin on the ground. ..."
          "... It's funny how the press are falling over themselves to say it was definitely Russians, the EU are desperate for it to be Russians, the Americans are desperate for it to be Russians - so when something factual comes out that doesn't toe the expectant line they have to drop in the odd implication and suggested line. ..."
          "... the heavy coat of varnish that's clearly been applied to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report. ..."
          "... It's clear that Kiev benefited the most from the event, and the US exploited is to the fullest to impose sanctions on Russia before any investigation was even initiated. The reluctance of both Kiev and the US to provide evidence required for the investigation is bound to raise questions. ..."
          "... This horrible tragedy has been and no doubt will be exploited for petty political gains. I am sorry to see even the Dutch entering this shameful game by signing that non-disclosure agreement with one of the suspects, the Kiev government. ..."
          "... Sadly this 100-year old British company has been compromised being taken over by a Canadian company belonging to zionists. Canadian PM Harper is a blind follower of Israeli extremists. So V Putin is enemy number one and you can't use Reuters as an unbiased source once more. Russia has had to up its game recently in the Arctic purely because Harper has become aggressive to please the US. ..."
          "... Kiev Russian-speaking soldiers disguised as Donbass security forces ( rebels ) could have driven a Buk into the Donbass, fired the missile and then driven back, making sure to be seen by foreign journalists ( Ukraine is a huge country, how come the journalists were on the same spot at the right moment to see the Buk driving around ? very convenient..) ..."
          "... The US and Israel both have motives to shoot the plane down. They had been convicted of war crimes in KL last year and their cases sent to the ICC in Holland. MH17 was also full of Dutch passengers - right ..."
          "... Plus, the ukraine airforce is in a bad state due to lack of funds. So the US and Israelis were providing assistance, also Poland and Lithuania, of pilots and equipment. No-one knows who was piloting the two Su-25s detected by Russian radar. ..."
          "... I did not speculate on why the pilot did not want to climb. It make no difference. By refusing the order the pilot assumed responsibility for the fate of the plane. Civil aviation pilots have no right to refuse orders of competent ground authorities and still enjoy the protections granted by international treaties to civil aviation. ..."
          "... I don't understand your statement about the report says there was no abnormal communication . Are you contesting my claim that the pilot refused an order to climb up just minutes before being hit? I'm basing my claim on what I read in previous articles in the Guardian on this. It could be wrong. I wasn't there personally. ..."
          "... Since the Ukraine has veto power over publication of the findings, this whole investigation is a whitewash. Why isn't Russia part of the investigation with veto power? Giving one of the suspects in a crime the ability to block publication of the findings is ludicrous. ..."
          "... I am quite sure that bullets are high energy objects but the Western media seems to ignore that possibility, as it would implicate Ukraine, which has veto power over any publication of findings. ..."
          "... Just a little tip. Don't ever use anything that comes out of the Kiev offices. It is all 100% unbelievable. All of it. ..."
          "... All of this is just speculation. Question 1: where are the Satellite images of that area at that exact time? Question 2: where are the audio transmissions between the crew and the flight towers? Question 3: why did the BBC remove its own segment that was done shortly afterwards where they had people on record stating that they had seen a jet flying behind if? Question 4: who ordered the BBC remove its own segment? Question 5: If the pilots where shot at by a 'jet' as is believed by many - what about the autopsies of the pilots? Were any done? What did they find. Question 6: if a BUK missile had taken it down how come there was not a trail from the missile? These missiles do leave a rather distinctive trial behind them that is seen for kilometers. Question 7: who ordered the plane to fly lower than was deemed safe for that area? So many questions and so little facts… Perhaps they questions do not fit the narrative? ..."
          "... The mere fact that the United States MSM has dropped this topic like a hot potato (compare CNN coverage of MH17 with the endless coverage of MH370) and the complete lack of verified NATO or US or CIA satellite data implies that the Russians were not at fault here. ..."
          Oct 16, 2015 | The Guardian
          Antidyatel -> DELewes 15 Sep 2014 06:41

          Because it was supposed to "clearly show that rebels did it". No need to rely on social media and other unreliable sources. Plus it was classified before ut was mentioned about. So you fake democrat and liberal really wasn't to live in the world where you will be prosecuted on sure information that is so secret that nobody can know about it ;)

          How guys like you can pretend to love Orwell so much? Don't you realize today the joke is on you?

          Shaneo -> DELewes 15 Sep 2014 04:55

          Ok, but John Kerry claimed to have seen the imagery of the launch, so you don't need to say 'likely' launch site.

          Ask to see this imagery and we will know where the launch site is.

          Will you do this?

          And does it not make you suspicious that this imagery is being withheld?

          Antidyatel -> ShermanPotter 15 Sep 2014 03:46

          Do you understand that this is not a regular crash incident? Based on the unsupported assumptions there are already economic sanctions imposed and the world is gearing up for the WW3. How dumb can you be not to notice the difference?

          I will give you a better example. The PRELIMINARY report by FEMA on 9/11 was released in May 2002 - that was very heavy in terms of pages and released in May 2002 (8 months after the event). It was heavy in terms of pages and contained data not only about 4 planes and 3 buildings. It was quite detailed in terms of TECHNICAL data.

          There is absolutely no reason to withheld the factual data for public analysis. Particularly in this situation. The facts about the event will not change. Or should I stress on it - the already available facts SHOULD not change no matter how commission will later interpret them.

          Antidyatel 2meters 15 Sep 2014 03:19

          Calm down with Su-25 theory. Even if Russian MoD was implying possible culpability of that plane, they didn't make the direct accusation. The whole mentioning was less than a minute out of the whole 30 min presentation, in which the main focus was on 4 Ukrainian BUKs in the area. Just from this proportion one can asses the priority of the versions that Russian MoD was considering.

          So stop fighting windmills, my Don Quixote!

          Antidyatel 2meters 15 Sep 2014 03:12

          First of all, where did you get the data about 55 km?

          Even the latest modification of BUK-M2. While everyone is talking about BUK-M1. More to this, it is mainly claimed that a stand alone 9A310 unit was witnessed. It has FIRE DOME radar with max engagement range of 35 km (some sources limit it to 32 km)

          So your convinced part goes down the drain!

          Second, do you understand that the maximum radar range represents a radius of a 3D sphere? For the target flying at 10 km the relevant projection on the 2D map will be 33.5 km.

          Let's stop at this for now.

          2meters Antidyatel 15 Sep 2014 02:19

          And NO. And SU-25 fighter jet cannot "gain an altitude of 10km" as the Russian Defense Ministry asserted on July 21.

          According to its specification its altitude ceiling is 7 km, even though someone working Kremlin servers changed that to 10 km on Russian Wikipedia, hours after the Russian Defense Ministry's press conference.

          http://gawker.com/did-russian-officials-edit-wikipedia-to-back-up-a-bogus-1609071757

          2meters Antidyatel 15 Sep 2014 02:03

          No it is not what they were telling.

          What I put in quotes is EXACTLY what the Russian Defense Ministry was telling us.

          MoD didn't accuse that the plane was involved.

          You are not getting this, are you ?
          Let me spell it out :

          That SU-25 DID NOT EXIST !

          Radar would have shown it, and it did not.
          Even General Peter Deinekin states that probably what the Russian Defence Ministry showed on their radar image was probably a part of MH-17 breaking off.

          If the Russian Defense Ministry would have actually shown the radar timelap (video) of when and where that dot on their radar actually appeared, then we could have all seen that for ourselves.

          But they did not, since it was no SU-25. It was a part of MH-17 breaking off.

          Instead they used the radar images of the PIECES of a civilian airliner that killed 298 innocent people to create a SU-25 conspiracy and point the finger at Ukraine.

          Despicable.

          Antidyatel -> jimbuluk 15 Sep 2014 01:30

          Is there any original source that explains the meaning behind "transponder data became unreliable at 13:18Z"?
          Where did the Aviation Herald got this data from?

          2meters -> Antidyatel 15 Sep 2014 01:27

          Antidytel, yes, MH-17 was probably about 35 km away from the BUK launch site south of Snizhne when the crew pressed the launch button.

          The radar range of a single BUK TELAR is at least 55 km.

          At 250 m/sec, MH 17 will thus have been on the BUK search radar something like 80 sec before they launched the missile.

          Even with conservative estimates of missile flight time and path, the Snizhne BUK launch crew had about a minute to lock on their radar, and wait for the 'target' to come into range.

          Convinced now ?

          Antidyatel -> ShermanPotter 14 Sep 2014 23:59

          I have to disagree with you. Even preliminary technical report should contain the technical data already available. There is no justifiable reason for withholding any information. The next report can just add new information.

          So the preliminary report should have provided:

          1) Civil and military radar data from Ukraine. It is very unprofessional for them not to at least request it from Ukraine side. If Ukraine refused to provide it, it should have been clearly stated

          2) ATC communications along the whole route of MH17

          3) full transcript from voice recorder. You can't possible believe that pilots were flying in total silence

          4) Technical data from the second black box on plane parameters. Particularly the data from gyroscope that would give the most precise data on the plane actual route

          5) other critical parameters.

          Seriously it is not a herculean task for a 2 months of job. They have a whole team to do it. How unprofessional can they be to fail with such simple task?

          The purpose of the preliminary report is not to give the abridged/filtered version of the data. The purpose should be tor provide the available data but to make only PRELIMINARY conclusions. Only in this sense it can be called preliminary.

          The current report can only be described by words SELECTIVE, EDITED, FILTERED and BIASED!!!

          Antidyatel -> notherLex21 14 Sep 2014 22:36

          4 different BUKs in the vicinity of the crash site were detected by Russians based on these BUKs' outgoing radar signal.

          Let's consider your points:
          1) BUK system captured by rebels in Luhansk region, was incomplete so the maximum radar range was 22 km. But we can first consider the improbable scenario that Russians first sneaked in and then sneaked our the complete set for the BUK system. Ok we can exclude the loader. So let's just say 2 units (actual launcher and radar unit), hence temporally I can agree on 35 km.
          2) If you go to google maps and estimate the distance from Snizhne (proposed location for rebel BUK) to Krasiy Luch (FDR point) it is approximately 24 km. (version of incomplete BUK system can already be discarded). BUK max missile speed 850 m/s. 24 km it will travel in 28 sec. BUK requires minimum 15 sec to lock on target. So even if we assume that "best" scenario, Boeing was traveling for minimum 43 sec before it's first appearance on BUK radar and rocket hitting it. Cruise speed of Boeing 777 ~ 900 km/h. So we get roughly 11 km. Just nice 35 km. But this is minimum. For example, the rocket doesn't reach 850 m/sec immediately.
          The point is that it would have been an extremely "lucky" coincidence for this scenario to work. And again I repeat, it will require the full set of BUK units, not just the launcher. The so named "proofs" of Russians sneaking in and out such a system are so laughable that I can't understand how people can talk seriously about it.
          4) The reference to the territory held by rebels is also laughable. The total number of rebels on that moment was ~5000. But even if we take 10,000, you will get a fraction of a rebel per square kilometre, if we assume that they are distributed equally. In reality majority of them were concentrated in fixed positions around Lughansk, Donetsk and Saur Mogila. also large portion of them was involved is annihilating surrounded UA units. If UA wanted to bring in BUKs into so named rebel controlled area there would be no problem with it.

          SirDeadpool 14 Sep 2014 22:31

          Ukies shot the plane down stupidly hoping the blame will fall on Russia and NATO will declare war on Putin amidst worldwide uproar and indignation. They now may realize they had committed murder most foul for nothing. This kinda reminds of the play 'Macbeth'. What's done cannot be undone.

          bobby_fisher ShermanPotter 14 Sep 2014 18:14

          ShermanPotter -- Antidyatel
          14 Sep 2014 16:09
          The key is in the title it's a preliminary report...

          So you basically agree that presented data is incomplete....I also hope your level of English language comprehension will allow you to distinguish black box recordings and conversations between civilian ATC and military command that is not in the report, and according to Ukrainian reports was confiscated from civilian controllers.

          notherLex21 jimbuluk 14 Sep 2014 16:46

          when the transponder data became unreliable at 13:18Z (position N48.28 E38.08)"

          The DSB rapport-mh-17-en-interactief.pdf shows the transcript (page 15) where MH17 pilots last reply is at 13:19:56.
          Sorry, but the Aviation Herald is inaccurate.

          jimbuluk 2meters 14 Sep 2014 11:51

          I said "The Aviation Herald says problems with MH-17 started over N48.28 E38.08" Just read from avherald.com http://avherald.com/h?article=47770f9d&opt=0

          "was enroute at FL330 about 20nm northeast of Donetsk (Ukraine) when the transponder data became unreliable at 13:18Z (position N48.28 E38.08)"

          Transponder data can't become unreliable without reason. And that reason led to the crash within two minutes. The distance between the point the transponder data became unreliable and Snizhne is approx 65 km, that's way beyond the range of BUK's missile, not to say about it's radar, - less than 9 km.

          ShermanPotter -> Antidyatel 14 Sep 2014 11:09

          The key is in the title it's a preliminary report, that examines the technical reasons for the crash of MH-17. In tandem is a criminal investigation.

          The Preliminary report, has established that MH-17 was shot down and that immediately before that event was operating normally with normal crew communications with ATC. The rest of what you are talking about is for the criminal investigative team to examine and report to the Court.

          Antidyatel -> 2meters 14 Sep 2014 09:46

          No it is not what they were telling.

          MoD didn't accuse that the plane was involved. They only stated yhe facts that there was a potential for it to be involved. That is why additional data was requested from Ukraine to clarify. Stark difference to blanket accusations based on tea leaves in a cup that were loaded by the list of discredited a-holes in the beginning of your post

          Antidyatel -> ShermanPotter 14 Sep 2014 08:27

          For example, the missing part is the primary surveillance radar recordings. It would be expected that if Ukraine wanted to help with investigation. it would supply not only civilian traffic data but also the data of all military radars on that day. Not such a hard task. Report doesn't stress on it but clearly indicates that even civil traffic data was not submitted. They could easily reveal that data in the first few days after the incident or after the Russian MoD report and clarify the issue with military planes in the air at that time. What prevents them from doing it after 2 months?

          Out of the whole page of those recordings only 3 lines are with MH17. Nothing of an essence. There was absolutely no reason why not to provide the data from the moment MH17 entered Ukrainian airspace or even from start of the flight. It would take 2-3 hours max to compile the communication with ground control along the whole route. And they didn't need to wait even for black boxes to do it. How unprofessional your professionals can be?

          Most of the communication, that was revealed is related to communication between Dnepropetrovsk and Rostov. No point withholding that information as Russians have the same transcript, I guess. For MH17 the only portion of interest is 11 seconds before the disaster. This is bogus. And still there is absolutely no excuse not to release the whole transcript of the black box, in the situation which potentially can bring the world to the WW3. You don't joke with such things.

          ShermanPotter -> Antidyatel 14 Sep 2014 05:22

          So what information are you claiming is missing?

          As well as that you list Page 14 also describes that Ukrainian ATC supplied radio and telephone recordings and transcripts relating to MH-17.

          The transcript in the preliminary report is just of the last few minutes of its flight before being shot down, what more do you expect from a Preliminary report?

          Antidyatel -> ShermanPotter 14 Sep 2014 04:18

          Actually if you look strictly at the report specifies only 3 sources of ATC data:
          1. Primary surveillance radar recorded by the Russian surveillance aids
          2. Secondary surveillance radar
          3. Automatic Dependant Surveillance

          The explanation of the last 2 are given at the end of page 14 of the report. Which shows that primary data from Ukrainian radars is still withheld.

          The transcript provided is appearing to be incomplete. It is not like they were afraid of the page limit. Why not to give the whole transcript? Also this transcript is strangely different from the one given in BBC web-site

          snowdogchampion snowdogchampion 14 Sep 2014 03:47

          Without speculating on who did it, here figures from the markets & background info. Key term: foreknowledge.
          The Malaysian Airlines MH17 Crash: Financial Warfare against Russia, Multibillion Dollar Bonanza for Wall Street

          2meters -> notherLex21 14 Sep 2014 03:07

          Isn't that exactly what western media and blogger and US intelligence had been telling us all along ?

          Interesting how this works with Kremlin war propaganda.

          For starters, please note that General Peter Deinekin with his statement directly contradicts the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the HQ of Russia's military forces, Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov, who started this whole SU-25 conspiracy theory on July 21 :

          The Russian military detected a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet gaining height towards the MH17 Boeing on the day of the catastrophe. Kiev must explain why the military jet was tracking the passenger airplane, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

          and

          "The SU-25 fighter jet can gain an altitude of 10km, according to its specification," he added. "It's equipped with air-to-air R-60 missiles that can hit a target at a distance up to 12km, up to 5km for sure."

          Which opened up the floodgates for SU-25 conspiracy theorists and their accompanied anti-Ukraine comments here in the Guardian comment sections and around the MSM.

          While in fact there was no Ukrainian or any other fighter jet around.

          Now, of course, the pro-Russian trolls will drop the SU-25 conspiracy theory and switch to the next one : that Ukrainians fired that SA-11 missile.

          Forgetting to look at the big picture : If the Russia or the Russian military had nothing to do with this BUK, then why the heck were they lying through their teeth on July 21 ?

          jimbuluk 14 Sep 2014 02:29

          US says BUK was launched at Snizhne
          https://www.facebook.com/usdos.ukraine/photos/a.431664811935.225869.43732151935/10152288664556936/?type=1

          The Aviation Herald says problems with MH-17 started over N48.28 E38.08
          http://avherald.com/h?article=47770f9d&opt=0

          The distance between these two points is approx 65 km. Book's missile could reach 30 km. The Book's radar reaches even less - under 9 km, That's it.

          Antidyatel notherLex21 14 Sep 2014 02:25

          Probably true. Which narrows down to the simple choice: was it one of the 4 Ukrainian BUKs that were known to be in the area or an imaginary rebel's BUK.

          If we go strictly and watch the 30 min presentation by Russian MoD, they never accused Su-25 to be responsible for downing the plane. They only stated the fact that the plane was detected at that time and at that place. If they really wanted to falsely accuse ukie plane they would not state that it was Su-25.

          ShanghaiGuy -> Dunscore 13 Sep 2014 22:11

          Crap, 30mm cannon fire would require a sustained burst to cause catastrophic structural failure, audible on recorders. 30mm cannon is not typical air to air ordance, ground attack on slower aircraft , taken some chase at high altitude. Sorry your apologists bs is a fairy story.

          Ground launched AAM destroyed the airliner.

          Antidyatel Hektor Uranga 13 Sep 2014 22:02

          My dear Huylo Hector, immediately after the crush every theory was plausible. Each of them had to be eliminated based on facts. The fairy tail about rebels downing MH17 had an upper habd in first week because Kerry promised satellite images that clearly prove rebels' s culpability.

          After such images didn't materialise, the statement by Kerry became discredited. He had to be responsible for his words.

          So after that any other theory gets the same footing. The assertion that UA downed the plane became more probable after the data presented by Russian MoD. The quality difference to USA/EUROPE/Ukraine garbage comes from first presenting all the known fact and then letting everyone else to make a conclusion. Instead of giving a theory first and then ask to just believe. This stupid idol-worshiping by westerners will never stop amusing me.

          notherLex21 13 Sep 2014 17:17

          This Russian expects it was a BUK.

          Former Air Force Commander of the USSR and the Russian Army General Peter Deinekin:

          "Assault can not hit the plane with their weapons, he is a slow, low-altitude. Besides his actions could be seen on radar. And striking effect aircraft missiles are not as powerful as in" Buck "

          Shoot down the plane could altitude fighter MiG-29 or Su-27, but it at the time in that area was not, said the expert.

          http://ria.ru/mh17/20140910/1023539819.html

          google translated:

          https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fria.ru%2Fmh17%2F20140910%2F1023539819.html&edit-text=

          merlin2 Karl Brandt 13 Sep 2014 16:47

          karl - entrusted with propagating the disinformation campaign?

          based on facts alone, there is not a single shred of evidence typing BUK launced by supposed "rebels" to the downing of MH17. There are, OTOH< quite a few pieces pf evidence pointing to cannon fire from an aircraft. Funny how the disinformation agents never want to draw attention to evidence that in any way points away from their favorite scenarios.

          Example: Almost all the damage concentrated in cockpit/front fuselage. Now how does that tie to the BUK scenario exactly? how does the damage from High energy objects conform to sharpnel from BUK especially as there are both entry and exit holes?

          And what of the US intelligence evidence showing people on the ground manning a BUK and wearing UK uniforms?

          I am not suggesting that it's air-to-air or surface to air only. what we know so far may well conform both were in action. As sedman above mentions.

          As for this preliminary report it is quite a piece on work in how hard it strives NOT to point out some pretty obvious facts.

          bobby_fisher ShermanPotter 13 Sep 2014 16:42

          Not so fast, you do not need records to be provided that are recorded by the black boxes
          It is conversations between civilian and military ATC's that are of interest and there is no mention of that in your link.

          Secr3t krislej 13 Sep 2014 16:34

          Are you still trying to convince people of this idea that an SU-25 shot down MH-17.

          Maybe the Former head of the Russian Airforce and Army can convince you then?

          He states quite clearly that the idea that MH-17 was shot down by an SU-25 as completely untenable, he goes on to state that it is possible an SU-27 or Mig-29 would be capable but none were in the area.

          He also says that MH-17 broke apart in the air as a result of multiple sharpnel strikes and that it was likely from a BUK.

          And before you cry western conspiracy he stated this in Russian media.

          http://ria.ru/mh17/20140910/1023539819.html

          MrHMSH MoneyCircus 13 Sep 2014 16:03

          Firing a cannon from the side (the holes show entry from the side) would not get the spread of damage that you see, and it's unlikely that you could get that many hits in at all given how quickly you are closing.

          A SAM burst (from the kind of missile under suspicion) close to the front left side of the aircraft would yield a somewhat evenly spaced pattern of holes, as the fragments originate from one point and spread outwards.

          The gun fires 50 rounds per second, at the closing speed, the pilot would have had perhaps 2 seconds to fire, and he got around 30% of them hitting a target moving across him at 500mph? This theory belongs in Hollywood.

          Mrg Billman 13 Sep 2014 14:19

          If the Kiev regime can fire and destroy their own APC column like we seen at the begining of the conflict I have no doubts that they are capable of somehow orchestrating a downing of a civilian airliner.

          Realworldview ShanghaiGuy 13 Sep 2014 14:10

          ShanghaiGuy you need to keep up with the evidence, its not my opinion that it was shot down by a military aircraft, but that of US Intelligence analysts, as reported in US analysts conclude MH17 downed by aircraft .

          The conclusion was that it was damaged by an air to air missile that shreds its target with flechettes, and then finished off with 30mm cannon fire that was responsible for the circular holes in fragments of the airframe, as these extracts show:

          KUALA LUMPUR: INTELLIGENCE analysts in the United States had already concluded that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile, and that the Ukrainian government had had something to do with it.

          This corroborates an emerging theory postulated by local investigators that the Boeing 777-200 was crippled by an air-to-air missile and finished off with cannon fire from a fighter that had been shadowing it as it plummeted to earth.

          In a damning report dated Aug 3, headlined "Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts", Associated Press reporter Robert Parry said "some US intelligence sources had concluded that the rebels and Russia were likely not at fault and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame".

          Yesterday, the New Straits Times quoted experts who had said that photographs of the blast fragmentation patterns on the fuselage of the airliner showed two distinct shapes - the shredding pattern associated with a warhead packed with "flechettes", and the more uniform, round-type penetration holes consistent with that of cannon rounds.

          Parry's conclusion also stemmed from the fact that despite assertions from the Obama administration, there has not been a shred of tangible evidence to support the conclusion that Russia supplied the rebels with the BUK-M1 anti-aircraft missile system that would be needed to hit a civilian jetliner flying at 33,000 feet.

          bobby_fisher Asimpleguest 13 Sep 2014 12:32

          The plane was directed in to the war zone, specifically in to the small area, where 13 aircraft were already blown out of the sky in just a few weeks.
          It could not have happened without some interaction between civilian and military ATC's.....and these records are completely missing, in fact confiscated by SBU"

          http://www.nst.com.my/node/21260

          https://twitter.com/wavetossed/status/491468216909053952

          snowdogchampion snowdogchampion 13 Sep 2014 08:15

          isn't shooting down a civilian plane & blaming Putin for it a wonderful way for justifying sanctions against Russia? venturing far into speculations (quoted journalists have done, so I follow even if everyone here calls me an idiot).. what if someone decided to bring down a civilian plane, to make people very angry, cause everything (the West presents) points his way? then the result arre sanctions, and yuppie, USA can soon replace Russia as the main natural gas providor.. it's been all over the news.. and in the end, it's always about profits for the big multinationals

          snowdogchampion 13 Sep 2014 08:01

          So who did shoot the plane down? if you lost a relative on MH17, pls read
          http://journal-neo.org/2014/08/19/another-journalist-exposes-mh17-false-flag/

          "The specific area where the fatal missile was fired is not in fact under control of the "pro-Russia rebels". It is run by a neo-nazi private mercenary army, raised by Ukrainian billionaire Ihor Kolomoisky.

          "Kolomoisky stinks of being an asset of the US and Israeli intelligence services, at minimum. He holds both Ukrainian and Israeli passports and runs his business empire from Switzerland, not Kiev, despite being Governor of Dnipropetrovsk oblast in eastern Ukraine. His mercenary army does possess the BUK missiles allegedly used in the shootdown of MH-17, and he has threatened terrorist attacks on Russian-speaking officials in his oblast, and even assassinations.

          "Estimated to be the second-richest person in Ukraine, Kolomoisky also has strong connections inside Kiev's Borispol International Airport, whose air traffic control tower Ukrainian Interior Ministry troops reportedly stormed shortly before MH-17 was shot down. New Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, formerly wanted by Interpol for fraud, was the man who first designated the east Ukraine rebels as "terrorists," which ostensibly allows him to commit any atrocity against innocent civilians very much as Israel is doing in Gaza today.

          "Furthermore, in a personal interview with the Veterans Today Tbilisi Georgia bureau chief Jeffrey Silverman pointed shared with Engdahl the possible complicity of the Inmarsat Company in the MH17. Inmarsat, which lists the Pentagon and US Government as major clients, controls most international air traffic control communications systems. According to Silverman, during the earlier disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 the flight was "lost" due to Inmarsat turning off their signals, and it still refuses today to release the data it has about this flight.

          one more article http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20140909/192783966/Journalist-MH17-Preliminary-Report-Says-Nothing-Leaves-Questions.html

          MoneyCircus -> nemossister 13 Sep 2014 06:26

          Look what The Guardian left out of its report - just found a more complete report of what the Dutch chief investigator said:

          ROTTERDAM: Dutch prosecutors said today they need to know where a missile that may have shot down flight MH17 was fired from in eastern Ukraine before criminal charges could be laid.

          "When we know from where it was fired, then we can find out who controlled that area," and possibly prosecute, Dutch chief investigator Fred Westerbeke told journalists in Rotterdam.

          Westerbeke said that they had not yet obtained US satellite photos of areas from which a missile might have been launched.

          "We will get them," Westerbeke said, adding that it was a "long process."

          errovi 13 Sep 2014 03:07

          Dutch Prime Minister Rutte had to acknowledge on TV on September 12th that the Netherlands had refused to even communicate with the Separatist. This extreme partisan position of the Dutch government disqualifies it from leading the investigation and has obviously hampered the investigation up till now.

          This extreme partisan position of the Dutch government also clarifies why the role of UkSATSE isn't questioned. In the chain of events leading to the downing of the aircraft still assuming it was a mistake the question 'who launched a missile' is actually less relevant than 'who created the situation by allowing MH17 to fly there'.

          UkSATSE failed to close that airspace after july 14 whena AN-24 was downed from 6500m and only restricted up to 10km. 6500m is beyond the man portable system range. So why didn't UkSATSE did not close that air space and waited till after the downing of MH17. The report section 2.4.3 issued by the investigation simply stated that MH17 complied to the restrictions issued by UkSATSE. By ignoring the most obvious question the investigation was now under serious doubt but the extreme partisan positioning as revealed by the Dutch minister put that report in the 'beyond doubt partisan category'.

          Antidyatel -> Karl Brandt 13 Sep 2014 05:39

          The same AP journalist claimed to see the BUK himself and even the treads inn asphalt tgat this heavy system had left. But surprisingly he forgot to rake a photo not only of BUK but also of treads that ge has described so vividly. Spanish traffic controller story actually less contradictory.

          Shaneo -> ShiresofEngland 13 Sep 2014 03:06

          Immediately after, John Kerry claimed that the US witnessed the rocket launch on 'imagery'.

          So let's see it then.

          sedman -> ruffsoft 13 Sep 2014 01:15

          The BUK system is designed to deliver the payload from above, yes it avoids the target to get above it, then comes down and explodes above where the cockpit would be... This doesn't explain videos of MH17 descending intact with its right engine ablaze.

          sedman 13 Sep 2014 00:52

          Ukraine fighter shoots MH17 with air-to-air missile, takes out right engine. MH17 does not break up, but heads for a forced landing. Ukraine fighter finishes it off MH17 on its way down.

          But, we are lead to believe that the separatists were operating a BUK system made up of 5 separate mobile installations, 3 radar, 1 launcher and 1 control vehicle, which is capable of identifying B777 aircraft accurately (two transponders), then decided it would be in their interests to take out a civilian airliner, which would, even in an idiots assessment, bring the wrath of the world opon it. They are not terrorists, they are rebels, they are not using IEDs to blow up civilians, they just dont want to have Kiev taking their taxes and telling them what to do.

          On the other hand, if Kiev can shoot down the airliner and blame the separatists, or even better, Russia, then they would be backed by the west. Who has the most to gain?

          Then we have an investigation where all members have to agree with the report or a single member can veto the release, which is why they are not allowed to assign blame, and why they have not been allowed to state anything more than they have. The facts that are being released in this report is evidence enough that the investigation is being manipulated and directed to ensure that conclusions can not be drawn from facts, all we can rely on is speculation from the press and comments. I doubt any hard evidence will ever come out, and we will have to settle for innuendo and finger pointing, allowing the west to isolate Russia even further till the missile shield network sits right on their borders.

          martinusher 12 Sep 2014 23:35

          What I find a bit troubling is that the obvious conclusion -- that the plane was hit by a ground fired missile -- isn't backed up by any intelligence. Its reasonable to think that the US's NRO is watching the Ukraine closely so they should have been able to get almost real time confirmation of the launcher's position and use.

          Nobody willingly takes down an airliner unless there's serious propaganda to be made from it. So its either a serious screwup by the rebels or something rather more evil by the blackops types. (I'd regard the latter as a tinfoil helmet theory except that we've found out time and again that these people are capable of doing anything provided it achieves their goal.)

          ThreeCents JCDavis 12 Sep 2014 20:56

          "Everything coming from the UK and US governments is a lie at one level or another and should be carefully investigated."

          I agree very strongly. And I think the key word here is "investigation".

          Ah, but who is going to do the investigating?

          Well, I would favor an "Investigation Party" -- which would push hard on investigating all manner of corruption and conspiracy, and which would campaign on that basis.

          And I would favor an "Investigation Branch" of government, on the same level as the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of government. It would be dedicated to making everything in government NOT secret! Secrecy = Tyranny. Truth = Liberty. Click here for more.

          UncleSam404 Karl Brandt 12 Sep 2014 20:48

          Whatever happened to Carlos anyway lol? I guess they couldn't locate this guy.

          tanyushka 12 Sep 2014 20:12

          why isn't the International Civil Aviation Organization in charge of the investigation as is custommay in these cases?

          why isn't in charge an international comission as the UN demanded unanimously?

          now, if we talk about chances... the Ukranian army had six BUK systems operative at the time of the incident while the DPR forces deny having a single one but... let's accept Kiev's claims that there was one, the chances are 6 to 1 that the Ukraninas shot...

          on the other hand, Russia claims that there was an Ukranian jet fighter close to the plane & it isn't even mentionedin the investigation

          BMWAlbert 12 Sep 2014 18:01

          This seems the most likely possibility, but I wonder at the release without any backing detail, it sounds like intended innuendo also.

          William J Rood EnviroCapitalist 12 Sep 2014 17:55

          Yes indeed, US satellite data is highly secret unless it backs up the US Government's claims. I don't suppose you're old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis and the release of all sort of reconnaissance on the matter.

          If the US government had any real evidence whatsoever, you'd have seen that rather than all the photo-shopped social media stuff that's been going around. Lack of evidence is why CIA analysts have refused to support the State Department's lies. They learned their lesson from the Iraq War. Did you?

          Rob711 12 Sep 2014 17:35

          The shooting down scenario. Obviously they haven't picked up on some of the perfectly round holes in some of the debris. Never mind the question of why the unfortunate plane and it's passengers were flying over an area where 5 planes had been downed in the preceding two weeks

          ShiresofEngland 12 Sep 2014 17:22

          http://www.just-international.org/articles/flight-mh17-what-youre-not-being-told/

          More propaganda, but something which hasn't been answered to my satisfaction.

          So let's tread carefully and just ask a few more questions that these so-called journalists in the mainstream media are neglecting to ask. For example: Why hasn't the US government released its satellite pictures of the area right after the event?

          Obviously the USA would have satellites watching, and did expect after it happened that the White House would do some sort of presentation after a few days to prove who shot down MH17. They were quick to accuse and had hoped they had the evidence which would be damning, but they haven't.

          ShiresofEngland Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 16:43

          http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-21/russia-says-has-photos-ukraine-deploying-buk-missiles-east-rader-proof-warplanes-mh1

          Yes, and that is disputed. Each side keeps coming up with propaganda where not one of us knows the truth.

          ps the the poster below. It isn't 'lazy self indulgence'. Saying that I do not know who done it is a valid position, and more honest than most on here. Like everyone with any compassion I believe that the relatives of the victims of MH17 deserve the truth, something they have thus far not got.

          Luminaire ruffsoft 12 Sep 2014 16:33
          That would mean a Ukrainian jet yes? Which the russian's showed radar data proving? Just before MH17 vanishes you can see a second trace, which the RU MOD say is a fighter jet.

          Except it doesn't. The MH17 trace splits in two, because one part is the 'supposed' location (based on the flightplan and predicted path), and the supposed SU-25 is actually MH17 as it breaks up.

          The reason this is obvious to anyone who actually does any research is that 'MH17' becomes a square, and the 'SU-25' is a circle. In that software the circle represents a 'real' radar contact, and the square is a predicted path - as squares always are.

          If there was a jet as well there would be 2 circles and a square, because MH17 did just VANISH so there would have been 2 'real' radar contacts.

          So there was no SU-25 - but hey dont let that stop you literally making stuff up and being 'quite sure' about it.

          Nicole Bresht -> krislej 12 Sep 2014 16:13

          A ground missile would have caused the MG17 to explode in a fireball... seems as if the cockpit had been shot out with an airborne cannon... not sure an SU fighter could reach needed speed/ height to pull this off.. more likely a MIG

          ide000 -> ShermanPotter 12 Sep 2014 16:05

          So far today we've had the SU25 shot down MH-17, and now this. You seem to be absolutely desperate to hang this onto anybody other than Russia. Even coming up with ridiculous scenarios to try and prove your case.

          Lets be precise, Russian ministry of defense didn't reliably identify plain (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKhA50erngk at 14:04). They claim the plain was supposed to be SU-25.

          Actually I expected of Dutch experts at least to clarify whether they confirm or do not confirm presence of military jet in vicinity of MH17.

          Brian Beuken LeWillow 12 Sep 2014 15:50

          I very much doubt it was a deliberate act, possibly incompetence on the part of the BUK operators...

          But it was a BUK, the problem is while we can all spot the smoking gun we can't find enough of the "bullet" to silence the doubters...so lets lay out some facts and let them make up their own minds.

          Fragmentation patterns can contain a large number of holes that appear to look like "bullet" holes, but they are simply penetration holes

          However there are a lot of holes in a small area in the MH17 pics, this is highly indicative of a fragmentation warhead which can also explain some of the more isolated holes in other parts of the fuselage, the fragments can spread out from the nose to the tail but the concentration will be where the missile was closest where it exploded

          Also the holes are fairly small, bullet size some may say.. But modern warplanes do not fire bullets, they fire 30mm shells...quite devastating weapons which when fired from a moving target at a moving target leave a very clear trail, and a normally short burst of fire.

          Its logistically highly improbably that a ground attack aircraft, without a pressurised cockpit and not designed to take out air targets, with a max ceiling of 23k ft (unloaded) could get to a 33K ft airliner at cruising speed which is faster than the Su25's top speed..... But that's what some want us to believe...but if it did... it has a 30mm cannon...not itty bitty machine guns....and it would be one hell of a pilot who could get of dozens of shots in the same basic area... (lets also not ignore the fact that the pilot would know he was attacking a civil aircraft...pilots are generally pretty clever people, and know when they are committing war crimes)

          It could have been another aircraft, Ukraine and Russia both operate high speed interceptors...but again there's the problem with the gun.....they use cannons, not shotguns or itty bitty machine guns.

          Some suggest that an air to air missile might then be the cause of the fragmentation...but this also is problematic, most AA missiles are not powerful enough to take out a large civil aircraft. Many instances of smaller less well built passenger planes surviving AA strikes have been recorded...But 2 or 3 might do it..but the pilots would surely called Mayday.. They didn't, suggesting they had no idea what hit them,

          Of course, there's always the lucky shot..but I doubt that...

          Iron has been recovered, many SAM's use Iron, some use steel bearings some use both....but shells are depleted uranium....so no shells....no bullets...(bullets are not iron).

          So these are facts....
          Make of them what you wish...but I'm struggling to see anything other than a large SAM....I don't know from who, or why, that's a different question...

          ShiresofEngland 12 Sep 2014 15:47

          The plane went down over territory held by pro-Russia rebels, killing all 298 passengers and crew on board.

          Oh I get it so the implication is........
          Actually nothing as the launch site isn't known, and could just as easily been fired from Ukrainian or rebel held territory.

          A rebel officer told AP after the disaster that the plane was shot down by a mixed team of rebels and Russian military personnel who believed they were targeting a Ukrainian military plane. Intercepted phone conversations between the rebels released by the Ukrainian government support that version of events.

          Which might be true, but there again might not and hasn't been verified. Might be propaganda and the source is hardly impartial.
          So what do we know? Highly probable that it was a BUK which brought down MH17. Ukraine has these weapon systems, the rebels may have captured one but how serviceable is questionable, and the Russians may have lent one with a crew but that hasn't been definitely verified. All of them could have been in the area, or maybe not.

          Conclusion: Still no closer to knowing which side brought it down, whether it was just a cock up, or a black flag. Plenty of propaganda, accusations, denials, but any real evidence so far is very thin on the ground.

          madjens1 12 Sep 2014 15:28

          It's funny how the press are falling over themselves to say it was definitely Russians, the EU are desperate for it to be Russians, the Americans are desperate for it to be Russians - so when something factual comes out that doesn't toe the expectant line they have to drop in the odd implication and suggested line.

          Then the idiots who read the guardian (who otherwise reject foreign countries being bismirched) swallow it all up

          KeloCote Mrg Billman 12 Sep 2014 14:54

          That would be true had the Ukrainians not warned the plane to stay away. In fact, ground control ordered the plane to climb to a higher altitude, and the pilot disobeyed.
          During its recent war on Gaza, Israel kept insisting that it's perfectly safe for civil aviation to continue landing in its airport near Tel Aviv. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rockets were flying near the whole path that a plane would take to land - at a time of Hamas's choosing. Israel was firing even more dangerous missiles at those rockets. Any claim that it's safe for civilian airlines to fly under such conditions is fundamentally dishonest. But Israel does not want to admit they've lost control over their 'sovereign' airspace. Similarly, Ukraine did not want to admit they're lost control over their 'sovereign' airspace, because there's a war going on. However, in this particular instance, ground control warned the pilot to divert to a higher altitude using a false pretext. Regardless of the false pretext, the pilot should have diverted - and by not doing so - is responsible.

          Realworldview 12 Sep 2014 14:36

          Malaysia Airlines flight MH17: 'most likely' it was shot down from ground

          Since when did a ground to air anti-aircraft missile use 30mm cannon shells to destroy its target. The evidence strongly points to it being a military aircraft that downed MH17 as Dutch Safety Board (DSB) Report: Malaysian MH17 was Brought Down by "A Large Number of High Energy Objects", Contradicts US Claims that it Was Shot Down by a "Russian Missile" argues, despite the heavy coat of varnish that's clearly been applied to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report.


          EugeneGur Dunscore 12 Sep 2014 14:18

          This scenario is just as unproved and likely unprovable as all the others. It's clear that Kiev benefited the most from the event, and the US exploited is to the fullest to impose sanctions on Russia before any investigation was even initiated. The reluctance of both Kiev and the US to provide evidence required for the investigation is bound to raise questions.

          One would think given how fiercely the US accused Russia they'd be happy to provide evidence against Russia if they had any. Could that be that the evidence they have point the other way? And, of course, that non-disclosure agreement, which looks like an attempt at a coverup. Otherwise, why?

          This horrible tragedy has been and no doubt will be exploited for petty political gains. I am sorry to see even the Dutch entering this shameful game by signing that non-disclosure agreement with one of the suspects, the Kiev government.


          DownSouth77 Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 13:32

          Your maximum altitude is generally restricted by 2 factors. The first being that the maximum altitude is reached when all power produced by the engines is going into maintaining the altitude. Thus no more power is left available for the aircraft to climb any further. The second factor is pressurization. Thus the max psi differential between the atmosphere and cabin. When the airframe can't withstand the differential value between the cabin and the atmosphere the consequences can and will probably be very bad. This should not be a factor on the SU-25...as its more applicable to airliners (which in turn can reach roughly 40,000' before this becomes a factor)

          Thus back to the maximum altitude and the power produced by the engines. Thats btw also the reason why when they strip armament from an aircraft they reduce the weight etc and in turn can reach a heigher altitude with the same engines. Now the first problem here is that everybody assumes the stock version of the SU-25 (which has a max operating altitude of 7km) is the SU-25 the ukrainians used. Thus its impossible for it to reach an altitude of 10km etc.

          However...lets look at the SU-39...which is in fact a SU-25 which is upgraded...the max altitude for this aircraft is 10km. Furthermore...the Sukhoi lists its export model the SU-25K as having a max altitiude of 7km...that specific variant. We dont know for sure that Ukraine has any SU-25 variant that are upgraded enough to reach an altitiude of 10km. However we do know it is definitely possible for a SU-25 (depending on engines etc) to reach 10km. In short...its useless to quote the wiki or generic version of the SU-25 max altitiude as reference in saying its impossible to reach 10km.

          In the late 90's Sukhoi 25''s could already reach altitiudes in excess of 8.5km's.

          Hope all this makes sense :)

          Dunscore Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 13:29

          Thanks for the information !

          1) Reuters. Sadly this 100-year old British company has been compromised being taken over by a Canadian company belonging to zionists. Canadian PM Harper is a blind follower of Israeli extremists. So V Putin is enemy number one and you can't use Reuters as an unbiased source once more. Russia has had to up its game recently in the Arctic purely because Harper has become aggressive to please the US.

          2) Obviously the incidents are in Crimea etc are orchestrated by Kiev.
          Any other explanation is nonsense. The nazi volunteers are the usual suspects. Let's hope that Mr Nuizmieks is given a chance to see the truth. We should prepare for the McCain trolls to try to blame any social problems on V Putin.


          Dunscore EugeneGur 12 Sep 2014 13:16

          I agree with all your thoughts.

          Kiev Russian-speaking soldiers disguised as Donbass security forces ("rebels") could have driven a Buk into the Donbass, fired the missile and then driven back, making sure to be seen by foreign journalists ( Ukraine is a huge country, how come the journalists were on the same spot at the right moment to see the Buk driving around ? very convenient..)

          The US and Israel both have motives to shoot the plane down. They had been convicted of war crimes in KL last year and their cases sent to the ICC in Holland. MH17 was also full of Dutch passengers - right
          www.criminisewar.org

          Plus, the ukraine airforce is in a bad state due to lack of funds. So the US and Israelis were providing assistance, also Poland and Lithuania, of pilots and equipment. No-one knows who was piloting the two Su-25s detected by Russian radar.

          Russia asked Ukraine 12 crucial questions a month ago - still no answer.

          US produced absolutely no professional evidence for the enquiry, nothing except boasting trolls.

          Retired veteran CIA secret data analysts wrote a group letter to Obama and Merkel to condemn US for bringing their profession into disrepute.

          Russia provided comprehensive data and evidence to the investigation.

          KeloCote Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 13:15

          I did not speculate on why the pilot did not want to climb. It make no difference. By refusing the order the pilot assumed responsibility for the fate of the plane. Civil aviation pilots have no "right" to refuse orders of competent ground authorities and still enjoy the protections granted by international treaties to civil aviation.

          I don't understand your statement about the "report says there was no abnormal communication". Are you contesting my claim that the pilot refused an order to climb up just minutes before being hit? I'm basing my claim on what I read in previous articles in the Guardian on this. It could be wrong. I wasn't there personally.

          Rudeboy1 DownSouth77 12 Sep 2014 12:32

          The SA-11 has a proximity fused warhead. The missile detonates when it senses it is close to the target (proximity fuses then called Variable Time Fuses were used as far back as WW2 by the US and UK) . Fragmentation at the front end of the aircraft would indicate that the warhead detonated at the front of the aircraft. Damage from the warhead would be localised. Most SAM's (except the most modern) rely on prox fuses as the massive speeds they work at mean a direct impact isn't always possible (particularly on a manoeuvering target).

          But you're wrong on the SU-25. There is no way an SU-25 can intercept an airliner at 30,000 travelling at >500kn when that is above the height and speed that the SU-25 can operate at. If you know why it could please let us all know why.


          fragglerokk 12 Sep 2014 12:19

          of course he says that, the Dutch people would go nuts if they knew that Shell have signed a $10 billion fracking deal with the Ukraines who shot down a load of their citizens, it would be really bad for business especially since they have already started fracking Slavyansk after the Ukie artillery bombed it out of existence and created 1000s of refugees. The truth will out, the problem is they are all in it together, money, oil, gas, failed coups, up to their necks in it. The non disclosure agreement signed by the Dutch, the belgians, the Ukraines and Australians says it all, no facts, no figures and no details.. total fit up.


          Malkatrinho -> LeWillow 12 Sep 2014 12:19

          As the bookmaker William Hill once said "Believe nothing of what you hear, and believe only 5% of what you see, and be very suspicious of that 5%."

          That's got to be one of the most random quotes I've read.

          EugeneGur 12 Sep 2014 12:13
          Typical Guardian, impartial and objective as ever. Do these conclusions point to the hand that launched these "high energy objects"? No, they do not. Even if it is proven beyond any doubt that the airplane was shot down by ground-to-air missile or even specifically by Buk, does it prove who did the shooting? No, it does not.
          However, pro-Russian rebels are mentioned more than once, so there is no chance to forget who is supposed to be blamed.

          It is possible that Donbass fighters shot down that plane by mistake thinking that was Kiev's plane coming to bomb their cities. Kiev could've done that as well, in its case likely deliberately. For some reason, they did have Buks in that area, although separatists do not have airplanes. Proving which scenario is correct would be difficult. Connecting Russia to this would be even harder if not impossible. Nobody would bother, though. If "Russia" is repeated often enough, some dirt will stick no matter what. It's been done already quite successfully.

          maico ruffsoft 12 Sep 2014 12:13

          The report says there was no shrapnel damage bellow the cockpit floor. This means we can discount an air to air missile which is heat seeking and would hit the engine. The engine is of course well bellow the cockpit level.

          The shrapnel holes are various sizes and shapes pointing strongly to a proximity air-burst from a radar guided SAM. Obviously once most of the wreckage is recovered and reassembled in a hanger a definitive answer can be given. Shell casing and powder burn evidence may still be recoverable although I expect Russian security services have tampered with the wreckage.

          Robert Looren de Jong -> Trabecula 12 Sep 2014 12:12

          http://www.nst.com.my/node/21682

          BERA: Defence Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein today denied reports in the social media that Malaysia Airlines (MAS) flight MH17 was shot down by fighter jets.
          He said intelligence and evidence gathered from the fragments of the ill-fated aircraft clearly showed it was shot down by missiles that were launched to the air from the ground.
          "Based on military intelligence and evidence from a portion of fragments found, it is not likely the bullets were used from air to air but from surface to air. "Whether these were owned by Ukraine or the rebels who supplied by Russia. the bullets must have come from BUK System and this matter cannot be denied by Europe, Nato or Russia," he told reporters after officiating the Bera Umno's Wanita, Youth and Puteri wing division meeting here today. still trying to recycle that old debunked and proven wrong narrative?

          KeloCote 12 Sep 2014 12:10

          The pilot is responsible. He was ordered by Ukrainian air-traffic control to fly to higher altitude, and refused the order. Formally they told him it's because of other planes in the area, but more likely they knew it was unsafe to fly it being a war zone - and simply didn't want to admit they don't have control over territory they claim as their own. By refusing the order to fly higher - the pilot assumed responsibility for flying in a dangerous path. Since the pilot is dead - the airline is responsible.

          Trabecula Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 12:05

          Also, the next day the extremely competent and knowledgable Malay minister said:

          "Hishammuddin said he was personally confident that flight MH17 was shot with a BUK missile based on his experience and knowledge as a defence minister. Hence, he advised the people not to be easily influenced by speculation and rumours being spread in the media social."

          I would like to put the emphasis on "personally confident" as well as on the title: "unlikely shot down by jet fighter".
          It's probably jut another "hunch" he had, like the one of MH370 having crashed in the Southern Indian Ocean... Or in Bangladesh... Or having landed in Pakistan... Or maybe a few miles closer to Australia. Well done Sir!

          Trabecula Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 11:58

          Is this Russian, Malay or US propaganda:

          NST 7th August:

          "KUALA LUMPUR: INTELLIGENCE analysts in the United States had already concluded that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile, and that the Ukrainian government had had something to do with it"

          http://www.nst.com.my/node/20925

          Do you really expect anyone sane and humane to believe any news coming from Israeli media?! Gosh...

          SHappens 12 Sep 2014 11:27

          What a timely article and what an empty statement. Most likely, probably, it seems, could be, looks like.

          Conclusion: "It is going to be a long investigation," he said, while remaining cautious about what results the international investigation might achieve.

          Trabecula 12 Sep 2014 11:25

          De Jong and his mates: you should read the news straight from NST, not any other "repost" or reference, be it RT.com or ET.mars. Go back to early August news (4th or 7th, if not mistaken) and check out their official opinion on the subject. I've been in Malaysia for 2 weeks last month and though they're pretty careful with what they say - because of they western counterparts - and they truly blame both sides (this is subject is overhelming there), they have little doubt that it was shot down by a jet fighter. And this is supported by german and american experts so be careful with what you are being "fed".

          Western media never reported this though western countries only needed a few hours to "choose" who to blame for this tragic war crime.

          DownSouth77 Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 11:08

          Firstly a Su-25 could have shot it down...no doubt about that. Its just a matter of if it happened that way.

          I have a question...something I haven't seen mentioned really. while I know aviation (work in the industry) I have very little knowledge of the BUK missle system...therfore the question.

          Why is the cockpit riddled with holes...yet other pieces of the aircraft as almost no holes in it. Wouldn't it be that if a BUK did it that the COMPLETE body of aircraft would have had similar amount of damage caused by projectiles? Yet I haven't seen one other piece of the wreckage that had near the type of projectile damage than the cockpit section. Why is that...for those saying it was a BUK missile that caused that damage to the cockpit section?

          Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 11:06

          http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.615512?

          REUTERS - The United States announced more sanctions against Russia on Friday, affecting oil and defense industries and further limiting the access of major Russian banks to U.S. debt and equity markets to punish Russia for its intervention in Ukraine.

          The sanctions, which for the first time targeted Russia's Sberbank, were timed to coincide with new European Union economic penalties that included restrictions on financing for some Russian state-owned companies and asset freezes on leading Russian politicians.

          The sanctions could be rolled back if Moscow withdrew its forces from Ukraine and established a buffer zone along the border among other conditions, a senior U.S. official said.

          SocialistPig 12 Sep 2014 11:00

          retired Russian army Colonel Mikhail Khodarenok believes the fact that international investigators have thus far failed to provide conclusive evidence suggests that they have something to hide.

          "You can find out what kind of missile was used against a downed plane one day after it was crashed," the retired colonel told The Moscow Times. During his career, Khodarenok operated S-75 and S-200 air defense systems.

          "Each missile type has its own shrapnel imprint. The shrapnel should have been preserved in the elements of the aircraft itself as well as in the bodies of the victims," he said.

          zelazny fintan 12 Sep 2014 10:54

          The Malaysian government disagrees with you and has reported that its experts say a fighter jet brought the plane down by first hitting it with a missile and then firing 30mm bullets into both sides of the fuselage.

          Photos of the fuselage contain unmistakable bullet holes. Anti-Putin people can deny the evidence and ignore the opinions of the Malaysian experts, but the fact remains that bullets can't travel 30,000 feet into the air and they must have come from a fighter jet.

          The USA certainly has known this fact from day 1, as have all of the Nato governments. They just can't figure out any positive spin, so they have decided to delay the release of the report for a year or so in the hope the public will forget.

          I wonder how much it will cost to make the family members of the dead forget?

          Jiri 12 Sep 2014 10:54

          If there was any evidence that the Russians or the East Ukrainians were responsible for the downing of MH17 it would have been made widely available and the maximum political mileage extracted from it.

          Standupwoman -> daveydor 12 Sep 2014 10:53

          On this scale, and with so few voices to speak against it - yes. This is the first time I'm aware of where the US has effectively dictated the script for the entire western msm without even the Guardian offering a dissenting view.

          Since you find my massive 2.26 posts a day so disconcerting, I assume you'd like to drive all dissent from the comments too.

          zelazny -> RoyalBludger 12 Sep 2014 10:50

          Those look like large caliber bullet holes to me, and I have seen a lot of bullet holes in sheet metal.

          And I don't know of any rifle in the world, large caliber or small, that can shoot 30,000 feet or more. None can fire accurately even with the most skilled shooter at more than 2475 meters, the longest confirmed sniper kill.

          So if bullets hit the plane, they must have come from a fighter jet's 30mm cannon.

          The Malaysian government thinks this happened, but of course their opinion has no role in the Nato cover up.

          zelazny -> EnviroCapitalist 12 Sep 2014 10:44

          Obama has Guantanamo? What equivalent does Putin have?

          Obama tortures people and doesn't allow them to have a trial at all in most cases, and if they get one, they get a secret, military tribunal, in violation of the US constitution.

          In his 6 years in office, Obama has pardoned 52 people, despite the fact that US prisons hold over 2 million.

          Putin has pardoned thousands, including his billionaire political opponent Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

          The comments threads on western sites show the massive love of war and mass murder among ordinary citizens like you, deceived by a life time of high tech propaganda. Western citizens like to compare those they fear to Hitler, not realizing that the victors in WWII deliberately slaughtered German and Japanese civilians by the millions. War criminals fought WWII, and some lost and some won.

          But all decent people lost in WWII, because since then the US and Nato have turned the world into a charnel house of war.

          flyingdutchman Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 10:43

          More usually SU25's carry armour piercing or APHE rounds. These will explode on impact even with a soft structure. Even allowing a slight delay after encountering an aircraft's skin these will then detonate leaving a much larger hole.

          Simple armor piercing rounds will not explode. APHE rounds will, but with a delay of around one millisecond or slightly less. Since the round travels at several thousand feet per second (and won't be slowed down significantly by anything in the aircraft's structure since the rounds are designed to punch through half an inch of hardened steel with ease) the explosion will only take place a few feet beyond the aircraft's skin. Also, fragments from the explosion will tend to be projected forward.

          Although aluminium isn't massively strong, it is stressed on an airliner. It's also not usually followed by empty air.

          Beneath the aircraft's skin there are structural parts (stringers and frames) with insulation in between. The structure is all aluminum, except for very few parts at the front that are reinforced with titanium in order to better resist bird strikes. Anyway, nothing compared to the stuff the average 30mm projectile is designed to deal with.

          OpiumAddict Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 10:41

          no evidence the rebels ever had a working Buk or anyone trained to use it.

          definite proof that Ukraine had several working Buks in the area with crews.

          dion13 zelazny 12 Sep 2014 10:37

          On 13 August, Pravda published a highly plausible version of the tragedy:

          "Boeing-777 was downed by Ukrainian MiG-29, expert says"

          http://english.pravda.ru/world/ussr/13-08-2014/128268-boeing_crash_ukraine-0/

          Just one excerpt:

          [...] the Romanian expert believes that it was not a Ukrainian Su-25, as the plane could not reach the altitude of 10,300 meters and strike the Boeing due to the poor level of training of Ukrainian flight personnel and technical imperfection of old Su-25. Vasilescu indicates that radars show Su-25 identically to MiG-29 fighter jet, as the planes have identical reflective surface area [...] The fleet of the Ukrainian Air Force has fighter aircraft MiG-29 that are capable of intercepting Boeing-777. The fighters are based near Kiev and in Ivano-Frankivsk.

          ruffsoft 12 Sep 2014 10:23

          An exploding missile would hit the bottom of the plane as it approached and would scatter shrapnel over the entire plane. The fact is that only the cockpit is heavily penetrated, and from the sides, both sides (entrance and exit holes are not hard to distinguish), which points to an air assault targeting the cockpit to disable the pilots.

          Since the Ukraine has veto power over publication of the findings, this whole investigation is a whitewash. Why isn't Russia part of the investigation with veto power? Giving one of the suspects in a crime the ability to block publication of the findings is ludicrous.

          Can someone explain how a missile from the ground would produce both exit and entrance punctures in the cockpit on the sides? That seems impossible.

          This is just a phony investigation, with the lead suspect having veto power.

          High resolution photos from the following link show clearly holes which are pushed out and in. I am not forensic expert but I can tell in from out.

          A missile with exploding shrapnel would not produce in and out holes; the only way to get that result is to shoot from both sides. And a missile exploding would effect the bottom of the plane, in a random pattern; the holes in the plane are in the cockpit from the sides, both sides.

          http://www.abeldanger.net/2014/08/the-israeli-photo-of-mh17-who-is-yaron.html

          Take a look: holes punched out, holes pushed in: draw your own conclusions because the investigation will never reveal this fact, since Ukraine has veto power over the findings being published.

          The photos provided show the pilots were targeted, something an ground to air missile could not do. Also the holes across one of the wings are in a line, such as a machine gun would produce, not a random explosion. The theory of a missile from the ground cannot explain the photographic/physical evidence.

          Only an assault from the air makes sense once you examine the evidence provided by the photos Please take a look, especially at the closeup at
          http://www.anderweltonline.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/Cockpit-MH017.pdf
          which shows holes with raised edges (exit) and holes with pushed in edges (entrance).

          ruffsoft 12 Sep 2014 10:04

          The nations investigating have signed an agreement not to publish results unless all parties reach a consensus. If the parties found evidence of Ukrainian responsibility, Ukraine would veto and it would not be published. This form of censorship makes an independent investigation impossible, as well as its publication if it were.

          I am quite sure that bullets are "high energy objects" but the Western media seems to ignore that possibility, as it would implicate Ukraine, which has veto power over any publication of findings.

          For me, the clincher is that only the front part (cockpit) of the plane was penetrated----a missile that exploded would not target the cockpit---and that the holes in the cockpit show both exit and entrance punctures---something compatible only with being fired on from both sides. A missile would only penetrate from one side. It is not hard to distinguish an entrance and an exit hole, as one is push in, the other out.

          This investigation is, by agreement, not independent or impartial, since the Ukraine can block publication of any findings it does not like.

          It's just one more piece of the propaganda effort to demonize Russia and thus cover up the crimes of the Kiev regime

          Dunscore -> Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 10:02

          However, Russian mass media information proved to be a fake. On September 9, the Dutch Safety Board published the report, the paragraph 2.5.4 of which says that Ukrainian State Air Traffic Services Enterprise provided the recording and a transcript of the radio and telephone communications regarding flight MH17

          Just a little tip. Don't ever use anything that comes out of the Kiev offices. It is all 100% unbelievable. All of it. There are so many different agendas by so many groups fighting each other like cats and dogs, all in the same buildings, that it is no wonder that so much confusion reigns there.

          dhammaguy 12 Sep 2014 09:57

          Shocking Analysis of the 'Shooting Down' of Malaysian MH17 http://www.anderweltonline.com/wissenschaft-und-technik/luftfahrt-2014/shocking-analysis-of-the-shooting-down-of-malaysian-mh17/

          Dunscore -> Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 09:44

          John McCain has taught you well.
          You and he are obviously students of the "Shout it loud and shout it again and again" Goebbels doctrine -- If you are so desperate to put your case, go and join the police investigative team. You're such a cut and paste expert with carefully selected bits from wikipedia, they will find you useful somewhere.

          There's a flood of misinformation this morning. Much more than normal.
          You're louder than you normally are.

          Usually McCain orders the whole team out when the yanks have got something that they particularly want to distract from the public gaze.

          Most of your team is talking about the Buk again, sticking to the same old story, so obviously you are worried that the Dutch will latch onto the truth. Well they have nine months to find it, so you and your team of parrots will have to work very hard to keep them distracted. Best of luck !

          Given the fact that the steady level flight (in kilometers) above the ceiling is impossible,
          How do you KNOW that is true? Do you know every single situation where it might not be true. Are you an expert ? I don't mean a cut and paste expert..

          Keep writing, keep writing... you and your mates have got to keep the dutch police distracted. !

          Keep writing Keep writing !

          Bye...

          medievil -> Yatvyag 12 Sep 2014 09:38

          shot down over the Persian Gulf in 1988 by the SM-2 surface-to-air missile launched from the USS Vincennes. As a result of the Iranian Flight 655 catastrophe 290 passengers were killed including 60 children. The author emphasizes that after the incident American top officials not only dismissed all the accusations but blamed the Iranian pilot. However, nearly seven weeks after the tragedy the Pentagon had to recognize that all the "facts" the American top officials were referring to in order to shift the burden of responsibility on the Iranians were wrong. Strangely enough, the Pentagon's 53-page report on the incident "still concluded that the captain and all the other Vincennes officers acted properly."

          Although Fred Kaplan, the defense correspondent of the Boston Globe at that time, pointed repeatedly to the numerous embarrassing discrepancies in the Pentagon's narrative, the US senior officers qualified them as inessential. The most shocking fact, revealed in 1992 was that the USS Vincennes was in the Iranian waters when it shot down the Iranian Flight 655, not in international as the Pentagon reported in 1988.

          "Vice President George H.W. Bush, who was running to succeed Ronald Reagan as president, said on the campaign trail, "I will never apologize for the United States - I don't care what the facts are," cites Fred Kaplan and adds bitterly, "Not until eight years later did the US government compensate the victims' families, and even then expressed "deep regret," not an apology." Medals awarded While issuing notes of regret over the loss of human life, the U.S. government has, to date, neither admitted any wrongdoing or responsibility in this tragedy, nor apologized, but continues to blame Iranian hostile actions for the incident. The men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons. Commander Lustig, the air-warfare coordinator, even won the navy's Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement", his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire" having enabled him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure." According to a 23 April 1990 article printed in The Washington Post, the Legion of Merit was presented to Captain Rogers and Lieutenant Commander Lustig for their performance in the Persian Gulf on 3 July 1988. The citations did not mention the downing of the Iran Air flight at all.

          Денис Панкратов -> fintan 12 Sep 2014 09:31

          If you're interested, I would say. And in Washington and in the Netherlands have long known who shot down the "Boeing". But will hide the truth to the end. Because this really does not fit into the ongoing today geopolitics.

          Geopolitics, as a rule, the subject is extremely pragmatic and cynical. For it not only 200 dead, for her and 200 thousand dead - empty words ...

          Dunscore 12 Sep 2014 09:26

          A rebel officer told AP after the disaster that the plane was shot down by a mixed team of rebels and Russian military personnel who believed they were targeting a Ukrainian military plane.

          This is the ENTIRE source for the western case that a Buk shot MH17 down. It is a complete lie. The officer was never named, the story was never verified. The officer does not exist. Evidence please, if you disagree?

          Canonman -> Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 09:17

          That area has been under satellite surveillance for a long time by various US, NATO and Russian satellites - after all it is a war zone. Rest assured that there will be coverage of that area by various satellites.

          Perhaps you should lay off the personal insults? Or do you get off on being rude or a dick - 'Rudeboy-1'?

          Hansueli LeWillow 12 Sep 2014 09:16

          Well, before engaging in wild speculation, why not start from a simple possibility, like a simple fuck-up by the guys on the trigger? Seems far more likely than any hypothetical planned shoot down by CIA or anybody else, including Russia.

          Dunscore Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 09:16

          Of course the utter idiots that gave a highly advanced surface to air missile system to a bunch of idiots are not responsible at all.....it was just a mistake. I'm sure the relatives will understand.

          Your master McCain taught his baby trolls well -- But why do we always get the uneducated ones.

          Where is all your written evidence for your silly story ? Let's see something on paper and not just oral bullshit...

          JCDavis mraak 12 Sep 2014 09:09

          Since it hit the cockpit and not the tail, it had to be fired from the direction where the plane was headed.

          Not true. If it was fired from an aircraft well below the 777, the impact could have had the same signature. And depending on the guidance system, it could have hit the same area no matter where it was fired from--

          Electro-optical seekers can be programmed to target vital area of an aircraft, such as the cockpit.

          Dunscore Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 09:08

          nd as such it is consitant with a buk missile

          If you can't even spell consistent, why should we pay any attention to wha you say ?

          Everyone is suddenly an expert on missile ballistics.
          Tell your audience please the source of all your qualifications.
          A PhD from Ronald McDonald's University ?

          Two german military pilots saw all the wreckage on the crash site and with 30 years experience, they made a careful detailed explanation over several A4 sides explaining why it was NOT a Buk. Have you read that ? Why do you contradict that ? Come on, let's have your knowledge on the table --
          McCain would be proud of you, you follow his script so well.

          What will you do when your master loses his job at the next US election?

          Canonman 12 Sep 2014 08:31

          All of this is just speculation.
          Question 1: where are the Satellite images of that area at that exact time?
          Question 2: where are the audio transmissions between the crew and the flight towers?
          Question 3: why did the BBC remove its own segment that was done shortly afterwards where they had people on record stating that they had seen a jet flying behind if?
          Question 4: who ordered the BBC remove its own segment?
          Question 5: If the pilots where shot at by a 'jet' as is believed by many - what about the autopsies of the pilots? Were any done? What did they find.
          Question 6: if a BUK missile had taken it down how come there was not a trail from the missile? These missiles do leave a rather distinctive trial behind them that is seen for kilometers.
          Question 7: who ordered the plane to fly lower than was deemed safe for that area?
          So many questions and so little facts… Perhaps they questions do not fit the narrative?

          michaelantony 12 Sep 2014 08:19

          This investigation is a colossal waste of time and money and European taxpayers should demand an end to it. We all know what happened to the plane: it was shot down by accident while flying over a war zone where surface to air missiles were in constant use over previous days. None of the belligerents had an interest in shooting in down: whoever did it mistook it for a military craft belonging to the enemy. To try to find out which group to pin the blame on serves no purpose whatever except to further the warmongering agenda of NATO, which is trying to provoke the 3rd World War with Russia or justify even more crushing sanctions to grind Russia's population into further poverty. The real culprits for this horrible accident were Malaysia Airlines for flying over a war zone to save money and the aviation authorities for allowing them to do so. Those are the heads that should roll.

          LeWillow -> psygone 12 Sep 2014 08:07

          But you have to ask the question 'why would Putin shoot down a Malaysian passenger plane?
          It make no sense and would be completely stupid, and I don't think Putin is stupid somehow.
          The CIA on the other hand (and US Govt) would have a lot to gain from shooting down a plane and blaming it on Putin. They also have previous form when it comes to blowing planes out of the air.

          Standupwoman -> daveydor 12 Sep 2014 08:05

          Correct. I joined in 2012 to participate in the Bradley Manning conversation. I have an abhorrence of evil, and the silence of mass media regarding its victims.

          What world do you inhabit where such an attitude makes a person 'unreal'?

          LeWillow -> daveydor 12 Sep 2014 08:02

          "Actually what I find shocking is the bizarre pretence of you people to be real."

          By being 'real' do you mean believing everything the Western media tell us and everything the US Government. Is that what being 'real' involves?
          If it is, then you can keep it for yourself.

          jdanforth -> Martin Adams 12 Sep 2014 08:01
          Apparently it was an entire year before Libya was blamed -first it was Iran. Al Megrahi's alleged accomplice was found not guilty, and when al Megrahi was granted a chance to appeal his case in court, he was abruptly released instead.

          In the case of Lockerbie, satellite imagery was immediately provided by both France and the US, and that was in the 1980s!

          ChristopherMyers 12 Sep 2014 08:01
          They are sooo hoping it was East Ukrainian fighters supplied by Russia, sounding more like a witch hunt all the time. I wouldn't rule out the Azov Battalion, they were in the area, they have Russian accents, and BUK's, they murder civilians because they are Russian, like in Odessa. They still don't know if it was a missile, or if it was an air to air or surface to air, or bullets from a Ukrainian fighter jet (which would be intent on targeting the cockpit). Forensics though, will reveal what struck it, then place the blame. Why not wait until then to burn the witch?
          Carl Jones 12 Sep 2014 08:00

          The preliminary report suggests MH17 was hit by multiple impacts. There are pictures on the alternative media that shows a section of the plane near the cockpit that was strafed by machine gun fire after it had been hit by an air to air rocket[s]. The preliminary finding are inconsistent with a ground to air rocket and their is no evidence to this effect.

          Quite simply, this is a cover up.

          SaoPaulo 12 Sep 2014 07:56

          The mere fact that the United States MSM has dropped this topic like a hot potato (compare CNN coverage of MH17 with the endless coverage of MH370) and the complete lack of verified NATO or US or CIA satellite data implies that the Russians were not at fault here.

          JCDavis -> palindrome 12 Sep 2014 07:55

          Everything coming from the UK and US governments is a lie at one level or another and should be carefully investigated. But of course there is no one to do that as the press is almost totally subverted.


          palindrome 12 Sep 2014 07:50

          he drew comparisons with the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing that took years to identify suspects.

          Excellent comparison, the Lockerbie investigation is a great example of how investigators dismissed obvious clues as to the true perpetrators and used circumstantial evidence to "prove" that the Bond villains of the day (Libya) were the culprits.

          John Ashton's book lays the evidence for all to see of how everything can


          JCDavis JCDavis 12 Sep 2014 07:44

          Herbert E. Meyer, Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence under the Reagan administration--

          "If Putin is too stubborn to acknowledge that his career is over, and the only way to get him out of the Kremlin is feet-first, with a bullet hole in the back of his head - that would also be okay with us."


          krislej Daniel Brown 12 Sep 2014 07:35

          You're clearly someone who doesn't have a clue:

          SU-25's carry the R-60 air to air missile with a range of 5 miles, they also have a 30mm auto-cannon. The wreckage of MH17 is strewn with what are more than likely 30mm shell holes, perfectly rounded and highly unlikely to be fragmentation from a rocket.
          SU-25's can also climb to the height of MH17 and stay there for a short period of time before having to descend.

          Martin Adams 12 Sep 2014 07:33

          The Lockerbie investigation was subverted for political reasons and the enemy of convenience was then Libya. Abdelbasset al Megrahi who served 8 years in prison had nothing to do with Lockerbie and they know it.

          GoodmansParadox 12 Sep 2014 07:23

          ...he drew comparisons with the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing that took years to identify suspects.

          An interesting analogy, considering the suspects identified were fabricated in order to frame Libya. Considering the case against the two Libyan suspects required they work together, it was even more notable that only one of them was convicted. So a fabricated prosecution was delivered a perverse verdict, yet the media still lapped it up and ran with the lie.
          Funny how, with the toppling of Gaddafi, we were supposed to be provided with the evidence of Libyan involvement. Three years and counting...

          And now, the same cheerleaders for blaming Gaddafi are blaming Putin. Plus ca change.

          kaptenemo 12 Sep 2014 07:20

          Could investigators and journalists please also consider the possibility that the Kiev troops did it? Right now, they should be investigating all leads, not only those pointing to the Eastern Ukrainians. After all, the Ukrainian military did shoot down a commercial plane in 2001, so another mistake cannot be excluded out of hand.

          fintan -> DrHandley 12 Sep 2014 07:18

          The Dutch are under orders to ensure that all the data and any media release places blame of the Rebels

          The Dutch "under orders"? From whom? Have some respect for a democratic, sovereign state that has lost nearly 200 of its citizens to a murderous attack by vicious terrorists and, I have no doubt, very much wants to find the truth about how and why it happened.

          Standupwoman 12 Sep 2014 07:14

          What's possibly most shocking about this is the reiteration of discredited information - the supposed 'confession' of a rebel (taken massively out of context and heavily denied by the speaker) and the ludicrous fake audio of the rebel conversation which turned out to have been uploaded the day before the crash, then taken down again for editing.

          I wouldn't be surprised by this promulgation of lies if I found it on social media, but this is the Associated Press and I'm reading this in a once respected British newspaper. How in the name of any kind of decency did we come to sink as low as this?

          DrHandley 12 Sep 2014 07:12

          The Dutch are under orders to ensure that all the data and any media release places blame of the Rebels. We may talk about conspiracy theories - but in this case it smells like a cover up. The explosive residue left of the surface of the aircraft would surely indicate the type of weapon used as most explosives have a set 'signature'.

          Standupwoman 12 Sep 2014 07:06

          There's no surprise in the fact the solution 'getting most attention' is the one most likely to discredit the rebels. I'd be more interested to know if they were giving any attention to anything else.

          [Oct 16, 2015] Wolf Richter Debt Fueled Stock Buybacks Now Eating into Earnings

          "... This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 329 donors have already invested in our efforts to combat corruption and predatory conduct, particularly in financial realm. Please join us and participate via our Tip Jar , which shows how to give via check, credit card, debit card, or PayPal. Read about why we're doing this fundraiser , what we've accomplished in the last year , and our second target , funding for travel to conferences and in connection with original reporting. ..."
          "... These companies – according to JPMorgan analysts cited by Bloomberg – have incurred $119 billion in interest expense over the 12 months through the second quarter. The most ever. ..."
          "... last thing ..."
          "... As recently as 2012, companies were refinancing at interest rates that were 0.83 percentage point cheaper than the rates on the debt they were replacing, JPMorgan analysts said. That gap narrowed to 0.26 percentage point last year, even without a rise in interest rates, because the average coupon on newly issued debt increased. ..."
          "... "Increasingly alarming" is what Goldman's credit strategists led by Lotfi Karoui called this deterioration of corporate balance sheets. And it will get worse as yields edge up and as corporate revenues and earnings sink deeper into the mire of the slowing global economy. ..."
          "... But it isn't working anymore. Bloomberg found that since May, shares of companies that have plowed the most into share buybacks have fallen even further than the S P 500. Wal-Mart is a prime example. Turns out, once financial engineering fails, all bets are off. Read… The Chilling Thing Wal-Mart Said about Financial Engineering ..."
          "... It spelled out in Micheal Hudson's – Killing the Host. Economics and investment banking wraps itself in the persona as the engine of growth when, in fact, it is the engine of dis-employment, stagnate wages, declining manufacturing, inflated property prices which raise the cost of food production and everything else including forcing a majority to spend more of their income on debt service leaving less for anything beyond subsistence living. ..."
          "... "trillions are wasted and misdirected into useless financial "engineering" as opposed to real world engineering" ..."
          "... I read yesterday that less than 6% of Bank financing is now going to real tangible assets – the balance goes in various forms to intangible goodwill ..."
          "... Tony Soprano called it a "bust up" – take over a business and use the brand to skim the profits, buy goods and services and roll them out the backdoor and declare BK and then buy it back for pennies on the dollar. ..."
          "... 35 years ago, I spent a day at Ngorongoro Crater in Tanzania with a driver in a rover by myself watching the Hyenas take down a sick Buffalo culling him out in a gang, working the animal for hours, as he shuffled along until he fell and ten….. finally ate him in a ferocious climax. The most fascinating part of the entire trip. ..."
          "... Now there is a big fat tax deductible expense, and down the road, "value" is created when companies are bought for the tax carry forward losses. Win, win win. ..."
          "... Is a company that eliminates thousands of jobs via automation or outsourcing worthy of the public's credit? ..."
          Oct 16, 2015 | naked capitalism
          This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 329 donors have already invested in our efforts to combat corruption and predatory conduct, particularly in financial realm. Please join us and participate via our Tip Jar, which shows how to give via check, credit card, debit card, or PayPal. Read about why we're doing this fundraiser, what we've accomplished in the last year, and our second target, funding for travel to conferences and in connection with original reporting.

          Yves here. As anyone who has been in finance know, leverage amplifies gains and losses. Big company execs, apparently embracing the "IBG/YBG" ("I'll Be Gone, You'll Be Gone") school of management, apparently believed they could beat the day of reckoning that would come of relying on stock buybacks to keep EPS rising, regardless of the underlying health of the enterprise. But even in an era of super-cheap credit, investors expect higher interest rates for more levered businesses, which is what you get when you keep borrowing to prop up per-share earnings. As Richter explains, the chickens are starting to come home to roost.

          Companies with investment-grade credit ratings – the cream-of-the-crop "high-grade" corporate borrowers – have gorged on borrowed money at super-low interest rates over the past few years, as monetary policies put investors into trance. And interest on that mountain of debt, which grew another 4% in the second quarter, is now eating their earnings like never before.

          These companies – according to JPMorgan analysts cited by Bloomberg – have incurred $119 billion in interest expense over the 12 months through the second quarter. The most ever. With impeccable timing: for S&P 500 companies, revenues have been in a recession all year, and the last thing companies need now is higher expenses.

          Risks are piling up too: according to Bloomberg, companies' ability pay these interest expenses, as measured by the interest coverage ratio, dropped to the lowest level since 2009.

          Companies also have to refinance that debt when it comes due. If they can't, they'll end up going through what their beaten-down brethren in the energy and mining sectors are undergoing right now: reshuffling assets and debts, some of it in bankruptcy court.

          But high-grade borrowers can always borrow – as long as they remain "high-grade." And for years, they were on the gravy train riding toward ever lower interest rates: they could replace old higher-interest debt with new lower-interest debt. But now the bonanza is ending. Bloomberg:

          As recently as 2012, companies were refinancing at interest rates that were 0.83 percentage point cheaper than the rates on the debt they were replacing, JPMorgan analysts said. That gap narrowed to 0.26 percentage point last year, even without a rise in interest rates, because the average coupon on newly issued debt increased.

          And the benefits of refinancing at lower rates are dwindling further:

          Companies saved a mere 0.21 percentage point in the second quarter on refinancings as investors demanded average yields of 3.12 percent to own high-grade corporate debt – about half a percentage point more than the post-crisis low in May 2013.

          That was in the second quarter. Since then, conditions have worsened. Moody's Aaa Corporate Bond Yield index, which tracks the highest-rated borrowers, was at 3.29% in early February. In July last year, it was even lower for a few moments. So refinancing old debt at these super-low interest rates was a deal. But last week, the index was over 4%. It currently sits at 3.93%. And the benefits of refinancing at ever lower yields are disappearing fast.

          What's left is a record amount of debt, generating a record amount of interest expense, even at these still very low yields.

          "Increasingly alarming" is what Goldman's credit strategists led by Lotfi Karoui called this deterioration of corporate balance sheets. And it will get worse as yields edge up and as corporate revenues and earnings sink deeper into the mire of the slowing global economy.

          But these are the cream of the credit crop. At the other end of the spectrum – which the JPMorgan analysts (probably holding their nose) did not address – are the junk-rated masses of over-indebted corporate America. For deep-junk CCC-rated borrowers, replacing old debt with new debt has suddenly gotten to be much more expensive or even impossible, as yields have shot up from the low last June of around 8% to around 14% these days:

          US-junk-bonds-CCC-2014_2015-10-15

          Yields have risen not because of the Fed's policies – ZIRP is still in place – but because investors are coming out of their trance and are opening their eyes and are finally demanding higher returns to take on these risks. Even high-grade borrowers are feeling the long-dormant urge by investors to be once again compensated for risk, at least a tiny bit.

          If the global economy slows down further and if revenues and earnings get dragged down with it, all of which are now part of the scenario, these highly leveraged balance sheets will further pressure already iffy earnings, and investors will get even colder feet, in a hail of credit down-grades, and demand even more compensation for taking on these risks. It starts a vicious circle, even in high-grade debt.

          Alas, much of the debt wasn't invested in productive assets that would generate income and make it easier to service the debt. Instead, companies plowed this money into dizzying amounts of share repurchases designed to prop up the company's stock and nothing else, and they plowed it into grandiose mergers and acquisitions, and into other worthy financial engineering projects.

          Now the money is gone. The debt remains. And the interest has to be paid. It's the hangover after a long party. And even Wall Street is starting to fret, according to Bloomberg:

          The borrowing has gotten so aggressive that for the first time in about five years, equity fund managers who said they'd prefer companies use cash flow to improve their balance sheets outnumbered those who said they'd rather have it returned to shareholders, according to a survey by Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

          But it's still not sinking in. Companies are still announcing share buybacks with breath-taking amounts, even as revenues and earnings are stuck in a quagmire. They want to prop up their shares in one last desperate effort. In the past, this sort of financial engineering worked. Every year since 2007, companies that bought back their own shares aggressively saw their shares outperform the S&P 500 index.

          But it isn't working anymore. Bloomberg found that since May, shares of companies that have plowed the most into share buybacks have fallen even further than the S&P 500. Wal-Mart is a prime example. Turns out, once financial engineering fails, all bets are off. Read… The Chilling Thing Wal-Mart Said about Financial Engineering

          Wolf Richter is a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist, and author, with extensive international work experience. Originally published at Wolf Street.


          TomDority, October 16, 2015 at 8:01 am

          One wonders where all that "investment" goes…pretty much into the CEO's pockets and investors pockets because banks do not create money by investing in real legitimate capital formation or producing anything tangible…..i

          It spelled out in Micheal Hudson's – Killing the Host. Economics and investment banking wraps itself in the persona as the engine of growth when, in fact, it is the engine of dis-employment, stagnate wages, declining manufacturing, inflated property prices which raise the cost of food production and everything else including forcing a majority to spend more of their income on debt service leaving less for anything beyond subsistence living.

          These trillions are wasted and misdirected into useless financial "engineering" as opposed to real world engineering….at the expense of a habitable peaceful planet. Soon, I hope, this dislocation will be corrected. As I have said before, a good start would be to tax that which is harmful (unearned income and rent seeking) and de-tax that which is helpful – real capital formation, infrastructure and maintenance of a habitable planet and the absolutely necessary biodiversity that sustains us.


          david, October 16, 2015 at 8:57 am

          "trillions are wasted and misdirected into useless financial "engineering" as opposed to real world engineering"

          I read yesterday that less than 6% of Bank financing is now going to real tangible assets – the balance goes in various forms to intangible goodwill

          this is not "useless" from the standpoint of those who direct this game.

          Tony Soprano called it a "bust up" – take over a business and use the brand to skim the profits, buy goods and services and roll them out the backdoor and declare BK and then buy it back for pennies on the dollar.

          the money is used for dividends and buybacks all that money is accumulated by the LBO firms and management to maneuver the situation / process to the point of the bust up – this time they are all going simultaneously for the exit even the most high end S&P firm – the HY prices are deteriorating quickly beyond energy related as % LTV goes higher – before 82′ the LTV of Fortune Cos. was way below 20% – 35% was considered max –

          the same characters / groups will be formed to get to 51% to buy and control the bonds at 20-30% on the dollar in BK and take the assets.

          35 years ago, I spent a day at Ngorongoro Crater in Tanzania with a driver in a rover by myself watching the Hyenas take down a sick Buffalo culling him out in a gang, working the animal for hours, as he shuffled along until he fell and ten….. finally ate him in a ferocious climax. The most fascinating part of the entire trip.

          USA, USA, USA !

          cnchal, October 16, 2015 at 9:38 am

          . . .Now the money is gone. The debt remains. And the interest has to be paid,. . .

          Now there is a big fat tax deductible expense, and down the road, "value" is created when companies are bought for the tax carry forward losses. Win, win win.

          Just Ice, October 16, 2015 at 10:53 am

          "Companies with investment-grade credit ratings …"

          With government-subsidized private credit creation, the whole concept of "creditworthiness" is suspect. Example, is Smith-Wesson "credit-worthy" to many Progressives? Yet, it's their credit, as part of the public, that would be extended should S&W take out a bank loan.

          Is a company that eliminates thousands of jobs via automation or outsourcing worthy of the public's credit?

          [Oct 16, 2015] ISIS on verge of defeat as Russian jets cut off arms supplies

          World News Daily Express

          Earlier this week Putin accused US official of having "mush for brains" after they refused hand over intelligence about ISIS targets.

          He said: "We asked on the military level to give us the targets which they consider to be the terrorist ones for sure, 100 per cent. But the answer was: 'No, we are not ready to do that'.

          "Then we thought and asked another question: 'Then could you tell us where we should not hit?' Again, no answer. So, what should we do?"

          Washington and its allies have suggested Russia is seeking to prop up Bashar al-Assad's regime rather than defeat ISIS.

          But Putin hit back, saying his country wants to "contribute to the fight against terrorism" which threatens "the whole world".

          [Oct 16, 2015] MH17 field Experiment done by Almaz-Antey

          "... The Spanish ATC guy's posts were real, but he said the trailing fighters left shortly before MH17 vanished. Presumably they'd been told to get clear. ..."
          "... So… the official Ukrainian ministry of the interior had released via their own web site a fake video-audio product, pretending the downing was done by separatists and it was an after-the-event conversation… but the Interior Ministry had produced the video file the day before the downing. ..."
          "... The Spanish ATC guy's real-time tweets are consistent with this story. He said ordinary military arrived at ATC first, but then Interior Ministry guys arrived and took over, removing all evidence tapes. ..."
          "... The Kiev government absolutely and provably self-incriminated. ..."
          "... All Western and Kiev claims (official, leaked and 'expert comments') to the contrary since, have been orchestrated to bury and obfuscate that key evidence. ..."
          "... MH17 was downed by a BUK fired by Kiev government forces, intending to down MH17 and claim the Russians were responsible. US fingers in this scheme can be seen in the selection of an Air Malaysia plane. ..."
          "... Other points: – right after the event, Russian sources reported their military signals intelligence in the E-Ukraine conflict area had detected a BUK systems targeting radar activation at the time of the downing. That would be rather unlikely to admit, if they fired it. ..."
          "... Many other points all indicate Ukie government responsibility for this war crime. And the nature of the Western 'investigation' also shouts of high level awareness of Western guilt. ..."
          "... and what about the testimony of a Ukrainian army soldier that he'd seen a pilot return on the day and time of the downing of MH17, confirming that the boeing had been shot by a Ukrainian fighter plane? ..."
          "... the fact that russia is now conceding that the MH17 was hit by a BUK missile completely changes the equation for me. we've either been lied to with the expert opinion and the eye witness account, or the BUK story is a fake. ..."
          "... Please note that this Almaz-Antey MH17 field Experiment was done to support their commercial interests in a court battle to recover damages for reputation and sanctions. It does not necessarily reflect Russian government position (although it could hardly counter it either). ..."
          "... It is a well timed PR 'Buk' at the corrupt and cynical 15-month Dutch insult to their own MH17 dead citizens and the wider global traveling public. ..."
          "... I suspect a lot is calibrated end with the fall of Ukraine's nazi Poreshenko regime. One long cold winter (on a month-by-month pre-payment plan) coming up! ..."
          "... Who is conceding? All I have heard in the Almaz-Antey press conference was based on an "if", without any definite "it was". So, if it was a BUK, then it was an old one, out of use in the Russian army already 2011. If it was a BUK, it started in the region of Zaroshenskoje, not near Snezhnoje. ..."
          The Vineyard of the Saker
          TerraHertz, October 15, 2015
          "We all know" – Speak for yourself. As soon as I saw the high-res image of that cockpit side panel, I knew it had been a missile. There's clear results of a shock wave loaded with fine (down to dust size) particles. Also those holes were not bullet holes, and they all came from the left side of the plane. Metal edges bent outwards are due to the shockwave gases arriving just after the larger penetrators, forcing between the skin layers, and blowing the outer layer outwards around holes.

          The Spanish ATC guy's posts were real, but he said the trailing fighters left shortly before MH17 vanished. Presumably they'd been told to get clear.

          All the "fighter planes shot up and/or fired an air to air missile at it" rubbish has been disinformation, designed to bury that one damning and war-crimes trial worthy proof the Kiev Junta (and US puppetmasters) preplanned the event. That was the video released on the Kiev Ministry of Interior's official web site right after MH17's downing. The video was the 2nd released from the same source, in a common style. It purported to be an intercepted communication between separatists and a Russian general, in which they discussed having downed the plane with a missile fired by separatists.

          Analysis of the video's audio (the alleged 'conversation') revealed it was an collage edited together using short word sequences. A fake. But also a massive mistake – it was reported that analysis also found the video still contained timestamps from the editing process. It had been constructed the DAY BEFORE the downing.

          So… the official Ukrainian ministry of the interior had released via their own web site a fake video-audio product, pretending the downing was done by separatists and it was an after-the-event conversation… but the Interior Ministry had produced the video file the day before the downing. Proof of prior knowledge of an 'accident' (or act supposedly by someone else) is proof of planning it.

          The Spanish ATC guy's real-time tweets are consistent with this story. He said ordinary military arrived at ATC first, but then Interior Ministry guys arrived and took over, removing all evidence tapes.

          This is real, but it has been flushed down the memory hole. The Kiev government absolutely and provably self-incriminated. And by extension, their masters in the US government were certainly involved in planning too.

          All Western and Kiev claims (official, leaked and 'expert comments') to the contrary since, have been orchestrated to bury and obfuscate that key evidence.

          MH17 was downed by a BUK fired by Kiev government forces, intending to down MH17 and claim the Russians were responsible. US fingers in this scheme can be seen in the selection of an Air Malaysia plane. More payback to Malaysia for their Trial of Israel for war crimes, and also trying to ship that stolen US military drone control system to China, on MH370.

          TerraHertz

          eimar, October 15, 2015
          @Terrahertz

          Of course there is no unanimity about how MH-17 was brought down.

          But 'none' is not just speaking for him/herself.

          Check out this RT doc at 12.40: a local witness to a jet directly approaching the plane from below, followed by a blue flash:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W3Ai0nUxKE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

          This does not exclude the BUK hypothesis. The pilot may have been instructed to obscure the real cause, or told to deliver a payload too. Or simply act as a lure to divert the plane into the missile path.

          Or it was a coincidental presence.

          But a Ukrainian fighter jet was on the scene.

          TerraHertz, October 15, 2015
          @eimar That's an interesting documentary, however you should exercise a little more discernment. These witnesses are not credible, or are speaking of unrelated events. MH17 was flying at 33,000 feet. At that height an airliner is little more than a dot, and a fighter plane may not be visible at all. No chance of telling which one is 'below' the other if they are near each other. How about that guy who says he "ran outside to see" then claims he saw the entire sequence? Yeah, so what made him run outside? As for the lack of sightings of a BUK smoke trail, I'd put that down to the rainy, cloudy weather. And what was the cloud height anyway? Lower than 33K feet seems likely. Also the site the Russians claim the missile was launched from is unpopulated fields. Could easily be no witnesses, especially since the Ukraine military would want to make sure no one saw them (or lived to speak of it.)

          Other points: – right after the event, Russian sources reported their military signals intelligence in the E-Ukraine conflict area had detected a BUK systems targeting radar activation at the time of the downing. That would be rather unlikely to admit, if they fired it.

          Plus, MH17 flight path would have put it over Russian territory in a few more minutes, and Russian ATC expected it. Why on earth shoot it down over Ukraine, if they wanted it down? From the Russian side there's no conceivable practical motive. The Separatists would have no motive either, since at that altitude MH17 couldn't possibly be mistaken for a Ukie military flight.

          Many other points all indicate Ukie government responsibility for this war crime. And the nature of the Western 'investigation' also shouts of high level awareness of Western guilt.

          Just for reference, my collected chronology of media reports here: http://everist.org/archives/links/__Flight_MH17_shootdown_info.txt
          (and lots more in the same folder.)

          SunLion, October 14, 2015 · at 10:22 pm UTC

          What a fantastic summary. Chapeau to Russia. The level of expertise and competence of the Russian team is incredible. And this video is so well made…

          I knew from the beginning that the UkroNazi were behind this false flag. The purpose was to accuse Russia and support the sanctions. In fact, some of the "evidence" was made-up prior to the "accident". I also believe that the US was part of it. They may plead "Plausible deniability" but their game is well known and for one I am not fooled. If it look like a duck…

          If the US wants to fight the Russians, I have bad news for the psychopaths.

          mbotta on October 15, 2015 · at 4:32 am UTC

          guys, so what happened to the expert opinion that the way the boeing was damaged
          1) could in no way be done by a BUK missile, and
          2) indicated that it had been shot at by a fighter plane?

          and what about the testimony of a Ukrainian army soldier that he'd seen a pilot return on the day and time of the downing of MH17, confirming that the boeing had been shot by a Ukrainian fighter plane?

          the fact that russia is now conceding that the MH17 was hit by a BUK missile completely changes the equation for me. we've either been lied to with the expert opinion and the eye witness account, or the BUK story is a fake.

          Anonymous on October 15, 2015 · at 9:29 am UTC

          Re: "… the fact that russia is now conceding that the MH17 was hit by a BUK missile completely changes the equation for me."

          Please note that this Almaz-Antey MH17 field Experiment was done to support their commercial interests in a court battle to recover damages for reputation and sanctions. It does not necessarily reflect Russian government position (although it could hardly counter it either).

          It is a well timed PR 'Buk' at the corrupt and cynical 15-month Dutch insult to their own MH17 dead citizens and the wider global traveling public.

          Where the MH17 project goes from here is anyone's guess - but in the reputation and credibility stakes Russian share value is rising and EU/Nato is dropping fast. What is clear, is, any 'win' by the usual suspects will be slow and at a very high cost.

          I suspect a lot is calibrated end with the fall of Ukraine's nazi Poreshenko regime. One long cold winter (on a month-by-month pre-payment plan) coming up!

          Max on October 15, 2015 · at 11:21 am UTC

          Who is conceding? All I have heard in the Almaz-Antey press conference was based on an "if", without any definite "it was". So, if it was a BUK, then it was an old one, out of use in the Russian army already 2011. If it was a BUK, it started in the region of Zaroshenskoje, not near Snezhnoje.

          [Oct 14, 2015] I do not take my mandate from the European people

          Notable quotes:
          "... when I asked the trade commissioner how she could continue her persistent promotion of the deal in the face of such massive public opposition, her response came back icy cold: "I do not take my mandate from the European people." ..."
          Oct 13, 2013 | naked capitalism
          "I didn't think TTIP could get any scarier, but then I spoke to the EU official in charge of it" [Independent].

          When put to her, Malmström acknowledged that a trade deal has never inspired such passionate and widespread opposition. Yet when I asked the trade commissioner how she could continue her persistent promotion of the deal in the face of such massive public opposition, her response came back icy cold: "I do not take my mandate from the European people."

          Those honest, blunt Brussels bureaucrats! So different from our own political class!

          [Oct 14, 2015] The JIT report could catalyze an official response from Russia

          Notable quotes:
          "... A 9M38M1 uses what is called proportional navigation. Basically it means it does not tail chase the target but constantly calculates the future route of the target. By doing so the missile is able to cut corners and approach the target using the shortest route and thus saving as much fuel as possible. ..."
          "... I'm looking forward to the release of the JIT report and I think it will catalyze an official response from Russia. Comparing the different versions of events should be indicative of who is swimming naked. ..."
          Oct 10, 2015 | nakedcapitalism.com/

          John Helmer US Strategy In The Middle East Is Dying, Along With Its Authors, Carter And Brzezinski

          optimader, October 10, 2015 at 6:20 pm

          Blert,
          And BUKs use heat seeking missiles. refers to you post yesterday regarding engine heat of a B-777

          BUK missile are radar guided.. period.

          You can go find the link..
          Target detection

          The TELAR radar automatically categorizes targets by 3 types: aerodynamics;

          • aircraft with moving engines with an airspeed of over 100 m / s
          • ballistic missiles
          • helicopters

          The info is needed for calculation of the trajectory of the missile. The commander can recognize the unique footprint of a target and when agreed with that this is the target he presses a button for launch. The onboard computer will do the calculations for guiding the missile.

          This article in Russian language has a lot of detailed information on target recognition.

          The missile guiding

          Once the missile has been launched it is guided by the radar to the target using radar signals. The radar illuminates the target. The radar return is picked up by the missile. The missile receives control guidance from the ground using radio signals. This system is called a semi active homing radar.

          Buk, Buk-M1 and earlier versions of Buk-M1-2 and Buk-M2 missile systems uses an Argon-15 type of the onboard computer. The Argon-15 is able to detect target radar signal (shape, length, reverberations, envelope and videosignal). Argon-15 does not give to the crew the ability to change target. The commander must choose target on stage Search, then Argon-15 calculate algorithm Meet Zone, then indicate Target in zone, commander open fire it all. More information on the Argon-15 here.

          When close to the target the seeker head (radar in the missile) will take over from the guidance of the TELAR and will continue its route towards the target.

          The missile has a proximity fuse. This is fed by the radar. When the missile is within range the proximity fuse will detonate the explosive in the warhead. That will be around 17 meters from the target.

          Proportional navigation

          A 9M38M1 uses what is called proportional navigation. Basically it means it does not tail chase the target but constantly calculates the future route of the target. By doing so the missile is able to cut corners and approach the target using the shortest route and thus saving as much fuel as possible.

          To intercept high-speed targets like aircraft and missiles, a semi active homing missile must follow a lead (collision) course. The intercept point is at the intersection of the missile and target flight paths. The best collision or lead course happens when the missile heading keeps a constant angle with the line of sight to the target. This course requires missile accelerations to be only as great as target accelerations. Specifically, if the target flies a straight-line, constant-velocity course, the missile can also follow a straight-line collision course if its velocity does not change. But in practice, this ideal situation does not exist. Missile velocity seldom stays constant. Irregular sustainer propellant burning changes thrust, and therefore affects speed…

          low_integer, October 11, 2015 at 2:40 am

          I'm looking forward to the release of the JIT report and I think it will catalyze an official response from Russia. Comparing the different versions of events should be indicative of who is swimming naked.

          [Oct 14, 2015] In Australia the news the Dutch investigation last night was immediately followed with coverage of the Russian points refuting some of Dutch claims

          "... which are a mix of bow-tie shaped pieces and diamond shaped pieces, indicate that it is an older type of BUK missile that their military has not used for a long time ..."
          "... Russia has also claimed that the Ukraine military did possess the older type of BUK missile that corresponds to the fragments found. ..."
          "... here in Australia, the news coverage I saw (SBS channel) of the Dutch (JIT) investigation last night was immediately followed with coverage of the Russian points noted above, with the manufacturer of the BUK missiles refuting some of the JITs claims after apparently having done some tests. It was fairly brief however I was surprised to see both sides get airtime. ..."
          Jun 16, 2003 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
          low_integer October 13, 2015 at 10:50 pm

          It is not just whether or not it was a BUK missile, it is also what type of BUK missile it was, if it was in fact a BUK that brought the plane down. Russia's contention is that the shape of the fragments found, which are a mix of bow-tie shaped pieces and diamond shaped pieces, indicate that it is an older type of BUK missile that their military has not used for a long time. I'm assuming the new type they use also has a distinctive fragmentation pattern, and I'm not sure how long it has been since they have phased out use of the old type, or if that information has been made available.

          Russia has also claimed that the Ukraine military did possess the older type of BUK missile that corresponds to the fragments found.

          Interestingly, here in Australia, the news coverage I saw (SBS channel) of the Dutch (JIT) investigation last night was immediately followed with coverage of the Russian points noted above, with the manufacturer of the BUK missiles refuting some of the JIT's claims after apparently having done some tests. It was fairly brief however I was surprised to see both sides get airtime.

          I have also been hearing that it was reported that passengers may have remained conscious for up to 90 seconds.

          Still very unclear who is responsible, imo.

          [Oct 14, 2015] Russia states that their military no longer use older type of BUK missile which supposly hit MH17

          "... Why divert that MH-17 to that routes, while previous planes before MH-17, directed to other southern routes? ..."
          "... Where is the traffic conversations records between the ATC and the MH17? ..."
          "... Where is the radar plot of the MH17? ..."
          "... Where is the sworn testimonies from the ATC guy in charge of taking care the MH17? ..."
          "... The Buk left some nice t-shaped holes in the test fusilage. None of those were witnessed on MH-17 wreckage and the holes were primarily round. The missile that hit was closer than the suspended Buk they were testing and was likely an air to air weapon. You can see the burn marks on MH-17 wreckage... ..."
          "... The news today was a joke. Ukraine ordered the plane to fly the course , altitude and speed. And yet no transcripts from the Ukraine Aviation authority ? why ? ..."
          "... and what happened to Carlos the air traffic controller who sent word about military interference at ATC? ..."
          Oct 13, 2015 | Zero Hedge
          kaboomnomic

          About that MH-17. Here's the manufacturer version.
          https://www.rt.com/news/318531-mh17-experiment-almaz-antey/

          Here's the video of the experiment.
          https://youtu.be/EU-weRmf29c

          The MH-17 shot down by BUK-M1. Almaz-Antey have long discontinued this model. Russian troops use BUK-M2. It is a known fact. Even in the western military site.
          http://www.army-technology.com/projects/buk-m2e-air-defence-missile-system/

          Russian troops use this new BUK-M2 back in 2008. You can check this if you have the DU (depleted uraniums) fragmented casing, and test them with isotopes methodes. Which for some reasons, the dutch teams refused to do.

          - - -

          Again. Russian haters fails to mentioned this.

          As of the questions of:

          1. Why the ATC not closing the route?

          2. Why divert that MH-17 to that routes, while previous planes before MH-17, directed to other southern routes?

          3. Where is the traffic conversations records between the ATC and the MH17?

          4. Where is the radar plot of the MH17?

          5. Where is the sworn testimonies from the ATC guy in charge of taking care the MH17?

          There are alot of questions unanswered. And yet the dutch investigation still release the report.

          Why??

          The Indelicate ...

          The New York Times' clumsiness as to its pro-Israel/anti-Russian {and for that matter anti-constitutionalist and anti-libertarian} propaganda is stunning.

          They're either that stupid or that brazen - knowing that Americans are too stupid to parse misleading rhetoric.

          Of course, that's older Americans.

          Had I time and inclination, before absurd TPP copyright laws prevent it {from what I gather}

          a great web site would be unmoderated, space limited comments on ny times stories.

          Because imagine what doesnt get through...

          PrimalScream

          good questions. why the report? - So companies and citizens can claim financial damages. you seem to be implying that the BUK-M1 could have been sold on the black market, or provided by clandestine means. By who? To who? Those are questions that a lot of people hoped would be answered.

          ZerOhead

          The Buk left some nice t-shaped holes in the test fusilage.

          None of those were witnessed on MH-17 wreckage and the holes were primarily round. The missile that hit was closer than the suspended Buk they were testing and was likely an air to air weapon. You can see the burn marks on MH-17 wreckage...

          eurogold

          The news today was a joke. Ukraine ordered the plane to fly the course , altitude and speed. And yet no transcripts from the Ukraine Aviation authority ? why ?

          FixItAgainTony

          and what happened to Carlos the air traffic controller who sent word about military interference at ATC?
          http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2014/07/carlos-spanish-kiev-ai...

          [Oct 14, 2015] Putin Calls US and Allies Oatmeal Heads On Syria

          Oct 13, 2015 | Zero Hedge

          To be sure, there are a lot of absurd things about what Washington has done and is currently doing in Syria.

          There's the support for Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for instance, who has used ISIS as an excuse to wage war on his own people. Then there are the various efforts to arm and train a hodgepodge of different anti-regime rebel groups (with more embarrassing results each and every time). And just yesterday we learned that the best idea the Pentagon can come up with now is to literally paradrop "50 tons" of ammo on pallets into the middle of the desert and hope the "right" people pick it up.

          Of course when it comes to absurd outcomes in Syria, it's difficult to top the fact that at some point - and you don't have to go full-conspiracy theory to believe this anymore - either the West or else Qatar and Saudi Arabia provided some type of assistance to ISIS, which then proceeded to metamorphose into white basketball shoe-wearing, black flag-waving, sword-wielding desert bandits hell bent on establishing a medieval caliphate.

          Having said all of that, things took an even more surreal turn late last month when, after Russia stormed in via Latakia and started bombing anti-regime targets, Washington was forced to claim that somehow, Moscow's efforts would be detrimental to the war on terror.

          To be sure, there really wasn't much else the US could say. After all, you can't simply come out and say "well, we need to keep ISIS around actually and we'd much rather them then Putin and Assad, so no, we're not going to help the Russians fight terror." The only possible spin to avoid blowing the whole charade up was to claim that somehow, The Kremlin is helping terrorists by killing them (and not in the whole 72 virgins kind of way).

          Now as we've said before, Putin is there (along with Iran) to shore up Assad. There's no question about that and Moscow hasn't been shy about saying it. But at the end of the day, when you are trying to wipe out your friend's enemies and some of those enemies are terrorists, well then, you are fighting a war on terror by default and that's not good for terrorists by definition. By denying this, the US is effectively arguing against a tautology which is never a good idea, and we're running out of ways to describe the ridiculousness of it.

          Fortunately, Vladimir Putin is not running out of colorful descriptors.

          Here's Bloomberg with some amusing excerpts from a speech he gave at an annual conference organized by VTB Capital in Moscow on Tuesday:

          Some of Russia's international partners have "oatmeal in their heads" because they don't understand clearly that its military campaign in Syria seeks to help the fight against terrorism, President Vladimir Putin said.

          Russia notified the U.S. and the European Union in advance "out of respect" that it intended to begin airstrikes against Islamic State and other militants in Syria, Putin said at an annual conference organized by VTB Capital in Moscow on Tuesday. This showed Russia's ready to cooperate on Syria, while nobody ever warned the authorities in Moscow about their operations, he said.

          Putin's colorful phrase, normally used to describe someone as confused, to characterize relations with the U.S. and its allies on Syria comes amid deep tensions over the Russian bombing campaign and cruise-missile strikes that began Sept. 30. The EU demanded on Monday that Russia stop targeting moderate groups opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter warned that Russia's actions "will have consequences" and the bombing "will only inflame" Syria's four-year civil war.

          Russia "received no answer" when it asked its international partners to provide information on terrorist targets in Syria, or to say at least where its planes shouldn't bomb, Putin said. "It's not a joke, I'm not making any of this up," he said.

          And while the US insists on says things like this (out just hours ago):

          EARNEST: SOME RUSSIAN STRIKES IN SYRIA ARE HELPING ISLAMIC STATE

          Put makes a more logical argument. Namely that when one drops 50 tons of ammo from the sky into the most dangerous place on earth, there's absolutely no way to know for sure where it will ultimately end up:

          U.S. air drops of weapons and ammunition intended for the Syrian Free Army, which is fighting Assad's regime, could end up in the hands of Islamic State instead, Putin said.

          Yes, they might "end up in the hands of Islamic State" which we're sure wasn't what Washington had in mind. Oh ... wait...

          Silky Johnson

          That's kind of shit that happens when you lie to everyone and pretend to be all chivalrous an shit, but you're really a cuntface that arms monsters.

          CClarity

          In Ruski it means "mush for brains?

          NoDebt

          Yeah, I'm guessing it makes more sense in Russian. Where's Boris when we need him for translation?

          KungFuMaster

          I am not Boris, but the second best thing. This is what Putin said:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b8CGyFM2Q4

          So this an idiom which should be translated: They have mess/chaos in their head. Oatmeal is typical Russian food, but in this case the main characteristic is that oatmeal looks all the same and this implies that subject cannot differentiate and separate concepts, has a fuzzy filling in his head when he does not know what he is talking about.

          tc06rtw

          … I think we must realize politics influenced Mr. Putin's statements; He must be forgiven for his overly charitable description of the US and its allies.

          BALANDAS

          Here is my reliable information --- Putin fears that US arms terrorists in Syria.

          10/13/2015 14:12:30

          Moscow. October 13. Interfax-AVN - Moscow fear that the weapons and uniforms, which the United States supplied "Free Syrian Army" could fall into the hands of terrorists, said Russian President Vladimir Putin.

          "Who said that the aircraft" Free Syrian Army "deliver ammunition and ammunition. Where is the" Free Syrian Army "? Do not fall if it all again as it was in the training of personnel in the hands LIH? Where is the guarantee?" - Putin said at an investment forum "Russia Calling".

          "It is only that all this was done, only that it happened just in the United States recognized that action failed, and now just somewhere to throw ammunition and ammunition. This? This is not a rhetorical question," - concluded the president.


          Paveway IV

          The U.S. oatmeal head's psychopathic plan is, was, and always will be to overthrow Assad.

          • Failure #1: To convince enough Syrians to die for the replacement U.S.- and Israeli-puppet Syria. Solution: outsource.
          • Failure #2: Rebrand unemployed al Qaeda head-choppers under the al Nusra banner from Iraq. Qatar and Saudi Arabia provided the funding, and Turkey and Jordan the training and staging points. Expect obedience.
          • Failure #3: Expecting said head-choppers to share your vision of a free, democratic U.S./Israeli puppet Syria. The head-choppers didn't give a damn about the U.S. plans because they were just going to keep Syria for themselves. But, hey - if the nut-jobs in the U.S. wanted to set them up with training and weapons, why not? Uh... 'moderate' rebels? Yeeaaaahh... that's right. We're 'moderate'. Free, democratic Syria? ...yeah, whatever.
          • Failure #4: Give the FSA TOW-2As for their unwinnable war. Al Nusra reaction: how about some TOW-2As for US? No? OK... I guess we'll just convince the FSA that have them that they really need to be in our 'joint opeations room' with the rest of our alliance (or lose their fucking heads). So, yeah... just keep giving TOWs to THEM.
          • Failure #5: Expecting the demoralized, crumbling, corrupt FSA left-overs (now effectively Shanghai'd by al Nusra and various other takfiri head-choppers) to make military progress with their criminal amphetamine-crazed, civilian-looting head-chopper buddies. At the same time, even more fanatical head-choppers ISIS evolves and secures a lot of the previous al Nusra funding and arms, pissing off THEM.
          • Failure #6: Coming up with the clownishly-stupid plan of USING ISIS to fight Assad since the FSA and al Nusra plan fell to shit. You would simple bomb ISIS if they attacked a non-approved target (al Nusra or the FSA) and steer them to desirec targets (Assad and Syrian infrastructure and oil wells) with ammo, equipment drops and intel. It actually worked for a few months, but ISIS knew what was going on all along. They've grown tired of the game and have plenty of weapons and ammo now (between U.S. airdrops and all the shit they seized whenever they roll over another Syrian army position).
          • Failure #7: Keeping ISIS financially strong enough to serve as your third army against Assad: Bomb the shit out of Assad's forces guarding oil and gas installations, then airdrop arms, ammo and equipment to ISIS so they can take them over and sustain their operations through black-market means. At least not as blatant as Iraq, where you transfer several hundred tons of gold to your new central bank in Mosul - days before ISIS simply walks in and takes it without a shot (almost like it was a planned gold transfer to ISIS).
          • Failure #8: Failing to anticipate that Putin would do the same thing for now: steer ISIS towards your FSA/head-chopper forces to kill them FOR you. He's done this north of Aleppo and decimated Jabha Shamiya, who is now scurrying back to more al Nusra-safe turf. Putin and Solemani have no plans to enable ISIS long term - just use them for a little short-term al Nusra meat-grinding until they, themselves are annihilated by Syria and allies.
          • Failure #9: Failing to understand how quickly the supply lines to Aleppo could be interdicted by a Russian air campaign. It turns out the resolve of both the Aleppo FSA (for a U.S. democratized and freedomized Syria) and the Aleppo head-choppers (for their caliphate) are directly dependent on a continuous supply of amphetamines, USD, weapons and ammo. Interferene with that opposition Wal*Mart drug and explosives logistics network has created quite a bit of consternation in Aleppo. The second in command of the opposition coalition there just quit, head-choppers are leaving for paying jobs and the few FSA left there are heading for Turkey. Aleppo might fall in a matter of weeks, maybe days - without much opposition at all.

          More to come. Waaayyy more to come.

          ZerOhead

          That's a lot of failures even for a completely inept Obama Administration. Too many failures perhaps?

          Paveway IV

          Not NEARLY enough. The next step of the Oded-Yinon (or whatever the clownfuckery is called) plan calls for a civil war in Turkey (Turks vs. Kurds), partitioning it and splitting off of a corrupt and psychopathic U.S./Israeli-puppet-led unified Kurdish nation. ZATO has hijacked Kurdish nationalism to force an artificial Kurdistan well before it's time.

          The purpose isn't to unify Kurds, it's to create a weak and corrupt Kurdish corridor from the Mediterranean to Iran. Guess why? Hint: Israel's U.S.-staffed war with Iran, discount stolen Iraqi oil from Kurdish Iraq for Israel, and the alternative northern route for Qatari gas lines (avoiding Syria altogether).

          See how that all works out? Russian soldiers die in Syria to clean up the U.S./Israeli mess they created there. At the same time, the Kurds will lose their long sought-after Kurdish nation to a Ukraine-like Jewish oligarch controlled, chaotic and eternally-squabbling hell-hole of a country (probably eternally at war with the Turkish partition next to them) kept barely alive by stolen Iraqi oil (who will also be trying to kill them).

          Psychopathy 101: Manufactured death and destruction is like a welcome mat to come in and fuck over the victims even more.

          Poundsand

          The hypocrisy is staggering and the entire world knows it. Assad has to go because of what? They say bombing his own people. Yet across the border Erdogan is actually bombing his own people and no one says boo. But I guess duly elected minority representation in a democratic country doesn't really count if you're Kurdish.

          The US is losing it's standing in the world and has become a corrupt sheriff in town and don't think that everyone except those here in America don't know it. As our military and moral authority wane, it will be picked up by someone else. It always is because there is nothing new under the sun.

          Son of Loki

          Neither the Law nor Morality stand in the way of The POTUS!

          SofaPapa

          Increasingly, even those here in America know it. The US government has minimal popular support for their actions of the past 15 years in the international stage. They are playing with fire both at home and abroad.

          McMolotov

          The establishment wants Hitlery but is quickly realizing she is likely unelectable. Bernie is a wildcard and uncontrollable, so they need to swing the electorate over to the GOP. Piling on Obama will accomplish just that. After they find a way to torpedo Trump, look for someone like Rubio to become the front-runner.

          Elections are nothing more than selections by the power elite at this point, but there still has to be a thin veneer of plausibility to the whole charade.

          Squid-puppets a-go-go

          lol very good mcmolotov - i think now it is a fulsome measure of the decay and corruption of the american republic that they need such monumental lengths to provide that thin veneer of plausibility to any of the available candidates.

          Raging Debate

          Obama is a disposable puppet. He reminds me of Ensign Benson, that black extra in Star Trek they send down to that scary, uknown planet. Kirk and Spock go down there afterward.

          WillyGroper

          PCR's take is O has come to his senses on neoCON fail from that interview.

          REALLY? Eye don't think so.

          bunnyswanson

          USA/Israel having been bombing Syria for years. Why continue now when Russia is on it? Especially since ISIS is Israel stealing land again, gas more specfically. Like O said, why bankrupt your nation for one ally.

          Yttrium Gold Nitrogen

          By "oatmeal" he (Putin) probably meant Russian "kasha", which when used figuratively means something like "unordered mess", when things are so intermixed as to be indistinguishable from each other. It also can be used to describe a messy, unclear, volatile situation. I believe that correct translation would be "muddleheaded", someone who is unable to think with clarity or act intelligently.

          gregga777

          For more than two decades the politicians and bureaucrats, holding elected and appointed offices, in Washington have uniformly despised military service and wouldn't be caught dead wearing a real uniform in the U. S. Armed Forces. [They had "better" things to do for their lives than serving in the military, to quote one former V. P.]. They uniformly lack the personal military experience, to create the necessary context needed for understanding, to judge the desirability of diplomacy where the use of military force is the last resort, not the first resort.

          kaboomnomic

          Don't trust bloomberg words? Use this YT video.

          https://youtu.be/OWBbyZ_sjHo

          Putin speech in 2011 about ASSMEEREEEKKAAAA intention. And what Russian would do.

          https://youtu.be/932K6tZ5Ea4

          Putin laugh when idiot german's reporter saying assmeerrreeekkaaa ABM missiles placed in EU are for intercepting Iran's missiles.

          https://youtu.be/Lewkw6-d-Wc

          Haha.. Hahaha.. Hahahahahahaha...

          spyware-free

          For those that doubt Qatari gas is not a component (if not the primary reason) for removing Assad we have this from Erdogan...
          "Assad, refusing the transit of Qatari gas and becoming a potential competitor in the European market, would have to be be eliminated."

          http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/10/erdogan-sheds-light-on-syria-blue-f...

          That doesn't dismiss Isreal's goals of weakening a regional enemy and grabbing more land as a catalyst as well.

          The Indelicate -> spyware-free

          Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit.

          You don't build a pipeline through a war zone. You certainly don't spend billions in lieu of working around [look at a map]. And the US and Israel are not helping fucking Qatar send gas to Europe. That's Israel's job.

          spyware-free -> The Indelicate

          Each regional player has their own motivations behind attacking Assad. Turkey & KSA could care less about Isreal's intentions but the removal of Assad serves all their needs.

          The Indelicate ...

          "The great danger of faking your ability to do something in the public square is that someone with an actual desire to the job you are pretending to do might come along and show you up." This is what has just happened to the US in Syria with the entrance of Russia into the fight against ISIL. And as is generally the case with posers caught with their pants down, the US policy elites are not happy about it.

          You see, the US strategic goal in Syria is not as your faithful mainstream media servants (led by that redoubtable channeler of Neo-Con smokescreens at the NYT Michael Gordon) might have you believe to save the Syrian people from the ravages of the long-standing Assad dictatorship, but rather to heighten the level of internecine conflict in that country to the point where it will not be able to serve as a regional bulwark against Israeli regional hegemony for at least another generation.

          How do we know? Because important protagonists in the Israelo-American policy planning elite have advertised the fact with a surprising degree of clarity in documents and public statements issued over the last several decades.

          The key here is learning to listen to what our cultural training has not prepared us to hear.

          In 1982, as the Likud Party (which is to say, the institutional incarnation of the Revisionist Zionist belief, first articulated by Jabotinsky in the "Iron Wall" that the only way to deal with "the Arabs" in and around Israel was through unrelenting force and the inducement of cultural fragmentation) was consolidating its hold on the foreign policy establishment of Israel, a journalist named Oded Yinon, who had formerly worked at the Israeli Foreign Ministry, published an article in which he outlined the strategic approach his country needed to take in the coming years.

          What follows are some excerpts from Israel Shahak's English translation of that text:

          "Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon…."

          {continues}

          http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/10/10/us-russia-syria-problem-fak...


          IndianaJohn

          Indelicate, -- that's really quite a load of indelicate deceit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ

          justdues

          Indelicate, look at his youtube , no need for sarc you,re on the same page

          jtg

          "Oatmeal in their heads", an apt description of the 'indispensable and exceptional' lunatics in the West. Why is it that to find a clear thinking leader I have to listen to Putin? Why is it that the West is now the axis of evil?

          The Indelicate ...

          he didn't literally say oatmeal - he basically said 'mush for brains'. Of course, he's calling them stupid, but he knows they are deliberately evil. But it is easier to fool people about America the white knight than it is to convince them they've been fooled. No matter how much evidence there is that this war was planned long ago.

          css1971

          Actually you often find that evil people are also stupid. Psychopaths are not generally noted for their intelligence. They're often charming, manipulative and great liars with enormous egos, but intelligent is not a requirement. Which is a problem where you have an electoral and corporate governance systems which consistently puts people who are narcissists and socialized psychopaths into positions of power. They don't have the real intellectual horsepower to do the job, though of course they think they do, and often their sycophants do also.

          The Indelicate ...

          'Psychopaths are not generally noted for their intelligence.'

          But serial killers are.

          http://allnewspipeline.com/Putin_Rips_Obama_NATO_West.php

          [Oct 14, 2015] Security farce at Datto Inc that held Hillary Clintons emails revealed by Louise Boyle & Daniel Bates

          Notable quotes:
          "... But its building in Bern Township, Pennsylvania, doesn't have a perimeter fence or security checkpoints and has two reception areas ..."
          "... Dumpsters at the site were left open and unguarded, and loading bays have no security presence ..."
          "... It has also been reported that hackers tried to gain access to her personal email address by sending her emails disguised parking violations which were designed to gain access to her computer. ..."
          "... a former senior executive at Datto was allegedly able to steal sensitive information from the company's systems after she was fired. ..."
          Oct 13, 2015 | Daily Mail Online

          Datto Inc has been revealed to have stored Hillary Clinton's emails - which contained national secrets - when it backed up her private server

          • It claims it runs 'data fortresses' monitored by security 24 hours a day, where only a retinal or palm scan allows access to its facilities
          • But its building in Bern Township, Pennsylvania, doesn't have a perimeter fence or security checkpoints and has two reception areas
          • Dumpsters at the site were left open and unguarded, and loading bays have no security presence
          • Clinton faces first Democratic debate tonight amid falling poll numbers and growing questions

          The congressional committee is focusing on what happened to the server after she left office in a controversy that is dogging her presidential run and harming her trust with voters.

          In the latest developments it emerged that hackers in China, South Korea and Germany tried to gain access to the server after she left office. It has also been reported that hackers tried to gain access to her personal email address by sending her emails disguised parking violations which were designed to gain access to her computer.

          Daily Mail Online has previously revealed how a former senior executive at Datto was allegedly able to steal sensitive information from the company's systems after she was fired.

          Hackers also managed to completely take over a Datto storage device, allowing them to steal whatever data they wanted.

          Employees at the company, which is based in Norwalk, Connecticut, have a maverick attitude and see themselves as 'disrupters' of a staid industry.

          On their Facebook page they have posed for pictures wearing ugly sweaters and in fancy dress including stereotypes of Mexicans.

          Its founder, Austin McChord, has been called the 'Steve Jobs' of data storage and who likes to play in his offices with Nerf guns and crazy costumes.

          Nobody from Datto was available for comment.

          [Oct 14, 2015] The Financial Sector is Too Big

          October 9, 2015 | naked capitalism

          By Philip Arestis Professor and Director of Research at the Cambridge Centre for Economic & Public Policy and Senior Fellow in the Department of Land Economy at the University of Cambridge, UK, and Professor of Economics at the University of the Basque Country and Malcolm Sawyer, Professor of Economics, University of Leeds. Originally published at Triple Crisis

          Has the financial sector become too large, absorbing too many resources, and enhancing instabilities? A look at the recent evidence on the relationship between the size of the financial sector and growth.

          There has been a long history of the idea that a developing financial sector (emphasis on banks and stock markets) fosters economic growth. Going back to the work of authors such as Schumpeter, Robinson, and more recently, McKinnon, etc., there have been debates on financial liberalisation and the related issue of whether what was relevant to financial liberalisation, namely financial development, "caused" economic development, or whether economic development led to a greater demand for financial services and thereby financial development.

          The general thrust of the empirical evidence collected over a number of decades suggested that there was indeed a positive relationship between the size and scale of the financial sector (often measured by the size of the banking system as reflected in ratio of bank deposits to GDP, and the size of the stock market capitalisation) and the pace of economic growth. Indeed, there have been discussion on whether the banking sector or the stock market capitalisation is a more influential factor on economic growth. The empirical evidence drew on time series, cross section, and panel econometric investigations. To even briefly summarise the empirical evidence on all these aspects is not possible here. In addition, the question of the direction of causation still remains an unresolved issue.

          The processes of financialisation over the past few decades have involved the growing economic, political and social importance of the financial sector. In size terms, the financial sector has generally grown rapidly in most countries, whether viewed in terms of the size of bank deposits, stock market valuations, or more significantly in the growth of financial products, securitisation, and derivatives as well as trading volume in them. This growth of the financial sector uses resources, often of highly trained personnel, and inevitably raises the question of whether those resources are being put to good use. This is well summarised by Vanguard Group founder John Bogle, who suggests, "The job of finance is to provide capital to companies. We do it to the tune of $250 billion a year in IPOs and secondary offerings. What else do we do? We encourage investors to trade about $32 trillion a year. So the way I calculate it, 99% of what we do in this industry is people trading with one another, with a gain only to the middleman. It's a waste of resources" (MarketWatch, Aug. 1 2015).

          Financial liberalisation and de-regulation were promoted as ways of releasing the power of the financial sector, promoting development of financial markets and financial deepening. The claims were often made by the mainstream that financial liberalisation had removed "financial repression" and stimulated growth. Yet, financial liberalisation in a country often led to banking and financial crises, many times with devastating effects on employment and living standards. Financial crises have become much more frequent since the 1970s in comparison with the "golden age" of the 1950s and 1960s. The international financial crisis of 2007/2008 and the subsequent Great Recession were the recent and spectacular crises (though the scale of previous crises such as the East Asian ones of 1997 should not be overlooked). The larger scale of the financial sector in the industrialised countries has been accompanied (even before 2007) with somewhat lower growth than hitherto. As the quote above suggests there has not been an upsurge of savings and investment, and indeed many would suggest that the processes of financialisation dampen the pressures to invest, particularly in research and development. Has the financial sector become too large, absorbing too many resources, and enhancing instabilities?

          An interesting recent development has been a spate of research papers coming from international organisations and many others, which have pointed in the direction that indeed the financial sector in industrialised countries have become too big-at least when viewed in terms of its impact on economic growth. (See Sawyer, "Financialisation, financial structures, economic performance and employment," FESSUD Working Paper Series No. 93, for a broad survey on finance and economic performance.) These studies rely on econometric (time series) estimation and hence cover the past few decades-which suggests that their findings are not in any way generated by the financial crisis of 2007/2008 and the Great Recession that followed.

          A Bank of International Settlements study concluded that "the complex real effects of financial development and come to two important conclusions. First, financial sector size has an inverted U-shaped effect on productivity growth. That is, there comes a point where further enlargement of the financial system can reduce real growth. Second, financial sector growth is found to be a drag on productivity growth." Cournède, Denk,and Hoeller (2015) state that "finance is a vital ingredient for economic growth, but there can also be too much of it." Sahay, et al. (2015) find a positive relationship between financial development (as measured by their "comprehensive index") and growth, but "the marginal returns to growth from further financial development diminish at high levels of financial development―that is, there is a significant, bell-shaped, relationship between financial development and growth. A similar non-linear relationship arises for economic stability. The effects of financial development on growth and stability show that there are tradeoffs, since at some point the costs outweigh the benefits."

          There are many reasons for thinking that the financial sector has become too large. Its growth in recent decades has not been associated with facilitating savings and encouraging investment. It has absorbed valuable resources which are largely engaged in the trading in casino-like activities. The lax systems of regulation have made financial crises more likely. Indeed, and following the international financial crisis of 2007/2008 and the great recession a number of proposals have been put forward to avoid similar crises. To this day, nonetheless, the implementation of these proposals is very slow indeed (see, also, Arestis, "Main and Contributory Causes of the Recent Financial Crisis and Economic Policy Implications," for more details).

          See original post for references

          MartyH, October 9, 2015 at 10:28 am

          Now that Michael Hudson's Killing the Host has been available for a while, one suspects a Picketty-like effect with folks "discovering" that Taibbi's Giant Vampire Squid characterization of Goldman-Sachs (one of many) wasn't funny.

          blert, October 9, 2015 at 5:24 pm

          It's a squid that squirts RED INK - onto everyone else.

          susan the other, October 9, 2015 at 11:03 am

          This is a great and readable essay. Sure sounds like Minsky. And even Larry Summers when he advocates for more bubbles. And Wolfgang Schaeuble said repeatedly that "we are overbanked." We just don't know how to do it any other way. When everything crashes it's too late to regulate. Unless Larry knows a clever way to regulate bubbles.

          JTMcPhee, October 10, 2015 at 8:40 am

          The Banksters' refrain:

          "Don't regulate you,
          Don't regulate me!
          Regulate that guy over behind that tree…"

          MY scam is systemically important!

          Just Ice, October 10, 2015 at 3:34 pm

          "We just don't know how to do it any other way. " STO

          Yet there is another way, an equitable way :) Dr. Michael Hudson himself says that industry should be financed with equity, not debt.

          Leonard, October 10, 2015 at 3:53 pm

          Susan
          There is way to manage bubbles before they get out of control. This article explains how. Go to wp.me/WQA-1E

          ben, October 9, 2015 at 11:17 am

          Wasted resources are way higher than the Vanguard example. They misdirect resources especially into land and issue new money as debt.

          RepubAnon, October 10, 2015 at 11:29 pm

          They think that they make their living by "ripping the eyes out of the muppets" – so they're opposed to regulations which would protect the muppets' eyes.

          I look at the financial industry as sort of like sugar for the economy – the right amount is good for you, but too much will kill you.

          Just Ice, October 9, 2015 at 12:35 pm

          "The lax systems of regulation have made financial crises more likely."

          Actually, it's the near unlimited ability of the banks to create deposits ("loans create deposits" but also debts) that causes large scale financial crises. And what is the source of this absurd ability of the banks? ans: government privileges including deposit insurance instead of a Postal Savings Service or equivalent and a fiat (the publics' money) lender of last resort.

          Besides, regulations typically do not address the fundamental injustice of government subsidized banks – extending the publics' credit to private interests.

          Synoia October 9, 2015 at 12:53 pm

          There is something very wrong about money creation from loans. I'm not arguing that this is incorrect, I'm looking at money creation being a burden on the citizenry. I cannot see how this will end well, because of the asymmetric nature, money creation only benefits the banks, of the burden of money creation.

          Just Ice October 9, 2015 at 1:40 pm

          "There is something very wrong about money creation from loans."

          More precisely, there is something very wrong about being driven into debt by government-subsidized private credit creation. Source of the rat race? Look no further.

          zapster October 10, 2015 at 9:32 am

          It's the bank-money vs. government money situation. The hysteria over "The Deficit (gasp)" insures that none of us have cash and must borrow to live. The bankers won.

          Just Ice October 10, 2015 at 1:56 pm

          "It's the bank-money vs. government money situation." zapster

          More precisely, who gets to create the government's money since it is taxation* that drives the value of fiat. But it's an absurd situation since obviously the government ALONE should create fiat, not a central bank for the benefit of banks and other private interests, especially the wealthy.

          As for the private sector, let it create its own money solutions and my bet is that we'll have a much more equitable (pun intended) society as a result.

          The problem then is taxation. How does one tax someone's income in Bitcoins, for example? How does one preclude tax evasion? Unavoidable taxes such as land taxes (except for a homestead exemption) are one possibility.

          *As well as the need to pay the interest on the debt the government subsidized banking cartel drives us into.

          Yves Smith Post author October 10, 2015 at 5:17 pm

          *Sigh*. The government alone does control the money supply in a fiat currency issuer. The government hasn't bothered to do so actively because the only time it DID try doing that (under Reagan and Thatcher) they found out, contra Friedman, that money supply growth bore no relationship to any macroeconomic variable. Monetarism was a failed experiment.

          readerOfTeaLeaves October 9, 2015 at 10:58 pm

          I happened upon a great link - about the probable origins of interest. Here's the link: http://viking.som.yale.edu/will/finciv/chapter1.htm

          Scroll down to "The Idea of Interest". This author posits that back in the (ancient, herding) day, people lent cattle. I lend you my cow, your bull impregnates her, and I get a part of the calf.

          What the author probably didn't understand, but is known to those of us interested in the history of metallurgy, is that there was a belief that metals 'grew' - after all, plants grew from the ground, vines grew from the ground, trees and bushes also grew from the ground. It was not a great stretch to suppose that metals also grew within the ground, and back in those ancient days they expected the same kind of 'growth' from metals that happened with agricultural products.

          Perhaps if I ever get to retire, I can read Hudson's entire work, and possibly he covers this topic. But I do think that it is time for the rest of us to rethink the nature of money - particularly in an emerging digital era.

          cnchal October 10, 2015 at 10:42 am

          Thanks for that link. Here is a little nugget that relates to today.

          The legal limit on interest rates for loans of silver was 20% over much of Dumuzi-gamil's life, but Marc Van De Mieroop demonstrates how Dumuzi-gamil and other lenders got around such strictures - they simply charged the legal limit for shorter and shorter term loans! Curiously, while mathematics during this era was extraordinarily advanced, the government failed to understand, or at least effectively regulate the close link between time and money.

          Sound familiar. It's more like the banksters regulate government.

          As for compound interest, it seems to be the most diabolical human invention yet, as it infers exponential growth without limits.

          Here is Keynes discussing compound interest in his speech "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren" (1930)

          From the earliest times of which we have record – back say to two thousand years before Christ – down to the beginning of the eighteenth century, there was no very great change in the standard of life of the average man living in the civilized centres of the earth. Ups and downs certainly. Visitations of plague, famine, and war. Golden intervals. But no progressive, violent change. Some periods perhaps 50 per cent better than others – at the utmost 100 per cent better – in the four thousand years which ended (say) in A.D. 1700.

          This slow rate of progress, or lack of progress, was due to two reasons – to the remarkable absence of important technical improvements and to the failure of capital to accumulate.

          The absence of important technical inventions between the prehistoric age and comparatively modern times is truly remarkable. Almost everything which really matters and which the world possessed at the commencement of the modern age was already known to man at the dawn of history. Language, fire, the same domestic animals which we have today, wheat, barley, the vine and the olive, the plough, the wheel, the oar, the sail, leather, linen and cloth, bricks and pots, gold and silver, copper, tin, and lead – and iron was added to the list before 1000 B.C. – banking, statecraft, mathematics, astronomy, and religion. There is no record of when we first possessed these things.

          At some epoch before the dawn of history – perhaps even in one of the comfortable intervals before the last ice age – there must have been an era of progress and invention comparable to that in which we live today. But through the greater part of recorded history there was nothing of the kind.
          The modern age opened, I think, with the accumulation of capital which began in the sixteenth century. I believe – for reasons with which I must not encumber the present argument – that this was initially due to the rise of prices, and the profits to which that led, which resulted from the treasure of gold and silver which Spain brought from the New World into the Old. From that time until today the power of accumulation by compound interest, which seems to have been sleeping for many generations, was reborn and renewed its strength. And the power of compound interest over two hundred years is such as to stagger the imagination.

          Let me give in illustration of this a sum which I have worked out. The value of Great Britain's foreign investments today is estimated at about £4,000 million. This yields us an income at the rate of about 6 1/2 per cent. Half of this we bring home and enjoy; the other half, namely, 3 1/2 per cent, we leave to accumulate abroad at compound interest. Something of this sort has now been going on for about 250 years.

          For I trace the beginnings of British foreign investment to the treasure which Drake stole from Spain in 1580. In that year he returned to England bringing with him the prodigious spoils of the Golden Hind. Queen Elizabeth was a considerable shareholder in the syndicate which had financed the expedition. Out of her share she paid off the whole of England's foreign debt, balanced her budget, and found herself with about £40,000 in hand. This she invested in the Levant Company – which prospered. Out of the profits of the Levant Company, the East India Company was founded; and the profits of this great enterprise were the foundation of England's subsequent foreign investment. Now it happens that £40,000 accumulating at 3 1/2 per cent compound interest approximately corresponds to the actual volume of England's foreign investments at various dates, and would actually amount today to the total of £4,000 million which I have already quoted as being what our foreign investments now are. Thus, every £1 which Drake brought home in 1580 has now become £100,000. Such is the power of compound interest !

          From the sixteenth century, with a cumulative crescendo after the eighteenth, the great age of science and technical inventions began, which since the beginning of the nineteenth century has been in full flood – coal, steam, electricity, petrol, steel, rubber, cotton, the chemical industries, automatic machinery and the methods of mass production, wireless, printing, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein, and thousands of other things and men too famous and familiar to catalogue.

          What is the result? In spite of an enormous growth in the population of the world, which it has been necessary to equip with houses and machines, the average standard of life in Europe and the United States has been raised, I think, about fourfold. The growth of capital has been on a scale which is far beyond a hundred-fold of what any previous age had known. And from now on we need not expect so great an increase of population.

          This reminds me of the huge fortunes growing at compound interest today.

          Take the Gates Foundation as an example.

          From Wikipedia: It had an endowment of US$42.3 billion as of 24 November 2014.

          If this were to grow at a compound interest rate of 7.2% annually, it would double every ten years, and in one hundred years would be $43 trillion dollars and in two hundred years $44,354 trillion or $44.354 quadrillion. It's as if Bill and Warren are playing a practical joke on the world, as their compound interest monster swallows every available dollar.

          I wonder what a loaf of bread will cost in two hundred years?

          nigelk October 9, 2015 at 3:20 pm

          Fractional-reserve banking is anathema to human dignity itself. What was it Gandhi said about "wealth without work"…?

          griffen October 9, 2015 at 12:56 pm

          Top heavy might be the marginally better angle to take here. Although I recently left the state (N Texas, Dallas), Texas banks are being merged or acquired left and right. On some occasions it is necessary if very small institutions are unable to compete, unable to meet a decent ROE bogey (6.0% ROE is sorta low), or just unable to fend off progress.

          Other occasions the larger regional and national banks can just win on scale.

          Noni Mausa October 9, 2015 at 1:10 pm

          I have long thought about the banking system as a beating heart. Of course it needs fuel, like the rest of the body, but when a heart gets larger and larger, and contains more and more blood, and uses more and more fuel, the rest of the body never fares well.

          "Surging bank profits" is never a headline that makes me happy.

          Carla October 9, 2015 at 11:43 pm

          Yes, congestive heart failure kills the host - this is a great analogy - Thanks!

          anders October 9, 2015 at 2:01 pm

          The real question is: why was it that the "creation of wealth" had to turn to the financial sector. IMHO it's because the productive sector is lesser and lesser able to produce surplus value. So that free capital istn't attracted to it. Of course in the financial sector there isn't any value created at all.

          Just Ice October 9, 2015 at 3:33 pm

          " IMHO it's because the productive sector is lesser and lesser able to produce surplus value. "

          Yes, because of unjust wealth distribution; the host has finally been exhausted. With meta-materials, nano-technology, genetic engineering, better catalysts, etc. and with practical nuclear fusion on the horizon (because of new superconducting materials) mankind has probably never been on the verge of creating so much value as now but can't because of lack of effective demand, not for junk but for such things as proper medical and dental care while the wealthy have more than they know what to do with.

          blert October 9, 2015 at 5:22 pm

          Is the sky blue ?

          Decades of 'political – solvency' insurance has permitted 'the blob' to overwhelm all.

          &&&

          If all of society played Poker … would anything be produced ? THAT'S the aspect that has metastasized. It's not proper to term it the 'financial sector' - gambling// speculation emporium… now you're talking. When the government chronically intervenes to bail out highly sophisticated fools…. Jon Corzine is the result. - And he's not even the target of law enforcement !!!!

          equote October 10, 2015 at 7:40 am

          "A business that makes nothing but money is a poor business." -- Henry Ford

          sd October 10, 2015 at 4:18 pm

          Financial liberalisation and de-regulation were promoted as ways of releasing the power of the financial sector, promoting development of financial markets and financial deepening.

          Release the Kraken comes to mind.

          [Oct 13, 2015] MH17 Report Reveals Shocking Details of Jet's Last Moments

          Notable quotes:
          "... Investigators estimated it took the center and rear parts of the airplane 60 to 90 seconds to reach the ground after the blast. Other, lighter parts would have taken longer, the report said. ..."
          Oct 13, 2015 | www.nbcnews.com

          The warhead - launched 33,000 feet below in the Ukrainian countryside - exploded less than one yard from the aircraft's cockpit, the Dutch report said.

          A split-second later, hundreds of "high-energy" fragments pierced the fuselage and the shrapnel instantly killed the two pilots and one crew member inside.

          There was no mayday call or attempt to maneuver, the report noted. The cockpit voice recorder stopped abruptly at the point of impact.

          Image: Dutch Safety Board Issue Their Findings On The MH17 Air Disaster

          The explosion also caused the cockpit to instantly separate from the rest of the aircraft. After that "instantaneous separation," the rest of the plane continued to fly for more than five miles before breaking into further pieces, according to the report.

          The center part of the airliner traveled beyond the rear section and came to rest upside down after hitting the ground. "Parts of the wreckage caught fire," the report added.

          Investigators estimated it took the center and rear parts of the airplane 60 to 90 seconds to reach the ground after the blast. "Other, lighter parts would have taken longer," the report said.

          The debris field was more than 20 square miles.

          ... ... ...

          Investigators used paint to trace the missile

          Ukraine and its Western allies have long alleged that pro-Russian rebels fighting in eastern Ukraine brought down MH17 using a Russian-made missile system - a claim Moscow staunchly denies. While Tuesday's report apportioned no blame, it was the first confirmation that the airliner was shot down using the BUK missile launcher - a Russian-made system.

          Investigators came to this conclusion by analyzing a number of minute details.

          A 2.3-millisecond noise was recorded on the cockpit's voice recorders before the system stopped working. By triangulating the signal, experts were able to show that it originated outside the aircraft.

          Their conclusion was also based on "bow-tie"-shaped fragments found inside the bodies of the flight's crew members that were consistent with a 9N314M missile launched as part of the BUK system.

          The Dutch team that compiled the report also based this conclusion on "explosive residues and paint" that were found on some of the fragments

          [Oct 13, 2015] What's a Buk What to Know About the Cold War Missile That Downed MH17

          Oct 13, 2015 ] NBC News

          The Dutch board's Tuesday announcement followed a report by Buk's Russian manufacturer, Almaz-Antey, that contradicted the findings. The company said the damage patterns on MH17 did not match those it found in its own blast tests, Reuters reported.

          [Oct 13, 2015] The headline is a bit over the top but relations between the West and Russia steadily deteriorate

          Warren , October 11, 2015 at 10:59 am

          RAF given green light to shoot down hostile Russian jets in Syria

          As relations between the West and Russia steadily deteriorate, Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots have been given the go-ahead to shoot down Russian military jets when flying missions over Syria and Iraq, if they are endangered by them. The development comes with warnings that the UK and Russia are now "one step closer" to being at war.

          http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/raf-given-green-light-shoot-down-hostile-russian-jets-syria-1523488

          Moscow Exile , October 11, 2015 at 12:50 pm

          "The first thing a British pilot will do is to try to avoid a situation where an air-to-air attack is likely to occur - you avoid an area if there is Russian activity," an unidentified source from the UK's Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) told the Sunday Times. "But if a pilot is fired on or believes he is about to be fired on, he can defend himself. We now have a situation where a single pilot, irrespective of nationality, can have a strategic impact on future events."

          The headline is a bit over the top, don't you think?

          The same rule applies to all combat pilots of any nation, as indeed the (as usual) unidentified source is quoted as saying.

          That's why the US navy shot down an Iranian airliner, isn't it: the warship thought it was being threatened by the passenger aircraft.

          Patient Observer , October 11, 2015 at 5:30 pm

          Trigger happy, poorly trained, panic-stricken, glory-seeking and incompetent – what else can describe the US Navy's shoot-down? How would they perform in a real war with an adversary able to hit back hard?

          marknesop , October 11, 2015 at 9:53 pm

          Yes to the first, and no to the second. The U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian airliner they claim they mistook for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, although it (1) took off from a known civil airport following a commercial air route and within the air safety corridor, (2) was displaying the IFF interrogator trace for civil aviation, (3) was correlated to a civil aviation radar emitter rather than the AN/AWG-9 radar associated with the F-14, and which is quite distinctive on ESM gear and (4) was not descending or following an attack profile. The USS VINCENNES stationed itself directly underneath an air traffic corridor within Iranian airspace, so that normal air traffic passed directly over it; obviously, for one half of its transit, an aircraft would close the VINCENNES, and for the remainder it would be opening after it passed overhead. I'd have to look up again if any warnings were passed, but if there were the pilot likely did not think the surface unit was talking to him, since he was flying the same route he did every day or week or with whatever degree of regularity. So if he was told to turn away he likely did not think it applied to him, as few commercial pilots would be able to conceive of the arrogance of a ship's captain who would park his ship in Iranian territorial waters and then demand that all the country's civil aviation reroute themselves around his position.

          [Oct 13, 2015] Hillary Clintons private server was open to low-skilled-hackers

          Notable quotes:
          "... " That's total amateur hour. Real enterprise-class security, with teams dedicated to these things, would not do this" -- ..."
          "... The government and security firms have published warnings about allowing this kind of remote access to Clinton's server. The same software was targeted by an infectious Internet worm, known as Morta, which exploited weak passwords to break into servers. The software also was known to be vulnerable to brute-force attacks that tried password combinations until hackers broke in, and in some cases it could be tricked into revealing sensitive details about a server to help hackers formulate attacks. ..."
          "... Also in 2012, the State Department had outlawed use of remote-access software for its technology officials to maintain unclassified servers without a waiver. It had banned all instances of remotely connecting to classified servers or servers located overseas. ..."
          "... The findings suggest Clinton's server 'violates the most basic network-perimeter security tenets: Don't expose insecure services to the Internet,' said Justin Harvey, the chief security officer for Fidelis Cybersecurity. ..."
          "... The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, the federal government's guiding agency on computer technology, warned in 2008 that exposed server ports were security risks. It said remote-control programs should only be used in conjunction with encryption tunnels, such as secure VPN connections. ..."
          Daily Mail Online

          Investigation by the Associated Press reveals that the clintonemail.com server lacked basic protections

          • Microsoft remote desktop service she used was not intended for use without additional safety features - but had none
          • Government and computer industry had warned at the time that such set-ups could be hacked - but nothing was done to make server safer
          • President this weekend denied national security had been put at risk by his secretary of state but FBI probe is still under way

          ... ... ...

          Clinton's server, which handled her personal and State Department correspondence, appeared to allow users to connect openly over the Internet to control it remotely, according to detailed records compiled in 2012.

          Experts said the Microsoft remote desktop service wasn't intended for such use without additional protective measures, and was the subject of U.S. government and industry warnings at the time over attacks from even low-skilled intruders.

          .... ... ...

          Records show that Clinton additionally operated two more devices on her home network in Chappaqua, New York, that also were directly accessible from the Internet.

          " That's total amateur hour. Real enterprise-class security, with teams dedicated to these things, would not do this" -- Marc Maiffret, cyber security expert

          • One contained similar remote-control software that also has suffered from security vulnerabilities, known as Virtual Network Computing, and the other appeared to be configured to run websites.
          • The new details provide the first clues about how Clinton's computer, running Microsoft's server software, was set up and protected when she used it exclusively over four years as secretary of state for all work messages.
          • Clinton's privately paid technology adviser, Bryan Pagliano, has declined to answer questions about his work from congressional investigators, citing the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.
          • Some emails on Clinton's server were later deemed top secret, and scores of others included confidential or sensitive information.
          • Clinton has said that her server featured 'numerous safeguards,' but she has yet to explain how well her system was secured and whether, or how frequently, security updates were applied.

          'That's total amateur hour,' said Marc Maiffret, who has founded two cyber security companies. He said permitting remote-access connections directly over the Internet would be the result of someone choosing convenience over security or failing to understand the risks. 'Real enterprise-class security, with teams dedicated to these things, would not do this,' he said.

          The government and security firms have published warnings about allowing this kind of remote access to Clinton's server. The same software was targeted by an infectious Internet worm, known as Morta, which exploited weak passwords to break into servers. The software also was known to be vulnerable to brute-force attacks that tried password combinations until hackers broke in, and in some cases it could be tricked into revealing sensitive details about a server to help hackers formulate attacks.

          'An attacker with a low skill level would be able to exploit this vulnerability,' said the Homeland Security Department's U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team in 2012, the same year Clinton's server was scanned.

          Also in 2012, the State Department had outlawed use of remote-access software for its technology officials to maintain unclassified servers without a waiver. It had banned all instances of remotely connecting to classified servers or servers located overseas.

          The findings suggest Clinton's server 'violates the most basic network-perimeter security tenets: Don't expose insecure services to the Internet,' said Justin Harvey, the chief security officer for Fidelis Cybersecurity.

          Clinton's email server at one point also was operating software necessary to publish websites, although it was not believed to have been used for this purpose.

          Traditional security practices dictate shutting off all a server's unnecessary functions to prevent hackers from exploiting design flaws in them.

          In Clinton's case, Internet addresses the AP traced to her home in Chappaqua revealed open ports on three devices, including her email system.

          Each numbered port is commonly, but not always uniquely, associated with specific features or functions. The AP in March was first to discover Clinton's use of a private email server and trace it to her home.

          Mikko Hypponen, the chief research officer at F-Secure, a top global computer security firm, said it was unclear how Clinton's server was configured, but an out-of-the-box installation of remote desktop would have been vulnerable.

          Those risks - such as giving hackers a chance to run malicious software on her machine - were 'clearly serious' and could have allowed snoops to deploy so-called 'back doors.'

          The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, the federal government's guiding agency on computer technology, warned in 2008 that exposed server ports were security risks.

          It said remote-control programs should only be used in conjunction with encryption tunnels, such as secure VPN connections.

          [Oct 12, 2015] MH17 What we know on eve of Dutch Safety Board report

          Notable quotes:
          "... At the same time Russias Defense Ministry made public satellite images of the area, taken several days prior to the crash. The satellite pictures showed Ukrainian army positions on three days before the crash, and a BUK missile launcher could be spotted there. But on the day of the crash, it had moved somewhere else. The question is why – and where it had gone? ..."
          "... In June 2015, Russian arms manufacturer Almaz-Antey presented the results of its own probe into the causes of the MH17 crash. Looking into the option of a surface-to-air missile downing the Boing-777, experts stressed that it could only have been caused by one of the missiles from an older modification of the BUK missile system, namely the Buk-M1 - the type of the weapon the Ukrainian army is equipped with. The Russian army uses modern and later BUK missile systems. ..."
          "... "the Sukhoi jet brought down the civilian plane and ours brought down the fighter jet." ..."
          "... "They decided to do it this way, to look like we have brought down the plane." ..."
          "... a documentary crew making a film about the MH17 catastrophe has actually proven them wrong, staging an experiment and taking an Su-25 to a height of 11,880 meters – with a pilot wearing an oxygen mask. ..."
          Oct 12, 2015 | RT News
          • Theory #1: 'Russian BUK Missile'

            The Dutch Safety Board delivered a preliminary report about a year ago, concluding that flight MH17 broke up in mid-air and came down after being hit by a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the plane from the outside and ruptured the fuselage. The report did not mention where those high-energy objects came from.

            The first theory maintains that the MH17 flight was downed by a surface-to-air anti-aircraft missile. It is considered by many as the most likely theory and one that's been widely cited in the media. The only question is who did it.

            The West and Ukraine claim the rebels shot the plane with a Russian BUK missile. In the framework of this theory, a YouTube video of a BUK weapons system with one rocket missing being transported somewhere in Ukraine just hours after the crash was presented as a smoking gun, claiming that the missile system was sneakily cleared out of Ukraine into Russia.

            But some local bloggers identified the location as the Ukrainian town of Krasnoarmeysk, which was under control of the Kiev forces at the time.

            The fact that the video emerged online suspiciously quickly, was followed by lots of so-called social media evidence, and is almost impossible to authenticate, only fueled suspicions.

          • Theory #2: 'Ukrainian BUK missile'

            At the same time Russia's Defense Ministry made public satellite images of the area, taken several days prior to the crash. The satellite pictures showed Ukrainian army positions on three days before the crash, and a BUK missile launcher could be spotted there. But on the day of the crash, it had moved somewhere else. The question is why – and where it had gone?

            In June 2015, Russian arms manufacturer Almaz-Antey presented the results of its own probe into the causes of the MH17 crash. Looking into the option of a surface-to-air missile downing the Boing-777, experts stressed that it could only have been caused by one of the missiles from an older modification of the BUK missile system, namely the Buk-M1 - the type of the weapon the Ukrainian army is equipped with. The Russian army uses modern and later BUK missile systems.

          • Theory #3: 'Air-to-Air Missile'

            Another theory is that Flight MH17 may have been shot down from the air.

            Russia's Investigative Committee (IC) has been conducting its own investigation into the crash. On June 3, the Committee identified the key witness to the MH17 crash as Evgeny Agapov, an aviation armaments mechanic in the Ukrainian Air Force. Agapov testified that on July 17, 2014 a Ukrainian Sukhoi SU-25 jet aircraft piloted by Captain Voloshin "set out for a military task" and returned without ammunition. Agapov implied that an air-to-air missile was missing and claimed he overheard Voloshin say to his colleagues that some plane was "in the wrong place at the wrong time."

            Also, in a video shot by Ukraine's anti-government militia when they arrived at the crash site immediately after the catastrophe and released by an Australian broadcaster almost a year after the tragedy, one important part was largely ignored.

            The video, shown by News Corp Australia, is a short, 5-minute clip made from an original video 17 minutes long, but the channel published online a full transcript of the original version.

            The transcript cited the rebel commander as saying "the Sukhoi jet brought down the civilian plane and ours brought down the fighter jet."

            Later, the same person says once again that there were two planes shot down, and another voice in the background says, "They decided to do it this way, to look like we have brought down the plane."

            Those who oppose the theory say the Sukhoi Su-25 close support fighter jet spotted in the skies at the time of the incident cannot reach a height of 10,000 meters, where the Malaysian airliner was at cruising altitude. But a documentary crew making a film about the MH17 catastrophe has actually proven them wrong, staging an experiment and taking an Su-25 to a height of 11,880 meters – with a pilot wearing an oxygen mask.

            The report coming out Tuesday will be technical in nature. Its goal is to specify how the plane was brought down, not to place blame on any side. This is the responsibility of the criminal probe, which is still ongoing.

            READ MORE:

          [Oct 12, 2015] Could The Syrian Conflict Change Global Geopolitics

          naked capitalism

          Few meetings ever started with dimmer prospects for success than the recent meeting between Presidents Obama and Putin.

          The real call for the meeting stemmed from the EU refugee crisis. With a human catastrophe brewing in Europe and the Middle East, EU leaders are urgently demanding that the U.S. and Russia set aside their differences and begin to work together in an effort to resolve the Syrian conflict, the major cause of the massive movement of people seeking sanctuary.

          Now, U.S./EU leaders are no longer insisting on the removal of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from office as a pre-condition to negotiations over a new government, although the U.S. continues to insist that al-Assad's removal become part of any final settlement.

          But how can such fundamental differences be set aside when the two sides can't even agree on the enemy they're fighting? The U.S. and its allies have defined the Syrian conflict as a civil war against a despotic regime. The Russians define the conflict as an invasion by foreign Islamic radicals, paid and supported by U.S.' Middle Eastern allies.

          The EU has made its demands clear: solve the problem, we don't particularly care how, but it has to be done quickly. From that point of view, the U.S. and Russian leaders have little choice but to answer the call.

          Russia is attempting to form and lead a UN authorized coalition against ISIL, the radical jihadists' adversaries that conquered large parts of Syria and Iraq, while threatening to engulf the entire region.

          Obama has stated publicly that he welcomes help from Russia and Iran in the fight against radical jihadists, ISIL, in Syria, while still insisting that al-Assad must go. On their side, the Russians have made no secret of their strong objections to NATO-led regime change, citing the results of failed states in Iraq, Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt.

          In a recent New York Times article, an Administration insider stated that the President believes Syria is a lost cause, one that U.S. military presence could only worsen.

          Obama has also shown little reluctance to lead from behind, when supporting NATO partners, particularly with a U.S. public largely opposed to America's military engagement in any further Mideast wars.

          But Russia is not NATO, and it's clear that the U.S. has no intention of following the Kremlin's lead in Syria, as its veto of the Russian coalition proposal at the UN Security Council clearly shows. Adding to that was the United States'strong condemnation of the Russian air attack on its first day of operations in Syria.

          The urgency of the moment favors cooperation, while geography gives Russia major advantages in leading the fight. Russia's relationship with Iran, already fighting on the ground in Iraq, with its ally Hezbollah fighting in Syria, provides Russia with a readymade army to complement its air attacks.

          With the Russians initiating air strikes against ISIL in Syria, the great fear of world leaders is that an accidental collision between opposing U.S. and Russian forces raises the risks of war between the two nuclear powers.

          While both sides deny any intent at military collaboration or sharing of military intelligence in Syria, the two Presidents have agreed to meetings of their military leaders, ostensibly aimed at reducing the risk of accidental conflicts between them. How that can be done without shared military intelligence about troop movements, and planned air attacks remains a mystery.

          Adding to the confusion is the increasingly cordial meetings between Russian and Saudi leaders.

          Many believe that the Saudis, and their Gulf Kingdom partners, hold the key to resolving the conflict, as the major backers of the 'moderate Islamic' rebels fighting the Syrian Government forces.

          The Saudis have largely refrained from criticizing the Russian military buildup in Syria, even though it bolsters the Assad regime, and the Kingdom continues to hold its cards close to its vest regarding their position on the new Russian military initiative in Syria.

          At the same time, there were conflicting signals in regards to the relationship between Iran and Russia. Reports surfaced in late September that the two countries, along with Syria and Iraq, were coordinating military efforts against the ISIL. But at the UN meeting, Iran's President Rouhani made the surprising statement that Iran saw no need to coordinate military efforts in Syria, with the Russian goal to support its embattled ally in Syria, while Iran's goal is eradicate ISIL.

          It's widely recognized that since the Iran nuclear deal, Iran and the U.S. have sought to move closer in other important areas. Still, Rouhani's UN statement seemed to belie the recent agreements between Russia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria to build an information center in Baghdad to share battlefield reconnaissance against ISIL.

          That also falls in line with the new agreement with Iran, Iraq, and Syria to provide an air corridor for Russian military flyovers to Syria for Russian fighter planes and transport aircraft.

          To observers, these agreements certainly smack of military coordination with Russia. Iran's need to distance itself from Russia seems to be made with an eye on the U.S., where hardline Presidential candidates threaten to tear up the nuclear agreement.

          The highly charged political atmosphere in the U.S., in the midst of a Presidential election, only adds to the fog of war in Syria, forcing public denials and secret agreements where there needs to be utmost clarity, making military cooperation in Syria almost impossible, while raising the risks of accidental conflicts between so-called partners.

          What then of western sanctions against Russia? In the eyes of the west, the Syrian conflict is beginning to eclipse Ukraine in importance. The U.S. seems satisfied to leave the Ukraine issue to Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine for settlement.

          The EU is most likely to be the first mover to ease sanctions, realizing, as a number of EU leaders have stated, that it is fundamentally incompatible to rely on Russia's military might while starving the Russian economy.

          In January, the EU sanctions are set to expire, requiring a unanimous vote of all member states for extension. The odds are rising that the EU will allow sanctions to expire.

          If so, major global business will once again flock to Russia. That would include the return of major western energy companies that have played a critical part in Russian energy development. Once that starts, it will become far more difficult to reverse the momentum or re-impose sanctions.

          Given the political atmosphere in Washington, it's clear the U.S. will leave its sanctions in place.


          Sam Kanu, October 7, 2015 at 5:31 am

          Given the political atmosphere in Washington, it's clear the U.S. will leave its sanctions in place.

          Here you mean "Given the political instructions to Washington from Tel Aviv". I don't see any general feeling in the American people that demands ongoing conflict with Iran. This is not politics at all – just pure old tail wagging the dog.

          JeffC -> Sam Kanu, October 7, 2015 at 11:18 am

          Sanctions against Russia, not Iran.

          Older & Wiser, October 7, 2015 at 6:48 am

          The un-named 1800 lb Mr. and Mrs. Gorilla couple in the room are oil & gas.
          Pipelines anyone ?

          Massinissa, October 7, 2015 at 2:56 pm

          Are there really pipelines in Syria? I thought it was through Iraq and Turkey.

          ambrit, October 7, 2015 at 7:13 am

          Given Russias' long term relationship with Syria, I'm bemused that any Neo of any stripe could with a straight face suggest that the Russians would abandon the Syrian Government to a bunch of Western backed wreckers.

          Maintaining a foothold in the Middle East is basic Grand Strategy. America does it with Israel, so Russia does it with Syria.

          In the long run, the Middle East is beginning a shake up. The post WW1 borders were incompatible with the ethnic groupings of the region. Now those old 'drawn on a map' borders are being broken apart and the pieces reassembled. This process can take years or decades to work out. The time frame depends on how 'responsible' the Great Powers are in dealing with the realignment process.

          Do notice the framing of the issue in the MSM. "Irresponsible Russia" and "Assad Must Go" are everywhere proclaimed. Like the magicians they are, the MSMs rely on misdirection to try to pull off the 'trick.' While the West tries to browbeat the Russians, the Russians are persistently acting in their, and in the Syrian Governments, perceived best interests.

          On the air front, the Russian "incursions" look to be standard battlefield intelligence work. Send a plane or two 'over the border' and see what sorts of anti air radars 'lock on' to your aircraft. This is something any competent air commander would want to discover. This is also a thinly veiled threat to the West; "Look! Anyone can play this game!" The basic point being; there is no such thing as a 'no fly zone,' if you are willing to fight.

          The Russian message is basic; "Put up, or shut up."

          NotTimothyGeithner, October 7, 2015 at 9:05 am

          The post WWI borders are fairly similar to Ottoman administrative districts. The Kuwait city-state answered to the governor of Baghdad within their framework. The issue has been foreign powers using sectarian ties to divide the little people from cooperation which was achievable under the Sultan for 500 years. Even Hussein found the Shiites to be exceptionally loyal during the Iran-Iraq War.

          The rise of the Saudis, allowing the Israelis to knock over Lebanon and run an apartheid state, and supporting oppressive regimes which would have fallen or reformed (pretty much all the Gulf states which also have ancient borders) are major issues. There have always been states centered around the modern cities (Ur and Babylon were replaced by Baghdad) or provinces. I believe the creative borders argument was always a "White Man's Burden" excuse to justify control. "Professor Scott, why do they fight in the Middle East?" Excuses about unfortunate cartography sound better than "I needed to build a railroad and did the want to pay the locals, so I cooked up a rape story in one village, handed out guns, and slaughtered the adult males in the other village."

          On the other hand, Africa was carved up bizarrely based on rail and ship movements.

          todde, October 7, 2015 at 8:11 am

          KSA claims Assad must go and I doubt they will support Russia.

          Who is supporting IS? I find it hard to believe they can maintain armed conflict on several fronts without a state backer.

          Where are the 10s of billions of dollars in turkeys central bank in accounts called unknown foreign sources and errors and adjustments?

          Iran will support Assad regardless of American actions.

          blert, October 7, 2015 at 5:54 pm

          Two factors.

          Iran was using Turkey as a front, Ankara collected its 'cut.' Turkey was laundering monies from the Gulf, too, probably Golden Chain funding for the fanatics in Syria. Erdogan has more side action than Rick's Cafe American.

          Eureka Springs, October 7, 2015 at 9:02 am

          Madness R U.S. US, Saudi, Turks and Israeli's must be held at bay at the very least. It's (Russia, Iran, Syria) who are the only entities resembling a possible humanitarian, rule of law base of action now or possibly working towards that kind of end game.

          That's how low we are, R or D, … the creators and perpetrators of al Q and all of their newly named lackeys doing our dirty work continuously since the 1980's. It's not impossible to know who we are and what we have long done… Reading Obama's words and Putin's it is clear Putin is being far more honest and consistent in both action and words.

          Maybe we should stop blowing up hospitals and imprison leaders who order or even allow it to happen. Nah, there are too many unarmed citizens in wheelchairs who must be shot.

          blert, October 7, 2015 at 6:02 pm

          Bin Laden has gone on record - time and time, again - denouncing your thesis. He never needed American funding - ever. He would never, ever, grovel to the kafir.

          It's only recently that 0bama started funding AQ's front organs, al Nusrah inparticular. BOTH ISIS and al Nusrah are joined at the hip and are al Qaeda fronts. They only had a falling out, circa 2011.

          The FSA is a total fiction. It's a Western media construct. Syria is a fight between brutal Assad and two feral al Qaeda fronts… that can't be controlled. The UK, US and Jordan trained most of ISIS' cadres in the Jordanian desert back in 2011-12. They then went rogue. That (mostly Jordanian) force is still the dominant core of ISIS. Our crass media is complicit in covering up a reality that the rest of the planet is hip to.

          Eureka Springs , October 7, 2015 at 8:07 pm

          Agree with you after your first three lines. I guess those shoulder fired missiles which al Q used to take out Russian helicopters in Afghanistan during the '80's were Costa Rican made and supplied.

          Massinissa, October 7, 2015 at 8:29 pm

          So Bin Laden was actually giving money and guns to Zbigniew Brzezinski instead of the other way around?

          You have seen that famous photo of Bin Laden and Zbigniew Brzezinski right? Just google it.

          Stephen V, October 7, 2015 at 10:44 am

          Never expected to hear this re: Iran– https://www.rt.com/shows/watching-the-hawks/317844-oily-mess-tax-us/

          A retired Army Colonel who served under Colin Powell actually says he's afraid of a future Israeli false-flag operation that will start a US war with Iran
          – move the cursor to 15 mins...

          Steven, October 7, 2015 at 11:10 am

          Somewhere I remember reading an analysis of the Syrian conflict along the following lines:

          1. It does indeed involve geopolitics – with the aim being to replace Europe's dependence on Russian oil and gas with that from U.S. Middle-eastern 'allies'. To do that it is necessary to build a pipeline across Syria – and insure the Syrian government is firmly in the pocket of the U.S. and its allies.
          2. Without wishing to denigrate the influence of AIPAC, this conflict has far more to do with preserving and possibly extending US global hegemony (with a continuing full-employment program for the country's Congressional military-industrial complex) than it does Israel's inordinate control over US foreign policy. All the blather about democracy vs. dictatorship and/or Sunni vs. Shia vs. Sunni is just offal fed to the cannon fodder used by powers great and small to get it to sacrifice itself for their ambitions.
          3. Like ambrit said, this is just "basic Grand Strategy". It is way past time for US 'leaders' to recognize the full spectrum dominance they enjoyed in the aftermath of WWII was (charitably) an accident of history and come to terms with a multi-polar world and the concept of collective security to which they gave so much word of mouth to a population disgusted with the carnage and destruction of the second "war to end all wars".

          Hespeler1, October 7, 2015 at 4:19 pm

          Steven, Pepe Escobar has written extensively about the "pipeline wars" ("pipelinestan"), the Empire is trying to starve Russia's finances in part by bypassing Russia's pipelines. Greece was pressured into refusing to be the Turkish Stream's terminus and distribution hub for Southern Europe. We all know how much they needed the revenue from that, but TPTB said no. Grand Strategy=break up Russia, steal her resources, put pressure on China. I fear that the Empire won't stop until they accomplish this, or are buried.

          OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL, October 7, 2015 at 12:11 pm

          Sometimes things are just so obvious. US "veto of the Russian coalition proposal at the UN Security Council". Could be because the US wants to lead a bigger, better coalition, maybe ours will include Samoa or something. Or, um, duh, could be because US doesn't really want to fight ISIS since that's our dog in this fight. Funny how a few days bombing by Russia has had a real impact on actual ISIS fighters…whereas US bombing tends to be on stuff like bridges and power plants and hospitals that hurt Assad more than they hurt ISIS.

          I mean how bleeding obvious when we get John McCain high fiving ISIS…and our grand plan was to find "moderate" maniacs that would do our bidding. "OK everybody, form a line, if you're an extremist take the T-shirt on the left, if you're a moderate take a T-shirt on the right". That strategy has worked out so well for us in the past, we spent $500M and trained precisely "4 or 5" guys.

          Yankee go home.

          sid_finster, October 7, 2015 at 12:32 pm

          http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-07/russian-warships-launch-missile-attack-syrian-targets-clearing-way-iran-ground-invas

          Is it not most edifying that Iraq is now apparently allowing Russian cruise missiles to fly over its territory, or at least not objecting? (Not that Iraq could do much about it…)

          Harry, October 7, 2015 at 5:20 pm

          Iraq is part of the Russian coalition as well as China and you probably do know that Iraqi prime-minister already made a statement that he would not object against Russians decimating ISIS on the Iraqi territory. And look, oil prices are already going up – that's what Putin really needed and this is one of the eight reasons why he started a war in the Middle East.

          NotTimothyGeithner, October 7, 2015 at 8:52 pm

          Started a war? You do realize training a day arming rebels is an act of war even if Congress hides the funding in the classified budget or if it's done by the CIA instead of corporate approved soldiers. The U.S. government has started numerous wars without Congressional approval, mostly because Congress is still afraid of elections. Russia is allied with Syria. If anything Putin has shown remarkable constraint.

          Synoia, October 7, 2015 at 1:06 pm

          There are three sides to Syria:

          1. New Caliphate – Includes Turkey & Saudi Arabia – Look at a map and think contiguous empire -ISIS is their tool.

          2. US dislike of Assad, and allied with Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but dislikes New Caliphate and ISIS.

          3. Russia, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah etc, dislike New Calipahe, becue of potential threat to Russia from Muslim arc from Iran through to China (the Stans).

          Which leaves the US's allies in direct opposition to the US' goals, and leads to lies, deceit and deception from parties (1) and (2).

          The role of ISIS is to destabilize Syria and Iran, to create an opportunity for Turkish Troops (500,000 man army), and Saudi money to enter, the region "to keep the peace," thus furthering their imperial ambitions.

          The US is trying to eliminate Assad, but not enable a new Caliphate, and undermine Russia's and Iran's influence in the area, because Oil and exceptionalism (for exceptionalism see collective ego, or stunning arragance).

          Russia and Iran see the solution to a New Caliphate as Assad in power, and a weakening of US influence.

          aka: Quagmire

          NotTimothyGeithner -> Synoia, October 7, 2015 at 8:56 pm

          The U.S. government's side* is childish at best. The only real plan was Sunni elements of the army would assume power when Assad was removed from power with a little Saber rattling much like Libya with the GNC. Obama's ego prevents him from recognizing what a stupid idea this was and how radically different types Assad a day Gaddafi's power bases were.

          *They are hiding behind the war powers act and approval from post 9/11 legislation. Congress an otherwise President are too cowardly to call our actions acts of war which is what they are.

          washunate, October 7, 2015 at 1:40 pm

          No.

          But seriously, it is interesting seeing what the Oilprice guys think their audience wants to hear. They are clearly inside the MSM echo chamber. You have everything from dichotomous balance (because truth has two sides) to the charged political atmosphere (which sadly forces otherwise honest and transparent leaders to engage in secrecy and deception against their will).

          I particularly love how casual the author is with the notion that the President of the United States has an explicit policy goal of deposing the leader of a sovereign nation. Ho hum, just another head of state that must go.

          susan the other, October 7, 2015 at 2:15 pm

          This summary by Berke also reflects my puzzled observations. It wasn't that long ago that we worried about a fundamentalist insurrection in SA and so we politely made ourselves scarce to help the Saudis out.

          There's probably now a pre-arranged trade off for the Saudis and Iran: SA gets to take over Yemen; Iran gets to create a corridor through Syria. Who knows. I thought the meeting at the UN between Obama and Putin was such thinly disguised cooperation that surely some MSM would comment – but none did.

          And the EU has stated (above) that sanctions against Russia are incompatible because the EU is "relying on Russia's military might" and shouldn't therefore starve the Russian economy. Wow, let's hear the story on that please.

          So did Holland send in the French bombers to help out Russia? Maybe SA and RU are chummy because Russia is going to get the contract to build the new pipeline from the Gulf to Europe.

          blert, October 7, 2015 at 6:08 pm

          Actually all of the load growth, for OPEC, is towards India and points east. American fracking has released a glut of oil into the Atlantic Ocean market space.
          Nigeria essentially lost North America as a customer - all together. If Libya and Venezuela get their act together, the glut becomes even more pronounced. Then toss in Brazil's new out put.

          Brian M, October 7, 2015 at 8:10 pm

          many of the fracked wells will fail amazingly quickly. So, this may not be true for long...

          skippy, October 7, 2015 at 8:14 pm

          A giddy operator with the rights to a gas-rich parcel of land can't just drill willy-nilly. Well design considerations are very complex and attention to detail must span the construction, testing phase, and decommissioning of the well post-production. Moreover, drilling wells are often constructed uniquely with regard to the geology and geography of the specific location. For instance, because much of the shale formation in Pennsylvania lies beneath a shallower gas formation, it is easier for the shallower gas to escape during the initial drilling process. This in turn has made it difficult for drillers to design failproof wells that can be sealed off from the younger deposits completely.

          http://frackwire.com/well-casing-failure/

          Jim, October 7, 2015 at 2:26 pm

          At this point in the Syrian crisis it appears that the national security network (several hundred high-level military, intelligence, diplomatic and law enforcement agencies) are still debating among themselves what the U.S. response will be to Russian military initiatives in Syria and potentially Iraq.

          For all Bernie Sanders supporters, it will be interesting to see what his stance on Syria will be. Will he break( at least rhetorically) with these national security elites( who since WWII have basically dictated Presidential moves in the national security arena) or will he cave to this present structure of networked power despite his "democratic socialist" credentials.

          Will Sanders maintain this continuity of American foreign policy that so shocked Obama supporters?

          Will the United State continue on its path of greater centralization, less accountability and emergent autocracy despite whoever wins the increasingly powerless Presidencyj?

          RUKidding, October 7, 2015 at 2:33 pm

          Here's my bet for the answer to your last 2 Q:

          1. Yes
          2. Yes

          James Levy, October 7, 2015 at 3:00 pm

          Unfortunately, I concur.

          The amazing thing is watching the utter horror and confusion of the MSM and the Talking Heads as the Russians do things (bombing ISIS! Firing cruise missiles!!!) that the US does just about every other Tuesday, as if these things are some kind of massive breach of the peace on the order of Hitler invading Poland. The lack of any self-awareness is stunning.

          Oregoncharles, October 7, 2015 at 2:55 pm

          "Russia is attempting to form and lead a UN authorized coalition against ISIL"

          The obvious solution, especially if it does not include the US. I'm anti-interventionist in general, but ISIL poses us the problem the Nazis did: this cannot be allowed to stand. They're actually taking us back to the 7th Century, morally, and for that matter doing things Mohammed probably wouldn't have stood for. Except in degree, most of their actions are not unprecedented, even in modern times; what's unprecedented is their extreme openness about it. Hypocrisy is an acknowledgment of morality; these people are trying to CHANGE morality, reversing hundreds of years of hard-won progress. They're a kind of monster we thought we were rid of. And they've been successful enough militarily, at least in that deeply destabilized region, to present a real threat.

          Ultimately, they will have to be suppressed; it won't be easy or bloodless. The Russians' proposal may be self-interested, but it's the only approach likely to work. American bombing certainly won't.

          ISIL's PR skills bother me on another level: they're extremely convenient for the interventionists. They've even got me going. And there are real connections between it and the US authorities, especially in Iraq, to say nothing of the Saudis. I can't help but wonder whether it's a CIA operation, either run amok or conceivably still under control. (If you aren't paranoid, you aren't paying attention.)

          Steven, October 7, 2015 at 4:17 pm

          I keep wondering how much of what goes on here in the commentariat of Naked Capitalism is just preaching to the choir and how much represents (well deserved) contempt for the official government / MSM (but I repeat myself) line among the population at large. That contempt – if it exists – is in my humble opinion – a national security issue / crisis.

          JTMcPhee, October 7, 2015 at 7:46 pm

          Quoting the captain of the Titanic, "More steam! Full speed ahead! We gotta show the world what this baby will do!"

          [Oct 12, 2015] In Midst of War, Ukraine Becomes Gateway for Jihad

          A new player among far right forces in Ukraine...
          "... Photos: Tomasz Glowacki ..."
          "... Next: The Life and Death of a Chechen Commander ..."
          "... At the request of the writer, "Ruslan" is identified by a pseudonym. ..."
          Feb. 26 2015 | theintercept.com
          "OUR BROTHERS ARE there," Khalid said when he heard I was going to Ukraine. "Buy a local SIM card when you get there, send me the number and then wait for someone to call you."

          Khalid, who uses a pseudonym, leads the Islamic State's underground branch in Istanbul. He came from Syria to help control the flood of volunteers arriving in Turkey from all over the world, wanting to join the global jihad. Now, he wanted to put me in touch with Ruslan, a "brother" fighting with Muslims in Ukraine.

          The "brothers" are members of ISIS and other underground Islamic organizations, men who have abandoned their own countries and cities. Often using pseudonyms and fake identities, they are working and fighting in the Middle East, Africa and the Caucasus, slipping across borders without visas. Some are fighting to create a new Caliphate - heaven on earth. Others - like Chechens, Kurds and Dagestanis - say they are fighting for freedom, independence and self-determination. They are on every continent, and in almost every country, and now they are in Ukraine, too.

          In the West, most look at the war in Ukraine as simply a battle between Russian-backed separatists and the Ukrainian government. But the truth on the ground is now far more complex, particularly when it comes to the volunteer battalions fighting on the side of Ukraine. Ostensibly state-sanctioned, but not necessarily state-controlled, some have been supported by Ukrainian oligarchs, and others by private citizens. Less talked about, however, is the Dudayev battalion, named after the first president of Chechnya, Dzhokhar Dudayev, and founded by Isa Munayev, a Chechen commander who fought in two wars against Russia.

          Ukraine is now becoming an important stop-off point for the brothers, like Ruslan. In Ukraine, you can buy a passport and a new identity. For $15,000, a fighter receives a new name and a legal document attesting to Ukrainian citizenship. Ukraine doesn't belong to the European Union, but it's an easy pathway for immigration to the West. Ukrainians have few difficulties obtaining visas to neighboring Poland, where they can work on construction sites and in restaurants, filling the gap left by the millions of Poles who have left in search of work in the United Kingdom and Germany.

          You can also do business in Ukraine that's not quite legal. You can earn easy money for the brothers fighting in the Caucasus, Syria and Afghanistan. You can "legally" acquire unregistered weapons to fight the Russian-backed separatists, and then export them by bribing corrupt Ukrainian customs officers.

          "Our goal here is to get weapons, which will be sent to the Caucasus," Ruslan, the brother who meets me first in Kiev, admits without hesitation.

          WITH HIS WHITE hair and beard, Ruslan is still physically fit, even at 57. He's been a fighter his entire adult life. Born in a small mountain village in the Caucasus, on the border between Dagestan and Chechnya, Ruslan belongs to an ethnic minority known as the Lak, who are predominantly Sunni Muslim.

          The world that Ruslan inhabits - the world of the brothers - is something new. When he first became a fighter, there wasn't any Internet or cell phones, or cameras on the street, or drones. Ruslan joined the brothers when the Soviet Union collapsed, and he went to fight for a better world, first against the Russians in Chechnya and Dagestan during the first Chechen war in the mid-1990s. He then moved to Azerbaijan, where he was eventually arrested in 2004 on suspicion of maintaining contact with al Qaeda.

          Even though Ruslan admits to fighting with Islamic organizations, he claims the actual basis for the arrest in Azerbaijan - illegal possession of weapons - was false. Authorities couldn't find anything suspicious where he was living (Ruslan was staying at the time with his "brothers" in the jihad movement) but in his wife's home they found a single hand grenade. Ruslan was charged with illegal weapons possession and sent to prison for several years.

          In prison, he says he was tortured and deliberately housed in a cell with prisoners infected with tuberculosis. Ruslan took his case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, accusing the authorities in Azerbaijan of depriving him of due process. The court eventually agreed, and asked the Azerbaijani government to pay Ruslan 2,400 euros in compensation, plus another 1,000 euros for court costs.

          But when Ruslan was released from prison, he didn't want to stay in Azerbaijan, fearing he would be rearrested, or even framed for a crime and again accused of terrorism. "Some of our people disappear and are never found," he says. "There was one brother [who disappeared], and when he was brought for burial, a card was found showing that he was one of 30 people held in detention in Russia."

          In Russia, a warrant was issued for Riuan's arrest. Returning to his small mountain village was out of the question. If he goes back, his family will end up paying for what he does, anyhow. "They get to us through our families," he says. He condemns those who refused to leave their own country and fight the infidels. This was the choice: either stay, or go abroad where "you can breathe freedom."

          "Man is born free," Ruslan says. "We are slaves of God and not the slaves of people, especially those who are against their own people, and break the laws of God. There is only one law: the law of God."

          After his release from prison in Azerbaijan, Ruslan became the eternal wanderer, a rebel - and one of the brothers now in Ukraine. He came because Munayev, now head of the Dudayev battalion, decided the brothers should fight in Ukraine. "I am here today because my brother, Isa, called us and said, 'It's time to repay your debt,'" Ruslan says. "There was a time when the brothers from Ukraine came [to Chechnya] and fought against the common enemy, the aggressor, the occupier."

          That debt is to Ukrainians like Oleksandr Muzychko, who became one of the brothers, even though he never converted to Islam. Muzyczko, along with other Ukrainian volunteers, joined Chechen fighters and took part in the first Chechen war against Russia. He commanded a branch of Ukrainian volunteers, called "Viking," which fought under famed Chechen militant leader Shamil Basayev. Muzychko died last year in Ukraine under mysterious circumstances.

          Ruslan has been in Ukraine for almost a year, and hasn't seen his family since he arrived. Their last separation lasted almost seven years. He's never had time to raise children, or even really to get to know them. Although he's a grandfather, he only has one son - a small family by Caucasian standards, but better for him, since a smaller family costs less. His wife calls often and asks for money, but Ruslan rarely has any to give her.

          IN THE 17th century, the area to the east of the Dnieper River was known as the "wilderness," an ungoverned territory that attracted refugees, criminals and peasants - a place beyond the reach of the Russian empire. Today, this part of Ukraine plays a similar role, this time for Muslim brothers. In eastern Ukraine, the green flag of jihad flies over some of the private battalions' bases.

          For many Muslims, like Ruslan, the war in Ukraine's Donbass region is just the next stage in the fight against the Russian empire. It doesn't matter to them whether their ultimate goal is a Caliphate in the Middle East, or simply to have the Caucuses free of Russian influence - the brothers are united not by nation, but by a sense of community and solidarity.

          But the brothers barely have the financial means for fighting or living. They are poor, and very rarely receive grants from the so-called Islamic humanitarian organizations. They must earn money for themselves, and this is usually done by force. Amber is one of the ideas Ruslan has for financing the "company of brothers" fighting in eastern Ukraine - the Dudayev battalion, which includes Muslims from several nations, Ukrainians, Georgians, and even a few Russians.

          The brothers had hoped the Ukrainian authorities would appreciate their dedication and willingness to give their lives in defense of Ukrainian sovereignty, but they miscalculated. Like other branches of fighters - Aidar, Azov and Donbass - the government, for the most part, ignores them. They're armed volunteers outside the control of Kiev, and Ukraine's politicians also fear that one day, instead of fighting Russians in the east, the volunteers will turn on the government in Kiev. So ordinary people help the volunteers, but it's not enough. The fighters associated with the Ukrainian nationalist Right Sector get money, cars and houses from the rich oligarchs.

          Ruslan has a different plan. He's afraid that if they begin stealing from the rich, the Ukrainian government will quickly declare their armed branch illegal. He's decided to work in the underground economy - uncontrolled by the state - which the brothers know best.

          Back in the '90s, the amber mines in the vast forests surrounding the city of Rivne were state-owned and badly run, so residents began illegally mining; it was a chance at easy money. Soon, however, the mafia took over. For the right daily fee, miners could work and sell amber to the mafia at a fixed price: $100 per kilogram. The mafia conspired with local militia, prosecutors and the governor. That was the way business worked.

          As a result, although Ukraine officially produces 3 tons of amber annually, more than 15 tons are illegally exported to Poland each year. There, the ore is processed and sold at a substantial profit. The Rivne mines operate 24 hours a day. Hundreds of people with shovels in hand search the forest; they pay less to the mafia, but they extract less amber and earn less. The better off are those who have a water pump. Those people pump water at high pressure into the earth between the trees, until a cavity 2 to 3 meters deep forms. Amber, which is lighter than water, rises to the surface.

          At one point, Ruslan disappeared in Rivne for several weeks. When he returned, he was disappointed; he'd failed to convince the local mafia to cooperate with the brothers' fight for an independent Ukraine. But now, he has other arguments to persuade them. His men are holding up the mines, by not allowing anyone into the forest. Either the local gangsters share their profits, or no one will get paid.

          Ruslan doesn't like this job. He knows it won't bring him any glory, and could land him in prison. He would have preferred to be among the fighters at the front lines, where everything is clear and clean. He says he can still fight, but he's already too old to really endure the rigors of battle, even if he doesn't want to admit it. He may still be physically fit, but fighters don't usually last longer than a few years. Then they lose their strength and will to fight.

          He has other orders from Munayev: he's supposed to organize a "direct response group" in Kiev. The group will be a sort of rear echelon unit that take care of problems, like if someone tries to discredit the Dudayev battalion. It will also collect debts or scare off competition. There's no doubt the new branch will work behind the lines, where there isn't war, but there is money - as long as you know where to get it. If need be, the direct response group volunteers will watch over the mines in Rivne, or "will acquire" money from illegal casinos, which operate by the hundreds in Kiev.

          Ruslan sends me photos of the group's criminal exploits: they came into the casinos with weapons, and broke into the safes and slot machines. They disappeared quickly, and were never punished. The money went to food, uniforms, boots, tactical vests and other equipment necessary for the fighters. The mafia knows they can't beat them at this game. The brothers are too good, because they are armed and experienced in battle. The police aren't interested in getting involved either. In the end, it's illegal gambling.

          I told Ruslan that it's a dangerous game. He laughed.

          "It's child's play," he says. "We used to do this in Dagestan. No one will lift a finger. Don't worry."

          RUSLAN FINALLY DROVE me to see his "older brother," to Isa Munayev, and his secret base located many miles west of Donetsk.

          Riding in an old Chrysler that Ruslan bought in Poland, we drove for several hours, on potholed and snowy roads. Ruslan had glued to the car one of the emblems of Ukraine's ATO, the so-called Anti-Terrorist Operation, which includes both soldiers and volunteers in the fight against separatists.

          The bumper sticker allows him to drive through police traffic stops without being held up - or if he is stopped, they won't demand bribes as they do from other drivers. The ATO sticker, Ruslan's camouflage uniform, and a gun in his belt are enough to settle matters. Policemen salute him and wish him good luck.

          He drives fast, not wanting to rest, sleep or even drink coffee. If he stops, it's to check the compass on his belt to check the direction of Mecca. When it's time to pray, he stops the car, turns off the engine, places his scarf in the snow and bows down to Allah.

          Asked whether - after so many hardships, after so many years, and at his age, almost 60 now - he would finally like to rest, he answered indignantly, "How could I feel tired?"

          There's much more work to do, according to Ruslan. "There's been a small result, but we will rest only when we've reached our goals," he says. "I'm carrying out orders, written in the Holy Quran. 'Listen to God, the Prophet.' And I listen to him and do what I'm told."

          On the way into the city of Kryvyi Rih, we met with Dima, a young businessman - under 40 - but already worth some $5 million. He's recently lost nearly $3 million from his business in Donetsk, which has been hit hard by the war. Dima worked for Igor Kolomoisky, one of the oligarchs who had been funding Ukraine's volunteer battalions. Dima and Ruslan have only known each other for a short time. Ruslan claimed Dima owed him a lot of money, although it's unclear from what. Ruslan kept bothering him, threatening to blackmail him. Finally, he got $20,000 from Dima.

          That's not nearly enough to support the Dudayev battalion. But Ruslan had something bigger to offer Dima: amber. Now, Dima was ready to talk. He came up with the idea to find buyers in the Persian Gulf, including wealthy sheikhs. They would like to sell an entire house of amber: furniture, stairs, floors, and inlaid stones. It only takes contacts, and Ruslan has them. The brothers from Saudi Arabia like to help the jihad in the Caucasus and the Middle East.

          The next day, Ruslan was behind the wheel again. The old Chrysler barely moved, its engine overheated. A mechanic with an engineering degree and experience working in Soviet arms factories connected a plastic bottle filled with dirty water to the radiator using a rubber hose.

          "I don't know how long I'll last," Ruslan says suddenly. "It depends on God. I'll probably die on this road. But I don't have any other road to take."

          Photos: Tomasz Glowacki

          Next: The Life and Death of a Chechen Commander

          * At the request of the writer, "Ruslan" is identified by a pseudonym.

          The material for this story is part of BROTHERS, a documentary film being developed for Germany's broadcaster WDR – Die Story and Autentic, produced by Propellerfilm, broadcast date May 18th, 10pm (MET).

          [Oct 11, 2015] What Ambulance-Chasing Lawyers Reveal About the MH17 Shoot-Down

          Insufficient evidence for prosecution to declare shooting of MH17 a terrorist act..
          Notable quotes:
          "... The refusal of the Australian officials to make the statutory declaration that they have the evidence under Australian law to declare a terrorist act suggests they don't have the evidence at all. Until now, none has noticed the convergence of the Australian autopsy evidence in the Coroners Court in Melbourne, and the revelation in the Brisbane court that the government is refusing to declare a terrorist act. ..."
          "... Dutch media report Australian lawyers for kin of victims have filed a complaint with the ICC in the Hague seeking to indict several Dutch government ministers as well as Eurocontrol and others for 'gross negligence'. ..."
          "... If I'm right, the Russians have the evidence that proves whodunnit. They're just waiting until the Dutch put out their report. Shot from the sky by military (whose is a guess) planes, not BUK missiles. If they had one atom from a BUK, we'd know about it. ..."
          "... It now appears that the likelihood 'on balance' is that it was the Ukrainian government that shot down the plane. Establishing the case on a balance of probabilities would be good enough in a civil jurisdiction. ..."
          "... Obviously we westerners cannot tolerate that result otherwise everything we have said about the accident will be thought to be intentionally misleading. It would be far far better to obfuscate the investigative results and say it was inconclusive. Then our newspapers can say those crafty Russians got away with it. ..."
          "... Fingers crossed. Its not impossible that the truth will out. ..."
          www.nakedcapitalism.com

          Fifteen weeks later, by the time Abbott spoke in November, he had been briefed on the evidence gathered by Australian pathologists and the Victorian State Coroner from the bodies of MH17 victims. No evidence of shrapnel from a Buk missile warhead had been found. For that story, read on.

          ... ... ...

          The refusal of the Australian officials to make the statutory declaration that they have the evidence under Australian law to declare a terrorist act suggests they don't have the evidence at all. Until now, none has noticed the convergence of the Australian autopsy evidence in the Coroners Court in Melbourne, and the revelation in the Brisbane court that the government is refusing to declare a terrorist act.

          ... ... ...

          For the Dutch Government's compilation of its official statements on the MH17 crash, open this file. According to van der Goen, none of the investigating countries has legitimate authority to prosecute, "if only because the Netherlands and the other countries mentioned are possible suspects themselves - and they refuse to see this. So the case will be endlessly shelved. Eventually, it will be adopted at a parliamentary inquiry that mistakes were made, but then noone will still be awake. Excellent solution."

          Ilargi, October 8, 2015 at 1:53 am

          Dutch media report Australian lawyers for kin of victims have filed a complaint with the ICC in the Hague seeking to indict several Dutch government ministers as well as Eurocontrol and others for 'gross negligence'.

          Chris Williams, October 8, 2015 at 2:35 am

          I don't know how our clever governments (US, Australia, Netherlands, UK etc) are going to get out of this one. Perhaps, as JH suggests, they will continue to defer and prevaricate, keeping their 'evidence'… until know one cares.

          If I'm right, the Russians have the evidence that proves whodunnit. They're just waiting until the Dutch put out their report. Shot from the sky by military (whose is a guess) planes, not BUK missiles. If they had one atom from a BUK, we'd know about it.

          JTMcPhee, October 8, 2015 at 9:09 pm

          For a different and more complete view, one might read here:

          America's Flight 17: The time the United States blew up a passenger plane-and tried to cover it up. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/07/the_vincennes_downing_of_iran_air_flight_655_the_united_states_tried_to.html

          And here: Sea of Lies, http://alt-f4.org/img/seaoflies.html

          Not some "itchy radar operator," it would seem. But the Narrative must be protected…

          low_integer, October 9, 2015 at 6:22 am

          So the damage to the body would come from the exploding engine. It's so big, spinning so fast, that the energy released is far, far, greater than the warheads. !!!

          So, you can't tell either way based on the plane's body. You'd have to have microscopic analysis of the engine components - which would be very challenging and take just about forever.

          Obfuscation. The parts in a passenger aircraft's jet engine that are moving, the turbine blades, are made of nickel-based superalloys and I believe they are single 'grain' components, which means they have consistent strength throughout and would be very unlikely to fracture. Also, damage to the fuselage of a passenger jet from turbine blades would be easily identifiable due to their shape and position as the energy of the turbine blades would be dispersed at right angles to the direction of thrust. Lastly, the casing around these blades would, at the very least, absorb a significant amount of this energy.

          Are you the guy who replied to one of my posts that Cthulu caused 9/11?

          RBHoughton, October 8, 2015 at 9:17 pm

          It now appears that the likelihood 'on balance' is that it was the Ukrainian government that shot down the plane. Establishing the case on a balance of probabilities would be good enough in a civil jurisdiction.

          Obviously we westerners cannot tolerate that result otherwise everything we have said about the accident will be thought to be intentionally misleading. It would be far far better to obfuscate the investigative results and say it was inconclusive. Then our newspapers can say those crafty Russians got away with it.

          If not, eastern Ukraine and Russia will score a huge win and we will have even more egg on our faces than usual. Its bad enough that fewer people believe us but its far worse that they begin to prefer Putin's version.

          The hopeful thing here is the lawyers. Older readers will recall people used to study law because they respected the concept of a law-based society. It was not just about the money. Some of these vocational lawyers can still be found and it is my hope that they get fully involved in this case. Fingers crossed. Its not impossible that the truth will out.

          Thanks again Naked Capitalism for reporting important news that is neglected by others.

          [Oct 11, 2015] Russia's Move In Syria Threatens Energy Deals With Turkey

          In 2014, Gazprom delivered 27.3 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas to Turkey via its Blue Stream and Trans-Balkan pipelines. Gas exports from Russia are up some 34 percent since 2010, and Turkey – now Russia's second largest market after Germany – is only getting hungrier. By 2030, gas demand in Turkey is expected to expand 30 percent, reaching 70 bcm per year.

          ... ... ...

          With European demand projected to grow by just over 1 bcm per year in the same period, Russia's South Stream pipeline proposal was as misguided as it was non-compliant with the EU's Third Energy Package. Routed through Turkey however, Russia's newest pipeline, TurkStream, promised to add greater utility. Turkey gets its gas and partly fulfills its transit aspirations; Russia bypasses Ukraine while opening windows to Europe and the Middle East; and Europe, if it wants it, will have gas on demand.

          It sounds good – okay, at least – but as so often happens in Russia, the tale has taken a turn for the worse. TurkStream has stumbled out of the gates and larger happenings in Syria look to significantly damage Russia-Turkey relations.

          Originally intended as a four-pipe 63-bcm project, TurkStream will now top out at 32 bcm, if it gets off the ground at all. As it stands, the parties have agreed to draft the text of an intergovernmental agreement, with a targeted signing date of early next year, following Turkey's general election. And that's it.

          [Oct 11, 2015] Russian maker of missile that destroyed MH17 to explain disaster

          ARTEMIVSK, Ukraine - How do you prove you didn't blow up a plane? In Russia, you blow up a plane.

          A Russian missile manufacturer said Friday that it had exploded a missile beneath a decommissioned Boeing airliner similar to that of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, shot out of the sky over eastern Ukraine last year, proving the passenger jet was not downed by one of its missiles.

          "The company will present the results of a real-time simulation of a Buk missile hitting a passenger jet which we hope will help us understand what exactly caused the July 17, 2014 crash of the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 in Ukraine's Donetsk region," Almaz-Antey said in a statement.

          The company did not say when the experiment took place or how it was conducted, and it did not immediately reply to Mashable's request for comment. Its report will be released on Tuesday, Oct. 13, the same day a joint international investigation led by the Dutch Safety Board will release its full report into the causes of the downing.

          At a press conference in Moscow in June, Almaz-Antey said it was prepared to carry out such an experiment to prove MH17 was downed by an older version of their missile that isn't in service with the Russian military, but is in Ukraine's arsenal.

          Company officials at the time did not say whether the aircraft would be in flight during the experiment.

          MH17 was downed over the village of Hrabovo, eastern Ukraine while en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpa on July 17, 2014. All 298 passengers and crew on board the jetliner were killed and their remains scattered over the battlefields in war-torn Donetsk region.

          Western governments and Kiev have accused Russian-backed separatists of shooting down the passenger jet, mistaking it for a Ukrainian military aircraft, with a Buk SA-11 missile provided by Moscow. Their accusations are supported by preliminary evidence gathered by open source sleuths Bellingcat, as well as investigators and Mashable's own investigation.

          On Wednesday, Vasyl Vovk, a senior officer of the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) who has been involved in the investigation into the downing, told Dutch news site NOS that the fragments found in the aircraft wreckage and in victims' bodies matched pieces from two Buk missiles that investigators examined for comparison.

          The Kremlin and separatist leaders have blamed Kiev for the disaster, insisting it was downed either by a Ukrainian Buk missile or a government jet fighter.

          While the Dutch report due next week will shine a light on what caused the plane to crash and burn, it will not lay blame.

          A separate criminal investigation headed by Dutch detectives and involving investigators from Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine is still pending.

          Attempts by the United Nations Security Council to create a tribunal to prosecute those responsible for the crime was vetoed by Russia, a permanent member of the council, in July. Moscow has called the move "premature" and decried the Dutch-led investigation as biased.

          [Oct 11, 2015] MH17 crash report is set for release, but it is unlikely to offer closure by Luke Harding and Shaun Walker

          Please compare Luke Harding and Shaun Walker article with Who Shot down Malaysian flight MH17? Guardian presstitutes failed to ask any of key questions and just play the case on emotional level. And for them, of course Russians are guilty by definition, despite absence of reliable evidence and the court verdict. Doubt is something that never visits those rascals of pen.
          Oct 11, 2015 | The Guardian

          Technical report on 2014 air disaster in Ukraine will avoid 'blame and culpability' – though its evidence may further bolster argument Russia was involved

          The Kremlin's English-language network Russia Today ran a story on Bellingcat's Eliot Higgins describing him as an unqualified "clerk" whose evidence is dubious.

          Almaz-Antey, the Russian defence conglomerate that manufactures Buk missile systems, says it will hold its own press conference on Tuesday. The company said it had performed an experiment in which it blew up a decommissioned Boeing, in an attempt to prove that a Russian Buk could not have been involved. Earlier, the company claimed its investigations showed the plane had been shot down by an old version of a system which the Ukrainian army has in its arsenal but which the Russian army does not

          [Oct 10, 2015] Obama Launches A Proxy War On Russia

          Notable quotes:
          "... Russia bombed some of the CIAS trained, armed and paid groups. It had earlier asked the U.S. to tell it who not to bomb but didnt receive an answer. As the CIA mercenaries are fighting against the Syrian government and are practically not distinguishable from al-Qaeda, ISI or other terrorists they are a legitimate targets. But not in the eyes of the CIA which nevertheless finds Russian attacks on them useful: ..."
          "... Erdogans AK-Party and his government have supported the Islamic State and al-Qaeda in Syria. It sees the HDP party and the Kurds in general as its enemies. As one Turkish non-AKP politician said today, the bloody incident in Ankara was either a total Turkish intelligence failure or a Turkish intelligence operation. ..."
          "... Today the Russian President Putin will meet the Saudi young leader deputy crown-prince Mohammed Salman-un. Can Putin read him the riot act and tell him to stop being a proxy in the U.S. war on Syria? One hopes so. ..."
          www.moonofalabama.org
          But instead of building on that agreement and of further working with the Russians, the U.S. is now slipping into a full war by proxy against the Russian Federation and especially with its contingent in Syria. Obama had claimed that he would not get drawn into a proxy war with Russia in Syria but his administration, the Pentagon and the CIA, is now doing all it can to create one. The Russian support for Syria is not limited. With the U.S. administration now moving into a position where war on Russia in Syria becomes the priority the fighting in and around Syria will continue for a long time.

          The official Pentagon program to train Syrian insurgents will cease to vet, train, arm and support those mercenaries. But the program will not end. The Pentagon will simply shorten the process. It skips the vetting and training part and will arm and support anyone who proclaims to want to "fight ISIS":

          The move marks an expansion of U.S. involvement in Syria's protracted ground war and could expose the Obama administration to greater risks if weapons provided to a wider array of rebel units go astray, or if U.S.-backed fighters come under attack from forces loyal to Assad and his allies.
          ...
          Under the new plan, leaders of groups already battling the Islamic State undergo vetting and receive a crash course in human rights and combat communications. Many of them have already received that training outside Syria, officials said.

          Eventually the Pentagon plans to provide ammunition and basic weapons to those leaders' fighters and would carry out airstrikes on targets identified by those units.

          We know how well things go when some rogue proxies identify targets they want the U.S. air force to hit. The destroyed MSF hospital in Kunduz and the 50 something killed in the U.S. attack on it, on request of Afghan special forces, tell the story.

          Significant military aid to those fighters, in an area where Islamist extremist groups are mixed with and often fighting beside moderate opposition rebels, would mark a departure from previous U.S. policy. A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter, declined to give specifics on any new aid that might arrive in northwest Syria. But the official said that "these supplies will be delivered to anti-ISIL forces whose leaders were appropriately vetted," and described them as "groups with diverse membership."

          That would be these diverse groups which all include al-Nusra/al-Qaeda, Ahrar al Shams and other Jihadis. Even if not directly given to them the fact that al-Qaeda demands a "toll" of 1/3 of all weapons going through its controls, and sometimes takes all, shows that this program is effectively a direct, though unacknowledged, armament program for al-Qaeda.

          The new program is separate from a CIA-led effort to aid rebel factions in Syria. It was not immediately clear how Friday's announcement might affect the CIA program.

          The CIA runs a similar but much bigger program since 2012. Weapons are handed out to everyone who wants to take down the Syrian government. Most of those weapons have landed in the hands of the Islamic State or al-Qaeda.

          Indeed it is the CIA, under its torture justifying chief Brennan, which has pushed the Obama administration away from Kerry's conceding statement and into a full blown proxy war with Russia.

          Russia bombed some of the CIA'S trained, armed and paid groups. It had earlier asked the U.S. to tell it who not to bomb but didn't receive an answer. As the CIA mercenaries are fighting against the Syrian government and are practically not distinguishable from al-Qaeda, ISI or other terrorists they are a legitimate targets. But not in the eyes of the CIA which nevertheless finds Russian attacks on them useful:

          Reports indicate that CIA-trained groups have sustained a small number of casualties and have been urged to avoid moves that would expose them to Russian aircraft. One U.S. official who is familiar with the CIA program - and who like other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters - said the attacks have galvanized some of the agency-equipped units. "Now they get to fight the Russians," the official said. "This improves morale."
          ...
          Brennan departed for the Middle East last week as the Russian strikes intensified. U.S. officials said that the trip was previously planned and not related to the bombings but acknowledged that his discussions centered on Syria.

          ...
          The decision to dismantle the Pentagon's training program - whose small teams of fighters were often quickly captured or surrendered their weapons to rival rebel groups in Syria - may force Obama to weigh ramping up support to the CIA-backed groups.

          U.S. officials said those involved in the agency program are already exploring options that include sending in rocket systems and other weapons that could enable rebels to strike Russian bases without sending in surface-to-air missiles that terrorist groups could use to target civilian aircraft.

          The person who told the Saudis to deliver 500 TOW missiles to Syria ASAP was likely CIA chief Brennan. He also ordered to plan for attacks on the Russian base.

          So instead of a calming down and cooperation with Russia to fight the Islamic State the Pentagon was told to shorten its program and to hand out weapons to everyone who asks. The CIA is feeding more weapons to its mercenaries via its Gulf proxies and is planning for direct attacks on Russians.

          The war on Syria, and now also on Russia, is unlikely to end in the near future. With the U.S. throwing more oil into the fire the war will burn not only in Syria but in every other country around it.

          Two suicide bombers blew themselves up today at a rally of the Kurd friendly HDP party in Ankara. Some 90 people were killed and some 200 wounded. This is the biggest terrorist attack modern Turkey has ever seen. The Turkish government disconnected the country from Twitter and forbid any reporting about the terror attack. The HDP party is leftist and supports a peaceful struggle for Kurdish autonomy. The militant Kurdish PKK in Turkey is currently fighting skirmishes with Turkish security forces in the east of the country. It has now announced that it will stop all attacks unless when it is attacked first. The sister organization of the PKK in Syria, the YPK, is currently fighting against the Islamic State. Erdogan's AK-Party and his government have supported the Islamic State and al-Qaeda in Syria. It sees the HDP party and the Kurds in general as its enemies. As one Turkish non-AKP politician said today, the bloody incident in Ankara was either a total Turkish intelligence failure or a Turkish intelligence operation.

          Whatever else it was, the bombing, very likely by Islamic State suicide bombers, is a sign of an ongoing destabilization of Turkey. The instability will increase further until there is a major policy change and a complete crackdown on any support for the Jihadis in Syria as well as a complete closure of the Turkish-Syrian border.

          Today the Russian President Putin will meet the Saudi "young leader" deputy crown-prince Mohammed Salman-un. Can Putin read him the riot act and tell him to stop being a proxy in the U.S. war on Syria? One hopes so.

          [Oct 10, 2015] Three main reasons for which NATO is not attacking Russia right now

          Notable quotes:
          "... The second reason, is that NATO is facing problems, the alliance is weakening and its credibility has been damaged a lot. Essentially, the members which are fully aligned behind US imperialism right now are the Baltic countries, the former eastern bloc countries and the traditional US ally, United Kingdom. ..."
          "... One of the 3 reasons it gives for US not attacking Russia is that Russia is needed to clean up the US mess in Syria. ..."
          "... Did you know that CIA has NO Congressional oversight now? With no threat of hearings, theyre running free. ..."
          "... It seems that most of the military/foreign policy establishment is actively pushing the neocon unipolarist adventurism. More like those who are active in trying to dilute its actions are the rogue element. Obama, I am convinced, is trying even while covering himself w a milder version of neocon rhetoric. I never thought I wd approve anything about such a liar. ..."
          "... Its a real study to read the articles from the NYT and other big media outlets here on the subject of Syria and particularly the rebels . The concoction of terms that have been used over the past couple of years and especially since ~ June is mind boggling. At one point I had started collecting them. Moderate rebels morphed into relatively moderate insurgents and all kinds of other permutations. ..."
          "... McCain, Lindsey, Rubio, Cotton and other unstable personalities decide grand total of nothing in US foreign policy. They are encouraged to talk tough only insofar as it softens up the foreign interlocutors for the responsible players like Obama and Kerry. The responsibles can always point to the lunatics and extract concessions from frightened opposite side. ..."
          "... On another note, Erdogan is setting himself up for a landslide defeat at the polls or a military coup detat, hes made so many enemies in the Turkish army and body politic, that combined with his erratic personal behavior and foreign/internal policies, and his delusions of grandeur, are not a good omen for his future. If Turkey still had any illusions re: membership in the EU, Erdogan and the recent suicide bombings just kill them for time to come, and la Merkel now has more ammunition to throw at Turkeys EU aspirations. ..."
          "... Russians are far more cautious than Americans, because they have had more 1000 years to hone their diplomacy, and are acutely aware that blowback is an inevitable consequence of any poorly though-out action and/or overreach. Americans are still learning the a , b and c of the craft, and maybe even regressing since the end of the Cold War. ..."
          "... The US plan (export ISIS and Al Qaida to balkanize) is extremely defective because it also threatens the stability and even existence of traditional US stooges like Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, etc, and it also inflicts massive economic pain and an immigration crisis upon Europe. ..."
          "... Saudi, Qatar, and UAE have exported terrorism with complete impunity for decades now. Russia, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, etc need to do something rather direct about that or it will continue. The American people should do something as well but were brainwashed idiots. ..."
          "... We have become a Propaganda Wonderland. ..."
          "... Believing John Kerry in saying that he agrees to a secular stable Syria was bullshit from the first breath that came out of his mouth. ..."
          "... The Empire is scrambling for answers and actions due to Russias surprise intervention in Syria and its a simple as that. Read my post from yesterday. Once they decide on a course of despicable action, it will become much clearer in the next few weeks or months. ..."
          "... Weeks ago I mentioned that this Russian in intervention is not a riskless, easy program thats so many Putin-bots were desperate for. One can either describe reality, or be a biased self-credibility eviserator. The evil US Empire is super pissed and they are going to double down instead of retreat. ..."
          "... The empire will not cede an inch of their unipolar delusion, and will fight to defeat Russia/China/Iran aspirations for a multipolar world. ..."
          "... excellent article up at zerohedge... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-10/carpe-chaos-isis-israel-iraq-syria-its-all-part-plan ..."
          the unbalanced evolution of homo sapiens

          by system failure

          The first, and probably most important reason for which NATO is not attacking Russia for the moment, is the upgraded Russian nuclear arsenal. As in the Cold War 1.0 era, the nuclear strength of both superpowers, capable to destroy the planet many times, was a key preventing factor against a direct conflict between the USA and the former Soviet Union.

          Moreover, the US indirect aggression against China lately, a stupid strategy coming from the neocon agenda, brought China closer to Russia, building an even stronger alliance between them. They are both now in a race of developing further their nuclear arsenals and this is a key deterrent which prevents NATO to confront them openly.

          The second reason, is that NATO is facing problems, the alliance is weakening and its credibility has been damaged a lot. Essentially, the members which are fully aligned behind US imperialism right now are the Baltic countries, the former eastern bloc countries and the traditional US ally, United Kingdom.

          The relations between the United States and other major countries inside the alliance appear to be in a quite bad shape, especially those with Germany and Turkey. The recent Volkswagen emission scandal confirmed that, indeed, there is an underground fierce economic war between the United States and Germany. Besides that, the relations between the two countries started to worse rapidly after the known revelations of the NSA interceptions.

          Concerning Turkey, it is known that the US promote the creation of a Kurdish state because it serves better their interests. This is totally unacceptable for Erdoğan,who is occupied by the illusion of the Turkish expansionism. Washington is not very happy seeing ISIS being used by Turkey to fight Kurds, instead of operating in full force against Assad regime.

          Other key allies like France, are not very happy with the sanctions, imposed by the US, against Russia. The economic damage is not insignificant. The most characteristic example concerning France, is the cancellation of the deal concerning the Mistral warships, by Russia.

          The third reason, is that the US need Russia and even Iran to clean up the mess in Middle East. A mess which was created by the US and their allies in Middle East when they started to arm anti-Assad forces to confront the Assad regime. Now, ISIS is out of control.

          However, the Americans had enough troubles with the attrition wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They wouldn't risk further mess by bringing 'boots on the ground' to confront ISIS. The recent deal with Iran, concerning its nuclear program, is not accidental. Besides, Pentagon announced that will stop training new militant forces in Syria, which is actually an admission of failure of its so far strategy.

          shadylady | Oct 10, 2015 1:05:32 PM | 9

          Beware bloggers:

          Cold War II to McCarthyism II, June 8, 2015

          Exclusive: With Cold War II in full swing, the New York Times is dusting off what might be called McCarthyism II, the suggestion that anyone who doesn't get in line with U.S. propaganda must be working for Moscow, reports Robert Parry.

          snip

          Perhaps it's no surprise that the U.S. government's plunge into Cold War II would bring back the one-sided propaganda themes that dominated Cold War I, but it's still unsettling to see how quickly the major U.S. news media has returned to the old ways, especially the New York Times, which has emerged as Official Washington's propaganda vehicle of choice.

          What has been most striking in the behavior of the Times and most other U.S. mainstream media outlets is their utter lack of self-awareness, for instance, accusing Russia of engaging in propaganda and alliance-building that are a pale shadow of what the U.S. government routinely does. Yet, the Times and the rest of the MSM act as if these actions are unique to Moscow.

          BIG SNIP

          USAID, working with billionaire George Soros's Open Society, also funds the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which engages in "investigative journalism" that usually goes after governments that have fallen into disfavor with the United States and then are singled out for accusations of corruption. The USAID-funded OCCRP also collaborates with Bellingcat, an online investigative website founded by blogger Eliot Higgins.

          https://consortiumnews.com/2015/06/08/cold-war-ii-to-mccarthyism-ii/

          Soros is coming to get us. :) Look for uptick in trolls. Hope Operation Summer Rains trolls have retired.

          Lysander | Oct 10, 2015 1:16:14 PM | 14

          Best defense for Russia is the ability to retaliate in kind. Yemen against KSA and PKK against Turkey. It doesn't mean they won't arm the terrorists, but it does mean it will be costly for them. And the Russians can always play the "gee it looks like your manpads fell into the wrong hands and they went and shot down an Aapache in Iraq."

          james | Oct 10, 2015 1:26:51 PM | 18

          what is the disconnect between the us admin and the cia? is this some sort of good guy, bad guy routine that they like to have going? are they supposed to make out like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing too? looks like the cia is calling the shots... so much for that friggin' democracy joke under the nobel peace prizer's command..

          actually i think skipping the vetting and training of those working for the usa administration and the cia is a huge problem.. they can do that when they want to put weapons in isis's hands to overthrow assad, but they need to stop doing it to their own country as it's doing to blow up in their face..on 2nd thought maybe they are hoping for regime change in the usa! that's one way to get an amerikkkan regime change in your own country - destroy it..

          i am sorry to hear of the horrible event in ankara.. i can't imagine sultan erdogan being happy about it either..who advises this dipstick? or, is that an example of how things will go better with isis?

          Virgile | Oct 10, 2015 1:45:51 PM | 19

          This is where Iran comes in...

          It is clear that if the USA starts a proxy war in Syria against Russia, Iran will retaliate by hitting the USA ally, Saudi Arabia, in Yemen.

          In parallel to Saudi Arabia arming Syrian rebels, we will see Iran (and Russia) arming the Houthis in Yemen. I expect heavy military escalation on the Saudi Yemeni border soon

          MMARR | Oct 10, 2015 1:51:14 PM | 21

          @17 shadylady
          Impotence is an unfamiliar feeling in DC, so they are all "pissed" right now. Generals, politicos, arms merchants, lobbyists, think tankers, all of them. They are scrambling for a response, but can't find a single one that wouldn't lead to a worsening of their position.
          We are witnessing the last gasp of American hegemony, and the process is natural and irreversible.

          Penelope | Oct 10, 2015 2:00:19 PM | 22

          nmb @2, Thanks for the link. One of the 3 reasons it gives for US not attacking Russia is that Russia is needed to clean up the US mess in Syria. I agree and evidently some faction in the US with Obama as its point-man agrees. However this faction is so weak that it cannot even seem to speak out forthrightly, but relies on undermining the neocon strategy, which remains the same. The unipolarists are still determined upon absolute rule generally-- and destruction of Syria and its govt specifically.

          shadylady | Oct 10, 2015 2:04:53 PM | 23

          @ MMARR @ BOG @ James, I love reading Pepe Escorbar and M.K. Bhadrakumar

          NATO all dressed up, nowhere to go in Syria

          Neither Erdogan nor Russian President Vladimir Putin is spoiling for a fight. By the way, what actually happened over the weekend on the Turkish-Syrian border too is shrouded in mystery and increasingly it seems Ankara and Moscow are in some foreplay over new ground rules for the non-existent Turkish-Syrian border.

          From Erdogan's latest remarks, he seems to be tapping down tensions.

          snip
          The European Union's proposal to 'assist' Turkey in handling the refugee flow from Syria is a case in point. The EU offers to subsidize Turkey financially provided Ankara kept custody of the Syrian refugees. Ankara has an open mind – everything depends on how generous the EU funding will be. Clearly, $1.5 billion is 'peanuts'.

          Turkey does not want foreign troops to come and defend it. Its preference is that the US and Germany would change their mind and allowed the Patriot batteries to remain in Turkey. (Alas, they are not agreeable.)
          snip

          A broad Turkish-Russian understanding over Syria may even emerge out of it. Erdogan will most certainly expect Putin not to arm the Syrian Kurds.

          MORE: http://atimes.com/2015/10/nato-all-dressed-up-nowhere-to-go-in-syria/

          Always love Escobar, waiting for his next article:
          http://atimes.com/category/empire-of-chaos/

          Penelope | Oct 10, 2015 2:16:15 PM | 25

          Shady Lady @3, "Do we have a rogue CIA now?"

          Did you know that CIA has NO Congressional oversight now? With no threat of hearings, they're running free.

          It seems that most of the military/foreign policy establishment is actively pushing the neocon unipolarist adventurism. More like those who are active in trying to dilute its actions are the rogue element. Obama, I am convinced, is trying even while covering himself w a milder version of neocon rhetoric. I never thought I wd approve anything about such a liar.

          He weakened the Pentagon's program to send in fighters, but I don't think there's anything he can do against the CIA I guess he still appoints the director, but making that change wd be an awfully dangerous move.

          Does anyone know if there are elements in the military who resist the military adventurism for whom McCain and the neocons are the point-men?

          gemini33 | Oct 10, 2015 2:35:41 PM | 30

          @11 Penelope

          It's a real study to read the articles from the NYT and other big media outlets here on the subject of Syria and particularly the "rebels". The concoction of terms that have been used over the past couple of years and especially since ~ June is mind boggling. At one point I had started collecting them. "Moderate rebels" morphed into "relatively moderate insurgents" and all kinds of other permutations.

          It's also interesting to note the way they refer to their numerous anonymous sources. We have become a Propaganda Wonderland.

          MMARR | Oct 10, 2015 2:42:38 PM | 33

          @25 Penelope

          McCain, Lindsey, Rubio, Cotton and other "unstable" personalities decide grand total of nothing in US foreign policy. They are encouraged to talk tough only insofar as it softens up the foreign interlocutors for the "responsible" players like Obama and Kerry. The "responsibles" can always point to the "lunatics" and extract concessions from frightened opposite side.

          People who take their bluster seriously are making a mistake, because that's exactly their goal. Yet it's simply a bluster, a theater, and nothing more.
          Therefore, nobody in the US military "resists their adventurism", because they are all part of the same team, only with different roles.

          Lone Wolf | Oct 10, 2015 2:49:58 PM | 35

          Proxy wars were how the Cold War 1.0 was fought, and after a brief hiatus, that's how the new Cold War 2.0 will be fought, what has changed is the weaponry and the type of warfare, mainly from guerrilla wars of liberation in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, to hybrid and asymmetrical warfare. The empire will not cede an inch of their unipolar delusion, and will fight to defeat Russia/China/Iran aspirations for a multipolar world.

          On another note, Erdogan is setting himself up for a landslide defeat at the polls or a military coup d'etat, he's made so many enemies in the Turkish army and body politic, that combined with his erratic personal behavior and foreign/internal policies, and his delusions of grandeur, are not a good omen for his future. If Turkey still had any illusions re: membership in the EU, Erdogan and the recent suicide bombings just kill them for time to come, and la Merkel now has more ammunition to throw at Turkey's EU aspirations.

          Welcome to the, now official, Cold War 2.0!

          MMARR | Oct 10, 2015 3:11:58 PM | 39

          @27 Penelope

          Russians are far more cautious than Americans, because they have had more 1000 years to hone their diplomacy, and are acutely aware that blowback is an inevitable consequence of any poorly though-out action and/or overreach. Americans are still learning the "a","b" and "c" of the craft, and maybe even regressing since the end of the Cold War.

          So, Moscow will definitely refrain from any preemptive action with regard to undermining Saudis or Turks. They usually prefer to sit and watch, to talk and to calculate the odds, and only then move a figure on a chessboard. Americans move first and think later, believing they can always kill the opponent, if the game develops not to their liking.

          As for Russia not supplying Syria or Iran with S-300, I think that was done mostly in order not to alarm and antagonize the West prematurely, while Russia's military was moving swiftly on the path of wholesale reorganization and modernization. In Putin's world, it seems, everything has its own time and its own place.

          ToivoS | Oct 10, 2015 3:34:37 PM | 42

          The Russians must have had a very clear understanding that when they attacked those "al Nusra" and other "moderate" targets in Northern Syria that they that these forces were being supplied and encouraged by the CIA Russia knowingly attacked US backed forces. Perhaps Obama and Kerry are too stupid to realize what that means. What it means is that there are very powerful forces inside the US government and military that will see this as an attack on the United States of America and that we must respond to that aggression. I hope that Obama is starting to understand what he is up against. He should be trying to bring those agencies under control. Any tiny efforts to neutralize those War Party forces with compromise will only make matters worse. It is time exert executive control over these groups and execute top level purges if they resist. Somehow this seems unlikely.

          I hope Putin and Lavrov thought this through before they acted. The outcome could be very dangerous indeed. I was terribly worried last week when the Russian attack began that it would produce a strong reaction inside the US government among all of those war monger plants inside State, the military and intelligence agencies that have been slowly gaining power for the last decade. All of that cheering we have been hearing over the last week here at MOA has been serious -- representatives of the US hegemon do not like to be ridiculed.

          Penelope | Oct 10, 2015 3:36:53 PM | 43

          BOG @ 13, I don't think it's a divide between the executive & military. I think the majority of each is committed to an aggressive foreign policy. Obama I think is resisting it and only giving rhetorical agreement. I'm not sure who else is in the resistors' faction.

          Thanks for posting about the withdrawal of the USS Theodore Roosevelt "just one day after Russian missile strikes from the Caspian. Didn't make sense to me, cuz Russians aren't threatening ships.

          In fact, departure was well telegraphed in advance: In April, June & July. Announcement was that for first time since 2007 there wd be a two month gap in the Fall w/o an aircraft carrier in the Gulf. Replacement in December. Reason: Only 10 active now, stead of 11 & ideal maintenace schedule is 7 months deployment; as it is we're deploying for 8 months. Oct 5 announced imminent departure, day before Rusian missiles.

          This was potentially important; thanks for posting it. The links are boring. Don't bother; I only posted them for completeness.
          http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/assessing-the-u.s.-aircraft-carrier-gap-in-the-gulfTh Oct 5, announcing imminent departure
          http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/carrier-gap-in-gulf-is-a-symptom-not-a-crisis/
          http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/30/navy-admiral-confirms-us-pulling-aircraft-carrier-from-persian-gulf-this-fall/

          GoraDiva | Oct 10, 2015 3:51:04 PM | 46

          A good update on the Syrian ops - http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/john-helmer-us-strategy-in-the-middle-east-is-dying-along-with-its-authors-carter-and-brzezinski-putin-al-assad-get-to-dance-on-their-graves-david-ben-gurion-too.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29

          alaric | Oct 10, 2015 4:04:07 PM | 50

          The Russians surely anticipated such a move from the US so i assume Putin has a counter move for the US. China's participation would certainly supply that but there are lots of things Putin can do, many are mentioned above.

          The US plan (export ISIS and Al Qaida to balkanize) is extremely defective because it also threatens the stability and even existence of traditional US stooges like Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, etc, and it also inflicts massive economic pain and an immigration crisis upon Europe.

          I doubt US allies will be able to endure this US push to implement Brzezinki's nefarious plot and Israel's similar plan for the ME. I expect some major defections from the US camp.

          Saudi, Qatar, and UAE have exported terrorism with complete impunity for decades now. Russia, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, etc need to do something rather direct about that or it will continue. The American people should do something as well but we're brainwashed idiots.

          zedz | Oct 10, 2015 4:06:51 PM | 51

          IMO the lack of western reaction is due to two things - 1) Russians have some toys that the west can't neutralize and 2) Europe wants to survive and wants no war anyway

          I think the arab statements are pure posturing, they'll basically trade Syria for Yemen in the end.

          Erdogan played both east and west and betrayed both. He has no future, this way or the other. The current chaos there could come from both sides just as well.

          Vintage Red | Oct 10, 2015 4:12:00 PM | 53

          gemini33 @30:

          "We have become a Propaganda Wonderland."

          The US has become Humpty-Dumpty, claiming "words mean what I want them to mean." We all know what happened to Humpty-Dumpty...

          tom | Oct 10, 2015 5:30:31 PM | 59

          Please don't hate me because I was right, once again.

          Believing John Kerry in saying that he agrees to a secular stable Syria was bullshit from the first breath that came out of his mouth.

          Like I said weeks ago when b and others here gave Kerry the benefit of the doubt, which was never deserved. How could Kerry be a proven unreliable liar in regards to Ukraine, but he's capable of telling the truth in Syria ?! it makes no sense. Desperate, wishful thinking.

          The Empire is scrambling for answers and actions due to Russia's surprise intervention in Syria and it's a simple as that. Read my post from yesterday. Once they decide on a course of despicable action, it will become much clearer in the next few weeks or months.

          And when Russia inevitably becomes Iraqs foreign helpful power, replacing the US there, then expect far more US support for jihadi terrorists. If the US is left out of the loop in Iraq, they will counter that with more jihadis and more weapons. It's why they are the evil empire and the Great Satan.

          Oh, and that time frame of the Russian involvement in Syria will be only four months, like I said was bullshit yesterday, guess what, it's time to hate tom again, because I was spot on there too.

          Weeks ago I mentioned that this Russian in intervention is not a riskless, easy program that's so many Putin-bots were desperate for. One can either describe reality, or be a biased self-credibility eviserator. The evil US Empire is super pissed and they are going to double down instead of retreat.

          MMARR | Oct 10, 2015 5:50:11 PM | 62

          @57 Penelope

          In geopolitics the words of intent almost always hide the real intent. They are meaningless.

          All of this verbal saber-rattling is nothing more than psy-ops, the lowest cost form of warfare. People are simply trying no nudge the Russians to engage in talks, as well as enhance their own position at the negotiating table. US government also has to calm down the viewers of FOX News. Moscow understands that.

          My prediction - neither the West nor the Gulf Arabs (who operate some of the world's biggest and fines airlines) will supply high-tech anti-aircraft weapons to head choppers. Russians produce the best such toys in the world, and the blowback for this "act of war" could be vicious.

          harry law | Oct 10, 2015 6:06:25 PM | 66

          "On Friday, Russian air power "destroyed two command centres of the militants, an ammunition depot in the Hama Province, 29 field camps, 23 fortified stations and positions with ammunition and equipment."

          Radio intercepts revealed ISIS now faces a shortage of fuel, weapons, ammunition and increasingly the will to fight in the face of an onslaught against which they're defenseless.
          Thousands "are demoralized and are actively leaving the battle zone, moving in eastern and northeastern directions," Konashenkov explained.

          Areas targeted in the last 24 hours included Raqqa (the main ISIS stronghold), Hama, Idlib, the Damascus countryside and Aleppo." http://sjlendman.blogspot.co.uk/ Not bad for a start, won't do McCains health any good.

          Satellite images located a hidden Idlib province command center. "After analysis of pictures from space and after air reconnaissance by drones," Russian air strikes destroyed it.

          Wayoutwest | Oct 10, 2015 7:33:26 PM | 73

          HL@66

          The Russians are certainly good at self-promotion and propaganda bombing. Reading this detailed report you would think they face a conventional army in the Islamic State who sit in buildings waiting for orders while the bombs fall.

          The IS is a nonconventional force an Urban Guerilla force dispersed across the country in small groups and if there was a command center it was evacuated and empty when bombed just as the training facilities/ school yards were empty.

          The IS fighters were running during this bombing spree but they were running to capture new territory from other rebel groups that the Russians softened up for them.

          ben | Oct 10, 2015 7:56:14 PM | 77

          LoneWolf @35 said: " The empire will not cede an inch of their unipolar delusion, and will fight to defeat Russia/China/Iran aspirations for a multipolar world."

          Yep, and as long as the dollar reins, they'll create all they need to meet their goals.

          nmb @ 38 said: "I'm afraid things can get worse with the 2016 US elections. Any GOP will certainly promote the neocon agenda, but also Hillary will adopt such policies. I doubt that the US deep state will let any chance for Sanders."

          Agreed. It's the money people, til' that changes, nothing changes. Go BRICS, go!

          Lone Wolf | Oct 10, 2015 11:21:16 PM | 83

          @Wayoutwest@73

          The Russians are certainly good at self-promotion and propaganda bombing.

          I don't think the takfiris you so much defend would have the same opinion. They are being blown to bits, and that according to your buddy-buddy at the Syrian "Observatory for Human Rights" (sic!).

          Islamic State loses 132 members, 70 villages and farmlands in the northeast of Syria

          Reading this detailed report you would think they face a conventional army in the Islamic State who sit in buildings waiting for orders while the bombs fall. The IS is a nonconventional force an Urban Guerilla force dispersed across the country in small groups and if there was a command center it was evacuated and empty when bombed just as the training facilities/ school yards were empty.

          Wrong again. IS performs and behaves like a conventional army, with entire regions, cities and territory under their control, some of them for years now, with a functioning economy, bureaucracy, the entire infrastructure of a state. They are not a rag-tag guerrilla group, they have ties to the infrastructure they have stolen, gas and oil fields to defend, training grounds, C&C centers, etc. IS might use non-conventional, guerrilla tactics in their fighting, as many armies do, that doesn't turn them into a non-conventional force. A guerrilla moves to fight another day, does not engage in attrition tactics.

          The IS fighters were running during this bombing spree but they were running to capture new territory from other rebel groups that the Russians softened up for them.

          You pretend to be so well informed. How would you know those details? Your takfiri rats are running all over because their time for reckoning is up, now they have to pay for their crimes, and are being sent to hell in bits and pieces so their master can use them for fuel.

          crone | Oct 10, 2015 11:47:30 PM | 86

          excellent article up at zerohedge... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-10/carpe-chaos-isis-israel-iraq-syria-its-all-part-plan

          comment section informative also

          [Oct 10, 2015] Forums and bulleting board users are watched by GCHQ

          Oct 10, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
          Warren , September 25, 2015 at 2:25 pm

          et Al , September 26, 2015 at 4:23 am

          A top-secret GCHQ document from March 2009 reveals the agency has targeted a range of popular websites as part of an effort to covertly collect cookies on a massive scale. It shows a sample search in which the agency was extracting data from cookies containing information about people's visits to the adult website YouPorn, search engines Yahoo and Google, and the Reuters news website.

          Other websites listed as "sources" of cookies in the 2009 document (see below) are Hotmail, YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, WordPress, Amazon, and sites operated by the broadcasters CNN, BBC, and the U.K.'s Channel 4.

          …A top-secret GCHQ document from March 2009 reveals the agency has targeted a range of popular websites as part of an effort to covertly collect cookies on a massive scale. It shows a sample search in which the agency was extracting data from cookies containing information about people's visits to the adult website YouPorn, search engines Yahoo and Google, and the Reuters news website.

          Other websites listed as "sources" of cookies in the 2009 document (see below) are Hotmail, YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, WordPress, Amazon, and sites operated by the broadcasters CNN, BBC, and the U.K.'s Channel 4…
          ###

          And I bet the Guardian too as it is 'the world's most widely read new site'. They probably keep automatic tabs on this site considering how it has grown over the last couple of years.

          I do wonder though, with all those stories about those thousands of Kremlin controlled Russian trolls on British news websites, whether some of this comes from carefully massaged data from GCHQ through third parties to the Pork Pie News Networks via 'unnamed sources', i.e. the usual bollox.

          May I suggest to fellow commenters here, if at any point you loose your smart phone (etc.) just call GCHQ and they'll tell you where you left it. I wonder if they provide a data back up service?!

          et Al, September 26, 2015 at 4:48 am

          …The agency operates a bewildering array of other eavesdropping systems, each serving its own specific purpose and designated a unique code name, such as: …and INFINITE MONKEYS, which analyzes data about the usage of online bulletin boards and forums…

          …Authorization is "not needed for individuals in the U.K.," another GCHQ document explains, because metadata has been judged "less intrusive than communications content." All the spies are required to do to mine the metadata troves is write a short "justification" or "reason" for each search they conduct and then click a button on their computer screen…

          …When compared to surveillance rules in place in the U.S., GCHQ notes in one document that the U.K. has "a light oversight regime."

          The more lax British spying regulations are reflected in secret internal rules that highlight greater restrictions on how NSA databases can be accessed. The NSA's troves can be searched for data on British citizens, one document states, but they cannot be mined for information about Americans or other citizens from countries in the Five Eyes alliance….
          #####

          It's just what is expected from the junior in the US/UK relationship. For the UK to retain privileged access to the US' global spy network, it needs to give the US what it wants, a way to circumvent the US' own laws. Dial back to when Gary Powers & his U-2 were shot down over the Soviet Union. All subsequent overflights by US manned and operated aircraft were prohibited, so, the US used British pilots and Canberras.

          Once you understand the relationship and the goals that they have, you can work backwards and make fairly good conclusions about what tools would be required and used to get to those conclusions and try not think whether they are legal or not. What people can do to protect themselves is a) don't change most of your digital habits (as this would raise a flag); b) just don't do or say obvious things that you wouldn't do in real life in your digital life; c) use encryption such as PGP for email and products using perfect forward secrecy for chat/etc.; d) don't write about what not to do on the Internet as I have just done! ;)

          The most disturbing thing about it all is that it puts us one step away from a totalitarian system. All that is required is a political decision. All the tools are in place and depending on how much information they have actually kept they can dip in to it at any time throughout your life as a rich source of blackmail, probably via third parties. It's not exactly threatening to send you to a concentration camp (or disappeared to one of Britain's (and others) many small overseas territories, but it is total control.

          If the European economy completely crashes and mass instability ensues (or whatever), then the politicians will be told, or even ask, "What tools do we have to control this?".
          Forget about 'checks and balances' – they're the first thing to be thrown out of the window in an emergency. Arbeit macht frei!

          et Al , September 26, 2015 at 9:52 am

          This should be a massive story as the parliamentary security committee gave the intelligence services a 'clean bill of health' not so long ago.

          Since then, they've lost intelligence 'yes man' Malcolm Rifkind to an expenses scandal so the make up of the committee has changed a bit.

          What it does show is that we cannot even trust the gatekeepers (above) who are give very limited info from the security services.

          And let us not forget the dates that this occurred under a Labor administration and continued under a Conservative-Liberal Democrat and now a Conservative one.

          It will be interesting to see if this story gains any traction, though I suspect that it will be much bigger outside of the UK, at least initially,

          The cat is, again, out of the bag!

          marknesop , September 26, 2015 at 2:38 pm

          GCHQ and the CIA are in bed with one another, and have been for years. This might be a timely occasion to mention once again that both are capable of hacking into smartphones by all leading manufacturers; in the case of the IPhone the CIA uses a program application called Dropout Jeep.

          We can thank Edward Snowden for that; the NSA spying scandal revealed a great deal more than just the information the CIA is snooping on your phone calls and collecting information on everyone. As the second reference relates, the CIA also diverted laptops ordered online so that government spyware could be installed on them. Intelligence agencies are determined that citizens shall have no privacy whatsoever. You might as well assume they are watching everything you do and listening to everything you say. Give the window the finger at random times just in case, and slip embarrassing revelations on the sexual proclivities of intelligence agents into your telephone conversations.

          Canada's Blackberry was once safe, but GCHQ broke that. So now there is no smartphone that is private, except maybe for Russia's YotaPhone. Probably not that either, though, since it is sold in the USA, and if they couldn't break into the phone they would just hack the carrier. And the Canadian government bought all of its Secure Telephone Units (STU) from the NSA, so say no more about the "security" of those.

          A few companies, like Silent Circle, pitch a privacy phone like the Blackphone, but it originates in the USA and everyone's paranoia has become so acute that the instant suspicion is they are telling you it is more private just because it is wired straight to the NSA. You can't believe anyone any more.

          [Oct 09, 2015] Dutch media sue govt, demand it release full info on MH17 crash

          Notable quotes:
          "... "frustrated" ..."
          "... "black marker policy." ..."
          "... "It seems to me that [such actions] are unworthy of an open, democratic society," ..."
          "... "some countries and international organizations," ..."
          "... "some persons." ..."
          "... "Given the social impact of the MH17 plane crash as well as many questions raised by the relatives [of the victims of the catastrophe], it is vital that the government's actions and efforts in the aftermath of this disaster should be transparent," ..."
          "... For journalists, this openness is essential for monitoring the activities of the government, ..."
          "... "It is not just about the families of the victims but also about the actions of the Dutch government and the political situation in Europe." ..."
          "... "Finding out the causes [of the MH17 crash] and bringing the perpetrators of the attack on the plane to justice is a top priority," ..."
          "... "However, it is also important that the actions of politicians and government officials in the aftermath of the catastrophe could be accurately reconstructed," ..."
          Oct 09, 2015 | RT News
          Three Dutch media companies have filed a joint lawsuit against the country's Security and Justice Ministry, demanding that it disclose more documents relating to the MH17 catastrophe investigation after the ministry's refusal to release the information.

          The Netherlands Broadcasting Foundation (NOS); the Dutch subsidiary of the European TV, radio and production company RTL Group; and the Dutch daily Volkskrant have joined forces to appeal the Netherlands Security and Justice Ministry's refusal to make public "many documents" concerning the Malaysian Airlines MH17 crash in Eastern Ukraine last year, NOS said in a press release.

          The three media companies had previously appealed to the ministry separately, asking it to disclose MH17 investigation data based on the Freedom of Information Law (WOB). The aim of the companies was to bring to light the details of the tragedy, as well as to reconstruct the actions of Dutch officials after the catastrophe.

          READ MORE: E. Ukrainian self-defense hands over MH17 debris to Dutch investigators, following RT documentary

          The three media companies asked for the reports of ministerial and other official committees that were involved in the MH17 investigation to be released. In response to the media outlets' request, the ministry reportedly released about 575 documents related to the MH17 case, including the correspondence of the members of the national crisis group that was formed immediately after the tragedy.

          ... ... ...

          Peter Klein, deputy senior editor of Dutch RTL News, said he was "frustrated" with the government's attempts to blur over the truth with the "black marker policy."

          "It seems to me that [such actions] are unworthy of an open, democratic society," he said in the RTL press release.

          The Netherlands National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism, Dick Schoof, who released the documents after the request of the media companies, said that the disclosure of the documents that had not been made public could lead to deterioration of relations with "some countries and international organizations," as well as damage the reputation of "some persons."

          Even the objection procedure launched by the media outlets has changed nothing in the ministry's decision. NOS, RTL and Volkskrant have now undertaken joint legal action, asking the Utrecht District Court to launch an appeal for all of them within a single lawsuit, according to NOS press release.

          READ MORE: MH17 investigators to RT: No proof east Ukraine fragments from 'Russian' Buk missile

          The three companies have launched the joint appeal procedure as they claim they want to emphasize that transparency is of crucial importance in the MH17 case.

          "Given the social impact of the MH17 plane crash as well as many questions raised by the relatives [of the victims of the catastrophe], it is vital that the government's actions and efforts in the aftermath of this disaster should be transparent," Philippe Remarque, editor-in-chief of De Volkskrant, said in the company's press release.

          "For journalists, this openness is essential for monitoring the activities of the government," he said.

          READ MORE: MH17 probe not truly independent and intl tribunal aimed at hiding its ineffectiveness – Lavrov

          Marcel Gelauff, editor-in-chief at NOS, said the wider public interest would be served by the publication of the documents: "It is not just about the families of the victims but also about the actions of the Dutch government and the political situation in Europe."

          "Finding out the causes [of the MH17 crash] and bringing the perpetrators of the attack on the plane to justice is a top priority," Peter Klein said in the RTL press release.

          "However, it is also important that the actions of politicians and government officials in the aftermath of the catastrophe could be accurately reconstructed," he added.

          William Rollinson 10.10 11:01

          OO Billy
          USA hasnt released any of their satellite imagery or the AWACs radar tapes... I wonder why? Maybe they only havemore...
          No but they could get a nice clear image of Russian planes on the ground in Syria?
          When it suits them they release information, when it suits them, they with-hold information.

          William Rollinson 10.10 10:58

          Yuri Ivanovich
          The government is still waiting for the US to find a way to blame it on Russia. So far,more...
          "Russia would've been blamed right after the downing."

          It was, about 95 minutes after, if memory serves me well. The US couldn't wait to blame Russia, just as they blamed her for 'civilian' deaths in Syria, before their planes had even left the ground?

          Then when Russia fire missiles from the Caspian Sea, the US say one fell short on Iran and killed people, wouldn't we expect Iran to inform of this?
          The fact that the US and their Oligarch media owners completely own western media, what the people read or see is controlled!

          Yorky 09.10 07:06

          Unfortunately the outcome of this enquiry is a foregone conclusion. There is no way the US will allow the investigating countries prove the US wrong. The pressure on the investigating countries will be enormous. Kerry will never be forced to say he was wrong. All the sanctions that were imposed by US and EU because of MH17 would have to be questioned. That will not be allowed to happen

          Derek Maher 09.10 06:40

          Judgeing by the actions of Kiev and the shambles of the on the ground crash site inspections,Plus the secretcy and long delay by the Dutch one would assume the findings will produce some very shady results.The victims families have not been served well in this tragic case.

          Patricia Histed 09.10 03:57

          The truth would make it impossible for EU national leaders to support Kiev. Wonder if they have developed a scapegoat plan to dump all the blame on someone in Kiev? After all, it will not do to show how multiple EU leaders were in on the lies and attempted resource grab. If the Dutch media outlets can make this happen it could be a game changer and prevent escalation in the Ukraine just when America plans to draft a bill that seeks to pour fuel on the weakening fires in the Ukraine. Supplying neo-Nazis with millions in arms does the trick. The poor US-Saudi petrol dollar...it needs war...it needs to destabilise the EU and Russia and wipe out all non-OPEC oil nations as well as any that threaten Saudi control of the region. The EU would be wise to side with Russia. America is not its friend. The sweet talking American politicians can say all they want but the refugee crisis speaks volumes. Russia's decisive actions could mean Syrians could return home and rebuild but what does America want to do...send more arms into the area...create more refugees. Whether this is a side effect or a desired effect is irrelevant. It is destabilising the EU's economy. Personally, I think it is a desired side effect. If the US can take the EU dollar down the US-Saudi petrol dollar is the last man standing and will be what people flee to propping it up as it gasps for breath.

          [Oct 09, 2015] Russias Syria gambit could be a game changer – but only if it hastens transition

          Everything that has happened recently is down to this geopolitical struggle the Arab Spring, Crimea, Sochi, MH17, OPEC glut, insane monetary policy... It's all a battle between the New York-London Bretton Woods world order and Putin's vision of a Eurasian Economic Union controlled by a Beijing-Moscow axis. ..."
          Oct 05, 2015 | The Guardian

          aLLaguz 1 Oct 2015 20:27

          It is not that Russia will or wont persuade Assad to step down... western nations don't want to negotiate ... they want Assad out... anything else is NO.
          Russia will persuade not Assad.... but western nations to sit and negotiate...

          The moment is the best ever for Russia and Assad. The flood of refugees put presure in EU and US to stop the war.... which means that now, the negotiation table is in balance....

          ISIS will be wipe out.

          Rebels will acquire an important status and drop down weapons with anmesty... maybe a political party ... who knows

          Assad will be in power after the war...

          New elections will be made ... in time ... democratically, and new rules for minorities...

          Russia will maintain its base and its political influence will be greater...

          Money for reconstruction will be from China and Russia... Iran also ... which leads to a new Syria allied more tightly to them ... the block will be stronger than ever ..
          what else? who knows ....

          GoloManner -> makz 1 Oct 2015 17:55

          And you know this how, exactly? I mean, do you see no reason why anyone other than an Islamist would oppose Assad?

          Initially certainly

          But any secular or democratic opposition forces have been annihilated or swallowed up by Islamists as this conflict has descended into sectarian civil war. I wish it weren't the case., I wish the opposition was made up of plucky liberal democrats too but that's just wishful thinking

          It is not only my opinion, it is the opinion of experts such as Patrick Cockburn who answered the question of who the moderate rebels were, thus

          Well, they aren't is the answer to that. They scarcely exist on the ground. That's one of the extraordinary things about the plan that was announced this week to combat ISIS, the Islamic State, is that in Syria the main opponent of the Islamic State is to be the Syrian armed moderates. But nobody can find them on the map.

          The main military force in Syria is the Syrian army, the Syrian government. The main opposition force is ISIS. Then there are a series of other jihadi groups. Like, there's one called Jabhat al-Nusra. It's pretty powerful. It's also the Syrian affiliate of bin Laden's al-Qaeda. So the jihadis dominate that.

          So it's kind of saying that everything will depend on these moderates who are to be vetted and trained in Saudi Arabia, and then these poor guys are going to fight not only ISIS, the most ferocious guerrilla group in the world, but the Syrian army. So this is really not a policy. It's kind of make-believe.

          http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12373

          makz -> threehunglow 1 Oct 2015 15:35

          Whilst I am well aware that the Assad government is fascistic in nature, and am familiar with events such as the Hama massacre, I must say that when I was working in Syria, not even a year before all the trouble kicked off, it certainly did not feel like such a dreadful place. I spent a lot of time in Damascus, Hama and Masyaf, and they were all pretty lively places full of people who certainly seemed happy enough. I can't imagine that many people would not happily return to those days, given the reality of the present.

          Lillianne -> robertthebruce2014 1 Oct 2015 13:55

          Because America wants a new cold war to rebuild its stockpile. America is terrified of world peace - its economy would simply collapse. It doesn't support AlQaeda as such but it's insistent on prodding the Russian bear.

          robertthebruce2014 1 Oct 2015 13:29

          Why is the West supporting Al Qaida? I thought Al Qaida was responsible for 9/11!?!

          Peter Cini 1 Oct 2015 13:21

          Hear this and hear this now: The Putin Doctrine has put an end to Anglo-American Regime Change rampages, especially in the Middle East. The days of Washington and London deciding which government will be allowed to survive are over. Farewell to Pox Americana.

          Patriotic Americans and Brits will welcome the emergence of Putin the Peacemaker. So will Western Europe unless they want to see the whole region empty out on their doorsteps.

          Maybe this is what Obama wants too...

          Sergei Konyushenko 1 Oct 2015 12:49

          Islamic Holocaust: Western wars have killed AT LEAST 4 million Muslims since 1990

          http://www.sott.net/article/303020-Islamic-Holocaust-Western-wars-have-killed-AT-LEAST-4-million-Muslims-since-1990

          Vermithrax -> chuckding 1 Oct 2015 12:17

          The media that have been using ISIS as the bogeyman to justify western boots on the ground. Lot of effort being made there if it doesn't matter. Obama clearly wanted to bomb Assad so the pipeline through Syria came from Saudi not Iran. Now if he wants to do the Suadi's dirty work for them he'll have to start WW3.

          Vermithrax rooster29 1 Oct 2015 12:13

          Because they can't attack Assad directly and because their deliberately rubbish campaign against ISIS will be exposed for what it is. I said that in my original post. Pay attention.

          Indianrook 1 Oct 2015 11:53

          http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/01/russia-launches-fresh-airstrikes-on-syria-targets The title of the above news is
          "US-backed Syrian rebels say they have been hit by Russian airstrikes." Can The Guardian would explain whom we could call rebels and whom we could call terrorist? By the way The Guardian has not opened the comment option for the above news.

          Dean Griffiths 1 Oct 2015 11:20

          Though it pains me to say it perhaps the best thing is for the West to back away from Syria and leave it to Putin to sort out. It's been a brave fight by the FSA but the conflict has been raging now for over 4 and a half years with no sign of a decisive military victory. since the war began 1 out of every 100 Syrians has died and 1 in 3 have been displaced and 1 in 4 have fled the country. Now Putin has flexed his Military muscle you would think that it will only be a matter of time until the FSA are defeated, as the West will only back them so far.

          I have absolutely no liking for Assad and his regime but it appears to me that it is the only one that may be able to bring some stability to the country and I believe a majority of Syrians do still support him. The west instigated regime change in Iraq & Lybia to get rid of similar dictators and just created instability and a power vacuum which has lead has lead to the grow of ISIS.

          If Assad did move aside there is no suggest that Syria would fair any better than Iraq or Lybia. The opposition in the West of the country is fragmented and the Jihadists (who would be left in control of much of the eastern part of the country) would exploit this and there are the Kurds in the north who would be demanding independence. If Assad was to defeat the opposition forces in the West it would only be a matter of time before he turned on the Jihadists in the East. That would in theory at least, allow the West to do more about getting rid of ISIS in Iraq.

          lesterburnham15 -> TarquinFintimlin 1 Oct 2015 11:09

          Afghanistan does not fall into the middle east geo-political arena lies to the east of Iran, my notion of the middle east encompasses turkey to iran down to yemen. like the Caucasus is southern russia, armenia, azerbaijan and georgia. The great game involve russia v britain control of India, Afghanistan, more central asia.

          but what you go on about is lies like your a classic head banger.

          TarquinFintimlin -> lesterburnham15 1 Oct 2015 11:00

          Really? I seem to remember a certain conflict called Afghanistan. That wasn't that long ago. Russia has also a long history of military bases in Syria. And let's not even start on the Great Game, Russia's involvement in the Caucasus Mountains and the long rivalry between Turkey and Russia in the region. All of that still has a MASSIVE impact on the modern Middle East. And that was LONG before the US was ever involved.

          AlexisWolf -> JethrowToumme 1 Oct 2015 10:34

          Yeah right. If you think you have to be a Kremlin stooge to see the folly of Western warmongering then you are unable to learn why Iraq/Libya/Afghanistan etc have been such a disastrous criminal failure that risks the safety of us all.

          AlexisWolf -> Riaz Danish 1 Oct 2015 10:28

          Apx 70% of the Syrian armed forces are Sunni. How does that fit into your ignorant rant?

          AlexisWolf -> Roguing 1 Oct 2015 10:25

          They're in Syria but they're not Syrian, they come from dozens of countries, that makes them all armed invaders. What would any other country do if it was them being invaded??

          Exodus20 1 Oct 2015 10:19

          It is all a big game of deception and lie from Iraq, to Libya, to Syria. US is bombing the factions of ISIS which it doesn't control to help the faction which were started by funding from "our friends and allies (ref General Wesley Clark)" and may still control. Russia is bombing the factions which are oppose to Assad which include the factions the West and Saudi are still supporting.

          diddoit -> ubipromaya 1 Oct 2015 10:18

          The approach seems to have been 'the enemy of my enemy...' to date. Strange how IS seemed to have got stronger and immune to bombing. The Saudis are now furious Russia is bombing , why do you think that is?

          Massimo D'Ulisse -> CordTrousers 1 Oct 2015 10:12

          Obama is an inept dreamer, and he's preventing an effective solution by demanding Assad removed before anything else on ground of his atrocities. Now, in the worst case, Assad might have killed hundreds, maybe thousands of opposers - but that's 1/100 of the victims of this horrible civil war. So Obama prefers to see this war going on, and an entire populace displaced and moving to Europe, instead of accepting reality - an unhappy one, but still reality.

          We must remember that under Mr Saddam Hussein, the number of people dying in Iraq every year was much, much less than the victims of the after-war period.

          Sheeba Sunil -> Riaz Danish 1 Oct 2015 10:10

          I would say over 70% of Syrian people - including Sunnis, Alawites, Christians, Druze & Shias - support Assad. They all support not for their love towards Assad, instead for their hate towards western funded opposition rebels. Syrian people are largely liberal and moderate. They don't want their country to be ruled by Sharia loving blood thirsty jihadis.

          Quite unsurprisingly, western/arab intervention in Syrian war made Assad more popular than ever.

          JohnSouttar Riaz Danish 1 Oct 2015 09:52

          Assad was swept to power again in elections because of what he represented to the whole country. Peace and prosperity. Christians, Shiites, Sunnis and other ethnicities getting on with each other. Women allowed to vote and stand in elections. A secular state. Most people and families want that but in neighbouring countries would be imprisoned for expressing that view openly. Goodness me most of our best political leaders were from some sort of minority - perhaps even aristocracy. That is the true definition for an inclusive government. Now why did some Arab countries not like that? Do you really think the Syrians want a Chechen emir running their town? Or the Saudis to dictate that they have Sharia law? A world like that we are selling Afghanis out to now run by the Taliban after so many collaborated with us, women who dared to get education and will soon die for it. Given the choice most Muslims are not at all fanatical and that is why so many have come to countries like Britain and Germany.

          irgun777 1 Oct 2015 09:51

          " Russian aircraft had launched 30 fresh airstrikes against Jaysh al-Fateh, a powerful rebel coalition that includes Ahrar al-Sham and the al-Qaida affiliated al-Nusra Front. "

          Guardian today. It looks like the Russian are doing a good job !

          hugodegauche 1 Oct 2015 09:50

          Imposing failing western systems on Syria will not work. It has not worked in Iraq nor Libya nor anywhere else in the Arab world. Assad is not great but clearly better than those who oppose him (I say better in the purely Hobbesian sense of providing a minimum of governance)

          The sensible possible is for Assad to be supported with some tinkering on internal reforms to save everyone's face. Israel needs to remain strong and alert whoever is in power in Damascus or in fact Syria implodes entirely.

          stuart255 1 Oct 2015 09:39

          This is now beyond ridiculous where the Western media protests Russia bombing "moderate rebels" such as the AL QAEDA affiliated Al Nusra.

          Pray tell, who are all of our drones bombing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan??
          Isn't it Al Qaeda affiliated groups?

          Putin has trapped us on the wrong side of history, Russia is acting within international law under permission of the sovereign government of Syria and the West is now the deer-in-the-headlights as Russia takes on the role of Global Policeman.

          This is a foreign policy disaster. Putin is going to be the power that gets to redraw the Sykes-Picot line and Europe is going to be beholden to Russian gas for the next half century.

          In 2012 Putin was elected with the promise of bringing a Eurasian Economic Union to reality and Hillary Clinton whilst Secretary of State publically said that the US sees this as Soviet Union 2.0 and will do everything to stop or slow the progress of Putin's Eurasian Union which would by default be that largest economic zone on the planet by some margin. Thus driving a horse and cart over the Wolfowitz Doctrine.

          Everything that has happened recently is down to this geopolitical struggle the Arab Spring, Crimea, Sochi, MH17, OPEC glut, insane monetary policy... It's all a battle between the New York-London Bretton Woods world order and Putin's vision of a Eurasian Economic Union controlled by a Beijing-Moscow axis.

          This is the greater context of our time.

          JohnSouttar 1 Oct 2015 09:30

          You can imagine how humiliating and embarrassing it is to appear on TV complaining about Russia bombing Al Qaida, blaming Assad for the rebel sarin gas attack and 'butchering' his own people and suggesting that the moderate opposition are the answer when in fact they are mostly Libyan and Chechen mercenary killers. One can also see the military advisors tearing their hair out at the political pressure put on them to carry on this charade especially now Russian planes are there. Also how poorly paid the script writers must be. It is not for the benefit of the population, just to pretend to the donors and Congressional lobbies that they are trying. Not very hard I would think.

          tiagoTIMAO 1 Oct 2015 09:28

          "they make no distinction between different armed groups, Islamist, jihadi or democratic"
          kkkkkkkkkkk, show me this democratic groups. The democratic IS, or democratic FSA, or Al-Nursa. You're kidding

          Zagradotryad 1 Oct 2015 09:21

          The simple fact is there is no 'moderate' Syrian opposition. They all want to wade knee deep in the blood of Alawite children.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism_and_minorities_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Alawites

          rooster29 -> Danny885500 1 Oct 2015 09:19

          The reason the free market neo-con Tories are attacking the BBC is a matter of ideology. Apart from the distaste of any organisation being run by the state (apart from when it's necessary) they know that any privately owned media such as Sky and ITV will be biased towards and support right-wing governments anyway, making the tax-paid BBC an anachronism. The Tory's plan for the BBC is most definitely eventual privatisation. Demonization by the government and right-wing media is always a first step to the real objective.

          rooster29 -> GenoDutch 1 Oct 2015 09:13

          BBC the best journalism? You're having a laugh aren't you?

          How about this from Sarah Montague, one of their top R4 stars - when she was interviewing Israeli defence minister Moshe Ya'alon she might just as well have given him a soapbox and let him get on with it. After a flood of complaints, BBC head of editorial complaints, Fraser Steel, wrote: "Mr Ya'alon was allowed to make several controversial statements on those matters (conflict with Palestinians) without any meaningful challenge and the programme makers have accepted that the interviewer ought to have interrupted him and questioned him on his assertions."

          This is a clear-cut case of deliberate bias on Montague's part (it can hardly be explained by inexperience) I know the vast majority of politicians in the UK are scared stiff to make any Kind of criticism of Israeli policy vis-à-vis the Palestinians, but it's depressing to see one of the top BBC interviewers being cowed into submission as well.

          snickid 1 Oct 2015 09:12

          Russia's Syria gambit could be a game changer – but only if it hastens transition

          The Guardian continues to live in fantasy land over Syria. The grotesque and awful truth is that there are only two sides in the Syrian civil war: Assad and the extreme Islamic fundamentalists:

          1. Putin supports Assad.

          2. Obama in practice supports the extreme Islamic fundamentalists (apart from ISIS), such as Jaish El-Fateh, who are the only credible armed opposition to Assad.
          ______________________________________________________________________________________

          Putin is bad, for actively supporting a brutal and corrupt regime in Syria. But Obama is mad as well as bad (worse, in fact, than Putin) for supporting the same fundamentalists whom the US has supposedly been fighting since 2001 in its 'war on terror', and who will commit genocide against all non-Sunnis (and quite a lot of the Sunnis as well), if they ever succeed in defeating Assad.

          nearfieldpro -> rooster29 1 Oct 2015 09:11
          The BBC is to the British state what Pravda was to the soviet Union

          So true, so very true.

          Fuel -> erica999 1 Oct 2015 09:08

          They're taking out groups that would be pro-Turkish in their interests. Turkey wants a natural gas pipeline to run through Syria and over its land. Russia would then have competition for its natural gas supplies to Europe and the Russian's don't want that.

          The pipelines would run from Saudi and Qatar which support ISIS. However, the lure of cheaper gas and breaking the Russian monopoly means Saudi and Qatar have grudging support from the US and Europe, although Europe/US supports the Syrian rebels, i.e. the al Nusra groups because the FSA is wishful thinking. Hence Turkey being happy about ISIS hurting pro-Assad forces and Kurds, while simultaneously providing support to the al Nusra/rebel groups that would be favourable to their regime. ISIS wouldn't, it wants to rule Turkey too.

          As Turkey supports al Nusra/Syrian rebels, etc. Russia will take out those groups first and reduce and/or negate European and US interests (cos we won't want ISIS there) and Turkey's influence, which explains the initial bombing patterns. After the al Nusra/rebels/etc. are defeated, Russia will go after ISIS. Russia will have the backing of China and Iran to do this as ISIS has already produced maps that lay claim to territory in Western China and all of Iran.

          Basically it's a three-sided stand-off with lots of business and geo-political vested interests at stake. Russia knows Western countries won't risk an escalation by entering and not when lots of people in the West are happy that at least one country is taking on ISIS/al Nusra/etc.

          Is this how you do conspiracy theories and troll?

          MichelleSegato 1 Oct 2015 09:00

          What is the Guardian's definition of moderate opposition? A group is moderate opposition because de US is funding them? Or, because it doesn't perform any beheadings?

          What would Obama call a group of Americans armed to their teeth, roaming the US and killing American soldiers? What would Obozo do? What if those Americans were armed by Russia? Would they be moderate for that reason?

          GoloManner -> GoloManner 1 Oct 2015 08:58

          Oh and in case that's not enough. The group openly pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda in 2013

          The al-Nusra Front's pledge of allegiance to al-Qaeda has ended speculation over the suspected ties between the Syrian jihadist group and the Islamist militant network. The announcement came just days after al-Qaeda's leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, called on jihadis to do everything possible to bring about an Islamic state in Syria.

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18048033

          rooster29 -> demdike 1 Oct 2015 08:38

          "If Iran and Hizbollah involved, it's time for Israel to attack Hizb., in Lebanon."

          Maybe you were on holiday dike, but fyi the last time Israel tried to take on Hezbolla they were soundly thrashed, as they were the time before.
          If it wasn't for Hezbolla, there would most certainly be hundreds of Israeli settlements scattered all around southern Lebanon by now, in exactly the same way they dominate the Palestinian West Bank, and the Syrian Golan heights. In the absence of an effective Lebanese army to defend southern Lebanon Hezbolla have no choice but to do it themselves. Hezbolla didn't exist before the Israeli invasion of 1982, just like the French Resistance didn't exist before the Germans invaded their country.

          Chris East -> MentalToo 1 Oct 2015 08:38

          These rebels were put there and paid to create trouble. How do you know that it was Assad's people who attacked them. It was more likely CIA snipers.

          lids 1 Oct 2015 08:35

          Absolute must listen interviews on today's R4 World at One with MArtha Carney.

          1. Patrick Cockburn acknowledged expert stating clearly that there are no moderates in Nort West Syria, Homs etc

          2. Chair of Defence Committee stating clearly that any vote in UK Parliament leading to UK bombing Syria would only be a military "gesture"
          Any idea that moderates were about to come to the centre stage and lead Syria was childish politics to the extreme.

          3 (And Bestof all) Woeful absolutely woeful interview with US Ambassador to UK who, when asked who was representing the moderate view in SYria and could sit round and negotiate Syria's future was unable to name a single person.

          Surprised Marta is still in a job after all that. Brilliant journalism from BBC.

          GoloManner 1 Oct 2015 08:33

          Air strikes against anti-Assad forces – not just Isis

          Who cares. They are all Islamists anyway

          Let's put this myth to bed once and for all. THERE ARE NO LONGER ANY MODERATE FORCES IN SYRIA. They have long since been destroyed or coopted by Islamist groups.

          Moderate forces is a myth that exists only in the head's of US and UK policy makers.

          The US recently trained a group of "moderate rebels" and sent them into Syria where they immediately defected to Al Nusra with their weapons. Al Nusra, armed by Saudi Arabia are the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda.

          So if Russia wants to bomb them, good. We should sit back and watch the show. I hope they blow them to hell.

          irishinrussia -> erica999 1 Oct 2015 08:31

          Yes and no. They can not operate without a secure base - Russia lacks the power projection tools (primarily aircraft carriers, bases in friendly neighbouring countries, allied airspace) to operate without that Tartus zone. So their first objective is securing that zone. Furthermore I would be very surprised if they care more for Assad than their own national interests.

          However, to help Assad, they must first have a secure base. Furthermore, ignored by the Western media, Assad's forces can not fight IS if their supply and communications lines are not secure and there are other rebels in the way. They also can't leave areas exposed to rebel attack because forces have been diverted to attack IS. Assad's forces must consolidate their hold on a secure rear before they can attack IS strongholds. This is not complicated strategic thinking.

          rooster29 -> Vermithrax 1 Oct 2015 08:27

          "Once again Putin outplays Obama. "

          No he hasn't. Putin has been trying to organise co-ordination with the US towards a solution in Syria for at least three years. The Americans don't want to have anything to do with the Russians, and they certainly don't want a solution in Syria. They want to keep the Middle East and Afghanistan in a perpetual state of destabilisation, and they are succeeding, which isn't difficult considering their military is bigger than the rest of the world combined.

          Rudeboy1 astoirin 1 Oct 2015 08:15

          The best the Russian airforce can deliver is some form of close air support to the SAA. Unfortunately, for them, the SAA has not shown the inclination or ability to press home attacks regardless of support. The recent actions in Idlib and the Ghab plain being cases in point. After 5 years the SAA are still hopeless and just never seem to learn.

          easterbeilbs 1 Oct 2015 08:13

          In another article U.S. Defence Chief Carter is quoted as saying "Russia risks escalating the civil the war".

          How much worse can it get? It's been going on for 4 1/2 years, up to 250,000 have been killed and millions displaced. What is he talking about?

          The answer is. He doesn't know.

          This article suggests the west supports the Syrian Opposition Forces. But it does not.

          The west is playing a very light hand because the Syrian Opposition Forces, established during the Arab Spring quickly became a fighting branch of the 'Muslim Brotherhood in Syria' who seek to set up an Islamic State.

          The other forces, as indicated being bombed by the Russians, include the al-Qeada affiliated al-Nusra.

          So the Russians, perhaps rightly, are not limiting themselves to ISIS targets, rather those who are at the front line against Assad.

          The west needs to end its oil drip fed obsession with the Saudi led gulf nations as it's the 'Islamic Revival' from these regions that have spawned al-Qeada, the Taliban, ISIS, and a whole heap of other extremist groups.

          BalanceIt MentalToo 1 Oct 2015 08:06

          If you compare Independent coverage on the Middle East to coverage from the mainstream you'll start to see a significant divergence.

          An independent examination of the financial motivations behind why the US (and UK) behaves as they do would be a start but you'll never see that from Fleet Street. Secondly a contrast between the attempted Syrian overthrow and past overthrows like Libya and Iraq and Afghanistan. Why do Fleet Street insist on assuming it will be alright if the UK would just start bombing the country. It's wilful blindness because there is an agenda to take over any country which hasn't yielded its financial infrastructure to the US financial hegemony.

          It's a reason to watch China and Russia building up their competing financial infrastructure. That's the real conflict between Russia and the US. Again not covered by Fleet Street because they have, in essence, been told not to.

          It's certainly subtler than being told not to run a story. It would be indicated to them what areas need coverage and what must be avoided. Russia must be evil. The US must be sincere although can be considered naive or partially foolish but not too much. As the BRICS bank comes online and as they actively compete with US domination watch more stories come up about how China is so evil.

          The US has no right to attempt to overthrow a Government of another land.

          rooster29 1 Oct 2015 08:00

          After the UK media being long-time silent on indiscriminate civilian deaths (used to be called 'collateral', but they don't call it anything now) resulting from US-led bombing of Syria, they are now going bananas over civilian deaths (allegedly) after just one sortie by Russia, which the Daily Hatemail calls 'carpet bombing'.

          At this rate Russia will surely be accused of genocide before the week is out. It would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that people actually believe this shit, as well as all the other lies, like Russia only giving the Americans 'one-hour's notice'. What do they think Putin was doing at the recent summit at the UN for God's sake? Israel and Russia agreed eleven days ago in Moscow to coordinate military actions over Syria in order to avoid accidentally trading fire, and the US didn't know about this??? Of course they did.

          The Guardian doesn't come out of this well, being as they joined the rest of the pack, leading with this 'one-hour notice' bullshit. Have they got no one paying attention? Or do they just copy what others are making up? makes me wonder, I tell you.

          JohnSouttar 1 Oct 2015 07:59

          If I use a shotgun on a gang of armed men breaking into my house I will go to prison. They will sue me. If the police shoot an unarmed man not much happens at all. Gadaffi and Assad shoot armed protestors and they must get killed, replaced and go to court. Ukraine protestors throw petrol bombs, fire at police and deserve our support. Protestors and police shot with same gun means that elected government must go. We do something illegal like invade Iraq - all ok. Russia do something legal like support the Syrian government at their request then dare to bomb an Al Qaida outfit ………. Does Putinbot mean someone who has opened their eyes and noticed the elite are scantily clad today?

          paulcrawfish 1 Oct 2015 07:50

          Russia's goals are discussed by BBC journalist, Jonathan Marcus, on their online site today and I couldn't agree more with the sense behind their objectives.

          "It wants to see the so-called Islamic State defeated and some order restored in Syria, where it has long maintained a strategic interest. It believes Western policy in the region has been self-serving and wildly naive. Existing regimes have been toppled leaving little more than chaos in their wake."

          We need to join forces with Russia and stop the ridiculous pro-Gulf position of replacing Assad with Al Nusra and its affiliates. Islamic fundamentalism is the biggest evil in the world currently. This is whether the fundamentalist agrees with violent means or just propagates their tribalist religion to others who then are so inspired that they adopt violent means.

          raykaram01 1 Oct 2015 07:43

          "game change" about time.

          Four and a half years left to the USA and the West and what have we seen? More misery for the Syrian people. Even those in Turkey had enough. Why? Nobody cared for them to have a descent life or have any hope of return.

          Otherwise, the article tells us that they rely on reports from the region. Unless I see it personally with my own naked eyes, I do NOT believe any one.

          Russia might force the West and Turkey to stop playing politics and start doing the right thing by the Syrian people. Otherwise, all of the glory may go to the Russians.
          But, most of all, where is true journalism? Has Al Jazeera converted all of them.

          Rob Rob 1 Oct 2015 07:35

          Assad has been looking tired in recent months, which is hardly a surprise really. I first really began to notice him from his January 2013 Damascus speech, which made obvious to me his high intellect and absolute loyalty to his people. Assad is in realty no dictator, and to be dealt the hand the West has played over and over again has prolonged and deepened the agony of his people.No matter how fast he clears the invaders they are rapidly reinforced with Western Arms and money. Why so? He has been forced to clear and smash to rubble every area over and over again. Cameron did a great job of pretending to look thoughtful when presented with Washington's intelligence ,upset as they were to have not been informed of the plan.

          But who in their right mind would trust the Administration of 2015? It's a great shame to have this unspoken trust so vexed and bend out of shape to the point of total dismay!

          America is not the Angel it once was,they seem to have gotten rid of all the good ones and replaced them all with total madmen....The insanity is in Washington and coming to your very own street all too soon. Thanks for nothing, Yanks! GO home! Everything to touch turns to crap right now..:( What you all need to do is worry about Fukushima and the endless unfolding of death it is bringing to your people and this Planet.

          paulcrawfish 1 Oct 2015 07:21

          Regime change is a mad policy. The West's policy is bizarre and will just end up with Al Nusra and its affiliates in power. They are promoted by Qatar and Saudi Arabia and to keep them happy we've ridiculously decided that they are the realpolitik choice because better than Islamic State. However, clearly Assad is actually a better choice than Al Nusra if you're a minority, so I support Russia taking out all Islamic groups. Keep Syria secular!

          retsdon JohnSouttar 1 Oct 2015 07:15

          http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/a-sense-of-despair-is-sweeping-through-iraq-this-email-from-my-driver-in-baghdad-proves-it-10509799.html

          Good piece in case you missed it.

          brokedog 1 Oct 2015 07:12

          I love how the US likes to blame Russia for things America is doing. There is fuck all anti Assad forces besides Isis affiliated ones. America is still basically arming Isis against Assad

          ustas6873 1 Oct 2015 07:10

          Even if a bombs exploded in an empty desert the US would still have accused Russia of all sins. The United States has no purpose to fight with the ISIS, it is necessary to destroy the al-Assad. And they will achieve this by any means, including the support of supposedly moderate opposition and generally ISIS.

          Massimo D'Ulisse 1 Oct 2015 07:07

          The US have no credibility.

          Whatever they say about Mr. Putin, it will be easy for him to dismiss it saying "who provided that information? the same intelligence that reported that Iraq had mass destruction weapons to justify the second Gulf Ware?"

          And if the Russians make more mess, Mr Putin will have an easy game saying "you did mess up the whole region, so what do you want to teach us?"
          Reality is that the US really cocked up everything in Middle East, and now if we really want to get rid of ISIS, realistically we have to side with Mr Putin and the despicable Mr Assad.

          Realworldview
          Direct Russian military action in the Middle east is certainly a new development, in this case Syria, but given many other nations including the UK have been engaged in military action in this area for decades, so why should anyone be surprised Russia has finally decided to have a go at supporting its own geopolitical interests.

          The virtually immediate mainstream media reaction to the first Russian airstrikes typified by headlines like "US accuses Russia of 'throwing gasoline on fire' of Syrian civil war" in the Guardian and similar headlines in many other media sources, demonstrates just how one sided the "information" or better "propaganda" war is. To provide some balance, these two article published on Zero Hedge are worth reading - Propaganda War Begins: Russia's Syria Strikes Targeted US-Backed "Moderate" Rebels and This Is How Russia Handles Terrorists: Moscow Releases Video Of Syria Strikes that ends with this this statement, which should give one food for thought, but probably won't, and certainly not by US, UK and European political and military elites:

          The bottom line going forward is that the US and its regional and European allies are going to have to decide whether they want to be on the right side of history here or not, and as we've been careful to explain, no one is arguing that Bashar al-Assad is the most benevolent leader in the history of statecraft but it has now gotten to the point where Western media outlets are describing al-Qaeda as "moderate" in a last ditch effort to explain away Washington's unwillingness to join Russia in stabilizing Syria.

          This is a foreign policy mistake of epic proportions on the part of the US and the sooner the West concedes that and moves to correct it by admitting that none of the groups the CIA, the Pentagon, and Washington's Mid-East allies have trained and supported represent a viable alternative to the Assad regime, the sooner Syria will cease to be the chessboard du jour for a global proxy war that's left hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead.

          undersinged 1 Oct 2015 07:01

          Editorials like this dismay me. "Transition"? Why? Assad may represent a minority, but that's a good thing. Because the Alawites are a minority, they tolerate the religious and ethnic diversity that exists in the country. If he were to go, whoever replaced him, whether Shia or Sunni, would probably try to impose an absolutism on the country, suppressing all other sects, with possible outcomes including multiple decades of war and/or tyranny, possibly including genocide.

          The West's attempt to encourage democratic revolutions in that part of the world was catastrophically misguided. A stable, reasonably competent government is best left alone, even if you don't think it's as democratic as it should be, or if you don't agree with some of its ideology. Destabilizing states tends to open Pandora's box.

          MahalaM -> Samuelepicurus 1 Oct 2015 06:59

          Your missing the bit where the US had been working with the Syrian 'opposition' prior to 2011 and used legitimate protest as cover to send in their extremists. Assad has operated an amnesty for combatants prepared to come back and fight for the Syrian army. You think he set loose ISIS?

          Al Nusra came from Al Qaeda in Iraq and ISIS are a branch of that. Assad has lost 60% of his territory to ISIS - he took care of the "FSA" back in 2012 - it makes no sense that he would be supporting the US armed Jihadis just on the offchance the West were going to come in and take them out for him. I'm sure he saw the videos of how Western intervention worked out for Gaddafi and Hussein

          inequitable -> B5610661066 1 Oct 2015 06:37

          Indeed. Over 100 killed at a recent wedding. Saudi Arabia is indiscriminately devastating one of the poorest Countries in the ME with US support using banned cluster bombs supplied by the US firm Textron and funded by HSBC and other leading banks.

          rentierDEATHcult 1 Oct 2015 06:24

          In 2012, Defence Sec Leon Panetta said this: "I think it's impor­tant when Assad leaves - and he will leave - to try to pre­serve sta­bil­ity in that coun­try. And the best way to pre­serve that kind of sta­bil­ity is to main­tain as much of the mil­i­tary, the police, as you can, along with the secu­rity forces, and hope that they will tran­si­tion to a demo­c­ra­tic form of gov­ern­ment. That's a key"
          http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/30/panetta-says-when-not-if-al-assad-falls-syrian-military-should-remain-intact/

          So the priority for Washington (& other EU NATO members) is to preserve the current regime - the military apparatus, police state, and the secular architecture of Syria - but dispose of the House of Assad as part of a political agreement.

          Russia, despite its loyalty to the current regime (which goes back decades), will sacrifice Bashar al Assad if it can continue benefitting from the lucrative arms trade and maintain its naval and military installations in the country.

          Trouble is, this cosy international arrangement has overlooked something, quite, important. The vast majority of the Syrian people!

          Has somebody stopped to consider that they may want to take full advantage of this (historic) opportunity to opt for some (real) change - instead of window dressing?!

          And America's record of supporting/promoting real change is a dubious one, to say the least.

          I'm sure a lot of Egyptians are, still, seething at the moral gymnastics performed by Washington during the Arab Spring before seeing Pax Americana repose back into its (default) setting of supporting the military junta in Cairo.

          Any 'change' overseen by the international powers is guaranteed to be NO CHANGE AT ALL. Sure, the Assad family will, probably, go into exile but the regime will continue - blessed by the very same forces that have sponsored the bloodletting of the current regime in Damascus.

          WalterCronkiteBot 1 Oct 2015 06:05

          We keep hearing about this transition process involving the credible opposition. The credible opposition are the SNC and FSA apparently.

          How the SNC are (or at least were) really a group of non Syrians including Bilderberg attendees and people from Kissinger backed think tanks. Supported by Human Rights reports from a man working from his home in Coventry.
          http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking

          Two UN reports detailing FSA war crimes, and explaining that they enforce Sharia law. Of course Assad's crimes are covered too.
          http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/HRC/19/69&Lang=E
          http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/HRC/19/69&Lang=E

          These are the moderates that represent Syrian people... who are funded by the US, aren't Syrian, and have their military wing running Sharia courts. They are about as credible as Peter Andre. I dare say he would do a better job.


          LeftOrRightSameShite -> LordDespencer 1 Oct 2015 06:03

          given that it is Assad's "governmentalism" that led to the chaos on Syria.

          Certainly contributed to it. There is also evidence that the US as of 2006 was looking to seize upon an opportunity to oust Assad. Events in 2011 provided just that.
          This US cable released by Wikileaks provides more details.

          There is also evidence the US had mercenaries operating in Syria (and Libya) in 2011/12. Against Assad of course.

          Tony Blair in a 2006 speech to the World Affairs Council in LA proclaimed:

          "we need to make clear to Syria and Iran that there is a choice: come in to the international community and play by the same rules as the rest of us; or be confronted"

          Bit rich isn't it? What did he mean by "confronted" do you think? What's the agenda then? Again, Tony provides enlightenment:

          "For me, a victory for the moderates means an Islam that is open: open to globalisation"

          hmm
          I've got a whole archive of links such as the above. If they prove one thing, it's that this whole episode is rotten and we are being fed stories that often distract from real intention.

          seamuspadraig -> LafayetteInFrance 1 Oct 2015 05:29

          The Saudis know full well that only a ground force can finally eradicate ISIS.

          ISIS is Saudi Arabia's ground force in Syria.

          kimorris 1 Oct 2015 05:26

          In the 1980's film Threads the similarity with the unfolding Syria story is chilling. In the film Iran is the country of conflict, after an exchange of conventional weaponry the USA detonate a single battlefield nuke. Escalation ensues until all out global thermonuclear war continues to it's conclusion, destruction of most of the planet. It should be remembered the USA is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in war.

          AXWE08 1 Oct 2015 05:19

          The narrative from Washington is more and more divorced from reality. The hope was that ISIS and/or Al Nusra would ultimately deplete Syria's limited military resources and remove Assad and the Baathist government that had held Syria together for decades - regardless of the resulting consequences to the Christian, Jewish and Alawite population in that part of Syria. The Neoconservative strategy has now been frustrated by Russia and the bluster from Washington is that the Russian targets were not 'legitimate' - as if one type of terrorist is officially approved by Washington and others not. It has been a commonplace that the US/Saudis are behind ISIS and Al Nusra and this response gives the game away. What is this grip the NeoCons have on American thinking? Putin has his shortcomings, but he towers above Obama and his horrid crew of western leaders.

          ThomasPaine2 1 Oct 2015 04:56

          The Americans don't really make good foreign policy decisions. I'm struggling to think of any single foreign adventure they haven't fucked up totally.

          Why they think they are good at it beats me.

          Assad, like him or loathe him, is a relatively stable, sane, locally popular and established leader. I suspect that the reason for all of this chaos in the ME is to keep Israel's enemies divided. The death and destruction it causes, matters not.

          For America to accuse Russia of pouring fuel on the fire is like David Cameron calling for the humane treatment of pigs.

          BalanceIt -> MentalToo 1 Oct 2015 04:42

          The US has forced violent regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. How are those countries doing? Terribly is the answer. In Syria the US, through its proxies Suadi Qatar Turkey, have been attempting a violent overthrow of ANOTHER regime leading to yet another humanitarian catastrophe. None of these moves by the US and Russia are about democracy, to claim they are is lunacy.

          And no The Guardian is not independent, everyone in the industry knows big newspapers run these types of stories past the security state before publishing.

          SHA2014 1 Oct 2015 04:39

          Sometimes it is worth reading the Telegraph:

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11140860/Qatar-and-Saudi-Arabia-have-ignited-time-bomb-by-funding-global-spread-of-radical-Islam.html

          SHA2014 -> huffingtonboy 1 Oct 2015 04:10

          Fixation on barrel bombs seems to be the code word for delegitimization. Let us start talking of daisy cutters, phosphorus bombs cluster bombs and the like, used by US and allies in recent attacks on civilian areas.

          [Oct 09, 2015] A proxy cold war in Syria

          Oct 07, 2015 | Peak Prosperity
          President Obama recently assured that we're not engaging in a proxy war in Syria. Well this latest news doesn't help sell his story. Boy, the players are getting me nervous. Let's hope things don't escalate and false flags are raised even higher.

          Russian Airstrikes In Syria Hit CIA-Trained Rebel Weapons Depot

          "Russian airstrikes late Tuesday have destroyed the central weapons depot of a U.S.-trained rebel group, according to its commander. The Liwa Suqour al-Jabalpur rebel group, which opposes Syria President Bashar Assad's authoritarian regime, was trained by the CIA at training camps in Saudi Arabia and Qatar."

          sand_puppy

          NATO Threatens to send ground troups to Syria

          NATO Threatens To Send In Troops After Russia Stations Ground "Battalion" In Syria

          Thanks to the fact that the West selected Islamic militants (ISIS) as its anti-Assad weapon of choice, Putin gets to pitch his efforts to defend Assad as a "war on terror."

          ZH predicted:

          ..."the Pentagon will use the gambit of a Russian ground campaign, credible or not, to get permission from Congress to send a 'small', at first, then bigger ground force of US troops in Syria to, you guessed it, 'fight ISIS'....

          A commenter after the ZH article notes:

          A recently released classified document obtained by WikiLeaks establishes that active US planning for regime-change predated the outbreak of the Syrian civil war by at least five years.

          From another article:

          The question today is merely one of timing. .... How long before Israeli planes come into contact with Russian or Iranian fighters? How long before U.S. troops come into contact with Russian troops? How long before Israel or Saudi Arabia strike Iran? And if the U.S. backs out completely, how long before the entire dynamic of the Middle East is flipped and America loses petro-status for the dollar? With the speed of events forming a fiscal-political riptide, it is hard to imagine we will be waiting very long to find out.

          [Oct 07, 2015] US Ruling Circles Split On Use of Jihadists in Syria

          "... Well, the United States and its allies are speaking gobbledygook, and Russia is speaking straight up plain international law truth. Theyve come to the aid of the recognized government of Syria, which is being attacked by proxies of other countries, the U.S., the Saudis, other Gulf states, and Turkey, in violation of international law. ..."
          "... They are defending principles of international law. And the U.S. and its allies are violating international law, and the U.S. and its allies cannot draw some kind of red line around ISIS, the wayward jihadists that dont want to take orders, and expect the Russians to only discipline their little bad boys and leave the other jihadists alone. That only makes sense to idiots like the New York Times and CNN and the rest. ..."
          "... in a way the Russian military intervention against the jihadists in Syria has given the Obama administration another chance to back off of that decades-long policy of using Islamic jihadists as footsoldiers for imperialism in the Muslim world. ..."
          "... there was a growing split in the U.S. government in ruling circles, in the intelligence agencies, even three years ago. And there was a fear that the jihadists would have, were developing their own kind of agenda. And theres nothing that U.S. imperialists dislike more than people who have their own agenda. And we know now that in August of 2012, we know this because of a memo that came to light this year, that analysts for the Defense and Intelligence Agency were warning that the jihadists, the people who would become the Islamic State, were likely to declare their own caliphate. And that would mean that they would have their own policies and they would fight their own war, not the war that the United States wanted them to fight. ..."
          "... And although that warning didnt cause the U.S. to reverse its long policy of supporting jihadists, it did I think make Obama much more cautious, and I think thats why he backed off from bombing Syria that same year. The same Defense Intelligence Agency analysts are now screaming that the top Pentagon brass are lying about the kinds of reports that theyve been given, reports about the growing strength of ISIS. And that argument in itself is signs of a real split in the intelligence agencies, a split in the U.S. military, a split in the Obama administration itself. A split that was evident when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. ..."
          Oct 07, 2015 | therealnews.com
          BALL: So what is going on here? It almost sounds like a neo-Cold War indirect conflict of superpowers vying for colonial control over their property, or a fight over whose anti-Assad allies should be supported. What is going on?

          FORD: Well, the United States and its allies are speaking gobbledygook, and Russia is speaking straight up plain international law truth. They've come to the aid of the recognized government of Syria, which is being attacked by proxies of other countries, the U.S., the Saudis, other Gulf states, and Turkey, in violation of international law. And the Russians say that they are not just defending the government that they have had relations with for decades. They are defending principles of international law. And the U.S. and its allies are violating international law, and the U.S. and its allies cannot draw some kind of red line around ISIS, the wayward jihadists that don't want to take orders, and expect the Russians to only discipline their little bad boys and leave the other jihadists alone. That only makes sense to idiots like the New York Times and CNN and the rest.

          BALL: But again, for those of us who have varying understandings of what's happening here, it would seem like the U.S. would not have a problem with Assad's territory being bombed, given that the U.S. and Obama's administration in particular is no fan of Bashar al-Assad and his leadership there in Syria. Why then are they having a problem with what Russia's doing, and to what extent are the problems that are claimed to be addressed there actually caused in their origin by the United States and its policies?

          FORD: Well, the United States has, and Obama knows the United States has, problems that go beyond the Russian intervention. They have problems with their own policy, which has brought them to this state of affairs. And in a way the Russian military intervention against the jihadists in Syria has given the Obama administration another chance to back off of that decades-long policy of using Islamic jihadists as footsoldiers for imperialism in the Muslim world.

          And the reason that I say another chance is because it was the Russians back in 2012 who gave President Obama a similar opportunity to re-think that jihadist 35-year-old policy when they proposed that the international community supervise the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons. That was back in 2012. And that allowed President Obama to back off from his threat to attack Syria, to bomb the Syrian government. I think that President Obama backed off on that threat not because of domestic or international opposition. The United States acts unilaterally all the time, I think he could have gotten away with it. I think that Obama was genuinely afraid of what would happen if the Syrian government collapsed. And make no mistake about it, if the United States had attacked the Syrian government directly the dynamic of the situation would have compelled the United States to keep on attacking until that government was totally destroyed, just like they did to Col. Gaddafi's government in Libya only one year before.

          But it is very clear, now quite clear in hindsight but I think it was visible back then, that there was a growing split in the U.S. government in ruling circles, in the intelligence agencies, even three years ago. And there was a fear that the jihadists would have, were developing their own kind of agenda. And there's nothing that U.S. imperialists dislike more than people who have their own agenda. And we know now that in August of 2012, we know this because of a memo that came to light this year, that analysts for the Defense and Intelligence Agency were warning that the jihadists, the people who would become the Islamic State, were likely to declare their own caliphate. And that would mean that they would have their own policies and they would fight their own war, not the war that the United States wanted them to fight.

          And although that warning didn't cause the U.S. to reverse its long policy of supporting jihadists, it did I think make Obama much more cautious, and I think that's why he backed off from bombing Syria that same year. The same Defense Intelligence Agency analysts are now screaming that the top Pentagon brass are lying about the kinds of reports that they've been given, reports about the growing strength of ISIS. And that argument in itself is signs of a real split in the intelligence agencies, a split in the U.S. military, a split in the Obama administration itself. A split that was evident when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.

          So the Russian intervention is now forcing Obama's hand. He's going to have to decide if he's going to continue this policy with the jihadists, or if he's going to go for some kind of containment or stabilization of the battle lines in Syria. We know it's quite obvious that Turkey and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states wanted an all-out offensive to take out the Assad government once and for all, but that has been checked definitively by the Russians. And that gives Obama another chance to cooperate with the people in the region, with Syria and with Iran, and with the government of Iraq, as well as with the Russians. He has that chance again, if he takes it.

          [Oct 07, 2015] Russia Claims ISIS Now On The Ropes As Fighters Desert After 60 Airstrikes In 72 Hours

          The rebels in Syria are mixture of Islamic fundamentalists and Sunni liberation movement. So preserving Assad in power while better then chaos like in Libya, still does not solve the country problems, problems which probably are connected with population growth while resources are dwindling and growth of sectarian divisions within the country. The same mechanism as in Ukraine... Poverty breeds nationalists and religious fundamentalists. As both the USA and Israel are trying to use those grievances for forming fifth column and toppling of the government, meddling in the country affairs will not go away. And Russians took a huge risk here. Religious fundamentalists are good, highly motivated fighters. Afghans in mountain terrain manages to hold their against Russian air force for years (with substantial military support from the USA, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia). USA supplied Stringer missiles that destroyed many Russians attach helicopters. Not it is more difficult to do as ISIS is the force the USA would be embarrassed openly to cooperate with, but covert channels remain.
          Oct 07, 2015 | Zero Hedge
          One question that's been asked repeatedly over the past thirteen months is why Washington has been unable to achieve the Pentagon's stated goal of "degrading and defeating" ISIS despite the fact that the "battle" pits the most advanced air force on the planet against what amounts to a ragtag band of militants running around the desert in basketball shoes.

          Those of a skeptical persuasion have been inclined to suggest that perhaps the US isn't fully committed to the fight. Explanations for that suggestion range from the mainstream (the White House is loathe to get the US into another Mid-East war) to the "conspiratorial" (the CIA created ISIS and thus doesn't want to destroy the group due to its value as a strategic asset).

          The implication in all of this is that a modern army that was truly determined to destroy the group could likely do so in a matter of months if not weeks and so once Russia began flying sorties from Latakia, the world was anxious to see just how long the various rebel groups operating in Syria could hold up under bombardment by the Russian air force.

          The answer, apparently, is "less than a week."

          On Saturday, the Russian Ministry of Defense said it has conducted 60 bombing runs in 72 hours, hitting more than 50 ISIS targets.

          According to the ministry (Facebook page is here), Islamic State fighters are in a state of "panic" and more than 600 have deserted.

          ... ... ...

          ... ... ...

          the phantom

          I guess this means no more 2 mile long ISIS, toyota truck convoys flying black flags? Still a ways to go... need to see the Syrian/Iranian ground troops start moping up, then it's for real. Once that happens, the panic will really hit ISIS and the rest of the terrorists. That's when those dogs go back to their masters, the Saudi's, and ask some real tough questions. I would not want to be a member of the royal family when that happens.

          [Oct 07, 2015] Syria SITREP October 07th 2015 by John Rambo

          Nice antidote to Guardian propaganda ;-). this is actually a huge risk for Russia as ISIS is serious, tenacious opponet that has some resources in Russian part of Caucasus.
          "... Islamists are now being struck by US jets in Iraq but by Russian jets in Syria, leaving only Jordan and Turkey as the only safe havens left. ..."
          "... For Russia this is a gamble. Many hawkish individuals are screaming that this will be a second Afghanistan. Undoubtedly Wahhabi Islamists within the Caucuses are fuming at the Russian involvement in the Middle East, and unlike the United States, Russia is within reach of these domestic jihadists. It's safe to assume Russia probably stepped up domestic surveillance and security in potential hotspot areas within its territory. [Source] After all it wasn't that long ago when Prince Bandar was talking about how he can "turn-on and turn-off" the Chechen Jihadists. Who knows how much truth that holds… if any… but better to play it safe. [Source] ..."
          "... ISIL is not a stupid player in this conflict. The Islamic State has been able to fool the US into providing weapons and training for the jihad for quite some time. ISIL has also endured a year of strikes from the US and its Arab partners, sometimes averaging to a dozen strikes a day. There have been more bombs dropped on ISIL in the past year than the 5 years in Afghanistan. [SOURCE] But now there is a sense of despair in the air. The difference is the effectiveness of the Russian strikes. Thanks to the human intelligence assets infiltrated inside opposition groups by Syrian intelligence the Russians have been able to get very accurate information on rallying points, command posts, storage areas, and even locations of leadership personnel of these terrorists. Human intelligence provides more accurate data than drones, flybys, signal interception, or game theory analysis. Human intelligence is right there, right now. ..."
          "... Also the hysteria will run deeper now if any special forcers advisors were in those IS command bunkers… ..."
          October 07, 2015 | The Vineyard of the Saker

          It's been a week since the Russian airstrikes began in Syria.

          From the Syrian military standpoint this was perfect timing. Morale has been an all-time low amongst the Syrian Arab Army and Hezbollah forces deployed in Syria. Heavy intermixed regular and irregular fighting for a better part of four and a half years is draining to any military, let alone a small country such as Syria. [Source]

          Syria is a destroyed country. It is nothing but a husk of its former self. Ancient historical sites that once drew in the tourists have been pillaged and demolished by the Islamic State. Infrastructure such as roads, power lines, and water systems has been set back forty years. Major segments of its population are refugees displaced internally and abroad. Syria truly will never be the same again. [Source]

          So one can safely say the Russian air strikes (and potential increased involvement) has been a blessing to the Pro-Assad forces on the ground. Syria has been restricted to fighting one military front at a time due to manpower shortages, giving opponents the ability to take advantage of lightly reinforced government-held areas and outskirt outposts. These Russian air strikes will not only strengthen SAA ground offensives but also support defending forces at the fringes of government control. For the Syrian draft dodgers the Russian air strikes are taken as a form of hope; finally there are other countries besides Iran that want to see a stabilized Syria. Islamists are now being struck by US jets in Iraq but by Russian jets in Syria, leaving only Jordan and Turkey as the only safe havens left.

          As for Russia, it has decided to step up and do what the Americans can't (or won't) do and that is to try to put the Islamic extremism genie back in the lamp, in Syria anyway. For Russia this is a gamble. Many hawkish individuals are screaming that this will be a second Afghanistan. Undoubtedly Wahhabi Islamists within the Caucuses are fuming at the Russian involvement in the Middle East, and unlike the United States, Russia is within reach of these domestic jihadists. It's safe to assume Russia probably stepped up domestic surveillance and security in potential hotspot areas within its territory. [Source] After all it wasn't that long ago when Prince Bandar was talking about how he can "turn-on and turn-off" the Chechen Jihadists. Who knows how much truth that holds… if any… but better to play it safe. [Source]

          For Russia has a lot to lose in this intervention. A downed and captured pilot may be a domestic political nightmare. Even though the Russian airbase is heavily guarded and patrolled 24 hours of the day, the potential for material loss of fighter jets in a surprise suicide attack is still there. Let's not forget how resourceful Islamists can be. It seems over the years even the most blockheaded of mujahids can surprise you in today's 21st century of warfare. Take a look at the Taliban's successful attack on Camp Bastion in Afghanistan in 2012 where they successfully destroyed six harrier jets (and severely damaging two more), a C-130 plane, and killed 2 marines while trying to gun for Prince Harry himself (who was stationed at the base as part of his military service). [Source]

          The government of Syria formally requested aid from Russia and Russia replied in the form of airstrikes. Why Russia chose now to help Assad and not earlier is still a puzzle. Of course Russian gains a few things from this expedition. For one, it's better to these Wahhabis, especially the Chechens who were imported to the area thanks to Saudi Arabia, in Syria than to have to fight them in Russia.

          Secondly this is a perfect chance to test out some military hardware. Not only is this an opportunity to see how well these aerial weapon systems work in conjunction with coordinated ground operations in real life combat scenarios (with a ground force comprised of ex-Soviet and Russian equipment) but also test out the electronic warfare systems against the regional players. Turkey, Israel and Jordan all have electronic warfare units. Air warfare and electronic warfare go hand-in-hand. There is no such thing as a modern air operation without electronic warfare being involved.

          And finally to keep Assad afloat, an ally and for some reason one that has had a long history of support from Russia (and once USSR). In the past providing advanced weaponry of all forms, from anti-tank missiles to anti-air weapon systems, tanks to fighter jets, etc. etc. Of course in keeping the Assad government alive so too are the Russian naval base in Syria.

          Still one must wonder. Russia must gain something more than that. Especially with the risk it is undertaking.

          ISIL is not a stupid player in this conflict. The Islamic State has been able to fool the US into providing weapons and training for the jihad for quite some time. ISIL has also endured a year of strikes from the US and its Arab partners, sometimes averaging to a dozen strikes a day. There have been more bombs dropped on ISIL in the past year than the 5 years in Afghanistan. [SOURCE] But now there is a sense of despair in the air. The difference is the effectiveness of the Russian strikes. Thanks to the human intelligence assets infiltrated inside opposition groups by Syrian intelligence the Russians have been able to get very accurate information on rallying points, command posts, storage areas, and even locations of leadership personnel of these terrorists. Human intelligence provides more accurate data than drones, flybys, signal interception, or game theory analysis. Human intelligence is right there, right now.

          So let's take a look at the actions, potential actions, and events of each actor in this theater of war:

          Russia:

          • Expanded an airbase and reinforced it with ground security forces which include round-the-clock helicopter gunship patrols.
          • Advanced electronic warfare platforms spotted at Latakia [Source]
          • Has created a Joint Information Center (co-ordination) with the organizations that have units on the ground such as Syria, Iran and Iraq. [Source]
          • Plans to cull the number of renegade Chechens in Syria instead of waiting for them to come home and cause trouble in Russia
          • The opportunity to test out the latest variants or upgrade kits on fighter jets in combat situations for realistic performance data (Su-24M, Su-25SM, and Su-30SM are upgraded variants of their original make design for a modern electronic warfare-laden battlefield).
          • Consistently attacking ALL opposition positions, starting with those threatening the Syrian regime first and moving up to ISIL; perhaps in tangent with an Iraqi ground op.
          • Mulling expanding its mission into Iraq if requested by the Iraqi military.
          • Big international prestige and PR campaign…. If successful.
          • The Russian deployment is somewhat an assurance against Israeli air strikes on IRGC and Hezbollah forces.
          • Russia has the option to punish Turkey for its support in allowing ISIL to use its borders by discretely (or overtly) aiding the Kurds; as the Kurds have been a US ally since the Iraq invasion in 2003 the US can't overtly denounce the aid.
          • This entire air operation might be a way to bridge the gap between the US and Assad. The US is unwilling to work with Assad and Iranian forces on the ground, but Russia has no scruples in doing so. The US, with its considerably larger air force in the region, can strike while Iran and Syria provide the intel alongside Russia. The US can save face, Russia can save an ally, and Syria and Iraq are literally just saved. (Wishful thinking).

          Syria:

          • Syria right now is taking cover to recoup and to play some propaganda cards to try to get as many people on the regimes side as possible.
          • Draft dodgers may be incentivized to commit to their conscription due to the positive foreign intervention from a superpower (finally, a nation with high-tech equipment actually bombing the terrorists for once).
          • Syrian military morale, which was low due to the never ending flow of foreign fighters, has slightly increased because of the Russian air strikes.
          • The Syrian military has been restructured twice times throughout the conflict. First from its old Soviet-modelled format to a hybrid military incorporating conventional and irregular forces to a garrison-style force adjusting for a protracted conflict. [Source]
          • Syrian Air Force is freed up to provide direct air support to Syrian Arab Army units while Russian Air Force maintains pressure on the "rear" of the opposition with surgical strikes on command centers, training sites, and storage areas.
          • There are some heavy urban battles to come for the Syrian Arab Army which is projecting a lot of causalities (some even suggesting the Russians will provide the SAA infantry-based thermobaric weaponry to help clear our urban city centers).

          Iran, Hezbollah:

          • News everywhere of amassing ground forces. It seems that Iran and Hezbollah are going to commit larger forces in ground offensives orchestrated along Russian air strikes.
          • Iran, under the cover of Russian air strikes, has managed to transfer mores weapons that were too hard to do with the threat of Israeli air strikes. This includes advanced anti-air missiles and converted SCUDs for anti-ship roles. [Source]
          • Iran might be committing IRGC battalions in Syria and may be mulling the deployment of greater assets.
          • Hezbollah counter-intelligence (or Syrian secret police) units may attempt to assassinate opposition rebel leadership being harbored in Jordan or Turkey. In the past an FSA commander was found murdered, Jordanian government claimed it was criminal and not politically motivated. Others claim it was an assassination. [Source]

          Iraq:

          • The US currently has a significant number of advisers in Iraq and specifically Baghdad. This includes AH-64 Apache gunships which turned back ISIL when it was about to descend on the capital. [Source]
          • Iraq has consistently provided fuel and diesel to Syria as part of its struggle against ISIL. Both Iraq and Syria are plagued by ISIL and other dissident factions.
          • Iraq may petition Russia to envelop Iraq in its air operation should events in Syria turn for the better. [Source]
          • US support for Iraq is extend

          Islamic State:

          • Right now ISIL is reinforcing towns and cities under its control by constructing tunnels, reinforced foxholes, and other bunkers to ride out the Russian air strikes; much like the tactics used by Hezbollah in the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah. This is to preserve the manpower for any ground assaults. Expect multi-month sieges.
          • Probably planning for some type of attack inside Russia proper as retaliation like those seen in Europe. Perhaps targeted on ambassadors or other dignitaries.
          • Some forces have retreated to Turkey and Jordan until the situation dissipates.
          • Might commit to a PR stunt such as bombing internationally protected civilian facilities like schools or hospitals and blame it on Russian air strikes. Remember the Chlorine gas attack which was immediately pinned on the Assad government, but both the UN and Russia proved was committed by the rebels in hopes of drawing foreign intervention. [Source]
          • Convince Turkey to provide high-tech anti-air weaponry (Turkey has been proven to have direct talks to the leadership of ISIL) [Source]
          • Human shields can possibly be used in some PR stunt.
          • It seems that ISIL has been taken by surprise by the Russian air strikes. This means that the US has been purposely leaving them alone in certain areas.
          • The current interim operating procedure for ISIL is to spot when Russian fighters take off from their base and begin warning units. So far it may involve "moving munitions 15 meters underground", "moving tanks, cars, and cannons daily never leaving them in one spot", "keeping your engines on at all times", "be prepared to move at a moment's notice", "destroy sim cards of all 'senior' commanders", "stay away from villages" [Source]

          GCC-Supported Opposition ARMY OF CONQUEST (FSA & remnants of Al-Qaeda in Syria; Al-Nusra Front):

          • These groups are seen as terrorists in the eyes of Russia and have been struck.
          • A number of FSA fighters have already surrendered to the government and a larger number has already fled to Jordan thanks to the psychological impact of the Russian strikes.
          • Fresh reinforcements, most likely thanks to Saudi Arabia and Qatari money, has arrived from the North Caucasus including Ukrainian specialists and experts (suggesting some new type of weapon system may be soon given to the opposition forces or targeted against the Russian forces in Syria). [Source]
          • Right now the Army of Conquest is a conglomeration of forces which include various Islamist factions including Al-Nusra Front, and mercenary forces hired, trained, or supplied by the CIA, Turkey, GCC, or other Western-affiliated actors. They "fight alongside" the FSA. It fights against the Islamic State, Hezbollah, and the Syrian government. [Source]
          • The FSA is rumored to be gone, just a media myth. The majority defecting to ISIL. There are only Islamists of varying shades. [Source]
          • The Army of Conquest is being coordinated by commanders stationed in operation rooms sponsored by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and hosted in Jordan and Turkey, safe from Russian air strikes (for now….) [Source]

          Arab Nations (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Jordan):

          • Saudi Arabia right now is being bogged down with its operations in Yemen. Iran may have tipped the scales by offering some sort of material support to the Shia-Houthis now engaged in fighting the Yemen government and its Saudi backers.
          • Saudi Arabia is also trying to confront Iran in other proxy wars, including Iraq, Lebanon and potentially Bahrain.
          • If the US doesn't act in time Saudi Arabia will take it upon itself to finance some sort of attack on Russia either in Syria or somewhere. If this doesn't materialize then Saudi Arabian capabilities are beyond incompetence.
          • Qatar will be fronting the majority of the financing for the opposition forces. Qatar has always been the hotbed of international terrorist financing [Source]
          • Jordan has been playing both sides. It assisted the US in training a proxy force which would cross from Jordan into Syria, but has also tipped off Syrian intelligence of these forces so they may be arrested or destroyed before doing harm. It has been trying to shift back to neutral. [Source]

          Israel:

          • Israel has been informed of the Russian air operation.
          • Israel will not risk an air confrontation with Russia. After the 2006 Hezbollah-Israel war, secretary-general of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah was giving a speech in Beirut right after the ceasefire as a show of solidarity with the people. Israel was denied the ability to launch an air strike assassination against this very important target due to the deployment of French Air Force fighter jets during his speech [Source]
          • Israel has committed mock air attacks on UNIFIL before to trigger a response. It may commit the same action against Russian or Assad forces in a hope to draw out a reaction. [Source]
          • A weakened Syrian state, now without large stockpiles of chemical weapons, may be forced to accept the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights.
          • Israel will continue to provide medical aid to rebel and Islamist fighters in the Golan Height [Source]
          • Israel claims it can overcome the S-300 and deal a marketing blow to Russia if it needs to strike targets inside Syria, such as weapon shipments to Hezbollah. [Source]

          Turkey:

          • Probably the biggest loser of the entire debacle. Not only is Assad going to remain standing but it looks like the Kurds will be in a better position to resist Turkey thanks to their quasi-state-like Kurdistan that intersects through Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran.
          • Wants a NATO or US-sponsored no-fly zone on its border with Syria to allow operations against the Kurds to remain unimpeded.
          • Turkey, being denied further escalation against Syria, has used the Syrian refugee crisis as means to attack the EU by letting them pass through into EU proper.
          • Turkey has had to deal with jihadis seeping over the border, with car bombs and other terrorist acts occurring throughout the country. If jihadis flee back into Turkey this could be more trouble.
          • A ground invasion of Northern Syria to create a buffer zone for the opposition seems unlikely.
          • Russia has accidentally strayed into Turkish air space for a few seconds, creating some chest-thumping by NATO [Source]
          • US Patriot missiles mandate expires on October. Are they still in Turkey? [Source]
          • The EU is currently working on a crisis plan with Turkey to stem the flow of refugees. [Source]

          United States of America:

          • The US currently has limited options to the Russian air strikes.
          • The US still has a significantly larger air fleet in the region and has committed a ludicrous amount of airstrikes, drone strikes, missile strikes, and other strikes.
          • It will suffer an international PR fiasco if Russia can restore some order in Syria within a few months. [Source]
          • US along with its allies (perhaps Turkey and/or France) may attempt a ground operation in the North-East part of the country; perhaps to divide the country in some spring 1945 Berlin situation.
          • The US can actively arm opposition forces with heavier weapons, risking their proliferation, to deny any Russian gains.
          • The Ukrainian operation may be ramped up again.
          • The US may be looking to accept any face-saving measure to get out of the Syrian mess seeing the red line the Russians have drawn in regards to Assad. Avoiding major conflicts with Russia as more important than pleasing the Saudis and their secret war against Iran.
          • Currently the US and Russia are just starting to work on an agreement to coordinate air operations in Syria. [Source]
          • Air strikes are still being commenced in Iraq against ISIL and Afghanistan against the Taliban.

          • Chances are both the US and Russia are monitoring each other's electronic emissions.


          on October 07, 2015 · at 3:07 pm UTC

          article from Counterpunch on humanitarian hypocrisy:

          http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/07/the-double-speak-of-american-civilian-humanitarianism/

          Penelope on October 07, 2015 · at 3:12 pm UTC

          Four Russian Navy warships have fired a total of 26 missiles at the position of the terrorist group Islamic State in Syria, Russia's Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu announced. The missiles were fired from the Caspian Sea.
          "Four missile ships launched 26 cruise missiles at 11 targets. According to objective control data, all the targets were destroyed. No civilian objects sustained damage," Shoigu said.

          The missiles flew some 1,500 km before reaching their targets, probing their efficiency.

          The missile attacks came from Russia's fleet in the Caspian Sea, which borders Russia, Iran and three other littoral countries. The precision weapons hit all intended targets.

          http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-07/russian-warships-launch-missile-attack-syrian-targets-clearing-way-iran-ground-invas

          Anonymous on October 07, 2015 · at 3:47 pm UTC

          One of the unintended consequences of Russia's military action is exposing how stupid Kiev was claiming every five minutes they were fighting the Russian army and airforce. Also exposing the absurd attempts of msm journalists. I think many will see what has happened and grasp the fact that that if the Russians had entered it would have been over and out very quickly for the kiev junta. The west and nato is seething at this flexing of military muscle knowing that they have lost the plot/narrative big time here. Cruise missiles flying through iran and Iraq and hitting their terrorist targets, conveniently passing turkey, poetry in motion!

          Anonymous on October 07, 2015 · at 4:02 pm UTC

          Yes, been the buzz for a few hours (everywhere except here in sleepy Sakerland) - basically a 26-missile birthday salute for Putin using equipment only 'lawful' if not launched on land from the only sea/lake that the US/Nato cannot have a boat in. Brilliant!

          A couple more weeks then on into Iraq (by invitation) and Obama's pivot out of the Middle east will be all but completed - with Putin's boot-prints embossed on his backside to boot.

          The degenerate Saudi regime are squealing all the way to market and it's not hard to see why. Egypt's SiSi and military are on side with the Russians, Yemen is a war-crimes mess and UN Human Rights a joke - and cracks in the US/Nato un-affordable facade are occurring with high ranking suggestions that the Obama Administration are funding ISIS.

          "Do you realise, now, what you have done, Mr Obama?"

          Game, set, match, dip-shit!

          mmiriww on October 07, 2015 · at 4:11 pm UTC

          What is not mentioned here is they took out some IS command bunkers with their advisors without any warning. The US just admitted that they have special forces observing IS.. So does the SAS of UK and Australia, all dressed up as IS.. Russia already gave warning so they could leave and I bet a lot of them have seeing the hysteria and the terrorists running for the hills after their commanders left for safer zones..

          But I bet no one expected to get hit with millions dollar cruise missiles deep in IS held territory. Also the hysteria will run deeper now if any special forcers advisors were in those IS command bunkers…

          Anonymous on October 07, 2015 · at 4:31 pm UTC

          Article is a good reason why when it comes to geopol news/events, I can barely stomach reading ZH for its time-wasting infotainment content, delivered smarmy smug style.
          I see the root story of many of his articles on other websites between 2 & 10 days before it appears there.

          Notice his inexcusable disgraceful slam against the SAA, as if they don't exist & haven't for eons?
          In all that time, while they've been worked over from the air by the murderous 'coalition', almost a
          quarter million dead & up to 1/3 of Syria's civilians living as refugees.

          Sickening.

          Solon on October 07, 2015 · at 3:16 pm UTC

          Important article on Matt Drudge, the media, politics, social control and the corporate takeover of American culture and the citizens' minds.

          http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/10/07/matt-drudge-blisters-corporate-media-hillary-clinton-and-sick-americans-in-rare-interview/

          He knows. He understands.

          This is the key analysis in a nutshell. Understand what he is saying you understand America and why it is a danger to itself and the world.


          teranam13 on October 07, 2015 · at 3:27 pm UTC

          Keep your eye on Erdogan: He has royally p-ssed off the Kurds within Turkey and now the jihadis will flee back over into Turkey to cause mayhem there. He is up for power renewal Nov 1st so he may try to play the US like the Saudis do in which case things will get very nasty .

          The "we have good relationship with Russia" is a diplomatic deception like Hitler had good relationship with Stalin: he is playing a very dangerous double game but he thinks he is up to it because he is blinded by his arrogance. Hubris follows arrogance like winter follows Fall.

          Martin from Soviet East-Berlin on October 07, 2015 · at 3:57 pm UTC

          Thank you John for this excellent work!

          From me for now only some links that some may find interesting:

          Russian Warships Launch Missile Attack On Syrian Targets, Clearing Way For Iran Ground Invasion
          http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-07/russian-warships-launch-missile-attack-syrian-targets-clearing-way-iran-ground-invas

          And here is a nice and live video from the Russian Ministry of Defence of this missiles leaving Caspian Sea for the "any target within Saudi Arabia and Qatar" range
          Массированный удар высокоточным оружием по объектам ИГИЛ в Сирии из акватории Каспийского моря
          (Massive attack of precision weapons targetting ISIS in Syria, shot from the Caspian Sea some 1500 kilometers away)
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMasnaAf_H4

          Russia Sends The USA A HUGE Message From The Caspian Sea
          http://themillenniumreport.com/2015/10/russian-missiles-hit-is-in-syria-from-caspian/

          Putin: Who created ISIS?
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbZDyr2LkdI&app=desktop

          Here some readers' comment found on above ZH link:

          A)
          """""Eisenhorn
          Eisenhorn's picture

          This situation just highlights the stupidity of the western game plan.

          This has always been about natural gas lines through Syria into the southern EU.

          The west needed to distract Russia with the debacle in the Ukraine to prevent her from being able to respond in Syria adequately.

          That effort failed abysmally.

          Syria is a Russian vassal state. From the beginning of this effort the endgame was ALWAYS you must be prepared to fight the Russians in Syria to achieve your goal. If you are not prepared for that eventuality, then your plan was doomed from the start.

          Russian CANNOT allow Middle East natural gas to flow into the EU. The only thing keeping the Russians relevant geo-politically are their a) Nukes and b) EU reliance on Russian natural gas.

          So since the Ukraine "force Russia to fight on two fronts" plan just crashed and burned, you now have to either fight them directly in Syria or tuck your tail and go home leaving the Middle East to the Russians.

          We obviously will not abandon our gulf allies in the region, so at this point it is only a matter of time before we start shooting Russians and Iranians.

          Grab your popcorn, it's about to get very ugly.

          The psychopaths are truly running the asylum."""""

          B/C/D …)

          Wed, 10/07/2015 – 09:01 | 6639068 agent default
          agent default's picture

          The US will cut and run but there is one thing that I have no answer for. If Russia settles in the ME, Saudi Arabia and Qatar will have to play nice since it will become obvious that the US cannot and will not help them. So two things happen. Either they drop the dollar, or regime change and then they drop the dollar. Either way the petrodollar is finished. What does the US intend to do about this and how far are they willing to go? I honestly don't have any sort of answer for this situation.

          Login or register to post comments

          Wed, 10/07/2015 – 09:29 | 6639200 flapdoodle
          flapdoodle's picture

          The *really* big problem with the US Deep State is the following:

          1) The US Dollar as World Reserve Currency is based on, well, the fact that it is the WRC. The "faith" the rest of the world invests in the Dollar is only backed by momentum – and the perceived preeminence of the US armed forces.

          2) Just as the first Iraqi war was seminal in the fall of the Soviet Union IMHO when the world (and particularly the Soviet military analysts) were able to see the overwhelming technical superiority of the US smart weapons and the ease with with the US disposed of Saddam's huge standing army (breaking the illusion that the Soviet Union was a superpower on the par with the US), the move into Syria by Russia by the invitation of the legal government of Syria is in my opinion just as historic and seminal, the bell weather for a major sea-change in the the power structure of the world.

          3) Russia in Syria has, at least in its first appearances, greatly neutralized ISIS, which was touted as a huge almost invincible juggernaut, putting on a clinic of technical prowess and coordination almost comparable to the US effort in Iraq 1.

          4) The paradigm of the all powerful US military has taken a big hit, if not by its lack of technical superiority (the F35 fiasco does not inspire confidence in US technical capability), but by its intentions, will, and compentence. the MSF hospital in Kunduz fiasco in juxaposition with the well planned Russian strikes against ISIS (which the US supposedly has been attacking for 13 months), raises the question: if you needed someone to protect you, do you trust the Russian military or the US military?

          5) The above question is a fatal doubt intruding into the all powerful US paradigm – if the Saudis and other important players (Germany!) start to question US power and cozy up to the Russians, the US petrodollar is done for, and with it US dollar as WRC – the US as a nation will start an inevitable slide into third world status if that occurs. Imagine what happens for example if the US has to pay its military budget from actual assets or savings rather than just print dollars it needs to buy the hugely expensive F35 or send billions to Israel…

          6) What gives pause are what the US might do about what has just happened in Syria. The most rabid neocons may push the US into a poorly thought out confrontation, and get us all killed in the worst case.

          7) Whatever response the US tries will not change the death of the US Dollar as WRC. The only question is how soon it will be cast aside (and my gut tells me it will be relatively soon, regardless of how "oversubscribed" dollar denominated debt is to the actual number of dollars in circulation)

          Login or register to post comments

          Wed, 10/07/2015 – 09:30 | 6639250 agent default
          agent default's picture

          The dollar is the reserve currency because that's what OPEC demands in exchange for oil. The moment this changes, the only momentum behind the dollar will be the containers full of dollars flung back to the US.

          Login or register to post comments

          Wed, 10/07/2015 – 09:50 | 6639379 conscious being
          conscious being's picture

          Right snd OPEC demands $'s because they don't want to get bombed, etc. It's military force, or death controls as Radical would say, enforcing dollar acceptance. When the threat is no longer believable, countries will be free to dump the dollar and stop paying the imperial tax.

          Login or register to post comments

          Wed, 10/07/2015 – 10:31 | 6639568 Urban Redneck
          Urban Redneck's picture

          No. The dollar is the WRC and maintains that status because BANKERS structure and denominate financial markets around USD hegemony and complementary (arbitrageable) currencies. If the 6 largest oil traders in Geneva changed the preferred denomination of their PAPER oil contracts to EUR, CNY, or basket tomorrow, the impact on WRC would be orders of magnitude larger than ANYTHING that OPEC ministers could ever do.

          Login or register to post comments

          Wed, 10/07/2015 – 10:05 | 6639457 Omen IV
          Omen IV's picture

          you give no value to Iran in your analysis –

          the Russian weapons and tactics coupled in a few weeks with Iran on the ground with Soleimani leading will tell SA – its over – from Iran to Libya will potentially be at peace – if the SA fuck around they will be taken out – The Princes want Mansions in London / Paris / LA with binders full of women and Ferrari's – they are lovers not warriors

          we will have Iraq firmly under Iran control with the Kurds with their own land driving Erdogan crazy and the USA Fucking the world somewhere else

          Login or register to post comments

          Wed, 10/07/2015 – 10:17 | 6639513 BarkingCat
          BarkingCat's picture

          We don't want to see Russia become dominant and US collapse.
          What we want is at least one more equal power to keep the children in check.
          That is exactly what those psychopaths in government are – children. They sure behave like it."""""

          Carmel by the Sea on October 07, 2015 · at 4:12 pm UTC

          Russian Navy Fires 26 Cruise Missiles into Central Syria: ISIS Positions Targeted
          http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russian-navy-fires-26-cruise-missiles-into-central-syria-isis-positions-targeted/

          Russia would Consider Extending Air Strikes to Iraq if Requested
          http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russia-would-consider-extending-air-strikes-to-iraq-if-requested/

          ISIS Suffers Heavy Losses After Another Failed Offensive in Deir Ezzor: Terrorists Blame Russia
          http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-suffers-heavy-losses-after-another-failed-offensive-in-deir-ezzor-terrorists-blame-russia/

          Anonymous on October 07, 2015 · at 4:47 pm UTC

          Hmmmm….maybe this is why Nutty was in such a tizzy these past 2 weeks.

          Maybe when Putin told him he'd clean up Syria in record time, he meant or inferred the Golan, too?

          I always figured Nutty would be the prima donna candidate to accelerate this crisis further & faster along to its appointed conclusion ca NOV 30, so watch out for another Wile E. Coyote moment from him sooon.

          http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-and-popular-committees-launch-counter-attack-in-the-golan-heights/

          The Syrian Arab Army's 90th Brigade – in coordination with Fouj Al-Joulan (Golan Regiment) and Liwaa Suqour Al-Quneitra (Al-Quneitra Hawks Brigade) of the National Defense Forces (NDF) – have launched a counter-attack in the Golan Heights after the Islamist rebels of Jabhat Al-Nusra (Syrian Al-Qaeda) and the Free Syrian Army (FSA) took control of the strategic hilltop of Tal Al-Ahmar.

          Daniel on October 07, 2015 · at 4:56 pm UTC

          The Syrian oxymoron "explained"

          Let me se if I can get this right? We have country A which officially claims that it is "fighting" a war against terrorists (which by the way it has created it self in the first place) but doesn't want to bomb because of the following logic "yes they are bad but Assad is worse" and then we have country B which states it will fight terrorism and is actually doing what it says ,on the very invitation of the host country (whit in the boundaries of international law) which is plagued by the same terrorists threat, that country A is both supporting and "fighting" against simultaneously!? (now how this is possible I really don't know?)

          Country A is opposed to the idea that country B is willing to help in the fight against the terrorists in a mutually beneficial joint venture. Country A is against this very same joint effort whit country B, because country B wants to fight even the terrorists that country A considers to be the "good terrorists" depending on whom they are fighting against? Now if you didn't understand a word of what I just said, that is perfectly all right, because I didn't understand it my self either? But this is about the closest that I could interpret Washington's policy stance on Syria these days.

          TooLegit2Quit on October 07, 2015 · at 4:57 pm UTC

          Some Russian humor here for you guys. The drawing is pure, unadulterated genius (does anybody know the cartoonist?) Oh, and the best punch line ever; these are leaflets dropped on ISIS =)

          Article here [propaganda puke alert]: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3261603/Don-t-make-worse-Helicopters-drop-leaflets-ISIS-rebel-fighters-warning-ahead-huge-Russian-backed-ground-offensive.html

          You can skip to the picture here: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/10/06/08/2D218BDB00000578-0-image-a-1_1444118222619.jpg

          PS; if you do click on the article and scroll down to the comments you will see that public opinion overwhelmingly supports Russia, this is happening in most news papers comment sections that I monitored so far, even the Guardian.

          -TL2Q

          [Oct 06, 2015] Turkey cannot endure Russian violation of airspace, president says

          That's how guardian handlers want turkey to react... Those US and GB dances about Kosher islamists vs. non-Kosher islamists are disgusting.
          "... Presumably the first step is to force coalition members to work with the government on airstrikes, rather than intruding daily into Syrian airspace. The tactics chosen seem to have the goal of harassing away the Turkish air force from Syrian airspace. ..."
          "... OH!!! The sky is falling! Turkey, that violates (using armed fighter jets) Greece's airspace over the Aegean DAILY, condemns the violation of its airspace. After having continuously violated the Syrian and Iraqi airspace (and bombed) for months. Oh the hypocrisy....! ..."
          "... they have exposed the West and NATO's complicity in keeping the Syrian war going, with the aim of removing Assad. It's quite brilliant geo-politicking. ..."
          "... Well, after only ONE DAY of military intervention Russia scared the s*** out of ISIS in their very capital. One has to wonder what exactly have the coalition of hypocrites been striking for more than a year!!! - because it surely does not seem like they were actually attacking ISIS. ..."
          "... We have had a nuclear deal with Iran and although most westerners consider Iranians, Turks and Kurds to be Arabs they are not. The alliances and interests are far more complex that just a Sunni/Shia divide. This is on the border of Europe, Israel and NATO. ..."
          "... Are you misinformed due to blatant western propaganda, or are you a misinforming propagandist? Minsk I and Minsk II were both initiated by Russia with EU states Germany and France; the US and UK were intentionally bypassed and left out (probably because we both supported Ukraine's war against the east). ..."
          "... Russia conducted Moscow I and Moscow II negotiations with internal Syrian rebel groups. The "rebel" groups that refused to participate were the likes of jabhat al Nusra and Army of Conquest and other extremist groups (most of which are manned by foreign jihadists); of which the truth has been revealed in the past week or so that such groups are proxy armies funded and armed by the US, GCC states and Turkey, among others. ..."
          Oct 06, 2015 | www.theguardian.com

          brews12 6 Oct 2015 19:29

          The west is not sure what to do now there plot to topple Assad has failed. The West thought Assad would fall easily but no. Then they tried arming the jihadis (sorry moderate forces) that didn't work. Then they set up Islamic state isil or whatever it's called now (funny how the name changes) they must be seen as the worst terrorists ever so the west has an excuse to fly aircraft over Iraq and then syria supposedly to destroy Islamic state but in reality to aid toppling the Assad regime (my apologies the butcher Assad regime)
          I always find it unusual that the west was getting much more friendly towards Libya and syria just before the Arab spring more than likely so blame would not fall there way when supposed civil war started.

          Arab spring conviently starts just as troops start pulling out or Iraq and Afghanistan.

          Some other questions we must now ask.

          1. 9/11 conspiracy theories now more plausible.
          2. Obama as president was this done as a smokescreen.
          3. Cameron elected UK pm way behind in polls and if not elected unlikely to get permission to bomb in syria heavily supported by sun newspaper.
          4. Turkey in nato why or perhaps we can see why now.

          TomFullery -> Richard Alan 6 Oct 2015 19:29

          You obviously don't know how bad things are now. USD 3'000 is just a pipedream these days and Ukraine is bankrupt (but the West doesn't like to admit it).

          I hear clowns on CIF daily talking about how the Ruble is in freefall but look at the Hryvnia. Every time I visit Kiev I get more UAH for my Euros, I get better service in restaurants both because the staff are desperate not to lose their jobs and also because as likely as not I, along with the ubiquitous loudmouthed, fatarsed Yanks, am the only customer.

          Ironic that I have profited from US aggression and empire building.

          TomFullery -> Marcedward 6 Oct 2015 19:24

          An apt description of the US as it thrashes around snapping and biting everywhere these days trying to remain world hegemon. But Russia has finally become assertive (Georgia and Ukraine tweeked the bear's tail one too often).

          China is playing the chess game which may last just a few decades or may last as long as the US has existed.


          kconroy869 6 Oct 2015 19:04

          In a strange way, the more I see and hear about Putin, the more I admire his principles. That is not to say that I think he is right with some actions, but there is a strong logic to his views and responses. He is undoubtedly a leader. Obama, Cameron and many others are more interested in sound bites and media control than actually doing the right thing.


          Shad O 6 Oct 2015 18:52

          The "bad Turkey", "bad Russia" post miss the point. The question is: why? Going through the facts:

          1. With with only 4 dedicated air-air fighters in Syria, Russia cannot be intentionally risking their their aircraft or challenging Turkey in their own airspace.

          2. The actions of of Syrian MiGs seems too timely to be coincidental.

          3. All incidents seem to involve Turkey. No other state, including those bombing Syria seems to be targeted.

          4. While the Russians were somewhat apologetic, another incident happened on the following day.

          Now, if we remember, the timing of the Russian operation coincided with the start of the calls for "safe zones", effectively pre-empting any further action in this direction. "Safe zones" were one of creeping escalation plans, which would eventually lead to strikes on government forces directly. Russia's plan is the opposite: they want to restore the government's control all over the country. For that they need to have the "anti-IS" coalition deal with the Syrian government.

          Presumably the first step is to force coalition members to work with the government on airstrikes, rather than intruding daily into Syrian airspace. The tactics chosen seem to have the goal of harassing away the Turkish air force from Syrian airspace. Turkey is the logical first target: with their muddy record of bombing kurds and armed incursions into Iraq (again, after Kurds), they know full well their position is very shaky, and that they are protected by NATO agreements only if the state comes under attack, not if their aircraft in Syrian airspace gets shot down.

          Russia's apparent apologetic response, followed by more incidents is unsurprising. Their current modus operandi is big on the "speak softly" approach. It allows them to follow up with whatever they want and seem consistent with their earlier statements. While at the same time, they can keep doing what they plan to do if negotiations do not give the desired outcome.


          Vocalista Metronome151 6 Oct 2015 18:50

          RT is just as useful in weighing up what is really happening in the World as any other media outlet.

          Let the reader decide eh...?


          log1c4l 6 Oct 2015 18:40

          Poor old Recep. He was about to get his safe zone for Nusra and then Putin deployed Su-30s, Su-34s and the Moskva with its S300s.

          Now he's crying into his beer with Breedlove and the rest of the Islamist/Ziocons.

          Rinoul 6 Oct 2015 18:40

          If I understand correctly, it is Turkey today the main sponsor of the ISIS and that is Turkey on the verge of revolution. And it is in this country population is largely adheres of radical views where the United States held nuclear weapons. And it is this country is supported by NATO. Am I right?

          Cydonian1 6 Oct 2015 18:34

          OH!!! The sky is falling! Turkey, that violates (using armed fighter jets) Greece's airspace over the Aegean DAILY, condemns the violation of its airspace. After having continuously violated the Syrian and Iraqi airspace (and bombed) for months. Oh the hypocrisy....!

          vampire76 6 Oct 2015 18:31

          People where prepared to turn a blind eye to NATO's illegal invasion of Syria if it meant getting rid of these terrorists, now that the Russians came along and highlighted how it should be done and not by arming the guys your supposed to be attacking, NATO should just get out of the way and let Russia do the job properly.


          Budovski -> Ximples 6 Oct 2015 18:27

          Turkey can endure spending 5 years of state support for terror networks and ensuring Jihadis can cross across its borders, and retreat back to recoup, but it can't endure an accidental 10 sec airspace incursion? Turkey has violated Syria's borders, bombing Kurds, violates Syria's airspace and also violates Greece and Iraq's airspace. When is this rogue state getting kicked out of NATO?


          Vocalista foolisholdman 6 Oct 2015 18:23

          All wars are bankers wars:

          LINK


          objectivereporting 6 Oct 2015 18:19

          NATO is laughable at best. Please shut the hell up and let the Russkies get rid of the evil named ISIS. You (NATO) had one full year and the Islamic State actually expanded under your air strikes. Few days and ISIS is already running away with families to Iraq and Jordan from Russian sorties. Only thing we need now is for Iraq to make a request for Russian assistance so we can finally "degrade and destroy" ISIS along with ground ops from the Syrian army. OK Obama? All legal according to international law as opposed to the bullying the US-led coalition used to interfere with Syria's sovereignty.


          Amying 6 Oct 2015 18:16

          NATO have no jurisdiction over Syria and the interfering in the country by Turkey, US, etc is illegal.

          Russia's presence was requested by the legitimate government. Only Russia has the authority to bomb targets in Syria.

          Turkey is not going to be backed by other NATO members if they taker action against Russian jets.


          Vocalista HouseholdCarvery 6 Oct 2015 18:12

          "The people/govts etc do have agency for their own actions y'know."

          Rubbish - the American people and the British people have no control of their governments as witnessed by Blair and Bush attacking Iraq after millions of people marched in both countries in protest.

          A recent vote for Syrian action was undermined in the British Parliament so the bombing is done by the back door without media coverage and also using drones...

          DavidEG 6 Oct 2015 18:06

          They, their masters and their NATO stooges Will endure a complete demise of CIA-trained "moderate al-qaeda" in a matter of week. Jihadis, moderate and hardline, are fleeing Syria in droves

          http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/609680/Islamic-State-ISIS-Russian-bombing-terror-Syria-Caliphate-defeat

          sutjeska -> Chiselbeard 6 Oct 2015 18:01

          The ones in Ukraine don't want to hack people's heads off for being not quite Muslim enough. They don't sell children as sex slaves, or dynamite cultural heritage sites. Also, they don't get training and weapons from the Americans.

          Kholrabi 6 Oct 2015 18:01

          Come on Cameron, you worm, repeat after me with all your fusty, clueless Tory parasite mates, soon to go the dodo way: Get Hague and the one with the snout to stand in line too.

          "Erdogan must go, we can't have peace in Syria and the Middle East unless Erdogan goes"

          "The Saudi Pillock must go, the whole gang of those murdering backwards must go, for peace in the Middle East."

          Send a pot belly to your best mate and equally useless worm, Obama.

          Say something decent while you still have the time; you will not make it to twenty twenty, or anywhere near that date.


          TomFullery -> Chiselbeard 6 Oct 2015 18:00

          You missed the US-instigated Nazi putsch there Dude. Things were ticking over quite nicely for years in Ukraine until the US tried a takeover.

          Russia checkmated and got a huge chunk of real estate in addition.


          Mmirra -> Hippokl 6 Oct 2015 17:47

          What do you think, would ISIS gentleman who wrap children in bombs and send them to suicide missions ever use civilians as shileds or would they try to protect them? There will be innocent people dying until the war is over.


          fotorabia23 -> TomFullery 6 Oct 2015 17:44

          Its ok..all the fascists are coming out in force...they can squeal Putin this that and the other..but we know what their true agenda is.Their group masturbation of Western -Israeli-Saudi imperial hegemony is coming to an end..and they cant handle it.


          Sarah7 -> johhnybgood 6 Oct 2015 17:42

          Don't forget Operation Ajax -- because the Iranians certainly haven't forgotten.

          Mohammad Mosaddegh was the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 until 1953, when his government was overthrown in a covert coup d'état orchestrated by the CIA and the British Secret Intelligence Service.

          Prime Minister Mosaddegh's most notable policy was the nationalisation of the Iranian oil industry, which had been under British control since 1913 through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC/AIOC).

          The 1953 coup was followed by the installation of the brutal and autocratic Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, aka the Shah of Iran -- whose vicious secret police, the Savak, remain the stuff of legend -- and the Iranian oil industry was immediately re-privatised and returned to British Petroleum (BP). Mission accomplished!

          Mosaddegh was imprisoned for three years, and then put under house arrest until his death in 1967.

          The direct causal relationship between Mosaddegh's decision to nationalise Iran's oil sector and the covert U.S. and British orchestrated coup resulting in his ouster could not be more obvious.

          Many Iranians continue to regard Mosaddegh as the leading champion of secular democracy and resistance to foreign domination in Iran's modern history.

          Alas, one can only imagine what Iranian society might be like today had Prime Minister Mosaddegh's popular brand of secular, tolerant, democratic socialism been allowed to develop and flourish.

          The phenomenon of regime change orchestrated and driven by outside influences produces terrible results -- in Iran those results produced the repressive Shah, who was followed in turn by the even more repressive Ayatollah Khomeini and the strict, reactionary, Islamic republic that still governs Iran today.

          See the 'Arab Spring' -- in particular, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Yemen -- for further evidence of U.S. orchestrated regime change gone horribly wrong.


          fotorabia23 Don9000 6 Oct 2015 17:23

          Bollox..'most Western nations'..the pious..the proud..the elite..the righteous..they started the war by arming proxy terrorists...creating a third entity in this filthy war..

          so 'the boots on the ground' are not English -French speaking and doesn't look like an embarrassing invasion...unless it its CIA-Mi6 trainers ..who hid in Jordan..providing training and logistics. Fact. Stop being such a shill.


          gossy Roguing 6 Oct 2015 17:22

          The Afghan Mujahideen were never just the peasants they were presented as - now were they? They had Stinger missiles and anti tank weapons supplied by the CIA The CIA's current crop of Islamic Jihadis in Syria have the same but what they don't have is any real support among the populations they terrorize. The Russians are seen as liberators.


          Simpleguest Roguing 6 Oct 2015 17:21

          I'd like to remind you that US, together with NATO, also failed to defeat the Afgans under far more favorable (for US/NATO) conditions (lack of outside powers supporting and supplying the Afgans), which makes them (US/NATO) all the more silly.


          murnau 6 Oct 2015 17:20

          Turkey 'cannot endure' Russian violation of airspace, president says

          Is this the same Turkey that ranges over parts of Syria and Iraq with its aircraft bombing the PKK who are fighting ISIS who are allies of Erdogan. Turkey shot down a Syrian plane which was fighting ISIS 18 months ago saying it had strayed into Turkish airspace but the plane came down in Syria. Didn't Erdogan ban youtube for a while when they had evidence of a false flag operation he was concocting to be used as an excuse to attack Syria. When the Kurds were fighting ISIS in Kobani Erdogan stood by and watched.

          As for the Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg isn't Nato violating Syrian airspace with its half hearted attacks on the Islamic State over the last year. The US state department laughingly report that cement mixers and excavators have been hit on the bombing runs along with Toyota pickup trucks that the US sent over.

          ISIS terrorists were leading cavalry charges across Iraq and Syria mounted on Toyota Hilux trucks provided to them by the U.S.

          http://www.abeldanger.net/2014/10/non-lethal-aid-toyota-hilux-trucks-isis.html

          Turkish war planes continued their airstrikes on Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) rebels group in northern Iraq and Syria - See more at:

          http://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2015/8/3/turkish-warplanes-attack-kurdistan-pkk-rebels#sthash.65CYhO5R.dpuf


          TomFullery Hippokl 6 Oct 2015 17:12

          Which innocents?

          How many?

          Which is your source?

          How do you feel about the 500'000 innocent Iraqi kids who starved to death as a result of US sanctions and which Madeleine Albright described as "a price worth paying"

          How do you feel about the US war against Vietnam which resulted in 3 million Vietnamese deaths?


          kenalexruss -> TarquinFintimlin 6 Oct 2015 16:47

          I don't know if you're an idiot savant or not, but you sure act like you can read my mind. How dare you suggest that because I question Obama policy, that I must therefore be in support of Russia? Only pathetic morons can come up with such illogical drivel. If you are indeed a realist, you must accept the fact that the US is in support of extreme terrorism and that's fcuked up, much like your moronic mentality. Pathetic.

          A realist sees things as they are and calls them accordingly.


          Abiesalba -> Hippokl 6 Oct 2015 16:42

          Make no mistake, the destruction of ISIS is not Putin's primary objective.

          Oh, is that so?

          With respect to Syria / ISIS, Russia has direct interests in defeating ISIS because ISIS is already operating (!!!) inside the Russian Federation - in the North Caucasus region.
          -
          -
          See for example:

          ISIS Declares Governorate in Russia's North Caucasus Region (June 2015)

          Note that southern Russia is also on the map released by ISIS in 2014 depicting the regions that ISIS aim to rule over within the next five years:

          map of ISIS (original in Arabic) and map of ISIS (showing current borders with state names in German).

          So Putin not only has the request from Syria's government (Assad) for military help which the 'coalition' striking Syria lacks. Putin / Russia also has direct interests in defeating ISIS. Apart from ISIS spreading to Russia via the Caucasus, Russia is also worried about ISIS spreading its influence into the Central Asian (Muslim) countries hence bringing ISIS to Russia's borders there too. In addition, Russia has a military base in Syria which is strategically very important to Russia (the only Russian base in the Mediterranean / warm seas).

          Russia is also VERY close to Syria and Iraq.

          So it seems to me that Russia has much more legitimate reasons for strikes in Syria than the 'coalition' and Russia also knows what it wants to achieve.

          And of course Russia has tried to get allies for intervention in Syria some years ago, when the situation was less complex and ISIS has no risen to power yet. It seems to me that Putin judged the situation correctly yet again.


          BG Davis Karl Gerhardt Hohenstauffen 6 Oct 2015 16:38

          What's odd is the number of up votes for this verbal and conceptual tossed salad.
          Turkey bombs Kurds because they are Kurds. Nasty, but not odd.
          Saudi Arabia bombs Houthis because they are Shiite. Nasty, but not odd.
          US weapons end up in ISIS hands because they were captured. Not odd.
          ISIS sells oil. Good business, not odd.
          It's awfully hard to build a conspiracy theory from unrelated obvious facts.

          The solution is Putin bringing Assad to the negotiating table.

          Now please explain what justifies CIA / the US training and arming 'rebels' in Syria? What the hell are the US and CIA doing there anyway?


          Abiesalba -> Vatslav Rente 6 Oct 2015 16:35

          It may be better to create an efficient army to throw out from the continent all American bases and to maintain neutrality in the dispute United States-Russia.

          Agree.

          Yesterday there was a comment here in Slovenia under an article about NATO condemning Russia over Turkey's airspace: Time for us [Slovenia] to exit NATO asap. It had already been too late yesterday. --- 91 thumbs up, 15 thumbs down

          Note that Slovenia was in Yugoslavia during the Cold War. And Yugoslavia was a leading member of the Non-Aligned movement which was in effect a buffer between the two blocs. So we were friends with both the west and the east and the third world. The Non-Aligned movement also gave shelter and support to all those colonies emerging in that period from the devastating colonial rule by the glorious west.

          Tito's funeral in 1980 was the greatest state funeral in history by the number of high delegations from countries around the world (larger than Mandela's). It was during the freezing Cold War, but representatives of both the Nato and the Warsaw states (including the UK), as well as China and many Non-Aligned former colonies attended.

          At that time, the democrat Jimmy Carter was the US president, and he was attacked in the US press and by the republican (!) George Bush because he did not attend the funeral personally, but rather 'only' sent the US vice-president. I think that this (a republican slamming the US president for not attending a 'commie' funeral) illustrates quite nicely what Yugoslavia's position was in the world.
          -
          But I think that in the present situation the EU should get closer to Russia. This really is in strategic and economic interests of both sides. Russia is also historically and culturally a part of Europe. It would be stupid to chase Russia away and make it get closer to China.

          The escalation of the Ukraine crisis was a bad mistake of the EU which then so stupidly followed the US/UK hysteria and imposed economic sanctions on Russia which are hurting both sides (but not the cheerleaders US/UK).

          And this constant vilification of Russia with respect to Syria by NATO and US/UK is revolting too.

          And anyway it is now clear that the EU has to consolidate its foreign policy and also establish some joint police/defence forces/border guards.

          And the UK will soon vote itself out of the EU too, which will make things in the EU much simpler. Because the UK as an US poodle is the one who endangered the people of all other EU members and made us all targets of terrorists. Remember how strongly Germany and France opposed the Iraq war.

          So it is now a good time for the EU members to get out of NATO, let the UK float off into oblivion and to consolidate our foreign and defence policy and seek actively to get close to Russia again (I do not think this would be difficult to do once the glorious US/UK duo is out of the picture). This would also make the situation of Ukraine much easier to sort out. And Russia would be pleased to be the 'big power' in this alliance.

          I would be really good for Europe to unite now (including Russia) rather than put another Iron Curtain between us and Russia (which would happen if the EU claimed 'neutrality').


          BG Davis 6 Oct 2015 16:31

          "Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the Russian government was not involved in efforts by volunteers to travel to Syria to aid the Assad regime"
          Exactly what they said and continue to say about Ukraine.


          John Kayoss -> PrinceEdward 6 Oct 2015 16:31

          Not only does Russia have no law against Homosexuality, but it is illegal to discriminate against anyone for sexual orientation or gender identity for employment purposes, thus it has better protections than the majority of US states.


          MangawhaiJo 6 Oct 2015 16:24

          In response to a question covering 1) The Bombing of the Afghanistan Hospital by US Forces and 2) The incursion into Turkey Airspace by Russian Aircraft, Nato's secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg response was (in summary):

          1) The Hospital bombing will be subject to a full investigation before comment should be made

          and

          2) The Russians should be condemned for a clear violation and serious breach of sovereign airspace.

          In terms of seriousness - these acts are hardly comparable ('War Crime' v airspace incursion), the lopsided answer by the NATO secretary general does nothing for their credibility.

          RobertLlDavies -> Manolo Torres 6 Oct 2015 16:21

          If you keep on diverting us with facts, it's only a matter of time before you're exposed as a "Putinbot". The only true sign of an independent mind is that you parrot US and NATO foreign policy.

          PrinceEdward -> impartial12 6 Oct 2015 16:21

          Religious Freedom exists in Russia, and there is no law against Homosexuality. Besides, the West's attitude about Homosexuality was the same 5 minutes ago. What do the "Moderate Jihadis" (not to be confused with Moderate Serial Killers, or Moderate SS Troops) believe about Homosexuality? When does the US/UK start the sanctions against Saudi Arabia?

          vr13vr -> SwissArmy1984 6 Oct 2015 16:17

          In other words, move the Syrians out of their own country and let ISIS have it. Which is exactly what ISIS wants.

          vr13vr -> Trumbledon 6 Oct 2015 16:16

          You are jumping to conclusions. First, it is the US government that declared them all civilians, which might not be accurate at all and is subject to how good the US intelligence is, which is questionable, judging the number of US errors. Secondly, it is also a matter of definition. By default, all the terrorists are civilians. So if it is opposition that the US supports, it will be "civilians" and "opposition." If it is opposition that someone else supports, it is called "terrorists." You also start with the assumption that somehow Russia cares less about civilians than any other country and I'm not sure where that assumption came from. The "weather forecast bit" was not a response to any official report. it was a weathergirl bit that very briefly mentioned the basic weather averages in the region as a curious bit of information.

          But before any discussion could be made, remember that the attack on the civilians has not been proven. It came from the Pentagon as some sort of assumption and in the age of propaganda war it is hardly a reliable information.


          coughined MeandYou 6 Oct 2015 15:51

          The Russians have outsmarted the West in Ukraine, where the West sponsored regime change, and now they have exposed the West and NATO's complicity in keeping the Syrian war going, with the aim of removing Assad. It's quite brilliant geo-politicking.

          Unfortunately, I think the yanks are going to get pretty pissed off; especially when the House of Saud is on the blower demanding they do something about Russian involvement.


          coughined -> PixieFrouFrou 6 Oct 2015 15:47

          They've been wasting millions of dollars of ordnance on a few soft targets. Why do you think 'all 41' anti-Assad 'insurgent' groups (they some how cease to be terrorists now the Russians are involved) have apparently united to fight the Russians? probably because the Russians are hitting real targets.

          You can imagine the terrorists/insurgents:

          "Fuck me, these bastards are actually trying to kill us!"
          "Yeah, nobody mentioned this when we picked up our dollars last week."
          "I'm off home to Saudi/Jordan/Pakistan/Portsmouth. This isn't fun any more."


          Rinoul 6 Oct 2015 15:47

          The initial strategy of the Turkish war against Syria was invented by former French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe (Alain Juppé) in 2011. Later, France withdrew from the cases.

          Juppe inclined oscillating Erdogan to support the attack on the traditional ally of Turkey - Syria - in exchange for the French support Turkey's accession with EU.

          Today, Turkey is a key sponsor of ISIS. It has betrayed its ally and plundered Syria. Turkey deserve better fate. Famous foreign policy Ahmet Davutoglu "There are no problems with neighbors" has turned out into a huge problems with all its neighbors, thanks to the foolish ambition of Erdogan and his gang.


          Abiesalba -> gimmeshoes 6 Oct 2015 15:45

          At the moment Russia is bombing everybody but Daesh.

          Re Russia allegedly not attacking ISIS - see for example here:
          -
          -
          Syria conflict: Russia air strikes stepped up

          BBC, 2 October 2015
          -
          The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Russian air strikes had hit a training camp and a camouflaged command post near the IS "capital" of Raqqa, and that 12 IS fighters were killed in the attack.

          Activists and residents of the city said IS had cancelled Friday prayers and emptied mosques, amid fears of further Russian air strikes.
          -
          -
          Well, after only ONE DAY of military intervention Russia scared the s*** out of ISIS in their very capital. One has to wonder what exactly have the coalition of hypocrites been striking for more than a year!!! - because it surely does not seem like they were actually attacking ISIS.

          Go Russia!


          gossy 6 Oct 2015 15:31

          Turkey should be more worried that the Russians are looking for ISIS training camps and supply bases in Turkey that the Turks provide on their behalf. These supply lines will need cutting and of course if any Turkish hospitals get bombed in the process, well, they can hardly object now can they? as this has become the approved method of dealing with hospitals.


          Bosula 6 Oct 2015 15:30

          Turkey, US, Australia and NATO backed France violate Syrian airspace everyday they undertake another bombing and drone attack. These countries are all in breach of international law. NATO should comment on this.

          Only Russia has Syrian approval to fly in their airspace.


          Manolo Torres xpeters 6 Oct 2015 15:29

          Much more people goes to Russia than to the UK.

          http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-the-worlds-second-largest-immigration-haven-11053


          Rinoul 6 Oct 2015 15:27

          According to the French political analyst Thierry Meyssan, it is exactly Erdogan "organized looting of Syria, dismantled all the factories in Aleppo, taken out equipment." Similarly, he organized the theft of archaeological treasures and created an international market.


          Vatslav Rente -> Abiesalba 6 Oct 2015 15:21

          Thank You, very interesting opinion.

          It is quite natural that Russia and the USA defends its interests. But I don't understand the desire completely economically independent of Europe, to make ourselves a nuclear target. Why? To obtain from USA questionable security guarantees against the "Russian threat" or to participate in its military adventures of the U.S. state Department around the world?

          It may be better to create an efficient army to throw out from the continent all American bases and to maintain neutrality in the dispute United States-Russia. I am sure it will bring the world more stability in the short-term... (but in the future Europe will participate in the redistribution of markets and resources on an equal footing, with the addition of China will bring more imbalance and is likely to lead the world to a new World War).


          SHA2014 -> truthbetold13 6 Oct 2015 15:09

          The Shia Sunni modern political divide unfortunately has been artificially created in a typical divide and rule fashion by the neo-imperialists. Most muslim countries or at least most individuals in muslim countries did not give a damn about this sort of thing. However certain powers that be thought that this is a useful way of causing trouble and maybe this has worked to a certain extend. It certainly fits the roles of the different regional powers Iran vs KSA and Turkey. I think the man in the street is really not bothered about this. Certainly if you want to believe that this is the root of the problem you also have to concede that the west's role in this is to support and use the sunni extremist in causing upheaval in the region under the guidance of KSA.


          RobertLlDavies Roguing 6 Oct 2015 15:03

          They had been fighting the pro-Communist (PDPA) government of Afghanistan for years before the Soviet intervention in 1979, planting bombs in cinemas and civilian airplanes, assassinating schoolteachers etc., backed by the USA and Pakistan. These were the wonderful "freedom fighters" we were supporting ...


          elder berry TarquinFintimlin 6 Oct 2015 15:01

          United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War, against post-revolutionary Iran, included several billion dollars' worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran

          from Wikipedia,
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war


          Rinoul 6 Oct 2015 14:58

          In October 2014, US Vice President Joe Biden said that Erdogan's regime supported ISIS by "hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons. There are rumors that the main source of funds to support ISIS today is the sale of Iraqi oil from the oil fields in the region of Mosul, where they are carefully protected. Apparently, Erdogan's son is the one who provides the export of oil controlled ISIS. Bilal Erdogan (Bilal Erdoğan) owns several shipping companies. According to unconfirmed information, he signed a contract with the European mining companies to transport the stolen oil to Asian markets. Apart from the fact that his son Bilal leads illegal trade brings big profit to ISIS, Syumeye Erdogan (Sümeyye Erdoğan), the daughter of the president of Turkey, has the secret hospital, located in Turkey, near the Syrian border. Every day the Turkish army trucks to bring dozens of wounded jihadists where they receive medical treatment and sent back to conduct a bloody jihad in Syria. Moreover, it is persistently Erdogan kills Kurds - the most efficient army to defeat the ISIS.


          johhnybgood 6 Oct 2015 14:51

          The West has instigated regime change to any sovereign nation that refuses to follow its demands. These are normally - accept Central Bank loans, accept the dollar for trade, and ensure that leaders do as they are told. They have got away with this since 1945.

          Iraq, Libya, Syria, Vietnam, and a host of African and South American countries have been exploited and worse since then. Since 911, the US went into overdrive with the War on Terror, and has been responsible for millions of deaths during several interventions. Now with Syria going the same way, Russia, together with other countries who are not prepared to see the world destroyed by crazy western imperialism, have intervened to put a stop to it. More power to them. The head of the snake must be cut off, and I do not mean ISIS, before the world can return to sanity.


          Abiesalba 6 Oct 2015 14:47

          "this does not look like an accident, and we have seen two of them," Stoltenberg was quoted as saying by Reuters.

          Two? Really? What a total scandal.

          Thinking about it, the US has been serially involved for a very long time in all sorts of wars, military coups and 'interventions' in other countries which involved "non-accidental" breaching of sovereignty of other states – including serial breaching of Syria's airspace for more than a year now. Some comment about that, Mr Stoltenberg?

          To refresh your memory, see this list of the US military interventions:
          -
          FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO SYRIA: A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS

          by Dr. Zoltan Grossman


          lids 6 Oct 2015 14:36

          Wait a minute: The nation that inherits the chair for human-rights at the UN (Saudi Arabia), is calling for Jihad against another sovereign member of the same council?

          Did they draft a fitting resolution for the committee to make it sound?


          Abiesalba 6 Oct 2015 14:36

          Breaking news:

          The US has its nuclear weapons illegally positioned all over Europe and in Turkey!
          -
          Well, decades old news, but very true.

          The US have their at best semi-legal (in reality illegal) nuclear weapons positioned in five European NATO members: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

          Germany (the powerful Merkel's government!!!) has been trying to get rid of the US nukes for years - to no avail. In fact, the US is now (under the orders of the Nobel laureate Obama) upgrading its illegal nukes in Europe.

          I am from Slovenia, and a few years ago we found out that the US has nukes in Italy quite close to our border. Well, the US nukes have been on two sites in northern Italy for decades (one site in the metropolitan area of Milano), but the Italians did NOT know about them.

          Ironically in the meantime, during the last decades, Italians have repeatedly convincingly rejected use of nuclear power in Italy in several referenda - even if this means higher electricity bills for them. Only to find out that they have been sitting on nuclear weapons all along. Surely Italians have protested - eh, the US is upgrading these nukes now.

          Oh, and how about the best friend of the US ever, Israel. It is NOT a nuclear power according to international treaties. But the Israel nukes - finally Pentagon admitted a few months ago:
          -
          It's Official: The Pentagon Finally Admitted That Israel Has Nuclear Weapons, Too

          March 2015
          -
          After five decades of pretending otherwise, the Pentagon has reluctantly confirmed that Israel does indeed possess nuclear bombs, as well as awesome weapons technology similar to America's.
          -
          -
          The US is really a totally dangerous country. Lying, killing, serially illegally overthrowing governments in other countries, serially waging illegal wars, serially committing massive crimes against humanity, serially training and arming all sorts of dangerous militant groups, serially breaching all sorts of international conventions that they did sign while refusing to even sign some other ones etc. etc. etc.

          Time to say NO to the US. Indeed, the cards of world power have quite substantially reshuffled recently - but the Americans have not noticed this yet.

          Now let us go back to vilifying Russia…


          Wareenan Kongsai 6 Oct 2015 14:30

          Isis are a nasty bunch why would anyone support them? I thought at least Elton John woul have said something about their erosion of gay rights.The church seems quite quiet over the genocidal destruction of Christian communities too. All of this seems a long way from the teachings of Jesus Christ, time to check the moral compass and find our way.


          Sarah7 Bosula 6 Oct 2015 14:25

          Indeed, it looks like Stoltenberg must have stumbled upon bellicose pipsqueak Anders Fogh Rasmussen's old Viagra supply and decided to double down.

          I couldn't imagine how anyone could be worse than 'Fog of War' Rasmussen, but Stoltenberg has exceeded my worst expectations and then some.

          Of course, NATO is a wholly-owned and operated subsidiary of the U.S., and it is the U.S. president, the Pentagon, and the CIA who set the tone for the outdated warmongers who participate in this international criminal enterprise.

          The time to pull the plug on NATO is long past due.

          Vatslav Rente 6 Oct 2015 14:25

          Clowns... ha ha ha:)
          Broke the space Turkey? What? This is normal when inexperienced pilots bombing Syria or departing from the Crimea (new Russia) violate the country's airspace with the interests of which could not have been deemed. What's next? The Turks will refuse the Russian gas, or 20-25 % of Russian tourists? The vassal of the USA shouts about sovereignty? WOW:) IN reality, no one here brandishing weapons, the capabilities of air force and air defense of Turkey are well known Russia. NATO understands this, every year American planes violate air borders of alliance countries and countries of the third world without warning. And that? - NOTHING.

          Abiesalba 6 Oct 2015 14:24

          Can somebody please explain what the US strategy is here?

          It seems to be this:

          While Assad's forces and CIA 'moderate rebels' fight each other (because this is democratic), they will at the same time fight together to wipe out together ISIS and those 41 or so 'insurgent' groups.

          Or is it that the the CIA boys will defeat everyone and rule Syria happily ever after as long as Russia keeps out.

          Back in the real world, Putin is the only one with a plan and he is right too: Assad is a part of the solution.

          When this devastating war ends, the only chance that Syria has is to have some rather 'firm fist' rule it for some time (and it can be Assad with some elements of opposition if they actually seriously exist as Syrians and not CIA boys). Then when the wounds heal a little, the regime can be gradually relaxed.

          It is not possible to go from massacring each other to loving democracy in one step. Building democracy is a process. Democracy / a fair society Middle-Eastern-style whatever it is cannot materialise just like that via a decree.

          Bosula -> Roguing 6 Oct 2015 14:23

          At least Russia is bombing so called moderate Al Quaida factions which the US and Turkey support. What sort of democratic regime would US backed Al Quaida lead to in Syria?

          Worth asking yourself this question and then you might support Russia bombing Al Quaida as well.


          Anette Mor 6 Oct 2015 14:19

          Western type of mess up. In war - no clarity who is your enemy, who is your friend and why. In peace - strong solidarity in whom to bully by not inviting to a dinner or placing in the corner talking over them Low life cheap approach. All gone down hill since they started eating on streets (and over own keyboards) and drinking from these horrendous paper cups.


          Bosula -> Reia Hriso 6 Oct 2015 14:18

          Turkey, Australia, US, NATO and their Saudi mates are supporting the Al Qaeda in Syria which is seen in some Orwellian way as moderate. The US and the Saudis are supplying Al Quaida with arms.

          Russia just sees Al Qaeda as another terrorist group and is bombing the shit out of them.


          truthbetold13 -> MahsaKaerra 6 Oct 2015 14:18

          But that is not true is it? There are more than that on the list i have helpfully attached below - and that is not counting covert operations:Guatemala (1920), Turkey (1922), China (1922-1927, Mexico (1923), Honduras (1924-25), Panama (1925), El Salvador (1932), Iran (1946), Uruguay (1947), Greece (1947-1949), Philippines (1948-54), Puerto Rico (1950), Korea (1951-1953), Iran (1953), Vietnam ( 1954), Guatemala (1954), Egypt (1956), Lebanon (1958), Vietnam (1960 - 1975), Cuba (1961), Laos (1962), Iraq (1963), Panama (1964), Indonesia (1965), Guatemala (166-67), Cambodia (1969-75), Oman (1970), Laos (1971-73), Chile (1973), Libya (1981), El Salvador ( 1981-1992), Nicaragua (1981-1990), Lebanon (1982-84), Grenada (1983-84), Libya (1986), Iraq (1990-91), Somalia (1992-94), Yugoslavia (1992-1994), Liberia (1997), Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Libya (2011)

          Sources: "Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798-1993" by Ellen C. Collier of the Library of Congress Congressional Research Service, and Ellsberg in Protest & Survive, "180 Landings by the U.S. Marine Corp History Division, Ege & Makhijani in Counterspy (July-Aug, 1982)"


          Zaurora 6 Oct 2015 14:15

          Under normal circumstances, this could be the routine*. A NATO-ally country and bordering Russian presence. However, Erdogan and minions are determined to make Turkey the battle field for WW3.

          What I wonder is, how come NATO is still capable of trusting Erdogan's government after all that happened since the Syrian war started? Does anyone not remember who tried to go on a full scale war on Syria with NATO's backing up? It was always known that most of the groups in Syria which Turkey supported were terrorists, not? At a point, some western governments supported them through Turkey too, not? And lately, reports of this fatal mistake started pouring down, not? Wasn't it 3 weeks ago when nearly all of the NATO members but Turkey decided on moving on with Assad for at least a while longer?

          Say, conflict of interest with Russia is understandable. Abandoning principles, not.

          *http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/03/military-aircraft-interventions-have-surged-top-gun-but-for-real


          Abiesalba 6 Oct 2015 14:12

          Here is something about those great allies of the coalition of hypocrites whom Putin is NOT 'allowed' to bomb:
          -
          -
          Turkey and Saudi Arabia alarm the West by backing Islamist extremists the Americans had bombed in Syria

          Independent, May 2015
          -
          Turkey and Saudi Arabia are actively supporting a hardline coalition of Islamist rebels against Bashar al-Assad's regime that includes al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, in a move that has alarmed Western governments.

          The two countries are focusing their backing for the Syrian rebels on the combined Jaish al-Fatah, or the Army of Conquest, a command structure for jihadist groups in Syria that includes Jabhat al-Nusra, an extremist rival to Isis which shares many of its aspirations for a fundamentalist caliphate.

          The decision by the two leading allies of the West to back a group in which al-Nusra plays a leading role has alarmed Western governments and is at odds with the US, which is firmly opposed to arming and funding jihadist extremists in Syria's long-running civil war.


          dadykool1979 -> deSales 6 Oct 2015 14:12

          Turkey is intrinsically unstable. Atatürk's post-Ottoman modern 'secular' Turkey was built on excessive suppression of ethnic and religious groups. Around 25% of Turkish citizens are long-violated ethnic Kurds speaking a Persian-related language, many of whom dream of uniting with neighbouring Kurds in Iraq, Iran and Syria, to form a geographically-contiguous Kurdistan. Another roughly 25% of Turks in the country's middle, follow the Alevi sect of Islam, a Shia-Sufi tradition very different from the dominant Sunnis; Alevis have been persecuted for centuries.

          And the remaining half of Turkey is divided along a spectrum from the secular Kemalist followers of Atatürk with their support in the military, to somewhat or highly religious Sunnis ... the Sunnis now fragmented in this huge CIA-funded standoff, with some Sunnis going with Prime Minister Erdogan, while others are under Erdogan's new biggest enemy, that CIA-funded 'spiritual leader' Gülen. Turkey in 3 or more fragments may be the result of all this.


          PaulWal -> Stretch23khan 6 Oct 2015 14:05

          Good question. It's all corporate. The media organisations have huge interests in the states. The U.S. Govt is a very vindictive, spiteful lot. One wrong report, and the fcc will come calling.

          It's quite funny that piddly little rt has been compared to these media behemoths that have had free rein for decades, with no censure and disaster ensuing.


          MisterPastry 6 Oct 2015 14:04

          Why do we 'endure' Turkey's support for ISIS? Why are we constantly being lied to about the nature of this Western-inspired series of regime changes in the Middle East? Since when has any violent terrorist group been 'moderate'? Why has the UN not condemned US, UK, Israeli and French airstrikes on Syria? (The Syrian government - the one recognised by the UN, regards them as war crimes.) Our leaders never answer these questions; worse still, our MSM never asks them!


          stevekeenan1 6 Oct 2015 14:03

          It is good news to have the Russian Government backing the Assad regime, otherwise the situation would be alot worse. The long time Syrian ally Russia has being flying sorties against ISIS and Al NUSRA(AL QAEDA in Syria), and they won't be as soft on those human heart eaters as their NATO counterparts have been. If ISIS had attacked NATO in Afghanistan, the US would have decimated their ranks within 24 hours. It is unbelievable that they cannot stop them while they use the 2500 Humvees the Yanks handed over to them.


          JohnSouttar 6 Oct 2015 14:03

          If any remember the complicated Iran-Contra affair in 1985 it involved handing over missiles to "moderate elements" in Iran in exchange for help with the release of US hostages in Lebanon. There was more to it but no one really knows who in the administrations knew what. That may well be true now. We have had a nuclear deal with Iran and although most westerners consider Iranians, Turks and Kurds to be Arabs they are not. The alliances and interests are far more complex that just a Sunni/Shia divide. This is on the border of Europe, Israel and NATO. Most of it smacks of a charade. Turkey looks out across the deep Black Sea at Russia.


          MonotonousLanguor Metronome151 6 Oct 2015 14:01

          According to GWB it was Mission Accomplished. Thankfully, we have a vibrant, prosperous Iraq in place now. Ever since GWB convinced the Saudi Royal Family to hold elections, we have witnessed a real flowering of Democracy in Saudi Arabia. Those elections Saudi Arabia could be real close. The Woman's Freedom Party in Saudi Arabia (WFPSA) could hold the key. Hillary has been a long time supporter of them and recently spoke to them in Mecca.


          jmNZ Metronome151 6 Oct 2015 14:00

          The chemical warfare blamed on Assad was perpetrated by one of the rebel groups funded by Arabia - and trained by the West.


          kenalexruss 6 Oct 2015 13:59

          Not a fan of Russia at all, but I am ashamed of my government for bombing a hospital in Afghanistan and denying it and especially about lying to the world about ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Those atrocities and lies don't serve me. They don't serve the American people! They are an injustice to all! These people would bomb America itself if it furthered their interests!

          Saudi Arabia et.al. created ISIS and the US stands behind and supports Saudi Arabia. The ties between the US and Al Qaeda just got a bit closer. All those wacky conspiracy theories just made a little more sense regarding 9-11...


          duncandunnit 6 Oct 2015 13:57

          turkey is been very childish, it is russia that is cleaning up all the shit that both the usa and the uk cause while creating and arming isis. Over the last few months the usa has proved yet again it can cause big issues that both it cannot sort out and that costs the eu a fortune.


          Abiesalba 6 Oct 2015 13:50

          We have Stoltenberg in the news here in Slovenia too. So here are some posts from the comments section of SLOVENIA's national broadcaster in relation to Russia breaching Turkish airspace (my rough translation from Slovene to English):

          The Turks are bombing the Kurds who are fighting against ISIS and are among the few in Syria who are doing the West a favour (nobody wants extremists in Europe).

          And the Turks have been bombing the Kurds for several months now, hence supporting Islamic expansionism.

          Considering these circumstances, I support Russians shooting down every Turkish plane entering Syria's airspace.

          I suspect that the Americans sold the Turks some junk planes at a high price anyway, so the Russians should not have many problems with them.

          --- 195 thumbs up, 19 thumbs down

          [Note that people have to be registered posters to be able to recommend comments. And recommends over 100 are a huge number for this website - we are only 2 million people speaking the Slovene language.]
          -
          -
          What? Is this [Russia breaching Turkish airspace] supposed to be newsworthy? Well, if the media reported every time that the Americans breach the airspace of other sovereign countries, they could just as well start sending out tweets – every second.

          --- 81 up, 8 down
          -
          -
          In the news: "The general secretary of NATO Jens Stoltenberg has already declared Russia's breaching of Turkish airspace to be unacceptable. He also summoned an emergency session of the NATO ambassadors where this topic will be discussed."

          Well, I expected an emergency NATO meeting to condemn the terrorist attack of their own forces on a hospital, murdering doctors and patients.


          --- 59 up, 1 down
          -
          -
          It seems this is the end of the line for NATO's bombarding of the Kurds. Wait for NATO to go totally bezerk when the oil smuggling route from ISIS to Turkey is cut off.

          --- 48 up, 7 down
          -
          -
          Oh, so the Russians have disturbed the coalition's routine and plans. Expect for news about many more such "incidents" to come in the near future. However I think that the Russians have thick enough skin not to be too upset about such propaganda sound bites.

          --- 71 up, 8 down
          -
          -
          Well, we can declare this breaching of airspace to be 'collateral damage' of the war on terror too. Now can the NATO members (including my own country) explain which 'collateral damage' is worse – flying into someone else's airspace where nothing happens or murdering 20 doctors and patients. Frankly, they should go and stick their drivel about airspace somewhere.

          --- 112 up, 9 down
          -
          -
          ATL: "NATO condemned the incursion into airspace of the NATO member Turkey and called on Russia to stop attacking the Syrian opposition and civilians and that it should align its fight against ISIS with the international community."

          Ha ha ha. The "international community" has been ASLEEP for two years, and now the Russians poked them a little. It seems that Russia is keeping the international community awake at night. GO GO RUSSIA.

          --- 128 up, 13down
          -
          -
          The Russians breach airspace for a few seconds. The Americans bomb a hospital. And the Russians are supposed to be the 'bad guys' here?

          --- 81 up, 8 down
          -
          -
          How are incursions into Yemen's airspace by the Saudi criminals going these days?

          --- 69 up, 8 down


          TomFullery -> EightEyedSpy 6 Oct 2015 13:45

          Which planes were they taking out?

          B52s, F5s, F105s, F111s, Hughies, Jolly Green Giants - basically every model the US military had deployed (around 4'000 in total).

          Anyway, General John W. Vogt, commander, Seventh Air Force (PACAF) can explain it better than me:

          "By July 1972, in the middle of the Linebacker operations, for the first time in the history of the United States Air Force, the loss-to-victory ratio swung in favor of the enemy. We were losing more airplanes than we were shooting down. This had never happened before anywhere in the world. Our losses were due, as I said, to our going blind into a heavily netted threat radar environment, confronting the best MiGs that the Soviets had available for export, flown by highly trained North Vietnamese pilots"


          SHA2014 -> Botswana61 6 Oct 2015 13:44

          THis is different now. Talking about learning from mistakes, the West certainly hasn't from the catalogue of disasters: Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria. Libya, Ukraine. Oh I forgot Vietnam. Not a comprehensive list by the way.


          Anette Mor -> SayNoToEvil 6 Oct 2015 13:36

          Russia count all nationalities in census. 180 last time I checked. About hundred of local origin with own land. All, even smallest got own autonomy in one of several forms available. All speak own language, tv, schools, court, official papers. State parliament low chamber got one nation-one voice representation so 80m Russians got as much power as some 100k nation. What independence you think they want? Freedom to hate and kill each other? Anybody wanting that (on American money) would face half of own nation who are not into hating neibours. You already brought your own vision to Libya Iraq and Syria - hate and violence. That is not independence. Independence is ability to chose for yourself.


          Johnnyw1 6 Oct 2015 13:32

          NATO is a relic of the Cold War. It lost its entire reason for being when peace finally broke out between USSR and the West, and it should have been laid quietly to rest. But that would never do, would it... the industrial/military/political complex keeps itself fat and rich by keeping us afraid, inventing enemies by the dozen, quietly looting our taxes the while. https://youtu.be/Jib1B2cyWpE


          Anette Mor -> DrDrug 6 Oct 2015 13:29

          There was a fight on Holand hight reported in Russian press between apparently former rebels who took Assad side and ISIS. The leader of these former rebels said he swapped sides after rebels group leaders were all invited to Israel for training. He thought it got too far and refused to go with the lot. They then attacked him and he took Assad side.

          TomFullery -> MTavernier 6 Oct 2015 13:28

          Russia didn't want a Nazi putsch in Kiev engineered in Washington.

          Russia didn't like the way the putschists were immediately talking about reneging on the Sevastopol lease when they seized power

          Russia didn't like the way the putschists started talking about banning the Russian language.

          Russia didn't like the attacks in eastern Ukraine by the Ukraine military.

          You reap what you sow.

          truthbetold13 -> jezzam 6 Oct 2015 13:27

          Odd comment when it was the US that deliberately caused the whole civil war, Assad has governed his country well for decades, and Putin has only just intervened at the request of the Syrian government. Think i know who the genocidal lunatics are here - but then i, unlike you, have a functioning brain.

          NewsCorpse 6 Oct 2015 13:20
          A year ago Putin was telling it like it was and still is. Russia has been incredibly patient and steady.

          <24 Oct 2014 Putin at Valdai (Extract Q&A)
          "I never said that I view the US as a threat to our national security." - "President Obama views Russia as threat, but I don't feel the same way about the US." - "The politics of those in the circle of power in the US is erroneous." - "I consider this absolutely unprofessional politics." - "It is not grounded on facts, in the real world." - "Can they not think a step ahead?" - "We don't stand for this kind of politics of the US. We consider it to be wrong." - "Look at Libya and what you did there, that got your Ambassador murdered." - "Was it us that did this? Who's fault is it? It is your fault." - "You must stop acting out of imperialistic ambitions and politics."
          https://youtu.be/Ykb5sxTl1Rw (7 mins)

          World Order: New Rules or a Game without Rules (FULL VIDEO)
          Its been called the most important speech Vladimir Putin has EVER delivered. Putin targets American exceptionalism, revolution building and asks if it is the US that has abandoned the global rule book? Putin was addressing a plenary session of the Valdai International Discussion Club, Sochi, Oct 2014, a forum for leading intl analysts focused on Russia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F9pQcqPdKo

          Compare Putin's clear headed commnets in 2014 with that of Karl Rove when GW Bush was President: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."


          snickid Reia Hriso 6 Oct 2015 13:19

          If a NATO was to fly a military over Russia airspace it would be shot down, without warning.

          Nonsense.

          US spy planes, for example, regularly overfly Russia with impunity, e.g:

          http://nationalinterest.org/feature/5-most-lethal-us-warplanes-the-planet-13364


          Anette Mor Middlengland 6 Oct 2015 13:17

          Voting matters very little. British arms supplied to "rebels" are already in Syria to kill Russians and British instructors are already in Ukraine to train Ukranians to kill ethnic Russians in Donbass. You do not know Britain is at war wirh Russia, but Russians do, as they are at receiving end. They know since Chechen terrorists, wanted by peaceful Chechen people for crimes against humanity, were given asym in the UK just as Russian oligarch stolen tons of money from the state and stake holders. 20 years on Britain is at war with Russia and you worry some vottibg going to maje it worse or may be hope some Corbyn coming to power may change it. Too little too late. Russians lost all patients and blown off, you still fail to notice how much you hurt them.


          StevenJ19 6 Oct 2015 13:13

          Turkey has a shameful record of double-dealing in this Syrian crisis, so its complaints should be treated with the contempt they deserve.


          adognow -> Jack Seaton 6 Oct 2015 13:05

          A war between NATO and Russia is certain to result in nuclear annihilation of most of the planet.

          Which is why Erdrogan is going to be tiptoeing around this issue carefully before he arms any Islamic crazy left and right. But that of course, assumes that Erdrogan is a rational player and is arming Islamists because of some neo-Ottoman delusions rather than the fact that he believes in the end times, apocalyptic bullshit that ISIS, al-Nursa and the other Islamist terrorists believe in.

          But nonetheless, the idea of NATO and Russia going to blows over Turkey is ridiculous and is political suicide for any NATO leader to suggest, especially if because Turkey started an incident by arming terrorists. I don't know about you, but I sure as fuck object to having myself irradiated over Erdrogan.

          Matt G

          Haider al-Abadi - "Council of Ministers considers Turkish airstrikes on Iraqi territory a dangerous escalation and a violation of Iraq's sovereignty"

          Apparently a few seconds violation of Turkish airspace is of top concern however the repeated violation and bombing of Northern Iraq by the Turkish air-force is apparently expectable. However, these violation go back a long time all the way to 2012.

          "The Iraqi government condemns these violations to Iraq's airspace and sovereignty, warns Turkey against any violations of Iraq's airspace and territory," government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement following a cabinet meeting.

          "Our country is exposed to external interventions. Every day we hear of aircraft from neighboring countries violating our airspace. The national sovereignty of Iraq is being violated deliberately or non-deliberately. We do not approve of that, and we cannot remain silent in the face of it. Others should question themselves on Iraq's sovereignty, security, airspace and territorial waters," said Maliki.

          On top of their Iraqi incursions they've also been bombing the PKK inside of Syria http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/turkeys-bombing-campaign-in-syria-and-iraq-is-the-last-thing-we-need-in-the-fight-against-isis-10422167.html

          and shelling Syrian Kurdish villages http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/turkey-denies-targeting-kurdish-forces-syria-150727133342474.html

          and http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/01/us-kurds-turkey-idUSKCN0Q632X20150801.

          However, that's only the half of it when you take into account Turkey has been buying and actively involved in the smuggling of Syrian and Iraqi oil from ISIS controlled areas and Turkey intelligence has been accused of involvement in arms smuggling http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/02/isis-detainee-turkish-intelligence-forces-helped-smuggle-weapons-to-jihadists-in-syria/. It seems somewhat hypocritical that NATO has overlooked this for several years.

          On the other hand:

          "I will not speculate on the motives … but this does not look like an accident, and we have seen two of them," Stoltenberg was quoted as saying by Reuters.

          As far as I'm aware there has only been one airspace violation. This second incident the accusation seems to be that the Russian Mig had locked it's radar onto the jet's.

          Separately, the armed forces said a Mig fighter plane had harassed a Turkish squadron of F-16s patrolling the border with Syria, locking its radar on the Turkish warplanes.

          However, nothing has been mentioned what side of the border the jets were flying Turkish or Syrian. However, considering the Russian Mig locked it's radar on to the Jets and the vagueness of the report, it's a good assumption that those F16's were flying in Syrian airspace and it was a warning.

          BMWAlbert , 6 Oct 2015 12:59

          Well, at least the Russians are popular with the kyrgyzstan Turks (boo-hoo):

          http://atimes.com/2015/10/kyrgyzstan-set-for-closer-ties-with-russia-after-polls/

          Looks like Kyrgyzstan didn't get enough cookies.

          haphazardly ,6 Oct 2015 12:59

          The United States should threaten to retaliate if Russia does not stop attacking U.S. assets in Syria, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in a Financial Times op-ed published Sunday, urging "strategic boldness," with American credibility in the Middle East and the region itself at stake.

          How stupid can Americans get... they still do not realize that the great and powerful US only attacks underdeveloped defenseless countries and not countries that are able to fight back. Russia can fight back and they're allied with China, so threats against Russia is unthinkable. Are they looking for WWIII or what? :/


          Krishnamoorthi 6 Oct 2015 12:52

          All the bastards who condemn the Russian flights straying for a few seconds or minutes in to Turkey have to remember that these are the same people who invaded Iraq and still continue to enter the Syrian airspace without permission from the Syrian government or a mandate from the UN!


          RetiredMD -> centerline 6 Oct 2015 12:51

          The US is sowing as many bad seeds in your mind about Russia as it can. At some time in the future they will need to make an excuse for hitting Russia either with ordinance or with more sanctions. The US is trying to slowly brainwash the rest of us in the world so we'll be quite happy when they make their despicable moves in the future. Not on my watch!

          butitisnotthisday 6 Oct 2015 12:51

          I presume the 5 mile exclusion zone "imposed" by Turkey is there to make sure ISIS and their friends, including the good terrorists are protected...apparently Russia does not give a shit about what the Turks say or want.


          peterpierce24 -> Mr_HanMan 6 Oct 2015 12:50

          I would not overestimate significance of polite gestures in politics. About two years ago Putin once remarked that 'Turkey yet has to decide where it is in Syrian conflict'
          in spite on the fact that Turkey wanted Assad to go. I think Putin just keeps his options vacant in relations with neighbours and blurring mutual disagreements.


          Lyigushka -> AboycalledBeaye 6 Oct 2015 12:47

          'Three army groups, including more than three million German soldiers, supported by 650,000 troops from Germany's allies (Finland and Romania), and later augmented by units from Italy, Croatia, Slovakia and Hungary, attacked the Soviet Union across a broad front, from the Baltic Sea in the north to the Black Sea in the south. SS units from the Baltic states were involved in rounding up Jews and Communists'
          Hint
          It's called Google...


          Middlengland 6 Oct 2015 12:45

          It is quite correct that Russia cannot violate Turkish airspace as a matter of International Law.

          However, the same critics of Russia are violating Syrian airspace without the authority of the Syrian Government.

          Having been asked to provide assistance by the Syrian Government, it would also be perfectly lawful for Russia to shoot down drones and aircraft which violate Syrian airspace.

          I suspect that this is the point they are making - UK be warned before we vote on yet more military action. You are not only violating International Law (again) but you are now playing a very dangerous game indeed.


          Mr_HanMan 6 Oct 2015 12:44

          Turkey and Russia have excellent relations, Putin and Erdogan are good friends because they are pretty much alike. Russia is building Turkey's first nuclear reactor a $20billion deal and theres the pipeline project to. Relations are so good that Turkey didn't say anything on the Crimean matter when it has its own interests in the crimea. Putin even wished Erdogan good luck in the upcoming elections and said he hoped Erdogan's AKP won when the 2 were in Moscow opening Moscow's grand mosque just 2 weeks ago. So none of this makes sense, I don't know why Russia would want to strain relations with Turkey.

          haphazardly -> Indianrook 6 Oct 2015 12:44

          I knew it was propaganda as soon as the MSM said that 41 Islamic terrorist groups are going to "unite"... They probably fight against one another on which social media to use for recruiting terrorists... Twitter, Facebook or Instagram.


          salthouse 6 Oct 2015 12:42

          It's a fair bet this incursion was planned (an accident on purpose) between the Presidents of Turkey and Russia, at their recent meeting, in order to boulster the image of the Turkish President as the great defender and wise leader of the Turkish nation under dire threat from a myriad of hostile and potentially invading powers, and thereby enhance and promote the chances of Erdogan's party, AKP, winning the November election in Turkey with a majority sufficient to enthrone the President, by a new constitution, as one close to absolute power and rule. All the fall out, the apparent outrage and counter threats, is probably false bluster.


          OlegB07 -> Bruce Alan Scapecchi 6 Oct 2015 12:40

          All countries of the West and USA are eagerly awaiting this moment ... And everybody knows the reason: ISIS is your friend and partner.
          And Russia destroys your partners in Syria. Of course it is a tragedy for you.


          JiminNH -> Indigo Rebel 6 Oct 2015 12:39

          Diplomacy is a delicate thing and Russia has been fixing for a war, clearly.

          Are you misinformed due to blatant western propaganda, or are you a misinforming propagandist? Minsk I and Minsk II were both initiated by Russia with EU states Germany and France; the US and UK were intentionally bypassed and left out (probably because we both supported Ukraine's war against the east).

          Russia conducted Moscow I and Moscow II negotiations with internal Syrian rebel groups. The "rebel" groups that refused to participate were the likes of jabhat al Nusra and Army of Conquest and other extremist groups (most of which are manned by foreign jihadists); of which the truth has been revealed in the past week or so that such groups are proxy armies funded and armed by the US, GCC states and Turkey, among others.

          http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/moscow-talks-syria-point-plan-150409094410056.html

          Of course, the late reporter Serena Shim proved that Turkey even armed ISIS in its fight against the Kurds; no wonder why Turkey violates Syrian airspace to bomb the Kurds but not ISIS.

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2799924/mystery-american-journalist-killed-car-crash-turkey-just-days-claimed-intelligence-services-threatened-coverage-siege-kobane.html

          Empirical evidence clearly shows that Russia has been critically involved in diplomatic efforts to stop the war in Ukraine and attempt to stop the war in Syria.
          The US has been nothing but a bystander in diplomatic efforts to end the wars in those two nations.

          So which is it? Are you a victim of propaganda, or a propagator thereof?


          BMWAlbert 6 Oct 2015 12:37

          Is the Turkish President speaking of the actual Turkish airspace or that airspace plus the 5 mile. With supply routes to ISIS and the other 41 gangs in the less-extreme terrorist alphabet soup getting weapons largely from Turkey, I imagine taht teh extra five miles would secure the crossings (a problem if the Russians do not recognize the arbitrary five mile zone)...this stpry makes me think that rumor's of the President's son being involved in the oil dumping trade with the Mosul refineries in N. Iraq may be true...he seems to be getting very emotional about a five second transgression in a grey zone.

          In other news, it appears that General Breedlove has been playing Dungeons and Dragons, calling the recently imposed RU de-facto no-fly-zone a "Sphere of Negation", sounds like something that might have been made in the golden days of Gondor. Obviously though, the RU airstrikes have been more effective due to better intelligence, must be one of the seven seeing stones.


          Foracivilizedworld -> PeterHG 6 Oct 2015 12:36

          And not just the Turks.. The US, UK, Franc, Israel.. and others...

          What I don't understand is that how politicians talk about respecting borders with a straight face....


          TomFullery -> Botswana61 6 Oct 2015 12:36

          P.S. Please, remind us what's happened to mighty invincible Soviet Union?

          A lesson possibly that no empires last forever.

          The US imperium is in terminal decline but as empires go its rise was remarkably fast and now it is declining before our very eyes.

          The US - the biggest premature ejaculation in history.


          hfakos -> truk10 6 Oct 2015 12:29

          Where did you get those numbers? We don't do body counts -general Tommy Franks. I guess that guy running the "Syrian" Observatory for Human Rights out of his Coventry garage is a reliable source to you.


          RudolphS 6 Oct 2015 12:29

          And while the U.S. is complaining about Russian intervention in Syria are the yanks knee-deep involved in another tragic civil war in the middle-east. Read Trevor Timm's article for the Guardian here: nullhttp://www.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/05/america-yemen-crisis-is-partly-our-fault


          The Western hypocrisy is deafening.

          TomFullery -> Bluebird8 6 Oct 2015 12:29

          It was 5 billion.

          And the neocons' useful idiots conveniently ignore the fact that the conflict in Ukraine kicked off only after the US-instigated Nazi putsch in Kiev.

          Interesting how the economics and finance ministers of Ukraine are Lithuanian and Polish (not sure in which order) - both countries being staunch US stooges. They were given Ukrainian citizenship on the day they took up their posts.

          US Vice President Joe Biden's son was appointed to the board of directors of Ukraine's largest energy company, also shortly after the Nazi putsch.

          The governor of Odessa is Mikhael Saakashvili, US stooge, architect of the war against Russia and now fugitive from Georgian justice.

          brianboru1014 -> NeuLabour 6 Oct 2015 12:26

          Agreed.
          ISIS are Saudi Arabia's Frankenstein and we in the West pretend to hate them but we love Saudi cheaper oil more than anything else. We really did not try to bomb them seriously, but the Russians know what's up and they are in the process of eradicating them from strategic areas in Syria

          fotorabia23 -> truk10 6 Oct 2015 12:25

          The Lancet reported that 567000 children died through sanctions after 1991.A later study, published in 2011, estimated that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the 2nd invasion. Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants.Your wrong.

          [Oct 05, 2015] An Up Close And Personal Look At The Russian Firepower Deployed In Syria

          "... command and control centers, ammunition and explosives warehouses, communication centers, mini-factories for the production of weapons of suicide bombings and militant training camps ..."
          "... finally ..."
          "... The Entire Mainstream Western Media Is a Troll Army http://russia-insider.com/en/entire-western-media-troll-army/5918. Good title, and, for the most part, seemingly true. ..."
          "... LOL , What makes you think the US was trying to defeat ISIS? Mainstrem fucking News Media???? Just go back to watching Dancing with the Stars or some shit. ..."
          Oct 05, 2015 | Zero Hedge

          greenskeeper -> carl

          this post misses the point. The point isn't russia's hardware, which isn't any more impressive than anything we have. The point is the russians are actually TRYING to get rid of 'ISIS', and are therefore able to do so. While the JSF is overpriced junk, Americans hardware has consistenly beaten russian hardware in every conflict they have faced each other. This isn't a hoo-rah, 'murika post at all. the reason US weapons and air power havent decisively defeated ISIS is becasue that is not what the US govt wants to do, it wants them to succeed and get rid of assad. Any modern nation can destroy ISIS from the air, the russians are just actually trying to do where the US was more interested in another misguided attempt at regime change.

          Latina Lover

          Technologically, most American Hardware may be ahead of the Russian equivalents, but lag when it comes maintaining it during extended battle conditions. Russian tech is designed to be very tough, versatile and fixable under battle conditions. In the Ukraine, for example, 50 and 60 year old artillery pieces still function despite heavy continuous use.

          Poundsand

          Actually, our hardware is a lot better, as our the boys who deliver it both on the ground and in the air. But you're right, we have a bunch of politicians who pick targets, play for PR points, avoid PR problems at all costs. How long did Barry wait to send in the boys to get Osama? (heck, 8 months just to get his facsimile shows you how bad it's gotten).

          Turn 'em loose and then you would see some shock and awe!

          My only concern is supplies. Back in '93 we are down to how many Tomahawks? Remember they destroyed the tooling to make them before they had the next one ready to roll out. Reliance on high tech weaponry is fine and dandy, until you need 100x more than you thought you would. Then it's back to mass production of whatever you can get to shake off the wing.

          MrPalladium

          "Actually, our hardware is a lot better,"

          It is certainly a great deal more expensive. The problem is that the defense contractors and the military officers monitoring them control the narrative on how good our weapons might be. You really have no clue until you encounter another capable opponent and run the equipment in the fog of actual war.

          So much of our defense budget is spent maintaining clearly obsolete equipment and base structure (shades of General Pershing's horse cavalry at the outbreak of WWII - my father was there at the time) including all surface naval vessels which would be destroyed in a few days in any war against China or Russia. Also, half the military bases in the U.S. are really nothing more than glorified jobs programs. And most of the many foreign U.S. bases are nothing more than U.S. soldiers as goats tethered to the stake as bait to provoke attack and obtain an excuse for war with the nations they surround. I know, I was in that position many years ago in Berlin and nothing has changed.

          We are thus the empire of the unready, shackled by the past and lead by fools.

          Mentaliusanything

          The USA is lagging (sadly) in the electronic protection feild.

          Currently the Russians have a capability (proven) to block F22 raptor short and long distance missiles, They have another more frightening tool which scares the hell out of the Pentagon

          http://www.voltairenet.org/article185860.html

          oh and something comes to mind about lead pencils continuing to work well because of simplicity - well that again is mandated in all Russian weaponary.....

          Buck Johnson

          Actually no, US military goods aren't better than Russian. Both have limits and draws. What the US is afraid of is the fact that Russia has the capability one to negate their advantages and two of course nukes. Remember during the second gulf war we went nuts when Russia was giving Saddam Hussein devices that scrambled cruise missiles guidance systems and others using GPS. Also Russia has advanced anti-tank weaponry that can destroy and at least disable our M1 tanks. And many of their stuff that they sell or use is old or was developed back in the 80's or 90's. Same with the US.

          cowdiddly

          To be frank Russia is still using some of its older stuff like the Su25s and su24 nice heavy fighter/bomber but which is being replaced by those awesome duckbill su34s but some of that old stuff still proved pretty effective in Ukraine.

          I mean who we kidding, if Russia wanted to they could level the whole place in 3 months with those Tupolev 22s and T95s and some moabs and thats still conventional. God help us all is one of those SATAN missiles was ever used, the deadliest fastest nuke of all. I even hate the sound of that wicked weapons name. Moscow to Ny in 25min, not enough time to find a good rock to crawl under. None would survive the response which makes this whole endeavor of poking the sleeping bear even more insane.

          This article came by my screen today and they supposedly moved two of these bad boys in place. An interesting piece to say the least. with a range of 300km I think from what I seen in Ukraine these might have been turned on for a second or two behind the border in Russia to give some of those battles a little bump but who knows, I dont think anyone can prove.

          I think its things like this that they are bitching about and shitting bricks because most of the ground troops look to be to protect an airbase that is operating 25km from hostile forces. Lets see the US do that. Impressive feat in itself

          And why use Russians when you have plenty of Hezbollah, Iranian, and Syrians willing to do the dirty work. It would be stupid.

          Jamming the Jihad. can permanently fry electronics and take out low orbit satellites.

          http://sputniknews.com/world/20151005/1028033057/syria-russia-electronic...

          Son of Captain Nemo

          We have Obama.

          Scares the hell out of me.?...

          What exactly scares you the most? The part about starting unilateral wars for the last 14 years that got us into this mess?... Or the fact that somebody else like Russia's military is going to take charge to clean up that mess and in the end show us just how bad we really are along with the crisis we made "refugees" and otherwise!

          Ode to the American clandestine establishment that thought John McCain, "Fairy" Graham and Retired General Vallely were the worst of your problems!...

          Son of Captain Nemo

          Adding to that part about how bad "we" the U.S. really is...

          This certainly caught my attention....

          Russians will be targeting "command and control centers, ammunition and explosives warehouses, communication centers, mini-factories for the production of weapons of suicide bombings and militant training camps". ...

          Just think how Syrians and Iraqis will think of the Russians when suicide bombers and IED stop going off in those places that have already killed upwards of 10,000 to 15,000 Iraqis in the past 8 months alone and who knows how many of the 240,000 Syrians that have perished in the last 3 years alone to them?...

          Like I said. I sure hope there are no Blackwater/Xi/ Academi types wandering about the ground right about now in either of those countries doing this on a weekly basis and finally getting caught?!! at it!

          It will be just like the roundups by Ukrainian rebels they suffered at the end of 2014 where many of them were shot in the back of the head and put into an open pit with no headstone or marker to claim them again!

          Johnny_Dangerously

          The Entire Mainstream Western Media Is a Troll Army http://russia-insider.com/en/entire-western-media-troll-army/5918. Good title, and, for the most part, seemingly true.

          Drink!

          stant

          Nobody here is really a Vlad fan it just comes out that way we post on the facts

          Lostinfortwalton

          You hate to be pragmatic but there probably aren't a whole lot of "moderate" rebels left. That leaves the 'chop your head off, blow your head off with explosive chord' ISIS. If the Russian Air Force can go for it and put an end to those savages, why not? Apparently the USAF and USN dropping one bomb a day isn't doing a whole lot.

          sgt_doom

          Brother lostinfortwalton, us sane people are with you all the way!

          Boomberg

          Those savages never really existed. Just a bunch of thug mercenaries given guns and license to pillage and rape all the women with impunity by the US and allies. They are disappearing rapidly now and going back home to be good little Muslims now that the party is over.

          viator

          Don't forget the Sukhoi SU 30SM advanced fighter which has very little use in Syria unless you want to shoot down somebody else's advanced fighter aircraft. Then it is very useful.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0S4Vrnmz7k

          bruno_the

          this puppy can fly too. Just saying:

          https://youtu.be/b-VNSJMiNt0?t=27

          Smegley Wanxalot

          Look everyone, people somewhere gotta die so that the US MIC can thrive. Guess those people are just the eggs obama said you gotta break to make an omelette.

          johmack2

          If IRAN is successful with iraq and syria, they should move to setup a Middle Eastern Economic Union that will eventually be joined in the AIIB and partnered with the Russian EURASIAN bloc. The "MEEU" bloc of countries should also act as a defensive ring(an ME NATO equivalent) with RUSSIAN and CHINESE BASES installed( TWO TO FOUR JOINT MILITARY BASES IN THE ME WONT KILL RUSSIA OR CHINA) as well as an economic engine capable of becoming an regional economic power house for the region. IRAN should also give RUSSIA an fighter jet operating BASE near the coast of IRAN for rapid deployment. IF you guys think the americans dont have something up their sleeves you are sorely mistaken, the first rule of war is never underestimate your enemy.

          BustainMovealota

          "..watch Russia do in a matter of weeks what the US has failed to accomplish in 13 months"

          LOL , What makes you think the US was trying to defeat ISIS? Mainstrem fucking News Media???? Just go back to watching Dancing with the Stars or some shit.

          AlfredNeumann

          Russia/Syria are the righteous ones here. Not the USA funded ISIS and Al-Qaeda terrorists.

          There is no such thing as a moderate terrorist (Lavrov said). He is Right. Act accordingly Vlad.

          spyware-free

          For those curious about Russian radar and air defense capabilities you might be interested in this;

          Top US and NATO Commanders Admit They Cannot Oppose Russian No-Fly Zone

          http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/top-us-and-nato-commanders-admit-t...

          "American military expert, a former Colonel of the U.S. army Jack Jacobs said that the United States can't interfere with Russians in Syria, as Russia de facto set up a no-fly zone, cutting off access to any aircraft with the help of air defense systems deployed on land and on ships of the Russian navy in the Mediterranean."

          "The Russians have indicated that they can see everything, and getting closer is not worth it, otherwise it will be shot down", - said the American military.

          "Frankly we were surprised by the air defense system of Russia, most likely there are the latest systems S-400. I have no other ideas," - said Colonel Jack Jacobs.

          [Oct 05, 2015] Major Interview (38 questions!) of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the Iranian Khabar TV channel

          Oct 05, 2015 | The Vineyard of the Sake
          At the same time, the lies they propagated at the beginning of the events in Syria, in order to promote their positions to their audiences, have started to unravel. You cannot continue to lie to your people for years. You might do that for a limited period of time. Today, as a result of technological advances in the field of information, every citizen in every part of the world could know part of the truth. These parts have started to come together in the minds of their people, and they have found out that their governments have been lying to them concerning what has happened in Syria. They have also paid the price either through terrorist operations, the terrorism that started to affect those countries or through the waves of migrants coming to their countries, not only from Syria, but from different countries in the Middle East. All these factors started to effect a change, but I would like to stress once more that we cannot trust Western positions regardless of whether they were positive or negative.

          Question 2: Mr. President, some countries, like France, used to have good relations with you, between 2008 and 2010. You enjoyed good relations with President Sarkozy. Why have such people moved to the enemies' side and started calling for overthrowing the Syrian regime?

          President Assad: Because Sarkozy was charged by George Bush's administration to build contacts with Syria. Those contacts had a number of objectives which aimed in general at changing the political line of Syria. But there was an essential objective that the Americans wanted Sarkozy to achieve. At that time there was talk about how the 5+1 group should deal with Iran's nuclear file, specifically how to deal with nuclear materials or the radioactive materials which were enriched in your reactors in Iran. I was required to persuade Iranian officials to send these materials to Western countries to be enriched and returned to Iran, without any guarantees of course. That was impossible. It did not convince us, and the Iranian officials were not convinced.

          When the West was unable to change Syrian policies, they found an opportunity at the beginning of the events of what is called the "Arab Spring", an opportunity to attack the states whose political line they didn't like. That is why the period you are talking about was concerned with appearances. In other words, the West opened up to Syria, but in fact that period was replete with pressure and blackmail. They haven't offered one single thing to Syria, neither politically, or economically, or in any other field.

          Question 3: What you said was about France. How do you read the positions of other countries, like the UK and the USA?

          President Assad: Their positions today?

          Intervention: I mean that France wanted to intervene through the relationship that connects you with Iran. How did other countries, like the UK and the USA get involved in dialogue with you at that time?

          President Assad: Yes. When we talk about these states, we are taking about an integrated system. We use the term "Western countries", but these Western countries have one master, which is the United States. All these countries behave in accordance with the dictates of the American maestro. Now, the statements of all these countries are similar. They say the same thing, and when they attack Syria, they use the same language. That is why when the United States gives the signal, these countries move in a certain direction, but there is usually a distribution of roles. At that time France was asked to play that role, considering the relatively good historical relations between France and Syria since independence. There is a big Syrian community in France, and there are economic, even military, and of course political relations. That is why the best option for them was to ask France, and not any other country. But ultimately, Western officials follow the orders of the American administration. This is a fact.

          Question 4: Does that mean that you know specifically what the West wants from Syria?

          President Assad: They want to change the state. They want to weaken Syria and create a number of weak statelets which can get busy solving their daily problems and internal disputes with no time for development or extending support to national causes, particularly the cause of Palestine, and at the same time ensuring Israel's security. These objectives are not new. They have always been there, but the instruments of dealing with them differ from time to time.

          Question 5: It seems that some of these countries, working on behalf of the United States, have very close ties with the terrorists, and their policies are identical with those of the terrorist groups. What is the damage that such countries, like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, can inflict on regional security and stability?

          President Assad: There are, of course, different kinds of terrorism in our region, but they are all overshadowed by what is called Islamic terrorism because these terrorist groups or organizations have adopted Islam without having anything to do with Islam in reality. But this is the term being used now. These groups are promoting sedition among the different components in the region in general. This means that the greatest damage is the disintegration of societies in time. Now, fortunately, there is a great awareness in our society about the danger of sectarian sedition, and the necessity of uniting ranks, particularly as far as the Muslims are concerned. But with time, and with the continuation of sectarian incitement, creating gaps between the different components of society and producing a young generation brought up on the wrong ideas, that will be a very serious danger. This disintegration will become one day a de facto situation, and will lead to confrontations, conflicts and civil wars. This is very dangerous, and it is not exaggerated. It is a fact.

          Question 6: Now, it has become common in international forums for states to announce that the Syrian crisis cannot be resolved except through a political solution. But Saudi Arabia and the Saud clan insist that you should step down from your position. What is your response to that?

          President Assad: What I said a short while ago: any talk about the political system or the officials in this county is an internal Syrian affair. But if they are talking about democracy, the question begs itself: are the states you mentioned, especially Saudi Arabia, models of democracy, human rights or public participation? In fact, they are the worst and the most backward worldwide; and consequently they have no right to talk about this. As to Erdogan, he is responsible for creating chasms inside his own society, inside Turkey itself. Turkey was stable for many years, but with his divisive language, and his talk about sedition and discrimination between its different components, neither he nor Davutoglu are entitled to give advice to any country or any people in the world. This is the truth, simply and clearly.

          [Oct 04, 2015] Wake-up call on Syrian army weakness prompted Russian intervention

          Notable quotes:
          "... If the USA has not intervened covertly, Russia would not have intervened overtly. ..."
          "... The basic rational always seems to be that US targets, including the bombing targets and civilian deaths, are legitimate, while Russia involvement is nefarious a priori. Russian reporting is usually termed ' Russian propaganda', while US reporting, which is as unified and unanimous in its judgement, just reversed, is seen as telling the truth. ..."
          "... "......British soldiers have been caught posing as Arabs and shooting Iraqis in the occupied city of Basra in southern Iraq. A group of them was caught yesterday by Iraqi police. They were driving an Iraqi car, wearing Arab clothing, and carrying weapons and explosives........police and civilians have been targeted and killed by "terrorists" or "insurgents. .........But this is the first time that any of those responsible have been caught in the act, and it is now clear that at least some of them are working directly for the occupying forces ..."
          "... USA is wining by sophisticate wide 'divide and rule' policy; so it remains very strong at influencing, manipulating and weakening its competitors. ..."
          "... It was America and its proxies which turned Syria from a relatively secular, functioning State into the mess we have there today by supporting those opposed to the government. ..."
          "... It's hard not to conclude that the US would rather have countries unstable and in ruins that under control of a leader that isn't one of their puppets. ..."
          "... The petulant warmongers in USA and NATO are now coordinating a major disinformation campaign. According to the President of the Russian Federation the lies about civilian deaths were even reported BEFORE the Russian airstrikes were launched. ..."
          "... Step down and - then what? What the hell's wrong with you people? How about the Russians are simply sickened to fuck by the spectacle of the psychos you propagandize for playing their little games? Dirty, dirty, weasly words. ..."
          "... whether its goal is to strike at Islamic State or, more likely, to take on any rebel force fighting Bashar al-Assad in order to prevent the final and complete descent of Syria into the pit of total bloody anarchy and slavery at the hands of a myriad lunatic death cults. ..."
          "... the root cause of terrorism is the original arming of ISIS by your US bosses (to fight Assad) and of AlQaida and the Taliban ( to fight the Russians), in addition to the prolific funds provided by the gulf monarchist dictatorships allied to the USA. ..."
          "... The US coalition is limited to preventing the Caliphate from spreading into forbidden territory but leaving it free to act in Syria. The columns of trucks and pick-up of Daesh which took Palmyra on May 21st circulated uncovered in the desert without being worried by the US Air Force. ..."
          "... The US strategy, the long term strategic vision, was to bring down Assad under the blows of ISIS. And when the thugs will be in Damascus and attack the Russians in Tartus, the americans will support them until the Russians will withdraw, finally the US will bomb and destroy in half a day all the Califat's army which they contributed to create (the good guys). ..."
          Oct 01, 2015 | The Guardian


          Normin 2 Oct 2015 13:16

          Russia had to step in and bring attention to the proxy groups operating in Syria under US support. After years of lies the divide and conquer, regime change to puppet government plan has been exposed.

          The US support of these groups against Assad coincides with Israeli security concerns which deem a destabilized Middle East a boost to Israel's security. This unprecedented foreign state influence starts in Washington with Congress, various advisers, think tanks, lobby groups, and full media support.

          It's interesting to see how Russia acts to pursue state interests without being hobbled by the concerns and questionable influence of another country that does not have similar foreign policy interests as the USA. Time for a change in US policy, it's long overdue.

          mgeary 2 Oct 2015 12:56

          Sadly, as always in war the truth is amongst the first victims.

          This conflict is another product of the old "divide and conquer" tactic, adapted to the current reality. When you do not like a nation`s leadership, you find a group of dissidents, train them, arm them and let them loose.

          The civilians, women and children killed, the lives ruined and the homes lost are just collateral damage.

          The situation in Syria is by the making of the powers involved, so complicated, with so many factions involved, that we should be very careful when we pass judgement.
          Several of the people commenting here and some reporters have already done so with bias, according to their interests.

          Thomas Hood -> eelolondon 2 Oct 2015 12:44

          If the USA has not intervened covertly, Russia would not have intervened overtly.

          Glauber Brito 2 Oct 2015 11:25

          It is difficult to criticize Russian involvement in the Syria, when considering that it has been the US invasion and occupation in Iraq, which incidentally claimed well over 100,000 civilian lives, that sent the entire Middle East into turmoil.

          The basic rational always seems to be that US targets, including the bombing targets and civilian deaths, are legitimate, while Russia involvement is nefarious a priori. Russian reporting is usually termed ' Russian propaganda', while US reporting, which is as unified and unanimous in its judgement, just reversed, is seen as telling the truth.

          Which is exactly what the Russians are telling their viewers and listeners. It would be utterly refreshing, if the media would start demonstrating the same critical bias towards the government and the use of language, as they do of the Russians.


          Madranon LaterNow 2 Oct 2015 09:16

          I suspect that this is all about the House of Saud's internal war manifesting in proxy wars destabilising the region in some sick power struggle between the royal families.
          Besides, the only real victims in this are the non Sunnis, the groups that Saudi Arabia has long persecuted within its own borders for decades. The aim, i believe is a totally Sunni middle east with all other sects and religions driven out or exterminated. With the help of western weapons, Britain likes to make a few bob out of any civil war and regional horror.

          WhetherbyPond -> diddoit 2 Oct 2015 03:13

          "the term Ziocons is offensive."

          I meant to give offence. Being violently nationalistic, expansionist, racist and corrupt is offensive. If the apartheid state of Israel was any other country the west would be up in arms and calling for sanctions and regime change; however, because of the vile actions of the Nazi's and others, and the fact that the west did very little to help the poor souls who were being persecuted and murdered, the Ziocons use the guilt that is rightly felt in the west as a shield to cover their actions and silence their critics.


          SHappens 123dcp 2 Oct 2015 02:16

          US journalist Nir Rosen wrote in 2012, "every day the opposition gives a death toll, usually without explanation ... Many of those reported killed are in fact dead opposition fighters ... but described in reports as innocent civilians killed by the security forces ."
          http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/21/the-douma-market-attack-a-fabricated-pretext-for-intervention/

          The figures about casualties comes from The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (OSDH) is an agency close to the rebels financed by Arab monarchies and Western states and headquartered in London. It publishes its toll of months of war Syria. These macabre figures reveal surprising dishonesty of traditional media and contradict the pro-interventionist propaganda. Note that Reuters was not allowed to check their figures.

          The OSDH announced that there would have been 220,271 deaths.

          Nearly half of the victims of war are soldiers and loyalist militiamen.

          The number of "Bashar soldiers" killed is higher than the number of civilians killed. On the other hand, the Syrian Arab army is essentially composed of conscripts, that is to say citizens who defend their country, their institutions and their government, we can say that the army is inseparable from the Syrian people.

          Therefore, it is also dishonest to hold Assad responsible for the deaths of more than 220,000 Syrians as do the media and provocative militants since the first victim of the war in Syria is the army, so the people in uniform, so the "people pro-Assad".

          Let us turn now to the number of civilian casualties. The OSDH counted 104,629 killed.

          This figure does not distinguish the Syrians that could be broadly described as "pro-government" or "pro-rebellion".

          The number of civilians, including women and children, which can be in the pro-Assad camp of anti-rebel or neutral is probably extremely high especially if one takes into account the mass killings which occurred by terrorist groups in the Kurdish areas of the north of the country, in neighborhoods and Shiite villages and Christian and among the Sunni patriots all over the country.

          The anti-government armed groups have also claimed hundreds of executions of civilians including children, suspected of sympathy with the Syrian regime.

          As for victims of the armed opposition, the OSDH recorded 37,336 killed, twice less than killed Syrian soldiers (90,000) and one fifth of the total number of victims of war (220,271).

          These armed groups are themselves engaged in wars that cause the death of many pro-rebel fighters and their families. Thus among the 104,629 civilian victims of the Syrian confit, it should take into account hundreds of rebels killed by pro-rebel civilians.

          On reading the tragic toll of the OSDH, the Syrian situation shows that this is not Bashar, but the rebellion that is killing the Syrian people. Therefore, the Syrian state is right to fight against terrorism to restore peace in the country like any other state in the world

          Which leads us to defend the non-interference and peace in Syria, with Assad.
          http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/04/310000-people-killed-since-the-beginning-of-the-syrian-revolution/


          GERALD710 -> eelolondon
          2 Oct 2015 00:47

          I agree and disagree.
          The protests began in Daraa. Where the protesters did an idiotic thing. The region was suffering from a severe drought. Now instead of protesting for relief aid, they were protesting for the downfall of the regime?????

          There was nothing at all peaceful in the protests of Hama and Homs in 2011 where protestors deliberately murdered policemen and women and the Muslim Botherhood was busy already chanting 'Alawites in Coffins and Christians to Beirut'. A very dangerous chant in the two cities where minorities made up more than a third of the population.

          I am sorry, if a bunch of Islammist nutjobs start talking of putting my people in coffins and deporting my allies to Beirut, I would have leveled them to the Ground. Have you seen the Old City of Homs? That would have been anyone's reaction.

          Sparingpartner 1 Oct 2015 20:45

          If you can't own the economy, fuck the place up! Great policy in the so called propagation of democratic freedoms... and while you are at it, explain to me once gain why Australia needs to not only be involved in this inglorious cluster-fuck but want to urge the Americans to step it up - like they're not doing enough?

          Sweet Jesus in heaven save me from the do-gooders in this world!

          buildabridge -> Clark8934 1 Oct 2015 20:34

          Or a deliberate cunning foreign policy to divide and create chaos?

          Back in 2005 Bashra under occupation by British forces:

          "......British soldiers have been caught posing as Arabs and shooting Iraqis in the occupied city of Basra in southern Iraq. A group of them was caught yesterday by Iraqi police. They were driving an Iraqi car, wearing Arab clothing, and carrying weapons and explosives........police and civilians have been targeted and killed by "terrorists" or "insurgents. .........But this is the first time that any of those responsible have been caught in the act, and it is now clear that at least some of them are working directly for the occupying forces"

          http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=1556

          buildabridge -> ComradeFunk 1 Oct 2015 20:15

          Not so sure. USA is still the strongest military power with the furthest reach by miles. It has the smartest and best funded Foreign Offices and Spy Networks, human and electronic. This chaos in the Middle East, any slowly further North, is US foreign policy firing on all cylinders, to create chaos in Eurasia to prevent Eurasia from settling down and trading peacefully with each other, and so USA becoming sidelined. USA is succeeding and winning with minimal loss, far away from Eurasia. USA remains strong and Eurasia becomes weaker fighting with itself, just like WW1 and WW2.

          USA is wining by sophisticate wide 'divide and rule' policy; so it remains very strong at influencing, manipulating and weakening its competitors.

          mandzorp -> eelolondon 1 Oct 2015 18:06

          Russia are bombing in support of the government of Syria. It was America and its proxies which turned Syria from a relatively secular, functioning State into the mess we have there today by supporting those opposed to the government.

          cherryredguitar -> tubes99 1 Oct 2015 17:47

          Just making the point that the US/UK are on the same side as Islamic nutters who eat dead people's internal organs.

          TheChillZone -> LoveisEternal 1 Oct 2015 17:26

          Yeah, whereas the West's nation building in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc has gone soon well. Russia can't do any worse than us....and at least hey are doing something to fight isis and the legions of terrorsst groups that are lining up to take control of Syria. It's hard not to conclude that the US would rather have countries unstable and in ruins that under control of a leader that isn't one of their puppets.

          KriticalThinkingUK 1 Oct 2015 15:07

          As a matter of fact the Russian intervention at Syria's invitation was necessary because of the failure of the US to halt ISIS. Yes, the same ISIS that the USA originally armed ( to fight Assad). Syrian Government forces currently control territory that holds 80% of the Syrian population and you can be sure that ISIS are now doomed by the coalition of Syria, Russia, Iran, Iraq and others, with or without the support of the outmaneuvered (again) USA.

          The petulant warmongers in USA and NATO are now coordinating a major disinformation campaign. According to the President of the Russian Federation the lies about civilian deaths were even reported BEFORE the Russian airstrikes were launched.

          Politicians across Europe are welcoming Russia's intervention as the only long term solution to the refugee crisis and literally hundreds of millions of Europeans are supporting Russia's attack on ISIS, whatever lies you may read from the old cold warriors and their oligarch's press in the US and UK.


          retsdon 1 Oct 2015 17:20

          whether its goal is to strike at Islamic State or, more likely, to take on any rebel force fighting Bashar al-Assad in order to shore up his position and stave off demands that he step down.

          Step down and - then what? What the hell's wrong with you people? How about the Russians are simply sickened to fuck by the spectacle of the psychos you propagandize for playing their little games? Dirty, dirty, weasly words.

          Here, try the truth.

          whether its goal is to strike at Islamic State or, more likely, to take on any rebel force fighting Bashar al-Assad in order to prevent the final and complete descent of Syria into the pit of total bloody anarchy and slavery at the hands of a myriad lunatic death cults.

          You just can't bring yourselves to admit that your neo-liberal masters have cocked their little adventure up completely this time, can you? Eh?


          Realworldview 1 Oct 2015 17:04

          Wake-up call on Syrian army weakness prompted Russian intervention

          Very true, the collapse of the Syrian army was looking increasingly likely. This interesting article on the Saker website adds further clarity, by discussing what will not happen, what will happen, what has already happened, and what might happen. Finally some clarity about the Russian plans about Syria that ends with this paragraph, which raises the prospect of some "interesting times" in Syria and the wider Middle East:

          Of course, I am under no illusions about any real change of heart in the imperial "deep state". What we see now is just a tactical adaptation to a situation which the US could not control, not a deep strategic shift. The rabid Russophobes in the West are still out there (albeit some have left in disgust ) and they will now have the chance to blame Russia for anything and everything in Syria, especially if something goes really wrong. Yes, Putin has just won another major victory against the Empire (where are those who claimed that Russia had "sold out" Syria?!), but now Russia will have to manage this potentially "dangerous victory".

          If nothing else, it explains the wall to wall media propaganda blitz that started with the first Russian air strikes.

          KriticalThinkingUK -> psygone 1 Oct 2015 16:45

          Wake up psygoon...

          the root cause of terrorism is the original arming of ISIS by your US bosses (to fight Assad) and of AlQaida and the Taliban ( to fight the Russians), in addition to the prolific funds provided by the gulf monarchist dictatorships allied to the USA. Its a fact whether you like it or not...the US propaganda offensive to try and cover up their stupidity will go nowhere. The truth will out and the terrorists will be destroyed by the coalition of Syria, Russia, Iran and Iraq etc, with or without the support of the USA. The Russian intervention against ISIS has massive support in Europe, who can take no more refugees. Europe, the whole of the middle east, Russia and above all the Syrian people (especially the Kurd and Christian minority communities) all need a stable government in Syria, not another failed state like Libya and Iraq.


          Abiesalba -> Jack Seaton 1 Oct 2015 16:02

          As for ISIS being a threat to Russia, does anyone seriously believe that ISIS are going to get anywhere near those maps you linked to?

          Yes. The media in the European countries which are on the ISIS map reported about this map with concern already when it was published a year ago. (One of the links to ISIS maps in my previous post goes to Slovenia's national broadcaster, the other to an Austrian newspaper - both Slovenia and Austria are on the ISIS map).

          Because unlike you, we understand that ISIS does not have to physically occupy all these countries. Its strategy is to first have groups pledging allegiance to ISIS in these countries. And in this respect, ISIS is VERY successful and has in only one year spread its influence into rather many countries. Besides, it has also claimed incredibly much territory in Syria and Iraq, while the US-led coalition (comprising very mighty armies) claim they are fighting against them!

          And ISIS is already in the Russian Federation!!!! See for example:
          -
          -
          8 ISIS supporters killed in N. Caucasus special op

          (2 August 2015)

          Russian security forces have foiled a terrorist group that recently pledged allegiance to ISIS in Ingushetia, in the Northern Caucasus, according to the National Anti-Terror Committee (NAC). Security forces seized explosives, weapons and over 2,000 rounds of ammunition.
          -
          -
          How Russian Militants Declared A New ISIS 'State' In Russia's North Caucasus

          (26 June 2015)

          The Islamic State group announced the creation of its northernmost province this week, after accepting a formal pledge of allegiance from former al Qaeda militants in the North Caucasus region of Russia.

          Clark8934 1 Oct 2015 16:01

          The west is physiologically defunct. Fact. Their fragile idealistic bits-and-pieces approach to having a belief system, full of irrational claptrap is being so painfully allowing the Syrian conflict to run and run.

          However terrifying the reality becomes the west withdraws into a sort of elitist denial and always seem to have international law on their side however many times they break it!

          It seems a long time ago now that anyone in the West thought and articulated with such clarity, realism, and sense as the Russians. The political correct bigots in the West created this situation , one where no-one dare talk sense for fear of ridicule. Long live Putin.


          AgeingAlbion 1 Oct 2015 15:30

          Putin at least has been consistent throughout. He has backed Assad from day one.

          The west first thought it was going to be another wonderful Arab Spring, then thought they could manage to back the "right" rebels as opposed to Isis, then said chemical weapons were a "red line" them failed to do anything when the red line was crossed then said Assad must go before negotiations and now meekly accept he might have to be part of the solution.

          How much has that dithering achieved and how many lives has it cost? If Russia moves in directly and uses the Red Army to destroy Isis will it really be worse than our messing around?

          SHappens 1 Oct 2015 15:26

          Good summary. As an add on from Dr Bachar al-Jaafari, permanent syrian UN delegate 16/09/2015

          - In the North, there are outlawed groups of called armed terrorists " Armed with the conquest " [Jaïch al-Fath], financed by Qatar and Turkey, that sends every day thousands of shells on Aleppo, killing hundreds and mutilating thousands of our citizens, preventing them from meeting their elementary needs on a daily basis.

          In the South, rages another terrorist army financed by Saudi Arabia and Jordan, member state of this organization, country brother and neighbor of Syria. An army which proceeds in the same way by despicable terrorist acts against our citizens in this region.

          In the suburbs of Damascus(damask), rages another army from the city of the Duma, a group of terrorists financed by Saudi Arabia, called up " Armed with the Islam " [Aich al Islam].

          There are three terrorists groups who are armed, the first under the command of Turkey, the second in command of the Jordan, the third under the command of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Backed up by the US, UK and France.

          The US coalition is limited to preventing the Caliphate from spreading into forbidden territory but leaving it free to act in Syria. The columns of trucks and pick-up of Daesh which took Palmyra on May 21st circulated uncovered in the desert without being worried by the US Air Force.

          The US coalition's airstrikes look like at best a gesture, at worst a smokescreen for future bombing campaign against Syria. The war prevented on September 2013 would be triggered under a new guise. But Russia took the ground. The priority is the fight against jihadism, associated with integrating the power of the political opposition, elections and a regional peace conference.

          The US strategy, the long term strategic vision, was to bring down Assad under the blows of ISIS. And when the thugs will be in Damascus and attack the Russians in Tartus, the americans will support them until the Russians will withdraw, finally the US will bomb and destroy in half a day all the Califat's army which they contributed to create (the good guys).

          Russia is about to put an end to this circus, hopefully with little collateral damage (thus beware of western propaganda on civilians toll) having high weapons tech to select targets accurately as mentioned in this article.


          Abiesalba -> KriticalThinkingUK 1 Oct 2015 15:22

          Politicians across Europe are welcoming Russia's intervention as the only long term solution to the refugee crisis and literally hundreds of millions of Europeans are supporting Russia's attack on ISIS, whatever lies you may read from the old cold warriors and their oligarch's press in the US and UK.

          Very true. Here is Slovenia, the public opinion seems to be very strongly siding with Russia and against the insane US (judging from comments on forums).

          And the US/UK media are truly an amazing brainwashing propaganda machine, straight from Orwell's 1984.


          Jan Burton 1 Oct 2015 14:47

          Russia isn't dumb or dishonest enough to make the meaningless distinctions between ISIS and other Islamist groups that the west insists on making. They're all out for the same thing and only differ on the details.

          Putin in merely doing what needs to be done.

          cherryredguitar 1 Oct 2015 14:48

          Given that the so-called moderate rebels have a leader who videoed himself cutting a dead person's body open and eating one of the guys internal organs, the Russians are right not to differentiate between them and Isis.

          Destroy all the extremists, even the ones that the Americans and Saudis like.

          Abiesalba -> RobertNeville 1 Oct 2015 14:46

          the Russians are allowed to fly the skies of Syria and the US is not.

          Yes. Because the Syrian government asked Russia for a military intervention, whereas the US apparently have some superior right to illegally breach international borders as they wish and bomb whomever they like (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Pakistan).

          By the way, the very fact that Iraqi government asked for a military intervention is used by the US-led coalition to justify their strikes in Iraq.

          jvillain -> Mr Russian 1 Oct 2015 14:44

          The US, France and finally to a slightly lesser degree the UK want Assad gone more than they want ISIS, Al Quaida or the Army of God gone. If Assad falls all his weapons will belong to ISIS and crew as well as having total control of a state. The so called rebels are only 5% or so of the people fighting. All the other opposition groups have either merged with ISIS or been eliminated.

          If Assad falls there will no longer be a choice but to put western boots on the ground in Syria in a big way.

          WhetherbyPond 1 Oct 2015 14:43

          The Ziocons in the US are very upset that their geopolitical game is being thwarted by Russia.


          Abiesalba -> Mr Russian 1 Oct 2015 14:41

          It surely is interesting how the Anglo-American media today went all hysterical about the alleged civilian casualties in Russian air strikes.

          Well, how about some hysteria about this then:
          -
          -
          About 3000 people, including 162 civilians, killed in US- coalition airstrikes on areas in Syria

          The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, June 2015
          -
          SOHR documented the death of 2896 people at least since the beginning of the U.S led coalition air strikes on Syria in 23/Sep until this morning, while hundreds others were wounded, vast majority IS extremists.

          The number of civilians who were killed in the coalition airstrikes on oil areas, where there are oil refineries, oil wells, building and vehicles, in the provinces of al- Hasakah, Deir Ezzor, al- Raqqa, Aleppo and Idlib has risen to 162, including 51 children and 35 women.

          Among the deaths, there are a family of a man, his wife and their 5 children killed due in US- led coalition airstrikes on the village of Dali Hasan in east of the town of Serrin in northeast of Aleppo and 64 civilians killed by a massacre committed by the U.S led coalition warplanes on Friday's night in 04/30/2015 when they targeted Bir Mahli village near the town of Serrin in Aleppo with several air strikes, and the death toll of this massacre includes:

          – 31 children under the age of 16 including ( 16 females and 15 males ).
          – 19 women above the age of 18.
          – 13 men above the age of 18.
          – A 18 years old boy.
          -
          -
          For more about civilian casualties due to the US-led coalition strikes in Syria and Iraq, see the Airwars website:

          584 – 1,720 civilians killed:

          To date, the international coalition has only conceded two "likely" deaths, from an event in early November 2014. It is also presently investigating seven further incidents of concern; is carrying out credibility assessments on a further 13; and has concluded three more investigations – having found no 'preponderance of evidence' to support civilian casualty claims.

          [Oct 04, 2015] Saudis Mull Launch Of Regional War As Russia Pounds Targets In Syria For Fourth Day

          Notable quotes:
          "... Yes it is more about water rights than oil. ..."
          "... Overthrowing Assad cuts Hezbollahs supply lines, which is THE point of the excercise. ..."
          "... Now WATER and Israel. You are barking up the right tree. Much of all of this is about Greater Israel. If you were old like me, you would remember back when secular Arab states actually possed a real threat to Israel. All those state are now torn to pieces by US policy. So, see the connection? ..."
          "... I maintain most of this is Israeli based. With the US doing Israeli bidding. ..."
          "... You know most Americans are clueless as all they get is overwhelming propaganda from cradle to grave. It is the US policy makers that know they can use the American people's labor to continue with their nefarious plans. ..."
          "... The neocons love death and killing, and it will come home. Ask Imperial Rome. The hubris is absolutely breathtaking." ..."
          "... And once again we see who is driving American foreign policy in the Middle East -- our good friends the Royal family of Saudi Arabia. Putin really made a brilliant play on this one. Most Americans are cheering for him as he destroys the CIA created boggie man ISIS, and the CIA controlled US media doesn't know what the fuck to say about it because they've already convinced the public that ISIS is the real reason we're screwing around in Syria. Check mate unless the US decides to go full retard and start bombing the Russians based upon some false flag like the Russians bombing a hospital or something -- oops, can't really do that now either. ..."
          "... The US has launched 6700 airstrikes on ISIS while the Russians have apparently degraded ISIS in just 60 airstrikes. ..."
          "... The US and its allies have carried out 6700 airstrikes at an expense of nearly $4 billion in the year since President Barack Obama ordered a campaign against Islamic State. Yet the terror group shows no sign of defeat and has even expanded its reach. ..."
          "... Sure a lot of ISIS fighters are probably true believers but those are the ones who will stand, fight, and be killed (blind pawns). However, seeing this is as much a covert operation as an overt operation then one has to think that the brains of the operation is made up of state operatives or mercenaries. These will not stand, fight, and die but run, re-arm, and redeploy elsewhere (Afghanistan->Stans->Russia or Afghanistan->China?). ..."
          "... McCain is implicitly-and sections of the media are explicitly-pointing to a change in the Pentagon's rules of engagement in Syria announced by the Obama administration last spring that allows US forces to combat Syrian government forces or any other group or country that attacks US-backed "rebels." This is meant to put pressure on the White House to initiate attacks not only against Damascus, but also against Moscow. ..."
          "... America's elites are as Trump says : a nation of neo-con elites whose mantra breeds --as incarnated by the NRA lobby --psychopathic mad shooters who have the genius of the devil. ..."
          "... For some reason, nobody in the US-Saudi-Turkish-Israeli nexus thought Russia would actually intervene. I don't know why. Russia went to the mat over Syria a few years back when Obama, fresh off the triumph of turning Libya into a dumpster fire, shipped the same mercenaries who did the Gadhafi hit-job to Syria, freshly re-armed. Remember, those guys' presence was the real reason for the Benghazi fiasco; a fact HRC and the Obama Administration can't speak out loud and the GOP knows full well, making Benghazi the perfect political football. ..."
          "... The US strategy of sparking and fueling a Sunni vs. Shi'a world sectarian war has taken a brutal hit. The Shi'a are in the extreme minority of Islam, but not in the Middle East, between Iran and the Mediterranean. ..."
          "... But I'm keeping an eye on the Uighurs in China's Xinjiang Province, and the various -Stan nations. It will take a little while, but I'm guessing there will be "Mysterious", "Spontaneous" uprisings of extremist Sunni violence there. And "Mysterious" newcomers with beards and Saudi accents. ..."
          "... Brilliantly, the Russians have stolen the "War on Terror" narrative. The US psychotics, psychopaths and megalomaniacs have proven incredibly stupid. Russia asks the US to join them in fighting the war on terror. Hilarious. ..."
          Oct 04, 2015 | www.zerohedge.com

          Looney

          Lemme get it straight… Saudi Arabia and Qatar can't handle the Houtis in Yemen, but they think they can take on Russia? Oh, boy! I need a bigger popcorn bucket! ;-)

          strannick

          Like the US, these vile medieval "regional allies" try to frame their propaganda to show that this is about removing the dictator Assad, who actually is one of the most benign in that demented region. Its not.

          They want him out because he opposed their pipeline, favoring instead the Iraqi Iran Shiite pipeline, which all three nations agreed to create. So much for national self determination. Otherwise they wouldnt give a shit what deranged lunatic ran Syria, or if Syria was ruled by some king as demented and tyranical and genocidal as they, -the Saudis and Qataris- are themselves.

          Winston Churchill

          Its not about an indefencible gas pipline at all.

          By deception we wage war.

          Its about potable water in south Lebanon.

          Without that Israel is a failed desert state within ten years.

          Go do the research yourself, all the data has been out there for nearly fifty years.

          Hidden in plain sight.

          swmnguy

          Israel has to have the Litani river from source to outlet.

          The pipeline from Qatar is a real project too, though.

          Captain Debtcrash

          Saudis' won't mess with Russia because they know the US probably wouldn't intervene on their behalf, we don't want to mess with Russia either and vice versa. It was already agreed we would let them do what they want and talk a good game in opposition.

          That said, if I'm wrong, I don't think we will have to worry about low oil prices any more.

          Oracle of Kypseli

          Desal water is much more expensive than oil.

          And... Yes it is more about water rights than oil. The Jordan river is now a small slow moving creek.

          Winston Churchill

          The Litani is part of the headwaters of the river Jordan.

          The Golan overlooks the Jordan.Whick looks like a stream in comparison to what is was fifty ago, and a dried up mud hole relative to 150yrs ago. I wish I could post a photo from the 1860's I have of the Jordan, its a glass plate negative taken by my great grandfather.

          Overthrowing Assad cuts Hezbollahs supply lines, which is THE point of the excercise.

          If, as reported yesterday, Putin is going to supply Hezbollah direct with armaments, Putin will have a Israels balls in a vice, no wonder Nutjob is going apeshit..

          Jack Burton

          Good point Winston. I have always been dubious about the Pipeline argument. As you say, even if built, this pipeline would run through very hostile places, sure to be hit over and over again.

          Now WATER and Israel. You are barking up the right tree. Much of all of this is about Greater Israel. If you were old like me, you would remember back when secular Arab states actually possed a real threat to Israel. All those state are now torn to pieces by US policy. So, see the connection?

          Israel must, with in a decade take and hold souther Lebanon of perish. The only water left is there, Israel must have it. So they will take it, to hold it, they need Syria dead and Lebanon a failed stated.

          I maintain most of this is Israeli based. With the US doing Israeli bidding.

          The Indelicate ...

          the Qatar pipeline argument never made any sense because:

          1] you don't build a pipeline through chaos which will last years, which is precisely what Israel, most of all wants - a bloodletting that destroys another regional economic, and to an extent military rival.

          2] Cost/benefit wise it doesn't make sense to spend this sort of money and time to go through Syria - look at a map.

          3] Israel's Leviathan find, it's plans to ethnically cleanse the remainder of Palestine, and find/create pretexts to attack and invade more of Lebanon, Syria, and Sinai. It's plans to steal the gas that, if international law applied to the Jewish State, Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon.

          Early Zionist Interest In Lebanon - Laura Zittrain Eisenberg
          http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/history/zionism.html

          Israel Wants The Litani River Desperately
          http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com/2010/08/israel-wants-litani-rive...

          HOORAY FOR HEZBOLLAH!
          http://www.tomatobubble.com/id775.html

          flysofree

          This is a load of crap. I lived in the Caribbean and our source of water was desalinization plant. It wasn't as expansive as you say, even the poorest locals could easily afford it. The problem with desalinization plants was that intake valves would clog up with seaweed during storms!

          There is no evidence whatsoever that Israel is planning any aggression towards its neighbors. It's also no secret that ALL of Israel air strikes into Syria involved intercepts of weapons shipments from Iran; that's clearly stated in mainstream media reporting!

          You must be a deluded old twig, if you even attempt to compare Nazi Germany Lebensraum policies of total liquidation of local populations to modern Israeli politics of settler land grab in the West Bank.

          Winston Churchill

          I'm old like you Jack, but travelled extensively throughout the MENA, a family tradition you could say, my great grandfather and grandfather were involved in opening up tourism/biz to a lot of the area.Long before oil was discovered. Have some 'wrong side of the blanket' relatives who I keep in contact with as well.

          SWRichmond

          Lemme get it straight… Saudi Arabia and Qatar can't handle the Houtis in Yemen, but they think they can take on Russia? Oh, boy! I need a bigger popcorn bucket! ;-)

          Putin is confident in his backing at home. Russian people are, for lack of a better way to put it, accustomed to "doing without" while supporting the motherland. Saudi, on the other hand, has completely spoilt their home population with their temporary wealth (now in doubt), paying them just to live, making them soft and expectant, petulant, self indulgent (sound familiar?). Putin is quite obviously "going for it", pressing his position, because he believes he will prevail. The gloves are off. USA is broke, and Putin knows it. Petrodollar is on its death bed, and he knows it, and he is willing to overtly hasten its death.

          Final question, for bonus points: how do nations traditionally finance wars?

          Answer: BY DEBASING THEIR CURRENCIES.

          PacOps

          Didn't someone pull some kind of shit like that on the Soviet Union a few decades back? ;-)

          Sun, 10/04/2015 - 11:48 | 6628206 swmnguy

          The Russian people can feed themselves. Not lavishly; cabbage and "cole" vegetables; potatoes; a little meat, fish and poultry; cold-weather grains; but they can feed themselves. Not so much for the Saudis and Qataris etc. Also, the Russians make their own stuff. They don't have to import slaves who outnumber them.

          Yes, if the luxury is suddenly removed from their lives, the Russian people wouldn't notice, never having had much in the first place. But the Saudis and Qataris can't survive in their current arrangements.

          kananga

          "So, millions of Saudi refugees invading Europe?"
          More like, 100 Saudi Royals invading Monaco.

          lincolnsteffens

          You know most Americans are clueless as all they get is overwhelming propaganda from cradle to grave. It is the US policy makers that know they can use the American people's labor to continue with their nefarious plans.

          Sir Edge

          Yes...

          Plus One Kabillion SWR... Perfectly Said...

          "USA is preparing to rip itself apart. For some reason Americans believe they can foist death, destruction, mayhem and hopelessness upon the entire rest of the planet, while somehow remaining immune from it themselves. The neocons love death and killing, and it will come home. Ask Imperial Rome. The hubris is absolutely breathtaking."

          strannick

          Exactly.

          How dare Russia and Iran tinker with America and Suadis bombed out, fucked up Shangrala that is their legacy in the Middle East.

          researchfix

          They know what´s coming. Iran and Russia will chase ISIS to the Saudi border. And then they stop the chase. And then the next chapter enfolds.

          cosmyccowboy

          Stick with the small bucket, I do not believe that the Saudi little boy lovers and women beaters sill last long against the Russians, Syrians and Iranians. Their mercenaries will flee from a real fighting force!

          HowdyDoody

          Saudi are being setup as Zion's stooges. If they win - ZIon gets lebensraum to the north of Israel, if they lose - lebensraum to the south. The inevitable public reason for the land grab - poor defenseless little Israel needs a buffer zone between it and the Muslims.

          LetThemEatRand

          And once again we see who is driving American foreign policy in the Middle East -- our good friends the Royal family of Saudi Arabia. Putin really made a brilliant play on this one. Most Americans are cheering for him as he destroys the CIA created boggie man ISIS, and the CIA controlled US media doesn't know what the fuck to say about it because they've already convinced the public that ISIS is the real reason we're screwing around in Syria. Check mate unless the US decides to go full retard and start bombing the Russians based upon some false flag like the Russians bombing a hospital or something -- oops, can't really do that now either.

          Bendromeda Strain

          And once again we see who is driving American foreign policy in the Middle East -- our good friends the Royal family of Saudi Arabia.

          Do not fail to miss the "go to" interview with the demon worshipper at The European Council of Foreign Relations. Saudi Arabia's interest just happens to *currently* align with the globalists. Convenient for them - for now.

          TheReplacement

          I disagree. I think the drivers are unnamed and the royals of KSA are both a faction and a pawn. They would look at themselves and see a faction. When looked down upon by TPTB they are pawns (like 99.999999% of humanity).

          I also do not see most Americans cheering for Putin. I see most Americans are absolutely ignorant and clueless as per usual. Some think they are informed and think evil Putin grasping at empire. I cannot speak to Putin's motives and I do hold suspicion of anybody who has maintained power like his as long as that man. Still, I have to ask them what exactly Putin has done.

          "Invaded Ukraine."

          Really? Show me pictures and video that isn't years old and taken from a completely different country while I show you pictures and video of the US State Department funding and fomenting a violent uprising by neo nazis against a constitutionally elected government (this is not to say that I disagree in any way with Ukrainians taking action of their own volition but that isn't what happened).

          "Well, he shot down that jetliner."

          Proof? The west has all the evidence and we have no proof. You do realize the official report only confirmed that the jet was in fact shotdown. They have presented no evidence that either confirms nor denies any particular faction did in fact shoot it down.

          "He's invading Syria."

          Putin was invited by the Syrian government because ISIS and their allies were starting to win the war despite our forces supposedly bombing them all year. If we were bombing and droning them, in addition to the fighting by the Iraqis, Syrians, and Kurds, then why were they still winning? If Russia, Syria, and Iran all want to defeat ISIS then who is it that wants ISIS to win - who is supporting the bad guys in black if all the other bad guys are trying to kill them?

          "I don't know. You wanna watch the Redsox?"

          JustObserving

          The corrupt, criminal, cruel cabal that rules Saudi Arabia should have collapsed years ago. So let them start another war and collapse now. Karma is a bitch. Hope ISIS are pushed into Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

          The US has launched 6700 airstrikes on ISIS while the Russians have apparently degraded ISIS in just 60 airstrikes. Was the US dropping care packages and videos made in Langley?

          The US and its allies have carried out 6700 airstrikes at an expense of nearly $4 billion in the year since President Barack Obama ordered a campaign against Islamic State. Yet the terror group shows no sign of defeat and has even expanded its reach.

          http://www.rt.com/news/314885-isis-usa-anniversary-campaign/

          TheReplacement

          I question that narrative. Sure a lot of ISIS fighters are probably true believers but those are the ones who will stand, fight, and be killed (blind pawns). However, seeing this is as much a covert operation as an overt operation then one has to think that the brains of the operation is made up of state operatives or mercenaries. These will not stand, fight, and die but run, re-arm, and redeploy elsewhere (Afghanistan->Stans->Russia or Afghanistan->China?).

          JustObserving

          Does the Doomsday clock have a seconds hand ?

          Does it have a nanosecond hand?

          Threat of wider war mounts as Russia continues airstrikes in Syria

          More prominent are voices calling for an even more reckless US policy of escalation against both Assad and Putin. They speak for powerful sections of the foreign policy and military-intelligence establishment that are implacably hostile to the nuclear deal with Iran and bent on war with Russia and China.

          John McCain, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, spoke for this faction Wednesday. He declared from the Senate floor, "Into the wreckage of this administration's Middle East policy has now stepped Putin. As in Ukraine and elsewhere, he perceives the administration's inaction and caution as weakness, and he is taking advantage."

          On Thursday, McCain told CNN that he could "absolutely confirm" that the initial Russian strikes were "against our Free Syrian Army or groups that have been armed and trained by the CIA…"

          McCain is implicitly-and sections of the media are explicitly-pointing to a change in the Pentagon's rules of engagement in Syria announced by the Obama administration last spring that allows US forces to combat Syrian government forces or any other group or country that attacks US-backed "rebels." This is meant to put pressure on the White House to initiate attacks not only against Damascus, but also against Moscow.

          http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/10/02/syri-o02.html

          falak pema

          That the Sunni clans find the Russian Iran entente a threat to their creationist minded ideology is understandable--to the extent that Turkey has reverted to obscurantist logic and effaced Ataturk's legacy from its current political inclination-- and that Saud and Qatar, as inheritors of the Pax Americana Oil protected legacy, have reverted to the same ideological stance in a regressional spiral that shocks the word-- is one thing ; that the West adheres to this same logic is another. The history of the wahhabist arabs monarchies is diametrically opposed to that of the West in terms of political priorities.

          The latter trend, of regression to neo-feudal ideology, is a betrayal of western values that are the bedrocks of our society.

          There is no excuse for this regression, now brought out to the open by a Shia theocracy aligned with a autocratic Russia, which make the so called democratic West look like the new Evil Empire.

          We are now in a spiral in West that will bring down democracy and replace it by a neo-feudal autocracy that will have nothing to envy the most evil traits of the Spanish Inquisition.

          America's elites are as Trump says : a nation of neo-con elites whose mantra breeds --as incarnated by the NRA lobby --psychopathic mad shooters who have the genius of the devil.

          Even Putin and Khameini look like moderates!

          ThroxxOfVron

          Russia is not allied with Iran.

          That both Russia and Iran perceive that it is in their individual interestes to intervene in Syria does not make them allies.

          The only reason that Russia and Iran welcome the others intervention is that it temporarily relieves each of them of the full weight of the financing costs of their respective interventions which would be higher if undertaken alone, and relieves both of some amount of the international political pressures being manifest by the US/Zio powers opposed to their interventions.

          Russia and Iran do not share the same goals and will not employ the same methods.

          Any appearance of mutual support is tangenital and temporary. It will dissipate rapidly when their true divergent interests become apparent in due course and as their opportunities in the Trans-Syrian theater evolves.

          Likely the two will immediately become opponents in Syria as other forces are ejected from the theater in much the same manner as Russia and the British/US did in Germany when Berlin fell at the end of the WW2.

          What I do not think is being spoken of publicly is the fact that Iraq is effectively being carved up while the focus is on Syria.

          I do not think Iraq will exist, or certainly will not exist with the same territorial boundaries, when the Trans-Syrian ( Great Sunni/Shia ) War is concluded.

          swmnguy

          I would guess Kurdish leaders are doing everything they can to get an audience in the Kremlin about now. This is their best chance ever at an independent Kurdistan, protected by Iran and Russia. There won't ever be a better moment for them. The US has been using them as we used the Hmong in Laos in the Vietnam War. Time for the Kurds to get out of the firing line and into an arrangement with local regional powers who will actually pay them in the coin of their choosing in return for their services.

          swmnguy

          I don't think Saudi Arabia can do anything more than transfer some ancient handheld anti-arcraft missiles to their Syrian proxies, through third-parties. I can't imagine the Saudis openly attacking the Russians. I doubt they'd ship anything directly traceable back to them.

          For some reason, nobody in the US-Saudi-Turkish-Israeli nexus thought Russia would actually intervene. I don't know why. Russia went to the mat over Syria a few years back when Obama, fresh off the triumph of turning Libya into a dumpster fire, shipped the same mercenaries who did the Gadhafi hit-job to Syria, freshly re-armed. Remember, those guys' presence was the real reason for the Benghazi fiasco; a fact HRC and the Obama Administration can't speak out loud and the GOP knows full well, making Benghazi the perfect political football.

          But if you look at the atlas, and at Russian behavior since the 1970s, it's pretty obvious why they aren't going to tolerate radical insane Sunni mercenary armies running around in their backyard. In Syria, different from Ukraine, the local recognized government can invite them in. Now it looks like the local recognized government in Iraq has invited them in, too.

          The US strategy of sparking and fueling a Sunni vs. Shi'a world sectarian war has taken a brutal hit. The Shi'a are in the extreme minority of Islam, but not in the Middle East, between Iran and the Mediterranean.

          The Saudis will whine and cry, but not do much. Israel is going to get real quiet. I'd guess the US will cut bait on their proxies. But I'm keeping an eye on the Uighurs in China's Xinjiang Province, and the various -Stan nations. It will take a little while, but I'm guessing there will be "Mysterious", "Spontaneous" uprisings of extremist Sunni violence there. And "Mysterious" newcomers with beards and Saudi accents.

          45North1

          All this crap really ramped up about the time Libya was destroyed by NATO. Civilian deaths certainly have soared from 2011 to now.

          Not saying there is a coincidence with respect to Libya being destroyed , but I can't help but think there is some link between liberated Libyan weapon staches and the accelerated actions of the various iterations of Syrian Rebels and re-labeled Terrorists in Syria. Syrian People have subsequently suffered. Infrastructure has been destroyed, Syria risks a future as a failed state (ala Libya) if overrun. I am sure Syria can take some comfort in knowiing that Libya got a new Central Bank as NATO munitions were still landing.)

          Hopefully Policies of other players in the Syrian mess don't adopt the in for a penny , in for a pound approach to this debacle.... but I have my doubts.

          Islam needs to get itself together if there is ever to be peace in the Middle East.

          Pigs will probably fly first.

          Atticus Finch

          Brilliantly, the Russians have stolen the "War on Terror" narrative. The US psychotics, psychopaths and megalomaniacs have proven incredibly stupid. Russia asks the US to join them in fighting the war on terror. Hilarious.

          Paracelsus

          Correct. Gaddafi would have had tons of munitions.These were transported with US help thru Turkey into Syria.With the Iraq war destabilizing the entire region,

          The Kurds were able to establish there own mini-state with the bonus of oil in the ground. Turkey has always been the weak man in the area politically, and has always opposed an
          independent Kurdish nation.

          I am waiting for the first Russian warplane to be brought down and the pilot roasted in a cage (on video). I can't see where the Russkies would be very happy with the CIA/Mercs who provided the ManPads for this event. The Russkies are very good at the airpower thing. The Iranians are tough on the ground. The Russkies seem to want to get this over in months or less.

          Funny how they don't seem to worry about any UN Security Council condemnation. Chinese Veto?

          Well, death of the PetroDollar system. History in front of our eyes.. The only wildcard is the Israelis threat to use nukes if they don't get their way. Aside from the PetroDollar collapse, there exists a strong threat of China and others dumping Treasuries on the finance markets (if they are unhappy with US foreign policy).

          "May you live in interesting times".....

          Truly Inspiration

          You really raise serious questions about just how "intelligent" US intelligence actually is??

          Why shall US target their own people when the ISIS top commander is an AMERICAN! You don't believe it?

          Nada a 19 year old woman just escaped from hell,

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3253107/Is-ISIS-commander-AMERIC...


          sudzee

          SA worried that the "coalition of the good and honest" Russia/Syria/Iran and Iraq will corner ISIS and force them south thru western Iraq/eastern Jordan into Saudi Arabia itself. The Royal Family, beheaders in chief, will receive the goes around.

          AlfredNeumann

          Hillary Clinton : We created Al-Qaeda
          Hillary Clinton : We created Al-Qaeda
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqn0bm4E9yw

          Gregor Samsa

          This cartoon says it best: http://sputniknews.com/cartoons/20151002/1027919479/us-russia-syria-cart...

          forgotten in th...

          Here some social media statements by members of the "moderate islamic opposition" that Barack Obama and his two piece of shit (Cameron and Hollande) are supporting.

          From wikipedia

          In response to reports of Russian intervention, the Army of Conquest's Liwa al-Haqq commander Abu Abdullah Taftanaz posted a tweet addressing the "infidel Russians", inviting them to send troops to Syria and saying that "we have thousands like Khattab" who would "slaughter your pigs".[76][77] Abu Abdullah Taftanaz also tweeted Russian military terms for Syrian rebels to familiarize themselves with if they intercepted Russian radio chatter.[78][79][80][81][82] Reportedly Chechen and Caucasian foreign fighters have begun flocking to the coastal regions of Syria where the Russians are based in order to seek them out.[83]

          Ahmad Eissa al-Sheikh, a commander in Turkish/Saudi-backed Ahrar ash-Sham,[84] threatened to bring upon "Russian hell in a Levantine flavor" if they encountered the Russians.[85][86] Harakat Fajr ash-Sham al-Islamiya leader Abu Abdullah ash-Shami tweeted about the "globalization" of the "Levantine Jihad".[87][88] He also tweeted that on the Russians and said that "The Levant will become their graveyard, with the permission of Allah".[89] The Al-Qaeda-linked Al-Nusra Front[90] has set a reward for the seizure of Russian soldiers of 2,500,000 Syrian pounds (approximately US$13,000).[91][92]

          The Syria based, Al-Qaeda linked Saudi cleric Abdallah Muhammad Al-Muhaysini threatened that Syria would be a "tomb for its invaders" or "graveyard for invaders" in response to the Russian intervention and brought up the Soviet war in Afghanistan.[93][94][95]

          AlfredNeumann
          Syria Update# Air Duel between the Sukhoi Su - 30 Russian SM and Israeli F-15 Tags:
          Six Russian fighter jets type Multirole Sukhoi SU - 30 SM have intercepted 4 Israeli McDonnell Douglas F-15's fighter bombers attempting to infiltrate the Syrian coast.The Israeli F 15 warplanes have been flying over Syrian airspace for months and in particular the coast of Latakia, which is now the bridgehead of the Russian forces in Syria.

          The Israeli jets would generally follow a fairly complex flight plan and approach Latakia from the sea

          On the night of 1 October 02, 2015, six Sukhoi SU-30 Russian SM fighters took off from the Syrian Hmimim airbase in the direction of Cyprus, before changing course and intercepting the four Israeli F-15 fighters off the coast of Syria, that were flying in attack formation.

          Surprised by a situation as unexpected and probably not prepared for a dogfight with one of the best Russian multipurpose fighters, Israeli pilots have quickly turned back South at high speed over the Lebanon.

          The mighty Israeli military doesn't do so well against opponents who can actually fight back! They'll probably bomb Gaza again so they can feel butch about themselves!

          Read more: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED | The History The US Government HOPES You Never Learn! http://whatreallyhappened.com/#ixzz3ncnOMUxV

          Amun

          "on November 2, 1917, British imperialism in Palestine began when Lord Balfour, the then British foreign secretary and former prime minister, sent a letter to Baron Rothschild, one of the leaders of the Zionist movement. This letter became known as the "Balfour Declaration".

          In that letter, Balfour promised British support for the Zionist programme of establishing a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. This pledge of support was made without consulting the indigenous Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine, the Palestinian people. And it was made before British troops had even conquered the land.

          Balfour, on behalf of Britain, promised Palestine – over which Britain had no legal right – to a people who did not even live there (of the very small community of Palestinian Jews in Palestine in 1917, very few were Zionists). And he did so with the worst of intentions: to discourage Jewish immigration to Britain. No wonder Lord Montagu, the only Jewish member of the Cabinet, opposed the declaration.

          And yet, just two years earlier, Britain had committed herself to assisting the Arab nations in achieving their independence from the Ottoman Empire. Arab fighters all over the region, including thousands of Palestinians, fought for their freedom, allowing Britain to establish her mandate in Palestine. "

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/9645925/Britain-must-atone-for-its-sins-in-Palestine.html

          Abiesalba 1 Oct 2015 14:29

          With respect to the total mess in Syria, to my knowledge there has been only one recent poll conducted across Syria (see below). The pollsters say that the poll is representative of the people of Syria. A similar poll was also conducted in Iraq. Both polls were conducted in June-July 2015:
          -
          82% of Syrians agree that ISIS was foreign-created by the US (17% disagree).

          85% of Iraqis agree that ISIS was foreign-created by the US (10% disagree).
          -
          -
          Among the warring sides in Syria, Assad has the highest (!) support – 47% of Syrians think he has a POSITIVE influence (50% negative) .

          Compare to the groups which the US 'coalition' and the Anglo-Americans media claim we should all support:

          Free Syrian Army – 35% positive, 63% negative

          Syrian Opposition Coalition – 26% positive, 72% negative
          -
          Considering the polling results, anyone claiming that Assad should be removed is working AGAINST half of the Syrians. Putin is right – Assad has to be included in any solution to the war. Else, there will immediately a rebellion of half of Syrians against FOREIGN powers toppling Assad.

          Assad will not come to the negotiating table without Putin.

          Besides, it is clear that for Syrians (and Iraqis), the truly BAD guys are the Americans.
          -
          -
          PUBLIC OPINION IN SYRIA
          -
          Fieldwork: June 10 to July 2

          Respondents: 1,365 Syrians from all 14 governorates of the country
          -
          -
          Thinking about the persons and the groups which are working now in Syria, Generally, do you think that their influence is negative or positive on the matters in Syria
          -
          Positive … Negative
          -
          47% … 50% … Bashar al-Asad
          43% … 55% … Iran
          37% … 55% … Arab Gulf Countries
          35% … 63% … Nusra Front
          35% … 63% … Free Syrian Army
          26% … 72% … Syrian Opposition Coalition
          21% … 76% … Islamic State
          -
          -
          There are many reasons around to explain the presence of ISIL in Iraq/Syria, please tell me if strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or a strongly disagree for the reason that explains the presence of ISIL?
          -
          Agree … Disagree
          -
          82% … 17% … ISIL is foreign made by the US

          59% … 40% … As a result of widespread sectarian politics in the Arab countries and in Turkey

          55% … 44% …ISIL is made by some Arab regimes

          50% … 48% … ISIL is created by foreign countries to find a balance with Iran

          44% … 55% … Wrong policies pursued by the Syrian government

          42% … 56% … Syrian regime made ISIL for marking the opposition to terrorism

          39% … 57% … Iran is supporting this organization to weaken Iraq and take it under its control

          22% … 76% … Sectarian congestion that has arisen in Syria
          -
          -
          Do you support or oppose the international coalition airstrikes in Syria?
          -
          Support … Oppose

          47% … 50%
          -
          -
          According to your view, which of the following represent the best solution for the crisis which Syria is in today?
          -
          51% … Political solution
          37% … Military solution
          -
          -
          Note: The poll has a margin of error of +/-3 percentage points.

          Sources:

          Polls Show Syrians Overwhelmingly Blame U.S. for ISIS (16 September 2015)

          Full polling reports by the British ORB International (affiliate of WIN/Gallup International):

          * Syria http://www.opinion.co.uk/perch/resources/syriadata.pdf

          * Iraq http://www.opinion.co.uk/perch/resources/iraqdata.pdf

          [Oct 04, 2015] Gulf states plan military response as Putin raises the stakes in Syria

          Notable quotes:
          "... The Russian intervention is a massive setback for those states backing the opposition, particularly within the region – Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey – and is likely to elicit a strong response in terms of a counter-escalation ..."
          "... Saudi Arabia and Qatar are already embroiled in an expensive and bloody war in Yemen that may limit both their military and financial resources. ..."
          Oct 04, 2015 | The Guardian

          Regional powers have quietly, but effectively, channelled funds, weapons and other support to rebel groups making the biggest inroads against the forces from Damascus. In doing so, they are investing heavily in a conflict which they see as part of a wider regional struggle for influence with bitter rival Iran.

          In a week when Russia made dozens of bombing raids, those countries have made it clear that they remain at least as committed to removing Assad as Moscow is to preserving him.

          "There is no future for Assad in Syria," Saudi foreign minister Adel Al-Jubeir warned, a few hours before the first Russian bombing sorties began. If that was not blunt enough, he spelled out that if the president did not step down as part of a political transition, his country would embrace a military option, "which also would end with the removal of Bashar al-Assad from power".

          ... ... ...

          "The Russian intervention is a massive setback for those states backing the opposition, particularly within the region – Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey – and is likely to elicit a strong response in terms of a counter-escalation," said Julien Barnes-Dacey, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

          ... ... ...

          Saudi Arabia and Qatar are already embroiled in an expensive and bloody war in Yemen that may limit both their military and financial resources.

          [Oct 04, 2015] Nonsense on data revisions

          "... I was surprised how well the BBC political correspondent and ex-Tory Party student Nick Robinson came out in his economic reporting compared to the woeful stuff that those BBC correspondents claiming some sort of economic expertise faired. ..."
          "... they are all of the neo-liberal religion; group-thinkers ..."
          Oct 04, 2015 | mainlymacro.blogspot.com
          mainly macro
          Anonymous, 1 October 2015 at 01:04
          When I reread my collection of BBC articles for the period 2008-15, some of which I have reposted on this blog in the past, I was surprised how well the BBC political correspondent and ex-Tory Party student Nick Robinson came out in his economic reporting compared to the woeful stuff that those BBC correspondents claiming some sort of economic expertise faired.

          Since 2008, Robert Peston, Stephanie Flanders, Hugh Pym, and Andrew Neil have had terrible economic crises, and it must be more than just governmental pressure that has produced such concentrated ineptitude.

          acorn, 1 October 2015
          Alas, they are all of the neo-liberal religion; group-thinkers. Peston has never understood the difference between a currency issuing government and a currency using non-government sector. Hence, government financial accounts are totally different to a households financial accounts.

          They all think that the government has to tax and/or borrow "money", before it has any to spend. Never stopping to think where the people it taxed or borrowed from, got such "money" in the first place.

          Politicians and the IFS peddle the same myth. Liars and fakers the lot of them. Stick with the accountants.

          http://www.icaew.com/en/about-icaew/newsroom/press-releases/2015-press-releases/fall-in-tax-receipts-hinders-progress-in-deficit-reduction-says-icaew

          [Oct 04, 2015] Finally some clarity about the Russian plans about Syria

          Oct 04, 2015 | The Vineyard of the Saker
          Evaluation:

          In purely military terms this is a rather minor development. Yes, the Syrian Air Force badly needs some modernization (the fact that they are using helicopter-dropped 500kg barrel bombs is a proof that they don't have enough aircraft to deliver guided or even unguided 500kg aerial bombs) and the Russians will be bringing some very capable aircraft (SU-24s and SU-25s for sure, and in some specific cases they could even use Tu-22M3s and SU-34s). But this will not be a game changer. Politically, however, this marks yet another triumph for Vladimir Putin who has forced the US Empire to renounce its plans to overthrow Assad. Because, and make no mistake here, the Russians are now there to stay: a limited Russian military presence will now turn into a major Russian political commitment. Furthermore, not only will Tartus continue to serve a fairly limited but not irrelevant role for the Russian Navy, the airbase in Latakia will become a hub of Russian military operations and, in effect, a forward operating base for the Black Sea Fleet.

          Conclusion: a game changer after all?

          Yes. But not because of some Russian military move. Consider this: for the United States the main purpose of Daesh was to overthrow Assad. Now that the US is declaring that they "don't plan to arm the Syrian rebels at the moment" and that Assad will not be overthrown, the utility of Daesh to the AngloZionist Empire has just taken a major hit. If the Empire decides that Daesh has outlived its utility and that it has now turned into a liability, then the days of Daesh are counted.

          Of course, I am under no illusions about any real change of heart in the imperial "deep state". What we see now is just a tactical adaptation to a situation which the US could not control, not a deep strategic shift. The rabid russophobes in the West are still out there (albeit some have left in disgust ) and they will now have the chance to blame Russia for anything and everything in Syria, especially if something goes really wrong. Yes, Putin has just won another major victory against the Empire (where are those who claimed that Russia had "sold out" Syria?!), but now Russia will have to manage this potentially "dangerous victory".

          [Oct 04, 2015] Syria and the Danger of Moral Imperialism

          Oct 02, 2015 | The American Conservative

          A dozen years after George W. Bush invaded Iraq, ISIS occupies its second city, Mosul, controls its largest province, Anbar, and holds Anbar's capital, Ramadi, as Baghdad turns away from us-to Tehran. The cost to Iraqis of their "liberation"? A hundred thousand dead, half a million widows and fatherless children, millions gone from the country and, still, unending war.

          How has Libya fared since we "liberated" that land? A failed state, it is torn apart by a civil war between an Islamist "Libya Dawn" in Tripoli and a Tobruk regime backed by Egypt's dictator.

          Then there is Yemen. Since March, when Houthi rebels chased a Saudi sock puppet from power, Riyadh, backed by U.S. ordinance and intel, has been bombing that poorest of nations in the Arab world. Five thousand are dead and 25,000 wounded since March. And as the 25 million Yemeni depend on imports for food, which have been largely cut off, what is happening is described by one U.N. official as a "humanitarian catastrophe."

          ... ... ...

          What Putin seems to be saying to us is this:

          If America's elites continue to assert their right to intervene in the internal affairs of nations, to make them conform to a U.S. ideal of what is a good society and legitimate government, then we are headed for endless conflict. And, one day, this will inevitably result in war, as more and more nations resist America's moral imperialism.

          Nations have a right to be themselves, Putin is saying. They have the right to reflect in their institutions their own histories, beliefs, values and traditions, even if that results in what Americans regard as illiberal democracies or authoritarian capitalism or even Muslim theocracies.

          There was a time, not so long ago, when Americans had no problem with this, when Americans accepted a diversity of regimes abroad. Indeed, a belief in nonintervention abroad was once the very cornerstone of American foreign policy.

          [Oct 03, 2015] Moscow and Kiev in positive mood over talks to end east Ukraine conflict

          Notable quotes:
          "... The EU cannot do anything about Ukraine Right Sector radicals and its other nutters in the Mafia. ..."
          "... But the Donbas situation is more mixed, however, even before the trouble in 2014, what I DID encounter in Kiev in particular (not so much Galycnya) was a regard of the SE UA citizens as second-class citizens, as well as attitudes that could be accurately be described as quasi-facist, ..."
          "... I wonder why you call Western airstrikes "tactical". The coalition launched >7,000 military aircraft sorties in over a year, apparently carefully "missing" ISIS targets, killing on average ~0.4 terrorist per sortie and freeing up as much as 15 square kilometers of territory from ISIS. As you can easily imagine, a lot of people made huge amounts of money in the process. So we should call this a resounding success, on par with $10 billion no-bid Halliburton contract in Iraq. Wouldn't you agree? ..."
          "... Does it really matter if they have ? We know the West has been involved so it would be pretty much par for the course if Russia was involved. The main thing is Ukraine becomes a peaceful nation for the benefit of its citizens, not for the benefit of either the West or Russia. ..."
          Oct 02, 2015 | The Guardian

          Елена Соловьева -> BMWAlbert 3 Oct 2015 20:37

          Dear, you refer to "one blonde said!". On some vague feelings, assumptions... Enough speculation about Crimea, please! Let's stick to facts! Crimea 80% of the population - Russian. Not only Pro-Russian, and ethnic Russians. Russia does not need were the little green men of Crimea! But for drunk and scared of the Ukrainian military in the Crimea, for the Wahhabis, who through the streets went to the cars with black flags for Ukrainian neo-Nazis, importing explosives and suitable for shooting on the streets, probably Yes. Crimea was similar to the Autonomous Republic, until authonomy has destroyed by abandoning the Constitution. It was abolished by the President! Crimea held a referendum for secession from Ukraine long before the coup in Ukrainein 2014 .

          Note that the Americans tried to seize Crimea under the guise of NATO exercises! Was absolutely illegal attempt to build an American military base in Crimea for the U.S. Navy landed the Marines on may 26, 2006, of which the citizens of Crimea dishonorably discharged. And during the state coup in Ukraine in the Black Sea suddenly a us warship.

          In Debaltsevo the Ukrainian neo-Nazis fought with men that were deprived of the government, the President, sovereignty, language, external management is introduced, destroyed the economy. Take away the right to life. Whose wives, parents and children every day are killed by shells from anti-aircraft weapons in schools, hospitals, shops, bus stops, fill up with planes of white phosphorus, the water is shut off and the light stopped issuing wages and pensions, imposed humanitarian blockade.

          To fight with desperate men, defending their home, or engage in rape and looting among the civilian population, where the majority of the elderly, women, children - different things.

          Sarah7 -> Sarah7 3 Oct 2015 19:58

          One more thing:

          Actually, the first photograph accompanying this piece by Shaun Walker shows Poroshenko looking particularly angry and miserable -- if looks could kill, Merkel would be in big trouble!

          That said, in the same photo, Putin appears calm, sanguine, and in a very 'positive mood' compared to his counterparts. Go figure.

          Sarah7 3 Oct 2015 19:49

          Moscow and Kiev in 'positive mood' over talks to end east Ukraine conflict

          If you look at the photographs that accompany the following piece, Poroshenko does not appear to be in a 'positive mood' over the recent meeting of the Normandy Four, and Merkel looks like she is going to spit nails. Perhaps this explains their dour faces:

          Checkmate!

          3 October 2015

          Finally the Penny Drops: Merkel Admits Crimea is Part of Russia
          http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151003/1027980523/merkel-admits-crimea-is-part-of-russia.html

          German Chancellor Angela Merkel for the first time publically accepted the fact that Crimea doesn't belong to Ukraine and that the peninsula will stay as part of Russia, Alexei Pushkov, head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Russian Duma, said on his Twitter account, according to Gazeta.ru. (Emphasis added)

          "Important: After a meeting in Paris, Merkel for the first time admitted that Crimea won't return to Ukraine. That means the crisis is only about the east of the country," Pushkov wrote. (Emphasis added)

          The Normandy Four talks on Ukraine reconciliation concluded in Paris on Friday.

          The leaders of the Normandy Quartet countries managed to agree on the procedure of the withdrawal of heavy weapons in eastern Ukraine, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Friday.

          "We were able to agree on the withdrawal of heavy weapons," Merkel said following the Normandy Four talks in Paris. "There is hope for progress. We are moving toward each other."

          On the whole, the results of Friday's Normandy Four talks in Paris set a positive tone, Angela Merkel said, adding that she was satisfied with what the participants achieved during the meeting.

          The Normandy Four are planning to meet for a followup in November, presumably to keep Poroshenko in compliance and moving head with the implementation of Minsk II.

          PS -- It was the evil Putin wot done it!

          HollyOldDog -> Laurence Johnson 3 Oct 2015 18:55

          The EU cannot do anything about Ukraine Right Sector radicals and its other nutters in the Mafia. This mess is for Ukraine alone to sort out and Mikheil Saakashvilli is not the man for the job - his corruption runs far to deep for any action that is more than cosmetic.

          BMWAlbert -> Елена Соловьева 3 Oct 2015 18:38

          IDK the number of Russian nationals in the Donbas forces, something between 1-10K as a rough guess, these are not formal formations (some are organized at the battalion level as all-Russian units, just an observation from the Russian language news coverage of the closing of Debaltsevo earlier this year, e.g. so called "Khan" battalion, this is just televised news, but there must be more than one such unit, hence the estimate-there are enough weapons captures from UAF in the earlier battles also to arm a small army in Donbas, but this does not rule-out direct supplies (I would imagine something low-key and NOT the big white convoys), this would be the natural minimal level of support I would infer/expect in this case and seems a fair inference. I am not replicating mindless statements from ATO leaders, and remember that Rada twice tried

          Crimea was an autonomous region in UA and with rights to hold a referendum under the early 2014 UA Constitution and an earlier legal attempt in 1993 was surprised, also that RU had large forces already legally stationed in Crimea/Krim according to the Kharkov treaty and that in some cases, civic authority, Sebastopol by the RU naval command being a case in point-a continuation of old practices. My sense from personal friends is that among the young, and old generally, the pro-RU sentiment in Krim is strong (incl. one girl with whom I have lost contact, who works there in what is now RU, due to current conditions).

          But the Donbas situation is more mixed, however, even before the trouble in 2014, what I DID encounter in Kiev in particular (not so much Galycnya) was a regard of the SE UA citizens as second-class citizens, as well as attitudes that could be accurately be described as quasi-facist, this includes well-educated people, ibcl. in one case (a blonde) the desire to 'exterminate' the Russians-but I would not count the opinions in Donbas as only those enduring the bombardments, there are also many refugees, many in RU itself of course, whose opinions vary from those expressed sometimes here with all due respect, so yes it is complicated.


          HollyOldDog -> William Snowden 3 Oct 2015 18:13

          Putin wants Ukraine to succeed but the only way it can do this is for the Ukrainian citizens to take over its government and boot out the Self-serving Oligarchs. The Oligarchs have their place in Ukraine but that is to stay out from forming Government decisions and confine their endeavors to modernizing and improving the infrastructure of Ukraine Industrial base which would improve the finance and conditions for all of Ukrainian citizens. It's going to be a difficult road but Russia and the EU can help, though clinging on to the influences of the USA would surely be a retrograde step.

          Елена Соловьева -> BMWAlbert 3 Oct 2015 18:07

          What's so complicated? The war is real or not! Evidence of finding the 200 000 Russian soldiers in Lugansk and Donbass, or have or not! Crimea after the collapse of the USSR was a disputed territory, which Ukraine annexed unilaterally, without considering the opinion of the Russian Federation and, more IMPORTANTLY, against the wishes of the citizens of the Crimean Republic, which, actually, was constitutional and presidential, while Ukraine did not destroy this status! It is Ukraine annexed the Crimean Republic, and the Russian city Sevastopol, which is in the Republic even geographically not part of, Mr. specialist on Ukraine! Demarcation implies the absence of territorial disputes. And, by the way! Another monstrous stupidity of your media! Poor Ukraine after the coup d'état, followed by the external management of the country by the EU and the US are terrorized by the evil Russian, because it is weak and has no nuclear weapons because of the Treaty of non-aggression from the Russian Federation? Really? Ukraine did not pay its portion of external debt of the USSR and the Russian Empire, therefore, is not the successor,and cannot claim to nuclear power status! Ukraine is a priori not have a right to this weapon, because it was not the owner initially, as the successor! The coup in Kiev was held under the slogan "Cut all Russians!", which in Ukraine 2 years ago, it was a few million, and that is what they are doing throughout the Ukraine, especially in Eastern Ukraine and was planning to do in Crimea. The burning of people in Odessa - a vivid example.

          Beckow -> Bart Looren de Jong 3 Oct 2015 17:11

          You cannot survey people in the middle of a civil conflict on how much they like or dislike what is described as the "enemy". It simply cannot be done, the numbers are meaningless.

          Look at Ukraine's economy and you will see the future of this conflict. The living standards are down so low that all else will become meaningless - people actually care about their incomes and living standard.

          Your slogans about "illegal", "privileged sphere" are not what any of this is about, they are not what people in Ukraine think about or what matters to them. But if you insist on slogans, there is one simple answer: Kosovo. West bombed Serbia, killing about a thousand civilians, to force Albanian separation in Kosovo. All talk about "international law" is kind of meaningless after that.

          Informed17 -> Laurence Johnson 3 Oct 2015 15:53

          I wonder why you call Western airstrikes "tactical". The coalition launched >7,000 military aircraft sorties in over a year, apparently carefully "missing" ISIS targets, killing on average ~0.4 terrorist per sortie and freeing up as much as 15 square kilometers of territory from ISIS. As you can easily imagine, a lot of people made huge amounts of money in the process. So we should call this a resounding success, on par with $10 billion no-bid Halliburton contract in Iraq. Wouldn't you agree?

          Manolo Torres -> Bart Looren de Jong 3 Oct 2015 15:49

          I have condemned the actions of the Russian government in chechnya many times, if you are going to speak about anyones hypocrisy, you should at least know with whom are you talking.

          Manolo Torres
          9 Sep 2014 09:42
          0 Recommend
          Look, I already replied, I wasn´t careful with my question. Of course the Russians have committed many abuses, namely the war in Chechnya. I also explained the differences between that war and the wars by US/NATO that have simply no justification on grounds of self defense.


          My concern with human life was shown by my condemnation of every violent act: the massacre in Odessa, the airstrikes and shelling that killed thousands in Ukraine, the war in Iraq and Syria, the war in Chechnya or the neo-nazi movement inside Russia (as we were discussing yesterday before you started shouting and got overwhelmed by the numbers I showed you).

          As for the Ukrainians I don´t you are as stupid as to blame Putin for the Ukrainian governments shelling of residential areas. And perhaps you know that there is an investigation for MH17.

          i am not like you Rob, I am not a fanatic and I only make judgements when I think I know the facts. You are just shouting and looking every time more ridiculous.

          A good start for you would be to say that you stand corrected for the Amnesty report. Do it, I have done it, feels good.

          Can I do anything else for you?

          Laurence Johnson -> gimmeshoes 3 Oct 2015 14:15

          Poroshenko is in a bit of a legal quagmire as his government has not at any stage controlled the entire nation and its borders at any time. His current claim on Eastern Ukraine in legal terms is more a wish list than a legal document of fact.

          His only path is partition to legalise his government to govern what they have today, or to negotiate the handing over of East Ukraine to his governments control in order that he can legitimately govern the entire nation and its borders. An invasion of East Ukraine is probably not going to work legally, or on a more practical basis.

          Informed17 -> Worried9876 3 Oct 2015 14:10

          This is too categorical. Chocolate man wants anything that allows him to keep cashing in on his "president" title. The only thing that's unacceptable to him is if his masters try to prevent his thievery. Then he is likely to become angry and unpredictable. Might even remember about Ukraine, although that's highly unlikely.

          elias_ 3 Oct 2015 14:04

          Looks to me like Putin wins. Crimea in the bag, the eastern regions stay in Ukraine with enough clout to prevent nato membership and keep the nazis at bay. And stupid EU and US get to pay the bill for reconstruction. The sanctions hurt all sides but are forcing much needed reforms in his country, he may even become a net exporter of food products instead of importing from the eu. He gets a refund for the Mistrals and makes the poodle French look untrustworthy. Oh well, serves the sneaky bastards right (you know who i mean "fuxx the eu").

          Laurence Johnson -> Alexzero 3 Oct 2015 14:03

          Does it really matter if they have ? We know the West has been involved so it would be pretty much par for the course if Russia was involved. The main thing is Ukraine becomes a peaceful nation for the benefit of its citizens, not for the benefit of either the West or Russia.

          [Oct 03, 2015] Oil Bulls Lose Faith in Recovery as Russia Adds to Global Glut

          Looks like Bloomberg is becoming Fox of economic and financial news...
          "Other countries, such as Russia, are pumping at full tilt" looks like a lie. Russia production might be cur if additional tax on oil producers is restored by government.
          I also like ""The U.S. producers are the only ones doing their part to reduce the global glut," -- another lie. shale producers are uncompetitive at this level f prices and some can't even serve their debt. the same is true for oil sands. They are cutting all corners, endangering the environment.
          There is no return to "cheap oil" regime despite period of overinvestment that was bright by prices above $80 per barrel.
          The fact that "Retail investors which pulled $393 million in September" just confirm that they are a food for Wall Street sharks... Moreover investment in oil ETFs with their complex "futures based" algorithms of matching oil price is in itself probably a sign of not being too intelligent. The game on this table of Wall Street casino is a for professionals and HFT robots, not for lemmings (aka retail investors).
          "... U.S. crude output is down 514,000 barrels a day from a four-decade high reached in June, Energy Information Administration data show. The number of rigs targeting oil in the U.S. dropped to a five year low, Baker Hughes Inc. said Oct. 2. ..."
          Oct 03, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

          Hedge funds trimmed bullish oil bets for the first time in six weeks, losing faith in a swift recovery as Russia boosted output to the highest since the Soviet Union collapsed.

          Speculators reduced their net-long position in West Texas Intermediate crude by 9.1 percent in the week ended Sept. 29, according to data from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Longs dropped from a 12-week high while shorts increased.

          U.S. crude output is down 514,000 barrels a day from a four-decade high reached in June, Energy Information Administration data show. The number of rigs targeting oil in the U.S. dropped to a five year low, Baker Hughes Inc. said Oct. 2. WTI traded in the tightest range since June last month as China's slowing economy and the highest Russian output in two decades signaled the global glut will linger.

          "The U.S. producers are the only ones doing their part to reduce the global glut," John Kilduff, a partner at Again Capital LLC, a New York-based hedge fund, said by phone. "Other countries, such as Russia, are pumping at full tilt. The cutbacks by shale producers here aren't going to have much impact, especially given the slowing global economy."

          ... ... ...

          Russian oil output rose to a post-Soviet record last month as producers took advantage of the weak ruble to push ahead with drilling. The nation's production of crude and condensate climbed to 10.74 million barrels a day, 1 percent more than a year earlier and topping a record set in June, according to data from the Energy Ministry's CDU-TEK unit.

          ... ... ...

          Investors pulled $393 million in September from United States Oil Fund, the largest U.S. exchange-traded product that tracks crude futures, the biggest withdrawal since April.

          See also:

          [Oct 03, 2015] Obama says Russian strategy in Syria is 'recipe for disaster'

          That's Shaun Walker, nut the point of view he expresses are point of view of the US government.
          Oct 03, 2015 | www.theguardian.com

          Russia's failure to distinguish between Islamic State fighters and moderate opposition forces battling against Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, is a "recipe for disaster," Barack Obama has said, as more evidence emerged that Moscow is targeting anti-regime rebels and not just Isis.

          The US president said his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, "doesn't distinguish between Isil [Isis] and a moderate Sunni opposition that wants to see Mr Assad go. From their perspective, they're all terrorists. And that's a recipe for disaster."

          ... ... ...

          Moscow's strategy appears to be to mainly attack central and north-western Syria, areas that form the gateway to Damascus and the coast. But Russian planes also bombed targets west of Raqqa, the capital of Isis's self-proclaimed caliphate – apparently the first time likely Isis positions have been hit.

          Alexei Pushkov, a top Russian foreign affairs official, told French radio he believed the air campaign could last about three to four months. He also hit out at western criticism, tweeting: "The US is criticizing Russia for 'lack of selectivity in our targets' in Syria. So what stopped them from picking the right targets over a whole year, rather than just pointlessly bombing the desert?!"

          [Oct 03, 2015] Lawrence Wilkerson The Empire is in Deep, Deep Trouble

          Oct 03, 2015 | naked capitalism

          This is a must-watch video. Wilkerson describes the path of empires in decline and shows how the US is following the classic trajectory. He contends that the US needs to make a transition to being one of many powers and focus more on strategies of international cooperation.

          The video is full of rich historical detail and terrific, if sobering, nuggets, such as:


          History tells us we're probably finished.

          The rest of of the world is awakening to the fact that the United States is 1) strategically inept and 2) not the power it used to be. And that the trend is to increase that.

          Wilkerson includes in his talk not just the way that the US projects power abroad, but internal symptoms of decline, such as concentration of wealth and power, corruption and the disproportionate role of financial interests.

          Wilkerson also says the odds of rapid collapse of the US as an empire is much greater is generally recognized. He also includes the issues of climate change and resource constraints, and points out how perverse it is that the Department of Defense is the agency that is taking climate change most seriously. He says that the worst cases scenario projected by scientists is that the world will have enough arable land to support 400 million people (no typo).

          Be sure to listen to the Q&A as well.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckjY-FW7-dc

          Published on Sep 24, 2015

          The speech covered National Security, Climate Change, Interminable War, Debt, Immigration, Inequality, racism, and much more. The speech is striking in its honesty. It is likely poignant to Republicans who have bought into rationalization of the intransigence of the Republican Party.

          Foy, October 3, 2015 at 7:26 am

          Thanks for the link Yves, that's a first class speech. Great to hear one that is 'off the cuff' with no notes etc. Hits it out of the park on each point he makes. So many great lines in it.

          "Empires at the end concentrate on military force as the be all and end all of power… at the end they use more mercenary based forces than citizen based forces"

          "Empires at the end…go ethically and morally bankrupt… they end up with bankers and financiers running the empire, sound familiar?"

          "So they [empires] will go out for example, when an attack occurs on them by barbarians that kills 3000 of their citizens, mostly because of their negligence, they will go out and kill 300,000 people and spend 3 trillion dollars in order to counter that threat to the status quo. They will then proceed throughout the world to exacerbate that threat by their own actions, sound familiar?…This is what they [empires] do particularly when they are getting ready to collapse"

          "This is what empires in decline do, they can't even in govern themselves"

          Quoting a Chinese man who was a democrat, then a communist (under Mao) then, when he became disenchanted, a poet and writer…

          "You can sit around a table and talk about politics, about social issues, about anything and you can have a reasonable discussion with a reasonable person. But start talking about the mal-distribution of wealth and you better get your gun" …."that's where we are, in Europe and the United States".

          And all from a retired republican colonel…

          Norb, October 3, 2015 at 8:17 am

          How many chances can "Rich and Powerful Men" be given to determine the direction of civilization? It seems that those in power believe that if they are part of the 400 million class that survives the current crisis, all is well in the world. The powerless will die in their millions, and the wealthy move along to the next phase in the human drama.

          We are facing a crisis of accountability. We as citizens of this country have to find ways of holding those in power accountable for their actions. Wilkerson seems to have a conscience, but it is troubling to hear some of his "solutions" to the crisis we face. He is part of the military industrial complex we were warned about and still people seek out his advice. He spends his time advising how to relocate military bases due to sea level rise- WTF.

          If our energy, resources, and political thought don't center around ending poverty, bringing social justice to all of humanity, and limiting war- the future for humanity will be bleak.

          Llewelyn Moss, October 3, 2015 at 8:31 am

          Who could have known that Perpetual Carpet Bombing Of The World… would SOLVE NOTHING and destroy the US financially and morally. Who could have known… except anyone with half a brain.

          If Wilkerson is a true MIC Lacky, I'm much less interested in hearing his solution.

          Radu Andrei

          Here's what i do not understand: if "your party" is so extremist that it no longer represents any of your beliefs and political/social/fiscal positions, why the hell is it still "your party" ? I do hope it's just the attachment to the word "republican" and when it comes to voting you do it with your head.

          On a side note, i like this person. A true republican, NOT the ultra-religious, warmongering, xenophobic, bigoted, anti science, anti environment, oblivious to facts, obtuse, disingenuous, backstabbing, hypocritical and hateful breed that's surfacing lately.

          Sabine Ziya

          I agree with you Radu. It's scary to watch the Republican party right now. They are so full of hate. They claim to walk the way of their Jesus Christ, but I wonder if Jesus would call them Pharisees, blasphemous, and hypocritical.


          [Oct 03, 2015] Putin Checkmates Obama On New World Order WWIII

          "... Currently the movers and shakers in charge of US policy are as evil as they come, and EVERYBODY knows it. ..."
          Oct 03, 2015 | YouTube

          wiz987

          You are missing one of the main issues, the whole region is unstable because of the power struggle between Sunni and Shiatt muslims.

          Sebastin Otis 15 hours ago

          +wiz987 that's correct but who created this situation? USA of course. By killing saddam hussein and muammar el gaddafi, because they didn't want to trade oil in US dollars and because of US power hungry mentality. What US governments over the past few decades did and still been doing deserves sanctions needing to be imposed on the USA for number of decades. Thanks to them the world is more unstable than ever before over the past few hundred years.

          Joe Habid

          And who started that mess? Before operation Iraqi freedom or whatever you want to call it, you know the one that was supposed to find W.M.D. in Iraq , did you ever hear of sectarian violence ? C 'mon. Let's call it what it is.

          facereplacer

          It's fantastic. How can the west say "don't get ISIS!"

          They can't. They've been scaring the crap out of everyone with phony beheadings and other nonsense. Obama and the west have done nothing. I mean, this is chess and it makes me laugh.

          StopTheMorons

          It appears that Putin gave a very straightforward interview on 60 minutes. If there is one thing honest about him it's that he doesn't pretend to be someone he's not unlike those in the US government and the media who have been working hard to vilify him.

          BITARTEN

          bombing and killing terrorists beheading people is not only correct but good

          samuski36

          I bet Obama might have thought at one point, "I could school Putin on the basketball court...maybe."
          Seriously though, great video! Many thanks for bringing us actual news and insightful comment on it. And most of all, watch your six! Telling the truth is fatally dangerous these day's!

          Mike Paoli

          Americans are VERY EASY to deceive. They DEMAND LIES as TRUTHS are NOT as entertaining. They WORSHIP actors(IMPOSTORS). This is above all the scariest aspect of the entire state of affairs. Think about it! They PREFER an IMPOSTOR pretending to be somebody as opposed to the REAL person. Even though there is a ton of film with the REAL person they PREFER an IMPOSTOR and a STUPID movie.

          666sigma

          Obama is a putz. He backed ISIS in Syria. Those are his so called moderates. Putin called him out.

          The sad thing is that Putin told the truth and our government lied. This is unbelievable. Fucking Russia is telling the truth and our government is lying. Putin is telling the truth and our community organizer is no different than a neocon?

          I don't see how our douche bag in chief can save face.

          Barry N

          First point...Obama is not a World Leader. Russia and China have had enough of the US back CIA criminal actions.
          I as a American applaud Putin in showing Obama what a idiot he is. The world does not need the CIA and all its corruption.

          Goat Culler

          Right on Luke! the media here in New Zealand is feeding Kiwis fake! American crap demonising Russia.This move is a must to save Syria and its People. Nice! Move Russia and co ;-)

          robert alexander ho 13 hours ago

          Bravo.....the story of 9/11 or XIIX has to be reopened to put all these murderous criminals in jail. The NWO is essentially the wish to return to the Old world of imperialist domination of the same greedy players of the western alliances. The western alliances economies are in shambles and bankrupt , the societies are morally bankrupt and totally inept!

          hal "huh" us

          israel is controlling isis to destabilise the middle east, because israel wants to expand its borders into iraq, palestine, syria, etc.

          R Lionheart

          Thank you for helping us understand. Why is there such a western obsession with Assad? He is no more of a despot than King Salman or Porky Pigshanko or Obama. It is OK for Israel to commit genocide against the Palestinian, its OK for Porky Pig to murder Ukrainian children, its OK for Salman to murder wedding goers in Yemen - but oh my oh my it is not OK for Assad to defend his own government from rebels Assad must go - if Assad must go then Porky pig, Salman, O-bomb-a, Netanyahu, and all the other murdering pigs must also go!

          ArcesitorGmail

          I wish more Americans would understand that those in our governments who control the military industrial complex, Central Banking Systems and Multinational Corporations, to name a few, are no longer interested in representing of the PEOPLE of America. The game now and for the last 60 to 100 years has been "What political regime can we install?" "What government can we overthrow?" "What internal rebellion can we fund and arm?" to force those leaders of a sovereign nation that does not wish to buy our goods, drill our oil, borrow our money, distribute our corporate law to its population at the expense of its population.

          While at the same time, convincing us at home, with the help of our muzzled, biased corporately owned media that this is all being done in the name of "National Security" or "The Interests of our Nation and Its Allies".

          Horrific things are being done in our name. For power, money, commodity and ego. Please, everyone. Push the conversation.

          John Mastroligulano

          I know what you are saying but you do realize that they are part of the same exact Worldwide Oligarchy they only pretend to be at odds to thin the herd. If they didn't pretend to be enemies then how else would they be able to manipulate enough of the people into attacking one another for what they set in motion or sit back & allow to happen while controlling the mechanism's of check/balance.

          rockslyde1776

          Love Putin or hate him, it's interesting to watch the process of someone who knows what they're doing. In contrast to Berrie.

          Ryan Richard
          Migrant Crisis & Syria War Fueled By Competing Gas Pipelines (Link 1) http://www.mintpressnews.com/migrant-crisis-syria-war-fueled-by-competing-gas-pipelines/209294/ [Wikileaks revelations of US State Department leaks that show plans to destabilize Syria and overthrow the Syrian government as early as 2006. The leaks reveal that these plans were given to the US directly from the Israeli government and would be formalized through instigating civil strife and sectarianism through partnership with nations like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and even Egypt to break down the power structure in Syria to weaken Iran and Hezbolla] (Link 2) Assange on 'US Empire,' Assad govt overthrow plans & new book 'The WikiLeaks Files' (EXCLUSIVE) http://www.rt.com/news/314852-assange-wikileaks-us-syria/ Assange: "...That plan was to use a number of different factors to create paranoia within the Syrian government; to push it to overreact, to make it fear there's a coup...so in theory it says 'We have a problem with Islamic extremists crossing over the border with Iraq, and we're taking actions against them to take this information and make the Syrian government look weak, the fact that it is dealing with Islamic extremists at all.'"

          sgdeluxedoc

          OK nobody is calling Putin a saint. But lately Russia has been , morally, on the right side every time. Of course they've made mistakes. So did the US in WW2.

          Currently the movers and shakers in charge of US policy are as evil as they come, and EVERYBODY knows it. Ain't nothin anybody can do about it.

          And I don't think Putin considered his checkmate on B.H.O. such a coup, considering how stupid his opposition is.. Lastly, ain't no way, nohow, that the zionists are wagging Putin's tail. Russia has a long history of not letting them (the ultra-zionists) play them.

          [Oct 03, 2015] The Athens Affair shows why we need encryption without backdoors

          "... after the 2004 Olympics, the Greek government discovered that an unknown attacker had hacked into Vodafone's "lawful intercept" system, the phone company's mechanism of wiretapping phone calls. The attacker spied on phone calls of the president, other Greek politicians and journalists before it was discovered. ..."
          "... all this happened after the US spy agency cooperated with Greek law enforcement to keep an eye on potential terrorist attacks for the Olympics. Instead of packing up their surveillance gear, they covertly pointed it towards the Greek government and its people. But that's not all: according to Snowden documents that Bamford cited, this is a common tactic of the NSA. They often attack the "lawful intercept" systems in other countries to spy on government and citizens without their knowledge: ..."
          "... It's the exact nightmare scenario security experts have warned about when it comes to backdoors: they are not only available to those that operate them "legally", but also to those who can hack into them to spy without anyone's knowledge. If the NSA can do it, so can China, Russia and a host of other malicious actors. ..."
          Sep 30. 2015 | The Guardian
          Revelations about the hack that allowed Greek politicians to be spied on in 2004 come at a time when the White House is set to announce its encryption policy

          Just as it seems the White House is close to finally announcing its policy on encryption - the FBI has been pushing for tech companies like Apple and Google to insert backdoors into their phones so the US government can always access users' data -= new Snowden revelations and an investigation by a legendary journalist show exactly why the FBI's plans are so dangerous.

          One of the biggest arguments against mandating backdoors in encryption is the fact that, even if you trust the United States government never to abuse that power (and who does?), other criminal hackers and foreign governments will be able to exploit the backdoor to use it themselves. A backdoor is an inherent vulnerability that other actors will attempt to find and try to use it for their own nefarious purposes as soon as they know it exists, putting all of our cybersecurity at risk.

          In a meticulous investigation, longtime NSA reporter James Bamford reported at the Intercept Tuesday that the NSA was behind the notorious "Athens Affair". In surveillance circles, the Athens Affair is stuff of legend: after the 2004 Olympics, the Greek government discovered that an unknown attacker had hacked into Vodafone's "lawful intercept" system, the phone company's mechanism of wiretapping phone calls. The attacker spied on phone calls of the president, other Greek politicians and journalists before it was discovered.

          According to Bamford's story, all this happened after the US spy agency cooperated with Greek law enforcement to keep an eye on potential terrorist attacks for the Olympics. Instead of packing up their surveillance gear, they covertly pointed it towards the Greek government and its people. But that's not all: according to Snowden documents that Bamford cited, this is a common tactic of the NSA. They often attack the "lawful intercept" systems in other countries to spy on government and citizens without their knowledge:

          Exploiting the weaknesses associated with lawful intercept programs was a common trick for NSA. According to a previously unreleased top-secret PowerPoint presentation from 2012, titled "Exploiting Foreign Lawful Intercept Roundtable", the agency's "countries of interest" for this work included, at that time, Mexico, Indonesia, Egypt and others. The presentation also notes that NSA had about 60 "Fingerprints" - ways to identify data - from telecom companies and industry groups that develop lawful intercept systems, including Ericsson, as well as Motorola, Nokia and Siemens.

          It's the exact nightmare scenario security experts have warned about when it comes to backdoors: they are not only available to those that operate them "legally", but also to those who can hack into them to spy without anyone's knowledge. If the NSA can do it, so can China, Russia and a host of other malicious actors.

          ... ... ...

          Disclosure: Trevor Timm works for Freedom of the Press Foundation, which is one of the many civil liberties organizations to have called on the White House to support strong encryption.


          TDM MCL -> LePloumesCleau 30 Sep 2015 21:21

          You are getting very warm near the real reasons why the government does not want your to have full privacy....encryption (of a certain type, not your usual off the shelf type mind you), is the threat that all power greedy controlling tyrant governments phreak out about....they tell you it's about national security...

          if you don't find the contradiction in that line of thinking...you are not thinking carefully.

          which is precisely what the elites desire..you ! no thinking...do what you are told..get in line..work hard...don't ask questions...

          this is the world powers at work...and the minions of narrow minded geeks that support them in exchange for unbelievable amounts of money, influence and true freedom...it's ironic, really..that the world's smartest people have to steal your power from you, in order to have any themselves.

          but it is what makes the current regimes' clock ticking.

          TDM MCL -> Ehsan Tabari 30 Sep 2015 21:16

          only by the most self favored moralistic nationalist bigotry can one assume that a "certain" kind of government can pull off mass surveillance "responsibly"!

          and apparently, the USA would have you believe there is some significant difference in how well they perform the freedom robbing than their comrades..

          I call them both tyrants..how bout them apples?!

          TDM MCL -> ACJB 30 Sep 2015 21:12

          what makes you believe that ALL NON-TRIVIAL communications are not being surveilled in real time at this moment, now?

          If any entity of any significance is communicating, it is surely being tracked... this isn't some conspiratorial thinking either...

          The vast reach and capacity for surveillance infrastructure is many time more then necessary to capture all real time communications. The most important significant communications are in fact the target...

          Mom sending her sister a recipe on her aol account never registers....the "machine"...listens specifically.. it is far more intelligent and directed than most people understand.

          But it also has the capacity to target just about anything..and that is the danger... What happens to the newsie or the everyday fella that takes note of something very disturbing...illegal even..or morally objectionable?

          Remember why the tor network was designed for...mostly to allow people that could not talk freely to do so..in warzones..or where their discussions would bring grave danger to them and others....

          Tor was hacked and it a dead animal to privacy for over 6 years now...don't use it, unless you want to the information to be used against you...

          There are very few private venues anymore...the world has gone to shit


          TDM MCL -> Crashman55 30 Sep 2015 20:58

          It happens more often than most people understand.

          If you want to get a reality test of this, here is how you too can verify that the spy agencies are very prevalent in every day communications.

          btw: this simple type of test, is best applies using several of the off the shelf encryption programs ...in this way, you get verification of what snowden and many others have acknowledged for quite some time.

          a. create a secure email ...join a secure vpn..use encrypted off the shelf s/w for your message.

          b. send "someone" that you know ..that you call first ...that wants to play along...and within the email message...write some off the wall content about terrorism...bombs...etc..use all the sorted "key words"..it's easy to locate a list...google is your friend. Just make sure they understand that the purpose of the test to to verify that security exists..you will find..it doesn't...

          c. it is best that your "friend" be localed outside of the us...middle east ...or russia...or china...ukraine...gernamny.,.,..etc..you get the idea.

          d. repeat, rinse and wash using all the garden variety of the shelf security...PGP...GPG...CRYPTZONE...SYMANTEC...HPSECURE...ETC..ETC...DO ANY AND ALL OF THEM THAT YOU LIKE TO TEST. Fire them out like a shotgun...if you can enlist the help of hundreds to chain the mail along, even better.

          When the agencies contact you...and they will depending on how authentic you have decided to mask your traffic and how authentic they consider your email content exchange merited inspection...you will discover what anyone who has actually used encyption in a real world way has come to understand...

          if you are using typical commercially available encryption..there is NO privacy.

          meaning it is not simple possible to crack..but easily...


          Zhubajie1284 GoldMoney 30 Sep 2015 20:29

          Facebook and Twitter were banned in China after someone posted a bunch of gruesome photos from some rioting in Xinjiang. It looked to me, as an outsider, that someone was trying to provoke anti-Muslim rioting elsewhere in China. It would be reasonable for Chinese security people to suspect the CIA or some other US agency famous for destabilizing foreign governments. The US had already announced it's strategic pivot towards Asia, which can easily be interpreted as a declaration of Cold War on China.

          I don't know the whole truth of the incident, but people in PR China have good reason to be suspicious.

          now, what is the risk...you may be harassed..but unless I am missing some new law, none of this type of testing is unlawful...

          for real world security that works...similar kinds of penetration tests are used as above....

          hey you can even honey pot a public network if you wanted to....you know just to prove to yourself there is no such thing as secrecy achieved by using a public library or a "shared" computer.

          note: one of the first indications that you are being surveilled, is that there will a subtle but noted performance hit on your machine..if you attach a security gateway with logging, even better...or a high end hardware firewall-gateway, that sniffs...

          watch also for some very interesting emails to hit all of your "other" accounts.

          if you do this, I can predict at least the following:

          your machine will take a hit...
          you will get notified most likely by the FBI, via your isp.
          if you do this on your smartphone and that is linked to other accounts..you can guarantee to have spread malware abundantly to all other accounts linked.
          if the FBI asks that you reveal the content of emails...ask them to show you first...and grin very large when you say that...if it's a low end non-tech....force them to gain a warrant...and contact your lawyer...

          is it a waste of time for law enforcement to show their hand in how intimately they have backended encyption..? or is worth it to you to understand that it is common..and secret..and very broad...

          that time when making things better is waning...and narrowing..if you aren't willing to take a stand and object and posit your own resistance to overreaching spying..then the awful dreadful future that awaits you, is just as much your own fault.

          that is where I land on the issue.


          for the issue, now...not later!

          take a stand!

          TDM MCL martinusher 30 Sep 2015 20:27

          the real issue with the "legal tacK' wrt to halting the fed from building backdoors or mandating them, is the reality that most of the high level secret business of spy agencies DEFY any law. As is the case with most software and hardware corporations..there is massive financial and intelligence capitol that depends on building backdoors in secret..sharing them with the government simply provides "cover"...

          the real threat of all of this of course is the very reason why the constitution was written and preoccupied with protecting freedom and liberty...eventually, abuses from a tyranny government or fascist state comes into power.

          some say we have already passes that threshold...given the broad "known" abuses of the 300+ secret spy agencies and the secret laws that not only authorize them but threaten companies who do not comply...you really can't deny the fact that the target is you and me. And sometimes, although, seemingly unproven, some existential external terror organization.

          I've long since held that a formal security arrangement can implemented by ISP's where ALL internet traffic is routed...and where the most inteligent and efficient means to shut down malware and other activities that are unlawful and harmful...

          I has never been seriously considered or even suggested by the government .....you have to serious be suspicious why that has never been considered...

          perhaps too much intelligent security programs, would put all of the security industry and fear agencies out of business...What else would they do with their time...

          I have zero faith in the US government to do the right thing anymore..they have been vacant at their core responsibility to protect its citizens. They have built a wall of mistrust by their abuses.

          to the technologically talented, what this all means is that the US government has created a niche market that is growing ever larger...and that is to establish highly secure networks for end users. It also happens to make them appear to be criminals.

          Imagine that...a software engineer who is actually doing the business of protecting a persons right to privacy...immediately falls into the long list of persons of interest!

          the government has parted company with its responsibilities..and has created a adversarial rife with the people of its own country...I give it less than 10 years before the people perform their own arab spring...it really is going to get very bad in this country.

          beelzebob 30 Sep 2015 17:34

          This is all very interesting from a certain standpoint. 21 CFR Part 11 requires all drug companies, and other companies doing business before the FDA to take reasonable steps to ensure the security of all of their data to guarantee that the data are not tampered with. If the FBI and CIA are inserting backdoors into electronic communications devices, defined broadly to include everything from telephones to the Internet, there is no reasonable way to ensure that unauthorized parties can not use these devices to alter drug company data. Thus, it appears that drug companies, and their employees, contractors and suppliers, can not use the internet or anything connected to the internet as part of their FDA regulated operations.

          kenalexruss 30 Sep 2015 14:02

          Data is big business and ironically, only serves big business. The US government couldn't tell it's head from its ass regarding the stuff, but the data is critical for corporations. Since corporations are people and dictate government policy and are also the primary government interest, there will be back doors. Apple, google, microsoft, et.al. are ALL big business and they don't want you knowing how they really feel about it, so they feign objections. It's all about money, as usual.

          martinusher 30 Sep 2015 13:23

          There was an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times yesterday that suggested that adding backdoors or otherwise hacking into people's computers was a violation of the 3rd Amendment.

          http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gatto-surveillance-3rd-amendment-20150929-story.html

          Quite apart from that never making it past the Roberts court (although it might be worth trying) I daresay proponents of universal surveillance will argue that businesses aren't covered by this so hacking into servers &tc. is OK.

          Government agencies do appear to be out of control. Its not the snooping so much as their general ineffectiveness when it comes to crime and the Internet -- you can get your identity stolen, your back account hacked and so on and they shrug as if to say "What's this got to do with us?". The seem to be only interested in a very narrow range of political activities.

          Phil429 30 Sep 2015 12:14

          Coming out strongly against such a mandate [to eliminate everyone's security] would be huge on multiple fronts for the Obama administration: it would send a strong message for human rights around the world, it would make it much harder for other governments to demand backdoors from US tech companies and it would also strengthen the US economy.

          Only if you assume some connection between the administration's stated policies and its actions.


          GoldMoney -> RoughSleeper 30 Sep 2015 12:05

          I don't care about mass surveillance, because I have nothing to hide! I have nothing to hide, so I have nothing to fear, those that are trying to hide private lives, must have something to fear"....Signed GCHQ/MI5/Police/Council troll

          haha - I loved that post, so true!


          GoldMoney -> koichan 30 Sep 2015 11:49

          The TSA travel locks for use in air travel have a backdoor and now can be opened by pretty much anyone in the world now. Now imagine the same thing applying to bank transactions, credit/debit card payments and so on...

          Very good point.

          By having backdoors you compromise the entire security of the system and make it vulnerable to attackers in general.

          Snowden deserves the Nobel peace prize if you ask me....

          While we are on the topic - lets take back the prize from Obama....


          GoldMoney -> LePloumesCleau 30 Sep 2015 11:39

          If people don't trust the security of encryption then there is no point in using it.

          Exactly right.

          I think the internet as we know it will break down in the future as countries will not trust foreign technology companies colluding with their home intelligence agencies.

          Its already happening in China - most western technology companies like FB, Twitter, etc. are banned there for fear they could be used by the US to spy on Chinese citizens or to orchestrate a "Chinese Spring" there....


          Crashman55 30 Sep 2015 11:13

          You can go online and get the source codes off of several excellent encryption websites, and then develop your own. My brother and I did this, and we were sending our weekly NFL football picks back and forth each week. We stopped after the FBI came to my brother's place of business, after a couple months, and questioned him. When my brother asked how they able to even look at our emails, they said they had a computer program in place that kicked out encrypted emails. After being threatened with arrest at his job in front of everyone, he showed them the unencrypted versions.

          They said that our silliness had wasted valuable FBI time and resources. If you don't think Big Brother is watching...


          Peter Dragonas -> Ehsan Tabari 30 Sep 2015 10:25

          Why do you think the anti-American Muslim Community and others, call us TERRORISTS? OUR COMPASS is as faulty as ????????. The world situation is a mirror of Grandiose Individuals who look down on reality. Reality is an obstruction to their neediness for attracting attention and control.


          Peter Dragonas 30 Sep 2015 10:19

          Another major "foundation section" removed from our Country's integrity. Sick, paranoia, similar to the "J. EDGAR HOOVER ERA & CONTINUATION THROUGH HIS LEGACY FUNDS TO THIS DAY". Could this be true, I could think the "The Athens Affair" predates the elements that brought down Greece, in favor of pushing Turkey to becoming the American doorway into Asia & the Middle East. Just a theory. Yet, where there is smoke, something is cooking, which requires political FIRE.


          RoughSleeper 30 Sep 2015 08:50

          I don't care about mass surveillance, because I have nothing to hide! I have nothing to hide, so I have nothing to fear, those that are trying to hide private lives, must have something to fear"....Signed GCHQ/MI5/Police/Council troll

        3. I don't care about State cameras recording everyone out, because I don't go out. I don't care about those that do.
        4. I don't care about State cameras recording wives, girlfriends, children, because I don't have any. I don't care about those that do.
        5. I don't care about the right to privacy because I have nothing of any value to hide. I don't care about those that have.
        6. I don't care about freedom of speech because I have nothing of any value to say. I don't care about those that have.
        7. I don't care about freedom of the press because I have nothing of any value to write. I don't care about those that have.
        8. I don't care about freedom of thought, because I have no thoughts of any value. I don't care about those that have.
        9. I don't care about the right to privacy of intellectual property, because I have no intelligence of any value. I don't care about those that have.
        10. I don't care about the right to privacy of bank details, because I have nothing of any value in my bank account. I don't care about those that have.
        11. I don't care about the right to privacy of love letters, because I have no love of any value. I don't care about those that have.
        12. I don't care about the rights of HR activists, because I don't contribute anything to HRs. I don't care about those that do.
        13. I don't care about society, community, future, because I don't contribute anything to them. I don't care about those that do.
        14. I don't care about the right to privacy of my vote, because we have no democracy of any value anyway. I don't care about countries that have.
        15. I don't care about Gypsies, Blacks, Jews, Invalids, Unions, socialists, Untermensch, because I am not one. I don't care about those that are.
        16. I only care about me, here & now! It's look after number one, as the Tories tell us.

        17. koichan 30 Sep 2015 08:39

          For the less technically minded, heres another example of whats wrong with government backdoors:

          http://boingboing.net/2015/09/17/3d-print-your-own-tsa-travel-s.html

          The TSA travel locks for use in air travel have a backdoor and now can be opened by pretty much anyone in the world now. Now imagine the same thing applying to bank transactions, credit/debit card payments and so on...

          LePloumesCleau 30 Sep 2015 08:10

          I would only ever trust open source encryption software. I don't trust the "encryption" built into Windows or Apple software at all.

          If people don't trust the security of encryption then there is no point in using it.

          [Oct 02, 2015] The pretense that it was a Russian invasion in Donetsk is exactly that, a pretense.

          At fist I thought that Twaddleradar, member since Aug 9, 2015A is a new NATObot. It it looks like he is a regular Russophob... Still amazingly prolific spamming the whole discussion. It's definitly not enough for him to state his point of view and voice objection. Such commenting incontinence is very disruptive in Web forums.
          Notable quotes:
          "... WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE!?!? After 2 weeks in syria you have loads of satellite pictures of the Russian base/troops, but after a year + in Ukraine all your evidence is taken from social media posts? Good thing more and more people are refusing to swallow your daily dose of bullshit. ..."
          "... The pretense that this was a Russian invasion is exactly that, a pretense. ..."
          "... Something tells that it's easy to say but hard to implement. Far right powers in Ukraine would resist such a law very much. ..."
          Oct 02, 2015 | The Guardian

          ID075732 2 Oct 2015 22:51

          Russia has denied military involvement in the conflict despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

          This old chestnut again... Evidence please of this sweeping claim?

          No mention of Putin drafting the Minsk agreement, this is what happened. Then presenting it as a road map for a resolution to the Ukrainian Civil war? As I recall it was Merkell and Holland who rushed to Moscow in February to meet with Putin and thrash out a solution which was then presented to Poroshenko.

          As the USA is now in an election cycle and with the Syrian War on Isis takes centre stage with Russian involvement, it looks like the their sock puppet, Petro Poroshenko has been hung out to dry. Finally being told to get back in his box... for now, probably as no more funds via the IMF will be directed into this proxi-conflict if it continues (well they were breaking their own rules giving Ukraine money when it's at war with itself).

          Finally, this made me smile...

          It has been a busy diplomatic week for Putin, who has not been a frequent guest in western capitals over the past year

          Actually Putin has had a very busy diplomatic year building international partnerships across Asia and the BRIC's, Trade agreements with China and Saudi Arabian investment into Russia. The Silk Route project and much more. It seems to me some of the Graun's journalists should get out more, like Putin has been doing!

          PrinceEdward -> Twaddleradar 2 Oct 2015 21:12

          Meanwhile every Ukrainian male is so full of patriotism, there is no need for a 5 draft rounds in Ukraine because they're flooding with so many volunteers, they turn them away. Stories of parents paying $1000 to get their kids out of the draft, or countless thousands of 20-something Ukrainians running away to Russia and Poland to get student visas, is just propaganda.

          MrJohnsonJr 2 Oct 2015 21:07

          Ukraine has a fucking nerve to require a diplomatic effort to have it explained to them what a murderous losers the turned out to be and that another of their "revolutions" brought nothing but a major waste of human life and EU and Russian taxpayer money.

          KriticalThinkingUK 2 Oct 2015 20:39

          Its great isnt it what can be achieved when Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine get together for serious negotiations. Just like in Minsk 1 and 2 when the same group first established peace in Ukraine, behind the backs of the USA and UK who were pointedly not invited to those talks either.

          What is the key to this progress? Simple. Dont invite the rightwing cold war loonies to attend. Keep them out at all costs. That is to say exclude from all talks USA, UK, NATO, Poland and the rest of the crazy warmongers who have worked so hard to encourage conflict.

          If these negotiations are successful expect further progress over the next decade in other spheres between Germany and Russia. In fact objectively by all measures it is in the long term interests, both economic and political, for these two major European powers to co-operate as natural trading partners....the US warmongers worst nightmare!

          Interesting times................

          Mazuka 2 Oct 2015 20:35

          " Russia has denied military involvement in the conflict despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

          WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE!?!? After 2 weeks in syria you have loads of satellite pictures of the Russian base/troops, but after a year + in Ukraine all your evidence is taken from social media posts? Good thing more and more people are refusing to swallow your daily dose of bullshit.

          NotYetGivenUp -> HHeLiBe 2 Oct 2015 19:18

          You confuse Crimea, which voted for secession after Russian forces ensured Kiev military didn't engae in anti-secessionist reprisals (as stated by Putin), with East Ukraine, in which Kiev generals admitted they were fighting Donbass forces, not Russian forces.

          The pretense that this was a Russian invasion is exactly that, a pretense. But any honest appraisal of the facts on the ground, through observation of events as they happened, show that the rejection of the Kievan coup was by the people of Donbass, and is a popular rejection, not the nonsense Russian invasion peddled by the media in the west.

          Mr Russian 2 Oct 2015 19:13

          The compromise plan would involve the Ukrainian parliament passing a law stating these elections were indeed legal, but they would be organised by the rebels.

          Something tells that it's easy to say but hard to implement. Far right powers in Ukraine would resist such a law very much.

          [Oct 02, 2015] EU has been hit by 'out of control bulldozer', says Iain Duncan Smith

          "...I too want Iain Duncan-Smith to be hit head on by an out of control bulldozer. ..."
          Oct 02, 2015 | www.theguardian.com

          Lyigushka -> OliColl 2 Oct 2015 22:29

          'Leaving the EU ".is not in the interests of the US" '
          That's my vote decided then, bye EU.


          MikeSivier 2 Oct 2015 22:18

          Why does The Guardian, along with the other news media, insist on giving credibility to this disreputable individual by continuing to publish his words?
          He has been caught lying so many times that it is frankly irresponsible to repeat anything he says - without a disclaimer - and expect to keep your own reputation intact.


          dreamer06 2 Oct 2015 22:12

          Btw, Guardian, why aren't you reporting on the story about the clashes between migrants of an Islamic faith and Christians in the refugee camps in Germany, and that Germanys Senior Police Chief, Jörg Radek, has said refugees now needed to be separated by religion because of the tensions. By all means show the positive things happening there, but hide the dark side.


          BlueBeard 2 Oct 2015 21:43

          There are lies, damned lies and Iain Duncan Smith.

          JonathanPacker 2 Oct 2015 21:48

          On the other hand when I see a photo like that (I would never let the Grauniad photographer take one of me!) it looks like the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and I know it can't last.

          Encouraging.

          valdez 2 Oct 2015 21:41

          It's a sad indictment of the state of democracy, that someone widely regarded as a cretin, even his own party, can sustain a very senior position for this long.


          Allseeingguy 2 Oct 2015 21:10


          I know about 500 people have made this joke already but... ...I too want Iain Duncan-Smith to be hit head on by an out of control bulldozer.

          Hopefully while he was in a factory on a photo-op, and the bulldozer was under the control of someone who was only in that job due to workfare and couldn't reach the brake pedal due to their disability. His last words would be "You're not fit to work" to which the disabled bulldozer driver would reply "ATOS said I am" to a round of applause from his colleagues.

          That's how much I dislike IDS, I imagine things like that upon reading things like this.


          lolbayfcp 2 Oct 2015 21:01

          He must think we're barmy.

          Schengen is about the free movement of citizens of EU countries. Border checks are still allowed if the host country wants to implement them. I've been checked at every border driving from Sweden to the UK sometimes.

          The free movement of labour is about citizens of EU nations.

          Refugees won't be making EU capitals rethink their belief in free movement of labour or 'reform'. It'll make some capitals that don't want muslims & aren't taking any anyway say some things a little turd like IDS will take for support & spin despite it being meaningless for the issues that Cameron has sought reform on that pre-date this crisis & those capitals are still 100% behind.

          Jeebus....they are just such 'not clever people' & they treat us as such too but he's talking rubbish like he ALWAYS does


          PollyAnthus 2 Oct 2015 20:50

          Ian Duncan Smith is an "out of control" narcissistic psycho whose policies are killing, poor, vulnerable and disabled people. Why is this person who obviously should not be allowed anywhere near a government post in high office being featured in this newspaper? The man is dangerous and his views extreme.


          ProbablyafakeID 2 Oct 2015 20:40

          Surely a crisis in part brought about by this governments and the previous governments support of bombing places like Libya.... Or other middle eastern countries...

          It's a vile man who knowingly does wrong.... Such a man is IDS.

          This government is a threat to peace, economic stability, international security and very much your family (unless you have a couple of million in the bank of course)

          [Oct 02, 2015] Brian Friel Irelands great theatrical explorer

          Oct 02, 2015 | The Guardian

          On top of his original work, Friel did a beautiful adaptation of Turgenev's Fathers and Sons, translated most of Chekhov's major plays and dramatised many of his short stories. He was always understandably in thrall to the Russian master. But his great achievement was that, in a vast variety of plays, he explored the condition of Ireland and embodied the idea of theatre as a vital secular ritual.

          IanShuttleworth 2 Oct 2015 11:35

          The first play I ever saw in a proper theatre - thanks to my then-English teacher, Robin Glendinning - was Faith Healer in the Grand Opera House in Belfast, with the godlike Donal McCann. So Friel was pretty much the start of my theatregoing life, which has been so vital to me both personally and professionally.

          BelfastJawbox , 2 Oct 2015 07:55

          I saw Friel's 'Philadelphia, Here I come' at the Lyric Theatre, Belfast, yonks ago with Liam Neeson and John Hewitt in the main roles. It was one of the most electrifying and poignant theatre experiences I've had and provided me with the enormous incentive to become a regular theatre goer.

          Friel's incisive, powerful, theatrical presence will be sorely missed.

          Ciaran Mc Aliskey 2 Oct 2015 09:30

          Saw at Dancing at Lughnasa two weeks ago in the Lyric in Belfast with Catherine McCormack. Was fantastic! Translations was my favourite text covered at A-Level also. RIP

          [Oct 02, 2015] This is a War – pure and simple. The Global Informational War.

          Lyttenburgh, October 2, 2015 at 12:19 pm

          The fact that Mark Adomanis have completely devolved into shit (there is no other words to describe the last couple of his articles for his newest haunt – the "Russia! Magazine") had been the last straw for me. I realized once and for all that all those journos, op-ed authors, analytics and – most of all – legions of opinionated and well informed commenters (read – edgy teens and/or ignorant self-absorbed ignorant morons). I'm talking about the Western segment of the Net – knew that EuroUkrs and Russian Liberasts active in the Net are a lost cause and evolutionary dead-end long time ago. It's the citizens of the supposedly "Free World" sprouting lies, repeating them and then eagerly believing them – 'cause that's what they want to hear to confirm their long established biases – who were re-evaluated by me.

          There is hardly any dialog possible or even exchange of opinions – not to mention this absolutely teeny-weeny and unimportant thing like actually listening to your opponents arguments and facts.

          This is a War – pure and simple. The Global Informational War.

          Reading some comments and articles made me realize (deep-deep inside) that Stalin's methods while dealing with the Enemies were way too humane and ineffective. Oh, no-no! Nope! Only Ivan Grozny – only hardcore! I still find morbidly amusing how Ivan IV executed either some monks or the dyak of the Posolskiy prikaz's who've screwed up big time by ordering them to be tied up to a powder keg and then blown up. And let's not forget that czar Ivan was most prolific writer of letters and perfected the now much valued art of trolling, dissing and flaming his opponents nearly 450 years ago!

          I won't wax for a long time about any of such articles – I'll just comment on one of them which represent a true quintessence of the "Modern Western Journalism" ™.

          Russian Airstrikes in Syria Could Last Four Months, Officials Say

          Yes – this is The Vice News, a №1 choice for any opinionated and conscientious edgy teens, hipsters, San-Franciscan barefooters and Hikkies around the world when they want to learn about the world at large. For me – I think that the name is aptly chosen for this disgusting excuse for the "Modern Journalism". They do embody one of the Mortal Sins nearly perfectly, namely – the Sloth.

          Article immediately plunges us into the convoluted and weed-brownies destroyed mind of the average VICE NEWS 'author':

          "Russia's airstrikes in Syria could continue for three to four months, according to the head of the lower house of the Russian parliament's foreign affairs committee, as controversy continues over what Moscow's attacks are actually targeting."

          Wow! What you say – "controversial", huh? Well, I'm a silly foreigner Not From the West, and English is not my first language. So I'm gonna to recheck what this "controversial" word means. Let's try Merriam-Webster, shall we?

          "relating to or causing much discussion, disagreement, or argument: likely to produce controversy"

          Oh, that! Well – there is no "controversy" about airstrikes in Russia. Soviet Federaciy voted unanimously for that. Russians (with the exception of delegated to the very Oblivion of a small bunch of the radical "patriots", chronic "putinslivshiks" and liberasts) are totally in favor of that. Who's disagreeing the most are the Western governments and the Free and Independent Western Media ™. But in that case the word "controversial" can (and should) be applied just to about everything. Honest and free-spirited journos are refraining from doing that when it doesn't suit theig agenda.

          "Officials announced on Friday that airstrikes had been carried out for a third day in row and " that these hit 12 Islamic State (IS) targets."

          I will just leave this sentence hanging here for a while – but I will return to it soon!

          "Yet the US, which is leading its own air campaign against IS, says Moscow has been using its campaign as a pretext to hit other groups opposed to Russia's ally, President Bashar al-Assad.

          Some of the groups that have been hit are supported by countries which oppose both Assad and IS, including at least one group that received training from the CIA"

          Well, thank you VICE NEWS for this frankness and honesty! Oh, those vily Ruskies! Bombing poor and innocent "rebels", who are as pure as baby's tear!

          "Russia's air campaign in a country already being bombed by a US-led coalition of Western and Arab countries means that the Cold War superpower foes Moscow and Washington are now flying combat missions over the same country for the first time since World War II.

          Well, this is not quite true. In fact last time both Washington and Moscow flew combat missions over the same country was in… Vietnam, I think. Everybody remembers brave North Vietnamese ace Li Si Tzeen, right? ;)

          "Russian Su-34, Su-24M, and Su-25 warplanes flew 18 sorties, hitting a command post and a communications center in the province of Aleppo as well as a militant field camp in Idlib, a Defense Ministry statement said. A command post in the province of Hama was also completely destroyed, it added."

          Once again – I will just leave it here. And now this:

          "The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors the conflict with a network of sources on the ground, said IS had no presence in the western and northern areas that were struck."

          AH, YIISSSSS! Nary an article about Syria by the VICE now goes without referencing this august body of the first hand and reliable reporting of the Sacred Truth! Surely, we must trust it completely, folks! They are UK-based, after all!

          But I will still ask this nagging ugly question – what the hell is this "Syrian Observatory for the Human Rights" which VICEers are so often quote (without providing links to the actual statements, naturally)?

          Oh, you gonna love this! According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung article of 2012 this "SOHR" was the primarily source about the situation "on the ground" for all major Western propaganda outlets. The fact is… there is no such thing as "Syrian Observatory for the Human Rights". There is only one guy actually- some Osama Suleyman, living in Coventry, who have adopted the nom de plume Rami-Abdul-Rahman (http://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/rami-abdul-rahman/). According to his own words, Suleyman had been jailed 3 times in Syria for the "opposition activism" and then emigrated to Britain in 2000. In Coventry he and his wife own a clothing shop and now both of them are British naturalized citizens.

          In short – the sort of people who absolutely 100500% can keep their arms on the pulse of the current events taking place in Syria and report with absolute accuracy only the Truth. Yay!

          Well, as for the other claims, about "poor kids bombed by Ruskies", I'll just leave this picture here:

          Also, as you have probably noticed by now, when the VICEers had to quote despicable Russian sources they all too often use such terms as "they claimed", "they stated" and "according to them". So we know from the starters – we should not trust them! They Russians! But is the source is some brave (and, doubtlessly, pro Western/Democracy/Moderate Islamist) they are to be trusted – they "say" and "tell". Charming fellows. Why should they lie?

          And no – As Everybody Knows ™, the West doesn't employ propaganda. True story!

          [Sep 30, 2015] Obama Snubbed as Xi, Putin Stay at Chinese Owned Waldorf

          Sep 30, 2015 | Zero Hedge
          J Mahoney

          Nothing too significant about this...just a minor bitch slap cause the US started the fiasco concerning the Waldorff. After the Chinese bought it last year, the STATE DEPT announced they would no longer have meetings there or house guests there because of the fear of eavesdropping. How ironic the STATE DEPT didn't show the same level of precaution about Hillbillies private email server.

          Flying Wombat

          Great read:

          "Chinese-Russian Relations and the Empire: Analysis w/ The Saker"

          http://thenewsdoctors.com/?p=513952


          luna_man

          "Snubbed"?...This is known as self preservation!

          bad enough being in the U.S.A. for these two...especially after J.F.K. and 911!

          CRIMINALS TURF

          Able Ape

          I wouldn't step in the Whitehouse even if it was pressure-washed with high-pressure steam hoses, then copiously sprayed with hydrogen peroxide, and finally liberally doused with concentrated bleach and they then offered me a Level 4 biohazard suit. Some places you just need to stay OUT of!...

          NoWayJose

          The Chinese owned Waldorf is probably the only place they can stay without having to worry about the NSA listening in. You can bet that there are special floors and rooms that are constructed to isolate any electronic leakage, and are swept several times each day.

          BarkingCat

          Unless the hotel has floors that are never rented, any spy agency can get surveillance equipment planted.

          ebear

          "1 year ago they bought the Waldorf for two billion US dollars."

          Yeah, but do they know how to make a Waldorf salad?

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDE3mVLNdRA


          [Sep 29, 2015] World set for emerging market mass default, warns IMF - Telegraph

          "... Exactly what was engineered, the oligarchs of the US Neoliberal Empire will now be able to pick up "emerging market" assets for pennies on the dollar increase their already vast holdings and secure Neoliberalism - or more correctly Neo-feudalism in fancy dress. ..."
          "... We have seen the Neoliberals do this kind of empire building for the last 30 years first the Savings and Loan "crisis" in the 1990s which transferred over 300 billion in middle class assets into the hands of the Bass brothers and a few other oligarchs including the Cargill family at the time the largest transfer of wealth in peace time. ..."
          "... The Great Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals has a big big appetite which will not be satisfied until the own the entire planet and rather than 4 billion people living on $2 a day it will be 7.3 billion. The Neoliberal world view [is one] of a few thousand oligarchs and Bangladesh as the rest of the world. ..."
          Sep 29, 2015 | telegraph.co.uk

          TheBoggart

          "The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has issued a double warning over higher US interest rates, which it said could trigger a wave of emerging
          market corporate defaults"

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

          blueba • 7 hours ago

          Exactly what was engineered, the oligarchs of the US Neoliberal Empire will now be able to pick up "emerging market" assets for pennies on the dollar increase their already vast holdings and secure Neoliberalism - or more correctly Neo-feudalism in fancy dress.

          We have seen the Neoliberals do this kind of empire building for the last 30 years first the Savings and Loan "crisis" in the 1990s which transferred over 300 billion in middle class assets into the hands of the Bass brothers and a few other oligarchs including the Cargill family at the time the largest transfer of wealth in peace time. Then a few more small transfers and the the big "crisis" of 2007-8 which is ongoing and where close to a trillion in assets were consolidated in the hands of oligarchs.

          First load on the debt with money created out of thin air by banks, then foreclose after the phony "bubble" bursts. Then walk away Scott free with the assets.

          The Great Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals has a big big appetite which will not be satisfied until the own the entire planet and rather than 4 billion people living on $2 a day it will be 7.3 billion. The Neoliberal world view [is one] of a few thousand oligarchs and Bangladesh as the rest of the world.

          [Sep 28, 2015] The Only Two Things That Matter: Why I'm Supporting Larry Lessig

          Notable quotes:
          "... We need smart, motivated, knowledgeable voters. And we need a political system in which all people have an equal say. Without those ingredients, no amount of well-meaning, reasoned, fact-based argument is going to do much good. ..."
          "... The presumption behind Lessig's gimmick is that democracy is a good form of government, so that closer adherence to democratic ideals will produce better political results. But democracy is arguably a terrible form of government, as the authors of the Federalist Papers were aware. What we need is intelligent, substantive, inspiring leadership. Mr. Lessig is not offering anything of the sort, so I would discourage anyone from wasting his or her vote on an empty gimmick. ..."
          Sep 28, 2015 | baselinescenario.com

          We have lots of problems: Expensive yet mediocre health care. Lack of retirement security. Out-of-control megabanks. Inequality of opportunity. And, of course, climate change.

          At the end of the day, though, there are only two things that matter: early childhood education and electoral reform.

          We need smart, motivated, knowledgeable voters. And we need a political system in which all people have an equal say. Without those ingredients, no amount of well-meaning, reasoned, fact-based argument is going to do much good.

          michaelhendrickson | September 26, 2015 at 9:47 pm

          The presumption behind Lessig's gimmick is that democracy is a good form of government, so that closer adherence to democratic ideals will produce better political results. But democracy is arguably a terrible form of government, as the authors of the Federalist Papers were aware. What we need is intelligent, substantive, inspiring leadership. Mr. Lessig is not offering anything of the sort, so I would discourage anyone from wasting his or her vote on an empty gimmick.

          [Sep 28, 2015] Obama America Has Few4 Economic Interests In Ukraine... And This Very Big One

          Sep 28, 2015 | Zero Hedge
          As part of his UN speech seeking to restore a crumbling Pax Americana, president Obama, eager to cover up US involvement in the Ukraine presidential coup of early 2014 (who can forget Victoria Nuland "strategy" interception in which she laid out the post-coup lay of the land, while saying to "fuck the EU"), just said that "America has few economic interest in Ukraine."

          Herdee

          Where and what did they do with Ukraine's gold bullion reserves and who is in possession of them right now and why is it such a big secret to everyone that overthrew the Government there?

          directaction

          Who cares? The Ukraine gold and all the rest of their resources are legitimate wartime plunder, booty, if you will. If the Ukrainians are stupid enough to happily allow the USA to barge in and take everything of value from them why should we weep?

          viator

          "George Soros has long called for the West to pump billions into Ukraine. Now he says he's ready to walk the talk.
          The veteran hedge fund investor told an Austrian newspaper he was prepared to invest $1 billion in the collapsing war-ravaged economy under certain circumstances.

          "There are concrete investment ideas, for example in agriculture and infrastructure projects. I would put in $1 billion," he told Der Standard. "This must generate a profit. My foundation would benefit from this, not me personally."

          The Hungarian-born billionaire said Europe and the U.S. must show strong political leadership over Ukraine -- that would make it more attractive to private investors. The West could provide finance at European interest rates close to zero, for example.

          A spokesman for Soros said his investment would depend on the West doing "whatever it takes" to rescue Ukraine."

          http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/30/investing/ukraine-soros-billion-russia/

          The Indelicate ...

          What do you figure, LL - is the "New Khazaria" theory in any way legit, or is it bullshit?

          Israel's Secret Plan for a "Second Israel" in Ukraine
          http://m.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/12/03/israel-secret-plan-for-se...

          Notwithstanding the heavy presence of dual citizens yadda yadda, I kinda think the "secret report" was tongue-in-cheek and that this is basically bullshit. But in this messed up crazy world... stranger things....

          I don't see Crimea going back to Ukraine though.

          Latina Lover

          Since the discussion is now academic (Crimea is not leaving Russia unless Russia itself is destroyed), I will be brief.

          Kolomoysky is the president of a European Jewish Group, and active in Chabad. He was promoting Crimea as an alternate Jewish homeland until Crimea rejoined Russia. Kolomoysky then lost his real estate holdings, and Chabad the ability to dominate the Crimea.

          If you are interested in further background, check out the following link:

          http://www.inss.org.il/uploadImages/systemFiles/The%20Jewish.pdf

          [Sep 28, 2015] What Oil Investors 4Can Learn From Gold By Michael McDonald

          I think the oil is not gold. And the mechanism of over-producing oil despite low prices is based on the fact that most companies and oil producing countries are in debt, sometimes crushing debt like in case of shale companies, Venezuela, etc. Gold is used in industry but mainly serves as the store of wealth. Oil is lifeblood of the modern civilization. If we assume that 'oli glut" is the problem most new projects are being suspended or cancelled while assets are also sold off. Capital spending is shrinking. Debt is rising. International oil companies are now are under threat in countries were they operate. Business climate could be darkening. Casino capitalism can't manipulate price of resources such as oil for long.
          OilPrice.com

          The worldwide printing of virtual money through quantitative easing was supposed to keep inflating gold's price. Even after the commodity collapsed in value, numerous commentators and groups predicted that it was temporary, and many said that, with the fall in price, demand would surge leading to a sharp rebound within a few months. There was even talk about various industry organizations failing to properly report supply and demand numbers thus keeping the markets misinformed and prices low. Now though, more than two years on from that drop, nothing close to those predictions has materialized, and investors are still licking their wounds.

          This is not a story about gold though. It's a story about oil. The truth of the matter is that gold is largely an irrelevant commodity compared with oil. Oil is the basis for dozens of countries' economies around the world and for thousands of major companies' existence. None of that matters though. The other truth, and the less pleasant one, is that there are stark parallels between what happened to gold a few years ago and what is happening to oil today.

          ... ... ...

          In the cases of both gold and oil, frothy price levels led to large increases in production over the course of a decade and unorthodox sources of supply started to be exploited. Despite the rising supply and only slow growth in demand, prices continued to rise. After a while, both gold and oil stabilized and spent time consolidating and then, just as gold fell, oil too collapsed in price.

          Now roughly a year after the first big shocks started to hit the oil market, suppliers have responded in earnest. But just as with gold, simply cutting supplies a bit and having a few weak producers go bankrupt will not lead to a rapid price rebound. Instead it is increasingly beginning to look like oil prices will remain subdued at well less than a $100 a barrel for years to come.

          Perhaps oil prices will come back and the parallels with gold will end here, but that's probably too optimistic. Most of the same basic economic forces that impact gold are equally valid with oil. Investors need to be prepared for the reality that it may take a decade or more for oil to return to $100 a barrel. That does not mean that oil companies will all go out of business or that investing in energy stocks cannot be profitable.

          [Sep 28, 2015] United Nations: Putin says he can work with Obama despite trading barbs on Syria and Isis

          Looks like a new set of NATObots was in action today (for example, Valois1588, Member since 13 Sep 2015 ) . Only few of the "old guard" were participating in the discussion (metronome, Alderbaran, sasha19, a coupe of others)
          "... At last, people are beginning to come out of the brainwashing conditioning of the West, and are realizing who the real enemy is here. ..."
          "... If the US want to get a good bang for their buck they should attack and bomb IS military formations when they are attacking Assad positions. IS are grouped together at this point in large numbers - a good target. Robert Fisk and several journalists scratch their heads in consternation why the USA doesn't employ this logical and cost effective strategy. ..."
          "... Russia & Syria signed a treaty on the 2nd February 1946...& that treaty stands to this day... ..."
          "... It takes a Herculean effort at strangled logic to reconcile the US demands, only regarding itself of course, that it has unrestricted sovereignty over what it wishes to do, either at home or anywhere around the world, and it's willingness on a daily basis to breach the national sovereignty of any other nation it chooses. ..."
          "... It is however ably assisted in this process by the Western Media, who regularly refer to the US demands for regime change in other countries without reference to the fact that such is a direct and serious breach of international law and the sovereignty of nations. They just assume that it is OK if it is the US making these demands and taking these actions, whereas if others choose to do so it raises wails of righteous indignation, not only from the US, but from the Western Press. ..."
          "... That is a mark of the overwhelming success of the propaganda system that it has become so internalised amongst our supposedly free press that it never raises even an eyebrow. ..."
          "... I don't think US or West in general give a damn about their war victims. The only thing which matters to them is their own geopolitical interests. ..."
          "... Putin has a very long way to go to match the destruction and deaths caused by the glorious heroic US/UK duo who have been beyond any doubt BY FAR the most dangerous world 'power' in recent decades. ..."
          "... It is interesting to note that the doctrinal system is functioning well in Washington. That system requires that all actions "we" take are clothed in righteousness and all comparable actions taken by "others" are clothed in ignominy and infamy. So to take Obama seriously we would need to have the UN condemn the illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and the illegal bombing of Syria, Libya, the Sudan, Yugoslavia and several lesser countries (in very recent times) and a litany of other countries over the last seventy years. But the doctrinal system requires us to plunge these manifold instances of the 'might makes right' approach down the memory hole to enable us to take the high moral ground at the UN, which we in effect control through our ability, and willingness, to withhold funding unless it does what we say. ..."
          Sep 28, 2015 | www.theguardian.com

          Scipio1 28 Sep 2015 19:01

          Obama condemns 'might is right' - Words fail me!

          Karina_Broadfoot 28 Sep 2015 18:59

          At last, people are beginning to come out of the brainwashing conditioning of the West, and are realizing who the real enemy is here.

          I applaud you Russia. Europe would prefer to transfer 27 million Syrian refugees and other Middle Eastern refugees across Europe, anything to avoid upsetting the bleeding hearts who will be hysterical if troops go on the ground. They complained about a British ISIS terrorist being killed in a bombing. We need to change. Please.


          catalinataragudo 28 Sep 2015 18:58

          The Russian analysis is right and always has been. Great that they've taken steps to end this madness. What a bunch of eedjits! Cameron and what do you call that other weird guy from north Yorkshire?


          irgun777 ArundelXVI 28 Sep 2015 18:58

          " A posterboy (or "poster boy," also "postergirl/poster girl" as appropriate) is a usually famous person who is heavily associated with and/or generally found to represent a given movement, subculture, religious group, fandom, etc. to people who do not belong to said group. "
          Urban Dictionary.

          Assad is associated with the opposition to ISIS and definitely does not belong to the rest of the countries in the region who support this group .


          hungrycocky creel 28 Sep 2015 18:57

          Crap!

          The route of the problem is the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire and the stupid games France and England payed at the conclusion of WW1.

          Blaming the Israelis for this is just silly mate.

          Pietro Salvatori 28 Sep 2015 17:19

          US has trained thousands of intended-fighters against ISIS and just after ending the boot camp they threw hats on the air and flood within ISIS ranks. Only 4-5 remained to fight ISIS (US Gen. Austin said): maybe the dumbest ones or the not tuned in. I feel you don't need to be Putin in order to find this point suspect...

          laticsfanfromeurope -> RobertNeville 28 Sep 2015 17:18

          Making illegal wars, support dictatorships, invading countries under the pretext of democracy and worsening the situation (Iraq, Afghanistan), support islamist terrorists during the "arab spring" in Libya, Egypt and Syria.

          Meanwhile you are good friend of Isis supporters in the region, like Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia...

          I told you, man!

          irgun777 -> seaspan 28 Sep 2015 18:48

          " En masse desertion to Al Nusra " is reported by Guardian and many others.

          Just google : deserters to Al Nusra

          http://www.weaselzippers.us/142377-report-entire-free-syrian-army-unites-defecting-to-al-nusra-front-because-of-its-islamic-doctrine-and-advanced-weapons/

          Try to focus on the substance and facts . If you have any links that there is no desertion in the so called moderates or we are against a regime change please , provide some .

          Niall_Bradley -> MTavernier 28 Sep 2015 18:47

          That 'barrel bombs' claim is totally unfounded: http://www.sott.net/article/302827-Syrian-death-toll-exaggerated-to-generate-Western-public-support-for-airstrikes-and-regime-change.

          Bosula -> WarlockScott 28 Sep 2015 18:47

          Kurds not support by Turkey and would not be acceptable as legitimate leaders of Syria. lead to more troubles.

          Unfortunately, the US is working with range of moderate IS groups to replace Assad.

          If the majority of US people knew this they would be mortified.

          If the US want to get a good bang for their buck they should attack and bomb IS military formations when they are attacking Assad positions. IS are grouped together at this point in large numbers - a good target. Robert Fisk and several journalists scratch their heads in consternation why the USA doesn't employ this logical and cost effective strategy.

          Niall_Bradley -> JudeUSA 28 Sep 2015 18:44

          The US 'saving the world'! Don't you get it yet? What the US is doing now, it has always done. How else would it have become Number 1?

          Niall_Bradley -> getuuuuumpher 28 Sep 2015 18:42

          Don't forget the mercenaries who moonlight as 'ISIS' and 'rebels' and 'anti-ISIS'.

          Bosula WarlockScott 28 Sep 2015 18:28

          That has got to be better than the US supporting 'moderate' IS groups take over Syria - what the US called regime change.

          How the US link democracy with supporting 'moderate' IS groups is beyond logic.

          Dave Lawton 28 Sep 2015 18:28

          The US was plotting to overthrow Assad in 2006 you just need to read the leaked diplomatic cables from those early years.It`s a no-brainer. The West is now collecting a lot of Karma for their policy of regime change. Also as I write this I hear this has occurred.

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34377565

          normankirk -> Alderbaran 28 Sep 2015 18:25

          So Alderaban, if there is such a force as these "moderate rebels" you refer to, who have the backing of the majority of Syrians, I would have expected them to have nominated a leader by now. Some democrat with huge appeal?

          But to date , no one has come forward or been nominated. And it seems the genuine protest movement has been overwhelmed and subsumed by sectarian extremists, who get US training and weapons then promptly get killed or defect. So who do you see, which group (Moderate rebels is too vague, get specific) would have the backing of the Syrian people to be a credible alternative to Assad?

          Please name the secular opposition members

          Dinkylou -> WarlockScott 28 Sep 2015 18:24

          Russia & Syria signed a treaty on the 2nd February 1946...& that treaty stands to this day...

          "Russian speaking populace" they are Ukrainians...that's like pointing out the difference between American English & English English...The Russians have nothing to do with the genocide as you call it...It's the Ukraine government killing their own Ukrainian people...the only part the Russians have played in it... is that they are leveling the playing field a little bit by giving them weapons.

          Aguia -> JudeUSA 28 Sep 2015 18:18

          It was the Soviet Union who saved Europe. The US waited as long as they could before going in.

          Davo3333 -> peterpierce24 28 Sep 2015 18:12

          Such turnarounds have happened many times in the past and will happen again in the future. However Russia and China just have to stick together and that combination is too powerful for the US and will prevent the US from attacking more countries in the near future.

          vr13vr -> beanosparty 28 Sep 2015 18:12

          Why would this reduce the possibility of ISIS taking over Syria? Did ISIS agree to this plan? If anything, who do you think will lead the fight against ISIS if Assad steps down? No other figure from his government will be able to get enough of army support. And only 4 people in the "moderate rebels" camp are willing to fight ISIS.

          But frankly, what exactly problem do we have with Assad? Why do we insist on his removal instead of fighting ISIS all together?

          Willyvandamme -> sasha19 28 Sep 2015 18:10

          As a Sufi and business man in Damascus told me earlier this month in the town Syria has around 30 religions, 60 or so sects and many minorities. It is this which saved Syria from the mightiest force ever assembled against one relative small country. This is the heart of the Arab world and the Middle East and the cradle of our civilization. Making the destruction of this by the West the biggest crime seen since WWII.

          finnja -> WarlockScott 28 Sep 2015 18:09

          Well, you are the one who started that game, now you complain I played it? How very American. Fact is, the US is responsible for more wars and related deaths post WWII than any other country world wide, and the logic of the US empire's interventions is 'those who do not submit to US supremacy must fall'. Given those facts, the US's invoking of international law and democracy whenever suitable, while itself flaunting those same values anytime it wants is highly hypocritical.
          Why not have the balls to simply say 'We're the hegemon, submit worms! There are no rules but my wishes'. That would at least be honest. I don't even say Russia, China or whoever would act differently if one of them was the hegemon. But as it is the US is Empire, hegemon, prime bully and owner of military bases around the whole world. And the US's moral justifications for policies that are simply designed to further US geopolicical interests are a source of world wide amusement.

          Particularly, because - except for Cheney, maybe - the US politicians actually seem to believe themselves. (Samantha Power's twitter account is particularly funny in this respect).

          IanCPurdie 28 Sep 2015 18:09

          I find stark differences between the Obama and Putin's speeches - read them and make up your own minds.

          Hypocrisy screamed at me when making comparisons.

          justanonlooker 28 Sep 2015 18:08

          Hypocritical of Obama to criticise others for adopting a "might makes right" philosophy.

          Shady Noaman -> RightWingNuts 28 Sep 2015 18:08

          It's a shame. The people of America are hated because of the American Administration actions. I feel sorry for the American people.

          robertthebruce2014 28 Sep 2015 18:06

          Vladimir Putin, the Russian Jack Kennedy.

          RunsWithBread 28 Sep 2015 18:11

          Democracy. Not. Guardian heavily limits comments on its big articles. Instead it inserts 'Blair like' Spin

          MaryMagdalane -> Johnnyw1 28 Sep 2015 17:59

          Yes, it really makes me wonder why US and allies are so much focused on persons. They wanted to get rid of Iraqi and Libyan leaders and now insist on Assad's removal from power. They succeeded in first two cases and we witness the results of those glorious victories, but they never learn and now they are dead determined to topple Assad. It is good that this time someone says "enough is enough".

          Lesm 28 Sep 2015 17:58

          It takes a Herculean effort at strangled logic to reconcile the US demands, only regarding itself of course, that it has unrestricted sovereignty over what it wishes to do, either at home or anywhere around the world, and it's willingness on a daily basis to breach the national sovereignty of any other nation it chooses.

          It is however ably assisted in this process by the Western Media, who regularly refer to the US demands for regime change in other countries without reference to the fact that such is a direct and serious breach of international law and the sovereignty of nations. They just assume that it is OK if it is the US making these demands and taking these actions, whereas if others choose to do so it raises wails of righteous indignation, not only from the US, but from the Western Press.

          That is a mark of the overwhelming success of the propaganda system that it has become so internalised amongst our supposedly free press that it never raises even an eyebrow.

          MTavernier -> Aguia 28 Sep 2015 17:58

          Putin's wars!? Which ones are those?

          Since Russia invaded Afghanistan (1979-1989), it has been in a never-ending series of wars, both foreign and internal:

          Transnistria (1992), Ossetia (1992), Tajikistan (1992-1997), Georgia (1993), Chechnya (1994-1996), Dagestan (1999), Chechnya again (1999-2009), Georgia again (2008), North Caucasus (2009- ), and now Ukraine (2014- ).

          Whatever Russia is, it isn't the sparkling-eyed innocent.

          Roman Bolshakov -> MauditFrancais1979 28 Sep 2015 17:53

          Who has given you permission to speak on behalf of Russian citizens? There're no good alternatives to Putin right now. Also majority of senior people (40+) voted for him, including my parents and grand parents.

          If you want to change a regime do it in your country please.

          Abiesalba Popeyes 28 Sep 2015 17:57

          We all know that the US with its obedient poodle the UK has been in recent decades BY FAR the most dangerous state in the world.


          desconocido -> phconnell 28 Sep 2015 17:55

          The weapons of these rebels are all Russian, not western

          I think the US has acknowledged that it provides Russian made weapons in Syria (easier to maintain etc) and that a lot have been picked up by ISIS.

          Abiesalba -> lostinpa 28 Sep 2015 17:53

          I'll say no more

          Really you should also say about 500,000 dead Iraqi civilians as a consequence. And their totally demolished homeland where people do not even have electicity and running water anymore.

          Since the UK has twice as many inhabitants as Iraq, this is equivalent to Iraq occupying the UK just like that, for fun, causing ONE MILLION dead Brits along they way.

          Now, I wonder what those Brits sneering at Putin would think about Iraq or Russia causing 1 million dead Brits just like that, for no reason whatsoever.

          peterpierce24 -> laticsfanfromeurope 28 Sep 2015 17:52

          Indeed. Putin basically proposes to defeat extremists of all sorts on ground, and in parallel start a political process where people of Syria would decide on their political leadership. I suppose that if Isis will be defeated by coalition where Assad is one of key figures then he will be seen by Syrian people as a true leader. It's something like was done in Chechnya.

          impartial12 -> NoSense 28 Sep 2015 17:52

          The people who protested against Assad during the Arab Spring were the Sunni majority who simply wanted the freedoms people like us take for granted. What is wrong to take their side and see that this madman is properly removed? What I don't understand is how Russia can assist such a man in slaughtering the people of his own country. ISIS was able to grow because this oppression of the Sunnis by a minority was ignored for such a long time.


          MaryMagdalane -> budgie2356 28 Sep 2015 17:51

          I don't think US or West in general give a damn about their war victims. The only thing which matters to them is their own geopolitical interests.

          Popeyes 28 Sep 2015 17:51

          It seems that Putin has called time out on the U.S and its allies for the jihadist terrorism in Syria. It seems they were more intent on regime change than defeating IS and were complicit in arms and money transfers to the jihadists. The problem we have is that we all know what happens when the U.S. embarks on regime chase, you just have to look at Iraq and Libya. Total chaos.

          originalcommie 28 Sep 2015 17:49

          We support the military dictatorship in Egypt, so I don't see why we cannot keep Assad. The devil you know.

          vr13vr -> Alderbaran 28 Sep 2015 17:49

          I'm worried. But from the most current dynamic, it looks like Russia is the one that calls for cooperated action against ISIS while the US just stuck with the "remove Assad" condition and refuses to look at any other solutions, which makes it the party that is most concern about the cold war rivalry rather than achieving any common progress.

          Quetzalcoatl14 -> Patlogan34 28 Sep 2015 17:46

          The problem is most Americans, especially liberals, still support Obama no matter what. Many liberals abroad too.

          WarlockScott -> laticsfanfromeurope 28 Sep 2015 17:46

          Well yeah I guess if you consider kill 'em all and let their god sort 'em out to be a strategy

          NoSense 28 Sep 2015 17:46

          There may be an endless debate about the facts, who did what, but as a matter of principle the positions of the sides are as follows:

          • OBAMA: we, and our allies, are the good guys. Although imperfect, we are democratic, free and, overall, rightness nations. We will be fighting the bad guys and those who stand on our way. If the UN disagrees, we'll go on nevertheless.
          • PUTIN: no one is exceptional, the UN and international law must be observed even if this means compromises with people you don't like. Sovereignty must be respected, therefore, no one but the people of this country must decide their own destiny.

          Frankly, if the US keep moving the way they do, this generation will see the fall of this great nation.

          Abiesalba -> Ernekid 28 Sep 2015 17:45

          "How can I be a gangster if I worked for the KGB?"
          The Russian for Irony is Ирония

          Putin has a very long way to go to match the destruction and deaths caused by the glorious heroic US/UK duo who have been beyond any doubt BY FAR the most dangerous world 'power' in recent decades.

          Eh, only some 500,000 dead Iraqi civilians on the US/UK watch after they ILLEGALLY occupied Iraq. And the reason that we do not even know how many Iraqi deaths there were is because the heroic US/UK duo did not even care enough about those inferior Iraqis to COUNT their dead bodies. While they were absolutely hysterical about each and every US/UK soldier who died in Iraq!!!

          desconocido -> Jiri 28 Sep 2015 17:44

          The US can destroy both Assad and ISIS as was done successfully in Libya.

          I've just realized this was irony.

          HollyOldDog -> Omniscience 28 Sep 2015 17:44

          Poor Vietnam they beat the USA into submission then descended into raping their valuable land to produce cheap coffee beans for Nescafé. The production is so unregulated that vast swathes of virgin forest are being ripped asunder and many unique varieties of fauna and flora are being destroyed.

          Que the headline on Tuesday February 07 2012 in Commondeams.org

          Monsanto, the Agent a Orange creator returns to Vietnam.

          Ready to sell its crops and weed-killing chemicals to Vietnam: many outraged.

          The article explains more and here is enough info for others to discover it.


          Sin_Signalling -> MTavernier 28 Sep 2015 17:44

          "If the West failed in Iraq, certainly Russia will fail in Iraq and Syria."

          Let's see - they have far more at stake than they did in Afghanistan and they certainly have all the weapons they need to do the job.


          foolisholdman -> WarlockScott 28 Sep 2015 17:43

          WarlockScott > Joan Grogan

          So what is Putin creating in Ukraine then? What did he create in Chechnya, wasn't the Boston marathon guy Chechen...yes, yes he was.

          Why blame Putin for either situation? The Chechen war was against Islamic fundamentalists allied to Al Qaida, and we all know who set that up. You can criticise his tactics but you can't blame the war on him.

          Likewise, in Ukraine it was an NED/CIA operation from the start.

          As someone above pointed out the Russians warned the US authorities about the Boston bombers but were ignored. I wonder why? Could it be that the Security Industry LIKES terrorists? Nobody else does, they do no good to anyone except the Security Industry and the SI seems to be rather butter-fingered when it comes to stopping them.

          lostinpa 28 Sep 2015 17:42

          remember Weapons of mass destruction!
          I'll say no more


          MiniMo -> Eddy Ridgeway 28 Sep 2015 17:40

          The West's lack of morality is not limited to the ME, and its lack of morality is people's problems across every continent, directly and indirect!y.


          Quaestio -> JudeUSA 28 Sep 2015 17:39

          Boston bombing was a false flag operation. You know, like "terrorist attack" that CIA later admitted were part of their Operation Gladio. At the time we didn't know. One called it "special war" or "mass manipulation. It's all over the internet these days.

          Serge Tankian 28 Sep 2015 17:39

          Can Putin form an anti-terrorist coalition with a country that has been financing, arming and inspiring ISIS the last few years? I doubt it. A series of fuckups has led the U.S. ME policy to the grinding halt Obama is now facing.


          europeangrayling -> MonotonousLanguor 28 Sep 2015 17:39

          Yup and Saudi Arabia is killing Yemeni mostly Shia civilians from the air every day with billions of US bombs and weaponry, and also literally and directly helping and fighting on the side of Al Qaida in Yemen, yet not a word from Obama and the US government, and if they say something it is 100% support for our 'ally' Saudi Arabia.
          And then there is all the some 2-3,000 innocent civilians that Obama's drone strikes killed as well in Yemen and Pakistan and Afghanistan, and he will say it was all accidental but I don't think the 3,000 dead women, men and kids and families really care. And then there's Iraq and Libya of course like you said.
          I don't know how some of these US government officials and media people can keep a straight face when they say this stuff man.


          Sin_Signalling -> Arthur_Strongthatch 28 Sep 2015 17:40

          Russia - this is a battle of survival and in terms of our self-interest then Russia is clearly the lesser of the 2 evils.


          laticsfanfromeurope 28 Sep 2015 17:39

          Obama: Words, words, empty words but no strategy to defeta ISIS.

          Putin: A clear strategy to defeat ISIS

          RightWingNuts 28 Sep 2015 17:39

          The hypocrisy of the US, what have they been doing since the end of WWII but using their might across the world and mainly Middle East, promised so much Obama and delivered so little. No wonder the US is hated so much.

          Joseph Rozen -> SonnyTuckson 28 Sep 2015 17:37

          Where on earth do you get your facts and figures from?? Are you at all aware of the carnage perpetrated by Western trained armed and supplied fundamentalist forces., IS etc? Your views and opinions are a matter for you of course, but your ignorance is absolutely embarrassing.

          Lunora -> NeuLabour 28 Sep 2015 17:37

          The obvious problem with that is it has proven extremely difficult to locate moderate rebels in Syria.

          Lesm 28 Sep 2015 17:31

          It is interesting to note that the doctrinal system is functioning well in Washington. That system requires that all actions "we" take are clothed in righteousness and all comparable actions taken by "others" are clothed in ignominy and infamy. So to take Obama seriously we would need to have the UN condemn the illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and the illegal bombing of Syria, Libya, the Sudan, Yugoslavia and several lesser countries (in very recent times) and a litany of other countries over the last seventy years. But the doctrinal system requires us to plunge these manifold instances of the 'might makes right' approach down the memory hole to enable us to take the high moral ground at the UN, which we in effect control through our ability, and willingness, to withhold funding unless it does what we say.

          It must be only with supreme effort that the rest of the world gathered there can hold a straight face whilst the greatest practitioner in history of the "might makes right" doctrine lectures the rest of us about the unacceptability of this doctrine, when practiced by anyone other than the righteous and exceptional US of A..


          foolisholdman -> TruthCounts 28 Sep 2015 17:26

          TruthCounts

          "Putin showed no sign of willingness to compromise on Assad's fate."

          Eh? I don't hear any willingness to compromise from the west either.

          I don't imagine he or any head of state with his brains intact, is likely to compromise on that sort of proposition!
          Once allow that Obama and Cameron are entitled to say who runs Syria and "Who is next?", becomes the burning question.

          The whole idea is outrageous.


          Belj14 -> MauditFrancais1979 28 Sep 2015 17:24

          Not at all

          The US has tried to provoke Russia but Russia consistently says a good relationship with the US ans West is better for the world

          Russia has said they will respond if attacked and will not make a preemptive strike


          TheSouthernDandy -> TruthCounts 28 Sep 2015 17:24

          Did you read the whole article?

          "Obama's address was also an ode to the twin virtues of democracy and diplomacy, interwoven with admissions of when the US had fallen short of those ideals, in the invasion of Iraq, and the xenophobia that has risen to the surface in the nation's current political discourse."

          Sin_Signalling 28 Sep 2015 17:23

          If Russia destroys Islamic State then good for him and for the West.

          The US are pathetically craven to the Saudis for far too long and their pathetic dependence on Oil has prevented them from doing what they should have done a long time ago.


          Johnny -> Kent Pannalu 28 Sep 2015 17:23

          Anybody agree how arrogant and devoid of logic Obamas's speech was? he is well past sell-by date as president.

          jboy606 -> sasha19 28 Sep 2015 17:22

          The root of all this mess goes back to when the first civilisations formed. Man is a greedy, nasty, violent, lazy species. War is part of who we are. We won't be here for ever though, so maybe the next creature to evolve is a little bit more.... Civilised.


          peterpierce24 28 Sep 2015 17:22


          Putin is very consistent throughout the years on Syria and his position stays the same in spite on sanctions. I can see no changes in his stance at all. Meanwhile his today speech is a continuation of his spech in Munich in 2007. Also, no changes, as far as I can see. Putin is still anti-american and now he turns to the Far East and, also returns to Middle east. These pro-Eastern developments seem the only significant change in Putin's politics so far.

          finnja -> Valois1588 28 Sep 2015 17:22

          Funny that pretty much nobody fled Assad prior to ISIS.


          Sam Ahmed -> racole 28 Sep 2015 17:21

          YOUR US IS FIXING OUR PROBLEMS?? It is your country that has backed these ISIS fiends willingly. At least here in the GB we've slowed down much of the attack initiative proposed by our government. Yes our country's government has a lap dog mentality towards the US,but we as the people here have helped by demanding more peaceful resolutions. Hell our country is also the number 1 financer for the support for the refugees, while the US HAS FINANCED ISIS. Don't tell us that you are fixing our problems, because the US is the nation that has poked every bear in the ME, wilfully I might add.

          Koenig_Dominik -> Valois1588 28 Sep 2015 17:21

          The same America that shot down Iran Air Flight 655 and never bothered to appologise? Yeah, they get to be picky towards Russia.

          Joseph Rozen -> Valois1588 28 Sep 2015 17:20

          What Infantile nonsense! you people posting this crap have no dignity or self respect do you? What were the 'allies' dropping on Iraqi and Libyan cities and towns? What are the Saudis dropping on Yemenis? Do you remember the cluster bombs? phosphorous munitions, DU ordnance? Surly, there must be some limit to such hypocrisy!

          finnja -> Alderbaran 28 Sep 2015 17:32

          How much Syrian territory does the non-ISIS, non Al-Nusra, non Al-Quaeda, non-jihadist moderate opposition hold currently?

          dalan66 28 Sep 2015 17:32

          Might is right ... Is the basis for American "exeptionalism" and the pathological need to own the world. Anyone who stands against this unprecedented act of imperial aggression deserves our support.
          Go putin!

          Peter Sembol -> Doug_Niedermeyer 28 Sep 2015 17:15

          You can rest assured that Russians are very proud of their president right now. They can not imagine to have someone more shrewd and experienced them him at the helm, and I believe they are right. Nobody fights for Russia's wellbeing better than Putin, and the West knows it. And for that reason West hates him. Notice I say 'West' not the 'world' as the West and their propaganda pushers would like you to believe.

          Belj14 28 Sep 2015 17:14

          Obama overlooks the terrible harm done to Syria resulting from US backing 'rebels' against the wishes of a very large number of Syrians.

          Also ironic the way he talks about democracy, while dictating about Government in Syria and after the horrendous damage caused by illegal US intervention in Iraq,Libya, Ukraine and Syria - all of which subjected to US self-interested regime change agenda.

          BrainDrain59 -> racole 28 Sep 2015 17:09

          I agree with most of your post except "Syria's civil war was not sponsored by the US." That is less a civil war than an invasion by Islamist extremists, backed mainly by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Two allies of the US who would not do so w/o US permission. Belligerent US language re Syria for years now, how can you miss this?

          Solongmariane 28 Sep 2015 17:06

          13 years ago, the NATO coalition led by Washington repelled the Talibans from Kunduz (Afghanistan). After years of NATO & US occupation, 4 or 5.000 deaths, many Bln $ spent...today, the Talibans retaked Kunduz. Like Irak, like Lybia, Washington made the wrong decisions. Why should we listen to the US solution for Syria. They have no solutions, just many bombs. Their credit is down.


          PotholeKid -> stevekeenan1 28 Sep 2015 17:05

          Lavrov has in the past stated that Russia does not want to see Syria turned into another Lybia... Which I suppose means total destruction by the west.

          Willyvandamme 28 Sep 2015 16:58

          Syria has been facing the biggest force trying to destroy another country in history. It included the whole of NATO with Turkey, the UK, the US and France, Japan, Australia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Israel, Jordan and Qatar. They did send to this country, the cradle of our civilization, tens of thousands of the worst criminals on earth. Still after 4,5 years of continuing war Syria is still not defeated. Proven the people of Syria and its government are strong, stronger that these colonial powers ever could imagine.

          finnja WarlockScott 28 Sep 2015 16:56

          9/11 does not excuse anything. Particularly not that the Pentagon now supports Al Quaeda in Syria. The US acknoledged a regime in Ukraine that was swept into power via a coup - because the head of government had fled. Ironically when the same happened in Yemen, the US fell over themselves stressing that the head of government who had fled was still legitimate. Oh the hypocrisy.


          [Sep 28, 2015] Kunstler Rages Perhaps America Has Gotten What It Deserves

          Sep 28, 2015 | Zero Hedge

          Did Charlie Rose look like a fucking idiot last night on 60-Minutes, or what, asking Vladimir Putin how he could know for sure that the US was behind the 2014 Ukraine coup against President Viktor Yanukovych? Maybe the idiots are the 60-Minutes producers and fluffers who are supposed to prep Charlie's questions. Putin seemed startled and amused by this one on Ukraine: how could he know for sure?

          Well, gosh, because Ukraine was virtually a province of Russia in one form or another for hundreds of years, and Russia has a potent intelligence service (formerly called the KGB) that had assets and connections threaded through Ukrainian society like the rhizomorphs of the fungus Armillaria solidipes through a conifer forest. Gosh, Charlie, it's like asking Obama whether the NSA might know what's going on in Texas.

          And so there is Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer, having to spell it out for the American clodhopper super-journalist. "We have thousands of contacts with them. We know who and where, and when they met with someone, and who worked with those who ousted Yanukovych, how they were supported, how much they were paid, how they were trained, where, in which country, and who those instructors were. We know everything."

          The only thing Vlad left out of course was the now-world-famous panicked yelp by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland crying, "Fuck the EU," when events in Kiev started getting out of hand for US stage-managers. But he probably heard about that, too.

          Charlie then voice-overed the following statement: "For the record, the US has denied any involvement in the removal of the Ukrainian leader." Right. And your call is important us. And your check is in the mail. And they hate us for our freedom.

          This bit on Ukraine was only a little more appalling than Charlie's earlier segment on Syria. Was Putin trying to rescue the Assad government? Charlie asked, in the context of President Obama's statement years ago that "Assad has to go."

          Putin answered as if he were explaining something that should have been self-evident to a not-very-bright high school freshman: "To remove the legitimate government would create a situation which you can witness in other countries of the region, for instance Libya, where all the state institutions have disintegrated. We see a similar situation in Iraq. There's no other solution to the Syrian crisis than strengthening the government structure."

          I guess Charlie and the 60-Minutes production crew hadn't noticed what had gone on around the Middle East the past fifteen years with America's program of toppling dictators into the maw of anarchy. Not such great outcomes.

          Charlie persisted though, following his script: Was Putin trying to rescue Assad? Vlad had to lay it out for him as if he were introducing Charlie to the game of Animal Lotto: "What do you think about those who support the terrorist organizations only to oust Assad without thinking about what happens to the country after all the state institutions have been demolished…? Look at those who are in control of 60 percent of the territory of Syria."

          Meaning ISIS. Al Nusra (formerly al Qaeda in Syria), i.e., groups internationally recognized as terrorist organizations.

          Charlie Rose, 60-Minutes - and perhaps by extension US government agencies with an interest in propagandizing - seem to want to put over the story that Russia has involved itself in Syria only to aggrandize its role on in world affairs.

          Forgive me for being so blunt, but what sort of stupid fucking idea is this? And are there any non-lobotomized adults left in the USA who can't see straight through it? The truth is that American policy in Syria (plus Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Somalia, Afghanistan) is an impressive record of failure in terms of the one basic aim that most rational people might agree upon: stabilizing the region in a way that does not leave Islamic jihadi maniacs in charge.

          Okay, so now the Russians will do what they can to try to stabilize Syria. They've had their failures, too (famously, Afghanistan). But Russian territory adjoins the Islamic lands and they clearly have stake in containing the virus of Islamic extremism near their borders. Is that not obvious?

          Charlie made one other extremely dumb statement - he seems to prefer making assertions to asking straight-up questions - to the effect that Russia was misbehaving by deploying troops on its border with Ukraine.

          Putin again seemed astonished by this credulous idiocy. The US had troops and nuclear weapons all over Europe, he answered. Did Charlie think that meant the US was attempting to occupy the nations of Europe now? Was it "a crime" for Russia to defend its own border with a neighboring state (formerly a province) that, he implied, the US had deliberately destabilized?

          The Putin segment was followed by an sickening session with Donald Trump, a man who now - after a month or so of public exposure - proves incapable of uttering a coherent idea. I wonder what Vladimir Putin makes of this incomparable buffoon. Perhaps that America has gotten what it deserves.

          [Sep 27, 2015] US On The Ropes China To Join Russian Military In Syria While Iraq Strikes Intel Deal With Moscow, Tehran

          Sep 27, 2015 | Zero Hedge
          What appears to have happened here is this: Vladimir Putin has exploited both the fight against ISIS and Iran's need to preserve the regional balance of power on the way to enhancing Russia's influence over Mid-East affairs which in turn helps to ensure that Gazprom's interests are protected going forward.

          Thanks to the awkward position the US has gotten itself in by covertly allying itself with various Sunni extremist groups, Washington is for all intents and purposes powerless to stop Putin lest the public should suddenly get wise to the fact that combating Russia's resurgence and preventing Iran from expanding its interests are more important than fighting terror.

          In short, Washington gambled on a dangerous game of geopolitical chess, lost, and now faces two rather terrifyingly disastrous outcomes: 1) China establishing a presence in the Mid-East in concert with Russia and Iran, and 2) seeing Iraq effectively ceded to the Quds Force and ultimately, to the Russian army.

          [Sep 27, 2015] Putin Russia Supports Legitimate Governments, Unlike US

          Sep 27, 2015 | www.newsmax.com

          Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a "60 Minutes" interview aired Sunday that his country supports legitimately elected governments and accused the United States of doing the opposite in places such as Ukraine and Syria.

          Correspondent Charlie Rose asked Putin specifically about his support for Syrian President Bashar Assad, whom the United States opposes.

          "It's my deep belief that any actions to the contrary in order to destroy the legitimate government will create a situation which you can witness now in the other countries of the region or in other regions, for instance in Libya where all the state institutions are disintegrated," Putin said. "We see a similar situation in Iraq."

          Rose said that the United States sees Assad as someone who kills his own people, but Putin argued that the United States backs terrorists in the battled because they want to overthrow Assad. The United States backs the Free Syrian Army in the three-way war between the Assad regime, the Islamic State (ISIS) and the FSA.

          Putin also accused the United States of backing the overthrow of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who was friendly to Moscow.

          Putin will address the United Nations on Monday, and denied he wants Russia to play a larger role in the world as a goal in itself.

          "But you are in part a major power because of the nuclear weapons you have. You are a force to be reckoned with," Rose said.

          "I hope so. I definitely hope so," Putin replied, laughing. "Otherwise why do we have nuclear weapons at all?"

          Putin denied the belief in America that he is a czar-type figure or evil autocrat. He said he simply wants to see Russians who were split from their families be able to see each other again. Those bonds were split overnight when the old Soviet Union collapsed in the 1980s, he said.

          Putin said he and President Barack Obama listen to each other after a fashion, "especially when it comes to something that doesn't go counter to our own ideas about what we should and should not do."

          Rose noted that GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio has described Putin as a gangster.

          "How can I be a gangster if I worked for the KGB?" Putin asked. "Come on. That does not correspond to reality."

          [Sep 27, 2015] 60 Minutes of Putin Quotes From Charlie Rose Interview

          Brilliant instant reply on provocative question: "Once, somebody from the CIA told me that the training you have is important, that you learn to be liked as well. Because you have to charm people, you have to seduce them," Charlie Rose said. "Well, if the CIA told you so, then it must be true. They are experts on that," laughed the president.
          I do not see full interview on YouTube. Large chunk can be found at Vladimir Putin 60 Minutes interview FULL 9-27-15 Vladimir Putin 60 minutes Interview Charlie Rose - YouTube
          "... Reprinted in accordance with Sputnik reprint policy. ..."
          Sep 27, 2015 | www.sputniknews.com

          His love and pride for Russia, his pain over what is going on in Ukraine, his past as an intelligence officer and his attitude towards being called a czar – these are some of the issues brought up in Russian President Vladimir Putin's interview with American talk show host and journalist Charlie Rose.

          Ahead of his much anticipated address at the 70th Session of the UN General Assembly in New York, Russian President Vladimir Putin sat down with American talk show host and journalist Charlie Rose to share his opinion on the today's hottest news topics.putin 60 minutes - 2

          Putin on Ukraine:

          'It is absolutely unacceptable to address issues, including controversial ones, as well as domestic issues of the former Soviet Republics through the so-called color revolutions, through coups and unconstitutional means of toppling the current government'.

          Of course, Russia's closest neighbor, Ukraine, is part of the daily news agenda.

          President Putin cast some light on why the Ukraine issue is such a huge problem for Russia.

          "Ukraine is the closest country to us. We have always said that Ukraine is our sister country and it is true. It is not just a Slavic people, it is the closest people to Russia: we have similar languages, culture, common history, religion etc."

          He also revealed what he believes is completely unacceptable for Russia.

          "Addressing issues, including controversial ones, as well as domestic issues of the former Soviet Republics through the so-called colored revolutions, through coups and unconstitutional means of toppling the current government. That is absolutely unacceptable. Our partners in the United States are not trying to hide the fact that they supported those opposed to President Yanukovych."

          Asked whether he believed the United States had something to do with the ousting of Yanukovych, causing him to flee to Russia, the president replied that he, in fact, knew this for sure, at the same time describing his sources.

          "It is very simple. We have thousands of contacts and thousands of connections with people who live in Ukraine. And we know who had meetings and worked with people who overthrew Viktor Yanukovych, as well as when and where they did it."

          "We know the ways the assistance was provided, we know how much they paid them, we know which territories and countries hosted training and how it was done, we know who the instructors were."

          "We know everything. Well, actually, our US partners are not keeping it a secret."

          Putin on the sovereignty of Ukraine: 'At no time in the past, now or in the future has or will Russia take any part in actions aimed at overthrowing the legitimate government.'

          The Russian leader also stressed that Russia respects the sovereignty of Ukraine and Russia had not and would not take any part in any activities aimed at overthrowing the legitimate government of any country. He added that Russia would never resort to the use of the military force in such a case.

          However, the president called on other countries to respect the sovereignty of other states, including Ukraine.

          "Respecting the sovereignty means preventing coups, unconstitutional actions and illegitimate overthrowing of the legitimate government."

          Putin on Russia's military presence in Ukraine: 'If we keep our troops on our territory on the border with some state, it is not a crime.'

          The issue of Russia's military presence in Ukraine has long had the Western media in a flurry. But the Russian president explained it using the example of the US' military presence in Europe.

          "US tactical nuclear weapons are in Europe, let us not forget this. Does it mean that the US has occupied Germany or that the US never stopped the occupation after World War II and only transformed the occupation troops into NATO forces?"

          "And if we keep our troops on our territory on the border with some state, you see it is a crime?"

          Putin on his rating and popularity: 'There is something that unites me and other citizens of Russia. It is love for our Motherland.'

          The sufferings and hardships of the Second World War remain the unifying factor of the Russian nation.

          "Yes, my family and my relatives as a whole suffered heavy losses during the Second World War. That is true. In my father's family there were five brothers and four of them were killed, I believe. On my mother's side the situation is much the same."

          "In general, Russia suffered heavily. No doubt, we cannot forget that and we must not forget, not to accuse anyone but to ensure that nothing of the kind ever happens again."

          Putin on democracy: 'There can be no democracy without observing the law and everyone must observe it – that is the most basic and important thing that we all should remember.'

          The president explained that the most important thing in the country's domestic policy is to continue improving the political system so that every citizen feels that they can influence the life of the state and society, they can influence the authorities, and so that the authorities will be aware of their responsibility before those people who gave their confidence to the representatives of the authorities in the elections.

          As for those tragic incidents where lives are lost, including those of journalists, unfortunately, it happens in all countries around the world, he said.

          But if it occurs in Russia, the president stressed, the authorities take every step possible to ensure that the perpetrators are found, identified and punished.

          There were a number of questions that made the president smile and answer light-heartedly.

          Putin on the disintegration of the Soviet Union and recreation of the Soviet empire: 'The Russians have turned out to be the largest divided nation in the world nowadays.

          The host's question on the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the possible recreation of a sphere of influence, which President Putin might think Russia deserves, made him smile.

          "Your questions make me happy," he responded. "Somebody is always suspecting Russia of having some ambitions, there are always those who are trying to misinterpret us or keep something back."

          "I did say that I see the collapse of the Soviet Union as a great tragedy of the 20th century. Do you know why? First of all, because 25 million Russian people suddenly turned out to be outside the borders of the Russian Federation."

          "They used to live in one state; the Soviet Union has traditionally been called Russia, the Soviet Russia, and it was the great Russia. They used to live in one country and suddenly found themselves abroad. Can you imagine how many problems came about?"

          "First, there were everyday issues, the separation of families, economic and social problems. The list is endless."

          "Do you think it is normal that 25 million people, Russian people, suddenly found themselves abroad?"

          "The Russians have turned out to be the largest divided nation in the world nowadays. Is that not a problem? It is not a problem for you as it is for me."

          And then there were some personal questions, such as how he feels being called a czar.

          The president light-heartedly answered that the title does not fit him, though he is used to being called many different things. In fact, it does not matter to him what people call him.

          He also talked about his past as an intelligence officer, admitting that every stage of one's life has an impact on the person.

          "Whatever we do, all the knowledge, the experience, it stays with us, we carry it, use it in one way or another. In this sense, yes, you are right - there is no such thing as a former KGB man. Once a KGB man, always a KGB man."

          But then laughed while answering the host's question:

          "Once, somebody from the CIA told me that the training you have is important, that you learn to be liked as well. Because you have to charm people, you have to seduce them," Charlie Rose said.

          "Well, if the CIA told you so, then it must be true. They are experts on that," laughed the president.

          President Putin refused to assess the President of the United States, saying he is not entitled to do that. This is up to the American people.

          Finally he revealed what is most important to him.

          "What is important is what you think you must do in the interests of the country, which put you in such position, such a position as the Head of the Russian State."

          See also:

          Reprinted in accordance with Sputnik reprint policy.

          [Sep 27, 2015] Putin reaffirms support for Assad as he decries propaganda against Syria

          "... The whole area is a shitstorm anyway, surely an Assad victory is the best option - warts & all. He is a bastard, he has as much blood on his hands as anyone. Yet the alternative is worse. The alternative is Mogudishu on steroids. ..."
          "... Plan B of the US, since its Syria overthrow effort has failed, is to subdivide Syria into several unstable, warring little mini-states, including ISIS and Al Qaeda mini-states. Syria and its allies should be able to destroy that dream too. ..."
          "... Liberal interventionism isn't morally justifiable as there are today more human rights abuses in Libya or at least the same number as under Gaddaffi, the same is true of Iraq and Syria. Far worse human rights abuses have happened since the militarization of protests than before. If the goal is human development, which of course it isn't , the goal is a casus belli for our strategic goals, then slow reform with no violence is best. ..."
          "... Cameron's present stance seems to be anti-both-sides in Syria: bomb ISIS, but refuse to support Assad's stand against them. Two years ago Dave wanted to effectively help the ISIS side. Given a choice between Assad or the religious fanatics behind the "ISIS" entity, Assad is surely the only sane choice. ..."
          "... The White House is talking bollox. Only three weeks ago US was trying to block Russian flights to Syria by lobbying NATO countries to prevent use of their airspace by Russian aircraft. Also in the last three weeks the US response to Russian military build-up in Syria was first to warn Moscow against military deployment, then that it would exasperate the situation, and would be like "pouring oil on the fire", as Ash Carter put it. Putin has brushed their warnings aside and now they're adjusting their words to suit the situation Putin has forced on them. ..."
          "... Now America along with its Western allies (and the Gulf States) are no longer able to call the shots and equip the rebels with impunity. Obama's inaction in the region has shown Western influence to be dimming while Russia is assisting Iran in combating America's creation both in Iraq and Syria while the US did its usual cut and run routine. ..."
          "... Al Qeada and Al Nusra and again leaving another power vacuum for ISIS to overrun Syria then moving on to Jordan and The Lebanon, thus controlling vast swathes of land and compounding the already appalling refugee crisis. ..."
          "... It is incomprehensible that American foreign policy is again working alongside one particular country which would be delighted to see its neighbor fall into chaos while working towards a war against Iran. ..."
          "... Atrocities have been committed on both sides in the Syrian conflict with the rebel groups using chemical weapons on the civilian population and yet if Assad were to go there is no one group that could hold the country together. ..."
          "... Remarkably, this article did not even mention Putin's highly newsworthy comments pointing out that the US promotion of a mercenary rebel force in Syria is both illegal and a failure. ..."
          "... Such exquisite journalistic tact makes perfect sense once you remember that, for Western official opinionators, arming rebels in another country is an outrage against international law when Putin supposedly does it in Ukraine but must not even be noticed when Obama does it in Syria. ..."
          "... are either one paid to believe it, or (in your case more likely judging by the goofy tie) you might have simple comprehension issues. Yeah, "West is incapable of lying".... ..."
          "... If it wasn't for Putin, ISIS would have taken over Syria by now. All these rebels we armed in Syria are now part of ISIS. Assad kept the peace for years and Christians and other religions could live safely in Syria. The west should have supported Assad from the start and there would be no ISIS stronghold in Syria. ..."
          "... Western colonialism (western corporations) 2.0 in execution by empire and its western vassals taking many lives in Iraq, Libya and Syria to have natural resources under colonial control, Western Saudi stooges/be headers keep Middle East and South Africa under western colonial control. Everybody who opposes western colonialism 2.0 is ending up dead (Husain, Kaddafi, soon Assad - like good old days). In their hypocrisy, west pretends that they have so called human values (it is so funny that is bringing big smile on my face). All these western corporations plundering Middle East and Africa big time now. And I cannot stop laughing when west is talking about human right and having Kings and princes Saudis, Qataris and Kuwaitis be headers as their allays ..."
          Sep 27, 2015 | www.theguardian.com

          In a wide-ranging interview with the CBS programme 60 Minutes, the Russian president offered some conciliatory language, praising America for its "creativity and open-mindedness". He shrugged off descriptions of him as a gangster, asking "How can I be a gangster if I worked for the KGB?"

          But it was Putin's remarks on Syria that carried the most significance: he will be meeting Barack Obama for critical talks on Monday about the international response to the Syrian war and the global humanitarian crisis it has triggered. His remarks come weeks after he deployed warplanes and an estimated 1,700 troops to western Syria to help prop up the Assad regime in the name of fighting of Islamic State and other terrorism groups.

          The White House has said it would welcome a Russian role in the fight against Isis but insists that Assad's departure from power has to be part of the solution. His regime's atrocities against civilians, through daily barrel bombing of residential areas and other means, mean that his continued presence serves as a recruitment tool for extremists, it says.

          In the interview aired on Sunday, however, Putin flatly rejected the evidence of war crimes by the Assad regime. The former KGB officer said: "Speaking in a professional language of intelligence services, I can tell you that this kind of assessment is an 'active measure' by enemies of Assad. It is anti-Syrian propaganda.

          ... ... ...

          In other remarks in his 60 Minutes interview, Putin offered some rare praise for Americans and in particular for their creativity: "Creativity when it comes to tackling your problems. Their openness, openness and open-mindedness. Because it allows them to unleash the inner potential of their people. And thanks to that, America has attained such amazing results in developing their country."

          ... ... ...

          zchabj -> seaspan 27 Sep 2015 22:16

          You represent everything that is detestable about western politics, inflexible, totally unaware of the hypocrisy and blind to death you sow and I come from London. There are always two sides to a stroy and warfare must be eneded and negotiated power deals brokered.

          Killinf gets people no where. Anarchy destroys Syrian people's lives and futures, but you don't care, and that is why I have nothing but contempt for you and your views. You could care less if every Syrian died as long as your western ego is the "winner".

          So utterly pathetic.

          ID8246338 27 Sep 2015 22:13

          Commenters who think there hasn't been a massive propaganda campaign against Assad, and that Assad is responsible for every atrocity under the sun need to do their homework. A good start might be finding out what Syrian people think, both in Syria and ex-pats.

          Another may be to look into the propaganda which Ca-The-Moron has promoted - which originated from the CIA - and was wholly unacceptable according to Ban Ki-moon.

          Alternatively, remain ignorant and accept everything you are spoon fed. At least you won't have to think too hard about anything, and your opinions will reflect your laziness and ignorance.

          Then there is the western campaign which, started in the 1950s and has continued ever since - with a special boost from psycho Thatcher during the early 1970s. And so on and on.

          HollyOldDog -> smiley08 27 Sep 2015 22:12

          On the BBC there were interviews with some Syrian Migrants who said ' we aere coming to Europe because schools are closed, we cannot go out, universities are closed - this was from teenagers. It's not comprehensive but it does suggest that the schools system and universities were good before the current waring fractions attacked the Syranian state.

          centerline 27 Sep 2015 22:12

          The exceptional US?
          Swaggering along, pumped up on hubris and self esteem, setting the "rules" for the world.
          Putin stuck his foot out in Syria and tripped them up. Now, quite dazed they are trying to get back to their feet wondering what the fuck just happened.
          The MSM is working mightily to help the groggy US back onto its wobbly feet.

          Elusiv 27 Sep 2015 22:11

          President Putin feels extraordinary passion for his country and its history and everything she's been through, she meaning Russia. Loved the interview tonight. Hoping for a passionate Presidential candidate in America to dig deep into our hearts here.

          jvillain -> b1ngobob 27 Sep 2015 22:06

          Except that Assad has the post support of any party is Syria. Mean while the two parties that the Syrians want to F' oof the most are ISIS closly followed by NATO. So try again.

          http://www.opinion.co.uk/perch/resources/syriadata.pdf

          Egypts Sisi has re-established relations with Assad and has said that Syria should remain intact. That is important becuase Egypt has the largest population in the Near East by quite a bit.

          creel 27 Sep 2015 22:05

          That Russia and Iran are having to lecture the US today ..about lessons Lincoln and the US so painfully realized in the period of the US Civil War; is astonishing.

          Unity. The accountability of the citizen (each and every citizen) to the law. National framework for law that respects the tradition of different community in an inclusive society. Respect for and security of property title. These are all quite fundamental responsibilities that the US appear to believe Assad and his Administration must disavow. For what? To advance a Saudi-Turkic agenda that is acutely tribal, sectarian and narrowly faith-driven?

          nellieknox -> exliebour 27 Sep 2015 22:03

          Sad but true

          Surely anything is better than an ISIS caliphate

          The only issue is what was reported before, that Assad isnt directly fighting ISIS at present, as on the front lines around govt occupied zones are Al Nusra & other factions. ISIS are mainly fighting other Jihadi groups, Iraqi militias & of course the Kurds.

          The whole area is a shitstorm anyway, surely an Assad victory is the best option - warts & all. He is a bastard, he has as much blood on his hands as anyone. Yet the alternative is worse. The alternative is Mogudishu on steroids.

          Bart Fargo -> irgun777 27 Sep 2015 22:03

          The rationale is to keep the conflict going for as long as possible, and to keep Assad from winning at any cost, so as to permanently undermine Iranian and Russian influence in the region.

          Bart Fargo -> Chris Straley 27 Sep 2015 22:00

          Of course Americans don't want to sponsor terrorism. But the average American would be surprised to learn where our "aid" ends up...

          http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34368073

          zchabj b1ngobob 27 Sep 2015 21:55

          With all due respect it is none of your or my business being a Londoner who rules Syria, it is down to the Ssyrian people, our views and the views of our leaders are irrelevant and frankly given the amount of killing directly by our armed forces from a position of exterme hypocrisy.

          We have no moral, financial or military authority left after invading Iraq, Libya and Syria by proxy.

          irgun777 -> jezzam 27 Sep 2015 21:47

          Bush Sr was a CIA Director . He was not a gangster applying CIA methods .
          He said once " Sadam is an asshole but he is our asshole " and was right.
          There was no ISIS. , no refugees before the interventions in Iraq and Syria .

          zchabj -> seaspan 27 Sep 2015 21:44

          I hope one day your family is killed beacuse of the religion they follow and some idiot on the other side of the world says that a eace deal to end the fighting is wrong because despite both sides killing alarming numbers of civilians (300 according to reuters from July to Decemebr were killed by rebel hellcannon barrel bombs in 2014) that the war should continue so that groups that are thoroughly against democracy can bring democracy to the nation rather than negotiate a peace deal to end the war.

          I really hope that happens to teach you emathy, because that is what you are arguing totally sick.

          Media Propaganda 27 Sep 2015 21:43

          The US doesn't want ISIS to go away.
          They are being used to isolate Assad.
          The US is sponsoring terror, not fighting it...

          zchabj -> b1ngobob 27 Sep 2015 21:41

          That's a good idea for Russia, one part of the Soviet Union the main part to pay reparations if other countries think they are owed, however since the break up of trh Soviet Union, the economies of post Soviet states have performed worse in some ways and are thankfully for ordinary folk recovering after rampant privatization and gangsterism.

          Also the British could pay Bangladesh for the 10 million it helped starve in 1770 and the US could pay reparations to the Vietnamese today born with birth defects due to Agent Orange and on and on and on...

          I would love to live in that world.

          The idea we are the good guys just isn't true. We aren't, have never been and bever wil be and nor are the Russians or any other group.

          irgun777 27 Sep 2015 21:38

          We know that the so called "'moderates " are joining en masse ISIS and Al Nusra- reported in Guardian.
          What is the rationale to continue to support them with arms. , tactically and logistically ?
          Shedding crocodile tears for the Syrian refugees is disingenuous at least if we add their enemies.

          Assad is a poster boy compared with the Gulf regimes with worse women, minority
          and Christian rights records . We know who really fights ISIS and who supports it behind the curtains .
          What motivates McCaine and the neocons to conduct photoshops with Al Nusra and dream of a regime change ?

          JiminNH 27 Sep 2015 21:30

          Costly efforts to support moderate rebel groups have resulted in only four or five US-backed armed guerrillas on Syrian territory.

          This piece of "reporting", which is nothing but more western propaganda, furthers a recent concerted effort to focus on just the most recent debacle of our investing HALF A BILLION DOLLARS in "Division 30", when the reality is that the US has been undertaking such efforts to train, arm and fund the mythical "moderate Syrian rebels" since 2012. Each and every time we do so, the "moderates" enter Syria and promptly pledge allegiance to al Qaeda or its affiliate al Nusra Front, or a number of the other alphabet soup of western and GCC proxy armies in Syria. And that doesn't even include the massive support for the jihadist rebels from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan and our other allies.

          http://fair.org/home/down-the-memory-hole-nyt-erases-cias-efforts-to-overthrow-syrias-government/

          "Fool me once, shame on me..fool me twice shame on you"...... after at least 5 such "failures" you're not fooling anyone that is even remotely paying attention to this intentional chaos.

          At what point will it become obvious even to the willfully ignorant - this repeated "failure" is actually the policy for the US and it NATO & GCC allies to conduct the regime change in Syria, one of the 7 regime change operations or ruling elites planned under the pretext of the "war on terror" since 9/11, attacks conducted not by Syrians, nor Libyans, nor Iraqi, but by an organization that was birthed in Afghanistan circa 1979-1985 by the US CIA, British Mi6 and Saudi Arabia, from which 15 of its alleged "participants" came.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

          fairleft 27 Sep 2015 21:22

          Plan B of the US, since its Syria overthrow effort has failed, is to subdivide Syria into several unstable, warring little mini-states, including ISIS and Al Qaeda mini-states. Syria and its allies should be able to destroy that dream too.

          fairleft 27 Sep 2015 21:09

          Russia is serious about the fight against Wahabbist terrorism. The condition set by the US shows it is serious about overthrowing Assad. I side with Russia on this one.


          zchabj 27 Sep 2015 20:46

          It is amazing to see how quickly things change.

          Liberal interventionism isn't morally justifiable as there are today more human rights abuses in Libya or at least the same number as under Gaddaffi, the same is true of Iraq and Syria. Far worse human rights abuses have happened since the militarization of protests than before. If the goal is human development, which of course it isn't , the goal is a casus belli for our strategic goals, then slow reform with no violence is best.

          Iif we cannot improve a situation, why make it worse? If we do not have the military and financial means to improve lives, do not do anything.


          stevekeenan1 27 Sep 2015 20:39

          Cameron's present stance seems to be anti-both-sides in Syria: bomb ISIS, but refuse to support Assad's stand against them. Two years ago Dave wanted to effectively help the ISIS side. Given a choice between Assad or the religious fanatics behind the "ISIS" entity, Assad is surely the only sane choice.

          BMWAlbert 27 Sep 2015 20:39

          What propaganda? The 60 or 70 so "moderate rebels" seem most moderate in their behaviour (no organ gorgings this year, as yet). And this 0.5 Billion USD Footloose and fancy Free Syrian Army so much so, that they surrender their weapons to the extremists (usually found in photo-ops alongside John McCain) at the first possible opportunity.

          Strangely, the Iraq Army seems much the same-here the main victories against ISIS were by the militias backed by Iran (maybe why this is why the RU-Syria command centre is actually being located in Bagdad. There seems be be a motivation deficit among among proxy armies (also seen south of Donetsk last year).

          whythelies 27 Sep 2015 20:36

          Ita all about Qatari GAS through Syria....FFS!

          America desperately trying to decouple Europe from Russian gas......only way is from Qatar/Saudi/Syria/Turkey pipeline.

          Syria (and Russia) say no.......result is American inspired civil war.

          Russia waits (timing is everything) then puts the game changing hardware on the ground....REALPOLITIK.

          North America will resemble the Martian landscape before Russia gives up the European gas franchise.

          Its why all the previous protagonists want to talk with Russia.......suddenly?

          Its business as usual.......Assad keeps loyal Syrians....Europe get all the terrorists

          I'm looking for a beach house in Latakia before the prices rise......

          After the American/Israeli/NATO sponsored and Sunni (Saudi,Qatari,UAE muslim desert gerbil terrorists are smashed for good.

          Jahovason 27 Sep 2015 20:29

          I think Joining Assad in the fight against ISIS is not a bad idea. The greatest danger will be to leave a vacuum in Syria which we do not know the sort of characters that will step in to occupy. Iraq Libya are testament to the folly of thinking that once a government that enjoys some legitimacy is rid of because of a flaw, suddenly everything becomes ok. The threats and dangers lurking in the shadows in the form of extreme islamists in countries such as Syria demands that Assad's government be stabilised with international monitors ensuring any help is not used in the violation of His peoples Human rights, ISIS is crushed and a transition spanning a couple of years is agreed upon. The Arm of Justice is long and if Assad is guilty of Human Rights abuses, his day will come but for now too many people are suffering in our quest to get one man. The the blood craving ISIS is taking advantage of the choas caused by a lack of International collective effort. The US and the UK need to stop dictating, face reality and assemble a coalation capable of taking out the most urgent problem in Syria which is ISIS.

          unlywnted 27 Sep 2015 20:28

          Yes it makes good sense to work with the Russians to re-establish stability in Syria even if initially that means supporting Assad - the country was fairly stable and reasonably governed under Assad prior to the rebels uprising encouraged by the West - it is right to make amends now and enable that regime to re-established order for however temporary a period until some long term solution can be found.

          greatapedescendant 27 Sep 2015 20:25

          "Putin reaffirms support for Assad as he decries 'propaganda' against Syria"

          Yes. I agree with Putin. And here's why ..........

          Palestinians are supporting Assad + Putin.

          Israelis are represented as usual by the US + allies.

          And as usual this is a case of dealing with a contingent problem in the Middle East, in this case ISIS, not with a view to efficient accomplishment, but with a view to the constant, underlying and real problem of consolidating Israel and protecting its boundaries. And this to the point of overthrowing Assad and having him replaced by a non-Palestinian sympathiser or supporter.

          For the record, I generally attach more probability of truth to the words of Putin than to those of Obama + allies.

          whyohwhy1 27 Sep 2015 20:22

          Silly Putin, you are not supposed to call it "propaganda" when it comes from the US and their poodles. Saddam killed babies in incubators and was building nukes, Iran is also trying to get nukes, Russia invaded Crimea, Gaddafi was about to commit a genocide and so on: it is news!

          geedeesee 27 Sep 2015 20:20

          "The White House has said it would welcome a Russian role in the fight against Isis"

          The White House is talking bollox. Only three weeks ago US was trying to block Russian flights to Syria by lobbying NATO countries to prevent use of their airspace by Russian aircraft. Also in the last three weeks the US response to Russian military build-up in Syria was first to warn Moscow against military deployment, then that it would exasperate the situation, and would be like "pouring oil on the fire", as Ash Carter put it. Putin has brushed their warnings aside and now they're adjusting their words to suit the situation Putin has forced on them.

          Johnnyw1 27 Sep 2015 20:16

          Western leaders removed Saddam from Iraq , Gaddafi from Libya and the result world chaos. Now they want to remove Assad from Syria , could the result in even more world chaos ? ...Not according to David Cameron , but I`m afraid , as of yet his track record does little to inspire me . Would have thought helping Assad to destroy Isis would be the favoured option .


          centerline 27 Sep 2015 20:04

          Costly efforts to support moderate rebel groups have resulted in only four or five US-backed armed guerrillas on Syrian territory. A former top aide to Obama on Middle East argued on Sunday that in the absence of realistic means to oust Assad, it was better to enter negotiations without demanding Assad's departure as a precondition.

          These two sentences say it all. there are no moderate rebels. Only extremists.

          The moderate extremists (al Qaeda) want Syria turned into a medieval kingdom similar to Saudi Arabia or Taliban Pakistan.
          And then there's ISIS.

          The CIA have been funding the different al Qaeda/ISIS groups to the tune of one billion dollars a year, not to mention the pentagon money to remove Assad purely for US geo-political and financial goals.

          At the start of 2014, the US Department of state put out a sheet - The Syrian Crisis: U.S. Assistance and Support for the Transition.

          In it they were prematurely advertising for US citizens to invest in oil, agriculture, and communications in "rebel" held areas of Syria. The US commercial takeover of oil, agriculture, and communications in Syria as government forces were pushed out.

          budgie2356 27 Sep 2015 19:57

          An interesting scenario is developing with Putin adding his support to Assad along with Iran and China playing a quieter role in the background. While America created the war in Iraq and left the country in utter chaos by dismantling the army, the police and the Ba'arth Party and leaving the vacuum for ISIS to flourish during the sectarian violence that ensued, the uprising in Syria wasn't even on the cards until the Arab Spring.

          Now America along with its Western allies (and the Gulf States) are no longer able to call the shots and equip the rebels with impunity. Obama's inaction in the region has shown Western influence to be dimming while Russia is assisting Iran in combating America's creation both in Iraq and Syria while the US did its usual cut and run routine.

          Obama will have to face facts that he is dealing with a major power. If left to their own devices, the West will be creating another Iraq by supplying weapons to rebel groups who are apparently America's sworn enemies, Al Qeada and Al Nusra and again leaving another power vacuum for ISIS to overrun Syria then moving on to Jordan and The Lebanon, thus controlling vast swathes of land and compounding the already appalling refugee crisis.

          It is incomprehensible that American foreign policy is again working alongside one particular country which would be delighted to see its neighbor fall into chaos while working towards a war against Iran.

          Atrocities have been committed on both sides in the Syrian conflict with the rebel groups using chemical weapons on the civilian population and yet if Assad were to go there is no one group that could hold the country together.

          America and the West must wake up to the fact that it's intervention policies have caused the deaths and displacement of millions to what end?

          VengefulRevenant 27 Sep 2015 19:54

          Remarkably, this article did not even mention Putin's highly newsworthy comments pointing out that the US promotion of a mercenary rebel force in Syria is both illegal and a failure.

          Such exquisite journalistic tact makes perfect sense once you remember that, for Western official opinionators, arming rebels in another country is an outrage against international law when Putin supposedly does it in Ukraine but must not even be noticed when Obama does it in Syria.

          AngeloFrank 27 Sep 2015 19:46

          Make up your minds world. What's worse, Isis or Assad?

          idance 27 Sep 2015 19:48

          Putin on CBS 10 years ago:
          "Democracy cannot be exported to some other place. This must be a product of internal domestic development in a society."
          Still topical.

          idance 27 Sep 2015 19:48

          Putin on CBS 10 years ago:
          "Democracy cannot be exported to some other place. This must be a product of internal domestic development in a society."
          Still topical.

          zchabj 27 Sep 2015 19:41

          120,000 Syrian soldiers, mostly conscripts from ordinary Syrians have been killed or there abouts by the "FSA", allied Al Nusra and ISIL and the hundreds of other smaller groups, Ahrar Al Sham, Jaish Al Islam.

          Thousands of improvised "barrel like" propane hell cannon missiles have been fired randomly into civilian areas by Syrian rebels.

          And we never hear about this.

          Beckow -> Jonathan Stromberg 27 Sep 2015 19:40

          Is West in your mind capable of propaganda? Or do you think only others - the evil others - do propaganda?

          If you really believe that West is never spreading propaganda than you are either one paid to believe it, or (in your case more likely judging by the goofy tie) you might have simple comprehension issues. Yeah, "West is incapable of lying"....

          OneTop 27 Sep 2015 19:38

          Project for the New American Century
          Putin is one of the very few International leaders undeterred from speaking the truth.

          No wonder Washington hates him so much.

          SystemD -> stevekeenan1 27 Sep 2015 19:31

          Indeed. Assad may not be a 'nice guy', but he is infinitely preferable to ISIS. I cannot understand why the UK and USA wish to get rid of him, unless it is to please Netanyahu. Which raises the question, why would Israel wish to to see a repressive but stable regime (with whom it might be possible to negotiate) replaced by a gang of religious nut jobs, one of whose tenets is the destruction of their state?

          Johnnyw1 27 Sep 2015 19:31

          If it wasn't for Putin, ISIS would have taken over Syria by now. All these rebels we armed in Syria are now part of ISIS. Assad kept the peace for years and Christians and other religions could live safely in Syria. The west should have supported Assad from the start and there would be no ISIS stronghold in Syria.

          nikdyzma55 27 Sep 2015 19:29

          Western colonialism (western corporations) 2.0 in execution by empire and its western vassals taking many lives in Iraq, Libya and Syria to have natural resources under colonial control, Western Saudi stooges/be headers keep Middle East and South Africa under western colonial control. Everybody who opposes western colonialism 2.0 is ending up dead (Husain, Kaddafi, soon Assad - like good old days). In their hypocrisy, west pretends that they have so called human values (it is so funny that is bringing big smile on my face). All these western corporations plundering Middle East and Africa big time now. And I cannot stop laughing when west is talking about human right and having Kings and princes Saudis, Qataris and Kuwaitis be headers as their allays

          exliebour 27 Sep 2015 19:16

          Asssad is the only hope for something bordering on sanity in Syria.
          The west should stop giving Jihadists TOW missiles and let Russia impose the orderly iron fist of a dictator. Nothing short of a ruthless dictator can govern ME countries. Left to their own devices the general population will get down to their age old business of chopping each other up. Its not exactly the first time we have seen this is it?


          zchabj 27 Sep 2015 19:16

          Iis there any truth to the rumours that Chinese troops have landed at Tartus? It is rumour, has the guardian got any info on that.

          Also what about Russia, Iran, Ssyria and Iraq setting up a joint intel centre against ISIL at Baghdad.

          And what of Russian troops actually fighting against rebel and ISIL forces around Aleppo and other areas already?

          [Sep 27, 2015] Since st least 2009 GCHQ has targeted a range of popular websites as part of an effort to covertly collect cookies on a massive scale

          BBC used by GCHQ to spy on Internet users https://theintercept.com/2015/09/25/gchq-radio-porn-spies-track-web-users-online-identities/
          "... I do wonder though, with all those stories about those thousands of Kremlin controlled Russian trolls on British news websites, whether some of this comes from carefully massaged data from GCHQ through third parties to the Pork Pie News Networks via 'unnamed sources', i.e. the usual bollox. ..."
          "... …The agency operates a bewildering array of other eavesdropping systems, each serving its own specific purpose and designated a unique code name, such as: …and INFINITE MONKEYS, which analyzes data about the usage of online bulletin boards and forums… ..."
          "... Once you understand the relationship and the goals that they have, you can work backwards and make fairly good conclusions about what tools would be required and used to get to those conclusions and try not think whether they are legal or not. ..."
          "... The most disturbing thing about it all is that it puts us one step away from a totalitarian system. All that is required is a political decision. ..."
          "... Forget about 'checks and balances' – they're the first thing to be thrown out of the window in an emergency. Arbeit macht frei! ..."
          "... GCHQ and the CIA are in bed with one another, and have been for years. This might be a timely occasion to mention once again that both are capable of hacking into smartphones by all leading manufacturers; in the case of the IPhone the CIA uses a program application called Dropout Jeep. ..."
          "... the CIA also diverted laptops ordered online so that government spyware could be installed on them. ..."
          "... You can't believe anyone any more. ..."
          Sep 27, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
          Warren, September 25, 2015 at 2:25 pm
          https://theintercept.com/2015/09/25/gchq-radio-porn-spies-track-web-users-online-identities/

          et Al, September 26, 2015 at 4:23 am

          A top-secret GCHQ document from March 2009 reveals the agency has targeted a range of popular websites as part of an effort to covertly collect cookies on a massive scale. It shows a sample search in which the agency was extracting data from cookies containing information about people's visits to the adult website YouPorn, search engines Yahoo and Google, and the Reuters news website.

          Other websites listed as "sources" of cookies in the 2009 document (see below) are Hotmail, YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, WordPress, Amazon, and sites operated by the broadcasters CNN, BBC, and the U.K.'s Channel 4.

          …A top-secret GCHQ document from March 2009 reveals the agency has targeted a range of popular websites as part of an effort to covertly collect cookies on a massive scale. It shows a sample search in which the agency was extracting data from cookies containing information about people's visits to the adult website YouPorn, search engines Yahoo and Google, and the Reuters news website.

          Other websites listed as "sources" of cookies in the 2009 document (see below) are Hotmail, YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, WordPress, Amazon, and sites operated by the broadcasters CNN, BBC, and the U.K.'s Channel 4…
          ###

          And I bet the Guardian too as it is 'the world's most widely read new site'. They probably keep automatic tabs on this site considering how it has grown over the last couple of years.

          I do wonder though, with all those stories about those thousands of Kremlin controlled Russian trolls on British news websites, whether some of this comes from carefully massaged data from GCHQ through third parties to the Pork Pie News Networks via 'unnamed sources', i.e. the usual bollox.

          May I suggest to fellow commenters here, if at any point you loose your smart phone (etc.) just call GCHQ and they'll tell you where you left it. I wonder if they provide a data back up service?!

          et Al, September 26, 2015 at 4:48 am
          …The agency operates a bewildering array of other eavesdropping systems, each serving its own specific purpose and designated a unique code name, such as: …and INFINITE MONKEYS, which analyzes data about the usage of online bulletin boards and forums…

          …Authorization is "not needed for individuals in the U.K.," another GCHQ document explains, because metadata has been judged "less intrusive than communications content." All the spies are required to do to mine the metadata troves is write a short "justification" or "reason" for each search they conduct and then click a button on their computer screen…

          …When compared to surveillance rules in place in the U.S., GCHQ notes in one document that the U.K. has "a light oversight regime."

          The more lax British spying regulations are reflected in secret internal rules that highlight greater restrictions on how NSA databases can be accessed. The NSA's troves can be searched for data on British citizens, one document states, but they cannot be mined for information about Americans or other citizens from countries in the Five Eyes alliance….
          #####

          It's just what is expected from the junior in the US/UK relationship. For the UK to retain privileged access to the US' global spy network, it needs to give the US what it wants, a way to circumvent the US' own laws. Dial back to when Gary Powers & his U-2 were shot down over the Soviet Union. All subsequent overflights by US manned and operated aircraft were prohibited, so, the US used British pilots and Canberras.

          Once you understand the relationship and the goals that they have, you can work backwards and make fairly good conclusions about what tools would be required and used to get to those conclusions and try not think whether they are legal or not.

          What people can do to protect themselves is

          1. don't change most of your digital habits (as this would raise a flag);
          2. just don't do or say obvious things that you wouldn't do in real life in your digital life;
          3. use encryption such as PGP for email and products using perfect forward secrecy for chat/etc.;
          4. don't write about what not to do on the Internet as I have just done! ;)

          The most disturbing thing about it all is that it puts us one step away from a totalitarian system. All that is required is a political decision. All the tools are in place and depending on how much information they have actually kept they can dip in to it at any time throughout your life as a rich source of blackmail, probably via third parties. It's not exactly threatening to send you to a concentration camp (or disappeared to one of Britain's (and others) many small overseas territories, but it is total control.

          If the European economy completely crashes and mass instability ensues (or whatever), then the politicians will be told, or even ask, "What tools do we have to control this?".

          Forget about 'checks and balances' – they're the first thing to be thrown out of the window in an emergency. Arbeit macht frei!

          et Al, September 26, 2015 at 9:52 am
          This should be a massive story as the parliamentary security committee gave the intelligence services a 'clean bill of health' not so long ago. Since then, they've lost intelligence 'yes man' Malcolm Rifkind to an expenses scandal so the make up of the committee has changed a bit.

          What it does show is that we cannot even trust the gatekeepers (above) who are give very limited info from the security services. And let us not forget the dates that this occurred under a Labor administration and continued under a Conservative-Liberal Democrat and now a Conservative one.

          It will be interesting to see if this story gains any traction, though I suspect that it will be much bigger outside of the UK, at least initially. The cat is, again, out of the bag!

          marknesop, September 26, 2015 at 2:38 pm
          GCHQ and the CIA are in bed with one another, and have been for years. This might be a timely occasion to mention once again that both are capable of hacking into smartphones by all leading manufacturers; in the case of the IPhone the CIA uses a program application called Dropout Jeep.

          We can thank Edward Snowden for that; the NSA spying scandal revealed a great deal more than just the information the CIA is snooping on your phone calls and collecting information on everyone. As the second reference relates, the CIA also diverted laptops ordered online so that government spyware could be installed on them. Intelligence agencies are determined that citizens shall have no privacy whatsoever. You might as well assume they are watching everything you do and listening to everything you say. Give the window the finger at random times just in case, and slip embarrassing revelations on the sexual proclivities of intelligence agents into your telephone conversations.

          Canada's Blackberry was once safe, but GCHQ broke that. So now there is no smartphone that is private, except maybe for Russia's YotaPhone. Probably not that either, though, since it is sold in the USA, and if they couldn't break into the phone they would just hack the carrier. And the Canadian government bought all of its Secure Telephone Units (STU) from the NSA, so say no more about the "security" of those.

          A few companies, like Silent Circle, pitch a privacy phone like the Blackphone, but it originates in the USA and everyone's paranoia has become so acute that the instant suspicion is they are telling you it is more private just because it is wired straight to the NSA.

          You can't believe anyone any more.

          [Sep 27, 2015] If Putin wants to dest4ruct Ukraine he got a lot of competition from the EU, US and NATO

          Sep 27, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

          Oddlots, September 25, 2015 at 5:04 pm

          This is kind of interesting as Mearshimer comes to conclusions I'm sure most here would agree with but also some opinions that would seem ludicrous. According to him Putin's strategy is to wreck Ukraine… If that's the case he's got a lot of competition from the EU, U.S. and NATO and would be wasting his efforts as the former seem entirely capable of achieving the goal without any further assistance:

          http://scotthorton.org/interviews/2014/08/21/082114-john-j-mearsheimer/

          [Sep 27, 2015] ClubOrlov Americas Latest Foreign Policy Fiascos, Part I

          "... It caused Russia's "nonsystemic opposition" - so called because it can never garner enough votes to win any election anywhere - which has been financed by American NGOs and transnational oligarchs like Soros, Khodorkovsky and others, to pretty much fade from the Russian political scene altogether ..."
          "... It has increased the popularity of Russia's government, and Vladimir Putin personally while making the average Russian greatly dislike the US in particular, and mistrust the West in general ..."
          "... It has provided Russia with a bonanza in the form of 1.5 million additional Russians, in the form of refugees from the economically collapsed, war-torn Ukraine. ..."
          "... America has no foreign policy; it just has a military with the sole intent of using it... As the old saw goes; when all one has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail ..."
          "... One advantage the West has derived from this fiasco is that the Ukraine is now another debt slave nation a la Greece without the benefit(?) of being a member of the EU or the Eurozone. ..."
          "... In any case, Roberts makes it clear the the neo-conservatives (Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan, etc.) are still dictating much of Washington's foreign policy, and it doesn't seem to matter that the neo-conservatives have done nothing but ruin everything they've touched. They stay in power anyway. Maybe that's their goal, to destroy foreign nations whose resources they (and their clients, certain large corporations) covet, particularly in North Africa, the Middle East and maybe even the Ukraine. ..."
          Sep 27, 2015 | cluborlov.blogspot.ca

          Some 15 months ago I published a piece on American Foreign Policy Fiascos, in which I summarized the significant negative progress that has been achieved through American involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and Georgia, among others, and then went on to boldly predict that the Ukraine is likewise going to turn out to be another American foreign policy fiasco. Since then it certainly has turned into one.

          US meddling in the Ukraine has produced none of the results it was intended to produce:

          • It didn't isolate Russia internationally
          • It didn't destroy Russia's economy
          • It didn't pull Russia into a futile, unpopular, bloody conflict
          • It didn't produce regime change within Russia

          Just the opposite:

          • It prompted Russia, China and several other countries to opt for closer economic and security ties
          • It motivated Russia to think seriously about import replacement, giving its domestic economy a big boost
          • It made the US and NATO part to a bloody conflict in Eastern Ukraine while Russia has steadfastly stood on the sidelines providing humanitarian aid
          • It caused Russia's "nonsystemic opposition" - so called because it can never garner enough votes to win any election anywhere - which has been financed by American NGOs and transnational oligarchs like Soros, Khodorkovsky and others, to pretty much fade from the Russian political scene altogether, all the while complaining bitterly about the horrible Russian people who don't understand them and the lack of imported French cheeses, not to mention the pâtés; please, don't get them started on the pâtés-that would be simply too cruel.

          And then here are some bonus points:

          • It has increased the popularity of Russia's government, and Vladimir Putin personally while making the average Russian greatly dislike the US in particular, and mistrust the West in general
          • It has driven a political wedge between the US and the EU, with EU member-states now starting to dimly discern for the first time that US policies are undermining rather than enhancing their security
          • It has provided Russia with a bonanza in the form of 1.5 million additional Russians, in the form of refugees from the economically collapsed, war-torn Ukraine.
          • It has put Russia in a position where it can just sit back and let the US, NATO and their puppets in the Ukraine twist in the wind, or soak in a cesspool of their own creation, or sit back and watch as a dunce's cap is lowered onto their collective head while circus music plays-or your own hyperbolic metaphor-but their level of embarrassment is already high and getting higher.

          The last two points warrant some further discussion.

          V. Arnold said...

          I would say that's a fair assessment of the "situation" in Ukraine. President Putin has played the hand dealt to him masterfully.

          Syria? Once again Pres. Putin has shown his resolve and tactical expertise.

          America has no foreign policy; it just has a military with the sole intent of using it... As the old saw goes; when all one has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail

          B. Green said...

          One advantage the West has derived from this fiasco is that the Ukraine is now another debt slave nation a la Greece without the benefit(?) of being a member of the EU or the Eurozone. They are becoming another Troika puppet selling off assets at fire sale prices, cutting pensions, etc., etc. And let us not forget the Disaster Capitalists who will swoop in to profit from any war damage or infrastructure collapse.

          Marc L Bernstein said...

          Some articles by Paul Craig Roberts and Steve Lendman:

          http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/09/23/russias-false-hopes-paul-craig-roberts/

          http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2015/09/us-cooperation-with-russia-on-syria.html

          Roberts says:

          "Russia can end the Ukraine crisis by simply accepting the requests of the former Russian territories to reunite with Russia. Once the breakaway republics are again part of Russia, the crisis is over. Ukraine is not going to attack Russia."

          It can't be quite as simple as Roberts portrays. Maybe this will eventually happen but only after Ukraine is on the verge of collapse as a sovereign nation.

          In any case, Roberts makes it clear the the neo-conservatives (Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan, etc.) are still dictating much of Washington's foreign policy, and it doesn't seem to matter that the neo-conservatives have done nothing but ruin everything they've touched. They stay in power anyway. Maybe that's their goal, to destroy foreign nations whose resources they (and their clients, certain large corporations) covet, particularly in North Africa, the Middle East and maybe even the Ukraine.

          It's a lot easier to destroy things than it is to repair them.

          [Sep 27, 2015] On the curious bigotry and racism of #Russias pro-Western liberals

          Sep 27, 2015 | www.facebook.com

          Sep 24, 2015

          Mark Sleboda

          On the curious bigotry and racism of #Russia's pro-Western "liberals":

          Scratch a Russian "liberal" who fetishes the West and below the surface nearly every time you will find bigoted ethnic nationalism & racism.

          Russian liberals as a rule have nothing but contempt & loathing for Russia's 188+ ethnic minorities and other Eurasian peoples....

          Russia's liberals see the Eurasian minorities & immigrants as a weight holding Russia, and themselves personally, back from their longed-for Western aspirations & assimilation. They despise them for this. Russia's inner-Orient provoking a self-loathing Orientalism. They see the West as "Civilization" (singular, capital "C" ) and Russia's Eurasian peoples as the barbarian "Other".

          Ex. The near universal reaction of Russia's liberals I personally know to the building of the Cathedral Mosque in Moscow was a very visceral horror & outrage - directed against Putin.

          This curious phenomenon is at its most obvious in the liberals adoration of the neoliberal-ultranationalist Alexei Navalny and their seething hatred of Ramzan Kadyrov.

          See More

          Petri Krohn
          The driving force of all forms of "Euro integration" and Color Revolution is a racist belief in the racial superiority of West European whites. "Liberals" believe that by "democratization" and "integration" they can make themselves more European, more white. What they most yearn for is acceptance as "equals" by White Anglo-Saxons and their ecclesiastical class in Hollywood.

          Aaron Thomas
          Its only going to get worse as the world cup approaches. There actually is a problem with racism in russian soccer. But you know they'll use it to describe russia as a whole.

          Mark Sleboda
          Find me a European country without racism among football fans. Completely turned me off from the soccer I grew up playing

          Constantine Goh Curious.
          The situation is similar with Chinese liberals.

          Michal Mazur
          Russia's liberals - sounds like beginning of a joke smile emoticon But bear in mind that somewhere in between Russia and West, things are little bit different. For instance, Poland & Lithuania (actually Lithuania / Belarus) were able to successfully integrate their Tatar muslim minorities even before 17th century. Russia is still 'work in progress' since Caucasus region tends to be a little bit more troublesome sometimes, and this progress has to be appreciated.
          Зоран Радишић
          Similar with Serbian "liberals" too. I think that these are not necessarily "ideological liberals", as much as they are often simply suffering from an inferiority complex and consider all things Western as superior not only to central Asians or Middle Easterners, but to their own culture and race as well. In the 1930s & '40s the likes of these were nazi and fascist sympathizers and enthusiastic collaborators when the opportunity rose, because it was the Western crap of the day. Now they are "liberals", tomorrow they will follow the next political monstrosity, etc.

          [Sep 27, 2015] BBC anti-russian propaganda -- WWII German women rape story

          "... During the Balkan wars of the 1990's both the Croatians and the Bosnian muslims, but not the Serbs, hired US public relations firms to 'manage' public perceptions of their activities. A guy who was a head honchos one of these PR firms was asked what aspects of the media campaigns he was most proud of and he replied that it was getting the influential Jewish lobby onside in the demonisation of the Serbs. ..."
          "... I see the constant identification of Soviet soldiers with rape and other atrocities as part of this perception management culture. ..."
          "... The reality is that rape, like other lawlessness, is an inevitable consequence of war and that all soldiers, Americans, British, French, German, Russians, committed these crimes. ..."
          "... That is quite right. It is all about smear. But the claim of 2 million rapes is a gross exaggeration that has not a shred of evidence to back it up. The true figure is not even 10 time less, it is likely to be around 100 times less and in the same range as the western allies. ..."
          "... Given the mass murder of civilians perpetrated by the Nazis, not collateral damage but actual rounding up and shooting or burning villagers in their own homes, why were the Soviet soldiers only worried about rape? If they were seeking revenge they would have been burning Germans alive. I have not heard of a single such instance. So the rape story is utter BS. ..."
          Sep 27, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
          Warren, September 25, 2015 at 2:26 pm

          http://www.rt.com/news/316518-bbc-wwii-rapist-monument/

          Pavlo Svolochenko, September 25, 2015 at 2:49 pm

          The BBC really should be treated as a terrorist organisation – or at least accorded the legal status of a paedophile ring.

          Warren, September 25, 2015 at 3:04 pm

          The BBC serves the British state, its mission is to disseminate propaganda that serves interests of the British state – it is a state broadcaster after all!

          kirill, September 25, 2015 at 4:33 pm

          So we are back to the tired rape trope. Where are the German abortion and murder records to prove that there 2 million rapes? I can claim the moon is made of green cheese but without any actual evidence it means nothing.

          Fern, September 25, 2015 at 7:22 pm

          During the Balkan wars of the 1990's both the Croatians and the Bosnian muslims, but not the Serbs, hired US public relations firms to 'manage' public perceptions of their activities. A guy who was a head honchos one of these PR firms was asked what aspects of the media campaigns he was most proud of and he replied that it was getting the influential Jewish lobby onside in the demonisation of the Serbs.

          Things have moved on a little since then and there are now three important lobbies any public perception manager needs to get onboard. Firstly, there's still the Jewish lobby attested to by the great effort undertaken to pin a gas attack on Bashar al-Assad. Any such attack, of course, is Auschwitz redux and guarantees a compulsion to act by the 'international community'. Secondly, there's the women's movement hence the enormous effort that been put into establishing that Public Enemies (Serbs, Gaddafi etc) use rape systemically, as a weapon of war. And thirdly, there's the LGBT lobby which is a comparatively new kid on the block but did sterling service in Sochi.

          I see the constant identification of Soviet soldiers with rape and other atrocities as part of this perception management culture. It reinforces a meme that is becoming increasingly common – the conflation of Nazism and Communism – the Nazi war machine and those who destroyed it are as bad as one another. And if the Soviets are exclusively identified with rape, they become uniquely bad in modern eyes. And if the Soviets are bad, well, the Russians are too.

          The reality is that rape, like other lawlessness, is an inevitable consequence of war and that all soldiers, Americans, British, French, German, Russians, committed these crimes. It's why the Nuremburg judgements call the waging of aggressive war the supreme international crime that contains within it all the other lesser crimes – like rape – that invariably follow. Angelina Jolie is probably a sincere woman but if she wants to stop rape in war, she needs to stop war.

          kirill, September 25, 2015 at 8:02 pm

          That is quite right. It is all about smear. But the claim of 2 million rapes is a gross exaggeration that has not a shred of evidence to back it up. The true figure is not even 10 time less, it is likely to be around 100 times less and in the same range as the western allies.

          Given the mass murder of civilians perpetrated by the Nazis, not collateral damage but actual rounding up and shooting or burning villagers in their own homes, why were the Soviet soldiers only worried about rape? If they were seeking revenge they would have been burning Germans alive. I have not heard of a single such instance. So the rape story is utter BS.

          Patient Observer, September 25, 2015 at 8:34 pm

          That is a good point that I have not heard before.

          et Al, September 26, 2015 at 3:58 am
          During the Balkan wars of the 1990's both the Croatians and the Bosnian muslims, but not the Serbs, hired US public relations firms to 'manage' public perceptions of their activities.
          ####

          The Serbs did hire a PR firm, but it was squeezed and ultimately forced to drop the account. The name of the firm escapes me…

          For bosnia, look up James Harff and Ruder-Finn & Knowlton bosnia or look here:

          http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_Harff

          The UK peer Dame Anne Warburton (Warburton II report)* lead an 'investigation' in to Bosnian war rapes in 1992 that had to speculate the actual number of war rapes to date but found very little evidence to back up the numbers claimed by the media.

          http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/09/world/european-inquiry-says-serbs-forces-have-raped-20000.html

          This letter to the editor is quite succinct (goes straight to pdf):
          http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1813&context=ree

          http://www.womenaid.org/press/info/humanrights/warburtonfull.htm
          * "…However, on the basis of its investigations, the Mission accepts that it is possible to speak in terms of many thousands. Estimates vary widely, ranging from 10,000 to as many as 60,000. The most reasoned estimates suggested to the Mission place the number of victims at around 20,000."

          marknesop, September 26, 2015 at 9:41 am
          Hill & Knowlton is also the PR Firm that managed the Iraq War for Kuwait, and coached the fake "Kuwaiti nurse" (actually the Kuwaiti Ambassador's daughter) in her "Saddam's animals ripped babies out of incubators" story. Worked like a charm. No truth to it at all, though. To me, that stands exemplary of the modern western spin-management technique – sit down as a team and figure out what it would take to get the public on your side. Then invent a situation where that happened.

          [Sep 27, 2015] Damage inflicted on the Soviet Union by delay of the invasion of France

          A delay characterized by General Eisenhower as an act of betrayal
          "... Most Americans have the delusion that the US is pure benevolence, an honorable country that is a moral example to the world. Gag me with a spoon. ..."
          Sep 27, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
          Patient Observer, September 26, 2015 at 5:02 pm
          Many would argue that active planning began for the Cold War by the West after a Soviet victory was certain (circa early 1943). The initial phase may have been to maximize damage to the Soviet Union by delay of the invasion of France (a delay characterized by General Eisenhower as an act of betrayal) among other things. Another major indicator that the Cold War was in full bloom prior to the end of hostilities was the nuclear attack on Japan which was intended to evaluate the effects of nuclear explosions on civilian cities for a future attacks (i.e. Soviet cities) and a warning to the Soviet Union that the US will commit mass murder against defenseless civilians.

          The denial of reparations was yet another example that the West had nothing but hostility for the Soviets. Speaking of denials and breaking of promises, Vietnam was apparently promised reparations by the US but later reneged. Per Wikipedia:

          "Following the war, Hanoi pursued the establishment of diplomatic relations with the United States, initially in order to obtain US$3.3 billion in reconstruction aid, which President Richard M. Nixon had secretly promised after the Paris Agreement was signed in 1973. … Barely two months after Hanoi's victory in 1975, Premier Pham Van Dong, speaking to the National Assembly, invited the United States to normalize relations with Vietnam and to honor its commitment to provide reconstruction funds. Representatives of two American banks-the Bank of America and First National City Bank-were invited to discuss trade possibilities, and American oil companies were informed that they were welcome to apply for concessions to search for oil in offshore Vietnamese waters.

          Washington neglected Dong's call for normal relations, however, because it was predicated on reparations, and the Washington political climate in the wake of the war precluded the pursuit of such an outcome."

          Most Americans have the delusion that the US is pure benevolence, an honorable country that is a moral example to the world. Gag me with a spoon.

          [Sep 27, 2015] Meet The Man Who Prevented World War III

          Sep 27, 2015 | Zero Hedge

          Submitted by Erico Matias Tavares via Sinclair & Co.,

          You may have never heard of Vasili Arkhipov. And yet life as we know it on this planet could have ended if it were not for his crucial intervention during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

          Born in 1926, Arkhipov saw action as a minesweeper during the Soviet-Japanese war in August 1945. Two years later he graduated from the Caspian Higher Naval School, serving in the Black Sea and Baltic submarine fleets – just in time for the start of the Cold War, which would stay with him for the rest of his service.

          ... ... ...

          Arkhipov was second-in-command in the nuclear-armed Foxtrot-class submarine B-59, part of a flotilla of four submarines protecting Soviet ships on their way to Cuba. On October 27, as they approached the US imposed quarantine line, US Navy ships in pursuit started dropping depth charges to force the B-59 to surface for identification – completely unaware that it was carrying nuclear weapons.

          The explosions rocked the submarine which went dark except for emergency lights. With the air-conditioning down, temperature and carbon dioxide levels rose sharply. The crew was hardly able to breathe.

          Unable to contact Moscow and under pressure from the Americans for several hours, Captain Valentin Savitsky finally lost his nerve. He assumed that war had broken out between the two countries and decided to launch a nuclear torpedo. He would not go down without a fight.

          However, unlike the other submarines in the flotilla, the three officers onboard the B-59 had to agree unanimously to launch the nuclear torpedo. As the other officer sided with Savitsky, only Arkhipov stood in the way of launching World War III.

          An argument broke out between the three, but Arkhipov was able to convince the Captain not to launch the torpedo. How was he able to prevail under such stressful conditions? He was actually in charge of the entire flotilla and as such was equal in rank to Savitsky. But the reputation he had gained during the K-19 incident may have been the decisive factor in convincing the other officers to abort the launch. That detail may have made all the difference.

          The submarine eventually surfaced and awaited orders from Moscow, averting what would have been a nuclear holocaust. The Cuban Missile Crisis ended a few days later.

          This crucial episode of the Cold War only became known to the West after the collapse of the Soviet Union many years later.

          Arkhipov continued to serve in the Soviet Navy, commanding submarines and later submarine squadrons. He was promoted to rear admiral in 1975 and became head of the Kirov Naval Academy. In 1981, he was promoted to vice admiral, retiring a few years later. The radiation he was exposed to in the K-19 incident contributed to his death in 1998, at age 72.

          It is frightening to ponder how closely the civilized world came to the brink of extinction. It was only a click away, with two out of three in favor.

          It may not have been the only time either. Who knows how many more Soviet and American personnel played a decisive role in averting nuclear annihilation? One person can indeed change the fate of the world.

          We should never let their stories be forgotten.

          [Sep 27, 2015] The moral universe of the corporate killers

          Sep 27, 2015 | www.samefacts.com
          Stuart_Levine

          Mark--The passage "As Paul Krugman points out" links not to PK, but to a Brad Plummer Vox article. I assume that you wanted to link to PK's column in this AM's NYT.

          BTW, you may want to point to this Jeb! Tweet: http://bit.ly/1gVFixr I think that he may have set a record for the total number of horribly bad policy positions that one can advocate in 140 characters or less.

          liberalhistorian

          Couple of side bar comments:

          ...and apparently the buzz in the automotive world is that "everyone" was doing it...

          Anybody who thinks Mr. Cook and Apple can't disrupt the automobile industry clearly isn't paying attention to the automobile industry. It seems designed more by cads than CAD. Smart elegant design? The auto industry is retrogressive: low hanging fruit. The whole damn kit: from CEOs to Dealers to Mechanics you can't trust. It's a moral atrocity.

          Apple can and will seize the wheel and make a ton of money doing so...

          As Paul Krugman points out, the scandal makes a nice counterpoint with Jeb Bush's latest "anti-regulation" rant.

          Another nice counterpoint: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27867-cod-...

          Of course there are many others. And of course there are also many cases of over-regulation. But you don't win an argument for smart regulation unless you have plenty of examples to draw from. I suspect Mrs. Clinton will be well-armed that way come the big time debates with Jeb!

          Brett

          Fisher's reaction is so typical for many economic libertarians that I've met. They can't really dismiss environmental problems altogether, so instead they diminish and minimize - "Oh, it's just some marginal emissions/a small amount of forest land/a little pollution into the river! What's the harm? And do you really want to hurt an important company that employs thousands over it over a little bit of dirty air?"

          Jarndyce

          Mark is too easy on both VW and GM in this paragraph:

          "That's not as bad as an ordinary murder, where the killer picks out a specific victim, because being personally singled out to be killed is somehow worse than being a random victim. But in both the GM case and the VW case, people wound up dead (or injured, or sick) through the choice of someone else. In the GM case, the company's culpability was mostly passive: it made a design or manufacturing mistake and then didn't disclose it or act promptly or adequately to fix it. What VW did was much worse: the 'defeat software' wasn't a defect, but a deliberate decision to break the law with the predictable consequence of killing hundreds of people, at least twice as many as died of GM's malfeasance. I don't think you need to live in Marin County to find that objectionable."

          The pertinent question is whether VW or GM knew that people would die as a result of their actions. If they did, then they are as culpable as an ordinary murderer, despite not having picked out a specific victim or having acted "passively" in deciding not to disclose their mistake. They are comparable to a person who randomly fires a machine gun in a crowd.

          David T

          One of the ICCT engineers who uncovered this seems to be telling every news shop that will listen that people should be checking other automakers for the same problem. VW's behavior is so appalling and frankly stupid (destroy a company to sell a few diesels? It's not even their biggest product line) that it's hard to understand what they could have possibly been thinking. The general amorality of corporate culture may be part of it. But I wonder if there was a bit of "everybody else is doing it" going on here too. (BMW must be pretty happy that their car passed.)


          Keith_Humphreys

          Perfect movie reference(The Third Man, 1949). The sociopathic black marketeer Harry Lime is played by Orson Welles and his moral American friend Holly Martins by Joseph Cotten. As they ride in a Ferris wheel far above the people of Vienna, this exchange occurs:

          Martins: Have you ever seen any of your victims?

          Harry: You know, I never feel comfortable on these sort of things. Victims? Don't be melodramatic. [gestures to people far below] Tell me. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you twenty thousand pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money, or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man. Free of income tax - the only way you can save money nowadays.

          Clip: https://vimeo.com/76843899

          egorelick

          Ok. This may be an extremely stupid question, but how do we know that this was illegal? Many regulations of this type in the electronics/telecommunications field are overspecified and everybody knows the tests (and they cheat in similar fashions if not so explicitly and in such wholesale fashion). If the regulation was written to state that an engine will pass the following test then that's what would be built. Unless there was an explicit prohibition in switching modes or a requirement that the test mode be comparable to driving mode then the engineers may have just seen it as a game. So I'm not defending the amorality of this, but the question of conspiracy is harder to prove if it may not be illegal except under the EPA's theory. And if it wasn't obviously illegal, then what is the moral obligation of the worker to trade-off their livelihood for exposing the fraud.

          [Sep 27, 2015] How America built its empire The real history of American foreign policy that the media won't tell you

          Sep 27, 2015 | www.salon.com

          Salon.com

          The book tries to do two things. One is to cover the history of American foreign policy, from around 1900 to the present, tracing the gradual construction of a global empire. This first really came into view as a prospect during the Second World War and is today a reality across all five continents, as a glance at the skein of its military bases makes clear. The Cold War was a central episode within this trajectory, but the book doesn't treat just the U.S. record vis-á-vis the USSR or China. It tries to deal equally with American relations with the Europe and Japan, and also with the Third World, treated not as a homogenous entity but as four or five zones that required different policy combinations.

          The second part of the book is a survey of American grand strategy-that is, the different ways leading counselors of state interpret the current position of the United States on the world stage and their recommendations for what Washington should do about it.

          The "big think" set, in other words-Kissinger, of course, Brzezinski, Walter Russell Mead, Robert Kagan. And then people such as Francis Fukuyama, whom I consider a ridiculous figure but whose thinking you judged worth some scrutiny. How did you choose these?

          From the range of in-and-outers-thinkers moving between government and the academy or think-tanks-who have sought to guide U.S. foreign policy since 2000, with some intellectual originality. Kissinger isn't among these. His ideas belong to a previous epoch, his later offerings are boilerplate. Fukuyama, who sensed what the effects of office on thought could be, and got out of state service quite early, is a mind of a different order. The figures selected cover the span of options within what has always been a bipartisan establishment.

          You make a distinction between American exceptionalism, which is much in the air, and American universalism, which few of us understand as a separate matter. The first holds America to be singular (exceptional), and the second that the world is destined to follow us, that the trails we've blazed are the future of humanity. You call this a "potentially unstable compound." Could you elaborate on this distinction, and explain why you think it's unstable?

          It's unstable because the first can exist without the second. There is, of course, a famous ideological linkage between the two in the religious idea, specific to the United States, of Providence-that is, divine Providence. In your own book "Time No Longer" you cite an astounding expression of this notion: "However one comes to the debate, there can be little question that the hand of Providence has been on a nation which finds a Washington, a Lincoln, or a Roosevelt when it needs him." That pronouncement was delivered in the mid-1990s-not by some television preacher, but by Seymour Martin Lipset: chairs at Harvard and Stanford, president of both the American Sociological and the American Political Science Associations, a one-time social democrat.

          What is the force of this idea? A belief that God has singled out America as a chosen nation for exceptional blessings, a notion which then easily becomes a conviction of its mission to bring the benefits of the Lord to the world. President after president, from Truman through to Kennedy, the younger Bush to Obama, reiterate the same tropes: "God has given us this, God has given us that," and with the unique freedom and prosperity he has conferred on us comes a universal calling to spread these benefits to the rest of the world. What is the title of the most ambitious contemporary account of the underlying structures of American foreign policy? "Special Providence," by Walter Russell Mead. Year of publication: 2001.

          But while a messianic universalism follows easily from providential exceptionalism, it is not an ineluctable consequence of it. You mount a powerful attack on the idea of exceptionalism in "Time No Longer," but-we may differ on this-if we ask what is the more dangerous element in the unstable compound of the nation's image of itself, I would say exceptionalism is the less dangerous. That may seem paradoxical. But historically the idea of exceptionalism allowed for an alternative, more modest deduction: that the country was different from all others, and so should not be meddling with them-the argument of Washington's Farewell Address [in 1796].

          A century later, this position became known as isolationism, and as the American empire took shape, it was all but invariably castigated as narrow-minded, short-sighted and selfish. But it could often be connected with a sense that the republic was in danger at home, with domestic ills that needed to be addressed, which vast ambitions abroad would only compound. Mead terms this strand in American sensibility Jeffersonian, which isn't an accurate description of Jefferson's own empire-building outlook, but he otherwise captures it quite well.

          We don't ordinarily apply the term "exceptionalist" in the same breath to America and to Japan, though if there is any nation that claims to be completely unique, it is Japan. But the claim produced a drastic isolationism as a national impulse, both in the Tokugawa period [1603-1868, a period of severely enforced seclusion] and after the war. Does that support the point you're making?

          Exactly. Historically, exceptionalism could generate a self-limiting, self-enclosing logic as well as the gigantic expansionist vanities of the Co-Prosperity Sphere and the "Free World" [narrative]. In the American case, the two strands of exceptionalism and universalism remained distinct, respectively as isolationist and interventionist impulses, sometimes converging but often diverging, down to the Second World War. Then they fused. The thinker who wrote best about this was Franz Schurmann, whose " Logic of World Power" came out during the Vietnam War. He argued that each had a distinct political-regional base: the social constituency for isolationism was small business and farming communities in the Midwest, for interventionism it was the banking and manufacturing elites of the East Coast, with often sharp conflicts between the two up through the end of thirties. But in the course of the Second World War they came together in a synthesis he attributed-somewhat prematurely-to FDR, and they have remained essentially interwoven ever since. The emblematic figure of this change was [Arthur H.] Vandenberg, the Republican Senator from Michigan [1928-51], who remained an isolationist critic of interventionism even for a time after Pearl Harbor, but by the end of the war had become a pillar of the new imperial consensus.

          Mainstream debate today seems to have constructed two very stark alternatives: There is either engagement or isolation. In this construction, engagement means military engagement; if we are not going to be militarily engaged we are isolationists. I find that absolutely wrong. There are multiple ways of being engaged with the world that have nothing to do with military assertion.

          True, but engagement in that usage doesn't mean just military engagement, but power projection more generally. One of the thinkers I discuss toward the end of my book is Robert Art, a lucid theorist of military power and its political importance to America, who argues for what he calls selective-expressly, not universal-engagement. What is unusual about him is that in seeking to discriminate among engagements the U.S. should and should not select, he starts considering in a serious, non-dismissive way what would typically be construed as isolationist alternatives, even if ending with a fairly conventional position.

          How far do you view the contemporary American crisis-if you accept that we are living through one-as, at least in part, one of consciousness? As an American, I tend to think that no significant departure from where find ourselves today can be achieved until we alter our deepest notions of ourselves and our place among others. I pose this question with some trepidation, since a change in consciousness is a generational project, if not more. Our leadership is not remotely close even to thinking about this. I'm suggesting a psychological dimension to our predicament, and you may think I put too much weight on that.

          You ask at the outset whether I accept that Americans are living through a crisis. My reply would be: not anything like the order of crisis that would bring about the sort of change in consciousness for which you might hope. You describe that as a generational project, and there, yes, one can say that among the youngest cohorts of the U.S. population, the ideologies of the status quo are less deeply embedded, and in certain layers even greatly weakened. That is an important change, but it's generational, rather than society-wide, and it's not irreversible.

          At the level of the great majority, including, naturally, the upper middle class, the image you use to describe the purpose of your last book applies: you write that it aims "to sound the tense strings wound between the pegs of myth and history during the hundred years and a few that I take to be the American century. It is this high, piercing tone that Americans now have a chance to render, hear, and recognize all at once. We have neither sounded nor heard it yet." That's all too true, unfortunately. The most one can say is that, among a newer generation, the strings are fraying a bit.

          I tend to distinguish between strong nations and the merely powerful, the former being supple and responsive to events, the later being brittle and unstable. Is this a useful way to judge America in the early 21st century-monumentally powerful but of dubious strength? If so, doesn't it imply some change in the American cast of mind, as the difference between the two sinks in?

          That depends on the degree of instability you sense in the country. In general, a major change in consciousness occurs when there is a major alteration in material conditions of life. For example, if a deep economic depression or dire ecological disaster strikes a society, all bets are off. Then, suddenly, thoughts and actions that were previously inconceivable become possible and natural. That isn't the situation so far in America.

          Can you discuss the new accord with Iran in this context? I don't see any question it's other than a breakthrough, a new direction. What do you think were the forces propelling the Obama administration to pursue this pact? And let's set aside the desire for a "legacy" every president cultivates late in his time.

          The agreement with Iran is an American victory but not a departure in U.S. foreign policy. Economic pressure on Iran dates back to Carter's time, when the U.S. froze the country's overseas assets after the ousting of the Shah, and the full range of ongoing U.S. sanctions was imposed by the Clinton administration in 1996. The Bush administration escalated the pressure by securing U.N. generalization of sanctions in 2006, and the Obama administration has harvested the effect.

          Over the past decade, the objective has always been the same: to protect Israel's nuclear monopoly in the region without risking an Israeli blitz on Iran to preserve it-that might set off too great a wave of popular anger in the Middle East. It was always likely, as I point out in "American Policy and its Thinkers," that the clerical regime in Tehran would buckle under a sustained blockade, if that was the price of its survival. The agreement includes a time-out clause to save its face, but the reality is an Iranian surrender.

          You can see how little it means any alteration in imperial operations in the region by looking at what the Obama administration is doing in Yemen, assisting Saudi Arabia's wholesale destruction of civilian life there in the interest of thwarting imaginary Iranian schemes.

          This next question vexes many people, me included. On the one hand, the drives underlying the American imperium are material: the expansion of capital and the projection of power by its political representatives. The American mythologies are shrouds around these. On the other hand, the issue of security has a long history among Americans. It is authentically an obsession independent of capital-American paranoia dates back at least to the 18th century. I don't take these two accountings to be mutually exclusive, but I'd be interested to know how you reconcile these different threads in American foreign policy.

          Yes, there has been a longstanding-you could say aboriginal-obsession with security in the United States. This can be traced as an independent strand running through the history of American dealings with the outside world. What happened, of course, from the Cold War through to the "war on terror" was a ruthless instrumentalization of this anxiety for purposes of expansion rather than defense. At the start of the Cold War you had the National Security Act and the creation of the National Security Council, and today we have the National Security Agency. Security became a euphemistic cloak for aggrandizement.

          The United States occupies the better part of a continent separated by two immense oceans, which nobody in modern history has had any serious chance of invading, unlike any other major state in the world, all of which have contiguous land-borders with rival powers, or are separated from them only by narrow seas. The U.S. is protected by a unique geographical privilege. But if its expansion overseas cannot be attributed to imperatives of security, what has driven it?

          A gifted and important group of historians, the Wisconsin school [which included the late William Appleman Williams, among others], has argued that the secret of American expansion has from the beginning lain in the quest by native capital for continuously larger markets, which first produced pressure on the internal frontier and the march across the continent to the Pacific, and when the West Coast was reached, a drive beyond into Asia and Latin America, and ultimately the rest of the world, under the ideology of the Open Door.

          A couple of good scholars, Melvyn Leffler and Wilson Miscamble, one a liberal and the other a conservative, have identified my position with this tradition, taxing me with a belief that American foreign policy is essentially just an outgrowth of American business. This is a mistake. My argument is rather that because of the enormous size and self-sufficiency of the American economy, the material power at the disposal of the American state exceeded anything that American capital could directly make use of or require.

          If you look at the First World War, you can see this very clearly. East Coast bankers and munitions manufacturers did well out of supplying the Entente powers, but there was no meaningful economic rationale for American entry into the war itself. The U.S. could tip the scales in favor of the British and French variants of imperialism against the German and Austrian variants without much cost to itself, but also much to gain.

          The same gap between the reach of American business and the power of the American state explains the later hegemony of the United States within the advanced capitalist world after the Second World War. Standard histories wax lyrical in admiration of the disinterested U.S. generosity that revived Germany and Japan with the Marshall and Dodge Plans [reconstruction programs after 1945], and it is indeed the case that policies crafted at the State and Defense Departments did not coincide with the desiderata of the Commerce Department. The key requirement was to rebuild these former enemies as stable capitalist bulwarks against communism, even if this meant there could be no simple Open Door into them for U.S. capital.

          For strategic political reasons, the Japanese were allowed to re-create a highly protected economy, and American capital was by and large barred entry. The priority was to defend the general integrity of capitalism as a global system against the threat of socialism, not particular returns to U.S. business. The importance of those were never, of course, ignored. But they had to bide their time. Today's Trans-Pacific Partnership will finally pry open Japanese financial, retail and other markets that have remained closed for so long.

          Comments form marknesop.wordpress.com

          Oddlots, September 26, 2015 at 9:38 am

          This is full of insight to my mind:

          http://www.salon.com/2015/09/23/how_america_built_its_empire_the_real_history_of_american_foreign_policy_that_the_media_wont_tell_you/

          et Al, September 26, 2015 at 10:32 am
          This stood out for me:

          I'd like to turn to the origins of the Cold War, since I believe we are never going to get anywhere until these are honestly confronted. You give a forceful account of Stalin's reasons for avoiding confrontation after 1945 and Washington's reasons for not doing so. But should we attribute the outbreak of the Cold War to the U.S. without too much in the way of qualification?

          We can look at the onset of the Cold War on two levels. One is that of punctual events. There, you are certainly right to pick out the ideological starting gun as Truman's speech on Greece in 1947, designed the "scare hell" out of voters to win acceptance for military aid to the Greek monarchy. In policy terms, however, the critical act that set the stage for confrontation with Moscow was the flat American refusal to allow any serious reparations for the staggering level of destruction Russia suffered from the German attack on it. The most developed third of the country was laid waste, its industry and its cities wrecked, while Americans suffered not a fly on the wrist at home-basking, on the contrary, in a massive economic boom. There was no issue Stalin spoke more insistently about than reparations in negotiations among the Allies. But once the fighting was over, the U.S. reneged on wartime promises and vetoed reparations from the larger part of Germany-far the richest and most developed, and occupied by the West - because it did not want to strengthen the Soviet Union and did want to rebuild the Ruhr as an industrial base under Western control, with a view to creating what would subsequently become the Federal Republic.

          Oddlots, September 26, 2015 at 11:05 am
          Agreed. I also think he helpfully callobrates the loss of European independence…

          [Speaking of the era of De Gaulle, Adenauer and Eden] "Since then, there has been nobody like this. If we ask why, I think the answer is that all these people were formed before the First and Second World Wars broke out, in a period in which major European states had as much weight as the United States on the international checkerboard, if not more. They were not brought up in a world where American hegemony was taken for granted. All of them were involved in the two World Wars, and in the Second De Gaulle had good reason to be distrustful of the U.S., since Roosevelt was long pro-Vichy and wanted to oust him as leader of the Free French.

          We could add, incidentally, a couple of later politicians, who fought in the second conflict. One was the English Tory prime minister, Edward Heath, the only postwar ruler of Britain who never made the trip to simper on the White House lawn, receiving an audience and paying tribute, that would become a virtual ceremony of investiture for any new ruler around the world. The other was Helmut Schmidt, a veteran of Operation Barbarossa [the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941] who scarcely concealed his disdain for Carter. These were latecomers from the past. Their successors have grown up under U.S. paramountcy and take it for granted. This is America's world. It is second nature for them to defer to it."

          He also exposes that the crop that followed made a show of independence but toed the line:

          "During the countdown to the war in Iraq, there were large street demonstrations in not a few countries, which Dominique Strauss-Kahn - no less - described as a European Declaration of Independence. Schröder [Gerhard, the German chancellor from 1998-2005] announced that Germany could not accept the war, and Chirac [Jacques, the French president, 1995-2007] blocked a U.N. resolution endorsing it. Were these bold acts of independence? Far from it. The French envoy in Washington told Bush in advance: You already have one U.N. resolution saying Saddam must comply with inspections, which is suitably vague. Don't embarrass us by trying to get another resolution that is more specific, which we'll have to oppose. Just use that one and go in. No sooner, indeed, was the attack launched than Chirac opened French skies to U.S. operations against Iraq. Can you imagine De Gaulle meekly helping a war he had said he opposed? As for Schröder, it was soon revealed that German intelligence agents in Baghdad had signaled ground targets for "Shock and Awe." These were politicians who knew the war was very unpopular in domestic opinion, and so made a show of opposing it while actually collaborating. Their independence was a comedy."

          This last part was news to me.

          [Sep 27, 2015] Ukraine was downgraded to default

          "... the inept idiots in Kiev borrowed from whomever they wanted, including a group that helped push Argentina into near bankruptcy. ..."
          "... "If Aurelius also refuses to take part, the bonds it holds will remain in default, potentially allowing the hedge fund to chase Ukraine in courts in London and elsewhere. "That bond will remain out there like some of the Argentine debt. Ukraine will remain in default," Nomura strategist Tim Ash said, although he noted that Ukraine had fewer assets than Argentina for hedge funds to seize." ..."
          "... the judges in the US ruled in favor of the hedge fund over Argentina, so there's clear precedent ..."
          Sep 27, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
          ucgsblog, September 26, 2015 at 12:55 pm
          Time for Financial News. As a result of the Gas/Oil Wars, Russia pulled ahead, because Putin used the money intended for recapitalization of the gas/oil industry, to recapitalize the gas/oil industry. Some in the West are shocked at that, firmly believing that he was supposed to steal the money. Ah yes, the power of believing in your own propaganda.

          In other news, Ukraine was downgraded to default: https://www.rt.com/business/316521-standardpoors-ukraine-selective-default/

          Why you ask? Because the inept idiots in Kiev borrowed from whomever they wanted, including a group that helped push Argentina into near bankruptcy. And now they're about to do the same to Ukraine: http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/199119/%E2%80%98vulture%E2%80%99-fund-aurelius-targets-ukraine-debt

          "If Aurelius also refuses to take part, the bonds it holds will remain in default, potentially allowing the hedge fund to chase Ukraine in courts in London and elsewhere. "That bond will remain out there like some of the Argentine debt. Ukraine will remain in default," Nomura strategist Tim Ash said, although he noted that Ukraine had fewer assets than Argentina for hedge funds to seize."

          Oh yeah, the judges in the US ruled in favor of the hedge fund over Argentina, so there's clear precedent. Whoopsie. The reason this looks really bad, is that there are no good solutions out of this. If Ukraine defaults, it'll be stuck permanently on the teat of the US/EU, as I predicted in June: https://ucgsblog.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/the-box-not-seen/

          If the judges flip flop, Argentina will have a clear cut case against the hedge funds, pushing Obama into a battle with the hedge funds, when they have the Republicans on their side. If Obama pays this hedge fund, Franklin-Templeton will demand the same exact treatment, adding to Obama's sentiment as the Debt King of the United States. Not to mention that Congress wouldn't authorize that big a sum. There are no good options of out this, for either Poroshenko or Obama. To quote Gordon: "da, cheburashke ne vezet"

          [Sep 27, 2015] Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman for Russian Foreign Ministry, grades Nuland's paper

          September 16, 2015 | Fort Russ/Komsomolskaya Pravda

          It is impossible to deal with cockroaches in one room while at the same time laying out little plates of bread crumbs on the other side of the wall.

          Translated from Russian by Tom Winter

          Translator's note: this press account is based on a post on Maria Zakharova's facebook page, and I have changed this account slightly in alignment with Zakharova's original text. It was not clear in KP what was Zakharova and what was KP. I think it is in this translation...

          Head of the Information Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry wrote a "critical review" on the "Yalta speech" of the assistant US Secretary of State.

          In Kiev, there was a conference "Yalta European Strategy". Already amazing. Yalta is in the Russian Crimea, and the "Yalta" conference was held in the Ukrainian capital. Well and good -- you couldn't miss that one!. But at this Yalta conference came the assistant US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. Yes, the same one that passed out the cookies. But now, considered a shadow ruler of Ukraine, she points out to the Kiev authorities what to do. This time, Nuland said in a public speech:

          - There should be no tolerance for those oligarchs who do not pay taxes. There must be zero tolerance for bribery and corruption, to those who would use violence for political ends.

          And these words of the grande dame of the State Department could not be overlooked. Just think, Americans don't like it when their loans to Ukraine get stolen. And anti-oligarchic Maidan brought the very oligarchs to power, and corruption in the country has become even greater. Some of us have grown weary of this talk. But, let Nuland drone on ...

          But then Russian Foreign Ministry official spokesman Maria Zakharova replied. So much so that not a stone was left on stone in the American's "Yalta speech":

          "All this a little bit, just a little, looks like a lecture to the fox about how bad it is to steal chickens, but actually it surprised in other ways. As soon as Russian authorities began exposing the tax evasion, bribery, or corruption of the oligarchs, Victoria Nuland's office hastened to call zero tolerance "political repression" - Zakharova wrote on her facebook page.

          It would be great to see the Department of State "show that same zero tolerance and inquire a bit about how the initial capital of the Russian (and Ukrainian would not hurt) oligarchs got started, those oligarchs who have been accused of corruption at home, but who, once in London, feel protected by the authorities, enjoying all the benefits of membership in the Club of Victims of Political Persecution" - continued Zakharova.

          "It is impossible to deal with cockroaches in one room while at the same time laying out little plates of bread crumbs on the other side of the wall. Giving the green light to the dirty money from Russia and the former Soviet Union, the Western world is only boosting the zeal with which the domestic thieves shove their loot in foreign bins."

          "Though perhaps," wonders the Foreign Minstiry spokesman "this is the actual purpose of the imaginary zero tolerance?"

          "Why do people on Interpol's lists, by the decision of the Russian courts, prove their financial immorality, as they thrive in the Western capitals, and no alarm bells go off in the State Department?"

          It turns out to be an interesting story: Taking fetid streams of notes, the West has just one requirement at the border crossing. Scream "victim of the regime." That's it! and you're in spades!

          This calls to mind the old Soviet bribery password translated into modern American:

          - In Soviet times, it was common phrase, revealing corrupt intent to proceed with plans insidious in varying degrees: "I'm from Ivan Ivanovich." Today the corresponding "Open Sesame" that opens the doors "in Europe and the best houses in Philadelphia," is the phrase "I'm running away from Vladimir".

          Victoria, if you're going to start cleaning out the cockroaches, stop feeding them on your side.

          [Sep 26, 2015] U.S. Billionaires Political Power Index

          Notable quotes:
          "... Billionaires: Reflections on the Upper Crust ..."
          "... Billionaires: Reflections of the Upper Crust ..."
          Sep 26, 2015 | Brookings Institution

          In September 2014, Darrell West published a Billionaire Political Power Index based on his Brookings Institution Press book, Billionaires: Reflections on the Upper Crust. It examined the political influence individuals of great wealth, ranking their power based on a number of factors including campaign expenditures, activism through nonprofit organizations and foundations, holding public office, media ownership, policy thought leadership, and behind-the-scenes influence.

          He has updated this index to account for billionaires' more recent election activism, campaign donations, and influence leading up to the 2014 midterms. There are several individuals who have moved up the list: Peter Thiel, Bob Mercer, Joe Ricketts, Paul Singer, Jim Simons, and David Geffen.

          Others have seen their rankings drop: Penny Pritzker, Warren Buffett, Peter Peterson, Donald Trump, and Alice Walton.

          Find out more about Billionaires: Reflections of the Upper Crust "

          Hover Over a Billionaire's Photo to See More Details

          # Names
          1 Charles & David Koch
          2 Michael Bloomberg
          3 Tom Steyer
          4 Sheldon Adelson
          5 Rupert Murdoch
          6 John "Joe" Ricketts
          7 Robert "Bob" Mercer
          8 Paul Singer
          9 Peter Thiel
          10 George and Jonathan Soros
          11 John and Laura Arnold
          12 Bill and Melinda Gates
          13 Family of the late Peter Lewis
          14 Mark and Priscilla Zuckerberg
          15 Warren Buffett
          16 Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos
          17 Pierre and Pamela Omidyar
          18 James "Jim" Simons
          19 David Geffen
          20 Penny Pritzker
          21 Marc Andreessen
          22 Peter Peterson
          23 Donald Trump
          24 Alice Walton

          [Sep 26, 2015] John Boehner left because Republicans true faith is incompatible with governing

          Notable quotes:
          "... If you genuinely believe the idiotic Reagan slogan that government is the problem, then shutting it down is not a tactic, it is the objective. ..."
          "... The Tea Party mysteriously appeared about 10 minutes after Obama's first inauguration. They purported to be a grassroots movement sprung from righteous anger but were in fact a carefully orchestrated anti-liberal, anti-black, anti-Obama initiative funded by Dick Armey's Koch-financed Freedomworks organization. ..."
          "... The US paranoia when it comes to government is disturbing. In Europe a government is something they elect to run the country and make sure all the services run smoothly. In the US it seems like it's viewed as a foreign power occupied the country and it has to be fought at all cost. ..."
          "... Fronting for a party that's desperately trying to dismantle the government totally to give free reign to robber barons must be frustrating. If they succeed the US will see an inequality that makes the current situation look like Scandinavia. ..."
          "... There is no process to call early elections or remove the House. It is a hole in the Constitution. Nobody imagined this one. ..."
          "... Wrong! When a woman is forced to carry something inside her body she does wish to, whether by accident, rape, incest, or however, that takes away HER right to pursuit of happiness and more. You damn G.O.PIGS just want a child born but then forget about the nurturing and support it needs after birth. You cut every damn program that exists to help them. No wonder you're an "EX"-chief. ..."
          "... Hence, GOP = American Taliban, or worse. And CCarrier is just a blatant demonstration of how single-minded (if minded at all) they have become. ..."
          Sep 25, 2015 | theguardian.com

          skeptikos, 26 Sep 2015 01:05

          If you genuinely believe the idiotic Reagan slogan that government is the problem, then shutting it down is not a tactic, it is the objective.

          Zepp -> swanstep 26 Sep 2015 00:46

          That's already the case. They lost the popular vote overall for the House last year, 52-47, but maintain a fairly large majority of thirty or so seats. Case in point: Pennsylvania, where they lost the overall vote by eight points and won 13 of the 18 seats.

          A large and engaged voter turnout could stop this, but that would be asking Americans to get up off their asses and save themselves, and too many of them are convinced that they don't need saving from this sort of thing, because this is America, and it's exceptional!


          BaldwinP -> MarkThomason 26 Sep 2015 00:31

          Excellent analysis.

          To which I would add the Tea Party believe very firmly in government in one situation - when they want it to enforce their religious beliefs on everyone else by outlawing abortion and homosexuality.


          MelFrontier -> USfan 26 Sep 2015 00:23

          The Tea Party mysteriously appeared about 10 minutes after Obama's first inauguration. They purported to be a grassroots movement sprung from righteous anger but were in fact a carefully orchestrated anti-liberal, anti-black, anti-Obama initiative funded by Dick Armey's Koch-financed Freedomworks organization.

          greven -> hillbillyzombie 25 Sep 2015 22:57

          The US paranoia when it comes to government is disturbing. In Europe a government is something they elect to run the country and make sure all the services run smoothly. In the US it seems like it's viewed as a foreign power occupied the country and it has to be fought at all cost.


          greven -> dudemanguy 25 Sep 2015 22:53

          The Koch brothers started the Tea Party as a means to dismantle the state, black lives matter is more borne from desperation.

          greven 25 Sep 2015 22:48

          Fronting for a party that's desperately trying to dismantle the government totally to give free reign to robber barons must be frustrating. If they succeed the US will see an inequality that makes the current situation look like Scandinavia. Expect 300 million desperately poor people living from hand to mouth with nothing and the number of billionaires double at least.


          MarkThomason 25 Sep 2015 22:34

          What are we going to do if we now discover the House of Representatives is truly broken?

          We can and have removed a President. We can and have removed judges.

          There is no process to call early elections or remove the House. It is a hole in the Constitution. Nobody imagined this one.

          They should have. English history had its share of dysfunctional Houses which had to go:

          "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

          We have no way to do that.

          I do hope the two parties can set aside the Hastert Rule and govern without the extreme. If they won't, we are in trouble.

          We don't have any good options except to trust them, and they have already betrayed that trust.


          Timothy Everton -> Exchief 25 Sep 2015 22:28

          Wrong! When a woman is forced to carry something inside her body she does wish to, whether by accident, rape, incest, or however, that takes away HER right to pursuit of happiness and more. You damn G.O.PIGS just want a child born but then forget about the nurturing and support it needs after birth. You cut every damn program that exists to help them. No wonder you're an "EX"-chief.


          Timothy Everton -> PamelaKatz 25 Sep 2015 22:20

          Hence, GOP = American Taliban, or worse. And CCarrier is just a blatant demonstration of how single-minded (if minded at all) they have become. Mr. Speaker saw this and knew, in good conscience, that he could not satisfy these hoodlums and govern as was meant to be. Someone quick! Round up the Teabaggers and their ilk and take no prisoners - IF We, The People, want our government to survive.


          dudemanguy 25 Sep 2015 22:01

          I thought the Bush presidency had finished the GOP off, but they were reborn with a phoney wall street funded grass roots movement, the tea party, and are more dangerous and destructive than ever.

          The democrats have their own problems as well. The so called blacklivesmatter movement has breathed new life into the Republican party by managing to drive away both democratic moderates tired of being screamed at, bullied and called a racist, and some African Americans whove have been convinced that the only issue that matters is the media driven notion that there is an epidemic of racist killer cops looking for any excuse to kill black people, and every democratic politician that doesn't bow down to a movement that has been responsible for two years of rioting violence and racial strife, is somehow racist. I'm still not convinced the 1% hasnt been fomenting this movement in order to harm the democrats. Is it a coincidence BLM's biggest target has been Bernie Sanders?

          In the end the 1% win and the rest of America loses.

          [Sep 26, 2015] Full text of Pope Francis speech before Congress

          Notable quotes:
          "... A political society endures when it seeks, as a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability or risk. ..."
          "... All of us are quite aware of, and deeply worried by, the disturbing social and political situation of the world today. Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion. ..."
          "... We are asked to summon the courage and the intelligence to resolve today's many geopolitical and economic crises. Even in the developed world, the effects of unjust structures and actions are all too apparent. ..."
          "... If politics must truly be at the service of the human person, it follows that it cannot be a slave to the economy and finance. ..."
          "... At the risk of oversimplifying, we might say that we live in a culture which pressures young people not to start a family, because they lack possibilities for the future. Yet this same culture presents others with so many options that they too are dissuaded from starting a family ..."
          Sep 26, 2015 | UPI.com

          ... ... ...

          Each son or daughter of a given country has a mission, a personal and social responsibility. Your own responsibility as members of Congress is to enable this country, by your legislative activity, to grow as a nation. You are the face of its people, their representatives. You are called to defend and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good, for this is the chief aim of all politics. A political society endures when it seeks, as a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability or risk. Legislative activity is always based on care for the people. To this you have been invited, called and convened by those who elected you.

          ... ... ...

          All of us are quite aware of, and deeply worried by, the disturbing social and political situation of the world today. Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion. We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism. This means that we must be especially attentive to every type of fundamentalism, whether religious or of any other kind. A delicate balance is required to combat violence perpetrated in the name of a religion, an ideology or an economic system, while also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom and individual freedoms. But there is another temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners. The contemporary world, with its open wounds which affect so many of our brothers and sisters, demands that we confront every form of polarization which would divide it into these two camps. We know that in the attempt to be freed of the enemy without, we can be tempted to feed the enemy within. To imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place. That is something which you, as a people, reject.

          ...We are asked to summon the courage and the intelligence to resolve today's many geopolitical and economic crises. Even in the developed world, the effects of unjust structures and actions are all too apparent. Our efforts must aim at restoring hope, righting wrongs, maintaining commitments and thus promoting the well-being of individuals and of peoples. We must move forward together, as one, in a renewed spirit of fraternity and solidarity, cooperating generously for the common good.

          The challenges facing us today call for a renewal of that spirit of cooperation, which has accomplished so much good throughout the history of the United States. The complexity, the gravity and the urgency of these challenges demand that we pool our resources and talents, and resolve to support one another, with respect for our differences and our convictions of conscience.

          In this land, the various religious denominations have greatly contributed to building and strengthening society. It is important that today, as in the past, the voice of faith continue to be heard, for it is a voice of fraternity and love, which tries to bring out the best in each person and in each society. Such cooperation is a powerful resource in the battle to eliminate new global forms of slavery, born of grave injustices which can be overcome only through new policies and new forms of social consensus.

          ...If politics must truly be at the service of the human person, it follows that it cannot be a slave to the economy and finance. Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling need to live as one, in order to build as one the greatest common good: that of a community which sacrifices particular interests in order to share, in justice and peace, its goods, its interests, its social life. I do not underestimate the difficulty that this involves, but I encourage you in this effort.

          ... ... ...

          The fight against poverty and hunger must be fought constantly and on many fronts, especially in its causes. I know that many Americans today, as in the past, are working to deal with this problem.

          It goes without saying that part of this great effort is the creation and distribution of wealth. The right use of natural resources, the proper application of technology and the harnessing of the spirit of enterprise are essential elements of an economy which seeks to be modern, inclusive and sustainable. "Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving the world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the area in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good" (Laudato Si', 129). This common good also includes the earth, a central theme of the encyclical which I recently wrote in order to "enter into dialogue with all people about our common home" (ibid., 3). "We need a conversation which includes everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affect us all" (ibid., 14).

          In Laudato Si', I call for a courageous and responsible effort to "redirect our steps" (ibid., 61), and to avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity. I am convinced that we can make a difference and I have no doubt that the United States – and this Congress – have an important role to play. Now is the time for courageous actions and strategies, aimed at implementing a "culture of care" (ibid., 231) and "an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature" (ibid., 139). "We have the freedom needed to limit and direct technology" (ibid., 112); "to devise intelligent ways of . . . developing and limiting our power" (ibid., 78); and to put technology "at the service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral" (ibid., 112). In this regard, I am confident that America's outstanding academic and research institutions can make a vital contribution in the years ahead.

          ... ... ...

          ...At the risk of oversimplifying, we might say that we live in a culture which pressures young people not to start a family, because they lack possibilities for the future. Yet this same culture presents others with so many options that they too are dissuaded from starting a family.

          ... ... ...

          [Sep 26, 2015] Phone Passwords Protected By 5th Amendment, Says Federal Court

          Sep 26, 2015 | yro.slashdot.org
          September 24, 2015

          imothy

          Ars Technica reports that a Federal court in Pennsylvania ruled Wednesday that the Fifth Amendment protects from compelled disclosure the passwords that two insider-trading suspects used on their mobile phones. In this case, the SEC is investigating two former Capital One data analysts who allegedly used insider information associated with their jobs to trade stocks-in this case, a $150,000 investment allegedly turned into $2.8 million. Regulators suspect the mobile devices are holding evidence of insider trading and demanded that the two turn over their passcodes.However, ruled the court , "Since the passcodes to Defendants' work-issued smartphones are not corporate records, the act of producing their personal passcodes is testimonial in nature and Defendants properly invoke their fifth Amendment privilege. A"

          [Sep 26, 2015] NSA Director Admits that Sharing Encryption Keys With the Government Leaves Us Vulnerable to Bad Guys

          "... Writing your own encryption is a recipe for disaster. Only peer-reviewed algorithms and implementations should ever be used. They must also use reliable random number generators. ..."
          Sep 26, 2015 | www.zerohedge.com
          Sep 26, 2015 | Zero H4edge
          GreatUncle

          Drop the random number generator method that is already venerable now.

          Go for an encryption key of length > data length instead so each data bit is uniquely encrypted by a unique key bit.

          Break one bit has no bearing on breaking any other bit.

          For the NSA comes the headache under such an encryption method a 10 letter statement can be any other 10 letter statement from different keys.

          Now it gets interesting "I love you" is from one encryption key whilst another key says "I hate you".

          Now each message generated if asked for the key you provide one of an infinite number of keys where the the key you give is for the message you wish them to see provided it makes sense any evidence used through a prosecution on this is only ever circumstantial evidence and quite easily refuted questioning only the key being used.

          Kind of like it myself.

          SgtShaftoe

          Bullshit. Encryption works. Even if the NSA had some back-door in a particular encryption algorithm, or weakened a random number generator (Microsoft, cough), the NSA does not have the processing power to decrypt everything.

          Snowden has stated as much, I've seen the same thing in .mil circles during my time there. Using decent encryption works. It's far easier to attack the people directly with social engineering than crack decent encryption.

          logicalman

          The world has gone totally batshit crazy.

          NSA want to watch everyone and also have the ability to plant damaging or malicious files on targeted computers.

          What a fucking trick!

          On a good day you can trust yourself.

          John_Coltrane

          What type of encryption is being discussed? I've notice very few actually understand how encryption works. When public/private key encyption is used only the public key is ever available to the counterparty and can be freely published. The secret key is kept on your machine only and never shared. Both parties/computers use the others public key to encrypt the plaintext and only the person with the unique secret key on both ends can read it. Authentication is also facile: You simply sign using the secret key. Only your public key can decrypt the signature so anyone intercepting and attempting to change your message cannot do so (spoofing impossible). Unbreakable and requires no secure key exchange like like two way keys such as AES, for example. This is what happens on https sites where key pairs are generated by both parties and the secret keys are never exchanged or shared-new key pairs are generated each visit. Intercepting the encrypted message is useless since the secret key remains physically in your possesion. That's why the NSA and any government hates this algorithm. Make the key at least 2048 bits long and you'll need more time than the age of universe to crack it by brute force with the entire computing power of every machine on earth. Even 256 bits is sufficient to protect against anyone before they die.

          blindman

          information is power and access to information is big business. the taxpayer pays the bills for the gathering, hell, the individual "user" of the technology pays for the surveillance and data collection themselves. we are paying to have our privacy sold to corporations. get that, it is freakin' brilliant! and the "officials" sell the access for personal gain. the corporations love to eat it all up and reward the loyal local success story dupes, pimps and prestitutes. everyone is on stage 24/7 and no one is the wiser in the field of cultural normalcy bias, mind control and entertaining with the Jones's. soft control moving into hard up confiscation, then incarceration. wonderfully yokel deterioration impersonating culture and civilization, what many call government, but i take exception to every term and wonder wtf.

          q99x2

          The NSA works for corporations and they need to break into peoples stuff to steal from them as well as to steal from other corporations. There is a war going on but it is much larger than a war on nations or citizens of bankster occupied nations.

          Gaius Frakkin' ...

          With one-time pad, the software is trivial.

          There are two big challenges though:

          1) Building a hardware random number generator which is truly random, or as close as possible.

          2) Getting the keys to your counter-party, securely. It has to be down physically ahead of time.

          HenryHall

          E.R.N.I.E. - the electronic random number indicator equipment was used with British Premium Bonds in the 1950s. A chip based on digital counting of thermal noise must be easy to make. Getting the keys to thye other party just involves handing over a chip. 16Gigabytes or so miniSD should be good for enough emails to wear out a thousand or more keyboards.

          It just needs to be made into a product and sold for cash.

          Open source encryption software may or may not be trivial, but it sure isn't easy to use for folks who aren't experts in encryption.

          Lookout Mountain

          The NSA decided that offense was better than defense. Suckers.

          ah-ooog-ah

          Write your own encryption. Use AES - freely available. Exchange keys verbally, face to face, or use One Time Pads (once only!!). If you didn't write, don't trust it.

          SgtShaftoe

          Writing your own encryption is a recipe for disaster. Only peer-reviewed algorithms and implementations should ever be used. They must also use reliable random number generators.

          If you don't know what you're doing and are very very careful and exacting in running a OTP system (One time pad) you will be fucked. That's why they aren't typically used except in very small use cases. They're hard to run properly.

          Anyone claiming to have an encryption product for a computer based on a one time pad is full of shit. Cough, Unseen.is, cough. It's a glorified Cesar cypher and the NSA will have your shit in 2.5 seconds or less.

          Good encryption works. Snowden stated that fact. Don't use shitty encryption, unless you want everyone to know what you're doing.

          There's plenty of open source projects out there based on good encryption, twofish, serpent, AES, or ideally a combination of multiple algorithms. Truecrypt is still alive and has been forked with a project based in Switzerland. I think that's still a good option.

          I wouldn't use MS bitlocker or PGP unless you trust symantec or microsoft with your life. Personally I wouldn't trust those companies with a pack of cigarettes, and I don't even smoke.

          Nels

          Writing your own encryption is a recipe for disaster. Only peer-reviewed algorithms and implementations should ever be used. They must also use reliable random number generators.

          I read the original note to mean you use a peer reviewed algorithm, but write the code yourself. Or, at least review it well. Some open source code tends to be a bit tangled. Checkout Sendmail and its support for X.400 and other old mail protocols, as well as a convoluted configuration setup. At some point, with code with that much historical baggage and convoluted setup becomes impossible to really check all possible configurations for sanity or safety.

          If you believe that the simpler the code the safer it is, code it yourself.

          . . . _ _ _ . . .

          Power grab by the NSA (deep state) basically saying that they don't trust the hand that feeds it. So why should we? What level of classification would this entail? Are we then supposed to trust the NSA? Civil War 2.0.???

          Sorry for all the questions, but... WTF?

          S.N.A.F.U.

          SgtShaftoe

          It really starts with asymmetry of power. If some agency or person has a asymmetric level of power against you and lack of accountability, you should be concerned about them.

          That's a much easier test case vs enemy/friend and far more reliable.

          Urban Roman

          Long self-published certificates, Novena and Tails.

          [Sep 26, 2015] Putin and Xi rock da house4

          Sep 26, 2015 | Asia Times

          Pope Francis may be the rock star. But once again, the real heart of the action is all about Russia and China - those prime "threats" to Exceptionalistan, according to the Pentagon.

          ... ... ...

          So this is what Putin accomplished even before Obama saw the light and decided to talk:

          1) Forget about a Libya-remixed NATO war on Syria. 2) Forget about a Sultan Erdogan-driven no-fly zone over areas controlled by Damascus. 3) Out with the old world order. This is how the emerging new world order should work, and Russia is also driving it.

          Putin's speech on Monday at the UN General Assembly will be about "the joint struggle against terrorism" (as branded by TASS). One should expect abundant apoplexy, much more than perplexity, all across the Washington/New York axis.

          Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, last Sunday on Russian TV, already clarified the themes at the heart of the speech; the unipolar world order, and the absolute necessity of the "joint struggle against terrorism," which" must be waged without double standards."

          Lavrov was very sharp when referring to" unilateral coercive measures" - and not only as far as Russia is concerned. In his own words:

          "Nowadays, you know, our Western partners, primarily, under the influence, perhaps, of American mentality, are losing in general the culture of a dialogue and the culture of achieving diplomatic solutions. The Iranian nuclear program was a bright – and even very bright – exception. In most other cases – in conflicts that continue to flare up in the Middle East, in North Africa – they try to resort to measures of military intervention, as was the case in Iraq and Libya, in violation of UN Security Council decisions, or to resort to sanctions."

          Expect Putin to talk about all of it in detail. But the showstopper will be, predictably, Putin on Syria. In Lavrov's words:

          "We have declared that we will be helping the Syrian leaders, as we help the Iraqi leaders, or the leaders of other countries who are facing the threat of terrorism. And our military-technical cooperation pursues exactly these objectives. Of course, the supplies of arms [by Russia], they have been going on, they are going on [now] and they will continue. Their [supplies] are inevitably accompanied by our specialists that help put the according equipment up, help to train Syrian [military] personnel to handle these weapons and there are absolutely no mysteries and no secrets [in all of this]."

          And yes, Putin will call the usual suspects - from Turkey to the GCC petrodollar gang - to help Assad "without indoctrinations or double standards" in the fight against ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. And he will demonstrate how the refugee crisis was not created by Assad, but by the fake "Caliphate." As far as these refugees from the Sykes-Picot-smashed Middle East are concerned, it's up to the EU to deal with them. In Lavrov's words:

          "Russia has been fulfilling all her obligations under the international conventions. All those who fall under the category of refugees, we take in, and we will take into the Russian Federation, sometimes even going beyond the criteria that is applied. I refer to the refugees from Ukraine, there are about one million [in Russia]. We sympathize with our European neighbors with regard to the problem that they have been facing, and I believe that they will solve it [on their own]."

          Last but not least, Putin will make it very clear Russia never again will be fooled into signing dodgy documents such as UNSC Resolution 1973, which legitimized R2P in 2011 via that legendary "no-fly" zone over Libya, with the corollary of NATO bombing the country into a wasteland run by militias. No wonder deranged R2P groupie Samantha Power wants to kick Russia out of the Security Council. Who needs a shoe-banging Khrushchev? Black (Apoplexy) Monday will definitely be a riot.

          [Sep 26, 2015] Standing Before Congress, Pope Francis Calls Out the Industry of Death

          Sep 26, 2015 | original.antiwar.com
          Sep 26, 2015 | Antiwar.com

          Pope Francis' address to Congress was almost certainly not what John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and other congressional leaders had in mind when they invited the pope to speak.

          It probably wasn't what they were all thinking about during the last standing ovations. But here was Pope Francis, revered as the People's Pope, calling out war profiteers and demanding an end to the arms trade. Just as simple and as powerful as that.

          ... ... ...

          "Being at the service of dialogue and peace also means being truly determined to minimize and, in the long term, to end the many armed conflicts throughout our world," the pope said. Then he asked the critical question: "Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering on individuals and society?"

          He answered it himself: "Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply for money: money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood. In the face of this shameful and culpable silence, it is our duty to confront the problem and to stop the arms trade."

          Stop the arms trade. What a simple, clear call.

          That means the ending things like the $60 billion arms deal the US made a few years back with Saudi Arabia, where those weapons are, in the pope's words, "inflicting untold suffering on individuals and society," especially in Syria and Yemen. It means ending things like the $45 billion in new military aid – mostly in the form of advanced new weapons – the Israeli government has requested from Washington between now and 2028. It means ending the provision of new arms to scores of unaccountable militias in Syria, where even the White House admits a nonmilitary solution is needed. And it means ending things like the $1.1 billion in arms sales the United States has made to Mexico this year alone.

          And, of course, it means no longer diverting at least 54 cents of every discretionary taxpayer dollar in the federal budget to the US military.

          Actually, members of Congress – so many of whom rely on huge campaign donations from arms manufacturers, and so many of whom refuse to vote against military procurement because often just a few dozen jobs connected to it might be in their district – really should have expected the pope to say exactly what he did.

          It was only last May, after all, that Pope Francis told a group of schoolchildren visiting the Vatican that the arms trade is the "industry of death." When a kid asked why so many powerful people don't want peace, the pope answered simply, "because they live off wars!" Francis explained how people become rich by producing and selling weapons. "And this is why so many people do not want peace. They make more money with the war!"

          The pope's speech to Congress was quite extraordinary on a number of fronts.

          ... ... ...

          Phyllis Bennis is a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and author of the forthcoming Understanding ISIS and the New Global War on Terror: A Primer. Manuel Perez-Rocha is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Reprinted with permission from Foreign Policy In Focus.

          [Sep 26, 2015] The Table Is Set For The Next Financial Crisis

          "... The $3.5 trillion of QE, six years of 0% interest rates for Wall Street (why are credit card interest rates still 13%?), and $8 trillion of deficit spending by the Federal government have provided the outward appearance of economic recovery, as the standard of living for most Americans has declined significantly. ..."
          Sep 26, 2015 | Zero Hedge
          The housing market peaked in 2005 and proceeded to crash over the next five years, with existing home sales falling 50%, new home sales falling 75%, and national home prices falling 30%. A funny thing happened after the peak. Wall Street banks accelerated the issuance of subprime mortgages to hyper-speed. The executives of these banks knew housing had peaked, but insatiable greed consumed them as they purposely doled out billions in no-doc liar loans as a necessary ingredient in their CDOs of mass destruction.

          The millions in upfront fees, along with their lack of conscience in bribing Moody's and S&P to get AAA ratings on toxic waste, while selling the derivatives to clients and shorting them at the same time, in order to enrich executives with multi-million dollar compensation packages, overrode any thoughts of risk management, consequences, or the impact on homeowners, investors, or taxpayers. The housing boom began as a natural reaction to the Federal Reserve suppressing interest rates to, at the time, ridiculously low levels from 2001 through 2004 (child's play compared to the last six years).

          ... ... ...

          Greenspan created the atmosphere for the greatest mal-investment in world history. As he raised rates from 2004 through 2006, the titans of finance on Wall Street should have scaled back their risk taking and prepared for the inevitable bursting of the bubble. Instead, they were blinded by unadulterated greed, as the legitimate home buyer pool dried up, and they purposely peddled "exotic" mortgages to dupes who weren't capable of making the first payment. This is what happens at the end of Fed induced bubbles. Irrationality, insanity, recklessness, delusion, and willful disregard for reason, common sense, historical data and truth lead to tremendous pain, suffering, and financial losses.

          Once the Wall Street machine runs out of people with the financial means to purchase a home or buy a new vehicle, they turn their sights on peddling their debt products to financially illiterate dupes. There is a good reason people with credit scores below 620 are classified as sub-prime. Scores this low result from missing multiple payments on credit cards and loans, having multiple collection items or judgments and potentially having a very recent bankruptcy or foreclosure. They have low paying jobs or no job at all. They do not have the financial means to repay a large loan. Giving them a loan to purchase a $250,000 home or a $30,000 automobile will not improve their lives. They are being set up for a fall by the crooked bankers making these loans. Heads they win, tails the dupe gets kicked out of that nice house onto the street and has those nice wheels repossessed in the middle of the night.

          The subprime debacle that blew up the world in 2008 was created by the Federal Reserve, working on behalf of their Wall Street owners. When interest rates are set by central planners well below levels which would be set by the free market, based on risk and return, it creates bubbles, mal-investment, and ultimately financial system disaster. Did the Fed, Wall Street, politicians, and people learn their lesson? No. Because we bailed them out with our tax dollars and have silently stood by while they have issued $10 trillion of additional debt to solve a debt problem. The deformation of our financial system accelerates by the day.

          The $3.5 trillion of QE, six years of 0% interest rates for Wall Street (why are credit card interest rates still 13%?), and $8 trillion of deficit spending by the Federal government have provided the outward appearance of economic recovery, as the standard of living for most Americans has declined significantly. With real median household income still 6.5% BELOW 2007 levels, 7.3% BELOW 2000 levels, and about equal to 1989 levels, the only way the ruling class could manufacture a fake recovery is by ramping up the printing presses and reigniting a housing bubble and an auto bubble. They even threw in a student loan bubble for good measure.

          ... ... ...

          The entire engineered "housing recovery" has had a suspicious smell to it all along. The true bottom occurred in 2009 with an annual rate of 4 million existing home sales. An artificial bottom of 3.5 million occurred in 2010 after the expiration of the Keynesian first time home buyer credit that lured more dupes into the market. The current rate of 5.31 million is at 2007 crash levels and on par with 2001 recession levels. With mortgage rates at record low levels for five years, this is all we got?

          What really smells is the number of actual mortgage originations that have supposedly driven this 35% increase in existing home sales. If existing home sales are at 2007 levels, how could mortgage purchase applications be 55% below 2007 levels? If existing home sales are up 35% from the 2009/2010 lows, how could mortgage purchase applications be flat since 2010?

          New home sales are up 80% from the 2010 lows, but before you get as excited as a CNBC bimbo over the "surging" new home sales, understand that new home sales are still 60% BELOW the 2005 high and 25% below the 1990 through 2000 average. So, in total, there are 1.5 million more annual home sales today than at the bottom in 2010. But mortgage originations haven't budged. That's quite a conundrum.

          As you can also see, the median price for a new home far exceeds the bubble highs of 2005. A critical thinking individual might wonder how new home sales could be down 60% from 2005, while home prices are 15% higher than they were in 2005. Don't the laws of supply and demand work anymore? The identical trend can be seen in the existing homes sales market. The median price for existing home sales of $228,700 is an all-time high, exceeding the 2005 bubble levels. Again, sales are down 30% since 2005. I wonder who is responsible for this warped chain of events?

          AlaricBalth

          This FRED chart I have posted, which corresponds with the effective Fed Funds Rate chart in the article, will show exactly what a daunting problem the the US and the Federal Reserve is being forced to deal with. I have overlaid the Labor Force Participation Rate with M2 Velocity of Money, each beginning in 1960. M2 velocity refers to how fast money passes from one holder to the next. The labor force participation rate is a measure of the share of Americans at least 16 years old who are either employed or actively looking for work. If money demand is high, it could be a sign of a robust economy, with the usual corresponding inflationary pressure.

          As you can see, each peaked around 1997-98 and have been in slow decline ever since. Unless the Fed has a plan to increase the LFPR, people are not going to be spending money they just do not have.

          Demographically, this is not going to happen. Baby boomers will still be retiring at a rate of 10,000 per day and manufacturing is never coming back to the US until we are a third world country with a cheap labor force.

          This is not an issue that can be fixed by political promises. So no matter which political party is in control, this will not be repaired with platitudes. This is a structural macro-economic phenomenon which is caused by demographics and poor long term fiscal planning.

          https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1Vst

          TeethVillage88s

          Anyone have this video?

          Elizabeth Warren Video, Late Night with Steven Colbert, 23 Sept 2015.

          Defends Dodd-Frank and gave stats to prove the value of CFPB formed, like 650,000 complaints handled, and many changes forced on corporations.

          Edit: Looks like CBS didn't release the segment of Elizabeth Warren only, so you have to go through whole show or just the 2:00 minute segment that only shows her saying she is not running for President.

          Shame on CBS, as usual.

          http://www.cbs.com/shows/the-late-show-with-stephen-colbert/video/jUNG_y...

          Apparently I don't have the computer configured to play it anyway.

          FreedomGuy

          I do not think Wall Street and your local bankers or mortgage brokers are the bad guys here. Frankly, they look at the rules and try to make a living in the mortgage business. They are not angels but neither are they demons and I do not think they purposely write bad business.

          I think the Wizard of Evil behind the curtain is first and last the government including a GSE like the Fed. They set this stuff up. You know you can load up Freddie and Fannie with smelly stuff and off-load risk. They hold rates near historic lows so people can buy more.

          This drives prices and all the flipping crap and related stuff I hate.

          I am in the middle of this. Being an avid reader of ZH I have become a proper pessimist. I did a cash-out refi and am paying off virtually all other loans...or more properly moving them to the tax deductible home loan. I was going to rent and move north because of work but after lots of research, breathtaking price increases and a few other cautions I decided to sit it out.

          I am going to see what the economic terrain looks like in 6 months or more.

          The thing is you have to play the game as it is, today, not as you think it should be.

          marts321

          Don't hate the player, hate the game.

          TeethVillage88s

          Check out the growth of Holding companies.

          Financial Business; Credit Market Instruments; Liability, Level
          2015:Q1: 14,104.57 Billions of Dollars (+ see more)
          Quarterly, End of Period, Not Seasonally Adjusted, TCMDODFS,

          Holding Companies; Credit Market Instruments; Liability, Level
          2015:Q1: 1,380.52 Billions of Dollars (+ see more)
          Quarterly, End of Period, Not Seasonally Adjusted, CBBHCTCMDODFS,
          https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CBBHCTCMDODFS

          U.S.-Chartered Depository Institutions; Credit Market Instruments; Liability, Level
          2015:Q1: 669.90 Billions of Dollars (+ see more)
          Quarterly, End of Period, Not Seasonally Adjusted, CBTCMDODFS,

          Now, we know that in 2007 the Biggest Wall Street banks wanted access to Deposits in the USA. So maybe I don't have the date, could have been planned from Lehman Request date to become a Deposit Bank while an Investment Bank.

          So today we have Holding Companies that are allowed to have Deposits while doing commercial and investment work and proprietary trading... and now are 30% Bigger after all the Bailouts and transfer of Taxpayer and Retirement Funds to them.

          Holding Companies have Doubled Liability since 3QTR 2007

          Wow

          TeethVillage88s

          Too Bad we don't have Honest Brokers in DOJ, FBI, SEC, FINRA, FTC, GAO, CBO, FED, Treasury, OCC, FSOC, BCFP, CFTC, FDIC, FHFA, SIPC

          I'm not sure how you can isolate or focus your condemnation or fault.

          • - Private & Public Pensions, Retirement Funds, Deposit Insurance, The Fact that our Wall Street Banks are Borg connecting to AI Technology,... and Complexity is increasing at an Exponential Rate meaning Risk is Exponential as well
          • - Big Concern -- pay outs for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (federal Trust Fund), 1999 = $1.23 Billion, 2000 = $1.35 Billion, 2001 =$1.37 Billion. Okay, but today 2010 = $5.59 B, 2011 = $5.89 B, 2012 = $5.86 B, 2013 = $5.89 B. There is a continual need to supplement Pensions. 2010 PBGC's deficit increased 4.5 percent to $23 billion (Liabilities beyond assets)
          • - Federal direct student loan program 1999 = $52 Billion, INCREASED to 2013 = $675 Billion. (Risky)
          • - 2013 Total FDIC Trust Fund in Treasuries = $36.9 Billion + $18 billion in the DIF (Risky)
          • - 2013 Total National Credit Union Trust in Treasuries = $11.2 Billion

          Edit: This applies, $8.16 Trillion in US Deposits

          Total Savings Deposits at all Depository Institutions
          2015-09-07: 8,164.3 Billions of Dollars (+ see more)
          Weekly, Ending Monday, Not Seasonally Adjusted, WSAVNS,
          https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/WSAVNS

          dizzyfingers

          "Sociopaths" (psychopaths) rise to the top. They are not like others. http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/15850/1/Characteristics-of-a-Sociopath.html

          EndOfDayExit

          To all hysterical critics of the FED, what do you suggest they do instead? The rich can do nothing, sit it out, the poor meanwhile will starve and die (and probably riot before they die).

          The poor need jobs. Now almost at any cost, because those jobs are few and far in between as we are competing with China. So they do ZIRP, NIRP whatever, something, anything to at least marginally force the rich to spend. For, if people do not spend there will be even less jobs…and less tax revenue collected for the government to run and distribute around… and it all starts going downhill.

          The FED is just trying to keep the system at the higher spending point. It does not seem to work very well, but the next option is a direct confiscation and redistribution of assets (to keep those poor jobless souls content). Nobody gives a f* about inequality until it becomes a riot-provoking problem itself. Ugly as it is there is actually logic in what the FED is doing.

          Batman11

          The globalists rush to take the profits in the good times but run and hide in the bad.

          Where is the profit in sorting out the bad times? In the bad times national institutions, Governments and Central Banks, get left to sort out the mess loading the costs onto national tax payers.

          When things go wrong nationalism rises as each nation is left to fend for itself. We should know how it works by now, this isn't the first time.

          • 1920s/2000s - high inequality, high banker pay, low regulation, low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons (CEOs), reckless bankers, globalisation phase
          • 1929/2008 - Wall Street crash
          • 1930s/2010s - Global recession, currency wars, rising nationalism and extremism
          • 1940s/? - Global war

          We are nearly there with the Middle East on fire and the two nuclear super-powers at each other's throats.

          Maybe next time we will know better, third time lucky.

          mianne

          Cherry picker, I agree with you : " All our government up here has to do is get out of NATO, disband our version of the CIA, divorce Homeland Security, duty and tax all imports to the hilt, keep our water, electricity and natural resources to ourselves and manufacture our own products... Then you can have all the wars you want in the middle east and we will watch it on television without worrying about whether to be part of the murder brigade or not."

          But as for ourselves, as governed by the totalitarian EU whose representatives are non elected by people, but were chosen by the international finance tycoons ( our elected presidents deprived of any power by the supranational non elected entity, US- OTAN driven European Union), we are just powerless slaves .

          However we won the referendum ( 52 % ) against the content of the Maastricht-Lisbon European Constitution, but they do not take it into account, submitting us to the ignominious treaty . Democracy ?

          [Sep 26, 2015] British Think Tank Complains Russia Might Harm al-Qaeda in Syria

          Sep 26, 2015 | news.antiwar.com
          September 25, 2015 | Antiwar.com

          Says Harm to al-Qaeda Means They'd Be 'Helping ISIS'

          A new report from British think tank the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) is warning that Russia's involvement in the Syrian civil war could "help ISIS" in the long run, ironically using the same arguments used against the US when it first started bombing Syria.

          Russia's current operations in Syria are centered around the Latakia coast, and while they have made it clear they intend to help Syria fight against ISIS and other extremist groups, the group closest to Latakia is not ISIS, but rather al-Qaeda. That means, according to RUSI, Russia is liable to harm al-Qaeda, which is now a "bad thing."

          When the US launched its war in Syria late last year, they went after al-Qaeda with some of their airstrikes, which sparked condemnation for rebel factions who argued that al-Qaeda is part of the side the US is supposed to be helping. The US seems to be increasingly on board with that, with former Gen. David Petraeus openly endorsing al-Qaeda as the US ally of choice. Turkey has already been backing al-Qaeda against Syria for some time.

          Indeed, it seems that much of the aversion to Russia's plan to fight ISIS by getting Syria's government and secular rebels together really centers on keeping the Islamist rebel factions, suddenly anointed as the good guys, on the outside looking in.

          [Sep 26, 2015] The City Of London Has Turned Britain Into A Civilized Mafia State

          "... Property in this country is a haven for the proceeds of international crime. The head of the National Crime Agency, Donald Toon, notes that "the London property market has been skewed by laundered money. Prices are being artificially driven up by overseas criminals who want to sequester their assets here in the UK." ..."
          "... The City is a semi-offshore state, a bit like the UK's crown dependencies and overseas territories, tax havens legitimised by the Privy Council. Britain's financial secrecy undermines the tax base while providing a conduit into the legal economy for gangsters, kleptocrats and drug barons. ..."
          "... Yep. Socialism for us. Feudalism for the people. Because.....we're too big to fail. "They gotcha by the balls -- " - George Carlin ..."
          "... London is an independent city-state, with mafia owners going back 1000+ years. Website admits it's a corporation http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Pages/default.aspx ..."
          "... assassination politics: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/11/18/meet-the-assassinat... ..."
          "... I'm not sure that author actually knows what he is talking about. "The City" has nothing do with domestic UK money laundering in real estate, because no one with money actually lives in "the City." They generally live in the West End or on country estates- that's the real estate that is being used to launder money. And the City is hardly the UK's only tax haven for corporations -- Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man are all short puddle jumper flights from LCY, and if you want to use long haul flights out of Heathrow- the list of Crown dependencies and overseas territories serving as tax havens is almost endless... the Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands and the Bermuda Triangle being the most familiar to Americans trying to lose fiat in boating accidents. ..."
          "... "What Do You Think of Western Civilization?" "I Think It Would Be a Good Idea" -- Gandhi
          "...London is now the global money-laundering centre for the drug trade, says crime expert ..."
          "... It's a big club and we ain't in it...... R.I.P. George Carlin ..."
          "... "The City" = croupier and enforcer of the global casino. ..."
          "... The lesson - a financial sector without a commensurate sized industrial base will rapidly evolve into organised crime. ..."
          Sep 10, 2015 | Zero Hedge
          Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

          While an earlier post related to the likely bursting of the London real estate bubble, this one highlights a blistering critique of the role the City of London has played in transforming Great Britain into what George Monbiot calls a "civilized mafia state." But that's just an appetizer. This extremely well written and information article is a must read for anyone still in the dark regarding London's central role within the global financial crime syndicate.

          Here are a few excerpts from the Guardian:

          To an extent unknown since before the first world war, economic relations in this country are becoming set in stone. It is not just that the very rich no longer fall while the very poor no longer rise. It's that the system itself is protected from risk. Through bailouts, quantitative easing and delays in interest-rate rises, speculative investment has been so well cushioned that – as the Guardian economics editor, Larry Elliott, puts it – financial markets are "one of the last bastions of socialism left on Earth".

          Public services, infrastructure, the very fabric of the nation: these too are being converted into risk-free investments. Social cleansing is transforming central London into an exclusive economic zone for property speculation. From a dozen directions, government policy converges on this objective.

          Property in this country is a haven for the proceeds of international crime. The head of the National Crime Agency, Donald Toon, notes that "the London property market has been skewed by laundered money. Prices are being artificially driven up by overseas criminals who want to sequester their assets here in the UK."

          It's hardly surprising, given the degree of oversight. Private Eye has produced a map of British land owned by companies registered in offshore tax havens. The holdings amount to 1.2m acres, including much of the country's prime real estate. Among those it names as beneficiaries are a cast of Russian oligarchs, oil sheikhs, British aristocrats and newspaper proprietors. These are the people for whom government policy works – and the less regulated the system that enriches them, the happier they are.

          The speculative property market is just one current in the great flow of cash that sluices through Britain while scarcely touching the sides. The financial sector exploits an astonishing political privilege: the City of London is the only jurisdiction in the UK not fully subject to the authority of parliament. In fact, the relationship seems to work the other way. Behind the Speaker's chair in the House of Commons sits the Remembrancer, whose job is to ensure that the interests of the City of London are recognised by the elected members. (A campaign to rescind this privilege – Don't Forget the Remembrancer – will be launched very soon.)

          The City is a semi-offshore state, a bit like the UK's crown dependencies and overseas territories, tax havens legitimised by the Privy Council. Britain's financial secrecy undermines the tax base while providing a conduit into the legal economy for gangsters, kleptocrats and drug barons.

          Even the more orthodox financial institutions deploy a succession of scandalous practices: pension mis-selling, endowment mortgage fraud, the payment protection insurance con, Libor rigging. A former minister in the last government, Lord Green, ran HSBC while it engaged in money laundering for drug gangs, systematic tax evasion and the provision of services to Saudi and Bangladeshi banks linked to the financing of terrorists. Sometimes the UK looks to me like an ever so civilised mafia state.

          The government also insists that there is no link between political donations and seats in the House of Lords. But a study by researchersat Oxford University found that the probability of so many major donors arriving there by chance is 1.36 x 10-38: roughly "equivalent to entering the National Lottery and winning the jackpot 5 times in a row". Why does the Lords remain unreformed? Because it permits plutocratic power to override democracy. Both rich and poor are kept in their place.

          Governed either by or on behalf of the people who fleece us, we cannot be surprised to discover that all public services are being re-engineered for the benefit of private capital. Nor should we be surprised when governments help to negotiate, without public consent, treaties such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, which undermine the sovereignty of both parliament and the law. Aesop's observation, that "we hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office", remains true in spirit, though hanging has been replaced by community payback.

          Wherever you sniff in British public life, something stinks: I could fill this site with examples. But, while every pore oozes corruption, our task, we are told, is merely to trim the nails of the body politic.

          To fail to confront this system is to collaborate with it.

          Most people don't want to face this, but it's undeniably true.

          umbotron

          Yep. Socialism for us. Feudalism for the people. Because.....we're too big to fail. "They gotcha by the balls -- " - George Carlin

          JoeSexPack

          London is an independent city-state, with mafia owners going back 1000+ years. Website admits it's a corporation http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Pages/default.aspx

          Short vid explains.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc

          Why matters? The square mile is home to Bank of England (private corp), HQ of Freemasons & branch offices of all major banks on Earth. It is center of world finance, & has been for centuries. Privately-owned Bank of E was model later replicated with FED, ECB, WB, IMF & most others.

          US revolutionary War was fought to fee US from having to use Bank of E's debt notes. Sound familiar? We're back there now. Same struggle against same institutions.

          KnuckleDragger-X

          If you read about the history of London, you'll notice it has always been a very bizarre and screwed up place. They are now reaching their Nirvana of fucked uppedness.....

          two hoots

          What they can no longer do with their Dutch East India Company and with the by-gone reach of the Empire they do in the M A Rothschild tradition with their global financial tenacles

          Chuck Knoblauch

          Civilized assassins needed.

          sleigher

          assassination politics: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/11/18/meet-the-assassinat...

          lawyer4anarchists

          Of course the author is right. And of course this has always been the case, it is not new. The problem we have in this country is that the people have the laughable notion that there is some magical time to "go back to" where the "constitution and it's rights" were the law. lol. The people are so lost. The constitution is not what people think. It is there to enslave you. It was never a source of freedom. Until they wake up and realize this fact, well... they will keep getting what they are getting. http://www.thetruthaboutthelaw.com/the-peoples-case-for-what-happened-at...

          Urban Redneck

          I'm not sure that author actually knows what he is talking about. "The City" has nothing do with domestic UK money laundering in real estate, because no one with money actually lives in "the City." They generally live in the West End or on country estates -- that's the real estate that is being used to launder money. And the City is hardly the UK's only tax haven for corporations -- Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man are all short puddle jumper flights from LCY, and if you want to use long haul flights out of Heathrow -- the list of Crown dependencies and overseas territories serving as tax havens is almost endless... the Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands and the Bermuda Triangle being the most familiar to Americans trying to lose fiat in boating accidents.

          Peribanu

          Unlike the Yanks, we Brits don't have a constitution written down from first principles. Our "constitution" is the body of laws of the country, but it goes back so far that any contemporary changes are minor, superficial, and irrelevant. Many of the formal institutional powers in the country are the unfortunate but necessary result of a compromise between landowning aristocrats of old and the bourgeoisie who wanted a slice of the cake. The workers are merely tolerated. The internal mafia are the oh-so-very-refined aristocracy, whose heads were never cut off unlike in France, together with the rather uncouth capitalists and self-made money men, who are also tolerated, since someone has to provide one with an income, ideally by devising ways to get the workers to pay 90%-100% of their income back to us as rent. The other mafia are the rich foreigners -- Russian oligarchs, and the "persecuted" rich of the world, who are allowed to reside in Britain on condition that: a) they bring in lots of lovely "investments"; and b) don't get involved, at least publicly, in any of that unnecessary "politics" that goes on overseas. In Britain we long ago abolished politics. The commoners come and go with their naive belief that they can actually change things, while the core institutions of the country are unchanging and eternal: Eton, Oxford, Cambridge, the Civil Service, MI5, MI6, the BBC, and, of course, the Monarchy. God Save the Queen! (Or should I call her the Godmother?)

          q99x2

          The scum of the world all located in one place. How convenient is that. Won't be long before they start going after one another. Then poof.

          JustObserving

          Re: The City Of London Has Turned Britain Into A "Civilized Mafia State"

          Civilized?

          "What Do You Think of Western Civilization?" "I Think It Would Be a Good Idea" -- Gandhi

          London is now the global money-laundering centre for the drug trade, says crime expert

          The City of London is the money-laundering centre of the world's drug trade, according to an internationally acclaimed crime expert.

          UK banks and financial services have ignored so-called "know your customer" rules designed to curb criminals' abilities to launder the proceeds of crime, Roberto Saviano warned. Mr Saviano, author of the international bestseller Gomorrah, which exposed the workings of the Neapolitan crime organisation Camorra, said: "The British treat it as not their problem because there aren't corpses on the street."

          http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-is-now-the-global-mone...

          London: A giant washing machine for the filthy cash of a corrupt elite: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/london-giant-washing-machine-filthy-cash-corrup...
          Calculus99

          London: The money laundering capital of the world.

          Fear not though because Prime Minister Cameron has said he's going to stamp down on it especially the offshore companies that are buying up all the property. BWHAHAHAHAHA.

          ThroxxOfVron

          ...& Obama's new Affirmative Action figurehead at the DOJ has agreed with her underlings that since it is now well past the Statute Of Limitations for prosecuting anything even vaguely related to the fraud-induced economic disaster which culminated in the interbank and equities markets implosions that it is time 'to get touch on White Collar Crime.'

          Dr. Engali

          It's a big club and we ain't in it...... R.I.P. George Carlin

          Salah

          Been that way since their founders escaped from the Pope & the King of France, 10/13/1307

          https://lordmayorsshow.london/history/gog-and-magog

          Jonathan Living...

          I'm fascinated by The City - so much of British law seems so weird ~ even just the status of Wales, which is in some ways its own country within the UK, some ways just part of England, but they have their own Parliament.

          Anyway there's always google, but if anyone has come across any particularly good articles or books on the subject of the City's history and status, please share the wealth.

          I wonder if, like our Electoral college, most people would agree it should be abolished but most people simply dont know about it.

          22winmag

          Let's dismantle Miami and sell it off in order to fund the criminal prosecution and incarceration of the CIA scum and drug runners who built that city thanks to decades of drug smuggling and money laundering. Then we move on to D.C.

          Salah

          No, make NYC & Long Island a US "City-State", but with no US Congressional representation, or taxation, or US financial insurance guarantees or citizenship.

          1 crash later, they'll clean-up mightily and be a little Dubai.

          jcdenton

          We do have $100 BILLION for that on the way ..

          http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/11/another-thwarted-attempt-to-hija...

          Another major disbursement scheduled is 100 Billion USD to set up an ongoing special Task Force to investigate and prosecute organized crime and government and corporate corruption at any level.

          ... Funds were disbursed on December 15, 2014 ...

          https://app.box.com/s/hfgvcqg7gqh7i27at6sv53ywu87lwarp (see file with interview dated Dec. 3, 2014)

          youngman

          Well they still have a Royal Family...go figure......and remember any news or numbers that come out of London are probably wrong... Faked...or just fixed....they cheat well there

          rufus66

          Meanwhile in the news today, Revenue Canada uncovers something fishy regarding between kpmg's Great Britain connection and rich clients ......

          http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/kpmg-offshore-sham-deceived-tax-authorit...

          Solio

          "So it just means that more of the tax burden is borne by the middle class."

          What middle class?!!

          Calculus99

          The difference between Miami and London is Miami knows it's bent. London likes to hide/forget and think/preach it's honest.

          homebody

          This will be fixed by adding 800,000 economic refugees from Syria and Africa

          XRAYD

          London has always been thus ... from the age of Dickens, and the Colonial Empire Head Office - now masquerading as the "Commonwealth"!

          NotApplicable

          Indeed.

          It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

          Salah

          "The City" = croupier and enforcer of the global casino.

          1. Look for things to "break apart", i.e. Ottoman Empire, Hapsburg Empire, Russian Empire, Spanish Empire, USSR, et al

          2. Look for things to "put together", i.e. USA, Chile (sans Bolivia on the Pacific), South Africa, Rhodesia, Oz, NZ, Hong Kong, Singapore, et al

          They've been working this biz-model since the North Sea Knights Templars escaped the big deception in 1307

          JessieSharpton

          Ah the knights templar, the prototypical pre Rothschild banking mafia incarnation.

          SillySalesmanQu...

          Just my own personal observation here, but what do these three things have in common, why and who created them in the first place?

          Most bad shit that happens to average people seem to emanate from:

          1. Vatican City

          2. City of London

          3. Washington D.C.

          Chosenpeople

          Britain has become a classic dystopian state. They have cameras everywhere, and I mean everywhere. The state runs and controls everything. The place is swarming with foreigners, it is difficult to find a white Englishman in London. Britain is dead.

          ajax

          London became the mega-city in "Blade Runner" instead of L.A.

          umblemore

          Before the banking mafia looted Britain's industrial base and shipped it offshore industry was the dominant power and although the City was part crooked it was also kept part functional as a utility for industry.

          Over the last 30 years or so since they offshored all the industry the financial power has become completely dominant and completely criminal. To a certain extent the London branches of the Wall St banks are where they do their dirtiest deeds because it's easier to get away with in London.

          The lesson - a financial sector without a commensurate sized industrial base will rapidly evolve into organised crime.

          MSimon

          For several Centuries Brit banks have been running the dope racket.

          You might recall "Opium Wars" or if you want to be modern - NATO in Afghanistan.

          jcdenton

          Next, we will have the courage to write about Dachau?

          http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/04/neo-so-much-more-than-nukes/

          MSimon

          Since 1840 - at least

          http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-07/bed-despotic-house-saud#comment...

          MSimon

          The Brits have been at it for a long time: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-07/bed-despotic-house-saud#comment...

          [Sep 26, 2015] US and China back off internet arms race but Obama leaves sanctions on the table

          "... How can the U.S. say cyber hacking must stop when we know very well that they have been cyber spying and hacking for years, Snowden spilt the beans on that issue, big brother raising his head again. ..."
          "...
          ..."
          "... I see a contradiction here that you critcize for not warring with Xi/China and then bemoaning the obviously damaging costs of what looks like perpetual wars. ..."
          "... In the main, Obama has not slipped out of his arrogant school master's tone and role, but we keep hearing he does it to please the American electorate. If the NSA in Germany (Bad Aibling) is allowed to sniff out commercial secrets on German computers (an issue for over 10 years, it's only the spinlessness of the elites that keep allowing that) then surely it's all 'open platform'. I only read German and English well enough to ascertain what's what in the spying game, so I can only refer to Germany. Maybe we get some Spanish, Italian, French etc reading people to tell us if sniffing out Germany's company secrets is unique, probably not. ..."
          "... Nice little bit of spin here. It gives the impression that the US is telling the PRC what to do when the reality is this is part of the previous and current five year plan. ..."
          "... This looks a bit odd to me. Is he saying that Snowden forged the ten thousand records detailing US cyber spying on fifty countries or is he asking for Chinas assurance that the CCP are not sponsoring the attacks. In any case...I Obamas full of shit. ..."
          "... the US has offered no proof that China hacked American records, while the world knows that the worse hacker on the planet is the US as shown via the Snowden documents - we even hack our allies. You know, there is a saying about glass houses and throwing stones. ..."
          "... Its a fallacy that you can separate business spying and state secrets spying. If there is going to be war, it will be all out, no sacred cows. Don't expect an agreement to leave space satellites out for example. People are still living in this utopia that a war can happen somewhere else and life will go on as normal. For China, the war will be for its own existence and there will be no holds barred. Look at the Vietnam war for example and you will see how much the Vietnamese sacrificed for that ultimate victory. So I believe that a more comprehensive framework is required for the assured future for both nations. ..."
          "... Every year the same blame the Chinese happens. US agencies will always fabricate foreign threat so annual budgets can be increased $$$. The fiscal year ends in Sept. "My dept. needs more taxpayer funding, the Chinese and Russians are attacking!" ..."
          "... In the name of "National Security" anything goes (except sabotage in peace time), so long as it is not used for "competitive advantage". Nice to have a mutually approved set of labels to continue doing what both sides have always been doing. ..."
          Sep 25, 2015 | The Guardian

          JoeCorr -> Erazmo 25 Sep 2015 23:57

          The US has no class...

          They call it 'American directness'. In fact it's gross bad manners but thats how the Empire of the Exceptionals sees itself.

          A John Wayne mindset and a Lex Luthor worldview. Being dismantled with astonishing ease by the PRC.


          Eugenios -> SuperBBird 25 Sep 2015 23:58

          The Chinese Communists are humanists itself compared to the brutality of the US.

          Just compare prison populations, for examine. The US has more people in prison both proportionately and absolutely than all of China.


          HollyOldDog -> TheEqlaowaizer 25 Sep 2015 21:30

          Looks like the wise words of the Pope has not penetrated the 'brains' American State Department or its President, if all that Obama can say is to threaten sanctions against another country. Is the BRICS alternative bank such a worry to the Americans as their first thoughts are bullying tactics.


          ID240947 25 Sep 2015 21:22

          How can the U.S. say cyber hacking must stop when we know very well that they have been cyber spying and hacking for years, Snowden spilt the beans on that issue, big brother raising his head again.


          JoeCorr -> goatrider 25 Sep 2015 21:08

          Take all that cheap junk

          Cheap junk? Its 2015 can you even just try to keep up. We're buying Chinese flat screens the size of billboards and China leads the world in home appliances. BYD and Shanghai Auto sales are expanding at warp speed. I could go on but thats enough.

          The US and Europe made the same stupid jibes at Japan before they decimated our electrics, shipbuilding, auto manufacturing and every single electronics company outside military patronage.

          Its not China whos at fault here. It's people like you with your head so deeply wedged in the sand your shitting pebbles.


          JoeCorr 25 Sep 2015 21:01

          My daughter drew speech balloons on this photo and mages it to the fridge.

          Obama is saying. " Sanctions are still on the table". Xi is saying. " Poor thing. Allah will look after you"

          Which I thought kinda perceptive for a 13 year old.


          HauptmannGurski -> Sam3456 25 Sep 2015 20:46

          I see a contradiction here that you critcize for not warring with Xi/China and then bemoaning the obviously damaging costs of what looks like perpetual wars. Never mind, we all get emotional in these troubled times and find ourselves in contraction with ourselves.

          In the main, Obama has not slipped out of his arrogant school master's tone and role, but we keep hearing he does it to please the American electorate. If the NSA in Germany (Bad Aibling) is allowed to sniff out commercial secrets on German computers (an issue for over 10 years, it's only the spinlessness of the elites that keep allowing that) then surely it's all 'open platform'. I only read German and English well enough to ascertain what's what in the spying game, so I can only refer to Germany. Maybe we get some Spanish, Italian, French etc reading people to tell us if sniffing out Germany's company secrets is unique, probably not.

          (PS: if we think that the perpetual wars are too costly, in the sense that the populations miss out more and more, then we ought to keep an eye on the US job figures. There's a view out there that it's been US arms sales under Obama which underpin the 'recovery'. The Nobel Peace prize committee would take the prize back now, I gues, but that's not in the rules.)

          goatrider 25 Sep 2015 20:37

          How is America going to sanction a country that produces a majority of the items sold in America? Take all that cheap junk off the shelves of box stores and the American people will revolt----they are addicted consumers of cheap junk and fast food.


          JoeCorr -> vr13vr 25 Sep 2015 20:15

          Whom exactly did we fire, prosecute or whatever else after all those NSA revelations?

          Bradley Manning. Aaron Swartz driven to Suicide having never broken a single law. Snowden driven to exile. There are many others.


          JoeCorr 25 Sep 2015 20:00

          News of this deal, first revealed on Thursday, was followed up before...

          Nice little bit of spin here. It gives the impression that the US is telling the PRC what to do when the reality is this is part of the previous and current five year plan.

          The 'sanctions' are another interesting bit of spin. How would you enforce sanctions against almost a quarter of the worlds population when they are your most reliable customer and literally thousands of American companies have invested and relocated there.

          what I am hoping that President Xi will show me is that we are not sponsoring these activities and that … we take it seriously and will cooperate to enforce the law."

          This looks a bit odd to me. Is he saying that Snowden forged the ten thousand records detailing US cyber spying on fifty countries or is he asking for Chinas assurance that the CCP are not sponsoring the attacks. In any case...I Obamas full of shit.


          Erazmo 25 Sep 2015 19:12

          The US has no class and is a paper tiger. First, no one in the administration met President Xi when arrived on American soil. This is an insult to the Chinese and shows no class on the part of the Obama administration. Sure, the Pope was here at the same time but I don't understand why some schedules couldn't have been changed a little to accommodate the visit the leader of the world's most populous country. Second, the US continues to accuse and scold China as if they were a kid. Yet, the US has offered no proof that China hacked American records, while the world knows that the worse hacker on the planet is the US as shown via the Snowden documents - we even hack our allies. You know, there is a saying about glass houses and throwing stones.


          Chin Koon Siang 25 Sep 2015 19:05

          Its a fallacy that you can separate business spying and state secrets spying. If there is going to be war, it will be all out, no sacred cows. Don't expect an agreement to leave space satellites out for example. People are still living in this utopia that a war can happen somewhere else and life will go on as normal. For China, the war will be for its own existence and there will be no holds barred. Look at the Vietnam war for example and you will see how much the Vietnamese sacrificed for that ultimate victory. So I believe that a more comprehensive framework is required for the assured future for both nations.

          vr13vr -> CitizenCarrier 25 Sep 2015 18:42

          Whom exactly did we fire, prosecute or whatever else after all those NSA revelations?

          vr13vr 25 Sep 2015 18:40

          Obama never stops surprising with his manners. Or actually a lack of such. He just made an agreement with a leader of another country, a large and powerful country mind you. And right away he publicly expresses a doubt whether the other party intends to carry the agreements. Basically calling his counterpart a liar for no good reason. And as a cheap bully, inserts more threats of more sanctions. Sure, the president of the other country had more class, he stayed there and smiled friendly, but with such arrogant display of disrespect and bullying, nobody would ever take Obama serious. And nobody should.

          shawshank -> CitizenCarrier 25 Sep 2015 18:24

          Grasping at straws? Xi is not Hitler. Also, Snowden already exposed that the US was spying on China.


          Book_of_Life -> CitizenCarrier 25 Sep 2015 18:10

          "Acts of war"
          USA are worlds biggest warmongers instigators including false flags and regime changes covert activity black ops

          you better check yourself before you wreck yourself
          cause i'm bad for your health, i come real stealth
          droppin bombs on ya moms
          So chikity-check yo self before you wreck yo self
          Come on and check yo self before you wrikity-wreck yourself


          Lrgjohnson -> canbeanybody 25 Sep 2015 18:00

          Every year the same blame the Chinese happens. US agencies will always fabricate foreign threat so annual budgets can be increased $$$. The fiscal year ends in Sept. "My dept. needs more taxpayer funding, the Chinese and Russians are attacking!"


          Book_of_Life CitizenCarrier 25 Sep 2015 17:22

          American Hypocrisy "fuck off"
          say countries spied on
          http://time.com/2945037/nsa-surveillance-193-countries/


          canbeanybody 25 Sep 2015 15:59

          It is plain silly and ridiculous to pin blame of the so-called theft of finger prints of American 5.6 millions employees.

          Those rubbish finger prints have zero value to anyone other than those who are at position to manipulate, modify or even fabricate them.

          In any case why should a technological so advanced American system need to keep the finger prints of their own employees? Is it impossible for American government to keep the finger prints of own employees safe?


          peternh 25 Sep 2015 15:57

          "President Xi indicated to me that with 1.3 billion people he can't guarantee the behaviour of every single person on Chinese soil."

          Although that is, in fact, what his government is entirely dedicated to attempting to do, by controlling all education, all media, what may and may not be said publicly, and controlling everything that happens on the Internet inside the Great Firewall.

          Utter hypocrisy.


          bujinin 25 Sep 2015 15:24

          Analysis:

          In the name of "National Security" anything goes (except sabotage in peace time), so long as it is not used for "competitive advantage". Nice to have a mutually approved set of labels to continue doing what both sides have always been doing.


          Sam3456 25 Sep 2015 15:24

          Another useless summit with a lame duck President who achieved the Nobel Peace Prize for being an ineffectual player on the world stage and propagating constant war for the profit of his corporate puppet masters.

          [Sep 26, 2015] Wild card Trevor Noah ready to revamp the Daily Show with an outsider twist

          Sep 26, 2015 | www.theguardian.com

          Speaking at a press breakfast to launch the new Daily Show, which starts on Monday 28 September, the South African comedian said he would use his position as an outsider in the US to look at some of the more bizarre elements of the country's political system without preconceptions.

          ... ... ...

          Jon Stewart's final year in charge at the Daily Show saw the programme win three Emmys for outstanding variety talk series, outstanding writing for a variety series and outstanding directing for a variety series.

          [Sep 26, 2015] Paul Krugman Dewey, Cheatem Howe

          "... That is brilliant - so Turing Pharmaceuticals is a classical - wait for it - parasitic infection! ..."
          "... The point is we should be trying to make our regulation more intelligent (making it encourage not discourage innovation - cheaper and easier to police - less subject to regulatory capture etc.). ..."
          Sep 26, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com

          Economist's View

          Republicans can't help but side with business, but there are very good reasons for the recent increase in regulatory oversight:
          Dewey, Cheatem & Howe, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Item: The C.E.O. of Volkswagen has resigned after revelations that his company committed fraud on an epic scale, installing software on its diesel cars that detected when their emissions were being tested, and produced deceptively low results.
          • Item: The former president of a peanut company has been sentenced to 28 years in prison for knowingly shipping tainted products that later killed nine people and sickened 700.
          • Item: Rights to a drug used to treat parasitic infections were acquired by Turing Pharmaceuticals, which specializes not in developing new drugs but in buying existing drugs and jacking up their prices. In this case, the price went from $13.50 a tablet to $750. ...

          There are, it turns out, people in the corporate world who will do whatever it takes, including fraud that kills people, in order to make a buck. And we need effective regulation to police that kind of bad behavior... But we knew that, right?

          Well, we used to know it... But ... an important part of America's political class has declared war on even the most obviously necessary regulations. ...

          A case in point: This week Jeb Bush, who has an uncanny talent for bad timing, chose to publish an op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal denouncing the Obama administration for issuing "a flood of creativity-crushing and job-killing rules." Never mind his misuse of cherry-picked statistics, or the fact that private-sector employment has grown much faster under President Obama's "job killing" policies than it did under Mr. Bush's brother's administration. ...

          The thing is, Mr. Bush isn't wrong to suggest that there has been a move back toward more regulation under Mr. Obama, a move that will probably continue if a Democrat wins next year. After all, Hillary Clinton released a plan to limit drug prices at the same time Mr. Bush was unleashing his anti-regulation diatribe.

          But the regulatory rebound is taking place for a reason. Maybe we had too much regulation in the 1970s, but we've now spent 35 years trusting business to do the right thing with minimal oversight - and it hasn't worked.

          So what has been happening lately is an attempt to redress that imbalance, to replace knee-jerk opposition to regulation with the judicious use of regulation where there is good reason to believe that businesses might act in destructive ways. Will we see this effort continue? Next year's election will tell.

          reason

          "Item: Rights to a drug used to treat parasitic infections were acquired by Turing Pharmaceuticals, which specializes not in developing new drugs but in buying existing drugs and jacking up their prices. In this case, the price went from $13.50 a tablet to $750. ..."

          That is brilliant - so Turing Pharmaceuticals is a classical - wait for it - parasitic infection!

          reason

          "So what has been happening lately is an attempt to redress that imbalance, to replace knee-jerk opposition to regulation with the judicious use of regulation where there is good reason to believe that businesses might act in destructive ways. Will we see this effort continue? Next year's election will tell."

          Personally, I don't think this is really addressing the key point. You can't actually avoid regulation (the alternative to public regulation - as pushed by say Milton Friedman - ends up being private regulation - which is just as subject to regulatory capture). The point is we should be trying to make our regulation more intelligent (making it encourage not discourage innovation - cheaper and easier to police - less subject to regulatory capture etc.). The policy discussions about this a difficult enough with good faith - but bad faith politics makes this impossible. We need to throw the Gingrich revolution in the dustbin as soon as possible.

          [Sep 25, 2015] If a counterparty liquidates, net exposure becomes gross,"

          "... A Glencore spokesperson said: "Regardless of the business environment, Glencore is helping fulfil global demand by getting the commodities that are needed to the places that need them most." ..."
          "... unfriendly ..."
          Sep 25, 2015 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

          abynormal September 24, 2015 at 8:12 pm

          "This is the best recovery in all recorded history." Lambert

          Is GS preparing to Sacrifice the next Lehman (at zh find it yourselves')
          short list:
          It goes without saying that courtesy of HFTs and China's hard landing, a 5% drop in commodities could happen overnight.

          So if one is so inclined, and puts on the conspiracy theory hat mentioned at the beginning of this post, Goldman may have just laid out the strawman for the next mega bailout which goes roughly as follows:

          ** Commodity prices drop another 5%
          ** The rating agencies get a tap on their shoulder and downgrade Glencore to Junk.
          ** Waterfall cascade of margin and collateral calls promptly liquidates Glencore's trading desk and depletes the company's cash, leaving trillions of derivative contracts in limbo. Always remember: the strongest collateral chain is only as strong as its weakest conterparty. If a counterparty liquidates, net exposure becomes gross, and suddenly everyone starts wondering where all those "physical" commodities are.
          ** Contagion spreads as self-reinforcing commodities collapse launches deflationary shock wave around the globe.
          ** Fed and global central banks are called in to come up with a "more powerful" form of stimulus
          ** The money paradrop scenario proposed by Citigroup yesterday, becomes reality

          Too far-fetched? Perhaps. But keep an eye out for a Glencore downgrade from Investment Grade. If that happens, it may be a good time to quietly get out of Dodge for the time being. Just in case.
          **********************************************
          i did a 4th course on Hunger http://marketwatch666.blogspot.com/2012/11/hunger-4th-course.html (scroll down to bold red, can't miss the Glen history that we WILL NOW BE BACKSTOPPING)
          A Glencore spokesperson said: "Regardless of the business environment, Glencore is helping fulfil global demand by getting the commodities that are needed to the places that need them most."

          craazyboy September 24, 2015 at 8:22 pm

          " If a counterparty liquidates, net exposure becomes gross,"

          This is the really, really important concept. Whenever someone mentions our $600 Trillion in global derivatives, Wall Street pipes up and says that is NOMINAL. It NETS out to ZERO (minus fees).

          But yeah if the chain breaks, it is really two halves, $300 Trillion a piece. Which I think someone recently estimated is 1.5 times the dollar value of the planet. (just the $300T half) Which has me wondering where the regulators went to accounting school. But I never took accounting, so maybe it's me that's mixed up.

          abynormal September 24, 2015 at 9:33 pm

          i forgot most of my Glencore 411 is in the comments following the post…i don't think the swiss are prepared for this 'issue'

          craazyboy September 24, 2015 at 10:37 pm

          Yeah, I see you've been following this fine company for some time now. Sure, they are bigger than Swissistan. What's to worry?

          craazyboy September 24, 2015 at 8:55 pm

          Just read the full ZH article.

          The only thing I'd point out is our sophisticated financiers always say don't wait for the rating agency downgrade – because they are always last to make a move.

          Other than that, sounds about right.

          Other thing I remember in 2008 was Goldman increased broker margin requirements maybe a month or two before Lehman.

          abynormal September 24, 2015 at 9:19 pm

          ck back i got a post waiting with a link that's unfriendly…don't know why IT'S THE BIS DOT ORG…my netbk should blow up any sec

          [Sep 25, 2015] Why Dont Commercial Bankers Understand the Interests of Their Class Fraction

          " ...As a neoliberal technocrat, Brad DeLong naturally thinks of bankers as rational specimens of homo oeconomicus. Alas, bankers (like everyone in a real economy) does not act rationally in the way DeLong expects."
          " ...A banker observes that in the last epochal economic crash, the government bailed out all the biggest banks and refused to prosecute any bankers for fraud. The banker therefore rationally calculates that fraud represents an excellent business model, since it socializes all the risk of running a bank and privatizes all the profit. Moreover, since the government refuses to send bankers to prison for fraud, there's no social risk as well as no economic risk."
          Sep 25, 2015 | www.bradford-delong.com
          Cervantes said: September 14, 2015 at 11:23 AM
          Well, I'm just a medical sociologist, so what do I know, but my bank essentially pays zero interest on deposits and charges 4.5% interest on mortgages. So they seem to be in a perfectly good place as far as I can tell.

          BruceJ -> Cervantes: September 14, 2015 at 11:48 AM

          Beat me to it. My savings interest rate is 0.1%. The bank's (actually a credit union) current 30-year mortgage rate is 4.125%, inflation right now is 0.2%. (so in real world terms I'm losing money daily on my "savings").

          By my admittedly non-R-programmed mere fingermath calculations they're making 412.5- 3=409.5 basis points on those loans, comfortably above their 300 point bar. They may not be maximizing their profits, but they're making them, and playing safe to boot.

          And so long as the 0.01% have a stranglehold on profits and wages, inflation isn't going anywhere, except, of course, for yachts and Picassos.

          Of course so long as the 0.01% have that stranglehold, not much of anything is going anywhere.

          jorgensen said: September 14, 2015 at 12:13 PM

          I do not understand Brad's faith in the magical ability of inflation to stimulate the economy.

          Jerry Brown said: September 14, 2015 at 01:57 PM

          To the extent that commercial bankers are able to exploit their very special access to the Federal Reserve, they are most certainly rentiers. At least if I am understanding that term correctly.

          Michael Finn said: September 14, 2015 at 03:55 PM

          `Brad, I don't think you get that a lot these people are not rational. These are people who think that as soon as inflation starts up then the entire bill of treasuries that the Fed has will come due.

          They actually do believe in Glenn Beck and the rest of the psychos. A man that I knew who owns several million ft^2 of timber that got rid of it because he thought inflation was coming. He liquidated everything he had and I haven't seen him since.

          These people are probably not the majority of their clients but they are definitely the LOUDEST.

          Graydon said: September 14, 2015 at 06:41 PM

          They certainly are part of the rentier class. They didn't used to be, and they shouldn't be, but iron and gold they are today.

          Banks make their money on fees; the interest rate spreads are a mere bagatelle. This is a consequence of deregulation more than it's a consequence of electronic transaction technologies.

          It's pretty darn near the power to tax; banks get a cut of the entire economy because they get at least a couple percent every time money changes hands. (Look at Square's pitch to merchants -- a consistent two-point-something percent rate for clearing credit card transactions. The bank version goes up to 10%.)

          As long as that's true, the zero lower bound is annoying, but it doesn't really affect profitability. Profitability is guaranteed by the existence of an economy.

          Graydon -> Graydon: September 14, 2015 at 06:45 PM

          And I note that it purely doesn't matter what the fees are as long as the banks don't significantly vary among themselves as to what the fees should be.

          That is, there isn't a market for commercial banking services. There's an ostensibly informal cartel.

          Max Rockbin -> BruceJ: September 14, 2015 at 11:11 PM

          I'm with you guys. This article makes no sense. What loans (of any kind really) is he seeing banks make at <3%? Even a 5/1 ARM (with points) is over 3% and most loans are fixed rate anyway.

          reason said: September 15, 2015 at 12:19 AM

          Jorgensen

          I do not understand your magical faith in inflation arriving without stimulation.

          kbis said: September 15, 2015 at 01:13 AM

          Well I'm not very sure that commercial banks are intermediaries. Not anymore. They have a far bigger role in the financial landscape: money creation. There's no intermediation involved here, just leveraged money creation on the basis of the fractional reserve.
          That's a huge role, one that private off-bank lenders cannot do.

          bakho said: September 15, 2015 at 05:26 AM

          The Fed's "official" reasoning:

          "The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) judges that inflation at the rate of 2 percent (as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures, or PCE) is most consistent over the longer run with the Federal Reserve's mandate for price stability and maximum employment. Over time, a higher inflation rate would reduce the public's ability to make accurate longer-term economic and financial decisions. On the other hand, a lower inflation rate would be associated with an elevated probability of falling into deflation, which means prices and perhaps wages, on average, are falling--a phenomenon associated with very weak economic conditions. Having at least a small level of inflation makes it less likely that the economy will experience harmful deflation if economic conditions weaken. The FOMC implements monetary policy to help maintain an inflation rate of 2 percent over the medium term. "

          http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/economy_14400.htm

          I don't know why they think a higher inflation rate would make it harder to make long term decisions.

          bakho said: September 15, 2015 at 05:31 AM

          Here's Stanley Fisher:
          "It is important to keep inflation low enough so that people need not pay it any attention. At 2 percent annual inflation, a dollar loses half its value in about 36 years; at 4 percent inflation it takes about 18 years. When you start getting up to 4 percent inflation you begin to see signs of indexation coming back and a whole host of the inefficiencies and distortions. A 4 percent target a mistake."

          Rob said: September 15, 2015 at 05:33 AM

          "And commercial banks really do not want to sock their depositors with unexpected fees"

          BWAHAHAHAAHAHA!

          Wow Brad that is a good joke there! Of course banks use unexpected fees. Lock in with a bank is real. do you want to go and change your autopay every month? Banks compete for deposits on rates and "free" checking and then hit customers after lock in.

          bakho said: September 15, 2015 at 05:52 AM

          Two percent inflation might work if fiscal stimulus would reliably fill the output gap during steep recessions. Fiscal policy has proved unreliable and prone to making matters worse with austerity policy.

          Current policy seems to be driven by failed models and misinformation.

          Should the Fed make policy based on ideal fiscal policy? or the ugly reality of misguided fiscal policy?
          What are the odds of a candidate from the Clown Car stepping into the driver's seat for fiscal policy?

          bakho said: September 15, 2015 at 06:07 AM

          From Money, Banking and Financial Markets. By Laurence Ball

          Inflation and the Savings and Loan Crisis
          In the early 1960s* U.S. inflation rates averaged less than 2 percent per year. This situation appeared stable, so people expected low inflation to continue in the future. However, inflation rose rapidly in the lace 1960s and 1970s. Because actual inflation over this period was higher than expected, ex post real interest rates were lower than ex ante rates. In real terms, lenders received less from borrowers than they expected to receive when they made the loans.

          Losses to lenders were greatest for long-term loans, especially home mortgage. In 1965, the nominal interest rate on 30-year mortgage was less than 6 percent. This rate was locked in until 1995. Because inflation was expected to be less than 2 percent, the ex ante real interest rate was positive. However, the inflation rate averaged 7.8 percent over the 1970s, implying negative ex post rates.

          Negative real interest rates on mortgages were a great deal for homeowners. But they caused large losses for banks that specialized in mortgages, such as savings and loan associations. These losses were one reason for the so-called S&L crisis of the 1980s, when many savings and loans went bankrupt.

          The preceding case study illustrates a general point: uncertainty about inflation makes it risky to borrow or lend money. This is true for bank loans, and also when firms borrow by issuing bonds. In both cases, borrowers and lenders agree on a nominal interest rate but gamble on the ex post real rate. Borrowers win the gamble if inflation is higher than expected, and lenders win if inflation is lower than expected.

          Can borrowers and lenders avoid this gamble? One tool for reducing risk is inflation-indexed bonds. This type of bond guarantees a fixed ex post real interest rate. Unlike a traditional bond, it does not specify a nominal interest rate when it is issued. Instead, the nominal rate adjusts for inflation over the life of the bond, eliminating uncertainty about the real rate."

          After a decade of telling the markets that the interest rate would be 2%, the Fed does not want to change to a 4% target. ARMs and a move to 15 year largely solved the mortgage problem. However if the Fed wants tight control of the inflation rate, they can't do much about the unemployment rate unless fiscal policy cooperates. Fiscal policy has been not only uncooperative but in many cases in opposition to monetary policy.

          jorgensen -> reason: September 15, 2015 at 08:11 AM

          I don't want or expect inflation. I see no benefit flowing from inflation.

          Altoid -> jorgensen: September 15, 2015 at 09:51 AM

          If you have assets or non-fixed income, or if you're projecting returns from a capital investment, a slow and steady rise in the number that expresses the value means people can behave as though they expect larger numbers in the future. Expecting numbers that will grow, they're more likely to spend today's money on consumption goods and capital assets like houses, and more likely to make capital investments because they can project that the number used for today's investment will breed numbers that grow over whatever period they're planning for. Because people use nominal figures for almost everything in ordinary life, not real inflation-adjusted values, this tends to work.

          About 15 or so years ago the Guardian had an economic columnist, Will something iirc (Will Self? don't really remember at this point), who explained this very well. Its prime virtue is that it works in a modern economy to make people feel better and act in ways that add to measurable GDP. It's a utilitarian, not a moral, view.

          bakho -> jorgensen: September 15, 2015 at 10:59 AM

          Inflation requires wage inflation meaning both wages and prices go up.
          Deflation means downward pressure on sticky wages and sticky prices. Sticky wages mean that wages, do not deflate, instead, reduction in hours worked and increase in unemployment result. Sticky occur as businesses cannot sell below cost of production for long: price deflation leads to business failure. You want your economy managed so that relative wages and prices reset in the non-sticky direction: upward. This avoids recessions, high unemployment and broad business failure.
          Inflation must be high enough that an economic shock can be absorbed by upward relative price reset. Inflation - deflation is a continuum. All economists agree deflation should be avoided for obvious reasons. A rate of inflation that is too low is only marginally less bad than deflation.
          jorgensen -> Altoid: September 15, 2015 at 11:34 AM
          An economic policy designed to trick the middle class into over spending and under saving (by confusing nominal and real gains) is a recipe for long run disaster.

          To some extent since 2007 we have been reaping the consequences of that policy as carried out since 1980.

          jorgensen -> bakho: September 15, 2015 at 11:39 AM

          I'm in private business. In my world overall wages and prices are adjustable downward at a rate of at least two percent a year. High cost employees retire or rotate out to other jobs. Companies with high cost structures re-organize or go bankrupt and are replaced by companies with lower cost structures. There is enough natural churn in the market that downward stickiness is at worst a short term phenomenon. We are 8 years into this downturn. Downward stickiness is not the problem.

          To believe that downward sticky wages are so big a problem as to justify inflation you have to believe that there are a material number of workers who are materially over-paid at the moment and whose real wages should be cut but who do not have the bargaining power to protect themselves from inflation.

          jorgensen -> jorgensen: September 15, 2015 at 11:41 AM

          sorry I should have added: If you believe in downward sticky wages then you should be able to identify the groups of workers whose real wages should be cut and could effectively be cut through inflation.

          Thomas More said... September 15, 2015 at 03:33 PM

          As a neoliberal technocrat, Brad DeLong naturally thinks of bankers as rational specimens of homo oeconomicus. Alas, bankers (like everyone in a real economy) does not act rationally in the way DeLong expects.

          Bankers act perfectly rationally, but in ways DeLong and Krugman et al. do not expect. A banker observes that in the last epochal economic crash, the government bailed out all the biggest banks and refused to prosecute any bankers for fraud. The banker therefore rationally calculates that fraud represents an excellent business model, since it socializes all the risk of running a bank and privatizes all the profit. Moreover, since the government refuses to send bankers to prison for fraud, there's no social risk as well as no economic risk.

          Consequently your typical banker finds it much more profitable to engage in control fraud today rather than the old boring business of making sensible loans at low interest to customers who are likely to pay the money back. Identifying good credit risks in a depressed economy takes a lot of work, and the result even if successful is low profits -- a squeezed profit margin of circa 300 basis points or less, as DeLong points out. But why settle for a measley 0.3% or 0.2% or less profit, when you can make 20% or 30% or 60% profit with no economic risk and no real risk of being indicted?

          The way you make 20% or 30% or 60% as banker in 2015, obviously, is to buy up large numbers of foreclosed liar-loan houses and apartment buildings and then rent them out. Since most people can't afford a home today because they're got rotten credit and are burdened down with debt from the financial crash, rents are inflated in 2015. The bankers then aggregate speculative financial instruments based on these inflated rents and the inflated valuations of the homes and apartment buildings they've bought, and issue those speculative financial instruments as investment vehicles to a gullible public and other financial institutions desperate for decent returns on their investment capital. These bogus junk-quality financial instruments made up of shares in aggregated foreclosed properties generate income which is then used to buy more overvalued foreclosed properties which can be rented out in inflated prices, which then generate more bogus securities which then generate more income...and so on. In short, you get a vicious cycle and a real estate bubble 2.0, but this time based on buying and renting out foreclosed properties with money borrowed from investors based on fraudulent securities. As opposed to real estate bubble 1.0 -- which was based on buying and selling mortgages for newly-built homes with money borrow from investors based on fraudulent securities like CDOs etc.

          Bankers in 2015 are behaving perfectly rationally and they understand with pellucid clarity the interests of their class. They simply are doing so in ways that neoliberal technocrats like Brad DeLong can't fathom, because bankers in 2015 are continuing the very profitable control fraud of real estate bubble 1.0...but by slightly different means (renting foreclosed properties, rather then mortgaging newly built properties). The bankers correctly deduce that there is no financial or criminal penalty for this kind of control fraud, since neither Bush nor Obama showed the slightest interest in prosecuting bankers for their role in robosigning fraud in real estate bubble 1.0. And when the whole ponzi scheme goes bust this time, the government will step in and bail the banks out. In the meantime, the bankers are making bank (all puns intended) on all those fees and that sweet, sweet income stream generated from all those fake liar-loaned forelosed properties being rented out.

          So why wouldn't a banker choose to make 20% or 40% or 60% by spewing out liar-loan investment instruments based on foreclosed overvalued properties that are supposedly going to rise in value limitlessly while the rents increase every year without bound? Why would a banker ever settle for a mere 300 basis points return?
          Brad DeLong, like so many neoliberal economists, is book-smart, but not street-smart when it comes to these matters.

          Richard said: September 15, 2015 at 03:39 PM

          Graydon: I'm sorry, you're wrong. Banks make their money off of the spread, loans, and markets. Fees are a negligible amount of income.

          Brad:
          One: banks are long duration/fixed income assets. Most mortgages are fixed rate mortgages. What happens to the value of a fixed rate loan when inflation or interest rates move up? What about mortgage production?
          Two: bank executives are rich. There's no reason personally for them to cheer for inflation.

          That said, yes, an upward sloping yield curve is a commercial banker's best friend.

          In any case, I haven't seen much sentiment about rates one way or the other. Commercial banks, from what I've see, are fairly subdued about rates. The increase in regulation is another matter.

          Altoid -> jorgensen: September 15, 2015 at 08:15 PM

          So, the business world has no problem with deflation because, even though there's a consistent and ongoing squeeze between what's paid at the front end for something and what can be realized at sale time later as the secular nominal price level falls, the difference can always be made up by cutting labor costs?

          I'm having trouble understanding what the desired state is: deflation, or neither deflation nor inflation but neutrality? If neutrality is the target, we know how to dampen inflation-- by raising interest rates the requisite amount. In times of deflation, how do we move out of that toward neutrality without mirror-image negative interest rates that make people pay to hold cash? Isn't there an asymmetry? What happens then?

          ezra abrams -> Richard...

          Richard, methinks it is you who is wrong on fees
          http://www.nubank.com/downloads/ep_4qtr2004_part3_DeYoung_Rice.pdf

          but maybe above is outdated, see
          http://www.wsj.com/articles/banks-fee-bonanza-dries-up-1409699980

          [Sep 25, 2015] Paul Krugman Dewey, Cheatem Howe

          The point is we should be trying to make our regulation more intelligent (making it encourage not discourage innovation - cheaper and easier to police - less subject to regulatory capture etc.
          "... So what has been happening lately is an attempt to redress that imbalance, to replace knee-jerk opposition to regulation with the judicious use of regulation where there is good reason to believe that businesses might act in destructive ways. Will we see this effort continue? Next year's election will tell. ..."
          "... That is brilliant - so Turing Pharmaceuticals is a classical - wait for it - parasitic infection! ..."
          "... The point is we should be trying to make our regulation more intelligent (making it encourage not discourage innovation - cheaper and easier to police - less subject to regulatory capture etc.). ..."
          "... The reality is that, in the absence of effective regulation with substantial penalties, all of the incentives are to lie, cheat, and steal. In consequence, it really is the norm, if only in more minor ways than the ones that make the headlines. Wage theft, fraud, knowingly selling defective merchandise, and many other abuses are clearly rampant. This is exactly why markets cannot exist in the absence of effective government regulation to provide trust. ..."
          "... Economic idealists have popularized the notion that the world can work without much regulations because their models tell them so. Unless they are behavioral economists, they often fail to include fraud, scams & information asymmetry into their models. This produces garbage like efficient markets that only exist in an idealistic dream world. The real world markets are filled with fraud, scams and disreputable agents. Failure to account for bad behavior is the bane of many a model. ..."
          "... But I love Obama because he has created a wonderland of money for lawyers and consultants, a river of chocolate and honey to make Willy Wonka jealous. Go Barry go! ..."
          "...


          ..."

          Sep 25, 2015 | Economist's View
          Republicans can't help but side with business, but there are very good reasons for the recent increase in regulatory oversight:
          Dewey, Cheatem & Howe, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Item: The C.E.O. of Volkswagen has resigned after revelations that his company committed fraud on an epic scale, installing software on its diesel cars that detected when their emissions were being tested, and produced deceptively low results.

          Item: The former president of a peanut company has been sentenced to 28 years in prison for knowingly shipping tainted products that later killed nine people and sickened 700.

          Item: Rights to a drug used to treat parasitic infections were acquired by Turing Pharmaceuticals, which specializes not in developing new drugs but in buying existing drugs and jacking up their prices. In this case, the price went from $13.50 a tablet to $750. ...

          There are, it turns out, people in the corporate world who will do whatever it takes, including fraud that kills people, in order to make a buck. And we need effective regulation to police that kind of bad behavior... But we knew that, right?

          Well, we used to know it... But ... an important part of America's political class has declared war on even the most obviously necessary regulations. ...

          A case in point: This week Jeb Bush, who has an uncanny talent for bad timing, chose to publish an op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal denouncing the Obama administration for issuing "a flood of creativity-crushing and job-killing rules." Never mind his misuse of cherry-picked statistics, or the fact that private-sector employment has grown much faster under President Obama's "job killing" policies than it did under Mr. Bush's brother's administration. ...

          The thing is, Mr. Bush isn't wrong to suggest that there has been a move back toward more regulation under Mr. Obama, a move that will probably continue if a Democrat wins next year. After all, Hillary Clinton released a plan to limit drug prices at the same time Mr. Bush was unleashing his anti-regulation diatribe.

          But the regulatory rebound is taking place for a reason. Maybe we had too much regulation in the 1970s, but we've now spent 35 years trusting business to do the right thing with minimal oversight - and it hasn't worked.

          So what has been happening lately is an attempt to redress that imbalance, to replace knee-jerk opposition to regulation with the judicious use of regulation where there is good reason to believe that businesses might act in destructive ways. Will we see this effort continue? Next year's election will tell.

          reason

          "Item: Rights to a drug used to treat parasitic infections were acquired by Turing Pharmaceuticals, which specializes not in developing new drugs but in buying existing drugs and jacking up their prices. In this case, the price went from $13.50 a tablet to $750. ..."

          That is brilliant - so Turing Pharmaceuticals is a classical - wait for it - parasitic infection!

          reason

          "So what has been happening lately is an attempt to redress that imbalance, to replace knee-jerk opposition to regulation with the judicious use of regulation where there is good reason to believe that businesses might act in destructive ways. Will we see this effort continue? Next year's election will tell."

          Personally, I don't think this is really addressing the key point. You can't actually avoid regulation (the alternative to public regulation - as pushed by say Milton Friedman - ends up being private regulation - which is just as subject to regulatory capture). The point is we should be trying to make our regulation more intelligent (making it encourage not discourage innovation - cheaper and easier to police - less subject to regulatory capture etc.). The policy discussions about this a difficult enough with good faith - but bad faith politics makes this impossible. We need to throw the Gingrich revolution in the dustbin as soon as possible.

          RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to reason...

          YEP!

          What politicians can get away with is an artifact of the limited toolset that the electorate has to express its informed will. We need a well educated democracy and the democratic part of that requires Constitutional electoral reforms (e.g., gerrymandering, campaign finance). A bit of the educational aspect of a voting actually democratic republic would naturally work itself out with a more engaged and empowered electorate participating ACTIVELY.

          With the system as it is then it takes a shock wave through the electorate for them to throw the bums out, but there is no follow through. There is a failsafe reaction function, but no more than that except on specific social issues that get overwhelming support where politicians can move with the electoral majority at zero cost while reactionary politicians can triangulate and pander some votes from the minority opinion of those too old or set in their ways to participate in the social sea change.

          ilsm said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

          The threat is "faith voters", dogma developed by billionaires' propaganda to plunder the world.

          DrDick said in reply to reason...

          Krugman is far too kind to the businessmen. The reality is that, in the absence of effective regulation with substantial penalties, all of the incentives are to lie, cheat, and steal. In consequence, it really is the norm, if only in more minor ways than the ones that make the headlines. Wage theft, fraud, knowingly selling defective merchandise, and many other abuses are clearly rampant. This is exactly why markets cannot exist in the absence of effective government regulation to provide trust.

          DeDude said in reply to reason...

          Exactly; what we need is a detailed debate on each specific regulation. What it intends to accomplish, whether that could be accomplished in a less burdensome way, and whether the accomplishment is sufficient to justify the burden. However, that is not something that can happen in the 15 second soundbite that appears to be the attention span of the average voter.

          Lee A. Arnold said in reply to Second Best...

          Second Best: "Markets work if allowed to self regulate."

          No. Never happened, except in local instances. For self-regulation you need proper prices, and for proper prices you need proper supply and demand.

          For proper supply you need perfect competition, so there must be numerous competitors entering the same market, and this requires, among other things, almost no intellectual protection.

          For proper demand, you need perfectly informed consumers, and this is not only impossible, but it is getting far far worse, because the complexity of the world is increasing.

          The problem with state regulation is that it also falls prey to the same objections, although at a slower rate. We use votes not prices, but the same imperfection of information and lack of flexibility causes problems with the voting system.

          When you combine this problem with the increase in inequality (which was masked temporarily by World War II and the subsequent spurt of blue-collar jobs productivity), we are headed into an accelerated amelioration of the market system by greater public ownership.


          RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Lee A. Arnold...

          "Peanut butter does not kill people, people kill people."

          [If you can read a opening sentence like that and not recognize it as satirical parody, then you might want to look around to find the sense of humor that you lost. When the will of the people is no more than a euphemism for dollar democracy then parody, satire, sarcasm, and a healthy dose of cynicism are called for.]

          JF said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron..

          Lee A Arnold - Think Jonathan Swift and his piece about the way to reduce subsidies for the orphaned poor infants, it is to reduce their number so we feel good about the fact that we help the few poor infants left alive.

          I reacted a few times to Second Best's comments before I recognized the satire.

          But I also have used his comments as a way to bring out the more logical, real-world of facts and rationality - so commentary helps either way. I suppose that serves 2nd Best's interests too.

          JF said in reply to JF...

          I believe the Jonathan Swift recommendations are the preferred republican-party approach to Social Security too. Really need fewer claimants, that will solve the accounting problems.

          RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Second Best...

          "Peanut butter does not kill people, people kill people. Car emissions do not kill people ... high drug prices do not kill people ... people do."

          [This is an economics blog. You cannot be that "subtle (???)" and expect people to recognize your satire. Maybe there is a humorous math equation that economists can understand. I guess economics graduate school is so boring that most people lose all sense of humor. I am glad that Krugman has kept his.]

          Richard H. Serlin said...

          "Then there's for-profit education, an industry wracked by fraud - because it's very hard for students to assess what they're getting - that leaves all too many young Americans with heavy debt burdens and no real prospect of better jobs. But Mr. Bush denounces attempts at a cleanup."

          And worse, wasting their incredibly valuable and rare young years, quite possibly their only chance before age and children make it extremely hard, not getting an education. Such a big thing. You don't do it when you're young, with the power and freedom and lack of dependents of youth, the opportunity may easily be gone forever. Such a brutal cost these predators and their Republican allies extract.

          RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Richard H. Serlin...

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_tuition_in_the_United_States

          Cost shifting and privatization

          One cause of increased tuition is the reduction of state and federal appropriations to state colleges, causing the institutions to shift the cost over to students in the form of higher tuition. State support for public colleges and universities has fallen by about 26 percent per full-time student since the early 1990s.[10] In 2011, for the first time, American public universities took in more revenue from tuition than state funding.[9][11] Critics say the shift from state support to tuition represents an effective privatization of public higher education.[11][12] About 80 percent of American college students attend public institutions...

          bakho said...

          Economics Professors of the "free market" bent for years have indoctrinated youth with the misguided notion that "regulations are bad" and market methods, no matter how RubeGoldberg, are always better. " You don't need to regulate pollution, just put a tax on it," as an example. Even cap and trade would not work without stiff emissions regulations.

          Economic idealists have popularized the notion that the world can work without much regulations because their models tell them so. Unless they are behavioral economists, they often fail to include fraud, scams & information asymmetry into their models. This produces garbage like efficient markets that only exist in an idealistic dream world. The real world markets are filled with fraud, scams and disreputable agents. Failure to account for bad behavior is the bane of many a model.

          ilsm said in reply to bakho...

          Sanctity of the "market"......

          I got a jar of this snake oil here too!

          The market they sell is the one that runs in Honduras

          Tom aka Rusty said...

          A couple of random observations:

          Last time I looked about 150 Dodd-Frank regs had not been written yet, some of the key ACA regs are three years late.

          Obama-ites have written some of the most complex, convoluted regs of the past 40 years, the health EMR regs have practically guaranteed a windfall for IT companies and a failure for EMR/EHR.

          No mention of the Obama-Holder "too big to prosecute doctrine."

          The new overtime regs will likely be in the "driving thumb tacks with a sledge hammer" mode.

          But I love Obama because he has created a wonderland of money for lawyers and consultants, a river of chocolate and honey to make Willy Wonka jealous. Go Barry go!

          pgl said in reply to kthomas...

          Rusty wants us to believe he is the only one who understands health care so he is a persistent critic of ObamaCare. But now he wants to pretend he's the expert on financial markets too? Seriously? Dodd-Frank is complicated only because the Jamie Dimons of the world milk every opportunity to game financial markets. If Rusty thinks letting Jamie Dimon evade any financial market regulation is a good idea - he is the most clue person ever.

          DrDick said in reply to pgl...

          He was just trying to do us a favor and demonstrate exactly what is meant by "knee-jerk opposition to regulation ."

          JF said in reply to Tom aka Rusty...

          Have you ever looked at the multi-party derived hedging instruments in play now - they can hardly get more complex, and indeed most didn't understand them when they were made, and these are still complex now.

          So I have to say, that the 'marketplace' makes Krugman's point about complexity. It comes from humans cunningly doing stuff that serves their interests at the time as they see it. Not always wisdom at work here.

          But it is complex, and so regulation of such complexity, if the generally applicable rules seek some fairness (classes of people are usually affected differently) and stands a test of due process too - the regulations will also need to be complex. The complexity came first, the regulations come afterwards (after society learns of the stupidity the hard way).

          Railing about this is a form of misleading sophistry, a rhetorical device to reverse the causality.

          We can think with more foresight and regulate before the stupid complexity arises, but it does take a rational policy making environment for this exploration, discussion and policy-making to occur with good foresight - I am waiting for the new Congress in 2017.

          If the Warren-Sanders people have any influence then, we may see a whole lot less complex financial system (it's a riot when you think how the Efficient Market Hypothesis, a theoretical justification for the marketplace's range of instruments in fact led to more complexity, less real efficiency and effectiveness, and ossification of the system when it needed to be resilient but stable as a well-behaved system can be).

          We will probably be better off after the 2017 debates. After all, this community of actors are only intermediaries on behalf of real productive outcomes truly needed by society - right, they are just intermediaries? How much inter-mediation does the economy need?

          david s said...

          The Obama Administration has been friendlier to corporate America than W's was.

          http://theweek.com/speedreads/454963/matt-taibbi-bush-far-tougher-than-obama-corporate-america

          im1dc said...

          While it was Ronald Reagan and his Republican Party that called for deregulation not much was done until Alan Greenspan, then Chairman of the Federal Reserve, gave federal deregulation his blessing in speeches from NY to Aspen to California in which he said "the market" will reign in excesses and regulate itself b/c of competition acting egregiously would create.

          Oopsie, Old Alan got it ALL WRONG again!

          I thought a little history would help in this thread.

          likbez said...

          My impression is that regulation always reflects the needs of who is in power today. One the key ingredients of political power is the ability to push the laws that benefit particular constituent. And to block laws that don't.

          If we assume that financial oligarchy is in power today, then it is clear that there can be no effective regulation of financial services and by extension regulation of derivatives. And if on the wave of public indignation such regulation is adopted, it will be gradually watered down and then eliminated down the road.

          And you can always hire people who will justify your point of view.

          In this sense neither Milton Friedman nor Greenspan were independent players. They sold themselves for money and were promoted into positions they have for specific purpose. I am not sure the either of them believed the crap they speak or wrote.


          [Sep 25, 2015] Big Business Is Economic Cancer, Part I Zero Hedge

          It is under state capitalism that TBTF can't exists. Under neoliberalism they rule the country, so the question about cutting their political power of dismantling them is simply naive. Nobody give political power without a fight.
          "... Today, with governments which are nothing but literally the junior partners (of Big Business) in government-by-crime-syndicate, these laws might as well no longer exist, as they are practically never enforced. Indeed, an entity must be a political/economic pariah, or simply lacking "connections" if it is unable to sneak some merger or take-over past our totally compliant governments, and their fast-asleep "regulators". ..."
          "... There could never be an economic system, or economic argument where "too big to fail" could ever be a rational/legitimate policy. Put another way, no level of short-term economic harm or shock could possibly equal the long-term harm (and insanity) of institutionalized blackmail – which is all that "too big to fail" ever was/is. You must protect us, no matter what we do, no matter what the cost. Utter insanity. Utter criminality. ..."
          "... An oligopoly is where a small group of companies dominate/control an entire market or sector. Here it is important to understand that oligopolies are every bit as "evil" as monopolies (in every way), but the oligopoly puts a happy-face on this evil. Oligopolies represent pretend competition. ..."
          "... But such corporate extortion via oligopolies/monopolies is certainly not confined to the banking sector. The Oligarchs engage in such extortion (against corrupt governments which require absolutely no arm-twisting) in virtually every sector of our economies, but generally in not quite as extreme a form as what is perpetrated by the Big Banks. ..."
          "... Read Schumpeter beginning to end. He recognized the evolution of increasingly larger-scale, boom-and-bust "capitalism" from free-enterprise, entrepreneurial capitalism to industrial capitalism and eventually to various forms of state-capitalism, corporate-statism, or quasi-fascism we have today, or what I refer to as militarist-imperialist, rentier-socialist, or Anglo-American corporate-state. ..."
          Sep 25, 2015 | www.zerohedge.com

          Today, with governments which are nothing but literally the junior partners (of Big Business) in government-by-crime-syndicate, these laws might as well no longer exist, as they are practically never enforced. Indeed, an entity must be a political/economic pariah, or simply lacking "connections" if it is unable to sneak some merger or take-over past our totally compliant governments, and their fast-asleep "regulators".

          Today we have corporate monoliths which are literally orders of magnitude larger than any remotely "optimal" size, with the ultimate and most-obvious examples being those hideously bloated financial behemoths which we now know as "the Big Banks". How ridiculously too-big have the Big Banks gotten?

          Even the most-ardent admirer of the Big Banks in the entire media world, Bloomberg, couldn't stop itself from openly salivating about how much "profit" could be had, just by beginning to chop-down the financial fraud-factory which we know as JPMorgan Chase & Co.:

          JPMorgan Chase & Co, the biggest U.S. bank by assets, would be worth 30 percent more if broken into its four business segments, an unlikely scenario, an analyst at Stifel Financial Corp.'s KBW unit said.

          Note that there is not one word in the article indicating that there couldn't be a lot more profit to be made, by then smashing those pieces into much smaller pieces still. This article simply pointed to the instant profit of 30% which would be available just by beginning to chop-down this obscenely large behemoth, and in the simplest manner possible.

          Why would "smaller" be much more valuable, in our forward-looking markets, in the case of smashing JPMorgan down-to-size (or at least beginning that process)? Obviously a major portion of that profit quotient would have to be derived from greater efficiency. Smaller is better.

          However, pointing out that even the greatest admirer/biggest cheerleader of the Big Banks has observed how we would all be better off if the Big Banks were smaller is only a start. We then come to the heinous propaganda which the cheerleaders (including Bloomberg) have dubbed "too big to fail".

          This is a very simple subject. "Too big to fail" is a pseudo-concept which is entirely antithetical to any economic system which even pretends to adhere to the principles of "free markets". Free markets demand that insolvent entities fail, it is the only way for such free markets to heal, when weakened by the misallocation of assets (such as in the case of insolvent enterprises). No business, or group of businesses could ever be "too big to fail".

          There could never be an economic system, or economic argument where "too big to fail" could ever be a rational/legitimate policy. Put another way, no level of short-term economic harm or shock could possibly equal the long-term harm (and insanity) of institutionalized blackmail – which is all that "too big to fail" ever was/is. You must protect us, no matter what we do, no matter what the cost. Utter insanity. Utter criminality.

          Understand that our own, corrupt governments embarked upon this criminal insanity long after the equally criminalized government of Japan already proved that too-big-to-fail was a failed policy. Not only could there never be an argument in favor of this criminality, our governments knew it would fail before they ever rubber-stamped this systemic corruption.

          But all of these arguments against the insanity of perverting and skewing our economies in favor of Big Business, and against Small Business pale into insignificance compared to the principal condemnation of too-Big Business: the economic "cannibals" known as monopolies and oligopolies.

          For readers unfamiliar with these terms because the Corporate media and charlatan economists try to pretend that these words don't exist, a brief refresher is in order. As most readers know, a monopoly is where a single enterprise effectively controls an entire market or sector. While a "monopoly" may be desirable when playing a board-game, in the real world these parasitic entities do nothing but blood-suck, from any/every economy they are able to "corner".

          However, the majority of people, even today, are at least partially familiar with the evils of monopolies, thus the ultra-wealthy Oligarchs rarely attempt to perpetrate their systemic theft via these corporate fronts. Instead, they perpetrate most of their organized crime via oligopolies.

          An oligopoly is where a small group of companies dominate/control an entire market or sector. Here it is important to understand that oligopolies are every bit as "evil" as monopolies (in every way), but the oligopoly puts a happy-face on this evil. Oligopolies represent pretend competition.

          These corporate fronts cooperate as closely as possible in systemically plundering economies. How do monopolies/oligopolies rob from us? The "old-fashioned" way for these blood-suckers to do so was via simple price-gouging. When you have complete control over a sector/market, you can charge any price you want.

          However, not surprisingly, the Little People tend to notice when the Oligarchs use their corporate fronts to engage in simple price-gouging. They actually begin to notice the general evil which oligopolies/monopolies represent, and that is "bad for business" (i.e. crime).

          Instead, the Oligarch Thieves of the 21st century engage in their robbery-by-corporation in a different, more sophisticated/less-visible manner: via corporate welfare. What other crime can monopolies and oligopolies perpetrate, with overwhelming success? Naked extortion.

          As previously explained; "too-big-to-fail" (and now even "too big to jail") is nothing but the most-obvious and most-despicable form of corporate extortion (or simply economic terrorism): give us all the money we want, or we'll blow up the financial sector. Small banks could never perpetrate such a crime (terrorism).

          But such corporate extortion via oligopolies/monopolies is certainly not confined to the banking sector. The Oligarchs engage in such extortion (against corrupt governments which require absolutely no arm-twisting) in virtually every sector of our economies, but generally in not quite as extreme a form as what is perpetrated by the Big Banks.

          Typically, the extortion which precedes even more Corporate welfare, occurs in this form: give us everything we want, or we will close our factory/business, and you will (temporarily) lose those jobs. Here we don't need to imagine this in the hypothetical, as we have a particularly blatant example of such Corporate extortion/welfare, courtesy of U.S. Steel:

          U.S. Steel Canada Inc. is threatening to cease operations in Canada by the end of the year if an Ontario Superior Court judge rejects its request to stop paying municipal taxes, halt payments into pension funds, and cut off health care and other benefits to 20,000 retirees and their dependents. [emphasis mine]

          ... ... ...

          kanoli

          Like most of Jeff Nielson's rants, this one is nonsensical. If small business hires more people to produce the same product or service as a big business, they cannot do so at the same or lower price unless they are paying a lower wage.

          The problem with big business isn't that it is big - it is their tendency to lobby government for regulations that stifle small business competitors.

          If politicians were not for sale, it wouldn't matter whether a business is big or small. Neither would have undue influence on the law.

          The problem is regulatory democracy where all laws are constantly subject to fiddling by an elected legislature.

          Element

          In practice a balanced mix of all sized businesses are necessary in a planetary civilization that trades products globally. Getting the mix 'right' and not having big business get away with preventing competition, or of govt throttling to skim and micro-control is most of the deleterious effect on business, and on human beings in general.

          Unfortunately humans have been trained to like Logos, and to buy 'wants' accordingly.

          iDroned on a bit,

          2c

          newnormaleconomics

          Read Schumpeter beginning to end. He recognized the evolution of increasingly larger-scale, boom-and-bust "capitalism" from free-enterprise, entrepreneurial capitalism to industrial capitalism and eventually to various forms of state-capitalism, corporate-statism, or quasi-fascism we have today, or what I refer to as militarist-imperialist, rentier-socialist, or Anglo-American corporate-state.

          The current state of the evolution of "capitalism" is its advanced, late-stage, financialized, globalized phase.

          With Peak Oil, population overshoot, unprecedented debt to wages and GDP, Limits to Growth, climate change, a record low for labor share, decelerating productivity, OBSCENE wealth and income inequality, and increasing geopolitical tensions, growth of real GDP per capita is done, which means that growth of profits, investment, and capital formation/accumulation is done, which in turn means "capitalism" is done.

          ... ... ...

          [Sep 25, 2015] If a counterparty liquidates, net exposure becomes gross,"

          "... A Glencore spokesperson said: "Regardless of the business environment, Glencore is helping fulfil global demand by getting the commodities that are needed to the places that need them most." ..."
          "... unfriendly ..."
          Sep 25, 2015 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

          abynormal September 24, 2015 at 8:12 pm

          "This is the best recovery in all recorded history." Lambert

          Is GS preparing to Sacrifice the next Lehman (at zh find it yourselves')
          short list:
          It goes without saying that courtesy of HFTs and China's hard landing, a 5% drop in commodities could happen overnight.

          So if one is so inclined, and puts on the conspiracy theory hat mentioned at the beginning of this post, Goldman may have just laid out the strawman for the next mega bailout which goes roughly as follows:

          ** Commodity prices drop another 5%
          ** The rating agencies get a tap on their shoulder and downgrade Glencore to Junk.
          ** Waterfall cascade of margin and collateral calls promptly liquidates Glencore's trading desk and depletes the company's cash, leaving trillions of derivative contracts in limbo. Always remember: the strongest collateral chain is only as strong as its weakest conterparty. If a counterparty liquidates, net exposure becomes gross, and suddenly everyone starts wondering where all those "physical" commodities are.
          ** Contagion spreads as self-reinforcing commodities collapse launches deflationary shock wave around the globe.
          ** Fed and global central banks are called in to come up with a "more powerful" form of stimulus
          ** The money paradrop scenario proposed by Citigroup yesterday, becomes reality

          Too far-fetched? Perhaps. But keep an eye out for a Glencore downgrade from Investment Grade. If that happens, it may be a good time to quietly get out of Dodge for the time being. Just in case.
          **********************************************
          i did a 4th course on Hunger http://marketwatch666.blogspot.com/2012/11/hunger-4th-course.html (scroll down to bold red, can't miss the Glen history that we WILL NOW BE BACKSTOPPING)
          A Glencore spokesperson said: "Regardless of the business environment, Glencore is helping fulfil global demand by getting the commodities that are needed to the places that need them most."

          craazyboy September 24, 2015 at 8:22 pm

          " If a counterparty liquidates, net exposure becomes gross,"

          This is the really, really important concept. Whenever someone mentions our $600 Trillion in global derivatives, Wall Street pipes up and says that is NOMINAL. It NETS out to ZERO (minus fees).

          But yeah if the chain breaks, it is really two halves, $300 Trillion a piece. Which I think someone recently estimated is 1.5 times the dollar value of the planet. (just the $300T half) Which has me wondering where the regulators went to accounting school. But I never took accounting, so maybe it's me that's mixed up.

          abynormal September 24, 2015 at 9:33 pm

          i forgot most of my Glencore 411 is in the comments following the post…i don't think the swiss are prepared for this 'issue'

          craazyboy September 24, 2015 at 10:37 pm

          Yeah, I see you've been following this fine company for some time now. Sure, they are bigger than Swissistan. What's to worry?

          craazyboy September 24, 2015 at 8:55 pm

          Just read the full ZH article.

          The only thing I'd point out is our sophisticated financiers always say don't wait for the rating agency downgrade – because they are always last to make a move.

          Other than that, sounds about right.

          Other thing I remember in 2008 was Goldman increased broker margin requirements maybe a month or two before Lehman.

          abynormal September 24, 2015 at 9:19 pm

          ck back i got a post waiting with a link that's unfriendly…don't know why IT'S THE BIS DOT ORG…my netbk should blow up any sec

          [Sep 25, 2015] Why Dont Commercial Bankers Understand the Interests of Their Class Fraction

          " ...As a neoliberal technocrat, Brad DeLong naturally thinks of bankers as rational specimens of homo oeconomicus. Alas, bankers (like everyone in a real economy) does not act rationally in the way DeLong expects."
          " ...A banker observes that in the last epochal economic crash, the government bailed out all the biggest banks and refused to prosecute any bankers for fraud. The banker therefore rationally calculates that fraud represents an excellent business model, since it socializes all the risk of running a bank and privatizes all the profit. Moreover, since the government refuses to send bankers to prison for fraud, there's no social risk as well as no economic risk."
          Sep 25, 2015 | www.bradford-delong.com
          Cervantes said: September 14, 2015 at 11:23 AM
          Well, I'm just a medical sociologist, so what do I know, but my bank essentially pays zero interest on deposits and charges 4.5% interest on mortgages. So they seem to be in a perfectly good place as far as I can tell.

          BruceJ -> Cervantes: September 14, 2015 at 11:48 AM

          Beat me to it. My savings interest rate is 0.1%. The bank's (actually a credit union) current 30-year mortgage rate is 4.125%, inflation right now is 0.2%. (so in real world terms I'm losing money daily on my "savings").

          By my admittedly non-R-programmed mere fingermath calculations they're making 412.5- 3=409.5 basis points on those loans, comfortably above their 300 point bar. They may not be maximizing their profits, but they're making them, and playing safe to boot.

          And so long as the 0.01% have a stranglehold on profits and wages, inflation isn't going anywhere, except, of course, for yachts and Picassos.

          Of course so long as the 0.01% have that stranglehold, not much of anything is going anywhere.

          jorgensen said: September 14, 2015 at 12:13 PM

          I do not understand Brad's faith in the magical ability of inflation to stimulate the economy.

          Jerry Brown said: September 14, 2015 at 01:57 PM

          To the extent that commercial bankers are able to exploit their very special access to the Federal Reserve, they are most certainly rentiers. At least if I am understanding that term correctly.

          Michael Finn said: September 14, 2015 at 03:55 PM

          `Brad, I don't think you get that a lot these people are not rational. These are people who think that as soon as inflation starts up then the entire bill of treasuries that the Fed has will come due.

          They actually do believe in Glenn Beck and the rest of the psychos. A man that I knew who owns several million ft^2 of timber that got rid of it because he thought inflation was coming. He liquidated everything he had and I haven't seen him since.

          These people are probably not the majority of their clients but they are definitely the LOUDEST.

          Graydon said: September 14, 2015 at 06:41 PM

          They certainly are part of the rentier class. They didn't used to be, and they shouldn't be, but iron and gold they are today.

          Banks make their money on fees; the interest rate spreads are a mere bagatelle. This is a consequence of deregulation more than it's a consequence of electronic transaction technologies.

          It's pretty darn near the power to tax; banks get a cut of the entire economy because they get at least a couple percent every time money changes hands. (Look at Square's pitch to merchants -- a consistent two-point-something percent rate for clearing credit card transactions. The bank version goes up to 10%.)

          As long as that's true, the zero lower bound is annoying, but it doesn't really affect profitability. Profitability is guaranteed by the existence of an economy.

          Graydon -> Graydon: September 14, 2015 at 06:45 PM

          And I note that it purely doesn't matter what the fees are as long as the banks don't significantly vary among themselves as to what the fees should be.

          That is, there isn't a market for commercial banking services. There's an ostensibly informal cartel.

          Max Rockbin -> BruceJ: September 14, 2015 at 11:11 PM

          I'm with you guys. This article makes no sense. What loans (of any kind really) is he seeing banks make at <3%? Even a 5/1 ARM (with points) is over 3% and most loans are fixed rate anyway.

          reason said: September 15, 2015 at 12:19 AM

          Jorgensen

          I do not understand your magical faith in inflation arriving without stimulation.

          kbis said: September 15, 2015 at 01:13 AM

          Well I'm not very sure that commercial banks are intermediaries. Not anymore. They have a far bigger role in the financial landscape: money creation. There's no intermediation involved here, just leveraged money creation on the basis of the fractional reserve.
          That's a huge role, one that private off-bank lenders cannot do.

          bakho said: September 15, 2015 at 05:26 AM

          The Fed's "official" reasoning:

          "The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) judges that inflation at the rate of 2 percent (as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures, or PCE) is most consistent over the longer run with the Federal Reserve's mandate for price stability and maximum employment. Over time, a higher inflation rate would reduce the public's ability to make accurate longer-term economic and financial decisions. On the other hand, a lower inflation rate would be associated with an elevated probability of falling into deflation, which means prices and perhaps wages, on average, are falling--a phenomenon associated with very weak economic conditions. Having at least a small level of inflation makes it less likely that the economy will experience harmful deflation if economic conditions weaken. The FOMC implements monetary policy to help maintain an inflation rate of 2 percent over the medium term. "

          http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/economy_14400.htm

          I don't know why they think a higher inflation rate would make it harder to make long term decisions.

          bakho said: September 15, 2015 at 05:31 AM

          Here's Stanley Fisher:
          "It is important to keep inflation low enough so that people need not pay it any attention. At 2 percent annual inflation, a dollar loses half its value in about 36 years; at 4 percent inflation it takes about 18 years. When you start getting up to 4 percent inflation you begin to see signs of indexation coming back and a whole host of the inefficiencies and distortions. A 4 percent target a mistake."

          Rob said: September 15, 2015 at 05:33 AM

          "And commercial banks really do not want to sock their depositors with unexpected fees"

          BWAHAHAHAAHAHA!

          Wow Brad that is a good joke there! Of course banks use unexpected fees. Lock in with a bank is real. do you want to go and change your autopay every month? Banks compete for deposits on rates and "free" checking and then hit customers after lock in.

          bakho said: September 15, 2015 at 05:52 AM

          Two percent inflation might work if fiscal stimulus would reliably fill the output gap during steep recessions. Fiscal policy has proved unreliable and prone to making matters worse with austerity policy.

          Current policy seems to be driven by failed models and misinformation.

          Should the Fed make policy based on ideal fiscal policy? or the ugly reality of misguided fiscal policy?
          What are the odds of a candidate from the Clown Car stepping into the driver's seat for fiscal policy?

          bakho said: September 15, 2015 at 06:07 AM

          From Money, Banking and Financial Markets. By Laurence Ball

          Inflation and the Savings and Loan Crisis
          In the early 1960s* U.S. inflation rates averaged less than 2 percent per year. This situation appeared stable, so people expected low inflation to continue in the future. However, inflation rose rapidly in the lace 1960s and 1970s. Because actual inflation over this period was higher than expected, ex post real interest rates were lower than ex ante rates. In real terms, lenders received less from borrowers than they expected to receive when they made the loans.

          Losses to lenders were greatest for long-term loans, especially home mortgage. In 1965, the nominal interest rate on 30-year mortgage was less than 6 percent. This rate was locked in until 1995. Because inflation was expected to be less than 2 percent, the ex ante real interest rate was positive. However, the inflation rate averaged 7.8 percent over the 1970s, implying negative ex post rates.

          Negative real interest rates on mortgages were a great deal for homeowners. But they caused large losses for banks that specialized in mortgages, such as savings and loan associations. These losses were one reason for the so-called S&L crisis of the 1980s, when many savings and loans went bankrupt.

          The preceding case study illustrates a general point: uncertainty about inflation makes it risky to borrow or lend money. This is true for bank loans, and also when firms borrow by issuing bonds. In both cases, borrowers and lenders agree on a nominal interest rate but gamble on the ex post real rate. Borrowers win the gamble if inflation is higher than expected, and lenders win if inflation is lower than expected.

          Can borrowers and lenders avoid this gamble? One tool for reducing risk is inflation-indexed bonds. This type of bond guarantees a fixed ex post real interest rate. Unlike a traditional bond, it does not specify a nominal interest rate when it is issued. Instead, the nominal rate adjusts for inflation over the life of the bond, eliminating uncertainty about the real rate."

          After a decade of telling the markets that the interest rate would be 2%, the Fed does not want to change to a 4% target. ARMs and a move to 15 year largely solved the mortgage problem. However if the Fed wants tight control of the inflation rate, they can't do much about the unemployment rate unless fiscal policy cooperates. Fiscal policy has been not only uncooperative but in many cases in opposition to monetary policy.

          jorgensen -> reason: September 15, 2015 at 08:11 AM

          I don't want or expect inflation. I see no benefit flowing from inflation.

          Altoid -> jorgensen: September 15, 2015 at 09:51 AM

          If you have assets or non-fixed income, or if you're projecting returns from a capital investment, a slow and steady rise in the number that expresses the value means people can behave as though they expect larger numbers in the future. Expecting numbers that will grow, they're more likely to spend today's money on consumption goods and capital assets like houses, and more likely to make capital investments because they can project that the number used for today's investment will breed numbers that grow over whatever period they're planning for. Because people use nominal figures for almost everything in ordinary life, not real inflation-adjusted values, this tends to work.

          About 15 or so years ago the Guardian had an economic columnist, Will something iirc (Will Self? don't really remember at this point), who explained this very well. Its prime virtue is that it works in a modern economy to make people feel better and act in ways that add to measurable GDP. It's a utilitarian, not a moral, view.

          bakho -> jorgensen: September 15, 2015 at 10:59 AM

          Inflation requires wage inflation meaning both wages and prices go up.
          Deflation means downward pressure on sticky wages and sticky prices. Sticky wages mean that wages, do not deflate, instead, reduction in hours worked and increase in unemployment result. Sticky occur as businesses cannot sell below cost of production for long: price deflation leads to business failure. You want your economy managed so that relative wages and prices reset in the non-sticky direction: upward. This avoids recessions, high unemployment and broad business failure.
          Inflation must be high enough that an economic shock can be absorbed by upward relative price reset. Inflation - deflation is a continuum. All economists agree deflation should be avoided for obvious reasons. A rate of inflation that is too low is only marginally less bad than deflation.
          jorgensen -> Altoid: September 15, 2015 at 11:34 AM
          An economic policy designed to trick the middle class into over spending and under saving (by confusing nominal and real gains) is a recipe for long run disaster.

          To some extent since 2007 we have been reaping the consequences of that policy as carried out since 1980.

          jorgensen -> bakho: September 15, 2015 at 11:39 AM

          I'm in private business. In my world overall wages and prices are adjustable downward at a rate of at least two percent a year. High cost employees retire or rotate out to other jobs. Companies with high cost structures re-organize or go bankrupt and are replaced by companies with lower cost structures. There is enough natural churn in the market that downward stickiness is at worst a short term phenomenon. We are 8 years into this downturn. Downward stickiness is not the problem.

          To believe that downward sticky wages are so big a problem as to justify inflation you have to believe that there are a material number of workers who are materially over-paid at the moment and whose real wages should be cut but who do not have the bargaining power to protect themselves from inflation.

          jorgensen -> jorgensen: September 15, 2015 at 11:41 AM

          sorry I should have added: If you believe in downward sticky wages then you should be able to identify the groups of workers whose real wages should be cut and could effectively be cut through inflation.

          Thomas More said... September 15, 2015 at 03:33 PM

          As a neoliberal technocrat, Brad DeLong naturally thinks of bankers as rational specimens of homo oeconomicus. Alas, bankers (like everyone in a real economy) does not act rationally in the way DeLong expects.

          Bankers act perfectly rationally, but in ways DeLong and Krugman et al. do not expect. A banker observes that in the last epochal economic crash, the government bailed out all the biggest banks and refused to prosecute any bankers for fraud. The banker therefore rationally calculates that fraud represents an excellent business model, since it socializes all the risk of running a bank and privatizes all the profit. Moreover, since the government refuses to send bankers to prison for fraud, there's no social risk as well as no economic risk.

          Consequently your typical banker finds it much more profitable to engage in control fraud today rather than the old boring business of making sensible loans at low interest to customers who are likely to pay the money back. Identifying good credit risks in a depressed economy takes a lot of work, and the result even if successful is low profits -- a squeezed profit margin of circa 300 basis points or less, as DeLong points out. But why settle for a measley 0.3% or 0.2% or less profit, when you can make 20% or 30% or 60% profit with no economic risk and no real risk of being indicted?

          The way you make 20% or 30% or 60% as banker in 2015, obviously, is to buy up large numbers of foreclosed liar-loan houses and apartment buildings and then rent them out. Since most people can't afford a home today because they're got rotten credit and are burdened down with debt from the financial crash, rents are inflated in 2015. The bankers then aggregate speculative financial instruments based on these inflated rents and the inflated valuations of the homes and apartment buildings they've bought, and issue those speculative financial instruments as investment vehicles to a gullible public and other financial institutions desperate for decent returns on their investment capital. These bogus junk-quality financial instruments made up of shares in aggregated foreclosed properties generate income which is then used to buy more overvalued foreclosed properties which can be rented out in inflated prices, which then generate more bogus securities which then generate more income...and so on. In short, you get a vicious cycle and a real estate bubble 2.0, but this time based on buying and renting out foreclosed properties with money borrowed from investors based on fraudulent securities. As opposed to real estate bubble 1.0 -- which was based on buying and selling mortgages for newly-built homes with money borrow from investors based on fraudulent securities like CDOs etc.

          Bankers in 2015 are behaving perfectly rationally and they understand with pellucid clarity the interests of their class. They simply are doing so in ways that neoliberal technocrats like Brad DeLong can't fathom, because bankers in 2015 are continuing the very profitable control fraud of real estate bubble 1.0...but by slightly different means (renting foreclosed properties, rather then mortgaging newly built properties). The bankers correctly deduce that there is no financial or criminal penalty for this kind of control fraud, since neither Bush nor Obama showed the slightest interest in prosecuting bankers for their role in robosigning fraud in real estate bubble 1.0. And when the whole ponzi scheme goes bust this time, the government will step in and bail the banks out. In the meantime, the bankers are making bank (all puns intended) on all those fees and that sweet, sweet income stream generated from all those fake liar-loaned forelosed properties being rented out.

          So why wouldn't a banker choose to make 20% or 40% or 60% by spewing out liar-loan investment instruments based on foreclosed overvalued properties that are supposedly going to rise in value limitlessly while the rents increase every year without bound? Why would a banker ever settle for a mere 300 basis points return?
          Brad DeLong, like so many neoliberal economists, is book-smart, but not street-smart when it comes to these matters.

          Richard said: September 15, 2015 at 03:39 PM

          Graydon: I'm sorry, you're wrong. Banks make their money off of the spread, loans, and markets. Fees are a negligible amount of income.

          Brad:
          One: banks are long duration/fixed income assets. Most mortgages are fixed rate mortgages. What happens to the value of a fixed rate loan when inflation or interest rates move up? What about mortgage production?
          Two: bank executives are rich. There's no reason personally for them to cheer for inflation.

          That said, yes, an upward sloping yield curve is a commercial banker's best friend.

          In any case, I haven't seen much sentiment about rates one way or the other. Commercial banks, from what I've see, are fairly subdued about rates. The increase in regulation is another matter.

          Altoid -> jorgensen: September 15, 2015 at 08:15 PM

          So, the business world has no problem with deflation because, even though there's a consistent and ongoing squeeze between what's paid at the front end for something and what can be realized at sale time later as the secular nominal price level falls, the difference can always be made up by cutting labor costs?

          I'm having trouble understanding what the desired state is: deflation, or neither deflation nor inflation but neutrality? If neutrality is the target, we know how to dampen inflation-- by raising interest rates the requisite amount. In times of deflation, how do we move out of that toward neutrality without mirror-image negative interest rates that make people pay to hold cash? Isn't there an asymmetry? What happens then?

          ezra abrams -> Richard...

          Richard, methinks it is you who is wrong on fees
          http://www.nubank.com/downloads/ep_4qtr2004_part3_DeYoung_Rice.pdf

          but maybe above is outdated, see
          http://www.wsj.com/articles/banks-fee-bonanza-dries-up-1409699980

          [Sep 24, 2015] Central Banks Have Made the Rich Richer

          Sep 24, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com
          Economist's View
          Paul Marshall, chairman of London-based hedge fund Marshall Wace, in the FT:
          Central banks have made the rich richer: Labour's new shadow chancellor has got at least one thing right. ... Quantitative easing ... has bailed out bonus-happy banks and made the rich richer. ...

          It is no surprise that the left is angry about this, nor that they are looking for other versions of QE that do not so directly benefit bankers and the rich. Instead of increasing the money supply by buying sovereign bonds from banks, central banks could spread the love evenly by depositing extra money in every person's bank account..., it might have been fairer.

          Mr McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn, the new Labour leader, advocate a second approach: targeting QE at infrastructure projects. The central bank would buy bonds direct from the Treasury on the understanding that the funds would be used to improve housing and transport infrastructure. ...

          QE had clear wealth effects, which could have been offset by fiscal measures. All political parties should acknowledge this. So should those of us who want free markets to retain their legitimacy.

          [Sep 24, 2015] The Oligarch Recovery 30 Million Americans Have Tapped Retirement Savings Early In Last Year

          Sep 24, 2015 | www.zerohedge.com

          Zero Hedge

          Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

          The ongoing oligarch theft labeled an "economic recovery" by pundits, politicians and mainstream media alike, is one of the largest frauds I've witnessed in my life. The reality of the situation is finally starting to hit home, and the proof is now undeniable.

          Earlier this year, I published a powerful post titled, Use of Alternative Financial Services, Such as Payday Loans, Continues to Increase Despite the "Recovery," which highlighted how a growing number of Americans have been taking out unconventional loans, not simply to overcome an emergency, but for everyday expenses. Here's an excerpt:

          Families' savings not where they should be: That's one part of the problem. But Mills sees something else in the recovery that's more disturbing. The number of households tapping alternative financial services are on the rise, meaning that Americans are turning to non-bank lenders for credit: payday loans, refund-anticipation loans, pawnshops, and rent-to-own services.

          According to the Urban Institute report, the number of households that used alternative credit products increased 7 percent between 2011 and 2013. And the kind of household seeking alternative financing is changing, too.

          It's not the case that every one of these middle- and upper-class households turned to pawnshops and payday lenders because they got whomped by an unexpected bill from a mechanic or a dentist. "People who are in these [non-bank] situations are not using these forms of credit to simply overcome an emergency, but are using them for basic living experiences," Mills says.

          Of course, it's not just "alternative financial services." Increasingly desperate American citizens are also tapping whatever retirement savings they may have, including taking the 10% tax penalty for the privilege of doing so. In fact, 30 million Americans have done just that in the past year alone, in the midst of what is supposed to be a "recovery."

          From Time:

          With the effects of the financial crisis still lingering, 30 million Americans in the last 12 months tapped retirement savings to pay for an unexpected expense, new research shows. This undercuts financial security and underscores the need for every household to maintain an emergency fund.

          Boomers were most likely to take a premature withdrawal as well as incur a tax penalty, according to a survey from Bankrate.com. Some 26% of those ages 50-64 say their financial situation has deteriorated, and 17% used their 401(k) plan and other retirement savings to pay for an emergency expense.

          Two-thirds of Americans agree that the effects of the financial crisis are still being felt in the way they live, work, save and spend, according to a report from Allianz Life Insurance Co. One in five can be called a post-crash skeptic-a person that experienced at least six different kinds of financial setback during the recession, like a job loss or loss of home value, and feel their financial future is in peril.

          So now we know what has kept meager spending afloat during this pitiful "recovery." A combination of "alternative loans" and a bleeding of retirement accounts. The transformation of the public into a horde of broke debt serfs is almost complete.

          Don't forget to send your thank you card to you know who:

          Screen Shot 2015-08-20 at 3.21.02 PM

          * * *

          For related articles, see:

          [Sep 24, 2015] Michael Hudson – Episode 19

          Sep 24, 2015 | store.counterpunch.org

          Audio Player

          Podcast: Play in new window | Download

          support this podcast, donate today

          This week, Eric has an in depth conversation with economist Michael Hudson, author of the new book Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy. Eric and Prof. Hudson discuss the evolution of finance capital from its humble parasitical beginnings to the comprehensive global network of economic tapeworms and barnacles that it is today. They examine neoliberal terrorism, how debt is used as a weapon, and the disastrous effects of the financialization of the real economy. Hudson outlines the relationship between the parasites and their bloodsucking policies of austerity, providing insight using the example of Latvia, where he witnessed first hand the smash-and-grab nature of such prescriptions. Plus, Eric and Michael touch on Obama as Wall Street errand boy, the importance of left economic organizing, and much much more.

          Musical interlude from the exciting new band GospelbeacH, and intro and outtro from David Vest.

          [Sep 24, 2015] Is Goldman Preparing To Sacrifice The Next Lehman

          Sep 24, 2015 | Zero Hedge

          Wow, talk about a nice fit! The following image describes a speed wobble when going too fast on a bicycle.

          Bay Area Guy

          Paulson should most definitely be in prison. I was no fan of Lehman, but what happened to them was nothing short of a criminal conspiracy.

          Thorny Xi

          He's suffered so much though.

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/morganbrennan/2012/06/05/billionaire-john-pa...

          RopeADope

          Hank not John.

          John is the colossal failure that could not come up with a good trade idea on his own if his life depended on it.

          Debt-Is-Not-Money

          I was fascinated that Bear Stearns was the first to go as Bear was the only large company that failed to respond to the Fed's calls when LTCM almost brough down the house in 1998.

          Not if_ But When

          Well, you know........he also lied to Congress. (but that's small potatoes).

          froze25

          Very true, let them fall and then bailout the rest. Well played Goldman.

          KnuckleDragger-X

          Lehman had to die to save GS since GS were actually in more trouble......

          Bay of Pigs

          What ever happened to Douche Bank anyway?

          Edit: Damn, good ole Marty beat me to the punch.

          Deutsche Bank – the New Lehman Brothers?

          http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/37443

          jeff montanye

          the greatest control fraud in history, the 2008 seizure of the u.s. government's financial/regulatory apparatus by wall street's banks and trading houses to recapitalize themselves and avoid prosecution for their enormous crimes, is tremendously evil. it will never be prosecuted or its errors corrected until the psychopaths at the head of our society are neutralized.

          only 9-11 can do this. it is the crime that is clear-cut, unambiguously wrong, provable, without a statute of limitations (treason/murder/kidnapping), sufficiently inflammatory (very important) and really comprehensive in its list of perps, especially after the fact (the editors of the new york times don't actually have to go to jail; just most people have to think they should).

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsoY3AIRUGA.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GNww9cmZPo

          http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticl...

          mind by mind. do your part.

          Divine Wind

          Bullish for PMs, right?

          HardlyZero

          After MF Global, it is not clear how the markets are safe for buyers, sellers, brokers, banks, etc.

          But as always, have your physical setup and safe first before going out to see what's going on.

          NoDebt

          "If a counterparty liquidates, net exposure becomes gross [emphasis added by me], and suddenly everyone starts wondering where all those "physical" commodities are."

          For those who may not quite grasp this, it means all your "hedging" against falling prices is null and void and you are left with full-in-the-face long exposure PLUS entities dealing in the physical commodity can suddenly be looking down a long tunnel of "failure to timely deliver" on contracts they've signed.

          But, then again, 2016 is the last year for a lame duck president... traditionally a very good year to "clean house" and get the government to bail you out.

          [Sep 24, 2015] Forget The New World Order, Here is Who Really Runs The World

          "... A complex web of revolving doors between the military-industrial-complex, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley consolidates the interests of defense contracts, banksters, military actions, and both foreign and domestic surveillance intelligence. ..."
          "... While most citizens are at least passively aware of the surveillance state and collusion between the government and the corporate heads of Wall Street, few people are aware of how much the intelligence functions of the government have been outsourced to privatized groups that are not subject to oversight or accountability. According to Lofgren, 70% of our intelligence budget goes to contractors. ..."
          "... the deep state has, since 9/11, built the equivalent of three Pentagons, a bloated state apparatus that keeps defense contractors, intelligence contractors, and privatized non-accountable citizens marching in stride. ..."
          "... Groupthink - an unconscious assimilation of the views of your superiors and peers - also works to keep Silicon Valley funneling technology and information into the federal surveillance state. Lofgren believes the NSA and CIA could not do what they do without Silicon Valley. It has developed a de facto partnership with NSA surveillance activities, as facilitated by a FISA court order. ..."
          Sep 24, 2015 | TheAntiMedia.org,

          For decades, extreme ideologies on both the left and the right have clashed over the conspiratorial concept of a shadowy secret government pulling the strings on the world's heads of state and captains of industry.

          The phrase New World Order is largely derided as a sophomoric conspiracy theory entertained by minds that lack the sophistication necessary to understand the nuances of geopolitics. But it turns out the core idea - one of deep and overarching collusion between Wall Street and government with a globalist agenda - is operational in what a number of insiders call the "Deep State."

          In the past couple of years, the term has gained traction across a wide swath of ideologies. Former Republican congressional aide Mike Lofgren says it is the nexus of Wall Street and the national security state - a relationship where elected and unelected figures join forces to consolidate power and serve vested interests. Calling it "the big story of our time," Lofgren says the deep state represents the failure of our visible constitutional government and the cross-fertilization of corporatism with the globalist war on terror.

          "It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street," he explained.

          Even parts of the judiciary, namely the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, belong to the deep state.

          How does the deep state operate?

          A complex web of revolving doors between the military-industrial-complex, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley consolidates the interests of defense contracts, banksters, military actions, and both foreign and domestic surveillance intelligence.

          According to Mike Lofgren and many other insiders, this is not a conspiracy theory. The deep state hides in plain sight and goes far beyond the military-industrial complex President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about in his farewell speech over fifty years ago.

          While most citizens are at least passively aware of the surveillance state and collusion between the government and the corporate heads of Wall Street, few people are aware of how much the intelligence functions of the government have been outsourced to privatized groups that are not subject to oversight or accountability. According to Lofgren, 70% of our intelligence budget goes to contractors.

          Moreover, while Wall Street and the federal government suck money out of the economy, relegating tens of millions of people to food stamps and incarcerating more people than China - a totalitarian state with four times more people than us - the deep state has, since 9/11, built the equivalent of three Pentagons, a bloated state apparatus that keeps defense contractors, intelligence contractors, and privatized non-accountable citizens marching in stride.

          After years of serving in Congress, Lofgren's moment of truth regarding this matter came in 2001. He observed the government appropriating an enormous amount of money that was ostensibly meant to go to Afghanistan but instead went to the Persian Gulf region. This, he says, "disenchanted" him from the groupthink, which, he says, keeps all of Washington's minions in lockstep.

          Groupthink - an unconscious assimilation of the views of your superiors and peers - also works to keep Silicon Valley funneling technology and information into the federal surveillance state. Lofgren believes the NSA and CIA could not do what they do without Silicon Valley. It has developed a de facto partnership with NSA surveillance activities, as facilitated by a FISA court order.

          Now, Lofgren notes, these CEOs want to complain about foreign market share and the damage this collusion has wrought on both the domestic and international reputation of their brands. Under the pretense of pseudo-libertarianism, they helmed a commercial tech sector that is every bit as intrusive as the NSA. Meanwhile, rigging of the DMCA intellectual property laws - so that the government can imprison and fine citizens who jailbreak devices - behooves Wall Street. It's no surprise that the government has upheld the draconian legislation for the 15 years.

          It is also unsurprising that the growth of the corporatocracy aids the deep state. The revolving door between government and Wall Street money allows top firms to offer premium jobs to senior government officials and military yes-men. This, says Philip Giraldi, a former counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer for the CIA, explains how the Clintons left the White House nearly broke but soon amassed $100 million. It also explains how former general and CIA Director David Petraeus, who has no experience in finance, became a partner at the KKR private equity firm, and how former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell became Senior Counselor at Beacon Global Strategies.

          Wall Street is the ultimate foundation for the deep state because the incredible amount of money it generates can provide these cushy jobs to those in the government after they retire. Nepotism reigns supreme as the revolving door between Wall Street and government facilitates a great deal of our domestic strife:

          "Bank bailouts, tax breaks, and resistance to legislation that would regulate Wall Street, political donors, and lobbyists. The senior government officials, ex-generals, and high level intelligence operatives who participate find themselves with multi-million dollar homes in which to spend their retirement years, cushioned by a tidy pile of investments," said Giraldi.

          How did the deep state come to be?

          Some say it is the evolutionary hybrid offspring of the military-industrial complex while others say it came into being with the Federal Reserve Act, even before the First World War. At this time, Woodrow Wilson remarked,

          "We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

          This quasi-secret cabal pulling the strings in Washington and much of America's foreign policy is maintained by a corporatist ideology that thrives on deregulation, outsourcing, deindustrialization, and financialization. American exceptionalism, or the great "Washington Consensus," yields perpetual war and economic imperialism abroad while consolidating the interests of the oligarchy here at home.

          Mike Lofgren says this government within a government operates off tax dollars but is not constrained by the constitution, nor are its machinations derailed by political shifts in the White House. In this world - where the deep state functions with impunity - it doesn't matter who is president so long as he or she perpetuates the war on terror, which serves this interconnected web of corporate special interests and disingenuous geopolitical objectives.

          "As long as appropriations bills get passed on time, promotion lists get confirmed, black (i.e., secret) budgets get rubber stamped, special tax subsidies for certain corporations are approved without controversy, as long as too many awkward questions are not asked, the gears of the hybrid state will mesh noiselessly," according to Mike Lofgren in an interview with Bill Moyers.

          Interestingly, according to Philip Giraldi, the ever-militaristic Turkey has its own deep state, which uses overt criminality to keep the money flowing. By comparison, the U.S. deep state relies on a symbiotic relationship between banksters, lobbyists, and defense contractors, a mutant hybrid that also owns the Fourth Estate and Washington think tanks.

          Is there hope for the future?

          Perhaps. At present, discord and unrest continues to build. Various groups, establishments, organizations, and portions of the populace from all corners of the political spectrum, including Silicon Valley, Occupy, the Tea Party, Anonymous, WikiLeaks, anarchists and libertarians from both the left and right, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and others are beginning to vigorously question and reject the labyrinth of power wielded by the deep state.

          Can these groups - can we, the people - overcome the divide and conquer tactics used to quell dissent? The future of freedom may depend on it.

          [Sep 21, 2015] Is Everything Carly Fiorina Says a Lie, Including "And" and "The"?

          "... Fiorina as a toxic leader. (You think toxic leaders don't gain authority through their very toxicity? Hmmm.) ..."
          "... The fourth lesson taken from watching Fiorina may be the most important. As we struggle with understanding what makes leaders "successful," people frequently overlook the fact that success depends very much on how that term gets defined and measured. In business and in politics, the interests of leaders and their organizations don't perfectly coincide. ..."
          "... At Hewlett-Packard, Fiorina was well-known for not tolerating dissent or disagreement, particularly on important strategic issues. ..."
          September 21, 2015 | The naked capitalism

          By Lambert Strether of Corrente.

          Let me provide the spoiler at once: Not entirely.

          Much of what Fiorina says is vacuous, and (as with all the Republican candidates) there is the occasional gem amidst the muck. But wowsers! Fiorina's relationship to the truth is, at the very best, non-custodial. To come to this conclusion, I read Fiorina's answers to questions in the recent Republican debate (transcript here). I apologize for not color-coding the text, but the length is so extreme, and in any case I want to focus not on rhetoric, but just the facts. So, I'm going to skip the answers I regard as vacuous, and focus only on the answers that contain outright falsehoods, which I will helpfully underline, and the rare cases of genuine insight.

          This is a campaign of firsts: The first socialist Presidential candidate, the first woman Presidential candidate, the first billionaire[1] candidate, and, with Fiorina, the first corporate executive Presidential candidate. And each of these candidates has a different source for their personal authority or ethos: Sanders with genuine, long-held and consistent policy views, Clinton with smarts and [1] process expertise, Trump as the wealthy mass media personality, and now Fiorina as a toxic leader. (You think toxic leaders don't gain authority through their very toxicity? Hmmm.)

          In the Financial Times ("Leadership BS") Dan Pfeffer, Thomas D. Dee II Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, comments on Fiorina as an executive:

          [E]ven "people who have presided over catastrophes" suffer no negative consequences. On the contrary. Ms Fiorina, "who by any objective measure was a horrible CEO, is running for president on her business record. I love it! . . . You can't make this stuff up - it's too good!"

          Yes, we laugh that we may not weep; I've often felt that way, even this early in the 2016 campaign. In CNN, Pfeffer ("Leadership 101") comments on Fiorina's toxicity:

          Here are four things that anyone, running for president or not, can and should do:

          Number one, tell your story. If you won't, no one else will. By telling your story repeatedly [like Clinton and Trump, but not Sanders], you can construct your own narrative. …

          Second, Fiorina [like Trump] has and is building a brand - a public presence. Recognizable brands have real economic value. … Running for president, even if unsuccessful, transforms people into public figures often widely sought on the speaking circuit, so in many ways, they win even if they lose.

          Third, don't worry about being liked - Fiorina doesn't. … In that choice, Fiorina is following the wisdom of Machiavelli, who noted that while it was wonderful to be feared and loved, if you had to choose one, being feared was safer than being loved [like Trump and Clinton, but not Sanders. "Nobody hates Bernie," as one insider commented."]

          The fourth lesson taken from watching Fiorina may be the most important. As we struggle with understanding what makes leaders "successful," people frequently overlook the fact that success depends very much on how that term gets defined and measured. In business and in politics, the interests of leaders and their organizations don't perfectly coincide. [Oddly, since Trump is a brand, his corporate and personal interests do coincide. And since the Clinton Foundation is a money-laundering influence-peddling operation, its interests and Clinton's coincide as well. Sanders has no business interests.]

          At Hewlett-Packard, Fiorina was well-known for not tolerating dissent or disagreement, particularly on important strategic issues. As someone quite senior in H-P's strategy group told me, disagreeing with Fiorina in a meeting was a reasonably sure path out the door. By not brooking dissent, Fiorina ensured that few opponents would be around to challenge her power. But disagreement often surfaces different perspectives that result in better decisions. The famous business leader Alfred P. Sloan noted that if everyone was in agreement, the discussion should be postponed until people could ascertain the weaknesses in the proposed choice.

          Fiorina has a pragmatic view of what it takes to be successful. And that's one reason she should not be underestimated, regardless of the opinions about her career at H-P.[3]

          The fourth point is especially toxic, and may show up - despite the current adulation - further along on the campaign trail. If Fiorina insists on surrounding herself with sycophants, and on making all the strategic decisions herself, will her Presidential campaign turn into the trainwreck (see under "demon sheep") her Senate race did?[4]

          To the transcript!

          * * *

          FIORINA: Good evening. My story, from secretary to CEO, is only possible in this nation, and proves that everyone of us has potential. My husband, Frank, of 30 years, started out driving a tow truck for a family owned auto body shop.

          Anybody listening to this might conclude that Fiorina rose from working class roots - especially with the borrowed cachet of a truck driving man for a husband - to CEO, and at H-P. Her actual biography paints a different picture. Here's her background and career path, from WikiPedia:

          Fiorina's father was a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. He would later become dean of Duke University School of Law, Deputy Attorney General, and judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Her mother was an abstract painter. [S]he was raised Episcopalian.

          Oh. An Episcopalian secretary.

          During her summers, she worked as a secretary for Kelly Services.[27] She attended the UCLA School of Law in 1976 but dropped out[28] after one semester and worked as a receptionist for six months at a real estate firm Marcus & Millichap, moving up to a broker position before leaving for Bologna, Italy, where she taught English.

          So, speaking of bologna…

          Fiorina received a Master of Business Administration in marketing from the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland, College Park in 1980. She obtained a Master of Science in management at the MIT Sloan School of Management under the Sloan Fellows program in 1989.[30]

          So that's when Fiorina's rise began; with degrees in marketing and management. Fiorina's one of those MBAs you get called into a windowless conference room to hear how you're going to lose your job because bullet points. That's what she was trained to do, and that's what she does.

          ***

          FIORINA: Having met Vladimir Putin, I wouldn't talk to him at all. We've talked way too much to him.

          What I would do, immediately, is begin rebuilding the Sixth Fleet, I would begin rebuilding the missile defense program in Poland, I would conduct regular, aggressive military exercises in the Baltic states. I'd probably send a few thousand more troops into Germany. Vladimir Putin would get the message. …

          Russia is a bad actor, but Vladimir Putin is someone we should not talk to, because the only way he will stop is to sense strength and resolve on the other side, and we have all of that within our control.

          We could rebuild the Sixth Fleet. I will. We haven't.

          On the Sixth Fleet and imperial strategy generally, Ezra Klein comments:

          The Sixth Fleet is already huge, and it's hard to say why adding to its capabilities would intimidate Putin - after all, America has enough nuclear weapons pointed at Russia to level the country thousands of times over. Her proposal for more military exercises in the Baltics seemed odd in light of the fact that President Obama is already conducting military exercises in the Baltics. And the US already has around 40,000 troops stationed in Germany, so it's hard to say what good "a few thousand" more would do.

          And pushing on a missile defense system in Poland is a very long-term solution to a very current problem. In total, Fiorina's laundry list of proposals sure sounded like a plan, but on inspection, it's hard to see why any of them would convince Putin to change course.

          ... ... ...

          [Sep 20, 2015] The History of Witchhunts and Their Relevance to the Present Day

          Sep 20, 2015 | naked capitalism
          bh2 September 20, 2015 at 3:26 pm

          The witch-burning craze would be best suited as yet another unwritten chapter in Mackay's "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds".

          If both men and women were charged and tried for this imaginary crime driven by baseless superstition, a narrative proposing it was really an ancient war on women is logically absurd - and therefore also a baseless superstition.

          craazyman September 20, 2015 at 6:54 pm

          It wasn't unwritten. He wrote it!

          "The Witch Mania" between "The Crusades" and "The Slow Poisoners".

          Laughingsong September 20, 2015 at 5:03 pm

          We could lump it all together and I do agree that the context is important, but it is much easier to see why members of new religions were targeted than peasants being accused of being witches.

          I find the theory fascinating because it does provide a possible explanation for something that does not really fit the usual "threat to power/otherness" explanations. I don't know if the theory is correct but I find it intriguing, especially after reading the Sonia Mitralias article yesterday.

          sd September 20, 2015 at 2:25 pm

          Not having read the book, is there any mention of c (ergot) in relation to witch hunts? I first heard of this thesis in my college botany class. The theory seems controversial even though there's archaeological evidence of rye cultivation as far north as Scandinavia by 500 AD.

          sd September 20, 2015 at 3:48 pm

          Worth noting that rye blight typically affects the poor and those with limited food resources.
          http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/wong/BOT135/LECT12.HTM

          skippy September 20, 2015 at 7:10 pm

          If memory serves, the Salem witch saga was defined by topographical elevation e.g. poor down the hill, the soggy bottom, elites up the hill, w/ poor consuming the lesser status rye whilst the elites consumed wheat.

          Its not hard to imagine the elites with their religious "self awarded" superiority complex, that any, straying from the narrative would just reinforce the aforementioned mental attitude. As such any remediation would be authoritatively administered by the elites as they owned the code [arbiters of religious interpretation].

          Skippy…. the old NC post on that provincial French town would make a great book end to this post, by Lambert imo….

          BEast September 20, 2015 at 3:07 pm

          Two other noteworthy aspects of he witch hunts: one, they were an attempt by the Catholic Church to destroy non-Church authorities; and two, they were an attempt by physicians (nobles) to destroy alternate sources of medical care.

          Thus, the targets were frequently midwives and herbalists.

          (It's also worth noting that the court physicians had no scientific basis for their treatments - that was shoehorned in later. So the traditional healers were, and remained for centuries, to the extent they and their methods survived, the better choice for health care, particularly for childbirth.)

          Jim September 20, 2015 at 4:42 pm

          False Foundations of Capitalism?

          "Primitive accumulation is the term that Marx uses in Capital vol.1, to characterize the historical process upon which the development of capitalist relations was premised. It is a useful term, for it provides a common denominator through which we can conceptualize the changes that the advent of capitalism produced in economic and social relations. But its importance lies, above all in the fact that primitive accumulation is treated by Marx as a foundational process, revealing the structural conditions for the existence of capitalist society."

          Marx seemed to seek the determinants of capitalism's genetic process in the logic of the preceding mode of production–in the economic structure of feudal society. But is such a description an explanation for the transition from feudal to capitalistic society?

          Doesn't Marx's explanation of the origins of capitalism seems to presuppose capitalism itself?

          Doesn't Marx's use of only economic variables lead into a blind alley in terms of understanding the origins of capitalism?

          Shouldn't the collapsing Left finally take a serious look at cultural and political explanations for the origins of capitalism?

          What about a cultural explanation in which the creation and role of nationalism in 16th century England provided a key competitive individual motivating factor among its citizens– as a possible cause of capitalism? What about the emergence of the autonomous city as a primary political cause of capitalism? Was capitalism born in Catholic, urban Italy at the end of the Middle Ages?

          Why has the search for explanations of the origins of capitalism, only in the economic sphere, come to occupy such a central place in our thinking?

          craazyman September 20, 2015 at 5:45 pm

          I think this analysis is off the mark and probably a convolution of an array of underlying variable and functions.

          It's as if the author says z = g(x); when in fact x = f(z,t,u and v).

          To conclude that z relies on x is a distortion of the underlying phenomenological structure and also distorts the agency by which z, t, u and v correspond to z.

          one item that is quite significant to note, and perhaps is one of the underlying variables, is the urgency by which authorities demanded "confessions' by witches, which in and of itself was sometimes enough to ameliorate punishment.

          The other underlying variable is the reality of paranormal phenomenon. We think witchcraft is a doddering myth invented by overly imaginative minds, but the reality is quite other than that.

          Relating "capitalism" to persecution of witches on the basis of their femaleness lacks all precision. The Roman empire was capitalist but accepted paganism. Our current culture would view persecution on the basis of witchcraft as daftminded lunacy. yet pagan cultures in Africa do so even today.

          The book author throws up an interesting cloud of ideas but doesn't seem capable of credible navigation, based simply on the summary offered here. I suspect it has to do less with capitalism and femaleness in particular and more, in general, in terms of threats posed by alternative consciousness structures to the dominant structure of social organization (inclusive of economics, theology, eshatology, etc.) These would be the z, t, u and v of the underlying f-function. It's seen the world over in varying guises, but the underlying variables manifest in different costumes, in varying degrees of malision.

          DJG September 20, 2015 at 6:24 pm

          The problem of witches depends on the history of individual countries and also on religious orthodoxies, Catholic as well as Calvinist and Lutheran.

          As is often the case, Italy is contradictory and somewhat of an exception. Yet the exceptions are regional. The peasants on the Peninsula ruled by Naples were treated differently from northern Italians. Venice was an exception.

          The process of liberation seems to have begun earlier in Italy than the Black Death. While doing research about Bologna, I ran across this:

          "Liber Paradisus
          The Liber Paradisus (Heaven Book) is a law text promulgated in 1256 by the Comune of Bologna which proclaimed the abolition of slavery and the release of serfs (servi della gleba)."

          So you have emancipation and the development of an idea of human rights a hundred years before the Black Death. But the source was a social war and a desire for higher wages.

          Throughout Italy, too, the Inquisition and its treatment of witches was highly uneven. I happen to have studied the benandanti, who didn't consider themselves witches, but had visions and myterious rituals. Some were healers. The Franciscans who investigated them were considered lousy Inquisitors (not tough enough) and the results are highly ambiguous. See Carlo Ginzburg's works, and see the work of Italian scholars who found even more ambiguities. Many of the benandanti in trouble were men–and the women and men reported the same mystical experiences, many of which are astounding and rather beautiful. Reports of benandanti extend into the early 1800s.

          Piero Camporesi also wrote about the economic status of Italian peasants, the rituals of their year (which didn't always coincide with Catholic orthodoxy), and the strength of ancient pagan customs.

          I realize that your point is witchcraft as a kind of collision with the growth of the state and "modern" markets. Yet I'd encourage you to consider Italy as a counterexample. On the other hand, fragmented Italy was the most highly developed economy in Europe during most of the middle ages and up to roughly 1550, so the markets may have developed (capitalistically as well as by state intervention, especially in Venice) more slowly, more peculiarly, and less disruptively. There are peasant revolts in Italian history, but not regions in flames and years and years of scorched-earth actions against rebellious peasants.

          Chauncey Gardiner September 20, 2015 at 6:37 pm

          Enlightening observations regarding the premeditated, planned and organized use of witch-hunts by the elite of that period as a vehicle of social control. I was surprised at the level of elite information and coordination in what I had previously viewed as a very primitive era of considerable physical isolation. The events discussed here suggest there was a fairly high level of communication and organization among and by the elite.

          However, I would question to what extent the extreme 14th century depopulation of Europe and Britain caused by the great plague pandemics, the Great Famine, wars and weather would have led to similar elite initiatives, regardless of the transition to capitalism.

          Appears to share some common threads with events and behaviors which have occurred in our own time – from those mentioned in the article to the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s, the Powell memorandum of 1971 and related subsequent behavior, including the forms of "primitive accumulation" cited that led to the 2008 financial collapse.

          Thank you for the review of Silvia Federici's book, Lambert, and your related observations. Seems worthwhile reading.

          LifelongLib September 20, 2015 at 7:33 pm

          There was at least one man in the Salem witch trials who did save his wife. At the preliminary hearing he cursed the judges for allowing her to be imprisoned, saying God would surely punish them. When she was bound over for trial anyway, he broke her out of jail and fled with her to New York.

          Would that all of us men had that kind of courage and resourcefulness. Sadly most of us don't.

          [Sep 20, 2015] Imperialism on the March: Africa, Syria, and Beyond

          "...Draitser examines some of the volatile conflicts on the continent, attempting to trace how they relate to the US-NATO regional and global hegemonic agenda. From there, he provides his analysis of Syria and the US role in the rise of ISIS/ISIL, as well as Washington's militarization of Latin America in order to stifle its independence and growing alliances with the non-western world."
          Sep 20, 2015 | stopimperialism.org

          Eric Draitser appears on WBAI 99.5 FM (NYC) for part 2 of his interview on imperialism in the world today.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WZghyoQi3yE

          He describes in detail what the US and its neocolonial NATO allies are doing in Africa, with close attention to the grand strategy of militarily checking the economic influence of China. Draitser examines some of the volatile conflicts on the continent, attempting to trace how they relate to the US-NATO regional and global hegemonic agenda. From there, he provides his analysis of Syria and the US role in the rise of ISIS/ISIL, as well as Washington's militarization of Latin America in order to stifle its independence and growing alliances with the non-western world. Finally, Draitser touches on the current situation in Haiti and the grand strategy of containing China through the Asia Pivot and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. All this and much much more in this wide-ranging interview.

          [Sep 20, 2015]Deep State America

          "...Of course I know that the United States of America is not Turkey. But there are lessons to be learned from its example of how a democracy can be subverted by particular interests hiding behind the mask of patriotism."
          The American Conservative,

          It has frequently been alleged that the modern Turkish Republic operates on two levels. It has a parliamentary democracy complete with a constitution and regular elections, but there also exists a secret government that has been referred to as the "deep state," in Turkish "Derin Devlet."

          The concept of "deep state" has recently become fashionable to a certain extent, particularly to explain the persistence of traditional political alignments when confronted by the recent revolutions in parts of the Middle East and Eastern Europe. For those who believe in the existence of the deep state, there are a number of institutional as well as extralegal relationships that might suggest its presence.

          Some believe that this deep state arose out of a secret NATO operation called "Gladio," which created an infrastructure for so-called "stay behind operations" if Western Europe were to be overrun by the Soviet Union and its allies. There is a certain logic to that assumption, as a deep state has to be organized around a center of official and publicly accepted power, which means it normally includes senior officials of the police and intelligence services as well as the military. For the police and intelligence agencies, the propensity to operate in secret is a sine qua non for the deep state, as it provides cover for the maintenance of relationships that under other circumstances would be considered suspect or even illegal.

          In Turkey, the notion that there has to be an outside force restraining dissent from political norms was, until recently, even given a legal fig leaf through the Constitution of 1982, which granted to the military's National Security Council authority to intervene in developing political situations to "protect" the state. There have, in fact, been four military coups in Turkey. But deep state goes far beyond those overt interventions. It has been claimed that deep state activities in Turkey are frequently conducted through connivance with politicians who provide cover for the activity, with corporate interests and with criminal groups who can operate across borders and help in the mundane tasks of political corruption, including drug trafficking and money laundering.

          A number of senior Turkish politicians have spoken openly of the existence of the deep state. Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit tried to learn more about the organization and, for his pains, endured an assassination attempt in 1977. Tansu Ciller eulogized "those who died for the state and those who killed for the state," referring to the assassinations of communists and Kurds. There have been several significant exposures of Turkish deep state activities, most notably an automobile accident in 1996 in Susurluk that killed the Deputy Chief of the Istanbul Police and the leader of the Grey Wolves extreme right wing nationalist group. A member of parliament was also in the car and a fake passport was discovered, tying together a criminal group that had operated death squads with a senior security official and an elected member of the legislature. A subsequent investigation determined that the police had been using the criminals to support their operations against leftist groups and other dissidents. Deep state operatives have also been linked to assassinations of a judge, Kurds, leftists, potential state witnesses, and an Armenian journalist. They have also bombed a Kurdish bookstore and the offices of a leading newspaper.

          As all governments-sometimes for good reasons-engage in concealment of their more questionable activities, or even resort to out and out deception, one must ask how the deep state differs. While an elected government might sometimes engage in activity that is legally questionable, there is normally some plausible pretext employed to cover up or explain the act.

          But for players in the deep state, there is no accountability and no legal limit. Everything is based on self-interest, justified through an assertion of patriotism and the national interest. In Turkey, there is a belief amongst senior officials who consider themselves to be parts of the status in statu that they are guardians of the constitution and the true interests of the nation. In their own minds, they are thereby not bound by the normal rules. Engagement in criminal activity is fine as long as it is done to protect the Turkish people and to covertly address errors made by the citizenry, which can easily be led astray by political fads and charismatic leaders. When things go too far in a certain direction, the deep state steps in to correct course.

          And deep state players are to be rewarded for their patriotism. They benefit materially from the criminal activity that they engage in, including protecting Turkey's role as a conduit for drugs heading to Europe from Central Asia, but more recently involving the movement of weapons and people to and from Syria. This has meant collaborating with groups like ISIS, enabling militants to ignore borders and sell their stolen archeological artifacts while also negotiating deals for the oil from the fields in the areas that they occupy. All the transactions include a large cut for the deep state.

          If all this sounds familiar to an American reader, it should, and given some local idiosyncrasies, it invites the question whether the United States of America has its own deep state.

          First of all, one should note that for the deep state to be effective, it must be intimately associated with the development or pre-existence of a national security state. There must also be a perception that the nation is in peril, justifying extraordinary measures undertaken by brave patriots to preserve life and property of the citizenry. Those measures are generically conservative in nature, intended to protect the status quo with the implication that change is dangerous.

          Those requirements certainly prevail in post 9/11 America, and also feed the other essential component of the deep state: that the intervening should work secretly or at least under the radar. Consider for a moment how Washington operates. There is gridlock in Congress and the legislature opposes nearly everything that the White House supports. Nevertheless, certain things happen seemingly without any discussion: Banks are bailed out and corporate interests are protected by law. Huge multi-year defense contracts are approved. Citizens are assassinated by drones, the public is routinely surveilled, people are imprisoned without be charged, military action against "rogue" regimes is authorized, and whistleblowers are punished with prison. The war crimes committed by U.S. troops and contractors on far-flung battlefields, as well as torture and rendition, are rarely investigated and punishment of any kind is rare. America, the warlike predatory capitalist, might be considered a virtual definition of deep state.

          One critic describes deep state as driven by the "Washington Consensus," a subset of the "American exceptionalism" meme. It is plausible to consider it a post-World War II creation, the end result of the "military industrial complex" that Dwight Eisenhower warned about, but some believe its infrastructure was actually put in place through the passage of the Federal Reserve Act prior to the First World War. Several years after signing the bill, Woodrow Wilson reportedly lamented, "We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

          In truth America's deep state is, not unlike Turkey's, a hybrid creature that operates along a New York to Washington axis. Where the Turks engage in criminal activity to fund themselves, the Washington elite instead turns to banksters, lobbyists, and defense contractors, operating much more in the open and, ostensibly, legally. U.S.-style deep state includes all the obvious parties, both public and private, who benefit from the status quo: including key players in the police and intelligence agencies, the military, the treasury and justice departments, and the judiciary. It is structured to materially reward those who play along with the charade, and the glue to accomplish that ultimately comes from Wall Street. "Financial services" might well be considered the epicenter of the entire process. Even though government is needed to implement desired policies, the banksters comprise the truly essential element, capable of providing genuine rewards for compliance. As corporate interests increasingly own the media, little dissent comes from the Fourth Estate as the process plays out, while many of the proliferating Washington think tanks that provide deep state "intellectual" credibility are similarly funded by defense contractors.

          The cross fertilization that is essential to making the system work takes place through the famous revolving door whereby senior government officials enter the private sector at a high level. In some cases the door revolves a number of times, with officials leaving government before returning to an even more elevated position. Along the way, those select individuals are protected, promoted, and groomed for bigger things. And bigger things do occur that justify the considerable costs, to include bank bailouts, tax breaks, and resistance to legislation that would regulate Wall Street, political donors, and lobbyists. The senior government officials, ex-generals, and high level intelligence operatives who participate find themselves with multi-million dollar homes in which to spend their retirement years, cushioned by a tidy pile of investments.

          America's deep state is completely corrupt: it exists to sell out the public interest, and includes both major political parties as well as government officials. Politicians like the Clintons who leave the White House "broke" and accumulate $100 million in a few years exemplify how it rewards. A bloated Pentagon churns out hundreds of unneeded flag officers who receive munificent pensions and benefits for the rest of their lives. And no one is punished, ever. Disgraced former general and CIA Director David Petraeus is now a partner at the KKR private equity firm, even though he knows nothing about financial services. More recently, former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell has become a Senior Counselor at Beacon Global Strategies. Both are being rewarded for their loyalty to the system and for providing current access to their replacements in government.

          What makes the deep state so successful? It wins no matter who is in power, by creating bipartisan-supported money pits within the system. Monetizing the completely unnecessary and hideously expensive global war on terror benefits the senior government officials, beltway industries, and financial services that feed off it. Because it is essential to keep the money flowing, the deep state persists in promoting policies that make no sense, to include the unwinnable wars currently enjoying marquee status in Iraq/Syria and Afghanistan. The deep state knows that a fearful public will buy its product and does not even have to make much of an effort to sell it.

          Of course I know that the United States of America is not Turkey. But there are lessons to be learned from its example of how a democracy can be subverted by particular interests hiding behind the mask of patriotism. Ordinary Americans frequently ask why politicians and government officials appear to be so obtuse, rarely recognizing what is actually occurring in the country. That is partly due to the fact that the political class lives in a bubble of its own creation, but it might also be because many of America's leaders actually accept that there is an unelected, unappointed, and unaccountable presence within the system that actually manages what is taking place behind the scenes. That would be the American deep state.

          rehypothecator

          "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

          Martian Moon

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3xgjxJwedA

          Latest on 911 by James Corbett

          Educate yourself

          All Risk No Reward

          This is all you need to know to prove, beyond all doubt, that the official pile driving narrative is false.

          The reality is that anyone can OBSERVE that the top of the building DID NOT DO WHAT A CUE BALL DOES EVERY SINGLE TIME IT HITS ANOTHER BILLIARD BALL - the top of the building did not decelerate.

          It did not decelerate because IT DID NOT HIT THE LOWER SECTION OF THE BUILDING. For if it had hit the lower section of the building, IT WOULD HAVE DECELERATED.

          The official story never addressed this point. They wisely stopped their investigation at the initiation of collapse. That was no accident.

          AitT - Sir Isaac Newton Weighs in on the World Trade Center North Tower Collapse Official Narrative

          http://www.weaponsofmassdebt.com/index.php/blog/aitt-sir-isaac-newton-we...

          Now, some people will attack either me or this factual, observable, and repeatable information based on their programmed "crimestop" response...

          crimestop - Orwell's definition: "The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. In short....protective stupidity."

          http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html

          But what nobody will do - because they can't do it - is to explain a physics based scenario where the top of the building hit a structurally solid lower section of the building WITHOUT DECELERATING.

          There are NO CONTRADICTIONS in reality. One leading blogger claimed he had done lots of research that showed the official story was correct.

          But what he didn't do before he stopped the conversation (smart subconsciousness!) was to explain how the top of the building could have hit a structurally sound lower section of the building without experiencing marginal deceleration.

          This is the video that needs to replace all the complex theories that are too easily dismissed by the masses.

          No, make the masses exclaim the physics equivalent of 2+2=5 in order to continue believing in the Debt-Money Monopolist false narratives engineered to damage ordinary people across the globe.

          NeoLuddite

          Elections are just advance auctions of stolen goods.

          junction

          "Deep State" operatives killed Michael Hastings and Philip Marshall. Whether Paul Walker was also killed by the "Murder, Inc." - type agents of the "Deep State," to make flaming car crashes look normal, is an open question. When Tennessee Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)employee Katherine Smith died in a flaming car crash in 2002, her death was called a murder (still unsolved) because a Tennessee state trooper driving behind her saw her car explode into flames before going off the road.

          Smith was the DMV employee who sold driver's licenses to Arabs, licenses they used to identify themselves when they did work on the sprinkler systems at the World Trade Center before 9/11.

          Sprinkler systems which all did not work on 9/11, even though they were ruggedized after the 1993 WTC truck bombing.

          And who can forget the California policeman, on a 100% disability pension, who turned up in Orlando, Florida as the FBI agent who murdered a martial arts associate of Boston Bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The guy murdered had just undergone knee surgery and could only walk with a cane, yet he supposedly lunged at this crooked FBI agent, illegally collecting a disabilty pension tax free of some $60,000 a year.

          The initial report from the agent said this guy had a sword cane but that report was false.

          doctor10

          Politics is merely the entertainment wing of the MIC/Anglo-American Central Banking junta.

          Has been since November 23rd 1963. Reagan required a 22 cal message to that effect after he thought he'd been elected President.

          kliguy38

          Of course I know that the United States of America is not Turkey. But there are lessons to be learned from its example of how a democracy can be subverted by particular interests hiding behind the mask of patriotism.

          no of course its not Turkey......its a hundred times worse

          Ms No

          Turkey's deep state is our deep state with some local players. This is going global, I thought everybody knew that. Turkey has been a vassal for the Ziocons as long as anyone can remember and they are one of many. Most of our presidents seem to prefer the term The New World Order. It's funny how people snicker about that term but I didn't catch a grin off of any of our presidents going back to Bush I snickering about it when they mention it in their State of the Union addresses and this current clown is not an exception.

          It's quite real and not at all funny. People need to take a look around they have even spelled it out for you. What do these guys have to do send us our own eulogies? Lets just hope that while everybody else is trying to figure this out that we don't end up getting too familiar with our torture state.

          Majestic12

          "America is in deep shit as are all governments run by central banks neo-Keynesian fascist economic policy."

          I got you on the "deep shit" and "run by central banks", but lost you on "Keynesian Fascist economic policy".

          ZH is full of half truths and obfuscation.

          I do not agree with much of Keynes, but most here support Von Mises (the Rockefeller Foundation product) and the London School of Economics.

          These "institutions" are profoundly contradictory, corrupt and were born of the 00001%.

          At least Keynes decried relying soley on monetary policy and "supply side" economics.

          Most here have only known "supply side" (Reagan and after), so they have nothing to compare it to.

          Listen to boomers talk of the 60s and 70s...there were always jobs, it didn't take 2 earners, it didn't take a degree, everyone took vacation, and the "information" deluge ended at 11:00pm until the next morning.

          And, you really didn't have to lock your doors, unless you lived in urban Chicago, NY, LA any other huge metropolis.

          So, it was all "Keynes"'s fault?

          Keynes, who promoted "demand-side" and "fiscal policy"...really? Fascist?

          Remember, there are 94 Million people out of the work force...but the poulation is 100 million more than in 1977, and the dollar was worth 70% more.

          Salah

          Seminal piece on the US 'deep state': http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/

          Why the Clintons & Obama are both CIA No-doubt-about-it.

          2nd Big Question: why was the CIA rushed into existence (bill signed in an airplane at end of National Airport by Truman) 45 days after the crash at Roswell?

          Freddie

          David Rockefeller as a young man was an OSS officer in WW2. Mi6 is the Red Shield.

          They are just instruments of terror used by the elites,

          Majestic12

          "2nd Big Question: why was the CIA rushed into existence 45 days after the crash at Roswell?"

          I am glad you asked.....the CIA's involvement was temporary.

          The NSA (who now administers the black space program) began as the Armed Forces Security Agency, just 2 years later in 1949.

          ... ... ...

          unitwar

          Bill Moyers? I wonder why he doesn't report on those Bilderberg meetings he attends? He reports what he is told to report. Everything he does is a limited hangout.

          Usurious

          the french called the guillotine the national razor.........just sayin...

          monica jewinsky was a honey pot.....

          JustObserving

          The Deep State runs everything in America since at least Nov 22, 1963. Kennedy promised to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. Instead, the CIA shattered his brains into a thousand pieces.

          The NSA spies on the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House and you.

          The most extraordinary passage in the memo requires that the Israeli spooks "destroy upon recognition" any communication provided by the NSA "that is either to or from an official of the US government." It goes on to spell out that this includes "officials of the Executive Branch (including the White House, Cabinet Departments, and independent agencies); the US House of Representatives and Senate (members and staff); and the US Federal Court System (including, but not limited to, the Supreme Court)."

          The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary American citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House itself. One could hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state.

          https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/09/13/surv-s13.html

          Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State

          There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power.

          http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/

          Who rules America?

          The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies, and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals the true wielders of power in the United States. Telecommunications giants such as AT&T, Verizon and Sprint, and Internet companies such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter, provide the military and the FBI and CIA with access to data on hundreds of millions of people that these state agencies have no legal right to possess.

          Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the confluence of the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country. The so-called "Fourth Estate"-the mass media-functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika.

          https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/06/10/pers-j10.html

          Ignatius

          It's a big club, and we ain't in it.

          jmcoombs

          Institutions, left unchecked, eventually come to worship themselves. The Catholic Church during the Spanish Inquisition is a sterling example.

          Majestic12

          "What happened to all those bags of money that were in Iraq that disappeared?"

          That was only $8 BBBBBillion in cash....chump change.

          Remember last year the DoD stated that they cannot account for $8.5 TTTTTTTTrillion.....

          1 Billion = One Thousand Millions.

          1 Trillion = One Thousand Billions.

          If your head has stopped spinning, then please, tel me....what could they spend $8.5 TTTTrillion on?

          Remember, all the wars to date are paid for in the "open" and "public" military budget...so this is "extra"....

          Now maybe you can see why some of us here take whistle blowers seriously about a secret space program.

          Engineers, secret construction hangars and bases ain't cheap....the shoe fits.

          So, there are a shit load of "Amercians" taking a big paycheck to help the elite and off-world assholes plan our demise.

          I don't know how you feel about "sell-outs", but they make me think of guillotines.

          jcdenton

          Some believe that this deep state arose out of a secret NATO operation called "Gladio,"

          Well it's more than logical, more than plausible ..

          This Deep State arose out of ........................ you figure it out for your own sake, and convince yourself. I'll just assist ..

          Directive 166

          http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/22/fraud-on-the-u-s-supreme-court-b...

          The Deutsche Verteidigungs Dienst (DVD)

          http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/04/neo-so-much-more-than-nukes/

          http://wantarevelations.com/2014/01/wanta-plan-macro-financial-economic-...

          Tesla's Assistant

          http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20070405.htm

          (do a quick search for "Jesuit" and see how many hits you get. Notice who the DVD answer to.)

          Go here: https://app.box.com/s/hfgvcqg7gqh7i27at6sv53ywu87lwarp

          Go to Rulers of Evil, pg. 170. Start reading from Adam Weishaupt. Now you know the purpose of the creation of the United States of America ..

          Ms No

          I think Hitler was right about one thing, most people cannot see the big lie, it just seems to complex to them and thus ludicrous. Just look at a small portion of a military you have cores, divisions, brigades, betallions, generals, colonals, companies, Air Force, Navy, Special Forces, intelligence, espionage, propaganda depts, indoctrination depts, etc, all under one umbrella of centralized control.

          Is it really that hard to believe that a organized self serving entity who has had plenty of time and very little opposition can grow to a gargantuan empire that nearly global in scale?

          Two good reads among at least a hunderd that prove otherwise Sibel Edmonds and Tales of an Economic Hit Man.

          tumblemore

          "most people cannot see the big lie, it just seems to complex to them"

          I think it's more to do with not being sociopaths.

          People tend to think other people are like them so say the average person can only tell level 6/10 lies before they feel ashamed then they have a hard time believing other people can tell level 10/10 lies. They couldn't do it themselves so it's hard for them to imagine other people being that shameless - hence the bigger and more shameless the lie the more likely it is to be believed.

          Only part-sociopaths can see it.

          Ms No

          There maybe an element of that occuring because a psychopath can identify another path immediately which would lead one to believe they may be able to identify their activities as well but over all there is something else going on.

          There most certainly is something different about people who can go against the grain and challenge common propaganda but it isn't a lack of empathy. Some people are more resistant to indoctrination and we really don't know why. We do know that there has been a large amount of research on and use of subliminal technology and trauma disassociation. I would hazard a guess that there has been a ton of research on this subject that we will probably never see.

          tumblemore

          The thing about the deep state idea is generally they exist to keep the members in power *and* keep the state in question strong in the long-term so that power is worth something.

          What's odd about the US deep state is it doesn't seem to care about the long term at all and seems only really interested in selling America piece by piece.

          For example from their behavior it's pretty blatant now that lobbyists have bought the GOP's foreign policy position but the dark side of that is it probably means every other aspect of policy is for sale also.

          It's like the US deep state is living off the capital rather than the interest.

          JR

          "On 9/11/2001, America received its new Pearl Harbor"…to strike fear into the hearts of Americans and pave the way for the perpetrators' profitable and soul-destroying global "war on terror"... Enough is enough! "There are at least 8.5 trillion reasons to investigate the money trail of 9/11" and to end the perversion of law that has bolstered the power of those who hold the reins in Washington, DC, and use the law, perverted, as a weapon for every kind of global control and personal greed!

          NEW VIDEO: 9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money

          Maori Warrior 1 week ago

          One of the best documentaries on 9/11... "The first suspects of a big crime should be those who benefit from it."

          Published on Sep 11, 2015

          TRANSCRIPT, SOURCES AND MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=16167

          "Forget for one moment everything you've been told about September 11, 2001. 9/11 was a crime. And as with any crime, there is one overriding imperative that detectives must follow to identify the perpetrators: follow the money. This is an investigation of the 9/11 money trail."

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3xgjxJwedA&feature=youtu.be

          RichardParker

          Engagement in criminal activity is fine as long as it is done to protect the Turkish people...

          I call bullshit on this one. More like engagement in criminal activity is fine as long as it is done to preserve/enhance the Turkish government's power.

          ddsoffice

          Ja, diese ist eine gutte fragge. Aber, es ist wie die 'Jetzt Neue Deutschland' uber alles vielleicht seit WWI! (Yes, this is a good topic. But, it is like the 'New Germany Now' perhaps since WWI!)

          (laughing now that I still remember some of my high school German lessons over 25 years ago.)

          Eine Gutte Fragge. (A good topic)

          Sehr Gut. (Very good)

          Jetz Deuschtland ober alles. (Now Germany over all)

          krage_man

          There are various terms for this - deep state, elite, etc.

          But ultimately, current political system so-called democracy is far from original definition of democracy. And I dont mean that original "greek" democracy is the better one.

          This is a feature of modern democracy to pretend to be old-fashioned peoples democracy. This is to make sure people do feel their power to elect (ans they have it to a degree)

          This is a feature of modern democracy to have 2-3 alternative parties. Each is more attractive to a certain human personality category. This way each can find something to associate with and be associated against. This means satisfaction of citizens with having a choice even though the choice is created for them based on 2-3 major types of their personalities.

          All 2-3 parties are really backed by this deep state or elite institution which manages all things behand the curtain. For instance, foreign policy basixally ghe same no matter which party has power.

          Political elected officcials do not really manage the affairs, they commmunicate but the final decisions are not theirs but come deep from the state departments which are receiving instructions from deep state.

          Elected president is supervised by a vise president with direct access to deep state. He would take state affairs in his hands if the president is not cooperaring or incapacited ( could be related)

          Deep state controls 95% of mass media via proxy corporations. A special mass-media department of the deep state issues directives to the editors of mainstream TV/news media. This department coordinates with other depaetments like one managing foreign affairs linked or even located in official state department. One may notice a delay when a certain major events take place and mass media delays reporting by 24-48 hours while waiting for the right spin of the reporting to the nation.

          Latitude25

          Interesting that Turkey is mentioned. When I was in college my room mate was a Turkish guy who was definitely from the .001%, second richest family in Turkey. He said that turkey has 100s of years of experience keeping the masses occupied with one war or another and that the economy could not run without it. He also liked chasing the most beautiful blondes he could find and with his money he sure found them.

          Burticus

          "The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests." - Rothschild Brothers of London

          withglee

          Ordinary Americans frequently ask why politicians and government officials appear to be so obtuse, rarely recognizing what is actually occurring in the country.

          Ordinary Americans are clueless ... witness less than 8% know anything about WTC7.

          That notwithstanding, government officials "appear" to be obtuse to what is going on in the country because they "are" obtuse. At the Federal level, at best, a representative speaks for 500,000 people. He can't know those people and they can't know him.

          Our system is a "fake" representative democracy. What we get is what we should expect from such a charade.

          ISEEIT

          "Deep State America"?

          FRAUD is the singular truth. Deception, corruption.

          "Rational actor" absent philosophically (and with increasing clarity, empirically via what little remains of classical scientific method)..a once socially respected 'norm' of ethics.

          Morality has become hostage to maniacal narcissism. World "leaders" are simply apparatchiks of the now fully globalized machinations of failing souls.

          History is repeating itself.

          All indications are that death is just fine. Inevitable...

          It's just the dying part that causes pain.

          NuYawkFrankie

          re In truth America's deep state (...) operates along a New York to Washington axis.

          In an even bigger truth America's deep state (...) operates along a New York to Washington to TEL AVIV axis

          - FIXED

          Atomizer

          Time to go to bed Zero Hedge family. Mrs. Atomizer is getting cranky for me to shut off the computer. I wanted to leave you with a Friday night boost of laughter. turn up the volume. See you bitchez in the morning!

          Mortgage Thrift Shop (Macklemore WALL STREET parody ...

          Usurious

          good nite

          John Coltrane

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmD16eSy-Mg

          [Sep 19, 2015]Greece awaits outcome of Alexis Tsipras gamble: 'We have all aged'

          I am not sure that what EU wants is recovery. I think that idea is a fire sell of key Greek assets to Germany for pennies of a dollar. Distressed sales, you know. Welcome to modern debt slavery.
          .
          "..."Dutch economist Maarten Verwey has unprecedented powers as his taskforce oversees the implementation of Greece's cash-for-reforms rescue package...Whoever ends up moving into Maximos Mansion, the official Athens residence of Greece's prime ministers, after Sunday's election, they will not, in any meaningful sense, be running the country.
          .
          That honour might be said to go instead to a besuited Dutch economist in Brussels with the imposing title of director-general in the secretariat-general of the European commission in charge of the Structural Reform Support Service.
          .
          Maarten Verwey, a senior civil servant at the Dutch finance ministry who joined the commission in 2011 and led its Cyprus assistance programme, heads what amounts to an EU taskforce for Greece, Greek media have said. "
          Sep 19, 2015 | The Guardian

          monzer7 19 Sep 2015 22:28

          They sucked up to their politicians, whilst they ignored the obligations of their society. Any collective responsibility was surrendered for personal gain.

          As usual... The Politicos grabbed the loot, and did a quick exit.

          What remains, is your problem!

          ====

          Do you see it?... That debt necklace that continues to engulf you?

          The moral catastrophe this EU promoted...

          We have to respond - but do reflect when you vote when Cameron decides.

          rberger -> Sehome 19 Sep 2015 21:47

          While there might be some economic sense to your idea, the politics make it unlikely to happen. The Southern Europe countries wanted the stable currency and low interest rates associated with the Bundesbank. If you asked Spain whether they wanted to go into a union with people like Greece, it wouldn't make any sense to them - they would prefer to stick to their own currency.

          Xenkar -> Mackname 19 Sep 2015 21:42

          We have to keep pretences about Democracy in Europe is all. As for the renaissance I can't see Greece waiting 3 centuries as a debt colony, unless you are referring to the word literally, or to the sociological results of the renaissance after its end which was the return of Democracy in a revolutionary fashion.

          rberger -> Pannie321 19 Sep 2015 21:40

          Of all the privatizations that have been done since the crisis started, not a single one has gone to a German company. (The airport operations one may go to a joint venture with Fraport but it hasn't been finalized yet.) The winners of the privatizations have been from countries like China, Hungary, Azerbaijan, etc (i.e., usually not EZ countries). I don't think there are any German companies involved in any of the upcoming privatizations either.

          Mackname 19 Sep 2015 21:27

          I don't understand the logical that keeps those people voting for something that they have no power to do a damned thing about it.

          Those people need a renaissance.

          slipangle -> Shizam13 19 Sep 2015 21:25

          "German jackboot" that really is disgraceful, Germany would be far happier if Greece had run proper balanced budgets. The Greeks were the architects of their own disaster,Germans should be thanked for bailing the fools out rather then insulted.

          randomguydeaustralie -> Sehome 19 Sep 2015 21:19

          What, like an Austro-Hungarian Empire you mean?? That ended pretty badly as I recall

          Pannie321 -> rberger 19 Sep 2015 21:14

          Merkel has never been supportive of Greece, she along with Schauble are entirely responsible for impoverishing Greece for the benefit of German Banks. Just check out which Country's businesses are buying up Greek assets cheaply, check out the Nationality of the Business that hasn't paid any V.A.T. revenues or social security(N.I.) contributions for the past 20 years. That business has now conveniently sold their interests.

          DogsLivesMatter -> TheRuthlessTruth 19 Sep 2015 21:10

          The World Bank and the IMF.

          deskandchair 19 Sep 2015 20:56

          Why have elections when thanks to Tsipras treacherous deal it makes absolutely no difference who's elected. Greece your new PM is Maarten Vervwey:

          "Dutch economist Maarten Verwey has unprecedented powers as his taskforce oversees the implementation of Greece's cash-for-reforms rescue package...Whoever ends up moving into Maximos Mansion, the official Athens residence of Greece's prime ministers, after Sunday's election, they will not, in any meaningful sense, be running the country.

          That honour might be said to go instead to a besuited Dutch economist in Brussels with the imposing title of director-general in the secretariat-general of the European commission in charge of the Structural Reform Support Service.

          Maarten Verwey, a senior civil servant at the Dutch finance ministry who joined the commission in 2011 and led its Cyprus assistance programme, heads what amounts to an EU taskforce for Greece, Greek media have said. "
          http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/18/eurozone-greek-prime-minister-maarten-verway-greece-bailout

          Sehome 19 Sep 2015 20:26

          I have watched economic problems from Portugal to Greece for a few years now, seemingly insoluble without German/Brussells dictates, and I have a Propossal:
          All Southern Europe, with its own level of economic strength, languages and cuisine and weather, should withdraw from EU and be its own Union, with its own currency. All of wealthy, arrogant Northern Europe including Scandinavia would be Europe North, but with no power to order anything at all in Europe South.
          This would leave Czech Rep, Slovakia, Poland, the Balts and the poor small countries of Yugoslavia, either to form a Middle Europe, or break to join the North or South.
          Three Europes, I think, makes more sense when one considers language, culture, values, and economics.

          OXIOXI20 -> TheRuthlessTruth 19 Sep 2015 20:22

          You ever hear of bank bailouts, 2008, 2010, 2012 ??

          Scrotalyser 19 Sep 2015 19:46

          I hate to have to tell them, but the Greeks sold their country for Euros. So they can't do anything, because they gave their power away to a cabal of faceless fraudsters.

          Captain_Tibbets 19 Sep 2015 19:41

          Tell the EU to shove their debts.

          Iceland is doing fine now. You don't need the Euro. It's a curse not a blessing. We did tell you that.

          This German mercantilist farce needs to stop. Do it now whilst they're in a blind panic about their disasterous asylum plans which are on the brink of causing war between Hungary and Slovenia. Kick the Germans when they are down - it's the best way, they're not so good fighting on two fronts historically...

          [Sep 19, 2015] John Helmer MH17 – The Lie to End All Truths, and New Evidence

          An interesting new idea: if this was BUK rocket then bodies of passengers should be infested with holes and location of passengers allow fully decipher from which side fragments came from. Each seat is essentially a marker of the warhead positioning and direction of the rods. As seat occupies by passengers are known and most bodies were recovered this excludes BUK as the source. In other words absence of multiple holes in passengers and relatively well preserved bodies (some almost intact) this is powerful argument in favor of air to air missile hypothesis.
          .
          "...The AFP was headed by Tony Negus (above, left) at the time of the MH17 crash. He was replaced by his deputy, Andrew Colvin (right), on October 1, 2014. The evidence release is irreversible, however. The Dutch and Australian records make the Buk story impossible as cause of death. "
          .
          "...In retrospect today, the Dutch and Australian evidence corroborates what Obama heard from Putin that the ATC evidence (radio and radar) was showing an air-to-air attack against MH17."
          .
          "...What the US, Ukrainian and Malaysian communication records show is that in his calls to Poroshenko and Najib, there was a discussion of how to respond to Putin's claim of cause, liability, responsibility. Their media releases of what was said report "the United States has offered immediate assistance to support a prompt international investigation.""
          .
          "...CT scans, X-rays, autopsy sections, and spectroscopic testing of metals, which have now been conducted in The Netherlands and verified in Australia, make the Buk story impossible. This evidence cannot go further to identify the sources of the fatal damage to aircraft and passengers. To do that requires a return to the evidence of the Putin-Obama tapes, and the reinterpretation of what was said then in light of what is known now."
          .
          "...The photos show that that projectiles exited the fuselage. This is not consistent with the impact of BUK shrapnel."
          .
          "...Perhaps you've seen the size of a BUK missile warhead; or not. If you have followed Helmer's thesis you would understand that thousands of pieces of shrapnel are embedded in a BUK warhead, and that this proximity explosion would have riddled the MH17 fuselage and likely the passengers seated on the port (explosion) side of the aircraft. The idea that no metalurgical examination of recovered plane parts points to a BUK missile attack is as disconcerting as the lack of shrapnel in recovered bodies (and body parts)."
          .
          "...The situation in Ukraine reveals the nexus between neo-liberal economic policy, and neocon foreign policy. How craven are the 'leaders' of the 'western' powers, controlled by the insane, psychopathic, financial interests centered in New York and the City of London? They are craven enough to engulf the world in war and ever deepening misery for personal profit."
          Sep 19, 2015 | naked capitalism
          Posted on September 19, 2015 by Yves Smith Yves here Helmer concludes his series on the evidence in MH17 crash, and argues that it is inconsistent with a Buk missile having downed the plane.

          By John Helmer, the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears

          Presidents Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama have on file three pieces of evidence showing both of them knew what had caused the crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17, and of the deaths of all 298 souls on board. They knew it little more than two hours after the crash had occurred in eastern Ukraine. They also knew each other knew it, because they discussed what had happened in a telephone call which took place before 19:45 Moscow time, 11:45 Washington time, on Thursday, July 17. MH17 was downed that day at 16:20 Ukraine time, 17:20 Moscow time, 09:20 Washington time.

          The first piece of evidence is the agenda paper for the telephone call. This had been negotiated and formalized by the Russian Foreign Ministry, the Russian Embassy in Washington, the State Department and the White House before July 17. The second piece of evidence is the tape of the Putin-Obama conversation, as recorded by the Kremlin. The third piece of evidence is the tape of the Obama-Putin conversation, as recorded by the White House.

          This evidence establishes that Putin believed, and Obama believed Putin would announce, not that a ground-to-air missile had brought MH17 down, but that other weapons had done so. The story that a Russian-made Buk missile had caused the disaster began after Obama had spoken to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko at about 19:00 Kiev time, 20:00 Moscow time, 12 noon Washington time.
          Take away that story, because Obama knew it to be false when he had spoken earlier to Putin, and what do you have? A war crime by two governments. How to prove innocence and guilt? The tapes at the Kremlin and the White House.

          According to the Kremlin statement dated July 17, 2014 at 20:30 hours: "In line with a previous agreement, Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with President of the United States Barack Obama. The parties had a detailed discussion of the crisis in Ukraine… The Russia leader informed the US President of the report received from air traffic controllers immediately prior to their conversation about the crash of a Malaysian airplane over the Ukrainian territory."

          Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, was asked yesterday to clarify what the time stamp on the release meant. He was also asked to explain the phrase in the opening line, "a previous agreement." He has responded, identifying 20:30 as the time when the release was posted; the telephone call of the presidents had already taken place. The agreement for the call, Peskov confirmed, including the agenda and the issues for discussion, had been negotiated through diplomatic channels of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and formalized in writing before July 17.

          Until now, the precise timing and sequence of telephone calls which Obama made on the morning and afternoon of the fateful day have not been understood as evidence for the cause of the MH17 disaster. Precise timing is possible because of this record of Obama's flight from Washington to Delaware, his time of landing at Delaware, and his time of takeoff from Delaware to New York. The White House press secretary Josh Earnest also made a public record at the time that Obama and Putin had completed their call at the White House, before 12:30 local time.

          Two additional pieces of evidence on what Putin and Obama said have taken a year to surface. One comes from the Dutch police officer and state prosecutor leading the MH17 case investigation, Fred Westerbeke.

          A year ago, on September 12, 2014, Westerbeke announced publicly that 25 pieces of metal had been recovered. This count hasn't improved In the 14-month long investigation of the crash, of the aircraft debris, and of the remains of those killed. For Westerbeke's statements to Dutch, British and German press, read this.

          Westerbeke's testimony is, he admits himself, ambiguous. He acknowledges that he doesn't (didn't) know, or isn't (wasn't) certain, what the origin of the metal had been.

          The second piece of evidence, which reveals what Westerbeke meant by his disclosure, came weeks later from the Coroners Court of Victoria, an active participant in the multinational post-mortem investigation of the MH17 victims.

          Three Australians – pathology professor David Ranson; deputy Victorian state coroner Iain West, and Victorian state coroner Ian Gray – released the evidence they had gathered and verified with the Dutch and the five-state Joint Investigation Team at the Hilversum military base, near Amsterdam. This evidence became public in November and December of last year. It was classified secret last week. For the detailed documentation which has been preserved of this evidence, click to read here. A Coroners Court spokesman refuses to say when the evidence was officially classified, or on whose order.

          According to the Australian coronial evidence, there was almost no metal in the bodies or body parts of the MH17 victims. According to Westerbeke, just 25 particles had been found. Before the Australian coroners had seen the metal assay evidence, they ruled that "causes of death from explosive decompression – similar to the pressure wave from a bomb – included hypothermia, hypoxia, massive internal organ injury, embolism and heart attack. Exposure to very low temperatures, airflow buffeting and low oxygen at 30,000 feet would also result in death in seconds." Detonation, lethal explosion, and breakup of aircraft had occurred, the Australians have reported - but with insufficient traces of shrapnel to confirm that a Buk missile warhead had been cause.

          Coroner Gray is responsible for the blackout of evidence he and his subordinates had painstakingly made public last year, for the benefit and comfort, they said at the time, of the families of the victims. Ranson, the most talkative of the Australian official investigators, has been obliged this week, not only to keep silent on what he has already published, but to contradict what he has already said. The Australian Federal Police (AFP), Westerbeke's counterparts in the joint international investigation process, are withholding all evidence papers compiled by the pathologists, and the evidence summary file they continue to discuss with the investigators.

          The AFP was headed by Tony Negus (above, left) at the time of the MH17 crash. He was replaced by his deputy, Andrew Colvin (right), on October 1, 2014. The evidence release is irreversible, however. The Dutch and Australian records make the Buk story impossible as cause of death.

          The Kremlin statement, following the presidents' conversation of July 17, 2014, ends with this disclosure. "The Russia leader informed the US President of the report received from air traffic controllers immediately prior to their conversation about the crash of a Malaysian airplane over the Ukrainian territory." The Kremlin summary expressly identifies "air traffic controllers" (ATC). It doesn't say whether they were civilian or military. Since both were at work monitoring Ukrainian airspace, using different equipment in parallel, the identification is a pointer whose significance hasn't been appreciated before; that is, until in retrospect the Dutch and Australian evidence is understood as ruling out a Buk ground-to-air missile attack on MH17.

          Putin made his sources of evidence explicit to Obama. Why was the ATC reference made public? Answer: because Putin told Obama the lethal explosion which killed MH17 and everything in it originated from the air, not from the ground.

          In retrospect today, the Dutch and Australian evidence corroborates what Obama heard from Putin that the ATC evidence (radio and radar) was showing an air-to-air attack against MH17. Obama, and his advisors listening in to the call or to the tape afterwards, had their own reasons to believe what the Kremlin announced curtly but publicly not long after. The Russian explanation for cause of crash and for cause of death was an aerial cause, not a terrestrial one. Obama and the US Government were bound to anticipate that after the telephone conversation more details of the Russian evidence would follow.

          That was high noon for the White House. While Obama was on the presidential jet flying between Andrews airbase and New Castle airport, Delaware – a half-hour interval between 11:45 local time and 12:17 local time – he telephoned Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Najib Razak. This is the White House version, released more than six hours after the event.

          What the US, Ukrainian and Malaysian communication records show is that in his calls to Poroshenko and Najib, there was a discussion of how to respond to Putin's claim of cause, liability, responsibility. Their media releases of what was said report "the United States has offered immediate assistance to support a prompt international investigation."

          The US media records also indicate that between 15:30 and 16:00 local time (23:30 and midnight in Moscow) Obama followed from a ground location in New York with conference calls, first with Secretary of State John Kerry, and then with "with senior members of his national security team".

          Kerry's spokesman at the State Department briefed the press, starting at 13:27, while Obama was still in Delaware and before Obama spoke with Kerry from New York. "At this point," according to Jen Psaki, "we do not have any confirmed information about casualties, the cause, or additional details." Her briefing, lasting 58 minutes, can be followed here. The transcript records she concluded at 14:25.

          A press question early in the State Department session reveals the Buk story as the official position of the Foreign Ministry in Kiev:

          QUESTION: …the Ukrainians' foreign ministry is saying that they have reason to believe this – not just a guess, but based on their assessment – that this was a Russian-made Buk missile that is in the hands of the Russian separatists. You also have kind of chatter on Twitter about some of the separatists saying that they did shoot down a plane. Has your team on the ground spoken to the Ukrainians? Have they told you that this is your assessment – that this is their assessment and you just want to get your own confirmation? I mean, where are you at this point?
          MS. PSAKI: As I mentioned, we're in touch with Ukrainian authorities on this incident.
          QUESTION: So they've obviously shared this assessment with you?
          MS. PSAKI: I'm not – I don't have further readouts, but I think it's a safe assumption that we're discussing reports and, obviously, a range of comments that have been out there. We don't have our own confirmation of details. I can't predict for you if and when we will.

          The first record of the Ukrainian Government's claims for cause of death can be read here.

          In Kuala Lumpur Najib's public response to the Obama telephone call indicated no acceptance by the Malaysian government of an American or a Ukrainian analysis of cause of death.

          We will find out what happened to the plane. If it was indeed shot down, we will press for the culprit to be brought to book. The Ukraine government believes the plane was shot down. However, at this stage, Malaysia has yet to identify the cause of the tragedy. If it transpires that the plane was indeed shot down, we insist that the perpetrators must swiftly be brought to justice. Emergency operations centres have been established. In the last few hours, Malaysian officials have been in constant contact with their counterparts in Ukraine and elsewhere. Obama and I agreed that the investigation will not be hidden and the international teams have to be given access to the crash scene.

          Najib was intent on not becoming a hostage himself to the Ukrainian conflict, and draw voter blame for the loss of the Malaysian lives and aircraft, as he and his ministers had suffered four months earlier, in March, after the loss of Malaysian Airlines MH370 in the Indian Ocean. For more on the domestic politics influencing Najib at the time, read this.

          The deaths of the 43 Malaysians on board MH17 were also personal for the prime minister. His step-grandmother Puan Sri Siti Amirah, 83, was killed in seat 21A.

          CT scans, X-rays, autopsy sections, and spectroscopic testing of metals, which have now been conducted in The Netherlands and verified in Australia, make the Buk story impossible. This evidence cannot go further to identify the sources of the fatal damage to aircraft and passengers. To do that requires a return to the evidence of the Putin-Obama tapes, and the reinterpretation of what was said then in light of what is known now.

          Initially, Obama's public statements after he had spoken to Putin did not suggest a cause for the downing of MH17. That came from other officials, led by Vice President Joe Biden.

          During the conference calls which took place from New York in the afternoon of July 17, did they decide that if the evidence Putin gave Obama that morning were to be published and then believed, the responsibility for what had happened would be clear around the world – the Ukrainian Government had committed a war crime. That afternoon in New York, did the US Government decide it should defend and save the Ukrainian Government? Did Obama, Biden, Kerry, and the others decide that if holding their nose was what they had to do in the circumstances, pre-empting Putin's evidence with evidence of their own was required. And quickly.

          The official responsible for presenting the Buk story as the official US Government "assessment" was the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power. Here she is doing it, at the emergency session of the UN Security Council called the next day, July 18:

          The Buk story has now failed because of the Dutch and Australian evidence. All that is required to corroborate this is the tape recording of what Putin and Obama said to each other. It doesn't matter whether the tape comes from the Kremlin, or from the White House. So long as they are the same.


          Si, September 19, 2015 at 2:49 am

          "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it"

          Adolf Hitler

          rkka, September 19, 2015 at 4:10 am

          One wonders why Ukrainian air traffic controllers directed the flight over an area of known combat operations between the Ukrainian Air Force and DLR air defenses. At the time, the Ukrainian Air Force had been conducting air to ground strikes, and the DLR air defenses had been firing back, shooting down numerous Ukrainian combat aircraft.

          Eliot Higgins at Bellingcat does not deal with that question.

          Ben, September 19, 2015 at 4:48 am

          Helmer's key argument is that there were few metal fragments in the bodies of the victims, therefore they couldn't have been killed by a Buk missile, and therefore there must have been some sort of coverup.

          What makes him think that it's impossible for the plane to be shot down leaving few fragments in the bodies? The Buk has a proximity fuse so it could have exploded *near* the airliner, not right next to it. So perhaps most of the shrapnel hit a wing, or the tail, causing enough damage for the plane to become uncontrollable and break up due to aerodynamic forces, killing the passengers by decompression, hypoxia & buffeting as the coroners describe.

          Helmer doesn't quote any experts on the possibility of that missile bringing down that plane without leaving shrapnel in the bodies. The coroners didn't flag up the lack of shrapnel as a discrepancy- so to Helmer this is evidence that they're involved in the conspiracy too, but isn't the likelier explanation that lack of shrapnel in the bodies doesn't necessarily prove it wasn't a Buk shoot-down?

          And if it wasn't a Buk, what was it? Helmer just suggests an explosion originating "in the air". What would have happened that both Putin and Obama would want to cover up? Helmer doesn't even suggest an alternative theory or theories; we can't weigh up the Buk theory against some other explanation.

          This is classic conspiracy theory thinking: seize on a supposed anomaly in the official account based on non-expert understanding, without clearly stating your alternative explanation which better explains the anomaly (so nobody can point out the discrepancies with your theory).

          Please bear in mind I'm not a Buk expert either. There may be some reason why a Buk exploding nearby couldn't damage the airliner enough to crash it without leaving shrapnel in the bodies, but Helmer doesn't say, or quote any experts.

          craazyboy, September 19, 2015 at 2:44 pm

          There was holes of some sort in recovered fuselage, up front near the pilots cabin. A BUK cannot explode close by and far away at the same time. I believe the war head is what they call "shaped charge". It's designed to blow packaged shrapnel in a wide cone to maximize hit probability.

          guest , September 19, 2015 at 3:22 pm

          An ex-colonel of the anti-aircraft defense forces from the East-German Nationale Volksarmee, and who was well-versed in operating BUK systems, disputed the claim that MH17 had been downed by a ground-to-air missile.

          Here are two links (in German):

        His main arguments:

        a) Based on the photos of the wreck, the impact of projectiles are concentrated on a limited part of the fuselage. However, BUK missiles are designed to explode and send a whole cloud of thousands of small projectiles in order to guarantee a hit against a fast-moving military aircraft, and to strike as large a surface of the airplane as possible to ensure its destruction.

        b) The photos show that that projectiles exited the fuselage. This is not consistent with the impact of BUK shrapnel.

        c) Based on a purported video of the last few seconds of the crashing MH17, the airplane only caught fire after explosion upon impact. However, BUK shrapnel exhibits such kinetic energy that it would light fire to fuel, flammable materials and even some metallic parts upon entering the fuselage. This is something he observed every time he practiced with live BUK systems during NVA/Warsaw Pact exercises. The video should have shown the hulk of the aircraft ablaze rushing towards the ground.

        All this was completely obliterated by the MSM. In truth, it was in German, so it did not help in the English-speaking world.

        Gio Bruno, September 19, 2015 at 4:58 pm

        Perhaps you've seen the size of a BUK missile warhead; or not. If you have followed Helmer's thesis you would understand that thousands of pieces of shrapnel are embedded in a BUK warhead, and that this proximity explosion would have riddled the MH17 fuselage and likely the passengers seated on the port (explosion) side of the aircraft. The idea that no metalurgical examination of recovered plane parts points to a BUK missile attack is as disconcerting as the lack of shrapnel in recovered bodies (and body parts).

        The alternative explanation that you seek from Helmer has been made long ago (when the crash/attack occurred): a Ukrainian (Kiev directed) fighter jet is the likely culprit.

        Julia Versau, September 19, 2015 at 5:15 am

        Am I dense, or what? I'd like one simple concluding statement about the cause of the crash and who the likely culprit is. Is this article suggesting Obama and Putin colluded? I glean that the Buk missile story is hokum. Seriously, sometimes I despair at why today's stories never have an opening or concluding paragraph stating in plain freakin' English what the upshot is.

        pretzelattack, September 19, 2015 at 7:22 am

        somewhere in there he said it was the Ukrainian government.

        Chris Williams, September 19, 2015 at 8:43 am

        The air pilots blogs are full of this. Have been for ages, particularly when pics of the damage were inconsistent with a buk detonation.

        Ukraine Govt? I reckon a lot people know exactly what happened.

        It will all come out – the truth can't be stopped

        rusti, September 19, 2015 at 10:55 am

        It will all come out – the truth can't be stopped

        This is an awfully optimistic view. I'm still scratching my head about JFK, Olof Palme, the bin Laden killing and just about everything else where I'm offered multiple contradictory viewpoints by people who are absolutely certain that they know what happened.

        I wonder about how productive it is to obsess about the details of MH17 for myself as a layman, though I'm glad that the author had this forum to make his case at least and it was an interesting read.

        The involvement of the major actors in the Ukraine does not, in my view, hinge particularly on whether or not the plane was downed by a Buk missile, even if that was a spark that risked escalating the stakes in a manner similar to the USS Maine. It seems more meaningful and concrete to me to focus on actors like Natalie Jaresko and Hunter Biden.

        steelhead23, September 19, 2015 at 12:09 pm

        Qui bono? Who benefits? And what is the benefit? Why would anyone shoot down a civilian airliner – on purpose? This incident is much easier to understand as an accident – that the separatists, tired of being bombed mercilessly, made a "fog of war" mistake. The fog of war kind of loses its value as a fig leaf if the aircraft was shot down by another plane. 'Accident' becomes far less likely. Then it's back to my initial query – who benefited from this incident.

        The only benefit possible is the global indignation toward those "trigger happy" separatists and the beneficiary would be the Ukrainian gov't and its puppet master, the United States.

        craazyboy, September 19, 2015 at 12:37 pm

        True, but we are living in the Age of False Flags – and the beneficiary of it is the Uki guv gaining (more) western support. Taking that a level deeper – given the fractious nature of the Uki Guv, and Ukraine in general, it may be a stunt pulled off by "loyalists" without prior top guv knowledge.

        Tho it would probably be discovered after the fact, and then the necessity of coverup is viewed as the lesser of all evils by top government.

        susan the other, September 19, 2015 at 1:34 pm

        It is doubtful it was an accident because MH17 was encouraged to take a shortcut over Ukraine when no other flights would have considered such a thing. Now Helmer raises all sorts of questions like Why Malasia? And what the hell were Putin and Obama arranging a phone agenda for before the crash? What timeliness.

        That is some very unnerving cooperation. Then if it is a rogue player, Who? And Why? Leaving aside the hapless Poroshenko or the Uki Nazi lunatics, we have a large roster left to contemplate – but without any evidence.

        Was it George Soros trying to make his investment pay off? Was it MI6 trying to make Soros' investment pay off? When we backed off the whole Uki revolution who went charging in with guns blazing and then got very quiet? Why did Netanyahu scurry off to Moscow yesterday? And etc, etc.

        craazyboy, September 19, 2015 at 1:52 pm

        Uki air control is a biggie in my mind too – and they've buried all evidence there as well, as Helmer pointed out in the previous posts.

        I was thinking a scenario worth consideration is Uki Nazi lunatics, giving Poroshenko the benefit of the doubt he is not nuts too. But they couldn't keep something secret like launching a real UKI Air Force fighter quiet after the fact – so Poroshenko would panic and cover it up.

        Netanyahu is now begging Putin not to support Assad – because this strengthens Hezbollah – Isreal's scariest enemy.

        So that's an issue happening in the other Russian Invasion Front.

        susan the other, September 19, 2015 at 2:07 pm

        And also too. Just thinking @ this last week, Do the refugees know something we don't? Like all-out war using nuclear weapons? I'm just searching for answers. Clearly NeoCapitalism failed to keep globalism going. And/or global warming is calling the shots (my favorite reason). We are, as George Bush said, "going in." For several reasons. And we want Russia by our side (my take). Scary.

        craazyboy, September 19, 2015 at 2:25 pm

        I think the commies will launch a nuke at my missile plant here, long before they waste one Syria.

        Lambert Strether, September 19, 2015 at 1:29 pm

        Unless - and this is pure and uninformed speculation - what the Ukrainian government intended to happen was what almost did happen: A casus belli for war with Russia.

        Rhondda, September 19, 2015 at 3:04 pm

        A purposeful casus belli for war with Russia is what I think, too. As to who actually initiated it (presuming it was not a mistake)…lots of suspicious actors. None of 'em Russian. Not even helpful to think in term of govts in my view. Factions are where the action is.

        I'll remind, although it may just be coinkydink, Putin's plane was reported to have passed through the area not half an hour before.

        Lambert Strether, September 19, 2015 at 3:32 pm

        I don't think that. The question was "cui bono." I presented a possibility. Certainly the Ukrainian government was corrupt, crazy, and desperate enough - and in that, a very good match for some factions in our national security establishment *** cough **** Victoria Nuland *** cough *** - but that doesn't add up to anything like proof (and there is also the fog of war, accident, and sheer incompetence to content with).

        FedUpPleb September 19, 2015 at 6:08 am

        I'm not a believer in the standard Ukraine narratives myself, but is this really NC material?

        Tinky September 19, 2015 at 6:51 am

        Given that the "standard Ukraine narratives" are American narratives, it is an extremely important issue, and very much "NC material".

        Yves should be applauded for providing space to serious and independent journalists such as Helmer.

        Barry Fay September 19, 2015 at 7:57 am

        Hear, hear! I still hear people on NPR calling in and saying Putin shot down that plane and nobody takes notice! Yves should definitely be applauded! The whole incident was a textbook example of the propaganda abilities of America and its corporate owned media.

        Gio Bruno September 19, 2015 at 5:20 pm

        …stop listening to National Propaganda Radio. It's become nothing more than heart-tugging stories, and bromides for the Homeland. They should all be ashamed of themselves. As I once said to an office colleague, "You'll die here."

        Alex morfesis September 19, 2015 at 8:06 am

        There is more to economic planning and analysis then a 200 day moving average…and a random sampling of restaurant and art gallery openings in 20 cities by Robert Shiller

        Pat September 19, 2015 at 8:26 am

        The Ukrainian version is full of crap. American support for it is not based on goodwill towards the Ukrainian people, any more then their support for a coup of the Ukrainians previous President was. It is about positioning in a political situation that is as much based on retaining economic superiority as it is about remaining the dominant Super Power.

        Add to it that this propaganda issue is part and parcel of the justification for the significant amount of money the US government is sending (bribing) the Ukrainian government and its officials. That influx of capital alone is reason enough for Naked Capitalism to cover it, the significant strategic positioning of economic interests aside.

        Veri1138 September 19, 2015 at 12:25 pm

        Pan Am 103, blamed on The Libyans with evidence to show it was The PFLP operating on behalf of The Iranians in response to Iran Air Flight 655 being shot down by USS Vincennes. People tend to forget the past.

        Watt4Bob September 19, 2015 at 9:13 am

        The situation in Ukraine reveals the nexus between neo-liberal economic policy, and neocon foreign policy. How craven are the 'leaders' of the 'western' powers, controlled by the insane, psychopathic, financial interests centered in New York and the City of London? They are craven enough to engulf the world in war and ever deepening misery for personal profit.

        What this article attempts, to reveal is the depths of deprivation which our governments have sunk in their slavish support of the neo-liberal economic agenda as enforced by the strictures of neocon foreign policy.

        In short, capitalism laid bare, naked capitalism.

        What could possibly be more appropriate 'material' for this site

        NotTimothyGeithner September 19, 2015 at 9:39 am

        Guns and butter.

        -Joe Biden's son is player in planned fracking in the war zone.
        -Russian scares are being pushed before defense appropriation votes
        -Russian companies are competing on the world market. If an S-400 provides air defense, why do I need an F-35 (the promise not the reality) if I'm not interested in conquest.
        -gee, proposed Russian pipelines are being blocked while McCain and friends are promising to ship gas across the pond in under 2 years.

        "War is a racket."

        Lambert Strether September 19, 2015 at 1:26 pm

        As an exercise in politics and power, most certainly.

        It's also good to get this material on the record as Biden's star ascends in the 2016 primary, since he keeps popping up at crucial moments.

        Yves Smith Post author, September 19, 2015 at 2:07 pm

        First, if you read our About section, the most important mission of this site is to promote critical thinking.

        Second, we've treated Ukraine as peripheral (links material), generally speaking, save for the IMF funding. But the whole Cold War II effort has major economic implications, and the matter of MH17 "investigation" serves to illustrate how keen the US is to foment conflict.

        Look, even if the rebels did bring down the plane with a Buk, they didn't intend to. There's nothing to be gained and plenty to lose in taking down passenger planes. And how many innocent civilians does the US murder by drone, where American citizens are told, "Well, they don't count" or "They were guilty too because they were obviously connected to people we are sure were bad guys"?

        rkka September 19, 2015 at 6:49 am

        One wonders why the Ukrainian air traffic controllers directed the flight over an active conflict zone, where the Ukrainian Air Force had been conducting aerial strikes on the DLR, and the DLR air defense system had been shooting down Ukrainian combat aircraft during the course of active hostilities.

        LifelongLib September 19, 2015 at 2:49 pm

        IIRC there was a restricted zone at a lower altitude but not at the altitude the MH17 flight was at. Presumably nobody thought any of the (ground) combatants had weapons that could hit an aircraft flying that high.

        ltr September 19, 2015 at 8:01 am

        A superb series of posts for which I am especially grateful. Really important investigative journalism and essential reading for us.

        timbers September 19, 2015 at 9:29 am

        MH17 is Obama's WMD in Iraq moment.

        Don't know why but found this Helmer article much easier to read than the previous ones. If Putin or someone released those recordings of Obama/Putin it would probably show Obama (and Hillary) to the liars they are. On the other hand the corporate owned and U.S. media is so agenda driven they might deliberately ignore it and tell us to move along, Putin did it.

        On related topic, Putin giving more aid to Assad in Syria is looking like another smart game changing move as it appears it will limit the area Obama can bomb, specifically the areas that would most weaken Assad. And since Obama is funding/training/supportiing ISIS and Al-Qeada to further regime change in Syria by pretending to bomb ISIS when he really wants to bomb Assad, this could make all the waves if refugees, bombed civilians and infrastructure of nations that Obama is responsible for, wasted effort should this Putin move stymie Obama regime change and.

        Obama's cold blooded bombing regime change calculations reminds of the ferris wheel scene in The Third Man, when Orson Welles asks Joseph Cotton how many of the little ant like specs moving below them he can live without to make some nice profit diluting antibiotics in post WWII Vienna black market.

        Watt4Bob September 19, 2015 at 9:30 am

        Was it something I said? Immoderate, I think making war in support of financial interests is immoderate.

        david September 19, 2015 at 10:29 am

        The forward cabin near the pilots have been shown with inside and outside tear marks / perforations with roughly round holes on web site photos on opposite sides of the skin of the plane – are these recovered pieces actually recovered from the crash site ?

        craazyboy September 19, 2015 at 10:52 am

        I guess if someone found a 50mm cannon projectile lodged between the pilots eyeballs, the investigation would have gone quicker. But no. You wouldn't find any at the crash site either, or even shell casings, because the event happened in the air many miles away and they would have eventually fallen to ground who knows where.

        craazyboy September 19, 2015 at 10:43 am

        Well, if the Ministry of Truth classified lack of BUK metal evidence a week ago, the open investigation is proceeding swimmingly in my view. Besides, the Separatist's Air Force may have fighter aircraft, for all we know – and Big Bro may soon disclose that fact to us as well.

        NotTimothyGeithner September 19, 2015 at 11:47 am

        Didn't one of Obama's public statements blame Putin for "creating conditions" for MH17 to crash? If the truth comes out, I expect to see a similar statement. Of course, the White House flunkies seem to be blaming Hillary and the Pentagon for urging aggressive stances.

        craazyboy September 19, 2015 at 1:55 pm

        Twitter verifies their users, so no spooks there!

        Steve in Flyover September 19, 2015 at 1:36 pm

        Boy, the Rooskies are pulling out all the stops to avoid taking the blame for this one. I'd have a little more sympathy, if they didn't have a long anbfd bloody history of "accidentally" shooting airliners down. Too bad they didnthave these propaganda/media experts Iin place in 1981……… they could have blamed KAL 007 on the Japanese.

        Lack of BUK shrapnel does not mean that it wasnt shot down by a BUK. And besides, how long did they have control of the bodies before they were released?

        So by saying it wasnt a BUK, the only alternative is that it was caused by a heat seeking missile from a Ukranian SU 24………..which is an even bigger pile of BS.

        Funny……for months before this incident, the separatists were claiming to have been zapping Ukranian Air Force airplanes with SAMs all over eastern Ukraine. Until someone effed up. Then, they all just happened to take the day off.

        No matter. The Russian got their version out there first. So, as anyone who has ever taken issue with Republican BS knows, it takes 5 times the bandwidth worth of facts to debunk the original BS.

        craazyboy September 19, 2015 at 2:13 pm

        Well, well. Were shall we start.

        The BUK. It has a proximity fuse which detonates some distance in front of it's target, and then explodes like a big bomb with 8000 pieces of packaged shrapnel bursting out in a wide conical path.

        I think not finding any in at least the front of airplane passengers is very weird.

        The first step is in determining whether the attack came from the ground or the air.

        On to your "SAMs". The Separatists have shoulder fired missiles, which can be effective against low altitude attack aircraft which are swopping down doing a bombing/strafing run. They can't hit anything above 10,000 ft., and MH-17 was at around 30,000 ft.

        So, a ground attack is looking unlikely, then an air attack from something would become the focus of any impartial investigation.

        Actually, the Russians quickly put forth the SU-24 scenario – but that one seems tough to believe as well. I'm thinking what if a real fighter plane did it?

        cirsium September 19, 2015 at 2:54 pm

        Is it not the Canadians or OSCE who got their version out first including a picture of part of the aircraft fuselage damaged by machine gun bullets? See from 6.23 minutes into the interview with the OSCE representative in this clip http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysia-airlines-mh17-michael-bociurkiw-talks-about-being-first-at-the-crash-site-1.2721007?cmp=rss&partner=sky

        The following post also links back to the interview
        http://www.anderweltonline.com/wissenschaft-und-technik/luftfahrt-2014/shocking-analysis-of-the-shooting-down-of-malaysian-mh17/

        Chris Williams September 19, 2015 at 4:01 pm

        thank you for that link. Yes, he clearly says the holes look like the plane was strafed by a fighter jet using its cannon. And, he qualifies and says he is not an expert.

        The 'experts' have looked at the physical evidence and I think their conclusions are at odds with Putin did it. He armed the separatists etc… Takes time to get the right narrative, particularly when so many aviation investigators want to tell the truth, but can't

        Lambert Strether September 19, 2015 at 4:07 pm

        "How long did they control the bodies"?

        Huh? What are you saying? There were shrapnel wounds after all, but they magically got sewed up or healed? Or a new set of bodies was swapped in, but nobody noticed, including the Australian coroners?

        Fun with IHL September 19, 2015 at 2:01 pm

        Highest compliments on this forensic-quality exposition. Any court in the world could try this crime, and 194 are obligated to do so if they find any suspects in their jurisdiction. What would they make of it?

        The Ukrainian command structure is implicated in intentional attacks against the civilian population, presuming that the hostilities are an armed conflict not of an international character. On the other hand, the US command structure is implicated in the inchoate Nuremberg crimes (criminalized in paragraphs 500 and 501 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10) of incitement, conspiracy and complicity. US war propaganda regarding MH-17 was incidental to US aggression in Ukraine: sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries. Joint responsibility for satisfaction up to and including prosecution, would be invoked differently depending on the extent to which the US is found to direct and control the successor state in Ukraine.

        So how to get to Obama and his Clandestine Service superiors? Go after Power. The Big Lie originates with her. Power's diplomatic immunity does not hold for such serious crimes, and she wouldn't hesitate to rat her bosses out in a pinch. FIDH can pull a Pinochet (That's how they shooed Bush out of Switzerland in 2011.)

        Not saying we should string the scumbag up. The death penalty is an atavism. Brennan's got it coming, but maybe we won't even lock Obama up. Obama can retire in Jeddah at Idi Amin's old place.

        Lambert Strether September 19, 2015 at 2:09 pm

        Ah yes, Samanatha Power of "responsibility to protect" (R2P). I don't know why the rot sets in so fast with liberal interventionists, as opposed to, say, Kissinger or Brezinski. Perhaps it's because they're rotten already, so we never notice a change.

        NotTimothyGeithner September 19, 2015 at 4:53 pm

        It's just old fashioned imperial rot and moving the Overton Window. Kissinger has been allowed to play an elder statesman, and anyone who isn't as loathsome as he was revealed to be seems great. Kissinger in a vacuum seems not terrible, but we are judging him from the end of his career. R2P sounds nice, but it's nothing more than an updated version of the white man's burden. We even rescue and parade around the civilized victims. After Cheney, the bar was set low. Look at Team Blue, they are treating a Biden candidacy as a serious threat.

        Chauncey Gardiner September 19, 2015 at 2:20 pm

        If accurate, Helmer's summary raises some very serious questions. Among them:

        • Why the attempted cover-up?
        • Was the act both intentional and committed with full knowledge of the nature of the target?

        If the Malaysian Air jet was a case of mistaken identity, who was the real intended target and why? If this tragic incident was attributable to an error, why did the mistake occur? Was it simply negligence, was it attributable to an intel failure, a communication failure, fighter pilot error, or did intentional diversion play a role?

        Did U.S. military or other U.S. officials have foreknowledge of or involvement in the decision to target a specific aircraft that led to the tragic loss of those 298 innocent souls on MH017, including many children?

        If Hellmer's account is correct, how long are we going to extend credibility, mainstream media access, and official podiums to serial liars that enable them to represent their values and views as being the official USG position?

        A war crime?… certainly appears to fit the definition. But as much as it pains me to say it in light of the related loss of life and what is presently occurring elsewhere, perhaps Obama and Putin jointly deserve some credit for quietly neutering those who sought to use this tragic incident as a casus belli to engineer a broader conflict.

        NotTimothyGeithner September 19, 2015 at 4:25 pm

        "Who was the real target?"

        There may not have been a real target, just fog of war. Short of a concerted plan to down the airliner, the direct fault lies with air traffic control.

        I could easily envision a scenario where a Kiev jet or BUK outfit from either side saw an unknown jet enter the war zone and assumed it was reinforcements from the other side. The combatants aren't regulars with full functioning command and control.

        Obama quietly neutering? The guy has been foaming at the mouth. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2697595/Hurry-wait-Obama-blames-separatists-Putins-control-plane-crash-wants-hold-sanctions-outrage-unspeakable-proportions-investigated.html

        Neutering wouldn't involve new bases and major military exercises in Eastern Europe. Perhaps, he has finally learned Hillary and her ilk are clowns, but let's give credit where it's due. Obama forced the issue with support for a coup, keeping neocons in the government, pushing in Syria, over stepping the no fly zone in Libya, making a public shift to our new enemy China, and so forth. The buck stops with the President when the criminals are appointees.

        [Sep 19, 2015] Russia Says It May Send Troops Into Combat In Syria As A d Netanyahu Heads To Moscow

        "...What really pisses off Israel about the Pantsirs is that they are crewed by Russians. That means even if an Israeli jet or missile COULD get close enough to take one out without being destroyed themselves (which I doubt), they would end up killing the Russians crewing the unit. On the same token, Israel can't send their al Nusra head-choppers to do the job because Russia knows exactly who gives them orders. Russian-crewed Pantsirs take all the options away from Israel. Meaning they can't attack a point air-defense weapon and take it out so they can THEN attack the SAM sites or interceptor aircraft it was protecting."
        Sep 19, 2015 | Zero Hedge
        philipat

        Clever. Russia says, "We agree with The US" that ISIL is a problem and we want to help Syria, in coalition with Allies, to form a united front against ISIL. Back to you US.....Lavrov is a class act.

        BuddyEffed

        Just an observation from an engineer, now if any NATO forces take out an antiaircraft site then there are likely to be Russian casualties. Suspect airspace is going to get more respect than it has been getting as a result.

        Can anyone intelligently provide comment on how this now affects issues of international law?

        Herd Redirectio...

        Here's my question, what part of the North Atlantic is Syria on? (North Atlantic Treaty Organization = NATO)

        Unless NATO is just the word for the ZIO-Empire?

        The Greek horse
        Putin knows what ISIS stands for = IsraeliSecretIntelligentService

        Sorry Bibi go blow your Zionist master NOW..

        Normalcy Bias

        It's REAL now and the Pentagon knows it. Fucking with Russians is a very BAD bet.

        They aren't just mouth-breathing neanderthals with AK-47's.

        I love my country, but my money is on the Russians.

        Mostly Harmless

        I believe International Law requires that the U.N. Security Council has to O.K. any Nation/State agression on another Nation/State. It doesn't matter who's manning the weapons. They are still considered the property of a sovereign nation/state. Attacking another Nation/State's property INSIDE that Nation/States JURISDICTION is considered an Act of War.

        Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. all required a certain number of votes before the UN/NATO could bomb the snot out of them. If memory serves; Russia, China, or both vetoed military intervention against Syria - so the countries itching to bomb Syria's legitimate government had to seek other means of regime change. Anyone paying attention, already knows what those "other means" were and are.

        To better clarify, Turkey sent an RF-4 into Syrian air space a few years back and the Syrians promptly shot it down. Yes, there was a lot of hand wringing at the time by Turkey and NATO allies, but there was nothing they could do. A military reconnaissance air-craft crossed an international border. The Syrian's had every right to shoot it down because it was in their airspace and Syria had not given Turkey permission to spy on it :-)

        The Russians are in Syria at Syria's request. Now bombing Syrian targets get trickier. It would be an ACT OF WAR against Russia if any of it's personnel or equipment are attacked by US, NATO, Turkey, etc. because Russia owns the equipment/personnel and have PERMISSION to be there by the Syrian government.

        BuddyEffed

        This is why I love ZH

        The Indelicate ...

        And when has the US or UK or Israel at all respected "international law"?

        Israel holds the world record for violations of UN resolutions and Geneva Conventions.

        In fact, it continues to violate the terms imposed on it for admission to the UN.

        Doesn't matter.

        They're Juice.

        They're *special*

        Its in a book!

        Son of Loki

        The UN? Countries honor UN resolutions when they agree with their plans; if the resolution does not pass, the country will simply ignore the UN or propagandize some other method of circumventing the UN citing some such vague claims of "national security" and so on.

        The UN serves one interesting purpose; it gives politicians to come to NYC to party like crazy away from their homelands. Hookers, booze, dope, and more hookers all on their countries' tab. It must be very Booooyaaah.

        Mostly Harmless

        I believe International Law requires that the U.N. Security Council has to O.K. any Nation/State agression on another Nation/State. It doesn't matter who's manning the weapons. They are still considered the property of a sovereign nation/state. Attacking another Nation/State's property INSIDE that Nation/States JURISDICTION is considered an Act of War.

        Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. all required a certain number of votes before the UN/NATO could bomb the snot out of them. If memory serves; Russia, China, or both vetoed military intervention against Syria - so the countries itching to bomb Syria's legitimate government had to seek other means of regime change. Anyone paying attention, already knows what those "other means" were and are.

        To better clarify, Turkey sent an RF-4 into Syrian air space a few years back and the Syrians promptly shot it down. Yes, there was a lot of hand wringing at the time by Turkey and NATO allies, but there was nothing they could do. A military reconnaissance air-craft crossed an international border. The Syrian's had every right to shoot it down because it was in their airspace and Syria had not given Turkey permission to spy on it :-)

        The Russians are in Syria at Syria's request. Now bombing Syrian targets get trickier. It would be an ACT OF WAR against Russia if any of it's personnel or equipment are attacked by US, NATO, Turkey, etc. because Russia owns the equipment/personnel and have PERMISSION to be there by the Syrian government.

        researchfix

        "And when has the US or UK or Israel at all respected "international law"?"

        Doesn´t matter when they hit Russians.

        Then natural law gets going.

        The Indelicate ...

        When has the US, or Israel, all kidding aside, abided by "international law" which, arguably, doesn't even really exists except the Laws of the Sea are pretty solid and if you used to hand out towels in the German Army, you may be prosecuted, at 93 years old, for some absurd litany of crimes you didn't commit.

        That's about it.

        Other than that, it is might makes right.

        ZippyDooDah

        @BuddyEffed

        To the US, international law doesn't count; international force matters, however. The Russians are probably inserting themselves as a buffer for Assad, knowing that the Western pow(d)ers will back off, not wanting to start some shit with a true world power, ie Russia. But international law, pffftt, what's that? Invade Iraq, pffftt, why not?

        Paveway IV

        A good Weekend Tyler article in that Weekend Tyler kind of way. I did find the last sentence so astonishing that it rated a comment.

        "...At the end of the day, one is certainly left to believe that Israel's "worries about accidentally coming to blows with Russian reinforcements in Syria" will quickly evaporate should Netanyahu get confirmation that the Quds are indeed on the ground as some reports have recently suggested and if it becomes clear that weapons are being funneled to Hezbollah, well, then all bets will officially be off..."

        I had to re-read that a couple of times. Israel's worries about killing Russians would evaporate if something happened? Really? So the implication is that Israel could get SO excited about something that they could or would blow away Russian soldiers without hesitation... kind of like if they were Palestinians or something?

        So what would this horror of horror be that would push Israel over the edge? Tyler: 1) Iranian Quds in Syria and 2) weapons being funneled to Hezbollah.

        OK, we KNOW Quds are on the ground in Syria right now helping Syrian troops. In a very limited fashion and Iran isn't making noise about it, but for FUCKS SAKE, Iran is Syria's ally. Iran can put 100,000 Iranian troops in Syria if they want. Israel doesn't have a God damn thing to say about it. It's ISRAEL that has no right to send aircraft, missiles, chemical weapons, al Nusra mercenaries or anyone or anything else into Syria. Israel is openly supporting terrorist groups and providing them aid and air cover. It was Israel that paid al Nusra to take out the SAM and radar sites in the hills near the Golan border.

        And Israel is going to be pissed if Iranian troops show up in Syria to fight terrorists? Arrogant pricks... I think they're afraid that Iranian troops will prevent Israel from their plan of stealing more Syrian and Lebanese land.

        The second part I understand - Israel goes insane if they think Hezbollah is getting any weapons because those weapons will be used to prevent further Israeli aggression. Israeli aggression that involves violating Lebanese airspace to blow away Hezbollah followed by land theft. But Syria doesn't have 'spare' weapons to be handing out to Hezbollah - they need the SAMs themselves to protect SYRIA from Israeli aircraft. There's no way Assad is giving away weapons he's waited years to get. I'm sure he gives stuff to Hezbollah, but not a Pantsir S-1, for Christ's sake.

        It's interesting how the rhetoric exploded recently about the Russian invasion after Russia (supposedly) delivered six MiG-31 Foxhound long-range interceptors to Mezze Air Base and also delivered another Pantsir S-1 system to Syria. Both are defensive weapons in practice - they have no offensive role.

        Foxhounds would provide beyond-visual-range defense against attacking Israeli aircraft or cruise missiles. The Pantsir S-1, aka SA-22 SAM, is a point defense weapon. You use it close to high-value targets to defend them from missiles and aircraft. Now if there are six shiney new MiG-31s at Mezze, Syria would presumable want to protect them.

        I linked Haaretz for the Pantsir to illustrate a point - Israel has bent over backwards to emphasize 'missile' and 'SA-22' in a pathetic attempt to associate this with (supposed) Hezbollah rocket attacks against Israeli positions. In fact, the Pantsir can do nothing of the sort and is a dedicated air defense weapon, nothing else. Israel is not afraid of a Hezbollah attack - Israel is afraid of not being able to violate Lebanese and Syrian airspace with impunity for whatever attacks they self-justify.

        What really pisses off Israel about the Pantsirs is that they are crewed by Russians. That means even if an Israeli jet or missile COULD get close enough to take one out without being destroyed themselves (which I doubt), they would end up killing the Russians crewing the unit. On the same token, Israel can't send their al Nusra head-choppers to do the job because Russia knows exactly who gives them orders. Russian-crewed Pantsirs take all the options away from Israel. Meaning they can't attack a point air-defense weapon and take it out so they can THEN attack the SAM sites or interceptor aircraft it was protecting.

        So despite Weekend Tyler's assertion in the last line, there will be no such thing as 'all bets are off' when it comes to Syrian SAMs, not matter what the justification. Israel would have no problem at all smoking a few U.S. soldiers and apologizing to Obama later (maybe), but I will never believe they are so stupid as to poke the bear. There's a reason Putin is widely popular in Russia, and it's not because he's a pussy that wears helmets and mom genes. Israel could expect swift and overwhelming retribution from Russia with no apologies from Putin if they were stupid enough to kill Russian soldiers.

        This must frustrate Bibi to no end. He probably spends his entire day ranting about Putin while pacing his office and waving his hands in the air. He probably has to be sedated so he doesn't stroke out. I'll bet Putin will be packing during their meeting - no telling when that psycho Nettanyahu will go ballistic and 'tard out on Putin.

        Freddie

        ZH should get you to write their articles. They should fire "weekend Tyler."

        Jack Burton

        Latina, Russia announced that it has proof. via military intelligence, that the USA knows many of ISIS postions, and troop movements in Iraq and Syria, but refused to bomb them, as these ISIS forces are attacking in aid of US foreign policy. Long convoys of Toyat trucks carrying thousands of ISIS have been allowed free access to Iraq and Syrian roads in broad daylight, with no attacks made at all. The Iraq parliament members have also told the press of US airdrops of military supplies to ISIS right in the area of Iraqi army and ISIS combat operations! How much evidence do we need that the USA is only pushing ISIS to the areas it wants ISIS to fight. Beating ISIS is not at all on Washington's agends. How can I say that? Because real hard evidence on the ground PROVES the US does not attack ISIS when it could do so with ease.

        Russia wants to step in and attack ISIS where the USA refuses to!

        The biggest joke of the week? Australia has sent war planes to support the US war on ISIS in Syria. Australia is a buzz with stories of their hero pilots about to cheat death in the deadly battle on ISIS. My friends. This is the biggest fucking joke of the week! Who in their right mond buys that, except the FOX brainwashed 30%.

        Latina Lover

        Jack Burton, ISiS is an obvious western creation, likely #3 after the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda. Can anyone explain how a supposed rag tag group of Muslims can somehow acquire billions of dollars in weapons, vehicles, and hire thousands without help? Heck I cannot send a wire from Guatemala to Texas for $1000 without getting bounce-backs and/or harassment by banksters.

        Putin is to address the UN general assembly on or around the 25th of Sept. 2015. I predict this speech will be historic, because Putin will likely comment on the Ukraine and Syria situations. For the first time in decades, the USSA will be exposed to a global audience.

        Lastly, the following brilliant comment by Paveway IV explains why the USSA is so pissed over Russia helping Assad:

        I'm not sure you guys recognize what just happened here. They didn't risk aircraft to blow up a random few ISIS lairs.

        The fake ISIS central bank (ZATO al Raqqah branch) and everything in it just got smoked.

        The al Raqqah satcom links have been destroyed - that's how fake ISIS/CIA/ZATO SF guys get their marching orders and avoid being blown up by fellow ZATOers.

        There will be no more U.S. resupply of cash, equipment or oil to al Raqqah, and the ammo/replacement headchopper pipeline is in peril.

        Fake al Nusra still has their U.S. command bunker and logistics hub in Aleppo, but fake ISIS just lost the ability to pay their mercenaries or exchange any money, fake ISIS can no longer communicate with their ZATO masters via scrambled satlinks to Jordan and Turkey for instructions. Blind and broke, and Assad already took out their oil supply last week.

        After he turns the water off (the Tabqua dam) upstream of al Raqqah, fake ISIS and the U.S. will go ballistic. A humanitarian crisis tit-for-tat. Fake ISIS in al Raqqah were the ones using mustard gas mortar shells a couple of months ago. They have a stash somewhere (that probably says 'Made in the USA'). I wouldn't put it past them to blow the dam before the Syrian Army can take it.

        This forces Obama to act, and he has no idea what to do. His chickenhawk Israeli-firster generals want WAR, but Obama will never agree to that. If Obama wants to pull out, the DoD (and their Xe/Academi for-profit arm) will refuse.

        Things just got to a very dangerous tipping point. Putin has missile cruisers and a Typhoon-class nuke sub off the coast of Syria, and 100,000 Russian soldiers on the southern border participating in Center-2015. I doubt Putin will ever do anything, but this further limits the clownfuckery the Pentagram can get away with.

        Whenever the Pentagram has their backs to the wall, bad, bad things happen. They will go full retard barring some miracle - or the obliteration of earth on the 24th - whichever comes first.

        Jack Burton

        Brilliant indeed! Latina! That's new information to me. I knew Russia would only act if it really counted! Unlike fake US air attacks on ISIS, Russia is ruthlessly efficient with it's attacks. I wonder if Assads forces used new Russian precision guided weapons to take out the ISIS bank and telecom links. Probably.

        Anyways ,Thanks for that post latina, it's why I always read you!

        Gilnut

        Russia will still only push this so far. Desert Storm I and II were proxy wars between Russia and the USA, where the Russian supplied Iraqi's stood their ground, they lasted 1 minute, where they ran they lasted 2 minutes. Russia remembers this. Not opinion, just fact. If this turns "hot" Russia knows it has no other option than nuclear to win. Putin has balls, but he's smart too.

        Huh Reeeally

        Russia will still only push this so far.

        In general I agree with you, they usually don't take it to the nth degree, however with regards to the Syrian armed forces, they've done surprisingly well considering the number of countries and terrorists they're fighting.

        Iraq was largely left to survive on its own with little outside help to speak of. Syria is different. It's Russia's Port in the Med, and it is vital to Russian gas interests = Gazprom, just as it is vital to European/US gas interests = Qatar. Syria will not fold unless Russian interests can be preserved as part of the solution. With both the US and Russia coming closer to deploying troops, and all sorts of missiles and fighter jets flying around a small airspace this could get interesting in a hurry. This won't go nuclear until all the proxies are used up, remember Iran is on General Wes Clark's list of seven countries scheduled for regime change.

        The US is tired of paying for all those refugees to be housed and fed in Turkey so they're shipping them off to europe, notice two things here. ALL the countries neighbouring Syria refuse to take any syrian refugees/migrants/opportunists, and the EU, with its laughably so-called rich countries with BENEFITS are getting all of them. Even Canada can't wait to be destabilized, I mean take in a boatload - we're in the middle of a federal election so giving away a few thousand passports is a big vote getter here. How come these people, and I have every sympathy for their plight, have the 10K USD to pay for passage but are impoverished when they arrive in the promised land welfare state? If they do have 10K and a passport then why don't they fly? Just who is paying that bill?

        At least Russia is calling the US terrorist bluff. I wonder if Vegas has odds on this...

        angel_of_joy

        ...Iraq was largely left to survive on its own with little outside

        Wrong! Iraq is under the full control of Iran, and it has been ever since the American withdrawal.

        Huh Reeeally

        Well yes, ...since the american withdrawal but how much help and support did they receive in the first war over Kuwait? And then the WMD excuse, do you recall anyone lining up to help them out? Remember that Iraq and Iran fought a rather long and bloody war that barely ended before Kuwait 'happened'. My point was to illustrate that Russia has serious interests in Syria, unlike in Iraq back then. The Syrians have done well so far, and I expect they'll have the fortitude to persevere since they are not only fighting FOR their homes but big brother definitely has their back in this one.

        If you're saying it's a sordid mess with fluid alliances based on geopolitics, oil, proxies, religion and various religous sects then I absolutely agree with you :-)

        Herd Redirectio...

        Yes, lets just ignore Vietnam... Didn't happen. LALALA

        Also, the M16 (esp. back in 1969) is perfect for dragging in the mud, much better than that super reliable AK47. Yep, take my word for it.

        Oh, I forgot, the Vietnamese weren't fighting fair. Those bastards! They killed that guy in the movie Green Berets with a booby trap! Cowards! Dropping bombs from 12000 feet, now that is bravery.

        Latina Lover

        I have memories in SE asia, of tough motherfuckers who could live on rat meat and a cup of rice. Unless we are defending our homeland, I doubt that most american soldiers are as motivated as the forces we usually oppose.

        FIAT CON

        Well which wars did the amreicans win?

        Vietnam ... ah no winner!

        Korean again ah no win there

        Iraq Ah I dont think so

        Afgahnastan too soon to tell

        how big and powerful were these opponents... not very

        Lets just see how well the Amuricans do against the extremly strong willed Chinese and or Russians... if you are an Amurican are are not afraid of these two Countries Warriors you better go learn some history.

        Freddie

        The Banksters win in every war.

        flapdoodle

        If you want a better comparison, try the *very* well equipped forces in Georgia and how they fared against the relatively poorly equipped Russian forces in 2008.

        Even though the Georgians picked up some experience in Afghanistan and were sporting the latest US Humvees and US soldier kit, the relatively rag-tag Russians made short work of the Georgians.

        Another comparison - Ukraine didn't fare so hot against the breakaway Donbass rebels, rag tag as well but this time equipped a bit better with Russian kit...

        Using the Iraqi Army (which after all was lead up by the US puppet Saddam Hussein) as an example of how the Russians would fare against the US Army is laughable - as in stupid laughable.

        Perhaps the Hezbullah success with Kornets against Merkvas and the IDF in 2006 is closer to the truth?

        Latina Lover

        Hamas blowing up a Merkava Tank likely using a SA29 Vampir:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bemnaJmikXQ

        Recently the Russians developed the SA30, nicknamed the Merciless, able to destroy any tank, including the Merkava, Abrams, Challenger, Leopard etc, by countering its reactive armour via a dual staged shaped charge.

        Reichstag Fire Dept.

        The US Government is attempting to sucking Russia into starting WWIII, Putin is not taking the bait at any cost. He can now come into Syria and directly fight ISIS to help Syria because the US Government has used the "head fake" of wanting to fight ISIS...the US Government cannot back off this position now so Putin can now "run the table" in Syria.

        Seriously, Putin's moves are genius. He's making the US Military leadership and it's executive look like amateurs.

        the phantom

        It's the difference between chess and checkers. Better yet, go rent the movie "Rounders", and fast forward to the last 15 minutes... and tell me what lesson you learned.

        Cynicles

        It's the strangest thing:

        ISIS threatens everyone except Israel.

        [Sep 18, 2015] The Weaponization of Ignorance: the West's Go-To Experts

        Northern Star, September 17, 2015 at 7:54 am
        http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/11/us-mideast-crisis-syria-arms-idUSKCN0RB1Q020150911
        It appears as if the Russians are moving with calculated deliberation.
        Whereas for the Empire…Operation ClusterF continues with increasing frenzy:
        http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/09/16/general-only-handful-syrian-fighters-remain-battle.html

        http://news.yahoo.com/syrias-un-diplomat-supports-idea-russian-airstrikes-163754294.html
        ….stay tuned

        et Al, September 17, 2015 at 8:06 am
        It's fairly obvious, except for Neuters who refuse to entertain common sense, let alone go there. There will be no repeat of Libya et al (not me!) where the West has set up a 'No Fly Zone' and then proceeded to use their military aircraft as an air force for the rebels/whomever.

        Those air defenses sent to Syria mean that they will be the first target (according to Western military doctrine) of any such attempt by the West to intervene directly and that will lead to the death of Russian soldiers and citizens.

        There is no way the West could claim to kill Russian soldiers 'accidentally' and get away with it as those systems are expressly defensive. It would not just be the political and military consequences to be faced from such an 'event', but it would be a massive PR disaster for the West too.

        As others have commented multiple times here, Obama publicly proclaims his red lines, Putin doesn't, but sets them up pragmatically.

        I'm still waiting for those Yak-130s to turn up, though I would now guess that some pilots would be Syrian and some Russian – just to make it even more risky for the West to do anything stupid.

        Northern Star, September 17, 2015 at 8:17 am

        "just to make it even more risky for the West to do anything stupid."

        The Western fascist PTB are obviously not risk averse to serial acts of jaw dropping stupidity….

        Cortes, September 17, 2015 at 10:10 am

        Peter Lee's take on recent western media reports on how Syria campaign has progressed (his view is now Plan C – Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube is underway):

        http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/17/hidden-history-of-syria-regime-collapse-strategy-begins-to-emerge/

        [Sep 18, 2015]U.S. Begins Military Talks With Russia on Syria

        Sep 18, 2015 | The New York Times

        The diplomatic initiative amounted to a pivot for the Obama administration, which just two weeks ago delivered a stern warning to the Kremlin that its military buildup in Syria risked an escalation of the civil war there or even an inadvertent confrontation with the United States. Last week, President Obama condemned Russia's move as a "strategy that's doomed to failure."

        But the White House seemed to acknowledge that the Kremlin had effectively changed the calculus in Syria in a way that would not be soon reversed despite vigorous American objections. The decision to start talks also reflected a hope that Russia might yet be drawn into a more constructive role in resolving the four-year-old civil war.


        The Pentagon announced that Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter had spoken by telephone on Friday with Sergei K. Shoigu, the Russian minister of defense. It was Mr. Carter's first discussion with his Russian counterpart since he took office seven months ago. The two men agreed to continue discussions on "mechanisms for deconfliction" in Syria, Peter Cook, the Pentagon press secretary, said in a statement.

        [Sep 18, 2015] Grapes of wrath: fury in Crimea as Putin and Berlusconi drink 240-year-old wine Alec Luhn in Moscow

        What a despicable presstitute is this Alex Luhn. Hopefully he was drunk when he was writing that, because for a sober person to write such a crap is too much of humiliation.
        "...Click bait."
        "...Crikey! The Guardian's really scraping the barrel in its relentless efforts to diss Putin."
        Sep 17, 2015 | The Guardian


        CanadaChuck 18 Sep 2015 20:22

        Amusing that anyone would care what is said by a 'prosecutor in exile'. The Crimea now belongs to Russia and it will remain Russian. If I was just a little more cynical, I would suggest that this is only Guardian anti-Russia propaganda.


        someoneionceknew 18 Sep 2015 19:21

        Click bait.


        nnedjo 18 Sep 2015 18:43

        But the prosecutor general of the former Crimean government, which has been operating in exile since Russia annexed the peninsula in 2014, didn't find the VIP degustation amusing.

        He opened a criminal case for large scale theft over the incident, estimating the loss at two million hryvnia, or about £60,000, the Centre of Journalistic Investigations reported.

        In the footage, Berlusconi is seen picking up a 1891 vintage and asking "Can we drink them?"

        Well, it seems that the former Crimean prosecutor decided to rob Berlusconi, for about thirty years older wines from the same winery costs only about £7000.:-)

        Fine and Rare Wines are worldwide distributors of these wines, and have just put a new collection up for sale. Unfortunately I have not tasted the wines, but the list is fascinating, from a single bottle of 1865 Yquem bottled for the Tsar at a cool £7,000, to a 1948 Massandra Tokay for £165, and rated at 96 points by Robert Parker.

        Shiku101 18 Sep 2015 18:34

        I never seen such a badly peice of propaganda in my life. "Two leaders" One of them is an xleader. Whom has a long standing relationship with Putin. Berlusconi is obly there for the wine and the bunga bunga

        Dmitry Koreshkov 18 Sep 2015 17:53

        "fury in crimea"? another spoon of hogwash, guardian?

        PeteSaman Be Gold 18 Sep 2015 17:26

        Yes it would be far more productive if Putin and Berlusconi spent their time pretending that a country had WMD. They could plan an illegal invasion to liberate the population ( and oil) while taking the moral high ground. Then, and only then should they be allowed to drink wine.


        nnamesiw 18 Sep 2015 16:52

        Once drank from a bottle of "fortified wine" from 1845. Still 'drinkable'...but, in truth, not a great flavour at all. Chances are that B & P also would have been far better with much fresher content.


        mrcleano 18 Sep 2015 16:22

        Crikey! The Guardian's really scraping the barrel in its relentless efforts to diss Putin.


        WalterCronkiteBot 18 Sep 2015 16:08

        What does Elton John think about all this?


        Canajin 18 Sep 2015 16:02

        So it was the Italian guy that asked the director for a taste, and the director obliged. Making it a court case is like being charged for accepting a sample slice of ham from the store deli. By the way, did anyone ask them how it tasted?

        The Guardian should be ashamed for making a fuss about this silly situation. But then, we do know the G has to follow the government's agenda.


        vr13vr 18 Sep 2015 15:34

        And as it has become usual, the Kiev's reaction is to ban Silvio from entering Ukraine and to declare him a national security threat. Oh, boy. It would have been so funny if it wasn't so pathetic.


        Sam Hayes 18 Sep 2015 15:27

        Luhns really scraping the barrel. Does he really get paid [twice] for this?

        [Sep 18, 2015] Assad Must Go No, American Arrogance Must Go! by Andrew Korybko

        "...What the US had wanted to do is overthrow all of the Mideast's republics (even those allied with the US such a Egypt) in order to bring a transnational Muslim Brotherhood clique to power in each of them that would thus make it a lot easier to control the entire region. "
        "...Think of it as the neocons' version of a 21st-century communist party, but directed towards control of the Mideast and not Europe (which has the EU for that). "
        Sep 18, 2015 | sputniknews.com

        The US' obsessive insistence that "Assad must go" is the most dangerous expression of American arrogance in years.

        White House Press Secretary Joshua Earnest channeled President Obama's famous chant that "Assad must go" when he claimed during a regular press briefing that:

        "The international community has decided that it's time for Assad to go. He clearly has lost legitimacy to lead. He has lost the confidence of those citizens of his country - at least the ones that - or I guess I should say particularly the ones that he is using the resources of the military to attack."

        The arrogance on display is both stupefying and dangerous. The problem in Syria isn't, nor ever has been, President Assad – it's always been the US' arrogance in dictating demands and then militarily enforcing them after they've been rejected.

        American Arrogance

        Syria's ills are directly traceable to the failure of American foreign policy in the Mideast. The US rabidly went on a regime change streak that began during the Bush years, with former Supreme Allied Commander of Europe for NATO General Wesley Clark revealing in his 2007 memoirs that a senior general showed him a memo and said:

        "'Here's the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense [then Donald Rumsfeld] outlining the strategy. We're going to take out seven countries in five years.' And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran."

        Earlier that year, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh wrote an expose in The New Yorker in which he detailed, among other proposed regional regime change specifics, that the Bush Administration was planning to use the Muslim Brotherhood to launch a Gulf-funded sectarian war against the Syrian government.

        At the time, the reason was supposedly because of Damascus' closeness to Tehran, but later information as reported by The Guardian reveals that the decision to build a Friendship Pipeline between Iran, Iraq, and Syria in 2010, and Damascus' rejection of a similar one from Qatar, likely had a lot to do with why the anti-government terrorist plan was pushed forward for activation the year after.

        Beginning in 2011, the Mideast was rocked by the so-called "Arab Spring", which Russian General Chief of Staff Valery Gerasimov would in hindsight categorize as a theater-wide Color Revolution during an official conference on the topic last year in Moscow.

        What the US had wanted to do is overthrow all of the Mideast's republics (even those allied with the US such a Egypt) in order to bring a transnational Muslim Brotherhood clique to power in each of them that would thus make it a lot easier to control the entire region.

        Think of it as the neocons' version of a 21st-century communist party, but directed towards control of the Mideast and not Europe (which has the EU for that).

        The Gulf Monarchies were not targeted because of their staunch pro-American allegiance and the potential that any domestic disruption would have in upsetting the US' economic interests there.

        Between the pro-American Gulf Monarchies and the pro-American EU thus lay a handful of republics that weren't so firmly under the US' sway (or not at all influenced by it like Syria), so in order for the US to securely control the broad swatch of Afro-Eurasia stretching from Iceland to Yemen, it needed to overthrow those governments, ergo the "Arab Spring" Color Revolutions.

        The People's Will

        But something went wrong as it always does with the US' plans, and it was that the Syrian people wholeheartedly rejected the Muslim Brotherhood's ploy at regime change, instead favoring to preserve the secular and multicultural society that Syrian civilization is historically known for.

        For this simple reason, the Color Revolution attempt was a dismal failure from the very beginning, hence why the US and its allies (notably Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia) sought to transform it into an Unconventional War by arming their proxies and ordering them to escalate their soft coup attempt into a hard one.

        The resultant Hybrid War that's been raging for the past four and a half years is thus a manifestation of the US' geopolitical obsession for regime change. Far from realizing that the people had resoundingly rejected such an approach from the very beginning, the US and its allies dug in by reinforcing their proxy elements inside the country and allowing foreign fighters to flood into Syria via the Turkish border.

        Amidst this external onslaught being launched against them, the Syrian people continued to bravely soldier on and democratically show the rest of the world that they supported their government.

        A constitutional referendum in 2012 passed by an 89% margin and with the participation of 57% of the population, while President Assad was reelected in 2014 with 88.7% of the vote in which 73% of the electorate took part.

        Both sets of numbers trump the civil society participation and political legitimacy of Western countries and their leaders, and as President Assad once said, there is no way he could remain in office during this war if he didn't truly have the support of the vast majority of the population.

        It's also telling that most of the country's refugees haven't fled the country, but have instead decided to stay in their homeland and seek safety under the protection of the Syrian Arab Army, which currently provides security to around 80% of Syria's citizens.

        Be that as it is, the US and its allies stubbornly ignored the people's will, and instead continued to blindly pump weapons and fighters into the country in clear confirmation of the adage that insanity is "repeating the same thing over again but expecting different results".

        Ground Zero In The War On Terror

        All of those fighters and weapons that the US and its allies were shipping into Syria were bound to lead to some major problems, chief among them the rise of ISIL, but this was actually predicted and supported by the US government a couple years ago. Judicial Watch published a declassified report that it received in May from a Freedom Of Information Act request that proves that the Pentagon's Defense Information Agency thought that:

        "If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

        This bombshell dovetails with what Syrian Ambassador to Russia Riyad Haddad recently said in an interview where he accused the US of using terrorism to promote regime change in his country. President Putin followed up at the CSTO summit by warning countries of the risks inherent in employing double-standards towards terrorists and directly or indirectly using them to further certain tactical objectives.

        In order to stem the tide of terror that the US unleashed in the Mideast, Russia is rapidly moving forward with assembling an inclusive anti-ISIL coalition, and President Putin is expected to use his keynote speech at the UN General Assembly later this month to make his case that the situation is far too pressing to care about regime change, and that the world must unite in supporting Syria as it fights on its behalf on the frontlines against terror.

        American arrogance got the world into this mess, but if you ask Russia, it'll be Syrian humility that gets it out in one piece.

        See also

        The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

        [Sep 18, 2015] Ukranian official finds wrong kind of corruption, setup and arrested for corruption

        Moscow Exile, September 16, 2015 at 1:09 am

        You just couldn't make it up!

        SBU catches State Employment Service chief taking bribe

        See also: Ukraine Anti-Corruption Official Arrested for… Corruption

        It's all Putin's/Russia's doing, though.

        Stands to reason …

        marknesop, September 16, 2015 at 7:49 am
        Mmm hmmmm, large amount of cash found in vehicle, check. Weapon and ammunition found in vehicle, check. What…no air tickets to Moscow? Where's the flippin' air tickets, you incompetent cretins?? There always have to be air tickets, Christ, do I have to run a fucking seminar or something?

        I'd be willing to bet his real crime was getting in someone's way in the Porky/Yatsie machine, simply because it has happened over and over since they took power – as predictable as darkness at the end of daylight. Official commissioned to root out corruption, official finds wrong kind of corruption, official announces the finding of corruption, official accused of corruption, found with large amount of cash, sometimes weapons although that's not of much consequence in a country full of them, and who uses a rifle downtown to extort money?…and air tickets, signifying an intent to flee. Always remember the air tickets, it's important.

        I wouldn't go so far as to say he has done nothing wrong, but he is likely no more corrupt than the rest of the organization, including a president who is still raking in the dough from private enterprise and owns his own media channel. Perhaps that's what endears him so to the west, who see him taking his first tottering steps toward a society utterly dominated by corporatism and business to the exclusion of all other concerns, beyond paying them pious lip service at election time. American policymakers probably envy him his open graft and lawbreaking, and wish they, too were allowed to merely promise to sell their corporate interests if elected and then forget about it, whereupon everyone else would just ignore it and figure there is nothing untoward about a political figure making a little brass. After all, that pathetic Ukrainian in the man-on-the-street interview in the run-up to elections said he was voting for Poroshenko because he was already rich, so hopefully he would not steal as much.

        marknesop , September 17, 2015 at 3:14 pm
        Mosiychuk is stripped of his Parliamentary immunity and arrested. A video allegedly shows him soliciting and accepting bribes. Lyashko is stunned. This is apparently unprecedented. His own party is said to have voted for it, believing Mosiychuk would then be given the floor and would refute the allegations. But, in what is beginning to typify the last-of-the-wild-frontier politics in Kiev, they went straight to arrest. The masked police are a nice touch, and in my humble opinion, a great way to display European values. Keep it up, Ukraine – you're almost NATO material!!
        marknesop, September 17, 2015 at 7:42 pm
        Oh, dear – poor Ukraine. More corruption.

        Three Million a year in salary and bonuses? Sounds fair to me – like he says, this is not a charity.

        [Sep 18, 2015] Coalition aircraft may find themselves providing close air support to New Syrian Forces embedded with a Free Syrian Army unit that Russian aircraft are targeting

        "...Enormous pressure will now be brought to bear on Putin to try and dissuade him from a military committment in Syria. If he were not an honourable man, he would already have won, because it appears he would be able to name reasonable terms – such as the lifting of sanctions against Russia – in exchange for simply staying out of the way and letting Washington complete its destruction of the sovereign state of Syria."
        "...Coalition aircraft may find themselves providing close air support to New Syrian Forces embedded with a Free Syrian Army unit that Russian aircraft are targeting. While a direct clash between coalition and Russian aircraft is highly unlikely, an active Russian air presence in the region would only muddle the battlefield in Syria's airspace more. Subsequently, it is unsurprising that reports from the rebel Shamiya Front, though currently unconfirmed, suggest that Turkey has abandoned its efforts to persuade the United States to participate in a no-fly zone over northern Aleppo."

        et Al, September 16, 2015 at 12:53 pm

        ABC Nudes: Kerry: US Weighs Russia Offer of Military Talks on Syria
        http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/russian-moves-syria-flummox-us-33790614

        … Kerry said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had proposed the consultation in a phone call on Tuesday and that the White House, Pentagon and State Department were considering it. Kerry suggested that he favored such an idea, noting that the United States wants a clear picture of what Russia's intentions are in Syria following a recent military buildup there.

        Lavrov proposed a "military-to-military conversation and meeting in order to discuss the issue of precisely what will be done to deconflict with respect to any potential risks that might be run and have a complete and clear understanding as to the road ahead and what the intentions are," Kerry told reporters at a joint State Department news conference with South Africa's foreign minister.

        "You have a conversation in order to do that," Kerry said. "It is vital to avoid misunderstandings, miscalculations (and) not to put ourselves in a predicament where we are supposing something and the supposition is wrong."

        Kerry said Lavrov had told him that Russia was only interested in confronting the threat posed by the Islamic State group in Syria. But Kerry stressed it remained unclear if that position would change and Russia would mount a defense of Syrian President Bashar Assad who the U.S. believes must leave power.

        "Obviously, there a questions about that," he said. "I am not taking that at face value."

        However, he added that if Russia is only focused on the Islamic State group then it remains a potential partner in pushing for a political transition in Syria. "If Russia is only focused only on ISIL and if there is a capacity for cooperation … there still is a way to get a political negotiation and outcome," he said.

        Kerry also said he had spoken on Wednesday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who office announced earlier that he would visit Moscow next week to discuss Syria with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

        His comment come as Russia's military buildup in Syria has perplexed the Obama administration and left it in a quandary as to how to respond.

        In his call with Lavrov on Tuesday, his third in 10 days, Kerry said he sought clarity about Moscow's moves and warned that Russian support for Assad "risks exacerbating and extending the conflict."…
        ####

        That's right kids, it is the White House and Kerry calling the shots. It was their idea after all!

        marknesop, September 16, 2015 at 1:53 pm
        The mention of the word "deconfliction" is curious, in the context that Russia is only sending a few advisers to Syria and does not intend to go much beyond that. "Deconfliction" implies a policy to reduce or eliminate the possibility of blue-on-blue (friendly against friendly) engagements, and customarily includes recognition signals, designated operating areas, bla, bla. The military forces of the western coalition currently in Syria are exclusively air power. There should be little requirement for deconfliction unless Russia plans to introduce an air power element of its own, serious air-defense assets, or both.

        Kerry has made it as clear as it needs to be that the western effort in Syria is focused on toppling Assad, and the method of it is despicably cynical, since the ISIL/ISIS rebels are also a Washington creation, employed with corresponding enormous property damage and loss of life, not to mention serious depopulation due to fleeing refugees – all a pretext to get the US Air Force in there so they could contribute to forcing Assad from power. It would be nothing short of criminal if such an effort succeeded, since it would reward the behaviour and the stratagem.

        Enormous pressure will now be brought to bear on Putin to try and dissuade him from a military committment in Syria. If he were not an honourable man, he would already have won, because it appears he would be able to name reasonable terms – such as the lifting of sanctions against Russia – in exchange for simply staying out of the way and letting Washington complete its destruction of the sovereign state of Syria. I believe he will not do that; perhaps because he is an honourable man, perhaps out of practical considerations of the harm it will do Russia to have another warlord Islamic state not so very far away from its borders, and the likelihood a successful US creation of chaos there will result in it shifting target to the Caucasus on completion.

        Washington has to be faced down here and now, and there is nothing to be gained by delay.

        Northern Star, September 16, 2015 at 2:45 pm
        " perhaps out of practical considerations of the harm it will do Russia to have another warlord Islamic state not so very far away from its borders,"
        Exactly.. The Russians very much have a dog in this fight…yet another ME abattoir created by USA neocon psychos and their PC protégées in the State Department ,the UN etc.,

        Someone last night remarked that the continuing deluge of ME refugees into Europe could provoke a fulminating, savage rise of ultra right nationalistic parties who are also virulently anti NATO...

        One can only hope for the best…

        marknesop, September 16, 2015 at 3:10 pm
        For what it's worth, STRATFOR agrees with me that the term "deconfliction" suggests Russia intends to introduce an air component. "U.S. Officials" through their conduits, Reuters and Bloomberg, report that Russia intends to deploy MiG 31 and SU-25 aircraft – the latter would be especially effective as they are designed for ground attack. The report says that ISIS-linked forces have already started to back away from Latakia – but for me, the money shot in the report was this:

        Coalition aircraft may find themselves providing close air support to New Syrian Forces embedded with a Free Syrian Army unit that Russian aircraft are targeting. While a direct clash between coalition and Russian aircraft is highly unlikely, an active Russian air presence in the region would only muddle the battlefield in Syria's airspace more. Subsequently, it is unsurprising that reports from the rebel Shamiya Front, though currently unconfirmed, suggest that Turkey has abandoned its efforts to persuade the United States to participate in a no-fly zone over northern Aleppo.

        I don't know how much clearer it needs to be. Western governments are angling for a Libya scenario, in which NATO air forces act as the de facto air force of the rebels, assisting them to take Damascus.

        PaulR, September 16, 2015 at 5:17 pm
        So far this appears to be a lot of fuss about not very much. I remain unconvinced that this is a major escalation by the Russians.

        [Sep 18, 2015] Putin did not speak to Elton John

        Erika, September 15, 2015 at 11:18 am
        Putin did not speak to Elton John
        http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150915/1027041069.html

        I was at first a bit bemused by this, thinking we were being trolled, but now I wonder if it is something more sinister.

        A. this announcement and fanfare is being done days before Putin goes to New York
        B. It is meant to force a meeting
        C. It is meant to embarrass Russia
        D. Reminds me of the Sochi Olympics were everyone "Western Media" will be talking about Gay Rights instead of Putin's speech.

        marknesop, September 15, 2015 at 12:11 pm
        That's interesting – I saw that report, too; "Putin calls Elton John after speech" or something like that, and it never occurred to me to question it. You might be right, and they might be fuelling up the Gay Bandwagon again. But I'm pretty sure Putin could handle Elton John in any kind of meeting he asked for. Putin is pretty good as speaking in verifiable facts, while Elton John's arguments are mostly emotional and probably rely on the garbage he reads in the papers.

        It's the assessment that it is a ploy to make Putin's whole conversation at the UN about gay rights that might well be on the mark. Good catch.

        Oddlots, September 15, 2015 at 5:48 pm
        Garbage in, garbage out.

        Judging by a straw poll of acquaintances it works very well indeed.

        Patient Observer, September 15, 2015 at 2:39 pm
        I was thinking similarly but not as elaborated as your thoughts. My thoughts was more as a publicity stunt to elevate his perceived influence and importance and to create the impressions that Russia is deeply concerned by the West's views of gay rights in Russia.
        Jen, September 15, 2015 at 4:16 pm
        If Pamela Anderson couldn't get an audience with Putin – she wrote an open letter to him – and the most she could get was an audience in Vladivostok with Sergei Donskoy (the cabinet minister responsible for natural resources and environmental issues) due to the nature of her request, there's no way Elton John would have been able to speak to Putin. He would have been directed instead to talk to the relevant minister in charge of cultural issues or issues involving discrimination against minority groups, or to someone whom minister delegates John's request to. Elton John can expect no more and no less because exactly the same thing would be done in the UK.

        [Sep 18, 2015] Robert Parry: Who's to Blame for Syria Mess? Putin!

        et Al, September 15, 2015 at 9:45 am
        Robert Parry: Who's to Blame for Syria Mess? Putin!
        https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/13/whos-to-blame-for-syria-mess-putin/

        Exclusive: Official Washington's new "group think" is to blame Russia's President Putin for the Syrian crisis, although it was the neocons and President George W. Bush who started the current Mideast mess by invading Iraq, the Saudis who funded Al Qaeda, and the Israelis who plotted "regime change," says Robert Parry.

        By Robert Parry

        Sen. Lindsey Graham may have been wrong about pretty much everything related to the Middle East, but at least he has the honesty to tell Americans that the current trajectory of the wars in Syria and Iraq will require a U.S. re-invasion of the region and an open-ended military occupation of Syria, draining American wealth, killing countless Syrians and Iraqis, and dooming thousands, if not tens of thousands, of U.S. troops.

        Graham's grim prognostication of endless war may be a factor in his poll numbers below one percent, a sign that even tough-talking Republicans aren't eager to relive the disastrous Iraq War. Regarding the mess in Syria, there are, of course, other options, such as cooperation with Russia and Iran to resist the gains of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda and a negotiated power-sharing arrangement in Damascus. But those practical ideas are still being ruled out…

        …Privately, I'm told, Obama agreed to - and may have even encouraged - Putin's increased support for the Assad regime, realizing it's the only real hope of averting a Sunni-extremist victory. But publicly Obama senses that he can't endorse this rational move. Thus, Obama, who has become practiced at speaking out of multiple sides of his mouth, joined in bashing Russia – sharing that stage with the usual suspects, including The New York Times' editorial page…
        ####

        Yes.

        marknesop, September 15, 2015 at 11:49 am
        There was a fascinating comment to that article, which seemed to me very informed and was a genuine eye-opener. For instance, the western media regularly raves on ad infinitum about Assad's "Allawite power structure". It was a complete surprise to me to learn "In Syria's 30-strong cabinet only two ministers are Alawite. The prime minister is Sunni, as are the interior minister, the justice minister, the foreign minister, even the defense minister."

        I'll repeat the entire comment here; it comes from Wolf Mato, and contains an excellent and informative link which proves the U.S. military community at least is well aware of the inclusive nature of the Syrian government. There seems little doubt that the United States government is aware of it as well.

        This is the first article about Syria here, with which I nearly fully agree, and so I try it again to make a comment, after two earlier attempts to comment on other articles failed.

        Putin can indeed be blamed partly for the Syrian mess, because a more decisive support of the Government in the early stages of the uprising or bombing campaigns against Jabhat al-Nusra and IS in 2013 would have quelled the insurgency. Russia also should have moved against Turkey, but Putin didn't want to jeopardize trade with Turkey. He proposed even a "Turkish Stream" natural gas pipeline, but negotiation about this project fortunately have collapsed, so Russia doesn't have to take care about Turkish sensibilities.

        I don't agree with the sentence: "So, although it's surely true that Syrian security forces struck back fiercely at times in the brutal civil war…" This appears to be a concession to the popular presumption, established via million times repeated catchphrases (butcher Assad), that Syria is a brutal totalitarian dictatorship, where the Sunni majority is suppressed by an Alawite clique.

        The classification of the Syrian war as a "civil war" is debatable, it could as well be seen as an undeclared war of aggression by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, the USA).

        I also object to the sentence: "The obvious solution would be a power-sharing arrangement that gives Sunnis more of a say."

        Sunni are represented sufficiently and pols in 2012 and 2013 showed, that the majority of Sunnis support Bashar al-Assad. Sunnis are represented in the government as well as in the security apparatus and account for between 60 and 65 percent of the regular army. Many high ranking officers are Sunni.

        Even a West Point analysis had to acknowledge that https://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/syrias-sunnis-and-the-regimes-resilience.

        In Syria's 30-strong cabinet only two ministers are Alawite. The prime minister is Sunni, as are the interior minister, the justice minister, the foreign minister, even the defense minister.

        Beside that, who should take part in a power sharing transitional government? Who of the external opposition figures has enough support of the Syrian population to justify an inclusion is a power sharing government?

        Please name the people in the external opposition who could be entrusted with reconciling the war-torn nation?

        In my opinion, this guy's comment kicks the stool out from under nearly every western commentator on the subject. Well done, Mr. Mato – well done.

        Jen, September 15, 2015 at 4:04 pm
        A power-sharing arrangement along religious lines, as exists in Lebanon and (since 2003) in Iraq, will weaken Syrian society in forcing people to live in parallel sub-cultures (Alawite, Christian, Druze, Shi'ite Muslim, Sunni Muslim) with competing interests. Plus sectarianism in Lebanese politics and society did not help Shi'ites much at all and they practically had to create their own society and institutions outside mainstream Lebanese society in Hezbollah since the 1980s.
        Oddlots, September 15, 2015 at 8:41 pm
        From what I read years back the "power sharing" constitution of Lebanon was like a demographic time bomb. Can't remember what situation it developed from but it fixed the power balance on an arbitrary point in time (and then set off the timer.)

        Naive probably but if you can't come up with a national project that overwhelms this crap (much less enshrines it) then you don't really have a country do you?

        Strange that the countries that have actually achieved that are the primary targets of Western interests (and their allies): Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan. And our allies are exactly the Islamofascists that US / NATO bobble heads suggest are being countered.

        Pull the other one fuckers.

        Pavlo Svolochenko, September 15, 2015 at 6:48 pm
        What exactly is Washington's case on this point anyway? That a religious minority should not have representation and influence in the government far out of proportion to its numbers as a proportion of the general population?

        Have they ever stopped to consider how that principle might be applied closer to home?

        Special_sauce, September 15, 2015 at 8:03 pm
        There are pics of Assad addressing Parliament at the start of this crisis. Among his audience are men in business suits, men in arab dress, women with hair uncovered, women with hair covered, those with dark skins, those with light, those with kinky hair, those with straight. Precisely the sort of secular multivarious conclave the West never ceases to hold forth as the ideal. The swine.

        September 15, 2015 at 9:45 am

        Robert Parry: Who's to Blame for Syria Mess? Putin!
        https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/13/whos-to-blame-for-syria-mess-putin/

        Exclusive: Official Washington's new "group think" is to blame Russia's President Putin for the Syrian crisis, although it was the neocons and President George W. Bush who started the current Mideast mess by invading Iraq, the Saudis who funded Al Qaeda, and the Israelis who plotted "regime change," says Robert Parry.

        By Robert Parry

        Sen. Lindsey Graham may have been wrong about pretty much everything related to the Middle East, but at least he has the honesty to tell Americans that the current trajectory of the wars in Syria and Iraq will require a U.S. re-invasion of the region and an open-ended military occupation of Syria, draining American wealth, killing countless Syrians and Iraqis, and dooming thousands, if not tens of thousands, of U.S. troops.

        Graham's grim prognostication of endless war may be a factor in his poll numbers below one percent, a sign that even tough-talking Republicans aren't eager to relive the disastrous Iraq War. Regarding the mess in Syria, there are, of course, other options, such as cooperation with Russia and Iran to resist the gains of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda and a negotiated power-sharing arrangement in Damascus. But those practical ideas are still being ruled out…

        …Privately, I'm told, Obama agreed to - and may have even encouraged - Putin's increased support for the Assad regime, realizing it's the only real hope of averting a Sunni-extremist victory. But publicly Obama senses that he can't endorse this rational move. Thus, Obama, who has become practiced at speaking out of multiple sides of his mouth, joined in bashing Russia – sharing that stage with the usual suspects, including The New York Times' editorial page…
        ####

        Yes.

        marknesop, September 15, 2015 at 11:49 am
        There was a fascinating comment to that article, which seemed to me very informed and was a genuine eye-opener. For instance, the western media regularly raves on ad infinitum about Assad's "Allawite power structure". It was a complete surprise to me to learn "In Syria's 30-strong cabinet only two ministers are Alawite. The prime minister is Sunni, as are the interior minister, the justice minister, the foreign minister, even the defense minister."

        I'll repeat the entire comment here; it comes from Wolf Mato, and contains an excellent and informative link which proves the U.S. military community at least is well aware of the inclusive nature of the Syrian government. There seems little doubt that the United States government is aware of it as well.

        This is the first article about Syria here, with which I nearly fully agree, and so I try it again to make a comment, after two earlier attempts to comment on other articles failed.

        Putin can indeed be blamed partly for the Syrian mess, because a more decisive support of the Government in the early stages of the uprising or bombing campaigns against Jabhat al-Nusra and IS in 2013 would have quelled the insurgency. Russia also should have moved against Turkey, but Putin didn't want to jeopardize trade with Turkey. He proposed even a "Turkish Stream" natural gas pipeline, but negotiation about this project fortunately have collapsed, so Russia doesn't have to take care about Turkish sensibilities.

        I don't agree with the sentence: "So, although it's surely true that Syrian security forces struck back fiercely at times in the brutal civil war…" This appears to be a concession to the popular presumption, established via million times repeated catchphrases (butcher Assad), that Syria is a brutal totalitarian dictatorship, where the Sunni majority is suppressed by an Alawite clique.

        The classification of the Syrian war as a "civil war" is debatable, it could as well be seen as an undeclared war of aggression by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, the USA).

        I also object to the sentence: "The obvious solution would be a power-sharing arrangement that gives Sunnis more of a say."

        Sunni are represented sufficiently and pols in 2012 and 2013 showed, that the majority of Sunnis support Bashar al-Assad. Sunnis are represented in the government as well as in the security apparatus and account for between 60 and 65 percent of the regular army. Many high ranking officers are Sunni.

        Even a West Point analysis had to acknowledge that https://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/syrias-sunnis-and-the-regimes-resilience.

        In Syria's 30-strong cabinet only two ministers are Alawite. The prime minister is Sunni, as are the interior minister, the justice minister, the foreign minister, even the defense minister.

        Beside that, who should take part in a power sharing transitional government? Who of the external opposition figures has enough support of the Syrian population to justify an inclusion is a power sharing government?

        Please name the people in the external opposition who could be entrusted with reconciling the war-torn nation?

        In my opinion, this guy's comment kicks the stool out from under nearly every western commentator on the subject. Well done, Mr. Mato – well done.

        [Sep 18, 2015] Speech of Vladimir Putin before the Collective Security Treaty Organisation's Collective Security Council in Dushanbe

        "..."Equally, Lavrov lifted the veil a little bit to let the Americans know that the Russian military intelligence has not only been monitoring the operations of the American military aircraft in Iraq but have scientifically analyzed the US aircraft's flight plans and so on. In sum, Russians seem to have intelligence dope to substantiate something that the Iranians have been all along maintaining, namely, that the American aircraft are regularly airdropping supplies for the IS." "

        thesaker.is

        The presidents of Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan met in narrow format and then continued their talks with their delegations present.

        The summit's main focus was on effective response to the biggest current military and political challenges, including an upsurge in activity by terrorist and extremist groups and destabilisation of the situation on the CSTO countries' borders.

        The meeting ended with a package of documents being signed, including a statement by the CSTO Collective Security Council's member states. In particular, documents were signed concerning cooperation in the transit of military formations and military products; readiness inspections for carrying out the Collective Rapid Reaction Forces' objectives, their composition and deployment, as well as the CSTO's budget.

        * * *

        Speech at CSTO Collective Security Council session

        President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Thank you, Mr Rahmon!

        First of all, I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to work in Tajikistan today.

        I would like to note that Tajikistan is our strategic partner and ally. We see that here in Tajikistan, you also face problems with certain forays and attempts to destabilise the situation. I would like to say straight away that we are assessing these threats adequately and you can always count on our help and support, although we see that your law enforcement agencies and armed forces are handling the problems that come up effectively.

        Just now, in the restricted format, we had a detailed discussion on the CSTO's zone of responsibility, as well as urgent regional and international problems, and outlined steps to further strengthen our organisation. We noted the increase in threats faced by CSTO member states in various areas.

        We are concerned by the state of affairs in Afghanistan. International security forces have been in that nation a long time, carrying out certain work, including positive work; however, it still has not brought qualitative, definitive and decisive improvements to the situation. Unfortunately, the situation in that country is deteriorating following the withdrawal of most foreign military forces.

        There is an increase in the real danger of terrorist and extremist groups entering nations that neighbour Afghanistan, and the threat is made worse by the fact that in addition to the well-known organisations, the influence of the so-called Islamic State has also spread to Afghanistan. The scope of the organisation's work has reached far beyond the borders of Iraq and Syria. Terrorists are carrying out mass executions, plunging entire nations into chaos and poverty and destroying cultural monuments and religious shrines.

        The outcomes of the fight by international security forces against the production of narcotics is no less dispiriting. We know how this threat is growing from year to year; unfortunately, it is not decreasing.

        I mentioned the situation in Syria and Iraq; they are the same as the situation in Afghanistan, in that they worry all of us. Please allow me to say a few words on the situation in this region, the situation around Syria.

        The state of affairs there is very serious. The so-called Islamic State controls significant stretches of territory in Iraq and Syria. Terrorists are already publicly stating that they have targets set on Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem. Their plans include expanding activities to Europe, Russia, Central and Southeast Asia.

        We are concerned by this, especially since militants undergoing ideological indoctrinations and military training by ISIS come from many nations around the world – including, unfortunately, European nations, the Russian Federation, and many former Soviet republics. And, of course, we are concerned by their possible return to our territories.

        Basic common sense and a sense of responsibility for global and regional security require the international community to join forces against this threat. We need to set aside geopolitical ambitions, leave behind so-called double standards and the policy of direct or indirect use of individual terrorist groups to achieve one's own opportunistic goals, including changes in undesirable governments and regimes.

        As you know, Russia has proposed rapidly forming a broad coalition to counteract the extremists. It must unite everyone who is prepared to make, or is already making, an input into fighting terrorism, just as Iraq and Syria's armed forces are doing today. We support the Syrian government – I want to say this – in countering terrorist aggression. We provide and will continue to provide the necessary military technology assistance and urge other nations to join in.

        Clearly, without active participation by the Syrian authorities and military, without participation by the Syrian army, as the soldiers fighting with the Islamic State say, you cannot expel terrorists from this nation, as well as the region overall, it is impossible to protect the multi-ethnic and multi-faith people of Syria from elimination, enslavement and barbarism.

        Of course, it is imperative to think about the political changes in Syria. And we know that President Assad is ready to involve the moderate segment of the opposition, the healthy opposition forces in these processes, in managing the state. But the need to join forces in the fight against terrorism is certainly at the forefront today. Without this, it is impossible to resolve the other urgent and growing problems, including the problem of refugees we are seeing now.

        Incidentally, we are seeing something else: we are currently seeing attempts to practically put the blame on Russia for this problem, for its occurrence. As if the refugee problem grew because Russia supports the legitimate government in Syria.

        First of all, I would like to note that the people of Syria are, first and foremost, fleeing the fighting, which is mostly due to external factors as a result of supplies of arms and other specialized equipment. People are feeling the atrocities of the terrorists. We know that they are committing atrocities there, that they are sacrificing people, destroying cultural monuments as I already mentioned, and so on. They are fleeing the radicals, first and foremost. And if Russia had not supported Syria, the situation in that nation would have been even worse than in Libya, and the flow of refugees would be even greater.

        Second, the support of the legitimate government in Syria is not in any way related to the flow of refugees from nations like Libya, which I already mentioned, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, and many others. We were not the ones that destabilised the situation in those nations, in whole regions of the world. We did not destroy government institutions there, creating power vacuums that were immediately filled by terrorists. So nobody can say that we were the cause of this problem.

        But right now, as I said, we need to focus on joining forces between the Syrian government, the Kurdish militia, the so-called moderate opposition, and nations in the region to fight the threat against Syria's very statehood and the fight against terrorism – so that together, with our efforts combined, we can solve this problem.

        I already spoke about the other issues that currently concern us, which we discussed today. In this respect, I would like to note that we plan to continue strengthening cooperation between our armed forces. We plan a whole set of activities in this area. I would like to also stress that our cooperation within the CSTO framework is certainly not directed against anybody. We are open to constructive cooperation, and that is precisely the approach that is reinforced in the final statement that will be signed today.

        I am certain that we must resume concrete discussions on creating Euro-Atlantic systems for equitable and indivisible security; we need to carry out a full inventory of existing problems and disagreements. This analysis can be used to achieve a discussion of the principles of sustainable political development. The OSCE and other international organisations can be used to agree on legally binding guarantees concerning the indivisibility of security for all nations, achieve observance of important fundamental principles of international law (respecting the sovereignty of states, not meddling in their domestic affairs), and strengthen regulations on the inadmissibility of appeasing anti-state, anti-constitutional coups and the promotion of radical and extremist forces.

        I would like to thank Mr Rahmon for his work as chairman of the CSTO, as well as my other colleagues, and to wish our Armenian partners and friends success in chairing the organisation. Thank you very much for your attention.

        source: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50291

        Martin from S.E.B. on September 16, 2015 · at 12:51 am UTC

        Putin speaks out all the related Truth now, finally!
        Also rightfully he points out, that US-ISIS could spread to Europe and Russia like a wildfire during storm, if it cannot be extinguished very soon.

        """""But right now, as I said, we need to focus on joining forces between the Syrian government, the Kurdish militia, the so-called moderate opposition, and nations in the region to fight the threat against Syria's very statehood and the fight against terrorism – so that together, with our efforts combined, we can solve this problem."""""

        I don't need a religion for this: I PRAY and wish all the Best!!!

        Anonymous on September 16, 2015 · at 1:09 am UTC

        re: Syria and the latest BBC article. At least they did not do a blatant hack job ( maybe the sarcastic article in RI today about how to write mindless attacks on Russia hit a nerve) And , my, my they have a defense analyzer who actually makes sense:

        Analysis: Jonathan Marcus, BBC defence correspondent

        "Russia's backing for Mr Assad should be seen not as a vote of confidence in Syria's embattled president but as an investment in a country where Russia believes it can play out its foreign-policy role.

        Indeed Mr Putin's military deployments signal that he will not let the Assad regime fall. This does not mean Mr Assad will be there forever.

        Russian diplomacy is working in tandem with its military policy, exploring all avenues for reaching some sort of interim deal in which Mr Assad might stay on, at least for the time being.

        But Russia's horizons in Syria probably extend well beyond Mr Assad's active presence – a reflection of Russia's concerns about militant Islam and wider trends in the region, and also its belief that Western remedies in the Middle East have been an unmitigated disaster. "

        David George, on September 16, 2015
        It is very frustrating to hear from a French source what is going on in CSTO affairs, and not to hear it from Russian sources. Nothing in TASS, nothing in Sputnik-RIA Novosti, nothing like the Voltaire-net story in the speech from Putin. Is the Voltaire-net story true?
        http://www.voltairenet.org/article188710.html

        Meanwhile the US administration of criminals and liars pretends to be puzzled by Russia's support for Syria, what a load of tripe in the New York Times. The Americans are not worth talking to, they don't know how to tell the truth or hear it, it is something that sticks in their craw, there has to be some propaganda angle in play in everything they say, and behind that is a party line that is right out of the propaganda the west used to spout about Stalin. Beware, whoever dares to question the world according the New York Times: the truth is too important to be left out in the open and must be hidden behind a curtain of lies.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/world/middleeast/white-house-split-on-opening-talks-with-putin.html?_r=0

        It would be good someday to have access to a network of reporters committed to giving accurate information from every country, for example in the current crisis area from the capitals of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi, Qatar, Israel, Jordan, the western capitals, etc. so that each viewpoint can be assessed and a judgment formed.

        Reading between lines and deciphering cryptic word bites really sucks, and I am sick of it. I don't know about anybody else but I have just about had it even with the internet. I get a better picture of the world from just daydreaming about it. Earth people can be so stupid!


        Red Ryder on September 16, 2015 · at 3:15 am UTC

        When you find a story on one source, spend a few minutes using a browser like DuckDuckGo or Yandex or Baidu and look for the essence, like the same headline facts.

        If you don't find anything, it's generally not much more than wishful thinking.

        If the topic is really compelling, try searching for the next day or two. If you find only the original source repeated or not at all addressed, it was fantasy.

        Voltaire is cotton candy. Makes your feel good as the sugar rushes through your brain and bloodstream.

        David George on September 16, 2015 · at 6:10 am UTC

        I'm beginning to think you are right about Voltaire-net, but they have been good for some information I think.

        Anonymous, on September 16, 2015

        Nevertheless the footnotes to many of the articles in Voltairenet are a treasure trove and they remain available in full, also a rarity in my experience.

        For example this one; http://www.voltairenet.org/article188650.html
        ……..http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq
        ……..https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-west-saw-isis-as-strategic-asset-b99ad7a29092
        ……..http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/world/africa/18iht-iraq.4.6718200.html

        and esp this one;……………..http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/06/el-salvador-iraq-police-squads-washington………..with its' first video documentary which I find extraordinary.

        Cassandra on September 16, 2015 · at 3:41 am UTC

        History lesson

        The Soviet Union entered Afghanistan in late December, 1979. This is what happened in the first part of 1979, as told in "From the Shadows" by former CIA director and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and reprinted at stormcloudsgathering.com.

        "The Carter administration began looking at the possibility of covert assistance to the insurgents opposing the pro-Soviet, Marxist government of President Taraki at the beginning of 1979. . .

        "On March 30, 1979, Aaron chaired a historic "mini-SCC" … Walt Slocombe, representing Defense, asked if there was value in keeping the Afghan insurgency going, "sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire?". . .

        Peter on September 16, 2015 · at 5:39 am UTC

        USSR's Afghanistan. US's Vietnam.
        Putin/Russia is not the USSR.
        US is still the US.

        Erebus on September 16, 2015 · at 4:15 am UTC

        I'm looking for an even more pointed statement when Putin addresses the UN at the end of this month. The gloves are coming off. The Kremlin has been on a diplomatic blitzkrieg for a few months now, and they must think they have enough support to take the USA's strategy head-on.

        By inviting the USA to join their coalition, Moscow has put Washington into Zugzwang.
        The choice is: publicly support regime change in Syria over the destruction of ISIS, or join the Russian initiative to destroy the terror networks. Either way, American Exceptionalism, to say nothing of Indispensability, gets knocked cross-eyed.

        Talk about getting out-maneuvered. Ouch.

        Ann on September 16, 2015 · at 5:00 am UTC

        sadly, when he said that Russia stands behind and will support any problems arising in Tajikistan I immediately … knee jerk … thought of when he said about the same thing in Donbass…that was very difficult to understand…I think the 5th column prevented Putin from entering Donbass right at the beginning of the war. Putin is not like a person that makes empty promises, and during that time, the beginning of the Donbass fiasco when he was making that promise, he was sitting on the edge of his seat I remember…as though it had already been talked about in the government and he thought he could make a tentative promise…but I guess he was overruled.

        Grieved on September 16, 2015 · at 5:08 am UTC

        I consistently admire the way in which Russia speaks only the truth required for the concerns of the day, but even so never hesitates to speak the necessary truth, and never speaks anything other than the truth when she does speak. Russia is formally a friend of Israel, and yet will speak of "joining forces between the Syrian government, the Kurdish militia, the so-called moderate opposition, and nations in the region to fight the threat against Syria's very statehood and the fight against terrorism…"

        No mention of Israel or Turkey as belligerents acting against such a coalition. And perhaps as it comes together, these nations will reverse their positions and bow to the inevitable. Russia is quite elegant, I think, in allowing all parties in situations the maximum room to change and adapt, leaving it until the vital last moment for any potential opposition to gather its energy into a strike – at which time Russia will engage with that very energy to throw down the opponent.

        I know it's irresistible to use these judo analogies with everything that Russia and Putin do – but how can we see it otherwise? The entire military doctrine and diplomatic activities of Russia display this every day. There's a rigorous adherence to the factual truth, combined with a severe reluctance to spend words or effort until the moment is right – combined yet again with zero hesitation to expend massive energy for actions deemed necessary, such as military drills.

        It's clear I'm a fan of Russia, but only because of what i see.

        Demeter on September 17, 2015 · at 5:26 pm UTC

        "Russia is quite elegant, I think, in allowing all parties in situations the maximum room to change and adapt, leaving it until the vital last moment for any potential opposition to gather its energy into a strike – at which time Russia will engage with that very energy to throw down the opponent."

        Thank you for saying that Grieved. I think this is quite true. I felt frustrated when I read that again Putin would not mention with one word the true culprits. But then again, as you said, he is giving them one more and another and yet another chance to change their mind and come to their senses. Lie one warning after another but wrapped as an invitation to join forces.

        Should they (US, Israel, Turkey, Saudi etc) decide to continue to follow on the path of destruction of a sovereign nation Russia will hit back with full might.

        Mulga Mumblebrain on September 17, 2015 · at 10:56 pm UTC

        Israel will not change its position vis-a-vis the destruction of Syria. That's not how they operate. They demand 100% gratification of their desires, being above dealing with mere goyim as if they were their equals.

        The Israeli elite want Syria broken up into four or so mutually antagonistic fragments, the better for Israel to dominate them, prior to the eventual annexation of those lands that they covet as Eretz Yisrael.

        And, of course, Zionazi intransigence and ambition, while growing more explicit over the years as the hard Right took over in Israel, and the Jewish Fifth Columns took over Western polities, the USA in particular, has been there awaiting realisation, since the days of Herzl and Ben-Gurion. Israel does not, and I believe can not, do compromise because the essence of their cult is the ineradicable belief in their superiority over the goyim, and the pre-eminence of Judaic Law over International Law, which they believe, must not be applied to those acting directly according to Divine Will.

        Jabotinsky's 'Iron Wall' of total intransigence and absolute refusal to compromise, negotiate in good faith or keep agreements with others, unless they definitively favour the Jews, is 'non-negotiable'. It is, of course, a psychology that has gotten them into strife, over and over again, throughout history, with hideous consequences, for the Jews and their victims as well, but today, with an increasingly deranged elite, inside Israel and in the Diaspora, armed with hundreds of nukes, it's positively apocalyptic.

        Unfortunately there are lots of lunatics actively looking forward to such an outcome, particularly the loathsome Christian Zionists.

        Stan K on September 18, 2015 · at 5:31 am UTC

        This article explains what you are referring to. "The Promised Land",

        http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815

        Reminds me of another sinister plan!

        David George on September 16, 2015 · at 6:12 am UTC

        I hope and pray that such a force will be created that it will destroy the psycho takfiris, their enablers and handlers, their psycho mullahs and preachers, ideologues, strategists, tacticians, lying political apologists, western criminal bankrollers, the whole evil society, and that a plague like this will never again be allowed to exist on the face of the Earth; and that the US and its minions will be presented with the whole bill for repairing the destruction they have caused and making the victims whole again.

        Erebus on September 16, 2015 · at 9:39 am UTC

        David,

        Be careful what you wish for. If the forces unleashed were truly enough to destroy all your target parties, I doubt there'd be enough of the USA left to present any sort of bill to, or anyone left inclined to present it.

        I believe it was Penelope who linked this article from Mike Whitney in another thread: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/08/21/ankara-the-new-capital-of-jihad.html

        Though Mr. Whitney hyperventilates a bit, the scenario he paints is both believable and ominous.

        I think one should hope that the clash consists of a short, sharp lesson. Say, the first few NATO/USAF planes entering Syrian airspace falling out of the sky would be absolutely devastating to Western pre-eminence. In a word, it would be over.

        CSTO's bandwagon would break an axle under the crush of new partners, and the "psycho takfiris" could then be systematically destroyed.

        David George on September 16, 2015 · at 1:12 pm UTC

        I grew tired of Mike Whitney a long time ago, he is one of a long list of glib analysts who never manage to put their finger on the essential evil of the people they analyze, or who somehow manage to make it sound "everyday". There is nothing "everyday" about the criminals in Washington and Jerusalem, Ankara, Riyadh, and the other cesspools of global power like Las Vegas, Los Angeles, New York, and the various lily pads where they seek peace from their own consciences. They need to be destroyed. I remember when Turkey's foreign policy was "zero problems", then over one weekend it switched. Who promised what? Not only a few downed jets, but a few radiating airbases and a generation's worth of repentance might be the answer to today's slick sickness. If it were not for zombies like Brzezhinski and Kissinger and their banker sponsors, a young girl in Afghanistan or elsewhere might have a prospect of a reasonable future instead of the prospect of being married to a bearded psycho four times her age. Enough is enough.

        Erebus on September 17, 2015 · at 12:00 am UTC

        Your rage is not misplaced, but it is futile. The "evil" you speak of is just a point on the spectrum of human behaviors. Eradicating it? Maybe, over generations. In one cathartic event? Sure, but the collateral damage will be the rest of the spectrum, and even the planet.
        I think the strategy being pursued by Russia & China is the only viable one. Box that "evil" in so it can't continue to destroy nations and lives on an international scale. Expose it, challenge it, drive it into its domestic corner(s) where, disconnected from its international wealth pumps it can be constrained by the local population.

        Mulga Mumblebrain on September 17, 2015 · at 11:17 pm UTC

        Erebus, that would be like trying to cage a cancer. If you do not then excise the cancer, you will suffer metabolic injury so great that you will perish, as the cancer pumps out various toxins, like 'Free Market Fundamentalism', 'Western moral values' or 'Exceptionalism'. Cut the tumour out, plus the chemotherapy of somehow rescuing the non-malignant members of the cancer societies from the inhuman habits inculcated in them from birth (ie gross materialism, unbridled greed, cultural and racial superiority, addiction to crass 'tittietainment' etc) and even a few escaping cancer cells can cause metastasis elsewhere. What is really needed is a miracle, a 'spontaneous remission' where the individual cells in the Western cancer suddenly transform themselves into non-malignant, human, organisms again. There might be some good signs, such as the rise of Corbyn in the UK, the eclipse of Harper, the character of Pope Francis, but there is a Hell of a way to go, and not much hope of success.

        Outlaw Historian on September 16, 2015 · at 11:11 pm UTC

        Russian intel watch very very closely the movements of Outlaw Empire airplanes over Syria & Iraq, not just the supposed airstrikes but air drops of supplies too. Excerpted from Lavrov's latest speech:

        "Equally, Lavrov lifted the veil a little bit to let the Americans know that the Russian military intelligence has not only been monitoring the operations of the American military aircraft in Iraq but have scientifically analyzed the US aircraft's flight plans and so on. In sum, Russians seem to have intelligence dope to substantiate something that the Iranians have been all along maintaining, namely, that the American aircraft are regularly airdropping supplies for the IS."

        http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2015/09/14/russia-exposes-us-hidden-agenda-in-syria/

        So we have three recent very detailed speeches about the situation and what's being done. I would be remiss to not add Korybko's latest Sputnik oped to this list, http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20150915/1027039805.html

        Finally, after 70 years the tables are about to be turned, and not a moment too soon.

        [Sep 18, 2015] Russian Insider article concerning the ever truthful and impartial BBC

        "...You Tube clip BBC Propaganda, Lies, Bias & Cover-Ups posted by a commenter to this Russian Insider article concerning the ever truthful and impartial BBC (which is not state unded, of course) announcement that it is starting a special Russian language service to counter "Kremlin funded" RT "propaganda"
        Moscow Exile, September 16, 2015 at 1:42 am
        You Tube clip BBC Propaganda, Lies, Bias & Cover-Ups posted by a commenter to this Russian Insider article concerning the ever truthful and impartial BBC (which is not state funded, of course) announcement that it is starting a special Russian language service to counter "Kremlin funded" RT "propaganda:
        marknesop, September 16, 2015 at 7:58 am
        There was a very good clip in a comment to one of the Russia Insider articles yesterday, too, featuring that Russo-Spanish chap that Yalensis once posted here doing a report from Crimea, in which he mostly just walked around and pointed out the signs of normality and prosperity which were at odds with official reporting.

        His new piece was called Mosaic of Facts; it was quite good. Miguel-Frances Santiago, yeah, that's it.

        I believe he mentions his family is part-Russian, although he does not appear to speak it.

        [Sep 18, 2015] Popular Russian pranksters claim responsibility for calling Elton John

        "...Sir Elton John believed that he had been talking to Russian president. "Thank-you to President Vladimir Putin for reaching out and speaking via telephone with me today. I look to forward to meeting with you face-to-face to discuss LGBT equality in Russia," he wrote in his Instagram post. "
        "...Why Obama and Cameron are silent? Why all those who (once again) fell to this kind of "real Russian reporting" are silent too? Tsk! "

        Lyttenburgh, September 16, 2015 at 9:50 pm
        Russian Pranksters Take Responsibility for Elton John Putin Call

        Popular Russian pranksters known as Vovan (Vladimir Krasnov) and Lexus (Alexei Stolyarov) claim responsibility for calling Elton John and talking to him on behalf of Vladimir Putin and Dmitriy Peskov respectably. Part of the 11-minutes phone call will be aired during "Vecherniy Urgant" TV show.

        Sir Elton John believed that he had been talking to Russian president. "Thank-you to President Vladimir Putin for reaching out and speaking via telephone with me today. I look to forward to meeting with you face-to-face to discuss LGBT equality in Russia," he wrote in his Instagram post.

        Shortly after that, Vladimir Putin's press secretary denied that the call took place. Kremlin representative also supposed that Elton John's account could be a fake.
        ________________________________________________________________________

        Why Obama and Cameron are silent? Why all those who (once again) fell to this kind of "real Russian reporting" are silent too? Tsk!

        Fern, September 17, 2015 at 5:29 pm
        I did find this prank pretty funny – Elton John has an ego the size of Montana. Anyone else would have thought 'gee, on a balance of probabilities, how likely is it that the President of Russia would find the time in his day to contact an ageing British pop star to discuss something of peripheral interest to him?"
        Patient Observer, September 17, 2015 at 5:32 pm
        Sir Elton was cringe-worthy.
        marknesop, September 17, 2015 at 6:04 pm
        I'm afraid I laughed at it, too. Although I did love "Saturday Night's All Right For Fighting" and "I Guess That's why they Call it the Blues". Sorry, Sir John. At least it did not end in tragedy, as in the case of that nurse in Australia who hanged herself after being tricked by a similar prank.

        Sir John might have been suspicious as well, but being gay has gone to his head and he has let that define him more than anything else. If "Putin" had asked him to sing "Rocket Man" over the phone to him, he would have suspected a trick immediately. But the opportunity to be a spokesman for the homosexual agenda made him throw caution to the winds.

        [Sep 18, 2015] Syria: The (Russian Air) Cavalry Is Coming

        In light of the catastrophic outcome of the "western" war on Libya the Russian government declared to oppose any further such "regime change" in the Middle East. But the U.S. continues to train, arm and finance insurgents against the Syrian Arab Republic and, under the disguise of fighting the Islamic State, prepares to take down the Syrian government. Eliminating the Syrian government would likely create a radical jihadist state in Damascus and lead to massacres and mass refugee movements.

        But Russia means what it says and will now use its military capabilities to confront the U.S. plans:

        Elijah J. Magnier
        #Russia is providing #Syria with precision military and destructive equipment. #Russia will start soon operating n #Syria sky to hit rebels+

        The participation of the #Russian Air Force in #Syria worries #Israel that won';t be able to have a free sky to hit Syrian troops.+

        This is THE major change in #Russia approach and support to #Damascus regime, to prevent game change on the ground in #Syria +

        The decision of #Russia comes mainly from regional support 2rebels, not satisfy w/ d north f #Syria (#Idlib) and aiming to #Hama & #Damascus

        Russian air-support for Syria against the various forces attacking the state will allow for additional air attacks against those forces. The Syrian air force is today already flying more than 100 sorties per day against it enemies. The Russian forces will add to that but not necessarily in a decisive amount.

        The main support for Syria by Russian air assets will come by keeping away those foreign air forces forces that threaten the Syrian government under disguise of "fighting terror". With Russian fighters in Syrian skies Israel will no longer be able to use its air force in support of Jabhat al-Nusra (and for its oil stealing endeavors in the Syrian Golan heights).

        The U.S., Britain, France and others announced to enter Syrian skies to "fight the terror" of the Islamic State. Russia will use just the same claim to justify its presence and its air operations flying from Latakia. Simply by being there it will make sure that others will not be able to use their capabilities for more nefarious means. Additional intelligence from Russian air assets will also be helpful for Syrian ground operations.

        The Russian air capabilities will be supplemented with air defense cover from Russian naval assets on the Syrian coast. Russia announced several air defense drills with live missile launches off the Syrian coast near Tartus. New land based air defense assets are said to be on their way. I would not be surprised to see, over time, some Chinese naval assets joining the Russian presence.

        Secretary of State Kerry whined to Russia that its intervention in Syria might intervene with the U.S. intervention in Syria. Well, yes sir, that is the sole purpose:

        Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Friday coordination was needed between Russia's military and the Pentagon to avoid "unintended incidents" around Syria, where both countries have a military presence.

        Lavrov said Russia would continue to supply weapons to Syrian President Bashar Assad to help the Syrian armed forces fight against ISIS militants.

        He told a news conference Russia was conducting military exercises in the Mediterranean Sea, that it had been for some time, and that they were in line with international law.

        The neoconned State Department childishly pressured Greece and Bulgaria to disallow Russian military air transport over their countries. But Russian planes can just as well fly via Iran and Iraq and both countries are very unlikely to ever block such flights. As Russian ground forces will not be involved in any fighting the supply needs can be kept limited.

        Any attempt by Turkey, pressured by State Department lunatics, to block the Bosporus sea route between Russia and Syria would be in breach of the Montreux Convention and could be interpreted as hostile act against Russia on which Turkey depends for a large amount of its energy supplies. After losing control over the predominantly Kurdish south-eastern city Cizre Turkey also has to take care of its own civil war which Erdogan foolishly ignited to regain a parliamentarian majority. That internal war will hinder resupplies for the Islamic State through Turkey.

        The U.S. plan to use the fight against the Islamic State as cover to remove the Syrian government is now in tatters. The months long U.S. supported "Southern Front" attack in south Syria failed to make any gains against the government. The Islamic State attack against Syrian government forces in Deir ez-Zor was repelled and further moves against Syria in the north will have to defy Russian air power.

        Washington will now have to decide to risk war against Russia or to shelf the Syria regime change project.

        Posted by b at 09:32 AM | Comments (109)

        Posted by: Kim Sky | Sep 11, 2015 12:39:03 PM | 10

        Wishful thinking, I'm afaid...

        as far as I can tell, the war plans are too advanced for the U.S. to pull out now. seems i remember options to not begin the bombing campaign against Iraq and Afghanistan, and they did it anyway.

        Posted by: james | Sep 11, 2015 12:50:41 PM | 11

        b - ditto @9 post..

        @10 kim - it certainly looks that way.. more war is all i can see in all of this.. the usa and it's western alliance seem to have their foot stuck permanently on the gas pedal and don't have any braking features anymore.. crash and burn has come to define it, but there is a lot to crash..

        Posted by: aaaaa | Sep 11, 2015 12:58:04 PM | 12

        @Kim Sky - if the resistors can make some gains it will help them immensely in a political sense.. ultimately it's crunch time right now; I'm sure the puppeteers are going to press their terrorist brigades to assault heavily over the next few days/weeks, so the SAA + allies will need to survive and advance. I've never considered the SAA to be very good, so a complete overhaul of their forces should be in order.


        Ultimately I think Russia wants a political solution above all else, and isn't committing much to this enterprise.. but who knows

        Posted by: Pat Bateman | Sep 11, 2015 1:09:51 PM | 15

        Am I the only one that's getting the feeling that everybody is now actually in on this?

        The first reports that I heard about Russia doubling down in Syria came from Ynet news, which quoted "unnamed Western officials". If what they claimed is true, as now appears to be the case, it doesn't make sense that Kerry, another Western official, would contact Lavrov to confirm whether the reports from "unnamed Western officials" were true. Surely Kerry would already know? So is it a ruse? Feigning indignation to be seen to be sticking to your principles, when in reality a compromise was reached as part of some grand deal during the nuclear negotiations?

        When a temporary truce was reached between the rebels in Idlib besieging the villages of al-Foua and Kefraya, and Government forces in Zabadani besieging the rebels, it was mooted that a transfer of the civilians from these two Shiite villages would be made for the evacuation of the Zabadani rebels - ethnic cleansing lite. It was in fact Iran and Turkey that brokered the truce between the two sides, and Iran and Turkey were negotiating the exchange. Is Syria being divided; to be cut up and controlled by different sides? Is Russia now asserting control over the Government designated zones?

        After two years, Abu al-Duhur airbase was the final Government position to fall in Idlib province yesterday, leaving al-Foua and Kefraya isolated. Did Iran and Turkey agree that Idlib is to be surrendered to Turkey's Islamists to mark a line between pro and anti Government control?

        It is generally accepted that neither side has the capacity to defeat the other, and neither will Iran or Turkey tolerate defeat. So better to draw a line around what you have, to hold it, and to claim some small victory.

        I suspect that Erdogan would now quite like things to go back to the way they were - to facilitate regaining a majority in Parliament and become President - and that the Saudis are more interested in Yemen. Did Russia throw Yemen under a bus at the UNSC and support the Saudi war in exchange for concessions on Syria? Has the Daraa "Southern Front" offensive failed because the support has subsequently dried up?

        Much will be answered when the Russian bombers begin their sorties. We will see the extent of their operations and whether a line in the sand has been drawn between Government and Turkish Islamist control, and if the rest of the IS mess is to be handled by the US coalition..

        (sorry, couldn't be bothered with links)

        Posted by: Grieved | Sep 11, 2015 1:25:08 PM | 16

        @virgile #2 - the element of theater is truly a substantial piece in this I believe. US foreign policy is obliged to maintain an ethical narrative with the US domestic population. Theater is important, and personally, apart from its still huge global financial heft, theater is about the only weapon I can see left to the US.

        Against the US is Russia. Russia's actions are almost invisible in this world, but extremely effective. It may be as some say that the US war plans are too advanced to halt, but I'm sure they're also pretty transparent to the Russians. By finally sharing satellite intel with Syria, what Russia has done is notch the no-fly possibilities one degree higher, as a matching move to the US/Israel covert activities, as a warning to the hot heads to cool down, and as a preparation for further escalation if required. One degree at a time.

        To me it is unthinkable that Russia will allow US to control the skies over Syria. This presumably is where the showdowns will occur - IF they even need to. There will be tactical casualties and apparent losses, but strategically I believe the US is finding itself forestalled at every turn.

        Posted by: fairleft | Sep 11, 2015 1:46:16 PM | 18

        Kim Sky @10: No, I disagree, and think Lavrov/Putin have played Kerry/Obama well. Fearful, uninformed, PR-centered, distrusting their idiot generals, they'll hesitate and then hesitate some more, and the warmongers' reality-defying plans won't happen. The US won't escalate and directly intervene. But unfortunately the war and terror in Syria will go on. Russia is not committing to destroy unofficial US ally Islamic State, just to prevent regime change.

        Posted by: fairleft | Sep 11, 2015 1:58:14 PM | 19

        Angry warmonger:

        Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said Wednesday he would try to impose sanctions on Russia from the congressional side if the administration doesn't move in that direction. He said that Russia's military involvement in Syria will only make the terrorism threat and the refugee problems emanating from there worse.

        "This is a chance for us to slap Russia hard, because what they are doing is making America less safe," he said. "The Russians are just slapping President Obama and Secretary Kerry in the face. This is a complete insult to their efforts to try to find a solution to Syria. They've made Assad's survivability more likely, which means the war in Syria never ends."

        Posted by: plantman | Sep 11, 2015 3:54:49 PM | 28

        Unfortunately, this post is mostly wishful thinking...

        The US has no "Off" switch anymore.
        The confrontation between Russia and the US is probably unavoidable now, although Moscow has been very clear in its actions to avoid a miscalculation.
        Even so, now that Washington nabbed Incirlik, they feel obligated to press on. That means Putin will have to deploy the Migs to prevent a no-fly zone from being put into place.

        Erdogan will provide the footsoldiers after another false flag helps him win the Nov 1 election.
        Erdogan is a man to watch. He's going for all the marbles. He expects to get Aleppo at least for his efforts.

        Washington despises him, but they figure they can take care of him after they get rid of assad. Assad comes first, then Erdogan

        Putin will have to fight to stop the regime change crazies.
        He doesn't want a war, but he'll be ready.

        The US hasn't gotten a bloody nose in a while. I can't think of a better time than now.

        Posted by: Oui | Sep 11, 2015 4:17:42 PM | 29

        Hopeful sign, Germany's change of heart ...

        Germany says would welcome Russian role in fighting ISIS | Reuters |

        BERLIN - Germany would welcome more Russian engagement in the fight against ISIS, a foreign ministry spokesman said on Friday. "I think we would welcome the Russian Federation and the Russian president ... getting actively involved in the fight against ISIS given the dangers arising from Islamist terrrorism," spokesman Martin Schaefer said at a regular government news conference in Berlin.

        German Espionage Ship Off the Syrian Coast Is a War Act | August 2012 |

        Posted by: Oui | Sep 11, 2015 4:45:42 PM | 30

        More hopeful signs ...

        Poll finds Nato's Europeans wary of Russia confrontation

        The report by the Pew Research Center - a non-partisan US think-tank based in Washington DC - surveyed attitudes in North America and across Europe as well as Ukraine and Russia to assess public attitudes towards the current Ukraine crisis.

        On average in Europe, only 48% of those polled - less than half - backed the idea of their country using force to come to the aid of another Nato country attacked by Russia.

        Among the countries surveyed Germany is the most reluctant: 58% of those polled said they did not think their country should use military force to defend a Nato ally against Russia. [A rise of 18 percentage points in 12 months]

        France too was unenthusiastic - 53% of those polled were opposed. Even in Britain - often seen as a staunch Nato member - less than 50% supported the idea of using force to help another member of the alliance under attack.

        Overview opinions by nation

        Posted by: spinworthy | Sep 11, 2015 7:25:52 PM | 39

        By this point in time, the majority of rational individuals in the world can clearly see that the Syrian war is, and always has been, a proxy war. The Syrian war more than any of the other recent (planned) conflicts in the ME (also including Afghanistan) was intended to be the ultimate Jackpot!

        On one side (pro-Syria) we have Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.
        On the other side (anti-Syria) we have USA/NATO, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Israel.

        Defeating Assad and destroying an independent Syria primarily implies (among many other things) the following:

        1. Removing Russian forces from the Mediterranean and the Middle East.
        2. Cleaving and isolating Hezbollah from it's base of support.
        3. Securing territory for an energy corridor from the Gulf to Turkey.

        Number 1. - Benefits all of the anti-Syria players tactically (mostly USA/NATO), and strategically undermines Russia.
        Number 2. - Strategically benefits Israel with minor benefits to Gulf players, while tactically undermining Iran, and strategically undermining Hezbollah.
        Number 3. - Strategic benefits for Turkey and Gulf players, with perks for USA/NATO and Israel, while strategically damaging Russia and Iran.

        The Syrian war is a very, very loaded situation and will not go away until something breaks.
        For Russia and Hezbollah the stakes are huge (not to mention Syria!). For Iran they're not as bad. Perhaps this is why completing the Iran nuclear deal was suddenly so important for the USA a few months ago (against all the screaming out of Israel and Saudia).
        For the anti-Syria group the stakes are not so huge at all. Whatever they stand to gain comes at the expense of their efforts and risks little else. Their determination, opportunism and budgetary restrictions are the main determining factors. As long as there are willing mercenaries and money, they risk little in continuing their efforts.

        But...Things aren't going so well for the anti-Syria group after 4 yrs of proxy fighting they have tried several schemes to accelerate their efforts. Methods include: False flag chemical weapons attacks c/w controlled media narratives; destabilzation of Iraq in conjunction with the introduction of ever more radicalized 'islamist' proxies c/w controlled media narratives; crashing the price of oil; opening up another front against Russia and introducing sanctions. All of these were intended to shake Russia's grip and confidence, whilst hurrying up Assad's fall.
        All efforts seem to be having serious blow-back issues.

        Why all the sudden hysteria and hyperbole over a Russian presence in a proxy war? Perhaps as noted, to counter the blow-back and failures?

        Posted by: ToivoS | Sep 11, 2015 8:34:33 PM | 41

        Both Kerry and Obama have, in recent days, argued that Russia's support for Assad is responsible for the refugee crisis. I think they are getting very worried that Europe will begin to realize that the civil war supported by the US and its closest allies is causing the crisis. Today I noticed that the foreign ministers of Germany, Austria and Spain have suggested that Russia, Iran and, yes, Assad's forces could play a positive role in defeating ISIS. This is a major departure from the Assad must go policy that they supported at the urging of the US. Hopefully, this is just the beginning of a major split between Europe and US over foreign policy. Not just Ukraine but the ME as well.

        Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 11, 2015 9:00:55 PM | 42

        - ISIS is a good excuse for Russia to increase their military support for Assad.

        - ISIS has been demonized in the US media and it was meant to drum up support for more military action against ISIS. And when one is bombing ISIS then one can easily start bombing Assad & Co. as well, right ? No, US military action against ISIS is simply a smoke screen for action against Assad. And Russia knows it IMO.

        - More over: British troops (SAS ??) are disguised as ISIS fighters in Syria. The UK & US have delayed actions against Syria because of the trouble brewing in the Ukraine. But now "Syria" has been put on the "front burner" again.

        Source: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/

        - I see a more devious reason why Russia increases support for Assad. This will lead to more "unrest" in Syria and will increase the amount of Syrians fleeing to Turkey. Combined with other economic problems (credit bubble, decreased tourism, collapse of turkish textile exports to Russia) it will be only a matter of time before Turkey's economy will receive a (giant) blow.

        And a collapse of Turkey is the last thing the US & NATO want. A military coup in Turkey is coming and will depose Erdogan. But a military coup WILL not solve the economic crisis in Turkey.

        So, Russia's actions in Syria could accelerate the end of a solid, stable & reliable Turkey for the US & NATO.

        Even if Russia wouldn't support Syria then increased US attacks on Syria will also lead to more syrian refugees.

        There're A LOT OF "moving parts". That makes a prediction of what's going to happen very difficult. But I do think the story above gives us a good clue what is likely to happen.

        Posted by: fast freddy | Sep 11, 2015 9:41:49 PM | 43

        Historically, the US has only attacked defenseless countries/people. A betting man would bet that the US will back off. The same pretense - attacking ISIS - provides a face-saving out for the US and a reason for Russia to participate.

        Posted by: Piotr Berman | Sep 11, 2015 10:49:10 PM | 47

        S-300 and S-400 are decent anti-aircraft weapons, Turkey tested it and lost a plane. But they require a bunch of radars which can be disabled by rebels, I think, and Israel bombed a number of times with impunity. Therefore the logistic chain for SAA would enormously benefit from restoring air defenses, and that would also put rest to any ideas, mooted in American and British press, to declare "no fly zone" over Syria and make short work of Syrian regime.

        So how one should go about it? I guess we see step one: radars and missiles on ship instantly bolster the air defense on the coast. I think that they operate with more than 100 mile radius, but against aircraft with countermeasures, multiple missiles are needed. So several land-based system will restore defenses from Latakia to Damascus and Jordanian border, and perhaps over Golan foothills.

        Concerning troops on the ground, I doubt if Russian would like to engage the rebels, but they may have guarding duties to secure radar facilities. That cannot be purely defensive to be effective, but there could be a mission creep. Similarly, it is better for Russia if Syrian pilots are engaged against the rebels, but they can improve their aircraft and weapon supplies. After all, barrel bombs were use surely because of the shortage of more effective bombs and missiles.

        The news from Germany are almost amazing. From concern at September 9 to support at September 11? Are both dispatches correct? Are the Germans so desperate that they would actually resort to a reasonable policy? After all, end of civil war in Syria, even with some lingering terrorism like in Algeria, could allow to deport/repatriate the refugees Germany suddenly volunteered to accept. Contrary to some interpretations, Germany does not have a shortage of workers given the surplus of workers (i.e. high unemployment) in Poland, Baltics and Balkans, including Greece I presume. Possible (but speculative) scenario: Merkel got a phone call from Israel that was so annoying that she decided to drop niceties and instructed her Foreign Ministry to be frank.

        Interesting image from Syria: Poster, Syria, 2015 The inscription reads: "These people kneel only before God"

        Great post, b, great comments, everyone.

        I think this move by Russia was totally foreseeable seeing as we did their very serious and meaningful actions following the Ghouta attacks. Now, with the usual suspects laying the groundwork for a similar plan, the Russians are again obliged to repeat the actions they took then - protecting the Syrian Government from those who seek to make it fall, and protecting the Syrian people from the bloody, chaotic consequences that would surely follow. To say he is "finally stepping up to the plate", IMHO, ignores the important actions Russia has taken not just to defend major parts of Syria, but to keep the West from bombing, the results of which would be far worse than even what has come to be in Libya. And that's an important point: there is far more at stake than just the chaos of Libya. In the case of Syria, there is the probability that sectarian genocide - run by the Takfiri forces funded by the Gulf States - would occur. Russia simply cannot allow that to take place.

        Syria means a great deal to Russia, and on so many more levels than people in the West understand. Syria is far more to Russia than just a base in the Mediterranean. If policy makers in the West are basing their calculus for Russian action on that relatively small issue, they are making grave miscalculations. There are real human and historical links that bind Russia and Syria. There are long standing political links that go deep back into the Soviet Era. A look at http://vk.com (you need to sign up to do searches) shows much concern over the war in Syria. There are Russians, like their counterparts in the West, who feel concerned because of the Christian link - though in Russia's case, this has an interesting historical link going back to the Czar claimed to be the defender of Christians in the Ottoman Empire. I imagine (and see evidence on VK) that Russians must also feel for the Syrian people because of the experience of the Second World War, presumably hearing the stories of their parents and grandparents of people facing conditions of total war. Finally, and this seems to make up the majority, there are those people there who clearly link all of Russia's battles - from Syria to Novorossiya - as all the same contest being directed against them from the United States. After all, the Russians know better than anyone the US links with radical Islam, and having witness the continued enmity of the US even following the dismantling of the USSR, the Russians may truthfully say (compared to the lie of George W. Bush saying it) that "we fight them in the Middle East, or we fight them at home".

        The point is that there are links between Russia and Syria at all levels. And it is from these links that comes three things: the willingness of the Russian Government to take risks in the situation, the ability of the Russian Government to formulate and honest and clear policy, and finally and most importantly, the public support which allows for taking those risks without facing backlash at home. Compare the domestic political strength of the Russian position with the general weakness of the Western policy, a weakness which was exposed during the last crisis where the anti-war voice was heard loudly enough that it had to be a part of the calculations of policy makers. Surely this comes from the convoluted policy of the West which falls apart with simple attempts to even describe it, a policy which has no internal consistency that can be explained to the public at all. There are no political links between Syria and the US, evident in the fact that the US could find only exiles to populate its "revolutionary government". The Christian link is certainly there... except that the US is on the wrong side of it. Then there is the idea of an alliance with Al Qaeda - an idea which could hardly be more repugnant to the American people (to be clearly separated from their leaders). So while the Russian Government can count on domestic support, the Western governments have to rely on media gimmicks which have definite shelf life and which are, at their core, untrue and so subject to controversy in the public discussion. The refugee story is an excellent example of this - the issue is real and its emotional appeal is undeniable, but using refugees as a case for more war? This is the same as trying to square the circle. It cannot be done. The same with goes for the promotion (and I do use the word advisedly) of ISIS as a threat ultimately works against the real US policy by opening the way for Russia to call of an anti-terrorist alliance.

        That said, there is the "honest" version of US policy, given in Senator Graham's statement posted by fairleft: "This is a chance for us to slap Russia hard, because what they are doing is making America less safe," he said. "The Russians are just slapping President Obama and Secretary Kerry in the face. This is a complete insult to their efforts to try to find a solution to Syria. They've made Assad's survivability more likely, which means the war in Syria never ends."

        That's as honest as you can get from a policy maker, of course. Syria is, for the US, another chance to smack Russia. The war is about achieving US aims, and war will continue until the US achieves them. Peace for the sake of peace figures no where in the equation. Those who don't follow the warlike policy are weaklings who are allowing themselves to be "slapped in the face". So it is honest, but bring that to the American people as an excuse for another war in the Middle East and you'll get laughed out of the room, forget about finding some kind of majority. As Grieved noted: "US foreign policy is obliged to maintain an ethical narrative with the US domestic population" and when there is absolutely zero behind the US narrative, then the majority of US citizens will not back it. The only question left, then, is wether the US elite is confident enough (read: anti-democratic enough and disconnected enough) to completely ignore public opinion.

        This only covers Russia's position, but the same goes for Iran. Though someone said the stakes for Iran in Syria are not so high, I disagree. I think the very clear threat to Hezbollah makes it a clear threat to Iran. Without Hezbollah, Iran will lose its main connection with Palestine and the struggle there, and this connection is a key to the Islamic Revolution's raison d'être as any. But the stakes for Iran are evident in the huge amount they've invested in fighting ISIS and al Qaeda in both Iraq and Syria. The Iranian's are no strangers to facing war by carried out by US puppets, and certainly they know very well that allowing a radical Takfiri state (allied with KSA and ultimately with the US) to form in the ashes of Iraq and Syria means war on Iran anyway so why not risk all to kill this viper in its nest?

        ==============

        Posted by: guest77 | Sep 12, 2015 12:45:25 AM | 48

        Posted by: fairleft | Sep 12, 2015 1:20:31 AM | 49

        Great post by b, great posts by everyone in the comments, especially:

        Pat Bateman | Sep 11, 2015 1:09:51 PM | 15

        Grieved | Sep 11, 2015 1:25:08 PM | 16

        b | Sep 11, 2015 3:09:47 PM | 24

        plantman | Sep 11, 2015 3:54:49 PM | 28 (Though I disagree generally, this is great: "The US has no "Off" switch anymore." Yes! There's an automatic quality to US military/economic aggression these days, unguided but PR-ed by people like Kerry/Obama. But the beast does have at least a reptile brain, and recoils for a period in the face of real danger. But the US proxies will keep on fighting, funding will likely be boosted, "let's have a war to save the refugees" will keep on being uncritically blasted from the 'respectable' media. More generally, the US will keep on coming, with one scheme after another for unipolar world power preservation. Each new one will be a bit less reality-based until the game is lost, I hope.)

        guest77 | Sep 12, 2015 12:45:25 AM | 47

        Posted by: jfl | Sep 12, 2015 2:27:11 AM | 52

        BREAKING: US drones strike Syrian Army, blame ISIS

        Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) of the US Air Force struck Syrian government forces [at Camac near Hamah] on September 10. This was stated by the senior representative of the Syrian military. He pointed out that this attack was disguised as an air strike by militants of the Islamic State, allegedly using a captured MiG-21.

        According to a Syrian air force colonel, militants of the Islamic State successfully managed to capture the military air field [Abu al-Duhur]. However, no current equipment had been there by the time, as everything was previously transferred to other air fields so as to avoid seizure by the terrorists ... militants of the Islamic State physically could not carry out air strikes on the positions of the Syrian military. ... Citing anonymous US officials, the newspaper [Washington Post] writes that the CIA and Joint Command of Special Operations are implementing a joint program of drone flights over Syria. The secret program means a significant strengthening of CIA intervention in the war in Syria.

        According to the statements of high-ranking military in Syria, it was drones, and not "terrorist MiG's" which attacked the Syrian army. This is not the first time that US forces have struck the Syrian army, hiding behind the Islamic State.

        It would be nice to see open season on US drones in Syria ... and not only in Syria. In Yemen as well. Someone above, Okie Farmer, calls attention to the fact that ...
        Nils Muiznieks of the Council of Europe called the developments [Residents in the mainly Kurdish town [Cizre] say they have been unable to buy food or medical supplies since the military imposed a curfew eight days ago.] "distressing".

        ... how long has it been since all the Yemenis in Yemen have been unable to buy food or medical supplies? Anyone heard anything from the Council of Europe on that one? Not so much, aye.

        The report I read of the fall of Abu al-Duhur yesterday emphasized Al CIA-da's subsequent straight line of attack against Latakia in consequence. Interesting to see them attack the Russians ensconced there. No doubt they'd have US drone support?

        Posted by: jfl | Sep 12, 2015 3:02:53 AM | 53

        A Russian-Egyptian alliance?


        Rapidly expanding instability in the Middle East, coupled with the inconsistency of Washington's foreign policy, is driving Arab leaders to seek partners and allies on the side.

        Several high-ranking politicians from a number of Muslim countries, such as Jordan's King Abdullah II, Deputy Supreme Commander of the UA, Mohammed al-Nahyan, Vice-President of Iran Surna Sattari, Syrian Minister for National Reconciliation Ali Haidar, and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah, all visited Moscow on business trips. It is this last meeting which is of greater interest ...

        The problem of combatting the spread of radical islam and expanding the geography of a "Green International" occupies a special place in Russian-Egyptian relations. In particular, the President of Egypt expressed his support for the Russian program for resolving the Syrian conflict, whose main point is the necessity of forming a broad anti-terrorist coalition led by Syrian government forces.

        The solidarity of the Egyptian side with Putin's proposed plan of settling the Syrian conflict means exactly one thing: Egypt not only recognizes the legitimacy of Bashar al-Assad, but also believes that "the tyrant doesn't have to leave at all." This is a very significant statement, as the main sponsor of Egypt is Saudi Arabia, for whom the overthrow of Assad is a cornerstone of regional policy.


        It's still difficult to see who will step up to the plate and dispatch the CIA/Daesh, but it does seem clear that Syria has more supporters now than a few weks ago, and is gaining more, or firmer support daily. Putin would not stick his neck out if he thought it might get chopped off. And if the Russian presence in Syria restrains the Israelis ... that alone is worthwhile. May it restrain European knee-jerk support for the USA, too.

        The 'leadership' in the USA is divided, just as b points out. Things are happening 'to' the US and they are reacting. They've done the 'best' they can, conjured up the worst demons whose names they knew, and it still hasn't 'worked out'. Worse, their vassals have noticed that it hasn't, noticed that the US is reacting rather than acting, noticed that things have slipped beyond the US' control.

        Multiple-centers of power may well now emerge, beginning in Europe and MENA. The US may well have foolishly, though successfully divided its own power base, and conquered itself.

        irgile | Sep 12, 2015 11:06:05 AM | 63

        Kerry's surprise appears totally theatrical and destined mainly to the Saudis and to the supporters of the Syrian opposition

        The decision of Turkey to join the coalition has triggered an expected reaction from Russia.
        Turkey has been long committed to a regime change in Syria. While Saudi and Qatar's would obey the USA in refraining from bombing the Syrian army, Turkey may find it the best opportunity to weaken the Syrian government, boost Erdogan's credibility and protect the Islamist militias they have been funding and supporting in Syria. The USA has little leverage on Turkey from the moment it uses the Incirlik base.
        That's the reason why Russia decided to show its teeth. No way would it accept that the US coalition threatens the Syrian army. It has been expecting this to happen and has been prepared for a long time.
        Iran is also preparing for the same and will act in defense of the Alawites and Hezbollah in case Damascus or the coast is seriously threatened.

        In view of the tougher attitude of Russia and Iran, the Turks have tried to reassure them that they are too busy repressing Kurds and dealing with their doomed "snap election" that they have no intentions of attacking anybody in Syria. The Russians and the Iranians just do not trust the Turks and took their precautions. I trust that we will not see a single Turkish plane bombing Syria !

        The official entrance of Russia in Syria is a game changer and the USA is discreetly playing its part

        john | Sep 12, 2015 12:47:35 PM | 74

        Virgile @ 63 says:

        The USA has little leverage on Turkey from the moment it uses the Incirlik base

        WTF does that mean? the USA has used the Incirlik air base uninterruptedly since they built it in 1951. it has always been central to wars both cold and hot in the region and plenty of other imperial subterfuge as well(spawning ground for 'ISIS'?). it sports state-of-the-art surveillance equipment, a 10,000 ft runway and 50 or so hardened aircraft shelters. it's home to the 39th air base wing and about 5,000 airmen and repository for something like 90 b61 nuclear warheads.

        i don't think they need no stinkin' leverage.

        GoraDiva | Sep 12, 2015 3:36:48 PM | 78

        An excellent explanation from a Syrian commentator at the Saker
        http://thesaker.is/war-on-syria-not-quite-according-to-plan-part-1-the-islamist-american-love-hate-quagmire-facts-and-myths/
        (Too bad Juan Cole does not really understand (never has) what is going on in Syria and the wider ME.)
        This post gives a lot of background - some known, some less so, and an explanation of where ISIS is coming from.

        guest77 | Sep 12, 2015 3:54:50 PM | 79

        Russia's deepening military involvement in Syria will make it harder to dislodge Bashar al-Assad from power and find a political solution to the war raging there, President Barack Obama said....

        "The strategy they're pursuing now, doubling down on Assad, I think is a big mistake," Obama said Friday in remarks to military personnel at Fort Meade, Maryland.

        tom | Sep 12, 2015 4:09:19 PM | 80

        These Obama comments posted by rufus say it all. To paraphrase Our Dear Peace Prize Winner - "The US wants a political solution! (only after we've achieved all our military aim of removing the government)". How gracious.

        After this logical blunder, he goes on to give us his analysis of Putin's latest moves as "a big mistake". From the man who never passed up a foul compromised deal, be it on taxes or healthcare, he ought to know a big mistake. But I imagine he is safe from that knowledge safe in his little Presidential cocoon. Obama goes from mistake to mistake, he hardly needs to be giving others lessons in that regard.

        America's "HOPE" President, now on track to have initiated more overthrows of governments than Eisenhower and Nixon combined.

        Just on adding to the comment on Turkish leverage with the U.S. By allowing them to use the Incirlik airbase.

        No matter what conditions the Turks think they can force onto the US, it will be completely delusional if they believe it. The endlessly duplicitous US Empire couldn't give a fuck about what fake promises they made as they have forever shown.

        Imagine during the US bombing campaign in Syria using the Incirlik airbase ( or any over Turkish military facility ) In a way works against Turkeys wishes, hegemony or its interests, what are they gonna do, demand the US stop using our base in the middle of a US war ? The Turks might as well declare war on the US itself if they tried that.

        US could arm Turkish Kurds to make life difficult for the Turkish military, and an endless array of other threats.
        There's only one current military empire and it's like not like the US doesn't know it.
        The Turks know it and the US knows it - in other words, nearly no leverage whatsoever.

        rufus magister | Sep 12, 2015 4:25:07 PM | 81

        g77 at 78 --

        I esp. like the way it elides the fact that we created, along with the French, this whole mess in Syria to begin with.

        Haven't we learned any lessons about implementing fantasies of transformative regime change? Especially when using fundamentalist proxies supplied by our theocratic Saudi friends.

        jfl | Sep 12, 2015 4:39:45 PM | 82

        @69 harry law, @77 goradiva

        I think Juan Cole understands completely. He's an army brat, a born and bred American imperialist of the kinder, gentler variety.

        @67

        The Iranians have a better take on the Saudi crane.

        @46 virgile, @66 james

        Yes ... that article to the 'insiders' indicates that Kerry/the US expects Saudi Arabia and the Gulfies to finish off their war games in Yemen and swing up to help Daesh/ISIS give Assad/Syria the Gaddalfi/Libya treatment.

        There seems to be no limit to the depths to which the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate will sink, and the velocity of my country's implosion continues to accelerate. Like a black hole it is sucking "Western Civilization" into its vortex. Nothing, not even light - if there were any, can escape.

        john | Sep 13, 2015 6:38:59 AM | 85

        john @ 73 says:

        i don't think they need no stinkin' leverage

        the Turkey/US deal regarding the use of the Incirlik base was a real big talking point in the nooze a while back. a perfect example of parsable fodder fit for the hoi polloi. any suggestion that the US hegemon asks permission for anything from anyone is risible.

        Sibel Edmonds cuts to the chase.

        Jackrabbit | Sep 13, 2015 1:00:46 PM | 87

        Interesting discussion. Especially liked "no off switch".

        fairleft @60
        Don't you think Russia would probably prefer not to send planes over ISIS-controlled territory?

        jfl | Sep 13, 2015 8:32:43 PM | 93

        The Saker has an interesting analysis of the Russians - Iranians, Hezbolla - in Syria.

        brian | Sep 13, 2015 10:59:34 PM | 96

        amazing! US media war dance:

        '"This is a chance for us to slap Russia hard, because what they are doing is making America less safe," he said. "The Russians are just slapping President Obama and Secretary Kerry in the face. This is a complete insult to their efforts to try to find a solution to Syria. They've made Assad's survivability more likely, which means the war in Syria never ends."'

        does the writer believe what he writes?
        a war in syria makes insecure america less safe how? Doesnt the US backed war in Yemen make america less safe?

        Obama and Kerry have never sought a solution that didnt involve more chaos and more jihadis.

        Americans whether in the backwoods of Oregon or the towers of NY live in ignorance and hopes the rest of us are

        brian | Sep 13, 2015 11:36:35 PM | 97

        US and its media continnue to act as agents of ISIS and alnusra as we see in Josh Rogins article... while doing his best to twist reality into a pretzel http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/09/russias_syrian_air_base_has_us.html

        Piotr Berman | Sep 15, 2015 7:27:07 PM | 108

        Re: Louis Proyect, "So funny that ..."

        I prefer fun not based on thousands lives lost and millions lives wrecked. A more thoughtful analysis would start from examining cases of similar terrible conflicts in the past and present. Mexican revolution lasted ten years of "war of all against all", and so did La Violencia in Colombia. Violence is still present in those societies even if governments are quite stable -- and sketchily democratic. Algeria had a conflict of similar duration, now the regime seems to be stable again.

        Americans ("American-led coalition") did not lack resources in Afghanistan and Iraq, and results were woeful. The prognosis of GCC + USA + mercenary allies in Yemen is not good at all, even with "reasonable goal of restoring to power the legitimate President who won elections with 99.8% votes cast and 65% turnout" and all weapons that oil money can buy (although those monies were stashed in better years than 2015).

        The positive stories are Algeria and various regimes that survived ethnic and other rebellions, usually (not always) with Western aid. Three ingredients may be crucial: domestic force with a sufficiently wide base and military competence, supplies of war material, and restricting those supplies to the opponents. Iraq has widely based government of mediocre competence, Syrian government seems to have narrower base (but not an isolated small elite group) but it demonstrated much higher level of competence.

        Given that Syrian government had modest resources and yet survived and brought the insurgency more-or-less to stalemate, in spite of copious supplies that it got, it is reasonable to expect that with somewhat larger external resources it can actually win. By the way of contrast, if we eliminate "the regime", the governability of Syria is very questionable, given the record of atrocities AND infighting among the opposition. Mad Max movies give an almost prophetic depiction of what can be expected.

        Of course, the West can easily increase the supplies to the opposition forces, But the sober question asked here if this is a good idea: fomenting a number of atrocious wars for some vague and contradictory goals. It is worth to observe that we do not have any Iron Curtain any more, so atrocious problems created "on the other side" trickle to "our side". Also, if simply doing nothing is more humane and decent than the current course of action, one should expeditiously stop funding and otherwise facilitating the supply of weapons and recruits to rebels in Syria and Iraq, and drop embargoes affecting the government of Syria, and we can get Algerian solution, perhaps more democratic, perhaps less, hopefully much better governance than in Egypt. If the Islamists of Turkey would loose face and power in the process, it could be a huge bonus.

        Turkey shows Western dilemma starkly: we start from "exporting freedom" and we end up importing police state.

        Putin Accuses World Of Using Terrorist Groups To Destabilize Governments

        "...If you've followed the incessant back-and-forth between Washington and Moscow over the course of the proxy wars raging in Ukraine and Syria, you know that the Kremlin is without equal when it comes to describing US foreign policy in a way that is both succinct and accurate. "
        "...The first thing to note there is that Putin has essentially called the US out for using terrorists to destabilize Assad. So for anyone just looking for the punchline, that was it. Everyone else, read on. "
        "...As clear as that is, the US must stick to the absurd notion that the Pentagon just can't seem to get to the bottom of what Russia is doing and to the still more absurd idea that Russia - who seems to be the only outside party that's actually interested in fighting ISIS as evidenced by the fact that there are Russian boots on the ground - is somehow hurting the very serious effort by the US and its allies to defeat Islamic radicals in Syria. "
        Sep 16, 2015 | Zero Hedge

        If you've followed the incessant back-and-forth between Washington and Moscow over the course of the proxy wars raging in Ukraine and Syria, you know that the Kremlin is without equal when it comes to describing US foreign policy in a way that is both succinct and accurate.

        This was on full display earlier this year when Vladimir Putin's Security Council released a document that carried the subtle title "About The US National Security Strategy." We've also seen it on a number of occasions over the past several weeks in the wake of Russia's stepped up military role in support of the Assad regime at Latakia. For instance, last week, Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova delivered the following hilariously veracious assessment of how Washington has sought to characterize Moscow's relationship with Damascus:

        "First we were accused of providing arms to the so-called 'bloody regime that was persecuting democratic activists, now it's a new edition - we are supposedly harming the fight against terrorism. That is complete rubbish."

        Yes, it probably is, but let's not forget that Russia hasn't exactly been forthcoming when it comes to acknowledging that, like Washington, Moscow's interest in Syria is only related to terrorism to the extent that terrorism serves as a Western tool to destabilize the Assad regime which, you're reminded, must remain in place if Putin intends to protect Gazprom's iron grip over Europe's supply of natural gas.

        Of course what that suggests is that even as Russia uses ISIS as a smokescreen to justify sending troops to Syria, the Kremlin is by definition being more honest about its motives than The White House. That is, ISIS has destabilized Assad and because Russia has an interest in keeping the regime in power, Moscow actually does have a reason to eradicate Islamic State. The US, on the other hand, facilitated the destabilization of the country in the first place by playing a role in training and arming all manner of Syrian rebels, and to say that some of them might well have gone on to fight for ISIS would be a very generous assessment when it comes to describing the CIA's involvement (a less generous assessment would be to call ISIS a "strategic CIA asset"). That means that the US will only really care about wiping out ISIS once Assad is gone and it's time to install a puppet government that's friendly to both Washington and Riyadh and at that point - assuming there are no other regimes in the area that the Pentagon feels like might need destabilizing - the US military will swiftly "liberate" Syria from the ISIS "scourge."

        To be sure, Russia is well aware of the game being played here and if there's anything Vladimir Putin is not, it's shy about calling the US out, which is precisely what he did on Tuesday at a security summit of ex-Soviet countries in Dushanbe, Tajikistan. Bloomberg has more:

        Russian President Vladimir Putin said the fight against Islamic State should be the global community's top priority in Syria, rather than changing the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

        "It's necessary to think about the political transition in that country" and Assad is willing to "involve healthy opposition forces in the administration of the state," Putin said. "But the focus today is definitely on the need to combine forces in the fight against terrorism."

        Countries need to "put aside geopolitical ambitions" as well as "direct or indirect use of terrorist groups to achieve" goals that include regime change, in order to counter the threat of Islamic State, Putin said. "Elementary common sense responsibility for global and regional security demands the collective effort of the international community."

        The first thing to note there is that Putin has essentially called the US out for using terrorists to destabilize Assad. So for anyone just looking for the punchline, that was it. Everyone else, read on.

        At this point what should be obvious is that Vladimir Putin's intentions in Syria are anything but unclear. Russia is openly supplying the Assad regime with military aid in an effort to prevent terrorists and extremists (some of which were trained by the US and received aid from Qatar) from facilitating the strongman's ouster. It's that simple and frankly, the only two things Russia hasn't made explicitly and publicly clear (because this is international diplomacy after all, which means everyone is always lying about something) are i) the role that natural gas plays in all of this, and ii) that the Kremlin will seek to prevent anyone from overthrowing Assad, so to the extent that there are any real, well-meaning "freedom fighters" in Syria, they'll find themselves on the wrong end of Russian tank fire just the same as ISIS.

        As clear as that is, the US must stick to the absurd notion that the Pentagon just can't seem to get to the bottom of what Russia is doing and to the still more absurd idea that Russia - who seems to be the only outside party that's actually interested in fighting ISIS as evidenced by the fact that there are Russian boots on the ground - is somehow hurting the very serious effort by the US and its allies to defeat Islamic radicals in Syria. Here's Bloomberg again:

        Russia's intentions in Syria are unclear and it's important for U.S. diplomats to understand them, Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters in Tallinn, Estonia, on Tuesday. While Putin's said it wants to prevent Islamic State's expansion, "explaining the purpose and seeing how it actually evolves on the ground are two very different things and we will be working on that," Dempsey said.

        Right, "explaining" that your "purpose" is to take your very powerful military and defeat what amounts to a large militia that's woefully under-armed and under-trained by comparison "and seeing how it actually evolves are two very different things." If you buy that argument, then you are buying into the patently ridiculous idea that if the US and Russia were to bring their combined military might to bear on ISIS in Syria, that somehow the outcome of that battle would be in doubt.

        The Pentagon knows that notion is silly, but what it also knows is that once American troops are on the ground, there's no not routing the other militants while you're there, so what would happen in relatively short order, is that the opposition would be all gone and then, well, what do you do with Assad?

        The much more straightforward way to go about this (unless of course you have a 9/11 and a story about WMDs buried in the desert as a cover that makes an outright, unilateral invasion possible), is to allow for the entire country to descend into chaos until one or more rebel/extremist groups finally manages to take Damascus, at which point you simply walk in with the Marines and remove them, then install any government you see fit. In the meantime, you just fly over and bomb stuff (hopefully with a coalition that includes Europe) in order to ensure that the situation remains sufficiently unstable. But now this plan won't work, because unless we see a replay of the Soviet-Afghan war, none of Syria's rebel groups are going to be able to rout the Russian army which means the US is stuck doing exactly what it's doing now: trying to explain why it won't join Russia in a coalition to eradicate ISIS while working to figure out what's next now that the Russians are officially on the ground.

        We'll close with the following from Alexander Golts, a military analyst and deputy editor of the online newspaper Yezhednevny Zhurnal who spoke to WSJ:

        "The idea of this is…to show Russia as part of the alliance of civilized nations that are standing against barbarism. But that idea won't have much of a chance, because the U.S. and the Saudis and others consider Assad the source of the problem."

        COSMOS

        http://www.rt.com/news/315465-bmw-ceo-faints-stage/

        Symbolic of what is happening in Germany right now. And very Prophetic.

        Germany is on its way down, the ROT starts from the TOP (at least with fish it does). Merkel is about the most rotten one there is. Seems like the disease is spreading.

        They all should of stayed away from Nulands SWEETS

        http://www.collive.com/show_news.rtx?id=12031

        Scroll down and see that life is Sweet for the ones on the Winning Team.

        Save_America1st

        Putin: "Putin Accuses World Of "Using Terrorist Groups" To Destabilize Governments"

        Yeah, well: The Truth Is Treason In An NWO-Bankster's Empire Of Lies

        TeamDepends

        "Welcome to Europe, invaders!" - Soros
        It is hard to believe the POS that is Soros could get any stinkier, but he will stop at nothing.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W3Tk74-O-so

        Latina Lover

        But now this plan won't work, because unless we see a replay of the Soviet-Afghan war, none of Syria's rebel groups are going to be able to rout the Russian army which means the US is stuck doing exactly what it's doing now: trying to explain why it won't join Russia in a coalition to eradicate ISIS while working to figure out what's next now that the Russians are officially on the ground.

        Putin is calling out the USSA on its BS, and showing to the world that Amerika is the greatest sponsor of Islamic Terrorism. Putin will offer proof that the USSA is behind the creation of ISIS, and the best way to eradicate terrorism is to stop supporting it to overthrow governments Amerika does not like. This is the real story.

        johngaltfla

        "Terrorist group" = CIA

        Nuff said.

        Raging Debate

        Latina - While all of this is correct subtle but dangerous signals are not being heard by the American public at large and some that is like WSJ readers isnt being absorbed as to just how dangerous all this is.

        Check out Karl Denningers site. He has commentators discussing going over there and "kicking muzzies asses" on a thread about following money. i don't see Karl's magic ban-hammer coming out or even scolding these people. But oh oh hoh! Bring up how the BIS and CFR relations run this world and watch how fast that hammer comes out.

        While I admire the man for educating on some issues he is is fucktarded willfully ignorant on what really counts in how systems work. That is wierd considerin he touts himself as a master systems engineer.

        This situation wit Russia is analagous to cornering a grizzly in his cave and you have a .22. Sure you'll kill it but not before it knocks your head off. And even though Putin may be attempting to be more moderate (out ot necessity) he would not hesitate to kill every living person on earth and even accept 50% Russian casualties than have Russia become owned again by Jmafia. And tye Russian people would be right behind him all the way.

        As a double agent training of course will play a game within a game. Shit though even Kissinger knows this is taking a really bad turn.

        Enough said about this subject. Some things going forward may hurt rather than help the global populace and my American countrymen. But I really wished some leaders understood we are 40-50 years from ending classical death and onto other places even potentially outside our very universe. One big giant waste of time and the death toll will get God awful.

        Urban Redneck

        The UN would not lay off desk jockeys if Hell froze over. Anyone can address the UN in whatever language they please, and the UN is always happy to hire moar desk jockeys to accommodate them.

        Lavrov can, in English, articulate the long and inevitably backfiring history of US arming terrorists and draw the parallel to current situation with ISIS in Syria. Over 80% of the leaders assembled comprehend English, and 100% of their press corps and thought police do, as well as a huge chuck of their respective plebes back home, which eliminates a massive and critical tool of the establishment to control the public narrative. It wouldn't be politically (or socially) correct for Putin to so, even if could speak fluent English, but that's what Foreign Ministers are for.

        indygo55

        I saw the sarcasm. The US is such a fucking amatuer here. That they got caught like this is really the playing out of the story where Putin is playing chess and Obama (or whomever is steering him) is playing checkers. The table might get thrown over by the fools.

        trulz4lulz

        Our "government has been doing this for 50 fucking years, at least. Central America, South Ameria, various Asian nations, the middle east, north Africa,, central Africa....I wont even bother naming all the countries its fucked over. Time for them to pay the god damned piper if you ask me.

        Bay Area Guy

        50 years? Hell, it's been screwing over MENA for at least 70 years. Central and South America have gotten hosed since before the Civil War.

        FIAT CON

        Free book on the subject by John Perkins

        http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/Money_and_Economics/confessions_of_a...

        Freddie

        The Founding Fathers would never have approved of Israeli Rita Katz and her green screen videos of fake ISIS beheadings and other nonsense. I hope Spielberg works with her soon so ISIS can feed hostages tio a Great White shark and to dinosaurs.

        http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d14_1412697367

        ThroxxOfVron

        Chuck Schumer's primary concerns in order of importance:

        1. Chuck Schumer

        2. Chuck Schumer

        3. Chuck Schumer

        4. AIPAC $$$$

        5. Chuck Schumer's Committee assignments:

        .... Schumer currently serves on the following Senate Committees in the 114th United States Congress:

        .... Committee on Finance;

        .... Subcommittee on Health Care;

        .... Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight;

        .... Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions and Family Policy;

        .... Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs;

        .... Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development;

        .... Subcommittee on Financial Institutions;

        .... Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance and Investment;

        .... Committee on the Judiciary;

        .... Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts;

        .... Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights;

        .... Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs;

        .... Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security (Ranking Member);

        .... Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security;

        .... Committee on Rules and Administration (Ranking Member);

        .... Joint Committee on the Library (Vice Chair);

        .... Joint Committee on Printing ..."Get to work Mr. Chairman.." (Chairman);

        .... Joint Economic Committee ;

        .... International Narcotics Control Caucus;

        .... Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (Chair).

        6. Israel

        7. The Democratic National Committee

        8. Campaign donations and bribes paid to Chuck Schumer

        9. 'Jews'

        10. Chuck Schumer's hair

        Raging Debate

        11b40 - Good point. Consider this. Empires seem to last less than 400 years. This banking one where it buys governments has just about run its course.

        It was no wonder Jefferson was freaking out about a private central bank to run the currency. Because once that happens it is only a matter of time before the government sells out.

        By the late eighties the Rothschild model pretty much conquered the globe. When that happens and empire attempts to use an iron fist to retain all power is when it all goes south pretty quickly. Shame that playing King of the Hill this time will get 1/3 of the global population dead. As for specifics, lets just say evolution. As mentioned not going to inflame passions on by offering up certain speculations any more.

        God bless people of all nations. May we forgive one another after this cycle ends. All of our shit kinda reeks a bit if one really has the stones to look in a mirror.

        [Sep 16, 2015] Bankers Will Be Jailed In The Next Financial Crisis

        "...For the first time, I found routine agreement among delegates that the banking industry had become synonymous with organized crime. "
        Sep 16, 2015 | Zero Hedge

        Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

        Jesus College, Cambridge hosted, once more, the world's leading Symposium on Economic Crime, and over 500 distinguished speakers and panelists drawn from the widest possible international fora, gathered to make presentations to the many hundreds of delegates and attendees.

        What became very quickly clear this year was the general sense of deep disgust and repugnance that was demonstrated towards the global banking industry.

        I can say with some degree of certainty now that a very large number of academics, law enforcement agencies, and financial compliance consultants are now joined, as one, in their total condemnation of significant elements of the global banking sector for their organised criminal activities.

        Many banks are widely identified now as nothing more than enterprise criminal organisations, who engage in widespread criminal practice and dishonest conduct as a matter of course and deliberate commercial policy.

        – From the excellent article: The Banking Criminals Exposed

        My prediction is that bankers will be jailed in the next economic/financial crisis. Lots and lots of bankers.

        It may seem to many that those working within this profession will remain above the law indefinitely in light of the lack of any accountability whatsoever since the collapse of 2008. It may seem that way, but extrapolating this trend into the future is to ignore a monumentally changed political environment around the world. From the ascendancy of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders here in the U.S., to Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader in the UK, big changes are certainly afoot.

        I have become convinced of this change for a little while now, but we won't really see evidence of it until the next collapse. However, something I read earlier today really brought the point home for me. Rowan Bosworth-Davies recently attended the 33rd Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime and provided us with some notes in an excellent piece titled, The Banking Criminals Exposed. Here are a few excerpts:

        Jesus College, Cambridge hosted, once more, the world's leading Symposium on Economic Crime, and over 500 distinguished speakers and panelists drawn from the widest possible international fora, gathered to make presentations to the many hundreds of delegates and attendees.

        This Symposium has indeed become an icon among other international gatherings of its knd and over the years, it has proved to be highly influential in the driving and development of international policy aimed at combating international financial and economic crime.

        What became very quickly clear this year was the general sense of deep disgust and repugnance that was demonstrated towards the global banking industry.

        I can say with some degree of certainty now that a very large number of academics, law enforcement agencies, and financial compliance consultants are now joined, as one, in their total condemnation of significant elements of the global banking sector for their organised criminal activities.

        Many banks are widely identified now as nothing more than enterprise criminal organisations, who engage in widespread criminal practice and dishonest conduct as a matter of course and deliberate commercial policy.

        Speaker after speaker addressed the implications of the scandalous level of PPI fraud, whose repayment and compensation schedules now run into billions of pounds.

        Some speakers struggled with the definition of such activity as 'Mis-selling' and needed to be advised that what they were describing was an institutionalized level of organised financial crimes involving fraud, false accounting, forgery and other offenses involving acts of misrepresentation and deceit.

        One of the side issues which came out of this and other debates, was the general and genuine sense of bewilderment that management in these institutions concerned, (and very few banks and financial houses have escaped censure for this dishonest practice) have walked away from this orgy of criminal antics, completely unscathed. The protestations from management that these dishonest acts were carried out by a few rogue elements, holds no water and cannot be justified.

        In the end, I sat there, open-mouthed while evidence against the same old usual scum-bag financial institutions, was unrolled, and a lengthy list of agencies, all apparently dedicated to dealing with fraud and financial crime, lamely sought to explain why they were powerless to help these victims.

        This was followed by a lengthy list of names of major law firms, and Big 5 accounting firms who were willing to join with these pariah banks to bring complex and expensive legal actions against these victims, bankrupting them, forcing them from their homes, repossessing properties they had worked for years to create, while all the time, the regulators and the other agencies, including to my shame and regret, certain spineless police forces, stood by and sought to justify their inaction.

        At one stage, we were shown how banks ritually and deliberately take transcripts of telephone calls made between complainants and the bank, and deliberately and systematically go through these conversations, re-editing them and reproducing them in a format which is much more favourable to the bank.

        For the first time, I found routine agreement among delegates that the banking industry had become synonymous with organised crime. Many otherwise more conservative attendees expressed their grave concern and their repugnance at the way in which so many of our most famous banking names were now behaving. It is becoming very much harder to believe that the banks will be able to rely on the routine support they have traditionally enjoyed from most ordinary members of the public.

        The election of Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the labour Party means that banking crime and financial fraud will now become an electoral issue.

        But now, the new Labour leadership will focus the attention of the electorate on the relationship between the Tory party and their very crooked friends in the City, and the degree of protection that the Square Mile gangsters and their Consiglieri, their Capos, and their Godfathers will become much more identifiable. Bank crime will now become much more identifiable as a City practice and their friends in the Tories will be seen as being primary beneficiaries.

        Things are moving in the direction of justice. At a glacial place for sure, but moving they are.

        pot_and_kettle

        When they're swinging from lamp posts lining Broadway and Water St,
        *then * I'd call it progress.

        Til then, same old same old...

        11b40

        There were over 1,000 felony prosecutions that came out of the Savings & Loan fiasco in the 80's, with a 90% conviction rate.

        But, to your point, these were not the big Wall Street Bankers. Mostly just your local common banker thief and his cronies, with a few politicians thrown in for good measure. No big fish were prosecuted during the Depression era, either.

        vincent

        A reminder of how JPM saved its own ass in 2008. Worth bookmarking....

        The Secret Bailout of JP Morgan

        http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/banking-bailout.php

        Ulludapattha

        Dream on, Mike. Just who will jail the banksters? They own the governments of USA, Canada, and Western Europe. Not a chance in my lifetime.

        GCT

        Politicians and the judicial branch are in the banks pockets. I will believe it when I see it to be honest. I have yet to see real bankers or for that matter politicians go to jail. As long as the big fines are paid nothing will change. Must be nice to create money from nothing to pay these fines and fucking your customers over at the same time.

        Fahque Imuhnutjahb

        Wishful thinking. If any justice is to be meted out then the "little people" will have to take it upon themselves.

        And by little people I mean the plebes, not dwarves; but the dwarves are welcome to help, unless of course

        some of them are little bankers, then they're not welcome, but the rest are. Glad we got that cleared up.

        [Sep 16, 2015] Bankers Will Be Jailed In The Next Financial Crisis

        "...For the first time, I found routine agreement among delegates that the banking industry had become synonymous with organized crime. "
        Sep 16, 2015 | Zero Hedge

        Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

        Jesus College, Cambridge hosted, once more, the world's leading Symposium on Economic Crime, and over 500 distinguished speakers and panelists drawn from the widest possible international fora, gathered to make presentations to the many hundreds of delegates and attendees.

        What became very quickly clear this year was the general sense of deep disgust and repugnance that was demonstrated towards the global banking industry.

        I can say with some degree of certainty now that a very large number of academics, law enforcement agencies, and financial compliance consultants are now joined, as one, in their total condemnation of significant elements of the global banking sector for their organised criminal activities.

        Many banks are widely identified now as nothing more than enterprise criminal organisations, who engage in widespread criminal practice and dishonest conduct as a matter of course and deliberate commercial policy.

        – From the excellent article: The Banking Criminals Exposed

        My prediction is that bankers will be jailed in the next economic/financial crisis. Lots and lots of bankers.

        It may seem to many that those working within this profession will remain above the law indefinitely in light of the lack of any accountability whatsoever since the collapse of 2008. It may seem that way, but extrapolating this trend into the future is to ignore a monumentally changed political environment around the world. From the ascendancy of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders here in the U.S., to Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader in the UK, big changes are certainly afoot.

        I have become convinced of this change for a little while now, but we won't really see evidence of it until the next collapse. However, something I read earlier today really brought the point home for me. Rowan Bosworth-Davies recently attended the 33rd Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime and provided us with some notes in an excellent piece titled, The Banking Criminals Exposed. Here are a few excerpts:

        Jesus College, Cambridge hosted, once more, the world's leading Symposium on Economic Crime, and over 500 distinguished speakers and panelists drawn from the widest possible international fora, gathered to make presentations to the many hundreds of delegates and attendees.

        This Symposium has indeed become an icon among other international gatherings of its knd and over the years, it has proved to be highly influential in the driving and development of international policy aimed at combating international financial and economic crime.

        What became very quickly clear this year was the general sense of deep disgust and repugnance that was demonstrated towards the global banking industry.

        I can say with some degree of certainty now that a very large number of academics, law enforcement agencies, and financial compliance consultants are now joined, as one, in their total condemnation of significant elements of the global banking sector for their organised criminal activities.

        Many banks are widely identified now as nothing more than enterprise criminal organisations, who engage in widespread criminal practice and dishonest conduct as a matter of course and deliberate commercial policy.

        Speaker after speaker addressed the implications of the scandalous level of PPI fraud, whose repayment and compensation schedules now run into billions of pounds.

        Some speakers struggled with the definition of such activity as 'Mis-selling' and needed to be advised that what they were describing was an institutionalized level of organised financial crimes involving fraud, false accounting, forgery and other offenses involving acts of misrepresentation and deceit.

        One of the side issues which came out of this and other debates, was the general and genuine sense of bewilderment that management in these institutions concerned, (and very few banks and financial houses have escaped censure for this dishonest practice) have walked away from this orgy of criminal antics, completely unscathed. The protestations from management that these dishonest acts were carried out by a few rogue elements, holds no water and cannot be justified.

        In the end, I sat there, open-mouthed while evidence against the same old usual scum-bag financial institutions, was unrolled, and a lengthy list of agencies, all apparently dedicated to dealing with fraud and financial crime, lamely sought to explain why they were powerless to help these victims.

        This was followed by a lengthy list of names of major law firms, and Big 5 accounting firms who were willing to join with these pariah banks to bring complex and expensive legal actions against these victims, bankrupting them, forcing them from their homes, repossessing properties they had worked for years to create, while all the time, the regulators and the other agencies, including to my shame and regret, certain spineless police forces, stood by and sought to justify their inaction.

        At one stage, we were shown how banks ritually and deliberately take transcripts of telephone calls made between complainants and the bank, and deliberately and systematically go through these conversations, re-editing them and reproducing them in a format which is much more favourable to the bank.

        For the first time, I found routine agreement among delegates that the banking industry had become synonymous with organised crime. Many otherwise more conservative attendees expressed their grave concern and their repugnance at the way in which so many of our most famous banking names were now behaving. It is becoming very much harder to believe that the banks will be able to rely on the routine support they have traditionally enjoyed from most ordinary members of the public.

        The election of Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the labour Party means that banking crime and financial fraud will now become an electoral issue.

        But now, the new Labour leadership will focus the attention of the electorate on the relationship between the Tory party and their very crooked friends in the City, and the degree of protection that the Square Mile gangsters and their Consiglieri, their Capos, and their Godfathers will become much more identifiable. Bank crime will now become much more identifiable as a City practice and their friends in the Tories will be seen as being primary beneficiaries.

        Things are moving in the direction of justice. At a glacial place for sure, but moving they are.

        pot_and_kettle

        When they're swinging from lamp posts lining Broadway and Water St,
        *then * I'd call it progress.

        Til then, same old same old...

        11b40

        There were over 1,000 felony prosecutions that came out of the Savings & Loan fiasco in the 80's, with a 90% conviction rate.

        But, to your point, these were not the big Wall Street Bankers. Mostly just your local common banker thief and his cronies, with a few politicians thrown in for good measure. No big fish were prosecuted during the Depression era, either.

        vincent

        A reminder of how JPM saved its own ass in 2008. Worth bookmarking....

        The Secret Bailout of JP Morgan

        http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/banking-bailout.php

        Ulludapattha

        Dream on, Mike. Just who will jail the banksters? They own the governments of USA, Canada, and Western Europe. Not a chance in my lifetime.

        GCT

        Politicians and the judicial branch are in the banks pockets. I will believe it when I see it to be honest. I have yet to see real bankers or for that matter politicians go to jail. As long as the big fines are paid nothing will change. Must be nice to create money from nothing to pay these fines and fucking your customers over at the same time.

        Fahque Imuhnutjahb

        Wishful thinking. If any justice is to be meted out then the "little people" will have to take it upon themselves.

        And by little people I mean the plebes, not dwarves; but the dwarves are welcome to help, unless of course

        some of them are little bankers, then they're not welcome, but the rest are. Glad we got that cleared up.

        [Sep 15, 2015] Corbyn The Day After

        "I am delighted to see the Blairites and Brownites routed so comprehensively"

        Sep 12, 2015 | naked capitalism

        It will be interesting to see if Corbyn's leadership victory in the UK presages a Sanders victory in our own 2016 Presidential primary. Despite projecting American politics onto British politics throughout this piece, I have no idea! Working in favor of this view: Political structures where tiny oligarchies rule, and voters matter only when they want what oligarchs want, seems almost universal world-wide. So, if you want a majority of the votes, run against the oligarchy, and if you want to split or tame the oligarchy, make that majority a super-majority, with cadres ready to do more than vote. Sanders seems to take this view, as does Corbyn. How that will play out globally, nation by nation, state by state, and precinct by precinct, I have no idea, and a Trump can tap into class resentment just as well as a Sanders.[3] We live in interesting times.

        ambrit September 13, 2015 at 7:11 pm

        Where's the similar juxtaposition for Sanders? Sanders needs to ramp up the class conflict meme right now. This kind of 'counter culture' identity politics takes time to be established. Sanders might not realize yet how powerful a message he has available to him. I do hope Sanders has some campaign aparatchiks over in England learning Corbyns' methods.

        m-ga September 13, 2015 at 12:48 pm

        For those who aren't aware, a central plank of Corbyn's campaign is economic. He wants to set up a an investment bank, funded by quantitative easing. This policy is being referred to as "people's quantitative easing".

        It's been developed in part by a UK accountant called Richard Murphy, whose weblog you can read here:

        http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/

        As far as I can tell, this would be have a very similar effect to Keynesian stimulus.

        The way it's being sold is that QE was used to bail out the British banks following 2008. Of course, the 2008 QE was OK with the Conservatives, and with old New Labour. So, why not use the same mechanism again, but instead of giving the cash to the banks, use it to set up an Investment Bank which will fund infrastructure.

        Uahsenaa September 13, 2015 at 5:41 pm

        [I]t's very unlikely to fly with either the parliamentary Labour party, the wider Labour party membership, or the UK public

        Then the real question is what happens at the constituency party level. Refuseniks may go on and on about how the sky is falling and they'll never be in power again, but if Corbyn supporters, who seem to represent a real ground swell, can exercise their voice at the constituency level to make clear that if the Blairites stick to their neoliberal [non]principles then they will likely face deselection (just like with primary challenges here in the US), then the mostly careerists among the "modernizers" will see that at least appearing to support Corbyn's platform will be in their own best interests. After all, wouldn't that be, I dunno, democratic?

        m-ga September 13, 2015 at 6:27 pm

        The strategy so far has been to be to avoid any talk of deselection, and bring as many former Blairites into the fold as possible:

        http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/unity
        http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/01/jeremy-corbyn-call-party-unity-after-warning-rival-andy-burnham

        But there is already speculation on what happens if that doesn't work:

        http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/05/corbyn-supporters-mps-party-members-labour-election

        However, it's likely that everyone involved will want to avoid a repeat of the damaging Labour party split which happened in the 1980s.

        The analogy to the 1980s is flawed though. During the 1980s, the UK Labour party was already very left wing, and was facing an unexpected and highly effective attack from the Thatcher government. For example, no-one thought that Thatcher would shut down UK industry and fritter away North Sea oil income in order to silence her opponents, but that's exactly what she did. It's about this time that the Labour party splintered, and would eventually be taken over by Tony Blair.

        Fast forward to 2015, and the UK Labour party is controlled by neoliberals. But the grassroots support has remained to the left of the leadership. Until now, there hasn't been a chance for the grassroots to do anything about the way the party is run. Due to hubris, or complacency, Corbyn was added to the ballot. Yesterday he took leadership of the party.

        As a result, a lot of Labour MPs seem confused. They're basically squeezed between the party leadership, and the party membership. For example, 15,500 people have joined the Labour party since yesterday. Normally, you'd expect MPs to be delighted to have a very popular new leader, and grassroots membership increasing rapidly. But, for some reason, several MPs are viewing it as a disaster.

        What might count in Corbyn's favour is that he was a Labour MP in the 1980s. He thus saw first hand what happened when the party split then. Furthermore, the tactics likely to be employed by the Cameron government are now very well understood (they're basically a continuation of the Thatcher policies). So, it seems unlikely that events will rerun in the same way they did 30 years ago.

        m-ga, September 13, 2015 at 2:13 pm

        The Conservatives are in power until 2020. So, assuming Corbyn can hold the Labour party together, he has five years to make his case. There may be finance-led attacks on the UK following 2020 if Corbyn actually gets elected.

        Two things might happen before then, though. Firstly, Corbyn might not stick around. In one scenario, he is thrown out in a coup by another faction of the Labour party. In another, he leaves voluntarily, on the basis that another party member would be better than him going into the election campaign. This second scenario isn't too unlikely in my opinion – Corbyn seems more interested in the success of his policies than the success of himself personally. He is also 66, and would be 70 by the 2020 campaign.

        I suppose it depends if there's anyone who would carry the policies forward. The group of Labour MPs who fully support him is very small – maybe 15 or less. That's could change, though, if there is appetite among the wider public for Corbyn's policies. Unfortunately, MPs exploiting such opportunities are likely to be more interested in power than anything else. So, a chosen successor would most likely come from the handful who already support him.

        The other thing which might happen is another major financial shock – be it for the UK, Europe, or a global event similar to those in 2008 or 2000. The Conservatives have a wafer-thin UK majority. If they recommend bailing out the financial system again, or if their (unjustified) reputation for economic competence collapses, the public outcry could mean the Conservatives don't survive.

        If that happened, and if Corbynomics (i.e. the green quantitative easing) had been established as an alternative in the minds of the UK public, then Corbynomics might become the preferred route. There would be a lot of screaming from the banks.

        [Sep 15, 2015] After winning his prize, Malcolm Turnbull must learn from Abbott's mistakes by Gabrielle Chan

        Sep 15, 2015 | The Guardian


        NewmanOldjoke darthseditious1969 14 Sep 2015 20:53

        Abbott loaded up Turnbull with a poisoned chalice. Seriously, infrastructure of the NBN's scale was never going to be straightforward, with Telstra's hard ass obstructionism thrown in..Still, the pollies wanted to politicise it, and Rupert's self-interested media style never gave them any choice.

        When you step back, political vanity, fear of Rupert, and individualist ambition ruined the Libs on two really important issues in the ETS and the NBN. If they'd had the wit to be bipartisan both would be non-issues that would have fed a lot of positives back into their own interests and the community. But they chose to see short-termist wedge opportunity and failed to see Rupert's and his mates self-interest was whipping them. Outfoxed by Fox, so to speak.

        I doubt whether they will have the self-awareness to rue their binding to the IPA and Murdoch, but they ought to. Maybe in a decade. The malignant interest of old men's corporate internal power struggles has screwed the Libs out of so many options.


        Cdaler77 14 Sep 2015 20:35

        Turnbull just needs to be "not Abbott".

        Be consultative with his colleagues AND the Australian people.
        Abbott was constantly at war with both. That's no way to be a Prime Minister.

        Stop being under the thumb of Murdoch and Stokes, and simply refuse to go on any shock jock's TV or radio shows. Tell Bolt, Hadley, Jones and all the others to just get stuffed.
        The way Scott Morrison sucks up to Ray Hadley is simply sickening and unbecoming of a Minister of the Government. He should stop it now.

        Just never, ever, treat the Australian people with the contempt that Abbott has shown us over the years. That he (Abbott) has gone is one of the best things that has happened. Now hopefully we can all settle down and put the toxic era of Rudd/Gillard/Rudd/Abbott behind us.

        I say this as a Labor supporter. I know it may mean Labor doesn't win the next election, but I'm so relieved Abbott is gone. He was a very dangerous man for our country in these troubled times. Hopefully now cooler heads will prevail on both sides.


        ukchange68 14 Sep 2015 20:14

        Abbott gone - tick
        Cameron - work in progress
        Obama - work in progress
        Getting there...............

        JemFinch1 BSchwartz 14 Sep 2015 20:11

        He is a truculent, spoiled, entitled child. Yes, his speech will have to be written for him, but he is the goose who has to deliver it, and no doubt he will stuff that up too.

        Good riddance to bad rubbish.

        I know the Libs are still in power, but maybe now we can actually have some intelligent debate, some thought out policies, and Labor will have to lift their game - Tones won't be kicking any more home goals.


        darthseditious1969 -> smudge10 14 Sep 2015 20:06

        I get a distinct impression that Turnbull holds Murdoch in contempt. Which might be a good thing.


        BSchwartz 14 Sep 2015 19:49

        No one likes losing. But it is expected that you rock up, thank your supporters, reflect on your achievements, and either which the victor all the best or to rot in hell.
        Abbott's failure to appear after losing the ballot reminds us of why his leadership failed.

        He was an adrenaline junky, always aggressive, never reflective, never gracious.

        He also was a hopeless thinker, unable to react to changing circumstance, never able to speak in more than soundbites.

        Someone will have written a speech for him overnight. He is incapable. History will not be kind.


        long_memory 14 Sep 2015 19:11

        Great that Australia's experiment of having a Abbott fascist government has come to an end.

        "Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
        1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
        2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
        3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
        4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
        5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
        6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
        7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
        8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. 9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
        10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
        11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
        12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
        13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
        14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections."
        http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm

        thegarlicfarmer 14 Sep 2015 19:02

        There will be short-lived honeymoon - then this elitist self interested man will be shown to what he is - same as Abbott in that he will serve his masters - the wealthy, multi-nationals et al. He has no regard to the common man/woman as he does not understand them. He has no moral compass - as long as he has power then all is ok. Supposedly a knowledgeable man on the NBN - look what has happened to that under his watch! Remember his foray as leader before? How we forget so quickly! He allowed a lowly public servant to hoodwink him - so that is the type of Prime Minister we have. HE HAS NO INTEREST BUT IN HIMSELF. Where oh where are the leaders who will take this great country forward - there is none in any of the political elite that play in Canberra these day? It will not happen in my lifetime but I live in hope that the generation y etc. will take the baton and run with it.


        Abel Adamski Friarbird 14 Sep 2015 18:45

        A cartoon that is a epitaph
        https://broelman.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/broelman-sept-11.jpg
        Note the wording on the shirt
        However we as a Nation and It's government score a substantial mention in an article that raises many very important issues
        http://robertscribbler.com/2015/09/10/new-study-risk-of-significant-methane-release-from-east-siberian-arctic-shelf-still-growing/

        Can Malcolm get some reality into the Global Warming issue before it becomes an absolute disaster, positive feedbacks are kicking in


        Philip Emery 14 Sep 2015 18:42

        Turnbull is to be commended on flushing the toilet and getting rid of the big turd wallowing in the bottom of the bowl. Now it is to be hoped he scrapes the encrusted shit of the sides and actually has a go at governing. And Malcolm remember you're there to govern, not rule.


        Warren Peece 14 Sep 2015 18:28

        I hereby christen Abbott: Two Turd (as in 2/3) Tony, he did manage 2 of a possible 3 years, after all.


        Friarbird 14 Sep 2015 18:18

        Abbott was a museum exhibit, a blundering politician from an earlier age and narrow culture. He would have been quite at home in the clerical fascist regimes of Europe in the 1920's-40's, in which obedience to authority was counted the primary virtue.

        Sitting at the knee of the prominent Catholic reactionary, BA Santamaria, he absorbed the 'values' of these regimes. They never left him. Consequently, he had real difficulty adapting to the democratic Westminster System and appeared baffled when it raised obstacles in his path. Government, it seemed, should act as a Prime Minister directs. He seemed to have little patience or understanding of the separation of powers doctrine and often sought to circumvent it, sometimes by ignoring it altogether, or by ludicrous 'captain's picks' which exhibited his often risible rash judgement. He had little imagination and lacked even the trademark fancy footwork associated with politicians--picking up and using the ideas of others. Significantly, his most striking 'success' was the dismantling of Labor's work. No politician of 'calibre' would wish to be thus remembered. Australia is well shot of him.


        RalphFilthy 14 Sep 2015 18:16


        F**k you Abbott.

        Goodbye.

        Some departing amusement (safe for work - not safe for conservatives)

        Tony Abbott vs Tony Abbott


        Saltyandthepretz Talwyn224 14 Sep 2015 18:14

        "The worst prime minister in Australian political history"
        That is how he will be remembered. This is a very harsh, damning label (he is human and this course of events is enough to rock anyone) but his policies, his lies and his actions have led him to the inevitable.


        Saltyandthepretz markdeux 14 Sep 2015 17:55

        This last act of hiding seals Abbott's fate as the worst Prime Minister in the history of Australian politics. He wanted to be known as the "infrastructure Prime Minister" but words and actions can be two completely different things, thus he will be remembered as the "incompetent Prime Minister".


        Bearmuchly OnceWasAus 14 Sep 2015 17:55

        "not Americas bitches which the LNP have become"...............

        Not disagreeing with the sentiment, however...........

        a. The ALP seem no less beholden to US foreign policy

        b. We've moved beyond National boundaries/nation states

        ........Murdoch represents global corporatisation, they know no boundaries, the world is their play pen and sovereign Govt's. , when not in their pockets, just get in the way.


        dipole 14 Sep 2015 17:43

        I'm conflicted.

        Tony Abbott is, without doubt, the worst Australian PM in living memory.
        Being as thick as two bricks, he was completely out of his depth.
        So showing this anti-science climate change denier the door is a good thing.

        But I was also looking forward to the complete trouncing the LNP were going to get at the next election. With Abbott as PM, he would have become the first one term PM in a very long time.

        Now Labor have to fight for the next election.
        Which is also a very good thing.

        Turnbull needs to state publically that climate change is real, and we have an obligation to combat it. He needs to state that he is pro-science, and pro-alternative energy. He needs to remove the priests from the nations schools. And he needs to fix the NBN, so we have something worth using.

        That will prove he is nothing like Abbott.


        Simon Thompson Penfisher 14 Sep 2015 17:42

        I am sure that someone will be able to point out the flaws in this suggestion, but here we go. The problem I see with representational government is that we elect the people whose lies we believe the most (or whose lies we'd like to believe the most).

        Whilst ever we delegate responsibility for decision-making to professional liars we will forever be complaining that we elected A, promised to do B, only to end up with legislation C. The Swiss have a form of government which includes a plebiscite where the public vote directly on the issues.

        I can see the first problem (in California) which is when the public votes for BOTH no increase in revenue / no increase in taxes AND an increase in expenditure. Maybe any expenditure has to include in the bill where the revenue is raised from? Meantime, our representational system of democracy which I consider CORPOCRACY (the best government that money can buy) will continue to plague us with paid-off pollies whose main job, as I said elsewhere is to get re-elected. Job #1 get elected. Job #2 get re-elected. Job #3 get to form government .. rinse and repeat. We can all see how the piper calls the tune and the biggest campaign donors and lobbyists get the government policy they want. Would plebiscites be able to be made to work in Australia? Would it deliver a better form of government?


        Raymond Hall 14 Sep 2015 17:42

        The miserable coward that Abbott has always been was on show last night. No show. From the most divisive, bullying and mean man ever to grace the position of PM, Abbott has thankfully been shown the door. Turnbull will be an improvement. How much an improvement only time will tell. But the real essence is that the LNP are damaged beyond repair, and only when the far right neo-cons fade away, will they ever be a real force again.

        Anthony Forsyth 14 Sep 2015 17:38

        Bye bye, Tone. A gutless ideologue who bullied his way to a job that was far beyond his ability. You won't be missed.

        Mr Turbull no doubt believes this signals the end of the neo-cons and ushers in a glorious era for neoliberalism again. Can't imagine how he will govern his conservative apparatchiks from the centre.

        The world is moving toward a new era with a new kind of socialism at the forefront. Corbyn elected as leader of the Labour Party in the UK, Sanders gaining traction in the U.S.

        Expect Australia to be 5 steps behind yet again.


        WitlessNall 14 Sep 2015 17:09

        Can someone please tell Rupert Murdoch Australia isn't his little kingdom anymore?

        Yeah you better remember that ScoMo next time you want to remind us what a puppet you are ...


        markdeux 14 Sep 2015 17:08

        Where was Abbott last night. A gutless mean spirited low life who did not have the courage to face the cameras after being dumped by some of his party. How long before the neo's are out to destroy Mal?

        Rudd's actions after being dumped will look like a kiddies party compared to what is going to happen. Bets are on that Cory the enlightened one will be the first thug to attack. This is going to be fun.


        Falcopilot Marleyman 14 Sep 2015 16:54

        I always TRY to look on peoples best sides, but unfortunately the facts back you up all the way, so I reluctantly concur with your assessment!
        Abbott was a truly sad excuse for a humane being, and I always think of his party as the "mean and nasty party"!
        Abbott's legacy is not going to look in the history books at all, he is/was a dismal failure, not unlike Bush V2.0 and that real weirdo Blair!
        What is it that enables all the sociopaths/weirdo's/damaged people to get into power?
        The politician's job description seems to attract a lot of the "wrong type of people", not unlike flies and maggots to a bad smell.
        I am very hopeful that Malcolm CAN successfully polish that turd, because the political "system" does not work very with only one viable party/choice!
        I think both parties need regular major shake ups to smarten them up and make them hungry, and to top them becoming ever more disfunctional.


        GiveMyCountryBack 14 Sep 2015 16:38

        Will Dumb-Dumb even go to work today? It might all be a bit too much for the petal.

        Looking forward to when the Labor address a question to the PM, Malcontent, that reference Ten Flags. Good times.


        GiveMyCountryBack BobRafto 14 Sep 2015 16:36

        Yep. They need to start hammering him on this stuff. He came out and said 'you can vote for me, I'm not Dumb-Dumb', but hasn't demonstrated any desire for different policies.

        He's fucked. The party hate him. Heaps of their rabid voter base hate him. People generally dislike 'wankers' and there's no doubt that the slick delivery of Malcontent will leave people with the impression that he is just that.

        Just another smug merchant banker. Treat him accordingly.


        dga1948 14 Sep 2015 16:32

        He may be a Turd rolled in glitter but remember comrade, you can't polish a Turd and this Turd has demonstrated on more occasions then I can remember that he is prepared to abandon any principle in pursuit of power.


        Marleyman 14 Sep 2015 16:23

        Good riddance to Abbott a true turd amongst a big steaming pile. He was a nasty vile ideological religious zealot driven by fear prejudice and backward dark aged thinking. Can Turnbull polish this turd ? I doubt it..the grassroots fascists remain behind the scenes spreading their stupid philosophy


        blarneybanana scott_skelton 14 Sep 2015 16:09

        I'm NOT a Labor supporter, and he exceeded our wildest imaginings.

        Picking a fight with CHina, Russia and Indonesia SIMULTANEOUSLY?! That's the kind of things that books are plotted around.
        Attacking a wheelchair bound war hero? (well, tried to)


        blarneybanana gudzwabofer 14 Sep 2015 16:04

        Yes, and no. Putin is judo, and I know thru personal and rather brutal experience they don't hand those things out in cornflakes packets. I'm pretty sure Tony might have started things by a bit of wall punching and wheelchair kicking, but it would have ended with Vlad making a suppository out of the red togs.
        The suppository of all Tony's wisdom?


        blarneybanana 14 Sep 2015 15:19

        Somehow, I doubt he will physically threaten a major world leader (who could perfectly well defend himself by strangling TA with his own budgie smugglers), pick an unwinnable series of fights with our major trading partners, or TRY TO ATTACK A WAR HERO IN A WHEEL CHAIR


        OldTrombone 14 Sep 2015 14:26

        It wasn't Abbott who made the mistakes - it was the Australian voters who made the massive mistake.

        Everyone but everyone KNEW Abbott was like this, and they knew he was going to do what he did. They didn't "hold their nose" to vote for him, they held their testes! WRONG!


        Mike Scrafton RJHanley 14 Sep 2015 13:53

        Well that's politics. Did you expect anything better?

        There are no politicians who can lie straight in bed and who get into Cabinet.

        Hypocrisy and compromised principles , deceit and deception, are the qualities that get you into the Ministry - undeserved self regard, hubris and a messiah complex are what gets you into the PM's job. They are all the same. I hope you're not disappointed!

        Abbott lied about a great many things. Sadly Abbott wasn't a psycho but just ill equipped for a job he didn't understand. Also he wasn't an outlier on the bell curve of politicians.

        However from this point on it is what Turnbull does as PM that's important. I don't really care what he believes only the policies he enacts or if he's sincere when he fixes the country. I just hope he does!

        I await the result.


        TheCorporateClass PeterOfPlumpton 14 Sep 2015 13:44

        relentlessly promoted by Murdoch, which shows how little he actually knows about politics and government.

        = NOTHING the man is a deluded psycho in every way.

        My feelings on R. Murdoch and his involvement in Australian politics and his Twittering garbage are summarized here fwiw :
        http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/sep/13/tony-abbott-expected-to-face-liberal-leadership-challenge-within-months#comment-59399171

        BilltheDill -> RJHanley 14 Sep 2015 13:44

        In politics, FUCKIN' HYPOCRITE = politician.

        They all lie about where there loyalties lie, and I think most of the electorate expect that, and accept it.

        What the electorate will not accept is a leader who tells you what he will absolutely not do, and then announce within a matter of weeks that circumstances have changed, and he now will do it.

        Not to mention all the other broken promises, and lies.

        To pledge allegiance to a party leader is just politics. To make pledges to the electorate only to backpedal on most of them, falls into another category altogether, and it creates within the electorate a mistrust and anger that cannot be satiated by anything other than failure and humiliation. Mr Abbot reaped what he sewed.

        TheCorporateClass -> Letschat 14 Sep 2015 13:39

        Like most bullies, Abbott is a coward. Yes, and in spades!

        I hope his party is grateful.

        They bloody well better be, or they will burn to ashes within a year.
        Any chance that ALL those 100 Liberals could put ALL OF Australia's people first, for just a year?


        BilltheDill SENTINEL48 14 Sep 2015 13:36

        Indeed, he has been Tony Abbott, but he has also made many mistakes, most of which stem from not holding his word and being a man of truth.

        To put it bluntly, he lied to the Australian people on too many occasions, and about too many important matters. That was his political mistake. The rest of it is just his personality.

        SENTINEL48 14 Sep 2015 13:14

        Tony Abbott didn't make mistakes . He was just Tony Abbott .


        scott_skelton BaldwinP 14 Sep 2015 13:12

        We all knew that Abbott was a wingnut, but TBH I've been surprised by the depth of his incompetence, and I'm a Labor supporter.


        Letschat 14 Sep 2015 12:13

        Like most bullies, Abbott is a coward. Of course he hasn't fronted the media. He is absolutely no loss to politics in this country. We can only hope that they take the Abbott game book and flush it down the toilet where it belongs. He can take his destructive fascist tactics with him as he walks out the door and we slam it shut behind him.

        There is no question that Malcolm Turnbull understands what the electorate is so bloody angry about. Now the party has to deliver. Whether they can or will remains to be seen. Their is more wrong with the current government that the incompetent leadership. They have a problem of culture with shameless rorting lying and corrupt practice.Turnbull has certainly set himself a challenge. I hope his party is grateful.


        Talwyn224 14 Sep 2015 11:04

        The worst prime minister in Australian political history thus far has been shown the door and not a moment too soon.

        An epitaph:
        Tony Abbott - Promoted beyond the level of his incompetence

        [Sep 14, 2015] Putin shifts fronts in Syria and Ukraine

        Neocon Diehl has the audacity to use WashPost editorial page to attacks Secretary of State John Kerry. Promoting what is essentially Nuland's jingoistic policies... so despite blunder after blunder neocons are not yet done.
        .
        "...Diehl seems to think that the US has or should have a free hand to do what it wants wherever and whenever it wants, and gets all twitchy when he discovers that the 'end of history' hasn't arrived just yet. He forgets that Russia was in Crimea and Syria long before the US showed up with its solutions in hand."
        .
        "...Or best idea yet -- Send these WaPo neocons (Diehl and Hiatt) packing. "
        Sep 14, 2015 | The Washington Post

        Over the summer, while Washington was preoccupied with the Iran nuclear deal, U.S. and European diplomats quietly leaned on the democratically elected, pro-Western Ukrainian government of Petro Poroshenko. In Sochi, Kerry had offered full-throated U.S. support for the implementation of an accord known as Minsk 2 - a deal hastily brokered by Germany and France in February, at a moment when regular Russian troops were cutting the Ukrainian army to ribbons. The bargain is a terrible one for Kiev: It stipulates that Ukraine must adopt a constitutional reform granting extraordinary powers to the Russian-occupied regions, and that the reforms must satisfy Moscow's proxies. That gives Putin a de facto veto over Ukraine's governing structure.

        Dryly 41

        First, the instability in the Middle East is a direct result of the disaster caused the Bush II-Cheney administration's war against Iraq to fine Weapons of Mass Destruction. There were none. Any normal person would conclude that it would have been much cheaper and saner to have let the United Nations Monitoring and Verification Inspection Commission inspectors continue their inspections and find there were no WMD than to start a Pre-emptive War. Jackson is not a normal person as he supported the Bush II-Cheney war.

        Second, Bush II-Cheney administration's war against Iraq at a time Iraq posed no military threat to the U.S. or any other nation did enormous damage to the standing, stature and prestige of the United States of America. How can the United States argue that it is fine for the us to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq if we want to but Russia cannot invade Ukraine?

        Stranger9

        Putin is extremely articulate on the subject of international ethics and law. Sure, he's corrupt as the day is long, but he seems to believe in certain basic Judeo-Christian-based tenets of international conduct. The West seems tied to Islamic jihad tenets, so the United States and its allies don't believe in the most basic rules. Thus, the moral high ground goes to Putin.

        Whizdom

        Diehl wants us to tie up our military assets trying to take down Hezbollah and Iran, while China is free to consolidate in the South China Sea

        Whizdom

        Iran is unlikely to be a Russian client, but strategic cooperation is likely.
        Diehl and the Neocons over reached in trying to pry Ukraine out of Russians orbit before the time was right, and also massive fail in Syria A naive and stupid strategy.

        Luke W

        Putin has a right to conduct a foreign policy without the permission of the United States.

        American statecraft and military performance in the region as been abysmal and is the font for much of the chaos now evident in Iraq and Syria thus, its credibility is in tatters.

        Russia can certainly do no worse than what we have accomplish.

        Livin_in_MD

        Please, let us do all we can to entangle Russia into Syria's civil war. Let them bleed slowly their national treasure and the blood of their soliders. Let it become their NEXT Afghanistan. And while they're at it, please allow them to incite Muslims across the Middle East because they are helping the Butcher Assad.

        You don't think they're Muslims in Russia who would like to strike back at Putin for this?

        Obama, playing the long game, is going to give just enough rope to let the Russians hang themselves.

        Whizdom

        Let Russia be the magnet for Islamic terror instead of us? That's a concept.

        Whizdom

        Russia just wants its naval base and its hand on the valves of new Friendship pipeline that will cross Syria from Iran's Pars fields. Putin doesn't care if it Is Assad or some other stooge.

        mike-sey

        Who is in whose face depends on which side of the border one sits. Diehl seems to think that the US has or should have a free hand to do what it wants wherever and whenever it wants, and gets all twitchy when he discovers that the 'end of history' hasn't arrived just yet. He forgets that Russia was in Crimea and Syria long before the US showed up with its solutions in hand.

        Stranger9

        "Putin is meddling in the Middle East out of desperation because his bid for Ukraine has failed."

        Putin's "bid for Ukraine"? His bid is not for all of Ukraine, as this statement implies; it is to keep Crimea within the orbit of Russia, since the great majority of its denizens are Russian by choice, history and culture. The word "Crimea" is not once mentioned.

        Then there's this: "Putin has an agenda as clear as it is noxious. He wants to block any attempt by the West and its allies to engineer the removal of Bashar al-Assad ..."

        Noxious? What's noxious is the West's and Israel's unfounded claim on Assad's regime.

        danram

        It take a real Putin boot-licker to defend Bashir Assad. Congratulations.

        And if Putin is only concerned with Crimea, then why are his forces in southeastern Ukraine?

        Oh yeah, that's right ... They really aren't. Got it.

        Stranger9

        An international code of conduct must be maintained. It cannot be broken by engineering coups and installing unelected leaders, as was done in Ukraine. The same applies In Syria. You simply cannot take over a sovereign country simply because you can. There are rules that even the U.S. -- "exceptional" though it claims to be -- must abide by.

        MyCountry2

        Syria will [be] Russia's second Afghanistan.

        Whizdom

        Do we get to arm the Islamists again?

        IWH_rus

        Why? did you stop it already? When?

        jack406

        Where's Reagan when we need him?
        Didn't he build Al Quaida?

        Michael DeStefano

        We can dress Yatsenyuk up like Osama. His days in Ukraine are numbered anyway and he's about the right height. Not quite as handsome but the beard will cover most of that.

        -shiloh-

        The flood of refugees into Europe will continue until somebody stops the source of the flood. Does anybody really care who's fingers are in the dike? The only way to end the refugee crisis is to end the civil war(s) and insurgencies in the region. A cooperative effort among Europe, Russia, and Iran with the assistance of the US is preferable to the status quo. Ports, pipelines, and political ideologies are incidental issues.

        Whizdom

        So Russia and Iran are moving to crush ISIS and restore stability in Syria, which will ease the refugee crisis. And Diehl is unhappy? Syria has been a client of Russia's for a half century. Ending that relationship is a neocon goal, but does it even make sense now? Worth the price?

        Forest Webb

        What's the big deal? the editor makes this sound if this is some brilliant strategy on the part of Putin. If the Russians want to throw away their sons in the Mid-east quagmire let them.

        It's a complicated stew and Putin has easier choices in the arena than the U.S. For Putin he simply supports Assad.

        For the U.S. we want Assad out, so we cannot support him. We cannot support ISIL, half or the other opposition is supported by al Qaeda, the Kurds would just as soon fight the Turks our erstwhile Nato ally rather than fight the Assad regime. A complicated messy stew, we should try to keep our spoons out of.

        Let Putin send his Russian boys to Syria, and let's count how many weeks pass before the terrorists take the war to Russian soil.

        Michael Cook

        Putin won in Ukraine. He has the Crimea back and has secured an overland gas pipeline corridor from Mother Russia to the peninsula, which was his objective. All it really cost him was dozens of scoldings from Obama.

        Obama already scolds and threatens Vladimir Putin about Syria. The problem is that Moscow is absolutely right---if someone does not step in and rescue Syria RIGHT NOW the country will fall to ISIS before the end of the year. Assad's forces are exhausted.

        Iran, of course, besides Russia is Bashar al Assad's other ally. The interesting point about that is that neither Russia nor Iran had much money available to make war.

        Until last week. Now that Obama is freeing up frozen Iranian funds ($50-150 Billion!) suddenly the militant mullahs in Tehran have plenty of money for war making.

        Can anyone smell a win-win for Putin? He gets to be the only leader of a major nation around to have the guts and intelligence to realize that allowing Syria to fall to ISIS would be a global catastrophe of the first magnitude. Better yet, Putin gets to sell lots and lots of Russian weapons, which helps his own struggling economy! Has Putin studied "The Art of the Deal?"

        SELL weapons for cash money! Courtesy of Obama! Now that is worth putting up with more of these tiresome tongue-lashings that POTUS likes to dole out when he is clueless about what is going on. Since Obama is clueless all the time, Putin just has to put up with the noise.

        Michael DeStefano

        Putin's objective was to secure a gas pipeline corridor across the Kerch Strait?

        So he could what, erect one of those ancient Greek fire breathing dragon flame throwers on the Crimean coast?

        Not everything's about gas, Mr. Cook.

        Ethernum

        Russian airstrike in Syria won't perform better than the US (with a more advanced technology) against the Islamic state.

        Can Putin engage a ground assault in Syria with regular/irregular troops the way he did in Ukraine ?

        He can try but the result won't be the same, there's some wealthy countries supporting the Islamic State and they will provide them a lot of money, weapons and soldiers coming from everywhere to beat the Russian army, Putin will be unable to veto this support to the Islamic state, and it will restart what the US army experienced in Iraq, with permanent IED and kamikazes, while there will be no target for planes and drones....

        IWH_rus

        How many countries should be invaded and ravaged before USA became appeased?

        simon7382

        Nice try, no cigar....The US invasion of Iraq was a grave mistake, BUT it does not justify Putin's naked aggression in Georgia, in Ukraine or now in Syria in any way.

        IWH_rus

        Iraq is all you know about? Right now you involved in seven wars. And you never stop to invade all the last century. With all your history USA have only 21 year of peace, all the time invading, conquering, overthrowing legal governments to replace it with puppets. As it YOU made in Georgia, and Ukraine, and try to in Syria.

        r2rnot

        Putin is like a shark in the water, detecting blood around him. With the appeasers in our current administration, he has nothing to be worried about. He knows that Obama will do nothing but fire more drones and try to find some targets for bombs, as long is no non-combat person is in the area.

        Michael DeStefano

        If Putin's like a shark in water, McCain and Nudelman were like hyenas going after Ukraine's carcass,

        SG2118

        Refugees from Syria are a welcome relief to the Assad regime. It's hundreds of thousands of people who they need no longer worry about. Good riddance is Assad's feeling on the matter. Same holds for those from Iraq and Afghanistan. Rebels and those opposed to the government are leaving in droves and the regime couldn't be happier.

        Russian troops in Syria? Russian warplanes and drones? They're going to be busom-buddies with the Iranian Quds Force which has been there for years, alongside Hezbollah fighters who are there to ensure the supply lines from Teheran remain open and aid, money and weapons continue to flow into the Bekaa Valley.

        The Fall of Assad would be a cataclysm to Iranian hopes and dreams for the Middle East. They will not give up without a serious fight. Russia is there now, like in Vietnam 50 years ago, to "advise" and "train" local "militias" to "resist aggression".

        choppy1

        And if Putin's plan is to make himself look significant by "confronting" the U.S., he has succeeded, at least with Jackson Diehl. The question isn't whether Russia is pushing the U.S. around, it's whether U.S. national interests are involved. The U.S. has lived with the Assad regime for 45 years. Is it really so crucial that we get rid of it now? Ukraine is hardly a linchpin of Europe. Sure, it would be nice if it were free and western. But it has historic ties to Russia, is more important to Russia than to us, and has not shown laser-like focus on becoming a serious western democracy. Meanwhile Putin presides over an economy that's shrinking 5% a year, with a population that's also shrinking. And he made the choice to keep power for himself and his cronies rather than modernize. No matter what he does abroad, Russia itself is on a decline that he will only exacerbate. He's dangerous, not because he's strong, but because he's weak. We should not let his actions fool us into losing sight of where our core interests lie.

        IWH_rus

        While world sleeps, Putin moves stars with his finger, to disrupt NATO's operations and disturb dreams.

        Greyhounds

        Right. Because NATO is operating in Syria?

        IWH_rus

        NATO is a theatre of one actor. And this multifaced actor is operating in Syria, arming terrorists.

        RealChoices

        If anything, Russian aid to Assad should be encouraged. We may find Assad too repulsive to aid, but given a choice between Assad and ISIS, he is definitely the lesser of two evils. It's time to dispense with a notion of a "moderate pro-Western rebel force", it was always wishful thinking.

        Greyhounds

        There's this little thing called "human rights" and another little thing called "the Leahy Ammendment" that prevent us from providing aid to terrorists like Assad or even giving a nod to Putin to do so.

        Michael DeStefano

        But you seem to be all hunky dory with Poroshenko and our Saudi and Israeli allies bombing civilians into oblivion. Funny how that 'human rights' business pops up and down on demand.

        Slava Besser

        So Assad is a terrorist, but Poroshenko is allowed to bomb Donetsk at willSmile Saudi Arabia is allowed to bomb Yemen with cluster munitions we provide because they don't like the revolution there, but Russia should not provide aid to Donetsk despite the fact that people that came to power in Ukraine illegally and are blatantly anti-Russian are using air-force, tanks and artillery against civilian population that happens to have pro-Russian views?

        Michael Cook

        Spot On! Assad's forces are exhausted and extremely weak. If Russia doesn't come in and save the day, Syria will fall to ISIS with all the slaughter of minorities and hate crimes against archeology that entails.

        I can't believe that the Obama administration is playing this like it is more important to uphold fictional political straw men than to actually stop ISIS from scoring their most important strategic victory ever!

        SG2118

        Iran is deeply involved in propping up Assad. It is through Syria that Iranian supplies reach their proxy lap-dog Hezbollah. Without that vital lifeline open, Hezbollah is cut off from their patron, and cannot be used against Iranian enemies (i.e. Israel). The Iranian Quds Force is in Syria now doing front-line fighting. Hezbollah too is deeply engaged. Without that level of aid, Assad's control would shrink dramatically, if not topple over altogether.

        SG2118

        News of the day. Iranian special forces moved into Syria to help Russians. Source - Israeli intelligence.

        Slava Besser

        I'm a Jew, are you implying that it is better for Israel if ISIS comes to power in Syria?

        nativeson7

        I would respectfully suggest that Russia's participation in the Ukrainian and Syrian conflicts are different means to accomplish the identical objective, the undermining, if not outright dismemberment, of the EU and NATO.

        While the Ukrainian gambit failed, taking the Russian economy with it, the "Syrian play" shows far more promise in its early stages and at the very least is likely to erode the unanimous support required for an extension of the EU's economic sanctions against Russia.

        Merkel's misguided response to the initial flood of Syrian refugees has transformed the matter into an existential crisis in the minds of many Europeans and "right wing" parties throughout the continent.

        There has been a notably unified and pronounced response from the Slavic Eastern European states in particular. Slovakia has declared it will accept only Christian refugees, Hungary has erected a fence along its southern border with Serbia and Bulgaria has done the same along its border with Turkey. Poland has agreed to take only 2000 Christian refugees rather than the 12,000 requested by the EU and in the Baltics protests have arisen over projected Syrian resettlement figures numbered in the hundreds.
        Russia's military support will not only breathe new life into the Assad regime it will assure a continuing flood of migrants from Syria, into Europe, which will serve as a catalyst to create a "Pan-Slavic Europe" with a political, religious and cultural unity that could well transcend Eastern Europeans view of themselves as "European".

        Michael DeStefano

        Jeez, what a nefarious plot. Flood Europe with immigrants until it bursts at the seams. I knew that Putin was no good. What a Svengali-Machiavelli hybrid.

        Why just today I heard on Meet the Press that they're all running from Assad and really upset that he's just being really mean with ISIS and not letting them distribute food and chocolates to the masses.

        IWH_rus

        Look at the map of "Arab spring". These lands make a belt from Atlantica to Indian Ocean, blocking Eurasia from Africa. It is clearly the geopolitical project of the power, which wins situation, while EU, Russia, China loose. Who is greatest and faithfull supporter of chaos in Middle East? USA.

        Assad is unimportant. No matter who rule there, Syria is the target. If you destroy Syria - lots of military staff and arms will be left abandoned, and go to search new destiny. How ISIS was created? Jobless soldiers, cheap weapons. That's the target. Putin, Assad, just a decorations. You are blind, if unable to see it, or you do it consciously, as the autor of article. He is not as stupid, as try hard to look.

        Michael DeStefano

        Well it looks like, if Russia is 'pivoting' to Syria, then Germany has just decided to pivot with them. They didn't exactly call our approach feckless and wrongheaded but I suspect they may have had something along those lines in mind.

        Syrien Deutschland bricht aus US-Allianz gegen Russland aus Nachrichten – DEUTSCHE WIRTSCHAFTS NACHRICHTEN

        Germany surprisingly left the alliance formed together with the United States which intended to block Russia's entry into the Syrian conflict.

        Minister of Defence Ursula von der Leyen told Der Spiegel that she welcomed president Putin's intentions of joining the fight against the extremist organization "Islamic State". It would be a matter of mutual interests, she said.

        A speaker of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs added, Germany would welcome additional efforts of Russia in the fight against IS. Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier even announced the starting of a joint venture between him, Russian foreign minister Lavrov and their French colleague Laurent Fabius with the aim of bringing the Syrian civil war to an end. Lavrov and Fabius are expected to arrive in Berlin this Saturday.

        moore_te

        BIll Maher said it this weekend: There are five million troops in the Gulf States vs some 30,000 ISIS fighters... Where are they? Why don't the ME nations take in any refugees? (Of course, who would want to live in any of them given a choice?)

        Taking out Saddam and Gaddafi worked so well, so of course we need to repeat the procedure in Syria!

        Forget about the assurances we gave Russia that the West would leave a buffer between it and Russia. So what if we renege on our agreements, it's all for a good cause, right? After all, look how Bush stood up to them in Georgia. (He didn't.)

        Or best idea yet -- Send these WaPo neocons (Diehl and Hiatt) packing.

        Whizdom

        There is a Syria peace deal in the works. naturally, NeoCons are gonna hate it. I wonder if Syria will get the Golan Heights back.

        Chortling_Heel

        It is always a pleasure to receive the NeanderCon musings and misdirection of Jackson Diehl.

        Rootin' Tootin' Putin and his hand puppet, Bashar al-Assad, are trying to run out the clock before their nations implode even further --- taking each down with them.

        [Sep 14, 2015] Corbyn victory energises the alienated and alienates the establishment by Gary Younge

        "...Here is the thing, it has always suited the Tories and the right for millions of people to not bother voting because the two parties look and sound 'just the same'... Now that Corbyn actually is the leader of the opposition to the Tories, millions of young and other people who never bother to vote because ''they're all the same'', will start to realise that isn't true anymore. "
        "...It is wrong to say that Corbyn's victory alienates the establishment. The establishment had alientaed themselves from a large number of people who felt themselves disenfranchised and cheated. The establishment were so alientaed they did not realise they were alientaed. Corbyn's victory has only highlighted it. I hope they have enough humility to realise it."
        "...The triangulating managerialism of the Blair/Clinton era (Thatcherism/Reaganism with a human face?) relied on the seeming stability of neoliberalism to discourage any deviation of its voting base from what was defined by the socioeconomic elite as the center. Voters were considered passive molecules whose sole purpose was to be heated up sufficiently during elections so that they would reach the polls and make the inevitably correct selection. The core principles of neoliberalism would not be touched, however the plebs were allowed to fight over the crumbs."
        "...For a counter analysis, it helps to recap recent history under our neolib, rapidly devolving to paleolib regime: we now live in a country where elected governments surrendered an entire industrial base so that it could become a dodgy offshore banking center; who, in a 'privatization' frenzy, inadvertently sold its power grid to the French state; engaged in a murderous and illegitimate war that propelled unbounded worldwide terrorism; let its criminal finance centre off the hook after it helped cripple the global economy; then we re-elected David Cameron, unleashed George Osborne and now some fancy Boris Johnson with Nigel Farrage still hanging around. We have become, in effect, Bullingdonia. It is our present reality and it is scarier than anything Corbyn has proposed. And I haven't even mentioned Brooks, Coulson or Murdoch.

        Many of the blighted citizenry of this country have had enough and have set their sights very sharply on the long con of which the Tories, Blairites and the Paleolib British media including the Guardian are leading proponents. The key operative factors being, of course, debt, debt slavery, and bondage to the bank.

        Labour had been colonized and neutralized by the regime. As the 'nicer tories' they bought a one way ticket to oblivion with a short ascent at the beginning. And talking about 'aspiration': people are finally getting that there is no hope at all in voting for the landlord or his pussy, so they're not voting. Time to give 'em something exciting, some hope for the great well of non-voters among Generation Screwed, who have been conned into accepting debt slavery and submission. This view holds particularly among poleaxed interns stewing in their hovels without the n"

        "...If we are lucky this may be the beginning of the end for TINA -- "There is No Alternative". This mantra, the core slogan of the Thatcher era, was intended to inculcate in the electorate that neoconservatism was the only viable economic and social strategy. Its been astoundingly successful -- despite it being based on tenuous, unproven, theory (Hayek) and having been shown to cause economic disaster wherever it was implemented (South America, for example) the notion of TINA was constantly pushed because it made people money -- economies could die, people would live in misery but the elites coined it big time.

        Its been obvious to anyone with even a vaguely functioning brain that something's wrong. Unfortunately daring to even think of alternatives gets a gut reaction from many born of being fed propaganda from birth -- witness the snide remarks about Trots or commissars, the hints of 'security risks' and so on. This won't stop; prepare for a full on assault (although "Red Jeremy" doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well as "Red Ken" so I'll wait to see how the tabloids handle him)."

        "... There is a desperate need for an alternative voice to the neo-liberal consensus (ie. Capitalism Unchained) "
        "...The neoliberals are as wily as Stalin and incredibly cunning. "
        "...And here we have the nub of the matter, the way that the NeoLiberals who infiltrated the Labour party just assumed that the core vote would continue supporting them as they had nowhere else to go... wrong, wrong, wrong!"

        Sep 13, 2015 | The Guardian

        But then little of this is really about Corbyn. He is less the product of a movement than the conduit for a moment that has parallels across the western world. After almost a decade and a half of war, crisis and austerity, leftwing social democrats in all their various national guises are enjoying a revival as they seek to challenge the neo-liberal consensus. In the US, the self-described "democratic socialist" Bernie Sanders is outpolling Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in key states. Podemos in Spain, Syriza in Greece and Die Linke in Germany are all posing significant challenges to mainstream centre-left parties.

        ... ... ...

        From the moment it was clear that assumption was flawed, the political and media class shifted from disbelief to derision to panic, apparently unaware that his growing support was as much a repudiation of them as an embrace of him. Former Labour leaders and mainstream commentators belittled his supporters as immature, deluded, self-indulgent and unrealistic, only to express surprise when they could not win them over. As such this reckoning was a long time coming. For the past couple of decades the Labour leadership has looked upon the various nascent social movements that have emerged – against war, austerity, tuition fees, racism and inequality – with at best indifference and at times contempt. They saw its participants, many of whom were or had been committed Labour voters, not as potential allies but constant irritants.

        The slew of resignations from the party's frontbench after the result was announced and apocalyptic warnings from former ministers about the fate of the party under a Corbyn leadership illustrate that this attitude hasn't changed. The party has spoken; its old leaders would do well to listen but for now seem intent on covering their ears. They won't win it back with snark and petulance. But they can make their claims about unelectability a self-fulfilling prophecy by refusing to accept Corbyn's legitimacy as party leader.

        Not only is Corbyn not being granted a honeymoon, relatives are determined to have a brawl at the wedding.

        Nonetheless, the question of whether Corbyn is electable is a crucial one to which there are many views but no definitive answers. We are in uncharted waters and it's unlikely to be plain sailing. May revealed that the British electoral landscape is both fractured and wildly volatile. What works in London and Scotland may not work in middle England and the south-east. To some extent Corbyn's success depends on how he performs as leader and the degree to which his supporters can make their enthusiasm contagious.

        It is a big risk. In the early 80s when Tony Benn made his bid for the deputy leadership, there was a huge trade union movement and peace movement to buttress him if he won. Corbyn inherits a parliamentary party in revolt and a determined but as yet unorganised band of followers. Clearly many believed it was a risk worth taking. In the words of the American socialist Eugene Debs: "It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."


        SqueakEMouse -> darylrevok 14 Sep 2015 02:45

        ' right-wing rodents ' That says all that one needs to know of your attitude and beliefs. Your contempt for real people with real concerns and real aspirations. Well it's a democracy sonny and you wont get the votes by abusing everybody who objects to your dictatorial fantasy world being put into practice. If you cannot even SEEK to persuade then you have no hope at all. Wake up and smell the coffee of reality.

        bob1648 14 Sep 2015 02:42

        Absolutely agree.
        Scotland voted for the same ideals as JC and whilst the Blairites are busy throwing their toys out the pram he can count on 56 very savvy MPs more than willing to back him in Westminster.


        UncertainTrumpet 14 Sep 2015 02:42

        Here is the thing, it has always suited the Tories and the right for millions of people to not bother voting because the two parties look and sound 'just the same'.

        We've all heard people say that politicians are all the same and only in it for themselves, some of us have probably thought that ourselves.

        So, the Tories and the right confidently started out sneering and making jokes about how Corbyn was a dreamer.

        That isn't true anymore now, though.

        Now that Corbyn actually is the leader of the opposition to the Tories, millions of young and other people who never bother to vote because ''they're all the same'', will start to realise that isn't true anymore.

        They'll see the difference between the two main parties is real now.

        The Tories are for the rich, despite their 'party of working people' rhetoric; they've always had the back of privilege, they've always framed their politics to appeal to personal selfishness. And New Labour sounded just the same.

        The Tories aren't scared of Corbyn, but they're more than a little concerned the rest of us voters / non-voters will start listening to him.

        They don't like that thought, because they know they only got into power on a slender majority.

        Corbyn as leader and more people listening to him could well nudge them out of their complacent comfort zone.


        Tiranoaguirre 14 Sep 2015 02:36

        Some people just want someone to represent their social frustration and inadequacy, their pent-up envy at not being gifted a piece of the pie they don't deserve, and their inferiority complex that's grinding the axe. And they don't care if they have to destroy the UK to do it. The left is just another version of Salomon's disputed baby and the robber mother who, having snuffed out her own, wants somebody else's.


        Giuliano Marcangelo -> Sal2011 14 Sep 2015 02:33

        Corbin offers hope, hope of a better future for the youth of this country. Corbin offers hope, hope of a future where we are led by politicians with integrity, rather than politicians who formulate policy for their multi national company paymaster so. Corbin offers hope of DEMOCRACY, where our elected parliament act according to the wishes of the populace and not to those of press barons and big businesses.

        Wake up and smell the coffee....the rules are being re-written and a peaceful revolution is evolving...the establishment are worried, hence the mud slinging against Jeremy Corbyn by the British Press, the establishment and the Tories, mud slinging against a man who cannot win a General Election .....why bother if he is so unelectable?


        SqueakEMouse -> murielbelcher 14 Sep 2015 02:32

        But the majority are after MORE freedom not less in case you hadn't noticed. Blair's mantra of 'Education, education, education' spoke to a broad range of people who wanted better education and opportunites for their families. He largely failed to deliver on the promise but the yearning is still there in case you hadn't noticed.

        People want a health service that serves THEM, not the people who run it. That is the reform that people wanted. The old system is a black hole for finance and failing to deliver. Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'la la la' wont change it.

        Going back to an era when it could be pretended that there were no problems and everything was peachy is not going to attract the votes of people who can see for themselves that the old system failed them. You are putting ideology over practicality and results.


        JonathanLamb -> trp981 14 Sep 2015 02:29

        "The configuration of socioeconomic forces at present warrants the metaphoric borrowing of such natural science concepts as criticality, bifurcation, and nonlinearity to describe the situation. A cascading series of cracks are beginning to appear in the illusion of the steady-state equilibrium of the world, fracturing the end-of-history narrative that the neoliberal order had been energetically maintaining for the past three decades."

        Is that you Russell?


        bevrev 14 Sep 2015 02:24

        Clearly, you can't win a General Election until you win the leadership one. The poor percentages of the other three candidates show clearly it is they, not Corbyn, who can't win a General Election. The fact that Corbyn has overwhelming grassroot support, but weak parliamentary support shows how out of touch the political class really is. For too long, the nation has endured their vulgar sense of entitlement and arrogance. The people are responding because at long last, they have someone who is speaking for them. The volume of voices ranged against him shows how many establishment figures are lined up against the people. They are truly worried. They should be.


        Jeffrey Cox 14 Sep 2015 02:21

        This from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" captures the parliamentary Labour Party and Guardian/Independent establishment response to Corbyn's victory

        King Arthur played by We the People. Black Knight played by the Labour establishment:

        King Arthur: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
        Black Knight: 'Tis but a scratch.
        King Arthur: A scratch? Your arm's off.
        Black Knight: No it isn't.
        King Arthur: What's that, then?
        Black Knight: I've had worse.
        King Arthur: You liar.


        londonzak -> HenryC 14 Sep 2015 02:21

        Just like Thatcher welcomed Pinochet for dinner and had tea with apartheid South African leaders. Guilt by association is such a lightweight argument.


        ID3945937 14 Sep 2015 02:12

        My wife and I contradict this idea that it is only the young, inexperienced and naive who are joining the Labour Party. We are both 67 and have both just joined the Labour Party for the very first time, on the strength of Jeremy Corbyn's victory. We figure that his leadership is going to be made very difficult by the Blairite rump and our appalling right-wing press and he needs all the support he can get. We hope that Jeremy will offer the opportunity for socialists to re-capture the intellectual and moral high ground on taxation, the role of the state, equality, health, justice and so on, against this rapaciously destructive and ideological Tory government, who would like to take Britain back to the 19th century. Yes, he is a risk, yes, he needs to sharpen up some of his policies, yes, his leadership qualities are untested -- but he is the best political hope that radicals and socialists of all colours and persuasions have at the present time.


        Socialistoldfashion 14 Sep 2015 02:10

        It is wrong to say that Corbyn's victory alienates the establishment.

        The establishment had alientaed themselves from a large number of people who felt themselves disenfranchised and cheated. The establishment were so alientaed they did not realise they were alientaed. Corbyn's victory has only highlighted it. I hope they have enough humility to realise it.


        trp981 14 Sep 2015 02:04

        "But then little of this is really about Corbyn. He is less the product of a movement than the conduit for a moment that has parallels across the western world."

        The configuration of socioeconomic forces at present warrants the metaphoric borrowing of such natural science concepts as criticality, bifurcation, and nonlinearity to describe the situation. A cascading series of cracks are beginning to appear in the illusion of the steady-state equilibrium of the world, fracturing the end-of-history narrative that the neoliberal order had been energetically maintaining for the past three decades. The this-can't-go-on-but-this-will-go-on state of affairs seems to be sputtering and not going on as smoothly as before. Corbyn, Bernie Sanders, Syriza, etc., are the fissures through which the pent-up and inchoate frustrations of various social forces are finding an outlet to the surface.
        Whether or not Corbyn succeeds in addressing the concerns of those who voted for him, his victory is another milestone in a correlated sequence of occurrences. Beginning with the financial crash of 2008, we see an increasing frequency of events that challenge the unstable neoliberal order. The Occupy movement, Syriza, Podemos, etc., are a chain of events that form a portion of a possible trajectory of the future. There is no guarantee that this trajectory will come to pass, leading to some sort of structural change, although the more these events occur, the greater the probability of the latter.

        "In this and many other respects, his strengths were accentuated by the weakness of his leadership opponents. With their varying degrees of milquetoast managerialism, they were not only barely distinguishable from each other but had platforms that were forgettable even when they were decipherable."

        The triangulating managerialism of the Blair/Clinton era (Thatcherism/Reaganism with a human face?) relied on the seeming stability of neoliberalism to discourage any deviation of its voting base from what was defined by the socioeconomic elite as the center. Voters were considered passive molecules whose sole purpose was to be heated up sufficiently during elections so that they would reach the polls and make the inevitably correct selection. The core principles of neoliberalism would not be touched, however the plebs were allowed to fight over the crumbs.

        To use a quantitative scale, the choice offered to the voters was between a zero-to-slightly-positive socially liberal neoliberalism, and a negative socially conservative neoliberalism. Put another way, economically the choice was between nothing and worse-than-nothing. The previous predictability of the voting patterns, however, is dissipating as the stability of the equilibrium state decreases, resulting in the amplification of the smallest disturbances. The expression of shock at the election of Corbyn is a manifestation of the increasing nonlinearity/volatility of the balance of forces. Voter dissatisfactions that could easily be contained and damped out in the past are becoming more pronounced and harder to contain and manage.

        The increasing instability of the neoliberal order implies the shifting of the ground beneath it. The previous givenness of the passive citizenry is becoming less so, and critical junctures might approach fast and unforeseeably. There are multiple possible trajectories of the future derived from various combinations of social forces, some entailing dramatic changes in unpredictable ways.


        Greatbearlake 14 Sep 2015 01:59

        For a counter analysis, it helps to recap recent history under our neolib, rapidly devolving to paleolib regime: we now live in a country where elected governments surrendered an entire industrial base so that it could become a dodgy offshore banking center; who, in a 'privatization' frenzy, inadvertently sold its power grid to the French state; engaged in a murderous and illegitimate war that propelled unbounded worldwide terrorism; let its criminal finance centre off the hook after it helped cripple the global economy; then we re-elected David Cameron, unleashed George Osborne and now some fancy Boris Johnson with Nigel Farrage still hanging around. We have become, in effect, Bullingdonia. It is our present reality and it is scarier than anything Corbyn has proposed. And I haven't even mentioned Brooks, Coulson or Murdoch.

        Many of the blighted citizenry of this country have had enough and have set their sights very sharply on the long con of which the Tories, Blairites and the Paleolib British media including the Guardian are leading proponents. The key operative factors being, of course, debt, debt slavery, and bondage to the bank.

        Labour had been colonized and neutralized by the regime. As the 'nicer tories' they bought a one way ticket to oblivion with a short ascent at the beginning. And talking about 'aspiration': people are finally getting that there is no hope at all in voting for the landlord or his pussy, so they're not voting. Time to give 'em something exciting, some hope for the great well of non-voters among Generation Screwed, who have been conned into accepting debt slavery and submission. This view holds particularly among poleaxed interns stewing in their hovels without the necessary school connections, drowning in education debt and thinking about emigrating, the tried and true solution for Brits, as well as other huddled masses.

        They will represent the battleground for hearts and minds in the next election. Forget about the mythical labourites who went Tory; they're long gone and best forgotten. Labour must now cut a path that counters the three big lies that have led to debt slavery for most of the population, the long con that has delivered us into the thorny hands of the City and the Tory: that 'emancipation' is achieved through consumption; 'freedom' through individual 'free agency' of work; that there is 'heroism' in entrepreneurial risk. It is time to counter these cons with a platform of energy and identity based on national productivity not servitude. Framed well and executed effectively, the message is about getting off your knees and sticking their self serving austerity.

        There is a large, emergent audience for this. They are Corbyn people. The upside of inequality is that it offers numerical advantage.

        Clerkenwellman 14 Sep 2015 01:49

        We have a new situation. A Tory government with a thin majority, an economy likely to have peaked by the end of the parliament, a programme of continuing enhanced poverty for the poor and EU uncertainty for the rich and a moral and economic challenge as Syria empties of its people - along with other places. These are challenges that a new Opposition, perhaps with overt support from the SNP, can bring the government to the court of public opinion. On the Defence front, Trident will still solve none of our problems, other than by being scrapped. The UK projection of military force into the mid-east or elsewhere will continue to cost money and lives and will continue to make little difference to our security. Israel will continue to bomb children in Gaza in the name of defence but now will be called out on this. No doubt Corbyn and Benn will aim to talk to our enemies as well as our friends - a wise move.

        this is all going to be interesting and should challenge the oily and complacent Cameron and his smug friend Osborne.


        martinusher 14 Sep 2015 01:26

        If we are lucky this may be the beginning of the end for TINA -- "There is No Alternative". This mantra, the core slogan of the Thatcher era, was intended to inculcate in the electorate that neoconservatism was the only viable economic and social strategy. Its been astoundingly successful -- despite it being based on tenuous, unproven, theory (Hayek) and having been shown to cause economic disaster wherever it was implemented (South America, for example) the notion of TINA was constantly pushed because it made people money -- economies could die, people would live in misery but the elites coined it big time.

        Its been obvious to anyone with even a vaguely functioning brain that something's wrong. Unfortunately daring to even think of alternatives gets a gut reaction from many born of being fed propaganda from birth -- witness the snide remarks about Trots or commissars, the hints of 'security risks' and so on. This won't stop; prepare for a full on assault (although "Red Jeremy" doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well as "Red Ken" so I'll wait to see how the tabloids handle him).

        ... cpp4ever 14 Sep 2015 01:07
        The old Blairite leadership of the Labour party lost spectacularly and to my mind one of the biggest reasons was the choice to abstain from voting against Tory cuts. That was surely the last straw for many, and must count as a classic example of how to spectacularly shoot yourself in the foot, if not actually blow it clean off, and to mix the metaphors stuff it into your mouth! It's not a certainity, but the dominance of the neoliberal concensus, austerity, and trickle up economics is beginning to find real and growing opposition across Europe and in many ways that has reinvorigorated what was becoming dull, same old, say mould, politics! Now I find that refreshing and in many ways it's been long overdue.

        Thanks Gary Younge for an enjoyable article that may well have caught on to a larger zeitgeist taking hold in many parts of the world.

        Jessica Roth 14 Sep 2015 00:51
        Former Labour leaders and mainstream commentators belittled his supporters as immature, deluded, self-indulgent and unrealistic, only to express surprise when they could not win them over.
        So true. Between the "heart transplant" lecture and the "alternate reality" one, it's a miracle Tony Blair didn't pump Corbyn's total up to 70%, never mind the actual 59.5.

        Thanks for all the help, Tony! Now go rest up in Qatar; you've got a trip to the Hague coming in a few years' time, and a nice suntan may impress the judges. You never know.


        R. Ben Madison BlackAntAssociates 14 Sep 2015 00:41

        > The laissez faire looked to Hitler's economic model with wonder prior to the war, break the unions, suppress wages, a shared political and corporate hierarchy milking the profits and socialising debt

        Until the war, things were actually pretty good for the German working class under Hitler (as much as it pains me to say so). Their economic policy was more about buying worker loyalty by giving them health care, paid vacations and cheap private cars -- not machine-gunning them all against the wall.


        Wayfarer2 14 Sep 2015 00:14

        The establishment has worked extremely hard on marginalising itself. It has been pretty successful at it.


        Sparingpartner 14 Sep 2015 00:06

        'the Labour leadership has looked upon the various nascent social movements that have emerged – against war, austerity, tuition fees, racism and inequality – with at best indifference and at times contempt. They saw its participants, many of whom were or had been committed Labour voters, not as potential allies but constant irritants.'

        There must be a sense that there is something equivalent happening in Australia.

        Abbott's Neo-cons have tried to perpetrate the same old swindle and have their shit tails caught in the machinery. The ambulance transporting the patient has broken down on the way to the hospital. Sirens are wailing and frantic paramedics are giving CPR but no one can seem to get a pulse - radical surgery is the only prognosis but as yet no one has invent the operational procedure.

        At last there appears to be a recognition that the scam of corralling the centre of politics (5%-6%) and marginalising the rest so that the machine can work it's 'magic' on those few that decide elections has found expression in some Western Democracies.

        In the words of the American socialist Eugene Debs: "It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."

        Love that line...


        Michael Cameron 13 Sep 2015 23:42

        Zoe is spot on. Though Yvette Cooper belatedly showed some green shoots, it was thralldom to an imaginary centre and faith in 'preference accomodation', that ultimately did for the other candidates. Sure, they had the odd interesting idea, but nothing like the all-enveloping narrative of Blair.

        Strip the good from Blairism and you're left with the totalizing power and its slippery essence, which is to say, Cameronism; what Blair achieved with a charismatic, zeitgiesty response to propitious circumstance, Cameron has emulated by augmenting Blair's mastery of spin and message. But as we saw from the outpouring of pent-up Conservative glee which greeted Osborne's cuts prospectus, the Tories never forget what they stand for. A moment like Labour's welfare bill disaster for them is unimaginable. Encroaching on our territory with their 'living wage', far from being a badly managed misstep, was a deft political masterstroke of re-branding.

        Without Corbyn Labour had an uninspiring reheat of the 'third way' - already battered into submission by Cameronism - and a party with a limp oven-gloved grasp of their own fundamentals. In other words, the very worst of both worlds. At least Corbyn can authentically propound those parts of Labour's vision which are non-optional (opposed to taking money out of the pockets of cleaners and checkout workers to give to the already mega rich) and without which they have sunk into absurdity and farce.

        Take the lens of the welfare bill fiasco. Imagine Liz Kendall had become leader, had for 5 years gone along with the Tories on many similar issues, and somehow conjured a Labour victory in 2015. After years of Labour-endorsed Tory butchery, think of the entropic change in what counts as 'centre' and what passes for realistic. Think of the long road back in convincing the electorate that 'acceptable' is really 'extreme' - exactly the problem Labour faces now. Having spent barely 6 months of the last 5 years arguing with any conviction, they're hollowed-out and entirely void of confidence.

        Yet no universal law exists which states the public must buy the Conservative axioms i.e. the drain of downright fecklessness, the necessary evil of all-knowing free markets, the benevolence of exponential rewards. But when was the last time Tory fundamental values were under focus?

        Corbyn won't concede ground on these issues. Yet all things considered - and despite the Blairite view - staunch opposition to the most scything ideological cuts stands a better chance of tempering the Tories than meekly tracking their every move. Remarkably, the Tories are already rumoured to be making plans to recapitulate those old arguments about markets and privatisation and ready win them anew. But the idea of attempting to shape the political narrative with your own values is as as instructive as it is antithetical to New Labour 2.0. On the backfoot, out in the open, debating policy, is exactly where we want the Conservatives. Engaging them on the big questions such as how much market freedom is a good thing, arguments which we know are there to be won.

        On austerity, the economy, the NHS and much more, Corbyn will not only represent Labour but credible progressive policy. At the same time, we can continue to work out collaboratively the problems and deficiencies in his manifesto. 1)Let's face it, immigration must be debated with an open mind. If vast numbers of people are opposed to its rate, we need to find creative ways of telling our story while keeping the option of leaving Europe on the table. 2)Despite the cynicism of the recent co-ordinated Tory attacks on Corbyn's 'threat' to international security - many in the Labour party feel Corbyn is wrong on nuclear disarmment and NATO. 3)Acknowledging his bid was initially conceived as a catalyst, I don't think he even JC pretends to have all the fresh ideas we need for the future - hence his desire for a more democratic running of the party.

        Personally these aren't showstoppers because like Zoe, I also couldn't care less if Jeremy can win a general election. Lacking a vision within the party that embraces the future, remembers the past and addresses the huge structural reshaping of society, a Labour victory in its current state is as likely as Corbyn winning an election if it were held tomorrow. For one thing, Ed Miliband was arguably a more convincing leader than all four candidates yet couldn't get through to the electorate. Absent a ready-made improvement, it makes sense to go back to basics.

        My own ideal scenario would be for Corbyn to continue to inspire a grassroots movement, re-establish much of what we're about, withstand the inevitable smears with a winning dignity, and hand over to a more realistic successor on defence and brimming with the innovative solutions of the future. But this first stage of renewal is vital. Five years is aeons in politics. This is a reality which seems to have escaped those monopolisers of the stuff, New Labour.


        BlackIncal 13 Sep 2015 23:22

        People are waking up to the fact that the corporate parties only work for the very rich and the corporations. Austerity is only in the interest of the very rich and the corporations. The main stream media pundits work for and on behalf of the very rich and the corporations and thus are all in a huff that the public had the temerity to choose somebody they do not approve of. It is good to read at least on article were the author shows an understanding of the anger which is growing.
        I am as one with the late great George Carlin, it is to late to really do anything to save us from the disaster which is fast approaching. But, it is gratifying that people are slowly waking up to the total mess which our system has turned into. The great gift that humanity was handed and the unfettered greed which is destroying us is at last being fought by a leader of a mainstream party. I hope Jeremy Corbyn understands that the system is no longer fixable but must be torn down and replaced.


        Jeremy Smith 13 Sep 2015 23:19

        The political class is still in denial about the fact that we stand at the turn of the tide.

        We have Corbyn in the UK and Sanders in the US; we have a Pope thats progressive on both economic and social issues; we have the Greens out-polling Labor, our alleged Opposition, in many seats across Australia, and the whole of Tasmania.

        Neoliberalism is increasingly called out as incoherent swill that only exists because it financially benefits those with the power to replace it.


        historyonix 13 Sep 2015 23:02

        A couple of things here I guess…
        1) The MPs who have deserted Labour, and the people who did actually vote for them, because they think this will make them unelectable in the next GE have to realise they made Labour unelectable in the last two elections… unless of course you want to highlight the political powerhouse that is Scottish Labour… oh, hang on… ripped to pieces in their own heartlands you say?

        2) They have to realise that many people are now at absolute saturation point with the established Political 'class', staggering from petty finger-pointing shambles, to snide meaningless PMQTs, to have tripped face long into narcissistic self-parody. If it wasn't for the total and systemic deconstruction of the UK, they would hardly serve a purpose at all.


        Jerome Fryer BlackAntAssociates 13 Sep 2015 22:39

        the mainstream is either centre-right or right, wherever you look. The shift in global politics since the mid 70's has been right all the way.

        Only because the political systems have been captured by narrow right-wing interests. If there is no 'left' alternative to vote for then people don't vote -- voter turnout in the UK and USA has been pretty dismal since the 1950s when this process of moving all available choices constantly to the political right began.
        It will be interesting to see if a genuine Labour party -- rather than 'Tory light' -- can draw out the people abstaining from the present system because they know it is a mockery of democracy.


        lulubells nick kelly 13 Sep 2015 22:03

        Your arguments are valid. There were excesses by unions who wanted to transform an England which still held on to its class system and thereby enforced the poverty of the working class. But it's a different world now and there is a middle ground where unions ensure their members are paid decently, etc., without holding the economy to ransom. Union power is a pendulum reflecting the inequality of society. BTW the income divide all over the Western world is greater than ever since Thatcherism was adopted by other democracies. The privatisation of public assets and stripping of union power are the most obvious consequences. This has facilitated the rise of the multinationals which have adopted the strategy of establishing (and moving) their factories in the disadvantaged country which will accept the lowest wages and living conditions. Read the book on this topic by the last British governor of Hong Kong. Now employees are more and more hired for a fixed term contract, can't get a mortgage to buy a house or plan their lives. It is a huge social disaster, eg wage 'slaves' in Japanese corporations. And contributes in no small way to young peoples' decisions worldwide not to have children when they have no security, with a flow-on effect being the ageing of the nation.


        murielbelcher axehoO 13 Sep 2015 22:01

        It is reflective of the toxic Tories' aim to "frame" and "fix" Corbyn and get the mud to stick so they can keep throwing it at him, just as they did with Ed M

        We need to frame the Tories as inimical to national economic security and duty of care with their asset stripping and bargain basement fire sales of the nation's resources and commonwealth, all to the benefit of their plutocratic billionaire mates

        Amazing the similarity of language used in the Tories' "tweets" and statements - it was so blatantly deliberate and sinister in its insistence and drum beat

        Unfortunately Corbyn needs to set up an Alistair Campbell style rebuttal unit and fast. Use Blairite political tactics; as you eschew Blairite policies.


        centerline 13 Sep 2015 22:00

        Worth reading the Pilger article on Whitlam to see what the future may hold for Corbyn

        http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-forgotten-coup-how-america-and-britain-crushed-the-government-of-their-ally-australia


        firozem 13 Sep 2015 22:20

        At last a non-hysterical analysis from someone who distinguishes himself from the right-wing sycophants that call themselves Guardian journalists.


        Lesm 13 Sep 2015 22:14

        It is interesting to note that the Labour and Tory parties have made a very significant, but stupid assumption. They believe that Neo-Liberalism is an order of God and not just another economic fad. Their idea is that it will go on forever as the natural order of things. Young people have a different idea and they are taking control of Labour and re-shaping it for the Twenty-First Century. I say terrific!!!!!.


        toomanycyrils shedexile 13 Sep 2015 21:38

        The poster is suggesting you're not working class, probably because you can afford to pay higher taxes.

        I actually kind of agree with you, but many in your position won't. And the working class can't afford higher taxes. So the only solution is to tax the very rich. George Harrison had something to say about that back in 1966. It seems the only recourse really is to force corporations to pay their tax, which I believe is a lovely idea fraught with serious problems.

        There has to be willing from within the elite for things to change. Any chance of that has been made more remote by the election of Corbyn, not because of his ideas but because of his character. It really is a great shame that he didn't face somebody a bit more potent than either Burnham, Cooper or Kendall.


        Peter M murielbelcher 13 Sep 2015 21:38

        Whilst I agree that the neo-liberal agenda was in it's fledgling stages, I do think capitalism was a more popular ideology in the early 80s than socialism, obviously not everywhere but on the whole. You've mentioned a few there, such as the 1980 Housing Act, but let's not forget things such as the loss of nearly 2m manufacturing jobs before 1983. Don't get me wrong, Thatcherism got much worse post-1983. I think it was Thatcher's decision to sacrifice the jobs of millions for the sake of reducing inflation, as well as the Falklands factor, that made people, to some extent, more open to capitalism.


        axehoO murielbelcher 13 Sep 2015 21:36

        I agree, there are a whole number of ways that Conservative policy can be seen as a threat to the safety and well-being of the UK population.

        The strategy concocted by the government was to immediately hit Corbyn after the Labour leadership election with a coordinated series of slurs by ministers, aided and abetted by the BBC and the right-wing press, that he is effectively an enemy to the nation. This is precisely the kind of hyperbolic rhetoric used the world over by dictatorships to imprison and usually kill their political enemies. Chile under pinochet is a prime example. Here's a quote echoing Cameron's choice of words:

        Still, no woman was safe during the Pinochet era. If she were suspected of anti-regime activities on her own or if she were the relative or lover of a man suspected of such activities, she was branded by officials as a threat to national security and thus a potential object of rape torture.

        Cynthia Enloe 2000

        This is the language now endorsed by the Conservative government to describe its political opponents.


        marxmarv thingtwo 13 Sep 2015 21:26

        The media have to play their role of aspiring professionals worried about their precious fyootchers. There need to be more working-class voices -- real ones, not the neoliberal lapdogs the Western press and every other corporate institution can't help but manufacture.


        easye Golub2 13 Sep 2015 20:59

        This attitude is exactly why there is a burgeoning grassroots movement of which Corbyn is but one of its most important leaders. New Labour treated its heartland with contempt, a bit like if Sunderland decided it was no longer interested in its traditional fanbase and would seek to get supporters from Newcastle United. Things are about to be shaken up. If Corbyn exposes Cameron's alleged funding of ISIS, the Tories mismanagement of the economy £1.56 trillion in debt, as the UK is, that Trident is useless except for lining the pockets of the arms industry, exposes the lies that led us to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and defends the poor and vulnerable from the naked hatred of this government towards them, then your illusions about Cameron will be shattered. For Cameron, it will be like the emperor's new clothes and you'll see his bollocks


        Peter M danubemonster 13 Sep 2015 20:26

        I think context also comes into play when you consider the 1983 election. Socialism was simply a message, on the back of a growing globalisation and embracing of neo-liberalism, that people were not listening to. Instead, privatisation and capitalism were the ideologies that garnered widespread support. I think it's taken us until the recession and current period of austerity, as a society, to realise the flaws of capitalism and the need for socialist, anti-austerity measures. For Corbyn, it'll be a much easier fight than Foot had when trying to convince a nation of people, wrongly embracing the New Right following the Winter of Discontent, to vote for socialism.


        axehoO 13 Sep 2015 19:46

        For the past couple of decades the Labour leadership has looked upon the various nascent social movements that have emerged – against war, austerity, tuition fees, racism and inequality – with at best indifference and at times contempt.

        Great observation. Since the miner's strike, Labour has tended to distance itself from grassroots movements in the UK, but since the rise and fall of Blair, it's been much closer to disdain. John Hariss's video yesterday captured one of the party delegates leaving the building after the vote and remarking contemptuously about the 'distance from reality' of the Labour supporters celebrating Corbyn's win. Invert that comment and you explain why Labour has been drifting into irrelevance.


        Vespasianite 13 Sep 2015 19:40

        This is just an incredible turn of events, just when you loose faith in the ability of the people of the UK to show interest and put up a fight against the hijacking of their political parties they manage to do something that is truly good for democracy. I voted UKIP last time just to annoy the establishment. I really don't agree with much of Corbyn's convictions but without doubt this is going to be good for the politics of this country. However before you can distribute prosperity you have to generate it, that has always been Socialism's biggest flaw. If he manages to convince he can be trusted to deliver that then his chances of really being in a position of power will be within his grasp.


        foryousure 13 Sep 2015 19:08

        Good article. Politics had become the property of the 'sound bite' media professional with a set of rules, learned doing that politics degree, that define everything and without which governance impossible. Think we have all had enough as Corbyn's landslide shows.

        bemusedbyitall ImaNoyed 13 Sep 2015 19:06

        The sad part in Australia is that, like BLiarism in the UK, the current ALP, with its devout neoliberal acolytes running the show, now stands as the Alternative Liberal Party. There is absolutely no difference betwixt them and the Nat-Libs.
        Who will bring the ALP back to being social democrats - No need - The Greens will rise up and take over fortunately


        ID8729015 13 Sep 2015 18:07

        "milquetoast managerialism, they were not only barely distinguishable from each other but had platforms that were forgettable even when they were decipherable."
        Gary, you are brilliant


        Drewv TheSpaceBetween 13 Sep 2015 17:17

        You are using the term exclusively in its most narrow sense, as in, the people alienated from all of society, who are on the margins of life as such, who are outcasts in the most literal and tangible sense.

        But it is eminently possible to be 'alienated' in many other and different senses, and therefore, for alienation to be present on many different levels. It is possible for people to be alienated from the political class which rules them; for workers to be alienated from the economic system; for voters to be alienated from those whom they elect; for the lower classes to be alienated from the upper ones; and so on.


        Ikonoclast 13 Sep 2015 16:51

        Cameron, what a fukcin embarrassment you are...

        The Labour Party is now a threat to our national security, our economic security and your family's security.

        CDNBobOrr 13 Sep 2015 16:42

        "" In the words of the American socialist Eugene Debs: "It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."""

        ... ... ...

        mickconley -> jonnyoyster 13 Sep 2015 16:12

        Even though I suspect we might come from different ends of the political spectrum, I think some of what you're saying here is true and it's refreshing to see it expressed without the usual smug post-election needling of many rightwingers on this site! You've definitely identified some of the problems that Corbyn's going to have to solve. I totally agree that the reaction of New Labour movement is going to be key. But I would challenge two main things about your post.

        Firstly, I think your characterisation of people on the Left is a bit patronising and based on stereotype. I could equally hold forth on the type of voter the Right attracts (don't tempt me!) based on my own prejudices, but I don't think that would be particularly helpful. There may be some truth in the stereotypes on both sides among the dyed-in-the-wool, but I also think that the last election showed us that there is a huge number of voters in play who aren't particularly wedded to either concept of Left or Right.

        That brings me on to my second point - what makes you so confident that Labour won't win back UKIP voters? Again, my sense is that although there is a hard core of extreme rightwingers who strongly support the ideas, there are a lot of people at the last election who felt angry and disenfranchised, and saw Farage as a 'plain dealer' - who liked the way he spoke rather than necessarily what he said. I think Corbyn could capitalise on this and win back a significant number, despite the fact that what he's actually saying is the polar opposite to UKIP.

        Remember, Cameron's majority is tiny. The press have been peddling the myth of a wonderful Tory success story, but the truth is it's smaller than Major's was in '92, and look how that ended. Interesting times ahead, certainly!


        foralltime 13 Sep 2015 16:09

        An insightful article, Gary. This is a flowing movement rejecting the neoliberal consensus.


        socialistnotnulabour xlocus 13 Sep 2015 16:03

        Corbyn supporters were given the name Corbynistas by those who opposed him and it was to try and paint Corbyn and his supporters as far left who want to overthrow the government.

        They throw abuse and lie about Corbyn and his supporters and then try to play the victim when they get a bit of abuse back at them.


        Legionary13 13 Sep 2015 15:50

        A yes for Corbyn was effectively a yes for "austerity is a needlessly harmful fraud" so I am very happy to see that this simple fact is recognised. Our current government is unusually destructive and the more voices explaining that this is by choice (rather than forced on us) the better.

        Can Corbyn succeed? He will be opposed by Murdoch/Mail/Telegraph, all organisations that have been practising their lying.

        Humans for Corbyn!


        beadmaker MrHee 13 Sep 2015 15:47

        This is where I am torn. There is a desperate need for an alternative voice to the neo-liberal consensus (ie. Capitalism Unchained) but Mass Immigration is a main plank of unchaining capitalism and at least the right is allowed to verbalise this (even though nothing is allowed to hinder it) whereas the left seems to be hidebound to support it, with any contention deemed racist. To quote another CIF poster: Please understand that many many people understand that immigration is a symptom of the bigger problem of out of control global corporate capitalism. But immigration just makes it worse.

        (ie. they don't blame immigrants /or refuges personally for making understandable choices to try to make a better life for themselves and their family but en masse they are major weapon in the Right's armoury to make the minimum wage the de facto wage rate for lower skilled employment, and as long as the costs can be socialised onto PAYE and SME taxpayers all is well for business. The Left, in useful idiot mode seems to want to help business keep stockpiling bullets and can't see they are shooting themselves in the foot with this.


        BeTrueForAll SteB1 13 Sep 2015 15:28

        "....what the establishment really fears is the public getting behind the mood."

        Well said!

        A great many people are now beginning to see behind the mask and recognise that lying behind Hayekian and Friedmanite Neoliberalism is an age old reality of sociopathic or narcissistic alpha apes seeking domination irrespective of the damage they cause to others.

        Jeremy Corbyn has helped give voice to that recognition. Even if he fails others will take his place and seek to reverse this now obvious and grotesque domination.


        NotYetGivenUp dowland 13 Sep 2015 15:23

        I've seen that interview, and his answer was as straight as a die. When asked to condemn IRA atrocities, he refused to distinguish between IRA atrocities (bad) and British Army atrocities (good?), rather he condemned all atrocities, and thus did answer the question, more fully than a simple, and simplistic, yes or no. By contextualising, Corbyn refused to be pinned by a false dichotomy. His frustration was with the interviewer for framing his question with bias, namely demanding condemnation of IRA actions without conceding there were two guilty parties in this violence. The media's refusal to engage with criticism of the British Army is increasingly disturbing. Jeremy Corbyn is not party to this charade.

        That bears no comparison with Howard's refusal to answer whether he had interfered directly in the prison service, outside his remit.


        happytolive 13 Sep 2015 15:13

        The fight against the Tories has just started, especially now the Tories are on their own mourning their loss of their brother New Labour. The Tories however will continue to fight back not only directly but also through their "agents" in the party. The future is uncertain, how can it be when even the first serious clash has not yet happened? The trade union bill is a test for Corbyn and his supporters and a defining factor for all those who are not happy with the turn Labour has made. I strongly believe that Corbyn's strong point is not in Parliament but outside in the street and in united action with the unions. Without that nothing for the good is achievable.


        sallyo57 MorrisOx 13 Sep 2015 15:05

        The UK is the sixth-biggest economy in the world and for all its iniquities is still growing.

        This economy is built on sand. Private, and public, debt is spiralling out of control with interest rates about to rise. Hold on to your hat...


        LegLeg LondonLungs 13 Sep 2015 15:04

        Spitting venom? The Tories have barely started work on doing Corbyn over. Have you any idea how much shit the Tories are going to be able to dig up over Corbyn's 32 year career? How many terrorists/anti-semites/gay-bashers he's probably sat next to (unawares) over the decades? The Tories are not daft enough to play all their cards at the outset. It is already clear that the Tories won't treat Corbyn as a joke and ignore him. They intend to treat him and his proposals with deadly seriousness, so that come 2020, the choice between the Tories and JC is a real one.

        CynicalSOB 13 Sep 2015 15:03

        Smug closet Tories really are out in force on here tonight. They sound like the other 3 candidates looked on Saturday - bemused and really not sure what to say apart from the same old Torygraph/Daily Heil soundbites...


        SteB1 13 Sep 2015 14:57

        I think this is some of the best analysis and description of the situation I've seen.

        It has energised the alienated and alienated the establishment. The rebels are now the leaders; those who once urged loyalty are now in rebellion. Four months after losing an election, a significant section of Labour's base is excited about politics for the first time in almost a generation while another is in despair.

        This is not only very accurate but a great bit of succinct prose.

        But then little of this is really about Corbyn. He is less the product of a movement than the conduit for a moment that has parallels across the western world.

        This is the point many are missing. Especially the Blairites and self-styled "moderates". They mistakenly think that if they could just defeat Corbyn with some cheap trick, or undermine him once his leadership is underway, that somehow they will re-seize control of the Labour Party. They won't because of the consensus demanding change, who would want an equally radical replacement, and not a Blairite.

        From the moment it was clear that assumption was flawed, the political and media class shifted from disbelief to derision to panic, apparently unaware that his growing support was as much a repudiation of them as an embrace of him. Former Labour leaders and mainstream commentators belittled his supporters as immature, deluded, self-indulgent and unrealistic, only to express surprise when they could not win them over.

        This is it. The establishment media commentariat who like to believe they know best were left looking clueless, and with feet of clay. Suddenly they look very feeble and fallible, and their knowingness is revealed as hollow bluster.

        Nonetheless, the question of whether Corbyn is electable is a crucial one to which there are many views but no definitive answers. We are in uncharted waters and it's unlikely to be plain sailing.

        This is it, we really are in uncharted waters. There are so many points where it could go in different directions, and those making predictions are kidding themselves. There's no doubt that the establishment is going to fight back tooth and nail. They really fear losing control. Jeremy Corbyn himself has proven himself to be incorruptible, and not an establishment man. The old tricks to make someone compromise their principles will be predictable. However, what the establishment really fears is the public getting behind the mood.

        It may be that far from being unelectable, that there could be a bandwagon of support for Jeremy Corbyn. Remember, in a very astute way, Jeremy Corbyn says he wants to appeal to those who don't vote. These are the people who feel politicians don't represent them, and it is not a homeground for many potential Tories. If anyone was to tap into this body that doesn't vote, it could mean there is no need to win over potential Tories.

        But then we don't know what power the establishment will have with their dirty tricks, as they have a stranglehold on the media.

        To me this is the key point about successful change. It depends on the ability to reach the public whilst bypassing the media. It depends on how much traction smearing Jeremy Corbyn has. It could backfire on the media and the establishment if they just preach to the converted as they have been doing in the last couple of months, and their play becomes too transparent to the public. Of course the media and establishment may succeed with their smears and character assassination. Although I think they will find it harder with Jeremy Corbyn, because he is so open and honest about what he stands for. It will be hard to imply he has a hidden agenda.


        CommieWealth 13 Sep 2015 14:53

        They won't win it back with snark and petulance. But they can make their claims about unelectability a self-fulfilling prophecy by refusing to accept Corbyn's legitimacy as party leader.

        This writeup has a similar perfume to Zoe WIlliams's contribution, criticism out of the wood work, and emulating btl insight of the last few months. Belated catchup, but still welcome, and of course, expressed with far greater eloquence. I haven't followed Gary Younge's articles very closely over the past year, so correct me if I am wrong, but I just wish you CIF were less craven and more courageous when it counts. It feels all too often, as readers, "we told you so".


        teaandchocolate CyrusA 13 Sep 2015 14:41

        I don't want to be hard on the guardian or the observer. I think they have to present lots of different points of view but I think even they held their breath. Monbiot wrote a very powerful piece last week. Everyone is cautious. We've been let down so many times over the last 30+ years.

        The neoliberals are as wily as Stalin and incredibly cunning.

        I have faith in the guardian to vex and thrill me in equal measure. I'd rather that than the dribbling preachings to the converted that is the telegraph and the daily mail.


        johnhump 13 Sep 2015 14:23

        Tory light or Blairism were never right. That is for those who want to conserve and protect status quos. Nor is this about Corbyn, it is about opposition to elitism and unfettered neo con economics. Now what is important is that the thinking has started and has legitimacy.


        McNairoplane 13 Sep 2015 14:21

        This was a heroic move by Labour Party members, and they have returned to their more liberal roots and hopefully will squash the comfortable Westminster Bubble!
        I find it disgusting that knowing their party members have voted for him, so many of the elected Westminster MPs want to turn their back on him, rather than support him.
        It is this very reason that they lost the election.
        They have locally lost contact with the electorate.


        CyrusA teaandchocolate 13 Sep 2015 14:19

        So the question remains... why did the Gruan not give Gary a platform earlier?
        Backing the horse after it has crossed the finishing line is really pathetic.
        Groan editorial team need to reconnect with the 500,000 people who cared enough and hoped enough to bother registering.


        simbasdad Brobat 13 Sep 2015 14:17

        I think the Labour Grandees are worried that their gravy train has just hit the buffers, they were probably looking forward to at least a nice post ministerial income( Hewitt, Reid etc) a stop pretending I was ever a Socialist seat in the Lords (Prescott, Primorolo etc) or the Jackpot riches of Blair, Mandelson or the Kinnocks. Of course, they're upset, their pension plans are disappearing.


        haakonsen1975 13 Sep 2015 14:14

        This is the first article that I have read and in general agree with and don't find condescending in term
        But (there always is a but) I will like to point out that I am not my father nor am I anything but a product of my parents, but what happened in the 80s is not the same as in 2015s it is going to be different so hence the reason for change. If we were to transport the 2015 experience of politics' into the 1980s what would have happened - 3rd world war perhaps??
        The electorate is not what it was then, now is it. We are not the American's although our government would love us to be - we would be so easy to manage.
        Why not let us be let us form our own opinion, we are fully informed as to what we want to happen in the future. When you tell us about the 80s - many of the electorate was not born then - but do remember history is written by the victor of that time so - history lessons should be directed to the history classes in school or Universities - not to drive a Political debate nor to tell people that they are mistaken in their views - views are created through experience - not the other way around.
        The people of the UK have experienced a bad time and has had enough already and they want hope as part of the future - not the usual garbage served up on a TORY blue plate.


        KriticalThinkingUK Barbara Saunders 13 Sep 2015 14:07

        Good points Barbara. Europe would not be facing a refugee crisis if the neo-cons hadn't unilaterally unleashed their bombs on all those countries in the middle east...it has to stop...jaw jaw ...not war war...


        SeenItAlready 13 Sep 2015 13:57

        Short of perhaps a speeding ticket, they didn't appear to have a single conviction between them

        That's pretty funny, and also rather accurate

        Finally we have an article in The Guardian that expresses the situation as it actually is

        For the past couple of decades the Labour leadership has looked upon the various nascent social movements that have emerged – against war, austerity, tuition fees, racism and inequality – with at best indifference and at times contempt. They saw its participants, many of whom were or had been committed Labour voters, not as potential allies but constant irritants

        And here we have the nub of the matter, the way that the NeoLiberals who infiltrated the Labour party just assumed that the core vote would continue supporting them as they had nowhere else to go... wrong, wrong, wrong!


        thewash 13 Sep 2015 13:42

        It beggars belief that so many politicians and commentators still do not recognise the magnitude of what has happened in this Labour leader election.

        Corbyn a a result of his inclusion and the opportunity it has given him to voice his political views is the touchstone for this movement for change, which has been building up since 2003, (when Blair went to war), when the real nature of Labour's shift towards neo-liberalism emerged and voices opposed began to speak and slowly to be heard.

        Politics in the UK will never be the same again. Corbyn and Labour have a little over 4 years to establish a new and better way of confronting national issues and to devise better ways of dealing with them than have been offered by any of the parties including Labour itself.


        francoisP 13 Sep 2015 13:40

        The real issue is whether he can energise those who voted for him and the non voting young into getting into active politics .There is obviously an appetite there.
        The nu labour grandees fail to grasp this and having a hissy fit makes them look even more out of touch.

        Blunkett whinging about protest in the Mail of all places.. As one of their columnists is wont to say " you couldn't make it up"


        snickid 13 Sep 2015 13:39

        What no New Labour / Blairite seems able to admit is the simple truth. New Labour - in the shape of Burnham, Cooper, Kendall - lost the Labour leadership election because New Labour was crap:

        * Afghanistan war
        * Iraq war (and if Blair had had his way, a few more wars besides)
        * Financial scandals, from ads for fags (Bernie Ecclestone) to cash for honours (Michael Levy) - and load more in between
        * PFI
        * Bankerised economics
        * 2008 crash (and Britain with its bloated deregulated banking sector was central to this)
        * Ever-rising wealth gap between rich and poor (minimum wage notwithstanding)

        - and much, much more besides.


        Brobat 13 Sep 2015 13:37

        Gary's 9 words speak volumes - they perfectly summarise the entire British political history of the past eighteen years

        Corbyn victory energises the alienated and alienates the establishment

        the Righties of the Labour Party say Corbyn will make Labour unelectable; gosh that is one hell of a trip they're trying to lay on us 'cos what they offer is a kind cheapo supermarket version of the Tory credo, who in their right mind is gonna vote for such a cheapo piece of crap? Righty Labour is unelectable.

        Unless the Labour Righties can come up with any fresh alternatives, they should join the Tories


        Treflesg 13 Sep 2015 13:31

        There are three things I welcome about Corbyn winning:

        • -he is not a spin master, so, as he will be saying what he actually thinks, he will make it possible for Cameron to do the same, Cameron already does at times but under the until recent heavy spin attack culture from Labour always had to master that side of himself. I welcome that we will have a PM and Opposition Leader who both let each other say what they actually think, rather than what a focus group and pre-determined script said.
        • -he went to private school so hopefully the whole Tory Toff thing will now fade as it wont really work for Labour if their own leader went to private school and grew up in a manor house as well.
        • -by being from the Labour left he will counteract some of the attraction of the SNP in Scotland, and most of the attraction of Leanne Wood in the Welsh valleys.

        That having been said, I absolutely don't welcome:

        • -having a leader of the opposition who is on record siding with Argentina and Spain and the republicans against the UK about the Falklands, Gibraltar and Northern Ireland.
        • -having a Labour party that wont now threaten the Tories at the next election. Whilst I like Cameron, I certainly don't want an easy Tory win, they need to work hard to keep the centre ground.

        Sydsnot 13 Sep 2015 13:25

        Corbyn is already achieving what he was elected to do. The party was never going to change just drifting along, it now has to now re invent itself, Corbyn is the catalyst, he won't last long but Labour will never be the same again.

        NietzscheanCat 13 Sep 2015 13:23

        The Labour party is ours, now. We saw that it belonged to you, and we took it. We took what was yours. We took it from your trembling, clutching hands. And now it's ours.

        Tories, we've got you in sight now. Are you afraid? You should be. You are about to witness the Left on attack mode. Our vengeance will hit you like a freight train, and you will be powerless against the onslaught of the left.

        You're damned right we're a threat to your security.

        [Sep 14, 2015] The Guardian view on the bloodshed in Syria: Russia has a lot to answer for Editorial

        Sep 11, 2015 | The Guardian

        wombat123 , 14 Sep 2015 01:48

        Russia does not have as much to answer for as the foreign powers arming the insurgents including ISIS. The UK and US have far more Syrian blood on their hands than Russia. Arming insurgents in another member of the UN is a grave violation of international law. The loss of life is far higher because of the countries supplying the insurgents. All insurgencies burn out fairly quickly in the absence of support from outside powers. The US and its allies have kept the carnage going for years for their own political ends as irrational as those may be.

        Sisyphus2 -> jezzam , 13 Sep 2015 22:21

        It is an entire modus operandi. Before Open Societies there were other foundations funded by other people, some of which still continue to operate. It is neo-colonialism to serve corporate interests. Wearing false masks of altruism and good intent to stir up trouble in other countries in order to change their structure to fit your ends. George is just particularly active at this time because he has his hand up the butt of a number of incumbents in pivotal positions of power.

        Makes me laugh when I see articles going on about how George seems to be prescient about what to invest in. Prescient my ass! You don't need prescience when you are orchestrating events into existence. But, you know, most of us are too dumb to see what is going on, or too self interested if we do.

        Chillskier -> madsttdk , 13 Sep 2015 19:58

        No other country comes even close to Russia in expansionist wars in the last two decades.

        You sure not very well informed about last two decades, the destruction of any stability in the middle east have certainly happened in this time frame and absolutely dwarfs anything that Putin has done in terms of bloodshed and international instability.

        And before you get started on whataboutism: While the neocon warmongers in USA are a quite despicable breed, they have not been in power for eigth years,.

        You are so wrong about neocons, they are very much in power, since US policy in the middle east and Ukraine for that matter have not change one bit, it is just became limited by the public waking up to the disaster that it was / is (you clearly do not belong to the informed part of the electorate).

        But more importantly: the "My neighbour kills people, so it's ok for me to it too to kill people is a morally indefensible position. Mr. Putin is helping a butcher slaughter innocent civilians on a massive scale.

        Again you view civil war in Syria out of context of the neocon plan for destruction of the number of secular Muslim states, and this is simply intellectually dishonest.

        I know the nationalistic propaganda and endless lies you're being fed in Russia,

        Your assumption that I'm somehow exposed to Russian propaganda is silly, since my exposure to it is limited to my Ukrainian wife (from very west of Ukraine by the way) , and my Ukrainian dentist who is from Kiev, and they all tired of blaming Putin for the complete clasterfuck that euromaidan turned out to be, most people my wife talked to on her latest visit disgusted with the current regime of Poroshenko.

        Robert Gaudet , 13 Sep 2015 19:16

        Remember when Russia destroyed Iraq, igniting all manner of sectarian conflict in the region, and armed the people they claim to be fighting now in Syria some sadly perpetual motion like cycle of violence?

        That sounds really bad, if you put the word "Russia" there, doesn't it? Good thing it was done by Western powers with good intentions.

        Chillskier -> Anthony Clifton , 13 Sep 2015 18:47

        No Putinbot. I'm right on target. As I said, Russian forces are not hindered by the same Rules of Engagement as NATO forces would be as recently demonstrated by the complete destruction of the Eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk by Russian troops and their separatist proxy forces

        You are welcome to visit and find for yourself who is responsible for destruction of Ukrainian city of Donetsk.
        You will find that you was lied to, and used like an idiot by your favorite news sources. (Faux news I'm sure).

        Chillskier , 13 Sep 2015 17:38

        This is why, as Mr Putin heads for the UN general assembly in New York later this month, efforts to adopt a resolution banning the use of barrel bombs must stay focused. Russia will undoubtedly veto such a text, but that would at least expose its complicity.

        Why limit itself to just barrel bombs, why leave cluster bombs out of it?

        What? Too soon?

        Chillskier -> airman23 , 13 Sep 2015 17:28
        You are clearly flying ahead of your own shit airman.

        Russians are not bombing anything yet, presence of Russian air force and especially anti-aircraft units will most likely there to force NATO to open lines of communications to avoid direct clashes.

        And we all know about your " Rules of Engagement" since pacification of Fallujah and beyond.
        The *shock and awe* alone was an indiscriminate bombing of the city of 4 million with not a single designated military target in it, exactly as Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the way.

        Chillskier -> Alan Smith , 13 Sep 2015 15:28

        Pretty much.
        Editorials are to tell us what opinion we must have.

        Alan Smith , 13 Sep 2015 15:12

        "Russia has a lot to answer for" And America doesn't?

        Laurence Johnson , 13 Sep 2015 14:48

        Had Russia not defended Assad the rulers of Syria today would be ISIS.

        Now there are conspiracy theorists that would tell us ISIS was funded by the US to fight Assad. Irrespective of the truth, clearly Russia is the good guy in all of this and should be supported by the West.

        Probandi , 13 Sep 2015 14:37

        I would've though that we have a lot to answer for. Assad, Saddam etc are very clearly a much better option in that region than any of the alternatives. It's been a major mistake of western foreign policy to proselytize liberal democracy and human rights to a people whom see these values as completely alien to them, as much as medieval Europeans would have. Middle east is yet to go through Renaissance, not to mention enlightenment and scientific revolution. They are simply 800 years behind us in terms of social development, and therefore same rules do not apply.

        Whitebeam , 13 Sep 2015 14:16

        There is a pragmatic argument that the bloodshed will only end when one side wins - and nobody civilised wants ISIS or the other Islamists to win, and the secular opposition are simply too weak and divided to ever win and and enforce the rule of law. Assad may not be a democrat (he is an autocratic secular Arab republican) but before the war the regime was broadly tolerant of all religious and ethnic groups, as long as they did not challenge state authority. The threatened Christian population of Syria now say that they are only safe where the regime is in control. Just as the West formed an unsavoury alliance with the brutal Soviet regime to defeat Naziism, perhaps it is time for such realpolitik with Syria. The alternative is to attack or undermine Assad, and let ISIS win, and accept there will be a genocide or cleansing of Syrian Christians and Shia/Alawites and other non-Sunnis, with another wave of refugees, leaving Syria as a de-facto 'pure' Islamist state.

        Chillskier -> airman23 , 13 Sep 2015 14:15

        How about preventing it from turning in to oasis of democracy such as Libya?

        Artusov -> beggarsbelief , 13 Sep 2015 14:14

        I have stated the same fact repeatedly. Churchill loathed Communism and the Soviet regime but decided to back Stalin as much as he could against Hitler. Assad is a sort of Stalin but he's better than ISIS.

        Assad doesn't round up Christians and just chop their heads off for no reason . The West encouraged the Arab spring - just leave the Arabs alone to kill themselves which they have done very successfully for centuries.

        Some sort of deal will be and will have to be done some day with Putin .

        The Guardian needs to get a mature and informed policy.

        mikehowleydcu -> Giants1925 , 13 Sep 2015 14:13

        When you make comments about other countries getting their ambassadors out of the US it corresponds to the wishes of many nations that the US gets its CIA, and military out of their countries.

        As well as getting creative with your history you are now inventing things that I have said and positions that I have taken... I am not a "leftie" I have not said anything in support of North Korea but ll you this; you haven't provided any counterargument for the list of countries that was bombed by the US since 1945.

        You argue from the heart. I know that you 'believe' the US to be the 'exceptional' nation just as the Germans in the 30's were told that they were above all others... but your arguments are coming from the heart and not the head. This is why you are arguing with almost everybody on this forum. You want us to agree with you but you can offer no counter arguments so you revert to the distant past and then to calling us commies, lefties or whatever.

        Truth is that since 1945 the US has bombed over 50 countries, executed leaders throughout the world, particularly in latin america and it has killed over 4 million in Vietnam in Cambodia and a million in Iraq. Oh... and where were those weapons of mass destruction? or the link between Saddam and 9/11?
        Even you know that they were invented fantasies. Maybe your 9/11 story is a fairy tale? If you want to wake up you can.. but turn off Sean Hannity.

        beggarsbelief , 13 Sep 2015 13:36

        Unless we actually want ISIS to extend their vile and terrifying rule to the Mediterranean, the only way to end this bloodbath is for the West to form an alliance with Russia and Assad.

        Attacking Assad would be the moral and strategic equivalent of the allies bombing the Soviet Union during the Second World War.

        It is the kind of thinking reflected in this editorial that has caused the deaths of two hundred thousand Syrians and created a nation of refugees. The Guardian has a lot to answer for.

        davidncldl , 13 Sep 2015 13:33

        The Guardian falls over itself to do the bidding of the emergent US/EU superpower. The Guardian will rewrite successful Russian peace-keeping and life-saving actions out of existence when this meets the superpower's global aims. Readers may have forgotten that smug big-mouth John Kerry said that al-Assad, the democratically elected and legitimate leader of Syria, could avoid a US military strike by ridding Syria of its chemical weapons.

        Mr Kerry reckoned without the Russians being fully awake and alert and ready to save innocent lives. After Kerry's slip-of-the-tongue Mr Putin was quick to help arrange the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons. End result - the Russians save countless thousands of lives, of Syrian civilians and regular soldiers.

        Sadly, like dogs to their own vomit, we can expect the US to return to its aim of destroying al-Assad and allowing the beheaders free rein in his country, no matter what the government says or does. And the Guardian defends this.

        ATC2348 -> YorenOfTheNorth , 13 Sep 2015 12:32

        Why do Kosovans still have asylum status in many European countries? why is it not recognized by many countries including Greece and Spain? What was the religion of the majority of that "country" at the turn of the last century and what is it now? who is one of the biggest employers? see below;

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bondsteel

        [Sep 14, 2015] mainly macro Media myths by Simon Wren-Lewis

        Sep 11, 2015 | mainlymacro.blogspot.com
        At first sight the research reported here is something that only political science researchers should worry about. In trying to explain election results, it is better to use 'real time' data rather than 'revised, final or vintage' data. But as the authors point out, it has wider implications. Voters do not seem to respond to how the economy actually is (which is best measured by the final revised data), but how it is reported to be. (This does not just matter for elections: here is a discussion of some other research which suggests how the way recessions are reported can influence economic decisions.)

        Just one more indication that the media really matters. I would not bother to report such things, if this point was generally accepted as an obvious truth. That it is not, in the UK at least, reflects various different tendencies. Those on the right know that the print media is heavily biased their way, and that this has a big impact on television, so they have an interest in denying that this matters (while funding think tanks whose job is in part to harass the BBC about its alleged left wing bias). Those on the centre left often react negatively to a few of those further left who discount all awkward facts by blaming the media. And the media itself is very reluctant to concede its own power.

        As an example, here is Rafael Behr in the Guardian talking disapprovingly about Labour supporters:

        "I heard constant complaints about failure to "challenge myths" about the economy, benefits, immigration and other areas where Labour is deemed unfit to govern by the people who choose governments. The voters are wrong, and what is required is a louder exposition of their wrongness."

        What is really revealing about this paragraph is what is not there. We go straight from myths to voters, as if no one else is involved. I doubt very much that many who voice the 'constant complaints' Behr is talking about think that voters created and sustained these myths all by themselves.

        The discussion of issues involving the economy, the welfare system and immigration among most of the 'political class' is often so removed from reality that it deserves the label myth. In the case of the economy, I provided chapter and verse in my 'mediamacro myth' series before the election. It was not just the myth that Labour profligacy was responsible for austerity, but also the myth about the 'strong recovery' when the recovery was the weakest for at least a century, and that this recovery had 'vindicated' austerity. Given the importance that voters attach to economic credibility, I do not believe I was exaggerating in suggesting that the mediamacro myth was in good part responsible for the Conservatives winning the election.

        The media is vital in allowing myths to be sustained or dispelled. That does not mean that the media itself creates myths out of thin air. These myths on the economy were created by the Conservative party and their supporters, and sustained by the media's reliance on City economists. They get support from half truths: pre-crisis deficits were a little too large, GDP growth rates for the UK did sometimes exceed all other major economies.

        Myths on welfare do come from real concerns: there is benefit fraud, and it is deeply resented by most voters. But who can deny that much of the media (including the makers of certain television programmes) have stoked that resentment? When the public think that £24 out of every £100 spent on benefits is claimed fraudulently, compared with official estimates of £0.70 per £100, that means that the public is wrong, and we have a myth. (An excellent source for an objective view of the UK's welfare system is John Hills' book, which has myth in its subtitle) As I noted in that post, when people are asked questions where they have much more direct experience, they tend to give (on average of course) much more accurate answers. Its when they source the media that things can go wrong. It is well known that fears about immigration tend to be greatest where there is least immigration.

        Of course reluctance to acknowledge myths may not be denial but fatalism. Fatalism in believing that voters will always believe that migrants want to come to the UK because of our generous benefit system because it suits their prejudices. Encouraging those beliefs will be in the interests of what will always be a right wing dominated press. Some argue that myths can only be changed from a position of power. But myths are not the preserve of governments to initiate. According to this, over 60% of Trump supporters think their president is a Muslim who was born overseas. [1]

        Myths need to be confronted, not tolerated. The initial UK media coverage of the European migrant crisis played to a mythical narrative that migrants were a threat to our standard of living and social infrastructure (to quote the UK's Foreign Secretary!). This reporting was not grounded in facts, as Patrick Kingsley shows. That changed when reporters saw who migrants really were and why they had made the perilous journey north. It changed when Germany started welcoming them rather than trying to build bigger fences. These facts did not fit the mythical narrative.

        The UK government was clearly rattled when it realised that many people were not happy with their narrative and policies. Myths can be challenged, but it is not easy. Policy has been changed somewhat, but attempts are also being made to repair the narrative: to take some of those who have made it to the EU will only encourage more (a variant of the previous European policy of reducing the number of rescue boats), and a long term solution is to drop more bombs. Such idiotic claims need to be treated with contempt, before they become a new myth that the opposition feels it is too dangerous to challenge. Challenging these myths does not imply pretending real voter anxieties about migration do not exist, but grounding discussion and policy around the causes of those anxieties rather than the myths they have spawned.

        Yes, the non-partisan media needs to recognise the responsibility they have, and use objective measures and academic analysis to judge whether they are meeting that responsibility. But more generally myths are real and have to be confronted. The biggest myth of all is that there are no myths.

        [Sep 13, 2015] Whoring one's talent

        "... Surely, these two (and many others in their "field") know on which side their bread gets buttered (with occasional black caviar bonus for the "politically correct" reporting). And we can't call it "whoring one's talent", right? Right?"
        Sep 13, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

        Lyttenburgh, September 12, 2015 at 5:27 am

        Honest and Objective (to the point of extreme rukopozhatnost' and sincere nepolzhivost') Mark Adomanis of the former True/Slant fame have visited Kiev/Kyiv/al-Kuyabia and made some mind-blowing discoveries:

        On the Streets of Kiev
        ______________________________________________________________________

        "I've lost count of the number of headlines and articles which boldly proclaim that Kiev is "transformed." It's become one of those standby journalistic clichés: "transformed" Kiev is right there alongside wealthy London, brash New York, bleak, oppressive Moscow, and technologically-advanced Tokyo as short-hand. There has been such an unending sea of media comments that even people who have never set foot in Eastern Europe know all about the "new" Kiev.

        […]

        "While there wasn't much in the way of change, there was even less evidence of "Europe" or "Europeanization." On the way from the airport I saw a sculpture that was intended to be the EU's insignia (I think it was actually of the Euro, but whatever) but that was pretty much the only physical manifestation of what was supposed to be a society-transforming change in consciousness. That doesn't mean the changes aren't real or that they haven't taken place, but it does mean that the daily rhythm of life seems fundamentally the same.

        Indeed, the parking and driving habits on display still had a distinct note of Russianness about them: even on the block where the conference attendees were being housed (a rather posh part of downtown) cars were left haphazardly on the sidewalk. I even found an intersection where several Mercedes S-classes had been parked directly in the middle of a cross-walk. There are live-fire combat exercises that take less physical courage and skill than navigating that particular intersection.

        […]

        It was frankly a relief that, at a time when Moscow is ever more consumed with hysterical politicization and when the economy is faring worse than any other time in recent memory, that everyday life in Kiev goes on much the same way it always has."
        _______________________________________________________________________

        I, and also the entirety of progressive humanity – all democratic journalists, kreakls, professional hipsters, Euro-Ukrs, gays and the Soviet era dissidents – shake hands of Mark Adomanis of the former True/Slant fame. Verily, verily – "the parking and driving habits on display still had a distinct note of Russianness about them". All signs of the centuries long oppression and forcible Russiphication of Proud and Culturally Superior Ukrs by Mongolo-Finno-Jewish-Ugrish Moscow's Khanate. The fact that Kievans/Kyivans/al-Kuyabia's citizens can't park a car properly points out either to their less then perfect ancestry or can be explained by actions of Kremlinite шпигуни and saboteurs. BTW – this is a universal explanation of everything happening in Ukraine and Mark must adopt it. Because how else can he explain that Ukraine's capital still doesn't look, smell and taste like Paris, London or New York?

        marknesop, September 12, 2015 at 9:51 am
        "It was frankly a relief that, at a time when Moscow is ever more consumed with hysterical politicization and when the economy is faring worse than any other time in recent memory, that everyday life in Kiev goes on much the same way it always has."

        As always, Mark's core loyalty to western corporatism shines through at the end, and in his closing paragraph he manages to incorporate nostalgia for Kiev's success in maintaining its placid beauty as opposed to the "hysterical politicization" of Moscow, and encouragement for Washington's policy of squeezing the Russian economy until it breaks. Keep on with the sanctions, boys – success is within our grasp! Although both currencies have experienced a dramatic slide in exchange rate, one country has huge energy resources and large cash reserves while the other has none of either, but never mind!! Courage, comrades! Kiev is still beautiful!!

        Lyttenburgh, September 12, 2015 at 9:51 pm

        Mark, I admit – I'm bitter. What M.ADomanis and Galeotti have become is really unbearable for me.

        Imagine someone, like writer, actor and/or musician whom you greatly admired some time ago, maybe even going so far as to claim "I grew up watching/reading/listening" this indivudual. And then he becomes Mel Gibson of today. That's what have become to Adomanis and Galeotti from my POV.

        Now they are, like, different people. Surely, these two (and many others in their "field") know on which side their bread gets buttered (with occasional black caviar bonus for the "politically correct" reporting). And we can't call it "whoring one's talent", right? Right?

        P.S. I wonder – what kind of conference (in Kiev of all places) did Mark Adomanis participated in?

        Moscow Exile, September 12, 2015 at 9:59 am

        The most obviously distinct note of "Russianness" amongst the vast majority of Ukrainians is, in my humble opinion, that they speak and understand Russian – and nobody is making them do it!

        Lyttenburgh, September 12, 2015 at 9:55 pm

        That', uh… a "Stockholm syndrome" on a national level! Yeah!

        Whew! And for a moment I thought that I won't find a truly "svidomoje" explanation!

        But Mark shows us that Ukraine is on a right track – "the Ukrainian flag was rather more prominently displayed in public places" and " [t]here might have been marginally more Ukrainian as opposed to Russian language signage since the last time I had visited".

        Peremoga is imminent!

        Pavlo Svolochenko, September 12, 2015 at 9:58 pm

        Every peremoga is but a prelude to the next zrada.

        Which is a prelude to the next peremoga.

        День бабака.

        Jen, September 12, 2015 at 2:58 pm
        Reading Mark Adomanis' article, I get a sense of the conflict going on inside his mind as he tries to reconcile what he sees and hears on the ground with what he knows he's supposed to say. Hence you get expressions like "…. everyday life in Kiev goes on much the same way it always has" which are so ambiguous as to mean nothing at all; it seems Adomanis is counting on his readers to know little of what everyday life in Kiev has been like for a long time.

        [Sep 13, 2015] Western "scientific publications on the Russian strategy" mean Putin=evil, Russian=scary; Putin + Russian = Mordor.

        September 13, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

        Warren, September 13, 2015 at 5:35 am

        Published on 10 Mar 2015
        2014.gada 3.decembrī Latvijas Nacionālajā aizsardzības akadēmijā norisinājās otrā Drošības un stratēģiskās pētniecības centra starptautiskā akadēmiskā konference "Krievija un ģeopolitikas atgriešanās: Stratēģiskie izaicinājumi Rietumiem", kurā diskutēja par aktuālajiem drošības jautājumiem. Konferenci atklāja profesors Marks Galeoti no Ņujorkas Universitātes, kurš ir autors vairākām zinātniskām publikācijām par Krievijas stratēģiju.

        Dec.3, 2014 the 2nd International Academic Conference "Russia and the Return of Geopolitics: Strategic Implications for the West" of the National Defence Academy of Latvia's Center for Security and Strategic Research took place in the National Defence Academy, where experts discussed international security issues. Conference was opened by professor Mark Galeotti from the New York University, who is is an author of numerous – scientific publications on the Russian strategy.

        Vairāk informācijas / More information:
        http://www.naa.mil.lv/Petnieciba/DSPC

        Patient Observer, September 13, 2015 at 6:17 am

        What is a "scientific publications on the Russian strategy"? Something like Putin=evil, Russian=scary; Putin + Russian = Mordor.

        Jen, September 13, 2015 at 3:28 pm

        The phrase "scientific publications on the Russian strategy" sound a lot like the Dutch Safety Board's forensic investigation of the MH17 disaster – only collect the evidence that supports an already existing narrative and ignore any other evidence until RT discovers it and films it.

        Warren, September 13, 2015 at 6:16 pm

        Make sure your publication is well referenced, preferably with plenty of footnotes from the likes of The Economist, Telegraph, Guardian, Henry Jackson Society, Freedom House, Peterson Institute, Atlantic Council and CEPA.

        SmoothieX12, September 13, 2015 at 8:20 am
        Excellent piece. The situation with military-political analysis re: Russia in the West is dire. Basically all "Soviet/Russian" studies complex in the US was solzhenitzified to the point of Russian history being unrecognizable. As per Falgenhauer–it is not that no one of position of power in Russian military and intelligence would talk to him (which they would not), it is the fact that even if they would it would do no good for a guy with degree in biology.

        I never heard of any military officer (and I knew and know many) who went on to become brain surgeons, nor did I encounter brain surgeons who were specialists in Net Centric Warfare or Theory Of Operations (not the brain ones).

        Information and knowledge are too very different things, most people do not recognize this critical difference.

        [Sep 13, 2015] Neoliberalism as Botox for Development'

        "... The x-ray shows a mass that is probably cancer, but we don't have any good randomized clinical trials showing that your surgeon's recommendation, operating to remove it, actually causes the remission that tends to follow. However, we do have an extremely clever clinical trial showing conclusively that Botox will make you look younger. So my recommendation is that you wait for some better studies before doing anything about the tumor but that I give you some Botox injections." ..."
        "... Center-left, progressive, job class parties need to implement policies that actually work. That may mean ditching the center. ..."
        "... Adopting a broader perspective, though, Corbyn's success isn't so shocking. It represents the latest manifestation of a Europe-wide crisis of center-left politics in the face of slow economic growth and austerity economics. And in the British context, it reflects the failure of the "New Labour" generation of leaders, who came up during the years when Tony Blair and Gordon Brown led the Party. ..."
        "... In the last decade, though, New Labour lost its way. Blair's enthusiastic participation in the Iraq War split the Party and undermined its claim to moral leadership. (Corbyn has said he wouldn't oppose a prosecution of Blair for war crimes.) ..."
        Sep 13, 2015 | Economist's View

        Suppose your internist told you:

        The x-ray shows a mass that is probably cancer, but we don't have any good randomized clinical trials showing that your surgeon's recommendation, operating to remove it, actually causes the remission that tends to follow. However, we do have an extremely clever clinical trial showing conclusively that Botox will make you look younger. So my recommendation is that you wait for some better studies before doing anything about the tumor but that I give you some Botox injections."
        Peter K.
        Off topic, but not totally. Center-left, progressive, job class parties need to implement policies that actually work. That may mean ditching the center. Or those in the center need to recognize what works and what doesn't. What's superficial, like Botox, and what is more substantial.

        "To pay for these policies, Corbyn has promised to raise taxes on the rich, clamp down on corporate-tax avoiders, and, if necessary, lean on the Bank of England to print more money."

        Yes.

        http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/jeremy-corbyns-victory-and-the-demise-of-new-labour

        Jeremy Corbyn's Victory and the Demise of New Labour

        BY JOHN CASSIDY
        Sept 13, 2015

        Saturday, the British Labour Party announced that Jeremy Corbyn, the sixty-six-year-old Member of Parliament who represents the London constituency of Islington North, has been elected as its new leader. In the past, Corbyn has expressed his support for unilateral nuclear disarmament, pulling Britain out of NATO, getting rid of the monarchy, raising taxes on the rich, and nationalizing some of Britain's biggest industries. In the Middle East, he opposed bombing ISIS and favors talks with Hamas and Hezbollah. With the arguable exceptions of Keir Hardie, the Party's first leader, and Michael Foot, its leader in the early nineteen-eighties, he is probably the most left-wing leader that Labour has had.

        Corbyn, who entered Parliament in 1983, was long regarded as a fringe figure in British politics. And he was widely thought of as a rank outsider when, three months ago, he joined the race to succeed Ed Miliband, who led Labour to a crushing defeat in May's general election. Adopting a broader perspective, though, Corbyn's success isn't so shocking. It represents the latest manifestation of a Europe-wide crisis of center-left politics in the face of slow economic growth and austerity economics. And in the British context, it reflects the failure of the "New Labour" generation of leaders, who came up during the years when Tony Blair and Gordon Brown led the Party.

        Under Miliband, a former aide to Brown who became leader in 2010, the Party equivocated between posing as fiscally responsible and resisting the big cuts in spending on welfare, infrastructure, and other programs that the Conservative–Liberal coalition introduced while arguing that Britain was in danger of turning into another Greece. Rather than making the traditional Keynesian argument that cutting spending during a recession is counterproductive, Miliband and other party leaders also pledged to reduce the budget deficit and hack away at Britain's public debt, which rose rapidly during the Great Recession - just not quite as fast as the government.

        The Party's triangulation strategy wasn't based on economics. It reflected a political judgment by Miliband and other Labour leaders that the British electorate, which blamed the Party for the collapse in the public finances after 2008, wouldn't listen to anti-austerity arguments. If Labour had won the general election, its pragmatism might have been vindicated. But after the Tories won a majority in Parliament and Labour lost twenty-six seats, many Labour supporters felt deflated. "We had no confidence in our own arguments," one Labour centrist told me. "The Tory lie became hegemonic, despite being a lie."

        Corbyn, who vigorously opposed the Tories' economic policies from his position on the backbenches, entered the leadership race promising to fight back against austerity and rising inequality. Like the leaders of Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, and Sinn Féin in Ireland, he benefitted greatly from his outsider status. Of the three candidates standing against him, two of them-Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper-were cabinet ministers in the last Labour government. Corbyn's third opponent, Liz Kendall, didn't become an M.P. until 2010, but many prominent Blairites endorsed her. Tony Blair didn't back any particular candidate himself, but he did twice issue public statements warning that choosing Corbyn as leader would lead to an electoral disaster for Labour. Among the Party's grassroots, Blair is so unpopular these days that his interventions helped assure Corbyn's victory.

        On Saturday, the British Labour Party announced that Jeremy Corbyn, the sixty-six-year-old Member of Parliament who represents the London constituency of Islington North, has been elected as its new leader. In the past, Corbyn has expressed his support for unilateral nuclear disarmament, pulling Britain out of NATO, getting rid of the monarchy, raising taxes on the rich, and nationalizing some of Britain's biggest industries. In the Middle East, he opposed bombing ISIS and favors talks with Hamas and Hezbollah. With the arguable exceptions of Keir Hardie, the Party's first leader, and Michael Foot, its leader in the early nineteen-eighties, he is probably the most left-wing leader that Labour has had.

        Corbyn, who entered Parliament in 1983, was long regarded as a fringe figure in British politics. And he was widely thought of as a rank outsider when, three months ago, he joined the race to succeed Ed Miliband, who led Labour to a crushing defeat in May's general election. Adopting a broader perspective, though, Corbyn's success isn't so shocking. It represents the latest manifestation of a Europe-wide crisis of center-left politics in the face of slow economic growth and austerity economics. And in the British context, it reflects the failure of the "New Labour" generation of leaders, who came up during the years when Tony Blair and Gordon Brown led the Party.

        Under Miliband, a former aide to Brown who became leader in 2010, the Party equivocated between posing as fiscally responsible and resisting the big cuts in spending on welfare, infrastructure, and other programs that the Conservative–Liberal coalition introduced while arguing that Britain was in danger of turning into another Greece. Rather than making the traditional Keynesian argument that cutting spending during a recession is counterproductive, Miliband and other party leaders also pledged to reduce the budget deficit and hack away at Britain's public debt, which rose rapidly during the Great Recession-just not quite as fast as the government.

        The Party's triangulation strategy wasn't based on economics. It reflected a political judgment by Miliband and other Labour leaders that the British electorate, which blamed the Party for the collapse in the public finances after 2008, wouldn't listen to anti-austerity arguments. If Labour had won the general election, its pragmatism might have been vindicated. But after the Tories won a majority in Parliament and Labour lost twenty-six seats, many Labour supporters felt deflated. "We had no confidence in our own arguments," one Labour centrist told me. "The Tory lie became hegemonic, despite being a lie."

        Corbyn, who vigorously opposed the Tories' economic policies from his position on the backbenches, entered the leadership race promising to fight back against austerity and rising inequality. Like the leaders of Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, and Sinn Féin in Ireland, he benefitted greatly from his outsider status. Of the three candidates standing against him, two of them-Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper-were cabinet ministers in the last Labour government. Corbyn's third opponent, Liz Kendall, didn't become an M.P. until 2010, but many prominent Blairites endorsed her. Tony Blair didn't back any particular candidate himself, but he did twice issue public statements warning that choosing Corbyn as leader would lead to an electoral disaster for Labour. Among the Party's grassroots, Blair is so unpopular these days that his interventions helped assure Corbyn's victory.

        Corbyn celebrated his win by standing on the bar of a London pub and saying, "It's been a campaign of hope. It's been a campaign of justice. It's been a campaign of inclusion." That last sentence was a reference to the fact that, during the leadership campaign, hundreds of thousands of people joined the Labour Party, and most of them voted for Corbyn. Some Labour M.P.s claimed that this membership surge reflected a sustained campaign organized by left-wing groups to subvert the election, rather than a genuine populist movement. Undoubtedly, there was some organized "entryism," but Corbyn also attracted much bigger crowds to his public appearances than the other candidates and generated a lot of support on social media. His margin of victory was also too large to be purely the product of an orchestrated effort: he won almost sixty per cent of the votes cast, defeating his closest challenger, Cooper, by more than forty percentage points.

        Throughout a contest in which the other candidates seemed bland and boring, the bearded Londoner offered something different. Even if many of his policy stances weren't exactly new-"I don't think he has changed his mind about anything since about 1977," the Labour centrist I spoke with told me-his promises of more consultation with the Party's grassroots and a bottom-up approach to policymaking chimed with the anti-establishment mood. In addition, Corbyn, who is low-key and articulate, did a good job of defending traditional Labour values. "Can't we be proud of having a society where there is a safety net that prevents people from falling into destitution?" he asked during one debate. His rivals, by contrast, seemed to lack passion and conviction.

        So what happens now? Corbyn has already tempered some of his more radical views, saying that there is little public support for abolishing the monarchy or withdrawing from NATO. But he is likely to remain steadfast about his economic program, which includes reversing some of the spending cuts, nationalizing the energy and railway companies, scrapping college tuition fees, and setting up a national investment bank for housing, infrastructure, and new industries. To pay for these policies, Corbyn has promised to raise taxes on the rich, clamp down on corporate-tax avoiders, and, if necessary, lean on the Bank of England to print more money.

        At Westminster and on Fleet Street, the conventional wisdom is that the next election, which isn't until 2020, has already been decided, and Labour has lost it. Some pundits predict a rerun of the 1983 general election, which Labour fought on a policy platform that was in many ways similar to Corbyn's, and which resulted in its worst loss since before the Second World War. With almost five years to go until polling day, these predictions aren't worth much. But with Labour having suffered a virtual wipeout in Scotland, which used to be one of its strongholds, in this year's general election, the Party undoubtedly faces a formidable challenge.

        If Britain, like Greece and Spain, had a political system based on proportional representation, an avowedly left-wing party could, perhaps, look forward to gaining substantial representation in Parliament and forming a coalition government with other non-Tory groups. Instead, it has an antiquated first-past-the-post electoral system, which punishes minority parties and usually rewards moderation. Under Blair and his New Labour colleagues, the Labour Party seemed, for almost two decades, to have monopolized the center and displaced the Conservatives as the natural party of government.

        In the last decade, though, New Labour lost its way. Blair's enthusiastic participation in the Iraq War split the Party and undermined its claim to moral leadership. (Corbyn has said he wouldn't oppose a prosecution of Blair for war crimes.) Then the Great Recession undermined Labour's reputation as a competent steward of the economy. The voter backlash that ensued robbed the Party's leadership of the intellectual confidence to defend its own centrist philosophy, which was based on promoting economic growth and using the tax revenues it generated to finance large-scale investments in public goods-schools, hospitals, and so on-as well as programs for the low-paid and poverty-stricken.

        Slowly but surely, the legacy of New Labour, and of previous Labour governments, is being dismantled. Under the cloak of fiscal orthodoxy, Prime Minister David Cameron and his intellectual henchman George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Conservative government seems intent on reducing the size of the government, relative to the size of the over-all economy, to where it was in the late nineteen-thirties before the big expansion in the welfare state that took place under the post-war Labour government.

        Following Corbyn's victory, it will be up to him to resist the Conservative downsizing project, and to persuade the British electorate that Labour has a viable alternative to offer. He spent Sunday putting together a new shadow cabinet. On Monday, he will meet his Labour colleagues in Parliament, and then, according to some reports, he will address a public rally alongside his fellow anti-austerity campaigner, Yanis Varoufakis, the former finance minister of Greece. Since both of them are creations of the ongoing crisis in social democracy, that is only fitting.

        [Sep 13, 2015] Do Not Vote for Jeremy Corbyn! Ten Perfectly 'Reasonable' Reasons

        Tony Blair neoliberal stooges at Guardian are surely disappointed...
        Sep 13, 2015 | sputniknews.com

        The big political story in the UK this summer is undoubtedly 'Corbynmania'. How a 66-year-old antiwar activist and socialist has gone from being the rank 200-1 outsider in the Labour leadership contest election to be the red-hot favorite.

        Jeremy Corbyn, a modest, unassuming man who wears an open necked shirt and slacks instead of the usual politician's suit and tie, has really proved a big hit with the public, who have grown tired of slick politicians who are always 'on message', and who don't seem at all sincere in what they're saying. Large crowds have turned out to hear Corbyn speak: last week he had to give his speech from the top of a fire engine as an election rally spilled out into the street.

        Not everyone though has welcomed Corbyn's advance. One man who has made repeated warnings about the 'dangers' of Jeremy Corbyn is Cyril Waugh-Monger, a 'Very Important' newspaper columnist for the NeoCon Daily, a patron of the Senator Joe McCarthy Appreciation Society and the author of 'Why the Iraq War was a Brilliant Idea', as well as 'The Humanitarian Case for Bombing Syria'.

        Below are Mr Waugh-Monger's ten commandments to Labour members to not, under any circumstances, vote for Jeremy Corbyn. Remember, we need to take what he has to say very seriously - as, after all, he did reveal to us that Iraq possessed WMDs [Weapons of Mass Destruction] in 2003. 

        1. Jeremy Corbyn wants to 'stop the war'.

        Jeremy Corbyn opposed the bombing of Yugoslavia. He opposed the invasion of Afghanistan. He was against the invasion of Iraq. He was against bombing Libya and also voted against military action in Syria.

        I ask you - is this the sort of man who is fit to be in charge of one of Britain's leading parties?

        If Corbyn - heaven forbid - had been British Prime Minister in 2003 he would not have committed British troops to the invasion of Iraq. Just imagine what would have happened if we hadn't invaded Iraq! Well, I'll tell you what would have happened - the Middle East would now be a haven for terrorist groups which would be targeting British tourists on beaches when they go on their summer holidays. The whole Middle East would now be in turmoil. We'd be facing a refugee crisis with people fleeing all the countries that we hadn't destabilized.

        2. Jeremy Corbyn is a dangerous leftist.

        Just look at the sort of policies this man supports. He wants to re-nationalize the railways which have the highest fares in Europe.

        He wants to scrap university tuition fees which consign students to a lifetime of debt. He would like to make housing affordable for ordinary people.

        He wants an economy to suit the needs of the majority and not the 1%.

        He wants to keep the Sunday trading laws as they are and not introduce 24/7 shopping. He is opposed to illegal wars which kill hundreds of thousands of people and he does not want to bring back fox-hunting. Quite clearly the man is some kind of left-wing nutcase.

        3. Jeremy Corbyn has been critical of the US and Israel.

        Outrageously, Corbyn has criticized US foreign policy and Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. He seems to think that the US and Israel have to abide by international law - and should be held accountable for their actions. The man is quite obviously a communist and as such should be barred not only from standing for Labour leader, but banned from the Labour Party too.

        Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn Jeremy Corbyn: Why He's Got Britain's Anti-Democratic Democrats Worried

        4. Jeremy Corbyn has extremist links.

        Not only is Corbyn a dangerous radical himself, he also associates with dangerous extremists. He once spoke at a meeting where one of the other speakers had once shared a platform with a speaker who had once shared a platform with a speaker who had once shared a platform with a speaker who had once praised Joseph Stalin - proving undeniably that Corbyn is a Stalinist.

        Also on Twitter, Corbyn once retweeted a person who had once retweeted another person who had once retweeted another person who had retweeted a tweet from someone who I don't approve of - proving once again Corby's extremism.  

        5. Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable.

        Jeremy Corbyn wants to do things which the majority of the British public wants, such as re-nationalize the railways and keep Britain out of Middle East wars. This makes him unelectable because politicians are only electable if they want to do things the public doesn't want.

        At the last election, Labour lost heavily to the anti-austerity SNP in Scotland and also lost lots of votes to the anti-austerity Greens. So it's obvious that to get these votes back, Labour needs a leader who supports austerity, and not someone who opposes it, like Corbyn.

        I'm a very wealthy right-wing, pro-austerity warmonger, but believe me, I only want the best for Labour - which is to be a right-wing pro-austerity, pro-war party - barely distinguishable from the Tories.

        Having two main parties who have identical views on the main issues is what democracy is all about. If Corbyn wins then Labour would be very different from the Conservatives, which would obviously be very bad for democracy as it would give the electorate a real choice.   

        6. Jeremy Corbyn wants to take us back to the 1970s.

        In the 1970s the gap between the rich and poor was at its lowest in the UK's history. Living standards for ordinary people were rising all the time and large sections of the economy were in public ownership. The banks did not run the country and the taxation system was steeply progressive.

        Corbyn wants to take us back to these times!  Think how disastrous that would be for rich people like me who would have to pay much higher rates of tax which would be redistributed to horrible working class-type people and people on middle incomes. The 1% would really suffer and the most talented people - like myself - and my neocon friends, would leave the country. That's what lies in store for us if Corbyn succeeds!

        7. Jeremy Corbyn would leave Britain defenseless and open to invasion.

        Corbyn has promised to scrap Trident.

        If Trident was scrapped there's no doubt that the Russians, Iranians, Syrians and Hezbollah would launch a full scale invasion of Britain within 45 minutes.

        Britain would be carved up between the 'Axis of Evil', with the Russians taking England, the Iranians Scotland and the Syrians, Wales (and Hezbollah in charge of Northern Ireland).

        Just imagine, Aberystywyth under the control of the evil dictator Bashar al-Assad. Russian troops patroling the streets of Godalming. Iran's Revolutionary Guard marching in Sauchiehall Street.  A nightmare scenario indeed, but all this would be the reality if Corbyn gets his way. The very future of our country is at stake.

        8. Jeremy Corbyn once welcomed an article by John Pilger.

        In 2004, Jeremy Corbyn was one of 25 MPs who signed an Early Day Motion which welcomed a Pilger article on Kosovo. 

        How outrageous! To think, a man is standing for the leadership of one of Britain's major parties who once welcomed an article by John Pilger!

        No one who has ever cited John Pilger with approval - let alone signed a motion supporting him - should be allowed to stand for high public office in Britain. The freedom to hold and express views and opinions in a democracy should only apply to opinions and views that myself and fellow elite neocons approve of! And we most certainly do not approve of John Pilger!

        9. Jeremy Corbyn opposes austerity.

        Spain Podemos rally © AP Photo/ Daniel Ochoa de Olza Rise of the Left: Will Britain Join Europe's Anti-Austerity Rebel Club?

        Austerity is working brilliantly at the moment.

        It's provided a great excuse for the government to flog off remaining state assets at below their true market value to 'the right people' in the City. The welfare payments of lower-class people who have far too many children are being cut. Libraries and local authority services are being closed. Yet, guess what? The bearded one opposes all of this. He says that "austerity is a political choice, not an economic necessity." 

        He wants to protect public services and libraries from cuts - and instead wants to crackdown on tax evasion and increase taxes on the very wealthy! I ask you - is this the sort of man we want leading Labour - or worse still, the country?  

        And finally, but most importantly, the tenth commandment:

        10. Jeremy Corbyn is very popular.

        …And if he succeeds - which seems very likely - it's game over for me and my little clique of elite warmongers. We won't get our wars and we'll have to pay more taxes and it'll be all perfectly horrible! So, don't vote for Jeremy Corbyn, because although he'll be very good news for you - his success will be terrible for us!

        [Sep 13, 2015] Radolsaw Sikorski has joined Poroshenko's Advisory Council for Reforms

        marknesop.wordpress.com

        Fern , September 13, 2015 at 5:16 pm

        Well, it was inevitable, I guess. Everyone's favourite Polish mover and shaker, Radolsaw Sikorski has joined Poroshenko's Advisory Council for Reforms. To judge by previous appointees, qualifications appear to include – being a disgraced politico in your own country; being a fugitive and, most important of all, the ability to bleed Russophobia.

        "I intend to visit Ukraine regularly, because I support the country's reform," Sikorski noted, adding that he is "delighted that Ukraine will be looking to learn from the Polish experience."
        Apparently, that experience includes borderline hysterical anti-Russian rhetoric backed by neoconservative ideology. Sikorski is married to Anne Applebaum, an American-Polish journalist known for her hawkish, stridently anti-Russian attitudes, who said at the height of the Ukrainian crisis in March, 2014 that the US and its allies should not allow for the continued "existence of a corrupt Russian regime that is destabilizing Europe," later adding that Europe should prepare for "total war" with Russia…….

        ….Sikorski does not appear to have lost any of his exaggerated anti-Russian zealotry. A few days ago, the politician spoke at the 12th annual Yalta European Strategy forum, organized by Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk and aimed at promoting Ukraine's membership in the European Union via high-level talks between Ukrainian and European officials.
        The politician's appearance at the forum made headlines in both Poland and Ukraine, after he suggested that NATO should stockpile weapons on Poland's border with Ukraine, in case of Russian aggression. "Anti-tank weapons can be deployed somewhere close to Ukraine, in Poland or Romania. If the pro-Russian or Russian forces move deeper into the territory of Ukraine, these weapons will be supplied to Ukraine in a very fast manner, within an hour." The politician warned that "President Putin should understand this."

        http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150913/1026942797/sikorski-poroshenko-poland-ukraine.html

        Does an ex-Polish foreign minister come cheap, I wonder? Your tax dollars at work.

        [Sep 13, 2015] Goldman Sachs faces test years after memos touted now faltering economies by Guy Laron

        Sep 13, 2015 | The Guardian
        When the 2008 financial crisis hit the global economy, China experienced only a short slowdown and afterwards it continued to post double digits rates of growth. The voracious appetite of the Chinese industrial machine for raw materials created prosperity among commodity exporters such as Russia, Brazil, Peru, Bolivia and Saudi Arabia. Goldman's prophecy appeared to be on the money.

        There was a vigorous debate in the pages of the financial press about the Brics concept. There was also no denying that developing countries were enjoying fast growth and unusually large inflows of cash from developed countries. The question was whether all that was the result of an improvement in the quality of government, education and infrastructure in emerging markets – a true re-ordering of the world – or instead the result of speculative trade creating yet another bubble.

        The term on the naysayers' lips was "carry trade". Carry trade is a financial practice which involves borrowing in a country where both the value of the currency and the interest rate are low and then investing in countries where the returns on the investment are higher.

        Chief among those who believed that the post-2008 rapid growth in emerging markets was carry trade masquerading as development was Nouriel Roubini, an New York University economics professor who has spent a lifetime researching developing world debt crises.

        In 2009 Rubini published an op-ed whose title said it all: "Mother of all carry trades faces an inevitable bust." Rubini's thesis was that the cause of the sharp rally in emerging markets' bonds, stocks and currencies were the ultra-low interest rates maintained by the Federal Reserve post-2008 in attempt to revive the faltering American economy.

        As a result, the dollar became weak and effective interest rates in the US turned negative. Traders borrowed heavily in the US and sent the money overseas to Asia and Latin America. Rubini ended his article with a warning: the minute interest rates in the US started rising, pushing the value of the dollar upwards, the value of emerging markets assets would collapse.

        Later events have proven Roubini right. Every time investors feared that the Fed would hike interest rates, Brics economies went into a tailspin and commodities prices crashed. This happened in 2011, 2013 and, of course, this year.

        Goldman Sachs, however, stuck to its guns. Jim O'Neill, the company's chief economist, a man who did no work in development economics, visited only one of the Bric countries and spoke none of their languages, was promoted by the sleek Goldman Sachs PR machine as Mr Brics (apparently the acronym was his idea). O'Neill became a tireless advocate for the Brics vision in the media. He and other Goldman Sachs spokesmen brushed aside the carry-trade critique as "nonsense" and emphasized at every downturn that while emerging markets might experience a setback here and there, their rise to economic dominance was inevitable.

        As if in a parallel universe, in 2009 it was revealed that while peddling mortgage-backed securities to unsuspecting American customers, Goldman Sachs was secretly betting on a housing market crash. In 2010, a senior director at the company admitted that Goldman Sachs helped the Greek government conceal the extent of its external debt.

        The investment firm became mired in legal controversies and federal investigations. Its activity became more heavily regulated and it had to give up some "creative" practices that had produced hefty profits in the past. A 2011 piece in the New York Times portrayed Goldman Sachs as losing its edge as a market leader. The Brics story was the only positive narrative that the company could offer to redeem itself in the eyes of the public.

        Moreover, the tough Brics talk suggested that the company had unique expertise in emerging market investments – a high-risk game in which the fees are traditionally higher. In other words, Goldman was able to replace the pre-2008 real estate bubble with speculative trade in emerging markets assets. Finally, the company could signal to potential customers in Bric countries that Goldman was their champion. Indeed, in the last few years, the firm made huge profits by being a go-between between Chinese companies and American capital markets.

        As the performance of emerging markets began to wane in 2010, so did O'Neill's star at Goldman. By that year the Bric fund under his management lost 20% of its value. In 2011, the Asset Management unit, which O'Neill led, lost several US pension clients. He finally left the firm in April 2013.

        This year, as expectation that the Fed would raise interest rates intensified, panicky investors withdrew $1tn from emerging markets assets, the Chinese stock market crashed and the yuan depreciated. Some experts believe that this is the result of the unwinding of the China carry trade. The commodities-dependent economies of Brazil and Russia are in the doldrums.

        This week the Fed will raise interest rates for the first time in a decade – maybe. If doesn't happen this week, you can bet it won't be long. The Bank of England signalled only last week that its rates are likely to rise sooner rather than later. And with those rising rates, the carry trade "myth" will be tested once again – with potentially huge consequences for investors around the world.

        Guy Laron is a lecturer at the Department of International Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and author of Origins of the Suez Crisis: Postwar Development Diplomacy and the Struggle over Third World Industrialization, 1945-1956 (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013).


        Sean Marshall 13 Sep 2015 13:39

        Beware of Goldman Sachs bearing white papers and reports....


        2skeptical 13 Sep 2015 11:18

        Goldman Sacs creates markets -- both buyers and sellers -- and works both ends off each other for maximum gain for GS. This has played out in real estate, coal, oil and many other sectors, while GS pays 15% in taxes by using other people's money. What a con game. Nothing is ever their fault, since they're only creating what others are stupid enough to buy, or sell. Hopefully this scheme is on its last legs.


        boscovee 13 Sep 2015 11:09

        Oh these banksters know the results of mentioning the word about raising the rates and now they use it as a tool for their greed and inside trading.

        lifeintheusa ByThePeople 13 Sep 2015 10:21

        pump them up.... pump them down... it's all bullshit.... you only make profits when prices change. It's simple massive corruption. Forget economics 101, 201, 301.

        Schnitzler88 arsetechnica 13 Sep 2015 10:14

        The bank needs to go away: have its business license revoked, be banned from securities trading, whatever. Too big to fail? What--and leave the rest of the world tottering because of the snake oil the bank peddles? Let's be done with them.

        ByThePeople 13 Sep 2015 09:16

        Goldman has forecast oil at $20 a barrel, which may be correct but they've also heavily shorted gold, silver and other futures commodities - but why? Why has it become so dramatically important for Goldman to so heavily, artificially deflate commodity prices?

        [Sep 11, 2015] Bloody Arseny in the 90's

        Moscow Exile , September 9, 2015 at 9:09 pm

        Bloody Arseny in the 90's

        Here's a Waging Wabbit's wedding day photograph taken some 5 years after he had allegedly participated on the side of Dudayev's breakaway Chechen Republic in the First Chechen War against Russia. He has also been accused of torturing Russian prisoners of war during that conflict.

        If these allegations against Yatsenyuk are true, then Noodleman's candidate "Yats" would have been a "brother-in-arms' of that delightful, late and not so lamented Oleksandr Ivanovych Muzychko (aka Sashko Bilyi [Сашко Білий] – "White Sasha"]):

        What a lovable old rogue Sasha was!

        Oddlots , September 9, 2015 at 10:28 pm

        The guy's a monster just based on who he represents.

        But I just can't see this bloodless corpse of a humanbeing having the will to commit mayhem on a living, breathing human.

        Seriously, how credible do you think this charges are?

        Moscow Exile , September 10, 2015 at 12:46 am

        Показания на Яценюка дали его подельники
        Testimony against Yarsenyuk was given by his accomplices
        Members of the UNA-UNSO party leadership, Nikolai Karlyuk and Kyiv journalist Stanislav Klykh, have said that in the 90s the prime minister of the Ukraine tortured and killed Russian soldiers in Chechnya.

        That Yatsenyuk was a murderer became known during an investigation into atrocities committed in 1994 by ther members of the UNA-UNSO party leadership Nikolai Karlyuk and Kyiv journalist Stanislav Klykh.

        Last year dozens of lawyers unsuccessfully attempted to have them released from a remand prison. In order to secure their release, they "sang" to whole of the Ukrainian mass media, but in vain: on September 15 in the Supreme court of Chechnya there was held a preliminary hearing.

        See also: Показания на Яценюка дали украинские националисты Клых и Карпюк

        Moscow Exile , September 10, 2015 at 1:08 am

        "That Yatsenyuk was a murderer became known during an investigation into atrocities committed in 1994 by the members of the UNA-UNSO party leadership" should read: "That Yatsenyuk was a murderer became known during an investigation into atrocities committed in 1994 by other members of the UNA-UNSO party leadership"

        [Sep 11, 2015] Not all comments are created equal: the case for ending online comments by Jessica Valenti

        "...The comments section is the only reason I bother with The Guardian any more. The paper and many of it's writers have lost their way - but if you take an article that almost destroys your faith in the progress of human thought, as a starting point,- there is always someone under the line that restores it. "
        Sep 10, 2015 | The Guardian


        Lecram Hernández 11 Sep 2015 16:55

        "Guardian Pick" you have got to be kidding me, do they really pick comments of people licking their butt?


        MarcTectus 11 Sep 2015 15:11

        We need the comments because they contain (interspersed with the dross) more intelligence, more research, more facts and more balance than the articles themselves...


        myhatisgrey artfulintheus 11 Sep 2015 14:41

        How about if comments were restricted to actual paid subscribers?

        The Guardian would already be charging for it if they thought people wuld pay. That's why they stick with the clickbait article/advertising model.


        panpipes randomangles 11 Sep 2015 13:43

        it does not necessarily follow that anything that attracts attention and receives lots of comments must therefore be clickbait.

        True....but I've read quite a few of JV's articles so I am judging more than just the clicks, rather the content.

        Fortune favours the lucky.

        That post made me smile.


        sangfroidwerewolf 11 Sep 2015 13:32

        The sad fact is the Guardian routinely fails to give 'the whole picture', or an impartial or accurate account of a story, and you often have to look below the line for context, counterpoint and correction.


        NeoClassicist WanderingLight 11 Sep 2015 13:23

        a community of moderately intelligent readers making moderately intelligent comments

        I prefer to think of my comments as supremely intelligent!


        RavenGodiva 11 Sep 2015 13:15

        I would censor or moderate personal attacks, but never someone who questions (whether it be climate cooling/warming/change or evolution).

        Grow a thicker skin and let the rabble play.


        consciouslyinformed Bjerkley 11 Sep 2015 12:10

        "and I don't think many people actually approach a debate genuinely prepared to change their mind..."

        Therein lies the essential problem for too many posters, as I think, from reading and participation myself with ongoing dialogues with others who are invested in a genuine discourse about topics that journalists write, and the Cif community responds within the thread. Of those who post comments, many times the engaged individuals who are committed to the process of sharing viewpoints, in order to learn, discuss, debate and as you wisely state "sometimes our own perspectives have been changed through these thoughtful and intelligent discussions," is what I look for too, in this venue.

        The posters who populate the thread with intent to divert, click bait, attempt to harass, or to quite take over the thread, is beyond disruptive, and yet, in this community, if not too distracting or off topic, are offered the freedom of expression, even if not wanted or warranted by the rest of the posters. I find it an exercise of my own ability to allow others, regardless of what I want, to have their say, whether or not it's what most commentators want to hear. Great post from you.


        commuted 11 Sep 2015 10:40

        A deep ontological flaw in an argument gets exposed with the possibility that the writer gets a spanking. While the Guardian would never prostitute themselves to an issue, it does happen. Admittedly, there's not a lot of good news for the writer, but comments still have value.


        auldngreetie 11 Sep 2015 09:51

        The comments section is the only reason I bother with The Guardian any more. The paper and many of it's writers have lost their way - but if you take an article that almost destroys your faith in the progress of human thought, as a starting point,- there is always someone under the line that restores it.

        I read your articles (dammit, can't help myself) and despair. I read the comments and cheer up.

        Regarding your point about utilitarian value and 'rich and worthwhile conversation' - I don't think we could easily agree on what was rich and worthwhile. It is for this reason that we have freedom of expression in the first place. Any conditions such as anonymity that enhance this freedom, while they have a downside, are on balance hightly desirable and beneficial in the long run.

        StuartRG 11 Sep 2015 09:33

        A lot of adblock users get a message asking them to subscribe to the Guardian's quality journalism. They then spend a long time wading through poorly written column after poorly written column looking for this quality journalism rather than something resembling a first draft for a parody Fringe show. So they leave comments reflecting that.

        True some are psychotic idiots. But others are merely reflecting their disappointment at how low the bar is of 'quality journalism' from a newspaper which has 'Pulitzer Prize' on its mast.

        And should anyone at the Guardian feel offended, may I suggest you stop filling columns with self absorbed tat and try to replicate the likes of Oliver Wainwright, who has opinions but backs them up with something more concrete than a fey 'attitude.'


        Liam 90 Paul Mycock 11 Sep 2015 09:16

        Using one of two methods - i) the "This comment was removed by a moderator... etc." and ii) the disappearing into thin air in a puff of smoke method. I've always wondered whether this is a major technical glitch in the software or whether there's something else to it. Maybe the staff are embarassed at just how many comments are removed?

        randomangles 11 Sep 2015 08:43

        Like many others, I would probably not spend as much time reading this website if there were no comments on any articles. That might have some negative impact on monetization perhaps.

        On the other hand, I would probably rate the quality of my experience of using the site much higher.

        Paul Mycock -> lauraekay 11 Sep 2015 07:16

        Hi,

        Why is it that a lot of Guardian moderators remove comments in Jessica Valenti's articles just for critizcizing the content of the article as this does not go against community guidelines?

        You'll see the ratio of removed comments to comments in her articles exceed other authors by a huge distance,

        By the way this comment does not go against community guidelines so if you are to remove it then please provide a reason.

        RogTheDodge -> Raggedclawscuttling 11 Sep 2015 07:14

        Really, you're unfamiliar with the expression "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen"? I even have it framed in my kitchen.

        RogTheDodge 11 Sep 2015 07:12

        Without comment sections, would anyone read these articles? The comments are far more interesting than the articles in many cases. The author might want to consider that. But I'm sure she knows that and writes accordingly.


        Mark A O'Toole 11 Sep 2015 06:48

        If this was from someone who I hadn't seen deliberately write polarising troll articles on a regular basis, brag about how it riles people up on her twitter account, and dismisses any and all arguments against the thoughts spilling out of her head as 'misogyny', I might have considered it topic worth discussing. As is, it's just clearly self-serving, disingenuous ramblings of a wounded narcissist.

        goddarp -> PrincessWhatever 11 Sep 2015 06:48

        Unfortunately, it seems to be doing the opposite. Now it's hard to make money as a real journalist, clickbait opinion pieces based on 'I reckon' rather then costly, time-consuming research, seem to be the norm.

        kernjeek -> wavypeasandgravy 11 Sep 2015 06:46

        Those mediums have become echo chambers, where you shout your opinions to the wall and receive them back, often reinforcing views that when exposed outwardly are subject to stringent criticism.

        As has been pointed out, many commenters BTL make coherent and rational arguments, and the upvotes they receive mean they generally tend to reflect the prevailing attitude of the audience. Of course there are a few nutters and people who are downright rude, but that does not mean that you should be able to post opinion pieces on one of the globes most widely read online publications and not expect to have those views challenged!

        standupatonce 11 Sep 2015 06:34

        Your view, as someone with a media outlet, is of course that your writing ought to be as privileged as possible.

        My view, as someone without one, is that I rarely bother to read things without comments sections, as one or two websites that have turned comments off recently may be finding out, because I'm betting I'm not alone. A single opinion is NEVER as interesting as an opinion and a whole load of response to it, even if you do have to wade through cretins to get the benefit of it.

        And social media is NOT the same thing as direct response on the same page.

        Finally, if you wish comments away because you don't like what they're saying, you might want to think again about "being too lazy or overwhelmed to fix the real problem".


        [Sep 11, 2015]I mourn disable and scarred vets, neglected by the country

        Economist's View Links for 09-11-15

        ilsm said...

        Remember the lost on 9/11 and those sacrificed in the US' responding aggression. Honor them by questioning "why the cost with the wrecked results".

        pgl said in reply to ilsm...

        Watching the ceremony now. Tears come to my eyes 14 years later. Brooklyn has a 6K run tomorrow in honor of our heroes. Will be proud to run it for those we lost.

        ilsm said in reply to pgl...

        Why don't we blame the Saudis, and all the multiple SUV per family who send their cash for ISIS through Riyadh, at the memorials?

        Long before the number of dead soldiers related to Iraghistan exceeded the NY site losses I moved on.

        To make sure it never happens again let's call Iran the great terrorist who calls a satan a satan blame Iran and do them like Iraq.

        Faux News was carrying it, enough said.

        I mourn disable and scarred vets, neglected by the country!

        Paine said in reply to ilsm...

        It's a hideous irony that private outfits use our butchered vets like abused pets
        To collect money

        The whole warrior cult is a monstrous fabrication of the demagogues of Uncle Sam global hegemony

        Some died and others still suffer for NOtTHING noble nothing at all nothing but corporate rights to exploit where they will

        pgl said in reply to Paine ...

        9/11 had nothing to do with that stupid war that started in 2003. That was the re-elect Bush-Cheney opening theme. The New Yorkers who died on 9/11 deserve better than any of these pathetic political insults.

        Paine said in reply to pgl...

        The warrior cult goes back to post nam talk radio histrionics

        9 / 11 is more like the sinking of the Lusitania

        Or is it the Maine or the Alamo or little big horn or gulf of Tonkin or ..yes the obvious parallel Pearl Harbor

        Civilians and uniform public servants ?

        Burning of Tokyo ?

        I recall a huge wave of spontaneous sympathy for the families of the victims of that attack
        And for the bravery of the responders that were killed trying to save lives

        What about the grotesque policies of the buildings management
        That clearly increased the death toll

        Or the airlines that refused adequate protocols for decades

        It's better now we delve into the real dark side of 9/11

        Not the phones conspiracy stories

        Nor the further demonizing of bin laden

        Or for that matter your feel good blubbering over the murdered innocent

        [Sep 10, 2015] The Weaponization of Ignorance: the West's Go-To Experts by marknesop

        September 9, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

        ... ... ...

        In order to be Doing The Right Thing, it is necessary for you to believe Russia is an isolated and reviled international pariah which has invaded its neighbor – Ukraine – with heavy armor, artillery and hundreds of thousands of uniformed soldiers in the country on state orders, and which shot down MH-17 so that it could blame it on innocent Ukraine (among other wild justifications). It is a country which makes nothing and is totally reliant on energy exports; backward, barbaric, uncultured and unlettered, deceitful and underhanded.

        An excellent example to start off with is Forbes, featuring the clownish oaf Paul Roderick Gregory. Mr. Gregory was one of the first to latch on to the scoop that Russia had inadvertently published the figures of its dead in the "Eastern Ukrainian Campaign", in a small, innocuous business newspaper called Delovaya Zhizn (Business Life). Then, the story goes, the government frantically deleted the information, but not before some sharp-eyed truthseekers hasd pounced on it and exposed it to the world. Yahoo – staunchly Russophobic in its news content – jumped on it as well. Social media dismembered it in hours and revealed it as a fake, while the purported representative of Business Life claimed the site had been hacked from a Kiev-registered IP on August 22nd, and the bogus data inserted long enough to be captured, then erased. The excitement the story caused in the media was something to see, and the Twitter storm – led by luminaries like Michael McFaul drawing attention to it for all they were worth – was furious while it lasted. Once it was exposed as a fake, the story just kind of…went away. Nobody said sorry.

        No western news story on Russia or Ukraine is complete without the insertion of the phrase "Russian aggression" like a trademark, and an assertion that Russia has large numbers of military troops in Ukraine although it cynically denies it. News sites regularly claim there is "pretty overwhelming evidence" that Russia and Putin are lying, but none of them ever cite any, and the United States refuses to release any satellite imagery confirming the purported troop movements or transit of armored columns. It must be sensitive about Putin's feelings, and is protecting him. Ha, ha.

        ... ... ...

        CNN's "Banned! 10 Things You Won't Find in Russia" is, unsurprisingly, horseshit. The law forbidding "gay propaganda" does not "mean anyone campaigning for LGBT rights or equating straight and gay relationships can be prosecuted. " It is quite specific that it may not be pitched to minor children, but the United States has become so chuffed with itself over how gay-friendly it is that it seems to think nobody is too young to learn how to do it the gay way. How about three – is three too young, do you think? Thinking about sending your gender nonconforming three-year-old son to Crossdresser Camp? I wonder if the other boys in his class – when he's, say 12 – are going to be as supportive? Gay adults can do as they please in Russia, as they always could, and homosexuality was legal in Russia ten years before the USA got around to saying it was okay to be gay.

        Anonymous blogs are illegal – oh, dear. That should be of great concern to the civil libertarians who are sharing their phone conversations with the NSA, have been for some time before it was revealed, and the NSA refuses to stop, while the government refuses to make them. National security, you know. Think about that next time you're discussing your hemorrhoids with your doctor on the telephone.

        Western food is banned; quite a lot of it, anyway. Why is that, CNN, again? Because of sanctions imposed against Russia. Why? Well, because the Russians shot down MH-17, of course! And before anyone calls tit-for-tat sanctions "childish", yes, they are. But you're talking to the country that changed the name of the American street on which the Soviet Embassy was located to "Andrei Sakharov Street", just for spite. The Wall Street Journal called it "simple but inspired". They were half-right: it was simple. Stay tuned for the U.S. Embassy to be on "Edward Snowden Boulevard".

        Foul language is banned from films and television. Oh, no. How could anyone sit through a movie in America if it was not non-stop swearing from start to finish…kind of like conversation is in the USA. Ridden a city bus lately? Honestly, America has become the proverbial caricature of itself, so obsessed with slagging off the Russians in an attempt to humiliate them that it portrays being The Sopranos from sea to shining sea as some kind of virtue.

        Drug related websites. The mind reels. Where is I gonna get my hit on, iffen I can't fin' my on-line dealer? CNN….man, I just don't know. I used to think, when I still watched CNN, probably about 10 years ago, that Wolf Blitzer was the worst thing about it. But now you is on a ho' notha level. Freedom…is drug-related websites.

        ... ... ...

        The Independent (owned by a Russian oligarch – oops! "Tycoon", I meant, which is how western newspapers sucked up to Poroshenko the Billionaire after he took over the presidency of Ukraine) reports, completely gratuitously, that Moscow is "the world's unfriendliest city"; so designated by a survey conducted among the readers of Travel & Leisure Magazine! Which had a total circulation, in 2011, of just under 971,000. Ha, ha!! Jesus, listen to yourselves, will you? More than twice as many people read Rolling Stone, Bon Appetit and Golf Digest as read Travel & Leisure. Take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut, Travel & Leisure! Who gives a toss what you think? We'll see all 971,000 of you in Galway, Ireland (rated the "friendliest" city), and you'd probably all fit.

        Timothy Snyder, eminent historian and defender of the Maidan, tells whoever will listen that Kiev is the only bilingual capital in Europe. Mind you, he also says Ukraine is a country of 50 million people, when he's actually spotting them about 10 million. Ukraine lost around 3 million people in 2014 – and you know where they went – and the population currently stands at just under 43 million according to the state statistics service. But what's a couple of million more or less? We routinely hear how a million or two well-educated and talented people rush for the exits in Russia every year, but by some miracle the population is increasing! The babushkas must be knitting new Russians in the basement at night, like the Keebler elves.

        There's no need to dissect Snyder's embarrassing knowledge deficit further – my colleague, Paul Robinson, does a wonderful job of that – but suffice it to say Kiev is far from the only bilingual capital in Europe. More importantly, Snyder is playing up the distinctive nature of Ukrainian as if being able to switch between Russian and Ukrainian is an accomplishment on a par with speaking French and English. Russian and Ukrainian are both East Slavic languages descended from a common root – the language of the medieval Kievan Rus – and are mutually intelligible; that is, the two have sufficient common elements that if you can speak one fluently, you will be able to understand much of the other.

        Get the picture? Western leaders, through the western media, rely on feted "experts" who do not know if their ass is bored or punched, but who nonetheless blather whatever their paymasters want to hear – and what they want to hear, pretty consistently, is that Russia is barbaric, weak and surly, reeling from sanctions which are wringing its economy like a dishrag. They want to hear that its population is steadily declining, thanks to its increasingly unpopular and unstable president. Timothy Garton Ash regularly paints a bloodcurdling – if you're a Russian – picture of a tottering giant about to topple. Edward Lucas, narcissistic British bonehead, rails against Putin's non-existent determination to bring the Baltics under his dictatorial command. Craaazzzy Annie Applebaum, Mrs former-Polish-political-wunderkind, snaps at her own entrails in a Russophobic delirium. Julia Ioffe. Luke Harding. Shaun Walker and Roland Oliphant. Simon Ostrovsky of Vice News. Rainbow-Brite Hater Jamie Kirchik of The Daily Beast. Too many to name them all, each pumping out soporific smoke that reassures westerners of their ongoing moral superiority and perspicacious judgment. All of it totally manufactured nonsense, delivered with a straight face in an atmosphere in which nobody wishes to challenge their accuracy, because it just feels so good to let go and believe.

        I'm not arguing this so the west will come to its senses and try to repair the damage it has done to international relationships, entirely owing to society's own myopic stupidity and epic eagerness to be fooled. It's much too late for that; Russia has reached the realization that it cannot be a partner to the west so long as Russia insists upon making its own decisions and following its own policies. Consequently, it is decisively turning away from the west and reordering its markets, its institutions and its partnerships. Some business relationships might recover, but the west will not be trusted again for a generation at least. Because you can't trust someone who will not listen to reason.

        I'm arguing it because the rest of the world is looking aghast at the west as if it had gotten drunk at their kids' birthday party and made an ass of itself, and it's embarrassing.

        et Al says: September 9, 2015 at 11:20 am

        Well Mark, the torrent of b/s spouted by the self-proclaimed and good will only serve one function in the end – something for Western Screaming Heads (TM) to drown in as none of what they produce actually makes a damn worth of difference. There is no talent preaching to the converted, but much of these so called credibly western institutions have also lost credibility with their own citizens. It's a model case of the decline and fall of empire & power. It's only going to get funkier.

        Meanwhile, as if on cue, the Brits are still playing at calling the shots:

        Neuters: UK softens tone against Syria's Assad, moots transition period
        http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/09/09/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-hammond-idUKKCN0R91SF20150909

        Britain could accept Syrian President Bashar al-Assad staying in place for a transition period if it helped resolve the country's conflict, Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said on Wednesday, in what appeared to be a softening of tone on the Syrian leader….

        …Reuters reported on Wednesday that Russian forces have begun participating in combat operations in Syria to help defend Assad's government, citing three Lebanese sources familiar with the political and military situation there.

        Hammond told parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee that a political rather than military solution was needed and said Britain had made clear to Russia and Iran, Assad's principal international allies, that it would be prepared to discuss a plan which saw him stay on temporarily.

        "If there is a sensible plan for transition that involves Assad remaining in some way involved in the process for a period of time we will look at that, we will discuss it. We are not saying he must go on day one," he said, adding that the transition could be a period of months….

        …Hammond rejected Russia's suggestion Syria could hold snap parliamentary elections which could see Assad share power.

        "That is not an acceptable position. The international community cannot in my view facilitate and oversee a set of elections in which somebody guilty of crimes of the scale that Assad has committed is able to run for office," he said…

        ####
        We'll not hang you now Bashar, we'll hang you a bit later. Deal?

        The Brits yet again speaking for the US. Who needs puppets when you can have a poodle? Woof!

        marknesop , September 9, 2015 at 12:53 pm

        That's the kind of stuff that makes me throw things. Jesus Q. Johnnycake, what is it with Britain and its conviction that the world is comprised of Britain, and her colonies, which she suffers to live only insofar as they conform to a standard of decorum bred in Whitehall? Poxy gits; "Britain could accept Syrian President Bashar al-Assad staying in place for a transition period if it helped resolve the country's conflict, Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said on Wednesday". Is that so? What that has been instigated by the UK in the last decade would lead you to believe Britain's opinion was indispensable?

        "…Hammond rejected Russia's suggestion Syria could hold snap parliamentary elections which could see Assad share power.

        "That is not an acceptable position. The international community cannot in my view facilitate and oversee a set of elections in which somebody guilty of crimes of the scale that Assad has committed is able to run for office," he said…"

        That's because he knows full well Assad would win in a landslide, and the appropabation of his people cannot be allowed to interfere with Britain railroading him for war crimes without a trial. War crimes! Jesus Christ! What the fuck does he think has been goinmg on in Ukraine?? There's a whole hell of a lot more evidence of what's going on there and who's responsible for it, but "the international community" could not care less.

        I had to take a deep-breathing break. The important thing is to get some effort brought to bear on reversing ISIS and driving them back, and eventually, out. Then Russia will have a little more breathing room for Britain's case to collapse. I'm sure Russia would not preserve Assad only to see the British cart him off to The Hague.

        I was just reading an old post, linked in another reply, and ran across some research I did on the position of General Secretary of the UN. Did you know that Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were nominated to run against Ban Ki-Moon? Blair was still PM at the time, and the UN General Secretary cannot be from any of the veto-wielding powers, so they were both ineligible – but can you imagine?

        et Al , September 10, 2015 at 3:14 am

        It's a particularly British skill putting other people's backs up. Today we call it trolling for that is surely what his PR team is aiming at. Why? Because they can and they enjoy it.

        Of course, two can play at that game, but the Russians should, selectively do this also. It's not hard.

        If only Philip Hammond had an actual talent apart from trolling that was valuable. Something like this:

        Warren , September 9, 2015 at 11:26 am

        Oddlots , September 9, 2015 at 5:23 pm

        Out-fucking-standing. Finally we have been able to field an adult. This is EXACTLY what we need to hear.

        Cheered me up no end.

        et Al , September 10, 2015 at 3:40 am

        He's a threat to the national security state. By hook, or by crook, professionals will try to make sure that he doesn't become Prime Minister. Assuming that he becomes Labor leader, these professionals have less than five years.

        james , September 9, 2015 at 12:41 pm

        thanks mark… "Nobody said sorry." that and the constant hypocrisy from the west via the msm, drives me fucking crazy.. lying and pushing for all the wrong reasons never really impressed me.. at bit part of me doesn't follow the msm for these reasons.. when the herd is going one way, i'm going to be going the other way.. fb – naw… msm – naw, living in a cave – yeah, lol.. i admire your work trying to dissect it all.. that is a constant uphill battle that isn't ever going to stop!

        james@wpc , September 9, 2015 at 1:08 pm

        Well said, Mark. I agree the road ahead looks bleak and is not about to get any better any day soon.

        The reason for the eye-rolling of the rest of the world is that few in the West know how to think. Fewer still know that they have been deliberately taught not to think (through being ridiculed for asking questions and not being told the difference between Knowledge, Understanding and Wisdom) and to look to shills and idiots known as 'experts' to do their thinking for them.

        This is not how we survived two million years. Oops, sorry, that should read 6000 years . . . . and never mind those dinosaur bones! Regardless, we will not survive a similar time span either way, or anything like it, into the future

        Warren , September 9, 2015 at 1:18 pm

        Published on 9 Sep 2015
        An unsourced story originating on an Israeli website claimed Russia was about to deploy significant military assistance to Syria to fight Islamic State. This set the media aflame and had Washington issuing warnings. The story was not only unsourced, but also untrue. But it did reveal how the West frames its illegal war against Syria. CrossTalking with Eric Draitser, Danny Makki and Fawaz Gerges.

        Lyttenburgh , September 9, 2015 at 4:18 pm

        Another great article, Mark!

        I've been arguing since… 2012, I think, that the West, it's media – both entertainment and news services – are beholden to what I call an "Ouroboros effect". There is one successful, time-tasted and profitable trademark, let's call it – "Russophobia". It sells. It sells really good. There is a constant demand for it and no shortage of supply.

        But the most beatiful thing of all? "Ouroboros effect" is self sustaining! Clients demand more of what they like and are used to ("Russophobia"), and the producers are glad to oblige, supply them (and a few of uninitiated) with it, thus strengthening the clients perceptions on the topic in question and making them crave more of it.

        Clients are fed basically the same stuff for decades with little or no variations in flavor or consistence – and they gladly swallow all of it and demand more.

        And this "immortal, perfectly constructed animal" (Plato's words, not mine) has an in-built defense systems. Someone is suggesting that biting and sucking your own tail right next to a place where your feces come out is disgusting and there are more healthy things to eat around here? Why, it must paid Kremlin's propaganda, paid Kremlin-trolls, brainwashed serfs of the Regime or bullied by KGB poor and innocent souls. They are not to be trusted, for sure.

        Someone said, that a true totalitarism is not the fact that a StateSec can come one day and take away some "undesirable". It's when the neighbors of these "undesirables" are ratting them away, or take part in lynching of the "Enemy", while policing each other for the slightest sign of sedition and calling it "Being Vigilant". Or something like that.

        Currently there is no any meaningful dialog between the West and Russia. On any level. I'm speaking not only about governments here – I'm talking about every single level of possible communication. Ultimately, I'm talking about people. The West preaches that "when people from different ethnic and religious and cultural backgrounds come together it enriches learning and creativity". In fact, it actually means that everyone must adopt "universal" (read – Western) set of values to be successful and productive, and all other opinions are just "undesirable".

        Right now, I don't see any way to change the Western narrative about Russia. Russophobia is a time-tested product in high demand. The West demands from Russia "conversion" to its superior "values" and is not interested in any compromises or even entertaining the mere thought that the Culturally Superior West might adopt something from Russia as well. And Russia for a change decided that it's fed up with this sanctimonious shit piled on it for decades and would rather have an independent policy, thank you very much.

        Ouroboros will suck on its own tail. Maybe, when it stops this highly entertaining activity the whole wide world will experience the escape from the wheel of Sansara and unite in a humanity-wide Nirvana. Or the pigs will learn to fly.

        et Al , September 10, 2015 at 8:12 am

        What exquisite timing:

        Financial Crimes: Russian group accused of hacking satellites
        http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/50b1ff84-571d-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/googlenews/feed//product&google_editors_picks=true

        One of the world's most sophisticated hacking groups, linked to the Russian government, has been accused of hijacking vulnerable commercial satellite communications, using hidden receiving stations in Africa and the Middle East to mask attacks on Western military and governmental networks.

        The group, which operates Ouroboros - the virulent malware also known as "Snake" or "Turla" - was outed last year as having mounted aggressive cyber espionage operations against Ukraine and a host of other European and American government organisations over nearly a decade.

        In a report released on Wednesday, digital security and intelligence firm Kaspersky Lab, which was among the first to analyse the Ouroboros hackers' activities in 2014, said it had identified a new "exquisite" attack channel being used by the group that was virtually untraceable…

        …Western security officials have previously told the Financial Times they believe Ouroboros to be a Russian operation - a fact supported by the group's targets and clues in the coding of the malware itself.

        Satellite operators are meanwhile powerless to prevent the hackers from routing requests through their networks - at least for the next few years. The only other way to do so, experts note, would be for them to encrypt all of their downstream communications - a process that would require the launch of entirely new satellite arrays.

        ####

        This piece certainly ticks all the boxes of Fear Uncertainly & Doubt.

        Two points:

        1: Not only would new satellites have to be sent up, but satellite receiving equipment would have to be upgraded on the ground, though I would assume that these days is could be done through software;

        2: But, bu, but haven't we been told many times that Kaspersky – a Russian software security firm – is close to the Kremlin. If so, then why 'uncover' this story that would be so apparently damaging to their own friends? Of course this is one step of logic that no self-respecting active or passive russophobic journalist, or simply one enjoying it, would deign to ask.

        So you see, yet again and apart from Kaspersy in this case, no other named source is willing to come out and publicly name finger the Russians and of course the Kremlin by association. Yes kids, its is journalism at its finest!

        marknesop , September 10, 2015 at 1:07 pm

        Yes, the "western analysts" to whom they refer are probably FireEye, a California firm, who claimed that a super-capable virus program it discovered "was programmed on Russian-language machines and built during working hours in Moscow." We've already been over how idiotic that is.

        Warren , September 9, 2015 at 4:18 pm

        Syria crisis: Nato concerned by Russia 'military build-up'

        The US and Nato have expressed concern over reports that Russia is increasing its military presence in Syria.

        Nato chief Jens Stoltenberg said if confirmed, Russia's involvement would not help to solve the conflict.

        Separately on Wednesday, US Secretary of State John Kerry "reiterated" his concerns to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov over the phone.

        Russia, a key ally of Syria during its four-year civil war, says it has sent military experts but that is all.
        Correspondents say that without Moscow's backing, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad may have fallen by now.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34205003

        marknesop , September 9, 2015 at 5:04 pm

        It is clear the USA does not want any help in Syria, unless it is from its trusted allies. I wonder why? Does Washington honestly think people are so dozy that they can't catch on? A couple of other things are clear, too; one, either the USA's intelligence is terrible or it did not even bother to check if the rumors are true, because the Kremlin has said it has no immediate plans to intervene in Syria. However, two, the USA obviously does not trust the answer, because it has already taken the step of asking European allies in the region to deny permission for overflight to Russia. It seems fairly obvious that the USA does not want Russia in Syria even though it is "losing" to ISIS.

        I'm sure the Kremlin is well aware that the USA is covertly helping and encouraging ISIS, and hopes they will overrun Damascus. And Britain's snooty attitude about Assad possibly continuing in his position as leader suggests they expect the push that will overwhelm Assad to come soon. I can't believe Russia is just going to sit back and let it happen, knowing the main purpose is to enable a Qatari gas pipeline that will cut it out of the European gas market.

        Patient Observer , September 9, 2015 at 5:56 pm

        The pipeline is a big deal but they also want to remove (no, murder) any non-compliant national leader – need to keep up the image of invincibility. Notice how the leaders of Iraq, Serbia and Libya were all murdered directly or indirectly by Western hands.

        Western propaganda simply provides cover for the vast majority of the US population who are fearful of recognizing the Empire's hideous face,

        It has come up in this blog from time to time that most Americans are basically decent and simply lack access to truthful information. I tend to disagree. Anyone with decency and half a brain would not be deluded by the idiocy that passes for news. In short, the majority of Americans choose to be ignorant because they are cowards.

        Fern , September 9, 2015 at 6:14 pm

        You're quite right about the importance of the image of invincibility achieved by the literal or metaphorical grinding of all opposition into the dirt. In addition to the list you give, it seems that Yanukovich was also targeted for assassination, only narrowly escaping with his life and yet his 'crime' was the seemingly pretty minor one of deferring the EU Association Agreement. The same kind of conquering mentality was discernible in the Greek bailout negotiations when the Troika went all out to heap humiliation on Tspiras. A glimpse of the psychopaths behind the liberal, democratic masks.

        james@wpc , September 9, 2015 at 6:00 pm

        This is speculation but what makes sense to me is that there is a faction (at least) within the Russian govt that is pushing for upping the military support to Syria and this fabricated controversy is an attempt to head off that internally proposed Russian initiative.

        All this, to me, points to the US getting desperate to overcome the SAA, and soon, otherwise 'all is lost'

        Oddlots , September 9, 2015 at 5:54 pm

        "…rely on feted "experts" who do not know if their ass is bored or punched…"

        God you make me laugh.

        Thanks for the intro to Rory Galagher. Completely new to me. Working through some you tube videos and it's far better for my blood-pressure than getting caught up on the day's "mendacity index."

        Btw I came across this today:

        marknesop , September 9, 2015 at 9:15 pm

        Yes, the plan to tip over Syria does go back quite a bit, and the USA has always wanted to take him out because he is a Russian ally. His refusal of the Qatari pipeline deal put the writing on the wall for him.

        Oddlots , September 9, 2015 at 10:10 pm

        I remember some U.S. Economic wonk talking about the way Syria seemed to sit out the GFC of 2008 as if it was somehow sinister that the "cheap seats" would get a – cough – pass.

        Wish I could remember who it was. Someone of Summers' stature but not him.

        At the time it struck me as utterly perverse: Let me get this straight… You are belittling this country because its government – maybe by accident: who cares? – has insulated its citizens from the worst of our epochal melt down? You do realize, given the country's level of development, that you are talking about whether the population can, you know, eat?

        Of course no-one called him on it.

        Cortes , September 10, 2015 at 7:33 am

        US "successes" analysed:

        http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176042/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_nothing_succeeds_like_failure/

        marknesop, September 10, 2015 at 1:00 pm

        I smell the earthy and pastoral bouquet of bovine excrement. Both USA Today and Die Zeit are agreed that ISIS/ISIL numbers only about 20,000-30,000 members. Yet representatives of the "USA-led Coalition" claim to have killed more than 15,000 of them, in around 5,500 air strikes – an air strike for every 6 people in the organization.

        Oh, sure, USA Today claims that recruiting has offset the losses, but seriously – a force of no more than 30,000 is prevailing against the Syrian Army and the USA-led Coalition, despite the fact that it has no air force of its own, and gaining like a brush fire? What kind of nancies is the USA-led coalition recruiting these days? Can you hear, ghost of Simon de Montfort, whose tiny force of French knights defeated a force more than 20 times their own number at Muret? It's no good – the professionalism of the Syrian army is well-established, and they were enjoying significant success against the rebels until the USA poked its warty nose in and said "I insist that I help you; no, no, you're not doing it right", and ISIS straight away began to gain ground. There is no reasonable explanation other than that Washington will countenance no other outcome than an ISIS victory, and is working energetically toward that goal.

      2. Moscow Exile , September 9, 2015 at 8:58 pm

        ООН: на Донбассе погибли почти 8 тыс. человек

        UN: in the Donbass almost 8 thousand people have died
        Almost 8 thousand people have lost their lives in Eastern Ukraine since mid-April 2014. This is stated in a report published by the UN Monitoring mission on human rights in the Ukraine, reports Ukraine National News.

        In the report, which covers the period from 16 may to 15 August 2015, it is noted that the number of civilian casualties has increased by more than half compared with the previous three months: 105 people were killed and 308 injured compared to 60 killed and 102 wounded between February 16 and may 15.

        So, since the conflict began in Eastern Ukraine in mid-April of 2014, at least 7,962 people, including members of the Ukrainian Armed forces, civilians and members of armed groups, have been killed and at least 17,811 wounded, the high Commissioner said, citing the latest available data.

        And a deathly silence about this in the Western media.

        Oddlots , September 9, 2015 at 10:13 pm

        According to S.F. Cohen German intelligence puts the figure at 50 k and that seems reasonable to me. But out of date.

        marknesop , September 9, 2015 at 10:32 pm

        I'm with him. The casualties in Syria are hyped considerably higher than the real figure, because the activists want to provoke a NATO intervention and a high kill count argues for that, while the aim in Ukraine is the exact opposite.

        et Al , September 10, 2015 at 4:21 am

        That's the Bosnian Gambit. Not long after the civil war in Bosnia started, Cherif Bassiouni picked 200,000 dead Bosnian civilians out of his ass and the Pork Pie News Networks ran with it like an olympic gold marathon runner.

        He of course hails from the De Paul university, one of the biggest sources serbophobic hate during the conflict. He's a Humanitarian War warrior of the first odor:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Cherif_Bassiouni

        Moscow Exile , September 10, 2015 at 12:16 am

        Yes, Cohen and German intelligence say that the 8K figure only correlates to morgue body counts; the total figure is much higher.

        Yukie news and Western Pork Pie News always implies these deaths are caused by the blood thirsty Evil One. Svidomite bloggers even post pictures of slaughtered by Yukie army artillery barrages Donbass civilians, stating that this is the work of Russia's bloody hands.

        Included in those Svidomite propaganda blogs are horrific images of disembowelled, limbless Ukrainian Donbass citizens, including women and babies and small children. The Svidomites even show pictures of those civilians murdered by Yukie air force cluster bombs at Lugansk, including pictures of that woman in the red dress who had her legs partly blasted off and who was still conscious and speaking shortly before she died, claiming that their deaths were caused by Putin.

        ... ... ...

        Польша: зудящее желание реституции
        Poland: A nagging desire for restitution

        Poland – the eternal enemy of the Ukraine. And it is unfortunate that the representatives of the Kiev regime are not capable of recognizing this fact that has been written and voiced by many historical and philosophical minds. So says the leader of the Ukraine Union of Left Forces,, Vasilii Volga, who is amused by the misunderstanding shown by high representatives of the Kiev regime as regards the real goals of the relationship between the Ukraine and the heirs of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

        Yeah, well … the perfidious Moskaly subhuman Orcs are the real enemy of the Ukraine, aren't they?

        marknesop , September 10, 2015 at 9:34 am

        I would be willing to bet that a map strikingly similar to the one pictured was swimming in and out of the consciousness of former NATO Secretary-General-in-waiting Radek Sikorsky when he blurted out that outrageous falsehood about hearing Putin propose the carving-up of Ukraine to Poland's leaders. He went for it because he knew English-speakers would immediately assume it was true, and did not count on Polish pushback from his rivals because, like most stuck-on-themselves diplomatic golden boys, it did not occur to him that he had any serious rivals among the dullards that make up his fellows in Poland's political milieu. I am more sure all the time that his bold declaration was a trial balloon to gauge Europe's reaction to Poland's repatriation of its former lands. He just decided to float it as a Russian plan in case Europe freaked out. He probably thought it was foolproof.

        [Sep 10, 2015] Let Putin be your fitness inspiration hero by Maeve Shearlaw

        "...And to finish of this conversation I would say one thing - 'articles' like this and bitchy comments about Putin say nothing about him but say a lot about people who write them . Criticise if you have a need for that but don't slide to the level of a bitchy gossiper. I really, really despise it. Especially in men. Have a good morning"
        "...So the Guardian is putting time and effort to publicize a somewhat pointless and tasteless anonymous account on Instagram, making a news out of it? Why? Would the Guardian be as eager to publicize some tasteless parody on Merkel or Obama?"
        Sep 10, 2015 | The Guardian

        DogsLivesMatter -> FelixFeline 10 Sep 2015 18:19

        Okay Felix. I was making a little joke about Dubya, he did try to walk through a locked door once and he did give Merkel a shoulder rub. Perhaps he was still a drunk then, I don't really know, just making light banter is all.

        Corrections -> EstherBell 10 Sep 2015 16:36

        Umm...he's swimming for exercise, not to win races. Not meant to be "efficient'.

        Corrections -> Stoletov 10 Sep 2015 16:25

        Leaked: Obama's Workout /Putin's Workout
        NEWSFLASH: They both work out regularly. Why are you such a hater?

        Also see:
        http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/jun/05/barack-obama-presidential-workout-warsaw-video

        Corrections -> Stoletov 10 Sep 2015 16:16

        Are you kidding? Putin was inspired by Michelle and Barack Obama pushing fitness, especially for children - check YouTube. I can't believe you're so ignorant!

        vr13vr -> George Kombucha 10 Sep 2015 14:53

        I'm in my US based office now and looking around, trying to find something made in the US. Oh, just found it! A pack of paper tissues. And that's about it.

        I'm quite serious. My Dell computer has Made in Mexico label, so do the monitors. I have couple of computer mice and keyboard, all labeled Dell and all made in China. A Lenovo laptop... well, we know it used to be the US company. Not a single thing that I'm wearing now is made in the US either. The computer chair is called Eurotek, but I doubt it is anywhere from a first world country. A Cruizer USB drive - from China. A floor fan with a heater - from China. There is white board on the wall, but I can't see the label. Pens, pencils and other office supply - I'm sure not from here either. A plastic cup - I need to look for a box. I'm sure Obama can ensure there are some US made things in his office but for me - none of that.


        Anna Joanna -> eastofthesun 10 Sep 2015 08:17

        Read the comments- bold, short, etc. what for? Talk about him as a politician, president , who cares , we all have different views , it's normal. Mythmaking? I personally like that he banned GMO from Russia and I like that he makes keeping fit cool


        tanyushka Olga Nicki Hancock 10 Sep 2015 07:06

        Russia has welcomed almost 1 million Ukranian refugees escaping Kiev's "anti-terrorist" operation, which is actually an ethnic cleansing operation... and it has just announced that it's ready to receive a substantial number of Syrian refugees... but of course you probably won't find the news in any of the Western propaganda media you are used to read or watch...


        Olga Nicki Hancock CrystalForce 10 Sep 2015 06:59

        Putin has always been supporting legitimate governments and not rebels and hannibals like US and their boot lickers have. Refugees crisis is a direct result of foreign policy of the west. We get what we fight for. Russia accepted millions of ukrannian refugees. Europe didn't take any.


        ATC2348 weciv01 10 Sep 2015 05:46

        I wish I was as fit as he looks ...I am exhausted just screaming "Hate" , "Hate", "Hate" at all those pictures the Guardian of the Truth are printing never mind all those silly stories about that Warmongering Monster who is obviously a threat to us and all we hold dear......and those poor two Russian "Toddlers" who dug their way out of a kindergarten to try and buy a Jag across the road....it's true ....I read yesterday on this very organ.


        todaywefight George Kombucha 10 Sep 2015 03:15

        Maybe he is not he may be genuinely likes Putin like many people on the west do, here is a guy who will NOT allow the US to "arm twisting" in accepting their malicious intent...Incidentally, who pays you or you just have not arguments therefore you just spout garbage


        todaywefight 10 Sep 2015 03:12

        Define propaganda:

        A newspaper that spouts this type of garbage and ignores what is happening in Ukraine vis a vis accusations by a crook Saakashvili against another crook, "Ytaz is our man" and his friendships with oligarchs one of which apparently was the recipient of 1.9 b dollars of " disappeared" IMF funds. The current governor of Odessa wanted in his own country for criminal acts is in the run to challenge Yatsenyuk for the Prime Ministership. But hey, Putin's exercises are more important than dealing with Poroshenko's, 3 plans to take back Donbass...and yes Crimea...one of which is full military intervention and not to stop until his glorious army reaches Moscow...mind you this poor imitation of walter mitty has understood the population might be a bit reticent about this plan.


        Anna Joanna FelixFeline 10 Sep 2015 02:09

        Send me the picture of your torso. A real one lol. And to finish of this conversation I would say one thing - 'articles' like this and bitchy comments about Putin say nothing about him but say a lot about people who write them . Criticise if you have a need for that but don't slide to the level of a bitchy gossiper. I really, really despise it. Especially in men. Have a good morning

        vr13vr 9 Sep 2015 22:47

        Since we don't like the picture of a leader showing some healthy life style, let's promote the picture of Obama eating hot dogs during campaign stop. Or better yet, Bill Clinton with his bacon cheeseburger and large order of fries.


        vr13vr 9 Sep 2015 22:39

        So the Guardian is putting time and effort to publicize a somewhat pointless and tasteless anonymous account on Instagram, making a news out of it? Why?

        Would the Guardian be as eager to publicize some tasteless parody on Merkel or Obama?

        [Sep 10, 2015] Russia complains of 'strange hysteria' over its presence in Syria by Shaun Walker in Moscow and Ian Black in Damascus

        "...I think Cameron & co. planned to use the refugee situation as a pretext for a humanitarian intervention against Assad and Putin put some boots on the ground to prevent that as last thing we'll risk at this stage is blowing up russians. Sorta what he did with his fleet parked at the Syrian coast when carriers were already in position to strike. Wrong or right, gotta admire the mans ability to read and preempt our moves time and time again."
        Sep 09, 2015 | The Guardian

        Moscow responds to concerns from US by saying its military-technical cooperation with Syria is nothing out of the ordinary

        gossy 10 Sep 2015 19:35

        There is no plan, no ideas, no apparent way out for Washington based neo-cons to get out of a trap of their own devising. "Regime change" in the middle east region instigated by them has been an unmitigated disaster! Arming, funding, and training the precursors of ISIS - the Jihadi proxies to bring down Assad with no plan of what to put in his place - has wrecked the middle east and triggered a growing regional conflict.

        The masses of refugees fleeing the region have poured into Europe and threaten to destabilise the EU and some national governments there.

        The key to solving the middle east's problems and the refugee crisis thus starts and finishes with the decisions taken in Washington. Either get rid of the neo cons or watch Europe go down as "collateral damage" too.


        TheCorporateClass -> quorkquork 10 Sep 2015 19:24

        And one of Assad's message to Christian America??

        In the interview, conducted before the ouster of Morsi, Assad said the Egyptian protest marked "the fall of what is known as political Islam."

        "Anywhere in the world, whoever uses religion for political aims, or to benefit some and not others, will fail," ASSAD said.

        http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d9c_1372962367


        TheCorporateClass -> Oldiebutgoodie 10 Sep 2015 19:22

        excellent thx for that.

        I remember that Clarke chat and other things he said.

        Did you ever notice how Gen Petraeus was suddenly rolled in a sex scandal? (not dissimilar to Gov Spitzer who was screaming about the financial markets corruption in Jan 2008)

        That's who Kilcullen worked closely with in Iraq first off, and who Bush flew to Iraq to speak to personally, leaving the rest of his war cabinet at the Camp David retreat and they didn't know where he went. That's when the surge was announced.
        The other surprising plus about GW Bush was in the last year, when Bush found out he had been snowed over the torture etc, Cheney and several others were totally shut out. I don't think they have spoken since.

        Meanwhile Elliot Abrams, PNAC neocon wizard is in Oz atm, when the Syria extension has been announced .... scummy lying psychopath prick that he is! (is that allowed to be said on the US version of TG? Or am I likely to be extradited? LOL )

        MikeBenn -> TheCorporateClass 10 Sep 2015 19:06

        Ukraine is a correction of what was stolen after WW1 and WW2, now the Russians want there stuff back. I say let them have it, if US was smart they would realize Russia could've been the best friend in the area they could've had. If they play their cards right it still maybe possible.

        TheCorporateClass Havingalavrov 10 Sep 2015

        I'm deeply offended. You imagine I am a complete idiot with no discernment or any ability to find credible information for myself. How could you. :(
        You are overpaid ... even if you're doing this for free.
        MikeBenn -> HollyOldDog 10 Sep 2015
        If the west would've let Russia finish what they were doing in Chechyna we wouldn't have to worry about them in the Middle East. What Corporate Class is talking about in Fallujah rings much truth, you know US marines had to stand by while these animals escaped from there. Them same people killed a lot of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wait until you see what they are doing in Bosnia.
        TheCorporateClass TheCorporateClass 10 Sep 2015
        PS and since Merkle and Holland took tea with Putin at the Kremlin, do tell what France and Germany have had to say about Ukraine or Putin ever since?

        Besides absolutely nothing.

        Guestt Bob adda 10 Sep 2015
        I know it's easy to conjure up a conspiracy, but tell me why it took seven years in Iraq, including the surge, to stabilize it? Our government at the time thought it would take much less time and they were wrong. Perhaps this administration is aware of this and are leery about a repeat. Perhaps this administration also does not want civilian casualties, or as few as possible.


        HollyOldDog thomas142 10 Sep 2015

        There are other influences operating on the Graudian now.


        psygone buttonbasher81 10 Sep 2015

        It's simply a good excuse for Russia to play its 'ISIS Threat' card and help Assad to keep on mass-murdering his own people.

        With only 16 percent of the country left in Assad's desparete hands and Russian weapons now pouring in, expect the genocide numbers to climb significantly.


        TheCorporateClass Luminaire 10 Sep 2015

        Don't blame Dinkylou for the US Military in Iraq being ordered NOT to count civilian casualties.

        Gosh after repeated requests for info about a few missing journalists and being told repeatedly, sorry "we know nuffink", when out came a Collateral Damage video from the evil Wikileaks showing exactly what happened to them .... it was only 3 years after the event.

        But no, in Luminaire's strange world, 500,000 was a lie - nothing else. There really were WMD all over Iraq too.
        I hope you are getting paid, because to do this for free, wow, what a loser choice that is. You're worth at least a buck a day!

        Oldiebutgoodie TheCorporateClass 10 Sep 2015


        You're right, thomas,

        it's Important to re-read past articles - refresh memory and perspective.
        Too much info to recall on how things developed, and what leaders said what.

        Important interview w/ Retired Gen. Clark about U.S & M.E. 2007
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KkNAQIuGZY

        TheCorporateClass Luminaire 10 Sep 2015

        Ever heard of Fallujah?

        TheCorporateClass eminijunkie 10 Sep 2015

        I can't [see] this becoming a major war,
        Said Eisenhower and Kennedy about Vietnam .... and said GW Bush about Afghanistan and Iraq ... when both the latter are pretty much ongoing, when Ukraine and Pakistan are still a basket cases? You're a glass half full kinda guy :)


        HollyOldDog Luminaire 10 Sep 2015

        There doesn't appear to be an ideal Chechen solution, there are Chechen fighters within Islamic State and in Ukraine, where there are fractions fighting for the East and others fighting for the west. I can only assume that the Chechens are basically a warrior race that likes to have battle holidays. In the past there were even a few thousand to be fighting in Kosova during the breakup of former Yugoslavia. At least when these 'holiday fighters' go home they can rest quietly from their exertions and live in greater peace.

        TheCorporateClass Havingalavrov 10 Sep 2015

        It's what comes back that's the reason we don't use them...
        Quid pro quo mean anything to you? Or is life always a one way street where you live? :)

        As for attacking ISIS , fine, I don't know why Assad and ISIS have been mostly avoiding each other for so long...benefits them both I suppose
        You don't think that given ISIS is in the East and the Assad govt forces in the West, and the rest of the rebels are in the middle might possibly have something to do with that?
        Not to mention the US group is flying a few sorties a day into the ISIS region, or so they "claim" at least could make a difference to fundamental and very basic military strategies of war?

        buttonbasher81 10 Sep 2015

        Not sure what the Russians are hoping to carve out with any action in Syria? Maybe prop up Assad, protect their military base or maybe even they're genuinely scared of what a total collapse of Assad will mean for the caucuses? Whatever reason it doesn't seem to be a large scale intervention, so I can't see it achieving much apart from adding another faction to an already heavily fractured war zone.

        TheCorporateClass 10 Sep 2015

        Here ya go, try this on on for size my dear american friends .....

        ........the point is the strategic interest of Russia...the only country extant that can reduce America to a pile of rubble in approximately 32 minutes from the "go" command?

        If Qatari gas gets to Europe then Americas grip on Europe becomes stronger.....and by deduction Russia becomes weaker

        If Qatari gas fails to get to Europe then Americas grip on Europe becomes weaker....and by deductuon Russia becomes stronger.

        Which may go some way to explaining why Russia is expanding the Latakia air head and moving military air traffic control in there?

        Syria and Iran do the ground fighting...Russia supplies the hardware, intelligence and training........there's been some American manufactured and IDF operated losses already according to some sources....which may explain why the IAF has been absent from Syrian skies for the lats week and Kerry is running around like a headless chicken?

        The big game hasn't even begun yet....

        Assad to remain in power as long as Russia needs him....

        Yes, no, or don't know?

        A_Cappella Luminaire 10 Sep 2015

        The U.S. "ally", Saudi Arabia is the biggest financier and provider of personnel for radical causes in the Mideast. And, the U.S. was the one that left Iraq as a failed state and managed to leave a completely destabilized situation.

        A_Cappella 10 Sep 2015

        First the European powers made a mess of things in the Mideast. Then the U.S got in there and mucked around, leaving a colossal mess and disastrous destabilization. Might as well let Russia back in there to complete the job.

        TheCorporateClass Bosula 10 Sep 2015

        How well did the world's most powerful military and air force (luftwaffe) do in the Battle of Britain?

        And who lost that war again?

        American Military Intelligence - a contradiction in terms.

        American Democracy - another contradiction in terms.

        Havingalavrov TheCorporateClass 10 Sep 2015

        Here you go...

        http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/weapons-of-isis.asp

        Oldiebutgoodie TheCorporateClass 10 Sep 2015

        I watched the clip you posted by the guardian of Assad's speech.
        It was only a clip
        The following is the whole speech w/English translation:

        Full Speech by Assad at Damascus on 1/5/13, about fighting ISIL
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGeGHVAjG5c

        TheCorporateClass Gazth Sonika 10 Sep 2015

        The West is indirectly responsible for that downed MH17 flight.
        Until the EU did it's underhanded deal, Nuland and co did her thing, and McCain et al rocked up to support the neo-nazi militias and murdering street thugs there was no Civil War in Ukraine either.
        nah, I must be imagining all that, apparently, it never even happened.

        TheCorporateClass Luminaire 10 Sep 2015

        they're laying the groundwork (wittingly or otherwise) for massive civilian casualties,
        As opposed to what - 4 years of massive civilian causalities?
        And before that Libyan massive civilian causalities?
        And before that Iraqi massive civilian causalities?
        And before that Pakistani massive civilian causalities?
        And before that Afghanistan massive civilian causalities?
        Gosh is that a pattern, or am I dreaming?

        ThomasPaine2 10 Sep 2015

        What a smart and canny operator that Mr Putin is.....

        For months we've been told how awful (our creation) ISIS is... barbaric, head-choppers, rapists and defilers. Mr Assad has been struggling to defeat them... the west apparently wants them defeated but strangely reluctant to engage them seriously.... and instead of being grateful that the Russians might help out, they are being rumbled. If you really despise ISIS, you should support Putin and Assad.

        I have thought for a long time now, that it was rather strange that a kaffir and zionist-hating ideological bunch of terrorists have done nothing against Israel. Why not? Why does it only attack Israel's enemies?

        TheCorporateClass Golelt 10 Sep 2015

        Which is the lesser of three Evils: Assad or ISIL or America?

        TheCorporateClass -> MARSHHAWK 10 Sep 2015

        Would you take in refugees that your nation are fighting against in their own country?
        You mean like the US, saudis, qatar, uae, Australia, UK, and Israel ...
        Israel has taken no displaced persons even on a temporary basis ... all that free open land in the west back and the negev going to waste.

        Oldiebutgoodie Gazth Sonika 10 Sep 2015 17:49

        Meant to post this link to the full interview mentioned bellow.
        This is probably been seen before, just re-visiting policies that led to this.
        Hilary Sec. of State and James Baker former Sec. State interview: 6/20/12
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpJWsryvVrc

        Dinkylou Luminaire 10 Sep 2015 17:46

        You know what gets me about these western fundamentalist sock-puppets...is they think they can rain bombs down on people for a whole year at least... & not make civilian casualties...Not only do they deny that they were killing civilians but they also lie about how many...they report a measly 100,000 but meanwhile half a million is more like it ...& that was only in 2003.

        Oldiebutgoodie Gazth Sonika 10 Sep 2015 17:44

        Mmmm= all this was in the making for many years. The reasons? I don't know . Oil, power, both? But we see the conditions in M.E., Libya and Syria...

        I feel i both parties are responsible. All those at the top involved in the decision making, as well as other leaders in Western countries who wanted a piece of the action.
        A must see, boring at times, but listen closely to what they're saying, and note how gleefully they speak of what they're planning.
        **Hilary and former Sec. of State Baker admit wanting to destabilize Syria.**
        This interview 6/20/12 on Charlie Rose Show PBS.
        Enlightening and disturbing.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF0JyZwqGoQ

        TheCorporateClass seancon 10 Sep 2015 17:42

        What is a "real" Syrian?

        Then, who are the 18 million, including the 6-8 million internally displaced, people currently in Syria? Floridians on vacation maybe?

        TheCorporateClass Havingalavrov 10 Sep 2015 17:38

        Yes, Assad is one powerful dude. Barrel bombs the most sophisticated munitions on the planet today. With all his weaponary, including his cache of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch and worlds greatest stockpile of chemical weapons ever amassed in human history, well he should win this civil war fighting peasants with peashooters in a few weeks.

        (oh shit, hang on, it started 4 years ago .. I must have missed something)

        So where did the rebels, al queda, al nusra, isis, and all the rest get 4 years worth of arms, munitions, cannon, sams, medical aid, food, beverages, bank transfers, containers full of USDs from?

        Couldn't be Santa Clause because they ain't Christians!

        TheCorporateClass davearnold 10 Sep 2015 17:29

        Assad is a natural ally of the west. We can do business with this guy.
        Sure the day after the State of Israel shuts up shop, the Federation of Palestine is created.

        TheCorporateClass psygone 10 Sep 2015 17:21

        And be assured it has nothing at all to do with the continued blocking of the Iranian gas pipeline to Europe through Syria, nor the more expansive as yet untapped (huge gas field) Qatari plan to run a gas pipeline through Iraq/Syria, and it's absolutely nothing to do with the US/NATO fascist coup in Ukraine to cut off the oil/gas channel from Russia to Europe to help their Saudi/Qatari allies and business partners in Halliburton et al ... nothing at all. All totally an irrelevant coincidence. because the light on the hill America, always stands with it's democratic pro-human rights partners for Peace. (oh hang about .... um)

        The Iranian gas comes from the South Pars Field and the Qatari gas from the North Dome both part of the same geological structure.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pars_/_North_Dome_Gas-Condensate_field

        btw, what's the pay like? I'm good at writing advertising copy too.

        DrKropotkin BigNowitzki 10 Sep 2015 17:15

        9/11 - inside job. Protocols , a forgery. MH17 - shot down by some miscreant on the Kiev side to get Western backing for their battle against the Donbas.

        What's your view on. Sinking of the Maine. JFK and MLK assignations. The Gulf of Tonkin incident. Dead Kuwaiti babies thrown from their incubators by Sadam's troops. Sadam's WMD, Qadaffi's Viagra powered raping soldiers, the Ghouta gas attack and the Maidan snipers? To name but a few of the things that people were called conspiracy theorists for questioning.

        TheCorporateClass psygone 10 Sep 2015 17:11

        Of course, aren't we silly, it's the United Nations fault.
        Never could it be the American public's responsibility who forked out, was it $3 trillion or more to completely destroy the nation of Iraq and 500,000 dead (who's counting those) and several million refugees over nothing?

        TheCorporateClass Canadianidol 10 Sep 2015 17:07

        Assad in Syria is a rank amateur!

        Grand total of war deaths: Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos (1954-1975) 2.5 to 3.5 Million. That's how to do it properly.

        Bosula swpz_ss01 10 Sep 2015 17:07

        Exactly. No discussion of this in our local paper in South Australia. We have one major state newspaper - Murdoch's The Adelaide Advertiser. It is an appalling right wing newspaper - only good to light the fire with.

        Murdoch owns something like 60 per cent of the press in Australia.

        Jean-François Guilbo 10 Sep 2015 17:06

        If the Russians were able to eradicate IS in 12 months, while the coalition has announced they would struggle to achieve it in a decade:
        The coalition would appear unefficient, weak and faces a credibility issue.
        Russia is not welcome in this race who should keep its snail pace.

        peterpierce24 10 Sep 2015 16:28

        If history really repeats itself (as some prominent historians claim) then closest analogue of the civil war in Syria in the past should be Spanish civil war in 1930s, in my opinion.

        Gazth Sonika Havingalavrov 10 Sep 2015 16:27

        Keep trolling, maybe some nitwit somewhere will listen to you.

        Gazth Sonika Gazth Sonika 10 Sep 2015 16:24

        Addendum: and why aren't you people calling out Turkey for their suspiciously porous border with Syria? Is it that hard to secure it? And how about the West blowing up the Isis-held oil? Hmm? Why do I keep seeing images of Isis cronies driving around in brand new Nissans? Who the hell is selling them that many cars? And why the hell do they still have paved roads?? What the hell is the West even bombing over there??

        mp66 TheCorporateClass 10 Sep 2015 16:15

        Maybe thats exactly the strategy russians and syrians are going for - a combination of closely coordinated ground force with tactical air support (primarily attack helicopters) will probably be much more efficient rolling back daesh than random picking off based on faulty or missing intelligence.

        Gazth Sonika 10 Sep 2015 16:13

        Listen you propaganda trolls: The West is indirectly responsible for that drowned Turkish boy, his brother and their mother. Why? Because they destabilized the region by removing Saddam and Gaddafi and have been trying to remove Assad to finish things off. Who do you think will rule Syria if Assad goes? The peaceful rebels? How did that go in Libya and Iraq? Hmm? Come on, tell me how it went! Hello? Anyone? Let me recall the last time I read about head-chopping, sadistic child rapists and floating dead children in the water. Hmmm, oh yeah that's right: never before.

        So shut the hell up with your anti-Assad and Putin nomsense, they're the only ones actually trying to fight Isis. Isn't it odd that the US, which loves sending in troops everywhere for any goddamned reason has pulled out of the one area they should have troops in?

        Heyyy, what's that smell? *sniff sniff* I smell bullshit.

        thomas142 psygone 10 Sep 2015 16:11

        A sad state of affairs indeed. Tens of thousands killed by Country's leader or millions killed by US bombs. What a choice !

        Erdogan Krimvitz geedeesee 10 Sep 2015 16:11

        I see that studying at a polytechnic really doesn't develop critical thinking facilities. Let me spell it out from 2002-2009 there was a clear policy to try and get rid of Assad if possible. Both of us agree on this. Since 2009 and the election of Obama there has been an attempt led by Obama to cosy up to the Iranian axis of which Assad is one part. Obama, other than making a couple of empty threats against Assad actually does the exact opposite of trying to topple him. Thanks to Obama and his bombing campaign against "ISIS", Assad has plenty of time to barrel bomb non-ISIS held territory and add to the civilian death toll in Syria. If Obama suddenly started bombing the kurds in Iraq and Syria under the argument that the PKK are a proscribed terrorist organisation would you say he was providing military support to Turkey or fighting a war against terror?

        I'm no fan of ISIS and think they should be destroyed alongside Assad but can see the hypocrisy of the situation. Hence also the reason that all the Western leaders including Cameron also pay lip service to toppling Assad.... As they say talk is cheap.

        juster 10 Sep 2015 16:10

        I think Cameron & co. planned to use the refugee situation as a pretext for a humanitarian intervention against Assad and Putin put some boots on the ground to prevent that as last thing we'll risk at this stage is blowing up russians. Sorta what he did with his fleet parked at the Syrian coast when carriers were already in position to strike. Wrong or right, gotta admire the mans ability to read and preempt our moves time and time again.

        Erdogan Krimvitz Bob adda 10 Sep 2015 15:46

        Really, what exactly is bombing ISIS if not actively supporting Assad? They are the major threat to his regime and thanks to the allies bombing campaign he can focus on consolidating his grip on other areas - basically bombing the sh*t out of the civilian population and the non-Islamist rebels. Now if the West has also been bombing Assad's positions or enforcing a no fly zone as they did against Saddam and Gaddafi that would be trying to topple him but as you say not a glimmer, a glimpse, a whisper, nothing, nadda.....

        lefthalfback2 Archie Archieson 10 Sep 2015 15:44

        The media are clearly slanting thier stories and the narrative to push for open borders and societal acceptance of massive immigration. There is a new story just posted here on which comments are not allowed. We can ask why-but we know. The opposition was massive and well-articulated.

        Hungary is going to erect a fence and patrol its borders to stop the inflow. The migrants are pushing hard to get thru Hungary to Austria and germany before that happens. It is not complicated.

        Germany took a unilateral act with continent-wide implications. It did the same thing in 1990, when it unilaterally recognized Croatia and Slovenia- two of its very best and most willing allies in WW2. All that did was trigger 10 years of war in the Balkans.

        Archie Archieson lefthalfback2 10 Sep 2015 15:37

        In any situation such as this you can find individual cases which illustrate any point you want to make. I am sure there is a whole menagerie of journalists and other operatives working hard to find individual stories which suit the narratives of their various paymasters. But the "truth" of the issue is in a narrative which explains the whole picture, however informative individual cases may be.

        Inclement 10 Sep 2015 15:25

        So Nato is increasingly worried about the Russians? Boots on the ground are he only means that will defeat ISIL. A pity the rest of the world won't send troops to do the job. Then again it takes balls and Nato haven't got any unless it is to bomb [ civilians ] from the air..

        Dimmus psygone 10 Sep 2015 15:15

        1) US with allies were always able to do what they want without the UN security council approval, only few of examples are Serbia and Iraq. => It is not anything happening in the UN security council which "prevents" US from doing something.
        2) US were not really prevented to act as US don't listen anyone, was and is acting. Just real goals and political words are very different things.

        Dimmus psygone 10 Sep 2015 15:14

        In the article you cite there is no answer. There are lies and pro-US propaganda only. Just listen what Ban Ki-moon says in the video and what the 'free and independent' journalists wrote he had said.

        TheCorporateClass 10 Sep 2015 15:09

        Even US DoD FOI documents published several months back showed US fully aware before 2010 that Al Queda in Iraq (later to become rebranded as ISIL/ISIS) were planning had intentions of a Iraq/Syria Caliphate STATE and everything that has since transpired was of no surprise at all. Just sayin' feel free to go looking for 'confirmation/facts' and make up your own mind.

        Meanwhile back in Jan 2013 in a Guardian report:
        The Syrian leader referred repeatedly to plots against his country and the role of al-Qaida, long-portrayed as the leading element in what began as a popular uprising in March 2011. Syria was not facing a revolution but a "gang of criminals", ASSAD said.
        "This war targets Syria using a handful of Syrians and many foreigners."
        Assad also thanked Russia, China and Iran for supporting Syria in the face of hostility from the US, Britain and France.
        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/06/syria-president-assad-public-speech


        On 8 April 2013, al-Baghdadi released an audio statement in which he announced that al-Nusra Front had been established, financed, and supported by the Islamic State of Iraq, and that the two groups were merging under the name "Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham"

        Useful for anyone keeping an historical timeline.

        JiminNH psygone 10 Sep 2015 15:01

        More psyops from psygo

        The Sunni majority armed forces, led by generals the majority of whom are Sunni, fight on behalf of their national government, the majority of the Cabinet being Sunni, against foreign jihadi invaders of the medieval Wahabi/Salafist sects who are funded, armed and trained by the western NATO governments, including Turkey, their despotic monarchical allies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar which are the font from which the Wahabi terrorist emanate, ably assisted by western ally Israel.

        It is well established that the "Arab Spring" was the tool of western secret services, part of the plan to topple (mostly secular) Arab governments spoken about by former NATO commander Gen Wesley Clark; Syria is one of the few remaining after we toppled Khadafy and dismembered Sudan, etc.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

        Unlike unproven claims of Russian intervention, we have proof of all western intervention, to include Serena Shim being eliminated, likely by Turkish secret services, for proving that NATO's Incirlik airbase in Turkey was used to ship western arms to ISIS in Kobani (in "humanitarian aid" trucks no less)

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2799924/mystery-american-journalist-killed-car-crash-turkey-just-days-claimed-intelligence-services-threatened-coverage-siege-kobane.html

        Turkey being the shipment point for the gas that the rebels used at Ghouta as a black flag operation to incite the US & NATO arforces to reprise their roles as the "Jihadi Air Force" ala Libya 2011-2012

        http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

        http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin
        and Israel's proven history of bombing government forces when they are fighting against al Nusra, al Qaeda and even ISIS, as in the Battle of Zabadani today.

        http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20150910/1026822667.html

        Israel makes no secret of its preference for al Qaeda to seize Syria, and are proving it with their airstrikes some 28 miles north Damascus and further still from the Israeli border.

        http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/06/04/israeli-officials-wed-prefer-al-qaeda-run-syria-to-an-assad-victory/

        So that al Qaeda and ISIS can make Syria look like Libya, on steroids

        But something tells me you know all that already, and are fine with it.

        TheCorporateClass 10 Sep 2015 14:44

        Side note: Australian Defense Minister today, after announcing Aus has agreed US request to expand air sorties into Syria against ISIS only targets, said the Govts expectation it will take another 2 to 3 years at least before ISIS could be "destroyed". PM Abbott later gave that short shift saying there was no timeline, it could take longer.

        Alternatively a few ago ex-Australian Col David Kilcullen, of Iraq counter insurgency fame, in print and media interviews said that a minor ground force of 5,000 US troops with air support could completely destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria in as little as a few WEEKS. But also said there was no interest in such a plan in Washington.

        You work it out.

        Dimmus Willothelurcher 10 Sep 2015 14:41

        " we realise Assad might have been better than Assad/IS/A Nusra/Al Quaidi chaos currently running amok in Syria."

        - it depends who "we" are. Many people realized from the beginning that support of islamists including terrorists by western countries was a bad idea. For politicians it does not matter what they think, they just do what US rulers say them to do and cover it in 'human rights' words, usually meaning the right for US to bomb humans.

        Willothelurcher 10 Sep 2015 14:30

        Russia has long been open about its support for Assad.

        It may be that a stable Syria under Assad, a stable Libya under Ghaddafi and a stable Iraq under Saddam Hussein are preferable to the chaos we see today?

        If finishing Assad is in the collective US/UK view 'the way to go' then for everyone's sake drone him and his family to a million pieces. He cannot be as hard to locate as a few British Jihadi in ISIS Syrian enclaves?

        Zap Assad and get the 'meltdown' finished.

        However I have a suspicion that right now we realise Assad might have been better than Assad/IS/A Nusra/Al Quaidi chaos currently running amok in Syria.

        glauben 10 Sep 2015 14:08

        The question is : what prevented the US from acting to stop the slaughter in Syria two years ago. Did George Bush castrate him? Or Libya? Now murderous Putin thinks it obligatory to get into the slaughter. But he hardly show the west how it is done. At leaast he does not hin k to ask what the US Chamber of Commerce thinks? No wonder crazy Netanyanu(not so crazy on this one but on everything else) would question The Iran deal. Every scenario seems more and more horrible.

        Chillskier psygone 10 Sep 2015 14:05

        Says malfunctioning natobot,
        The Sunny majority you are talking about is called al-quida according to your own operating manual

        duncandunnit Putzik 10 Sep 2015 13:47

        please behave, the usa is the biggest cocaine consumer in the world year 15k die in mexico each year due to drug distribution violence. The USA is a hypocrite.

        EcoNasty Had2Say 10 Sep 2015 13:43

        Actually we were happily selling weapons to the Suharto regime whilst he was bombing villagers in East Timor but that aside, I was merely using these as illustrations of how we have been happy to turn a blind eye to murderous bastards when it suits our geopolitical ambitions in the past so it is hypocrisy to claim that Assad should go on the grounds he bombed civilians (not sure the chemical wespons attacks have actually been proven after questionable newsfootage supposedly in the aftermath and uncertainty about which side was actually responsible)

        (Oh and I have reread my post several times and fail to see how you can infer I'm 'anti US' ...I'm anti us making an unbelievably stupid error by (a) bombing that will achieve sod all strategically (b) demanding regime change when we know Russia won't agree to that and when the obvious outcome of Assad going would be utter chaos with violent extremist Islamic groups gaining an even firmer grip.

        Jeff1000 Chris Hindle 10 Sep 2015 13:33

        Exactly. That's why Kerry et al are anti-Russian help. Because the unspoken agenda here is that America and its allies want ISIS to win.

        flight2safety Botswana61 10 Sep 2015 13:30

        Hussein was supported with western weapons whilst he was fighting a proxy war against his neighbours. Same with the nerve gas which he used against the Kurds, supplied by the west. Germany were selling mustard gas to Assad. FFS.

        swpz_ss01 MARSHHAWK 10 Sep 2015 13:22

        If Russia really puts boots on the ground - eradicated ISIS (something they are fully capable of) those refugees, wouldn't be refugees anymore. They are no longer under attack and can go home.

        If anything, a Russian military presence in force would resolve the entire problem.

        aLLaguz Botswana61 10 Sep 2015 13:22

        Whats true .. is that US created the guerrilla that latter was called Taliban ... and it was created to fight USSR back in the 70's ...
        Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was due to the 2 years war without soviet advances against that US-sponsored guerrila...
        US created that guerilla ...

        [Sep 10, 2015] Hillary Clinton admits private email server was a mistake

        Notable quotes:
        "... The woman is a hawk and a warmonger. In a sane world she would be ineligible on her voting record and likely foreign policy, not down to some technicality about her email address. ..."
        "... The fact that she posted almost identical language on Facebook as she used in the Muir interview certainly suggests that the "apology" was carefully written and likely tested in focus groups. ..."
        "... Read the dreadful facts (warning: lolcatz spoiler): http://www.bubblews.com/posts/hillary-email-the-horrid-facts ..."
        "... An FBI investigation whilst running to be your party's presidential nominee, let alone running for president in the real thing next year, is never a good look. ..."
        "... Agreed. I don't much care about this "classified or not" kerfuffle. I am much more concerned about the Nixonian scrubbing of the email server, when Clinton KNEW her work emails were subpoenaed by the House Benghazi committee. That says GUILTY in no uncertain terms. And I don't think we're ever going to receive an "apology" for those deletions. ..."
        "... More than a mistake I'm afraid. At best it is a career ending error of judgment. At worst a deliberate and cynical attempt to maintain personal control of data so none of it could come back to damage her presidential campaign. Anyway, she should be finished. ..."
        "... Her "We came, we saw, ..." laughter is inappropriate, especially in light of the turmoil resulting from a power vacuum which we are still witnessing today. But I don't know the context of why everyone in the room is in such a jovial mood. ..."
        "... She has no ability, but for deception, no intelligence, unless someone "advises" her beforehand, but she DOES have much experience at deception, and commitment only to herself. Certainly not presidential material. She should just drop and let Bernie take the lead. Of course, her dear friend Wasserman-Shultz, would not allow that to happen. ..."
        "... It becomes a matter of criminal conspiracy because Clinton did not just use a private email address. This was a conspiracy to avoid monitored email and a matter of legal public record, arranged as a conspiracy between Clinton's desire to maintain secret communications hidden from the rest of government and the person who did the work of setting up the server with knowledge of how it would be used and the network administrators who allowed it to exist in what should have been a secured network location, knowing how it would be used. So not the childish lie of "I did it but I didn't mean to", but the reality of a conspired plan to thwart record keeping, discussed and implemented with purposeful intent and with no question that it was to hide intended criminal activity. ..."
        "... Obviously her "apology" was dragged out of her and is completely insincere. This is the track record of H Clinton - arrogant; power hungry; untrustworthy; unscrupulous; unprincipled; 100% insincere; can't we do any better than this? ..."
        "... HRC is aiding her own demonization and I honestly think she's going to lose to whomever/whatever clown emerges from the Right Wing. ..."
        "... It's not about leaving an opening for her adversaries, it's is about destroying the public record of the Secretary of State. In the US, government communications belongs to the government and to the people. ..."
        "... Sanders is the better person but he will never get nominated. So it's either Hillary or some GOP nutbag. Easy vote. Not optimal, but still an easy choice. ..."
        "... the private server was not an error --it was a coup of genius-- since it allowed "the candidate" to hand over only the harmless emails after erasing(?) the damning ones (e.g., those with the quid-pro-quo negotiation of UKR-neonazi donations to the clinton foundation before the 2014 UKR coup d'etat). ..."
        "... Hillary has learnt a lot from the old Bill. Denial first step: Bill, I did not have sexual relation with that woman. And I need to go back to work for the American people. ..."
        "... Admission second step: Bill admitted in taped grand jury testimony on August 17, 1998, that he had had an "improper physical relationship" with Lewinsky. ..."
        "... Clinton consistently acts with arrogant denial when confronted with wrong-doing, and throughout her career there have been repeated situations, each marked by the same denial, arrogance. ..."
        "... She believes she'll be anointed and begrudgingly goes on the stump, showing no joy in meeting regular folks and getting huffy when reporters dare ask her questions. ..."
        "... The US hasn't been a democracy since day 1. Never meant to be. It was/is a carpetbagger's club. The only thing that's changed is the voters are dumber and the pizazz is crappier (to match the candidates). Why is this even discussed? ..."
        "... Then again we are talking about an oligarch aiming to retake the presidential office for her wing of the national aristocracy. What else would one expect. ..."
        "... I read where Carl Rove deleted 13,000 emails during the bush horror years. It pisses me off that she apologized for this non-issue because of political pressure. I'm voting for Bernie. ..."
        "... Mrs. Clinton has the most unappetizing combination of qualities to be met in many days' march: she is a tyrant and a bully when she can dare to be, and an ingratiating populist when that will serve. She will sometimes appear in the guise of a 'strong woman' and sometimes in the softer garb of a winsome and vulnerable female. She is entirely un-self-critical and quite devoid of reflective capacity, and has never found that any of her numerous misfortunes or embarrassments are her own fault, because the fault invariably lies with others. And, speaking of where things lie, she can in a close contest keep up with her husband for mendacity. Like him, she is not just a liar but a lie; a phony construct of shreds and patches and hysterical, self-pitying, demagogic improvisations." (p. 123) ..."
        "... Snowden on Clinton: If an ordinary worker at the State Department or the Central Intelligence Agency were sending details about the security of embassies, meetings with private government officials, foreign government officials and the statements were made over unclassified email systems, they would not only lose their jobs and lose their clearance, they would very likely face prosecution for it. (condensed quotation) ..."
        Sep 08, 2015 | The Guardian

        MasalBugduv -> MasalBugduv 9 Sep 2015 09:18

        Killary? Ha ha. Well she is a bit of a warmonger, isn't she?

        dawkinsbulldog 9 Sep 2015 08:50

        The woman is a hawk and a warmonger. In a sane world she would be ineligible on her voting record and likely foreign policy, not down to some technicality about her email address.

        It's like rejecting Pinochet as Chilean president because he once farted in mixed company.

        TamLin -> Oldiebutgoodie 9 Sep 2015 07:43

        Great post! For those who don't have time to watch the entire Jim & Hillary interview, the real fun begins just after the 24 minute mark, when Jim says of Iran, "...or they will be taken out", and Hillary responds by into an orgasm of laughter.

        NottaBot steveji 9 Sep 2015 07:23

        The fact that she posted almost identical language on Facebook as she used in the Muir interview certainly suggests that the "apology" was carefully written and likely tested in focus groups.

        ProgRock 9 Sep 2015 07:22

        Read the dreadful facts (warning: lolcatz spoiler): http://www.bubblews.com/posts/hillary-email-the-horrid-facts

        callaspodeaspode 9 Sep 2015 07:16

        An FBI investigation whilst running to be your party's presidential nominee, let alone running for president in the real thing next year, is never a good look.

        Added to this is that if anything is calculated to motivate the movement conservative base to its highest ever turnout, it's Hillary Rodham Clinton running for president.

        I'm mildly (only mildly) surprised there aren't more senior Democrats out there who can see what a liability she is.

        Although I'll say this, if Bernie Sanders gets the nomination, the Republican candidate is going to end up with double the money from billionaires and corporate lobbyists, the cash normally being shared between the two candidates from the Republicrat Party.

        Mind you, that will just prove Senator Sanders' point.

        NottaBot -> ninjamia 9 Sep 2015 07:09

        Agreed. I don't much care about this "classified or not" kerfuffle. I am much more concerned about the Nixonian scrubbing of the email server, when Clinton KNEW her work emails were subpoenaed by the House Benghazi committee. That says GUILTY in no uncertain terms. And I don't think we're ever going to receive an "apology" for those deletions.

        thesweeneytodd -> Mark Forrester 9 Sep 2015 06:44

        Some perspective please. Dubya caused total mayhem and catastrophe with his ill judged and utterly illegal war in Iraq. His lack of intervention in Katrina resulted in misery and death for many in New Orleans. The most unpopular US president perhaps of all time.

        Hilary ran a private email server that was perhaps ill judged.

        Like I say, some perspective please.

        Mark Forrester 9 Sep 2015 06:38

        More than a mistake I'm afraid. At best it is a career ending error of judgment. At worst a deliberate and cynical attempt to maintain personal control of data so none of it could come back to damage her presidential campaign. Anyway, she should be finished.

        Oldiebutgoodie -> Oldiebutgoodie 9 Sep 2015 03:54

        The interview about Diplomacy with Charlie Rose took place June 2012 - prior to the Benghazi fiasco.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpJWsryvVrc

        Both James Baker and Hillary basically admit to forcing Assad out and causing 'regime change' in Syria.

        Oldiebutgoodie -> makaio 9 Sep 2015 03:24

        Nov. 2009
        Hillary on Channel l3, NY's Charlie Rose show - Text of interview.
        Subject: Iran, Afghanistan
        http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2009/11/20091110130524xjsnommis0.1892206.html#axzz3lDt0HNg2

        Hillary & Jim Baker interviewed must see laughing about provoking war with Iran
        October 2012
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpJWsryvVrc

        makaio -> TamLin 9 Sep 2015 01:38

        Thanks for the previously unknown to me information.

        Her "admission" is sarcasm, which is preceded by a quick note that she was not involved and her visit was unrelated.

        Her "We came, we saw, ..." laughter is inappropriate, especially in light of the turmoil resulting from a power vacuum which we are still witnessing today. But I don't know the context of why everyone in the room is in such a jovial mood.

        It's hard to get facts on the unfortunate and disastrous consequences of Gaddafi's assassination. I don't directly blame the U.S., but my sense in that our government wrongly gave it a go-ahead.

        Timothy Everton -> Hin Leng 9 Sep 2015 01:32

        She has no ability, but for deception, no intelligence, unless someone "advises" her beforehand, but she DOES have much experience at deception, and commitment only to herself. Certainly not presidential material. She should just drop and let Bernie take the lead. Of course, her dear friend Wasserman-Shultz, would not allow that to happen.

        Rob Jenkins 9 Sep 2015 01:02

        American politics is depressing again for me. All realistic candidates seem to be a retrograde step.

        Clinton appears to be a moderate Republican from the 90s and has no feasible opponents whilst the GOP primary is a clown car filled with buffoons, crooks and religious zealots.

        Where do you go now America?

        Hin Leng 9 Sep 2015 00:58

        Clearly America has caught a new cultural-political disease called "The Tall Poppy Syndrome". Cut down anyone with ability, intelligence, experience , commitment and vision. Find any excuse for doing it - email server, age, gender, hairstyles, anything whatsoever. Meanwhile give some blatantly nonsensical candidates for its presidency plenty of oxygen and headline space. Is this how an empire expire ? How a hegemon self-destruct ? It is worrying to the extreme.


        vr13vr 9 Sep 2015 00:47

        "I'm sorry about that. I take responsibility."

        How is that taking responsibility after half a year of denial and fighting the allegations? Outside of the lingo of politicians, this doesn't even look like taking responsibility. A phrase, "I finally decided to admit the wrong doing," is much more appropriate at this point.

        rtb1961 -> Asok Smith 9 Sep 2015 00:43

        It becomes a matter of criminal conspiracy because Clinton did not just use a private email address. This was a conspiracy to avoid monitored email and a matter of legal public record, arranged as a conspiracy between Clinton's desire to maintain secret communications hidden from the rest of government and the person who did the work of setting up the server with knowledge of how it would be used and the network administrators who allowed it to exist in what should have been a secured network location, knowing how it would be used.

        So not the childish lie of "I did it but I didn't mean to", but the reality of a conspired plan to thwart record keeping, discussed and implemented with purposeful intent and with no question that it was to hide intended criminal activity.


        Merveil Meok 8 Sep 2015 23:36

        Obama and Hillary Clinton were bitter rivals until the end of the primaries in 2008. When Obama suggested that Mrs. Clinton be his Secretary of State, I thought it was a trap and a dangerous proposition for Hillary's future bids to the presidency, because foreign policy was a mess after George W. Bush and anything going wrong in the world would be blamed on her. It looks like the GOP didn't need to work that hard.

        p4451d 8 Sep 2015 23:08

        Obviously her "apology" was dragged out of her and is completely insincere. This is the track record of H Clinton - arrogant; power hungry; untrustworthy; unscrupulous; unprincipled; 100% insincere; can't we do any better than this?

        whereistheend 8 Sep 2015 23:00

        I'd never vote for a Republican, but if she didn't have Bill Clinton's last name, she'd be out of the picture, and maybe Elizabeth Warren, or Bill Bradley, or Howard Dean (or Bernie) would have the nomination- any of those names could beat any Republican, but HRC is aiding her own demonization and I honestly think she's going to lose to whomever/whatever clown emerges from the Right Wing. Yes, I think she's going to lose to a clown, and that's depressing, and it's because she has no charm to handle her mistakes, and no judgment to avoid some of them (the 'wiping' comment was sickeningly stupid), and she's sucking up all the coverage so no one else is getting the air they need; most of the discussion is over this BS instead of actual issues and that's not all on Fox News.

        Elias Vlanton -> seehowtheyrun 8 Sep 2015 22:47

        It's not about leaving an opening for her adversaries, it's is about destroying the public record of the Secretary of State. In the US, government communications belongs to the government and to the people. This is not about what is illegal or not, it is about whether officials can be held accountable for their actions. By destroying the public record, Hillary Clinton wanted to avoid that accountability. That's the real travesty.

        Kevin Reuter -> LostLake 8 Sep 2015 22:39

        The corporate-run media would like us all to believe that Bernie doesn't stand a chance. Since he has such strong policy suggestions and is demanding such attention, the only possible way to stop him is to flood people's minds with rhetoric such as "he can't win!"

        Hillary herself has now been championing policy ideas that Bernie started, such as repealing Citizens United, and $15 minimum wage!

        LostLake 8 Sep 2015 21:55

        Sanders is the better person but he will never get nominated. So it's either Hillary or some GOP nutbag. Easy vote. Not optimal, but still an easy choice.

        sashasmirnoff -> erpiu 8 Sep 2015 21:09

        As the "Guardian view" is unfailingly wrong on anything it opines on (proven track record), and it's fully endorsing this scum's candidacy, I can only conclude that she merits life in prison at the least, as opposed to high office. That no media organ is questioning her claim of the deleted emails as being purely "personal" speaks volumes as to the sorry state of journalism in this era, as you point out.
        Great post!


        erpiu 8 Sep 2015 20:28

        the private server was not an error --it was a coup of genius-- since it allowed "the candidate" to hand over only the harmless emails after erasing(?) the damning ones (e.g., those with the quid-pro-quo negotiation of UKR-neonazi donations to the clinton foundation before the 2014 UKR coup d'etat).

        yes, those erased emails that, let's see... the guardian never mentions, preferring to direct the suckers' attention to the leftover emails selected by billary for regular release. Great diversion job, guardian!

        the NSA has hillary's erased emails! When is the MSM going to request that the NSA gives its copies of the erased h.clinton emails to the feds for official archiving and future declassification?


        Confucion 8 Sep 2015 20:06

        In an interview with ABC News's David Muir which aired on Tuesday, the former secretary of state said: "That was a mistake. I'm sorry about that. I take responsibility."

        Hillary has learnt a lot from the old Bill. Denial first step: Bill, I did not have sexual relation with that woman. And I need to go back to work for the American people.

        Admission second step: Bill admitted in taped grand jury testimony on August 17, 1998, that he had had an "improper physical relationship" with Lewinsky.

        Hilary is the best Bill's disciple in his trickery, lies and contempt of people from whom they are seeking employment and benefit.


        FugitiveColors kenalexruss 8 Sep 2015 19:56

        That's wishful thinking. The Judge ordered a release of more emails every 30 days until they are all released. It won't be over in 3 months much less 3 weeks. They say til February. There are 55,000 emails and those are just ones she didn't delete. She deleted 35,000 emails that will dog her forever.

        When she finally gives up the ghost, I hope you will consider voting for the honest, scandal free candidate.
        Bernie Sanders.

        EarthyByNature -> Davinci Woohoo 8 Sep 2015 19:54

        It's about trust, stupid.
        Not being able to trust the potential President of the United States is a huge issue, for everyone on the planet.

        1) Clinton consistently acts with arrogant denial when confronted with wrong-doing, and throughout her career there have been repeated situations, each marked by the same denial, arrogance.

        2) Everyone's entitled to make mistakes in life and to beg forgiveness. When it happens repeatedly trust evaporates. I am no longer able to trust Hillary Clinton, no more no less that any other behaving the same way, Dem or Republican.

        allymaxy -> danceoutlook 8 Sep 2015 19:47

        Re: the Secretary of State position: Hillary didn't have to campaign for the job, she was appointed. Her problem is she's making the same mistakes running for CinC that she made in 2008.

        She believes she'll be anointed and begrudgingly goes on the stump, showing no joy in meeting regular folks and getting huffy when reporters dare ask her questions.

        Remember the recent rope line where she corralled the press in a noose of ropes to keep them away from her?

        She is a poor candidate - always was and she hasn't learned anything from losing. She repeats the same mistakes and only changes her policies when focus groups chime in.

        If Elizabeth Warren declared tomorrow, Hillary would be long forgotten and not missed.


        Joe Stanil -> JoeBursudge 8 Sep 2015 19:47

        The US hasn't been a democracy since day 1. Never meant to be. It was/is a carpetbagger's club. The only thing that's changed is the voters are dumber and the pizazz is crappier (to match the candidates). Why is this even discussed?

        Ziontrain 8 Sep 2015 19:24

        "Full responsibility" would actually mean admitting that she lacks the integrity to be president and withdrawing her candidacy.

        But we live in an era where there is no shame, so "full responsibility" is not more like "yeah, I did it. So what? Nothing changes".

        Then again we are talking about an oligarch aiming to retake the presidential office for her wing of the national aristocracy. What else would one expect.

        JoeBursudge -> NeverLie 8 Sep 2015 19:22

        A carpetbagger in a dress. Tony Blair and the Clintons - just goes to show it isn't country specific.

        Though he didn't know them, these are the people Kim Beazley Snr was talking about when he said [the Left] went from being represented by the cream of the working-class to being led by the dregs of the middle-class.

        Let's face it: the mere fact that Trump and Clinton are being discussed as a possible President is all the proof you need that America's democracy is stuck with a broken model. It's doubtful that the average Yank is up to fixing it.

        Not that we can talk, of course, our system is looking sicker by the day. That a fool like Abbott can commit our troops to war without Parliamentary discussion is a pretty clear signal that our 19th century democratic architecture, too, is in need of renovation, if not a complete re-build.

        jozzero -> gwpriester 8 Sep 2015 19:20

        I read where Carl Rove deleted 13,000 emails during the bush horror years. It pisses me off that she apologized for this non-issue because of political pressure. I'm voting for Bernie.

        OneTop 8 Sep 2015 18:42

        Christoper Hitchens summed up HRC as well as anyone.

        Mrs. Clinton has the most unappetizing combination of qualities to be met in many days' march: she is a tyrant and a bully when she can dare to be, and an ingratiating populist when that will serve. She will sometimes appear in the guise of a 'strong woman' and sometimes in the softer garb of a winsome and vulnerable female. She is entirely un-self-critical and quite devoid of reflective capacity, and has never found that any of her numerous misfortunes or embarrassments are her own fault, because the fault invariably lies with others. And, speaking of where things lie, she can in a close contest keep up with her husband for mendacity. Like him, she is not just a liar but a lie; a phony construct of shreds and patches and hysterical, self-pitying, demagogic improvisations." (p. 123)


        Berkeley2013 williamdonovan 8 Sep 2015 18:35

        Thank you; there are many more but this is a good start.

        As the story unravels, many of there earlier HC rationalizations will require scrutiny--things that seemed innocuous to the average person will require intense scrutiny.

        "I deleted e-mails that were personal."

        This sounds anodyne enough on first read. Who wants to read billet doux between B and H?

        Once people realize that she had no right to mix personal and professional and it certainly wasn't up to any one person what to delete, then even bigger troubles will start for the former SOS.

        Sooner or later some of the deleted e-mails will begin to circulate.

        At that point...


        David Egan 8 Sep 2015 18:15

        What gets me about this whole issue is the fact that she is still maintaining that "she did what was allowed" which is a bold faced lie!!! All she is doing right now is continuing to "circle her wagons" around this issue.... I'll bet right now she is trying to figure out how to bribe Pagliano to take the fall for her, stating that she knew nothing about what he did to maintain her ILLEGAL email account. They both knew it was ILLEGAL!!! Clinton and Pagliano should be brought up on charges, the sooner the better!!

        Her utter contempt for the investigation makes me laugh, she really thinks she did nothing wrong, and to say something as totally ignorant like "It was allowed by the State Dept. and the State Department CONFIRMED that" is beyond belief and borderlines the definition of psychosis. The State Department is actively investigating Shrillary and her accomplice Bryan Pagliano. I'll bet Pagliano goes to prison.....Any takers?


        CNNEvadingTheTopic 8 Sep 2015 18:11

        Stand With Bernie, compare, follow, spread the word, donate, help in campaign.
        https://berniesanders.com/ (Meet Bernie, Learn Issues/Events, Volunteer, Donate…)
        https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders
        https://twitter.com/berniesanders (#FeelTheBern)
        https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident (Become Part Of A Bernie Community)
        https://www.reddit.com/r/CodersForSanders (Help Create Bernie Websites & Apps)
        http://voteforbernie.org/ (How To Vote In Primaries For Bernie By State, Learn Deadlines)
        http://feelthebern.org/ (Bernie On The Issues)
        Bernie2016tv = https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_yPTb_MIzNt725QKVW_y9A
        http://www.bernie2016.tv / (Discuss Bernie & View Campaing Rallies)

        Bernie 2016, Feel The Bern!

        zyxzyxzyx 8 Sep 2015 18:05

        Snowden on Clinton:

        If an ordinary worker at the State Department or the Central Intelligence Agency were sending details about the security of embassies, meetings with private government officials, foreign government officials and the statements were made over unclassified email systems, they would not only lose their jobs and lose their clearance, they would very likely face prosecution for it. (condensed quotation)

        Clinton on Snowden:

        I think turning over a lot of that material-intentionally or unintentionally, because of the way it can be drained-gave all kinds of information, not only to big countries, but to networks and terrorist groups and the like.

        macktan894 8 Sep 2015 17:54

        Poor Hillary. If she had just said this in the beginning instead of all the bs about how what she did wasn't a prosecutable offense and then tried to defend her behavior by comparing herself to the Republicans, she might have nipped much of this in the bud. Instead, she stonewalls for months, re-enacts her husband's insistence that "he didn't have sex with that woman, Ms Lewinsky," and arrogantly believes that voters will accept that all this is a vast right wing conspiracy that no one gives a hoot about.

        Now she admits sorrow over her choice after practically being beat down about it. The main point is that people don't want to re-elect the same o same o. I for one am not looking forward to ranting on a forum about what happened to this promise, to that one. Oh, right. The Republicans. I don't want to hear another Dem try to persuade me that cutting measly social security and Medicare benefits are the way to save the system while at the same time the budget for defense, foreign aid, and mass govt surveillance go up so much that much of it is redacted.

        I've heard too much of this before and have no interest in hearing it again. Vote for Bernie Sanders who believes open and transparent govt is worth a little inconvenience.

        williamdonovan 8 Sep 2015 17:41

        Great now tell it to the Judge. Because as I have stated from the very start these acts were and are Illegal. And Hillary Clinton new it at time she the secret server set up or should have known it.

        Title 18, U.S. Code Section 641 - Public Money, Property or Records
        793 - Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information
        794 - Gathering of Delivering Defense Information to Aid Foreign Govt.
        798 - Disclosure of Classified Information
        952 - Diplomatic Codes and Correspondence
        1905 - Disclosure of Confidential Information
        2071 - Concealment, Removal, or Mutilation of Records

        Title 50, U.S. Code
        Section 783 (b) - Communication of Classified Information by Government Officer or Employee 783(d) - Penalties for Violation

        Title 42, U.S. Code
        Section 2272 -Violation of Specific Sections
        2273 - Violation of General Sections
        2274 - Communication of Restricted Data 2275 - Receipt of Restricted Data
        2276 - Tampering With Restricted Data 2277 - Disclosure of Restricted Data

        [Sep 09, 2015] What spawned Russia's 'troll army'? Experts on the red web share their views

        What is funny that Havingalavrov, and Alderbaran participated in the discussion ;-).
        Sep 08, 2015 | The Guardian

        Is the Guardian disproportionately targeted?

        Havingalavrov, 08 September 2015 12:23pm

        Judging by the amount of comments on articles about Russia I see on the Guardian website , it seems to me that it holds more importance over others in being targeted. Is this true ? If so why ?

        Which western news outlets do you believe the Kremlin is most interested in targeting with its campaign ?

        Yes, of course the Guardian is a prominent target. Mostly because others British papers are not so popular in Russia. Stories from the Guardian are translated on daily basis, and foreign correspondents are well known, especially among Moscow's liberal intelligentsia.

        Can we learn anything about Russian foreign policy?

        This comment has been chosen by Guardian staff because it contributes to the debate

        Alderbaran, 08 September 2015 7:07am

        A question: Do you think that by watching trends in coordinated comments, you can gain insights into what is sometimes a very hard to judge Russian foreign policy?

        You might understand what is trending right now, but you can't predict the next one. Russian foreign policy is notorious for sudden turns, and trolls would be told afterwards, not in advance.

        They are not spin-doctors, close to the Kremlin, Putin or his advisers. They are given very simple directives by people who have no real access to the Kremlin decision-makers.

        [Sep 08, 2015]Yanis Varoufakis How Europe Crushed4 Greece

        "...We all know that neoliberal economics is the driver of grotesque mal-distribution of wealth as a privileged nomenclature gorges on resources it has commandeered through insider dealing. The predations of this ideology over recent years mimic the violent reaction of Europe's other great Union – the Soviet Union – to any challenge to the privileges of the nomenclature."
        .
        "...As this story demonstrates yet again, the Troika never meant to negotiate in good faith with the Greek government, but simply imposed its own destructive austerity and privatization program on it. It's also clear that the EU per se has very little independent existence, being mainly administrative scaffolding for the German government to pursue its own essentially predatory policies directed at the subjugation of the rest of Europe."
        .
        "...Mr. Varoufakis also ignores the role that clientelism has played in making a bad situation even worse. He also ignores Greece's excessive debt and runaway fiscal spending. This has been going on since 1980. "
        .
        "...The divergence between Germany, on the one hand, and France and Italy, on the other, has been hinted at in various analyses. The existing Euro system does represent the rule of bankers, enforced by central bank control of the currency and pliable elected officials. As I observed over a long career representing debtors and creditors in big cases, it is useless to expect a realistic evaluation of the debtor's ability to repay, and a rational restructuring of debt, until the personnel responsible for making the ill-advised loans are no longer the decision-makers (i.e. fired, retired or escaped to greener pastures). The European banks, knowing that the Greeks could not repay, pressured their governments to bail them out in stages starting in 2010, and they have succeeded in getting out. The politicians who effected this bailout don't want to now tell the voters that they sold them out for the benefit of the banks; rather they excoriate the Greeks as deadbeats, and refuse to deal with anyone who speaks reality. So Greece, a small country, which can't repay the amount of debt outstanding, must wait for a new cast of European politicians before sound economic arrangements can be implemented. The current deal just kicks the can down the road pending such political change; it has no chance of success. Comme ca change, comme c'est la meme chose."
        .
        "...You are wrong. The bankers knew well that Greece's loans were unsustainable and yet, they kept lending, knowing that Merkel would cover the losses. However, what happened has happened. many were at fault. Countries cause wars and ethic cleansing and are not punished. Germany is a prime example. Why is Greece being held to a different standard? What happened to solidarity. Merkel is showing more solidarity to the migrants, inviting all of the Middle East to come to Europe. She should fly them directly to Germany. Why let them go through Greece first. Germany has a black eye, after her treatment of Greece and now wants to show her "softer side" Let her suffer the consequences then"
        .
        "...His arguments about how irrational the eurozone has been in not transforming its economic framework to a form more convenient to Greece, which represents only about 2% of the eurozone's GDP, is not compelling. It's like the argument of millions of illegal aliens from failed societies given citizenship who then turn around and agitate for changing the host society so that it better resembles the failed societies. The eurozone's economic framework is hardly "undemocratic" if its most vocal critics number so few among the whole."
        .
        "...Greece's rich and powerful, like the elites everywhere, "crushed Greece", because as countless man/woman in the street quotes in this paper indicate Greek business owners and professionals not on salary cheat and do not pay owed taxes. This criminal elite role modeling then infects the rest of the society as well. Obviously when not enough money goes into government treasuries this also causes deficits! But the rich and powerful, and their bought and paid for media, skillfully distract us from this reality by arranging the public discussion to just be about cuts to sympathetic government programs, cuts that are most often offered by the same criminal elites as the only solution to reducing deficits. Which means the same dysfunctional status quo is continued and so yet more and more loans and bailouts and debt forgiveness and screaming and yelling about being "victims" of it all go on - probably forever. "
        Sep 08, 2015 | The New York Times

        Since the beginning of Greece's financial crisis in 2010, two prime ministers have been swept from office after they were forced to adopt an unfeasible package of austerity measures in exchange for a bailout from the troika, as the eurozone authorities - the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund - are known. It pains me to watch the same fate befall a third prime minister, my friend and comrade Alexis Tsipras.

        In July, when Mr. Tspiras was forced to capitulate to the troika's latest "program," it spelled the end of our government. It also caused a split in our party, Syriza, between those who reluctantly agreed to implement the program and the rest of us (approximately 40 Syriza members of Parliament, out of a total of 149) who did not. The general election set for Sept. 20 is a result of this crisis.

        For my part, having resigned as finance minister over the troika's ruthless, humiliating imposition, I plan to sit this one out. I will not contest my parliamentary seat in a sad election that will not produce a Parliament capable of endorsing a realistic reform agenda for Greece.

        Nor can I support the adoption of a troika program that everyone knows is destined to fail. There was a clear consensus, shared not only by myself and Mr. Tsipras, but also by Germany's finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, and officials at the International Monetary Fund, that the new bailout deal was not viable.

        I will not, however, join those who think that exiting the eurozone, to bring about a major devaluation with a reintroduced drachma, is in itself a program for Greece's recovery.

        The cause of this continuing trouble for Greece lies in the eurozone's existential crisis. The pioneers of the single currency, of whom Mr. Schäuble is the last active member, were undecided whether the euro should be modeled on the international gold standard of the interwar period or on a sovereign currency, like the dollar.

        The gold standard relied on strict rules that were unenforceable during a crisis. In a severe downturn, these imposed the greatest burden on the worst-hit economies and thus made exit the only alternative to a humanitarian crisis. This is the reason that President Franklin D. Roosevelt took the United States off the gold standard in 1933, expanded the money supply and helped pull America out of the Depression.

        A sovereign currency, or state money, demands a different, more flexible set of responses based on political union, as the French government and others have recently proposed. The great questions that Europe must answer are: What kind of political union do we want? And are we prepared to act quickly enough to prevent the fragmentation of the eurozone?

        Europe's indecision is a result of a deep rift between Berlin and Paris. Berlin has traditionally backed a rules-based eurozone in which every member state is responsible for its own finances, including bank bailouts, with political union limited to a fiscal overlord's possessing veto power over national budgets that violate the rules. Paris and Rome, cognizant that their deficit position would condemn them to a slow-burning recession under such a rules-based political union, see things differently.

        It was in the context of this standoff that Mr. Schäuble felt that accepting an alternative plan for Greece's recovery, in place of the troika's program, would weaken Germany's hand vis-à-vis the French. Thus little Greece was crushed while the elephants tussled.

        We had such a plan. In March, I undertook the task of compiling an alternative program for Greece's recovery, with advice from the economist Jeffrey Sachs and input from a host of experts, including the former American Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and the former British chancellor of the Exchequer Norman Lamont.

        Our proposals began with a strategy for debt swaps to reduce the public debt's burden on state finances. This measure would allow for sustainable budget surpluses (net of debt and interest repayments) from 2018 onward. We set a target for those surpluses of no more than 2 percent of national income (the troika program's target is 3.5 percent). With less pressure on the government to depress demand in the economy by cutting public spending, the Greek economy would attract investors of productive capital.

        As well as making this possible, the debt swaps would also render Greek sovereign debt eligible for the European Central Bank's quantitative easing program. This in turn would speed up Greece's return to the money markets, reducing its reliance on loans from European institutions.

        To generate homegrown investment, we proposed a development bank to take over public assets from the state, collateralize them and so create an income stream for reinvestment. We also planned to set up a "bad bank" that would use financial engineering techniques to clear the Greek commercial banks' mountain of nonperforming loans. A series of other reforms, including a new, independent I.R.S.-like tax authority, rounded out our proposals.

        The document was ready on May 11. Although I presented it to key European finance ministers, including Mr. Schäuble, as the Greek Finance Ministry's official plan, it never received the endorsement of our own prime minister. The reason? Because the troika made it abundantly clear to Mr. Tsipras that any such document would be seen as a hostile attempt to backtrack from the conditions of the troika's existing program. That program, of course, had made no provision for debt restructuring and therefore demanded cripplingly high budget surpluses.

        The fact that few people ever got to hear about the Greek plan is a testament to the eurozone's deep failures of governance. If the "Athens Spring" - when the Greek people courageously rejected the catastrophic austerity conditions of the previous bailouts - has one lesson to teach, it is that Greece will recover only when the European Union makes the transition from "We the states" to "We the European people."

        Across the Continent, people are fed up with a monetary union that is inefficient because it is so profoundly undemocratic. This is why the battle for rescuing Greece has now turned into a battle for Europe's integrity, soul, rationality and democracy. I plan to concentrate on helping set up a Pan-European political movement, inspired by the Athens Spring, that will work toward Europe's democratization.

        Naturally, this will take years to bear fruit - years that Greece cannot afford. In the meantime, I shall continue to promote our plan for Greece's recovery as a true, viable alternative to the troika's impossible program.

        Yanis Varoufakis, a former finance minister of Greece, is an outgoing member of Parliament for Syriza and a professor of economics at the University of Athens.


        DaveG, Manhattan

        Greece lied about its financial situation when it joined the Euro zone (with Goldman-Sachs' help.)

        Beyond that, with no true political union in Europe, the Euro was a bad idea from the start. (Good for Germany, because it gets to sell its goods abroad more cheaply than if it still used the Mark, but bad for monetary and fiscal policy in less developed countries.)

        Now with Greek insolvency, the EU has presented an aid plan, which Greece can never pay back. Austerity with a 25% unemployment rate is no solution. (In 1933, the US had a 25% unemployment rate because of Republican laissez-faire austerity policies. "New Deal" spending would reduce the rate to 15% by at least 1940; unfortunately, WWII did the rest.)

        Though the Germans got a "haircut" in 1953 on their accumulated debt (as they had in the 20's/30's), they were not interested in any similar haircut for Greece. (Marshall Plan money the Germans got after the war, and the lack of reparations they were required to pay to countries like Greece under the terms of the 1953 haircut are additional benefits they received then.)

        The Greeks and the Germans are no angels in any of this. Europe has just made an economic mess of itself.

        Grouch, Toronto

        As this story demonstrates yet again, the Troika never meant to negotiate in good faith with the Greek government, but simply imposed its own destructive austerity and privatization program on it.

        It's also clear that the EU per se has very little independent existence, being mainly administrative scaffolding for the German government to pursue its own essentially predatory policies directed at the subjugation of the rest of Europe.

        Yoda, DC

        Dr. Varoufakis makes the same argument in his book "THe Global Minotaur". And he is correct about the very important role that capital flows and crushing debt have played on peripheral nations of which Greece is a member. However, there are other very important factors he ignores (in both this article and the book). He ignores the role and importance of institutions for example. Greece is the only nation in Europe not to have a land registry. Greece's institutions reek of corruption, cronyism and "roufeti" (Greek for you scratch my back, I scratch yours - a subtle form of corruption). This very important fact goes unsaid.

        Mr. Varoufakis also ignores the role that clientelism has played in making a bad situation even worse. He also ignores Greece's excessive debt and runaway fiscal spending. This has been going on since 1980.

        Robert Jennings, Lithuania/Ireland

        A remarkable article.

        I am one of the Old believers in the European ideal of Economic and Social cohesion; I have worked in support of the Accession process for over twenty years and watched in dismay as an alien ideology of neoliberalism (Corporatist Capitalism) has reduced the European Ideal to "fumbling in a greasy till", W. B. Yeats on Ireland.

        I have also watched in dismay as the same ideology pre-empted Political decision-making in Ireland to force the Irish people to pay the private debts of headstrong and bankrupt Banks.

        We all know that neoliberal economics is the driver of grotesque mal-distribution of wealth as a privileged nomenclature gorges on resources it has commandeered through insider dealing. The predations of this ideology over recent years mimic the violent reaction of Europe's other great Union – the Soviet Union – to any challenge to the privileges of the nomenclature.

        The Greek people can be proud of their rejection (by referendum) of the European Union nomenclature –their action resonates with the Prague Spring rejection of the Soviet Union nomenclature way back in 1968. The Prague Spring was crushed by Soviet Tanks, the Greek Spring is being throttled by a combination of self-serving International Institutions designed to protect the Neoliberal ideology and the Corporate Capitalist nomenclature it serves.

        I hope that people like Yanis Varoufakis can remain a dominant influence in the resistance to the takeover of the European Union.

        serban, is a trusted commenter Miller Place

        Varoufakis proposals were perfectly reasonably, never mind all the spleen toward Greece displayed by many commenters. None are seem to realize that much of the bloated Greek bureaucracy has in fact been reduced, from where do they think the 25% unemployment comes from? His problem was political weakness, not lack of economic wisdom. Greece did and does not have the muscle to stand up to whatever conditions Germany wanted to impose. Mr. Schauble may honestly believe that Greece needs hard medicine but his approach was to impose a plan that will keep Greece down for many more years. Eventually much of the debt will have to be written of, the longer this goes on the bigger the amount that will not be repaid.

        Bill, Boston 8 hours ago

        The divergence between Germany, on the one hand, and France and Italy, on the other, has been hinted at in various analyses. The existing Euro system does represent the rule of bankers, enforced by central bank control of the currency and pliable elected officials. As I observed over a long career representing debtors and creditors in big cases, it is useless to expect a realistic evaluation of the debtor's ability to repay, and a rational restructuring of debt, until the personnel responsible for making the ill-advised loans are no longer the decision-makers (i.e. fired, retired or escaped to greener pastures). The European banks, knowing that the Greeks could not repay, pressured their governments to bail them out in stages starting in 2010, and they have succeeded in getting out. The politicians who effected this bailout don't want to now tell the voters that they sold them out for the benefit of the banks; rather they excoriate the Greeks as deadbeats, and refuse to deal with anyone who speaks reality. So Greece, a small country, which can't repay the amount of debt outstanding, must wait for a new cast of European politicians before sound economic arrangements can be implemented. The current deal just kicks the can down the road pending such political change; it has no chance of success. Comme ca change, comme c'est la meme chose.

        Uzi Nogueira, Florianopolis, SC 5 hours ago

        Mr. Varoufakis: How Europe Crushed Greece. Really?

        Greece's eurozone membership was the high point achieved by the political leadership. A tourism-based economy was sharing a common currency along with advanced-wealthy Germany, France, Italy and Netherlands. Everything was fine except for one small detail, the state of a backward economy.

        The ruling political elite continued to run the country as business as usual. Namely, an over generous welfare system, a corrupt public patronage system and a backward third world-like economy. The end result, an unsustainable public debt brought about by the 2009 financial crisis.

        Mr. Varoufakis -- and fellow politicians -- may still think (erroneously) eurozone membership is an inherited right fore being an European country. He misses, however, a fundamental point about economic integration.

        Membership of a rich man's club does not entitle Greece to benefit from other country's wealth and prosperity for free. Greeks have to earn it. This is the ultimate lesson from the current debt crisis.

        Richard Luettgen, New Jersey

        Mr. Varoufakis needs to re-examine his history. FDR didn't end the Great Depression in the U.S. by abandoning the gold standard. The Great Depression persisted despite all his efforts until the demands of WWII put everyone to work either producing or fighting.

        His arguments about how irrational the eurozone has been in not transforming its economic framework to a form more convenient to Greece, which represents only about 2% of the eurozone's GDP, is not compelling. It's like the argument of millions of illegal aliens from failed societies given citizenship who then turn around and agitate for changing the host society so that it better resembles the failed societies. The eurozone's economic framework is hardly "undemocratic" if its most vocal critics number so few among the whole.

        Some of the plans Mr. Varoufakis extols have merit, such as his "development bank". But it's Syriza that's been least open to reforming excessively protective labor practices, reforming tax collection and a still-overwhelming public sector. The truth is that they don't really want to change and want the debt to simply go away. The only way it can is by exit, repudiation for a period of debt service and a starting over on a basis that is strategically sustainable.

        And Mr. Varoufakis's desire for European "democratization" is merely self-interested rationalization for leveling ALL of Europe to avoid the consequences to peoples of excessive debt voluntarily and knowingly amassed.

        Winthrop Staples, is a trusted commenter Newbury Park, CA 6 hours ago

        Greece's rich and powerful, like the elites everywhere, "crushed Greece", because as countless man/woman in the street quotes in this paper indicate Greek business owners and professionals not on salary cheat and do not pay owed taxes. This criminal elite role modeling then infects the rest of the society as well. Obviously when not enough money goes into government treasuries this also causes deficits! But the rich and powerful, and their bought and paid for media, skillfully distract us from this reality by arranging the public discussion to just be about cuts to sympathetic government programs, cuts that are most often offered by the same criminal elites as the only solution to reducing deficits. Which means the same dysfunctional status quo is continued and so yet more and more loans and bailouts and debt forgiveness and screaming and yelling about being "victims" of it all go on - probably forever.

        bob karp, new Jersey 5 hours ago

        You are wrong. The bankers knew well that Greece's loans were unsustainable and yet, they kept lending, knowing that Merkel would cover the losses. However, what happened has happened. many were at fault. Countries cause wars and ethic cleansing and are not punished. Germany is a prime example. Why is Greece being held to a different standard? What happened to solidarity. Merkel is showing more solidarity to the migrants, inviting all of the Middle East to come to Europe. She should fly them directly to Germany. Why let them go through Greece first. Germany has a black eye, after her treatment of Greece and now wants to show her "softer side" Let her suffer the consequences then

        Prof.Jai Prakash Sharma, is a trusted commenter Jaipur, India.

        For now the Greek bailout deal with all its stringent austerity conditions attached to it might be okay as a one shot emergency move reluctantly accepted by the Greeks, but the lasting solution to the recurring crises in the Eurozone could only be an establishment of pan-European political union to sustain the existing monetary union with a broad common framework of fiscal policies applicable to the entire Union area, as rightly argued by the author.

        Michael Boyajian, Fishkill

        Thank you for your profound insight into the ham fisted idiocy of the so called troika.

        Dr. MB, Irvine, CA

        This gentleman seems to be oblivious of fundamental issue -- the duties one has when one talks of his/her rights! Where were the follow-ups on Greece's duties when she took all these debts? Were they (the Greeks) expecting these debts to be forgiven when the income from these "loans/debts" were crucial for the livelihoods of people in member countries of the EU? Simply stated, Greece, like any other party too often only talking of "rights" must realize that rights and duties are two sides of the same coin -- one does --or cannot exist without the other. Sooner Greece begins walking the walk, the better it is!

        mr. mxyzptlk, Woolwich South Jersey 8 hours ago

        Debt swaps? Selling off the commons to the "private sector" seems to me like a bad idea. Default on the debts to the private banksters, tell them you're writing down your debt at ten cents on the dollar and restart your own currency. Let the people of Greece run their own country and take it back from the banksters.

        LG Phillips, California 5 hours ago

        Not all of Greece's problems originate from EU membership, but the treatments imposed by the EU to remedy these ills are bizarre, irrational, and dangerous. For ex. while EU administrators insist Greece institute reforms to eliminate corruption and tax avoidance, they imposed govt spending constraints hindering Greek government's ability to implement the government programs/structures necessary to accomplish these reforms. While EU administrators insist Greece "deregulates" its mom and pop bakeries and other such markets, the truly labyrinthine thicket of boards, councils, ministries and agencies dictating Greece's nat'l government and economy is dizzying! There's the EU, the European Commission, the European Council, the European Central Bank, the European Stability Mechanism, & the IMF, which taken together lock-in and maximize inflexibility plus damagingly procyclical response when dealing with economic crises.

        And the euro itself is a ridiculously designed and constrained currency. To paraphrase a metaphor given by Warren Mosler, the self-imposed constraints the EU's instituted on its own currency are as nonsensical as putting a big bag over your head to race in the 100m. What US conservatives who think Greece's problems are a harbinger for the US don't get is that Greece status in the EU has reduced to a status akin to PA or OH but WORSE, with no sovereignty of its currency plus (unlike PA or OH) Greece is compelled to fund guarantees of its own private banking system!

        [Sep 08, 2015] Yatsenyuk fought in Chechnya - Russia's Investigative Committee

        UNIAN news

        Ukraine's current Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk used to fight in Chechnya against Russia, according to Aleksandr Bastrykin, head of Russia's Investigative Committee, reports Ukrainska Pravda citing the Russian newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

        The Russian investigators have questions to the Ukrainian citizens Dmytro Korchinsky, Ihor Mazur, Valery Bobrovich of the UNA-UNSO, the leader of the Right Sector Dmytro Yarosh, the leader of the Svoboda Party Oleh Tiahnybok and his brother Andriy in connection with the war in Chechnya in 1994-1995, according to Bastrykin's interview with Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Ukrainska Pravda reported.

        "The investigation also found that at the time, Arseniy Yatsenyuk fought by their side against the Russian military as part of Argo punitive group, and later - Viking, led by Oleksandr Muzychko," said Bastrykin.

        "According to the investigation, Yatsenyuk took part in at least two of the armed confrontations that took place on December 31, 1994, on the Minutka square in Grozny and in February, 1995, outside the city hospital 9 in Grozny; as well as in torture and executions of prisoners," he said.

        In addition, Bastrykin says that Yatsenyuk was conferred Honor of the Nation Dzhohar Dudayev's highest Honor of the Nation title in December, 1995.

        "In early 1995, Arseniy Yatsenyuk returned to Ukraine via Georgia with a group of journalists. Later, he was repeatedly seen at conventions and other events of UNA-UNSO in Kyiv," said Bastrykin.

        According to the official biography of Arseniy Yatsenyuk, in 1995, he had studied law at the University of Chernivtsi.

        UNIAN memo. UNA-UNSO) is a Ukrainian political organisation seen as far-right in Ukraine and abroad. Although the Ukrainian National Assembly (UNA) was the organisation's political wing, on 22 May 2014 it merged with Right Sector; the UNA-UNSO continues to operate independently.

        Oleksandr Muzychko was a Ukrainian political activist, a member of UNA-UNSO and coordinator of Right Sector in Western Ukraine. Russian prosecutors accused him of killing "at least 20" captive Russian soldiers during the First Chechen War. The inquiry by the Russian Investigative Committee began in March 2014, years after the alleged killings.

        ... ... ...

        [Sep 08, 2015]Yanis Varoufakis How Europe Crushed4 Greece

        "...We all know that neoliberal economics is the driver of grotesque mal-distribution of wealth as a privileged nomenclature gorges on resources it has commandeered through insider dealing. The predations of this ideology over recent years mimic the violent reaction of Europe's other great Union – the Soviet Union – to any challenge to the privileges of the nomenclature."
        .
        "...As this story demonstrates yet again, the Troika never meant to negotiate in good faith with the Greek government, but simply imposed its own destructive austerity and privatization program on it. It's also clear that the EU per se has very little independent existence, being mainly administrative scaffolding for the German government to pursue its own essentially predatory policies directed at the subjugation of the rest of Europe."
        .
        "...Mr. Varoufakis also ignores the role that clientelism has played in making a bad situation even worse. He also ignores Greece's excessive debt and runaway fiscal spending. This has been going on since 1980. "
        .
        "...The divergence between Germany, on the one hand, and France and Italy, on the other, has been hinted at in various analyses. The existing Euro system does represent the rule of bankers, enforced by central bank control of the currency and pliable elected officials. As I observed over a long career representing debtors and creditors in big cases, it is useless to expect a realistic evaluation of the debtor's ability to repay, and a rational restructuring of debt, until the personnel responsible for making the ill-advised loans are no longer the decision-makers (i.e. fired, retired or escaped to greener pastures). The European banks, knowing that the Greeks could not repay, pressured their governments to bail them out in stages starting in 2010, and they have succeeded in getting out. The politicians who effected this bailout don't want to now tell the voters that they sold them out for the benefit of the banks; rather they excoriate the Greeks as deadbeats, and refuse to deal with anyone who speaks reality. So Greece, a small country, which can't repay the amount of debt outstanding, must wait for a new cast of European politicians before sound economic arrangements can be implemented. The current deal just kicks the can down the road pending such political change; it has no chance of success. Comme ca change, comme c'est la meme chose."
        .
        "...You are wrong. The bankers knew well that Greece's loans were unsustainable and yet, they kept lending, knowing that Merkel would cover the losses. However, what happened has happened. many were at fault. Countries cause wars and ethic cleansing and are not punished. Germany is a prime example. Why is Greece being held to a different standard? What happened to solidarity. Merkel is showing more solidarity to the migrants, inviting all of the Middle East to come to Europe. She should fly them directly to Germany. Why let them go through Greece first. Germany has a black eye, after her treatment of Greece and now wants to show her "softer side" Let her suffer the consequences then"
        .
        "...His arguments about how irrational the eurozone has been in not transforming its economic framework to a form more convenient to Greece, which represents only about 2% of the eurozone's GDP, is not compelling. It's like the argument of millions of illegal aliens from failed societies given citizenship who then turn around and agitate for changing the host society so that it better resembles the failed societies. The eurozone's economic framework is hardly "undemocratic" if its most vocal critics number so few among the whole."
        .
        "...Greece's rich and powerful, like the elites everywhere, "crushed Greece", because as countless man/woman in the street quotes in this paper indicate Greek business owners and professionals not on salary cheat and do not pay owed taxes. This criminal elite role modeling then infects the rest of the society as well. Obviously when not enough money goes into government treasuries this also causes deficits! But the rich and powerful, and their bought and paid for media, skillfully distract us from this reality by arranging the public discussion to just be about cuts to sympathetic government programs, cuts that are most often offered by the same criminal elites as the only solution to reducing deficits. Which means the same dysfunctional status quo is continued and so yet more and more loans and bailouts and debt forgiveness and screaming and yelling about being "victims" of it all go on - probably forever. "
        Sep 08, 2015 | The New York Times

        Since the beginning of Greece's financial crisis in 2010, two prime ministers have been swept from office after they were forced to adopt an unfeasible package of austerity measures in exchange for a bailout from the troika, as the eurozone authorities - the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund - are known. It pains me to watch the same fate befall a third prime minister, my friend and comrade Alexis Tsipras.

        In July, when Mr. Tspiras was forced to capitulate to the troika's latest "program," it spelled the end of our government. It also caused a split in our party, Syriza, between those who reluctantly agreed to implement the program and the rest of us (approximately 40 Syriza members of Parliament, out of a total of 149) who did not. The general election set for Sept. 20 is a result of this crisis.

        For my part, having resigned as finance minister over the troika's ruthless, humiliating imposition, I plan to sit this one out. I will not contest my parliamentary seat in a sad election that will not produce a Parliament capable of endorsing a realistic reform agenda for Greece.

        Nor can I support the adoption of a troika program that everyone knows is destined to fail. There was a clear consensus, shared not only by myself and Mr. Tsipras, but also by Germany's finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, and officials at the International Monetary Fund, that the new bailout deal was not viable.

        I will not, however, join those who think that exiting the eurozone, to bring about a major devaluation with a reintroduced drachma, is in itself a program for Greece's recovery.

        The cause of this continuing trouble for Greece lies in the eurozone's existential crisis. The pioneers of the single currency, of whom Mr. Schäuble is the last active member, were undecided whether the euro should be modeled on the international gold standard of the interwar period or on a sovereign currency, like the dollar.

        The gold standard relied on strict rules that were unenforceable during a crisis. In a severe downturn, these imposed the greatest burden on the worst-hit economies and thus made exit the only alternative to a humanitarian crisis. This is the reason that President Franklin D. Roosevelt took the United States off the gold standard in 1933, expanded the money supply and helped pull America out of the Depression.

        A sovereign currency, or state money, demands a different, more flexible set of responses based on political union, as the French government and others have recently proposed. The great questions that Europe must answer are: What kind of political union do we want? And are we prepared to act quickly enough to prevent the fragmentation of the eurozone?

        Europe's indecision is a result of a deep rift between Berlin and Paris. Berlin has traditionally backed a rules-based eurozone in which every member state is responsible for its own finances, including bank bailouts, with political union limited to a fiscal overlord's possessing veto power over national budgets that violate the rules. Paris and Rome, cognizant that their deficit position would condemn them to a slow-burning recession under such a rules-based political union, see things differently.

        It was in the context of this standoff that Mr. Schäuble felt that accepting an alternative plan for Greece's recovery, in place of the troika's program, would weaken Germany's hand vis-à-vis the French. Thus little Greece was crushed while the elephants tussled.

        We had such a plan. In March, I undertook the task of compiling an alternative program for Greece's recovery, with advice from the economist Jeffrey Sachs and input from a host of experts, including the former American Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and the former British chancellor of the Exchequer Norman Lamont.

        Our proposals began with a strategy for debt swaps to reduce the public debt's burden on state finances. This measure would allow for sustainable budget surpluses (net of debt and interest repayments) from 2018 onward. We set a target for those surpluses of no more than 2 percent of national income (the troika program's target is 3.5 percent). With less pressure on the government to depress demand in the economy by cutting public spending, the Greek economy would attract investors of productive capital.

        As well as making this possible, the debt swaps would also render Greek sovereign debt eligible for the European Central Bank's quantitative easing program. This in turn would speed up Greece's return to the money markets, reducing its reliance on loans from European institutions.

        To generate homegrown investment, we proposed a development bank to take over public assets from the state, collateralize them and so create an income stream for reinvestment. We also planned to set up a "bad bank" that would use financial engineering techniques to clear the Greek commercial banks' mountain of nonperforming loans. A series of other reforms, including a new, independent I.R.S.-like tax authority, rounded out our proposals.

        The document was ready on May 11. Although I presented it to key European finance ministers, including Mr. Schäuble, as the Greek Finance Ministry's official plan, it never received the endorsement of our own prime minister. The reason? Because the troika made it abundantly clear to Mr. Tsipras that any such document would be seen as a hostile attempt to backtrack from the conditions of the troika's existing program. That program, of course, had made no provision for debt restructuring and therefore demanded cripplingly high budget surpluses.

        The fact that few people ever got to hear about the Greek plan is a testament to the eurozone's deep failures of governance. If the "Athens Spring" - when the Greek people courageously rejected the catastrophic austerity conditions of the previous bailouts - has one lesson to teach, it is that Greece will recover only when the European Union makes the transition from "We the states" to "We the European people."

        Across the Continent, people are fed up with a monetary union that is inefficient because it is so profoundly undemocratic. This is why the battle for rescuing Greece has now turned into a battle for Europe's integrity, soul, rationality and democracy. I plan to concentrate on helping set up a Pan-European political movement, inspired by the Athens Spring, that will work toward Europe's democratization.

        Naturally, this will take years to bear fruit - years that Greece cannot afford. In the meantime, I shall continue to promote our plan for Greece's recovery as a true, viable alternative to the troika's impossible program.

        Yanis Varoufakis, a former finance minister of Greece, is an outgoing member of Parliament for Syriza and a professor of economics at the University of Athens.


        DaveG, Manhattan

        Greece lied about its financial situation when it joined the Euro zone (with Goldman-Sachs' help.)

        Beyond that, with no true political union in Europe, the Euro was a bad idea from the start. (Good for Germany, because it gets to sell its goods abroad more cheaply than if it still used the Mark, but bad for monetary and fiscal policy in less developed countries.)

        Now with Greek insolvency, the EU has presented an aid plan, which Greece can never pay back. Austerity with a 25% unemployment rate is no solution. (In 1933, the US had a 25% unemployment rate because of Republican laissez-faire austerity policies. "New Deal" spending would reduce the rate to 15% by at least 1940; unfortunately, WWII did the rest.)

        Though the Germans got a "haircut" in 1953 on their accumulated debt (as they had in the 20's/30's), they were not interested in any similar haircut for Greece. (Marshall Plan money the Germans got after the war, and the lack of reparations they were required to pay to countries like Greece under the terms of the 1953 haircut are additional benefits they received then.)

        The Greeks and the Germans are no angels in any of this. Europe has just made an economic mess of itself.

        Grouch, Toronto

        As this story demonstrates yet again, the Troika never meant to negotiate in good faith with the Greek government, but simply imposed its own destructive austerity and privatization program on it.

        It's also clear that the EU per se has very little independent existence, being mainly administrative scaffolding for the German government to pursue its own essentially predatory policies directed at the subjugation of the rest of Europe.

        Yoda, DC

        Dr. Varoufakis makes the same argument in his book "THe Global Minotaur". And he is correct about the very important role that capital flows and crushing debt have played on peripheral nations of which Greece is a member. However, there are other very important factors he ignores (in both this article and the book). He ignores the role and importance of institutions for example. Greece is the only nation in Europe not to have a land registry. Greece's institutions reek of corruption, cronyism and "roufeti" (Greek for you scratch my back, I scratch yours - a subtle form of corruption). This very important fact goes unsaid.

        Mr. Varoufakis also ignores the role that clientelism has played in making a bad situation even worse. He also ignores Greece's excessive debt and runaway fiscal spending. This has been going on since 1980.

        Robert Jennings, Lithuania/Ireland

        A remarkable article.

        I am one of the Old believers in the European ideal of Economic and Social cohesion; I have worked in support of the Accession process for over twenty years and watched in dismay as an alien ideology of neoliberalism (Corporatist Capitalism) has reduced the European Ideal to "fumbling in a greasy till", W. B. Yeats on Ireland.

        I have also watched in dismay as the same ideology pre-empted Political decision-making in Ireland to force the Irish people to pay the private debts of headstrong and bankrupt Banks.

        We all know that neoliberal economics is the driver of grotesque mal-distribution of wealth as a privileged nomenclature gorges on resources it has commandeered through insider dealing. The predations of this ideology over recent years mimic the violent reaction of Europe's other great Union – the Soviet Union – to any challenge to the privileges of the nomenclature.

        The Greek people can be proud of their rejection (by referendum) of the European Union nomenclature –their action resonates with the Prague Spring rejection of the Soviet Union nomenclature way back in 1968. The Prague Spring was crushed by Soviet Tanks, the Greek Spring is being throttled by a combination of self-serving International Institutions designed to protect the Neoliberal ideology and the Corporate Capitalist nomenclature it serves.

        I hope that people like Yanis Varoufakis can remain a dominant influence in the resistance to the takeover of the European Union.

        serban, is a trusted commenter Miller Place

        Varoufakis proposals were perfectly reasonably, never mind all the spleen toward Greece displayed by many commenters. None are seem to realize that much of the bloated Greek bureaucracy has in fact been reduced, from where do they think the 25% unemployment comes from? His problem was political weakness, not lack of economic wisdom. Greece did and does not have the muscle to stand up to whatever conditions Germany wanted to impose. Mr. Schauble may honestly believe that Greece needs hard medicine but his approach was to impose a plan that will keep Greece down for many more years. Eventually much of the debt will have to be written of, the longer this goes on the bigger the amount that will not be repaid.

        Bill, Boston 8 hours ago

        The divergence between Germany, on the one hand, and France and Italy, on the other, has been hinted at in various analyses. The existing Euro system does represent the rule of bankers, enforced by central bank control of the currency and pliable elected officials. As I observed over a long career representing debtors and creditors in big cases, it is useless to expect a realistic evaluation of the debtor's ability to repay, and a rational restructuring of debt, until the personnel responsible for making the ill-advised loans are no longer the decision-makers (i.e. fired, retired or escaped to greener pastures). The European banks, knowing that the Greeks could not repay, pressured their governments to bail them out in stages starting in 2010, and they have succeeded in getting out. The politicians who effected this bailout don't want to now tell the voters that they sold them out for the benefit of the banks; rather they excoriate the Greeks as deadbeats, and refuse to deal with anyone who speaks reality. So Greece, a small country, which can't repay the amount of debt outstanding, must wait for a new cast of European politicians before sound economic arrangements can be implemented. The current deal just kicks the can down the road pending such political change; it has no chance of success. Comme ca change, comme c'est la meme chose.

        Uzi Nogueira, Florianopolis, SC 5 hours ago

        Mr. Varoufakis: How Europe Crushed Greece. Really?

        Greece's eurozone membership was the high point achieved by the political leadership. A tourism-based economy was sharing a common currency along with advanced-wealthy Germany, France, Italy and Netherlands. Everything was fine except for one small detail, the state of a backward economy.

        The ruling political elite continued to run the country as business as usual. Namely, an over generous welfare system, a corrupt public patronage system and a backward third world-like economy. The end result, an unsustainable public debt brought about by the 2009 financial crisis.

        Mr. Varoufakis -- and fellow politicians -- may still think (erroneously) eurozone membership is an inherited right fore being an European country. He misses, however, a fundamental point about economic integration.

        Membership of a rich man's club does not entitle Greece to benefit from other country's wealth and prosperity for free. Greeks have to earn it. This is the ultimate lesson from the current debt crisis.

        Richard Luettgen, New Jersey

        Mr. Varoufakis needs to re-examine his history. FDR didn't end the Great Depression in the U.S. by abandoning the gold standard. The Great Depression persisted despite all his efforts until the demands of WWII put everyone to work either producing or fighting.

        His arguments about how irrational the eurozone has been in not transforming its economic framework to a form more convenient to Greece, which represents only about 2% of the eurozone's GDP, is not compelling. It's like the argument of millions of illegal aliens from failed societies given citizenship who then turn around and agitate for changing the host society so that it better resembles the failed societies. The eurozone's economic framework is hardly "undemocratic" if its most vocal critics number so few among the whole.

        Some of the plans Mr. Varoufakis extols have merit, such as his "development bank". But it's Syriza that's been least open to reforming excessively protective labor practices, reforming tax collection and a still-overwhelming public sector. The truth is that they don't really want to change and want the debt to simply go away. The only way it can is by exit, repudiation for a period of debt service and a starting over on a basis that is strategically sustainable.

        And Mr. Varoufakis's desire for European "democratization" is merely self-interested rationalization for leveling ALL of Europe to avoid the consequences to peoples of excessive debt voluntarily and knowingly amassed.

        Winthrop Staples, is a trusted commenter Newbury Park, CA 6 hours ago

        Greece's rich and powerful, like the elites everywhere, "crushed Greece", because as countless man/woman in the street quotes in this paper indicate Greek business owners and professionals not on salary cheat and do not pay owed taxes. This criminal elite role modeling then infects the rest of the society as well. Obviously when not enough money goes into government treasuries this also causes deficits! But the rich and powerful, and their bought and paid for media, skillfully distract us from this reality by arranging the public discussion to just be about cuts to sympathetic government programs, cuts that are most often offered by the same criminal elites as the only solution to reducing deficits. Which means the same dysfunctional status quo is continued and so yet more and more loans and bailouts and debt forgiveness and screaming and yelling about being "victims" of it all go on - probably forever.

        bob karp, new Jersey 5 hours ago

        You are wrong. The bankers knew well that Greece's loans were unsustainable and yet, they kept lending, knowing that Merkel would cover the losses. However, what happened has happened. many were at fault. Countries cause wars and ethic cleansing and are not punished. Germany is a prime example. Why is Greece being held to a different standard? What happened to solidarity. Merkel is showing more solidarity to the migrants, inviting all of the Middle East to come to Europe. She should fly them directly to Germany. Why let them go through Greece first. Germany has a black eye, after her treatment of Greece and now wants to show her "softer side" Let her suffer the consequences then

        Prof.Jai Prakash Sharma, is a trusted commenter Jaipur, India.

        For now the Greek bailout deal with all its stringent austerity conditions attached to it might be okay as a one shot emergency move reluctantly accepted by the Greeks, but the lasting solution to the recurring crises in the Eurozone could only be an establishment of pan-European political union to sustain the existing monetary union with a broad common framework of fiscal policies applicable to the entire Union area, as rightly argued by the author.

        Michael Boyajian, Fishkill

        Thank you for your profound insight into the ham fisted idiocy of the so called troika.

        Dr. MB, Irvine, CA

        This gentleman seems to be oblivious of fundamental issue -- the duties one has when one talks of his/her rights! Where were the follow-ups on Greece's duties when she took all these debts? Were they (the Greeks) expecting these debts to be forgiven when the income from these "loans/debts" were crucial for the livelihoods of people in member countries of the EU? Simply stated, Greece, like any other party too often only talking of "rights" must realize that rights and duties are two sides of the same coin -- one does --or cannot exist without the other. Sooner Greece begins walking the walk, the better it is!

        mr. mxyzptlk, Woolwich South Jersey 8 hours ago

        Debt swaps? Selling off the commons to the "private sector" seems to me like a bad idea. Default on the debts to the private banksters, tell them you're writing down your debt at ten cents on the dollar and restart your own currency. Let the people of Greece run their own country and take it back from the banksters.

        LG Phillips, California 5 hours ago

        Not all of Greece's problems originate from EU membership, but the treatments imposed by the EU to remedy these ills are bizarre, irrational, and dangerous. For ex. while EU administrators insist Greece institute reforms to eliminate corruption and tax avoidance, they imposed govt spending constraints hindering Greek government's ability to implement the government programs/structures necessary to accomplish these reforms. While EU administrators insist Greece "deregulates" its mom and pop bakeries and other such markets, the truly labyrinthine thicket of boards, councils, ministries and agencies dictating Greece's nat'l government and economy is dizzying! There's the EU, the European Commission, the European Council, the European Central Bank, the European Stability Mechanism, & the IMF, which taken together lock-in and maximize inflexibility plus damagingly procyclical response when dealing with economic crises.

        And the euro itself is a ridiculously designed and constrained currency. To paraphrase a metaphor given by Warren Mosler, the self-imposed constraints the EU's instituted on its own currency are as nonsensical as putting a big bag over your head to race in the 100m. What US conservatives who think Greece's problems are a harbinger for the US don't get is that Greece status in the EU has reduced to a status akin to PA or OH but WORSE, with no sovereignty of its currency plus (unlike PA or OH) Greece is compelled to fund guarantees of its own private banking system!

        [Sep 08, 2015] Yatsenyuk fought in Chechnya - Russia's Investigative Committee

        UNIAN news

        Ukraine's current Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk used to fight in Chechnya against Russia, according to Aleksandr Bastrykin, head of Russia's Investigative Committee, reports Ukrainska Pravda citing the Russian newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

        The Russian investigators have questions to the Ukrainian citizens Dmytro Korchinsky, Ihor Mazur, Valery Bobrovich of the UNA-UNSO, the leader of the Right Sector Dmytro Yarosh, the leader of the Svoboda Party Oleh Tiahnybok and his brother Andriy in connection with the war in Chechnya in 1994-1995, according to Bastrykin's interview with Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Ukrainska Pravda reported.

        "The investigation also found that at the time, Arseniy Yatsenyuk fought by their side against the Russian military as part of Argo punitive group, and later - Viking, led by Oleksandr Muzychko," said Bastrykin.

        "According to the investigation, Yatsenyuk took part in at least two of the armed confrontations that took place on December 31, 1994, on the Minutka square in Grozny and in February, 1995, outside the city hospital 9 in Grozny; as well as in torture and executions of prisoners," he said.

        In addition, Bastrykin says that Yatsenyuk was conferred Honor of the Nation Dzhohar Dudayev's highest Honor of the Nation title in December, 1995.

        "In early 1995, Arseniy Yatsenyuk returned to Ukraine via Georgia with a group of journalists. Later, he was repeatedly seen at conventions and other events of UNA-UNSO in Kyiv," said Bastrykin.

        According to the official biography of Arseniy Yatsenyuk, in 1995, he had studied law at the University of Chernivtsi.

        UNIAN memo. UNA-UNSO) is a Ukrainian political organisation seen as far-right in Ukraine and abroad. Although the Ukrainian National Assembly (UNA) was the organisation's political wing, on 22 May 2014 it merged with Right Sector; the UNA-UNSO continues to operate independently.

        Oleksandr Muzychko was a Ukrainian political activist, a member of UNA-UNSO and coordinator of Right Sector in Western Ukraine. Russian prosecutors accused him of killing "at least 20" captive Russian soldiers during the First Chechen War. The inquiry by the Russian Investigative Committee began in March 2014, years after the alleged killings.

        ... ... ...

        [Sep 04, 2015] What Happened to the Moral Center of American Capitalism?

        "...The fact that he believes that capitalism has or ever had a "moral center" (other than "greed is good!") is absolutely touching in its naivete."
        .
        "...The prototype and kickstarter for capitalist industry was sugar plantation slavery (15th century, Madeira, Canary Islands)"
        The latest from Robert Reich begins with:
        What Happened to the Moral Center of American Capitalism? : An economy depends fundamentally on public morality; some shared standards about what sorts of activities are impermissible because they so fundamentally violate trust that they threaten to undermine the social fabric.

        It is ironic that at a time the Republican presidential candidates and state legislators are furiously focusing on private morality – what people do in their bedrooms, contraception, abortion, gay marriage – we are experiencing a far more significant crisis in public morality.

        We've witnessed over the last two decades in the United States a steady decline in the willingness of people in leading positions in the private sector – on Wall Street and in large corporations especially – to maintain minimum standards of public morality. They seek the highest profits and highest compensation for themselves regardless of social consequences.

        CEOs of large corporations now earn 300 times the wages of average workers. Wall Street moguls take home hundreds of millions, or more. Both groups have rigged the economic game to their benefit while pushing downward the wages of average working people.

        By contrast, in the first three decades after World War II – partly because America went through that terrible war and, before that, the Great Depression – there was a sense in the business community and on Wall Street of some degree of accountability to the nation.

        It wasn't talked about as social responsibility, because it was assumed to be a bedrock of how people with great economic power should behave.

        CEOs did not earn more than 40 times what the typical worker earned. Profitable firms did not lay off large numbers of workers. Consumers, workers, and the community were all considered stakeholders of almost equal entitlement. The marginal income tax on the highest income earners in the 1950s was 91%. Even the effective rate, after all deductions and tax credits, was still well above 50%.

        Around about the late 1970s and early 1980s, all of this changed dramatically. ...[continue]...

        Peter K. said...
        Krugman speculated it started when sports fans began discussing star baseball players' salaries. CEOs went Galt and asked why not us also?

        Workers are just inputs like fixed capital nothing more.

        What's good for GE and Goldman Sachs - profits - is good for America.

        DeLong asks the more central question. When did business leaders decide that growth, aggregate demand and full employment wasn't in the interest of their companies?

        In the 1950 and 1960s they were in favor of a high-pressured economy. That changed.

        Maybe it was the 1970s and "take this job and shove it."

        Peter K. said in reply to Peter K....

        They also forget about the Great Depression as it faded from memory.

        And the Cold War ended. Would they risk Western nations like Greece and Spain going to the other side because of sky high unemployment? No they'd govern them with military dictatorships.

        Ben Groves said in reply to Peter K....

        US investment/capital markets were semi-nationalized from WWII into the mid-70's. The whole basis was to fight the Nazis then Soviets. The economic crisis of the mid-70's, detente and excessive growth beyond cohort changed things. For all the 79-89 hype, the cold war died with that global economic crisis of the 1970's as the Soviet Union never recovered and China bailed.

        Business view was that the pre-WWII order needed to be restored. I think many people mistake the 50's and 60's as "normal", but they weren't. They were a time of war.

        Peter K. said in reply to Ben Groves...

        "War is the health of the state."

        We need an invasion from aliens.

        mulp said in reply to Ben Groves...

        Well, given the US has been at war since Reagan, elected because Carter would not go to war, how do you explain the punishment of workers to reverse the glorifying of workers from the 30s through even the 70s??

        It was not war that made the period before 1980 better over all, but the understanding that consumers could only spend as much as they were paid, and the problem for a corporation seeking to grow was making sure all the other corporations paid their employees well.

        By the end of the 80s, the iconic corporations of the 60s in terms of growth and loyalty to employees were criticized by free lunch MBAs for sticking with the old ways of treating employees as assets because they were being creamed by competitors who treated employees as liabilities. Eg, IBM was badly managed because it was not screwing its workers like Dell, HP was doomed because it was not firing all its US factory workers and contracting with Asia factories.

        You see, the MBAs were teaching that US workers are liabilities to replaced with the cheapest non US workers and the US consumer needs to be mined for ever more dollars of spending. And if consumers were not spending enough, the problem was they were taxed too much, so the calls for tax cuts to put money in consumer pockets so consumers could shop 24 by 7.

        Before 1980, everything was zero sum. If you want that $1000 car or boat, you had to first earn $1000, unless the manufacturer float you a loan with a threat of the repo man. That meant manufacturers needed every consumer to have a job. And every dollar paid to workers came back to them in consumer spending. And government was the same way - if you wanted better roads, you first had to agree to taxes to pay for it.

        After 1980, the idea economies were zero sum were thrown in the trash can. Want something, borrow and spend. Republicans would get government out of the way of the loan sharks. The loan sharks became bank owners and got rid of their enforcers, turning that over to Congress. Think of all the debt you can not shed but that government collects by force by the IRS and attaching your Social Security benefit.

        Once consumers could borrow and spend, workers are now purely liabilities. Get rid of them.

        In the real world, the ivory tower of business and economics is not able to be applied 100% or even 20%, but that even 20% of the connection between payroll and business sales is lost means an ever deepening pit of debt.

        Federal debt declined from before the end of WWII as a burden on GDP until Reagan and then it grew as if the US were waging a war larger than the Korean war or Vietnam war or WWI or maybe the Civil war.

        With the exception of the Clinton years which were not free of war, the budget has looked like a major war was going on.

        DrDick said...

        The fact that he believes that capitalism has or ever had a "moral center" (other than "greed is good!") is absolutely touching in its naivete.

        Paine said in reply to DrDick...

        Sweet bobby

        bakho said in reply to DrDick...

        Indeed. Greedy "Malefactors of Great Wealth" don't become wealthy by fair play. Nothing obtained by workers was ever got without a fight. Many bloody union battles over dead bodies won worker's rights. Once the unions lost power, workers went backward.

        mulp said in reply to bakho...

        And union leaders were all choir boys....

        raping their members like priests.

        As a liberal, I can play the game of name calling, character assassination, etc.

        How do you think it is that there are capitalists with loyal workers? Do you think there are capitalists who understand that economies are zero sum and that you can't have customers wealthier than employees are wealthy?

        I see lots of worker advocates who seem to think that every worker can be paid $1000 and only pay $500 for everything produced.

        Paine said in reply to mulp...

        Reading this is like chewing glue

        DrDick said in reply to Paine ...

        Which he was obviously huffing while writing it.

        Paine said in reply to Paine ...

        A system is not judged by its functioning components but by its malfunction components and the emergent failures of the system of components
        U know that

        Social production systems often grow and develop

        they re not zero sum !


        They produce a social surplus when functioning well

        That social surplus gets ex appropriated by an exploiter class in class systems

        The primary producers may add 1000 in value and receive only 600 of that value as compensation

        Suggesting radicals or at least some radicals want more then one hundred percent of the social product for the producers themselves is blatant Tom foolery

        bakho said in reply to mulp...

        "How do you think it is that there are capitalists with loyal workers?"

        The same way plantation owners had "loyal slaves". Loyalty lasted until Sherman's boys came and said, "You are free and if you show us where the silverware is hid, we'll split it with you."

        Loyalty only goes as far as the next better offer.

        anne said...

        Assuming there was at least a superficial acknowledgement of a "moral center of American capitalism," that surface acceptance was methodically worn away from the 1970s on. An early sign of the wearing away and the need to turn away from a moral center of capitalism came with this article in 1970:

        http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html

        September 13, 1970

        The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits
        By Milton Friedman - New York Times

        The carefully cultivated "Chicago Boys" not long after the article in the New York Times even gained a country to play with, Chile.

        anne said in reply to anne...

        http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/opinion/paul-krugman-the-mit-gang.html

        July 23, 2015

        If you don't know what I'm talking about, the term "Chicago boys" was originally used to refer to Latin American economists, trained at the University of Chicago, who took radical free-market ideology back to their home countries. The influence of these economists was part of a broader phenomenon: The 1970s and 1980s were an era of ascendancy for laissez-faire economic ideas and the Chicago school, which promoted those ideas....

        -- Paul Krugman

        Paine said in reply to anne...

        A charming little toad that Milty

        Swallow him and die of his poisons

        Paine said in reply to Paine ...

        Street value of milty's elixir: Oligopolistic Corporate free range capitalism

        Sandwichman said...

        1. The prototype and kickstarter for capitalist industry was sugar plantation slavery (15th century, Madeira, Canary Islands)

        2. Slavery was extolled by Southern slaveowner aristocratic "ethics and theology" as the pinnacle of bible-based Western Civilization.

        3. After defeat of the Confederacy, the neo-Confederate heirs of the old slaveowner plutocrats rewrote history to deny that the South fought the Civil War to retain slavery.

        4. The big lie of "Lost Cause" neo-Confederacy is the secret sauce of the Republican Party "Southern strategy" emulated by the "centrism" of the Democrats.

        5. What happened to the "moral center" of American Capitalism?

        6. Just what "moral center" are you referring to, Bob?

        Sandwichman said in reply to Sandwichman...

        John Cairnes, 1862:

        "in spite of elaborate attempts at mystification, the real cause of the war and the real issue at stake are every day forcing themselves into prominence with a distinctness which cannot be much longer evaded. Whatever we may think of the tendencies of democratic institutions, or of the influence of territorial magnitude on the American character, no theory framed upon these or upon any other incidents of the contending parties, however ingeniously constructed, will suffice to conceal the fact, that it is slavery which is at the bottom of this quarrel, and that on its determination it depends whether the Power which derives its strength from slavery shall be set up with enlarged resources and increased prestige, or be now once for all effectually broken."

        Ben Groves said in reply to Sandwichman...

        Don't forget about 1600's Amsterdam. That was the kickstarter for finance capitalism. William the Orange exported it to the Brits and the rest is history. The link between the 2 is indeed "bible based".

        Sandwichman said in reply to Sandwichman...

        James Henley Thornwell:

        "The parties in this conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders - they are atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, jacobins, on one side, and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground - Christianity and Atheism the combatants; and the progress of humanity at stake."

        Ben Groves said in reply to Sandwichman...

        Thornwell was a Rothschilds bagman fwiw. The whole basis of the planters was slaves. They couldn't make it without them. Without the production, Europe would be in shortage. Hurting the Rothschilds business interests.

        That is why quotes never workout. You create a dialect when it is all personal motive. Not all socialists were against slavery. Many thought it was better than capitalist production cycles.

        anne said in reply to anne...

        Not all socialists were against slavery. Many thought it was better than capitalist production cycles.

        [ I am waiting for the documentation of the many socialists who thought.... ]

        Paine said in reply to anne...

        Socialist is a very eclectic catch all term Anne

        Some socialist by self description probably believed in human sacrifice

        Oh ya that was us Stalinists

        anne said in reply to Paine ...

        http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2015/09/what-happened-to-the-moral-center-of-american-capitalism.html#comment-6a00d83451b33869e201b7c7c9199f970b

        September 4, 2015

        Ben Groves said in reply to Sandwichman...

        Not all socialists were against slavery. Many thought it was better than capitalist production cycles.

        [ I know precisely what I have been asking for. I am still waiting for the documentation of the many socialists who thought.... ]

        anne said in reply to Ben Groves...

        Thornwell was a ----------- bagman for what it's worth. The whole basis of the planters was slaves. They couldn't make it without them. Without the production, Europe would be in shortage. Hurting the ----------- business interests.

        [ Again, where is the documentation, the "----------- bagman" documentation, to what I consider simply calumny? ]

        Sandwichman said in reply to Ben Groves...

        Wikipedia:

        James Henley Thornwell (December 9, 1812 – August 1, 1862) was an American Presbyterian preacher and religious writer from the U.S. state of South Carolina. During the American Civil War, Thornwell supported the Confederacy and preached a doctrine that claimed slavery to be morally right and justified by the tenets of Christianity.

        "Thornwell, in the words of Professor Eugene Genovese, attempted "to envision a Christian society that could reconcile-so far as possible in a world haunted by evil-the conflicting claims of a social order with social justice and both with the freedom and dignity of the individual."

        Sandwichman said in reply to Sandwichman...

        The "cornerstone speech"

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

        "The ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old Constitution," says the Vice President of the Southern Confederacy [Alexander Stephens],

        "...were that the enslavement of the African race was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. Our new government is founded on exactly opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery-subordination to the superior race-is his natural and moral condition. This our Government is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. It is upon this our social fabric is firmly planted, and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of the full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.... This stone which was rejected by the first builders 'is become the chief stone of the corner' in our new edifice."

        Sandwichman said in reply to Sandwichman...

        Harry Jaffa: "this remarkable address conveys, more than any other contemporary document, not only the soul of the Confederacy but also of that Jim Crow South that arose from the ashes of the Confederacy."

        But not just the Jim Crow South, also the enduring white supremacy that permeates and dominates the American (incarceration nation) political discourse under code word dog whistles like "law and order" and orchestrated abhorrence of "political correctness".

        Where is the "moral center" of a cesspool whose "cornerstone" is hatred? Ask Dante.

        Mike Sparrow said in reply to Sandwichman...

        True, but accepting Jim Crow allowed the capitalists to expand down south slowly but surely. By 1950 the south was becoming industrialized and Jim Crow was under attack. Their agriculture had been automated. Jim Crow just delayed history.

        The problem I think people have with white neo-confeds is not so much "black slavery", but that white's were basically being starved and living standards reduced by the same system. The 1% of white's made it big with a global system at the expense of country. The anti-confeds are basically in a race war against what they see as foreign invasion. While the neo-confeds think they are protecting white "traditions" that really aren't really traditional to the white population as a whole. It is a good reason why socialists who patriot nationalism and organic unity can't unite with them. What they view as "white" is different. It leads toward political divide and conquer.

        Paine said in reply to Mike Sparrow...

        Jim crow delayed southern development

        Only if you abstract from the northern social formation that hatched and husbanded it. For 100 years
        Much as the slave system was husband by unionist northerns for 80 years

        Paine said in reply to Paine ...

        One could talk of a moral core to capitalists like thadeus Stevens
        But the north ended reconstruction not because of southern white resistance
        But because nothing more was need at that time and level of development
        Of the north and of the union

        Paine said in reply to Paine ...

        The Grant years were like a sign in the sun and a sign in the moon

        The sympathetic nations of Ameriika would remain in mortal struggle

        Race Injustice would rule to the horizon of time and space

        Paine said in reply to Paine ...

        We would and will live side by side and yet turn away from each other
        One side in torment the other in wrath

        Sandwichman said in reply to Sandwichman...

        I think it would be useful to cite the whole paragraph of Harry Jaffa's comment on the cornerstone speech. Who was Harry Jaffa, anyway? Some politically correct Marxist America hater? Jaffa was the guy who wrote Barry Goldwater's 1964 Republican nomination acceptance speech. You know, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." That's who.

        "This remarkable address conveys, more than any other contemporary document, not only the soul of the Confederacy but also of that Jim Crow South that arose from the ashes of the Confederacy. From the end of Reconstruction until after World War Il, the idea of racial inequality gripped the territory of the former Confederacy-and not only of the former Confederacy-more profoundly than it had done under slavery. Nor is its influence by any means at an end. Stephens's prophecy of the Confederacy's future resembles nothing so much as Hitler's prophecies of the Thousand-Year Reich. Nor are their theories very different. Stephens, unlike Hitler, spoke only of one particular race as inferior. But the principle ot racial domination, once established, can easily be extended to fit the convenience of the self-anointed master race or class, whoever it may be."

        Paine said in reply to Sandwichman...

        The battle between the declaration of independence and the constitution

        Sandwichman said in reply to Sandwichman...

        A MEASURING ROD FOR TEXT-BOOKS

        "The Committee respectfully urges all authorities charged with the selection of text-books for colleges, schools and all scholastic institutions to measure all books offered for adoption by this "Measuring Bod" and adopt none which do not accord full justice to the South. And all library authorities in the Southern States are requested to mark all books in their collections which do not come up to the same measure, on the title page thereof, "Unjust to the South."

        Reject a book that says the South fought to hold her slaves.

        Reject a book that speaks of the slaveholder of the South as cruel and unjust to his slaves.

        Sandwichman said in reply to Sandwichman...

        "How the Negroes Lived Under Slavery

        "Life among the Negroes of Virginia in slavery times was generally happy. The Negroes went about in a cheerful manner making a living for themselves and for those for whom they worked. They were not so unhappy as some Northerners thought they were, nor were they so happy as some Southerners claimed. The Negroes had their problems and their troubles. But they were not worried by the furious arguments going on between Northerners and Southerners over what should be done with them. In fact, they paid little attention to these arguments."

        What's a "coffle"? http://tinyurl.com/pkdxuvq

        anne said in reply to Sandwichman...

        Excellent series of posts.

        anne said in reply to Sandwichman...

        http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/books/review/the-half-has-never-been-told-by-edward-e-baptist.html

        October 4, 2014

        A Brutal Process
        By ERIC FONER

        THE HALF HAS NEVER BEEN TOLD
        Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism
        By Edward E. Baptist

        For residents of the world's pre-­eminent capitalist nation, American historians have produced remarkably few studies of capitalism in the United States. This situation was exacerbated in the 1970s, when economic history began to migrate from history to economics departments, where it too often became an exercise in scouring the past for numerical data to plug into computerized models of the economy. Recently, however, the history of American capitalism has emerged as a thriving cottage industry. This new work portrays capitalism not as a given (something that "came in the first ships," as the historian Carl Degler once wrote) but as a system that developed over time, has been constantly evolving and penetrates all aspects of society.

        Slavery plays a crucial role in this literature....


        Eric Foner is the DeWitt Clinton professor of history at Columbia.

        DrDick said in reply to Sandwichman...

        As Sydney Mintz showed, capitalism was founded on and made possible by slavery.

        Paine said in reply to DrDick...

        Marx sounds this theme powerfully in his chapter in Kap I
        on primitive or primal accumulation

        Sandwichman said in reply to Paine ...

        Sounded the theme... but then failed to develop it. Maybe it was too obvious in those days, soon after the Civil War and before the "measuring rod" of neo-Confederate censorship rewrote history.

        anne said in reply to Sandwichman...

        http://www.common-place.org/vol-10/no-03/baptist/

        April, 2010

        Toxic Debt, Liar Loans, and Securitized Human Beings
        The Panic of 1837 and the fate of slavery
        By Edward E. Baptist

        Early in the last decade, an Ayn Rand disciple named Alan Greenspan, who had been trusted with the U.S. government's powers for regulating the financial economy, stated his faith in the ability of that economy to maintain its own stability: "Recent regulatory reform coupled with innovative technologies has spawned rapidly growing markets for, among other products, asset-backed securities, collateral loan obligations, and credit derivative default swaps. These increasingly complex financial instruments have contributed, especially over the recent stressful period, to the development of a far more flexible, efficient, and hence resilient financial system than existed just a quarter-century ago."

        At the beginning of this decade, in the wake of the failure of Greenspan's faith to prevent the eclipse of one economic order of things, Robert Solow, another towering figure in the economics profession, reflected on Greenspan's credo and voiced his suspicion that the financialization of the U.S. economy over the last quarter-century created not "real," but fictitious wealth: "Flexible maybe, resilient apparently not, but how about efficient? How much do all those exotic securities, and the institutions that create them, buy them, and sell them, actually contribute to the 'real' economy that provides us with goods and services, now and for the future?" ...

        chris herbert said...

        I don't think Capitalism has much to do with morality. Capitalists employed 8 year olds and a workweek of 60 hours at subsistence pay was the norm. Even today, look what American capitalists do to their employees in the Far East! Adam Smith figured that capitalism improved people's lives unintentionally. Not much of a moral statement, that one. That's why capitalism fails so miserably if not tightly regulated. Democracy, on the other hand, has pretty well defined moral foundations; Liberty, rights, equality etc. etc. Social democracies, in my opinion, have a stronger tether to the moral side of Democracy than we currently have here in the U.S. Our moral tether was shredded by the political right turn accomplished in the 1980s under Reagan. A similar degradation began in the U.K. about the same time under Thatcher. Oddly enough, that 30 plus year period between the end of WWII and 1980, was a period of strong progressive policy making. Pro labor laws, steeply progressive tax rates, voting rights, sensible retirement funding and Medicare for the elderly were all products of that time period. Maybe it was all an anomaly. A brief period of egalitarian ideals that created a middle class and produced a manufacturing hegemon. No longer. We are a military hegemon now. We are no longer a Democracy either. Most people haven't realized it; most especially working men and women who freely give up their rights and protections by voting for Republicans. We have the government we deserve. We are the most entertained and least informed citizens of any of the rich countries.

        Paine said in reply to chris herbert...

        Exploitation has a morality

        All that exists must be torn apart
        Rest is sin
        The future is blocked only by the present

        Faust

        Peter K. said...

        Off topic but everyone's favorite subject: monetary policy.

        http://macromarketmusings blogspot.com/2015/09/revealed-preferences-fed-inflation.html

        http://tinyurl.com/povj6qe

        Friday, September 4, 2015

        Revealed Preferences: Fed Inflation Target Edition
        by David Beckworth

        Over the past six years the Fed's preferred measure of the price level, the core PCE, has averaged 1.5 percent growth. That is well below the Fed's explicit target of 2 percent inflation. Why this consistent shortfall?

        Some Fed officials are asking themselves this very question. A recent Wall Street Journal article reporting from the Jackson Hole Fed meetings led with this opening sentence: "central bankers aren't sure they understand how inflation works anymore". The article goes on to highlight some deep soul searching being done by central bankers in the Wyoming mountains. It is good to see our monetary authorities engaged in deep introspection, but let me give them a suggestion. Dust off your revealed preference theory textbooks and see what they can tell you about the low inflation of the past six years.

        To that end, and as a public service to you our beleaguered Fed officials, let me provide some material to consider. First consider your inflation forecasts that go into making the central tendency consensus forecasts at the FOMC meetings. The figures below show the evolution of these forecasts for the current year, one-year ahead, and two-years ahead. There is an interesting pattern that emerges from these figures as you expand the forecast horizon: 2 percent becomes a upper bound.

        ....

        So rest easy dear Fed official. No need for any existential angst. According to revealed preferences, you are still driving core inflation--which ignores supply shocks like changes in oil prices--it is just that you have a roughly 1%-2% core inflation target corridor rather than a 2% target. So even though you may not realize it, you are doing a bang up job keeping core inflation in your target corridor."

        Peter K. said in reply to Peter K....

        Our Neo-Classsical single equilibrium friend Don Kervack says the economy "naturally" healed itself despite unprecedented fiscal austerity, a trade deficit and strong dollar.

        I don't buy it. Economics isn't broken. Politics is.

        The center-left party for the job class should be calling up the Fed and asking "WTF?"

        SomeCallMeTim said...

        In the mid-1970s, at some universities economics was still called 'political economy', micro began with consideration of equity vs. efficiency, and the legitimacy of countercyclical social programs wasn't so widely questioned.

        Was there a loss of nerve, at least in the U.S., following the Vietnam War, the 1973 oil shock, and the following recession that led to a quantum shift in generosity of spirit / belief in children exceeding their parents material well-being (or as politicians would later put it, voting one's fears instead of one's hopes)?

        Second Best said...

        http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/21/the-plague-of-american-authoritarianism/

        The Plague of American Authoritarianism

        by Henry Giroux

        Authoritarianism in the American collective psyche and in what might be called traditional narratives of historical memory is always viewed as existing elsewhere.

        Viewed as an alien and demagogic political system, it is primarily understood as a mode of governance associated with the dictatorships in Latin America in the 1970s and, of course, in its most vile extremes, with Hitler's poisonous Nazi rule and Mussolini's fascist state in the 1930s and 1940s. These were and are societies that idealized war, soldiers, nationalism, militarism, political certainty, fallen warriors, racial cleansing, and a dogmatic allegiance to the homeland.[i] Education and the media were the propaganda tools of authoritarianism, merging fascist and religious symbols with the language of God, family, and country, and were integral to promoting servility and conformity among the populace. This script is well known to the American public and it has been played out in films, popular culture, museums, the mainstream media, and other cultural apparatuses. Historical memory that posits the threat of the return of an updated authoritarianism turns the potential threat of the return of authoritarianism into dead memory. Hence, any totalitarian mode of governance is now treated as a relic of a sealed past that bears no relationship to the present. The need to retell the story of totalitarianism becomes a frozen lesson in history rather than a narrative necessary to understanding the present

        Hannah Arendt, the great theorist of totalitarianism, believed that the protean elements of totalitarianism are still with us and that they would crystalize in different forms.[ii] Far from being a thing of the past, she believed that totalitarianism "heralds as a possible model for the future."[iii] Arendt was keenly aware that the culture of traditionalism, an ever present culture of fear, the corporatization of civil society, the capture of state power by corporations, the destruction of public goods, the corporate control of the media, the rise of a survival-of-the-fittest ethos, the dismantling of civil and political rights, the ongoing militarization of society, the "religionization of politics,"[iv] a rampant sexism, an attack on labor, an obsession with national security, human rights abuses, the emergence of a police state, a deeply rooted racism, and the attempts by demagogues to undermine critical education as a foundation for producing critical citizenry were all at work in American society. For Arendt, these anti-democratic elements in American society constituted what she called the "sand storm," a metaphor for totalitarianism.[v]

        Historical conjunctures produce different forms of authoritarianism, though they all share a hatred for democracy, dissent, and human rights. It is too easy to believe in a simplistic binary logic that strictly categorizes a country as either authoritarian or democratic and leaves no room for entertaining the possibility of a mixture of both systems. American politics today suggests a more updated if not different form of authoritarianism or what some have called the curse of totalitarianism. In this context, it is worth remembering what Huey Long said in response to the question of whether America could ever become fascist: "Yes, but we will call it anti-fascist." [vi] Long's reply indicates that fascism is not an ideological apparatus frozen in a particular historical period, but as Arendt suggested a complex and often shifting theoretical and political register for understanding how democracy can be subverted, if not destroyed, from within.

        (more at link above)

        Anonymous said...

        1) Gut all regulation in the name of free markets.
        2) Sprinkle with the fairy dust of zero or negative real interest rates.
        3) Let it rip.

        I mean the moral fiber of society. this had a big hand in it.

        Anonymous said in reply to Anonymous...

        If anyone thinks incentives have nothing to do with deteriorating moral fiber, you are delusional.

        ezra abrams said...

        Is this the same RR who crossed a picket line at huff post, or someplace like that ?
        cause ya know, his views are just so critical...
        as my dad use to say, a scab never has to worry bout getting by, he can always steal from blind mens cups

        and liberals wonder why blue collars hate hi falutin people

        anne said in reply to ezra abrams...

        Where is the precise reference to this nastiness?

        Since Robert Reich provides his essays to any publication through a Creative Commons license, I cannot imagine how he could have crossed any picket line. Any essay by Reich can be used on any Internet site.

        Returning now to the nastiness....

        ilsm said...

        Thuglican Jesus, thuglican God......

        Factitious values based on thuglican God ordained "lesser people" should be property and the 98% exploited for the chosen .01%.......

        See Sandwichman at Angry Bear.

        cm said...

        I suspect the moral center has been declared as a cost center, and not only yesterday.

        [Sep 04, 2015] Narrative And Reality Of The U.S. War On Syria

        "...The US media knows nothing and cares less, it is anything goes, they just sell media consumption / clicks on the intertubes / TV watching, etc. / advertising / Gvmt. propanganda, all of which which changes day by day… the more ppl are confused, the better"
        .
        "...The sophisticated propaganda apparatus that we enjoy (NOT!) today is a mix of half-truths, false narratives and (falser) counter-narratives. (Some counter-narratives, I think, are from well-meaning people who distrust government and are trying to interpret what is really happening thru the lens of their own (often limited) experience.)"
        .
        "...Interesting too, that the Ukraine situation is hotting up. Maybe the thinking is that Putin could not handle multiple crises? "
        .
        "...Bhadrakumar is always the best. But, I think it's realistic to take a step further Flynn's admission about the US "knowing about ISIL" (but not knowing its name) back in 2012. Wouldn't it be more realistic to guess that the US also knew about Saudi defense/intelligence ministry plans to create and fund 'ISIL' from the beginning? Does anyone here think _anything_ going on at a high level in Saudi escapes US intelligence?
        .
        And then, a step further, you would think US experts would be helpfully guiding the Saudis as to where best to insert ISIL forces, how best to fund/supply them, and so on. Saudi royal family cronies are not the most competent or hardworking administrators, and they're not privy to the intel and experience the US has in the 'our terrorism' specialty, and so it's natural to expect they'd ask for and receive US help with this stuff."
        Aug 14, 2015 | M of A

        The Washington Post "It Never Happened" piece on Syria documented yesterday is far from the only one that avoids to mention the intimate U.S. involvement in waging war on Syria.

        A New York Times piece today falsely claims:

        The United States avoided intervening in the civil war between rebels and the government of Mr. Assad until the jihadist group took advantage of the chaos to seize territory in Syria and Iraq.

        McClatchy, which is usual better, currently has two pieces by Hannah Allam looking into U.S. involvement in the war on Syria. Unfortunately these are also full of false narratives and unchecked administration propaganda. Obama administration still predicts 'Assad's days are numbered' is a take of what administration officials now claim about their early believes of the war on Syria. It also includes this whoopers:

        The Americans were determined to keep the United States out of an armed conflict in Syria, but turned a blind eye as Persian Gulf allies sent weapons to hardline factions with ties to al Qaida.

        Years ago the NYT and several other outlets reported that the CIA was the entity which organized the weapon transfers, thousands of tons, for the Saudis and other Gulf countries. The U.S. did not turn a blind eye. It was actively organizing the whole war from the very beginning.

        In The 'magic words:' How a simple phrase enmeshed the U.S. in Syria's crisis Hannah Allam lets the former ambassador to Syria Ford claim that the administration never really wanted to ouster Assad but was pressed into it:

        Ford, the U.S. ambassador to Syria at the time, said he initially opposed calling for Assad's ouster for two reasons: it was clear to him that sanctions were the only punishment the White House was willing to use, and that such a call would kill his efforts to start a dialogue with the regime.

        Ford said he was up against the same outside pressures other officials listed – influential Republicans, a few senior Democrats, the "very loud" Syrian-American community and foreign governments – but he added one force that's often overlooked.

        "To be very frank, the press, the media, was baiting us. It's not like the media was impartial in this," Ford said. "Because once the Republicans started saying he has no legitimacy, the question then became at press conferences every day: Do you think he has legitimacy? What are we supposed to say? Yes, he does?"

        Hogwash. Ford was one of the first to press for the ouster of Assad. He even organized the early demonstration and the media training for the "peaceful demonstrators" who were early on killing policemen and soldiers. One of the "revolutionaries" reacts to Ford's claims:

        The 47th
        Out of all ppl, Robert Ford is talking about Syrians being mislead by the magic words? Ford "promised" us Syrians full support in 2011.

        The 47th
        In private meetings In damascus, Robert Ford promised his syrian oppo friends full U.S. Support and encouraged Syrians to go on.

        The 47th
        He even went to fucking Hama, during the biggest protest in Syria's modern history youtu.be/AP1vGBJM4NU

        The 47th
        I wdnt talk abt ppl misinterpreting U.S public statements, U were ur Admin's amb, say the truth: u promised Syrians the moon, gave them shit

        All these media pieces, yesterday's WaPo piece, today's false NYT claims, the McClatchy pieces, are part of the Obama strategy to play as if it was/is doing "nothing" or "just something" while at the time time running a full fledged proxy war against the Syrian government.

        Joel Veldkamp lays out and analyses that strategy:

        Why does the U.S. only have sixty fighters to show for its $500 million, year-old training program? Because it reinforces the narrative – nurtured by a raft of previous hopelessly inadequate, publicly-announced and -debated programs to support the opposition – of the U.S. as a helpless bystander to the killing in Syria, and of President Obama as a prudent statesman reluctant to get involved. While the Senate berates the Pentagon chief over the program's poor results, the U.S. is meanwhile outsourcing the real fight in Syria to allies with no qualms about supporting al Qaeda against their geopolitical opponents – unless the U.S. is, as before, cooperating directly or indirectly in that support.

        Once it is recognized that the "helpless bystander" narrative is false, and that the U.S. has been deeply involved in the armed conflict almost from the start, it becomes both possible and necessary to question that involvement.

        What I find astonishing is that the U.S. media are able to have it both ways on Syria. Every other day there is a piece with the false narrative that the U.S. is not and has not been involved in Syria while at the same time the very same media, NYT, WaPo, McClatchy, publish other pieces about the massive "secret" military effort with thousands of tons of weapon shipments and billions of dollars the Obama administration pushes into Syria to wage war against the Syrian people.

        The media know that the "helpless bystander" narrative is false. But Joel Veldkamp's hope that this would make it "possible and necessary to question that involvement" is not coming true. Besides in fringe blogs like this one there is no such public discussion at all.

        Noirette | Aug 14, 2015 1:19:32 PM | 2

        Re. Syria (others...) the US is divided.

        Perpetual violent war-mongers (McCain, his acolytes, neo-cons, neo-libs) facing a more 'realistic' foreign policy - Obama and Kerry, see Iran deal.

        These parties are fighting amongst each other and pursuing different agendas. Ex.: Ukraine, where the ones are gingerly, half-heartedly, supporting the Minsk 2 agreement and want to get rid of the 'distraction' and leave it for now to the EU and/or Russia to pay for the mess.

        The other camp, going for all out-war against Russia, with boots on the ground / powerful arms / bombing / other, in Ukr., attacking Russia through a proxy. - Ukr. can't manage on its own as has now been conclusively demonstrated.

        Now that might be good cop-bad cop routine, but overall it explains the 'frozen-for-now conflict' (deathly as it is and not frozen) in Ukraine. Along with the fact that Putin wants nothing to do with this mess and imho? stops the separatists from conquering more territory.

        Failed states, characteristics.

        ... Being open to outside soft take-over and influence. The PTB hob-nob, submit to outsiders (who have some sorta power), and make contradictory alliances in function of interest groups. A failed state cannot truly defend itself, so it deploys what might it can to intimidate, always with allies, proxies, buddies, etc. It agresses militarily only the weak and easily vanquished (nobody objects to that) but gains no advantages from it. On it goes, squandering its ressources.

        The destruction of Syria has worked fine. But Assad can't be removed. Now the plan is he is to stay but be 'wound down' or whatever.

        The US media knows nothing and cares less, it is anything goes, they just sell media consumption / clicks on the intertubes / TV watching, etc. / advertising / Gvmt. propanganda, all of which which changes day by day… the more ppl are confused, the better!

        Jackrabbit | Aug 14, 2015 3:05:34 PM | 6

        As b points out, the cat is out of the bag. So this is not about plausible deniability.

        The sophisticated propaganda apparatus that we enjoy (NOT!) today is a mix of half-truths, false narratives and (falser) counter-narratives. (Some counter-narratives, I think, are from well-meaning people who distrust government and are trying to interpret what is really happening thru the lens of their own (often limited) experience.)

        The "helpless bystander" narrative is complemented by the "ruthless tyrant" narrative. A recent CBS news segment about the demise of the small American armed and trained anti-ISIL force related how hundreds of potential fighters had dropped out. Why? Because they thought *ASSAD* was a worse problem than ISIL!

        The propaganda push, coming after recent developments like USA saying it will attack any force that attacks USA-supported militants, leads me to wonder if we're being prepared for a surprise! that forces USA involvement.

        Interesting too, that the Ukraine situation is hotting up. Maybe the thinking is that Putin could not handle multiple crises?

        Mina | Aug 14, 2015 1:54:29 PM | 5

        http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2015/08/10/us-took-willful-decision-to-create-islamic-state/
        Bhadhrakumar

        harry law | Aug 14, 2015 3:49:52 PM | 8

        Putin is well aware of US duplicity, and the West promises to protect the Libya minority, which morphed into Regime change. Iran is even more aware of the US game in Syria, it is for that reason both countries be on their guard in the event that the US, or their proxies, intervene in Syria, which I am sure they would like to do.

        I hope it is the case that Assad has things in hand, and that he does not need the help of Iran's military manpower, in the event that he did, I am sure the military alliance between the two would provide such assistance if called for by Assad, this would be entirely within International law, after all the Saudis and Turks have been facilitating the influx of thousands of head chopping fanatics into Syria in breach of International law in their attempt to topple the legitimate Syrian Government.

        Joe Tedesky | Aug 14, 2015 11:58:56 PM | 17

        Someone please give Zbigniew a call, and ask him how to spin the narrative on Syria. This whole mess the U.S. is squirming around in is a result of it's own doing. For a long time the U.S. has attempted to live two lives. One life as a democracy warrior, the other as a master of deception. Brzezinski went big back in the seventies, when he convinced Jimmy Carter to back the Mujaheddin against Russia.

        Smart move, except now every Gulf nation has their personal mercenaries at their disposal. This is going on at the same time that every Joe-Bob in America thinks it's those crazy Muslims. So savage mercenaries they are not, but savage Muslims they must be.

        So finally now when people in the White House wake up to the fact that this isn't 1978 they are struck with an epiphany to suddenly change their tune. This shouldn't surprise anyone. This is what they do. No one ever said they do it well. Well, maybe some will say that, but then again this is how it gets done. My one hope is that all people, whether Syrian, Iraqi, Ukrainian, or just down right anyone may live in peace. Why, is this so hard?

        plantman | Aug 15, 2015 12:50:20 AM | 18

        This is from the WSWS: developments on the ground (in Syria) are underscoring that any diplomatic settlement over Syria will be implemented through a militarized carve-up of the country, spearheaded by the Pentagon and its regional partners and proxy forces.

        As part of a deal reached in July between Ankara and Washington, Turkish President and Justice and Development Party (AKP) government leader Erdogan gained US backing for the imposition of a militarized "buffer zone" encompassing hundreds of square miles in northern Syria. The new zone would be occupied by Syrian opposition fighters and reinforced by the US and Turkish air forces, with US forces having been cleared to operate from Turkish bases as part of the agreement.

        Once established, the military zone would serve as a staging area for US-backed rebel forces fighting against the Assad government.

        Despite their public confidence in Putin's readiness to accept a deal, the Turkish government is clearly preparing its own large-scale military intervention into areas of northern Syria." http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/08/14/syri-a14.html

        Yes, Putin wants a deal, so Turkey and Jordan are positioning themselves to steal parts of Syria before the agreement is made.

        But what about the US? The US won't want the Russian deal because they won't be able to install their own stooge in Damascus. So the fighting goes on, Iran gets more involved, and Putin has to decide whether to send troops to avoid another Libya.

        What a mess!

        fairleft | Aug 15, 2015 4:14:03 AM | 19

        Mina @5

        Thanks. Bhadrakumar is always the best.

        But, I think it's realistic to take a step further Flynn's admission about the US "knowing about ISIL" (but not knowing its name) back in 2012. Wouldn't it be more realistic to guess that the US also knew about Saudi defense/intelligence ministry plans to create and fund 'ISIL' from the beginning? Does anyone here think _anything_ going on at a high level in Saudi escapes US intelligence?

        And then, a step further, you would think US experts would be helpfully guiding the Saudis as to where best to insert ISIL forces, how best to fund/supply them, and so on. Saudi royal family cronies are not the most competent or hardworking administrators, and they're not privy to the intel and experience the US has in the 'our terrorism' specialty, and so it's natural to expect they'd ask for and receive US help with this stuff.

        fairleft | Aug 15, 2015 5:07:16 AM | 21

        Bhadrakumar's piece ends very strong, especially the final paragraph:

        The specious plea being advanced by Washington currently is that the US wants to turn Afghanistan into a regional hub to wage a war against the IS - a war by the US and its partners, which, in the opinion of Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, could last not less than a generation.

        This Dempsey guy is a smart general, isn't it? It was under his watch that the IS was finessed and deployed as the instrument of US regional policy to overthrow the established government in Syria and to force Baghdad to allow the return of American troops to Iraq – and now he pops up in Afghan President Ashraf Ghani's office in Kabul one fine day two weeks ago to make the proposition that Washington might need an open-ended military presence in Afghanistan for another 15-20 years to wage the global war against the IS.

        It will take another Gen Flynn to tell us another time circa 2025 that the IS that subsequently overthrew the established governments in Central Asia, bled white the regions of Xinjiang and North Caucasus and Kashmir, destroyed the Pakistani state and led to that country's disintegration, and kept Iran bogged down in the sheer preservation of its plural society (which is an ethnic mosaic) was actually incubated in the American military bases in Afghanistan.

        El Sid | Aug 15, 2015 9:12:34 AM | 23

        part 1 of 2
        Polar Reorientation In the Mideast (US-Iran)?
        Fri, Aug 14, 2015
        By Andrew KORYBKO
        http://orientalreview.org/2015/08/14/polar-reorientation-in-the-mideast-us-iran-i/

        Posted by: okie farmer | Aug 15, 2015 7:22:04 AM | 22

        El Sid | Aug 15, 2015 9:12:34 AM | 23

        http://thesaker.is/the-saker-interviews-general-ret-amine-htaite-of-the-lebanese-armed-forces/

        The Saker has a great interview with Gnl Amine Htaite of the Lebanese Armed Forces.

        Good to get an Orientalist point of view these days.

        jfl | Aug 15, 2015 9:34:27 AM | 24

        @18

        Turkish nationalists reject minority government in blow to Erdogan

        Hard to tell if the good guys are going to increase their representation or the bad guys ... but I hope to see the hind side of this particular turkey. Looks like the Turks of every species are grousing at Erdogan at every opportunity.


        @21

        ' This Dempsey guy is a smart general, isn't it? It was under his watch that the IS was finessed and deployed as the instrument of US regional policy to overthrow the established government in Syria and to force Baghdad to allow the return of American troops to Iraq – and now he pops up in Afghan President Ashraf Ghani's office in Kabul one fine day two weeks ago to make the proposition that Washington might need an open-ended military presence in Afghanistan for another 15-20 years to wage the global war against the IS. '

        Dempsey is getting ready for his personal revolution ... through the revolving door to the pot of gold as the end of the rainbow. The US armed forces are now committing to losing wars for ... as long as they can. Afghanistan is one of their major profit centers.

        rufus magister | Aug 15, 2015 10:12:34 AM | 26

        Plantman at 18 --

        You're right to call it a hot mess. The Ukraine, Libya, Iraq and More! Collect and trade them all! Everyone will want a complete set of the "Most Wanted" cards, naturally.

        Mike Whitney at Counterpunch is always a good read on the economy. He turns his talents here to Syria, asking the musical question, Is Putin Planning to Sell-Out Assad? He doesn't think so.

        Forget about ISIS and Syrian President Bashar al Assad for a minute and, instead, focus on the terms "autonomous zones", "creation of …sanctuaries", "safe zones" and "a confederal Syria."

        All of these strongly suggest that the primary aim of US policy is to break Syria up into smaller units that pose no threat to US-Israeli regional hegemony. This is the US gameplan in a nutshell.

        In contrast, Russia does not want a divided Syria. Aside from the fact that Moscow and Damascus are long-term allies (and Russia has a critical naval facility in Tartus, Syria), a balkanized Syria poses serious threats for Russia...."

        Amongst them, "the probable emergence of a jihadi base of operations" with some of those ops targeting the Russian Federation, and a legitimizing a whole array of bad practices in international relations.

        The under-reported diplomacy by Putin, Whitney writes, is aimed at implementation of the Geneva accord of 2012.

        Geneva does not resolve the central issue, which is: "Does Assad stay or go?" That question is not answered definitively. It all depends of composition of the "transitional governing body" and the outcome of future elections....

        Here's how Lavrov summed it up two days ago:

        "I have already said, Russia and Saudi Arabia support all principles of the June 30, 2012 Geneva communique, in particular, the need to preserve government institutions, including the Syrian army. I believe its participation in the effective struggle against terrorists is truly essential."

        Whitney allows, "Some will... say that Putin is 'selling out a friend and ally', but that's not entirely true. He's trying to balance two opposing things at the same time." Keep the back of an ally, but get Saudi help to end the jihadi war in Syria.

        And even if Assad is removed, the process (Geneva) is such that the next president is not going to be a hand-picked US stooge, but someone who is supported by the majority of the Syrian people. Needless to say, Washington doesn't like that idea.

        Some "moderate jihadi" riding in on a Humvee is more to DC's taste.

        In as much as Assad the Younger, former London optometrist, is more of a figurehead and less an autocrat than his late father, Ba'ath Party institutions should prove suitably robust and cohesive to have a significant impact on any future government.

        Whitney points to the Turkmen militias earlier under discussion [see the "Turkey Invades" thread] and concludes, time is short for Putin to pull off another diplomatic victory and prevent America from crossing another "red line" in its efforts to destroy Syria.

        jfl at 24

        I'd like to see Erdogan out, but I would note he's survived numerous rounds of substantial discontent. See the links in my nr. 84 in Turkey Invades if you're curious about his political calculations; sadly, he may be correct. He will not see this rejection as a blow, but will welcome it.

        And to all you Barflies, I keep saying -- it's not about ISIS, or even Assad. It's all about the PKK and the Kurds. That's the real story, not the official narrative.

        Noirette | Aug 15, 2015 11:12:00 AM | 30

        As Narrative is in the title….When the protests in Syria broke out, and war began, I awarded the label 'genuine' to some of the early protests, which nobody agreed with iirc. I related these protests to catastrophic drought (which is well documented, > goog) and the unwillingness / incapacity / blindness of the Assad Gvmt in addressing the matter in any way at all.

        One major problem was that the drought coincided with liberal moves by Assad - cutting bread subsidies (2008! - food prices R O S E by astonishing %), fuel subsididies for farmers (others too), opening up the banking sector, and totally mismanaging water -> …all done to please the W and 'modernise'.

        Which lead to massive destruction of the farming community (very consequent at the time) and ppl flocking to the towns where they could not earn a living. The MSM has recently (March 2015) discovered this, e.g. the NYT - http://tinyurl.com/k5asy5h - which states that 1.5 million ppl moved to cities (idk about that no., seems low, but more were displaced and fell into poverty in other ways. Or fled, leading to further disorganisation and damage. At some point a threshold or tipping point is reached.) The article also mentions refugees from Iraq - a separate issue.

        It is natural to be polarised on human decisions, influence, plots, but I really think one should take climate change into account. Note the 'liberalisation moves' were the usual, and Assad agreed but took it very slow - he faced opposition from various quarters, incl. his minister of Economy. Now we see similar but far more radical measures imposed on Greece, Ukraine, like a speeded-up movie.

        academic paper, cautious and wordy. mentions the diff. topics

        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1

        news from 2010, 2-3 million ppl thrown into extreme poverty in Syria

        http://www.irinnews.org/report/90442/syria-drought-pushing-millions-into-poverty

        Oui | Aug 17, 2015 12:21:18 PM | 49

        Erdogan preempted the snap elactions by a snap diktat ...

        Erdoğan's declaration of 'system change' outrages Turkey's opposition | Hürriyet Daily News |

        President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's declaration of a de facto shift in Turkey's administrative system to a presidential system has infuriated opposition leaders, who say the declaration indicates "rule by diktat."

        In remarks delivered in his hometown, the Black Sea province of Rize, on Aug. 14, Erdoğan said Turkey had witnessed a change in the president's new role and asked for the constitution to be updated to recognize his de facto deployment of enhanced powers.

        "There is a president with de facto power in the country, not a symbolic one. The president should conduct his duties for the nation directly, but within his authority. Whether one accepts it or not, Turkey's administrative system has changed. Now, what should be done is to update this de facto situation in the legal framework of the constitution," he said.

        Posted to my diary - Israel Ready to Join the Sunni Alliance Against Assad, Syria.

        guest77 | Aug 17, 2015 10:49:49 PM | 51

        There is only one history of the Syrian War so far as I am concerned, and the is b's: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2013/09/a-short-history-of-the-war-on-syria-2006-2014.html

        I would suggest that you keep that post updated as we go, though of course maybe it isn't your blogging style. But it's a brilliant piece.

        [Sep 03, 2015] Kievs week of violence is a crisis of its own making

        Both countries are US clients and US has no use anymore for the nazi dogs of war, i.e. they can protest all they want - they are getting nothing and if they become too obstructive, they will start to disappear one by one.
        They might be dangerous but they are nothing compared to money men running the show."
        .
        "...Occam's razor: the fascist nationalist nutters orchestrated the whole thing, because they don't want any concessions given to the objects of their hatred."
        .
        Some people think the challenges faced by Ukraine's Poroshenko are now too big to overcome. But those who would like to take his place have not shown themselves capable of doing even half of what he has achieved.
        .
        Wait...Poroshenko has achieved something? He has done nothing but what he was told. He waged war in the east because John Brennan told him to. And then stopped when Merkel told him to. He is a non-entity."
        .
        "...Here is two examples of Porkoshenko being a head of occupational government: (1). He destroyed Ukraine's military industrial complex, for it's ties (very profitable by the way) with Russian military, as any obedient CIA stooge will do. (2). He flipped the country geo-politically, from the state that should have benefit from it's position in the middle of the Europe, in to some sort of final frontier, protecting Europe from the hordes of those crazy Russians, all by himself , only crazy person could have come up with this, or an obedient CIA stooge again."
        .
        "...Let's face it, straight reporting on The Ukraine is hard to come by, given that it's labouring under the 3-line whip of the CIA, MI6 and another global I.S. best not to mention."
        .
        "...When you back hard right elements (to further your personal political goals, when both parties share a common antagonist) who are prone to violence. Don't cry victim when they disagree with your political overtures & decisions. Acting out that disagreement the only manner they know how to which is through violence. I have no sympathy Poroshenko, for the backlash his government is now facing re: his government's constitutional proposals."
        .
        "...I chortled with laughter, almost choked, when he suggested that the Kremlin agents are organising the far right nationalists in Ukraine, deliberately causing an outbreak of peace in order to show up the Kiev parties in a bad light! Believe me, Kiev parties can show themselves up all by themselves!"
        .
        "...I wondered how long it would be for poroshenko to blame putin for the grenade attack. Russia has been a convenient scapegoat for Ukraine to blame for its own failings since the overthrow of yanukovic.
        The right wing activists who carried out the grenade attack were at the heart of the maidan protests which also involved violent confrontations with the police. They were also those who tarrgetted ethnic Russians following the overthrow of yanukovic so their actions in opposition to granting extra powers to eastern territories is hardly surprising."
        Notable quotes:
        "... I talk about the media coverage. At that time "the right wing Party" was just a Putin lie, troubles were cause by Putin, protesters were peaceful and policemen were killed not in terror attacks but were killed democratically. ..."
        "... - Ehhh... was it a terrorist attack? Not a peaceful protest democratically fighting bad and corrupt police prohibiting them to freely take the parliament? Because at the Euromaidan 17 policemen were killed and more than 200 injured when peaceful protesters were democratically fighting bad and corrupt police prohibiting them to freely take the parliament... and there were no terror attacks... ..."
        "... "Corporatism was one of the ideals of both German Nazism and Italian fascism. They held it as a carrot before the people, as a 'solution' to the class problem. They used it as their 'revolutionary' credentials and in both cases, ditched it completely soon after taking power. The idea of each sector of society being organized to take its place at the high table of the state was always "jam tomorrow." Today's agenda was always "war." ..."
        "... It should also be understood that fascist 'corporatism' has nothing to do with the global corporations that are not often bigger than nation states. Modern 'corporatism' only shares a name with the fascist 'ideal.' Not that it any better. ..."
        "... Princesss Nuland of the neocons is a nasty murderous piece of work. One to watch. Hopefully somebody will 'putsch' her and her equally loathsome husband. Have they spawned any more little evils? ..."
        "... A neo-neocon organised and paid for putsch is hardly "democratic", same as any other US sanctioned regime change i.e Mega Nation Theft. ..."
        "... In all matters relating to Eastern Europe the Guardian has pinned its colours to the mast of the "New East Network." Which is essentially controlled by a Mr George Soros, Radio "Free Europe" and the National Endowment for Democracy." All mouthpieces of the state department. Its safest to believe the opposite of everything they tell us. ..."
        "... It is very hard to enter EU from the East without visa (and rules for visa application were hardened for Ukrainians). It is very hard to get job without working permit, and for money you need to register. Notice, that all these points are not present in case of refugees traveling to Russia/Belarus. ..."
        "... Fast forward to the neo-neocon putsch and princess Nuland boasting of the death and destruction that all those humanitarian $5 billion had purchased as she dispensed biscuits in Maidan, just prior to both sides being shot up by putschist snipers (likely from outside and/or Svoboda, or the Social Nationalists (don't say Nazis don't have a sense of humour!). ..."
        "... Its not really a zero-sum game. Russia always maintained that the coup was engineered by the West by encouraging right wing elements and this is just one of a number of incidents that prove that their view was correct. This makes our life difficult in the West because we only think in polar terms -- if Russia is right then they 'win'. Since we cannot allow any situation where Russia 'wins' we go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to prove black is really white. It would be better to ignore Russia's comments and commentaries and just look dispassionately at who the actors are and what they're up to. The answers are staring us in the face. ..."
        "... February 24, 2014, right extremist forces (Banderists, Right Sector and neo-Nazis Svoboda) implemented a coup during the Maiden. At the time the US government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force against these 'pro-democracy protestors' even if, according to the pictures we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the police and smashing up statues and setting fire to buildings. ..."
        "... These militias became the spearhead of Ukrainian forces in the East and on them falls much of the war effort in the Civil War. But these militias can not yet be lifted, because otherwise the war in the East could not continue. ..."
        "... History always repeats itself. Use low ignorant, racist and violent manpower to take power by force but also to maintain it, but then to dump it as soon as possible because they rare considered, rightly, unpresentable or otherwise dangerous even for those who have instigated, financed and exploited them. Of course, sometimes such situations go out of hand, see the Afghan Mujahidin or ISIS. ..."
        "... Now Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk are receiving their own coin back. They supported and reinforced those they now pretend to discover to be thugs. The real puppets are and remain in power while their useful barbarians have become bothersome: infamous, resistant to the point that one can wonder if the latest riot would not be a false flag from Yats and Poro who used the skills of these criminal thugs. Because the latter are not mere free electrons who just decided to meet that day. There is money, people that structure this, a hierarchy, an efficient network and money at will, in which Russia has no involvement. ..."
        "... The far right have done all the dirty work during the coup and still doing it on the frontline and have not got enough in return, in their view. Croatia had a similar problem with their extremist veterans who were used by the Croatian right wing HDZ to destabilize social-democrat government. ..."
        "... Both countries are US clients and US has no use anymore for the nazi dogs of war, i.e. they can protest all they want - they are getting nothing and if they become too obstructive, they will start to disappear one by one. ..."
        "... Occam's razor: the fascist nationalist nutters orchestrated the whole thing, because they don't want any concessions given to the objects of their hatred. ..."
        "... The director of Centre of Eurasian researches Vladimir Kornilov noted: "Everybody perfectly understands where the HR department of Ukrainian policy is. It is in the American Embassy". ..."
        "... Let's face it, straight reporting on The Ukraine is hard to come by, given that it's labouring under the 3-line whip of the CIA, MI6 and another global I.S. best not to mention. ..."
        "... Disgusting man hailing from a disgusting class of politician/businessmen trained by the US to bring death and chaos to any part of the globe that the powers behind the US Government see fit. Prepare for our own Maidan should this class of parasite-sans-frontieres, (read Mikheil Saakashvili), succeed in bringing The Ukraine under the NATO umbrella. ..."
        "... I chortled with laughter, almost choked, when he suggested that the Kremlin agents are organising the far right nationalists in Ukraine, deliberately causing an outbreak of peace in order to show up the Kiev parties in a bad light! Believe me, Kiev parties can show themselves up all by themselves! ..."
        "... idan 2014 edition? He doesn't ask who armed them in the first place. The author is giving a good impression of being one very confused bloke. ..."
        Sep 03, 2015 | The Guardian

        Another version has it that the explosion outside parliament was orchestrated by the president's administration or the Ukrainian special services in order to discredit Svoboda and other radical nationalists and to "tighten the screws" on the political life of the country thus justifying control over opposition forces.

        This version hardly stands up to criticism. The demonstration was led by MPs who are members of Svoboda but got into parliament as independent candidates. In the 2014 elections Svoboda did not win the 5% of the vote necessary to enter parliament. Four months earlier, in the presidential election, the party's leader, Oleg Tyagnibok, won only a little over 1% of the vote. This week he was photographed, together with other Svoboda activists, trying to drag a soldier out of the human chain formed around parliament into the crowd of protesters. It was a moment very reminiscent of the Maidan days, only that then Svoboda members and their leader were inside parliament. Since then the party has found itself increasingly marginalised.

        However, there were other groups represented in the demonstration , among them two that deserve special attention: Oleg Lyashko's radical party and Igor Kolomoisky's Ukrop party. T-shirts with the latter party's emblem were given out free at the demonstration, and those willing to take part were paid to protest. Kolomoisky is considered to be an enemy of President Poroshenko since he was sacked from his position as governor of the Dnipropetrovsk region. Kolomoisky's man in Odessa, Igor Palitsa, also lost his job as governor and was replaced by the former president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili.

        Immediately after the blast, Lyashko, who is a radical populist with little in common with the radical nationalists, announced the establishment of a campaign to save the nation. Only three or four hours after the explosion, his party had already registered a bill that would block changes to the constitution at times when the country is under military attack. Lyashko came second in the presidential elections, and over the last year his Radical party has gone up in the ratings. It is interesting that articles in the press regularly claim to have evidence that both the Svoboda party and the Radical party have been financed by the same oligarchs, the above mentioned Kolomoisky, Sergey Levochkin – who was head of the presidential administration under Yanukovich and who fled to Moscow after the Maidan – and Dmitry Firtash, who is now being investigated on corruption charges in Austria.

        Still, the violence could have a far more banal explanation. To begin with, volunteers who went off to fight in the Donbass for the sake of maintaining Ukraine's unity were radicals from militant groups such as the Right Sector, which sprang up during the Maidan. There were also volunteers who had no affiliation to any party who went to fight. When the Ukrainian army took over the main role in the fighting, many of the volunteers returned home, taking weapons with them.

        nnedjo 3 Sep 2015 16:18

        Well, the purpose of the constitutional changes in Ukraine should be that rebels in the southeast stop fighting and accept Ukraine as his country, and not Ukrainian nationalists to stop throwing grenades at the police in Kiev. However, these laws passed by the Ukrainian parliament, can contribute very little that the main objective. Their main goal is just to create the illusion that Ukraine really is trying to comply with the requirement of Minsk 2 agreement, and thus to meet the expectations of their Western friends, which means to prevent lifting of sanctions against Russia. And, on the other hand, these laws need to be completely contrary to the expectations of the rebel peoples in Donbas, or in other words to achieve the same thing that the Ukrainian government unsuccessfully tried to achieve with weapons.

        It is particularly interesting that the President of Ukraine Poroshenko himself makes no secret at all that it is true what I've previously written, as can be understood, among other things, also from those of his statements:

        According to the president, "the threat of break-up of the international pro-Ukrainian coalition" would have increased if the Verkhovna Rada had not voted in favor of decentralization amendments to the constitution on Monday.

        It could also lead to the lifting of sanctions, which "are very painfully hitting the aggressor," he said, apparently, referring to Russia, which Kiev blames for sending troops to war-torn eastern Ukraine....

        ...But what they [Donetsk and Lugansk Regions] have got instead is a lean line about the features of local self-governance," Poroskenko stressed.
        So, even though the law that caused the protests in front of parliament has the name of "decentralization", in fact it needs to further strengthen the competence of the central government. Based on this law, the Presidency received the right to appoint a prefect, who with his hand has the discretionary right to dismiss officials elected at the local elections in certain regions. And if they do not like it, they can appeal to the constitutional court in Kiev, where were apparently is known in advance what may be the decision of the constitutional court.

        On the other hand, the law on the special status of Donetsk and Lugansk, which was passed earlier, is practically suspended at this point by the recent decision of the President Poroshenko.

        In this respect, it is necessary to emphasize two things.

        Although according to the Minsk 2 arrangement, the special status of the Donbas region should have been incorporated as an integral and permanent part of the Ukrainian Constitution, the law, which is now suspended, does not meet any of these two demands.

        This law therefore is attached only as an annex to the Ukrainian constitution, and its validity is limited to just three years. And, according to the idea of Ukrainian legislators, the law can come into force only after the local elections in Donbass which would be held under the previous Ukrainian legislation, and when Ukrainian forces take control over the whole territory of Ukraine, including its entire border with Russia.

        Until then, they will be consider that Donbas region is temporarily occupied part of Ukrainian territory, and officials of the People's Republic of Lugansk and Donetsk People's Republic will be considered as terrorists. And since with the terrorists must not be negotiations, leaders of the LNR and DNR were completely excluded so far from discussions about the law on the special status, which is also contrary to the Minsk 2 agreement, given that it explicitly requires just that.
        All in all, they are asking the pro-Russian rebels that lay down their arms voluntarily, without getting anything in return. Or more accurately, to get just a little bit of what they are looking for and only for a period of three years. So, congratulations on wishful thinking, but the question is whether it is achievable at all.

        LimaCPapa -> ridibundus 3 Sep 2015 15:48

        I first learned about this when a new Ukrainian student introduced himself, and we asked why the name he gave was not the name on his papers. He explained (with clear annoyance) that he had to use a Ukrainian name. He had to keep it while he was here as well, because it was the name in his passport. Now he's free of all that and uses his Russian name. Needless to say, he did not return to Ukraine. Another Ukrainian has since confirmed that the same thing was true for her passport. In both cases, issued in the early 2000s. So who's lying then?

        beakybloom -> gablody 3 Sep 2015 13:34

        What's inherited??.. The bankrupt economy, loss of Crimea, loss of Donbass, 6000 dead, civil war, downing of Malaysian airliner with 300 souls on board, Odessa massacre, murders of political opponents, the nazi parliament, stupid laws glorifying Ukraine's nazi past, no visa-free access to EU, Nazis throwing grenades at the police???..

        Nothing here is inherited except the absence of visa-free access to EU

        a "show on the road" ? On IMF funny money? For how long? It's a shitshow, and unsustainable to boot.


        nnedjo -> Chirographer 3 Sep 2015 13:28

        The putinposters are still reeling with the news that the Ukrainian government is fighting "Nazis" in Kiev,...

        It will be possible to say just when the news arrives that the organizers of these demonstrations were sentenced to a few tens of years in prison, and that guy who threw this grenade from which the Guardsmen killed, was sentenced to life imprisonment.

        What is quite unbelievable judging by the past behavior of government from Kiev.

        Chillskier -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 10:43

        Georgia tried:
        http://agenda.ge/news/26188/eng
        Apparently Interpol red notices cannot be issued against US stooges.

        Chillskier -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 10:20

        The piece of shit she CHOSE to work with.
        Jewish neo-con skunk and neo-Nazi thug seems like a match made in heaven.

        jezzam -> Chillskier 3 Sep 2015 10:19

        Go ahead then. I can't wait. Neither can Poroshenko. His best option is passive resistance when Putin launches his next land grab. Russia will be forced to give it back eventually when they are totally bankrupt

        Bosula -> RVictor 3 Sep 2015 08:55

        The congregation is mostly made up of ethnic Ukrainians, members of a community that numbers hundreds of thousands and has been growing rapidly since the start of the conflict in eastern Ukraine.


        This is what the Guardian reported on 13 May 2015 - this was JUST for Poland:

        "Last year Poland issued 331,000 permits for short-term work to Ukrainians, up 50% on 2013, says Marta Jaroszewicz, a migration expert at the Centre For Eastern Studies (OSW), an independent Warsaw thinktank funded by the Polish government.

        She estimates that there are now 300,000-400,000 Ukrainians in Poland, as many as twice the officially recognised number. In January and February, the number of residence applications by Ukrainians in the Mazovian voivodeship – the province which includes Warsaw – was up 180% on the same months of 2014."

        There are other articles for other neighbouring countries bordering Ukraine, but the Guardian is a pretty authoritative source.

        Since this story the number crossing the border to leave Ukraine has increased significantly.


        FlappyCat 3 Sep 2015 08:20

        Poroshenko to Transnistria..
        Yats to Macedonia and
        Saakishwilly to Tajikistan.


        oleteo -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 08:12

        I read the Gorby's interview where he said 'Yes' about the NATO promises.But he's a fool nevertherless to beleive the promises,written or verbal from his enemy.


        elias_ -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 08:07

        >>He's trying to provoke Putin.

        Hmm in that case you have proved Poroshenko is a fu##ing idiot. Only an idiot would set out to provoke the leader of a neighbouring country into invading. Is that what you lot voted him in for? No, it isn't. He should be making peace and securing the future for his people. Face it, your leader is taking orders from Pyatt and you know it.

        BigBanana 3 Sep 2015 07:50

        "Kolomoisky's man in Odessa, Igor Palitsa, also lost his job as governor and was replaced by the former president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili"

        Jeez, Saakashvili is a stupid appointment for a very long list of reasons. He's the idiot who got Georgia dismembered after misjudging the situation terribly.

        It's as if Poroshenko is deliberately trying to fuck things up.

        HuffingHume -> normankirk 3 Sep 2015 07:41

        All of the ex-Soviet Union, with the exception of the Baltic states, are horribly corrupt dysfunctional kleptocracies run by Soviet era bigwigs who carved up their state's assets up for themelves, leaving most of their fellow countrymen in poverty. This is the reason why many Ukrianians want to be more 'European'; because they want to be more like Poland and the Baltic States, rather than in the Russian orbit, in which every state has barely made it out of the 80's.


        Dimmus -> Alex Hughes 3 Sep 2015 07:15

        "It was the right wing Svoboda Party that started the trouble, definitely not a 'peaceful protest' as you make out. "

        I talk about the media coverage. At that time "the right wing Party" was just a Putin lie, troubles were cause by Putin, protesters were peaceful and policemen were killed not in terror attacks but were killed democratically.

        RVictor -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 07:14

        Putin has a record of false flag operations, starting with the Moscow apartment block bombing performed by the FSB when he was head and which brought him to power.

        And the proof is ... o, yes, - something written by oligarch in exile! Btw., here is a short list of admitted FF operations be US and it's vassals. Remember "Iraq WMD"?

        oleteo -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 07:10

        Why being invaded by Putin, Ukraine is trading a discount for gas, [and asks for ] deferral of loan?

        irishinrussia -> Alex Hughes 3 Sep 2015 07:03

        It's irony. He is implying that when protesters the west likes kill policemen then they at peaceful demonstrators, perhaps defending themselves against brutal security forces, at worst any violence is the action of a few hotheads or extremists among overwhelmingly peaceful, democratic victims of the state. However, when the very same protesters attack our guys (Poroshenko), they are radicals, extremists and terrorists, perhaps abetted by shadowy enemies of freedom and democracy (FSB).

        PanoptikonicallyKool -> Briar 3 Sep 2015 06:15

        Shhh!!!! You are not supposed to say things like that! 'US backed coup'? That is not part of the story. And it's ancient history history, no connection to current events. In fact it didn't even happen, according to repectable news sites. Or they don't mention it, so it must not have happended . The US, as the article states, or rather doesn't state, or rather doesn't even mention, has nothing to do with political events inside Ukraine, that's why we never read anything about it. Did Russia do it or not do it? That's the only serious question for anything that happens in Ukraine.

        US involvement in Urkaine? Harrruuumph! Conspiracy theory! And don't bring it up again!

        Dimmus 3 Sep 2015 06:15

        "But the media has been busy throwing up theories about who has most to benefit from this terrorist attack. "

        - Ehhh... was it a terrorist attack? Not a peaceful protest democratically fighting bad and corrupt police prohibiting them to freely take the parliament? Because at the Euromaidan 17 policemen were killed and more than 200 injured when peaceful protesters were democratically fighting bad and corrupt police prohibiting them to freely take the parliament... and there were no terror attacks...


        ositonegro -> BastaYa72 3 Sep 2015 06:11

        "Corporatism was one of the ideals of both German Nazism and Italian fascism. They held it as a carrot before the people, as a 'solution' to the class problem. They used it as their 'revolutionary' credentials and in both cases, ditched it completely soon after taking power. The idea of each sector of society being organized to take its place at the high table of the state was always "jam tomorrow." Today's agenda was always "war."

        It should also be understood that fascist 'corporatism' has nothing to do with the global corporations that are not often bigger than nation states. Modern 'corporatism' only shares a name with the fascist 'ideal.' Not that it any better.

        RVictor -> oleteo 3 Sep 2015 06:01

        Poroshenko Blames Russia For Police Deaths

        paulrou -> kennyboy 3 Sep 2015 05:21

        How can anyone not take the US state department's line. It is the truth. Ergo, everyone else is paid by the Russians.

        Калинин Юрий -> elias_ 3 Sep 2015 04:59

        He does not answer the questions, he blames Putin in all the world's sins and universe disasters. Global warming - Putin, extreme heat in the EU - Putin, police conflicts in the USA - Putin. Ask him, wh has scratched a car by a shopping mall last month - Putin!

        RVictor -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:53

        The West has not broken international law since the Iraq invasion.

        Support and organization of governments overthrow all around the world? War in Libya? Killing with drones on foreigns territories? Bombing of Syria territory?

        Theo Humbug -> normankirk 3 Sep 2015 04:52

        Princesss Nuland of the neocons is a nasty murderous piece of work. One to watch. Hopefully somebody will 'putsch' her and her equally loathsome husband. Have they spawned any more little evils?

        RVictor -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:49

        Why does Georgia not get Interpol to issue an arrest warrant for Saakashvili? Ukraine would have to comply. The answer is obvious. They would not get one because the charges against Saakashvili are politically motivated, like most of the corruption charges in Russia.

        Right - like any West institution Interpol is so-o-o independent, exactly like International Court!

        Theo Humbug -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:49

        I have come to realise that Jizzem is just a Turing Bot.

        Theo Humbug -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:48

        HAHAHAHAHA... Are you serious? Which planet are you on? Do you think people forget that quickly? A neo-neocon organised and paid for putsch is hardly "democratic", same as any other US sanctioned regime change i.e Mega Nation Theft.

        jonsid -> Mark Elliott 3 Sep 2015 04:46

        In all matters relating to Eastern Europe the Guardian has pinned its colours to the mast of the "New East Network." Which is essentially controlled by a Mr George Soros, Radio "Free Europe" and the National Endowment for Democracy." All mouthpieces of the state department. Its safest to believe the opposite of everything they tell us.

        Theo Humbug -> Chirographer 3 Sep 2015 04:41

        You clearly have a very bad memory. The Russian offer of cancelling debt and very reasonable prices for fuel was very attractive to the ELECTED government of Victor Yanukovych and far far better than the EU offer, which was why they were all for accepting the Russian offer and aligning more with Moscow..

        But the USA can't have any country deciding it's own fate if it is not in accord with the Lords of this Universe.

        The neocon organised and paid for putsch, Maidan Shootings, Odessa burnings, put a stop to any agreement beneficial to the Ukrainians and opened the way for the IMF to come in and steal the wealth of yet another country.

        There is no excuse for anybody not to know these recorded and verifiable FACTS.

        elias_ -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:36

        You are fixated on Putin - you must be a not so secret admirer. Why don't you answer Tomov's question. What has Poroshenko achieved since becoming President?

        RVictor -> careforukraine 3 Sep 2015 04:34

        It is very hard to enter EU from the East without visa (and rules for visa application were hardened for Ukrainians). It is very hard to get job without working permit, and for money you need to register. Notice, that all these points are not present in case of refugees traveling to Russia/Belarus.

        So I show you official numbers of registered refugees in EU - and amount of unregistered cannot be high due to immigration laws and functioning police system.

        On over side, number of 400000 is taken from nowhere - go on and proof it.

        Salut_Salut -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:32

        If you are such a hard-core proponent of sanctions policy, then may be you can name the beneficiaries of it in EU? Farmers? Businesses? Common people? Methinks - only politicians following in the wake of Uncle Sam's guidelines. The President of Russia is no way a role model or a paragon country leader, but seeing him behind every corner is nothing but a bout of anti-Russian paranoia. People of that long-suffering country aren't actually represented by him only.

        Theo Humbug 3 Sep 2015 04:29

        How far back does history go?

        Lat week, last month, Maidan Square, the fall of the Soviet Union?

        If taken that far back, then people will surely remember Ronnie Raygun's promises to Gorbachev that no NATO forces would encroach on former Soviet territory. Ehh?? What??

        Fast forward to the neo-neocon putsch and princess Nuland boasting of the death and destruction that all those humanitarian $5 billion had purchased as she dispensed biscuits in Maidan, just prior to both sides being shot up by putschist snipers (likely from outside and/or Svoboda, or the Social Nationalists (don't say Nazis don't have a sense of humour!).

        So called separatists voted to stay with Russia, with whom they identified, despite the lies and propaganda from the US/West/Nato including premature accusations of responsibility fro the shooting down of MH17 .. funny how 1) the US never released it's data (another Pentagon "plane"?) 2) that has all gone very quiet... Wonder what they found?

        Perhaps the putschist regime and/or their neo-neocon pay/puppet-meisters have woken up to the very real danger of putting nazties withing 'Cooee' of nuclear weapons?

        Of course, one does not need to be a nazti to call for nuclear mass murder. The blond plaited heroine of the right, the ex jailbird, ex Prime Minister (for ganesh sake!!) Tymoshenko called for the nuking of Donbass, if I remember correctly.

        Russian now has the major Western forces and neonazis on their border. President Putin has to deal with these murderers and the great unwashed, living in their encapsulating bubbles of Newspeak and reality cooking shows, are told by the Mudorc press and other propagandists that it is Russia that is pure evil.

        I wish there were a god.

        Tony Cocks -> danhudders 3 Sep 2015 03:59

        " The airliner was almost certainly downed by a Russian crew "

        But of course you have not one shred of evidence to support your statement in which case would you agree it is valueless and was a waste of your time posting it in the first place.

        RVictor -> careforukraine 3 Sep 2015 03:49

        I think he said refugees crossed the border ........i am not sure that all refugees fill out the application form?

        400000 ? Look on the current 100000's refugees wave from the Asia/Africa to get an expression how it looks like. Or on the last year summer wave of Ukrainian refugees in Russia - with large refugee camps for temporary placements etc. You cannot get 400000 refugees to go "unseen" - especially in case of relatively good-maintained land border.

        martinusher 3 Sep 2015 03:09

        Its not really a zero-sum game. Russia always maintained that the coup was engineered by the West by encouraging right wing elements and this is just one of a number of incidents that prove that their view was correct. This makes our life difficult in the West because we only think in polar terms -- if Russia is right then they 'win'. Since we cannot allow any situation where Russia 'wins' we go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to prove black is really white. It would be better to ignore Russia's comments and commentaries and just look dispassionately at who the actors are and what they're up to. The answers are staring us in the face.

        (If you need any indication that something's not quite right in Ukraine then you only have to look to the appointment of Saakashvili as the governor of Odessa last summer. He's best known for his role as a Georgian politician, someone who, among other things, provoked a disastrous confrontation with Russia.)

        SHappens 3 Sep 2015 03:07

        To begin with, volunteers who went off to fight in the Donbass for the sake of maintaining Ukraine's unity were radicals from militant groups such as the Right Sector, which sprang up during the Maidan.

        February 24, 2014, right extremist forces (Banderists, Right Sector and neo-Nazis Svoboda) implemented a coup during the Maiden. At the time the US government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force against these 'pro-democracy protestors' even if, according to the pictures we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the police and smashing up statues and setting fire to buildings.

        These forces were subsequently beaten in the elections, thus rejected by the Ukrainian people. However the first act of Poroshenko was to legitimate these irregular and illegal militias which, absent in Parliament, have received the far more important power of arms, courtesy of the new mixed Ukrainian-American government. Basically the only difference between the parliamentary majority and the far-right groups is that the first take orders from the West, the latter don't.

        These militias became the spearhead of Ukrainian forces in the East and on them falls much of the war effort in the Civil War. But these militias can not yet be lifted, because otherwise the war in the East could not continue.

        History always repeats itself. Use low ignorant, racist and violent manpower to take power by force but also to maintain it, but then to dump it as soon as possible because they rare considered, rightly, unpresentable or otherwise dangerous even for those who have instigated, financed and exploited them. Of course, sometimes such situations go out of hand, see the Afghan Mujahidin or ISIS.

        Now Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk are receiving their own coin back. They supported and reinforced those they now pretend to discover to be thugs. The real puppets are and remain in power while their useful barbarians have become bothersome: infamous, resistant to the point that one can wonder if the latest riot would not be a false flag from Yats and Poro who used the skills of these criminal thugs. Because the latter are not mere free electrons who just decided to meet that day. There is money, people that structure this, a hierarchy, an efficient network and money at will, in which Russia has no involvement.

        Still, Poroshenko and Yatsenuk want more war and call for lethal arms supply. All this while the rating of Ukrainian is now CC with negative outlook.

        RVictor -> Bosula 3 Sep 2015 03:02

        400,000 refugees crossed the borders from Ukraine into the EU over the past year.

        You are lying (surprise, surprise!):

        "There were 4,603 applications for international protection in Germany, 3,600 in Poland, 2,956 in Italy, 1,962 in Sweden, 1,763 in France, 200 in Moldova, 60 in Romania, 60 in Hungary and 20 in Slovakia," the UNHCR findings highlighted.

        vr13vr 3 Sep 2015 02:16

        "Russian TV focused on the events outside the Ukrainian parliament to prove to viewers that chaos reigns in Ukraine. "

        And doesn't chaos indeed reign in Ukraine? I thought that was beyond obvious and doesn't need any additional proof.

        vr13vr 3 Sep 2015 02:13

        How about the more obvious explanation that Maidan, so much encouraged and celebrated by the West, had taught Ukrainians that it is Ok to attack the police, try to pull away their shields (see the photo above), through molotov cocktail at them (there was a picture on Monday) and grenades in order to pass certain laws in their Rada.

        vr13vr 3 Sep 2015 02:11

        How exactly Russia is "profiting" from this? is this author just throwing the sentences around or is he required to fulfill some anti-Russia quota in his article?

        ArtofLies -> Jonathan Stromberg 3 Sep 2015 02:09

        There are undoubtedly going to be further problems with these nationalists, oh come on, we can call the neo-nazi's or neo-fascists here, just because the journalists above the line cant be seen to be propagandising for fascists does not mean that we have to play those semantic games.

        the fact is this is the second time these fascists have attacked the police, this time with grenades, the last time it was molotov cocktails, but the media wont criticise them because there is money to be made in the ukraine, not everything is privatised yet and i hear there are still dreams of fracking ukraine to prosperity.

        nishville -> Jonathan Stromberg 3 Sep 2015 01:43

        The far right have done all the dirty work during the coup and still doing it on the frontline and have not got enough in return, in their view. Croatia had a similar problem with their extremist veterans who were used by the Croatian right wing HDZ to destabilize social-democrat government.

        Both countries are US clients and US has no use anymore for the nazi dogs of war, i.e. they can protest all they want - they are getting nothing and if they become too obstructive, they will start to disappear one by one.

        They might be dangerous but they are nothing compared to money men running the show.

        drrust 3 Sep 2015 01:38

        Again you are instigating that the Minsk agreements were reached by western or international powers in general, implying that angloamerica was part of this. The agreement was a sole and very sucsessful initiative of Mrs Merkel, who took a reluctant Holland with her who solely sensed a chance to be viewed as a statesman. The UK had already transports of war material underway.

        elias_ -> Bosula 3 Sep 2015 01:14

        There's million in Russia although many of them may be hiding to avoid military service. Look on the bright side, there's another 40 million of them and I bet most will want to move into the land of milk and honey which is Europe.

        MaoChengJi 2 Sep 2015 23:31

        "But despite profiting from it, Russia is very unlikely to have perpetrated it"

        Oh no, say it ain't so! How can any trouble in this world be caused by something that is not The Dark Lord Putin?

        And how is Russia 'profiting' from this, I'd like to know? Isn's this rather a case of the western Russophobe industry suffering a loss?

        Well, for sure the Russophobe industry suffering a loss is an undeniable victory for all humanity, but putting it as 'Russia profiting'?.. Oh well, russophobes are weird creatures, I've noticed it a long time ago.

        retarius 2 Sep 2015 22:47

        Occam's razor: the fascist nationalist nutters orchestrated the whole thing, because they don't want any concessions given to the objects of their hatred.

        eric lund 2 Sep 2015 20:43

        How the USA rule sway the destinies of Ukraine flooding it with blood

        One can get an impression that authorities of Ukraine, totally dependent on State Department of USA, are doing anything – searching for spies, begging for money, getting weapons from USA and Europe, suppressing dissidence, self-advertising and desperate propaganda, but not taking the steps to peaceful regulation of conflict in South-East of the country and its economic rise.

        According to the last research of Kiev international institute of sociology the rating of president Petr Poroshenko has fallen three times, down to 13,6%, other candidates don't even get 5%. When authorities are so unpopular, it is only left for them to turn the screws and continue witch hunting at full throttle.

        The director of Centre of Eurasian researches Vladimir Kornilov noted: "Everybody perfectly understands where the HR department of Ukrainian policy is. It is in the American Embassy".

        In order to strengthen his worthless power Poroshenko fired seemingly over powerful chief of Service of Safety Valentin Nalivaychenko, who had been transmitting information which often put Poroshenko himself in not very bright light, to representatives of USA. And new chief of Service of Safety Vasiliy Gritsak, who is very close to Poroshenko and was the head of his own service of safety, at one dash arrested 40 colonels and generals allegedly for dissidence in his department.
        Danger is getting closer for Home Affairs Minister Arsen Avakov. The chief military prosecutor Of Ukraine Anatoliy Matios claimed that members of criminal organization 'Tornado', made on the base of militia and appointed by Avakov from former criminals, had organized secret place in basement floor of school to torture illegally captured people. The Ukrainian patriarch Filareth presented a medal for sacrificing and love for Ukraine, so to say for perverted sadism while torments, which are unofficially legalized by Ukrainian authorities.

        At the same time the level of aggression of Ukrainian militaries is only picking up speed. Thus, the Ambassador of Ukraine in USA Valeriy Chalykh without any scruples stated: We are getting weapons, including lethal, and nobody can prohibit it to independent Ukraine. The other thing is that it is not common to disclose these countries, but they are more than 10, only from Europe. We have different level of technical and military cooperation, and at this stage it is only going further.

        Chillskier -> Paul Moore 2 Sep 2015 20:42

        Here is two examples of Porkoshenko being a head of occupational government:

        1. He destroyed Ukraine's military industrial complex, for it's ties (very profitable by the way) with Russian military, as any obedient CIA stooge will do.
        2. He flipped the country geo-politically, from the state that should have benefit from it's position in the middle of the Europe, in to some sort of final frontier, protecting Europe from the hordes of those crazy Russians, all by himself , only crazy person could have come up with this, or an obedient CIA stooge again.

        So it is what Ukraine g-ment does, not what putin tells.


        EugeneGur -> Chirographer 2 Sep 2015 20:35

        everything would have been wonderful if Ukraine had not decided to finally reject the brotherly embrace of Putin's Russia

        Not everything, because by that time Ukrainian authorities have already ruined a lot. However, there is little doubt that Ukraine would've been a hell of a lot better off if it hadn't followed the path of the coup and indulged in anti-Russian hysteria. Has your mother ever told you that quarreling with your neighbors is never a good idea?

        Looking at the situation objectively, it is a good thing that the Kiev government is trying to follow the Minsk plan.

        Objectively? You? It would be a good thing if it were but it doesn't. These constitutional changes have nothing to do with the requirements for the regional autonomy set out in Minsk II. Nor have they been agreed to by the Donbass representatives, which makes the whole thing pointless. But even these miserable changes had to be pushed through by Nuland, because Rada initially refused to approved them. There are 13 points in Minsk II and so far Kiev fulfilled none of them.

        Jeff1000 2 Sep 2015 20:30

        Some people think the challenges faced by Ukraine's Poroshenko are now too big to overcome. But those who would like to take his place have not shown themselves capable of doing even half of what he has achieved.

        Wait...Poroshenko has achieved something? He has done nothing but what he was told.

        He waged war in the east because John Brennan told him to. And then stopped when Merkel told him to. He is a non-entity.

        Julian1972 -> truk10 2 Sep 2015 19:54

        I know! I know!

        Still, when the US funds its various Intelligence Agencies and Covert Overseas Operations Organizations to levels beyond that which most of the rest of the world combined spend on their actual militaries, it's hard not see why they end up being suspected of having sticky fingers in various pies.

        Poor, innocent US...after all, all that money's just being spent on ergonomic seating and biodegradable paperclips, right? Hahahaha!

        nnedjo 2 Sep 2015 19:51

        There is one more possible theory, which seems that the author has failed to notice.
        Thus, due to the fact that the proposed legislation is far from what was envisaged by Minsk 2 agreement, and in particular is far from what would satisfy the pro-Russian rebels, the following question arises:
        Does this event may have been aimed to strengthen the claim that this bill is the most that Ukraine can offer to the pro-Russian rebels, because, "for God's sake, even for this Ukrainians began to kill each other in the middle of Kiev"?


        TomFullery -> Chillskier 2 Sep 2015 19:47

        You are right about Ukraine's economy. I visit fairly often and each time I get more Hryvnia for my Euros. Plus the restaurants are empty so you are guaranteed good service from serving staff desperate for a tip to supplement their meagre wages (so much for joining the US "democratic" system!).

        Strange that the Nazi putsch in Kiev has benefited me (who wouldn't piss on them if they were burning) rather more than 99% of Ukrainians.

        Although I do notice that the Kiev Nazis seem to have taken one step in the direction of moderation - the shrine to the Nazi Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera which was there erected about the time of the putsch has now disappeared (most likely moved to a less conspicuous location).

        Julian1972 -> desnol 2 Sep 2015 19:44

        Dead right.

        In penning the written equivalent of 'The Picture That Fooled the World':

        http://www.srpska-mreza.com/guest/LM/lm-f97/LM97_Bosnia.html

        maybe, at least, his 'confusion' is a symptom of his conscience trying to find it's voice. Hehehe, maybe there's hope for him yet?

        Let's face it, straight reporting on The Ukraine is hard to come by, given that it's labouring under the 3-line whip of the CIA, MI6 and another global I.S. best not to mention.

        NorthOfTheM25 2 Sep 2015 19:42

        The Ukrainian regime in as much as they try so hard to have a resemblance of 'western values' (whatever that means) & to avoid behaving like the powers that be at the Kremlin. At the end of the day have the same approach in how they apportion blame & deflect attention from their obvious failings.

        When you back hard right elements (to further your personal political goals, when both parties share a common antagonist) who are prone to violence. Don't cry victim when they disagree with your political overtures & decisions. Acting out that disagreement the only manner they know how to which is through violence.

        I have no sympathy Poroshenko, for the backlash his government is now facing re: his government's constitutional proposals.

        TomFullery -> jezzam 2 Sep 2015 19:35

        His Ukraine policy has two main prongs.

        1. Make Putin realise that military aggression against his neighbours carries too high an economic penalty to be worthwhile.

        Nothing got military until the US-instigated Nazi putsch in Kiev. Strategic imperatives trump short term economic considerations and Russia has reacted skilfully to the attack by the US using Ukraine as a proxy (much to Ukraine's detriment)

        2. Support Ukraine economically until it becomes a prosperous liberal democracy, like the rest of Europe (Russia excepted of course).

        Ukraine will be asset-stripped by US corporations. Ukraine will not be a prosperous, liberal democracy in your lifetime and neither will the US.

        His policy seems to be working very well.

        Oh dear!

        Chillskier -> normankirk 2 Sep 2015 19:33

        Link to the story that will challenge the spotless mind of jezzam:
        http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2015/08/28/ukrainischer-oligarch-bereichert-sich-an-iwf-krediten/

        Oligarchs in Ukraine are doing extremely well, obviously not a concern for a coup sponsors.

        normankirk -> jezzam 2 Sep 2015 19:33

        Want an example of a twist?

        Kerry warning Poroshenko against resuming hostilities, retaking territory in breach of the Minsk agreement, then less than a week later Nuland rushing to Kiev to egg Poroshenko on, thoroughly endorsing his plans

        Hanwell123 -> Knapping 2 Sep 2015 19:28

        He was the idiot who jumped the gun in the CIA plan to create a war in 2008. He went before the whistle shelling an unprotected and unwarned city hours before he was supposed to. One of Asias prize fools. So Poroshenko's made him - a non Ukrainian - Governor of Odessa. Great stuff Poro!

        TomFullery -> jezzam 2 Sep 2015 19:27

        Despite Yanukovich's corruption he did a decent job of steering Ukraine down the middle path between Russia and the US/EU and he was nobody's proxy. As for his corruption he was a mere pickpocket compared to the like of Timoshenko who is not on any Ukrainian, EU or US corruption list!

        This wasn't good enough for the neocons in Washington who wanted the whole country - hence their instigation of the Nazi putsch in Kiev. It's gone downhill all the way for the Ukrainian people since then considering they have lost a sizeable chunk of territory and now likely having to move to some sort of federal system.

        On top of those miseries they now have Finance and Economics ministers from Lithuania and Poland parachuted in by the US and given Ukrainian citizenship on the day of their inauguration to their respective posts. They also have US stooge and ex-Georgian president Sakaashvili and fugitive from Georgian justice parachuted in as governor of Odessa. Let's not forget Joe Biden's son who was appointed to the board of directors of one of Ukraine's biggest energy companies very shortly after the Nazi putsch.

        At least the east of the country is out of the hands of US corporate predators but it's a certainty that agreements will be signed (if not already) to turn massive tracts of Ukrainian farmland in the west of that country to US GM giants. I wonder how those US-loving west Ukrainians are going to react when the horrible reality of US-style "democracy" hits home.

        NorthOfTheM25 -> truk10 2 Sep 2015 19:24

        Stop it, you are embarrassing yourself & sound like a bitter divorcee who has lost a legal battle. Nothing you have said has little bearing with the article.

        But I guess each time the key trigger words Russia, Ukraine, Kremlin, Stalin & Moscow are mentioned then just like Putin bots, you are also activated from your dwelling under the bridge to reel out the tired & repetitive anti Putin bellicose rants.

        normankirk -> jezzam 2 Sep 2015 19:22

        except it is the oligarchs who are prospering. Kolomoisky is under investigation for diverting 1.8 billion of IMF money to his own Cyprus bank account. Poroshenkos profits have increased astronomically while all Ukrainians are taking pay cuts.


        luckyjohn -> alpamysh 2 Sep 2015 19:03

        Yanukovych contributed a lot to radicalise Ukrainian society. He planned his survival in office by manipulation - stressing Tyannybok's importance to voters so that in the end there would be a choice - Tyaynybok or himself Yanukovych for president. Of course - Yanukovych then wins because the radical Tyahnybok is too "dangerous" to vote in. So much for your democratically elected president Yanukovych! So the presence of radical elements in Ukrainian society is in fact Yanukovych's doing. He was a very divisive president who played on divisions in Ukraine rather than trying to heal them as well as being thoroughly corrupt.


        virgenskamikazes 2 Sep 2015 18:37

        I would believe the Western version if, after ousting Yanukovich, they would do a 21st century, EU version of a Marshall Plan. If the EU had said to Yanukovich "we want to flood Ukraine with Euro with very low interest and in long term, for investment in infrastructure and industrialization projects - given that you cut ties completely with Russia" and Yanukovich had said "no" to that, than I think it would be fair for the Ukranian people to oust him.

        But the EU offered a humiliating, absurd shock therapy style reform, that's why Yanukovich "no". Even imediate full EU, EZ membership was not on the table.

        The thing is, the Ukrainian people bought on the fantasy that they could mass emigrate to central Europe overnight had Yanukovich said "yes", that only them had economic problems, that the West is the promised land, that we are still in the Cold War, etc.

        Had Yanukovich hold on tight on power until two months ago, after the Greek tragedy, I doubt there would be political strength for the USA and the Ukrainian far-right to oust him.

        Beckow -> ArthurJenkinson 2 Sep 2015 18:32

        He wrote a long article with bizarre conspiracy theories in order to confuse a very simple attack by a Ukrainian nationalist mob on the police, killing 3 policemen.

        The "theories" are there to obfuscate and confuse. We are close to the end game in Kiev and it will not be pretty. And the angry hysteria among Washington, London and Berlin sponsors of this madness will also get uglier. They don't like to lose so they would prefer just about anything to admitting to being defeated in Ukraine.


        Julian1972 2 Sep 2015 17:43

        Poroshenko's assertion that Russia is to blame for this week's murder of policemen is of the same Frankenstein DNA as his assertion that Russia was behind the downing of Flight MH17 and that the Eastern part of The Ukraine's population are not democrats rising up against an illegal putsch which brought him to power but are simply 'Kremlin puppets'...and therefore justifiably crushed by the same type of gunfire that otherwise had Maidan martyrs held up as 'heroes'. (Even though it was members of their own side doing the shooting, hahaha).

        Disgusting man hailing from a disgusting class of politician/businessmen trained by the US to bring death and chaos to any part of the globe that the powers behind the US Government see fit. Prepare for our own Maidan should this class of parasite-sans-frontieres, (read Mikheil Saakashvili), succeed in bringing The Ukraine under the NATO umbrella.


        BastaYa72 -> alpamysh 2 Sep 2015 17:43

        You can't even tell the difference between 'neo-fascist' and 'Nazi'.

        If either term comes into your tiny mind it obviously defaults to imagining scenes from the last days in the Führerbunbker - whatever turns you on.

        Also, the IMF has always favoured right wing corporatist regimes, preferably with as little democracy as possible.


        desnol 2 Sep 2015 17:41

        The author's puzzlement and confusion are directly proportional to how little he understands the situation in Ukraine. He keeps wondering about various scenario's, each more absurd than the previous.

        I chortled with laughter, almost choked, when he suggested that the Kremlin agents are organising the far right nationalists in Ukraine, deliberately causing an outbreak of peace in order to show up the Kiev parties in a bad light! Believe me, Kiev parties can show themselves up all by themselves!

        And then, almost at the very end of the article, after all his fanciful, surreal speculation, Andrey Kurkov hits the nail on the head with


        "Still, the violence could have a far more banal explanation."

        But even then he gets it all skewed up, blaming the fact that Ukranian army went to fight the separatists for the fact that the far right thugs are now armed and throwing bombs in Kiev. Doesn't he realise they were armed and throwing bombs in Maidan 2014 edition? He doesn't ask who armed them in the first place.
        The author is giving a good impression of being one very confused bloke.

        domeus -> thenewstranger 2 Sep 2015 17:30

        At least he is an improvement on all the other Guardian journalists who report on Russia and Ukraine. He connects the right wing group of people behind the killing of the of the policeman in Kiev with those those who volunteered to kill their fellow countrymen in Odessa and throughout the eastern and southern regions. Autonomy for the regions would have solved the problem then and prevented the unnecessary bloodshed and suffering. But Nuland had other plans and the western media acted accordingly.

        Jessica Roth -> alpamysh 2 Sep 2015 17:14

        The Maidan "protestors" were the ones who broke the cease-fire, shooting at both the Berkut and their own people. The forensic evidence proved it. Did you not listen to the Urmas Paet-Baroness Ashton phone call?

        The "impeachment" of Yanukovich was illegal under the Ukraine constitution, which required a 75% vote. Even with the US-trained thugs forcing MPs to the floor at gunpoint, only 72% of the Ukraine parliament was present for the vote. Poroshenko has no more business being President than the burnt and raped corpses of the people his Azov Nazis butchered in Odessa and Mariupol do. (Although the corpses would probably do a better job.)

        bonhiver 2 Sep 2015 16:49

        I wondered how long it would be for poroshenko to blame putin for the grenade attack. Russia has been a convenient scapegoat for Ukraine to blame for its own failings since the overthrow of yanukovic.

        The right wing activists who carried out the grenade attack were at the heart of the maidan protests which also involved violent confrontations with the police. They were also those who tarrgetted ethnic Russians following the overthrow of yanukovic so their actions in opposition to granting extra powers to eastern territories is hardly surprising.

        ositonegro 2 Sep 2015 16:44

        The Azov battalion also declared they would bring the war to Kiev if not sated in Dombass. You make a fascist revolution and the next move is to institutionalize it. Hitler did this very well, destroying the populist SA movement and assassinating their leaders and incorporating the remainder into the regular army. Then fascism could move forward with the whole state support.

        But in Ukraine the EU-US used fascism to make the coup then tried to reign it in. The fascists however cannot be institutionalized. They are still a powerful street movement with the added benefit of having been trained and armed and given military space to grow. Now they are pushing for policy dominance over the regular bourgeois political forces and using bombs to do it. The Azov Battalion always said they would take the war back to Kiev if they felt betrayed.

        It has to be understood that Poroshenko is not a fascist, despite coming to power on the back of their efforts. The EU-US do not want the fascists in power. How could Ukraine enter the EU with an outright fascist government? But they are playing with fire, using these street forces and then renouncing them. It will come a time when they do not have either the legitimacy of the power to stop another coup against themselves, and this time with no restraints. Then what will the EU do?

        While Greece founders under unsustainable debt and Eurogroup dictatorship, Ukraine is given sweeteners, relieving 20% of their debt - something unimaginable with Greece. But you can't stop a tsunami with Canderel.

        [Sep 03, 2015] The Afterthought of Nagasaki

        August 13, 2015 | Antiwar.com

        Seven decades ago, the US dropped one atomic bomb on Hiroshima and one on Nagasaki, Japan. The journalistic hook of that nice, big 7-0 means that mainstream outlets had an excuse to look back and consider the decision to use the nukes. The conclusion remains mixed. There's some (vital) uncomfortableness with the idea that the grand old US remains the only nation to use such a weapon on human beings. But it never feels like a true black mark on the US, because, well, we won't let it be one.

        It is true some people – and some polls suggest – that the anti-nuke side of things wins out more and more when we look at the passage of time. Yet, it doesn't feel that way when the subject is discussed. Perhaps if you directly ask whether nuking was justified (a surprisingly low 56 percent say yes in a 2015 Pew Research Center poll), you may get one type of answer. But even ostensibly neutral history books that most children use in most schools reaffirm this constant narrative of justification. The bombing ended World War II, and America did it, and Hitler lost, and so it must have been good and right. It's easy to believe this, and easier still if you don't spend too much time thinking about it. I read a great deal of history before I realized that some very war-friendly, establishment people like Gen. Dwight Eisenhower disputed the necessity of the bombing.

        Another, narrower aspect of the question of justification lies with the second bombing. "Hiroshima" is historical shorthand for the use of atomic bombs on human beings, the way Waco is shorthand for the tragedy with the Branch Davidians, and Columbine means (what was once) the most horrifying school shooting. That's how humans talk about things. But when we say Hiroshima, what do we mean? Do we mean the fact of both bombs? Or just the first one? The afterthought that is the bombing of Nagasaki rather brilliantly sums up the lack of care on the part of the defenders of the act. Let us say – though we are wrong – that the first bomb on August 6 is morally acceptable because because we have a crystal ball that proves a land invasion is otherwise necessary and it will kill one million people. (Presumably, our crystal ball also tell us unequivocally that horrifically punishing citizens for the crimes of their government is all right if you really feel like it. )

        Given all of that, what makes the bombing of Nagasaki on August 9 acceptable? Nagasaki was the last minute replacement for Kokura, which had blessed smoke and haze cover preventing the dropping of the bomb. Kyoto had previously been suggested as a target, but was too beautiful. A dozen and a half other cities were on the list earlier that spring, and Nagasaki was taken off, and then later hand written on the draft strike order in late July. A decision this momentous and horrifying was borderline spur of the moment.

        Now, the parody news site The Onion actually sums up the Nagasaki situation brilliantly (except for a predictable French joke). Their headline reads "Nagasaki Bombed 'Just for the Hell of it.'" The sub: "second A-bomb would have just sat around anyway, say generals." The entire faux article is worth a read. It's painfully damning.

        Three days is the patience that the US had for killing 40,000 or not. Three days for the Japanese government to surrender. Three days is how much the people of Nagasaki were worth. That speaks volumes about priorities. You cannot argue that this was some cold math problem that cannot be regretted or coo that the US was doing it to save everyone's lives when you read about the bumbling, last minute journey to drop Fat Man on Nagasaki. This is brilliantly relayed in a recent New Yorker piece written by nuclear historian Alex Wellerstein. The whole piece is essential reading, but two details that stuck out to me were the following. The warning leaflets that hawks point to even in casual debate about the issue as proof the US meant to preserve some life? Those warnings of a terrible weapon to come? They came on August 10.

        Also illuminating is a list of some of the closest targets to ground zero. Yes, Fat Man took out a torpedo factory and a Mitsubishi plant. Nearby were also: "Nagasaki Prison, Mitsubishi Hospital, Nagasaki Medical College, Chinzei High School, Shiroyama School, Urakami Cathedral, Blind and Dumb School, Yamazato School, Nagasaki University Hospital, Mitsubishi Boys' School, Nagasaki Tuberculosis Clinic, Keiho Boys' High School."

        Wellerstein also has a blog post from two years ago which asks "Why Nagasaki?" In it he goes over theories not as to why the city was picked, but why another nuke was dropped at all. "No really, we mean it" is the official version. But as Wellerstein wisely notes, this is silly. Did the US expect the Japanese to think this impossible new weapon had been a fluke? Some kind of magic incantation? That's a terrifyingly weak excuse for killing so many people – making sure they EXTRA got the point. So indeed is one theory that both plutonium and uranium bombs needed to have proven they were worth the Manhattan project's enormous cost. Wellerstein doubts that one, but it certainly has a ringing confirmation bias for those against the military industrial complex.

        Wellerstein suggests that though Nagasaki almost escaped unscathed:

        "To stop the atomic bombing would have been the unusual position. Go back to that original target order: the only distinction is between the "first special bomb" and the "additional bombs," not a singular second special bomb." And in his New Yorker Piece, he also notes that Truman appears to have been uncomfortable destroying another city full of "all those kids."

        So there you go. There were only two nukes dropped, and none since. It could have been worse. But this was not a country weighing competing interests like stopping Imperial Japan and not slaughtering people. This was "hit 'em again to make sure they're down." A week would be too long to wait? Ten days? A month? It seems that even people willing to do something as horrific as nuke a city could wait a little bit to see if they must do it again. But, no. Because if it is on the table – if you have just done it – then you will do it again. The Onion wasn't kidding.

        And so they say two nukes ended the war, but what if the US had stopped at one? How do we know that wouldn't have worked? Or they had needed five, or ten, or twenty nukes, all of Japan in a rubble? Would that have been just as necessary as two? That's the margin of error war works with: scores of thousands of lives lost. Maybe we needed to do it once, maybe twice. One or two bombs. Three if we can finish that last one. The lack of specificity which doomed Nagasaki is haunting, and it proves that the hawks are guessing just as much as anyone else.

        Lucy Steigerwald is a contributing editor for Antiwar.com and a columnist for VICE.com. She previously worked as an Associate Editor for Reason magazine. She is most angry about police, prisons, and wars. Steigerwald blogs at www.thestagblog.com.

        /ukraine. /guardian_slips. Polit*/ Neocolon*/ /predator_state. /disaster_capitalism. Propaganda/ fighting_russo*/ /nulndgate. /far_right /color_revolutions.

        [Sep 02, 2015] Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets

        libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org

        Liberty Street

        comments from Economist's View Links for 09-02-15

        Second Best said...

        'Repugnance laws go above and beyond existing laws to enforce the desire by members of society to prohibit certain types of behavior that otherwise would be legal. In short, such laws are justified on the grounds that allowing repugnant actions imposes a negative externality on everyone (not just the parties involved) and lowers the public good.'

        ---

        In the U.S. voting as a negative externality is repugnant to a democracy and has been replaced by money as more effective speech.

        Due to the rational ignorance effect, many voters don't vote because one more vote doesn't matter. This is repugnant to the rest, who replace the void of people votes with money votes.

        The result is suppression of repugnant votes that generate negative externalities, replaced with virtuous votes that generate positive externalities both, to those who buy votes and those who sell them.

        The narrow cream of single issue virtuous votes rises to the top to decide which virtuous leaders will continue to suppress the repugnance of voting for democracy in the U.S.

        [Sep 01, 2015] Leveraged Bubbles

        "...When credit growth fuels asset price bubbles, the dangers for the financial sector and the real economy are much more substantial. The damage done to the economy by the bursting of credit boom bubbles is significant and long lasting."
        "..."Each fed governor likes to live on the edge, further out on a limb where she can see more then hope against hope that limb will not break until she leaves office." ?"
        "...
        "When credit growth fuels asset price bubbles, the dangers for the financial sector and the real economy are much more substantial."
        So M Minsky 50 years ago and M Pettis 15 years ago (in his "The volatility machine") had it right? Who could have imagined! :-)
        "In the past decades, central banks typically have taken a hands-off approach to asset price bubbles and credit booms."
        If only! They have been feeding credit-based asset price bubbles by at the same time weakening regulations to push up allowed capital-leverage ratios, and boosting the quantity of credit as high as possible, but specifically most for leveraged speculation on assets, by allowing vast-overvaluations on those assets."
        "...Do you believe selling and reselling the same fixed quantity of assets creates jobs through the wealth effect of workers spending money they don't have to buy things on credit they can't pay back to keep up with the rich?"
        economistsview.typepad.com

        The conclusion to "Leveraged bubbles," by Òscar Jordà, Moritz Schularick, and Alan Taylor:

        ... In this column, we turned to economic history for the first comprehensive assessment of the economic risks of asset price bubbles. We provide evidence about which types of bubbles matter and how their economic costs differ. Our historical analysis shows that not all bubbles are created equal. When credit growth fuels asset price bubbles, the dangers for the financial sector and the real economy are much more substantial. The damage done to the economy by the bursting of credit boom bubbles is significant and long lasting.
        In the past decades, central banks typically have taken a hands-off approach to asset price bubbles and credit booms. This way of thinking has been criticised by some institutions, such as the BIS, that took a less rosy view of the self-equilibrating tendencies of financial markets and warned of the potentially grave consequences of leveraged asset price bubbles. The findings presented here can inform ongoing efforts to devise better macro-financial theory and real-world applications at a time when policymakers are still searching for new approaches in the aftermath of the Great Recession.

        Posted by Mark Thoma on Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 09:25 AM in Economics, Financial System | Permalink Comments (8)

        Double Capitulation said...

        "bursting of credit boom bubbles is significant and long lasting.

        In the past decades, central banks typically have taken"
        ~~Òscar Jordà, Moritz Schularick, and Alan Taylor:~

        Did Kurt Vonnegut once quip

        "Each fed governor likes to live on the edge, further out on a limb where she can see more then hope against hope that limb will not break until she leaves office." ?

        Imprecisely, yet left us with a memorable hint of both his genius and fed governor's stupidity.

        djb said...

        of course if wages kept up with productivity, there would not have been as much of a bubble because people could have paid more, and borrowed less

        but I doubt BIS was worried about that particular issue

        Peter K. -> djb...

        "This way of thinking has been criticised by some institutions, such as the BIS, that took a less rosy view of the self-equilibrating tendencies of financial markets and warned of the potentially grave consequences of leveraged asset price bubbles."

        Likewise I don't the believe the BIS is big on tighter regulation of the banks. As Krugman and others have pointed out, the BIS is always for raising rates but switches rationals. Sometimes it's about inflation, sometimes bubbles.

        mulp -> djb...

        We need a Fed that sets as policy buying long term debt that funds new infrastructure projects that are required by Federal regulation to pay prevailing aka higher wages.

        If in 2010, the Fed had bought $3 trillion in bonds for such projects as building the NE HSR, for all the cities fixing their century old water and sewer systems, California's HSR, bonds for replacement bridges with tunnels as option, rerouting rail to eliminate grade crossings to speed for freight and truck traffic, then the Fed could have done what Republicans have done up until the Republicans decided to punish all the We the People for electing Obama.

        Any debt issued that does not build new capital assets requiring American labor, ie, debt paying labor costs, is totally worthless to the economy.

        Other than for some existing constant wealth redistribution purposes - during 2008-2011 savers were protected against having their wealth taken from them and given to the borrowers who had long ago spent it.

        Arne said...

        Is there some data on the extent to which asset price rises are credit fueled or not. My memory (which does not qualify as a data source) says that the housing bubble was much more so than the dot-com bubble.

        Blissex said...

        "When credit growth fuels asset price bubbles, the dangers for the financial sector and the real economy are much more substantial."

        So M Minsky 50 years ago and M Pettis 15 years ago (in his "The volatility machine") had it right? Who could have imagined! :-)

        "In the past decades, central banks typically have taken a hands-off approach to asset price bubbles and credit booms."

        If only! They have been feeding credit-based asset price bubbles by at the same time weakening regulations to push up allowed capital-leverage ratios, and boosting the quantity of credit as high as possible, but specifically most for leveraged speculation on assets, by allowing vast-overvaluations on those assets.

        Central banks have worked hard in most Anglo-American countries to redistribute income and wealth from "inflationary" worker incomes to "non-inflationary" rentier incomes via hyper-subsidizing with endless cheap credit the excesses of financial speculation in driving up asset prices.

        Not very hands-off at all.

        mulp -> Blissex...

        Are you questioning creating wealth by price inflation of decaying asset which are churned in pump and dump?

        Do you believe selling and reselling the same fixed quantity of assets creates jobs through the wealth effect of workers spending money they don't have to buy things on credit they can't pay back to keep up with the rich?

        Wealth. Creating wealth. Wealth effect. Capital gains. Money in your pocket.

        Signs of free lunch economic smoke and mirrors.

        Wealth is created by paid labor or hard labor by the owner of the created wealth. But paying labor costs as a virtue is not something an economist is allowed to say in the post Reagan victory world.

        [Sep 01, 2015] Leveraged Bubbles

        "...When credit growth fuels asset price bubbles, the dangers for the financial sector and the real economy are much more substantial. The damage done to the economy by the bursting of credit boom bubbles is significant and long lasting."
        "..."Each fed governor likes to live on the edge, further out on a limb where she can see more then hope against hope that limb will not break until she leaves office." ?"
        "...
        "When credit growth fuels asset price bubbles, the dangers for the financial sector and the real economy are much more substantial."
        So M Minsky 50 years ago and M Pettis 15 years ago (in his "The volatility machine") had it right? Who could have imagined! :-)
        "In the past decades, central banks typically have taken a hands-off approach to asset price bubbles and credit booms."
        If only! They have been feeding credit-based asset price bubbles by at the same time weakening regulations to push up allowed capital-leverage ratios, and boosting the quantity of credit as high as possible, but specifically most for leveraged speculation on assets, by allowing vast-overvaluations on those assets."
        "...Do you believe selling and reselling the same fixed quantity of assets creates jobs through the wealth effect of workers spending money they don't have to buy things on credit they can't pay back to keep up with the rich?"
        economistsview.typepad.com

        The conclusion to "Leveraged bubbles," by Òscar Jordà, Moritz Schularick, and Alan Taylor:

        ... In this column, we turned to economic history for the first comprehensive assessment of the economic risks of asset price bubbles. We provide evidence about which types of bubbles matter and how their economic costs differ. Our historical analysis shows that not all bubbles are created equal. When credit growth fuels asset price bubbles, the dangers for the financial sector and the real economy are much more substantial. The damage done to the economy by the bursting of credit boom bubbles is significant and long lasting.
        In the past decades, central banks typically have taken a hands-off approach to asset price bubbles and credit booms. This way of thinking has been criticised by some institutions, such as the BIS, that took a less rosy view of the self-equilibrating tendencies of financial markets and warned of the potentially grave consequences of leveraged asset price bubbles. The findings presented here can inform ongoing efforts to devise better macro-financial theory and real-world applications at a time when policymakers are still searching for new approaches in the aftermath of the Great Recession.

        Posted by Mark Thoma on Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 09:25 AM in Economics, Financial System | Permalink Comments (8)

        Double Capitulation said...

        "bursting of credit boom bubbles is significant and long lasting.

        In the past decades, central banks typically have taken"
        ~~Òscar Jordà, Moritz Schularick, and Alan Taylor:~

        Did Kurt Vonnegut once quip

        "Each fed governor likes to live on the edge, further out on a limb where she can see more then hope against hope that limb will not break until she leaves office." ?

        Imprecisely, yet left us with a memorable hint of both his genius and fed governor's stupidity.

        djb said...

        of course if wages kept up with productivity, there would not have been as much of a bubble because people could have paid more, and borrowed less

        but I doubt BIS was worried about that particular issue

        Peter K. -> djb...

        "This way of thinking has been criticised by some institutions, such as the BIS, that took a less rosy view of the self-equilibrating tendencies of financial markets and warned of the potentially grave consequences of leveraged asset price bubbles."

        Likewise I don't the believe the BIS is big on tighter regulation of the banks. As Krugman and others have pointed out, the BIS is always for raising rates but switches rationals. Sometimes it's about inflation, sometimes bubbles.

        mulp -> djb...

        We need a Fed that sets as policy buying long term debt that funds new infrastructure projects that are required by Federal regulation to pay prevailing aka higher wages.

        If in 2010, the Fed had bought $3 trillion in bonds for such projects as building the NE HSR, for all the cities fixing their century old water and sewer systems, California's HSR, bonds for replacement bridges with tunnels as option, rerouting rail to eliminate grade crossings to speed for freight and truck traffic, then the Fed could have done what Republicans have done up until the Republicans decided to punish all the We the People for electing Obama.

        Any debt issued that does not build new capital assets requiring American labor, ie, debt paying labor costs, is totally worthless to the economy.

        Other than for some existing constant wealth redistribution purposes - during 2008-2011 savers were protected against having their wealth taken from them and given to the borrowers who had long ago spent it.

        Arne said...

        Is there some data on the extent to which asset price rises are credit fueled or not. My memory (which does not qualify as a data source) says that the housing bubble was much more so than the dot-com bubble.

        Blissex said...

        "When credit growth fuels asset price bubbles, the dangers for the financial sector and the real economy are much more substantial."

        So M Minsky 50 years ago and M Pettis 15 years ago (in his "The volatility machine") had it right? Who could have imagined! :-)

        "In the past decades, central banks typically have taken a hands-off approach to asset price bubbles and credit booms."

        If only! They have been feeding credit-based asset price bubbles by at the same time weakening regulations to push up allowed capital-leverage ratios, and boosting the quantity of credit as high as possible, but specifically most for leveraged speculation on assets, by allowing vast-overvaluations on those assets.

        Central banks have worked hard in most Anglo-American countries to redistribute income and wealth from "inflationary" worker incomes to "non-inflationary" rentier incomes via hyper-subsidizing with endless cheap credit the excesses of financial speculation in driving up asset prices.

        Not very hands-off at all.

        mulp -> Blissex...

        Are you questioning creating wealth by price inflation of decaying asset which are churned in pump and dump?

        Do you believe selling and reselling the same fixed quantity of assets creates jobs through the wealth effect of workers spending money they don't have to buy things on credit they can't pay back to keep up with the rich?

        Wealth. Creating wealth. Wealth effect. Capital gains. Money in your pocket.

        Signs of free lunch economic smoke and mirrors.

        Wealth is created by paid labor or hard labor by the owner of the created wealth. But paying labor costs as a virtue is not something an economist is allowed to say in the post Reagan victory world.

        [Aug 31, 2015] China can ride out this crisis. But we're on course for another crash

        Notable quotes:
        "... There is every reason to fear more fallout from casino capitalism ..."
        "... A dysfunctional model of capitalism, built on deregulation, privatisation and low wages, crashed and burned seven years ago. But the fallout from that crisis is still ricocheting around the world, from Europe to the "emerging economies", as the attempt to refloat a broken model with cheap credit inflates asset bubbles and share buybacks – or enforce it with austerity – fuels new crises. ..."
        "... That's one reason why the anti-austerity movement and the demand for economic alternatives is growing across Britain, Europe and the US. The elites so evidently don't know what they're doing, even as they rake in the spoils. ..."
        "... Conclusion: dramatic market fluctuations of the past few weeks were primarily irrational !! Most losses have already been recouped and for all of the sound and fury, corrections appear to be marginal, not precipitous. ..."
        "... Steve Keen, for example, saw the 2008 crash coming, and continues to provide very good, reasoned analysis about what continues to occur. ..."
        "... First, we all know that markets have been rigged since QE was introduced to pull the Establishment's irons out of the fire. But surely there is an uncomfortable paradox in the knowledge that, in this latest saga, while the world's greatest totalitarian regime was signally unable to rig its market, conversely it took only a day for the great champion of free market capitalism to do so? ..."
        "... "In 2013, 45.3 million people (14.5 percent) in the USA were in poverty. ..."
        Aug 30, 2015 | The Guardian

        Market mayhem is the product of the aftershocks of 2008. No wonder calls for alternatives are growing


        It may not yet be the moment to get in supplies of tinned food. That was what Gordon Brown's former adviser during the 2008 crash, Damian McBride, suggested on Monday as stock markets crashed from Shanghai to New York and $1tn was wiped off the value of shares in one day. But seven years after the collapse of Lehman Brothers brought down the global financial system and plunged half the world into a slump, it's scarcely alarmist to see the financial panic as the harbinger of a new crisis in a still crippled world economy.

        The market gyrations that followed "Black Monday" this week and the 40% drop in the value of Chinese stocks since June have only underlined the fragility of what is supposed to be an international recovery. For all the finger-wagging hubris of western commentators over the fact that the latest mayhem has erupted in China, this is a global firestorm. And after three decades of deregulation punctuated by financial crises and a systemic meltdown, there is every reason to fear more fallout from casino capitalism.

        Financial markets pumped up with credit and quantitative easing to keep the real economy afloat are in any case ripe for a crash – or "correction", as the market players like to call it. The only question is how far and fast they go – and how great is the price paid by the rest of us.

        Paradoxically, Beijing may be better placed than others to ride out this storm. China's economy is slowing down, as it shifts from export-led growth to consumption. But it's still growing at 7%, nearly three times as fast as Britain and the US, which are supposed to be the west's current star performers. Even if China's figure is overstated, its growth is still at least double the Anglo-American rate: the kind of economic problem the rest of the world would be happy to have.

        That follows three decades when Chinese growth averaged 10% a year, delivering the fastest economic development and reduction in poverty in world history – as well as rising inequality and environmental degradation. But China's stock market is small compared with its western equivalents and relatively insulated from the rest of the economy.

        Despite its huge private sector, China is still a hybrid economy, dominated by state banks and publicly owned corporations. That means its financial system is shielded from the impact that a stock market crash on this scale would have in a western-style private banking system.

        China rode out the 2008 crash by pumping public investment into the economy, delivering 78% growth between 2007 and 2014, while the US managed 8%. That has left it with a huge debt pile, estimated at 282% of national income, which some now believe will bring China's economy to a juddering halt.

        But that is mostly debt between state-owned institutions, so there is no basis for a speculative Lehmans-type collapse. In fact, some of the problems China is now facing as it tries to bring the stock market crisis under control, such as capital outflow, stem from the liberalisation urged on it by the World Bank and its own home-grown would-be oligarchs.

        There is every reason to fear more fallout from casino capitalism

        China's room for manoeuvre would certainly be much narrower if it had gone for their full deregulation and privatisation package. But the main drag on the Chinese economy isn't the failings of its own economic model, but stagnation in the rest of the world. Global trade suffered its largest contraction since 2008 in the first six months of this year, partly as a result of the ongoing crisis in the eurozone. Eight years after the financial crisis erupted in the US, its aftershocks are still being felt across the world.

        A dysfunctional model of capitalism, built on deregulation, privatisation and low wages, crashed and burned seven years ago. But the fallout from that crisis is still ricocheting around the world, from Europe to the "emerging economies", as the attempt to refloat a broken model with cheap credit inflates asset bubbles and share buybacks – or enforce it with austerity – fuels new crises.

        That is what has been played out across financial markets this week, in which China has been a transmission belt rather than the motor. Any idea that the western economies that generated stagnation have been fixed is not serious. Their recoveries have been the slowest on record and interest rates remain at a historic low – because owners of capital are prepared to invest in anything except the productive economy. The likelihood must be that this stagnation continues indefinitely, punctuated by financial upheavals. Without far-reaching change in economic policy, they can be expected to trigger crises that will tip western economies, and others, back into full-blown recession.

        That's one reason why the anti-austerity movement and the demand for economic alternatives is growing across Britain, Europe and the US. The elites so evidently don't know what they're doing, even as they rake in the spoils. In such a context, calls for large-scale public investment, ownership and quantitative easing for the real economy made by Labour's leadership frontrunner, Jeremy Corbyn, look far more realistic than the business-as-usual offered by his rivals.

        If the current market chaos turns into another crash, the demand for much stronger measures will become unstoppable.


        the_thoughtful_one 29 Aug 2015 06:47

        well said article - and in the BBC news the ex Sainsbury's boss attacks a living wage - while he earns 176 times that wage and hardly presided over a great Sainsbury's did he - because their share price dropped 30% after his shift, his foundations

        and they still pay 3p/hr less than Tesco after a 4% pay rise so you can see this was forced on the company

        people of his ilk "ARE" the problem.

        HeinzH 29 Aug 2015 06:37

        With todays capitalism ,which derailed under Thatchers/Reagans reign,the problem is not deregulation and privatisation but looting of the economy.Free hands to the bank establishment has given us a never ending criminality in the markets and a rising number of extremly rich people in the industrialized world.Is it that difficult to understand that the amassment of riches amongst the already rich is no way for creating a just and sustainable society?


        soundofthesuburbs 29 Aug 2015 06:26

        The timeline for the collapsing global economy.

        Japanese banks had been on a maniacal lending spree into real estate and the bubble popped in 1989. Rather than own up to losses and admit their bankers were fools, they covered up the problems with loose monetary policy.

        Japan then had the rest of the world to trade with that was still doing well but it never really recovered.

        US banks went on a maniacal lending spree into real estate and the bubble popped in 2008. Rather than own up to losses and admit their bankers were fools, they covered up the problems with loose monetary policy.

        US banks used complex financial instruments to spread this problem throughout the West.

        "It's nearly $14 trillion pyramid of super leveraged toxic assets was built on the back of $1.4 trillion of US sub-prime loans, and dispersed throughout the world" (pg 404, "All the Presidents Bankers", Nomi Prins).

        Rather than own up to losses and admit their bankers were fools, the UK and Euro-zone
        covered up the problems with loose monetary policy.

        Japan, the UK, the US and the Euro-zone had the BRICS nations to trade with that were still doing well but they never really recovered.

        The BRICS nations are now heading for recession.

        Doesn't look good does it.


        coplani 29 Aug 2015 04:45

        The fundamental question is simply this....

        Can millions of people continue to make a living from sitting on their backsides and investing or gambling on the stock markets.
        "Loads of Money" and "Money Making Money from Investing"...

        Is it sustainable in a World where growth is no more...

        Markets and asset values at an all time high...Can this money making money from investing continue indefinitely...Especially when others are joining in by the million.

        Our whole way of life is now dependent on the markets and they cannot be allowed to go down in value...Thus Q.E. and record low interest rates....Currency devaluation could be next as has already happened elsewhere...

        Investment funds, Pension Schemes, Banks, Massive Financial Institutions etc now depend wholly on money making money....

        Any enterprise started, which seems to be profitable is snapped up by the market looking for money to make money...

        For how long can this be sustained....That is the question.


        KassandraTroy 28 Aug 2015 19:06

        Yup. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

        Yet here we are, courtesy of the new "free trade agreements", ready to turn 40% of the global economy over to these same players right when we need to put on the brakes. Because, of course, the oligarchs have bought our governments. I shudder to think of a world ruled by the multi national corporations. It'll probably collapse in 6 months...maybe a few more for the planet to just stop

        nnedjo 28 Aug 2015 15:16

        Their recoveries have been the slowest on record and interest rates remain at a historic low – because owners of capital are prepared to invest in anything except the productive economy.

        Well, something like this, only more exclusively, says also a former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis. In his article "How I became an erratic Marxist" Varoufakis says:

        Today, turning to the European crisis, the crisis in the United States and the long-term stagnation of Japanese capitalism, most commentators fail to appreciate the dialectical process under their nose. They recognise the mountain of debts and banking losses but neglect the opposite side of the same coin: the mountain of idle savings that are "frozen" by fear and thus fail to convert into productive investments.

        So, indeed, it seems that rich people of today are chosen only to remain rich, and to enjoy life. So they keep their money in banks, not taking anything with them, nor even think to invest it in something and so increase their capital. Accordingly, in addition to reducing the number of workers as a result of the automation of production, modern capitalism is faced with another phenomenon. He is in danger of losing the capitalists too.

        And, capitalism that has no workers, and at the same time has no capitalists too, in many ways resembles Marx's ideal of a classless society by the name of communism. :-)

        konga76 28 Aug 2015 15:08

        The author's message is suspect. The stock market crash of the last week was mostly panic. Fundamentals in China market are unchanged, Western investor participation in said market was severely limited by Chinese law, and Western exposure to market contraction was meager.

        In US, where biggest Western drop was seen, only 1% of economy hurt by China contraction. Additionally, there is considerable doubt that the author's 7% growth in China is accurate. Many economists inside and out of China believe it to be significantly less, and these suspicions are not of recent vintage. And, recent data corrections have shown US economy grew at 3.5% earlier this year, not the 2% previously reported.

        Conclusion: dramatic market fluctuations of the past few weeks were primarily irrational !! Most losses have already been recouped and for all of the sound and fury, corrections appear to be marginal, not precipitous.

        ID401112 -> goodlife9 28 Aug 2015 13:28

        Good post. Economics is imprecise, granted, and it doesn't help that most world leaders are completely financially illiterate. But there are different schools of thought and economist that offer very robust analysis of the current economic situation. They're just not listened to because the needed measures are both in direct conflict with the needs of party donors, and expectations of the voting public.

        Steve Keen, for example, saw the 2008 crash coming, and continues to provide very good, reasoned analysis about what continues to occur.

        Similary, the Austrian school of economics gives very good critique on the inherent dangers and problems associate with fiat money.

        But who in power would significantly reduce the value of housing or return to a gold standard as party policy.


        OstanesAlchemy 28 Aug 2015 09:57

        Who thought a debt based monetary system was a good idea? Oh yes, it was those people who had capital they wanted to "leverage" (multiply) without obligation.

        So why don't we face the fact that over 90% of the money in the economy was issued as debt, and that leads to the mathematical certainty that the debt is, not only never going to be paid off, but thanks to the compound interest, completely unsustainable.

        We must be so stupid as a species to allow the massive excess capacity in our economies to go to waste, and for our populations to go without for the want of the right numbers, in the right places on a computer chip. A problem that could literally be solved (or at least alleviated) at the stroke of a few keys.


        nishville -> Limiting_Factor 28 Aug 2015 02:14

        Is it the West's fault?

        In this case, a resounding yes. West caused this crisis by promoting and exporting neoliberal capitalism, a system that thrives on instability. You can regard it as a virus infecting the organism of interconnected world economy.


        RalphTheStaller 28 Aug 2015 01:17

        As the dust settles on the latest "correction", one is left with a sense of unease.

        First, we all know that markets have been rigged since QE was introduced to pull the Establishment's irons out of the fire. But surely there is an uncomfortable paradox in the knowledge that, in this latest saga, while the world's greatest totalitarian regime was signally unable to rig its market, conversely it took only a day for the great champion of free market capitalism to do so?

        Secondly, we all know that when a market is challenged it is either the earnings base which is called into question or the multiplier used to capitalise the income. Would it not have been healthier for the philosophical base of neo-capitalism if the challenge to valuation had come from bond investors seeking a real return rather than fears that corporate earnings would not fulfil expectations?


        nnedjo lib410 28 Aug 2015 00:36

        And some of the former Soviet and Communist bloc countries have already reached about 50% of this level, after only about 10 years of EU membership?

        More precisely, only one of the former socialist countries and it is Slovenia. Also, it should be noted that Slovenia was the most developed of the former Yugoslav republics. And former Yugoslavia had never belonged to the eastern bloc - Warsaw Pact, and besides that, by its economic development was roughly at the level of the least developed European countries, like for example Greece.

        So the fact that Slovenia, which had previously been economically developed as Greece, after 25 years of capitalism has again reached Greece in average salaries, for you is "an incredibly fast transformation".

        A very interesting observation, I must admit. :-)


        OneCommentator 27 Aug 2015 21:49

        Hunger eliminated in the developed world?? You must be a comedian.

        Here's a statistic for you to chew on:
        "According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 15.8 million children under 18 in the United States live in households where they are unable to consistently access enough nutritious food necessary for a healthy life.

        And another:
        "In 2013, 45.3 million people (14.5 percent) in the USA were in poverty.

        You say "very few cases" -
        You mean 15% or 1-in-7 qualifies as "very few"?

        Here's another fact:
        "Nearly 70 percent of the households served by food banks report that their most common spending tradeoff was between paying for utilities or food.

        If you're saying that 15% of American households are in poverty because they're drug-addicted, that's delusional. They're in jobs & paying their bills - But they can't keep up with expenses.


        eminijunkie 27 Aug 2015 19:24

        Henry Ford is one of the very few people of the modern, or near modern perhaps, age who actually understood the basic concept of a consumer based economy. There must be consumers, consumers must have the means to obtain what the consume, and if they consume those that produce that which is consumed can make a living by selling the goods that are consumed.

        Cut back on the money people have with which to purchase things and you strangle the economy as a whole. This is called austerity, and so naturally it does not work. The less one pays consumers to consume, the less they consume and the less the producers produce and eventually the whole scheme grinds to a point of catharsis of some sort.

        The idea of a small number of people becoming extravagantly by gained vast wealth is something that is entirely destructive of the whole idea of any economy, whether you call it communistic or capitalistic.

        The problem, of course, is that the earth just might not have unlimited resources, but there is such a thing as recycling and alternate forms of energy etc. The one thing there can't is a rich of inordinately wealthy hoarding all the money and mobs of consumers who don't have the wherewithal to consume.

        Ultimately, of course, if that continues too long and too seriously, history tells us the day will come when the consumers consume the wealthy.

        Perhaps some compromise will come first.

        As a side note, there was a problematic gentleman in Germany in the 1930's that listened to Ford and got himself on the cover of time magazine a number of times as an economic miracle worker, but we no longer pay any attention to him or what he accomplished by implementing the above concept of solving a server economic crisis by just giving citizens money to spend.

        People without wealth who are given money go right out and spend it all, and that's good for business everywhere.

        And a person who works hard enough and/or smart enough to make a billion dollars will, for the most part, work just as hard to earn a million if that's all he or she can get, because a measly million beats the public dole any day of the week.


        smalltownboy shaun 27 Aug 2015 19:15

        It means that the question is, who will now buy US treasuries? (Who will now back-stop the dollar?).

        Don't worry your pretty little head about it, shaun. There are lots of takers for US treasuries. China had no problem selling some of their stockpile in an an effort to prop up the yuan, which is still pegged to a basket of world currencies, including the dollar. You need to stop getting your financial news from Zero Hedge and RT.


        nnedjo nnedjo 27 Aug 2015 17:48

        Thus, the average EU-28 wage per hour amounts to about 18 euros, according to this chart.

        Realworldview 27 Aug 2015 17:48

        China can ride out this crisis. But we're on course for another crash

        We are certainly in for another crash, and its scale will be beyond all previous crashes, also China will not ride it out, it will crash along with other nations. The consequences of the looming financial collapse will last for centuries, because the era of economic growth is over meaning debt cannot be paid down. How Economic Growth Fails provides a plausible explanation, with the consequences explored in Deflationary Collapse Ahead? These extracts reveal a major blind spot in the discipline of economics that means economic and political elites fail to understand the impact of limits on the economy and why their "conventional" economic policies are failing:

        Today's general level of understanding about how the economy works, and energy's relationship to the economy, is dismally low. Economics has generally denied that energy has more than a very indirect relationship to the economy....

        Economics modelling is based on observations of how the economy worked when we were far from limits of a finite world. The indications from this modelling are not at all generalizable to the situation when we are reaching limits of a finite world. The expectation of economists, based on past situations, is that prices will rise when there is scarcity. This expectation is completely wrong when the basic problem is lack of adequate wages for non-elite workers. When the problem is a lack of wages, workers find it impossible to purchase high-priced goods like homes, cars, and refrigerators. All of these products are created using commodities, so a lack of adequate wages tends to "feed back" through the system as low commodity prices. This is exactly the opposite of what standard economic models predict.

        For a comprehensive overview of our situation and just how limited our future options are, this article by Nicole Foss posted on The Automatic Earth website is a must read: Nicole Foss: The Boundaries and Future of Solution Space. These extracts reinforce the role of plentiful cheap fossil fuel based energy in our industrial civilisation, and the unwelcome consequences of its future unaffordability once a global deflationary collapse has occurred:

        We are facing limits in many ways simultaneously – not surprising since exponential growth curves for so many parameters have gone critical in recent decades, and of course even more so in recent years. Some of these limits lie in human systems, while others are ecological or geophysical. They will all interact with each other, over different timeframes, in extremely complex ways as our state of overshoot resolves itself (to our dissatisfaction, to put it mildly) over many decades, if not centuries. Some of these limits are completely non-negotiable, while others can be at least partially mutable, and it is vital that we know the difference if we are to be able to mitigate our situation at all. Otherwise we are attempting to bargain with the future without understanding our negotiating position.

        The vast majority has no conception of the extent to which our modernity is an artefact of our discovery and pervasive exploitation of fossil fuels as an energy source. No species in history has had easy, long term access to a comparable energy source. This unprecedented circumstance has facilitated the creation of turbo-charged civilization.

        Huge energy throughput, in line with the Maximum Power Principle, has led to tremendous complexity, far greater extractive capacity (with huge 'environmental externalities' as a result), far greater potential to concentrate enormous power in the hands of the few with destructive political consequences), a far higher population, far greater burden on global carrying capacity, and the ability to borrow from the future to satisfy the insatiable greed of the present. The fact that we are now approaching so many limits has very significant implications for our ability to continue with any of these aspects of modern life. Therefore, any expectation that a future in the era of limits is likely to resemble the present (with a green gloss) are ill-founded and highly implausible.

        nnedjo Hippokl, 27 Aug 2015 17:43

        Well, these are the data obtained from Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union. And on the left side of the graph you have data for the EU-28, and the Euro area EU-18. In the previous post I am slightly increased earnings per hour in the EU-28 at 25 euros, because it is in fact the information when other labour costs are added to the wages and salaries.


        nnedjo 27 Aug 2015 17:16

        Let's simplify things a bit. Technological development leads inevitably to the fact that things that were previously available only to a few individuals become available to most average people. The reason is that the development of technology increases the productivity of the average man, so that someone who previously could produce goods only for a few people, now can produce goods for the huge number of people.
        So, if we neglect the economy, judging solely on the basis of technological development should not be such a thing as stagnation in production, and every man would become constantly richer and richer because he would have received more and more goods, as well as other values in the field of health care, education, entertainment, recreation, ... etc.
        And, since even today is nothing wrong with technology, it is obvious that this is not a technological crisis, but this is the economic crisis.

        And, how did it come to this economic crisis? Well, advocates of austerity measures obviously claim that the crisis was created so that people are spending more than they earn, and this is why they must now spend less, or to agree to austerity measures. However, if someone is spending more than it earns, then someone else had to earn more than what he spent. In other words, if this is true, then the economic crisis would have occurred only in some countries and not in all countries of the world, including the most developed ones. That's the obvious flaw of this argument, and it is clear that this is a classic crisis of capitalism, like many that have occurred previously, and on which, among others, Karl Marx also was talking about.

        So the basis of Marx's teaching is precisely the fact that the employer pays employees based on quantitative measures of labor, ie the number of hours spent at work, and not on the basis of what he can really produce for the same number of hours. In this way, the worker always produces more values than it receives from the employer as wages. And in this way the owner appropriates this surplus of created values , and thus becomes more and more rich.

        However, that the surplus of produced values turned into capital, the owner must sell goods in the market. But who is going to buy the goods, if most customers are workers who also produced more goods than they get money for it? In other words, on the market appears surplus of goods, which nobody can buy. You have on one side the huge number of empty houses, and on the other side, you have a huge number of the homeless. (Does this sound familiar?). You have overproduction of food on one side, and on the other side, you have an army of hungry. Or, on the one hand, the huge number of cars, and on the other hand, people go on foot.
        And, since it is impossible to sell previously manufactured goods, it is clear that there is no purpose to increase the new production. In other words, production is decreasing, and the economy falling into recession.

        And how this crisis of capitalism can be overcome? Advocates of austerity say that capitalism can be saved only "by becoming more capitalist". Or in other words, so that the workers will be paid even less than before, either from private owners or by the state, and commodity (electricity, gas, water, etc ...) will become even more expensive. But, whether is not the main cause of the crisis precisely because the goods have become expensive for people who are not paid enough to be able to buy it? And then, how austerity measures may increase production and pull the economy out of recession? It is obvious that they can not, which means that the solution is not "capitalism that will become more capitalistic". Recession can be solved only in that way that capitalism will become more socialist, or roughly with the introduction of those measures that Jeremy Corbyn suggests. In that sense I would say that Seumas Milne is right because he gives Jeremy Corbyn for the right.

        MarkThomason 27 Aug 2015 17:11

        I should add that I know of three stores near me that had been in business a long time, and closed because their usual suppliers were unable to extend the usual terms for inventory, because the suppliers had lost their credit lines. None had new risks or new problems, they just had their long-standing arrangements cancelled on them due to the financial crisis.

        Meanwhile, the casino ran full blast with borrowed money provided by the government.

        [Aug 31, 2015] Violent Protest Follows Kiev Vote on Autonomy for East Ukraine By ANDREW E. KRAMER

        A grenade was thrown at police defending Parlament buiding. One person was killed, 125 were injured, 12 people are being operated on and one soldier is in deep coma. Doctors have refused to give any forecasts on the condition of another five people. Ukraine's Deputy Interior Minister Vasily Paskal, journalists of Ukrainian TV channel 5 and channel 1+1 as well as a French correspondent were also among the injured. According to the Ukrainian Health Ministry 21 people received gunshot wounds. One died. And look how NYT cover the event. Compare with coverage of Charlie Hebdo.

        The results of a fiercely contested parliamentary vote over autonomy for eastern Ukraine were counted on Monday, partly in blood: 265 in favor, three major parties opposed and one dead policeman.

        About 120 other officers were also wounded in an attack during a protest that intensified after Parliament approved a measure on constitutional changes that could grant autonomy to parts of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions.

        The authorities said a man later identified as a member of a nationalist party had thrown a grenade at the police lines.


        Old Nick, NYC

        Shocking development -- Kievans hurting Kievans -- and can only give comfort to the enemies of Ukraine. The fallout from this remains to be seen.

        In any event, leadership demands that legislation be better explained to the people; there is a good argument to be made for entirely abandoning the Eastern areas to their own devices, even to the Russian exchequer.

        http://censor.net.ua/photo_news/349932/tyagniboka_zasnyali_vo_vremya_primeneniya_sily_k_boyitsu_natsgvardii_fotoreportaj

        Издание "Главком" обнародовало фотографии, на которых в первых рядах митингующих, которые пошли на правоохранителей, запечатлены Тягнибок и экс-нардеп от "Свободы" Юрий Сиротюк. При этом Сиротюк держит в руке дубинку.

        Около полудня в понедельник митингующие попытались прорваться ближе к зданию парламента сквозь линию милиции. В ходе столкновения "свободовцы" вытащили из строя нескольких бойцов Национальной гвардии. Их позже избили. Спустя полтора часа, уже после голосования в Раде, митингующие бросили в правоохранителей взрывное устройство.

        [Aug 31, 2015] http://censor.net.ua/video_news/349901/vzryv_granaty_vozle_verhovnoyi_rady_video

        This is the site controlled by Kolomoyski

        censor.net.ua

        Ukrainian man
        UPD 15:00
        Як повідомили Громадському у прес-службі ГУМВС в Києві, особу, яка кинула гранату у правоохоронців затримано.
        UPD 14:50
        Один із правоохоронців помер. Про це Громадському повідомив голова КМДА Віталій Кличко. Як стверджує джерело Громадського в МВС з місця подій, на місці вибухнуло дві гранати. За інформацією співрозмовника, гранати кинули протестувальники від "Свободи". Двоє правоохоронців у критичному стані.
        ypetrm
        "Около 90 раненых под Радой в том числе несколько человек в тяжелом состоянии. Это результат брошенных нескольких взрывных устройств со стороны людей в футболках партии "Свободы", устроившими драку с Нацгвардией под ВР. Источник: http://censor.net.ua/n349911"

        Никакой пощады уродам, которые на акции несогласия с политикой власти убивают ни в чем неповинных сограждан.

        ANTIkomment
        Зачинщики драки под Радой - Тягнибок и Сиротюк? (ФОТО)

        а от такі обличчя крупним планом тобі знайомі?
        сподіваюсь що мову розумієш...

        Игорь Сейшелов
        видео как под верховной радой было столкновение

        уже десятки ранены и 1 погиб, жесть...
        http://kometanews.net/news/one/v_silovikov_pod_vr_brosili_bojevuju_granatu_desjatki_ranenyh_i_odin_pogib

        Мисквамакус Кусакус
        Это не ргд 5. Взрыв этой гранаты дает меньше дыма и дым черно-серый, а не белый. Про Ф-1 молчу, жертв было бы десятками. Что рвануло - х.з. Думаю самоделка с начинкой "очумелые ручки". Про гранату - погорячились. Хотя при воздействии ргд 5, мог быть подобный сценарий по раненным и убитому. Но думаю, что это не штатная граната-взрывное устройство.
        Игорь Сейшелов
        место после столкновений и новая драка под отелем "КИЕВ" - лужи крови и осколки
        http://kometanews.net/news/one/mesto_stolknovenija_posle_vzryva_luzhi_krovi_i_oskolki_foto
        Иван Карпов
        Как вы уже заебали, ебаные майданутые твари!Идите нахер,на передовую, перед орками гавноросскими ,траяпаками своим помашите!!.,Косить всех нахер с пулемета,пока резиной ,потом если не поможет на боевые перейти!Взяли убили ни в чем не повинного, 24ех летнего парнишку!
        Gera Kruger
        Обращаюсь к киевлянам - будьте бдительны и внимательны сегодня на вечерних и ночных улицах города. Свободовские твари готовят несколько провокаций с целью "защиты своих "незаконно задержанных побратимов".
        Не поддавайтесь на провокации - на кону стоит все. В бижайшее время против террориста Тягнибока будет возбуждено уголовное дело, а деятельность ВО Свобода будет запрещена.
        Сама партия будет признана террористической.

        [Aug 31, 2015] Social netwrok reaction on event in front of Ukranian Parlament

        Українська правда

        У понеділок під Верховною Радою сталися сутички між силовиками та мітингувальниками, які вимагали не ухвалювати зміни до Конституції.

        Після голосування парламенту, мітингувальники пішли штурмом на Раду і почали кидати димові шашки.

        Потім хтось кинув у лави міліції і Нацгвардії бойову гранату.

        Пусть вам мой пост покажется агрессивным или упадническим, но очень захотелось написать. Сегодняшнее голосование за изм...

        Posted by Sevgil Musaieva-Borovyk on 31 августа 2015 г.

        Пів години намагалися з Єгор Соболєв та Руслан Сидорович запобігти бійкам мітингувальників з нац. гвардією перед Верховн...

        Posted by Семен Семенченко on 31 августа 2015 г.

        Схоже, Олександр не зрозумів яка трагедія сталась сьогодні під стінами Верховної Ради. Дуже сподіваюсь що вбивця українс...

        Posted by Sergiy Karazy on 31 августа 2015 г.

        Я не удивлюсь, если некоторые депутаты пойдут митинговать под суд, где будут избирать меру пресечения террористу, сканди...

        Posted by Сергій Лещенко on 31 августа 2015 г.

        90 человек ранено, включая бойцов Нацгвардии, прошедших АТО. Насколько мне известно, представители партии "Свобода" пози...

        Posted by Рычкова Татьяна on 31 августа 2015 г.

        Міліція затримала близько 30 осіб, серед яких, начебто, і того, хто кинув гранату під Радою.

        Про мавпу і гранату... Ще до початку активних сутичок перед Радою, в кулуарах мене журналісти запитали: навіщо підніма...

        Posted by Віктор Чумак on 31 августа 2015 г.

        Удивляться не стоит. Политики как играли в свои игры, так и играют. Взрыв - логичное следствие. Политическая игра, а страдают невиновные.

        - Artur Orujaliev (@arturclancy) August 31, 2015

        Навіть якщо гранату під ВР кинув не якийсь дурнуватий фанатик, а це була спланована провокація, ті політичні сили, що були там, мають нести відповідальність в першу чергу.

        Posted by Дмитрий Ларин on 31 августа 2015 г.

        Я была на митинге перед Радой с самого начала. Было несколько групп протестующих. Вкладчики с плакатами "Финансы и Кре...

        Posted by Sevgil Musaieva-Borovyk on 31 августа 2015 г.

        Завжди був проти будь-яких домовленостей з Москвою. Завжди вважав, що розраховувати на гнилу політику сучасної Європи не...

        Posted by Дмитро Ярош on 31 августа 2015 г.

        Граната под парламентом - это терроризм. Любая политическая сила, причастность которой к этим событиям будет доказана, д...

        Posted by Mustafa Nayyem on 31 августа 2015 г.

        !! Около 90 раненых под Радой в том числе несколько человек в тяжелом состоянии. Это результат брошенных нескольких взры...

        Posted by Арсен Аваков on 31 августа 2015 г.

        Те, що Аваков так оперативно "призначив винних", свідчить про одне – провокація була ним і спланована. Путінським шляхом...

        Posted by Олег Тягнибок on 31 августа 2015 г.

        Шановні політікі, не пишіть зараз, що вам шкода і ви невинні. Винні всі, хто організував, хто не врахував, хто не передб...

        Posted by Ярина Боренько on 31 августа 2015 г.

        Рознімали зараз разом Семен Семенченко бійки мітингувальників з міліцією.Рознімали і матюкалися.Ми захищали Парламен...

        Posted by Єгор Соболєв on 31 августа 2015 г.

        Я против внесения изменений в Конституцию. Категорически против. Я противник минских договорняков. Я не поддерживаю поли...

        Posted by Юрий Касьянов on 31 августа 2015 г.

        Если организаторы митинга не могут контролировать людей которых позвали - нах такие митинги и таких организаторов.

        Posted by Михаил Ткач on 31 августа 2015 г.

        Сутички під ВР

        Posted by "Українська правда" on 31 августа 2015 г.

        Политические силы, выводящие своих сторонников под Раду, должны понимать все последствия своих действий. В том числе, пр...

        Posted by Тарас Березовец on 31 августа 2015 г.

        Виродка який кинув бойову гранату в правоохоронців повинно бути знайдено й покарано. Це не політична боротьба, це тероризм. Свобода , за обставин, має бути зацікавлена в цьому найбільше.

        Posted by Sergiy Karazy on 31 августа 2015 г.

        Проглядається наперед спланований геббелівсько-кегебістський сценарій. Його складова частина - криваві провокації та зав...

        Posted by Олег Ляшко on 31 августа 2015 г.

        "Свобода" все більше доводить, що є партією вузьколобих мудаків. І якщо раніше вони були просто безтолковими, то зараз с...

        Posted by Олег Шанковський on 31 августа 2015 г.

        Бросили гранату дебилы и провокаторы, пытающиеся мирную акцию сделать немирной. Однозначно это недопустимо. Гранаты дол...

        Posted by Олексій Гриценко on 31 августа 2015 г.

        Те, що Аваков так оперативно "призначив винних", свідчить про одне – провокація була ним і спланована. Путінським шляхом...

        Posted by Олег Тягнибок on 31 августа 2015 г.

        Независимо от целей, которые стояли перед исполнителями провокации возле парламента – граната в качестве аргумента медве...

        Posted by Андрей Демартино on 31 августа 2015 г.

        Многие в ленте уже бросились проклинать митингующих - "придурки, дебилы, метают гранаты". Я бы не спешил делать выводы ...

        Posted by Денис Казанский on 31 августа 2015 г.

        _ABM_ _ 31.08.2015 17:21

        После того, как "Свободу" прокатили в Верховну Раду Андрей Ильенко говорил: "Посмотри, как теперь будет выглядеть парламент без нашей фракции и не захотят ли украинцы опять получить "Свободу" в качестве инструмента для выполнения определенных заданий". Интересно какие такие "задания" он имел ввиду, уж не подрыв ли гранаты в толпе? Думаю, что такую "Свободу" украинцы не захотят иметь...

        Відповісти | З цитатою

        IP: 188.230.83.---

        Roman Martyniuk _ 31.08.2015 17:04

        свободка давно вже показала своє справжнє неадекватне жадібне до грошей обличчя, косячи під неонацистів і продаючи землю у Львові і області. Чого тільки варті баньки тягнибакса і губи фаріонихи..

        Відповісти | З цитатою

        IP: 195.225.146.---

        Sergey Nemo _ 31.08.2015 16:50

        пукало:
        А що ти пропонуєш? Перевибори президента? Є кандидатура? Що так дратує свободу у змінах до Конституції? Що так дратує всіх інших? Як можна сьогодні таке витворяти?

        Відповісти | З цитатою

        IP: 46.118.143.---

        Анастасия Евтушенко _ 31.08.2015 16:49

        полянин2013:

        тебя расстрелять первого провокатора - ты ПС не трожь! Если бы не они - Путин уже в Варшаве был бы!

        Відповісти | З цитатою

        IP: 78.111.187.---

        полянин2013 _ 31.08.2015 16:37

        Провокаторы Кремля - Правый Сектор , перешли уже межу. Это следовало ожидать, так как этим провокаторам прошло безнаказанно провокация 19 января 2014 г., на Грушевского. И пока их не пересадить или перестрелять, - ничего путнего в Украине не будет.

        [Aug 31, 2015] Ukraine Reignites - 1 Killed, 50 Injured After Grenade Attack On Parliament

        Aug 31, 2015 | Zero Hedge
        Amid the Ukraine government's vote for constitutional changes to give its eastern regions a special status (that it hopes will blunt their separatist drive) protests have turned deadly as RT reports 50 Ukrainian nation guards have been injured in a greande blast near parliament in Kiev.
        • *1 UKRAINE NATIONAL GUARDSMAN KILLED TODAY: INTERIOR MINISTER
        • *UKRAINE NATIONAL GUARDSMAN WAS SHOT DEAD, MINISTER AVAKOV SAYS

        The clashes began earlier in the day...

        Rada violence pic.twitter.com/P8nXRKxrvo

        - Oliver Carroll (@olliecarroll) August 31, 2015

        https://youtu.be/03v3nwJMyA0

        Following, as Reuters reports, Ukraine's parliament on Monday voted for constitutional changes to give its eastern regions a special status that it hopes will blunt their separatist drive...

        At a rowdy session, a total of 265 deputies voted in favor in the first reading of a "decentralization" bill, backed by President Petro Poroshenko's political bloc and his government - 39 more than that required to go through.

        But many coalition allies, including former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko, spoke against the changes and it is open to question whether Poroshenko will be able to whip up the necessary 300 votes for it to get through a second and final reading later this year.

        Approval of legislation for special status for parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, which are largely controlled by Russian-backed separatists, is a major element of a peace agreement reached in Minsk, Belarus, in February.

        Though a ceasefire is under pressure from sporadic shelling and shooting which government troops and rebels blame on each other, Western governments see the deal as holding out the best possible prospect for peace and are urging Ukraine to abide by the letter of the Minsk agreement.

        But they have not turned deadly as a greande attack leaves 50 national guard injured...

        At least 50 Special Forces troops have been injured during clashes in front of the parliament in Kiev, the Ukrainian National Guard said. Crowds of protesters came to oppose amendments to the constitution that would provide for decentralization of the country.

        Tweets from journalists at the scene said supporters of the radical group Right Sector were brutally attacking police officers.

        "A combat grenade has been thrown at the Ukrainian special forces. Some of the servicemen from [Ukraine] National Guard have been seriously injured. Their life is in danger," Anton Gerashchenko, an adviser to Kiev's Interior Ministry, wrote on his Facebook page.

        Another video of the hostilities developing in Kiev:

        https://youtu.be/rGciYFcVcaU

        timeless21

        soros must be mad

        TeamDepends

        It's blood sacrifice time, citizens. The lucies want chaos, and by Soros they are going to get it!

        wesson

        1.5 years ago, Same groups, same people, same organisation, same methods. But it was "freedom" and "the choice of European Union"

        Latina Lover

        Another country destroyed by the USSA, a CIA public works project, courtesy of Nudelman's Building Democracy (tm) in Ukraine project.

        realmoney2015

        There are always reasons for the war hawks to lead are young men into war. That's why we need a president in office that will uphold the Constitution. That means that he/she cannot take our country to war. Congress was given that power.

        If only there was a candidate who actually stands for that and the rest of Constitution! Oh wait there is one candidate who does...

        Latina Lover

        My bet is on Azov and the Right Sector. The USSA needs to step up the game against Russia, thus Porky and the Rat must be retired in favor of the Ukie Lunatic Nazi fringe.

        Latina Lover

        Post communism, the Ukie Oligarchs claimed that by receiving privatized state assets for almost nothing, they would build a capitalist society similar to the US, bring prosperity, European values and modernity to all citizens of the Ukraine.

        It was, of course, a big lie. The Ukraine is now the worlds worst performing economy over the last 24 years, with many Ukrainians looking back to the communist era with wistful eyes. The truth is that most Ukrainians lived better under communism than oligarchic/crony capitalism.

        Enki Anu

        It's funny, Newland's husband name is Kagan ( Khaghan ).
        Khaghans were supreme leaders in Khazaria's destroyed Empire.
        Destroyed by Vikings ( Russians ).

        Sushi von Gestern

        Rewind back two Shemitas...

        "Two men posing as press photographers, one of them a former Israeli Colonel and Mossad agent, were arrested INSIDE the Mexican congress on October 10, 2001 armed with 9-mm pistols, nine grenades, explosives, three detonators, and 58 bullets, but were released following intense pressure from the Israeli Embassy. "We believe that the two Zionists terrorist were going to blow up the Mexican Congress. The second phase was to mobilize both the Mexican and US press to blame Osama bin Laden. Most likely then Mexico would declare war on Afghanistan as well, commit troops and all the oil it could spare to combat Islamic terrorism."

        http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/mex.html

        JustObserving

        I am sure demented "mass-murderer" Putin will get the blame even as the Nobel Prize Winner continues to drone women and children and wedding parties.

        The war in Ukraine may explode at any point. Just as the Neocons wanted.

        Latina Lover

        Of course Russian agents were behind the attack...perfect false flag to declare war on Russia and ask for NATO's protection. Only problem is that the Eurowimps will definitely back out, and the USSA pro american Ukies will suffer another humiliating defeat. Anyone who thought they could beat Russia on her home turf deserves to eat the Nudelman cookies.

        McCormick No. 9

        The Ukraine is just a diversiinary tactic to distract Russia from Syria. The Iran nuke deal is designed to neutralize Iran while the CIA backed ISIS forces weaken Assad. In this crazy plan, the fanatcial ISIS forces will be defeated (after they defeat Assad) by moderate rebel forces. Yeah, right.

        Wile-E-Coyote

        Putin's passport will be found in perfect condition inside the grenade crater.

        Vylahkinnen

        Now I get it! That Polish Minister - what a smart man! He told us that Poland expected hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Ukraine. Now it makes perfect sense...yeah.

        terry44

        Well there's plenty of space there, half of the Poles have moved to England.

        Vylahkinnen

        I must admit that I never understood why they still call it England. Are there still English people around? Have you seen one? Don't worry. I won't come over. It's already such a crowded place. Density pop/km² = 262! I live as a mad hermit and I die as one.

        beijing expat's picture

        It's a marketing gimmick.

        Freddie

        +1

        The Daily Mail had some more Putin hate yesterday. Putin would not let gangs of child molesters like Jimmy Saville exist in Russia. Jimmy Saville dies but no one in his gang of pedophile is arreested. This went on for decades with top people in govt and in power. CHILDREN. This also happenes in western Europe including Belgium. These f**Kers need to be put in wood chippers for harming children.

        England has Islamic gangs of rapists attacking English CHILDREN and the English police do nothing.

        Cameron, Milliband, Clegg - all stooges for the Red Shield and the City of London Satanists.

        And these evil Satanic shits have the nerve to call Putin a monster. Putin and the Russians are (predominantly) Christians. The Bolsheviks were not. Same people in charge in Kiev.

        Winston Churchill

        Was the Reichstag badly damaged ?

        silverer

        Good excuse for the US to roll in more hardware.

        OzViking

        5 billion dollars spent on destabilizing Ukraine, the gift that keeps on giving.......................

        TeamDepends

        But we got the gold, which is worth way more than 5 billion digidollars.

        SMC

        Reads like a false flag. Cui Bono.

        beijing expat

        Headline should read "Poroshenko's Thugs in brutal crackdown on peaceful democracy protesters."

        Insurrexion

        Cui Bono is correct.

        What about the fecking "Western" Separatists?"

        Jorge Soros and Vicky "Cookie Snookums" Nudelman are on "The List" to receive the Ludovico Technique amongst other pantry pleasantries.

        No worries my droogs...

        Love, from the Lorova Milk Bar.

        Alexa

        shovelhead

        Right Sektors "Hand Grenades for Peace" Program is working splendidly.

        No "decentralization" and no special status for Eastern provinces.

        "Vote right or good night" is the message sent from Vicky & Co. with love.

        Wer're buying ALL of Ukraine...not just the broke-ass parts, and don't you forget it.

        Latina Lover

        I was wondering when you would show up, with your false flag BS. The good news is no one believes anything that comes from the Ukrainian ministry of Truth, ukies least of all.

        BarkingCat

        >>>> The good news is no one believes anything that comes from the Ukrainian ministry of Truth, ukies least of all.
        <<<<<

        Are you sure about that statement?
        Have you ever been to Ukraine?

        Let me give you a comparative example: how many people in the US believe what NBC, CBC, ABC CNN, MSNBC and Fox News tells them?
        Yes Ukrainians, like most citizens of former Eastern Block countries are very skeptical, but the propaganda is thick and plenty gets through.
        Russia is an easy target in most of those countries. People there do not draw a distinction between USSR and Russia.
        ...which is ironic, considering that at least 2 post WW2 leaders of the USSR came from Ukraine and
        the most brutal one was a Georgian.

        Latina Lover

        The latest opinion polls in the Ukraine give Porky and the Rat single digit positive ratings, with most ukies rating corruption and a very badly perfoming economy more important than the civil war against Donbass.

        22winmag

        Ukraine never stopped burning.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4jIASQzwXw&list=PLw613M86o5o5zqF6WJR8zu...

        Mike Masr

        Ukraine a Bloody Mess, Courtesy of Victoria Nuland

        http://russia-insider.com/en/mess-nuland-made/ri8700

        Yttrium Gold Nitrogen

        I wonder whether they too will be deemed "peaceful protesters" as they were presented in 2013, or will Porky use force against them. Actually, I wonder what will happen next. Throwing a grenade can be characterized as an act of terrorism.

        Will the so called "anti terrorist operation" expand to include Kiev too? What will Porky do now? He can't play it down, and yet using force against the so called "patriots" (= ukie nationalists/nazis) may not resonate well with the society, costing him vital support. I think he's ready to call Putin and ask him for advice :-) Yeah, Porky's between a rock and a hard place.

        Latina Lover

        l'll bet Porky is keeping his private jet fueled and ready to bug out to Tel Aviv.

        Kina

        Another creation of the CIA, a Ukrainian 'ISIS' gone rogue.


        Mike Masr

        What next after the neocon rape of Ukraine?

        http://www.rt.com/op-edge/311635-ukraine-crimea-kiev-washington/

        [Aug 30, 2015] The Guardian view on the latest Ukraine ceasefire call: why this could be the one that works

        Notable quotes:
        "... The West tried to crash Russian economy ahead of the inevitable Ukrainian collapse, and it failed. So now the death-watch for the Ukraine's economy has started: default on loans, catastrophic drop in living standards and incomes, millions trying to emigrate, and energy dependency on Russia that might turn out to be fatal if there is a cold winter in Europe. ..."
        "... Yeah, I can imagine Russians being jealous of Ukrainians. The economy is collapsing, the inflation is 40%, the far is going on, the armed Right Sector people are walking in the center of the city, the opposition leaders are suppressed and the actions are taking against the media that disagrees with Kiev. And while all of this, the corruption remains exactly where it used to be. Darn, the entire world is jealous of those lucky Ukrainians. ..."
        "... Only US nutcases don't care about economy or living standards and prefer to play geo-political games with Ukrainians... ..."
        "... And as for West "helping Ukraine" by cutting down the debt by 20%, this is the freshest interpretation of the event I've ever heard. It wasn't done to "help" Ukraine. The West agreed to do so to avoid even messier and costlier option of default and loosing even more money in Ukraine. Other than talking about giving some more loans to Ukraine in the future, the help to Ukraine from the West is now minimum. ..."
        "... Land that has long since been signed over to Monsanto and DuPont as part payment for earlier loans. Ukraine's economy is in such a state that's it's obvious that it will form the next major refugee crisis, while Svoboda and Privvy Sector will almost certainly launch a coup to over-throw the Kiev government. ..."
        "... Ukraine is bankrupt - negotiating to not pay back the full principal is the definition of a default. You can call it a "haircut" all you want, Ukraine has just defaulted - as in: they will not pay their full debts back. Who is going to invest there now? Other than EU taxpayers and IMF funny money men? ..."
        Aug 30, 2015 | The Guardian

        HollyOldDog -> Bosula 30 Aug 2015 20:28

        The rest of Ukraine was descending into chaos, what with police and demonstrators being shot and killed by unknown assalients from rooftops. Odessa , where 45 plus Ukrainian citizens were trapped in a building which was set fire to by outside football supporters, then shot at and clubbed when the citizens climbed out of the burning building seeking help. Would you risk yourself and your family in such a situation or would you seek the protection of a friendly power?

        Chillskier -> jezzam 30 Aug 2015 20:00

        Ensure that Ukraine does not go under economically and eventually becomes a fully functioning and prosperous liberal democracy.
        It seems to be working pretty well..

        NO it is not.
        You need to talk to people who actually live there, it is a catastrophe

        HollyOldDog -> truk10 30 Aug 2015 19:46

        Ukraine should be wary of false friends who may lead then down a blind alley. Only today I watched a very interesting TV program that puts the continueing existance of Monsanto into serious doubt. The program was about wheat in terms of the future of Global Warming where presentment her patterns within seasons would vary widely. Is it the right course of action to choose types of GM wheat where seasonal rains would pop up at inconvenient times ( which a farmer would pay 'through the nose for') or to allow your wheats to choose the correct wheat for the growing conditions it encounters. Some of the Wheats on test where from the times of the ancient Egyptians while the oldest variety was around 9000 years old. Instead of gene splicing and growing micro cultures in a lab followed by years of field testing , perhaps we should just look what our ancestors did.

        I know this is not exactly on topic but I am trying to suggest Not to believe the latest SPIN, just because it is new. NEW SPIN does not equal TRUTH. IF something looks to be too good to be true then it is too good to be true - Forbes, verify your stories before you publish.

        Beckow -> impartial12 30 Aug 2015 18:41

        "Ukraine is important to the West because of its encroachment strategy against Russia"

        The strategy is to somehow take over Russia by either having Yeltsin-like puppets in power again, or maybe by physically taking it apart (separatism). The "encroachment" is just the means to that end.

        Russians had two choices when the coup happened in Kiev on the last day of the Sochi Olympics:

        • - do nothing and hope for the best; maybe Ukraine would run into economic troubles, maybe it would collapse into infighting like after the Orange revolution
        • - quickly save what could be saved - Crimea, bases, Donbass Russians - and squeeze Ukraine economically until it collapses

        The West was surprised that Russia went for the second option and decided to fight. I think Russia decided that this was their best chance to resist, and that facts on the ground in Ukraine were in their favor. So far it has worked for Russia, thus the almost hysterical anger in the West.

        Beckow -> Tintenfische 30 Aug 2015 17:55

        Stay sober. Russia's economy is down 4%, that's not "go down in flames". E.g. EU economy dropped 6-9% after '09, and people are ok, kind of.

        The real issue is with the Ukrainian economy and living standards. Russia's per capita income this year is 10 times higher than Ukraine's. That's very substantial, that's why about 3 million Ukrainians work in Russia and more are coming each month.

        The West tried to crash Russian economy ahead of the inevitable Ukrainian collapse, and it failed. So now the death-watch for the Ukraine's economy has started: default on loans, catastrophic drop in living standards and incomes, millions trying to emigrate, and energy dependency on Russia that might turn out to be fatal if there is a cold winter in Europe.

        vr13vr -> CedricH 30 Aug 2015 17:55

        Yeah, I can imagine Russians being jealous of Ukrainians. The economy is collapsing, the inflation is 40%, the far is going on, the armed Right Sector people are walking in the center of the city, the opposition leaders are suppressed and the actions are taking against the media that disagrees with Kiev. And while all of this, the corruption remains exactly where it used to be. Darn, the entire world is jealous of those lucky Ukrainians.

        Beckow -> Tintenfische 30 Aug 2015 17:47

        "it denies the Ukrainian people any sort of agency what so ever and at the same time ignores that the elections within the Ukraine have not been called free or fair for a generation"

        I wrote 'assisted in an overthrow' - do you get the meaning of the verb "to assist"? Assisting in an overthrow of an elected president is by any definition illegal and unconstitutional - all else that followed has to be examined in that light.

        Elections in Ukraine have been free and fair and declared so by EU itself many times. Yanukovitch won fair and square. Russian speakers (or supporters) used to get roughly 50% of the vote, sometimes more, sometimes little bit less. Their party - Party of Regions - was outlawed. So maybe they are listened to, but in a very constrained way - they are certainly not equal to the Western Ukrainians. That's why some of them started a civil war.

        You don't address any of the disastrous economic consequences of Maidan and the war: Ukraine is suffering and is much worse off than two years ago. There is no economic prosperity possible in Ukraine without Russian cooperation (energy, imports, food, investments). That is a reality that cannot be wished away. Unless Ukraine adjusts to being a poor, agrarian country, that exports millions of workers, with living standards maybe like in Albania or Tunis (at best), they will have to make peace with Russia and its own Russian leaning population. There is no other way, even Germany and France have officially told Kiev that much.

        Only US nutcases don't care about economy or living standards and prefer to play geo-political games with Ukrainians...

        SHappens -> Agrajag3k 30 Aug 2015 17:42

        Ukraine can prosper perfectly well on its own, just like any other county under the right leadership.

        which they dont have. On the other hand when a big part of the country doesn't want to align with the "West" they should be heard. That's what is called democracy

        vr13vr 30 Aug 2015 16:09

        Clueless. The "low intensity" fight continues, but it's evident that the chances of Kiev to establish full control of the area are non-existent, and it is Kiev who is looking for a grace saving exit at this point.

        And as for West "helping Ukraine" by cutting down the debt by 20%, this is the freshest interpretation of the event I've ever heard. It wasn't done to "help" Ukraine. The West agreed to do so to avoid even messier and costlier option of default and loosing even more money in Ukraine. Other than talking about giving some more loans to Ukraine in the future, the help to Ukraine from the West is now minimum.

        BastaYa72 -> alpamysh 30 Aug 2015 16:33

        Moreover, a country with the agricultural resources of Ukraine

        Land that has long since been signed over to Monsanto and DuPont as part payment for earlier loans. Ukraine's economy is in such a state that's it's obvious that it will form the next major refugee crisis, while Svoboda and Privvy Sector will almost certainly launch a coup to over-throw the Kiev government.

        Iraq, Libya, Ukraine - you can pretty much guarantee that wherever the West intervenes or interferes, chaos and destruction is pretty much 'nailed-on'.

        Laurence Johnson -> Beckow 30 Aug 2015 16:05

        You make some very sober points. Ukraine is indeed destined to be a wasteland similar to Libya and Syria. The scorch and burn policy of "if I cant have it, nobody can have it" is very clear.

        I suspect that in twenty years time East Ukraine will be an economic miracle that engages with Asia via Russia. As for Kiev I suspect they will still be arguing about which Oligarch has the biggest pair of balls.

        normankirk 30 Aug 2015 15:56

        under the Minsk agreement, the border comes back under Ukrainian control, only when Ukraine has done the necessary constitutional reform that grants autonomy to the Donbas. So far, Kiev has dragged the chain , and to this day has refused dialogue with the leaders of the DPR and LPR.Poroshenko has openly boasted of using the ceasefire to build up another military assault on the eastern Ukrainians , and has vowed to reclaim all the terrItory by force.All this is in breach of the Minsk agreement Articles like this, with their bias and misinformation destroys the credibility of the guardian

        This time the ceasefire may work because Merkel and Hollande have pressured Poroshenko, but I'm not holding my breath.

        Parangaricurimicuaro 30 Aug 2015 15:45

        I think that Europe is having to much on its plate. Terrorism problems, energy insecurity, bailing out Greece, refugees escaping wars south of the Mediterranean, aging population etc. so maybe it is most than they could possible chew. Reality is sobering everyone.


        SHappens Agrajag3k 30 Aug 2015 15:36

        Russia has no interest in seeing the war end or seeing Ukraine prosper.

        Ukraine cannot prosper without Russia's market, that's an economic truth. Ukraine can even less prosper without the Donbass. The West must accept to share Ukraine with Russia. Federalization can make this possible and fulfill every country's ambitions and will, except for one country overseas, taking part to the events, we dont know why or do we?

        Beckow 30 Aug 2015 15:26

        Half-truths are by definition not truths. To say:

        "deadline for the internationally recognised border to come back under Ukrainian government control"

        Minsk also requires that Donbass has autonomy before border is turned over. How does one leave out the other side of the story? It is like reporting on Soviet Union conquest of Berlin in 1945 without mentioning that Germany invaded Russia in 1941. Maybe that's next in the endless search for just the right narrative where friends are friends, and enemies are, well the enemy is Russia, end of story. No need to actually be accurate. About Minsk or anything else.

        Ukraine is bankrupt - negotiating to not pay back the full principal is the definition of a default. You can call it a "haircut" all you want, Ukraine has just defaulted - as in: they will not pay their full debts back. Who is going to invest there now? Other than EU taxpayers and IMF funny money men?

        Time is definitely not on Ukraine's side: economy is down by 15-17%, inflation is 40-50%, incomes are dramatically down to roughly Senegal-Nepal level, the exports to Russia that Ukraine used to live off are down by more than 50% and dropping - and nothing is replacing the Russian market. With living standards are on sub-African level and with no visa-free access to EU, no investments (see the default above), and energy dependence on Russia, how can time be on Kiev's side? How are they going to grow out of it? What and to whom are they going to export? How is the per capita income going to grow? Today Ukraine income is 1/10 of Russia's per capita income (that's right 10%). How is time on Kiev's side?

        West triggered an unnecessary catastrophe in Ukraine by assisting in an overthrow of an elected government. Ukraine is divided, look at all elections, look at language usage, etc... half is pro-West, half is pro-Russian. It is impossible to have a prosperous Ukraine without both having a say in running the country. So sooner or later, Ukraine will either go back to its traditional role as a buffer state, or it will break-up. There is no way one group can permanently dominate the other. And that takes us back to the Minsk treaty that specifies that Donbass gets autonomy. Maybe we should ask Kiev what happened to that part of the treaty. Why isn't it even mentioned?


        impartial12 Tintenfische 30 Aug 2015 15:19

        That is funny considering the amount of armaments building up among the former nations of the Soviet Union neighboring Russia. The escalation in Ukraine had started with an illegal coup of an elected government. And don't even get me started on the neo-Nazi tendencies of the new regime. It takes two to tango, and the West clearly wants to play this game no matter what negative consequences it may bring.


        SHappens 30 Aug 2015 15:14

        Kiev, backed by Washington who is using Ukrainian army foot soldiers, paramilitaries, foreign mercenaries, Nazi-infested death squads and others hasn't stopped since initiated back in April 2014. Kiev flagrantly violated the Geneva and two Minsk ceasefire agreements straightaway. Moreover Kiev has repeatedly refused to sit and talk with the people in the East and grant them autonomy as per Minsk.

        Surely Russia supports the eastern ukrainians, rightly, in a way or another, preventing in this way a full war offensive by Kiev, however Russian's army is not present in Ukraine. President Putin wants peace and has been calling for it since the very start of the event, that is the ATO launched by Kiev back in 2014.

        This is the Donbass who fights against Kiev. It is the US citizens who are forced to devote scarce resources to the dying puppet regime in Kiev (who will not avoid the country's default anyway + they have been downgraded), while Russia can stay away making peace proposals. If the US wants to put the fire, they will put it so it is necessary to be able to quickly turn it off to preserve what is most precious. That's why Putin considers peace of vital importance.

        We can only guess who will be most effective - the US with their fuel container or the Russians with their fire extinguisher?

        [Aug 30, 2015] The US does not permit negative media to undermine domestic support for its war effort

        Warren, August 30, 2015 at 2:46 pm
        The primary lesson the US learnt from the Vietnam debacle was that in any future conflicts the US will not permit negative media to undermine domestic support for its war effort. The US has used CNN and domestic local TV stations as training facilities for its psychological warfare units.

        Army embeds active-duty PSYOPS soldiers at local TV stations

        Warren says:

        August 30, 2015 at 2:46 pm

        The primary lesson the US learnt from the Vietnam debacle was that in any future conflicts the US will not permit negative media to undermine domestic support for its war effort. The US has used CNN and domestic local TV stations as training facilities for its psychological warfare units.

        Army embeds active-duty PSYOPS soldiers at local TV stations

        http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/army-embeds-active-duty-psyops-soldiers-local-tv.html

        Why Were Government Propaganda Experts Working On News At CNN?

        http://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/why-were-government-propaganda-experts-working-on-news-at-cnn/

        Speaking of Panama, the success the US had in controlling the media narrative in that short war/intervention provided the template for the Persian Gulf War of 1991.

        According John Perkins the Economic Hitman, the CIA murdered Omar Torrijos. The US and Panama were in dispute over the Panama Canal, specifically who would be in control of it and on what terms.

        Let us not forget that the US and NATO bombed Serbian television and radio stations in 1999.

        [Aug 30, 2015] The Abyss Looks Back: Europe's Phenomenal Arrogance

        Aug 25, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
        ... ... ...

        On Europe's Phenomenal Arrogance

        A lot of august bodies have decided to share their thoughts on the current vis-à-vis between Russia and what is colloquially known as "the West". Most of such "musings" inevitably touches the subject of the current situation in Ukraine, due to it's being a "hotspot" in the bilateral relations. Most often we are graced by some strongly worded opinions from the veritable Legion of the Free and Independent Western press (), or it might be even a Deep and Thorough Analysis by this or that think-tank, NGO or research facility, sharing with the hoi-poloi of the world their convoluted (and, therefore, unquestionably true) findings on the nature of things they probably didn't even have any previous personal contact with.

        And then we have something… anomalous. And huge. I'm talking here about a report (well, "commentary", to be precise) of the European Council on Foreign Relations, a rather self- explanatory name for an organization.

        The Limits and Necessity of Europe's Russia Sanctions

        The picture below the title of the article shows Moscow's Kremlin and the snow-covered streets of Moscow. Because –apparently! – it is always gloomy and snowy in Russia. How you gonna argue with such a paragon of Western objectivity on Russia's portrayal as the Independence Day movie, where there is snow in Russia in July?!

        You might say that I'm too nitpicky. Honestly, I'll cease and desist the very moment the West stops this kind of petty manipulation of public perception of my country.

        The article from the very beginning says what it's about:

        To get a clearer understanding of the situation it might be useful to start from the other end – not to ask if the sanctions work, but to first look at the nature of Europe's problem with Russia and ask what it would take to fix it, or even whether it can be fixed by the West at all. That will allow us to see what role the sanctions can play in remedying the problem – and what the things that sanctions cannot accomplish are.

        In short – this article is about judging Russia by the esteemed people of the EUrocracy, and determining – is it worthy of their "mercy". The author asks her audience,

        "Do we want Russia to leave Donbas? Give back Crimea? Do we expect a regime change in Moscow? Or do we want Russia to start behaving "as a normal European country," i.e. one that tries to base its influence on attraction rather than coercion?"

        with the straightest face possible. Suddenly, Russia became an object of EU decisions, as if Russia now is a member of the EU (it isn't) or that the EU is some super strong, unified world power capable of really compelling Russia to do it's bidding (again – nope).

        Unfortunately, what follows is the author's opinion on "the nature of our Russian problem". The author had a mighty lot of predecessors willing to find a "final solution" for the "Russian problem". This particular individual, elevated well above her station by the simple fact that she writes for the ECFR, does the most "professional" thing possible – goes full ad hominem not only against Russian president Vladimir Putin (KGB reference included), but to the Russian people as well. You see, for the author of this "commentary", Russians are just "rent-seeking clients" mobilized against "enemy figures – real or imaginary". The Russian system of education (in the Soviet era, second to none – now "thankfully" reformed by the West worshiping "democrats") plus "the state-centric way history and international relations are taught at Russian schools and universities" has contributed to the fact that the EU is "having problems" with Russia.

        As a person educated in Russia by the Russian system of education (including Higher Education) I can say that this kind of claim is inaccurate. In the Moscow State University (aka "Lomonosov's") our professors took a lot of effort to drive us to the "multi-vector approach" of the history and historiography, taught us of many existing schools of thoughts and research. No one indoctrinated gentle young souls into some Putin-worshiping cult. I can safely claim, from personal experience, that I was educated from a plethora of historical textbooks – including extremely "handshakable" ones, both in school (state run) and at the Uni. Still, I am who I am despite (and thanks) to everything that I've learned earlier. So, basically implying that the Russian state is "brainwashing" youngsters in the state-run higher education institutions is a big fat lie. One only need to look at MSU's (of Lomonosov) Journalism department to see teeming masses of "handshakables" and "not-living-by-the-lie-ers" in the making.

        But the article is actually right in one regard – it admits the vast abyss that exists now between the Western perception of the current situation and the Russian one. The author is even sufficiently capable to articulate it correctly:

        What makes the current standoff so tense and dangerous is not the reach of Russia's territorial ambitions, as many suggest, but vice versa – the limited nature of them, and its psychological implications. Moscow sees itself as having given up everything: it has left Central Europe, it has left the Baltic States, not to mention Cuba, Africa and the Middle East, but now the West seems intent on 'taking' the last little bit that was left – 'brotherly' Ukraine. Of course Moscow takes it emotionally and tries to fight back.

        But then, as tradition dictates, the author allows her own ideological bias to distort the rest of the narrative in what might have become an honest attempt to look at the current problem from both sides' perspective:

        The countries in Russia's neighbourhood – in what one can call the Eastern Partnership area – received their independence semi-accidentally in 1991, when it was promptly hijacked by corrupt elites. Now, their societies are starting to mature and demand better governance, rule of law and more say over their countries' futures. This manifests in a bumpy, but inevitable evolutionary process that the EU did not launch and does not control, but cannot do anything other than support. Moscow, on the other hand, is fixated on the elites it can control – and therefore bound to resist it. The clash is systemic, and likely to manifest repeatedly as long as the fundamentals remain unchanged.

        Calling the multitude of processes that in the end resulted in the dissolution of the USSR "a semi-accident" is an admission of one's ignorance about the history of every single country of the so-called "Eastern Partnership area". The author also fails to mention that "societies" (the author obviously likes this term as much as she despises the term "the people") in some of these countries indeed have found an answer how to reach a "better governance, rule of law and more say over their countries' futures". One only has to look at Belarus, Armenia and Azerbaijan. And let's not forget that Russia itself was "promptly hijacked by corrupt elites". And what the EU "did not launch… but cannot do anything other than support" were the forces inimical to these governments, which managed, indeed, to bring better governance, rule of law (which was non-existent before) and more say over their countries' futures (that's it – they will have more say about it, not some "advisers" from Brussels or Washington).

        And then the article lists all the reasons why the West won't reach any agreement with Russia. The EU will continue to do what it pleases, not giving a damn about Russian concerns over "spheres of influence" because of "the OSCE charter, the principles of the Council of Europe, the founding documents of the EU and NATO and so forth"- even despite the fact that some members of Russia's elite are indeed ready to strike a deal with them. This sort of sincerity is kinda refreshing, I must say. When a person speaking on behalf of the West freely admits that they don't care about Russia's opinion at all, that any real equal dialog is pointless, this sounds both arrogantly prideful and refreshingly new.

        But the article also discusses some methods to "fix the Russian problem"! Once again, I'm reminded of some other high-ranking citizens of the "United Europe" of old, who had similar plans. But the new generation is much, much more merciful to the undeserving "lessers":

        Ideally, Europe would want to live next to a Russia that shares if not our values, then at least some of our interests, and uses attractiveness, rather than coercion to win allies and make itself influential. Some experts suggest that to achieve that, we need a regime change in Russia. This would be true if our Russia-problem was rooted solely in the personality of Putin and the nature of his regime – but this is probably not the case. Russia's dominance-fixated mindset has survived multiple regime changes…

        What is needed, therefore, is something much more complicated: Russia's sincere and extensive rethink of the means and ends of its international behaviour. This is closer to an identity change, than to a regime change. And a lot trickier. While such things have happened in history, the circumstances that bring them about are generally unpredictable and tend to vary greatly – which means that this is not something that outsiders can easily bring about, and achieve a desired outcome.

        One of the biggest reasons why Russians resisted so fiercely (and why the common people's memory preserved it through generations) the many-faced West is because of its desire to "re-make" and "re-model" Russia into forms more suitable to the West. Numerous nomads from the East were up to the usual stuff – pillage, burning, slave taking. But they've never dictated to the Russians how they should rule themselves or how they must worship. Only the West did it and by doing it have forever earned the special degree of distrust – confirmed once again by this "commentary" of the EU institution, not intended to be read by Russian "savages" at all. While the author generously admits that "perhaps" Russia doesn't warrant a "regime change" (which, you must understand, is sort of a norm for the Free and Democratic West – i.e. changing legally elected "regimes" for fun and profit) in Russia, she still argues for an "ideal" Russia without an independent foreign policy; she is arguing for Russia surrendering its security and economical concerns in the name of "appealing to Europe". Oh, and she also dreams of a Russia which abandons any thoughts of allying itself with China because the EU are the good guys, and China is a "meanie".

        The article is a true hodge-podge of some brilliant epiphanies (for a typical westerner) – when, say, the author argues that the West's blind support or Yeltsin in 1996 in face of the possible "communist revival" has been unwarranted and even harmful. But then, unfortunately, the author decides to touch upon the subject of Western sanctions, and here we might glimpse the true attitude of "what it's all about" concerning them:

        This implies a wider strategy that consists of boosting the security of the vulnerable EU and NATO members, defending the independence and sovereignty of the EaP countries, and keeping sanctions until the conditions for lifting them – implementations of the Minsk agreements or settlement of the Crimea issue – are fulfilled…

        … It is good that the sanctions are linked to concrete demands – return of Crimea and fulfilment of the Minsk agreements. This provides a relatively clear conditionality that Europe needs to stick to. While the Crimea-related sanctions will probably remain in place for the foreseeable future, as a settlement of the issue is not on the horizon, the Minsk agreements are supposed to be implemented by the end of the year.

        This is very notable, because in just a few paragraphs a person close to the EU analytical stuff (at least) admits that:

        1. Russia MUST "return" Crimea to Ukraine
        1. b) Russia will be held personally accountable for any failures in implementation of Minsk agreement.

        And despite the fact that the author tries to distract us with all her flowery words about "one does not need to make sanctions a 'barometer' of Russian behaviour in Ukraine" (because, As Everybody Knows It () – "Russia is waging a war on the territory in the territory of Ukraine, and about Zero percent of locals actual contribute to it"), while demanding that the EU's policy " must consist of a refusal to roll back sanctions before Ukraine has gained full control of its eastern border". In short – the current Kiev government can do nothing regarding their responsibilities according to the Minsk-2 accord (with the blessing of the EU, it's implied), but Russia must be held responsible for EVERYTHING. And be sanctioned appropriately, should it falter in its duties. After all, "sanctions should be a slow squeeze that gradually reduces Russia's freedom of manoeuvre and thereby reminds it of its misdeeds and Europe's displeasure."

        The conclusion of the article, despite the absence of any bellicose terms, reads (at least for me) as a declaration of War against Russia:

        Europe needs to be aware that our problem with Russia is long-term and multi-layered. It is clear that the sanctions are not a miracle cure to fix it all, but they need to be a small part of a bigger strategy. They are instrumental in restoring our credibility and possibly fixing a few near- or medium term goals. Getting that right, however, is important, as credibility is something Europe badly needs if it wants to influence processes in the future. Hence the necessity of sanctions – despite all their limits.

        Actually, the majority of politically aware Russians won't find anything "revelatory" in this article. It's been a "Punchinello's Secret" that the EU will always skew more on the side of regime in Kiev while reviewing the "fulfillment" of the Minsk-2 resolution. The Official EU (as opposed to its individual members) will always see Russia as an aggressor and the guilty party by default. While the talks about "possible cancellation of sanctions" remain a sort of tasty carrot for some people (especially for some too eager to sell Crimea for a batch of the "true" Italian Mozzarella cheese), the fact remains – the EU will renew its sanctions against Russian at the end of 2015, no matter what.

        The sheer gall of claiming that "…Europe would want to live next to a Russia that shares if not our values, then at least some of our interests, and uses attractiveness, rather than coercion to win allies and make itself influential" is astonishing. Since when did the so-called "United Europe" abandon the use of "coercion to win allies and make itself influential"? What has happened to the collective memory of the Enlightened Western Public () (Totally Entitled to Its Own Opinion Even Without Knowing A Thing) about the events that preceded the bloody coup d'etat in Kiev on February 22, 2014?

        But, despite all its flaws, I actually like these kinds of "anomalous articles" that sometimes grace the pages of the Free and Independent Western Press (). First of all – some admissions here signify that the so-called analysts in the West are not brain-dead and that they can still understand and articulate some basic things about Russia's perspective, in the language probably accessible to the vast majority of their target audience. Second – the article is refreshingly honest about the West's goals and objectives in the conflict with Russia.

        Yes, there is some flowery prose here, but the core imperatives are hard to miss. And, yes, I'm using the term "the West" in rather broad definition here. Despite their best attempts to conceal this, it's rather obvious for anyone with a functioning brain that the EU sanctions against Russia applied (as they claim) due to "the unlawful annexation of Crimea", "support of militants in the Ukrainian East" or "Russia's as yet unconfirmed (but we are counting on it anyway!) complicity in the downing of MH17" have nothing to do with any point of the Minsk-2 agreement. In fact, right after the signing of this treaty, the EU decided to prove to the Whole Civilized World that it didn't bow down to Russia's demands, and issued yet another batch of sanctions.

        But for every Russian who will read this article (and believe me – there will be a fair amount of them), after they get the essence of it, they will realize that this is not some op-ed by the typically "handshakable" Western outlet, that this "commentary" had been published by the Powers That Be of the EU – and that everything written herein bodes nothing good for Russia in the foreseeable future, no matter what. Russians, being the citizens of Russia, tend to react very negatively to some Western countries' decision to "deal" with them. And the reaction will follow. As it turned out, the Westerners of old (who also had some "long- term problems with Russia") were truly… mortified by such manner of counter-reaction.

        ThatJ, August 29, 2015 at 4:30 pm
        @yalensis

        I don't make any definitions. Similarities and differences are easily observed by the naked eye, but if you want something more scientific, you can always rely on genetics. "Ethnicity" can be considered a modern substitute for "tribe" anyhow, and closely related peoples did wage wars against each other in the past (and today). There was a motley of Germanic tribes in the past, many of whom are today just "Germans", "Dutch", "Danes", &c.

        From Darwin Revisited:

        The following observations in The Origin regarding the nature of evolutionary competition provide valuable clues as to why civil wars occur, why the French make jokes about the Belgians, the Norwegians dislike the Swedes and the British go to war against the Germans. Darwin wrote that 'the competition will generally be most severe between those forms which are most nearly related to each other in habits, constitution, and structure' (1968: 165).

        [Aug 29, 2015] Fly Me To the Moon

        Qualis dominus talis est servus.
        As is the master, so is the servant.

        Titus Petronius

        Stocks came in weakly, but managed to rally in the last hour to closely largely unchanged.

        The GDP revision for 2Q yesterday was a bit much.

        The conversation on financial tv today was replete with interviews from that moveable feast of finance, from the rarified world at Jackson Hole, where the black swans of monetary policy return every so often to molt old forecasts and acquire new ones that are certain to work better than the last seven years of the same old thing.

        Mostly it is just the usual nonsense. Alan Blinder had some interesting and surprisingly realistic things to say. Most of the others were just mouth breathing the talking points about our exceptional and improving economy which will allow the Fed to raise interest rates.

        The research paper from the Fed asserting that the US is relatively immune (ok they said insulated) from global currency and economic shocks because of the position of the dollar as the settling currency of choice for international invoices was-- interesting. Why is it that so many economic, and especially monetary, theories feel so comfortable inhabiting an alternate universe where trees are blue and pigs can fly?

        And as a particularly astute reader observed, if this is actually true, is there any wonder why the rest of the world would resent the dollar hegemony if it grants that sort of power to the single nation that controls it? That they are able to wreak havoc on the rest of the world, exporting malinvestment and willfully fraudulent financial instruments, without having to endure any consequences?

        Well it doesn't work so nicely as that, but yes they do resent it for other reasons, and they have been doing more than resenting it for some time now. And that is the basis for the 'currency war' that these jokers still do not understand. They think it is only 'currency devaluations' which, along with tariffs, was the tactic of choice in the last currency war in the 1930's.

        But the one that left me gaping was the tendentious conversation this afternoon on Bloomberg about how fragile China and its markets are. And as evidence they cited the 'obvious interventions' in their stock market this week, wherein the Chinese markets slump, but then miraculously recover in the last hours of trading. They are obviously doing this so the leadership will not be embarrassed for their 70th commemoration of the end of WWII next week. Which by the way, the US is gracelessly boycotting.

        Knock, knock, hello? Is self-awareness or unintentional irony at home?

        Is there any doubt that we have been seeing the exact types of intervention by a powerful unseen hand in our own stock markets this week, on steroids, after the Monday flash crash? Does that mean that our economy is fragile and doomed as well?

        Do these people actually believe what they are saying, or is this just some clumsy attempt to try to reassure our public that if their public gets into trouble there is no need to panic because, wait for it, we are so much better, more wisely and so much more virtuously blessed to be led by those archangels of benevolent wisdom in Washington and New York.

        One can only wonder.

        Have a pleasant weekend.

        [Aug 29, 2015] Maintaining Confidence - Keep On Dancing

        Aug 29, 2015 | Jesse's Café Américain

        The action was a bit heavy in the metals today, as the Powers-That-Be quietly attempted to restore confidence and a sense of well-being and recovery after the somewhat disconcerting equity market plunge of Monday.

        There was intraday commentary here about some interesting Goldman Sachs activity in an otherwise exceptionally sleepy week at The Bucket Shop.

        People often ask me for a possible motive as to why central banks might care about gold and silver. Willem Middelkoop does a decent job of briefly explaining why in the first pictorial below. It is all a part of the confidence game, when a series of bad decisions place a strain on one's full faith and credit.

        The goal of the financial class is to keep the music going, and the public out there on the floor dancing so they don't have time to think.

        Still out there bottom watching.

        Have a pleasant weekend.

        [Aug 29, 2015] Leveraged Financial Speculation to GDP in the US at a Familiar Peak, Once Again

        Aug 29, 2015 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
        "I believe myriad global "carry trades" – speculative leveraging of securities – are the unappreciated prevailing source of finance behind interlinked global securities market Bubbles. They amount to this cycle's government-directed finance unleashed to jump-start a global reflationary cycle.

        I'm convinced that perhaps Trillions worth of speculative leverage have accumulated throughout global currency and securities markets at least partially based on the perception that policymakers condone this leverage as integral (as mortgage finance was previously) in the fight against mounting global deflationary forces."

        Doug Noland, Carry Trades and Trend-Following Strategies

        The basic diagnosis is correct. But the nature of the disease, and the appropriate remedies, may not be so easily apprehended, except through simple common sense. And that is a rare commodity these days.

        Like a dog returns to its vomit, the Fed's speculative bubble policy enables the one percent to once again feast on the carcass of the real economy.

        'And no one could have ever seen it coming.'

        Once is an accident.

        Twice is no coincidence.

        Remind yourself what has changed since then. Banks have gotten bigger. Schemes and fraud continue.

        What will the third time be like? And the fourth?

        Do you think that Jamie bet Lloyd a dollar that they couldn't do it again?

        Should we ask them to please behave, levy some token fines, watch the politicans yell and posture in some toothless public hearings, let all of them keep their jobs and their bonuses? And then bail them out, wind up the old Victrola, and have another go at the same old thing again?

        Maybe we can vote for one of their hired servants, or skip the middlemen and vote for one of the arrogant hustlers themselves, and hope they get tired of taking us for a ride before we all go broke.

        This policy we have now is the trickle down stimulus that the wealthy financiers have been sucking on with every opportunity that they have made for themselves since the days of Andrew Jackson. Whenever the ability to create and distribute money has been handed over by a craven Congress to private corporations and banking cartels without sufficient oversight and regulation, excessive speculation, financial recklessness, and moral hazard have acted like a plague of misery and stagnation on the real economy.

        "Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the Bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the Bank.

        You tell me that if I take the deposits from the Bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin!

        You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out."

        From the original minutes of the Philadelphia bankers sent to meet with President Jackson February 1834, from Andrew Jackson and the Bank of the United States (1928) by Stan V. Henkels

        I believe all of the above is entirely possible. Because we still have an unashamed cadre of quack economists and their ideologically blind followers blaming the victims, prescribing harsh punishments for the weak, laying all the blame on 'government' and not corrupt officials on the payrolls of Big Money, and giving the gods of the market and their masters of the universe a big kiss on the head, and expecting them to just do the right thing the next time out of the natural goodness of their unrestrained natures the next time. What could go wrong with that?

        Genuine reform. It's too much work, and too much trouble.


        Related: Comprehensive Tally of Banker Fraud

        h/t Jesse Felder for the chart

        [Aug 29, 2015] So Wrong for So Long

        "...For starters, neoconservatives think balance-of-power politics doesn't really work in international affairs and that states are strongly inclined to "bandwagon" instead. In other words, they think weaker states are easy to bully and never stand up to powerful adversaries. Their faulty logic follows that other states will do whatever Washington dictates provided we demonstrate how strong and tough we are. This belief led them to conclude that toppling Saddam would send a powerful message and cause other states in the Middle East to kowtow to us. If we kept up the pressure, our vast military power would quickly transform the region into a sea of docile pro-American democracies."
        .
        "...Moreover, neocons believe military force is a supple tool that can be turned on and off like a spigot. If the United States uses force and things go badly, they seem to think the nation can just pull out quickly and live to fight another day. But that's not how things work in the real world of politics: Once forces are committed, the military brass will demand the chance to win a clear victory, and politicians will worry about the nation's prestige and their own political fortunes. The conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Somalia should remind us that it's a lot easier to get into wars than it is to get out of them, but that lesson has been lost on most neoconservatives."
        .
        "...They claim their main goal is spreading freedom and democracy (except for Palestinians, of course), but they have no theory to explain how this will happen or how toppling a foreign government with military force will magically cause democracy to emerge. Instead, they believe the desire to live in freedom is hardwired into human DNA, and all one has to do is remove the bad guys at the top. Once they are gone, the now-liberated population will forget past grievances, form political parties, embrace tolerance, line up for orderly elections, accept the resulting outcomes willingly, and offer grateful thanks to Uncle Sam."
        Aug 21, 2015 | Foreign Policy

        Over the past few weeks, proponents of the nuclear deal with Iran - from President Barack Obama on down - have marshaled a powerful attack on some of the deal's most prominent opponents. Specifically, they've been pointing out an indisputable fact: Many of the individuals and organizations that are most actively lobbying and speaking out against the deal helped dream up the idea of invading Iraq or worked hard to convince Congress and the American people to go along with the idea. The logic of the pro-deal camp is simple: Given that the opponents were so catastrophically wrong about the Iraq War, no one should listen to their advice today.

        I agree with this basic argument, of course, but opponents of the deal do have one line of defense against the "Wrong on Iraq, Wrong on Iran" meme. It is possible someone could have been dead wrong about the wisdom of invading Iraq in 2003, but nonetheless be correct to oppose the nuclear deal with Iran today. None of us is infallible, and it is at least conceivable that Bill Kristol, Elliott Abrams, James Woolsey, Fred Hiatt, Max Boot, et al. could have blown it big-time in 2002 - but be absolutely right this time around.

        Conceivable, I suppose, but highly unlikely. Why? Because their views in 2002 aren't independent from the views they're expressing today. On the contrary, their earlier support for the Iraq War and their opposition to the Iran deal stem from the basic neoconservative worldview that informs their entire approach to foreign policy.

        To be more specific, the problem isn't that these people just happened to be embarrassingly wrong about Iraq. After all, plenty of other people were equally misguided back then, including many people who now support the deal today. Nor is the problem the neocons' stubborn and morally dubious refusal to admit they were wrong and take responsibility for the lives and money they squandered.

        No, the real problem is that the neoconservative worldview - one that still informs the thinking of many of the groups and individuals who are most vocal in opposing the Iran deal - is fundamentally flawed. Getting Iraq wrong wasn't just an unfortunate miscalculation, it happened because their theories of world politics were dubious and their understanding of how the world works was goofy.

        When your strategic software is riddled with bugs, you should expect a lot of error messages.

        What are the main flaws that consistently lead neoconservatives astray?

        1. For starters, neoconservatives think balance-of-power politics doesn't really work in international affairs and that states are strongly inclined to "bandwagon" instead. In other words, they think weaker states are easy to bully and never stand up to powerful adversaries. Their faulty logic follows that other states will do whatever Washington dictates provided we demonstrate how strong and tough we are. This belief led them to conclude that toppling Saddam would send a powerful message and cause other states in the Middle East to kowtow to us. If we kept up the pressure, our vast military power would quickly transform the region into a sea of docile pro-American democracies.

          What happened, alas, was that the various states we were threatening didn't jump on our bandwagon. Instead, they balanced and then took steps to make sure we faced significant and growing resistance. In particular, Syria and Iran (the next two states on the neocons' target list), cooperated even further with each other and helped aid the anti-American insurgency in Iraq itself. Neocons were outraged by this behavior, but it shouldn't have surprised anyone who understood Realism 101. At the same time, long-standing U.S. allies were upset by our actions and distanced themselves from us or else they took advantage of our excesses and free-rode at our expense. In short, the neoconservatives' belief that the United States could browbeat and intimidate others into doing our bidding was dead wrong.

          Today, of course, opposition to the Iran deal reflects a similar belief that forceful resolve would enable Washington to dictate whatever terms it wants. As I've written before, this idea is the myth of a "better deal." Because neocons assume states are attracted to strength and easy to intimidate, they think rejecting the deal, ratcheting up sanctions, and threatening war will cause Iran's government to finally cave in and dismantle its entire enrichment program. On the contrary, walking away from the deal will stiffen Iran's resolve, strengthen its hard-liners, increase its interest in perhaps actually acquiring a nuclear weapon someday, and cause the other members of the P5+1 to part company with the United States.

        2. The neoconservative worldview also exaggerates the efficacy of military force and downplays the value of diplomacy. Military force is an essential component of national power, of course, but neocons tend to see it as a magical tool that can accomplish all sorts of wonderful things (such as the creation of workable democracies) for which it is not really designed. In reality, military force is a crude instrument whose effects are hard to foresee and one which almost always produces unintended consequences (see under: Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, etc.). So it was in Iraq, and the results of a direct military conflict with Iran would be equally unpredictable.

          Moreover, neocons believe military force is a supple tool that can be turned on and off like a spigot. If the United States uses force and things go badly, they seem to think the nation can just pull out quickly and live to fight another day. But that's not how things work in the real world of politics: Once forces are committed, the military brass will demand the chance to win a clear victory, and politicians will worry about the nation's prestige and their own political fortunes. The conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Somalia should remind us that it's a lot easier to get into wars than it is to get out of them, but that lesson has been lost on most neoconservatives.

        3. Third, the neoconservatives have a simplistic and ahistorical view of democracy itself. They claim their main goal is spreading freedom and democracy (except for Palestinians, of course), but they have no theory to explain how this will happen or how toppling a foreign government with military force will magically cause democracy to emerge. Instead, they believe the desire to live in freedom is hardwired into human DNA, and all one has to do is remove the bad guys at the top. Once they are gone, the now-liberated population will forget past grievances, form political parties, embrace tolerance, line up for orderly elections, accept the resulting outcomes willingly, and offer grateful thanks to Uncle Sam.

          It would be nice if that Pollyannaish scenario were accurate, but such views betray near-total ignorance of the prerequisites for meaningful democracy and the actual history of democratic growth in the West itself. In fact, the development of liberal democracy was a long, contentious, imperfect, and often violent process in Western Europe and North America, and anyone familiar with that history would have known the neocons' formula for democratic change was doomed from the start.

        4. Fourth, as befits a group of armchair ideologues whose primary goal has been winning power inside the Beltway, neoconservatives are often surprisingly ignorant about the actual conditions of the countries whose politics and society they want to transform. Hardly any neoconservatives knew very much about Iraq before the United States invaded - if they had, they might have reconsidered the whole scheme - and their characterizations of Iran today consist of scary caricatures bearing little resemblance to Iran's complicated political and social reality. In addition to flawed theories, in short, the neoconservative worldview also depends on an inaccurate reading of the facts on the ground.

        5. Last but not least, the neoconservatives' prescriptions for U.S. foreign policy are perennially distorted by a strong attachment to Israel, which Max Boot (and others) have described as a "key tenet" of the entire movement. There's nothing wrong with such attachments per se, of course, but it has crippled their ability to give sensible policy advice to U.S. politicians. In particular, neoconservatives tend to believe that what's good for Israel is good for the United States - and vice versa - which is why they see no conflict between their attachment to Israel and their loyalty to the United States. But no two states have identical interests all the time, and when the interests of two countries conflict, people who feel strongly about both are forced to decide which of these feelings is going to take priority.

        Over the past few weeks, some proponents of the deal have pointed out - correctly - that some opponents don't like the deal because they think it is bad for Israel and because the Netanyahu government is dead set against it. As one might expect, pointing out these obvious facts has led some opponents of the deal to accuse proponents (including President Obama) of anti-Semitism. But as Lara Friedman, J.J. Goldberg, and Peter Beinart have made clear, this charge is absurd, even laughable. Among other things, it appears a majority of American Jews support the deal - and so do plenty of distinguished figures in Israel's own national security establishment. If anything, it is Netanyahu's efforts to persuade American Jews that it is their duty to support him, rather than their own president, that echoes those hateful anti-Semitic canards about "dual loyalty."

        Instead of being a serious criticism, this familiar smear is really just a way to change the subject and to put proponents of the deal on the defensive for pointing out the obvious. Fortunately, in this case the charge just doesn't seem to be sticking, and its appearance is just another sign that opponents don't have rational arguments or solid evidence to justify their opposition.

        The bottom line: The fact that the neoconservatives, AIPAC, the Conference of Presidents, and other groups in the Israel lobby were wrong about the Iraq War does not by itself mean that they are necessarily wrong about the Iran deal. But when you examine their basic views on world politics and their consistent approach to U.S. Middle East policy, it becomes clear this is not a coincidence at all. Support for the Iraq War and opposition to the Iran deal flow from the same flawed premises, and that's why following their advice today would be as foolish as it was back in 2003.

        Choices2014

        I take a much narrower view as to what motivates neocons-it definitely is not ideology. They have infiltrated most of the "think" tanks, they have infiltrated many of the cabinet level departments, and have infiltrated all levels of political activity. To me, that indicates a hunger for power and money and it has been very successful. Huge sums of money support these people and their constant push for war. Finally, it is all orchestrated my Netanyahu and the Likuds. The neocons and their AIPAC, WaPo, et al take their script from Netanyahu and because of the money and their positioning in the Foreign Policy establishment, it seems impossible to counteract. Indeed, depressing and tragic for the United States.
        Lost in america
        I think it is a mistake to throw all of these positions and policies altogether. Actually, opposition to the treaty may seem bipolar because of the political marketing by the Administration. But there are varied rationales: Some people are against the deal deal because they do not trust Iran under any circumstances. Some are against the deal because we could have negotiated a better deal. Some want more compensation for past Iranian transgressions. Some believe that the treaty is too open ended and allows nuclear development too soon. Some Americans do not believe that you should make a treaty with a nation unless they release your hostages. Some see that Iran has problems and we should not let them off the hook so easily. The best argument for the treaty is that sanctions are weakening anyway. To believe that the treaty will make Iran a better citizen is similar to the belief if you make Iraq a democracy, this will lead to a better world. The Neocons are similar to the people who support the treaty. They are idealistic and probably making the world worse.
        exMod 27
        Why does everyone expect the US to carry the weight? What is in our National Interest? Israel and the Sunni Arab/Turks want a weaker Persia/Shia/Iran so they can dominate the region. A weak Iran means a weak Syria and a weaker Shia presence in the region. (looking at you Hizbollah). That is why a good number of Arabs and Jews oppose the deal. They don't want ANY deal that lifts sanctions on Iran. So, where does that leave the US? 10 years ago, with oil prices sky high, we would have to back the Sauds. 30 years ago, with the Great Bear still running around, we would have to backed the Israelis. Today? Oil is flowing and Putin is driving Russia into a ditch. What is in our National Interest? Commerce. I don't understand today's Republican party. Led by fools.
        WilliamSantiago
        BDL2010 is correct: "You could say the same thing about liberals." My bet is that Prof Walt would have supported any deal coming out the Obama Administration. So I challenge him to state exactly what the minimum deal with Iran would have been that he would find unacceptable.

        I note 2 points of logic: (i) The notion of "the myth of a better deal" is a contrary-to-fact conditional. There is no way to know if Prof. Walt is correct especially has he has provided no evidence that a better deal could not have been or could not be forthcoming. (ii) It's simply name calling to label an opposing point of view a "myth," then define what strawman necons believe as that myth, then knock down the strawman (with little evidence even for this poor task).

        Further, I note an interesting aspect of the deal that even the most neophyte negotiator would have avoided. We gave away for certain the only lever we had (the sanctions) in return for a promise to be fulfilled in the future. And we found out this week that a major portion of the promise will be verified by our opponent in the negotiation. "This used car is in fine shape. Buy it now and I'll come over tomorrow and verify that there isn't sawdust in the transmission."

        Prof. Walt is entitled to his opinion. But intellectual honesty requires that he pressure test his opinion by finding the best, not the worst or vaguest arguments against his conclusion instead of setting up strawmen and knocking them down. Unfortunately, setting up strawmen is a favorite tactic of our commander in chief.

        bdl2010
        More political BS. You could say the same thing about liberals. Case in point, how is Libya going? How about Syria? Right now there is a major refugee crisis due to instability in both of these nations. In one we took action and in the other we failed to. So if you want to pen an article about how neo-cons are always wrong then you need to follow it up with how liberals are not always right either. I'd hope that at some point in the future we would start to realize that we need a foreign policy that transcends political parties. When other nations look at our policies they see that it is America that is enacting it. They do not see Republicans or Democrats to blame. It's due time for us all to grow the hell up and get our act together.
        samamerco
        I disagree in one main point. While most politicians consider the results of the war in Iraq to be negative, neocons see the same results as positive. It removed a major threat to Israel (Saddam) and caused unending social upheaval in the countries surrounding it that continues today. The neocons also see a similar result of war with Iran as positive from the Israeli point view. Who really cares about the interests of the United States?
        Xenophon
        @samamerco Well stated and right on the mark.
        Mark Thomason
        This is a wonderfully clear explanation of a very complex subject, a real tour de force.

        I'd add two smaller points.

        One, it is hard to get out once we start a war, even when we win. WW2 was as overwhelming a win, unconditional surrender, as one could ever hope to get. Yet after all these years, we are still in Germany, Italy, and Japan, and we are in them because of WW2 and how we ended it. Once in, we couldn't get out even by total victory.

        Two, while come neocons may believe in spreading democracy, they did not act as if that was their goal when they had the chance. They imposed government, and supervised the "election" of puppets. It was more like lip service cover for another goal we know was close to the heart of the leaders: make the Middle East safe for Israel no matter what it does, even for continued expansion and a Greater Israel. American power was misused to do that, and it failed as completely as did the excuse of bringing democracy.

        Jinzo
        Most people that oppose this deal have legitimate reasons for doing so, obviously there are some that just don't want a deal full stop for selfish reasons. Obama and Kerry have not come even close at all to a deal of any resemblance to what they initially set out to achieve for the American people. Despite Obamas rhetoric about "its this deal or war", I doubt anyone can seriously contemplate Obama of all people starting a war with Iran and the next president will be faced with the fact that Iran is no feable Iraq, not that Iraq itself have been a walk in the park. The talk that "if this deal is rejected that our European allies will ease sanctions unilaterally" totally overlooks the fact they these same allies applied sanctions on Russia which is much more costly to them then the Iran sanctions are. Lifting the UN restrictions on military equipment and missile technology has to be changed, this should only happen if Iran proves it has stopped their state sponsorship of terrorism, also Iran been allowed to provide their own samples to the international inspectors to verify that they haven't been cheating in the past is just unbelievable, mind boggling, how could anyone think this is acceptable? Imagine an athlete that was suspended for taking drugs being allowed to provide his own urine samples to the sports league. Imagine a criminal in the court of law being the only person to submit evidence of his own guilt or innocence. Imagine if the police pullied over a intoxicated driver, only to let him go cause he said "he hadn't been drinking", but you don't have to imagine something so ridiculous cause this kind of circus act is exactly what's now playing out between Iran and the IAEA. There has to be a better deal then this poor excuse of a 'deal'.
        Mark Thomason
        @Jinzo "Most people that oppose this deal have legitimate reasons for doing so"

        No, they don't.

        Negotiators rarely get all of their initial demands. Anyway, "what they set out to achieve" is here defined as what Netanyahu dreamed of getting, not Obama's real goals.

        Toot Sweet
        They are wrong so often because they are ideologues. And like all ideologues, they are dogmatic and care little for facts, criticism, or compromise. For them, the ends justify the means which explains why they distort and dissemble with great ease, and never apologize.
        Anise
        So, neo-cons are ignorant bullies who are killing the rest of us. How do we stop them?
        Ggee
        This piece is just like the neo-cons: sometimes right, sometimes wrong.

        In the end, though, it always comes down to straining for the opportunity to lambaste Israel. Even when the President flips out and attacks his detractors as war-mongers in league with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard; when hordes of pro-deal lobbyists representing every P5+1nation descend on Capital Hill (as is their right); when virtually every western nation already has sent representatives in the last few weeks to negotiate commercial deals with Tehran even before the mullahs have demonstrated good faith; even as morally neutered "realist" academics spout off while drenched with the blood of hundreds of thousands of Syrian and other innocents but continue to sit in judgment of their inferiors -- even with all that and so much more, it's always the right time to attack Israel.

        The writer is always very busy telling us not only that Israel is a big drag on the U.S., but now offers psychological analysis that Israel's supporters are clinically incapable of having well considered opinions that differ from his own, notwithstanding abundant proof of his own impenetrable bias. Which is to say, what a load of crap.

        bpuharic -> Ggee
        You didn't read the article. What he said was the right has a power fetish. That's why neocons get it wrong
        ozziem
        @Ggee

        RE:

        In the end, though, it always comes down to straining for the opportunity to lambaste Israel.

        It seems abundantly obvious that your are among the people who places Israel's interests ahead of those of the United States. Why don't you just move there?

        Chris F

        "The logic of the pro-deal camp is simple: Given that the opponents were so catastrophically wrong about the Iraq War, no one should listen to their advice today." Mr. Walt, this is a logical fallacy and you should have been done with it when you admitted so. Though you acknowledge the fallacy, you still go on to defend it. You never got specific on how "these people just happened to be embarrassingly wrong about Iraq" but I guess you mean the WMD. True, no nukes were found, but lots and lots of other weapons, including chemical weapons, were found. The New York Times did a huge report on this.

        So, your assertion that we shouldn't listen to opponents of the deal because they were wrong on Iraq is highly debatable, and if that's what support for the Iran deal rests on, the case is very weak indeed.

        As for the neo-con worldview question, occupation has worked pretty well in Japan, South Korea, Germany and others in the long run, so one could be forgiven for looking at the long line of overall successes and thinking it would work in Iraq if we were honest and clear about what we were going to do with Iraq - that is undertake a multi-generational transformation of Iraqi society through occupation. It should also be remembered that there was a lot of support for the US enforcing UN resolutions as part of the Iraq invasion. If the neo-cons were so wrong and we can't listen to them now, then ditto for the Democrats who supported the war and the countries in the UN who also supported it.

        "This belief led them to conclude that toppling Saddam would send a powerful message and cause other states in the Middle East to kowtow to us." Also debatable. Qaddafi saw what happened in Iraq and gave up his weapons program. Even Kim Jong Il was reportedly freaked out as he watched the invasion. We'll never know how things could have been shaped if the US was consistent in its mission.

        "Among other things, it appears a majority of American Jews support the deal - and so do plenty of distinguished figures in Israel's own national security establishment." Of course, there will be some people on both sides. But this is a rare moment when the Israeli left and right, Jew and Arab, are in overwhelming agreement over how bad the deal is. That is no small feat. As for American Jews, I was at the well attended anti-deal rally in Los Angeles last month and judging by how many different groups showed up, your assertion here is also incorrect. Jews, Arabs, Christians, Democrats, Republicans, Palestinians, Israelis and gay activists all showed up and all were against the deal. This is LA, the biggest home of liberal Jews outside of NYC.

        I also saw Ted Cruz speak at one of the largest Persian Jewish synagogues in LA (maybe the country) last month. The place was over capacity and the fire marshal showed up. The subject was the Iran deal and Cruz got multiple standing ovations. Again, we're talking about liberal Jewish LA. So, you may have read a few articles by Jews who support the deal, but I have seen up close thousands of American Jews in liberal LA, many of them Iranian, who are disgusted with this deal.

        [Aug 29, 2015] Fly Me To the Moon

        Qualis dominus talis est servus.
        As is the master, so is the servant.

        Titus Petronius

        Stocks came in weakly, but managed to rally in the last hour to closely largely unchanged.

        The GDP revision for 2Q yesterday was a bit much.

        The conversation on financial tv today was replete with interviews from that moveable feast of finance, from the rarified world at Jackson Hole, where the black swans of monetary policy return every so often to molt old forecasts and acquire new ones that are certain to work better than the last seven years of the same old thing.

        Mostly it is just the usual nonsense. Alan Blinder had some interesting and surprisingly realistic things to say. Most of the others were just mouth breathing the talking points about our exceptional and improving economy which will allow the Fed to raise interest rates.

        The research paper from the Fed asserting that the US is relatively immune (ok they said insulated) from global currency and economic shocks because of the position of the dollar as the settling currency of choice for international invoices was-- interesting. Why is it that so many economic, and especially monetary, theories feel so comfortable inhabiting an alternate universe where trees are blue and pigs can fly?

        And as a particularly astute reader observed, if this is actually true, is there any wonder why the rest of the world would resent the dollar hegemony if it grants that sort of power to the single nation that controls it? That they are able to wreak havoc on the rest of the world, exporting malinvestment and willfully fraudulent financial instruments, without having to endure any consequences?

        Well it doesn't work so nicely as that, but yes they do resent it for other reasons, and they have been doing more than resenting it for some time now. And that is the basis for the 'currency war' that these jokers still do not understand. They think it is only 'currency devaluations' which, along with tariffs, was the tactic of choice in the last currency war in the 1930's.

        But the one that left me gaping was the tendentious conversation this afternoon on Bloomberg about how fragile China and its markets are. And as evidence they cited the 'obvious interventions' in their stock market this week, wherein the Chinese markets slump, but then miraculously recover in the last hours of trading. They are obviously doing this so the leadership will not be embarrassed for their 70th commemoration of the end of WWII next week. Which by the way, the US is gracelessly boycotting.

        Knock, knock, hello? Is self-awareness or unintentional irony at home?

        Is there any doubt that we have been seeing the exact types of intervention by a powerful unseen hand in our own stock markets this week, on steroids, after the Monday flash crash? Does that mean that our economy is fragile and doomed as well?

        Do these people actually believe what they are saying, or is this just some clumsy attempt to try to reassure our public that if their public gets into trouble there is no need to panic because, wait for it, we are so much better, more wisely and so much more virtuously blessed to be led by those archangels of benevolent wisdom in Washington and New York.

        One can only wonder.

        Have a pleasant weekend.

        [Aug 29, 2015] Maintaining Confidence - Keep On Dancing

        Aug 29, 2015 | Jesse's Café Américain

        The action was a bit heavy in the metals today, as the Powers-That-Be quietly attempted to restore confidence and a sense of well-being and recovery after the somewhat disconcerting equity market plunge of Monday.

        There was intraday commentary here about some interesting Goldman Sachs activity in an otherwise exceptionally sleepy week at The Bucket Shop.

        People often ask me for a possible motive as to why central banks might care about gold and silver. Willem Middelkoop does a decent job of briefly explaining why in the first pictorial below. It is all a part of the confidence game, when a series of bad decisions place a strain on one's full faith and credit.

        The goal of the financial class is to keep the music going, and the public out there on the floor dancing so they don't have time to think.

        Still out there bottom watching.

        Have a pleasant weekend.

        [Aug 29, 2015] Leveraged Financial Speculation to GDP in the US at a Familiar Peak, Once Again

        Aug 29, 2015 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
        "I believe myriad global "carry trades" – speculative leveraging of securities – are the unappreciated prevailing source of finance behind interlinked global securities market Bubbles. They amount to this cycle's government-directed finance unleashed to jump-start a global reflationary cycle.

        I'm convinced that perhaps Trillions worth of speculative leverage have accumulated throughout global currency and securities markets at least partially based on the perception that policymakers condone this leverage as integral (as mortgage finance was previously) in the fight against mounting global deflationary forces."

        Doug Noland, Carry Trades and Trend-Following Strategies

        The basic diagnosis is correct. But the nature of the disease, and the appropriate remedies, may not be so easily apprehended, except through simple common sense. And that is a rare commodity these days.

        Like a dog returns to its vomit, the Fed's speculative bubble policy enables the one percent to once again feast on the carcass of the real economy.

        'And no one could have ever seen it coming.'

        Once is an accident.

        Twice is no coincidence.

        Remind yourself what has changed since then. Banks have gotten bigger. Schemes and fraud continue.

        What will the third time be like? And the fourth?

        Do you think that Jamie bet Lloyd a dollar that they couldn't do it again?

        Should we ask them to please behave, levy some token fines, watch the politicans yell and posture in some toothless public hearings, let all of them keep their jobs and their bonuses? And then bail them out, wind up the old Victrola, and have another go at the same old thing again?

        Maybe we can vote for one of their hired servants, or skip the middlemen and vote for one of the arrogant hustlers themselves, and hope they get tired of taking us for a ride before we all go broke.

        This policy we have now is the trickle down stimulus that the wealthy financiers have been sucking on with every opportunity that they have made for themselves since the days of Andrew Jackson. Whenever the ability to create and distribute money has been handed over by a craven Congress to private corporations and banking cartels without sufficient oversight and regulation, excessive speculation, financial recklessness, and moral hazard have acted like a plague of misery and stagnation on the real economy.

        "Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the Bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the Bank.

        You tell me that if I take the deposits from the Bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin!

        You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out."

        From the original minutes of the Philadelphia bankers sent to meet with President Jackson February 1834, from Andrew Jackson and the Bank of the United States (1928) by Stan V. Henkels

        I believe all of the above is entirely possible. Because we still have an unashamed cadre of quack economists and their ideologically blind followers blaming the victims, prescribing harsh punishments for the weak, laying all the blame on 'government' and not corrupt officials on the payrolls of Big Money, and giving the gods of the market and their masters of the universe a big kiss on the head, and expecting them to just do the right thing the next time out of the natural goodness of their unrestrained natures the next time. What could go wrong with that?

        Genuine reform. It's too much work, and too much trouble.


        Related: Comprehensive Tally of Banker Fraud

        h/t Jesse Felder for the chart

        [Aug 28, 2015] Ukraine agrees win-win debt restructuring deal

        Notable quotes:
        "... the government conceded that it must pay a higher interest rate on the remaining debts. ..."
        "... includes a four-year extension on repayments ..."
        "... In Moscow, the Russian finance minister, Anton Siluanov, said Russia would not participate in the agreement. Ukraine owes Russia a $3bn eurobond due for full repayment in December. The need to repay Russia represents a dilemma for the IMF as it considers whether to pump further funds into Ukraine, possibly in conjunction with Brussels. It is not officially allowed to continue lending to a country that is in default to another sovereign. ..."
        "... The Washington-based lender of last resort has already come up against criticism for its lending policy, which critics believe forces the government to pursue draconian austerity measures that will depress growth and increase its debts. Exotix credit strategist Jokob Christensen said the bondholders were the clear winners. "I have a hard time seeing how this deal will help reduce [Ukraine's] debt to 71% of GDP in 2020, which is one of the crucial targets in the operation," he said. ..."
        Aug 28, 2015 | The Guardian

        Ukraine has secured a 20% writedown on $18bn (£11.6bn) of its foreign debts in a deal its finance minister described as win-win...

        ... ... ...

        The hedge funds holding Ukrainian debt will write off around $4bn in return for securities that will pay holders a percentage of Ukraine's economic growth from 2021. But in a move that is likely to dismay many MPs in the Kiev parliament, the government conceded that it must pay a higher interest rate on the remaining debts.

        The deal, which still needs to be approved by creditors outside the group, includes a four-year extension on repayments to give Ukraine breathing space. But the interest rate on the bonds will rise 0.5 percentage points to 7.75%. It ended months of tense negotiations aimed at helping to keep the country on track with its International Monetary Fund-led bailout programme, plugging a funding gap and preventing a unilateral debt default.

        Ukraine's finance minister, Natalia Yaresko, who had sought a 40% debt haircut, said the deal meets all targets set by the IMF bailout programme and would allow the country to move ahead. "Everyone's done well out of this deal. That's why it's collaborative. It's not one side winning, it's a win-win situation. We're all now moving forward without putting the value of the bonds at any further risk," she said.

        Ukraine's sovereign dollar bond prices surged after the news, indicating that traders viewed the remaining debt to be on a more secure footing. Its 2017 issue rose 8.7 cents to trade at 64.5 cents in the dollar, according to Tradeweb data, while the 2022 bond rose 10 cents.

        In Moscow, the Russian finance minister, Anton Siluanov, said Russia would not participate in the agreement. Ukraine owes Russia a $3bn eurobond due for full repayment in December. The need to repay Russia represents a dilemma for the IMF as it considers whether to pump further funds into Ukraine, possibly in conjunction with Brussels. It is not officially allowed to continue lending to a country that is in default to another sovereign.

        The debt deal should help keep Ukraine's national currency, the hryvnia, stable and allow increased spending on defence in the east,...

        ... ... ...

        The Washington-based lender of last resort has already come up against criticism for its lending policy, which critics believe forces the government to pursue draconian austerity measures that will depress growth and increase its debts. Exotix credit strategist Jokob Christensen said the bondholders were the clear winners. "I have a hard time seeing how this deal will help reduce [Ukraine's] debt to 71% of GDP in 2020, which is one of the crucial targets in the operation," he said.

        Gabriel Sterne, head of global macro at Oxford Economics, also cast doubt on whether the deal would make Ukraine's debt levels sustainable and added: "There is a strong likelihood that they will be back at the negotiating table before too many IMF reviews have passed."

        Talks had been held up over a disagreement with creditors on whether to provide Kiev with a writedown on the face value of the bonds. Kiev had initially sought a 40% cut. "We started in different places, because the creditor committee didn't believe we had a solvency problem but my goal was not a particular number, it was meeting those IMF targets," Yaresko said. She added that she hoped it was highly unlikely that remaining creditors would reject the agreement and forecast that the process would be wrapped up by the end of October.

        [Aug 28, 2015] Ukraines debt deal is better than defaulting – but its just a stop gap

        Aug 27, 2015 | The Guardian

        The debt deal Ukraine has painstakingly negotiated with its creditors is welcome and preferable to the alternative: a default that would have put additional pressure on the country's shaky banks and led to both capital flight and a protracted battle in the courts. But amid all the backslapping a bit of perspective is needed.

        Greece has severe problems but Ukraine is the most troubled country in Europe. It has inflation at 55%, its economy is expected to contract by 10% this year, and the government is fighting a war with separatists in the east backed by Russia that is costly in both human and financial terms.

        The deal involves a 20% writedown to the face value of $18bn of eurobonds and pushes back the date on which the bonds will be redeemed by four years. Ukraine has some breathing space and the accord means it will continue to be eligible for financial help from the International Monetary Fund. That's the good news.

        But the finance minister, Natalia Yaresko, had to scale back her ambitions once it became clear creditors thought Kiev's threat to default was a bluff. She has had to offer higher interest rates when debt payments resume and has had to accept a 20% writedown rather than the 40% she wanted.

        Ukraine's debts remain high and its economy is in freefall. This agreement is a stop gap not a game changer.

        [Aug 27, 2015] Digital surveillance 'worse than Orwell', says new UN privacy chief

        "...He added that he doesn't use Facebook or Twitter, and said it was regrettable that vast numbers of people sign away their digital rights without thinking about it."
        Aug 24, 2015 | The Guardian

        The first UN privacy chief has said the world needs a Geneva convention style law for the internet to safeguard data and combat the threat of massive clandestine digital surveillance.

        Speaking to the Guardian weeks after his appointment as the UN special rapporteur on privacy, Joseph Cannataci described British surveillance oversight as being "a joke", and said the situation is worse than anything George Orwell could have foreseen.

        He added that he doesn't use Facebook or Twitter, and said it was regrettable that vast numbers of people sign away their digital rights without thinking about it.

        "Some people were complaining because they couldn't find me on Facebook. They couldn't find me on Twitter. But since I believe in privacy, I've never felt the need for it," Cannataci, a professor of technology law at University of Groningen in the Netherlands and head of the department of Information Policy & Governance at the University of Malta, said.

        ... ... ...

        But for Cannataci – well-known for having a mind of his own – it is not America but Britain that he singles out as having the weakest oversight in the western world: "That is precisely one of the problems we have to tackle. That if your oversight mechanism's a joke, and a rather bad joke at its citizens' expense, for how long can you laugh it off as a joke?"

        He said proper oversight is the only way of progressing, and hopes more people will think about and vote for privacy in the UK. "And that is where the political process comes in," he said, "because can you laugh off the economy and the National Health Service? Not in the UK election, if you want to survive."

        The appointment of a UN special rapporteur on privacy is seen as hugely important because it elevates the right to privacy in the digital age to that of other human rights. As the first person in the job, the investigator will be able to set the standard for the digital right to privacy, deciding how far to push governments that want to conduct surveillance for security reasons, and corporations who mine us for our personal data.


        Mario_Marceau 26 Aug 2015 07:27

        At the time of writing this comment, there are only 155 other comments. This is a very important article. A crucial one. Nobody's reading. It is as though nobody gives a damn anymore*. (Taylor Swift just opens her mouth and thousands of comments fill the pages.)

        People have very clearly become numb to the idea of privacy mining. By this I mean everyone knows that their privacy is being eradicated, we all despise the idea, but somehow, very few get involved and are taking steps to prevent it from going further or, dare I hope, roll it back!

        After the revelations by Edward Snowden (a very important apex for TheGuardian), one would expect the entire western world to be up in arms about unlawful government surveillance and big corporation scooping our privacy away. Yet big brother and major corporations have been able to perform 'damage control' with surgical precision, going as fas as manipulating or intimidating the press, therefore keeping their precious status quo on the issue and keeping people across entire nations hostage and on a very tight leash.

        I hope Mr Cannataci is taking or will take into account the fact that the *people have seemingly given up while in fact they are worried but don't know what to do anymore and feel utterly helpless. I strongly believe this aspect of the whole fiasco on privacy constitute perhaps the most important cog in the gear of online positive changes when it comes to taking back our rights.

        guardianfan2000 26 Aug 2015 00:55

        British oversight of GCHQ surveillance is non-existent. If you live or work in Britain your privacy is wholly violated on everything you do. Pervasive snooping.

        luella zarf syenka 25 Aug 2015 23:54

        Ultimately it may be necessary for anyone desiring real privacy to learn to code and build his or her own encryption.

        Also if anyone desires protection from abusive police officers it might be necessary to set up a private army.

        If you desire to avoid being poisoned by Monsanto it might be necessary to purchase giant farms and grow your own food: corn, wheat, rice, avocados, melons, carrots, pigs, cattle, tilapia, hazelnuts... and make cheese and butter!

        And ultimately, for those of us desiring to avoid being cooked up by the fossil industry and its minions, it might be necessary to acquire another planet, which we could call Absurdistan.


        newschats4 Barbacana 25 Aug 2015 18:00

        The Toshiba laptop - the least expensive model I could find as a replacement - came with windows 8. I am trying to use the internet without getting hooked on all the expensive come-ons, the confusing and even contradictory offers, amenities, protection programs (some of which are scams) and other services, that unless you are in the business, most people don't seem to know much about how they all work or what is really reliable or necessary. I don't know how many times sites have tried to change my home page or provide a new tool bar to control what I'm doing, just because I responded to a "free offer" like solitaire games. Ads are enough pay off for those offers aren't they? Being electronically shanghaied is a step too far. I even unchecked the box to opt out of the tool bar but got it anyway. Now I have to try to figure out how to remove it again.
        The personal computer business is the capital city of artificial obsolescence and quackery. it is also highly addictive even for people who don't really need it for business. But having an email address is almost as necessary now as having a phone number or even a home address. The situation offered by most suppliers of equipment and even the providers is "take it or leave it". But the internet is driving out the older print media (a subscription to a physical newspaper is so much more expensive) and is becoming a requirement of classrooms at all levels, so "take it or leave it" isn't good enough. For an industry intent on dominating all aspects of life, "take it or leave it" can't be tolerated forever. I have tried at times to read the policies I have to accept or not use the product and all the protection is one-sided: the industries aren't liable for one damned thing: they could destroy your computer and you couldn't do anything about it. But it isn't an honest choice if the user, having purchased the product, has only the option to accept with no other provisions allowed, except refusal. You can shop for all sorts of alternatives for access and protection but the sheep still have to buy from the wolves to use any of them.

        Statutes governing "mail fraud", as it is called in the US, should apply to dubious scams that occur on the internet. The internet is very nearly a world wide public utility and as such should be very heavily regulated as one. It is barely regulated at all and the industry seems to be the only effective voice with regulators like the FCC.

        You can't be spied on legally on the telephone system, or with the public mails, but apparently anyone can do it with the internet as long as they know how to do it and know how to go undetected.

        BTW - I followed that link and saw no price mentioned.

        FreedomAboveSecurity -> newschats4 25 Aug 2015 15:02

        Not to mention that you had to agree to access to your computer by Microsoft before activating Windows 8. The agreement states that they can shut down your laptop anytime they find malicious files...indefinitely. You don't really own your computer under this agreement or any of the programs you paid for in purchase. There is a clause about third party access, too. One questions if the agreement provides backdoor authority. I returned both laptops with 8 on them. Oh...and you promised to connect to the net, preventing air-gapping as a privacy tactic.

        newschats4 25 Aug 2015 14:32

        It is obvious that the consumer has little or no protection on the internet or even with the manufacturers and providers. And even antivirus protection can, itself, be a form of protection racket.

        The internet is supported by industries that can make the problems they can then make even more money on by claiming to solve them.

        BTW - I have had a new laptop that I reluctantly purchased in January 2014 because I was notified (and confirmed) that I had to get an updated program because windows XP was no longer "supported". I wasn't getting updates anymore. But updates never said what they were doing or why they were doing it. It is also very obvious that the personal computer works both ways. If you can look "out", other can just as easily look in.

        When I got the new laptop with windows 8, my first impression was it was glitzier but also dumbed down. It was stuffed with apps for sale that I didn't want and I quickly removed. But what really angers me about the come-ons is, updates have removed apps I did want and found free online that someone doesn't want me to have. I had a free version of Google earth that I downloaded easily but has since disappeared.

        But now when I try to download the free version, the google earth site says that windows 7, windows XP and one other are required but not windows 8. ?? I get an error message and am told I have to download a site that will allow Google earth to keep a log of my hard drive so they can determine why I get an error message.

        I am sure that the execs at the top of the ladder know that the vast majority of internet users are sheep to be shorn. But those corporate decision makers are also the only people in key positions to know they can make the sheep pay for the razors that they will be shorn with.

        And now the school systems are raising a new generation of sheep that won't be able to live without the internet. They will feel helpless without it.


        syenka -> Robert987 25 Aug 2015 12:44

        Good point about the NSA and the GCHQ. However, neither of these outfits has magical powers and really solid encryption can pretty effectively stymie their efforts to pry. The question remains whether software purveyors can resist the government's insistence that there be a backdoor built in to each program. Ultimately it may be necessary for anyone desiring real privacy to learn to code and build his or her own encryption.


        AdMelliorandum 25 Aug 2015 08:08

        Better late than never…

        Let's wish the United Nations first UN privacy chief, Mr. Cannataci, success in "challenging the business model of companies that are "very often taking the data that you never even knew they were taking"."

        Likewise consider the ongoing investigation in Switzerland against Microsoft, as pertains the alleged Windows 10 theft of client information and privacy violations.
        See the corresponding article titled:

        "Berne a lancé une procédure concernant Windows 10", (roughly translated as: "Berne has launched a procedure concerning Windows 10"),
        published on 24.08.15 on the "Le Tribune de Geneve" newspaper:

        http://www.tdg.ch/economie/berne-lance-procedure-concernant-windows-10/story/29192122

        Excerpts from said article follow, translated using Google Translate:

        "The federal policeman launched a clarification process on Windows 10 de Microsoft."
        ". . . infringement of privacy committed by Microsoft. He demanded the examination of several issues related to the operating system of Windows 10."
        "The computer program automatically captures and shares information from its users with software vendors. They transmit them further, including for advertising."
        "In Valais, the cantonal officer Sébastien Fanti had expressed his indignation at the beginning."
        "If Microsoft does not review its privacy policy, Windows 10 could be the subject of a recommendation prohibiting the purchase" in the canton. . ."

        wichdoctor 25 Aug 2015 02:32

        I have been pointing these dangers out for over 20 years ever since the local authority stuck CCTV around the town without any consultation. If these systems were only there to act as spectators then the authorities should have no objection to slaving every camera to a publicly viewable screen or even the web. Since they do object we have to suppose they are using these things to spy on us.

        Then there are the ANPR systems that allegedly log every vehicle journey between every town on mainland UK. There is no trustworthy independent oversight on how the data is stored or used just the usual "trust us we are the police".

        Then there is the private stasi style database of the credit reference companies. No real control over their compilation or use. Use extended from credit checking to being used in employment references. Can even be used to track movements of a spouse by a vindictive ex.

        DVLA? A long history of letting any gangster with a business card access to anyone's data. Same with the electoral roll. Anyone wanting to avoid being tracked by someone bent on violence such as an ex spouse or gangster can not safely exercise their right to vote.

        I don't use social networking sites and until recently used an assumed name for voting. After a career spent in IT specialising in data acquisition I'm well aware just how easy it is to suck data a database using very basic tools. I hide my data as much as possible even though at my stage in life I probably have little to fear from the state or even the bankers


        WalterBMorgan 25 Aug 2015 01:11

        In many respects we are the problem. As pointed out we give away our privacy too easily and too cheaply. We accept massive CCTV intrusions because we fear crime unduly but don't wish to pay for more police officers instead. We want free email, news, and entertainment if we can get it so we end up with the KGB of the digital age following us about. We are bombarded with advertising yet most of us don't fight back with ad blockers or protest the over intrusion of billboard advertising. Government will spy on us and business will exploit us if we let them. Both business and government can be good and necessary but we connive with their downsides because it's cheaper.


        JaitcH BritCol 24 Aug 2015 23:40

        I live in an 'authoritarian' [state] and yet we enjoy more personal freedom that do people in Australia, Canada, the UK and USA!

        xxxsss MrPotto51 24 Aug 2015 17:16

        Encryption is all well and good, but engaging in an encryption arms race with business and governmental bodies is not going to end well; there is no point encrypting your emails if the spies have backdoors in your OS or whatever.

        We need to debate and then come to a truce, as well as clearly setting out what is acceptable, and unacceptable, behaviour.

        BritCol 24 Aug 2015 15:14

        I agree entirely with this assessment, and especially how ominous surveillance has become in the UK. When I grew up outside London it seemed to be the freest nation on Earth. We would visit North America and found the city police to be gun-toting thugs (they still are) but England has become the world's worst police state in surveillance techniques.

        Not even Russia or China spies on its citizens as much.


        Lafcadio1944 24 Aug 2015 14:06

        Way too little way too late. Just think about the vast amount of personal data that is already out there and the vast amount that is entered every minute. The dependence society and business on the internet and the fact that the data on the internet is INDELIBLE!! Everything having been collected by the NSA/GCHQ/BND etc could be accessed by hackers in the future who could trust them to actually protect it. Even the super high tech super security company Hacking Team which sells hacking and spying tools to governments and government agencies all over the world (with no concern about who they are) was itself hacked. Given that and the fact that the spyware and hacking techniques are becoming known by more and more people each day how is an ordinary internet used to protect himself? - he can't. Look at the Ashly Madison hack which was apparently done for purely personal petty grievances and adolescent morality. This can only increase with all sorts of people hacking and releasing our data can only get worse and the INDELIBLE data is always there to take.

        We all thought the internet would be liberating and we have all enjoyed the movies, porn social networking and the ability to make money on the internet but what has been created is a huge monster which has become not our friend but our enemy.


        well_jackson rationalistx 24 Aug 2015 13:59

        "I doubt if George Orwell had the imagination to conceive of airliners being hijacked and being flown into buildings, killing thousands."

        I seem to recall George Bush saying a similar thing about his own government on countless occasions following 9/11. The fact NORAD were carrying out mock exercises that same morning, including this very scenario, seems lost on people.

        As for the train shooting, it sounds like utter nonsense to me. This man well known to the intelligence agencies but allowed to roam free gets stopped by Americans and Brits just as hell is to be unleashed (I bet they were military or ex military weren't they? UK/US public love a good hero army story).... smells like BS.

        Besides, if these events tell us anything it's that surveillance never seems to work when needed most (there are very limited videos of 7/7 bombers, the pentagon attack lacked video evidence, virtually every nearby camera to the pont d'alma tunnel was not working as Diana hurtled through to an untimely end, etc, etc)....

        [Aug 27, 2015]Where Is Neo When We Need Him

        Aug 27, 2015 | zerohedge.com

        In The Matrix in which Americans live, nothing is ever their fault. Nowhere in the Western media other than a few alternative media websites is there an ounce of integrity. The Western media is a Ministry of Truth that operates full-time in support of the artificial existence that Westerners live inside The Matrix where Westerners exist without thought. Considering their inaptitude and inaction, Western peoples might as well not exist. More is going to collapse on the brainwashed Western fools than mere stock values.

        In The Matrix in which Americans live, nothing is ever their fault. For example, the current decline in the US stock market is not because years of excessive liquidity supplied by the Federal Reserve have created a bubble so overblown that a mere six stocks, some of which have no earnings commiserate with their price, accounted for more than all of the gain in market capitalization in the S&P 500 prior to the current disruption.

        In our Matrix existence, the stock market decline is not due to corporations using their profits, and even taking out loans, to repurchase their shares, thus creating an artificial demand for their equity shares.

        The decline is not due to the latest monthly reporting of durable goods orders falling on a year-to-year basis for the sixth consecutive month.

        The stock market decline is not due to a weak economy in which after a decade of alleged economic recovery, new and existing home sales are still down by 63% and 23% from the peak in July 2005.

        The stock market decline is not due to the collapse in real median family income and, thereby, consumer demand, resulting from two decades of offshoring middle class jobs and partially replacing them with minimum wage part-time Walmart jobs without benefits that do not provide sufficient income to form a household.

        No, none of these facts can be blamed. The decline in the US stock market is the fault of China.

        What did China do? China is accused of devaluing by a small amount its currency.

        Why would a slight adjustment in the yuan's exchange value to the dollar cause the US and European stock markets to decline?

        It wouldn't. But facts don't matter to the presstitute media. They lie for a living.

        Moreover, it was not a devaluation.

        When China began the transition from communism to capitalism, China pegged its currency to the US dollar in order to demonstrate that its currency was as good as the world's reserve currency. Over time China has allowed its currency to appreciate relative to the dollar. For example, in 2006 one US dollar was worth 8.1 Chinese yuan. Recently, prior to the alleged "devaluation" one US dollar was worth 6.1 or 6.2 yuan. After China's adjustment to its floating peg, one US dollar is worth 6.4 yuan. Clearly, a change in the value of the yuan from 6.1 or 6.2 to the dollar to 6.4 to the dollar did not collapse the US and European stock markets.

        Furthermore, the change in the range of the floating peg to the US dollar did not devalue China's currency with regard to its non-US trading partners. What had happened, and what China corrected, is that as a result of the QE money printing policies currently underway by the Japanese and European central banks, the dollar appreciated against other currencies. As China's yuan is pegged to the dollar, China's currency appreciated with regard to its Asian and European trading partners. The appreciation of China's currency (due to its peg to the US dollar) is not a good thing for Chinese exports during a time of struggling economies. China merely altered its peg to the dollar in order to eliminate the appreciation of its currency against its other trading partners.

        Why did not the financial press tell us this? Is the Western financial press so incompetent that they do not know this? Yes.

        Or is it simply that America itself cannot possibly be responsible for anything that goes wrong. That's it. Who, us?! We are innocent! It was those damn Chinese!

        Look, for example, at the hordes of refugees from America's invasions and bombings of seven countries who are currently overrunning Europe. The huge inflows of peoples from America's massive slaughter of populations in seven countries, enabled by the Europeans themselves, is causing political consternation in Europe and the revival of far-right political parties. Today, for example, neo-nazis shouted down German Chancellor Merkel, who tried to make a speech asking for compassion for refugees.

        But, of course, Merkel herself is responsible for the refugee problem that is destabilizing Europe. Without Germany as Washington's two-bit punk puppet state, a non-entity devoid of sovereignty, a non-country, a mere vassal, an outpost of the Empire, ruled from Washington, America could not be conducting the illegal wars that are producing the hordes of refugees that are over-taxing Europe's ability to accept refugees and encouraging neo-nazi parties.

        The corrupt European and American press present the refugee problem as if it has nothing whatsoever to do with America's war crimes against seven countries. I mean, really, why should peoples flee countries when America is bringing them "freedom and democracy?"

        Nowhere in the Western media other than a few alternative media websites is there an ounce of integrity. The Western media is a Ministry of Truth that operates full-time in support of the artificial existence that Westerners live inside The Matrix where Westerners exist without thought. Considering their inaptitude and inaction, Western peoples might as well not exist.

        More is going to collapse on the brainwashed Western fools than mere stock values.

        Barnaby Barnaby's picture

        One of the youngest states in the world is hardly a threat. Client status means they're held by the balls. Any other understanding is simple paranoia.

        What you should be worried about is that your UN sponsor allows ethnic cleansing on such a scale in Palestine. That makes you culpable.

        DontWorry
        Don't worry, the USA is recognized as a beacon of freedom and democracy throughout the world. There are always multiple viewpoints, but the US media represents a fair, unbiased and mainstream view. Our press is the freest in the world, and supported by our Constitution. The US will be the center of western democracy, culture and commerce for the forseeable future.

        lasvegaspersona

        Many of the problems of modern life, including the actions of the US government, are founded in the very currency that enables it to act seemingly without effort.The ability to create the medium of exchange for the entire world has given this same government the appearance of invulnerability. It has allowed the federal government to make demands upon the states that comprise it. It can control citizens whose consent used to be required for it to act. It seems to have the ability to control the entire world.

        This is an illusion. It has been granted these abilities, it has not earned them nor won them. The world needed a monetary system post WW2 and even post 1971. The final stages of this whole episode was seen by Rueff and triffin quite clearly considering they spoke 40 plus years ago.

        Now the world has changed. It is withdrawing the permission it granted every time it bought treasuries or did other things that kept all those excess dollars from coming back to their country of birth to cause rising prices. The chinese are selling, the Arabs are selling and the ECB stopped buying long ago. They are not going to kill the dollar (and cause a war). They are going to let it fail through inaction. The actions of our nation do not make much sense to most folks who viewed thenUS as a good country. It seems to have been taken over by evil people.

        I think these are the actions of spoiled children who don't have to pay for what they get.

        Now the trust fund has run out. Daddy took the T-Bird away. Soon we will have to get a real job.

        About 50% of American exceptionalism is due to the exorbitant privilege. The other part is actually real...if we can salvage those things that once made us truly great. Most Americans, who pay attention, are shocked and angry by what they see their government doing.

        Both the government and the American people are not worse than any other country would have been if it was granted the same power over money itself. I just hope the ending of this chapter comes smoothly before we wreck the car and kill a lot more people.

        It is time to grow up and get a real job.

        Renfield

        <<Many of the problems of modern life, including the actions of the US government, are founded in the very currency that enables it to act seemingly without effort.The ability to create the medium of exchange for the entire world has given this same government the appearance of invulnerability. It has allowed the federal government to make demands upon the states that comprise it. It can control citizens whose consent used to be required for it to act. It seems to have the ability to control the entire world... Now the world has changed. It is withdrawing the permission it granted every time it bought treasuries or did other things that kept all those excess dollars from coming back to their country of birth to cause rising prices. The chinese are selling, the Arabs are selling and the ECB stopped buying long ago. They are not going to kill the dollar (and cause a war). They are going to let it fail through inaction. The actions of our nation do not make much sense to most folks who viewed thenUS as a good country. It seems to have been talen over by evil people. I think these are the actions of spoiled choildren who don't have to pay for what they get. Now the trust fund has run out. Daddy took the T-Bird away. Soon we will have to get a real job.>>

        Bravo. THIS is why the idea of any fiat "world reserve currency" needs to die for the good of the planet.

        On a national scale, I don't mind a fiat currency as long as it is not 1) issued by the government, 2) fraudulently claimed to be anything but fiat, or 3) mandated as the sole currency allowed for a nation. (Or city, or town, or any group.) That way people are free to ignore it in favor of real money.

        "Counterfeiting" laws should be scrapped in favor of good old-fashioned anti-fraud enforcement. But no government should ever be allowed by its people to traffic in a fraudulent, fiat currency, let alone to mandate it as the only currency legal to use. This puts criminals at the top of the system and riddles your financial system with fraud, and with such a foundation, of course bad money drives out good and eventually 'malinvestment' in unproductive or evil commerce becomes its entire result.

        buzzsaw99

        Without Germany as Washington's two-bit punk puppet state, a non-entity devoid of sovereignty, a non-country, a mere vassal, an outpost of the Empire, ruled from Washington, America could not be...

        AWESOME!

        MalteseFalcon

        The USA still has bases, army and air force in Germany. So the Germans are not completely feckless punks.

        What about France?

        [Aug 26, 2015] What If The Crash Is As Rigged As Everything Else

        "...Oh yeah... EVERYTHING is rigged now. So we can't blame ourselves for any of it. Duhhhh. It's the fucking greed of all the Muppets to blame as well."
        .
        "...The reason why I know this was no engineered event is the damage control I have seen due to it. Even the lowliest podunk local talk show host was able to have on some talking head who was talking about why this was just an over reaction and macro is golden and our economy is the cat's meow."
        .
        "...Most of the actions taken by government are taken to increase debt. In the USA, the housing bubble was blown because of the dumb thought of "everyone should own a home" or, as the bankers like to think of it "Everyone should have a mortgage". Same shit with subprime auto loans, student loans. All these things involve creating massive new conduits for debt creation. If you don't exponentially grow, you blow. But, when these bubbles get blown, the extra $$ created has to go somewhere. And it chases yield that is greater than the inflation the debt creation creates. Before you know it BOOM."
        Aug 26, 2015 | Zero Hedge
        Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

        Take your pick--here's three good reasons to engineer a "crash" that benefits the few at the expense of the many.

        ... ... ...

        3. Settling conflicts within the Deep State. I have covered the Deep State for years, in a variety of contexts--for example:

        Is the Deep State Fracturing into Disunity? (March 14, 2014)

        The Dollar and the Deep State (February 24, 2014)

        Surplus Repression and the Self-Defeating Deep State (May 26, 2015)

        Without going into details that deserve a separate essay, we can speculate that key power centers with the Deep State have profoundly different views about Imperial priorities.

        One nexus of power engineers a trumped-up financial crisis (i.e. a convenient "crash") to force the hand of opposing power centers. As I have speculated here before, the rising U.S. dollar is anathema to Wall Street and its apparatchiks, while a rising USD is the cat's meow to those with a longer and more strategic view of dollar hegemony.

        Take your pick--here's three good reasons to engineer a "crash" that benefits the few at the expense of the many.

        remain calm

        Everything is managed for control. They think they have control and can manage everything. They can't and then they lose control. They will lose control again. But the loss of control is not staged. Again, they think they can manage eveything. Their models fail. We are about to see a big failure. Some of you need to add another layer of tin foil added to your head. They will manage after the failure, again, because they think they know what they are doing.

        Captain Debtcrash

        I wrote on the "planned crash" scenario several months ago. Why would the fed raise rates into poor macro economic conditions, officially no inflation, with bubbles popping throughout the world, if not to cause or exacerbate a crash, all to allow them to try some new policy tools. After all the st Louis fed did come out and say QE is ineffective. I think they really want to ban cash and push rates significantly negative. Not possible under current statute, but that's easy enough to change with the politicians shitting themselves.

        Crash N. Burn

        "They will manage after the failure, again, because they think they know what they are doing."

        Could be because "they" have done it before. People should be taught who "they" are

        "The Rothschilds were universally acknowledged as the wealthiest clan on the planet in the 19th century. They never lost that wealth. We simply lost all knowledge of it. The House of Rothschild has effectively erased itself from our (so-called) history books. That takes power.

        Are children taught in our classrooms that most of the (endless) wars between European powers during the 19th century were examples of House Rothschild already "playing" the governments of Europe against each other, like puppets? Are the children taught that a basically unknown cabal of bankers created the Bank for International Settlements in the early part of the 20th century, so that these Western bankers could do the money-laundering necessary to allow Western industrialists to supply armaments to the Third Reich?

        They certainly aren't taught that one of those "industrialists" – Prescott Bush – was convicted of "trading with the Enemy". Because if they had been, clearly it would not have been possible for both his son and grandson to be elected as presidents of the United States, where they could serve the bankers.

        Postulating a group of ringleaders for this banking crime syndicate other than House Rothschild is problematic. It involves manufacturing an entire mythology around such hypothetical ringleaders, whereas with this clan of megalomaniacs, the historical, financial, and political context is already in place.

        Their wealth is undeniable. Their intentions are unequivocal. The amoral malice they hold toward the rest of humanity is documented, historical fact."

        How Western Governments Will Steal Your Land, Part III

        "They" are Rothschild!

        "People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders."

        - The Bankers Manifesto of 1892

        "Simply put, there was/is no other clan on the planet that already possessed the wealth and power to make the pledges contained in The Bankers Manifesto of 1892, in 1892 – and then to (finally) pursue that crime-against-humanity to (near) fruition, in 2015."

        pods

        They aren't that powerful. Why give them the benefit of the doubt? They (if there really is a they that has control) would like nothing more than for you to sit home whimpering, worried about how much control "they" have.

        Macro has been in the shitter for years. China was bubblicious and bound to crack.

        The reason why I know this was no engineered event is the damage control I have seen due to it. Even the lowliest podunk local talk show host was able to have on some talking head who was talking about why this was just an over reaction and macro is golden and our economy is the cat's meow.

        Don't buy into it.

        And fuck numerology too. The only way where they can set the closing price is if we are all stuck in a damn powerplant with tubes coming out of our body.

        If that is the case, where the fuck are you Morpheus?

        Beam Me Up Scotty

        I'm not so sure. This article might be spot on. Consider this:

        Federal Reserve can print and create INFINITE digital and physical dollars. With infinite dollars, they can control EVERYTHING. Both UP and DOWN. We can't audit the Fed, how do you know their balance sheet is really 4 trillion? Because they say so? They could literally decide the prices of every single thing in dollar terms with unlimited dollars at their disposal.

        messymerry

        Yo pods, next time you get a bag of M&Ms, eat the red ones first,,,

        ;-D

        I don't think the Skxawng in charge have the organizational capability to pull off an event of this magnitude with any reasonable expectation of success. They manipulate where they can and surf the waves just like the rest of us...

        pods

        Most of the actions taken by government are taken to increase debt. In the USA, the housing bubble was blown because of the dumb thought of "everyone should own a home" or, as the bankers like to think of it "Everyone should have a mortgage". Same shit with subprime auto loans, student loans. All these things involve creating massive new conduits for debt creation. If you don't exponentially grow, you blow. But, when these bubbles get blown, the extra $$ created has to go somewhere. And it chases yield that is greater than the inflation the debt creation creates. Before you know it BOOM.

        tc06rtw

        I truly wish it were all rigged… There could be some comprehensible intelligence behind all this disaster

        Oh, no -- They were smart enough to wreck the machine in stripping out all its wealth, but THEY ARE NOT SMART ENOUGH TO UN-WRECK IT!

        pods

        You blow a bubble.

        As the bubble gets bigger, you know it is getting weaker. But a crowd cheers you to keep going cause they love the bubble. So you keep blowing.

        Can someone step in and buy some futures to sway the futures market, sure. But the problem is that the price of credit is below market. When that happens, you get too much credit. Too much credit sloshes around wreaking havoc on all things of substance or fancy that might increase your worth (in your mind).

        Now, crashes are a known side effect of the system, and they do take advantage of it, but they are not planned.

        Payne

        The horrible secret is that no one is manipulating the system. Instead it is run by the Greedy self interest of multiple parties a conspiracy of sorts with no real organization. The TARP program is an excellent example of bubblegum and bandaid repairs.

        Usurious

        the system was designed to crash............all debt money systems are.....they knew in 1913 and they know it now

        DeadFred

        The UN will be meeting up next month to figure out how to replace the worthless Agenda 21 with the next step, what a wonderful time to have the markets in turmoil. Maybe we should schedule the Pope to talk to them and Congress about his vision of replacing evil capitalism with a benevolent world-wide central control, oops they already have him scheduled?

        My question is what happens if you hold a 'fake' meltdown and something real happens when volatility is already really high? Nothing like people playing Russian roulette only they point the gun at your head, not theirs.

        PTR

        PTR's picture

        Russian roulette only they point the gun at your head, not theirs.

        That, sir, is an awesome quote and should be used repeatedly.

        Wed, 08/26/2015 - 09:33 | 6472428 ThroxxOfVron

        IF it is possible to move specific securites higher via HFT/deliberate buying/spoofing/etc. and concerted buying by institutions and/or the fabled PPT, then it is only logical to assume that the same activities and entities can move those same securites lower via HFT/spoofing/deliberate selling/naked shorting/etc...

        I believe that the desks sell what they do not have and buy with funds that do not exist/re-hypothecated client funds ( 'MF Global-ation' ) interbank and/or inter-affiliate leverage.

        NON DELIVERY? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

        "This Act (the Federal Reserve Act, Dec. 23rd 1913) establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized. The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed. The trusts will soon realize that they have gone too far even for their own good. The people must make a declaration of independence to relieve themselves from the Monetary Power. This they will be able to do by taking control of Congress. Wall Streeters could not cheat us if you Senators and Representatives did not make a humbug of Congress... The greatest crime of Congress is its currency system. The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill. The caucus and the party bosses have again operated and prevented the people from getting the benefit of their own government."

        "The new law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation...they can unload the stocks on the people at high prices during the excitement and then bring on a panic and buy them back at low prices...the day of reckoning is only a few years removed."

        "When the President signs this act [Federal Reserve Act of 1913],
        the invisible government by the money power -- proven to exist
        by the Monetary Trust Investigation -- will be legalized.
        The new law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation.

        *** From now on, depressions will be scientifically created. ***"

        -Senator Charles A. Lindbergh

        Young Economists Feel They Have to be Very Cautious'

        August 23, 2015 |

        From an interview of Paul Romer in the WSJ:

        ...Q: What kind of feedback have you received from colleagues in the profession?

        A: I tried these ideas on a few people, and the reaction I basically got was "don't make waves." As people have had time to react, I've been hearing a bit more from people who appreciate me bringing these issues to the forefront. The most interesting feedback is from young economists who say that they feel that they have to be very cautious, and they don't want to get somebody cross at them. There's a concern by young economists that if they deviate from what's acceptable, they'll get in trouble. That also seemed to me to be a sign of something that is really wrong. Young people are the ones who often come in and say, "You all have been thinking about this the wrong way, here's a better way to think about it."

        ... ... ...

        Posted by Mark Thoma on Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 12:27 AM in Economics, Macroeconomics, Methodology | Permalink Comments (7)

        pgl said...

        Very interesting interview on many fronts. What you highlighted - "The most interesting feedback is from young economists who say that they feel that they have to be very cautious, and they don't want to get somebody cross at them. There's a concern by young economists that if they deviate from what's acceptable, they'll get in trouble." - is itself troubling. Young scholars should dare to be different. Fama and Shiller viewed financial economics from very different perspectives and we are all the better for it as the Nobel Prize committee recognized.

        djb said...

        For young economists caution is a rational approach

        Preferably get an advisor whose work you agree with or encourages your intellectual explorations

        But the formula: Get on, get honored, get honest is probably the best approach

        tom said...

        The story is true for young academics in general. As in many areas, the rules don't apply to the superstars, or to those expressing the views held by the establishment....

        Peter K. said in reply to tom...

        "The story is true for young academics in general."

        Or many jobs or careers in general? It's a nice by-product of loose labor markets where employers hold all of the cards.

        Go along to get along. Don't make waves.

        DeDude said...

        This is one of the unfortunate side-effects of human tribalism. When you challenge the tribe you belong to (or say something in support of a competing tribe), you are viewed as "one of them" rather than "one of us". That will inevitably make you less likely to gain support from the tribe you belong to and in early stage careers that could be detrimental to your success. Tribalism is a basic human character flaw that we cannot get rid of no matter how much we would like. Maybe we could try to create a "tribe of truth" where the thing that will get you "one of them'ed" is a failure to seek the truths, regardless. I know -99% of scientist will claim that this is exactly what they are doing (just like they will claim they are above average). But how about holding their feet to the fire on that.

        Benedict@Large said...

        When I first heard the expression "dismal science", I thought, what is so dismal about economics? Now that I've learned economics however, whenever i hear the the expression "dismal economics", I think, what is so science about it?

        Lafayette said...

        {There's a concern by young economists that if they deviate from what's acceptable, they'll get in trouble.}

        Sad, very sad. Whatever happened to Intellectual Freedom in the US?

        It's hidden in a blog behind a pseudonym?

        1984! Group Think!

        I submit this trend started with the Rabid Right and Reckless Ronnie in the 1980s. Let's hope it is coming to its well-deserved end.

        But, maybe not ...

        Young Economists Feel They Have to be Very Cautious'

        August 23, 2015 |

        From an interview of Paul Romer in the WSJ:

        ...Q: What kind of feedback have you received from colleagues in the profession?

        A: I tried these ideas on a few people, and the reaction I basically got was "don't make waves." As people have had time to react, I've been hearing a bit more from people who appreciate me bringing these issues to the forefront. The most interesting feedback is from young economists who say that they feel that they have to be very cautious, and they don't want to get somebody cross at them. There's a concern by young economists that if they deviate from what's acceptable, they'll get in trouble. That also seemed to me to be a sign of something that is really wrong. Young people are the ones who often come in and say, "You all have been thinking about this the wrong way, here's a better way to think about it."

        ... ... ...

        Posted by Mark Thoma on Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 12:27 AM in Economics, Macroeconomics, Methodology | Permalink Comments (7)

        pgl said...

        Very interesting interview on many fronts. What you highlighted - "The most interesting feedback is from young economists who say that they feel that they have to be very cautious, and they don't want to get somebody cross at them. There's a concern by young economists that if they deviate from what's acceptable, they'll get in trouble." - is itself troubling. Young scholars should dare to be different. Fama and Shiller viewed financial economics from very different perspectives and we are all the better for it as the Nobel Prize committee recognized.

        djb said...

        For young economists caution is a rational approach

        Preferably get an advisor whose work you agree with or encourages your intellectual explorations

        But the formula: Get on, get honored, get honest is probably the best approach

        tom said...

        The story is true for young academics in general. As in many areas, the rules don't apply to the superstars, or to those expressing the views held by the establishment....

        Peter K. said in reply to tom...

        "The story is true for young academics in general."

        Or many jobs or careers in general? It's a nice by-product of loose labor markets where employers hold all of the cards.

        Go along to get along. Don't make waves.

        DeDude said...

        This is one of the unfortunate side-effects of human tribalism. When you challenge the tribe you belong to (or say something in support of a competing tribe), you are viewed as "one of them" rather than "one of us". That will inevitably make you less likely to gain support from the tribe you belong to and in early stage careers that could be detrimental to your success. Tribalism is a basic human character flaw that we cannot get rid of no matter how much we would like. Maybe we could try to create a "tribe of truth" where the thing that will get you "one of them'ed" is a failure to seek the truths, regardless. I know -99% of scientist will claim that this is exactly what they are doing (just like they will claim they are above average). But how about holding their feet to the fire on that.

        Benedict@Large said...

        When I first heard the expression "dismal science", I thought, what is so dismal about economics? Now that I've learned economics however, whenever i hear the the expression "dismal economics", I think, what is so science about it?

        Lafayette said...

        {There's a concern by young economists that if they deviate from what's acceptable, they'll get in trouble.}

        Sad, very sad. Whatever happened to Intellectual Freedom in the US?

        It's hidden in a blog behind a pseudonym?

        1984! Group Think!

        I submit this trend started with the Rabid Right and Reckless Ronnie in the 1980s. Let's hope it is coming to its well-deserved end.

        But, maybe not ...

        [Aug 22, 2015] The Riddle of Obama's Foreign Policy by Robert Parry

        his vision is more ideological than strategic
        "...My view of Obama is somewhat different. It strikes me that Obama is what you might call a "closet realist." He understands the limits of American power and wants to avoid costly military entanglements. But he also doesn't want to challenge the neocon/liberal-hawk dominance of Official Washington.
        In other words, he's a timid opportunist when it comes to reshaping the parameters of the prevailing "group think." He's afraid of being cast as the "outsider," so he only occasionally tests the limits of what the neocon/liberal-hawk "big thinkers" will permit, as with Cuba and Iran."
        "...An elitist would keep the public in the dark while letting the hasty initial judgments stand, which is what Obama has done."
        "...Kissinger: "To me, yes. It means that breaking Russia has become an objective; the long-range purpose should be to integrate it.""
        "...But Obama the Timid Soul – afraid of being ostracized by all the well-connected neocons and liberal hawks of Official Washington – doesn't dare challenge the "group think," what everybody knows to be true even if he knows it to be false. In the end, Obama the Elitist won't trust the American people with the facts, so these international crises will continue drifting toward a potential Armageddon."
        August 22, 2015 | therealnews.com | 0 Comments

        By Robert Parry. This article was first published on Consortium News.

        For nearly seven years of his presidency, Barack Obama has zigzagged from military interventionist to pragmatic negotiator, leaving little sense of what he truly believes. Yet, there may be some consistent threads to his inconsistencies, writes Robert Parry.

        Nearing the last year of his presidency, Barack Obama and his foreign policy remain an enigma. At times, he seems to be the "realist," working constructively with other nations to achieve positive solutions, as with the Iran nuclear deal and his rapprochement with Cuba. Other times, he slides into line with the neocons and liberal hawks, provoking ugly crises, such as his "regime change" tactics in Honduras (2009), Libya (2011), Syria (over several years) and Ukraine (2014).

        Yet, even in some of those "regime change" scenarios, Obama pulls back from the crazier "tough guy/gal" ideas and recognizes the catastrophes such schemes could create. In 2013, he called off a planned bombing campaign against the Syrian military (which could have led to a victory for Al Qaeda or the Islamic State), and in 2014, he resisted a full-scale escalation of Ukraine's war against ethnic Russian rebels resisting the new U.S.-backed political order in Kiev (which could have pushed the world to the brink of a nuclear war).

        Yet, Obama also won't stand up to the neocons and liberal hawks by sharing crucial information with the American people that could undermine pro-intervention narratives.

        For instance, Obama has held back the latest U.S. intelligence analysis describing who was responsible for the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin attack that almost precipitated the U.S. war on the Syrian military, and he won't release the intelligence assessment on who shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014, the tragedy which ratcheted up the crisis with Russia over Ukraine.

        In both cases, I'm told U.S. intelligence analysts have backed off early rushes to judgment blaming the Syrian government for the sarin attack, which killed hundreds, and the Russian-backed eastern Ukrainian rebels for the MH-17 crash, which killed 298 people. But Obama has left standing the earlier propaganda themes blaming the Syrian and Russian governments, all the better to apply American "soft power" pressure against Damascus and Moscow.

        Thus, Obama's foreign policy has a decidedly zigzag nature to it. Or as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recently described Obama: "On the prudential level he's a realist. But his vision is more ideological than strategic," a typically cryptic Kissingerian phrasing that I interpret to mean that Obama is a prudent realist when it comes to major military actions but – short of all-out war – ideologically embraces neocon/liberal-hawk interventionism.

        My view of Obama is somewhat different. It strikes me that Obama is what you might call a "closet realist." He understands the limits of American power and wants to avoid costly military entanglements. But he also doesn't want to challenge the neocon/liberal-hawk dominance of Official Washington.

        In other words, he's a timid opportunist when it comes to reshaping the parameters of the prevailing "group think." He's afraid of being cast as the "outsider," so he only occasionally tests the limits of what the neocon/liberal-hawk "big thinkers" will permit, as with Cuba and Iran.

        Obama is also fundamentally an elitist who believes more in manipulating the American people than in leveling with them. For instance, a leader who truly trusted in democracy would order the maximum declassification of what the U.S. intelligence community knows about the pivotal events in Syria and Ukraine, including the sarin attack and the MH-17 shoot-down.

        An elitist would keep the public in the dark while letting the hasty initial judgments stand, which is what Obama has done.

        Redirecting Conventional Wisdom

        Obama never trusts the people to help him rewrite the narratives of these crises, which could create more space for reasonable compromises and solutions. Instead, he leaves the American public ignorant, which empowers his fellow "smart people" of Official Washington to manage national perceptions, all aided and abetted by the complicit mainstream U.S. media which simply reinforces the misguided "conventional wisdom."

        Despite his power to do so, Obama won't shatter the frame of Official Washington's fun-house mirror of reality. That's why his attempt to invoke the memory of President John F. Kennedy's famous "we all inhabit this small planet" speech at American University in 1963 fell so flat earlier this month when Obama went to AU and offered a pedestrian, point-by-point defense of the Iran nuclear deal without any of Kennedy's soaring, universal rhetoric.

        Presumably Obama feared that he would be cast as a starry-eyed idealist if he explained to the American people the potential for using the Iran agreement as a way to begin constructing a more peaceful Middle East. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Obama's Pragmatic Appeal for Iran Peace."]

        These limitations in Obama's personality and world view have probably doomed his legacy to be viewed as an overall failure to reshape America's approach to the world, away from a costly and confrontational strategy of seeking endless dominance to one favoring a more respectful and pragmatic approach toward the sensitivities and needs of other nations.

        I realize some Obama critics feel that he is simply a tool of American imperialism putting a slightly less offensive face on the same interventionist policies. And no doubt he has served that role in many instances. He even boasted during his Iran speech that "I've ordered military action in seven countries." If some other world leader – say, Russian President Vladimir Putin – had made that claim, we would be hearing demands that he be dragged before the World Court as a war criminal.

        But there is also the Obama whom Kissinger described as "on the prudential level he's a realist." And there is significant value in sidestepping the maximalist catastrophes that would be caused by policies favored by the neocons and liberal hawks, such as U.S. bombing to destroy the Syrian military (and open the gates of Damascus to a reign of Sunni terrorism) or a U.S. military escalation of the Ukraine crisis (to the point of a nuclear showdown with Russia).

        While Obama's modicum of "realism" may seem like a modest thing, it isn't when you recognize that Official Washington's favored choices could contribute to the mass executions of Syria's Christians, Shiites, Alawites and other minorities under the swords of the Islamic State or could provoke a thermonuclear war with Russia that could end all life on the planet.

        That acknowledgement aside, however, Obama has fallen far short of any profile in courage as he's allowed dangerously false narratives to develop around these and other international conflicts. The most hazardous of all is the Putin-bashing storyline about Ukraine, which holds that the entire ugly civil war was part of some nefarious scheme cooked up in the Kremlin to recreate the Russian Empire.

        Though this notion that the Ukraine crisis was simply a case of "Russian aggression" is held by virtually every important person in Washington's current power circles, it was never true. The crisis was provoked by a U.S.-backed coup on Feb. 22, 2014, which overthrew Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych. Putin reacted to that provocation; he didn't instigate it.

        Kissinger's Take on Ukraine

        And if you don't believe me, perhaps you might listen to Henry Kissinger who explained the reality in a July interview with National Interest editor Jacob Heilbrunn, who noted: "we have witnessed a return, at least in Washington, DC, of neoconservatives and liberal hawks who are determined to break the back of the Russian government."

        Kissinger: "Until they face the consequences. The trouble with America's wars since the end of the Second World War has been the failure to relate strategy to what is possible domestically. The five wars we've fought since the end of World War II were all started with great enthusiasm. But the hawks did not prevail at the end. At the end, they were in a minority. We should not engage in international conflicts if, at the beginning, we cannot describe an end, and if we're not willing to sustain the effort needed to achieve that end. …"

        Heilbrunn: "How do you think the United States can extricate itself from the Ukraine impasse - the United States and Europe, obviously?"

        Kissinger: "The issue is not to extricate the United States from the Ukrainian impasse but to solve it in a way conducive to international order. A number of things need to be recognized. One, the relationship between Ukraine and Russia will always have a special character in the Russian mind. It can never be limited to a relationship of two traditional sovereign states, not from the Russian point of view, maybe not even from Ukraine's.

        "So, what happens in Ukraine cannot be put into a simple formula of applying principles that worked in Western Europe, not that close to Stalingrad and Moscow. In that context, one has to analyze how the Ukraine crisis occurred. It is not conceivable that Putin spends 60 billion euros on turning a summer resort into a winter Olympic village in order to start a military crisis the week after a concluding ceremony that depicted Russia as a part of Western civilization.

        "So then, one has to ask: How did that happen? I saw Putin at the end of November 2013. He raised a lot of issues; Ukraine he listed at the end as an economic problem that Russia would handle via tariffs and oil prices.

        "The first mistake was the inadvertent conduct of the European Union. They did not understand the implications of some of their own conditions. Ukrainian domestic politics made it look impossible for Yanukovych to accept the EU terms [for an association agreement] and be reelected or for Russia to view them as purely economic. …

        "Each side acted sort of rationally based on its misconception of the other, while Ukraine slid into the Maidan uprising right in the middle of what Putin had spent ten years building as a recognition of Russia's status. No doubt in Moscow this looked as if the West was exploiting what had been conceived as a Russian festival to move Ukraine out of the Russian orbit. …

        "If we treat Russia seriously as a great power, we need at an early stage to determine whether their concerns can be reconciled with our necessities. We should explore the possibilities of a status of nonmilitary grouping on the territory between Russia and the existing frontiers of NATO.

        "The West hesitates to take on the economic recovery of Greece; it's surely not going to take on Ukraine as a unilateral project. So one should at least examine the possibility of some cooperation between the West and Russia in a militarily nonaligned Ukraine. The Ukraine crisis is turning into a tragedy because it is confusing the long-range interests of global order with the immediate need of restoring Ukrainian identity. …

        "When you read now that Muslim units are fighting on behalf of Ukraine, then the sense of proportion has been lost." [For more on this reference, see Consortiumnews.com's "Ukraine Merges Nazis and Islamists."]

        Heilbrunn: "That's a disaster, obviously."

        Kissinger: "To me, yes. It means that breaking Russia has become an objective; the long-range purpose should be to integrate it."

        When Kissinger Makes Sense

        It may be a little scary when Henry Kissinger makes relative sense, but that's only in contrast to the current dominant neocon/liberal-hawk "big thinkers" of Official Washington.

        For Obama the Realist, the most practical way to begin moving toward a pragmatic resolution of the Ukraine crisis would be to stop the endless propaganda emanating from the U.S. State Department and repeated by the mainstream media and start telling the public the full truth – how the crisis really began, why the mantra "Russian aggression" is false, what on earth the U.S. government thinks it's doing collaborating with neo-Nazis and Islamic jihadists in killing thousands of ethnic Russian Ukrainians, and who was responsible for the key escalating moment, the shoot-down of MH-17.

        But Obama the Timid Soul – afraid of being ostracized by all the well-connected neocons and liberal hawks of Official Washington – doesn't dare challenge the "group think," what everybody knows to be true even if he knows it to be false. In the end, Obama the Elitist won't trust the American people with the facts, so these international crises will continue drifting toward a potential Armageddon.

        Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

        William J. Astore Seventy Years of Military Mediocrity

        August 19, 2015 | naked capitalism

        Yves here. The US pretends not to have industrial policy, but it does, in spades, via which sectors get exceptional support, either via direct spending, R&D support, tax breaks, guarantees, and other subsidies. The military industrial/surveillance complex, banking, housing, and Big Pharma are among the most preferred sectors. The poor performance of the US armed forces, in face of the huge levels of spending, show how being in denial about what our national priorities really are and failing to make those pet industries accountable has led not just to waste but in the last 20 years, to outright looting.

        The focus of Astore's post is on a narrow dimension of this problem: that the US has developed military muscle at the expense of brainpower.

        By William J. Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), and co-author of Hindenburg: Icon of German Militarism. He writes for and edits the blog The Contrary Perspective Originally published at TomDispatch

        Thomas Jefferson Hall, West Point's library and learning center, prominently features two quotations for cadets to mull over. In the first, Jefferson writes George Washington in 1788: "The power of making war often prevents it, and in our case would give efficacy to our desire of peace." In the second, Jefferson writes Thomas Leiper in 1815: "I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power, the greater it will be."

        Two centuries ago, Jefferson's points were plain and clear, and they remain so today: while this country desired peace, it had to be prepared to wage war; and yet the more it avoided resorting to raw military power, the more it would prosper.

        Have America's military officers and politicians learned these lessons? Obviously not. In the twenty-first century, the U.S. unquestionably ranks number one on this planet in its preparations for waging war - we got that message loud and clear - but we're also number one in using that power aggressively around the globe, weakening our nation in the process, just as Jefferson warned.

        Of course, the world today is a more complex and crowded place than in Jefferson's time and this country, long a regional, even an isolationist power, is now an imperial and global superpower that quite literally garrisons the planet. That said, Jefferson's lessons should still be salutary ones, especially when you consider that the U.S. military has not had a convincing victory in a major "hot" war since 1945.

        There are undoubtedly many reasons for this, but I want to focus on two: what cadets at America's military academies really learn and the self-serving behavior of America's most senior military officers, many of whom are academy graduates. Familiar as they may be with those words of Jefferson, they have consistently ignored or misapplied them, facilitating our current state of endless war and national decline.

        America's Military Academies: High Ideals, Cynical Graduates

        America's military academies are supposed to educate and inspire leaders of strong character and impeccable integrity. They're supposed to be showcases for America's youth, shining symbols of national service. Ultimately, they're supposed to forge strong military leaders who will win America's wars (assuming those wars can't be avoided, as Jefferson might have added). So how's their main mission going?

        I taught at the Air Force Academy for six years, and I've talked to former cadets as well as fellow officers who taught at Arm's West Point and the Navy's Annapolis. Here are a few reflections on the flaws of these institutions:

        1. In reality, the unstated primary mission of the three military academies is to turn raw cadets into career officers dedicated and devoted to their particular branch of service. On the other hand, service to the American people is, at best, an abstract concept. More afterthought than thought, it is certainly mentioned but hardly a value consistently instilled.

        Careerism and parochialism are hardly unique to military academies. Still, as one former cadet wrote me, it's surprising to encounter them so openly in institutions dedicated to "service before self." More than a few of his peers, he added, were motivated primarily by a desire for "a stable, well-paying career." While a perfectly respectable personal goal, to be sure, it's a less than desirable one at academies theoretically dedicated to selfless, even sacrificial service.

        2. The academic curriculum is structured to prepare cadets for the technical demands of their first jobs, meaning that it's heavily weighted toward STEM (science/technology/engineering/math). Despite the presence of a Cadet Honor Code, the humanities and questions of ethics play too small a role in the intellectual and moral development of the students.

        3. Cadets quickly learn that excelling within the system is the surest path to coveted opportunities - increasingly scarce pilot slots, Special Ops schools, or the like - after graduation. Educationally speaking, they are driven by the idea of advancement within the conformist norms defined by their particular academy and branch of service. A system that rewards energetic displays of conformity also tends to generate mediocrity as well as cynicism. As one former cadet put it to me, "There is something deeper and more perverse here as well: The 'golden boys' [in the eyes of Academy officialdom] got the coveted slots but were generally hated by their cynical peers. Cynicism seems to define the Academy experience."

        A former colleague of mine had this comment: "The [military] academies don't make great people and they don't always make good people better. I have seen them turn off a few really good people, however."

        4. Because the academies are considered prestige institutions as well as symbols of rectitude and their reputations are always at stake, few risks are taken. Misconduct, when it occurs, is frequently hushed up "for the good of the Academy." Scandals involving cheating, sexual assaults, and religious discrimination have often been made worse by not being dealt with openly and honestly. Cadets know this, which is another reason many emerge from their education as cynics when it comes to the high ideals the academies are supposed to instill.

        5. As schools, they are remarkably insular, insider outfits often run by academy graduates whose goals tend to be narrow and sometimes even bizarrely parochial. For example, I knew of one superintendent (a three-star general) at the Air Force Academy whose number one goal was a winning football program. In that sense, he certainly reflected American society: think of the civilian college presidents who desire just that for their institutions. But military academies are supposed to be about creating leaders, not winning football trophies - and the two bear remarkably little relationship to each other no matter how many times the Duke of Wellington is (mis)quoted about the Battle of Waterloo being won on the playing fields of Eton.

        6. Finally, there's a strong emphasis at all the academies on simply keeping cadets busy. To the point where - especially in their first year - they're often sleep-deprived and staggering into class. Theoretically, this is meant to be a test both of their commitment to military life and their ability to handle pressure. Whether they learn anything meaningful while dazed or sleeping in class is not discussed. Whether this is a smart way to develop creative and strong-minded leaders is also not up for consideration.

        As one former cadet put it: busywork and demanding rituals that sometime cross the line and become hazing are embraced in military education as a "rite of passage." The idea "that we [cadets] suffered through something and prevailed is an immensely powerful psychological 'badge' which leads to pride (or arrogance) and confidence (or hubris)."

        Add up the indoctrination and the training, the busywork in classrooms and the desire to excel in big-time collegiate sports, and what you tend to graduate is a certain number of hyper-motivated true believers and a mass of go-along cynics - young men and women who have learned to subsume their doubts and misgivings, even as they trim their sails in the direction of the prevailing winds.

        While the cadets are encouraged to over-identify with their particular academy and service branch, they're also encouraged to self-identify as "warriors," as, that is, an elite apart from and superior to the civilians they're supposed to serve. That this country was founded on civilian control of the military may be given lip service, but in the age of the ascendant national security state, the deeper sentiments embedded in an academy education are ever more distant from a populace that plays next to no part in America's wars.

        That the classic civilian-military nexus, which was supposed to serve and promote democracy, has turned out to have a few glitches in our time should surprise no one. After all, President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about what was coming back in 1961. As Ike noticed, the way it was working - the way it still works today - is that senior officers in the military too often become tools of the armaments industry (his "military-industrial complex") even as they identify far too closely with the parochial interests of their particular service branch. Add to this the distinctly twenty-first-century emphasis on being warriors, not citizen-soldiers, and you have the definition of a system of self-perpetuating and self-serving militarism rather than military service.

        To the extent that the military academies not only fail to curb this behavior but essentially encourage it, they are failing our democracy.

        America's Senior Officers: Lots of Ribbon Candy, No Sweetness of Victory

        In my first article for TomDispatch back in 2007, I wrote about America's senior military leaders, men like the celebrated David Petraeus. No matter how impressive, even kingly, they looked in their uniforms festooned with ribbons, badges, and medals of all sorts, colors, and sizes, their performance on the battlefield didn't exactly bring to mind rainstorms of ribbon candy. So why, I wondered then, and wonder still, are America's senior military officers so generally lauded and applauded? What have they done to deserve those chests full of honors and the endless praise in Washington and elsewhere in this country?

        By giving our commanders so many pats on the back (and thanking the troops so effusively and repeatedly), it's possible that we've prevented the development of an American-style stab-in-the-back theory - that hoary yet dangerous myth that a military only loses wars when the troops are betrayed by the homefront. In the process, however, we've written them what is essentially a blank check. We've given them authority without accountability. They wage "our" wars (remarkably unsuccessfully), but never have to take the blame for defeats. Unlike President Harry Truman, famous for keeping a sign on his desk that read "the buck stops here," the buck never stops with them.

        Think about two of America's most celebrated generals of the twenty-first century, Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal and how they fell publicly from grace. Both were West Point grads, both were celebrated as "heroes," despite the fact that their military "surges" in Iraq and Afghanistan proved fragile and reversible. They fell only because Petraeus was caught with his pants down (in an extramarital affair with a fawning biographer), while McChrystal ran afoul of the president by tolerating an atmosphere that undermined his civilian chain of command.

        And here, perhaps, is the strangest thing of all: even as America's wars continue to go poorly by any reasonable measure, no prominent high-ranking officer has yet stepped forward either to take responsibility or in protest. You have to look to the lower ranks, to lieutenant colonels and captains and specialists (and, in the case of Chelsea Manning, to lowly privates), for straight talk and the courage to buck the system. Name one prominent general or admiral, fed up with the lamentable results of America's wars, who has either taken responsibility for them or resigned for cause. Yup - I can't either. (This is not to suggest that the military lacks senior officers of integrity. Recall the way General Eric Shinseki broke ranks with the Bush administration in testimony before Congress about the size of a post-invasion force needed to secure Iraq, or General Antonio Taguba's integrity in overseeing a thorough investigation of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. Their good deeds did not go unpunished.)

        Authority without accountability means no one is responsible. And if no one is responsible, the system can keep chugging along, course largely unaltered, no matter what happens. This is exactly what it's been doing for years now in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

        Can we connect this behavior to the faults of the service academies? Careerism. Parochialism. Technocratic tendencies. Elitism. A focus on image rather than on substance. Lots of busywork and far too much praise for our ascetic warrior-heroes, results be damned. A tendency to close ranks rather than take responsibility. Buck-passing, not bucking the system. The urge to get those golden slots on graduation and the desire for golden parachutes into a lucrative world of corporate boards and consultancies after "retirement," not to speak of those glowing appearances as military experts on major TV and cable networks.

        By failing to hold military boots to the fire, we've largely avoided unpleasantness between the military and its civilian leadership, not to speak of the American public. But - and here's the rub - 70 years of mediocrity since World War II and 14 years of failure since 9/11 should have resulted in anti-war protests, Congressional hearings, and public controversy. It should have created public discord, as it did during the Vietnam War, when dissent was a sign of a healthy democracy and an engaged citizenry. Nowadays, in place of protest, we hear the praise, the applause, the thank-yous followed by yet another bombastic rendition of "God Bless America." Let's face it. Our military has failed us, but haven't we failed it, too?

        Listening Again to Jefferson

        America's military academies are supposed to be educating and developing leaders of character. If they're not doing that, why have them? America's senior military leaders are supposed to be winning wars, not losing them. (Please feel free to name one recent victory by the U.S. military that hasn't been of the Pyrrhic variety.) So why do we idolize them? And why do we fail to hold them accountable?

        These are more than rhetorical questions. They cut to the heart of an American culture that celebrates its military cadets as its finest young citizens, a culture that lauds its generals even as they fail to accept responsibility for wars that end not in victory but - well, come to think of it, they just never end.

        The way forward: I don't have to point the way because Thomas Jefferson already did. Just read his quotations in the West Point library: we need to become a peace-loving nation again; we need to act as if war were our last resort, not our first impulse; we need to recognize that war is corrosive to democracy and that the more military power is exercised the weaker we grow as a democratic society.

        Jefferson's wisdom, enshrined at West Point, shouldn't be entombed there. We need a new generation of cadets - and a few renegade generals of my generation as well - who want to serve us by not going to war, who know that a military is a burden to democracy even when victorious, and especially when it's not. Otherwise, we're in trouble in ways we haven't yet begun to imagine.

        [Aug 22, 2015] Propaganda, Intelligence and MH-17 by Ray McGovern

        "...Propaganda is the life-blood of life-destroying wars, and the U.S. government has reached new heights (or depths) in this art of perception management"
        "...When the tragedy occurred U.S. intelligence collection assets were focused laser-like on the Ukraine-Russia border region where the passenger plane crashed. Besides collection from overhead imagery and sensors, U.S. intelligence presumably would have electronic intercepts of communications as well as information from human sources inside many of the various factions.
        That would mean that hundreds of intelligence analysts are likely to have precise knowledge regarding how MH-17 was shot down and by whom. Though there may be some difference of opinion among analysts about how to read the evidence – as there often is – it is out of the question that the intelligence community would withhold this data from President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Kerry and other top officials."
        "...The sarin and MH-17 cases reveal the continuing struggles between opportunistic political operatives and professional intelligence analysts over how to deal with geopolitical information that can either inform U.S. foreign policy objectively or be exploited to advance some propaganda agenda. Clearly, this struggle did not end after CIA analysts were pressured into giving President George W. Bush the fraudulent – not "mistaken" – evidence that he used to make the case for invading Iraq in 2003."
        "...For now, the rest of us are told to be satisfied with the Sunday media circus orchestrated by Kerry on July 20, 2014, with the able assistance of eager-to-please pundits. A review of the transcripts of the CBS, NBC, and ABC Sunday follies reveals a remarkable – if not unprecedented - consistency in approach by CBS's Bob Schieffer, NBC's David Gregory (ably egged on by Andrea Mitchell), and ABC's George Stephanopoulos, all of whom hewed faithfully to a script apparently given them with two main talking points: (1) blame Putin; and (2) frame the shoot-down as a "wake-up call" (Kerry used the words repeatedly) for European governments to impose tight economic sanctions on Russia."
        "...Thus started a new, noxious phase in the burgeoning confrontation between Russia and the West, a crisis that was originally precipitated by a Western-orchestrated coup d'état in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, ousting Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych and touching off the current civil war that has witnessed some of the worst bloodshed inside Europe in decades..
        It may seem odd that those European leaders allowed themselves to be snookered so swiftly. Did their own intelligence services not caution them against acquiescing over "intelligence" from social media? But the tidal wave of anti-Putin fury in the MH-17 aftermath was hard if not impossible for any Western politician to resist."

        By Ray McGovern. This article was first published on Consortium News.

        Propaganda is the life-blood of life-destroying wars, and the U.S. government has reached new heights (or depths) in this art of perception management. A case in point is the media manipulation around last year's Malaysia Airlines shoot-down over Ukraine, says ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

        During a recent interview, I was asked to express my conclusions about the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine, prompting me to take another hard look at Official Washington's dubious claims – pointing the finger of blame at eastern Ukrainian rebels and Moscow – based on shaky evidence regarding who was responsible for this terrible tragedy.

        Unlike serious professional investigative reporters, intelligence analysts often are required by policymakers to reach rapid judgments without the twin luxuries of enough time and conclusive evidence. Having spent almost 30 years in the business of intelligence analysis, I have faced that uncomfortable challenge more times than I wish to remember.

        President Barack Obama delivers a statement on the situation in Ukraine, on the South Lawn of the White House, July 29, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

        President Barack Obama delivers a statement on the situation in Ukraine, on the South Lawn of the White House, July 29, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

        So, I know what it feels like to confront issues of considerable consequence like the shoot-down of MH-17 and the killing of 298 passengers and crew amid intense pressure to choreograph the judgments to the propagandistic music favored by senior officials who want the U.S. "enemy" – in this case, nuclear-armed Russia and its Western-demonized President Vladimir Putin – to somehow be responsible. In such situations, the easiest and safest (career-wise) move is to twirl your analysis to the preferred tune or at least sit this jig out.

        But the trust-us-it-was-Putin marathon dance has now run for 13 months – and it's getting tiresome to hear the P.R. people in the office of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper still claiming that the U.S. intelligence community has not revised or updated its analysis of the incident since July 22, 2014, just five days after the crash.

        Back then, Clapper's office, trying to back up Secretary of State John Kerry's anti-Russian rush to judgment, cited very sketchy evidence – in both senses of the word – drawn heavily from "social media" accounts. Obviously, the high-priced and high-caliber U.S. intelligence community has learned much more about this very sensitive case since that time, but the administration won't tell the American people and the world. The DNI's office still refers inquiring reporters back to the outdated report from more than a year ago.

        None of this behavior would make much sense if the later U.S. intelligence data supported the hasty finger-pointing toward Putin and the rebels. If more solid and persuasive intelligence corroborated those initial assumptions, you'd think U.S. government officials would be falling over themselves to leak the evidence and declare "we told you so." And the DNI office's claim that it doesn't want to prejudice the MH-17 investigation doesn't hold water either – since the initial rush to judgment did exactly that.

        So, despite the discomfort attached to making judgments with little reliable evidence – and at the risk of sounding like former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld – it seems high time to address what we know, what we don't know, and why it may be that we don't know what we don't know.

        Those caveats notwithstanding I would say it is a safe bet that the hard technical intelligence evidence upon which professional intelligence analysts prefer to rely does not support Secretary of State Kerry's unseemly rush to judgment in blaming the Russian side just three days after the shoot-down.

        'An Extraordinary Tool'?

        When the tragedy occurred U.S. intelligence collection assets were focused laser-like on the Ukraine-Russia border region where the passenger plane crashed. Besides collection from overhead imagery and sensors, U.S. intelligence presumably would have electronic intercepts of communications as well as information from human sources inside many of the various factions.

        That would mean that hundreds of intelligence analysts are likely to have precise knowledge regarding how MH-17 was shot down and by whom. Though there may be some difference of opinion among analysts about how to read the evidence – as there often is – it is out of the question that the intelligence community would withhold this data from President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Kerry and other top officials.

        Thus, it is a virtual certainty that the Obama administration has far more conclusive evidence than the "social media" cited by Kerry in casting suspicions on the rebels and Moscow when he made the rounds of Sunday talk shows just three days after the crash. On NBC's "Meet the Press," Kerry told David Gregory that "social media" is an "extraordinary tool." The question is, a tool for what?

        The DNI report two days later rehashed many of the "social media" references that Kerry cited and added some circumstantial evidence about Russia providing other forms of military equipment to the rebels. But the DNI report contains no mention of Russia supplying a Buk anti-aircraft missile system that Kerry and the DNI cited as the suspected weapon that downed the plane.

        So, why does the administration continue refusing to go beyond such dubious sources and shaky information in attributing blame for the shoot-down? Why not fill in the many blanks with actual and hard U.S. intelligence data that would have been available and examined over the following days and weeks? Did the Russians supply a Buk or other missile battery that would be capable of hitting MH-17 flying at 33,000 feet? Yes or no.

        If not supplied by the Russians, did the rebels capture a Buk or similar missile battery from the Ukrainians who had them in their own inventory? Or did some element of the Ukrainian government – possibly associated with one of Ukraine's corrupt oligarchs – fire the missile, either mistaking the Malaysian plane for a Russian one or calculating how the tragedy could be played for propaganda purposes? Or was it some other sinister motive?

        Without doubt, the U.S. government has evidence that could support or refute any one of those possibilities, but it won't tell you even in some declassified summary form. Why? Is it somehow unpatriotic to speculate that John Kerry, with his checkered reputation for truth-telling regarding Syria and other foreign crises, chose right off the bat to turn the MH-17 tragedy to Washington's propaganda advantage, an exercise in "soft power" to throw Putin on the defensive and rally Europe behind U.S. economic sanctions to punish Russia for supporting ethnic Russians in Crimea and eastern Ukraine resisting the new U.S.-arranged political order in Kiev?

        By taking a leaf out of the Bush-Cheney-Tony-Blair playbook, Kerry could "fix the intelligence around the policy" of Putin-bashing. Given the anti-Putin bias rampant in the mainstream Western media, that wouldn't be a hard sell. And, it wasn't. The "mainstream" stenographers/journalists quickly accepted that "social media" was indeed a dandy source to rely on – and have never pressed the U.S. government to release any of its intelligence data.

        Yet, in the immediate aftermath of the MH-17 shoot-down, there were signs that honest intelligence analysts were not comfortable letting themselves be used as they and other colleagues had been before the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

        To buttress Kerry's shaky case, DNI Clapper arranged a flimsy "Government Assessment" – reprising many of Kerry's references to "social media" – that was briefed to a few hand-picked Establishment reporters two days after Kerry starred on Sunday TV. The little-noticed distinction was that this report was not the customary "Intelligence Assessment" (the genre that has been de rigueur in such circumstances in the past).

        The key difference between the traditional "Intelligence Assessment" and this relatively new creation, a "Government Assessment," is that the latter genre is put together by senior White House bureaucrats or other political appointees, not senior intelligence analysts. Another significant difference is that an "Intelligence Assessment" often includes alternative views, either in the text or in footnotes, detailing disagreements among intelligence analysts, thus revealing where the case may be weak or in dispute.

        The absence of an "Intelligence Assessment" suggested that honest intelligence analysts were resisting a knee-jerk indictment of Russia – just as they did after the first time Kerry pulled this "Government Assessment" arrow out of his quiver trying to stick the blame for an Aug. 21, 2013 sarin gas attack outside Damascus on the Syrian government.

        Kerry cited this pseudo-intelligence product, which contained not a single verifiable fact, to take the United States to the brink of war against President Bashar al-Assad's military, a fateful decision that was only headed off at the last minute after President Barack Obama was made aware of grave doubts among U.S. intelligence analysts about whodunit. Kerry's sarin case has since collapsed. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Collapsing Syria-Sarin Case."]

        The sarin and MH-17 cases reveal the continuing struggles between opportunistic political operatives and professional intelligence analysts over how to deal with geopolitical information that can either inform U.S. foreign policy objectively or be exploited to advance some propaganda agenda. Clearly, this struggle did not end after CIA analysts were pressured into giving President George W. Bush the fraudulent – not "mistaken" – evidence that he used to make the case for invading Iraq in 2003.

        But so soon after that disgraceful episode, the White House and State Department run the risk that some honest intelligence analysts would blow the whistle, especially given the dangerously blasé attitude in Establishment Washington toward the dangers of escalating the Ukraine confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. Given the very high stakes, perhaps an intelligence professional or two will summon the courage to step up to this challenge.

        Falling in Line

        For now, the rest of us are told to be satisfied with the Sunday media circus orchestrated by Kerry on July 20, 2014, with the able assistance of eager-to-please pundits. A review of the transcripts of the CBS, NBC, and ABC Sunday follies reveals a remarkable – if not unprecedented - consistency in approach by CBS's Bob Schieffer, NBC's David Gregory (ably egged on by Andrea Mitchell), and ABC's George Stephanopoulos, all of whom hewed faithfully to a script apparently given them with two main talking points: (1) blame Putin; and (2) frame the shoot-down as a "wake-up call" (Kerry used the words repeatedly) for European governments to impose tight economic sanctions on Russia.

        If the U.S. government's hope was that the combination of Kerry's hasty judgment and the DNI's supportive "Government Assessment" would pin the P.R. blame for MH-17 on Putin and Russia, the gambit clearly worked. The U.S. had imposed serious economic sanctions on Russia the day before the shoot-down – but the Europeans were hesitant. Yet, in the MH-17 aftermath, both U.S. and European media were filled with outrage against Putin for supposedly murdering 298 innocents.

        German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other European leaders, who had been resisting imposing strong economic sanctions because of Germany's and the European Union's lucrative trade with Russia, let themselves be bulldozed, just two weeks after the shoot-down, into going along with mutually harmful sanctions that have hurt Russia but also have shaken the EU's fragile economic recovery.

        Thus started a new, noxious phase in the burgeoning confrontation between Russia and the West, a crisis that was originally precipitated by a Western-orchestrated coup d'état in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, ousting Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych and touching off the current civil war that has witnessed some of the worst bloodshed inside Europe in decades..

        It may seem odd that those European leaders allowed themselves to be snookered so swiftly. Did their own intelligence services not caution them against acquiescing over "intelligence" from social media? But the tidal wave of anti-Putin fury in the MH-17 aftermath was hard if not impossible for any Western politician to resist.

        Just One Specific Question?

        Yet, can the U.S. concealment of its MH-17 intelligence continue indefinitely? Some points beg for answers. For instance, besides describing social media as "an extraordinary tool," Kerry told David Gregory on July 20, 2014: "We picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing. And it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar."

        Odd that neither Gregory nor other "mainstream" stenographers have thought to ask Kerry, then or since, to share what he says he "knows" with the American people and the world – if only out of, well, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. If Kerry has sources beyond "social media" for what he claims to "know" and they support his instant claims of Russian culpability, then the importance of his accusations dictates that he describe exactly what he pretends to know and how. But Kerry has been silent on this topic.

        If, on the other hand, the real intelligence does not support the brief that Kerry argued right after the shoot-down, well, the truth will ultimately be hard to suppress. Angela Merkel and other leaders with damaged trade ties with Russia may ultimately demand an explanation. Can it be that it will take current European leaders a couple of years to realize they've been had - again?

        The U.S. government also is likely to face growing public skepticism for using social media to pin the blame on Moscow for the downing of MH-17 – not only to justify imposing economic sanctions, but also to stoke increased hostility toward Russia.

        The Obama administration and the mainstream media may try to pretend that no doubt exists – that the "group think" on Russia's guilt is ironclad. And it seems likely that the official investigations now being conducted by the U.S.-propped-up government in Ukraine and other close U.S. allies will struggle to build a circumstantial case keeping the Putin-did-it narrative alive.

        But chickens have a way of coming home to roost.

        Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-years as a CIA analyst, he served as chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch, and prepared and personally conducted early morning briefings of the President's Daily Brief. In January 2013, he co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

        [Aug 16, 2015] The Real News - 9/11 The Man Who Knew Too Much

        "Mass surveillance is not about protecting people; it is about social control.

        The shadow government is its own enterprise, and it rewards those who pay obesiance quite richly"


        Here is the second segment of a fascinating five part interview about the deep state and the mechanics of what some might call corporatism.

        You may watch all five segments of this interview at The Real News here. Note that they are listed in descending order on the site, so start from the bottom up to see them in order.


        [Aug 16, 2015] Deal or War': Is Doomed Dollar Really Behind Obama's Iran Warning?

        "..."At that point, I think much of the world would have had enough of the US use of the international payments system to dictate to others, and they would cease transacting in dollars."
        The US dollar would henceforth lose its status as the key global reserve currency for the conduct of international trade and financial transactions..."
        .
        "...Many analysts have long wondered at how the US dollar has managed to defy economic laws, given that its preeminence as the world's reserve currency is no longer merited by the fundamentals of the US economy. Massive indebtedness, chronic unemployment, loss of manufacturing base, trade and budget deficits are just some of the key markers, despite official claims of "recovery.""
        .
        "..."If the dollar lost the reserve currency status, US power would decline," says Roberts. "Washington's financial hegemony, such as the ability to impose sanctions, would vanish, and Washington would no longer be able to pay its bills by printing money. Moreover, the loss of reserve currency status would mean a drop in the demand for dollars and a drop in willingness to hold them. Therefore, the dollar's exchange value would fall, and rising prices of imports would import inflation into the US economy.""
        .
        "...Doug Casey, a top American investment analyst, last week warned that the woeful state of the US economy means that the dollar is teetering on the brink of a long-overdue crash. "You're going to see very high levels of inflation. It's going to be quite catastrophic," says Casey. He added that the crash will also presage a collapse in the American banking system which is carrying trillions of dollars of toxic debt derivatives, at levels much greater than when the system crashed in 2007-08.... "Now, when interest rates inevitably go up from these artificially suppressed levels where they are now, the bond market is going to collapse, the stock market is going to collapse, and with it, the real estate market is going to collapse. Pension funds are going to be wiped out… This is a very bad situation. The US is digging itself in deeper and deeper," said Casey, who added the telling question: "Then what's going to happen?"..."
        .
        "...President Obama's grim warning of "deal or war" seems to provide an answer. Faced with economic implosion on an epic scale, the US may be counting on war as its other option..."
        August 15, 2015 | ronpaulinstitute.org

        US President Barack Obama has given an extraordinary ultimatum to the Republican-controlled Congress, arguing that they must not block the nuclear accord with Iran. It's either "deal or war," he says.

        In a televised nationwide address on August 5, Obama said: "Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any US administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option: another war in the Middle East. I say this not to be provocative. I am stating a fact."

        The American Congress is due to vote on whether to accept the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed July 14 between Iran and the P5+1 group of world powers – the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. Republicans are openly vowing to reject the JCPOA, along with hawkish Democrats such as Senator Chuck Schumer. Opposition within the Congress may even be enough to override a presidential veto to push through the nuclear accord.

        In his drastic prediction of war, one might assume that Obama is referring to Israel launching a preemptive military strike on Iran with the backing of US Republicans. Or that he is insinuating that Iran will walk from self-imposed restraints on its nuclear program to build a bomb, thus triggering a war.

        But what could really be behind Obama's dire warning of "deal or war" is another scenario – the collapse of the US dollar, and with that the implosion of the US economy.

        That scenario was hinted at this week by US Secretary of State John Kerry. Speaking in New York on August 11, Kerry made the candid admission that failure to seal the nuclear deal could result in the US dollar losing its status as the top international reserve currency.

        "If we turn around and nix the deal and then tell [US allies], 'You're going to have to obey our rules and sanctions anyway,' that is a recipe, very quickly for the American dollar to cease to be the reserve currency of the world."

        In other words, what really concerns the Obama administration is that the sanctions regime it has crafted on Iran – and has compelled other nations to abide by over the past decade – will be finished. And Iran will be open for business with the European Union, as well as China and Russia.

        It is significant that within days of signing the Geneva accord, Germany, France, Italy and other EU governments hastened to Tehran to begin lining up lucrative investment opportunities in Iran's prodigious oil and gas industries. China and Russia are equally well-placed and more than willing to resume trading partnerships with Iran. Russia has signed major deals to expand Iran's nuclear energy industry.

        American writer Paul Craig Roberts said that the US-led sanctions on Iran and also against Russia have generated a lot of frustration and resentment among Washington's European allies.

        "US sanctions against Iran and Russia have cost businesses in other countries a lot of money," Roberts told this author.

        "Propaganda about the Iranian nuke threat and Russian threat is what caused other countries to cooperate with the sanctions. If a deal worked out over much time by the US, Russia, China, UK, France and Germany is blocked, other countries are likely to cease cooperating with US sanctions."

        Roberts added that if Washington were to scuttle the nuclear accord with Iran, and then demand a return to the erstwhile sanctions regime, the other international players will repudiate the American diktat.

        "At that point, I think much of the world would have had enough of the US use of the international payments system to dictate to others, and they would cease transacting in dollars."

        The US dollar would henceforth lose its status as the key global reserve currency for the conduct of international trade and financial transactions.

        Former World Bank analyst Peter Koenig says that if the nuclear accord unravels, Iran will be free to trade its oil and gas – worth trillions of dollars – in bilateral currency deals with the EU, Japan, India, South Korea, China and Russia, in much the same way that China and Russia and other members of the BRICS nations have already begun to do so.

        That outcome will further undermine the US dollar. It will gradually become redundant as a mechanism of international payment.

        Koenig argues that this implicit threat to the dollar is the real, unspoken cause for anxiety in Washington. The long-running dispute with Iran, he contends, was never about alleged weapons of mass destruction. Rather, the real motive was for Washington to preserve the dollar's unique global standing.

        "The US-led standoff with Iran has nothing to do with nuclear weapons," says Koenig. The issue is: will Iran eventually sell its huge reserves of hydrocarbons in other currencies than the dollar, as they intended to do in 2007 with an Iranian Oil Bourse? That is what instigated the American-contrived fake nuclear issue in the first place."

        This is not just about Iran. It is about other major world economies moving away from holding the US dollar as a means of doing business. If the US unilaterally scuppers the international nuclear accord, Washington will no longer be able to enforce its financial hegemony, which the sanctions regime on Iran has underpinned.

        Many analysts have long wondered at how the US dollar has managed to defy economic laws, given that its preeminence as the world's reserve currency is no longer merited by the fundamentals of the US economy. Massive indebtedness, chronic unemployment, loss of manufacturing base, trade and budget deficits are just some of the key markers, despite official claims of "recovery."

        As Paul Craig Roberts commented, the dollar's value has only been maintained because up to now the rest of the world needs the greenback to do business with. That dependency has allowed the US Federal Reserve to keep printing banknotes in quantities that are in no way commensurate with the American economy's decrepit condition.

        "If the dollar lost the reserve currency status, US power would decline," says Roberts. "Washington's financial hegemony, such as the ability to impose sanctions, would vanish, and Washington would no longer be able to pay its bills by printing money. Moreover, the loss of reserve currency status would mean a drop in the demand for dollars and a drop in willingness to hold them. Therefore, the dollar's exchange value would fall, and rising prices of imports would import inflation into the US economy."

        Doug Casey, a top American investment analyst, last week warned that the woeful state of the US economy means that the dollar is teetering on the brink of a long-overdue crash. "You're going to see very high levels of inflation. It's going to be quite catastrophic," says Casey.

        He added that the crash will also presage a collapse in the American banking system which is carrying trillions of dollars of toxic debt derivatives, at levels much greater than when the system crashed in 2007-08.

        The picture he painted isn't pretty: "Now, when interest rates inevitably go up from these artificially suppressed levels where they are now, the bond market is going to collapse, the stock market is going to collapse, and with it, the real estate market is going to collapse. Pension funds are going to be wiped out… This is a very bad situation. The US is digging itself in deeper and deeper," said Casey, who added the telling question: "Then what's going to happen?"

        President Obama's grim warning of "deal or war" seems to provide an answer. Faced with economic implosion on an epic scale, the US may be counting on war as its other option.

        Reprinted with permission from RT.

        [Aug 16, 2015] Iran Nuclear Deal: Why Empire Blinked First

        August 14, 2015 | ronpaulinstitute.org

        We've now spent three weeks watching American politicians argue needlessly over the Iran nuclear deal. For or against, they all miss this one salient point: It is the US that needed to end this standoff with Iran – not the other way around.

        For years we have been hearing that US sanctions "were biting" and had "teeth." Sanctions, it was said, would "change Iranian behaviors," whether in regards to the Islamic Republic's "support of terrorism," its "calculations" over its nuclear program, or by turning popular Iranian sentiment against its government.

        Here is US President Obama spinning the fairytale at full volume:

        "We put in place an unprecedented regime of sanctions that has crippled Iran's economy…And it is precisely because of the international sanctions and the coalition that we were able to build internationally that the Iranian people responded by saying, we need a new direction in how we interact with the international community and how we deal with this sanctions regime. And that's what brought President Rouhani to power."
        There is, of course, scant evidence that any of this is true.

        If anything, on the economic front, the net effect of sanctions has been to rally Iranians behind domestic production and thrift – establishing both the discipline and policy focus necessary to sustain the country indefinitely. A 2013 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report explains this unintended consequence of sanctions:

        "There is a growing body of opinion and Iranian assertions that indicates that Iran, through actions of the government and the private sector, is mitigating the economic effect of sanctions. Some argue that Iran might even benefit from sanctions over the long term by being compelled to diversify its economy and reduce dependence on oil revenues. Iran's 2013-2014 budget relies far less on oil exports than have previous budgets, and its exports of minerals, cement, urea fertilizer, and other agricultural and basic industrial goods are increasing substantially."
        Sanctions didn't succeed on the political front either. By in large, Iranians did not hold their leadership responsible for sanctions-related economic duress, nor did they seek rapprochement with the West as a way out. The US continues to flog the narrative that Iranians elected President Hassan Rouhani in a bid to "moderate" foreign policy stances, but a survey conducted by US pollster Zogby Research Services in the immediate aftermath of Rouhani's election turns that premise on its head:

        Ninety-six percent of Iranians surveyed agreed with the statement that "maintaining the right to advance a nuclear program is worth the price being paid in economic sanctions and international isolation." Of those polled, a mere five percent of Iranians felt that improved relations with the US and the West were their top priority.

        No, sanctions have not worked in any of the ways they were intended.
        So if the Iranians were not 'dragged' to the negotiating table, then what was the sudden incentive behind a multilateral effort to forge a deal in 2015 - 36 years after the first US non-nuclear sanctions were levied against the Islamic Republic, and nine years after the UN Security Council first issued nuclear-related sanctions?

        Keep in mind that both the Iranians and the permanent members of the UNSC have offered up proposals to end the nuclear deadlock since 2003. So why, this deal, now?

        Could it be that the Americans had simply blinked first?

        And the world turned

        It must be understood that much of this nuclear brouhaha has nothing to do with Iran actually possessing or aspiring to possess nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic neither has nuclear weapons, nor does it profess to want them.
        US intelligence agencies, over the years, have conceded that Iran has not even made the "decision" to pursue weaponization, and the IAEA has repeatedly stated in 52 periodic assessment reports that there has been "no diversion"of nuclear materials to a weapons program.

        In short, all the fuss has really only ever been about containing, isolating and taming a developing nation with aspirations that challenge Empire's hegemony.
        Iran was never going to be able to change the rules of the game single-handedly. That is, until the game itself shifted hands and direction.

        In 2012, cracks in the global economic and political power structures started to shift dramatically. We started to see the emergence of the BRICS, in particular Russia and China, as influential movers of global events. Whether it was a shift in trading currencies from the conventional dollar/euro to the rupee/yuan/ruble, or the emergence of new global economic/defense institutions initiated by BRICS member states, the world's middle powers began to assert themselves and project power on the international stage.

        But it was in the vast and complicated Middle East arena that old power and new power came to clash most ferociously.

        In November 2011, the year of the Arab uprisings, the BRICS announced their first collective foreign policy statement, urging the rejection of foreign intervention in Syria's internal affairs.

        By 2012, it started becoming clear that the crisis in Syria was being heavily fomented by external players, including the three UNSC Western permanent members, the US, UK and France and their regional allies, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and NATO-member Turkey.

        In 2012, it also became clear that Al-Qaeda and other militant Islamist fighters were dominating the opposition inside the Syrian military theater and that these elements were being backed by the United States and its allies.

        The American calculus, at this point, was to allow and even encourage the proliferation of fighters prepared to unseat the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad, anticipating that at some future date they could then reverse the gains of radicals.

        Assad did not fall, but extremism – fueled by funding, arming and training from US allies – entrenched itself further in Syria.

        This did not go unnoticed in Washington, which has always struggled to make a coherent case for its Syria strategies. The rise of ISIS (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) and the flood of jihadists into the Syrian theater began to change the American calculations. The US began to work on hedging its bets…and that is when Iran began to factor significantly in America's Plan B.

        That Plan B began in mid-2012, just as Saudi Arabia's incoming intelligence chief Bandar bin Sultan was preparing for a violent escalation in Syria, one that would exacerbate the Islamist militancy in the Levant exponentially.

        That July, secret backchannel talks between the United States and Iran were established in Oman, kicked off, according to the Wall Street Journal, by "a pattern of inducements offered by Washington to coax Tehran to the table."

        Take note that the Americans initiated this process, not the allegedly "sanctions-fatigued" Iranians, and that this outreach began when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was at the helm, not his successor Rouhani.

        Iran – or bust

        Iran's elite Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani said a few months ago: "Today, there is nobody in confrontation with [IS] except the Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as nations who are next to Iran or supported by Iran."

        If you look at the array of ground forces amassed against Islamist radicals from Lebanon to Iraq, they consist almost entirely of elements allied with the Islamic Republic, or are recipients of weapons and sometimes training provided by the Iranians.

        There are no combat forces from Western states and none from their Arab or Turkish allies within the region.

        'Boots on the ground' are essential in asymmetrical warfare, but the US military will continue to oppose inserting its troops into direct combat situations in Syria and Iraq.

        In a Telegraph op-ed on the eve of the Vienna nuclear agreement, Britain's influential former ambassador to Washington Christopher Meyer wrote:

        "Whether we like it or not, we are in de facto alliance against ISIL with Assad of Syria and with Iran, the implacable foe of our long-standing ally, Sunni Saudi Arabia…. if ISIL is able to expand further in the Middle East, won't this unavoidably lead to the conclusion that our strategic ally in the region for the 21st century must be Iran?"
        This is the conundrum Washington began facing in 2012. And so it set in motion a face-saving strategy to enable itself to "deal" with Iran directly.

        The Vienna Agreement

        Here's what the Iran nuclear deal does – besides the obvious: it takes the old American-Iranian "baggage" off the table for the US administration, allowing it the freedom to pursue more pressing shared political objectives with Iran.

        The Iranians understood full well in Vienna that they were operating from a strong regional position and that the US needed this deal more urgently. The Americans tried several times to get Iran to expand discussions to address regional issues on a parallel track, but the Iranians refused point-blank. They were not prepared to allow the US to gain any leverage in various regional battlefields in order to weaken Iran's position within broader talks.

        Although the Iranians are careful to point out that the Vienna agreement is only as good as the "intentions" of their partners, this deal is essentially a satisfactory one for Tehran. It ensures rigorous verification that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program, which is great for a country that doesn't seek one.
        It also provides Iran with protections against 'over-inspection' and baseless accusations, dismisses all UNSC resolutions against the Islamic Republic, recognizes the country's enrichment program, provides extensive international sanctions relief, binds all UN member-states to this agreement (yes, Israel too) and nails down an end-date for this whole nuclear saga.

        The deal also frees up Iran to pursue its regional plans with less inhibitions.
        "What the president (Obama) and his aides do not talk about these days - for fear of further antagonizing lawmakers on Capitol Hill who have cast Iran as the ultimate enemy of the United States - are their grander ambitions for a deal they hope could open up relations with Tehran and be part of a transformation in the Middle East," reads a post-Vienna article in the New York Times.

        US Secretary of State John Kerry, commenting after the deal, said: "I know that a Middle East that is on fire is going to be more manageable with this deal and opens more potential for us to be able to deal with those fires, whether it is Houthi in Yemen or ISIL in Syria and Iraq than no deal and the potential of another confrontation with Iran at the same time."

        "The Iran agreement is a disaster for ISIS," blares the headline from a post-agreement op-ed by EU foreign affairs chief Frederica Mogherini. She explains:

        "ISIS is spreading its vicious and apocalyptic ideology in the Middle East and beyond…An alliance of civilizations can be our most powerful weapon in the fight against terror…We need to restart political processes to end wars. We need to get all regional powers back to the negotiating table and stop the carnage. Cooperation between Iran, its neighbors and the whole international community could open unprecedented possibilities of peace for the region, starting from Syria, Yemen and Iraq."
        Clearly, for Western leaders Iran is an essential component in any fight against ISIS and other like-minded terror groups. Just as clearly, they have realized that excluding Iran from the resolution of various regional conflicts is a non-starter.
        That is some significant back-tracking from earlier Western positions explicitly excluding Iran from a seat at the table on Mideast matters.

        And stay tuned for further policy revisions - once this train gets underway, it will indeed be "transformative."

        As for the Iran nuclear deal…except for some hotheads in Congress and the US media, most of the rest of the world has already moved on. As chief US negotiator and undersecretary for political affairs, Wendy Sherman said recently: "If we walk away, quite frankly we walk away alone."

        The balance of power has shifted decisively in the Middle East. Washington wants out of the mess it helped create, and it can't exit the region without Iran's help. The agreement in Vienna was reached to facilitate this possibility. Iran is not inclined to reward the US for bad behavior, but will also likely not resist efforts to broker regional political settlements that make sense.

        It was not a weak Iran that came to the final negotiations in Vienna and it was not a crippled Iran that left that table.

        As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (for once) aptly observed:

        "It is stunning to me how well the Iranians, sitting alone on their side of the table, have played a weak hand against the United States, Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain on their side of the table. When the time comes, I'm hiring (Iran's Supreme Leader) Ali Khamenei to sell my house."
        Iran just exited UNSC Chapter 7 sanctions via diplomacy rather than war, and it's now focusing its skill-sets on unwinding conflict in the Middle East. If you're planning to challenge Empire anytime soon, make sure to get a copy of Iran's playbook. Nobody plays the long game better - and with more patience.

        Reprinted with permission from RT.

        [Aug 16, 2015] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Republicans Cant Face the Truth About Iraq

        "...For Cheney and his oil pals, conquering Iraq would secure the Arab world's biggest oil reserves for Uncle Sam and offer a central military base in the region. For Washington's bloodthirsty neocons, pulverizing Iraq would remove one of Israel's most determined enemies, crush the only Arab nation that might challenge Israel's nuclear monopoly, and cost Israel nothing. Invading Iraq produced the slow disintegration of the Mideast so long sought by militant Zionists."
        .
        "...It all worked brilliantly, at least from Israel's viewpoint. Not, however for the US. Bush's invasion shattered Iraq, led to al-Qaida and ISIS, and left Washington saddled with a $1 trillion-dollar bill instead of the $60 million cost estimated by Wolfowitz. The Mideast is in a tailspin, Palestinians are totally isolated, and Egypt, the region's key nation, is run by an Arab-fascist military dictatorship."
        August 15, 2015 | ronpaulinstitute.org

        Gov. Jeb Bush repeated one of the biggest falsehoods of our time during the recent presidential candidate debate: "we were misled (into the Iraq War) by faulty intelligence."

        US intelligence was not "misled." It was ordered by the real, de facto president, Dick Cheney, to provide excuses for a war of aggression against Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

        PM Tony Blair, forced British intelligence services to "sex up" reports that Iraq had nuclear weapons; he purged the government and the venerable broadcaster BBC of journalists who failed to amplify Blair's lies. Bush and Blair reportedly discussed painting a US Air Force plane in UN colors and getting it to buzz Iraqi anti-aircraft sites in hope the Iraqis would fire on it. Bush told Blair that after conquering Iraq, he intended to invade Iran, Syria, Libya and Pakistan.

        In fact, Iraq had no "weapons of mass destruction," save some rusty barrels of mustard and nerve gas that had been supplied by the US and Britain for use against Iran. I broke this story from Baghdad back in late 1990.

        Tyler Drumheller, who died last week, was the former chief of CIA's European division. He was the highest-ranking intelligence officer to go public and accuse the Bush administration of hyping fabricated evidence to justify invading Iraq.

        Drumheller was particularly forceful in denouncing the Iraqi defector codenamed "Curveball," whose ludicrous claims about mobile Iraqi germ laboratories were trumpeted before the UN by former Secretary of State Colin Powell. "Curveball's" claims were outright lies and Powell, whose career was ruined by parroting these absurd allegations, should have known better.

        "Curveball" was an 'agent provocateur' clearly sent by a neighbor of Iraq to help promote a US attack on that nation. Whether it was Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or Israel that sent Curveball," we still don't know. All three fabricated "evidence" against Iraq and passed it to Washington. That is where US intelligence was indeed misled. But that's only a minor part of the story.

        A Washington cabal of pro-Israel neocons, oil men, and old-fashioned imperialists joined to promote a grossly illegal invasion of oil-rich Iraq. One of its senior members, former Pentagon official Paul Wolfowitz, admitted that weapons of mass destruction was chosen as the most convenient and emotive pretext for war. Orders went out to CIA and NSA to find information linking Iraq to 9/11 and weapons of mass destruction.

        Some of the worst torture inflicted on suspects kidnapped by CIA's action teams was designed to make them admit to a link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. There was, of course, none. But administration officials, like the odious Condoleeza Rice, kept broadly hinting at a nuclear threat to America.

        Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, polls showed a majority of Americans believed Iraq was threatening the US with nuclear attack and was behind 9/11. Amazingly, a poll taken of self-professed evangelical Christians just before the US attacked Iraq showed that over 80% supported war against Iraq. So much for turning the other cheek.

        Most of the US media, notably the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, amplified the lies of the Bush administration. TV networks were ordered never to show American military casualties or civilian dead. Those, like this writer, who questioned the rational for war, or who wouldn't go along with the party line, were blanked out from print and TV.

        For example, I was immediately dropped from a major TV network after daring mention that Israel supported the 2003 Iraq war and would benefit from it. I was blacklisted by another major US TV network at the direct demand of the Bush White House for repeatedly insisting that Iraq had no nuclear capability.

        Very few analysts, journalists, or politicians took time to ask: even if Iraq had nuclear weapons, how could they be delivered to North America? Iraq had no long-range bombers and no missiles with range greater than 100kms. Perhaps by FedEx? No one asked, why would Iraq invite national suicide by trying to hit the US with a nuclear weapon?

        The most original answer came from George W. Bush: nefarious Iraqi freighters were lurking in the North Atlantic carrying "drones of death" that would attack sleeping America. This hallucination was based on a single report that the bumbling Iraqis were working a children's model airplane that, in the end, broke and never flew. What inspired such a phantasmagoria? Pot, too much bourbon, LSD, or thundering orders from Dick Cheney to find a damned good excuse for invading Iraq.

        For Cheney and his oil pals, conquering Iraq would secure the Arab world's biggest oil reserves for Uncle Sam and offer a central military base in the region. For Washington's bloodthirsty neocons, pulverizing Iraq would remove one of Israel's most determined enemies, crush the only Arab nation that might challenge Israel's nuclear monopoly, and cost Israel nothing. Invading Iraq produced the slow disintegration of the Mideast so long sought by militant Zionists.

        It all worked brilliantly, at least from Israel's viewpoint. Not, however for the US. Bush's invasion shattered Iraq, led to al-Qaida and ISIS, and left Washington saddled with a $1 trillion-dollar bill instead of the $60 million cost estimated by Wolfowitz. The Mideast is in a tailspin, Palestinians are totally isolated, and Egypt, the region's key nation, is run by an Arab-fascist military dictatorship.

        Tyler Drumheller was the only senior CIA officer to stand up and tell Americans they were lied into an unnecessary, illegal war. Today, we have Iraqi déjà vu anew as the lie factories and fear mongers work overtime to promote war with Iran.

        Reprinted with permission from EricMargolis.com.

        [Aug 13, 2015] Its not migrants who are the marauders and plunderers

        Notable quotes:
        "... The sultan of Najd, Abdelaziz al-Saud bowed his head before the British High Commissioner in Percy Cox's Iraq. His voice quavered, and then he started begging with humiliation: "Your grace are my father and you are my mother. I can never forget the debt I owe you. You made me and you held my hand, you elevated me and lifted me. I am prepared, at your beckoning, to give up for you now half of my kingdom…no, by Allah, I will give up all of my kingdom, if your grace commands me! ..."
        Aug 13, 2015 | The Guardian

        Never let it be said that Britain's leaders miss an opportunity to inflame fear and loathing towards migrants and refugees. First David Cameron warned of the threat posed by "a swarm of people" who were "coming across the Mediterranean … wanting to come to Britain". Then his foreign secretary Philip Hammond upped the ante.

        The chaos at the Channel tunnel in Calais, he declared, was caused by "marauding" migrants who posed an existential threat. Cheer-led by the conservative press, he warned that Europe would not be able to "protect itself and preserve its standard of living" if it had to "absorb millions of migrants from Africa".

        With nightly television coverage of refugees from the world's worst conflicts risking their lives to break into lorries and trains heading for Britain, this was rhetoric designed to stoke visceral fears of the wretched of the Earth emerging from its depths.

        Barely a hint of humanity towards those who have died in Calais this summer has escaped ministers' lips. But in reality the French port is a sideshow, home to a few thousand migrants unable to pay traffickers for more promising routes around Britain's border controls.

        Europe's real refugee crisis is in the Mediterranean. More than 180,000 have reached Italy and Greece by sea alone this year, and more than 2,000 have died making the crossing, mostly from war-ravaged Libya. The impact on Greece, already wracked with crisis, is at tipping point.

        On the Greek island of Kos, 2,000 mostly Syrian and Afghan refugees were rounded up on Tuesday and locked in a sports stadium after clashes with riot police, who used stun grenades to maintain order. Numbers reaching the Greek islands have quadrupled since last year.

        But nothing in Europe matches the millions who have been driven to seek refuge in Turkey, Lebanon, Pakistan or Jordan. Set against such a global drama, Calais is little more than deathly theatre. Britain is not one of the main destinations for either refugees or illegal migrants – the vast majority of whom overstay their visas, rather than stow away in the Channel tunnel.

        Last year 25,870 sought asylum in the UK and only 10,050 were accepted. By contrast, Sweden accepted three times as many and Germany had more than 200,000 asylum and new asylum applicants. Nor is Britain's asylum seeker's benefit rate, at £36.95 a week, remotely the magnet it is portrayed. France pays £41.42; in Norway it's £88.65.

        What does suck overwhelmingly legal migrant workers into Britain is a highly deregulated labour market, where workplace protection is often not enforced and which both gangmasters and large private companies are able ruthlessly to exploit.

        The case, reported in the Guardian, of the entirely legal Lithuanian farm workers – who are suing a Kent-based gangmaster supplying high street supermarkets over inhuman working conditions, debt bondage and violent intimidation – is only the extreme end of a growing underbelly of harsh and insecure employment.

        If ministers were remotely concerned about "rogue employers driving down wages" by using illegal migrants, as they claim, they would be strengthening trade unions and rights at work. But they're doing the opposite. And they're using the language of dehumanisation to justify slashing support for asylum seekers' children, locking up refused applicants indefinitely and targeting illegal workers far more enthusiastically than the employers who exploit them.

        But what risks dividing communities can also turn them against such anti-migrant crackdowns. In recent months, flash protests have erupted in London and other cities against UK Border Agency attempts to arrest failed asylum seekers or undocumented migrant workers. In areas such as Elephant and Castle, riot police have been called in after UKBA vans were surrounded and pelted with eggs by angry locals and activists trying to prevent the detention of people seen as part of the community.

        The chaos at Calais and the far larger-scale upheaval and suffering across Europe could be brought under control by the kind of managed processing that northern European governments, such as Britain's, are so keen to avoid.

        'If the current US and British-backed Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen continues, expect Yemeni refugees to join the region's exodus in the months to come.'

        'If the current US and British-backed Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen continues, expect Yemeni refugees to join the region's exodus in the months to come.' Photograph: Yahya Arhab/EPA

        But that would only be a temporary fix for a refugee crisis driven by war and state disintegration – and Britain, France and their allies have played a central role in most of the wars that are fuelling it. The refugees arriving in Europe come from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, Pakistan, Somalia and Eritrea.

        With the recent exception of the dictatorial Eritrean regime, those are a roll-call of more than a decade of disastrous western-led wars and interventions. In the case of Libya, the British and French-led bombing campaign in 2011 led directly to the civil war and social breakdown that has made the country the main conduit for refugee trafficking from Africa. And in Syria, the western funding, arming and training of opposition groups – while fuelling the rise of Isis – has played a crucial role in the country's destruction.

        If the current American and British-backed Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen continues, expect Yemeni refugees to join the region's exodus in the months to come. So the first longer term contribution Britain and its allies could make to staunching the flow of refugees would be to stop waging open and covert wars in the Middle East and north Africa. That is actual marauding.

        The second would be a major shift in policy towards African development. Africa may not be leading the current refugee crisis, and African migrants certainly don't threaten European living standards. But as a group of global poverty NGOs argued this week, Africa is being drained of resources through western corporate profit extraction, extortionate debt repayments and one-sided trade "partnership" deals. If that plunder continues and absolute numbers in poverty go on rising as climate change bites deeper, migration pressures to the wealthy north can only grow.

        There is a genuine migration crisis driven by war and neoliberal globalisation. Despite the scaremongering, it hasn't yet reached Britain. But it's a fantasy to imagine that fences, deportations and better security can protect fortress Europe. An end to the real plunder and marauding would be more effective.


        ID0049691 nadel 13 Aug 2015 10:55

        Why don't you start with yourself? How many of your ancestors like millions of other Europeans, went to Africa, the Americas, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere to "settle" there over the past centuries? Now that the tide is turning you and your likes do nothing but whine and accuse others of being "left wingers". The left wingers seem to be the only people left with human feelings.

        Beastcheeks 13 Aug 2015 10:55

        Thank you Seamus - a beacon of light amongst the marauding dirge of mass media ignorance and hatred that characterises the current mainstream British position. When I read many of responses to your reasoned arguments - I hang my head in shame. Mass delusion and hatred not dissimilar to Nazi Germany I'm afraid. The very fact you have to spell out the obvious truth - that you can't bomb the hell out of people and then cry foul when they come to us for safe refuge - beggars belief. I am well and truly disgusted and am in the process of relinquishing my British nationality. No longer am I willing to tolerate such ignorant intolerance in my name.


        rentierDEATHcult 13 Aug 2015 10:51

        Shias are not joining ISIS ... but the vast majority of Sunnis are not joining it, either !?

        Kurds are Sunnis - they're fighting ISIS.

        Sunni tribes in Iraq are collaborating with Shia (often Iranian) militias to fight ISIS.

        Even fellow Sunni Jihadists in the al-Nusra Front (& affiliated brigades) regard ISIS as ignorant nihilists and want to have nothing to do with them.

        Your thesis about a Shia + Sunni conflict driving the wave of migration into Europe is, simply, flawed.

        Its utter nonsence, in fact.

        Moreover, Shia and Sunni have lived amongst each other, largely, in peace during that 1400 years. Prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, most suburbs of Baghdad were mixed and a significant proportion of families shared a dual Shia + Sunni tradition.


        Rj H 13 Aug 2015 10:42

        There are some good and bad points to all this as demonstrated on this comments thread. There seems to be no real consensus and blame is shifted from one side to the other (whether political, social, class or economic). The only thing we (indigenous population) might all agree upon is; upon stepping back and looking at the current state of the UK (formally Great Britain) most of us will come to the conclusion that something has gone wrong and the country and the UK is not enjoying good health. That fact alone should demonstrate that those in charge are not doing their jobs properly. Poor leadership across 40 years has damaged this country. A country that once governed FOR its people now governs contrary to the majority of its people's wishes. Those at the top are not capable (or indeed willing) to look out for those at the bottom. We as a population are being hit and abused by a government that cares only for the wealth and power of a select few. Never have so many been owed so much by so few. The government has reduced the people's voice to a hoarse whisper. We need to regain our voice and SHOUT back that we won't stand for this situation any longer.


        blueanchor rentierDEATHcult 13 Aug 2015 10:36

        "How is Islam responsible ...?".

        Aren't the battlelines across swathes of Islam's heartland in the Middle-East drawn up broadly on Sunni v Shia lines? For instance I don't think you'll find any Shia joining Isis. What you have now is an eruption of the Islamic sectarian dispute which has been running on and off for 1,400 years, and people are fleeing to escape it.


        musolen David Hicks 13 Aug 2015 10:35

        No, you're right, of course we don't, that's the point.

        One sided trade deals are negotiated with massive distortion favouring the big multinational corporations but listen to the IMF and all you hear is we have to 'open up our markets to enable free trade'.

        The US has more trade embargoes in place than any other nation and EU is close behind and the irony doesn't even register on the faces at IMF and World Bank trampling the world spreading their Neo-Liberal rubbish.

        My point was that to have capitalism, if you are an advocate of capitalism you have to accept those free movements of goods, money and people.

        Paul Torgerson Rob99 13 Aug 2015 10:35

        Well at least there is one person on here who has not swallowed the right wing xenophobic crap. But the right wing press is doing a great job of brain washing the populace. Examining the facts indicates a humanitarian problem that will not in any way disadvantage Europe even if they allow ALL these people to settle in Europe


        wasson Bicbiro 13 Aug 2015 10:34

        So you think if the UK minimum wage was lower than Poland they'd still come? I'm afraid I'm going to have to to disagree with you there bic. They come because they can earn in a week what they earn in 3 months in Poland. Simple as.


        rentierDEATHcult sludge 13 Aug 2015 10:32

        If you know anything about Lawrence of Arabia (since you brought him up), you would know that the British were collaborating against the Ottomans by inciting Arab tribes to revolt against them.

        The Ottoman state was seen as an Islamist bulwark against European colonialism, especially, British imperialism.

        So i'm not sure why you think the British would have undermined the Saudis and handed territories they had seized back to the Ottoman Turks - against whom the British were collaborating - (using the Saudis) !?

        You need to understand and embrace this part of recent British history. Because anyone that doesn't understand (or acknowledge) their history is not to be trusted with the present.


        bugiolacchi dragonpiwo 13 Aug 2015 10:28

        UK is not part of Shengen. Non-EU migrants who work, live, travel freely, and prosper in the rest of Europe need a visa to cross the few miles of water between us and the continent.

        As per the ID cards, every time they interview an 'illegal' immigrant, one of the reasons given for coming here is that it is the only country (in the world?) where one does no need to identify themselves when asked (a 'utility bill' my socks...) and can drive without a driving licence or car documentations with them, but to 'present' them later. A Christmas invitation if one wants to 'blend' in the background'. Again, a 'utility bill' as an idea.. hilarious!


        rentierDEATHcult sludge 13 Aug 2015 10:19

        The 'Gazzeteer of the Persian Gulf, Oman & Central Arabia' authored by John Gordon Lorimer has now been declassified by the British government and provides significant insight into the relationship between Abdulaziz al Saud and the British colonial authorities.

        The memoirs of HRP Dickson in his 1951 book "Kuwait and Her Neighbours" provides further details on how Britain supported the rise of the Saudi monarchy as de facto colonial agents of Pax Britannica.

        Dickson was British envoy to the Gulf emirates and an aide to British High Commissioner for Iraq - Sir Percy Cox

        Dickson recounts this exchange between Sir Percy and Abdelaziz al Saud during the conference in al-Aqeer in November 1922:

        The sultan of Najd, Abdelaziz al-Saud bowed his head before the British High Commissioner in Percy Cox's Iraq. His voice quavered, and then he started begging with humiliation: "Your grace are my father and you are my mother. I can never forget the debt I owe you. You made me and you held my hand, you elevated me and lifted me. I am prepared, at your beckoning, to give up for you now half of my kingdom…no, by Allah, I will give up all of my kingdom, if your grace commands me!"

        [Aug 12, 2015]The Macroeconomic Divide

        "...Too much of macro is ideologically driven conjecture, or worse. None of it rises to the level of demonstrated reliability necessary to ethically inform decision-making. Confronting that reality and the limits of the profession's knowledge and ability, and reining-in it's obsession to intervene in things it doesn't actually understand except at a political level - that will permit the profession to at long last begin to honor its highest ethical duty ... 'First, do no harm.'"
        Economist's View
        Paul Krugman:
        Trash Talk and the Macroeconomic Divide: ... In Lucas and Sargent, much is made of stagflation; the coexistence of inflation and high unemployment is their main, indeed pretty much only, piece of evidence that all of Keynesian economics is useless. That was wrong, but never mind; how did they respond in the face of strong evidence that their own approach didn't work?
        Such evidence wasn't long in coming. In the early 1980s the Federal Reserve sharply tightened monetary policy; it did so openly, with much public discussion, and anyone who opened a newspaper should have been aware of what was happening. The clear implication of Lucas-type models was that such an announced, well-understood monetary change should have had no real effect, being reflected only in the price level.
        In fact, however, there was a very severe recession - and a dramatic recovery once the Fed, again quite openly, shifted toward monetary expansion.
        These events definitely showed that Lucas-type models were wrong, and also that anticipated monetary shocks have real effects. But there was no reconsideration on the part of the freshwater economists; my guess is that they were in part trapped by their earlier trash-talking. Instead, they plunged into real business cycle theory (which had no explanation for the obvious real effects of Fed policy) and shut themselves off from outside ideas. ...

        RogerFox said...

        Both sides in this macro cat-fight have succeeded in demolishing the credibility of their opponents, at the expense of being demolished themselves - meaning none of them are left standing in the eyes of anyone except their own partisan groupies, who are well-represented on this site. That's nothing but good.

        Too much of macro is ideologically driven conjecture, or worse. None of it rises to the level of demonstrated reliability necessary to ethically inform decision-making. Confronting that reality and the limits of the profession's knowledge and ability, and reining-in it's obsession to intervene in things it doesn't actually understand except at a political level - that will permit the profession to at long last begin to honor its highest ethical duty ... 'First, do no harm.'

        RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RogerFox...

        Confronting that reality and the limits of the profession's knowledge and ability, and reining-in it's obsession to intervene in things it doesn't actually understand except at a political level - that will permit the profession to at long last begin to honor its highest ethical duty ... 'First, do no harm.'

        [That is some pretty ironic BS that you are totin' around. The profession does a very good job of NOT intervening in things that any one with half a brain should understand. How on earth do you think the 2008 financial crisis ever even happened? Economists could not intervene because they had black swans squatting on their hands, particularly those economist like Greenspan and Bernanke that were actually in a position to do something to prevent the crisis. Krugman wrote some articles warning about the risk, but undersold his case even to himself. Only Mike Stathis (an investments adviser and trader - not an economist) formally warned (in America's Financial Apocalypse: How to Profit from the Next Great Depression. 2006. ISBN 978-0-9755776-5-3) of the full scope of the coming disaster and that formal warning came a bit late and was almost entirely ignored. Nouriel Roubini (a.k.a. Doctor Doom), who is an economist, ran Stathis a close second on getting it correct. Dean Baker, also an economist, was in there too. It was entirely ignored by Greenspan and Bernanke, although I believe they knew what was going to happen but would rather clean up the mess than stop the party and get blamed for the fallout.

        After the crisis several economists recognized the scale of the necessary stimulus to get the economy back on track, but a world of idiots, some of whom you may know, precluded an adequate response to prevent prolonged high unemployment.

        Are you a market trader or just a rich man's tool? Anything else would make you just a plain ol' fool.]

        DrDick said in reply to RogerFox...

        "Both sides in this macro cat-fight have succeeded in demolishing the credibility of their opponents"

        You, on the other hand. never had any credibility to begin with.

        "Confronting that reality and the limits of the profession's knowledge and ability, and reining-in it's obsession to intervene in things it doesn't actually understand except at a political level"

        You might take your own advice, as it is evident that you know nothing about economics or policy.

        Peter K. said in reply to RogerFox...

        Partisan groupies? Nope. We're the objective ones in this discussion.

        Mr. Fox has no criteria upon which to judge and measure things, so of course he has no basis to criticize.

        "First do no harm." How can you tell that harm has been done when you don't believe in anything?

        You automatically believe that taking no action and the sin of omission is the better choice? But you have no basis on which to make that assumption.

        "First do no harm" when it comes to government policy is conservative propaganda.

        Paine said in reply to RogerFox...

        If rog refuses to entertain any notion of macro nautic efficacy

        He. Has taken his position
        And perhaps he ought to be left to
        sit on it
        as long as he likes

        However

        If he has a test of say Lerner's
        fiscal injections model he'd like to propose
        A test that if past would change is mind

        > Paine said in reply to Paine ...

        Cockney takes over
        when I sez his
        it comes out is

        RogerFox said in reply to Paine ...

        I don't have a dog in this fight - but I do know that it's dangerously irresponsible and unprofessional to offer advice, or act on it, unless there is adequate evidence to justify the opinion that the advice will not plausibly make the situation worse than it is otherwise destined to be. The compiled track record of all theories of macro demonstrate that none of them yet meet that test - and this ongoing internecine cat-fight has done much to reinforce that view IMO.

        Academics need to understand what real economy people who give advice professionally know very well - that an idea or theory could well be right and beneficial isn't enough to justify acting on it without proper consideration to the consequences should the approach prove to be wrong. Candidly assessing down-side risks seems to be anathema to all academics - almost as if they regard the entire matter as some sort of affront to their dignity.

        The Crash of '08 and the Crash of '29 both happened, with academic macro-mavens leading us straight into both of them - eyes wide shut. Better for everyone if they'd just kept their mouths shut too.

        pgl:

        "In the early 1980s the Federal Reserve sharply tightened monetary policy; it did so openly, with much public discussion, and anyone who opened a newspaper should have been aware of what was happening. The clear implication of Lucas-type models was that such an announced, well-understood monetary change should have had no real effect, being reflected only in the price level.In fact, however, there was a very severe recession - and a dramatic recovery once the Fed, again quite openly, shifted toward monetary expansion. These events definitely showed that Lucas-type models were wrong, and also that anticipated monetary shocks have real effects."

        Note Krugman is referring to the 2nd Volcker monetary restraint which happened under Reagan's watch. Rusty needs to get his calendar out as he thinks this was all Carter. Actually Volcker was following the advise of JohnH. How did the early 1980's work out for workers?

        Back in 1982/3 I heard some economist seriously saying that this recession was due to some notion that people still had high expected inflation. When I asked them WTF - they response was the Reagan deficits.

        Yes macroeconomics confuses some people terribly. Look at a lot of the comments here for how confused some people get.

        Paine said in reply to pgl...

        Confused or partisan ?

        Egmont Kakarot-Handtke said...

        No divide
        Comment on 'The Macroeconomic Divide'

        Keynes's employment function was indeed incomplete (2012). So far, Lucas/Sargent had a point. But the NAIRU expectation-wish-wash was even worse. So far, Krugman has a point. The deeper reason is that economics not only has no valid employment theory but that it is a failed science.

        Neither the loudspeakers of the profession nor the representative economists of the various schools have a clue about how the actual economy works. What unites the camps is scientific incompetence.*

        Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

        References
        Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2012). Keynes's Employment Function and the Gratuitous Phillips Curve Desaster. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2130421: 1–19. URL http://ssrn.com/abstract=2130421

        *For details see the cross-references
        http://axecorg.blogspot.com/2015/07/incompetence-cross-references.html

        [Aug 10, 2015]Naryshkin: the US wants to grab the natural resources of other countries

        For this purpose, according to the speaker, America and leads the sanctions against Russia. The United States plans not only to maintain the dollar as the sole world currency, but I want to get as close to the economic resources of other countries in the world, according to the Chairman of the state Duma Sergey Naryshkin.

        "Actually, because of that, the U.S. has now published a new list of Russian organizations and individuals, giving instructions to their banks (and with them European) to work with our structures and look for any and all reasons," he said in his article published in "Rossiyskaya Gazeta".

        Naryshkin believes that America "stops to help even the existence of global "printing press". "Do not save and complete control over NATO, wiretapping and blackmail "League" of European Union. The colonizers "model of the XXI century" - all this is not enough. The main goal is to assign to American jurisdiction global monopolies, and to maintain his influence on the financial system of the world, to stay here the only Potentate," said Naryshkin.

        [Aug 10, 2015] Big myth that Yanukovych was pro-Russian

        karl1haushofer, August 8, 2015 at 7:32 am
        "This is good to remember, because long before Maidan, every single government in "independent Ukraine" was a puppet of the West and incessantly plotting against Russia."

        Even Yanukovich government???

        Moscow Exile, August 8, 2015 at 8:24 am
        Big myth that Yanukovych was pro-Russian.

        He was pro-Viktor Yanukovych.

        And Putin, they say, can't stand him: never could.

        At least, that's what a man who rods the blocked drains at the Kremlin Palace told me.

        This person, Elizabeth Pond, believes that "the reasons why Putin can't stand Yanukovich are: First, Yanukovich wasn't smart enough not to kill the goose while he was pocketing golden eggs, and second, Yanukovich had the effrontery to play off Russia and the EU for two years".

        Medvedev used to suck-hole up to Yanukovych though:

        Well he would, wouldn't he?

        marknesop, August 8, 2015 at 11:14 am
        It often seemed that Putin could barely restrain himself from being openly impatient with Yanukovych, and he seemed to me (just a personal opinion, unsupported by anything analytical) to consider Yanukovych a provincial clod not a great deal different from Yeltsin. For his part, Yanukovych appeared thoroughly committed to the EU Association agreement and subsequent EU membership – which probably would have happened quite briskly, had Ukraine not been shattered by war and assuming it remained intact – even going so far as to hold that private and semi-secret meeting (in a theatre or something, wasn't it?) that we learned of via our talented researcher Peter, in which he allegedly raged at his government that Ukraine was irrevocably on an EU course and he would have the guts of anyone who did not get on board the plan. It seems very ironic now to observe that had the west not pulled the rug out from under Yanukovych – in a display of overconfidence that is so typical as to constitute the default – by insisting that Tymoshenko be freed as a condition, then compounding the error by pulling the trigger on a violent coup, there is every reason to imagine they would have gotten the whole of Ukraine, including Crimea, none the worse for wear.

        [Aug 10, 2015]The U.S. Is Destroying Europe

        zerohedge.com

        There are two ways to win, at any game: One is by improving one's own performance. The other is by weakening the performances by all of one's competitors. The United States is now relying almost entirely upon the latter type of strategy.

        [Aug 09, 2015] Seven countries near bankruptcy

        Aug 08, 2015 | usatoday.com

        Moody's Investors' Service rates seven countries Caa1 or worse, several tiers lower than Ba1, which still carries a significant credit risk. These countries are approaching or have narrowly escaped bankruptcy. Ukraine is rated Ca, which is currently the lowest credit rating of any country reviewed by Moody's.

        ... ... ...

        Ukraine

        > Moody's credit rating: Ca
        > Moody's outlook: Negative
        > 2015 Gov't debt (pct. of GDP): 94.1%
        > 2015 GDP per capita (PPP): $8,278

        Ukraine's conflict with Russia over its annexation of Crimea continues to fuel the country's financial problems. While the IMF approved Ukraine's debt restructuring plan in March, Ukraine has the worst credit rating of any country reviewed, downgraded this year from Caa3 to Ca, the second lowest possible level. Creditors can expect a 35% to 65% recovery rate on loans issued by the country. According to Moody's, "The likelihood of a distressed exchange, and hence a default on government debt taking place, is virtually 100%."

        The same day that Moody's issued the downgrade, the National Bank of Ukraine announced the establishment of the Financial Stability Council. According to Governor of the National Bank of Ukraine Valeriia Gonatreva, the Council's function will be to "take a comprehensive and systemic approach to identify and mitigate the risks threatening the stability of the banking and financial systems of the country."

        [Aug 09, 2015] The main points of this Gorbulin-Poroshenko Plan

        marknesop.wordpress.com

        yalensis, August 7, 2015 at 2:54 pm

        Op-ed by Sergei Markov, a Russian political analyst who is considered to be close to the views of the Kremlin:

        http://rusnext.ru/recent_opinions/1438977256

        According to Markov, Kiev was only interested in the first part of the Minsk Accords, namely in a panic to stop counter-offensive of Novorossiya army, after their debacle at Debaltsevo.

        But they have zero interest in carrying out the rest of the accords.

        Plus, according to Markov, Kiev is under instructions from their American masters, to continue the war at all costs.
        According to Markov, Kiev is actually carrying out a plan called the "Gorbulin-Poroshenko Plan", and I googled Gorbulin, but couldn't get any more information, so I don't know who this person is.

        But the main points of this Gorbulin-Poroshenko Plan are said to be:

        1. Kiev does not take on any (Minsk) obligations which involve peace-making moves.
        2. Full blockade (of Donbass).
        3. Continue artillery shelling of residential areas of Donbass, kill as many civilians as possible.
        4. This in order to make life unbearable in Donbass.
        5. The goal is to turn the residents against their leaders, in DPR and LPR.
        6. Weaken Russia with sanctions.
        7. Planning a military blitzkrieg against Donbass, on the model of the attack of Croatian army against Serbian Krajina.
        8. NATO will station troops in Kharkov, Zaporozhie and Dnipropetrovsk.
        9. NATO will beef up Ukrainian army and prepare for fatal strike against Donbass.
        10. The police state/dictatorship in Ukraine will be strengthened.

        marknesop, August 7, 2015 at 5:45 pm

        Volodymyr (Ukraine has to spell it differently so they can all high-five each other, the way the British deliberately misspell "tire") Gorbulin is the former National Defense and Security Council (NDSC) Secretary, now a personal adviser to Poroshenko. Looks a right Himmler type.

        [Aug 09, 2015] The intention of installing Gaidar in a position of power in Ukraine is to infuriate Russia

        Moscow Exile, August 8, 2015 at 3:11 am
        Мария Гайдар отказалась от российского гражданства

        Maria Gaidar renounces Russian citizenship

        On Friday, August 7, Maria Gaidar, the newly created assistant to the Odessa Region governor, Mikhail Saakashvili, wrote a statement renouncing her Russian citizenship.

        "I do not know when this might take place: it is just a formality that I was ready for and I wrote the statement", she told reporters.

        Up to then, Gaidar had insisted that she was not going to voluntarily give up her Russian citizenship. And if she was deprived of it, then it would be a "tragic moment".

        This week, Ukrainian President Poroshenko personally handed her a Ukrainian citizen's passport, Gaidar thereupon stating that she was ready "to share the fate of the Ukrainian people".

        It seems that this political whore's stance changes as rapidly as does a real whore's in response to her clients requests.

        yalensis, August 8, 2015 at 3:25 am
        I don't think that Maria is actually being a whore.

        I think this is what she truly believes, and she is willng to take this big risk (losing her Russian passport) for what she believes in.
        Which is NATO, Bandera, and the American Way of Life.

        Besides, all of this has been brewing ever since August of 2008.

        Jen, August 8, 2015 at 4:53 am
        I'm thinking that Maria Gaidar, like Kurt of Lemberg, lives in a parallel fantasy world and does not realise the full import of what she is doing in renouncing Russian citizenship. Perhaps she half-expects Moscow to refuse or denounce her renunciation and make her into a martyr, in which case the right thing for Moscow to do is to publicly accept her disavowal and say her Russian citizenship will be annulled in due course.
        yalensis, August 8, 2015 at 5:05 pm
        Maria is making a desperate wager. Like Pushkin's Hermann, she is going all-in, betting everything that she has, on 3 cards, which she received in a mystic vision.

        She is wagering that Russia, an ancient and respectable nation of 150 million people, will collapse; and that her new Motherland, a johnny-come-lately nation of 20 years and some 40 million souls, most of them unwilling participants, will flourish, in the arms of NATO..

        Instead, it is more likely that Ukraine will dissolve into several parts.

        Maria's former boss and lover, Governor NIkita Belykh, will not join her in this illogical wager. He is a kreakl too, but is more of a realist, he knows that the 3 cards are just a cruel scam. This is why he (Nikita) remarked that Maria still has not achieved her final state of self-realization.

        kirill, August 8, 2015 at 4:07 am

        Good riddance. The rest of the liberast 3% should pack their bags and bugger on off. Fifth column degenerate trash.
        marknesop, August 8, 2015 at 9:43 am
        As I mentioned previously, I devoutly hope she does indeed share the fate of the Ukrainian people. Cats like her always land on their feet, though, and she'll bug out before things go completely sideways. The difference is that now she will not be able to go back to Russia. Well, maybe not – Ukrainian citizens are still able to travel to Russia at will. But she will have foresworn benefits of Russian citizenship that she will not be able to get back. I reckon she will head off to the Shining City On A Hill for eventual residence, where she will doubtless be received with the ecstasy traditionally reserved for "Russian dissidents".
        ThatJ, August 8, 2015 at 12:13 pm
        The intention of installing Gaidar in a position of power in Ukraine is to infuriate Russia, but it will backfire: she will be a reminder of liberal treachery and failure.

        [Aug 09, 2015] US pledges $68mn NATO investment into Estonian military

        marknesop, August 8, 2015 at 9:28 am
        Loathing for Russians is cultivated and encouraged in Estonia by western governments and media; disparaging remarks about Russians are given wide and approving coverage, and if there are any of a more reasonable tone they are unreported. The same throughout the Baltics, really. For some reason, Washington regards them as a highly-important strategic area, probably because it is the most likely trigger for a NATO Article-5 intervention. But, as usual, they only do half the planning, and it is all on the military side. Let's build lots of bases and seed the ground with lots of stored military equipment to fight the Russian bear – but let's do fuck-all to stimulate the economy or compensate the region for loss of a major trading partner. Note the two headlines in the sidebar; "EPP: EU Should Tell Russia, We Are Ready to go to War", and "Latvian PM: If Russia Attacks NATO, the Treaty Will be Enforced". Reorientation of trade flows in the region will further hurt the economies of the Baltics, as well as Black Sea ports.

        The effect, then, of Washington's endless meddling in the region will lead to a further and increasing exodus from the region of its population, fed up with the constant scare tactics coupled with economic contraction or stagnation caused by political maneuvering. And you know what? Washington doesn't care. It is gambling everything on being able to grow a regional war and bring Russia to battle while there is still a chance there might be something to save for American trade later.

        [Aug 09, 2015] Hillary Clinton State Department Emails, Mexico Energy Reform, and the Revolving Door

        Notable quotes:
        "... By Steve Horn, a Madison, WI-based Research Fellow for DeSmogBlog and a freelance investigative journalist. He previously was a reporter and researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy. Originally published at DeSmogBlog . ..."
        "... Originally stored on a private server , with Clinton and her closest advisors using the server and private accounts, the emails confirm Clinton's State Department helped to break state-owned company Pemex 's (Petroleos Mexicanos) oil and gas industry monopoly in Mexico, opening up the country to international oil and gas companies. And two of the Coordinators helping to make it happen, both of whom worked for Clinton, now work in the private sector and stand to gain financially from the energy reforms they helped create. ..."
        "... The appearance of the emails also offers a chance to tell the deeper story of the role the Clinton-led State Department and other powerful actors played in opening up Mexico for international business in the oil and gas sphere. That story begins with a trio. ..."
        "... David Goldwyn , who was the first International Energy Coordinator named by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2009, sits at the center of the story. As revealed by DeSmog, the State Department redacted the entire job description document for the Coordinator role. ..."
        "... The emails show that, on at least one instance, Goldwyn also used his private " [email protected] " (Goldwyn Global Strategies) email address for State Department business. ..."
        "... It remains unclear if he used his private or State Department email address on other instances, as only his name appears on the other emails. But Cheryl Mills, a top aide to Secretary Clinton at the time, initiated the email that he responded to on his private account. ..."
        naked capitalism
        By Steve Horn, a Madison, WI-based Research Fellow for DeSmogBlog and a freelance investigative journalist. He previously was a reporter and researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy. Originally published at DeSmogBlog.

        Emails released on July 31 by the U.S. State Department reveal more about the origins of energy reform efforts in Mexico. The State Department released them as part of the once-a-month rolling release schedule for emails generated by former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, now a Democratic presidential candidate.

        Originally stored on a private server, with Clinton and her closest advisors using the server and private accounts, the emails confirm Clinton's State Department helped to break state-owned company Pemex's (Petroleos Mexicanos) oil and gas industry monopoly in Mexico, opening up the country to international oil and gas companies. And two of the Coordinators helping to make it happen, both of whom worked for Clinton, now work in the private sector and stand to gain financially from the energy reforms they helped create.

        The appearance of the emails also offers a chance to tell the deeper story of the role the Clinton-led State Department and other powerful actors played in opening up Mexico for international business in the oil and gas sphere. That story begins with a trio.

        The Trio

        David Goldwyn, who was the first International Energy Coordinator named by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2009, sits at the center of the story. As revealed by DeSmog, the State Department redacted the entire job description document for the Coordinator role.

        Goldwyn now runs an oil and gas industry consulting firm called Goldwyn Global Strategies, works of counsel as an industry attorney at the law firm Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, and works as a fellow at the industryfunded think tanks Atlantic Council and Brookings Institution.

        The emails show that, on at least one instance, Goldwyn also used his private "[email protected] " (Goldwyn Global Strategies) email address for State Department business.

        It remains unclear if he used his private or State Department email address on other instances, as only his name appears on the other emails. But Cheryl Mills, a top aide to Secretary Clinton at the time, initiated the email that he responded to on his private account.

        [Aug 08, 2015] France to pay Russia under $1.31 billion over warships

        Notable quotes:
        "... In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. ..."
        "... The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them. ..."
        marknesop.wordpress.com

        PARIS (Reuters) - The total cost to France of reimbursing Russia for cancelling two warship contracts will be less than 1.2 billion euros ($1.31 billion), French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Thursday.

        1. France says 'several' nations interested in Mistral warships AFP
        2. Hollande, Putin reach agreement on cancelled warship deal AFP
        3. Russia agrees compensation deal with France over Mistral warships AFP
        4. 'Extremely difficult' for France to sell Mistral warships: experts AFP
        5. France, Russia reach Mistral compensation deal: RIA Reuters

        Le Drian said on radio RTL the initial price for the two Mistral helicopter carrier warships had been 1.2 billion euros, but France will have to pay less than that because the ships were not been finished and the contract was suspended.

        "Talks between President Putin and President Francois Hollande have concluded yesterday. There is no further dispute on the matter," he said.

        He added that the discussions had been held in an amiable way and that there were no further penalties to pay over the contract, which was canceled because of Russia's role in the Ukraine conflict.

        "Russia will be reimbursed euro for euro for the financial commitments taken for these ships," he said, adding that the ships are now fully owned by the French state.

        In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.

        Le Drian said that France, whose navy already has three Mistral warships, would look for other buyers for the two ships.

        "I am convinced there will be other buyers. Already a number of countries have expressed an interest for these two ships," he said.

        Canada and Singapore have been mentioned as potential buyers. So has Egypt, which has just bought French fighter jets and naval frigates.

        The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them.

        DCNS is 35 percent owned by defense group Thales and 64 percent by the French state.

        France last year suspended the Mistral contract, dating from 2011, after coming under pressure from its Western allies over Russia's role in the Ukraine crisis.

        The long-discussed French sale was Moscow's first major Western arms purchase in the two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union. Nicolas Sarkozy, who was France's president when the order was struck, had hailed the signing of the contract as evidence the Cold War was over.

        (Reporting by Geert De Clercq, editing by Larry King)

        [Aug 08, 2015] France to pay Russia under $1.31 billion over warships

        Notable quotes:
        "... In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. ..."
        "... The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them. ..."
        marknesop.wordpress.com

        PARIS (Reuters) - The total cost to France of reimbursing Russia for cancelling two warship contracts will be less than 1.2 billion euros ($1.31 billion), French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Thursday.

        1. France says 'several' nations interested in Mistral warships AFP
        2. Hollande, Putin reach agreement on cancelled warship deal AFP
        3. Russia agrees compensation deal with France over Mistral warships AFP
        4. 'Extremely difficult' for France to sell Mistral warships: experts AFP
        5. France, Russia reach Mistral compensation deal: RIA Reuters

        Le Drian said on radio RTL the initial price for the two Mistral helicopter carrier warships had been 1.2 billion euros, but France will have to pay less than that because the ships were not been finished and the contract was suspended.

        "Talks between President Putin and President Francois Hollande have concluded yesterday. There is no further dispute on the matter," he said.

        He added that the discussions had been held in an amiable way and that there were no further penalties to pay over the contract, which was canceled because of Russia's role in the Ukraine conflict.

        "Russia will be reimbursed euro for euro for the financial commitments taken for these ships," he said, adding that the ships are now fully owned by the French state.

        In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.

        Le Drian said that France, whose navy already has three Mistral warships, would look for other buyers for the two ships.

        "I am convinced there will be other buyers. Already a number of countries have expressed an interest for these two ships," he said.

        Canada and Singapore have been mentioned as potential buyers. So has Egypt, which has just bought French fighter jets and naval frigates.

        The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them.

        DCNS is 35 percent owned by defense group Thales and 64 percent by the French state.

        France last year suspended the Mistral contract, dating from 2011, after coming under pressure from its Western allies over Russia's role in the Ukraine crisis.

        The long-discussed French sale was Moscow's first major Western arms purchase in the two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union. Nicolas Sarkozy, who was France's president when the order was struck, had hailed the signing of the contract as evidence the Cold War was over.

        (Reporting by Geert De Clercq, editing by Larry King)

        [Aug 08, 2015] France to pay Russia under $1.31 billion over warships

        Notable quotes:
        "... In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. ..."
        "... The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them. ..."
        marknesop.wordpress.com

        PARIS (Reuters) - The total cost to France of reimbursing Russia for cancelling two warship contracts will be less than 1.2 billion euros ($1.31 billion), French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Thursday.

        1. France says 'several' nations interested in Mistral warships AFP
        2. Hollande, Putin reach agreement on cancelled warship deal AFP
        3. Russia agrees compensation deal with France over Mistral warships AFP
        4. 'Extremely difficult' for France to sell Mistral warships: experts AFP
        5. France, Russia reach Mistral compensation deal: RIA Reuters

        Le Drian said on radio RTL the initial price for the two Mistral helicopter carrier warships had been 1.2 billion euros, but France will have to pay less than that because the ships were not been finished and the contract was suspended.

        "Talks between President Putin and President Francois Hollande have concluded yesterday. There is no further dispute on the matter," he said.

        He added that the discussions had been held in an amiable way and that there were no further penalties to pay over the contract, which was canceled because of Russia's role in the Ukraine conflict.

        "Russia will be reimbursed euro for euro for the financial commitments taken for these ships," he said, adding that the ships are now fully owned by the French state.

        In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.

        Le Drian said that France, whose navy already has three Mistral warships, would look for other buyers for the two ships.

        "I am convinced there will be other buyers. Already a number of countries have expressed an interest for these two ships," he said.

        Canada and Singapore have been mentioned as potential buyers. So has Egypt, which has just bought French fighter jets and naval frigates.

        The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them.

        DCNS is 35 percent owned by defense group Thales and 64 percent by the French state.

        France last year suspended the Mistral contract, dating from 2011, after coming under pressure from its Western allies over Russia's role in the Ukraine crisis.

        The long-discussed French sale was Moscow's first major Western arms purchase in the two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union. Nicolas Sarkozy, who was France's president when the order was struck, had hailed the signing of the contract as evidence the Cold War was over.

        (Reporting by Geert De Clercq, editing by Larry King)

        [Aug 08, 2015] France to pay Russia under $1.31 billion over warships

        Notable quotes:
        "... In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. ..."
        "... The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them. ..."
        marknesop.wordpress.com

        PARIS (Reuters) - The total cost to France of reimbursing Russia for cancelling two warship contracts will be less than 1.2 billion euros ($1.31 billion), French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Thursday.

        1. France says 'several' nations interested in Mistral warships AFP
        2. Hollande, Putin reach agreement on cancelled warship deal AFP
        3. Russia agrees compensation deal with France over Mistral warships AFP
        4. 'Extremely difficult' for France to sell Mistral warships: experts AFP
        5. France, Russia reach Mistral compensation deal: RIA Reuters

        Le Drian said on radio RTL the initial price for the two Mistral helicopter carrier warships had been 1.2 billion euros, but France will have to pay less than that because the ships were not been finished and the contract was suspended.

        "Talks between President Putin and President Francois Hollande have concluded yesterday. There is no further dispute on the matter," he said.

        He added that the discussions had been held in an amiable way and that there were no further penalties to pay over the contract, which was canceled because of Russia's role in the Ukraine conflict.

        "Russia will be reimbursed euro for euro for the financial commitments taken for these ships," he said, adding that the ships are now fully owned by the French state.

        In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.

        Le Drian said that France, whose navy already has three Mistral warships, would look for other buyers for the two ships.

        "I am convinced there will be other buyers. Already a number of countries have expressed an interest for these two ships," he said.

        Canada and Singapore have been mentioned as potential buyers. So has Egypt, which has just bought French fighter jets and naval frigates.

        The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them.

        DCNS is 35 percent owned by defense group Thales and 64 percent by the French state.

        France last year suspended the Mistral contract, dating from 2011, after coming under pressure from its Western allies over Russia's role in the Ukraine crisis.

        The long-discussed French sale was Moscow's first major Western arms purchase in the two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union. Nicolas Sarkozy, who was France's president when the order was struck, had hailed the signing of the contract as evidence the Cold War was over.

        (Reporting by Geert De Clercq, editing by Larry King)

        [Aug 08, 2015] Russia found good way to get even with Netherlands

        Notable quotes:
        "... The surprising thing is, as the article points out, of the flowers which Netherlands exports, not all of them are even produced locally (in Holland). A surprising number of the flowers come from third countries, such as Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Kenya. ..."
        marknesop.wordpress.com

        yalensis, August 4, 2015 at 2:04 pm

        Russia found good way to get even with Netherlands:

        Starting 10 August, Russia will start limiting import of cut flowers from Netherlands.
        The pretext is that all cut flowers from Netherlands must go through phyto-sanitary inspection before being admitted into the country.

        In Russia, a whopping 90% of all cut flowers are imported. Of this, Europe supplies 40.5%; Netherlands by itself 38.5%. Hence, the new rule is sure to hit the Dutch in their pocketbooks.

        The surprising thing is, as the article points out, of the flowers which Netherlands exports, not all of them are even produced locally (in Holland). A surprising number of the flowers come from third countries, such as Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Kenya.

        Recently Russia started forming direct ties with those countries and importing the flowers directly, bypassing Netherlands. This process is expected to continue.

        Already, Ecuador is pushing out Netherlands in the Russian market for flowers.

        Even China is getting in on the game, starting to supply some of the voracious Russian appetite for cut flowers. Given all these sources of the flowers, Russian consumers are not likely to suffer a deficit of flowers, the article concludes.

        [Aug 08, 2015] The people who demand unrestricted access to Internet regardless its source implicitly belief that those who pitch them information are telling them the truth

        I think people just believe that they can determine whether the information is valid or is propaganda themselves, although they probably overestimating their abilities...
        marknesop.wordpress.com

        marknesop, August 4, 2015 at 11:46 am

        Not hard to see where they're going with that – the U.S. State Department enjoyed such dramatic success with the earlier events in the "Arab Spring" that it took even them by surprise. Unfortunately for them, they built a template of it and tried to use the same formula too repetitively, and without spontaneity it failed to achieve the same results.

        In most countries, people angrily defend a completely free and open internet, with no government oversight or censorship – a comment under the Facebook comments to that article reflects this attitude. I have to pity that, because I wish we still lived in that kind of world, but a core truth is this – the people who demand unrestricted access to information regardless its source are operating under the unspoken belief that those who pitch them information are telling them the truth.

        Just make your play, honestly and openly, and let me make up my own mind. In such an environment, the west would say, come on over here, baby; it's fine. We got chicken-fried steak and Kentucky bourbon, all you want, and potato chips and Doctor Pepper. And Russia says, why you wanna put that crap in your mouth when you know you'll have an ass five axe-handles wide by sunup tomorrow? And you say, hey, that's right. Think I'll just stay here with my kvas, and a salad.

        But it's not like that. The State Department uses social media to get a mob going and then to keep it building, by firing tweets at you so fast you can't think. Usually it starts with an outrageous incident, such as a riot policeman beating a defenseless student or protester – remember that kreakle female student back during the short-lived "White Revolution" whose thing was to put on an agonized expression when being restrained by police so the photo would suggest she was having her arm torn out by the roots? The same one caught on video taking a rock out of her bag and throwing it at police, yeah, that's the one; I forget her name now. Then another tweet will come in, saying, brothers, come to Taganka right now, they're dragging the bureaucrats out of their offices like Navalny promised, we need everybody here now and so on and so on. Complete stage-managing of the fray using phony incidents and successes to inject a spirit of unstoppable momentum. Those who argue for an unregulated access to information do not ever imagine that kind of scenario.

        I'm for an unregulated internet myself. But I have all the time in the world to sift through information and decide what is likely to be true and what is not. Well, sort of; I mean, I'm busy, but nobody is running a push campaign here involving, say, an assault by the Ukrainian forces on Crimea which is not happening. But what if the State Department managed to shut off local broadcasts which would reveal that as a lie, and all the English-speaking networks started running with a breaking story at the same time? I'd believe it, of course I would, so would you. And our ability to reason and think clearly would be affected by it. We'd look for corroboration, but if we couldn't find anything we'd have little choice but to assume it was true. And that's how the political side of the USA uses the internet.

        [Aug 08, 2015]In order to be an imperialist power, the country should have a very powerful financial sector

        spartacus, August 6, 2015 at 2:15 am
        " I suspect that the simple scale of the dollar value of trading of financial claims on things – trading in which London and New York are dominant – contributes more to the maintenance of the dollar reserve system than you are proposing."

        I think so too. One of the necessary conditions for a country to be imperialistic is for it to have ample amounts of financial capital at its disposal. Because I have red commie tendencies, I will point out that Hilferding and Lenin wrote extensively on this subject and even if their works are now outdated, they still give interesting insights on how financial capital is crucial for a country with imperialist tendencies. If anybody is interested Lenin's writings on imperialism, they are available here:

        https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

        This is the reason I find it funny when people speak of "Russian imperialism". In order to be an imperialist power, Russia should, at least, have a very powerful financial sector. And it does not, at least not one that can be compared to the magnitude of the US financial sector. When you look at the list of world's biggest banks, you can see that Russian banks are actually pretty small when compared to their US counterparts.

        http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2014/01/31/the-100-biggest-banks-in-the-world/

        [Aug 08, 2015] Russia's Stalinist Diplospeak

        Interesting way to spent taxpayers money to re-invent methods that West is practicing for centuries. Just looks at BBC reporting to find example of tricks described below. Or our unforgettable Jen Psaki.
        "...I have analyzed all official communications of the Russian Foreign Ministry from September 2011 to June 2015, indexed them, and run them through a specific linguistic software called Voyant Tools, based on Stanford Natural Language processing toolkit. The total database consists of 2.5 million words, and 21,765 documents. Here's what I found."

        Self-questioning

        Stalin's classic essay "Marxism and the Issues of Language Studies" gives a perfect example of this style: "The question arises, what have changed in Russian language since the October Revolution? The vocabulary shifted significantly, in a sense that it got amended with a large number of words and idioms."

        The question here only "arose" because Stalin himself raised it.

        Metonymy

        As developed in the Stalinist style, this is when the speaker seamlessly assigns a much broader and encompassing name to refer to a specific thing or constituency. Some pure examples remain in the Soviet archives, such as this statement from 1976:

        "Those forces in the West are capable of any deception method to complicate the issue of the termination of the arms race."

        "Those forces in the West" refers to the American military-industrial complex but note how much more ambiguously menacing the reformulation is. "Forces" suggests a multitude with global reach.

        Proactive Commentary

        This is when the speaker says something even if no one is seeking his opinion. Overreaction laden with clichés of ideology and emotive abuse is the defining feature. A classic form of such commentary was an unsolicited "reaction to anti-Soviet hysteria in country X".

        The following quote, for instance, is taken from a 1977 Soviet communique:

        "In China, (we observe) a widening scale of the anti-Soviet campaign that is maintained by propagandistic institutions and officials at all levels. Chinese press and other media distributes daily obvious lies and slanders in regard to the USSR, those are not much different from imperialist propaganda that has long discredited itself with the peoples of the world."

        Now here's one by Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich, reacting to a U.S. State Department report on human rights in June 2015, which of course contained criticism of Russian human rights abuses:

        "The report published on June 25 by The Department of State of the USA on the conditions of human rights in the world, as with all previous opuses, is plagued with politicized remarks and rude ideological stock phrases. The document is nothing more than a serial specimen of American mentorship and lecturing manner in the area of human rights. This manner is grounded on a false logic of US's infallibility and perceived problems other states have on the issue."

        In neither case was Moscow's response necessary. It was freely offered, almost with a joyous expectancy of being able to get its "retaliation in first."

        Criminal Vocabulary

        The Russian Civil War birthed a new gangland vocabulary for everyday use to denigrate real and perceived opponents of the Soviet order. It transcended Stalin's own style to amplify the underlying mood of belligerence, if not mercilessness.

        In the 1930s, the Stalinist criminal vocabulary became the subject of a famous satire, Golden Calf by Ilia Ilf and Eugeny Petrov. The central character, Ostap Bender, is a talented adventurist who tries to make his fortune on the edge of NEP (the New Economic Policy, which constituted a temporary turn back to capitalism in the USSR from 1921 to 1930). In one of the episodes, Bender travels on the train with a group of Soviet journalists whose verbal resources are maximally constrained by the new rules on revolutionary reportage. Bender creates a dictionary of over 100 clichéd constructions which perfectly comply with the Party's editorial standards for journalism, he successfully sells it to the bored journalists who can now use it as boilerplate.

        ***

        Today, Vladimir Putin has resurrected Stalin's four foundations of style and encouraged his diplomats and government officials to employ them with the same frequency and purpose as his Soviet forbears.

        I have analyzed all official communications of the Russian Foreign Ministry from September 2011 to June 2015, indexed them, and run them through a specific linguistic software called Voyant Tools, based on Stanford Natural Language processing toolkit. The total database consists of 2.5 million words, and 21,765 documents. Here's what I found.

        Self-Questioning

        Self-questioning is barely present in Foreign Ministry statements until fall 2012, with the occasional use of a formulation such as, "Some partners of Russia question that…" But starting in 2013, when Putin took a harder stance against the West, self-questioning became much more frequent. The method skyrocketed in 2014, reaching 188 total uses, most commonly deployed by the nameless "press statements" on behalf of the Foreign Ministry, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and Foreign Ministry Spokesman Alexander Lukashevich.

        Official press statements are much less speculative and rarely employ Stalin's favorite tool: a meager 25.

        Lavrov is a great fan of self-questioning. He holds 66 of 189 uses of the formulation "the question arises" and its manifold variations.

        The winner of self-questioning, however, is Lukashevich, with 101 uses, but some of his briefings and statements just repeat Lavrov's earlier sentiments.

        Metonymy

        Likewise, metonymy has made a comeback. Consider this comment by Lavrov in his November 2013 Address to the State Duma:

        "Some countries are guided with an opportunistic interest to circumvent the global limits on the use of force in international relations… It's obvious for us that some countries exercise the power they possess more frequently and tend to redraw the guiding principles of international relations."

        He means only one country.

        Since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, however, the frequency of Stalinist metonymy grows. "Western partners," "hegemonic force," "some country that imagines itself a policeman of the world"-all these become have become frequent stand-ins for "White House" or "United States."

        Criminal Vocabulary

        Putin himself is famous for deploying Bender-like formulations. He uses "whack" like an Italian mobster when he refers to what Russia will do to terrorists. Another favorite: "If my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather," used to derisively dismiss what he considers a non-possibility, such as the capacity for the post-Yanukovych Ukrainian transitional government to perform.

        Typically, professional diplomats don't resort to gangland jargon, but in Putin's Russia, the exceptions are subtly smuggled in.

        For instance, one Foreign Ministry briefing on June 29, 2012, read, in Russian, "Americans prefer to pull down their allies rather than take their interests into account." To the untrained reader, this sounds hostile but ho-hum. However, the usage here of the verb, opustit ("to pull down"), in the Russian criminal argot refers to homosexual rape. Opustit, in fact, refers to how tougher inmates make weaker ones their "bitches."

        Proactive Commentary

        When Russia abandoned its Soviet identity in 1991, its Foreign Ministry's language changed accordingly. Diplomats attempted a sober neutrality and a more rational mode of communicating with the outside world. Until 2007, Russian diplomacy maintained a formal, if sometimes murky, style which rarely conveyed a single, unambiguous meaning. Moscow knew that its post-Soviet leaders would need wiggle room to dodge and obfuscate; in a democracy, climb-downs from original "official positions" were inevitable in the course of engagement other countries.

        But in 2007, at the Munich Security Conference, Putin put aside this new mode of Russian "diplospeak." He presented the idea that the collapse of the USSR "was the largest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century." This was hardly unambiguous and signaled a calcification in the Russian view of recent history. Further, Putin blamed the West in seeking to humiliate Russia, thus wakening the "sleeping beasts" of the Soviet style.

        I was working in Russian media at the time and remember this grim return to form quite well.

        First, the vocabulary zombies crept back into conservative pro-government newspapers. The language again started to resemble the stochastic cocktail of Pravda, the old Party daily, as well the Benderist GoodFellas jargon. Today, these styles are everywhere.

        Take, for instance, this Foreign Ministry Press Department statement on Macedonia from last May:

        The news published by the Serbian media about the detention in Macedonia of some Montenegrin, who assisted the Kosovo Albanian extremists is a convincing proof of the plans run from outside that presume loosening the political situation in the country, trying to push it into the abyss of a color revolution. This is proof that Western organizers of such catastrophic scenarios prefer to exercise their proxy using the Ukraine, and now Macedonia, as citizens of those countries which, like Montenegro, are attracted by the lure of NATO. The more than obvious danger for Europe is now provoking chaos in the Balkans, spiraling conflict in the region, which has has not yet recovered from the bloodshed of the 1990s.

        The first sentence is 32 words in Russian! And note the context: Macedonians protested against corruption and the feebleness of their own government in countering it, with some calling for an end to Macedonian-Russian cooperation on a notoriously crooked gas pipe project. They also called for faster accession into NATO. Finally, the Foreign Ministry is actually reacting to Serbian press speculations about events in a neighboring country, rather than to any on-the-ground, factual information. This is the classic proactive commentary of the bad old days.

        I mentioned earlier that the thug's lexicon is particularly noisome to the Russian speaker. This is intentional because the Foreign Ministry, despite its remit, is actually communication to a domestic rather than international audience.

        To some extent, this irony can even be quantified.

        A data analysis I performed of Foreign Ministry communication from September 2011 to June 2015 shows that a mere 10 percent of the statements contains a direct call to action ("do something, change something"). Another 14 percent is suggestive ("it's time to think about…" or "our partners have to think about…"). This 24 percent can thus be viewed as written for a foreign audience.

        However, some official statements are "factual," such as the reporting on a meeting between Lavrov or his deputies with foreign officials. These constitute 18 percent of the total. Then there are those statements and interviews that attempt to "explain" Russian foreign policy, from global warming to the war in Ukraine. These statements are meant exclusively for Russians and are often untranslated into any other language. They constitute 75 percent of all Foreign Ministry communications. And sometimes the Russians they're geared toward are in fact other agents of the Putin regime.

        Consider this masterpiece published by Ministry on the day after former deputy prime minister and opposition leader Boris Nemtsov was murdered:

        We assume that support and protection of the human rights should be a goal rather than a tool of the political fight. In the European Council on Human Rights we oppose politicization of human rights and a compulsory export of standards that are typical for an isolated group of states as if those standards are global. It's unacceptable to exploit the human rights agenda to undermine the principles of the international laws and UN Charter, to substantiate the incursion with the internal affairs and violent scenarios of the solution of contradictions and arguments, establishment of economic sanctions. Such actions only deteriorate the situation in the "target" country and contribute to further violations of human rights.

        This statement was meant to explain Lavrov's participation in the UN Human Rights Conference in Geneva, taking place that week. The real ear for this denunciation of "politicized" human rights-i.e., human rights as they apply to Russia-is in fact the siloviki in the Kremlin. The Russian Foreign Ministry was telegraphing its loyalty to Moscow.

        Haifei Huang, a researcher from University of California Riverside, published a very interesting study last year, in which he explained the signaling theory of propaganda. In the modern world, he said, information is much less censored and restricted-but the institutions that engage in political communication must send "signals" to the superiors and subordinates. Also, they have to demonstrate that they are loyal purveyors of the propaganda wherever and whenever they are charged to distribute it.

        To the Western, democratic imagination, this sounds bizarre and redundant. Consider how odd it would be for the U.S. State Department to reaffirm its commitment to Barack Obama's foreign policies, which it is duty-bound to carry out in the first place. But under authoritarian regimes, public declarations of fealty, couched in the discourse of statecraft, are everyday occurrences. Under Stalin, professions of embracing the party line were daily occurrences. Putin has revived them.

        The problem, though, as Huang points out, is that signaling can reach everyone including those it's not intended to. The Foreign Ministry's messaging may show an unwavering line to Russians, but foreign embassies read and translate and disseminate these back to their capitals, and Western correspondents relay them in international newspapers. The impression given is that of an arrogant, thin-skinned and geopolitically psychotic nation, whose interests can only be misunderstood and inevitably transgressed.

        [Aug 08, 2015] Alliance between Ukrainian neo-Nazis and Russian fascist groups and individuals

        Aug 06, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

        yalensis, August 6, 2015 at 2:21 am

        Saker has interesting piece about the attempted alliance between Ukrainian neo-Nazis and Russian fascist groups and individuals.

        This was in reference to the July 25 demonstration of Right Sektor, Azov, et al, in support of Russian "political prisoners".

        A new group which promotes this "nationalist internationale" calls itself "Petr i Mazepa", they favor a reconciliation between Ukrainian and Russian fascists, and claim to represent "Russian nationalists" who also respect "Ukrainian nationalists".

        Saker goes on to discuss how the annual "Russian March" (of Russian nationalists, on 4 November) has a majority which is pro-Ukrainian junta.

        This is, they sided with Ukrainian Junta against Novorossiya. There is also a video of that Russian March, which shows that the majority of the parties taking part in it, had an anti-Novorossiyan position . But that fact is not very rare position: one of the organizers of Russian March, Denis Tyukin, said in 2014 that " all Russian nationalist youth is supporting Ukraine ". Tyukin, member of the National-Socialist party "Russkie" had been also in the demonstration of 25th of July in Kiev (image below).

        And it is not only Tykin, the head of the Russkie movement, Dmitry Dyomushkin, has called in the past for a "Slavic March" in Ukraine to express support for Ukrainian nationalists .

        This is interesting development, because it shows that a goodly segment of the Russian nationalist right, just like the liberals, are flocking to see Ukraine as their preferred model of nation-building!

        [Aug 08, 2015] U.S. As Corrupt As Russia, Says Former NSA Exec By: Vikas Shukla

        August 06, 2015 | valuewalk.com

        In: Politics, Russia 41 Comments

        Americans believe that Russia is a corrupt country where everyone from the president to regional governors to government officials are flourishing on bribes. Russia has developed corruption into a "fine art," says a book titled "Putin's Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia?" written by the University of Miami professor Karen Dawisha.

        U.S. fares far better than Russia on Corruption Perceptions Index

        In the absence of an efficient federal system, regional governors in Russia rule like mobsters. Moscow is also allegedly involved in the massive FIFA scandal. Americans and Europeans believe corruption in Russia is so widespread that when they imposed sanctions against Moscow following the annexation of Crimea, they also targeted "friends of Vladimir Putin" and rich oligarchs.

        John McCain has said in the past that Vladimir Putin rules by "corruption, repression, and violence." If you take a look at the Corruption Perceptions Index, the United States in ranked 17th while Russia comes at a distant 136th spot. Does that really mean the U.S. is far less corrupt than Russia? Probably not, says Jerome Israel, a former senior executive at NSA and the FBI.

        Jerome said in a column published in The Baltimore Sun that the legislation and behavior of the U.S. political class would open your eyes that the claims against Russia are hypocritical. For instance, last year's Cromnibus bill allows banks to undertake extremely risky investments. And if the banks suffer a huge loss, the American taxpayer gets the bill. Jerome says Congress has sold out the little guy to favor the K-Street lobbyists.

        Contrary to Russia, U.S. specializes in 'soft bribes'

        Another example is the trade pact currently under consideration by Congress. Details of the legislation are classified, and Americans don't know what's in it. Even a large number of lawmakers in Congress haven't read it. This is Soviet-style of lawmaking, says Jerome Israel.

        Recently, CNN reported that at least 78 members of Congress have their family members as federally registered lobbyists. According to congressional watchdog Legistrom, these lobbyists have lobbied contracts worth over $2 billion. While corruption and bribery are prevalent in Russia, the U.S. specializes in "soft bribes." It's like you take care of the lawmakers' families and they will take good care of you. These "pay-to-play" schemes make it hard to understand how American politicians are better than their Russian counterparts.

        Like this article? Sign up for our free newsletter to get articles delivered to your inbox

        [Jul 31, 2015] Moscow Must Burn Ukraines Christian Taliban Pledges Anti-Russian Crusade

        07/30/2015 | Zero Hedge

        "Like the majority of Ukrainian people, I think (the new leadership) is bad ... They steal a lot. When Yanukovich was stealing, that was bad. But these people are clearing up when the country is at war, so they are guilty on two counts. This is marauding."

        Those are the words of Dmytro Korchynsky, the commander of "Saint Mary", a volunteer battalion that, like Ukraine's official forces, is fighting to subdue the Russian- backed separatists who control the eastern part of the country.

        Korchynsky - who spoke to Reuters - shares his generalized disaffection for the Poroshenko government with other Ukrainians who feel that little has changed since the ouster of Viktor Yanukovich.

        "The (Maidan) revolution was interrupted by the aggression (in the east) and the patriots left Maidan and went to the east to protect Ukraine. Only 10 percent of people in positions of power are new; the rest are all the same, pursuing the same schemes they always did", says Serhiy Melnychuk, an MP and volunteer battalion founder who also sat down with Reuters.

        Over the course of the last year, Ukraine has become the battleground for a proxy war between Russia and the West. It's one of several pieces currently in play on the geopolitical chessboard, and its citizens, like those of Yemen and Syria (fellow pawn nations), have been forced to endure a humanitarian crisis while more "consequential" countries sort out how the spoils will be divided and how borders will be redrawn.

        Some Ukrainian nationalists however, have chosen to take matters into their own hands, taking up arms against the separatists and likening themselves to a "Christian Taliban" bent on ensuring that "Moscow burns."

        Here's more from a Reuters special report on Ukraine's "maverick battalions":

        From a basement billiard club in central Kiev, Dmytro Korchynsky commands a volunteer battalion helping Ukraine's government fight rebels in the east.

        A burly man with a long, Cossack-style moustache, Korchynsky has several hundred armed men at his disposal. The exact number, he said, is "classified."

        In the eyes of many Ukrainians, he and other volunteer fighters are heroes for helping the weak regular army resist pro-Russian separatists. In the view of the government, however, some of the volunteers have become a problem, even a law unto themselves.

        Dressed in a colorful peasant-style shirt, Korchynsky told Reuters that he follows orders from the Interior Ministry, and that his battalion would stop fighting if commanded to do so. Yet he added: "We would proceed with our own methods of action independently from state structures."

        Korchynsky, a former leader of an ultra-nationalist party and a devout Orthodox Christian, wants to create a Christian "Taliban" to reclaim eastern Ukraine as well as Crimea, which was annexed by Russia in 2014. He isn't going to give up his quest lightly.

        "I would like Ukraine to lead the crusades," said Korchynsky, whose battalion's name is Saint Mary. "Our mission is not only to kick out the occupiers, but also revenge. Moscow must burn."

        Most of Ukraine's almost 40 volunteer battalions grew out of squads of protesters who battled the Berkut riot police during the protests on Kiev's Independence Square, or Maidan Nezalezhnosti, which began in November 2013.


        After the protests toppled President Viktor Yanukovich, pro-Russian separatists rose up in the east of Ukraine in April, 2014, demanding independence from the new government in Kiev, which they called a "fascist regime." In response, several leaders of the Maidan protests raced east with fellow protesters to try to stop the rebel advance.

        Numerous brigades and battalions formed haphazardly, with most leaders accepting anyone willing to fight. Serhiy Melnychuk, who founded the Aidar battalion in eastern Ukraine and is now a member of parliament, said he signed up people between the ages of 18 and 62 and "from the homeless to pensioners."

        Irregular though theses forces were, some acquired weapons from the Defense Ministry, officials and battalion leaders said. Others received money and equipment from wealthy oligarchs. They became powerful forces in the struggle against pro-Russian separatists.

        In his billiard club headquarters, commander Korchynsky of the Saint Mary battalion made his disdain for the government plain. "Like the majority of

        Ukrainian people, I think (the new leadership) is bad ... They steal a lot. When Yanukovich was stealing, that was bad. But these people are clearing up when the country is at war, so they are guilty on two counts. This is marauding."

        He said the revolution that began with the Maidan had been interrupted, but would one day be completed. He did not say when.

        If so, he will have to confront Poroshenko. On July 16, the president, decried the problems posed by unspecified "internal enemies" of the country. He told parliament: "I will not allow anarchy in Ukraine."

        So in the end, we suppose the question is whether US weapons shipments to Kiev will be handed out to Ukraine's "Christian Taliban" and whether they, like their namesake, will one day turn those weapons back on the US once the Russians have been expelled.

        Scratch that. The real question is this: what does George Soros think?

        [Jul 28, 2015] The Geopolitical Big Bang You Probably Don't See Coming

        In the end, whatever Washington may do, it will certainly reflect a fear of the increasing strategic depth Russia and China are developing economically, a reality now becoming visible across Eurasia.
        Jul 28, 2015 |  thenation.com

        So consider it the Mother of All Blockbusters to watch how the Pentagon and the war hawks in Congress will react to the post-Vienna and-though it was barely noticed in Washington-the post-Ufa environment, especially under a new White House tenant in 2017.

        It will be a spectacle. Count on it. Will the next version of Washington try to make it up to "lost" Russia or send in the troops? Will it contain China or the "caliphate" of ISIS? Will it work with Iran to fight ISIS or spurn it? Will it truly pivot to Asia for good and ditch the Middle East or vice-versa? Or might it try to contain Russia, China, and Iran simultaneously or find some way to play them against each other?

        In the end, whatever Washington may do, it will certainly reflect a fear of the increasing strategic depth Russia and China are developing economically, a reality now becoming visible across Eurasia. At Ufa, Putin told Xi on the record: "Combining efforts, no doubt we [Russia and China] will overcome all the problems before us."

        Read "efforts" as new Silk Roads, that Eurasian Economic Union, the growing BRICS block, the expanding Shanghai Cooperation Organization, those China-based banks, and all the rest of what adds up to the beginning of a new integration of significant parts of the Eurasian land mass. As for Washington, fly like an eagle? Try instead: scream like a banshee

        [Jul 27, 2015] For Greece, Oligarchs Are an Obstacle to Recovery

        Notable quotes:
        "... ordering an employee to withdraw the money in bags of cash. ..."
        Dec 05, 2012 | The New York Times

        ATHENS - A dynamic entrepreneur, Lavrentis Lavrentiadis seemed to represent a promising new era for Greece. He dazzled the country's traditionally insular business world by spinning together a multibillion-dollar empire just a few years after inheriting a small family firm at 18. Seeking acceptance in elite circles, he gave lavishly to charities and cultivated ties to the leading political parties.
        But as Greece's economy soured in recent years, his fortunes sagged and he began embezzling money from a bank he controlled, prosecutors say. With charges looming, it looked as if his rapid rise would be followed by an equally precipitous fall. Thanks to a law passed quietly by the Greek Parliament, however, he avoided prosecution, at least for a time, simply by paying the money back.

        Now 40, Mr. Lavrentiadis is back in the spotlight as one of the names on the so-called Lagarde list of more than 2,000 Greeks said to have accounts in a Geneva branch of the bank HSBC and who are suspected of tax evasion. Given to Greek officials two years ago by Christine Lagarde, then the French finance minister and now head of the International Monetary Fund, the list was expected to cast a damning light on the shady practices of the rich.

        Lavrentis Lavrentiadis embezzled money from a bank he controlled, prosecutors say

        Instead, it was swept under the rug, and now two former finance ministers and Greece's top tax officials are under investigation for having failed to act.
        Greece's economic troubles are often attributed to a public sector packed full of redundant workers, a lavish pension system and uncompetitive industries hampered by overpaid workers with lifetime employment guarantees. Often overlooked, however, is the role played by a handful of wealthy families, politicians and the news media - often owned by the magnates - that make up the Greek power structure.

        In a country crushed by years of austerity and 25 percent unemployment, average Greeks are growing increasingly resentful of an oligarchy that, critics say, presides over an opaque, closed economy that is at the root of many of the country's problems and operates with virtual impunity. Several dozen powerful families control critical sectors, including banking, shipping and construction, and can usually count on the political class to look out for their interests, sometimes by passing legislation tailored to their specific needs.

        The result, analysts say, is a lack of competition that undermines the economy by allowing the magnates to run cartels and enrich themselves through crony capitalism. "That makes it rational for them to form a close, incestuous relationship with politicians and the media, which is then highly vulnerable to corruption," said Kevin Featherstone, a professor of European Politics at the London School of Economics.

        This week the anticorruption watchdog Transparency International ranked Greece as the most corrupt nation in Europe, behind former Eastern Bloc states like Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia. Under the pressure of the financial crisis, Greece is being pressed by Germany and its international lenders to make fundamental changes to its economic system in exchange for the money it needs to avoid bankruptcy.

        But it remains an open question whether Greece's leaders will be able to engineer such a transformation. In the past year, despite numerous promises to increase transparency, the country actually dropped 14 places from the previous corruption survey.

        Mr. Lavrentiadis is still facing a host of accusations stemming from hundreds of millions of dollars in loans made by his Proton bank to dormant companies - sometimes, investigators say, ordering an employee to withdraw the money in bags of cash. But with Greece scrambling to complete a critical bank recapitalization and restructuring, his case is emblematic of a larger battle between Greece's famously weak institutions and fledgling regulatory structures against these entrenched interests.

        Many say that the system has to change in order for Greece to emerge from the crisis. "Keeping the status quo will simply prolong the disaster in Greece," Mr. Featherstone said. While the case of Mr. Lavrentiadis suggests that the status quo is at least under scrutiny, he added, "It's not under sufficient attack."

        In a nearly two-hour interview, Mr. Lavrentiadis denied accusations of wrongdoing and said that he held "a few accounts" at HSBC in Geneva that totaled only about $65,000, all of it legitimate, taxed income. He also sidestepped questions about his political ties and declined to comment on any details of the continuing investigation into Proton Bank.
        Sitting in the office of his criminal lawyer last month, relaxed, smiling and dressed in a crisp blue suit and red-and-blue tie, Mr. Lavrentiadis said he found it puzzling that he had been singled out in reports about the Lagarde list when other powerful figures appeared to evade scrutiny.

        "My question is, 'Why me?' " he said. "I'm the scapegoat for everything."

        In the interview, Mr. Lavrentiadis depicted himself as an outsider and upstart, an entrepreneur in a small country dominated by old families who frown on newcomers. "I am not from a third-generation aristocratic family," he said repeatedly.

        Indeed, by some lights, Mr. Lavrentiadis fell in part because he rose too quickly and then failed to secure enough of the right friends to protect him, a perception he did not dispute.

        [Jul 27, 2015] Mathew D. Rose: The Crisis In Europe Has Only Just Begun

        Jul 24, 2015 | nakedcapitalism.com

        Ping July 24, 2015 at 11:04 am

        Article does great service cutting thru the 'noise'.

        I don't know why half billion 'clawback' and hefty penalties from GS isn't demanded for structuring fraudulent accounting in Greece's entry to EU.

        Also unaddressed, the 12-14 billion olympic boondoggle that undoubtedly was wildly profitable for a few, leaving the Greek population with abondoned facilities and the bill.

        susan the other July 24, 2015 at 11:06 am

        Rose is correct. But the EU was doomed from the start. Now the Europeans are deliberating about having formed a political (as in purely political) union, without a viable economic model. We put it just the opposite but the result is the same. The thing that gets me, whether it is Germany or the US, is how holier-than-thou creditors are when the game is up. They seem to have only one religion: IBGYBG. When they are not repaid they pontificate about how irresponsible the debtors are, nevermind a worldwide depression. The main reason the EU was doomed from the start was that it was founded on a growth model that didn't really have legs. It was just a convenient magic show. They shouldn't pretend they didn't see this coming. Already their talk has shifted to saving the Core. Merkel, and probably Hollande, has decided to cut her losses, I'd bet. Save the Core instead of lose the whole unsalvageable mess. In so doing they should write off the debts of the periphery to zero.

        Synoia July 24, 2015 at 12:49 pm

        The EU was formed to prevent more wars between Germany and France.

        This is unlikely:

        In so doing they should write off the debts of the periphery to zero.

        There appear to be many derivatives which would be triggered by such an event.

        susan the other July 24, 2015 at 1:39 pm

        nullify them all

        paulmeli July 24, 2015 at 4:01 pm

        Derivatives create a lot of counter-party risks because the Masters of the Universe™ were selling them to each other to hedge their bets.

        Seems to me then that much of the risk is circular and so would cancel itself out. Self-nullifying.

        IsabelPS July 24, 2015 at 11:21 am

        "This has been a conflict between a small European nation, led by a leftist government, attempting to reassert its autonomy under crushing German predominance. That may sound simplistic, but there is not much more to it."

        I've stopped reading here.

        salvo July 24, 2015 at 1:45 pm

        well, if you lived in germany like I do, you'll make the experience of an everyday propaganda in the mass media including the state owned ones repeating the narrative of the lazy greek.

        IsabelPS July 24, 2015 at 3:13 pm

        And?

        In what way that is a proof of "a small European nation, led by a leftist government, attempting to reassert its autonomy under crushing German predominance"?

        salvo July 24, 2015 at 3:59 pm

        well, I think it's not wrong to say the Germany is projecting its power on the other nations in the eurozone and that greece loss of sovereignity is a result of such power projection

        IsabelPS July 24, 2015 at 6:54 pm

        And, of course, there's not much more to it.

        Windsock said it well:

        "The wealthy Greeks seek to conserve their wealth as much as the wealthy Germans. To devolve this down to nationalistic stereotypes is to play the game of the wealthy. Divide and rule. This article buys into that, big time."

        I would say it more bluntly: useful idiots.

        norm de plume July 25, 2015 at 2:42 am

        Well of course, there is more to it. 'Germany' is part of a transnational neoliberal power elite, even if 'the German people aren't, and it is a central component. Its participation in what has happened to Greece may not have been sufficient, but it was certainly necessary.

        If Merkel and Schauble and co had been sensible out loud from January and actually listened to and dealt fairly with Varoufakis, even if the IMF and ECB were hardline, would we be where we are?

        And whatever influence the US or her own finance-capilitalists wield over her, ultimately Merkel is voted in or out by constituents. Win them over to a sounder view and she either listens or plans her retirement.

        Democratic sovereignty may be virtually dead in Greece, thanks in part to the efforts of Merkel and co, but it is still breathing in powerful nations like Germany.

        'To devolve this down to nationalistic stereotypes is to play the game of the wealthy'

        That's true. The real issue is the elite, whatever canton they happen to hail from.

        To that end you might be interested in a reply I just appended to a comment of yours from a couple of weeks ago, in a discussion on whether Tsipras will do a Blair and end up on the yachts of his erstwhile enemies. You said:

        'Which does not mean that he, and Syriza, will not fall into the clientelist trap (some, like Guy Verhofstadt, say they have already started)'

        I said 'Well, Guy Verhofstadt certainly knows of which he speaks.

        Follow the money. Their money, that is. Not ours.'

        That's the enemy of both Germans and Greeks, good or bad, lazy or industrious.

        IsabelPS July 25, 2015 at 6:37 pm

        I don't doubt it. Guy Verhofstadt also knows a thing or two about inflated governments, as Belgians do.

        There is a lot of noise and little information.

        German native speaker July 25, 2015 at 2:49 pm

        Just today, from FAZ: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/eurokrise/griechenland/medikamente-griechen-bekommen-fast-nur-teurere-originalarzneien-13719073.html

        Who is responsible for Greeks not able to buy cheaper generic pharma drugs? The Greeks, and there are no two ways about it.

        Your claim that German mass media depict the Greeks as lazy "on a daily basis" is nothing but propaganda, and obviously easy to do if you conveniently forget to include (or read, or watch) all examples to the contrary. Discussions in Sueddeutsche were often very good, you ever took the time to read them? This programm is publicly financed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QimxVuicZU

        Ishmael July 24, 2015 at 11:30 am

        There are many things in this article I would disagree with.

        Yes, Greece was made to suffer by the French and German banks during the bailout; however, if Greece had really buckled down and changed it probably could have got through this and moved forward.

        It is not German's fault that the Greeks have not improved their tax collection. Nope German assistance was kicked out of the country. It was not the Germans who failed to go after past Greek elites. No it was the Greeks. It was not the Germans who constructed an enormous counter productive government bureaucracy in Greece and refused to reform it. It was the Greeks. It was not the Germans who put in an unsustainable pension system and refused to reform it, it was the Greeks. It was not the Germans who have failed to put in place an up to date property system so that the owners (mainly Greek elites) of the property pay their property taxes, and still refused to do this, it was the Greeks.

        I saw some report that said approximately $50 billion a year of taxes from Greek elites goes uncollected each year. The problem is Germany and the rest of the EU expected Greece to reform itself when it hit the wall. It has refused to do so. I keep saying, why does the Greek population keep wanting to stay on the Euro. It distrusts its own govt more than the EU.

        FedUpPleb July 24, 2015 at 12:26 pm

        Yes, Greece was made to suffer by the French and German banks during the bailout; however, if Greece had really buckled down and changed it probably could have got through this and moved forward.

        Actually they did. Greece was in a primary surplus at the beginning of this year.

        What changed was a new government was elected whom the European powers disapproved of. In league with the ECB, these powers - pincipally Germany - deliberately engineered a bank run in Greece so as to topple theis elected government or bring it into line. There is no other explanation.

        This is not the Europe most europeans ever signed up for. It is the end of the EU as a political project as far as I, what some other assorted cranks, but now an alarmingly new number of ordinary commentators have concluded.

        The elites and assorted Quis across the continent will continue to laud and implement the new German and neoliberal coup. But don't expect the general population to be pleased about it.

        Yves Smith Post authorJuly 24, 2015 at 4:13 pm

        *Sigh*

        The bank run was underway before Syriza came into office. It's fair to say that the ECB took measures to make it worse (giving only minimal ELA increases) but it's not accurate to depict them as its sole cause. It's more akin to fanning flames.

        The creditor conduct has been terrible. There's no need to overegg the pudding. It only hurts the credibility of critics.

        Synoia July 24, 2015 at 1:36 pm

        It is not American's fault that the Americans have not improved their tax collection.

        It was not the Americans who failed to go after past American elites.

        paulmeli July 24, 2015 at 4:08 pm

        It doesn't matter much at this point whose fault it is…the obstinance in dealing with the problem will ensure that the Euro system fails catastrophically.

        It would be hard to make an argument that the Greeks were responsible for that outcome. Any system that can be brought down by it's weakest member is a very poor system indeed.

        TheCatSaid July 24, 2015 at 4:32 pm

        Wasn't it the Greek elites who had the agency to make these changes, but chose to protect their own interests instead? Like what is happening in the USA?

        In each case what is needed is to create genuinely democratic power structures. Maybe the broader populace needed to see things really fall apart, before taking up the mantle of taking responsibility to create something new that is capable of moving things forward in a constructive way for the people at large.

        Ishmael July 24, 2015 at 5:18 pm

        The elites (and this includes many ex-junta members) have controlled the govt since late 70's. The people have gone along with this because crumbs have been handed out to the people while the elites were stealing the country blind. One of the big backers of Syrzia is govt workers. They and the elites do not want govt reforms. Change will not come until it is forced upon them.

        My first reaction to the new deal (my wife is Greek and I am around lots of Greeks) is basically that Germany was annexing the country but later as I thought about it I decided maybe that is a good thing. The Greek people have not been able to have a functioning country for 30 years. It is ranked as the most corrupt place in Europe and also one of the hardest countries in Europe to open a business.

        JTMcPhee July 25, 2015 at 9:18 am

        One can be sure that "the Greeks," like the Czechs maybe, ought to cheer the victory of their new masters. In the New Libertarian vein, you only got what you ( or the Government-Like Organization you as a weak little individual and serf-able mope must perforce become attached to) can Take and then Hold against the other Galtian Enterprises.

        So it's the case, then, that Friedmania has flattened the earth so completely that the armies of Bidness can send the tanks and JU-87s and F-16s in a clean, bloody sweep over the Lowlands… Interesting that backward tribespeople in places like Afghanistan (our name for that collection) have resisted the actual tanks, preserving their identities as, e.g., Pashto, while happily soaking up the bribes and floods of corruption, pallets of $100 bills and Viagra and stuff…

        Moneta July 24, 2015 at 10:23 pm

        The blame is circular. Germany knew Greece restructured its debt to enter the zone.

        As for the generous pensions, I keep on scratching my head wondering how many would consider 10k generous if they were receiving it. Money value is not the only measure of the size of a pension. One must look at what it buys. And frankly, they seem to consume way less resources than we do here in Canada.

        windsock July 24, 2015 at 11:35 am

        Any excuse to avoid getting on with it?

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11761028/Greek-bail-out-talks-delayed-by-Troika-security-fears.html

        MyLessThanPrimeBeef July 24, 2015 at 1:04 pm

        Maybe they can meet inside a NATO base?

        windsock July 24, 2015 at 11:49 am

        I was one of those people who, in my youth, welcomed the EEC, then EC, then EU, from the shores of Old Blighty, hoping and believing it would tie us in to a balancing power against the US and USSR (giving my age away). I bought into that "preventing war" schtick.

        Now I realise that they didn't want to prevent war because of its effects upon the populations who fought and suffered it. Now, watching Greece (and my own government), I can see that the reason they wanted to prevent war is because war destroys wealth. It is wealth, above all else, that all governments of the world, now seek to conserve.

        The wealthy Greeks seek to conserve their wealth as much as the wealthy Germans. To devolve this down to nationalistic stereotypes is to play the game of the wealthy. Divide and rule. This article buys into that, big time.

        William C July 24, 2015 at 1:12 pm

        It is unfair to cast aspersions on the intentions of a dead generation on the grounds of the behaviour of their grandchildrens' generation. Monnet and Schumann were active 60 to 70 years ago.

        Although British myself, I had French relations (now dead) who were passionate about uniting Europe precisely on the grounds that they wanted no repetition of the slaughter and rapine which traumatised their lives. There are no grounds for supposing that they were insincere and motivated by concern for their (often trivial) personal possessions.

        Windsock July 24, 2015 at 2:03 pm

        I am not casting aspersions on the people. I am saying that maybe we, the people have been duped? Or maybe, good causes get hijacked as a vehicle of convenience by others with different intentions?

        Linus Huber July 24, 2015 at 8:31 pm

        It often happens that cause and effect are set in incorrect order. The creation of the EC in this form was simply possible due to a peaceful period experienced during that time but has little real effect on peace itself what its main objective is supposed to be.

        On another level I do not like the above article at all. It is exactly the worst way that nationalism is used to divert attention from the failure of the power hungry elite to the seemingly inappropriate conduct of people of another nation. It is a dangerous development and shows that the unsustainable policies of individual governments may be in trouble.

        On the aspect of racism we have to differentiate. It is normal that one feels more comfortable with persons of the same background/culture/language etc. and therefore favors those in his personal choices which is part of the individual's freedom. The line is to be drawn when someone ACTS against another race/person of different background or culture where the word racism is appropriate. To now use the German's sentiment towards Greece as prove of being racist is completely inappropriate except when the believe that someone can endlessly live above his own means is completely ingrained in the mind set. We all have sentiments in that we mostly believe our culture/way of life etc. is somehow a bid superior to others' culture for defining one's identity and we generally do not appreciate that our "negative" character attributes are blown out of proportion.

        Synoia July 24, 2015 at 1:37 pm

        The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions.

        MyLessThanPrimeBeef July 24, 2015 at 6:26 pm

        The other road to Hell is paved with bad intentions.

        At times, it seems all roads lead to Hell.

        Jim July 24, 2015 at 12:45 pm

        As many of the remarks in this thread concerning the shortcoming of various European populations demonstrate, Europe lacks any sense of common identity. Europe is not a community and Europeans are not a people. A unified Europe might be ruled by force as a multicultural empire like the Ottoman Empire but the notion of a United States of Europe is utter fantasy.

        c wenn July 24, 2015 at 4:25 pm

        Thank You… I've spent a bunch of time in Europe, and all the above generalizations are more true than not.

        However, Greek and Italian government is so corrupt, so sleazy, and so unlike the German system, that it's been pretty well accepted that tax evasion is a way of life there. Germany has its bad apples, but not anywhere near the kind of corruption you see in the PIIGS…. and yes, that's probably a sly acronym.

        BUT – however colorful and memorable my stays in Italy [north or south], Greece, or even Spain – I would rather have Swiss, Belgian, German or even French neighbors. Sorry… there IS a difference in these peoples, if only in the overall flavor of their respective countries.

        The Swiss are niggardly so and so's… and every time I'm there I curse their petty, judgmental, xenophobic ways…. but Switzerland will be a better place to live and prosper for it.

        There is something to be said about grumpy old white people…. they make the neighborhood better. And safer.

        sorry… but these conversations are going to have to be had as the world is awash in migratory peoples… some who are overwhelming their environments are not who we want moving in…. sorry… Hamilton's Rule

        why oh why can't we have the necessary discussion about over population, migratory populations… and who and how many can play?

        It's coming to all of you… and I don't care how lofty the rhetoric, there IS a difference between cultures. I would rather have Swiss neighbors than Hmong.

        MyLessThanPrimeBeef July 24, 2015 at 6:44 pm

        In general, a Swiss would rather have Swiss neighbors, a Hmong Hmong neighbors, a Martian Martian neighbors.

        But as you say, not everyone is the same.

        Take, for example, Bilbo Baggins.

        He likes to venture out and hang around stranger creatures, like men, elves, wizards, etc.

        Generally speaking, pardon the generalization, but people usually don't like to migrate to strange new places, unless their homes have been destroyed (or captured as slaves/indentured laborers)…not even to make more money. They rather their home nation grow more prosperous, so they can make more money at home…generally speaking.

        Jim July 24, 2015 at 7:01 pm

        Not to even mention foreigners there is little love lost between German, French and Italian Swiss. Xenophobia is a basic Swiss principle just as it is for say the Japanese.

        Hans Suter July 25, 2015 at 2:30 am

        Mr. Rose's contribution creates a relaxed ambiente in which a wide garden variety of small and large racism thrives. What about facts about xenophobic Switzerland ? Here a few: "With more than 20% of the population resident aliens, Switzerland has one of the highest ratios of non-naturalized inhabitants in Europe (comparable to the Netherlands; roughly twice the ratio of Germany). In 2003, 35,424 residents were naturalized, a number exceeding net population growth. Over the 25-year period of 1983 to 2007, 479,264 resident foreigners were naturalized, yearly numbers rising gradually from below 10,000 (0.1%) in the 1980s to above 40,000 (0.6%) in the 2000s.[16] Compare the figure of 0.2% (140,795) in the United Kingdom (2004).["

        Linus Huber July 25, 2015 at 4:17 pm

        @ Hans

        Thanks to put the matter in proper perspective. It is not a matter of being xenophobic but rather a matter of volume, size and sustainability. Switzerland has a strong tradition to welcome real refugees and to ignore the mentioned circumstances by people who may belong to a nation whose government may be responsible for many bad policies implemented worldwide that contributed to a large degree to the present disorder is a faulty logic. But again, the blame game between nationalities and nations is exactly the wrong way to go but is the preferred choice by governments and the elite to divert the attention from their failures.

        Jim July 24, 2015 at 6:51 pm

        "Culture" is the epiphenomenal shadow of polynucleotides.

        Barry Fay July 25, 2015 at 9:05 am

        Boy do you have that wrong! You don´t mean "neighbors" at all. You mean "prosperity" and that you would rather live in a prosperous place than a poor one. I can only pity you. You have simply swallowed the kool-aid that capitalism preaches about "happiness". Both the Germans (I live in Berlin) and the Swiss are the unhappiest people I´ve ever been around. And the happiest? I´d have to say the Cubans! They know how to ENJOY LIFE.

        JTMcPhee July 24, 2015 at 12:46 pm

        What's with the persistent, insistent, often inconsistent turn to personification/reification/hypostatization in what purports to be "sophisticated and informed analysis" of complex intersections and interactions and interrelations? Is "Greece" a useful category, or "Germany," or "The US," when it comes to trying to keep the species alive? Or is that latter notion not really part of the goal at all?

        TheCatSaid July 24, 2015 at 4:36 pm

        I can't imagine any EU meeting starting with a request to consider what is needed to keep the species alive.

        Linus Huber July 25, 2015 at 4:24 pm

        @ JTMcPhee

        An excellent question.

        One might need to differentiate between the interest of the people and the interest of the governments. The government's interest might in many cases not be what serves the people best but what ensures and enhances their own power.

        Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg July 24, 2015 at 1:34 pm

        These historical episodes always remind me of Terence McKenna's dictum that 'Culture is not your friend'. These 'Germans/Greeks/English are mean/kind/clueless/uncivilized…' are all notions generated by cultural baggage that all peoples carry.
        There are a lot of issues coming to a head in the Greek econonomic debacle. It's a real shame that the EU institutions can't seem to find a way to ameliorate conditions for the common people in Greece and maybe inflict a little suffering on the knaves and fools of various nationalities who brought Greece to this pass. But supranational institutions these days are all tailored to cater to the comfort of an internationalist elite that transcends ethnicity. They have their own culture and it involves laughing at you while peeing off a cliff on your head.

        Synoia July 24, 2015 at 1:47 pm

        Two points:

        First, I'm astonished at the speed with which the cultural stereotypes have returned in public discourse. "Good German, Lazy Greek, Arrogant German, Junker, etc"

        Thus I fear war. Dehumanizing others with labels is the start of a series of excuses to start killing.

        Second, War has become so profitable (for some), and the epithet 'War Profiteer," whihc if issued when I was young was about the worst epithet which could be slung at another, has lost its power to shame, and now appears as a medal of achievement aka: Defense Industry CEO.

        salvo July 24, 2015 at 1:56 pm

        yes, you're right, but living in Germany I experience such kind of generalizations everyday, the narrative of the lazy greek has become common sense

        Reply

        c wenn July 24, 2015 at 4:28 pm

        I am sick to death of tip toeing around the reality of how GENERALIZATIONS get to be truths.

        They are more truthful than not.. and never fair to the individual.

        But we are highly selective in our outrage. THAT is what steams me.

        Reply

        German native speaker July 25, 2015 at 5:53 pm

        What you are bringing to the discussion are generalizations, and instead of the Greeks being badmouthed, you are badmouthing Germans. Same exact thing.

        Reply

        Brian M July 24, 2015 at 2:08 pm

        General Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket" remains a definitive (and delightfully simple) polemic on this very topic, Synoia.

        That and the classic Black Sabbath song "War Pigs"!

        Reply

        vidimi July 24, 2015 at 2:25 pm

        imo, war between any of the eu states seems inconceivable in the next decade. of course, the political landscapes can change quickly, but europeans have always held stereotypes of each other. a case in point is the joke about european heaven and hell from years back: european heaven: the french are the cooks, the germans the mechanics, the british the police, the italians the lovers, and it's all organised by the swiss. european hell: the british are the cooks, the french the mechanics, the swiss the lovers, the germans the police and it's all organised by the italians.

        Reply

        Jim July 24, 2015 at 2:47 pm

        The present borders in Eastern Europe which were drawn up by Stalin at the end of WWII are fundamentally unstable.

        Reply

        OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL July 24, 2015 at 5:23 pm

        European (and world) war is already in full swing, it's financial. So much easier to pursue without all those messy flag-draped coffins to hide at the airport, the Pulitzer shots of crying babies, or the CNN live feeds of missile strikes destroying buildings. It's a casino, and we are the chips.

        Reply

        MyLessThanPrimeBeef July 24, 2015 at 6:49 pm

        Financial wars are less messy or not as gory, but can be more lethal.

        Non-violence* kills.

        *We think of physical violence as the only kind of violence. So, when I say non-violence, it could mean mental violence (which is not physical violence).

        Reply

        craazyman July 24, 2015 at 5:35 pm

        they're just trying to refill your beer, is that so bad?

        It must be the wind . . . .

        Reply

        VietnamVet July 24, 2015 at 2:15 pm

        The article is true. The Eurozone is a dead man walking. The fault line between the Western and Greek Orthodox cultures is real. The article is wrong in sense that like almost all working journalists he is a handmaiden to the Davos Elite. The oligarchs are the ones pushing debt. They then suck the debtors dry till dead. Exploiting ethnic hatreds furthers their crimes.

        Class Warfare is very 19th century. Today we have plunder capitalism. Plutocrats and their servants robbing everyone else. This is oblivious to corporate media.

        Reply

        paulmeli July 24, 2015 at 4:13 pm

        Robber baron financier Jay Gould quipped "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half".

        Same as it ever was.

        Reply

        EmilianoZ July 24, 2015 at 3:04 pm

        Germany is back to its good old self. The atonement period is over, folks. As the French say: chassez le naturel, il revient au galop. And the more repressed it was, the more virulent the come back.

        Emmanuel Todd gives some clues as to what the new Reich might look like:

        https://www.les-crises.fr/translation-germanys-fast-hold-on-the-european-continent-by-emmanuel-todd/

        It's not very different to what Doktor Schaeubble is supposed to have planned according to an article in the links some time ago. In addition, Doktor Schaeubble wants Slovakia too. An old ally from Barbarossa must not be forgotten.

        Emmanuel Todd thinks the UK is in the process of escaping by leaving the EU altogether (I think there's a referendum on that). He has put France in gray denoting "voluntary servitude". I'm sure the French elite wants to be collaborators, like in the old times (Sartre said that was the reason the French army collapsed so rapidly). The French people probably want out and join the Club Med.

        I wouldn't mind a euro north and a euro south. There's nothing to visit up north but if the currency becomes cheaper, it would make visiting France, Italy and Spain very attractive.

        Reply

        Dean Plassaras July 24, 2015 at 3:20 pm

        Well written and formulated.

        Reply

        john c. halasz July 24, 2015 at 3:31 pm

        Deutschland raus! This ought to be the marching slogan of every truly democratically minded citizen in Europe, no matter how strange the ideological alliances. It has been remarked by many economists over the years, most recently by that former IMF guy, that having Germany leave the Euro and return to the DM would be the cleanest, least disruptive and fairest way to resolve the Euro-crisis.

        Reply

        Steve H. July 24, 2015 at 5:27 pm

        Excellent comments about implicit racism, nationalism, ismism. Not necessarily mutually exclusive.

        What is the degree of homogeneity in a culture? Is it in the DNA, like lactose intolerance? Is it a product of circumstance, sea-farers in antithesis to mountain dwellers? Does it scale with size?

        In smaller groups with a survival mentality, non-compliance may be ruthlessly selected out, with compliance being actions we might consider superstitious or abhorrent. Urban living requires a skill set which starts to look like a global culture, as long as the three billion people cooking on three-stone fires are peripheralized.

        Here's what I know. When I hear or read about what America is doing in the world, I remember that a quarter of a million people were in a single protest march against the wars in 2003 and it didn't mean shit. That our government routinely does actions that over 2/3 of the population does not support. That corporations are both not people and 'not people'.

        There is a difference between homogeneity and agency. When those with agency in Germany attempted to create a master race, they created a cultural identity that those looking at Germans can never forget.

        Reply

        craazyman July 24, 2015 at 5:45 pm

        A little FDI would solve the whole problem. Where is it?

        Wasn't it supposed to have been here by now? This is like JEB Stuart at Gettysburg. Where is he? (Sorry for the Civil War allusion, it's too abstract, since he did show up. Evidently he liked to roam around the countryside.).

        Where is FDI? Where is it roaming? Where is it? It must be sitting in a pile somewhere, like baseballs, or tennis balls. Is it at the ECB? Is it in Germany? Where the hell is it? it must be a big pile by now. Can't somebody see it protruding above a horizon like the Matterhorn? Oh! maybe it's in Switzerland! maybe it's in a Swiss Bank! No. There's too much of it. It wouldn't fit. It has to be somewhere - or maybe it's spread out all over the place. Maybe it's so spread out it's lost it "congealiality". Oh man. That's a property of FDI. It doesn't work if it's only a euro or two. It has to congeal. Evidently it can't be too spred out or all in one place. If it's all in one place, it's a big pile and it's useless, since it congeals and hardens like glue. If it's too spread out, it loses all congealiality. This sounds like a chemistry problem. It may be.

        Where the hell is it? I've not seen one macroeconomics article on the interet that says where the FDI is. Not one. (Although maybe I haven't looked hard enough. That's certainly a possibility).

        Maybe it's coming "soon".

        Reply

        BEast July 24, 2015 at 9:37 pm

        Very interesting article. I would like more background on the campaign of condemnation of Gutmenschen - on what basis were they condemned? "Impracticality"? Failure to get on board with various Eurozone proposals? EU skepticism? General lack of sociopathy?

        How was the campaign orchestrated, and by whom?

        (This is obviously the first I've heard of it.)

        Reply

        mesfern July 25, 2015 at 5:28 am

        I believe Rose is referring to a controversy about the possible origin of the expression "Gutmenschen" in Nazi lingo. It became popular in the late 90s after the publication of a "Dictionary of the Gutmenschen", by satirist Klaus Bittermann, which mocked many instances of self-righteousness in Germany's public life. With time, however, it came to target the Left and "Political Correctness" in particular; thus, a "Gutmensch" would be a do-gooder who supported all kinds of progressive causes, from feminism to environmentalism, but had no knowledge of the hard facts of life (that is, the business world). Eventually, a journalism association traced the expression back to a few Nazi leaflets; it was hardly conclusive evidence, but enough to blow things out of proportion and start another culture battle. At its most erudite, it was related to the Weberian opposition between the Gutmensch's ethics of conviction and the ethics of responsibility; at its most tribal, the "Gutmensch" became an umbrella term for everything inimical to the methods and the aims of the Right. Hence, one can have "Gutmenschen issues", "Gutmenschen arguments", "Gutmenschen politics". When used by the Right, it is a strongly derogatory expression, very hostile and openly dismissive.

        Reply

        German native speaker July 25, 2015 at 2:09 pm

        There was no campaign ever.

        Reply

        salvo July 25, 2015 at 3:47 am

        I don't understand what the problem is about: saying Germans are racists would be a generalization if the sentence means each individual german is a racist, but I think it points to a structural fact, that the mainstream public discourse in germany, and certainly in many other countries, is driven by the need to constitute a collective identity where the german is somewhat superior to the other. You just need to live here in Germany and listen to the everyday discourse, most people are not explicit racists, but they tend to assign positive attributes to themselves in constituting that collective identity while at the same time assigning the opposite negative attribute to another collective identity, we are diligent, trustworthy, thrifty and so on because some other, i.e. the Greek, are exactly the opposite, lazy, untrustworthy, profligate. The people who constitute themselves this way don't think as themselves as racists, because being racist is a negative trait in the public discourse. It is simply a fact that the mainstream public discourse in Germany is full of such stereotypes, positive for themselves and negative for the other (not only in tabloids like bild but in the so-called Qualitätspresse, even in the fee-financed state media.) This process is amplified by the fact that Germany has become the hegemonic power in Europe. Projecting one's power needs an ideological discourse which legitimates the unavoidable violence linked to this process, so if the Greeks are impoverished, disenfranchised in the process of power projection, then this has to be morally justified, usually by ascribing inferiority.

        Reply

        Windsock July 25, 2015 at 4:24 am

        I think my issue with this is that someone who is not German is heavily insinuating that the German nation is "reverting to type". Phrases like " a primordial fear" suggest there is a fixed reference in the very nature of those who speak German that is incapable of change or challenge. I would dispute that.

        But then the very existence of the nation state is defined by those cultural commons that others do not share – language, religion, governance etc – and who is ever going to define themselves as inferior to anyone else?

        Much of the early EU history was built on predicating the subsidiarity of the nation state to the continental whole. It has morphed, in my view, into a tool for the trans/multi-national globalist wealthy and the result is the playing off of nation states against each other, in both economic and cultural terms. I think this article is complicit in that.

        Reply

        James Miller July 25, 2015 at 1:51 pm

        During my university studies in Sociology, I was always amazed at the endless pressure to refrain from judging culture-only record it, dissect it (in a non judgmental way, of course), and teach the fragments left over to the next crop of undergrads. A museum of culture, poorly displayed and heavily redacted.
        Judgement is required, or it's all useless.
        There are such things as sick cultures, and it's not very difficult to find reasonable criteria to identify them.
        One cannot, for the purposes of solving problems of the sort that we debate here, ignore this fact.
        Tax theft as a cultural norm is a reality in Greece, and it cannot be the basis of an accusation of racism to point this out.
        Greek culture, no matter how rich in history, literature and art, contains elements that make it non-viable in even the medium run, and the national sport of tax theft is only one of many of them.
        It is equally clear, now, that the same is true of the "European Union".

        Reply

        German native speaker July 25, 2015 at 1:59 pm

        It is interesting to me that Mr. Rose wanted the comments open. He lives in Berlin, and has been described as an investigative journalist (http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/mathew-d-rose-der-investigator-von-berlin-a-321596.html). I don't see much investigative journalism in the above piece. In his books, Rose's career consists of mainly criticizing the country that he chose as his residence. Yet some commenters claim that there is no "freedom" in Germany – go figure. Would be interesting to know if he collected money from the state that he loathes.
        Lving in Berlin, there is ample possibility to talk to Polish people and other Eastern Europeans. Not done in above article, and this should be easy, living there. There are so many yuppy-like people who used illegal Polish laborers to fix up their Prenzlauer Berg/ Kreuzberg properties – this comes to mind.

        Not sure what Mr. Rose's agenda is – sounds as if he wants to elicit emotional responses from foreigners, about the awfulness of Germans as such. Sorry you have to live amongst them.

        Reply

        Gaylord July 25, 2015 at 5:41 pm

        This is not merely Germany vs. Greece, but rather the Western Banking Cabal asserting heightened control over the economies of the world, particularly those nations which depend on the dollar and the euro for trade. The reason for the austerity policy, aside from unbridled greed (class war), is the fact of Peak Resources which means increasing scarcity into the future - energy, raw materials, food, water. The oligarchs are also preparing for Climate Chaos which they anticipate will be infinitely costly. They expect record-breaking losses and repair costs from storm damage, drought, wildfires, floods and sea level rise, crop losses, fishery collapses, and health care costs resulting from Fukushima's poisons that have been spreading through oceans and the air during the last four + years. The cost of disposing of all the dead human remains will also be a challenge, as the Great Extinction event proceeds.

        [Jul 27, 2015] The F Story about the Great Inflation

        Jul 27, 2015 | Economist's View
        The Rage said...

        I love "great inflation" discussions. Outside 1968-early 82 period when inflation was decelerating from high levels, inflation has been fairly steady from the modern FED system in 1951 to 2015. It was like a shot in the dark.

        I always go by some Keynesian theories that excessive growth caused by fighting proxy wars during the cold war in Korea and Vietnam caused excessive national growth that lead to eventually shortages in capital and excessive wage growth so business raised prices to slow down the economy.

        ilsm said in reply to The Rage...

        The US debt is fully $10T less than the $28T cold war tab.

        You get the negative impact of wars, but miss the point.

        Guns and butter. You cannot have both. The pentagon trough [plus much of the other 5% of GDP for federal welfare to 'capitalists' like Elon Musk] is too heavy to tote.

        Inflation from LBJ through Reagan was a band aid to get some butter while the pentagon troughers gobbled up resources to airily blow things up pillaging coca cola and blue jeans from the butter 'side'.

        Cold war [war on Saudi/Sunni fostered terrists is continued cold war troughing] has depleted the US common since 1947, less a few years when Clinton actually paid off some of the war debt.

        Matt Young said...

        While we are on the subject, lets ask. What is the likelihood that Simon even advances the theory of information by one bit? We know the experts, the count is about ten to twenty, many of them having their stuff posted on this blog. Does anyone believe that Simon discovered a new secret?

        ilsm said in reply to Matt Young...

        Ask the wrong questions you get the wrong answer you seek.

        likbez said...

        "Ask the wrong questions you get the wrong answer you seek."

        That reminds me neoliberal discourse about corruption and all those dances about "governance" (aka organizing political and economic life along market mechanisms) that neoliberal are pushing.

        It's simply amazing how neoliberals managed to brainwash public using pseudo-science, mathiness and obscure terminology. Using bottom feeders like Friedman, Feldstein, Mishkin, John Taylor, Greg Mankiw etc.

        Those stooges of financial oligarchy even managed to explain corruption as the rent-seeking behavior of individual public servants not as a key, immanent feature of neoliberal accumulation of capital.

        /greece. /guardian_slips. Polit*/ Neocolon*/ /predator_state. /imf_and_debt /disaster_capitalism. Propaganda/

        [Jul 27, 2015] For Greece, Oligarchs Are an Obstacle to Recovery

        Notable quotes:
        "... ordering an employee to withdraw the money in bags of cash. ..."
        Dec 05, 2012 | The New York Times

        ATHENS - A dynamic entrepreneur, Lavrentis Lavrentiadis seemed to represent a promising new era for Greece. He dazzled the country's traditionally insular business world by spinning together a multibillion-dollar empire just a few years after inheriting a small family firm at 18. Seeking acceptance in elite circles, he gave lavishly to charities and cultivated ties to the leading political parties.
        But as Greece's economy soured in recent years, his fortunes sagged and he began embezzling money from a bank he controlled, prosecutors say. With charges looming, it looked as if his rapid rise would be followed by an equally precipitous fall. Thanks to a law passed quietly by the Greek Parliament, however, he avoided prosecution, at least for a time, simply by paying the money back.

        Now 40, Mr. Lavrentiadis is back in the spotlight as one of the names on the so-called Lagarde list of more than 2,000 Greeks said to have accounts in a Geneva branch of the bank HSBC and who are suspected of tax evasion. Given to Greek officials two years ago by Christine Lagarde, then the French finance minister and now head of the International Monetary Fund, the list was expected to cast a damning light on the shady practices of the rich.

        Lavrentis Lavrentiadis embezzled money from a bank he controlled, prosecutors say

        Instead, it was swept under the rug, and now two former finance ministers and Greece's top tax officials are under investigation for having failed to act.
        Greece's economic troubles are often attributed to a public sector packed full of redundant workers, a lavish pension system and uncompetitive industries hampered by overpaid workers with lifetime employment guarantees. Often overlooked, however, is the role played by a handful of wealthy families, politicians and the news media - often owned by the magnates - that make up the Greek power structure.

        In a country crushed by years of austerity and 25 percent unemployment, average Greeks are growing increasingly resentful of an oligarchy that, critics say, presides over an opaque, closed economy that is at the root of many of the country's problems and operates with virtual impunity. Several dozen powerful families control critical sectors, including banking, shipping and construction, and can usually count on the political class to look out for their interests, sometimes by passing legislation tailored to their specific needs.

        The result, analysts say, is a lack of competition that undermines the economy by allowing the magnates to run cartels and enrich themselves through crony capitalism. "That makes it rational for them to form a close, incestuous relationship with politicians and the media, which is then highly vulnerable to corruption," said Kevin Featherstone, a professor of European Politics at the London School of Economics.

        This week the anticorruption watchdog Transparency International ranked Greece as the most corrupt nation in Europe, behind former Eastern Bloc states like Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia. Under the pressure of the financial crisis, Greece is being pressed by Germany and its international lenders to make fundamental changes to its economic system in exchange for the money it needs to avoid bankruptcy.

        But it remains an open question whether Greece's leaders will be able to engineer such a transformation. In the past year, despite numerous promises to increase transparency, the country actually dropped 14 places from the previous corruption survey.

        Mr. Lavrentiadis is still facing a host of accusations stemming from hundreds of millions of dollars in loans made by his Proton bank to dormant companies - sometimes, investigators say, ordering an employee to withdraw the money in bags of cash. But with Greece scrambling to complete a critical bank recapitalization and restructuring, his case is emblematic of a larger battle between Greece's famously weak institutions and fledgling regulatory structures against these entrenched interests.

        Many say that the system has to change in order for Greece to emerge from the crisis. "Keeping the status quo will simply prolong the disaster in Greece," Mr. Featherstone said. While the case of Mr. Lavrentiadis suggests that the status quo is at least under scrutiny, he added, "It's not under sufficient attack."

        In a nearly two-hour interview, Mr. Lavrentiadis denied accusations of wrongdoing and said that he held "a few accounts" at HSBC in Geneva that totaled only about $65,000, all of it legitimate, taxed income. He also sidestepped questions about his political ties and declined to comment on any details of the continuing investigation into Proton Bank.
        Sitting in the office of his criminal lawyer last month, relaxed, smiling and dressed in a crisp blue suit and red-and-blue tie, Mr. Lavrentiadis said he found it puzzling that he had been singled out in reports about the Lagarde list when other powerful figures appeared to evade scrutiny.

        "My question is, 'Why me?' " he said. "I'm the scapegoat for everything."

        In the interview, Mr. Lavrentiadis depicted himself as an outsider and upstart, an entrepreneur in a small country dominated by old families who frown on newcomers. "I am not from a third-generation aristocratic family," he said repeatedly.

        Indeed, by some lights, Mr. Lavrentiadis fell in part because he rose too quickly and then failed to secure enough of the right friends to protect him, a perception he did not dispute.

        [Jul 26, 2015]Greece, [yet another] the Sacrificial Lamb

        "...these policy debates are really about ideology and power."
        .
        "...special interests, in and out of the country, are using the troika to get what they could not have obtained by more democratic processes."
        .
        "...The battle, however, is not just about Greece. It's not even just about the money, although special interests in the rest of Europe and some within Greece itself have taken advantage of the troika to push their own interests at the expense of ordinary Greek citizens and the country's overall economy. This is something I saw repeatedly firsthand when I was at the World Bank, most noticeably in Indonesia. When a country is down, there is all manner of mischief that can be done."
        .
        "...One underlying problem in Greece, in both its economy and its politics, is the role of a group of wealthy people who control key sectors, including banks and the media, collectively referred to as the Greek oligarchs."
        .
        "...More likely than not, though, the troika will do what it has done for the last five years: Blame the victim."
        JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ
        Jul 25, 2015 | The New York Times

        As I read the details, I had a sense of déjà vu. As chief economist of the World Bank in the late 1990s, I saw firsthand in East Asia the devastating effects of the programs imposed on the countries that had turned to the I.M.F. for help. This resulted not just from austerity but also from so-called structural reforms, where too often the I.M.F. was duped into imposing demands that favored one special interest relative to others. There were hundreds of conditions, some little, some big, many irrelevant, some good, some outright wrong, and most missing the big changes that were really required.

        Back in 1998 in Indonesia, I saw how the I.M.F. ruined that country's banking system. I recall the picture of Michel Camdessus, the managing director of the I.M.F. at the time, standing over President Suharto as Indonesia surrendered its economic sovereignty. At a meeting in Kuala Lumpur in December 1997, I warned that there would be bloodshed in the streets within six months; the riots broke out five months later in Jakarta and elsewhere in Indonesia. Both before and after the crisis in East Asia, and those in Africa and in Latin America (most recently, in Argentina), these programs failed, turning downturns into recessions, recessions into depressions. I had thought that the lesson from these failures had been well learned, so it came as a surprise that Europe, beginning a half-decade ago, would impose this same stiff and ineffective program on one of its own.

        Whether or not the program is well implemented, it will lead to unsustainable levels of debt, just as a similar approach did in Argentina: The macro-policies demanded by the troika will lead to a deeper Greek depression. That's why the I.M.F.'s current managing director, Christine Lagarde, said that there needs to be what is euphemistically called "debt restructuring" - that is, in one way or another, a write-off of a significant portion of the debt. The troika program is thus incoherent: The Germans say there is to be no debt write-off and that the I.M.F. must be part of the program. But the I.M.F. cannot participate in a program in which debt levels are unsustainable, and Greece's debts are unsustainable.

        Austerity is largely to blame for Greece's current depression - a decline of gross domestic product of 25 percent since 2008, an unemployment rate of 25 percent and a youth unemployment rate twice that. But this new program ratchets the pressure up still further: a target of 3.5 percent primary budget surplus by 2018 (up from around 1 percent this year). Now, if the targets are not met, as they almost surely won't be because of the design of the program itself, additional doses of austerity become automatic. It's a built-in destabilizer. The high unemployment rate will drive down wages, but the troika does not seem satisfied by the pace of the lowering of Greeks' standard of living. The third memorandum also demands the "modernization" of collective bargaining, which means weakening unions by replacing industry-level bargaining.

        None of this makes sense even from the perspective of the creditors. It's like a 19th-century debtors' prison. Just as imprisoned debtors could not make the income to repay, the deepening depression in Greece will make it less and less able to repay.

        Structural reforms are needed, just as they were in Indonesia, but too many that are being demanded have little to do with attacking the real problems Greece faces. The rationale behind many of the key structural reforms has not been explained well, either to the Greek public or to economists trying to understand them. In the absence of such an explanation, there is a widespread belief here in Greece that special interests, in and out of the country, are using the troika to get what they could not have obtained by more democratic processes.

        Consider the case of milk. Greeks enjoy their fresh milk, produced locally and delivered quickly. But Dutch and other European milk producers would like to increase sales by having their milk, transported over long distances and far less fresh, appear to be just as fresh as the local product. In 2014 the troika forced Greece to drop the label "fresh" on its truly fresh milk and extend allowable shelf life. Now it is demanding the removal of the five-day shelf-life rule for pasteurized milk altogether. Under these conditions, large-scale producers believe they can trounce Greece's small-scale producers.

        In theory, Greek consumers would benefit from the lower prices, even if they suffered from lower quality. In practice, the new retail market is far from competitive, and early indications are that the lower prices were largely not passed on to consumers. My own research has long focused on the importance of information and how firms often try to take advantage of the lack of information. This is just another instance.

        One underlying problem in Greece, in both its economy and its politics, is the role of a group of wealthy people who control key sectors, including banks and the media, collectively referred to as the Greek oligarchs. They are the ones who resisted the changes that George Papandreou, the former prime minister, tried to introduce to increase transparency and to force greater compliance with a more progressive tax structure. The important reforms that would curb the Greek oligarchs are largely left off the agenda - not a surprise since the troika has at times in the past seemed to have been on their side.

        As it became clear early on in the crisis that the Greek banks would have to be recapitalized, it made sense to demand voting shares for the Greek government. This was necessary to ensure that politically influenced lending, including to the oligarchic media, be stopped. When such connected lending resumed - even to media companies that on strictly commercial terms should not have gotten loans - the troika turned a blind eye. It has also been quiescent as proposals were put forward to roll back the important initiatives of the Papandreou government on transparency and e-government, which dramatically lowered drug prices and put a damper on nepotism.

        Normally, the I.M.F. warns of the dangers of high taxation. Yet in Greece, the troika has insisted on high effective tax rates even at very low income levels. All recent Greek governments have recognized the importance of increasing tax revenues, but mistaken tax policy can help destroy an economy. In an economy where the financial system is not functioning well, where small- and medium-size enterprises can't get access to credit, the troika is demanding that Greek firms, including mom and pop stores, pay all of their taxes ahead of time, at the beginning of the year, before they have earned it, before they even know what their income is going to be. The requirement is intended to reduce tax evasion, but in the circumstances in which Greece finds itself, it destroys small business and increases resentment of both the government and the troika.

        This requirement seems at odds, too, with another of the demands with which Greece has been confronted: that it eliminate its cross-border withholding tax, which is the withholding tax on money sent from Greece to foreign investors. Such withholding taxes are a feature of good tax systems in countries like Canada and are a critical part of tax collection. Evidently, it is less important to ensure that foreigners pay their taxes than that Greeks do.

        There are many other strange features of the troika bailout packages, in part because each member of the troika has its favorite medicine. As doctors warn, there can be dangerous interactions. The battle, however, is not just about Greece. It's not even just about the money, although special interests in the rest of Europe and some within Greece itself have taken advantage of the troika to push their own interests at the expense of ordinary Greek citizens and the country's overall economy. This is something I saw repeatedly firsthand when I was at the World Bank, most noticeably in Indonesia. When a country is down, there is all manner of mischief that can be done.

        But these policy debates are really about ideology and power. We all know that. And we understand that this is not just an academic debate between the left and the right. Some on the right focus on the political battle: the harsh conditions imposed on the left-wing Syriza government should be a warning to any in Europe about what might happen to them should they push back. Some focus on the economic battle: the opportunity to impose on Greece an economic framework that could not have been adopted any other way.

        I believe strongly that the policies being imposed will not work, that they will result in depression without end, unacceptable levels of unemployment and ever growing inequality. But I also believe strongly in democratic processes - that the way to achieve whatever framework one thinks is good for the economy is through persuasion, not compulsion. The force of ideas is so much against what is being inflicted on and demanded of Greece. Austerity is contractionary; inclusive capitalism - the antithesis of what the troika is creating - is the only way to create shared and sustainable prosperity.

        For now, the Greek government has capitulated. Perhaps, as the lost half decade becomes the lost decade, as the politics get uglier, as the evidence mounts that these policies have failed, the troika will come to its senses. Greece needs debt restructuring, better structural reforms and more reasonable primary budget surplus targets. More likely than not, though, the troika will do what it has done for the last five years: Blame the victim.

        Joseph E. Stiglitz is a Nobel laureate in economics, a professor at Columbia and the author, most recently, of "The Great Divide: Unequal Societies and What We Can Do About Them."

        Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.


        pieceofcake -> konstanz germany 3 hours ago

        'One underlying problem in Greece, in both its economy and its politics, is the role of a group of wealthy people who control key sectors, including banks and the media, collectively referred to as the Greek oligarchs.'

        Thank you - as it was the Oligarchic system which ruined Greece and perhaps it could have been mentioned in this article - how much money these Oligarchs moved out of the country into foreign bank accounts - and if you have been in Athens you probably had Greeks telling you, that with this money in Greece there would be no need for another bailout.

        And for sure the debt - which is more or less the main 'incentive' for Greece to reform - should be forgiven - and the other European nations will agree to another 'haircut' AFTER the reforms are implemented - and you might be able to trust such a prediction - as all our predictions about the Greece Crisis -(documented by the published comments in the NYT) have come true.

        And it is a very welcome change of the narrative by progressive US economists - that at least the distructive role of the Greek Oligarchs is recognized. It comes up late in the article and the suggestion - the troika seemed to be at times on their side is probably as unfair as the idea that progressive US economists have been on the Oligrachs side.

        As from the beginning of the crisis it was rarely mentioned by US economists. They built a narrative all about 'austerity' insted of 'money for reforms' or a working taxation system for Greece!

        [Jul 26, 2015]The great Greece fire sale

        "... "Privatisation in Greece right now means a fire sale," political economist Jens Bastian said."
        .
        "...The Guardian is not the paper you think it is... or would like it to be.
        Even if its support for the previous Coalition government wasn't clear enough, the nature of its coverage of Russia, Greece, and lately the Corbyn candidacy, very obviously reveals its true loyalties."

        .
        "... Privatization will make the Greek economy look like Russia. Mafia State 2.0. The cost of everything will rise as the profiteers stripmine any assets left after the sellout of the Greek people. Those assets deemed unprofitable will be dumped onto the bankrupt state government. Your last paragraph is neocon boilerplate and simply doesn't apply in a situation where pirates move in to clean the bones of their victims. "
        July 24, 2015 | The Guardian

        Greece needs to sell off €50bn worth of state assets such as airports and marinas quickly as part of its third bailout deal. But is such a plan realistic?

        In the early days of the Greek debt crisis, two German politicians came up with a radical solution: Greece should sell off some of its uninhabited islands and property to pay back its creditors. "Sell your islands you bankrupt Greeks! And sell the Acropolis too!" was how the German tabloid Bild summed up their idea.

        While selling off ancient monuments was never a serious idea, the privatisation of state assets has always been an integral feature of Greece's international bailouts. Over the past five years, Greece has faltered on promises to sell vital parts of its infrastructure – ports, airports, marinas and waterworks – in exchange for billions of euros in loans.

        Privatisation remains a vital element of Greece's latest bailout deal. Under threat of being forced out of the eurozone, Athens agreed to transfer "valuable assets" to an independent fund, with the aim of raising €50bn (£35bn). Half the proceeds will be used to shore up capital reserves at Greek banks; a quarter will be used to repay Greece's creditors, and the remainder will be spent on unspecified investments.

        The privatisation fund was the issue that almost forced a Grexit at the marathon 17-hour, all-night summit of European leaders in Brussels earlier this month. "It was the only thing discussed at the summit," recalls one diplomat.

        At 6am, as Greece teetered on the brink of leaving the euro, the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, was still haggling over privatisation details with his counterparts, Angela Merkel and François Hollande.

        The idea of the privatisation fund first emerged in a leaked German government paper which argued Greece should leave the eurozone if it did not agree to put €50bn in a Luxembourg fund as collateral for its debts. Although drafted in Berlin, the plan soon found support among Greece's hardline creditors in central Europe and the Baltics.

        Tsipras wrung two concessions: the fund would be run from Athens, not Luxembourg, and a tranche of the cash would be earmarked for investments in Greece.

        The privatisation fund is likely to remain one of the most contentious issues as Greece and its creditors strive to conclude bailout talks by mid-August.

        From the creditors' perspective, Greek privatisation has been failure heaped upon failure. In 2011, international creditors decreed that Athens would raise €50bn by the end of 2015 from selling state assets. By early 2015, only €3.2bn had been raised; none of the most sensitive aspects – airports, ports, railways – had been sold. Neither officials at the European commission nor the International Monetary Fund are taking the €50bn target remotely seriously.

        In a devastating analysis of Greece's debt burden published in July, the IMF said it was realistic to assume asset sales would be worth no more than €500m a year – meaning it could take 100 years to raise €50bn.

        Gabriel Sterne at Oxford Economics argues that the IMF has failed to learn from its recent history that "less is more" when it comes to setting numerical targets. "It is economics versus faith – 'Somehow we will make this work even if it doesn't add up' – but the economics really doesn't add up."

        When Syriza swept to power in January, one of its first actions was to sack the people in charge of Greece's privatisation agency and cancel plans to sell Greece's electricity transmission operator (ADMIE). The sale of other assets – most notably regional airports and the port of Piraeus – had almost been completed, but was thrown into doubt. The government is expected to put up little resistance to the sales now being concluded. Venues purpose-built for the 2004 Athens Olympic games, which have sat derelict and rotting for the past decade, will also be among the assets moved to the fund, alongside state utilities, including the water board and ADMIE.

        Both Russia and China have expressed interest in snapping up the state-run railway network, one of the biggest encumbrances on public finances before the debt crisis erupted in late 2009. The Greek state is also rich in buildings bequeathed by individuals to municipalities and the Orthodox Church – properties that are also expected to be included in the fund. Contrary to popular perception, the public sector owns very few islands. The sale last week to Hollywood star Johnny Depp of the Aegean islet of Stroggilo, for a reputed €4.2m, was conducted privately.

        While Tsipras has been forced into a humiliating climbdown over the sale of state assets, he has repeatedly branded the entire bailout plan as a bad deal that he doesn't believe in.

        Unions with ties to the governing party have already vowed to "wage war" to stop the sale of docks in Piraeus, where the Chinese conglomerate, Cosco, currently manages three piers. With the debt-stricken country on its knees, officials have stressed that the prime minister will fight to ensure the denationalisations are not seen as a fire sale.

        However, independent observers fear just that. "Privatisation in Greece right now means a fire sale," political economist Jens Bastian said.

        Bastian was one of the officials responsible for privatisation under the European commission's Taskforce for Greece, a body of experts distinct from the troika. He thinks it was a "political mistake" to set a target to raise €50bn from asset sales, in the absence of support from Greek politicians across the political spectrum, from the centre-right New Democracy party, to Pasok on the centre-left and Syriza on the left.

        "We have never had a political majority to embrace the idea of privatisation. How are you going to create the political momentum that has been absent in the past years under more difficult conditions today?" he asks.

        Greece's creditors share such scepticism. Their answer is tighter controls. The privatisation fund will be managed by Greeks under the close watch of creditors.

        The privatisation fund has few precedents, although it has been compared to the Treuhandanstalt, the German agency created in the dying days of the GDR to privatise East German assets shortly before reunification. Greece's former finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, was one of the first to draw the parallel, although others offer the comparison unprompted. Peter Doyle, a former IMF economist, says the Treuhand offers the closest parallels: the agency had full control over government ministries to sell assets quickly. "The principal task was to sell these things to somebody for cash."

        Greek government officials and opposition politicians said it was too early to know how the Greek fund would operate.

        "We've got a long way to go before we have a clear picture of what this fund and the privatisation scheme will entail," Anna Asimakopoulou, shadow finance minister with the main opposition New Democracy party, told the Guardian. "But the entire privatisation process will feature large in negotiations because Tsipras is so opposed to them and creditors see them as a good way to raise revenues."

        Greece has an urgent need for cash: although the eurozone bailout is meant to be worth up to €86bn, only €50bn is on the table, via the eurozone's bailout fund, the European Stability Mechanism.

        Doyle thinks Greece's bailout is underfunded. "The Europeans just don't have enough cash ... and a major way to fill that gap is through privatisation." Officials at the Greek privatisation agency are "going to find their arms very strongly twisted to provide needed cash", he says.

        "The privatisation agency is facing a trade off between doing something that is fair and open and following judicial procedures, or something that is going to deliver needed cash."


        He fears Greece could be heading down the path taken by Russia in the 1990s, when valuable state assets were sold at knockdown prices to raise urgently-needed cash, creating a new oligarch class in the process.


        "The very thing we all think that Greece needs – to get rid of its oligarchy – will in fact be entrenched by privatisation done this way," argues Doyle, who worked on privatisations in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland in the 1990s. The difference between those countries and Greece, he thinks, is that the population and political class in central Europe accepted the idea of privatisation, despite the short-term hardships.

        He is convinced the current privatisation plan for Greece is doomed to fail. "The programme was set up to encourage Greece to leave the euro and that plan didn't work, so now we are stuck with the privatisation arrangement that nobody, not even the original creditors, ever intended to happen."

        Up for sale

        Helliniko Olympic complex

        Ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki

        14 regional airports

        PPC power company, including ADMIE, the electricity transmission operator

        DEPA natural gas company

        Hellenic Petroleum
        Hellenic Post
        Athens Water Supply and Sewerage Company
        Xenia Hotels in Rhodes
        Marinas of Chios, Pylos and other locations

        Source: Hellenic Republic Asset Development Fund


        MrShigemitsu -> Byron73 26 Jul 2015 15:49

        surely a newspaper like the Guardian

        Woah, back up now.... you see, there's your problem right there.

        The Guardian is not the paper you think it is... or would like it to be.

        Even if its support for the previous Coalition government wasn't clear enough, the nature of its coverage of Russia, Greece, and lately the Corbyn candidacy, very obviously reveals its true loyalties.

        It supports the neoliberal status quo - don't kid yourself otherwise.


        JaneThomas 25 Jul 2015 22:07

        "It's neither more moral nor a matter of just desserts to call for that internal devaluation, that austerity, than it is to call for the currency devaluation. Indeed, I would argue entirely the other way: the currency devaluation will cause a lot less human pain so that's the way the problem should be solved. Thus Greece must leave the euro because that's the way to solve the problem with the least pain."

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/07/25/greece-really-should-leave-the-euro-the-economics-is-entirely-clear-here/


        delaxo kimdriver 25 Jul 2015 17:34

        How many Greeks really want Eurozone at any cost can only be seen through a referendum.
        Remember that prior to the last referendum of 61-39, the same opinion poll companies were predicting a 50-50 result.
        Are they more trustworthy on the Eurozone question?

        someoneionceknew Drosophilasrule 25 Jul 2015 17:24

        Capital's motivation is to accumulate financial assets i.e. supplying the least possible service/product for the greatest possible return.

        delaxo kimdriver 25 Jul 2015 16:32

        "the Greek political establishment was held to account by its electorate":
        Excuse me but his sounds like a joke, when 61% of the electorate expressed a will that was summarily rejected by the true rulers of the colony.


        Alfie Silva kimdriver 25 Jul 2015 16:11

        Al well and good in principle and I agree with most of what you say.

        However, privatisations are not always the nirvana you make them out to be.

        You see it everywhere across Europe; the privatisation of EDP, PT, REN for example in Portugal; customer service is now appalling in these former nationalized industries.

        I experienced it first hand in the UK; NORWEB and North West Water becoming United Utilities; service to the public again is appalling.

        In the rush to privatise, the need for an ombudsman and guaranteed standards by statute is as necessary as making a return to shareholders.


        Moniq Vervoort 25 Jul 2015 12:43

        The list of Oligarch Greeks that don t pay tax in Greece should be plastered all over the internet , newspapers , tv , etc

        Out of the 100 richest people on Earth right now 8 are Greek , one lady and 7 gents that ought to get a BBC camera and a competent interviewer asking their take on the situation ' back Home'!

        That would make more sense that simply flogging the place off to Tom Dick and Harry (IMO)


        Ryleigh RedCoat4Ever 25 Jul 2015 09:48

        Except they are a nation state, not a household or a company. The ability of one country to intervene in another and seize assets smells of imperialism and colonialism.


        deskandchair -> Winhoering 25 Jul 2015 09:20

        Another corporatist fantasist:
        "Spain and Ireland are reporting good growth rates"
        AND soaring poverty and unemployment and mass emigration, really great EZ success stories there NOT.


        deskandchair -> whitewolfe 25 Jul 2015 09:17

        "Smaller the state less corruption"
        More corporatist lies, small state = large corporate power and in which fairy-tale lala land do you imagine there's no corruption in private companies? Indeed, corruption is even MORE COVERT in private companies you dunce.


        LibertineUSA 25 Jul 2015 09:06

        Making Greece poorer one step at a time. What a triumph of neoliberal economics...for at least the beneficiaries of neoliberal economics. Who just happen to be the same people who own everything and don't want to pay their taxes.


        FourtyTwo Drosophilasrule 25 Jul 2015 09:01

        Germany already owns fully the Greek telecom company (Deutsche Telekom) and is preparing to secure the purchase of all Greek regional airports (Fraport AG). There are also rumours that Sofina, based in Brussels is after Thessaloniki's water company EYATH (ΕΥΑΘ). Interestingly enough Guy Verhofstadt sits on this company's board. So I grant you it is not just "Germany" but Germany's sphere of influence out to buy Greece. ;)

        But even if some Greek oligarchs manage to get a piece of that cake, do you really think that would be anything to be proud of? I hear that Greece's "national contractor" George Bobolas is collaborating with Sofina to get a piece of EYATH. What do you have to say about that?

        Everybody knows that the non-paper regarding the Greece Treuhand (let's call a spade a spade, shall we?) was circulated by Schaeuble even before the beginning of the summit meeting and that originally the fund would be based in Luxembourg, be run by non-Greeks and all the money from the privatisations would go to creditors to service the debt. The summit almost collapsed because of this aggressive move as Tsipras abandoned the negotiations in dismay and several more moderate people had to intervene to get him back to the negotiation table. Later we found that the non-paper was known and endorsed by both Merkel and the SPD. So yes, pretty much all of "Germany" was behind that caper.

        Joint control of assets (Greek state and private companies) has already been proposed by the Greek government, namely Varoufakis himself, but that was deemed unsatisfactory. And even a neoliberal has to agree that selling off assets at a time of a big depression and uncertainty will effect in their being sold for peanuts with a great loss to the seller and a humongous gain for the buyer. Especially if the assets are monopolies of basic commodities like water which means they are totally risk-free, or related to the country's basic means of revenue, tourism.


        Kompe75 hungrycocky 25 Jul 2015 07:59

        We knew that Germans and reason coincide....but now with Schaueble everything is possible...they have tradition in electing paranoid leaders


        MacNara -> whitewolfe 25 Jul 2015 06:31

        You are clearly an ultra-capitalist, while I am not, so it's difficult to talk with you. But like many with a religious belief in capitalism, you don't seem to have much idea how it works.

        Let's take your point 1:


        Selling them contributes to the government, cash. Cash that the country desperately needs.

        No: all this money is going abroad; the Greek government won't see any of it. From the point of view of the Greek government, the sale alone (assuming nothing else happened) would be purely an accounting change with no effect in the real world. So, from their point of view, if they were capitalists it would be best to carry on as is, or declare bankruptcy and have a pre-arranged buyer for the bankrupt company (i.e. themselves).


        As long as trains run and electricity is deliver[ed] who cares who owns it?

        Well, shareholders seem to, otherwise why would there be stockmarkets? And the reverse is true from the customers' point of view. That is to say, if the company became profitable and the profits went to the Greek state rather than others, then it would make a big difference to the citizens.

        And so on for your other three points, which I had also already answered in my original post.

        John Bennetts -> whitewolfe 25 Jul 2015 06:02

        Total BS, Whitewolf. I expect that putting others down makes you feel bigger.

        Name examples of "smaller state less corruption". Where has this worked?

        The foreign banks made bad deals, lost the gamble and then pressured their governments, led by Germany, to extract penalties far i n excess of the supposed crime. The whole nation is being pauperised.

        But that doesn't matter... they're only olive-sucking Greeks, after all. Not German or French banks. So that's OK.

        MacNara 25 Jul 2015 00:02

        I don't understand why the idea of management contracts for Greek state-owned industries has not been given an airing.

        For example, Deutsche Bahn (German government) could be given a ten or twenty year contract to make the railways profitable, and EDF (French government) could do the same for the power system. And this could be done without privatisation (after all, the German and French equivalents are state-owned).

        This would surely have several benefits:

        1. When the companies were profitable, they could contribute to Greek government finances.

        2. Alternatively, once profit-making, they could be sold off, but not at fire-sale prices as looks likely at the moment.

        3. This would be a clear example of the German and French (and other governments') desire to help Greece improve, and not to asset-strip, so it would be a PR win, and a plus for all sides (especially if these contracts were 'at cost' and non-profit).

        4. Making these businesses profitable will probably initially involve job losses, wage cuts, and price rises. Keeping them in state ownership would mean that the benefits of these sacrifices by Greeks would be kept in-house (i.e. go to the government and not foreign capitalists or Greek oligarchs) and therefore make it more likely that they would get social acceptance.

        Has such a plan really never been discussed? Or is my logic faulty?


        deskandchair 24 Jul 2015 23:52

        ". It is a necessary component of a healthy economy because it ensures private sector efficiency and productivity"

        Straight from the '90's handbook and absolute RUBBISH. Look at for example public transport systems privatised in Australia. They're now less efficient (schedules are a joke) rolling stock is older and shoddy and private companies STILL DEPEND on state governments for injections of hundreds of millions of dollars to maintain infrastructure.

        Then there's electricity supplies in Aus states that have privatised, over-investment in infrastructure (so they can pump the cost of electricity so while households are using less power, costs far exceed inflation). The same with water, gas etc.

        I have yet to see ONE example of privatisation of public assets in Aus that resulted in better service, efficiencies etc etc etc. Privatisation of assets is simply a cash-cow for certain companies to bleed the public dry and am happy to consider any REAL example where this is not so.


        Alto Cumulus 24 Jul 2015 22:56

        Multinational corporations hire battalions of lawyers precisely to AVOID paying taxes. And foreign governments collude, allowing multinationals and Greek oligarchs to park their money in the Luxemburg, Netherlands, or other tax havens.

        So selling of Greece's water utilities or ports does NOT mean the corporate buyers will be compelled to pay taxes in Greece. The burden of tax payment will continue to fall to Greek small businesses and Greek families.

        The little taxes the new corporate overlords may pay will be immediately sucked up by Greece's creditors.

        Marty Wolf -> psygone 24 Jul 2015 15:30

        Privatization will make the Greek economy look like Russia. Mafia State 2.0. The cost of everything will rise as the profiteers stripmine any assets left after the sellout of the Greek people. Those assets deemed unprofitable will be dumped onto the bankrupt state government. Your last paragraph is neocon boilerplate and simply doesn't apply in a situation where pirates move in to clean the bones of their victims.

        Olastakarvouna 24 Jul 2015 15:12

        Helliniko Olympic complex, and 14 regional airports have already been sold (with only bureaucratic hurdles remaining). So has DEPA the natural gas company, but its sale is being held up by EU regulators. The PPC power company will NEVER be sold (unless you believe that Britain will sell its NHS). The Athens Water Supply and Sewerage Company will also NEVER be sold, as its sale (and that of Thessaloniki water supply co) was deemed unconstitutional a year ago by Greece's highest court. Helena Smith, please try refining your reporting a little bit more.

        [Jul 26, 2015] What Is Wrong with the West's Economies?

        "...The jarring market forces? It was a political project with the desired results."
        .
        "..."We will all have to turn from the classical fixation on wealth accumulation and efficiency to a modern economics that places imagination and creativity at the center of economic life.""
        .
        "...AN excellent paper up until Eddie tries to solve the problem. His description of the long term societal effects of consolidation of corporations into corporatist behemoths and wealth into obscene levels of power, isolation, and self-indulgence was unerring. Too bad he had no idea what he was depicting."
        .
        "...Our financial leaders don't want a thriving economy. The want to crush the opposition and keep people under their thumb"
        .
        "...Perhaps well worth a rather long read, is Domhoff's piece titled, "The Class Domination Theory of Power, here: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/class_domination.html"

        This is from Edmund Phelps. It was kind of hard to highlight the main points in brief extracts, so you may want to take a look at the full article:

        What Is Wrong with the West's Economies?: What is wrong with the economies of the West-and with economics? ...

        Many of us in Western Europe and America feel that our economies are far from just...

        With little or no effective policy initiative giving a lift to the less advantaged, the jarring market forces of the past four decades-mainly the slowdowns in productivity that have spread over the West and, of course, globalization, which has moved much low-wage manufacturing to Asia-have proceeded, unopposed, to drag down both employment and wage rates at the low end. The setback has cost the less advantaged not only a loss of income but also a loss of what economists call inclusion-access to jobs offering work and pay that provide self-respect. And inclusion was already lacking to begin with. ...

        How might Western nations gain-or regain-widespread prospering and flourishing? Taking concrete actions will not help much without fresh thinking: people must first grasp that standard economics is not a guide to flourishing-it is a tool only for efficiency. Widespread flourishing in a nation requires an economy energized by its own homegrown innovation from the grassroots on up. For such innovation a nation must possess the dynamism to imagine and create the new-economic freedoms are not sufficient. And dynamism needs to be nourished with strong human values.

        Of the concrete steps that would help to widen flourishing, a reform of education stands out. The problem here is not a perceived mismatch between skills taught and skills in demand. ... The problem is that young people are not taught to see the economy as a place where participants may imagine new things, where entrepreneurs may want to build them and investors may venture to back some of them. It is essential to educate young people to this image of the economy.

        It will also be essential that high schools and colleges expose students to the human values expressed in the masterpieces of Western literature, so that young people will want to seek economies offering imaginative and creative careers. Education systems must put students in touch with the humanities in order to fuel the human desire to conceive the new and perchance to achieve innovations. This reorientation of general education will have to be supported by a similar reorientation of economic education.

        We will all have to turn from the classical fixation on wealth accumulation and efficiency to a modern economics that places imagination and creativity at the center of economic life.

        I'm skeptical that this is the answer to our inequality/job satisfaction problems.

        Posted by Mark Thoma on Friday, July 24, 2015 at 10:38 AM in Economics, Income Distribution, Productivity | Permalink Comments (14)

        Peter K. said...

        "With little or no effective policy initiative giving a lift to the less advantaged, the jarring market forces of the past four decades-mainly the slowdowns in productivity that have spread over the West and, of course, globalization, which has moved much low-wage manufacturing to Asia-have proceeded, unopposed, to drag down both employment and wage rates at the low end."

        The jarring market forces? It was a political project with the desired results.

        JohnH said in reply to Peter K....

        Indeed! And there is currently no meaningful effort to fix the problem, only to worsen it through TPP and TAFTA.

        Rune Lagman said...

        "We will all have to turn from the classical fixation on wealth accumulation and efficiency to a modern economics that places imagination and creativity at the center of economic life."

        Well, ain't gonna happen by "reforming" the education system.

        Everybody (more or less) knows what it takes to "fix" the western economies; lots of infrastructure investment (preferable green) and higher wages. I'm getting fed up with all these "economists" that keep justifying the status quo (probably because their paycheck depends on it).

        dan berg said...

        Could it possibly be that your skepticism arises from the fact that -precisely because you are an academic economist - you haven't got an imaginative or creative bone in your body?

        RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to dan berg...

        Dear AH,

        Doc Thoma wrote "I'm skeptical that this is the answer to our inequality/job satisfaction problems."

        Everybody has imagination and creative potential. Most people just lack the mean to express it in a way that will enter the economy. Even Edmund realized that people got to eat. The obstacles run from there. It was Edmund's answer that Doc Thoma was skeptical of. This was Phelps answer to the question:

        "... Of the concrete steps that would help to widen flourishing, a reform of education stands out. The problem here is not a perceived mismatch between skills taught and skills in demand. (Experts have urged greater education in STEM subjects-science, technology, engineering, and mathematics-but when Europe created specialized universities in these subjects, no innovation was observed.) The problem is that young people are not taught to see the economy as a place where participants may imagine new things, where entrepreneurs may want to build them and investors may venture to back some of them. It is essential to educate young people to this image of the economy.

        It will also be essential that high schools and colleges expose students to the human values expressed in the masterpieces of Western literature, so that young people will want to seek economies offering imaginative and creative careers. Education systems must put students in touch with the humanities in order to fuel the human desire to conceive the new and perchance to achieve innovations. This reorientation of general education will have to be supported by a similar reorientation of economic education..."

        If you agree with Edmund Phelps on his answer then at least we must all admit that you have an astronomical imagination.

        djb said...

        Our financial leaders don't want a thriving economy

        The want to crush the opposition and keep people under their thumb

        Give people real hope and the economy will thrive

        anne said...

        By way of Branko Milanovic, referring to randomized trials in economics:

        http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/08/bblonder/phys120/docs/borges.pdf

        1658

        On Exactitude in Science
        Suarez Miranda

        …In that Empire, the Art of Cartography attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast Map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography.

        (1946

        Viajes de varones prudentes
        Jorge Luis Borges)

        cm said...

        "The problem is that young people are not taught to see the economy as a place where participants may imagine new things, where entrepreneurs may want to build them and investors may venture to back some of them. It is essential to educate young people to this image of the economy."

        He left out the part who will pay for all these new things. Aggregate demand. I don't know where this idea comes from that young people don't imagine creating new things. They do it all the time, until the rubber hits the road and they have to get a corporate job because there is just not enough interest and funding for what they are interested in offering. No amount of education will help there.

        Not to put words in his mouth, but its sounds like an impersonalized form victim blaming - schools suck and young people have no imagination.

        RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to cm...

        Schools suck and young people have too much imagination. But Edmund Phelps has more imagination that anyone that I have ever known :<)

        cm said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

        Not sure how this relates to my point. How will "better education" fix the fact that when you have a good idea, more likely than not there is no market for it? A lot of tech innovation "rests" in actual or metaphorical drawers because of no ROI or no concrete customer/market to sell it. And this is not a recent phenomenon.

        RC AKA Darryl, Ron said...

        AN excellent paper up until Eddie tries to solve the problem. His description of the long term societal effects of consolidation of corporations into corporatist behemoths and wealth into obscene levels of power, isolation, and self-indulgence was unerring. Too bad he had no idea what he was depicting.

        Lafayette said...

        {... which has moved much low-wage manufacturing to Asia-have proceeded, unopposed, to drag down both employment and wage rates at the low end.}

        Yes, unopposed. Just what should any nation do about it? Forbid it?

        That's not the way economies work.

        The Industrial Revolution took a lot of people off the farms, brought them into large cities, where accommodations were created for their families, and gave them jobs in factories with which to pay the rent.

        Many then moved on to purchase those properties an become homeowners, which was a typical example of "economic progression".

        Of course, the Industrial Revolution, which started in western developed nations, aided by a couple of wars, inevitably progressed from more developed to lesser developed societies.

        We in the industrially developed West should not have permitted the Chinese, Vietnamese or Filipinos from bettering their lot by making exactly the same societal progression?

        Where is the Social Justice in that, pray tell?

        If there has been any failure in Social Justice, it is in the US. Piketty was very clear about that in this info-graphic: https://www.flickr.com/photos/68758107@N00/14266316974/

        The income unfairness that has occurred since the US ratcheted down drastically upper-income taxation was not replicated in the EU. Is a third of all income going to only 10% of the population in Europe unfair? Perhaps.

        But not quite as unfair as the nearly 50% in the United States. And as regards Wealth, the societal impact is even worse. As Domhoff's work shows, 80% of the American population obtain only 11% of America's wealth historically. See that tragic bit of unfairness here: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Net_worth_and_financial_wealth.gif

        Lafayette said in reply to Lafayette...

        Perhaps well worth a rather long read, is Domhoff's piece titled, "The Class Domination Theory of Power, here: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/class_domination.html

        Excerpt: {The argument over the structure and distribution of power in the United States has been going on within academia since the 1950s. It has generated a large number of empirical studies, many of which have been drawn upon here.

        In the final analysis, however, scholars' conclusions about the American power structure depend upon their beliefs concerning power indicators, which are a product of their "philosophy of science". That sounds strange, I realize, but if "who benefits?" and "who sits?" are seen as valid power indicators, on the assumption that "power" is an underlying social trait that can be indexed by a variety of imperfect indicators, then the kind of evidence briefly outlined here will be seen as a very strong case for the dominant role of the power elite in the federal government.}

        Thanks to RR in the 1980s.

        No wonder "they" make statues of Reckless Ronnie. Can't believe that? See this from WikiPedia: "List of things named after Ronald Reagan", here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_named_after_Ronald_Reagan

        [Jul 26, 2015] Mathew D. Rose The Crisis In Europe Has Only Just Begun naked capitalism

        Posted on July 24, 2015 by
        By Mathew D. Rose, a freelance journalist in Berlin

        Five months ago I attempted to explain why the conflict between Germany and Greece was destined culminate as it has:

        Following the recent elections in Greece, Germany and its EU compradors are making it clear who is in charge. The Germans are currently not offering any compromise, but iterate the same blunt demand: Greece has to accept what is being dictated; in other words, capitulate or be annihilated. This time it will not be the Wehrmacht und Luftwaffe that are to force the Greek nation into submission, but a weapon just as lethal: national bankruptcy.

        This conflict has nothing to do with Greek debt or finances. Syriza's strategy was based upon the rational assumption that the nation's debt and recovery are being stifled by austerity. As we know from most any respected economist, Greece's debt can never and will never be repaid. On the continent that prides itself as the cradle of the enlightenment, there should have been an amicable, lasting solution to Greece's untenable financial situation. Greece has had to learn the hard way, that the EU is no longer a European project for peace, democracy and prosperity, but a German tool for hegemony.

        This has been a conflict between a small European nation, led by a leftist government, attempting to reassert its autonomy under crushing German predominance. That may sound simplistic, but there is not much more to it.

        In past postings I have also attempted to explain the German mindset leading to this – and there is no other word for it – disaster. The negotiations have been surprisingly linear. Syriza's main goal was debt relief. They always saw Chancellor Merkel as the lone decision maker in the negotiations. Ms Merkel on the other hand has unremittingly demanded unconditional capitulation. The rest has been spectacle. There is a saying: "Clowns entertain in the intervals between the acts. The circus director runs the show". Dijsselbloem, Juncker and the rest may have had a lot to say to the media, but little to say in negotiations. Finland, Slovakia and Slovenia are irrelevant. The only other player of any importance besides Merkel was ECB president Mario Draghi, who assisted Germany's financial blitzkrieg by questionably terminating the ECB's support of Greek banks. Schäuble was Merkel's executioner.

        The intervention of France's President Francois Hollande was uncannily reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain. The only thing lacking was his arrival at Charles de Gaulle Airport brandishing a letter from Chancellor Merkel. The conclusion of "negotiations" was reminiscent of the Munich Dictate. Greece has been "saved", much as Czechoslovakia 77 years ago.

        The humanitarian disaster had reached dimensions that defy any definition of a "United Europe". With the media's obsession with the pseudo negotiations the fact that this was an existential decision for millions of Greeks was forgotten, many of whom stood at the edge of an abyss. This became clear as affected Greeks were asking how they were to pay for their insulin and if it would soon become unavailable due to the financial embargo that was being created. This was the terrorism that Yanis Varoufakis denounced.

        The reaction of what I would term "enlightened Germans" to Varoufakis's claim was what one expects. For them, they were being compared to ISIS. Even though the fear emanating from much of Greece's population was palpable, there was little reflection by many of those Germans capable of doing so, with regard to the aggression conducted in the name of Germany. In the phase immediately before Syriza's capitulation there was an increasing awareness among some Germans that something was going terribly wrong, but it was too little and too late.

        This brings me to the first main point of this posting. The history of the "good Germans" has always been one of ineffectuality. In the course of history there have been many Germans who believed in the enlightenment, be it Martin Luther, Immanuel Kant or Wolfgang Goethe. These however never questioned the authoritative role of the state against the will of the people. The class of "enlightened" Germans always regret what their nation is doing, but more often than not, in the end participate in the very actions they deplore. As A.J.P. Taylor wrote: "There were, and I daresay are, many millions of well-meaning kindly Germans; but what have they added up to politically?" In the case of Greece, this has occurred still again.

        Not that the ethical Germans have had an easy time of it lately. A few years ago there was a massive campaign in commentaries and politics condemning so called Gutmenschen (literally translated: good people), who were defined by their critics as persons following their moral conscience – regardless of being leftist, moderate or conservative. In a nation that is responsible for the holocaust, this is a very worrying development. Thus the transition of Germany's hegemonic role in Europe, among many internal transitions such as the unjust redistribution of wealth, has been thoroughly ideologically prepared.

        It is worth mentioning a sort of landmark book written by the German historian Heinrich August Winkler, "The Long Journey to the West", which appeared in the year 2000. It traces the purported progress of Germany becoming a responsible member of Western Europe's democratic tradition and intellectual enlightenment. Winkler may have been too quick with his conclusion. Under German hegemony we are seeing heads of state removed by financial pressure (Italy and Greece), nations forced to take over debts from reckless private banks (Ireland and Spain) and Greece being pounded into submission and having its autonomy reduced to passing legislation dictated by Berlin. The Germany of today has little to do with Western European democracy, resembling more traditional German anti-democratic authoritarianism.

        The second point I wash to make is that the real losers with regard to the disaster in Greece are not even aware of their plight: the Eastern Europeans. What the Germans have done to Greece has its basis in racism, but the Germans have a primordial fear and hate of eastern Europeans, resulting in a commensurate brutality. When the opportunity arrives to subjugate these peoples, the process will not be as gentle as in Greece. Ukraine could already be the first example of this.

        The only exception might be Poland, which throughout history has been invaded and occupied by the Germans. Not only have the Germans always considered Poland a colony, but after the Second World War German territory was added to Poland. This is something that Germans resent to this day. Willy Brandt falling to his knees in Warsaw was an important gesture, but in Germany these days Willy Brandt numbers among the derogated "Gutmenschen". The Poles are fortunately highly distrustful of the Germans – with good reason – and are still not members of the eurozone . They surely have been following the developments in Greece and hopefully comprehended the writing on the wall.

        Lastly, no one seems to have really thought through what the "reforms" forced upon Greece will mean in practice. Up to now Greeks apparently were reluctant to pay taxes because hardly any one, especially the oligarchs, did so. To alter a nation's attitude to taxation is a herculean task for a government at the best of times, a process that Yanis Varoufakis interestingly had initiated very early on. The imposition of a ridiculously high value added tax increase by Germany is nothing more than taxation without representation. Not paying ones taxes in Greece will become a patriotic act of resistance against the Germans and the troika. There can be no crdible political discourse from a politically disgraced Syriza, leaving coercion as the only alternative (Varoufakis knew why he resigned as finance minister and has voted against the German dictate). The Greek people clearly rejected the dictate that has been foisted upon them. They will not be supporting the so called "reforms", especially as they simply cannot afford to do so.

        The crisis in Greece and in Europe is not over, it is only just beginning.


        John Jones, July 25, 2015 at 2:36 am

        Yeah and Greeks and eastern Europeans and other minorities etc also live the experience of been on the end of the racism by Germans, English and other northern Europeans. And it is not 'some people' in their experience.
        And it is always satire and funny when you are not the one on the other end of the joke.

        The wealthy Greeks seek to conserve their wealth as much as the wealthy Germans. To devolve this down to nationalistic stereotypes is to play the game of the wealthy. Divide and rule. This article buys into that, big time.

        Stereotypes which most of the German population has had no problem believing and spouting off towards Greeks. Preconceived notions that not only the Germans have but England and northern Europe.


        Skippy, July 24, 2015 at 11:45 am

        The strange thing is the Germans were late to the colonization party, tho at that time there was some funky stuff happening in German philosophy and spiritualism.

        Skippy…. and at the end of the day all the other anglophone nations history is white washed and Germany was left holding the bag as the bad guy.


        vidimi, July 24, 2015 at 12:05 pm

        yup. i would say the english probably qualify as history's greatest all-time villains…or should i say "some english people".


        flora, July 24, 2015 at 12:49 pm

        Yes. " A few years ago there was a massive campaign in commentaries and politics condemning so called Gutmenschen (literally translated: good people), who were defined by their critics as persons following their moral conscience – regardless of being leftist, moderate or conservative."

        This remark makes me wonder if Hegel is still the guiding philosophy in Germany.

        "Since the state is mind objectified, it is only as one of its members that the individual has objectivity, genuine individuality, and an ethical life…" Hegel

        Hegel gives the state the primacy, not the family or community or individual conscience.

        dk, July 24, 2015 at 11:47 am

        The reality is that oligarchs use proxies of many kinds, from nations to individuals. They gain resources and profit from the products and byproducts of elaborately manufactured scenarios, pitting groups against each other to produce illusions of demand, debt, etc. Germany and Greece are no more than proxies in this gambit.

        Beware the kayfabe.

        DJG, July 24, 2015 at 11:06 am

        The Anglo-German media have steeped in racism. Are you forgetting the acronym PIIGS? Do you think that is referring to hams on the hoof in Finland?

        I'll write it again: The DJG rule. The Anglophone world (and the Germans and Dutch) prefer their Romans and Greeks dead. The current ones are too "excitable."

        MyLessThanPrimeBeef, July 24, 2015 at 12:15 pm

        Brown people, little people, poor people, desert people don't do too well either in that world.

        hemeantwell, July 24, 2015 at 11:35 am

        To add: the more I think about this, the more off target this post is. Precisely at a time when it is necessary to consider features of the current crisis like, in no particular order, falling German productivity, the dwindling of Chinese demand that fueled Germany's economy, growing difficulties in finding investment options for surplus capital >>> bubble investment, how a NATO that is dominated by the US is fostering a crisis in the Ukraine, Rose focuses on the diffuse sentimental templates that can regressively steer a crisis response, especially when elites want to play the nationalism card. Rose does next to nothing to draw our attention back to crisis drivers, he just forecasts how it can be misinterpreted.

        German native speaker, July 25, 2015 at 5:43 pm

        For years, after starting an illegal war in Iraq, after the US caused the banking/ derivatives crisis, and after the truth about NSA/Snowdon, whenever someone in Germany talked bad about the "Amis" (short for Americans) because of the way the US behave, I have reminded them that not all Americans are 'behind' and supportive of the 'system'.
        I guess I can now follow your reasoning and encourage all Germans to pile it on about how bad Americans are, and unless all of them are called ruthless imperialists, the US won't change (according to your logic).


        OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL, July 24, 2015 at 4:56 pm

        The "most successful" in recent memory gets to dictate the narrative because their view is seen as "right". Germany gets to crow about their "economic miracle", founded on running surpluses, exchange rate suppression that would never have been possible under the deutschemark, and the inconvenient truth of the massive debt forgiveness and restructuring they were afforded in 1953. America benefits similarly from their long-in-the-tooth supremacy after WW II, a victory of excellent river systems, large protective oceans, bounteous agricultural acres, and skillful realpolitik at Bretton Woods. Of course there's no possible chance that a 23% VAT on tourism will remedy Greece's predicament, but the ultimate failure of the program will be whitewashed because the "right" countries in the dominant narrative du jour did their best. We used to have a few politicians who understood at least a tiny bit about history and economics, but that era is long gone indeed, they're either ignorant (Reagan, Bush, Trump) or utterly corrupt (Clinton, Obama, Clinton).

        Jim, July 24, 2015 at 7:19 pm

        "excellent river systems, large protective oceans, bounteous agricultural acres" – these are all things that Brazil or for that matter the Congo Republic has. Going by natural resources and geographical advantages the Congo Republic should be vastly richer than remote mountainous Japan with it's earthquakes, almost total lack of natural resources and with only 3% of it's surface area suitable for agriculture.Japan has only one thing going for it – the Japanese people. But that makes all the difference in comparison with that treasure house of natural resources – the Congo.

        Tinky, July 25, 2015 at 6:16 am

        Did you really not understand that HAL was referring to aggregate advantages, and that isolating one in comparison is not at all useful?

        Or should we also list the countless island nations that enjoy "large protective oceans", yet somehow fail to threaten the economic dominance of the U.S.?

        mesfern, July 25, 2015 at 7:25 am

        Believe it or not, the relative amount of agricultural land is the same in Japan and the Congo (~12%; the US have 45%). It may not be the first impression one has from the Congo, but its terrain is rather mountainous and rocky; as one nears the eastern provinces, one might even be tempted to say they are the African Himalaya. Add in the rainforests, and it becomes obvious why it is so difficult to build and maintain the necessary infrastructures.

        praedor, July 24, 2015 at 2:21 pm

        Clear political correctness corrupting your vision. The German people (by and large, the majority, the bulk, the CULTURE) label the Greeks as lazy and deserving of what they are getting. They label the GREEKS as LAZY and deserving of their plight. They don't deserve aid, succor, etc, because they're Greeks and Greeks are…Greek (lazy leeches). That is an objective fact of the coverage and the overall conceit of the German people en bank. It is racist. I don't give a flying crap if you can find one or two coffee shop teenager Germans who disagree, they aren't the ones running the show, propping up the show, supporting the show, creating the show, kowtowing to the show (though they too are kowtowing). The German machine as a whole, in focus, by design, by preference, is racist and hegemonic. The Troika IS the German establishment, the German heart, the German soul as it is run and supported, directly and indirectly, actively and passively, by Germans. Virtually all of them.

        FedUpPleb, July 24, 2015 at 12:19 pm

        Shill harder Jesper. What was done to Greece cannot be explained by any rational political policy. It has its roots in emotion, domination, nationalism and yes, racism. You can call the latter "cultural differences" if you like, but it only puts a euphemism on the shocking behaviour seen over the last two months.

        Europe has been cast back into the 1950s by this euro crisis. A large portion of the blame now lies with German intransigence in the face of the reality of both bank and soverign bankruptcies. This German intransigence is, at its heart, motivated by national interest, which by casting us back into the 1950s, makes many nervous.

        I have been watching commentary and coverage from across the world closely since the end of May on these issues. I can assure anyone still in doubt that the opinions in this post are representative of a very wide and indeed deep shift in mood following what was done to Greece. Europe has lost the cafe-latte front and one must understand the points being made in this post to realise it.

        Or one can remain in terminal denial and wait for the market to come along and make things better. In any case, please have the graces not to simply stand around shilling.

        salvo, July 24, 2015 at 1:50 pm

        well, I live in Germany and am formally German myself and I can assure you the main narrative repeated in German mainstream discourse by the mass media is that the Greeks are somewhat inferior, lazy, profligate, untrustworthy and so on, something most people tend to believe. Indeed most of them feel that the German politics is way too soft towards them. I could start linking to a few articles by German mainstream media to underwrite my point


        Gabriel, July 24, 2015 at 10:59 am

        One of the few bright spots for me in how the Greece has played out is that in Poland people seem indeed to have picked up that joining the Euro might be something besides a badge of honor of being "Western" and European.

        http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/07/germanys-policies-pose-danger-to-europe.html

        My partner Polish and is currently stuck there for preposterous reasons, and she's confirmed that "sensible," cosmopolitan, Warsaw, pro-EU people are taking a hard look at what actually adopting the Euro might expose them to.

        I was gloomy about the chance of this happening, because the pattern I remember from Argentina in the 90s is that the lackeys who aren't being punished by the hegemon think they'll score points by sounding even more punitive than the hegemon (Slovakia seems to have played that role in this crisis), and far too many intelligent people don't understand that adopting a currency cannot be considered in purely symbolic terms. Perhaps Poles' not altogether delightful history with German-run international systems has made them more alert about this kind of thing.

        PS. Apropos well-meaning Germans, I linked to a couple of vids by some of their contemporary equivalents here.


        susan the other, July 24, 2015 at 11:19 am

        I was surprised by the Fortruss post because there is so much censorship here we don't get any idea about the manipulations of our State Department until they fail or succeed. It made me think that we and Germany/France are truly on opposite sides when it comes to the future of Europe. Without "Old Europe" on our side to manipulate eastern Europe it is doubtful we will succeed in drawing them in (and keeping them) into the neoliberal model we seem so determined to export. Hopefully the crisis in neoliberalism has just begun.


        Jim Haygood, July 24, 2015 at 11:03 am

        Change one word; here's how it reads:

        'The class of "enlightened" Americans always regret what their nation is doing, but more often than not, in the end participate in the very actions they deplore.'


        nobody, July 24, 2015 at 11:26 am

        Mark Ames:

        I really started with the idea that in every age, there is some awful oppression that is not yet recognized and therefore doesn't exist, but later seems horribly obvious. This became clear to me working in Moscow in the '90s. No one in the "liberal" Western press corps, academia, world financial aid organizations or Clinton Administration had a shred of sympathy for the millions of Russians suffering from so-called "privatization" programs that we rammed down their throats.

        Literally millions of Russians went to their graves early in the '90s, yet many respectable Westerners openly said that the old generation would "have to die off" before the proper mindset set in to allow full Westernization in Russia. Those millions of deaths are still not seen as part of something larger and evil.

        http://www.alternet.org/story/24796/a_brief_history_of_rage,_murder_and_rebellion


        Gabriel, July 24, 2015 at 11:52 am


        Excellent quote. Thanks for posting it. And today's crop of "respectable Westerners" wonder why Putin seems to have Svengali-high approval ratings when facing down the full disapproval of DC and the EU.

        Our Western elite really has gone one-up on the Bourbons. Latter remembered everything and learned nothing; ours does away with the remembering bit.

        Eric Patton, July 24, 2015 at 11:27 am

        Germany has money, industry, resources, brains, and will. They think strategically, and they plan well. You have to admire it.

        Inverness, July 24, 2015 at 4:10 pm

        Germany has benefited tremendously from both debt forgiveness and cheap Turkish labour.

        Jim, July 24, 2015 at 7:30 pm

        Oh get real! Germany has been devastated numerous times in history. Almost totally destroyed by the Thirty Years War, again almost totally destroyed, occupied and divided at the end of WWII, devastated both by the Napoleonic Wars as well as WWI. It always recovers to become the strongest state in Western Europe.

        YankeeFrank, July 25, 2015 at 4:04 pm

        And you say that as if its a good thing. The 20th century would beg to differ. I'd "admire" Germany a bit more perhaps if they managed to build a strong nation without it always seeming to be built on a sneering arrogance and racist hatred of those not "German", meaning specifically Prussian or Bavarian, and it not always winding up with the total domination and ruin of other nations. I guess its easy for them to get up and engineer every day when motivated by an overweening pride.

        To me they have a singular inability to do anything other than engineer other peoples' ideas and start wars that make the world cringe in horror at their monstrous deeds. Some cultural things never change I guess.

        And no, I'm not letting the US off the hook for its misdeeds, but there is something fundamentally vicious and yes, I'll say it, evil, about the German culture that not only justifies the suffering of "others" at their hands but actually revels in it, as the OP and some commenters who are actually German have made clear here.

        MyLessThanPrimeBeef, July 24, 2015 at 12:25 pm

        It's interesting how often we exclude ourselves in our analyses of events abroad, or fail to include the international dimension of our domestic policies.

        It's the hegemonic-power projection cartographic map you mentioned a few days ago.


        [Jul 25, 2015] The Eurasian Big Bang How China Russia Are Running Rings Around Washington

        Jul 24, 2015 | Zero Hedge

        The Eurasian Big Bang: How China & Russia Are Running Rings Around Washington

        07/24/2015

        Authored by Pepe Escobar, originally posted at TomDispatch.com,

        Let's start with the geopolitical Big Bang you know nothing about, the one that occurred just two weeks ago. Here are its results: from now on, any possible future attack on Iran threatened by the Pentagon (in conjunction with NATO) would essentially be an assault on the planning of an interlocking set of organizations -- the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization), the EEU (Eurasian Economic Union), the AIIB (the new Chinese-founded Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank), and the NDB (the BRICS' New Development Bank) -- whose acronyms you're unlikely to recognize either. Still, they represent an emerging new order in Eurasia.

        Tehran, Beijing, Moscow, Islamabad, and New Delhi have been actively establishing interlocking security guarantees. They have been simultaneously calling the Atlanticist bluff when it comes to the endless drumbeat of attention given to the flimsy meme of Iran's "nuclear weapons program." And a few days before the Vienna nuclear negotiations finally culminated in an agreement, all of this came together at a twin BRICS/SCO summit in Ufa, Russia -- a place you've undoubtedly never heard of and a meeting that got next to no attention in the U.S. And yet sooner or later, these developments will ensure that the War Party in Washington and assorted neocons (as well as neoliberalcons) already breathing hard over the Iran deal will sweat bullets as their narratives about how the world works crumble.

        The Eurasian Silk Road

        With the Vienna deal, whose interminable build-up I had the dubious pleasure of following closely, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and his diplomatic team have pulled the near-impossible out of an extremely crumpled magician's hat: an agreement that might actually end sanctions against their country from an asymmetric, largely manufactured conflict.

        Think of that meeting in Ufa, the capital of Russia's Bashkortostan, as a preamble to the long-delayed agreement in Vienna. It caught the new dynamics of the Eurasian continent and signaled the future geopolitical Big Bangness of it all. At Ufa, from July 8th to 10th, the 7th BRICS summit and the 15th Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit overlapped just as a possible Vienna deal was devouring one deadline after another.

        Consider it a diplomatic masterstroke of Vladmir Putin's Russia to have merged those two summits with an informal meeting of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). Call it a soft power declaration of war against Washington's imperial logic, one that would highlight the breadth and depth of an evolving Sino-Russian strategic partnership. Putting all those heads of state attending each of the meetings under one roof, Moscow offered a vision of an emerging, coordinated geopolitical structure anchored in Eurasian integration. Thus, the importance of Iran: no matter what happens post-Vienna, Iran will be a vital hub/node/crossroads in Eurasia for this new structure.

        If you read the declaration that came out of the BRICS summit, one detail should strike you: the austerity-ridden European Union (EU) is barely mentioned. And that's not an oversight. From the point of view of the leaders of key BRICS nations, they are offering a new approach to Eurasia, the very opposite of the language of sanctions.

        Here are just a few examples of the dizzying activity that took place at Ufa, all of it ignored by the American mainstream media. In their meetings, President Putin, China's President Xi Jinping, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi worked in a practical way to advance what is essentially a Chinese vision of a future Eurasia knit together by a series of interlocking "new Silk Roads." Modi approved more Chinese investment in his country, while Xi and Modi together pledged to work to solve the joint border issues that have dogged their countries and, in at least one case, led to war.

        The NDB, the BRICS' response to the World Bank, was officially launched with $50 billion in start-up capital. Focused on funding major infrastructure projects in the BRICS nations, it is capable of accumulating as much as $400 billion in capital, according to its president, Kundapur Vaman Kamath. Later, it plans to focus on funding such ventures in other developing nations across the Global South -- all in their own currencies, which means bypassing the U.S. dollar. Given its membership, the NDB's money will clearly be closely linked to the new Silk Roads. As Brazilian Development Bank President Luciano Coutinho stressed, in the near future it may also assist European non-EU member states like Serbia and Macedonia. Think of this as the NDB's attempt to break a Brussels monopoly on Greater Europe. Kamath even advanced the possibility of someday aiding in the reconstruction of Syria.

        You won't be surprised to learn that both the new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the NDB are headquartered in China and will work to complement each other's efforts. At the same time, Russia's foreign investment arm, the Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), signed a memorandum of understanding with funds from other BRICS countries and so launched an informal investment consortium in which China's Silk Road Fund and India's Infrastructure Development Finance Company will be key partners.

        Full Spectrum Transportation Dominance

        On the ground level, this should be thought of as part of the New Great Game in Eurasia. Its flip side is the Trans-Pacific Partnership in the Pacific and the Atlantic version of the same, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, both of which Washington is trying to advance to maintain U.S. global economic dominance. The question these conflicting plans raise is how to integrate trade and commerce across that vast region. From the Chinese and Russian perspectives, Eurasia is to be integrated via a complex network of superhighways, high-speed rail lines, ports, airports, pipelines, and fiber optic cables. By land, sea, and air, the resulting New Silk Roads are meant to create an economic version of the Pentagon's doctrine of "Full Spectrum Dominance" -- a vision that already has Chinese corporate executives crisscrossing Eurasia sealing infrastructure deals.

        For Beijing -- back to a 7% growth rate in the second quarter of 2015 despite a recent near-panic on the country's stock markets -- it makes perfect economic sense: as labor costs rise, production will be relocated from the country's Eastern seaboard to its cheaper Western reaches, while the natural outlets for the production of just about everything will be those parallel and interlocking "belts" of the new Silk Roads.

        Meanwhile, Russia is pushing to modernize and diversify its energy-exploitation-dependent economy. Among other things, its leaders hope that the mix of those developing Silk Roads and the tying together of the Eurasian Economic Union -- Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan -- will translate into myriad transportation and construction projects for which the country's industrial and engineering know-how will prove crucial.

        As the EEU has begun establishing free trade zones with India, Iran, Vietnam, Egypt, and Latin America's Mercosur bloc (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela), the initial stages of this integration process already reach beyond Eurasia. Meanwhile, the SCO, which began as little more than a security forum, is expanding and moving into the field of economic cooperation. Its countries, especially four Central Asian "stans" (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan) will rely ever more on the Chinese-driven Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the NDB. At Ufa, India and Pakistan finalized an upgrading process in which they have moved from observers to members of the SCO. This makes it an alternative G8.

        In the meantime, when it comes to embattled Afghanistan, the BRICS nations and the SCO have now called upon "the armed opposition to disarm, accept the Constitution of Afghanistan, and cut ties with Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorist organizations." Translation: within the framework of Afghan national unity, the organization would accept the Taliban as part of a future government. Their hopes, with the integration of the region in mind, would be for a future stable Afghanistan able to absorb more Chinese, Russian, Indian, and Iranian investment, and the construction -- finally! -- of a long-planned, $10 billion, 1,420-kilometer-long Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline that would benefit those energy-hungry new SCO members, Pakistan and India. (They would each receive 42% of the gas, the remaining 16% going to Afghanistan.)

        Central Asia is, at the moment, geographic ground zero for the convergence of the economic urges of China, Russia, and India. It was no happenstance that, on his way to Ufa, Prime Minister Modi stopped off in Central Asia. Like the Chinese leadership in Beijing, Moscow looks forward (as a recent document puts it) to the "interpenetration and integration of the EEU and the Silk Road Economic Belt" into a "Greater Eurasia" and a "steady, developing, safe common neighborhood" for both Russia and China.

        And don't forget Iran. In early 2016, once economic sanctions are fully lifted, it is expected to join the SCO, turning it into a G9. As its foreign minister, Javad Zarif, made clear recently to Russia's Channel 1 television, Tehran considers the two countries strategic partners. "Russia," he said, "has been the most important participant in Iran's nuclear program and it will continue under the current agreement to be Iran's major nuclear partner." The same will, he added, be true when it comes to "oil and gas cooperation," given the shared interest of those two energy-rich nations in "maintaining stability in global market prices."

        [Jul 24, 2015] Mario Draghi: The ECB Has No Mandate To Ensure Checks Clear Or Credit Cards Work

        July 23, 2015 | nakedcapitalism.com

        By Nathan Tankus, a writer from New York City. Follow him on Twitter at @NathanTankus

        Last week Mario Draghi held a press conference following the decision to raise ELA a paltry 900 million dollars for Greek banks. In that press conference he said many things but I'd like to focus on one passage that has gotten no attention:

        There is an article in the Treaty that says that basically the ECB has the responsibility to promote the smooth functioning of the payment system. But this has to do with the functioning of TARGET2, the distribution of notes, coins. So not with the provision of liquidity, which actually is regulated by a different provision, in Article 18.1 in the ECB Statute: "In order to achieve the objectives of the ESCB, the ECB and the national central banks may conduct credit operations with credit institutions and other market participants, with lending based on adequate collateral." This is the Treaty provision. But our operations were not monetary policy operations, but ELA operations, and so they are regulated by a separate agreement, which makes explicit reference to the necessity to have sufficient collateral. So, all in all, liquidity provision has never been unconditional and unlimited.

        This is a truly shocking statement. To understand why, we need to go back to the basics of central banking. Banks have accounts at the central bank (I'm going to call the balances in these accounts "settlement balances" in line with non U.S. Conventions) which are primarily used to settle payments with other banks. When you use a debit card issued by one bank to pay someone with a bank account in another bank, your bank has to in turn send a payment using settlement balances to make that payment.

        As should be obvious from that description, in order to make that payment your bank has to have sufficient settlement balances in its account at the central bank or the central bank must provide an overdraft. Thus, if the smooth functioning of the payments system is defined as the ability of depository institutions to clear payments, the central bank must ensure that settlement balances are available at some price.

        The Federal Reserve explicitly recognizes this in its "Policy on Payment System Risk" by stating that "the Board recognizes that the Federal Reserve has an important role in providing intraday balances and credit to foster the smooth operation of the payment system". Draghi is arguing that the ECB's mandate to "promote the smooth functioning of the payments system" is defined differently than the Federal Reserve's mandate and (as far as I can tell) every other Central Bank's payment system mandate around the world. I can't over-emphasize how radical a departure Draghi's position is from the norms of central banking. Whatever else we may want to criticize the Federal Reserve's and the government's response to the financial crisis, they did preserve the the smooth functioning of the payments system with their alphabet soup of lending facilities and ultimately an FDIC guarantee on interbank lending. The problem was that they didn't put Too Big To Fail banks in a form of receivership and didn't prosecute bank executives, not that they made sure payments continued to take place.

        As disturbing as the European Central Bank position already is, it becomes more frightening when we analyze why the Greek banking system has been cut off in detail. First, remember that the ECB's official position has been that the Greek banking system is solvent as long as Greek government bonds preserve a certain value. Second, the ECB judges the value of those government bonds not be their market price but by their view of the Greek government's "compliance" with the dictates of the EU and the IMF. As Vice President Constâncio said during the press conference:

        when a country has a rating which is below the investment grade which is the minimum, then to access monetary policy operations, it has to have a waiver. And the waiver is granted if there are two conditions. The first condition is that the country must be under a programme with the EU and IMF; and second, we have to assess that there is credible compliance with such a programme.

        The bigger picture here is that under this interpretation of the ECB's operating mandates the European Central Bank can, at any time choose to exclude a particular country's bonds from its monetary policy operations, watch its credit rating fall and eventually, force the country to choose between an IMF program and having a frozen banking system and no ability to borrow. Not only must that country enter an IMF program but it must be judged to be in "credible compliance" by the ECB at all times.

        Being in credible compliance is a necessary not sufficient condition for borrowing. Recall that the statute Draghi quoted said that it "may", not must, "conduct credit operations". This is how they've justified keeping the Greek banking system on such a tight leash despite claiming that the Greek Government was in "credible compliance" up until recently and how they can justify not extending ELA by enough to restore normal operations in the current situation. The ECB is like an abusive spouse who believes marriage means they can beat their significant other for any reason and that previous beatings justify beatings in the future.

        Even worse, if the Greek banking system is insolvent because of defaults from the private sector in Greece (very likely), the Troika has made the reduction in value of deposits (a bail-in) the preferred tool (along with privatization) to return solvency to the banking system. In other words, there is not only no guarantee of orderly clearing of payments but also no guarantee that depositors will eventually be made whole. It is official policy that at any time the value of a deposit in one bank does not equal the value of a deposit in another bank. Cyprus was not a fluke. It would be foolish for depositors in other countries to feel safe, except perhaps those in Germany and France. Their political leaders would likely suddenly discover the need for depositors to be fully protected in the Eurozone if they were ever forced to recognize insolvency.

        Putting all this together, Europe now has a system where liquidity and insolvency problems can occur and can be deliberately generated (at least in part) by the central bank. Then the Troika can force that country into an "IMF program" if it wants to continue having a functioning banking system. Alternatively, the central bank can choose to simply "suspend convertibility" to the unit of account and force the write down of deposits until the banks are solvent again. During this drawn out period payments grind to a halt and mass business disruptions and failures can and will be generated. In other words Europe has created a system where you either comply with the dictates of unelected bureaucrats or you accept a more disorderly version of the United States banking system before the Civil War. The bottom line is that if you feel inclined to visit Europe remember that the payments system can fail you at any time. Plan accordingly.

        [Jul 24, 2015]Ukrainian politician Tatiana Montyan interview: All sides of the conflict suck (article + video)

        "...Attitude of the population to the government is clear: the Prime Minister's approval rating isn't just the size of a molehill - a molehill compared to his rating is Mount Everest. The "Narodny Front" party is going down in flames, and they are stealing as much as they can while they still can. "
        .
        "...So, for the sake of American ambitions, EU bit itself in the penis."
        .
        "...Ever since last November the wartime economics has taken hold of Ukraine. If a country goes on wartime economy even for a couple months, it takes hold – and it's like a hard drug addiction, an addict can only be saved by chaining him to a lamppost and not giving him any drugs. The first time I went to East Ukraine, our bus, which was packed with poor locals that took a day to make the trip that used to take mere hours, was stopped and extensively searched by both sides, 6 or 7 times. But through the windows we could see columns of semi-trucks going through both UAF and NAF checkpoints without any delays."
        .
        "...< But the fun thing is that> all the nationalists were screaming "Glory to Ukraine", "Ukraine for Ukrainians", and now we have Georgians, <Americans and Latvians> in top government positions. They even no longer have a law that a government official has to speak Ukrainian in official capacity. "
        .
        "...<It takes about $10,000 per semi truck to get through the "blockade" > - it depends on the price of the goods in the truck . For example, I heard that to be allowed to control a checkpoint you have to pay the military bosses a million dollars a month. So if you pay a million dollars just to stand at the checkpoint, you can imagine how much people are making. As for who physically controls those checkpoints - it's not clear. When I was getting out of the DPR, with a smuggler, we were driving through a rural checkpoint and I'm not even sure which side it was on, but there was a guy who lives in Kiev in my neighborhood, he even recognized me and let me through without paying. So I have no idea who manages those things - I told you, in the morning it could be one set of guys, and in the evening somebody can come up, kill them and take over the checkpoint. I don't exclude the possibility that at some checkpoints it can even happen more than once per day. You know how they say - "In the bad part of Kiev, an iPhone can change hands several times a day, and outlive a quite few owners". That's how it is. "
        .
        "...And the people are being conscripted, sixth wave of it already - people being caught literally on the city buses, students are caught in universities... People are running away - I was asked what is the journalist Kotsaba is in jail for - he's there for protesting illegal forced conscription, because he was protesting against the government grabbing all those people, stealing the food they are supposed to get, stealing the ammo and weapons they are supposed to have and selling them to the DPR and LPR... And the people obviously have realized all this by now, and have no desire to die in some encirclement to fill the oligarch's wallets. "

        ... ... ...

        Interviewer:

        Almost a year and a half after the coup in Kiev, a lot of details have already come to light, so what do you think were the aims of the people who engineered it and people who carried it out? Go as high up the ladder as you can.

        Montyan:

        < Major oligarch> Firtash already said everything, completely cynically and honestly, under oath in a court in Vienna:

        Of course, there was a group of oligarchs that wanted the EuroAssociation to be signed for their commercial interests. But the greedy and stupid Europeans gave completely unacceptable economic conditions - and Putin offered Yanukovich a ton of money for free, so Yanik changed his mind. The oligarchs decided "we need to do something about this", and it started...

        Maybe they didn't to want to destroy the country quite so much, but then Americans joined in with Nuland's cookies, McCain and the whole circus - as always, they thought fighting a proxy war with Russia to the last Ukrainian is a splendid idea!

        Putin was also completely happy to fight Americans - and also to show the entire world that Ukrainians are completely unable of running a country, that Ukraine is a totally "failed state". And of course, compared to our idiot usurpers, even Putin and his bunch of crooks can be made to look like extremely competent managers. Not to mention that our current president can be controlled through his factory in Lipetsk, Russia.

        So everybody's happy - Putin even recognized Poroshenko as the legitimate president - even though he didn't have to, <Poroshneko is unconstitutional>, but he did because it's beneficial to him. Not to mention Crimea, which was given up for two and half billion < cash>, as we now know.

        So now Crimea is being dismantled**, similar to what Americans did to Latvia - they turned that country into a border checkpoint, and Putin will turn Crimea into a military base.

        I think that all these pointless Ukrainian checkpoints at the entrance are intentional, because they block traffic, they block tourists, and core of Crimean economy was random tourists - because the people who come there on organized tours don't spend money in local economy and they don't buy local food, they have everything included in the resorts. So the plan is very simple, especially since the Crimean channel bringing water for agriculture has been blocked by our government. The Tatars will probably leave to Turkey, because all the businesses, restaurants and all that stuff aren't going to be viable anymore. The retired will slowly die out naturally. So what will be left are shipbuilding facilities, the big resorts which now look cute and have really been restored - unlike Ukraine that has never invested local infrastructure - so it will be much like what America did with the Baltics, where for example in Latvia only the center of Riga is still buzzing, the rest is completely dead, and the schoolchildren leave abroad as entire classes the moment they graduate.

        So everybody's happy, except Ukrainians.

        Well, and most Europeans are starting to ask questions - "Why do we need this?". Officially, they lost a hundred billion due to sanctions, really, much more, and Russians are laughing at them - "Okay, Spaniards, we make our own ham now, where you going to sell yours?". And of course, the worse the situation Ukraine gets, the sooner crowds of our criminals will start running across the border to EU, and what are they gonna do with em? So, for the sake of American ambitions, EU bit itself in the penis. And I think they deserve everything their greed has caused - if they gave us even somewhat acceptable deal, Yanik might have taken it.

        So I don't think what happened has been really planned by anybody. The process has gone completely out of control from the very beginning - because you can't start a fire in your common home! You never know what's going to catch fire first! It's dumb to start chopping down a tree that you are all sitting on! But turns out we had plenty of degenerates who thought that they won't get hurt when the country goes down. So oligarchs have devalued their own factories, and their own country.

        And the main beneficiary is China! Because America forced Russia into China's arms. And I think China will eventually engulf and assimilate Russia now.

        By the way, last April, "Xinhua" - the official press agency of the Republic of China, has voiced the opinion of the Chinese Communist Party on the issue. It says, roughly : "America and Europe have destroyed the Ukrainian state and plunged the country into civil war. Of course, they will not help Ukrainians fix the mess caused by their meddling, because they are bankrupt both financially and morally. Their "democracy" is only empty talk, and in practice all the "progressive" attempts to export it lead to untold human suffering." The Chinese already said this over a year ago.

        = On Russian government

        <interesting part so moved to top; others are more or less in order>
        Interviewer: The Russian government it doesn't seem to be very homogeneous, not as much as people think. Do you see, in Russian government, some forces that are benevolent?

        Montyan:
        I know some people who are reasonable, but I won't say their names, because they're waiting until Putin would naturally die or get pushed away from power. They think it's easier to let Putin and his gang steal for ten more years than to destroy the country like we did in the Maidan. And they're completely right.


        =About the change of heart in Ukrainian society:


        The attitude in society is changing, even the most brainwashed now understand that there is something wrong with this war. Fewer and fewer people are willing to go volunteer - to die and get eaten by dogs in some encirclement. Fewer and fewer people donate money and food to private organizations supplying the Army. And of course, things like the Military Prosecutor General talking live on air above the police battalions raping and killing people in the warzone does not encourage people to go join <the good fight>. Basically, people that didn't understand it with their brains finally started understanding it through their empty wallets and empty fridges.

        … ... ...

        Ever since last November the wartime economics has taken hold of Ukraine. If a country goes on wartime economy even for a couple months, it takes hold – and it's like a hard drug addiction, an addict can only be saved by chaining him to a lamppost and not giving him any drugs. The first time I went to East Ukraine, our bus, which was packed with poor locals that took a day to make the trip that used to take mere hours, was stopped and extensively searched by both sides, 6 or 7 times. But through the windows we could see columns of semi-trucks going through both UAF and NAF checkpoints without any delays.

        So that was complete "proof in the pudding" for me that this war is a sham. This is "wartime economy" will continue until both sides run out of people who still believe that they are fighting for a cause, and not for their bosses wallets.

        Attitude of the population to the government is clear: the Prime Minister's approval rating isn't just the size of a molehill - a molehill compared to his rating is Mount Everest. The "Narodny Front" party is going down in flames, and they are stealing as much as they can while they still can.

        Journalist Boyko recently described very nicely how the Police Minister Avakov and Co. set fire to that oil depot by Kiev in order to take over the poor gas station chain - and by the way, the idiot Head of State Security Nalivaichenko has accused the Prosecutor General even though the Prosecutor General's men were actually trying to save that chain.

        Not because of any respect for the law, of course, but because of their own financial interests, but anyway. So the head of State Security has spoken against the Prosecutor General, made it clear to everybody that he is completely retarded, so they voted in the Parliament to remove him. Moreover, some people even managed to get something for voting – for example, <head of Samopomosh' fraction> Sadovoi, who supposedly has bargained for a permission to put his men as the head of the local customs service and the Prosecutor's office. So in general, that's how it is.

        ... ... ...

        = On Ukrainian politics

        Interviewer:
        So the current Ukrainian regime has two large groups centered around the Prime Minister and the president…

        Montyan:
        They aren't really "centered" - those crooks don't have friends, they have interests. Groups are constantly rearranged based on who managed to screw over whom, and everybody's planning to screw over each other all the time. For example, Firtash decided to blab his mouth in an Austrian court, and the President decided that's enough to kick Firtash's people out of government - because they had an agreement not to talk about the agreement they had. <Nalivaichenko was one of these men. Also he was fired for snitching to Americans about corruption in the President's faction>. The next rearrangement is going to happen after the elections...

        = On Jewish domination of Ukrainian government, media and business

        Interviewer:
        In the Ukraine currently, the government, business, mass media - it's all dominated by Jewish people, and not the nicest representatives of that ethnicity. And they are less than 1% of the total population. What do you think of this disproportional representation?

        Montyan:

        I have nothing against Jews, nothing at all. I don't think I'm dumber than them. It's an old quote, attributed to Churchill - "Why aren't Englishmen anti-Semitic? They do not consider themselves to be dumber than the Jews".

        Also, the Jews themselves don't think Poroshenko and all those other guys are Jews - they consider them a-holes, Yid traitors, etc. Read what our prominent Jewish people are writing.

        Yes, of course, a nation that for many years - millennia, even, needed to develop their brains and their solidarity, of course that's an advantage. But if anybody thinks that Jews are any different from other ethnicity - they are much the same. Look at Israel - they have much the same disagreements that we have over here. So, in Ukraine, they have better education,have their social capital, so that's what happens - < they get to the top>. This isn't because somebody's naturally superior or inferior, it is not good or bad, that's just how it is.

        < But the fun thing is that> all the nationalists were screaming "Glory to Ukraine", "Ukraine for Ukrainians", and now we have Georgians, <Americans and Latvians> in top government positions. They even no longer have a law that a government official has to speak Ukrainian in official capacity.

        = On the reasons for Donbass rebellion, the current situation, and the huge difference between DPR/LPR

        I think the situation in Donbass was initially fueled by the local oligarchs to blackmail the Kiev government, saying –"If you pressure us, we will split". And Russia immediately thought - "How awesome and very convenient!"

        By now, Plotnickiy is controlled from Russia, and I think Zaharchenko as well. DPR and LPR are similar in that respect – although they are completely different types of government, there are now checkpoints and customs between them, so they are two very different republics that are not administratively connected. You know, Donetsk always considered Lugansk their inferior younger brothers.

        The situation in the DPR is much more organized - back in April 4th, that was the point where all the non-organized armed bands had to either disband or integrate into the DPR Army. After that all the bands were forcibly disarmed, those caught on rapes, robberies, drug dealing etc. were sent to remove minefields where most of them died, or shot on the spot. In the LPR, the situation is much different - the territories controlled by various bands are still present. For example, Mozgovoi has been killed, but his group still controls territory, there are other groups like Dremov, <Kozityn's men>, etc. Plotnickiy is mostly sitting in Lugansk, being accused of stealing humanitarian aid. And that's how LPR exists.

        Russia helps both republics to survive, of course, <with aid and currency>. So the situation is frozen for now. People are making a ton of money on various checkpoints, there is a whole smuggling business all around there, so you can get into the DPR and LPR without any ID because there are "stalkers" who know how to get through the minefields, know how to get around checkpoints. The large checkpoints make money on large convoys, and there are tons of small checkpoints on country roads that are controlled by anybody who can. There are even horror stories of a car coming up to a rural checkpoint, "peasants" getting out, killing everyone and taking over the checkpoint, and taking bribes instead of those killed. So that's how they live. As I said, wartime economy will not stop by itself, just like a drug addict will not stop taking drugs, so it can only be stopped by USA, Russia or Europe, but they don't want to do it for now.

        Interviewer:

        Do you consider the national elites the organizers, the oligarchs?

        Montyan:

        How can you consider our oligarchs to be independent? Of course they are controlled from abroad, much like the DPR/LPR government controlled by Russia. It's a fight between Russia and US to the last Ukrainian.

        Interviewer:

        Why do you think Donetsk and Lugansk have not unified all the past year?

        Montyan:

        I say again - those are completely different entities ruled by a completely different people with completely different interests. I'd been to both - they are different countries, different continents even. The people are wrong to confuse them, there is nothing in common in any way. Both are controlled by Moscow, but the situation is different ... there is even a different mentality. In DPR - they got centralized, very quickly organized, exterminated or exiled those who could not be controlled, and in LPR all that is still going on.

        Interviewer:

        So how "People's" are the People's Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk?

        Montyan:

        Somewhat more "People's" than here, that's actually true.

        They got rid of some of the oligarchs - actually the only big one left is Ahmetov, and they also make him pay up. In the DPR , I was talking on the Oplot TV channel that they took from Ahmetov, I was given a ride by a their minister on a car they took from the oligarch Kluev, and they told me they took the Starobeshevo Power Plant from Yanukovich - as a result they pay half the price for electricity that we do!

        And the funniest thing is that I'm being accused of riding in the car taken from an oligarch, by the same people who took over Yanukovich's house and Pshonka's properties in Kiev! Do these people think at all?

        Interviewer:

        Do the governments of the People's republics and the Kiev government work together?

        Montyan:

        Of course! They are just stealing whatever they can. By now, everybody talks about giant cargo shipments going between DPR and LPR and Kiev, while people are fighting each other the frontlines. Of course, this is impossible without the governments on both sides being complicit - I do not quite know who specifically is involved, I doubt we'll ever find out, but it's clear they work together because otherwise they wouldn't be making such huge shipments.

        <It takes about $10,000 per semi truck to get through the "blockade" > - it depends on the price of the goods in the truck . For example, I heard that to be allowed to control a checkpoint you have to pay the military bosses a million dollars a month. So if you pay a million dollars just to stand at the checkpoint, you can imagine how much people are making. As for who physically controls those checkpoints - it's not clear. When I was getting out of the DPR, with a smuggler, we were driving through a rural checkpoint and I'm not even sure which side it was on, but there was a guy who lives in Kiev in my neighborhood, he even recognized me and let me through without paying. So I have no idea who manages those things - I told you, in the morning it could be one set of guys, and in the evening somebody can come up, kill them and take over the checkpoint. I don't exclude the possibility that at some checkpoints it can even happen more than once per day. You know how they say - "In the bad part of Kiev, an iPhone can change hands several times a day, and outlive a quite few owners". That's how it is.

        = About Mozgovoi and his murder:

        He was a non-typical commander. He was charismatic, played a local Che Guevara, really tried to pass justice in the area he controlled... He was confiscating drugs by the pound and burning them on the central square of Alchevsk. He personally came to resolve conflicts - almost down to family squabbles. He was playing Robin Hood, and people loved him. This is shown by the number of people who came to his funeral - the people now saying bad things about him, I don't think such a number of people would even bother coming to spit on their graves if they die.

        But Mozgovoi was very inexperienced at running a city, and running any sort of government, really. The maximum he could do is deliver humanitarian aid, organized by him for the population. He had four free canteens running for the people. When I was there, he was arguing with the Russian customs because they weren't letting through food, and he was shouting - what will I feed my soldiers, my civilians, children in our kindergartens... He didn't much care for the elections or stuff like that - non-typical.

        Anybody could have killed him - from local drug dealers for burning all the drugs, to anybody else, he did not fit in there and did not have powerful backers. There is only one road there - plant an EID, sit and wait for him to come. And that's that's how it happened. As far as Moscow's backing, he was due to go there, but did not make it in time.

        = About future plans of the oligarchs and direction of the country:

        I have no idea what the oligarchs think. I don't think they think far - the are just stealing what they can, while they can.

        And the people are being conscripted, sixth wave of it already - people being caught literally on the city buses, students are caught in universities... People are running away - I was asked what is the journalist Kotsaba is in jail for - he's there for protesting illegal forced conscription, because he was protesting against the government grabbing all those people, stealing the food they are supposed to get, stealing the ammo and weapons they are supposed to have and selling them to the DPR and LPR... And the people obviously have realized all this by now, and have no desire to die in some encirclement to fill the oligarch's wallets.

        So obviously conscription isn't going very well - people understood that they are being basically used as cattle for slaughter.

        Interviewer: If Donbass completely leaves Ukraine, and after Crimea, could that trigger a process like in Yugoslavia, could Ukraine split into several fragments?

        Montyan: Where will Donbass go? Russia clearly stated they don't want Donbass.

        How will DPR, LPR survive independently? I have no idea. As unrecognized states? Kiev under the control of the nationalists, and DPR and LPR by themselves - they are not capable of surviving. They will slowly rot, the fabric of the state would keep on failing and degrading further, so without external interference, without some reformatting, this situation cannot be resolved. This situation cannot be solved from the inside - by people inside the cage. Only the people who set it up can stop it, and for now they have no desire to do so.

        = On fixing the mess:

        Fixing the country is not that hard, and wouldn't take that long, but for now, nobody wants it. I could fix it in a couple years, probably. The mechanisms are commonly known, they had been used successfully multiple times - as long as you have the desire to do it, it's not hard. But nobody wants to do it! The elite needs to be at least minimally interested in not just robbing the country for its resources, but thinking about the future. For now, the people who are getting to the top are those looters from the checkpoints - because, for now, that's the most profitable business. When it becomes less profitable, then things may change - that's basic economics. In Ukraine, we can see how capital takes over the people and the state, the judiciary, the executive... All the branches of government and all the the state-owned corporations are being taken over by oligarchs, . Now they're talking about actually handing over the Customs Service to a private corporation. Thus, state monopolies are being replaced by oligarch monopolies.

        District governments are a sham, local governments are a sham - because every "state-owned" local government service is actually being controlled by specific people who get money.

        When there's no open mechanisms showing where the money comes into the state and how it gets out, then the game turns into "King of the Hill" - whoever climbs to the top steals as much as he can before he gets kicked off, then he runs away to another country with the stolen money and laughs those he left behind.

        = On Russian government (originally here, moved to top)


        = On demonizing Putin:

        Putin is just some guy. What's the difference who is the talking head at the top? He's just a <product of a system>. Here, Poroshenko is already the exact same thing as Yanukovich, exactly. There are cartoons - you take Yanukovich, curl his hair, you get Poroshenko!

        It doesn't matter who "Putin" is, doesn't matter what the name is. They are determined by what the country is. Don't like Yanukovich? Look in the mirror.

        The president is the same as the country, as the people. I ask them - you don't like Yanukovich? Is it him putting trash in your yard? Are the oligarchs making penis drawings all over your elevator? Which government official urinated by your door? It is done by the population, by you, and because you are like that - Yanukovich is like that. It's like that in every country.

        If you don't find any compassion for journalists who are put in jail just for voicing their opinion, why do you ask for justice for yourself? If you are ready to throw homemade grenades at police, why do you think cops should not beat you up? That's so weird - <those people don't understand> that justice has to be for everybody, not just "justice for us and injustice for our enemies".

        = On civilians suffering in Donbass and Russian army:

        What do you mean I don't talk about civilians in warzone? I pity all civilians in the warzone, because they being shot at by all sides. They are stuck there, in this zone of chaos, they're being screwed over by everybody.

        I do have to say people don't believe me, <and that's scary>.

        When I came back from my first trip to the East, I told them Ukrainian Army nearly killed me at the Alchevsk cemetery, but people tell me "It's Mozgovoi". He was standing right next to me!

        "Then it's Dremov" - he was on the phone telling us to run!

        "Then it's Kozitsyn" - he was in a complete different direction, look at the maps! Still, nobody believes me.

        In the end, after I showed pictures of all the gravestones damaged with shrapnel and maps of the area, some did... But people were really convinced <separatists are shelling themselves>.

        But yes, both sides are shooting. Armies don't much care for civilians. In Lugansk, for example, UAF were standing at the Metallist and shelling the city with unguided rockets - I was where they landed, even visited local businessman Aleksandr Nigoves, found Grad pieces by his destroyed house, there's plenty of videos and all... Eventually UAF hit something - either in Russia, or right on the border, so Russian Army came in through Izvarino and crushed them, went through the positions <UAF set up in towns> Khryaschevatoe and Novosvetlovka, and wiped them off the face of the earth. Chased the UAF into an encirclement, and left 5 days later. In Novosvetlovka, 300 out of 600 houses are destroyed, around 600 locals perished.

        And who are the good guys here? That's how it is. That's war. It doesn't have a good and a bad side - it's murder, horror and suffering.

        Inteviewer:

        Do you think something similar could happen in Kiev?

        Montyan:

        How can I know what's going to happen in this madhouse? What goes through the sick mind of some heavily armed idiots somewhere? Anything can happen.
        In the near future, more people will come back from a from the warzone and join street gangs, especially when the standard of living goes down. Even now, they are shooting cops with AKs to rob a gas station for $40, what's going to happen next?


        = About "de-Sovietization" law:

        Yes, they have nothing better to do than rename everything. Let's destroy the factories and highways, because the damn communists built them.

        Everything we see here, everything in Ukraine, was built by the Soviet Union. And a lot of it is on the edge of the physical collapse. 70 to 90% of infrastructure - various sewerage, heating, power lines - they're starting to fall down. Since "independence", they were patched up when they failed, but no investments in replacement or renewal. And when the communist-built houses start falling down - that's going to be real hell... But for now, the <dark Soviet legacy> still stands.


        = About role of history in politics:

        I'm completely amazed by the people who let the past affect their present and future. History is for historians, for professional historians! I would personally prohibit using history in propaganda - because history already happened, <it's over and done with>! The historical figures being put on the posters that marchers run with - those people are gone! They lived their lives, in their conditions, and bringing them into the present is completely retarded!

        Live your own lives, here and now, and don't try to use historical figures in your propaganda - because the vast majority of those historical figures, if you met them face to face, would chop off your head as soon as you started spouting your drivel!


        = About the nature of a "nation":

        Interviewer:
        Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian nations - is it one nation that's been divided, or no?

        Montyan:

        No. I don't think a nation exists as a separate entity. For me, an African from Papua New Guinea who believes in civil rights is closer than nationalist extremists beating people in Kiev. I refuse to think I'm part of the same nation as them, and they probably don't think I'm part of "their" nation either.

        But that said, we can live in the same country, as long as it has laws and they do not have the right to attack people. They can have their views, if they don't have the capacity to make their sick fantasies a reality. As long as we have a decent civil and criminal law, and have the capability to punish those who violate it, that's all we need for people to coexist.

        Take Jews - they are so different! Some of them have gay parades in Jerusalem, run around in latex, and others walk around in complete black garb and pray constantly. And they live together in the same country, don't kill each other, because they have decent civil law, all the questions had been solved, each millimeter of land has a clear established owner, and there's nothing to argue about. They can talk about their views on TV and newspapers but that's it.

        = On Ukrainian sovereignty:

        What kind of sovereignty are you even talking about? Ukraine's territory is broken into pieces controlled by various foreign powers. <The "revolution" only made it worse>: if you break apart a crappy shed, you will only be able to build several smaller and crappier sheds out of the fragments. So now they built Kiev shed, DPR and LPR sheds in place of what once was a decent country.

        VIDEO (English voiceover)



        < I recommend clicking the gear symbol on the bottom-right of the video and increasing playback speed to 1.5x, that will save you 30 minutes and is completely understandable).


        Previous video with Montyan:


        Notes:
        *Take our recent darling Shilova, for example - she managed to get involved with both Yanukovich's corruption and Lyashko's radicals before becoming a "separatist", not to mention being a member of half a dozen political parties before. Of course, she could have an honest change of heart _this_time_... but that's what she must have said many times before.

        ** About Montyan's points on Crimea: Crimea saw over twice the amount of airport traffic this year compared with the last, so the economy is gaining traction. Yes, I bet the economy still suffers overall with the peninsula being in a complete blockade by Ukraine (not only people and goods but also water and often power), and only joined to Russia by a ferry. Still, "littlehirosima" is currently in Crimea and tells me life is good there for now. And once a bridge gets built, or nationalists get chased out of Kiev, it should get a lot better.

        *** "Homemade firecracker grenades" - Ukraine has no laws against selling extremely powerful firecrackers. They are almost at hand grenade level, and can definitely kill or maim, especially with nails&bolts taped as fragments. Here's a video of such a "big firecracker" shredding a toilet (common pastime in East Europe, heh). The firecracker is actually far from the biggest one, but the video is just hilarious:


        **** I cut out the part of the big video where Montyan talks about gay rights because, first of all, it has nothing to do with the Novorossiya war or Ukrainian politics, and second, because her genetics arguments are wrong, although she may be right about human rights aspect.

        [Jul 23, 2015] Greece, Iran, and the Rules of the Game

        Jul 23, 2015 | LobeLog

        Alexis Tsipras had a choice. As the leader of the fledgling Syriza government in Greece, he could have told the European Union to stuff its austerity plan. He could have taken the risk that the EU would offer a better deal to keep Greece in the Eurozone. Or, failing that, he could have navigated his country into the uncharted waters of economic independence.

        But he chose to "follow the rules" by accepting the EU plan. Greece is getting its financial bailout, Greeks are tightening their belts, and the Eurozone will survive more-or-less intact. Tsipras learned what happens when you challenge the rules of an elite club. Once in a while, the club changes the rules. Most of the time, the club issues an ultimatum: suck it up or move on.

        Hassan Rouhani had a choice. As the leader of a new reformist government in Iran, he could have told the international community to keep its nose out of his country's business. He could have kept adding to Iran's civilian nuclear program, arguing all the time that it was not in violation of any international agreements. He could have tried to chip away at the international sanctions regime by concluding economic agreements with willing countries.

        But he chose to negotiate with the permanent five members of the UN Security Council - plus Germany - and bring Iran into full compliance with International Atomic Energy Agency requirements. By "following the rules" in this way, Rouhani is hoping that the windfall that comes from the lifting of sanctions will provide enough capital to turn around the Iranian economy and boost the prospects of his political cohort.

        In Hollywood movies and on TV, the rule breakers usually triumph. I can't begin to count how many films and shows feature CIA operatives, FBI agents, and police officers that must defy the chain of command in order to do the right thing and collar the bad guys.

        But in the real world, breaking the rules usually comes with big penalties. Of course, it all depends on who sets the rules and who dares to defy them. Sometimes the outlaws face a lifetime behind bars. And sometimes they not only break the rules with impunity but win the proverbial jackpot as well.

        ... ... ...

        Iran, a larger country that plays a strategic role in the Middle East, has considerably more room for maneuver than does Greece. But it too cannot unilaterally remake the rules of the game. It can only negotiate the best deal it can. In the end, it must open itself up to the kind of inspection regime that more powerful countries would never tolerate. It is, of course, the height of hypocrisy for Israel, which refuses to disclose whether it has a nuclear program at all - much less permit access to its secret sites - to insist that Iran open up virtually every corner of the country to a highly intrusive verification regime.

        But the rules of the game are changing. The model of "international community" that we've been driving is more than 65 years old, and its engine is starting to conk out.

        All the major rule-setting institutions reflect the balance of power that reigned in the immediate aftermath of World War II. The World Bank was founded in 1944, the IMF and United Nations in 1945, and the European Coal and Steel Community (which served as the cornerstone of the future European Union) in 1951. But what will happen as Germany and France exert less control within the EU, as China builds new international financial institutions, as the UN finally tackles the problem of reforming the Security Council? What will happen as U.S. relative power in the world continues to decline?

        New rule-makers mean new rules. Get ready: A new world is not only possible, it's just around the corner.

        John Feffer is the the editor of LobeLog and the director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies. He is also the author, most recently, of Crusade 2.0. He is a former Open Society fellow, PanTech fellow, and Scoville fellow, and his articles have appeared in The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Review of Books, Salon, and many other publications.

        [Jul 22, 2015] Hundreds of Ukrainian right-wingers rally against govt

        KIEV, Ukraine (AP) - Hundreds of Ukrainian right-wingers were rallying in Kiev on Tuesday to protest against government policies in the wake of a deadly stand-off between radical nationalists and police in the country's west.

        The radical Right Sector group was one of the most militant factions in the massive protests in Ukraine's capital that prompted pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych to flee the country in February 2014. Since the war broke out in eastern Ukraine between government forces and pro-Russia separatists several months later, the Right Sector has fought on the government side.

        However, Right Sector militants keep running into disputes with local Ukrainian authorities and Amnesty International has accused the group of holding civilians as prisoners and torturing them. The activists claim they are trying to clamp down on corruption and nepotism but Ukrainian authorities accuse Right Sector of using violence to reach its goals.

        Speaking Tuesday at the national Right Sector congress, group leader Dmytro Yarosh called for a referendum to impeach President Petro Poroshenko and his government.

        Yarosh also called for the recognition of volunteer battalions and their right to carry arms as well as introducing martial law, which he said, will help defeat the rebels in the east.

        Right Sector supporters gathered on Tuesday evening on Kiev's main square to support Yarosh's motion. Most of them were civilians and appeared to be unarmed, although some young men wore camouflage.

        Yarosh told the supporters at the square that the new government that replaced Yanukovych's regime was only about "changing names" but not the political system.

        "We are an organized revolutionary force that is opening the new phase of the Ukrainian revolution," he told the rally.

        The Right Sector leader garnered about 1 percent of the vote in the May 2014 presidential election. His radical anti-Russian stance prompted the Kremlin to dismiss the uprising in Kiev as a neo-Nazi coup.

        The Ukrainian government has attempted to rein in the volunteer battalions who often took frontline positions in eastern Ukraine where soldiers were reluctant to go by encouraging them to join the National Guard and police forces. In reality, hundreds of men in government-controlled eastern Ukraine still carry arms without any authorization.

        Two Right Sector members were killed earlier this month after the group attacked police in the western city of Mukacheve with gunfire and grenades. Police responded and then surrounded some gunmen in a wooded area of Mukacheve and have been trying to negotiate their surrender since then.

        Right Sector insists that the men were trying to confront local policemen who he said were involved in a major smuggling business in the region.

        Yarosh accused the government of deploying troops and weaponry to hunt down the Right Sector members instead of focusing on the war in the east: "Our guys were spilling their blood (in the east) but now they are being punished behind the lines."

        In a sign that he does not control the men in Mukacheve, he said Tuesday he did not know for sure how many men were still out there but said it was likely to be nine. He also dismissed reports that Right Sector fighters are roaming the country with the arms they were given to fight the rebels in the east.

        The stand-off in Mukacheve has caused a split in Right Sector with several dozen fighters quitting the battalion to join other battalions in protest.

        1. Right Sector gunmen take boy hostage in western Ukraine Associated Press
        2. At least 2 dead in in Ukraine sports club attack Associated Press
        3. Ukraine PM says reforms continue despite 'lunatic' lawmakers Associated Press
        4. Far right group challenges Ukraine government after shootout Reuters
        5. Ukraine nationalists in standoff with security forces after two killed AFP
        eco123eco

        The march on Kiev is coming. Old enemies and new allies are getting closer and closer day after day. The time of Poroshenko is running out, falling to the same corruption as the former Yanukovych. Corruption increased ten fold buy selling off Ukrainian Business to foreign investors. Poroshenko is a world puppet running the Ukraine like a world business with him being the CEO responsible for increasing the profits of the world before the Ukraine. Is it too much to ask for a united Ukraine against corruption?

        Blood was spilled, lives lost, all because a government fired upon its own people in protest. Now those very same protesters have been led down the same path again marching on Kiev against corruption. They have discovered corruption doesn't go away because you change the name of your government, and indeed it gets worse when in secret the new government in power has been murdering and torturing more Ukrainians than its predecessor whom also was corrupt to the point of murdering and torturing Ukrainians.

        The Ukraine must indeed be united as one Ukraine. It must become independent of West or East as it is the last great front where West and East ideology meet upon mutual terms. For this reason it is of vital importance to both West and East alike and that is a wealth like no other nation currently has. Even America is divided West and East, North and South, but it is still one America. Groups such as the Right Sector only exist because they have suffered under the corruption of others, and have taken it upon themselves to fight corruption at the highest levels with only one Ukraine, united West and East as a global front where West and East meet as equals, partners to solve world conflicts from West to East or East to West.

        The Ukraine is now the keeper of World Peace capable of going forward with hope. Protesters all share one thing in common, they have lived under inhumane and harsh conditions, many have given their lives for a better way, many more will continue to give their lives for the same. Government has failed in the Ukraine, it is failing again dividing the Ukraine causing Civil War. Ukrainian killing Ukrainian, simply because the Ukraine can't form a unified government bringing West and East together in peace. Peace must be achieved, many lives are being lost, the people of the Ukraine are suffering and corruption is still the rule of law in the Ukraine.

        All Ukrainians must take a good look at themselves, at what they are becoming. They must decide their futures as their governments continue to fail influenced by East and West. It is the Ukraine that should influence the East and West, the Ukraine that should be one nation united where difference and opinion come together for the best the Ukraine has to offer the world on a grand scale. The future awaits the Ukraine, will it be divided because Ukrainians could not negotiate with Ukrainians of Russian descent? Lives have been lost, many have died and suffered, many still are and it is sure to get worse before better. In the American Civil War, neither side really won, one side just decided it was best for America and the people to end the killing so it gave up in peace. From that moment forward America became a greater nation.

        The Ukraine and the many peoples of the Ukraine are far more important than any amount of profit, corruption or greed, and it's time the Ukraine start acting like it by achieving its own world independence through peaceful negotiations. It's time the Ukraine regain it's independence and set aside its difference for the sake of the people who have died and continue to suffer. The dying and suffering must end, and if it should end in Civil War then it's time for the war to commence to end the dying and suffering at all cost in every part of the Ukraine. The past is over, the future is waiting, the world is watching, drawing lines in the sand, rallying armies to march across the Ukraine, foreign armies ready to kill Ukrainians over the failure of Ukrainians to achieve their own peace and independence.

        To Be

        Here are some very true facts about WW2 they don't teach you....

        The bankers and industrialists and royal families were all concerned after what happened in Russia after the revolution that killed czar and his family (who were related to almost every other royal family) and the industrialists and bankers didn't want to lose their assets to the communist revolution. So they took things into their own hands.

        Bankers and top corporations tried to take over America in the 1930's. Heinz, Colgate family, Dupont family, Birdseye family, Rockefellas and more. Major General Butler warned FDR in time to stop it.

        Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush ran the Union bank and loaned Hitler extremely large sums of money to fund the war. Henry Ford was awarded the highest Nazi medal by Hitler (who also kept a life size painting of Ford) for his part in building the tanks and such for Germany.

        The president of AT&T personally flew to Germany after the start of the war to hook up a state of the art communications for Hitler. Coke sold millions of bottles of soda to Germans during the war. Rockefella's supplied oil, and the list goes on.

        This is no joke... these men and more quite literally built the Nazi party and got off scott free with more power and money then ever.

        They treated Germany as an "investment". The use of concentration camps was much more widespread then they make you think. They used them as sources of slave labor to try and recoup their investment in the Nazi war machine. Over 15 thousand were used.


        If all this seems far fetched or made up then I urge you to use the internet you have at your disposal. These same families control our media and our education too.

        Of course you wont find direct links but the info is certainly there. Knowledge is our best weapon if we want to save our country.

        Christopher Harrison

        Agreed , more and more info is now coming out about what really happened during WW2 thanks to the internet and You Tube. Go to You Tube and check out the video series The Best Enemies Money Can Buy with Professor Anthony Sutton form the Hoover Institute talking in 1964. It will blow your mind how much US corporations were working with Hitler through subsidiaries and the German company IG Farben. And yes it was the Rockefellers and the Rothschild and the Bushes

        G.

        You are brave T/To be. You forgot the headmaster Rothschild who said ( Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws)

        b

        This article says hundreds protested but the Ukranian paper (KyivPost) says it was thousands... this story/problem is bigger than what our own media wants us to know.

        Christopher Harrison

        Why is it not being considered that it was these fascists that shot down MH-17 as another false flag? After all, it was they who shot people at the 1stMaidan from the Hotel Ukraine where they were headquartered. The BBC captured them shooting at the BBC's own film crew. They also are on film burning 45 people alive in Odessa and beating them with baseball bats as they jumped from windows. They also shot people point blank on camera in Mariupol. Their Neo-Notzee battalions have been shooting artillery at civilians towns for a year and even Human Rights watch has said they commit atrocities. Hence the reason 1.3 million refugees fled TO RUSSIA. This stuff isn't that difficult to understand, here they are again and this time they are going after the new government. No one is safe, even in Europe, while these guys are around. It's time to get rid of them once and for all before they shoot down another airliner or gain access to nuclear fuels rods.

        Madeski

        Most Western media tried hard to ignore this story thinking it would just go away, but because many of us also read and watch the Russian news also especially RT, we knew the true situation in Ukraine and that things will soon get out of hand and snowball into an armed confrontation between the western backed Govt and their militia who have a different ideology but are together in the fight in the east only because the 2 parties view the East as Pro-Russia that most be crushed.


        Michael

        More violent thugs. What a mess the CIA and NATO have caused for Ukraine, Russia, and European security.

        BrainPick

        Any place where instability can be implemented NED/CIA will be there.

        OdessaFile

        BrainPick --They arrived long before it.

        Stephen

        Another fine mess the stupid US government has created. These thugs of the Ukrainian far right are N@zi lovers. Their Fathers & Grandfathers fought for Hitler & ran the death camps on behalf of Hitler & N@zi Germany in WW2. This is what many Americans do not understand & it's very clear the foolish American government was not expecting this. Just like Iraq & Taliban central the US went into the Ukraine & put a weak leader in charge who would be a lap puppy to the US government but also will fail because the US puppet cannot lead & control his own country.

        james 8

        If Kololmsky is involved in subversive activities that compromise the National security of Ukraine than Nationalize all his assets in Ukraine and later sell them off to the private sector of the economy . These assets need to be broken down so that they do not continue to be a monopoly and a threaten national security . In this way Ukraine can also break the Oligarch control on the country . Drastic measures are needed . The country can not be sacrificed for the benefit of a few billionaires that enriched themselves by stealing from the Ukrainian people .

        Fvok Yo

        Buk missle explodes above an airplane, and 50 to 150 yards above it. How can you possibly explain the
        focal schrapnel damage to the mh17 with a Buk. You cant. Moreover, a Buk strike would instantly depressurize the aircraft, resulting in immediate incapacitation of the pilot and crew. The pilot was alert after the initial (not a BUK ) strike, and contacted ATC, but the Ukraine has refused to release that communication. Of course for the hollywood drama to play out, the missle absolutely has to be a Buk. An air to air missle would have had to be done by the Ukranians, or outside forces assisting the Ukranians.

        maxcrusader

        "...but Ukrainian authorities accuse Right Sector of using violence to reach its goals."

        I'm sure they had no problem when the same Right Sektor helped the junta government get into power through a coup.

        Eye Of Horus

        The US orchestrated coup in Kiev has guaranteed the collapse of the US. The world is no longer willing to fund a govt that's gone insane by continuing to use the dollar in trade settlement and to buy treasuries. It's only a matter of time until we get to that tipping point where there's a stampede for the exits and the US manifests into the 3rd world sh|thole that it already is. Parts of the country is already there. The rest will follow.

        Gary and Minge

        "The radical Right Sector group was one of the most militant factions in the massive protests in Ukraine's capital that prompted pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych to flee the country in February 2014. "

        and here we were fed all this garbage about "peaceful protest" and "evil president" . In fact US "NGO's" created this organization training most of them in Baltic states.
        US treatened then president Yanukovich with sanctions "and more" if he so much "try to disperse this peaceful protest" .
        McCain was taking pictures at maidan with this neo-na_zies between anti government speeches, Nuland fed them cookies, Pyatt [US ambassador and man who really in charge in Ukraine] called them "will of the people"
        McCain made sure they get weapons, they were coming to US visiting McCain among other US congressman telling how bad "Russians" are showing picture of "invasion" , using Georgia 2008 pics.
        No one cared, no one paid attention of Amnesty international reports of tortures of civilians in war zone. They been called 'true patriots" by most US media outlets.
        Now that the monster no longer needed lets call them "Ukrainian al quida "

        Here is more examples of what those "volunteer battalions" up to
        google search : " Ukrainian volunteer battalions | meet heroes from "Tornado" battalion. [English Subtitles]

        Video with English Subtitles

        Commenter

        I'm waiting for evidence to appear that would link Yarosh and Right Sector to the snipers on Midan. That would take away any public support they may currently have and allow the government to crack down on them hard. I would venture to say that we have not seen this yet because there is still a hot war in the East but if they remove themselves from the front line there, Right Sector will quickly outlive it's usefulness.

        John

        Another pogrom in Kiev will be more devastating! Watch the real Ukraine, Ukraine is Europe! Let gay Europe witness all the brutality!
        Government of Ukraine is instructed by CIA chief of station in Kiev what to do next!
        Here is possible scenario: Poroshenko will order troops to "pacify" "Right Sector"-those troops trained by US. "Right Sector" has combat experience and would out power freshly trained "boy scouts". By the way, Porosehnko's family is not in Ukraine, he is not an idiot to have his children in the middle of total chaos!

        Gabriel

        The combination of Oligarchs and Neo Nazi troops could be very dangerous for the future of Ukraine, if any.

        Pynk

        Manipulated by, used by, and then betrayed by the corrupt elite power brokers?

        SAY IT AIN'T SO!


        Rick Harner

        Since gaining independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine has been on a steady path to imploding. Corruption, mass demonstrations in 2004, revolution in 2014, Crimea seized, civil war in the east, neo-fascist groups in the west... How much more can this country withstand before it completely comes apart?

        Commenter

        The Right Sector members till the rest of their live will be on the run from justice. No government needs them. Just today NYT published a story on some Cilian junta policeman sentenced for killing people half a century ago. The burning in Odessa of people will never be forgotten too. So better look for your ratholes starting right now.

        Madeski

        Since Last year Yahoo has been calling them 'revolutionaries, freedom fighters, nationalists'

        Today Yahoo is calling them 'Right Wingers, radical Right Sector group and one of the most militant factions' in this article, what happened? Can somebody please explain to us?

        Yachob

        US state dep and our spin doctors have been "refining" the image of provincial #$%$ Bandero-stan Right Wing for more than a year. Clear signs of progress: all have clean hair cut, clean uniform, no signs of swastika, no Confederate flags: a striking difference from rabid bidlo on Maidan. Now Ukrainian %nazi% seemed to be under control. and this is just a theater, a show of political diversity but foremost a warning of the Kiev regime to those, who really oppose Parashenko and %nazism%.


        Dana

        Most analysts indicate that The Right Sector and other Ultra-Nationalists are supported by only a small percentage of Ukrainians. The same thing was said about the National Socialists with respect to Germany in the 1920s. It is very important that the central government in Kiev not underestimate the threat represented by Ultra-Nationalists.

        Glenn

        This is media hype. There are major parts of the story that were not included. Those things were not included so readers would be left with an image of fascists marching in Kiev in the hundreds calling for Poroschenko's ouster and the imposition of martial law, because that will look scary to readers who don't know that much about what is going on in Ukraine recently.

        Two weeks ago in Mukacheve, an upstart smuggling gang got entangled with local authorities and did not want to pay them off with bribes. The well-established smugglers were pressuring the local police to demand newcomer prices, because their new competition was unwanted. So the new kids on the block decided not to pay the bribes, and called in fellow militia strongmen from across the country for a show of force to intimidate the local cops into backing down. It turned into a violent confrontation and a gunfight at the ok corral. The Ukraine federal authorities responded rapidly with superior force, and the majority of militiamen scattered for the provinces. The remaining two dozen militia stayed because they were close family relations withe the smugglers still held in jail. This has caused an uproar in the militia's national leadership, because the majority interest - nationalist politics - has been undermined by an attempt by a small faction to enforce a new smuggling business venture by using militia men to assert power over local police. Corruption is plain on both sides. Right Sector's rally in Kiev is their attempt to re-assert their political message and call for unity. Meanwhile, several chapters of Right Sector have walked out in disgust - somewhere close to 20% of their membership is on the way out because they did not sign up for smuggling and armed enforcement gangs. They signed up to kill Russians, and to kill Russians only.

        This news piece is not telling you anything much about all of that, and that is what is going on. There is no violent mob calling for the government to step down. It is just a fascist rally to try to stem the loss of membership after one faction inside Right Sector with ties to organized crime did some very stupid and damaging things to their nationalism image.

        [Jul 22, 2015] This is What Economists do not Understand About the Euro Crisis – or the U.S. Dollar

        Jul 22, 2015 | Economist's View

        bakho

        The powers are not stupid but they are incredibly naive and misinformed. The idea of the Eurozone was to subsume nationalist fever into a multicultural Eurozone. The Germans in their Nationalist Pride have made this a failure of Greece instead of the failure of the Eurozone. The rhetoric is one of nationalism, not one of unity. The economics is Nationalist, not Post-Nationalist.

        DrDick said in reply to bakho...

        The German economic policy is, and long has been, deutschland über alles.

        pgl

        Is Merkel related to Jeb! I was looking for what the term Club Med nations really means - and it seems to be a put down for nations like Italy and Greece. But check this out. Merkel's "solution" is for the Italians and Greeks to work more:

        http://blogs.wsj.com/source/2011/05/19/merkel-club-med-countries-must-work-more/

        Of course they want to work more but the stupid fiscal austerity that Merkel is cramming down their throats is leading to massive unemployment. And guess what? Jeb! wants to impose annually balanced budgets for the US through spending cuts. Wow - the US may indeed become the next Greece if Jeb! becomes President.

        pgl said in reply to pgl...


        OK - I had to post this:

        http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2015/07/is-jeb-related-to-angela-merkel.html

        RC AKA Darryl, Ron said...

        Kathleen McNamara actually believes the cover story for why elites pushed the Euro zone. Yes a great peace keeping mission this has been :<)

        Economic elites in Europe have used the Euro to roll back democratic socialism and increase the global reach of European based multi-national corporations. The Euro is about the Davos economic elite and their goals. The Davos economic elite did not want fiscal union, they wanted fiscal disintegration of the welfare state. They have institutionalized fuss budgetry and inflationphobia for 19 of the 28 EU states.

        Eclectic Obsvr

        Gee, I don't think any of the critiquing economists doubt that the Euro was created as a political matter in the EU. It's just that they thought it economically unwise and to that extent economics matters to politics. It is the same thing about preaching austerity with the idea that exports will make up for lost domestic demand. At some point it's not logical to believe that all Eurozone countries have have a current account surplus. Appears to me that this is something coming out of a perhaps arrogance of foreign policy "experts".

        Kenneth Thomas said in reply to Eclectic Obsvr...

        Yes, although I believe France actually got the idea after its policy about-face in 1984. They dreamed of a multinationally controlled ECB replacing the Bundesbank, but let austerity and deficit mania get written into the ECB's mandate.

        Michael Derry

        Sometimes people overlook the easiest of things. The problem in Europe is the same as the U. S. faced under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitutional Convention was originally called to address the economic problems of the Confederation by strengthening the then existing Congress. The solution involved a fiscal union and it still took a few years to get the monetary and trade imbalances settled. You would figure a political scientist would know this.

        Barkley Rosser said...

        At the end here we have some people talking about the realities of the politics of this in the 80s, particularly regarding France. It also occurs to me that most of the commentators here are Americans, where all the people now getting their backs patted (Feldstein, Krugman, Friedman, etc.) while now able to crow about the current problems were all massively dead wrong back in the 90s and after when pretty much all of them declared loudly that the Europeans would not even be able to get the euro established at all. All along they totally under rated the political push behind this, which was arguably seriously flawed and well beyond plots by Davos elites, although that crowd clearly has done well under this at the expense of others. In that regard, this article serves a useful purpose.

        The political strength of the euro in face of its now obvious and glaring economic problems is seen both by the fact that we have recently seen more countries joining, the Baltic nations, clearly for political/security reasons (join Europe! Get away from Russia!), but the fact that after all this stuff this spring, here is Greece accepting this horrible deal because their leaders recognize that the overwhelming majority of Greeks want to stay in the euro. Greece should probably never have joined, and it looks to me that they would probably be better off to obey the desires of the horrible Wolfgang Schauble, but there they are, hanging on in there.

        Let us also keep in mind that these current problems have arisen due to the depths of the Great Recession, which basically none of us foresaw how bad it would be. Indeed, it has been a tough test, and the critics have been able to see their forecasts of problems be fulfilled.

        likbez said in reply to Barkley Rosser...

        Economically all three Baltic nations now are basket case. Latvia is probably in worst condition.

        They lost most of the trade with Russia and nobody else wants what they can produce. Emigration is rampant. Especially among young people, who see no perspectives in their home country.

        They also destroyed most of their manufacturing base (the same is true for Poland).

        While partially inevitable with the independence, Baltic's version of Russophobia has its economic and political costs.

        Jesse said...

        Her central hypothesis seems to be that money is power, and that the deployment of the euro is an exercise in the centralization of power over a heterogeneous collection of nations and economies. And that the US dollar is similar.

        How fitting that she teaches at Carroll Quigley's old university.

        She *could* be correct. And if so, then we are in for interesting times.

        http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2015/07/comex-registered-deliverable-gold.html

        DrDick said in reply to Jesse...

        It is the German's wet dream. Their economic policies have long focused on artificially suppressing the prices of their manufactures to keep their exports competitive. Now everyone's currency is pegged to their economy and they control the system.

        [Jul 22, 2015] The Courage of Hopelessness by Slavoj Zizek

        This article described well what damage Syriza might have done to the neoliberal paradigm which seems to be entrenched everywhere these days
        .
        Very interesting comparison in there between EU government and the Chinese Communist Party which I hadn't heard before. "It should shamelessly flirt with Russia and China, playing with the idea of giving an island to Russia as its Mediterranean military base, just to scare the shit out of Nato strategists. To paraphrase Dostoyevsky, now that the EU God has failed, everything is permitted." And while he does mention Golden Dawn and other euro- right wing parties he isn't especially critical of them. Not all that familiar with Zizek's overarching philosophy but one wonders if he shouldn't be careful what he wishes for in terms of allies in the struggle against neoliberalism. Anyway, other than that lots to chew on here.
        .
        "...However, statements like those from IMF demonstrate that the true problem lies elsewhere: does EU really believe in their own bailout plan? Does it really believe that the brutally imposed measures will set in motion economic growth and thus enable the payment of debts? Or is it that the ultimate motivation for the brutal extortionist pressure on Greece is not purely economic (since it is obviously irrational in economic terms) but politico-ideological – or, as Paul Krugman put it in the New York Times, "substantive surrender isn't enough for Germany, which wants regime change and total humiliation - and there's a substantial faction that just wants to push Greece out, and would more or less welcome a failed state as a caution for the rest." One should always bear in mind what a horror Syriza is for the European establishment – a Conservative Polish member of the European parliament even directly appealed to the Greek army to make a coup d'etat in order to save the country."
        .
        "...At a deeper level, however, one cannot avoid a suspicion that the true goal is not to give Greece a chance but to change it into an economically colonised semi-state kept in permanent poverty and dependency, as a warning to others. But at an even deeper level, there is again a failure – not of Greece, but of Europe itself, of the emancipatory core of European legacy."
        .
        "...Sounds familiar? Yes, to anyone who knows how Chinese power functions today, after Deng Xiaoping set in action a unique dual system: the state apparatus and legal system are redoubled by the Party institutions which are literally illegal - or, as He Weifang, a law professor from Beijing, put it succinctly: "As an organisation, the Party sits outside, and above the law. It should have a legal identity, in other words, a person to sue, but it is not even registered as an organization. The Party exists outside the legal system altogether." (Richard McGregor, The Party, London: Allen Lane 2010, p. 22) It is as if, in McGregor's words, the state-founding violence remain present, embodied in an organisation with an unclear legal status:"
        .
        "...And it is crucial to note how the obverse of this non-transparency of power is false humanitarianism: after the Greek defeat, there is, of course, time for humanitarian concerns. Jean-Claude Juncker immediately stated in an interview that he was so glad about the bailout deal because it would immediately ease the suffering of the Greek people which worried him very much. Classic scenario: after a political crack-down, humanitarian concern and help… even postponing debt payments."
        .
        "...In the guise of Syriza "contradictions", the EU establishment is merely getting back its own message in its true form. And this is what Syriza should be doing now. With a ruthless pragmatism and cold calculation, it should exploit the tiniest cracks in the opponent's armour. It should use all those who resist the predominant EU politics, from British conservatives to Ukip in the UK. It should shamelessly flirt with Russia and China, playing with the idea of giving an island to Russia as its Mediterranean military base, just to scare the shit out of Nato strategists. To paraphrase Dostoyevsky, now that the EU God has failed, everything is permitted."
        .
        "...The ultimate problem is a much more basic one. The recurrent story of the contemporary Left is that of a leader or party elected with universal enthusiasm, promising a "new world" (Mandela, Lula) – but, then, sooner or later, usually after a couple of years, they stumble upon the key dilemma: does one dare to touch the capitalist mechanisms, or does one decide to "play the game"? If one disturbs the mechanisms, one is very swiftly "punished" by market perturbations, economic chaos and the rest."

        Greece is not being asked to swallow many bitter pills in exchange for a realistic plan of economic revival, they are asked to suffer so that others in the European Union can go on dreaming their dream undisturbed.

        The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben said in an interview that "thought is the courage of hopelessness" - an insight which is especially pertinent for our historical moment when even the most pessimist diagnostics as a rule finishes with an uplifting hint at some version of the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel. The true courage is not to imagine an alternative, but to accept the consequences of the fact that there is no clearly discernible alternative: the dream of an alternative is a sign of theoretical cowardice, it functions as a fetish which prevents us thinking to the end the deadlock of our predicament. In short, the true courage is to admit that the light at the end of the tunnel is most likely the headlight of another train approaching us from the opposite direction. There is no better example of the need for such courage than Greece today.

        The double U-turn that took the Greek crisis in July 2015 cannot but appear as a step not just from tragedy to comedy but, as Stathis Kouvelakis noted in Jacobin magazine, from tragedy full of comic reversals directly into a theatre of the absurd – is there any other way to characterize the extraordinary reversal of one extreme into its opposite that would bedazzle even the most speculative Hegelian philosopher? Tired of the endless negotiations with the EU executives in which one humiliation followed another, Syriza called for a referendum on Sunday July 5 asking the Greek people if they support or reject the EU proposal of new austerity measures. Although the government itself clearly stated that it supported No, the result was a surprise: the overwhelming majority of more than 61 per cent voted No to European blackmail. Rumors began to circulate that the result – victory for the government – was a bad surprise for Alexis Tsipras himself who secretly hope that the government would lose, so that a defeat will allow him to save face in surrendering to the EU demands ("we have to respect the voters' voice"). However, literally the morning after, Tsipras announced that Greece was ready to resume the negotiations, and days later Greece negotiated a EU proposal which is basically the same as what the voters rejected (in some details even harsher) – in short, he acted as if the government has lost, not won, the referendum. As Kouvelakis wrote:

        "How is it possible for a devastating 'no' to memorandum austerity policies to be interpreted as a green light for a new memorandum? … The sense of the absurd is not just a product of this unexpected reversal. It stems above all from the fact that all of this is unfolding before our eyes as if nothing has happened, as if the referendum were something like a collective hallucination that suddenly ends, leaving us to continue freely what we were doing before. But because we have not all become lotus-eaters, let us at least give a brief résumé of what has taken place over the past few days. … From Monday morning, before the victory cries in the country's public squares had even fully died away, the theater of the absurd began. …

        The public, still in the joyful haze of Sunday, watches as the representative of the 62 percent subordinated to the 38 percent in the immediate aftermath of a resounding victory for democracy and popular sovereignty. … But the referendum happened. It wasn't a hallucination from which everyone has now recovered. On the contrary, the hallucination is the attempt to downgrade it to a temporary 'letting off of steam,' prior to resuming the downhill course towards a third memorandum."

        And things went on in this direction. On the night of July 10, the Greek Parliament gave Alexis Tsipras the authority to negotiate a new bailout by 250 votes to 32, but 17 government MPs didn't back the plan, which means he got more support from the opposition parties than from his own. Days later, the Syriza Political Secretariat dominated by the left wing of the party concluded that EU's latest proposals are "absurd" and "exceed the limits of Greek society's endurance" – Leftist extremism?

        But IMF itself (in this case a voice of minimally rational capitalism) made exactly the same point: an IMF study published a day earlier showed that Greece needs far more debt relief than European governments have been willing to contemplate so far - European countries would have to give Greece a 30-year grace period on servicing all its European debt, including new loans, and a dramatic maturity extension…

        No wonder that Tsipras himself publicly stated his doubt about the bailout plan: "We don't believe in the measures that were imposed upon us," he said during a TV interview, making it clear that he supports it out of pure despair, to avoid a total economic and financial collapse. The eurocrats use such confessions with breathtaking perfidity: now that the Greek government accepted their the tough conditions, they doubt the sincerity and seriousness of their commitment. How can Tsipras really fight for a program he doesn't believe in? How can the Greek government be really committed to the agreement when it opposes the referendum result?

        However, statements like those from IMF demonstrate that the true problem lies elsewhere: does EU really believe in their own bailout plan? Does it really believe that the brutally imposed measures will set in motion economic growth and thus enable the payment of debts? Or is it that the ultimate motivation for the brutal extortionist pressure on Greece is not purely economic (since it is obviously irrational in economic terms) but politico-ideological – or, as Paul Krugman put it in the New York Times, "substantive surrender isn't enough for Germany, which wants regime change and total humiliation - and there's a substantial faction that just wants to push Greece out, and would more or less welcome a failed state as a caution for the rest." One should always bear in mind what a horror Syriza is for the European establishment – a Conservative Polish member of the European parliament even directly appealed to the Greek army to make a coup d'etat in order to save the country.

        Why this horror? Greeks are now asked to pay the high price, but not for a realist perspective of growth. The price they are asked to pay is for the continuation of the "extend and pretend" fantasy. They are asked to ascend to their actual suffering in order to sustain another's (eurocrats') dream. Gilles Deleuze said decades ago: Si vous etez pris dans le reve de l'autre, vous etez foutus. ("if you are caught into another's dream, you are fucked"), and this is the situation in which Greece finds itself now. Greeks are not asked to swallow many bitter pills for a realistic plan of economic revival, they are asked to suffer so that others can go on dreaming their dream undisturbed.

        The one who now needs awakening is not Greece but Europe. Everyone who is not caught in this dream knows what awaits us if the bailout plan is enacted: another 90 or so billions will be thrown into the Greek basket, raising the Greek debt to 400 or so billion euros (and most of them will quickly return back to Western Europe - the true bailout is the bailout of German and French banks, not of Greece), and we can expect the same crisis to explode in a couple of years.

        But is such an outcome really a failure? At an immediate level, if one compares the plan with its actual outcome, obviously yes. At a deeper level, however, one cannot avoid a suspicion that the true goal is not to give Greece a chance but to change it into an economically colonised semi-state kept in permanent poverty and dependency, as a warning to others. But at an even deeper level, there is again a failure – not of Greece, but of Europe itself, of the emancipatory core of European legacy.

        The No of the referendum was undoubtedly a great ethico-political act: against a well-coordinated enemy propaganda spreading fears and lies, with no clear prospect of what lies ahead, against all pragmatic and "realist" odds, the Greek people heroically rejected the brutal pressure of the EU. The Greek No was an authentic gesture of freedom and autonomy, but the big question is, of course, what happens the day after, when we have to return from the ecstatic negation to the everyday dirty business – and here, another unity emerged, the unity of the "pragmatic" forces (Syriza and the big opposition parties) against the Syriza Left and Golden Dawn. But does this mean that the long struggle of Syriza was in vain, that the No of the referendum was just a sentimental empty gesture destined to make the capitulation more palpable?

        The really catastrophic thing about the Greek crisis is that the moment the choice appeared as the choice between Grexit and the capitulation to Brussels, the battle was already lost. Both terms of this choice move within the predominant eurocratic vision (remember that the German anti-Greek hardliners like Wolfgang Schauble also prefer Grexit!). The Syriza government was not fighting just for a greater debt relief and for more new money within the same overall coordinates, but for the awakening of Europe from its dogmatic slumber.

        Therein resides the authentic greatness of Syriza: insofar as the icon of the popular unrest in Greece were the protests on the Syntagma (Constitution) Square, Syriza engaged in a Herculean labor of enacting the shift from syntagm to paradigm, in the long and patient work of translating the energy of rebellion into concrete measures that would change everyday life of the people. We have to be very precise here: the No of the Greek referendum was not a No to "austerity" in the sense of necessary sacrifices and hard work, but a No to the the EU dream of just going on with the business as usual.

        The country's former finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, repeatedly made this point clear: no more borrowing but an overall rehaul needed to give the Greek economy a chance to rebound. The first step in this direction should be an increase in the democratic transparency of our power mechanisms. Our democratically elected state apparatuses are thus more and more redoubled by a thick network of "agreements" and non-elected "expert" bodies which yield the real economic (and military) power. Here is Varoufakis's report on an extraordinary moment in his dealings with EU negotiator Jeroen Dijsselbloem:

        "There was a moment when the President of the Eurogroup decided to move against us and effectively shut us out, and made it known that Greece was essentially on its way out of the Eurozone. /…/ There is a convention that communiqués must be unanimous, and the President can't just convene a meeting of the Eurozone and exclude a member state. And he said, 'Oh I'm sure I can do that.' So I asked for a legal opinion. It created a bit of a kerfuffle.

        For about 5-10 minutes the meeting stopped, clerks, officials were talking to one another, on their phone, and eventually some official, some legal expert addressed me, and said the following words: 'Well, the Eurogroup does not exist in law, there is no treaty which has convened this group.' So what we have is a non-existent group that has the greatest power to determine the lives of Europeans. It's not answerable to anyone, given it doesn't exist in law; no minutes are kept; and it's confidential. So no citizen ever knows what is said within… These are decisions of almost life and death, and no member has to answer to anybody."

        Sounds familiar? Yes, to anyone who knows how Chinese power functions today, after Deng Xiaoping set in action a unique dual system: the state apparatus and legal system are redoubled by the Party institutions which are literally illegal - or, as He Weifang, a law professor from Beijing, put it succinctly: "As an organisation, the Party sits outside, and above the law. It should have a legal identity, in other words, a person to sue, but it is not even registered as an organization. The Party exists outside the legal system altogether." (Richard McGregor, The Party, London: Allen Lane 2010, p. 22) It is as if, in McGregor's words, the state-founding violence remain present, embodied in an organisation with an unclear legal status:

        "It would seem difficult to hide an organization as large as the Chinese Communist Party, but it cultivates its backstage role with care. The big party departments controlling personnel and the media keep a purposely low public profile. The party committees (known as 'leading small groups') which guide and dictate policy to ministries, which in turn have the job of executing them, work out of sight. The make-up of all these committees, and in many cases even their existence, is rarely referred to in the state-controlled media, let alone any discussion of how they arrive at decisions."

        No wonder that exactly the same thing happened to Varoufakis as to a Chinese dissident who, some years ago, formally brought to court and charged the Chinese Communist Party for being guilty of the Tienanmien massacre. After a couple of months, he got a reply from the ministry of justice: they cannot pursue his charge since there is no organization called "Chinese Communist Party" officially registered in China.

        And it is crucial to note how the obverse of this non-transparency of power is false humanitarianism: after the Greek defeat, there is, of course, time for humanitarian concerns. Jean-Claude Juncker immediately stated in an interview that he was so glad about the bailout deal because it would immediately ease the suffering of the Greek people which worried him very much. Classic scenario: after a political crack-down, humanitarian concern and help… even postponing debt payments.

        What should one do in such a hopeless situation? One should especially resist the temptation of Grexit as a great heroic act of rejecting further humiliations and stepping outside - into what? What new positive order are we stepping into? The Grexit option appears as the "real-impossible", as something that would lead to an immediate social disintegration. Krugman writes: "Tsipras apparently allowed himself to be convinced, some time ago, that euro exit was completely impossible. It appears that Syriza didn't even do any contingency planning for a parallel currency (I hope to find out that this is wrong). This left him in a hopeless bargaining position."

        Krugman's point is that Grexit is also an "impossible-real" which can happen with unpredictable consequences and which, as such, can be risked.

        "All the wise heads saying that Grexit is impossible, that it would lead to a complete implosion, don't know what they are talking about. When I say that, I don't mean that they're necessarily wrong - I believe they are, but anyone who is confident about anything here is deluding himself. What I mean instead is that nobody has any experience with what we're looking at."

        While in principle this is true, there are nonetheless too many indications that a sudden Grexit now would lead to utter economic and social catastrophe. Syriza economic strategists are well aware that such a gesture would cause an immediate further fall of the standard of living for an additional (minimum) 30 per cent, bringing misery to a new unbearable level, with the threat of popular unrest and even military dictatorship. The prospect of such heroic acts is thus a temptation to be resisted.

        Then there are calls for Syriza to return to its roots: Syriza should not become just another governing parliamentary party, the true change can only come from grassroots, from the people themselves, from their self-organization, not from the state apparatuses… another case of empty posturing, since it avoids the crucial problem which is how to deal with the international pressure concerning debt, or, more generally, how to exert power and run a state. Grassroots self-organization cannot replace the state, and the question is how to reorganize the state apparatus to make it function differently.

        It's nonetheless not enough to say that Syriza put a heroic fight, testing what is possible - the fight goes on, it has just began. Instead of dwelling on the "contradictions" of Syriza policy (after a triumphant No one accepts the very program that was rejected by the people), and of getting caught in mutual recriminations about who is guilty (did the Syriza majority commit an opportunistic "treason", or was the Left irresponsible in its preference for Grexit), one should rather focus on what the enemy is doing: the "contradictions" of Syriza are a mirror image of the "contradictions" of the EU establishment gradually undermining the very foundations of united Europe.

        In the guise of Syriza "contradictions", the EU establishment is merely getting back its own message in its true form. And this is what Syriza should be doing now. With a ruthless pragmatism and cold calculation, it should exploit the tiniest cracks in the opponent's armour. It should use all those who resist the predominant EU politics, from British conservatives to Ukip in the UK. It should shamelessly flirt with Russia and China, playing with the idea of giving an island to Russia as its Mediterranean military base, just to scare the shit out of Nato strategists. To paraphrase Dostoyevsky, now that the EU God has failed, everything is permitted.

        When one hears the complaints that the EU administration brutally ignores the plight of the Greek people in their blind obsession with humiliating and disciplining the Greeks, that even Southern-European countries like Italy or Spain didn't show any solidarity with Greece, our reaction should be: but is there any surprise in all this? What did the critics expect? That the EU administration will magically understand the Syriza argumentation and act in compliance with it? The EU administration is simply doing what it was always doing. Then there is the reproach that Greece is looking for help in Russia and China – as if Europe itself is not pushing Greece in that direction with its humiliating pressure.

        Then there is the claim that phenomena like Syriza demonstrate how the traditional Left/Right dichotomy is outlived. Syriza in Greece is called extreme Left, and Marine le Pen in France extreme Right, but these two parties have effectively a lot in common: they both fight for state sovereignty, against multinational corporations. It is therefore quite logical that in Greece itself, Syriza is in coalition with a small Rightist pro-sovereignty party. On April 22, 2015, Francois Hollande said on TV that Marine le Pen today sounds like George Marchais (a French Communist leader) in 1970s – the same patriotic advocacy of the plight of ordinary French people exploited by international capital – no wonder Marine le Pen supports Syriza . . . a weird claim which doesn't say a lot more than the old Liberal wisdom than Fascism is also a kind of Socialism. The moment we bring into the picture the topic of immigrant workers, this whole parallel falls apart.

        The ultimate problem is a much more basic one. The recurrent story of the contemporary Left is that of a leader or party elected with universal enthusiasm, promising a "new world" (Mandela, Lula) – but, then, sooner or later, usually after a couple of years, they stumble upon the key dilemma: does one dare to touch the capitalist mechanisms, or does one decide to "play the game"? If one disturbs the mechanisms, one is very swiftly "punished" by market perturbations, economic chaos and the rest.

        The heroism of Syriza was that, after winning the democratic political battle, they risked a step further into disturbing the smooth run of the Capital. The lesson of the Greek crisis is that Capital, though ultimately a symbolic fiction, is our Real. That is to say, today's protests and revolts are sustained by the combination (overlapping) of different levels, and this combination accounts for their strength: they fight for ("normal" parliamentary) democracy against authoritarian regimes; against racism and sexism, especially the hatred directed at immigrants and refugees; for welfare-state against neoliberalism; against corruption in politics and economy (companies polluting environment, etc.); for new forms of democracy that reach beyond multi-party rituals (participation, etc.); and, finally, questioning the global capitalist system as such and trying to keep alive the idea of a non-capitalist society. Both traps are to be avoided here: the false radicalism ("what really matters is the abolition of liberal-parliamentary capitalism, all other fights are secondary"), as well as the false gradualism ("now we fight against military dictatorship and for simple democracy, forget your Socialist dreams, this comes later – maybe…").

        When we have to deal with a specific struggle, the key question is: how will our engagement in it or disengagement from it affect other struggles? The general rule is that, when a revolt begins against an oppressive half-democratic regime, as was the case in the Middle East in 2011, it is easy to mobilize large crowds with slogans which one cannot but characterise as crowd pleasers – for democracy, against corruption, etc. But then we gradually approach more difficult choices: when our revolt succeeds in its direct goal, we come to realize that what really bothered us (our un-freedom, humiliation, social corruption, lack of prospect of a decent life) goes on in a new guise. In Egypt, protesters succeeded in getting rid of the oppressive Mubarak regime, but corruption remained, and the prospect of a decent life moved even further away. After the overthrow of an authoritarian regime, the last vestiges of patriarchal care for the poor can fall away, so that the newly gained freedom is de facto reduced to the freedom to choose the preferred form of one's misery – the majority not only remains poor, but, to add insult to injury, it is being told that, since they are now free, poverty is their own responsibility. In such a predicament, we have to admit that there was flaw in our goal itself, that this goal was not specific enough - say, that standard political democracy can also serve as the very form of un-freedom: political freedom can easily provide the legal frame for economic slavery, with the underprivileged "freely" selling themselves into servitude. We are thus brought to demand more than just political democracy – democratization also of social and economic life. In short, we have to admit that what we first took as the failure to fully realize a noble principle (of democratic freedom) is a failure inherent to this principle itself – to learn this move from the distortion of a notion, its incomplete realization, to the distortion immanent to this notion is the big step of political pedagogy.

        The ruling ideology mobilises here its entire arsenal to prevent us from reaching this radical conclusion. They start to tell us that democratic freedom brings its own responsibility, that it comes at a price, that we are not yet mature if we expect too much from democracy. In this way, they blame us for our failure: in a free society, so we are told, we are all capitalist investing in our lives, deciding to put more into our education than into having fun if we want to succeed, etc. At a more directly political level, the US foreign policy elaborated a detailed strategy of how to exert damage control by way of re-channeling a popular uprising into acceptable parliamentary-capitalist constraints – as was done successfully in South Africa after the fall of apartheid regime, in Philippines after the fall of Marcos, in Indonesia after the fall of Suharto, etc. At this precise conjuncture, radical emancipatory politics faces its greatest challenge: how to push things further after the first enthusiastic stage is over, how to make the next step without succumbing to the catastrophe of the "totalitarian" temptation – in short, how to move further from Mandela without becoming Mugabe.

        The courage of hopelessness is crucial at this point.

        [Jul 21, 2015] Greece: plea for unity as banks reopen

        "...Well, they found out how hard it is when you have no leverage to put up a strong fight. "
        .
        "...The whole premise that the EU would crumble if Greece left the EU was pushed by Yanis V....and he was 2 years to late to the party... the markets had priced in the Grexit over the last 3 years and it showed in the lack of volatility during the leadup to the Vote."
        Jul 20, 2015 | The Guardian

        KateShade -> curious3 21 Jul 2015 10:49

        Curious3, here is the direct quote from the July 12th Proposal (downloaded from BBC)

        "to develop a significantly scaled up privatisation programme with improved governance; valuable Greek assets will be transferred to an independent fund that will monetize the assets through privatisations and other means. The monetization of the assets will be one source to make the scheduled repayment of the new loan of ESM and generate over the life of the new loan a targeted total of EUR 50bn of which EUR 25bn will be used for the repayment of recapitalization of banks and other assets and 50 % of every remaining euro (i.e. 50% of EUR 25bn) will be used for decreasing the debt to GDP ratio and the remaining 50 % will be used for investments."

        thecatspyjamas2 -> picar52 21 Jul 2015 10:21

        As Paul Krugman said yesterday " I find it hard to believe they didn't have a plan B" ...That was the worst thing they did...not just the stupid promises they made..but the fact they had no leverage AND they did not have the common sense to even try to create some fake leverage during the negotiations. Syriza must have thought the previous Greeks in charge just did not put up any fight against the Austerity.

        Well, they found out how hard it is when you have no leverage to put up a strong fight.

        The whole premise that the EU would crumble if Greece left the EU was pushed by Yanis V....and he was 2 years to late to the party... the markets had priced in the Grexit over the last 3 years and it showed in the lack of volatility during the leadup to the Vote.

        KateShade -> curious3 21 Jul 2015 09:41

        Dear curious, according to July 12 summit proposal 50% of money is to go on recapitalizing banks, 25% on bringing down debt to GDP ratio and 25% on investment.
        So the answer to the question how much of money raised is to go on interest is "none".
        Does that clarify things?

        picar52 -> TokyoJones 21 Jul 2015 06:55

        I appreciate your comments and will reply in as few words as possible. My dismay is not solely with the present government but with the whole political establishment that has ever since the beginning of the crisis, in 2009, consistently avoided doing their bit with regard to each and every agreement they signed with the troika, etc. As a result they all lost international credibility, as the only game they ever knew how to play was that of populist rhetoric vis-a-vis the local electorate. In fact George Papandreou, who was in power for three years (2009-11), did absolutely nothing in terms of reforms. The opposition parties, conservative New Democracy and left Syriza attacked the PASOK government in every possible way. Meanwhile, in other southern European countries, the opposition parties took a more responsible approach and thus measures were introduced that ensured that their crises quickly ended. In Greece however, things took a different turn. And the end result is there for all to see.

        I shall give you another example of populist misleading rhetoric. Andreas Papandreou, who first gained power in 1981, got elected on slogans such as

        EEC and NATO, the same syndicate! (EOK kai NATO to idio syndikato!)

        or

        Out with the (US military) bases of death! (Exo oi vaseis tou thanatou!)

        Papandreou had promised (in 1981) to hold a referendum for Greeks to decide to on membership of the EEC. When elected, he never held it. He promised to close down the US military bases. He never did - instead the US stopped operating them because they no longer served their purpose.

        So please understand, Greek politicians are a special breed. Their cynical streak as regards the implementation of measures required to gain power is probably unmatched in any other European democracy.

        Europeans who have not experienced this at close hand cannot appreciate the level of lying and hypocrisy we have had to put up with.


        bally38 -> areianos 21 Jul 2015 06:43

        1. Please Stop shouting.
        2. Credit Default Swaps were triggered. Here's the story in Reuters (march 2012)
        3. "WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE SUCH MEDIA MUPPETS" As they say, when you point the finger, three fingers are pointing back at you.


        areianos Grishnakh 21 Jul 2015 06:21

        This is the last of it, after 2015 debt is highly manageable.

        http://graphics.wsj.com/greece-debt-timeline/

        Varoufakis is an intelligent and honourable man and fought for the people very well

        Tsipras had to make the most difficult executive decision of his life.

        By January 2016 the Greek crisis will be over.

        I don't blame Germany for protecting its own unregulated and gambling interests I just find it somewhat unique that Americans have more concern about the Greeks in Greece than Germans.

        [Jul 20, 2015] The Dangerously Vague Romance of War by Shane Smith

        July 20, 2015 | original.antiwar.com
        Which sounds better, to "die for your government", or "give your life for your country"? The first could be interpreted, after a mountain of bodies pile up, as a mistake. As something that would seem to require scrutiny, admissions of having been wrong, of blame to be placed. Dying for a government, or more precisely, dying for a select group of political figures at a certain moment in time for very specific reasons, doesn't hide behind a fluttering flag quite as well as "dying for country". Which is why we never hear it. War, in the mind of the Middle America that still thinks on it, is shrouded in a sepia-toned composite of images and sounds, stories of soldiers, duty to country, service, songs, movies, and myth that give politicians far more leverage than they would otherwise have, when executing another war. No, "service to country" is the emotional and moral narcotic we administer to ourselves, almost automatically, at the inception of a new war. War is all wrapped up in our American Mythos so tight that it seems astonishing that we haven't descended utterly into a pure American-style fascism. Maybe a few more 9/11-style attacks and the transformation would be complete. 9/11 was an unparalleled opportunity for the explosion of government growth, and as much as "war is the health of the State", so are foreign attacks on the home State, attacks that can be perfectly molded so as to stoke the maximum amount of nationalist rage from the citizens. Those attacks were a godsend for a government that had been starved of an actual threat for far too long. And they took full advantage of the opportunity. Fourteen years later, the Warfare State is petering out from the evaporating fumes of 9/11, and their looking for a new fix.

        But what of those who lied the country into igniting a regional dumpster fire after 9/11? Once the war hysteria evaporates, where are What would it really take to hold any one politician for a military disaster halfway around the world? It is blindingly obvious that there will never be a reckoning for those who hustled us into the Iraq war. What about Libya? Syria? How bad does it have to get for there to be something resembling accountability? War atrocities seem to have become less of a chance for justice and lessons learned than as a new precedent that the progenitors of the next war can point to when their war goes bad. And creators of war did learn a few things from Iraq and Afghanistan. They learned that flag-draped coffins do focus the attention of the citizenry. And drone strikes don't, really.

        That hazy collage of feel-good nationalism is trotted out every election year, and every candidate engages in it to one degree or another. Peace is a hard sell next to the belligerent effusions of a Donald Trump. His crazed rantings against immigrants, his bizarre fantasies as to how he would handle world leaders via telephone call, as well as his boorishness in general, has thousands flocking to hear him speak. But what they're cheering is an avatar of a blood-soaked ideology, one that cloaks itself in the native symbols and culture, breeding hate and intolerance, until the bilious nationalism reaches just the right temperature and then boils over into lawless fascism. As Jeffrey Tucker points out, Trump is nothing new. The graveyard of twentieth century tyrannies is a testament to just how much death and destruction can be induced by a charismatic parasite bellowing the tenets of a flag-wrapped tyranny. Most of what we hear coming from leaders today is fascism to a greater or lesser extent. If what we mean by fascism to be a Religion of the State, a militant nationalism taken to its logical conclusion, then every leader engages in it, because it ignites something primitive and sinister in the minds of voters.

        We understand war theoretically, and distantly, but what of those who are forced to carry out the fever dreams of politicians? Blindly thanking veterans for their service, we feel a sense of duty discharged, and never think to look more deeply into their traumas, or the scheme they were tricked into executing. Military recruiters, the unscrupulous peddlers of military slavery, are treated as a benign influence on young people today. Their pushy, overindulgent attitude toward our 18-year olds should piss us off more than it does, since what they are conning the young into is becoming the expendable plaything for the whims of the current Administration.

        War is the pith of total government. The source of all its power, war and the threat of war provide the excuse for every injustice, every outrage, every restriction of liberty or further bilking of the citizen-hosts. As the Warfare State trots out the familiar sermons of threats from abroad, potential greatness at home, and wars to be fought, one would do well to reflect that war enriches the State at the expense of the rest of us. It consumes our lives, our liberty, our wallets, and the future of our children and grandchildren. The current crop of candidates who peddle military greatness are the enemy of peace and prosperity, and when they so openly declaim their lust for war, we should frankly believe what they say. And after hearing them, we should recognize the would-be tyrant in our midst, hawking hyper-militarism under the guise of national greatness, and treat them like the vermin they clearly are.

        Shane Smith lives in Norman, Oklahoma and writes for Red Dirt Report.

        Read more by Shane Smith

        [Jul 19, 2015] Negotiating with Germany is a Waste of Time

        "...Germany is a loanshark with a gang of Northern countries and they just kneecapped Greece to get the word out in the neighborhood, aka Eurozone. This isn't about moral hazard, it's Germany saying to the periphery if you don't submit we will pound you into the ground."
        .
        "...Since Prof. Varoufakis is an expert in Game Theory, I'm surprised that he didn't realize that BEFORE he started negotiations. If the Eurozone hardliners gave in to Greece, they would have to give the same deal to everyone who asked for it.
        I wonder if he's going to use this experience in his classes."

        .
        "..."Ireland, Spain and Portugal endured the pain associated with their bailouts and emerged economically stronger." Lies. Europe is sinking into economic weakness because of Germany's insane ideas about economics."
        .
        "...The euro is essentially the successor to the Deutsche mark, whatever other Europeans might think of it. Germany's currency had far more global weight than those of the other members before the monetary union was created, and Germany's exit would destroy the euro immediately."
        .
        "...I do not hate Germans, my family are of German descent and I have German friends. What I hate are destructive neoliberal policies like those imposed by the German government. Let us be clear, from all reports the people who refuse to negotiate here are the Germans. The French, Italians, and others have shown some flexibility, but the Germans have not, and as the dominant economy in the ECU, they pretty much get their way."
        .
        "...Germany and the UK have been fighting for decades (really since Bismark) over who should politically run Europe. That is why the so called UK "exit" from the EU is a real joke. More like hurt feelings of being the loser. "
        .
        "...Let's not waste time with wishful thoughts about the foresight of the German elites. As they so often say, "We Germans reject Keynesian economics." Indeed. They reject not only deficit spending in a liquidity trap but, more fundamentally, the paradox of thrift, and not just as the paradox applies to households but also as it applies to sovereign nations.
        .
        So the German elites announce, over and over again, their dictum for the rest of Europe. "Imitate Germany! Be more competitive!" That is to say, always run a large current-account surplus.
        "
        .
        "...
        "We Germans reject Keynesian economics." Should we call this MerkelNomics? Sort of like Herbert Hoover economics. Or Cameron-Osborne economics. The kind of stupidity that JohnH apparently hearts. Of course this is also the economics of the modern Republican Party. We are ruled by morons. "
        .
        "...The historic way a weaker economy became more competitive was to have a weaker currency and to protect its developing industry with various protections against imports. That route is not available to the periphery nations."
        .
        "...Stripped of ambitions for a political and economic union, the bloc changes into a utilitarian project
        .
        A few things that many of us took for granted, and that some of us believed in, ended in a single weekend. By forcing Alexis Tsipras into a humiliating defeat, Greece's creditors have done a lot more than bring about regime change in Greece or endanger its relations with the eurozone. They have destroyed the eurozone as we know it and demolished the idea of a monetary union as a step towards a democratic political union.
        .
        In doing so they reverted to the nationalist European power struggles of the 19th and early 20th century. They demoted the eurozone into a toxic fixed exchange-rate system, with a shared single currency, run in the interests of Germany, held together by the threat of absolute destitution for those who challenge the prevailing order. The best thing that can be said of the weekend is the brutal honesty of those perpetrating this regime change."
        Jul 13, 2015 | Economist's View

        David

        Germany is a loanshark with a gang of Northern countries and they just kneecapped Greece to get the word out in the neighborhood, aka Eurozone. This isn't about moral hazard, it's Germany saying to the periphery if you don't submit we will pound you into the ground.

        What a great democratic experiment. And what a model of solidarity and social cohesion. What a joke.

        anne -> Peter K....

        http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=11bD

        January 15, 2015

        Government debt and balance of trade as shares of Gross Domestic Product for France, 2000-2012

        (Percent)

        [ President Hollande has been shockingly conservative or a staunch conservative wearing socialist clothes. ]

        DrDick -> anne...

        It has been pretty obviously the latter from the outset. He is a socialist in name only, much like the British Labour Party these days.

        MacAuley -> Peter K....

        Since Prof. Varoufakis is an expert in Game Theory, I'm surprised that he didn't realize that BEFORE he started negotiations. If the Eurozone hardliners gave in to Greece, they would have to give the same deal to everyone who asked for it.
        I wonder if he's going to use this experience in his classes.

        pgl

        "be willing to act unilaterally, be willing to default unilaterally, have a plan for achieving primary surplus if you haven't already achieved it, have a hard default and euro exit (now possible, thanks to the Germans) option in your back pocket, and be willing to use it at the first sign of hassle from the ECB."

        YES! Only edit to this comes from the fact that Greece already has a large primary surplus. Exit the Euro Zone and say the heck with the Germans.

        Fred C. Dobbs

        (Many hold that Germany should have given
        in to Greece, not the other way around.
        That was not to be. Go figure.)

        The Greek Deal Is a Disaster for Greece, and Maybe
        for Europe http://nyti.ms/1UUXCHl via @UpshotNYT
        NYT - Neil Irwin - July 13

        For years, Greece's negotiations with its European creditors have featured moments in which all parties stare into the abyss, fear what they see, and step back to reach a deal.

        On Monday, there was yet another deal. But this time it is one that pushes Greece into the abyss, even if financial markets don't acknowledge it just yet and even if what happens next is deeply uncertain.

        Greece already has 26 percent unemployment, a tourism industry that is suffering as would-be visitors stay away, and banks and a stock market that have been closed going on three weeks. Just a week ago, its voters overwhelmingly rejected a bailout offer that was less punitive than the one its leaders just accepted.

        Yet the deal that Greek leaders and their creditors reached Monday morning after a brutal series of overnight talks promise to deepen political and economic strains in a country already in depression.

        It was a momentous weekend for Europe, and not in a good way. The deal will keep Greece in the eurozone at least a while longer, at great cost, and with little certainty about the future of either Greece or Europe in the not too distant future.

        In exchange for a cash lifeline, the country has agreed to much greater concessions than those that were under discussion a few weeks ago. Among them: higher taxes, cuts to government pensions and a sell-off of $55 billion worth of state assets in order to recapitalize banks and make debt payments. That last strategy is a little like a family selling off its furniture to make its mortgage payment; you can do it, but it does not exactly amount to a long-term solution.

        A week ago, thousands of Greeks crowded Syntagma Square, in front of the nation's parliament, celebrating their country's emphatic "No" vote on a proposed financial rescue. Right and left, old and young, the Greek people were united: They would not accept the further austerity that Germany and other European countries were demanding as a condition of further bailout money. ...

        (The new harsh scheme can only work if Greece corrects
        a lot of 'systemic problems', and - unfortunately -
        maybe not even then.)
        Monday, July 13, 2015 at 12:24 PM

        Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...

        The Eurozone's Damaging Deal for Greece
        http://nyti.ms/1JeyJgO
        NYT - editorial - July 13

        In the end, after trying every possible tactic, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras of Greece threw in the towel and accepted the toughest demands yet made by creditors to extend life support for Greece and keep it in the eurozone. That may avert an immediate catastrophe, but there is little to celebrate since it will do little to address, much less repair, the slow-moving disaster of the Greek economy.

        The Greek Parliament has to approve the main portions of the package by Wednesday just to start negotiations on a new three-year bailout of up to 86 billion euros ($96 billion). Despite pleas from the Greeks for debt relief, the creditors gave only vague indications that they might consider easing terms on Greece's total debt of more than 300 billion euros, which it cannot possibly repay.

        Mr. Tsipras certainly didn't help his cause with the European leaders by calling for a confusing last-minute referendum, in which Greek voters rejected an earlier bailout deal. And now his capitulation has enraged members of his left-wing Syriza party, raising the possibility of another national election, with the attendant unknowns, or at least a thorough reshuffling of the government.

        The guiding notion behind the creation of the European Union was to resolve problems like this through consensus and cooperation. Instead, the final 17-hour negotiating session was marked by acrimony not only between Greece and the European leaders, but also between Germany and France; between the German finance minister and the head of the European Central Bank; between north and south, east and west.

        So the tragedy is not only that the Greek debt crisis has no end in sight, but that instead of the one-for-all-and-all-for-one ethic that was supposed to govern Europe, the rancorous talks showed a roomful of national leaders with sharply differing conceptions of what to do about a bankrupt fellow member.

        The Greek Parliament is likely to accept the deal, if only because there is no choice. Austerity will remain firmly in place, and the increased taxes and reduced pension payments imposed in the package will only further erode the demand that the Greek economy needs to avoid a deepening depression. The deal also requires that a fund be created to sell off public assets worth 50 billion euros to repay debts and recapitalize banks, a condition hard for a socialist government to swallow, and continued monitoring of Greece's adherence to bailout terms by the International Monetary Fund. ...
        Monday, July 13, 2015 at 05:16 PM

        Eric

        there is only one problem with this plan, there is no popular support for it.

        Some of you probably think that if the economy in some countries continues to stagnate, this attitude will change. But popular support for the euro in those countries is not about macro-economics, but because they don't trust their own politicians to handle their own currencies properly.

        I think there is a higher chance that the Northern countries exit the eurozone than the troubled countries, even when it would be wise from a macro economic perspective.

        David -> Eric...

        Actually there are lot of problems with it as others have posted.

        Odd note. when did the Finns become jerks? I have known a few who were super cool. I get there's a politics thing but I expected this out of Germany, not the Finns.

        Peter K. -> Eric...

        "but because they don't trust their own politicians to handle their own currencies properly."

        You have no evidence of this and just are making things up out of thin air.

        pgl -> Peter K....

        Eric does not even know the difference between the overall surplus/deficit versus the primary surplus. Dumb? Dishonest? Either way - he is a troll.

        am -> pgl...

        I thought also that the ps had disappeared since the start of the year.

        But the mystery in all of the crisis has been the wish to retain the euro by the Greek people. It may be some sense of belonging to the euro group that they desire. But it is more like knowing the history of the drachma. His point that Peter copied in is not all unreasonable.

        They don't want the drachma because monetary and fiscal policy may revert to drachma like figures of the past, including devaluation.

        I posted up a link before on the recent history of the drachma. From ww2 to the collapse of the Bretton Wood institutions it was good: called the golden period. From 1972 or thereabouts until the attempt at convergence to join the euro it was very poor. During the convergence period it was good. I think the people can remember the bad period with devaluations. It was one of the reasons they wanted to join the euro.

        Eric

        ''Want the Euro? Be More Like the Germans''

        ...

        The euro is essentially the successor to the Deutsche mark, whatever other Europeans might think of it. Germany's currency had far more global weight than those of the other members before the monetary union was created, and Germany's exit would destroy the euro immediately. By contrast, the common currency could feasibly survive the exit of any other member, probably even France. If you want to use an essentially German currency, you have to be a little German. That means low or nonexistent budget deficits, extreme tax discipline (tax dodging in Germany is not just a crime -- it causes genuine moral outrage), and a rule-based approach to government and economic life.

        Europeans like the euro, and most of them make an honest attempt at German-ness. Ireland, Spain and Portugal endured the pain associated with their bailouts and emerged economically stronger. Their political landscape also became more German: The center left and the center right, increasingly indistinguishable from one another, alternate in power or even share it, and the extreme right and extreme left have been marginalized. In Greece, the extreme left won. That was extremely un-German. The result is politically -- and probably economically -- disastrous for Greece.

        The message for other euro countries is that if they want to enjoy the trade, convenience and interest-rate benefits of the common currency, they cannot afford to elect the far left and far right. The German-led currency union will fight back and make it painful. If Podemos wins in Spain, or if the Finns Party triumphs in Finland, they will need to take their countries out of the euro area to escape Greece's fate.
        ...

        http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-07-13/want-the-euro-be-more-like-the-germans

        David -> Eric...

        How rule based were the Germans after WW2 when their debt was forgiven and they were gifted the Marshall plan after they started the worst war in human history, genocide etc. This was the greatest crime foriveness in human history.

        DrDick -> David ...

        Also after WW I, when they defaulted on their debts.

        Peter K. -> Eric...

        Wow what a horrible piece. Not surprising coming from Eric.

        "Ireland, Spain and Portugal endured the pain associated with their bailouts and emerged economically stronger."

        Lies. Europe is sinking into economic weakness because of Germany's insane ideas about economics.

        Peter K. -> Eric...

        "Leonid Bershidsky is a Bloomberg View columnist. He is a Berlin-based writer, author of three novels and two nonfiction books."

        The Germans are reverting to form.

        Just saw Brad Pitt's movie Fury. Good movie. Pitt kills a lot of Nazis as the Americans invade Germany.

        Peter K. -> Peter K....

        Pitt likes to kill Nazis.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grq0rhtbtAw

        Peter K.

        Feckless as Syriza? What other choice did they have?

        One. Default and exit. But the Greeks don't want to do that, so why have a backup plan? I don't really go along with these criticisms of Tsipras and Syriza. Nobody could have done better. Being "nice" to the Germans wouldn't have mattered at all. The Greeks were nice for 5 years and just gave them a broken economy.

        The Greeks recognized it wasn't working and elected Syriza to get a better deal. They couldn't. They held a referendum and the Greeks voted No to the austerity deal. But they don't want to leave the Eurozone so they have to accept the bailout terms. They're in a no win situaion.

        I agree with Krugman and Dean Baker that default and getting your own monetary policy is the way to go, but the Greeks don't want to leave Europe.

        John Cummings -> Eric...

        I suspect there is a bunch of pro-anglo sentiment in secret. Basically progressives and Margie Thatcher are crying together at the diminished anglo role....

        pgl -> Eric...

        We don't hate Germans. We hate horrific economic policies. We also don't like trolls - like you.

        Eric -> Eric...

        actually it was Germany that proposed a possible better way out for Greece this weekend: a time out from the euro zone for at least five years, debt restructuring, humanitarian aid and growth enhancing measures:

        http://www.focus.de/finanzen/news/staatsverschuldung/finanzministerium-verschickt-papier-schaeuble-schlaegt-grexit-auf-zeit-vor_id_4810445.html

        This German plan was ridiculed and dismissed by other eurozone countries, in particular France. I wonder why.

        John Cummings -> Eric...

        That was only by "select" Germans and only if Greece didn't capitulate. It may still happen if Greece doesn't follow their edict.

        DrDick -> Eric...

        I do not hate Germans, my family are of German descent and I have German friends. What I hate are destructive neoliberal policies like those imposed by the German government. Let us be clear, from all reports the people who refuse to negotiate here are the Germans. The French, Italians, and others have shown some flexibility, but the Germans have not, and as the dominant economy in the ECU, they pretty much get their way.

        Peter K. -> Eric...

        My family is of German descent. My father's father had German parents, one of whom came over on a boat. My grandfather fought the Japanese in World War II while some of his cousins were drafted by the Nazis late in the war and sent to the Eastern Front never to be heard from again.

        Your lack of concern over the well-being of the Greeks is shameful. You're a stupid troll.

        John Cummings

        Germany and the UK have been fighting for decades (really since Bismark) over who should politically run Europe. That is why the so called UK "exit" from the EU is a real joke. More like hurt feelings of being the loser.

        btg -> John Cummings...

        The Brits kept out of Europe and have never seen themselves as being fully part of Europe - the EU was always a French/German thing.

        Britain/England is an island and as such it never needed a large standing army and instead became a maritime power with an empire larger than its European neighbors.

        Britian sees the defeat of Germany as a highpoint but even then it was largely overtaken by the US since then as the US forced it to dismember the empire.

        Peter K.

        http://macromarketmusings blogspot.com/2015/07/did-monetary-policy-really-offset.html

        Monday, July 13, 2015

        Did Monetary Policy Really Offset Fiscal Austerity in Canada?
        by David Beckworth

        The blogosphere is once again talking about Canada's successful fiscal austerity in the mid-to-late 1990s. Paul Krugman rekindled the conversation with this statement:

        "[L]ook at everyone's favorite example of successful austerity, Canada in the 1990s. Canada came in with gross debt of roughly 100 percent of GDP, roughly comparable to Greece on the eve of the financial crisis. It then proceeded to do a pretty big fiscal adjustment -- 6 percent of GDP according to the IMF's measure of the structural balance, which is about a third of what Greece has done but comparable to other European debtors. But unemployment fell steadily. What was Canada's secret?"

        Ramesh Ponnuru and I have argued numerous times that Canada's secret was a monetary policy offset. That is, monetary policy eased to offset the drag of fiscal tightening. Paul Krugman agrees in the above post. The evidence that we and others have pointed to in support of this view is the Bank of Canada cutting its target interest rate more than 500 basis points between 1995 and 1997.

        Some of our conservative and libertarian friends, however, are not convinced by this evidence. David Henderson and Robert Murphy, in particular, have pushed back against this view. They contend there was no monetary offset. Henderson questions how much influence the Bank of Canada actually has over interests rates. Murphy goes further and provides a list of data points that he claims show the Canadian success story did not rely on loose money. So are Henderson and Murphy's skepticism of the monetary offset warranted?

        The answer is no.....

        ....

        Note that nominal GDP follows its trend path rather closely during the period of fiscal austerity. The Bank of Canada, in other words, did what was necessary to keep aggregate demand on a stable growth path during this time. Given the evidence shown above, the Bank of Canada offset the fiscal tightening via lower interest rates and a permanently higher monetary base path. This story is completely missed by Murphy's cursory look at nominal GDP growth rates over a few years. So yes, monetary policy did offset fiscal austerity in Canada in the mid-to-late 1990s.

        The policy implications from this experience are clear. Economies undertaking fiscal austerity are best served by expansionary monetary policy. It provides a viable path to obtaining a more sustainable debt level. The ECB, however, tightened monetary policy twice during the Eurozone crisis. Given the one-size-fits-all approach problems, this tightening proved excessive for the periphery countries and helped spawn the soveriegn debt crisis. Just imagine how different the Eurozone would be today had the ECB began its QE program back in 2008.

        ------------------

        Obviously JohnH and other critics of monetary policy and QE don't agree. The banks had enough liquidity and QE wouldn't help. How wrong they are. They're just like conservatives.

        Reply Monday, July 13, 2015 at 01:56 PM
        John Cummings -> Peter K....

        Debt expanded due to the corporate debt bubble(that financed Y2K overhaul) of the 1990's which gave the illusions that "austerity" worked. "Monetary" Policy became looser as would expect during that time of disinflation (which was the point). Glibers don't want to give the BoC any credit, but that is their way. In the end the BoC didn't really offset anything. The debt market is the debt market.

        pgl -> John Cummings...

        What a bunch of irrelevant babble. Read what Krugman wrote and learn. Duh!

        John Cummings -> pgl...

        Krugman ignored the debt expansion of corporate balance sheets in the mid-late 90's. That was the key driver. Overrating central banks is a classic sign of neo-classical/new keynesian garble.

        A debt expansion is a debt expansion. It will drive growth. Always have. Since the 1600's.

        pgl -> John Cummings...

        Are you talking about US corporate balance sheets in 1995. How the F is this relevant to the current Greek crisis? Krugman has noted Greece's debt before the crisis. So pardon my French but what the FUCK are you babbling about now?

        Bert Schlitz -> John Cummings...

        "Some of our conservative and libertarian friends, however, are not convinced by this evidence. David Henderson and Robert Murphy, in particular, have pushed back against this view. They contend there was no monetary offset. Henderson questions how much influence the Bank of Canada actually has over interests rates. Murphy goes further and provides a list of data points that he claims show the Canadian success story did not rely on loose money. So are Henderson and Murphy's skepticism of the monetary offset warranted?"

        1.Libertarian/Austrian types don't believe in the nation state. Any function, even if run privately by a monopoly is considered bad when connected to the nation state. Their ideal is more of a Wealth/Propertarian run global syndicate that handles wealth tranfers via what true conservatives would call a degenerated imperial state of capitalists/merchants. Very non-democratic.

        2.They believe capitalism can survive without debt expansion. This silly notion is what separates them from neo-liberals who quite understandably, know this is not true. Debt is what makes capitalism go. Without it, it is not sustainable. That is why the economic contraction from a libertarian regime would eventually drive them from power and enable conservatives and socialists to unite, much like it did in the late 19th century during what was the closest to the last libertarian period.

        pgl -> Peter K....

        "Some of our conservative and libertarian friends, however, are not convinced by this evidence."

        These conservatives and libertarians may be his friends but they know nothing about economics. Just check out the devaluation of the C$ and you'll see what Krugman was talking about.

        anne -> Peter K....

        http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/fiscal-fantasies-2/

        June 18, 2010

        Fiscal Fantasies
        By Paul Krugman

        It's really amazing to see how quickly the notion that contractionary fiscal policy is actually expansionary is spreading. As I noted yesterday, * the Panglossian view has now become official doctrine at the European Central Bank.

        So what does this view rest on? Partly on vague ideas about credibility and confidence; but largely on the supposed lessons of experience, of countries that saw economic expansion after major austerity programs.

        Yet if you look at these cases, every one turns out to involve key elements that make it useless as a precedent for our current situation.

        Here's a list of fiscal turnarounds, ** which are supposed to serve as role models. What can we say about them?

        • Canada 1994-1998: Fiscal contraction took place as a strong recovery was already underway, as exports were booming, and as the Bank of Canada was cutting interest rates. As Stephen Gordon explains, *** all of this means that the experience offers few lessons for policy when the whole world is depressed and interest rates are already as low as they can go.
        • Denmark 1982-86: Yes, private spending rose - mainly thanks to a 10-percentage-point drop in long-term interest rates, hard to manage when rates in major economies are currently 2-3 percent.
        • Finland 1992-2000: Yes, you can have sharp fiscal contraction with an expanding economy if you also see a swing toward current account surplus of more than 12 percent of GDP. So if everyone in the world can move into massive trade surplus, we'll all be fine.
        • Ireland, 1987-89: Been there, done that. **** Let's all devalue! Also, an interest rate story something like Denmark's.
        • Sweden, 1992-2000: Again, a large swing toward trade surplus.

        So every one of these stories says that you can have fiscal contraction without depressing the economy IF the depressing effects are offset by huge moves into trade surplus and/or sharp declines in interest rates. Since the world as a whole can't move into surplus, and since major economies already have very low interest rates, none of this is relevant to our current situation.

        Yet these cases are being cited as reasons not to worry as austerity becomes the rule.

        You know what? I'm worried.

        * http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/magical-thinking-at-the-ecb/

        ** http://www.scribd.com/doc/27294711/Fiscal-Turnarounds

        *** http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2010/06/on-the-lessons-to-be-learned-from-the-elimination-of-the-canadian-federal-deficit-in-the-1990s.html

        **** http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/magical-foreigners-austerity-edition/

        Reply Monday, July 13, 2015 at 04:22 PM
        anne -> Peter K....

        http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/policy-lessons-from-the-eurodebacle/

        July 8, 2015

        Policy Lessons From the Eurodebacle
        By Paul Krugman

        [Graph]

        It's now clear, or should be clear, that the Greek program was doomed to failure without major debt relief; no matter how hard the Greeks tried, austerity would shrink GDP faster than it reduced debt relative to the baseline, so that the debt situation was bound to worsen even as the attempt to balance the budget imposed vast suffering.

        And there was no good, or even non-terrible, answer given Greece's membership in the euro.

        But there's a broader lesson from Greece that is relevant to all of us - and it's not the usual one about mending our free-spending ways lest we become Greece, Greece I tell you. What we learn, instead, is that fiscal austerity plus hard money is a deeply toxic mix. The fiscal austerity depresses the economy, and pushes it toward deflation; if it's accompanied by hard money (in Greece's case the euro, but a fixed exchange rate, a gold standard, or any kind of obsessive fear of inflation would do the trick), the result is not just a depression and deflation, but quite likely a failure even to reduce the debt ratio.

        For comparison, look at everyone's favorite example of successful austerity, Canada in the 1990s. Canada came in with gross debt of roughly 100 percent of GDP, roughly comparable to Greece on the eve of the financial crisis. It then proceeded to do a pretty big fiscal adjustment - 6 percent of GDP according to the International Monetary Fund's measure of the structural balance, which is about a third of what Greece has done but comparable to other European debtors. But unemployment fell steadily. What was Canada's secret?

        The answer was, easy money and a large currency depreciation. * These offset the drag from austerity, allowing growth to continue.

        So, how does this play into U.S. policy debates? Well, Republicans love to warn that America might turn into Greece any day now. ** But look at the policy mix that is now de facto GOP orthodoxy: sharp cuts in government spending (maybe offset by tax cuts for the rich, but these won't provide much stimulus), combined with a monetary policy obsessed with fears of dollar "debasement". That is, the conservative side of the US political spectrum, while holding up Greece as a cautionary tale, is actually demanding that we emulate the policy mix that turned Greek debt into a complete disaster.

        * https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1m1K

        ** http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/06/the-only-lesson-the-united-states-should-draw-from-greece/

        anne -> Peter K....

        http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=147Z

        Price of an American Dollar in Canadian Dollars, 1990-2000

        Canadian Dollars

        1990 ( 1.17)
        1991 ( 1.15)
        1992 ( 1.21)
        1993 ( 1.29) Clinton
        1994 ( 1.37)

        1995 ( 1.37)
        1996 ( 1.36)
        1997 ( 1.39)
        1998 ( 1.48)
        1999 ( 1.49)

        2000 ( 1.49)

        anne -> Peter K....

        https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1rjx

        January 4, 2015

        Interest Rate on 10-Year Canadian Government Bonds, 1990-2000

        Reply Monday, July 13, 2015 at 04:31 PM
        anne -> anne...

        The value of the Canadian dollar fell by 27% against the American dollar through the 1990s. The interest rate on 10-year Canadian government bonds fell 33% during the 1990s.

        pgl -> anne...

        Yep - very big drop in interest rates and large devaluation of the C$. So fiscal austerity was offset by more investment demand and higher net exports.

        Reply Monday, July 13, 2015 at 05:57 PM
        am

        The poster should have noted that no other government is in the Greece position. The Podemos leader, likely to be the next Spanish PM, said there was a big difference between Greece and Spain and in debt numbers that is very true.

        Reply Monday, July 13, 2015 at 01:59 PM
        anne -> am...

        http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=ZaL

        January 15, 2015

        Central government debt as a share of Gross Domestic Product for Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece, 2007-2012

        [ Central government debt as a share of GDP was above 120% for Ireland, Portugal, Italy and Greece by 2012. Spain alone had a reasonably low debt ratio at 65%. ]

        Reply Monday, July 13, 2015 at 04:40 PM
        anne -> am...

        Spain maintained a relatively and reasonably debt ratio in the wake of the recession at the expense of a searing loss of employment:

        https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1rjU

        January 4, 2015

        Spain Employment-Population Ratio, * 2007-2014

        * Employment age 25-54

        Reply Monday, July 13, 2015 at 05:06 PM
        anne -> am...

        Correcting:

        Spain maintained a relatively and reasonably low debt ratio in the wake of the recession at the expense of a searing loss of employment, with the employment-population ratio for men and women 25-54 falling from 77.2 to 65.6 between 2007 and 2013:

        https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1rjU

        January 4, 2015

        Spain Employment-Population Ratio, * 2007-2014

        * Employment age 25-54

        Reply Monday, July 13, 2015 at 05:08 PM
        anne -> anne...

        By contrast, when the Spanish employment-population ratio for men and women 25-54 was 65.6 in 2013, the German employment-population ratio was 83.5 for a shocking difference:

        https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1rjX .

        Jan

        Let's not waste time with wishful thoughts about the foresight of the German elites. As they so often say, "We Germans reject Keynesian economics." Indeed. They reject not only deficit spending in a liquidity trap but, more fundamentally, the paradox of thrift, and not just as the paradox applies to households but also as it applies to sovereign nations.

        So the German elites announce, over and over again, their dictum for the rest of Europe. "Imitate Germany! Be more competitive!" That is to say, always run a large current-account surplus.

        Of course, this dictum would first impoverish laggard European nations, including the UK, then Latin American nations, then Russia and the USA.

        Therefore, a German-dominated Europe would in the future find itself surrounded by mortal enemies, which would have no choice but to destroy it again.

        Reply Monday, July 13, 2015 at 02:21 PM
        pgl -> Jan...

        "We Germans reject Keynesian economics."

        Should we call this MerkelNomics? Sort of like Herbert Hoover economics. Or Cameron-Osborne economics. The kind of stupidity that JohnH apparently hearts. Of course this is also the economics of the modern Republican Party. We are ruled by morons.

        Eric -> Jan...

        Hoe does becoming more competitive impoverish your country?

        RGC -> Eric...

        The historic way a weaker economy became more competitive was to have a weaker currency and to protect its developing industry with various protections against imports. That route is not available to the periphery nations.

        The Germans would be wise to recognize that it is in their long-term interest to help those nations become more competitive and thereby create a balanced, stable trading zone where everyone can succeed.

        The best way to do that is via some sort of development fund that is targeted at the most urgent projects wherever they may be. To do that the Germans are going to have to be magnanimous ala the Marshall Plan, although it is also in their self-interest. The current situation may also require some purely cash transfers to bridge a ramp-up period.

        The Germans need to think like true Europeans, ditch the "lazy Greeks" talk and think of the periphery nations somewhat like East Germany. Either that or forget about united Europe and go back to the dangers of nationalism.

        Eric -> RGC ...

        Thanks. But don't you think the Germans want convergence, that is help the weaker nations become more competitive? They do understand that there is no future for the eurozone without convergence.

        There are and have been loads of subsidies in the EU. If you travel through poorer parts of Europe, you see the EU signs that projects have been paid with EU money. Infrastructure is pretty good in countries like Spain, Portugal and Greece, partly thanks to EU funds, now the same is happening to Eastern Europe. But this has not made a country like Greece more competitive.

        The Germans don't believe it's (just) about the money, they believe in reforms.

        The thing is that reforms have been ridiculed by the likes of Krugman, it's all about fiscal stimulus in their world, something the Germans are skeptical about.

        Eastern Europe is actually a good example, but the problem is they could run this program at home, but can't in a country like Greece. In the end only the Greek can help themselves.

        Eric -> Eric...

        I meant East Germany is a good example

        RGC -> Eric...

        IIRC, some from the West said similar things about their East brothers before reunification.

        I've read a lot of Varoufakis' papers and I think he was on the right track. He has been very critical of Greece's corruption and lack of administrative competence. His economics is socialist/Keynesian. He proposed a solution similar to my prior post:

        http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/euro-crisis/modest-proposal/

        Of course there are plutocrats, self-serving politicians, banksters and dummkopfs in all countries. I think all the larger economies, except maybe China, suffer right now from neo-liberal or just incompetent governments.

        Bert Schlitz -> Eric...

        All capitalism is unsustainable eventually. I always viewed the "horrible" East Germany not so horrible indeed when visiting their and exploring its inner bowels. They had a better work ethic and weren't so concerned about materialistic obsession.

        Having the Russians completely leaving them alone by the 1990's without unification would have been interesting. There was indeed quite a bit of leftover national socialism embedded over there.

        Western Germany on the other hand was binging on debt expansion like all other OCD countries in the 1980's and its economic situation "appeared" to improve rapidly. Like all capitalist music boxes, that story has to end. Once debt expansion ends and the state can't hold up the carcass anymore, the situation in 1980's East Germany would seem like a paradise.

        pgl -> Eric...

        East Germany is a good example of how NOT to do this. Do you know anything? It appears not.

        pgl -> Eric...

        It depends on how one does the more competitive part. The right way to do this is to devalue the currency but Greece can't do this as long as they are this Euro and the Germans don't help. Have you read ANY part of this discussion? Seriously - you are like the 3 year old who just fell off the turnip truck.

        Peter K. -> Eric...

        Wolfgang Munchau:

        "We will soon be asking ourselves whether this new eurozone, in which the strong push around the weak, can be sustainable. "

        Eric likes it when the strong push around the weak. He identifies with the bully.

        Jan -> Eric...

        "Competitive" does mean productive. It means a regular current account surplus. Germany achieved a regular surplus not by upgrading labor or capital but by thrift (shifting income from consumption to production)-- repressing wages/benefits and acquiring a quasi-pegged currency.

        A regular surplus benefits the nation which runs it at the expense of other nations. Latin American economists have been saying in recent years that the German surplus has been "hollowing out" their economies and at least one prominent German economist has agreed with them.

        The EU is a huge economy. If it were to run a surplus as large as Germany now runs, the USA and Russia would soon become friends again.

        am

        The Euro group negotiators are reported to be pleased with the package on offer. It would seem probable that the Greek government or parliament will not approve the deal. This will mean grexit. The Euro group negotiators are reported to be pleased with the package on offer.

        cogitoman

        What is wrong to being made to stick to the rules?

        RGC -> cogitoman...

        Rules are necessary and good. The next question is "do we have the right rules?". IMO the Eurozone has unworkable rules.

        anne

        http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/13/athens-and-eurozone-agree-bailout-deal-for-greece

        July 13, 2015

        Tsipras faces clash with Syriza radicals opposed to eurozone bailout for Greece

        After marathon talks to secure third bailout, Greek prime minister prepares for showdown with MPs opposed to deal described as harsher than Versailles treaty
        By Phillip Inman and Jennifer Rankin - Guardian

        Brussels

        [ So a Greek legislator would have to be a "radical" to vote against a "deal described as harsher than Versailles treaty." ]

        gordon

        I have a suspicion that many Greeks fear that leaving the Eurozone would mean they would no longer be able to leave Greece to work in Eurozone countries and send remittances home. The bulk of remittances to Greece appear to come from Germany:
        http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/02/20/remittance-map/

        anne -> gordon...

        I have a suspicion that many Greeks fear that leaving the Eurozone would mean they would no longer be able to leave Greece to work in Eurozone countries and send remittances home....

        [ Would there be migration limits if Greece simply remained in the European Union? ]

        David

        There is a modern meme I hate, the idea that everything has to be a "brand".

        But if the Eurozone falls apart it will be the German brand that suffers. No one likes a bully.

        Reply Monday, July 13, 2015 at 05:26 PM
        Peter K. -> David ...

        Yes and the idea of Europe as a symbol of progress.

        http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e38a452e-26f2-11e5-bd83-71cb60e8f08c.html#axzz3fpG5IsRy

        July 13, 2015 10:45 am

        Greece's brutal creditors have demolished the eurozone project

        by Wolfgang Munchau

        Stripped of ambitions for a political and economic union, the bloc changes into a utilitarian project

        A few things that many of us took for granted, and that some of us believed in, ended in a single weekend. By forcing Alexis Tsipras into a humiliating defeat, Greece's creditors have done a lot more than bring about regime change in Greece or endanger its relations with the eurozone. They have destroyed the eurozone as we know it and demolished the idea of a monetary union as a step towards a democratic political union.

        In doing so they reverted to the nationalist European power struggles of the 19th and early 20th century. They demoted the eurozone into a toxic fixed exchange-rate system, with a shared single currency, run in the interests of Germany, held together by the threat of absolute destitution for those who challenge the prevailing order. The best thing that can be said of the weekend is the brutal honesty of those perpetrating this regime change.

        [clipped]

        nor even the total capitulation of Greece. The material shift is that Germany has formally proposed an exit mechanism. On Saturday, Wolfgang Schäuble, finance minister, insisted on a time-limited exit - a "timeout" as he called it.

        I have heard quite a few crazy proposals in my time, and this one is right up there. A member state pushed for the expulsion of another. This was the real coup over the weekend: not only regime change in Greece, but also regime change in the eurozone.

        The fact that a formal Grexit may have been avoided for the moment is immaterial. Grexit will be back on the table when you have the slightest political accident - and there are still many things that could go wrong, both in Greece and in other eurozone parliaments. Any other country that in future might challenge German economic orthodoxy will face similar problems.

        This brings us back to a more toxic version of the old exchange-rate mechanism of the 1990s that left countries trapped in a system run primarily for the benefit of Germany, which led to the exit of the British pound and the temporary departure of the Italian lira. What was left was a coalition of countries willing to adjust their economies to Germany's. Britain had to leave because it was not.

        What should the Greeks do now? Forget for a moment the economic debate of the past few months, over issues such as the impact of austerity or economic reforms on growth. Instead ask yourself this simple question: do you really think that an economic reform programme, for which a government has no political mandate, which has been explicitly rejected in a referendum, that has been forced through by sheer political blackmail, can conceivably work?

        The implications for the rest of the eurozone are at least as troubling. We will soon be asking ourselves whether this new eurozone, in which the strong push around the weak, can be sustainable. Previously, the strongest argument against any forecasts of break-up has been the strong political commitment of all its members. If you ask Italians why they are in the eurozone, few have ever pointed to the economic benefits. They wanted to be part of the most ambitious project of European integration undertaken so far.
        We will soon be asking ourselves whether this new eurozone, in which the strong push around the weak, can be sustainable

        But if you take away the political aspiration, you may end up with a different judgment. From a pure economic point of view, we know that the euro has worked well for Germany. It worked moderately well for The Netherlands and Austria, although it produced quite a degree of financial instability in both.

        But for Italy, it has been an unmitigated economic disaster. The country has seen virtually no productivity growth since the start of the euro in 1999. If you want to blame the lack of structural reforms, then you have to explain how Italy managed decent growth rates before then. Can we be sure that a majority of Italians will support the single currency in three years' time?

        The euro has not worked out for Finland either. While the country is considered the world champion of structural reforms, its economy has slumped ever since Nokia lost the plot as the world's erstwhile premier mobile phone maker. Whether the euro is sustainable for Spain and Portugal is not clear. France has performed relatively well during the euro's early years, but it, too, is now running persistent current account deficits. It is not only Greece where the euro is not optimal.
        Once you strip the eurozone of any ambitions for a political and economic union, it changes into a utilitarian project in which member states will coldly weigh the benefits and costs, just as Britain is currently assessing the relative advantages or disadvantages of EU membership. In such a system, someone, somewhere, will want to leave sometime. And the strong political commitment to save it will no longer be there

        anne

        https://twitter.com/TIME/status/620723673675251712

        TIME.com @TIME

        Greece may have to sell islands and ruins under its bailout deal http://ti.me/1CCqn5s

        3:37 PM - 13 Jul 2015

        Reply Monday, July 13, 2015 at 06:03 PM
        anne -> anne...

        We could do a time share on Corfu, I mean the whole island.

        Sign here ...

        anne

        https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1paT

        August 4, 2014

        Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Ireland, Portugal, Spain,
        Italy and Greece, 2007-2014

        (Indexed to 2007)

        [ Real per capita GDP has failed to recover in each of these 5 countries. ]

        Reply Monday, July 13, 2015 at 06:50 PM
        anne

        https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1r1K

        August 4, 2014

        Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Sweden, Denmark, Norway,
        Finland and Iceland, 2007-2014

        (Indexed to 2007)

        [ Real per capita GDP has only recovered in Sweden and that barely. ]

        Reply Monday, July 13, 2015 at 06:52 PM
        anne

        https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1rkL

        August 4, 2014

        Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United Kingdom, Germany,
        France and Netherlands, 2007-2014

        (Indexed to 2007)

        [ Real per capita GDP has recovered only in Germany which had recovered by 2010. ]

        Reply Monday, July 13, 2015 at 06:55 PM
        MacAuley

        Greece was not ready to join the Eurozone in 1999 and it was pretty clear by 2011 that Greece would be better off outside the Eurozone.
        By 2013 it was obvious that the only reason to delay Grexit (and to continue Greek austerity) was to prepare for the inevitable. The Eurozone is now prepared for Grexit, and it's time. In five years the Greeks will be grateful.

        [Jul 19, 2015] Paul Craig Roberts Greece's Lesson For Russia

        "...The Wolfowitz doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military policy, declares that the rise of Russia or any other country cannot be permitted, because the US is the Uni-power and cannot tolerate any constraint on its unilateral actions. As long as this doctrine reigns in Washington, neither Russia, China, nor Iran, the nuclear agreement not withstanding, are safe. As long as Iran has an independent foreign policy, the nuclear agreement does not protect Iran, because any significant policy conflict with Washington can produce new justifications for sanctions."
        "...If Obama were to dismiss Victoria Nuland, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power and replace these neoconservatives with sane diplomats, the outlook would improve. Then Russia, China, and Iran would have a better possibility of reaching accommodation with the US on terms other than vassalage."
        "...With the deregulation that began in the Clinton regime, Western capitalism has become socially dysfunctional. In the US and throughout the West capitalism no longer serves the people. Capitalism serves the owners and managers of capital and no one else."
        "...The "globalism" that is hyped in the West is inconsistent with Washington's unilateralism. No country with assets inside the Western system can afford to have policy differences with Washington. The French bank paid the $9 billion fine for disobeying Washington's dictate of its lending practices, because the alternative was the close down of its operations in the United States. The French government was unable to protect the French bank from being looted by Washington."

        Jul 19, 2015 | Zero Hedge
        Submitted by Paul Craig Roberts,

        "Greece's debt can now only be made sustainable through debt relief measures that go far beyond what Europe has been willing to consider so far." - International Monetary Fund

        Greece's lesson for Russia, and for China and Iran, is to avoid all financial relationships with the West. The West simply cannot be trusted. Washington is committed to economic and political hegemony over every other country and uses the Western financial system for asset freezes, confiscations, and sanctions. Countries that have independent foreign policies and also have assets in the West cannot expect Washington to respect their property rights or their ownership. Washington freezes or steals countries' assets, or in the case of France imposes multi-billion dollar fines, in order to force compliance with Washington's policies. Iran, for example, lost the use of $100 billion, approximately one-fourth of the Iranian GDP, for years simply because Iran insisted on its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

        Russian journalists are asking me if Obama's willingness to reach a deal with Iran means there is hope a deal can be reached over Ukraine. The answer is No. Moreover, as I will later explain, the deal with Iran doesn't mean much as far as Washington is concerned.

        Three days ago (July 14) a high ranking military officer, Gen. Paul Selva, the third in about as many days, told the US Senate that Russia is "an existential threat to this nation (the US)." Only a few days prior the Senate had heard the same thing from US Marine commander Joseph Dunford and from the Secretary of the Air Force. A few days before that, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff warned of a Russian "hybrid threat."

        Washington is invested heavily in using Ukraine against Russia. All the conflict there originates with Washington's puppet government in Kiev. Russia is blamed for everything, including the destruction of the Malaysian airliner. Washington has used false charges to coerce the EU into sanctions against Russia that are not in the EU's interest. As Washington has succeeded in coercing all of Europe to harm Europe's political and economic relationships with Russia and to enter into a state of conflict with Russia, certainly Washington is not going to agree to an Ukrainian settlement. Even if Washington wanted to do so, as Washington's entire position rests on nothing but propaganda, Washington would have to disavow itself in order to come to an agreement.

        Despite everything, Russia's president and foreign minister continue to speak of the US and Washington's EU vassal states as "our partners." Perhaps Putin and Lavrov are being sarcastic. The most certain thing of our time is that Washington and its vassals are not partners of Russia.

        The Wolfowitz doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military policy, declares that the rise of Russia or any other country cannot be permitted, because the US is the Uni-power and cannot tolerate any constraint on its unilateral actions.

        As long as this doctrine reigns in Washington, neither Russia, China, nor Iran, the nuclear agreement not withstanding, are safe. As long as Iran has an independent foreign policy, the nuclear agreement does not protect Iran, because any significant policy conflict with Washington can produce new justifications for sanctions.

        With the nuclear agreement with Iran comes the release of Iran's $100 billion in frozen Western balances. I heard yesterday a member of the Council for Foreign Relations say that Iran should invest its released $100 billion in US and Europe companies. If Iran does this, the Iranian government is setting itself up for further blackmail. Investing anywhere in the West means that Iran's assets can be frozen or confiscated at any time.

        If Obama were to dismiss Victoria Nuland, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power and replace these neoconservatives with sane diplomats, the outlook would improve. Then Russia, China, and Iran would have a better possibility of reaching accommodation with the US on terms other than vassalage.

        Russia and China, having emerged from a poorly functioning communist economic system, naturally regard the West as a model. It seems China has fallen for Western capitalism head over heels. Russia perhaps less so, but the economists in these two countries are the same as the West's neoliberal economists, which means that they are unwitting servants of Western financial imperialism. Thinking mistakenly that they are being true to economics, they are being true to Washington's hegemony.

        With the deregulation that began in the Clinton regime, Western capitalism has become socially dysfunctional. In the US and throughout the West capitalism no longer serves the people. Capitalism serves the owners and managers of capital and no one else.

        This is why US income inequality is now as bad or worse than during the "robber baron" era of the 1920s. The 1930s regulation that made capitalism a functioning economic system has been repealed. Today in the Western world capitalism is a looting mechanism. Capitalism not only loots labor, capitalism loots entire countries, such as Greece which is being forced by the EU to sell of Greece's national assets to foreign purchasers.

        Before Putin and Lavrov again refer to their "American partners," they should reflect on the EU's lack of good will toward Greece. When a member of the EU itself is being looted and driven into the ground by its compatriots, how can Russia, China, and Iran expect better treatment? If the West has no good will toward Greece, where is the West's good will toward Russia?

        The Greek government was forced to capitulate to the EU, despite the support it received from the referendum, because the Greeks relied on the good will of their European partners and underestimated the mendacity of the One Percent. The Greek government did not expect the merciless attitude of its fellow EU member governments. The Greek government actually thought that its expert analysis of the Greek debt situation and economy would carry weight in the negotiations. This expectation left the Greek government without a backup plan. The Greek government gave no thought to how to go about leaving the euro and putting in place a monetary and banking system independent of the euro. The lack of preparation for exit left the government with no alternative to the EU's demands.

        The termination of Greece's fiscal sovereignty is what is in store for Italy, Spain, and Portugal, and eventually for France and Germany. As Jean-Claude Trichet, the former head of the European Central Bank said, the sovereign debt crisis signaled that it is time to bring Europe beyond a "strict concept of nationhood." The next step in the centralization of Europe is political centralization. The Greek debt crisis is being used to establish the principle that being a member of the EU means that the country has lost its sovereignty.

        The notion, prevalent in the Western financial media, that a solution has been imposed on the Greeks is nonsense. Nothing has been solved. The conditions to which the Greek government submitted make the debt even less payable. In a short time the issue will again be before us. As John Maynard Keynes made clear in 1936 and as every economist knows, driving down consumer incomes by cutting pensions, employment, wages, and social services, reduces consumer and investment demand, and thereby GDP, and results in large budget deficits that have to be covered by borrowing. Selling pubic assets to foreigners transfers the revenue flows out of the Greek economy into foreign hands.

        Unregulated naked capitalism, has proven in the 21st century to be unable to produce economic growth anywhere in the West. Consequently, median family incomes are declining. Governments cover up the decline by underestimating inflation and by not counting as unemployed discouraged workers who, unable to find jobs, have ceased looking. By not counting discouraged workers the US is able to report a 5.2 percent rate of unemployment. Including discouraged workers brings the unemployment rate to 23.1 percent. A 23 percent rate of unemployment has nothing in common with economic recovery.

        Even the language used in the West is deceptive. The Greek "bailout" does not bail out Greece. The bailout bails out the holders of Greek debt. Many of these holders are not Greece's original creditors. What the "bailout" does is to make the New York hedge funds' bet on the Greek debt pay off for the hedge funds. The bailout money goes not to Greece but to those who speculated on the debt being paid. According to news reports, Quantitative Easing by the ECB has been used to purchase Greek debt from the troubled banks that made the loans, so the debt issue is no longer a creditor issue.

        China seems unaware of the risk of investing in the US. China's new rich are buying up residential communities in California, forgetting the experience of Japanese-Americans who were herded into detention camps during Washington's war with Japan. Chinese companies are buying US companies and ore deposits in the US. These acquisitions make China susceptible to blackmail over foreign policy differences.

        The "globalism" that is hyped in the West is inconsistent with Washington's unilateralism. No country with assets inside the Western system can afford to have policy differences with Washington. The French bank paid the $9 billion fine for disobeying Washington's dictate of its lending practices, because the alternative was the close down of its operations in the United States. The French government was unable to protect the French bank from being looted by Washington.

        It is testimony to the insouciance of our time that the stark inconsistency of globalism with American unilateralism has passed unnoticed.

        [Jul 18, 2015] M of A - Billmon The Eurosystem's (Monetary) Control of Europe's Politics

        "...The "Eurosystem", the network of national central banks governed by the European Central Bank, gives central bankers unprecedented ability to squeeze and manipulate national governments in a coordinated way. It is as if every government in the Eurozone ALREADY has a colonial entity watching it like the Troika's agents are supposed to watch Syriza in Athens. And, since the ECB Governing Council (like other EU institutions) tries to operate by a non-transparent "consensus" (i.e. the votes are not revealed), the degree to which national central bank heads are representing the ECB in their countries, rather than the other way around, is often not clear."
        .
        "...IMO these 'lessons' miss the biggest one for the left: the loss of independent media. What good is protesting neolib control via banks if no one is listening?
        .
        Governments easily manipulate corporate controlled media via access journalism. Thus we get factual truths intermixed with propaganda spin that is relentlessly pro-business, pro-establishment.
        .
        Greece is a case in point. As described in Greek Government Insider Lifts the Lid on Five Months of 'Humiliation' and 'Blackmail', the Troika was gradually increasing pressure on Greece to do what the Troika demanded. They withheld billions of euro to Greece and cut off liquidity to the Greek government. Then they waited as the financial pressure on Greece grew. But along with those measures was a caustic media that painted Syriza as incompetent, then undemocratic (because most greeks wanted to remain in the euro), then irresponsible (for calling a referendum), etc.
        "
        .
        "... Following, a link to a German documentary about the various mechanisms of the EU [Troika, Eurogroup, European Commission, Council, etc] which are being used as devastating tools to beat down and extract wealth, vampire style, from Greece [and Cyprus], in order to revive comatose banks and line the pockets of investors, through privatization of public property.
        .
        This documentary does a good job of demonstrating just how the power of technocratic branches of the EU is being rolled out to pillage Greek, Portuguese, Cyprus economies, plunging the respective populations into ever greater misery.
        .
        The Trail of the Troika [1:29:22]
        Jul 18, 2015 | Moon of Alabama

        Billmon: The Eurosystem's (Monetary) Control of Europe's Politics

        Note: This post was composed from a Twitteressay by Billmon.

        J.W. Mason lists some Lessons from the Greek Crisis:

        Before the crisis no one even knew that national central banks still existed - I certainly didn't. But now it's clear that the creditors' unchallenged control of this commanding high ground was decisive to the outcome in Greece. Next time an elected government challenges the EU authorities, their first order of business must be getting control or cooperation of their national central bank.

        The quote says "control or cooperation," but I can guarantee the latter is never going to happen.

        It is nearly impossible to exaggerate the degree to which the campaign for central bank "independence" has made them the enemies within for any left governments.

        The central bankers waged a 50-60 year political war to wrest back the monetary flexibility that the break down of Bretton Woods gave to national governments. Having won that war across most of the developed world in the 70s and 80s, they extended the battlefield to the emerging markets in '90s and '00s.

        The autonomy of central banks (meaning the political allegiance to Wall Street/London City/Frankfurt etc.) was maybe the biggest neoliberal victory of all. If rightwing political victories (Reagan, Thatcher et. al.) were the beachheads of the Great Counterattack on social democracy then "independent" central banks became the citadels of the occupation forces: Neoliberalism's "Republican Guard."

        Ironically, the ECB was originally conceived - or at least was sold to the European left - as a way for governments to regain monetary flexibility at a higher level. As a way to a) escape US dollar hegemony and to b) outflank the Bundesbank by formalizing the joint political control of European monetary policy. I do not know if the hack establishment Social Democrats who sold that vision ever believed it, but if so, more fool them. Because what the European Monetary Union became, obvious now, was a way to turn the vision on its head: formalize joint MONETARY control of Europe's politics.

        The "Eurosystem", the network of national central banks governed by the European Central Bank, gives central bankers unprecedented ability to squeeze and manipulate national governments in a coordinated way. It is as if every government in the Eurozone ALREADY has a colonial entity watching it like the Troika's agents are supposed to watch Syriza in Athens. And, since the ECB Governing Council (like other EU institutions) tries to operate by a non-transparent "consensus" (i.e. the votes are not revealed), the degree to which national central bank heads are representing the ECB in their countries, rather than the other way around, is often not clear.

        As long as the cozy comprador system tied peripheral governments to the core (i.e. Berlin), the role of the ECB and the Eurosystem could be obscured. Peripheral governments appointed "made guys" (i.e. banksters and/or their technicians) to national central bank boards and pretended to govern. Core politicians and their local comprador politicians let the Eurosystem technicians in Frankfurt tell them what "structural reforms" they should push to make the EMU "work."

        But the moment an outsider government like Syriza came to power, the role of the Eurosystem and the national central banks in it could no longer be hidden. The fact that the Greek National Bank was an instrument of the ECB in Frankfurt, not of the Greek government in Athens, became obvious to everybody. The ECB's role as the muscle behind the Eurogroup's (Berlin's) diktats put the Greek National Bank in the position of helping to choke its own banks and terrorize its own citizens. And under the rules of EMU the Greek government was completely powerless to do anything about it. A defining moment.

        The inescapable conclusion is that the allegedly "independent" Eurosystem now operates not as a network of central banks but as a parallel government.

        The role of the Eurosystem within the half-hidden political order of the eurozone really is comparable to the Soviet or Chinese Communist Party. Like the Communist Party, the Eurosystem is now the "leading organ" of the neoliberal order, operating at all levels of the EU structure and providing "guidance" to elected political structures which are not formally under its legal control, but in reality are dominated by it. And behind the administrative apparatus of the party (Eurosystem) is the Central Committee (Eurogroup) and the Politburo (the key creditor government officials). And behind THEM is the real locus of the party's centralized power: the General Secretary (Germany/Merkel).

        So J.W. Mason is quite right: it is impossible for any left government to attack the dictatorship of finance unless it controls its national central bank. But while control of the national central bank is necessary, it is hardly sufficient. As long as the EMU exit is off the table, verboten, so to speak, control of the national central banks only eliminates the "near enemy."

        Ultimately it comes down to political will, which in parliamentary democracies, comes down to public support. As long as the majority (of all voters or of propertied influentials, depending on the system) is more loyal to the Euro than to national sovereignty an effective challenge to the dictatorship of finance is impossible - no matter how many national central banks the left controls.

        Posted by b at 06:57 AM | Comments (90)
        Selected Skeptical Comments
        Posted by: nmb | Jul 16, 2015 7:20:43 AM | 1

        Greece capitulates with the euro-dictatorship ... until the next battle

        Posted by: jfl | Jul 16, 2015 7:33:14 AM | 2

        You know this 'independent' central bank as tool of the neolibraconian consensus is the most salient point drummed home about Russia : the central bank as 5th column.

        And the Russian central bank preceded the ECB, didn't it? When the boys from Harvard went to Russia to 'straighten' things out they conducted an experiment ... and discovered it worked just great : rinse and repeat. Russia was the archetype of the gelded European nation to come.

        So the next time says Russia is not a part of Europe I'll say ... not only of Europe, but the first European nation subverted by the gnomes of neolibraconia.

        The Europeans who still have a pulse ought to note now just who their real enemy is : hint, the one that's occupying Europe. And who is their fellow European victim. And ban together to defeat their common enemy ... well run him out of town on a rail, at any rate.

        Certainly rearrange their banking arrangements.

        Posted by: Timon | Jul 16, 2015 8:48:21 AM | 5

        One of the key reasons that Wall St/City/Frankfurt want universal "austerity" is not just that they want people to be frightened, impoverished and insecure; but in particular, because it has the desirable effect of suppressing the political participation of people who must continuously walk the edge, just to get by - and by now this is about half the population -and who might otherwise participate in the political process with decisive effect.

        Rise like lions after slumber
        In unfathomable number
        Shake your chains to earth like dew
        That in sleep have fallen on you
        Ye are many, they are few.

        H.L. Mencken is also very good on this subject - the need of the self-appointed elite to distract and render impotent the average person, and how greatly the big shots hate and fear the "mob".

        why would a small country like Greece need to be the second biggest spender in nato after the USA. ...

        Posted by: mcohen | Jul 16, 2015 8:57:04 AM | 6

        According to an editorial published by the Greek conservative newspaperKathimerini, after the removal of the right-wing military junta in 1974, Greek governments wanted to bring disenfranchised left-leaning portions of the population into the economic mainstream[28] and so ran large deficits to finance enormous military expenditure, public sector jobs, pensions and other social benefits.

        Greece is, as a percentage of GDP, the second-biggest defense spender[29] in NATO, the highest being the United States, according to NATO statistics.

        The US is the major supplier of Greek arms, with the Americans supplying 42 per cent of its arms, Germany supplying 22.7 per cent, and France 12.5 per cent of Greece's arms purchases.[30]

        Everybody and I mean everybody is king fu fighting
        those bankers are as fast as lightning

        Posted by: ab initio | Jul 16, 2015 10:32:40 AM | 12

        It should be obvious with how the ECB structure was formed that any country that uses the euro as its currency is dependent on the ECB for liquidity if there is deposit flight from the banks in that country.

        There is only two ways for a country to retain full sovereignty. One have a national currency with a national monetary authority that controls it and second a government that if it runs a deficit has the ability to borrow in private markets and maintains a currency board (e.g: Ecuador which uses the US dollar).

        Ecuador is a good example where its government debt became untenable. It defaulted on the debt and so was for all intents shut out from private debt markets, so the government could not run a deficit. It continued to use the US dollar as its currency.

        Greece had to make a choice. Continue in the eurosystem and accept the hegemony of the eurogroup or exit. It's parliament accepted the former. One can blame Schauble and Merkel all you want but the bottom line is that the Greek government and parliament acquiesced to its loss of sovereignty. The Greek people have the power to change it if they want. They just have to decide to exit the eurosystem and elect a government that does that.

        In France, Marine Le Pen is clear. She will take France out of the eurosystem if elected. Of course we'll have to see if she honors her campaign promise but at least she is categorical about it. Syriza got elected promising they'll be able to get a better deal compared to the center-right party before them. In this case the Left in Greece delivered an even worse result for the average Greek citizen.

        Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jul 16, 2015 12:52:58 PM | 18

        IMO these 'lessons' miss the biggest one for the left: the loss of independent media. What good is protesting neolib control via banks if no one is listening?

        Governments easily manipulate corporate controlled media via access journalism. Thus we get factual truths intermixed with propaganda spin that is relentlessly pro-business, pro-establishment.

        Greece is a case in point. As described in Greek Government Insider Lifts the Lid on Five Months of 'Humiliation' and 'Blackmail', the Troika was gradually increasing pressure on Greece to do what the Troika demanded. They withheld billions of euro to Greece and cut off liquidity to the Greek government. Then they waited as the financial pressure on Greece grew. But along with those measures was a caustic media that painted Syriza as incompetent, then undemocratic (because most greeks wanted to remain in the euro), then irresponsible (for calling a referendum), etc.

        Too often we give the media a pass when it has been well documented that business and government tries to control MSM (and increasingly other media as well) via access journalism, advertising revenue (a few industries dominate) writing stories that cite in-the-tank 'experts' from establishment-friendly think-tanks and controlled opposition.

        Even within Greece, Syriza had trouble getting their message out because oligarchs own virtually all of the media! And many blogs also fell for the spin - even those that have been critical of the media in the past like Yves Smith at nakedcapitalism.com - despite the fact that the delay in Greece putting forth a proposal before the April 30th deadline could be logically attributed to the 2-step process that the Troika had forced (describing how they would service the debt would severely undermine Greece's position in future debt restructuring talks).

        A Left that is not in touch with the people - and whose message is undermined by establishment-friendly media - is a disaster far greater than the loss of control of the financial system. The Left's greatest strength should be its connection with the people that it fights for. Yet, instead the Left has allowed itself to be marginalized by a corporate media that has strengthened the centrist 'faux Left' at the expense of the progressive Left. So much so that many people today identify THE LEFT with the identity politics that forms 'the base' for the fauxLeft. In short, people of the 'Left' are viewed as selfishly wanting something for themselves at the expense of others. (It should come as no surprise that reporting about Greece often fell in line with this line of thinking.)

        For activists that are outside the centrist political establishment - anti-war, climate change, the environment (fracking, nuclear energy, etc.), inequality, constitutional and civil rights, etc. - it is very difficult to reach a wide audience. All 'change' is channeled into the pro-business, pro-establishment centrist political system. Anyone who is not a centrist is suspect.

        Greece's coherent arguments quickly fell off media radar as sniping about their incompetence and their oh-so-strange Finance Minister took center stage. This put even more pressure on the Greeks and deterred potential allies. And the spinning continues. The understanding of most people still does not go much beyond this: the Greeks don't want to pay their bills and Syriza are incompetent radicals that made the problems worse and can't be trusted. In the face of this onslaught by the Troika and Troika-friendly media, Syriza's resistance is all but ignored in favor of trumpeting Greece's defeat (a warning to others?).

        =

        Is there any hope? Maybe.

        1) Syriza formed a government with nationalists (ANEL). Why the Left is depicted as unpatriotic is beyond me, but the left may be getting its patriotic mojo back as WAR and trade deals are increasingly understood as benefiting an international elite. I could see similar political alliances forming in other countries. (In the US, I think the establishment had feared a potential Tea Party - Occupy alliance.)

        2) Media reform (or the threat of it). The Greek government has begun investigations into media bias during the referendum (there was very little coverage of government rallies and government positions, etc.). If the Syriza-led government falls, any media reforms are probably less likely.

        Ron Paul's "audit the Fed" movement got some traction which caused the Fed to take notice. "Truth in media" efforts should probably be re-doubled.

        3) Education. We need to retain humanities education. Higher education is turning into vocational training. For example, IMO it's difficult to appreciate the myriad issues and import of the neolib consumer-oriented approach to government vs. the democratic citizen-oriented approach, without a humanities education.

        Also, people don't usually react until it is too late - partly because few have enough learning to understand the impact that new policies will have. They try to make up for their lack of understanding by relying on trusted representatives like Obama. TTIP is a case in point. Look for demonstrations about Obamatrade in a few years when it is too late.

        Posted by: dana | Jul 16, 2015 1:25:52 PM | 19

        Following, a link to a German documentary about the various mechanisms of the EU [Troika, Eurogroup, European Commission, Council, etc] which are being used as devastating tools to beat down and extract wealth, vampire style, from Greece [and Cyprus], in order to revive comatose banks and line the pockets of investors, through privatization of public property.

        This documentary does a good job of demonstrating just how the power of technocratic branches of the EU is being rolled out to pillage Greek, Portuguese, Cyprus economies, plunging the respective populations into ever greater misery.

        The Trail of the Troika [1:29:22]

        Posted by: psychohistorian | Jul 16, 2015 1:34:37 PM | 20

        @ 15

        james, If you read the Shock Doctrine by Naomi Kline you can follow the same financial rape of South American countries in the 70's that the financial mafia are doing now to the middle east.

        The world needs to have a discussion about the world of private finance that exists now and what could be if all finance were sovereign.

        Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Jul 16, 2015 2:26:43 PM | 22

        The role of the European Central Bank and their buttler, Stournaras, at the Greek Central Bank in this fiasco needs this kind of discussion, and more, since it lies at the heart of German blackmail and coup attempt of the Greek government. Thank you b for this post.

        @5

        One reason that there have been inordinate arms purchase by Greece is that the Greek elite -- media, oligarchy, politicians (especially the latter) are up to their armpits in corruption, and one of the vehicles for corruption is arms deals.

        The all powerful "socialist" minister of defence under Papandreou and minister of development under Simitis is now in jail, almost prime minister, now serving 20 years in the hoosgow, for being bribed by German arms dealers (Siemens, among others). It is widely believed that the previous governments went after this easy and obvious target to cut off investigations of others, a lot of others.

        The nationalist minister of defence under the Tsipras government, Panos Kammenos is sending document after document to prosecutors involving a bewildering array of bribery, thievery, fraud, and so on in the Greek armed forces. Submarines that lean, helicopters that can't fly, because of onerous service after purchase contracts. The list is huge.

        One reason why both German and Greek corruptos hate him so much, and tried to bring down the Tsipras government. It remains to be seen if he keeps his post, after Tsipras's deal with the Germans.

        The other, of course, is the Turkey threat, also used to justify military procurement.

        Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Jul 16, 2015 3:31:55 PM | 24

        Quote from Jacobin from an article titled The End of Europe.

        http://tinyurl.com/nt2g8g3

        The discussions with Greece are thus a formal process designed to politically defeat Greece's left forces, burying any prospects of meaningful political change across the continent. This is the only explanation for the creditors' inflexibility despite Tsipras crossing all Syriza's red lines in terms of pensions reforms, tax policy, privatizations, and market liberalization. This punitive stance was made crystal clear by late June, when the ECB actively incited a bank run, warning of an "uncontrollable crisis," and abruptly capped its emergency loans to the banking sector, triggering bank holidays and capital controls.

        Also in the site, an informative behind the scenes interview with Left Platform Syriza MP, Stathis Kouvelakis.

        Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jul 16, 2015 3:34:47 PM | 25

        Here's another lesson: Resistance works.

        The Troika was willing to 'punch' Syriza's ticket ("Welcome to the Club"!) with minor concessions. But Tspiras/Varoufakis did not simply accept what the Troika demanded.

        As bad as the deal is, Greece managed to get the debt restructuring that the Troika had refused to talk about. They had even refused to put their promises of a future debt restructuring in writing.

        Many are saying that Greece should've prepared for GRexit; critizing Syriza/Tspiras as too establishment and too europhile to contemplate that path. But they have bought time to prepare for the next round. And in the next round, it may be that a GERexit is on the table as well.

        Euro QE is not a magic elixir; just more extend and pretend. It'll exacerbate core vs. periphery problems as much as it exacerbates inequality (as it has in the USA). And political and fiscal integration is hard to do when people feel that they are not treated fairly.

        Posted by: tom | Jul 16, 2015 3:45:06 PM | 26

        This $50 billion Greek asset theft fund that was willingly handed over by Syriza traitors, as well as other politicians responsible, Is exactly the collateral needed for a independent Greek central bank to create, let's say for eg, a fractional reserve base of 10% to create $500 billion.

        With that now $500 billion, the Greek government could pay off all the debt, including the criminally induced ones, and it's based on those $50 billion worth of assets.
        And That's only if you agree to the idea of paying off all your criminally in deuced debts.

        An independent and sovereignly principled government or parliament would do exactly that.
        And there's more fractional reserves using National assets that can be used to grow the economy and serve the people.

        Syriza knows this, but since they are unprincipled, Ideologically weak, cowardly towards their aggressors and more interested in power than public service, means you're never get that from these freaks.
        Obvious from day one. Judge them on their actions, not on their whingeing on how they've been mistreated and violated.

        How the fuck is it accepted, that private banks can print as much national currencies as they like, but the owners of the those national currencies - the people and the government - cannot do with fractional reserves and money printing, like what the private banks do.

        Posted by: juliania | Jul 16, 2015 4:45:18 PM | 31

        jackrabbit@17, I would like to point out that the Greek populace ignored the media when they voted in the referendum, so I think the importance of such propagandistic power is overblown. Once you lose faith in that source of information, it's gone; it doesn't come back. Russia under the Soviets is a case in point, and currently also there is an erosion in US confidence that what they see and hear is trustworthy. What happened after the referendum confused the public, and that was a huge mistake.

        Back a ways, in support of Tsipras, I wanted him to do as Putin has done and shore up that public confidence because then you can make decisions in the moment and the support will grow. Immense popularity is a powerful weapon. Varoufakis was correct in seeing that as an important pivotal moment, when the people supported the 'no' vote that Tsipras had also supported. The course he chose confused his supporters. Paramount should have been the dictum that the people could not bear further austerity and that was that - the austerity they would face at that point would be the prideful kind that can see a brave future beyond.

        Tsipras had embraced the New Deal outlook, but he forgot Roosevelt's famous saying, 'You have nothing to fear but fear itself.' Varoufakis welcomed, FDR style, the banksters' hatred. It's too bad Tsipras could not do the same. Long lines of grateful poor people stood by the tracks as FDR's funeral train passed. Will that happen for Tsipras? There's a Greek saying that one should count no man happy until after his death. Roosevelt, loved by his people and by history, was a happy man. I hope there's time for Tsipras to become one as well.

        Posted by: jfl | Jul 16, 2015 7:50:55 PM | 33

        PPS/23: Review of Current Trends in U.S. Foreign Policy, 1948 CE


        Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.

        For these reasons, we must observe great restraint in our attitude toward the Far Eastern areas. The peoples of Asia and of the Pacific area are going to go ahead, whatever we do, with the development of their political forms and mutual interrelationships in their own way. This process cannot be a liberal or peaceful one. The greatest of the Asiatic peoples-the Chinese and the Indians-have not yet even made a beginning at the solution of the basic demographic problem involved in the relationship between their food supply and their birth rate. Until they find some solution to this problem, further hunger, distress, and violence are inevitable. All of the Asiatic peoples are faced with the necessity for evolving new forms of life to conform to the impact of modern technology. This process of adaptation will also be long and violent. It is not only possible, but probable, that in the course of this process many peoples will fall, for varying periods, under the influence of Moscow, whose ideology has a greater lure for such peoples, and probably greater reality, than anything we could oppose to it. All this, too, is probably unavoidable; and we could not hope to combat it without the diversion of a far greater portion of our national effort than our people would ever willingly concede to such a purpose.

        Between Berlin and a Hard Place: Greece and the German Strategy to Dominate Europe, 2012 CE


        As Chancellor Merkel and other German leaders would frequently remind the rest of Europe and the world, with 7% of the world population, 25% of global GDP and 50% of world social spending, Europe's economic system was unsustainable and uncompetitive in a globalized economy. Germany's vision for Europe was aimed at introducing "rules to force Europe's economies to become more competitive." But competitiveness was defined by Germany, and thus, "the rest of Europe needs to become more like Germany."

        I nearly choked when I read Timothy Geithner quoted at the beginning of dana's link ... but it makes perfect sense. None of this is about 'economics' - that chimerical, dismal 'science' - all of it is about politics, and power politics, and imperial politics.

        The Germans - like everyone else - can see the US has had its run and is headed for its fall. But they also know that Germany by itself is not of a size to pick up where the US leaves off, when the US leaves off. So Germany needs to take over Europe.

        I think I've heard this before.


        Between 2008 and 2013, the Greek government cut 40% of its budget, healthcare costs soared, tens of thousands of doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers were fired, drug costs rose, as did drug use with HIV infections doubling and a malaria outbreak was reported for the first time since the 1970s, while suicide rates increased by 60%. ... Unemployment has grown to 26% (and over 50% for youth), wages dropped by 33%, pensions were cut by 45%, and 40% of retired Greeks now live below the poverty line.

        Cleanliness is next to Godliness. The Germans are cleaning up Greece, and Europe.

        The IMF's latest move - fake debt reduction for Greece, the kind of stuff that flows out of Geither's pie-hole in dana's link above - seems to be overt recognition of this fact, bringing it into play.

        So they new dynamic will be the US on one side and Russia on the other, containing Germany's New Europe?

        Makes sense, really. (None of this makes any sense ... only to the zero-summers playing games with our world). China surely has its eyes on all that Lebensraum in eastern Russia. The US and Russia can team up to defeat the NAZIs who have 'stolen' the Ukrainian revolution (to contain both Europe and China). (And then the US can double-cross Russia when the time is ripe).

        Hey, looks like it's 'working' with our new, soon to be 'best friends' in Iran.

        Arghhhh. Makes me want to stop reading the news, stop watching the movie. Or do something to help change it.

        Posted by: jfl | Jul 16, 2015 10:29:16 PM | 34

        More on the reaction to Germany's power plays, from Fort Russ ...

        "Germany's policies pose a danger to Europe for the first time since 1945"--A View From Poland

        ... and the US' possible doubly convoluted play as hypothesized by Joaquin Flores last September ...

        Pravy Sektor Coup as ISIS Scenario: NATO to Feign a 'Unilateral' Alliance With Russia

        ... just substitute the US for NATO. Germany has certainly knocked the scales from some eyes. I can't imagine Russia will be drawn in.

        Greed and geopolitics do make strange bedfellows though. Nations don't have friends they have interests. And it's hard to see any of these 'nation' that have identified its citizens' interests with its own. Of the big ones ... maybe Russia under Putin? All he has is the support of the Russian people.

        Posted by: guest77 | Jul 17, 2015 12:48:32 AM | 36

        Excellent thread.

        Syriza has shown, I suppose, that gaining access to power isn't enough. The party has to be involved with its members and those they hope to make members. Helping people get access to food, medicine, security, and anything else the state is refusing to help with. The left cannot just win elections, it must be threatening to those in power. It must be prepared to take control of those things the people demand they control (and it must be willing to relax when the people demand this). People must look to the organization in Latin America, that is all I can say. There, under the harshest repression, democracy is thriving.

        The story of Greece I suppose is a lesson for the rest of the left parties though, who of them has a chance outside of Podemos - and what of Podemos anyway. They don't seem particularly able sadly.

        The world- but especially the west - in the last 30 years, has changed so fundamentally that democracy is nowhere to be found. Nor democratic forms of social organization are even gone for the most part. And now they are turning the screws on whatever remains. Even the middle classes live under turn-key totalitarianism, as it was said by someone, (as opposed to before, where it was just the lower classes) and everyone knows this. And it is proved more and more with each passing event it seems. The people are thoroughly boxed in and controlled, but unlike juliania I think the media has so much to do with it. The massive media conglomeration is a keystone of the changes over the last 30 years, as well as the emergence of the internet - brought to a great many people by those media conglomerates.

        The oligarchs of the west are determined to return to their royal status and complete political power they had before WW1. This is really a hopeless feeling attached to this, their seemingly complete victory over democracy. And I imagine that is much of the point...

        Posted by: guest77 | Jul 17, 2015 12:52:57 AM | 37

        I haven't read this all, but looks very applicable to our times...

        The network of global corporate control - https://archive.org/details/TheNetworkOfGlobalControl

        Stefania Vitali, James B. Glattfelder, and Stefano Battiston

        Abstract
        The structure of the control network of transnational corporations affects global market competition and financial stability. So far, only small national samples were studied and there was no appropriate methodology to assess control globally. We present the first investigation of the architecture of the international ownership network, along with the computation of the control held by each global player. We find that transnational corporations form a giant bow-tie structure and that a large portion of control flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions.

        This core can be seen as an economic "super-entity" that raises new important issues both for researchers and policy makers.

        Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jul 17, 2015 1:33:03 AM | 38

        juliania @30

        Yes, Tsipras seems to have been ambivalent. The referendum was a bold move that actually worked in his favor but then turned cautious. Maybe he worried that if he threatened GRexit Schauble and the Troika would call his bluff?

        In an earlier thread, I likened Tsipras to Chamberlain, who had the best intentions but is remembered as an appeaser. This may seem like a dramatic comparison but Michael Hudson has made the point that economics is now war by other means.

        Chamberlain satisfied the public's overwhelming desire for peace just as Tspiras satisfied his public's desire to stay in the Euro. Each one had misgivings about the deal that they signed. Chamberlain began to rearm - especially building up British air power. Tsipras may also prepare for a future confrontation with the Troika.

        Posted by: MRW | Jul 17, 2015 2:05:22 AM | 40

        The role of the Eurosystem within the half-hidden political order of the eurozone really is comparable to the Soviet or Chinese Communist Party.


        No, it's not. Billmon doesn't understand the structure. He's not seeing it clearly, and is not getting to the root of the problem.

        The individual EU countries that use the Euro cannot create their own currency. They GAVE UP their sovereign currency for a foreign one, the euro, when they agreed to make themselves subservient to the Maastricht Treaty.

        The Maastricht Treaty did/does not allow for a 'federal government of Europe'. It ONLY concerned itself with a monetary union, and it set down strict rules for entry (for instance, a nation's deficits could be no more than 3%--an insanity). It allowed for the creation of a central bank, the European Central Bank (ECB), whose operating rules were dictated by the Maastricht Treaty (and subsequent revisions).

        But crucial to understand is this: a central bank CAN ONLY SET MONETARY POLICY. You need a 'federal government' to SET FISCAL POLICY. The EU doesn't have that. Sure, it has the EU parliament, and it has a bunch of unelected officials running the ECB. But it has no overlord, no elected oversight, that can rule in conditions like Greece is going through to ease sectoral pain, and stop the bleeding of ordinary citizens. That requires fiscal policy. The only way that fiscal policy can be changed in the EU is by a change to the treaties. Or the blessing of Angela Merkel, because Germany has captured the ECB.

        Let me try to put this in perspective. The US has a federal government AND a central bank. Despite what all the Federal Reserve haters and the 'get rid of the IRS' people claim (inaccurately), the US central bank is a creature of Congress and must answer, by law, to the federal government twice a year. It is the US Treasury's banker, and must, again by law, return all profits each year to the US Treasury.

        The US federal government creates fiscal policy. This is the direction for the country that the central must follow and support trhough monetary polices. Fiscal policy is Congress' job although they haven't done it properly for 30 years. For example, if one of the 50 states is in trouble-let's be hyperbolic: devastating earthquake, massive drought, asteroid hits--Congress can authorize ("appropriate") funds--creating them 'out of thin air'-to help the state. With no debt to children or grandchildren.

        Why? Because the US federal government issues the currency, the 50 states only use them. The 50 states cannot create their own currency, just like the countries that use the euro. But the 50 states have the protection of the US federal government.

        The formerly sovereign countries in the EU that use the Euro are like the 50 US states now. They cannot create their own currency, which would give them the policy space to pay their own citizens and denominate all the debts incurred in their own currency. They are dependent on the ECB, a goddam central bank that has no fiscal authority, to help them. EVEN THOUGH, in Europe, the ECB issues the Euro 'out of thin air'. The ECB is a collection of central banks. And right now Germany's central bank is dominant because it has climbed to the top-Germany was deeply in debt before the euro took over-on the backs of the other nations.

        You will not begin to understand what is going on until you realize that the euro was designed by the famous French economist, François Perroux, in 1942 in anticipation of Hitler winning WWII, which was expected then. The plan was that they (the Nazi Pétain government wanted to be aligned with the German hegemon) would introduce a pan-Eurpoean currency and force adoption by the southern and eastern European countries to control and impoverish them. Mitterand, aligned with the Nazi/fascist Cagoulard in the late 1930 and 40s, was a Pétain enthusiast; this only came out in 1990. It was Mitterand who pushed through the euro, if you will check history. Perroux's monetary replacement was the blueprint for the Maastricht Treaty and the subsequent treaties.

        Posted by: MRW | Jul 17, 2015 2:46:03 AM | 42

        @tom | Jul 16, 2015 3:45:06 PM | 25

        How the fuck is it accepted, that private banks can print as much national currencies as they like, but the owners of the those national currencies - the people and the government - cannot do with fractional reserves and money printing, like what the private banks do.

        1. Private banks cannot "print as much national currencies as they like."

        2. Fractional reserve banking does not exist. It died 80 years ago in most modern economies. I think only Hong Kong and Bulgaria (I think) use it now. The US doesn't' use it. Neither does any single country in the EU or Europe. Fractional reserve banking can only exist in countries that have a gold standard.

        3. The only entity that prints the euro is the ECB, although the national central banks do it for the ECB under contract. BUT. BUT. BUT. These national central banks do it by keystroke. They don't control the physical printing presses. Besides, physical currency is such a small part of the currency.

        4.

        but the owners of the those national currencies - the people and the government
        any country using the euro is not using a "national" currency. They are using a foreign currency.
        Posted by: james | Jul 17, 2015 3:06:57 AM | 43

        @19/20 psychohistorian.. i like where you are coming from, but people are slow to change and always looking for leadership.. many think that because someone is rich or has a type of power that comes with money, that they will be good enough to lead.. that is a mixed bag to me personally.. there are just as many losers with money as not..

        @28 Laguerre.. thanks.. you've given a specific example to my more generalized observations already posted.. indeed - visa and mastercard are a part of the same ponzi scheme run by the same kleptomaniacs under the guise of whatever they want to pass themselves off as.. playing with the bank of international settlements is only a step away..

        @35 guest77 quote.. "The world- but especially the west - in the last 30 years, has changed so fundamentally that democracy is nowhere to be found." i think that is very true..

        @39 mrw.. good post, but you are not addressing the issue directly either.. making a comparison to what was a country like greece to one of the states in the usa, cheapens the idea of what a country is.. the euro has done this too.. doesn't mean we have to go along with it, but in terms of drawing a parallel, it isn't a bad one to make. and of course the big difference here is now that greece has given up it's control of monetary policy, as have all the other countries gobbled up in this insane idea of an european community - greece is an opportunity for everyone within the stupid structure to see it for what it is - a complete rip off of any shred of democracy that might have remained...

        mrw - we've had these conversations before.. you appear to think the fed reserve is some sort of good two shoes neutral structure that follows a mandate and is not beholden to malevolent interests.. i see it as just the opposite.. the euro was another way to diversify the ponzi scheme by duping a lot of ignorant people into something they would have been better knowing more about.. i would be curious to hear a response from you that provides an answer as to the solution here.. mine would be greece to say fuck you to the euro currency and go back on it's own...

        Posted by: psychohistorian | Jul 17, 2015 3:29:02 AM | 44

        @jackrabbit.....you said that us "lower class" folk rely on the "upper class" folk to keep the world running

        In the 66 years of my life I have seen untold potential waiting/begging for opportunity and I think your neck might break watching the momentary vacuum be filled getting rid of the top 50K social parasites and their attendant sociopaths. It is a myth that us poor 99% can't make it without the 1%. It is a myth that has been around for centuries and never has been true. The 1% are and have been an impediment to that advancement of humanity for quite some time. In most major ways we stopped evolving during the Enlightenment period when faith didn't become deprecated but instead became one of the tenets of the Western form of social organization, others being private property/finance, inheritance and "rule of law".

        If all that were to change by neutering inheritance and ongoing ownership of private property (yeah, neuter public policy influence of religions too)
        With Capital being returned to the global Commons, public education regains its priority and is a right for all but at the higher levels; and private education disappears. With those of faith no longer being in control of public policy, population control can be discussed, managed and alternatives like birth control researched/provided. We have answers for many of our pressing social problems, but we do not have the will to break out of the anthropological mold we are in.

        Would the 99% agree to develop and use a technology that burdened the next thousand generations of humans to manange the potentially extinction causing effluent (i.e. Fukushima)? We live according to a very sick, no longer defensible and currently committing war crimes against humanity form of social organization, who's administrators we used to prosecute at the Hague 70 years ago. American empire is now the tool of the global plutocrats and the odds of the 99% wresting control away and changing the course of our species and world look slim.......but creating textual white noise on the intertubes is cathartic.

        Posted by: chris m | Jul 17, 2015 6:06:08 AM | 47

        Regarding events of past 6 months between Greece and the EU
        (and Greek membership of the euro).
        Following the recent Greek capitulation,it is clear to almost everyone now that the fuse has been lit beneath the euro.(and possibly even the entire European project.

        Eurosceptism is starting to break out (and its only just starting) throughout the entire EU.
        We can now all see politicians such as Marine Le Pen getting elected in next French Presidential Election on a purely "leave the euro now" ticket.

        PS the entire Europe project was always predicated on a "lets destroy individual National Sovereignty" premise (a sort of EUSSR).

        I never did understand why when Communism officially died around 1990
        that it seemed to make an almost simultaneous and miraculous rebirth, but then Europe is the land of Dracula
        and various other 19th century horror stories.

        Posted by: Noirette | Jul 17, 2015 11:00:23 AM | 51

        Syriza has shown, I suppose, that gaining access to power isn't enough. The party has to be involved with its members and those they hope to make members. guest77 at 35.

        I agree, also pretty much with the rest of the post. What happened is that there was a power vacuum in Greece (when PASOK threw in the towel and the old structure crumbled) and the only ones willing to enter the breach were Syriza. One might also say that in Greece the political power structure does not match the real power structures in a good or efficient way. This democratic hoopla is all peachy cool when it is Swiss burghers discussin' and votin' on the color of the trams, or property tax, while being faithful to their 'radical' or 'socialist' -whatever- roots. In Greece, in its present form, it does not work. See for ex. the fantastical abyss between the OXI vote and the acceptance by the elected representatives of even harsher austerity.

        Ideally, in a hypothetical genuine, true? democratic system, after the OXI vote a unitary or even technocatic Gvmt should have been formed (ironically, Tsipras did just that in a way ..) behind the OXI vote, to collectively resist and bargain (doubt any positive result would have been forthcoming but who knows), but naturally that was not possible.

        One argument is that the 'Left' must be 'more in touch', 'must reform', must be 'more grass roots' etc. (Sounds a bit like what they say about the EU, heh? And in Greece that argument is made, plenty) - true, but imho it won't be enough. No way.

        So some other avenues have to be explored, sought, implemented.. One imperative (under the present cirucumstances) is national sovereignity, see in Greece, New Democracy being say 'for austerity', 'for the euro' and so on because they are tied up in comprador not to say Mafia circles linked to the EU, big capital, banks, instituted corrupt structures, tax evasions, etc.

        Anyway this debacle has shown that parliamentary democracy is not to be afforded to small powerless countries that have been taken for a ride. I think ppl are seeing that now, that facade is cracking.

        Overall the EU is in deep sh*t. It won't survive for very long in its present shape.

        Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jul 17, 2015 11:16:30 AM | 53

        camelotkidd

        This article fails to note the 'eurosclerosis' that plagued Europe in the 70's and 80's. Uncompetitive economies with large social obligations and clientist political systems that still exist in some areas.

        The 'evil genious' moniker doesn't really fit. I doubt he is the only economist that would've offered such a solution. And he is certainly not the only guy that found European labor laws of the time to be a costly headace. I think he just got there first. And his demeanor is grandfatherly not menacing.

        And he is not unmindful of how his work can be misused. When I took his advanced economics class in the early 90's I argued against the excesses of supply-side economics while others in the class seemed to be eager to show their support of what they assumed Mundell believed in. I got an A-.

        =

        There are problems with the Euro - the disparate economies, the lack of political and fiscal union, the uneven benefits, etc. - but blaming it on the academics seems like scape-goating, and nearly as bad as blaming it on the victims. Should we blame Marx for the fall of the Soviet Union?

        Posted by: tom | Jul 17, 2015 4:34:48 PM | 59

        MRW @42

        How do you reconcile the contradiction between your points 1 and 2.

        If Private banks "cannot" print as much money as they like ( point 1 ), then how can fractional reserve banking Not exist in most of the world ? ( point 2 ) . If fractional reserves do not exist then they free to print as much as they like.

        Of course whem I say they can "print as much as they like" , that is not a children's imagination interpretation where the private banks are free to print infinitelt, that's of course the private banks have been unlinked from previously acceptable amount of printing/keyboard strokes, to create money.

        And your 3rd doesn't make any sense at all. How does a gold standard have any restrictions on having a 10% fractional reserve, 1000%, or 1,000,000% of gold holdings ? Gold doesn't make decisions, regulations and enforcement are the decision-makers. Whether it's gold or fiat.

        And your point 4 is right. It is my argument to why no country should join a single currency like the euro, and nations should always have their own sovreign national currencies

        Posted by: juliania | Jul 18, 2015 1:08:20 AM | 66

        Jackrabbit@38

        Sorry to be late on here. The Chamberlain comparison is an interesting one, and Tsipras' tragic flaw may be his devotion to the Eurozone - I think it is his, not really any perceived mandate, because surely he knows a good leader makes choices as events change - to go back to my example, that's what FDR did, and very risky choices they were. Some of FDR's didn't work, so he did other things. He was making it up as he went along, and I think that's very similar to what would be needed in exiting the eurozone. You would have to bring the people along with you, with the confidence and trust that something needed to happen, charting a new course. Tsipras doesn't seem to have been willing to do that, and consequently he runs the risk of being just one more in the line of leaders who have caved under pressure.

        I think it has a lot to do with lack of faith in the people themselves on the part of such leadership. Obama showed this when he didn't take public financing but already was turning to the banksters. He didn't need to do that, and he probably would have even had a bigger vote tally if he'd stayed with the people. I wonder why this new leadership seems so divorced from sympathy with those who elect them and whom they presumably serve? I don't think Tsipras is as two-faced as Obama, but he's starting to wear the same shoes. The tragedy is the Greek people so much need him to step up - the way a tennis player steps up if he's really a champion. I think there's still time but it's getting late. If he keeps on with this deal, history will take note. That's a huge price to pay.

        Posted by: jfl | Jul 18, 2015 1:24:02 AM | 67

        Tsipras ... he messed up. If 'his' deal goes through Greece suffers the full catastrophe. The thing to do is to prevent that happening. Tsipras is a lame duck. It makes little difference why he messed up ... character flaw, bribery, incompetence, all the usual failings of the political class.

        The point is he has set Greece up for more lethal loans and so his 'program' must be repudiated. The only way I can imagine that happening is via the direct participation of the Greek people in their government. If there is a majority NO! on the new' program, good. Make a counter offer ... when (if, I suppose, to be inclusive) it's rejected, exit the euro - there's life at the end of the tunnel. If not ... well, they're done for, aren't they?

        Debt-slaves of the German-dominated EU : deprived of their remaining assets and their own government.

        Posted by: fairleft | Jul 18, 2015 2:58:03 AM | 68

        Lapavitsas Calls for Exit as the Only Strategy for Greek People (the video, audio and transcript):

        Why this capitulation? Why have we come to this after all the enthusiasm of six months ago? After the surge of grassroots support in this country and in Europe? The answer is clear to me. And it has to do with the wrong strategy, that was good enough to win elections, but proved disastrous in government. What is this wrong strategy? It's very simple, expressed openly time and time again. We will achieve radical change in Greece, radical change in Europe, and we will do it within the Eurozone. That was the strategy. Well, that's not possible, period.

        As far as I'm concerned, the Greek left has found its leader. Lapavitsas says it all, clearly and brilliantly: Grexit and nationalize the banks.

        You can't advance if you do not understand that Syriza has failed, if you keep making excuses for their failure, or try to pretend it was anything but failure. Greece must leave the euro. This has been obvious for several years, but unreasoning, 'no matter what' Eurozone love, especially prevalent within Syriza and generally among the middle-class European left and pseudo-left (Podemos, I'm looking at you!), MUST be abandoned. The euro doesn't love you; it's time to stop loving it back.

        The MAIN task for the European left, if it wants to be left rather than neoliberal, is to abandon the euro. It's easy: listen and be persuaded by Lapavitsas.

        Posted by: okie farmer | Jul 18, 2015 4:10:39 AM | 69

        More from Lapavitsas:
        Finally, the deal is quite clearly neocolonial. The government of the left has signed up Greece to a neocolonial agreement.

        And it is--it is neocolonial for many reasons. I will mention three. First, the deal proposes the establishment of a privatization fund of 50 billion Euros which will basically sell public property under foreign management. 25 billion of that, the first 25 billion, will go to the banks by the agreement. If there's anything left, and there won't be anything left because they'll never make 50 billion, it might go to repaying the debt and possibly to investment. Essentially, then, this fund will sell what it can of public property to recapitalize the banks. We've just agreed the deal that sells the family silver to recapitalize the failed Greek banks.
        ~~~
        The real winner of this deal is obvious. It's staring you in the face. The real winner is the Greek oligarchy expressed in the mass media. That's why the mass media are thriving and celebrating [a win].
        ~~~
        Because the monetary union in which, to which Greece belongs, is not ideological. I mean, it is, but it isn't just ideology. And it isn't just a balance of forces. It is an institutional mechanism. The sooner the Greeks understand this, the better for all of us. It is an institutional mechanism, it is a monetary union that's, it's a hierarchical body that works in the interests of big business and in the interests of a few countries within it. That's what the EMU is.
        ~~~
        Now, what do we do, then? What we need to do is to withdraw our consent to this agreement. To withdraw our consent to this agreement. And to redesign a radical program that is consistent with our values, our aims, and what we've told to the Greek people all this time, all these years. And that radical program is impossible without Euro exit. The only thing that we really need to do is focus on developing a plan for Euro exit that will allow us to implement our program. It is so obvious I'm amazed that people still don't see it after five months of failed negotiations.

        Posted by: okie farmer | Jul 18, 2015 4:23:57 AM | 70

        http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33578778
        The former Greek finance minster has said his country's economic reforms are "going to fail", just as formal talks on a huge bailout are set to begin.

        In a BBC interview, Yanis Varoufakis said Greece was subject to a programme that will "go down in history as the greatest disaster of macroeconomic management ever".
        ~~~
        I may disagree with [PM Tsipras] and I declared that by resigning my post
        ~~~
        The bailout could total €86bn (£60bn) in exchange for austerity measures.

        In a damning assessment, Mr Varoufakis said: "This programme is going to fail whoever undertakes its implementation."

        Asked how long that would take, he replied: "It has failed already."

        Posted by: fairleft | Jul 18, 2015 4:51:18 AM | 71

        Varoufakis is just whining. He doesn't provide a solution to the immediate and staggeringly important problem, imposition of worse austerity on Greece's people. He sounds not dissimilar to Tsipras, who also says he's unhappy/pessimistic yada yada. They're like old men complaining about the weather. Whining and whinging, Tsipras has signed up to carry out the police state repression that's the only way his new legislation can be carried out.

        Even though the solution/escape is clear, as Lapavitsas points out. It's almost as if the Syriza apologists are incapable of saying/thinking the word 'Grexit'. Who is holding their tongues?

        Posted by: mcohen | Jul 18, 2015 6:59:22 AM | 72

        parking weapons like f-16 and submarines in countries is a good idea...they are maintained and serviced and kept ready for active service...this all under the cover of arms deals etc etc.

        there is only one flaw..the government of that country must be trusted....they cannot change sides...greece is in a unique position.opposite north africa,on the med, so it is well positioned for launching of attacks,on countries like libya or tunisia or even egypt.

        discrete crete sounds like a good name.

        Posted by: paulmeli | Jul 18, 2015 8:15:45 AM | 73

        "Varoufakis is just whining. He doesn't provide a solution…"

        Exactly. There is no solution that doesn't include leaving the Euro and reclaiming monetary sovereignty (although that alone won't do it…they need astute, competent leadership too). A solution that presumes changing the fundamental Euro structure to include a fiscal component is never going to happen, the big guns (Germany) would leave before that would happen.

        Playing long shots works in the movies, in real life not so much.

        Most of the billions of words that have been written on this subject have been little more than wailing and gnashing of teeth. Denial.

        There are several stages to go before there is any viable solution that citizens will sign on to, that won't be co-opted by TPTB.

        Posted by: honest! | Jul 18, 2015 9:28:16 AM | 74

        I'm not saying Syriza made all of the right mover, but neither do I think they can be considered "the Greek People's enemy". Not at all. They appear to be being honest.

        Posted by: guest77 | Jul 17, 2015 7:52:02 PM | 64

        What a load of utter nonsense.

        Honest?

        They demanded the right to seek a mandate from the people before proceeding. They then got exactly the mandate they claimed to have sought . . . . . .

        . . . And then, promptly ignored it entirely.

        =======

        There's nothing "honest" in that. Cynical? Absolutely. Manipulative? Certainly

        Threacherous? Most definitely

        But "honest"? . . . . GTFO!.

        Posted by: jfl | Jul 18, 2015 10:06:29 AM | 75

        @71, @73

        And you guys are just endlessly whining about the whiners ... the political class has chosen its preferred 'solution'. They're all done. If there is to be a real solution it has got to come from the Greek people.

        @37

        That's quite an article. I cut and pasted the picture of the 'bow-tie' graph and made the table of the 50 top controllers from page 33 sortable below it.

        page 33 of The network of global corporate control

        I'll try to summarize the significance of the bow-tie graph and its abbreviated labels tomorrow, for those who don't want to read the full article themselves.

        Twenty-four of the top 50 controllers are nominally American.

        Forty-four are financial.

        Posted by: Noirette | Jul 18, 2015 11:43:49 AM | 76

        Posted some time back about the ESM (etc.) Here some info that give OK descriptions.

        Eric Zuesse, global research

        http://tinyurl.com/pqwbvqa

        > a link in that article to the Treaty (automatic download)

        then this, from the Corporate Europe Observatory

        http://tinyurl.com/o3eyg25

        > a link to a leaked text explaining the Troikas plans for the privatization fund (that 50 bn) pdf

        http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/esm_report_to_greece_0.pdf

        for some extra financial info (the only available to the public?) one must go to their site and click through and through - all automatic downloads.

        http://www.esm.europa.eu

        As MRW writes, at 40, there is no resemblance between EU financial and pol. structures those of the Soviet, Chinese Communist Parties.

        MRW maybe you are hyping the Nazi past? Mitterand and Thatcher particularly were against the re-unification of Germany. Mitterand wanted to lock Germany down in the Euro in an 'alliance' (or because he was a bankster's man, in fact laws prohibiting speculation were lifted in France well before Billy C's annulment of Glass-Steagall, the US played catch-up) and Germany made the trade, with difficulty (attachment to the mark, independence, etc.) Controlling countries through their currency and banking system is not an original or particularly Nazi idea. For ex it works right now in parts of Africa with the CFA and nobody talks about it. The French didn't borrow that idea from the Nazis.

        Posted by: rufus magister | Jul 18, 2015 12:09:41 PM | 77

        Jackrabbit at 38, juliania at 66, jfl & fairleft >67

        Like many, I've been waiting for the longest running drama on the Athens stage to finally get to the last act before attempting to make sense of the staging, plot and characters.

        I still don't think we're quite there yet; probably a little more political fall-out still, but not much, see e.g., a majority of the Syriza Central Committee opposed the austerity deal.

        The question of the political leadership of the left, however, is always an interesting topic. Also from the 17 July "Links" page at - dare I mention the name? - Naked Capitalism, John Pilger at Alternet argues thatThe Leaders of Greece Are Some of the Phoniest Idealists You'll Ever See. It seems hard to disagree.

        Having set aside the mandate of the Greek electorate, the Syriza government has willfully ignored last week's landslide "No" vote and secretly agreed a raft of repressive, impoverishing measures....

        The leaders of Syriza are revolutionaries of a kind – but their revolution is the perverse, familiar appropriation of social democratic and parliamentary movements by liberals groomed to comply with neo-liberal drivel and a social engineering whose authentic face is that of Wolfgang Schauble, Germany's finance minister, an imperial thug. Like the Labour Party in Britain and its equivalents among former social democratic parties such as the Labor Party in Australia, still describing themselves as "liberal" or even "left", Syriza is the product of an affluent, highly privileged, educated middle class, "schooled in postmodernism", as Alex Lantier wrote. [I could not immediately find whatever Pilger is quoting, he is affiliated with the "wsws" website; such sad sloppiness at a major site in these days of html coding...]

        For them, class is the unmentionable, let alone an enduring struggle, regardless of the reality of the lives of most human beings. Syriza's luminaries are well-groomed; they lead not the resistance that ordinary people crave, as the Greek electorate has so bravely demonstrated, but "better terms" of a venal status quo that corrals and punishes the poor. When merged with "identity politics" and its insidious distractions, the consequence is not resistance, but subservience. "Mainstream" political life in Britain exemplifies this.

        This is not inevitable, a done deal, if we wake up from the long, postmodern coma and reject the myths and deceptions of those who claim to represent us, and fight.

        How then do democratic movements ensure that their leaders views and priorities accord with their own, and can be held responsible and be replaced? What sort of leadership is needed for industrial as well as political democracy?

        Posted by: rufus magister | Jul 18, 2015 12:18:48 PM | 78

        ps to 77 -- Amongst the parties affected by the Munich Agreement, I think Edvard Beneš, the Czechoslovakian President, is a better fit for poor Tsipras.

        Posted by: paulmeli | Jul 18, 2015 12:54:19 PM | 79

        "the political class has chosen its preferred 'solution'. They're all done. If there is to be a real solution it has got to come from the Greek people."

        No kidding?

        I don't know what's worse, repeating the obvious ad nauseam or whining.

        Posted by: Noirette | Jul 18, 2015 2:00:07 PM | 80

        Having set aside the mandate of the Greek electorate, the Syriza government has willfully ignored last week's landslide "No" vote and secretly agreed a raft of repressive, impoverishing measures…. a quote by rufus at 77

        NO. Syriza was elected on a platform of 'staying in the EU-Euro' and at the same time 'reducing /abolishing austerity.'

        This mandate might be considered contradictory or ridiculous, illusory, doomed to fail, etc. (Yes I agree.)

        Also Syriza has a slim voter support and thus had to form a coalition Gvmt.

        Well in function of that contradictory mandate they managed (at terrible cost and perhaps misguidely) half of it. Staying in the Euro.

        What is surprising? Nothing.

        Why they chose the one above the other is abundantly clear.

        Posted by: Wayoutwest | Jul 18, 2015 2:24:51 PM | 81

        RM@77

        I enjoy good discussion and criticism but this carping and sniping about Syriza from the US Left says more about writers such as JP and the weaklings of the Left, that have attained a new level of meaninglessness, and has allowed someone like Bernie Sanders to claim to be a Socialist without any real blowback, is trying.

        Posted by: MRW | Jul 18, 2015 7:29:54 PM | 85

        paulmeli at @63 has got it exactly right. In all modern economies on a fiat currency, loans create deposits.

        Bankers, as a result, create 'credit money', NOT new interest-free money. (Credit money also means that one person's asset is another person's liability. At the commercial banking level within the real economy that includes collateral, timed repayment schedule, and interest owed, which is income to the issuing bank. Everything nets to zero at this level across the macroeconomy.)

        The US federal government, on the other hand, adds new money into the economy. Only entity that can. Only the US federal government can introduce new, interest-free money into the economy, and it does it via congressional spending based on the needs of its citizens, and where it wants the economy to grow (giving 40% of it to the financial institutions is NOT GROWTH). Which the mo-fos we've elected do not understand.

        One small quibble, Paul. The amount of physical currency, physical cash and coin, is around 11.5% to12% of the available money. The rest are treasury securities. Don't forget that countries like Ecuador are pegged to the USD and need US cash for their citizens. Ecuador's central bank orders them from the US Treasury (Bureau of Printing and Engraving) and puts up 100% of the demanded amount in assets (treasury securities) to pay for them.

        Posted by: MRW | Jul 18, 2015 7:31:15 PM | 86

        Tom @61

        Sorry for the delay. I'm traveling. Good questions, btw.

        First, let's clear up what fractional reserve banking is. This is a lousy simplistic example, but it will work. And let's imagine a small western town with one bank, which I will call Bank Buckeroo. Introducing a second bank in the town mean I would have to explain how interbank reserves work, and it doesn't matter in this explanation. [BTW, US banks DO NOT LEND their reserves; reserves serve another purpose in the US banking system; namely to help the Federal Reserve retain the overnight interest rate target that banks charge each other. Canada, for example, doesn't even have a reserve requirement for their commercial banks.]

        Fractional reserve banking explained

        OK. Johnny Schwartzburger sidles into his Bank Buckeroo and deposits 100 bucks in cash in his savings account.

        Now Bank Buckeroo has got $100 more than it had yesterday.

        Because the reserve requirement is, say, 10%-the FRACTION of the loan that the bank must retain under "fractional reserve banking"--Bank Buckeroo holds onto $10 and can loan out $90.

        Sally Sweetpea needs $90 for her beauty shop and she borrows $90 from Bank Buckeroo, and deposits that in her checking account.

        Now Bank Buckeroo holds onto $9 (10% of $90) and can loan out $81.

        Old Ray Saddleback needs $81 to buy supplies for the only café in town, so he hits up Bank Buckeroo for an $81 loan.

        Bank Buckeroo holds onto $8.10 (10% of $81) and can loan out $72.90.

        Paddy O'Gilligan needs $72.90 to top off his supply of whiskey at the only bar in town (and this banker likes his whiskey), so he borrows $72.90 from Bank Buckeroo.

        Bank Buckeroo holds onto $7.29 (10% of $72.90) and can loan out $65.61

        You see where I'm going with this. Eventually, Bank Buckeroo will have reserved all $100, but will have extended credit against that $100 to customers that he knows are good to pay back their loans. Under the gold standard system before 1933, each dollar had a statement on it that you could exchange 20 of the one-dollar bills for one ounce of gold (not exactly the statement but that's what it meant). It was a "fixed exchange rate." The value of a dollar (US) was fixed to the value of gold. So Bank Buckeroo has Johnny Schwartzburger's original $100 in cash that guarantees it can trade-in the cash for $100 in gold anytime it wants. It's protected against that loss. The only thing the banker has to worry about is whether his customers can pay back the new loans, and he knows their creditworthiness intimately.

        That all changed in 1933-no more gold standard in the US

        We went off the gold standard. The value of the USD was no longer pegged to the value of gold, the supply of which the US federal government could not control globally except for certain US mines. Each new goldmine find globally affected the value of the dollar before 1913 and led to extraordinary panics and busts in the last half of the 1800s. More gold available meant the value of the dollar dropped, and that affected international trade, and whether people exchanged their dollars for gold stateside and hoarded it, further diminishing the amount of money available in the real economy. It was the National Gold Something-or-Other Act in 1900 that pegged the USD at $20/ounce.

        Interestingly enough, it was Marriner Eccles, whom FDR made the first chairman of the Federal Reserve three years later, a Republican Mormon banker from Provo UT who appeared before the Senate and House of Representatives in 1932/33 to make the case for dropping the gold standard (he wasn't the only one however). Eccles became more popular than Miley Cyrus. Eccles had seen the devastation that the banking system was doing to his municipal and rural customers. Eccles was 22 when he made his first million after his father died and he had to take over the family businesses, which included a bank. He was a financial genius who could speak plain English to commoners about banking and esoteric financial concepts. His ideas predated John Maynard Keynes by three years. (BTW, Keynes was never taught in American universities, so anyone sneeringly invoking Keynes doesn't know what they are talking about. The first Nobel Laureate in Economics, Paul Samuelson, is supposed to be the explainer and keeper of Keynes ideas, but Samuelson admitted in 1989 in a video interview that he never read more than half the book, and that he never understood Keynes' ideas to begin with.)

        [to be contd]

        Correction: Each new goldmine find globally affected the value of the dollar before 1913

        Should read: Each new goldmine find globally affected the value of the dollar before 1900

        Posted by: MRW | Jul 18, 2015 7:34:22 PM | 87

        Tom @61 [contd.]

        If Private banks "cannot" print as much money as they like ( point 1 ), then how can fractional reserve banking Not exist in most of the world ? ( point 2 ) . If fractional reserves do not exist then they free to print as much as they like.

        […]

        And your 3rd doesn't make any sense at all. How does a gold standard have any restrictions on having a 10% fractional reserve, 1000%, or 1,000,000% of gold holdings ? Gold doesn't make decisions, regulations and enforcement are the decision-makers. Whether it's gold or fiat.

        Loans create deposits. Yes, 'out of thin air'. Bankers can say 'Yay' or 'Nay' based on the cut of your jib, or the color of your skin, although they are not allowed to.
        Banks don't print money. They issue credit, i.e. 'credit money'. They mark up the customer's bank account with computer keystrokes in the amount of the loan. Banks issue credit money based on two things: (1) customer creditworthiness, (2) customer income. They also require collateral.
        Banks have to maintain reserves in their banks accounts at the Federal Reserve on all the loans they make.It is a percentage of the loan, and banks cannot loan out this money. If the bank doesn't have enough reserves in their Fed account, they have to borrow from other banks at the Fed Funds Rate, or overnight interest rate, set by the Fed. (The Fed uses this overnight interest rate to promote or demote bank lending in the economy, among other things.)
        If the bank has been making bad loans or is overextended-this goes to your Point 1 about banks being free to issue as much credit money as they like-and other banks know that, the other banks might not loan it any reserves.
        In that case, the solvency-suspect bank has to slink to the Fed's Discount Window where they can borrow the required reserves, but the interest rate is punitive, and it usually alerts bank examiners that there's a problem at the bank. So having to go to the Discount Window is not something a bank wants to broadcast.
        By law, the Federal Reserve must supply reserves to banks within the federally chartered banking system, or declare the overextended bank insolvent.
        A 'check and balance' on a bank loaning out as "as much as they like" is meeting its reserves requirement.

        About gold. When you have a gold standard, you're on a fixed exchange rate: X amount of currency for each ounce of gold. That's when fractional reserve banking makes sense because the bank only wants to loan out X amount of money based on the amount of gold in the kitty. It's up to the banker to make intelligent and safe decisions about who he loans to by doing his due diligence.

        On a gold standard, he who owns the gold, owns the country. When we got rid of the gold standard, goldminers and gold owners stopped owning this country, including Mr. Rothschild. We fucked him up the ass. Our money is based on the 'full faith and credit of the US federal government' and we issue our own currency. To boot, we are the reserve currency worldwide.

        Posted by: MRW | Jul 18, 2015 7:36:21 PM | 88

        The thread didn't take my formatting in @88. Here is the first half presented in a clearer format:
        ----------------------------------------------

        In response to Tom's @61

        • Loans create deposits. Yes, 'out of thin air'. Bankers can say 'Yay' or 'Nay' based on the cut of your jib, or the color of your skin, although they are not allowed to.
        • Banks don't print money. They issue credit, i.e. 'credit money'. They mark up the customer's bank account with computer keystrokes in the amount of the loan. Banks issue credit money based on two things: (1) customer creditworthiness, (2) customer income. They also require collateral.
        • Banks have to maintain reserves in their banks accounts at the Federal Reserve on all the loans they make.It is a percentage of the loan, and banks cannot loan out this money. If the bank doesn't have enough reserves in their Fed account, they have to borrow from other banks at the Fed Funds Rate, or overnight interest rate, set by the Fed. (The Fed uses this overnight interest rate to promote or demote bank lending in the economy, among other things.)
        • If the bank has been making bad loans or is overextended-this goes to your Point 1 about banks being free to issue as much credit money as they like-and other banks know that, the other banks might not loan it any reserves.
        • In that case, the solvency-suspect bank has to slink to the Fed's Discount Window where they can borrow the required reserves, but the interest rate is punitive, and it usually alerts bank examiners that there's a problem at the bank. So having to go to the Discount Window is not something a bank wants to broadcast.
        • By law, the Federal Reserve must supply reserves to banks within the federally chartered banking system, or declare the overextended bank insolvent.
        • A 'check and balance' on a bank loaning out as "as much as they like" is meeting its reserves requirement.

        Posted by: MRW | Jul 18, 2015 7:41:19 PM | 89

        Some reporters are finally beginning to understand what I have been yammering on here over the past 18 months:

        Why America Is Not The Next Greece
        The key difference is that the United States has its own central bank -- the most powerful one in the world.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-america-is-not-the-next-greece_55a814c5e4b04740a3df6b11?

        Posted by: MRW | Jul 18, 2015 7:45:47 PM | 90

        [Jul 18, 2015] Disaster In Europe

        Paul Krugman:

        Disaster In Europe: ...all the wise heads saying that Grexit is impossible, that it would lead to a complete implosion, don't know what they are talking about. When I say that, I don't mean that they're necessarily wrong - I believe they are, but anyone who is confident about anything here is deluding himself. What I mean instead is that nobody has any experience with what we're looking at. It's striking that the conventional wisdom here completely misreads the closest parallel, Argentina 2002. The usual narrative is completely wrong: de-dollarization did *not* cause economic collapse, but rather followed it, and recovery began quite soon.

        There are only terrible alternatives at this point, thanks to the fecklessness of the Greek government and, far more important, the utterly irresponsible campaign of financial intimidation waged by Germany and its allies. And I guess I have to say it: unless Merkel miraculously finds a way to offer a much less destructive plan than anything we're hearing, Grexit, terrifying as it is, would be better.

        [Jul 18, 2015] Greece bailout revives image of the 'cruel German'

        Jul 18, 2015 | The Washington Post

        A divided Germany rose from the ashes of the Nazi defeat in World War II, weathering the Cold War to transform into one of the good guys. Modern Germany quickly molded itself into the standard-bearer of global pacifism, a hotbed of youth culture and the tree-hugging Lorax of nations in the fight against climate change.

        But, just like that, the image of the "cruel German" is back.

        Germany - more specifically, its chancellor, Angela Merkel - has faced years of derision for driving a hard bargain with financially broken Greece, which has received billions in bailouts since 2010. But for both Germany and Merkel, the concessions extracted this week from Athens appear to have struck a global nerve. By insisting on years more of tough cuts and making other demands that critics have billed as humiliating, Berlin is wiping out decades of hard-won goodwill.

        In the aftermath of the deal with Greece, the hashtag #Boycottgermany - calling on users not to buy German products - has started trending on Twitter. Evoking Hannibal Lecter, the cannibal from "The Silence of the Lambs," some are sharing caricatures depicting Merkel as an E.U.-eating "Angela Lecter." A cartoon portraying Wolfgang Schäuble - Merkel's even-harder-line finance minister - as a knife-wielding killer from the Islamic State militant group has gone viral.

        Germany was one of more than a dozen nations that insisted on a tough deal with Greece. But Britain's Daily Mail singled out Germany, saying Greece had surrendered to austerity "with a German gun at his head."

        In the United States, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman this week noted the hate mail he had received from Germany for repeatedly criticizing its tough line on fiscal reforms. The Germans, he wrote, had suggested that as a Jew, he should know "the dangers of demonizing a people." To that, Krugman responded with sarcasm: "Because criticizing a nation's economic ideology is just like declaring its people subhuman."

        In Greece, those actively supporting the austerity deal are being heckled by their countrymen as "Nazi collaborators." Another image making the rounds on social media shows a doctored version of the European Union flag, its circle of gold stars against a blue background reshaped into a swastika.

        French daily Le Figaro declared that "conditions were imposed on a small member state that would have previously required arms." In a commentary that sneered at Merkel's "half smile" after the deal was reached, Britain's Guardian newspaper argued that rather than being cruel to be kind, the terms of the bailout were simply "cruel to be cruel."

        In its online edition, even Germany's own Der Spiegel magazine decried the Berlin-led demands as "the catalogue of cruelties."

        In a country that can be highly sensitive about its brutal past, some Germans are beside themselves. On Friday, the German parliament is set to vote on whether to green-light rescue talks under the onerous new terms. It is expected to vote yes. In any case, some argue, the damage to Germany's image has been done.

        "Merkel, Schäuble and [Vice Chancellor Sigmar] Gabriel in two and a half days burned the trust that had been built over 25 years," Reinhard Bütikofer, a German politician from the progressive Green Party, declared during an emotional outburst on local television. "The heartless, dictatorial and ugly Germany again has a face, and that is Schäuble."

        He finished by saying, "I am upset, as you can see, very upset."

        ... ... ...


        [Jul 18, 2015] Billmon The Eurosystem's (Monetary) Control of Europe's Politics

        "...The "Eurosystem", the network of national central banks governed by the European Central Bank, gives central bankers unprecedented ability to squeeze and manipulate national governments in a coordinated way. It is as if every government in the Eurozone ALREADY has a colonial entity watching it like the Troika's agents are supposed to watch Syriza in Athens. And, since the ECB Governing Council (like other EU institutions) tries to operate by a non-transparent "consensus" (i.e. the votes are not revealed), the degree to which national central bank heads are representing the ECB in their countries, rather than the other way around, is often not clear."
        "...IMO these 'lessons' miss the biggest one for the left: the loss of independent media. What good is protesting neolib control via banks if no one is listening?
        Governments easily manipulate corporate controlled media via access journalism. Thus we get factual truths intermixed with propaganda spin that is relentlessly pro-business, pro-establishment.
        Greece is a case in point. As described in Greek Government Insider Lifts the Lid on Five Months of 'Humiliation' and 'Blackmail', the Troika was gradually increasing pressure on Greece to do what the Troika demanded. They withheld billions of euro to Greece and cut off liquidity to the Greek government. Then they waited as the financial pressure on Greece grew. But along with those measures was a caustic media that painted Syriza as incompetent, then undemocratic (because most greeks wanted to remain in the euro), then irresponsible (for calling a referendum), etc."
        "... Following, a link to a German documentary about the various mechanisms of the EU [Troika, Eurogroup, European Commission, Council, etc] which are being used as devastating tools to beat down and extract wealth, vampire style, from Greece [and Cyprus], in order to revive comatose banks and line the pockets of investors, through privatization of public property.
        This documentary does a good job of demonstrating just how the power of technocratic branches of the EU is being rolled out to pillage Greek, Portuguese, Cyprus economies, plunging the respective populations into ever greater misery.
        "...None of this is about 'economics' - that chimerical, dismal 'science' - all of it is about politics, and power politics, and imperial politics."
        The Trail of the Troika [1:29:22]
        Jul 18, 2015 | Moon of Alabama

        Billmon: The Eurosystem's (Monetary) Control of Europe's Politics

        Note: This post was composed from a Twitteressay by Billmon.

        J.W. Mason lists some Lessons from the Greek Crisis:

        Before the crisis no one even knew that national central banks still existed - I certainly didn't. But now it's clear that the creditors' unchallenged control of this commanding high ground was decisive to the outcome in Greece. Next time an elected government challenges the EU authorities, their first order of business must be getting control or cooperation of their national central bank.

        The quote says "control or cooperation," but I can guarantee the latter is never going to happen.

        It is nearly impossible to exaggerate the degree to which the campaign for central bank "independence" has made them the enemies within for any left governments.

        The central bankers waged a 50-60 year political war to wrest back the monetary flexibility that the break down of Bretton Woods gave to national governments. Having won that war across most of the developed world in the 70s and 80s, they extended the battlefield to the emerging markets in '90s and '00s.

        The autonomy of central banks (meaning the political allegiance to Wall Street/London City/Frankfurt etc.) was maybe the biggest neoliberal victory of all. If rightwing political victories (Reagan, Thatcher et. al.) were the beachheads of the Great Counterattack on social democracy then "independent" central banks became the citadels of the occupation forces: Neoliberalism's "Republican Guard."

        Ironically, the ECB was originally conceived - or at least was sold to the European left - as a way for governments to regain monetary flexibility at a higher level. As a way to a) escape US dollar hegemony and to b) outflank the Bundesbank by formalizing the joint political control of European monetary policy. I do not know if the hack establishment Social Democrats who sold that vision ever believed it, but if so, more fool them. Because what the European Monetary Union became, obvious now, was a way to turn the vision on its head: formalize joint MONETARY control of Europe's politics.

        The "Eurosystem", the network of national central banks governed by the European Central Bank, gives central bankers unprecedented ability to squeeze and manipulate national governments in a coordinated way. It is as if every government in the Eurozone ALREADY has a colonial entity watching it like the Troika's agents are supposed to watch Syriza in Athens. And, since the ECB Governing Council (like other EU institutions) tries to operate by a non-transparent "consensus" (i.e. the votes are not revealed), the degree to which national central bank heads are representing the ECB in their countries, rather than the other way around, is often not clear.

        As long as the cozy comprador system tied peripheral governments to the core (i.e. Berlin), the role of the ECB and the Eurosystem could be obscured. Peripheral governments appointed "made guys" (i.e. banksters and/or their technicians) to national central bank boards and pretended to govern. Core politicians and their local comprador politicians let the Eurosystem technicians in Frankfurt tell them what "structural reforms" they should push to make the EMU "work."

        But the moment an outsider government like Syriza came to power, the role of the Eurosystem and the national central banks in it could no longer be hidden. The fact that the Greek National Bank was an instrument of the ECB in Frankfurt, not of the Greek government in Athens, became obvious to everybody. The ECB's role as the muscle behind the Eurogroup's (Berlin's) diktats put the Greek National Bank in the position of helping to choke its own banks and terrorize its own citizens. And under the rules of EMU the Greek government was completely powerless to do anything about it. A defining moment.

        The inescapable conclusion is that the allegedly "independent" Eurosystem now operates not as a network of central banks but as a parallel government.

        The role of the Eurosystem within the half-hidden political order of the eurozone really is comparable to the Soviet or Chinese Communist Party. Like the Communist Party, the Eurosystem is now the "leading organ" of the neoliberal order, operating at all levels of the EU structure and providing "guidance" to elected political structures which are not formally under its legal control, but in reality are dominated by it. And behind the administrative apparatus of the party (Eurosystem) is the Central Committee (Eurogroup) and the Politburo (the key creditor government officials). And behind THEM is the real locus of the party's centralized power: the General Secretary (Germany/Merkel).

        So J.W. Mason is quite right: it is impossible for any left government to attack the dictatorship of finance unless it controls its national central bank. But while control of the national central bank is necessary, it is hardly sufficient. As long as the EMU exit is off the table, verboten, so to speak, control of the national central banks only eliminates the "near enemy."

        Ultimately it comes down to political will, which in parliamentary democracies, comes down to public support. As long as the majority (of all voters or of propertied influentials, depending on the system) is more loyal to the Euro than to national sovereignty an effective challenge to the dictatorship of finance is impossible - no matter how many national central banks the left controls.

        Posted by b at 06:57 AM | Comments (90)
        Selected Skeptical Comments
        nmb | Jul 16, 2015 7:20:43 AM | 1

        Greece capitulates with the euro-dictatorship ... until the next battle

        jfl | Jul 16, 2015 7:33:14 AM | 2

        You know this 'independent' central bank as tool of the neolibraconian consensus is the most salient point drummed home about Russia : the central bank as 5th column.

        And the Russian central bank preceded the ECB, didn't it? When the boys from Harvard went to Russia to 'straighten' things out they conducted an experiment ... and discovered it worked just great : rinse and repeat. Russia was the archetype of the gelded European nation to come.

        So the next time says Russia is not a part of Europe I'll say ... not only of Europe, but the first European nation subverted by the gnomes of neolibraconia.

        The Europeans who still have a pulse ought to note now just who their real enemy is : hint, the one that's occupying Europe. And who is their fellow European victim. And ban together to defeat their common enemy ... well run him out of town on a rail, at any rate.

        Certainly rearrange their banking arrangements.

        Timon | Jul 16, 2015 8:48:21 AM | 5

        One of the key reasons that Wall St/City/Frankfurt want universal "austerity" is not just that they want people to be frightened, impoverished and insecure; but in particular, because it has the desirable effect of suppressing the political participation of people who must continuously walk the edge, just to get by - and by now this is about half the population -and who might otherwise participate in the political process with decisive effect.

        Rise like lions after slumber
        In unfathomable number
        Shake your chains to earth like dew
        That in sleep have fallen on you
        Ye are many, they are few.

        H.L. Mencken is also very good on this subject - the need of the self-appointed elite to distract and render impotent the average person, and how greatly the big shots hate and fear the "mob".

        why would a small country like Greece need to be the second biggest spender in nato after the USA. ...

        mcohen | Jul 16, 2015 8:57:04 AM | 6

        According to an editorial published by the Greek conservative newspaper Kathimerini, after the removal of the right-wing military junta in 1974, Greek governments wanted to bring disenfranchised left-leaning portions of the population into the economic mainstream[28] and so ran large deficits to finance enormous military expenditure, public sector jobs, pensions and other social benefits.

        Greece is, as a percentage of GDP, the second-biggest defense spender[29] in NATO, the highest being the United States, according to NATO statistics.

        The US is the major supplier of Greek arms, with the Americans supplying 42 per cent of its arms, Germany supplying 22.7 per cent, and France 12.5 per cent of Greece's arms purchases.[30]

        Everybody and I mean everybody is king fu fighting. And those bankers are as fast as lightning

        ab initio | Jul 16, 2015 10:32:40 AM | 12

        It should be obvious with how the ECB structure was formed that any country that uses the euro as its currency is dependent on the ECB for liquidity if there is deposit flight from the banks in that country.

        There is only two ways for a country to retain full sovereignty. One have a national currency with a national monetary authority that controls it and second a government that if it runs a deficit has the ability to borrow in private markets and maintains a currency board (e.g: Ecuador which uses the US dollar).

        Ecuador is a good example where its government debt became untenable. It defaulted on the debt and so was for all intents shut out from private debt markets, so the government could not run a deficit. It continued to use the US dollar as its currency.

        Greece had to make a choice. Continue in the eurosystem and accept the hegemony of the eurogroup or exit. It's parliament accepted the former. One can blame Schauble and Merkel all you want but the bottom line is that the Greek government and parliament acquiesced to its loss of sovereignty. The Greek people have the power to change it if they want. They just have to decide to exit the eurosystem and elect a government that does that.

        In France, Marine Le Pen is clear. She will take France out of the eurosystem if elected. Of course we'll have to see if she honors her campaign promise but at least she is categorical about it. Syriza got elected promising they'll be able to get a better deal compared to the center-right party before them. In this case the Left in Greece delivered an even worse result for the average Greek citizen.

        Jackrabbit | Jul 16, 2015 12:52:58 PM | 18

        IMO these 'lessons' miss the biggest one for the left: the loss of independent media. What good is protesting neolib control via banks if no one is listening?

        Governments easily manipulate corporate controlled media via access journalism. Thus we get factual truths intermixed with propaganda spin that is relentlessly pro-business, pro-establishment.

        Greece is a case in point. As described in Greek Government Insider Lifts the Lid on Five Months of 'Humiliation' and 'Blackmail', the Troika was gradually increasing pressure on Greece to do what the Troika demanded. They withheld billions of euro to Greece and cut off liquidity to the Greek government. Then they waited as the financial pressure on Greece grew. But along with those measures was a caustic media that painted Syriza as incompetent, then undemocratic (because most greeks wanted to remain in the euro), then irresponsible (for calling a referendum), etc.

        Too often we give the media a pass when it has been well documented that business and government tries to control MSM (and increasingly other media as well) via access journalism, advertising revenue (a few industries dominate) writing stories that cite in-the-tank 'experts' from establishment-friendly think-tanks and controlled opposition.

        Even within Greece, Syriza had trouble getting their message out because oligarchs own virtually all of the media! And many blogs also fell for the spin - even those that have been critical of the media in the past like Yves Smith at nakedcapitalism.com - despite the fact that the delay in Greece putting forth a proposal before the April 30th deadline could be logically attributed to the 2-step process that the Troika had forced (describing how they would service the debt would severely undermine Greece's position in future debt restructuring talks).

        A Left that is not in touch with the people - and whose message is undermined by establishment-friendly media - is a disaster far greater than the loss of control of the financial system. The Left's greatest strength should be its connection with the people that it fights for. Yet, instead the Left has allowed itself to be marginalized by a corporate media that has strengthened the centrist 'faux Left' at the expense of the progressive Left. So much so that many people today identify THE LEFT with the identity politics that forms 'the base' for the fauxLeft. In short, people of the 'Left' are viewed as selfishly wanting something for themselves at the expense of others. (It should come as no surprise that reporting about Greece often fell in line with this line of thinking.)

        For activists that are outside the centrist political establishment - anti-war, climate change, the environment (fracking, nuclear energy, etc.), inequality, constitutional and civil rights, etc. - it is very difficult to reach a wide audience. All 'change' is channeled into the pro-business, pro-establishment centrist political system. Anyone who is not a centrist is suspect.

        Greece's coherent arguments quickly fell off media radar as sniping about their incompetence and their oh-so-strange Finance Minister took center stage. This put even more pressure on the Greeks and deterred potential allies. And the spinning continues. The understanding of most people still does not go much beyond this: the Greeks don't want to pay their bills and Syriza are incompetent radicals that made the problems worse and can't be trusted. In the face of this onslaught by the Troika and Troika-friendly media, Syriza's resistance is all but ignored in favor of trumpeting Greece's defeat (a warning to others?).

        =

        Is there any hope? Maybe.

        1) Syriza formed a government with nationalists (ANEL). Why the Left is depicted as unpatriotic is beyond me, but the left may be getting its patriotic mojo back as WAR and trade deals are increasingly understood as benefiting an international elite. I could see similar political alliances forming in other countries. (In the US, I think the establishment had feared a potential Tea Party - Occupy alliance.)

        2) Media reform (or the threat of it). The Greek government has begun investigations into media bias during the referendum (there was very little coverage of government rallies and government positions, etc.). If the Syriza-led government falls, any media reforms are probably less likely.

        Ron Paul's "audit the Fed" movement got some traction which caused the Fed to take notice. "Truth in media" efforts should probably be re-doubled.

        3) Education. We need to retain humanities education. Higher education is turning into vocational training. For example, IMO it's difficult to appreciate the myriad issues and import of the neolib consumer-oriented approach to government vs. the democratic citizen-oriented approach, without a humanities education.

        Also, people don't usually react until it is too late - partly because few have enough learning to understand the impact that new policies will have. They try to make up for their lack of understanding by relying on trusted representatives like Obama. TTIP is a case in point. Look for demonstrations about Obamatrade in a few years when it is too late.

        dana | Jul 16, 2015 1:25:52 PM | 19

        Following, a link to a German documentary about the various mechanisms of the EU [Troika, Eurogroup, European Commission, Council, etc] which are being used as devastating tools to beat down and extract wealth, vampire style, from Greece [and Cyprus], in order to revive comatose banks and line the pockets of investors, through privatization of public property.

        This documentary does a good job of demonstrating just how the power of technocratic branches of the EU is being rolled out to pillage Greek, Portuguese, Cyprus economies, plunging the respective populations into ever greater misery.

        The Trail of the Troika [1:29:22]

        psychohistorian | Jul 16, 2015 1:34:37 PM | 20

        @ 15

        james, If you read the Shock Doctrine by Naomi Kline you can follow the same financial rape of South American countries in the 70's that the financial mafia are doing now to the middle east.

        The world needs to have a discussion about the world of private finance that exists now and what could be if all finance were sovereign.

        Thrasyboulos | Jul 16, 2015 2:26:43 PM | 22

        The role of the European Central Bank and their buttler, Stournaras, at the Greek Central Bank in this fiasco needs this kind of discussion, and more, since it lies at the heart of German blackmail and coup attempt of the Greek government. Thank you b for this post.

        @5

        One reason that there have been inordinate arms purchase by Greece is that the Greek elite -- media, oligarchy, politicians (especially the latter) are up to their armpits in corruption, and one of the vehicles for corruption is arms deals.

        The all powerful "socialist" minister of defence under Papandreou and minister of development under Simitis is now in jail, almost prime minister, now serving 20 years in the hoosgow, for being bribed by German arms dealers (Siemens, among others). It is widely believed that the previous governments went after this easy and obvious target to cut off investigations of others, a lot of others.

        The nationalist minister of defence under the Tsipras government, Panos Kammenos is sending document after document to prosecutors involving a bewildering array of bribery, thievery, fraud, and so on in the Greek armed forces. Submarines that leak, helicopters that can't fly, because of onerous service after purchase contracts. The list is huge.

        One reason why both German and Greek corruptos hate him so much, and tried to bring down the Tsipras government. It remains to be seen if he keeps his post, after Tsipras's deal with the Germans.

        The other, of course, is the Turkey threat, also used to justify military procurement.

        Thrasyboulos | Jul 16, 2015 3:31:55 PM | 24

        Quote from Jacobin from an article titled The End of Europe.

        http://tinyurl.com/nt2g8g3

        The discussions with Greece are thus a formal process designed to politically defeat Greece's left forces, burying any prospects of meaningful political change across the continent. This is the only explanation for the creditors' inflexibility despite Tsipras crossing all Syriza's red lines in terms of pensions reforms, tax policy, privatizations, and market liberalization. This punitive stance was made crystal clear by late June, when the ECB actively incited a bank run, warning of an "uncontrollable crisis," and abruptly capped its emergency loans to the banking sector, triggering bank holidays and capital controls.

        Also in the site, an informative behind the scenes interview with Left Platform Syriza MP, Stathis Kouvelakis.

        Jackrabbit | Jul 16, 2015 3:34:47 PM | 25

        Here's another lesson: Resistance works.

        The Troika was willing to 'punch' Syriza's ticket ("Welcome to the Club"!) with minor concessions. But Tspiras/Varoufakis did not simply accept what the Troika demanded.

        As bad as the deal is, Greece managed to get the debt restructuring that the Troika had refused to talk about. They had even refused to put their promises of a future debt restructuring in writing.

        Many are saying that Greece should've prepared for GRexit; critizing Syriza/Tspiras as too establishment and too europhile to contemplate that path. But they have bought time to prepare for the next round. And in the next round, it may be that a GERexit is on the table as well.

        Euro QE is not a magic elixir; just more extend and pretend. It'll exacerbate core vs. periphery problems as much as it exacerbates inequality (as it has in the USA). And political and fiscal integration is hard to do when people feel that they are not treated fairly.

        tom | Jul 16, 2015 3:45:06 PM | 26

        This $50 billion Greek asset theft fund that was willingly handed over by Syriza traitors, as well as other politicians responsible, Is exactly the collateral needed for a independent Greek central bank to create, let's say for eg, a fractional reserve base of 10% to create $500 billion.

        With that now $500 billion, the Greek government could pay off all the debt, including the criminally induced ones, and it's based on those $50 billion worth of assets.
        And That's only if you agree to the idea of paying off all your criminally in deuced debts.

        An independent and sovereignly principled government or parliament would do exactly that.
        And there's more fractional reserves using National assets that can be used to grow the economy and serve the people.

        Syriza knows this, but since they are unprincipled, Ideologically weak, cowardly towards their aggressors and more interested in power than public service, means you're never get that from these freaks.
        Obvious from day one. Judge them on their actions, not on their whingeing on how they've been mistreated and violated.

        How the fuck is it accepted, that private banks can print as much national currencies as they like, but the owners of the those national currencies - the people and the government - cannot do with fractional reserves and money printing, like what the private banks do.

        juliania | Jul 16, 2015 4:45:18 PM | 31

        jackrabbit@17, I would like to point out that the Greek populace ignored the media when they voted in the referendum, so I think the importance of such propagandistic power is overblown. Once you lose faith in that source of information, it's gone; it doesn't come back. Russia under the Soviets is a case in point, and currently also there is an erosion in US confidence that what they see and hear is trustworthy. What happened after the referendum confused the public, and that was a huge mistake.

        Back a ways, in support of Tsipras, I wanted him to do as Putin has done and shore up that public confidence because then you can make decisions in the moment and the support will grow. Immense popularity is a powerful weapon. Varoufakis was correct in seeing that as an important pivotal moment, when the people supported the 'no' vote that Tsipras had also supported. The course he chose confused his supporters. Paramount should have been the dictum that the people could not bear further austerity and that was that - the austerity they would face at that point would be the prideful kind that can see a brave future beyond.

        Tsipras had embraced the New Deal outlook, but he forgot Roosevelt's famous saying, 'You have nothing to fear but fear itself.' Varoufakis welcomed, FDR style, the banksters' hatred. It's too bad Tsipras could not do the same. Long lines of grateful poor people stood by the tracks as FDR's funeral train passed. Will that happen for Tsipras? There's a Greek saying that one should count no man happy until after his death. Roosevelt, loved by his people and by history, was a happy man. I hope there's time for Tsipras to become one as well.

        jfl | Jul 16, 2015 7:50:55 PM | 33

        PPS/23: Review of Current Trends in U.S. Foreign Policy, 1948 CE

        Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.

        For these reasons, we must observe great restraint in our attitude toward the Far Eastern areas. The peoples of Asia and of the Pacific area are going to go ahead, whatever we do, with the development of their political forms and mutual interrelationships in their own way. This process cannot be a liberal or peaceful one. The greatest of the Asiatic peoples-the Chinese and the Indians-have not yet even made a beginning at the solution of the basic demographic problem involved in the relationship between their food supply and their birth rate. Until they find some solution to this problem, further hunger, distress, and violence are inevitable. All of the Asiatic peoples are faced with the necessity for evolving new forms of life to conform to the impact of modern technology. This process of adaptation will also be long and violent. It is not only possible, but probable, that in the course of this process many peoples will fall, for varying periods, under the influence of Moscow, whose ideology has a greater lure for such peoples, and probably greater reality, than anything we could oppose to it. All this, too, is probably unavoidable; and we could not hope to combat it without the diversion of a far greater portion of our national effort than our people would ever willingly concede to such a purpose.

        Between Berlin and a Hard Place: Greece and the German Strategy to Dominate Europe, 2012 CE

        As Chancellor Merkel and other German leaders would frequently remind the rest of Europe and the world, with 7% of the world population, 25% of global GDP and 50% of world social spending, Europe's economic system was unsustainable and uncompetitive in a globalized economy. Germany's vision for Europe was aimed at introducing "rules to force Europe's economies to become more competitive." But competitiveness was defined by Germany, and thus, "the rest of Europe needs to become more like Germany."
        I nearly choked when I read Timothy Geithner quoted at the beginning of dana's link ... but it makes perfect sense. None of this is about 'economics' - that chimerical, dismal 'science' - all of it is about politics, and power politics, and imperial politics.

        The Germans - like everyone else - can see the US has had its run and is headed for its fall. But they also know that Germany by itself is not of a size to pick up where the US leaves off, when the US leaves off. So Germany needs to take over Europe.

        I think I've heard this before.


        Between 2008 and 2013, the Greek government cut 40% of its budget, healthcare costs soared, tens of thousands of doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers were fired, drug costs rose, as did drug use with HIV infections doubling and a malaria outbreak was reported for the first time since the 1970s, while suicide rates increased by 60%. ... Unemployment has grown to 26% (and over 50% for youth), wages dropped by 33%, pensions were cut by 45%, and 40% of retired Greeks now live below the poverty line.

        Cleanliness is next to Godliness. The Germans are cleaning up Greece, and Europe.

        The IMF's latest move - fake debt reduction for Greece, the kind of stuff that flows out of Geither's pie-hole in dana's link above - seems to be overt recognition of this fact, bringing it into play.

        So they new dynamic will be the US on one side and Russia on the other, containing Germany's New Europe?

        Makes sense, really. (None of this makes any sense ... only to the zero-summers playing games with our world). China surely has its eyes on all that Lebensraum in eastern Russia. The US and Russia can team up to defeat the NAZIs who have 'stolen' the Ukrainian revolution (to contain both Europe and China). (And then the US can double-cross Russia when the time is ripe).

        Hey, looks like it's 'working' with our new, soon to be 'best friends' in Iran.

        Arghhhh. Makes me want to stop reading the news, stop watching the movie. Or do something to help change it.

        jfl | Jul 16, 2015 10:29:16 PM | 34

        More on the reaction to Germany's power plays, from Fort Russ ...

        "Germany's policies pose a danger to Europe for the first time since 1945"--A View From Poland

        ... and the US' possible doubly convoluted play as hypothesized by Joaquin Flores last September ...

        Pravy Sektor Coup as ISIS Scenario: NATO to Feign a 'Unilateral' Alliance With Russia

        ... just substitute the US for NATO. Germany has certainly knocked the scales from some eyes. I can't imagine Russia will be drawn in.

        Greed and geopolitics do make strange bedfellows though. Nations don't have friends they have interests. And it's hard to see any of these 'nation' that have identified its citizens' interests with its own. Of the big ones ... maybe Russia under Putin? All he has is the support of the Russian people.

        guest77 | Jul 17, 2015 12:48:32 AM | 36

        Excellent thread.

        Syriza has shown, I suppose, that gaining access to power isn't enough. The party has to be involved with its members and those they hope to make members. Helping people get access to food, medicine, security, and anything else the state is refusing to help with. The left cannot just win elections, it must be threatening to those in power. It must be prepared to take control of those things the people demand they control (and it must be willing to relax when the people demand this). People must look to the organization in Latin America, that is all I can say. There, under the harshest repression, democracy is thriving.

        The story of Greece I suppose is a lesson for the rest of the left parties though, who of them has a chance outside of Podemos - and what of Podemos anyway. They don't seem particularly able sadly.

        The world- but especially the west - in the last 30 years, has changed so fundamentally that democracy is nowhere to be found. Nor democratic forms of social organization are even gone for the most part. And now they are turning the screws on whatever remains. Even the middle classes live under turn-key totalitarianism, as it was said by someone, (as opposed to before, where it was just the lower classes) and everyone knows this. And it is proved more and more with each passing event it seems. The people are thoroughly boxed in and controlled, but unlike juliania I think the media has so much to do with it. The massive media conglomeration is a keystone of the changes over the last 30 years, as well as the emergence of the internet - brought to a great many people by those media conglomerates.

        The oligarchs of the west are determined to return to their royal status and complete political power they had before WW1. This is really a hopeless feeling attached to this, their seemingly complete victory over democracy. And I imagine that is much of the point...

        guest77 | Jul 17, 2015 12:52:57 AM | 37

        I haven't read this all, but looks very applicable to our times...

        The network of global corporate control - https://archive.org/details/TheNetworkOfGlobalControl

        Stefania Vitali, James B. Glattfelder, and Stefano Battiston

        Abstract
        The structure of the control network of transnational corporations affects global market competition and financial stability. So far, only small national samples were studied and there was no appropriate methodology to assess control globally. We present the first investigation of the architecture of the international ownership network, along with the computation of the control held by each global player. We find that transnational corporations form a giant bow-tie structure and that a large portion of control flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions.

        This core can be seen as an economic "super-entity" that raises new important issues both for researchers and policy makers.

        Jackrabbit | Jul 17, 2015 1:33:03 AM | 38

        juliania @30

        Yes, Tsipras seems to have been ambivalent. The referendum was a bold move that actually worked in his favor but then turned cautious. Maybe he worried that if he threatened GRexit Schauble and the Troika would call his bluff?

        In an earlier thread, I likened Tsipras to Chamberlain, who had the best intentions but is remembered as an appeaser. This may seem like a dramatic comparison but Michael Hudson has made the point that economics is now war by other means.

        Chamberlain satisfied the public's overwhelming desire for peace just as Tspiras satisfied his public's desire to stay in the Euro. Each one had misgivings about the deal that they signed. Chamberlain began to rearm - especially building up British air power. Tsipras may also prepare for a future confrontation with the Troika.

        MRW | Jul 17, 2015 2:05:22 AM | 40

        The role of the Eurosystem within the half-hidden political order of the eurozone really is comparable to the Soviet or Chinese Communist Party.


        No, it's not. Billmon doesn't understand the structure. He's not seeing it clearly, and is not getting to the root of the problem.

        The individual EU countries that use the Euro cannot create their own currency. They GAVE UP their sovereign currency for a foreign one, the euro, when they agreed to make themselves subservient to the Maastricht Treaty.

        The Maastricht Treaty did/does not allow for a 'federal government of Europe'. It ONLY concerned itself with a monetary union, and it set down strict rules for entry (for instance, a nation's deficits could be no more than 3%--an insanity). It allowed for the creation of a central bank, the European Central Bank (ECB), whose operating rules were dictated by the Maastricht Treaty (and subsequent revisions).

        But crucial to understand is this: a central bank CAN ONLY SET MONETARY POLICY. You need a 'federal government' to SET FISCAL POLICY. The EU doesn't have that. Sure, it has the EU parliament, and it has a bunch of unelected officials running the ECB. But it has no overlord, no elected oversight, that can rule in conditions like Greece is going through to ease sectoral pain, and stop the bleeding of ordinary citizens. That requires fiscal policy. The only way that fiscal policy can be changed in the EU is by a change to the treaties. Or the blessing of Angela Merkel, because Germany has captured the ECB.

        Let me try to put this in perspective. The US has a federal government AND a central bank. Despite what all the Federal Reserve haters and the 'get rid of the IRS' people claim (inaccurately), the US central bank is a creature of Congress and must answer, by law, to the federal government twice a year. It is the US Treasury's banker, and must, again by law, return all profits each year to the US Treasury.

        The US federal government creates fiscal policy. This is the direction for the country that the central must follow and support trhough monetary polices. Fiscal policy is Congress' job although they haven't done it properly for 30 years. For example, if one of the 50 states is in trouble-let's be hyperbolic: devastating earthquake, massive drought, asteroid hits--Congress can authorize ("appropriate") funds--creating them 'out of thin air'-to help the state. With no debt to children or grandchildren.

        Why? Because the US federal government issues the currency, the 50 states only use them. The 50 states cannot create their own currency, just like the countries that use the euro. But the 50 states have the protection of the US federal government.

        The formerly sovereign countries in the EU that use the Euro are like the 50 US states now. They cannot create their own currency, which would give them the policy space to pay their own citizens and denominate all the debts incurred in their own currency. They are dependent on the ECB, a goddam central bank that has no fiscal authority, to help them. EVEN THOUGH, in Europe, the ECB issues the Euro 'out of thin air'. The ECB is a collection of central banks. And right now Germany's central bank is dominant because it has climbed to the top-Germany was deeply in debt before the euro took over-on the backs of the other nations.

        You will not begin to understand what is going on until you realize that the euro was designed by the famous French economist, François Perroux, in 1942 in anticipation of Hitler winning WWII, which was expected then. The plan was that they (the Nazi Pétain government wanted to be aligned with the German hegemon) would introduce a pan-Eurpoean currency and force adoption by the southern and eastern European countries to control and impoverish them. Mitterand, aligned with the Nazi/fascist Cagoulard in the late 1930 and 40s, was a Pétain enthusiast; this only came out in 1990. It was Mitterand who pushed through the euro, if you will check history. Perroux's monetary replacement was the blueprint for the Maastricht Treaty and the subsequent treaties.

        MRW | Jul 17, 2015 2:46:03 AM | 42

        @tom | Jul 16, 2015 3:45:06 PM | 25

        How the fuck is it accepted, that private banks can print as much national currencies as they like, but the owners of the those national currencies - the people and the government - cannot do with fractional reserves and money printing, like what the private banks do.

        1. Private banks cannot "print as much national currencies as they like."

        2. Fractional reserve banking does not exist. It died 80 years ago in most modern economies. I think only Hong Kong and Bulgaria (I think) use it now. The US doesn't' use it. Neither does any single country in the EU or Europe. Fractional reserve banking can only exist in countries that have a gold standard.

        3. The only entity that prints the euro is the ECB, although the national central banks do it for the ECB under contract. BUT. BUT. BUT. These national central banks do it by keystroke. They don't control the physical printing presses. Besides, physical currency is such a small part of the currency.

        4.

        but the owners of the those national currencies - the people and the government
        any country using the euro is not using a "national" currency. They are using a foreign currency.
        james | Jul 17, 2015 3:06:57 AM | 43

        @19/20 psychohistorian.. i like where you are coming from, but people are slow to change and always looking for leadership.. many think that because someone is rich or has a type of power that comes with money, that they will be good enough to lead.. that is a mixed bag to me personally.. there are just as many losers with money as not..

        @28 Laguerre.. thanks.. you've given a specific example to my more generalized observations already posted.. indeed - visa and mastercard are a part of the same ponzi scheme run by the same kleptomaniacs under the guise of whatever they want to pass themselves off as.. playing with the bank of international settlements is only a step away..

        @35 guest77 quote.. "The world- but especially the west - in the last 30 years, has changed so fundamentally that democracy is nowhere to be found." i think that is very true..

        @39 mrw.. good post, but you are not addressing the issue directly either.. making a comparison to what was a country like greece to one of the states in the usa, cheapens the idea of what a country is.. the euro has done this too.. doesn't mean we have to go along with it, but in terms of drawing a parallel, it isn't a bad one to make. and of course the big difference here is now that greece has given up it's control of monetary policy, as have all the other countries gobbled up in this insane idea of an european community - greece is an opportunity for everyone within the stupid structure to see it for what it is - a complete rip off of any shred of democracy that might have remained...

        mrw - we've had these conversations before.. you appear to think the fed reserve is some sort of good two shoes neutral structure that follows a mandate and is not beholden to malevolent interests.. i see it as just the opposite.. the euro was another way to diversify the ponzi scheme by duping a lot of ignorant people into something they would have been better knowing more about.. i would be curious to hear a response from you that provides an answer as to the solution here.. mine would be greece to say fuck you to the euro currency and go back on it's own...

        psychohistorian | Jul 17, 2015 3:29:02 AM | 44

        @jackrabbit.....you said that us "lower class" folk rely on the "upper class" folk to keep the world running

        In the 66 years of my life I have seen untold potential waiting/begging for opportunity and I think your neck might break watching the momentary vacuum be filled getting rid of the top 50K social parasites and their attendant sociopaths. It is a myth that us poor 99% can't make it without the 1%. It is a myth that has been around for centuries and never has been true. The 1% are and have been an impediment to that advancement of humanity for quite some time. In most major ways we stopped evolving during the Enlightenment period when faith didn't become deprecated but instead became one of the tenets of the Western form of social organization, others being private property/finance, inheritance and "rule of law".

        If all that were to change by neutering inheritance and ongoing ownership of private property (yeah, neuter public policy influence of religions too)
        With Capital being returned to the global Commons, public education regains its priority and is a right for all but at the higher levels; and private education disappears. With those of faith no longer being in control of public policy, population control can be discussed, managed and alternatives like birth control researched/provided. We have answers for many of our pressing social problems, but we do not have the will to break out of the anthropological mold we are in.

        Would the 99% agree to develop and use a technology that burdened the next thousand generations of humans to manange the potentially extinction causing effluent (i.e. Fukushima)? We live according to a very sick, no longer defensible and currently committing war crimes against humanity form of social organization, who's administrators we used to prosecute at the Hague 70 years ago. American empire is now the tool of the global plutocrats and the odds of the 99% wresting control away and changing the course of our species and world look slim.......but creating textual white noise on the intertubes is cathartic.

        chris m | Jul 17, 2015 6:06:08 AM | 47

        Regarding events of past 6 months between Greece and the EU
        (and Greek membership of the euro).
        Following the recent Greek capitulation,it is clear to almost everyone now that the fuse has been lit beneath the euro.(and possibly even the entire European project.

        Eurosceptism is starting to break out (and its only just starting) throughout the entire EU.
        We can now all see politicians such as Marine Le Pen getting elected in next French Presidential Election on a purely "leave the euro now" ticket.

        PS the entire Europe project was always predicated on a "lets destroy individual National Sovereignty" premise (a sort of EUSSR).

        I never did understand why when Communism officially died around 1990
        that it seemed to make an almost simultaneous and miraculous rebirth, but then Europe is the land of Dracula
        and various other 19th century horror stories.

        Noirette | Jul 17, 2015 11:00:23 AM | 51

        Syriza has shown, I suppose, that gaining access to power isn't enough. The party has to be involved with its members and those they hope to make members. guest77 at 35.

        I agree, also pretty much with the rest of the post. What happened is that there was a power vacuum in Greece (when PASOK threw in the towel and the old structure crumbled) and the only ones willing to enter the breach were Syriza. One might also say that in Greece the political power structure does not match the real power structures in a good or efficient way. This democratic hoopla is all peachy cool when it is Swiss burghers discussin' and votin' on the color of the trams, or property tax, while being faithful to their 'radical' or 'socialist' -whatever- roots. In Greece, in its present form, it does not work. See for ex. the fantastical abyss between the OXI vote and the acceptance by the elected representatives of even harsher austerity.

        Ideally, in a hypothetical genuine, true? democratic system, after the OXI vote a unitary or even technocatic Gvmt should have been formed (ironically, Tsipras did just that in a way ..) behind the OXI vote, to collectively resist and bargain (doubt any positive result would have been forthcoming but who knows), but naturally that was not possible.

        One argument is that the 'Left' must be 'more in touch', 'must reform', must be 'more grass roots' etc. (Sounds a bit like what they say about the EU, heh? And in Greece that argument is made, plenty) - true, but imho it won't be enough. No way.

        So some other avenues have to be explored, sought, implemented.. One imperative (under the present cirucumstances) is national sovereignity, see in Greece, New Democracy being say 'for austerity', 'for the euro' and so on because they are tied up in comprador not to say Mafia circles linked to the EU, big capital, banks, instituted corrupt structures, tax evasions, etc.

        Anyway this debacle has shown that parliamentary democracy is not to be afforded to small powerless countries that have been taken for a ride. I think ppl are seeing that now, that facade is cracking.

        Overall the EU is in deep sh*t. It won't survive for very long in its present shape.

        Jackrabbit | Jul 17, 2015 11:16:30 AM | 53

        camelotkidd

        This article fails to note the 'eurosclerosis' that plagued Europe in the 70's and 80's. Uncompetitive economies with large social obligations and clientist political systems that still exist in some areas.

        The 'evil genious' moniker doesn't really fit. I doubt he is the only economist that would've offered such a solution. And he is certainly not the only guy that found European labor laws of the time to be a costly headace. I think he just got there first. And his demeanor is grandfatherly not menacing.

        And he is not unmindful of how his work can be misused. When I took his advanced economics class in the early 90's I argued against the excesses of supply-side economics while others in the class seemed to be eager to show their support of what they assumed Mundell believed in. I got an A-.

        =

        There are problems with the Euro - the disparate economies, the lack of political and fiscal union, the uneven benefits, etc. - but blaming it on the academics seems like scape-goating, and nearly as bad as blaming it on the victims. Should we blame Marx for the fall of the Soviet Union?

        tom | Jul 17, 2015 4:34:48 PM | 59

        MRW @42

        How do you reconcile the contradiction between your points 1 and 2.

        If Private banks "cannot" print as much money as they like ( point 1 ), then how can fractional reserve banking Not exist in most of the world ? ( point 2 ) . If fractional reserves do not exist then they free to print as much as they like.

        Of course whem I say they can "print as much as they like" , that is not a children's imagination interpretation where the private banks are free to print infinitelt, that's of course the private banks have been unlinked from previously acceptable amount of printing/keyboard strokes, to create money.

        And your 3rd doesn't make any sense at all. How does a gold standard have any restrictions on having a 10% fractional reserve, 1000%, or 1,000,000% of gold holdings ? Gold doesn't make decisions, regulations and enforcement are the decision-makers. Whether it's gold or fiat.

        And your point 4 is right. It is my argument to why no country should join a single currency like the euro, and nations should always have their own sovreign national currencies

        juliania | Jul 18, 2015 1:08:20 AM | 66

        Jackrabbit@38

        Sorry to be late on here. The Chamberlain comparison is an interesting one, and Tsipras' tragic flaw may be his devotion to the Eurozone - I think it is his, not really any perceived mandate, because surely he knows a good leader makes choices as events change - to go back to my example, that's what FDR did, and very risky choices they were. Some of FDR's didn't work, so he did other things. He was making it up as he went along, and I think that's very similar to what would be needed in exiting the eurozone. You would have to bring the people along with you, with the confidence and trust that something needed to happen, charting a new course. Tsipras doesn't seem to have been willing to do that, and consequently he runs the risk of being just one more in the line of leaders who have caved under pressure.

        I think it has a lot to do with lack of faith in the people themselves on the part of such leadership. Obama showed this when he didn't take public financing but already was turning to the banksters. He didn't need to do that, and he probably would have even had a bigger vote tally if he'd stayed with the people. I wonder why this new leadership seems so divorced from sympathy with those who elect them and whom they presumably serve? I don't think Tsipras is as two-faced as Obama, but he's starting to wear the same shoes. The tragedy is the Greek people so much need him to step up - the way a tennis player steps up if he's really a champion. I think there's still time but it's getting late. If he keeps on with this deal, history will take note. That's a huge price to pay.

        jfl | Jul 18, 2015 1:24:02 AM | 67

        Tsipras ... he messed up. If 'his' deal goes through Greece suffers the full catastrophe. The thing to do is to prevent that happening. Tsipras is a lame duck. It makes little difference why he messed up ... character flaw, bribery, incompetence, all the usual failings of the political class.

        The point is he has set Greece up for more lethal loans and so his 'program' must be repudiated. The only way I can imagine that happening is via the direct participation of the Greek people in their government. If there is a majority NO! on the new' program, good. Make a counter offer ... when (if, I suppose, to be inclusive) it's rejected, exit the euro - there's life at the end of the tunnel. If not ... well, they're done for, aren't they?

        Debt-slaves of the German-dominated EU : deprived of their remaining assets and their own government.

        fairleft | Jul 18, 2015 2:58:03 AM | 68

        Lapavitsas Calls for Exit as the Only Strategy for Greek People (the video, audio and transcript):

        Why this capitulation? Why have we come to this after all the enthusiasm of six months ago? After the surge of grassroots support in this country and in Europe? The answer is clear to me. And it has to do with the wrong strategy, that was good enough to win elections, but proved disastrous in government. What is this wrong strategy? It's very simple, expressed openly time and time again. We will achieve radical change in Greece, radical change in Europe, and we will do it within the Eurozone. That was the strategy. Well, that's not possible, period.

        As far as I'm concerned, the Greek left has found its leader. Lapavitsas says it all, clearly and brilliantly: Grexit and nationalize the banks.

        You can't advance if you do not understand that Syriza has failed, if you keep making excuses for their failure, or try to pretend it was anything but failure. Greece must leave the euro. This has been obvious for several years, but unreasoning, 'no matter what' Eurozone love, especially prevalent within Syriza and generally among the middle-class European left and pseudo-left (Podemos, I'm looking at you!), MUST be abandoned. The euro doesn't love you; it's time to stop loving it back.

        The MAIN task for the European left, if it wants to be left rather than neoliberal, is to abandon the euro. It's easy: listen and be persuaded by Lapavitsas.

        okie farmer | Jul 18, 2015 4:10:39 AM | 69

        More from Lapavitsas:
        Finally, the deal is quite clearly neocolonial. The government of the left has signed up Greece to a neocolonial agreement.

        And it is--it is neocolonial for many reasons. I will mention three. First, the deal proposes the establishment of a privatization fund of 50 billion Euros which will basically sell public property under foreign management. 25 billion of that, the first 25 billion, will go to the banks by the agreement. If there's anything left, and there won't be anything left because they'll never make 50 billion, it might go to repaying the debt and possibly to investment. Essentially, then, this fund will sell what it can of public property to recapitalize the banks. We've just agreed the deal that sells the family silver to recapitalize the failed Greek banks.
        ~~~
        The real winner of this deal is obvious. It's staring you in the face. The real winner is the Greek oligarchy expressed in the mass media. That's why the mass media are thriving and celebrating [a win].
        ~~~
        Because the monetary union in which, to which Greece belongs, is not ideological. I mean, it is, but it isn't just ideology. And it isn't just a balance of forces. It is an institutional mechanism. The sooner the Greeks understand this, the better for all of us. It is an institutional mechanism, it is a monetary union that's, it's a hierarchical body that works in the interests of big business and in the interests of a few countries within it. That's what the EMU is.
        ~~~
        Now, what do we do, then? What we need to do is to withdraw our consent to this agreement. To withdraw our consent to this agreement. And to redesign a radical program that is consistent with our values, our aims, and what we've told to the Greek people all this time, all these years. And that radical program is impossible without Euro exit. The only thing that we really need to do is focus on developing a plan for Euro exit that will allow us to implement our program. It is so obvious I'm amazed that people still don't see it after five months of failed negotiations.

        okie farmer | Jul 18, 2015 4:23:57 AM | 70

        http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33578778
        The former Greek finance minster has said his country's economic reforms are "going to fail", just as formal talks on a huge bailout are set to begin.

        In a BBC interview, Yanis Varoufakis said Greece was subject to a programme that will "go down in history as the greatest disaster of macroeconomic management ever".
        ~~~
        I may disagree with [PM Tsipras] and I declared that by resigning my post
        ~~~
        The bailout could total €86bn (£60bn) in exchange for austerity measures.

        In a damning assessment, Mr Varoufakis said: "This programme is going to fail whoever undertakes its implementation."

        Asked how long that would take, he replied: "It has failed already."

        fairleft | Jul 18, 2015 4:51:18 AM | 71

        Varoufakis is just whining. He doesn't provide a solution to the immediate and staggeringly important problem, imposition of worse austerity on Greece's people. He sounds not dissimilar to Tsipras, who also says he's unhappy/pessimistic yada yada. They're like old men complaining about the weather. Whining and whinging, Tsipras has signed up to carry out the police state repression that's the only way his new legislation can be carried out.

        Even though the solution/escape is clear, as Lapavitsas points out. It's almost as if the Syriza apologists are incapable of saying/thinking the word 'Grexit'. Who is holding their tongues?

        mcohen | Jul 18, 2015 6:59:22 AM | 72

        parking weapons like f-16 and submarines in countries is a good idea...they are maintained and serviced and kept ready for active service...this all under the cover of arms deals etc etc.

        there is only one flaw..the government of that country must be trusted....they cannot change sides...greece is in a unique position.opposite north africa,on the med, so it is well positioned for launching of attacks,on countries like libya or tunisia or even egypt.

        discrete crete sounds like a good name.

        paulmeli | Jul 18, 2015 8:15:45 AM | 73

        "Varoufakis is just whining. He doesn't provide a solution…"

        Exactly. There is no solution that doesn't include leaving the Euro and reclaiming monetary sovereignty (although that alone won't do it…they need astute, competent leadership too). A solution that presumes changing the fundamental Euro structure to include a fiscal component is never going to happen, the big guns (Germany) would leave before that would happen.

        Playing long shots works in the movies, in real life not so much.

        Most of the billions of words that have been written on this subject have been little more than wailing and gnashing of teeth. Denial.

        There are several stages to go before there is any viable solution that citizens will sign on to, that won't be co-opted by TPTB.

        honest! | Jul 18, 2015 9:28:16 AM | 74

        I'm not saying Syriza made all of the right mover, but neither do I think they can be considered "the Greek People's enemy". Not at all. They appear to be being honest.

        guest77 | Jul 17, 2015 7:52:02 PM | 64

        What a load of utter nonsense.

        Honest?

        They demanded the right to seek a mandate from the people before proceeding. They then got exactly the mandate they claimed to have sought . . . . . .

        . . . And then, promptly ignored it entirely.

        =======

        There's nothing "honest" in that. Cynical? Absolutely. Manipulative? Certainly

        Threacherous? Most definitely

        But "honest"? . . . . GTFO!.

        jfl | Jul 18, 2015 10:06:29 AM | 75

        @71, @73

        And you guys are just endlessly whining about the whiners ... the political class has chosen its preferred 'solution'. They're all done. If there is to be a real solution it has got to come from the Greek people.

        @37

        That's quite an article. I cut and pasted the picture of the 'bow-tie' graph and made the table of the 50 top controllers from page 33 sortable below it.

        page 33 of The network of global corporate control

        I'll try to summarize the significance of the bow-tie graph and its abbreviated labels tomorrow, for those who don't want to read the full article themselves.

        Twenty-four of the top 50 controllers are nominally American.

        Forty-four are financial.

        Noirette | Jul 18, 2015 11:43:49 AM | 76

        Posted some time back about the ESM (etc.) Here some info that give OK descriptions.

        Eric Zuesse, global research

        http://tinyurl.com/pqwbvqa

        > a link in that article to the Treaty (automatic download)

        then this, from the Corporate Europe Observatory

        http://tinyurl.com/o3eyg25

        > a link to a leaked text explaining the Troikas plans for the privatization fund (that 50 bn) pdf

        http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/esm_report_to_greece_0.pdf

        for some extra financial info (the only available to the public?) one must go to their site and click through and through - all automatic downloads.

        http://www.esm.europa.eu

        As MRW writes, at 40, there is no resemblance between EU financial and pol. structures those of the Soviet, Chinese Communist Parties.

        MRW maybe you are hyping the Nazi past? Mitterand and Thatcher particularly were against the re-unification of Germany. Mitterand wanted to lock Germany down in the Euro in an 'alliance' (or because he was a bankster's man, in fact laws prohibiting speculation were lifted in France well before Billy C's annulment of Glass-Steagall, the US played catch-up) and Germany made the trade, with difficulty (attachment to the mark, independence, etc.) Controlling countries through their currency and banking system is not an original or particularly Nazi idea. For ex it works right now in parts of Africa with the CFA and nobody talks about it. The French didn't borrow that idea from the Nazis.

        rufus magister | Jul 18, 2015 12:09:41 PM | 77

        Jackrabbit at 38, juliania at 66, jfl & fairleft >67

        Like many, I've been waiting for the longest running drama on the Athens stage to finally get to the last act before attempting to make sense of the staging, plot and characters.

        I still don't think we're quite there yet; probably a little more political fall-out still, but not much, see e.g., a majority of the Syriza Central Committee opposed the austerity deal.

        The question of the political leadership of the left, however, is always an interesting topic. Also from the 17 July "Links" page at - dare I mention the name? - Naked Capitalism, John Pilger at Alternet argues thatThe Leaders of Greece Are Some of the Phoniest Idealists You'll Ever See. It seems hard to disagree.

        Having set aside the mandate of the Greek electorate, the Syriza government has willfully ignored last week's landslide "No" vote and secretly agreed a raft of repressive, impoverishing measures....

        The leaders of Syriza are revolutionaries of a kind – but their revolution is the perverse, familiar appropriation of social democratic and parliamentary movements by liberals groomed to comply with neo-liberal drivel and a social engineering whose authentic face is that of Wolfgang Schauble, Germany's finance minister, an imperial thug. Like the Labour Party in Britain and its equivalents among former social democratic parties such as the Labor Party in Australia, still describing themselves as "liberal" or even "left", Syriza is the product of an affluent, highly privileged, educated middle class, "schooled in postmodernism", as Alex Lantier wrote. [I could not immediately find whatever Pilger is quoting, he is affiliated with the "wsws" website; such sad sloppiness at a major site in these days of html coding...]

        For them, class is the unmentionable, let alone an enduring struggle, regardless of the reality of the lives of most human beings. Syriza's luminaries are well-groomed; they lead not the resistance that ordinary people crave, as the Greek electorate has so bravely demonstrated, but "better terms" of a venal status quo that corrals and punishes the poor. When merged with "identity politics" and its insidious distractions, the consequence is not resistance, but subservience. "Mainstream" political life in Britain exemplifies this.

        This is not inevitable, a done deal, if we wake up from the long, postmodern coma and reject the myths and deceptions of those who claim to represent us, and fight.

        How then do democratic movements ensure that their leaders views and priorities accord with their own, and can be held responsible and be replaced? What sort of leadership is needed for industrial as well as political democracy?

        rufus magister | Jul 18, 2015 12:18:48 PM | 78

        ps to 77 -- Amongst the parties affected by the Munich Agreement, I think Edvard Beneš, the Czechoslovakian President, is a better fit for poor Tsipras.

        paulmeli | Jul 18, 2015 12:54:19 PM | 79

        "the political class has chosen its preferred 'solution'. They're all done. If there is to be a real solution it has got to come from the Greek people."

        No kidding?

        I don't know what's worse, repeating the obvious ad nauseam or whining.

        Noirette | Jul 18, 2015 2:00:07 PM | 80

        Having set aside the mandate of the Greek electorate, the Syriza government has willfully ignored last week's landslide "No" vote and secretly agreed a raft of repressive, impoverishing measures…. a quote by rufus at 77

        NO. Syriza was elected on a platform of 'staying in the EU-Euro' and at the same time 'reducing /abolishing austerity.'

        This mandate might be considered contradictory or ridiculous, illusory, doomed to fail, etc. (Yes I agree.)

        Also Syriza has a slim voter support and thus had to form a coalition Gvmt.

        Well in function of that contradictory mandate they managed (at terrible cost and perhaps misguidely) half of it. Staying in the Euro.

        What is surprising? Nothing.

        Why they chose the one above the other is abundantly clear.

        Wayoutwest | Jul 18, 2015 2:24:51 PM | 81

        RM@77

        I enjoy good discussion and criticism but this carping and sniping about Syriza from the US Left says more about writers such as JP and the weaklings of the Left, that have attained a new level of meaninglessness, and has allowed someone like Bernie Sanders to claim to be a Socialist without any real blowback, is trying.

        MRW | Jul 18, 2015 7:29:54 PM | 85

        paulmeli at @63 has got it exactly right. In all modern economies on a fiat currency, loans create deposits.

        Bankers, as a result, create 'credit money', NOT new interest-free money. (Credit money also means that one person's asset is another person's liability. At the commercial banking level within the real economy that includes collateral, timed repayment schedule, and interest owed, which is income to the issuing bank. Everything nets to zero at this level across the macroeconomy.)

        The US federal government, on the other hand, adds new money into the economy. Only entity that can. Only the US federal government can introduce new, interest-free money into the economy, and it does it via congressional spending based on the needs of its citizens, and where it wants the economy to grow (giving 40% of it to the financial institutions is NOT GROWTH). Which the mo-fos we've elected do not understand.

        One small quibble, Paul. The amount of physical currency, physical cash and coin, is around 11.5% to12% of the available money. The rest are treasury securities. Don't forget that countries like Ecuador are pegged to the USD and need US cash for their citizens. Ecuador's central bank orders them from the US Treasury (Bureau of Printing and Engraving) and puts up 100% of the demanded amount in assets (treasury securities) to pay for them.

        MRW | Jul 18, 2015 7:31:15 PM | 86

        Tom @61

        Sorry for the delay. I'm traveling. Good questions, btw.

        First, let's clear up what fractional reserve banking is. This is a lousy simplistic example, but it will work. And let's imagine a small western town with one bank, which I will call Bank Buckeroo. Introducing a second bank in the town mean I would have to explain how interbank reserves work, and it doesn't matter in this explanation. [BTW, US banks DO NOT LEND their reserves; reserves serve another purpose in the US banking system; namely to help the Federal Reserve retain the overnight interest rate target that banks charge each other. Canada, for example, doesn't even have a reserve requirement for their commercial banks.]

        Fractional reserve banking explained

        OK. Johnny Schwartzburger sidles into his Bank Buckeroo and deposits 100 bucks in cash in his savings account.

        Now Bank Buckeroo has got $100 more than it had yesterday.

        Because the reserve requirement is, say, 10%-the FRACTION of the loan that the bank must retain under "fractional reserve banking"--Bank Buckeroo holds onto $10 and can loan out $90.

        Sally Sweetpea needs $90 for her beauty shop and she borrows $90 from Bank Buckeroo, and deposits that in her checking account.

        Now Bank Buckeroo holds onto $9 (10% of $90) and can loan out $81.

        Old Ray Saddleback needs $81 to buy supplies for the only café in town, so he hits up Bank Buckeroo for an $81 loan.

        Bank Buckeroo holds onto $8.10 (10% of $81) and can loan out $72.90.

        Paddy O'Gilligan needs $72.90 to top off his supply of whiskey at the only bar in town (and this banker likes his whiskey), so he borrows $72.90 from Bank Buckeroo.

        Bank Buckeroo holds onto $7.29 (10% of $72.90) and can loan out $65.61

        You see where I'm going with this. Eventually, Bank Buckeroo will have reserved all $100, but will have extended credit against that $100 to customers that he knows are good to pay back their loans. Under the gold standard system before 1933, each dollar had a statement on it that you could exchange 20 of the one-dollar bills for one ounce of gold (not exactly the statement but that's what it meant). It was a "fixed exchange rate." The value of a dollar (US) was fixed to the value of gold. So Bank Buckeroo has Johnny Schwartzburger's original $100 in cash that guarantees it can trade-in the cash for $100 in gold anytime it wants. It's protected against that loss. The only thing the banker has to worry about is whether his customers can pay back the new loans, and he knows their creditworthiness intimately.

        That all changed in 1933-no more gold standard in the US

        We went off the gold standard. The value of the USD was no longer pegged to the value of gold, the supply of which the US federal government could not control globally except for certain US mines. Each new goldmine find globally affected the value of the dollar before 1913 and led to extraordinary panics and busts in the last half of the 1800s. More gold available meant the value of the dollar dropped, and that affected international trade, and whether people exchanged their dollars for gold stateside and hoarded it, further diminishing the amount of money available in the real economy. It was the National Gold Something-or-Other Act in 1900 that pegged the USD at $20/ounce.

        Interestingly enough, it was Marriner Eccles, whom FDR made the first chairman of the Federal Reserve three years later, a Republican Mormon banker from Provo UT who appeared before the Senate and House of Representatives in 1932/33 to make the case for dropping the gold standard (he wasn't the only one however). Eccles became more popular than Miley Cyrus. Eccles had seen the devastation that the banking system was doing to his municipal and rural customers. Eccles was 22 when he made his first million after his father died and he had to take over the family businesses, which included a bank. He was a financial genius who could speak plain English to commoners about banking and esoteric financial concepts. His ideas predated John Maynard Keynes by three years. (BTW, Keynes was never taught in American universities, so anyone sneeringly invoking Keynes doesn't know what they are talking about. The first Nobel Laureate in Economics, Paul Samuelson, is supposed to be the explainer and keeper of Keynes ideas, but Samuelson admitted in 1989 in a video interview that he never read more than half the book, and that he never understood Keynes' ideas to begin with.)

        [to be contd]

        Correction: Each new goldmine find globally affected the value of the dollar before 1913

        Should read: Each new goldmine find globally affected the value of the dollar before 1900

        MRW | Jul 18, 2015 7:34:22 PM | 87

        Tom @61 [contd.]

        If Private banks "cannot" print as much money as they like ( point 1 ), then how can fractional reserve banking Not exist in most of the world ? ( point 2 ) . If fractional reserves do not exist then they free to print as much as they like.

        […]

        And your 3rd doesn't make any sense at all. How does a gold standard have any restrictions on having a 10% fractional reserve, 1000%, or 1,000,000% of gold holdings ? Gold doesn't make decisions, regulations and enforcement are the decision-makers. Whether it's gold or fiat.

        Loans create deposits. Yes, 'out of thin air'. Bankers can say 'Yay' or 'Nay' based on the cut of your jib, or the color of your skin, although they are not allowed to.
        Banks don't print money. They issue credit, i.e. 'credit money'. They mark up the customer's bank account with computer keystrokes in the amount of the loan. Banks issue credit money based on two things: (1) customer creditworthiness, (2) customer income. They also require collateral.
        Banks have to maintain reserves in their banks accounts at the Federal Reserve on all the loans they make.It is a percentage of the loan, and banks cannot loan out this money. If the bank doesn't have enough reserves in their Fed account, they have to borrow from other banks at the Fed Funds Rate, or overnight interest rate, set by the Fed. (The Fed uses this overnight interest rate to promote or demote bank lending in the economy, among other things.)
        If the bank has been making bad loans or is overextended-this goes to your Point 1 about banks being free to issue as much credit money as they like-and other banks know that, the other banks might not loan it any reserves.
        In that case, the solvency-suspect bank has to slink to the Fed's Discount Window where they can borrow the required reserves, but the interest rate is punitive, and it usually alerts bank examiners that there's a problem at the bank. So having to go to the Discount Window is not something a bank wants to broadcast.
        By law, the Federal Reserve must supply reserves to banks within the federally chartered banking system, or declare the overextended bank insolvent.
        A 'check and balance' on a bank loaning out as "as much as they like" is meeting its reserves requirement.

        About gold. When you have a gold standard, you're on a fixed exchange rate: X amount of currency for each ounce of gold. That's when fractional reserve banking makes sense because the bank only wants to loan out X amount of money based on the amount of gold in the kitty. It's up to the banker to make intelligent and safe decisions about who he loans to by doing his due diligence.

        On a gold standard, he who owns the gold, owns the country. When we got rid of the gold standard, goldminers and gold owners stopped owning this country, including Mr. Rothschild. We fucked him up the ass. Our money is based on the 'full faith and credit of the US federal government' and we issue our own currency. To boot, we are the reserve currency worldwide.

        MRW | Jul 18, 2015 7:36:21 PM | 88

        The thread didn't take my formatting in @88. Here is the first half presented in a clearer format:
        ----------------------------------------------

        In response to Tom's @61

        • Loans create deposits. Yes, 'out of thin air'. Bankers can say 'Yay' or 'Nay' based on the cut of your jib, or the color of your skin, although they are not allowed to.
        • Banks don't print money. They issue credit, i.e. 'credit money'. They mark up the customer's bank account with computer keystrokes in the amount of the loan. Banks issue credit money based on two things: (1) customer creditworthiness, (2) customer income. They also require collateral.
        • Banks have to maintain reserves in their banks accounts at the Federal Reserve on all the loans they make.It is a percentage of the loan, and banks cannot loan out this money. If the bank doesn't have enough reserves in their Fed account, they have to borrow from other banks at the Fed Funds Rate, or overnight interest rate, set by the Fed. (The Fed uses this overnight interest rate to promote or demote bank lending in the economy, among other things.)
        • If the bank has been making bad loans or is overextended-this goes to your Point 1 about banks being free to issue as much credit money as they like-and other banks know that, the other banks might not loan it any reserves.
        • In that case, the solvency-suspect bank has to slink to the Fed's Discount Window where they can borrow the required reserves, but the interest rate is punitive, and it usually alerts bank examiners that there's a problem at the bank. So having to go to the Discount Window is not something a bank wants to broadcast.
        • By law, the Federal Reserve must supply reserves to banks within the federally chartered banking system, or declare the overextended bank insolvent.
        • A 'check and balance' on a bank loaning out as "as much as they like" is meeting its reserves requirement.

        MRW | Jul 18, 2015 7:41:19 PM | 89

        Some reporters are finally beginning to understand what I have been yammering on here over the past 18 months:

        Why America Is Not The Next Greece
        The key difference is that the United States has its own central bank -- the most powerful one in the world.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-america-is-not-the-next-greece_55a814c5e4b04740a3df6b11?

        MRW | Jul 18, 2015 7:45:47 PM | 90

        [Jul 18, 2015] Little-Known History of the Euro Crisis Was Baked In from the Start

        Jul 18, 2015 | Zero Hedge
        windcatcher

        Communism definition: A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

        Central banksters are not advocating communism. Indeed, the totalitarian fascist financial criminals advocate no publically owned property. They are buying public lands for pennies on the dollar as they enslave the population via representative debt.

        The banksters are plundering criminals that want all that is valuable and to hell with the population, there are too many people anyway, let them starve. The criminal fascist central banksters hate any public support of the people. That is not a communist or a socialist and certainly not a democratic concept; it is a totalitarian criminal bankster cartel fascist concept.

        Benito Mussolini in his book titled "The Doctrine of Fascism" defined fascist form of government as the merger of corporate monopoly with government. The bankster modern fascist should be branded as fascist, and no other, to distinguish them from representative democracy (government of, for and by the People.

        windcatcher

        The European Union before the Eurozone, was designed and implemented by the bankster financed and controlled Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. Goldman Sachs is but one tentacle of the criminal bankster world financial octopus of the New World Order Empire.

        Our American Constitution has not been destroyed (same for Greece Constitution); it has been overthrown by bankster fascist (government of, for and by multinational corporate monopoly). The American Constitution and our Bill of Rights, as authored primarily by James Madison and explained in the Federalist Papers, are still intact today.

        Our Founding Fathers had to deal with the same problems we are facing today: domination by corporate monopoly over the American economy and obeying foreign laws.

        We fought the American Revolution to be free from the corporate monopoly and domination of the American economy by the British Empire.

        After we won the war, our Founding Fathers along with economist Adam Smith's "Free Enterprise" economy, the American Constitution was written to guarantee the American People that the government function was for and by the People--- not government of, for and by the criminal corporate monopoly. The Age of Enlightenment of constitutional democratic republics began.

        To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, the Constitution, if not vigilantly guarded against criminal corporate monopoly corruption, the people will have to refreash our Constitution with revolution. Indeed, our nation was founded on revolution in rejection of corporate monopoly and domination by totalitarian criminal banksters.

        Enough is enough! Nationalize the banks and requisition them to serve the People to restart our American Free Enterprise economy, throw the fascist totalitarian bankster criminals in prison!

        If the criminal banksters were prosecuted for American mortgage fraud back in 2000 the criminals would have been in prison instead of destroying the economies of the world with their fascist totalitarian New World Order Empire.

        Radical Marijuana

        I did not previously know those historical details presented in the article above, however, those do not surprise me! The European Union and its Euro were projects of the international bankers, within which context almost all of the successful national politicians were the banksters' puppets, voted for by enough of the people who have become the banksters' muppets, while the European politicians, and those that voted for them, became mostly even more so...

        The EU and Euro were stepping stones.

        Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley:

        "powers of financial capitalism
        had another far-reaching goal,
        nothing less than to create a
        world system of financial
        control in private hands
        able to dominate the
        political system of
        each country and
        the economy of
        the world as
        a whole ..."

        That has already been mostly achieved, to make:

        WONDERLAND MATRIX BIZARRO MIRROR WORLD,

        where everything appears absurdly backwards!

        [Jul 18, 2015] Why is Germany so tough on Greece? Look back 25 years

        "...The lesson Schäuble learned – and which is likely to influence his decision-making now – is that if you act the pure-hearted neoliberal you can still get away with decisions that don't make perfect economic sense."
        .
        "...But Schäuble should have learned from history that the Treuhand gamble had catastrophic psychological consequences. Even though the agency was run by Germans, who spoke German, still it was seen by many in the east as an occupying force."
        .
        "...Schäuble's idea of foreign countries controlling Greek assets and moving them abroad is an even more humiliating concept for any country. Schäuble comes across as a tough and sober accountant. In fact he is just an ordinary politician repeating old mistakes. "
        .
        "...The assault on his life, who forced him to a wheel-chair, made Schaeuble, who always was an arrogant, egocentric, right-wing conservative, a vengeful and bitter arrogant egocentric conservative, who hates everything even remotely socialist."
        .
        "...And the whole Greece thing just shows how idiotic neoliberalism actually is..."
        .
        "...This talk of nation vs nation is a distraction. It's better to follow the money. It quickly becomes clear that those who have profited from Greece joining the Euro are keeping their money and the rest are having to suffer the consequences. Goldman Sacks have made billions as have investors in Europe. Meanwhile the people of Greece, Germany or the broader EU are being told they have been reckless and will have to suffer the consequences."
        .
        "...It's enough to be in the wider neoliberal EU to go under. Being in the eurozone just adds extra pain, waterboarding and rectal feeding. As EU apparatchiks admitted themselves. Maybe the US can now shut down Gitmo by sending the inmates to Greece, where conditions are just as harsh."
        .
        "...Whilst national governments are printing money in gay abandon to bail out their banker backers... Simultaneously fleecing their taxpayers under the the moral pretence of 'Austerity', we have witnessed an unelected cartel eviscerate a sovereign nation. The Greek Balance Sheet of Misery is deep in the red! Apparently, people no longer matter - Politicians and Bankers have a free rein. Greece fell for the EU dream... It was a political sucker to be exploited for the benefit of the Project. Post 2008, it has been treated like dirt. Its neighbours should take note - this Union is a nasty creature."
        .
        "...Many many people these on both sides of the former border are living in a way where 1990 GDR living standards would just about be an upgrade."
        .
        "...The nepotism and clientelism of the ruling class has been a problem since independence from Turkey and successive Greek governments have promised and failed to rectify it but that doesn't excuse humiliating an entire nation and pushing it to the point of economic and civil collapse because 'they deserve to reap what they sow' regardless of the consequences for the entire region with IS just a few hundred kilometres away. This is the worst case of being unable to see the wood for the trees that we have seen since the 'allies' invaded Iraq on the pretext of saving the West from nuclear weapons that did not exist.

        The vindictive behaviour towards Greece marshalled by Germany last weekend has lost it a lot of friends and reminded us where its mindset comes from and where it leads to if more civilised nations do not step in to reel it in. Habermas in particular is particularly cognisant of this."

        Jul 18, 2015 | The Guardian
        Every drama needs a great baddie, and in the latest act of the Greek crisis Wolfgang Schäuble, the 72-year-old German finance minister, has emerged as the standout villain: critics see him as a ruthless technocrat who strong-armed an entire country and now plans to strip it of its assets. One part of the bailout deal in particular has scandalised many Europeans: the proposed creation of a fund designated to cherrypick €50bn (£35bn) worth of Greek public assets and privatise them to pay the country's debts. But the key to understanding Germany's strategy is that for Schäuble there is nothing new about any of this.

        It was 25 years ago, during the summer of 1990, that Schäuble led the West German delegation negotiating the terms of the unification with formerly communist East Germany. A doctor of law, he was West Germany's interior minister and one of Chancellor Helmut Kohl's closest advisers, the go-to guy whenever things got tricky.

        The situation in the former GDR was not too dissimilar from that in Greece when Syriza swept to power: East Germans had just held their first free elections in history, only months after the Berlin Wall fell, and some of the delegates from East Berlin dreamed of a new political system, a "third way" between the west's market economy and the east's socialist system – while also having no idea how to pay the bills anymore.

        The West Germans, on the other side of the table, had the momentum, the money and a plan: everything the state of East Germany owned was to be absorbed by the West German system and then quickly sold to private investors to recoup some of the money East Germany would need in the coming years. In other words: Schäuble and his team wanted collateral.

        At that time almost every former communist company, shop or petrol station was owned by the Treuhand, or trust agency – an institution originally thought up by a handful of East German dissidents to stop state-run firms from being sold to West German banks and companies by corrupt communist cadres. The Treuhand's mission: to turn all the big conglomerates, companies and tiny shops into private firms, so they could be part of a market economy.

        Schäuble and his team didn't care that the dissidents had planned to hand out shares of companies to the East Germans, issued by the Treuhand – a concept that incidentally led to the rise of the oligarchs in Russia. But they liked the idea of a trust fund because it operated outside the government: while technically overseen by the finance ministry, it was publicly perceived as an independent agency. Even before Germany merged into a single state in October 1990, the Treuhand was firmly in West German hands.

        Their aim was to privatise as many companies as possible, as soon as possible – and if you were to ask most Germans about the Treuhand today they would say it achieved that objective. It didn't do so in a way that was popular with the people of East Germany, where the Treuhand quickly became known as the ugly face of capitalism. It did a horrible job in explaining the transformation to shellshocked East Germans who felt overpowered by this strange new agency. To make matters worse, the Treuhand became a hotbed of corruption.

        The agency took all the blame for the bleak situation in East Germany. Kohl and Schäuble's party, the conservative CDU, was re-elected for years to come, while others paid the price: one of the Treuhand's presidents, Detlev Karsten Rohwedder, was shot and killed by leftwing terrorists. (Schäuble too became the victim of an attack that left him permanently in a wheelchair, only days after German reunification – but his paranoid attacker's motives were unrelated to the political events)

        But the reality of what the Treuhand did is different from the popular perception – and that should be a warning for both Schäuble and the rest of Europe. Selling East Germany's assets for maximum profit turned out to be more difficult than imagined. Almost all assets of real value – the banks, the energy sector – had already been snapped up by West German companies. Within days of the introduction of the West German mark, the economy in the east completely broke down. Like Greece, it required a massive bailout programme organised by Schäuble's government, but in secret: they set aside 100bn marks (£35bn) to keep the old East German economy afloat, a figure that became public only years later.

        With prices for labour and supplies going through the roof, the already stressed East Germany economy went into freefall and the Treuhand had no chance to sell many of its businesses. After a couple of months it started to close down entire companies, firing thousands of workers. In the end the Treuhand didn't make any money for the German government at all: it took in a mere €34bn for all the companies in the east combined, losing €105bn.

        What the Treuhand did should be a warning for Schäuble and Europe: the economy in East Germany completely broke down

        In reality, the Treuhand became not just a tool for privatisation but a quasi-socialist holding company. It lost billions of marks because it went on paying the wages of many workers in the east and kept some unviable factories alive – a positive aspect usually drowned out in the vilifications of the agency. Because Kohl and, during the summer of 1990, Schäuble weren't Chicago economists keen on radical experiments but politicians who wanted to be re-elected, they pumped millions into a failing economy. This is where parallels with Greece end: there were political limits to the austerity a government could impose on its own people.

        The lesson Schäuble learned – and which is likely to influence his decision-making now – is that if you act the pure-hearted neoliberal you can still get away with decisions that don't make perfect economic sense. If Schäuble is acting tough with Greece right now, it is because his electorate wants him to act that way; it's not just that he doesn't care about the Greek people, he wants people to believe he doesn't care, because he sees the political advantage in it.

        But Schäuble should have learned from history that the Treuhand gamble had catastrophic psychological consequences. Even though the agency was run by Germans, who spoke German, still it was seen by many in the east as an occupying force.

        Schäuble's idea of foreign countries controlling Greek assets and moving them abroad is an even more humiliating concept for any country. Schäuble comes across as a tough and sober accountant. In fact he is just an ordinary politician repeating old mistakes.

        Related: Greece's debt can be written off –whatever Wolfgang Schäuble says | Philip Inman


        DerFremde 18 Jul 2015 07:48

        If Schäuble is acting tough with Greece right now, it is because his electorate wants him to act that way;

        Yes, after they were programmed to feel that way by the well-orchestrated media campaign that's gone on for 5 years now.

        Zabka 18 Jul 2015 07:42

        Schäuble is a nasty sociopath and Europe is paying for the fourth time Germany's folly and Imperial ambitions


        sacco ThinkingAustralian 18 Jul 2015 07:41

        How could the Greek MPs have voted against the package ? The unelected euro institutions deliberately crippled their banking system just prior to the referendum. The unelected euro institutions have had an ongoing police of regime change in Greece. For that alone they need to be abolished.

        You appear to be confusing several things. The governance of the Eurozone is largely in the hands of the so-called Eurogroup of EZ finance ministers, and what you describe as the "unelected euro institutions" are, for the most part, as mortified by the situation as you or I but do not have a role in which they can exercise significant control.

        Their influence is (one might even say "unfortunately" in the light of events) rather limited. In particular, as regards the ferocious arguments over the release of €7.2bn which have dominated the headlines for the last six months with its endless arbitrary deadlines, the European Commission team of civil servants who provide the secretariat which performs technical work and assessments for the Eurogroup concluded that Greece had satisfied the conditions set for release of the funds, and this outcome was communicated by the "unelected" Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs -Pierre Moscovici- at their meeting last December!

        The Eurogroup ministers decided, however, (possibly together with the influence of the IMF) that they had other reasons not to release the funds. Why? Many observers concluded that they did so mainly in order to retain a powerful political lever to prevent any incoming Greek government after the elections from taking any decisions of which they, the Eurogroup, might not approve.

        it's worth remembering, though, that the weighting of Germany's vote alone is sufficient to impose a blocking veto, and that this is also the group with most political power over the European Central Bank. Although the ECB has some nominal independence, in practice the current conditions are far beyond what can be dealt with using the instruments and policies that it has been given, so it is constantly beholden to its political masters for permission to take necessary action: in these urgent circumstances, a veto is almost as effective as absolute control, as the only actions that can be proposed are those which won't be vetoed.

        Fstephens56 Fstephens56 18 Jul 2015 07:28

        In the end Treuhand sold out 95% of the Eastern German economy to Westerners, who in turn didn't even have to present a feasible plan (or money to back the investment). It's easy to suppose that anybody who handed over a few bills to the right hands was able to snatch up a bit of value. Usually the Eastern companies "sold" for 1 Mark.

        However, Western German "investors" were not really interested in another automobile manufacturer in the East, or another innovative company that produces household goods. They saw these companies a competition and their only interest was in seeing them closed down or reduced to a minor subsidiary.
        If you have any doubts about it, just look up the "Foron" scandal. It is a perfect example on how the Eastern German economy was systematically and deliberately ruined by competitors, who wouldn't even shy away from threats and illegal activities to ensure their position.

        Only 5% of former GDR companies were sold to Eastern German investors, interested in carrying on. However, since Treuhand favored Western German buyers over Eastern German investors, these 5% were more or less either "left-overs", that nobody else wanted, or rare examples of factories, where the workers managed to buy out their own company and run it themselves after other investors failed to present themselves.

        So in short Treuhand failed in all but 1 thing: filling the pockets of their associates. They stole from the poor and used it to bolster the profits of the rich.

        But back to Schaeuble! He was Kohl's favored minister by the time and it's save to assume that he was more or less involved in (or at least aware of) the proceedings. Schaeuble is a neo-liberal, law-and-order, right-wing nationalist, who thinks of political office not as a service to the nation, but as a business meant to make money for the one who runs it. (Just listen to some of his former speeches if you have any doubts about that)

        The assault on his life, who forced him to a wheel-chair, made Schaeuble, who always was an arrogant, egocentric, right-wing conservative, a vengeful and bitter arrogant egocentric conservative, who hates everything even remotely socialist.

        Over the years his speeches as minister for inner affairs grew more and more disturbing. Making it evident, that Schaeuble thought of common people as nothing more than a violent, incompetent mob, that had to be educated and controlled by a superior political cast. (Just listen to one of his later speeches as minister for inner affairs in Merkel's government concerning his thoughts about public opposition against his political ideas.)

        Schaeuble was then by believed by many Germans (including some media) to be an overly bitter and possibly dangerous "lunatic", unfit for political office. Upon Merkel's reelection, Schaeuble was then removed from office and instituted as finance minister. Possibly a step to "ship him off" to a position where he could do less harm.

        That said: the second thing to know is that the crisis in Greece is nothing by another crisis of the financial sector. Private investors invested money into Greece, that Greece is unable to pay back. Unfortunate - but such are the risks of the stock market, right?

        Not quite! Because what actually happened was that Germany (and other European) countries used tax-payer's money to bail-out European banks a second time, by backing up the already defaulted Greek loans with public money.

        So the money "given" to Greece is not really helping the Greek people. It is meant to use public money to support private investors and European banks.

        And as always: where big money is moving through many hands, those who would like to hold a sum of it, aren't far removed.
        As an example, it is said that Schaeuble talked about an "investment plan" that would see a substantial sum put in an institution run by one of his relatives.

        A "mere coincidence" of course, but one that explains more precisely what is going on than the article above. It's all about clever ways to turn public money into private money, while keeping public eyes and public discussion fixed on "hard but necessary" austerity measures. Measures that were never meant to help Greece, let alone end the crisis! All of this maneuvering is just meant to help the private investors and keep them from losing money.
        Investors, that were never interested in a strong Greek economy. But only in an opportunity to snatch up some valuable pieces of Greek property for a bargain and either gut and sell them for a short-term profit, or to rid themselves of possible competition.

        So in the end, the only relevance the historical context has at this point is one that we have already known and is true for ANY historical context: people are doing gruesome thing for personal gain and few ever care about the consequences their actions impose unto other people.

        Fstephens56 18 Jul 2015 07:27

        The article couldn't be any more dead wrong, if it told us that Schaeuble did it because he was a reptilian overlord from another dimension.

        First thing to know about him: he was close friends with former chancellor Kohl and his minister for inner affairs. Now Kohl is a man as corrupt as they come. Kohl had close ties to the media via his dear friend Leo Kirch (a media-mogul) and various companies. And if you doubt that Kohl ran his office like a business: the GDR secret service had surveillance tapes of Kohl accepting bribes. I say "had" because Kohl used the power of his office to see them destroyed.

        After which he made it a habit of using his money and influence to sue people who dared to openly oppose his version of the truth. A habit that he hasn't given up until today: he recently sued a ghost-writer, that he fired over "differences of opinion" for publishing some of the less favorable things he had learned during his interviews with the former chancellor.

        Schaeuble and Kohl were then involved in the "Leuna" affair. Where several French officials, Kohl as the then-chancellor of Germany and probably some of his ministers where allegedly taking bribes for one of the most obvious heists ever! The most grotesque scandal yet in German history.

        "Leuna" was the name of a former GDR chemistry empire worth billions and billions of pounds and the beating heart of the Eastern German economy. High-quality plastics, artificial fabrics and pharmaceutical products were amongst the key export products and fed a whole region bigger than Wales.

        Kohl used the power of his office to personally take control over the "Leuna" asset, snatching it away from under the nose of Treuhand. And gifted it to French company Total for the symbolic price of 1 Mark (about a quarter of a British Pound).

        With this "deal" French "Total" took sole control of ALL gas-stations throughout Eastern Germany, THE ONLY petrol refinery in Eastern German able to produce gasoline, a long-running fixed-price deal with Russia for deliverance of finest Siberian oil reserves paid in Ruble at a bargain price, control over SEVERAL PIPELINES was included for free, and ALL of the chemistry production of Eastern Germany combined in an industrial complex the size of the City of London complete with its own railroad system, able to produce plastics and high-quality pharmaceutical products 24/7.

        And like this wasn't enough, the Kohl-Schaeuble-duo than "gifted" Millions of German tax-payers money to the company. Because it was quite obvious that Total got more out of that heist than they could possibly chew.

        This "Leuna" heist affected roughly 500.000 workers in Eastern Germany. It cost the job of tens of thousands of people. The result of which were angry protests against Kohl and people throwing eggs and foul vegetables at the man, as he later visited the region.

        However, this is not even the end of it. The article states that the banks had already been sold before the Treuhand came to be, but fails to mention "how" exactly that happened. It was Kohl himself who oversaw the process and gave them away on a bargain due to a little "accounting error" that "miscalculated" the value of these banks much to the advantage of the buyers. With this deal Kohl effectively gifting billions to Western German banks, circumventing any public control of what is happening.

        Meanwhile the Treuhand had some shady dealings of its own. The article mentions that one of the heads of "Treuhand" was assassinated. What the article fails to mention however is, that the man killed was believed to be the first (and only) ever not to be part of a government-friendly group of individual and he was killed right BEFORE he to get a good look at the books. He was quickly replaced by another, more agreeable individual.

        In other words: the reunification was a mess and a huge scandal, where most people involved were doing their very best to siphon as much money and personal gain out of the process as possible, before proper order could be established.

        The price for this corruption was paid by those, unable to fight back:

        • - pensioners were denied money from their private pension plans (a result of the bank-deal)
        • - millions of people lost their jobs
        • - nearly all small businesses went bankrupt, breaking the back of what remained of Eastern German economy
        • - highly educated and young people fled the country in hundreds of thousands, leaving behind ghost cities (some cities like Halle-Neustadt lost up to half of their population)
        • - real-estate values plummeted, leaving people with nothing

        ItsAnOutrage2 cpp4ever 18 Jul 2015 07:02

        ...the creditors should have done their due diligence better and never lent to Greece in the first place, and at some point they will have to accept some lose.

        They have already accepted a loss of over €100billion. The argument over further lending to Greece is, in essence, about paying Greece not to devalue the Euro and damage the political and economic structure of the EU. Some people think it's worth the hit, and others think we should let Greece go. I am in the latter camp; I've nothing against the Greeks, but their government is only interested in getting re-elected. Greece is toast in either event, so let them start rebuilding sooner rather than later.

        AndrewDavidBoyle Paidenoughalready 18 Jul 2015 06:52

        'Other peoples money?!' The crisis was manfactured from 2008 by banks and institutions. This video is the confession of an economic hitman. It shows how financial crisis are manufactured. It was his job.

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XWuAct1BxHU

        tichchurch t1m0thy1 18 Jul 2015 06:51

        The bankers don't just have a lot to answer for, they have it ALL to answer for. This is ALL their mess. Their corruption,and their greed. They should be the ones to pay, not the innocent citizens of Greece who, on top of suffering the high unemployment and hardships imposed on them by austerity, are also having to put up with the unfair accusations, insults and vilification, that the wrongly informed general public from the rest of the EU is directing at them.

        AndrewDavidBoyle 18 Jul 2015 06:36

        The Investment For Greece Fund

        KFW is led by a six-member Managing Board headed by Ulrich Schröder, which in turn reports to a 37-member Supervisory Board. The chair of the Supervisory Board changes annually between the German Federal Ministers of Finance and Economic Affairs; the chairman for 2015 is Wolfgang Schäuble.
        The KfW will contribute financially to the fund and provide it with technical assistance. Whatever that means.

        The Investment For Greece fund was a bilateral agreement between KMF and the Greek government. Interesting that Tsipras was keen to avoid this fund and instead create another one!

        Up to €50bn (£35bn) worth of Greek assets will be transferred to a new fund, which will contribute to the recapitalisation of the country's banks. The fund will be based in Athens, not Luxembourg as Germany had originally demanded.

        The location of the fund was a key sticking point in the marathon overnight talks. Transferring the assets out of Greece would have meant "liquidity asphyxiation", Tsipras said.

        We will see what happens here...

        johnbig SenseCir 18 Jul 2015 06:29

        Very interesting article giving information not generally known, at least by me.

        However the lesson I take from this is that the reunification of Germany on a 1 D mark for 1 Ost mark basis was a political decision of the highest order probably made by Kohl himself. The economics then had just to follow as best possible without negating or modifying the main decision. Schauble was obliged to follow Kohl's policy decision

        In Greece it seems to be the economics leads all other considerations and the political aim of helping back to its feet a small economy and thus keeping a healthy European Union takes a back seat. Unless the political decision being applied is to do anti-Keynes economics for all always. Markel is obliged to follow Schauble"s policy.

        EcoNasty huzar30 18 Jul 2015 05:26

        If they were stupid and greedy enough to throw money at me if I'm a high risk then they shouldnt be surprised when I don't pay them back...

        After all, we wouldn't have had the crash would we if it hadn't been for stupid greedy moneymen making crap decisions ??

        And the whole Greece thing just shows how idiotic neoliberalism actually is...

        I mean, I actually think Tsipras is playing a blinder. He knows that Greece may have been pushed into a corner I'm the short term, but in the long game Greece has Merkel et al over a barrel ..they can't (despite the tub thumping last week) allow Greece to leave because the disastrous impact this would have on the EZ and wider global economy and they'd have to write down hundreds of billions - yet their austerity measures will make it far less likely that Greece can meet its next payment deadline meaning they'll be back here again in a few months ...

        ...of course there's no more room for more restructuring or austerity after this bailout so they're stuffed essentially...either they let Greece leave with the huge risks that poses or they have to lose face and write down Greece's debts.

        Tsipras ..the man who broke neoliberalism. He'll get statues erected ;

        Peter Gentoo 18 Jul 2015 05:25

        Why the British Empire ruined the world part II:

        Scramble of Africa:

        During the final twenty years of the nineenth century, Britain occupied or annexed territories which accounted for more than thirty-two percent of Africa's population, making the British the most dominant Europeans on the continent.By 1965, Britain had lost its stranglehold on the continent-but the consequences of imperialism were immense. Firstly, the settler states of Kenya, Rhodesia, and South Africa saw many episodes of violence before African nationalists could forge a return to stability, after the departure of the colonial governments. Corrupt African "strongmen," or dictators, often gained power-despite ignoring the social needs of the people. Economic dependence on the West, coupled with political corruption, crippled attempts to diversify.Even today, Africa is the least developed region in the world, with poverty and malnutrition running rampant. The idea that Europeans wanted to "civilize" Africa was an utter lie, and a means to justify the exploitation of the continent.

        Palestine:

        After defeating the Ottoman Empire in World War One, Great Britain did not liberate their Arab allies but instead colonized them. The British received Palestine, Jordan, and Iraq. After centuries of anti-Semitism, many Jews began migrating to their original homeland of Palestine (ancient Judaea), and after the War, these migrations greatly increased. Many British officials, some of whom were also anti-Semitic, wanted to establish a Jewish homeland in the Middle East in order to kick the Jews out of Europe altogether.The British announced in 1947 their intention to withdraw from Palestine in 1948. On November 1947 the United Nations General Assembly passed a plan to partition Palestine into two separate states-one Arab, and one Jewish. The Jews accepted, but the Arabs rejected the partition. The British officially left on May 14, 1948, without providing a resolution to the situation; that same day the Jews proclaimed the state of Israel. Arab countries immediately attacked the new Jewish state, but the Israelis drove off the invaders and conquered more territory. Roughly nine hundred thousand Arab refugees fled-or were expelled from-old Palestine.This war left an enormous legacy of Arab bitterness towards Israel and its political allies, Great Britain and the United States. The Arab-Palestinian conflict has provided a deep divide between East and West, and between Christianity and Judaism on the one hand and Islam on the other hand. The modern "War on Terror" stems from the American and Western support of Israel. In addition, Israel has been accused of atrocities ranging from bulldozing Palestinian homes, to acts of terror committed by Mossad, the Israeli CIA

        Partition of India:

        After two centuries of colonialism in India, the British Labour government agreed to a speedy independence of India after 1945. But conflict between Hindu and Muslim nationalists led to murderous clashes between the two communities in 1946. When it became clear that the Muslim League would accept nothing less than an independent Pakistan, India's last viceroy, Lord Louis Mountbatten, proposed partition. Both sides accepted, and at the "stroke of midnight" on August 14, 1947, one fifth of humanity gained political independence.Yet independence through partition brought tragedy. In the weeks afterwards, communal strife exploded into an orgy of massacres and mass expulsions. Hundreds of thousands of Hindus and Muslims were slaughtered, and an estimated five million made refugees. Indian Congress Party leaders were completely powerless to stop the violence. "What is there to celebrate?" exclaimed Gandhi in reference to the much-sought independence; "I see nothing but rivers of blood." In January 1948, Gandhi himself was gunned down by a Hindu fanatic who believed that he was too lenient on Muslims.After the ordeal of independence, relations between India and Pakistan remain tense to this day. Fighting over the disputed area of Kashmir continued until 1949, and broke out again in 1965-1966, 1971, and 1999. What makes the Indo-Pakistani conflict even more dangerous is that both sides contain nuclear weapons. With the possibility that Pakistan might become a failed state, there is a good chance of a major genocide erupting in the twenty-first century.

        Peter Gentoo 18 Jul 2015 05:23

        Why the British Empire ruined the world:

        Apartheid:

        Apartheid was a system of racial segregation enforced through legislation by the National Party governments, the ruling party in South Africa from 1948 to 1994. The rights of the nation's black majority were curtailed, and white supremacy and Afrikaner-minority rule was maintained. After one hundred years of wars, and having gained complete political control, the British made a decision that doomed many South Africans. They gave Boer republics the green light to disenfranchise all non-whites. The apartheid system was entrenched in the Union constitution, which was drawn and approved by the British government. In 1913, the Native Land Act was brought into force; it pushed black people off the land on which they were either owners or tenants, and relocated them to shantytowns in the cities.

        Irish Potato Famine:

        During the summer of 1845, a "blight of unusual character" devastated Ireland's potato crop-the staple of the Irish diet. A few days after potatoes were dug up from the ground, they began to rot. Over the next ten years more than 750,000 Irish died from the ensuing famine, and another two million left their homeland for Great Britain, Canada and the United States. Within five years, the Irish population was reduced by a quarter.

        Invention of the machine gun:

        In 1879, the Gardner Machine Gun was demonstrated for the first time. It could fire ten thousand rounds in twenty-seven minutes, and its accuracy was superior to that of the Gatling gun. This impressed military leaders from Britain, and the following year the British Army purchased the gun.In 1881, the American inventor Hiram Maxim visited the Paris Electrical Exhibition. While he was at the exhibition a man he met told him "if you wanted to make a lot of money, invent something that will enable the Europeans to cut each other's throats with greater facility." Maxim decided to move to London, and began working on a more effective machine-gun. The British Army adopted the Maxim Machine Gun in 1889. The following year, Austria, Germany, Italy, and Russia also purchased the gun, causing an arms race on the European continent. The machine gun would haunt the British during the Battle of the Somme, when the British suffered 60,000 casualties on the first day. Since its introduction, the machine gun has caused countless fatalities across the world, and has allowed for more people to be killed within a shorter time span.

        Atlantic slave trade:

        The British did not start the slave trade or even import the most slaves (both of these dubious distinctions belong to the Portuguese). In the beginning, British traders merely supplied slaves for the Spanish and the Portuguese colonies; but eventually, British slave traders began supplying slaves to the new English colonies in North America. The first record of enslaved Africans landing in British North America occurred in 1619, in the colony of Virginia.In the 1660s, the number of slaves taken from Africa in British ships averaged 6,700 per year. By the 1760s, Britain was the foremost European country engaged in the slave trade, owning more than fifty percent of the Africans transported from Africa to the Americas. The British involvement in the slave trade lasted from 1562 to until the abolishment of slavery in 180-a period of 245 years. History Professor David Richardson has calculated that British ships carried more than 3.4 million enslaved Africans to the Americas during this time. In addition to being a major player in the slave trade, the British supported the pro-slavery Confederates during the Civil War. The British needed cotton to fuel their machines; this caused the demand for cotton to skyrocket, which in turn demanded slave labor. If the Confederates had won at the battle of Antietam, the British would have given full support to the rebels, and may even have tipped the Civil War in favor of the Confederates. And although Great Britain was one of the first nations to abolish slavery, they quickly made up for the loss of human labor by extracting Africa's raw materials and resources.

        DeeDee99 18 Jul 2015 05:18

        "Look at what he inflicted on his own country."

        Yes. HIS OWN COUNTRY.

        Now he's doing it to another country: and both he, the President of the other country, the IMF and the ECB all know it isn't going to work.

        So he is destroying another country for what ........... ? So the EU can continue to build an anti-democratic and increasingly dictatorial United States of Europe where national democracies are irrelevant (unless they happen to be Germany).

        ZankFrappa 18 Jul 2015 05:12

        This talk of nation vs nation is a distraction. It's better to follow the money. It quickly becomes clear that those who have profited from Greece joining the Euro are keeping their money and the rest are having to suffer the consequences. Goldman Sacks have made billions as have investors in Europe. Meanwhile the people of Greece, Germany or the broader EU are being told they have been reckless and will have to suffer the consequences.

        anita66 18 Jul 2015 05:05

        Maybe worth noting, that Schäuble's readon to make Greece fail is also related to the vast oil resources in the Aegean sea. And his generally corrupt manner. In the past he accepted bribes and bribed for weapon deals and other operations. and thats who most deals in Greece were agreed.

        bloomday Budanevey 18 Jul 2015 05:03

        Greece's economic performance from the mid-90's to the beginning of 2010 was better than the EU average (3.9% vs 2.4%). Once the European financial crisis began to make itself felt in Greece, in 2010, they followed the Troika's austerity instructions to the letter, slashing expenditures and increasing taxes. A 25% decline in GDP and 25% unemployment, with youth unemployment twice that was the result. This economic downturn happened because they followed and implemented creditor demands for austerity, measures that are now seen not to work for Greece. What is more, It is a fiction that all the bailout money loaned to Greece is at it's disposal to use as it pleases, most has been recycled back to the creditors in loan repayments - Joseph Stiglitz estimates that 90% of the money loaned Greece has been paid straight back to the Creditors, leaving Greece with insufficient sums to invest to create growth. Austerity is an anti-growth economic policy and the sooner the leadership of the German CDU wake up to the fact the better it will be for the Eurozone.

        lundberg 18 Jul 2015 04:53

        The link between the early 1990's and now (2008 till forever?) is that Germany and Schäuble caused all-European recessions. The 1990's recession was very bad in for example Sweden and Finland. One reason for this German behaviour is a myth that inflation (as of 1923) is the only thing to be avoided. Others have noted that other bad things have happened in Germany even after 1923. Tight Money, high interest rates is the perpetual formula, though exactly that brought Hitler into power.

        The reunification was performed in a stupid way (1 West Mark= 1 East Mark, overnight, when market value was 7:1 or so). This stupidity was repeated, and worse, with the Maastrich treaty in 1992. All Europe had to pay for it, which led to a first wave of rightwing populism rather than European unity. We are now living through the second wave.

        Germany was eventually essentially reunited, though it took much longer time and inflicted a lot more pain than was necessary, in Germany and abroad.
        Europe remains broken, because you cannot have a single currency without a single government. This has been known all along, though the smart-alecs in Brussels, Berlin and Paris thought that they would solve that problem by stepwise federalization. Not likely.

        bootayjam grumpyoldman 18 Jul 2015 04:34

        Well said. I find it amazing that the Guardian is only now waking up to the fact that maybe, just maybe, the EU is bought and paid for and part of the global corporate banking system that has a stranglehold on us all.

        Look at the IMF, which acts as a member of the Troika.
        But it has has no elected position, and cannot be removed from power.
        The second unelected member is Mario Draghi of the ECB. The same Mario Draghi who worked for Goldman Sachs and helped Greece hide it's true debt in order to join the Euro. How do you get rid of him? And more importantly, how did he get the job?
        And finally, the head of Europe, Juncker, is also unelected by the people. And he was responsible for introducing corporate tax dodging in Luxembourg when he was PM there.

        The entire government design is totally un-Democratic and therein lies the crisis, but not just in the EU, but across the world. Can you vote out the IMF or World Bank?

        But in terms of the EU, not a single member of the Troika ever needs to worry about polls since they do not have to worry about elections.

        This is authoritarian government if we have ever seen one, and Tony Benn's 5 awkward questions to ask those in power seem more relevant every day.

        laSaya TomHalpin 18 Jul 2015 04:32

        Reparations and exploitation
        Further information: German reparations for World War II
        Contrary to common myth, the US did in fact take "reparations"; parts of it by John Gimbel called "plunder and exploitation", directly from Germany. The US for instance took an 8.9% share of dismantled Western German industry.
        The Allies also confiscated large amounts of German intellectual property (patents and copyrights, but also trademarks). Beginning immediately after the German surrender and continuing for the next two years the US pursued a vigorous program to harvest all technological and scientific know-how as well as all patents in Germany. John Gimbel comes to the conclusion, in his book "Science Technology and Reparations: Exploitation and Plunder in Postwar Germany", that the "intellectual reparations" taken by the US (and the UK) amounted to close to $10 billion. The US competitors of German firms were encouraged by the occupation authorities to access all records and facilities. l Law No. 25) for fear of the research directly profiting their competitors.
        The patents, drawings and physical equipment taken in Germany included such items (or drawings for) as electron microscopes, cosmetics, textile machinery, tape recorders, insecticides, ... and other technologies - almost all of which were either new to American industry or 'far superior' to anything in use in the United States."
        The British took commercial secrets too, by abducting German scientists and technicians, or simply by interning German businessmen if they refused to reveal trade secrets.
        Konrad Adenauer stated: "According to a statement made by an American expert, the patents formerly belonging to IG Farben have given the American chemical industry a lead of at least 10 years.
        In JCS 1067 there were provisions allowing German scientists be detained for intelligence purposes as required. Although the original focus on the exploitation was towards military means, much of the information collected by FIAT was quickly adapted commercially to the degree that the office of the Assistant Secretary of State for Occupied Areas requested that the peace treaty with Germany be redacted to protect US industry from lawsuits.
        The US made no attempt to evaluate the value of what was taken from Germany, and in the contracts that led to sovereignty for West Germany in 1955 the West Germans had to formally renounce all claims to possible compensation for all types of assets taken, including scientific and technical know-how.
        The property taken in Germany was without regard to the rules of the Hague Convention, which prohibits the seizure of enemy private property "unless it is susceptible of direct military use",

        German reparations for World War II

        Division of Germany as of the Potsdam Conference.

        After World War II, both West Germany and East Germany were obliged to pay war reparations to the Allied governments, according to the Potsdam Conference. Other Axis nations were obliged to pay war reparations according to the Paris Peace Treaties of 1947.

        Contents
        1 Early propositions
        2 Recipients
        2.1 Greece
        2.2 Israel
        2.3 The Netherlands
        2.4 Poland
        2.5 Yugoslavia
        2.6 Soviet Union
        3 Other forms of payment
        3.1 Annexation of territories
        3.2 Dismantling of industries
        3.3 Intellectual property
        3.4 Forced labour
        4 See also
        5 References

        Other forms of payment
        According to the Yalta Conference, no reparations to Allied countries would be paid in money. Instead, much of this value consisted of German industrial assets, as well as forced labour.

        Annexation of territories
        Poland and the Soviet Union annexed the German territories east of the Oder-Neisse, leading to the expulsion of 12 million Germans. These territories were incorporated into Poland and the Soviet Union respectively and resettled with citizens of these countries.
        France controlled the Saar protectorate from 1947 to 1956, with the intention of using its coal deposits and possibly annexing the region to France permanently. The same mines had been under French control from the end of the First World War until 1935. Following the results of a plebiscite, France had to relinquish its control of the Saar region on January 1, 1957, however it continued to extract coal from the area's mines until 1981.

        Dismantling of industries
        Further information: Allied plans for German industry after World War II
        At the beginning of the occupation, the Allies started dismantling the remnants of German industries. Later abandoned this plan in favour to the Marshall Plan.

        Intellectual property
        The Allies confiscated significant values of German patents, copyrights and trademarks.

        Forced labour
        See German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union, Forced labour of Germans in the Soviet Union and Forced labour of Germans after World War II.
        -------------
        For some ignorance is bliss.

        Never led the facts get into the way of prejudice.

        Prejudice is what fool use for reason.
        Voltaire.

        romantotale17 ID0958318 18 Jul 2015 04:28

        With a Gini coefficient of 0.78, Germany has a high degree of wealth inequality compared to other countries and there is still a wide gap between western and eastern Germany, almost 25 years after unification. In 2012, the average net worth of eastern Germans was less than half that of western Germans.

        Sounds like the country is well run, then. According to current definitions of a successful society: ie benefiting the wealthy, ability of the wealthy to conceal their gains, increasing inequality...

        wilk 18 Jul 2015 04:20

        Before reunification West Germany had a growth rate of aboaut 3.6%. and East Germany full employment . After - Schauble Germany managed to reach 2.2% the other year - the highest since reunification; eastern Germany has an double the unemployment rate of the west - over 10%. Workers rights in Germany have been decimated with most of those in work on zero- hour contracts or temporary work and the rich states are refusing to put more money into the failing eastern ones.
        Like most of us the German people like to have a "Greece" so that we can feel well off and that our governments and big business are working for us - so the Merkels' and Schaubles' keep in power

        phil49 -> probitase 18 Jul 2015 04:13

        Rather simplistic. North America achieved its independence well before most Latin American countries and before rapacious 19th century capitalism had developed. By the time the Latin American countries achieved independence, European (mainly British) companies were ready to step in and siphon off vast amounts of the wealth generated, unlike in the United States, where most of the wealth was home-owned and reinvested, before the US was ready to take over from the European imperialists and do as they had done.

        someoneionceknew -> Mister_T 18 Jul 2015 04:12

        Cool story, bro. But completely untrue. Germany is being run for the benefit of its corporations and its banks i.e. neoliberal fundamentalism.

        It's 'success' is arguable. Its future looks bleak.

        laSaya smiley08 18 Jul 2015 03:46

        When people bang on about what W. Germany got in Marshall plan aid after WWII they never look at the facts.
        Read on.

        The largest recipient of Marshall Plan money was the United Kingdom (receiving about 26% of the total), followed by France (18%) and West Germany (11%). Some 18 European countries received Plan benefits.

        Criticism of the Marshall Plan became prominent among historians of the revisionist school, such as Walter LaFeber, during the 1960s and 1970s. They argued that the plan was American economic imperialism, and that it was an attempt to gain control over Western Europe just as the Soviets controlled Eastern Europe.

        Henry Hazlitt criticized the Marshall Plan in his 1947 book Will Dollars Save the World?, arguing that economic recovery comes through savings, capital accumulation and private enterprise, and not through large cash subsidies. Ludwig von Mises criticized the Marshall Plan in 1951, believing that "the American subsidies make it possible for [Europe's] governments to conceal partially the disastrous effects of the various socialist measures they have adopted"

        Hard luck story

        We all know the easy British explanation for our cumulative export defeat in world markets from the 1950s onwards, especially at the hands of the Germans. This story tells us that lucky West Germany had all her industries and infrastructure bombed flat or removed as reparations, and then was able to re-equip herself from scratch with Marshall Aid dollars. Meanwhile, so this hard-luck story goes on, poor old Britain had to struggle on with worn-out and old-fashioned kit.

        Britain actually received more than a third more Marshall Aid than West Germany ...

        This is utter myth. Britain actually received more than a third more Marshall Aid than West Germany - $2.7 billion as against $1.7 billion. She in fact pocketed the largest share of any European nation. The truth is that the post-war Labour Government, advised by its resident economic pundits, freely chose not to make industrial modernisation the central theme in her use of Marshall Aid.

        Successive governments squandered billions of Marshall Plan Aid to support British world power pretensions, and so jeopardised the economic future of Britain.

        The sad irony is that it had been in vain that the Labour Government had sacrificed the modernisation of Britain as an industrial country for the sake of using Marshall Aid to support a world power role - strategic and financial.

        What a monumental waste of a great and unrepeatable opportunity.

        Refer http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml
        The Wasting of Britain's Marshall Aid
        By Correlli Barnett
        Last updated 2011-03-03

        As for the 1953 debt agreement, read on.

        Germany, which up until the 1953 Debt agreement had to work on the assumption that all the Marshall plan aid was to be repaid, spent its funds very carefully. Payment for Marshall plan goods, "counterpart funds", were administered by the Reconstruction Credit Institute, which used the funds for loans inside Germany. In the 1953 Debt agreement the amount of Marshall plan aid that Germany was to repay was reduced to less than 1 billion USD.[85] This made the proportion of loans versus grants to Germany similar to that of France and the UK.[84] The final German loan repayment was made in 1971.

        ----------------------
        Arguing that economic recovery comes through savings, capital accumulation and private enterprise, and not through large cash subsidies.

        Greece please take note of this advice from Henry Hazlitt .

        For those that claim that the 193 debt agreement was so instrumental in German economic recovery because it was " generous " read the above and think again.

        Further lets look at what the aid was intended to be used for.
        The Marshall Plan aid was mostly used for the purchase of goods from the United States.

        Oh, such generosity.

        NickFletcher19 18 Jul 2015 03:35

        Can people please do referring to him and his ilk as "technocrats". These people aren't experts in economics, business, management, if anything other than politics.

        diotima1 18 Jul 2015 03:33

        It's nauseating that such proposals, disguised as "rational" are taken seriously by EU and set the agenda for finding a solution to the Greek tragedy. In this the Greek goverment is also to blame. Advised by flamboyant Varoufakis , who failed to table any serious proposal for the past five months, it wasted all credibility and played into the hands of Shauble and US think tanks ready to experiment with demise of euro at the expense of Greek people.


        Thomas W. Gallant 18 Jul 2015 03:07

        A full understanding of the relationship between Greece and Germany requires a longer-term historical perspective. See th following article (in English) from the Greek magazine 'Chronos.' http://chronosmag.eu/index.php/tw-gallant-greece-and-germany-the-last-tango.html


        DefeatedParty benjaoming 18 Jul 2015 02:31

        They may have an Onassis or two, but that certainly doesn't make them prosper that much. Had they built those ships you might have a point. We are talking heavy industry here and since tourism is hardly the high point of any really successful economy, your reply is just a lot of useless left-wing hot air. The idea that the whole economy even the size of the small Greek economy was somehow reduced to its present malaise by a few tax dodges is another simplistic answer to the troubles affecting Greece. Your answer is in effect a few scattered breadcrumbs which had no other effect than to make you look completely silly and irrelevant.

        angiefay 18 Jul 2015 00:38

        Schäuble and Merkel have split Europe. They are trying to force their ORDER on everyone.

        Against them we have France, who, however naïvely, believes more in JUSTICE. Nothing about the New German Order is just, only about profit and control. The situation in Greece has exposed how much they are trying to take control of Europe though the banks.

        Instead of trying to help Greece set up systems such as a Land Registry, local Tax Offices free from corruption etc, which would provide a more just tax system, they want to sell off/buy up any remaining assets the country has.


        hfakos Ben McCarty 17 Jul 2015 20:00

        So what are you proposing, exterminating the native cultures in Europe to create a new coherent one? I didn't say the U.S. reaching its current stage was a rosy process, but it's a fact they now have a coherent enough culture mostly speaking the same language. We cannot reach this stage in Europe, because civilization has advanced enough not to tolerate the forced engineering of a new culture from already thriving and existing ones. So, there always be very serious constraints on the cohesion of Europe. You just have to live with that.


        seaspan Steve Sage 17 Jul 2015 19:42

        The social/private structure of Greece is typically European, that isnt the problem. The problem started with euro integration, and the negative balance of trade in the private economy unable to devalue local currency, stimulate Exports, investment in local industry, etc. Imports vastly exceeded Exports, so the Govt floated bonds to buy back the difference (ballooning deficits), But also Pools of euro money in foreign banks recycled back to Greece as easy loans, which increased Imports accentuating the difference to Exports -- a downward spiral, and ever increasing govt debt. This structural flaw hasnt been addressed at all...


        eastofthewall BeatonTheDonis 17 Jul 2015 19:35

        That was the biggest surprise in this saga. That even the yanks had more sense than to pathologically stick to austerity. They had a stimulus program. When the U.S. is less cruel than you, it's time for self-reflection.

        Have you been to America lately? Visit Baltimore for me, will you! After the dotcom bubble burst the U.S. had a stimulus program which helped building up the even bigger housing bubble. That is why we now live in the age of "The Second Great Depression". Do you really think another stimulus bubble will help you out of this mess?

        be_kul 17 Jul 2015 19:25

        Sorry, the parallels go far beyond that:

        (1) Schäuble wants the new "Greek Treuhand" to be a part of the ESM. In the ESM – in case the author forgot about that – every person MUST and CAN NOT be put on juridical trial for his/her deeds. The same was true for the Treuhand in East Germany.

        (2) Schäuble wants the new "Greek Treuhand" to be managed 'inside' the ESM by a little German bank which is part of the German governmental KfW – which is headed by Schäuble (and his minions).

        (3) But the best is yet to come: While the new Greek Treuhand will be modelled after the East German Treuhand, the latter itself was modelled after another "Treuhand" in German history: That one which was established to plunder the "Generalgouvernement" i.e.: the occupied Poland under Hitler. It had the same legal structure as the East German Treuhand … and even the name was the same.

        So, there you have it: Schäuble does not even try to hide that his plans for Greece are those of an occupier – he can just simply count on (the vast majority of) people who don't know history.

        By the way: Did anyone mention that Greece in 1953 joined the creditors of Germany when they were cutting down Germany's depth from WW II by 60% and re-structured the rest so that Germany could come out of its own hell with the "Wirtschaftswunder" (economic wonder – which was not a wonder at all!)? And did anyone mention the credit Hitler's Germany stole from Greece during WW II and never paid back (except a very small part of it)?

        If anyone now thinks that I would "pull a godwin" now … sorry, I won't.

        Because I guess anyone can draw his/her own historical parallels and consequences in viewing Schäuble correctly.

        Phil Porter Dritan Nikolla 17 Jul 2015 18:54

        I'm just trying to change myself and become the heartless, soulless and cultureless husk the EU and it's citizens seemingly now aspire to.
        The Euro symbol will become the new crucifix!


        hfakos 17 Jul 2015 18:34

        It's enough to be in the wider neoliberal EU to go under. Being in the eurozone just adds extra pain, waterboarding and rectal feeding. As EU apparatchiks admitted themselves. Maybe the US can now shut down Gitmo by sending the inmates to Greece, where conditions are just as harsh.


        someoneionceknew 17 Jul 2015 18:28

        If Schäuble is acting tough with Greece right now, it is because his electorate wants him to act that way; it's not just that he doesn't care about the Greek people, he wants people to believe he doesn't care, because he sees the political advantage in it.

        That's possibly the most disturbing aspect of the analysis.


        monzer7 17 Jul 2015 18:19

        Whilst national governments are printing money in gay abandon to bail out their banker backers... Simultaneously fleecing their taxpayers under the the moral pretence of 'Austerity', we have witnessed an unelected cartel eviscerate a sovereign nation.

        The Greek Balance Sheet of Misery is deep in the red!

        Apparently, people no longer matter - Politicians and Bankers have a free rein.

        Greece fell for the EU dream... It was a political sucker to be exploited for the benefit of the Project.

        Post 2008, it has been treated like dirt. Its neighbours should take note - this Union is a nasty creature.


        girlmostlikely sailorjeff 17 Jul 2015 18:15

        It's also why German's are skeptical of transfer unions. They were promised by Kohl and Schäuble and Waigel, that Eastern Germany would just bloom and it would magically catch up to Western living standards on it's own merits. Those were Germans after all. None of that happened, the catching up has been the other way round. Many many people these on both sides of the former border are living in a way where 1990 GDR living standards would just about be an upgrade.


        erpiu 17 Jul 2015 18:15

        schäuble and his bunch of rightwing political hacks who pass as eurozone finance ministers are know-nothing frauds or if you prefer, fantasists --as p.krugman calls them.

        schäuble himself is an opportunist par excellence, a now-aparatchick/political hack formerly a small-time lawyer with several one-week courses in "economics explained to homemakers" and a dissertation on "public accountants" as special qualifications for his current position as "supreme social-dumping master of western europe"('s rentier-subjugated economies) with distant adolfian resonances.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Sch%C3%A4uble
        ======
        Schäuble studied law and economics at the University of Freiburg and the University of Hamburg, which he completed in 1966 and 1970 by passing the First and Second State Examinations respectively, becoming a fully qualified lawyer.

        In 1971 Schäuble obtained his doctorate in law, with a dissertation called "The public accountant's professional legal situation within accountancy firms".
        ======
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Sch%C3%A4uble


        kcfussball -> DT48 17 Jul 2015 18:13

        Agreed, it seems to be part of the neo - con agenda to create divides amongst ordinary people. I wonder what they are scared of.

        hfakos -> Phil Porter 17 Jul 2015 17:53

        It's the liberal "intellectuals" we. They know better what's good for you. In Eastern Europe they were called Bolsheviks.

        Pharaoh9 MartinLunnon 17 Jul 2015 17:46

        In the German mind the problem is always with you, never with the bank.

        monzer7 17 Jul 2015 17:44

        I admire Germany for the way in which it has rebuilt its country. Their products demonstrate an envious capability. Every German I have ever met has been easy going, and friendly - nice people.

        Their politicians stink!

        This rape of Greece was unnecessary... It portrays an unassailable bully humiliating a people.

        The image has been tarnished. My admiration diluted.


        monzer7 17 Jul 2015 17:44

        I admire Germany for the way in which it has rebuilt its country. Their products demonstrate an envious capability. Every German I have ever met has been easy going, and friendly - nice people.

        Their politicians stink!

        This rape of Greece was unnecessary... It portrays an unassailable bully humiliating a people.

        The image has been tarnished. My admiration diluted.


        MartinLunnon RationalPlan 17 Jul 2015 17:34

        This is clearly a relevant point. Perhaps it's been made by many previous BTL commentators, but I'm surprised that it wasn't brought out in the article.
        The parallels with the situation in Greece are many: both East Germany then and Greece now are experiencing the pains of a fixed exchange rate with the strong (West) German economy. In both cases the fixed exchange rate (and thus strong currency while the fix holds) favours savers over borrowers - I suspect that many Germans instinctively believe this to be necessary ever since the inflation if the 1920s and 30s.

        In Greece now the borrower is the government. In Germany shortly after reunification the burden fell on Treuhand-owned companies which had liabilities to pay wages in DM coverted from OstMarks at 1:1: "With prices for labour and supplies going through the roof, the already stressed East Germany economy went into freefall"

        "When you owe the bank £1000 you have a problem: when you owe the bank £1,000 million the bank has a problem". In the CDU's image of the German mind the problem is always with you, never with the bank.

        hfakos linesanddots 17 Jul 2015 17:33

        These are all Cold War dinosaurs. Merkel included. With them at the helm a different, livable Europe has no chance.

        paulc156 Christian Abel 17 Jul 2015 17:25

        Frankly, though the IMF have been culpable in previous instances of crisis management both with Greece and others they have exhibited some capacity to learn from past mistakes. As for the EU and especially the German dominated ECB they have pushed half of Europe to the precipice based on an imbecilic policy prescription that hasn't been tried since the UK tried to stay on the gold standard after WW1. You seem to have sided with the cranks!

        Lafcadio1944 Cerebral_Football 17 Jul 2015 17:24

        I recommend you read Naomi Kline's well documented book Shock Doctrine which makes the case for what I said far better than I can.

        As to your apparent view that the appropriate social behavior is to always and under all circumstances take every possible advantage available to enrich ourselves. I suggest you investigate that period in history known as the Enlightenment.


        LiberteEgalite1 trickster5 17 Jul 2015 17:14

        trickster, you are incorrect! At least 400 million people in India live in abject poverty in suffering as a direct result of England's plundering of India over 200 years, this is not counting the millions that it killed in the name of keeping order because the Indians dared to raise their heads against the British tyranny.

        You need to read real history and not the blinkered one that you read in the glossy magazines glorifying the inhuman British empire.


        hfakos probitase 17 Jul 2015 16:59

        But there are many mini-jobs. Which is practically unemployment if that's the only thing you have. Statistics are easy to manipulate.


        hfakos KrissCross 17 Jul 2015 16:56

        What a success story, climbing all the way up to being the EU's poorest nation with an EUR300 monthly salary and loosing a million people who emigrated to the West, and it keeps counting. You have also become a much more sovereign nation, that's why you cancelled South Stream a nanosecond after McCain showed up in Sofia. I mean EUR300 is more than enough, let's not be greedy and try get more revenue in the EU's poorest country. Thanks but no thanks, I wouldn't like to emulate Bulgaria's "success".


        FactsForFood Mevagissey 17 Jul 2015 16:55

        Hmmm, in comparison the US killed at least 129,000 civilians in a few seconds when it dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. And many more civilians were long-term disabled afterwards.

        So you are saying that we should remember this terrible crime by the US and hold them accountable for it as well.


        Cerebral_Football Fani Papas 17 Jul 2015 16:48

        Here's a brilliant quote from yesterday's Atlantic:

        By 2010 one of those countries-Greece-could no longer pay its bills. Over the prior decade Greece had built up massive debt, a result of too many people buying too many things, too few Greeks paying too few taxes, and too many promises made by too many corrupt politicians, all wrapped in questionable accounting. Yet despite clear problems, bankers had been eagerly lending to Greece all along.

        Greece is made up of Greeks, you can't disassociate them. The Greek people borrowed that money when they were levering up and buying homes, not paying taxes, doling out public sector pensions and benefits like they had discovered the cure for cancer.

        Greece owes money to Spain, Italy, Slovenia, Portugal and every other country in the Eurozone. But first and foremost, before all of that, they owed the money to the banks. Yes and the banks needed to be paid back.

        If you think that's unfair, try telling your credit card/bank company that you won't pay them back.


        Mevagissey Susan Dechancey 17 Jul 2015 16:47

        The nepotism and clientelism of the ruling class has been a problem since independence from Turkey and successive Greek governments have promised and failed to rectify it but that doesn't excuse humiliating an entire nation and pushing it to the point of economic and civil collapse because 'they deserve to reap what they sow' regardless of the consequences for the entire region with IS just a few hundred kilometres away. This is the worst case of being unable to see the wood for the trees that we have seen since the 'allies' invaded Iraq on the pretext of saving the West from nuclear weapons that did not exist.

        The vindictive behaviour towards Greece marshalled by Germany last weekend has lost it a lot of friends and reminded us where its mindset comes from and where it leads to if more civilised nations do not step in to reel it in. Habermas in particular is particularly cognisant of this.

        hfakos -> jozef77 17 Jul 2015 16:46

        Don't worry, you will see many other cents extracted from the periphery by German corporations. You know, such when I pay international rates calling my Deutsche Telekom customer parents in Hungary from my Deutsche Telekom line in Germany. Borderless Europe, ain't it great?


        probitase -> DT48 17 Jul 2015 16:41

        One of the rules of the Eurozone is that a country is not allowed to default on its debts. The EU is indeed designed to pull countries in until they find they cannot or do not have the power to extricate themselves.


        hfakos -> angryboy 17 Jul 2015 16:38

        Yes, the Greeks are like stupid kids. What a worn-out cliche. The only countries that matter here are Germany and maybe France. Lol, do you really believe that whatshisname FinMin of mighty Slovakia has any say in this crises? Germany is using the clowns of these midget EZ countries to deflect some blame. I have never seen that many Mickey Mouse politicians suffering from delusions of grandeur than during the Greek torture sessions. As if whatshername from the Baltic grand duchies has any weight behind her proclamations.

        TomorrowsWorld Barry1858 17 Jul 2015 16:35

        It's a hard battle getting people to realise just how much so-called wealth is predicated on the money market casino rather than goods and services. Perhaps because it makes all the effort of putting in your relatively honest 9 to 5 fairly irrelevant, most people would rather talk about lazy Greeks than face the fact that they're the living fuel for a casino lifestyle they will only get close to if they happen to buy a winning lottery ticket.


        Susan Dechancey 17 Jul 2015 16:33

        where are the insights into how Greece got here ? a contra to this :

        http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2010/10/greeks-bearing-bonds-201010

        In just the past decade the wage bill of the Greek public sector has doubled, in real terms-and that number doesn't take into account the bribes collected by public officials. The average government job pays almost three times the average private-sector job. The national railroad has annual revenues of 100 million euros against an annual wage bill of 400 million, plus 300 million euros in other expenses. The average state railroad employee earns 65,000 euros a year. Twenty years ago a successful businessman turned minister of finance named Stefanos Manos pointed out that it would be cheaper to put all Greece's rail passengers into taxicabs: it's still true. "We have a railroad company which is bankrupt beyond comprehension," Manos put it to me. "And yet there isn't a single private company in Greece with that kind of average pay."

        So lets look a t Greece .. it like watching a magician ....


        BeastNeedsMoreTorque papalibre 17 Jul 2015 16:32

        But that argument doesn't put the banks lending the money in the clear does it? Even if we accept your argument about the stupid borrowers it doesn't exonerate the banks does it?
        It's called fraud.
        If I sell you a car that I know is unsafe but you're too stupid to check before I hand over the cash, its still fraud on my part.

        Here's a quote that might persuade you:

        Financial fraud can be broadly defined as an intentional act of deception involving financial transactions for purpose of personal gain. Fraud is a crime, and is also a civil law violation. Many fraud cases involve complicated financial transactions conducted by 'white collar criminals' such as business professionals with specialized knowledge and criminal intent.

        [Jul 18, 2015] There's no end in sight to the Greco-European drama

        "..."It is like a dysfunctional family where narcissistic parents believe a fantasy of their own perfection and scapegoat one of the children as the cause and epitome of all that is wrong." Nice analogy. This is the world that propaganda created. A completely parallel universe. But it's not exactly a new development. Look at the US, they are at their n-th invasion, and everybody still pretends that they are slaughtering people for 'humanitarian' reasons. Or the IMF, which has ruined the economies of pretty much every single state in the Third World and everybody pretends that 'we are helping them to escape poverty'."
        .
        "...It all started with the 2008 global financial meltdown caused by private banker greed. Since the rich cannot be paid for their mistakes--i.e. nationalize the banks--then the rest of us, the state, take over the debt."
        .
        "...Yes, what's happening to Greece is happening (or will happen) to us all. I will continue to vote however I've seen what happens to a fine government representing to the best of their ability the people & country - they got knocked around & overruled. What I thought was non-negotiable turns out some Hayek adoration readers in powerful positions decide now is time to dismantle social security provision, employment protections & public infrastructure is made over to privateers. Scary times. "
        .
        "...Warren Buffet said we are in a class warfare and we (the rich) are winning. Strong words since Americans don't believe in class or Marxism."
        Jul 15, 2015 | The Guardian

        The last act of the classical Greek tragedy ends with two outcomes: disaster and catharsis. In the current Greek debt drama, however, there has been no catharsis. The purification has failed to materialise.

        It would have meant that both sides had seen the error of their ways and come to their senses. Instead, the madness continues: Greece will take on €86bn of debt in addition to the existing €317bn (not including the emergency loans from the ECB). From Angela Merkel through François Hollande to Alexis Tsipras, all eurozone government leaders assert that Greece will emerge from over-indebtedness more quickly this way and will be economically healed in three years. Europe pretends that the bailout will help. And Greece acts as if everything is fine now.

        The Brussels summit was not a disaster, though. Greece does not fall into chaos and the euro remains stable. Maybe Walter Benjamin, who once said: "The real disaster is if everything stays as it is," was right. When it comes to classical drama, it seems we have not reached the final act after all. The fourth act, the "retardation", continues. The action is slowing down, with suspensory moments: the troika returns to Athens and monitors the situation, while the Greek authorities delay and tinker about again. Until the action moves into a phase of extreme tension towards the finale. When will that be? Merkel hopes it will be after the next parliamentary elections.

        The troika is not operating as a trustee, but representing highly selfish interests

        For the Greeks, there is more at stake in this drama than there is for the Germans. The Germans will lose a lot of money at the most. The Greeks, however, have long since come under the tutelage of the donors. What Tsipras signed on Monday is the permanent abandonment of Greek sovereignty. Athens will be told what budget surplus it must achieve and what taxes it should raise. Fiscal sovereignty is broken. The constitution will be interfered with to impose pension cuts. The administration and judiciary must be rebuilt according to the standards of the northerners. It is not about a bailout loan, but it is avowedly about nation building, as if Greece were a failed state. Even the IMF has condemned the deal as unworkable and said the levels of debt are unsustainable.

        Greek culture is being encroached upon in every way. The Sunday opening of shops is being enforced, whether the still strongly religious population likes it or not. Consumption is more important than orthodox religion – that is the credo of the north. In international law the internal affairs of a nation are largely taboo; in the euro protectorate there are no taboos.


        citizenJA -> Neil59 17 Jul 2015 08:58

        If Greece was a corporation, would we be concerned about this "takeover"? What is happening now is no different than an administrator stepping in, only it is happening to a government.

        Wrong. Greece is a sovereign nation, sovereign people, not a business full of employees. Greece's government is functional & democratically accountable. A nation isn't a corporation. A country isn't a business. I can't tell you how horrifying your post is to me.


        citizenJA Johanes 17 Jul 2015 08:08

        Tecup, I really hope it is opening a few eyes to the real state of affairs.

        We are all Greece, and sadly, this is not a statement of solidarity. It is a metaphor for what our rulers are turning us into. And we vote for them ...

        Yes, what's happening to Greece is happening (or will happen) to us all. I will continue to vote however I've seen what happens to a fine government representing to the best of their ability the people & country - they got knocked around & overruled. What I thought was non-negotiable turns out some Hayek adoration readers in powerful positions decide now is time to dismantle social security provision, employment protections & public infrastructure is made over to privateers. Scary times.


        HauptmannGurski CjCanada 16 Jul 2015 20:49

        The elephant in the room is NATO. They wanted to keep Greece in at all costs, and now they have all costs.


        luella zarf CjCanada 16 Jul 2015 19:05

        It is like a dysfunctional family where narcissistic parents believe a fantasy of their own perfection and scapegoat one of the children as the cause and epitome of all that is wrong.

        Nice analogy. This is the world that propaganda created. A completely parallel universe.

        But it's not exactly a new development. Look at the US, they are at their n-th invasion, and everybody still pretends that they are slaughtering people for 'humanitarian' reasons. Or the IMF, which has ruined the economies of pretty much every single state in the Third World and everybody pretends that 'we are helping them to escape poverty'.

        The problem is that once the sociopaths have completed the capture of the developing world, they have nothing left to plunder but the developed world. No surprise there, capitalism is a Ponzi scheme, but imagine the shock of the Western middle classes when they finally realize that this is their future too.


        luella zarf competentcrew 16 Jul 2015 18:47

        The market structure has not changed from 100 years ago and is archaic, more Oriental than European. Something has to change.

        The 'burden of the white man' reloaded. With this attitude, Germans will end up being again the most hated people in Europe, and rightly so. Nobody asked them to 'zivilise' us.


        luella zarf DieSacheUndOderIch 16 Jul 2015 18:40

        That is the point! Germany only subscribed to the Euro under its conditions, that included a stable currency.

        In 10 years the European Union will either break up or we will have war again. People are not going to put up with enforced austerity and German colonialism forever. You can hide your head in sand or you can try to understand the macroeconomics of EU, which are a bit complicated but not beyond what the average intelligence can grasp.

        But Germans, to quote the economist Heiner Flassbeck, suffers from 'a collective denial of the truth', when it comes to the 'failure of German economic and financial policies and their devastating consequences'.

        http://www.flassbeck-economics.de/the-euro-crisis-and-germanys-collective-denial-of-the-truth/


        Areal Person -> Johanes 16 Jul 2015 17:04

        Yeah, although I'm with John Gray and his post-Marxist analyses of the cyclical nature of human civilization, and would if pushed say the outlook is bleak with a few rays of sunshine here and there. The UK is likely to move further to the right when things worsen - that's not a definite, but it's likely if the post-Thatcherite years are to be viewed as a legitimate litmus test.


        competentcrew -> luella zarf 16 Jul 2015 12:27

        53 small businesses go bankrupt every day in Greece. 1.5 million former private sector employees are unemployed. There's no time to romanticise about beauty and variety. We are talking about people scavenging bins for food. The market structure has not changed from 100 years ago and is archaic, more Oriental than European. Something has to change.


        competentcrew -> kay_dee 16 Jul 2015 12:21

        Excuse me? 200.000 skilled professionals emigrated from Greece (in the last 2 years and this is a low estimate) not because they were bored, but because the way the Greeks want to run their country left them with no jobs and no hope. The country is ruined and desperately needs growth, so Sunday trading might just help a fraction. Living in a time warp doesn't.


        wheresrobinhood 16 Jul 2015 01:57

        It all started with the 2008 global financial meltdown caused by private banker greed. Since the rich cannot be paid for their mistakes--i.e. nationalize the banks--then the rest of us, the state, take over the debt.

        The author is projecting a finality when the state cannot take on the debts of the rich any longer.

        Warren Buffet said we are in a class warfare and we (the rich) are winning. Strong words since Americans don't believe in class or Marxism.

        [Jul 16, 2015] The crucifixion of Greece is killing the European project

        "...Spot on. Greece's debts have now been made effectively unrepayable in order to send the deafening warning to the Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, etc., not to dare elect anti-austerity governments. It's pretty desperate stuff."
        .
        "...if Greece was free to decide would they be in this spot. no.. they are being dictated. period. the people understand that and are protesting, but the politicians can only do what the banks tell them so they will do exactly what they are told and then have elections - the people will then elect new government which will negotiate so minor changes to the payment plans or some other irrelevant term which the new government will tout as a victory which of course the media will lap up like a dog in heat and everything will be as it should according to the control exerted by these financial oligarchs who dont give a crap about the people and only care to own own own. "
        .
        "...Just as Sven Linqvist shows in The History of Bombing that World War Two was essentially the result of Germany importing practices into Europe which were formerly common and universally accepted (even applauded) in the West's administration of its colonies (mass murder, genocide, gun boat diplomacy), so Europe's next breakdown will be able to trace its roots back to this importing of economic practices formerly reserved by Western institutions for the developing world into the heart of the developed world. This is the beginning of the end for Europe, and it certainly marks the end of my--and many others'--dreams of a powerful, unified Europe underpinned by the acquis communautaire."
        .
        "...The EU is a tool of banks and corporations to squeeze the poor."
        .
        "...This article points out what has been obvious for some time. The neo liberalist European elites cannot tolerate Syriza or any other far left political movement. There is to be no credible alternative to austerity and anyone who says otherwise will be crushed. "
        .
        "...I have just read the Hans-Ulrich Goerges column in yesterday's Stern magazine. It points out how much untaxed money rich Greeks, including the families of Greek government ministers, have parked in Switzerland over the last few years and particularly in the last few months and weeks. The amount of money involved dwarfs other sums under discussion here. And nobody does anything about it! What sort of a society is mainland western Europe, that everybody involved knows exactly what is going on, but all turn a blind eye?"
        .
        "...You do realise that the biggest tax evading entities in Greece are of German interests? You do realise that the fund where undervalued Greek assets will be going into is directed by none other than Dr Schauble (the German finance minister) himself. Greece won't be reformed because of many interests and mostly external. The rest is a charade."
        .
        "...To quote the great economist - J K Galbraith - 'In economics, the majority is always wrong' and that is certainly the case with the euro. For twenty years The Guardian has been mocking those of us who foresaw that the euro would impoverish southern Europe. We were also ridiculed for pointing out that the EU was undemocratic - run by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. Well, now the penny appears to have dropped - which is great - but I don't expect any apology to us eurosceptics! "
        .
        "...Thank you for the better analysis I've read. As a Portuguese, from a country that is going through a very similar situation, I feel that we are not living anymore in a democracy: only a formal one, under the economical-financial diktat of the UE bureaucracy, Germany, IFM and North-American geopolitical interests. If you have a good memory, as a people we have freed ourselves from a 48 years dictatorship in April 1974, and now we are falling under another one, like the Greeks, who suffered also in the flesh the Dictatorship of the Colonels. What is waiting us? A long agony, in a humiliating, almost colonial situation. The "Evil Empire" is now formed by a nebulous cloud of hidden interests, speculators and corporations. I also had an internationalist dream, I dreamed with a democratic United Europe where the richness of its several cultures and its cross pollination could have given birth to o New Renaissance and an enlarged Atlantic-Mediterrean Pax. Not any more. After the abject humilitiation of Greece I feel ashamed of even be classified as an European. In the now quickly decaying corpse of a dream all the extremims will found, as worms, the fertile ground of a graveyard. No, thank you. Keep your money and, when needed, try to eat it."
        .
        "...For me this is a wake up call. The European project has been stripped of its social pretensions and bare naked it's ugly. A project which was originally intended to maintain the social and economic balance in a Europe which would otherwise inevitably be dominated by Germany's disproportionate mass and scale has become a means of achieving and maintaining German financial and economic supremacy over the rest of Europe."
        .
        "...In a speech from Goebbells to Czech Intellectuals and journalists, Berlin 1940.

        You gentlemen have now seen something of the Reich, and I made a point of allowing you to make this journey before I addressed you. You have seen the Reich in Wartime, and you will have formed some idea of what it can be in peace. Out great nation with its large population, together with Italy, will in practice take over the leadership of Europe. There are no two ways about that. What it means for you is that you are already members of a great Reich which is preparing to reorganize Europe, tearing down the barriers that still separate the European peoples and making it easier for them to come together. Germany intends to put an end to a situation which quite clearly cannot satisfy mankind for long. We are performing here a work of reform which I am convinced will one day be recorded in large letters in the book of European history. Can you imagine what the Reich will actually be like after the war? (…)"
        .
        "...What preparations did the Euro-zone make for a Greek default? They moved the private debt to the Euro-zone tax payers. 2009 - 2014 - reduction in private creditors exposure: France - 50 billion, Germany - 20 billion ..... etc ......."
        .
        "...... Wake up call for Mr.Milne: The European Project was never meant to be of benefit for the people, only for business (and politicians). You better focus on TTIP, the coming super USA/EU, where we will all be Greece. And we don't get a referendum... This is why the UK no longer needs to be in the EU, TTIP will take care of that. All a matter of "look over here!", so you don't see what's happening over there.... "
        .
        "...The fact that war is inconceivable between the members of the EU is the often forgotten achievement. You do not have to look very far back from its foundation to realise what has been achieved. The tragedy in my view is that the vision of Europe has been hijacked by the federalists and euro (the currency)-philes. Enforcing a single currency made this crisis only a matter of time, as we have all known since it started. Spare a thought for German tax-payers who are doing the lion's share of the funding while hearing Germany abused on all sides."
        .
        "...I agree with Seamus' analysis and find it moves to the core of what's wrong with the financial Management of Greece by the Interests of World, European Capital. "Greed is good for Greece" is what it's democratic and financial institutions are being told by wealthy power Brokers. "If you don't shape up to our expectations of ever more atavistic desire for exponential Profit margins....you will be punished. So shape up and take your medicine. Corporate Fascism. This greed for Profit at exponential expectation is commodifying the very space between human communities and is philosophically. morally and spiritually bankrupt. I fear the the reptilian brain has taken over the asylum! See Chomsky's "Profit Before People"..."
        .
        "...We're always talking about the loans, but the loans are not the problem, nor was the Greek economy the problem: between 2001 and 2008, the Greek economy grew faster than the German economy. If you do not believe this, don't quarrel, look it up.
        .
        The fundamental problem of the euro zone has nothing to do with Greece, it has to do with Germany and with the macroeconomic architecture of the euro: it can't work. Since 2001, and against agreements, Germany put enormous pressure on wages: wages did not increase in sinc with productivity, but remained far below it. The consequence of this was that, by 2010, the Germans will able to produce a product and sell it in the EU for 15 % cheaper than an basically identical product made in France. With Greece, the difference was 25 %. This is how Germany exported its unemployment across the union, how it created unemployment everywhere else, how, year after year, it accumulates record trade surpluses that end up in German banks that borrow it to us so we can buy more cheap German products."
        .
        "...You have not addressed the most horrible fact which was that the German officials conspired for years to use Grexit to manipulate other EU states into giving up their sovereignty, which is black on white in Geithner's memoirs. Yet you go on with the same moralistic crap: that nobody forced Greece to do this or that. Which tells me that you do not have an ethical bone in your body, because that is Dark Vader shit. "
        .
        "...Central Europe is painting Greece as the naughty boy, while Spain and Portugal are the good little boys who did what they were told and imposed painful austerity on their peoples. This is the colonial tactic of divide and rule. The truth is that the euro enriches Central Europe and impoverishes the periphery. All the PIIGS faced painful choices after the 2008 crash as a result. The Spanish wrote off the chances of their young people. The Greeks tried to blag, bluster and fight their way out. Central Europe want everybody to think about how terrible the Spanish and the Greeks are for making these different bad choices. Actually, Central Europe are the villains (not only Germany but also Benelux and Finland). They used to say that you should not have monetary union without political union. We should now say: Monetary union without political union is perfect, if you want a mechanism for central imperial domination of their peripheral colonies."
        .
        "...Greek elites, also wedded to the same system, long ago placed their country in this unpleasant position. While I acknowledge that Greece must reform, many think the reforms the Troika wishes for are not the best ones to achieve results, lacking fairness and justice, and again penalising the poorest sections of Greek society. Both Germany and Greece, pushed by the EU to be the stars of this drama, are engaged in an impossible stand off."
        .
        "...in 2014 Timothy Geithner, US Secretary of the Treasury 2009-2013 published his Memoirs, where he details how he met Schauble in 2012. Well well, and Mr Schauble told him that kicking the Greeks out of the eurozone was a desirable strategy because "a Grexit would be traumatic enough that it would help scare the rest of Europe into giving up more sovereignty to a stronger banking and fiscal union". http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/business/dealbook/the-hard-line-on-greece.html

        Translation: Since 2012, the Germans have attempted to throw Greece under the bus in order to manipulate other states to give up their sovereignty to the bankers! You can't make this up if you tried it! Disgusting."
        .
        "...No taxpayers lent money to Greece : that was private banks. This only became a problem for European taxpayers when the troika decided in 2010 to take over responsibility for the debts, thereby transferring liability from bankers to taxpayers. They then imposed macroeconomic policies which gutted the Greek economy making it unlikely European taxpayers would ever get much of their money back . The newspapers really have got you hating the oppressed and loving your oppressors, haven`t they ?"
        .
        "...Yes, I was thinking the right wing voters are most hypocritical, even in their condemnation of the EU, because they vote for the same neoliberal ideology that got Greece into this mess, for their own nations!"
        .
        "...I was raised to have a horror of clubs and organizations with memberships. Do not see why a country would want to be a member of a club, especially when the economic disparities are so great. The EU can never operate like the USA, because every one of the countries in it as a long and different history, different language and culture. To run efficiently it will have to imitate the former USSR and develop a dictatorial central administration. Seems that Merkel has grasped that fact. Arbeit macht Frei will be the watchword and goodbye to La dolce vita."
        .
        "...Did it occur to you that the EU has changed in recent years. It is now run by right wing governments who promote a failed austerity and a failed banking system. A decade ago, it was full of socialist governments who went on a spending spree. The Banks were the winners in both cases, but now the poorest pay with unemployment, rights taken, and assets stripped, while those who benefitted most still enjoy their riches and stack money away in tax havens."

        The Guardian

        This attempt to turn Athens into a debt colony will fail – and open the way to the breakup of the eurozone

        "That's been a familiar pattern in the developing world for decades, in the guise of IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programmes. But the eurozone has now given it permanent institutional form."


        afurada crystaltips2 17 Jul 2015 18:31

        It means what it says - that over 90% of the demands made by the Troika were carried out by successive governments. I'm listing some of them here (in order of occurrence from 2010): a freeze in the salaries of all government employees; a 10% cut in bonuses and overtime for govt workers; a freeze on pensions; an increase in VAT from 19% to 21%; rises in taxes on fuel, cigarettes, and alcohol; rises in taxes on luxury goods; cuts in public sector pay; pension reform including increasing retirement age from 60 to 65 for women; cap on monthly wages and introduction of 10% cuts on salaries above €1,800; new taxes and new cuts of workers' wages; property tax collected through the electricity bill; public pension cuts to 15%; increase of the retirement age from 65 to 67; additional wage cuts for civil servants up to 20%; public salary wage cuts up to 30%; Public Broadcasting Service shut down; thousands of layoffs and wage cuts for civil service workers.

        They could have done more, and harmed the economy even further. As it turns out, it is a good thing that they didn't.


        Graham Jones 17 Jul 2015 18:25

        Indeed, the bullying of Greece and the introduction of secretive treaties like TTIP and TISA which threaten all our public services, making a mockery of having a parliamentary democracy, have convinced me to vote no in a referendum. The EU is a tool of banks and corporations to squeeze the poor. It seems our MEPs are as blissfully unaware of the broad tide of disaffection with the EU as they are with the real effects of the secret treaties. I bet Cameron is kicking himself about offering a referendum on EU membership, naively thinking that the leftish, greenish and liberal voters would weigh against the Tory euroscepts and kippers. He really needs the SNP on this one!

        eamono MaroonMango 17 Jul 2015 17:50

        Absolute crap as the Finance Minister was defeated 4-2 in a ministerial vote prior to his resignation. What were his policies and decisions? They were to take control of the Greek National Bank before the ECB acting unlawfully, stopped the funding. Why aren't you questioning the political actions of a bank that is deemed to be economic not political? Who in Europe ordered the ECB to act like this? The Germans? It wasn't the French. Do some research!!! Dr. Eamon

        ukchange68 iOpenerLo114Lat51 17 Jul 2015 17:33

        'real money' investors have been cheated, and stolen from, just like the rest of us, I'm afraid

        Euvosto Taivas gooner40 17 Jul 2015 16:39

        Regrettable, the political egos in Brussels, Paris and Berlin could never stand the Union's dissolution without tragedy.


        bolshevik96 17 Jul 2015 15:55

        This article points out what has been obvious for some time. The neo liberalist European elites cannot tolerate Syriza or any other far left political movement. There is to be no credible alternative to austerity and anyone who says otherwise will be crushed. The fact that the democratically elected government of a free and sovereign nation can be bullied into accepting harsh, economic strictures despite their election on an anti austerity ticket shines a revealing light on the bureaucratic reality of the European Union. The Greek people made their voices heard in the referendum and the message was loud and clear - NO. Democracy in the Union now only exists on the sufferance of the financial elites and if you think that this has no implications for the UK you couldn`t be more wrong. The writing is on the wall for the smaller, newer members (and some of the older ones) : elect governments acceptable to the new neo liberalist orthodoxy or face the consequences.... For years the right wing press has been banging on about European interference in British domestic affairs and the left has been dismissing it as xenophobic scare mongering but maybe they have actually been calling it right.... if that`s the case the left had better start re-thinking their position and start putting British interests first, last and always........


        tnbskts icarus32fly 17 Jul 2015 15:21

        Because when a country gets into deep financial trouble, what's the alternative? And the problem is, the deep financial trouble isn't always self-inflicted; sometimes governments are destabilised from without in order to bring about this very situation, sometimes the problems are part of a more widespread financial or other crisis (which is at least part of the problem in this case, even though I know the Tories like to claim that the 2008 financial crisis was totally down to the Labour government).

        And then the vultures circle and pick the bones clean. Austerity for the masses, public holdings transferred to private ownership at fire-sale prices, laws passed to favour foreign investors and trade at the expense of local businesses and individuals, and a society and economy wrecked for decades to come.


        mjlynley 17 Jul 2015 12:50


        While I have lots of sympathy with the Greek (I used to live there), and I agree that the terms are onerous, those who are vociferously criticizing the Europeans and blaming especially the Germans must ask themselves 1) what about Greece's responsibility (and trustworthiness) and 2) what is the alternative.

        With regard the first, the Greeks and their sympathizers talk all the time about the democratic will of the people. But democracy also means collective responsibility for what the governments you elect do in your name. Let us not forget, Greece was actually starting to recover at the end of last year before Syriza started its disastrous and ill-conceived theatrics. Also, you can't put the blame for the debt on the creditors - the Greeks LIED and CHEATED about their true level of indebtedness, and they failed to keep their promises. The Greeks are adults and must take responsibility for their decisions. If they are not considered adults able to make sensible decisions, then they don't deserve to rule.

        Another important point, frequently mentioned, but not stressed enough, is that the Greeks themselves don't want to pay for their country. Tax evasion is rampant. I was there a couple of months ago and was surprised by the number of petrol stations that were cash only, no receipt. If the Greeks aren't at least prepared to meet the world half-way, why should taxpayers in northern Europe be forced to subsidize them ad infinitum. The reforms are designed to get Greece to a primary budget surplus (i.e. before interest). Surely that is not unreasonable?!

        What is the alternative to the current deal? Everyone knows there will be some form of debt relief, even if it's only making a large chunk virtually interest-free, and stretched out far into the future. If there is a write-off, someone has to pay. The money doesn't come out of thin air. And that will be borne by taxpayers whose countries kept the rules!

        Sadly, it's a mess with no winners, only losers.


        dr8765 17 Jul 2015 08:50

        Near perfect closing paragraph Seumas.

        On the assumption that The Guardian will allow a "free vote" amongst its journalists, I hope that you will lead the "out" faction in the run-up to the referendum. Although, judging by some of the things written by others this past week, you may have some competition.

        At last the left in this country seems to have woken up to what is happening, although that doesn't extend to the politicians. But then, when was the last time the Labour party really represented the views of the disenfranchised?


        Liam DC Nisbet LiberteEgalite1 17 Jul 2015 08:34

        Do your research. Greeks are well aware of the endemic corruption and tax evasion, and this has certainly contributed towards their economic woes, but it's not the whole picture.

        Greece was lent a lot of money, by Germany, when Germany knew it couldn't pay it back. That's called irresponsible lending and it would land your average high street bank in deep water, but the Troika are not your average high street banks.

        This article is not baseless at all, in fact it's right on the money.

        It's your kind of poorly informed rhetoric that stokes nationalist resentment. Keep your childish opinions to yourself in future because you're not helping anyone.


        LiberteEgalite1 17 Jul 2015 08:14

        Countries poorer than Greece in the EU such as Latvia, Slovakia, and Lithuania have made the reforms and adjustments required to reign in borrowing in order to be competitive and are starting to succeed. Their aspire to be like Netherlands and Germany and are working hard to attain this goal. Greece on the other hand wants to send a begging bowl around the EU so that it can hand generous welfare to its citizens using other people's money. This article is baseless and not helpful in helping Greeks understand the real source of their plight, which is their endemic corruption and tax evasion of its elite.


        MaxDrei 17 Jul 2015 07:30

        I have just read the Hans-Ulrich Goerges column in yesterday's Stern magazine. It points out how much untaxed money rich Greeks, including the families of Greek government ministers, have parked in Switzerland over the last few years and particularly in the last few months and weeks. The amount of money involved dwarfs other sums under discussion here. And nobody does anything about it! What sort of a society is mainland western Europe, that everybody involved knows exactly what is going on, but all turn a blind eye?


        NickLS -> nicholass 17 Jul 2015 07:25

        Greece does not have an export oriented economy, this is a fact. It would be great if it did, but to develop one would take time and - surprise! - development; yes, the opposite of austerity!

        Given this factual situation of negligible exports, cutting pensions and wages effectively means killing the internal market and shrinking the economy because - surprise! - people will have less money to buy stuff from the companies that sell them. Thus, the remaining companies' sales will fall more and they will have to close shop.

        As for the characterisation of SYRIZA, I do not know what you justify it on and what your experience with them is, but I think it should be more than clear that your opinion does not necessarily reflect the truth.


        channelswimmer -> ChipsandCrisps 17 Jul 2015 07:15

        Actually they checked their books, however Eurostat rules said that derivative positions did't have to be on the books. Many complained about this rule, but Greece with the help of Goldman Sachs completely abused it by turning what looks like a loan from GS (ie GS give Greece a load of money, Greece pay small 'interest charges', Greece repays a load of money) into something structured as a derivative position that didn't have to show up.

        estremoz -> NickLS 17 Jul 2015 05:57

        It won't be NATO, it will be Eurogendfor, militarily equipped, rapid reaction force entirely at the operational control of the Commission, not the Council of Ministers.
        Already formed, already fully operational.
        Anti EU protests, which will increase, will be termed domestic terrorism.


        NickLS -> cpp4ever 17 Jul 2015 05:49

        Greece is not going to exit the Eurozone for the simple reason that Greek assets have been and will keep being sold off at ridiculously low prices to foreign interests. This includes infrastructure, utilities, telecommunications, banks, road tolls, ports, airports, minerals, oil rights, land, tourist businesses, etc. For example, Fraport (a German company) will be gaining ownership of 14 airports throughout Greece soon and Deutsche Telecom already owns the biggest telecommunication company in Greece. Canadian companies and funds own the Athens airport and the gold reserves in the north of the country.

        Can you imagine what long term profits these are going to make for foreign companies and for lender countries who bought it all for 1/100th of their real value through the bailout terms? A return to the drachma would mean the end of the profits and their feast, so it won't happen. And even if a revolt happens one day, you will start hearing in the media how Greek "extremists" are out of control and need to be suppressed by NATO or Juncker's army, if he has it by then.


        icarus32fly 17 Jul 2015 05:48

        Crucifixion: what an apt image! And the sheer weight of the voices behind the plethora of links you provide in this piece is ample evidence that most people of good sense are hating what's happening. Wonder if a shotgun wedding -the very rushed formation of the EU-can possibly end in an amicable and civilised divorce?


        tnbskts 17 Jul 2015 05:45

        Naomi Klein pointed out in The Shock Doctrine in 2007 that banker-imposed austerity was incompatible with democracy, and that the financial sector along with its bought-and-paid-for governments would do whatever it took to make sure that its interests prevailed, so this outcome was pretty much inevitable. Not exactly surprising that Greece has been added to the parade of countries that have already been impoverished so that the few at the top can become even richer.


        icarus32fly MaxDrei 17 Jul 2015 05:44

        No, not heart breaking at all; heartbreak involves losing something worthwhile and precious, the whole EU Project was never anything like this but a cock-eyed, ill-conceived, misguided shotgun monetary wedding...to continue your marriage metaphor...I'm still trying to figure out who was pregnant and had to get married.


        orsat1 17 Jul 2015 05:42

        I have had many happy experiences in the past 47 years whilst visiting Greece. I would like to go again but, I fear a backlash from all Greeks who do not profit from tourism. Tourism is a major part of the Greek economy and many Germans holidayed there: they will now stay away thus exacerbating the problem. Likewise many other EU citizens will feel as I do and stay away.

        The IMF and now the ECB have said that the debt is unsustainable, only the EU [mainly Germany] believes that they can get blood out of a stone. PLEASE LEAVE THE EU if only temporarily, and bring back the drachma. Tourists will flock to your shores.


        cpp4ever 17 Jul 2015 05:38

        Have to agree with you, Seumas Milne, Greece will eventually have to exit the Eurozone and default on many of its debts if the EU Troika continues with policies that have singularly failed in the past and I reckon will no doubt fail again. The current course for Greece makes a mockery of any Democracy requirements of the Eurozone when it can apparently be effectively over ruled so easily. If anyone thinks otherwise, then consider this, Greek businesses going bankrupt is about the most successful business there at the moment and that is going to do nowt for their GDP, or make the profits required to service any debts, let alone pay them off. But that is what Troika policy has achieved and can hardly be called a success!


        johnc2tinit 17 Jul 2015 05:31

        Perhaps now is the time to point out the obvious: On the scale of Europe Greece is a tiny country.

        The Greek population is a mere 5% that of France, Germany and Britain combined. It is similar to that Lombardy and just double that of Ireland. With a third of the population is in the city or metropolitan area of Athens there is neither the workforce nor the infrastructure to rebuild a viable economy, capable of sustaining the payback expected.

        Even with a florid economy Greece would have struggled to pay back the "investments" that other European countries poured in as bail-out. The error was as much on the part of the "rescuers" as on the government then in power for accepting such disproportionate sums.

        Any private investor will find in small print at the foot of a prospectus the warning: past performance is no guarantee of future returns. In Greece's case, following years of corrupt government, this codicil should have made the EU all that much more careful to help Greece to become solvent again – innovating industry and creating jobs – rather than encouraging her to dig a deeper hole to be finally swallowed in.

        Until those now crying for their money back realise that their money as lost and start supporting all the smaller members of the union in order to rebuild a single economic entity the future is bleak. For all of us, even for the larger and more wealthy members.

        John Crawford, Bergamo, Italy


        NickLS Mark Hatton 17 Jul 2015 05:30

        It is misleading to say there is a Greek situation. There is a situation for almost everyone in Europe; some are feeling the effects now, some felt it earlier and some will feel it later. However, you are right to say the the EU is a very opaque bureaucratic hegemony, on that is empowered by the de facto diversity, inequality and the lack of effective bottom-up organisation throughout the continent.


        AgeingAlbion 17 Jul 2015 05:30

        Over 40 years ago Tony Benn and Enoch Powell joined forces and argued that the EU was undemocratic; that you could not have a single government without a single minister of finance; and that the EU (Eec for pedants) was an ever expanding monster that was a one way street to a superstate. The dishonest Ted Heath pretended he disagreed. The more honest on the left agreed but thought it was a good thing, since for them more government is always better government.

        So well done for waking up Seamus to what was predicted by intelligent people from opposite ends of the spectrum before you were even born.


        Christopher Deans 17 Jul 2015 05:28

        There was not one member country that did not fudge entry conditions to the common currency of the euro and Greece was aided by other members. The only way the euro could have worked was within the confines of a Federal Europe, and a common currency was the lure. This was Germany's third attempt to dominate Europe in the last 100 years and it has failed. The Greeks will leave the Euro and they will be followed by the Mediterranean Nations whose economy is being stifled by debts greater than 100% of GDP; they need to devalue their currency to survive. German goods and services will become increasingly expensive, and equitable trade balances will eventually be restored. The process of restoration will cause some considerable hardships, which are inevitable. but who wants to use currency and a fiscal system in which trade deficit will see German bailiffs at the door demanding possession of national assets.


        Mark Hatton 17 Jul 2015 05:23

        The European Union is not a democratic institution, neither was it created to be. It's basis is ideological federalism, or bureaucratic hegemony, if you prefer.

        The EU project was always a method for Germany and/or France to attempt to dominate the mainland. There was long an unspoken agreement between these two senior nations to this end, whilst each plotted to usurp the other, 'France by other means', 'ever closer union'. The disparate identities of the European members are being gently sanded to match the homogeneous banality of the bureaucratic elite themselves. Peace in our time intending to be achieved by grim uniformity.

        That the Greek situation is political as well as financial is self evident. But it is not as black and white, good vs evil as some commentators would have you believe. The Greek establishment are as responsible for their predicament as the EU is. As a nation it has lived beyond it's means, and saw Euro membership as it's ticket to do this. It is naive to imagine the EU, IMF and German banks would be given pause by a pointless referendum and empty bluster. For all Tsipras' guts and political mandate, its was always a matter of time before he had to capitulate, or leave the Euro. Everyone round that table knew it.


        imp44791 oak101 17 Jul 2015 05:23

        For once a decent comment in CiF that doesn't go on about either "banksters" or "lazy Greeks".

        There are no good guys in this affair.

        1. Not those European politicians who are risking to wreck (and possibly have already wrecked) decades' worth of effort to build a system to keep the nationalist beast quiet over a point of philosophy ("moral hazard") and protocol ("why did you lot call a referendum while we were still negotiating"?).

        2. Not the supposed left-wingers in Greece who have repeatedly lied to their own voters for years on end (latest one: "vote No, and we will force a good agreement in 48 hours"), and who once elected immediately proved themselves to be the usual force of conservatism that the Greek "left" has always been: the protectors of guild privileges, the sacrificers of workers in the private sector to protect the cushy positions of their clients in the civil service, the persistent deniers of any modernising reform.

        3. Not the voting public in Greece who cannot rid itself of the ridiculous sense of exceptionalism, entitlement (on the achievements of some chaps who lived 2500 years ago), and myth-making ("the Russians will save us")

        4. Not the voting public in Europe, who has fallen hook, line and sinker for all the inane stereotypes of feckless Southerners who will retire at 30 to sit out in the sun, and buy luxuries with the hard earned money of Berlin bakers.

        5. And certainly not the commenters of CiF, who ride their own personal ideological hobby-horses (be that "banksters" or "morally bankrupt socialists") over an affair that has little to do with any of that.

        I am a Greek expat of some 25 years, after despairing of points 2 and 3 above. Because Syriza's BS is not just BS. It's also old-hat BS: all a silly mish-mash of old Pasok clientelism and anti-modernising reflexes, seasoned by the illiterate ramblings of the extra-parliamentary far left. But the last five years have also led me to despair of the supposedly better Europeans. Perhaps it's time to up sticks again and try a less ideologically bankrupt continent. Is New Zealand far enough? How about Tuvalu?


        NickLS rCharel 17 Jul 2015 05:23

        You do realise that the biggest tax evading entities in Greece are of German interests? You do realise that the fund where undervalued Greek assets will be going into is directed by none other than Dr Schauble (the German finance minister) himself. Greece won't be reformed because of many interests and mostly external. The rest is a charade.


        bill9651 17 Jul 2015 05:11

        To quote the great economist - J K Galbraith - 'In economics, the majority is always wrong' and that is certainly the case with the euro.

        For twenty years The Guardian has been mocking those of us who foresaw that the euro would impoverish southern Europe. We were also ridiculed for pointing out that the EU was undemocratic - run by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.

        Well, now the penny appears to have dropped - which is great - but I don't expect any apology to us eurosceptics!

        ThinBanker justonetom 17 Jul 2015 05:06

        With respect, I think you miss a crucial angle on Syriza. Tsipras and Varoufakis are very intelligent men, so is it realistic to suggest that they were naively offering the undeliverable and crossing their fingers? No, the point of their strategy was fear: take a bold, brazen stance and evoke the clear understanding that they will not back down and all the time leverage fear of the repurcussions for the eurozone as a whole if they are kicked out. Such a strategy requries a poker face, a brazen bluff til the end.

        When it came to showing hands, Germany won .... but if you think about it, this was the only viable strategy if Greece was to try and remove its straitjacket.


        ManuelGiraldes 17 Jul 2015 04:58

        Thank you for the better analysis I've read. As a Portuguese, from a country that is going through a very similar situation, I feel that we are not living anymore in a democracy: only a formal one, under the economical-financial diktat of the UE bureaucracy, Germany, IFM and North-American geopolitical interests. If you have a good memory, as a people we have freed ourselves from a 48 years dictatorship in April 1974, and now we are falling under another one, like the Greeks, who suffered also in the flesh the Dictatorship of the Colonels. What is waiting us? A long agony, in a humiliating, almost colonial situation. The "Evil Empire" is now formed by a nebulous cloud of hidden interests, speculators and corporations. I also had an internationalist dream, I dreamed with a democratic United Europe where the richness of its several cultures and its cross pollination could have given birth to o New Renaissance and an enlarged Atlantic-Mediterrean Pax. Not any more. After the abject humilitiation of Greece I feel ashamed of even be classified as an European. In the now quickly decaying corpse of a dream all the extremims will found, as worms, the fertile ground of a graveyard. No, thank you. Keep your money and, when needed, try to eat it.


        JackBz 17 Jul 2015 04:53

        For me this is a wake up call. The European project has been stripped of its social pretensions and bare naked it's ugly. A project which was originally intended to maintain the social and economic balance in a Europe which would otherwise inevitably be dominated by Germany's disproportionate mass and scale has become a means of achieving and maintaining German financial and economic supremacy over the rest of Europe.

        Right now Greece can go hang, but the message is - actually - you can all go hang, if it doesn't work for Germany it's not going to happen.


        Shipyardwelder 17 Jul 2015 04:11

        Greece has been made a sort of sacrificial lamb for the Euro project. On the altar of the European dream, a nation has been reduced to penury. Yes, they were stupid to borrow money in the way that they did. But, more stupid is a E.U., that allowed a situation like this to develop in the first place. -- May the fine Greek people find resurrection that comes after crucifixion.


        estremoz 17 Jul 2015 03:39

        In a speech from Goebbells to Czech Intellectuals and journalists, Berlin 1940.

        You gentlemen have now seen something of the Reich, and I made a point of allowing you to make this journey before I addressed you. You have seen the Reich in Wartime, and you will have formed some idea of what it can be in peace. Out great nation with its large population, together with Italy, will in practice take over the leadership of Europe. There are no two ways about that. What it means for you is that you are already members of a great Reich which is preparing to reorganize Europe, tearing down the barriers that still separate the European peoples and making it easier for them to come together. Germany intends to put an end to a situation which quite clearly cannot satisfy mankind for long. We are performing here a work of reform which I am convinced will one day be recorded in large letters in the book of European history. Can you imagine what the Reich will actually be like after the war? (…)


        mitchellkiwi 17 Jul 2015 03:30

        Well, Merkel, Schauble, Juncker, congratulations! You'll be able to buy the Piraeus, already you own plenty of properties there. You'll be able to buy energy, water and other public services. But more and more of the British public now know they no longer want to be a part of such an abusive organisation. The UK will be leaving after their referendum. We don't want to know you any longer.


        Euvosto Taivas FrankMartin 17 Jul 2015 03:30

        At least very many Finns would like to resign the euro. They have begun collecting names, in order to give the opportunity to a referendum. The eurozone represents the dictatorship of the international banksters. The whole European Union is hated every day more and more. Names against it are collected, too. As we know, Eu does not allow referendums regarding its decisions or very existence.


        soundofthesuburbs David Parris 17 Jul 2015 03:21

        What preparations did the Euro-zone make for a Greek default? They moved the private debt to the Euro-zone tax payers.

        2009 - 2014 - reduction in private creditors exposure: France - 50 billion, Germany - 20 billion ..... etc .......

        The taxpayers have been loaded up with the bankers bad loans.

        The full unpleasant story:

        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-03/good-you-greece-don%E2%80%99t-waver-now-part-2


        DT48 FenlandBuddha 17 Jul 2015 03:06

        Who do you think funded people like Jean Monnet? The campaign for European Union was in Britain until Britain made it clear it was not going to commit, then it shifted to France.

        Yes, it is a US project - some European politicians may have been anti-American, but surely it is obvious by now that the US is politically pragmatic and would consider that a small price to pay for the desired geopolitical outcomes.


        Enoch Powell 17 Jul 2015 02:57

        The crucifixion of Greece is killing the European project

        The European project is dead. Dead as a dodo !! The free trade concept looked good on paper but the EU has transformed into something quite different than what was originally intended.

        If the British people knew that political union was on the agenda and that millions of poor East Europeans would have free access to British jobs, public services and social housing they would have comprehensively rejected EU membership at conception. The fact is the British and Greek people have been lied to time and time again by the political establishment. The chickens have come home to roost and it's game over for this failed and corrupt European project. Get over it !!


        taxmillionaires admonfr 17 Jul 2015 02:55

        You conveniently forget that of the 'bail outs' allegedly given to Greece, more than a 90% went straight to the banks, therefore, they should not be called bail outs for Greece. They were at all effects bailouts for the effing failing banks.

        Greece couldn't pay its debt and that debt shouldn't been payed. When you walk into a casino and you gamble, you may win or loose. If you loose, you don't have the European taxpayers covering for your loses. The same should be applied to banks and investors. You invest at your own peril. You may win a fortune in profits and interest but you may lose if the borrower cannot pay back. However, the way it is in Europe now, the banks and creditors gamble and profit from the interests while the taxpayers foot the bill for the loses. If there is not enough taxpayers' money to cover the astronomical loses of those banks, then bleed the taxpayers dry by imposing an artificial austerity destined to suck up to the last cent of EU states to give to banks. What a cosy arrangement, no?

        I will only believe that it was Greece's fault if up to the last cent of those 300 bn or so in 'bail outs' had remained in Greece's economy. As it is, for me, it was, it is and it will continue to be the fault of the banks and the apologists for those banks. As we stand, the eurocrats have catastrophically failed not only to Greece, to the rest of the eurozone countries, but to every country in the EU because they have tramped democracy and put in the open what the EU project is all about. Nobody apart from Greece's democratically elected government should have a say in how the country is run.

        What those eurocrats have done in Greece is at all effects a coup and history will make them pay dearly for it.


        muezzin maricaangela 17 Jul 2015 02:49

        Well, as you know, ties between Germany and Croatia are deep :) We'll see if Germans will help if Croats implode.

        As for the commercial loans - this is how the Chinese and Americans operate. Standard MO. Only, the Germans, Swiss and Italians did it a bit more ineptly, crashing many a East/Southern European family with unfavorable loans. Note however, that this does not apply to Greece, where interests rates were slashed a few years ago.


        FenlandBuddha Thorlar1 17 Jul 2015 02:49

        "The "European project" was largely designed by the US in the aftermath of WWII specifically to resist Soviet Russian expansion."

        Absolute bollocks. The drivers behind the European project were all European (sometimes anti-American). It was all about no more European wars and at its core how can France and Germany live together after 3 destructive wars in one lifetime. That's what drive men like Jean Monnet. If the USSR hasn't existed they would have acted in exactly the same way. The Americans couldn't wait to get out of Europe after the war.

        Utter anti-American " twist rhe facts to make the US the villain" drivel


        hertsman GMPierce 17 Jul 2015 02:46

        The money went to the German and French banking system and was added to Greece's bill. The Greeks didn't see a nickle of that money.

        Wrong. They got 9% or around 25 Bn - that's a lot of nickels. Please make your contributions more accurate.

        the ordinary Greek people don't profit from that corruption.

        Really ? Where do you think the money came from to allow public servants to retire at 55 with 80% pension ? A Guardian article on Greek pensions featured a clerk who had retired at 55 and received E 940/month pension. This must be the most generous pension system in the world.


        David Parris 17 Jul 2015 02:35

        Germany wants influence in proportion to its size, and its size is huge; this has led to dangerous hegemonism leaving smaller states (except Luxembourg) counting for little. Essentially, European democratic structures exist only on paper; in practice, France and Germany collude to stitch up major decisions in advance, to the detriment of smaller Member States. The mechanism of so-called "bail-outs" should be noted; they consist of loans at better interest rates than the bank gives me, and are used to pay off German bond holders. So in effect, Germans are the main beneficiaries of bail-outs, and although they tie up capital, they provide a decent return to the lender.

        jorjo stui2000 17 Jul 2015 02:30

        Some consequences of the mess imposed by Germany and their vassals

        • - in a few months Germany has lost a lot of the political capital and reputation it had acquired post WWII
        • - Euroscepticism growing all over Europe, not only within rightwing populists but amongst liberal and progressive part of society
        • - Probability of UK exiting EU as a result of the referendum increasing materially
        • - Possibility of Scotland leaving UK as a result of it

        What a shamble, and I have not even mentioned the consequences in Greece!


        soundofthesuburbs admonfr 17 Jul 2015 02:26

        It is interesting to contrast how Greece is being treated for its debt of 300 – 400 billion to how the bankers were treated when they lost 6 trillion.

        James Rickards in Currency Wars gives this figure (before anyone asks):
        Losses from sub-prime - less than $300 billion
        With derivative amplification - over $6 trillion


        Thorlar1 17 Jul 2015 02:21

        The "European project" was largely designed by the US in the aftermath of WWII specifically to resist Soviet Russian expansion. Consequently there has never been any place for left wing politics, let alone economics, at the high tables of European economic policy.

        Germany, the greatest recipient of post war reconstruction funds (bail outs) at the end of the war, is dutifully toeing an economic line drawn by America, via the IMF, World Bank and now the ECB. Europe is not a unifying project, it is a neoliberal test bed for economic Darwinism and magic pudding thinking where survival of the fittest is the first and only rule.

        Ironically it took the US, an outsider, to dictate the terms of Breton Woods and the new global world order to Europeans, especially France, who wanted to do another Versailles treaty on Germany all over again.

        But as always America's motives were far from pure, it created a powerful anti-communist bulwark in central Europe, and new 'trading partners' for its exports and has retained economic supremacy ever since, essentially on the back of arms manufacture and associated industries that has accounted for up to a third of the the US's GDP. For a while it not only survived at the expense of its 'competitors' it thrived.

        But all good things come to an end and the end for the US economic dominance was the signaled by rejection of Keynesianism in the late 70s and 1980's debt-fueled consumption. This and other magic pudding ideas became a global exports along with structural adjustment, aka austerity.

        After a brief fling with communism Greece avidly imported all this economic nonsense, peddled by dealers like Goldman Sachs et al, little realising that unlike America with its huge economy and global fiat currency, they could not money-print their way out of living beyond their means. When it came time to pay the piper the down side of debt-fueled consumption was made very clear by Germany, a principal lender, who has no problem doing to Greece what the US stopped France from doing to Germany all those years ago.

        The only answer for Greece now is to forget tourism and convert its entire economy to arms manufacturing, this will not only enable it to repay all its loans, but be in surplus in no time. They could get some advice on this from another small European arms manufacturing country: Sweden!


        Scrotalyser Euvosto Taivas 17 Jul 2015 02:18

        The EU always was a Banking Project. We must thank the Greeks for showing us the true nature of the beasts. And apologies to all those whose warnings were brushed off as conspiracy theories.


        Gjenganger Charliezulu 17 Jul 2015 02:14

        I beg to differ. Postwar Germany must have been a place of crushing austerity. They had had their system rewritten by outsiders, they had taken on board the new way of doing things and decided to make a success of it no matter what. Then the outside world decided to stop demanding the impossible and thereby cause unnecessary ruin (and, yes, that kind of foresight is in short supply today).

        We should not push the parallel too far - Greece is 'guilty' of economic mismanagement, not of world war and genocide. But some of the same spirit of accepting reality and dealing with your problems would go a long way to make debt relief easier. Germany did not hold a referendum to decide that they were having their pre-war living standard back, the occupying troops out, and their country unified, and the US and USSR would kindly move out of the way and provide the money to finance the project.


        Gayreekslayer 17 Jul 2015 02:13

        Greece has a per capita GDP that is lower than that of West Virginia (both before and after the meltdown), one of America's poorest states. West Virginia doesn't have subway stations with marble. It couldn't afford it even if it wanted to have them.

        Bottom line is when you have an economy that is worse than West Virginia, you can't live like you're in The Netherlands or in Germany.


        GMPierce 17 Jul 2015 02:03

        Guess what guys -- The old man crying in front of the Bank ATM was not one of the people who collected the cash from the previous bail-outs.

        The money went to the German and French banking system and was added to Greece's bill. The Greeks didn't see a nickle of that money.

        The Greek government is obviously corrupt, but again, the ordinary Greek people don't profit from that corruption. The Greeks banks are broke because all of the money is in the hands of the EU bureaucrats and a dozen other varieties of thieves.

        You can call them socialists or you can call them free-enterprisers, but whatever label they use is just a justification for why they are entitled to rob the ordinary people blin.


        mrmikeeu 17 Jul 2015 01:59

        The crucifixion of Greece is killing the European project

        ... Wake up call for Mr.Milne: The European Project was never meant to be of benefit for the people, only for business (and politicians). You better focus on TTIP, the coming super USA/EU, where we will all be Greece. And we don't get a referendum... This is why the UK no longer needs to be in the EU, TTIP will take care of that. All a matter of "look over here!", so you don't see what's happening over there....

        Healthymongrel 17 Jul 2015 01:55

        The fact that war is inconceivable between the members of the EU is the often forgotten achievement. You do not have to look very far back from its foundation to realise what has been achieved. The tragedy in my view is that the vision of Europe has been hijacked by the federalists and euro (the currency)-philes. Enforcing a single currency made this crisis only a matter of time, as we have all known since it started. Spare a thought for German tax-payers who are doing the lion's share of the funding while hearing Germany abused on all sides.

        The real blame lies with the people who will never be called to account: the fantasists for a federal Europe who pulled countries into the Euro knowing perfectly well that their economies, their whole ways of looking at the world, were incompatible.

        That was a criminal act.

        Meanwhile, in the UK the advantages of Europe are being masked by this disaster, the will of the Greek (and I suspect the German) people is being driven over, public opinion in France is moving against all things European.


        ID3090731 17 Jul 2015 01:55

        I agree with Seamus'analysis and find it moves to the core of what's wrong with the financial Management of Greece by the Interests of World, European Capital.

        "Greed is good for Greece" is what it's democratic and financial insitutions are being told by wealthy power Brokers.
        "If you don't shape up to our expectations of ever more atavistic desire for exponential Profit margins....you will be punsished. So shape up and take your medicin.

        Corporate Facism. This greed for Profit at exponential expectation is commodifying the very space between human communities and is philosophivally. morally and spiritually bankrupt. I fear the the reptilian brain has taken over the asylum! See Chomsky's "Profit Before People"


        trp981 17 Jul 2015 01:25

        "The ex-finance minister Yanis Varoufakis compared the 'deal' to the Versailles treaty."

        The post WW1 Versailles treaty and the post WW2 Marshall Plan can be profitably compared to everyone's favorite US Constitution amendments: 18th and 21st. The former instituted the prohibition on alcoholic beverages, while the latter repealed the former. The zeal of austerity-mongers in torturing Greece in the guise of a morality play, while much of the bailout money is being transferred in the background to the coffers of the creditors - who hold more than at least as much responsibility in making risky loans in pursuit of higher gains - could possibly lead to a system-wide collapse beyond Greece. After a prolonged period of avoidable suffering, something like a Marshall Plan/21st Amendment will be required to repeal a stupid "pre-Keynesian balanced-budget economics" and wash away the damage wrought by the banks and the financial sector in general. An unnecessary lessons-not-learned repetition of historical events and/or the return of the repressed.

        "That's been a familiar pattern in the developing world for decades, in the guise of IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programmes. But the eurozone has now given it permanent institutional form."

        The Troika's algorithmic cruelty towards the Greeks has thrown into relief – yet again - the consequences of "structural adjustment programmes", which effectively redefine the economic concept of GDP as generalized debt peonage. The only novelty in the Greek situation, and by extension "southern Europe", is that the GDP has now contracted from faraway places to the outskirts of the civilized continent.

        "The idea that this crisis has simply pitted one democratic mandate – that of Greece – against the hard-pressed taxpayers of 18 other eurozone members is nonsense."

        The good news for those into the dark arts of manufacturing consent is that a politically sufficient number of people can be fooled a politically sufficient number of times. Especially effective is the national-economy-is-like-household-economy ruse, which always succeeds in corralling the economic illiterate. Which leaves us with the wise words of Cheech and Chong: "I know exactly where we are."


        CroppyNotDown 17 Jul 2015 01:13

        The ECB happy to illegally egg on then stand and watch a bank run destroy an entire country, for whom it is the central bank; all at the behest of its most powerful shareholder.

        This is surely a world first in the history of central banking.

        Now the ECB will loosen the noose, ever so slightly, just to allow a few short breadths.

        Europe knows its destruction techniques well. It has a long and bloody history learning them.

        The humiliation of Greece cries out for vengence, and that is probably what it will get.


        apacheman 16 Jul 2015 20:28

        You might call this the opening stages of The War of the 1%.

        Truly it is a war of sociopaths against humanity, and it will be very, very ugly before it is through.

        It has happened repeatedly in human history, and it always ends in the same way: the extermination of the current 1% and and their families after the slaughter of millions of innocents.

        I wish they would learn to accept limits, but their natures demand complete and utter control...they enjoy watching the suffering, and always think they can get off scot-free, right up to the moment they are on the steps of the guillotine, or facing the firing squads.

        Sadly, it is beginning again.


        ID9173573 16 Jul 2015 20:14

        We're always talking about the loans, but the loans are not the problem, nor was the Greek economy the problem: between 2001 and 2008, the Greek economy grew faster than the German economy. If you do not believe this, don't quarrel, look it up.

        The fundamental problem of the euro zone has nothing to do with Greece, it has to do with Germany and with the macroeconomic architecture of the euro: it can't work. Since 2001, and against agreements, Germany put enormous pressure on wages: wages did not increase in sinc with productivity, but remained far below it. The consequence of this was that, by 2010, the Germans will able to produce a product and sell it in the EU for 15 % cheaper than an basically identical product made in France. With Greece, the difference was 25 %. This is how Germany exported its unemployment across the union, how it created unemployment everywhere else, how, year after year, it accumulates record trade surpluses that end up in German banks that borrow it to us so we can buy more cheap German products.

        France did never did anything 'wrong,' it followed the wage rule, it was not over it and it was not under it. Now France is bleeding. Greece went over: wages increased faster than rises in productivity, but it was, all by all, not that much and it should not have been important. Now you can say, what's wrong with it, isn't that competition? Isn't that the name of the game, trying to sell your products cheaper than your competitors. No, it is not. It's mere mercantalism, it is as stupid as it gets. The German policies destroyed demand everywhere in Europe, up to the point that there is deflation everywhere. It is called Japanese disease: deflation, high and persistent unemployment and a low rate of investment. There is only one way out of this and that is to let wages rise. But no one understands that, although there is a clear historical precedent: in the 1920s the golden standard created basically the same imbalances as we have now but politicians from whatever stripe or colour continue to swear by it - we know where it ended. The euro will go down the same road if no changes will be made. In the meantime, let just suck the living daylight out of the Greeks and turn the place into a protectorate. But it won't help. It is not a new problem, it is an old problem. Wages have to rise, social welfare allowances and pensions have to rise, the ridiculous and idiotic obsession with decreasing the government deficit as a priority has to be left behind, instead priority has to be given to bringing the aggregate private debt down and up to the day that this happens there will be no growth anywhere - for those who believe that the conservatives are doing a great job: look at manufacturing output, look at productivity growth (ridiculous), look at the investment rate (still way below 2008) - these factors and pretty much nothing else determine growth, not financialisation, not the insane inflation of real estate. Either we change or we'll become developing countries. For the truth is that if Greece is bankrupt, no one else is far off.


        luella zarf Cigars 16 Jul 2015 20:07

        You have not addressed the most horrible fact which was that the German officials conspired for years to use Grexit to manipulate other EU states into giving up their sovereignty, which is black on white in Geithner's memoirs. Yet you go on with the same moralistic crap: that nobody forced Greece to do this or that. Which tells me that you do not have an ethical bone in your body, because that is Dark Vader shit.

        But I'm not going to bother to deconstruct all your ideological nonsense, it's not worth my time and energy, I'll just copypaste again Mark Blyth's ending from his article in Foreign Affairs:

        ''To fix the problem, someone in core Europe is going to have to own up to all of the above and admit that their money wasn't given to lazy Greeks but to already-bailed bankers who, despite a face-value haircut, ended up making a profit on the deal.''

        No surprise there, like in any casino, the house never loses.

        https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/greece/2015-07-07/pain-athens


        Allen57 16 Jul 2015 19:44

        Central Europe is painting Greece as the naughty boy, while Spain and Portugal are the good little boys who did what they were told and imposed painful austerity on their peoples. This is the colonial tactic of divide and rule.

        The truth is that the euro enriches Central Europe and impoverishes the periphery. All the PIIGS faced painful choices after the 2008 crash as a result. The Spanish wrote off the chances of their young people. The Greeks tried to blag, bluster and fight their way out. Central Europe want everybody to think about how terrible the Spanish and the Greeks are for making these different bad choices. Actually, Central Europe are the villains (not only Germany but also Benelux and Finland).

        They used to say that you should not have monetary union without political union. We should now say: Monetary union without political union is perfect, if you want a mechanism for central imperial domination of their peripheral colonies.


        maricaangela CarolusB 16 Jul 2015 19:38

        Thanks for your polite reply, Charles. I too know many people from those areas and have lived in Serbia and Croatia, as well as Germany.

        Yes, the poor will suffer most, but rather than blame Syriza entirely, I think two irreconcilable ideologies came up against each other, and there was no room for manouevre at all, to move to a logical and helpful conclusion.

        This is a terrible deal for Greece - it doesn't even avert disaster, just makes it more long-winded and painful - and a terrible deal for the tax payers footing the bill. So who should we blame? As the saying goes, 'The fish rots from the head'. The EUs weak leadership has meant they have co-opted German politicians, who are unfortunately equally wedded to failed economics and have too much 'inat' to change course, and possibly too much to lose politically?

        Greek elites, also wedded to the same system, long ago placed their country in this unpleasant position. While I acknowledge that Greece must reform, many think the reforms the Troika wishes for are not the best ones to achieve results, lacking fairness and justice, and again penalising the poorest sections of Greek society. Both Germany and Greece, pushed by the EU to be the stars of this drama, are engaged in an impossible stand off.

        Why do you only blame Syriza? Why not the lack of oversight of the EU, the corrupt behaviour of the previous Greek governments, and the fact that within the EU, since 2008, the Banks have not been regulated or checked but continually bailed out and the recipients of enormous funds from QE? Why has Germany made the taxpayers of Europe fund the Bank's bailouts?

        This is a catastrophic situation and exposes democracy in peril. I am sure in Germany, opinion is also split, and can understand that all those carrying the load are equally fed up, but I do think people should think more clearly about how we got here.I do not see apportioning blame appropriate any more but I see no contrition from the EU, nor any desire to change the trajectory of policy, however unpopular it increasingly becomes, and when even the IMF says it will no longer work.

        The EU should have made sure Greece was solvent before membership, and they have thrown good money after bad. Do you think they are competent decision makers, and why do they carry on protecting the Banks at the expense of taxpayers? In fact, Varafoukis wanted a Grexit, he couldn't find the means to do it, and in a way, he and Schauble obviously separately thought that was the better option, and it would have been in accord with the results of the referendum that was held in Greece.

        I'm sorry, but you do not offer explanations of these anomalies, while only blaming Syriza, a government in power for only 6 months, and constantly negotiating in that time to stave off disaster, when this crisis has been dragging on for years.

        Austerity has been proven not to work, and yet the medicine is still administered, even though it kills the patient (and in the end, the nurse(!), no doubt). Obama rejected it, Osborne is no longer following it in reality, numerous economists reject it's value. Yet here we are with more austerity for Greece, none for the Banks, Financial Institutions and elites who have taken the money out of Greece, and placed it in foreign banks and tax havens.

        I am very sorry for the taxpayers who are footing the bill, and the Greek people. I am not sorry for those who will not take any responsibility for their mistakes, and I will vote to go out of the EU. I cannot, on principle, vote to stay in such a misguided institution which holds in contempt the citizens of Europe, and upholds elitism and corruption.

        I do not think the Greek governments are innocent, but I find it very hard to find any innocents among the leaders here. As usual, the people who had no say in these events will pay the highest price, whether Germans, Greeks, Finns, Slovenians - let's hope they remember when next they vote in elections.

        I wish you well, in the hope we might have light at the end of the tunnel eventually!


        Santiago Barreiro Jim Jetson 16 Jul 2015 19:36

        Half of my family live in Spain, and they´re pretty honest taxpayers, well-meaning townsfolk. Since the EU showed up and the EURO replaced the peseta, the quality of life there has decreased. The issue in the eurozone isn´t honest vs. dishonest countries, but rich vs. poor countries. France is noticeably corrupt, improductive and with a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy and they haven´t suffered. Simply because they´re rich enough so an overvalued currency doesn´t affect them.


        luella zarf -> Cigars 16 Jul 2015 19:33

        Mark Blyth, a noted economist, has a recent article in Foreign Affairs, subtitled Why Greece Isn't to Blame for the Crisis: ''According the Bank of International Settlements, by 2010 when the crisis hit, French banks held the equivalent of nearly 465 billion euros in so-called impaired periphery assets, while German banks had 493 billion on their books.''

        The article explains the mechanisms through which the banks were bailed out and even made a profit despite the alleged haircut which ends up like this: "To fix the problem, someone in core Europe is going to have to own up and admit that their money wasn't given to lazy Greeks but to already-bailed bankers who, despite a face-value haircut, ended up making a profit on the deal.'' https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/greece/2015-07-07/pain-athens


        HoolyK maricaangela 16 Jul 2015 19:17

        Look, ... there are a ton of countries and peoples around the world who would love to be like Germany and the Germans ... a disciplined, cultured, technologically advanced people with a successful economy. Like China and Russia for example, their leaders are basically aping the Germans, trying to turn their countries into bigger versions of Germany. Greece has an opportunity for direct German rule that can turn it into a mini-Germany, but with sun and beaches. Why not take this offer? Because the Greeks, ever since independence from the Ottoman Empire has not shown itself very worthy of self rule. Why shy away? After all, Greece once had a German prince upon its thrown, and Greece's very flag is based upon the colors of Bavaria. The alternative is wallowing in Balkan mediocrity and Mediterranean sloth.


        duke_widin 16 Jul 2015 18:53

        This week has made a mockery of monetary union as a path to a united democratic Europe and opened the way for the eurozone's breakup.

        Greece is important for the EU that's why every aspect is analysed and discussed but, still small fry... Greece needs the the 3rd time bailed out in 5 years,this makes it hard to understand how the program works . I read columns and articles here in the Guardian from economy professors who don't seem to understand how solid the Euro zone is set up in contrast to the USDollar who still got a private central bank the FED something even the UK gave up more as 75 years ago ....

        However,the euro has the highest combined value of banknotes and coins in circulation in the entire world and in only 15 years(the US Dollar took ca.150 years) it has become the second reserve currency after the USDollar without any other competitor in sight....

        The EU with over 500 million inhabitants in this short time has became the world most potent and biggest consumer market..
        And now the EU will find a even greater stability in more political integration...


        darkwhy ShiresofEngland 16 Jul 2015 18:36

        And the blatant absence of due diligence. When a loan shark lends money there is no due diligence, just fear and the breaking of bones.
        Lack of due diligence was the major driver behind the sub-prime mortgage crime-all the way to the top. They [the bankers] got of with it Scot -free and kept on awarding themselves £$billions while their victims suffer without end[the poor in the Uk for one


        luella zarf -> Cigars 16 Jul 2015 18:30

        The lenders were more than willing to help if economic reforms were implement.

        This a shameless lie, that reform were not implemented (why are you doing this? didn't your mummy teach you basic morality?). If you search the website OECD Going for growth 2015, you will find a chart called OECD Going for growth reform responsiveness, average 2007-1014 showing that Greece leads the OECD reform ranking.

        The problem is that austerity is a ruinous idiotic policy and the reforms have thrown Greece into a 1933-style depression. Unemployment in Greece is over 25 percent now, higher than the United States during the Great Depression.

        The lenders were not considering Grexit.

        Unfortunately for all of you the trolling trolls who promote this propagandistic bullshit, in 2014 Timothy Geithner, US Secretary of the Treasury 2009-2013 published his Memoirs, where he details how he met Schauble in 2012. Well well, and Mr Schauble told him that kicking the Greeks out of the eurozone was a desirable strategy because "a Grexit would be traumatic enough that it would help scare the rest of Europe into giving up more sovereignty to a stronger banking and fiscal union".
        http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/business/dealbook/the-hard-line-on-greece.html

        Translation: Since 2012, the Germans have attempted to throw Greece under the bus in order to manipulate other states to give up their sovereignty to the bankers! You can't make this up if you tried it! Disgusting.


        8911steven Jim Jetson 16 Jul 2015 18:21

        No taxpayers lent money to Greece : that was private banks. This only became a problem for European taxpayers when the troika decided in 2010 to take over responsibility for the debts, thereby transferring liability from bankers to taxpayers. They then imposed macroeconomic policies which gutted the Greek economy making it unlikely European taxpayers would ever get much of their money back . The newspapers really have got you hating the oppressed and loving your oppressors, haven`t they ?


        HolyInsurgent 16 Jul 2015 18:05

        Seumas Milne: A eurozone nakedly dominated by one state, Germany, enforcing destructive austerity on its vassals with such brutality, can have no enduring legitimacy.

        Ironically including for Germany when it enters an inevitable recession in the boom-and-bust cycle. Then watch German politicans and economists howl when their surrounding markets have all been crippled by Germany's "success." What goes around comes around. And Germany will learn this hard lesson too late.

        What kind of a union of partners treats one of its members like a recalcitrant colony, destroys its economy if it steps out of line, and dismisses its democracy as an impudent affront? In fact it's one that has always ducked democratic accountability, embedded deregulation and privatisation in treaties, and preferred to fix policy – including the race-to-the-bottom Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership – with corporate interests in secret.

        Agreed. The neoliberal policies of the Troika are the culprit and require re-evaluation before there are intra-European boycotts...or worse.


        maricaangela CarolusB 16 Jul 2015 17:51

        The mindset of the Balkans is not easily understood by Western Europe. Cut off from their cultural Christian roots by the Ottomans for centuries, deeply divided and distrustful, forced to fight for freedom from their occupiers, and centuries of begging for any favour, job, or entitlement,have left them with a deep distrust of the State (hence the endemic non-payment of taxes even now they have self rule) yet eager to be part of the Europe they were separated and distanced from for so long. Same goes for other countries, e.g. Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary and the former Jugoslav states, on similar lines, often uniting to fight the Ottomans, but otherwise quarreling over borders, land and ethnic divisions, and divided in WWs by forces beyond their control. This is not foremost in the national mindsets now, but is deeply subconscious, rather like our sabres are rattled at Germany/Prussia in an almost visceral way, and despite the jokes about us and the French, we look to them to show a united front against any German encroachment of our powers. Unfortunately, German actions have ignited that subconscious fear, of being cast out, isolated and alone. So they grab at straws for now.

        I guess this historical sense of being forced apart from the rest of the continent, yet fighting two WWs alongside the allies (with Serbia) makes them feel they are safer in than out, even though that position may be very tenuous. People in continental Europe are eager for peace and tolerant of their neighbours only to a certain degree, and in the Balkans this is exacerbated by a deep inferiority complex of being pawns in the games of the bigger powers, and deeply misunderstood.

        In a similar sense, Serbs have a lot of contempt for Milosevic, yet feel outraged that Britain, a former ally bombed them. This burns them deeper than their own politicians, who they expect to be venal and corrupt and do nothing good for them. Thus Greece is behind Syriza because they are the best they've had for a long time, they are willing to include the people who were denied a voice for so long, yet have ultimately ended up with a terrible deal. These countries feel martyred by all sides, like victims of their own and others, so they make, for us, strange decisions, it's true.


        inmateN7 16 Jul 2015 17:48

        Any of us in the UK who have been at the sharp end of our incumbent governments' austerity programme can only feel sympathy for the people of Greece, who have been well and truly shafted by this 'fix'. However, this does not justify a knee-jerk, one-size-fits-all assumption that both we and Greece, would be better out of the EC.
        For Greece, a forced exit may be the only outcome, but they have their reasons for wanting to stay in the EC, they are not masochists. While we in the UK have always been cynical of the 'provisions' of EC membership, I don't think we're half as cynical as those on the continent, many of whom underwent near stratospheric inflation when they swapped their currencies. Membership is not a dictatorship, it's always up for negotiation, and what we need are the leaders and representatives to navigate this negotiation in a mature and truly democratic way. Sure TTIP gives me the fear, and there's a lot to argue against, but I still feel more secure about the nations of Europe being united in a common purpose, and not fracturing under different ideologies, returning to eyeing each other with jingoistic suspicion...

        Alarmcall 16 Jul 2015 17:30

        All Europe should be questioning whether this European Union has lost its way, has strayed too far from the enlightened founding principles of the Treaty of Rome, has forgotten their purpose to prevent history repeating the fateful folly of letting bankers exploit workers, keeping working conditions harsh, spreading impoverishment, fanning nationalism and seeding revolt and warfare.

        The European Union, not just the Euro Zone, is now at risk of being destroyed by stupidity, bruised egos, weak visionless collective leadership and no clear chain of command. The so called leaders need to wake up to the lack of Unity at the heart of both the Eurozone and the wider EU. Too many countries are preoccupied with self interest, not sharing, and not uniting under the EU flag; this includes the shameful United Kingdom government.


        Market makers do not plan for or buy long term security, they simply exploit opportunity for profit. Markets will let a population starve, they will let a nation go bankrupt regardless of the suffering, they will let a nation be defenceless, they will pollute and disrupt the biosphere for as long as governments let them, unless they are paid not to.


        Markets corrupt governments to put GDP growth above responsibility for people or life on Earth. Anything that gets in the way of greed driven corporations making more profits is ignored, denied or if needs be fought by mercenary intermediaries paid to misinform, to make political donations and provide other reward channels to lure away opposition. Above all they rely on selfishness dominating community.

        Markets are in conflict with the needed good governance of this planet now that humans are changing the conditions that have enabled us to flourish.

        As the last three decades have shown, markets push government towards ever more deregulation, and lower taxes to increase debt driven unconstrained growth of consumption, regardless of financial risk to individuals, or countries, and without heeding the clear scientific evidence that pollution of the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses is causing a speed of global warming that will in a lifetime radically change the climate system with catastrophic consequences for the stability of civilisation around the planet.

        The citizens of all the member states of the European Union need to come to their senses and reflect on these matters. The European Union has not responded well to the internal economic problems of the Euro Zone nor the wider EU, nor major international problems, because the member states retain the real power and they act like slaves to blindly further this out of control corporate machine, that is taking their countries on a suicidal route to savage resource wars in a hungry climate ravaged world.

        For too long Europe has relied upon leadership from the United States, but the US Congress has been neutered by the misuse of the power and wealth of Corporations.

        We can see the result in the staggeringly huge government debts in America and across the EU including Britain. These are primarily down to rescuing commercial banks that were going bust and governments taxing far too little at the expense of a bleak future for the young.


        The loans to Greece were designed to rescue European banks, transfer the debt to taxpayers, and through harsh terms provide more opportunities for buying up Greek distressed assets by commercial vultures.

        This dangerous global banking system needs putting back in its box. Global problems can only be solved by responsible governance.

        The three decades of cut taxes, de-regulate, "small government is best", started in the 1980's has corrupted and crippled the West with runaway greed, destroyed global economic stability through debt, deepened inequality and through damage to the biosphere is undermining the stability of the climate, the habitable zones, and the food and water resources that have made modern large scale civilisation possible.


        Europe should say no to TTIP, no to ISDS and concentrate on making Europe united and self sufficient.

        This highly dangerous century is no time for Europe to revert to small disagreeable countries led by blinkered narrow minded leaders. Europe must find leaders with the courage and the vision to stand up for the high principles of the Treaty of Rome and put a real Union into the heart of Europe.

        It is time for a new Europe to emerge under new leadership with a proper Federal Democratic Structure. There is no way back to pre 2007. There will be no good way forward to manage this isolated rock in space for mutual benefit without a real United States of Europe influencing the fast approaching global choice between war and peace.

        YouHaveComment -> soundofthesuburbs 16 Jul 2015 17:29

        It's the new Osborne Consensus.

        Socialism and Keynesianism for the rich.
        Austerity for the rest of us.


        Garry Coll 16 Jul 2015 17:28

        The recent, and ongoing, Greek episode of the Eurozone soap opera borders on the absurd.

        Notwithstanding the excellent article above by Mr Milne, it seems that there is more to this than a conflict between Greece and its Eurozone partners.
        When the threat of default loomed several weeks ago, the Greek government said in plain language, we can't pay this.

        To which they were told, pay up, because if you go into default we will have to take serious action like kick you out of the Euro and possibly the EU also.

        So Greece went into default by not paying a tranche of it agreement with the IMF.

        To which they were told, alright now that you're in default you must accept this bailout or we'll kick you out of the Euro and possibly the EU also.

        Grand said Greece, we'll put your bailout proposal to the people in a referendum. And the Greek people in a democratic plebiscite voted against the bailout proposal.

        After which Greece defaulted again on an IMF payment.

        To which they were told, here are our final bailout


        Kenny6501 16 Jul 2015 17:25

        The 50B was the amount of holdings the government was supposed to privatize from the last package. In the last rescue package, the implication is that the european and germans agree to trust that the Greeks will manage these sales themselves to pay for the loans that the other countries have put in (primarily Germany and France, but even the poorer baltics chipped in). So selling these assets from the previous rescue was a "we trust the greeks to do what is right" - the equivalent of a call from our bank reminding you to sell your 3rd or 4th condo to pay for the 5th one to reduce your debt to the bank.

        The 50B is now a forced sale because the last one didn't happen and only 7B of asset sale was in place, of which Syriza tried to reverse at least one (the port in Piraeus), the structure of explicitly saying 50B has to be sold is just one step below the equivalent of the Germans sending Guido in with a process server to repossess your nice furniture. It's what happens when your lender no longer trusts you.


        YouHaveComment 16 Jul 2015 17:25

        Plan to save Europe

        1 - Direct elections for the EU Commission - we have to be able to vote them out.
        2 - None of this TTIP / BIT nonsense of negotiating away the democratic will of the people behind closed doors.
        3 - Direct elections for the EU Commission - we have to be able to vote them out.
        4 - Euro to be reformed so that no country ever again gets to be in Greece's or Germany's position.
        5 - Direct elections for the EU Commission - we have to be able to vote them out.
        6 - There is no point 6.
        7 - Direct elections for the EU Commission - we have to be able to vote them out.

        (with apols to Monty Python)


        luella zarf AnotherBerliner 16 Jul 2015 17:20

        The principle is called "No taxation without representation" (that is, European taxpayers have the right to decide how their tax money is spent, including if on loans to Greece).

        Actually, when the Troika coerced Greece to accept the bailout in 2011, Papandreou didn't want to sign without a public mandate and tried to organize a referendum, but the Eurocrats immediately ousted him and buried the referendum and now Greeks are saddled with this huge unpayable debt for which they have never voted. What democracy, what representation?!

        People have no idea of what the sociopaths at the top did in order to save the gambling German, French, British and American banks, and now are screaming for blood, but the Greeks were not allowed to vote either.


        umweltAT2100 16 Jul 2015 17:19

        Everything Mr. Milne has written is factually correct - it is a horror scenario!

        A real shocker and an alarming eye-opener was the letter in the Guardian by Elmar Brok* supposedly addressed to Mr Tsipras but clearly aimed at making known that the German CDU/CSU avowed intention was to rid the Greeks of this terrible Syriza government that they had democratically elected and re-endorsed in the subsequent referendum. It was also to prepare the ground for Schäubles' secret master-plan** (that wasn't shared or agreed to by the other Euro countries) Grexit for 5 years, at the end of which Greece probably would not qualify to re-enter the Euro.

        A lot of anti-bailout rabble-rousing seems to have been beaten up by the German Bild newspaper – and national hostility was so high, that the SPD party leader Gabriel joined his CDU/CSU coalition partners against any debt relieve or restructuring of the repayment terms. (So even without Murdoch the media can be a deadly instrument – or is he running the Bild!)

        The way the Troika mismanaged this whole catastrophic, short-sighted/visionless and merciless episode has done irreparable damage to the EU, and its nations states see quite plainly that it is not Greek that cannot be trusted, but that strong nationalistic and right-wing governments are all speaking with different voices, and like the Tower of Babel, the whole thing is in danger of imploding. The EU has also goofed up badly on issues like Ukraine and Mediterranean migrants over the last two years.

        The Greeks have suffered irreparable damage – chaos, confusion, not knowing whether they could still get a few Euro out of the bank to buy essentials, anger at being humiliated, terrified of what the next day's disasters would hold in store for them, the country crippled and grinding to a halt right at the beginning of the tourist season which is one of the main sources of income. At the same time, like Italy, Greece is handling a steady flow of Mediterranean migrants, over 68,000 this year alone. And now they are force to sell their port of Piraeus, so any profits will go to its new owners, probably China.

        Killing the European Project by Paul Krugman
        http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/killing-the-european-project/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto&_r=1

        Mr Tsipras, we need to rebuild trust before we can talk | Elmar Brok | Comment is free | The Guardian
        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/06/tsipras-restore-trust-greece-eu
        *Profile: Elmar Brok is a German MEP, CDU* member, and chairman of the European parliament committee on foreign affairs

        **Wolfgang Schaeuble: Germany's man with a Grexit plan - BBC News
        http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33511387


        RocketSurgeon 16 Jul 2015 17:18

        Great article, and why I put the Guardian above all other UK media sources for unbiased reporting.

        Predatory Lending is illegal, and the EU and ECB and the German banks reasonably knew that the last bailouts were beyond Greece ability to repay.
        So now money created out of thin air [loaned into existence], is now franked and made solid and legit, and Greece's hard assets are nailed down as collateral for the lenders to rob Greece of its few real assets.

        The banks have taken over, and democracy and votes are just symbols with no real value.

        This is our future. Elected Governments being dictated to by Corporations and Banks, and Nations swindled in clear day light out in the open.
        Just my opinion.


        goudar30 maricaangela 16 Jul 2015 17:15

        Yes an evident consequence , my comment was not meant to be offensive , but sarcastic towards this absurd situation & the huge gap between cold technocracy and the hardship of the weakest , I think it is and will become more & more a serious matter for every single european Citizen,

        Those kind of outrageous policies are bound to bring suffering.to people and not only in Greece , more and more weakened people are suffering from those ideologies. in many Eu countries.

        and these days , many -& more then politicians may wish- feel & are greek .

        decisivemoment Wiseaftertheevent 16 Jul 2015 17:14

        No they damned well are not. In many cases private European banks made reckless loans to private entities in Greece, and now they demand 100 cents plus on the Euro in bailout. In any loan situation, part of the responsibility is on the lender. To have it any other way you'll ultimately blow the system up; lenders would do whatever they could get away with and it would take capitalism itself down. But that now seems to be the mentality of the German finance ministry, and most of the rest of the EU is bending down for it.

        This changes everything for 2017 in the UK. Everything. Whose situation do you prefer, Iceland, or Greece? I think the answer to that is easy, the one with the glaciers and the herring. And for the EU to survive, and Britain to survive in it, the choice CANNOT be limited to those two options. Yet limiting to those two is precisely what the German approach does.


        maricaangela Alfie Silva 16 Jul 2015 17:10

        In Croatia, the same has happened. For short term profit for their broke economy, the politicians loaned them to the Chinese who stuck high tolls on them, far too expensive for locals to use and which even Swiss and Austrian tourists try to avoid. Thus the old, and bad roads, are blocked in summer, and busy in winter, with these new highways empty.

        I heard in Spain the same problem exists. No sense at all.


        FOARP Charliezulu 16 Jul 2015 17:05

        Greece already received debt-relief in 2012 to the tune of more than 100 billion Euros, in the form of a 50% hari cut on private loans (those evil "banksters" everyone keeps blaming for this crisis received 50 cents back for every euro they originally lent Greece). Why should she receive more such largesse?

        sacco TeutonClown 16 Jul 2015 16:29

        I would love to see what would happen if Germany had that big a problem.

        I am pretty sure Germany would not have received a single bail-out, let alone three.

        Germany, together with France, already had just this kind of problem in 2009–10 and on to 2012, when they vetoed any proposal to restructure massive debts that were clearly unpayable after the global banking crash in order to protect the exposure of their own banks.

        While other countries were forced to bear the major costs of re-capitalising their own banking systems, German banks had vast tranches of their bad debts bought out at above the market rate by programmes such as SMP; those that remained in the private sector were marked down to less than 47% in 2012 (and even that was more than they were worth). Ironically, given your comment, it is precisely the bill for their portion of these debts that is currently being used to keep Greece under the heel.

        The unfathomable sums that have to be raised according to en endless series of deadlines that have rendered normal political responsibility impossible in Greece -the Troika has thus far seen off three governments, five Prime Ministers, and eight ministers of Finance- serve nothing more than to make scheduled repayments on these even though they were officially declared unpayable in 2010 - if they weren't unpayable losses, then why were the Eurozone rules violated by bailing out the banks with programmes such as SMP? No Greek government can hope to make any impression on this cause of permanent tribute as, without control over their own policy priorities and with the Eurozone & ECB policies acting to maximise uncertainty over their future trajectory -the very opposite of the support that should be offered to build the confidence required to promote investment- the numbers are simply too big in relation to the diminished Greek economy.

        Yet they are forced to continue with the endless irrelevance of this coercive and corrosive mill of debt recycling, because otherwise the the political masters will force the ECB (contrary to its mandate) to shut down Greek banks, just as we have seen.

        To sum up: Germany has already had its bail-out through its banks. They have proved sufficiently powerful -and ill-advised- to saddle the full bill on the Greeks, the least able to pay. The longer-term results will be to stall and even reverse progress on many aspects of the European project that has served German prosperity so well, and to promote the rise of far-right populist nationalism in both Greece and Germany (and likely in France and elsewhere too).

        maricaangela Nanome 16 Jul 2015 16:28

        Yes, I was thinking the right wing voters are most hypocritical, even in their condemnation of the EU, because they vote for the same neoliberal ideology that got Greece into this mess, for their own nations!

        The Left is hypocritical until now, because ideology blurred their vision and their judgement, but at least they don't vote for it at home.

        Ideology and dogma is dangerous. Right and left are now vague concepts with little solid principle involved. The main principle with Greece is that democracy itself is threatened when Corporations and Banks make the rules, and politicians from all sides are their puppets.

        ShiresofEngland TheMarxOfProgress 16 Jul 2015 16:14

        Greece isn't blameless and who can fault Eurozone taxpayers for not wanting to keep funnelling cash to them?

        Do you mean that EZ taxpayers should expect those debts in 2010 to stay as bank debts, and Article 125 of the Treaty of Lisbon to be upheld which if the EU/ECB/IMF had played with a straight bat then it would have been a default in 2010.

        Didn't happen did it? Those who ask themselves why leaves a bitter taste in the mouth if they are europhiles.


        JensBa mp66 16 Jul 2015 16:08

        There was a secret plan, that 4-5 people had worked out. But their was no decision to implement it from the leadership of Syriza, which would have been necessary. For details see the interview of Varoufakis with New Statesman.


        ShiresofEngland 16 Jul 2015 16:06

        What kind of a union of partners treats one of its members like a recalcitrant colony, destroys its economy if it steps out of line, and dismisses its democracy as an impudent affront? In fact it's one that has always ducked democratic accountability, embedded deregulation and privatisation in treaties, and preferred to fix policy – including the race-to-the-bottom Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership – with corporate interests in secret.

        The EUSSR

        OMG not that tired old cliche, and I put it in bold! You can spot me walking the streets as I am the handsome chap wearing a "Told You So" T shirt. [Smugness mode off]

        There is always one big drawback of being a eurosceptic, and it isn't the irritant of being called racists, loonies and fruitcakes. The real problem is when we are right it always come at a heavy price, and today the Greek people are paying that price. Euroloon zealots will test to destruction their beliefs which always comes at the expense of the 'little people'. Those poor buggers like all of us just trying to get by and do what is right for ourselves and families.

        This deal for Greece is vicious stupidity of the highest order. It is unworkable, and nobody wants it other than the banksters and the euroloons. The silver lining is many europhiles are having second thoughts as the EU's mask has slipped. It is always hard to make a U turn, but I did as once one myself (yep honestly!). I commend those who have changed their position and offer a welcome to the darkside.


        inLondon10 16 Jul 2015 16:05

        Costas Lapivitsas from the left platform of Syriza, Larry Elliot from the Guardian, Ambrose Evans Pritchard from the Telegraph are not necessarily political soul mates but all make convincing arguments that,with the current terms on offer, Greece would be better out of the Euro. Surely the most constructive way forward is for Tsipras and the EU to organise a way out of the Euro with as little damage as possible.


        vicepopeeric Wolfgang Amadeus 16 Jul 2015 16:02

        Lets see, we gave the banks almost a quadrillion dollars for f***ing up the economy by gambling with other peoples money.
        Greece has had about 370 billion dollars (works out at about 3.7% of what we gave the banks). Of that 370 billion dollars, only about 10% actually went to the Greeks, the rest went to banks to pay other banks.

        No its NOT the economy stupid it's PEOPLE that count.


        Drewv PolydentateBrigand 16 Jul 2015 16:01

        Immolation, crucifixion, waterboarding... stop this emotive hyperbole.

        These are accurate descriptions. Your "generous loan" will be used almost entirely to pay the interest on a debt that will never be repaid, to German and French banks.

        The country isn't bankrupt, that is the entire fucking point. Bankrupt countries get major debt relief.


        candy44maker JohnG4 16 Jul 2015 15:59

        There are but a few German banks affected!

        Some interesting Infographics:

        The Greeks will need to hire 180 truck drivers to transport the money.

        Who Loaned Greece the Money?

        Greece owes a lot of money to a lot of people, and it's not at all that German or French banks are affected. Check out who loaned the money.

        Information Date: 2012 February. Source: EBA (European Banking Authority)

        Greece meanwhile owes to their lenders 0.5 trillion Euro. They claim that only 10% was spent on the Greek people, and 90% of the money lent was going back to foreign banks. This is simply not true. Approx. 30% of the money was used for the annual budget in Greece, about 35% was spent to make loan payments and approx. 35% of the money left Greece and was transferred to offshore bank accounts.


        Some interesting graphics:

        http://demonocracy.info/infographics/eu/debt_greek/debt_greek.html


        AngrySkeptic 16 Jul 2015 15:51

        I was raised to have a horror of clubs and organizations with memberships. Do not see why a country would want to be a member of a club, especially when the economic disparities are so great. The EU can never operate like the USA, because every one of the countries in it as a long and different history, different language and culture. To run efficiently it will have to imitate the former USSR and develop a dictatorial central administration. Seems that Merkel has grasped that fact. Arbeit macht Frei will be the watchword and goodbye to La dolce vita.

        Drewv -> SimpleOldSailor 16 Jul 2015 15:46

        So the Eurozone breaks up, in that case the winners will be the big banks and the other leeches that live off the blood stream of international finance.

        Will theybe? Their short-term losses would be enormous, with vast amounts of public and private debt being written off as the dominoes start falling. International finance as a whole would take a pounding worse than in 2007/2008.


        DomesticExtremist hood 16 Jul 2015 15:36

        That is to expect neo-liberal high priests in Brussels to dismantle their own temple.

        It's not going to happen.


        maricaangela wondrinfree 16 Jul 2015 15:32

        Did it occur to you that the EU has changed in recent years. It is now run by right wing governments who promote a failed austerity and a failed banking system. A decade ago, it was full of socialist governments who went on a spending spree. The Banks were the winners in both cases, but now the poorest pay with unemployment, rights taken, and assets stripped, while those who benefitted most still enjoy their riches and stack money away in tax havens.

        Mistakes have been made, but those who should be paying are still at the party, while those who had no hand in all this have been kicked into the gutter.

        Oligarchy is winning, with the support and help of political elites.


        Seppo Janhonen feliciafarrel 16 Jul 2015 15:28

        Good comment. I share your view of the idea of truth and honour as well as most - as I believe - of us Finns. The Greek catastrophy is right now shaking our trust to the honesty, reliability and endurance of the European project. It´s interesting how the views of single Europian citizens are being shaped in these days. Many of us are asking why on earth we are paying the debts of a state that is not willing (and obviously not able either) to manage its own businesses. Mr. Tsipras is not much respected in Finland right now.

        Also the EU membership will without doubt enjoy less support in future; The Guardian itself encourages this development by stating the simple truth that a small country like Finland has no influence in decision making in EU. That´s what we have seen right now although our leaders have maintained it´s important to sit at the table where the decisions are made. Well, the results can be seen... Why stay in an immoral society like (euro group) or even EU? Therefore it is probable that there will start processes to quit euro or even EU in my country.

        Who knows whether one day the EU countries Greece, Finland and Britain on extreme sides of our continent share one more thing in common? That´s quitting EU.


        AngrySkeptic WitNit 16 Jul 2015 15:26

        It's all very well to talk in objective terms such as "public finance". The problem is what the people of the country will be forced to live through and have been living through foe a while. Is it absolutely necessary that they should? Probably not. Is this what a united Europe means? Probably. Is this what a united Europe should be? I think not.


        oxleydan CarolusB 16 Jul 2015 15:05

        Well the 18 EZ governments can send their CCJs or whatever to the muppets that took out the loans in the first place, rather than sacrificing the entire civilian population.

        And can you see any possible issues with medicine that kills the patient? If the terms of the bailout further reduce demand in the Greek economy, thereby actually reducing the prospects of economic growth necessary for paying back the loans, then you have to question the motivation behind the terms of the bailout. Is it motivated by a punitive desire to make an example of Greece, to deter Spain, Italy and Portugal? In other words, it's political rather than economic.


        Alfie Silva -> feliciafarrel 16 Jul 2015 15:04

        Your propaganda goes against all that is decent and correct.

        You may accuse me of propaganda, but I have no axe to grind nor vested interest to protect.

        In Portugal, every graduate who graduates, is another graduate who leaves Portugal. Or they stay and find work in McDonalds. If they can get it.

        The Euro may have benefited a small number of Portuguese, but the majority are fed up. They may not be as vocal as the Greeks, but the next macro-economic shock to hit Europe will change that.


        cascade14 16 Jul 2015 15:04

        The "crucifixion" of Greece is only an outward manifestation of the true intentions of the EU, which are most often hidden within the myriad of Directives, Regulations and Decisions that are produced with Teutonic efficiency and, which are designed to control, subliminally, every aspect of the lives of all of those who have been mesmerised by the lure of a European Utopia.

        The cruelty inflicted upon the Greek population is a PR aberration and error by the EU, brought about by the unexpected temerity of the Greeks to dare to express their wishes, nay despair, through a democratic process of a Referendum which stands in stark opposition to the ideals of Empire building and subjugation of the masses; which is essential to the expansion of the EU.

        The side effect of which is to try to keep in line those other "none- believers" who might wish to put their heads above the parapet and say "Boo" to Merkel and Schauble.


        LanceLee Wolfgang Amadeus 16 Jul 2015 15:04

        It has long ceased to be about money.

        Even on the level of money, the current 'deal' is an absurdity: it amounts to loaning more money to Greece which cannot pay back the money it already owes. This goes on, bizarrely, because among other realities the Euro zone institutions make money from these loans, a sum currently standing at 1.9 billion Euros. It pays to devastate Greece. We could all be in total agreement that Greece pay everything back- and be faced with the conundrum an impoverished society that cannot meet its own needs can hardly meet outside debtors' without incurring more debt. What is needed, if money is what we're talking about, is a plan that provides for growth to provide the money to repay debt. It's really very simple.

        Well, let them 'Grexit' and default... Really? Repay none of the 240 billion and climbing Euro debt? Another great idea.

        The problem is that if the solution really isn't very hard to imagine, sparking a reasoned growth with reform, allowing for debt repayment and national functioning, there is a political investment primarily on Germany's part in a policy called 'austerity' that has no intellectual or economic justification that in effect says: 'in hard time, raise taxes and cut spending'. We could as well call this the rebirth of the economic policies of Herbert Hoover. But values like 'thrift' 'responsibility' 'integrity' have been high-jacked by this theory, so that advising a modern Keynesian policy as has been carried out in the United States with such radically different, and better results, compared to the Euro zone, is tantamount to these misguided politicos to 'profligacy'. Worse, having invested their political capital in this approach, predominantly German inspired, the Euro zone leaders have denied themselves the possibility of a rational settlement.

        So I find myself in the very odd position of agreeing with Seumas Milne, who is a bright person but whose views I usually find exaggerated to the point of absurdity. How odd to think Mrs. Merkel has so bungled things that she has made Milne right.


        Lafcadio1944 16 Jul 2015 14:46

        The European project has long sense been dead. Apparently commentators and just now figuring this out and far far to late. Europe through the maneuvering of Germany especially under Merkel has taken over Europe and now acts as its overseer. Through German writing of the "rules" to its own advantage and then being the enforcer of the rules essentially has turned the once proud nations of Europe into German bantustans. No country or even group of countries can now leave the EZ without serious and prolonged economic suffering, and staying in they have only the opportunity of offering the equivalent of -0- hour feudal work for a pittance, insuring their perpetual poverty.

        These are the present conditions and it remains to be seen whether or not the people of Europe are going to do anything about it but history shows that people are obedient to power to the point of digging their own graves as the Greeks have done.

        Democracy may be wonderful and might some day offer benefits to the general population, but for now the democratic process elects people who say they are left and govern from the far right. This happens over and over from the "hope" Obama exploited to win election to the leftest slogans Syriza used to win election. Once in power suddenly they discover the great virtue of Neoliberal/Ordoliberal (I write the rules you obey) ideologies of oligarch worship and oppression.

        Germany wrote the rules for the EU and they advantage Germany exclusively. Germany is now running a trade surplus in excess of 7% - people don't seem to understand or care that this is a deliberate violation of EU regulation and rules and so no commentators mention it. The German trade surplus especially sense it is so very high acts as a tool to dominate the rest of Europe, disadvantage them seriously and insure that if they left the EU there economies would collapse. Thus, Germany has a very big hammer which it shows to Hollande each time he makes some feeble attempt to disagree with Merkel.

        The EU has been converted by Germany/Merkel to a mechanism for transferring wealth from the middle and lower classes of Europe to oligarchs. Even German workers have not escaped and will only find their living standards continue to deteriorate.

        Think of life in Bangladesh, that is Neoliberal heaven.


        ilove2shop -> ID7524597 16 Jul 2015 14:34

        You really should use Google to see the state of the countries you mentioned. Ireland has had a mass exodus of it's population, like the Great Potato Famine exodus,Spain has double digit unemployment (and it had a surplus before the crash),as do Portugal and Italy with people leaving for former Portugese and Spanish colonial economies.Why do you think Podemos is on the rise?

        Italy, Ireland and Portugal, all had democratic mandates that were reversed by the eurozone.

        Their economies are mired in a deflationary near-recession. Italy's GDP peaked at $31,764 in inflation-adjusted U.S. dollar per capita in 2008; by 2014, it had fallen to $28,376. On the same basis, Ireland's GDP per capita has fallen from $51.002 in 2008 to $45,119 today. And Spain's GDP per capita is now $24,573, vs. $26,927 in 2008.

        At the same time, inflation in the eurozone has fallen to -0.5% in March 2015 from 5% in December, 2007. Low inflation and low growth means low demand for money, and that means lower interest rates - despite these countries' staggering debt.

        Another reason for the low rates: The European Central Bank is buying long-term bonds in a bid to keep rates low and give a boost the economy. It's a page out of the Federal Reserve's playbook. At the same time, however, the ECB is demanding austerity programs from its weakest members, often involving drastic cuts in government spending. It's a bit like bleeding a patient at the same time as giving a transfusion - which is why the Eurozone is facing a long recovery.

        http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2015/04/21/three-little-piigs/


        tomguard 16 Jul 2015 14:05

        It is clear that the banks can get away with just about anything. They are corrupt, venal, rapacious and largely incompetent and irresponisble yet everything is done to save them and make sure that they never pay for their mistakes, indeed they are rewarded. Meanwhile ordinary people like the ordinary people of Greece are made to pay for the banks mistakes, see their pensions and savings eroded and squandered by these vultures. So sad and angry at what is being done to Greece, crucifixion is an apt description of what is being done to the country and its people.


        JohnG4 ID7524597 16 Jul 2015 14:04

        You are completely ignorant of the concept of bank lending and bank money. Greece borrowed from banks brand new money (not pre-existing money) at interest. It did not borrow from your bank account! It did not borrow from your government! So how is it that Greece lived at your expense?

        On the contrary: Germany benefited immensely from the monetary expansion (the lush bank lending) since the expansion financed the trade surplus of Germany. It was a monetary expansion for the German economy, only the latter did not have to pay interest or seignorage tax.

        None of this writes off the responsibilities of successive Greek governments. But, the banking system that financed this expansion concealed the true credit risk even from the Greek electorate.


        JosephH79 JohnG4 16 Jul 2015 14:04

        Because that narrative helps impose technocratic, plutocratic, neo-liberal, hegemonic, ... ... idiocy upon European people.


        michalakis 16 Jul 2015 14:02

        I find nothing to disagree with in this article; no hyperbole of any sort.

        Just as Sven Linqvist shows in The History of Bombing that World War Two was essentially the result of Germany importing practices into Europe which were formerly common and universally accepted (even applauded) in the West's administration of its colonies (mass murder, genocide, gun boat diplomacy), so Europe's next breakdown will be able to trace its roots back to this importing of economic practices formerly reserved by Western institutions for the developing world into the heart of the developed world. This is the beginning of the end for Europe, and it certainly marks the end of my--and many others'--dreams of a powerful, unified Europe underpinned by the acquis communautaire.


        justonetom citizenJA 16 Jul 2015 13:36

        Syriza did not destroy the economy. The Greek economy was a basket-case long before they came to power. However, the economy has sharply worsened on their watch. The figures are all in the public domain; stating that is not contentious.

        Look, Greece could choose to default. To say, sorry, can't pay these loans and never will. Formally default. So why don't they? Because they know that without further loans their country is bankrupt.

        Beyond Seamus's banner-waving, it's not complicated. Country that can't pay its debts seeks more loans. People willing to advance loans demand a better quality of proof that this time loans will be repaid (ie. reforms). Greece can choose to accept or decline.

        What Tsipras offered was a total chimera. Merkel knew it, we all knew it. "No cuts! No reforms! But more loans to us! And staying within the EZ!". This was demagogy. He was never going to be able to deliver that, and lo and behold...

        Seamus wants, desperately, this to be a story about "evil neoliberal bankers". And there is some truth in a narrative that includes bad lending. But ultimately Tsipras was a poor negotiator, insulting the very people whose help he required, acting in bad faith with 'stunts' like springing a referendum without giving notice to his partners... Syriza has proved incompetent. A classic "opposition" party that crashes and burns as soon as it has real-world work to do from a position of real power.

        Had the Greeks seen through him/it, and voted for a party that could do business with the troika, they might have ended up with better terms from more sympathetic partners in the EZ.


        Weefox 16 Jul 2015 13:24

        Greece had a choice. For some reason it decided that it was better to stay in the EU, which it hates and slags it at every turn. Why? The neoliberal economy of Europe is something which Syriza and the hard left reject, but they still expects it to cover their debts.

        I am beginning to smell a whiff of hypocrisy.


        welcomeparty lawbag 16 Jul 2015 13:14

        Well you should talk to the leadership of the EU who had the gal in 2012 to take the debt held by privat banks who had just had a "haircut" of 43% of their holding but what does the EU do they purchase the debt, not at the 57% value but pays it at a full 100% of price (this makes good the loss the bankers made - why?), so now we the tax payer "own" the debt. It was a Privat debt but the EU leadership made it a public debt.

        You tell me is that the fault of the Greek people or is it the Crew of bankers that hold office in the EU and who have favoured the German and French bank's with the deposit of 90% of the Billions Greece was lend. Greece only ever saw 10% flowing into their banks.

        It is bordering on criminal what they have been doing and is doing to the Greek nation, who needs enemies when you have friends like these.

        If you are worried about Greece not paying the money they have borrowed, ask the EU why they will not talk about debt restructure (Pay in full over time) or rather why they have not allowed Greece to access this function that the IMF has spouted about.

        Why has the EU promised if Greece swallow the bitter and accessive austerity imposed on them The banks will be allowed Greece to access the QE program of 1 TRILLON EURO allocated to banks, should Greece need it they will be able to access this fund they can from 2018. But guess what the QE program finishes in 2018.

        What kind of negotiation is that- they have emasculated Greece and they believe that these sort of thing are allowed - which they are not...

        You maybe rushing to get into the full Union of the EU, me I would rather be poor but outside the EU - why, well if they will do what they are doing to the Greek people in public, I feel I would be scared silly wondering what they would do behind closed doors and I was in trouble.

        Making people scared is easy and is extreme, fear is a new God the propaganda machine of the EU are using , the 3rd world war has arrived without a shot being fired, not becourse you and I have issues, but becourse they can....


        Steven Savage 16 Jul 2015 13:14

        "What kind of a union of partners treats one of its members like a recalcitrant colony, destroys its economy if it steps out of line, and dismisses its democracy as an impudent affront? "

        The same kind of union that allowed Greece to enter when it no doubt had very good reason to suspect that Greece was cooking its books to show its deficit was far lower than it actually was, and that allowed Goldman to create derivatives to further shore up its sovereign balance sheet.

        No one ever really seems to take the European currency union to task over this. The Greek entrance into the Euro should have been "annulled," for lack of a better word, years and years ago, perhaps as early as 2003. That annulment would have allowed the EU to remove Greece by legitimately claiming fraud, and as such, would have been a way out of the Euro that no one else would have been privy to. It would have kept the currency union together for the rest of the members, and would have hopefully stopped the worst of the bad debt way before it grew to such unmanageable, toxic levels.

        The EU had its chance to dismiss Greece but chose not to. We all know EU vanity and arrogance were heavily involved in retaining Greece. Greece is wrong for its economic deceptions and culture of tax avoidance, but the EU darn well knew it was letting Greece get away with, and it knew it about a dozen years ago.


        waterme888 objectinspace 16 Jul 2015 13:14

        the imf does austerities to countries for a reason.. to think that they are enforcing these rules on greece just for the benefit of greeks is laughable.. greece is a small small economy with little impact on world economics.. so why is not a single media asking the hard questions why now.. why is this happening now and why is the economic union of europe going to be effected by such an insignificant economy collapsing.

        in the 1988-1989 this very same thing was done to poland --- few remember as todays society does not study history and relies on being told what to think by the corrupt and reprehensible media.

        now i dont have enough room to explain the totality of keynesian economic reforms pushed forth by these huge financial oligarchs but if you think even for one moment that these banks have the best interests of the greeks in mind your off your rocker.


        OneCommentator 16 Jul 2015 13:13

        This week has made a mockery of monetary union as a path to a united democratic Europe and opened the way for the eurozone's breakup.

        So true! Hence the problem is not neo-liberalism or German intransigence but the monetary union of disjunct and completely different economic and even political systems. Greece's politics not only their economic performance are completely different from Germany's. Why should they be in the EZ together? Free trade? Sure, it makes sense. But that's about it. There is no need of a United Europe. It is naive and meaningless dream.


        GordonGecko real tic 16 Jul 2015 13:13

        'Proof? or is this more tendentious opinion conjuring fairy facts as it goes along? '

        Try https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/greece/2015-07-07/pain-athens

        and note the phrase 'money wasn't given to lazy Greeks but to already-bailed bankers who, despite a face-value haircut, ended up making a profit on the deal."

        'It's hardly surprising that hostility to the EU, which shows no signs of being open to deep-seated reform, is growing across the continent.'

        Hostility is perhaps too strong, but nonetheless there is now a tendency to question whether the European Institutions are there to protect us from neoliberalism or have already sold out. Personally I have been a europhile for over 40 years but I am now wondering if this is the sort of Europe I really want.


        Lastwordsusie viscount_jellicoe 16 Jul 2015 13:04

        It's desperately frightening.
        The government of pretty much all of the globe with a few exceptions is run by rightwing corporate ideologues.
        Neoliberalism has - at least for now - triumphed and those on the left are feeling pretty bewildered and rudderless.
        Greece's pain is not just that of CRUSHING austerity without end, but also of ritual humiliation.
        That's a recipe not for meek compliance - but ultimately, seething anger, division and civil unrest.That will no doubt be crushed also but the troika has successfully set the left against itself once more.

        I don't doubt that what the troika seeks is the restoration of ruthless and corrupt rightist government - (maybe they'd like another Junta to deal with.)

        I'm not sure there ever can be a bloodless revolution unless there's a way of overcoming the power of capital and those that wield it without some miraculous change in human behaviour and some genetic evolution that ceases to regard the earths resources as belonging to the few with the many in hock to their whims or largesse.
        Uncertain times?
        No! Much, much more than that.
        What will the right do when population drifts of the desperate, fleeing war and hunger, along with ecological resource imperatives -become insuperable, as the world's ability to withstand the rapacious greed of its exploiters start forcing its hand?


        658176529539572 16 Jul 2015 12:55

        Centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson gave the American people this warning:

        "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."

        -- Central banks (all over the world), are apparently using this method of conquest…


        roola 16 Jul 2015 12:54

        Thank God one journalist sees the political truths behind the EU's policies for Greece. Weimar Republic, anyone?

        And, no, the EU has never been a solely economic union. How can it be while it implements undemocratic procedures that can dictate, as in Greece, a country's economic future? Whatever happens, Greece, with a now greater accumulation of swinging debts and with the EU's intent to break its left-wing government, eventually will be forced to leave Europe. When that happens, EU 'unity' will be seen for the sham it is.

        I was one of those who voted 'yes' in the original UK referendum for joining Europe, though with misgivings about the undemocratic set-up. Not now. The misgivings have proven themselves to be the reality and my vote would be a 'no' vote.


        michalakis greatapedescendant 16 Jul 2015 12:51

        Yes, seriously.

        The fallout could not have been more if the Germans had just send the Luftwaffe in to bomb the place. I'm 47, a formerly middle class, middle income, self-employed professional. I've been working abroad for the last 4 years, as has almost every other 'dad' I know. My former life is destroyed: the infrastructure I worked in, the people I worked with, have gone. My clients, my colleagues, my connections are all gone. I cannot return to Greece to work. I cannot watch my daughter grow up. Seriously.


        rightwinggit 16 Jul 2015 12:50

        The idea that this crisis has simply pitted one democratic mandate – that of Greece – against the hard-pressed taxpayers of 18 other eurozone members is nonsense.

        It is, of course completely true.

        Very little of Greek government debt is now held by private institutions. By far the biggest creditor is the German government (read taxpayer) followed by the French taxpayer followed by the Italian taxpayer followed by the Spanish taxpayer.

        The only countries where significant amounts of Greek debt are held in private hands are in the US and the UK and the US favours debt relief.

        In terms of percentage of GDP Malta is in deep shit - its exposure to Greece is 5% of its GDP.

        Personally I think Greece should leave the EZ and return permanently to the Drachma but don't pretend that there will be no cost to EZ taxpayers.

        Germany is owed €90bn. If half of it is written off, that would cost each German €550. When you look at it like that it doesn't sound like very much. All you have to do is persuade the German voter that it is a price worth paying....


        658176529539572 Roguing 16 Jul 2015 12:47

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Stamp,_1st_Baron_Stamp

        Silas Walter Adams (1958). The legalized crime of banking and a constitutional remedy. Boston: Meador. pp. 13,30,58,90,246. OCLC 3906807

        AXWE08 lawbag 16 Jul 2015 12:46

        I think we have heard this Neoliberal prescription before. It is ironic that such avowed loyalty to the EU's machinations comes from the very sector that would see the UK leave the EU. The truth is simple enough: A debt that can't be paid, won't. No matter how much squeezing is applied to Greece the outcome will be the same, namely debt write down at some time in the near future. Austerity was seen to be a failure long before Syriza and Tisparas took office and this was the reason why they were voted in.


        Jantar 16 Jul 2015 12:45

        I totally agree that this deal/putsch is a disgrace - but let's not fall in that simplistic Hollywood trap that suggests that because one side acted disgracefully the other side must be the side of the angels.

        Greece has been a thoroughly corrupt state since the Colonels were forced out. Their democracy was always fake, hijacked from the start by economic & political cabals. So let's not pretend this is a story about some virtuous/democratic David being crushed by wicked Goliath. The referendum was a farce: the choices badly chosen & put, with a government playing to the gallery, promising things not even covered by the actual referendum . Still, and as always, the true and self-appointed leaders of the EU fear elections and hate referendums and have never accepted any of the latter.

        The government of the day lied about the economic situation when they joined the Euro but that was something the Eurocrats knew, of course but they had their own self-glorious reasons to publicly pretend Greece was ready to join.

        So, yes, this is a mess - but there really are no 'white hats' here. Black and dark grey are the only colour options in this movie.

        As always, as throughout the whole of human history, it's the common people (who can be venal, yes, and short-sighted, and plain dumb - and often are; not many white hats there either) who get screwed. Nothing new under the sun indeed.


        viscount_jellicoe 16 Jul 2015 12:40

        Spot on. Greece's debts have now been made effectively unrepayable in order to send the deafening warning to the Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, etc., not to dare elect anti-austerity governments. It's pretty desperate stuff.


        waterme888 -> objectinspace 16 Jul 2015 12:39

        if Greece was free to decide would they be in this spot. no.. they are being dictated. period. the people understand that and are protesting, but the politicians can only do what the banks tell them so they will do exactly what they are told and then have elections - the people will then elect new government which will negotiate so minor changes to the payment plans or some other irrelevant term which the new government will tout as a victory which of course the media will lap up like a dog in heat and everything will be as it should according to the control exerted by these financial oligarchs who dont give a crap about the people and only care to own own own.

        this happens in every country - its called Keynesian economics and even your country is under the influence.. or perhaps your buying power has gone up over the past 20 years..

        this whole system is a illusion and education into finance is the only cure.


        viewcode 16 Jul 2015 12:37

        Dear Guardian

        Speaking seriously at the moment, don't you think this article is over the top? It's a rant, and quite an intense one at that. You should step back, take a deep breath, and try to regain a sense of proportion. Germany is not the Wehrmacht, Greece has not been immolated and - as even the Eurosceptics have realised (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/07/a-beginners-guide-to-euroscepticism/ ) - this is driven more by hysteria than by rationality. "Brutal authoritarianism"? Seriously?


        658176529539572 16 Jul 2015 12:37

        "Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain slaves of the Bankers and pay for the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits."

        -- Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920s, the second richest man in Britain


        FourtyTwo 16 Jul 2015 12:35

        What helped win the election became a fatal handicap in office, as Tsipras resisted pressure even to make contingency plans for Grexit. That would have strengthened his negotiating hand, as well as giving Greece the option of escaping indefinite economic depression.

        According to both Tsipras and Varoufakis there was a contingency plan being made by a small group of 5 people. Varoufakis stated in an interview that he knew since March that Schaeuble wanted a grexit and of course he wanted to prepare for such an outcome as best as he could. The plan did not turn up well and was abandoned because it showed that Greece didn't have enough financial power left to prop up a new currency, which would immediately devaluate out of control.
        The reason for the clandestineness of this plan was that if the media found out about it they would blow the whistle and accuse Syriza of actively planning a grexit, something that terrified Greeks at that time.


        Goias Goias -> lawbag 16 Jul 2015 12:34

        "Why should the French, the Germans et al, give more money to the Greeks to enable them to do silly left wing populist things?"

        This is an interesting statement, it ignores completely the silly little right-wing things like the global financial crisis in 2008 and the ripple effect it had over the banking system first and the countries having to sustain that system later. I guess our lenience towards these silly little right-wing things makes us accomplices of the destruction they bring.

        If only the Greek officials wore ties. Don't they now how important that is?


        bally38 16 Jul 2015 12:31

        As that well-known negotiating guru Yannis Varoufakis put it:

        If you are not willing to even contemplate the prospect of a breakdown, then you're not negotiating

        He wasn't joking. He didn't just contemplate it. He planned for it. The referendum was planned, just as the two sides had nearly clinched a deal. He had prepared for enforced capital controls, and admitted in the New Statesman interview what his advice to Tsipras was. Take over the Bank of Greece and pay salaries for another few months with the last reserves, while issuing IOUs. ie: Unilateral Grexit. For which Syriza has no mandate.

        Tsipras, to his credit, refused to implement the plan, instead asked for Varoufakis' resignation.

        Any crucifixion of Tsipras was on a cross that Yannis Varoufakis nailed him to. But he's an adult. As he said in his TV address two nights back. He's responsible, because he's the Premier.


        waterme888 Renato Timotheus 16 Jul 2015 12:31

        the unemployment was a gift of these same banks who use influence and covet means to enforce their will upon those countries they need to capitulate into a deep control algorithm.

        look up keynesian economic theory and then study what happened to the countries of south america in through the 1950-1970's and understand that is exactly what is happening to greece..

        the media does not report these facts for they are owned or influenced by the same banks perpetrating the control.

        do you smell extinction.


        liberalexpat 16 Jul 2015 12:28

        The bias of many of the articles on Greece in the British media has gone completely OTT - it's patently obvious that there are glaring faults on both sides - and the misuse of the word democracy is flagrant.

        Certainly, the eurozone countries have acted harshly. But the Greek crisis stems from decades of tax cheating, clientelism and other ills, many of them stemming from the uncontrollable behaviour of the Greek mega-rich. Liberal British commentators normally lambast the mega-rich, tax evaders and the widening rich-poor divide - why let the Greeks off the hook?

        A major problem is that so many British europhobic commentators are projecting their views onto the Greeks: look how furious with them Henry the Eighth Farage is. They hate the EU, and tell us other Europeans do, too: they are in denial of the fact that poll after poll has shown the Greek majority in favour of staying in both the euro and the EU since they can't and won't understand it.

        Democracy. Is Greece the only eurozone country to have it - and should it be allowed to impose its view on 18 other member countries? (Note to commentators: the EU and the eurozone are not the same.) And if the Greek referendum was the touchstone of European democracy, why not have one in the other 18 countries?

        Secondly, the workings of Greek democracy à la Tsipras. He calls a snap referendum on a non-existent deal, says its conclusive 'no' vote will strengthen his hand in fighting austerity - then trashes the people's vote and has to rely on the opposition to get the austerity bailout vote through. Hmmm.


        waterme888 wondrinfree 16 Jul 2015 12:26

        they want to remain in it because you only read what the news reports and assume that what they are telling you is what the people want... if the people want this so badly then why did they just announce they may have elections in the fall. now consider that when have elections changed anything.. in the long run nothing changes and everything remains the same.. history is so very clear..

        distract the masses with rhetoric as people in groups are easily swayed into false beliefs.

        societal engineering done in the name of control.


        parttimer 16 Jul 2015 12:26

        Greece would be turned into an economic "protectorate", one purred, where all key decisions would be taken by foreign governments and unelected EU bureaucrats.

        Wow. If only someone had told you in advance that EU membership resulted in all key decisions being taken by foreign governments and unelected EU bureaucrats.


        sjxt 16 Jul 2015 12:24

        An unusually good article for Seumus - the only point I would take issue with is the comparison with the IMF's third world debt programs and bank handling of sovereign defaults.

        The only reason the IMF is involved in this case at all is DSK's EU/French politicking - the IMF's lending here should have prevented it lending to a palpably bust sovereign.

        And if we were looking at private bank loans negotiations on debt relief would have started months ago - such loans would be written down in the bank's books under GAAP already.

        The real culprits here are the northern governments who have pretended for years this is a liquidity rather than a solvency problem to their electorates and on that basis crucified Greece in the earlier bailouts to bail out their own banks, and now refuse to face their electorates with the unpalatable truth most of their money ain't coming back.

        But with the IMF and now the ECB calling for debt relief - probably disguised as massive maturity extensions, plus other EU governments like France and Italy, 2 and a half of the Troika are now lining up against the Germans their allies......


        MartinAMiss worldsworstposter 16 Jul 2015 12:23

        France was the first country to break the 3% rule. Germany has broken Eurozone rules. This isn't just about Greece, but Germany & France shielding their banks from bad debts they shouldn't have made.

        Other rule breaks, the ECB cutting ELA fundding to Greek banks. Under the rules that govern it, ECB's job is to keep banks opne, not close them like an enforcer for a loan shark.

        If you are in doubt about that fact it is the banks that are being bailed out, perhaps the former head of Bundesbank & board member of IMF will convince you.

        http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/former-central-bank-head-karl-otto-poehl-bailout-plan-is-all-about-rescuing-banks-and-rich-greeks-a-695245.html


        JohnHawkwood 16 Jul 2015 12:09

        Greece is being crushed to remind the Spanish and Italians of the price of disobedience


        zappa2007 16 Jul 2015 12:08

        The Greeks had no option to accept this awful deal because not to have done so would have left them with no banking system, hunger, poverty and riots. The new Government came to power thinking they could have a rational conversation with the EU on he basis of reform and explaining to the EU about the logic of their rational position. The Germans and other rightists have imposed a political settlement in the face of the economics of the situation that even the IMF recognises. Yes, just like the Treaty of Versailles. Look how well that turned out.

        A cruel trick has been played on the Greeks and the rest of us too. It is the banks that have swallowed all the cash in vast bailouts but the public who have to pay it back. Profits have been privatised and losses socialised. Meanwhile we voluntarily give up our rights and living standards. What fools we all are.


        itin78 16 Jul 2015 12:06

        The 'European project',has brought Greece a ticket to the third world.

        The Common market was sold to us as,a Free Trade Area.

        The currency union,which was meant to be the precursor of a European Superstate,was dreamt up by empire building politicians,without consulting the citizens of Europe.
        The project is undemocratic.

        It is not long ago that a lady on the BBC was telling us that we must join the Euro.
        Thank goodness that we actually kept out.
        It was a rare piece of good fortune for the UK.

        In the meantime,there will be no end to the amount of our taxes that disappear into the bottomless pit of the Greek 'economy.'


        midnightschild10 16 Jul 2015 12:02

        When I was young I went to Europe on vacation, before it became the EU. It may only be remembering as a child how happy and welcoming the Greeks were to visitors. The singing and dancing on the Palatka was a fond memory. I have visited the EU three times since, and saw how Europe had changed, particularly under the austerity programs. The concept of the EU might have sounded good in theory, but in practice, the strong countries got richer while the weaker countries got the shaft. You can't build a country by keeping the people on their knees. What happened to Greece is tragic. It showed the punitive measures taken against those who voice their choices in a democratic way. The world watched, and saw how the EU had changed from a financial trade cooperation became nothing more than a political class attack by the rich against the poor.


        Julius Marklovitz 16 Jul 2015 11:59

        This situation is absolutely ridiculous. Tsipras is a genius I will admit. He has essentially made himself and his country look like poor victims of a bully. Only one problem. This bailout is 100% voluntary. Nothing dictates that Greece has to ask or receive a bailout. Oh and not to mention that this is bailout number 3! When all is said an done your talking about half a TRILLION dollars for a country of 11 million. $50,000 per Greek. That is OBSCENE. But their rampant government corruption, rampant tax evasion, and the cultural belief that it is ok to steal and kickbacks are an everyday part of life warrants no responsibility. I'm a democrat and this makes me sick. This isn't some child being bullied. This is a country who by choice has done everything in its power to squander it's resources and then guilt trips the world into buying its victim stance. It's manipulative. And get this through your head. Countries who are fiscally responsible are not responsible for those who plunge their countries into recessions . I'm not a fan of Germany in terms of how they use Greece to devalue their currency. But this it's Germany's fault is just garbage.


        Jmbowsher mittelfeld 16 Jul 2015 11:53

        Well Varoufakis and co (who, if you remember, have only been in power less than 6 months) were committed to reform, particularly where the fat cats were concerned. But as Varoufakis states, they were told they couldn't make reforms because to do so would be to act unilaterally. In other words, any perceived impotence is largely down to the troika...


        shalone 16 Jul 2015 11:43

        And the misery of greek people has aroused so much sympathy in many countries. If anything, Schauble and Merkel are being accused of being ruthless. So it is not only greeks that hate the two leaders.

        [Jul 15, 2015] The Greek Deal From Germany - Reading Between the Lines - Darkness Over the Earth

        Perhaps the Greeks made a mistake, and relied too much on rationality, on a belief in a Eurozone in which good sense and reason would prevail. As it was, the Germans were willing to ruthlessly crush the Greek banking system, while the ECB and IMF stood idly by, fomenting a financial panic and humanitarian disaster in order to displace a sovereign government and put an entire nation 'in its place.' We certainly have seen this kind of example made before.

        This was an exercise in raw power. It was a financial blitzkrieg, an act of economic warfare and reckless destruction on a people that ought to be condemned by the free world. But this kind of ruthless abuse of financial systems seems to be the accepted thing now amongst the developed economies. And we might view Greece as a sort of an experiment in a new form of warfare and ruthlessness, as were Guernica, Warsaw, and Lidice.

        It is a shame if the Greeks have not prepared for Grexit, although there are still clearly options despite the naysayers who see only difficulties in everything. Freedom is rarely the easier way.

        The lesson that the countries of the Eurozone cannot trust Germany to act with wisdom and goodwill was known, but now we also see that restraint is also not in their repetoire. If one can read between the lines, it would be a pity if the rest of the European countries do not start planning now for their own active exit from such an failed concept as the European Monetary Union.

        And it would be a tragedy if the rest of the world does not now see plainly where a single currency for the world would also take them, where it is already taking them. Modern theories about its benign utility to do only good aside, money is raw power. And one must be exceptionally careful of granting that power to create and distribute and manage money into the hands of vain and corruptible people without stringent transparency, checks and balances, and provisions for justice and individual freedom.

        Are the lights going out all over Europe? Not yet, but there is a darkness casting its shadow over the earth. I fear that Greece is only the beginning of a new phase in the degradation of the human condition by the power of insatiable greed, and spiritual wickedness in high places.

        "The earth, entire peoples and individual persons are being brutally punished. And behind all this pain, death and destruction there is the stench of what Basil of Caesarea called 'the dung of the devil'. An unfettered pursuit of money rules. The service of the common good is left behind.

        Once capital becomes an idol and guides people's decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society, it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home."

        Francis I

        [Jul 14, 2015]Greek bailout: Angela Merkel accused of blackmailing Athens

        "..." The destruction of Greece, like the destruction of America, by the big banks and financial firms is not, as the bankers claim, about austerity or imposing rational expenditures or balanced budgets. It is not about responsible or good government. It is a vicious form of class warfare. It is profoundly anti-democratic. It is about forming nations of impoverished, disempowered serfs and a rapacious elite of all-powerful corporate oligarchs, backed by the most sophisticated security and surveillance apparatus in human history and a militarized police that shoots unarmed citizens with reckless abandon. The laws and rules it imposes on the poor are, as Barbara Ehrenreich has written, little more than "organized sadism.""
        .
        "... Merkel and her finance minister have accomplished what the eurosceptics could not do themselves -- brought the entire EU project into question."
        .
        "...This deal is neither good for the ordinary Germans nor the Greeks. It's plain stupidity, or cynical manipulation by Merkel and Schauble so that someone else in the future will have to suffer the consequences of their actions. The Greeks can never repay the German taxpayer a mounting amount of debt, with a shrinking economy. Greece, after another round of misery and economic contraction, plus some asset stripping for opportunistic buyers (cronies of D'bloem, Merkel, and Schauble's backers), will find itself in a deeper hole very soon."
        Jul 14, 2015 | The Guardian


        andr3wuk 14 Jul 2015 19:37

        I actually think that Schauble speaks a lot of economic sense. As finance minister, it's his responsibility to table the economically viable options that are politically feasible within his own country.... And that's where it all breaks down.

        Merkel is a weak leader. The Euro was meant to be a catalyst of European Federalisation, not the tool for economic imperialism that it currently is. It is up to Merkel, the LEADER of the German people, to explain the features of the Euro that strengthen Germany at the periphery's expense. Take the Euro away, and Germany will enter a recessionary period. At the very least, its growth will slow to a halt. It is up to Merkel, the leader of the German people, to explain to the German population the responsibility that Germany has to ensuring sustainable growth in periphery until European integration is complete. It is up to Merkel to lead a change in public perception and find the political backing for debt reduction, because, for as much as she barks on about the rules and regulations of the EMU, capitalist economics has some ground rules, some fundamental laws, which she is more than happy to use to Germany's advantage at the expense of the periphery.

        Yes, politicians are representatives of the people, and ultimately they must listen to the people, but they are also leaders of the people, and unless Merkel takes this part of her job seriously, as opposed to simply pandering to German public opinion, then she is misleading her own electorate, much in the same way that she accuses Tsipras of having mislead his.

        Unless the Euro changes quickly, unless there is a commitment towards fiscal (and by necessity) political integration, Germans had better get used to being viewed negatively by the rest of Europe, because it's only going to get worse. The government of Germany may not trust that of Tsipras, but the governments of the periphery are starting to lose trust that fiscal consolidation will ever happen, and then they will seek to break free from the shackles of the Euro. Then. once German products become more expensive to the outside world, and the oversized German export economy starts to shrink (i would call it an economic correction), the bubble will deflate, people will become redundant, and the German dream will turn into the German nightmare.


        Cynndara HoSimpson 14 Jul 2015 19:03

        Well, frankly, the EU has given Germany the dominance over the European market that Kaiser Wilhelm and Hitler were both striving for. What the Germans don't understand is that they have sucked their neighbors dry with their export-geared economy. It's understandable that the average German worker doesn't understand this, since they have suffered from deliberately depressed wages used to make their products competitive and increase the profits of business owners. It isn't the WORKERS who have benefited from the arrangement, anywhere on Earth. Of course, encouraging the serfs to hate each other over trivial differences while pocketing the profits is an old, old elite strategem.


        Cynndara 14 Jul 2015 18:55

        ". . . only 18% of Germans said they trusted Greece to implement the reforms it signed up to, with 78% saying they had no trust in the government of Alexis Tsipras."

        Nor should they. "An oath made under duress is not binding" is one of the most ancient precepts of Germanic law. The Greeks are fully justified in doing anything they can to renege on terms that were dictated to them with a bazooka pointed at their entire economy via the banks.

        Since the terms are unsustainable and odious, they will not be sustained, and eventually the Greeks will be forced to leave the EU. What Germany has done makes it far more likely that when they do, there will be no EU left.

        WWIII anyone? When will they ever learn?


        tf2333 WonderWorld 14 Jul 2015 17:36

        I always have the facts in mind. Comparing median household incomes (more accurate than mean) worldwide Germany was #12 in 2011 and Greece was #27. In 2013 Germany was #16 and Greece nowhere in the top 30... It is miraculous what two years of financial aid can accomplish. These are the comprehensive facts from the 2013 US census, I am open to your own sources.


        Katime Monasteria 14 Jul 2015 17:35

        It's only the wealthy who dodged taxes. Actually under the austerity program of the preceding administration, taxes for the wealthy were cut down while taxes for the poor were raised (like in the UK and the US, among other countries)

        Of course wealthy Greeks have gotten their money out of Greece and parked a lot of it in the Cayman Islands along with the money siphoned out of other economies including that of the US.

        Working class folks always paid their taxes. In Greece like elsewhere taxes are deducted from paychecks.

        I hope for your sake that you are one of the 88 individuals who own half of all the earth's wealth. If you are a working stiff like the rest of us, you're being a patsy.


        Nigelpwsmith 14 Jul 2015 17:23

        The Germans are taking particular delight in their cruelty to use Greece as a whipping boy to get all the other Euro countries into line. They even had the temerity to suggest that if Greece didn't accept the deal, they wouldn't just be out of the Eurozone, but out of the EU as well - something that is impossible without the consent of the Greek people.

        Merkel and Schäuble have taken it one step further. The bully boys are now threatening to demand funds from the United Kingdom. Even though Cameron obtained an opt out from bailing out the Eurozone, Jean-Claude Juncker, European Commission president, has discarded any notion that this was written into any treaty and may revive the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism. Using the EU funds as collateral, the EU would loan even more money to Eurozone basket cases and then when these debts are not repaid, contributors like the UK would get stung with the bill.

        If anything is likely to persuade the British public to leave the EU in 2017, this would be it!


        brianboru1014 14 Jul 2015 17:14

        Angela Merkel and her finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, actually have managed to divide the continent.
        Germany is not trusted any more as an innocent post World War 2 European nation. Many now see it as the most destructive force in Europe just as it was in the beginning of the 20th century.


        WonderWorld Aris Tsihlis 14 Jul 2015 17:03

        Just so you know: according to the most recent poll in Germany, 75% of the Supporters of the Green party and 52% of the Linke party are supportive of Merkel's way of dealing with the Greek blackmailing of Europe. You should get used that democracy is not the personal right of communist Greek demagoges, but is practiced in every single country in the EU. And a majority of the people there are fed up with Greece stealing their tax money.

        MartinAMiss RedCoat4Ever 14 Jul 2015 16:54

        It's economically unworkable. As has been demonstrated by the fact bedt to GDP ratio has gone from 130% to 177% and predcited to rise to 200%.

        The IMF has always been clear about sustainability. Having two French chiefs who have presidential ambitions, when so much of the Greek liability belongs to French banks, has hindered a sensible solution being found.


        tf2333 14 Jul 2015 16:35

        Throwing my own interpretation in the pool of opinions... It is only natural that measures and assurances are needed whenever someone is asking for money. But in modern societies, fine lines are drawn to what these assurances should be. Regardless of the final concessions from both sides, the original demands of 1) 50bn worth of assets to be gradually sold by the creditors and controlled from Luxembourg (!) 2) involvement of the creditors in Greek legislation from now on and 3) re-iteration of all legislation taken by the current elected government without the consent of the Eurogroup are far-fetched in a legal sense, to say the least. It is worth mentioning that the Eurogroup is a non-legal entity that keeps NO written log during its meetings and is under no one's jurisdiction... Last but not least, I am simply sad to see the European ideal broken and nationalism grown on all sides. Taking the US as the nearest example of a monetary union, many of the southern states are literally bankrupt and the northern states are simply paying for their debt to maintain the stability of the union. The same situation within Europe is translated into "why should Finnish / Germans etc pay for the debt of the Greeks?". Well, this is how unions work, to everyone's sudden dismay, not as a club only for the privileged.


        eurotrash 14 Jul 2015 15:16

        " The destruction of Greece, like the destruction of America, by the big banks and financial firms is not, as the bankers claim, about austerity or imposing rational expenditures or balanced budgets. It is not about responsible or good government. It is a vicious form of class warfare. It is profoundly anti-democratic. It is about forming nations of impoverished, disempowered serfs and a rapacious elite of all-powerful corporate oligarchs, backed by the most sophisticated security and surveillance apparatus in human history and a militarized police that shoots unarmed citizens with reckless abandon. The laws and rules it imposes on the poor are, as Barbara Ehrenreich has written, little more than "organized sadism."

        Corporate profit is God. It does not matter who suffers. In Greece 40 percent of children live in poverty, there is a 25 percent unemployment rate and the unemployment figure for those between the ages of 15 and 24 is nearly 50 percent. And it will only get worse.

        We will not return to a rational economy or restore democracy until these global speculators are stripped of power. This will happen only if the streets of major cities in Europe and the United States are convulsed with mass protests. The tyranny of these financial elites knows no limits. They will impose ever greater suffering and repression until we submit or revolt. I prefer the latter. But we don't have much time.


        daitwice Optimist13 14 Jul 2015 14:27

        You are an optimist. Businesses are about margins. That's why any substantial boycott can be harmful.

        What will save Germany is inertia, the failure of most to act on their feelings of disgust. It's easier to rip off a comment here or on social media than think through how to avoid buying German products. We shall see how long people remember, before they switch to some other outrage project.
        But I think you're wrong about fringe parties. People who have always been pro-EU are turning sharply against THIS Europe. Certainly Britons, with their innate sense of what representative government is, do not like bullying decisions taken behind closed doors by unaccountable committees that refuse to take minutes of their meetings.

        The German S-Ds are more corporatist in their approach. They've been complicit in driving down German wages so that there's now a wave of anger and a level of poverty for 3 million Germans that can be be usefully turned outwards against southern Europeans (not that I'm saying the Greeks haven't made mistakes).


        Alexandra Michaels Kostas Nikolaidis 14 Jul 2015 14:18

        Corruption in Greek governments? Absolutely! I know it. I saw it. Why do you think so many back Tsipras who is not from the old money ruling class that live in Ekali and sail around the world on yachts?

        Tax evasion? Yes, mostly the upper middle and upper classes...not the ones who are paying the piper--the civil servants and some of the more honest and smaller independent business people.

        Don't put all the blame on Greece. What do the yiayiades and papoudes need to suffer in their old age when they lived honorable lives? Your people are suffering because of the rich and the corrupt and the monolith banks.

        Read the prophecies of the Elder, Saint Paisios who predicted all of this back in 1983 when it seemed like science fiction to the people who he said it to and who documented his words.

        See what the big bank monolith minotaur really is...if you believe in God.


        RedCoat4Ever Alexandra Michaels 14 Jul 2015 14:07

        When Varoufakis was backward inducing the various levels of "the game", he miscalculated the probabilities AND payoffs. He believed the dominant strategy was to claim "the EZ needs us more than we need them". He was wrong. Dead wrong. Tsipras played and now has to take the payout. He chose an inferior strategy, which is remarkable given that the payouts and probabilities were known to the world. There is not a question of blame. This was Tsipras' choice. He must now accept the payout.


        AKAJOE 14 Jul 2015 14:04

        It is probably true that Germany has/is been too harsh - although the total online hate campaign is way way over the top. With every idiot jumping on the band wagon...but what I don't understand is why is no one mad at the Greeks? The Greek elite (political and business) completely failed their own country by exploiting the system and people and sucking the whole place dry for the last 4 decades.(and longer)..this is 10x worse than what Germany is doing...where is the social shit storm against them??! how about #BoycottShippingTycoons or #GetTheCroniesOutofHere..anyway can't think of anything more witty....

        crystaltips2 Alexandra Michaels 14 Jul 2015 14:00

        It may be a generalisation but when most sources agree that Greece's shadow economy is around 25% of GDP then it's a pretty fair one. Public spending is 50% of GDP, so that means fully half of private sector transactions are made 'off the books'. You don't need to speak Greek or live there to find this out.


        germany15 DieSubversiv 14 Jul 2015 13:49

        The devil-contract-thing is right, I agree -- But when Banks use their power to do crime, like manipulating Libor, eulibor, ... and in this case manipulating the Greeks balances and so on (like golmansachs did), they are the origin of the Greek disaster. If I would sign a manipulated contract, the crime is not the signing, but the manipulation !!!
        I would agree to you, that the signers where very naive, but the thing is: Now we know, that they were cheating and even, if we can prove this, the banks will not be judged (to big to judge or so) -- In my opinion that's a language of a non-democratic state -- Sad but true !

        And I have to add, that of course the whole political system in that case failed too!

        But the sickest thing is:
        Now, as we know of the crime, the goldmansachs bank did in that case, the result is, that a goldmansachs banker is running the ECB System ?!


        Alexandra Michaels 14 Jul 2015 13:48

        All along Tsipras realized that the debt was unsustainable and that austerity did not work. The world's global economists agree with that.

        All along he stated that he wished to negotiate for better and less humiliating (to the poor and middle class) terms for the bail out.
        Unlike the German leaders who are beholden to the monolith bank god of greed, as well as previous elitist politicians who ran the Greek government, he cared about the lesser rather than only the rich.

        The humiliating austerity (threatened to be stricter and worse before the mandate) terms he was forced to agree to after being (in the words of other ministers present) "mentally waterboarded", "crucified", etc., are a sad day for all the world.

        That a woman could exert such pressure on another is beyond me, but desperation and greed can do funny things to a person...

        Today, not Germany and not Greece are winners...the evil banksters who are ruling the world, the anti-christ, if you will, are the winners.


        retsdon damiendd 14 Jul 2015 13:47

        I actually voted in the referendum back in 78 or whenever it was to stay in the old Common Market. And I'd probably do so again today. But over the subsequent 30 odd years the project has been hijacked by Empire builders in Brussels. If I had a vote in the next referendum on staying in the current EU - which I don't - I'd vote out probably. It's an unhealthy organization.


        Alexandra Michaels Sal2011 14 Jul 2015 13:40

        Sal, that was an amazing post and assessment. So many think that this is all simplistic and like to compare it to them going to the bank for a car loan (atleast in the U.S.)

        Sadly, these opportunistic corporations, the new oligarchy of the once democratic United States, are also salivating Ukraine.

        One cannot help wonder who is behind these global events.

        These corporations and banksters are nothing short of pure evil. The media is often biased and cannot be trusted.

        Thank God for erudite posters like you. I wish I could copy your post and share it elsewhere, but alas there is no 'cut and paste' ability here.

        While I congratulate you, I also tremble in fear at this evil which has taken control of the world and which has killed democracy.

        Algirdas Davidavičius Maarten Van Wijk 14 Jul 2015 13:34

        It is beyond me how all the responsibility for expert, technocrat failures made in favour of the banks against the sovereign national democracies is constantly shifted towards citizens in a manner that sets them one national democracy against the other. Now suddenly the lithuanians and dutch are "paying for the lousy greeks", when it is private investor and their client polititian failures that created the crisis. Is it not, dear Mr. Vam Wijk, that the "Greece against all the rest of EU democracies" is absolutely a scandalous lie and absolutely disorienting illusion?

        jackayarcher 14 Jul 2015 11:05

        Below all the shouting, accusations, recriminations, ad hominem attacks on all sides, there is the fundamental economic fact that the austerity measures imposed on the Greeks by the Germans were/are a huge mistake. Even the IMF now admits (and why did it not do so sooner?) that Greek debt, just like German debt in the not-so-distant past, was too high to ever be re-paid, that trying to do so under the conditions Germany insists on means that Greece is condemned to perpetual penury.

        This is the worst act on Germany's part -- acting irrationally while assuming an almost religious sense of economic and moral superiority. Unattractive, to say the least, however popular such behavior may be among Germans. It isn't to the rest of us. Merkel and her finance minister have accomplished what the eurosceptics could not do themselves -- brought the entire EU project into question. As for the eurozone, we now see how appallingly bad an idea it is, and one that will bring all Europe to grief.


        prefec2 Skallior 14 Jul 2015 10:58

        As a German, I have to concur with your assessment. Merkel and Schäuble ruined the EU. However, they are not the only ones who supported this stupid path which will not lead to a recovery of Greece, but to the destruction of the euro zone and the EU. The EU is already a fragile thing, as more and more countries have become egoistic, for example the UK or Finland, a union where everyone is only looking after his personal benefit will not work. Nor will it work based on a neo-liberal agenda of Merkel.


        prefec2 JMFulton 14 Jul 2015 10:54

        The EU handed them a brick not a life line. the only thing that would help is a debt restructuring or a haircut combined with a massive reform of the state bureaucracy. Cuts to pensions, however, are not necessary. The same goes for privatization of infrastructure.

        Greece is so deep in debt, because of the corrupt elites (which are presently not in government). It is also in debt, because Goldman Sachs helped them to trick the EU and the EU and especially Schröder looked the other way when they cheated themselves into the Euro. However, most of their debt accumulated after becoming part of the Euro zone.


        Sal2011 14 Jul 2015 10:30

        This deal is neither good for the ordinary Germans nor the Greeks. It's plain stupidity, or cynical manipulation by Merkel and Schauble so that someone else in the future will have to suffer the consequences of their actions. The Greeks can never repay the German taxpayer a mounting amount of debt, with a shrinking economy. Greece, after another round of misery and economic contraction, plus some asset stripping for opportunistic buyers (cronies of D'bloem, Merkel, and Schauble's backers), will find itself in a deeper hole very soon.

        How do countries like Greece find themselves in such a debt jam? Here's an example of a typical process. A German company wants to do a project in Greece. It approaches the Greek government, with its lobbyists and debt from a German bank to finance the deal. Since it is coming in with the capital, it overprices the project. Greece gets an overpriced asset and debt - sometimes the asset is indeed worthless for example military white elephants that will never be used. The German company gets the windfall. The German banker is happy at placing more debt, they get paid by the amount of debt they sell. The German and Greek taxpayers ultimately pick up the bill for the overpriced asset. While the overpriced asset doesn't contribute as it should to the Greek economy (if indeed anything, e.g. in he case of a military white elephant), the Greek taxpayer - ironically the middle earners and poor, who don't have offshore tax accounts - is expected to pay for it. Public opinion is whpped up against the Greek pensioner, middle earning worker as if they somehow manipulated the system and pocketed the money, not a crony corporation of the German politicians.

        When the Greek taxpayer obviously finds himself going bust trying to pay for an overpriced asset, Germany passes the bad debt to its own taxpayers, i.e. the Greeks now owe German taxpayers. They obviously can't pay this either. So now they are forced to sell assets - let's look at what assets are being proposed. These assets are monopolies like the electricity transmission grid and airports which the Greek taxpayer has to use and pay for in any case. In other words, compulsory taxpayer payments. Who will these assets go to? Foreign companies, cronies of the Troika's decision makers (where they will find jobs, advisory roles after public sector retirement). Will it help Greece grow again? No. Will it help Greek payments to the German taxpayer? Unlikely. But it does help certain opportunists make a lot of money in the short run, while others are left to suffer the consequences in the future.


        Shannon Ribbons 14 Jul 2015 10:07

        The banks WILL have their money. Only a juicy war could have distracted them from their slavering over Greece.

        [Jul 14, 2015] Peace In Our Time

        "...The leaders of Syriza are revolutionaries of a kind – but their revolution is the perverse, familiar appropriation of social democratic and parliamentary movements by liberals groomed to comply with neo-liberal drivel and a social engineering whose authentic face is that of Wolfgang Schauble, Germany's finance minister, an imperial thug. "
        .
        "...The global financial class is pleased that any pain to be visited from the bad behavior of, wait for it, the global financial class including some of the usual and almost omnipresent suspects, will be presumably visited upon the Greek public alone.
        .
        And there will be a feast of sorts for the vulture class.
        .
        This is the continuation of a financial strategy being pursued by the Western developed economies for some years now. It is not 'ordoliberal', which is a nice historical diversion, so much as neo-liberal, a fashion of political management that has swept the West thanks in great part to the economic and political influence of the US and the UK.
        "
        .
        "...'In the [1967] coup d'état the choice of weapon used in order to bring down democracy then was the tanks. Well, this time it was the banks. The banks were used by foreign powers to take over the government. The difference is that this time they're taking over all public property.'"
        .
        "...We are seeing the same thing being done on a much more local scale in the UK and the US surely, with certain locales being turned into virtual protectorates after being caught up in a web of corruption, financial fraud, and unpayable debts by officially sanctioned Banks. Consider this not an anomaly, but an experiment in progress, with more to follow."
        jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com

        "Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

        Frederick Douglass

        Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras seems to have folded precipitously, after apparently having taken all other options off the table including a Grexit, a movement toward the burgeoning China Development Bank, an impasse.

        His strategy seemed a bit out of joint. I have heard that Victoria Nuland made him an offer he could not refuse, and he did not wish or did not have the option to offer a 'principled resignation' as did Varoufakis.

        (Note: I am now mulling this and a few other things over in light of this new interview by Varoufakis.)

        It could be that he was then taken aback and surprised by the sheer ferocity of the European (German) proposal, which was to essentially make Greek into a protectorate, and to visit a looting of national assets, given that the loans being granted are completely unpayable and the collateral will be forfeit.

        He certainly is not the first Western leader to have capitulated when a 'gun' has been held to their head. There is a certain rhyme, and a sense of déjà vu in all this. We must do these things, because of the imperative of (pick one: destiny, our blood, they have given us no choice, it is in their nature to be ruled, to safeguard our freedom, and/or the logic of the market)

        There was intraday commentary along these lines here.

        There is certainly room for criticizing Syriza in this. I admit I was supportive of their efforts, and still am. I will try not to judge their efforts too harshly until all the facts are revealed. Since I am not eager to be a martyr, I rarely find it appropriate to insist on that path for anyone else. But I did think this characterization from John Pilger bears some merit.

        The leaders of Syriza are revolutionaries of a kind – but their revolution is the perverse, familiar appropriation of social democratic and parliamentary movements by liberals groomed to comply with neo-liberal drivel and a social engineering whose authentic face is that of Wolfgang Schauble, Germany's finance minister, an imperial thug.

        Like the Labour Party in Britain and its equivalents among former social democratic parties such as the Labor Party in Australia, still describing themselves as 'liberal' or even 'left', Syriza is the product of an affluent, highly privileged, educated middle class, "schooled in postmodernism", as Alex Lantier wrote.

        For them, class is the unmentionable, let alone an enduring struggle, regardless of the reality of the lives of most human beings. Syriza's luminaries are well-groomed; they lead not the resistance that ordinary people crave, as the Greek electorate has so bravely demonstrated, but "better terms" of a venal status quo that corrals and punishes the poor. When merged with "identity politics" and its insidious distractions, the consequence is not resistance, but subservience. "Mainstream" political life in Britain exemplifies this.

        John Pilger, The Problem of Greece is not Only a Tragedy: It is a Lie

        I wonder how much of Anglo-American political realities that Pilger is projecting on the Greeks. It is hard to me to judge.

        But this is mere speculation and second guessing, and we have to focus on what is next. Certainly the Greek people will be foolish to accept the terms to which their Prime Minister has agreed. But what they will do about it, if anything, is another matter. One hopes that they will make a stand, if only to break the momentum of what James Galbraith has called 'the neoliberal project' in which the US in involved despite all its dissembling about it.

        Those who complain about the abuse of power and financial repression in their own cases, as those in the precious metals are sometimes known to do, are foolish if they think that what is happening in Greece means nothing for them. The cause of freedom makes all free people brothers and sisters, and those who see themselves as standing proudly alone will fall, miserably and alone.

        The global financial class is pleased that any pain to be visited from the bad behavior of, wait for it, the global financial class including some of the usual and almost omnipresent suspects, will be presumably visited upon the Greek public alone.

        And there will be a feast of sorts for the vulture class.

        This is the continuation of a financial strategy being pursued by the Western developed economies for some years now. It is not 'ordoliberal', which is a nice historical diversion, so much as neo-liberal, a fashion of political management that has swept the West thanks in great part to the economic and political influence of the US and the UK.

        What makes it different in this case of Greece is that it is being done, not to a Third World country, but to a long established Western nation and a member of the European community. If there is any good to come out of this, at least the neo-liberal financial class has been revealed for who and what they truly are. And so we can no longer claim any illusions, no plausible excuse in our believing them once again.

        'In the [1967] coup d'état the choice of weapon used in order to bring down democracy then was the tanks. Well, this time it was the banks. The banks were used by foreign powers to take over the government. The difference is that this time they're taking over all public property.'

        Yanis Varoufakis

        And so we see Hillary the populist railing about wages and Wall Street today, while riding on a tidal wave of big money, insider dealings, and soft payoffs from the moneyed interests. But it is all in the patter, the words, the quality of the performance, the identity politics, don't ya know. This is a spectacle, a play on the national stage, and an act of political fiction. And so facts don't matter, just the entertainment factor. How else could one account for at least half of the Republican candidates?

        We are seeing the same thing being done on a much more local scale in the UK and the US surely, with certain locales being turned into virtual protectorates after being caught up in a web of corruption, financial fraud, and unpayable debts by officially sanctioned Banks.

        Consider this not an anomaly, but an experiment in progress, with more to follow.

        Have a pleasant evening.

        [Jul 14, 2015] Rich countries accused of foiling effort to give poorer nations a voice on tax

        Jul 14, 2015 | The Guardian
        Jul 13, 2015 | The Guardian

        Aid agencies at Addis Ababa development finance summit claim UK and others have obstructed talks aimed at enabling poor countries to influence UN tax policy.


        Aid agencies on Monday accused the world's richest countries, including the UK, of blocking plans to allow poor countries a greater say on UN tax policies.

        The upgrade of the UN tax committee to an intergovernmental body was widely seen as a way for less wealthy nations that have struggled to build effective tax systems to influence policy decisions at the UN.

        The UK joined the US and several other wealthy countries at the UN financing for development conference in Addis Ababa in a manoeuvre to limit discussions on tax policy at the UN, arguing that the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) was taking the lead on tax issues.

        But a proposal presented to the conference by the OECD, known as a thinktank for the world's 34 richest nations, was also criticised for treating developing countries as an afterthought.

        The OECD and the UN Development Programme launched a project entitled tax inspectors without borders to help poorer countries bolster domestic revenues by strengthening the ability of tax authorities to limit tax avoidance by multinationals.

        The initiative, which involves providing tax audit experts to work alongside local officials dealing with the affairs of multinationals, has had encouraging results across pilot projects in Albania, Ghana and Senegal. Evidence from Colombia, meanwhile, indicated an improvement in tax revenue from $3.3m (£2.1m) in 2011 to $33.2m in 2014, "thanks to tax audit advice and guidance".

        Aid charities believe developing countries should build robust tax systems to prevent them from borrowing heavily and getting into debt, as highlighted in a recent report by the Jubilee debt campaign.


        The World Bank has come under heavy fire in the past for encouraging poor countries to cut corporate taxes to boost foreign direct investment. Ethiopia, Mongolia, El Salvador and Puerto Rico are among 38 countries in the report that are slipping dangerously into debt after borrowing on the international money markets to bridge the gap left by large tax shortfalls.

        The Addis Ababa conference was expected to produce a series of high-level deals to promote sustainable, self-sufficient development. But the charities fear the UN and the World Bank will promote private finance initiatives that involved either privatisation or greater borrowing to finance investment, improve infrastructure and public services.

        Speaking at the conference, a spokeswoman for ActionAid said: "The UK government has positioned itself as a global leader on many aspects of sustainable development, aid and in global efforts to tackle tax avoidance and evasion. It is therefore disappointing that the UK appears to be one of the few governments blocking progress on the important issue of a tax body."

        Failure to tackle this question in Addis will not make the urgent need for international tax reform go away. It will simply intensify the challenges ahead for the international community. There is growing recognition that the OECD alone cannot ensure global rules work for all countries, especially the poorest. Blocking agreement on an obvious solution in Addis simply delays the inevitable while putting other critical processes at risk.

        Save the Children said the world was "sleepwalking towards failure" at the global finance summit, adding that the UN should create an international body to oversee global tax matters.

        A spokesman said: "Tax has never been more under the spotlight as the source of finance for development, but decisions affecting the poorest countries and their ability to recoup money owed to them are taken in an elite club of the most powerful nations. This 20th-century way of doing business is no longer appropriate for the era of sustainable development goals."

        [Jul 14, 2015]Kiev forced to fight its own fascist militias

        Jul 14, 2015 | The Times

        A pro-government Ukrainian militia accused of neo-Nazism has fought a gun battle with the country's security forces that left at least three dead and several police vehicles destroyed by rocket-propelled grenades.

        The fighting marks the first clash between Kiev and one of the country's "volunteer battalions" who have led the fight against pro-Russian separatists.

        The fierce confrontation in the city of Mukachevo, near Ukraine's western border, involved members of Right Sector, a controversial nationalist group. Three policemen were among six injured, officials from the Ukrainian interior ministry said.

        A stand-off with Ukrainian police continued yesterday while Right Sector announced that

        [Jul 14, 2015] Tensions rising in Ukraine as far-right militia's boobytraps injure two police

        "...This negotiation is quite impossible because Kiev, even if you wanted to negotiate honestly, is pushed by the nationalist forces, all those Right Sectors, "volunteers" and "heroes of Maidan." Poroshenko has to please the nationalistic crowd so the honest negotiations is just a dream. Besides, all those "volunteer battalions" had declared from the first day that the Minsk agreement would apply to them. They've been having major marches in Kiev over the last couple of weeks, menacing marching in full fatigues and face masks and demanding resumption of the war in the East."
        .
        "...Madam "F*ck the EU" Nuland's engineered coup is not going according to plan. She used Ukrainian nationalism as a cause, enticing Ukrainian Nationalists and supposed Ukrainian NAZIs (the right sector) both of whom hate Russians as dupes to aid her coup. Now that the illegitimate IMF and Soros funded Kiev junta has consolidated their hold on government, they dare not have any Ukrainian Nationalists or anyone who would care and honestly work on behalf of Ukrainian citizens any role in the new government. Instead, foreign IMF collaborators are given instant Ukrainian citizenship and posted in important ministerial jobs. No doubt, the nationalists were promised a part in the government if they aided in the coup. Now that madam Nuland is ignoring them, they no doubt aren't very happy, posing a threat the the Poroshenko junta. Poroshenko's remedy, on advice of madam Nueland no doubt, seems to purposely create tension with the nationalists so that they could be classified as terrorist and either jailed or killed. "
        .
        "...Madam Nuland is the classic intelligent, over educated idiot. Knows nothing about Ukraine but because of her education, her high position in the state department (no doubt by connection) and her arrogant demeanor has led her to believe she could do no wrong. Thus far, her civil war in Ukraine has resulted in more than 6000 dead Ukrainians, mostly civilians including children. Not only that, madam Nuland has destroyed what was a united Ukraine and it will never be whole again. Eastern Ukrainians will never reconcile with those who waged war against them for no reason at all. Her chocolate oligarch, Poroshenko, on her advice chose to intentionally bomb and shell civilians. Killing civilians is a war crime. This puts Porosenko in the same league as Hitler and other war criminals of history."
        .
        "... Ha, moderate rebels. Reminds me of Syria. Ukraine may be heading the same way.
        .
        "...Well, it is, of course, hard to tell what's going on there, what kinds of deals are being made, but indeed it sound like Poroshenko is trying to rein neonazis in a little bit, while Yatsenyuk, the PM and a Nuland's stooge, is betting on them. What a mess, what a shame."
        .
        "...Maidan raised expectations and shrunk resources. The inevitable disillusionment and bloody struggle for remaining resources will destroy Ukraine. The people in the West who aided the violent overthrow of the elected government, who over-promised and played geo-political games, they should be held accountable. From State Department to EU busy-bodies (Sikorski and Bildt), to media cheerleaders, to human rights professionals - all of them must explain what gave them the right to meddle and unravel a relatively prosperous country of over 40 million."
        .
        "...What was bound to happen is happening. There is a long story of the good guys turning bad but they never learn. This is no exception, it could have been avoided in due time by not accepting these groups as units into the military for they have dangerous ideologies incompatible with democracy. What is more amazing though is that the EU supported these guys all along by remaining silent. As long as they were killing in the east of the country it was fine and that tells a lot about the whole Ukraine situation which is politically driven."
        .
        "...No, Kiev doesn't struggle with armed nationalist groups. It encouraged, organized and armed them. It even came up with the patriotically sounding name for them, "volunteers," so now they are pretty legitimate."
        .
        "...Finally western media are starting to report the fact that Poroshenko and his government have absolutely no control of the far right militia that got them in poeer and fought in East Ukraine. No peace deals or Minsk agreements will be implemented while there are out of control and armed to the teeth people fighting in the east for either side. They do not care about agreements."
        .
        "...Not all unicorns and rainbows in Nulandistan it appears."
        Jul 14, 2015 | The Guardian

        vr13vr -> ilyasilyas 14 Jul 2015 15:23

        "I suppose this is the end of the Right Sector, since the government machine is much stronger than a small organisation. "

        It is not necessarily at all. They were promoted into "heroes defending Ukraine" and there is simply not enough political will to squash them. They will have to come up with some sort of a pact, just as they did last year during their elections and when they formed the Right Sector into "National Guards." They will essentially split the spheres of influence.

        As for the government machine, Ukrainian army doesn't want to fight. They are ill prepared and lack motivation to fight, especially inside their country. Right Sector, on the other hand is more seasoned, organized, and more aggressive. It has advantage over the army. Poroshenko doesn't have strength to squash it either by force or politically.

        vr13vr -> ilyasilyas 14 Jul 2015 15:16

        This negotiation is quite impossible because Kiev, even if you wanted to negotiate honestly, is pushed by the nationalist forces, all those Right Sectors, "volunteers" and "heroes of Maidan." Poroshenko has to please the nationalistic crowd so the honest negotiations is just a dream. Besides, all those "volunteer battalions" had declared from the first day that the Minsk agreement would apply to them. They've been having major marches in Kiev over the last couple of weeks, menacing marching in full fatigues and face masks and demanding resumption of the war in the East.

        Debreceni 14 Jul 2015 15:09

        Mission accomplished. The German-dominated EU and the US turned Ukraine into a failed state. The new Russophobic regime alienated the only country, which cared about the Ukrainian people and which was ready to help: Putin's Russia. Their wish has been granted: now they are part (and a colony) of Europe and never will be free again. Ukraine is Europe' Mexico ruled by drug lords, mafia bosses, soldiers of of fortune, adventure capitalists, outsiders and common criminals. Feel sorry for them.

        SHappens -> Havingalavrov 14 Jul 2015 15:07

        I understand from what Ukraine has face by Russia's armed and led war against its people, that it didn't have many options of who could help them.

        Oh come on, they could have refrained from the ATO. Ukraine doesn't need to defend themselves they just have to stop attacking the east and make a reconciliation, how does that sound? You seem to advocate a full war.

        VictorWhisky 14 Jul 2015 15:07

        Madam "F*ck the EU" Nuland's engineered coup is not going according to plan. She used Ukrainian nationalism as a cause, enticing Ukrainian Nationalists and supposed Ukrainian NAZIs (the right sector) both of whom hate Russians as dupes to aid her coup. Now that the illegitimate IMF and Soros funded Kiev junta has consolidated their hold on government, they dare not have any Ukrainian Nationalists or anyone who would care and honestly work on behalf of Ukrainian citizens any role in the new government. Instead, foreign IMF collaborators are given instant Ukrainian citizenship and posted in important ministerial jobs. No doubt, the nationalists were promised a part in the government if they aided in the coup. Now that madam Nuland is ignoring them, they no doubt aren't very happy, posing a threat the the Poroshenko junta. Poroshenko's remedy, on advice of madam Nueland no doubt, seems to purposely create tension with the nationalists so that they could be classified as terrorist and either jailed or killed.

        It seems madam Nuland and her Zionist collaborators had no problem getting in bed with the Ukrainian NAZIs, who were the major force and contributed to the success of the coup. Now madam Nuland has turned against the Nationalists and the Right Sector. Sasha Biley, a right sector leader appeared on video claiming he would be arrested by the Kiev junta police and assassinated or sent to Russia to have them do it. The next day, the was shot dead by the Kiev junta's police in a shout out. Why would they want him dead? He was one of the major leaders who helped in madam Nuland's coup. In fact, he was one of the most violent leaders. Did he know who hired the snipers on the Maidan and promised to spill the beans if he was not given a government post? Dead men tell no tales.

        As corrupt as Yanukovich was he never ordered the Ukrainian army to bomb and shell their own people. Poroshenko has ordered the Ukrainian army to bomb and shell Eastern Ukrainian civilians whose only crime is to refuse to recognize madam Nuland's illegitimately installed Kiev junta. It was not the Eastern Ukrainians that mobilized and advanced on Kiev, it was the Ukrainian army that was mobilized and ordered to advance on Eastern Ukrainians. Madam Nuland is the classic intelligent, over educated idiot.

        Knows nothing about Ukraine but because of her education, her high position in the state department (no doubt by connection) and her arrogant demeanor has led her to believe she could do no wrong. Thus far, her civil war in Ukraine has resulted in more than 6000 dead Ukrainians, mostly civilians including children. Not only that, madam Nuland has destroyed what was a united Ukraine and it will never be whole again. Eastern Ukrainians will never reconcile with those who waged war against them for no reason at all. Her chocolate oligarch, Poroshenko, on her advice chose to intentionally bomb and shell civilians. Killing civilians is a war crime. This puts Porosenko in the same league as Hitler and other war criminals of history.

        Tee7467 -> vr13vr 14 Jul 2015 14:58

        Ha, moderate rebels. Reminds me of Syria. Ukraine may be heading the same way.

        JoePope 14 Jul 2015 14:54

        Its hard to feel any sympathy for Kiev government and their Western sponsors- they brought this on themselves.
        A joke photo was doing rounds on twitter this weekend with desperate looking Poroshenko holding up a sign which reads "Putin bring the army!"
        That would be poetic justice.

        ilyasilyas 14 Jul 2015 14:48

        Interestingly, the western media did touch this topic despite the fact that it does not go along with the anti-Russia line. Let's see how this incident ends.

        I suppose this is the end of the Right Sector, since the government machine is much stronger than a small organisation. Moreover, the Ukrainian media started to talk a lot about the RS, writing all sorts of crimes they committed and etc.

        Maidan heroes are no longer heroes but criminals.

        I just hope the country will climb out of the shithole it got in. I'm sure people of the Western part of Ukraine do not want war as well as people in the East. The whole thing just got out of control. Everybody shoot freeze and then start negotiating. It's very hard to negotiate when people shoot each other.

        geedeesee 14 Jul 2015 14:40

        These guys have no qualms about killing police officers - we saw that on Maiden - they haven't suddenly changed.

        MaoChengJi 14 Jul 2015 14:37

        Well, it is, of course, hard to tell what's going on there, what kinds of deals are being made, but indeed it sound like Poroshenko is trying to rein neonazis in a little bit, while Yatsenyuk, the PM and a Nuland's stooge, is betting on them. What a mess, what a shame.

        vr13vr -> SHappens 14 Jul 2015 14:17

        But remember, these armed nationalists were viewed as "moderate rebels." They were helping to overthrow the previous government and they were eager to fight in the East of the country. But then again, we've heard the story about the good and moderate rebels before.

        Beckow 14 Jul 2015 14:16

        Maidan raised expectations and shrunk resources. The inevitable disillusionment and bloody struggle for remaining resources will destroy Ukraine. The people in the West who aided the violent overthrow of the elected government, who over-promised and played geo-political games, they should be held accountable. From State Department to EU busy-bodies (Sikorski and Bildt), to media cheerleaders, to human rights professionals - all of them must explain what gave them the right to meddle and unravel a relatively prosperous country of over 40 million.

        Poroshenko orders police "to disarm illegal groups", and one wonders why that has to be "ordered", why was post-Maidan tolerating armed groups? These are the wages of engaging in an armed street uprising, of Nuland giving cookies to armed demonstrators, EU politicians posing with assorted mobs as they were fighting police. Imagine any of this in any European country, imagine how quickly and brutally it would be suppressed, look at everything from Occupy, Frankfurt, kettling in London. So why was street uprising supported by EU in Kiev? And what can EU do now?

        vr13vr 14 Jul 2015 14:15

        "Right Sector grew in popularity after it played a lead role in the tumultuous mass protests that overthrew president Viktor Yanukovych in 2014"

        So, after all the back and force, we finally agree that the infamous Maidan was led by the armed nationalist militia rather than peace loving democratic people who wanted to join EU? Ouch, that's the first step.

        Pterinochilus 14 Jul 2015 14:15

        That´s exactly what happens when you arm, encourage and embed yourself with armed neo-nazis.

        SHappens 14 Jul 2015 14:11

        What was bound to happen is happening. There is a long story of the good guys turning bad but they never learn. This is no exception, it could have been avoided in due time by not accepting these groups as units into the military for they have dangerous ideologies incompatible with democracy. What is more amazing though is that the EU supported these guys all along by remaining silent. As long as they were killing in the east of the country it was fine and that tells a lot about the whole Ukraine situation which is politically driven.

        vr13vr 14 Jul 2015 14:11

        "[The event] highlights Kiev's struggles with ... armed nationalist groups who have helped it fight pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine. "

        No, Kiev doesn't struggle with armed nationalist groups. It encouraged, organized and armed them. It even came up with the patriotically sounding name for them, "volunteers," so now they are pretty legitimate.

        thenewstranger 14 Jul 2015 14:05

        Oh, interesting. I suppose those guys are peacefull, democratic protesters from Maidan. Or maybe dictator Yanukovich masked in Right sector again kill it's own citizens.

        IvanYur 14 Jul 2015 13:39

        Finally western media are starting to report the fact that Poroshenko and his government have absolutely no control of the far right militia that got them in poeer and fought in East Ukraine.

        No peace deals or Minsk agreements will be implemented while there are out of control and armed to the teeth people fighting in the east for either side. They do not care about agreements.

        goatrider 14 Jul 2015 13:35

        Not all unicorns and rainbows in Nulandistan it appears.

        [Jul 14, 2015] Russia and the west are quits for good as far as any hope of alliances is concerned, because the west is just too untrustworthy

        "...Sherr is the archetypal think tank expert. The most interesting part in that biographical sketch – was reading that he was born in New York and holds dual US-UK citizenship. "
        .
        "...The self-delusion, hypocrisy and deceit of Western leaders, policy makers and analysts has no limits. This panel exemplifies this. "
        .
        "...Whenever I see his name, though, I'm reminded of a piece he wrote on Ukraine years ago, long before Maidan. ... it's called "Realism About Ukraine Part I – Internal Conditions. James Sherr, Conflict Studies Research Centre, UK Defence Academy". Read it over carefully; this dates from June 2005, and I found his assessment of the competitors for power to be frank and realistic, especially that on Tymoshenko. "
        .
        "...I have no idea who this guy actually is but, just from that statement I would say he's an empty vessel in moral terms."

        marknesop, July 10, 2015 at 7:56 am

        I think Russia and the west are quits for good as far as any hope of alliances is concerned, because the west is just too untrustworthy. However, it is my personal opinion that much of the demonization of Putin is intended to make him respond in kind with bellicose rhetoric which will allow him to be cast as an unstable, ranting dictator. Moreover, he seems to see the trap or for whatever reason is avoiding it, choosing instead to keep his criticism mild, measured and slightly mocking. So if that is the strategy, it's failing pretty badly, and it is the western media which looks unhinged.
        Published on 15 Jun 2015
        What You Need To Know:
        ✓ Russia needs to win a conclusive victory fairly quickly because this conflict is not economically sustainable for them;
        ✓ Since the post-Cold War order was established Russia has wanted to discuss the new world order with the West;
        ✓ Some in the West now understand that this is long term struggle, but it is unclear how much longer some EU members states will support the sanctions;
        ✓ It is unlikely that Russia will target Georgia next, rather, the next two countries will be Moldova and Belarus because they are more vulnerable;
        ✓ Things are being achieved in Ukraine primarily because of the civil society which is increasingly strong and self-confident.

        "The appearance of a stalemate is deceptive. If the West's sanctions remain in place and the oil price remains low it will be very difficult for the Russian state to function in the way it does now," James Sherr, associate fellow of the Russia and Eurasia programme at Chatham House told Hromadske. The current occupation regime in Donbas is not sustainable economically and Russia no interest in subsidizing it, said Sherr, the situation, therefore, will not remain frozen forever.

        "They [Russia] need to win a conclusive victory fairly quickly or time starts to work against them. This creates a dangerous situation because they are under pressure to do something more here," said Sherr. "It might not mean they will take Mariupol but it might mean the kind of military offensive that produced Minsk 1 and 2".

        Since the post-Cold War order was established Russia has wanted to discuss the new world order with the West, said Sherr. Russia does not see this as conflict with Ukraine, it views as a conflict in Ukraine but with the West. According to Sherr, the solution from Russia's perspective is to have that conversation with the West, not only about Ukraine but about elsewhere in the former Soviet space, central and eastern Europe.

        Some in the West now understand that this is long term struggle, said Sherr. In 2015, the West has been more realistic about what it is facing compared to 2014, when many were talking about the 'Ukraine Crisis' – as if it was something short term. However, the West is also more tired now than it was last year, explained Sherr. Several EU states who imposed sanctions on Russia at the cost of their own economies thought that they would have an effect within a few months. It might take a couple of years and thus it is questionable whether or not they will continue to support the policy, Sherr told Hromadske.

        In terms of developments in the rest of the region, according to Sherr, it is unlikely that Russia will target Georgia next. Firstly, the Georgians are very astute and secondly, NATO has a much higher profile there so there is more certainty that they will respond. The next two countries will be Moldova and Belarus because they are more vulnerable. Nobody wants to see Putin defeated more than Alexander Lukashenko because he knows if he is not defeated in Ukraine, he will be next, said Sherr.If Moldova is attacked it is far from certain if the EU or NATO will respond. Romania would respond but it is unclear how. At the moment Russia is doing everything to make Moldova dysfunctional, said Sherr. In the Baltic region, furthered Sherr, one of the dangers is miscalculated accident. It is unclear what could happen if a Russian military plane collided with an SAS Boeing, for instance.

        Sherr also discussed the question of Ukraine's energy dependence. According to him, steps have been taken towards making Ukraine more energy efficient. Ukraine is now surviving with a very low level of imports from Russia compared to what it was. However, there is still work to be done improving investor confidence.

        One of the worst realities for Ukraine, according to Sherr, is that the system and the culture of power has survived 2 revolutions and is now surviving a war. Things are being achieved in Ukraine primarily because of the civil society which is increasingly strong and self-confident. The state, however, is still a major problem for people "so far much more talk about change than real change.

        Hromadske International's Nataliya Gumenyuk spoke with James Sherr on May 28, 2015.

        et Al, July 10, 2015 at 2:46 pm
        Another prick in the wall.
        Warren, July 10, 2015 at 7:43 am

        Published on 21 Apr 2015
        Lecture by James Sherr about Russia's Challenge to the West' organized by Center for Security and Strategic Research, March 4, 2015.

        James Sherr is one of top experts on Russia in the United Kingdom. He is an associate fellow and former head of the Russia and Eurasia programme at the Royal Institute of International Affairs "Chatham House".

        He was a fellow of the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the UK Ministry of Defense from 1995 to 2008. He has published extensively on Soviet and Russian military, security and foreign policy. He has spent last weeks in Kiev.

        Moscow Exile, July 10, 2015 at 8:15 am
        James Sherr
        Warren, July 10, 2015 at 8:55 am
        Sherr is the archetypal think tank expert. The most interesting part in that biographical sketch – was reading that he was born in New York and holds dual US-UK citizenship.

        Sherr and Lucas are the most erudite and loquacious Russophobes in the Anglosphere.

        marknesop, July 10, 2015 at 10:53 am
        Whenever I see his name, though, I'm reminded of a piece he wrote on Ukraine years ago, long before Maidan. I never had any success linking it because it was an odd document, and the link always led to the wrong story, about an air show in Lvov. Let me see if I can find it again.

        Yeah; it's still a weird one, it opens in a new window, so you'll have to google it yourself; it's called "Realism About Ukraine Part I – Internal Conditions. James Sherr, Conflict Studies Research Centre, UK Defence Academy". Read it over carefully; this dates from June 2005, and I found his assessment of the competitors for power to be frank and realistic, especially that on Tymoshenko.

        He describes her as "an electoral ally [of Yushchenko] but a personal rival, is not averse to confrontation and seems determined to exercise authority without limit. If Yushchenko has confused leadership with inspiration, she has confused it with control and, to the astonishment of many in Ukraine's business sector, these controls are taking the form of Soviet style 'administrative measures' which extend to the micro economy.". Later he opines (unclear whether this was Tymoshenko's decision or Yushchenko's, but I believe the former), "But this defence cannot be stretched to justify price controls on meat or subsidies on electricity, and the decision to increase public sector salaries by almost 57 per cent flies in the face of economic reality". You go, James.

        Northern Star, July 10, 2015 at 10:27 am
        "James Sherr is one of top fascist Nazi moron stooges.."

        end of story

        Warren, July 10, 2015 at 7:45 am

        Published on 14 May 2015
        Lennart Meri Conference 2015

        Saturday, April 25

        Tim Owen, July 10, 2015 at 3:45 pm
        Might return but only got as far as 4:49 where his nibs suggested that ALL the EU wants is a "borderlands" – oh, the irony – that is, what was it?… "quiet, stable and prosperous" while the inscrutable Russians positively YEARN for a humanitarian disaster on its, you know, ACTUAL border.

        I have no idea who this guy actually is but, just from that statement I would say he's an empty vessel in moral terms.

        Warren , July 10, 2015 at 7:17 pm
        The self-delusion, hypocrisy and deceit of Western leaders, policy makers and analysts has no limits. This panel exemplifies this.
        xxx July 10, 2015 at 5:16 pm
        Give it a few years at this rate, and you'll be able to get gobbled by your boyfriend on the sidewalk and people will surround you and applaud while the police do a burlesque pantomime beside you in their rainbow vinyl uniforms. I am curious in an academic sort of way to see how far the pendulum will swing as the western democracies vie with one another to see who can be the most gay and hedonistic. This has all happened before, for anyone who never studied history – it was called the Roman Empire. And it will end in tears; you'll see.
        Pavlo Svolochenko , July 10, 2015 at 5:21 pm
        More recently, in Weimar.

        Imagine a visitor to Berlin in 1925. Would he even recognise the place ten years later?

        Warren, July 10, 2015 at 7:13 pm
        The acceptance of homosexuality is the most potent example of a civilisation that is decadent. Tolerating and indulging in such degeneracy and perversion, demonstrate that such a civilisation no longer cares for its future and no longer has any morals.
        marknesop, July 10, 2015 at 9:57 pm
        I am absolutely fine with the acceptance of it, because it is not a "problem" for society like alcoholism or chainsaw juggling or diabetes. Healthy homosexuals pay taxes and consume products and laugh and drink and have fun like all the rest of us.

        Although I am liberal in my politics I am a social conservative in that I do not care for overt sexual displays in a public setting unless it is a strip club, where presumably you knew what you were getting into when you came in and that's your choice. I do not want to know how you and your partner do it, and I don't want to be forced into thinking about it by having to run down an endless rainbow tunnel surrounded by prancing boys in pink jockstraps.

        Just keep it to yourself and confine your lust to significant glances exchanged with one another, and we'll be just fine. Being forced to play gooseberry to overt gay displays is embarrassing and uncomfortable for me, and just when we were beginning to internalize the lesson that thinking about your fellow citizens' feelings was important, the tolerance train pulled into the station and the rule book was thrown away in favour of celebrating homosexuality.

        I don't have anything against it – I'm just not interesting in being dragged into a neverending boogie of celebration of it. I'm even less interested in it just so my country can thumb its nose at other countries and say "Beat that, you anti-gay brute!"

        [Jul 14, 2015] Grexit may have been avoided, but divisions in Europe are growing

        "...Even in a Social democratic Europe the problems of the Euro would remain. The difference in economies and outlook, the needs are too different. Neo-Liberalism has accelerated the exposing of the contradictions though."
        .
        "...Yes, although Syriza are basically mopping up what earlier, usually right-wing, governments screwed up."
        .
        "...Seems to me that Europe is being ruled by Germany. Germany is the main beneficiary of the Euro of course, and it was the Euro which got the country's economy moving forward powerfully again after its stagnation of the nineties. "
        .
        "...Having said all this, I have a lingering suspicision that my local airport on Syros is going to be sold off for a bargain basement price to some asset stripping International Bank. That shouldn't happen. Greece's financial woes shouldn't be an excuse to asset strip the whole of Greece."
        .
        "...And if you had any idea about 'facts', you'd know that even the very identification of a 'fact' is subjective and therefore not 'neutral', which was your choice of word. And the process of identifying 'facts' comes before the act of reporting them, another process that is subjective and thus not neutral. But you feel free to kid yourself that German newspapers contain 'neutral' reporting while accusing others of stupidity. Must be great belonging to a superior nation, nein?"
        .
        "...Do me a favour, the Greek nation isn't a naughty child that has to be humiliated into "behaving". If the French and German bankers had "behaved" there would have been a fraction debt owed in the first place. "
        .
        "...There is no " agreement". There is an ultimatum."
        .
        "...Therefore: yes, we Germans have indeed access to neutral reporting. It is part of our media landscape. Amazing. Any English-speaking student of the philosophy of history will tell you that 'neutral' or 'objective' history does not and cannot exist. And what happened yesterday, indeed just now, is 'history'. However, according to you, it seems that Germans have overcome the problems of identifying a 'fact' and presenting 'facts' in a manner which in no way reflects the author's prejudices. Which means (i) you Germans really are robots devoid of human emotion, or (ii) you be talking rubbish. Personally I reckon it's the latter but feel free to correct me."
        .
        "..."They crucified Tsipras in there," a senior eurozone official who had attended the summit remarked. "Crucified." http://t.co/Ue9ENl3tIz "
        Jul 12, 2015 | The Guardian

        Although couched in fairly careful language, subject to votes in the Greek parliament and with the proposed privatisation fund to be based in the country rather than – as originally suggested – abroad, the agreement reached deprives Greece of an enormous amount of its sovereignty. It may stop short of the "coup" mentioned at times overnight, but – unless the Greek parliament balks in coming days – Greece is no longer master of its own destiny.

        ... ... ...

        The southern countries face the refugee crisis from across the Mediterranean; France has made a partial return to Africa, as a byproduct of the chaos in Libya. The countries to the north, and especially the east, are newly apprehensive about Russia, following events in Ukraine, but their fears are not entirely shared by the "new" Europeans further south, who are more concerned about their economic losses from anti-Russian sanctions.

        The EU countries are suddenly looking outward in many different and divisive ways. Until now, though, the Franco-German alliance has remained constant, and the union, including the common currency, remains intact. Last night it was possible, if only fleetingly, to sense the perils that await if that centre cannot hold.


        mattus 13 Jul 2015 19:02

        You can take money off a country, but you have to do it on the sly! So that the country does not notice.

        Financial Waterboarding is not the right tactic.

        for a historical comparison:

        https://radicaleconomicthought.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/how-to-get-repaid/


        mattus TheVeggieBurgher 13 Jul 2015 18:59

        Troika does not equal lifeboats, they are destroyers!


        mattus 13 Jul 2015 18:57

        Grexit has not been avoided, just as the Versaille treaty did not avoid the eventual non-compliance by the Germans. Greeks 2015 and Germans 1918 were both humiliated. They have to produce for foreign powers under severe oversight and a treaty that is not perceived to be fair.

        That will not work.

        What will work, however is a Grexit which allows Greece to keep Euro as its currency. Is that possible? Of course Montenegro does so:

        https://radicaleconomicthought.wordpress.com/2015/07/13/how-to-grexit-gracefully/


        HumanTraffic bally38 13 Jul 2015 16:58

        Amusing that you quote what was seen as the worst decision by a British Foreign Office in recent history. It gave away the moral authority and high-grund the UK has in 1955 (against the wishes of Mr Churchill), it allowed the original 6 to go on to be hugely more successful than the UK in the next 30 years and within 10 years a British government was begging to be let in, finally being allowed once de Gaulle had lost power.

        By the time the UK entered we were bankrupt, had tried to spend and devalue our way out of repeated crises (and failed) at the cost of the value of the pound and the destruction of most big industries.

        We then entered to an EEC which was almost entirely crafted to support a French-style agricultural sector and ensure that the Berlin-Paris axis would rule the roost. In subsequent years of course we have acted as the cuckoo-in-the-nest, constantly bitching, moaning and belittling and finally, with the John Major widen-don't-deepen approach to undermining may get the way of the Tory Europhobe.


        TimTimpson HolgerHallmann 13 Jul 2015 16:09

        But Germany IS doing it again; assuming she knows what's best for other countries, imposing her Will on other Peoples, seeking to dominate Europe and doing it by abusing her power.

        Rather than showing the generosity and humanity of the Greeks and others after WWII, when the vast debt owed by Germany was written off, she seeks to humiliate and dictate to another nation in order to expropriate their treasures.


        retsdon -> Eddiel899 13 Jul 2015 15:26

        I don't think it was a deliberate scam. The problem was the cash from massive German trade surpluses looking for a higher return outside domestic Germany meeting massive demand from peripheral Europe to jig their lifestyles, competitiveness, infrastructure, whatever up to northern standards. As there was nothing to within the combined Eurozone to stop northern banks lending or peripheral Europeans borrowing ( at negative real rates at times), it's hardly surprising that the result was an enormous credit bubble which was sooner or later bound to burst in tears.

        The real problem is that the losses from the burst were not equitably assigned - far too much of the cost landing on the shoulders of peripheral Europe's workers and middle-class savers already mired in the inevitable recession.


        Danny Sheahan -> Marendins 13 Jul 2015 14:17

        Even in a Social democratic Europe the problems of the Euro would remain. The difference in economies and outlook, the needs are too different.

        Neo-Liberalism has accelerated the exposing of the contradictions though.


        TimTimpson -> Vincent Veal 13 Jul 2015 13:38

        Are you serious? you want to remain in the organisation that has just behaved in that manner towards a member requiring support. You must have shares in JP Morgan or something.


        jackheron -> CaptainGrey 13 Jul 2015 13:26

        Yes, although Syriza are basically mopping up what earlier, usually right-wing, governments screwed up. If you do a little, you know, reading about the subject, you'll find that since democracy was introduced in Greece (I tend to go for 1952, when women finally got the vote), Greeks have in fact been cautious, conservative voters, cleaving to the right in times of crisis.

        Although frankly why I'm bothering to explain this to someone who identifies with one of the weedier characters in Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons is, I will confess, baffling. Everyone knows that Captain Black was the ne'er-do-well hipster, and with that five o'clock shadow that makes Greek men so irresistible.

        Coolhandluke77 13 Jul 2015 12:46

        That is what the Euro or shared currency means - loss of sovereignty.

        The new deal seems to a new take on fraudulent loans: assets are seized and loans given even though there is no credible way they can be paid back.

        If this is "a coup" then the coup leaders are easy to identify. They are The Great Left Hope - Syriza. Many on the left were spell bound by Syriza, and now they turn on the anti-German chauvinism rather than see their illusions punctured.

        It's all about maintaining the Euro - a political and vanity project - at any cost.

        BritCol Tracey Savage 13 Jul 2015 12:20

        Try reading some economists other than Milton Friedman. Maybe start with Heilbroner, or Galbraith or even Schumpeter. There are other options besides the Chicago school of trickle down pennies.

        Danny Sheahan whitecross 13 Jul 2015 12:13

        Also that anyone who challenges Germany's economic needs will be slammed down hard.

        A currency union where the needs and protection of one trumps the needs of all others is doomed to fail in acrimony.


        afortiorama misterlunch 13 Jul 2015 11:46

        It's exactly the same, they had debts and they didn't have the money to repay them. Iceland defaulted and recovered, Argentina defaulted and didn't recover (wait for Kirchner to step down and then you'll see the vultures that are already circling it will tead Argentina apart); Greece has a EU anchor. Tsipras tried to bluff his way out - I don't blame him - and lost.


        whitworthflange Eddiel899 13 Jul 2015 11:34

        Seems to me that Europe is being ruled by Germany. Germany is the main beneficiary of the Euro of course, and it was the Euro which got the country's economy moving forward powerfully again after its stagnation of the nineties.

        Germany lent the money to its neighbours to buy German goods in its new European wide home market, and in the process most of those neighbours lost the majority of their manufacturing capability as Germany out competed and drove it out of business.


        ShakeyDave R. Sokol 13 Jul 2015 11:28

        There's a BBC Newsnight report about it here, too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17108367


        ShakeyDave taketheatrain 13 Jul 2015 11:26

        So - how's the privatised power industry working out for everyone in the UK?


        david119 13 Jul 2015 11:24

        "The agreement reached deprives Greece of an enormous amount of its sovereignty"

        If a country joins the Euro it does loose some national sovereignty, that has been obvious from the start.

        But it was not necessary to deprive Greeks of dignity and hope.

        There is nothing in the rules of the Euro that says that European taxpayers have to bail out banks that engage in reckless and irresponsible lending. Those banks should have been allowed to go bust as Northern Rock was allowed to go bust when it engaged in irresponsible and reckless lending to individuals.

        There are two sides to this.

        Greece needs hope. It will never realistically be able to pay back it's mountain of debt, much of its debt needs to be cancelled.

        But on the other hand anyone who has lived in Greece knows that the creaking, bureaucratic Greek State will never reform itself and if Greeks want to continue to use the Euro this reform urgently needs to happen.

        So the EU needs to combine basic humanity with toughness over the reform of the Greek State. If Greeks want to carry on as usual then they have to exit the Common Currency. All the Greeks that I know accept this.

        Having said all this, I have a lingering suspicision that my local airport on Syros is going to be sold off for a bargain basement price to some asset stripping International Bank. That shouldn't happen. Greece's financial woes shouldn't be an excuse to asset strip the whole of Greece.


        MrGadgie HolgerHallmann 13 Jul 2015 11:10

        And if you had any idea about 'facts', you'd know that even the very identification of a 'fact' is subjective and therefore not 'neutral', which was your choice of word. And the process of identifying 'facts' comes before the act of reporting them, another process that is subjective and thus not neutral.

        But you feel free to kid yourself that German newspapers contain 'neutral' reporting while accusing others of stupidity. Must be great belonging to a superior nation, nein?


        letsbeavinya MerlinUK 13 Jul 2015 11:06

        The end of sovereignty? Possibly. The start of responsibility?

        Do me a favour, the Greek nation isn't a naughty child that has to be humiliated into "behaving". If the French and German bankers had "behaved" there would have been a fraction debt owed in the first place.


        cessle 13 Jul 2015 10:59

        There is no " agreement". There is an ultimatum.

        If Greece has any sense at all it will reject this ultimatum and default. It will receive more humanitarian aid from the EU that will actually get to the people who need it most than if it capitulates to the EU, EC, ECB and IMF and re-capitalises it banks from more unrepayable bail-outs designed to keep the failed European project afloat.

        Germany, quite unfairly, will be blamed for forcing out the Greeks and for setting in motion the end of the EU and its bastard progeny the Euro. Its relationship with France will deteriorate markedly.

        France, Spain and Italy will be looking nervously over their shoulders as they watch speculators bet on who will be next out of the failed currency.

        Will a Brexit be necessary? Could be academic.


        Eddiel899 13 Jul 2015 10:55

        The predictable outcome has been arrived at.

        The bankers are again happy and the losers are again going to be Germany and Greece. For this is a charade to rob Germany of whatever wealth it has left with the pretence of keeping Europe and Greece on the right path. And we don't have to look far to see who is pulling the strings ....... the oligarchs who now rule Europe through what is euphemistically called the Troika.


        MrGadgie HolgerHallmann 13 Jul 2015 10:51

        Therefore: yes, we Germans have indeed access to neutral reporting. It is part of our media landscape.

        Amazing. Any English-speaking student of the philosophy of history will tell you that 'neutral' or 'objective' history does not and cannot exist. And what happened yesterday, indeed just now, is 'history'.

        However, according to you, it seems that Germans have overcome the problems of identifying a 'fact' and presenting 'facts' in a manner which in no way reflects the author's prejudices.

        Which means (i) you Germans really are robots devoid of human emotion, or (ii) you be talking rubbish. Personally I reckon it's the latter but feel free to correct me.

        reddan 13 Jul 2015 10:33

        This from the Financial Times

        "They crucified Tsipras in there," a senior eurozone official who had attended the summit remarked. "Crucified." http://t.co/Ue9ENl3tIz

        Interesting debate below between Syrizia central committee member Stathis Kouvelakis and Proffessor Alex Callinicos on 11th July at Marxism in London.

        https://youtu.be/1paxMRddO0M

        pwatson 13 Jul 2015 10:26

        What a fudge, what a deliberate attempt to downplay the significance of what has been occurring. How perfidious.

        letsbeavinya taketheatrain 13 Jul 2015 10:24

        Although the deal is imposed from outside it is a good deal. It offers the opportunity for Greece to start to rebuild its finances and governance. In my view this is a better option than Grexit, a return to the Drachma, a world of hurt and a probable return to business as usual.

        What a load of guff.
        This is the end of sovereignty for the Greek parliament.

        [Jul 14, 2015] Ukraine government in armed standoff with nationalist militia

        "... Can we officially congratulate Nuland for a crappy job and also for providing Putin with all the tools he needed to bring back Ukraine under his wing.
        False flag operations for American private interests must stop now. They are immoral, unethical and only bring death and destruction to otherwise stable societies. The UN should have a say."

        .
        "...this is what happens when you play with fire: you get burned. Using Neo-Nazi's to implement Nato expansionist policies was always a very bad idea. It's just a shame it is not people like Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland who will have to suffer the blowback consequences- it is the poor Ukrainian people. This is not that different to what has happened in Libya- where Islamic extremists were used as a proxy force to oust Gaddafi."

        The Guardian

        HollyOldDog gimmeshoes 13 Jul 2015 20:40

        The Georgian authorities have asked Interpol to put a Red notice on Mikheil Saakashvili as the request to Ukraine to return him for trial in Georgia was refused.
        ww3orbust PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 20:22
        That does not detract from the fact that the Ukranian cabinet has been chosen by the US state department. Natives of the US, Georgia and Lithuania were hastily granted Ukrainian citizenship in order to maintain an iron grip on Ukraine, while accusing Putin of appointing majors or governors - in his capacity as head of state?
        ww3orbust 13 Jul 2015 20:16
        Amazing, nothing at all mentioned by the BBC. It does not fit in to their narrative to see the country descend into a new stage of anarchy, between the people who murdered police and protesters on Maidan square, and the US state department installed cabinet. Presumably if Right Sector refuse to disarm and continue torturing civilians and murdering police, the BBC will continue to ignore it and focus instead on its Russo-phobic narrative, while accusing Russia of propaganda with the self-righteous piety that only the BBC are capable of. Or god forbid, more stories about what colour stool our future king has produced this week.
        jgbg Omniscience 13 Jul 2015 18:42

        Diverse Unity sounds much better than Nazi

        http://rt.com/files/news/russia-national-unity-day-celebrations-976/russian-attend-demonstration-national-261.jpg

        The thing is, Ukraine is unique in allowing their Nazi thugs to be armed and have some semi-official status. Everywhere else (including Russia), governments are looking to constrain the activities of Nazis and prosecute them where possible.

        jgbg Pwedropackman 13 Jul 2015 18:26

        If it was not for the right sector, Ukraine would still be one united nation.

        Them and Svoboda. If it had just been Orange Revolution II, with a simple change of Jewish oligarchs in charge, there might have been some complaints but little more. It is the Russian-hating far right that has brought about the violence and everything that has happened since.

        PrinceEdward GreatMountainEagle 13 Jul 2015 18:22

        Last I heard, Ukraine owes China billions for undelivered Grain.

        HollyOldDog gimmeshoes 13 Jul 2015 18:11

        But the Euro maidan press is just an Ukrainian rag that invents stories to support its corrupt government in Kiev.

        jgbg PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 17:54

        I forget the article, but in the comments I mentioned that multiple Georgians were being appointed to high level positions by Kiev, and some Russophobe called me a liar.

        Not a few days later, Shakashvilli was appointed governor of Odessa. An ex-president of another country, as governor of a province in another one! Apparently, none of the millions upon millions of Ukrainians were qualified for the job.

        Sakashvilli's former Minister of Internal Affairs in Georgia, Eka Zguladze, is First Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. Of course, the Georgian people removed these chumps from power the first chance they got but the Ukrainian electorate haven't had any say in the appointments of foreigners in their country.

        Vatslav Rente , 13 Jul 2015 17:44

        Well ... when it comes to Ukraine, the need to stock up on popcorn. This bloody and unpredictable plot is not even in the "Game of Thrones." And this is only the middle of the second season.
        Today Speaker of the "RS" Andrew Sharaskin, said: Sports Complex in Mukachevo where the shooting occurred, was used as the base of the separatists DNR.
        - A place 1,000 kilometers from Donetsk! But it's a great excuse to murder the guard in the café and wounded police officers.
        I think tomorrow will say that there have seen Russian Army tanks and Putin - 100%
        "Ukraine is part of Europe" - the slogans of the Maidan in action...

        jgbg gimmeshoes , 13 Jul 2015 17:42

        Pravyi Sektor were not wrong. However, you cannot have armed groups cleaning up corruption outside the law...that only works in Gotham City.

        Right Sector weren't trying to clean up corruption, they were simply trying to muscle in on the cigarette smuggling business. If Right Sector cared about crime and public order, they wouldn't be driving around, armed to the teeth, in vehicles stolen in the EU. (In the video linked in the article, all of their vehicles have foreign number plates. At least one of those vehicles is on the Czech police stolen vehicle database: http://zpravy.idnes.cz/pravy-sektor-mel-v-mukacevu-auta-s-ceskymi-spz-fqj-/zahranicni.aspx?c=A150713_102110_zahranicni_jj)

        Right Sector are no strangers to such thuggery - remember their failed attempt to extort a casino in Odessa?

        Laurence Johnson, 13 Jul 2015 17:18
        The EU and the US have stated on many occasions that there are "No Right Wing Nationalists" operating in Ukraine and its simply propaganda by Putin.

        So there shouldn't be anything to worry about should there ?


        Stas Ustymenko hfakos 13 Jul 2015 15:15

        Yes, yes. You seem to tolerate Medvedchuk and Baloga mafias way better, for years.
        Transcarpathian REgion is the most corrupt in all of Ukraine (which is quite a fit). What we see here is a gang war in fatigues.


        tanyushka Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 15:14

        sorry i posted the same above... i was just to hasty.. sorry again...

        in the main picture of the same article it's interesting to notice the age of most of the conscripted soldiers... they are in their 30's, theirs 40's and even in their 50's... it's forced conscription, they are not volunteers... while all the DPR & LPR soldiers are real volunteers...

        an uncle, the father of a cousin, was conscripted in Kherson... my cousin had to run away to South American to say with an aunt to avoid conscription... many men are doing it in Ukraine nowadays... not because they are cowards but because they don't want to kill their brothers & sisters for the benefit of the oligarchs and their NATO masters (and mistresses...)

        did you know that all the conscripts have to pay for their own uniforms and other stuff, while in the National Guard and the oligarchs batallions everything is top quality and for free... including bulletproof vests and other implements courtesy of NATO

        Demi Boone 13 Jul 2015 15:13

        Well finally they reveal themselves. These Ukraine Nationalists are the people who instigated the anarchy and shootings at Maidan and used it as an excuse to wrongfully drive out an elected President and in the chaos that followed bring in a coup Government which represents only West-Ukraine and suppress' East-Ukraine. You are looking at the face of the real Maidan and not the dream that a lot of people have tried to paint it to be.

        Stas Ustymenko MartinArvay 13 Jul 2015 15:11

        Many Right Sector members are indeed patriots. But it looks like the organisation itself is, sadly, much more useful for providing thugs for hire than "justice".

        BMWAlbert PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 14:20

        But seriously, the naval base is probably the reason, it is too important for some interests to have a less-reliable (Ukrainian) in charge, this is a job only for the most trusted poodles. If things had gone differently, the tie-eatimng chap would have been appointed Mayor of Sebastopol.

        BMWAlbert PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 14:15

        There appears to be a Quisling-shortage in Ukraine at present.

        Stas Ustymenko obscurant 13 Jul 2015 13:32

        More accurately, Kolomoyskiy is Ukrainian oligarch. Who happens to be ethnically, culturally and, by all accounts, religiously, a Jew.

        Stas Ustymenko Kaiama 13 Jul 2015 13:24

        Ukrainian Volunteer Corps of the Right Sector fighting in Donbass is two battalions. How is this a "key organization"? They are a well-known brand and fought bravely on some occasions, but the wider org is way too eager to brandish arms outside of combat or training. They will be reigned in, one way or another, and soon.

        GameOverManGameOver Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 12:02

        Shh shh shh. This news does not exist yet in the western media, therefore it's nothing but Russian propaganda.

        Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 11:54

        It gets worse - soldiers from the UA are now refusing to follow orders in protest against the total anarchy sweeping the chain of command, and their lack of rest and equipment.

        Story here.

        EugeneGur , 13 Jul 2015 11:21

        Tensions have been rising between the government and the Right Sector militia that has helped it fight pro-Russian separatists in the east of the country.

        Finally, the Guardian decided to report the actual new after satisfying itself with ample discussion of the quality of Russian cheeses. Right sector "helped" to fight "separatists"? Really? Does Alec Luhn know that there are currently two (!) RS battalions at the front and 19 (!) inside Ukraine? They are some warriors. Now they are occupying themselves fighting as criminals they are for the control of contraband.

        At the ATO zone, they help consists of plundering, murdering and raping the local population. They enter a village, take everything of value from houses and then blow them up. They rape women and girls as young as 10 years old. They've been doing this for more than a year, and we've been telling you that for more than a year. But apparently in the fight against "pro-Russian separatists" everything is good. These crimes are so widespread, even the Ukrainian "government" is worried this will eventually becomes impossible to deny. Some battalions such as Shakhtersk and Aidar have been officially accused of crimes and ompletely or partially reformed.
        Examples:
        http://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/EUR50/040/2014/en/
        http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bfb_1413804655

        Jeremn, 13 Jul 2015 11:16

        Ukraine, what a mess. As though it was ever about the people. It was a grab for resources, 19-century style. But with 21st-century stakes. You can see what the West is after when you look at the US-Ukraine Business Council. It bring NATO, Monsanto and the Heritage Foundation under one roof:

        The US-Ukraine Business Council's 16-member Executive Committee is packed with US agribusiness companies, including representatives from Monsanto, John Deere, DuPont Pioneer, Eli Lilly, and Cargill.

        The Council's 20 'senior Advisors' include James Greene (Former Head of NATO Liason Office Ukraine); Ariel Cohen (Senior Research Fellow for The Heritage Foundation); Leonid Kozachenko (President of the Ukrainian Agrarian Confederation); six former US Ambassadors to Ukraine, and the former ambassador of Ukraine to the US, Oleh Shamshur.

        Stas Ustymenko Jeremn 13 Jul 2015 11:14

        You'd be surprised, but I like Bandera (controversial as he was) way more than I trust some people who wrap themselves in his red-and-black Rebel banner. Yarosh included. Banderite rebellion ended 60 years ago. Its major goal was establishing a "united, free Ukrainian state"; by contrast, stated ultimate goals of the Right Sector are way murkier; I'm not sure even most of the movement's members are clear on what these are.
        With present actions, Right Sector has a huge image problem in the West. If it will come to all-out conflict, no doubt the West will back Poroshenko government over a loose confederation of armed dudes linked by the thin thread of 30ies ideology (suspect even then). And the West will be right.

        Stas Ustymenko Nik2 13 Jul 2015 11:03

        Methinks you're way overselling a thug turf war as "major political event. Truth is, the region has been long in the hands of organized crime. The previous regime incorporated and controlled almost all organized crime in the country, hence no visible conflict. Now, individual players try to use temporary uncertainty to their advantage. Right Sector claims they were trying to fight the smuggling, but this doesn't sound plausible. The word is, what's behind the events is struggle for control over lucrative smuggling between two individuals (who are both "businessmen" and "politicians", members of Parliament). Both are old-school players, formerly affiliated with Yanukovitch party. One just was savvy enough to buy himself some muscle under Right Sector banner. Right Sector will either have to straighten out its fighters (which it may not be able to do) or disappear as a political player. I fail to see how people see anything "neo-Nazi" in this gang shootout.

        PaddyCannuck Cavirac 13 Jul 2015 10:21

        Nobody here is an apologist for Stalin, who was a brutal and cruel despot, and the deportations of the Crimean Tatars were quite indefensible. However, a few observations might lend some perspective.

        1. Crimea has been invaded and settled by an almost endless succession of peoples over the millennia. The Crimean Tatars (who are of Turkic origin) were by no means the first, nor indeed the last, and cannot in any meaningful sense be regarded as the indigenous people of Crimea.
        2. The Crimean Tatars scarcely endeared themselves to the Russians, launching numerous raids, devastating many towns, including the burning of Moscow in 1571, and sending hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Russians into slavery in the Ottoman Empire.
        3. The deportations took place in 1942 - 1943 against the backdrop of World War II, when a lot of bad stuff happened, including -
        4. The American (and also Canadian) citizens of Japanese ethnicity who had their property confiscated and were likewise shipped off to camps. Their treatment, if anything, was worse.

        Sevastopol, Pearl Harbor. What's the difference? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

        tanyushka Pwedropackman 13 Jul 2015 10:10

        http://rt.com/news/207899-un-anti-nazism-resolution/

        http://www.un.org/en/ga/third/69/docs/voting_sheets/L56.Rev1.pdf

        do these links answer your question?

        tanyushka 13 Jul 2015 09:55

        meanwhile last night & this morning, just to distract the people of what is going on in the West, Kiev launched a massive shelling over Donetsk and other places in Donbass using weapons forbbiden by the Minsk agreements, including Tor missiles, one of which fell at a railway station but didn't explode... it was defused by emergency workers but the proof is there if you care to see... it was thesecond biggest attack since the cease fire...

        Nik2 6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:53

        Not exactly. By now, BBC has made good coverage of these events in Ukrainian and Russian languages, but not in English. It looks like BBC considers that Western public does not deserve the politically sad truth about armed clashes between "champions of Maidan Revolution" and "new democratic authorities, fighting corruption". Western public should not be in doubt about present-day "pro-European" Ukraine. And "The Guardian" still has only one article on the issue that could be a turning point in Ukrainian politics. This is propaganda, not informing about or analyzing really serious political events.

        VictorWhisky 13 Jul 2015 09:51

        This is the IMF hired guns now going after the very people who helped the Wall Street IMF shysters in the illegitimate coup and the set up of the illegitimate Kiev junta, a mix of half Ukrainian and non-Ukrainian mongrels. Furthermore, instead of bringing in the people who helped overthrow Janukovich into the government fold, the IMF is placing it's foreign collaborators in ministerial positions by making them instant Ukrainian citizens, while keeping the right wing, without whose help the coup would not have succeeded, out of government and slowly trying to eliminate them with their private foreign mercenary force. Madame "F*ck the EU Nuland from the US state department bordello, a devout Zionist, enticed these supposed Ukrainian NAZIs to help her in her dirty deeds, no doubt with promises of power sharing. So madame Nuland was perfectly willing to get in bed with the Ukrainian NAZI devils (her Jewish friend should be proud) and when the dirty deed was done, she is now turning against Ukrainian nationalists in the attempt to have outside forces in control of Ukraine. Madame Nuland is not as intelligent or capable as portrayed, because if she was, she would have known Ukraine has a very delicate and very complicated political structure and history with nearly half the country speaking Russian and more loyal to the Russians than to the US. An intelligent person familiar with Ukrainian history would know any attempt of placing a US stooge in Kiev would certainly result in a civil war. She no doubt got her position not by intelligence but by connections. More than 6000 Ukrainians, human beings, innocent men women and children, have died in madame Nuland's engineered coup, putting her in league with her mentor, Henry Kissinger, aka the butcher of Vietnam. That intelligent idiot's policies resulted in the death of 3 million Vietnamese and 50,000 young Americans. Does madame Nuland intend to sacrifice that many Ukrainians to prove her ultimate stupidity?

        Jeremn Luminaire 13 Jul 2015 09:51

        The conscripts didn't want to shoot their fellow Ukrainians. The nationalists don't believe the people in the east are their fellow Ukrainians.


        Jeremn DrMacTomjim 13 Jul 2015 09:43

        Yes. But meanwhile the Atlantic Council tells us this is why more Ukrainians admire nationalists.

        Because they were lovely guys, evidently, and their "popularity" has nothing to do with armed thugs beating you up if you say anything against them (or the state prosecuting you for denying or questioning their heroism).


        Jeremn jezzam 13 Jul 2015 09:35


        Ukrainian media, reporting Ukrainian government official:

        In his article for the Dzerkalo Tyzhnia (Weekly Mirror) newspaper Ukrainian Prosecutor General Vitaliy Yarema wrote that 74 peaceful citizens and 12 policemen had been killed in Kyiv downtown on February 18-20, 2014, while 180 citizens and over 180 law enforcers had suffered gunshot wounds.

        12 police dead in two days, 180 wounded with gunshot wounds.

        Still Kremlin lies?


        Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 09:30

        Thank God Ukraine is finally free and democratic. The old autocratic regime actually had the gall to make running street battles illegal - but those dark days are in the past. In the liberated Ukraine you are free spend the dollar a day you get paid on a bullet proof vest so the rampant Nazi street gangs don't kill you.


        Jeremn SHappens 13 Jul 2015 09:26

        You'd be surprised, there are Bandera-lovers in the UK too. There's a Bandera museum. And there is this lot, teaching Christian values to children. And telling them that Bandera was a hero. Future Right Sector supporters being crafted as we type.

        6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:24

        The Ukrainian sub-saharan African minimum wage is now being accompanied by Somali-style politics.

        Luckily, the Russians have liberated Crimea so piracy on the high seas isn't an option for the Ukrainians.


        6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:18

        Apparently, UAVs generously supplied to Ukrainians by the Canadian taxpayers are being put to good use smuggling cigarettes into Slovakia.

        6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:12

        The BBC are bravely sticking to their decision not to report this story. Congratulations are in order for such dedication.

        The graun protected its readership from this confusing information for 24 hours and then caved to the temptation to report news. Too bad.


        aucontraire2 13 Jul 2015 08:36

        Can we officially congratulate Nuland for a crappy job and also for providing Putin with all the tools he needed to bring back Ukraine under his wing.
        False flag operations for American private interests must stop now. They are immoral, unethical and only bring death and destruction to otherwise stable societies. The UN should have a say.

        SomersetApples 13 Jul 2015 08:25

        The country is bankrupt; the Kiev putschists are selling off the country's assets to their New York allies, the oligarchs and Nazis are at war against each other and the illegal putschist government and now toilet mouth Nuland is back on the scene. Looks like a scene form Dante's Inferno.

        todaywefight Polvilho 13 Jul 2015 07:54

        Which Russian invasion will this be the of he approximately 987 mentioned by Poroshenko and our man Yatz...or are you referring to the people of the AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA's (yes that was what was called after the 1994 referendum) massive wishes to (like Donbass) go against a government who illegally dismissed an elected president a wish that was reflected on a referendum which was allowed by their constitution 18(7)

        Bosula Scepticbladderballs 13 Jul 2015 07:38

        Yes. Most of the protesters are good people who just want a better deal in life.


        monteverdi1610 13 Jul 2015 06:54

        Remember all those CIF threads when those of us who pointed to the neo-Nazis in Ukraine were immediately called ' Putinbots ' ?
        PS/ Apologies would be the order of the day , perhaps ?

        Sturney 13 Jul 2015 06:49

        Apparently this conflict is over. Temporarily over. Anyway in ever-contracting economy, in a Mariana trench between Russia and EU, in the most totalitarian country in history, such conflicts will continue. Since Nuland tossed yeast in the outhouse nobody can stop fermentation of sh*t. Help yourself with some beer and shrimps. I am looking forward when these masses splash out to EU, preferably to Poland. Must be fun to watch. (Lipspalm)

        Justin Obisesan 13 Jul 2015 06:33

        In the run-up to the Euro 2012 football tournament, jointly hosted by Poland and Ukraine, I remember how the media in this country worked themselves into a frenzy harping on about the presence of violent neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine. After the removal of Mr Yanukovych from office, the same media organisations changed their tune by describing any talk of neo- Nazis in Ukraine as "Russian propaganda". The Western media coverage of the Ukrainian crises has been so blatantly pro-Kiev and anti-Donbass that their claims of impartiality and objectivity cannot be taken seriously anymore.


        Jeremn jgbg 13 Jul 2015 06:16

        It is fine when they are shooting at Donetsk, but not so good when they use the same tactics in western Ukraine.

        Azov are the same, violent neo-Nazi thugs given authority, and this article notes that PrivatBank is the bank that services requests for donations to the Azov funds, using J P Morgan as intermidiary.

        Neither Azov nor Right Sector want peace. On 3 July 4,000 men from these units protested in Kiev, calling for resumption of the war against the eastern provinces.

        They favour ethnic cleansing.


        Jeremn William Fraser 13 Jul 2015 06:10

        The people who support Bandera are in western Ukraine. They are the ones who say Stalin starved the Ukrainian people.

        Trouble is, in the 1930s, western Ukraine belonged to Poland.

        It was the Russians, eastern Ukrainians and other Soviet people who starved, not the western Ukrainians.


        Kefirfan 13 Jul 2015 06:02

        Good, good. Let the democracy flow through you...

        Pwedropackman SHappens 13 Jul 2015 05:53

        It will be interesting to see which side the US and Canada will support. Probably Poroshenko and the Oligarchs because the Right Sector is not so happy about the ongoing sales of Ukraine infrastructure to US corporates.


        SHappens 13 Jul 2015 05:14

        Harpers' babies are out manifesting, supporting the good guys:

        "Supporters of Ukraine's Right Sector extremist group rallied in Ottawa Sunday amid the radicals' ongoing standoff with police in western Ukraine."

        The rally outside the Ukrainian embassy was organized by the Right Sector's representative office in the Canadian capital, 112 Ukraine TV channel reported, citing the Facebook account of the so-called Ukrainian Volunteer Corps.


        careforukraine 13 Jul 2015 05:09

        I wonder how long it will be before the us denounces nazi's in ukraine?
        Kind of seems like we have seen this all before.
        Almost like how ISIS were just freedom fighters that needed our support until ?.....
        Well we all know what happened there.

        Pwedropackman 13 Jul 2015 05:04

        If it was not for the right sector, Ukraine would still be one united nation.


        GameOverManGameOver Chris Gilmore 13 Jul 2015 04:41

        Yes, I agree, they do wreck the economy. That was my point. Russia want's strong economies to do business with, not broken economies that only ask for financial aid.

        Like I said, no evidence of Russian troops in Donbass and South Ossetia asked for the presence of Russian troops to deter the Georgian government from trying another invasion.

        And organisations like CIS are meant to expand economic ties. Just like the EU I suppose. They function in pretty much the same way with everyone getting a chance to lead. So I don't know why that should be a bad thing. Since the EU is not interested in admitting Russia why can't Russia go to other organisations?

        VladimirM Dmitriy Grebenyuk 13 Jul 2015 04:26

        It's a poisonous sarcasm, I think. But I've heard that RS accuse the Ukrainian government of being pro-Putin as the govermment accuse them of being Russian agents. Surreal a bit.


        stewfen FOHP46 13 Jul 2015 04:24

        The west would not have dialogue with Russia because it was not what Washington wanted. Washington wanted to push a wedge between Russia and EU at any cost even 6500 lives and unfortunately they succeeded


        GameOverManGameOver Chris Gilmore 13 Jul 2015 03:54

        I'll admit that frozen conflicts could be useful to Russia. But only from a security point of view. And why not, exactly? NATO is Russia's biggest threat, so it would make sense for the government to want to avoid it expanding any further. I understand your misgivings since you're speaking from the position that NATO should expand to deter Russi…I mean 'Iran', but surely you understand that Russia wanting to prevent that makes logical sense? Sure, it's at someone else's expense but let's not pretend that big countries doing something at someone else's expense is a new and revolutionary concept reserved only to Russia. And the Georgian conflict dates back to the very early 90's.

        From an economic point of view though, no sense at all. Frozen conflicts usually bring economic barriers. Believe it or not Russia's priority isn't expansion, but the economy. And trade with it's neighbours is an important element of the Russian economy. It's very hard to trade with areas that are in the middle of a frozen conflict. So in that sense the last thing Russia would want are profitable areas in a frozen conflict around it's borders hampering it's economic growth.

        And none of this has anything to do with Marioupol.


        Debreceni 13 Jul 2015 03:38

        The Right Sector does not exist, or if it does, it has been created by Moscow. The crisis in Greece is also the work of Russian agents. The ISIS is financed and trained by Putin. Ebola was cooked up in a laboratory in Saint Petersburg. Look for the Russian!


        Kaiama PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 02:50

        We don't know if PS were also doing it as well or just poking their noses into someone else's business. Who started it? I doubt the correct answer will ever be known. Two unsavoury groups arguing about an illegal business. The problem is that the MP is an MP whereas PS is a national organisation.


        DrMacTomjim 13 Jul 2015 02:04

        "Note to Ukraine: Time to Reconsider Your Historic Role Models" Someone wrote this a bit late.
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nikolas-kozloff/note-to-ukraine-time-to-r_b_7453506.html


        DrMacTomjim hisimperialmajesty 13 Jul 2015 02:01

        "neo-Chekists" That's new to me.... Are you sure they are not "Just doing their jobs" ?
        Did you read the Nafeez Ahmed piece someone linked ? Here (if you didn't)

        https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-west-saw-isis-as-strategic-asset-b99ad7a29092

        And this from Foreign Affairs

        https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/libya/2015-02-16/obamas-libya-debacle

        It's never the US....it's never the West.....
        (you know, to balance things) : )


        todaywefight 13 Jul 2015 01:53

        If any one on the other side, the dark side, ever thought that these lot will hold hands with any one, lay down their arms and sing Kumbaya, uou are either utterly naive or willfully ignorant. Apparently, these lot have 23 battalions, armed to their teeth, the added bonus for the Privy Sektor is that , due to expedience and cowardice , they have just made legal and incorporated into the Ukrainian army, Kyiv is in a highway to nowhere.

        Incidentally, unlike the maidan demonstrations which essentially were only in Kyiv there are demonstrations in more than a dozen cities, and have established dozen of check points already and Yarosh a member of the VT. have clearly instructed them to fight if necessary.


        GameOverManGameOver Omniscience 13 Jul 2015 01:35

        So? Yes there are nationalists in Russia, just like everywhere else. You get a gold star for googling. Shall I get some articles with European and American nationalists to parade around to make a vague point? If you want I can get you an article of Lithuanians dressed up as the Waffen SS parading around Vilnius. That's Lithuania the EU and Nato member. Funny how EU principles disappear when it's one of their own violating them.

        You seem to be missing the point entirely. While all countries have their nationalists, those nationalists are a very small minority, have no power, have no popular support, have no seats in government, usually derided by the majority of the population and they certainly aren't armed to the teeth roaming around the country killing, torturing and kidnapping people with the blessing of their government


        HollyOldDog Joe way 13 Jul 2015 00:09

        The Right Sector were / are Ukrains Storm Troopers who have had more advanced training by the Americans. If the Right Sector turn on the Kiev Government they will be difficult to defeat, and who knows if the civilian population of Ukraine may join in the 'fun' by ousting the current unpopular Ukrainian government.


        sorrentina 12 Jul 2015 23:35

        this is what happens when you play with fire: you get burned. Using Neo-Nazi's to implement Nato expansionist policies was always a very bad idea. It's just a shame it is not people like Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland who will have to suffer the blowback consequences- it is the poor Ukrainian people. This is not that different to what has happened in Libya- where Islamic extremists were used as a proxy force to oust Gaddafi.

        annamarinja jgbg 12 Jul 2015 23:31

        The threshold has been guessed impatiently by the US neocons (while the provocateur Higgins/ Bellingcat fed the gullible the fairy tales about Russian army in Ukraine). The US needs desperately a real civil war in Ukraine, the Ukrainians be damned. Just look what the US-sponsored "democracy on the march" has produced in the Middle East. Expect the same bloody results in eastern Europe.


        annamarinja obscurant 12 Jul 2015 23:25

        perhaps you do not realize that your insults are more appropriate towards the poor Ukrainians that have been left destitute by the cooky-carrying foreigners and their puppets in Kiev. The Ukrainian gold reserve has disappeared... meanwhile, the US Congress has shamed the US State Dept for collaborating with Ukrainian neo-nazis. Stay tuned. But do not expect to hear real news from your beloved Faux News.

        annamarinja quorkquork 12 Jul 2015 23:14

        the jihadists in Ukraine are the integral part of Iraqization of Ukraine. The lovers of Nuland's cookies are still in denial that Ukraine was destined by the US plutocrats to become a sacrificial lamb in a fight to preserve the US dollar hegemony.


        Bud Peart 12 Jul 2015 22:59

        Well we always knew it would end this way. With a stalemate in the war with the East the Right wing paramilitaries and private oligarch militias (whom the west funded and trained) have gone completely feral and are now in fighting directly with whats left of the Ukrainian National Army. This is pretty much the rode to another breakaway in Galacia which would effectively end the Ukraine as a functional state.

        The government should move as fast as possible to get a decent federal structure (copy switzerland) in place before the whole of the West goes into revolt as well.


        DelOrtoyVerga LostJohnny 12 Jul 2015 22:38

        That is what you get when you put fascists in your government.

        I rather reword it to

        That is what you get when you enable and rely on thugish pseudo-fascist radical para-military groups to impose order by force and violence against dissident segments of your own population (which is armed to the teeth probably by Russia)


        Bosula Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 22:37

        What do you think it is?

        There were several people identified directly or indirectly in this BBC story whose stories should have been formally pursued by legal authorities in Kiev.

        If you lived in the West you would understand that we call these references as possible 'leads' - you follow these 'leads' and see where they take you. That is what Western police do.

        The story says that Kiev didn't want to follow up any of these points. Why? What harm could this do?

        You state that you do not understand the point that this BBC journalist was making. But I have in a fair way tried to to explain the point that the BBC was making.

        This story caused quite a stir went it came out - and the BBC chose to stick with it and support their British reporter. In an edited and shorter form the story is still on the BBC - the editing is also acknowledged by the BBC.

        Do you think the BBC should have blocked or not published this investigative piece?

        If so - why?

        And why hasn't Kiev followed up these issues?

        Have I addressed your point yet?


        HollyOldDog Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 21:34

        I am just watching a program recorded earlier. Hiroshima: The Aftermath. I have got past the part when the Japanese 'survivors' had to drink from the pools of Black Rain ( highly radioactive) and watched the part when American Army Tourists visited the city to take a few photos ( no medical help though) while gawking at the gooks. In fact the Japanese civilians recieved no medical assistance at all from the Americans. The commentator just said that they were just there to study the effects of nuclear radiation on a civilian population. These nuclear bombs were just dropped on Japan to save One Day of the surrender of the Japanese forces.

        The next documtary I will watch another day is the sinking of the Tirpitz by the RAF using Tallboy bombs. At least this had a useful pupose in helping to stop the destruction of the North Atlantic convoys, sending aid to Russia. That aid along with the rebuilding of the Soviet Armies helped the Soviet Union to destroy the invading Nazi forces and provided a Second Front to the Western Allies to invade Normandy. A lot of good can be achieved when the East and West work together - maybe avoiding the worst effects of Global Warming but the Americans only seem to want to spend Trillions $ building more powerful nuclear weapons. Is this all that America has now, an Arms Industry - I can see it now, cooling the planet with a Nuclear Winter.


        HollyOldDog Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 20:33

        The USA caused the chaos in Ukraine so they must pay the billions of $ to fix it then leave Ukraine alone.


        6i9vern 12 Jul 2015 20:29

        One of the amusing features of the Soviet media was the long silences it maintained on possibly embarrassing breaking news until it became clear what the Party Line was.

        Eventually, a memo would go out from Mikhail Suslov's office to various media outlets and the silence would be broken.

        At least everyone knew exactly how that system worked. What is happening with the British media is much more murky.

        The beeb/graun seem to be the Pravda/Izvestia, whilst the torygraph is a sort of Trybuna Ludu - ie real news very occasionally appears in it.

        6i9vern 12 Jul 2015 20:08

        So, after a mere 24 hours the Graun ran a story on Mukachevo. The Torygraph actually had the nerve to run the AFP wire report more or less straight away.

        The BBC are still keeping shtum.

        The Beeb/Graun complex have well and truly had the frighteners put on them.

        PrinceEdward Kaiama 12 Jul 2015 20:07

        There's no doubt. I agree that the MP was probably running cigarettes, but also Right Sektor was going to muscle in.

        If you asked somebody 3 years ago if Ukraine would be rocked by armed bands with RPGs and Light Machine Guns fighting in towns, they would have thought you were crazy.

        This isn't Russia, this is the Ultranats/Neo-Nazis.


        PrinceEdward obscurant 12 Jul 2015 20:05

        Right, it's the people in Donbass who bury 14th SS Division veterans with full honors, push for full pensions to surviving Hiwi and SS Collaborators... not those in Lvov. Uh huh.


        BMWAlbert 12 Jul 2015 20:04

        11 months of investigations by the newKiev regime, attempting to implicate the the prior one for the murder of about 100 people in Kiev early last year was unsuccessful. There may be better candidates here.


        fragglerokk ploughmanlunch 12 Jul 2015 19:55

        It always amazes me that the far right never learn from history. The politicians and oligarchs always use them as muscle to ensure coup success then murder/assasinate the leaders to make sure they dont get any ideas about power themselves. Surprised its taken so long in ukraine but then the govt is barely hanging onto power and the IMF loans have turned to a trickle so trouble will always be brewing, perhaps theyve left it too long this time. Nobody will be shedding any tears for the Nazis and Banderistas.


        hisimperialmajesty Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 19:54

        Why, don't you know? They infiltrated Ukraine, the CIA (and NATO and the EU somehow) created Maidan, their agents killed the protesters, then they overthrew a legitimate government and installed a neo-nazi one, proceeded to instigate a brutal oppression against Russian speakers, then started a war against the peaceful Eastern Ukrainians and their innocent friends in the Kremlin, etc etc. Ignorant question that, by now you should know the narrative!


        Kaiama gimmeshoes 12 Jul 2015 19:53

        If you think Pryvi Sektor want to "clean up" then yes, but not in the way you imagine - they just want the business for themselves.


        Geordiemartin 12 Jul 2015 19:51

        I am reminded of AJP Taylor premise that Eastern Europe has historically had either German domination or Russian protection.

        The way that the Ukrainian government had treated their own Eastern compatriots leaves little reason to believe they would be welcome back into the fold and gives people of Donbass no reason to want to rejoin the rest of the country.

        If government is making an effort to reign in the likes of Right sector it is a move in the right direction but much much more will be needed to establish any trust.


        Some Guy yataki 12 Jul 2015 19:45

        just because they are nazis doesnt mean they are happy about doing any of this... now. look at greece and the debacle that has unfolded over the past week has been . the west ukraine wanted to be part of the euro zone and wanted some of that ecb bail out money. now they are not even sure if they could skip out on the bill and know they are fighting for nothing . russia gave them 14 bil dollars . the west after the coup only gave the 1 bil


        Andor2001 Kaiama 12 Jul 2015 19:44

        According to the eyewitnesses the RS shot a guard when he refused to summon the commanding officer. It was the beginning of the fight.


        Andor2001 yataki 12 Jul 2015 19:41

        Remember Shakespeare "Othello"? Moor has done his job, Moor has to go..
        The neo-Nazis have outlived their usefulness.


        Bosula caaps02 12 Jul 2015 19:39

        The BBC investigative reported earlier this year that a section of Maidan protesters deliberately started shooting the police. This story was also reported in the Guardian. Google and you will easily find it.

        The BBC also reported that the Prosecutors Office in Kiev was forbidden by Rada officials from investigating Maiden shooters.

        Maybe the BBC is telling us a lie? The BBC investigation is worth a read - then you can make up your own mind.


        Bosula William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 19:29

        Kazakhstan had the highest percentage of deaths from Stalin's policies in this period when he prevented the nomad herders moving from the mountains to the planes to take advantage of the benefits of seasons and weather.

        Stalin forced the nomads to stay in one area and they perished in the cold of the mountains or the heat of the summer plains (whichever zone they were foced to stay in).

        Some of my family is Ukrainian and some recognise that Stalin's policies weren't specifically aimed at Ukrainians - the people of Kazakhstan suffered the most (as a percentage of population). Either way, there is no genetic difference between Slavs or Russian or Ukrainian origin in Ukraine or Russia - they are all genetically the same people.

        This information should be better taught in Ukraine.

        The problem is that it would undermine the holy grail story of right wing nationalism in Ukraine.


        quorkquork annamarinja 12 Jul 2015 19:27

        There are already jihadist groups fighting in Ukraine!

        IN MIDST OF WAR, UKRAINE BECOMES GATEWAY FOR JIHAD
        https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/26/midst-war-ukraine-becomes-gateway-europe-jihad/


        Havingalavrov obscurant 12 Jul 2015 18:33

        It's been one of the biggest mistakes ( although Ukraine's military started in a desperately poor condition ) , to allow militia groups to get so powerful. Right sector should not have arms and guns... The national Ukraine military should, If members of Right sector want to fight , they should leave Right sector and join the army.

        This was and will happen if they don't disband such armed groups.


        annamarinja silvaback 12 Jul 2015 18:18

        have you ever studied geography? If yes, you should remember the proximity of Ukraine to Russia (next door) and the proximity of Ukraine to the US (thousands miles away). Also, have you heard about the CIA Director Brennan and his covert visit to Kiev on the eve of the beginning of the civil war in Ukraine? This could give you an informed hint about the causes of the war. Plus you may be interested to learn about Mrs. Nuland-Kagan (Ms. Nudelman), her cookies, and her foul language. She is, by the way, a student of Dick Cheney. If you were born before 2000, you might know his name and his role in the Iraq catastrophe. Mrs. Nuland-Kagan (and the family of Kagans she belongs to) finds particular pleasure in creating military conflicts around the globe. It is not for nothing that the current situation in Ukraine is called Iraqization of Eastern Europe.


        Bev Linington JJRichardson 12 Jul 2015 18:10

        Ukrainians shot down the plane. East, West does not matter as they were all Ukrainians before the government overthrow. Leaders of the new government could not look past some Ukrainian citizens ethnicity, instead of standing together united, they decided to oppress which lead to the referendum in Crimea and the rise of separatists in the East.


        jgbg Chirographer 12 Jul 2015 17:53

        And for the Pro-Russian posters the newsflash is that could also describe the situation inside the Donbass.

        It certainly describes the situation in Donbass where Right Sector or the volunteer battalions are in charge. In Dnepropetrovsk, Right Sector would simply turn up at some factory or other business and order the owner to sign document transferring the enterprise to them. In other cases, they have kidnapped businessmen for ransom. Some people have simply disappeared under such circumstances.

        The Ukrainian National Guard simply break into homes left empty by people fleeing the war and steal the contents. Such was the scale of looting, the Ukrainian postal service have now refused to ship electrical goods out of the ATO area unless the senders have the original boxes and receipts.


        jgbg AlfredHerring 12 Jul 2015 17:45

        Maybe Kiev just needs to bomb them some more.

        Putin promised to protect the Russian speaking people in Ukraine - but he hasn't really done that. His government has indicated that they would not allow Kiev to simply overrun or obliterate the people of Donbass. Quite where their threshold of actual intervention lies is anyone's guess.

        jgbg caaps02, 12 Jul 2015 17:34

        The "pro-Russian" government that you refer to was only elected because it promised to sign the EU trade agreement. It then reneged on that promise...

        Yanukovych's government was elected the previous one was useless and corrupt.

        Yanukovych wanted to postpone the decision to sign for six months, while he attempted to extract more from both the EU and Russia. Under Poroshenko, the implementation of the EU Association Agreement has been delayed for 15 months, as the governments of Ukraine, the EU and Russia all recognised that Russian trade (with the favourable terms which Ukraine enjoys) are vitail to Ukraine's economic recovery. Expect that postponement to be extended.

        .... severely and brutally curtailing freedom of speech and concentrating all power in the hands of Yanukovich's little clan...

        As opposed to sending the military to shell the crap out of those who objected to an elected government being removed by a few thousand nationalists in Kiev.

        There was no "coup".

        An agreement had been signed at the end of February 2014, which would see elections in September 2014. The far right immediately moved to remove the government (as Right Sector had promised on camera in December 2013). None of the few mechanisms for replacing the president listed in the Ukrainian constitution have been followed - that makes it a coup.

        The maidan protesters were not armed

        This newspaper and other western media documented the armed members of far right groups on Maidan. One BBC journalist was actually shot at by a Svoboda sniper, operating from Hotel Ukraina - the video is still on the BBC website.

        ....the interim government that was put in place by the parliament in late February and the government that was elected in May and Oct. of 2014 were and are not fascist.

        The interim government included several ministers from Svoboda, formerly the Socialist Nationalist Party of Ukraine. These were the first Nazi ministers in a European government since Franco's Spanish government that ended in the 1970's. In a 2013 resolution, the EU parliament had indicated that no Ukrainian government should include members of Svoboda or other far right parties.


        pushkinsideburn vr13vr 12 Jul 2015 16:45

        There has been a marked change in rhetoric over the last few weeks. Even CiF on Ukraine articles seems to attract less trolls (with a few notable exceptions on this article - though they feel more like squad trolls than the first team). Hopefully a sign of deescalation or perhaps just a temporary lull before the MH17 anniversary this week?


        pushkinsideburn calum1 12 Jul 2015 16:38

        His other comments should have been the clue that arithmetic, like independent critical thinking, is beyond him.


        normankirk 12 Jul 2015 16:19

        Right sector were the first to declare they wouldn't abide by the Minsk 2 peace agreement.Nevertheless, Dmitry Yarosh, their leader is adviser to Ukraine's Chief of staff. Given that he only received about 130,000 votes in the last election, he has a disproportionate amount of power.


        pushkinsideburn sashasmirnoff 12 Jul 2015 16:13

        That quote is a myth

        https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-the-cia-owns-everyone-of-any-significance-in-the-major-media.t158/

        Though doesn't mean it's not true of course


        greatwhitehunter 12 Jul 2015 15:47

        As predicted the real civil war in ukraine is still to happen. The split between the east and the ordinary ukrainian was largely manufactored . In the long term no body would be able to live with the right sector or more preciselly the right sector cant share a bed with anyone else.


        sashasmirnoff RicardoJ 12 Jul 2015 15:44

        "When the Guardian claims to be a fearless champion of investigative journalism - as it is, in some areas - why did it obey the dictats of the US neocon media machine which rules all Western mainstream media over the Ukrainian land grab, instead of telling the truth, at that time?"

        This may be why:
        "The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media." - former CIA Director William Colby


        Alexander_the_Great 12 Jul 2015 15:43

        This was so, so predictable. The Right Sector were the main violent group during the coup in 2014 - in fact they were the ones to bring the first guns to the square following their storming of a military warehouse in west Ukraine a few days before the coup. It was this factor that forced the Police to arm themselves in preparation.

        Being the vanguard of the illegal coup, they then provided a useful tool of manipulation for the illegal Kiev government to oppress any opposition, intimidate journalists who spoke the truth and lead the war against the legally-elected ELECTED governments of Donetsk and Lugansk.

        Having failed in the war against the east, western leaders have signalled the right sector has now outlived its usefulness and has become an embarrassment to Kiev and their western backers.

        The Right Sector meanwhile, feel betrayed by the establishment in Kiev. They have 19 battalions of fighters and they wont go away thats for sure. I think one can expect this getting more violent in the coming months.


        SHappens jezzam 12 Jul 2015 15:40

        Putin is a Fascist dictator.

        Putin is not a dictator. He is a statist, authoritarian-inclined hybrid regime ruler that possesses some democratic elements and space for opposition groups.
        He has moderate nationalist tendencies in foreign affairs; his goal is a secure a strong Russia. He is a patriot and has a charismatic authority. Russians stay behind him.


        ploughmanlunch samuel glover 12 Jul 2015 15:31

        'this notion that absolutely everything Kiev does follows some master script drawn up in DC and Brussels is simplistic and tiresome'

        Agreed.
        As is everything is Russia's fault.


        ConradLodziak 12 Jul 2015 15:26

        This is just the latest in a string of conflicts involving the right sector, as reported by RT, Russian media and until recently many Ukrainian outlets. The problem, of course, is that Porostinko has given 'official' status to the right sector. Blow back time for him.


        CIAbot007 William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 15:06

        Yes, Russia (USSR) from the USSR foundation had been forcing people of the then territory of Ukraine to identify themselves as ukrainians under the process of rootisation - ukrainisation, then gave to Ukraine Donbass and left side Dniepr and Odessa, Herson and Nikolaev, and then decided to ethnically cleane them..It doesn't make sense, does it? Oh, wait, sense is not your domain.


        annamarinja William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 15:05

        let me help you with arithmetics: 72 years ago Europe was inflamed with the WWII.
        There was a considerable number of Ukrainians that collaborated with Hitler' nazis:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(1st_Galician)
        Now moving to the present. The US-installed oligarchs in Kiev have been cooperating closely with Ruropean neo-nazis (the followers of the WWII scum): http://rt.com/news/155364-ukraine-nazi-division-march/
        In short, your government finds it is OK to glorify the perpetrators of genocide in Europe during the WWII.


        Nik2 12 Jul 2015 15:04

        These tragic events, when YESTERDAY, on Saturday afternoon, several civilians were unintentionally wounded in gun battles in previously peaceful town near the Hungary and Slovakia borders, vividly exposes Western propaganda. Though mass media in Ukraine and Russia are full of reports about this from the start, The Guardian managed to give first information exactly 1 day later, and BBC was still keeping silence a few minutes ago. Since both sides are allies of the West (the Right Sector fighters were the core of the Maidan protesters at the later stages, and Poroshenko regime is presumably "democratic"), the Western media preferred to ignore the events that are so politically uncomfortable. Who are "good guys" to be praised? In fact, this may be the start of nationalists' revolt against Ukrainian authorities, and politically it is very important moment that can fundamentally change Ukrainian politics. But the West decides to be silent ...


        annamarinja William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 14:59

        Do your history book tell you that the Holodomor was a multiethnic endeavor? That the Ukrainians were among the victims and perpetrators and that the whole huge country had suffered the insanely cruel policies of multiethnic bolsheviks? The Holodomor was almost a century ago, whereas the Odessa massacre and the bombardments of civilian population in east Ukraine by the neo-nazi thugs (sent by Kiev), has been going during last year and half. Perhaps you have followed Mr. Brennan and Mrs. Nuland-Kagan too obediently.


        foolisholdman zonzonel 12 Jul 2015 14:58

        zonzonel

        Oops, the presumably fascist govt. is fighting a fascist group.
        What is a poor troll to do these days??
        Antiukrainian copywriting just got more difficult, perhaps a raise is needed? Just sayin.

        What's your problem? Never heard of Fascist groups fighting each other? Never heard of the "Night of the Long Knives"? Fascists have no principles to unite them. They believe in Uebermenschen and of course they all think that either they themselves or their leader is The Ueberuebermensch. Anyone who disagrees is an enemy no matter how Fascist he may be.


        samuel glover ploughmanlunch 12 Jul 2015 14:55

        Y'know, I'm no fan of the Russophobic hysteria that dominates English-language media. I've been to Ukraine several times over the last 15 years or so, and I'm sorry to say that I think that in time Ukrainians will regard Maidan's aftermath as most of them view the Orange Revolution -- with regret and cynicism.

        That said, this notion that everything, absolutely everything Kiev does follows some master script drawn up in DC and Brussels is simplistic and tiresome. Most post-revolution regimes purge one end or the other of the current ideological wings. Kiev has already tangled with the oligarch and militia patron Igor Kolomoisky. So perhaps this is another predictable factional struggle. Or maybe, as another comment speculates, this is a feud over cigarette tax revenue.

        In any case, Ukraine is a complex place going through an **extremely** complex time. it's too soon to tell what the Lviv skirmish means, and **far** too soon to lay it all on nefarious puppetmasters.

        TheTruthAnytime ADTaylor 12 Jul 2015 14:49

        The only thing that makes me reconsider is their service to their country,...

        Is the CIA their country? So far they've only seemed to serve the interests of American businesspeople, not Ukrainian interests. Also, murdering eastern Ukrainians cannot really be considered such a great service to Ukraine, can it?


        annamarinja ID075732 12 Jul 2015 14:44

        Maidan was indeed a popular apprising, but it was utilized by the US strategists for their geopolitical games. The Ukrainians are going to learn hard way that the US have never had any interest in well-being of the "locals" and that the ongoing civil war was designed in order to create a festering wound on a border with the Russia. The Iraqization of Ukraine was envisioned by the neocons as a tool to break both Russia and Ukraine. The sooner Ukrainians come to a peaceful solution uniting the whole Ukraine (for example, to federalization), the better for the general population (but not for the thieving oligarchs).


        vr13vr 12 Jul 2015 14:38

        "Couple of hundred Right Sector supporters demonstrated in Kiev?" Come on! Over the last week, there have been enough of videos of thousands of people in fatigues trying to block access to government buildings and shouting rather aggressive demands. The entire battalions of "National Guard." This is much bigger than just 100 people on a peaceful rally. Ukraine might be heading towards Maidan 3.0.

        ID075732 12 Jul 2015 14:26

        The situation in Ukraine has been unravelling for months and this news broke on Friday evening.

        The Minsk II cease fire has not been honoured by Poroshenko, who has not managed to effect any of the pledges he signed up to. The right sector who rejected the cease-fire from the start are now refusing the rule of their post coup president in Kiev.

        Time for Victoria Nuland to break out the cookies? Or maybe it's too late for that now. The country formerly know as Ukraine is turning out to be another outstanding success of American post -imperial foreign policy.

        Meanwhile in UFA the BRIC's economic forum is drawing to a close, with representatives from the developing world and no reporting of the aspirations being discussed there of over 60% of the world's population. It's been a major success, but if you want to learn about it, you will have to turn to other media sources - those usually reported as Russian propaganda channels or Putin's apologists.

        The same people who have been reporting on the deteriorating situation in Kiev since the February coup. Or as Washington likes to call it a popular up rising.


        Dennis Levin 12 Jul 2015 13:29

        Canadian interviewed, fighting for 'Right Sector'.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j65dBEWd7go
        The Right Sector of Euromaidan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yFqUasBOUY
        Lets reflect for a moment on the Editorial directives, that would have 'MORE GUNS' distributed to NAZIS..
        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/01/putin-stopped-ukraine-military-support-russian-propaganda
        The Guarn publishes, 'Britain should arm Ukraine, says Tory donor' - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/11/britain-should-arm-ukraine
        Al Jazeera says,'t's time to arm Ukraine' - http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/02/arms-ukraine-russia-separatists-150210075309643.html
        Zbigniew Brzezinski: The West should arm Ukraine - http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/op-ed/zbigniew-brzezinski-the-west-should-arm-ukraine-354770.html


        ploughmanlunch ADTaylor 12 Jul 2015 13:06

        'The only thing that makes me reconsider is their service to their country'

        Don't get me wrong. I detest the fascist militias and their evil deeds.

        However, despite their callousness, brutality and stupidity, they have been the most effective fighting force for Kiev ( more sensible Ukrainians have been rather more reluctant to kill their fellow countrymen ).

        Deluded ? Yes. Cowardly ? No.

        Even more reprehensible, in my opinion are the calculating and unprincipled Kiev Government that have attempted to bully a region of the Ukraine that had expressed legitimate reservations, using those far right battalions, but accepting no responsibility for the carnage that they carried out.

        mario n 12 Jul 2015 12:52

        I think it's time Europe spoke up about dangers of Ukrainian nationalism. 72 years ago Ukrainian fascists committed one of the most hideous and brutal acts of genocide in the human history. Details are so horrifying it is beyond imagination. Sadly not many people remembers that, because it is not politically correct to say bad things about Ukraine. Today mass murderers are hailed as national heroes and private battalions and ultranationalist groups armed to the teeth terrorise not only Donbas but now different parts of the country like Zakarpattia where there is strong Hungarian, Russian and Romanian minority.

        How many massacres and acts of genocide Europe needs before it learns to act firmly?

        SHappens 12 Jul 2015 12:49

        Kiev has allowed nationalist groups including Right Sector to operate despite allegations by groups like Amnesty International, that Right Sector has tortured civilian prisoners.

        You know what, you dont play with fire or you will get burnt. It was written on the wall that these Bandera apologists would eventually turn to the hand that fed them. I wonder how Kiev will manage to blame the russians now.


        RicardoJ 12 Jul 2015 12:33

        Of course the Guardian doesn't like to explain that 'Right Sector' are genuine fascists - by their own admission!

        These fascists, who wear Nazi insignia, were the people who overthrew the elected government of Ukraine in the US / EU-supported coup - which the Guardianistas and other PC-brainwashed duly cheered on as a supposed triumph of democracy.

        Since that glorious US-financed and EU-backed coup, wholly illegal under international law, Ukraine's economy has collapsed, as has Ukrainians' living standards.

        The US neocons are losing interest in their attempted land grab of Ukraine - and the EU cretins who backed the coup, thinking it would be a nice juicy further territorial acquisition for the EU, are desperately looking the other way, now that both the US and EU realize that Ukraine is a financial black hole.

        When the Guardian claims to be a fearless champion of investigative journalism - as it is, in some areas - why did it obey the dictats of the US neocon media machine which rules all Western mainstream media over the Ukrainian land grab, instead of telling the truth, at that time?


        jgbg 12 Jul 2015 12:15

        The move came after a gunfight broke out on Saturday, when about 20 Right Sector gunmen arrived at a sports complex controlled by MP Mikhail Lano. They had been trying to stop the traffic of cigarettes and other contraband, a spokesman for the group said.

        Put another way, one group of gangsters tried to muscle in on the cigarette smuggling operation of another group of gangsters. Smuggling cigarettes into nearby EU countries is extremely lucrative.

        Here's some video of some of the events:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hexRskhproc&feature=youtu.be

        Note the registration plates driven by both Right Sector and the other gangsters i.e. not Ukrainian. In all likelihood, these cars are all stolen.

        Right Sector and fighters from "volunteer battalions" have become accustomed to muscling in on other people's activities (legal or not) in Donbass. This sort of thuggery is routine when these folk come to town. It is only when since they have continued such activities on their home turf in west and central Ukraine that the authorities have taken any notice.

        [Jul 14, 2015] Ukry starting to get worried about Trans-Carpthian separatism

        yalensis, July 13, 2015 at 3:54 am

        Ukry starting to get worried about Trans-Carpthian separatism:

        Rada Deputy Boris Filatov, who belongs to Igor Kolomoisky's party, was outraged when he read some blogposts written by Trans-Carpathians. Who claimed that Trans-Carpathia was unjustly taken away from Slovaks and Hungarians in the 1950's.
        Some of the Rusyns there say they are not Ukrainians, and never have been.

        Filatov was outraged at some of this loose talk on blogs. He retorted on his own blog with the following proposed remedy to these separatist inclinations:

        "Можете почитать, что публично пишут в своих бложиках некоторые местные деятели. Врачи! Жечь падаль каленым железом. Сажать и лишать имущества", - написал Филатов на своей странице в соцсети.

        "You cannot even imagine what some of these local activists are scribbling in their blogs. I would brand these scum with a heated up iron. I would throw them in jail and confiscate their property."

        yalensis:
        Recall that Filatov made similar threats against Crimeans.
        Which just scared them even further into escaping from the tender embraces of Ukrainian nazis.
        I am betting most Rusyns also wish they could opt out of this Ukrainian "prison of nations" and become part of Slovakia or Hungary. Unfortunately, they don't have that option, so they are stuck in this abusive relationship.

        Link:
        http://www.politnavigator.net/deputat-verkhovnojj-rady-o-rusinakh-zakarpatya-zhech-padal-kalenym-zhelezom.html

        [Jul 13, 2015] Germany is attempting to force Greece out of the common currency union as a lesson to France

        Tim Owen , July 12, 2015 at 4:52 am

        The EU is a sick joke:

        "The independent economics-writer, Charles Hugh Smith - who was one of only 29 economists worldwide who predicted the 2008 crash in advance and who explained accurately how and why it was going to occur - has provided a more honest description of the sources of Greece's depression:

        1. Goldman Sachs conspired with [actually: were hired by] Greece's corrupt kleptocracy to conjure up an illusion of solvency and fiscal prudence so Greece could join the Eurozone [despite Greek aristocrats' massive tax-evasion, which created the original problem].

        2. Vested interests and insiders gorged on the credit being offered by German and French [and other] banks, enriching themselves to the tune of tens of billions of euros, which were transferred to private accounts in Switzerland at the first whiff of trouble. When informed of this, Greek authorities took no action; after all, why track down your cronies and force them to pay taxes when tax evasion is the status quo for financial elites?

        3. If Greece had defaulted in 2010 when its debt was around 110 billion euros, the losses would have fallen on the banks that had foolishly lent the money without proper due diligence or risk management. This is what should have happened in a market economy: those who foolishly lent extraordinary sums to poor credit risks take the resulting (and entirely predictable) losses."

        http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/07/how-fascist-capitalism-functions-the-case-of-greece.html

        marknesop July 12, 2015 at 11:18 am
        Here's a very interesting article by recently-departed Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis. He contends that Germany is the driving force behind it, and that Germany is attempting to force Greece out of the common currency union as a lesson to France, to put the fear of God into them. In such circumstances, Tsipras's erratic behaviour and overall spinelessness just gets in the way.

        This fits well with the image of Germany as the emerging leader of a new Europe, but not so well with the concept of a Germany that is more a friend to Moscow and less a tool of Washington.

        In fact, it sounds like a country rent with internal struggle which is trending toward a boil itself.

        [Jul 13, 2015]Greece and eurozone reach agreement in bailout talks

        Greece remain a debt slave.... The condition in which it was put by previous neoliberal goverments...
        .
        "...All of it is nasty. It revolts me. Rich scumbags win and the small people pay"
        .
        "...Greece will now be governed in the way that all countries will be governed in the future. Neoliberal institutions will have the world in their grip and dictate all policy so they can squeeze every last drop out of the people justifying this because money is owed. Conquest by indebting nations this is the perfect instrument to destroy all self determination."
        .
        "...Its not the germans. They are just the convenient target. We all know its the banks behind the governments."
        Jul 13, 2015 | The Guardian

        Rabiesx15 -> elboberto 13 Jul 2015 10:03

        All of it is nasty. It revolts me. Rich scumbags win and the small people pay
        The majority of leading politicians, business owners and bankers need to take a long look in the mirror and ask themselves what divides them from Norman Bates, to me they all seem to be psychopaths

        rogerfranklin 13 Jul 2015 10:01

        Well, I never thought I'd say this, but well done to French socialist Hollande and Italian banker Draghi for doing just enough to (hopefully) prevent armageddon. Of course this deal won't work and we'll all be back here in a year or so but at least the eurozone hasn't been turned into the ERM with Italy and Spain the next targets.

        Branko Dodig -> inconvenient_truth 13 Jul 2015 10:00

        They don't want to waste their people's money? They have already done so when Greece was technically in default in 2012; they bought off the bank-held bad debt (which happened due to irresponsible lending of banks wishing for higher returns since Germany etc could not absorb the capital and had very unattractive interest rates).

        Realistically, bubbles form and deficit soars when there is an inflow of cheap capital, as it was to the periphery of Europe in the 2000s. It's not just a "periphery of Europe thing", a mentality or cultural problem, because the same thing happened in the USA in various periods, and in Germany as well (the famous French "indemnity" which caused a crisis in Germany afterwards).

        If we treat the symptoms and not the causes in the way the EU and specifically the Eurozone is set up, we're just going to have recurring problems of this sort.


        RichardDargan 13 Jul 2015 09:58

        Perhaps this is the end of democracy, in that the will of the people in a country however misguided it might be in what it wants, has been subjugated to the money machine.

        The Greeks voted against austerity at least twice. The first time was when they elected Syriza and the second time was when they voted 'No' in the referendum a week ago. The ratcheting up of the terms of what the Greeks have to do to get their money means they now have worse terms than those they started with. Vindictiveness or what, on the part of the ECB and others calling the shots? Is the vindictiveness aimed as a warning to other countries (?Italy and Spain?) who might find themselves, in the future, in a similar position?

        I have the nagging feeling that the 'result' of these negotiations has more to do with the internal politics of Germany and Finland and other countries pushing for harder terms than with the situation in Greece.

        It will be the 'ordinary' Greeks who will have to pay for the fecklessness of the political and wealthy classes who probably have got their money out and safe in some offshore location. It all leaves something of a dirty taste in the mouth the way this has been handled. So much for democracy when the unelected money-men and women start dealing with the affairs of countries.

        nursinggardener 13 Jul 2015 09:53

        Greece will now be governed in the way that all countries will be governed in the future. Neoliberal institutions will have the world in their grip and dictate all policy so they can squeeze every last drop out of the people justifying this because money is owed. Conquest by indebting nations this is the perfect instrument to destroy all self determination.


        lsjogren -> AdelJ
        13 Jul 2015 09:52

        Greece is not in debtor's prison. They are free to reneg on their debts and abandon the Euro. And that is what they should do because;

        1). In the long run it will be in their best interest
        2). It will expose the Eurofarce and force the other countries of Europe to stop basing their economies on the false premise that failed economies are capable of paying off their debts over time.

        trobriander 13 Jul 2015 09:50

        A word of truth must be said here. Tspiras deserves an applause. The man was voted in to help a nation on the brink. He was fighting hard to save those dearest to him while trying to talk some sense into creditors who make the merchant of Venice look like a gentleman.

        He called for a tough referendum to exercise transparency with the Greeks for the initial bail out. Conversely, Merkel (who earned herself a solid F [0/100] for the Greek course) called it a bluff and threatened if outcome were NO then it was immediate Euro exit – she even refused to talk until after the referendum, which was further damaging.

        With a big OXI mandate, the man went back to Brussel to negotiate better proposal – carrying with him even a bigger load, in return, the EZ have further entrenched – as if every leader held a bat, waiting turn to get a swing at the ball

        Once a wise man said: good finance brings about good friends…
        Dear Tspiras, There are hardly any good friends left within the EZ!

        thinkoutloud 13 Jul 2015 10:07

        I have always supported our membership of the EU and have seen as a force for good and particularly as a way Europe can be big enough to manage rather than be controlled by finance.

        Well, this has given me real cause for concern and i am now far less worried about the prospect of our leaving the EU. Indeed I may vote for it (100% reversal of previous views).

        The Eu has turned on its people, putting finance and the markets first. if you ever had any doubts, you now know what loss of national sovereignty really means.

        Almost the only time we hear of Nations nowadays is in their role as supporters of the finance industry, to bear their risk and to have their ordinary people bear the consequences of financial system (greed and ) failure. Beyond that, Nations as cultural and political entities no longer exist, they are just 'economies' - they serve the markets.

        I had thought financiers and bankers got high salaries because they took huge risks, but it appears it is we the ordinary people who take the risks while they take the profits with the help of our politicians.

        yuk!


        mgtuzairodtiiasn -> greatapedescendant 13 Jul 2015 10:06

        Thank you for your wishes, but I think that Tsipras will soon be a political zombie. This was the plan of the gang in Brussels and Berlin, and I cannot understand why he failed to do something to avoid the traps. The agreement is not viable. We will have a discussion about this subject again, very soon. Unfortunately, now the only alternative in the Greek political system is Golden Dawn. A racist and nationalist party. The Greeks will vote to support this party, not because they are racists and nationalists. (You can see almost all Greeks offering food and cloths to the thousands of illegal immigrants and refugees. A problem that has its roots to the irresponsibility of the northern countries.) But they will support Golden Dawn because they want a way to express their opposition to all politicians which act as betrayers, like Tsipras.


        jonathanpt 13 Jul 2015 10:06

        This is not the deal they rejected last week, that was a short term extension of the second bail-out for 8 billion.This is a new 3 year 3rd bail-out for 80 billion.

        However as a long term europhile and strong supporter of Britains membership of the EU ,the way Greece has been treated leaves me wondering,for the first time, about our continuing membership and there will be more like me, unintended consequences.... Brixit???


        lsjogren crumlinbob 13 Jul 2015 09:48

        crum: Greece has taken a stand, "we hate the neo-liberal superstate, and we want to remain part of the neo-liberal superstate".

        Sorry, they can't have it both ways.


        amrit radnor 13 Jul 2015 09:48

        These previous Greek leaders were hovering in Brussel like birds looking for dead animal's body.

        Regime change game is yet to end.

        Present government could get defeated and new elections could take place.


        illywacker Gulfstream5 13 Jul 2015 09:46

        1) It is the private banks that ran out of our money with which to gamble.

        2) Socialism is precisely about using richer people's money to help those who have little. Thatcher does not acknowledge such generosity as a factor in human relations ("no such thing as society", etc. etc.), which tells you everything you need to know.


        lsjogren crumlinbob 13 Jul 2015 09:44

        crum: You just don't get it. National sovereignty and a common currency with other nations are incompatible. Greece can either have the Euro or national sovereignty, not both.


        soundofthesuburbs 13 Jul 2015 09:43

        "Athens has also agreed to sell off state assets worth €50bn, with the proceeds earmarked for a trust fund supervised by its creditors. Half the fund will be used to recapitalise Greek banks, while the remaining €25bn will pay down Greek debts."

        Banks are institutions where the profits remain in private hands and the losses are socialised.

        Can anyone explain?

        brnost 13 Jul 2015 09:42

        When unelected bodies force an elected government to surrender its financial sovereignty, the word "coup" is the only one that can be used. No one emerges with credit from this, but Germany and Merkel come out looking very ugly indeed. It should never have come to this. It was Syriza's predecessors who got into the mess, but the troika were complicit, and their humiliation of Greece to cover their own culpability has exposed the moral bankruptcy of the whole Euro project.

        mgtuzairodtiiasn PeregrineSlim 13 Jul 2015 09:42

        It is true. The first loans were given to Greece when the state was born after the Ottoman occupation. So, all subsequent loans were given just for the payment of the previous loans. But, although the nominal amounts were very large, only small parts of them were received by the Greeks. The rest of the money was considered in all cases as warranties, commission etc. The Greek state in fact was forced to get this loans with the threat of favoring the "enemies". Except of a small period before 1893, when some money was spent to improve the infrastructure, in all other periods the money was spent for military equipment, mainly warships which were sold by the lenders.

        crumlinbob 13 Jul 2015 09:35

        Disgraceful treatment of a soverign country. The EU has become a nasty shambles. The austerity measure being forced on the Greeks will not help that country one bit. Things will get worse as most economists (without a right wing blinkered view) have stated. Hell even the IMF have said they got their figures wrong. So what is being foistered on Greece wont work. So whay is it being forced on them? To teach the people that democracy is in no way equal to corporate finance and how dare they vote a left wing government to cause such upset to the neo liberal superstate. The EU is a disgrace.

        AdelJ 13 Jul 2015 09:31

        The result of the agreement will probably not be known until six months hence but if more damage is done to the Greek economy will this be considered a success? I hope it works but on the face of it it looks both a political and economic disaster for Greece. Did Greece stuff up in the way they borrowed and spent - most certainly, but surely the end result has to be both reform and the chance of a thriving economy in the future. I fear this agreement will not deliver. The Greeks have basically been put in debtors prison. When Schauble asked the Greek negotiators how much to leave the eurozone the best answer might have been to give him a figure.

        ukchange68 jahiz123 13 Jul 2015 09:31

        slave states - ALL to do with finance, nothing to do with countries


        pedro15 Doug_Niedermeyer 13 Jul 2015 09:29

        Russia would have defeated the Axis on its own ,just taken a bit longer.

        You came into the War in '17 when the Europeans had lost millions over 4 years ,Germany was using 16 year olds and on its last legs with rampant starvation. Bit like you stand back ,watch 3 guys batter a fourth into the ground then when the fourth is unconscious you join in helping the kicking .Just enough time in ww1 to get enough experience for your 'we saved the world movies.

        You didn't declare War on Germany until Hitler ,down to some weird sense of loyalty to Japan declared war on USA after Pearl Harbour, and after Germany had in effect lost the Russian campaign befor Moscow. I believe for the aid of a few destroyers you took a chunk of the Caribbean off us.

        If you are so great please explain why you have not won a single War, up to and including Iraq, since ww2.

        mgtuzairodtiiasn Isanybodyouthere 13 Jul 2015 09:26

        In fact the Finnish economy faces huge problems. It is even in a worse situation than the Greek one. The Greek problems are in some degree artificial, due e.g. to the actions of Schauble, but the Finnish problems are all substantial. Finland has lost two of its main sectors, the Forest industry, and telecommunications. Also, there is a huge housing bubble, as in Sweden too. I expect that while we are talking about Greece, another country (Finland? Belgium? ) will soon explode. Notice that while the Greek public debt is very high, the total debt is much lower than that of other countries. E.g. the mean household of Greece owes 109% of its income, while the Dutch one owes 317%. So, there are many countries much more indebted, and all this noise about Greece helps politicians to hide the problems there are existent in their countries.

        david wright 13 Jul 2015 09:26

        Angela Merkel said: "I never make historical comparisons."

        Of course not. She daren't. In 1953, Germany was essentially let of the hook for huge amounts in return for bveing a good ally and helping ounter the Soviet union (which indeed needed countering). Then in Reunification, the former West germany accepted East german currency at par with the Deutschmark, a huge giveaway - 25% would have been generous. Finally, EuroReichsKanzlor Merkel daren't think of the possible blowback from her imposition of a 'worse than Versailles' solution on Greece. Hear and see no evil. If only she could have made the hat trick, and done none. The underlying situation is utterly unchanged. The same go-round will begin in between a couple of months, and three years. It ain't over til it's over, and it ain't over yet, baby.

        soundofthesuburbs 13 Jul 2015 09:23

        Greece is a banker gamble that didn't pay off.

        Bankers worked on the assumption that Germany would pick up all debts, if there were problems.

        This lead to bond yields across the Euro-zone being exceptionally low.

        Following this assumption, lending to anyone was like lending to Germany, but there was a slightly higher margin in lending to Greece which made it more profitable.

        When it became apparent Germany was not going to pick up the tab, bond yields soared in countries like Greece and sustainable debt became unsustainable.

        The EU moved the banker's bad debts to the taxpayers of Europe and the bankers gamble has been left to run its course, with them being saved from any losses.

        bensdad 13 Jul 2015 09:23

        And there we have it. The EU may be dead in the water, but at least we now have a IVth Reich.

        TimTimpson EloiCasali 13 Jul 2015 09:20

        Greece's hidden economy is about 25% of GDP.
        Germany's 15%
        Britain's around 10%
        USA 7%

        Germans should let the British and Americans run their economy, the tax dodgers!

        http://www.economist.com/node/16792848

        GordonLiddle drdirk 13 Jul 2015 09:18

        I concur. One of my reasons for wanting to be in the EU, apart from peace etc, was that it gave us a level of protection from the right wing Neo-Liberal drift in the UK. The recent treatment of Greece in these negotiations and the coup yesterday has left me scratching my head, particularly as we also have right wing group of fanatics in charge here as well.


        ukchange68 drdirk 13 Jul 2015 09:19

        very, very well said.
        Its not the germans. They are just the convenient target. We all know its the banks behind the governments.
        This greek capitualtion will go down in history as one of those moments that was missed/wasted.
        the orcs are on the march........


        libbyliberal 13 Jul 2015 09:17

        http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/13/whats-the-deal-syriza-the-troika-and-the-future-of-austerity-in-greece/

        Peter Bohmer;

        It is important that the Greek people not be alone in this struggle. In the United States and other countries, we should connect our struggles against austerity at home to solidarity with the Greek people, their social movements and with left political parties who share this politics and practice. The struggle in Greece for an alternative to austerity is so important not only for the Greek people but for all people who want to live in a world where human needs are put at the center of our politics and economics.


        drdirk 13 Jul 2015 09:14

        People, please stop bashing the Germans in general. As a German, I feel very ashamed what the Merkel administration and its allies did to Greece in these "negociations". We should all concentrate on the matter, that democracy has been hijacked by a neoliberal elite of politicians and banks. All over Europe, led by the northern states. They are trying to establish a new form of governing all over Europe. There is no difference whether you live in England, Germany or elsewhere. They want it all and they want it now. Believe me, I know many fellow Germans who strongly feel disgusted by this government, maybe not enough ( the German media has been rediculously supportive of the German finance minister ) . The social democrats are dead. They should just join the Conservatives. If progressive left wing and liberal people don't come up with a new political way for Europe, things will go dark. The orks are already waiting to come out of their holes...

        LouisianaAlba 13 Jul 2015 09:10

        Bad deals are cemented in history and this one looks ready to be cemented. Krugman labels the process leading to it, vindictive. We all want to hope for the best and trust in the abilities of those managing the bad end of this deal in Greece, but I think all their abilities will be tested too much. I put in an earlier comment that magically disappeared from these columns who and what I thought was the beginning of all this. The magic word Versailles has now been brought elsewhere. Read the Varoufakis New Statesman interview..there is no doubt who was in charge of all this.

        http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2015/07/yanis-varoufakis-full-transcript-our-battle-save-greece

        alemontree 13 Jul 2015 09:09

        A typical case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" , especially for Germany. I remember well the times when everybody (including the UK incidentally) was criticizing Germany for lack of leadership. Now Merkel leads and gets criticized for being heavy-handed, Versailles-jackboot-Panzer analogies included. I am not a fan of hers and I don't delude myself that this deal is going to solve Greece's problems for the next decades. However, considering the alternatives, namely a messy Grexit with a humanitarian crisis of biblical proportions, it doesn't warrant all that name calling. Don't forget that Merkel has to sell this deal in Germany as well. Considering public opinion there is staunchly anti-bailout. that's not going to be a lot of fun either. Perhaps we should all pipe down a notch and wait how this plays out before declaring the end of the EU.

        W61212 Alexander2015 13 Jul 2015 09:06

        No, capital debts remain. If Greece left EZ it would at least not be locked into another larger bailout that would like the prior, is impossible to repay. Grexit now and not increase the debt, or stay in EZ, get another bailout and the debt would be unpayable sometime down the line. Bailouts for Greece are carousel, get bailout, can't repay, get another bailout, can't pay - and can't pay because of imposed austerity. Which is why this must stop.


        Isanybodyouthere 13 Jul 2015 09:05

        Interesting, the fledgling Finnish govt which is a coalition of right wing and right of centre groups would have fallen if they had voted to give Greece more concessions. So it's not just Tsipras and Syriza living dangerously. I also have a feeling Finland's EU membership will be severely tested if this coalition is to hold.


        psygone 13 Jul 2015 08:56

        After Greece defaulted on its sovereign debt in 1893, the UK, France, the Austria-Hungarian Empire, the German Empire, the Russian Empire and several Italian independent states created the "International Financial Commission of Control".

        The institution headquartered in Athens with more than 5,000 mostly foreign employes, supervised the public finances of Greece which was imposed by European powers, who had bailed out Greece in autumn of 1897 when the country bankrupted four years earlier.

        The Commission supervised the collection ot taxable incomes from salt, olive oil, matches, playing cards, cigarette papers and Naxos emery, tobacco, stamp duties and the Piraeus customs office's duties.

        The goal was the payment of the country's debts to its creditors.

        However, the institution's official last act was an emergency evacuation on 6 April 1941 as Nazi German and Italian troops entered Athens.

        The "International Financial Commission of Control" did return to Athens in 1945 but with only 12 employees and continued to operate in Greece until 1978 when the 1893 debt was finally "written off" -- 81 years total.


        Lawrie Griffith Casablancaboy 13 Jul 2015 08:54

        Poland is being shored up as a bastion of containment against Russia.
        If Greece was strategically important in this new cold war with Russia it be awash with money and its debts wiped.


        CroppyNotDown W61212 13 Jul 2015 08:53

        Tsipras is too young to know the full extent of German vindictiveness. He is not to be faulted for assuming that he was negotiating with democrats.
        Greece should have sent Manolis Glezos. He has a better gut feel for what he is up against. He has seen it before.


        Γιώργος Πρίμπας Phil Gollin 13 Jul 2015 08:51

        And the truth is that Greece is occupied by Germans conservatives politicians (who will borrow money with 0,0something % rate and will lend the Greeks with at least 2,5% rate) who promise to eat the money from Greeks.

        Thank you for yours help!

        Of course if the German government will want to cut money from social heath it will say: the Greeks! :-)
        so idiots are those who will believe it!


        AnOwl 13 Jul 2015 08:50

        I'll tell you what the demands look like. They look like the demands that Austria-Hungary made of Serbia in July 1914. IN that case, the Austro-Hungarians thought that Serbia would never accept the terms and expected a war. Serbia, of course, did accept them (even though they were widely regarded in European diplomatic circles as a humiliation) and we all ended up going to war anyway.

        Whilst there is little militarism in today's Europe, I can't help but note the similarities in the degree of belligerence. And I agree with Varoufakis that the end result of this will be as significant for th elong-term future of Europe as Westphalia, Versailles or the Treat of Rome.


        Silvertown DJT1Million 13 Jul 2015 08:50

        The EU has behaved totally dishonourably preferring to destroy the economy of a fellow member of the EU to protect the bankers who foolishly had loaned the Greek state billions.

        The Greek people are suffering so the bankers of Frankfurt, Paris Milan, Madrid etc do not have sleepless nights waiting for the 'people's governments' to require the Banks to take a haircut rather than pauperise their citizens.

        [Jul 13, 2015] The Ukrainian state is disintegrating and Washington smiles beatifically, having created another Libya, this time on Russia's doorstep

        Jul 12, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

        marknesop, July 12, 2015 at 10:59 am

        They just love fighting with guns and the thrill of shooting to kill. The front is boring right now, shooting artillery into cities does not have the same gratification. The only way for Ukraine to purge itself of Right Sector is to kill them all. So long as any are left alive they will cling to their guns – which nobody seems to be able to make them give up – and foment armed insurrection.

        The Ukrainian state is disintegrating and Washington smiles beatifically, having created another Libya, this time on Russia's doorstep.

        karl1haushofer , July 12, 2015 at 5:27 am
        "Yarosh hates Avakov even more than he hates the Russians."

        Aren't they both Russians themselves? Yarosh does not even speak Ukrainian and Avakov is a Russian name.

        Pavlo Svolochenko, July 12, 2015 at 5:37 am
        Yarosh, yes. Avakov (Avakian?) is an Armenian from Baku.
        et Al, July 12, 2015 at 4:29 am
        Via Antiwar.com

        Neuters: Kerry doesn't view Russia as existential threat: State Department
        http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/10/us-usa-defense-dunford-state-idUSKCN0PK27120150710

        …"If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I'd have to point to Russia," Dunford said. "And if you look at their behavior, it's nothing short of alarming."

        U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Kerry did not share the assessment, even though Russia's actions in Ukraine posed regional security challenges.

        "The secretary doesn't agree with the assessment that Russia is an existential threat to the United States, nor China, quite frankly," Toner told a regular news briefing when asked about Dunford's remarks.

        "You know, these are major powers with whom we engage and cooperate on a number of issues, despite any disagreements we may have with them," he said. "Certainly we have disagreements with Russia and its activities within the region, but we don't view it as an existential threat."…
        ####

        The problem with ignorant blowhards like Dunford is that if their words are to be taken seriously, then seriously needs to be funded with cold, hard dollars. Resources daarlings. The USA has pinned its flag to the Asia Swivel (aka fk China!) as its fundamental future military posture.

        That is an expensive proposition.

        To then start bivolating (sp?) about Russia means some cash going to contain China would have to go instead to containing Russia, which so far, the USA has been doing on the very cheap by using Ukrainians as willing (or not so) canonfodder and the Europeans paying the economic consequences. To mix a metaphor or three, the US Gorilla shits in an European chinashop and still expects fawning applause for the performance*. Instead, by amping up the rhetoric via NATO and bigging up the Russia threat, the USA is trying to get Europe to pay (new UK budget promises 2% GDP on weapons) for the US' own mess and aggressive anti-Russia policy, squaring the military budget circle if you will. Except, it is not working. Europe as a whole will still not pick up the military tab US wants it to. This is the de facto recognition by Europe that the Russia threat is total bullshit, in total contradiction of all the mass propaganda to the opposite by the pork pie news networks.

        * "It's like a jungle some times it makes me wonder how I keep from going under" – Rapper's Delight

        Warren, July 12, 2015 at 7:50 am

        The Europeans need to free themselves from American yoke, the Americans must have serious leverage on European leaders to explain their servility to the US.

        * "It's like a jungle some times it makes me wonder how I keep from going under"

        That line comes from Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five – The Message

        marknesop, July 12, 2015 at 11:06 am

        All that notwithstanding, Kerry is out of favour and the State Department has the bit in its teeth. It likes the cut of Dunford's jib and his willingness to help imprint brand "Russian Aggression". Kerry's demurrals are not going to mean anything in the great scheme of things, and it is much too late for him to assuage his conscience now for all the lies he told and partisan bullshit he spread. He deserves to ride his doomed state down nearly as much as the rest of his government.

        Jeremn, July 12, 2015 at 5:06 am
        Just looking at who funds the ECFR.
        http://www.ecfr.eu/about/donors
        George Soros is the primary funder, and the European Commission also supplies money. Then there's a whole slew of banks, oil firms and foundations. Interesting reading.
        marknesop, July 12, 2015 at 11:20 am
        It would of course be a generalization, but just about everywhere you find a western agency fomenting revolution and stirring up unrest in the names of freedom and democracy, you will find George Soros's money. It's a wonder Obama has not awarded him the Presidential Gong of Freedom.
        yalensis, July 13, 2015 at 4:01 am
        Do they, or don't they?
        Some people say, that Right Sektor is withdrawing all their battalions from Donbass and moving them West, back towards Kiev.
        Right Sektor denies this, and says, no, all their guys are still in place at the ATO, valiantly fighting the Colorados.

        The Donetsk News Agency says that Right Sektor is withdrawing from the front lines. Quoting DPR Deputy Minister of Defense Eduard Basurin.

        Basurin reports that the Right Sektor guys truly are leaving, thus providing some blessed relief to the people of Donetsk. Resulting in fewer incidents of shelling, etc.

        yalensis, July 13, 2015 at 3:54 am

        Ukry starting to get worried about Trans-Carpthian separatism:

        Rada Deputy Boris Filatov, who belongs to Igor Kolomoisky's party, was outraged when he read some blogposts written by Trans-Carpathians. Who claimed that Trans-Carpathia was unjustly taken away from Slovaks and Hungarians in the 1950's.
        Some of the Rusyns there say they are not Ukrainians, and never have been.

        Filatov was outraged at some of this loose talk on blogs. He retorted on his own blog with the following proposed remedy to these separatist inclinations:

        http://www.politnavigator.net/deputat-verkhovnojj-rady-o-rusinakh-zakarpatya-zhech-padal-kalenym-zhelezom.html

        "Можете почитать, что публично пишут в своих бложиках некоторые местные деятели. Врачи! Жечь падаль каленым железом. Сажать и лишать имущества", - написал Филатов на своей странице в соцсети.

        "You cannot even imagine what some of these local activists are scribbling in their blogs. I would brand these scum with a heated up iron. I would throw them in jail and confiscate their property."

        yalensis:

        Recall that Filatov made similar threats against Crimeans.

        Which just scared them even further into escaping from the tender embraces of Ukrainian nazis.

        I am betting most Rusyns also wish they could opt out of this Ukrainian "prison of nations" and become part of Slovakia or Hungary. Unfortunately, they don't have that option, so they are stuck in this abusive relationship.

        yalensis, July 13, 2015 at 4:13 am

        And what's the plan, once the Right Sektor battalions reach Kiev?

        According to this piece, Right Sektor is organizing a massive meeting on the Maidan this coming Sunday, July 19.

        Right Sektor spokesperson Dmitry Pavlichenko announced the following:

        -He urges everybody to swarm to Kiev on Sunday. The meeting ("veche") will start promptly at noon.

        -The purpose is to form "organs of power" to replace the current government.

        -A priority will be also to form a "people's court".

        Right Sektor has issued ultimatum to Ukrainian government: They want Avakov's head on a platter.

        There is constant picket of around 100 persons around President Poroshenko's office building. The picketers wear insigna for parties such as "OUN", "Freedom or Death", and "Right Sektor". The building is protected by around 30 National Guards troops, and there has been a stand-off up until this point.

        [Jul 13, 2015] Greece Schaeuble's Track

        "...A country in the Euro has no control of its monetary policy. Therefore when Greece had negative real interest rates during the boom time, there was nothing it could do to prevent people borrowing money. When added to a government also borrowing to appease special interests, this can be disastrous."
        "......Tsipras has done a great job at playing the other side of the table off against each other. So much so, it doesn't even have to have been intentional, and it still works out great. He's exposed the entire EU structure as a bag of bones, let alone a naked emperor. "
        "...Who says Germany wants to avoid a Greek debt "crisis"?"
        "...Well, Illargi's analysis agrees with my own. And I agree with him that too many have been influenced by Troika-friendly MSM that has done a fantastic job turning the knife by painting the Greeks as profligate, Syriza as incompetent, and Tsipras as a betrayer. The message: Greeks MUST do whatever the Troika asks and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool or worse."
        "...Greece fiscal sovereignty surrender is demanded by elite European terrorists. But these terrorists wear nice suits. The fourth Reich is showing its fangs a lot more now more now. "
        "...Seems obvious now ( if it wasn't already ) that debt slavery isn't just about asset theft and depredations, it's about smaller nation state surrender to ongoing long term domination by larger states. Since war is currently unacceptable, then financial war is widely accepted by the vast majority of the people in the West, when it West on West wars.
        "...All this " trust" talk is fucking bullshit. So, for the last 5 years that the terrorist troika and EU states knew that Greece couldn't pay off it's fraudulently induced and locally corrupt debt, but kept lending it to them anyway so to steal and impoverish them with near zero real fightback, because they trusted there would be no fightback. Weaken and then conquer is the plan."
        "
        Jul 12, 2015 | M of A

        okie farmer | Jul 12, 2015 12:33:40 PM | 3

        http://www.notesonthenextbust.com/2015/07/a-union-of-deflation-and-unemployment.html

        On Twitter recently, someone posted that anyone who doesn't understand the importance of the difference between a sovereign money supply and a non-sovereign money supply does not understand economics. I wholeheartedly agree with this. And the majority of comments I see on articles about the Greek situation confirms that most people don't understand economics. I don't even know where to begin with criticisms of the idea of a shared currency without shared government.

        There are three main problems:

        Problem 1: It is very easy to get into debt: A country in the Euro has no control of its monetary policy. Therefore when Greece had negative real interest rates during the boom time, there was nothing it could do to prevent people borrowing money. When added to a government also borrowing to appease special interests, this can be disastrous. But Spain had this problem even whilst running government budget surpluses. A country in the Euro has very little control over fiscal policy due to the rules determining how much governments can borrow and save. So even if a government wanted to combat loose monetary policy with correctly tight fiscal policy, it couldn't.

        Problem 2: Once in debt is impossible to get out of debt: There are three main ways a government has historically gotten out of debt. The first is economic growth; a growing economy means that debt to GDP ratios go down as GDP rises. The second is inflation; if a government's debt gets too large it can always resort to the printing press to help it out. The third is outright default.

        Problem 3: After both of these are realized, economic growth becomes very difficult: Governments, chastened by the experience of Greece and knowing that they are effectively borrowing in a foreign currency, can not borrow much more. A sovereign nation would have no problem issuing 150 or 200% debt to GDP. The central bank would support them and they would know that real interest rates could not get too high. Not so a borrower of a foreign currency.

        I think I show three things here:

        • The only policy a country can follow if it wants to avoid debt crisis is to run a current account surplus.
        • This leads to a policy of internal devaluation and deflation.
        • This creates a positive feedback mechanism which leads to a spiral of deflation and unemployment.

        This is true certainly as long as Germany insists on low inflation and trade surpluses but possibly anyway, just by the nature of the riskiness of sovereign borrowing. I would like to hereby offer my humble advice to the leaders in Europe; now is the time to give up on this unworkable idea before it becomes even more of a disaster.


        Noirette | Jul 12, 2015 2:31:16 PM | 5

        > ab initio at 1.

        Finnish + other EU / Euro countries tax payers won't pay for greek debt. (See okie's post as well) but follow along..

        A simple chart from le Figaro in F, 26 June, one of the better ones, top of Goog, comprehensible imho.

        http://tinyurl.com/ona4gls

        It shows the bulk of the debt is lodged at the The EFSF, European Financial Stability Facility, founded May 2010. All decent articles will state the same, or cite the ESM.

        The EFSF is a *Private Company* under *Luxemburg* law. It flogs low-yield bonds. The investors are Central Banks/Gvmts/Sovereign Funds (30%), Banks (40%), Fund managers, Pension funds, and private. 50% in the Euro Area, next Asia (Nomura and Daiwa are bank partners), next UK and Switzerland.

        It is often confused with the ESM - European Stability Mechanism, founded Sept. 2012, an inter-governmental institution under International Law.

        If the ESM is or not an EU institution is hard to say (there *is* text in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - the amendement was specifically designed to exclude the possibility of a referendum) though its scope of action is European (geographical) and its members are all Euro currency countries. Its investors resemble those of the EFSF, bonds are low-yield.

        I could not figure out the relationship between the two (imho the ESM it to take over the EFSF but that hasn't been done yet?), it is all very confused, deliberately so imho.

        Those who will 'pay', i.e. absorb some financial losses - not garnering the 'interest' they counted on (they took that risk), on the face of it, thus, are these bondholders.

        There is a knot (I'm not in finance, so please correct if, this is only from looking things up wiki like) it appears (very unclear, see links) that the members of the ESM (to treat only that for the mo) are at the same time the guarantees for these bonds, they can be forced to stump up to compensate losses. These bonds have a TOPTOP rating, are considered super-safe. Because, I suppose, of that guarantee. See Pension funds buying...

        So in a sense you are right, as the Gvmts. are the end of the line on the hook, but it there is many a slip betwix the cup and the lip, and an Exit of the Euro changes the situation (imho.)

        ESM site

        http://www.esm.europa.eu/index.htm

        :) click to see something you have never seen before on the internet (text 3 lines), the Disclaimer on the ESM site:

        http://www.esm.europa.eu/investors/disclaimer.htm

        an anti-ESM article (see also vid at top in German Eng subs)

        http://tinyurl.com/7fl3po3

        Addendum. The Troika (ECB, IMF, European Commission) decides what program (IMF, ESM, etc., what conditions, reforms, etc.) will be implemented, so far for Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Cyprus, and Greece. These are NOT the creditors, they are the decisionary / supervisory board. They may however also be financially involved (yikes.)

        Confused? So am I. The shame is the real structures are kept under cover, or layered into arcane, obfuscating guff, misdirection. Finns think they have to pay for bouzouki CDs and Retsina for Greeks so they can party while they shiver, argh.


        okie farmer | Jul 12, 2015 3:04:36 PM | 6

        b, Raúl Ilargi Meijer over at Automatic Earth agrees with you:

        http://www.theautomaticearth.com/2015/07/tsipras-invites-schauble-to-fall-into-his-own-sword/

        ...Tsipras has done a great job at playing the other side of the table off against each other. So much so, it doesn't even have to have been intentional, and it still works out great. He's exposed the entire EU structure as a bag of bones, let alone a naked emperor.

        ...Tsipras has known forever that for Greece to stay inside the eurozone was a losing proposition. But he never had the mandate. Well, after Schäuble's antics last night, (Schäuble snapped at Draghi last night: "Do you hold me for a fool?") that mandate has come a lot closer.


        Comrade X | Jul 12, 2015 3:20:55 PM | 8

        Re: okie farmer | Jul 12, 2015 12:33:40 PM | 3:

        "I would like to hereby offer my humble advice to the leaders in Europe; now is the time to give up on this unworkable idea before it becomes even more of a disaster."

        Who says Germany wants to avoid a Greek debt "crisis"?


        paulmeli | Jul 12, 2015 3:25:56 PM | 9

        re okie farmer @ 3

        To add to your spot-on post (if everyone read Bill Mitchell this lack of understanding would change fast), in order for any economy to grow, it's money supply has to grow…spending (GDP) can't be increased (in the real world) without printing more money, because very little of the money we have (savings) ever gets spent. For every dollar someone spends, someone else is saving two. There is no 'circulation' per se without some entity (almost always the government) forcing money through the system.

        The conventional wisdom that 'printing' money (government spending) is harmful or inflationary is so much nonsense yet it seems to have been internalized by 95% of the World's population.

        Without money 'printing' we would all be living like the Amish. I will take inflation over deflation any day. Our last 'liberal' President, Richard Nixon, (in public investment terms) believed the ideal level of inflation was 4% per year…now, we target 2%.

        Greece's money supply is 'draining' away towards it's trading partners…Greece's borrowing is funding them. Good luck to them as they drain one economy after another in the Eurozone. When one player in a poker game ends up with all the money at the table, the game is over.


        Jackrabbit | Jul 12, 2015 4:18:39 PM | 10

        Re: okie farmer | Jul 12, 2015 3:04:36 PM | 6

        Well, Illargi's analysis agrees with my own. And I agree with him that too many have been influenced by Troika-friendly MSM that has done a fantastic job turning the knife by painting the Greeks as profligate, Syriza as incompetent, and Tsipras as a betrayer. The message: Greeks MUST do whatever the Troika asks and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool or worse.

        As I've outlined in Greek posts of the last few days, even those who should know better (like Yves Smith) have fallen in with this mantra.

        Instead, the Greeks held firm to their pro-EU and anti-austerity positions and forced the issue to the EU-wide political level. In the process they have gained powerful friends (US, France, Italy, etc.) and will likely win a much more favorable outcome than if they had quietly succumbed to the Troika in February (Yves preferred course).

        * Debt restructuring is now "on the table" and Europe recognizes that they will have to help if there is any GRexit, instead of making an example of Greece.


        tom | Jul 12, 2015 4:44:22 PM | 11

        Greece fiscal sovereignty surrender is demanded by elite European terrorists. But these terrorists wear nice suits. The fourth Reich is showing its fangs a lot more now more now.

        Because Merkel and other poorly concealed fascists elite in Europe posing as Democrats, they are even more pissed off about weak democratic resistance in Greece where they haven't out right surrendered yet.

        because of that resentment of human independence, she now demands The Greek government handover Greeces fiscal control as part of a worsening debt slavery deal.

        These terror elite freaks a super pissed and want to drive Greece into the fucking dirt as an example, and as punishment for not being willing slaves.


        karlof1 | Jul 12, 2015 5:11:54 PM | 12

        I'd like to take Tsipras fishing, he's so patient in waiting as the Troika finishes building its own scaffold and tying its noose! For almost a month now, the Greeks have had an out--Most of the debt's been determined to be odious and just needs to be officially declared as thus formally. Zip!! There's a massive haircut!! And there's nothing the Troika can do about it except to withhold liquidity for Greek banks. If it does, then Tsipras will trump them by saying so-long to the EU, Eurozone and NATO, while adding insult to injury by refinancing its debt through the other resources offered.


        okie farmer | Jul 12, 2015 5:18:07 PM | 13

        'This is a coup'
        http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-33497309


        Willy2 | Jul 12, 2015 5:27:29 PM | 14

        @13:
        - Interesting proposal: Greece could temporarily leave the Eurozone. Although Greece doesn't have to. They could give each saver a "haircut" of say 30%. That's a devaluation as well.

        I disagree with the cartoon. Circumstances already have taken a turn for the worst. Even WITH or WITHOUT the politicians.


        tom | Jul 12, 2015 5:34:13 PM | 15

        Seems obvious now ( if it wasn't already ) that debt slavery isn't just about asset theft and depredations, it's about smaller nation state surrender to ongoing long term domination by larger states.

        Since war is currently unacceptable, then financial war is widely accpected by the vast majority of the people in the West, when it West on West wars.


        Comrade X | Jul 12, 2015 6:03:52 PM | 16

        To Tom @15: The US degenerated to become the TBTF debtor. Of course it would sink to perpetual asset theft and depredation. The neoliberalized world follows.


        okie farmer | Jul 12, 2015 6:44:45 PM | 18

        TRNN BRICS Development Bank, neoliberal, with a comment on Greece
        https://youtu.be/2imOfILmxzg


        okie farmer | Jul 12, 2015 6:50:39 PM | 19

        Funny or Die, trade Florida for Greece

        https://youtu.be/Ast52VeMvfw


        Laguerre | Jul 12, 2015 7:10:57 PM | 20

        Germany talking heavy. That's not going to go down well. Either you make of the Eurozone a fiscal unity, whereby Germany is forced to help out other areas, as in the US. Or you let them go, and suffer the losses implied in a Greek default.


        tom | Jul 12, 2015 7:44:09 PM | 21

        All this " trust" talk is fucking bullshit. So, for the last 5 years that the terrorist troika and EU states knew that Greece couldn't pay off it's fraudulently induced and locally corrupt debt, but kept lending it to them anyway so to steal and impoverish them with near zero real fightback, because they trusted there would be no fightback.

        Weaken and then conquer is the plan.

        The European Evil elite "trusted" all those years of stealing from Greece and starving their people to death with much resistance, but since the democratic vote, now trust is an issue?!?!?! After 5 years of un-payable debt loaded on with endless amount of more un-payable debt......yeah right.

        It's obvious, but unsaid of course, that the real lack of trust, is a lack of trust of full Greek surrender to their slave masters in the EU. So that "trust" PR bullshit ( which will work on the majority of people in the West ) will be used to try get general support and to force Greece to hand over their economic sovereignty, which is no sovereignty at all, but an attempt at forced surrender to domination-ists.

        [Jul 12, 2015]Rethinking Russia A Conversation With Russia Scholar Stephen F. Cohen

        "..."The demonization of Putin is not a policy. It's an alibi for not having a policy.""
        .
        "...I understood some time ago that USA presidents are very fickle animals, nobody can trust them and nobody is safe of them, they could turn from being a friend to be your enemy overnight"
        Jul 07, 2015 | huffingtonpost.com

        Last week I had the honor of interviewing Stephen F. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies and Politics at NYU and Princeton University, where for many years he was director of its Russian Studies program. Professor Cohen, a long-time friend of Mikhail Gorbachev, is one of the most important Russia scholars in the world and a member of the founding board of directors of the American Committee for East-West Accord, a pro-detente organization that seeks rethinking and public discussion of U.S. policy toward Russia.

        Despite his impressive credentials and intimate knowledge of Russia and its history, you will rarely hear Cohen's voice in the mainstream press. And it is not for a lack of trying; his views, and those of others like him, are simply shut out of the media, which, along with almost every U.S. politician, has decided to vilify Russian and Putin, irrationally equating Putin with such tyrants as Adolf Hitler. As Cohen explains:

        Even Henry Kissinger -- I think it was in March 2014 in the Washington Post -- wrote this line: "The demonization of Putin is not a policy. It's an alibi for not having a policy." And then I wrote in reply to that: That's right, but it's much worse than that, because it's also that the demonization of Putin is an obstacle to thinking rationally, having a rational discourse or debate about American national security. And it's not just this catastrophe in Ukraine and the new Cold War; it's from there to Syria to Afghanistan, to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, to fighting global terrorism. The demonization of Putin excludes a partner in the Kremlin that the U.S. needs, no matter who sits there.

        And Cohen reminds us that, quite contrary to the common, manufactured perception in this country, we have a very willing and capable potential partner in Moscow right now. As Cohen explains, "Bill Clinton said this not too long ago: To the extent that he knew and dealt with Putin directly, he never knew him to say anything that he, Putin, didn't mean, or ever to go back on his word or break a promise he made to Clinton."

        What's more, as Cohen reminds us, when the 9/11 attacks happened, Putin was the very first international leader to offer help to President Bush:

        Putin called George Bush after 9/11 and said, "George, we're with you, whatever we can do," and in fact did more to help the Americans fight a land war in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban from Kabul. ... Russia still had a lot of assets in Afghanistan, including a fighting force called the Northern Alliance. It had probably better intelligence in and about Afghanistan than any country, and it had air-route transport for American forces to fight in Afghanistan. He gave all this -- Putin gave all this -- to the Bush administration. Putin's Kremlin, not a member of NATO, did more to help the American land war and save American lives, therefore, in Afghanistan, than any NATO country.

        However, as Cohen explains, Bush strangely repaid Putin by (1) unilaterally withdrawing from the anti-ballistic (ABM) treaty, the "bedrock" of Russia's national security, and (2) launching the second wave of NATO expansion toward Russia.

        And, as Cohen points out, this was not the only case in which the U.S. quite brazenly betrayed Russia in recent decades. Thus he notes that Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama have all violated the very clear agreement that, in return for Gorbachev's allowing the reunification of Germany, the U.S. would not move NATO one inch further east. In addition, the U.S. undermined then-President Medvedev (who we claim to prefer to Putin) by unseating Gaddafi in Libya -- with disastrous consequences -- despite our promise to Russia that we would do no such thing if Russia agreed to the Security Council resolution approving the no-fly zone over Libya.

        All of this history must be considered when we view the current crisis in Ukraine, which, Cohen warns, is quickly leading to a hot war with Russia. As Cohen relates:

        If you took even the short time frame of the Ukrainian crisis and you began it in November 2013, when the then-elected president of Ukraine, Yanukovych, didn't actually refuse to sign the European Union's offer of a partnership with Europe. He asked for time to think about it. That brought the protesters in the streets. That led to the illegal overthrow of Yanukovych, which, by the way, Poroshenko, the current president, strangely now admits was illegal. ...

        Then comes Putin's annexation or reunification of Crimea, as Russians call it. Then already evolving now in Eastern Ukraine are protests against what's happening in Kiev, because Eastern Ukraine was the electoral base of Yanukovych. Yanukovych was its president in a fundamental way. Then comes the proxy war, with Russia helping the rebel fighters in Eastern Ukraine and the United States and NATO helping the military forces of Kiev. ...

        And so it went, on and on. Now, if you back up and ask who began the aggression, it's my argument -- for which I'm called a "Putin apologist," which I am not -- ... but the reality is that Putin has been mostly reactive. Let me say that again: reactive. If we had the time, I could explain to you why the reportedly benign European Union offer to Kiev in 2013 was not benign at all. No Ukrainian who wanted to survive could have accepted that. And by the way, it had clauses buried below that would've obliged Kiev to adhere to NATO military security policy. ...

        Ukraine had been on Washington's agenda for a very, very long time; it is a matter of public record. It was to that that Putin reacted. It was to the fear that the new government in Kiev, which overthrew the elected government, had NATO backing and its next move would be toward Crimea and the Russian naval base there. ... But he was reacting, and as Kiev began an all-out war against the East, calling it the "anti-terrorist operation," with Washington's blessing. ...

        This was clearly meant to be a war of destruction. ... Meanwhile, NATO began escalating its military presence. In each of these stages, a very close examination will show, as I'm sure historians will when they look back, that Putin has been primarily reactive. Now maybe his reactions have been wrong-headed. Maybe they've been too aggressive. That's something that could be discussed. ...

        But this notion that this is all Putin's aggression, or Russia's aggression, is, if not 100-percent false, let us say, for the sake of being balanced and ecumenical, it's 50-percent false. And if Washington would admit that its narrative is 50-percent false, which means Russia's narrative is 50-percent correct, that's where negotiations begin and succeed.

        I can only hope that the policy makers in this country will hear the voices of people like Professor Cohen and enter into rational negotiations with Russia in order that we may be spared what is shaping up to be a disastrous war in Europe.

        Joseph Skibinsky · Top Commenter · Las Vegas, Nevada

        I understood some time ago that USA presidents are very fickle animals, nobody can trust them and nobody is safe of them, they could turn from being a friend to be your enemy overnight, starting from Bush - father, and those who followed him. For those who don't believe me about Bush-father, I suggest to read Autobiography of Colin Powell who was a member of Bush's staff. And what Pr Cohen tells us about Bush-son confirms what I stated about our Presidents/politicians.
        Those who want to comment on my statement, please, stick to facts. I don't take easily personal attacks and let me assure you, I will respond in kind.

        Samuel Ramani · Contributor at The Huffington Post

        I think that Professor Stephen Cohen is raising a valuable and vital point, that Russia's annexation of Crimea and Ukraine was not just naked aggression. Russia acted impulsively due to a variety of factors: the fear that it would lose great power status if NATO encroached onto its sphere too much, the fear that the Maidan protests could be an inspiration for unrest in Russia, and the concern that a Westward tilt for Ukraine would weaken his Eurasian Union project. Our perceptions of what is rational differ markedly from Russia's as our regimes are different and climate in which decision-making is made is different. Neoliberal_rationality/ is always contextual and the same should apply to Russia.

        To prevent this conflict, an incremental approach would have been best- we should have very clearly delineated that EU association agreement would be strictly economic and not a gateway to immediate NATO membership for Ukraine. Preserving Ukrainian neutrality in security matters, while revitalizing its economy and broken political institutions was the optimal approach. I'm not excusing Russia's conduct by any means or claiming that Russia was right in annexing Crimea, and violating the sovereignty of Ukraine, but at the same time, we have to realize that Russia views this conflict from a very different lens than the West. Russia views NATO expansion in the CIS with the same alarm as we would if Russian missiles and equipment started appearing in Latin American countries with uncomfortable proximity to America. Russia views sovereignty not as the inviolable rights of individual countries but the inviolable integrity of the Russian sphere of influence (the CIS), as a zone that the West cannot enter and intervene.

        Donald Schellberg · Top Commenter · Universidad Tecnológica de Panamá

        It seems like you are leaving the Ukrainian people out of this. I don't think it is between the US and Russia. It is for them to decide. They should allow a referendum in Donbas, free an open with international monitors. The same with Crimea. If the majority of the permanent residents want to remain in Russia, that is fine, if not let them choose. If Crimea does formally become part of Russia under this referendum than Russia should reimburse the Ukrainian government for the businesses, bases and state institutions that were taken over. And Ukraine would guarantee access via Maripol until they finish the bridge. Just my opinion.

        John-Albert Eadie · Top Commenter · Stanford University

        This is late. If you look in adjacent media you will see folks like Stephen Cohen and others are not ignored, but looked to as being experts. WHAT YOU MUST DO IS LOOK TO ALTERNATIVE MEDIA. BECAUSE Time, WSJ, and all else cannot be trusted. Then you would have first seen Stephen Cohen's stuff, and many serious others. Try Facebook first, flimsy as it seems.

        [Jul 12, 2015] Putin, the Greeks, and Academic Spies by Phil Butler

        July 9, 2015 | phillip-butler.com

        ...Switching gears here, that rag of an information portal, The Daily Beast, now jumps on Vladimir Putin again about a supposed "Witch Hunt" for western spies in academia. Excuse me! My research so far indicates Putin should be on a spy hunt. I'll get into that in a more in depth report later, but the CIA and GCHQ, all the embassies and diplomatic corps of America, Britain, Germany, France and the rest, are scurrying about Russia like idiotic Chief Inspector Jacques Clouseau of the Pink Panther films, performing everything from sabotage to corporate espionage. I mean, why wouldn't they be? Mr. Putin's Russia is as easy to mill around in as California these days.

        The latest "Beastly" piece from Newsweek's Moscow agent, Anna Nemtsova, is standard anti-Putin ritual with a Pulitzer Center protege flair for sub-headlines:

        "The Russian president's effort to stamp out Western influences is full of dangerous contradictions for scientists, students, and the future of Russia."

        Meanwhile the level head of Mr. Putin's press adjutant Dmitry Peskov is prevalent again. He was quoted as saying; "I hope things will change at some point. The trend of mixing politics and education is a dangerous one." and I add, "Ain't it the damned truth?" Peskov, the smartest of the lot in my book, cut to the bone with that one. Teachers have no business performing their proper propaganda duties on young minds anywhere, much less in a Russia assailed on every corner. I say; "What, do you think you are dealing with idiots?"

        To round out this latest moron attack of mine, a news media outlet I've worked with four or five years just discontinued overnight an entire blog/contributor community on account of this writer's moderate stance on Russia. How's that for Russian-American agents in the heat of a media war? Oh, and it's not just me. I've got correspondence from dozens, a Forbes writer says he's tired of the "bullying" and pressure to "adhere to the party line", and there's more, a lot more.

        BBC pulling strings and things to alter opinion and polls, Reuters interested in interesting vested interests, Newsweek and Daily Beast authors exuding quantitative and qualitative analysis with no proof? What's a citizen journalist to do amid all this? Nemtsova pulls a professor who was at St. Petersburg State University out of the magic Russophobia hat. A Dr. Dmitry Dubrovsky who does double duty as a human rights activist and Washington think tank plebeian. Fired back in March from the university, the good doctor was Reagan Fascell Democracy Fellow in between Jan 2015 – Jul 2015. That endowment is part of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which is essentially a non-profit arm of the United States government since its institutionalizing.

        The President of the National Endowment for Democracy, Carl Gershman (pictured, second from the left), presents an award to a Tunisian leader of the Arab Spring in November 2011 (Wikipedia)

        Dubrovsky is one of hundreds of "fellows" at Woodrow Wilson Center's Kennan Institute who the US State Department and other foreign policy instruments lean on for at best expert testimony, and at the worst various forms of what I would call "light espionage". Of course I've not the resources (yet) to ascertain Dr. Dubrovsky's role in any "questionable" activities, I'll leave that to the powers in charge in Russia. My point here is the lack of any real proof either journalists, or these supposed inured parties provide.

        I'll tell you this much, if Vladimir Putin did not recognize the internal threat to Russia via academia, I'd question his reputation as a KGB super-brain, or as a Russian leader who cares about his people. In the end we are at war in this world. It is not a world war like the one that ended in 1945, but the breadth and scope are not far off impact wise. The weapons have changed some, tanks and bombs often replaced by sanctions, economic "haircuts", the leveraging of debt onto an already burdened society. In a very real way the big players in this game ignore the rest of us, save to demonstrate to get our professor back, to buck majority systems, or two tweet our the latest White House quasi-victory over an invisible foe who never harmed us.

        Vladimir Putin is hunting down spies, as well he should be. Greece is telling the Brussels puppets to go to hell, as well they should. And I am calling a tiny bit of attention to western operatives, that really should be called attention to before they become too dangerous. Oh my, I fear I am too late. Wait and read my "frustration theory" of destroying good. It's a story about pitting friends against friends, and shutting the mouths of all truth speakers.

        If you think I am too harsh, read Dr. Dubrovsky's "Undesirables" piece from May of this year. Then march over to the Department of Homeland Security to compare legislation and infringements of freedoms in America. My vote is Mr. Putin's government gave fair warning based on Russia's societal requirements. Remember, Moscow is not Washington. For me, warning "agents" that acting contrary to what's good for the people is a more honest method than hiding behind phantom terror. The truth of Russia's "desires" seems easy, while The Daily Beast and Newsweek just contend at it.

        But then, this is an opinion piece.

        [Jul 11, 2015] Varoufakis: Behind Germany's Refusal to Grant Greece Debt Relief

        "...The calling of the referendum was politically brilliant, because it defused the notion of an extremist government standing irrationally against the Troika."
        .
        "...Greece would look to the US for help in vain, given that Obama's representative to the continent is Victoria Nuland, the bearer of color revolutions and the reaping of ancient lands and cultures for profit."
        Jul 11, 2015 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
        "What is at stake is a rather heroic rebellion by a very beleaguered people against a doctrine which has been destroying their lives - the austerity doctrine and the whole neoliberal project. For the rest of us, what is at stake is whether we have the moral courage in the sense of ethical responsibility to stand up to it."

        Jamie Galbraith, Greek Revolt Threatens Entire Neoliberal Project

        It is probably less an issue of ethical responsibility and more an act of self-interest for most. Having come out of the Third World and working into the developed nations, why would anyone assume that Greece would be sufficient for the maw of neoliberal greed.

        The above interview with Galbraith is worth reading. For one thing it contains the seed of the current spin that Tsipras called the referendum in order to lose it, and to somehow save himself and betray the Greeks. And for another you will be able to read what Jamie Galbraith really thinks, the parts that the friends of the financial establishment have carefully excluded from their versions of the story.

        The calling of the referendum was politically brilliant, because it defused the notion of an extremist government standing irrationally against the Troika. This derailed the path towards a scheme to stage a 'color revolution' backed by the oligarchs to take out these mad leftists who were not speaking for the people.

        Remember the economic decision involving Europe which provoked the recent coup d'état in the Ukraine? In that case the government did not have the backing of the people, and it took hold, at least in the Western portions of the country. Wash, rinse, repeat.

        Of course the referendum was famously too close to predict when first called for Syriza, and surprisingly late in the game for most everyone else as you may recall How soon some choose to forget. But it changed the course of events in a dramatic way. As it was it did not help their bargaining position, but as Galbraith relates they did not expect it to be.

        But it put the field of play into better terms if you goal is playing for survival and time. They are knocking down all the rationales and excuses to visit harsh terms on Greece that the Troika and their enablers are using. They are exposing their opponents for what they really are.

        Empires founded on unsustainable foundations are like financial bubbles and Ponzi schemes. They are inherently non-productive and consuming, so they must continue to grow, or choke on their own ideologically driven detritus. Transferring wealth as your major economic policy requires a steady source of new supply.

        Most of the American media has fallen into line with the neoliberal agenda. It might seem surprising, but power has its attraction under corporatism, even for people who would ordinarily consider themselves to be 'liberal.'

        There are concerning things happening in the Western world, and a lack of traction towards individual freedom amongst 'the great democracies,' above and beyond Germany's growing desire to bring their version of order and efficient management of lands and people to the rest of Europe.

        The growing militancy in Japan, and Abe's aggressive pushing aside of constitutional restraints, is undernoted in the West, but of concern to those in Asia.

        Greece would look to the US for help in vain, given that Obama's representative to the continent is Victoria Nuland, the bearer of color revolutions and the reaping of ancient lands and cultures for profit.

        At least in this cycle of the will to power some, including the Pope thank God, are speaking out early, publicly, and strongly against the rising tide of injustice, the senseless abuse of power, and the impulse towards dehumanizing central rule and neo-totalitarianism. Silence is complicity.

        Behind Germany's refusal to grant Greece debt relief

        Posted on July 11, 2015 by yanisv

        Tomorrow's EU Summit will seal Greece's fate in the Eurozone. As these lines are being written, Euclid Tsakalotos, my great friend, comrade and successor as Greece's Finance Ministry is heading for a Eurogroup meeting that will determine whether a last ditch agreement between Greece and our creditors is reached and whether this agreement contains the degree of debt relief that could render the Greek economy viable within the Euro Area.

        Euclid is taking with him a moderate, well-thought out debt restructuring plan that is undoubtedly in the interests both of Greece and its creditors. (Details of it I intend to publish here on Monday, once the dust has settled.) If these modest debt restructuring proposals are turned down, as the German finance minister has foreshadowed, Sunday's EU Summit will be deciding between kicking Greece out of the Eurozone now or keeping it in for a little while longer, in a state of deepening destitution, until it leaves some time in the future.

        The question is: Why is the German finance Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schäuble, resisting a sensible, mild, mutually beneficial debt restructure? The following op-ed just published in today's The Guardian offers my answer. [Please note that the Guardian's title was not of my choosing. Mine read, as above: Behind Germany's refusal to grant Greece debt relief ). Click here for the op-ed or…

        Greece's financial drama has dominated the headlines for five years for one reason: the stubborn refusal of our creditors to offer essential debt relief. Why, against common sense, against the IMF's verdict and against the everyday practices of bankers facing stressed debtors, do they resist a debt restructure? The answer cannot be found in economics because it resides deep in Europe's labyrinthine politics.

        In 2010, the Greek state became insolvent. Two options consistent with continuing membership of the eurozone presented themselves: the sensible one, that any decent banker would recommend – restructuring the debt and reforming the economy; and the toxic option – extending new loans to a bankrupt entity while pretending that it remains solvent.

        Official Europe chose the second option, putting the bailing out of French and German banks exposed to Greek public debt above Greece's socioeconomic viability. A debt restructure would have implied losses for the bankers on their Greek debt holdings.Keen to avoid confessing to parliaments that taxpayers would have to pay again for the banks by means of unsustainable new loans, EU officials presented the Greek state's insolvency as a problem of illiquidity, and justified the "bailout" as a case of "solidarity" with the Greeks.

        To frame the cynical transfer of irretrievable private losses on to the shoulders of taxpayers as an exercise in "tough love", record austerity was imposed on Greece, whose national income, in turn – from which new and old debts had to be repaid – diminished by more than a quarter. It takes the mathematical expertise of a smart eight-year-old to know that this process could not end well.

        Once the sordid operation was complete, Europe had automatically acquired another reason for refusing to discuss debt restructuring: it would now hit the pockets of European citizens! And so increasing doses of austerity were administered while the debt grew larger, forcing creditors to extend more loans in exchange for even more austerity.

        Our government was elected on a mandate to end this doom loop; to demand debt restructuring and an end to crippling austerity. Negotiations have reached their much publicised impasse for a simple reason: our creditors continue to rule out any tangible debt restructuring while insisting that our unpayable debt be repaid "parametrically" by the weakest of Greeks, their children and their grandchildren.

        In my first week as minister for finance I was visited by Jeroen Dijsselbloem, president of the Eurogroup (the eurozone finance ministers), who put a stark choice to me: accept the bailout's "logic" and drop any demands for debt restructuring or your loan agreement will "crash" – the unsaid repercussion being that Greece's banks would be boarded up.

        Five months of negotiations ensued under conditions of monetary asphyxiation and an induced bank-run supervised and administered by the European Central Bank. The writing was on the wall: unless we capitulated, we would soon be facing capital controls, quasi-functioning cash machines, a prolonged bank holiday and, ultimately, Grexit.

        The threat of Grexit has had a brief rollercoaster of a history. In 2010 it put the fear of God in financiers' hearts and minds as their banks were replete with Greek debt. Even in 2012, when Germany's finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, decided that Grexit's costs were a worthwhile "investment" as a way of disciplining France et al, the prospect continued to scare the living daylights out of almost everyone else.

        By the time Syriza won power last January, and as if to confirm our claim that the "bailouts" had nothing to do with rescuing Greece (and everything to do with ringfencing northern Europe), a large majority within the Eurogroup – under the tutelage of Schäuble – had adopted Grexit either as their preferred outcome or weapon of choice against our government.

        Greeks, rightly, shiver at the thought of amputation from monetary union. Exiting a common currency is nothing like severing a peg, as Britain did in 1992, when Norman Lamont famously sang in the shower the morning sterling quit the European exchange rate mechanism (ERM). Alas, Greece does not have a currency whose peg with the euro can be cut. It has the euro – a foreign currency fully administered by a creditor inimical to restructuring our nation's unsustainable debt.

        To exit, we would have to create a new currency from scratch. In occupied Iraq, the introduction of new paper money took almost a year, 20 or so Boeing 747s, the mobilisation of the US military's might, three printing firms and hundreds of trucks. In the absence of such support, Grexit would be the equivalent of announcing a large devaluation more than 18 months in advance: a recipe for liquidating all Greek capital stock and transferring it abroad by any means available.

        With Grexit reinforcing the ECB-induced bank run, our attempts to put debt restructuring back on the negotiating table fell on deaf ears. Time and again we were told that this was a matter for an unspecified future that would follow the "programme's successful completion" – a stupendous Catch-22 since the "programme" could never succeed without a debt restructure.

        This weekend brings the climax of the talks as Euclid Tsakalotos, my successor, strives, again, to put the horse before the cart – to convince a hostile Eurogroup that debt restructuring is a prerequisite of success for reforming Greece, not an ex-post reward for it. Why is this so hard to get across? I see three reasons.

        Europe did not know how to respond to the financial crisis. Should it prepare for an expulsion (Grexit) or a federation?
        One is that institutional inertia is hard to beat. A second, that unsustainable debt gives creditors immense power over debtors – and power, as we know, corrupts even the finest. But it is the third which seems to me more pertinent and, indeed, more interesting.

        The euro is a hybrid of a fixed exchange-rate regime, like the 1980s ERM, or the 1930s gold standard, and a state currency. The former relies on the fear of expulsion to hold together, while state money involves mechanisms for recycling surpluses between member states (for instance, a federal budget, common bonds). The eurozone falls between these stools – it is more than an exchange-rate regime and less than a state.

        And there's the rub. After the crisis of 2008/9, Europe didn't know how to respond. Should it prepare the ground for at least one expulsion (that is, Grexit) to strengthen discipline? Or move to a federation? So far it has done neither, its existentialist angst forever rising. Schäuble is convinced that as things stand, he needs a Grexit to clear the air, one way or another. Suddenly, a permanently unsustainable Greek public debt, without which the risk of Grexit would fade, has acquired a new usefulness for Schauble.

        What do I mean by that? Based on months of negotiation, my conviction is that the German finance minister wants Greece to be pushed out of the single currency to put the fear of God into the French and have them accept his model of a disciplinarian eurozone.

        [Jul 11, 2015]Merkel and the NSA - Analysis

        October 24, 2013 | www.tomroganthinks.com

        Accusations that the NSA has listened in on Chancellor Merkel's conversations are not conducive to positive German-US relations. Interestingly, the fact that the White House is saying that they 'are not' monitoring and 'will not' monitor Merkel, suggests that 'they have' monitored her in the past. To be sure, as I noted yesterday, there are worthwhile reasons behind US intelligence collection operations in Europe. Still, targeting the phone of a close ally (especially a head of state and especially one as friendly as Merkel) is a dangerous gamble. It risks significant blowback in terms of personally alienating a valued American friend. The NSA will have known this. Correspondingly, I assume that Merkel was targeted for a short time and in pursuit of specific information. Perhaps in regards to her position during a conference/financial negotiations (international meetings are a playground for intelligence officers).


        There's another point here; as Marc Ambinder (a top journalist on the NSA) notes, if Merkel was indeed targeted, then why wasn't her position as an intelligence source more highly classified? Ambinder hints at the larger truth. If she was monitored, Merkel was effectively a deep cover source. In that regard, it's truly ridiculous that Snowden was able to gain access to such an operation. He was a contractor, not the Director of the NSA. As I've argued before, the US Government has a serious problem with its protection of its highly classified sources.


        Of course, all of this raises the broader question as to what other information Snowden might have given Greenwald. Does he have agents/officers details? The British certainly think so. Based on what's happening at the moment, we must assume that Greenwald is upping the ante. This may signal how he'll conduct himself at Omidyar's new media endeavor. Ultimately, this is what will most concern the US Government - signal intelligence programs can be reconstructed. Humans cannot.

        [Jul 10, 2015] A dozen foreign NGOs declared unwelcome in Russia Europe

        Looks like Russian authorities started to take the danger of color revolutions more seriously...
        "...On Wednesday, 12 foreign NGOs were placed on a blacklist, reflecting an intensified crackdown in Russia on activities that represent a "threat to constitutional order and national security.""

        Jul 09, 2015 | DW.COM

        A dozen foreign NGOs declared unwelcome in Russia

        The Duma's Federation Council has placed 12 foreign NGOs in Russia on a blacklist and forbidden any activity in the country. The new legislation has placed even tighter restrictions on NGOs in Russia than before.

        The first step was to force domestic non-governmental organizations in Russia to register as "agents." Now Moscow has gone a step further and taken aim at foreign NGOs active in the country. According to freshly passed legislation, cooperation with foreign organizations is punishable by law.

        Since 2012, when the so-called "agent laws" were passed by Russian parliament, all organizations within the country that received foreign aid were forced to register as "foreign agents." On Wednesday, 12 foreign NGOs were placed on a blacklist, reflecting an intensified crackdown in Russia on activities that represent a "threat to constitutional order and national security."

        The list includes seven independent organizations based in the United States, including Freedom House and the National Democratic Institute (NDI). Two Polish organizations, including the East European Democratic Center based in Warsaw, and three Ukrainian organizations, including the Ukrainian World Congress (UWC), are on the list. No German NGOs have been blacklisted.

        The list is the result of consultations between Konstantin Kossatschow, head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Duma's Federation Council, the chief state prosecutor, the Foreign Ministry and the Kremlin's domestic intelligence service.

        "We decided to place these organizations on the blacklist, because they have used all means in an attempt to interfere in Russia's foreign affairs," Kossatschow told Interfax news agency on Thursday.

        Concern and anger

        The organizations implicated took a very different view of the situation. Freedom House immediately called the legislation a grave mistake. "The Russian government has worked tirelessly to limit human rights in the country," Robert Ruby, director of communications at Freedom House, told DW. The NDI said the laws would further contribute to Russia's international isolation.

        Agnieszka Komorowska, chair of Warsaw's East European Democratic Center, called the decision unfathomable.

        "We don't really understand why we have been placed on this blacklist," Komorowska said. "For 15 years, we have worked as an NGO for independent media in Russia. Our objective has always been to help the people who live there - and not any political organizations. Our work has never been directed at anyone in particular."

        NGOs won't give up

        The new legislation has been criticized in Germany, as well. Stefan Liebich, the parliamentary foreign affairs spokesperson for the Left party, reiterated the criticism voiced by the NGOs, saying Russia was further isolating itself on the global stage. Marieluise Beck, the Green's parliamentary spokesperson for eastern European affairs, said the new laws reflected an "increasing repression of Russian civil society in connection with the Kremlin's treatment of its European neighbors." Beck decried Russia's "increasingly harsh handling of those campaigning from abroad for a more democratic, open Russia."

        The foreign NGOs on the blacklist are aware that the new laws have distinguished them as "unwanted organizations" and that any cooperation with them could be seen as a crime. However, they have said this will not stop them. Robert Ruby of Freedom House said Thursday that his organization will continue to support anyone in Russia who is willing to "fight for democracy."

        [Jul 10, 2015] MH17 crash: Russia and separatists deny mounting evidence of involvement

        So propaganda war restarted in preparation for Dutch team report in Novement. This is a notorious guardian presstitute Shawn Walker again... I like how he puts the same weight investigation of weapon manufacturer and blogging team Bellingcat. he does not mention about Ukrainian who testified about SU-25. He does not mention about Spanish dispatcher twits. So regular talking were used.
        Jul 10, 2015 | The Guardian

        The Dutch-led investigation into the crash has proceeded slowly, with a full report not expected until October. The investigators are believed to have concluded that the plane was indeed shot down by a Buk missile. Perhaps in an attempt to pre-empt this, the version of a Ukrainian fighter jet has been ditched by Russian media and a press conference was recently held in Moscow by the manufacturers of Buk systems, Almaz-Antey, in which they claimed investigations showed the plane had been hit by a Buk missile system that only Ukraine possesses. Other investigations, such as by the citizen blogging team Bellingcat, have suggested the Buk came from Russia, and was operated by a Russian military crew.

        [Jul 10, 2015] Unbridled capitalism is the 'dung of the devil', says Pope Francis

        "...He said he supported their efforts to obtain "so elementary and undeniably necessary a right as that of the three "Ls": land, lodging and labour"."
        "...he called the unfettered pursuit of money "the dung of the devil", and said poor countries should not be reduced to being providers of raw material and cheap labour for developed countries. "
        "..."Let us not be afraid to say it: we want change, real change, structural change," the pope said, decrying a system that "has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for social exclusion or the destruction of nature"."
        "...The new colonialism takes on different faces. At times it appears as the anonymous influence of mammon: corporations, loan agencies, certain 'free trade' treaties, and the imposition of measures of 'austerity' which always tighten the belt of workers and the poor"
        "...A lot of us are awaiting the 3rd WW, between Russia and the US, between China and the US, between the West and the East, while the war is on. ... Is it work of Capitalism? I think that capitalism in it's modern form lies near this war, and both are made by the same people."
        "...Still, the subject of my comment was not the predominance of Christians, but how much poverty exists in this predominantly Christian nation. They ignore the most fundamental teachings they profess to believe--the admonitions of Jesus to feed, clothe, and generally help the poor."
        "...There is a reason the US has over 900 bases across the world, and that is to insure its business interests."
        "...An economic system is not a matter of either-or. Those who profit from "Laissez Faire" capitalism like to push the idea that the only alternative is communism. Pope Francis is obviously a proponent of a "mixed economy" as most people in the US on the left are. He is attacking "unbridled capitalism" not an adequately regulated free-market economy."
        "...Animal farm is not about the failure of either Communism or Fascism....it is a commentary on the corruption of power; not a uniquely Communist problem. The machinations of politics also feature quite heavily...divide and rule, propaganda, double standards and the use of language to achieve ones aims...these are abuses of power that both the left and the right have been guilty of. Hitler's Germany was Fascist (right wing extremism), Stalin's Russia was Communist (left wing extremism)..."
        Jul 10, 2015 | The Guardian

        Pope Francis has urged the downtrodden to change the world economic order, denouncing a "new colonialism" by agencies that impose austerity programs and calling for the poor to have the "sacred rights" of labor, lodging and land.

        In one of the longest, most passionate and sweeping speeches of his pontificate, the Argentine-born pope used his visit to Bolivia to ask forgiveness for the sins committed by the Roman Catholic church in its treatment of native Americans during what he called the "so-called conquest of America".

        The pontiff also demanded an immediate end to what he called the "genocide" of Christians taking place in the Middle East and beyond, describing it as a third world war.

        "Today we are dismayed to see how in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world many of our brothers and sisters are persecuted, tortured and killed for their faith in Jesus," Pope Francis said.

        "In this third world war, waged piecemeal, which we are now experiencing, a form of genocide is taking place, and it must end."

        Quoting a fourth century bishop, he called the unfettered pursuit of money "the dung of the devil", and said poor countries should not be reduced to being providers of raw material and cheap labour for developed countries.

        Repeating some of the themes of his landmark encyclical Laudato Si on the environment last month, Francis said time was running out to save the planet from perhaps irreversible harm to the ecosystem.

        Pope Francis shakes hands with a mining worker's leader watched by Bolivia's president Evo Morales, right, in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Photograph: Rodrigo Abd/AP

        Francis made the address in the city of Santa Cruz to participants of the second world meeting of popular movements, an international body that brings together organisations of people on the margins of society, including the poor, the unemployed and peasants who have lost their land. The Vatican hosted the first meeting last year.

        He said he supported their efforts to obtain "so elementary and undeniably necessary a right as that of the three "Ls": land, lodging and labour".

        His speech was preceded by lengthy remarks from the left-wing Bolivian president Evo Morales, who wore a jacket adorned with the face of Argentine revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara. He was executed in Bolivia in 1967 by CIA-backed Bolivian troops.

        "Let us not be afraid to say it: we want change, real change, structural change," the pope said, decrying a system that "has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for social exclusion or the destruction of nature".

        "This system is by now intolerable: farm workers find it intolerable, labourers find it intolerable, communities find it intolerable, peoples find it intolerable. The earth itself – our sister, Mother Earth, as Saint Francis would say – also finds it intolerable," he said in an hour-long speech that was interrupted by applause and cheering dozens of times.

        Since his election in 2013, the first pope from Latin America has often spoken out in defence of the poor and against unbridled capitalism but the speech in Santa Cruz was the most comprehensive to date on the issues he has championed.

        Francis' previous attacks on capitalism have prompted stiff criticism from politicians and commentators in the United States, where he is due to visit in September.

        The pontiff appeared to take a swipe at international monetary organisations such as the IMF and the development aid policies by some developed countries.

        "No actual or established power has the right to deprive peoples of the full exercise of their sovereignty. Whenever they do so, we see the rise of new forms of colonialism which seriously prejudice the possibility of peace and justice," he said.

        "The new colonialism takes on different faces. At times it appears as the anonymous influence of mammon: corporations, loan agencies, certain 'free trade' treaties, and the imposition of measures of 'austerity' which always tighten the belt of workers and the poor," he said.

        Last week, Francis called on European authorities to keep human dignity at the centre of debate for a solution to the economic crisis in Greece.

        He defended labor unions and praised poor people who had formed cooperatives to create jobs where previously "there were only crumbs of an idolatrous economy".

        In one of the sections on colonialism, he said:

        "I say this to you with regret: many grave sins were committed against the native peoples of America in the name of God."

        He added: "I humbly ask forgiveness, not only for the offences of the church herself, but also for crimes committed against the native peoples during the so-called conquest of America.

        "There was sin and an abundant amount of it."

        The audience gave Francis a standing ovation when he put on a yellow miner's hat that was given to him at the end of his speech.

        The pope made his speech at the end of his first full day in Bolivia, where he arrived on Wednesday. On Thursday morning he said a mass for hundreds of thousands of people and said that everyone had a moral duty to help the poor, and that those with means could not wish they would just "go away".

        Francis praised Bolivia's social reforms to spread wealth under Morales. On Friday, he will visit Bolivia's notoriously violent Palmasola prison.

        The pope looked bemused on Wednesday night when Morales handed him one of the more unusual gifts he has received: a sculpted wooden hammer and sickle – the symbol of communism – with a figure of a crucified Christ resting on the hammer.
        Francis leaves on Friday for Paraguay, the last stop on his "homecoming" trip.


        Westonboy 10 Jul 2015 09:01

        The Pope didn't actually say "unbridled capitalism is the dung of the devil" did he?
        So why is that the headline of this piece?


        valeronfreza 10 Jul 2015 08:46

        Actually, I find one of his thoughts really interesting. A lot of us are awaiting the 3rd WW, between Russia and the US, between China and the US, between the West and the East, while the war is on. The whole civilized world takes part in this mess, the thing is that this war looks different from what we're used to see. I mean, we get information, made by those, who wants us to see it different, like something, that happening far away, though it's dangerous as hell.
        Is it work of Capitalism? I think that capitalism in it's modern form lies near this war, and both are made by the same people.


        cblyth79 10 Jul 2015 08:41

        he called the unfettered pursuit of money "the dung of the devil"

        He has hit the nail on the head. This is everything that is wrong with society. Every decision is taken with regards to making as much money as possible. However, the great irony is that even if people do make money, their constant desire for more means they are never happy or fulfilled. Meanwhile, socially and environmentally we suffer greatly due to this ultimately fruitless pursuit of as much money as possible.


        PM782_ -> Greenshoots 10 Jul 2015 08:40

        Generally speaking, you are right of course.

        I have very little time for virgin men in silly hats & dresses, carrying crucifixes and expecting everyone to take them seriously when history shows us they cannot be trusted to act in an ethical way, and will (as always) be more concerned about amassing money and influence than doing any good in the world.

        The whole thing is ludicrous and you should be ashamed that you believe in it. It is really astonishing.

        Greenshoots -> Drew Layton 10 Jul 2015 08:39

        Atheist trope. One could as easily say "Religion compels unreasonable people to do reasonable things".


        Westonboy -> pol098 10 Jul 2015 08:37

        I'm happy to salute the personal contributions you make but, of course, the computer that you will have used to write or test your software is a product of capitalism.
        Also, most of the the goods you recycle or give away are no doubt the products of capitalism.
        Anti-capitalists don't seem to have any alternative method of wealth creation.


        EnglishChapin 10 Jul 2015 08:26

        In the article:

        Quoting a fourth century bishop, he called the unfettered pursuit of money "the dung of the devil"

        In the headline:

        "Unbridled capitalism is the 'dung of the devil', says Pope Francis"


        kycol1 -> natsirtguy 10 Jul 2015 08:24

        As a Unitarian/Universalist I am equally, if not more, wary of that practice. Francis, however, is a public figure who has the right to express his opinion. While he was definitely speaking to a Catholic audience, he was not giving his words the weight of a Papal Encyclical. Also, it is the accepted and expected belief of Catholics that the Pope directs their thinking as far as faith goes. I do not see his words being a act of forcing his will on me, personally. All public figures have the right to express their opinion on that subject. I also believe that regulation should go further than dealing with "negative externalities" unless you view the financial crisis of 2008 as a negative externality . While the causes of the crisis were complex and varied, lax regulatory oversight during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations played a role in creating the conditions for it.

        lesmandalasdeniki -> hollyjadoon 10 Jul 2015 08:13

        Why do you want poor people to rise up? On what sense? Revolution to topple world governments, what's next? What kind of governmental system will we apply to ensure law and order? Will it be one world government by the Vatican?


        GallopingGournmet -> citizen_1111 10 Jul 2015 08:09

        I'm glad you set everyone straight on this. We were all thinking capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. But clearly capitalism involves greed for money, exploitation and environmental destruction. The very fact you've attempted to pick at this shows you're missing the overarching point. The Pope is criticizing how our unregulated "socioeconomic system" - which was capitalism the last time I looked - for being responsible for ruining society, enslaving men and women and destroying human fraternity. All of which is pretty spot on. Excuse me for having to clarify this for you.


        citizen_1111 10 Jul 2015 07:48

        Wouldn't it be great if newspapers like the Guardian printed the truth, rather than spin. The pope did not say that "unbridled capitalism is the dung of devil". Here's the actual paragraph. It's nothing like the Guardian's deceptive headline.

        Today, the scientific community realizes what the poor have long told us: harm, perhaps irreversible harm, is being done to the ecosystem. The earth, entire peoples and individual persons are being brutally punished.

        And behind all this pain, death and destruction there is the stench of what Basil of Caesarea called "the dung of the devil". An unfettered pursuit of money rules.

        The service of the common good is left behind. Once capital becomes an idol and guides people's decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society, it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home.

        So he's actually referring to greed for money - a moral sin .... not capitalism, which is basically meritocratic mechanism of funding businesses.


        HobbesianWorld -> Drew Layton 10 Jul 2015 07:41

        Wrong, it's a predominantly Christian nation. Christians don't own it. Under the Constitution, all beliefs in matters of religion are equal.

        Still, the subject of my comment was not the predominance of Christians, but how much poverty exists in this predominantly Christian nation. They ignore the most fundamental teachings they profess to believe--the admonitions of Jesus to feed, clothe, and generally help the poor.

        Capitalism isn't a sacred arm of Christianity, yet many (most?) Christians tend to favor Wall Street's gluttony and greed while millions of children live in poverty. Is that what we should see in a "Christian" nation? It's the epitome of hypocrisy.


        PM782_ 10 Jul 2015 07:33

        The guy in charge of 1 billion plus devout catholics, with all the riches of the Vatican, preaches to us about how excessive capitalism is a bad thing.

        This pope seems more reasonable than his predecessors however until he actually DOES something that makes the world a better place and in some way makes up for the history of atrocious behavior that the Catholic church has engaged in, I'm simply not interested.

        It is strange though, seeing how many people are hoodwinked by a few choice words, when the organization he represents has been an utter blight on humanity since it began.


        heretoeternity -> natsirtguy 10 Jul 2015 07:32

        There is a reason the US has over 900 bases across the world, and that is to insure its business interests.

        Laurence W 10 Jul 2015 07:18

        Devout capitalists/corporatists may not see the symmetry between John Paul II's defiance of the bankruptcy of unbridled Communism and Francis's defiance of the bankruptcy of unfettered Capitalism. They cling to their irrational faith (and that is what it is) in Adam Smith's "invisible hand." The collapse of Communism does not somehow validate Capitalism. It seems Capitalism's true believers must be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st. Century.


        ideation2020 -> PeterAB12 10 Jul 2015 07:11

        In the West there is a marked reduction in family size since about 1965. There are also far more women at work, the workforce has adapted to almost full attendance of female workers. We generally have accommodated an increase of 70% by reducing family size and equally as important is the accommodation and full attendance of single a and" won't marry" adults.

        SmileyFace2 -> natsirtguy 10 Jul 2015 07:10

        But Capitalism has resulted in a Plutocracy which leads to rule by the top 1%. So it is not quite a simple as you seem to think hence the need for a mixed economy.


        HobbesianWorld 10 Jul 2015 07:08

        While I wouldn't put it that way, the Pope is correct that unfettered capitalism is the major source of injustice, especially the injustice of poverty.

        It's a source of dark humor for me to hear Christians call the U.S. a "Christian nation" even as they fight to maintain and enhance the cause of poverty--unbridled corporatism; profit over humanity, wealth over justice and selfishness over honor.


        Brian Milne -> Kevin Lim 10 Jul 2015 06:59

        How much time have you spent in South America? I spent 18 years going back and forth as part of my job, must admit I have not spoken to a Liberation Theology priest (he was actually a Jesuit originally) since October. So perhaps I am just a little bit out of synch.

        Life paths include being allowed to express one's sexuality openly and not risk excommunication and denunciation by the church, to be allowed to have abortions and use contraception without being told that you will go to Hell, to be allowed to 'formally' leave the church (some countries still require religion on official document) and to follow political streams that the church condemns as unchristian to name but just a few. By using the pressure of condemnation in the afterlife people are to this day controlled by fear.

        Sure nobody is obliged to put money in the dish but too many still fear the stigma of not doing so. If this man can end that then it would be a job well done, but he will not, will he?


        cblyth79 -> Manjush 10 Jul 2015 06:51

        I agree that overpopulation is a problem, but to me the real problem is the capitalist consumerism of first-world countries and the damage this is causing to the planet. Even if the populations of third-world countries doubled they would not get anywhere near the CO2 that we produce. And that's not even to mention the fact that we have caused climate change and they haven't. To blame overpopulation is to out the blame on third-world countries, when it should be squarely on us.


        VivF -> dysro1 10 Jul 2015 06:50

        Animal farm is not about the failure of either Communism or Fascism....it is a commentary on the corruption of power; not a uniquely Communist problem. The machinations of politics also feature quite heavily...divide and rule, propaganda, double standards and the use of language to achieve ones aims...these are abuses of power that both the left and the right have been guilty of. Hitler's Germany was Fascist (right wing extremism), Stalin's Russia was Communist (left wing extremism)...

        "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
        - Lord Acton


        Drew -> Layton 10 Jul 2015 06:48

        Yay! Religion has done something that isn't rape, muder, burning at the stake, ripping people's breasts off, implement, beheading, shooting people on beaches, blowing things up, being homophobic, sexist, racist or generally being a complete twat! Let's all jump up and down and burn a pilot! YAY!


        Kathy -> Foulds 10 Jul 2015 06:42

        We are in very new times....Pope Francis is not afraid to challenge the status quo...Alleluia.


        Tony Menezes 10 Jul 2015 06:24

        The national interest of the unbridled capitalists has sidelined morality and justice. The third world war has started albeit piecemeal.
        This is a strong wake up call from someone that must be listened to.


        Greenshoots -> rgrabman 10 Jul 2015 06:23

        I can only speak for the UK where I have yet to find a Catholic friend who is not immensely supportive of what the Pope has to say, whatever prominent Tory Catholics may have to say. Catholics on the whole tend to vote Labour.

        If you want to see a precursor to what the Pope is now saying, read the Catholic bishops document "The common good" from 1996:
        "As at the end of the 19th century, Catholic Social Teaching is concerned to protect the poor and vulnerable from the chill winds of economic forces. The defeat of Communism should not mean the triumph of unbridled capitalism."

        "The Catholic doctrine of the common good is incompatible with unlimited freemarket, or laissez-faire, capitalism ...".


        Unconstituted -> natsirtguy 10 Jul 2015 06:22

        Massively disagree with that bit about him being a non-scientist etc.

        If skeptics are still unsure after all the science that has been thrown at them, then perhaps they aren't influenced that way. They follow figures that they personally respect.

        And the Pope has a huge following. I am certain that he will have given a lot of people pause for thought recently.

        Like many here, as an atheist, I'm no fan of the guy. But causes like social justice, climate change etc need more than just reams of studies. It needs PR.


        Greenshoots -> clogexpat 10 Jul 2015 06:17

        Which is incorrect because the left is not, and never has been, an identifiable tribe in British politics.
        I agree that many people are not tribal about being left wing. They are willing to partner with people whom they disagree with on some issues but where there is a common cause.
        However, you just have to read many of the posts in this thread to see that, for many other people, it is a form of tribal allegiance because they, in response to the Pope saying something they probably do agree with, they cannot refrain from attacking him on unrelated issues. They are not interested in supporting the common cause.


        Longasyourarm -> MaximTS 10 Jul 2015 06:15

        Well spotted but many here are in it for the opportunity to exercise their demons of hatred, bigotry and racism. Most don't even read the article and jump right to the comments in their haste to slag off Catholics, the Pope, Religion in general. I suppose it is still better than invasion of other countries and stealing their stuff, isn't it Tony?


        domrice 10 Jul 2015 06:13

        Finally, a pontiff brave enough to enunciate the core values of Jesus Christ. Oh that the world had political leaders who weren't shameless slaves to the moneylenders.


        discreto -> SmileyFace2 10 Jul 2015 06:11

        That is because the Free Trade is not Fair Trade, this is what Pope Francis is talking about. Capitalism is Free Trade it is not Fair Trade with the People who work to ensure the Goods are there to trade are not getting what is a Fair and Just Living wage, they are being used by the Corporations who make Millions out of their hard work. I support Pope Francis and his Courage in speaking up for the People in developing Countries who are made to depend on Capitalism against their will. At last he is the Pope who is acknowledging the sins of the Church both past and present, with a strong voice of Apology. It would be good if he could sit down with The First Nations of America to take part in their native Ritual of Smudging from Smoke of burnt Herbs and grasses for forgiveness and Peace. I pray for Pope Francis's Protection.


        kycol1 -> natsirtguy 10 Jul 2015 06:02

        An economic system is not a matter of either-or. Those who profit from "Laissez Faire" capitalism like to push the idea that the only alternative is communism. Pope Francis is obviously a proponent of a "mixed economy" as most people in the US on the left are. He is attacking "unbridled capitalism" not an adequately regulated free-market economy.


        ID1780902 10 Jul 2015 05:55

        Why so many negative comments? Here we have an extremely high profile figure publicly rallying people all over the world to help with climate change, and to oppose some of the excesses of capitalism.

        Regardless of what you think of the Catholic church, many people will listen to what he says, and take it very seriously. If he only changes the mind of a single climate-change denier that would be enough, but I think he will do a lot more than that, particularly in the US.

        [Jul 10, 2015] The video was meant to look fresh and spontaneous, but researchers back in March unrooted the fact that it was produced by a professionals

        yalensis, July 10, 2015 at 4:27 am

        In Saakashvili news:
        Yesterday Saakashvili showed off for President Porky's approval his 2 new assistants: his left-hand man, and his right-hand girl. They will get important jobs at Saak's side, helping him to rule Odessa Province.

        The man (let's get him over with first, so we can concentrate on the girl) is Vladimir Zhmak. He is 51 years old, an Afghan veteran and a businessman. He has no experience in government service which, according to Saakashvili, makes him a perfect candidate for this government position.

        Moving along to Saakashvili's "girl Friday", it's none other than 25-year-old Julia Marushevskaya, who became famous during Maidan when a video clip of her went viral.
        Marushevakaya is of Ukrainian origin (Odessa Province), but spent most of her student years in the U.S., where she attended 2 prestigious American universities: Harvard and Stanford.

        When Maidan happened, Julia became an international media star, with her interviews and video clips about the protests. Her most famous video was entitled: "I am Ukrainian", in which Julia called for people to revolt against the "tyrant" Yanukovych. The video gained around 7 million views worldwide.

        The video was meant to look fresh and spontaneous, but researchers back in March unrooted the fact that it was produced by a professional British photographer named Graham Mitchell, and directed by a professional Hollywood director named Ben Moses .
        In other words, like everything else about Maidan, the video, and Julia herself, were produced in the West.

        [yalensis: and I would bet money that Julia was placed in this position by her American handlers, in order to keep an eye on their erratic Gruzian Gauleiter. Julia may be aware that previous "young things" in Saakashvili's cabinet in Gruzia were expected to sleep with him, as part of the job. Which is why Saak's wife eventually left him. But if Julia is a true CIA pro, then she can keep her natural revulsion down to a manageable level…]

        [Jul 10, 2015] Greece is the latest battleground in the financial elite's war on democracy

        "...And what were the boards, and risk and compliance committees of the lending banks, and the regulators of Germany, France and the EU doing while the banks were lending hand over fist to a country which plainly was over extended?

        Hardly surprising that the number one priority of the ECB, EU, France, and Germany was to bail out their banks, regardless of what happened to the feckless Greeks."
        .
        "...Your point is valid if you believe the drug-pusher has no responsibility for the state of the addict. A sensible economy is one where you keep the banksters on a leash - the free market agenda beloved of the IMF put paid to that."
        .
        "... Monbiot is saying that 21st century neoliberalism is the same as 19th century laissez-faire."
        .
        "...To me, what the Europeans are doing to Greece is so transparent, if one knows a little about the history of other parts of the world. But other parts of the world are periphery, in Europe's view, and they are the center. Now they are treating even parts of the Eurozone as periphery. At some point the center gets smaller and smaller and everything is periphery, the other, out there, those people, and the European identity becomes a black hole rather than a beacon of light."
        .
        "...A very succinct article that hits some of the historical notes that explains how the elites have controlled the masses to their advantage. All the financial laws, regulations that have been put in place such as compound interest, the corporation as a 'person', and the takeover of the IMF and World Bank by US and European elites are geared to keep the wealth in those few hands."
        .
        "...Great article. Particularly nails the canard that right wing IMF policies are "natural", "objective" and "correct." All economics is politics in disguise, especially neo-liberal economics.""
        .
        "...The Greek people did not know that Goldman Sachs had cooked the books to allow them entry into the Euro. They didn't know that Goldman Sachs was betting against them providing the final nail in the coffin of their economy. They didn't know that sub prime mortgages were being re-packaged as mortgage backed securities causing a GLOBAL financial crisis. Only the most informed would have been able to see through their previous governments lies about spending levels. "
        .
        "...Agreed: the IMF is politicised and has operated as a means of enforcing market capitalism on countries which were not in a position to make it work. Agreed: the EU project and the single currency in particular were extremely ambitious projects which in some respects were based on a degree of utopia and some pretty fundamental fallacies. None of which excuses successive Greek governments for being complacently corrupt, economically incompetent and, in Syriza's case, deliberately inflammatory, of course. Not that Greece is entirely alone in this, even within the EU, though as shambles go it takes some beating. "
        "

        The Guardian

        From laissez-faire economics in 18th-century India to neoliberalism in today's Europe the subordination of human welfare to power is a brutal tradition

        Greece may be financially bankrupt, but the troika is politically bankrupt. Those who persecute this nation wield illegitimate, undemocratic powers, powers of the kind now afflicting us all. Consider the International Monetary Fund. The distribution of power here was perfectly stitched up: IMF decisions require an 85% majority, and the US holds 17% of the votes.

        The IMF is controlled by the rich, and governs the poor on their behalf. It's now doing to Greece what it has done to one poor nation after another, from Argentina to Zambia. Its structural adjustment programmes have forced scores of elected governments to dismantle public spending, destroying health, education and all the means by which the wretched of the earth might improve their lives.

        The same programme is imposed regardless of circumstance: every country the IMF colonises must place the control of inflation ahead of other economic objectives; immediately remove barriers to trade and the flow of capital; liberalise its banking system; reduce government spending on everything bar debt repayments; and privatise assets that can be sold to foreign investors.

        Using the threat of its self-fulfilling prophecy (it warns the financial markets that countries that don't submit to its demands are doomed), it has forced governments to abandon progressive policies. Almost single-handedly, it engineered the 1997 Asian financial crisis: by forcing governments to remove capital controls, it opened currencies to attack by financial speculators. Only countries such as Malaysia and China, which refused to cave in, escaped.

        Consider the European Central Bank. Like most other central banks, it enjoys "political independence". This does not mean that it is free from politics, only that it is free from democracy. It is ruled instead by the financial sector, whose interests it is constitutionally obliged to champion through its inflation target of around 2%. Ever mindful of where power lies, it has exceeded this mandate, inflicting deflation and epic unemployment on poorer members of the eurozone.

        The Maastricht treaty, establishing the European Union and the euro, was built on a lethal delusion: a belief that the ECB could provide the only common economic governance that monetary union required. It arose from an extreme version of market fundamentalism: if inflation were kept low, its authors imagined, the magic of the markets would resolve all other social and economic problems, making politics redundant. Those sober, suited, serious people, who now pronounce themselves the only adults in the room, turn out to be demented utopian fantasists, votaries of a fanatical economic cult.

        All this is but a recent chapter in the long tradition of subordinating human welfare to financial power. The brutal austerity imposed on Greece is mild compared with earlier versions. Take the 19th century Irish and Indian famines, both exacerbated (in the second case caused) by the doctrine of laissez-faire, which we now know as market fundamentalism or neoliberalism.

        In Ireland's case, one eighth of the population was killed – one could almost say murdered– in the late 1840s, partly by the British refusal to distribute food, to prohibit the export of grain or provide effective poor relief. Such policies offended the holy doctrine of laissez-faire economics that nothing should stay the market's invisible hand.

        When drought struck India in 1877 and 1878, the British imperial government insisted on exporting record amounts of grain, precipitating a famine that killed millions. The Anti-Charitable Contributions Act of 1877 prohibited "at the pain of imprisonment private relief donations that potentially interfered with the market fixing of grain prices". The only relief permitted was forced work in labour camps, in which less food was provided than to the inmates of Buchenwald. Monthly mortality in these camps in 1877 was equivalent to an annual rate of 94%.

        As Karl Polanyi argued in The Great Transformation, the gold standard – the self-regulating system at the heart of laissez-faire economics – prevented governments in the 19th and early 20th centuries from raising public spending or stimulating employment. It obliged them to keep the majority poor while the rich enjoyed a gilded age. Few means of containing public discontent were available, other than sucking wealth from the colonies and promoting aggressive nationalism. This was one of the factors that contributed to the first world war. The resumption of the gold standard by many nations after the war exacerbated the Great Depression, preventing central banks from increasing the money supply and funding deficits. You might have hoped that European governments would remember the results.

        Today equivalents to the gold standard – inflexible commitments to austerity – abound. In December 2011 the European Council agreed a new fiscal compact, imposing on all members of the eurozone a rule that "government budgets shall be balanced or in surplus". This rule, which had to be transcribed into national law, would "contain an automatic correction mechanism that shall be triggered in the event of deviation." This helps to explain the seigneurial horror with which the troika's unelected technocrats have greeted the resurgence of democracy in Greece. Hadn't they ensured that choice was illegal? Such diktats mean the only possible democratic outcome in Europe is now the collapse of the euro: like it or not, all else is slow-burning tyranny.

        It is hard for those of us on the left to admit, but Margaret Thatcher saved the UK from this despotism. European monetary union, she predicted, would ensure that the poorer countries must not be bailed out, "which would devastate their inefficient economies."

        But only, it seems, for her party to supplant it with a homegrown tyranny. George Osborne's proposed legal commitment to a budgetary surplus exceeds that of the eurozone rule. Labour's promised budget responsibility lock, though milder, had a similar intent. In all cases governments deny themselves the possibility of change. In other words, they pledge to thwart democracy. So it has been for the past two centuries, with the exception of the 30-year Keynesian respite.

        The crushing of political choice is not a side-effect of this utopian belief system but a necessary component. Neoliberalism is inherently incompatible with democracy, as people will always rebel against the austerity and fiscal tyranny it prescribes. Something has to give, and it must be the people. This is the true road to serfdom: disinventing democracy on behalf of the elite.

        • Twitter: @georgemonbiot. A fully referenced version of this article can be found at Monbiot.com

        SaguaroRex 9 Jul 2015 22:30

        It really is a religion. It's fun sometimes to imagine certain twinings-- compare and contrast. So one day I was sitting around thinking: US...and IS... what do they have in common?

        Well,

        1) they both pursue really totalitarian ideologies with every conviction of the religious fanatic.

        2) Meaning they will subordinate their very humanity to the propagation, nay: perfection! of this brand of 'Utopianism'.

        3)They each of them want to completely wipe something out and feel they must do so in order for their Creed to survive. The IS wants to destroy the Past ...as is evidenced by their historical monuments destructions. But the US, they want to destroy the Future... Or, specifically: any future where they are not practicing their own very self-interested brand of money-power religion and are not on top of the world lording it over everyone else.

        Both of these visions are so deranged as to be impossible to achieve, but like any ardent Totalitarians-- they will damn sure try and over the dead bodies Of Others, regardless of how many or how much suffering need be inflicted to serve their 'God'...

        Remco van Santen 9 Jul 2015 21:36

        Conspiracist twaddle to argue the problem is external. Greece was corruptly managed for decades with the less wealthy bearing the burden disguised by an on-going devaluation of the drachma that devalued seven-fold in the two decades to joining the euro (http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/fedstl/exgrus).

        The Europeans were naïve to expect the internal corruption to cease and the fixed exchange rate, presented by the adopted euro, simply brought it out to the surface. Greece is the home of democracy, but it is also became the home of those saying we might all be equal, but some are more entitled than others. Adopting the euro exposed the rot and so this is an opportunity for Greece to get its own house in order.

        The Eurozone might like to think of helping the more vulnerable like the pensioners are protected and not used by the Greek government for grandstanding. Greece, the sheep, is parasite-infested and to be held just long enough under the sheep-dip pesticide to kill the parasites but not too long to kill the sheep.

        Go Tsipras, show you are a leader of a true democracy.

        motram 9 Jul 2015 20:50

        Looks like the Tsyriza government has surrendered to Eurozone and IMF austerity demand. The game is over. The Rothsyz and the bilderbergys have carried the day in the end.

        zolotoy -> peeptalk 9 Jul 2015 20:38

        Only the little people pay taxes, as Mrs. Helmsley so trenchantly observed. That holds for all countries, not just Greece.

        Allykate mikebain 9 Jul 2015 17:38

        Interesting comment Mike Bain, thank you. Only a couple of points the "hoi polloi" are the lower classes not the elite (a common error!) and I dispute the notion that all humans are exploiters and takers. History proves otherwise. The early banks and building societies in England were created by non-conformists, Unitarians and Quakers etc, who did not spend their wealth on themselves but lived sparingly, ploughed their money back into their businesses, and ultimately achieved amazing reforms for the ordinary people here. If the rich, modern Greeks had the same selfless Christian philosophy, the corrupt tax system and greedy loans may not have destroyed their economy.

        Allykate 9 Jul 2015 17:20

        The "true road to serfdom" or revolution. Don't blame me..... I made speeches in support of the Referendum Party to oppose the signing of The Maastricht Treaty. John Major just would not listen to the people.


        Boghaunter mikebain 9 Jul 2015 17:00

        Governments are not the people. Germans were not Hitler. He was elected but then assumed dictatorial power. Look at the US - our government is made up of politicians bought by the 0.1%. The 0.1% do a great job controlling what the average American is told.

        As for Germany reaping the benefit of no military, we'd be A LOT better off if we made the choice to invest in our country instead of in our ridiculously large military budget. We could choose that benefit. General Butler famously said, "War is a racket," and he was right.

        The Marshall Plan was enlightened self interest as the US feared the spread of communism in devastated Europe. The UK received the most $. It also was disbursed with tight control over German politics/administration/economy and required dismantling of much of Germany's remaining industry. It was not a simple handout.


        NYbill13 9 Jul 2015 15:45

        Why Did They Lend Mega-Billions to Greece?

        I still can't figure out what 'Greece' needed so badly that a handful of men who ran its government a decade ago took on these loans.

        Was the money invested in public infrastructure? Does Greece now have a fabulous highway, airport and rail systems?

        Did the previous Greek government ('conservative,' perhaps?) build a dozen new public hospitals, renovate the nation's schools or build networks of water and sewer treatment plants or desalination stations?

        If so, then the Greek people may indeed owe a great debt to European financiers.

        If not, who spent all this money and on what? Did those who signed the loan agreements receive any sort of commission for doing so?

        Do those signatories now work for the IMF or perhaps Deutsche Bank?

        All the press says is 'the Greeks' owe the Germans a ton of money. After 11,789 headlines and articles, I definitely understand that much.

        After that, it's just pompous quotes and dire speculation about the future of the damn euro.

        How about some background information, fellas? I'll bet you could even find out who signed the loan papers on both sides and talk to them.

        Oh, but that would take, you know, research.


        syenka CaptainGrey 9 Jul 2015 14:22

        The point cap'n, is that the money isn't actually going to the Greeks. It's going to Greece's creditors (the ECB et al) who made incredibly irresponsible loans to a tiny slice of the Greek population. That irresponsibility should NOT be rewarded. The way out, of course -- oh horrors! -- is to just let the creditors take a bath, i.e. wipe the debt off the books. Then, put some money into the pockets of regular Greeks who will, of course, proceed to spend it and thereby relaunch the economy. Would you or I or any European be hurt by such a move? If your answer is yes, tell us how. And, the suffering of millions of Greeks would come to an end.


        alpine1994 CaptainGrey 9 Jul 2015 13:22

        It's true, the Greek government took the money. We all know about the Legarde List and the rampant corruption of the previous government administrations. They've all got off scot free and instead it's the Greek people who suffer through aggressive austerity. One might be so callous to blame them too, but if the government decreed citizens could retire young with a fat pension, most people would excitedly take up the offer. If the EU had any balls, it would authorize INTERPOL or what ever agency to crack down on corrupt current and former Greek politicians and other financial criminals to help recover money to satiate the debt. These fat cats get away with sinking whole countries!


        CollisColumbulus Patrick Moore 9 Jul 2015 09:43

        The greatest landholders in Ireland were almost to a man absentees, living in comfortable houses in Britain with wealth extracted from Irish peasants by their middlemen. Furthermore, they were alien in religion, often language, and nationality (the landholders may have considered themselves Irish - in some cases - by they were certainly 'British' in identity also, which cannot be said of the mass of the population) from the peasantry who provided their wealth. The ethno-religious land settlement in Ireland and the stranglehold on the Irish peasantry that resulted were the direct result of British policy in Ireland from the sixteenth and especially the seventeenth century onward and were maintained by the power of the British military. While the situation is too often reduced to 'Irish good, English bad' - note the heroic relief efforts of many private British individuals, especially the Quakers - it is impossible to excuse the British state from a large dose of culpability for the Famine without resorting to historical dishonesty of the highest level.


        Giannis Kalogeropoulos athenajoseph 9 Jul 2015 09:40

        you are not well informed. please read http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2015/07/07/five-reasons-greeks-were-right/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectoral_balances

        and remember: "the ones who have no knowledge, should not express opinion" Plato 460bc

        CollisColumbulus -> Patrick Moore 9 Jul 2015 09:37

        "The potato famine was a tragedy, but it is a little reported fact that the only crop that was blighted. During the time of the famine Ireland was an exporter of meat and grain. There was no shortage of food in Ireland - but there was a shortage of potatoes, which was the staple of the poor".

        I am astonished that you use this to argue against British culpability in the Irish famine. The actions of the British state and Anglo-Irish colonial landholding society both created the conditions of dreadful rural poverty (and potato dependency) that were a sine qua non of the Famine and directly exacerbated the situation through their adherence to laissez-faire economics. It might be noted that many starving Irish farm labourer families emigrated to Britain to enter the workhouses there, rather than the workhouses in Ireland, because they knew the poor would not be allowed to starve to death in Britain.

        Giannis Kalogeropoulos -> athenajoseph 9 Jul 2015 09:33

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-to-GDP_ratio see that map. Debt for countries is not like debt for people ... get informed before you blame ....


        nottrue -> CitizenCarrier 9 Jul 2015 08:45

        Something brought down Greece.

        Its called the GFC. To refresh your memory financial institutions had manufactured schemes that made them lots of money from money that did not exist. When they eventually got caught out the tower of cards collapsed and the world was left short of cash and economies everywhere shrank. The financial institutions that caused the problem were bailed out by taxpayers because they were too big to fail. This meant that a few thousand very wealthy kept there wealth and the institutions could continue to play their game and make more money. The next collapse is not far away. The Greek loans (and other bad and risky loans) were bought by the taxpayer as part of their bail out package. It is shameful that governments refuse a similar bailout deal to the Greeks which involves the misery of millions of people. It is even sicker that the condition they imposed have been known and shown repeated not to work since the 1930 depression.


        mikebain 9 Jul 2015 08:30

        A great essay with a sad but true take-away point-humans are exploiters, takers. Humans can see no other way forward than to take from the weak - it's the easiest thing to do. Wealth must be protected at all costs. History is replete and is an unyielding witness to human exploitation of anything exploitable, especially the defenseless.

        There is one exception to this-the aftermath of WWII. It is interesting that Germany never repaid its WWII debits (or those from WWI) and was the beneficiary of the Marshall Plan and U.S. military protection during the Cold War. So as Germany had no real debt-after murdering millions-and did not have the expense of maintaining a military, it was able to focus on growing it's economy at the cost of the U.S. taxpayer, some who had family members killed by Germans in WWII.

        Of course this does not enter into the reporting of the credit crisis in Greece, where Germany is demanding austerity.

        And so it goes: money talks, hoi polloi walks. True democracy will always be threatened by the human exploiters, the takers of this world, many who we call "Leaders"-and unfortunately they are legion and reborn on our planet every second; entering life with a mind fully open to and waiting to be filled with Free Market, Libertarian hubris, avarice, and the right to self-righteous exploitation of any and everything.

        Michael Bain
        Glorieta, New Mexico


        Celtiberico 9 Jul 2015 08:27

        the gold standard – the self-regulating system at the heart of laissez-faire economics – prevented governments in the 19th and early 20th centuries from raising public spending or stimulating employment. It obliged them to keep the majority poor while the rich enjoyed a gilded age. Few means of containing public discontent were available, other than sucking wealth from the colonies and promoting aggressive nationalism. This was one of the factors that contributed to the first world war. The resumption of the gold standard by many nations after the war exacerbated the Great Depression, preventing central banks from increasing the money supply and funding deficits. You might have hoped that European governments would remember the results.

        The worrying part is that a repeat performance today would quite possibly result in the destruction of human civilisation, or even life on earth.


        Cecelia O'brien 9 Jul 2015 05:22

        there may be a few errors here but fundamentally this article is spot on! Good for you!

        I'd add though we let this happen - we too were greedy and the managerial middle class stood by as the unions were destroyed - we all took this 15% returns on dicey investments and did not question how such high rates could be possible - we celebrated globalism while and we supported elected officials who promised us deregulation was going to bring more prosperity.

        Take your government back while you can.


        JimGC athenajoseph 9 Jul 2015 04:58

        And what were the boards, and risk and compliance committees of the lending banks, and the regulators of Germany, France and the EU doing while the banks were lending hand over fist to a country which plainly was over extended?

        Hardly surprising that the number one priority of the ECB, EU, France, and Germany was to bail out their banks, regardless of what happened to the feckless Greeks.


        Cafael Skeffo 9 Jul 2015 04:34

        Appeal to authority.

        Capitalism destroyed feudalism? No, historical cataclysms and technological advances destroyed feudalism, but after a period of flux which you call capitalism, power and wealth is again concentrated at the top and new aristocracies emerge who move to guard their position and make it permanent; we are seeing this now with the increase in inequality and the end of post-industrial revolution/post-war social mobility in Western nations.

        And you appear to subscribe to survival of the fittest approach of the extreme right wing: 'destroying the inefficient'. Heard that before.


        Skeffo Cafael 9 Jul 2015 03:51

        Your thinking so extraordinarily confused that it almost impossible to confront all the contradictions and inanities. You really need to do some philosophy courses, and focus on logic please.

        Then start to learn some economic history: capitalism does not lead to feudalism, it destroyed feudalism. (I mean, even a simple time line could help you there.)

        Capitalism, through its creative destruction, is continuous revolution. Try to get your head around it. It may take a few decades, or even the rest of your life, but you will understand if you work at it seriously.

        ThanksNeolibZombies athenajoseph 9 Jul 2015 03:48

        "Has Monbiot lost it?" No, his article looks spot on to me. Forcing a country to adopt austerity / structural adjustement policies that have a long, proven track record of causing economic devastation everywhere they have been tried is a form of persecution...and of course these policies have caused economic devastation in Greece.

        "Why should [Greece] be allowed to walk away from a debt of its own making?"
        (Sigh.) I got tired of hearing this in the 1980s and 90s and the 2000s, the same argument was used to justify beating African economies to a pulp.

        Interesting that the rich people who made trillions out of throwing us all into unsustainable debt in the decades leading up to the financial crash have been bailed out and have been "allowed to walk away" with trillions of pounds, leaving us with the bill. It's one rule for the rich and another rule for everyone else, so Greeks have to suffer big cuts in living standards.

        Debt is a big stick with which the rich continually beat the poor, and it's always the fault of the poor for some reason.


        Benjamin Raivid Giannis Kalogeropoulos 9 Jul 2015 03:45

        You don't need to be 'bailed out' - the money you own is fake - made from thin air by banks who never had the money, but were allowed to metamorphosis it (i.e. just type the numbers they wanted, but didn't have) onto a screen. This fake money is then charged at interest. The audacity! It's 'legalised' counterfeiting and totally corrupt. Why should anyone have to pay back fake money, let alone at interest?

        The EU waged war against the Greeks - calling them lazy and saying they are in debt because they don't pay their taxes (lol! Forget about being insulted, it reveals a total ignorance of the nature of taxes: even buying clothes at a store, or fuel from a petrol station is taxed! We are always paying taxes!). Brits seriously believe that Greeks are in debt because they don't pay taxes....(while, of course, Britain itself is great at paying taxes, just ask Vodafone and Amazon and Boots and Specsavers...)

        Forget the bailout; do an Iceland. Or use the resources you have, land, fields, food - the basic necessities of life, and live.


        merlin2 pdre 9 Jul 2015 03:05

        Agree with others here. The vast majority of the money (240B or so) went to servicing the debt owed to German banks, laundered through the ECB agent). Another 40B went to Greek banks to stave off bankruptcy and most of the rest was spent (by necessity and EU dictats) on various private/public equities and entities. Much less than 10% of the original actually went towards internal social programs, infrastructure and/or any stimulus activities that could help the country actually regrow its economy.

        With no funds for growth and a substantial reduction in tax receipts and economic activities due to mandated austerity, a catch 22 was created as sure as night follows day. This result is so obvious that one is left wondering - could the EU financial elitocrats be that clueless or did they know and caused the Greek collapse deliberately? I see no other possibility. Not when every economist worth their salt, from Krugman to de Long to Piketty and just about everyone (even a few Austrians!) saw ihe crisi coming from miles away and issued warnings by the bushel for some time now.

        That leaves a major question unanswered - if the economic wizards of Europe are not entirely incompetent/clueless - what does the alternative mean? if they knew what's going to happen, and let it roll, what purpose did/does it serve?

        athenajoseph 9 Jul 2015 02:46

        Has Monbiot lost it? Those who persecute Greece he says....

        Greece has been incompetent, corrupt and profligate and now owes more than it can pay. Why should it be allowed to walk away from a debt of its own making?

        An individual cannot. Did the Greek economists not read the fine print? Why did they not act when the debt got to $100billion? Why wait until you have added another $270billion?

        Sure the EU has played a part but the biggest part was played by Greece. The sooner it is out of the EU the better.


        athenajoseph 9 Jul 2015 02:44

        One may well argue that there were flaws in the EU from the beginning, however, as an exercise and experiment, sourced in a deep desire to unite Europe and perhaps avoid a third disastrous war, it is to be commended and has offered much of value.

        Given the Greek propensity for corruption and default it was perhaps singularly unwise for the EU to ever admit Greece into their ranks. However, what was done is done. The Greeks may well be better off outside of the EU or at least back to the drachma, but anyone who thinks that there will be anything 'better' without Greece dealing with its endemic corruption and incompetence is deluded.

        You can lay perhaps 30% of the blame for this situation at the door of the EU and banks but the rest is surely on the shoulders of Greece.

        The Greek Government should have acted when the debt got to $100billion. It did not. It did not when it got to $200billion or $300billion and it now sits at $370billion. And that is supposed to be someone else's fault??

        Tsipras has been playing childish games. Calling a referendum and then encouraging a no vote, which he got, and then sacrificing his finance minister in the name of it, as was correct given his appalling use of the term 'terrorism' applied to the EU, and then returning supposedly to negotiate with the EU with nothing concrete in his hands.

        The manipulative, cavalier, incompetent, childish and corrupt behaviour of the Greeks should have them thrown out and the sooner, the better. Let them create their utopia themselves and put their money where their very large mouth is.

        http://www.vanityfair.com/.../10/greeks-bearing-bonds-201010


        ID7678903 Giannis Kalogeropoulos 9 Jul 2015 02:13

        A great description of their actions and the pain they cause. The reason they cut the army is to ensure there could not be a popular uprising that it would support . Also a large number of Greeks have done their military service. A popular uprising led by such a knowledgeable group would preserve democracy and they don't want that.


        AnonForNowThanks corstopitum 8 Jul 2015 23:25

        But WHO really got the "haircut?"

        Who got the commissions? Who set up the insurance products? Who is actually holding the note, and what stream of income did they expect to get and what are they getting instead?

        I don't think you understand modern "risk shifting," or how much money is made on such deals, and I don't think that anyone does, frankly.

        But like Socrates, at least I realize that I don't know -- because these are not regulated markets, their actions are hidden from scrutiny yet have massive, global ramifications, and all we have been fed are ridiculous, home-spun metaphors designed to stoke mindless rage. I'm sorry, but you've fallen for it.


        AnonForNowThanks BeastNeedsMoreTorque 8 Jul 2015 23:13

        As John Lanchester pointed out in IOU: Why Everyone Owes Everyone and No One Can Pay, there were a lot of things that "could" be done when the US and its sphere of influence had to "compete" with the Soviets in a "beauty contest."

        Thanks to Sputnik, little American children learned physical science and calculus in public schools, thanks to the Cuban system of medicine the elderly got Medicare, thanks to the Red Army Germany got debts forgiven, and thanks to the whole lot of them major appliances ran trouble-free for 20 years.

        Don't dismiss it. Read what he has to say.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/books/06book.html?_r=0

        In any event, that was then. This is now.


        AnonForNowThanks iOpenerLo114Lat51 8 Jul 2015 22:52

        So you believe investment bankers have to be FORCED to set up bond auctions that will result in commissions so large that they and their children and their children's children will be set up for life?

        They were screaming, "no, NO!" and trying to push the money back out of their pockets, but they were forced.

        In the case of Greece, the bonds were engineered by a right-wing government acting in collusion with Goldman Sachs. And there will be complete idiots who will believe your tale, that the "leftists" forced loans to be made to Greece.

        The sad part is that although you do have to count on mass idiocy, a two-minute memory and an even shorter attention span, you can.


        Giannis Kalogeropoulos 8 Jul 2015 22:44

        if they only could give us some time to breath ... Greece from 1994 till 2008 have pay for loans 540 billions and everything was fine to the country and the loaners. we can pay 320 billion we owe now (that was 190bn before EU run to "save" us) but they don't want to get the money! they have made a trap! they turn the Goldman Sachs loans to EU loans, so ordinary EU people will have to pay it! why? ask your governments ... who did it! (so it seems we are not the only ones with corrupted governments) ... then, they come to tell us how to run the country (and sell all the valuable to German France etc. private companies for a penny ) ... HOW WOLD YOU FEEL, if you get a loan to buy a house and someone from the bank comes every day to your house, to tell you what to eat, how to dress, how to use water and electricity ... to don't pay to educate your kids, to sell your favorite leather chair, so he can make sure he will get his money back???? and all that, while you were paying the debt on time!!!!!!!! how would you feel??? ... that's how we feel ... they did it to us, they will try it on you all too, sooner or later ... its harvest time and banks don't know what is civil rights or democracy. they need assets, houses cars gold land for to turn their worthless paper in to real value!!!! keep in mind that in Greece at 1998 it was discovered one of the biggest oil reserves in Europe .... coincidence that after that Goldman sachs "bomb" us with loans???? think again. ordinary people are in danger of loosing our freedom today in Europe from banks who we owe some paper they type and tell us it has value ... but it cost to them, some ink and paper ... Greek referendum scared them. they are afraid of little people come together and form groups of common interests. cause that gives us power. we have power to change our faith, as we Greeks are trying to do. we stopped them from stealing the valuable of our country and to drink our blood just by choosing the right government and say no to fear! they try to scare us by saying we become Zimbabwe (no offence to that country) that we die from hunger with out money, they close our banks, they said we ll become fail state etc. still we vote no! one and only reason. ENOUGHT IS ENOUGHT and when someone feed a desperate man to the wolfs, he will return leading the wolfs!!! I think banks will not stop so we must all be suspicious and supportive to each other. together we won the Huns, we won the Turks, we won the Nazis, we won dark ages, we can win banks ... we want and we will pay back every penny of what we owe (even if its with tricky interests) as we always did. but they have to let us to do so. how on earth, they make us to close our factories and productive companies and they expect us to pay back?? they ask to double costs on touristic businesses. but if so Greece will become expensive for tourists and they will go elsewhere! tourist industry produces 7% of Greek economy!!!! hmmm wait! German companies last 10 years have bought great deal of hotels in turkey!!!! ... and they say they want to save us... 5 years they did the worst they could to save us and the best they could for to buy all the valuable assets here. so that is what its all about ... fortunately we have a strong army (one of the best trained in world, and that because we have near war events with turkey all time around), cause else they will threaten us even with army force. how accidental that 5 years now, they cut 60% of money for the army, and they want to cut even more ... Germany France and others last 20 years sold us weapons worth over 90bn euro. now they say we have very big army. but we don't have neighbors Luxemburg or Belgium! we have aggressors like turkey (2 biggest army in NATO), Syria's crisis Libya Albania's uck etc. why now they discover that we have to cut 50% of our army??? they used it to all crisis but now is a danger ... also because we are the last neighboring battle grounds like Syria etc we receive refugees and emigrants from all poor countries. estimates say they are now over 30% of Greek population!!!! over 3million!!! EU offers advise their respect but nothing else!!!

        WE HAVE CRISIS! we have 1,5 million unemployed! how can we feed the poor emigrants who want to go to England Germany France etc and we are forced by EU rools to keep them here??? why EU acts like nothing is wrong? ... I hope you are wiser now about what is happening to a small but proud country called Greece, last borders of EU with the "dangerous" out world ...


        Naseer Ahmad 8 Jul 2015 20:40

        The Bengal famines were engineered by the East India Company http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/04/east-india-company-original-corporate-raiders

        Tsipras should tell the latter day East India Companies to take a hike. Sadly, I think he'll back down because socialists are just as bound by economic orthodoxy as Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus and their descendants.

        As Alfred Marshall argued, "man should be equally important as money, services are as important as goods, and that there must be an emphasis on human welfare, instead of just wealth".


        LostintheUS 8 Jul 2015 19:49

        Excellent essay. Hear, hear!

        I was just reading exactly this last night, that the famine was caused "partly by the British refusal to distribute food, to prohibit the export of grain" in the "Chronicles of the Macedonian". A ship that was the second ship captured by the American navy during the War of 1812. In the 1840s, the "Macedonian" was borrowed by a private citizen/sea captain to take food to Ireland. He made the observation that none of the other crops had failed and that people were starving by the hundreds of thousands because the British government would not distribute these other crops that had been extremely successful.


        seaspan 8 Jul 2015 19:47

        Predatory international finance is killing capitalism. Where austerity simply means shrinking the private economy and making more and more working age people to be dependent on government, but receiving less and less money driving them to poverty and penury, which kills capitalism even more. This will surely lead to socialism (massive govt intervention and investment) or fascism (economic slavery under authoritarian rule).


        Rozina DavidRees 8 Jul 2015 19:45

        Unfortunately, people didn't like the results of communism and it depended in the assumption that humans like sharing and aren't greedy. We don't and we are.

        That last sentence itself could also be an assumption. How much of the self-interest and greed, that we are taught is innate, is actually inculcated into us by culture and becomes ingrained habit hard to overcome and easy to indulge in an environment where we are constantly pushed to acquire more possessions and pile up more debt?

        There are other alternatives to capitalism and communism: you could try investigating social credit as one alternative.

        According to Douglas, the true purpose of production is consumption, and production must serve the genuine, freely expressed interests of consumers. In order to accomplish this objective, he believed that each citizen should have a beneficial, not direct, inheritance in the communal capital conferred by complete access to consumer goods assured by the National Dividend and Compensated Price.[6] Douglas thought that consumers, fully provided with adequate purchasing power, will establish the policy of production through exercise of their monetary vote.[6] In this view, the term economic democracy does not mean worker control of industry, but democratic control of credit.[6] Removing the policy of production from banking institutions, government, and industry, Social Credit envisages an "aristocracy of producers, serving and accredited by a democracy of consumers."[6]


        CodePink 8 Jul 2015 19:38

        And yet, when the private banks (financial elite) needed bailing out to the tune of TRILLIONS of dollars due to their own greedy practices, the taxpayer was forced into it.

        Given most of Greece's debt was originally owed to private banks like Goldman Sachs who continued to loan them money despite the fact they knew they couldn't pay it back, and they then somehow managed to convince the ECB to take on the debt - the old socialise the losses, privatise the profits scheme - perhaps the IMF should be looking to GS and the likes to contribute significantly to paying down Greece's debt.

        lifeloveroverall 8 Jul 2015 19:26

        The order from and to the Brussels Donkeycrats : Attack and no mercy to Greece. Regardless: we are the chosen, on a holy mission to keep safe our beloved money power. But here is my wish to all Donkeycrats, may you all burn in Hell.
        PS: my apologies to the poor donkeys


        estragon11 8 Jul 2015 19:09

        as far as that goes, who cares about the planet as long as there is money to be made?

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding


        blacksox666 8 Jul 2015 18:58

        Austerity, Merkel style, is just a modern version of Le droit du Seigneur, but writ large. it's time for another version of 1932 when the Republicans were thrown out and men and women who cared about the middle and lower classes took the reigns of government. Time for the Greeks to start printing Drachmas and go forward. it has been said "better a horrible end than horrors with no end"


        goldstars 8 Jul 2015 18:25

        More people need to know about the IMF's actions in the world, and how that affects all of us. It won't get better unless people realise they can stand up to it. The Guardian is still vaguely leftwing enough (or has that history) that it attracts those who already have sympathy or understanding. We need to see Monbiot's articles, and similar information, spread far and wide in all mainstream media.


        RealWavelengths 8 Jul 2015 18:15

        "The IMF is controlled by the rich, and governs the poor on their behalf. It's now doing to Greece what it has done to one poor nation after another, from Argentina to Zambia. Its structural adjustment programmes have forced scores of elected governments to dismantle public spending, destroying health, education and all the means by which the wretched of the earth might improve their lives."

        Best synopsis of the IMF. However, I disagree that returning to the gold standard during the interwar period was a factor in the Great Depression. Creative credit policy was the main culprit.


        seaspan 8 Jul 2015 17:30

        The Greek pension system has four aspects that should be considered. 1) demographics,,, 20% of the population is aged 65 and over, 2) Govt layoffs by attrition (early retirement options), 3) no clear distinction between social security and welfare, 4) disability pensions. Officially, the retirement age is 66 years old climbing from 57 in 2009. Where people get manipulated is the malicious citing of individual cases as being the rule rather than the exception. Demand context when reading these false statistics...

        oldamericanlady YouDidntBuildThat 8 Jul 2015 16:57

        The notion that public spending didn't make a dent in the poverty rate is simply absurd, but it's one of those invented facts repeated endlessly by right-wingers because it sounds like it might be true.

        In fact, there was a sharp decline in various indicators of poverty from the late 1960s until the early 1980s, when the launch of Reaganomics took the American economy into a long, slow, steady decline; and even in the three subsequent decades, by measurements like housing, medical care and nutrition poor Americans are unquestionably better off than they were before the war on poverty.

        Moreover, look at social spending over a greater span of time: the long-term success of Social Security and Medicare at lifting America's elderly out of the direst ranks of poverty is just unquestionable--except, of course, by reactionary propagandists who insist it can't possibly be true because it's such an inconvenient truth.

        Before Social Security, nearly half of America's elderly lived in poverty, many of them in dire poverty. It was not unheard of for old people to starve to death in this country, and many were forced out of their homes and into wretched existences in county homes and poor farms.

        Today, thanks to social spending, the poverty rate among the elderly is down to about 10%--still far too many, with income inequality worsened by Reaganism in this age cohort as in all others, but an incredible improvement over the rate just a few generations ago nevertheless.

        Public spending works.

        Unfortunately, so do incessant right-wing mantras and lies.

        Arjen Bootsma 8 Jul 2015 16:55

        The world we live in values property rights over human rights.

        AuntieMame Ykuos1 8 Jul 2015 16:53

        73% of Greece's exports are mineral fuels, followed by salt, sulphur, stone and cement. And don't forget Virgin Olive oil, the best in the world, since it is not mixed with inferior oils the way Italian produce theirs mixed with normal imported oils.

        Tourism is a large sector of the service industry in that absolutely stunningly beautiful country, but by far not the largest.

        Do a little research before spewing platitudes her about Greece, a country that you obviously know nothing about.

        seaspan shout_at_me 8 Jul 2015 16:35

        Greece has the highest self employed sector in all of Europe. In any country that sector is the most difficult for tax collection. It is a libertarian paradise...


        AuntieMame shout_at_me 8 Jul 2015 16:06

        Actually the Greek crisis was caused by prior conservative government, not the lefty coalition of Tsipras which only became the majority five short month ago.

        But I guess that you are one of those calling all of Europe as socialist haven, including the conservative government with universal healthcare, free higher education, and strong safety nets for the less fortunate among their citizens.


        easterman FenlandBuddha 8 Jul 2015 15:15

        Don't borrow from the IMF and none of this applies. Run a sensible economy and you never need the IMF

        Sounds logical - until you factor in the fact that the market's-know -best IMF was a cheerleader for the de-regulation of the banks which led to the credit boom which led to the credit crunch which led to taxpayer bailouts of the banks (and counter-cyclical fiscal policy by the G7 in order to head of a global depression) which led to quadrupling of budget deficits in many countries which led the weaker ones into the clutches of ...the IMF who then set about deflating them using a dodgy estimate of the fiscal multiplier which grossly underestimated the damage this would do to output and tax revenue which left them needing more bailouts to pay the interest on the loans ( created at the push of a button) and subject to even more deflation ...

        Your point is valid if you believe the drug-pusher has no responsibility for the state of the addict. A sensible economy is one where you keep the banksters on a leash - the free market agenda beloved of the IMF put paid to that.


        Henforthe SteB1 8 Jul 2015 14:48

        The whole modern system is a gigantic Ponzi Scheme, I mean it literally.

        I certainly get what you mean- I've always suspected it's more to do with our banking system though. Interest rates are routinely manipulated specifically in order to encourage growth, and fractional reserve systems can mean that this growth isn't based in anything of real value. Sure, growth creates jobs and can lift communities out of poverty, but can it be sustained indefinitely? And once a society becomes developed, does it really need further growth, at least enough to continue to manipulate currencies to encourage it?

        It's presumably possible for economic growth to decouple from physical resource use, although it's not really happened yet. But I suspect there are still 'Limits to Growth' within the pure economic realm. Growth seems to inevitably slow to a crawl as a society becomes developed and its population stabilises: see Japan and much of Europe, and perhaps also look at China where this week the government is desperately trying to keep markets rising in the face of a gradual realisation that the actual demand just isn't there. Perhaps if we learnt to accept this, things might be more stable in the long term.

        I agree that we should look back at the Enclosures as a heinous crime perpetrated by the landed elites. The Enclosures are doubly relevant here: in the event of market uncertainty, one can fall back on savings or assets. But government economic policy makes that more difficult: interest manipulation and capital controls mean savings become diminished or inaccessible. But also, in some parts of the world people can still weather hard economic times by going 'back to the land'.

        But in the West this is no longer possible, because the common land was stolen.


        SocratesTheGooner -> Colin Chaplain 8 Jul 2015 14:17

        Take the 19th century Irish and Indian famines, both exacerbated (in the second case caused) by the doctrine of laissez-faire, which we now know as market fundamentalism or neoliberalism.

        Not a straw man. Monbiot is saying that 21st century neoliberalism is the same as 19th century laissez-faire. How much more explicitly could he put it?


        shaheeniqbal 8 Jul 2015 13:33

        This Greek Tragedy highlights the interferences of IMF and World Bank into the democratic processes of a country. From the collapse of Greek economy it is quite clear that "Confessions of a Hitman" was not a conspiracy theory. Every day the third world is constantly suffering the IMF excesses... Greece is lucky that it is in Europe otherwise it would have suffered the same fate as the African and other third world countries indebted to IMF and World Bank and had their arms and legs twisted. It is not only that IMF dictates the prices of Electricity and Gas and imposition of taxes ie general sales taxes but they also interfere in the Democratic processes by backing their favorite chosen corrupt and criminal political leaders who loot these countries with both hands and shift the assets of the impoverished countries to foreign shores.

        One hopes that with the establishment of Brics Bank the poor and deprived third world will be able to shop around for cheaper loans and suffer less interference in the internal politics.

        The events in Greece highlight the misery and suffering of the impoverished third world countries at the hands of the unscrupulous lenders who once allowed into the country will keep thrusting the indebted economies into further debt and ultimate ruination.


        Piotr Szafrański -> hankwilliams 8 Jul 2015 12:51

        Hank, you think that "40% [of enterprises] wouldn't have been lost and many Poles would not have left if the austerity programme wasn't inflicted on the Poles.". You might be right, you might be not right. The only way to decide was to check the other way.

        Well, at least 51% of Poles did not want to check the other way. Our choice.

        Of some interest here is that there WERE countries which tried "the other way" (no austerity). Did not work so well for them. So this alternative might not had worked. But you are free to have your opinion.

        "get their rich to pay their share"??? Always those mystical "rich"... Used to be "rich Jews", but after WWII this is somehow awkward, isn't it? But well, the Bolshevik revolution definitely made the rich pay, didn't it? How well did it work for Russia? Wanna recommend this to the Greeks?

        But sorry, this time we have "rich Germans". It is politically correct to call to take their money, of course. Social justice and international justice in one package. They are all Nazi, I forgot.


        Piotr Szafrański -> hankwilliams 8 Jul 2015 11:59

        Hank, our "austerity programme" had started in 1989. And continues. Back then the country was in such dire straights that even the ruling elite ("communists") had problems with buying basic appliances. People's wages were below 100$/month.

        Since then, supported by the international community (massive debt relief, massive investments) we GRADUALLY progressed. But the said debt relief was ONLY at the very beginning of the reforms (1989/90). We pay our dues on time since then.

        Meanwhile, the price of reform was high. Whole cities had found over 50% of jobs disappearing. Factories employing tens of thousands were being closed. Some of those jobs/enterprises maybe could be saved (we estimate say 40% of the closed ones), but there were no lenders willing to experiment. Axes were in full swing. Many people remember this today with revulsion, and in many cases they are right. About 10% of population (i.e. over 3mln people) emigrated or are shuttling between jobs elsewhere and families in Poland. Unemployment remains high (about 10%). Poles work, on average, supposedly the longest hours worldwide, except for the Koreans.

        But since 1991/92, Poland had an uninterrupted growth. Most Poles today earn money they would not believe back in 1989. We slowly grow enterprises and industries competitive or even dominant in their markets worldwide. And obviously, the more you eat, the bigger the appetite grows. Ask average Pole - we are grumbling. Which is not bad - we still have way to go.

        But maybe were we were "lucky" it was that 1989 was a clear break - we got suddenly full freedom and responsibility, after 50 years. So it was obvious to most that we start low and we have to keep belts tight for a long time. That precious 51% of people feeling less of entitlement and more of duty was there.


        sassafrasdog Gerbetticus 8 Jul 2015 11:57

        Yes, I have the Shock Doctrine, and my professor of Latin American history required that we view the documentary version of Shock Doctrine on a day when he was out of town at a conference or something.

        I sat there with my jaw dropped. Other students in the room, all much younger, were muttering curses. As an older adult student, I remembered the day when Salvador Allende fell, and could still picture the TV in my mother's kitchen where we had watched the coverage.

        Shock Doctrine explained all, like the other shoe dropping.

        To me, what the Europeans are doing to Greece is so transparent, if one knows a little about the history of other parts of the world. But other parts of the world are periphery, in Europe's view, and they are the center. Now they are treating even parts of the Eurozone as periphery. At some point the center gets smaller and smaller and everything is periphery, the other, out there, those people, and the European identity becomes a black hole rather than a beacon of light.

        It is hard to look at oneself sometimes, but a wise teacher once told me that the characteristics that we dislike in others, are the same characteristics that we ourselves contain. That is the fear. The answer is that by facing the truth of that, we are able to attend to our own faults, and become, humbly, more tolerant of the things that make us all human.

        I hope that Europe can acquire some wisdom before it is too late.


        BritCol 8 Jul 2015 11:27

        A very succinct article that hits some of the historical notes that explains how the elites have controlled the masses to their advantage. All the financial laws, regulations that have been put in place such as compound interest, the corporation as a 'person', and the takeover of the IMF and World Bank by US and European elites are geared to keep the wealth in those few hands.

        What has been so worrying is how few people seem to realize that, and cheer on the status quo. Have they such little self-respect that they believe these elites are better, smarter than them? All they have is all the advantages of being born rich. Although certainly some entrepreneurs, like artists, have natural advantages.

        Gerbetticus 8 Jul 2015 11:06

        Dr Karen Adler states in a letter to The Guardian today:

        "The debt that the Greek government is attempting to negotiate on is around £237billion. Compare that with the British government bailout which, at its peak, guaranteed £1,162 billion to the banks. One bank alone (Deutsche Bank) got £226 billion......

        So Dr Adler, , if you're on here, can you explain how, in the face of EU prohibition of State Aid to private companies , a , no , The German bank, was bailed out by the British taxpayer to a total sum only £11 billion less than the total owed by the entire Greek state? Forgive me, Im not a practitioner of the dismal science!

        bridgefergal -> BeTrueForAll 8 Jul 2015 11:05

        Agreed. The general ignorance extant about how money is created - it's created from thin air, for free and is essentially an unlimited resource - is truly breathtaking. The Bank of England had a circular on money creation a short while back, which should have been required reading for the usual "there's no money left" Tory trolls who infest CiF. But who needs the truth when comforting untruths are far more reassuring viz. Labour spent all the money; benefits and welfare caused the crash and the deficit; tax cuts for business and the wealthy trickle down to everyone; only Labour raises taxes (it can't be said often enough that Tories hiked VAT by a third in 2010). Etc. Etc.

        Maria Pospotiki -> Extremophile 8 Jul 2015 11:01

        Tsipras right after his election, was the first to open Lagarde's list, he asked Swiss bank's collaboration to impose taxes on those who had sent their money abroad, he even dealt with media corruption even though this could do harm to his party. And all these in five months. Us Greeks are not proud about the corruption of our system, but this corruption was reinforced by foreign forces all these years. Even recently, the ex minister of health has signed under much suspicion a contract with a German company offering technical support which hasn't yet been delivered. All these years this was exactly what was happening in Greece with the consistent opinion of the european countries. Solidarity and democracy seem to be a utopia in our days.


        Chenoa mickstephenson 8 Jul 2015 10:50

        Yes, exactly.

        I said before and I'll say it one more time:

        Syriza aren't playing ball so they must be dealt with and used as an example in case Spain, Portugal, Italy et al get any similar ideas.

        A good question that many people ask is this: why does the current illegal and fascist government in Ukraine get loans from the IMF straight away & 'no questions asked' yet the democratically-elected government in Greece will only be allowed to receive loans if they meet with the harsh, inhumane conditions attached? Double standards due to ineptitude etc etc or planned tactics by neoliberal & neoconservative ideologues? I think I'll go with the latter. This is all about economic warfare and the asset-stripping of countries (read books like 'The Shock Doctrine' by Naomi Klein and 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' by John Perkins for more info) it's all been done before in so-called 'developing countries' and they are currently doing it to the 'developed countries'.

        Also, research shows that the US/Israel/Europe/NATO and allies (the actual planners are linked to the BIS, CFR, Committee of 300, Trilateral Commission aka the corporatocracy) want global hegemony and won't stand for any competition. The neocons/neolibs/zionists have even written books and documents about these things themselves:

        - 'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives' by Zbigniew Brzezinski

        - Project for a New American Century

        - 'Crisis of Democracy' by the Trilateral Commission

        - The Wolfowitz Doctrine:

        "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."


        Brollachain 8 Jul 2015 10:31

        The Maastricht treaty, establishing the European Union and the euro, was built on a lethal delusion: a belief that the ECB could provide the only common economic governance that monetary union required. Those sober, suited, serious people...turn out to be demented utopian fantasists, votaries of a fanatical economic cult.

        Well, quite, because in Guardianland the basic delusion is to believe in a market system in the ifrst place.

        If, on the other hand, you do subscribe to the market - as just about everybody on the planet outside the Guardian does - then one of the things you could do would be to link up with other people of the same mind, and set some rules for the market. But then , as part of the price for joining the club, you also have to keep to the rules.

        Monbiot is quite right; ECB is not democratic in this sense. It's a game manager - in its way, not unlike a moderator on CiF, for example. Democracy doesn't really come into it. As a participant, you may like the rules, or not, but nobody forced you to join the club in the first place - the joining part is where democracy comes in, and everyone gets to decide whether to join or not.

        Now, Monbiot doesn't like this; but then, he doesn't believe in the system to start with. Like many Guardian writers, he believes in a system where there is an inexhaustible pot of Scott Trust money to support everyone's way of life, and no accountability whatsoever to produce a product that anyone is actually prepared to pay for. Not unlike the Greeks, in fact, until about two days ago.

        So what exactly happened recently? In the first place, the Greeks were so keen to get into the game that they lied their way in. Since then, Greek governments have lied repeatedly to stay in. The last Greek Finance Minister was so contemptuous of the system that he openly declared his determination to 'game the system' - to take it for all it was worth, and give nothing in return. From his point of view, there was literally nothing to lose. If the system gave in, he could claim victory. If the system failed, this would simply be an interesting academic demonstration of the correctness of his own convictions. If Greece left, or was ejected from the system for ignoring its rules, then there would always be the Monbiots of this world, with their Scott Trust mentalities, to put the blame on everyone else.

        Let's once and for all do away with the myth that all this is somehow to do with 'austerity'. Were Monbiot's ecological pretensions ever to be realised, life in the West would be infinitely more austere than anything the ECB has proposed. Monbiot is not against austerity, in fact he is all for it, provided it is on his own terms; he is against 'the system'.

        The system is the market system, which in its current incarnation defers to the not-so-invisible hand of organisations such as the ECB. That is the way the game works , as played nowadays. Monboit needs to be honest with himself. Democracy and markets are two sides of the same coin. If you have a planned economy, democracy makes no sense, since the State invariably knows what is best for the people anyway.

        So, as a non-believer in democracy, why is he concerned about 'undemocratic powers' in the first place? In his ideal, market-free State, democracy would not exist. Let the Greeks starve, should be his war-cry - just as it seems to have been Varoufakis's. Let the whole of Europe starve, as long as it brings 'the system' down! Who cares, as long as the game ends with the withering away of democracy and the market he so heartily detests.

        BeTrueForAll Rusty Richards 8 Jul 2015 10:29

        The EU were as much a part of the lie to help Greece gain membership of the EU as the Greeks were and must be held equally liable. An all round con job by the EU and the IMF.

        Correct! The motive was the wealthy wanted the Greeks to join because they could "rent" out their wealth to the Greek government in the form of Greek government bonds and at a higher interest rate to boot than other Eurozone countries particularly Germany. Where there's greed there's always miscalculation of risk!


        JustsayNO1954 MightyDrunken 8 Jul 2015 10:28

        "The UK doesn't need the IMF. We have Gideon Osborne."

        That's just as well, because we have nothing left to sell!

        Unlike the Greeks, we gave ours away without a fight, the only thing left are Public Services and they go in the TTIP!

        TTIP is the NWO next move, which will give Corporations control of each nations Sovereignty, it's also a Slave Charter, which is why EU insist on Free Movement!


        BeTrueForAll cambridgefergal 8 Jul 2015 10:20

        Great article. Particularly nails the canard that right wing IMF policies are "natural", "objective" and "correct." All economics is politics in disguise, especially neo-liberal economics."

        Your comment really hits the nail on the head in regard to the Greek debt fiasco and indeed all the Austerity War-Mongering politicians around the planet. The "politics" is really about a few trying to get away with "dominating" the many!

        Geoffrey Ingham, the Cambridge University Professor of Sociology, in the concluding remarks of his truly excellent book "The Nature of Money" states the following:-

        "...... the two sides of the economy - entrepreneurial (and consumer) debtors - struggle with creditor capitalists over the real rate of interest."

        I would add to this that in reality creditor capitalists prowl the planet like savage beasts always looking to force societies to be as utterly dependent upon privately created money for sale as possible and ignorant of sovereign governments ability to create public money debt and interest free.

        The Eurozone is a classic example of the war going on between public interest and private greed. Likewise the war in the UK with the austerity promoting Conservative and Labour Parties trying to pull the wool over individual's eyes that there is no such thing as a sovereign society being able to create public money.


        roninwarrior 8 Jul 2015 10:17

        Nothing here many haven`t worked out long ago, but still good to see the truth being written.

        This should lead people to the current trade agreements being negotiated secretly. TPP and TTIP are completely nefarious items of legislation that will further destroy democracy, and people need to enlighten themselves and start leaning on their local representatives to be the will of the people.

        I watched this recently, and although it`s not directly on topic of these trade agreements, what`s said within it has extremely pertinent echoes to how these processes are being carried out, and generally the entitlement attitude of these corrupted plutocrats.

        Greece has once again taught the world a lesson in democracy, and the world needs to take careful heed. It`s also worth revisiting the words of Joseph Stiglitz, , recently published in these very pages. Stiglitz said,

        It is hard to advise Greeks how to vote on 5 July. Neither alternative – approval or rejection of the troika's terms – will be easy, and both carry huge risks. A yes vote would mean depression almost without end. Perhaps a depleted country – one that has sold off all of its assets, and whose bright young people have emigrated – might finally get debt forgiveness; perhaps, having shrivelled into a middle-income economy, Greece might finally be able to get assistance from the World Bank. All of this might happen in the next decade, or perhaps in the decade after that.

        By contrast, a no vote would at least open the possibility that Greece, with its strong democratic tradition, might grasp its destiny in its own hands. Greeks might gain the opportunity to shape a future that, though perhaps not as prosperous as the past, is far more hopeful than the unconscionable torture of the present.

        I know how I would vote.


        Youmadbrah 8 Jul 2015 10:14

        Corruption at all levels and dysfunctional financial and legal systems are at the heart of any developing economy crisis. Spending less on more vulnerable people in the society will do nothing fix it. Governments usually go this route because the old and the children are less likely to revolt, well they did in Greece so at the democracy works there. The way to fix the country is by radical reform and debt relief. Austerity is just a patch on a dysfunctional system.


        skinnywheels feliciafarrel 8 Jul 2015 10:09

        This idea that the Greeks went and blew all the money on women, cars and drink is a convenient argument for insisting that a nation of people are made to pay for reckless actions of others that were largely out of their control.

        The Greek people did not know that Goldman Sachs had cooked the books to allow them entry into the Euro. They didn't know that Goldman Sachs was betting against them providing the final nail in the coffin of their economy. They didn't know that sub prime mortgages were being re-packaged as mortgage backed securities causing a GLOBAL financial crisis. Only the most informed would have been able to see through their previous governments lies about spending levels.

        There was asymmetric information, so when the huge amount of spin and marketing was used to get people to take on these loans people were not aware of all the facts. These loans should not have been made and there are far more factors involved then just Greeks partying all their money away. So why should it just be the Greek people who pay? Why not the banks who were offering out loans at a time when they must have known there was a high likelihood of default?

        TruthseekerD 8 Jul 2015 09:54

        Indeed, Sir!!

        It beggars belief that anyone with a conscience and an open mind can defend the Troika/IMF. They did this to African countries throughout the latter half of the 20th century, hence the problems and instabilities that have continued to unfold there. People in the west didn't give a damn then and stayed asleep, believing the victim-blaming propaganda that gets put about to create a perception that 'the poor did this to themselves'.

        Now, having run out of developing countries to pillage and plunder, they have turned their parasitic gaze towards Southern Europe. Again, disingenuous bullshit is sold through their complicit media wing of the vampire banking elites that buys into the right-wing nationalism and isolationist mood that has been carefully cultivated, sowing seeds in the minds of the unquestioning that 'they were profligate, it's their own fault and they should take their medicine'.

        It's only when the shit hits the fan (and it will) in a major western economy that enough people will suddenly wake up and smell the coffee, and realise that the banking elites are the ones controlling bought and paid for puppet governments, leading the majority to hell in a handcart.

        The much-vaunted sham of western democracy has been exposed - if a people elect a government that doesn't fit in with the agenda of the parasitic banking elites, it is discredited and destabilised so as to punish them for their temerity in not bending over for more virtual slavery. That's what this is really about..........

        PixieFrouFrou SocalAlex 8 Jul 2015 09:51

        'And to think a decade and a half ago, Monbiot was one of the reasons why I paid for the (paper) Graun every day. I am DONE with this paper!'

        George has done sterling work in his reportage on environmental matters. I salute and support him for this. Just don't read any of his articles on finance or economics.


        Albert_Jacka_VC 8 Jul 2015 09:37

        It should never be forgotten that economics of the Austrian School, as re-baptised by Friedman & Co as economic rationalism, or neo-liberalism, was born of religious impulses -- by fat Calvinists for whom Hell was for others, not for their own class.

        And class warfare is what neo-liberalism is. Guilt and shame over sinful debt are the propaganda weapons. But they grow blunt, when the fraud becomes exposed.

        The Euro phase is war by the banker class, on everyone else. Only the One Percent are supposed to benefit.

        The Irish fell for the trap, Spain's Indignados appear to have been infiltrated by Soros shills, but in Greece, they have run into a problem. SYRIZA is in touch with a desperatre people, whose backs are against the wall, and who have nothing to lose.

        The Eurogarchs had better beware. SYRIZA owns printing presses, and is perfectly able to begin running off tewenty-euro notes. The next phase, now that the Troika has bared its bloody fangs, is open and guerilla war against these vicious parasites. Harrying the Germans is not novel to Greeks. They did it before, during the war. And Greece is not alone.


        BeTrueForAll Bob adda 8 Jul 2015 09:44

        It is hard for those of us on the left to admit, but Margaret Thatcher saved the UK from this despotism.

        I was never a fan of Margaret Thatcher's but on this issue she was spot on. I am so glad that Britain is not part of the eurozone. It is an extremely destructive force that I think will end up destroying the EU.

        Unfortunately this is myth making due to a shallow understanding of money mechanics. Here is Margaret Thatcher declaring there is no such thing as "public money":-

        "One of the great debates of our time is about how much of your money should be spent by the State and how much you should keep to spend on your family. Let us never forget this fundamental truth: the State has no source of money other than money which people earn themselves. If the State wishes to spend more it can do so only by borrowing your savings or by taxing you more. It is no good thinking that someone else will pay-that "someone else" is you. There is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers' money."

        http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/105454

        Now see my above comment why free "public money" has to be created before "private money" for sale can exist and why public money is essential to deal with crises and in particular crises caused by the misuse of private money creation.


        dedalus77uk 8 Jul 2015 09:16

        Agreed: the IMF is politicised and has operated as a means of enforcing market capitalism on countries which were not in a position to make it work. Agreed: the EU project and the single currency in particular were extremely ambitious projects which in some respects were based on a degree of utopia and some pretty fundamental fallacies. None of which excuses successive Greek governments for being complacently corrupt, economically incompetent and, in Syriza's case, deliberately inflammatory, of course. Not that Greece is entirely alone in this, even within the EU, though as shambles go it takes some beating.

        Two things strike me, though.

        • One is that, if the IMF's policies and strings are so obviously bad, severeign governments can choose to not avail themselves of its funding and not enter into a Faustian pact. It's not as easy as getting a big load of money upfront, of course, but if the implication is destroying your economy and putting your country at the mercy of faceless international institutions and its capitalist purse-strong holders, then that would seem to be the right choice, no? No-one is being forced at gun-point to drink from the poisoned well, though I appreciate that much pressure can be brought to bear, and it takes a strong government to resist that. But everyone's still responsible for their own choices, at the end of the day: it's not IMF or bust.
        • Secondly, the concept of allowing countries access to money in return for certain reforms is not in itself a bad thing, if those reforms are in fact the "right" ones. That doesn't mean only economic reforms - in fact perhaps it shouldn't mean economic reforms at all. Perhaps what these reforms should be more focused on is human rights: ie, ensure that there is a proper and independent judiciary and a transparent legal process; ensure that national assets are distributed equitably; ensure that there is proper participation in the democratic process, etc - all things which are in the UDHR and which actually serve to make a country more stable, more prosperous and - importantly - more attractive for investment. Is this perhaps the future of international money-lending?

        If so we need someone to either reform the IMF, or set up the "ethical" alternative to the IMF - any takers?


        MightyDrunken Stilts 8 Jul 2015 09:16

        It is the obvious problem with the IMF, some countries contribute and other borrow. The ones who contribute gets the votes which means the power is in the hands of the creditors.

        Therefore if a country is unlucky enough to need an IMF loan they have to sign a deal which is in the creditors interest and not their own. However the purported purpose of the IMF is not to further the interest of the developed nations but to;

        foster global growth and economic stability by providing policy, advice and financing to members, by working with developing nations to help them achieve macroeconomic stability, and by reducing poverty.


        Terence Skill rathbaner 8 Jul 2015 08:57

        As a German, I want to tell you two things. 1st: I totally agree with your point. 2nd: But Wolfgang Schauble is everything but blind. He is one eager globalist using his power to the fullest to reach his goals. To me, it all depends on the assault on his life in 1989 - he should never had become the interior minister of Germany after that (set up several surveillance laws "to protect the public from terrorism", but only achieved one thing: surveillance) nor the financial minister of this country.

        His view on the world and how things should be is just another one than ours might be - his vision has always been a European super-state. unfortunately he is a psych, oder "damaged goods" as I believe to call him. A politically motived criminal who shouldn´t be in disposal of more than his own, barrier-free house.


        onoway 8 Jul 2015 08:52

        The thing is that the politicians who get in do not practice what they promise.

        Nobody gets into power promising to make things worse for people, they spin things so that what they say will do has the shiny promise of a better future. Politicians and businesses have learned very well how to push the emotional buttons hard wired into humanity. Witness the way women were brought to the idea that smoking was a symbol of independence and the implication that women who did not smoke were dependent and servile. Nothing is said at the time about cancers and other issues directly related.

        Also, people have a very limited choice as to who they vote for, the only option to protest the choices is to abstain, which accomplishes nothing but make it easier for the government to push through things they would never otherwise be able to do.

        Nobody rational would vote for total control of the world's food supply by 4 or 5 chemical companies, possibly the most powerful being one for which the basis of their business is the development and manufacturing of poisons, but that's now what we have, mandated and promoted by governments. Perhaps a suggestion made on QI is the answer, instead of career politicians, all of whom are in it for the power it gives them, governments should be run like jury duty, your turn comes up you are part of the government for however long. Or as the Inuit and others did; nothing can become law unless ALL the politicians agree, if they don't, then it simply doesn't happen. Then we might get back to some form of democracy.

        At the very least, it would take longer to get to the totalitarian state we are rapidly approaching if not indeed already in. All we have now is the (very expensive) veneer, not democracy at all.


        MrBlueberry DrChris 8 Jul 2015 08:41

        The wealth of this world is owned by the Corporate companies not governments and the gap keeps growing each year. For example Corporates take 900$ billion annually in tax avoidance from poor countries while the poorest countries pay 600$ billion in debt each year to the rich corporations. In all 2$ trillion goes from the poorest countries to bolster the wealth of the riches corporations. The total wealth of the world is 223$ trillion.

        8 out 6 people are poor. The richest 300 people (not governments) have the same wealth as the poorest 3 billion. It's worth pondering over.


        rathbaner 8 Jul 2015 08:40

        I'v been struck many times by the similarity in attitude - and the blindness - shown by Wolfgang Schauble and by Lord John Russell.

        Russell to Parliament at the height of the famine: "Sir, I am obliged to say, therefore, that while we attempt all that we think practicable, we must, in the first place, refuse to make promises of that which is out of our power; and in the next place, we must call upon and expect those who have local duties to perform in Ireland, to perform those duties, and to assist the Government and Parliament in their arduous duty: and when I say that I expect this, I am quite sure that many will perform it, because I know that in many, very many instances, the resident proprietors in Ireland have been most ready with their money, with their time, and with their attendance, in endeavouring to provide for the relief of their destitute countrymen."

        Just like Schauble saying we've done everything we can and it is now up to the Greek govt to rescue themselves and their country.

        Both seem utterly blinded to the - utterly obvious - reality by their ideological beliefs. And all this while Ireland was a net exporter of food (to the Empire) and German banks and the ECB are making profits on the €bn from interest on the Greek loans.


        halfdan Rahere2015 8 Jul 2015 08:39

        Indeed. When one looks at the money lent to bail out a number of banks, e.g. $868 billion to Barclays, why can it not be done to bailout a national economy. There could be conditions attached, such as a caretaker financial advisory team to make sure it was spent correctly, the aim being to get the Greek economy back into a position from which it could grow rather than fail. This may have been done, but Greeks being Greeks, they won't look a gift horse in the mouth for fear that it is a wooden one.

        [Jul 09, 2015] More Work Hours Jeb Bush, Try Talking to the Employers

        It's not Jeb Bush. It's Jeb Romney
        .
        "...Having grown up in an era when Americans had hope for the future, I was the one who walked away angry, for her sake. People want to work – they just need real jobs."
        .
        "...this country has been abused by people who have no concept of working for a living, for way too long Jeb has no concept of actually "working" for a living therefore it's not surprising that when he opens his mouth stupidity falls out…."
        Jul 09, 2015 | Forbes

        The economic world is obsessed with growth - bigger revenues, more profits, broader markets (and just not regulation). The bias came across today via Jeb Bush who, in answer to a question from the Manchester, New Hampshire Union Leader, said the following:

        My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours" and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=P5RERORKXNU

        Erik Sherman,

        I remember once getting into a discussion with a number of corporate executives from public companies. I was giving a talk on some plain-English filing requirements. The executives were complaining roundly about more regulations. "It's killing us - KILLING US!" one literally said. I turned to him and asked, "Did you have higher revenues this year than last?" He said, "Yes." I asked, "Did you have higher profits?" "Yes," he answered. "Then you're not getting killed," I said. Yes, there are costs of regulations and there are times legislators can overdo things because they're either justifying their own existence or trying to position themselves for reelection.

        However, costs *have* been reduced. Companies are generally far more profitable now than in the past. Regulations are necessary as companies have proven that without being compelled, they will often do things that are bad for the environment, bad for communities, and bad for the economy. That's why we have environmental legislation, anti-bribery laws, labor laws like overtime requirements, and a host of other things. If companies are finding it too tough, they can raise their prices (and they do that anyway on a regular basis) or make their operations more efficient. If they can't, maybe they shouldn't be in business. If you want to take a market view, then take a full one.

        Elarie Rose

        Amazing. I never thought to see a business oriented publication like Forbes tell the truth about employers. A few weeks ago I had a casual conversation with a young women that I met casually at a lecture. She was really lovely, well-spoken and intelligent. She works for minimum wage at a supermarket, is trying to afford a few classes at a time at a community college, never expects to own a house and assumes that she will never have children. The most chilling thing about the whole conversation was her calm acceptance that this is just the way the world is, with no expectations that life in America should be any different. She wasn't angry because everyone else in her age group was in the same situation and thought it was normal.

        Having grown up in an era when Americans had hope for the future, I was the one who walked away angry, for her sake. People want to work – they just need real jobs.

        wigglwagon

        The only reason America ever had the MOST PROSPEROUS economy was because America had the BEST PAID employees and consequently, American businesses had the customers with the most money to spend. American business owners are SO GREEDY that they are using free trade agreements, immigration, and deregulation to drive down wages and destroy benefits. In their quest for short term profits, employers are destroying their own customer base.

        Gregory A. Peterson

        most of the hourly laborers that I know are more than happy to work a "few" hours of overtime for a few extra bucks….here's the problem….a fair number of employers absolutely refuse to pay overtime and IF an employee happens to get some overtime they are promptly reprimanded or written up (I have actually worked for a couple of those companies)…..

        companies want all their income to go into their pockets they seem to have forgotten the old saying that one has to spend money to make money…..

        this country has been abused by people who have no concept of working for a living, for way too long Jeb has no concept of actually "working" for a living therefore it's not surprising that when he opens his mouth stupidity falls out….

        apparently it's a genetic issue within the Bush family…..

        [Jul 09, 2015] Countdown To Grexit

        Moon of Alabama

        The Greek referendum seemed to have given some push towards a compromise. But the powers that rule the Euro did not agree. The European Central Bank continues to starve the Greek banks. In a few days they will be toast and a Greek exit from the Euro will be inevitable. That seems to be what the hardliners in Berlin around the psychopathic Finance Minister Schaeuble want to achieve.

        The Greek Prime Minister Tzirpas managed to get the backing of the people and most other political parties for a compromise offer. But the promises he made before the referendum already fall apart. The banks did not reopen, a deal is not in sight and given the fast deterioration of the real economy the situation will soon be immensely more difficult.

        He will have to answer questions. Why can't he present a written proposal in Brussels today as he promised to do? Why hasn't he anticipated the assault on the banks by the ECB and the powers behind it? Why hasn't he prepared for an exit from the Euro? Why was there no scenario planning anticipating the current situation?

        The German media and politicians have villainized the Greek so much, based on crude propaganda a denial of the on facts, that a Grexit seems to be the now favored public opinion in Germany. The public opinion in other northern and eastern European countries is very much the same. People do not want to "give more money to the Greek" even though hardly any money was given to them so far. What was given in taxpayer guarantees was given to German and French banks. The consequences of a Grexit seem to be beyond the realm of discussions.

        Supporting some partial debt jubilee now, hardly noticeable when stretched over decades, and giving the Greek economy the ability to grow out of debt would be much cheaper for European taxpayers than a complete Greek default which will trigger the payment of hundreds of billions of guarantees. With an exit from the Euro such a default is very likely. Greece would then have no debt at all. It could again borrow from maybe Russia and other sources who would be happy to make some money lending to a then nearly debt free country.

        On top of the catastrophic results of a five years austerity program the carnage in Greece from a hasty, unplanned bankruptcy and exit from the Euro would be huge. But the example of other cases of state bankruptcy show that the recovery is usually quite fast and the long term possibilities much more favorable than the slow death a continued austerity program would guarantee.

        (I am still under an unusual workload but the end is in sight.)

        Posted by b at 12:19 PM | Comments (161) i enjoyed hoarsewhisperer's post on the last thread -
        Interesting tweet over at Xymphora...

        Shafik Mandhai
        ‏@ShafikFM

        The money Greece owes, $370 billion, compared to the taxpayer-funded bailouts banks got...

        Citigroup - Citigroup $2.513 Trillion
        Morgan Stanley - $2.041 Trillion
        Merrill Lynch - $1.949 Trillion
        Bank of America - $1.344 Trilliom
        Barclays PLC - $868 Billion
        Bear Sterns - $853 B
        Goldman Sachs - $814 B
        Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 B
        JP Morgan Chase $391 B
        Deutche Bank - $354 B
        UBS - $287 B
        Credit Suisse - $262 B
        Lehman Bros - $183 B
        Bank of Scotland - $181 B
        BNP Paribas - $175 B
        Wells Fargo - $159 B
        Dexia - $159 B
        Wachovia - $142 B
        Dresdner Bank - $135 B

        Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 6, 2015 11:22:25 PM | 160

        james | Jul 7, 2015 1:03:49 PM | 2


        Why the Greek elite doesn't want Grexit

        nmb | Jul 7, 2015 1:04:25 PM | 3


        Joseph Stiglitz usa today article from today.. "Most bailouts (for instance, the Mexican bailout) are not bailouts of the country but of the Western banks who didn't do adequate due diligence. It could be nice that the German and other European governments bailed out their banks (though whether that is good policy is another matter); but the Greeks rightly asked, why it should be done so much on their backs."

        james | Jul 7, 2015 1:17:28 PM | 4


        The German media and politicians have villainized the Greek so much, based on crude propaganda a denial of the on facts, that a Grexit seems to be the now favored public opinion in Germany. The public opinion in other northern and eastern European countries is very much the same.

        Qui bono?

        "The imposition of the euro had one true goal: To end the European welfare state." Maybe it needed a push?

        Comrade X | Jul 7, 2015 1:35:10 PM | 6


        Thanks james #2 & Horsewhisperer,

        Yeah, kind of puts it into perspective doesn't it. The $370 billion the predatory-mob-owned-banks suckered Greece for after the economic hit men sold them the Brooklyn Bridge that now got issued back to them vs the upward of $10 Trillion the American regular joe taxpayer got hoodwinked for. The Greeks hit back against the corporate welfare state. About time someone stood up to the international syndicate.

        juannie | Jul 7, 2015 1:52:36 PM | 7


        Recent History.

        Papandreou in 2011 wanted to program a referendum to refuse the bail-out. It was known (easy) that the Greeks would vote OXI, clear as day. (As in the vote last week.) The 'institutions' convinced Papandreou to not do it, or he capitulated, or was never serious about it, who knows.

        BBC article, Nov 2011, Paul Mason, details the consequences of the referendum (had it taken place), and actually outlines the future a bit. Yes, pretty much what did go down in 2015. The same arguments, discussions points, themes.

        Greek referendum is coin-flip on euro exit.

        http://www.bbc.com/news/business-15539350

        Private debt was shunted to the public. The Guardian, for ex. (April 2015) lists the massive debts and hides who the creditors are (except for some well know names like IMF) and hints that Greece does not want to pay:

        http://tinyurl.com/pfed8wm

        The Council on Foreign Relations (hardly to be taxed with a pro-Gr. or left attitude), July 2015:

        Greece Fallout: Italy and Spain Have Funded a Massive Backdoor Bailout of French Banks one page.

        http://blogs.cfr.org/geographics/2015/07/02/greecefallout/

        > See the nos. for France and who holds Greek bonds today.

        Grexit is now possible, or at least not as dangerous as in 2011. Which was all planned, of course.

        Noirette | Jul 7, 2015 2:33:26 PM | 9


        In 2011, because the EU had not yet prepared for Grexit, Greece would have had far more bargaining power after an OXI vote in a referendum.

        lysias | Jul 7, 2015 2:40:03 PM | 10


        b:

        FYI, Yves Smith at nakedcapitalism.com claims that almost all of the debt is non-dischargeable (because it is made under a legal regime that makes discharge virtually impossible). She also points out that 'odious debt' is a term that has not yet been recognized by courts as a means of discharging debts.

        RBS did a study, however, that agrees with your assessment. They estimated that the cost to the Eurozone of a GRexit is about 220bm Euro vs. 130bn to keep Greece in the Eurozone (writing down debt, etc.).

        Notably, EU countries that have not adopted the Euro are doing fine. And Greece deposits of natural gas have reported to have been discovered in Greek waters (which doesn't seem to get talked about much). With that and other commercial opportunities, I'd think that they would recover from a GRexit fairly quickly.

        Jackrabbit | Jul 7, 2015 2:40:28 PM | 11


        Note: I say "Yves Smith ... claims..." because it's hard for me to trust what she writes with respect to Greece.

        Jackrabbit | Jul 7, 2015 2:49:29 PM | 12


        U.S. common law may not recognize odious debts, but it does recognize the idea of unconscionable contracts, which a court may refuse to enforce:

        Unconscionability (known as unconscionable dealing/conduct in Australia) is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an unconscionable contract is held to be unenforceable because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the consideration offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate, that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract.

        Unconscionability is determined by examining the circumstances of the parties when the contract was made, such as their bargaining power, age, and mental capacity. Other issues might include lack of choice, superior knowledge, and other obligations or circumstances surrounding the bargaining process. Unconscionable conduct is also found in acts of fraud and deceit, where the deliberate misrepresentation of fact deprives someone of a valuable possession. When a party takes unconscionable advantage of another, the action may be treated as criminal fraud or the civil action of deceit.


        Expressions like "Greek elite", "German elite" and "European elite" seem inappropriate for a class of people who could care less about national or regional interests. Where they live is merely a matter of convenience, habit or personal preference.

        SingingSam | Jul 7, 2015 4:32:33 PM | 26


        An important point that b makes in his post is the building momentum in Germany to not just hold the line on austerity but actually crush Greece. Schauble now outpolls the sainted Merkel. This from today's NYT:
        That stance puts pressure on Ms. Merkel domestically, emboldening politicians who believe that Germany has erred not by pushing too hard for austerity in Greece but by tolerating modest steps toward softer terms. When German lawmakers were last called upon to vote on extending the Greek bailout in February, 29 deputies from her center-right bloc broke ranks and opposed the government.

        Since then, conservatives' fury at Greece has only mounted. Mr. Schäuble, who last week for the first time bested the chancellor in a well-regarded political popularity poll, is an essential partner for Ms. Merkel in keeping the anger under control.

        Tsipras with that 61% "Oxi" under his belt is going to have to start issuing drachmas soon.

        Posted by: Mike Maloney | Jul 7, 2015 4:37:10 PM | 27

        Gerry1211 | Jul 7, 2015 6:33:40 PM | 42

        With the exception of Varoufakis and his follower Euclid Tsakalotos both of whom have PhDs in economy, NONE of the EU debt negotiators are economists.....Schauble of Germany is a Lawyer, Christine Lagarde of the IMF is a lawyer, and Jeroen Dijsselbloem of the Netherlands, the financial head of the EU is an agricultural engineer(unelected) . Go figure! They are a group of clueless wonders with demands. They have strong armed and looted Greece. Greece should have defaulted in 2010. Their debt would be a whole lot less. But the ECB made a few billion on this racket, as did the banks.

        Austria will have a referendum on whether to stay in the EU.....If Greece exits the EU, so will Spain, Italy, Ireland and hopefully Austria and the Netherlands. This is the Soviet Union of Europe. 17 UNelected people running the Continent for the benefit of the elite. Democracy has gone. The pitchforks are coming soon. People are fed up.

        @43
        One of us (Palast, an economist by training) has had long talks with the acknowledged "father" of the euro, Professor Robert Mundell. It's important to mention the other little bastard spawned by the late Prof. Mundell: "supply-side" economics, otherwise known as "Reaganomics," "Thatcherism" – or, simply "voodoo" economics.

        The imposition of the euro had one true goal: To end the European welfare state.

        For Mundell and the politicians who seized on his currency concept, the euro itself would be the vector infecting the European body politic with supply-side Reaganomics. Mundell saw a euro'd Europe as free of trade unions and government regulations; a Europe in which the votes of parliaments were meaningless. Each Eurozone nation, unable to control neither the value of its own currency, nor its own budget, nor its own fiscal policy, could only compete for business by slashing regulations and taxes. Mundell said, "[The euro] puts monetary policy out of the reach of politicians… Without fiscal policy, the only way nations can keep jobs is by the competitive reduction of rules on business."

        "[All capital] is created by the state in one way or another." Nonsense. Capitalists make capital, otherwise they wouldn't own it.

        Comrade X | Jul 7, 2015 7:08:45 PM | 52

        Mr Maloney @44:
        Looks like Rifkin's diagnosis was mistaken:

        According to Rifkin, the "European Dream" is one in which individuals find security not through individual accumulation of wealth, but through connectivity and respect for human rights.

        He missed the neoliberalizing component of EU crapitalism but he also missed the looming inter-crapitalist warfare.He's kinds glitchy. Can you tell me how he got from "The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era" to "The Age of Access: The New Culture of Hypercapitalism, Where all of Life is a Paid-For Experience"?

        Comrade X | Jul 7, 2015 7:29:15 PM | 53

        @30

        Black mansplains how fraudulent yields were a management tactic to goose their own income, but neglects to note that this was endemic fraud, a virtual system of fraud. It is almost certain some realized this system of fraud was ultimately backstopped by the government and that it could be used in a neoliberal attack on government. Black, in his dotage, focuses blame on the Troika:

        The troika, however, while purporting to be neoliberal, is actually an old-fashioned means of bailing out German and French banks that make bad loans.

        Is this in any way credible? He acknowledges widespread "control fraud", but instead of arguing that this disease is exacerbated by neoliberalism he implies the rectification of "old fashioned means of bailing out banks" with their commitment to neoliberalism was neglected.

        Bullshit.

        Comrade X | Jul 7, 2015 8:17:11 PM | 56

        Comrade X at 55:

        First of all your age-ism sucks. Leave those thoughts unexpressed. Secondly, your comment is nonsense. Black is probably the world's leading critic of systematic banking fraud, but only when there is actual. French and German banks making unsecured loans to Greek banks was not fraudulent. The investment bankers who sold mortgage-backed securities they knew were 'crap' were engaging in fraud.

        And your decontextualized quote needs to be remedied:

        The neoliberal "modern finance" theories such as the "efficient market hypothesis" are premised on lenders providing "private market discipline." That, in turn, is premised on the assumption that when lenders make bad loans (whether for reasons of fraud or incompetence) they will suffer the resultant losses rather than being bailed out. The troika, however, while purporting to be neoliberal, is actually an old-fashioned means of bailing out German and French banks that make bad loans.

        The context of the preceding couple of sentences shows that obviously Black was exposing the hypocrisy of 'neoliberals' who spout about 'the discipline of the market' and then use the government to bail out well-connected, thoroughly corrupting corporations and banks whenever they get a chance.

        fairleft | Jul 7, 2015 8:57:28 PM | 59

        Some good description of the madness involved
        Everybody knew what a fight would mean. The inner cabinet had discussed the details a week earlier at a tense meeting after the European Central Bank refused to increase liquidity (ELA) to the Greek banking system, forcing Syriza to impose capital controls.

        It was a triple plan. They would "requisition" the Bank of Greece and sack the governor under emergency national laws. The estimated €17bn of reserves still stashed away in various branches of the central bank would be seized.

        They would issue parallel liquidity and California-style IOUs denominated in euros to keep the banking system afloat, backed by an appeal to the European Court of Justice to throw the other side off balance, all the while asserting Greece's full legal rights as a member of the eurozone. If the creditors forced Grexit, they - not Greece - would be acting illegally, with implications for tort contracts in London, New York and even Frankfurt.

        They would impose a haircut on €27bn of Greek bonds held by the ECB, and deemed "odious debt" by some since the original purchases were undertaken by the ECB to save French and German banks, forestalling a market debt restructuring that would otherwise have happened.

        "They were trying to strangle us into submission, and this is how we would retaliate," said one cabinet minister. Mr Tsipras rejected the plan. It was too dangerous. But a week later, that is exactly what he may have to do, unless he prefers to accept a forced return to the drachma.

        ...

        The two sides are talking past each other, clinging to long-entrenched narratives, no longer willing to question their own assumptions. The result could be costly. RBS puts the direct financial losses for the eurozone from a Greek default at €227bn, compared with €140bn if they bite the bullet on an IMF-style debt restructuring.

        somebody | Jul 7, 2015 9:20:01 PM | 61

        God...

        This article was published 2012, wow how time fly. Nevertheless, it is mandatory reading.

        By Greg Palast

        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/26/robert-mundell-evil-genius-euro

        "Robert Mundell, evil genius of the euro"

        The idea that the euro has "failed" is dangerously naive. The euro is doing exactly what its progenitor – and the wealthy 1%-ers who adopted it – predicted and planned for it to do.

        That progenitor is former University of Chicago economist Robert Mundell. The architect of "supply-side economics" is now a professor at Columbia University, but I knew him through his connection to my Chicago professor, Milton Friedman, back before Mundell's research on currencies and exchange rates had produced the blueprint for European monetary union and a common European currency.

        Mundell, then, was more concerned with his bathroom arrangements. Professor Mundell, who has both a Nobel Prize and an ancient villa in Tuscany, told me, incensed:

        "They won't even let me have a toilet. They've got rules that tell me I can't have a toilet in this room! Can you imagine?"

        As it happens, I can't. But I don't have an Italian villa, so I can't imagine the frustrations of bylaws governing commode placement.

        But Mundell, a can-do Canadian-American, intended to do something about it: come up with a weapon that would blow away government rules and labor regulations. (He really hated the union plumbers who charged a bundle to move his throne.)

        "It's very hard to fire workers in Europe," he complained. His answer: the euro.

        The euro would really do its work when crises hit, Mundell explained. Removing a government's control over currency would prevent nasty little elected officials from using Keynesian monetary and fiscal juice to pull a nation out of recession.

        "It puts monetary policy out of the reach of politicians," he said. "[And] without fiscal policy, the only way nations can keep jobs is by the competitive reduction of rules on business."

        He cited labor laws, environmental regulations and, of course, taxes. All would be flushed away by the euro. Democracy would not be allowed to interfere with the marketplace – or the plumbing.

        As another Nobelist, Paul Krugman, notes, the creation of the eurozone violated the basic economic rule known as "optimum currency area". This was a rule devised by Bob Mundell.

        That doesn't bother Mundell. For him, the euro wasn't about turning Europe into a powerful, unified economic unit. It was about Reagan and Thatcher.

        "Ronald Reagan would not have been elected president without Mundell's influence," once wrote Jude Wanniski in the Wall Street Journal. The supply-side economics pioneered by Mundell became the theoretical template for Reaganomics – or as George Bush the Elder called it, "voodoo economics": the magical belief in free-market nostrums that also inspired the policies of Mrs Thatcher.

        Mundell explained to me that, in fact, the euro is of a piece with Reaganomics:

        "Monetary discipline forces fiscal discipline on the politicians as well."

        And when crises arise, economically disarmed nations have little to do but wipe away government regulations wholesale, privatize state industries en masse, slash taxes and send the European welfare state down the drain.

        Thus, we see that (unelected) Prime Minister Mario Monti is demanding labor law "reform" in Italy to make it easier for employers like Mundell to fire those Tuscan plumbers. Mario Draghi, the (unelected) head of the European Central Bank, is calling for "structural reforms" – a euphemism for worker-crushing schemes. They cite the nebulous theory that this "internal devaluation" of each nation will make them all more competitive.

        Monti and Draghi cannot credibly explain how, if every country in the Continent cheapens its workforce, any can gain a competitive advantage.
        But they don't have to explain their policies; they just have to let the markets go to work on each nation's bonds. Hence, currency union is class war by other means.

        The crisis in Europe and the flames of Greece have produced the warming glow of what the supply-siders' philosopher-king Joseph Schumpeter called "creative destruction". Schumpeter acolyte and free-market apologist Thomas Friedman flew to Athens to visit the "impromptu shrine" of the burnt-out bank where three people died after it was fire-bombed by anarchist protesters, and used the occasion to deliver a homily on globalization and Greek "irresponsibility".

        The flames, the mass unemployment, the fire-sale of national assets, would bring about what Friedman called a "regeneration" of Greece and, ultimately, the entire eurozone. So that Mundell and those others with villas can put their toilets wherever they damn well want to.

        Far from failing, the euro, which was Mundell's baby, has succeeded probably beyond its progenitor's wildest dreams.

        neretva'43 | Jul 7, 2015 10:03:35 PM | 67

        Interesting article on Zero Hedge. It seems after all Merkel is the winner and Tsipras the loser
        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-07/greferendum-shocker-tsipras-intended-lose-and-now-trapped-his-success

        Wullf | Jul 7, 2015 10:39:26 PM | 70

        To neretva'43 @59: Yes, the authoritarians will always represent their domination as "winning". The world is a contest, and we must win. Lenin's goal was the elimination of that fraudulent struggle.

        Comrade X | Jul 7, 2015 10:49:38 PM | 71

        Tsipras has said that he is going to the European High Court, which is his chosen way to challenge an expulsion of Greece by bureaucratic fiat. And If the German government really is committed to Grexit now; then there has to be a negotiation that signifies some kind of legal structure, if that is to happen. Tsipras has neither disrespected Varoufakis, nor does he disrespect the mandate, the "OXI". He has simply brought someone, the new FinMin, Euclid T. in whom he trusts to close the deal. The new man is the right person for the next phase in this struggle.

        Let's remember that on Friday the Greek PM addressed the "OXI" gathering in Syntagma, where his obvious sympathy was communicated to the Greeks. Tsipras got the mandate he wanted. The referendum was worded in such a way as to make the choice crystal clear.

        Posted by: Copeland | Jul 8, 2015 12:43:48 AM | 78

        http://www.thenation.com/article/austerity-has-failed-an-open-letter-from-thomas-piketty-to-angela-merkel/

        Austerity Has Failed: An Open Letter From Thomas Piketty to Angela Merkel

        Five leading economists warn the German chancellor, "History will remember you for your actions this week."

        By Thomas Piketty, Jeffrey Sachs, Heiner Flassbeck, Dani Rodrik and Simon Wren-Lewis

        okie farmer | Jul 8, 2015 1:29:37 AM | 79

        The world financial systems rely on a whole lot of faith to operate.

        It is an understatement to say that the faith in the current Western financial system is being challenged both internally and externally.

        Will any of the machinations going on diminish the power and control of the global plutocrats that own private finance? We can only hope so for the future of our species.

        I am encouraged by the conscious movement of Greece toward the EU exit, however ugly that might be. It won't happen overnight and will cause further global financial conflict but represents a serious challenge to continued private Western financial hegemony. If the global plutocrats don't take us to extinction over losing their control of global finance, the new, more inclusive agreements with countries of the world will hopefully help form the basis for government/economic cooperation over other global challenges like climate change.

        Bless Greece for having the will to say no to the private gawds of Mammon. May they stay the course.

        Posted by: psychohistorian | Jul 8, 2015 1:35:56 AM | 80

        jeffry sachs, the guy who advised russia to implement shock therapy writing letter to Merkel is rich

        meofio | Jul 8, 2015 1:49:35 AM | 81

        Wullf @74

        Their comments are taken out of context and spun into a fact-free narrative that makes no sense.

        Jackrabbit | Jul 8, 2015 1:54:42 AM | 82


        Jackrabbit and Psychohistorian- thanks for the posts on NC. I followed some of both of your back and forth with Yves on their threads. Disregarding that I've lost a lot of respect for a blog I really like -- it's kind of comical. I keep thinking she owns a crap load of Greek bonds...I know, she does a lot of good work.

        Nana 2007 | Jul 8, 2015 3:47:25 AM | 83


        jeffry sachs, the guy who advised russia to implement shock therapy writing letter to Merkel is rich

        I don't know why, but he has changed a lot since those days. Back then he was a supply side economist, wanted to privatize everything - not any more.

        okie farmer | Jul 8, 2015 3:48:31 AM | 84


        Comrade X at 65:

        You're just misrepresenting Black as exactly the opposite of what his career over the last 20 years has been about. Leaving out the out of context quote, let's go back to your statements in comment 55:

        "Black mansplains how fraudulent yields were a management tactic to goose their own income" ... No, he doesn't indicate those yields were fraudulent but that, though the yields were real they also came with a very high degree of risk, so investors in Greek bank bonds should've demanded collateral. And what the h@ll does any of the preceding have to do with 'mansplaining'?

        "but [Black] neglects to note that this was endemic fraud, a virtual system of fraud." For years Black has been one of the leading 'sayers' that the phenomenon of investing in high yield, high risk bonds with a certain bailout if things turn bad is endemic. It's the cornerstone of his entire output over the last 10 years.

        "It is almost certain some realized this system of fraud was ultimately backstopped by the government and that it could be used in a neoliberal attack on government." Not sure what "it" means here, but you're saying neoliberal bankers' secret motivation was to 'attack government' and not to make mountains of money? I suppose that is a possible motive, but surely a very minor one compared to the greed is good one.

        "... [Black] acknowledges widespread "control fraud", but instead of arguing that this disease is exacerbated by neoliberalism he implies the rectification of "old fashioned means of bailing out banks" with their commitment to neoliberalism was neglected."

        No, it's the opposite: he argues that the 'control fraud' disease is exacerbated by neoliberalism. How can anyone not read that in Black? In response to the final two clauses of that long sentence, and ignoring the problem you're having with the word 'rectification', Black is saying that two phenomena are taking place: (1) when it serves the bureaucracy's masters, use of the neoliberal faith to close off government regulation; (2) violation of supposed neoliberal principles and active government whenever that serves a corrupt bureaucracy's benefactors. (2) is the fundamental obligation, and a bureaucrat who doesn't realize that is a short-lived one.

        fairleft | Jul 8, 2015 3:53:18 AM | 85

        It didn't take long to realize Sachs' advice to Russia was a failure. Maybe that's why he changed.

        okie farmer | Jul 8, 2015 4:07:33 AM | 86

        The US are not amused - the guy writing this is former US ambassador to Berlin

        The threat of Greek exit from the euro comes at a very delicate time when Europe needs the support of both Greece and the US through Nato for assistance on myriad dangerous security issues it is facing in the Mediterranean.

        However, security co-operation between the US and EU members has been sliding for many years. If Greece suddenly refused to work with the EU on issues such as refugees, it is not at all certain that the US would come to the rescue. Germany in particular has been berating the Americans regularly in recent months on issues such as the activities of the National Security Agency and on sending weapons to Ukraine and troops to the Baltic.

        Angered by the heavy insolvency payments which US taxpayers would incur if Greece defaults on IMF loans, a European call for help from Nato might fall on deaf ears. The US could easily tell the Europeans to take care of the Mediterranean by themselves. It no longer maintains a carrier battle group in the area, for example. The vaunted sixth fleet has been shifted – to Asia, of course.

        somebody | Jul 8, 2015 5:02:57 AM | 87


        Greece: We need to talk about the debt

        Merkel: You are radical left

        Greece: We accept austerity! We want to pay!

        Merkel: Germans won't pay for Greeks, not a cent

        Greece: Debt restructuring is essential

        Merkel: You need VAT at 23%

        Greece: Austerity doesn't work the debt can't be repaid see the IMF we need to talk

        Merkel: Varoufakis is a rude person

        Greece: The debt has to addressed

        Merkel: Greeks are lazy

        Greece: bis repetita

        Merkel: Nobody will pay for free riders, certainly not industrious thrifty Germans

        Greece: bis repetita

        Merkel: You have cartels you need reform

        ……………………….. :)

        Noirette | Jul 8, 2015 5:27:34 AM | 88


        Noirette | Jul 8, 2015 5:27:34 AM | 87

        Merkel is famous for taking herself out of the game till the very end and then changing track quickly if necessary. Tsipras might win this by repeating the same stuff in an endless loop.

        German - transatlantic - media have switched reporting dramatically the last few days. Tabloid Bild covers Tsipras speech on the front page - and - at the same time - the refugee crisis in Greece.

        She - and CDU conservatives - are in a tight spot as she seems to plan to stand for the next elections - and basically this is an election campaign now threatening to split her party.

        There is something else - Merkel backed the Bush Iraq war against Chancellor Schröder and used to have best contacts (as her party) with US republicans. Austerity, non state intervention used to be ideology of the German Conservative young guard. She had to tone it down, as German society was not prepared to vote for it, despite of the toning down she needs coalition governments. German conservatives have now given up on US republicans as hopeless and against the values of their voters, the chemistry with the Obama administration is not good, though.

        Wikileaks came out a few days ago with the content of a - relatively harmless - phone tap of Merkel. I understand this as a threat to get out some real damaging stuff.

        German Social Democrats are too stupid to profit. Germany will - again - have a right and left field playing against the center. Though, luckily, German society has changed.

        The US seem to have called the end of "Pax Americana" in Europe.

        somebody | Jul 8, 2015 5:56:16 AM | 89


        "... [Black] acknowledges widespread "control fraud", but instead of arguing that this disease is exacerbated by neoliberalism he implies the rectification of "old fashioned means of bailing out banks" with their commitment to neoliberalism was neglected."

        No, it's the opposite: he argues that the 'control fraud' disease is exacerbated by neoliberalism. How can anyone not read that in Black?

        fairleft | Jul 8, 2015 3:53:18 AM | 84

        Yeah

        Kind of hard to take seriously anyone that could read something bill black wrote and come away with the ridiculous totally-ass-backwards nonsense that X is trying to attribute to Bill Black

        Why, by golly, it's almost as if ol comrade x there is talking out of his ass

        X Factoring | Jul 8, 2015 6:11:39 AM | 90


        http://blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/yanis-varoufakis-economist-play-politics/4081

        First, though he came from the centre-left towards Syriza, Varoufakis ended up consistently taking a harder line than many others in the Greek cabinet over the shape of the deal to be done, and the kind of resistance they might have to unleash if the Germans refused a deal. Second, because Varoufakis is an economist, not a politician. His entire career, and his academic qualifications are built on the conviction that a) austerity does not work; b) the Eurozone will collapse unless it becomes a union for recycling tax from rich countries to poor countries; c) Greece is insolvent and its debts need to be cancelled. By those measures, any deal Greece can do this week will falls short of what he thinks will work. On top of that, politicians are built for compromise. Tsipras has to work the party machine, the government machine, the machine of parliament. Varoufakis' machine is his own brain. If he wound up the creditors it was for a reason: they'd convinced themselves that Tsipras was a Greek Tony Blair and would simply betray his promises and compromise on taking office.

        okie farmer | Jul 8, 2015 6:23:10 AM | 91


        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-06/who-biggest-winner-greek-tragedy

        Back in June 2012, the ECB, whose head was the recently crowned Mario Draghi who had less than a decade ago worked at none other than Goldman Sachs, was sued by Bloomberg's legendary Mark Pittman under Freedom of Information rules demanding access to two internal papers drafted for the central bank's six-member Executive Board.

        They show how Greece used swaps to hide its borrowings, according to a March 3, 2010, note attached to the papers and obtained by Bloomberg News.

        The first document is entitled "The impact on government deficit and debt from off-market swaps: the Greek case." The second reviews Titlos Plc, a securitization that allowed National Bank of Greece SA, the country's biggest lender, to exchange swaps on Greek government debt for funding from the ECB, the Executive Board said in the cover note. From Bloomberg:

        In the largest derivative transaction disclosed so far, Greece borrowed €2.8 billion from Goldman Sachs in 2001 through a derivative that swapped dollar- and yen-denominated debt issued by the nation for euros using a historical exchange rate, a move that generated an implied reduction in total borrowings.

        "The Greek authorities had never informed Eurostat about this complex issue, and no opinion on the accounting treatment had been requested," Eurostat, the Luxembourg-based statistics agency, said in a statement. The watchdog had only "general" discussions with financial institutions over its debt and deficit guidelines when the swap was executed in 2001. "It is possible that Goldman Sachs asked us for general clarifications," Eurostat said, declining to elaborate further.

        The ECB's response: "the European Central Bank said it can't release files showing how Greece may have used derivatives to hide its borrowings because disclosure could still inflame the crisis threatening the future of the single currency."

        Considering the crisis of the (not so) single currency is very much "inflamed" right now as it is about to be proven it was never "irreversible", perhaps it is time for at least one aspiring, true journalist, unafraid of disturbing the status quo of wealthy oligarchs and central planners, to at least bring some closure to the Greek people as they are swept out of the Eurozone which has so greatly benefited the very same Goldman Sachs whose former lackey is currently deciding the immediate fate of over €100 billion in Greek savings.

        Because something tells us the reason why Mario Draghi personally blocked Bloomberg's FOIA into the circumstances surrounding Goldman's structuring, and hiding, of Greek debt that allowed not only Goldman to receive a substantial fee on the transaction, but permitted Greece to enter the Eurozone when it should never have been allowed there in the first place, is that the person who oversaw and personally endorsed the perpetuation of the Greek lie is none other than Goldman's Vice Chairman and Managing Director at Goldman Sachs International from 2002 to 2005. The man who is also now in charge of the ECB. Mario Draghi.

        okie farmer | Jul 8, 2015 6:36:30 AM | 92


        okie farmer | Jul 8, 2015 6:36:30 AM | 91

        First Lagarde, then Merkel, now Draghi under attack ...

        In other news Greece is still able to raise 1.6 billion in treasury bonds. Which incidentally is the sum they refused to pay to ECB.

        Athens: Greece on Wednesday raised 1.6 billion euros ($1.8 billion) in a sale of 6-month treasury bonds at a rate of 2.97 percent, unchanged from the last issue a month ago, the Greek Debt Agency said.

        Such sales occur every month in Greece as part of a rollover of treasury bonds. With further issues to Thursday, the agency aims to raise a total two billion euros in 6-month bills as part of the rollover.

        somebody | Jul 8, 2015 7:02:41 AM | 93


        fairleft @84: "You're just misrepresenting Black as exactly the opposite ..." You mean as a bad guy instead of a good guy?

        It is common for the CEOs of the lenders to agree to lending terms in which the interest rate on the loan is higher than the banks' typical yield on a loan – and for that "spread" still to be grotesquely inadequate relative to the true risks of making the loan. The resultant paradox is that the worse the underwriting (and underwriting is the first foundation of prudent, honest banking), the higher the (fictional) nominal yield, the higher the (falsely) reported profits, and the greater the bonuses to the elite bankers in the near term.

        Black's blames the lack of underwriting here, not collateral. The fraudsters used false risk evaluation to set the yields. There is no paradox; it's fraud. He mansplains by complexifying his explanation in order to deflect a more thorough representation. This is a technocratic disease sympathetic to the fraudsters in this way: the fraudsters would claim their instruments were so complex that it was difficult to evaluate the risk. In fact they complexified them in order to mask the risk.

        It's not just that fraud is endemic, fraud is a business model. It is a key component of neoliberal political economy. Black fails to represent that adequately, partly because he's busy mansplaining finance.

        You say "you're saying neoliberal bankers' secret motivation was to 'attack government'"; this is not what I say. Is this inability to see the obvious akin to psychological denial? The manipulated population do not all understand the objective, some perform their function unconsciously. Some perform it collusively. In this case, the neoliberal attack on government was an outright agenda and, at some level, the tool of fraudulent risk assessment was allied to the goal of drowning the government in a bathtub. Can Black admit such a "conspiracy"?

        I recently came upon a term used to describe how conservatives write about left topics, which I don't have at my fingertips. In essence, they slyly denigrate the left criticism. Black's language denigrates the EU bankers (for using old-fashioned mechanisms) when the blame should be laid on the fraudsters, including US fraudsters. If he "argues that the 'control fraud' disease is exacerbated by neoliberalism", he should be acknowledging that the EU was defrauded and that it's banking system was attacked by fraudsters, not deploying bullshit, fair and balanced, technocratic mumbo-jumbo.

        The avoidance of strategic analysis makes Black a gatekeeper.

        Comrade X | Jul 8, 2015 7:29:23 AM | 94

        [Jul 09, 2015] Ukraine Merges Nazis and Islamists

        July 7, 2015 | Consortiumnews

        Exclusive: Ukraine's post-coup regime is now melding neo-Nazi storm troopers with Islamic militants – called "brothers" of the hyper-violent Islamic State – stirring up a hellish "death squad" brew to kill ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, on Russia's border, reports Robert Parry.

        In a curiously upbeat account, The New York Times reports that Islamic militants have joined with Ukraine's far-right and neo-Nazi battalions to fight ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine. It appears that no combination of violent extremists is too wretched to celebrate as long as they're killing Russ-kies.

        The article by Andrew E. Kramer reports that there are now three Islamic battalions "deployed to the hottest zones," such as around the port city of Mariupol. One of the battalions is headed by a former Chechen warlord who goes by the name "Muslim," Kramer wrote, adding:

        "The Chechen commands the Sheikh Mansur group, named for an 18th-century Chechen resistance figure. It is subordinate to the nationalist Right Sector, a Ukrainian militia. … Right Sector … formed during last year's street protests in Kiev from a half-dozen fringe Ukrainian nationalist groups like White Hammer and the Trident of Stepan Bandera.

        "Another, the Azov group, is openly neo-Nazi, using the 'Wolf's Hook' symbol associated with the [Nazi] SS. Without addressing the issue of the Nazi symbol, the Chechen said he got along well with the nationalists because, like him, they loved their homeland and hated the Russians."

        As casually as Kramer acknowledges the key front-line role of neo-Nazis and white supremacists fighting for the U.S.-backed Kiev regime, his article does mark an aberration for the Times and the rest of the mainstream U.S. news media, which usually dismiss any mention of this Nazi taint as "Russian propaganda."

        During the February 2014 coup that ousted elected President Viktor Yanukovych, the late fascist Stepan Bandera was one of the Ukrainian icons celebrated by the Maidan protesters. During World War II, Bandera headed the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists-B, a radical paramilitary movement that sought to transform Ukraine into a racially pure state. At times coordinating with Adolf Hitler's SS, OUN-B took part in the expulsion and extermination of tens of thousands of Jews and Poles.

        Though most of the Maidan protesters in 2013-14 appeared motivated by anger over political corruption and by a desire to join the European Union, neo-Nazis made up a significant number and spearheaded much of the violence against the police. Storm troopers from the Right Sektor and Svoboda party seized government buildings and decked them out with Nazi insignias and a Confederate battle flag, the universal symbol of white supremacy.

        Then, as the protests turned bloodier from Feb. 20-22, the neo-Nazis surged to the forefront. Their well-trained militias, organized in 100-man brigades called "sotins" or "the hundreds," led the final assaults against police and forced Yanukovych and many of his officials to flee for their lives.

        In the days after the coup, as the neo-Nazi militias effectively controlled the government, European and U.S. diplomats scrambled to help the shaken parliament put together the semblance of a respectable regime, although four ministries, including national security, were awarded to the right-wing extremists in recognition of their crucial role in ousting Yanukovych.

        At that point, virtually the entire U.S. news media put on blinders about the neo-Nazi role, all the better to sell the coup to the American public as an inspirational story of reform-minded "freedom fighters" standing up to "Russian aggression." The U.S. media delicately stepped around the neo-Nazi reality by keeping out relevant context, such as the background of national security chief Andriy Parubiy, who founded the Social-National Party of Ukraine in 1991, blending radical Ukrainian nationalism with neo-Nazi symbols. Parubiy was commandant of the Maidan's "self-defense forces."

        Barbarians at the Gate

        At times, the mainstream media's black-out of the brown shirts was almost comical. Last February, almost a year after the coup, a New York Times article about the government's defenders of Mariupol hailed the crucial role played by the Azov battalion but managed to avoid noting its well-documented Nazi connections.

        That article by Rick Lyman presented the situation in Mariupol as if the advance by ethnic Russian rebels amounted to the barbarians at the gate while the inhabitants were being bravely defended by the forces of civilization, the Azov battalion. In such an inspirational context, it presumably wasn't considered appropriate to mention the Swastikas and SS markings.

        Now, the Kiev regime has added to those "forces of civilization" - resisting the Russkie barbarians - Islamic militants with ties to terrorism. Last September, Marcin Mamon, a reporter for the Intercept, reached a vanguard group of these Islamic fighters in Ukraine through the help of his "contact in Turkey with the Islamic State [who] had told me his 'brothers' were in Ukraine, and I could trust them."

        The new Times article avoids delving into the terrorist connections of these Islamist fighters. But Kramer does bluntly acknowledge the Nazi truth about the Azov fighters. He also notes that American military advisers in Ukraine "are specifically prohibited from giving instruction to members of the Azov group."

        While the U.S. advisers are under orders to keep their distance from the neo-Nazis, the Kiev regime is quite open about its approval of the central military role played by these extremists – whether neo-Nazis, white supremacists or Islamic militants. These extremists are considered very aggressive and effective in killing ethnic Russians.

        The regime has shown little concern about widespread reports of "death squad" operations targeting suspected pro-Russian sympathizers in government-controlled towns. But such human rights violations should come as no surprise given the Nazi heritage of these units and the connection of the Islamic militants to hyper-violent terrorist movements in the Middle East.

        But the Times treats this lethal mixture of neo-Nazis and Islamic extremists as a good thing. After all, they are targeting opponents of the "white-hatted" Kiev regime, while the ethnic Russian rebels and the Russian government wear the "black hats."

        As an example of that tone, Kramer wrote:

        "Even for Ukrainians hardened by more than a year of war here against Russian-backed separatists, the appearance of Islamic combatants, mostly Chechens, in towns near the front lines comes as something of a surprise - and for many of the Ukrainians, a welcome one. … Anticipating an attack in the coming months, the Ukrainians are happy for all the help they can get."

        So, the underlying message seems to be that it's time for the American people and the European public to step up their financial and military support for a Ukrainian regime that has unleashed on ethnic Russians a combined force of Nazis, white supremacists and Islamic militants (considered "brothers" of the Islamic State).

        [For more on the Azov battalion, see Consortiumnews.com's "US House Admits Nazi Role in Ukraine."]

        Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

        [Jul 09, 2015] The Yatsenuk government declared that UNA-UNSO Party, the core of "Right Sektor", collaborated with Nazis in WWII

        yalensis, July 9, 2015 at 4:11 pm

        Meanwhile, in Ukrainian political news:

        The Yatsenuk government actually came out and declared that UNA-UNSO Party (=the core of "Right Sektor") collaborated with Nazis in WWII.

        This is a change from their usual b.s. about how UNA-UNSO fought AGAINST the German invaders. This rewriting of history went to ludicrous extremes, when Ukies claimed the Banderites should be designated as "victors" of WWII, along with England, France, etc.
        Instead of the losers that they actually were.

        But anyhow, what happened yesterday was that Minister of Justice in Ukraine refused to register UNA-UNSO, stating that "this political party fought on the side of the fascists in 1942″.

        Pundits see this strange (strange for Ukies, not strange for normal people) step as part of a plan to discredit Dmitry Yarosh and push him out of public life.

        [Jul 08, 2015]Are we the fascists now?

        Jul 03, 2015 | OffGuardian
        thanks-4-kit-mum

        The recent 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz was a reminder of the great crime of fascism, whose Nazi iconography is embedded in our consciousness. Fascism is preserved as history, as flickering footage of goose-stepping blackshirts, their criminality terrible and clear. Yet in the same liberal societies, whose war-making elites urge us never to forget, the accelerating danger of a modern kind of fascism is suppressed; for it is their fascism.

        To initiate a war of aggression…," said the Nuremberg Tribunal judges in 1946, "is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

        Had the Nazis not invaded Europe, Auschwitz and the Holocaust would not have happened. Had the United States and its satellites not initiated their war of aggression in Iraq in 2003, almost a million people would be alive today; and Islamic State, or ISIS, would not have us in thrall to its savagery. They are the progeny of modern fascism, weaned by the bombs, bloodbaths and lies that are the surreal theatre known as news.

        Libya

        Like the fascism of the 1930s and 1940s, big lies are delivered with the precision of a metronome: thanks to an omnipresent, repetitive media and its virulent censorship by omission. Take the catastrophe in Libya.

        In 2011, Nato launched 9,700 "strike sorties" against Libya, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. Uranium warheads were used; the cities of Misurata and Sirte were carpet-bombed. The Red Cross identified mass graves, and Unicef reported that "most [of the children killed] were under the age of ten".

        The public sodomising of the Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi with a "rebel" bayonet was greeted by the then US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, with the words: "We came, we saw, he died." His murder, like the destruction of his country, was justified with a familiar big lie; he was planning "genocide" against his own people. "We knew… that if we waited one more day," said President Obama, "Benghazi, a city the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."

        This was the fabrication of Islamist militias facing defeat by Libyan government forces. They told Reuters there would be "a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda". Reported on March 14, 2011, the lie provided the first spark for Nato's inferno, described by David Cameron as a "humanitarian intervention".

        Secretly supplied and trained by Britain's SAS, many of the "rebels" would become ISIS, whose latest video offering shows the beheading of 21 Coptic Christian workers seized in Sirte, the city destroyed on their behalf by Nato bombers.

        For Obama, David Cameron and then French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Gaddafi's true crime was Libya's economic independence and his declared intention to stop selling Africa's greatest oil reserves in US dollars. The petrodollar is a pillar of American imperial power. Gaddafi audaciously planned to underwrite a common African currency backed by gold, establish an all-Africa bank and promote economic union among poor countries with prized resources. Whether or not this would happen, the very notion was intolerable to the US as it prepared to "enter" Africa and bribe African governments with military "partnerships".

        Following Nato's attack under cover of a Security Council resolution, Obama, wrote Garikai Chengu…

        confiscated $30 billion from Libya's Central Bank, which Gaddafi had earmarked for the establishment of an African Central Bank and the African gold backed dinar currency".

        The Balkans

        The "humanitarian war" against Libya drew on a model close to western liberal hearts, especially in the media. In 1999, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair sent Nato to bomb Serbia, because, they lied, the Serbs were committing "genocide" against ethnic Albanians in the secessionist province of Kosovo. David Scheffer, US ambassador-at-large for war crimes [sic], claimed that as many as "225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59″ might have been murdered. Both Clinton and Blair evoked the Holocaust and "the spirit of the Second World War". The West's heroic allies were the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), whose criminal record was set aside. The British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told them to call him any time on his mobile phone.

        With the Nato bombing over, and much of Serbia's infrastructure in ruins, along with schools, hospitals, monasteries and the national TV station, international forensic teams descended upon Kosovo to exhume evidence of the "holocaust". The FBI failed to find a single mass grave and went home. The Spanish forensic team did the same, its leader angrily denouncing "a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines". A year later, a United Nations tribunal on Yugoslavia announced the final count of the dead in Kosovo: 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the KLA.

        There was no genocide. The "holocaust" was a lie. The Nato attack had been fraudulent.

        Behind the lie, there was serious purpose. Yugoslavia was a uniquely independent, multi-ethnic federation that had stood as a political and economic bridge in the Cold War. Most of its utilities and major manufacturing was publicly owned. This was not acceptable to the expanding European Community, especially newly united Germany, which had begun a drive east to capture its "natural market" in the Yugoslav provinces of Croatia and Slovenia. By the time the Europeans met at Maastricht in 1991 to lay their plans for the disastrous eurozone, a secret deal had been struck; Germany would recognise Croatia. Yugoslavia was doomed.

        In Washington, the US saw that the struggling Yugoslav economy was denied World Bank loans. Nato, then an almost defunct Cold War relic, was reinvented as imperial enforcer. At a 1999 Kosovo "peace" conference in Rambouillet, in France, the Serbs were subjected to the enforcer's duplicitous tactics. The Rambouillet accord included a secret Annex B, which the US delegation inserted on the last day. This demanded the military occupation of the whole of Yugoslavia – a country with bitter memories of the Nazi occupation – and the implementation of a "free-market economy" and the privatisation of all government assets. No sovereign state could sign this. Punishment followed swiftly; Nato bombs fell on a defenceless country. It was the precursor to the catastrophes in Afghanistan and Iraq, Syria and Libya, and Ukraine.

        Since 1945, more than a third of the membership of the United Nations – 69 countries – have suffered some or all of the following at the hands of America's modern fascism. They have been invaded, their governments overthrown, their popular movements suppressed, their elections subverted, their people bombed and their economies stripped of all protection, their societies subjected to a crippling siege known as "sanctions". The British historian Mark Curtis estimates the death toll in the millions. In every case, a big lie was deployed.

        Afghanistan

        Tonight, for the first time since 9/11, our combat mission in Afghanistan is over."

        These were opening words of Obama's 2015 State of the Union address. In fact, some 10,000 troops and 20,000 military contractors (mercenaries) remain in Afghanistan on indefinite assignment. "The longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion," said Obama. In fact, more civilians were killed in Afghanistan in 2014 than in any year since the UN took records.

        The majority have been killed – civilians and soldiers – during Obama's time as president.

        The tragedy of Afghanistan rivals the epic crime in Indochina. In his lauded and much quoted book 'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives', Zbigniew Brzezinski, the godfather of US policies from Afghanistan to the present day, writes that if America is to control Eurasia and dominate the world, it cannot sustain a popular democracy, because "the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion… Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilisation." He is right. As WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden have revealed, a surveillance and police state is usurping democracy. In 1976, Brzezinski, then President Carter's National Security Advisor, demonstrated his point by dealing a death blow to Afghanistan's first and only democracy. Who knows this vital history?

        In the 1960s, a popular revolution swept Afghanistan, the poorest country on earth, eventually overthrowing the vestiges of the aristocratic regime in 1978. The People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) formed a government and declared a reform programme that included the abolition of feudalism, freedom for all religions, equal rights for women and social justice for the ethnic minorities. More than 13,000 political prisoners were freed and police files publicly burned.

        The new government introduced free medical care for the poorest; peonage was abolished, a mass literacy programme was launched. For women, the gains were unheard of. By the late 1980s, half the university students were women, and women made up almost half of Afghanistan's doctors, a third of civil servants and the majority of teachers. "Every girl," recalled Saira Noorani, a female surgeon, "could go to high school and university. We could go where we wanted and wear what we liked. We used to go to cafes and the cinema to see the latest Indian film on a Friday and listen to the latest music. It all started to go wrong when the mujaheddin started winning. They used to kill teachers and burn schools. We were terrified. It was funny and sad to think these were the people the West supported."

        The PDPA government was backed by the Soviet Union, even though, as former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance later admitted, "there was no evidence of any Soviet complicity [in the revolution]". Alarmed by the growing confidence of liberation movements throughout the world, Brzezinski decided that if Afghanistan was to succeed under the PDPA, its independence and progress would offer the "threat of a promising example".

        On July 3, 1979, the White House secretly authorised support for tribal "fundamentalist" groups known as the mujaheddin, a program that grew to over $500 million a year in U.S. arms and other assistance. The aim was the overthrow of Afghanistan's first secular, reformist government. In August 1979, the US embassy in Kabul reported that "the United States' larger interests… would be served by the demise of [the PDPA government], despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan." The italics are mine.

        The mujaheddin were the forebears of al-Qaeda and Islamic State. They included Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who received tens of millions of dollars in cash from the CIA Hekmatyar's specialty was trafficking in opium and throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil. Invited to London, he was lauded by Prime Minister Thatcher as a "freedom fighter".

        Such fanatics might have remained in their tribal world had Brzezinski not launched an international movement to promote Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia and so undermine secular political liberation and "destabilise" the Soviet Union, creating, as he wrote in his autobiography, "a few stirred up Muslims". His grand plan coincided with the ambitions of the Pakistani dictator, General Zia ul-Haq, to dominate the region. In 1986, the CIA and Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, began to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. The Saudi multi-millionaire Osama bin Laden was one of them. Operatives who would eventually join the Taliban and al-Qaeda, were recruited at an Islamic college in Brooklyn, New York, and given paramilitary training at a CIA camp in Virginia. This was called "Operation Cyclone". Its success was celebrated in 1996 when the last PDPA president of Afghanistan, Mohammed Najibullah – who had gone before the UN General Assembly to plead for help – was hanged from a streetlight by the Taliban.

        The "blowback" of Operation Cyclone and its "few stirred up Muslims" was September 11, 2001. Operation Cyclone became the "war on terror", in which countless men, women and children would lose their lives across the Muslim world, from Afghanistan to Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Syria. The enforcer's message was and remains: "You are with us or against us."

        The common thread is mass murder

        The common thread in fascism, past and present, is mass murder. The American invasion of Vietnam had its "free fire zones", "body counts" and "collateral damage". In the province of Quang Ngai, where I reported from, many thousands of civilians ("gooks") were murdered by the US; yet only one massacre, at My Lai, is remembered. In Laos and Cambodia, the greatest aerial bombardment in history produced an epoch of terror marked today by the spectacle of joined-up bomb craters which, from the air, resemble monstrous necklaces. The bombing gave Cambodia its own ISIS, led by Pol Pot.

        Today, the world's greatest single campaign of terror entails the execution of entire families, guests at weddings, mourners at funerals. These are Obama's victims. According to the New York Times, Obama makes his selection from a CIA "kill list" presented to him every Tuesday in the White House Situation Room. He then decides, without a shred of legal justification, who will live and who will die. His execution weapon is the Hellfire missile carried by a pilotless aircraft known as a drone; these roast their victims and festoon the area with their remains. Each "hit" is registered on a faraway console screen as a "bugsplat".

        "For goose-steppers," wrote the historian Norman Pollack, "substitute the seemingly more innocuous militarisation of the total culture. And for the bombastic leader, we have the reformer manque, blithely at work, planning and executing assassination, smiling all the while."

        Uniting fascism old and new is the cult of superiority. "I believe in American exceptionalism with every fibre of my being," said Obama, evoking declarations of national fetishism from the 1930s. As the historian Alfred W. McCoy has pointed out, it was the Hitler devotee, Carl Schmitt, who said, "The sovereign is he who decides the exception." This sums up Americanism, the world's dominant ideology. That it remains unrecognised as a predatory ideology is the achievement of an equally unrecognised brainwashing. Insidious, undeclared, presented wittily as enlightenment on the march, its conceit insinuates western culture. I grew up on a cinematic diet of American glory, almost all of it a distortion. I had no idea that it was the Red Army that had destroyed most of the Nazi war machine, at a cost of as many as 13 million soldiers. By contrast, US losses, including in the Pacific, were 400,000. Hollywood reversed this.

        The difference now is that cinema audiences are invited to wring their hands at the "tragedy" of American psychopaths having to kill people in distant places – just as the President himself kills them. The embodiment of Hollywood's violence, the actor and director Clint Eastwood, was nominated for an Oscar this year for his movie, 'American Sniper', which is about a licensed murderer and nutcase. The New York Times described it as a "patriotic, pro-family picture which broke all attendance records in its opening days".

        There are no heroic movies about America's embrace of fascism. During the Second World War, America (and Britain) went to war against Greeks who had fought heroically against Nazism and were resisting the rise of Greek fascism. In 1967, the CIA helped bring to power a fascist military junta in Athens – as it did in Brazil and most of Latin America. Germans and east Europeans who had colluded with Nazi aggression and crimes against humanity were given safe haven in the US; many were pampered and their talents rewarded. Wernher von Braun was the "father" of both the Nazi V-2 terror bomb and the US space programme.

        Ukraine

        In the 1990s, as former Soviet republics, eastern Europe and the Balkans became military outposts of Nato, the heirs to a Nazi movement in Ukraine were given their opportunity. Responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews, Poles and Russians during the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, Ukrainian fascism was rehabilitated and its "new wave" hailed by the enforcer as "nationalists".

        This reached its apogee in 2014 when the Obama administration splashed out $5 billion on a coup against the elected government. The shock troops were neo-Nazis known as the Right Sector and Svoboda. Their leaders include Oleh Tyahnybok, who has called for a purge of the "Moscow-Jewish mafia" and "other scum", including gays, feminists and those on the political left.

        These fascists are now integrated into the Kiev coup government. The first deputy speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, Andriy Parubiy, a leader of the governing party, is co-founder of Svoboda. On February 14, Parubiy announced he was flying to Washington get "the USA to give us highly precise modern weaponry". If he succeeds, it will be seen as an act of war by Russia.

        No western leader has spoken up about the revival of fascism in the heart of Europe – with the exception of Vladimir Putin, whose people lost 22 million to a Nazi invasion that came through the borderland of Ukraine. At the recent Munich Security Conference, Obama's Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, ranted abuse about European leaders for opposing the US arming of the Kiev regime. She referred to the German Defence Minister as "the minister for defeatism". It was Nuland who masterminded the coup in Kiev. The wife of Robert D. Kagan, a leading "neo-con" luminary and co-founder of the extreme right wing Project for a New American Century, she was foreign policy advisor to Dick Cheney.

        Nuland's coup did not go to plan. Nato was prevented from seizing Russia's historic, legitimate, warm-water naval base in Crimea. The mostly Russian population of Crimea – illegally annexed to Ukraine by Nikita Krushchev in 1954 – voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia, as they had done in the 1990s. The referendum was voluntary, popular and internationally observed. There was no invasion.

        At the same time, the Kiev regime turned on the ethnic Russian population in the east with the ferocity of ethnic cleansing. Deploying neo-Nazi militias in the manner of the Waffen-SS, they bombed and laid to siege cities and towns. They used mass starvation as a weapon, cutting off electricity, freezing bank accounts, stopping social security and pensions. More than a million refugees fled across the border into Russia. In the western media, they became unpeople escaping "the violence" caused by the "Russian invasion". The Nato commander, General Breedlove – whose name and actions might have been inspired by Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove – announced that 40,000 Russian troops were "massing". In the age of forensic satellite evidence, he offered none.

        These Russian-speaking and bilingual people of Ukraine – a third of the population – have long sought a federation that reflects the country's ethnic diversity and is both autonomous and independent of Moscow. Most are not "separatists" but citizens who want to live securely in their homeland and oppose the power grab in Kiev. Their revolt and establishment of autonomous "states" are a reaction to Kiev's attacks on them. Little of this has been explained to western audiences.

        On May 2, 2014, in Odessa, 41 ethnic Russians were burned alive in the trade union headquarters with police standing by. The Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh hailed the massacre as "another bright day in our national history". In the American and British media, this was reported as a "murky tragedy" resulting from "clashes" between "nationalists" (neo-Nazis) and "separatists" (people collecting signatures for a referendum on a federal Ukraine).

        The New York Times buried the story, having dismissed as Russian propaganda warnings about the fascist and anti-Semitic policies of Washington's new clients. The Wall Street Journal damned the victims – "Deadly Ukraine Fire Likely Sparked by Rebels, Government Says". Obama congratulated the junta for its "restraint".

        If Putin can be provoked into coming to their aid, his pre-ordained "pariah" role in the West will justify the lie that Russia is invading Ukraine. On January 29, Ukraine's top military commander, General Viktor Muzhemko, almost inadvertently dismissed the very basis for US and EU sanctions on Russia when he told a news conference emphatically: "The Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian Army". There were "individual citizens" who were members of "illegal armed groups", but there was no Russian invasion. This was not news. Vadym Prystaiko, Kiev's Deputy Foreign Minister, has called for "full scale war" with nuclear-armed Russia.

        On February 21, US Senator James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, introduced a bill that would authorise American arms for the Kiev regime. In his Senate presentation, Inhofe used photographs he claimed were of Russian troops crossing into Ukraine, which have long been exposed as fakes. It was reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's fake pictures of a Soviet installation in Nicaragua, and Colin Powell's fake evidence to the UN of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

        The intensity of the smear campaign against Russia and the portrayal of its president as a pantomime villain is unlike anything I have known as a reporter. Robert Parry, one of America's most distinguished investigative journalists, who revealed the Iran-Contra scandal, wrote recently, "No European government, since Adolf Hitler's Germany, has seen fit to dispatch Nazi storm troopers to wage war on a domestic population, but the Kiev regime has and has done so knowingly. Yet across the West's media/political spectrum, there has been a studious effort to cover up this reality even to the point of ignoring facts that have been well established… If you wonder how the world could stumble into world war three – much as it did into world war one a century ago – all you need to do is look at the madness over Ukraine that has proved impervious to facts or reason."

        In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal prosecutor said of the German media: "The use made by Nazi conspirators of psychological warfare is well known. Before each major aggression, with some few exceptions based on expediency, they initiated a press campaign calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German people psychologically for the attack… In the propaganda system of the Hitler State it was the daily press and the radio that were the most important weapons." In the Guardian on February 2, Timothy Garton-Ash called, in effect, for a world war. "Putin must be stopped," said the headline. "And sometimes only guns can stop guns." He conceded that the threat of war might "nourish a Russian paranoia of encirclement"; but that was fine. He name-checked the military equipment needed for the job and advised his readers that "America has the best kit".

        In 2003, Garton-Ash, an Oxford professor, repeated the propaganda that led to the slaughter in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, he wrote, "has, as [Colin] Powell documented, stockpiled large quantities of horrifying chemical and biological weapons, and is hiding what remains of them. He is still trying to get nuclear ones." He lauded Blair as a "Gladstonian, Christian liberal interventionist". In 2006, he wrote, "Now we face the next big test of the West after Iraq: Iran."

        The outbursts – or as Garton-Ash prefers, his "tortured liberal ambivalence" – are not untypical of those in the transatlantic liberal elite who have struck a Faustian deal. The war criminal Blair is their lost leader. The Guardian, in which Garton-Ash's piece appeared, published a full-page advertisement for an American Stealth bomber. On a menacing image of the Lockheed Martin monster were the words: "The F-35. GREAT For Britain". This American "kit" will cost British taxpayers £1.3 billion, its F-model predecessors having slaughtered across the world. In tune with its advertiser, a Guardian editorial has demanded an increase in military spending.

        Once again, there is serious purpose. The rulers of the world want Ukraine not only as a missile base; they want its economy. Kiev's new Finance Minister, Nataliwe Jaresko, is a former senior US State Department official in charge of US overseas "investment". She was hurriedly given Ukrainian citizenship. They want Ukraine for its abundant gas; Vice President Joe Biden's son is on the board of Ukraine's biggest oil, gas and fracking company. The manufacturers of GM seeds, companies such as the infamous Monsanto, want Ukraine's rich farming soil.

        Above all, they want Ukraine's mighty neighbour, Russia. They want to Balkanise or dismember Russia and exploit the greatest source of natural gas on earth. As the Arctic ice melts, they want control of the Arctic Ocean and its energy riches, and Russia's long Arctic land border. Their man in Moscow used to be Boris Yeltsin, a drunk, who handed his country's economy to the West. His successor, Putin, has re-established Russia as a sovereign nation; that is his crime.

        The responsibility of the rest of us is clear. It is to identify and expose the reckless lies of warmongers and never to collude with them. It is to re-awaken the great popular movements that brought a fragile civilisation to modern imperial states. Most important, it is to prevent the conquest of ourselves: our minds, our humanity, our self respect. If we remain silent, victory over us is assured, and a holocaust beckons.

        [Jul 05, 2015] Patriotism Begins With Localism

        Jul 05, 2015 | The American Conservative

        Responses to Patriotism Begins With Localism


        Apolitical, July 3, 2015 at 9:50 am

        Dulce et decorum est … to stop believing the "old lie" that appears so promiscuously on Union and Confederate war memorials. If men on all sides always die for country, who puts them up to it?

        JonF, July 3, 2015 at 10:44 am

        Re: But it is also, crucially, a matter of shared bloodlines, language, history, literature, and cuisine, things that originated long before the time of Rousseau and Voltaire.

        At yet France is a glued-together-at-the-seams country too. The whole South of France once spoke a different language, in which the troubadours sang, and which still survives in the local dialects of the inhabitants. Burgundy was once a sovereign and very wealthy duchy whose duke controlled almost the entire Rhineland all the way to the Netherlands. Brittany too was its own nation, albeit torn between France and England. And the English ruled Gascony for 300 years, and were preferred as rulers to the Valois kings so that the Gascons promptly revolted when the French took the land back. The Pope ruled (and for a time dwelt) in Avignon. The Provence was a county of the Holy Roman Empire. Louis XIV knit these disparate lands together by corralling their nobility into velvet captivity at Versailles. The Revolutionaries added an ideology and a national anthem (and spilled the blood of the dissenters) and Napoleon gave the mix a mythology of glory. But the seams are still there under the surface. And indeed, you can find similar fissures in many other European countries too.

        Connecticut Farmer, July 3, 2015 at 10:47 am

        The concept of a country linked together by a common set of laws was never intended by our revered Founders to be anything more or less than an experiment. An experiment that had never been tried before. Arguably the United States Constitution that was drafted during the height of the Enlightenment and, together with the America's so-called "birth certificate", Jefferson's Declaration, may be considered that era's greatest accomplishment…a little Locke here, a dash of Montesquieu there and…Voila! In that respect "United" States are in no way "united", in the strictest sense of the word, except through the Constitution. And I suspect that is about all the Founders could have hoped for. From the beginning America was– and remains– a culturally Balkanized and, now more than ever, polyglot landmass more reminiscent of pre-World War One Austria-Hungary.

        The late Speaker of The House, Tip O'Neill-a Boston Irishman I might add–is reputed to have once said "All politics is local." He got it half right. What he should have said is "All LOYALTY is local". I am also reminded of a line in The Godfather when Sonny Cordleone says to his brother Fredo "Your country ain't your blood".

        Patriotism indeed begins on the local level, whether geographical, cultural, familial–or some combination thereof. The author is spot-on.

        Gregory, July 3, 2015 at 8:28 pm

        That line in Wilfred Owen's poem is supposed to be ironic…

        TB, July 3, 2015 at 9:08 pm

        "Patriotism Begins With Localism"
        _________

        I think the last refuge of the scoundrel begins with tribalism fear which, is the cultural anthropologist's way of saying "localism".

        Fran Macadam, July 3, 2015 at 11:57 pm

        Well written, but full of unexamined assumptions that are more comforting myth than truth.

        Like the girls who didn't stay thin, exactly.

        "I'd wager that all of us on the roof that night were grateful to live in a place where we can vote, start a business, and express ourselves freely, and grateful towards the ungodly number of young men shot and shredded and killed in our name."

        Yet voting's never meant less as policies are completely untethered from public opinion, except as it can be manufactured through what crony capitalism calls PR, more honest oligarchies call propaganda. And participation in voting is a minority activity, meaning real democracy's already given the process a vote of no confidence.

        We can express ourselves freely, if we're not among those with proscribed views, but those in charge aren't interested in what we have to say. The main corporate media, the gateways through which most people get their filtered news, prints all the news that fits their status quo interests. No genuinely alternative political opinions that challenge the duopoly establishment are able to be considered, though the corporate donorist class has no solutions to the ill which ail us, except for mendacity. Certainly there have been an ungodly number of young men killed in our name, and an even more ungodly number of foreign civilians of all ages and sexes whom they have killed, also in our name. But truth be told, our name being invoked was our only connection to the purpose of the wars, which wasn't for our interests at all; none of the foreign wars of choice have secured our liberties, only debased them – and violated those of others. Far from making us secure, our very democracy has been endangered by their unaccountable and unconstitutional means, perhaps fatally. Perhaps only the young now can be so deceived, without experience, with heavy student debt focusing their thoughts on more immediate personal concerns, with their docile, untenured instructors carrying their own debt loads, unwilling to intellectually challenge the status quo.

        What business will you be grateful to start? In the post-industrial economic desert of America that the donorist elites leveled to keep more of business' rewards for themselves, it's unlikely to be able to provide the stable, well-paying work that manufacturing used to.

        I suggest getting another advisor and thesis.

        Suggested topic:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

        JEinCA, July 4, 2015 at 3:16 am

        I think Pat Buchanan said it best. We're no longer a nation in any traditional sense of the word. We are an economy. The best definition of a nation would be Michael Savage's definition of borders, language and culture but more important than all of this would be religion. Unless a nation has a commonly shared faith it can never truly be one. The Russians know this and that is why the Kremlin has thrown its support behind the Russian Orthodox Church. The West used to know this and that is why Europe was up until this last century identifiably Christian civilization with the biggest differances largely arising from the Catholic-Protestant divide.

        For awhile America reflected Christian Europe but now we reflect Babylon and our elites are largely cynical atheists who look down on people of faith. Such a house could have never withstood a Great Depression let alone a Soviet style collapse.

        [Jul 05, 2015]Russian university fires US academic accused of harming national interests

        "...This particular one is not a scientist, he was an administrator. And a CEO of a venture-capital company, so that he probably doesn't need a job, to survive."
        .
        "...I wonder if calling what Washington has been doing for the last year can be called "waging war". They certainly attack Russia in every way they think possible: economy, diplomacy, military buildup, media demonization campaigns, and just a total overall hostility.

        Maybe the word "war" is too strong a metaphor, but given that it is simply not possible to have a shooting war with Russia (those damn nukes!), this might be as war-like that it will ever get. It is pretty dismally ugly and reflects rather poorly on West's residual rationality."

        Jul 05, 2015 | The Guardian

        MaoChengJi -> Калинин Юрий 5 Jul 2015 08:19

        ...and incidentally even academic tenure doesn't help: check out the Ward Churchill controversy.

        Also, I don't think you're right assuming that this is all government pressure. I'd argue that this is mostly public pressure. Private enterprises aren't immune. People who are perceived as enemies are going to be ostracized no matter what. All you can do is to insist that they are not illegally discriminated. And in this case I assume everything was done by the book.


        MaoChengJi -> Калинин Юрий 4 Jul 2015 10:40

        "I am sure that this particular scientist will find a job. But the whole situation is sad."

        This particular one is not a scientist, he was an administrator. And a CEO of a venture-capital company, so that he probably doesn't need a job, to survive.

        However, for the scientists Americans have a mechanism to ensure at least some degree of independence: tenure. There are pluses and minuses, of course, like in everything else.

        Does it exist in Russia?


        Beckow Gunnar -> René Øie 4 Jul 2015 02:22

        There are obscenity laws in US and many EU countries (Poland!!) that are identical to the Russian law. Same for the "foreign agent" laws. Instead of addressing it, you repeat as an assertion that "in Russia it is different...inconsistent and arbitrary".

        Really? Why? Because you say so? You realize that is not an argument? Back up what you say, we could all assert things we want. I can say that "blacks are not treated equally by law in US". Is that true?

        Regarding slavery or British colonial mass murder: why Rhodes, that would be too easy. Why not Churchill, or Queen Victoria, or Jefferson/Washington? Are US-UK ready to denounce them? If not, why do they expect others to demonize their own past personalities? Learn how to use the same metric, be objective, or you will simply stay irrelevant...hypocrisy is fatal for people who want to preach to others. We might be beyond point of no return for the current Western preachers...


        nnedjo 4 Jul 2015 02:00

        White told the Guardian by email that he was on vacation in Florida but would be returning to Russia this weekend. "What I am going to find there is absolutely not clear to me now that I am proposed to be on some sort of stop list," White said. "But I plan to meet with the university to try to better understand the situation with my good friends and colleagues there."

        From all this it is only clear that even for the professor White himself is not clear what exactly is going on with his position on the Lobachevsky University. But, as usual, Moscow Times is the only one who is best informed about everything.

        This Moscow Times is a really interesting newspaper. It is published in Russia, but nobody seems to read it there. Unlike the Western media, which immediately reprinted their news as they occur.:-)


        Калинин Юрий Gunnar René Øie 3 Jul 2015 22:23

        For sure the american soldiers are there.
        The situation of your poor country exactly the same that has been described by Bernard Shaw in his book Arms and the man. A war between Bulgaria and Serbia. All the officers in Bulgaria were Russians and all the officers in Serbia were Austrians and even a soldier from Switzerland. Because locals are too stupid and ignorant.
        Even BBC already call it a civil war but you continue to cry an ocean about the Russian troops there. Poroshenko tells about 200 000 - more then the army of Germany. Ask him - what does he smoke and where you can buy it.


        Mo Rochdale sasha19 3 Jul 2015 20:03

        Who's closing of who? The yanks started this by banning russian businessmen and politicians. It sticks in your crow when somebody does it back to the yanks.


        Russianelf caliento 3 Jul 2015 16:21

        As the saying goes "a friend in need is a friend indeed" :-).

        Why have not you mentioned Xi Jinping?

        20 years ago the first president of Russia, Boris Eltssin, always drunk and funny, destroyed Russian industry and economy. I was a minor at that time but I remember clearly that I had nothing to eat then. He was so much welcome by US and its satellites. He had many friends!
        If you think that UK and US are friends you are deeply mistaken!


        AndreyR2008 Gunnar René Øie 3 Jul 2015 16:10

        So in nutshell it's bad not because it's bad but because it's Russian.
        Thank you! Finally somebody of our western teachers had an honesty to say that outloud.


        Beckow Gunnar René Øie 3 Jul 2015 13:29

        Your distinctions do not establish a real difference. Those are adjustments that account for different situation in Russia vs. US, e.g. lots and lots of Russian oligarchs have foreign citizenships and keep their money abroad - e.g. Zimin, etc...

        Russian law against "indecent sexual propaganda to minors (under 18)" is actually also almost identical to laws in many US states, and also laws in Poland, Romania, Lithuania, and lots of other countries in EU. There is no mention of gay-this or that, it simply says that minors cannot be "exposed" to non-traditional stuff that could be considered obscene.

        So the laws are the same, and somehow none of this attracts much attention in the West, only when it is in Russia, they are "shocked". That is a definition of total hypocrisy. Your argument that it is the "application" of the law that is different is not supported by any evidence: the number if cases in Russia where these questionable laws have been used is very small, the outcomes were ambiguous (small fines, endless appeals, etc...), in other words none of the Western hysteria is reflected in reality.

        You seem to - like "Ijust want to say" - live in a virtual reality that you have created based on ideology, endless dated allusions (Dzerzhinsky?), and a bit of dislike or even hatred for the "eastern beast". In other words your thinking is not reality-based it is politicized. That is not a good place to be, reality will come back to bite you. I can also pontificate on US genocides (natives, slavery) or British murderous march around the word - it is past, not that relevant today. Let go of this obsession with Stalin, he has been dead for 60 years. Look at Russia as it is today, don't exaggerate, calm down and maybe peace can prevail....


        LoneSurvivor AbsolutelyFapulous 3 Jul 2015 13:17

        LOL. What virtual reality are you in?

        AbsolutelyFapulous 3 Jul 2015 13:09

        He can now teach in russian language in Ukraine, if he wants. And go back later to Russia, together with the Ukraine army, conquering the European part of it.


        Agatha_appears AbsolutelyFapulous 3 Jul 2015 12:29

        Absolutely fabulous lies


        Калинин Юрий 3 Jul 2015 09:47

        AbsolutelyFapulous - 12 messages
        dropthemchammer - 240 both with the replies
        truk10 - only 8 with the answers
        Luminaire - 29 with the answers
        raffine - 59 with the answers
        srmttmrs - 106 messages including the answers

        You guys are talking to each other. Get yourself a good job!

        johnbonn 3 Jul 2015 08:19

        It is not paranoia at all. It is sanctions for sanctions. But there is no question that the US is aggressively organizing protests and orchestrating regime change in the RF.

        The Pentagon will work tirelessly and relentlessly to unsettle the RF until it can extricate Crimea from Russia.

        Crimea is the crossroads of the Middle East, Europe, and Asia and is the single most strategically situated piece of land on the planet.

        centerline Luminaire 3 Jul 2015 04:12

        that the Kiev regime are US backed is in every MSM article. It is in the Ukraine Freedom act passed by congress into law in the US and signed by Obomber.

        Popeyes raffine 3 Jul 2015 04:01

        You really need to do more research currently there are 21 universities in Russia featured within the QS World University Rankings® 2014/15, five of which are placed among the top 400 universities worldwide. Russia also boasts a substantial presence in the QS University Rankings: BRICS 2014, a ranking of the leading universities in the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), with 53 Russian universities making the BRICS top 200.Lomonosov Moscow State University, or Lomonosov MSU for short, is Russia's highest ranked institution, placed 114th in the world in the QS World University Rankings® 2014/15.


        vr13vr raffine 3 Jul 2015 02:01

        We might not have the "fifth column" argument but we simply fire academics for them expressing opinion that doesn't match the one of the administration. Which, come to think of it is even worse. At least Russians believe in some potential threat while we don't even need threat, we just fire whoever disagree with us:

        http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/02/stripping-a-professor-of-tenure-over-a-blog-post/385280/

        https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/academic-heavyweights-slam-univ-illinois-firing-steven-salaita-palestine-views

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill

        https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/05/19/firing-sets-debate-over-whether-deans-must-publicly-back-administrations

        And so on.


        Agatha_appears MaoChengJi 3 Jul 2015 01:53

        Kendrick was not a rector but vice-rector on innnovations. I assume the University needed him badly to get some grants and launch joint projects with businesses.

        He was not fired . He is no longer vice-president, but is dotzen and, as far as I know, heads a laboratory or center that deals with innivations, start ups etc. But he is really a great guy.


        vr13vr 2 Jul 2015 21:40

        I hold and MBA and it doesn't make me an academic. His bio by the way does not mention neither MBA nor PhD.


        Beckow Gunnar René Øie 2 Jul 2015 20:49

        It is the same. Same law, same interpretation - being a "foreign agent" is not the same as a "spy". There has been controversy about "foreign funded" initiatives in US too - but the law is purely about labeling, it doesn't forbid being a "foreign agent". Same is US, same in Russia, the law was copied word-for-word from US.

        Anglican Church in Boston (Episcopalian I would presume) is based in US and funded in US. It is also not a political organization (at least not primarily). So there is no comparison...

        centerline 2 Jul 2015 20:44

        After the colour revolutions and springs of the last decade, and the death and destruction they have brought, any independent sovereign nation needs to sweep the US garbage out the door.

        Terry Ross Nashi_kb 2 Jul 2015 20:05

        Drop the travel bans and asset freezes and I am sure they will reconsider. ha ha
        At least they did not freeze the academics assets within Russia and prevent him from returning by refusing a visa.

        Terry Ross truk10 2 Jul 2015 20:01

        Seems like you just missed this year's Saint Petersburg international Book Salon Exhibition.
        http://www.advantour.com/russia/saint-petersburg/exhibitions/book-salon.htm

        However you still have plenty of time to arrange your presence at the Moscow 17th International Book Fair to be held in November.
        http://www.moscowbookfair.ru/eng/about.html


        Wardellsworld 2 Jul 2015 19:48

        Coca Cola next.

        Terry Ross 2 Jul 2015 19:44

        Firstly, the leadership in Kiev did not simply 'come' to power: a sitting president and his cabinet first had to be deposed.
        Secondly, the 2012 law has been since justified by the attempts of US-AID to depose the Cuban government via a mobile phone and social networking scheme
        'USAID programme used young Latin Americans to incite Cuba rebellion'

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/04/usaid-latin-americans-cuba-rebellion-hiv-workshops

        Thirdly, the issue of travel bans and freezing assets via a hit list was first employed by the US and EU.


        Beckow sasha19 2 Jul 2015 17:46

        I wonder if calling what Washington has been doing for the last year can be called "waging war". They certainly attack Russia in every way they think possible: economy, diplomacy, military buildup, media demonization campaigns, and just a total overall hostility.

        Maybe the word "war" is too strong a metaphor, but given that it is simply not possible to have a shooting war with Russia (those damn nukes!), this might be as war-like that it will ever get. It is pretty dismally ugly and reflects rather poorly on West's residual rationality.

        PaddyCannuck caliento 2 Jul 2015 17:32

        "Nazi" is a word with very serious implications, and not a word that should be casually thrown around the place by children chanting childish insults. Naziism is an extreme and violent form of nationalism based on morally repugnant concepts of ethnic purity and racial superiority.

        Has Putin ever said that Russia should be exlcusively a country for "ethnically pure Russians", or advocated ridding Russia of "ethnic impurities"? If so, please provide references, links etc. Otherwise, crawl back into your hole and shut the hell up, because you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Remember, there's always somebody else out there who sees YOU as a racially inferior ethnic impurity, and you should be very grateful that Mr Putin is not one of them.


        sasha19 AndreyR2008 2 Jul 2015 17:10

        There are some excellent universities with great technology same as the West and there are others that are behind, same as the West

        sasha19 Beckow 2 Jul 2015 17:08

        "waging war" that was a quantum leap. It is true what has happened to Russian academics, one of my friends lost her post in March due to budgetary issues. The article was not about western academics but it is true that many universities are eliminating programs that are not producing graduates and thus faculty are released. At the same time there are some universities hiring as they have growing programs. It is 6 of one and a half dozen of another.

        Beckow sasha19 2 Jul 2015 16:59

        You seem to get pleasure out of "my neighbors' cow died" new stories. I don't even think it is news, more like a propaganda distraction.

        How about looking at "pay cuts, job losses" at home? Wouldn't that be real news? Or would you claim that no academician ever lost a position for "political" reason in the West? A foreigner from a country (US) that basically is waging a war on all allowable fronts on Russia is unlikely to keep a cushy academic sinecure. That's the way it is all over the world.


        Beckow 2 Jul 2015 16:13

        High administrative posts in all universities, in all countries, since time immemorial have been political. To be a dean in Oxford, Sorbonne, or Warsaw or Munich, it always has a major political components. These are cushy jobs given as rewards, not earned in any meaningful sense of the world.

        Why should it be different in Nizny Novgorod? Maybe a local well-connected guy wants the job. Why is this "news", there are tens of thousand frustrated academicians all over West who didn't get a job or were let go. It is political, it is always political, declaring that it is "news" because it is in Russia is, by the way, also political.

        MaoChengJi 2 Jul 2015 16:02

        Really, how does a venture-capitalist become rector of a university in the first place? One can hardly imagine any other way but bribery. Good catch, Mr. Kiselyov, but firing is not enough, they need to investigate.


        Canigou sasha19 2 Jul 2015 15:59

        Not every Fulbright Program person, and member of other similar U.S.-funded academic organization, is a spy. Some have been, however, and it was a big scandal when the CIA was exposed (to its disgrace) as subsidizing supposed student organizations and using them as fronts to promote U.S. propaganda.


        Laurence Johnson 2 Jul 2015 15:49

        We all know how NGO's have been used in an attempt to undermine the government in Russia. Yet again Putin is streets ahead and clearing them all out. There isn't a way to topple the Russian government and the more we try the more foolish we look.

        Its time to leave Russia to sort out its internal affairs and concentrate on getting our economies back on track before we find the world has passed us all by.

        Canigou -> sasha19 2 Jul 2015 15:01

        The U.S. has decided to exclude many Russians from its territory because it does not like their political views. Russia's expulsion of an American professor looks to be a blowback from that U.S. policy.

        If you want your academic friends in Russia to feel secure in their ability to have their Russian visas renewed, perhaps you could ask The State Department to reconsider its politicized travel sanctions against Russian individuals.

        vr13vr sasha19 2 Jul 2015 14:53

        Good try. He is "the chief executive of the Russia-focused investment consultancy Marchmont Capital Partners," according to the article. "In 2005, Mr. White founded Marchmont Capital Partners, LLC an investment advisory firm... ," and he worked in the same city, according to the link. How many Marchmont Capital Partners exist in Nizhniy Novgorod and how many of them were created by someone with the name Kendrik White?

        In either case, the article doesn't mention any academic credentials. The website does mention a lot of finance credentials instead.

        SHappens 2 Jul 2015 14:13

        The Putin government has also stopped many US/Russia collaborative studies, blaming the US for "stealing" Russian intellectuals.

        When we know the NSA spies on technology everywhere in the world this is hardly surprising that'd be true. Tit for tat. US got what it sowed.

        [Jul 05, 2015]The Observer view on Greece's referendum

        The EU Parliament has been in the hands of the neocons for a long time.
        .
        "...Europe and the IMF are trying for regime change in Greece. If they don't get it at the ballot box on Sunday, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a military coup is in the works, aided as always by the CIA"
        .
        "...This chronology of events is quite selective and somewhat inexact. However I would merely point out the fact that it considers years of dreadfully wrong policies by the troika and the previous greek governmentsp as equivalent to Syrizas six months in power, something that borders on the astonishing. To consider Syriza's choices as irresponsable, inexperienced, etc., is to merely repeat, in a very medíocre fashion Lagarde's imbecile observation about the need for adults in the room. It is therefore quite below the Observer's standards."
        Jul 05, 2015 | The Guardian

        DarrellKavanagh -> SoberThirdThought 4 Jul 2015 23:49

        That the EU and IMF want regime change in Greece is not in doubt: indeed it has been admitted. But a military coup is extremely unlikely - they'll continue to use economic and ideological methods.

        DarrellKavanagh -> Peter Locke 4 Jul 2015 23:44

        Or a government, which was elected to oppose the quack economic medicine which is acknowledged worldwide to have made things immeasurably worse over the last 5 years, draws some perfectly reasonable conclusions when their supposed partners continue to force more of the same medicine down their throats.

        Your pseudo-historical claptrap says more about you than it does about Syriza.

        SoberThirdThought -> Peter Locke 4 Jul 2015 23:41

        I don't know about "enriching bankers," but the Versaille Treaty was pretty much designed to keep Germany on its knees, humiliated and weak.

        SoberThirdThought 4 Jul 2015 23:38

        Europe and the IMF are trying for regime change in Greece. If they don't get it at the ballot box on Sunday, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a military coup is in the works, aided as always by the CIA

        SocialScienceCritic, 4 Jul 2015 22:48

        The choices on the ballot are:

        • NO vote: Do you want to negotiate an agreement that allows at least some money to rebuild our country, and then pay our debts with a meaningful fraction of our growth?

        • YES vote: Or do you want to go back to EZ sponsored austerity, and hope that you will outlive its severe damage to our country?

        (That's if there is any country left after Brussels technocrats run our government and all of our children and anyone with half a brain has emigrated.)

        Nobody can force a country out of the EU, much less a pack of appointed bureaucrats. All this IN-OR-OUT talk is a big lie to force a yes vote. Even the latest IMF report is timed to ease Greece into a YES vote.

        1. If Greece votes YES, they will put a noose around their own neck. They'll no longer be a news item, "A population starves and freezes to death for the tenth straight year in a row, (because they chose to)." Varoufakis will do something more interesting, and so will I.

        2. If Greece votes a resounding NO, democracy is still alive in at least some part of the world. Something will happen where a country picks itself up and starts to work. This is a moment to celebrate and watch with fascination.

        3. If Greece is scared and votes 50 - 50%, well that is the power of a democracy in all of our nations, (powerless). Half the people are probably not suffering much from austerity. Some weak agreement will come. At least IMF already called for debt relief, which is a referendum success.

        Maybe 150 countries in the world run themselves is some kind of fashion. IS GREECE NUMBER 151? Evidently many writing comments here believe it cannot happen for Greece.

        The EZ boys don't have a clue what that plan could be. So far it hasn't worked at gun point for 5 years running. Maybe they could actually take up their guns and revert to the old German plan that was abandoned. They could disassemble everything that can be detached from the earth and send it back to Germany.

        That is the effect of what they are doing anyway. The abandoned Greek factories have turned into scrap-iron.

        lucianospalleti2 4 Jul 2015 19:48

        This chronology of events is quite selective and somewhat inexact. However I would merely point out the fact that it considers years of dreadfully wrong policies by the troika and the previous greek governmentsp as equivalent to Syrizas six months in power, something that borders on the astonishing. To consider Syriza's choices as irresponsable, inexperienced, etc., is to merely repeat, in a very medíocre fashion Lagarde's imbecile observation about the need for adults in the room. It is therefore quite below the Observer's standards.

        [Jul 05, 2015] Greeces mass psychology of revolt will survive the financial carpet-bombing

        Jul 05, 2015 | The Guardian

        ...Sunday's referendum will take place under a kind of financial warfare not seen in the history of modern states. The Greek government was forced to close its banks after the European Central Bank, whose job is technically to keep them open, refused to do so. The never-taxed and never-registered broadcasters of Greece did the rest, spreading panic, and intensifying it where it had already taken hold.

        When the prime minister made an urgent statement live on the state broadcaster, some rival, private news channels refused to cut to the live feed. Greek credit cards ceased to work abroad. Some airlines cancelled all ticketing arrangements with the country. Some employers laid off their staff. One told them they would be paid only if they turned up at an anti-government demonstration. Martin Schulz, the socialist president of the European parliament, called for the far-left government to be replaced by technocrats. And the Council of Europe declared the referendum undemocratic.

        With ATM cash limited to €60 a day, one shopkeeper described the effect on her customers: on day one, panic buying; day two, less buying; day three, terror; day four, frozen. The words you find yourself using in reports, after looking into the eyes of pensioners and young mothers, make the parallel with conflict entirely justified: terror, fear, flight, panic, uncertainty, sleeplessness, anxiety, disorientation.

        If the effect was to terrorise the population, it has only half worked. The pollsters are simply finding what Greek political scientists already know: society is divided, deeply and psychologically, between left and right.

        The anthropologist David Graeber points out, in his history of debt and debt forgiveness Debt: The First 5,000 Years, that the transaction carries the implicit threat of violence. Debt gives you the power of rightful coercion with all the blame attaching to the victim. But rarely has that power been used as Europe used it against Greece last week. In the 2013 Cypriot crisis, where the EU enforced the seizure of money in people's bank accounts, the government caved in at the first confrontation.

        ... ... ...

        Germany's mistake, in this sense, since 2010, has been its failure to demand a modernised and productive capitalism. It imposed European debt rules via parties who were never prepared to impose the European norms of business and social equity. Indeed, the EU has relied on a local business elite that is often physically absent: happier in Knightsbridge than in its Athenian equivalent.

        When Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy overthrew first George Papandreou and then Silvio Berlusconi, they could at least console themselves that it was a political mercy killing. Not many people rioted. And as Sarkozy implied, when he slapped me down at a press conference, this was the European way.

        After this week, the narrative of the EU as "imperialist" will blossom in Greece – but true imperialisms imposed order. The outcome here is likely to be very different.

        [Jul 04, 2015] Leaders of Europe are shallow people unequipped to cope with a continental problem

        All of the are neoliberals. They just don't care... Hillary Clinton and Jeb bush belong to the same category
        Jul 04, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

        et Al, July 4, 2015 at 9:27 am

        Moon of Alabama: Greece: Sane Voices Call For A "No" Vote
        http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/07/greece-sane-voices-call-for-a-no-vote.html

        …James K. Galbraith is right with his description of those leaders:

        [T]he leaders of today's Europe are shallow, cloistered people, preoccupied with their local politics and unequipped, morally or intellectually, to cope with a continental problem. This is true of Angela Merkel in Germany, of François Hollande in France, and it is true also of Christine Lagarde at the IMF. In particular North Europe's leaders have not felt the crisis and do not know the economics, and in both respects they are the direct opposite of the Greeks…
        ####

        As always, a voice of sanity and common sense. After bailing out West Germany in the 1960s, when the boot is on the other foot, they seem to have a rather short memory…

        [Jul 04, 2015]The New Ukrainian Exceptionalism

        "...Russian-backed aggression, relentless propaganda and meddling in Ukraine's domestic politics have pushed many Ukrainians to adopt a deeply polarized worldview, in which constructive criticism, dissenting views, and even observable facts are rejected out of hand if they are seen as harmful to Ukraine. This phenomenon might be termed the new Ukrainian exceptionalism, and it is worrisome because it threatens the very democratic values Ukrainians espouse, while weakening Ukraine's case for international support."
        .
        "...The same goes for the country's far right political forces. Cite the rise of Praviy Sektor, or Right Sector, during and after the Euro-Maidan, and many Ukrainians will point to the radical right movement's poor performance in last year's presidential and parliamentary elections. Point to the resurgence of symbols and slogans of the Second World War ultra-nationalist Union of Ukrainian Nationalists, OUN, or the newly passed laws banning "Soviet symbols," canonizing controversial Ukrainian nationalist figures Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych, and they will say that Ukraine has every right to define its own history, even if it does so with blatant disregard and disrespect for that of millions of its citizens now living under Russian occupation or otherwise not fully represented in the government. The new Ukrainian exceptionalism makes it possible for undercurrents of intolerance and extreme nationalism to cohabit with stated commitments to pluralism and democracy."
        .
        "...These steps set a dangerous precedent for limitation of human rights without wide public discussion. Exceptionalism effectively gives carte-blanche to the government to act in the name of Ukraine's security"
        June 23, 2015 | yaleglobal.yale.edu

        Ukrainian leaders, under siege from Russian and separatist forces, resist constructive criticism

        Russia on the dock, Ukraine not without blemish: Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko, left, walks past Russian President Vladimir Putin during an international gathering (top); bellicose Ukrainian Semen Semenchenko grandstanding

        WASHINGTON: The slow boiling war in Southeastern Ukraine is by now well known to the world. It has been projected in stark moral and political terms and in gruesome detail by the international press, Ukrainian and Western political leaders, and ordinary Ukrainian citizens. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that Ukraine is engaged in a struggle not only for its sovereignty, but for its very survival as a nation-state.

        In this hour of need, every Ukrainian citizen and every self-described friend of Ukraine in the international community should not only speak but act in support of Ukraine. But speaking out and taking action in support of Ukraine have become increasingly fraught in recent months. Russian-backed aggression, relentless propaganda and meddling in Ukraine's domestic politics have pushed many Ukrainians to adopt a deeply polarized worldview, in which constructive criticism, dissenting views, and even observable facts are rejected out of hand if they are seen as harmful to Ukraine. This phenomenon might be termed the new Ukrainian exceptionalism, and it is worrisome because it threatens the very democratic values Ukrainians espouse, while weakening Ukraine's case for international support.

        The new Ukrainian exceptionalism comes at a high price for Ukrainian civil society and for the international community focused on helping Ukraine. There have already been cases in which prominent Ukrainian thought leaders have been threatened and even attacked for expressing views critical of the government, nationalist politicians, or volunteer militias. Likewise, among Ukraine's friends abroad there is precious little tolerance for views that dissent from the dominant party line that Ukraine's current government is the best it has ever had, and that the West must provide not only political and financial support, but also supply it with lethal weapons to fight the Russians in Donbas.

        There is little tolerance for views that dissent from the dominant party line in Ukraine.

        This exceptionalist worldview is nowhere more evident than in the discourse around Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko. Poroshenko is a billionaire confectionary baron who also owns banking and agricultural assets, and several influential media platforms, most notably Ukraine's Fifth Channel, and who served in high government posts, including as Yanukovych's minister of economic development and minister of foreign affairs under Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Today, Poroshenko presides over a state and a government that has committed to a reform campaign it styles as "de-oligrachization."

        Yet when queried about whether, as an oligarch himself, Poroshenko can be effective in removing oligarchic influence from Ukraine's politics and economy, many Ukrainians feel compelled to defend their wartime leader by denying that he is, in fact, an oligarch in the first place. Or if he is one, they say, he's a different kind of oligarch, certainly the best of the bunch. After all, they reason, he has used his wealth and influence to help Ukraine and fight Russia, and anyway, his business interests are more transparent and of more value to the country than those of his rivals. Instead of selling his businesses, as he promised to do during last year's presidential campaign, Poroshenko has held onto them, demonstrating that even in the new Ukraine, politics and the private sector remain inseparable.

        Exceptionalists argue: While oligarchy in general might be bad, Ukraine's patriotic oligarchs are not.

        The exceptionalism does not stop with Poroshenko. In fact, the same tortured logic extends to support for other "good" oligarchs: Lviv's mayor Andriy Sadovyi, who has run that city for nearly a decade, owns major media, electrical utility and financial assets, and has backed his own party in the national parliament, is described as having made Lviv a "lighthouse" for Ukrainian reform, on the model of neighboring Poland. Even Dnipropetrovsk's Ihor Kolomoiskiy, who himself embraces the oligarch moniker, has spent millions in defense of Ukraine against Russian aggression, served as governor of a vulnerable frontline region and held it together, and besides, his Privat Bank group is a pillar of Ukraine's financial stability. So, while oligarchy in general might be bad, Ukraine's most patriotic oligarchs, the exceptionalists argue, are not.

        The same goes for the country's far right political forces. Cite the rise of Praviy Sektor, or Right Sector, during and after the Euro-Maidan, and many Ukrainians will point to the radical right movement's poor performance in last year's presidential and parliamentary elections. Point to the resurgence of symbols and slogans of the Second World War ultra-nationalist Union of Ukrainian Nationalists, OUN, or the newly passed laws banning "Soviet symbols," canonizing controversial Ukrainian nationalist figures Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych, and they will say that Ukraine has every right to define its own history, even if it does so with blatant disregard and disrespect for that of millions of its citizens now living under Russian occupation or otherwise not fully represented in the government. The new Ukrainian exceptionalism makes it possible for undercurrents of intolerance and extreme nationalism to cohabit with stated commitments to pluralism and democracy.

        New Ukrainian exceptionalism: Undercurrents of intolerance cohabit with commitments to democracy.

        The Euro-Maidan was dubbed a Revolution of Dignity because it represented the victory of the people in defense of basic human rights and human dignity. But a year after that victory, the parliament has approved a decree limiting Ukraine's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. So far, the decree applies only to portions of the two oblasts, or regions, of Donetsk and Luhansk where the war is going on, but it has been accompanied by allegations of torture and unlawful detention by Ukrainian authorities. These steps set a dangerous precedent for limitation of human rights without wide public discussion. Exceptionalism effectively gives carte-blanche to the government to act in the name of Ukraine's security, while it fragments and diminishes the human rights activist community that was once a bulwark of the new Ukraine.

        Finally, raise the problem of private armies in Ukraine, and one is told that the famous "volunteer battalions" are actually completely legal and legitimate police, interior ministry or army units that have been integrated under a single, responsible national command. This would be a reasonable position and an extremely important step to constrain possible future internecine violence, corporate raiding and other abuses in Ukraine, if only it were true.

        The same goes for so-called soldier deputies, commanders of the volunteer battalions elected to the parliament last October, many of whom still appear in uniform and demonstrate scant regard for the boundaries between civilian and military authority. Dashing but bellicose figures like Serhii Melnychuk, Semen Semenchenko and Dmytro Yarosh, we are told, are not really soldiers any more, their grandstanding is just a PR exercise. Maybe so, but their message hardly confirms Ukraine's commitment to rule of law, civilian control of the military, and national reconciliation. With prominent exceptions like these in the new Ukraine, it is increasingly difficult to identify the rule.

        Without a doubt, Ukraine now faces its most severe crisis of the post-1991 period. In the face of attacks by Russia and its separatist allies, Ukraine deserves the support of its citizens and the wider world. Yet the enthusiasm of the world to help Ukraine will be diminished and the damage from Russian aggression magnified if Ukrainians succumb to the kind of exceptionalism described above. Instead, Ukrainians should seek to preserve what have actually been their most exceptional characteristics – a rare and genuine commitment to pluralism, civic freedom, and human dignity that make Ukraine a cause worth fighting for.

        Matthew Rojansky is director of the Kennan Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, DC; Mykhailo Minakov is associate professor/docent in philosophy and religious studies at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, and was a Fulbright-Kennan Scholar in 2012-13.

        Selected Skeptical Comments

        Western Educated Russian, my 5 cents, 28 June 2015

        That is not today Ukrainians decided to find a way to differentiate themselves from Russians. That is the way how ethnic genesis works. So in the situation when multinational state (USSR) collapsed, Ukrainian national elites became interested in doing so even more. What could be a difference to strong order of Moscow, the answer is illusory freedom.

        Consequentially, Ukrainian mass media and even academic sources such as Yale draw a picture of Russia as a place where there is a fallout of human rights, corruption, and democracy and at the same time whitening Ukrainian far right guys as a fighters against "double evil" of communists and fascists.

        The reality of course is different. Russia is just a powerful player that is emerged after collapse of Soviet Union while Ukraine failed to do so. Russians respect Ukrainians and Ukrainian language, and what is more important overall have more freedoms that even Westerns do. The only thing Russians care about is comparative advantage. Ukrainian politics is irresponsible, and thus destabilize the whole region of Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union.

        It is actually not so funny because the US thinks about itself as a warrant of stability. In reality stability of many Eurasian territories in the hands of Russia. We should not forget civil war in Tadjikistan, war between Georgia and Ossetia, Armenia and Azerbaidjan. All those conflicts were stopped because of Russia's actions. If Ukraine won (= lose anyway), there will be hundreds of different uncontrolled conflicts, economic downfall and millions of additional immigrants to Europe.

        Whether Europeans like it or not, it is better to have strong Russia with good relationship that can guarantee stability over many territories than one more Africa with nuclear weapon on the backyard and Greece (sorry Ukraine).

        Jim Kovpak , OUN, 28 June 2015

        The OUN thing pisses me off when they say Ukraine has the right to define its own heroes- excuse me, but when did these "heroes" represent Ukraine? The OUN and UPA never attracted more than a fraction of Ukrainians even in the region where it was most popular, and even then many people were conscripted into its ranks. Later, many of them deserted in droves, including a large number who switched to the Soviet side.

        But it is not simply to appease the population in the East that these organizations should be condemned. They have a clear connection to the Holocaust via the role the OUN-B played in organizing the militia and Ukrainian police who took part in pogroms that killed thousands of Jews. Many of those police personnel then ended up in the ranks of the UPA. Add to that the ethnic cleansing of Poles and you see why these thugs, which DO NOT represent Ukraine, don't deserve to be called heroes.

        Eastern Ukrainians are always told they need to give up the past, so why can't these other people give up that past, which in most cases doesn't have anything to do with them?

        Of course many Ukrainians I talk to swear up and down that Bandera and the OUN aren't really so popular in post-Maidan Ukraine -- okay then, watch what happens when someone says people ought not to fly the flags and there shouldn't be memorials to the OUN and UPA. Suddenly the Bandera-cultists emerge from the woodwork, enraged. It's a lot like defenders of the Confederate flag in the US.

        [Jul 04, 2015] Yanis Varoufakis accuses creditors of terrorism ahead of Greek referendum

        Like any neoliberal country Greece is a divided country with 20% of population representing "fifth column of globalization" and benefiting from it and 80% suffering from it.
        .
        "...Well that is the rub. Western banks effectively control the cost of credit globally. You either fall into line or you're perpetually behind the curve until you sell all your goods of any value."
        .
        "...Are you even aware that this is not actually loans that the Greek people got? If I loan money to your corrupt banker and than ask YOU to return it, will you be less offensive?
        "

        .
        "...The 2010 bailout was the one that allowed private French, Dutch and German banks to transfer their liabilities to the Greek public sector, and indirectly to the entire eurozone's public sector. There was no debt restructuring in that deal."
        .
        "...The loans were made by a cabal of high-financiers in Europe to a cabal of corrupt finianciers in Greece. The game of lending rules are: you bet that the party you lend money to will pay back the loan with interest. Which is what the German banks did, making a profit on the interest for quite some time. But now the high-financiers in Europe have lost the game, i.e. Greece/the-old-displaced-guard-in-Greece can no longer pay them back. That's the financiers problem: not the problem of Greece's normal citizens nor other EU taxpayers! Is that so difficult to understand? Class war for beginners... privatize the profit, socialize the loss."
        .
        "...The banksters, multi-national corporations and their political lackeys, have engaged in an extend and pretend fantasy which is passing their private debt onto taxpayers across Europe. Once the shoulders of the Greek taxpayer have been broken, it will pass onto the shoulders of the taxpayers from the rest of Europe. God, I want to shake the anti Greek/pro EU lobby to wake them up. Greece, please, please, please vote NO, so we can begin the long process of getting control of Europe out of the hands of these maniacs."
        .
        "...Without risking depositors' cash, governments had the ability to sit back ready to nationalise any banks whose lending to Greece was so irresponsible that they were unsustainable. This would have wiped out the shareholders and sent a clear message that lending as well as borrowing has to be responsible and that shareholders need to earn their fat returns by exerting oversight.
        "

        .
        "...Yanis Varoufakis has a point. The proposals put by the EU would cause the Greek economy to contract further, this effectively would increase the debt ratio to GDP. Nowhere have I heard any talk on how to build up the Greek economy, it has all been about collecting taxes.

        I have also read commentators on here talk about how Greece lied to get into MU, this has a great deal of truth in it, but one must remember the EU knew what a basket case Greece was financially, therefore they are equally complicit in this debacle.

        The question has to be why the EU is doing this to Greece, they know their actions will do nothing other than cause more misery in the country. The reason this is happening is to protect German banks. Greece is the domino that could bring the whole system down."
        .
        "...No, the original package lent to Greece was to bailout Greek and EU banks. The subsequent bailout (to pay for the bailout) is 60% owned/facilitated by EFSF. It raised it through selling bonds, no doubt to financial institutions. So now we're in the bizarre situation of banks befitting from the bailout of banks with the Greek people carrying the can and Europeans (who are liable to honour EFSF bonds+intererst) blaming Greece and defending the banks! "

        Jul 04, 2015 | The Guardian

        Banksterdebtslave -> conor boyle 4 Jul 2015 11:15

        Yes it should have been, by letting the banks go under as per Iceland. Or were too many people (living in vacuums ?) unprepared to deal with the short term pain ? Now it seems the world of people must suffer to service the Banks' bad debt.....what good slaves we are! The Emperor has no clothes!

        Duncan Frame -> Brasil13 4 Jul 2015 11:10

        Well that is the rub. Western banks effectively control the cost of credit globally. You either fall into line or you're perpetually behind the curve until you sell all your goods of any value.

        W61212 -> Brasil13 4 Jul 2015 11:08

        Careful what you wish for. From the EC

        'In 2013 the EU recorded a trade surplus in goods (more than double the surplus registered in 2012). The EU also has a surplus in commercial services trade.
        The EU is the biggest foreign investor in Brazil with investments in many sectors of the Brazilian economy. Around 50% of the FDI flows received by Brazil during the last 5 years originated in the EU.'

        This debacle with Greece demonstrates the EU can't run itself and yet it has huge holdings with Brazil and has recently reversed to a trade surplus in to Brazil, a nation with huge natural, industrial and human resources of its own. Brazil exports mainly agricultural and mining products to the EU and imports manufactured products. See the imbalance? Brazil exports primary products and imports finished products made elsewhere and those jobs are elsewhere. See the problem?

        http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/brazil/

        GordonGecko 4 Jul 2015 11:07

        There's only one letter difference but choice for the Greeks is to become either the new Ireland (and suffer self-inflicted austerity for decades to come) or the new Iceland (by tearing up the rule book and starting again).

        I hope they watch this before voting;

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu5sTyAXyAo


        usufruct -> Laurelei 4 Jul 2015 11:07

        Germans (for the most part) are not Nazis or terrorists, and should not have to take the blame for this crisis. They are, however, dupes, like people living under capitalism everywhere. They are willing to let the international banksters and their political cronies in the European parliament run their lives and create whatever mischief they believe is in their interest.


        ToddPalant -> Scaff1 4 Jul 2015 11:06

        Tell us suckers then, about how Ukraine, a run down country that was just made worse by regime change. From bad Yanukovich to much worse American puppet and idiot Poroshenko plus a catastrophic war. Tell us about Lybia and bad Qaddafi, who in his life time killed 3-4000 people and the much worse UK-France that caused at least a 100000 dead with their pet invasion at the behest of our friends from across the Atlantic.

        May be you need to dust your mirror.


        Duncan Frame -> Laurelei 4 Jul 2015 11:05

        Terrorists primary aim is to promote fear rather than harm. That's far more effective in getting their way. You close the banks you show the public what you're capable of.

        Saaywar Montana -> thisisafix 4 Jul 2015 11:04

        Their economies are naff. Spain and Italy are the two countries most likely to join Greece in a new union. Portugal and Ireland are too far gone but Ireland has been rebelling. Once people see a progressive union to compete with the rubbish EU then these countries will gain support for joining a new southern European union.

        These countries are not out of the water and won't get out of it either. Austerity will do what it does and the people will rise up. It's inevitable. The EU doesn't have a monopoly on unions lol.

        Greece, as did every other country, got left with the bill of the private banking sector. Yes, it was their fault for running a deficit but a significant proportion of the debt owed by the Greek gov is bank bailouts.

        It's the same here. The UK paid £700bn to private banks to make sure they didn't fail. The deficit has nothing to do with that. so around 50% of the debt is a mixture or deficit spending and capital investments made by the government.

        Robape Laurelei 4 Jul 2015 10:57

        Financial terrorists, just interested in the bottom line, not countries.

        elcomm W61212 4 Jul 2015 10:56

        When fascist governments get in trouble at home they start wars to distract people. It's not that far out.

        Duncan Frame Laurelei 4 Jul 2015 10:56

        Yes everything's exceptional. 2008 was the biggest economic collapse since the great depression. And Greece was the most exposed country. No difference.

        Alfie Silva karlmiltonkeynes 4 Jul 2015 10:55

        My mistake, I thought you were intelligent.

        It is common knowledge that only around 10% of bailout monies went to the real economy. You are correct indeed in that creditors got a haircut, mainly hedgefunds and most foreign banks by 2015 had reduced their exposure to Greece. The issue today is sovereign debt. Do you realise that sovereign debt is the senior collatoral for Eurozone banks?

        So we are back to banks again Mr Banker.

        Duncan Frame ID13579 4 Jul 2015 10:53

        I don't have to excuse giving voice to the victims of those in power to you or anyone else. And it seems to me Tsipras is taking the same line. You confuse the Greek people with the people who actually profited from that debt. Why should they be forced to starve on the back of decisions over which they had influence?


        usufruct -> HoorayHenrietta 4 Jul 2015 10:44

        Like Americans and most other people around the globe, the German people have allowed the international banks to pull the wool over their eyes. There is no reason for taxpayers to bail out the banks as we are still doing here in the U.S. For the past six years my wife and I have been paying down mortgages on real estate hoping to reestablish equity in properties whose value was gutted by cavalier banksters on Wall Steet. A few clicks to gamble away the hard work of millions! These people should be arrested and tried for their crimes. In a fair court they would be sent away for life.


        Chris Hindle 4 Jul 2015 10:42

        'Yanis Varoufakis accuses creditors of terrorism.'

        So what is wrong with that? Financial terrorism is a much more protracted and painful process to the victims than sudden violence, but the end result is the same.

        The Vermin Who Would Be Kings have discovered they no longer need the fuss and expense of maintaining a standing army of occupation, far simpler to get countries/continents/ the world in deep debt (via bent politicians making private bankster debt into sovereign debt - just like they did in Greece ) and exert control through that.

        BTW the UK has some £9 trillion in foreign debt (much of which is the bad debts of the City - and the highest of any stand-alone country on earth) So now you know what next months austerity drive is all about

        InjunJoe -> degardiyen 4 Jul 2015 10:24

        The "slovakian tax payer" will not be paying to maintain the Greek standard of living,
        but to shore up the ECB, the IMF and the private lenders to Greek banks, as 90% of the "bail-out" goes to serving interest. Haven't you been reading the news?

        Duncan Frame -> karlmiltonkeynes 4 Jul 2015 10:20

        That's weird because at the same time the banks collapsed in 2008 the deficit went up from 57% to 82%, lots of people lost their jobs or had to take pay cuts. I'm sure it was just a coincidence.

        LeftToWrite -> ID6487190 4 Jul 2015 10:17

        Yeah the EU has shown itself to want a compromise. All those nice compromised offers it made. Yep we all remember those.

        Compromise means both sides giving ground, not one side accepting everything the other demands. Use a dictionary next time.

        For once a nation is standing up to EU bullying and we have ignorant fools like you turning it the other way in an attempt to change the narrative.

        LeftToWrite 4 Jul 2015 10:11

        How can the Troika have fucked up this badly? It seems they forgot that Greece is actually a construct that represents the people who live there, and you can't just impose misery after misery on a people without expecting them to finally have enough. Even if they vote yes, all it does is postpone that that time when they will have had enough.

        Honestly, this has shown the true greed at the hearts of Merkel et al, and by extension the people they represent. Save the French and German banks, fuck over the Greek people. If people think anti German rhetoric in Greece is extreme now, decades of resentment is about to follow.


        שוקי גלילי Steve Collins 4 Jul 2015 10:09

        You probably meant to say "when you ask for it back from someone ELSE, who didn't actually get your money". Are you even aware that this is not actually loans that the Greek people got? If I loan money to your corrupt banker and than ask YOU to return it, will you be less offensive?

        -> dniviE 4 Jul 2015 10:06

        01

        Sorry: its Wednesday 8th, I wrote Tuesday ;-))

        email from Green Party Brussels office.
        TTIP and ISDS - Call to action by Keith Taylor MEP!

        Breaking news! We've just been informed that the postponed vote on the European Parliament resolution on TTIP has been put on the agenda for Wednesday 8th July.

        MEPs will be voting on the resolution as a whole, but also on a whole array of amendments to the text.
        Among these is a compromise amendment on the investor-state dispute mechanism, or ISDS. The compromise amendment suggests replacing ISDS courts with some kind of 'new' system, but there is no further explanation or details. As long as there is any system in place for investors to sue governments, as the compromise calls for, it is still ISDS. The fact that the Parliament's President is trying to spin this as something different by giving it a new name does not change anything.


        The compromise amendment has been agreed by the largest groups in the European Parliament: the centre-left Socialists & Democrats (which includes the UK's Labour MEPs), the centre-right European People's Party, and the European Conservatives and Reformists group (which includes the UK's Conservative MEPs) and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (which includes the UK's Liberal Democrat MEP).

        On Wednesday, all MEPs will get a chance to vote on this amendment and the resolution as a whole.

        The Greens are calling on citizens, trade unions, NGOs, towns and regions and businesses to speak out and contact their elected representatives and hold them to account on this attempt to privatise justice and infringe democratic rights.

        How you can help
        This is our last chance to make sure that damaging ISDS provisions are not given the green light by the European Parliament. MEPs need to know the full force of public opinion on this threat to our national laws and our democratic rights.
        Contact your other MEPs before Wednesday asking them to oppose TTIP and the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS).
        - use Write To Them to email your MEPs directly with your own concerns
        - use the 38 Degrees campaign to send a quick template email
        - call your MEPs in Brussels to let them the reasons you're opposed
        - spread the word! Share your concerns on social media, tweet your MEPs, encourage your friends and family to contact their MEPs, use Greens/EFA resources to campaign.
        Message from Keith

        "I've been extremely heartened to receive so many emails from constituents voicing their opposition to ISDS and the TTIP proposals in the last few weeks. It's clear that there's a powerful and growing democratic movement to protect our laws, our public services and our regulatory standards from potential devastation.

        The decision to postpone the vote on TTIP earlier in the month stinks of political parties running scared of the huge public opposition to TTIP.

        TTIP represents a monumental power grab by corporations and it must be stopped in its tracks.

        The sudden re-scheduling of this vote means we are now short on time to make our voices heard. The Greens need all the help we can get to spread the word and put pressure on other MEPs to do the right thing and represent the views and interests of their constituents."
        You can keep up-to-date with the Greens/EFA campaign and what the Greens are doing in the European Parliament via their TTIP campaign website and their twitter feed.

        Thank you for your support.
        Best wishes,


        LeftToWrite ID105467 4 Jul 2015 10:14

        To bail out German banks, get your facts straight before posting nonsense.

        Kalandar 4 Jul 2015 10:14

        Propoganda galore from the mainstream media but its fooling no one, except perhaps themselves.

        ID345543 4 Jul 2015 10:04

        This Is Why The Euro Is Finished

        The 2010 bailout was the one that allowed private French, Dutch and German banks to transfer their liabilities to the Greek public sector, and indirectly to the entire eurozone's public sector. There was no debt restructuring in that deal.

        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-04/why-euro-finished

        Ninetto owl905 4 Jul 2015 10:03

        The loans were made by a cabal of high-financiers in Europe to a cabal of corrupt finianciers in Greece. The game of lending rules are: you bet that the party you lend money to will pay back the loan with interest. Which is what the German banks did, making a profit on the interest for quite some time. But now the high-financiers in Europe have lost the game, i.e. Greece/the-old-displaced-guard-in-Greece can no longer pay them back. That's the financiers problem: not the problem of Greece's normal citizens nor other EU taxpayers! Is that so difficult to understand? Class war for beginners... privatize the profit, socialize the loss.

        NeverNotHereTV gsxsure 4 Jul 2015 09:59

        Syriza does not want "free money". They want a fraction put toward economic growth, and then payments as a meaningful fraction of that growth. It is simple enough.

        Alfie Silva 4 Jul 2015 09:50

        Please can anyone explain to me why we are letting the bankster cabal turn European against European?

        The banksters, multi-national corporations and their political lackeys, have engaged in an extend and pretend fantasy which is passing their private debt onto taxpayers across Europe. Once the shoulders of the Greek taxpayer have been broken, it will pass onto the shoulders of the taxpayers from the rest of Europe. God, I want to shake the anti Greek/pro EU lobby to wake them up. Greece, please, please, please vote NO, so we can begin the long process of getting control of Europe out of the hands of these maniacs.

        Finnbolt 4 Jul 2015 09:49

        "Debt relief was "politically highly toxic for many eurozone member states"."

        Here you have the problem. The creditor state governments are responsible to their voters and many have said that their taxpayers will not finance the Greeks and money lent will be paid back in full.

        Syriza says they have a mandate from the Greek people to force other euro countries to continue financing them and take a haircut. In other words, lose most of the money lent to Greece.

        EU is a collection of nation states with pretensions of a federation. One of the pretensions about to be busted is a transfer union, meaning taxpayers in richer countries tranferring part of their wealth to poorer countries.


        APSAPS 4 Jul 2015 09:49

        A $22.6 billion International Monetary Fund and World Bank financial package was approved on 13 July 1998 to support reforms and stabilize the Russian market. Despite the bailout, July 1998 monthly interest payments on Russia's debt rose to a figure 40 percent higher than its monthly tax collections. Additionally, on 15 July 1998, the State Duma dominated by left-wing parties refused to adopt most of the government anti-crisis plan so that the government was forced to rely on presidential decrees. On 17 August 1998, the Russian government devalued the ruble, defaulted on domestic debt, and declared a moratorium on payment to foreign creditors. It was later revealed that about $5 billion of the international loans provided by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund were stolen upon the funds' arrival in Russia on the eve of the meltdown.

        Sounds very similar.

        Oh, wait, maybe some referendum could have helped?


        Insomnijazz hertsman 4 Jul 2015 09:48

        Nah - these are just lies for the gullible to swallow.

        Without risking depositors' cash, governments had the ability to sit back ready to nationalise any banks whose lending to Greece was so irresponsible that they were unsustainable. This would have wiped out the shareholders and sent a clear message that lending as well as borrowing has to be responsible and that shareholders need to earn their fat returns by exerting oversight.

        Instead they chose the worst option: bailing out the bank shareholders by assuming responsibility for their risky lending, but refusing to then pay the price for their political cowardice and shifting the blame onto a largely guiltless Greek population which has already suffered hugely from the economic devastation.


        Brent1023 4 Jul 2015 09:46

        Debt relief not on the table.
        It comes down to the Greek people or the banksters. Who needs a bailout more?
        The EU has sided with the banksters.
        Not just in Greece but in Ireland, Spain, Portugal.
        Only Iceland was able to force banksters to swallow their losses.
        Everywhere else bankster fraud was rewarded with a 100% bailout.
        Should be renamed the European Bankster Union.
        Surprising that the UK does not want it - it also bailed out its banksters.

        NWObserver sunnytimes 4 Jul 2015 09:39

        The creditors are not looking to get their money back. Debt is the leverage being used to destroy the social and public infrastructure in the country.

        So their worst nightmare is Greeks voting 'No', staying in default and surviving or prospering while remaining in the Eurozone. Then they will not be able to use the same fear tactics against another EZ country. They are psychopaths out to destroy, not creditors looking to get their money. So if Greeks vote 'No' , they will spare no effort to destroy Greece, beginning with the continuation of the liquidity freeze. However, there are some simple steps that Greece can take to end the liquidity freeze and I think they have already taken them.

        Gottaloveit 4 Jul 2015 09:28

        Read this article from 2010 by Michael Lewis and get a glimpse of what a mess Greece is
        http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2010/10/greeks-bearing-bonds-201010
        The people of Greece are not finished paying penance yet

        W61212 Fritz72 4 Jul 2015 09:28

        Albrecht Ritschl: During the past century alone, though, at least three times. After the first default during the 1930s, the US gave Germany a "haircut" in 1953, reducing its debt problem to practically nothing. Germany has been in a very good position ever since, even as other Europeans were forced to endure the burdens of World War II and the consequences of the German occupation. Germany even had a period of non-payment in 1990....but we were also extremely reckless -- and our export industry has thrived on orders. The anti-Greek sentiment that is widespread in many German media outlets is highly dangerous. And we are sitting in a glass house: Germany's resurgence has only been possible through waiving extensive debt payments and stopping reparations to its World War II victims.'

        Enough said now?

        W61212 hhnheim 4 Jul 2015 09:21

        http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/economic-historian-germany-was-biggest-debt-transgressor-of-20th-century-a-769703.html


        North2011 kizbot 4 Jul 2015 09:04

        Don't worry. The nappy business is doing well in Brussels...
        EU sources: possible extra Eurogroup on Monday and EU leaders Summit on Wednesday #Greferendum via GR media http://www.dimokratiki.gr/04-07-2015/pithano-ektakto-eurogroup-ti-deftera-ke-sinodos-korifis-tin-tetarti/ …
        They are pissing in their pants the lot of them...


        rafela Bogoas81 4 Jul 2015 09:00

        Austerity didnt work. In the last five years the economy shrinked by 19%. Unemployment rose to 27%. Tsipras wanted more debt relief. The IMF report sustain that an improvement is impossible without debt relief.


        sunnytimes 4 Jul 2015 08:58

        German people are industrious and inventive. They play by the rules. Unfortunately they are also rather naive and believe generally what the state tells them. In history the role of such people has always been to pay the bills.


        GuillotinesRUs 4 Jul 2015 08:45

        Yanis Varoufakis has a point. The proposals put by the EU would cause the Greek economy to contract further, this effectively would increase the debt ratio to GDP. Nowhere have I heard any talk on how to build up the Greek economy, it has all been about collecting taxes.

        I have also read commentators on here talk about how Greece lied to get into MU, this has a great deal of truth in it, but one must remember the EU knew what a basket case Greece was financially, therefore they are equally complicit in this debacle.

        The question has to be why the EU is doing this to Greece, they know their actions will do nothing other than cause more misery in the country. The reason this is happening is to protect German banks. Greece is the domino that could bring the whole system down.

        U77777 -> CassiusClay 4 Jul 2015 08:40

        Austerity isn't the answer - but when you have put yourself into the situation that the Greeks have, it is part of the solution. A small part and nothing like the media like to portray, but something has got to give.

        As for electing Tsipras and varoufakis......Seriously, stop drinking. They're a bunch of cowboys with some well intended principles and a load of rather deluded ideas. Worse still, neither of them have actually come up with anything like a constructive plan how to stimulate the economy and help Greece stand on its own 2 feet again


        Dimitris Chloupis -> sylvester 4 Jul 2015 08:39

        Any sensible Greek realizes without deep reforms no economy is going forward. This is not even debatable in my country. We already reduced public sector by 500.000 employes thats a juicy 50%. High pensions of the past are long gone. The result is that now it costs 6 billion to pay for wages in public sector and another 5 billion to pay for pension, total 10 billion. But we need another 10 billion for paying back loans each year. This year alone we paid back 25 billion !!!

        Tax evasion should be our next focus, its not reasonable for an economy that makes 200 billions per year to need loans . There is a will to fix all that, because the alternative is far worse.

        Of course the same can be said about Germany , why a country that make 3.1 trillion euros per year has a 80% debt ? Tax evasion of course ;) Time to open those swish bank accounts , but does Germany want that ? How many vested Greek interest are connected with German vested interest ?

        Denying corruption is to deny the foundation of modern economies.

        W61212 -> RussBrown 4 Jul 2015 08:39

        I made a point earlier about the birth of a new Brussels based dictatorship which controls all EZ 'national governments', which are national governments by name only, ergo Syriza has to go for straying from the script. Brussels has already proven it would rather deal with corrupt Greek politicians by doing so in the past

        Continent Renato -> Timotheus 4 Jul 2015 08:37

        Inequality of opportunity in the Eurozone is now so great -- young people in Greece have an unemployment level of 60% and the rate is 33% in the austerity "success story" of Portugal

        The systems are different. Northern countries have the dual education system, i.e. only about 10 p.c. of the youth go to college/university, and 90 p.c. go through a 3 or 4 year education "learning by doing".

        In addition, the "dirty work" in Greece (farming/harvest/construction) is done by temporary migrants from Macedonia, Albania, Romania, Bulgaria because the Greek parents wanted their children to have a better life and sent them to universities without an employment market for so many acdemics. Many of them land in a job with in the bloated govt.

        sunnytimes 4 Jul 2015 08:36

        The true parasites are the bond markets of London and New York. The create nothing. All they do is swap pieces of paper with ech other all day long, skimming every transaction. The UK and US have run trade deficits or decades, that is by definition they produce less than they consume. Time to tear down this edifice of debt and get back to a capital-based economy.

        LeftOrRightSameShite FOARP 4 Jul 2015 08:35

        Greece already has been bailed out

        No, the original package lent to Greece was to bailout Greek and EU banks. The subsequent bailout (to pay for the bailout) is 60% owned/facilitated by EFSF. It raised it through selling bonds, no doubt to financial institutions. So now we're in the bizarre situation of banks befitting from the bailout of banks with the Greek people carrying the can and Europeans (who are liable to honour EFSF bonds+intererst) blaming Greece and defending the banks!

        Bit thick really innit!

        RussBrown 4 Jul 2015 08:35

        Myth 1 - Greece do nothing to solve the problem (they have had years of austerity)

        Myth 2 - Germany is bailing out the Greeks. The money that goes to Greece goes straight back into the German Banks. But by making it impossible for business to run in Greece the businesses move their resources to Germany and pay taxes their in a massive transfer of wealth from a poor EU country to the richest. This is a capitalist scam and all of lot on here shouting their propaganda should be ashamed of yourselves. The rich bankers are using you to justify the destruction of the poor!

        [Jul 04, 2015] Paul Krugman Europe's Many Economic Disasters

        Jul 04, 2015 | Economist's View

        Was the creation of the euro a mistake? Should it be eliminated?:

        Europe's Many Economic Disasters, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times:

        Or to put it a bit differently, it's reasonable to fear the consequences of a "no" vote, because nobody knows what would come next. But you should be even more afraid of the consequences of a "yes," because in that case we do know what comes next - more austerity, more disasters and eventually a crisis much worse than anything we've seen so far.

        anne said...

        https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/02/behind-the-greek-crisis/

        July 2, 2015

        Behind the Greek Crisis

        The usual narrative of the Greek economic tragedy is that the country is paying for its past profligacy, but there is deeper back story of political repression fueled by major powers intervening in Greece and contributing to a dysfunctional political system.
        By William R. Polk

        Focusing exclusively on the monetary aspects of the Greek crisis the media misses much of what disturbs the Greeks and also what might make a solution possible.

        For over half a century, Greeks have lived in perilous times. In the 1930s, they lived under a brutal dictatorship that modeled itself on Nazi Germany, employing Gestapo-like secret police and sending critics off to an island concentration camp. Then a curious thing happened: Benito Mussolini invaded the country.

        Challenged to protect their self-respect and their country, Greeks put aside their hatred of the Metaxis dictatorship and rallied to fight the foreign invaders. The Greeks did such a good job of defending their country that Adolf Hitler had to put off his invasion of Russia to rescue the Italians. That move probably saved Josef Stalin since the delay forced the Wehrmacht to fight in Russia's mud, snow and ice for which they had not prepared. But, ironically, it also saved the Metaxis dictatorship and the monarchy. The king and all the senior Greek officials fled to British-occupied Egypt and, as new allies, they were declared part of the "Free World."

        Meanwhile, in Greece, the Germans looted much of the industry, shipping and food stuffs. The Greeks began to starve. As Mussolini remarked, "the Germans have taken from the Greeks even their shoelaces…"

        Then, the Greeks began to fight back. In October 1942, they set up a resistance movement that within two years became the largest in Europe. When France could claim less than 20,000 partisans, the Greek resistance movement had enrolled about 2 million and was holding down at least two divisions of German soldiers. And they did it without outside help.

        As the war's outcome became apparent, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was determined to return Greece to the prewar rule of the monarchy and the old regime. He was motivated by fear of Communist influence within the resistance movement.

        Churchill tried to get the Anglo-American army that was getting ready to invade Italy to attack Greece instead. Indeed, he tried so hard to change the war plan that he almost broke up the Allied military alliance; when he failed, he threw all the soldiers he still controlled into Greece and precipitated a civil war that tore the country apart. The Underground leaders were outsmarted and their movement was smashed. The bureaucracy, police and programs of the prewar dictatorship resumed control.

        After the war, with Britain out of money and no longer able to sustain its policy, London turned Greece over to the Americans who announced the "Truman Doctrine" and poured in money to prevent a leftist victory. American money temporarily won the day, but the heavy hand of the former regime created a new generation of would-be democrats who challenged the dictatorship.

        This is the theme beautifully evoked in Costa Gavras' film "Z," starring Yves Montagne. As the film shows, the liberal movement of the early 1960s was overwhelmed by a new military dictatorship, "the rule of the colonels."

        When the military junta was overthrown in 1974, Greece enjoyed a brief period of "normality," but none of the deep fissures in the society had been healed. Regardless of what political party chose the ministers, the self-perpetuating bureaucracy was still in control. Corruption was rife. And, most important of all, Greece had become a political system that Aristotle would have called an oligarchy.

        The very rich used their money to create for themselves a virtual state within the state. They extended their power into every niche of the economy and so arranged the banking system that it became essentially extra-territorialized. Piraeus harbor was filled with mega-yachts owned by people who paid no taxes and London was partly owned by people who fattened off the Greek economy. The "smart money" of Greece was stashed abroad.

        The Current Crisis

        This state of affairs might have lasted many more years, but when Greece joined the European Union in 1981, European (mainly German) bankers saw an opportunity: they flocked into Greece to offer loans. Even those Greeks who had insufficient income to justify loans grabbed them. Then, the lenders began to demand repayment. Shocked, businesses began to cut back. Unemployment increased. Opportunities vanished.

        There is really no chance that the loans will be repaid. They should never have been offered and never should have been accepted. To stay afloat, the government has cut back on public services (except for the military) and the people have suffered. In the 2004 elections, the Greeks had not yet suffered enough to vote for the radical coalition led by the "Unity" (SYRIZA) party. Only 3.3 percent of the voters did.

        Then, after the 2008 financial crash came years of worsening hardship, disapproval of all politicians and anger. It was popular anger, feeling misled by the bankers and by their own foolishness. There was also hopelessness as Greeks realized that they had no way out and began to turn to SYRIZA. After a series of failed attempts to secure a mandate, SYRIZA won the 2015 election with 36.3 percent of the vote and 249 out of 300 members of Parliament.

        Today, the conditions that impelled that vote are even more urgent: the national income of Greece is down about 25 percent and unemployment among younger workers is over 50 percent. So where does that leave the negotiators?

        Faced with German and EU demands for more austerity, the Greeks are angry. They have deep memories of hatred against the Germans (this time, not soldiers but bankers). They have been, time after time, traduced by their own politicians. Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras must know that if he is charged with a "sell-out," his career is finished.

        And the bail-out package offered by the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank is heavily weighted against Greece. Greeks also see their option of exiting the Euro as similar to stances taken by Britain and Sweden in not joining in the first place – although a painful adjustment for the Greek economy would be expected if Greece undertakes an unprecedented departure from the European currency.

        However, unless the IMF and ECB offer a real chance for a better life for Greeks by forgiving most of the debts, I believe that the Greeks might well vote on Sunday to reject the austerity demands and leave the Euro.


        William R. Polk is a professor who taught Middle Eastern studies at Harvard. President John F. Kennedy appointed Polk to the State Department's Policy Planning Council.

        anne said...

        http://www.cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/congress-weighs-in-on-holding-imf-accountable-for-damage-caused-by-failed-policies-in-greece

        July 2, 2015

        Congress Weighs in on Holding IMF Accountable for Damage Caused by Failed Policies in Greece
        By Mark Weisbrot

        The battle over the future of Greece will not end on Sunday, no matter how the vote goes or -- if the Greek people vote "no" -- how the European authorities respond to their choice. This is a fight over the future of Europe, and the people who are currently strangling the Greek economy in a transparent attempt to intimidate the Greek electorate understand this very well. That is why they are being especially aggressive and ruthless at this moment: trying to convince Greeks that a "no" vote means leaving the euro, claiming that such a decision would have calamitous consequences, and giving them a taste of the financial crisis and economic disruption that they will suffer through if they refuse to do as they are told.

        Last Sunday, the European Central Bank (ECB) made a deliberate decision to limit Emergency Liquidity Assistance to the Greek banking system. The limit was set low enough to force -- for the first time in the six years of depression that the ECB has deepened and prolonged -- the closure of Greek banks.

        It is not surprising that the very idea of a referendum would provoke the ire of the eurozone authorities. Unlike the European Union, which has a different history, the eurozone project has become a fundamentally anti-democratic project. It has to be; the people currently running it want to reverse, as much as possible, decades of social progress on issues that are vital to Europeans. But you don't have to take my word for it: there is a paper trail of thousands of pages that spell out their political agenda. The International Monetary Fund conducts regular consultations with member governments under Article IV of its charter, and these result in papers which contain policy recommendations. There were 67 such consultations for EU countries during the four years of 2008 to 2011, and the pattern was striking: budget tightening was recommended in all 27 countries, with spending cuts generally favored over tax increases. Cutting health care and pension spending, reducing eligibility for disability and unemployment compensation, raising retirement ages and increasing labor supply were also overwhelmingly common recommendations.

        The European authorities took advantage of the crisis and post-crisis years to impose parts of this agenda on the weaker eurozone economies: Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland and most brutally of all, Greece. More than 20 governments fell as a result, until finally, in Greece on January 25, a government was elected that said no. The goal of the European authorities, therefore, is to topple this government. This has been apparent since the ECB cut off itsmain line of credit to Greece on February 4.

        Now comes a group of U.S. members of Congress warning the IMF that it could -- perhaps for the first time in decades -- be held accountable for the economic destruction that it's helping to implement. The letter objects to the IMF "taking a hard line with respect to demands that Greece implement further reforms" and notes:

        Greece has already reduced its national public sector work force by 19 percent and carried out many of the reforms demanded by the IMF and its creditors. It has gone through an enormous fiscal adjustment, achieving the largest cyclically adjusted primary budget surplus in the euro area last year; and a very large current account adjustment (with a 36 percent reduction in imports). At the same time, as even the IMF has acknowledged in its own research, the austerity imposed by Greece's creditors over the past five years turned out to be far more devastating to the economy than they had predicted.

        Senator Bernie Sanders, who joined House members in signing the letter, issued his own blistering statement yesterday. "At a time of grotesque wealth inequality, the pensions of the people in Greece should not be cut even further to pay back some of the largest banks and wealthiest financiers in the world," said Sanders. Among the House signers were the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Representatives Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva, and the Dean of the House and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers.

        Unlike many letters from Congress that are ignored by the executive branch, this one might be taken more seriously by the IMF and the U.S. Treasury department -- which is the IMF's most powerful overseer. One reason is that the IMF has been trying for five years to enact reforms in its governance structure that are very important to the Fund and Treasury -- reforms that can't be enacted unless they are approved by Congress. These reforms would make some small changes in voting representation. They wouldn't shift the balance of power at the Fund, with the U.S. and its allies still likely to maintain a comfortable majority. But the U.S. government and the Fund have lost a lot of credibility in recent years by unilaterally holding up even these largely symbolic changes. They see this hold-up as encouraging developing countries to opt for creating new institutions such as the BRICS Development Bank and Currency Reserve Arrangement. More recently, the Obama administration suffered an embarrassing setback after the U.K., Germany and France ignored their pleas and became founding members of China's new $100 billion initiative to create an Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

        From the congressional letter:

        "As members of the U.S. Congress, we must also note the unprecedented difficulty that the IMF's proposed quota and governance reform has faced in the U.S. Congress since 2010. As you know, this also has global implications, as some governments in developing countries have begun to lose confidence in this effort to make the IMF's voting structure more representative of its member countries in the twenty-first century and are seeking institutional alternatives. It will be difficult to get a majority of the U.S. Congress on board for these important reforms if the IMF is seen as responsible for further damage to the Greek economy, as well as the currently unforeseeable consequences of any financial collapse."

        The IMF will need all the votes it can get for this legislation to pass through Congress. It can choose to ignore this warning at its own institutional risk.

        [Jul 03, 2015] Greek referendum: how would top economists vote?

        Jul 11, 2015 | theguardian.com

        The Greek government is urging a no vote in Sunday's bailout referendum. Eurozone leaders say vote yes

        Greeks go to the polls on Sunday to vote on whether to accept the bailout programme proposed by international lenders that would restart financial aid in exchange for further austerity and economic reform.

        The government is urging people to vote no, with the finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, saying it is time to end years of rolling over Greece's bailouts and "pretending" its debts can be repaid.

        But Eurozone leaders have insisted that if Greece votes no, it will be saying goodbye to the euro. Two former Greek prime ministers, Kostas Karamanlis and Antonis Samaras, both of the centre-right New Democracy party, are urging a yes vote, saying that a return to the drachma would kill the Greek economy.

        So how do top economists say they would vote - and why?

        Joseph Stiglitz - NO

        Nobel laureate in economics and professor at Columbia University

        Stiglitz has decried the economics behind the international creditors' programme for Greece as "abysmal". "I can think of no depression, ever, that has been so deliberate and had such catastrophic consequences," he wrote this week.

        He says it is hard to advise Greeks how to vote on 5 July, given both options carry "huge risks". But it is clear the Nobel laureate himself would vote no:

        A no vote would at least open the possibility that Greece, with its strong democratic tradition, might grasp its destiny in its own hands. Greeks might gain the opportunity to shape a future that, though perhaps not as prosperous as the past, is far more hopeful than the unconscionable torture of the present.
        Paul Krugman - NO

        Nobel prize-winning US economist

        "I would vote no, for two reasons," Krugman wrote in the New York Times.

        Firstly, thinks Krugman, the troika of international lenders – the entity consisting of the European commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund – is effectively demanding that the policy regime of the past five years be continued indefinitely: "Where is the hope in that?"

        Secondly, the political implications of a yes vote would be "deeply troubling", he says.

        The troika clearly did a reverse Corleone – they made Tsipras an offer he can't accept, and presumably did this knowingly. So the ultimatum was, in effect, a move to replace the Greek government. And even if you don't like Syriza, that has to be disturbing for anyone who believes in European ideals.
        Thomas Piketty - NO

        Professor at the Paris School of Economics and author of Capital in the Twenty-First Century

        Piketty has joined other economists in calling for Greece's heavy debt burden to be restructured and says Greeks should vote no. In an interview with the French broadcaster BFMTV he described the deal proposed by creditors as "bad". He also warned that expelling Greece from Europe would push it into the arms of Russia.

        It's a complicated choice. The question being asked is whether the plan from the creditors is good or not. If that is the question being asked, the answer for me is clear: it is a bad plan.
        Jeffrey Sachs - NO

        Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and author of The Price of Civilization

        Sachs sees a way out of the crisis if Greece's debt burden is eased while keeping the country in the eurozone. For that to happen Greece and Germany need to come to a "rapprochement" soon after the referendum and agree to a package of economic reforms and debt relief, he wrote on Project Syndicate. But first Greeks must vote against international creditors' proposals .

        I recommend that the Greek people give a resounding "No" to the creditors in the referendum on their demands this weekend.

        ... ... ...

        Professors of economics at Greek universities - YES

        In an open letter, 246 professors at economics schools and universities in Greece urged people to vote yes on Sunday or risk leaving the EU.

        Taking into account that the proposals of our creditors and the Greek government were converging until last Friday, we believe that what is really at stake in the coming referendum, irrespective of the precise formulation of the question, is whether Greece will remain, or not, in the eurozone and, possibly, whether it will remain in the EU itself...

        Leaving the eurozone, especially in this chaotic and superficial way, would likely lead to a process of leaving the EU too, with unpredictable and disastrous consequences for the national security and the democratic stability of our country.

        [Jul 03, 2015] Greece Sane Voices Call For A No Vote

        "...The Greek comprador class supported the Nazis in the Second World War, fought against the United Front in the civil war, made the neo-fascist 1970s regime, and today they support EU/NATO integration and austerity. They are an integral part of the European ruling class that is holding the working and middle classes of across the whole continent by the balls. The ruling class which has divided Europe, once again as they did in the 1930s, into "Germans" and "Greeks" instead of the reality - of workers and rulers. So, there is not one "more dangerous" than the other. They are the same."
        "...Initially, the IMF predicated their support on Ukraine reaching a deal with its private creditors to restructure its debt to reduce its payments by $15 billion over four years. This has not proven easy, however, and the IMF now says it may release funds to Kiev even if it defaults on its private creditors. "
        "..."This is a very dark moment for Europe. They have closed our banks for the sole purpose of blackmailing what? Getting a 'Yes' vote on a non-sustainable solution that would be ad for Europe.""
        "...I have to say that I totally didn't get that point so far. Of course they're going nuts about a short-noticed referendum, because usually in these cases the public gets brainwashed for months in advance. Can't believe I didn't notice that right away. It's the essence of western democracy: let people vote, but only the things you want them to choose from. Nice move by Syriza btw! Now that I think about it, it's obvious that they planfully came up with the referendum as suprise! Kudos!"
        "...After the hell of World War II, the Federal Republic of Germany – commonly known as West Germany – got massive help with its debt from former foes. Among its creditors then? Greece. The 1953 agreement, in which Greece and about 20 other countries effectively wrote off a large chunk of Germany's loans and restructured the rest, is a landmark case that shows how effective debt relief can be. It helped spark what became known as the German economic miracle."
        "...We are witnessing a black swan event. The Greek banks have run out of cash. Either the EU seizes Greece or a failed state in Europe has been born with Ukraine soon to follow. All of the Greek debts are void and trillions in derivative payments will be due. This is 2008 all over again with the collapse of the western financial system possible. This is why everyone is so desperate. Yet, for pennies on the total cost of the default, Greece could be saved. Magnanimity may yet win out but it would mean the end of the current rule of extinction capitalism in the West."
        Jul 03, 2015 | M of A
        guest77 | Jul 2, 2015 6:20:38 PM

        The Greeks have to make their decision as to what they are going to do. This is not a vote about staying in the EU. If the Greeks are kicked out, there is no one to blame for that decision except the EU masters. The Greeks are making only one decision - wether or not to agree to the terms of the EU for the repayment of the debt - and thereby wether the debt was incurred legally.

        All those who claim that this is a referendum on the EU are liars who are not being honest with the Greek people. Those who are trotting out the endless stream of confusion as to what this referendum is about - like the BBC, the New York Times, and even Greek parties like Potomi, etc - are clearly no friends of the Greek people. Because to be a friend is to speak honestly.

        "Your mention of compradors is important because the internal enemies of the Greek people may be more dangerous than the external Troika."
        The internal and external enemies of the Greek people are one in the same. The Greeks are paying the Troika who gives the money to prop up Greek banking oligarchs. There is no difference between a banker in Athens, a banker in Frankfurt, or a hedge fund vulture in New York City holding Greek debt. All are ghouls who are profiting from the destruction of Greece.

        The Greek comprador class supported the Nazis in the Second World War, fought against the United Front in the civil war, made the neo-fascist 1970s regime, and today they support EU/NATO integration and austerity. They are an integral part of the European ruling class that is holding the working and middle classes of across the whole continent by the balls. The ruling class which has divided Europe, once again as they did in the 1930s, into "Germans" and "Greeks" instead of the reality - of workers and rulers. So, there is not one "more dangerous" than the other. They are the same.

        To add to the anti-Syriza noise machine, wether from a reactionary stance or a "ultra-leftist" stance, is to do the people of Europe a disservice. Syriza is the only left-wing, anti-austerity party with power inside the EU. It is unique. It fought the Golden Dawn on the streets of Athens. It engaged the Greek people and asked for their vote, and it is living up to their mandate without - and this is key - claiming more of one than they earned.

        The referendum vote will be their true mandate. The Greek people have had a chance to see Syriza in action, the referendum will be the Greek people's chance to show or deny their trust in Syriza before embarking on a long struggle for independence, or maintaining the constant drain of austerity.The stakes are clear: Syriza's success means a stake in the heart of the EU debt vampires who are feeding off of not just Greece, but on all of those nations deemed "the periphery". Success for Syriza is success for the very idea of democracy in the 21st Century. It is that cut-and-dried.

        If Syriza fails, then the last good hope for European democracy vanishes until, perhaps, the next escalation of crisis, whenever that might be a year or two years down the road. Or perhaps for the foreseeable future. Because this is the simplest question of the referendum: do a people have the right to say "no" to those whom wish them ill, to say "no" to those who, by whatever "legal" power, are seeking to oppress them? As Martin Luther King, Jr stated: "One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." And clearly this debt - and the refusal of those who imposed it to make any compromise, even for the sickest and the poorest - is unjust. So which is worse - to face the morse losses for ones shattered economy, or the loss of ones national will and democracy? Because after Syriza, there is the abyss. There is no one offering to speak for the Greek people if Syriza falls.

        If Syriza succeeds, though, then all over Europe, we could see these sham technocratic, ruling class regimes fall. These regimes whose only reason for staying in power is naked fear. This is a good time to recall the words of Franklin Roosevelt, when the US found itself crushed between a failed economy on one side, and a nest of powerful oligarchs on the other who refused to offer any support to the citizens of the country:

        This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

        The Greeks are facing a moment of truth as stark and as clear as any in human history. As stark as any 20th Century war for independence. They can choose to continue down their current path, only to have to face the same choice in a year or two years from now with conditions far, far worse (there is no one arguing that there is any hope for their recovery - no one). So it is either continued depression under the "guiding hand" of those who seek only one thing from Greece: the transfer of its wealth. Or they can say "No" and take their destiny, again, into their own hands. Only once they have made their collective will known will Europe decide what course of action to take: compromise, or split Europe. And if it is a split, then the only party responsible will be the masters of the EU.

        Mike Maloney | Jul 2, 2015 6:08:06 PM | 27
        You know, the whole name-calling thing, Comrade X, escapes me. Why people feel like it enhances their persona I don't know. To repeat: the troika has already won this contest because Syriza capitulated. You quote me incorrectly.

        I think failure for the troika is if they get the Yes vote they want and then refuse to offer concessions, which will push Tsipras and Varoufakis to resign. Without a deal shortly the ECB will have to step in and expand emergency liquidity assistance to make sure all those retirees who don't use debit cards have enough cash to buy food.

        xxx
        As this isn't a vote about EU membership, then the Greek people should have no fear. They should vote as their conscience dictates.

        Who knows what form the EU Masters want the Union to take? The Greek people won't have a say in this and they should recognize that. The Greeks should recognize their limits - they do not have the power to vote to stay or leave the EU, they have only the power to vote on to wether or not to pay this odious debt. Europe will do with them, after that, as it will. So they should be clear that they are voting only on the debt, and ignore all those who are trying to cloud the issue.

        The real danger, as always, is that we know the USA is busy manipulating every European political system. And we know that US geopolitics will insist on Greece remaining in the EU and in NATO no matter what it means for the Greeks. So the Greek people must be extremely wary of all those going onto the streets, EuroMaidan-style, for "Pro-EU" rallies... they're dishonest at best, and more likely they are pawns of the only power even less interested in the welfare of the Greek people than even the EU - Washington Imperialsim.

        ab initio | Jul 2, 2015 6:53:47 PM | 29

        A, Yes vote would mean that the Syriza government must resign since the implication is that the Greek people have voted a motion of no confidence.

        A, No vote would mean the ball is in the Troika court. They can a) choose not to fund the Greek banks anymore which would imply that the banks would collapse immediately and no more pension payments under the current Euro system; b) Choose to give Greece an ultimatum of accept or reject whatever their offer will be. Non acceptance would mean once again they can cause Greek banks to collapse.

        The Greek people are caught between a rock & a hard place. Risk the collapse of their banks and a new unknown future in a non-Euro currency system or accept whatever terms the Troika is willing to provide to keep their banks afloat. There is a decent probability that there is a "civil war" in Greece between those that would prefer to be in the Euro currency bloc under whatever terms the Troika offers and those wanting out of the Euro currency system.

        BTW, this is not advocacy, only analysis.

        Nana 2007 | Jul 2, 2015 7:04:24 PM | 30

        The real danger, as always, is that we know the USA is busy manipulating every European political system. And we know that US geopolitics will insist on Greece remaining in the EU and in NATO no matter what it means for the Greeks. So the Greek people must be extremely wary of all those going onto the streets, EuroMaidan-style, for "Pro-EU" rallies... they're dishonest at best, and more likely they are pawns of the only power even less interested in the welfare of the Greek people than even the EU - Washington Imperialsim.

        guest77 | Jul 2, 2015 6:20:38 PM


        Well put. Thanks for your posts.

        jo6pac | Jul 2, 2015 8:03:53 PM | 36

        Very emphatic and stirring, guest77 @26. This is another moment of truth for non-Greek capitalist slaves as well. They are discouraged from seeing the Greek whip as their own.
        In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.
        Oh. Pray I may ask, President Roosevelt, "Why do we not need a leadership of frankness and vigor in good hour?" Perhaps this is why we don't get one in the dark ones?

        "Those who claim that this is a referendum on the EU" are propagandists and sowers of confusion and discord. All vigorous capitalist systems need them, good times and bad.

        Compradors are distinguished by their divided loyalties and false allegiances. Oligarchs cannot be mistaken for compradors. Compradors are an integral part of capitalist political economy and their false allegiance is more dangerous because it disarms. We could speak as well of German compradors, those who would vote to continue the immiseration of Greece though the bankers and brokers fraudulently saddled German and European taxpayer with their losses. Compradors don the hypocritical morality their oligarchs so affordably produce. They love playing the fools, because it so well pays.

        Do the ultra-leftists who critique Syriza do only disservice? I doubt it. Even if "Syriza is the only left-wing, anti-austerity party with power inside the EU", that is not enough. Even Syriza would confirm that they and their pragmatism is not enough to achieve their ends. I agree that "ultra-left" critics risk being confused with dissemblers, but they should not silence themselves for that reason. KKE asks of Greeks, instead of yah or nay, to demand:

        * NO TO THE PROPOSAL OF THE EU-IMF-ECB
        * NO TO THE PROPOSAL OF THE GOVERNMENT
        * DISENGAGEMENT FROM THE EU, WITH THE PEOPLE IN POWER

        Is it not clear what Syriza should do with these "votes"? I have seen a Syriza supporter dissemble on KKE's position; that's bigotry.

        Can Syriza mobilize the electorate against their oppressors? Have they propagandized enough? This referendum is not on whether "people have the right to say "no" to those whom wish them ill", i.e. a vote for their own oppression, but whether they have mobilized the Greeks, beyond Syriza's election, for the coming fracas.

        Syriza cannot bring "these sham technocratic, ruling class regimes" to fall. We must fight on, whether they fail or no.

        okie farmer | Jul 3, 2015 3:03:15 AM | 64

        #57

        Yves Smith et al may not be as loony as you think. Check out this piece by William Engdahl, in which he has identified Varifoukas as a modern version of a Trojan horse, but in this instance, acting in the interest of the Greek oligarchs. It is this particular segment of the Greek population which has in large part been shielded from public view, most because of all the focus on the evil troika. Engdahl quite rightly put much of the blame for the current Greek crisis on a long established practice by the corrupt Greek political class, that has not only plundered and looted the country for the past 70 years (he actually sees that this is a centuries old practice), but has willfully subjected their fellow country folk to never-ending debt enslavement.

        http://journal-neo.org/2015/07/03/what-stinks-about-varoufakis-and-the-whole-greek-mess/

        An interesting point, and this is on reason that NC could be cut some slack, is that Tsiprias and Varifoukas played nothing other than a game of brinkmanship that was a sure loser. Given that they had no plan-B to fall back on, and that they refused Putin's offer of assistance, it is hard to argue against Engdahls' conclusion that this was a rigged game all the way - one rigged by the Greek oligarchs, with Tsiprias and Varifoukas acting as their proxies.

        I was always suspicious of the smile that never ceases to leave Varifoukas' face.

        bjmaclac | Jul 3, 2015 2:43:06 AM | 63
        RT
        IMF and Ukraine agree on terms for release of $1.7 bn in bailout funds

        The International Monetary Fund and Kiev's representatives have agreed on a set of measures to be taken by Ukraine in order to receive $1.7 billion in bailout money, according to the IMF press service. The much needed 2nd tranche of a promised $17.5 billion support package will be released when the IMF's Ukrainian mission determines that the requirements of the agreement have been met, though the press release did not specify what those conditions might be. The IMF's management and board will also have to approve the final release of funds.

        Initially, the IMF predicated their support on Ukraine reaching a deal with its private creditors to restructure its debt to reduce its payments by $15 billion over four years. This has not proven easy, however, and the IMF now says it may release funds to Kiev even if it defaults on its private creditors.

        okie farmer | Jul 3, 2015 3:12:42 AM | 65

        http://rt.com/op-edge/271003-greece-bailout-default-scenarios/

        Presuming the referendum occurs, the range of outcomes can be distilled thus:

        A> Greece votes "Yes": Tsipras resigns (as Energy Minister Panagiotis Lafazanis has already hinted), EU rejoices but unless a technocratic government can be rustled up in Parliament, the ensuing election campaign will waste valuable weeks and add to uncertainty and instability. Any subsequent negotiations will see Greece economically immolated by its unrepentant lenders.

        B> Greece votes No:

        Technically referenda are considered consultative and need a 40 percent turnout to be deemed relevant.

        With Greece in default on its IMF loans, the concept that a strong 'no' vote strengthens its hand in negotiations is a dubious assertion verging on folly. There is no negotiation, thus no strengthened position. Egos may be soothed but that won't feed Greek pensioners.
        ~~~
        Neither vote enables a simple resolution. No delivers a poisoned chalice. A petulant EU, rattled by Greece's refusal to be supplicant to the superpower of delusion, won't receive Alexis Tsipras back into the fold prodigal son-style.

        2) Greece maintains the euro: Syriza's apparent (self-defeating) choice. Athens must release the currency pressure valve to rebalance Greece, enabling future export and tourist growth fuelled by a cheaper New Drachma.

        (Incidentally, this default is Greece's sixth since 1826).
        ~~~
        4) Greece introduces parallel currency to pay bills. Thus a New Drachma will emerge and Greece will de facto exit the eurozone. By this stage the EU will be too preoccupied with its own credibility gap to hold Greece within the eurozone's structures.
        ~~~
        6) Third party motivated regime change cannot be discounted: Some angry creditors are likely pushing for Syriza to be ousted. However a No vote gives Syriza a mandate to govern, albeit against a very volatile, probably quite chaotic, background.

        8) Greece abandons the euro and adopts bitcoin - a lovely idea which would at least guarantee citizens could no longer be subject to summary devaluation at the knee. Alas only slightly more plausible than lenders accepting a No vote is a basis for debt relief.

        And what of the eurozone?

        The EU has egg on its face and a sickly currency whose sanctity is being undermined. Economically, Greek GDP is barely 1.8 percent of the 335 million citizen eurozone. However contagion risks will be a huge worry. Europe has delayed vital structural reforms and will pay a greater price than the 'mere' high unemployment relative stagnation of recent years where Asia rose and Europe froze. Investors will be spooked to realize the euro is not merely perishable, it is in mortal danger. Greece is a small but debt-laden Mediterranean nation, behind the narcissistic political hubris, the EU remains an, albeit fading, giant of global influence.

        somebody | Jul 3, 2015 3:40:18 AM | 66
        okie farmer | Jul 3, 2015 3:12:42 AM | 65

        Sure, they played this lose lose, that is the part that really worries me. You cannot trust politicians who enter that type of game. And this is all the EU.

        somebody | Jul 3, 2015 4:50:22 AM | 67

        Comrade X | Jul 3, 2015 2:22:41 AM | 62

        "smart people now benefit in contraction", sure, as the fire sales concentrate ownership to the very few. This model has been tested and proven politically unsustainable before, it leads to war, where "smart people" are bound to benefit, too.

        bjmaclac | Jul 3, 2015 2:43:06 AM | 63

        Engdahl certainly is right in that Syriza is made an example of to disencourage (Southern) European national politicians from challenging the system. The result, however, is very much the end of Europe, as there is no way now to sell European initiatives to the - very diverse - national publics. The discussion in Germany has been framed in a way that makes it virtually impossible to transfer any more billions to creditors or agree to a debt cut meaning the billions granted before on saving German and international banks have to be written off.

        European politicians got themselves in such a quandary that they depend on the IMF to solve the crisis whilst making the solution more and more expensive themselves. By defaulting on the IMF Greece presumably has taken that option from the table. The BRICS will not pay for the "European problem".

        radiator | Jul 3, 2015 5:21:07 AM | 68

        The earlier declaration from the Monarchs of the European voting commission was telling. They demanded a two week delay to allow their minions to browbeat and propagandize the poor Greeks before a 'fair', read controlled, referendum could take place. Wayoutwest | Jul 2, 2015 1:51:47 PM | 7

        I have to say that I totally didn't get that point so far. Of course they're going nuts about a short-noticed referendum, because usually in these cases the public gets brainwashed for months in advance. Can't believe I didn't notice that right away.

        It's the essence of western democracy: let people vote, but only the things you want them to choose from. Nice move by Syriza btw! Now that I think about it, it's obvious that they planfully came up with the referendum as suprise! Kudos!

        okie farmer | Jul 3, 2015 6:00:23 AM | 69

        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-02/china-state-official-hints-beijing-may-bailout-greece
        China may help Greece directly through its new financial instruments, director of the Quantitative Finance Department at China's Institute of Quantitative and Technical Economics told Sputnik China.

        "The Greek crisis has an undoubtedly seriously influence on China's trade with Greece and investment into the country. But I think that European countries together with China can help Greece overcome the problems that arose," Fan Mingtao said.

        "I believe there are two ways to give Greece Chinese aid. First, within the framework of the international aid through EU countries. Second, China could aid Greece directly. Especially considering the Silk Road Economic Belt and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. China has this ability," Fan added

        Jackrabbit | Jul 3, 2015 8:24:26 AM | 71

        okie @65

        A 'YES' vote is capitulation. A 'NO' vote means negotiation backed by the possibility of GRexit.

        GRexit has not been an option so far because Syriza had no democratic authority to contemplate such a move. Allowing for the possibility of GRexit gives the Greek side a much stronger hand.

        Both sides are playing games. You can't take what they say at face value. The Greeks are pro-Europe until the are not. Tsipras says that a 'NO' vote is not a vote for GRexit. But a 'NO' allows for GRexit if negotiations fail.

        If a GRexit occurs, the Greek side will blame the Troika, pointing to how determined Syriza has been to stay in Europe. This political blame game is meant to raise the stakes.

        I think Greece would issue a parallel currency like Tax Anticipation Notes (TANs) during a transition period (maybe starting right after a 'NO' vote). If Greece exits, they will likely get support (loans, trade deals) from BRICS. Russia has an incentive to see that Greece does not fail, while the Troika has an incentive to see that Greece does fail.

        =

        I think there will be a 'NO' vote and, armed with the recently released IMF report on the sustainability of Greek debt, Greece will get a favorable agreement. The BIG question in my mind is whether the Troika will insist on Greece to agree to support tighter EU integration. That would then also be asked of other PIGS that seek debt relief.

        So this Greek crisis could represent the beginning of the end for the EZ or an significant advance for those that want to see a "United States of Europe".

        okie farmer | Jul 3, 2015 9:13:28 AM | 72

        Syriza had no democratic authority to contemplate such a move.
        It's worse than that, there's no mechanism in Monetary Union itself for anyone in to exit.

        ADL Poll: 85% of Greeks Believe the Jews Have Too Much Power Over Global Finance

        jfl | Jul 3, 2015 9:17:19 AM | 73
        A new poll by the Anti-Defamation League found that the majority of Greeks continue to hold anti-Semitic views about Jewish control over finance and the global economy, despite a recent drop in anti-Jewish attitudes in other parts of Europe.
        They are desperate! The Greeks are NAZIs! Wow! It is amusing to see them going insane, breaking down right on stage before the audience ... roaring with laughter? I know I am. If you lose your money, good god don't you lose your mind!

        Come on Greeks! You've got 'em on the run! As that great stateswoman Nancy Reagan once said with regard to drug dealers - "Just say NO!"

        somebody | Jul 3, 2015 9:24:17 AM | 74

        And now it is Jeffrey D. Sachs coming out for a no
        German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble has a clear negotiating strategy, aimed at getting Greece to agree to leave the eurozone. Unfortunately for him, Greece does not want to exit, and it cannot be forced to do so under the treaties governing the European Union. What Greece wants is to remain in the eurozone, with a lower debt burden – a position that is both economically astute and protected by treaty.

        ... ... ...

        There are plenty of precedents for such a course. Sovereign debts have been restructured hundreds, perhaps thousands, of times – including for Germany. In fact, hardline demands by the country's US government creditors after World War I contributed to deep financial instability in Germany and other parts of Europe, and indirectly to the rise of Adolf Hitler in 1933. After World War II, however, Germany was the recipient of vastly wiser concessions by the US government, culminating in consensual debt relief in 1953, an action that greatly benefitted Germany and the world. Yet Germany has failed to learn the lessons of its own history.
        I propose a four-step path out of the Greek crisis. First, I recommend that the Greek people give a resounding "No" to the creditors in the referendum on their demands this weekend.

        Second, Greece should continue to withhold service on its external debts to official creditors in advance of a consensual debt restructuring later this year. Given its great depression, Greece should use its savings to pay pensioners, provide food relief, make crucial infrastructure repairs, and direct liquidity toward the banking system.

        Third, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras must use his persuasive powers to convince the public, in the style of US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, that the only thing they have to fear is fear itself. Specifically, the government should make clear to all Greeks that their euro deposits are safe; that the country will remain within the eurozone (despite the false claims by some members of the Eurogroup that a no vote means a Greek exit); and that its banks will reopen immediately after the referendum.

        Finally, Greece and Germany need to come to a rapprochement soon after the referendum and agree to a package of economic reforms and debt relief. No country – including Greece – should expect to be offered debt relief on a silver platter; relief must be earned and justified by real reforms that restore growth, to the benefit of both debtor and creditor. And yet, a corpse cannot carry out reforms. That is why debt relief and reforms must be offered together, not reforms "first" with some vague promises that debt relief will come in some unspecified amount at some unspecified time in the future (as some in Europe have said to Greece).

        okie farmer | Jul 3, 2015 9:26:48 AM | 75

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11714655/Greek-banks-down-to-500m-in-cash-reserves-as-economy-crashes.html

        Greece is sliding into a full-blown national crisis as the final cash reserves of the banking system evaporate by the hour and swathes of industry start to shut down, precipitating the near disintegration of the ruling coalition. Business leaders have been locked in talks with the Bank of Greece, pleading for the immediate release of emergency liquidity funds (ELA) to cover food imports and pharmaceutical goods before the tourist sector hits a brick wall. Officials say the central bank will release the funds as soon as Friday, but this is a stop-gap measure at best. "We are on a war footing in this country," said Yanis Varoufakis, the Greek finance minister. The daily allowance of cash from many ATM machines has already dropped from €60 to €50, purportedly because €20 notes are running out.

        Large numbers are empty. The financial contagion is spreading fast as petrol stations and small businesses stop accepting credit cards. Constantine Michalos, head of the Hellenic Chambers of Commerce, said lenders are simply running out of money. "We are reliably informed that the cash reserves of the banks are down to €500m. Anybody who thinks they are going to open again on Tuesday is day-dreaming. The cash would not last an hour," he said. "We are in an extremely dangerous situation. Greek companies have been excluded from the electronic transfers of Europe's Target2 system. The entire Greek business community is unable to import anything, and without raw materials they can't produce anything," he said.

        okie farmer | Jul 3, 2015 9:48:31 AM | 76
        Troika Maneuvering to Rig Greek Referendum (Martin Armstrong)

        In a TV interview, Mr. Varoufakis said very clearly,

        "This is a very dark moment for Europe. They have closed our banks for the sole purpose of blackmailing what? Getting a 'Yes' vote on a non-sustainable solution that would be bad for Europe."

        I must admit, most politicians do not come even close to the truth, but Varoufakis seems to be the ONLY finance minister who understands the demands of the Troika are not plausible for any nation. Merkel has tried to skirt any responsibility by saying this is a Troika decision. One must seriously ask, are those in the Troika just totally brain-dead? Their blackmail and economic war against Greece will be evidence to ensure that Britain leaves the EU. The ONLY thing that saved Britain was Maggie Thatcher's effort to keep Britain out of the euro for she knew far too well where it would lead.

        The view in Poland is also now anti-euro. Any Brit who now does not vote to get out of the EU and the grips of the Troika is ignorant of world events and the political power play going on. The EU leaders will not travel to Athens until after the referendum. Suddenly they realize that their powers are so off the wall that they dare not expose their own schemes. Hollande of France wants a resolution for he fears a Frexit is gaining momentum. Obama wants a resolution, fearing Greece will be forced into the arms of Russia, breaking down NATO. Yet through all of this, there is no hope because those in power are clueless. The Troika refuses to solve the euro crisis because they only see their own self-interest and assume they can force their will upon all the people.

        The Troika is doing everything in their power to rig the Greek referendum to make it appear that the Greek people want Brussels. The Troika deliberately closed the banks to punish the people of Greece, and to show them what exiting the euro means. This appears to be their only way of diverting the crisis with orchestrating a fake "YES" vote to economic suicide. The Troika will attempt to rig the referendum as they did with the Scottish elections. So expect biased vote counting in favor of a "YES" vote to stay in the euro. As Stalin said, "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything."
        http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/34268

        rexl | Jul 3, 2015 9:53:17 AM | 77

        So, do you think the large banks in the US have any loans still in their vaults or did they sell them all to the FED when it was buying 85 BILLION per month? I mean, most of the real estate loans are FHA, so never show up anyway. And the banks received dollar for dollar value on the exchange of bad and marginal loans and even, why not, good loans?

        okie farmer | Jul 3, 2015 9:57:03 AM | 78

        http://www.smh.com.au/world/when-greece-forgave-germanys-debt-20150703-gi43a0.html

        After the hell of World War II, the Federal Republic of Germany – commonly known as West Germany – got massive help with its debt from former foes. Among its creditors then? Greece. The 1953 agreement, in which Greece and about 20 other countries effectively wrote off a large chunk of Germany's loans and restructured the rest, is a landmark case that shows how effective debt relief can be. It helped spark what became known as the German economic miracle.

        So it's perhaps ironic that Germany is now among the countries resisting Greece's requests for debt relief. Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis claims debt relief is the key issue that held up a deal with creditors last week and says he'd rather cut off his arm than sign a deal that does not tackle the country's borrowings. The IMF backed the call to make Greece's debt manageable with a wide-ranging report on Thursday that also blames the Greek government for being slow with reforms. Despite years of budget cuts, Greece's debt burden is higher than when its bailout began in 2010 – more than €300 billion, or 180% of annual GDP – because the economy has shrunk by a quarter.

        ab initio | Jul 3, 2015 10:40:39 AM | 84
        okie farmer @75

        The social fabric in Greece is likely to unravel completely providing the fascist New Dawn an even larger opening. Those that want to accept whatever terms the EU/IMF offer to insure their banks get the emergency funding to stay open and will vote Yes in the referendum are neck and neck with the No vote group.

        Syriza knows that at the end of the day they have a Hobbesian choice. The majority of Greeks want to be in the Euro. If Syriza want their banks open under the Euro system they have to agree to whatever the EU offers, otherwise they'll have to go against the wishes of the majority of Greeks and move to another currency. They have no other choice.

        Comrade X | Jul 3, 2015 10:50:03 AM | 85

        jfl @73, have ADL acknowledged Israel's reassurances from Ukranian NAZI's?

        ADL condemns Greeks for thinking Jews exercise inordinate control over finance and the global economy (implying their resistance arises out of antisemitism). Israel supports fascists where they commit to "oppose all [racist] phenomena, especially anti-Semitism, with all legitimate means." If ADL does not request such commitment from Syriza (which is obviously unnecessary), is that because they don't want it? Do they not want it because the Greeks are right?

        Comrade X | Jul 3, 2015 11:17:38 AM | 86
        Re somebody @74: Sachs, ever this schmuck-comprador, concludes "No country – including Greece – should expect to be offered debt relief on a silver platter; relief must be earned and justified by real reforms that restore growth, to the benefit of both debtor and creditor." Why does he neglect the issue of odious debt, you may ask:
        [SNOWDEN] do you see 'odious debt' as a workable concept?

        [SACHS] That's a tough question. I am sympathetic to the idea but I have taken a
        somewhat different view. I of course agree with Michael Kremer that cer-
        tain debts need to be forgiven, and his view is that certain debts ought not
        to be enforceable at all. There are two aspects that concern me with his
        approach. First, even non-odious debt should be forgiven in many circum-
        stances. So I don't think that the answer to sub-Saharan Africa's debt prob-
        lem depends so much on where the debt came from, as opposed to what
        the current implications are of the accumulated debt. Some countries get
        themselves into a mess through bad luck or bad governance and in my
        view these countries need help.
        Societies should not be trapped by debt
        when it is a life and death issue. Second, I am not sure that we know, or can
        define what 'odious' means in a clear-cut, unambiguous way. Tastes vary a
        lot about what is or what is not good governance.
        I worry that rich and pow-
        erful countries are likely to manipulate decisions on which debts are to be
        defined as odious. I would not want to see the Pentagon deciding whose debts
        are odious and whose are not. So the applicability of the concept worries
        me. However, there is something particularly troubling about a brutal dic-
        tatorship that takes on debt by mortgaging national assets and then the cit-
        izens of that country, for decades to come, having to pay for that debt. After
        all, in most countries private citizens are not responsible for the repayment
        of debt incurred in their name by fraudsters. So I sympathise with the
        idea, but have a problem seeing how the idea can be put into operation.

        Forgive me, I cannot waste any more time deconstructing that obvious bullshit. SACHS is a legendary good cop. The "NO" possibility must be bracketed and so his "approval" is unsurprising.
        Comrade X | Jul 3, 2015 12:18:10 PM | 90
        Comrade X | Jul 3, 2015 10:27:05 AM | 83

        Very simple, because there is no such thing as rational agents.

        Smart is different, if you take the - original - UK meaning.

        somebody | Jul 3, 2015 11:24:22 AM | 87

        To okie farmer @76; Armstrong is hysterical: e.g. "One must seriously ask, are those in the Troika just totally brain-dead?" and "there is no hope because those in power are clueless." Blimey, 'e sounds like a fooking war correspondent. 'E must like war.

        ben | Jul 3, 2015 12:50:19 PM | 91

        From TRNN on Greece:

        http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14132

        somebody | Jul 3, 2015 12:56:55 PM | 92
        Comrade X | Jul 3, 2015 12:18:10 PM | 90

        :-)) Chomsky should have known better. The information in the approval is that there is a transatlantic economist establishment party supporting the "no",
        apart from Syriza, Beppe Grillo, Podemos - and British media. Looks like the regime change plot is a German one.

        Jackrabbit | Jul 3, 2015 2:04:15 PM | 93

        Investment Bank RBS has done the math
        PM Tsipras said that Euro members will never allow Greece to exit, because it would be too expensive. But what is, really, the cost of Grexit?
        We estimate the minimum direct cost of Grexit at around €239bn or 2.4% of Eurozone GDP.

        Is Greece too big to fail for the Eurozone, as Tsipras argues? No. Grexit costs are manageable for creditors. Yet, Grexit is twice more expensive than keeping Greece within the Eurozone (even with debt relief). Making Greek debt sustainable again by restructuring it and bringing close to 100% of GDP, would cost roughly half that (€140bn, or 1.4% of Eurozone GDP). The real issue, of course, would be moral hazard for other countries, which may be incentivised to ask for debt relief as well. This issue may be avoided with a conditional form of debt restructuring...

        ... ... ... According to the RBS analysis, it makes financial sense for the Troika to help Greece instead of risk GRexit. Its only that other countries might seek debt relief that prevents them from doing so (plus their dislike of the Tsipras government).

        And, we now know that the IMF agrees: Greek debt should be restructured.

        somebody | Jul 3, 2015 2:27:08 PM | 95

        There seems to be an EU climbdown
        Tusk refused to get drawn out on what this alternative solution might look like. "If you imagine too much, you get self-fulfilling prophesies," he said, adding that it was above all necessary to "avoid this dramatic scenario: the breakup of the eurozone."

        He added that the stakes in Greece go well beyond the debt or future of the euro, and are at heart geopolitical: "Greece and the Balkans are the traditional soft underbelly of Europe," and the EU needs to move "very, very cautiously."

        ... Berlin dreaming - Gremain scenario - in German

        Let Greece go bankrupt within the Euro. ECB control capital flows. Foreign banks to take over bankrupt Greek national banks. Personal hardship to be softened by humanitarian EU programme.

        james | Jul 3, 2015 3:44:33 PM | 97

        official stenographer's viewpoint ...

        Mr. Tsipras's unexpected decision to call the referendum was the equivalent of a frustrated chess player trying to break open a match with a daring last-minute move that his opponent considered to be against the rules.

        VietnamVet | Jul 3, 2015 4:46:54 PM | 98
        We are witnessing a black swan event. The Greek banks have run out of cash. Either the EU seizes Greece or a failed state in Europe has been born with Ukraine soon to follow. All of the Greek debts are void and trillions in derivative payments will be due. This is 2008 all over again with the collapse of the western financial system possible. This is why everyone is so desperate. Yet, for pennies on the total cost of the default, Greece could be saved. Magnanimity may yet win out but it would mean the end of the current rule of extinction capitalism in the West.

        [Jul 03, 2015] Throughout history, debt and war have been constant partners

        "...So, to recap: corrupt German companies bribed corrupt Greek politicians to buy German weapons. And then a German chancellor presses for austerity on the Greek people to pay back the loans they took out (with Germans banks) at massive interest, for the weapons they bought off them in the first place. "
        "...Debt and war are constant partners."
        "...And the reason the USA dominated the world after WW2 was they had stayed out of both wars for the first 2 years and made fortunes lending and selling arms to Britain (and some to the Axis). It was the Jewish moneylenders of the Middle Ages who financed the various internal European wars, created the first banks, and along with a Scot formed the Bank of England."
        Jul 03, 2015 | The Guardian

        omewhere in a Greek jail, the former defence minister, Akis Tsochatzopoulos, watches the financial crisis unfold. I wonder how partly responsible he feels? In 2013, Akis (as he is popularly known) went down for 20 years, finally succumbing to the waves of financial scandal to which his name had long been associated. For alongside the lavish spending, the houses and the dodgy tax returns, there was bribery, and it was the €8m appreciation he received from the German arms dealer, Ferrostaal, for the Greek government's purchase of Type 214 submarines, that sent him to prison.

        There is this idea that the Greeks got themselves into this current mess because they paid themselves too much for doing too little. Well, maybe. But it's not the complete picture. For the Greeks also got themselves into debt for the oldest reason in the book – one might even argue, for the very reason that public debt itself was first invented – to raise and support an army. The state's need for quick money to raise an army is how industrial-scale money lending comes into business (in the face of the church's historic opposition to usury). Indeed, in the west, one might even stretch to say that large-scale public debt began as a way to finance military intervention in the Middle East – ie the crusades. And just as rescuing Jerusalem from the Turks was the justification for massive military spending in the middle ages, so the fear of Turkey has been the reason given for recent Greek spending. Along with German subs, the Greeks have bought French frigates, US F16s and German Leopard 2 tanks. In the 1980s, for example, the Greeks spent an average of 6.2% of their GDP on defence compared with a European average of 2.9%. In the years following their EU entry, the Greeks were the world's fourth-highest spenders on conventional weaponry.

        So, to recap: corrupt German companies bribed corrupt Greek politicians to buy German weapons. And then a German chancellor presses for austerity on the Greek people to pay back the loans they took out (with Germans banks) at massive interest, for the weapons they bought off them in the first place. Is this an unfair characterisation? A bit. It wasn't just Germany. And there were many other factors at play in the escalation of Greek debt. But the postwar difference between the Germans and the Greeks is not the tired stereotype that the former are hardworking and the latter are lazy, but rather that, among other things, the Germans have, for obvious reasons, been restricted in their military spending. And they have benefited massively from that.

        Debt and war are constant partners. "The global financial crisis was due, at least in part, to the war," wrote Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, calculating the cost of the US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, pre-financial crash, to have been $3tn. Indeed, it was only this year, back in March, that the UK taxpayer finally paid off the money we borrowed to fight the first world war. "This is a moment for Britain to be proud of," said George Osborne, as he paid the final instalment of £1.9bn. Really?

        The phrase "military-industrial complex" is one of those cliches of 70s leftwing radicalism, but it was Dwight D Eisenhower, a five-star general no less, who warned against its creeping power in his final speech as president. "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the federal government … we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society." Ike was right.

        This week, Church House, C of E HQ, hosted a conference sponsored by the arms dealers Lockheed Martin and MBDA Missile Systems. We preach about turning swords into ploughs yet help normalise an industry that turns them back again. The archbishop of Canterbury has been pretty solid on Wonga and trying to put legal loan sharks out of business. Now the church needs to take this up a level. For the debts that cripple entire countries come mostly from spending on war, not on pensions. And we don't say this nearly enough.
        @giles_fraser

        marsCubed, 3 Jul 2015 12:21

        Syriza's position has been stated in this Huffington Post article.

        Speaking to reporters in Washington on Tuesday, Yiannis Bournous, the head of international affairs for Greece's ruling Syriza party, heartily endorsed defense cuts as a way to meet the fiscal targets of Greece's international creditors.

        "We already proposed a 200 million euro cut in the defense budget," Bournous said at an event hosted by the Center for Economic Policy and Research and the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, referring to cuts in Syriza's most recent proposal to its creditors. "We are willing to make it even bigger -- it is a pleasure for us."

        Europe Offered Greece A Deal To Meet Its Obligations By Cutting Military Spending. The IMF Said No Way.

        If the report is correct, ideology is playing just as much of a role as arithmetic in preventing a resolution. The IMF's refusal to consider a plan that would lessen pension cuts is consistent with itshistorically neoliberal political philosophy.


        Giftedbutlazee 3 Jul 2015 11:52

        we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex.

        Still as relevant now, 54 years after Eisenhower said it.


        BritCol 3 Jul 2015 11:39

        And the reason the USA dominated the world after WW2 was they had stayed out of both wars for the first 2 years and made fortunes lending and selling arms to Britain (and some to the Axis). It was the Jewish moneylenders of the Middle Ages who financed the various internal European wars, created the first banks, and along with a Scot formed the Bank of England.

        The moral? War makes money for profiteers, and puts those of us not killed or displaced in debt for generations. Yet we morons keep waving flags every time a prime minister wants to send us into another conflict.


        barry1947brewster 3 Jul 2015 11:39

        28 May 2014 The Royal United Services Institute estimated that since the Berlin Wall fell the UK has spent £35 billion on wars. Now it is suggested that we bomb IS in Syria. Instead of printing "Paid for by the Taxpayer" on medicines provided by the NHS we should have a daily costing of our expenditure on bombs etc used in anger.


        real tic 3 Jul 2015 11:23

        Finally someone at Graun looks at this obvious contradiction present in the Greek governments opposition to cut in defense spending (when they apparently accept cuts to pensions, healthcare and other social services)! Well done Giles, but what's wrong with your colleagues in CIF, or even in the glass bubbled editorial offices? Why has it taken so long to examine this aspect of Greek debt?

        Defense expenditure is also one reason some actors in creditor nations are content to keep Greece in debt, even as far as to see its debts deepen, as long as it keeps on buying. while within Greece, nationalism within the military has long been a way of containing far right tendencies.

        It is notable but unsurprising that the current Minister of Defense in Greece is a far right politician, allied to Tsipiras in the Syriza coalition.


        Pollik 3 Jul 2015 11:03

        "Throughout history, debt and war have been constant partners"

        ...and someone always makes a profit.

        [Jul 03, 2015] Europe's leaders must end this reckless standoff with Greece by Guy Verhofstadt, former prime minister of Belgium

        "...Neoliberal politicians are well-paid traitors to their own countries and peoples - how much empathy can be expected of them for anyone else?"
        "...When I see expressions like "hard-working" and "sustainable", I stop reading. It is as Orwell said: ready made plastic expressions rushing in to smother all possibility of an original individual thought. All this dolt needed to include were "inclusive", "sensitive", "globalised", "aspirational", "stakeholders", and he would be done."
        "...You are quite right about Golden Dawn but I don't think the Troika actually care about that so much. Its beyond obvious that the Troika care nothing for the Greek population and I think they would be content with a fascist dictatorship as long as it signs up to austerity."
        "...That would not be a bad thing, but I don't think the Euro is seen as an error or a mistake at all. As Germany has discovered, it is an extremely useful tool in assuring the triumph of greed: keeping populations poor, unemployed and fearful, so they are more willing to accept the lash of the markets and agree to bank bailouts, low wages, a diminished social safety-net, trade treaties, etc., etc."
        Jul 03, 2015 | The Guardian

        The possibility of a Greek exit from the eurozone has never been more likely. We shouldn't be under any illusions – this would be a catastrophe for Greece's eurozone creditors, the Greek state and the European Union.

        Like it or not, we are all in this together. If we continue on our current trajectory, everyone stands to lose from what now resembles a reckless, self-destructive standoff. The Greek economy is on the verge of complete collapse. This would not only be devastating for the people of Greece, it will guarantee that creditors never see their money again. We must remember that Germany has lent approximately €80bn. This is an astonishing figure, close to a quarter of Greece's budget for 2016. Yet the sad irony is, the longer the current impasse continues, the greater pressure Angela Merkel will face within her own party to reject any solution that is accepted by the Greek government.

        But much more is at stake than euros. The world will consider a "Grexit" as a devastating blow for EU monetary cooperation and the European project. A destabilising Grexit will only be welcomed by the likes of China, Russia and those who are most threatened by a strong, united European Union. If Greece is to stay within the eurozone, we need to secure a massive de-escalation of the tensions, rhetoric and threats from both sides – and fast. It is time for Greece's finance minister Yanis Varoufakis and the political leaders of the eurozone to come to their senses and bring this crisis back from the brink.


        Prodisestab -> HolyInsurgent 3 Jul 2015 18:26

        Neoliberal politicians are well-paid traitors to their own countries and peoples - how much empathy can be expected of them for anyone else?


        Panagiotis Theodoropoulos Gjenganger 3 Jul 2015 19:20

        Agreed to a good extent. However, when the discussions broke off Friday night, the two sides were very close regarding the measures that were needed. I believe that they were off by 60 million euros only. Their differences were mostly about the types of measures to be taken with the Greek government wanting more taxes on businesses and the creditors wanting more to be paid by ordinary people. The problem that I have and that a lot of observers have with that is the fact that the Greek government did compromize quite a lot while the creditors refused to budge from their inflexible position despite the fact that implementation of their policies during the last five years has put the country into a depression. A basic premise of "negotiation" is that both sides make compromises in order to arrive at a mutually beneficial solution. In this case the creditors demonstrated total lack of flexibility, which clearly indicates alterior motives at least on the part of some of the creditors. In Germany they have fed their people with all the hate against "lazy Greeks" etc that clearly shows up in these messages and in that sense they have themselves created a very negative environment. I believe that about 90% or so of all the loans that have been given to Greece went back to the creditors. Greece is not looking for handouts here. This must be understood.

        This is a debt crisis that has been mishandled and that has span out of control as a result. Economic terrorism is not justified under any conditions and particularly within the EZ.

        LiveitOut 3 Jul 2015 21:45

        When I see expressions like "hard-working" and "sustainable", I stop reading.

        It is as Orwell said: ready made plastic expressions rushing in to smother all possibility of an original individual thought.

        All this dolt needed to include were "inclusive", "sensitive", "globalised", "aspirational", "stakeholders", and he would be done.

        How odd all this stuff about hardworking families when we are all being screwed to kingdom come by hard whoring banking gangsters who have never done a second of useful work in their effing lives --

        Optymystic, 3 Jul 2015 12:55

        The Greek economy is on the verge of complete collapse. This would not only be devastating for the people of Greece, it will guarantee that creditors never see their money again.

        The debt has been known to be unpayable for a long time. It has nothing to do with current events in Greece. It should have been written off.

        No one believes anything Alexis Tsipras says anymore, and this is why a yes vote on Sunday is crucial. But it's also clear eurozone leaders have made mistakes with Greece.

        But despite their nonsenses the latter group somehow, mysteriously, retain credibility. It was not the antics of Tsiparis that brought about this mess but the behaviour of his 'credible' opponents.

        Greece and its creditors agree a three-month window to develop a long-term reform programme combined with an investment package to turn Greece's ailing economy around.

        Now you are getting close to the Syriza position.

        Let us use this crisis to deliver real, sustainable change by drawing up a settlement in the next three months in which the Greek state, its government and its administration are paying back the debts, instead of forcing hard-working citizens to pay the bill.

        Is that before or after the twenty-year moratorium on debt implied by the IMF?

        From the burning embers of two world wars, we have created a single market with free movement of people, goods, services and capital.

        And the freedom to avoid taxes.

        PaleMan -> jonbryce 3 Jul 2015 12:59

        You are quite right about Golden Dawn but I don't think the Troika actually care about that so much.

        Its beyond obvious that the Troika care nothing for the Greek population and I think they would be content with a fascist dictatorship as long as it signs up to austerity.

        Danny Sheahan 3 Jul 2015 12:59

        No one believes the ECB or the EU leadership anymore.

        If they were serious about the Euro as a strong functional currency this mess would not be so big.

        They would not have had to flush out private German and French bad debt in the 2nd bailout by putting it on the tax payer, or those countries would have had to step in to hep their banks and political careers would have been over.

        The ECB has become a political football and it cannot maintain stability in its currency region. It is a failed central bank.

        Vilos_Cohaagen 3 Jul 2015 12:58

        "The Greek economy is on the verge of complete collapse. This would not only be devastating for the people of Greece, it will guarantee that creditors never see their money again."

        The problem is that there's no scenario where the creditors do get paid back. So, why (for a start) "lend" them 60 billion more Euros? Wiping the debt completely out just means that the Greeks can start accumulating new "debt" they'll have no intention to re-pay and will be defaulting on a few years down the line.

        BusinessWriter 3 Jul 2015 12:52

        it will guarantee that creditors never see their money again.

        Crazy - this Guy actually thinks the creditors have any chance of seeing their money again - what planet is he on.
        As for his idea that the Greek state (or any state for that matter that doesn't control its own currency) can pay of its debt independent of the taxpaying public - it's deluded nonsense.

        Where is the Greek state supposed to get the billions of euro from? The only source of revenue it has is taxes or selling assets that it holds on behalf of the citizens of Greece.

        Equally, the idea that the clientelist state is somehow a separate thing to the majority of the Greek people is nonsense. So many of them are either employed by the state or in professions protected from competition by the state or in companies that only serve the state. Identifying anyone who doesn't benefit in some way from the current clientelist state would be like looking for an ATM in Athens with cash in it on Monday morning.

        This Guy is just another symptom of the problem - he offers no sustainable solution - and what he does offer is incoherent and too late.

        fullgrill -> elliot2511 3 Jul 2015 12:51

        That would not be a bad thing, but I don't think the Euro is seen as an error or a mistake at all. As Germany has discovered, it is an extremely useful tool in assuring the triumph of greed: keeping populations poor, unemployed and fearful, so they are more willing to accept the lash of the markets and agree to bank bailouts, low wages, a diminished social safety-net, trade treaties, etc., etc.

        whichone 3 Jul 2015 12:50

        "Syriza's game is up. No one believes anything Alexis Tsipras says anymore"

        well 1) it looks like 50% of the Greeks believe him

        2) The IMF (and Merkel in leaked notes) have acknowledged that the debt is unsustainable even if Greece accept all conditions imposed by the Troika.

        Varoufakis has been saying this since the start. So lets no longer pretend that this is all about getting the money back or that Greece wants to avoid its responsibility to its creditors : again will say Varoufakis has said the Greek government does not want to do this. The point is he and many other knowledgeable people (not politicians) know that it can not be paid back , but with the conditions in place to allow the economy to start to grow then Greece has a chance to pay some of it back. This is about bringing a Government to heel. I wish the Guardian , having continually reported on this crisis and knows what has been said allows a contributor to use the paper as propaganda.

        And I hope that all those people who purposely said that a 'NO' vote means a no to Greece in the Euro and EU after a 'NO' result and surprise surprise Greece is still in the Euro, get thrown to the Wolves.

        The same is goes with the comments about Varoufakis playing Game theory. He denied this basically saying that those who say this obviously don't know the first thing about Game Theory.

        badluc TheSighingDutchman 3 Jul 2015 12:48

        Genuine question: correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the electorates of Germany, Netherlands, Finland etc been consistently fed by most of their politicians (and newspapers) a completely mistaken "morality tale" about what the root causes of the problems are, blaming inefficient and corrupt governments who borrowed too much, without mentioning either the reckless lenders (mainly German, French, Dutch etc banks), were silent about the shifting of the burden of bad lending from the banks to the EU taxpayers (did they ever acknowledge that clearly?!?), describing the solution as a punitive austerity which would somehow bring moribund economies back from the abyss, etc? Politicians have a duty to be frank and sincere with their electorate, sharing with them all the relevant data they have on a given problem. If they have been feeding them misguided rhetoric, they have only themselves to blame if the chickens now come home to roost. In other words, if the electorate would now revolt against the inevitable, don't the politicians of those countries who have most strongly supported and advocated austerity have only themselves to blame?

        SouthSeas 3 Jul 2015 12:48

        Germany has lent 80bn to Greece to pay back loans from German banks

        RudolphS 3 Jul 2015 12:47

        While Verhofstadt calls for a cooling-off period he at the same time claims 'Syriza's game is up' and is urging the Greek people to vote 'yes' next sunday. With the latter he shows his true colours as just another Brussels eurocrat, and is only fuelling debate instead of cooling-off.

        Dear Mr. Verhofstadt, why the hell do you think the Greek voted en masse for a party like Syriza? Because they are sick and tired of people like you.

        And yes, there much more at stake than a debt. Putin must be watching this whole spectacle with total bewilderment how the EU is crippling itself from the inside.


        Rainborough 3 Jul 2015 12:47

        Anyone who is in danger of being impressed by conservative politician Guy Verhofstadt's perspective on Greek problems might like to bear in mknd that among his numerous other highly lucrative financial interests is his position on the board of the multi-billion Belgian investment company Sofina, whose interests include a stake in the highly controversial planned privatization of the Thessaloniki water utility.


        hatewarmongers OscarD 3 Jul 2015 12:46

        The neoliberal elite don't


        SHappens 3 Jul 2015 12:17

        In a democracy people can chose their fate by voting or through referendum. That's the way it goes but not in Europe where referendum are seen as a danger to the establishment. Tsipras, as soon as he came to power through a democratic vote was seen as a danger. He was ostracized and considered a pariah, Greece became a pariah state and they can as well die from hunger.

        The EU, and institutions have behaved like the little bullies they are, just like they did with Switzerland after the vote on immigration, they threat, blackmail everyone who dare think different.

        For the sake of democracy, the Greeks have to vote no, there is no other decent alternatives especially after all the bashing and disrespect they have been under. Nobody in EU and US (since they have their say in european affairs) want to see Greece walking away, nor Russia or China for that matter. But Tsipras had the opportunity to see where his real allies stand, and it is not within Europe. He might not forget this in the future.


        mfederighi 3 Jul 2015 12:09

        You are entirely right in suggesting that the only sustainable solution is a far-reaching reform programme for the Greek state and the reek economy. However, when you say that:

        Greece's people must be at the centre of such a settlement. They did not cause this crisis and remain the victims of successive Greek governments, who have protected vested interests and the Greek clientelist system at their expense.

        You seem to think that vested interest and the reek clientelist system are distinct from the Greek people. There is, I am afraid, a substantial overlap - that is, quite a few people benefit from clientelism and are part of vested interests. Not recognising this is disingenuous.

        After all, corrupt and inefficient governments have been elected again and again - by whom?

        jimmywalter 3 Jul 2015 12:06

        The Banks solution is no solution - it means poverty and no taxes to pay to repay. The Banks want a Treaty of Versailles. We all know of a certain Austrian that rose up to end the German economic collapse. We all know how that ended. I don't want that again. People revolt over economics. Spain, Italy, and Greece have huge numbers of unemployeed who did nothing to create this crisis. The Banks did. Who should pay? Anyway, leave the Euro, stay in the EU!

        [Jul 03, 2015] Renegotiating Greece's debt

        Here are my thoughts on options for handling Greece's debt.

        Let me begin with the following question: if someone makes a new loan to the Greek government, are they ever going to get paid back? Let's start by being clear about what we mean by "paid back." There's nothing fundamentally unsound about the consols that the British government sometimes used historically to borrow. These bonds were intended to pay interest forever but never repay the principal. In practical terms it's not really that different from a 30-year bond, nor for that matter from a one-year bond that creditors always roll over. As long as the interest payments always get made, the buyer can consider himself fully "paid back" in the present-value sense for the consol he purchased, even if the principal itself is never repaid.

        But the question is, where will the Greek government get the funds with which to make future interest payments? If they always just borrow new sums with which to make interest payments as they come due, it's obviously not a good deal for the creditors. The debt just grows over time, and creditors are only being paid back with their own money. If you followed the cash flow over time, you'd find it's always a one-way street from creditors to borrowers, and amounts to an outright gift from creditors, not a loan that is ever paid back in any sense.

        One way to keep track of this is by looking at the government's primary budget surplus, which is calculated by taking the usual budget surplus and adding to it the government's annual interest payments. If the interest payments are large, the normally calculated budget might be in deficit (defined here as a negative surplus). But when you add interest payments to that negative number, it could come out to be a positive number.

        If the normal budget is in deficit but the primary budget is in surplus, it means that the debt is going to grow over time, but at least some of the interest payments are being made with real funds instead of with new borrowing. If you work through the math, it turns out that as long as the primary budget surplus is equal to annual interest expense, creditors are being fully repaid in present-value sense, even though the debt itself is never retired.

        But if the primary surplus is less than the annual interest expense, the debt will be growing, and repaying in present value requires continual revenue increases or budget cuts. The question anyone lending new sums to Greece must contemplate is whether that's a plausible scenario.

        What are the numbers for Greece's primary surplus? It turns out it's harder to find a straight answer to that question than it should be. The graph below plots the figures from the IMF World Economic Outlook database. These claim that after years of big deficits, Greece finally ran a primary surplus of 1.2% of GDP in 2013.

        Greece_surplus_jun_15

        But the ECB claims instead that Greece ran a primary deficit of 8.3% of GDP rather than a surplus in 2013. What's the controversy? Based on this report from the Wall Street Journal, it appears that the IMF must be excluding one-time expenditures in support of the Greek banking system, which amounted to 10.8% of GDP. In terms of the calculus of whether external creditors on net were getting repaid anything in 2013, the ECB concept appears to be the correct one– Greece was still running a big primary deficit in 2013 in the sense that any interest payments they made that year, along with much of their spending, were paid for with newly borrowed money.

        For 2015 the IMF is anticipating a primary surplus of 3% of GDP. But Daniel Gros attributes the surplus so far in 2015 to factors such as the government not having made cash payments yet for goods and services already ordered or provided– otherwise known as new government borrowing not recorded in the official measures of government debt.

        This is why creditors are asking for more progress from Greece on the primary surplus before extending additional funds. But here's the response of Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis:

        Greece's drama is often misunderstood in northern climes because past profligacy has overshadowed the exceptional adjustment of the past five years. Since 2009 the Greek state's deficit has been reduced, in cyclically adjusted terms, by a whopping 20 per cent, turning a large deficit into a large structural primary surplus. Wages contracted by 37 per cent, pensions by up to 48 per cent, state employment by 30 per cent, consumer spending by 33 per cent and even the current account deficit by 16 per cent.

        Alas, the adjustment was so drastic that economic activity was choked, total income fell by 27 per cent, unemployment skyrocketed to 27 per cent, undeclared labour scaled 34 per cent, public debt rose to 180 per cent of the nation's rapidly dwindling GDP, investment and credit evaporated and young Greeks, just as their Irish counterparts, left for distant shores, taking with them huge quantities of human capital that the Greek state had invested in them.

        What Greece needs now is not more cutbacks that push an impoverished populace into greater indignity, or higher tax rates and charges that crush what is left of economic activity. These "parametric" measures, as the institutions call them, have been excessive, the result now being a nation on its knees.

        No, what Greece now needs desperately is serious, proper reforms. We need a new tax system that helps defeat evasion and curtail political or corporate interference, a corruption-free procurement system, business-friendly licensing procedures, judicial reforms, elimination of scandalous early retirement practices, proper regulation of the media and of political party finances, etc.

        Suppose we granted the claim that further tax increases or spending cuts would be crippling and self-defeating. If true, doesn't that make a pretty good case that Greece does not have the capability to make real interest payments on any new debt? And if it is as simple as implementing a few reasonable reforms, why were these not instituted earlier, and how effective can they be expected to be? Why wouldn't they also depress demand in an already depressed economy?

        [Jul 02, 2015]Did The IMF Just Open Pandoras Box?

        Jul 02, 2015 | |zerohedge.com

        By now it should be clear to all that the only reason why Germany has been so steadfast in its negotiating stance with Greece is because it knows very well that if it concedes to a public debt reduction (as opposed to haircut on debt held mostly by private entities such as hedge funds which already happened in 2012), then the rest of the PIIGS will come pouring in: first Italy, then Spain, then Portugal, then Ireland.

        The problem is that while it took Europe some 5 years to transfer a little over €200 billion in Greek private debt exposure to the public balance sheet (by way of the ECB, EFSF, ESM and countless other ad hoc acronyms) at a cost of countless summits and endless negotiations, which may or may not result with the first casualty of the common currency which may prove to be reversible as soon as next week, nobody in Europe harbors any doubt that the same exercise can be repeated with Italy, or Spain, or even Portugal. They are just too big (and their nonperforming loans are in the hundreds of billions).

        And yet, today, in a stunning display of the schism within the Troika, it was the IMF itself which explicitly stated that Greece is no longer viable unless there is both additional funding provided to the country, which can only happen if there is another massive debt haircut.

        This is what the IMF said:

        Even with concessional financing through 2018, debt would remain very high for decades and highly vulnerable to shocks. Assuming official (concessional) financing through end–2018, the debt-to-GDP ratio is projected at about 150 percent in 2020, and close to 140 percent in 2022 (see Figure 4ii). Using the thresholds agreed in November 2012, a haircut that yields a reduction in debt of over 30 percent of GDP would be required to meet the November 2012 debt targets. With debt remaining very high, any further deterioration in growth rates or in the mediumterm primary surplus relative to the revised baseline scenario discussed here would result in significant increases in debt and gross financing needs (see robustness tests in the next section below). This points to the high vulnerability of the debt dynamics.

        And the kicker:

        • "these new financing needs render the debt dynamics unsustainable."

        Bingo, because that is, in a nutshell, precisely what Tsipras and Varoufakis have been claiming since day one. As expected, a Greek government spokesman promptly said that the IMF report is in line with the Greek government's view on debt.

        What makes the IMF report even more odd, is not so much its content and position which have been largely known for quite some time now, but its timing: just three days before the Sunday referendum, Tsipras now has prima facie evidence to wave in front of the Greek people and say "see, we were right all along."

        It is exactly the case that only a "No" vote at this point would allow Greece to continue a negotiation which has already seen one of the three Troika members side with the Greek position. Should Greece vote "Yes", it will make any future negotiation with the Troika impossible, and while the country will get a few months respite the resultant bank run after the bank reopen with the ECB's blessing will mean that all Greece will do is buy itself a few months time. Only this time all the debt will still be due.

        And, should hey vote "Yes", this time the Greeks will only have themselves to blame for all the future pain, pain which will continue well after the mid-point of this century.

        But ignoring Greece for a minute, what the IMF's "debt sustainability analysis" has just done is open the door for every single other comparably insolvent peripheral European nation to knock on Christine Lagarde's door and politely ask: "Mme Lagarde, if Greece is unsustainable, then why aren't we?"

        Because as the chart below shows, the debt situations of all the other peripheral European nations is just as "unsustainable."

        In this way, while the outcome of the Greek situation is currently unknown, it has also become moot, because at this very moment, politicians from Spain's Podemos to Italy's Five Star movement are drafting memos demanding that the IMF evaluate their own debt sustainability. Or rather unsustainability.

        Perhaps more importantly, these same politicians will now dangle the prospect of an IMF admission that they, too, deserve a haircut as the catalyst to be elected into power. After all who can refuse that their life would be made so much better if only the country was permitted to selectively "default" on €50, €100, €200 billion or more in debt? Just elect this politician, or that, and watch your living standard soar...

        And since the IMF has no choice but to agree that just like Greece all these nations are accordingly drowning in debt, Syriza's sacrifice (assuming Tsipras fails to outnegotiate Merkel) will not have been in vain. In fact, it may very well end up that today the IMF opened up the Pandora's box, one which, more than a Grexit, will destroy Merkel's "united Europe" legacy.

        AlaricBalth

        The domino theory of the fiat money age.

        James_Cole

        Looks like US is using IMF to mess around a bit with German (and russian) ambitions.

        i_call_you_my_base

        Was thinking the same. The US is trying to foul things up for Europe here.

        Pool Shark

        Just like the 'Dread Pirate Roberts,' Central Banksters must leave no survivors. Otherwise word gets out that they've gone soft, and then it's nothing but 'work, work, work...'

        disabledvet

        Smith and Wesson sure looks good here.

        "You can keep the Ouzo." And the "Ginsu 2" apparently.

        The IMF is just a repository for US dollar funding. If the entire Continent of Europe cannot cough up a single US dollar to pay for "Greece" then that is the ECB's problem...not the IMF's problem.

        Those dollar sure look pretty expensive right now...on that I would agree.

        Tall Tom

        Can I draft a memo to the IMF requesting if the United States can pay its debts?

        Do you think that I'd be taken seriously?

        Our arrears are worse than Greece's ever were. The Debt is unpayable.

        This is laughable.

        weburke

        I predict 3 countries out of the eu, and the greek guy gets big billing with the pope talking us into the nwo.

        greenskeeper carl's picture

        Hahaha I fucking called this shit this morning as soon as I saw that first article. We don't need no water let the motherfucker burn... The house of cards is getting flimsy.

        One of these is...

        +1 for the firewater burn reference.

        boogerbently

        Contagion from NOT throwing Greece under the bus. The rest want THEIR "write downs" now.

        Haus-Targaryen

        Interesting.

        This pits the IMF against Rainbowland. Their actions here imply they want the system to blow up (free shit for Greece (which is affordable) also means free shit for Italy and Spain (which isn't affordable)) however, Greece is now in formal default, and ClG could write her letter and deliver it tomorrow, blowing up Greece beyond recognition tomorrow.

        The EU is pretty steadfast in what they desire -- Greece to bend over and keep the system going. Greece is pretty obviously willing to play kamikaze economics.

        What I don't get is the IMF. Some of their actions imply they want the system to explode, while their other actions imply they don't. Given Greece and the EU kinda off-set each other right now -- the player at this point to watch is the IMF. ECB can wreck havoc with their collateral requirements, but apart from that this pig is stuffed until 6 PM CST on Sunday.

        Crtrvlt

        1) the IMF (US) realizes Greece can't fail for strategic geographic reasons

        2) they are trying to save face for Merkel

        Bankster Kibble

        1) the IMF (US) realizes Greece can't fail for strategic geographic reasons

        1.1) Greece must stay inside the EU because it is easier to block Russian gas lines that way, and the EU is too divided to decide how to pay for a gas line through Greece by itself

        disabledvet

        Greek "euro-debt" WAS paying 18% just last week.

        "Ruble MONEY" pays about 14%...give or take.

        Brazilian REALES look like the best deal on actual MONEY right now would appear...there just aren't many of those either though.

        two hoots

        This debt juggernaut is the planet's most serious threat. World leaders must get a grip on all lending institutions that can place irresponsible/shortsighted/corrupt countries in Greece situations.

        We know the cause, symptoms and prognosis but fail to find a cure other than continuous talk, talk and more talk and more debt and we even know why we do this.

        The US, G7, G20, UN someone, somewhere must take lead and cure the world of this bankers disease. The bankers caused it; keep them away from the patient.

        I totally get the naivity of my comment, but this fixing it with what caused it is ...well.

        James_Cole

        Greece is now in formal default. Are they though? What I don't get is the IMF. Some of their actions imply they want the system to explode, while their other actions imply they don't.

        Considering Germany and France have competing interests to the US this would make sense. All I know is watching this has been a lot more interesting than last seasons game of thrones.

        i_call_you_my_base

        I agree with you again. I'll throw this out there: if the US rattles Europe here, and then even pushes China's markets over, the US would have effectively kneecapped every major economy (inc Russia), all of northern Africa, and the ME in a decade and a half.

        Captain Debtcrash

        But nothing on Japan. It's amazing how they can look at one, Greece and say it is unsustainable, but just because Japan, who is in much worse shape, can print money they don't see a problem. A solvency crisis can not be solved with money printing, and most developed nations are insolvent. When the collective world realizes a printing press makes no difference there will be fireworks, and that realization will happen in the blink of an eye.


        itstippy

        Japan does not owe the Troika any money. Japan is not part of the European Union. Madames LeGarde and Merkel don't give a shit about Japan. I agree Japan is hopelessly insolvent, and the fact that JGBs (denominated in Yen) are seen as a "safe haven" in times of global turmoil is insane. Someday soon they are going to melt down into a pool of toxic crap.

        F0ster

        Exactly, if you "fuck the EU" and make them so poor they buy less energy products, you inadvertently kill one of Russia's preferred revenue streams. So the US is using the IMF to fuck the EU in its war with Russia.


        falak pema

        Hahaha, the "jack in the box flavour of truth"... the IMF now caught in its own cross hairs. DSK made that statement a few days ago that the chief economist of the IMF has now set in stone like a potential time bomb.

        And Lady LAgarde, the scheming Milady of Status Quo, (she said no debt restructuring UNTIL they implement full austerity in Greece and kill all those pensioners), is now made to look like what she truly is : A creature of Pax Americana power cabal. The woman who said to Sarkozy; another Neo-con fellow traveller; fais ce que tu voudrais de moi Nicolas...back in 2007 when he got elected to President. And he did!

        Now the IMF has turned the tables; probably to follow suit in echoing the declarations of its ex and humbled CEO; DSK. Is this the work of Olivier Blanchard who leaves the IMF or is it the work of his successor? In any case this is a psychological time bomb as the IMF mask comes off!

        Rainman

        Pretty clever ...this is where Lew gets a demand for a declaration of unlimited credit to the IMF; then the cycle of destruction moves to the next phase.

        overqualified

        Meet the new Mutually Assured Destruction

        N57Mike

        "Pandora was a woman who lived with her husband in a paradise and was given a beautiful box for safekeeping with the caution that she ought not to ever, ever open it. For a time she remembered and kept her promise to not open the box but eventually succumbed to the temptation and decided to have a peek. The lid flew open as soon as she raised it and a swarm of imprisoned evils flew up and out into the world inflicting pain, greed, envy and manner of suffering on all they found.

        Pandora and her husband Epimetheus were also the victims of all these ills, knew they were responsible for the suffering and were grieving their part in it while sitting near the box. In the midst of their lamenting, they heard a small voice crying out from the box, "Open, open, and I will heal your wounds! Please let me out!" and while at first they were afraid to open it and possibly release even more troubles, they eventually decided to see who the plaintive voice came from.

        They fearfully opened the box and found a small bright-winged beautiful creature. It was well for Pandora that she opened the box a second thim, for the gods, with a sudden impulse of compassion, had concealed among the evil spirits one kindly creature, Hope, whose mission was to heal the wounds inflicted by her fellow prisoners"


        The Delicate Genius

        IMF's four steps to damnation -

        http://www.theguardian.com/business/2001/apr/29/business.mbas

        enloe creek

        world government empire

        banksters money machine

        citizens of earth

        somebody is going down or all are


        insanelysane

        Can't someone just print a $1 trillion Euro bill and hand it to the Greek government to pay everything off and start anew.

        NotApplicable

        I think you mean SDR.

        Long story short, the choices left are but two. Endure the pain of a global collapse, or enslave the planet with all of this unpayable debt rolled up into the next global monetary system.

        With a few wars along the way to grease the skids.

        Cyring "Uncle!" yet?

        Lea

        The IMF is backtracking because the new Chinese-led bank has opened. It is not the only option anymore.

        The Chinese could step in any minute, and that would mean the end for the IMF's plundering tactics - worldwide. So, letting go of some of its demented demands on Greece is only cautious.

        mefobills

        Germany will take a haircut, especially with a Greek no vote on Sunday.

        Germany will have to figure out how to stabilize some of its banks that will go under.

        http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/economic-historian-germany-w...

        "Germany is king when it comes to debt. Calculated based on the amount of losses compared to economic performance, Germany was the biggest debt transgressor of the 20th century."

        How many haircuts?

        "That depends on how you do the math. During the past century alone, though, at least three times. After the first default during the 1930s, the US gave Germany a "haircut" in 1953, reducing its debt problem to practically nothing. Germany has been in a very good position ever since, even as other Europeans were forced to endure the burdens of World War II and the consequences of the German occupation. Germany even had a period of non-payment in 1990."

        More:

        Ritschl: That's what it looks like, but we were also extremely reckless -- and our export industry has thrived on orders. The anti-Greek sentiment that is widespread in many German media outlets is highly dangerous. And we are sitting in a glass house: Germany's resurgence has only been possible through waiving extensive debt payments and stopping reparations to its World War II victims.

        SPIEGEL ONLINE: You're saying that Germany should back down?

        Ritschl: In the 20th century, Germany started two world wars, the second of which was conducted as a war of annihilation and extermination, and subsequently its enemies waived its reparations payments completely or to a considerable extent. No one in Greece has forgotten that Germany owes its economic prosperity to the grace of other nations.

        tom a taxpayer

        The Greek referendum is a revolutionary action. It will spread like wildfire across Europe and around the world whereever debt slaves yearn to be free. Over the coming days and weeks it will drag the IMF, ECB and other world-class bankstas to their days of reckoning.

        Hopefully, the Greek government will follow the referendum with the arrest and trial of Goldman Sachs and other international bankstas. Justice cries out for a mass trial in the style of the Maxiprocesso (Maxi Trials) of the Mafia in Sicily during the 1980s that resulted in hundreds of defendants convicted.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nPEgV1oqX0

        steelrules

        Wouldn't it just be easier to drone all the Rothschilds and their central banks out of existence, could be done in 24 hours.

        Never_Put_Down

        Hardly, they own the drones and the drone operators.

        Jack Burton

        I don't claim any great knowledge of high finance, though I have some basic understanding, but, many here on ZH and ZH in general has been miles ahead of all the Media Mouthpieces, all the IMF spokesmen, all the finance ministers of Europe combined.

        " "these new financing needs render the debt dynamics unsustainable."

        Who in the fuck did not know 3 years ago that the above was true?

        And, Greece is the little boy with his finger in the dike. If the default hole begins to leak, the supporting structures will be eaten away very fast, and the leak will become a flood. Allowing haircuts and reducing austerity in one place will call forth the floods of demands for similar treatment.

        An Estonian finance minster summed it up. "We have not had years of austerity, cuts in wages, health, retirements, education for years, ONLY in order for Greece to keep their benefits! Play this same thought pattern out across the big problem children SPAIN, ITALY and IRELAND. Spain for example is totally too big to be bailed out, and is too big to fail, Should IT fail, the EU project melts away.

        Over in Russia, a nation with NATO massing on it's borders, claiming to be defending against a Russian invasion threat. A Russia under strict sanctions in finance, banking, energy and import export trade. Russia is doing just what they should do. Take all the threats, the lies, the propaganda and accusations from the West, stay mostly silent, stay behind their protected borders and wait. As the EU mounts attack after attack, threat after threat, sanction after sanction, for no good reaon other than Washington wants it, Russia is waiting. They may look to be outnumbered and out gunned by the military and financial powers under Washington's direct control. But holding the line and waiting is their best bet. They have surpluses of well over 300 billion, minimal debts, a fast modernizing military, tens of billions in new gold holdings added to the already large supply. They have energy independence totally. Sanctions have allowed Russian domestic agriculture and manufacturing to instantly be competitive again, with imports being shut down.

        The EU and Washington are right now at the very peak of their power to bully and threaten. They look invincible! But a tiny nation like Greece, shows just how rotten the foundations are. Washington, the giant power that also seems totally invincible, is really more rotten than Greece, if you look at the scale of debts and obligations. To top it all off, Washington has declared open war on China, the world's largest economy, and richest nation in terms of Real Money. \

        The rot has set in, how fast it spreads is not something I can know, but I do know it will spread!

        [Jul 02, 2015] Greek Referendum Euro Crisis Explodes into Dramatic Climax

        "...Make no mistake: Sunday's referendum will mark a defining moment in Greece's modern history and a decisive turn for Europe's neoliberal project."
        Those who accuse the Greeks of "recklessness" are mistaken: the creditors' utter contempt for democracy left them with no other choice but a rupture.

        The announcement struck like a bombshell.

        Tsipras' spectacular decision late on Friday to fly back to Athens and put the Eurogroup's final bailout offer to a referendum - with the government advising voters to reject the deal - has stunned friends and foes alike.

        Now, with depositors lining up at ATMs to withdraw cash, the Eurogroup refusing to extend the current bailout program, the ECB capping its emergency liquidity assistance for Greek banks, and Greece set to miss a €1.5 billion IMF payment on Tuesday, the long-awaited endgame is finally upon us. After five long and exhausting years, the euro crisis has exploded into its dramatic climax.

        Those who now lambast the Greek government for its supposed "recklessness" in calling the referendum are profoundly mistaken. Yes, as I have argued many times before, Tsipras' and Varoufakis' belief that they could somehow extract an "honorable compromise" from the creditors was always extremely naive. But in the end it was the creditors' utter contempt for democracy that pushed Tsipras with his back against the wall, forcing him to sign up to an agreement that they knew would split his ruling party and government.

        Deliberately tabling one outrageous proposal after another, the creditors' intention was clear from the very start: they were never even remotely interested in any positive "deal"; the only thing they would settle for was Syriza's complete and total surrender - ideally followed by technocratic regime change inside Greece. Paul Krugman was therefore entirely right when he referred to the creditors' ultimatum as "an act of monstrous folly."

        Backed into a corner by the virulent moves of the Eurogroup and the IMF, Tsipras responded in the only sensible way: he rejected the absurd proposal that the creditors had put on the table, took the decision to his people, and advised them to vote against the creditors' disastrous ultimatum. What is surprising is not that he made this move per se - but that it took him so long to do it.

        For five months, the creditors suffocated Greece, depriving it of all liquidity in a brazen attempt to force Tsipras to sign up to humiliating concessions that would have condemned the Greeks to years - if not decades - of extreme austerity. For five months, they doubled down on their cynicism and steadfastly refused to make even the most minimal concessions. For five months, they publicly belittled and degraded the democratically-elected representatives of millions of Greeks who had already suffered untold hardship.

        If Tsipras had signed up to this unacceptable deal, it would not only have meant political suicide for him and his party; it would also have spelt an unmitigated disaster for the Greek people - not to mention the lasting damage it would have inflicted upon the political prospects of the European Left more generally. If there's anything reckless about Tsipras' approach, it's that he even let the creditors get this far to begin with.

        It was high time for the Big No - the resounding OXI!

        For five years, European leaders and Greek elites sacrificed this beautiful country and its exceptional people at the altar of the financial markets to save a handful of reckless speculators inside the European banks and to convince international investors that the monetary union was irreversible. For five years, they punished the Greeks for a deep-rooted structural crisis they had no part in creating. For five years, they kicked the can down the road, hoping that the fundamental contradictions of financialized capitalism and the European monetary union would somehow magically disappear if only the inevitable moment of reckoning could be indefinitely pushed into the future.

        This approach has now been exposed as a catastrophic but utterly predictable failure. Doubling down on their extreme positions with the malicious intent of forcing the Greeks into a self-defeating deal or disorderly exit, it was the creditors themselves who brought the Eurozone to the brink. Of course they will boast that Greece has long since been "ring-fenced" and that the fallout of a Greek default can now be contained, but investors will draw their own conclusions when they see a full-fledged member of the Eurozone descending into chaos. It is no surprise that the euro is already tanking in the Asian markets.

        The gravest irony is that, all this time, there was a very straightforward and socially acceptable way out of the deadlock. The sensible solution would have been to write off a significant chunk of Greece's debt. But, as even the IMF has since officially admitted, this option was politically unpalatable to Greece's "partners" from the very start. In the early years, the Europeans feared that a debt write-down would lead to the collapse of some of their biggest private banks. Now that Greece's debt has effectively been socialized, these same European leaders fear an electoral backlash from their Euroskeptical taxpayers, who now stand to bear the brunt of the impending Greek default.

        In other words, it was the very intransigence of the creditors, the utter unwillingness to tell their own voters the truth about the Greek bailout and their stubborn refusal to even contemplate a sustainable and socially just resolution of the crisis, that led us to this dramatic apotheosis.

        Greece and Europe now find themselves on the eve of a rancorous rupture. At the start of a week that will undoubtedly go down in history as a make-it-or-break-it moment for Europe's ill-fated neoliberal project, the skies over Greece are already darkening. A full-fledged bank run over the weekend forced the government to keep the banks closed on Monday and to impose an ATM withdrawal limit of 60 euros per day. The knock-on effects on the economy and society will make it very difficult for the Greeks to vote in peace.

        In this respect, the creditors' intentions are once again crystal clear: shocked and outraged by Tsipras' unexpected move, they will do everything within their power to obstruct the democratic process and influence the outcome of the vote. Their goal won't even be to keep Greece inside the Eurozone anymore; their number one priority right now is simply to prevent Syriza from being able to publicly claim a victory - for that would risk emboldening other anti-austerity forces across the continent, most significantly Podemos in Spain. They would rather see Greece go down in flames than cut Syriza some slack.

        This is why the Eurogroup refused to extend Greece's current bailout program, not even for a few days: they knew the ECB would not be able to maintain its emergency support of the Greek banks without such a program, and they knew that without this support the Greek banks would not be able to open on Monday. This, in turn, would force the Greeks to vote under conditions of extreme financial uncertainty, emboldening the terror-campaign of the neoliberal opposition and possibly skewing the vote in favor of a fear-induced yes.

        Meanwhile, the unelected wing of the Troika technocracy has taken the trolling to a whole new level. IMF chief Christine Lagarde argued that, since the creditor offer expires on Tuesday, Tsipras is technically asking his people to vote on a deal that no longer exists anyway. European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker added on to this by releasing a new proposal that was supposedly in the works before the Greeks "unilaterally" walked out of the negotiations. Both moves are clear attempts to destabilize popular expectations ahead of the vote and confuse the electorate about the clarity, legality and historic significance of the choice that now lies ahead of them.

        Make no mistake: Sunday's referendum will mark a defining moment in Greece's modern history and a decisive turn for Europe's neoliberal project. The choice is very clear. Five years after the people of Greece first rose up against the anti-democratic imposition of the Troika's austerity measures, they have finally been given the chance to decide upon their own destiny: either they will vote yes to a lifetime of austerity within the eurozone, or they will roar back at the creditors' inhumane demands with a proud and resounding "NO!" - thereby opening the way for a thousand yeses to a new, democratic and socially just Europe, freed from the shackles of debt servitude, the noose of a deflationary single currency, and the tyranny of an unaccountable financial technocracy.

        The stakes have never been higher.

        [Jul 01, 2015]Syriza can't just cave in. Europe's elites want regime change in Greece

        "...But it has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with a dysfunctional currency union, a destructive neoliberal economic model enforced by treaty and an austerity regime maintained to ensure a return to profitability on corporate terms."
        .
        "...No, I think Berlin and Brussels are behaving abominably, not so much in terms of what is decided, but, as Pope Francis implied (there you are) without any consideration for the dignity of the Greek people. Shaming, blaming, demonizing, threatening, giving the cold shoulder, to a small marginal country who is supposedly part of your union."
        .
        "...I am against Syriza mate, but many commentors ignore the socioeconomic impact on the Greek population and simplify or generalize things. Syriza is in power the past 3 or 5 months. The previous gov were in power since 1974. Two parties, two families. Nepotism in politics is strong. "
        .
        "...Seamus is correct in his analysis. What is happening in Greece is akin to Democratic asphyxiation by financial means. And those of us that believe in basic Democracy should be standing with Syriza and the Greek people at this time. Neo-liberal dogma was always ugly. It's practical application is even uglier. This will have serious implications for the Left in Europe as a whole but more imminently for the British referendum vote due pretty soon."
        .
        "...After all, based on a leak of series of emails , Greek government was strictly following the instructions of Troika during the past 5 years. "
        .
        "...we wouldn't be having this conversation if the private companies that lent money to Greece had been made to eat their own losses.

        But then neoliberalism isn't capitalism, not in the traditional sense. As has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, neoliberals magically turn into socialists at the drop of a hat. Gains privatised, losses socialised. In other words, they use the power of the state to collect economic rents. To call this sure thing investing or risk-taking is pure propaganda.
        "

        .
        "...I agree the EU élites are out to topple Syriza. The invective against Tsipras and ruthless shut down of bank support to strike fear in the population show that clearly enough. Syriza is a mortal threat to the noe-liberal order. I don't agree that Syriza is innocent in this drama, though. Its crisis management has been abysmal. They know, or should, what is coming. when they threaten the EU élites."
        .
        "...This is a clash of ideologies. It's obvious if you listen to the spokepersons of Syriza and the Left compared with the clapped out so-called politicians of ND and the Right. The Greeks and the Spanish are the only countries where there's a popular moblisation against the robber barons who created the crisis and are continuing to profit from the consequences. The left have been emasculated throughout Europe "
        .
        "...My fear is that Syriza has lost the momentum, they have been unable to make the subject what it should be, Neoliberal ideological economics. The fear mongering and the bank run neatly engineered by Draghi and now the threat of shutting down the entire banking system - I'd be scared too. That's hardball politics - but the main thing is people obey authority and the EU has authority as far as the Greek people are concerned and they will back them into their very own graves."
        .
        "...Don't forget they are beyond the Great Depression now in terms of the economic catastrophe. Population has been sliding since 2010."
        .
        "...Greeks elected Syriza out of desperation. The rest is just the usual anti-left cliches, not that there's anything wrong with anti-left, however your understanding of the situation would be greatly enhanced if you spent a minute Googling origins of this crisis. Perhaps EU/EZ is a bit complex for you."
        .
        "...The reason why the Troika objected to increases in certain taxes as part of Greece's economic plans is twofold: (i) due to this historical lack of tax collection, increased revenue projections based on increased taxes would be almost entirely illusory, and (ii) they targeted weak industries that Greece needs to prosper and grow, and risked making Greece's economic situation worse. Many of the larger and stronger of these multinational industries also had the capability of simply leaving Greece. Tsipras refused to discuss sources of real and easy tax revenue, like tourism on the Greek islands. "
        .
        "...This is another round of banking bailouts using public money, cynically misnamed as bailing out Greece. The troika need to launder the money through Greece to give to the banks. Greece get to keep a very small percent for their troubles and taking more blame than they should."
        .
        "..."Europe is not under obligation to Greece" is nonsense. If Greece is a member state then EU is indeed under obligation to support it, and it should do this effectively. It should not carry out a policy that undermines its economy. Even if EU officials do not do this out of principles, they should to do it to avoid loosing the support of the EU project."
        .
        "...The preliminary report of the Greek debt investigation (yes, there is one) will be out shortly. From what I've read, much of the debt went to Greek banks and their foreign partners that indulged in an aggressive loaning orgy and created a debt bubble inside the Greek economy. The banks were recapitalised during the bailout with €80bn of state money that ended up as sovereign debt."
        .
        "...I had thought that Angie, Wolfie and Christine were perhaps just inept, but now I'm afraid they may be executing a well laid plan. Perhaps they want to form a new entity: The People's Neo-liberal Puppy Republic Of Greece. The steps: Blame all others; extort impossible amounts of invented "debts";people who oppose you are labeled as traitors; prioritize German and French banks so they can be saved from their own shitstorm and nationalize (i.e. charge the ordinary punter) all the fantasy cash that no-one's ever seen; call a national emergency and impose martial law. Next is destroy all opposition and hand everything over to private industry. A week ago, this would be very far-fetched, but now??"

        Jul 01, 2015 | The Guardian

        It's now clear that Germany and Europe's powers that be don't just want the Greek government to bend the knee. They want regime change. Not by military force, of course – this operation is being directed from Berlin and Brussels, rather than Washington.

        But that the German chancellor Angela Merkel and the troika of Greece's European and International Monetary Fund creditors are out to remove the elected government in Athens now seems beyond serious doubt. . Everything they have done in recent weeks in relation to the leftist Syriza administraton, elected to turn the tide of austerity, appears designed to divide or discredit Alexis Tsipras's government.

        They were at it again today, when Tsipras offered what looked like almost complete acceptance of the austerity package he had called a referendum on this Sunday. There could be no talks, Merkel responded, until the ballot had taken place.

        There's no suggestion of genuine compromise. The aim is apparently to humiliate Tsipras and his government in preparation for its early replacement with a more pliable administration. We know from the IMF documents prepared for last week's "final proposals" and reported in the Guardian that the creditors were fully aware they meant unsustainable levels of debt and self-defeating austerity for Greece until at least 2030, even on the most fancifully optimistic scenario.

        That's because, just as the bailouts went to the banks not the country, and troika-imposed austerity has brought penury and a debt explosion, these demands are really about power, not money. If they are successful in forcing Tsipras out of office, a slightly less destructive package could then be offered to a more house-trained Greek leader who replaced him.

        Hence the European Central Bank's decision to switch off emergency funding of Greece's banks after Tsipras called the referendum on an austerity scheme he had described as blackmail. That was what triggered the bank closures and capital controls, which have taken Greece's crisis to a new level this week as it became the first developed country to default on an IMF loan.

        The EU authorities have a deep aversion to referendums, and countries are routinely persuaded to hold them again if they give the wrong answer. The vote planned in Greece is no exception. A barrage of threats and scaremongering was unleashed as soon as it was called.

        One European leader after another warned Greeks to ignore their government and vote yes – or be forced out of the eurozone, with dire consequences. Already the class nature of the divide between the the wealthier yes and more working-class no camps is stark. The troika's hope seems to be that if Tsipras is defeated by fear of chaos, Syriza will split or be forced from office in short order. The euro elite insists it is representing the interests of Portuguese or Irish taxpayers who have to pick up the bill for bailing out the feckless Greeks – or will be enraged by any debt forgiveness when they have been forced to swallow similar medicine. The reality is the other way round.

        ... ... ...

        Tsipras and Syriza's determination to stay in the eurozone come what may has seriously weakened Greece's hand. The economic dislocation of jumping off the euro train would doubtless be severe in the short term, though the costs of permanent austerity would almost certainly be greater thereafter.

        But Syriza insiders say there is little preparation for what anyway may be forced on them. The relentless pressure of the EU bureaucracy demands a strong and clear-headed response. Right now, for example, that means the Athens government immediately taking control of its banks, currently shutting down all transactions.

        The worst outcome of this crisis would be for Syriza to implement the austerity it was elected to end. A yes vote in next weekend's referendum, , if it goes ahead, would probably lead to the government's fall, and almost certainly new elections.

        Papistpal rredge 1 Jul 2015 21:21

        "Implicit in your argument"

        Always a ploy of course, when you find implicit, tacit, implied arguments in someone else's thought, and then argue with it. No, I am not saying anything about the money.
        No, I think Berlin and Brussels are behaving abominably, not so much in terms of what is decided, but, as Pope Francis implied (there you are) without any consideration for the dignity of the Greek people. Shaming, blaming, demonizing, threatening, giving the cold shoulder, to a small marginal country who is supposedly part of your union. There is NO excuse for your behavior

        Ritoras Tijger 1 Jul 2015 20:57

        I am against Syriza mate, but many commentors ignore the socioeconomic impact on the Greek population and simplify or generalize things. Syriza is in power the past 3 or 5 months. The previous gov were in power since 1974. Two parties, two families. Nepotism in politics is strong.

        As said, because none answers your question that doesn't mean no is the answer.

        Be open minded and less emotional. Few of the questions you ask you can google them and share the findings with us. That will be more convincing!

        peekaboo -> summicron 1 Jul 2015 20:54

        The public in the 18 countries have not been consulted. Critical decisions affecting all other members need direct approval. In fact referendums have almost never been held for EU membership in candidate countries.

        ineluctable2u -> tsimshatsui 1 Jul 2015 20:50

        That's naive. Merkel is only making the Greek people suffer now in the hope that they will lose their will and vote yes. This is ruthless politics by the troika and Merkel in particular.

        martyc73 -> Gearóid Ó Loingsigh 1 Jul 2015 20:49

        The North is a diversion - it cant raise taxes and relies on subvention from the British State etc and you know this so don't be using that as an argument. The bank guarantee was also sold in a totally different way to what was rolled out subsequently. And you know this too. Hums and Haws???

        Seamus is correct in his analysis. What is happening in Greece is akin to Democratic asphyxiation by financial means. And those of us that believe in basic Democracy should be standing with Syriza and the Greek people at this time. Neo-liberal dogma was always ugly. It's practical application is even uglier. This will have serious implications for the Left in Europe as a whole but more imminently for the British referendum vote due pretty soon.

        Ritoras Tijger 1 Jul 2015 20:46

        Bud, first of all you repeat you you you, it is very instructional, chill. Bravo to you as well for making so focussed comments. I mean it even though you put all the fault on the Greek gov.. Don't see you challenging yourself enough? Are the rest of stakeholders here perfect?

        But, how do you know what Greece has done and what not?

        Why the Troika have not reacted the same and with the same persistence as it does now during the last 5 years to correct the direction of travel? You're 100% right about the Lagarde list. The ministers who did not do nothing are in trials now.. However, I was in fact hoping that the Troika could play a more active role in this and exercise influence to clear corruption. After all, based on a leak of series of emails , Greek government was strictly following the instructions of Troika during the past 5 years.

        About the military expenses. I like defense and the military in fact. But! In a recession, the Troika should have first said, save money there to invest in sectors like healthcare, education etc. After all, Greece is very well equipped and supposedly is backed up by NATO allies.

        calsation miceonparade 1 Jul 2015 20:43

        I must say I enjoyed your takedown of oldships immensely. It seems he doesn't realise we wouldn't be having this conversation if the private companies that lent money to Greece had been made to eat their own losses.

        But then neoliberalism isn't capitalism, not in the traditional sense. As has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, neoliberals magically turn into socialists at the drop of a hat. Gains privatised, losses socialised. In other words, they use the power of the state to collect economic rents. To call this sure thing investing or risk-taking is pure propaganda.

        Papistpal 1 Jul 2015 20:40

        Never thought I'd agree with you, but I have to say, from this American capitalist perspective, Berlin and Brussels have no sense of fair play and no respect for democracy. How can the EU call itself a democracy if Germany has a veto because it has the big bucks. The US, I admit, would like to do something similar, but we are constrained by maintaining at least some vestige of democratic practice and sensibility. What is with the moralism, anyway. "Greece is wrong, so we get to do whatever we want to them." Moralistic platitudes are not policy statements. Damn Merkel to hell


        TheNerveInstitute 1 Jul 2015 20:36

        Greeks must not cave in. This is interesting !

        http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14132

        lawrenceab 1 Jul 2015 20:29

        I agree the EU élites are out to topple Syriza. The invective against Tsipras and ruthless shut down of bank support to strike fear in the population show that clearly enough. Syriza is a mortal threat to the noe-liberal order.

        I don't agree that Syriza is innocent in this drama, though. Its crisis management has been abysmal. They know, or should, what is coming. when they threaten the EU élites. Why for instance did they not impose capital controls the very first weekend after coming to power?? The the country could have put up its defenses at a time of its own choosing, husbanded its resources while negotiating - paid the IMF, keep banks open during this crucial referendum week. You don't negotiate with 17 adversaries who all want to crush you, with one hand tied behind your back and € billions flowing out weekly. In three months you are on the floor.


        castalla 1 Jul 2015 20:17

        This is a clash of ideologies. It's obvious if you listen to the spokepersons of Syriza and the Left compared with the clapped out so-called politicians of ND and the Right. The Greeks and the Spanish are the only countries where there's a popular moblisation against the robber barons who created the crisis and are continuing to profit from the consequences. The left have been emasculated throughout Europe ... let's hope the OXI vote wins the day and Syriza gets a mandate to argue for a restructure of the debt programme.

        someoneionceknew -> FactPatrol 1 Jul 2015 20:10

        The – European Social Model – is built on the fundamental principles built into Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC):

        … promotion of employment, improved living and working conditions … proper social protection, dialogue between management and labour, the development of human resources with a view to lasting high employment and the combating of exclusion.

        It combines with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights to define an "underlying principle is one of solidarity and cohesion: that economic growth must serve to boost overall social wellbeing, and not take place at the expense of any section of society".

        The ILO book says that while "there is no official definition of the European Social Model" there is a long history of practice and dialogue that allows one to map out the main characteristics.

        The ILO define "six main pillars":

        1. "Increased Minimum Rights on Working Conditions".

        2. "Universal and Sustainable Social Protection Systems".

        3. "Inclusive Labour Markets".

        4. "Strong and Well-Functioning Social Dialogue".

        5. "Public Services and Services of General Interest".

        6. "Social Inclusion and Social Cohesion".

        miceonparade -> Exodus20 1 Jul 2015 20:08

        Remember what Greece were like before joining the euro, in the 1990's?

        Greece in the 1990s did not have 30% unemployment or 60% youth unemployment or a depression. Things can only begin to get better after exiting the euro and reclaiming fiscal sovereignty which can be used to put Greek people back to work.

        someoneionceknew FactPatrol 1 Jul 2015 20:07

        The European Social Model in Crisis: Is Europe losing its soul?

        PDF 52 page precis.

        while the European Social Model may have been called into question here and there before the crisis, the list of changes in most elements and pillars of the European Social Model since the crisis is formidable. While there are a few exceptions … all other trends show a general withdrawal of the state from social policy, first through massive cuts in social expenditure and reduced funding of education, health care and other public services, and second through radical reforms in a number of areas, such as social dialogue, social protection, pensions, labour market and social cohesion in general …

        the changes are particularly severe in those countries that implemented an austerity package under the direct influence of the Troika …


        Hill0fBeans sjorsnotmine 1 Jul 2015 20:05

        There are no poor Greeks in Greece any more...

        You're a disgrace. Instead of trolling, read some facts every now and then.

        - like the 4 out of 10 Greek children living beneath the poverty line

        - or 44.8% of pensioners living on less than 665 euros/month

        - or the 27% unemployed

        Go crawl back underneath your bridge. This is not a place for trolls.

        camerashy 1 Jul 2015 19:56

        The closet fascists are all out in force to get rid of a democratically elected government! Rule by corporations and banks is what you deserve and is what you are going to get in next 5 years ... so enjoy it.

        deskandchair -> Danny Sheahan 1 Jul 2015 19:56

        It can't go any other way, fiscal control means political control. The tragedy is that the EZ was formed in the first place.

        Lafcadio1944 1 Jul 2015 19:52

        My fear is that Syriza has lost the momentum, they have been unable to make the subject what it should be, Neoliberal ideological economics. The fear mongering and the bank run neatly engineered by Draghi and now the threat of shutting down the entire banking system - I'd be scared too. That's hardball politics - but the main thing is people obey authority and the EU has authority as far as the Greek people are concerned and they will back them into their very own graves.


        xsyfer John Smith 1 Jul 2015 19:51

        It has that already. Don't forget they are beyond the Great Depression now in terms of the economic catastrophe. Population has been sliding since 2010. There will be friends. I reckon UK, us and Sweden might do something bilateral after the mess to keep Greece away from Russia.

        Might be too late then though


        deskandchair Markdoug1 1 Jul 2015 19:51

        You don't live in EZ or EU (although superficial thinking isn't exclusive to those outside EZ) however you're correct, Greeks elected Syriza out of desperation. The rest is just the usual anti-left cliches, not that there's anything wrong with anti-left, however your understanding of the situation would be greatly enhanced if you spent a minute Googling origins of this crisis. Perhaps EU/EZ is a bit complex for you.


        Eleutheros 1 Jul 2015 19:46

        But it has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with a dysfunctional currency union, a destructive neoliberal economic model enforced by treaty and an austerity regime maintained to ensure a return to profitability on corporate terms.

        And that's the essence of the current situation, not just in the EU, but most "western" societies, including Australia, where I live; our present government follows the policies of Thatcher and Reagan and is trying to bring austerity to a rich and prosperous country.

        Excellent article Seumas Milne, thank you.


        Oscarinho 1 Jul 2015 19:43

        Yes, there is a potential danger of a right-wing, if not neo-nazi, turn in Greece (and maybe, only maybe in other places, too). But just tell me why does the author doesn't mention that without the support of the right-wingers and neo-nazis called Anel and Golden Dawn Syriza would not have a majority in their own country??? Syriza does not represent a European leftist alternative (ask Renzi) but mere 2 million Greek voters supported by the far right that are taking their own society hostage playing the nationalistic card.

        Yes, we need another haircut and, yes, this radical austerity policies needs to be changed. It's just not sustainable as we learned the hard way- But Syriza is looking for a system change by any means with any partners (Golden Dawn, Putin's Russia, and even Erdogan). No thanks.


        Forthestate ID5590609 1 Jul 2015 19:40

        you and others believe that Greeks are now somehow inherently entitled to this new and vastly improved standard of living...

        Just more bollocks! How do you square "this new and vastly improved standard of living" with the reality since the crisis hit? Most analysts agree that the decline has seen Greece lose everything that it acquired during the years you refer to, and more, and I repeat, it is a decline probably unparalleled in peacetime. Where is the recognition of the catastrophe that has hit the Greek people in your ridiculous assertion that they are enjoying a new and vastly improved standard of living?


        John Smith 1 Jul 2015 19:32

        Looking at the headline photo of Merkel, the caption: Who will rid me of this troublesome Greek
        popped into my head.

        Then I read the article above.

        Nothing would please the Euromeddlers more than a military coup, or a revolt by the coalition partners.

        Because what this crisis is exposing is how after five fruitless years, the geniuses at the heart of the EU, couldn't grasp that among their many errors of judgement, it's no good loaning a bankrupt money to pay off debt, the Euro has actually worked against the economic expansion of the Eurozone both before and after the crash, and by failing to spot the dishonesty of previous Greek administrations or act, it has shown the world that their system is weak, cannot tackle a crisis, and despite years of rhetoric will have to do the one thing it said would never ever happen, expel a member state and write off tens of billions of wasted euros.

        In my earlier analysis I have already explained why the Euro was a currency launched half cocked, and that without taking into account the needs of individual nations, it is doomed in the long term, to fall to pieces.

        I fear that whatever happens now, Greece is going to find itself with few friends, and at least five years of pain and emigration of its youth.

        ID5590609 Forthestate 1 Jul 2015 19:26

        The level of Greek tax collection from all sectors and classes in Greek society is abysmal. Tspiras and Varoufakis do not deny this is a problem, and other than pride or foolishness, I question why you do. Some economists suggests that as much as 39% of the Greek economy is effectively underground. The other purported statistics are simply red herrings to confuse this simple fact (and also avoid dealing with the rampant other corruption and incompetence inherent in the Greek economy).

        The reason why the Troika objected to increases in certain taxes as part of Greece's economic plans is twofold: (i) due to this historical lack of tax collection, increased revenue projections based on increased taxes would be almost entirely illusory, and (ii) they targeted weak industries that Greece needs to prosper and grow, and risked making Greece's economic situation worse. Many of the larger and stronger of these multinational industries also had the capability of simply leaving Greece. Tsipras refused to discuss sources of real and easy tax revenue, like tourism on the Greek islands.

        The fact that Greece's economy has contracted over 25% is also not particularly relevant. The larger GDP since joining the Euro represented a tremendously bloated bubble based on irresponsible public and private debt. The current GPD still has ample room to decrease before it accurately reflects the true size, scope and productivity of the Greek economy (and even reflects Greece's pre-Euro GDP). Also noteworthy is the fact that Greek incomes nearly tripled since it joined the Euro Apparently, you and others believe that Greeks are now somehow inherently entitled to this new and vastly improved standard of living (more impressive than some other Eurozone members who are poorer and helped fund Greece's bailout) despite the fact that it was entirely unearned and based on fraud and the largesse of the taxpayers of other nations.


        Exodus20 Tijger 1 Jul 2015 19:26

        This is another round of banking bailouts using public money, cynically misnamed as bailing out Greece. The troika need to launder the money through Greece to give to the banks. Greece get to keep a very small percent for their troubles and taking more blame than they should.


        JordiLlull neilmack 1 Jul 2015 19:24

        Who are "Most people"? I dont think there are polls, but few people in Europe believe that the fault lies exclusively on a government who has been there for 6 months, and is trying to prevent the policies that have led to a 25% loss of GDP. Particularly since the troika has made it damn clear that it does not plan to accept ANY plan. Sure, some have bought Daily Mirror arguments that the Greeks spent the bailouts on Ouzo, but informed people know that the vast majority was used to pay back interests, and that Greek retirement pensions are around 300 euro/month. I would rather argue that "most people" in Europe who have traditionally supported EU are starting to raise questions about what EU's role in this crisis.

        "Europe is not under obligation to Greece" is nonsense. If Greece is a member state then EU is indeed under obligation to support it, and it should do this effectively. It should not carry out a policy that undermines its economy. Even if EU officials do not do this out of principles, they should to do it to avoid loosing the support of the EU project.

        deskandchair truecomrade 1 Jul 2015 19:22

        Fiscal control = political control, it can be no other way.


        FourtyTwo sjorsnotmine 1 Jul 2015 19:21

        More than 30% of the population are officially below the poverty line.

        http://www.enetenglish.gr/?i=news.en.article&id=2040


        FourtyTwo Exodus20 1 Jul 2015 19:17

        The preliminary report of the Greek debt investigation (yes, there is one) will be out shortly. From what I've read, much of the debt went to Greek banks and their foreign partners that indulged in an aggressive loaning orgy and created a debt bubble inside the Greek economy. The banks were recapitalised during the bailout with €80bn of state money that ended up as sovereign debt.

        MTSK87 privateindustry44 1 Jul 2015 19:13

        You are an ignorant piece of work aren't you Sir? Look at the facts before spreading lies. The Greeks work (the ones still in employment that is) work more hours than any other EU citizen ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17155304 ), the rich and powerful did not pay taxes no, but your average 20-30 something year old with a wage of 400 euros a month that has to go back to living with his/her parents can barely afford coffee never mind pay taxes. And free money? Please the "creditors" have NEVER given anyone "free" money. Germany never gave away anything for free (see treaties imposed on Greece to buy old German weapons). Greece was manipulated and suffered for that "free money".

        emordnilap Mark Riggle 1 Jul 2015 19:10

        I had thought that Angie, Wolfie and Christine were perhaps just inept, but now I'm afraid they may be executing a well laid plan. Perhaps they want to form a new entity: The People's Neo-liberal Puppy Republic Of Greece. The steps: Blame all others; extort impossible amounts of invented "debts";people who oppose you are labeled as traitors; prioritize German and French banks so they can be saved from their own shitstorm and nationalize (i.e. charge the ordinary punter) all the fantasy cash that no-one's ever seen; call a national emergency and impose martial law. Next is destroy all opposition and hand everything over to private industry. A week ago, this would be very far-fetched, but now??

        [Jul 01, 2015] Path to Grexit Tragedy Paved by Political Incompetence

        "...I think the Germans think that if things get bad enough in Greece, they'll kick out Tsipras and elect a government more willing to deal."
        Jul 01, 2015 | Economist's View

        Ellis said...

        How many austerity plans do the Greek people have to suffer through? How much unemployment? Half the young population? Is the plan to to cut living standards in half?

        And for what? To repay a debt that the Greek people had nothing do with! To reimburse usurious interest rates that cut the economy in a trap by the banks!

        What a bunch of predators!

        djb said in reply to Ellis...

        i like how the advocates of austerity get all pissed off at the greek people as if they are just being obstinate

        its like someone is trying to punch someone else in the face and they are getting all pissed off at the other guy because he keeps lifting his hands to block the punches

        "come cut it out, just let me get good shots in at you , whats a matter with you"

        And Greece will not go to the drachma - Greeks are now demanding paper Euro notes, and everyone outside Greece shipping into Greece is demanding paper Euro notes up front. Greeks are now not able to get food and medicine and fuel if they don't have Euro currency.

        But let's be clear - the Greeks are to blame because they refuse to pay Greeks to work by buying only Greek production, or by trading Greek produced goods for imported goods.

        Charles Carlstrom said...

        Strikes at first glance don't seem rational. But they occur. Somestimes you swerve too late to avoid ruin.
        But even now it appears Greece is starting to swerve.

        DrDick said in reply to Charles Carlstrom...

        Only if you are a member of management. For the workers they are the only logical recourse. When management will not provide safe/decent working conditions or pay you what you are worth, your best recourse is to withhold your labor.

        anne said...

        http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/07/tsipras-accepts-most-terms-as-merkel-insists-on-referendum.html

        July 1, 2015

        Tsipras Accepts Most Creditor Terms as Merkel Insists on Referendum
        By Yves Smith

        Post-bailout expiration dynamics are likely to produce even worse outcomes for Greece than it had on offer from the creditors last month. It isn't just that the bailout funds of €7.2 billion are gone; it's that Greece has gone over an event horizon with stringent capital controls on and the European Central Bank ready and able to push the Greek banking system over the brink.

        Greece's weak negotiating position is even weaker now. Even with a boost via a "no" vote on the referendum this Sunday, if the Greek government were to take a firmer stance, the creditors have the means and the incentives to keep crushing the economy via financial strangulation. The ruling coalition would not be able to hold on to power for more than a month or two as the economy continued to decay at an accelerating rate.

        This is a ruthless, brutal power play in progress. Too many key actors are driven by their own narrow imperatives, most important of all, their domestic politics, as well as institutional rigidities. Those constraints work against taking a broader view and recognizing that the immolation of Greece will blow back and damage the European project and their own economies. But that would require much bolder, visionary thinking and action. The current crop of leaders has instead become habituated to incremental patches even though it is widely recognized that the architecture of the Eurozone is incomplete and wobbly. But no one is willing to move to a higher level of integration, in large measure because, particularly for Germany, that entails the loss of power and privilege at the national level.

        Tsipras has recognized the weakness of his position too late. Yesterday, he tried making a desperate, last-minute deal to ward off an IMF default and secure the bailout funds before the program expired. But that clearly could never happen. It would require approval from all of the other 18 states in the Eurozone, including parliamentary approval in Germany. There was no way that would occur without German legislators having had Greece pass legislation before they voted on the release of funds; the Greek government had been told that that was a requirement and that needed to be done by the end of last weekend, June 28. *

        Moreover, Germany wasn't even the most hardline country; Portugal, Spain, and Latvia are more hostile to cutting Greece any slack since their leaders had their citizens wear the austerity hairshirt. Given that it was obviously impossible at that late juncture for the other Eurogroup members to release the bailout funds before they went poof (at a bare minimum, there was no way the Germany MPs would approve it), the Tsipras appeal was a sign of utter desperation or delusion. And that in turn was an admission of tremendous weakness. Less than two days of capital controls and a bank holiday, and the ruling coalition was folding....

        * Some pundits have depicted these deadlines as artificial. They weren't. There are many areas where the lenders' conduct can correctly be called unreasonable, but the hard deadlines were the result of past agreements and Eurozone procedures make them extremely difficult to change. This is one reason for the current creditor hostility. Greece consumed an enormous amount of time, running up against deadlines in what the other side saw as brinksmanship, which was a bizarre strategy given that Greece had a weak bargaining position. But the lenders felt compelled to accommodate Greece on that front as much as possible because the optics would be terrible if they didn't, particularly if the situation were to devolve into a Grexit. Compounding that problem, an lawyer with considerable knowledge of European practice pointed out by e-mail: "Europeans have a very hidebound and literal view about their EU rules and documents. Americans see a contract as a basis for negotiation."

        Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to anne...

        'Germany wasn't even the most hardline country; Portugal, Spain, and Latvia are more hostile to cutting Greece any slack since their leaders had their citizens wear the austerity hairshirt.'

        Every country in the EU is angry with Greece.

        In Greece's bailout talks, why it's 18 eurozone countries versus one http://on.wsj.com/1B7hOIy via @WSJ

        ... Some eurozone governments-Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the Baltic states-see themselves as having swallowed tough, politically costly but ultimately successful medicine and see no reason why Greece should be spared such rigor. Some, like Slovakia and the Baltic states, are poorer than Greece and pay their workers a lower minimum wage.

        Another element is that further debt relief for Greece in whatever form means losses for governments-Athens owes other eurozone governments €195 billion ($212 billion)-and therefore for eurozone taxpayers. Germany is owed the largest sum-more than €60 billion-followed by France and Italy. But, as a percentage of their gross domestic product, other countries have more on the line than Germany. According to a Bloomberg Brief analysis, Greece's debts to Slovenia exceed 3% of Slovenian GDP, compared with 2.4% for Germany. ...

        DeDude said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...

        "see no reason why Greece should be spared such rigor"

        Yes their rulers have convinced them that the depression they threw Greece into is no big deal compared to what they themselves have suffered. As long as your corporate media hide the facts from people, you can convince them of all kinds of stuff.

        "debt relief for Greece in whatever form means losses for governments"

        Yes - and the real story there is that almost all the debt that was held by private banks and plutocrats back when this problem surfaced (and the debt should have been written down) is now owned by governments. But that is not the debate in the corporate media - instead it is about how terribly irresponsible the Greek government is (I guess you can fool the fools every time).

        Nathanael said in reply to anne...

        Yves has been mis-analyzing the Greek crisis from beginning to end. It's seriously lowered my opinion of her, and I think she's a complete idiot at this point.

        Syriza has played this out exactly right, whether intentionally or not.

        Given that the Troika will never, ever make a functional offer of major fiscal stransfers to Greece, and has as much as said so, default was inevitable.

        Greece doesn't have to leave the euro, of course; Greece could unilaterally print euros (in violation of the Troika's insane deflationary policies) and wait for Germany to leave the euro. But it has the same effect.

        GIVEN that default is inevitable, Syriza needs to be seen as:
        (1) Trying as hard as it can to offer a deal
        (2) Not knuckling under to the foreign powers

        They've done this.

        The referendum will either go "yes" or "no".

        If it's "yes", then Syriza will resign. The new government of Greece will implement stupid policies forced by the Troika which will make their situation even WORSE; they will be blamed for it and will be thrown out. Syriza survives.

        If it's "no", Syriza can exit and allow the economy to recover through devaluation.

        The worst case scenario for Syriza was that the Troika accepted one of Syriza's overly generous offers of surrender; the economy continued to get worse; Syriza was blamed for this and thrown out of office; and Golden Dawn was elected.

        Golden Dawn would, of course, immediately leave the euro and revive the economy. By pressganging, if necessary. :-P Having a glowing example of successful fascist economic management in Europe is the LAST thing the world needs. Thank goodness we seem to be avoiding that.

        anne said in reply to anne...

        Yves Smith has from my perspective been remarkably sensitive to the needs of the Greek people, thorough in reporting and analysis, and evidently, however sadly, all too correct in analysis compared with other Greek-sympathetic economists.

        I am aware that the analysis of Smith has been criticized, but I am also aware and impressed that even leaders of liberal Podemos in Spain have shared in criticisms of Syriza.

        paine said in reply to anne...

        Just a side comment

        The private greek banks can go to hell in a chariot for all I care

        The greek government should worry about small dipositors only

        paine said in reply to paine...

        Eichenberry seems poorly briefed
        On the negotiations here

        Syriza has not acted incompetently

        The troika is out for regime change

        Reply Wednesday, July 01, 2015 at 02:24 PM

        anne said in reply to paine...

        Eichengreen seems poorly briefed
        On the negotiations here

        Syriza has not acted incompetently

        The troika is out for regime change

        [ Understood as to what the European leadership is after, but Syriza has puzzled me. ]

        ilsm said in reply to paine...

        ecb the usa of the europa.

        troika deals like nukes.

        widespread drone strikes without deflation.....

        Chris Herbert said...

        I have a problem with the exit=disaster scenario. As a monetary sovereign and with a central bank, both recapitalization and devaluation can be accomplished without the armageddon stuff. China's currency, for example, is not traded on Forex. China's central bank pegs its value by fixing what it will pay in its currency for another currency--and its currency is the only one that can be used in China. Once Greece goes back to the drachma and once they've got a central banker and a currency that is exclusive to domestic commerce (no Forex speculative trading) I think a good central banker can do a lot to help Greece maintain its balance. Even better, said recapitalization can be debt free. I'm not saying it won't cost anything, I'm just saying a monetary sovereign need not issue debt. Greece could put people to work doing infrastructure improvements, which build assets not liabilities. Without issuing debt. Greece has to learn how to collect taxes, obviously. And some reforms to government size is probably in order. But the 'end of days' scare is just that, a scare.

        pgl said in reply to Chris Herbert...

        I have a similar problem with the criticism is Grexit. Let's roll the tape back to 1967 when Prime Minister Harold Wilson decided to devalue the UK pound:

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/19/newsid_3208000/3208396.stm

        The UK did not suffer a financial crisis. It did manage to raise its net exports. So why can't the Greeks do the same?

        am said in reply to pgl...

        Fine, so why do the Greek people want to keep the euro as the official currency. Professor Krugman mentioned as a reason that people like to have a strong currency. They have had the drachma before and it was never very good and neither was the economy. I suggest the reason they want to keep the euro is it is strong in the sense of a stable currency and inflation is kept low in Greece as most of their imports are in euros. With a weak drachma they just get inflation on imports. With the euro they get steady prices. Add in to that payment of salaries and pensions in euros and then you have the advantage of earning in the currency of import purchases. Hohum, I'm probably wrong.

        Chris Herbert said in reply to mulp...

        Leaving the euro is not cost free. The dollar/drachma after Grexit is set by the central bank. Maybe Greece needs to become more efficient in their use of energy. Maybe Russia will sell oil to them at advantageous prices. A central bank can price the drachma advantageously between different suppliers. And don't forget the Greeks have a primary surplus right now and Grexit will eject its creditors, which is what I think Greece needs to to. The collapse scenarios are scare stories aimed at the Greeks. They should reject them and become independent. Only by being a monetary sovereign can Greece regain control of its economy. Right now they are in debtors prison.

        Peter K. said in reply to am...

        with the Euro they get humanitarian disaster. You know the economic stats, don't you?

        am said in reply to Peter K....

        Yes but why do they want to keep the euro, as is reported. They may suddenly change that in the referendum vote but it is reported that the euro is what they want.

        foofootos said in reply to am...

        easy, the depositors want to keep the euro because they don't have a lender of last resort. They will loose their deposits. That's all, that and scare tactics.

        Paine said in reply to foofootos...

        Yes that's a good part of it

        But I'd like to know the value of euros held on deposit now
        by the bottom three quarters of the population

        Dan Kervick said in reply to am...

        I don't think it's really entirely economic. They view the euro symbolically as a special European club membership, and don't want to be excluded from that club.

        anne said in reply to Chris Herbert...

        http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/who-uses-the-euro

        July 1, 2015

        Who Uses the Euro

        The Washington Post ran a map * showing which countries in Europe use the euro and which use other currencies. The map is wrong. It shows Montenegro and Kosovo as using currencies other than the euro. This is not accurate, both countries do use the euro as their official currency although they are not have been accepted into the euro zone.

        This is important in the context of the discussions on Greece because it illustrates the point that Greece cannot be forced off the euro. The European Commission and the European Central Bank can impose incredibly onerous conditions on Greece, but they cannot prevent the country from using the euro if it so chooses. The decision to leave the euro could only be made by the Greek government, not its creditors.

        * https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/30/7-questions-about-greeces-huge-crisis-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/

        -- Dean Baker

        John Cummings said in reply to Anonymous...

        I never saw the "big" Greece problem before the Euro. The problem is the credit bubble starting in 73 creating a redic surge in consumer products that really took hold in the 80's/90's for the US and spread after that. It created the "look" of growing personal wealth via personal assets, but it was a bubble. Without this borrowing, the US economy probably would have struggled to grow much in the 80's as inflation fighters went on a rampage(which is what partially triggered the bubble to grow faster). They still maintain much of the growth from the bubble, only thanks to the market being scared to live without it. About the only thing it did, was force Russia away from the Stalin era Soviet fast, but now, they are stepping back while no one is watching. This is late capitalism.

        The 80's and 90's would have been a lot more Escape from New York rather than Morning in America.

        Nathanael said in reply to Anonymous...

        Argentina's main problems were US-backed military coups and fascism. Argentina has quite impressively managed to get itself out from under both of those problems -- seemingly permanently.

        foofootos said in reply to Anonymous...

        Greece only got to comparable trouble after the Balkan wars (they defaulted), during the second world war, and then during civil war. Hardly a counter-example of "drachma troubles". Many a time I see Greece described as a serial defaulter. And then I read the History of the Greek state after it's independence from the Ottoman empire, and I see a war happening every 15-20 years or so. It seems this way of looking the Greek economy just goes with the Greek stereotype.

        ilsm said in reply to foofootos...

        Greece seems to spend about 150% of the NATO standard war spending for GDP. While the rest of the EU spends <75% of NATO standard.

        Still only 3% compared to US' 5 to 7% according to how you count.

        US spends more in VA than total of Russia, China and UK for their military.

        Darrell in Phoenix said in reply to anne...

        Pegging to the Euro will not counter trade imbalances, which is the real source of Greece's troubles.

        They need a currency that floats. They need to decrease imports and increase exports (or more likely tourism) to eliminate their trade imbalance, which is the root cause of their debt.

        pgl said in reply to Darrell in Phoenix...

        Exactly!

        foofootos said in reply to Darrell in Phoenix...

        Greece currently has a balanced current account.

        pgl said in reply to foofootos...

        Link? Evidence? Even if this is true, it is mainly because of the imposed austerity and weak economy.

        pgl said in reply to foofootos...

        Darrell in Phoenix notes:

        "Check the CIA world factbook for Greece.

        Exports $35B. Imports $62B.

        Trade imbalance of $27B compared to GDP of $290B = 9.5%!"

        Your source?

        am said in reply to anne...

        In Simbabwe which has no currency of its own apart from small coins for change shop goods are priced in US dollars. So consumers can buy a basket of goods and then pay the value of the us dollars in us dollars, south African rand, Botswanan pula, euro or pound. These are all calculated up by a routine in the software system operating at the checkout. The tax which is vat is then sent up to the government. The government staff are paid in us dollars. But the government can't do stimulus because they can't print any of these currencies and they don't have one of their own. But for an interim solution it is workable.

        Darrell in Phoenix said in reply to am...

        And the dollars flow out of the country, and them when there are no dollars left, the economy collapses.

        What you need is exactly what Ben Franklin argued for nearly 300 years ago. A government issued script currency that can be used to pay your taxes, and taxes high enough to create sufficient demand for the script to give it value. You then let the value of that government issued script currency to float on the international exchange markets to balance trade.

        OH, and NEVER take on debt denominated in a foreign currency.

        Nathanael said in reply to Darrell in Phoenix...

        That's even a good rule for households, frankly. I never take debt denominated in a currency I can't print. :-)

        Peter K. said in reply to Chris Herbert...

        What the critics of the Greek fail to mention is that before the Troika began bringing the hammer down on Syriza and refused to negotiate with them, the Greeks were running a primary surplus.

        Krugman pointed to this. That is, they were in the black without interest payments. With default and saying no to the bailout packages they are free of the interest payments and free of the onerous austerity measures which killed their economy.

        What the critics of defaults say is that the defaulters will never be able to borrow again, but in the real world that hasn't been the case. They're just blowing smoke to bully the Greeks into more, fruitless austerity measures.

        Dan Kervick said in reply to Peter K....

        Agreed. There will always be attractive economic opportunities in Greece. Even if Greece defaults, there will be new investors willing to gamble that they wont default again.

        pgl said...

        "Instead, the creditors first calculated the size of the primary budget surpluses that Greece would have to run in order to hypothetically repay its debt. They then required the government to raise taxes and cut spending sufficiently to produce those surpluses.They ignored the fact that, in so doing, they consigned the country to an even deeper depression. By privileging their own balance sheets, they got the Greek government and the outcome they deserved."

        This is precisely the problem Keynes warned about after WWI when the French demanded too much from the Germans. Of course the Germans never really did pay all of those cursed repatriations. Modern day European leaders have forgotten everything Keynes tried to teach us.

        Darrell in Phoenix said in reply to pgl...

        The austerity proponents are following the typical NeoCon mind-set of ignoring macroeconomic principles. "Keynesian hokum" is their preferred name for macroeconomics I believe.

        DrDick said in reply to pgl...

        This is exactly why Eichengreen's piece is pure garbage. Greece made lots of compromises, too many in fact. It was the creditors who refused to compromise. Every bank that had made irresponsible loans (and their were huge numbers of these) in Greece should have been forced to eat all their losses. After all, they had charged a risk premium to cover this already. Instead the Troika has decided that they should be fully indemnified and only the Greeks should suffer.

        Peter K. said in reply to DrDick...

        Yeah it's almost as if he criticizes the Greeks so he can criticize the Troika even more.

        "Still, this incompetence pales in comparison with that of the European Commission, the ECB and the IMF."

        Nonetheless I agree with you and disagree with Yves Smith and the like. Syriza and the Greeks did the best they could under impossible circumstances.

        The Troika's plan didn't work and they refused to negotiate. The problem is Greeks want to stay in the Eurozone nonetheless. Sunday we'll find out if they still do no matter what.

        pgl said in reply to DrDick...

        This is why I prefer what Krugman wrote.

        DrDick said in reply to pgl...

        Likewise, and the same for Stiglitz, who is quite good on this.

        Paine said in reply to pgl...

        Running these nakedly in humane pub sec pruning exercises was the entire project

        The debt
        A pretext

        Let that be a lesson to you long run fiscal space fuss budgets

        Paine said in reply to Paine ...

        A yes on Sunday simply means

        Go back and get the best deal you can

        Darrell in Phoenix said...

        Exchange rates fluctuate to counter trade imbalances. The concept of a common currency, without controls to ensure no trade imbalances exist, is fundamentally flawed.

        Money flows out of Greece. THE ONLY way money can get back into Greece is debt.

        Trade imbalances cannot be persisted indefinitely. They result in the buildup of debt on the side with the deficit, and interest on the debt just widens the trade imbalance until the debt collapses.

        Either Europe needs to take MAJOR steps to reverse existing trade imbalances, or the Euro is ultimately doomed to collapse under unrepayable debt.

        RGC said in reply to Darrell in Phoenix...

        "Either Europe needs to take MAJOR steps to reverse existing trade imbalances, or the Euro is ultimately doomed to collapse under unrepayable debt."

        Yep. Varoufakis had a "Modest Proposal" to fix this:


        4. THE MODEST PROPOSAL – Four crises, four policies

        The Modest Proposal introduces no new EU institutions and violates no existing treaty. Instead, we propose that existing institutions be used in ways that remain within the letter of European legislation but allow for new functions and policies.

        These institutions are:

        · The European Central Bank – ECB

        · The European Investment Bank – EIB

        · The European Investment Fund – EIF

        · The European Stability Mechanism – ESM

        Here are the four policies that will re-deploy the above institutions in a manner that deals a decisive blow at, respectively, (1) the banking crisis, (2) the public debt crisis, (3) the under-investment and internal imbalances crisis, and (4) the social emergency crisis afflicting countries were absolute poverty is becoming a major issue...

        http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/euro-crisis/modest-proposal/4-the-modest-proposal-four-crises-four-policies/

        Chris Herbert said in reply to Darrell in Phoenix...

        Darell writes "Money flows out of Greece. THE ONLY way money can get back into Greece is debt." Not so with a monetary sovereign. Euros are worth what the Greek central banks says they are worth, in drachmas. And only drachmas can be used in domestic commerce. You have squirreled away euros in Swiss bank accounts? Fine. Spend them anywhere but in Greece. If you have cheated on taxes, and for sure you have if you are Greek and rich, then face extradition for crimes in Greece. A monetary sovereign does not have to issue debt. It can recapitalize without debt. Look at China, which has used this banking system successfully for more than two decades! China understand the difference between liabilities and assets. It's not the debt that matters it's what you build that matters.

        Darrell in Phoenix said in reply to Chris Herbert...

        Chris, I was saying now... With Greece on the Euro and unable to print their own currency.

        Yes, if they return to drachma, they can issue money. Until then, the only way they have been able to make their economy liquid in the face of large trade deficit is with debt.

        Darrell in Phoenix said...

        Check the CIA world factbook for Greece.

        Exports $35B. Imports $62B.

        Trade imbalance of $27B compared to GDP of $290B = 9.5%!


        Of, Germany LOVED loaning Greece money so they could buy German products.... but the problem is that the debt can't possibly be repaid unless the trade imbalance is reversed. Germans have the money that Greece needs to repay the debt!


        This echos the problems in the USA. The poor go into debt, creating money that they spend, which then flows through into the economy into the hands of billionaires. It is mathematically impossible for the poor to repay the debt unless the rich first spend the money! Oh, we say it is a legal, moral and social obligation to repay the debt, but suggest it is a moral and social obligation (and should be a legal obligation through a steeply progressive income tax code with deductions for most spending and capital investments) and OH HOW THE RICH SCREAM!

        pgl said in reply to Darrell in Phoenix...

        Good research - and analysis.

        RueTheDay said...

        I struggle to understand the path forward from the referendum. Putting aside the obvious question of "what exactly are they voting on", there are some serious logistical challenges.

        It will likely take a day or two (or three) for the votes to be counted and the result certified. Assuming a best case scenario of a YES vote, Tsipras will likely resign, a snap election will be called, and a new government will have to form. How long will this take? What if Syriza is re-elected? What if there is no clear winner and we're back to having to form a coalition government, which may or may not happen?

        Time is one thing this situation does not have. There are significant upcoming dates:
        -July 10 €2B Rollover of treasury bills
        -July 13 €452M IMF
        -July 14 €73M in Japanese Samurai bonds due
        -July 17 €1B Rollover of treasury bills
        -July 20 €2.1B ECB
        -July 20 €1.4B National central banks
        -July 20 €25M European Investment Bank

        I can't imagine any scenario under which the ECB can avoid having to yank the ELA if the July 20 payments are missed. But there are plenty of opportunities for an accident before then. It is assumed that the treasury bill rollovers will not be an issue since they are almost entirely held by Greek banks. Is it really safe to assume that? I might be thinking about a switch into safer, more liquid assets if I were a Greek banker. Or are they just going to avoid an auction altogether and deem the bills rolled over by fiat? The Samurai bonds are tiny, but they are still a commercial obligation, will require money the Greek government likely will not have, and a default will not be able to be brushed aside as easily as the missed IMF payment. Speaking of which, the IMF will be unable to assist in any way throughout this period, unless the arrears are cleared.

        But wait, there's more. With the previous programme having expired, there will need to be a new MoU, a vote by the Greek Parliament, a vote by other European parliaments, including Germany. This is no longer something Finance Ministers can decide at a late night meeting.

        Yet, the official position is no more talks until after the referendum.

        Darrell in Phoenix said in reply to RueTheDay...

        I think the Germans think that if things get bad enough in Greece, they'll kick out Tsipras and elect a government more willing to deal.

        A vote of NO to the "Should we accept these terms?" means the Greek people support Tsipras's hardline demand for write downs. This puts the Germans in the position of having to accept his terms or face Greece leaving.

        In short, the referendum may take the "well just wait until the Greeks replace you, then deal with the new guy" threat off the table.

        Reply Wednesday, July 01, 2015 at 11:53 AM

        RueTheDay said in reply to Darrell in Phoenix...

        My point is that regardless of which way the vote goes on Sunday, by the time the results are in there simply may not be enough time left to avoid a default. Note well that default does not automatically imply Grexit, but it certainly ratchets things up a notch.

        Reply Wednesday, July 01, 2015 at 11:59 AM

        Peter K. said in reply to RueTheDay...

        It's all up to the ECB and Troika. The money involved is small to them. It's all political. Looks like they want a regime change in Greece. Either that will happen or there will be Grexit.

        Syriza caved on austerity but wanted more taxes and less spending cuts. The Troika said no. And the Troika spins it like the Greeks left the negotiation table. The Troika said no and then the ECB refused to back Greek banks as the "deadline" passed causing the bank holiday.

        Darrell in Phoenix said in reply to RueTheDay...

        Oh, I think default is inevitable. All the referendum does is clarify the options AFTER that.

        If it fails, and the Greeks vote that they want to accept the Eurozone offer, then there will be a change in Greek government, a new round of austerity, and a delay of another year before the crisis explodes again.

        If it passes with a resounding vote of "NO, we're not paying" then Eurozone will have to take major cuts in the debt or accept Greece leaving the Eurozone.

        Nathanael said in reply to Darrell in Phoenix...

        Darrell has the analysis correct.

        The political key here is that SOME party is going to either leave the euro. (Or massively and permanently default and start printing euros. If they simply ignore all the ECB rules entirely, they may be able to stay in the euro. Same thing; in this case, Germany is the one who leaves the euro.)

        • If it's Syriza and they do it with public support, there are good things in the future.
        • If it's Golden Dawn and they do it with public support, there are bad things in the future.
        • If Syriza does it without public support, Golden Dawn benefits, and there are bad things in the future.
        • If Golden Dawn does it without public support, they'll just cancel elections to avoid losing power, so they'll again benefit and there will be bad things in the future.

        In a sense, the democratic parties are handcuffed in their options relative to the fascist parties, so it's harder for Syriza to succeed than for Golden Dawn.

        And it's really REALLY bad if Golden Dawn becomes a big economic success by defaulting or leaving the euro!!!

        Paine said in reply to RueTheDay...

        Default is a label easily applied and un applied
        In arrears delinquent these are objective terms
        Use em instead of the Halloween word default

        [Jun 30, 2015] Russian culture minister calls for tax on Hollywood films

        Jun 30, 2015 | The Guardian

        DavidEG 30 Jun 2015 00:26

        They (Hollywood staple) should be taxed the same way as tobacco or controlled substances. Full of violence, harmful to mental well-being of children an adults alike.

        HollyOldDog wereallfuckedboy 29 Jun 2015 18:54

        The UK government should have given the Hollywood WWW2 films the the J rating for JUNK.

        Doors2distant 29 Jun 2015 18:29

        What an excellent idea, the quality can only improve. No car chases, cop porn, war porn or saccharin sentimentality.

        Ieuan 29 Jun 2015 17:15

        " he wants to introduce a sales tax that will be used to increase funds for local productions."

        In just about every market Hollywood films gross the most. But in many markets (fewer and fewer as US companies take over their own local distribution) they are distributed by local distributors, who then invest some of their profits into local productions - hence some of the Hollywood blockbusters' moneymaking gets routed into supporting the local industry.

        If (as I suspect) the Russian distributors of Hollywood product are owned by Hollywood studios, and do not produce anything locally, then I think it's fair enough that the government steps in and routes some of the money made into local industry.

        olliemaple 29 Jun 2015 16:52

        Exceptionally right decision indeed. It's only fair that whoever watches that Hollywood crap should be extra taxed in favor of positive domestic productions. Not unlike cigarette sales.

        Alderbaran 29 Jun 2015 10:36

        Many Russian films could be considered to be great and to me trump much of what comes out of Hollywood. However, it was a shame that Medinsky saw no merit in Leviathan and I'm probably one of many who see Medinsky's actions as political in nature, especially given the criterea for state funding of films in Russia.

        It is a shame to see the state increasingly policing the film industry in Russia but I'm certain that creative directors will still be able to work within the constraints.

        Tilipon -> dropthemchammer 29 Jun 2015 08:24

        countries who passed through state coup. Look in root but not in a peak...

        [Jun 30, 2015] The Limits to Growth and Greece Systemic or Financial collapse

        Jun 30, 2015 | resilience.org

        The results of the "standard run" (or "base case") scenario of "The Limits to Growth" 1972 study. Could it be that the ongoing Greek collapse is a symptom of the more general collapse that the model generates for the first two decades of the 21st century?

        So, we have arrived to an interesting point, to be intended in the Chinese sense of a curse. It is the point where the people of Greece are being asked to choose between starvation and slavery and this is supposed to be a triumph of democracy

        As the tragedy unfolds, people take sides, aiming their impotent rage at this or that target; the Euro, the bureaucrats of Brussels, the Greek government, Mr. Tsipras, some international conspiracy, and even Mr. Putin, the usual bugaboo of everything.

        But, could it be that all the financial circus that we are seeing dancing in and around Greece is just the effect of much deeper causes? The effect of something that gnaws at the very foundations not only of Greece, but of the whole Western World?

        Let's take a step back, and take a look at the 1972 study titled "The Limits to Growth" (LTG). Look at the "base case" scenario, the one which used as input the data that seemed to be the most reliable at the time. Here it is, in the 2004 version of the study, with updated data in input.

        [Jun 30, 2015] Greek failure to make IMF payment deals historic blow to eurozone

        I can only imagine the intensity of "consultations" between Washington and Berlin now...
        .
        "...The present circumstances in Greece were inherited by the current government from the previous right-wing government, which managed to bring them out by faithfully following the austerity prescriptions of the Troika. However both left and right-wing governments of the past, who created and hid the enormous debt, are also to blame."
        .
        "...The documents show that the IMF's baseline estimate – the most likely outcome – is that Greece's debt would still be 118% of GDP in 2030, even if it signs up to the package of tax and spending reforms demanded. "
        .
        "...This is nothing more than a large-scale payday loan scam. Greece will never get past the loan sharks and will constantly have to borrow just to pay off the interest. I'd rather default and eat beans for a year while starting fresh than eat beans for 20 years paying off old debt. You can call them lazy, you can call them thieves but - if they play their cards right - you can also call them "debt free"."
        .
        "...The public debt of Greece existed BEFORE the recent election. The cruel conditions inflicted upon Greece by its "partners" existed BEFORE the recent election. The crisis existed BEFORE the recent election."
        .
        "...Lending more billions to Greece so they can repay the interest on previous billions loand and those new loans repayed by cuts to pensions and more privatisation of public assets...blatant transference of cash from those who can't afford it to those who don't need it. Hopefully the Greek people give a resounding middle finger to the EU/IMF. And if I hear another muppet crack on about 'the Greeks ought to pay their taxes' I'll bloody lose my temper. D some reading for gawds sake. It really isn't that hard."
        .
        "...I would have thought that a "senior german conservative politician" telling the Times that whatever happens Tsipras must be forced from office is an historic blow to the EU. Now, at least, people know what it is and who it is for."
        .
        "...If they actually wanted payment, they'd be reasonable. But payment isn't their priority, these organisations want power over Greece."
        Jun 30, 2015 | The Guardian

        ShibbyUp -> peter nelson 30 Jun 2015 21:30

        The Greek banks and former conservative governments, you mean.

        You and plenty of other brainwashed idiots around here seem to think that individual, working class Greeks had something to do with this. Of course, as always, the banks and politicians who actually caused this got off scott free, with taxpayer money, to cause the next big financial crisis.

        HaroldP -> Nottodaymate 30 Jun 2015 21:29

        Banksters, what did you expect, honesty, morality, humanity, financial expertise? Bailouts from citizens, that's what you expected? The poor darlings can't even run a bank when they can print money. Incompetant scum. Regards, Harry.


        Jazzfunk23 -> workingclass2 30 Jun 2015 21:28

        In recent years most of this mess was presided over by liberal conservatives...

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democracy_(Greece)


        PeregrineSlim 30 Jun 2015 21:25

        Germania offers a regime of permanent debt servitude to pay for its failed banks:

        The documents, drawn up by the so-called troika of lenders, support Greece's argument that it needs substantial debt relief for a lasting economic recovery.

        The documents show that the IMF's baseline estimate – the most likely outcome – is that Greece's debt would still be 118% of GDP in 2030, even if it signs up to the package of tax and spending reforms demanded.

        clematlee Danny Sheahan 30 Jun 2015 21:25

        What you have in the USA is TENS of millions of people who don't have any US dollars while in Manhattan flats sell for millions.


        AlamoSexual 30 Jun 2015 21:20

        This is nothing more than a large-scale payday loan scam. Greece will never get past the loan sharks and will constantly have to borrow just to pay off the interest. I'd rather default and eat beans for a year while starting fresh than eat beans for 20 years paying off old debt. You can call them lazy, you can call them thieves but - if they play their cards right - you can also call them "debt free".


        UnevenSurface Danny Sheahan 30 Jun 2015 21:12

        Greece will still be here. There will of course be enormous poverty (in various forms) in the short term - but even the FT says that the GDP will bounce up 6% quite quickly. After that, they'll be the cheapest holiday destination in Europe, exporting the cheapest wine and olive oil. The GDP could expand by 25%, up to pre-austerity levels. Excluding macro economic factors out of our control, I would be truly surprised if they aren't better off - overall - within five years.

        HaroldP -> owl905 30 Jun 2015 21:12

        The public debt of Greece existed BEFORE the recent election. The cruel conditions inflicted upon Greece by its "partners" existed BEFORE the recent election. The crisis existed BEFORE the recent election. Obviously Tsipras did not "wreck his country." His fellow citizens elected his party to fix an existing crisis. He won the election with a proposal of how to do that. He has deviated only slightly from his promises. I find him to be a "hero" in that he could teach the political class of Europe the importance of keeping the agreement between the state and the citizens. It is heroic indeed to be the honest politician of Europe. He has my respect. Regards, Harry.


        Paul Collins 30 Jun 2015 21:12

        Lending more billions to Greece so they can repay the interest on previous billions loand and those new loans repayed by cuts to pensions and more privatisation of public assets...blatant transference of cash from those who can't afford it to those who don't need it. Hopefully the Greek people give a resounding middle finger to the EU/IMF.

        And if I hear another muppet crack on about 'the Greeks ought to pay their taxes' I'll bloody lose my temper. D some reading for gawds sake. It really isn't that hard.


        malenkylitso -> owl905 30 Jun 2015 21:08

        Greece was forced into a corner, then took a bailout which less than 10% went to the Greeks. The rest went to the banks.
        Sounds like a protection racket.


        SystemD 30 Jun 2015 21:07

        This is not just about Greece; the impact of a Greek default go much wider. The IMF (and the Troika) has to be seen to be taking a hard line. If they don't, then their credibility with the rest of the world diminishes, particularly in Africa. The Germans are worried about the Euro as a currency; the Deutchmark was given up on the promise of stability, and the 1920's are still - just - within living memory. There is a lot of fear behind their stance. Stock markets generally are worried about the instability the situation is causing. They don't want Greece crushed - they just want a stable situation with predictable outcomes. Volatility is not in their interest. And Greece needs money and help to try to cure the cancer of corruption in its economy.

        Greece cannot pay back its debt. Unless the creditors agree to a very long term of repayment (at least 50 years) at reasonable rates, the only real options are for Greece to leave the Euro zone and go back to the drachma, or the debt must be written off, with the proviso that there will be no new loans, and Greece will have to rebuild and finance its economy from its own resources.

        Stanley Wallings 30 Jun 2015 21:06

        I feel sorry for the Greek people - they've had 5 hard years and for nothing. Grexit will be horrible for those who have to stay in Greece. The 'haves' have already moved their money and can just hop on a flight out. I hope Tsipras isn't driving the bus over a cliff for no reason other than to piss off the Troika. I hope he has a plan C

        medicynic RobWilson73 30 Jun 2015 21:06

        What a great idea! Let's get rid of pensions worldwide, then no one has any cause for complaint. I'm pleased to see that you are one of those who, when pensions in the UK increase say: "No thanks. I don't need it and don't deserve it. It only makes me fat anyway".
        In my experience in British industry, workforces are rife with 'tax-dodging, CSA dodging, mendacious, lazy wankers', a lot of who deserve a cut in wages never mind a pension.

        Monkeybus 30 Jun 2015 21:06

        SQUEEZE THE GREEKS, WRING THEM OUT, RINSE THEM. Other xenophobic pronouncements are available. SHIFTLESS, LAZY, FECKLESS. Can't they print their own money like more advanced nations?

        We are all in this together, err, hang on.

        Imagine if Gordon Brown had taken us into the Euro after all?


        clematlee FakeyWilson 30 Jun 2015 21:06

        and the west arms heart eating loonies in North Africa and invades and kills millions of people in the process, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Grenada, Korea, Panama, Syria and the list goes on. Watch the EX USA secetary of state on youtube saying the starvation of 500,000 children was a price worth paying, by the west imposed on Iraq. It was starvation to death. Her name was Madalin Allbrite. Don't worry about losing some so called freedoms to stop Allbite and her ilk.


        Tappert Heintz 30 Jun 2015 21:03

        "Greek failure to make IMF payment deals historic blow to eurozone"

        Sounds like the Daily Mail. Nonsense.


        owl905 Iheartbill 30 Jun 2015 21:02

        They're not barred from international trade, but it's really scewed to cash and barter. There simply isn't the mechanism to manage the exchange rates. No one outside the country will want rapidly devaluating and 'only-good-in-Greece' drachmas. Greeks don't realize what's coming after 15 years of Euro stability.

        One big surprise from them is that pipeline deal with Russia. That needs a lot of capital - Russia is walking into even more problems if it starts forwarding debt financing to Greece to get the pipeline built.

        The tourist industry won't be hit by it (except for foreign import items that are part of the industry) - it will be hit by the drachma, that has the profit from the industry shrink to nothing.


        Danny Sheahan Justitiadroit 30 Jun 2015 21:01

        Look at the Eurozone growth rates for the last 5 years, its a basket case.

        The Greeks have messed up over the years but the Euroland is no case study in growth.


        rberger ArundelXVI 30 Jun 2015 21:00

        Actually there is very little debt servicing involved. The 29 billion actually includes debt repayments (principal, not interest). Greece is not paying any interest for most of its bailout money until after 2020, but of course needs to pay interest on the bonds that it has issued itself.


        ScanDiscNow Danny Sheahan 30 Jun 2015 21:00

        Pre Euro Greek total production increased by some 600% between 1960 and 2001 while German total production increased by a mere 255%. However, throw in the Euro and the subsequent 15 years has German total production up 20% while Greece total production is down 26%
        ZeroHedge.


        Anthony Apergis owl905 30 Jun 2015 20:57

        And herein lies the issue my friend! The strictly monetary considerations that underpin your rationale betray the disintegration of what started in Rome as a visionary peace project for the peoples of Europe to an economic, neoliberal construct whose only concern is %s and profits. Surely, you must be able to see this. I would strongly advise you to read the preamble to the Treaty of Rome (1957).

        MonsieurBoombastic FilthyRichBanker 30 Jun 2015 20:54

        The capital controls in Greece apply to cash withdrawals and overseas transfers so this won't affect things like internet banking where cash is transferred within the system. The things you mention are probably still going on in most cases.

        moderatextremist 30 Jun 2015 20:51

        When Greece joined the EU, the corrupt government went on a spending spree of EU money, and used Goldman Sachs to cover it up. It is those politicians and Goldman Sachs, the vampire squid on the face of the world, that should be put on trial. I fear this development will be hurtful to an awful lot of good people, while the arseholes that created the mess will get away with it...... yet again.


        sefertzi7 30 Jun 2015 20:48

        The worst possible outcome. Now the crooks who caused the debt mountain in the first place (Papandreou x2, Simitis, Karamanlis, Samaras et al) will come back to power, reluctantly do what they are told with the quid pro quo of a blind eye turned while they carry on in their corrupt old ways.

        Call that a revolution? More like crash and burn to me.

        raymundlully -> Kaiama 30 Jun 2015 20:45

        If the debt is forgiven and goes away.
        Greece has in arrears to private pharma companies ,I doubt they'll extend credit orwant paying in toy Drachmas.

        Cash-strapped Greece has racked up mounting debts with international drugmakers and now owes the industry more than 1.1 billion euros ($1.2 billion), a leading industry official said on Wednesday.

        The rising unpaid bill reflects the growing struggle by the nearly bankrupt country to muster cash, and creates a dilemma for companies under moral pressure not to cut off supplies of life-saving medicines.

        Richard Bergstrom, director general of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, told Reuters his members had not been paid by Greece since December 2014. They are owed money by both hospitals and state-run health insurer EOPYY.


        MalleusSacerdotum 30 Jun 2015 20:45

        If Greece were a private or public company and continued to 're-finance' in the manner proposed by the IMF, its directors would be charged with insolvent trading.

        They are getting a lot of stick for admitting that they are effectively bankrupt.

        It is at least an honest admission of the state of play.


        Omniscience Jazzfunk23 30 Jun 2015 20:42

        They turned a primary deficit into a surplus within the last 5 years

        Greece have never run a primary surplus.
        http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/02/16/greece-still-has-a-vast-problem-it-doesnt-have-a-primary-budget-surplus/


        Dannybald George Purcell 30 Jun 2015 20:40

        Right wing conservative neo-libs corrupt elitists. The Troika is refusing to allow Greece to tax the wealthy corrupt tax avoider thieves, while forcing more of the workers into poverty.


        Vee1984 30 Jun 2015 20:40

        It is a well known fact that many Greeks like to avoid paying taxes just as there are many other European countries who avoid paying tax whether on an individual or on a company basis.

        The European Union has created this problem over a long period of time by allowing countries to borrow more than required and funds being used to build eg airports in Spain which are unused and unnecessary due ro their geographical location and many speculative projects undertaken throughout the EU. The reason for lending such sums, with a total disregard as to how interest payments can be repaid, never mind repaying the loans, has been done to enrich the lenders who, as we all know, love to gamble on how much money can be made. A risk game, played out every day, and, I suspect, some bets even being placed on the odds of Greece defaulting in some hedge fund offices somewhere in Europe. It should be noted that Spain and Italy have loaned money to Greece. How can this be when both countries have loans via the EU etc? Again, investors after interest on the loans with a total disregard as to their own countries finances. Greece is a democracy and should not give in to the rhetoric coming from the IMF or ECB. Why not? Neither can afford to and neither can Germany. Interesting days ahead. I truly hope that in the name of Democracy, the Greek people will vote NO in the referendum no matter the increasing hardship this will bring. The EU really need to be extremely mindful of the fact that abject poverty and the continuation of austerity gives rise to discontent and a surge in popularity to right-wing extremist views.


        Anthony Apergis Justitiadroit 30 Jun 2015 20:39

        Indeed, the EU has mutated from a union of the peoples of Europe, into a market-driven transnational institution governed by bankers and solely concerned with GDP growth rates (and I mean this in a strictly non-communist/leftist way).


        Dannybald DavidRees 30 Jun 2015 20:36

        As a German voter I would never vote for the right wing neo-lib corporatist Fascist scum in government. The hypocrisy of this regime is turning millions of Europeans against Germany and rightly so. The London conference of 1953 halved German debt owed for destroying Europe. Greek debt was 100% of GDP in 2008 and that had nothing to do with Tspiras.

        The 'Eurogroup' only cares about a tiny elitist group of Europeans and not about the majority of it's people. Wake up DavidRees and the rest of you indoctrinated half wits.
        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/27/greece-spain-helped-germany-recover


        Omniscience 30 Jun 2015 20:35

        If the EU are the enemy now, imagine the bed wetting and howls of protest if Greece had to make real repayments.

        http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/06/28/uk-eurozone-greece-debt-factbox-idUKKCN0P80XU20150628

        Euro zone countries have already extended the maturities of their loans to Greece from 15 to 30 years and reduced the interest rates on some to just 0.5 basis points above their borrowing cost. They also granted Greece a 10-year moratorium on interest payments on the second bailout loan from the euro zone rescue fund.


        FlashRat 30 Jun 2015 20:35

        I would have thought that a "senior german conservative politician" telling the Times that whatever happens Tsipras must be forced from office is an historic blow to the EU. Now, at least, people know what it is and who it is for.

        PennyForYourComment DavidRees 30 Jun 2015 20:35

        Which is why the Eurozone concept is fundamentally broken.

        Imagine if every time one US went into a bad recession, all the other states had to vote on whether to send them money, with all the governors having to agree... and then trying to post their own conditions on how that States economy be run before the money were delivered. It would be an unworkable mess, especially given acrimony and resentment between states and regions (North vs. Deep south vs. midwest, vs. west coast, etc)... The country would sooner or later fall apart as States started rebelling and quitting. It would be absurd.

        But somehow Europe is supposed to run on exactly this system. If you are going to have a single currency, then you need common fiscal mechanism binding the areas together, because these act as automatic financial stabilizers when there's a regional crash. If Florida's economy crashes, money automatically pours in from everywhere else to cover unemployment insurance, etc, via the Federal government. No similar thing happens with Greece in Europe.

        BunyipBluegum theoldgreyfox 30 Jun 2015 20:34

        The default you are referring to is a recent one (2014) - I was referring to the previous default in 2001, which was followed by a significant period of economic growth and recovery. I am not suggesting that a default is always the best solution in such circumstances, nor that the immediate fallout won't be problematic. However in any case the example of Iceland clearly demonstrates that a default can be the best option economically in some circumstances.

        It's the same principle as bankruptcy: if your debts reach a level that can never be paid back, it's better to wipe the slate clean and start again, even though the cost of doing this may be to slide back down the snake to the bottom of the board.


        Anthony Apergis 30 Jun 2015 20:33

        To sum up:
        Roughly €170b initial Greek debt +
        Roughly €150b financial aid to Greece aimed at repaying initial creditors (NOT the restructuring of the Greek economy) + austerity measures while doubling an already unsustainable debt = EU solidarity to a member- state.
        And the above does not even take into account whose economy did the initial debt prop up. I cannot believe that the people of Europe cannot see what the REAL problem is.
        The EU - and by extension Europe - is truly in trouble.


        raymundlully Franco87 30 Jun 2015 20:32

        UK had third world inflation in the 1970s it took the IMF medicine broke the unions in the 80s and created a home fit for bankers.

        www.whatsthecost.com/historic.cpi.aspx

        1980, 18.00%. 1979, 13.40%. 1978, 8.30%. 1977, 15.80%. 1976, 16.50%. 1975, 24.20%. 1974, 16.00%. 1973, 9.20%. 1972, 7.10%. 1971, 9.40%. 1970, 6.40%

        Danny Sheahan Omniscience 30 Jun 2015 20:31

        What about economic slums like Portugal and Italy.

        They are much worse off now than Greece was at the start of its crisis. It will not take much to have Italy in crisis.

        Portugal is heading for an abandoned state after its crisis so its not much of a threat now, how it will pay its debt in the future is anyone's guess. Though it is safe to presume that a country in such decline will have less people paying tax.

        They'll want more than billion.


        RGBargie 30 Jun 2015 20:31

        It looks like Greece might soon be sailing into uncharted waters.

        I can just imagine what the consequences will be for the EZ if Greece goes alone, and then makes a success of their new found freedom. I imagine there might well be others ready to abandon ship if that happens.

        Westmorlandia BunyipBluegum 30 Jun 2015 20:31

        Point taken, but whatever the Greeks don't pay back to the EFSF will have to be paid by other Eurozone countries, as that's how the EFSF guarantees work. So it isn't just about whether it's fair for Greeks to pay for what their government borrowed, but whether it's more fair for Greeks to pay or for everyone else in the Eurozone to pay for what elected Greek governments borrowed.

        Reality has said for some time that Greece can't pay, and therefore some of it should have been written off. But that's more about pragmatism than fairness.

        FilthyRichBanker Wily Ways 30 Jun 2015 20:30

        He could do what the rest of Europe does and make paying taxes compulsory rather than voluntary for a start.

        Cut the bloated Public sector and halve the defence budget in line with the rest of Europe - and sell off the $50bn of assets they previously agreed to.


        Bardamux Michael Richard Allen 30 Jun 2015 20:29

        Ignorant it is then. So i'll explain it to you step by step.

        1) If you deposit money in a bank, you are loaning the bank your money. And in many countries you will get a small interest rate for it.
        2) it is considered a short term loan, because you can withdraw it at (almost) any time.
        3) Remember Icesave in the UK ? That bank did not pay its depositors
        4) Other banks received hundreds of billions of euro's / pounds / dollars
        5) Banks could loan money at almost 0% even with terrible collateral to help them survive
        6) Greece will pay its debt if they receive half or even less help than the Dutch and UK banks did.

        Get it now or do you need more steps to help you out ?

        Omniscience Danny Sheahan 30 Jun 2015 20:29

        Most of the Debt is dormant thanks to the EU

        http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/06/28/uk-eurozone-greece-debt-factbox-idUKKCN0P80XU20150628

        Euro zone countries have already extended the maturities of their loans to Greece from 15 to 30 years and reduced the interest rates on some to just 0.5 basis points above their borrowing cost. They also granted Greece a 10-year moratorium on interest payments on the second bailout loan from the euro zone rescue fund.


        Omniscience 30 Jun 2015 20:27

        To be fair, they have only been lying about reform since joining the Euro.

        2005 : Greece faces up to taxing times

        Greece plans to offset a projected shortfall this year in tax revenues with a €2bn securitisation deal, in spite of European Commission strictures against the use of one-off measures to reduce the budget deficit. George Alogoskoufis, finance minister, said in an interview with the Financial Times that the transaction would enable Greece to achieve this year's budget deficit target. He also stressed securitisation was "a temporary measure that will give us time to bring about permanent structural corrections".
        Joaquin Almunia, the European Union's budget commissioner, signalled acceptance of this year's planned transaction during a visit to Athens last week but urged Greece to accelerate structural reforms next year.

        http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0c99809c-3abd-11da-b0d3-00000e2511c8.html


        TerryChandler OnTheRobertELee 30 Jun 2015 20:26

        The problems of Greece haven't happened since "a radical populist party" was elected. On the contrary, the present government was elected because of the problems.


        Danny Sheahan outsiderwithinsight 30 Jun 2015 20:23

        Not at all, it means that Italy and Portugal are next.

        If Greece leaves and its hard to see how they will not at this stage then the Euro has become a non-permanent currency arrangement that the EU or ECB will not defend its integrity.

        That marks it out as different from every other currency in the world. Only currencies that have allowed that in the past went on to be all failed entities.

        CambridgeAfterDark 30 Jun 2015 20:25

        Splendid, send a message to all banker gangsters everywhere.
        Best way to deal with a bully, is hit them back.
        Guess the right-wing trolls on here look pretty silly now, all saying last week the FTSE would rally upwards upon a Grexit!


        BunyipBluegum robbyevans 30 Jun 2015 20:20

        The present circumstances in Greece were inherited by the current government from the previous right-wing government, which managed to bring them out by faithfully following the austerity prescriptions of the Troika.

        However both left and right-wing governments of the past, who created and hid the enormous debt, are also to blame.

        coxinutant 30 Jun 2015 20:16

        A continued austerity programme makes it unlikely that Greece will be able to grow economically. Continued economic pain-> lower ability to repay debt. So all those people who get on their hig horse and demand that Greece repay its debts should keep in mind that debt cannot be repaid when you have 25% unemployment, when wages plummet and people cannot spend to make the economy grow. If austerity had been the miracle cure, it would have worked years ago. So stop bandying about terms like 'communist' and 'marxist' and all that BS. The current government in Greece did not create the crisis, the austerity, the 25% unemployment. The crisis was created by an irresponsible banking sector, which was then bailed out by your money (yeah ordinary Joe, looking at you). Austerity was hatched by The IMF, against the advice of sensible economists...

        And it hasn't worked. And I am sure the 'marxist' policies of Syriza did not create the enormous unemployment that Greece faces. Last time that occured in Europe, fascist governments came to power, aided by pro-fascist symptahies in France and the UK...


        BunyipBluegum -> peter nelson 30 Jun 2015 20:14

        It was the Greek governments of the mid 2000s, who were corrupt and nepotistic. If it was them and their wealthy friends who were going to carry the can for this, then I'd say well deserved.

        But the whole reason why Syriza is against the austerity program is that it doesn't greatly affect these people, but it DOES greatly affect ordinary Greeks, especially the working class, elderly and vulnerable.

        Also it hasn't worked. If you were prescribed a foul medicine by your doctor that made you feel sick and weak, and then failed to cure your problem, would you be inclined to go back for another dose?

        AtomsNest -> echoniner 30 Jun 2015 20:14

        If they actually wanted payment, they'd be reasonable. But payment isn't their priority, these organisations want power over Greece.

        World Oil Energy Consumption by Sector, 1973-2010

        World Oil Energy Consumption by Sector, 1973-2010

        Oil can be put to a variety of uses, with transportation accounting for a growing share of the oil consumed. While the transport sector consumed 42% of the oil in in 1973 this share climbed to 61.5% in 2010. The growing level of global motorization is a core component behind this relative growth, particularly the growth of international trade. Non-energy uses mostly relate to the petrochemical industry where petroleum is used to manufacture products such as plastics or fertilizers. Other sectors concern agriculture (powering farm equipment), commercial and public services (power generation) and residential (heating oil).

        [Jun 30, 2015] Stiglitz: Troika has Kind of Criminal Responsibility

        "...Alexis Tsipras must be stopped: the underlying message of Europe's leaders. Germany's vice-chancellor has become the first senior EU politician to voice the private views of many - that the Greek PM is a threat to the European order
        By Ian Traynor - Guardian"
        .
        "...Tsipras is only a symbol of what must be stopped. What must be stopped is democratic interference in the affairs of finance capital. What do "the people" know about such important matters? Besides, they might favor their own interests over those of the system (meaning those of the oligarchs)."
        .
        "...For finance capital, the stakes in Greece are high. They must make the Greeks pay a very high price for defiance. If not, Spain, Portugal, etc. will try the same thing.
        What good is the "will of the people" and democracy when it goes up against the banks?"

        .
        "...Finance capital now MUST take untenable speculative risks. The state now MUST bail out finance capital when their bubbles burst. The international institutions now MUST enforce draconian austerity to pay for the bailouts. ...because otherwise there wouldn't be enough value produced for the finance sector to appropriate and accumulate. This is the END GAME a perpetual smash-and-grab operation by the plutocrats. "

        Jun 30, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com

        From Time:

        Joseph Stiglitz to Greece's Creditors: Abandon Austerity Or Face Global Fallout: ... "They have criminal responsibility," he says of the so-called troika of financial institutions that bailed out the Greek economy in 2010, namely the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission and the European Central Bank. "It's a kind of criminal responsibility for causing a major recession," Stiglitz tells TIME in a phone interview.
        Along with a growing number of the world's most influential economists, Stiglitz has begun to urge the troika to forgive Greece's debt – estimated to be worth close to $300 billion in bailouts – and to offer the stimulus money that two successive Greek governments have been requesting.
        Failure to do so, Stiglitz argues, would not only worsen the recession in Greece – already deeper and more prolonged than the Great Depression in the U.S. – it would also wreck the credibility of Europe's common currency, the euro, and put the global economy at risk of contagion. ...
        JohnH said...

        Some background on the stakes in Greece AKA why Greece must be made to heel--Aegean gas, banking and oil company profits, and, yes, the Clintons.
        http://seekingalpha.com/article/782961-the-u-s-looks-to-exploit-the-greek-re-default

        pgl said in reply to JohnH...

        Note when Stiglitz writes this:

        "Of course, the economics behind the program that the "troika" (the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund) foisted on Greece five years ago has been abysmal, resulting in a 25% decline in the country's GDP. I can think of no depression, ever, that has been so deliberate and had such catastrophic consequences: Greece's rate of youth unemployment, for example, now exceeds 60%."

        The troika economics he is condemning was the refusal of the ECB to do QE earlier. Troika's bad economics is exactly what you have been advocating for the US for a long time. Just in case you missed this.

        mulp said in reply to pgl...

        Should Congress give Puerto Rico $150 billion to get it out of debt?

        Or should Puerto Rico be forced out of the dollar zone and thus face drastic spending cuts.

        Larry said in reply to pgl...

        Agree on QE. But even that would not have fixed Greece. It doesn't belong in the EZ and never did.

        pgl said in reply to Larry...

        I agree. Cyprus made a mistake by entering the EZ as well.

        Dan Kervick said in reply to pgl...

        And yet economists have been extremely slow to react to this massive economic derailment with anything close to the kinds of bold emergency recovery plans they would be ginning up if the same disaster was taking place in their own countries.

        Why aren't the kinds of figures Stiglitz just cited the headlines here? Why has the Great Greek Depression been treated by the media, and most economists, as though it is fundamentally just a disagreement between Greece and its creditors?

        What is the plan for putting the 20% of the Greek over-15 population that is not working, but should be working, back to work?

        Maybe people think that millions and millions of Greek people without jobs is just Greece being Greece? That profound economic dysfunction and failure is a case of "well, what do you expect from those people?"

        Economists seem to have been so zombified by the inscrutable bureaucratic rhetoric and psychopathic insanity of the Eurocrats, and the bumbling incoherence of the Greek government, that most of them aren't able to think clearly. The Euros have convinced them all that any outside-the-narrow-box thinking will cause chaos, panic, unraveling, The Unthinkable, the Complete End of Europe as We Know It and the Return of the Satanic Hordes. So they sit on sidelines hoping that someone will make some deal that allows Greece to keep paying forever, grindingly, in a way that isn't too, too, too, too painful.

        Part of the problem maybe is that mainstream economists have too many buddies in the Eurocracy. They can't believe that all those nice people they went to graduate school with have gone so bonkers.

        The situation with the Eurocrats reminds me a little bit of Alec Guinness in The Bridge on the River Kwai. A noble project (in this case, the Europe project) evolves over time into a demented and fanatical religion whose ultimate purpose is forgotten by its architects, who lose the capacity to adapt to evolving circumstances with common sense.

        Larry said in reply to Dan Kervick...

        McArdle notes today that US pundits have been more supportive of Greece than the Europeans. Proximity breeds contempt?

        Dan Kervick said in reply to Larry...

        It's not surprising. European governments own most of the debt now and want to get paid; and they don't want any special deals that weren't available to them.

        And the Greeks themselves are in denial. They haven't yet come to grips with what it's going to take to rebuild their collapsed economy.

        Dan Kervick said in reply to pgl...

        Krugman has been better than most in calling out some of the bad actors, but what is Krugman's plan for ending Greece's depression?

        Is it the same plan he would recommend to American leaders if America were in Greece's position?

        Would Krugman, an expert on depressions, advocate that the US run a surplus in a depression - just not a very big one - so it can pay its creditors?

        Dan Kervick said in reply to Dan Kervick...

        His column today on crippling austerity is pretty good though. The problem, as he says, is the grip of the notion that leaving the Euro is "unthinkable".

        A lot of Europeans have gotten too tied to the idea that one country leaving the Euro is some kind of continental catastrophe. To read some of the hysteria - such as a recent Guardian piece - Greeks first leave the euro and then its back to Bolsheviks, Nazis, trench warfare slaughter or Mongol invasions or something.

        But the euro isn't the UN Charter or the Magna Carta or the Treaty of Versailles. It's just money. The unity of Europe does not stand or fall on whether a country decides to use a particular form of money. There are several EU members, in perfectly good standing, who do not use the euro. Big deal.

        I understand that most of the Greeks themselves cannot wrap their heads around this idea. But economists can easily.

        Anyway, Greece and the rest of the world have gotten themselve so tangled up in the obsessive attention to the secondary matter of the Greek "debt crisis" that they don't seem to have time to think about the primary crisis - the Nobody has a Job and Our National Output is in the Toilet Crisis.

        Benedict@Large said in reply to pgl...

        QE? Oh nonsense. The Euro banks knew Goldman had washed Greece's books, and that Greece was not a suitable candidate for the initial loans, much less the subsequent ones. This is onerous debt, and is simply uncollectible. Banks must relearn to live and die by their ability to make good loans. And if the elites get burned in the process? Maybe they'll learn to stop staffing their banks with assclowns.

        JohnH said in reply to pgl...

        The Troika won't allow Greece to use Aegean gas as collateral precisely because Greece is supposed to hand over its wealth without much if any compensation...

        pgl said in reply to JohnH...

        I despise this Troika. Whether they are evil or whether they are dumbass liquidionists like you are - it does not matter. They are being very destructive. OK, you are not evil but you are stupid with your fear of using aggregate demand stimulus. Same horrific results.

        Sandwichman said...

        Joe! Joe! Joe!

        (and as for "Chief Economist" Blanchard: M-I-T... I-M-F... M-O... U-S-E: Mickey Mouse).

        http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2015/06/m-i-teee-squeeze-you-next-week-i-m-f.html

        Sandwichman said in reply to Sandwichman...

        No to austerity! Yes to democracy!

        http://www.altersummit.eu/accueil/article/no-to-austerity-yes-to-democracy?lang=en

        "Europe is at a crossroads. The institutions of the Troika are not only trying to destroy Greece; they are trying to destroy us all. Now is the time to raise our voices against this blackmail by the European elites.

        "Next Sunday the Greek people will be able to vote to reject the blackmail that is austerity and vote for dignity – with hope for another Europe. This historic moment requires everyone in Europe to speak up and take a stand.

        "We all say NO to austerity, pension cuts, and VAT increases; We all say NO to poverty and privileges; We all say NO to blackmailing and to the dismantling of social rights; We all say NO to fear and the destruction of democracy.

        "We all say YES to dignity, sovereignty, democracy, and solidarity with the citizens of Greece.

        "This is not a conflict between Greece and Europe. It is about two antagonist visions of Europe: our Europe of solidarity and democracy, created from below and without closed borders; and their vision, which denies social justice, dismantles democracy, opposes the protection of the weakest and the taxation of the wealthy."

        Basta -- Enough -- Another Europe is possible !

        DrDick said in reply to Sandwichman...

        He certainly nailed this one. The Troika are demanding that the Greek people protect the plutocrats (mostly foreign) for paying any price for their reckless and feckless action and democracy (and the "little people" be damned.

        mulp said in reply to DrDick...

        We should not have expected debt repayment from Mexico in 1994?

        More important, all the debt of Puerto Rico should be forgiven and then we should give them all the money they ask for to keep the country afloat?

        DrDick said in reply to mulp...

        People who cannot pay their debts will not pay them. Everything else is a pipe dream. You cannot privilege capital over human welfare.

        Peter K. said in reply to Sandwichman...

        Agreed. The IMF research dept had been looking good. (And the IMF asked the Fed not to raise rates this year).

        But their behavior regarding Greece is criminal.

        anne said in reply to Paine ...

        http://time.com/3939621/stiglitz-greece/?xid=tcoshare

        If the Greek economy collapses without the euro, "you have on the edge of Europe a failed state," Stiglitz says. "That's when the geopolitics become very ugly."

        By providing financial aid, Russia and China would then be able to undermine Greece's allegiance to the E.U. and its foreign policy decisions, creating what Stiglitz calls "an enemy within."

        [ This is xenophobic rubbish, showing a mean-spirited and wrong-headed disdain for China and Russia. ]

        anne said in reply to anne...

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/29/alexis-tsipras-must-be-stopped-the-underlying-message-of-europes-leaders

        June 29, 2015

        Alexis Tsipras must be stopped: the underlying message of Europe's leaders. Germany's vice-chancellor has become the first senior EU politician to voice the private views of many - that the Greek PM is a threat to the European order
        By Ian Traynor - Guardian

        Sandwichman said in reply to anne...

        Except that Tsipras is only a symbol of what must be stopped. What must be stopped is democratic interference in the affairs of finance capital. What do "the people" know about such important matters? Besides, they might favor their own interests over those of the system (meaning those of the oligarchs).

        mulp said in reply to Sandwichman...

        You are saying "yes, the Greece and Puerto Rico can drain my retirement savings because Stiglitz says its democratic"?

        I speak as someone who had lots of savings in BofA which bought the bank that bought my local bank listening to people calling for BofA to be liquidated and all the debt it held written off.

        Jeffrey Stewart said...

        It never ceases to amaze the number of human lives must be destroyed through unemployment and poverty due to "austerity" so that financial capitalists are repaid in full.

        JohnH said in reply to Jeffrey Stewart...

        It's how they keep the rest of the world under their thumbs...

        Ellis said...

        For finance capital, the stakes in Greece are high. They must make the Greeks pay a very high price for defiance. If not, Spain, Portugal, etc. will try the same thing.

        What good is the "will of the people" and democracy when it goes up against the banks?

        Sandwichman said in reply to Ellis...

        "For finance capital, the stakes in Greece are high."

        Yes, the stakes are high for finance capital. The choice is between euthanasia of the rentier and suicide-bomber-style financial terrorism. Finance capital opts for the latter.

        We should all be clear on what the choices are and why finance capital chooses the reckless strategy it does. Finance capital CANNOT win this fight to the death. There is no win-win compromise that will enable the continuation of business-as-usual to be sustainable.

        'Tis the final conflict. Greece is only an episode but there will be episode after episode based on the same scenario. The "wages-rut system" no longer has the "beautiful" capacity of ensuring the continued accumulation of capital merely through an imbalance in the economic power of labor and capital.

        Sandwichman said in reply to Sandwichman...

        Finance capital now MUST take untenable speculative risks. The state now MUST bail out finance capital when their bubbles burst. The international institutions now MUST enforce draconian austerity to pay for the bailouts.

        ...because otherwise there wouldn't be enough value produced for the finance sector to appropriate and accumulate.

        This is the END GAME a perpetual smash-and-grab operation by the plutocrats.

        Glen said in reply to Ellis...

        It's well understood in modern economics that when banks and ultra rich speculators make horrible investments that wreck the world economy, then the innocent must pay. That whole capitalism risk/reward thing is so passe.

        Ellis said in reply to Glen...

        What's behind the debt? In 2004, the government paid through the nose to host the Summer Olympics. The Greek military sucks up 3 or 4 per cent of GDP buying expensive weapons and ammo from the U.S. Germany and France. When Greece entered the EU, it employed the services of Goldman Sachs to hide their debt -- paying a pretty penny for their services. And when the crisis hit in 2008, the fear that Greece might default boosted interest rates for the Greek government to usurious levels. In other words, it's pillage pure and simple.

        And now, the IMF figures that the best way forward is to starve the population even more.

        [Jun 30, 2015]Joseph Stiglitz: how I would vote in the Greek referendum

        "...Actually 90% of the money went off to pay the private creditors (French and German banks who had invested in Greece). Only 10% amount of the loan ever went into the Greek economy but that was more than balanced by the the damage that austerity politics did to the country."
        .
        "...So the IMF and the Eurozone have in effect been playing debt collectors for French and German banks, and have attempted to bestow the costs on Greece. Is there any way that could possibly ever have worked?"
        .
        "... Lagarde, is getting smacked and rightly so; she, Merkel et al, all thought they could dictate to and bully Greece, and Greece would roll over, well it hasn't."
        .
        "...Only because the banks were too big to fail and therefore letting them crash would have crashed the entire economy. If you ignore that, in theory holding the banks responsible for the crisis they created and making them insolvent instead of using QE to bail them out could theoretically have been something that held the right people to blame, and didn't punish ordinary people with austerity.
        It's pretty smart of the banks as they got themselves into a position where, when they screw up, other people have to pay the price."
        .
        "...Tsipras called them "criminals". I guess it is more close to the truth."
        .
        "...Greece cannot pay, but no one can say that as it undermines the whole financial system, which is based on confidence. We can't 'write off Greek debt' (as Jeremy Corbyn helpfully suggests) as no indebted countries would feel the need to pay off debts again - they'd just wait for the 'Greece' solution."
        Jun 30, 2015 | The Guardian

        colin2d -> colin2d 30 Jun 2015 10:10

        The big problem right now in Greece is lack of liquidity to operate the economy. There simply is not enough money in circulation.

        If newly issued Greek euros are not traded on international markets and they are legal tender in Greece and the Greek government accepts them as tax payments, there is no market value. You have an assigned value, like in other controlled systems. So you can have a high velocity of circulation as people spend them quickly, but no problem of devaluation - unless the Greek government would issue Greek euros to total excess.

        Suppose you are a shopkeeper in Greece and your pensioner customers pay you in Greek euros. And suppose, the Greek law says you can pay your suppliers in Greek euros and the supplier can pay his taxes in Greek euros. In that case, the Greek government will need capital controls to ration the supplier's euros to buy imports. But that's likely to stimulate local production and be a plus for the Greek economy.

        Local fiat currencies do work.

        It is a rather different and probably not very acceptable example, but the Cuban 'CUC', is not backed at 1:1 against the US dollar in an open market. Its value is the fiat of the Cuban government. No open market trading means no devaluation by market forces.

        Trumbledon 30 Jun 2015 10:03

        We never had an advanced economy actually asking for that kind of thing, delayed payment

        They still haven't - Greece is no more an advanced economy than a person who buys a houseful of luxury items using credit cards is a wealthy person.

        Greece has virtually no industry worth mentioning and virtually no agriculture; the Greek economy is almost entirely reliant on tourism.

        Greece has a smaller GDP than Thailand or Argentina, Greece's economy is roughly half the size of Vietnam's. How on earth can Greece be considered an 'Advanced economy'? That's claptrap.

        mikeyk1 Omniscience 30 Jun 2015 10:03

        Actually 90% of the money went off to pay the private creditors (French and German banks who had invested in Greece). Only 10% amount of the loan ever went into the Greek economy but that was more than balanced by the the damage that austerity politics did to the country.

        Adam Fo 30 Jun 2015 09:57

        It's probably worth adding here that Argentina did pay off it's IMF loans in full as well as the modest amount of interest charged. One of the reasons they could do that is they are a more resource based economy than Greece. Increasing commodity prices during that period helped them.
        Like Greece holders of Governments bonds saw massive haircuts. 50% (100 billion euro) in the case of Greece in 2012.

        Thalia01 ThinBanker 30 Jun 2015 09:55

        Only because the banks were too big to fail and therefore letting them crash would have crashed the entire economy.

        If you ignore that, in theory holding the banks responsible for the crisis they created and making them insolvent instead of using QE to bail them out could theoretically have been something that held the right people to blame, and didn't punish ordinary people with austerity.

        It's pretty smart of the banks as they got themselves into a position where, when they screw up, other people have to pay the price.

        Hottentot 30 Jun 2015 09:40

        Sorry, but the Guardian can't compare Argentina, Zimbabwe, Somalia and Sudan, to Greece, as none of them were / are in the Euro. Lagarde, is getting smacked and rightly so; she, Merkel et al, all thought they could dictate to and bully Greece, and Greece would roll over, well it hasn't. It's about time others started telling the IMF (interesting that it's referred to as the Washington-based organisation) and the EU who are all about 'protecting' their interests, to sod off.

        So the IMF and the Eurozone have in effect been playing debt collectors for French and German banks, and have attempted to bestow the costs on Greece. Is there any way that could possibly ever have worked?

        bonkthebonk -> Adam Fo 30 Jun 2015 09:50

        True, but how many of them are in a flawed currency union that actively contributed to their demise, saw their mainly foreign reckless, speculative lenders' liabilities socialised and how many of these poorer countries have been lent ever more money just to service the their debts and nothing more?

        CaptainGrey -> colin2d 30 Jun 2015 09:26

        Calling it a Greek Euro as opposed to a new Drachma won't make any difference. It will crash overnight. Greece has no reserves to prop it up.

        optimist99 30 Jun 2015 09:24

        The Greeks need to look hard at Argentina - once one of the richest countries in the world....

        "By 1908 it had surpassed Denmark, Canada and The Netherlands to reach 7th place-behind Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom and Belgium. Argentina's per capita income was 70% higher than Italy's, 90% higher than Spain's, 180% higher than Japan's and 400% higher than Brazil's". (Bolt & Van Zanden 2013)

        Now it is number 55....

        (At the moment Greece is at 44 - similar to Portugal).

        CaptainGrey -> EricthePenguin 30 Jun 2015 09:24

        Mexico didn't default, it devalued. Completely different. As I note above/below (depending on your settings)

        Argentina was shut out for a decade, but was able to get through it thanks to it's vast natural reserves of mining, farming and forestry, plus strict financial discipline. Greece has none of those things.

        Default could be a disaster for a generation of more.

        Actually, nobody knows for certain how bad a default will be. But it will not be a walk in the park

        ThinBanker -> Gelion 30 Jun 2015 09:24

        "But of course that's not debt, that's just a way of lowering currency values to keep your exports competitive and put your citizens into Austerity"

        Huh? Without QE, 'austerity' would have been all the greater ...

        PeterHG 30 Jun 2015 08:50

        It seems inconceivable to me that Greece will leave the Euro. The loss of face to the Brussels European Union bureaucracy would be too great for them to bear . Such a happening is beyond their imagination so they will find some means to keep Greece in. The Greek politicians sense this and that knowledge dictates their actions.

        ApfelD -> Johanes 30 Jun 2015 09:13

        Tsipras called them "criminals". I guess it is more close to the truth.


        optimist99 -> sandywinder 30 Jun 2015 09:15

        "is that borrowing and spending too much will always get you in the end. In case people have forgotten, the UK has a £1.5 trillion national debt."

        But the folk who lend money to the UK are perfectly happy to continue to do this... So it's not "borrowing and spending too much" in the UK... (HMG can borrow money over 30 years at less than 3% interest...).

        kentspur 30 Jun 2015 08:36

        It's a default.

        This semantic dancing on a pinhead just shows the absurdity of the situation. Greece cannot pay, but no one can say that as it undermines the whole financial system, which is based on confidence. We can't 'write off Greek debt' (as Jeremy Corbyn helpfully suggests) as no indebted countries would feel the need to pay off debts again - they'd just wait for the 'Greece' solution.

        [Jun 30, 2015]Cramer Danger alert-dont buy on the market dip

        Beth

        The economic recovery of so many countries, especially the U.S. has been fueled by cheap money. Many countries do not have actual assets to support or backup that huge amount of paper. That is why you get problems like Greece, Puerto Rico, etc. These situations were caused by both the creditor and the debtor.

        B.O. Stinks

        The economy won't recover until the voters decide to put some politicians in office who represent the voters. Right now there's not a one of them that listen to the constituents.
        It's all about the super pac campaign contributions and lobbyist pumping up the politicians pockets.

        John

        Cramer is right on this one this time.

        1. Who knows how much of that Greek debt has been pledged as collateral for derivatives trades?

        2. Contagion could happen. The total debt of Greece, around $350 billion, isn't that big relative to a lot of other countries or the market capitalization of many world markets, but that isn't the whole story here.

        3. Cramer warned about the banks on July 29, 2007 in his now-famous "they know nothing rant." You may think the guy is a tout and pumper, but I would give his words some heed since he proved correct on that significant call.

        4. More damage to come? We, the public, don't know all the stuff that is going on under the radar about this general bank default. There could easily be more damage to come.

        5. Signaling from top authorities. Christine Lagarde, IMF head, publicly asked the Fed on June 4 not to raise rates until 2016. It's now clear she was signaling rough waters ahead for banking. Ordinarily the heads of major world finance organizations don't engage in such public statements. She could just pick up the phone and call Janet Yellen. Why did she make the public speech? I suggest signaling. We all just witnessed it live on TV.

        6. Q2 earnings releases will buoy up the market soon but weaker outlooks in Europe for Q3 and Q4 will drag down earnings projections for US multi nationals. That will serve as a drag on share prices.

        7. Unless you're prepared to use inverse ETFs, put options on futures, or more complex options strategies, I would consider keeping some powder dry (i.e. cash). The SP500 was at 1862 on October 14, 2014, only 8 1/2 months ago and could easily retrace most of the current gains back to that level of major support.

        jim b

        Cramer is a shill for hedge funds and banksters, obviously a few will try and day trade this but think about it, 2007 Dow 7000 today Dow 17000 you know the money will disappear and a 4000 point correction will be an evening out and then interest rates will rise and the market will be on tailspin then flat for 3 years until the next president starts to borrow more money from the fed and the charade will try to start again .

        Bat

        Summer often sees corrections and while 2% is not a correction it may be the start. The market is overvalued and while it can stay that way for years on occasion it corrects to fairer valuations.

        Fish

        Japan and US can take heed of Greece. Bailing out Japan and US will be impossible.

        James

        Keep in mind that Cramer, by virtue of having his own show, is a safety-minded entertainer. The stock market is an overpriced casino and none of the negatives have changed in the last fifteen years. If you feel lucky, go for it. Remember: winners know when to walk away.

        James

        Cramer is so full of it, just look at what he said about Greece before. They are no impact for us or Europe, it only 2% of Europe, which accounts for only 3/4% for us. He is trying to get a quick trade to the downside to make his options pay off big time, Allegedly.

        GJ

        "It is important to note that this list of warning signs does not mean that the U.S. is headed into another Lehman Brothers situation. That was systematic"
        huh! you mean "systemic' right, Cramer?

        Todd

        Cramer taught us you always buy the dip! The Federal Reserve is always going to be there! The ECB, the IMF, the JCB are printing money like mad and you always buy the dip!! Don't worry, buy the dip! Buy the dip! All the expert money managers on CNBC buy the DIP!!

        Masterblaster 1 hour ago

        You should all see the You Tube video of Cramer explaining how they manipulated the market. Priceless. In short He/they would run the futures up and then sell all day. He said it was very satisfying to say the least.

        Ed

        How about don't buy Cramer. That would be smarter!

        [Jun 29, 2015] Russian sanctions blockback

        www.unz.com
        Fern , June 29, 2015 at 3:21 am
        It would take a heart of stone not to laugh. What's the word I'm looking for? Ah yes, schadenfreude:-

        "In 2015, the German economy is estimated to lose up to 290,000 jobs and receive $10 billion less than it could due to restrictive measure imposed on Moscow, the Committee on Eastern European Economic Relations told Contra Magazine. German exports to Russia last year fell by $7.2 billion.
        "The current developments exceed our worst fears," committee chairman Eckhard Cordes said.
        This nasty short-term implication of an unreasonable Western policy towards Russia is affecting many European countries, not only the largest economy in the EU. In total, the European Union could potentially lose as much as $110 billion and up to 2 million jobs from the anti-Russian sanctions, according to the committee's estimates.

        But the long-term consequences are far more profound and damaging. German businesses now fear that their reliable and long-time Russian partners have pivoted to Asia, specifically China.

        German businesses are concerned that this shift could be permanent. By the time restrictive measures are lifted, former ties and partnerships could be long gone."

        http://sputniknews.com/business/20150629/1023973728.html

        "Former ties and partnerships could be gone". You bet. What's it gonna take before Europe's so called leaders wake up to the fact that US sanctions aren't just about trying to destroy Russia's economy, but also about doing serious, possibly terminal damage to the European one?

        [Jun 29, 2015] Everything Russia puts out is actually disinformation, while everything the west puts out, despite being caught lying, is fact

        "... What infuriates me is the assumption that everything Russia puts out as fact is actually disinformation, while everything the west puts out as fact is fact, despite being caught lying again and again and again. Believe us – baby, we've changed."
        "...I also do not really get what the EU is doing. There already exist pro-western propaganda outlets, for example RFE/RL, etc. In Hungary, more than 50% of the media is western owned. So why is more propaganda needed?"
        "...Typical duplication of effort so as to charge the public purse twice over for the same work. The EU produced a marvelous graphic extravaganza intended to lure Ukraine, extolling the virtues of European integration and the salutatory effect it would have on important things like life expectancy, health care, availability of clean water, life expectancy (so important they put it in twice), friendly police instead of extortion-junkies, bla, bla. I encourage everyone to have a look through it from the lens of today, and see how many came true. I especially loved the one about tolerance – mercy, yes; tolerance in Ukraine has certainly taken a leap upward thanks to Europe's beneficial influence. "

        Fern, June 28, 2015 at 7:34 pm

        And the latest news from Inside the Bubble or, the EU as it's sometimes known, is this breathless piece from the Guardian announcing the actions the Bubble leaders are planning to take to counter Russian 'propaganda'.

        "The document, drafted by the EU's diplomatic corps, also calls for efforts to persuade people in countries such as Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova of the benefits of European-style reforms.

        The plan was prepared ahead of the EU summit in Brussels and offers a strategy to provide alternatives sources of information to outlets such as Russia's state-funded RT television, amid an increasingly polarised media environment sparked by the war in Ukraine.

        A communications unit called the East StratCom Team, launched in April, will support EU delegations in the six eastern neighbourhood countries, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine – as well as in Russia itself.

        The main objectives include communicating and promoting "EU policies and values", supporting independent media and increasing awareness of "disinformation activities by external actors".
        The document states that communication towards the east should "first and foremost focus on the development of positive and effective messages regarding EU policies towards the region".
        Brussels needs to spread the message that reforms promoted by the European Union "can, over time, have a positive impact on their daily lives," the action plan says. It stresses that the strategy should highlight the benefits, not the bureaucracy, focusing on clearly explaining the positive effects of EU programmes and policies rather than going into details about the policies."

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/25/eu-russia-propaganda-ukraine

        The author of the paper or report called "The Kremlin's Hall of Mirrors" to which this Guardian article refers is Peter Pomerantsev and everything makes an appearance therein including Putin's troll factory. It goes without saying that everything coming out of Russia is propaganda while everything coming out of the West is the God's Honest Truth. Pure unvarnished facts. Take this snippet where he tells the tale of one Margo Gontar who's involved with StopFake:

        "At times like this, she had always reached out to western media for a sense of something solid, but this was starting to slip too. Whenever somewhere like the BBC or Tagesspiegel published a story, they felt obliged to present the Kremlin's version of events – fascists, western conspiracy, etc – as the other side, for balance. Gontar began to wonder whether her search for certainty was futile: if the truth was constantly shifting before her eyes, and there was always another side to every story, was there anything solid left to hold on to?"

        Yeah, I always reach out to western media for the self-same reasons. And if the BBC's coverage of Ukraine has ever been impartial, well, I must have blinked and missed it.

        In similar vein, Pomerantsev spends a lot of the article ridiculing RT as here:-

        "Presenters rarely challenge the views of "experts" during discussions of subjects such as the Syria conflict – where Moscow has backed President Bashar al-Assad. One regular guest has suggested that the Syrian civil war was "planned in 1997 by Paul Wolfowitz", while another has described the death toll as "a joint production of CIA, MI6, Mossad".

        http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/apr/09/kremlin-hall-of-mirrors-military-information-psychology

        I take it that Mr Pomerantsev has heard neither of the Yinon plan dating from the 1970's which started that a key part of Israel's foreign policy objectives should be the break-up of the surrounding nation states into mutually hostile ethnic statelets nor the Project for a New American Century, a neo-con outfit in which Wolfowitz played a leading role, that targeted around seven countries, including Iraq and Syria for destruction.

        This is the issue Mr P the EU and NATO are really complaining about – in the past their statements would pass without challenge, but not any longer.

        Pavlo Svolochenko , June 28, 2015 at 7:44 pm
        'Gontar began to wonder whether her search for certainty was futile: if the truth was constantly shifting before her eyes, and there was always another side to every story, was there anything solid left to hold on to?"'

        That's the shreds of your conscience screaming at you to pull your head out of your arse. You know you're full of it – why not quit before you completely damn yourself?

        yalensis , June 29, 2015 at 2:31 am
        Pro-Russian propagandists have found a way to weaponize FACTS. This is the latest form of hybrid warfare. Or maybe multi-brid warfare.

        Anyhow, it gets confusing; on whom can one count on in this post-modernistic world?

        Remember: The Truth is only what Curt says it is, there is your guiding star!

        marknesop, June 29, 2015 at 7:27 am
        What infuriates me is the assumption – as Fern alluded – that everything Russia puts out as fact is actually disinformation, while everything the west puts out as fact is fact, despite being caught lying again and again and again. Believe us – baby, we've changed.
        Cortes, June 29, 2015 at 10:47 am
        Cavour used to say that the surest way to deceive his counterparts was to tell the plain truth.
        Moscow Exile, June 29, 2015 at 11:07 am
        I remember some smart arse on the Guardian CiF commenting after I had posted a lengthy contribution in which I had used Levada sourced statistics: "You do realize that all your sources are Russian?"
        ThatJ, June 28, 2015 at 8:57 pm
        Guardian correspondent "Matt G" commented:

        US government media Radio Liberty reports on "strategic communications action plan" they probably had a pivotal role in writing, about how they plan to pump more money into Ukrainian and other post-soviet media in order to promote Europeanization, which would technically be what RFE would call "propaganda". Both Russian media and Western media especially RFE is complicit in "disinformation propaganda campaigns" and I struggle to understand what quite "EU policies and values" are exactly, other than promoting LGTB rights. Nonetheless, why do we need to promote "EU policies and values" in three Caucasus countries and two European countries one traditionally Russian and the other which will never be integrated into the EU. Is it just me or does this look less about promoting are values and more about turning post-soviet states against Russia? Something which was previously carried out in Ukraine before the coup as highlighted in some Wikileaks documents on Crimea.

        -

        "Lesm" had this to say:

        This article itself is a good example of the kind of propaganda that the EU is thinking of expanding to the East. Rt was itself started by the Russians as an antidote to the relentless Western propaganda contained in the "news" that comes from the Western Controlled wire services and media empires. The thing I find quite funny about the West is their habit of suggesting always that they are simply responding to things being done to them rather than initiating actions that others are responding to. So the West never does "terrorism", it only does "counter-terrorism". Equally it never does propaganda, it only counters propaganda from the "other" side.

        The reality is of course quite different. The West, and in particular the US, the UK and NATO, are the largest and most successful terrorist organisations on the planet. In addition the old USSR acknowledged that it simply could not compete with the propaganda mechanisms of the West as they were so pervasive and so well disguised as to be unbeatable!!!!

        -

        Reader "DomesticExtremist" is unconvinced that the EU is democratic:

        European values = declaring Conchita Wurst the winner of Eurovision 2014 even though the telephone (popular) vote was won by Donatan and Cleo.

        A metaphor for Western democracy if ever there was.

        [ThatJ: I hate it when people speak only of the EU, EU, EU… it's like we're helping to cement the view in the public's mind that the EU is kinda like an "United States of Europe". Distinction between the member countries must be made. I'll try to speak of "Brussels" instead of the European Union, because Brussels belongs to a country only (Belgium), and the message is clear enough: the dictates of Brussels are alien to the European countries.]

        -

        A bigoted homophobe named "Lordoflight23″ thinks US-exported, Brussels-welcomed values are uninspiring:

        The values of supporting moderate opposition and creating extremist, backing all "good regimes" around the world, the two most powerful EU leaders being wiretapped and still do nothing about it, gay parades and bearded women. Some values that is.

        -

        Kremlin troll "Alphysicist" resorts to whataboutism, links to a RT article:

        'Let viewers form own opinions' – German channel probed for airing RT show

        So in Germany Salve.TV took a broadcast from RT.com, and is now under fire from media watchdogs. That is EU pluralism! Real values.

        I also do not really get what the EU is doing. There already exist pro-western propaganda outlets, for example RFE/RL, etc. In Hungary, more than 50% of the media is western owned. So why is more propaganda needed?

        I like RT, because one gets to hear many who are persona non grata in the Western media. John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Gilad Atzmon, Norman Finkelstein, George Galloway, Udo Ulfkotte, and the list goes on and on. And they have many interesting things to say! Also, even if RT is connected to the Kremlin, the persons above are saying their own opinions, regardless of the Kremlin. This is why RT is a really useful supplement to western propaganda.

        Fern, June 29, 2015 at 3:00 am
        ThatJ, thanks for posting those comments from Guardian correspondents, baffling as always that they seem more informed than the journalists paid to write for the paper. Glad to hear it's not only me struggling to understand what 'western values' actually are.
        marknesop, June 29, 2015 at 7:52 am
        Typical duplication of effort so as to charge the public purse twice over for the same work. The EU produced a marvelous graphic extravaganza intended to lure Ukraine, extolling the virtues of European integration and the salutatory effect it would have on important things like life expectancy, health care, availability of clean water, life expectancy (so important they put it in twice), friendly police instead of extortion-junkies, bla, bla. I encourage everyone to have a look through it from the lens of today, and see how many came true. I especially loved the one about tolerance – mercy, yes; tolerance in Ukraine has certainly taken a leap upward thanks to Europe's beneficial influence.

        [Jun 29, 2015] NSA intercepted French corporate contracts worth $200 million over decade

        Jun 29, 2015 | WikiLeaks
        Washington has been leading a policy of economic espionage against France for more than a decade by intercepting communications of the Finance minister and all corporate contracts valued at more than $200 million, according to a new WikiLeaks report.

        The revelations come in line with the ongoing publications of top secret documents from the US surveillance operations against France, dubbed by the whistleblowing site "Espionnage Élysée."

        The Monday publications consist of seven top secret documents which detail the American National Security Agency's (NSA) economic espionage operations against Paris.

        According to the WikiLeaks report, "NSA has been tasked with obtaining intelligence on all aspects of the French economy, from government policy, diplomacy, banking and participation in international bodies to infrastructural development, business practices and trade activities."

        The documents allegedly show that Washington has started spying on the French economic sector as early as 2002. WikiLeaks said that some documents were authorized for sharing with NSA's Anglophone partners – the so-called "Five Eyes" group – Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the UK.

        The report strongly suggests that the UK has also benefited from the US economic espionage activities against France.

        "The United States not only uses the results of this spying itself, but swaps these intercepts with the United Kingdom. Do French citizens deserve to know that their country is being taken to the cleaners by the spies of supposedly allied countries? Mais oui!" said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a statement on Monday.

        The documents published on Monday also reveal US spying on the conversations and communications the French Finance Minister, a French Senator, officials within the Treasury and Economic Policy Directorate, the French ambassador to the US, and officials with "direct responsibility for EU trade policy."

        The leaked NSA documents reveal internal French deliberation and policy on the World Trade Organization, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, the G7 and the G20, the 2013 French budget, the decline of the automotive industry in France, and the involvement of French companies in the Oil for Food program in Iraq during the 1990s, the report said.

        "The US has been conducting economic espionage against France for more than a decade. Not only has it spied on the French Finance Minister, it has ordered the interception of every French company contract or negotiation valued at more than $200 million," said Assange.

        "That covers not only all of France's major companies, from BNP Paribas, AXA and Credit Agricole to Peugeot and Renault, Total and Orange, but it also affects the major French farming associations. $200 million is roughly 3,000 French jobs. Hundreds of such contracts are signed every year."

        On June 23, WikiLeaks announced a plan to reveal a new collection of reports and documents on the NSA, concerning its alleged interception of communications within the French government over the last ten years.

        In the first tranche of leaked documents WikiLeaks claimed that NSA targeted high-level officials in Paris including French presidents Francois Hollande, Nicolas Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac, as well as cabinet ministers and the French Ambassador to the US.

        Despite the tapping claims made by WikiLeaks, US President Barack Obama has assured his French counterpart Francois Hollande that Washington hasn't been spying on Paris top officials.

        Hollande, on his part, released a statement saying that the spying is "unacceptable" and "France will not tolerate it."

        It's not the first time that the NSA has been revealed to be spying on European leaders. According to documents leaked by Edward Snowden and published at the end of 2013 the US intelligence agency had previously targeted the phone of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The tapping scandal is believed to have created a rift between Washington and Berlin.

        The US collects the information through spy operations regardless of its sensitivity, as it has the ability to do so, Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst told RT.

        "It's hard to be surprised by any revelations of this kind," he said. "The snooping is conducted because it's possible to conduct it. In a new way we have a technical collection on steroids. The President of the US said that just because we can collect this material, doesn't mean we should. The thing has a momentum, an inertia of its own. Since about ten years ago it has become possible to collect everything, and that's precisely what we're doing."

        [Jun 29, 2015] Greek Tale(s)

        "...From a macroeconomic viewpoint, the Greek saga is one of austere budget polices imposed on the Greek government by the "troika" of the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission and the European Central Bank in an attempt to collect payment on the government's debt. "
        .
        "...The debt/GDP level, which was supposed to fall to about 155% by 2013, actually rose to 170% because of the severity of the contraction in output. The IMF subsequently published a report criticizing its participation in the 2010 program, including overly optimistic macroeconomic assumptions."
        .
        "...Moreover, government pensions are important to a wide number of people. The old-age dependency ratio is around 30%, one of the highest in Europe. The contraction in the Greek economy means that the pension is sometimes the sole income payment received by a family. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the pension system is seen as a "red line" which can not be crossed any further in Greece."
        .
        "...... if the European governments insist that Greece must also pay back all its outstanding debt, then there is only one possible ending for this saga, and it will not be a happy one."
        June 27, 2015 | Angry Bear

        by Joseph Joyce

        No matter what new twist the Greek debt crisis takes, there can be no question that it has been a catastrophe for that country and for the entire Eurozone. The Greek economy contracted by over a quarter during the period of 2007 to 2013, the largest decline of any advanced economy since 1950. The Greek unemployment rate last year was 26.5%, and its youth unemployment rate of 52.4% was matched only by Spain's. But who is responsible for these conditions depends very much on which perspective you take.

        From a macroeconomic viewpoint, the Greek saga is one of austere budget polices imposed on the Greek government by the "troika" of the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission and the European Central Bank in an attempt to collect payment on the government's debt. The first program, enacted in 2010 in response to Greece's escalating budget deficits, called for fiscal consolidation to be achieved through cuts in government spending and higher taxes. The improvement in the primary budget position (which excludes interest payments) between 2010-11 was 8% of GDP, above its target. But real GDP, which was expected to drop between 2009 and 2012 by 5.5%, actually declined by 17%. The debt/GDP level, which was supposed to fall to about 155% by 2013, actually rose to 170% because of the severity of the contraction in output. The IMF subsequently published a report criticizing its participation in the 2010 program, including overly optimistic macroeconomic assumptions.

        To address the continuing rise in the debt ratio, a new adjustment program was inaugurated in 2012, which included a writedown of Greek debt by 75%. Further cuts in public spending were to be made, as well as improvements in tax collection. But economic conditions continued to deteriorate, which hindered the country's ability to meet the fiscal goals. The Greek economy began to expand in 2014, and registered growth for the year of 0.8%. The public's disenchantment with the country's economic and political status, however, turned it against the usual ruling parties. The left-wing Syriza party took the lead position in the parliamentary elections held this past January, and the new Prime Minister, Alexis Tsipras, pledged to undo the policies of the troika. He and Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis have been negotiating with the IMF, the ECB and the other member governments of the Eurozone in an attempt to obtain more debt reduction in return for implementing new adjustment measures.

        The macroeconomic record, therefore, seems to support the position of those who view the Greek situation as one of imposed austerity to force payment of debt incurred in the past. But because of the continuing declines in GDP, the improvement in the debt/GDP ratio has remained an elusive (if not unattainable) goal. (For detailed comments on the impact of the macroeconomic policies undertaken in the 2010 and 2012 programs see Krugman here and Wren-Lewis here.) Another perspective, however, brings an additional dimension to the analysis. From a public finance point of view, the successive Greek governments have been unable and/or unwilling to deal with budget positions-and in particular expenditures through the pension system-that are unsustainable.

        Pension expenditures as a proportion of GDP have been relatively high when compared to other European countries, and under the pre-2010 system were projected to reach almost 25% of GDP by 2050. Workers were able to receive full benefits after 35 years of contributions, rather than 40 as in most other countries. Those in "strenuous occupations," which were broadly defined, could retire after 25 years with full benefits. The amount that a retiree received was based on the last year of salary rather than career earnings, and there were extra monthly payments at Christmas and Easter. The administration of the system, split among over 100 agencies, was a bureaucratic nightmare.

        Much of this has been changed. The minimum retirement age has been raised, the number of years needed for full benefits is now 40, and the calculation of benefits changed so as to be less generous. But some fear that the changes have not been sufficient, particularly if older workers are "sheltered" from the changes.

        Moreover, government pensions are important to a wide number of people. The old-age dependency ratio is around 30%, one of the highest in Europe. The contraction in the Greek economy means that the pension is sometimes the sole income payment received by a family. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the pension system is seen as a "red line" which can not be crossed any further in Greece.

        The challenge, therefore, is for the government to establish its finances on a sound footing without further damaging the fragile economy. This will call for some compromises on both sides.

        ... if the European governments insist that Greece must also pay back all its outstanding debt, then there is only one possible ending for this saga, and it will not be a happy one.

        cross posted with Capital Ebbs and Flows

        [Jun 29, 2015] Capped

        Jesse's Café Américain

        With the VIX soaring and the US equity markets seeing their first 2% correction in many moons, the capping on the precious metals was determined and obvious.

        So much for 'Greek capitulation.'

        I think Syriza realized they were being presented an untenable solution, the 'generous offer' of extend and pretend by Merkel and the Eurocrats, with the IMF playing heavy. This bailing out of private creditors while extracting a pound of flesh from the Greek people, facilitated by corporate friendly governments, was exactly how Greece came into this situation in the first place.

        I thought forcing of a bank closure on Greece by the EU was a bit tough, and probably senseless. Showing them the lash to get them to fall to heel and all that.

        Most economic commentators in the US are completely clueless about money these days, and global economics as well.

        More surprises will therefore be coming I am sure.

        US equity markets had about a two percent correction, with the SP 500 testing its 200 DMA.

        Forget the domestic economic news, it was all geopoliticals and mostly about Greece.

        The markets do not like the uncertainty of what will happen in Greece, as well as Puerto Rico and the Ukraine, not to mention the wavering financial assets bubble in China.

        I am treading slowly through the commentary and news about Greece. The least helpful are those who are mostly projecting their egos or some ideology.

        This is primarily a political problem. Greece has a left wing government that the Western powers find unattractive compared to the puppet governments which have facilitated the bailing out of Greek's private creditors while sustaining an unsustainable economic situation.

        I am puzzled by Jeffrey Sachs who suggest that Greek default on their debt, but remain in the Eurozone. I am not quite sure how they might do that, and while Jeff says their is no mechanism to actually kick them out it does seem a bit too cute. The EU does not have a mechanism for forgiving one member's debts ...

        [Jun 29, 2015]European Leaders Insist Greek Deal Is Still Possible

        The neo-liberals running Europe have too much to lose by giving the Greeks a break -- especially the 'socialists' who have acquiesced in the suffering of their traditional supporters since the economic crisis began in 2007.
        .
        "...Austerity is precisely the opposite of policies required to revitalize a depressed economy. But it is exactly what a predatory financial cabal uses to squeeze the lifeblood out of victims it manages to snare with its promises of money now, pay later."
        .
        "...Sharpies in expensive suits take three-martini lunches at the expense of millions of people ensnared in their delightful little game and suffering to fund their luxuries for them. Debt is such a wonderful product. The gift that keeps on giving. You can even blame your victims by waging a moralistic finger at them: "You never should have borrowed the money in the first place!" What a rotten, selfish, greedy, antisocial game."
        .
        "...The theory seems to be that competing with Third World workers requires the 99% to accept Third World salaries and conditions... how else can the 0.1% keep their multi-billion dollar lifestyles?"
        Jun 29, 2015 | NYT

        Jerry Harris, Chicago

        European bankers can't stand the idea of a democratic vote on economic problems that impact millions of people. Neo-liberalism is a zombie economic policy, alive long after it should be dead. How much more suffering must the Greek people endure before anti-austerity policies are accepted as the only way out of the crisis?

        Todge, seattle 36 minutes ago

        When Merkel and Juncker say "compromise", it means " do what we tell you" . Tsipras recognizes that the creditor nations have a double standard and is calling it.

        The EU leaders are not happy. Unclear why. It's only Greek pensioners who'll have to eke out a misery on $250 a month.

        Sherry Jones, Washington 4 minutes ago

        Far too little attention has been paid to the darkest cloud on the horizon, the rise of right-wing extremism in Europe. As a result of austerity measures forced on Greek workers, such as reducing the standard minimum wage of $750 by 22 percent, people are increasingly, and quite rightly, bitter and angry. Punishing the working class and ignoring its 25 percent unemployment rate energizes destructive political forces in Greece such as the Golden Dawn party, which channels working class rage into rage against the "other", such as minority citizens and immigrants. This is a particularly bad time for anti-immigrant sentiment to take hold. It is worrisome to watch European leaders in this debt crisis fueling such nationalist and racist extremism.

        Tommy, yoopee, michigan

        It's unfortunate that the European Union will dissolve simply because European oligarchs refuse to pay higher taxes. This type of sickness that has occurred in the U.S. has apparently spread overseas.

        Sad to say, but even the rich are so blind to know that they won't have a pot to urinate in if the earth is burning up and the people are in revolt. Austerity worked in this country, meaning it worked to keep America in a prolonged depression after they first tried it in 1937. Will we ever learn? If history is a guide, the quick answer is 'no'.

        george, coastline

        Last week the Troika insisted that Greece further cut pension benefits and not raise taxes, If Syriza had agreed to that, they would have been discredited by their own electorate. One wonders if that wasn't the real goal of Europe's leaders- to send a message to the Spanish who vote in November and can express their opinion of austerity by giving power to Podemos.

        Now they're shocked and petrified that the Greeks will vote on their own destiny and say they are willing to compromise. But in the end, the neo-liberals running Europe have too much to lose by giving the Greeks a break -- especially the 'socialists' who have acquiesced in the suffering of their traditional supporters since the economic crisis began in 2007.

        condo, France

        I'm afraid today's slump in the markets has cost much much more than the money expected from Greece. Ideology has overcome economics in this instance, but pointing the finger at Ms. Merkel is not fair: the worst seem to be the visionless technocrats of the Eurogroup, not mentioning the IMF

        Jason, DC 6 minutes ago

        ""Europe cannot give permanent financial aid with no conditions," he said."

        But, they aren't asking for that. They are asking for a specific amount of aid with different conditions than what you want.

        condo, France

        I'm afraid today's slump in the markets has cost much much more than the money expected from Greece. Ideology has overcome economics in this instance, but pointing the finger at Ms. Merkel is not fair: the worst seem to be the visionless technocrats of the Eurogroup, not mentioning the IMF

        Jason, DC

        ""Europe cannot give permanent financial aid with no conditions," he said."

        But, they aren't asking for that. They are asking for a specific amount of aid with different conditions than what you want.

        Bill Appledorf, is a trusted commenter British Columbia

        Austerity is precisely the opposite of policies required to revitalize a depressed economy. But it is exactly what a predatory financial cabal uses to squeeze the lifeblood out of victims it manages to snare with its promises of money now, pay later.

        American homeowners suckered with teasers to purchase balloon mortgages that cost them their homes; college students roped into lifelong indebtedness with student loans issued by financial institutions that never in a million years would pay their fair share of taxes to fund free public education; third world countries driven to financial ruin by the tried-and-true strategy being employed in Greece: transnational PayDay loans on which interest payments are only made possible by rolling them over in perpetuity and loaning just enough to pay that interest every time another tranche is issued.

        Sharpies in expensive suits take three-martini lunches at the expense of millions of people ensnared in their delightful little game and suffering to fund their luxuries for them. Debt is such a wonderful product. The gift that keeps on giving. You can even blame your victims by waging a moralistic finger at them: "You never should have borrowed the money in the first place!"

        What a rotten, selfish, greedy, antisocial game.

        dolly patterson, silicon valley

        I really don't understand what the big deal is about keeping Greece in the Eurozone...their economy only makes up 2%. They can still stay in the EU along with 9 other countries who don't trade the euro dollar.

        If the EZ gives in to Greece, it set a precedence for others like Italy and Spain, etc., to not have to pay their dues.

        Jason, DC

        "If the EZ gives in to Greece..."

        Exactly...all those countries should be conquered, not treated like they were part of an equal union.

        Matthew, Auckland

        At least Merkel gets that berating/telling the Greek people what to vote in their own referendum proooobably won't help. The rich, angry technocrats doing the berating? Er, not so much.

        tony silver, Kopenhagen

        The Capitalist West lent billions of Dollars, for Greece to realize its Olympic Games, knowing that it was a risk, as Greece is one of the poorest country in EU.

        Now they demand their money back? Seems unrealistic.

        If Greece has no more money to pay its obligations, then someone should have transferred it to foreign banks. Money cannot evaporate like smoke.

        Billions of Dollars were driven by European and American money-men and invested in their banks.

        David, Sacramento

        Money can evaporate. Recall the Great Depression where stock prices plummeted between 1930 and 1932. That's when people jumped out of high-rise buildings, not 1929-1930.

        change, new york, ny 39 minutes ago

        Are we that careless and gullible? Greece does not have the money to pay today or at the end of the year. Kicking the can down the road is only for political reasons. Economically nothing will change.

        The Europeans are looking for something to stem the fallout, something they themselves created. The best for the Eurozone is for Greece to quietly exit from the group. The fallout will be less damaging for all if the Europeans are willing to make a simple but hard choice.

        That Greece will exit, should not be seen as a failure on the part of the Group. That is exactly what they are making this crisis to be.

        anon,

        Heather, a civil war would add MORE problems! Who wants more problems?

        I'm surprised no one has in-depth investigated a population of 11M people has over 350B euro debt in its euro lifespan. I believe savvier crooks have left them with their debts also.

        If Cyprus was offshore Asset banking, Greece appears to be offshore Debt banking. Not fair for 11M people to live like they abused the EMU by the decisions of a few. What is the history of Greek financials? Were they solvent before entering the Euro?

        What if crooks got Greece into the Euro, performed numerous financial crimes, used Greece, robbed Greece, deposited the money into Cyprus and crooked banks of Greece and Cyprus. In recent years Europe has confiscated illegal money and closed illegal banks. Greek bankers and businessmen look crooked also. So they play the part, while others ran off with over 300B euros.

        If you were to balance the funds, where did the 350B euros go? Each Greek should be a rich on the average. Only the average citizen suffers. THIS is a recurring pattern.

        KeithNJ, NJ

        Greek banks did not 'overlend'. The excessive lending to the Greek government was by non-Greek banks (perhaps the Greek banks knew better?).

        The Greek government used the money to double state worker's salaries over less than ten years and greatly expand the headcount. Some money was left over for benefits to the public.

        The Greek people, not surprisingly, apparently see their State as hopelessly corrupt and avoid funding it if at all possible. Now, other Europeans have come to the same conclusion.

        So the question was, and remains, what will the Greek people do about their State? That question does not go away regardless of whether they stick with the Euro or devalue with the Drachma. Either way the State cannot fund itself and has run our of people willing to plug the gap, whether Greek or non-Greek.

        su, ny

        As of today, If Greece leaves Eurozone, Greece some part of population will leave Greece permanently too. so Meanwhile EU incompetent bureaucrats couldn't even figure out how to deal with Mediterranean immigrants, now in their hand there is a legitimate prospective millions immigrant Greek people.

        EU is showing it's inner workings and that say only one thing :INCOMPETENT.

        su, ny

        No body in the world can say that 500 billion USD credit is given with under normal banking and financial procedures to 10,815.000 population country.

        That is not right.

        EU cannot wash its hands, this is entirely Greek's problem, EU and it's lenders are in this game and they did this to Greece knowingly and intentionally and now they are trying to capitulate a nation in pretext of World War one time Europe mentality.

        This is a very nasty game and power play, nothing else.

        German's bankers and Greek politicians collaborative work nothing else.

        P.S: some credit in this scheme also goes to Goldman Sachs.

        Carlos, Long Island, NY

        Tsipras responded to their 'take it or else' ultimatum with a referendum; what's wrong with it? What are the EU leaders afraid off? I would said that after 5 years of austerity that only shrunk their economy, Greek people have a good reason to say no more.

        They will go into a very bad couple of years but even that is better than eternal austerity with no economic growth. After the economy stabilizes, they will start growing and will do better. Just look what happened in Argentina.

        Simon, Tampa

        The Greeks need to call it a day and reject the Trioka's blackmail.

        Jon Davis, NM

        The Greeks need to exit the euro, align themselves economically with Russia, and lead NATO but remain neutral. Let the rest of Europe worry about Ukraine, ISIS and the flood of immigrants into southern Europe via Spain and Italy.

        NYCLAW, Flushing, New York

        Tsipras just called Merkel's bluff. By closing the Greek banks and stock exchange, Tsipras is signaling that he is willing to take great risk to get a deal that he and his voters can live with. Merkel, on the other hand, maybe was assuming that the Greeks would never risk an EU membership and accept further cuts.

        Caveat to Merkel: the Chinese have a old saying: "Those wear shoes are better off not stepping on the barefooted ones." Watch out, Ms. Merkel, the Greeks may have been pushed to a point that they have nothing to lose.

        Peter Czipott, is a trusted commenter San Diego

        It seems that Krugman, in his op-ed today, must be right: it's not about analysis but about power. Analysis of the problem would yield a solution that, while not ideal, minimizes losses for all parties involved -- or, equivalently, maximizes the ultimate payout to creditors over time. That alternative dictates setting up a situation facilitating the eventual regrowth of the Greek economy, to the point where it can (a) provide for its own citizens' well-being, and (b) repay as much as possible of its outside debts.

        Instead, Merkel and company, ostensibly representing the interests of their citizens, lay down terms that, as Krugman says, lead to endless Greek austerity and a depression of unforeseeable duration, which also harms the interests of the very citizens Merkel is presuming to protect.

        And all for what? To assert the moral upper hand? It's counterproductive to the point of craziness; and Merkel, as a physicist and problem-solver, used to dealing with quantitative data, should know better: perhaps better than some of her economic advisers.

        Michael Collins, Oakland

        Greece will never be able to pay it's debt with an unemployment rate of 25%. Young Greeks are leaving in droves to find opportunity elsewhere. While it's true that Greek still needs to implement some economic reforms, like cutting down on tax evasion and cutting back on pensions, it's also clear that purpose of austerity is punishment without regard to viability.

        Austerity will be the end of the Greek Economy, so why not exit?

        If the Europeans are serious about keeping Greece (and Spain, and Portugal) in the EU, they need to temper Austerity with a serious plan to raise employment and give the younger generation a reason to stay in their home country.

        John M, is a trusted commenter Oakland, CA

        Indeed - Greece has suffered through a full-on depression for 5 years, and all the Troika said in response was "more of the same." To my mind, the whole purpose of this exercise is to force massive social safety net cuts and privatization not only upon Greece, but upon all of Europe - including Germany.

        This is not merely a European perspective - look at the way pensioners were treated in Detroit, and how the Governor of Illinois proposes to treat Chicago city workers' pensions: bankruptcy, and then massive pension cuts. The theory seems to be that competing with Third World workers requires the 99% to accept Third World salaries and conditions... how else can the 0.1% keep their multi-billion dollar lifestyles?

        Bob Dobbs, Santa Cruz, CA

        In following a politically expedient course that utterly ruins a country considered "expendable," the European Community sowed the wind. And as you suggest, it may reap the whirlwind.

        Europe's leaders are apparently no wiser or better than they were in 1919, when they imposed the same sort of austerity on -- Germany. Whose leaders also seem curiously blank on the matter.

        [Jun 29, 2015] MH17 Investigator Wont Rule out Ukrainian Involvement. Needs 1 Year (or More!) to Investigate

        "...The first problem, which Westerbeke admitted, is that if Ukraine is involved, it will seek to prevent that finding. Nonetheless, Westerbeke was polite in his response stating there is no evidence Kiev has not been open.
        The second problem is that no countries really want cooperation from Russia. Fortunately, it seems the investigative team does.
        A third problem is US satellite evidence. Where the hell is it?
        A fourth problem (unfortunately one that Spiegel never inquired about) regards flight deviations and tower to plane transmissions.
        Although working closely with Kiev, the Dutch lead investigator of the flight MH17 crash won't rule out "possible involvement of the Ukrainian military"
        Obvious question: What do you need a whole more year for?

        This article originally appeared at Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

        Spiegel Online interviews Fred Westerbeke, the Dutch lead investigator of flight MH17 crash. Westerbeke states that a surface-to-air missile is the most likely scenario, but he also discusses "secret satellite images and a possible involvement of the Ukrainian military." Here are edited interview snips from MH17-Chief Investigator Westerbeke: "Do the Russians Have More Evidence?"

        Who shot flight MH17 from over Eastern Ukraine? The Dutch prosecutor Fred Westerbeke directs international investigation. He talks about secret satellite images and a possible involvement of the Ukrainian military.

        Spiegel: Mr. Westerbeke, your job as chief prosecutor sounds hardly solvable: MH17 flight was shot down over a civil war zone, even now, three months later, your crime scene investigator for is not available. What gives you hope someday to be able to bring someone to court?

        Westerbeke: The Netherlands does not determine in the case so alone. There is a very good cooperation with police and prosecutors, especially in Malaysia, Australia and the Ukraine. It is not easy. But we can do it.

        Spiegel: In what period of time?

        Westerbeke: Look at Lockerbie, the bombing of a Pan Am jumbo in December 1988 with 270 deaths. At that time, it took three years before you could name those responsible. We will certainly need the whole next year for our work, and perhaps even longer.

        Spiegel: The Federal Intelligence Service BND assumes that pro-Russian separatists have shot down the machine with a surface to air missile. Recently some German parliamentarians corresponding satellite images were presented. Do you know these recordings?

        Westerbeke: The problem is that there are very many different satellite images: Some of them can be found on the Internet, others come from foreign intelligence agencies.

        Spiegel: High-resolution images, for example from US spy satellites could play a crucial role in the investigation of the case. Did you get those shots of the Americans?

        Westerbeke: We are not sure if we already have everything, or whether there are more - material that may be even more specific. What we present is certainly not enough to draw any conclusions. We remain in contact with the United States to get satellite images.

        Spiegel: The shooting down of flight MH17 is the biggest criminal case in the history of your country, it says. How many investigators are currently working?

        Westerbeke: In the Netherlands alone there are ten prosecutors. Three of them coordinate the investigation, two work at the international level. Two more are responsible for the care of relatives. In addition, forensic expert number around 80. There are regular meetings with colleagues from Malaysia, Australia and the Ukraine to divide the work.

        Spiegel: Because of fighting at the crash site, again and again, none of your investigators is on site. On which tracks you rely instead?

        Westerbeke: There are metal fragments that were found in the bodies of the dead and in pieces of luggage. This could be shrapnel from a rocket-Buk, possibly also parts of the aircraft itself. We analyze this, so far there are no results. We also have some witnesses who were on the spot immediately after the crash. On the Internet we spot an immense amount of information. We also have various recordings of telephone conversations from the Ukrainian police. Some of it is already available online, but we did get richer material.

        Spiegel: So far, is there any indisputable evidence?

        Westerbeke: If you look in the newspapers, yes. But if we really want to bring the perpetrators to justice, we need more evidence than a recorded phone call from the internet or photos of the crash site. That's why we take several scenarios into consideration.

        Spiegel: What are the scenarios?

        Westerbeke: An accident, a terrorist attack, the shooting down by a surface to air missile or an attack by another aircraft. We have ruled out the first two.

        Spiegel: Moscow circulated for some time, a claim that the passenger plane had been shot down by a Ukrainian fighter jet. Do you think it possible?

        Westerbeke: Based on the available information, the launch is by a ground-to-air missile in my eyes is still the most likely scenario. But we do not close our eyes to the possibility that it might have been different.

        Spiegel: The OVV report states that there were no military jets in the vicinity.

        Westerbeke: Right. But that statement is based on information that was available at the time. The question is: Do the Russians have more evidence?

        Spiegel: Your Prime Minister Mark Rutte has recently criticized Vladimir Putin because of his lack of support in the MH17 case. What is the role of Russia in the investigation?

        Westerbeke: At the moment, not large, since it is not part of the investigation team. We are preparing a request for assistance, in which we ask Moscow for information that could be important. Among other things, we seek radar data with which the Russians wanted to prove the presence of a Ukrainian military jet near MH17 after the crash.

        Spiegel: If you actually draw the participation of the Ukrainian Air Force on firing of flight MH17 into consideration - is it not absurd that Ukraine is involved in the investigation?

        Westerbeke: Of course that's a problem. But we cannot determine without them. I want a way to make it clear: We have no evidence that Kiev has not been completely open with us. They give us all the information we want.

        Notes: Translation from German is frequently difficult. I edited the Google translation to make it more readable. Also there is a bit more in the interview regarding rewards, bounties, the coming Winter, etc., but those clips were not very relevant so I truncated the translation a bit.

        Investigative Problems

        That seems like a pretty frank discussion of the issues, arguably the best we could have reasonably hoped for. Clearly, many investigative problems remain.

        The first problem, which Westerbeke admitted, is that if Ukraine is involved, it will seek to prevent that finding. Nonetheless, Westerbeke was polite in his response stating there is no evidence Kiev has not been open.

        The second problem is that no countries really want cooperation from Russia. Fortunately, it seems the investigative team does.

        A third problem is US satellite evidence. Where the hell is it?

        A fourth problem (unfortunately one that Spiegel never inquired about) regards flight deviations and tower to plane transmissions.

        Without a doubt transmissions should be made available and flight pattern deviations over a war zone explained. If that has not been done (and I don't believe it has), then indeed there is strong evidence that Kiev has not been completely open.

        The fifth problem is that even if the team concludes MH17 was downed by a surface-to-air attack, that alone does not prove who fired the missile.

        Rush to Judgment

        Finally, please note the "rush to judgment" by Ukraine, the US, Europe, and Western media in spite of glaring weaknesses in evidence gathered.

        Nonetheless, it appears as if Westerbeke wants to do the job. Appearance or reality? If the latter, I wonder if he pokes around too much, if he will be removed from the mission.

        [Jun 29, 2015] Intelligence operation disguised as data collection for MH17 crash

        "...They're not fooling anyone. It's not as if 'expert teams' full of military intelligence personnel have ever before been used to gather intel and feed it back to the correct military, helping their operations such as artillery and air strikes.
        .
        It is exactly what the KVM mission in Kosovo did, for example gathering GPS and installation intel under the guise of supporting the cease-fire there. The same was true of the UN's nuclear teams in Iraq & II-ran and elsewhere.
        "

        et Al, June 29, 2015 at 7:12 am

        FlightGlobal: MH17: Investigators obstructed during cell-tower probe
        http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/mh17-investigators-obstructed-during-cell-tower-probe-414104/

        …eams conducting the criminal inquiry into the crash, in July last year, have spent some two weeks in the area with the support of European security organisation OSCE.

        They have been trying to perform technical research into cell towers used by mobile telephones and looking into the communications networks of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

        But the Dutch prosecutor's office says that representatives of the so-called Luhansk People's Republic – a self-proclaimed breakaway territory – have "refused access" to the area and, as a result, its effort in Luhansk has "not succeeded".

        This effort had been intended to obtain "evidence to support or discard different scenarios of the cause of the crash", the office adds.

        It has managed to perform research into cell-tower location, as well as network analysis, in the Donetsk area…
        ####

        They're not fooling anyone. It's not as if 'expert teams' full of military intelligence personnel have ever before been used to gather intel and feed it back to the correct military, helping their operations such as artillery and air strikes.

        It is exactly what the KVM mission in Kosovo did, for example gathering GPS and installation intel under the guise of supporting the cease-fire there. The same was true of the UN's nuclear teams in Iraq & II-ran and elsewhere.

        [Jun 29, 2015] Shares slide as deepening Greek crisis shakes global markets

        Jun 29, 2015 | The Guardian

        The commission reiterated on Monday that the door remained open to a deal.

        Jean-Claude Juncker, the European commission president, was expected on Monday to appeal to Greece to return to the negotiating table, but would not make any fresh proposals.

        On Sunday, the commission took the unusual step of releasing the draft bailout agreement that creditors had been negotiating with Greece before talks broke down.

        "We are some centimetres away from an agreement," tweeted Pierre Moscovici, France's European commissioner, adding that there was an open door to further talks. "We must find a compromise. I want a reformed Greece to stay in the eurozone without austerity."

        A bank manager explains the situation to pensioners waiting outside a branch of the National Bank of Greece hoping to get their pensions.

        A bank manager explains the situation to pensioners waiting outside a branch of the National Bank of Greece hoping to get their pensions. Photograph: Yannis Behrakis/Reuters

        Meanwhile, Angela Merkel will hold emergency talks with senior German politicians on Monday afternoon.

        The German chancellor spoke to the US president, Barack Obama, on Sunday, with the two leaders agreeing it was "critically important to make every effort to return to a path that will allow Greece to resume reforms and growth within the eurozone", according to a White House statement.

        The US Treasury secretary, Jack Lew, spoke to his counterparts in Germany and France, as well as Tsipras and the head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde. The US is urging all sides to resolve the crisis: it has called for Greece's creditors to discuss debt relief ahead of Sunday's referendum, but is also counselling Athens to adopt "difficult measures to reach a pragmatic compromise".

        In a brief, televised address to the nation on Sunday night, Tsipras blamed the eurozone leaders. He did not say how long the banks would remain shut, nor did he give details of how much individuals and companies would be allowed to withdraw once they reopened.

        In the early hours of Monday morning, Tsipras published a decree in the official government gazette setting out the capital controls to be imposed. The decree – entitled "Bank Holiday break" – was signed by Tsipras and the Greek president, Prokopis Pavlopoulos.

        It said all banks would be kept shut until after the referendum on 5 July and that withdrawals from cash machines would be limited to €60 – about £40. Cash machines were not expected to reopen until later on Monday.

        Foreign transfers out of Greece are prohibited, although online transactions between Greek bank accounts are to continue as normal. Tsipras insisted that pensions and wages would be unaffected by the controls.

        Greece's finance ministry later announced that the strict ATM withdrawal limits would not apply to holders of credit or debit cards issued in foreign countries. This was viewed as a necessary move as tourists were spotted joining locals in front of ATMs on Sunday. Any similar restriction would hurt tourism, Greece's sole thriving industry, which accounts for at least a fifth of economic activity.

        Tsipras said Saturday's move by the eurozone's finance chiefs to halt Greece's bailout programme was unprecedented. He called it "a denial of the Greek public's right to reach a democratic decision".

        The commission said on Monday that Greece's capital controls were "necessary and proportionate", but free movement of capital would need to be be reinstated "as soon as possible in the interests of the Greek economy, the eurozone and the European Union's single market as a whole".

        Tsipras added that the finance ministers' initiative had prompted the ECB to curb its assistance, forcing the government's hand. The Greek prime minister, who has always insisted the crisis can only be solved at the highest political levels, said he had once again appealed for an extension of the bailout until after the referendum, sending his proposal to the president of the European council, Donald Tusk, the leaders of the other 18 member states of the single currency, the commission and the ECB.

        [Jun 29, 2015] Greece crisis: markets begin to tumble as investors flee

        Jun 29, 2015 | The Guardian

        Markets suffered across Asia on Monday as Greece shut down its banks for a week ahead of an increasingly likely debt default.

        Oil prices declined and the euro edged down against the dollar, while Tokyo's Nikkei 225 index fell 2% to 20,283.98 points. The Shanghai Composite Index was off 0.4% at 4,178.56 despite China's surprise weekend interest rate cut.

        Hong Kong's Hang Seng lost 1.7% to 29,192.67. Seoul's Kospi shed 1.6% to 2,057.52 and Sydney's S&P/ASX 200 was off 1.8% to 5,447.80. Market benchmarks in Taiwan, Singapore and New Zealand also fell sharply.

        Turmoil in Asia had been widely expected after the failure of 11th-hour talks in Europe over the weekend raised the possibility of a Greek exit from the eurozone.

        More than $35bn was wiped off the Australian stock market in the first hour of trading on Monday as investors braced for what could become a torrid week.

        Earlier the euro dropped more than 3% to 133.80 yen, its lowest level for five weeks. The common currency fell as much as 1.9% to $1.0955, its lowest level in almost a month.

        More on this topicGreek debt crisis: the key points of Athens bank controls

        The US Treasury secretary, Jack Lew, stressed the need for Greece "to take necessary steps to maintain financial stability" ahead of the referendum.

        He told the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, on Sunday that Athens and its creditors needed to continue working toward a resolution ahead of a Greek referendum on 5 July on the creditors' demands for austerity.

        US stock futures dived 1.8%, hitting a three-month low, while US Treasuries futures price gained almost two points.

        A cash-strapped Greece looks certain to miss its debt repayment on Tuesday as Greece's European partners shut the door on extending a credit lifeline after Greece's surprise move to hold a referendum on bailout terms.


        robtal 29 Jun 2015 08:43

        We can print all the money we want all over the world to save every banker, financial wizard, and insurance company . But one little country like Greece is the scape goat these financial criminals use to bring fear and control to the rest of the world. These are evil less than human monsters that run these world banks.


        Paul Hawkins 29 Jun 2015 08:31

        The World is being run by a group of financial gangsters such as the Rothschilds and 30 to 40 of the richest people in the world: Karen Hudes is a graduate of Yale Law School and she worked in the legal department of the World Bank for more than 20 years. In fact, when she was fired for blowing the whistle on corruption inside the World Bank, she held the position of Senior Counsel.

        She was in a unique position to see exactly how the global elite rules the world, and the information that she is now revealing to the public is absolutely stunning. According to Hudes, the elite uses a very tight core of financial institutions and mega-corporations to dominate the planet.

        Austerity is a lie as Countries use the Fiat monetary system and can produce money when they want, such as quantitative easing. It is the greed of the banks, that had to be bailed out across the world, that is causing the problem.

        The sooner these greedy selfish power hungry bankers are brought to book the sooner the financial markets would recover.


        Mark Foster Kenneth Stephen Besig 29 Jun 2015 08:17

        A large part of Syriza wanted out of the Euro because they were sure the Troika would not compromise on it's insane 'reforms' which had already destroyed most of the economy. Debtors prison's were abolished years ago in the UK, primarily because creditors realized it meant they would never get any compensation for losses while debtors were in gaol. Yet by insisting on repayments on an odious debt, we effectively put the whole of Greece into a debtors prison, and insisted on all the wrong IMF/ECB reforms that have always failed to resurrect economies in the past. We are still caught up in the idiotic Washington consensus/Jeffrey Sachs/ Hernando de Sotos models of development.

        In truth Greece should have left the failed euro project years ago. Iceland had the sense to get out of the Banks clutches, file bankruptcy and impose capital controls and start again. For the most part that as worked very well for them. Some will say Greece isn't Iceland, or nonsense like the Greeks are lazy (they work longer hours than the Germans), Greece has deep problems for sure and i'm not saying I'm confident Syriza have the program to fix them. But I'm 100% confident the demands of the Troika would only cripple them further.


        Myrtle7 29 Jun 2015 08:14

        Save Greece! A Kind Request to the EU Leaders and Creditors (Myrtle 7)

        I am writing this because today we are hours before a bitter end, perhaps, for Greece and the beginning of problems for the EU.
        A lot has been said about the Greeks living above their income for a long time or partying for a long time and these may have been true in many cases but the Greeks should not be punished now as they followed the example and attitude of some of their leaders. And, moreover, now, it is the poorer people, those with lower income, that are suffering, those that did not have the right "connections."

        The referendum arranged by the government seems like a democratic move but in fact it will be a desperate choice as the Greek people are asked to choose between suicide by drowning and suicide by hanging.

        If Greece goes into default it will be a catastrophe for the country; there is no currency to devalue. They have to re-create the drachma (it will take perhaps a year or more) which will be immediately devalued. How would these people, who are suffering already, cope? And if Greece defaults, I am not sure whether the Creditors will get their money within the next 50 years, anyway. Most seriously, the tense situation in the defaulted country, the low morale and possible disorder, would invite & unleash unforeseen dangers for Greece first, for other European countries later and the EU eventually; as we all know such situations can spread to the detriment of the people. Historic recurrence is here: the specifics and the actors change, but the result is similar. Moreover, it is common knowledge that there are forces, (they have their own agenda) which, wish, discuss in conferences, and even envision, the break up of the European Union, even as 'we speak'. If I am aware of this, I am sure the European leaders are aware too, for, as wise leaders, are conscious (or should be) of emerging situations long before they get out of hand. With around 6 million Muslims outside its northern borders, (excluding Turkish territories), Greece, will be an open, unprotected theatre for anyone who wants an easy passage to the west.

        The Creditors are part of the leadership or the Hegemony of European Union as they form the powerful financial aspect of it; usually, leaders who push think they facilitate progress; in fact they are blocking it. Yet, there are certain characteristics that wise leaders have and magnanimity is the most important one. They do not expect a poor, proud nation to fall on their knees. They would always offer opportunities for relief and growth. Lawrence Summers, US Treasury Secretary, suggested something which sounds as a good solution: the Creditors can write off a small amount of the debt now and perhaps ask for something that Greece, could, comfortably, add to their plan that would help growth; e. g. taxing certain accounts many Greeks keep in Swiss banks. Such a move by the Creditors would be wise, intelligent and humane.

        With this magnanimous act the Greeks would feel uplifted and stronger to face the odds. In my view, the most important attitude of the Leader is to make people feel they mean something within the group, but I may be wrong.


        John Kakkos DazzlingKarina 29 Jun 2015 07:04

        Lazy Greeks is a very racisti thing to say, espesially since Greeks work-hours exceed that of oher EU countries (including Germany). War reparations agreement was not accepted. Since in 1942, the Greek Central Bank was forced by the occupying Nazi regime to loan 476 million Reichsmarks at 0% interest to Nazi Germany. In 1960, Greece accepted 115 million Marks as compensation for Nazi crimes. Nevertheless, past Greek governments have insisted that this was only a down-payment, not complete reparations. The 300 bn were not given to Greeks but to banks. 30% of Greeks are iving below the povery line. Unemployment is 26% (60% to young) and 16% cant even provide daily food needs. EU is not to blame, nor it is Greece. This financial system is just not working.


        Aboutface 29 Jun 2015 06:47

        There are "invisible hands" weaving the thread of EU-Euro through the IMF needle in this Greek tradegy. One of the comment here by Steven Tracy on the Rothschilds and Rockerfeller seems about right...a force majeure / fire sale of prime assets and not to dismiss, there are very wealthy Greeks with offshore accounts, like vultures over a soon to be cadaver. Next move, the "Alexis Tsipras surprise" call option.


        pauline7883 29 Jun 2015 06:40

        the greek people have the right to this referendum they have to decide if the deal is acceptable whether they can cope with the continuing austerity. the financial institutions of europe have acted disgracefully
        the greek government should begin an audit of the books looking at the loans/debts owed by greece to see if there was any illegality and prosecutions should follow

        SEADADDY 29 Jun 2015 06:35

        So, as Greece slips into the financial abyss, it's the common man/woman that gets the pain, the punishment and the price tag of bankers ineptitude, greed and Houdini escapism. The bankers, corporate investors and politicians get away with grand gambling and larceny of incredible scale, without so much as a slap on the wrist. It wasn't the small man in Greece that caused the crisis. It was the Niarchos's and the Onassis's & etc that caused the downfall, with getting away with not paying their fair taxes, flags of convenience, double dealing and tax havens world wide. It's high time that some government agency woke up and
        NorthernFella,29 Jun 2015 06:00

        They weren't ready to join the EU...

        I would say, weren't ready to join the euro. Interesting that you don't mention anything about the role of Goldman Sachs in this big scam.

        "Humiliation" - what idiocy.

        If accusing all the Greek of the ongoing (bank)crisis, using austerity (cuts directed to the disadvantaged groups mostly) as a medicine and calling them lazy is not humiliating I don't know what is.

        And the idea that they were being 'starved by austerity' is ridiculous. They were starved by their corrupt practices.

        Let's take measures of that how much the neoliberalist austerity policy has affected those in the most vulnerable position and let's compare it to the times before austerity. Sure the situation has been bad for a long time before the crisis but austerity brought real hell.


        Luckyspin marcus_rm 29 Jun 2015 05:34

        The Greeks accuse the IMF of colluding in an EMU-imposed austerity regime that breaches the Fund's own rules and is in open contradiction with five years of analysis by its own excellent research department and chief economist, Olivier Blanchard.

        Objectively, it is acting as an imperialist lackey. The IMF enforced brute liquidation without compensating stimulus or relief. It claimed that its policies would lead to a 2.6 % contraction of GDP in 2010 followed by brisk recovery.

        What in fact happened was six years of depression, a deflationary spiral, a 26 % fall in GDP, 60 % youth unemployment, mass exodus of the young and the brightest, chronic hysteretic that will blight Greece's prospects for decades to come, and to cap it all the debt ratio exploded because of the mathematical – and predictable – denominator effect of shrinking nominal GDP.


        George Vasilakakos deskandchair 29 Jun 2015 05:27

        very poorly served Greece is by its media

        That's the key point. You see the Greek media groups are run by the same oligarchs who've been buying our politicians. They owe hundreds of millions to the Greek banks, along with the political parties, between them it must be around a billion. The banks were unwilling to collect on those debts, got bailed out and we are footing the bill...

        NorthernFella Phil Murray 29 Jun 2015 05:25
        Well, that's why I'm writing about "near-racism". Greece is schizophrenically seemed as the cradle of democracy and the Western culture but as Gerold reveals the opinion of many by the comment:

        Nonsense. The Greek nation and people have failed to grow into a modern responsible state. They are still living like an Ottoman Province, trying to short-change the Sultan.

        Many are still romanticizing the ancient times and are disappointed as they see the times have changed. Many are wondering (bitterly) how the modern day Greek are so different from the ancient times. In one book (a Finnish version of Traveler's history of Greece, I think) it was written (in introduction) something like this: "are those hot-tempered noisy people really descended from the ancient Greek?".

        When adding to it Gerold's views on Greece as a nation that is still living like "an Ottoman Province" it's easy to extend near-racist stereotypes even further. Now we're talking about "lazy Greek who just lie down under the palm trees, waiting for the next bailout". Of course there are stereotypes related to each nation but they get always stronger when we are going to the south and they are told by "harder-working northerners" ...

        I'm looking forward to the Greek people correcting their previous election error

        Should the Greek vote only for "rationalist", pro-euro, business-oriented right-wing parties who are ready to starve their own people to death? It sounds travesty of democracy and would prove that economy has replaced democracy.


        Theo Krom 29 Jun 2015 05:14

        The markets. already have lost much more money than if they were agree to restructure, not necessarily write-off, the Greek debt. If we count the profits the markets would gain after such deal would have been announced then it seems that whatever is happening is a clear and utter irrational thinking orchestrated by the allegedly proponents of rational economic thinking...

        Policy for the contemporary markets, seems to be much more important than free markets. Free market is an illusion, an excuse for the banks to suffocate democracy, using pseudo-politicians as their most valuable gatekeepers....Well, the actual neo-liberalism has been implemented in a very distorted manner, exactly as happened with socialism... Actually, both lead to utter misery!!!

        29 Jun 2015 05:12 ;
        This is what the private FMI corporation owned by the private federal reserve corporation of USA has planned for ALL our countries. I's the Rothschields, the Rockfellers etc... The 1% that are behind all this.

        Can't you see USA is deep in debt and nearly bankrupt, just like most of the western countries and Africa. They lend us money, put us deeper in debt, and we pay them back only the interest of the debt ???

        This has all been carefully planned since the creation of the private federal reserve corporation in 1913 to rob our assets and control us.

        One example. Watch Karen Hudes, former lawyer of the FMI for 20 years, reveal it all : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhTvsDuP-rg

        This is why the BRIC countries have come together to ditch the US dollar.

        Better than Eduard Snowden on the NSA.


        GRJones Mark Foster 29 Jun 2015 04:51

        Iceland is often held up on these pages as a shining example of the wealth and riches that flow to you if you reject austerity. It shouldn't be. Iceland suffered enormous economic contraction after its rejection of bailout conditions, and while the economy is growing, GDP is at about the level it was in 2004, unemployment is still well above pre-crash levels, and prices are 50% higher than they were before the crash. The steep devaluation of the currency by 50% meant that everyone in Iceland took an enormous hit in terms of real wages, and because most Icelandic mortgages are linked to the Euro theses have effectively doubled, while their homes have halved in value, leaving much of the population in negative equity. They have enacted massive austerity, more than any country in Europe bar Greece, slashing their deficit from 15% to less than 1%. The fall in living standards has been severe enough that the Icelandic people voted the parties that came into power after the rejection of bailout terms out of office, and reelected the party that was in power before the crash. The lesson to be learned from Iceland is that economic collapse means pain, no matter what you do.

        someoneionceknew ID5590609 29 Jun 2015 04:50

        Do you realize that the European rules prevent the ECB from funding member countries, as well as prohibiting national bailouts

        Sure. But why aren't you Germans subject to the rules too?

        The rules don't work. They can be changed fairly easily. Why not if it stops people starving and otherwise being persecuted through no fault of their own?


        ID5590609 mjmizera 29 Jun 2015 04:38

        Creditors already took a 50% haircut on Greece debt, and the conditions of Greece's bailout loans were extremely generous, with very low interest rates and exceptionally long payment terms. The terms and conditions were better than what was offered to Spain, Portugal and Ireland, and those countries actually implemented the demanded austerity reforms and are now experiencing growth.

        Greeks don't need their debt forgiven. Greeks need to start paying taxes and reforming and managing their economy like a respectable first world nation, not some banana republic. Why should Europeans and others show solidarity with Greeks when Greeks fail to show solidarity with their own people and their democratically elected government?


        Overdog81 29 Jun 2015 04:36

        The past Greek politicians are responsible for bringing this debt to current levels. There's no doubt about this.

        However, the current government found itself at the edge of a cliff. 6 months of negotiations and the issue of restructuring or writing off a non viable debt never came on the table by Greece's creditors. Basically Greece is begging for money that only go towards paying this huge debt and never into the real economy. Austerity measures are applied just to pay the debt's interest which has become huge (twice the size of Ireland's and Portugal's combined) .

        What Syriza is doing now is the only option it has in order to make the debt viable and end austerity for its people. The timing of the referendum on friday night and capital controls on Sunday night (banks closed for a week and stock market closed on Monday) point towards this way. Its a huge gamble in order to reach an agreement but possibly the only hand Greece could play in order to shake off the markets and thus its creditors.

        I truly hope an agreement is reached before the referendum so that everyone walks out happy especially Varoufakis and the Greek people who would get the best deal they could ever dream of. On the other side, a debt relief decision seems the only road for the imf and eu partners. Its a debt that could never be paid anyway so why risk?


        Arthur Buse 29 Jun 2015 04:36

        I had thought it was only Samuri that chose harakiri. But Alexis has done the EU a great kindness by throwing the Greek people to the dogs of famine. He has helped the cause of breaking up the Euro and even, dare we hope, the EU. Ever closer union was always a grave danger. It never went well for the USSR and it ended in tragedy. The EU will eventually go the same way. The USA is quite different. They adopted a common language before trying for a common currency and common Federal taxes. The EU will not manage the former and has not got the will to manage the latter. The Euro was therefore always doomed and now the EU needs to return to individual currencies and the EEC.

        > ID5590609 29 Jun 2015 04:34

        Germany is the largest net contributor to the EU. They will bear the brunt of any aid extended to Greece.

        If Germans bear any loss then it is their own foolishness for trusting their politicians. Why are Germans on the hook for bailing out their own banks?

        Greece has been an economic failure for their entire modern history, including well before they joined the Euro. They want to be live and be treated like a rich first world economy, yet run their country like banana republic. It's readily apparent that other Europeans will no longer fund or subsidize a lifestyle that Greeks cannot independently afford. Greece essentially partied on northern European largesse, but the bill is now due.

        That's just cut and paste racist cant. Germans should know better given their history.

        Your feelings about capitalism

        Oh, you still don't understand what mercantilism means? Good lord.

        but what do you think is going to happen when Greece is "independent" and has to reintroduce the Drachma.

        Depends on many factors I'd say. But what are you offering?

        ID5590609 someoneionceknew 29 Jun 2015 04:23

        Germany is the largest net contributor to the EU. They will bear the brunt of any aid extended to Greece. That is why the opinion of the Germans is so important when considering any action on Greece.

        Greece has been an economic failure for their entire modern history, including well before they joined the Euro. They want to be live and be treated like a rich first world economy, yet run their country like banana republic. It's readily apparent that other Europeans will no longer fund or subsidize a lifestyle that Greeks cannot independently afford. Greece essentially partied on northern European largesse, but the bill is now due.

        Your feelings about capitalism notwithstanding, things must drastically change in Greece. You claim to oppose the Eurogroup's and IMF's purportedly cruel demand for austerity and reform. That's fine, but what do you think is going to happen when Greece is "independent" and has to reintroduce the Drachma. Socialist solidarity is not going to fund imports of food, fuel, medicine and other essentials. There will be austerity in Greece, either organized with their European partners, or resulting from the chaos of financial incompetence. Greece is going to have to continue to painfully adjust to a lifestyle commiserate with their true GDP, earnings and economic value. The good old days are gone.

        > ID5590609 29 Jun 2015 04:05

        They're not asking for money or aid?

        They are not asking for Herr Schauble's (or his ilks') money or aid.

        major economic reforms

        More counterproductive austerity. More poverty, more privation, more labour bashing, more suicides.

        "mercantilism" (which I assume is meant as a juvenile reference to capitalism)

        So I'm dealing with an idiot.

        Germany has generally learned the political and economic lessons from their own unfortunate history, everyone from WW1 reparations and the risks of inflation, the horrors of WWII,

        Clearly it has not. Quite the opposite.


        Carlo47 29 Jun 2015 04:03

        Only the American Treasure understood the gravity of the situation, but it's odd that they don't give appropriate instructions to the IMF and namely to the chauvinist Ms Lagrande, who continues in its absurd hard line more on measures that on the debt.

        On the other end Mr Schäuble and Mr Dijsselbloem must be happy that investors flee.

        They have only have a bit of patience, until the contagion will arrive in Germany and Holland.

        Anyhow, if they are honest, both should resign for clear inability to do their job and to understand the heavy drawbacks of their dummy hard line, as supposed and false financial experts.

        The German Government and the EU heads should slap the door in their face and send them away.


        CanadaChuck ID9492736 29 Jun 2015 03:53

        I had thought that Greece was unimportant overall in the EU. What will happen when Italy and Spain collapse? I guess the UK won't have to bother leaving the EU.


        Ian Crowther slingsby1000 29 Jun 2015 03:49

        Agreed Slingsby, so a lot depends on the post management of crisis as we see in Argentina and Turkey, its not plain sailing, far from it. But being enslaved is worse, and paying on the never never, feeding German and French income is not the way to go Fault lies on both sides, nobody comes out of this smelling of roses.

        The EU construct was a nonsense form the very start, a union of unequals, instabilities and too many externalities to manage that technocrats have little idea on how to manage in complex situations.


        Lanceowenmorgan Kompe75 29 Jun 2015 03:42

        Ya the Forth Reich is coming and it seems Putin is the only one smart enough to see it


        ID9492736 29 Jun 2015 03:40

        Barely half an hour after opening, the German Stock Exchange index (DAX) is down almost 5%, which is dangerously close to a system meltdown. The German moneymasters are trying to intervene by pumping money into the exchange, but it's like putting a band-aid on the collapsing levee. The German nuclear reactor is overheating uncontrollably.


        Xenkar Stivell 29 Jun 2015 03:34

        True, ordinary people in Europe need to stand up and support the people of Greece, but sadly as spiceof so eloquently put it

        "These little conformists, the lowly prison guards of the elites, are the lowest form of humanity. Spiteful and small minded, they always want to "punish" those who dare raise their heads and complain."

        MrEurope Lupick 29 Jun 2015 03:31

        You do realize that what you wrote is beyond ignorance...? While I agree that the way market-news is brought is excessively dramatic, markets ARE for a large part a reflection of human productive activity, and productive activity tends to be... you know... the stuff that makes people money. Jobs. Earnings... roof over your head, and so forth... these things quite obviously matter.

        The problem is that humans absolutely suck at understanding the long term consequences and impact of small, tiny little (negative, but also positive) changes that accumulate over time.

        You know the famous example that if Jesus would have put one dollar in his bank account, he would (assuming 3% per annum interest) by the year 1000 he would have 7,080,467,438,104.71 dollars. (and more money than ever has or will exist in the history of Earth by 2015...) 3% does not sound like much... but all these small little additions do add up. And so if you're living in a world where every week or two there is a minor crisis here or there.... eventually it starts to matter. A lot. People put off investing. They spend less. There are less jobs... (which in turn compounds the problems...) and on it goes.

        Bottom line is - you and I know fuck all about advanced economics, just like the vast majority of posters here.


        Stivell 29 Jun 2015 03:28

        Lagarde and the European leaders have forced Greece into this corner and really should expect nothing more than the Greeks turning and baring their teeth. Ordinary people in Europe need to stand up and support the people of Greece against these relentless scaremongering money-obsessed bastards. Go Greece, bite that hand!


        Kompe75 29 Jun 2015 03:25

        If the Schaueble , Merkel and Jean Claude don't resign after the upcoming fiasco , then the investors will fire them.Remember my prediction.They will have a bitter end than DSK.


        D9492736 royaldocks 29 Jun 2015 03:16

        If you really, seriously believe that EU economy is so competitive that it can turn on the dime and adjust to the coming global economic meldown to its advantage and do so in the current political and economic timespace , I have a BIG surprise for you: you are dangerously delusional.

        First of all, the prices of ALL commodities, raw and unprocessed material EU economy needs to keep going are going to get sky-high because EUR will be hemorrhaging value until cows come home. And even if Mario Draghi and the idiots from Eurogroup come back to their senses tomorrow, it will have been too late: they already committed an act of economic suicide, and it is really too late to stop the head exit wound from bleeding to death now. Secondly, with the investors quitting the stock bubble like crazy, the amount of discretionary spending and funded demand is going to go down like a rock: Europe will be hit with AT LEAST a quadruple -whammy: (a) rigid and dogmatic austerity and money-supply strangulation (b) supply chain disruption (c) extremely weak demand and massively negative growth and (d) catastrophic consumer confidence index. Add to this list of nightmares a never-ending flow of migrants and refugees, ever-increasing pressure on social services, cost of funding of wars and military operations in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Aghanistan and elsewhere, the massive losses caused by the American-imposed sanctions against Russia (by most accounts, somewhere between $100 and $150 billion), the cost of containing the situation in Ukraine and bankrolling the bankrupt Ukrainian government and - on top of it all - servicing the sovereign debt, and you get a much clearer picture. There is absolutely no way - not even a hypothetical chance - that European economy can weather out this tsunami unaffected and unharmed. EU should consider itself lucky if they do not lose 20-30% of its entire economy in the next month or so.

        If I were a German retiree, I would be queuing up at the local ATMs as we speak. Because, yes, it's the end of the Eurozone as we know it.


        spiceof 29 Jun 2015 03:12

        Amazing how the Greek subject matter brings forth the establishment sadists out en masse, demanding that punishment, penury and the bubonic plague be visited upon that rebellious country.

        These little conformists, the lowly prison guards of the elites, are the lowest form of humanity. Spiteful and small minded, they always want to "punish" those who dare raise their heads and complain.

        iruka Lupick 29 Jun 2015 02:56

        Important point.

        Of course it's worth bearing in mind that people like StrategicVoice213 aren't really concerned with contrasting good people and bad people, lazy people and hard-working people, etc..

        Take a closer look, and 99 times out of 100 it's amply clear that their only real interest is in defending the authority and legitimacy of the institutions that they see being threatened or insulted by those they're calumnying.

        The actual behaviour or character of this person or that nation is of no real consequence to 213's . Any old lie, projection or blinkered misconstruction will do.

        It's the need to preserve sanctified hierarchies of power that engages them.

        Or more accurately (since they're clearly all sad little creatures of no importance whatsoever, and no capacity to preserve anything, for whom an identification with power provides them with something clearly lacking in their actual lives) it's the need to glorify power, and all its ways and entitlements.


        Lanceowenmorgan slingsby1000 29 Jun 2015 02:55

        Who the fuck was the dumb ass(es) who would lend Greece all that money?
        €386,000,000,000 to a country with a population of what 6-10 million? That's mathematics son you can argue with me but you can't argue with figures. Apologies to Foghorn Leghorn. But I think all comes down to greed.


        truthbetold13 borninthe80s 29 Jun 2015 02:50

        Such a pathetic cliche, a real twatcherite/conmoron lie. By bloated public sector you just mean that more things are run by the government instead of by big business. Nobody here being ripped off by utilities/ rail/private landlords etc thinks this is a better arrangement. What you have is higher prices, worse service, less equal pay within those sectors, systemic tax evasion by business and its bosses. Give me a state controlled service any day.


        JohnnyMorales 29 Jun 2015 02:45

        This should be the quote of the day:

        Mitsuo Shimizu, deputy general manager at Japan Asia Securities Group in Tokyo, told Bloomberg News: "In the face of pressure from the eurozone to accept austerity measures, the Greeks answered that it's hard to live just on water."

        The Japanese have never been considered softies. If they are describing the EU demands as too much, then they are definitely too much.


        FactualEvidence 29 Jun 2015 02:45

        The EU needs Britain to stay in the EU for one reason only and its financial.

        The EU have ploughed in billions and billions of tax payers money into several different countries bailouts not just Greece, including Portugal, Spain, Cyprus, Ireland, Hungary, Latvia and Romania.
        A total amount of 487.75 BILLION Euros has been given to these countries and that's since just 2008.
        So rather than the EU getting stronger as united nation's it is getting worse.

        The EU Commission, MEP's, LIBLABCON parties and BBC don't tell you that information. You have to research it yourselves on Wikipedia.

        So my three questions to all those Europhiles are.
        If being in the EU is so great how come so many countries have to rely on hand out?

        If so many countries need billions to even provide essential services to survive. Where is this great trading economy?

        Why is it not working for so many millions of people?

        Go to Wikipedia and see how the monetary crisis is getting worse for all the countries not better.
        Google : European Debt Crisis, and check out the chart around the middle of a very long page.

        Were would the EU be without the billions we put in to it and on top of that all the VAT tax they get from us, YES VAT. Did you know that it was through EU ruling you pay VAT on your utility bills?


        philbo Miamijim 29 Jun 2015 02:36

        The IMF is mainly responsible for this mess.

        ID9492736 stringvestor 29 Jun 2015 02:36

        http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/29/markets-global-idUSL4N0ZE0IK20150629

        betrynol 29 Jun 2015 02:32

        Good thing Europe is ring-fenced to the risk of contagion....

        The ECB will have to buy more Spanish and Italian bonds this week than the entire Greek debt, and then bailout these countries so they can buy back the bonds (Greek style). Oh well, if they say they've got it covered, it's fine I suppose... (shakes head in haughty derision).

        ID9492736 29 Jun 2015 02:32

        A picture worth $60 trillion words:

        http://www.allstocks.com/markets/World_Charts/world_charts.html

        The only markets still in the black are the markets that haven't opened yet. When DAX and FTSE open, the shit tsunami is REALLY going to hit the austerity fans.


        JohnnyMorales 29 Jun 2015 02:29

        The loss of value across the world even if most of it is just temporary is many many times more than Greece's entire debt.

        Yet because the EU troika wanted to win a moral battle and teach a wayward Greece a moral lesson and make impossible demands and accept the humiliation entailed in caving they opted to create those losses.

        Greece only asked for some extra help. They did not make outrageous demands like the troika.

        If anything good comes out of this may it be the end of the careers of those who think the financial world is the proper place to stage morality plays devoid of any financial purpose which cost far more than the alternative.


        Ian Crowther 29 Jun 2015 02:28

        This is the end game, and has been Greece's plan from the new Government taking power. The left want Grexit, and they will get what they wish for now, independence from a failing political and financial EU construct.

        This may work well for Greece in the mid term, sure, its going to be tough on the people, but at least the Government will not be debt slaves now, reset the currency, devalue the economy so it can compete again, lower taxation to bring in big business, and begin to build a new economy based on what the Greek people want, rather than 85% of the money Greece leant eventually being paid back to the rentiers from which the cash came. Now zero will be repaid, and EU banks will have to suffer the losses, a drop in recapitalisation, and a hit to the recovery.


        Lanceowenmorgan ID9492736 29 Jun 2015 02:24

        I agree. FUCK ALL YOU NEOLIBERAL & NEOCON mother fuckers


        LeonardPynchon borninthe80s 29 Jun 2015 02:24

        Some perspective in the below piece - might help you:

        https://theconversation.com/greece-woes-show-how-the-politics-of-debt-failed-europe-42787

        The Financial Times' leading commentator Martin Wolf recently argued that "the vast bulk of the official loans to Greece were not made for its benefit at all, but for that of its feckless private creditors", that is, primarily, European banks and financial institutions. After exposing the futility of austerity, ex-IMF economic advisor Jeffrey Sachs recently declared: "Europe's leaders are hiding behind a mountain of pious, nonsensical rhetoric" risking an economic and social disaster "in order to insist on collecting some crumbs from the country's pensioners".

        Describing the treatment of Greece as "the Iraq War of finance", Daily Telegraph's Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote: "rarely in modern times have we witnessed such a display of petulance and bad judgement by those supposed to be in charge of global financial stability."


        dzogchen 29 Jun 2015 02:23

        Five lost years for the Greeks it seems. From the market's perspective those years have been all about maneuvering the banks from out of risk. Now that work is done as the losses are laid squarely in the public lap. The markets of course don't give half a toss about Greek people, empathy isn't part of their nature, so might as well do what should have been done five years ago. All the best to the people who will pay the price for all this shenanigans. Kali tihi!

        BeamEcho Tim Roberts 29 Jun 2015 02:21

        This is not new for the IMF, their mandate includes providing policy advice to their members. They review the economic policies of their members. When they lend money they require economic policy changes...

        Ian Crowther IndependentScott 29 Jun 2015 02:18

        Greece will not have to repay the debt, they will walk away, default and never repay. It is the banking system and rehypothecated debt that will suffer, and the banks that have leant the money to France and Germany. European banks have only just been recapitalised, and losing another €300-400bn will hit the Euro recovery hard at a time when QE is being rolled out. The answer will be print more money.

        Normin 29 Jun 2015 02:17

        The banksters are just waiting for a scapegoat to pin their non sustainable economic system failure on. Meanwhile the elite will profit as the masses bleed. It can't go on like this forever it's just a matter of when.

        Kompe75 29 Jun 2015 02:14

        Juncker announces a campaign to support "YES" at the greek referendum..

        Another sign these people consist the out-of-touch neoliberal elite..

        Does he really believe Greeks , who have suffered enormously , will sign a appalling deal that's going to define the misery of generations for the next decades ? Just because he wants to remain President in the dictatorship of Brussels ? I live for the moment Juncker comes in Athens...the whole place will go up in flames.

        john4108 29 Jun 2015 02:09

        yes all going acording to plan the sacred " markets" are indulging in the usual lemmng like behaviour while the banksrs try to convince everyone that,the have the medicine that we all need . Casino capitalism writ large. Eventually, unless we want endlessly repeated crises and utter destruction on this plant, mankind will have to come up,with a more resilient economic system.

        Islam is waiting in the wings and usory is a crime in the Koran. Of course Jesus threw the money lenders out of the temple....but Judeo-christianity has conveniently forgotten that.

        [Jun 29, 2015] The current round of sanctions, it reports, was designed not to have too much impact on the Russian economy so that a threat of harsher sanctions could be applied.

        "...A good indication that MH17 was made to order by NATO."
        Patient Observer , June 27, 2015 at 6:20 am
        Did we expect anything less?
        http://rt.com/news/251889-us-russia-war-attrition/

        Apparently things went sour with Russia when:

        " US diplomats say Russia changed the cooperative stance it assumed after the collapse of the Soviet Union and is now using force to defend its national interests, the paper said. The change is attributed to the personality of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who, Washington expects, will remain in power until at least 2024.

        The change became apparent with the conflict in Ukraine, but was emerging since at least the 2008 conflict in South Ossetia, when Russia used military force after Georgia sent its army to subdue the rebellious region, killing Russian peacekeepers in the process.

        Washington's solution to the new Russia is keeping sanctions pressure on it while luring its neighbors away with economic aid and investment, La Stampa said. The current round of sanctions, it reports, was designed not to have too much impact on the Russian economy so that a threat of harsher sanctions could be applied. "

        Very fiendish plan indeed except for one small problem – the US economy is floating in the toilet and the Russians and the Chinese are about to pull the lever via dedollarization. Oh well.

        kirill, June 27, 2015 at 6:45 am
        The western media produces nothing but propaganda. The US stages a coup in Ukraine and then has its quislings launch a war of terror in the Donbas where at least 25,000 civilians are dead as a direct, intended result but all we hear is about Putin and his aggression. What sick, delusional shit for "analysis". By helping Donbas residents defend themselves from an obvious ethnic cleansing attempt, Russia is the "aggressor". This is pure 1984 newspeak in action.

        The US is going off the deep end because its economy is going to collapse. All the offshoring of jobs has a price. The trickle down economy of merchant resale of Chinese imports can't really substitute for the original economy since all the good jobs lost.

        marknesop, June 27, 2015 at 4:08 pm
        Yeah, right. We were just kidding about sanctions – those were just the kiddie sanctions. We were hoping not to have to do the real ones.

        In actuality, the USA poured on as much leverage as it could get away with, without its European partners screaming like girl scouts who see a snake. The U.S. government knows that what you need is momentum, so a good hard punch to start things off and then you just wade in swinging until your man goes down. If they didn't follow that pattern it's because they couldn't, not because they didn't want to or felt merciful.

        ThatJ , June 27, 2015 at 5:39 pm
        I agree, the sanctions were no joking matter. The US targeted the energy, arms and finance industries in a single blow after Russia didn't "cooperate".
        marknesop, June 27, 2015 at 8:21 pm
        Precisely. They meant to make Russia stagger, and then to keep up the momentum until it fell over. Not to say they could not have imposed worse sanctions, but not without directly and visibly affecting European economies as well, to a degree the European public would not tolerate.

        Worse sanctions are just bluster – the effort has failed, and keeping the campfire-girls sanctions they have already in effect will constitute a long-term benefit to Russia and long-term damage to the EU, as Russia establishes other markets. Brand loyalty only lasts until customers find something else they like.

        kirill, June 27, 2015 at 9:05 pm
        The really hilarious thing is that it was the US and its propaganda factory media that undermined the sanctions long before they were ever implemented. They scared off investment in Russia and Russian investment in the west. So all the pain they were expecting from "cutting Russia off" never happened. The west is truly led by retards.
        astabada, June 28, 2015 at 3:58 am
        but not without directly and visibly affecting European economies as well, to a degree the European public would not tolerate.

        This is, incidentally, the reason why the US badly needs an open Russian intervention in Ukraine.

        Let's remember once again that the first round of sanctions was passed on the aftermath of MH17. A round of tougher ones would require a bigger tragedy still.

        kirill, June 28, 2015 at 6:53 am
        A good indication that MH17 was made to order by NATO.

        [Jun 28, 2015] Former Finance Minister of Cyprus on the Greek Crisis

        "...The troika clearly did a reverse Corleone - they made Tsipras an offer he can't accept, and presumably did this knowingly. So the ultimatum was, in effect, a move to replace the Greek government. And even if you don't like Syriza, that has to be disturbing for anyone who believes in European ideals...."
        .
        "...This is nothing more than a neo-liberal play. They just don't want to strip their pensions, but infrastructure as well. They should be making the requirements of the loan for deep pension cuts and money for investments which would help build up Greece's economy and the end for these bailouts. The fact they aren't doing that, but trying to confiscate it instead, which is the real issue. "
        .
        "..."IMF and Germany Are Hell-Bent on Finishing Off Even a Moderate Left in Greece" "Indeed, the leftist Greek government failed to see that what Europe's neoliberal elite was after, especially after being fully aware of the fact that Athens had no alternative plan, was not merely a humiliating Greek deal for the Syriza-led government but finishing them off completely to send a message to all potential "troublemakers" in the euro area of the fate awaiting them if they dared challenge the neoliberal, austerity-based orthodoxy of the new Rome." "
        .
        "...Panicky depositors spent the weekend pulling an estimated one billion euros from the banking system, stashing the cash in their houses or exchanging them for bulging bags of gold coins."
        .
        "...There are not as many hedge funds in Greece as there were a year ago, when it is estimated that around 100 foreign funds were sitting on big investment stakes. Their bet was that the previous Greek government would be able to complete the arduous process of economic reform in Greece that started five years ago."
        .
        "...Most of the hedge fund money in Greece is invested in about 30 billion euros of freshly minted Greek government debt securities that emerged from the 2012 restructuring of private sector bonds."
        .
        "...Among the most dubious of these, was a 10 percent equity stake, then worth about $137 million, that Mr. Paulson's hedge fund took last year in the Athens water monopoly. The company had little debt and was slated to be privatized, making it an attractive prospect at the time."
        Jun 28, 2015 | Economist's View
        Peter K.:

        Mr Sarris seems a little like a Davos Man.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/29/business/dealbook/panic-among-hedge-fund-investors-in-greece.html

        Panic Among Hedge Fund Investors in Greece

        By LANDON THOMAS Jr.

        JUNE 28, 2015

        ATHENS - For investors around the world looking at Greece, there was but one question Sunday: What is going to happen when the markets open on Monday?

        That question is particularly acute for the hedge fund investors - including luminaries like David Einhorn and John Paulson - who have collectively poured more than 10 billion euros into Greek government bonds, bank stocks and a slew of other investments.

        This weekend, Nicholas L. Papapolitis, a corporate lawyer here, was working around the clock comforting and cajoling his frantic hedge fund clients.

        "People are freaking out," said the 32-year-old Mr. Papapolitis, his eyes red and his voice hoarse. "They have made some really big bets on Greece.

        But there is no getting around the truth of the matter, he said. Without a deal with its European creditors, the country will default and Greek stocks and bonds will tank when the markets open.

        On the ground here, the surprise decision of the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, to hold a referendum has turned what was a bank jog into more of a sprint with most Greeks now fearing that the country's depleted banks will be closed on Monday.

        Panicky depositors spent the weekend pulling an estimated one billion euros from the banking system, stashing the cash in their houses or exchanging them for bulging bags of gold coins.

        The yields on Greek government bonds, now around 12 percent are expected to soar as investors rush to unload their positions in a market that of late has become extremely hard to trade.

        Bank stocks, if the stock market, in fact, opens, will also be hit with a selling wave, as they cannot survive if the European Central Bank withdraws its emergency lending program.

        There are not as many hedge funds in Greece as there were a year ago, when it is estimated that around 100 foreign funds were sitting on big investment stakes. Their bet was that the previous Greek government would be able to complete the arduous process of economic reform in Greece that started five years ago.

        When it became clear that a radical Syriza government under Mr. Tsipras would come to power, many investors quickly turned heel, dumping their Greek government bonds and bank stocks in large numbers before and after the election.

        But a brave, hardy few stayed put - around 40 to 50, local brokers estimate - taking the view that while the new left-wing government could hardly be described as investor friendly, it would ultimately agree to a deal with Europe. It would be a bumpy ride for sure, but for those taking the long view that Greece would remain in the eurozone, holding onto their investments as opposed to selling them in a panic seemed the better course of action.

        For now, at least, that seems to be a terrible misjudgment, especially if Greece defaults and leaves the euro.

        Most of the hedge fund money in Greece is invested in about 30 billion euros of freshly minted Greek government debt securities that emerged from the 2012 restructuring of private sector bonds.

        The largest investors include Japonica Partners in Rhode Island, the French investment funds H20 and Carmignac and an assortment of other hedge funds like, Farallon, Fortress, York Capital, Baupost, Knighthead and Greylock Capital.

        A number of hedge funds have also made big bets on Greek banks, despite their thin levels of capital and nonperforming loans of around 50 percent of assets.

        They include Mr. Einhorn at Greenlight Capital and Mr. Paulson, both of whom have invested and lost considerable sums in Piraeus Bank. Fairfax Financial Holdings and the distressed investor Wilbur Ross own a large stake in Eurobank, one Greece's four main banks.

        Big positions have also been taken in some of Greece's largest companies. Fortress Capital bought $100 million in discounted debt belonging to Attica Holdings, Greece's largest ferry boat holder. York Capital has taken a 10 percent stake in GEK Terna, a prominent Greek construction and energy firm.

        In 2014, Blackstone's credit arm bought a 10 percent chunk of the Greek real estate developer Lamda Development. And Third Point, one of the earliest, most successful investors in Greek government bonds, has set up a $750 million Greek equity fund.

        Many of these forays were made during the heady days of 2013 and early 2014 when the view was that, in a rock bottom global interest rate environment, risky Greek assets looked attractive, especially if the reform process continued.

        Among the most dubious of these, was a 10 percent equity stake, then worth about $137 million, that Mr. Paulson's hedge fund took last year in the Athens water monopoly. The company had little debt and was slated to be privatized, making it an attractive prospect at the time.

        But the privatization process is now frozen and the monopoly is struggling to collect payment on its bills from near broke government entities, making it unlikely that Mr. Paulson will get much of his money back.

        To be sure, many of these hedge funds are enormous and their Greek investments represent a fairly small slice of their overall portfolio.

        Mr. Papapolitis, who used to work at Skadden Arps law firm in New York structuring exotic real estate deals, moved back to Greece in 2008 and has led some of the biggest hedge fund deals in the market.

        Of the same age and generation as many of his clients, he feels their pain.

        "These guys are my friends," he said. "They invested in Greece when the economy was improving. And now this happens - I feel obliged to be there for them."

        He is not the only point man for hedge funds coming to Greece.

        Last week, a group of about 12 of the largest remaining hedge funds arrived in Athens to attend a seminar organized by George Linatsas, a founding partner of Axia Ventures, an investment bank that specializes in Greece, Cyprus, Portugal and Italy, as well as shipping.

        With all the large investment banks and law firms having largely given up on Greece, Mr. Linatsas and his team of analysts became the main port of call for hedge funds that started buying Greek government bonds in 2012.

        Then, the bonds were trading at 12 cents on the euro and they soon shot up to 60 cents, making billions of dollars for those early investors.

        "People made their careers on that trade," Mr. Linatsas said. "The problem now is politics and whether there is a government that can take this country to the next stage."

        The outlook seems grim.

        Indeed, in recent months these investors have spent little time breaking down balance sheets or discounting cash flows. Instead, they have spent every effort trying to figure out what the Syriza government is up to.

        Some have tried to get an edge by listening to Greek radio. Others have hired outside firms to study video clips of Mr. Tsipras and his finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, to try and discern from body movement and voice tone whether they are telling the truth. And an increasing number have resorted to begging journalists for inside scuttlebutt.

        Because few Syriza officials will meet with the investors, a large number of them have banded together, an unusual occurrence in an industry that puts the highest of premiums on secrecy. They exchange tips and theories via emails when they are apart and over wine-soaked dinners in Athens during their frequent trips here.

        At times the swankiest hotel in town, the Hotel Grande Bretagne (or G.B. as it is commonly known) is so chock full of hedge fund executives (mostly in their 30s) that some have called it the G.G.B. - the acronym for Greek government bonds.

        In recent days, as it has become clear that the Syriza government was not going to accept the latest proposal from its creditors, stress and anxiety has, in some cases, turned to outright anger.

        "I just can't believe these guys are willing to torch their own country," one investor with a large holding of Greek bonds lamented in an email. "They thought this was a game. Now, when the supermarkets run out of food, gas stations run out of gas, hospitals have no medicine, tourists flee, salaries don't get paid because banks shut - what are they going to do?"

        Peter K. -> Peter K....

        ""I just can't believe these guys are willing to torch their own country," one investor with a large holding of Greek bonds lamented in an email."

        How ideological do you have to be to not understand that the Troika already torched the country and that the Greeks voted in Syriza becasue 5 years on there was no light at the end of the tunnel.

        I hope there's a Grexit even if the Troika forces it because the referendum took place after Monday's deadline. Syriza should really study all of the past defaults of other countries.

        Paine -> Peter K....

        This Sarris gent suggest the Syriza team should have proposed " bold reforms " early on


        List em mr S... List em

        He however seems to understands the original sin was
        The elites decision to bail the private northern banks out

        Of course the people of Greece must pay for that sin.

        RGC:

        "IMF and Germany Are Hell-Bent on Finishing Off Even a Moderate Left in Greece"

        "Indeed, the leftist Greek government failed to see that what Europe's neoliberal elite was after, especially after being fully aware of the fact that Athens had no alternative plan, was not merely a humiliating Greek deal for the Syriza-led government but finishing them off completely to send a message to all potential "troublemakers" in the euro area of the fate awaiting them if they dared challenge the neoliberal, austerity-based orthodoxy of the new Rome."

        http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/31596-imf-and-germany-are-hell-bent-on-finishing-off-even-a-moderate-left-in-greece

        pgl:
        Real GDP per person in Cyprus:

        http://www.tradingeconomics.com/cyprus/gdp-per-capita

        The crash has brought this done to where it was in 2000. Why did they join the Euro system in the first place? Why would anyone listen to the finance minister of this nation?

        Paine -> pgl...

        Precisely put

        Only a corporate lackey corrupted stooge or stool pigeon

        Peter K. -> Peter K....

        Greece's own central banker, Yannis Stournaras said in a statement after the European Central Bank decision on Sunday that the Greek central bank would "take all measures necessary to ensure financial stability for Greek citizens in these difficult circumstances."

        Before negotiations broke off on Saturday between Athens and its creditors, the Tsipras government had been hoping to reach terms that would free up a €7.2 billion allotment of bailout money that the country needs to meet its short-term debt obligations.

        Because European officials said on Saturday that Greece's €240 billion bailout program would not be extended, the big question had been whether the central bank's president, Mario Draghi, would continue financing the country's depleted banks.

        Guidelines of the European Central Bank dictate that it can keep supporting troubled banks as long as there is a possibility that the country in question will come to terms with its creditors on a bailout - as was the case with Cyprus.

        If Athens and its creditors do not resume talks before Tuesday, the promise of European support for Greece may no longer be on the table. But the European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union and a key broker in the debt talks, seemed on Sunday to reach out to the Greek people, unexpectedly publishing the offer made to Greece before Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras ended the negotiations and announced a national referendum.

        The publication was designed to show the lengths to which the creditors, including the I.M.F. and the European Central Bank, had gone to satisfy Athens's demands for a deal that avoided hurting ordinary Greeks, said one European Union official with direct knowledge of the decision to publish the offer. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the institutions had not ruled out a resumption of talks with Mr. Tsipras on the sensitive issue of extending the bailout.

        "This is a last bridge we are building for them," said the official. The goal of publishing the document was also to pressure "Mr. Tsipras to change course and choose to mount a 'yes' campaign" in the upcoming referendum, the official said.

        The official acknowledged there was a slim chance that Mr. Tsipras would accede to the terms so soon after abandoning the negotiations. But if Mr. Tsipras did change course, that could lead to a meeting of leaders of the eurozone member states on Monday night to try one more time to reach a deal before the expiration of the bailout.

        On Saturday, amid intense discussions between Greece and its creditors, officials representing the I.M.F., to which Greece owes €1.6 billion on Tuesday, were trying to persuade European leaders and Mr. Draghi to keep the bank emergency assistance flowing. And on Sunday, the head of the I.M.F., Christine Lagarde, waved an olive branch toward Greece.

        In a statement, Ms. Lagarde expressed her "disappointment'' in the "inconclusive outcome of recent discussions on Greece in Brussels.''

        "I shared my disappointment and underscored our commitment to continue to engage with the Greek authorities," she said, adding that the I.M.F. would ''continue to carefully monitor developments in Greece and other countries in the vicinity and stands ready to provide assistance as needed.''

        Early Sunday, the Greek Parliament approved Mr. Tsipras's request for a public referendum on the proposal offer by Greece's creditors, with the vote to be held next Sunday. Mr. Tsipras and other Greek officials had asked European officials and Mr. Draghi to keep the central bank assistance in place until the vote.

        The European Central Bank's decision on Sunday to cap the emergency loan program, as opposed to canceling it, "allows the Greek banks to remain in a sort of coma – not functioning but not dead," said Karl Whelan, an economics professor at University College in Dublin. That way, he said, the Greek financial system might be revived if at some later point if Greece secures a deal with its creditors.

        Raoul Ruparel, an economist and co-director of Open Europe, a London-based research group, said the rupture between Greece and its creditors on Saturday was unlikely to mean a definitive end to negotiations, instead becoming "merely a prelude" to yet more talks in a week or so after Greece holds its referendum.

        "I think we are just getting started on this merry-go-round," Mr. Ruparel said, predicting that Greek voters would probably vote to endorse proposals put forward by creditors and rejected by the Tsipras government. "We would then be back where we started, only in a worse situation," he added. Because the current program will have expired by then, Greece and its creditors would need to negotiate a new bailout - most likely a short-term deal - in an atmosphere poisoned by even deeper distrust than before.

        "The whole thing is absolute nightmare,'' Mr. Ruparel said. ''I have been following this saga for five years, and it is depressingly tedious."

        leoFromChicago:

        Guy is totally business-as-usual.

        I'm hardly an expert on Greece but if you were about to make a difficult decision -- say, exit the Euro -- you might want a dramatic display of public backing say, in the form of a referendum.

        Peter K.:

        For JohnH and Mr. Roger Fox:

        http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/the-warnings-from-the-bank-of-international-settlements-have-been-ignored-because-they-have-been-wrong

        The Warnings from the Bank of International Settlements Have Been Ignored Because They Have Been Wrong

        by Dean Baker

        Published: 28 June 2015

        The Wall Street Journal passed along warnings from the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) that central banks should start to curtail monetary expansion and that governments need to reduce their debt levels. The piece tells readers:

        "The BIS has issued similar warnings in recent years concerning an overreliance on monetary policy, but its advice has gone largely unheeded."

        It is worth noting that the BIS has been consistently wrong in prior years, warning as early as 2011 about the prospects of higher inflation due to expansionary monetary policy:

        "But despite the obvious near-term price pressures, break-even inflation expectations at distant horizons remained relatively stable, suggesting that central banks' long-term credibility was intact, at least for the time being.

        "But controlling inflation in the long term will require policy tightening. And with short-term inflation up, that means a quicker normalisation of policy
        rates."

        Since that date, the major central banks of the world have been struggling with lower than desired inflation and doing whatever they could to raise the rate of inflation. It would have been helpful to readers to point out that the BIS has been hugely wrong in its past warnings, so people in policy positions appear to have been right to ignore them. This is likely still the case.

        anne:

        http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/grisis/

        June 28, 2015

        Grisis
        By Paul Krugman

        OK, this is real: Greek banks closed, capital controls imposed. Grexit isn't a hard stretch from here - the much feared mother of all bank runs has already happened, which means that the cost-benefit analysis starting from here is much more favorable to euro exit than it ever was before.

        Clearly, though, some decisions now have to wait on the referendum.

        I would vote no, for two reasons. First, much as the prospect of euro exit frightens everyone - me included - the troika is now effectively demanding that the policy regime of the past five years be continued indefinitely. Where is the hope in that? Maybe, just maybe, the willingness to leave will inspire a rethink, although probably not. But even so, devaluation couldn't create that much more chaos than already exists, and would pave the way for eventual recovery, just as it has in many other times and places. Greece is not that different.

        Second, the political implications of a yes vote would be deeply troubling. The troika clearly did a reverse Corleone - they made Tsipras an offer he can't accept, and presumably did this knowingly. So the ultimatum was, in effect, a move to replace the Greek government. And even if you don't like Syriza, that has to be disturbing for anyone who believes in European ideals.

        A strange logistical note: I'm on semi-vacation this week, doing a bicycle trip in an undisclosed location. It's only a semi-vacation because I didn't negotiate any days off the column; I'll be in tomorrow's paper (hmm, I wonder what the subject is) and have worked the logistics so as to make Friday's column doable too. I was planning to do little if any blogging, and will in any case do less than I might have otherwise given the events.

        anne -> anne...
        http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/grisis/

        June 28, 2015

        Grisis
        By Paul Krugman

        Clearly, though, some decisions now have to wait on the referendum.

        I would vote no, for two reasons. First, much as the prospect of euro exit frightens everyone - me included - the troika * is now effectively demanding that the policy regime of the past five years be continued indefinitely. Where is the hope in that? Maybe, just maybe, the willingness to leave will inspire a rethink, although probably not. But even so, devaluation couldn't create that much more chaos than already exists, and would pave the way for eventual recovery, just as it has in many other times and places. Greece is not that different.

        Second, the political implications of a yes vote would be deeply troubling. The troika clearly did a reverse Corleone - they made Tsipras an offer he can't accept, and presumably did this knowingly. So the ultimatum was, in effect, a move to replace the Greek government. And even if you don't like Syriza, that has to be disturbing for anyone who believes in European ideals....

        * European Union Commission, EuropeanCentral Bank, and International Monetary Fund

        Paine -> anne...

        Pk has really shown a leadership side here
        Not contrarian
        Progressive leadership

        Vote no !

        Praise be to PK

        Ben Groves:

        This is nothing more than a neo-liberal play. They just don't want to strip their pensions, but infrastructure as well. They should be making the requirements of the loan for deep pension cuts and money for investments which would hel build up Greece's economy and the end for these bailouts. The fact they aren't doing that, but trying to confiscate it instead, which is the real issue. If Greece wants their fat pension system, that is their choice.

        I don't see anything different than post WWI Germany. This is what Libertarianism will bring to the West if implemented. They would dismantle the current power structure and replace it with a privately controlled syndicate dictating wealth much like today. This is not new, it has been going on since the rise of Abrahamic religions in the west.

        Fred C. Dobbs -> Lafayette...

        Greece is doomed - Matt Yglesias - June 27 http://www.vox.com/2015/6/27/8856297/greece-referendum-euro via @voxdotcom

        (Various useful links, at the link.)

        ... to understand the deeper causes of what's been going on since Tsipras' government swept to power in January, you really need to set the finance and economics aside and focus on the politics. Greece has been drawing dead this whole time, and the future outlook appears bleak for one simple reason - nobody else in Europe who holds power has any interest in making things anything other than painful for Greece.

        1) Giving Greece a better deal would be a political disaster

        Tsipras' fundamental miscalculation has been that he thought that by cloaking his specific requests for more lenient terms in the larger cause of anti-austerity politics, he could build a coalition of political support throughout Europe for his position. The reality was just the opposite. While politicians in Europe's creditor nations were naturally reluctant to grant Greece a better deal, politicians in Europe's debtor nations were even more opposed.

        After all, if electing a bunch of far-left types to parliament so they can demand a better deal actually worked, then voters in Portugal and Spain and Italy and Ireland would take note of that fact. And the last thing the current crop of elected officials in Lisbon and Madrid and Rome and Dublin want is to all be turned out in favor of a bunch of far-left types.

        2) Letting Greece default gracefully would be a disaster

        Even if Greece's European partners weren't inclined to give Greece a better financial deal, they could have at least smoothed the path to default. A Greece that doesn't pay what it owes would be instantly cut off from credit markets and forced to run a very austere fiscal policy.

        It's in Europe's interest to make things as hard as possible for Greece

        Things could have been left at that. Instead, throughout the year, the European Central Bank has been saying that it will cut the Greek banking system off from emergency funding if Greece doesn't keep paying its debts. That means default will lead to the collapse of Greek banks, and the end of Greek membership in the euro.

        That's a political decision the ECB isn't legally required to make. But politically it's the only possible decision. After all, if a default works out non-disastrously for Greece then other countries could be tempted to default. And international investors might worry that other countries could be tempted to default, raising interest rates and slowing the European economy. Only making default as painful as possible can safeguard the interests of other countries.

        3) Letting Greece leave the Eurozone gracefully would be a disaster

        Here's where the news gets really bad for Greece. Leaving the Eurozone could, in theory, go better or worse. But Europe needs it to go as badly as possible. After all, if Greece leaving goes pretty well, then other countries might be tempted to leave. And that raises the prospect of debt defaults, higher interest rates, and slowing European growth.

        Once again, it's in Europe's interest to make things as hard as possible for Greece.

        4) This is the time to fold 'em

        The tragic irony, if you are Tsipras, is that his plan very well might have worked back in 2010 when his predecessors originally agreed to the terms of a bailout. Back then, the whole situation was considerably more fluid. Greece could have threatened to default and essentially commit a murder/suicide on the entire European economy unless it got better terms. That would have been a very risky strategy and you can see why the Greek government didn't pursue it. But it might have worked.

        Yet as the song says, you need to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. ...

        (Alternatively, persuade various major German
        corps to re-locate to Greece, for tax-breaks,
        warm weather, great beaches, warm weather,
        'right-to-work' labor policies, tax breaks,
        warm weather & great beaches, and - voilà - problem solved!)

        Fred C. Dobbs:

        The Next Few Days Have the Potential to Transform
        Greece and Europe http://nyti.ms/1Nr7fbd via @UpshotNYT
        NYT - Neil Irwin - June 28

        As it turns out, the Greek crisis ends not with a bang, but with a referendum.

        It has been easy to ignore the doings in Greece for the last few years, with the perpetual series of summits in Brussels that never seem to resolve anything. But it's time to pay attention. These next few days are shaping up to become a transformational moment in the 60-year project of building a unified Europe. We just don't yet know what sort of transformation it will be.

        The immediate headlines that got us to this point are these: After an intractable series of negotiations over a bailout extension with Greece's creditors, the nation's left-wing government left the table Friday and said it would hold a referendum on July 5. Greek leaders think the offer on the table from European governments and the International Monetary Fund is lousy, requiring still more pension cuts and tax increases in a depressed economy, and intend to throw to voters the question of whether to accept it.

        Whatever the exact phrasing of the question (and assuming the referendum goes forward as planned), it really boils down to this simple choice:

        • A "Yes" vote means that Greece will continue the grinding era of austerity that has caused so much pain to its citizens over the last five years, in exchange for keeping the euro currency and the monetary stability it provides.
        • A "No" vote almost certainly means that the country will walk away from the euro and create its own currency (which will surely devalue sharply), bringing financial chaos in the near term, but creating the possibility of a rebound in the medium term as the country becomes more competitive with its devalued currency.

        The Greek government, led by Alexis Tsipras, disputes this framing, and argues that Greece could in fact reject the creditors' offer to extend the bailout program while sticking with the euro. Events over the weekend show how untenable that is. Thousands of Greeks lined up to withdraw euros from money machines, and the European Central Bank said it would not increase the size of the emergency lending program that Greek banks have been using to secure euros.

        Ergo, the Greek banks are, or will soon be, out of money, and the E.C.B. will be disinclined to open the floodgates again in the absence of a bailout deal. That's why the Greek government has effectively frozen its financial system, closing banks and the stock market on Monday. ...

        Greece Will Close Banks to Stem Flood of Withdrawals http://nyti.ms/1QXdEB2

        LANDON THOMAS Jr. and NIKI KITSANTONIS - JUNE 28

        ATHENS - Greece will keep its banks closed on Monday and place restrictions on the withdrawal and transfer of money, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras said in a televised address on Sunday night, as Athens tries to avert a financial collapse.

        The government's decision to close banks temporarily and impose other so-called capital controls - and to keep the stock market closed on Monday - came hours after the European Central Bank said it would not expand an emergency loan program that has been propping up Greek banks in recent weeks while the government was trying to reach a new debt deal with international creditors. ...

        [Jun 28, 2015] The Greek Tragedy: Curtain Closes On Most Absurd Act

        moonofalabama.org

        Nothing was posted here so far on the Greece tragedy. I did not touch the issue as there was excellent coverage elsewhere and what the whole issue produced so far was more absurd theater than serious economic policy. But one act of the drama is now coming to a preliminary end and the tragedy may now unfold into something new with potential serious geopolitical consequences.

        Greece took up a lot of debt when banks were giving away money without caring for the ability of the debtor to pay back. When that game ran out, some six years ago, Greece could not no longer take up new credit to pay back its old debts. That is the point where it should have defaulted.

        But the Greece government was pressed on to pay back the debt to the commercial banks even when it had no money and not enough income to ever do so. Bank lobbyists pressed other EU governments to raid their taxpayers to indirectly cover the banks' losses. These other governments then pushed Greece to take on "emergency loans" from their states to pay the foreign commercial banks.

        Nothing of that money ever reached the people in need in Greece. Here is a gif that explains what happened to all those foreign taxpayer loans treats "given to the Greek".

        To get these new loans Greece had to agree to lunatic economic measures, an austerity program and neoliberal "reforms", to fix its balance of payments. But austerity has never worked, does not work and will never work. It crashes economies, lowers tax incomes and thereby further hinders a government to pay back it debts. It creates a vicious cycle that ends in an economic catastrophe.

        After six years of austerity nonsense the Greece voted for a new party that promised to end the cycle and stop the austerity measures. But the new Syriza government misjudge the situation and the nastiness and criminal energy of the other governments and organizations it was negotiating with. It early on said it would not default and thereby took away its own best negotiation argument. The negotiations failed. The creditors still demand more and more austerity. Now it will have to default but under circumstances that will make it much more difficult for Greece to get back on its feet.

        Yesterday the Syriza prime minister Tsirpas, in a speech to his people, called for an end of the blackmail and for a referendum to decide on the way forward:

        Fellow Greeks, to the blackmailing of the ultimatum that asks us to accept a severe and degrading austerity without end and without any prospect for a social and economic recovery, I ask you to respond in a sovereign and proud way, as the history of the Greek people commands.

        To authoritarianism and harsh austerity, we will respond with democracy, calmly and decisively.

        Greece, the birthplace of democracy will send a resounding democratic response to Europe and the world.

        Paul Maison of Channel 4 news sees this as a positive and likely successful step. The people will vote no to austerity and the IMF, European Central Bank and various country governments will still keep giving fresh money to Greece. Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism does not believe that this will happen. She calls the referendum a sham. Greece will default and the only thing the referendum will do is to keep Syriza in the political business. She blames Tsirpas for having misjudged the situation and for being unprepared of what is likely to come:

        Greek defiance of its creditors will make it more, not less dependent on them in the next year. How badly things turn out for Greece will depend in significant degree on how much they do to ameliorate the impact of the implosion of the banking system, whether they take extreme measures to keep Greece in the Eurozone, and if Greece tumbles out, how much they provide in humanitarian aid and targeted trade financing (most important, for petroleum imports).

        Greece should have defaulted six years ago. Tsirpas should have prepared for default immediately after he became premier. He should have used it as a threat during the negotiations. Greece will now have to default in the worst possible situation and with little thought given to the consequences of the default.

        But the consequences will not be limited to Greece.There will be consequences for the EU, for NATO and for the political balance in the Mediterranean. Greece may now decide to leave the "western" realm and thereby set an example others could follow.

        The German and other European governments promised their taxpayers that Greece will not default and that the austerity program pushed onto it will succeed. They will now rightfully lose some of their political and economic credibility. The Greece default will be a somewhat harsh and expensive lesson for the voters in those countries too. Let's hope that they will draw the right conclusions.

        Selected Skeptical Comments

        Posted by: madrone | Jun 27, 2015 10:50:12 AM | 2

        While there is nothing easy about the path forward I think finance minister Varoufakis has played things pretty well dragging it out letting the people get all those euros out of the banks to help contribute to rebuilding but most of all blocking the ability of the Banksters to "Cyprusize" Greece. The referendum obviously comes from the study of Iceland and anybody that studies Argentina can only come away thinking Syriza is doing the right thing.

        Posted by: nmb | Jun 27, 2015 11:33:51 AM | 3

        The global financial mafia fully exposed through Greece

        [Jun 28, 2015] US Department of Imperial Expansion

        Deeper down the rabbit hole of US-backed color revolutions.
        by Tony Cartalucci

        Believe it or not, the US State Department's mission statement actually says the following:

        "Advance freedom for the benefit of the American people and the international community by helping to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world composed of well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty, and act responsibly within the international system."

        A far and treasonous cry from the original purpose of the State Department - which was to maintain communications and formal relations with foreign countries - and a radical departure from historical norms that have defined foreign ministries throughout the world, it could just as well now be called the "Department of Imperial Expansion." Because indeed, that is its primary purpose now, the expansion of Anglo-American corporate hegemony worldwide under the guise of "democracy" and "human rights."

        That a US government department should state its goal as to build a world of "well-governed states" within the "international system" betrays not only America's sovereignty but the sovereignty of all nations entangled by this offensive mission statement and its execution.

        Image: While the US State Department's mission statement sounds benign or even progressive, when the term "international system" or "world order" is used, it is referring to a concept commonly referred to by the actual policy makers that hand politicians their talking points, that involves modern day empire. Kagan's quote came from a 1997 policy paper describing a policy to contain China with.

        ....


        The illegitimacy of the current US State Department fits in well with the overall Constitution-circumventing empire that the American Republic has degenerated into. The current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, gives a daily affirmation of this illegitimacy every time she bellies up to the podium to make a statement.

        Recently she issued a dangerously irresponsible "warning" to Venezuela and Bolivia regarding their stately relations with Iran. While America has the right to mediate its own associations with foreign nations, one is confounded trying to understand what gives America the right to dictate such associations to other sovereign nations. Of course, the self-declared imperial mandate the US State Department bestowed upon itself brings such "warnings" into perspective with the realization that the globalists view no nation as sovereign and all nations beholden to their unipolar "international system."

        It's hard to deny the US State Department is not behind the
        "color revolutions" sweeping the world when the Secretary of
        State herself phones in during the youth movement confabs
        her department sponsors on a yearly basis.

        If only the US State Department's meddling was confined to hubris-filled statements given behind podiums attempting to fulfill outlandish mission statements, we could all rest easier. However, the US State Department actively bolsters its meddling rhetoric with very real measures. The centerpiece of this meddling is the vast and ever-expanding network being built to recruit, train, and support various "color revolutions" worldwide. While the corporate owned media attempts to portray the various revolutions consuming Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and now Northern Africa and the Middle East as indigenous, spontaneous, and organic, the reality is that these protesters represent what may be considered a "fifth-branch" of US power projection.

        CANVAS: Freedom House, IRI, Soros funded Serbian color revolution
        college behind the Orange, Rose, Tunisian, Burmese, and Egyptian protests
        and has trained protesters from 50 other countries.


        As with the army and CIA that fulfilled this role before, the US State Department's "fifth-branch" runs a recruiting and coordinating center known as the Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM). Hardly a secretive operation, its website, Movements.org proudly lists the details of its annual summits which began in 2008 and featured astro-turf cannon fodder from Venezuela to Iran, and even the April 6 Youth Movement from Egypt. The summits, activities, and coordination AYM provides is but a nexus. Other training arms include the US created and funded CANVAS of Serbia, which in turn trained color-coup leaders from the Ukraine and Georgia, to Tunisia and Egypt, including the previously mentioned April 6 Movement. There is also the Albert Einstein Institute which produced the very curriculum and techniques employed by CANVAS.

        2008 New York City Summit (included Egypt's April 6 Youth Movement)
        2009 Mexico City Summit
        2010 London Summit

        As previously noted, these organizations are now retroactively trying to obfuscate their connections to the State Department and the Fortune 500 corporations that use them to achieve their goals of expansion overseas. CANVAS has renamed and moved their list of supporters and partners while AYM has oafishly changed their "partnerships" to "past partnerships."

        Before & After: Oafish attempts to downplay US State Department's extra-legal
        meddling and subterfuge in foreign affairs. Other attempts are covered here.

        Funding all of this is the tax payers' money funneled through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), and Freedom House. George Soros' Open Society foundation also promotes various NGOs which in turn support the revolutionary rabble on the ground. In Egypt, after the State Department's youth brigades played their role, Soros and NED funded NGOs began work on drafting Egypt's new constitution.

        It should be noted that while George Soros is portrayed as being "left," and the overall function of these pro-democracy, pro-human rights organizations appears to be "left-leaning," a vast number of notorious "Neo-Cons" also constitute the commanding ranks and determine the overall agenda of this color revolution army.

        Then there are legislative acts of Congress that overtly fund the subversive objectives of the US State Department. In support of regime change in Iran, the Iran Freedom and Support Act was passed in 2006. More recently in 2011, to see the US-staged color revolution in Egypt through to the end, money was appropriated to "support" favored Egyptian opposition groups ahead of national elections.

        Then of course there is the State Department's propaganda machines. While organizations like NED and Freedom House produce volumes of talking points in support for their various on-going operations, the specific outlets currently used by the State Department fall under the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). They include Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Alhurra, and Radio Sawa. Interestingly enough, the current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sits on the board of governors herself, along side a shameful collection of representatives from the Fortune 500, the corporate owned media, and various agencies within the US government.

        Hillary Clinton: color revolutionary field marshal & propagandist,
        two current roles that defy her duties as Secretary of State in any
        rational sense or interpretation.


        Judging from Radio Free Europe's latest headlines, such as "Lieberman: The West's Policy Toward Belarus Has 'Failed Miserably' " and "Azerbaijani Youth Activist 'Jailed For One Month,'" it appears that hope is still pinned on inciting color revolutions in Belarus and Azerbaijan to continue on with NATO's creep and the encirclement of Russia. Belarus in particular was recently one of the subjects covered at the Globsec 2011 conference, where it was considered a threat to both the EU and NATO, having turned down NATO in favor of closer ties with Moscow.

        Getting back to Hillary Clinton's illegitimate threat regarding Venezuela's associations with Iran, no one should be surprised to find out an extensive effort to foment a color revolution to oust Hugo Chavez has been long underway by AYM, Freedom House, NED, and the rest of this "fifth-branch" of globalist power projection. In fact, Hugo Chavez had already weathered an attempted military coup overtly orchestrated by the United States under Bush in 2002.

        Upon digging into the characters behind Chavez' ousting in 2002, it
        appears that this documentary sorely understates US involvement.

        The same forces of corporatism, privatization, and free-trade that led the 2002 coup against Chavez are trying to gain ground once again. Under the leadership of Harvard trained globalist minion Leopoldo Lopez, witless youth are taking the place of 2002's generals and tank columns in an attempt to match globalist minion Mohamed ElBaradei's success in Egypt.

        Unsurprisingly, the US State Department's AYM is pro-Venezuelan opposition, and describes in great detail their campaign to "educate" the youth and get them politically active. Dismayed by Chavez' moves to consolidate his power and strangely repulsed by his "rule by decree," -something that Washington itself has set the standard for- AYM laments over the difficulties their meddling "civil society" faces.

        Chavez' government recognized the US State Department's meddling recently in regards to a student hunger strike and the US's insistence that the Inter-American Human Rights Commission be allowed to "inspect" alleged violations under the Chavez government. Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolás Maduro even went as far as saying, "It looks like they (U.S.) want to start a virtual Egypt."

        The "Fifth-Branch" Invasion: Click for larger image.


        Understanding this "fifth-branch" invasion of astro-turf cannon fodder and the role it is playing in overturning foreign governments and despoiling nation sovereignty on a global scale is an essential step in ceasing the Anglo-American imperial machine. And of course, as always, boycotting and replacing the corporations behind the creation and expansion of these color-revolutions hinders not only the spread of their empire overseas, but releases the stranglehold of dominion they possess at home in the United States. Perhaps then the US State Department can once again go back to representing the American Republic and its people to the rest of the world as a responsible nation that respects real human rights and sovereignty both at home and abroad.

        Editor's Note: This article has been edited and updated October 26, 2012.

        [Jun 28, 2015]Dutch Say Inquiry Into Malaysia Jet Crash Is Being Blocked in Ukraine

        The timing and content are clear signs that for some reason the second disinformation campaign by Western MSM started in full force... What is reason for publication. It can be two: to whitewash junta, or to blackmail Russia. Why not wait until the official results of the investigation will be published... After all most of the material from the crush site was shipped and plain body was partially reconstructed from the fragments. Did Dutch interviewed the defector from Ukrainian military to Russia who claimed that he was present when Su-25 pilot discussed shooing down MH17 after return to the base. where are Borispol and Dnepropetrovsk towers tapes? Where is this Spanish dispatcher who twitted about shooting of airline by Ukrainians in the first hour of the tragedy? Where are two pilots of Su-25 who could be involved ? Why nobody saw the BUK missile dense smoke trail in a daylight and good weather and in densely populated area, the smoke trail that stands in the air for at least several minutes after launch? Where is the analysis of found elements the hit airliner, which can determine the type of the missile? No they now want cell towers info.
        .
        "...But as the first anniversary of the disaster approaches, Dutch officials have expressed mounting concern over the lack of progress in determining the precise cause and in identifying those responsible, a likely reflection of intensifying political pressure, including from families of the victims."
        .
        "...In Donetsk, however, investigators received greater cooperation from officials of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic, the Dutch prosecution office said in its statement on Saturday."
        .
        "...This month, the Dutch foreign minister, Bert Koenders, visited Moscow, where he discussed the inquiries with his Russian counterpart, Sergey V. Lavrov."
        Jun 28, 2015 | The New York Times

        MOSCOW - Pro-Russian separatist leaders in the eastern Ukrainian region of Luhansk have blocked access to Dutch law enforcement officials pursuing an investigation into the downing of a Malaysian jetliner nearly a year ago, the Netherlands Public Prosecution Office said on Saturday.

        The obstruction by separatist officials prompted the investigators, from the Dutch National Police and Ministry of Defense, to cut short their field work in Ukraine without conducting research into cellphone towers and cellular networks in the region, the public prosecution office said.

        The passenger jet, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, was shot down on July 17 as it flew over the war zone in eastern Ukraine during a journey from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, killing all 298 people on board, including 196 Dutch citizens.

        Based on preliminary analysis and intelligence, including from the United States government, the aircraft was widely believed to have been destroyed by a surface-to-air missile fired from territory controlled by Russian-backed separatist forces.

        The separatist groups, however, strongly deny that they had anything to do with the crash, and the Russian government has sought to provide evidence that the plane was fired upon by a Ukrainian jet fighter.

        And on Friday, a senior Russian official said the Kremlin would oppose a plan by Malaysia calling on the United Nations Security Council to create a tribunal to try suspects in the downing of the jetliner. Calling the idea "ill-timed and counterproductive," Gennady Gatilov, a deputy foreign minister, told Russian news agencies, "We need to wait for the end of the investigation, not adopt hasty resolutions on the creation of tribunals."

        An official international inquiry into the cause, which is being led by the Dutch aviation safety agency, has not made any official determination.

        A preliminary report issued in September found that the aircraft had experienced no technical difficulties and had made no distress call, while wreckage of the plane indicated that it was destroyed after being hit by high-energy projectiles that ripped it apart in midair. Although the report did not say so, that kind of damage is consistent with a missile attack.

        The destruction of the plane sharply focused international attention on the worsening violence in Ukraine, and briefly put Russia under intense pressure over its role in the conflict, amid suspicions that it had supplied the missile system.

        But as the first anniversary of the disaster approaches, Dutch officials have expressed mounting concern over the lack of progress in determining the precise cause and in identifying those responsible, a likely reflection of intensifying political pressure, including from families of the victims.

        The criminal investigation is being carried out separately from the safety investigation. The Dutch officials spent about two weeks in eastern Ukraine, mostly at the crash site in the region of Donetsk, which is also largely controlled by pro-Russian separatist forces. The investigators ended their work on Saturday after concluding they could proceed no further.

        In Donetsk, however, investigators received greater cooperation from officials of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic, the Dutch prosecution office said in its statement on Saturday.

        Investigators were also aided by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which is monitoring the conflict zone.

        "The most important goals of the mission were in this region," the prosecution office said. "Ground samples have been taken at various locations and technical research has been conducted to locate cell towers and check the working of the eastern Ukrainian telephone network. The information that has been collected during the mission will be examined and analyzed in the Netherlands."

        Efforts to conduct a similar inquiry into cellphone towers in Luhansk were stymied, the prosecution office said.

        "The mission was also aimed at technical research into cell towers and telephone network in the Luhansk area," the statement added. "This has until now not succeeded, as representatives of the self-proclaimed Luhansk People's Republic in talks with the O.S.C.E. until now have refused access to the Luhansk area."

        Cellphone communications could be integral to the investigation because Ukrainian intelligence services said they had intercepted telephone conversations in which separatist commanders discussed the shooting down of a plane - apparently believing their forces had just destroyed a Ukrainian military jet.

        One Western official with close knowledge of the work in eastern Ukraine said that the investigators were ill-advised in trying to conduct an inquiry amid continued sporadic fighting. "I think they were extremely naïve to go back there and launch a criminal investigation in one of the most open and dangerous crime scenes in the world," the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the delicate politics of the inquiry.

        This month, the Dutch foreign minister, Bert Koenders, visited Moscow, where he discussed the inquiries with his Russian counterpart, Sergey V. Lavrov.

        In a statement after the meeting, he added: "It's our responsibility to pull out all the stops in order to keep the attention of the international community focused on MH17. We owe it to the victims and the next of kin."

        [Jun 28, 2015]The Troika pretends to suffocate Greece at all costs

        "...Brussels has blocked any agreement that would help Greece's recovery; debt repayments are maximum priority"
        .
        "...Alexis Tsipras, prime minister, is practically "hands tied", he can't implement an alternative economic policy, this situation is contrary to his intentions, therefore it slowly diminishes the trust citizens have put into Syriza, his political party."
        .
        "...Greece has 10 days to liquidate the four monthly maturities of debt to the IMF (1.5 billion euros) and to open a new financing plan for 5.2 billion euros. By next July, Athens will have to pay 3.5 billion euros to the European Central Bank (ECB), 465 million euros to the IMF and 2 billion euros to additional creditors."
        .
        "...There is no doubt that if Tsipras decides abandoning the Euro, the consequences will be dramatic for Greece's economy and so for the rest of economies in the region [6], including of course, Germany and France. Berlin fears a massive spread. If Greece collapses, speculators will bet against the most fragile economies: Finland, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, etc."
        .
        "...Panic would boost interest rates, severely shrinking the financial liquidity between countries."
        .
        "...Nevertheless, the Troika seems decisive on backlashing the left's economic program. Syriza have inaugurated the electoral failure of neoliberalism in Europe and due to that, it has become the lender's favorite prey, who are ready to impose their will at any price. However, the Greeks should trust themselves, establish partnership beyond its continental borders and aim for utopia."
        Jun 28, 2015 | voltairenet.org/RT

        the Central Bank of Greece surprised everyone with the publication of their monetary politics for 2014-2015. Besides revealing the consequences of the economic suffocation imposed by Brussels, it concluded that in case of not getting to a prompt deal with its European partners, a crisis of great proportions will be detonated.

        "A crisis with a manageable debt as we are currently facing with the help of our partners will transform into an uncontrollable crisis, with great risk for the banking system and for the financial stability", it quoted [1]. It was the first time this institution seriously contemplated Greece's separation from the Eurozone.

        The most influencing media immediately began to stress that the majority of Greek's population is against abandoning the Monetary Union. Approximately a 70% according to a recent poll published by the GOP. For keeping the "common currency" the norms in the Maastricht Treaty have to be complied, therefore the occidental media concludes that the Greek citizens are willing to accept the European authorities conditions: Austerity is the price for a membership in the Eurozone.

        However, media emporiums omit mentioning that same majority opposes to measures that the Troika (formed by the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank and the European Commission) pretends to impose. That same majority is currently convinced that the original 245 billion euros rescue program has only brought economic affliction. The increase of inequality and poverty, lock of housing, mental illness and suicides, are evidence of the "humanitarian crisis" Greeks are daily suffering [2].

        A change regarding to economic matters in urgent. In that sense, the Greek government has insisted in solving the more immediate needs (taxes on investment, creation of employment, a better distribution of income, etc.) and less in questioning terms of the debt. Despite this, Brussels has blocked any agreement that would help Greece's recovery; debt repayments are maximum priority [3].

        Alexis Tsipras, prime minister, is practically "hands tied", he can't implement an alternative economic policy, this situation is contrary to his intentions, therefore it slowly diminishes the trust citizens have put into Syriza, his political party.

        Disqualifications between the Greek government and the Troika were quite prompt on dates near the meeting with the Eurogroup. Tsipras addressed that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had "criminal responsibility" for the crisis. He also repeated that his government wouldn't falter before the pressure imposed by the Troika. The objective of this proposal is to "humiliate Greece" and there he committed to reject the adjustment plans at every moment [4].

        The finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, has delivered the same message by declining on presenting proposals that would finally include a list of "credible" commitments for the creditors: raising the primary surplus, additional tax raises, dismantling the pension system, etc [5].

        As consequence, the negotiations stalled once again [on July 18th, 2015, Editor's note] The Troika remains intransigent in applying its "structural reforms" no matter what, while Tsipras declines on betraying the Greeks. Therefore this dispute is ones more to be adjourned.

        Greece has 10 days to liquidate the four monthly maturities of debt to the IMF (1.5 billion euros) and to open a new financing plan for 5.2 billion euros. By next July, Athens will have to pay 3.5 billion euros to the European Central Bank (ECB), 465 million euros to the IMF and 2 billion euros to additional creditors.

        Debt and more austerity, in the end impose more debts, this situation puts Greece in a "depressive spiral" that seems not to have an end. How will the resources for complying with these commitments de delivered?

        There is no doubt that if Tsipras decides abandoning the Euro, the consequences will be dramatic for Greece's economy and so for the rest of economies in the region [6], including of course, Germany and France. Berlin fears a massive spread. If Greece collapses, speculators will bet against the most fragile economies: Finland, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, etc.

        Considerably affected by the weak economic growth and the deflation (price breakdown), the Eurozone would loose even more confidence from international investors. The crescent 'aversion to risk' due to Greece's exit would provoke an increase in the performance of sovereign bonds (currently at minimum levels). Panic would boost interest rates, severely shrinking the financial liquidity between countries.

        Uncertainty will increase and the capital flows would be victim of a 'butterfly effect': slight increase of volatility in sovereign bond markets, light drops in stock exchanges and any change in the monetary policy, would be enough to detonate huge turbulences in credit circuits.

        Nevertheless, the Troika seems decisive on backlashing the left's economic program. Syriza have inaugurated the electoral failure of neoliberalism in Europe and due to that, it has become the lender's favorite prey, who are ready to impose their will at any price. However, the Greeks should trust themselves, establish partnership beyond its continental borders and aim for utopia.

        Democracy was born in the ancient Greece and there is where the foundations of a new Europe, free from the 'dictatorship of the creditors' should be built, if there is any alternative…

        [Jun 28, 2015] Fuck the US Imperialism -- Top German Politician Blasts Nuland Carter

        Jun 28, 2015 | Zero Hedge

        With intra-Europe relations hitting a new all-time low; and, having already been busted spying on Merkel, Obama got caught with his hand in Hollande's cookie jar this week, the following exultation from one of Germany's top politicians will hardly help Washington-Brussells relations. As Russia Insider notes, Oskar Lafontaine is a major force in German politics so it caught people's attention when he excoriated Ash Carter and Victoria Nuland on his Facebook page yesterday... "Nuland says 'F*ck the EU'. We need need an EU foreign policy that stops warmongering US imperialism... F*ck US imperialism!"

        Here is the Facebook post (in German):

        Lafontaine has been an outsized figure in German politics since the mid-70s. He was chairman of the SPD (one of Germany's two main parties) for four years, the SPD's candidate for chancellor in 1990, minister of finance for two years, and then chairman of the Left party in the 2000s. He is married to Sarah Wagenknecht, political heavyweight, who is currently co-chairman of Left party.

        Lafontaine's outburst came a day after his wife, Sarah Wagenknecht, blasted Merkel's Russia policy in an interview on RT.

        Here is the full translation of the post:

        "The US 'Defense' secretary, i.e., war minister is in Berlin. He called on Europe to counter Russian 'aggression'. But in fact, it is US aggression which Europeans should be opposing.

        "The Grandmaster of US diplomacy, George Kennan described the eastward expansion of NATO as the biggest US foreign policy mistake since WW2, because it will lead to a new cold war.

        "The US diplomat Victoria Nuland said we have spent $5 billion to destabilize the Ukraine. They stoke the flames ever higher, and Europe pays for it with lower trade and lost jobs.

        "Nuland says 'F*ck the EU'. We need need an EU foreign policy that stops warmongering US imperialism.

        "F*ck US imperialism!"

        * * *

        When he comes out swinging this way, you know something is changing.

        * * *

        America - making friends and influencing people for 238 years...

        remain calm

        I see the CIA creating a little muslim terrorism in Europe to teach them the meaning of respect.

        BlowsAgainstthe...

        "But in fact, it is US aggression which Europeans should be opposing."

        So good, it should be required reading . . .

        "Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault

        The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin"

        https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-08-18/why-ukrain...

        Latina Lover

        To date, the USSA adventurism in the Ukraine has hurt Germany financially and politically, with more losses to follow.

        Instead of integrating more closely with Russia, and becoming a key part of the New Silk Road, Germany is blocked by the USSA, against her better interests. The USSA is creating a new berlin style wall of lies and propaganda between Russia and Germany claiming that Russia plans to invade the baltics, poland, moldova, blah, blah, blah.

        Fortunately, most Germans are not anti intellectuals, and see through the lies, unlike the average american shlub (30% of whom cannot name the current VP but know all of the names of the Kardashians). Eventually, Merkel will get the boot, and be replaced by a more businesslike leader.

        Not Too Important

        30% is pretty generous, don't you think? More like 3%.

        Even an aborigine in the middle of Africa with a cell phone knows more about the world than 97% of Americans.

        Tall Tom

        Fuck American Imperialism?

        Actually it is GERMAN Imperialism over the nation states of Europe, using the European Union as a subterfuge, is that which needs be quashed.

        Fuck GERMAN Imperialism and the European Union as it serves as a tool for the advancement of Germany's Imperialistic ambitions..

        saveandsound

        Oscar Lafontaine is member of the party "The Left". He used to be member of the "Social Democratic Party of Germany".

        Both parties are of rather marginal significance, since Merkel's CDU rules them all. ;-)

        Anyway, "the Left" has been opposing US Imperialism ever since, so there is not much new to see here.

        datura

        that won't help and no more false flags will help either. The latest poll showed that only 19% of Germans would fight Russians in case Russia attacked any NATO country. I repeat: if Russia attacked first. You can wonder, what would be the percentage of them willing to fight Russia just for the sake of Ukraine. Close to zero, I think. The USA overstepped all boundaries, when it began pushing EU countries into a military conflict with Russia. Continental Europeans are not Anglo-Saxons, they think differently. They will bow down to any USA pressure, except for a military conflict with Russia! Thats a big no no. Many of them still remember (especially Germans), what it was like to fight wild-spirited Russians, who never surrender no matter what. These constant talks about "Russian agression" by the USA politicians make Germans feel like a cornered animal with nothing to loose. Such animal cannot be subdued anymore, when your existence and life is so directly threatened, you bite. Or another example: try to force your slave to step on a rattlesnake. He may be forced to do many things, but this time he will turn against you. I already said it before: no war against Russia and Europe is possible, because even if the USA somehow forces us to any such war, huge amounts of people will be so angry that they will flee to the side of Russia. We are already discussing this openly. This is already happening in Ukraine. Already 10 000 Ukranian soldiers defected to the other side (to fight Kiev), plus one Ukrainian general, some members of the Ukranian intelligence service and about one and half million Ukrainians fled to Russia to avoid draft. I saw a video where three entire units of soldiers sent from Kiev to Donetsk (with tanks) changed side, threw out Ukrainian flags and put on Russian flags on their tanks under loud cheers from the brave people of Donbass. There are certain very natural limits to what you can force people to do, which bankers do not seem to understand. Yes, you can send many people to war, but they simply will not fight, unless you give them something to fight for. For example Hitler gave people something to fight for. But all bankers give us is chaos, no strong leader, no ideology strong enough....I think they hoped that Putin would invade Ukraine and that would be the reason for war (they provoked Hitler in a similar way). However, Putin is no Hitler, he is way too intelligent to play these silly games. And it is impossible to repeat exactly what was once so successful, because times change, people are different....you cant win with using old outdated strategies over and over. That is why all empires fall in the end. They get stuck in using the same tricks over and over, until they stop working. Even the old color revolutions are not as efficient now as they were in the past and the same goes for those silly false flags.

        cherry picker

        He is absolutely correct. US is surrounded by two oceans and the North and South neighbor have no intentions of invading the USA, so can anyone explain this war time nuclear, wmd, too many carriers and so forth military and paranoia.

        Can't uncle Sam keep his huge nose out of everyone's business?

        Can't America just enjoy what is theirs and leave others alone?

        Who needs a CIA except for Nazi types.

        Fuck Nuland is a good start.

        Albertarocks

        And the neighbors to the north and south are non-too-pleased with the USA either. We know WTF the USA is doing, although more and more are waking up to the fact that the USA is only being used as the war branch of the banking mafia. Because of this we hold nothing against American people.

        In fact, up north we now probably feel more kinship with "the people" of the USA more than ever before. Because we are learning how all this works. It is the global banking monsters and the fascist corporations, the military industrial complex that is in bed with the fucking bankers. It is those assholes who are causing every damned war in the world... not "the USA" as such. Putin is a saint by comparison... not to mention the only sane leader of a superpower left on earth. He is admirable, even from this side of the pond.

        Mexicans might present a problem, I don't know. Mexicans never bother Canadians so we just don't seem to have an opinion. Canadians are pretty calm, but fuck when we get mad there can be one hell of a bar fight. I don't know how all this works out but it isn't going in the right direction. I think 98% of Canadians would agree with Mr. Lafontaine. US Imperialism has got to come to an end. Or the world will. And by "US", I mean "banker".

        BI2

        If only our politicians could understand what that man is really saying. It is for our own good.

        https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/06/25/warmongering-vs-econ...

        Dodgy Geezer

        We need need an EU foreign policy that stops warmongering US imperialism... F*ck US imperialism!"

        You know what the problem is?

        It's not particularly the US, though they are the biggest players at the moment. It's the result of the end of the Cold War.

        Ever since WW2 the power blocs both had a big military and supporting intelligence service. When the Berlin Wall came down, the Russians collapsed theirs. The West did not. And ever since then it has been looking for a job. That's the reason we have had so much disruption. When your major arm of government is a multi-trillion dollar armed forces, every problem looks like an excuse for a war.

        The Delicate Genius

        It is not US imperialism

        http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/09/anglozionist-short-primer-for-...

        It is the imperialism of the Anglo-Zionist cabal which has hijacked the American treasury and military.

        Neocons, Interventionist "realists" and other assorted militarist scum.

        Their control of the MSM is sound {they even acquired VICE News as that got too popular, and Orwellized it, beginning with the Zionist sent to fake stories out of Ukraine}...

        but not the internet. As younger people grow up, post comments and articles, this cleft between the pre-internet and internet informed grows more and more obvious.

        I'm sure I'm not the only one that expects aggressive moves against intent content.

        We've seen some attacks on free speech already in the Fast Track bill - but it will take time to really see how bad the TPP itself is in practice.

        But it does seem clear that .gov is hoping to make an end run around various Constitutional niceties by "treaty."

        and no - treaties do not and can not over-ride the Constitution. Only amendment, not treaty, can change the constitution.

        PrayingMantis

        ... US imperialism plus US exceptionalism is analogous to this >>> http://rt.com/usa/270268-falcon-launch-space-fail/

        ... and while the US forces the other NATO members to apply more sanctions to Russia, US hypocrisy rears its ugly head by 'allowing' products from sanctioned Russia that would benefit them ... check this out

        >>> http://rt.com/usa/270220-us-space-russian-engine/

        pupdog1

        Gotta love a guy who knows how to define a problem.

        Fuck Noodleberg.

        HTZMR

        As someone who actually lives in Germany i can tell you that Lafontaine is an absolute has-been and he plays no role in German politics, nor has he for years. His influence came to an end when Schroeder kicked him out of his government over 15 years ago. To claim he is a heavyweight is simply dead wrong.

        Wagenknecht does play a certain role, but the Left is a pure protest party full of fundamentalist hardline social democrats and former East German communists. The Left has no say on federal government matters such as foreign policy. This post is pure alarmism.

        Wild E Coyote

        Actually US and Soviet Union both went bankrupt by Cold War.
        Soviet Union accepted their fate.
        USA still refuse to accept theirs.

        Renfield

        Upvoted, but I think technically it was Vietnam that bankrupted the US.

        Then again, you could argue that it was the First World War, or the 1929 market crash -- although its bankruptcy wasn't admitted until 1933.

        [Jun 28, 2015] IMF and Germany Are Hell-Bent on Finishing Off Even a Moderate Left in Greece

        "...Europe's neoliberal elite was after, especially after being fully aware of the fact that Athens had no alternative plan, was not merely a humiliating Greek deal for the Syriza-led government but finishing them off completely to send a message to all potential "troublemakers" in the euro area of the fate awaiting them if they dared challenge the neoliberal, austerity-based orthodoxy of the new Rome."
        .
        "...Mr. Tsipras and his one-night "superstar" finance minister tied up with a dog chain and paraded in front of the European political stage for all to see - utterly defeated and humiliated, with their political futures up in the air, whether they accept or reject a humiliating Greek deal."
        .
        "...as it usually happens in situations of negotiations between ordinates and subordinates, master and slave, rich and poor, strong and weak, the more compromises the latter makes, the more compromises the former demands.""

        IMF and Germany Are Hell-Bent on Finishing Off Even a Moderate Left in Greece

        Jun 28, 2015 | Truthout

        ...Reflecting a political organization/party that had invited and accepted under the same roof extremely diverse political and ideological groups, the Syriza-led government not only failed to set out a clear strategic vision for getting the country out of its current crisis but walked straight into the trap that the euromasters and the "criminal IMF" were setting up for them throughout the course of the negotiations.

        Indeed, the leftist Greek government failed to see that what Europe's neoliberal elite was after, especially after being fully aware of the fact that Athens had no alternative plan, was not merely a humiliating Greek deal for the Syriza-led government but finishing them off completely to send a message to all potential "troublemakers" in the euro area of the fate awaiting them if they dared challenge the neoliberal, austerity-based orthodoxy of the new Rome.

        Working in collaboration with the IMF (whom Mr. Tsipras has charged with "criminal responsibility" for the economic and social catastrophe of Greece), Germany's plan (a nation that has failed to pay its debts repeatedly in modern times and had the bigger part of its foreign debt wiped off in 1953, yet has the audacity now to try to teach moral lessons to Greece) is to have Mr. Tsipras and his one-night "superstar" finance minister tied up with a dog chain and paraded in front of the European political stage for all to see - utterly defeated and humiliated, with their political futures up in the air, whether they accept or reject a humiliating Greek deal.

        ... ... ...

        The members of the Greek government negotiation team had submitted a list of proposals for the June 22 Euro summit that were fully in line with the logic of the EU/IMF bailout program for Greece: more austerity and additional structural adjustments. All in all, the proposals they made amounted to over 8 billion euro in additional cuts between 2015 and 2016! The leftist Greek government even proposed a tax increase to incomes above 30,000 euro, thus suggesting that individuals in that income bracket rank among the wealthy! Basic food items and services were to carry a 23 percent VAT. The special VAT rate on Greek islands, which is so crucial for the tourist sector of the economy, was to be removed. The early retirement age was to be increased as of the start of 2016, and a benefit for low-income pensioners was to be gradually substituted, beginning from 2018.

        The obvious capitulation on the part of the Syriza-led government to the euromasters and the IMF thugs, which was not the first one, was made just to get a deal done as time was running out for Greece (it has a huge payment to make to the IMF at the end of June in the tune of 1.6 billion euro) and thus to remove the dark clouds of a Grexit that had begun to spread dangerously over Greece, as it had finally become clear that Germany and the IMF were calling Syriza's bluff and were ready for the unthinkable, i.e., the possibility of a Grexit.

        But as it usually happens in situations of negotiations between ordinates and subordinates, master and slave, rich and poor, strong and weak, the more compromises the latter makes, the more compromises the former demands.

        Thus, the Greek proposals were found to be inadequate, and there were demands for more blood and tears. Germany and the IMF wanted to force the Syriza-led government to cross its last and final "red line," which was over additional antisocial measures in the nation's social security and pension system. Among other things, the Lagarde/Schäuble duo wants the benefit for low-income pensioners to be completed eliminated by 2017. This would mean that a person who receives today a monthly pension for the amount of 500 euro (close to 50 percent of Greek pensioners receive pensions below the official poverty line) would be deprived of about 200 euro, which come as a welfare payment of sorts.

        ... ... ...

        Footnotes:

        1. The political babel of Syriza consists of right-wing and ultra-nationalist camps (ie., the Independent Greeks party, Syriza's coalition partner in government) to defunct social democrats and outdated Keynesians who saw primarily the crisis in Greece as a threat to capitalism itself and were suggesting, accordingly, all sort of interventionist schemes to keep Greece in the euro area and the emergence of an alternative socio-economic system at bay, including recycling unemployment schemes with the minimum wage so as not to upset the exploitation rate in the private sector (!) and IOUs, and from remnants of euro-communism and the old communist left to post-leftism, postmodernist tendencies devoid of any true understanding of contemporary political realities and without structured support at the popular, working-class level. Indicative of its political nature, not even one large, mass protest or demonstration has ever been organized or successfully carried out by Syriza. Its official organ Avgi still sells thousands of copies less on a daily and a weekly basis than the official organ of the Greek Communist Party, which in the elections of January 2015 barely got over 5 percent of the popular vote.

        2. Syriza had been converted long ago into an utterly confusing, "non-left" left political organization, and the restructuring of the Greek economy and its moribund political culture, the abandonment of outworn, antediluvian modes of political thinking and behaviors, and the transformation of capitalism and its transition to a socialist economy had been completely removed from its political radar. For an argument along those lines, see C. J. Polychroniou, "To Change Greece Requires Changing the Political Culture - and This Could Be a Tall Order, Especially for the Left." Truthout (September 1, 2013).

        ... ... ...

        C.J. Polychroniou is a research associate and policy fellow at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College and a former columnist for a Greek major national newspaper. His main research interests are in European economic integration, globalization, the political economy of the United States and the deconstruction of neoliberalism's politico-economic project. He has taught for many years at universities in the United States and Europe and is a regular contributor to Truthout as well as a member of Truthout's Public Intellectual Project. He has published several books and his articles have appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news websites. Many of his publications have been translated into several foreign languages, including Croatian, French, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Turkish.

        [Jun 28, 2015] Inquiry needed into GCHQ's operations

        Jun 28, 2015 | The Guardian
        • Canon Collins Educational and Legal Assistance Trust is alarmed both that GCHQ has been monitoring and retaining the electronic communications of the Legal Resources Centre and other international NGOs and, despite breaches of process, that this should be ruled lawful (Rights groups targeted by GCHQ spies, 23 June). The supposed balance between the security interests of the state and the rights of citizens is currently not a balance at all, but a lopsided and unhealthy bias towards the former. We urge the government to make known all the facts in this case and to ensure that the rights of citizens in the UK and elsewhere are respected.
          Sandy Balfour
          CEO, Canon Collins Educational and Legal Assistance Trust
        • Am I the only person to be appalled that a US drone operation in a country not at war – Yemen – is called Widowmaker (UK faces call to explain role in US drone killing in Yemen, 25 June)? We have known for a long time about some of the activities of NSA/NRO Menwith Hill, Denver and Alice Springs thanks to Edward Snowden and others. A small group of people are at the gates of this most secretive and unaccountable US base every Tuesday evening and has been there for nearly 15 years. We are awaiting for a brave, courageous, principled and honest whistleblower like Edward Snowden to come out of the Menwith Hill woodwork.
          Lindis Percy
          Joint coordinator, Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases
        • While the legal framework under which GCHQ shares intelligence with the US on drone strikes is an important issue, the direct role of NSA facilities located in the UK should be the subject of investigation. Through the monitoring of electronic communications, combined with satellite imagery, Menwith Hill plays a crucial role in US military power projection, including extra-judicial killings by drone and missile strikes. The least we should expect is a parliamentary investigation into the legality of NSA operations in the UK and a full, informed debate as to whether their continued presence is in our interests.
          Steven Schofield
          Bradford

        [Jun 27, 2015] Greece: Its the Politics, Stupid!

        "...The troika had two goals from the start. First to give the banksters and plutocrats enough time to exit the country they had plundered (with help from local plutocrats). There was a large amount of privately held debt that could not be unloaded during a crisis, so they needed a pretend bailout such that most of that private risk could be transferred onto public organizations. Second they needed to keep the public in the other European countries from understanding that the fault was with their own banksters and plutocrats, not the people of Greece; and that the bailout plan (rather than immediate debt restructuring) actually was a plan to move the inevitable cost away from the banksters and onto the taxpayers."
        Jun 27, 2015 | Economist's View

        Gloomy European Economist Francesco Saraceno:

        It's the Politics, Stupid!: I have been silent on Greece, because scores of excellent economists from all sides commented at length...
        But last week has transformed in certainty what had been a fear since the beginning. The troika, backed by the quasi totality of EU governments, were not interested in finding a solution that would allow Greece to recover while embarking in a fiscally sustainable path. No, they were interested in a complete and public defeat of the "radical" Greek government. ...
        What happened...? Well, contrary to what is heard in European circles, most of the concessions came from the Greek government. On retirement age, on the size of budget surplus (yes, the Greek government gave up its intention to stop austerity, and just obtained to soften it), on VAT, on privatizations, we are today much closer to the Troika initial positions than to the initial Greek position. Much closer.
        The point that the Greek government made repeatedly is that some reforms, like improving the tax collection capacity, actually demanded an increase of resources, and hence of public spending. Reforms need to be disconnected from austerity, to maximize their chance to work. Syriza, precisely like the Papandreou government in 2010 asked for time and possibly money. It got neither.
        Tsipras had only two red lines it would and it could not cross: Trying to increase taxes on the rich (most notably large coroporations), and not agreeing to further cuts to low pensions. if he crossed those lines, he would become virtually indistinguishable from Samaras and from the policies that led Greece to be a broken State.
        What the past week made clear is that this, and only this was the objective of the creditors. This has been since the beginning about politics. Creditors cannot afford that an alternative to policies followed since 2010 in Greece and in the rest of the Eurozone materializes.
        Austerity and structural reforms need to be the only way to go. Otherwise people could start asking questions; a risk you don't want to run a few months before Spanish elections. Syriza needed to be made an example. You cannot survive in Europe, if you don't embrace the Brussels-Berlin Consensus. Tsipras, like Papandreou, was left with the only option too ask for the Greek people's opinion, because there has been no negotiation, just a huge smoke screen. Those of us who were discussing pros and cons of the different options on the table, well, we were wasting our time.
        And if Greece needs to go down to prove it, so be it. If we transform the euro in a club in which countries come and go, so be it.
        The darkest moment for the EU.
        RGC said...

        by MICHAEL HUDSON


        Many readers of the European and American press must be confused about what actually is happening in the negotiations between Greece (Alexis Tsipras and Yannis Varoufakis). The European Troika (the IMF, European Central Bank and European Council now object to the name and want to be called simply "the Institutions") have stepped up their demands on Syriza. What is called "negotiation" is in reality a demand for total surrender. The Troika's demand is to force Syriza to go back on the campaign promises that it made to voters who replaced the old right-wing Pasok ("socialist") and Conservative New Democracy coalition, or else simply apply the austerity program to which that coalition had agreed:cutbacks in pensions, deeper austerity, more privatization selloffs, and a tax shift off business onto labor. In short, economic suicide.

        Last weekend a group of us met in Delphi to discuss and draft the following Declaration of Support for Greece against the neoliberal Institutions. It is now clear that finance is the new mode of warfare. The creditors' objective is the same as military conquest: they want the land, the natural resource rights and monopolies, and they want tribute (in this case, debt service). And they don't want sovereign Greece to tax the economic rent from these assets. In short, the negotiation between The Institutions and Greece is a bold exercise in rent extraction.

        http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/26/the-delphi-declaration/

        Peter K. said...

        I agree with what Saraceno wrote. "The troika, backed by the quasi totality of EU governments, were not interested in finding a solution that would allow Greece to recover while embarking in a fiscally sustainable path."

        The austerity program they forced Greece to follow was a failure and the troika doesn't care what Syriza was elected to do. It can overrule democracy.

        As good as the IMF research department has been regarding Keynesian policies lately, the IMF is coming off really bad here, just going along with insane policy.

        If Greece doesn't pay by the 30th do they get kicked out? If they kicked out will they hold the July 5th referendum anyway?

        Maybe the troika don't kick them out immediately and the referendum votes no on the bailout package. Then Greece defaults but possibly stays in the EU on the drachma with capital controls. Possibly Greece can rejoin the EU later on.

        anne said in reply to anne...

        What still puzzles me is whether and by what authority Greece can be forced to leave the European Union, even if Greece has to abandon the Euro.

        As for the leadership of the European Union, no matter the title of the various governing parties, there has been an increasingly conservative political-economic bent to the leadership in domestic, Europe-wide and international affairs.

        DeDude said in reply to anne...

        They can not be forced to leave the European (political) Union. The may have to abandon the Euro currency, but a number of other EU countries have their own currency (enjoying the free trade and political advantages of being an EU country). They would likely be forced to either back out of the Euro or face a complete collapse of their banks and economy (without banks no business) if the ECB close their banks access to funds. But there is no way that they could be kicked out of the Euro if they refused to leave.

        anne said in reply to Larry...

        http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/greece-and-the-euro

        June 26, 2015

        Greece and the Euro

        James Stewart has a piece * in the New York Times telling readers that if Greece were to leave the euro it would face a disaster. The headline warns readers, "imagine Argentina, but much worse." The article includes several assertions that are misleading or false.

        First, it is difficult to describe the default in Argentina as a disaster. The economy had been plummeting prior to the default, which occurred at the end of the year in 2001. The country's GDP had actually fallen more before the default than it did after the default. (This is not entirely clear on the graph, since the data is annual. At the point where the default took place in December of 2001, Argentina's GDP was already well below the year-round average.) While the economy did fall more sharply after the default, it soon rebounded and by the end of 2003 it had regained all the ground lost following the default.

        [Graph]

        Argentina's economy continued to grow rapidly for several more years, rising above pre-recession levels in 2004. Given the fuller picture, it is difficult to see the default as an especially disastrous event even if it did lead to several months of uncertainty for the people of Argentina. In this respect, it is worth noting that Paul Volcker is widely praised in policy circles for bringing down the inflation rate. To accomplish this goal he induced a recession that pushed the unemployment rate to almost 11 percent. So the idea that short-term pain might be a price worth paying for a longer term benefit is widely accepted in policy circles.

        At one point the piece refers to the views of Yanis Varoufakis, Greece's finance minister, on the difficulties of leaving the euro. It relies on what it describes as a "recent blogpost." Actually the post * is from 2012.

        To support the argument that Greece has little prospect for increasing its exports it quotes Daniel Gros, director of the Center for European Policy Studies in Brussels, on the impact of devaluation on tourism:

        "But they've already cut prices and tourism has gone up. But it hasn't really helped because total revenue hasn't gone up."

        Actually tourism revenue has risen. It rose by 8.0 percent from 2011 to 2013 (the most recent data available) measured in euros and by roughly 20 percent measured in dollars. In arguing that Greece can't increase revenue from fishing the piece tells readers:

        "The European Union has strict quotas to prevent overfishing."

        However the piece also tells readers that leaving the euro would cause Greece to be thrown out of the European Union. If that's true, the EU limits on fishing would be irrelevant.

        The piece also make a big point of the fact that Greece does not at present have a currency other than the euro. There are plenty of countries, including many which are poorer than Greece, who have managed to switch over to a new currency in a relatively short period of time. While this process will never be painless, it must be compared to the pain associated with an indefinite period of unemployment in excess of 20.0 percent which is almost certainly the path associated with remaining in the euro on the Troika's terms.

        In making comparisons between Greece and Argentina, it is also worth noting that almost all economists projected disaster at the time Argentina defaulted in 2001. Perhaps they have learned more about economics in the last 14 years, but this is not obviously true.

        * http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/business/an-echo-of-argentina-in-greek-debt-crisis.html

        ** http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2012/05/16/weisbrot-and-krugman-are-wrong-greece-cannot-pull-off-an-argentina/

        -- Dean Baker

        anne said in reply to Mel at onin...

        Tsipras had only two red lines it would and it could not cross: Trying to increase taxes on the rich (most notably large corporations), and not agreeing to further cuts to low pensions. if he crossed those lines, he would become virtually indistinguishable from Samaras and from the policies that led Greece to be a broken State.

        -- Francesco Saraceno

        [ I believe that this passage is wrong. Prime Minister Tsipras, to my understanding, was willing and had offered to increase taxes on the rich or "large corporations."

        I will try to find a reference, but I am fairly sure I read this in regard to the offer by Tsipras. I recall the insistence on preserving low pension levels came with an express proposal to increase taxes on those with relatively high incomes. ]

        DeDude said...

        The troika had two goals from the start. First to give the banksters and plutocrats enough time to exit the country they had plundered (with help from local plutocrats). There was a large amount of privately held debt that could not be unloaded during a crisis, so they needed a pretend bailout such that most of that private risk could be transferred onto public organizations. Second they needed to keep the public in the other European countries from understanding that the fault was with their own banksters and plutocrats, not the people of Greece; and that the bailout plan (rather than immediate debt restructuring) actually was a plan to move the inevitable cost away from the banksters and onto the taxpayers.

        Unfortunately, European tribalistic politics (further inflamed by the second goal) forced such austerity upon the people of Greece that they rebelled and elected a socialist government. Now there is a third goal for the troika (as dictated by their plutocrat masters); to punish the people of Greece (and scare voters in other countries) for electing socialist leaders. Be ready for an all out war of sabotaging any and all Greek economic recovery. They are desperate to set the example and scare away any thought of rebellion against economic tyranny in countries like Portugal, Spain, Ireland (Italy, France). They are not even trying to hide their sabotage of the Syriza government – just compare what they demand to what Syriza is offering. The objectives are for the same goals, it is just that Syriza has a plan that can reach those goals without sinking the Greek economy into an even deeper hole.

        Fred C. Dobbs said...


        If you owe your bank a million euros
        and can't pay, YOU have a problem.

        If it's a billion euros, THEY have a problem.

        If it's a trillion, *you* are back
        to having a problem, as it turns out.

        Who knew?

        RGC said...

        IMF policy re Greece and Ukraine:

        Greece: IMF Warns No Leeway on Payment as Merkel Urges Greece to Bow

        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-18/lagarde-affirms-greece-s-june-30-deadline-to-make-imf-payments

        Ukraine: IMF Violates IMF Rules, to Continue Ukraine Bailouts

        http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/imf-violates-imf-rules-to-continue-ukraine-bailouts/

        Sandwichman said...

        DS-K weighs in on the IMF not learning from mistakes

        http://fr.slideshare.net/DominiqueStraussKahn/150627-tweet-greece?ref=https://fr.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/yT0ZJNQMSAStzy

        Reply Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 11:51 AM

        anne said in reply to Sandwichman...

        http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/business/dealbook/businesses-worry-about-shouldering-burden-of-greek-debt.html

        June 24, 2015

        Businesses Worry About Shouldering Burden of Greek Debt
        By LANDON THOMAS Jr.

        THESSALONIKI, Greece - From the beginning, officials at the International Monetary Fund, one of the country's creditors, have criticized the proposal's reliance on raising corporate tax, arguing that such increases will only hurt the country's already fragile economy....

        [ This is the IMF; sacrifice ordinary already damaged Greek people for the sake of corporate or relatively rich Greeks. ]

        Reply Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 11:59 AM

        Sandwichman said in reply to Sandwichman...

        Unconfirmed rumors that DS-K was originally going to refer to "the IMF's rape of Greece" but decided that might backfire.

        Reply Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 12:04 PM

        anne said in reply to Sandwichman...

        Having read the Dominique Strauss Kahn memo carefully again, I am not sure just what is being argued other than a little more generous debt forgiveness a little earlier.

        Reply Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 02:39 PM

        Sandwichman said...

        "Jeroen Dijsselbloem, president of the eurogroup of finance ministers, said before the meeting he was 'disappointed' by the surprise plans to stage a popular vote on debt financing proposals.

        "'It's a very sad decision for Greece because it's closed the door to further talks, a door that was still open in my mind,' he said."

        Democracy? Can't have that! This is FINANCE.

        Reply Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 12:24 PM

        anne said in reply to Sandwichman...

        I am reminded of "Yes, Minister" on the EU.

        Reply Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 01:53 PM

        mrrunangun said...

        I think of my dad's friend Phil in these cases of indebtedness. Phil was a successful businessman who functioned as a lender of last resort for a number of his acquaintances. Phil wanted his money first and foremost. When a borrower could not pay on time, Phil gave a brief grace period. If the borrower still could not pay, Phil would counsel the guy to get an honest job if he didn't already have one or get a second job if he had one and only one. If the guy already had two jobs or was ineligible for honest work, he was advised to consult a pawnbroker. If necessary, stealing and fencing outside of Phil's network might be a last resort. If the borrower still could not pay, Phil was not above resorting to strong collection methods that might persuade the borrower to come up with some cash courtesy of friends and family. Like legal collection methods Phil's cost money so was only resorted to in unusual cases. If the borrower still could not come up with the money, Phil had to face the loss. Needless to say, no further credit would be forthcoming.

        It may be impossible for Greece to pay its debts because its prospects for growth are inadequate given the nature of its politics, the size of the debt, and relatively small size of its economy. If its lenders have concluded that that is the case, Greece would have to default and take the consequences. Its lenders will have to take the consequences as well. Phil would not have felt obliged to continue to make loans to a customer who had demonstrated an inability to repay his loan after the usual forbearance.

        Chris Herbert said...

        Greece doesn't need any loans. Greece doesn't need any debt. Once you are a monetary sovereign you call the shots. Just ask the United States, or China, or Japan. Or Iceland. The central bank can recapitalize the economy with a new drachma, the only currency that can be used domestically. It can fund infrastructure projects that invigorate the Greek economy without issuing debt because it is producing assets, not liabilities. It can do so by avoiding what Keynes describe as 'a bookkeepers nightmare.' Keynes:

        "The divorce between ownership and the real responsibility of management is serious within a country when, as a result of joint-stock enterprise, ownership is broken up between innumerable individuals who buy their interest today and sell it tomorrow and lack altogether both knowledge and responsibility towards what they momentarily own. But when the same principle is applied internationally, it is, in times of stress, intolerable - I am irresponsible towards what I own and those who operate what I own are irresponsible towards me. There may be some financial calculation which shows it to be advantageous that my savings should be invested in whatever quarter of the habitable globe shows the greatest marginal efficiency of capital or the highest rate of interest. But experience is accumulating that remoteness between ownership and operation is an evil in the relations between men, likely or certain in the long run to set up strains and enmities which will bring to nought the financial calculation....

        National self-sufficiency, in short, though it costs something, may be becoming a luxury which we can afford if we happen to want it. Are there sufficient good reasons why we may happen to want it? The decadent international but individualistic capitalism, in the hands of which we found ourselves after the War, is not a success. It is not intelligent, it is not beautiful, it is not just, it is not virtuous - and it doesn't deliver the goods. In short, we dislike it and we are beginning to despise it. But when we wonder what to put in its place, we are extremely perplexed."

        anne said in reply to Chris Herbert...

        http://www.polyarchy.org/enough/texts/keynes.1933.html

        1933

        National self-sufficiency
        By John Maynard Keynes

        RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Chris Herbert...

        Terrific!

        anne said...

        http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/europes-moment-of-truth/

        June 27, 2015

        Europe's Moment of Truth
        By Paul Krugman

        Until now, every warning about an imminent breakup of the euro has proved wrong. Governments, whatever they said during the election, give in to the demands of the troika; meanwhile, the ECB steps in to calm the markets. This process has held the currency together, but it has also perpetuated deeply destructive austerity - don't let a few quarters of modest growth in some debtors obscure the immense cost of five years of mass unemployment.

        As a political matter, the big losers from this process have been the parties of the center-left, whose acquiescence in harsh austerity - and hence abandonment of whatever they supposedly stood for - does them far more damage than similar policies do to the center-right.

        It seems to me that the troika - I think it's time to stop the pretense that anything changed, and go back to the old name - expected, or at least hoped, that Greece would be a repeat of this story. Either Tsipras would do the usual thing, abandoning much of his coalition and probably being forced into alliance with the center-right, or the Syriza government would fall. And it might yet happen.

        But at least as of right now Tsipras seems unwilling to fall on his sword. Instead, faced with a troika ultimatum, he has scheduled a referendum on whether to accept. This is leading to much hand-wringing and declarations that he's being irresponsible, but he is, in fact, doing the right thing, for two reasons.

        • First, if it wins the referendum, the Greek government will be empowered by democratic legitimacy, which still, I think, matters in Europe. (And if it doesn't, we need to know that, too.)
        • Second, until now Syriza has been in an awkward place politically, with voters both furious at ever-greater demands for austerity and unwilling to leave the euro. It has always been hard to see how these desires could be reconciled; it's even harder now. The referendum will, in effect, ask voters to choose their priority, and give Tsipras a mandate to do what he must if the troika pushes it all the way.

        If you ask me, it has been an act of monstrous folly on the part of the creditor governments and institutions to push it to this point. But they have, and I can't at all blame Tsipras for turning to the voters, instead of turning on them.

        RGC said in reply to anne...

        "If you ask me, it has been an act of monstrous folly on the part of the creditor governments and institutions to push it to this point."

        The US banks promoted loans that obviously could not be repaid. They committed massive fraud. They caused a horrendous debt deflation and concomitant great recession. Yet they were bailed out by Obama. Why shouldn't the European banks expect the same of their politicians?

        [Jun 27, 2015] Breaking Greece

        Paul Krugman:

        Breaking Greece: I've been staying fairly quiet on Greece... But given reports from the negotiations in Brussels, something must be said...
        This ought to be a negotiation about targets for the primary surplus, and then about debt relief that heads off endless future crises. And the Greek government has agreed to what are actually fairly high surplus targets, especially given the fact that the budget would be in huge primary surplus if the economy weren't so depressed. But the creditors keep rejecting Greek proposals on the grounds that they rely too much on taxes and not enough on spending cuts. So we're still in the business of dictating domestic policy.
        The supposed reason for the rejection of a tax-based response is that it will hurt growth. The obvious response is, are you kidding us? The people who utterly failed to see the damage austerity would do - see the chart, which compares the projections in the 2010 standby agreement with reality - are now lecturing others on growth? Furthermore, the growth concerns are all supply-side, in an economy surely operating at least 20 percent below capacity. ...
        At this point it's time to stop talking about "Graccident"; if Grexit happens it will be because the creditors, or at least the IMF, wanted it to happen.
        Sandwichman said...

        The class nature of the IMF position is evident to anyone who chooses to see. Olivier Blanchard is the IMF's chief economist. Professor Krugman politely omits mentioning that salient fact. Professional courtesy, I presume.

        anne said in reply to Sandwichman...

        Olivier Blanchard is the IMF's chief economist.

        [ Meaning what exactly? ]

        Sandwichman said in reply to anne...

        Meaning if "unserious" Olivier (see below) was serious about his unseriousness maybe he would publicly repudiate the economics of the policy of the organization that he is presumably chief economist for.

        Sandwichman said in reply to anne...

        "The IMF's 'Tough Choices' on Greece," Jamie Galbraith

        http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/imf-greece-debt-restructuring-by-james-k-galbraith-2015-06#I3bKPImqEIzi2QYu.99

        "Blanchard should know better than to persist with this fiasco. Once the link between "reform" and growth is broken – as it has been in Greece – his argument collapses. With no path to growth, the creditors' demand for an eventual 3.5%-of-GDP primary surplus is actually a call for more contraction, beginning with another deep slump this year.

        "But, rather than recognizing this reality and adjusting accordingly, Blanchard doubles down on pensions. He writes:

        "'Why insist on pensions? Pensions and wages account for about 75% of primary spending; the other 25% have already been cut to the bone. Pension expenditures account for over 16% of GDP, and transfers from the budget to the pension system are close to 10% of GDP. We believe a reduction of pension expenditures of 1% of GDP (out of 16%) is needed, and that it can be done while protecting the poorest pensioners.'

        "Note first the damning admission: apart from pensions and wages, spending has already been "cut to the bone." And remember: the effect of this approach on growth was negative. So, in defiance of overwhelming evidence, the IMF now wants to target the remaining sector, pensions, where massive cuts – more than 40% in many cases – have already been made. The new cuts being demanded would hit the poor very hard."

        anne said in reply to Sandwichman...

        Understood completely, darn.

        Sandwichman said in reply to Sandwichman...

        So Galbraith and Krugman basically agree on the stupidity of the policy. Galbraith names the name. Krugman hesitates. Basic social psychology.

        Sandwichman said in reply to Sandwichman...

        Final paragraph of the Jamie Galbraith piece:

        "Blanchard insists that now is the time for "tough choices, and tough commitments to be made on both sides." Indeed it is. But the Greeks have already made tough choices. Now it is the IMF's turn, beginning with the decision to admit that the policies it has imposed for five long years created a disaster. For the other creditors, the toughest choice is to admit – as the IMF knows – that their Greek debts must be restructured. New loans for failed policies – the current joint creditor proposal – is, for them, no adjustment at all."

        Final two paragraphs of Krugman's:

        "Talk to IMF people and they will go on about the impossibility of dealing with Syriza, their annoyance at the grandstanding, and so on. But we're not in high school here. And right now it's the creditors, much more than the Greeks, who keep moving the goalposts. So what is happening? Is the goal to break Syriza? Is it to force Greece into a presumably disastrous default, to encourage the others?

        "At this point it's time to stop talking about "Graccident"; if Grexit happens it will be because the creditors, or at least the IMF, wanted it to happen."

        Do those "IMF people" have names? I guess not.

        anne said in reply to Sandwichman...

        Perfectly contrasted and argued, and important.

        pgl said in reply to Sandwichman...

        This is sounding a lot like our Federal government. Nondefense purchasing is not that high even though we need a lot more infrastructure. Republicans have bitched about Social Security retirement benefits for decades. Cut taxes to hell and then demand a balanced budget even during weak aggregate demand. OK, Greece's problems are enormous but listen to Paul Ryan enough and we will become a banana republic.

        [Jun 27, 2015] Tsipras Bailout Referendum Sham naked capitalism

        "...not just greece. the collusion between the ECB and the French and German governments/banks, along with the IMF sends a clear message to all the European "junior" states."
        .
        "...He stated that default would be "catastrophic" and that he saw his job as "attempting to save capitalism from itself." In short exactly the role that FDR played in the U.S. "
        .
        "...Surely you can't believe Syriza is going to come out of that stronger? The banking system has basically collapsed, deal or no deal. Plus. the Troika proposal also contains the poison pill of VAT increases for the islands, which would drive a wedge between Syriza and it's nationalist allies. "
        .
        "...The combination of political cravenness combined with short-sightedness and a recklessness built on arrogance displayed by the Troika should be truly sobering and is the real story, regardless of what now happens in Greece."
        June 27, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com

        Chris Herbert said...

        Greece doesn't need any loans. Greece doesn't need any debt. Once you are a monetary sovereign you call the shots. Just ask the United States, or China, or Japan. Or Iceland. The central bank can recapitalize the economy with a new drachma, the only currency that can be used domestically. It can fund infrastructure projects that invigorate the Greek economy without issuing debt because it is producing assets, not liabilities. It can do so by avoiding what Keynes describe as 'a bookkeepers nightmare.' Keynes: "The divorce between ownership and the real responsibility of management is serious within a country when, as a result of joint-stock enterprise, ownership is broken up between innumerable individuals who buy their interest today and sell it tomorrow and lack altogether both knowledge and responsibility towards what they momentarily own. But when the same principle is applied internationally, it is, in times of stress, intolerable - I am irresponsible towards what I own and those who operate what I own are irresponsible towards me. There may be some financial calculation which shows it to be advantageous that my savings should be invested in whatever quarter of the habitable globe shows the greatest marginal efficiency of capital or the highest rate of interest. But experience is accumulating that remoteness between ownership and operation is an evil in the relations between men, likely or certain in the long run to set up strains and enmities which will bring to nought the financial calculation....

        National self-sufficiency, in short, though it costs something, may be becoming a luxury which we can afford if we happen to want it. Are there sufficient good reasons why we may happen to want it? The decadent international but individualistic capitalism, in the hands of which we found ourselves after the War, is not a success. It is not intelligent, it is not beautiful, it is not just, it is not virtuous - and it doesn't deliver the goods. In short, we dislike it and we are beginning to despise it. But when we wonder what to put in its place, we are extremely perplexed."

        anne said in reply to Chris Herbert...

        http://www.polyarchy.org/enough/texts/keynes.1933.html

        1933

        National self-sufficiency
        By John Maynard Keynes

        RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Chris Herbert...
        Terrific!
        Swedish Lex June 27, 2015 at 7:27 am

        Thanks for long analysis.

        Not sure I agree with all.

        While Tsipras, Syriza & Co. certainly are not the team that would win the Super bowl, far from it, they are nevertheless not worse than the Troika in terms of incompetence, internal inconsistencies, having made populistic and crazy promises to voters on false pretenses, etc. Greece is the unruly teenager and the Troika are supposed to be the enlightened and responsible parents, even if it means being harsh. What we have instead is one entirely dysfunctional family.

        My point is that even a 24 karat Greek Government would have an impossible task in negociating with the Ayatollahs of the Troika.

        This game is therefore (unfortunately) not about acting rationally. Doing the right and responsible thing will not make you win or at least lose less.

        Therefore I think that Tsipras move to launch a referendum is not bad. If the ECB shuts off the ELA – a couple of days before the citizens of Greece get to vote on the situation – then the ECB will (again) be confirmed at the Institution that kills democracy.

        The Greek referendum has in my view been an option for the Greeks all the time. By doing it now "Ach mein Gott, way too late", the Greeks show that the creditors, and their parliaments, do not own the agenda (and hence cannot use it as pressure point).

        What we are witnessing is clearly not a negotiation. It is political warfare with one pygmy state against a totally overwhelming force. I do not expect Greece to win this, in the end, but I hope that they will lose with dignity while the creditors win in infamy. This is not irrelevant since the next generation of Greeks will need to know that their parents refused to surrender to the, objectively, suicidal demands of the creditors....

        Swedish Lex, June 27, 2015 at 7:33 am

        I also believe that a Greek default would blow a big hole in the ECB's balance sheet, meaning that the euro states would have to inject tens of billions of new equity. Real money. TBC.

        Freddo, June 27, 2015 at 7:52 am

        I wonder how Merkel is feeling right now. I would interpret telling Tspiras to "shut up" as a sign she sees her legacy disappearing down a drain. Powerful leaders holding all the cards don't talk like that. Maybe she has suddenly realized she doesn't hold all the cards.
        ennui, June 27, 2015 at 10:06 am

        not just greece. the collusion between the ECB and the French and German governments/banks, along with the IMF sends a clear message to all the European "junior" states. the fact that the ECB has conducted a slow bank run in Greece destroys any trust national political leaders might have in a European banking system. you can't have a central bank which is willing to destroy the banking system of a member state to advance the political aims of other member states….

        steviefinn, June 27, 2015 at 7:56 am

        Swedish Lex

        Agreed – & what is the difference in the end result between bowing & scraping & at least putting up some sort of fight ? Strikes me that it would eventually end up in much the same place anyway. Maybe morals don't count in this counting house world anymore, but however it ends, I personally am grateful to Syriza for allowing us more insight into the dealings of the EU Junta – which hopefully others will learn from, leading to a way of destoying this hydra.

        Lambert Strether, June 27, 2015 at 1:23 pm
        Not sure what mechanism you have in mind. From the post:

        [Syriza's] assumption appears to have been that the national governments would find it too politically toxic to recognize losses on the debt they had extended to Greece through the EFSF and the Greek Bailout Fund. But maturities on these facilities have been extended and payments deferred. And the national governments do not have to mark to market. They will recognize losses only if and when Greece fails to make payments, which is years down the road. And even then, the pain is spread out over decades. That means Greece's supposed nuclear weapon turns out to be a pop gun.

        Granted, these are country losses (after they were left holding the bag for German banks) but you do't explain how the ECB would lose. Would you, please?

        Cugel, June 27, 2015 at 7:42 pm

        Varoufakis last year explained everything before Syriza even took power. He stated that default would be "catastrophic" and that he saw his job as "attempting to save capitalism from itself." In short exactly the role that FDR played in the U.S.

        The difference of course is that the U.S. had a sovereign currency and could run deficits and FDR didn't have to answer to the Troika. So, Syriza tried to get the creditors to see reason and see that it was in their long-term best interests to grant debt-relief. They failed because of EU arrogance, blind adherence to dogma, and short-term thinking. But, they certainly didn't have any other choice.

        Yves has criticized them severely for not negotiating better. It is impossible to prove she's wrong that Syriza missed opportunities for finding a workable compromise, but I've never seen it as remotely plausible that the creditors would agree to anything Greece could accept.

        The attempt at a referendum is obvious political theater and will be rejected by the Troika. It wouldn't work anyway. It is just another political ploy by Tsipras to cast the blame on the Troika by making them look bad, but they are long past the point of caring and just want Greece out of the EU.

        Ben Johannson, June 27, 2015 at 3:35 pm

        I can see no evidence that eurozone CB's must be in positive territory regarding its balance sheet or that member states must make any "hole" whole. They may demand it anyway given the leaders of the eurogang are likely as stupid as they look but it isn't an inevitability given the ECB does not require balance sheet solvency to conduct its operations.

        ennui, June 27, 2015 at 1:15 pm

        As Varoufakis notes in his recent statement, an agreement now would leave Syriza with a Greek economy in a deep depression, a banking system that has been strangled by the ECB with no commitment to confidence building, a requirement to create a fiscal surplus and monthly reviews by the IMF culminating in a repeat performance of this whole charade in November.

        Surely you can't believe Syriza is going to come out of that stronger? The banking system has basically collapsed, deal or no deal. Plus. the Troika proposal also contains the poison pill of VAT increases for the islands, which would drive a wedge between Syriza and it's nationalist allies.

        Whether it was intentional or not, Syriza's dogged commitment to this "negotiation" has illustrated just the degree to which the Troika are acting in bad faith. There were just two outcomes that were possible from this process: Syriza signing a deal which would be politically suicidal or Greek exit, and this was by design by the powers of Europe.

        The combination of political cravenness combined with short-sightedness and a recklessness built on arrogance displayed by the Troika should be truly sobering and is the real story, regardless of what now happens in Greece.

        [Jun 27, 2015] The Bankruptcy of Americas Elites naked capitalism

        "...The wealthy's acceptance of the New Deal was always grudging, and lasted only as long as they thought their wealth/safety depended on some of the rest of us being fairly prosperous. When they found a way out of it (globalization) they were happy to toss the New Deal away."
        .
        "...What happens to the concept of economic bubbles if we do not assume that markets are self-correcting? It goes out the window because there is no norm from which to stray."
        .
        "...modern financier capitalism has no plan other than "loot while you can". The last comment of Scheer points to pyramidal or Ponzi schemes being all what is, and, if that's the backbone of the economy, we are certainly in for a massive shock that will make the 2007-08 one look almost anecdotal. "
        .
        "...Something will eventually break, if only for the reason that the 'elites' have forgotten the basic rule of parasitism: Do not kill your host."
        June 26, 2015 | nakedcapitalism.com

        If someone had used the word "elites" in 2006, they would have been seen as a hair-on-fire hysteric, long on conspiracy theories and short on sober understanding of How Things Work. But as the 1% and 0.1% amass more and more of total income and wealth, so too have they come to believe their interest diverge from those of the rest of us (and in a literal sense, they often do, since in too many cases, their wealth rests at least in part on predatory conduct). And now that that gap has become obvious, it has reshaped the role of the ruling class, as in the people who are in charge of the administrative apparatus of society. While some members of these top income groups play a direct role in running powerful organizations (CEOs of large an/or strategically important businesses, for instance), it also includes much less affluent individuals, like government officials and those who influence values and collective perceptions, like major publishers and public intellectuals.

        Increasingly, these administrators, influencers, and top professionals seek to use their roles as an entry ticket to the top cohort. The prototype is the revolving door regulator, but there are plenty of other embodiments.

        A recent example is Raj Date, who was the Deputy Director at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau after having worked at Deutsche Bank, Capital One, and McKinsey. I'm told consumer groups were never comfortable with him; he was too slick to be seen as trustworthy. And he tried to elbow Elizabeth Warren aside and he grab the directorship of the new agency before Warren put a stop to that by throwing her weight behind Richard Cordray. Date founded Fenway Summer, a "venture investment firm focused on financial services." It sought to compete with Promontory Group, a money and influence machine headed by former Comptroller of the Currency Gene Ludwig. Established readers may recall the prominent role that Promontory played in the Independent Foreclosure Review fiasco, in which Promontory walked away with over $600 million in fees for a job badly performed and never completed (for details, see Regulatory Looting, Promontory-Style: Botched Foreclosure Reviews Alone Generate More than Double Goldman's Revenues per Employee, Bank of America Foreclosure Reviews: Why the OCC Overlooked "Independent" Reviewer Promontory's Keystone Cops Act (Part VB)) and Bank of America Foreclosure Reviews: How Promontory Became a Shadow Regulator (Part VA).

        Date just sold Fenway Summer to Promontory. As a well-recognized banking expert said via e-mail:

        Not surprised. I read it as a failure of Fenway Summer. It was supposed to be a rival to Promontory, not bought out by it. I sure as hell wouldn't pay for Raj's advice.

        But members of the elite like Raj manage to fail upwards, or at worst sideways. And that helps preserve the widening gap between them and everyone else.

        This Real News Network interview with Robert Scheer, which is number six in a ten part series, discusses how the self-serving attitudes among the supposed leaders of our society became entrenched.

        PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome back to Reality Asserts Itself on The Real News Network. We're continuing our discussion with Bob Scheer. Bob is a veteran U.S. journalist, currently the editor-in-chief of the Webby Award-winning online magazine Truthdig. And his whole biography you'll find beneath the video player.

        We're just going to pick up where we were.

        So here's what I'm accusing you off, that you seem to be suggesting that there's some rationality left in this system within the elites. And I'm not talking–of course there are some individuals that have some rational long-term view. I mean, even people like Soros has been crying about the lack of banking regulation. And there's people in different sectors of the elites who realize this is a train wreck and about go over a cliff. But those voices are actually marginalized. Even somebody who's got as much money as Soros within the banking and financial elite is completely marginalized. Nobody really listens to a word he says–people with power, at any rate. [1:07]

        PROF. ROBERT SCHEER, JOURNALIST AND AUTHOR: Well, they listen to–.

        JAY: Let me finish the point.

        SCHEER: They listen to Buffett.

        JAY: Well, maybe. But Buffett doesn't raise as much alarm as Soros does. But within there–they don't even seem to be able to rule in their own interest. It would be in the interest of global capitalism to have more rational banking regulations as they introduced in the 1930s. It would be in the interest of global capitalism to deal with the threat of catastrophic climate change. It would be in the interest of any rationality not to let fossil fuel and the arms industry so dominate U.S. foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, I mean, this fueling of a Saudi-Iranian conflict. The idea that, you know, could there be a United States without a massive military, yeah, there could, but not this United States, not this economic system, not this elite. These guys aren't going to come around to some kind if view of we could be an equal, modest country.

        SCHEER: Well, you're absolutely right that the current configuration of power in America is irrational. We don't have adults watching the store. And we go from one disastrous pursuit to another. I mean, there was no reason whatsoever, if we had adults watching the store, you'd go knock off Saddam Hussein in Iraq, who had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, was a force against Iran, which–you know, we backed him in his war with Iran. So the contradictions are obvious, that we don't have adults watching the store, we don't have rational policy.

        However, I think you are not the only person that now knows that.

        JAY: Oh, I'm sure lots of–I would say most ordinary people kind of know it.

        SCHEER: No, I think even in those circles there's an awareness that we're not doing very well, and there are reminders that we're not doing well. You know, our economy is stagnant. We're up against some real problems in terms of our future. Income inequality is one. You don't have to be some wild lefty liberal to see that. I mean, the whole foundation of our country was always on a stable middle class and an expanding middle class, opportunity, equal playing field. I'm not saying that was the reality, but that was always the expectation. You know. And, you know, whether it's de Tocqueville or the founding fathers, there was always an assumption that at least for what you thought was the base population there would be this opportunity. You know. And we have been forced over the last couple of decades to recognize that no, it's going alarmingly in a different direction.

        Internationally, we know we're not doing very well. I mean, we don't produce a whole lot of products that everybody in the world is dying to get their hands on. The main thing that we've been effective on is this tech stuff, and our tech companies are the ones that are most concerned that our political model is not a good one. They're the ones that are out there having to sell this stuff, and this stuff involves getting confidence and knowing the culture, caring about other people, winning their confidence. And that's been endangered.

        So the only thing I would–I don't disagree with you at all as to whether our model is in trouble. It's in trouble. I disagree with you only on whether–the number of people who know it's in trouble.

        JAY: I would say even most of them–I would probably think most of the elite know it's in trouble. They're just going to cash in on it, and it's going to be someone else's problem to do something about it.

        SCHEER: Okay. You're putting your finger on something that I feel is very critical. And I have spent my life interviewing people generally around power, in government and so forth. I've traveled with Nelson Rockefeller and David Rockefeller. You know, I have interviewed people who became president, from Richard Nixon, Clinton, and so forth and so on.

        And if I were to try to explain, the big shift that I've seen is long-term as opposed to short-term, that most of the people I had interviewed in the first stage of my career, say somewhere up until 1970, were people that at least were concerned what their grandchildren might think. You know? There was either through family, inherited wealth, or going to certain schools, or there was some sense of social responsibility, you know, that you could find, that we have to leave our mark, we have to leave it a better place, we have to–and just for our place in history, that it mattered. Okay? So you could be concerned, oh, we'd better get with the civil rights movement, because otherwise we're going to fall apart, or we'd better care about the economic condition of the rest of the world, because otherwise it will rebel, we'd better worry about the living condition of our own people here or they'll rise up with pitchforks and toss you out.

        I think what happened is we went into this madcap period of short-term greed.

        JAY: And let me just–Bob wrote a book called The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street. And this was a kind of turning point you're talking about.

        SCHEER: Yeah, that's really what my book is about, because you had sensible rules of the road that came out of the New Deal, and there was a recognition, because of the Great Depression, that you just can't have this madcap, crazy, Gilded Age society. Again I overuse this concept of adults watching the store, but I remember going back to just being a kid in the Bronx, and you didn't leave the children to run the fruit stand, 'cause they'd give everything away or they'd go off themselves and play stickball. Somebody had to be there to make sure the stuff got sold and money was paid and things. And you lost that. You got people coming out of the law schools and the business schools that were shysters. You know, they just wanted some hustle, some scam. That's how you got into credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations.

        JAY: Yeah, but the bubbles are euphoric,–

        SCHEER: Yeah.

        JAY: –if you're in on cashing in on the bubble.

        SCHEER: And anybody who looked at that knew. I mean, I was interviewing people during those years, and they'd say, this is, you know, as Buffett said, financial instruments of mass destruction. You know, how could you believe in any of this stuff? How could anybody believe if you–this is what my book was about–you take all these loans and you redefine them and you talk about the risk in stupid ways and you give loans to people who can't support it, and somehow, okay, and whether you were in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or whether you were in the private sector, 'cause Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were being traded on the stock market, you had to know that this was going to explode. They knew it. And they got the laws to change to make it legal. It should have been illegal.

        You know. I mean, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which Bill Clinton signed off as a lame duck president in 2000, after it was already–you know, the election was over, he was now a lame duck, and he signed this bill. What was the purpose of it? It was to make all of this garbage legal. It said–I think it was Section 3 of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act–a Republican-Democratic bipartisan bill–said no existing law or regulatory agency will have jurisdiction over credit default swaps or collateralized debt obligations or any of these new financial mechanisms. Why? Because they said this is modern. We have to compete with Europe. You have to be able to do these things. We can't let–we have to give legal certainty–Lawrence Summers, you know, secretary of the Treasury–we have to have legal certainty for these financial instruments; otherwise, they won't be effective. Right? Legal certainty meant no one's going to look at it, no one's going to challenge it, no one's going to set any standards, no existing regulatory agency or law will apply. So it was a license to steal.

        JAY: Now, for people that don't understand the concept, quickly.

        SCHEER: Well, quickly, what happens is they developed all these new financial gimmicks. You know, a credit default swap was something that was an insurance policy, but it was not an insurance policy. It's what AIG did and got into so much trouble. They said, you do these collateralized debt obligations, you take all these different loans, subprime mortgages–.

        JAY: Which were invented in Baltimore, by the way.

        SCHEER: Yeah, auto loans, or any of these things, and then they don't make sense on their own and they all seem quite risky, but we'll put them into a pool and we'll assess their value and we'll get these credit rating agencies that have a stake in saying, yeah, they're all good to go because they're going to get money from it. So there was no regulation. And then you pass a law that says you're allowed to do this, no one will look at it carefully, no existing regulatory agency will have control. So you've got a license to steal. Go knock yourself out. You know? And they, selling all these loans, packaging them, and then reselling them to people over the world. Right? And we can predict, you know, get this income and so forth. And then, if it looks shaky, we're going to give you these phony insurance policies, right, that will seem to back them up. But there's no money behind it. It's not like a real insurance policy. Nobody's putting any resources.

        So, suddenly, you've got this thing that's going to explode, and AIG, which is supposed to be backing up the insurance, says, hey, we can't do that; we have no money for that. So now your housing bubble has collapsed and AIG can't support it. And it's nothing more than the mafia doing a scam, only you have passed laws that say that's all legal, that's all legal.

        Now, you're absolutely right. You wouldn't do that if you were worried about how even you would appear to your grandchildren. Okay? People looking back now know these people were crooks, whether they went to–they didn't go to jail, 'cause they they get the law passed to make it that it's not a crime to defraud people. It's legal. It wipes out half of the wealth of African Americans in this country, wipes out the economic gains of the civil rights movement, 'cause they were particularly a group that was particularly victimized. It wipes out two-thirds–these are Pew Research Center figures–wipes out two-thirds of the wealth, the collected wealth over generations of Hispanics in this country because they were subject to these subprime. They lose everything when they lose their house. But the guys putting it all together, they escape with their billions. They don't go to jail. So, yes, if what you mean by your opening statement was we don't have solid, responsible people who even care how they will appear to their grandchildren–.

        You've got a guy like Robert Rubin, okay? Robert Rubin was secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton. He had come from Goldman Sachs. He had convinced Clinton you could do all this stuff, this is all great, we'll do all this crap. He brings in Lawrence Summers. Timothy Geithner, who's a younger person working in there, he becomes the Treasury secretary under Obama. They do all this stuff. They get Clinton to sign off on it. He does it with Phil Gramm, the Republican, so it's bipartisan. Very few people challenge it. You know, now, I think if you ask anybody about Robert Rubin, they say, God, yeah, he wasn't too good for it. I'll bet you his own family members think he got his–you know, what happens? He leaves the Clinton administration; he goes to work for a bank that he makes legal, right? The merger of Citibank and Travelers Insurance they make legal with their reversal of Glass-Steagall, the Financial Services Modernization Act, and then they got the Commodity Futures [Modernization Act], which makes these gimmicks legal. He gets $10 million a year for the next decade. Sure, he's got money salted away. But I don't think he's got a reputation that's worth anything. I don't know. Lawrence Summers, again, I don't think people particularly treat those with respect. But they have money. You know, they can take care of their nephews and nieces. But I think it's generally accepted they caused a lot of damage to the economy.

        JAY: But it's not, like, that it's just a bad group of people happened to get into power. And I'm not suggesting you're suggesting that.

        SCHEER: No, it's the best and the brightest that Halberstam wrote about in Vietnam. These are very well educated people who know what they're doing and, I believe, have to know it's going to destroy the lives of millions of people, and they go ahead and do it. It's just like–.

        JAY: Yeah, 'cause they say if it ain't me doing it, it's going to be him doing it, or her.

        SCHEER: Whatever their rationalizations, they surround themselves with lawyers and PR people who tell them this is all wonderful, and they get away with it.

        JAY: But it's the way the system has evolved that so much money is in so few hands. There's not much else for them to do with it than bet and gamble against each other, create this massive speculative sector of the economy, which is financializing everything. Even when they talk about climate change, all they really have in mind is a way to financialize it. So whether it's this group or the other group, the sort of system itself is created where there's–so much capital has become completely parasitical.

        SCHEER: Yes, but they could also be decent people. They could actually wonder about what would Jesus do. They could actually think about what does their lives mean.

        JAY: I think some do and drop out.

        SCHEER: A few.

        JAY: Some do, and they can't take it anymore, and they drop out.

        SCHEER: Yeah.

        JAY: But they're not in any position to change the course of the ship.

        SCHEER: Well, but also the question you should ask is why aren't they being observed in doing this. And the reason is because they can buy off everyone.

        JAY: Especially the media.

        SCHEER: The media, but the universities, the grants of–you know, build buildings at universities. Come on.

        JAY: I want to stress the media 'cause they have this theatrical show going in the elections–I'm not saying there isn't a real contention for power, but when you have unlimited contributions, unlimited spending, what are they spending it on? They're spending it on TV advertising.

        SCHEER: Yeah, and they're spending it on candidates who will not give them a hard time. There's no question about it.

        But it's not just the media. I mean, I don't want to exonerate the media, but you–you know, in the day of the internet, you should have more critical voices, right, 'cause–but even there you look at where could–you know, okay, to understand the economy or foreign policy requires a little brainwork, okay? Most people have got to take care of their job and their family and pick the kid up and how do I pay this bill and am I going to lose my job and/or how am I going to make that sale. And so their lives are taken up. And then we have a group of people, whether they're called journalists or professors or consultants or what have you who actually have the time and are really charged with figuring stuff out.

        Now, most of this stuff is not all that difficult to figure out. So then you have to ask yourself the question, why didn't you figure it out? I mean, why didn't the media–in my book I describe how The New York Times was a cheerleader for this radical deregulation. They used words like modernization. They said long overdue. Now, why? You know, because they were living in a culture and benefiting from a culture that was benefiting from the ripoff. These are the people who advertise. These are the people who invest in your venture, in your media. These are the people who buy chairs at the schools where you're teaching. These are people who support the charities or political causes that you happen to agree with. There is a culture of corruption, I mean, 'cause anyone else looking at this, they say, wait a minute, this is nonsensical, this is bad. Why are you selling–I remember writing about this stuff. I would go out to what they call the Inland Empire in California where they're building all of these–. I said, who's going to live here? How are they going to get to work? Who's paying for this? Why are they making the loans? And then you realize there is no there there. Don't confuse the thing–I remember an old advertising [incompr.] don't confuse the thing being sold with the thing itself. They're not selling a house to somebody who needs a house and is going to live and be able to afford the payment; they're selling this collateralized debt obligation that's 1,000 of those houses that you have made and chopped up and iced and diced and everything and sliced, and then you're going to make that seem like a good bet to somebody. Where? In Saudi Arabia or in France or–.

        JAY: Knowing it's all going to default.

        SCHEER: Yeah, but you're going to get in and out before it defaults.

        JAY: Yeah

        William C, June 26, 2015 at 4:05 am

        O tempora O mores.

        Little changes really?

        Benedict@Large, June 26, 2015 at 8:08 am

        Scheer understates (just a bit) what the Commodities Futures Modernization act was all about. What all these credit default swaps and other exotic new derivative instruments were all about was recreating and expanding the list of instruments in use on Wall Street. CFMA's purpose was to insure that this parallel market was unregulated. I one fell swoop, CFMA gave Wall Street the ability to recreate itself, only the recreation was to be entirely without government oversight.

        I'm sure there were a few incompetent fools (like Alan Greenspan and Phil Gramm) who actually believed the toxic hype that this was all about leading the curve to the new Nirvana, but pretty much everyone else knew that is was nothing more than a government-sanctioned heist, because almost at once, everyone started acting like it was. Even as early as 2000, the national association of real estate appraisers was petitioning the government for relief from bankers forcing them to scam their appraisals or get kicked out of business.

        By 2002, Dean Baker was complaining that the rent-vs-own ratios that had been constant for a hundred years were careening wildly, with no apparent cause.

        By 2004, the FBI was begging Congress to fund more investigators, saying that the mortgage industry had become a swamp of corruption.

        By the end of 2005, the entire mortgage market began collapsing, and the only thing that delayed it for another 30 or so months was that the Bush administration forced Fannie and Freddie to take their hundreds of billions of wealth … OUR WEALTH … and throw it against that market's collapsing edifice.

        The only thing left was that the next President would have to owe his election to the very people who needed to be indicted, convicted, and jailed.

        LifelongLib, June 26, 2015 at 4:48 am

        The wealthy's acceptance of the New Deal was always grudging, and lasted only as long as they thought their wealth/safety depended on some of the rest of us being fairly prosperous. When they found a way out of it (globalization) they were happy to toss the New Deal away.

        Ben Johannson, June 26, 2015 at 5:45 am

        Bubble talk leads us back to the mainstream of economic thought. The notion of bubble is a deviation from some normal state of affairs, namely a growing, self-equilibrating economy and markets (called growth theory among neoliberals.) Some event, it is presumed, external to the normal state forces the economy out of kilter but once this is dealt with economic growth and employment will return to the trajectory everybody knows and loves.

        What happens to the concept of economic bubbles if we do not assume that markets are self-correcting? It goes out the window because there is no norm from which to stray.

        Maju, June 26, 2015 at 8:08 am

        Actually what happens is that we reach an overproduction crisis, which is the natural thing to do for Capitalism, at least according to Marx.

        But while we are in that overproduction crisis, the financier capitalists still grow in power and wealth, because they speculate with it, being almost the only ones able to still make a sustained profit, and use that power to contain any attempt of reform and rather promote even greater deregulation, like the triple-T secret treaties. All very natural and expectable, albeit unfortunate, in good economic and political science.

        Maju, June 26, 2015 at 6:26 am

        TRNN are generally very worth watching, thank you. Although they may have overdone the interviewer's makeup on this occasion.

        This links very well with what I was saying in another thread: modern financier capitalism has no plan other than "loot while you can". The last comment of Scheer points to pyramidal or Ponzi schemes being all what is, and, if that's the backbone of the economy, we are certainly in for a massive shock that will make the 2007-08 one look almost anecdotal.

        Another interesting comment of Scheer is that a key "rational" (or "productive") US economic sector is the technological one, what is no doubt true. I am under the strong impression that the USA could for example be leading the transition to renewables, as most technological advances in solar energies, for instance, happen in the USA. But paradoxically the republic is actually betting heavily on oil and not using that advantage to reaffirm itself as avant-guard global economic power, what could well give Washington another whole century of hegemony.

        So indeed there is no plan, only short-termism and loot-while-you-can.

        ambrit, June 26, 2015 at 6:33 am

        I'm glad that the concept of 'elites' is finally gaining widespread acceptability. It is a sorry state of affairs when a class of people develops an "us or them" worldview, but there it is. If I understand it correctly, MMT is a system based on a rational and pragmatic view of how money works. 'Elites,' as an organizing model serves a similar function in the socio political sphere of human endeavour. Each contends with 'official' ideologies promoted by the system itself.
        I agree with Feynmans' contention that the system architecture of a human institution defines and circumscribes it's functionality. His addendum to the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident Report lays out his contention. Essentially, the idea is something I've read in other accounts of how the government bureaucracies work. Functionaries are punished for presenting facts and analysis counter to the perceived desired outcome. The perceptions guiding the process are generally internally produced and shaped. No sinister 'master criminal' is required. The group as a whole develops it's own world view, and designs systems to support and expand that "World."

        It has been asserted that Bernays et. al. applied the scientific method to crowd control and manipulation. That generation is now long gone, and with them the concept of 'public service.' Even if one were to apply a maximum degree of cynicism, that bygone generation of 'elites' had an infinitely greater regard for the 'public good' than today's 'elites.' As the article above plainly states, even that degree of concern for out groups is gone.

        Something will eventually break, if only for the reason that the 'elites' have forgotten the basic rule of parasitism: Do not kill your host.

        ambrit, June 26, 2015 at 6:55 am

        Blast! I forgot to append Feynmans appendix to the Rogers Report. (I've put this up once before, so please excuse the redundancy.)
        http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v2appf.htm

        H. Alexander Ivey, June 26, 2015 at 11:52 pm

        Thanks for the link, interesting report.

        Am struck with the NASA managers over-riding their engineers' concerns. This is not a result of a "bureaucratic mind-set" but of people not being held responsible for their actions. The managers were paid to have a flight go on time. The engineers held to their belief that the flight should be as safe as they could make it.

        The fault is not in our stars, but in our compensation systems. I don't think any NASA manager lost their job, got demoted, or a letter of reprimand over the Challenger accident.

        ambrit, June 27, 2015 at 10:27 am

        Yes, but that very "flight go on time" consideration is a part of the "bureaucratic mind set." When a functionary believes that adherence to an even unstated expectation will determine that bureaucrats future career arc, ways will be found.

        The other dimension of this, seldom voiced, is the fact that President Reagan was scheduled to give the annual State of the Union speech the night of the launch day, January 28, 1986. Rumours have since circulated that Christina McAuliffe was scheduled to participate by remote camera link from orbit. Having a cameo in the State of the Union speech by Americas favourite teacher in space is exactly the sort of stunt a trained Hollywood actor would endorse. I blame Ronnie Reagan and "politics as usual" for this disaster.

        As for bureaucrats overriding the opinions of technocrats, well, that's life. The political actors keep pushing the envelope regarding safety, and especially cost, until someone gets killed. Then the game is reset. I have personally seen this dynamic play out several times.
        Even better than the Challenger fiasco was the outright negligence that caused the Columbia 'event' in 2003. There had been serious concern voiced by engineers about the big piece of foam that broke off of the main tank and struck the underside of the shuttle during launch. This was no love tap. The foam chunk hit the shuttle going approximately 1900 miles per hour. This made a hole in the underside left wing heat tile array. Hot gasses from re-entry entered the wing root and broke up the shuttle. The defining factor again was the mindset of the NASA bureaucracy. This excerpt from the Columbia disaster wiki shows how it happened.

        In a risk-management scenario similar to the Challenger disaster, NASA management failed to recognize the relevance of engineering concerns for safety for imaging to inspect possible damage, and failed to respond to engineer requests about the status of astronaut inspection of the left wing. Engineers made three separate requests for Department of Defense (DOD) imaging of the shuttle in orbit to more precisely determine damage. While the images were not guaranteed to show the damage, the capability existed for imaging of sufficient resolution to provide meaningful examination. NASA management did not honor the requests and in some cases intervened to stop the DOD from assisting.[11] The CAIB recommended subsequent shuttle flights be imaged while in orbit using ground-based or space-based DOD assets.[12]

        Details of the DOD's unfulfilled participation with Columbia remain secret; retired NASA official Wayne Hale stated in 2012 that "[a]ctivity regarding other national assets and agencies remains classified and I cannot comment on that aspect of the Columbia tragedy."[13]

        So, there you have it. Bureaucracies, large and small, exhibit definable and consistent patterns of behavior. The fault lies not in our stars, as you observed, but in our Chairs.

        ewmayer, June 27, 2015 at 7:40 pm

        NASA also exhibited such managerial fubar-ness in the run-up to the Hubble main mirror fiasco – here is a 1990 NYT piece on that. The punchline: For more than a year pre-launch NASA had not one but TWO fully finished main mirrors in storage – the flawed one made by Perkin-Elmer, and a perfectly sound one subcontracted by P-E to Eastman Kodak. Did NASA bother to do the simple "let's comparison-test these 2 mirrors and use the better one, if one proves superior, in the Hubble" thing? Of course not. Hell, a simple scaled-up Foucault test of the kind amateur telescope makers have been doing for over 150 years using primitive tools would have revealed the problem right quick. Classic other-people's-money insular elite stupidity.

        Vatch, June 26, 2015 at 10:16 am

        Something will eventually break, if only for the reason that the 'elites' have forgotten the basic rule of parasitism: Do not kill your host.

        I like that! Biologically true, and also true in the realm of political economy.

        John Smith, June 26, 2015 at 2:57 pm

        Except the parasites think TINA and therefore are unaware that they ARE parasites and thus don't have the good sense to recognize that their lucre is filthy.

        Paul Tioxon June 26, 2015 at 9:04 am

        Capitalism. What is most exceptional about this site is its name. The mere fact that it uses the name capitalism at all, even nakedcapitalism, is the most taboo breaking aspect announcing a real discussion about a real topic. Notice how Yves preambles this discussion to pre-2006 conformity of thought:

        "If someone had used the word "elites" in 2006, they would have been seen as a hair-on-fire hysteric, long on conspiracy theories and short on sober understanding of How Things Work."

        You might as well add "capitalism" to ill chosen words.

        The apex of American power in the aftermath of the Clinton years coupling robust job creation and technological advancement of an extensive internet infrastructure to produce the capitalist propaganda theme of the coming the 21st Century: Supertanker America! Remember when the unbroken quarters of growth, low interest rates, steady stock market index rising and company after company emerging from the pages of science fiction to launch from NASDAQ into the real economy? The American Economy would ride out any boom or bust, out sail any crashing waves of stormy global contraction and lead the world economy out of any doldrums just as our military stood dominant across the oceans to the West and East of the continental hegemon. Our military might, our economic resilience and now, our triumphant ideology of capitalism would be consumed by the world more readily than any other export. There was a plan drawn up for a bold new global order of the ages, The Project for a New American Century PNAC. Of course, that failed miserably, unleashing WWIII across the Arab/Muslim world.

        But amidst all of the talk of globalization, world trade organization, international summits of G-7s and G-20s, NATO and NAFTA, we have Davos. The Woodstock for capitalists, but never spoken of any such terms. In the above TRNN interview, "the system" and its "elites" are discussed. But as usual, there is always an internalize euphemism, socialized squeamishness for giving the system a formal name and giving its actors a title. Capitalism and the capitalists who love it. There, I said it, the love that dare not speak its name! And the key to breakdown from long term perspective to short term greed came from banking deregulation. Not surprising for capitalism to turn its longing eyes to banking, the platform it was built upon 500 years ago from the banking centers of Genoa, Venice, Florence etc. Despite Simon Johnson's supposed revelation of a silent financial coup, capitalism all along has ruled implicitly, with the only silence coming from the people who master the rules of capitalism not resorting to its name.

        Giovanni Arrighi in an essay points out the disappearance of capitalism from academic research, almost in its entirety from economics. Notice, there are Marxist Economists or Keynesian Economics, and then there is just plain Economics. Not Capitalist Economics, that would not be value free positivism, the purest of methodological based scientific endeavors.

        http://krieger.jhu.edu/arrighi/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2012/08/NewEconomicSoc_000.pdf

        Arrighi finds in an almost 800 page " THE HANDBOOK OF ECONOMIC SOCIOLOGY", sparse mention of capitalism. Basically, a small usage of the word and a single reference, but mostly, a great number of writings by Marx, Weber and what others have had to say about capitalism, but not much about capitalism by its presume supporters. Much of this Arrighi attributes to the micro focus of the social sciences and its failure and or unwillingness to deal with long term structural features of capitalism. Basically, an ahistoric or short term approach has capitalism disappearing altogether under the weakened methodology too attenuated to measure the processes that compose capitalism. It is not there because the unit of analysis is too small, too short in time or too segmented by focusing on one nation or one enterprise and not the whole economy of one nation connected with and trading with other nations in a global system.

        An entire generation of myopia induced social science, including economics has produced nothing less but the short term crisis producing best and brightest, who can't see beyond the next quarter. The motto is; "Are we there yet?". Impatience, hyper frequency trading, dedicated fiber optic fast as the speed of light trading cables from where ever to Wall St, all to shave off a few seconds or micro seconds or quantum seconds, in order to turn a profit of pennies a few billion times over a second or a minute, hour after hour, day after day. No wonder this cognitively captured educated elite can not see anything larger than a minute portion of reality that their algorithms symbolically represent.

        Jim A June 26, 2015 at 9:19 am

        There's nothing inherently wrong with managing risk by aggregation. In fact insurance companies have been doing that for centurie as the fact that the mortgage insurance business (where traditional underwriters and experts set the price for insurance) was effectively pricing the risk of default for riskier mortgages VERY differently than the bond market was pricing the exact same risk.

        Noonan June 26, 2015 at 9:23 am

        The godly person has perished from the land,
        And there is no upright person among men.
        All of them lie in wait for bloodshed;
        Each of them hunts the other with a net.
        Concerning evil, both hands do it well.
        The prince asks, also the judge, for a bribe,
        And a great man speaks the desire of his soul;
        So they weave it together.

        Micah 7: 2-3

        TG June 26, 2015 at 9:49 am

        Don't forget MIT economist Lester Thurow's classic essay "An Establishment or an Oligarchy?"

        http://www.ntanet.org/NTJ/42/4/ntj-v42n04p405-11-establishment-oligarchy.pdf

        Some if it's a little dated, but the key points remain pertinent.

        "The central goal of an establishment is to insure that the system works so that the country will in the long run be successful. An establishment is self-confident that if the system works and if their country does well, they will personally do well. Being self-confident they don't have to make their own immediate self-interest paramount when they influence public decisions."

        "In contrast an oligarchy is a group of insecure individuals who amass funds in secret Swiss bank accounts. Because they think that they must always look out for their own immediate self-interest, they aren't interested in taking time and effort to improve their country's long-run prospects. They aren't confident that if the country is successful, they will be successful."

        nat scientist June 26, 2015 at 10:13 am

        Bad science makes bad law.
        When kindness is kicked to the curb, the jungle is free to grow.

        Ivy June 26, 2015 at 10:49 am

        William K. Black at UM-KC is instructive about so much of what has gone on in regulatory and financial circles.

        For reference, see his website including archived articles

        readerOfTeaLeaves June 26, 2015 at 11:14 am

        Depressing, but important, interview

        Belongs in a time capsule

        susan the other June 26, 2015 at 11:28 am

        Sheer talks about the aftermath of going off the gold standard. After 1970 there was a long hysteria (still in motion) that translated into austerity (supply side nonsense) because maintaining the value of the dollar meant everything. If the dollar took a dive, both our military and our finance complex would begin to fail. There would be no confidence in the once great USA.

        Witness the EU today. Those guys would rather bleed Greece to death than allow the euro to slide too much. They only pretend that they are protecting the EU taxpayers. It is such a fiction to try to maintain austerity for a strong currency because it defeats itself every time, and in order to surface an economy must do bubbles because there is no economy left after austerity. So it all turns into froth. There is a reason derivatives were invented and laws were passed making them legal. Because Larry Summers et.al. all knew their own positions were at stake if capitalism no longer produced profits for the elite. As Stephanie Kelton has informed us, we do not need to worry about the "value" of the dollar – the exchange rate – all we need to do is manufacture products that people want to buy. But that won't save the bloated ranks of the elite.

        Crazy Horse June 26, 2015 at 1:57 pm

        I must say that the moral and intellectual depravity of the world's elites is great news for the planet. From the point of view of the robin building her nest in the tree outside my window, humans are a toxic cancer, poisoning the soil that produces the worms she needs to feed her hatchlings. (assuming they survive the overly thin eggshells that agricultural chemicals have caused her to produce).

        Indeed, for most of the planet's inhabitants homo sapiens are the biggest threat to their continued survival. So rapid economic collapse brought on by the Masters of the Universe's insatiable greed and the human species fatal inability to behave as part of an interconnected ecosystem is the best hope for the survival of a planet capable of supporting all the other life forms that have evolved with it.

        Lambert Strether June 26, 2015 at 3:03 pm

        Thinking back to elites past, at least civilization got some great art or architecture or literature out of the surplus. Sure, the Italian elites were adept at poisoning each other, but the world got Michelangelo and DaVinci. The Elizabethan elites had the Star Chamber, but the world got Shakespeare. The Victorians had the empire, but also Alice in Wonderland and Dickens. The Bourbons lost their heads, but the world got the Louvre. And on and on and on.

        But for this elite, I'm trying to think of one great artist and I can't come up with one. Jeff Koons?

        OK, the meta, I get it. But still. Am I wrong on this? Is there a squillionaire Medici out there somewhere?

        Stupidest, most vile, and destructive elites in the history of the world and that is saying something.

        Vatch June 26, 2015 at 4:40 pm

        Nowadays, the members of the top 0.01% just seem to buy and sell, at ever escalating prices, the art that was created in previous generations:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings

        Jerry Denim June 26, 2015 at 5:23 pm

        I really appreciate Paul Jay insisting on calling out the media for their role in all of this. It really puts me up the wall how supposedly left wing media outlets always insist on having a right wing propagandist sit in as a counter weight to the lefty when conducting an interview, but then NOBODY calls out the right wing propagandist on his/her blatantly obvious, totally false bullshit regardless of crazy their claims.

        Perfect example was the Amy Goodman hosted "Democracy Now" segment on the TPP which was linked here yesterday. They had a guy from Public Citizen on to denounce the TPP and a professional liar from the Cato institute to defend it and no one batted an eye or piped up to say word when the Cato guy floated this howler:

        "You know, I certainly do think that the TPP, to the extent that it liberalizes trade, is going to increase wages. It's going to improve the economy of the United States. By opening markets to exports, the TPP will help create jobs. By opening up access to imports, the TPP will help create jobs. Most of the imports that come to this country are used by American manufacturers. It will increase productivity, increase wages and promote growth. So I think that for the criteria that Hillary Clinton sets out, the TPP will most likely be a good deal."

        Why in the world Amy Goodman the host of the show or her guest from Public Citizen doesn't even make an attempt to counter this blatant lie in the interest of truth or journalistic ethics is beyond me. Why not something like this: " Excuse me Bill, what did you just say? Did you just claim the TPP is going to raise wages and create jobs in the United States? My god Bill, that is the biggest fucking lie I have ever heard and you know it. As I'm sure you know Bill the entire point of the TPP and other Free Trade pacts is to open the borders of low wage, low regulation countries so companies in the United States can offshore more jobs or at least use the threat of relocating as leverage to further drive down wages, so don't you dare sit there with a straight face and your little American Flag lapel pin and insult this show and my audience with such blatantly false lies. Shame on you Bill, you're a disgrace."

        How hard would that be?

        Huh? June 26, 2015 at 8:41 pm

        Jerry, I agree with you on the Democracy Now show (I listened to it, too) … but what really got me was this lovely exchange:

        "JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Bill Watson of the Cato Institute, your reaction to the impending, now appears to be, passage of the fast-track legislation?

        BILL WATSON: Well, I'm really looking forward to seeing the TPP be completed, find out what's in the agreement and how well it liberalizes trade between the United States and the other 11 members in the agreement."

        Um … explain to me how you're looking forward to the TPP being completed, but you still need to "find out what's in the agreement …"

        WHAT? You don't know what's in it, but it's all good?

        different clue June 27, 2015 at 9:14 pm

        If only someone had quoted Pelosi's very words . . . . " you mean we have to pass it to find out what's in it?"

        Tony Wikrent June 26, 2015 at 8:28 pm

        I read comments like Scheers, that "these are educated people" and they knew what they were doing, and I just am not sure how correct they are. It just does not make sense to me that these people allowed what is essentially a "crimogenic environment" (as Bill Black often writes) to devolve into the open sociopathy and psychopathy we have today. Something is missing; it all just does not fit together.

        The one thing nobody ever mentions is the role of organized crime. The mergers and acquisitions and the leveraged buy outs of the 1960s through 1990s was heavily financed and influenced by organized crime. Look at Penny Pritzker's family, and its roots in The Outfit of Chicago. Look at Lord Hanson and his connections to organized crime. Look at the historical legacy of HSBC as the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank in the opium trade and opium wars. Good lord, look at Ronald Reagan – who is fingered as organized crimes' favorite politician by Gus Russo in his book Supermob.

        Was it a good thing that organized crime "went legit"? Or is the true legacy the "crimogenic environment" we have today?

        Lambert Strether June 26, 2015 at 11:34 pm

        "heavily financed and influenced by organized crime" Sourcing?

        [Jun 27, 2015] Obama's Anti-Russia Policy Escalates DoD Tells Congress Nukes Are Still On The Table

        Jun 15, 2015 | Zero Hedge
        Submitted by Justin Raimondo via AntiWar.com,

        The War Party is a veritable propaganda machine, churning out product 24/7. Armed with nearly unlimited resources, both from government(s) and the private sector, they carpet-bomb the public with an endless stream of lies in order to soften them up when it's time to roll. In the past, their job has been relatively easy: simply order up a few atrocity stories – Germans bayoneting babies, Iraqis dumping over babies in incubators – and we've got ourselves another glorious war. These days, however, over a decade of constant warfare – and a long string of War Party fabrications – has left the public leery.

        And that's cause for optimism. People are waking up. The War Party's propaganda machine has to work overtime in order to overcome rising skepticism, and it shows signs of overheating – and, in some instances, even breaking down.

        One encouraging sign is that the Ukrainian neo-Nazis have lost their US government funding …

        In a blow to the "let's arm Ukraine" movement that seemed to be picking up steam in Congress, a resolution introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) and Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Florida) banning aid to Ukraine's Azov Battalion, and forbidding shipments of MANPAD anti-aircraft missiles to the region, passed the House unanimously.

        This is significant because, up until this point, there has been no recognition in Washington that the supposedly "pro-democracy" regime in Kiev contains a dangerously influential neo-Nazi element.

        As I reported early on, Ukraine's ultra-nationalists – who openly utilize wartime Nazi symbols and regalia, and valorize Stepan Bandera, the anti-Soviet guerrilla leader who collaborated with the Third Reich – were the muscle behind the movement that pushed democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovich out of power. With the rebellion in the east, the paramilitary militias of the far right have been officially incorporated into the Ukrainian army: Dmytro Yorash, the leader of Right Sector and a member of parliament, is an aide to Viktor Muzhenko, the supreme commander of the Ukrainian military, and Right Sector – an openly neo-Nazi organization – has been officially integrated into the armed forces.

        The Conyers-Yoho amendment won't stop Ukraine's neo-Nazis from feeding at the US-provided trough, but, hey, it's the thought that counts. They'll just abandon their independent existence and blend into the official military, effectively going underground, just as they did in the last Ukrainian elections, where fascists like Yarosh won a seat in the parliament with the tacit support of the "mainstream" parties, which withdrew their candidates in his district: Adriy Biletsky, commander of the Azov Battalion, enjoyed a similar advantage. Open fascists hold prominent positions in the Ukrainian government, the military, and the police.

        Vadim Troyan, the deputy leader of the Azov Battalion, is now the regional chief of the Kiev district police, and fascists have the run of the city. The perpetrators of an arson fire at a Kiev theater that sponsored a gay film festival were charged with "disturbing the peace" and let off with a light sentence – and the theater was held responsible for not providing enough security! "I think the government prosecutor and those who are prosecuted are playing for the same team," says one activist, and this is quite true: the fascists permeate the Kiev regime from top to bottom. When gay activists announced a Gay Pride march, the Mayor of Kiev said he couldn't – or wouldn't – guarantee their safety and asked them to cancel it. What was an open invitation to violent thugs was accepted when dozens of Right Sector stormtroopers attacked the procession, which ended the event after thirty bloody minutes.

        As the Kiev regime shows its true colors, its most fervent backers are forced to acknowledge its shortcomings. Yes, even our UN Ambassador, Samantha "responsibility to protect" Power …

        In a recent speech delivered in Kiev, Ambassador Power made oblique reference to the embarrassing slip ups on the part of our sock puppets in Kiev, gently scolding them to be more … discreet. Citing Abraham Lincoln, she urged Ukrainians to listen to "the better angels of our nature," and averred that "Ukraine is stronger" when it does so:

        "It means that Ukraine should zealously protect freedom of the press, including for its most outspoken and biased critics – indeed, especially for its most outspoken and biased critics – even as the so-called separatists expel journalists from the territory they control, and even as Russia shutters Tatar media outlets in occupied Crimea. It means that politicians and police across the country should recognize how crucial it is that people be able to march to demand respect for LGBT rights and the rights of other vulnerable groups without fear of being attacked."

        Citing Lincoln while calling for press freedom is a bit problematic – Abe shut down "treasonous" newspapers and jailed his more vociferous critics, but, hey, Power probably figured the Ukrainians aren't up on the details of Civil War history, so what the heck. As the US continues to pump money – and weaponry – into the country, they'll listen politely to Power's lectures, and laugh all the way to the bank.

        Amid all the publicity given to ISIS and the rise of its "caliphate," the volatile condition of the Balkans has remained in the shadows. Yet the US, while sending only a few hundred "advisors" to Iraq, is sending a huge shipment of tanks and other heavy weaponry to nearly every country in Eastern Europe – enough to equip 5,000 American troops.

        Ostensibly proposed in response to a nonexistent Russian "threat" to invade its Baltic neighbors, and/or Ukraine, this represents a significant escalation of the new cold war. And if the tanks are already on the ground, you can bet the troops won't be long in coming. As NATO James Stavridis put it: "It provides a reasonable level of reassurance to jittery allies, although nothing is as good as troops stationed full-time on the ground, of course."

        And we aren't just talking about troops here: the Pentagon is also considering stationing nuclear missiles alongside them.

        The US is playing a dangerous game of nuclear brinkmanship. Robert Scher, undersecretary of defense, has even floated the idea of a nuclear first strike against Russia. Claiming that Russia has violated the INF Treaty by testing a banned ground-launched cruise missile, Scher laid out possible options in testimony before Congress:

        "Robert Scher, assistant secretary of defence for strategy, plans and capabilities, told politicians in April that one option could be to beef up defenses of potential targets of the Russian cruise missile.

        "A second option could 'look at how we could go about and actually attack that missile where it is in Russia,' Scher said.

        "And a third option would be 'to look at what things we can hold at risk within Russia itself,' Scher said.

        "His comments appeared to signal employing forces to strike at other Russian military targets - apart from the missiles that allegedly violate the INF accord.

        "Brian McKeon, deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, told politicians in December that the United States could consider putting ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe. Such weapons are banned under the INF treaty."

        Yes, that's how crazy the warlords of Washington are: in their demented calculus, nuclear war is just another "option."

        And if that isn't the definitive argument for regime-change in Washington, then I don't know what is.

        [Jun 27, 2015] Plundering Our Freedom with Abandon

        "...It would be in the interest of any rationality not to let fossil fuel and the arms industry so dominate U.S. foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, I mean, this fueling of a Saudi-Iranian conflict. The idea that, you know, could there be a United States without a massive military, yeah, there could, but not this United States, not this economic system, not this elite. These guys aren't going to come around to some kind if view of we could be an equal, modest country."
        .
        "...the current configuration of power in America is irrational. We don't have adults watching the store. And we go from one disastrous pursuit to another. I mean, there was no reason whatsoever, if we had adults watching the store, you'd go knock off Saddam Hussein in Iraq, who had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, was a force against Iran, which--you know, we backed him in his war with Iran. So the contradictions are obvious, that we don't have adults watching the store, we don't have rational policy. "
        .
        "...The main thing that we've been effective on is this tech stuff, and our tech companies are the ones that are most concerned that our political model is not a good one. They're the ones that are out there having to sell this stuff, and this stuff involves getting confidence and knowing the culture, caring about other people, winning their confidence. And that's been endangered. "
        .
        "...You know. I mean, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which Bill Clinton signed off as a lame duck president in 2000, after it was already--you know, the election was over, he was now a lame duck, and he signed this bill. What was the purpose of it? It was to make all of this garbage legal. It said--I think it was Section 3 of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act--a Republican-Democratic bipartisan bill--said no existing law or regulatory agency will have jurisdiction over credit default swaps or collateralized debt obligations or any of these new financial mechanisms. Why? Because they said this is modern. We have to compete with Europe. You have to be able to do these things. We can't let--we have to give legal certainty--Lawrence Summers, you know, secretary of the Treasury--we have to have legal certainty for these financial instruments; otherwise, they won't be effective. Right? Legal certainty meant no one's going to look at it, no one's going to challenge it, no one's going to set any standards, no existing regulatory agency or law will apply. So it was a license to steal."
        .
        "...You've got a guy like Robert Rubin, okay? Robert Rubin was secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton. He had come from Goldman Sachs. He had convinced Clinton you could do all this stuff, this is all great, we'll do all this crap. He brings in Lawrence Summers. Timothy Geithner, who's a younger person working in there, he becomes the Treasury secretary under Obama. They do all this stuff. They get Clinton to sign off on it. He does it with Phil Gramm, the Republican, so it's bipartisan. Very few people challenge it. You know, now, I think if you ask anybody about Robert Rubin, they say, God, yeah, he wasn't too good for it. I'll bet you his own family members think he got his--you know, what happens? He leaves the Clinton administration; he goes to work for a bank that he makes legal, right? The merger of Citibank and Travelers Insurance they make legal with their reversal of Glass-Steagall, the Financial Services Modernization Act, and then they got the Commodity Futures [Modernization Act], which makes these gimmicks legal. He gets $10 million a year for the next decade. Sure, he's got money salted away. But I don't think he's got a reputation that's worth anything. I don't know. Lawrence Summers, again, I don't think people particularly treat those with respect. But they have money. You know, they can take care of their nephews and nieces. But I think it's generally accepted they caused a lot of damage to the economy."
        Jun 10, 2015 | therealnews.com

        Transcript

        Plundering Our Freedom with Abandon - Robert Scheer on Reality Asserts Itself (6/10)

        PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome back to Reality Asserts Itself on The Real News Network. We're continuing our discussion with Bob Scheer. Bob is a veteran U.S. journalist, currently the editor-in-chief of the Webby Award-winning online magazine Truthdig. And his whole biography you'll find beneath the video player.

        We're just going to pick up where we were.

        So here's what I'm accusing you off, that you seem to be suggesting that there's some rationality left in this system within the elites. And I'm not talking--of course there are some individuals that have some rational long-term view. I mean, even people like Soros has been crying about the lack of banking regulation. And there's people in different sectors of the elites who realize this is a train wreck and about go over a cliff. But those voices are actually marginalized. Even somebody who's got as much money as Soros within the banking and financial elite is completely marginalized. Nobody really listens to a word he says--people with power, at any rate. [1:07]

        PROF. ROBERT SCHEER, JOURNALIST AND AUTHOR: Well, they listen to--.

        JAY: Let me finish the point.

        SCHEER: They listen to Buffett.

        JAY: Well, maybe. But Buffett doesn't raise as much alarm as Soros does. But within there--they don't even seem to be able to rule in their own interest. It would be in the interest of global capitalism to have more rational banking regulations as they introduced in the 1930s. It would be in the interest of global capitalism to deal with the threat of catastrophic climate change. It would be in the interest of any rationality not to let fossil fuel and the arms industry so dominate U.S. foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, I mean, this fueling of a Saudi-Iranian conflict. The idea that, you know, could there be a United States without a massive military, yeah, there could, but not this United States, not this economic system, not this elite. These guys aren't going to come around to some kind if view of we could be an equal, modest country.

        SCHEER: Well, you're absolutely right that the current configuration of power in America is irrational. We don't have adults watching the store. And we go from one disastrous pursuit to another. I mean, there was no reason whatsoever, if we had adults watching the store, you'd go knock off Saddam Hussein in Iraq, who had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, was a force against Iran, which--you know, we backed him in his war with Iran. So the contradictions are obvious, that we don't have adults watching the store, we don't have rational policy.

        However, I think you are not the only person that now knows that.

        JAY: Oh, I'm sure lots of--I would say most ordinary people kind of know it.

        SCHEER: No, I think even in those circles there's an awareness that we're not doing very well, and there are reminders that we're not doing well. You know, our economy is stagnant. We're up against some real problems in terms of our future. Income inequality is one. You don't have to be some wild lefty liberal to see that. I mean, the whole foundation of our country was always on a stable middle class and an expanding middle class, opportunity, equal playing field. I'm not saying that was the reality, but that was always the expectation. You know. And, you know, whether it's de Tocqueville or the founding fathers, there was always an assumption that at least for what you thought was the base population there would be this opportunity. You know. And we have been forced over the last couple of decades to recognize that no, it's going alarmingly in a different direction.

        Internationally, we know we're not doing very well. I mean, we don't produce a whole lot of products that everybody in the world is dying to get their hands on. The main thing that we've been effective on is this tech stuff, and our tech companies are the ones that are most concerned that our political model is not a good one. They're the ones that are out there having to sell this stuff, and this stuff involves getting confidence and knowing the culture, caring about other people, winning their confidence. And that's been endangered.

        So the only thing I would--I don't disagree with you at all as to whether our model is in trouble. It's in trouble. I disagree with you only on whether--the number of people who know it's in trouble.

        JAY: I would say even most of them--I would probably think most of the elite know it's in trouble. They're just going to cash in on it, and it's going to be someone else's problem to do something about it.

        SCHEER: Okay. You're putting your finger on something that I feel is very critical. And I have spent my life interviewing people generally around power, in government and so forth. I've traveled with Nelson Rockefeller and David Rockefeller. You know, I have interviewed people who became president, from Richard Nixon, Clinton, and so forth and so on.

        And if I were to try to explain, the big shift that I've seen is long-term as opposed to short-term, that most of the people I had interviewed in the first stage of my career, say somewhere up until 1970, were people that at least were concerned what their grandchildren might think. You know? There was either through family, inherited wealth, or going to certain schools, or there was some sense of social responsibility, you know, that you could find, that we have to leave our mark, we have to leave it a better place, we have to--and just for our place in history, that it mattered. Okay? So you could be concerned, oh, we'd better get with the civil rights movement, because otherwise we're going to fall apart, or we'd better care about the economic condition of the rest of the world, because otherwise it will rebel, we'd better worry about the living condition of our own people here or they'll rise up with pitchforks and toss you out.

        I think what happened is we went into this madcap period of short-term greed.

        JAY: And let me just--Bob wrote a book called The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street. And this was a kind of turning point you're talking about.

        SCHEER: Yeah, that's really what my book is about, because you had sensible rules of the road that came out of the New Deal, and there was a recognition, because of the Great Depression, that you just can't have this madcap, crazy, Gilded Age society. Again I overuse this concept of adults watching the store, but I remember going back to just being a kid in the Bronx, and you didn't leave the children to run the fruit stand, 'cause they'd give everything away or they'd go off themselves and play stickball. Somebody had to be there to make sure the stuff got sold and money was paid and things. And you lost that. You got people coming out of the law schools and the business schools that were shysters. You know, they just wanted some hustle, some scam. That's how you got into credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations.

        JAY: Yeah, but the bubbles are euphoric,--

        SCHEER: Yeah.

        JAY: --if you're in on cashing in on the bubble.

        SCHEER: And anybody who looked at that knew. I mean, I was interviewing people during those years, and they'd say, this is, you know, as Buffett said, financial instruments of mass destruction. You know, how could you believe in any of this stuff? How could anybody believe if you--this is what my book was about--you take all these loans and you redefine them and you talk about the risk in stupid ways and you give loans to people who can't support it, and somehow, okay, and whether you were in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or whether you were in the private sector, 'cause Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were being traded on the stock market, you had to know that this was going to explode. They knew it. And they got the laws to change to make it legal. It should have been illegal.

        You know. I mean, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which Bill Clinton signed off as a lame duck president in 2000, after it was already--you know, the election was over, he was now a lame duck, and he signed this bill. What was the purpose of it? It was to make all of this garbage legal. It said--I think it was Section 3 of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act--a Republican-Democratic bipartisan bill--said no existing law or regulatory agency will have jurisdiction over credit default swaps or collateralized debt obligations or any of these new financial mechanisms. Why? Because they said this is modern. We have to compete with Europe. You have to be able to do these things. We can't let--we have to give legal certainty--Lawrence Summers, you know, secretary of the Treasury--we have to have legal certainty for these financial instruments; otherwise, they won't be effective. Right? Legal certainty meant no one's going to look at it, no one's going to challenge it, no one's going to set any standards, no existing regulatory agency or law will apply. So it was a license to steal.

        JAY: Now, for people that don't understand the concept, quickly.

        SCHEER: Well, quickly, what happens is they developed all these new financial gimmicks. You know, a credit default swap was something that was an insurance policy, but it was not an insurance policy. It's what AIG did and got into so much trouble. They said, you do these collateralized debt obligations, you take all these different loans, subprime mortgages--.

        JAY: Which were invented in Baltimore, by the way.

        SCHEER: Yeah, auto loans, or any of these things, and then they don't make sense on their own and they all seem quite risky, but we'll put them into a pool and we'll assess their value and we'll get these credit rating agencies that have a stake in saying, yeah, they're all good to go because they're going to get money from it. So there was no regulation. And then you pass a law that says you're allowed to do this, no one will look at it carefully, no existing regulatory agency will have control. So you've got a license to steal. Go knock yourself out. You know? And they, selling all these loans, packaging them, and then reselling them to people over the world. Right? And we can predict, you know, get this income and so forth. And then, if it looks shaky, we're going to give you these phony insurance policies, right, that will seem to back them up. But there's no money behind it. It's not like a real insurance policy. Nobody's putting any resources.

        So, suddenly, you've got this thing that's going to explode, and AIG, which is supposed to be backing up the insurance, says, hey, we can't do that; we have no money for that. So now your housing bubble has collapsed and AIG can't support it. And it's nothing more than the mafia doing a scam, only you have passed laws that say that's all legal, that's all legal.

        Now, you're absolutely right. You wouldn't do that if you were worried about how even you would appear to your grandchildren. Okay? People looking back now know these people were crooks, whether they went to--they didn't go to jail, 'cause they they get the law passed to make it that it's not a crime to defraud people. It's legal. It wipes out half of the wealth of African Americans in this country, wipes out the economic gains of the civil rights movement, 'cause they were particularly a group that was particularly victimized. It wipes out two-thirds--these are Pew Research Center figures--wipes out two-thirds of the wealth, the collected wealth over generations of Hispanics in this country because they were subject to these subprime. They lose everything when they lose their house. But the guys putting it all together, they escape with their billions. They don't go to jail. So, yes, if what you mean by your opening statement was we don't have solid, responsible people who even care how they will appear to their grandchildren--.

        You've got a guy like Robert Rubin, okay? Robert Rubin was secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton. He had come from Goldman Sachs. He had convinced Clinton you could do all this stuff, this is all great, we'll do all this crap. He brings in Lawrence Summers. Timothy Geithner, who's a younger person working in there, he becomes the Treasury secretary under Obama. They do all this stuff. They get Clinton to sign off on it. He does it with Phil Gramm, the Republican, so it's bipartisan. Very few people challenge it. You know, now, I think if you ask anybody about Robert Rubin, they say, God, yeah, he wasn't too good for it. I'll bet you his own family members think he got his--you know, what happens? He leaves the Clinton administration; he goes to work for a bank that he makes legal, right? The merger of Citibank and Travelers Insurance they make legal with their reversal of Glass-Steagall, the Financial Services Modernization Act, and then they got the Commodity Futures [Modernization Act], which makes these gimmicks legal. He gets $10 million a year for the next decade. Sure, he's got money salted away. But I don't think he's got a reputation that's worth anything. I don't know. Lawrence Summers, again, I don't think people particularly treat those with respect. But they have money. You know, they can take care of their nephews and nieces. But I think it's generally accepted they caused a lot of damage to the economy.

        JAY: But it's not, like, that it's just a bad group of people happened to get into power. And I'm not suggesting you're suggesting that.

        SCHEER: No, it's the best and the brightest that Halberstam wrote about in Vietnam. These are very well educated people who know what they're doing and, I believe, have to know it's going to destroy the lives of millions of people, and they go ahead and do it. It's just like--.

        JAY: Yeah, 'cause they say if it ain't me doing it, it's going to be him doing it, or her.

        SCHEER: Whatever their rationalizations, they surround themselves with lawyers and PR people who tell them this is all wonderful, and they get away with it.

        JAY: But it's the way the system has evolved that so much money is in so few hands. There's not much else for them to do with it than bet and gamble against each other, create this massive speculative sector of the economy, which is financializing everything. Even when they talk about climate change, all they really have in mind is a way to financialize it. So whether it's this group or the other group, the sort of system itself is created where there's--so much capital has become completely parasitical.

        SCHEER: Yes, but they could also be decent people. They could actually wonder about what would Jesus do. They could actually think about what does their lives mean.

        JAY: I think some do and drop out.

        SCHEER: A few.

        JAY: Some do, and they can't take it anymore, and they drop out.

        SCHEER: Yeah.

        JAY: But they're not in any position to change the course of the ship.

        SCHEER: Well, but also the question you should ask is why aren't they being observed in doing this. And the reason is because they can buy off everyone.

        JAY: Especially the media.

        SCHEER: The media, but the universities, the grants of--you know, build buildings at universities. Come on.

        JAY: I want to stress the media 'cause they have this theatrical show going in the elections -- I'm not saying there isn't a real contention for power, but when you have unlimited contributions, unlimited spending, what are they spending it on? They're spending it on TV advertising.

        SCHEER: Yeah, and they're spending it on candidates who will not give them a hard time. There's no question about it.

        But it's not just the media. I mean, I don't want to exonerate the media, but you -- you know, in the day of the internet, you should have more critical voices, right, 'cause--but even there you look at where could--you know, okay, to understand the economy or foreign policy requires a little brainwork, okay? Most people have got to take care of their job and their family and pick the kid up and how do I pay this bill and am I going to lose my job and/or how am I going to make that sale. And so their lives are taken up. And then we have a group of people, whether they're called journalists or professors or consultants or what have you who actually have the time and are really charged with figuring stuff out.

        Now, most of this stuff is not all that difficult to figure out. So then you have to ask yourself the question, why didn't you figure it out? I mean, why didn't the media--in my book I describe how The New York Times was a cheerleader for this radical deregulation. They used words like modernization. They said long overdue. Now, why? You know, because they were living in a culture and benefiting from a culture that was benefiting from the ripoff. These are the people who advertise. These are the people who invest in your venture, in your media. These are the people who buy chairs at the schools where you're teaching. These are people who support the charities or political causes that you happen to agree with. There is a culture of corruption, I mean, 'cause anyone else looking at this, they say, wait a minute, this is nonsensical, this is bad. Why are you selling--I remember writing about this stuff. I would go out to what they call the Inland Empire in California where they're building all of these--. I said, who's going to live here? How are they going to get to work? Who's paying for this? Why are they making the loans? And then you realize there is no there there. Don't confuse the thing--I remember an old advertising [incompr.] don't confuse the thing being sold with the thing itself. They're not selling a house to somebody who needs a house and is going to live and be able to afford the payment; they're selling this collateralized debt obligation that's 1,000 of those houses that you have made and chopped up and iced and diced and everything and sliced, and then you're going to make that seem like a good bet to somebody. Where? In Saudi Arabia or in France or--.

        JAY: Knowing it's all going to default.

        SCHEER: Yeah, but you're going to get in and out before it defaults.

        JAY: Yeah. So please join us for the next segment of Reality Asserts Itself with Bob Scheer on The Real News Network.


        End


        DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

        Robert Scheer is editor-in-chief of Truthdig and has built a reputation for strong social and political writing over his 30 years as a journalist and author. His latest book is They Know Everything About You: How Data-Collecting Corporations and Snooping Government Agencies Are Destroying Democracy.

        [Jun 27, 2015] Flash!!! Daily Mail Makes Stunning Geographical Discovery

        Fresh on Senator Imhofe's revelation of the previously unknown Russo-Ukrainian mountain range, the Daily Mail has discovered, and photographed, the recently discovered Mordovian Sea.

        In a breathless piece "Russia has rehearsed an invasion of SCANDINAVIA which, if carried out, would prevent NATO from reinforcing the Baltic states, claims US security report" quoting the recently-upgraded-to-"security expert" Edward Lucas, the paper captions the above photo "Invasion: Zubr-class hovercraft, deploying marines during Zapad-09 in Mordovia during Russia's rehearsals for occupying part of the Baltic states".

        In the previous world, Mordovia was a land-locked republic in Russia which didn't even have a big river.

        The piece, by the way, is worth reading as a good example of anti-Russia propaganda constructed out of nothing at all. First of all, as we read down past all the stock photos of Russian soldiers doing this or that (mostly marching), we find that what "security expert" Lucas actually said was maybe, possibly, perhaps, but probably not. Other sources didn't comment. As a good example of another non-fact we are excitedly told that one in three of Swedes want to join NATO which, unless my arithmetic teachers were lying to me, means that two in three don't.

        Anyway, give it read before it disappears down the memory hole: a fine example of super inflated fluff brought to you by the International House of Presstitution

        [Jun 27, 2015]U.S. Pushes Russia Towards War

        "..."The United States has intervened in too many countries without paying a high enough price.""
        .
        "...A recent New York Times editorial with the grandiose title, "The Fantasy Mr. Putin is Selling," claimed that president Putin has a "willingness to brandish nuclear weapons." There was no mention of America's unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in 2002. "
        .
        "...The Obama administration is in the process of killing the Minsk accords which were shepherded by France and Germany. This is the only process which can defang the beast, and that is why it is being sabotaged. The United States has intervened in too many countries without paying a high enough price. It is like a serial criminal who remains at large and thus thinks of himself as invincible. This county is responsible for carnage in Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria and that is the list of victims only since 2001."
        .
        "...Not only does the United States have the most and the biggest guns but it has the corporate media at its disposal, parroting every word as if they were gospel truth. "
        .
        "...The process of marginalizing Russia began as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed."
        June 26, 2015 | Information Clearing House

        "The United States has intervened in too many countries without paying a high enough price."

        "Information Clearing House" - "BAR" - This columnist recently said that "Russia Wins" in its handling of America's attempt to eviscerate its influence and its economy. At the time those words were written Secretary of State John Kerry met with Vladimir Putin in Sochi, Russia. The meeting appeared to be an admission that the imperial power grab was not working out as Washington hoped. Among other things, Kerry was concerned that the Ukrainian tail was starting to wag the American dog.
        In a public statement he warned Ukrainian president Poroshenko, who threatened to retake Crimea and the Donbass. "We would strongly urge him to think twice not to engage in that kind of activity, that that would put Minsk [accords] in serious jeopardy. And we would be very, very concerned about what the consequences of that kind of action at this time may be." Barack Obama promptly tossed Kerry under the bus upon his return home.

        Kerry's subordinate Victoria Nuland and the United Nations ambassador Samantha Power repeated the very words that Kerry warned against and contradicted everything he said. Power went to Kiev to sing the praises of the Ukrainians in person. She didn't have to mention Kerry by name, her presence alone said that he and any talk of diplomacy were on the outs. Of course the meeting between Kerry and Putin had to have been approved by president Obama, but just one month later it appears to have been a figment of the world's imagination.

        "Russia has every right to arm its own territory."

        In the battle to stay on top of the world and remain in control of it, Washington inevitably lurches back and forth in its policy decision making. Now they and their scribes in corporate media have settled back into comfortable territory, simultaneously vilifying the Russian government and endlessly repeating anti-Russian propaganda.

        A recent New York Times editorial with the grandiose title, "The Fantasy Mr. Putin is Selling," claimed that president Putin has a "willingness to brandish nuclear weapons." There was no mention of America's unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in 2002. Not content to tell one lie the Times then criticized Putin for "aggressive behavior, including pouring troops and weapons into Kaliningrad, a Russian city located between NATO members Lithuania and Poland." Of course, Russia has every right to arm its own territory. The Times also neglected to mention that the American military are positioning weapons and holding training exercises in Ukraine, Poland, Romania and the Baltic states that border Russia. It seems that those provocations are not deemed worthy of mention.

        The New York Times and its counterparts always play this role. They cozy up to president Obama as they have with all his predecessors and support any and all of their mischief. Far from being a voice of information for the public, they do the bidding of the powerful and are accessories to their crimes.

        "Antagonizing Russia is riskier than paying jihadists to take over Libya."

        The Obama administration is in the process of killing the Minsk accords which were shepherded by France and Germany. This is the only process which can defang the beast, and that is why it is being sabotaged. The United States has intervened in too many countries without paying a high enough price. It is like a serial criminal who remains at large and thus thinks of himself as invincible. This county is responsible for carnage in Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria and that is the list of victims only since 2001.

        One has to ask where and when the straw will break the camel's back. American military power has allowed it to run rough shod over humanity, but antagonizing Russia is riskier than paying jihadists to take over Libya.

        Not only does the United States have the most and the biggest guns but it has the corporate media at its disposal, parroting every word as if they were gospel truth. Americans who think of themselves as well informed will be in for a shock if Moldova turns out to be the flash point for open warfare that was instigated by their government.

        "Russia will never be beholden to America."

        Everyone knows that an assassination in Sarajevo in 1914 pushed the world into war. In 2015 the signs are ominous that something terrible may happen because of an incident in Transnistria or Donetsk or some other locale Americans know nothing about.

        The process of marginalizing Russia began as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed. While the Warsaw Pact disbanded, NATO grew at Russia's expense. But Russia will never be beholden to America. There is no puppet they can place in the Kremlin. These fantasies have put the world on the brink.

        Obama and his friends in NATO may not want to start a war but they may get one all the same. Of course the president is concerned about his legacy. He ought to be. If he continues as he has done since 2009, his legacy may be that he was head inmate in the asylum when the last war began.

        Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com .

        Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com

        [Jun 26, 2015] Can Pepsi, Coke -- Russian MP asks govt to ban US sodas as counter-sanction measure

        "...Last August the Communist Party asked the government to impose sanctions on tobacco, alcohol and carbonated drinks from all countries that support sanctions against Russia, saying that such move would be in the interests of national security. "
        Jun 26, 2015 | RT Russian politics

        The head of Russia's Party of Pensioners is urging sanctions against the Coca-Cola and PepsiCo claiming the soda giants are major sponsors of anti-Russian politicians in US and that the move would boost domestic producers of soft drinks.

        "In support of the president's and government's actions regarding the countersanctions we suggest restricting imports of products made by the Coca-Cola and PepsiCo companies that are the main sponsors of respectively the Republican and Democratic parties of the United States, the active supporters of prolonged sanctions against the Russian Federation," Igor Zotov wrote in a letter to the Russian prime minister, quoted by the Izvestia daily.

        Zotov, an MP in the State Duma representing the Fair Russia Party, noted that according to the information received from open sources the US soda is extremely harmful for human health and therefore its imports are very damaging for the health of the Russian nation.

        He added that under the ongoing import-replacement program it would be logical to legislatively oblige all soft drink producers selling their products within Russia to use only Russian-made ingredients certified by Russian state agencies. Under this condition, the US soda makers could continue their presence on the Russian markets, Zotov wrote in the letter.

        The last suggestion drew bewildered comment from the head of the Union of Soft Drink Producers, Dmitry Petrov, who told Izvestia that Coke and Pepsi sold in Russia were made from Russian water and sugar, but the main flavor came from imported concentrates with a secret composition.

        Petrov added that the ban could lead to a deficit of soft drinks in Russia because Coke and Pepsi together sold about 40 percent of products on this market. Another negative effect would be a decrease in tax revenue and a hike in unemployment, the lobbyist said.


        According to Russian commercial database SPARK the overall revenue of Coca-Cola's Russian branch was 67 billion rubles in 2013 and the company paid 404 million rubles in income tax from this sum ($1.2 billion and 7.34 million respectively at current rate). The figures for PepsiCo's Russian branch are 80 billion and 158 million rubles ($1.45 billion and $2.87 million at current rate). Coca-Cola employs 11,000 workers in Russia and PepsiCo employs 23,000.

        PepsiCo entered the Russian markets much earlier than Coca-Cola – in 1971, back in Soviet times. The drinks produced by this company were scarce at first, but gained more popularity as production was increased ahead of the 1980 Moscow Olympics. After the fall of Communism, PepsiCo's advertising slogan 'Generation Pepsi' became so well-known it became eponymous with young people who had not got the taste for the Socialist lifestyle.

        Coca-Cola first came to Russia before the 1980 Olympics but only produced and sold its orange drink Fanta until the Perestroika years under Gorbachev in the late-80s.

        This is not the first time foreign soda producers have been the target of Russian politicians. Last August the Communist Party asked the government to impose sanctions on tobacco, alcohol and carbonated drinks from all countries that support sanctions against Russia, saying that such move would be in the interests of national security. Before that the Communists had sought an additional tax on sugar-containing drinks quoting concern over national health.

        [Jun 26, 2015] Russia rejects calls for UN tribunal to prosecute MH17 suspects

        "Aluminum tubes UN testimony trick again: looks like attempt by the US and other interested parties to keep some evidence secret as in criminal trial all evidence should be made available to defense. Guardian presstitutes: "Suspicions immediately fell on the separatists, who may have used a surface-to-air missile supplied by Russia to shoot down the plane." And other facts versions are simply ignored... That's how blackmail operates.
        "...Russia HAS published its satellite data and data on portable radar activity which implicated Ukraine forces in the downing of the plane. It did so shortly after the incident. Russia has also stated that the US had a surveillance satellite over this area at the time of the plane coming down. Why is the US reluctant to publish any surveillance data? This includes both satellite and communications intercepts."
        "...I've searched across the web for anyone else reporting this and it's in a few places but always citing the AFP. Each version is different but they all contain this line: "Suspicions immediately fell on the separatists, who may have used a surface-to-air missile supplied by Russia to shoot down the plane."
        "...The initial investigation has dragged it's feet but can't they just put their efforts into completing it, or is Ukraine using it's veto to stop anything coming out? I'm not sure what is going on in the Netherlands, but it seems they have their mind made up on Russia. "
        "...Exactly ultimately we must hold we must hold Obama, Victoria "f**** Europe" Nuland and ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt responsible. It was they that initiated and organized the violent coup that overthrew the legally elected President and government of the Ukraine. Their preferred nominees we installed in a parliament patrolled by armed fascist and neo-Nazi thugs that ensured that it voted the "right way". Remember Nuland's intercepted phone call anointing "Yats" (Yatsenuk) as prime minister. Not to mention her photo-ops in the Maidan with the fascist leaders Oleh Tyahnybok and Andriy Parubiy."
        "...In fact in 20 years Russia, directly or indirectly, destroyed about 40 thousand people. USA - about 650 thousand. So what?
        Calling Putin - the bloody tyrant, a little funny. Is not it?"
        Chillskier Jackblob , 26 Jun 2015 21:29

        You have now idea how media is manipulated to confuse people.

        Read July, 17th 2014 BBC report:

        Ukraine conflict: Russia accused of shooting down jet

        It says :

        "A Ukrainian security spokesman has accused Russia's air force of shooting down one of its jets while it was on a mission over Ukrainian territory.:

        It basically says that on that day Ukie's had all the reasons to activate their air defenses!!

        Telegraph have the same information:

        Here is Canadian CBC

        However CBC changed the story on the July 23

        Now the missiles have been fired from Russian territory, because you cannot remind people that Ukie's actually themselves claimed reasons to activate their own BUK's in the area

        CNN changed story as well

        Notice all modified reports came out after MH17 shooting, but we know that no aircraft was shot down after that.

        Small details like that will eventually blow a big hole in the narrative that is pushed down our throats

        Jeff Pawiro 26 Jun 2015 21:14

        How will the west react when the investigation proves Poroshenko's thugs shot down MH17. Giving a killer billions in aide ..... i have a feeling this investigation will last for tens of years till most people forgot about it.

        DrKropotkin Jackblob 26 Jun 2015 21:00

        Haven't seen the evidence and it's not for lack of looking. A photo provided by Ukraine of a BUK system with a missing missile driving through government controlled territory is all I've seen.

        As for evidence to which we are not privy, I stopped listening to that talk after the WMD saga.

        Terry Ross Jackblob 26 Jun 2015 21:10

        June 3, Russia challenges USA to publish its information on MH17, USA refuses.

        MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Russia's Foreign Ministry called on the United States on Wednesday to make public any evidence it has on last year's crash of Malaysia Airlines' flight MH17 in eastern Ukraine.

        "If the United States has objective control data from satellites or the airborne warning and control system AWACS, it should be made public. The same applies to recordings of talks between controllers and Ukraine's military sector," the ministry said.

        <<<>>>
        US State Dept Daily Press Briefing (Wednesday):
        QUESTION:
        Okay, and next question about MH-17. Today, Russian foreign minister –
        ministry urged United States to unveil satellite images taken on the date the plane crashed. So are you going to do that, or maybe you are going to transfer to investigators?

        MS HARF: Well, we've worked with – we've given information to the investigators if we thought it was relevant. At the time, I remember us actually putting out maps. And those maps included where we believed, where we had evidence, that this
        missile was fired from. So we put out, actually, quite a bit of information at the time.

        QUESTION: So nothing new?

        MS HARF: Nothing new and our assessment of what happened has not changed.

        QUESTION: Now I'm talking about new images maybe.

        MS HARF: Correct. No.

        Russia HAS published its satellite data and data on portable radar activity which implicated Ukraine forces in the downing of the plane. It did so shortly after the incident. Russia has also stated that the US had a surveillance satellite over this area at the time of the plane coming down. Why is the US reluctant to publish any surveillance data? This includes both satellite and communications intercepts.

        DrKropotkin 26 Jun 2015 20:45

        I've searched across the web for anyone else reporting this and it's in a few places but always citing the AFP. Each version is different but they all contain this line:

        "Suspicions immediately fell on the separatists, who may have used a surface-to-air missile supplied by Russia to shoot down the plane."

        Not great journalism, let's fix it: "Suspicions (from 5 eyes nations and their media mocking birds) immediately fell on the separatists, who may have used a surface-to-air missile (that we have no evidence was) supplied by Russia (or even exists) to shoot down the plane."


        chemicalscum -> JJRichardson 26 Jun 2015 20:44

        The question is why would they fire one given only Kiev planes were in the air, apart from, tragically and stupidly, civilian aircraft.

        They had form, the incompetent Ukrainian military accidentally shot down a civilian airliner in 2001. However I wouldn't rule out a deliberate fascist Junta/CIA provocation the CIA has form on that too.


        normankirk -> SomersetApples 26 Jun 2015 20:42

        And that is going to require transparency of the highest order. Too many horses in this race, with powerful interests. Its questionable that it is even possible to have a fair trial when the media and govts have leapt in early on with accusations and a huge effort to assign guilt. Most people think the russians are guilty. I don't myself, thats the weakest scenario. I think its an accident by either separatists or Ukrainians. Both had the means and the motive. Ukrainians to defend against what they perceived to be an imminent Russian invasion, Rebels defending their towns and cities from air attack


        chemicalscum -> airman23 26 Jun 2015 20:39

        Ukraine isn't a suspect. Russia is the most likely suspect.

        As we say in England "Pull the other one its got bells on it" . The Ukraine along with the US are the only countries known to have shot down civilian airliners. The Ukrainians shot down a Russian airliner bringing passengers back form Israel. Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 in 2001. The Ukrainian army possessed lots of Buk batteries that were deployed and had their radar on in the right place at the right time.

        DrKropotkin 26 Jun 2015 20:37

        Why skip to this stage now? The initial investigation has dragged it's feet but can't they just put their efforts into completing it, or is Ukraine using it's veto to stop anything coming out? I'm not sure what is going on in the Netherlands, but it seems they have their mind made up on Russia.

        Here is a story about a Dutch school book:

        shttp://rt.com/news/269314-anti-russian-propaganda-netherlands/

        Robzview2 -> buttonbasher81 26 Jun 2015 20:22

        Nothing to do with the Dutch investigation are you aware that the US will not allow any of their citizens to face ICC trials for war crimes, despite the innumerable war crimes they have committed in. Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Central America, Serbia, Iraq, Libya etc?

        SomersetApples -> ByThePeople 26 Jun 2015 20:22

        Yes, Poroshenko has already asked for a delay of the investigation disclosure.

        Vatslav Rente 26 Jun 2015 20:21

        Well, it sounds like - we Have no evidence against Russia, no results of the investigation. There is no evidence the Ukrainian air traffic controller. No suspects separatists. OK, let's create a UN Tribunal:)

        Someone really believes that after 1.5 years, the guilty will be punished? You guys are optimists?

        Paul Moore -> SomersetApples 26 Jun 2015 20:13

        I was looking at other airline incidents to see what a typical time frame in posting information and reports. I picked one recent one and it seems as if the MH17 investigation is going no slower than normal. Other than delays in getting information from the site, it may actually be faster than normal. Implying that there is some kind of sinister motive in the amount of time it takes to issue the final report is disingenuous at best.

        This report discusses the July 6, 2013, accident involving a Boeing 777-200ER, Korean registration HL7742, operating as Asiana Airlines flight 214, which was on approach to runway 28L when it struck a seawall at San Francisco International Airport (SFO), San Francisco, California.

        The Report was not released until June 24, 2014, after a year. Other investigations have taken two or more years.

        http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1401.pdf

        chemicalscum -> shkzlu 26 Jun 2015 20:11

        ultimately the people who started the war must be held accountable

        Exactly ultimately we must hold we must hold Obama, Victoria "f**** Europe" Nuland and ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt responsible. It was they that initiated and organized the violent coup that overthrew the legally elected President and government of the Ukraine. Their preferred nominees we installed in a parliament patrolled by armed fascist and neo-Nazi thugs that ensured that it voted the "right way". Remember Nuland's intercepted phone call anointing "Yats" (Yatsenuk) as prime minister. Not to mention her photo-ops in the Maidan with the fascist leaders Oleh Tyahnybok and Andriy Parubiy.

        This government then started a genocidal civil war against its own citizens murdering en mass civilians by shelling cities.

        Yes we know who the war criminals are.


        Vatslav Rente -> talenttruth 26 Jun 2015 19:54

        In fact in 20 years Russia, directly or indirectly, destroyed about 40 thousand people. USA - about 650 thousand. So what?
        Calling Putin - the bloody tyrant, a little funny. Is not it?


        normankirk -> Doom Sternz 26 Jun 2015 19:52

        Legally I don't see how that agreement can stand up in a criminal trial. If all evidence can be vetoed by the parties in the investigation, there can not be the possibility of a fair trial. All evidence must be available to the defense.

        Vatslav Rente -> Metronome151 26 Jun 2015 19:47

        One would think that for 1 year - will determine how any idiot was shot down a civilian Boeing. But a surprising number of "professionals" and interested parties leaves no hope for it ... When at stake is the Geopolitics ... well, I think you understand.

        SomersetApples -> Metronome151 26 Jun 2015 19:47

        Many posters on this page are already assuming that Russia is at fault before they know the facts. For the UN to make a decision before they know the facts would be just as ignorant. Let us see the facts first before we make a decision.

        SomersetApples 26 Jun 2015 19:25

        It is incredible that it has taken so long to release the information recorded on the black box. A US surveillance satellite was immediately overhead at the time and we know how the US are always bragging about how accurate their satellites are. Witnesses on the ground saw a fighter shoot down the plane and photos of the wreckage show bullet holes the size of the onboard cannons carried on the Ukraine fighters and shrapnel consistent with air-to-air missiles. Usually investigators make preliminary statements about their investigation in a matter of weeks. In this case, nothing has ever been disclosed. The Russians named the Ukrainian pilot flying the fighter that day. He made one brief statement to the press, something about making a terrible mistake and disappeared never to be heard of again.

        I think the Russians are trying to wait until the results of the investigation are disclosed, examined and cross examined before taking it to the UN. As we have waited all this time for the disclosure that would seem like a reasonable request.

        The West seems to be trying to take it to the UN before the facts are known. They could then argue that results of the investigation must be kept sealed as they are the subject of a UN hearing and involve national secrets and insist that it be decided behind closed doors. Any decision by the UN could then be based on politics rather than facts. Poroshenko is already trying to delay disclosure of the investigation.

        In the UK we are still waiting for the results of the investigation into the invasion of Iraq. After 12 years they are still stalling and refusing to tell us what they found. Maybe they feel that if they wait long enough the current generation will die out and future generations will not remember what happened.

        Results of the MH17 air crash investigation are due out and the world is entitled to know what happened. What are they waiting for?


        HollyOldDog -> truk10 26 Jun 2015 18:50

        Or to show the DATA and minor design mods that a SU25 would be capable of performing this task and that Ukraine when it was in the USSR had the data and knowledge to perform this task. But let's wait for the investigations to finish while ensuring all the evidence has been examined and all the possible avenues followed. No point jumping to concluesions where the West could end up with EGGs on their faces. Why is Poroshenko trying to rush this investigation? He is interested in the TRUTH isn't he?

        Doom Sternz -> truk10 26 Jun 2015 18:46

        The Russians have presented the evidence. When the US accused Russia of the demise of MH17 they lied. We can now see that 48 hours after that German crackpot murdered 149 people we knew everything and a year after the MH17, we know nothing. How long does it take to doctor a black box?


        MrHMSH -> Robzview2 26 Jun 2015 18:37

        There's a huge difference: we know that Iran Air 655 was shot down by the USS Vincennes. Whereas we don't know who shot down MH17. You can argue morals and that all day long, but at least it is known.


        normankirk -> psygone 26 Jun 2015 18:36

        I do understand thats the way its been from the start. I'm talking about a very recent extension to the agreement., and was asking if anyone knows what thats about. I'd understood the investigation will be complete in October, from there, comes a prosecution. So I'm none the wiser from your post

        Doom Sternz -> psygone 26 Jun 2015 18:36

        On August 8, Ukraine, the Netherlands, Australia and Belgium signed a non-disclosure agreement pertaining to data obtained during the investigation into the causes of the crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17. In the framework of the 4-country agreement, information on the progress and results of the investigation of the disaster will remain classified.


        annamarinja -> BigNowitzki 26 Jun 2015 18:27

        Aluminum tubes? Again? Is not Nuland-Kagan the most trusted student of Cheney?

        If you are so particular about evidence, then ask the US government to divulge, for gods sake, the pictures that have been taken by the US' satellite that happened to be just above the shooting of MH17. What intelligent person could believe that the the best evidences that the US can provide are some suspicious pics and half-wit ramblings from a website of a deranged blogger.


        normankirk -> truk10 26 Jun 2015 18:24

        Its the UK and US who have been so vocal about accusing the Russians , right from the start. The official Russian position has not been to assign blame, but to ask questions. You confuse media reports, the Engineers union, and the Buk manufacturers with the official position, when they are not.

        Have you seen Putin in a public forum declaring that Kiev is to blame for MH17?

        I have not

        Whereas I have seen all the plonkers of the 5 eyes countries dutifully doing their bit. Harper, Abbott, Cameron, Obama, all thundering from the pulpit...Putin did it!

        normankirk 26 Jun 2015 18:13

        I noticed that Poroshenko, in the Rada has called for an extension of the mh17 investigation agreement between Ukraine and the Netherlands A really short piece in the Kyiv Post. No further explanations.

        Does any one know what that's about?Does he want a longer time frame, or is it just a standard agreement that needs to be re affirmed regularly?

        [Jun 25, 2015] Who is That Trip-Trapping on my Bridge – the Fable of Putin's Troll Army by marknesop

        April 11, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

        I was thinking, a few days ago, that I might do a post on the bellyaching and caterwauling from the Russophobes about Moscow's supposed army of "paid trolls", who are reimbursed by the Russian government for clogging western comment threads with fallacious arguments and childish insults which detract from – or derail entirely – thoughtful and informative commentary, often ridiculing the post itself into the bargain. As I made my daily round of certain publications, including Russia Insider, I saw that I had been trumped in that intention by the inimitable Patrick Armstrong with "The West Throws a Temper Tantrum". There is no besting Patrick, with his enviable background in Russian affairs, his diplomatic experience and his pungent vocabulary – and even if there were, he references a story by Mark Ames of The eXile fame, who has traced the provenance of the "Russian Trolls" theme and found it to be a recurring wet dream of the Russophobes as far back as 2013.

        The Incredible Human Smarm Generator, Max Seddon, England's answer to beefcake magazines (I'm assuming here that he is from England because such an insufferable twit really could not have come from anywhere else, but please correct me if I am wrong and I will have the guilty location pulled down and sown with salt and dragon's teeth) did it back in 2014, basing his breathless report on "Plans attached to emails leaked by a mysterious Russian hacker collective", although the location is the same one as that described in more recent scoops – the Internet Research Center on 55 Savushkina St., St Petersburg. According to Ames' story, Seddon's source and the furthest back we can easily trace the story is – surprise – Novaya Gazeta, The Little Newspaper That Could; employer of the martyred Anna Politkovskaya, circulation about 184,000 copies (many, like The Moscow Times, giveaways in hotels and train stations). Partly owned by Russian oligarch and former KGB agent Alexander Lebedev and former jilted President Mikhail Gorbachev, Novaya Gazeta now distinguishes itself by publishing the hoarse grunting and screaming of Yulia Latynina, who wrote that poor people should not be allowed to vote because they are hungry and will vote for any prospective leader who promises them food, and who caught on before anyone else that the Chel'yabinsk meteorite was a secret government missile test that got away from them. She retracted that story shortly after it was released, but was unrepentant – she was wrong this time, but make no mistake, that did not mean the Kremlin was not up to devilish experiments. Oh, all right; one more. She announced in 2012 that Putin would use distractions in the Middle East to "stage his long-awaited attack on Georgia". There were clear signs of the contingency planning for this, she confided, in another advertisement for the wisdom of wearing a helmet when playing contact sports.

        Anyway, now that I have hopefully established for you the provenance – to say nothing of the credibility – of the source of this latest nutty obsession, we don't want to make this about the source. The droll droolery of this unbridled foolishness has been exposed, and done to death.

        And yet. I decided to go ahead with it, because there is an entire fundamental in this story that I did not see covered to my satisfaction.

        Neoconservative warhag Annie Applebaum was quite wound up with outrage over the Russian troll issue last winter, penning a crie-de-coeur to a democracy in its death throes because of fake, bought-and-paid-for comments on Internet forums. The very bedrock of democracy is cracking, she tells us, because "…[o]nce upon a time, it seemed as if the Internet would be a place of civilized and open debate; now, unedited forums often deteriorate to insult exchanges. Like it or not, this matters: Multiple experiments have shown that perceptions of an article, its writer or its subject can be profoundly shaped by anonymous online commentary, especially if it is harsh. One group of researchers found that rude comments "not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant's interpretation of the news story itself." A digital analyst at Atlantic Media also discovered that people who read negative comments were more likely to judge that an article was of low quality and, regardless of the content, to doubt the truth of what it stated. "

        Oddly enough, she did not speculate on what lying does to the credibility of a story, despite her track record as the kind of from-the-hip liar who lies just to keep in practice even when the truth would serve just as well. Astoundingly, in the very same post, she cites Michael Weiss and Peter Pomerantsev – of the partisan hack journal Interpreter Mag – as competent authorities to "distinguish truth from state-sponsored fiction".

        But never mind that for now. Our old friend Catherine Fitzpatrick – also of Interpreter Mag comments in a story for The Atlantic, by Daisy Sindelar; " …trolls inhibit informed debate by using crude dialogue to change "the climate of discussion."If you show up at The Washington Post or New Republic sites, where there's an article that's critical of Russia, and you see that there are 200 comments that sound like they were written by 12-year-olds, then you just don't bother to comment," she says. "

        However, that emphasizes a point that everyone seems to be missing: comments which are supportive of Russia's view, but are crudely formatted or in which the commenter appears to struggle with English, especially if they are angry or insulting – are almost never deleted in moderated forums. In fact, such forums appear to deliberately leave them, as punching bags for enthusiastic and righteous rebuttals as well as examples of what unlettered savages and dropout dolts "Kremlin supporters" are, in much the same way a lioness will hamstring a gazelle and leave it for her cubs, so they will learn to kill. Also, such comments rarely inspire the accusation that the commenter is a paid troll – who would pay anyone for such an inept performance?

        No, the "paid Putin troll" label is far more commonly awarded to commenters whose native language is English or who are highly competent second-language speakers – and Russians with the language skill of a Leonid Bershidsky or a Vladimir Kara-Murza are rare – and who defend their viewpoint with patient elaboration supported by verifiable references. More often, in moderated forums, such comments (if they contradict the editorial line of the forum) are quickly deleted with a minimum of fuss, before most of the readership can even see them. The Guardian is legendary for deleting anything positive written about Russia in the commentary to its articles, and what remains where it once was is the maddeningly self-righteous message, "This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs."

        Allow me to offer an instructive example: through the magic of Disqus, I recovered these comments from the Kyiv Post. Mine was marked as "spam" and deleted. See what you think.

        Here's the original comment, by an academic bright spark who calls himself Mr. RainbowBotox:

        "First of all, around 2008, they quietly changed the law allowing them to use nuclear weapons first. Therefore they will be able to use it first. there is also the so-called "strategic use" of these weapons, if things get worse and they decided to drop one on Talin, Estonia, or any other of these countries, there is no way in which the UK, France or the US are going to respond with nuclear weapons, risking the feared wide scale mutual destruction. Therefore it is a real danger that they can actually use them and believe not be at risk of receiving a similar strike."

        Here's my reply, which stayed up no more than an hour before a moderator removed it as spam.

        "Is that so? Actually, no; it's not. Russia dropped the no-first-use policy in 1993, and there was nothing sneaky about it at all – what's the sense of changing a policy in private? How does that have any global effect?

        http://www.nti.org/country-pro

        Analysts at the time speculated the reasoning behind it was not a Russian eagerness for nuclear war, but a policy change which recognized a new role for the nuclear component – deterrence of limited conventional war. The probable reason for that was the steady erosion of Russia's conventional forces, and a need to keep NATO off them until they could regroup. Since 2010 Russia has steadily reduced its reliance on the nuclear deterrent and has drawn down the Strategic Rocket Forces significantly, preferring to beef up the seaborne component.

        Anybody who seriously thinks they would nuke one of the Baltic states needs a psychiatric examination, or knows nothing of nuclear weapons. They are too close to Russia, and even though the prevailing winds are generally westerly it is not worth the risk. None of the Baltics would be able to stand against a conventional attack at much less risk. But why? Russia is not remotely interested in subjugating the yappy Baltics, despite what Edward Lucas tells you – when was he ever right about anything? Are they rich, or something? Russia spent more preparing for the Olympics than the GDP of the wealthiest of them."

        A little of my reply is opinion, such as where I suggest Russia is not interested in subjugating the Baltics. I don't see any evidence of it, but the Russian government obviously does not consult me on its plans. But most is factual, and supported by references. Mr. RainbowBotox's comment was allowed to remain although it contained factual errors and they were pointed out. It's still there now.

        Similar shenanigans go on all the time in The Guardian, and thoughtful comments which appear to be the result of careful research are summarily deleted because they clash with the paper's editorial stance, and because they show up the original commenter as a fool. Some of these authors are simply filtered out after they have had a couple of comments deleted, so that nothing authored by them will be accepted. Occasionally they inspire grudging admiration for the author's command of English – several such were directed at our own Moscow Exile, which made me laugh, because he is as English as the crumpet.

        This kind of high-handedness, resulting in a complete inability to have one's opinion heard, are beginning to inspire alternative sites which are not moderated; in The Guardian's case it is mirrored by the brilliant OffGuardian, and there are many other great ones such as Russia Insider, Danielle Ryan's Journalitico and Paul Robinson's Irrusianality. They rarely seem to attract trolls (except for Russia Insider, which does), and on the occasions they show up the comment sections eat them alive.

        Just a couple more points before I hand over the floor to you. One, for what it's worth, the "Kandid Konfession" of alleged Russian blogger and former paid Russian troll Marat Burkhard is alleged by this German site to have been a hoax perpetrated by Jürg Vollmer's "Troll Factory" in Frankfurt, allegedly the same outfit that perpetrated the "Gay Girl In Damascus" scam. The west was quite angry to discover the supposed 25-year-old lesbian in Syria was actually a 40-year-old straight man in Edinburgh.

        Two; the scenario "Burkhard" describes, in which trolls act in teams of three, makes no sense. According to him, one person provides the original comment, the second plays the "villain" and disagrees with him (ostensibly to provide the appearance of balanced opinion), while the third affirms the rightness of the first person's opinion. He agrees all three sit together, agreeing on who is going to answer who, but then says they do not talk much because everyone is busy.

        There's no need for them to talk at all; allegedly, each operator controls ten Twitter accounts; presumably they each also supplied ten fake email addresses to get the accounts. Why would one operator not fulfill all three roles, playing the parts of initial commenter, villain and collaborator? If it is possible to tell that all three were generated by the same individual, so they must do it in teams of three, why would each need ten Twitter accounts?

        Three, the exchange the alleged troll defector describes – initial commenter, villain and collaborator – neatly captures just about every comment-forum disagreement ever written. It is therefore easy to characterize any exchange in which the commenter is hammering the editorial policy of the site as having come from a "professional paid troll".

        We are being set up. While Applebaum plants the suggestion that you should not read comment forums any more because they are dominated by Russian trolls, Fitzpatrick backs her up that you should just read the article and not pay attention to comments. Applebaum chimes in that research has shown that negative comments can affect your opinion of both the article and its author – far better to just read the article and internalize its truths, rather than confuse yourself. Meanwhile comments in which the author struggles with English and is insulting ("Obama is a monkey, Putin good") are allowed to remain, to serve as an example of how poorly-educated and bigoted Russians are. Anything which argues for fairness and substantiates that Russia is being unfairly criticized, using established and respectable academic or media references, is deleted with some excuse that it is spam, or violates some arbitrary community guidelines.

        Once upon a time, not so very long ago, comment forums in English-speaking sources were almost overwhelmingly in support of articles extolling the goodness of westerners and their policy and the evil of the barbarian hordes who dwell between the Baltic and the Sea of Okhotsk. This is so no longer, and articles which try to draw Manichean comparisons have to fly through a cloud of flak. The western ideologues don't like that. Hence, the cloaking device of "Russian trolls". Anyone arguing against stereotyping of Russia, its leader and its policies, who substantiates his or her argument with solid reasoning and historical or contemporary fact, must be paid by the Russian government. Paid to lie, of course, which is why they must get rid of your argument before it dawns on readers that it is true.

        Unless, of course, you use all the same devices as a troll – an assumed name, profane and opinionated commentary, statements which assume facts not in evidence – but support the western agenda. Then, it's enough that you say you're not a troll; you "try not to lie (according to your own beliefs, which you do not challenge with research) and nobody's paying you". Then, like "Adolfych" in the Sindelar piece, you can troll to your heart's content and never get anything more negative than "an opinionated mischief-maker". You'll benefit from much the same double standard which calls a Moscow billionaire an "oligarch", and a Kiev billionaire a "tycoon".

        You always know you're winning when the other side feels like it has to change the rules.

        [Jun 25, 2015] Putins protection of compatriots problem

        "...They would have conquered a large, desperately poor country for which they would have assumed responsibility, conveniently identifying Russia as the international pariah the west paints it into the bargain."
        .
        "...I have agreed any number of times that it was a mistake for Putin to say that Russia would protect Russian-speakers, and he acknowledged it was a mistake by asking the Duma to revoke the authority to use the Russian military to do so in hope that it would avert violence."
        .
        "...i think part of the problem is that the fate, even the lives of those in the northern hemisphere, could be decided by how the us vs russia standoff is resolved. both an article at the saker that i believe i linked here once (http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/12/is-russia-ideal-enemy-for-western.html) and one at fortruss (http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-end-of-history-third-way-and.html) deal with the underlying dynamic succinctly. big war is on the menu and only the elites want it."
        .
        "...How pissed off the engineers of the "western " strategy must be to have their expectations re Russian responses to having their latest Baldrick like "cunning plans" confounded time and again. "
        Jun 25, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

        karl1haushofer , June 23, 2015 at 1:31 pm

        Putin's childhood friend (at least he claims to be one) who now lives in Gorlovka says that Putin is a traitor and has abandoned eastern Ukrainians.

        Reply

        karl1haushofer says:

        June 23, 2015 at 1:50 pm

        What he says is that
        – He used to still like Putin a year ago and most of the Donbass residents considered Putin as a "god" a year ago.
        – Now all of this has changed. Donbass people are cursing Putin at the moment. Putin provoked a war in Donbass as a cover for his Crimean operation.
        – Putin's "loud promises" (Russian parliament authorized Putin to use military force in Ukraine in the spring of 2014) encouraged Donbass residents to an armed rebellion but Putin never delivered his promises and in fact the law of using military force in Ukraine was withdrawn after Crimea was securely with Russia.. Donbass people were simply used as a cannon fodder to secure Crimea for Russia.
        – Every morning the Donbass people wake up hoping that Russia has finally started sendings its troops to Donbass (as was promised in the spring of 2014) but it is never going to happen. People of Donbass have finally realized this and now "they spit when they even hear a word Russia".
        – Russia has betrayed Donbass. In a year Russia's rhetoric has changed dramatically. A year ago Russia was saying that Russia will never abandon their compatriots. They will be protected. Now Russia is just silent and says nothing as Kiev bombards Donbass.

        He may be fake but I think he sounds sincere in this video. And I share his thoughts. I think Donbass was used as a cover to make the West "forget" about Crimea. Crimea was all that Russia ever wanted and Donbass people were made out to be the fools who spilled their blood for Russian ambitions in Crimea.

        This is why I think Donbass should now surrender to Kiev. Not because it is a honorable thing to do. Not because I like the Kiev junta (I hate them). It needs to be done to teach Russia a lesson. Russia did the dishonorable thing for the Donbass people and this is why Donetsk should host a NATO military base.

        marknesop , June 23, 2015 at 2:28 pm

        I realize this is a popular theme for you, that Putin should place himself at the head of the Russian army and lead them in a lunge for Kiev – one which would unquestionably succeed, as all of Ukraine would fall to the Russians in a week if they chose to take it. But then what? They would have conquered a large, desperately poor country for which they would have assumed responsibility, conveniently identifying Russia as the international pariah the west paints it into the bargain.

        I have agreed any number of times that it was a mistake for Putin to say that Russia would protect Russian-speakers, and he acknowledged it was a mistake by asking the Duma to revoke the authority to use the Russian military to do so in hope that it would avert violence. But who, really, could have foreseen that not only would the Ukrainian state use its military to butcher and slaughter civilians in a determined effort to force their servitude to the state, but that the western world – supposed sympathetic defender of rebel movements and unilateral declarations of independence, let freedom ring, bla, bla – would stand quietly by and make no effort to stop it. Moreover, would encourage it.

        Your solution would punish the Donbas and reward the junta with success, and at the same time blame Putin for causing the whole thing in the first place. Elegant. It is not Russia's fault that Ukrainians are slaughtering their brothers next door, and not only is it not Russia's responsibility to stop it, Russia is under strict orders from western leaders not to intervene in any way, shape or form, while every day there are more accusations that Russia is interfering because the Ukrainian army didn't win that day. Yet somehow, your pick for blame in the whole thing is…Russia. Not Kiev, for doing the unthinkable – no! they should be rewarded with capitulation. Not the west for encouraging the continued slaughter, in which they have to make up crazy stories that Putin is burning his thousands of dead soldiers in mobile crematoriums to cover the fact that no Russian dead have been found and the greatest proportion of casualties are civilians, many of them women and children. No; it's Russia's fault, for not launching an armed intervention to put right a wrong Russia had no part in causing, in the process risking the destruction of the Russian people as a whole.

        bolasete, June 23, 2015 at 2:52 pm

        i think part of the problem is that the fate, even the lives of those in the northern hemisphere, could be decided by how the us vs russia standoff is resolved. both an article at the saker that i believe i linked here once (http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/12/is-russia-ideal-enemy-for-western.html) and one at fortruss (http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-end-of-history-third-way-and.html) deal with the underlying dynamic succinctly. big war is on the menu and only the elites want it.

        marknesop, June 23, 2015 at 5:42 pm

        Yes, Washington will happily drive Europe into a disastrous recession in its efforts to have its own way. The best chance of averting something really nasty is in Europe realizing that and refusing to go along.

        was reminded of that while reading this counterclaim to Curt's blithe declaration that Russia's reciprocal sanctions were of no consequence and that such a massive economy could easily absorb them.

        They're looking at a half-million job losses in Germany alone. I don't think job losses figured in his calculation at all, and he gave some comical figure like $100 Million. This study was not done by the low-trust liars with no credibility because of their Mongol roots, either.

        Cortes, June 23, 2015 at 3:05 pm
        How pissed off the engineers of the "western " strategy must be to have their expectations re Russian responses to having their latest Baldrick like "cunning plans" confounded time and again.

        Almost as if those retard Moskal scions of Mongol/Tatar/random bearers of epicanthic folds and Mongol birthmarks were real human beings. damn their evil souls.

        marknesop, June 23, 2015 at 9:59 pm
        Oh, I love Blackadder!! Rowan Atkinson is one of the world's few naturally funny people.
        yalensis, June 24, 2015 at 2:46 am
        Baldrick's cunning plan:

        Fern , June 24, 2015 at 5:34 pm
        This gentleman – Putin's childhood friend – may be sincere but so what? A lot of people sincerely believe the earth is flat but that doesn't make it so. It simply isn't correct to say that Putin provoked a war in the Donbas to secure Crimea. Does Putin control the Kiev government (I'm using that term loosely) because it was their actions, particularly in Mariupol and Odessa against protestors who'd been mirroring the Maidan – occupying government buildings and so on – which lead to a violent reaction from people in Lugansk and Donetsk. Kiev could have stopped this assault on the East at any time – is it Russia that's been preventing them from doing so?

        The Crimeans secured Crimea for Russia so, again, it's simply incorrect to say that people of the Donbas were used as canon-fodder to achieve reunification. We know now that Russia undertook covert opinion polls to determine whether a majority of Crimeans would support re-joining Russia. Personally, I don't believe Russia would have gone ahead if there had not been overwhelming support, it would have been just too difficult with an at best indifferent or, at worse, an actively hostile population. Crimea was secured pretty much without a shot being fired – so why did securing it require Putin to begin a war in the Donbas? The argument makes no sense.

        That said, I think Putin can be legitimately be criticised for his apparent promise to protect civilians in the East – this may, indeed, in the early stages of the conflict, have encouraged some people to take up arms. But not now though and not for some considerable time. And we don't know his motives for saying what he did – maybe he thought that fear of provoking a Russian military response would deter Kiev in the way that Georgia has been deterred from military adventures against South Ossetia.

        Russia's been providing food, shelter and jobs to a huge number of refugees; its humanitarian aid deliveries are the one thing that's stood between a dire situation for the people of Lugansk and Donetsk and a humanitarian catastrophe on a scale not seen in Europe since WW2. And Russia is not silent about the situation in Ukraine – it's mentioned every time Putin, Lavrov, Churkin and other members of Russia's political elite speak. Russia has always been clear that its preferred solution is for Lugansk and Donetsk to remain part of Ukraine under some sort of federal structure. Putin's never held out the hope of incorporation into Russia or of supporting Novorossiya's path to a new, independent state so cries of 'betrayal' are not warranted.

        marknesop , June 24, 2015 at 7:36 pm
        We are on completely the same page on this; well said. Speaking of Russian aid and humanitarian crises, has anyone heard any news on the water situation in Lugansk?

        [Jun 24, 2015] So The Spy Services Are The Real Internet Trolls

        "...Let's just call it what it is. Mind rape."
        .
        "...'The more these services grow and their methods proliferate the less possible will it become to have reasonable online discussions.' Which is the exact purpose of trolling, ever since the internet became an alternate way of communication to gain awareness about issues TPTB/MSM would prefer to bury, hide, distort, confuse, manipulate, lie, detract, deflect, digress, warp or deviate. GCHQ/NSA/Mossad et al have elevated trolling to a professional level, with special budgets and official programs attached to MILINT and foreign offices working 24/7 to advance their plans and take advantage of people's ignorance and naivete about the internet world. It's the hasbara operatives multiplied exponentially to perpetuate ignorance and confusion among the masses. "
        .
        "...It is unlikely that the British GHCQ is the only secret service using these tactics. Other government as well as private interests can be assumed to use similar means.
        .
        To "deny, disrupt, degrade/denigrate, delay, deceive, discredit, dissuade or deter" is exactly what Internet trolls are doing in the comment sections of blogs and news sites. Usually though on a smaller scale than the GHCQ and alike. The more these services grow and their methods proliferate the less possible will it become to have reasonable online discussions."
        .
        "...In the paranoid world of the web it is a badge of honor to claim you are being targeted by the PTB. Sites that don't pose much threat to the status quo feel left out and have to create hidden enemies so anyone who resists the dogma and groupthink must be branded as paid trolls. "
        moonofalabama.org

        Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept provides new material from the Snowden stash.

        The British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) includes a "Joint Threat Research and Intelligence Group" which "provides most of GCHQ's cyber effects and online HUMINT capability. It currently lies at the leading edge of cyber influence practice and expertise." In 2011 the JTRIG had 120 people on its staff.

        Here are some of its methods, used in support of British policies like for regime change in Syria and Zimbabwe:

        All of JTRIG's operations are conducted using cyber technology. Staff described a range of methods/techniques that have been used to-date for conducting effects operations. These included:
        • Uploading YouTube videos containing "persuasive" communications (to discredit, promote distrust, dissuade, deter, delay or disrupt)
        • Setting up Facebook groups, forums, blogs and Twitter accounts that encourage and monitor discussion on a topic (to discredit, promote distrust, dissuade, deter, delay or disrupt)
        • Establishing online aliases/personalities who support the communications or messages in YouTube videos, Facebook groups, forums, blogs etc
        • Establishing online aliases/personalities who support other aliases
        • Sending spoof e-mails and text messages from a fake person or mimicking a real person (to discredit, promote distrust, dissuade, deceive, deter, delay or disrupt)
        • Providing spoof online resources such as magazines and books that provide inaccurate information (to disrupt, delay, deceive, discredit, promote distrust, dissuade, deter or denigrate/degrade)
        • Providing online access to uncensored material (to disrupt)
        • Sending instant messages to specific individuals giving them instructions for accessing uncensored websites
        • Setting up spoof trade sites (or sellers) that may take a customer's money and/or send customers degraded or spoof products (to deny, disrupt, degrade/denigrate, delay, deceive, discredit, dissuade or deter)
        • Interrupting (i.e., filtering, deleting, creating or modifying) communications between real customers and traders (to deny, disrupt, delay, deceive, dissuade or deter)
        • Taking over control of online websites (to deny, disrupt, discredit or delay)
        • Denial of telephone and computer service (to deny, delay or disrupt)
        • Hosting targets' online communications/websites for collecting SIGINT (to disrupt, delay, deter or deny)
        • Contacting host websites asking them to remove material (to deny, disrupt, delay, dissuade or deter)

        It is unlikely that the British GHCQ is the only secret service using these tactics. Other government as well as private interests can be assumed to use similar means.

        To "deny, disrupt, degrade/denigrate, delay, deceive, discredit, dissuade or deter" is exactly what Internet trolls are doing in the comment sections of blogs and news sites. Usually though on a smaller scale than the GHCQ and alike. The more these services grow and their methods proliferate the less possible will it become to have reasonable online discussions.

        Posted by b at 10:56 AM | Comments (42)

        Colinjames | Jun 22, 2015 12:08:02 PM | 1

        Let's just call it what it is. Mind rape.

        Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 22, 2015 12:31:07 PM | 2

        Fortunately, much of what they do is so ham-fisted and amateurish that only the gullible are gulled (which pretty much explains why ALL of the patsies convicted in ter'rism frame-ups are dimwits or cretins). Those pathetic cut & paste YouTube clips of NATO's "rebels" in Syria, swinging briefly from behind some cover and firing (in a frenzy) at unseen targets or empty streets are beyond ludicrous on many levels.

        I'm unaware of any school of firearms use and techniques which encourages the firing of a weapon merely because the bearer has plenty of spare ammo.

        Lone Wolf | Jun 22, 2015 12:58:23 PM | 3

        @b

        The more these services grow and their methods proliferate the less possible will it become to have reasonable online discussions.

        Which is the exact purpose of trolling, ever since the internet became an alternate way of communication to gain awareness about issues TPTB/MSM would prefer to bury, hide, distort, confuse, manipulate, lie, detract, deflect, digress, warp or deviate. GCHQ/NSA/Mossad et al have elevated trolling to a professional level, with special budgets and official programs attached to MILINT and foreign offices working 24/7 to advance their plans and take advantage of people's ignorance and naivete about the internet world. It's the hasbara operatives multiplied exponentially to perpetuate ignorance and confusion among the masses.

        Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 22, 2015 1:23:26 PM | 4

        And don't forget that US/UK/NATO's Imperial Ambitions are rooted in greed and cowardice. Cowards can never successfully project courage and resolve. Their over-compensation for ingrained cultural short-comings always shows through.

        NATO, for example, has yet to appoint a "Leader" whose demeanor doesn't resemble the un-charismatic behaviour of a 6th Form Prefect at a Girl's College.

        Watching these sissies strutting around their (private) stage, pretending to be Tough Guys is funnier than Laurel & Hardy + the Three Stooges.
        And the sincerity ... Tony Bliar where are you?

        harry law | Jun 22, 2015 1:25:40 PM | 5

        I still think it is possible to have online discussions, I agree with Hoarsewhisperer thinking political types cannot be influenced [to any significant degree] by trolls. The only way they can win is if you forget this golden rule "Never argue with stupid people trolls, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
        ― Mark Twain

        Lone Wolf | Jun 22, 2015 4:59:18 PM | 12

        And talking about hasbara, there is a petition requesting a billion dollars for "putting lipstick on the pig" as a poster accurately described it above. No matter how much money zionazis allow for hasbara trolls, a zionazi pig will always be a zionazi pig (my apologies to the animal kingdom for the comparison.)

        To PM Netanyahu: We demand that you vastly increase Israel's hasbara budget.

        (...)Readers will recall that I have criticized the abysmal performance of Israeli public diplomacy (PD) and its failure to present its case assertively and articulately to the world.

        To recap briefly

        I likened the effects of this failure to those of the HIV virus that destroys the nation's immune system, leaving it unable to resist any outside pressures no matter how outlandish or outrageous. Given the gravity of the threat, I prescribed that, as prime minister, my first order of business would be to assign adequate resources to address the dangers precipitated by this failure.

        To this end I stipulated that up to $1 billion should be allotted for the war on the PD front, and demonstrated that this sum was eminently within Israel's ability to raise, comprising less than 0.5 percent of GDP and under 1 percent of the state budget(...)

        jfl | Jun 22, 2015 6:23:56 PM | 15

        To "deny, disrupt, degrade/denigrate, delay, deceive, discredit, dissuade or deter" communications on the internet is the cyber equivalent of the US/UK's 'real world' policy of death, devastation and destruction in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen and 'austerity' at home in the US/UK/EU.

        The 5-eyes and their European vassals, under control of the 5-eyed 5th column comprising the government of the EU, are the largest single source of negativity on earth.

        And their fantastically expensive pursuit of all these openly negative outcomes has come at the cost of actually addressing any of our world's myriad real problems. Grillions in defense of the perceived interests of the 1%, not a cent for the interests of the planet and humanity.

        Anonymous | Jun 22, 2015 6:44:36 PM | 16

        Wow! It's as if no one ever heard of psyops before, not to mention Cointelpro. The only new wrinkle, though certainly worth noting, is that computers are now targeted. But seriously, who really believed the imperialists would *not* be doing shit like this?

        ToivoS | Jun 23, 2015 1:50:22 AM | 21

        Possibly relevant to b's current topic is the comments sections at Russia Today. Those comments have always looked to me as a real snake pit. There has always been some very ugly antisemitic comments there. I noticed in the last week that their stories on crime in America have been deluged with some of the worst white racist- antiblack comments. I kept wondering -- why would stories in the Russian press attract such virulent anti (American) black comments? It seems the most likely reason is that some outside agency is trying to discredit RT by showing only American racist read it.

        Almand | Jun 23, 2015 2:04:04 AM | 22

        @TovioS

        To be fair, a lot of real American nutjobs do frequent the RT comment section, since in the good old USA, RT is treated as an "alternative" news source akin to Alex Jones' "Prison Planet". And there is still a ton of ugly, virulent racism in the comments section of the New York Times, WaPo, Fox News (especially)... they just seem to have bigger vocabularies.

        Harry | Jun 23, 2015 2:16:31 AM | 23

        @ ToivoS | 20

        It seems the most likely reason is that some outside agency is trying to discredit RT by showing only American racist read it.

        You got it. While this topic is about UK and their spies trying to disrupt, deceive, discredit, etc. etc., but US and Israel are doing it for longer and on much greater scale. They took manipulation of masses to such level (mass and social media, (mis)education, misusing science, etc), that even Goebbels could only have dreamed about it.

        Speaking of social media, there were reports in recent years of US having ten of thousands employees focusing exclusively on social media. Each using software which helps to maintain x10 unique poster profiles. I think b' wrote about it as well. Therefore just US has 100.000+ of daily "posters" all around the World, trying to push US agenda. Who knows what is total number of Western propaganda trolls, and I bet the number is ever increasing.

        bassalt | Jun 23, 2015 7:21:01 AM | 31

        more from Greenwald- a psychologist on Board at GCHQ to make sure their 'work' is effective.

        https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2015/06/22/behavioural-science-support-jtrig/

        Surprised not to see mention made here of the new 2,000 strong 'Chindit brigade' tasked with pretty much the same duties

        http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/31/british-army-facebook-warriors-77th-brigade

        This is surely going to render a lot of the new media ineffective in terms of obtaining fast and accurate information. How the hell are we going to stop these bastards?

        lysias | Jun 23, 2015 11:03:31 AM | 33

        Let us remember that it was Obama staffer and adviser Cass Sunstein (Samantha Power's husband) who advised "cognitive infiltration" of the Internet by the government.

        Wayoutwest | Jun 23, 2015 11:50:46 AM | 35

        In the paranoid world of the web it is a badge of honor to claim you are being targeted by the PTB. Sites that don't pose much threat to the status quo feel left out and have to create hidden enemies so anyone who resists the dogma and groupthink must be branded as paid trolls.

        I've witnessed a number of apparent operatives exposed on other blogs and they are usually easy to identify but some are clever and they rarely return once they see people are watching and know the difference between disagreement and deception.

        Noirette | Jun 23, 2015 3:51:43 PM | 38

        Some signs of the paid troll:

        Inconsistency. This may seem counter-intuitive, but they argue in the here-and-now, against some other, usually only one, fact(s) / opinion / general trend from the past half hour. In this way they sometimes contradict themselves or mix things up, or use arguments that couldn't co-exist.

        Impersonality. One more, counter-intuitive (specially as a common tactic is ad hominems, insults, etc. to disrupt no matter what.) They are not involved in the discussion and probably doing something else at the same time. This also means they don't answer questions (or only rarely), don't quote sources (much), never agree with any another poster, and never raise issues or ask genuine questions. (Any questions usually contain a pre-supposition, such as 'did the captain beat his wife today?')

        Persistence. An ordinary person appalled and frightened by crazed conspiracy theorists tends to check out quickly.

        Ad hominems bis. Brow-beating, authority card (sometimes some fake expertise is pulled in, like being a pilot, worked in finance), because there is nothing other left to do…

        Posting during the same time each day, posting a similar amount of posts / words. Acceptable sentence structure and OK spelling with a flat, pedestrian, vocabulary. It is paid work, after all, quite similar to 'customer service for the complaints'…(and note the cuteness of all words beginning with D…lame…)

        Being male and aged around 20+ - 36, maybe 40, that is presenting a persona in that age range. Men are still much more respected than women on the intertubes, and afaik women are asked to adopt a male persona and be 'aggressive' (Paul pilot, not Paula florist..)

        I don't think all this is too effective, except in the sense of polarisation, getting ppl to hysterically takes sides, create divisions, and so on. As a propaganda tool it is pretty much a failure. The pay is low (no nos. does anyone know?)… For now there is no Union of 'trolls', as they are supposed to act sub rosa.

        :) They should get together (from all sides) and set up a troll Union as 'propaganda agents' and apply for membership in the ITUC!

        >

        [Jun 24, 2015] NYT's Orwellian View of Ukraine

        "...As the Times has degenerated from a relatively decent newspaper into a fount of neocon propaganda, its editors also have descended into the practice of simply inventing a narrative of events that serves an ideological purpose, its own version of "Two Minutes Hate." "
        June 22, 2015 | Consortiumnews

        Exclusive: In the up-is-down Orwellian world that is now The New York Times' editorial page, there was no coup in Ukraine in 2014, no U.S.-driven "regime change," no provocation on Russia's border, just Moscow's aggression - a sign of how propaganda has taken over mainstream U.S. media, writes Robert Parry.

        By Robert Parry

        In George Orwell's 1984, the leaders of Oceania presented "Two Minutes Hate" in which the image of an enemy was put on display and loyal Oceanianians expressed their rage, all the better to prepare them for the country's endless wars and their own surrender of freedom. And, now, in America, you have The New York Times.

        Surely the Times is a bit more subtle than the powers-that-be in Orwell's Oceania, but the point is the same. The "paper of record" decides who our rotating foreign enemy is and depicts its leader as a demon corrupting whatever he touches. The rest of us aren't supposed to think for ourselves. We're just supposed to hate.

        As the Times has degenerated from a relatively decent newspaper into a fount of neocon propaganda, its editors also have descended into the practice of simply inventing a narrative of events that serves an ideological purpose, its own version of "Two Minutes Hate." Like the leaders of Orwell's Oceania, the Times has become increasingly heavy-handed in its propaganda.

        Excluding alternative explanations of events, even if supported by solid evidence, the Times arrogantly creates its own reality and tells us who to hate.

        In assessing the Times's downward spiral into this unethical journalism, one could look back on its false reporting regarding Iraq, Iran, Syria or other Middle East hotspots. But now the Times is putting the lives of ourselves, our children and our grandchildren at risk with its reckless reporting on the Ukraine crisis – by setting up an unnecessary confrontation between nuclear-armed powers, the United States and Russia.

        At the center of the Times' propaganda on Ukraine has been its uncritical – indeed its anti-journalistic – embrace of the Ukrainians coup-makers in late 2013 and early 2014 as they collaborated with neo-Nazi militias to violently overthrow elected President Viktor Yanukovych and hurl Ukraine into a bloody civil war.

        Rather than display journalistic professionalism, the Times' propagandists ignored the evidence of a coup – including an intercepted phone call in which U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt discussed how to "mid-wife" the regime change and handpick the new leaders. "Yats is the guy," declared Nuland, referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk who emerged as prime minister.

        The Times even ignored a national security expert, Statfor founder George Friedman, when he termed the ouster of Ukraine's elected president "the most blatant coup in history." The Times just waved a magic wand and pronounced that there was no coup – and anyone who thought so must reside inside "the Russian propaganda bubble." [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine."]

        Perhaps even more egregiously, the Times has pretended that there were no neo-Nazi militias spearheading the Feb. 22, 2014 coup and then leading the bloody "anti-terrorist operation" against ethnic Russians in the south and east who resisted the coup. The Times explained all this bloodshed as simply "Russian aggression."

        It didn't even matter when the U.S. House of Representatives – of all groups – unanimously acknowledged the neo-Nazi problem when it prohibited U.S. collaboration in military training of Ukrainian Nazis. The Times simply expunged the vote from its "official history" of the crisis. [See Consortiumnews.com's "US House Admits Nazi Role in Ukraine."]

        Orwell's Putin

        Yet, for an Orwellian "Two Minute Hate" to work properly, you need to have a villain whose face you can put on display. And, in the case of Ukraine – at least after Yanukovych was driven from the scene – that villain has been Russian President Vladimir Putin, who embodies all evil in the intense hatred sold to the American public.

        So, when Putin presents a narrative of the Ukraine crisis, which notes the history of the U.S.-driven expansion of NATO up to Russia's borders and the evidence of the U.S.-directed Ukrainian coup, the Times editors must dismiss it all as "mythology," as they did in Monday's editorial regarding Putin's remarks to an international economic conference in St. Petersburg.

        "President Vladimir Putin of Russia is not veering from the mythology he created to explain away the crisis over Ukraine," the Times' editors wrote. "It is one that wholly blames the West for provoking a new Cold War and insists that international sanctions have not grievously wounded his country's flagging economy."

        Without acknowledging any Western guilt in the coup that overthrew the elected Ukrainian government in 2014, the Times' editors simply reveled in the harm that the Obama administration and the European Union have inflicted on Russia's economy for its support of the Yanukovych government and its continued backers in eastern and southern Ukraine.

        For nearly a year and a half, the New York Times and other major U.S. news organizations have simply refused to acknowledge the reality of what happened in Ukraine. In the Western fantasy, the elected Yanukovych government simply disappeared and was replaced by a U.S.-backed regime that then treated any resistance to its rule as "terrorism." The new regime even dispatched neo-Nazi militias to kill ethnic Russians and other Ukrainians who resisted and thus were deemed "terrorists."

        The upside-down narrative of what happened in Ukraine has become the conventional wisdom in Official Washington and has been imposed on America's European allies as well. According to The New York Times' Orwellian storyline, anyone who notes the reality of a U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine is engaging in "fantasy" and must be some kind of Putin pawn.

        To the Times' editors, all the justice is on their side, even as Ukraine's new regime has deployed neo-Nazi militias to kill eastern Ukrainians who resisted the anti-Yanukovych coup. To the Times' editors, the only possible reason to object to Ukraine's new order is that the Russians must be bribing European dissidents to resist the U.S. version of events. The Times wrote:

        "The Europeans are indeed divided over the extent to which Russia, with its huge oil and gas resources, should be isolated, but Mr. Putin's aggression so far has ensured their unity when it counts. In addition to extending existing sanctions, the allies have prepared a new round of sanctions that could be imposed if Russian-backed separatists seized more territory in Ukraine. …

        "Although Mr. Putin insisted on Friday that Russia had found the 'inner strength' to weather sanctions and a drop in oil prices, investment has slowed, capital has fled the country and the economy has been sliding into recession. Even the business forum was not all that it seemed: The heads of many Western companies stayed away for a second year."

        An Orwellian World

        In the up-is-down world that has become the New York Times' editorial page, the Western coup-making on Russia's border with the implicit threat of U.S. and NATO nuclear weapons within easy range of Moscow is transformed into a case of "Russian aggression." The Times' editors wrote: "One of the most alarming aspects of the crisis has been Mr. Putin's willingness to brandish nuclear weapons."

        Though it would appear objectively that the United States was engaged in serious mischief-making on Russia's border, the Times editors flip it around to make Russian military maneuvers – inside Russia – a sign of aggression against the West.

        "Given Mr. Putin's aggressive behavior, including pouring troops and weapons into Kaliningrad, a Russian city located between NATO members Lithuania and Poland, the allies have begun taking their own military steps. In recent months, NATO approved a rapid-reaction force in case an ally needs to be defended. It also pre-positioned some weapons in front-line countries, is rotating troops there and is conducting many more exercises. There are also plans to store battle tanks and other heavy weapons in several Baltic and Eastern European countries.

        "If he is not careful, Mr. Putin may end up facing exactly what he has railed against - a NATO more firmly parked on Russia's borders - not because the alliance wanted to go in that direction, but because Russian behavior left it little choice. That is neither in Russia's interest, nor the West's."

        There is something truly 1984-ish about reading that kind of propagandistic writing in The New York Times and other Western publications. But it has become the pattern, not the exception.

        The Words of the 'Demon'

        Though the Times and the rest of the Western media insist on demonizing Putin, we still should hear the Russian president's version of events, as simply a matter of journalistic fairness. Here is how Putin explained the situation to American TV talk show host Charlie Rose on June 19:

        "Why did we arrive at the crisis in Ukraine? I am convinced that after the so-called bipolar system ceased to exist, after the Soviet Union was gone from the political map of the world, some of our partners in the West, including and primarily the United States, of course, were in a state of euphoria of sorts. Instead of developing good neighborly relations and partnerships, they began to develop the new geopolitical space that they thought was unoccupied. This, for instance, is what caused the North Atlantic bloc, NATO, to go east, along with many other developments.

        "I have been thinking a lot about why this is happening and eventually came to the conclusion that some of our partners [Putin's way of describing Americans] seem to have gotten the illusion that the world order that was created after World War II, with such a global center as the Soviet Union, does not exist anymore, that a vacuum of sorts has developed that needs to be filled quickly.

        "I think such an approach is a mistake. This is how we got Iraq, and we know that even today there are people in the United States who think that mistakes were made in Iraq. Many admit that there were mistakes in Iraq, and nevertheless they repeat it all in Libya. Now they got to Ukraine. We did not bring about the crisis in Ukraine. There was no need to support, as I have said many times, the anti-state, anti-constitutional takeover that eventually led to a sharp resistance on the territory of Ukraine, to a civil war in fact.

        "Where do we go from here?" Putin asked. "Today we primarily need to comply with all the agreements reached in Minsk, the capital of Belarus. … At the same time, I would like to draw your attention and the attention of all our partners to the fact that we cannot do it unilaterally. We keep hearing the same thing, repeated like a mantra – that Russia should influence the southeast of Ukraine. We are. However, it is impossible to resolve the problem through our influence on the southeast alone.

        "There has to be influence on the current official authorities in Kiev, which is something we cannot do. This is a road our Western partners have to take – those in Europe and America. Let us work together. … We believe that to resolve the situation we need to implement the Minsk agreements, as I said. The elements of a political settlement are key here. There are several."

        Putin continued: "The first one is constitutional reform, and the Minsk agreements say clearly: to provide autonomy or, as they say decentralization of power, let it be decentralization. This is quite clear, our European partners, France and Germany have spelled it out and we are quite satisfied with it, just as the representatives of Donbass [eastern Ukraine where ethnic Russians who had supported Yanukovych have declared independence] are. This is one component.

        "The second thing that has to be done – the law passed earlier on the special status of these territories – Luhansk and Donetsk, the unrecognized republics, should be enacted. It was passed, but still not acted upon. This requires a resolution of the Supreme Rada – the Ukrainian Parliament – which is also covered in the Minsk agreements. Our friends in Kiev have formally complied with this decision, but simultaneously with the passing by the Rada of the resolution to enact the law they amended the law itself … which practically renders the action null and void. This is a mere manipulation, and they have to move from manipulations to real action.

        "The third thing is a law on amnesty. It is impossible to have a political dialogue with people who are threatened with criminal persecution. And finally, they need to pass a law on municipal elections on these territories and to have the elections themselves. All this is spelled out in the Minsk agreements, this is something I would like to draw your attention to, and all this should be done with the agreement of Donetsk and Luhansk.

        "Unfortunately, we still see no direct dialogue, only some signs of it, but too much time has passed after the Minsk agreements were signed. I repeat, it is important now to have a direct dialogue between Luhansk, Donetsk and Kiev – this is missing."

        Also missing is any objective and professional explanation of this crisis in the mainstream American press. Instead, The New York Times and other major U.S. news organizations have continued with their pattern of 1984-ish propaganda.

        Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

        Abe

        June 22, 2015 at 11:04 pm

        we hear ever-shriller charges that Moscow has mounted a dangerous, security-threatening propaganda campaign to destroy the truth-our truth, we can say. It is nothing short of "the weaponization of information," we are provocatively warned. Let us be on notice: Our truth and our air are now as polluted with propaganda as during the Cold War decades, and the only apparent plan is to make it worse.

        O.K., let us do what sorting can be done.

        […]

        Details. The Times described "Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin's War in Ukraine" as "an independent report." I imagine [New York Times' State Department correspondent Michael] Gordon-he seems to do all the blurry stuff these days-had a straight face when he wrote three paragraphs later that John Herbst, one of the Atlantic Council's authors, is a former ambassador to Ukraine.

        I do not know what kind of a face Gordon wore when he reported later on that the Atlantic Council paper rests on research done by Bellingcat.com, "an investigative website." Or when he let Herbst get away with calling Bellingcat, which appears to operate from a third-floor office in Leicester, a city in the English Midlands, "independent researchers."

        I wonder, honestly, if correspondents look sad when they write such things-sad their work has come to this.

        One, Bellingcat did its work using Google, YouTube and other readily available social media technologies, and this we are supposed to think is the cleverest thing under the sun. Are you kidding?

        Manipulating social media "evidence" has been a parlor game in Kiev; Washington; Langley, Virginia, and at NATO since the Ukraine crisis broke open. Look at the graphics included in the presentation. I do not think technical expertise is required to see that these images prove what all others offered as evidence since last year prove: nothing. It looks like the usual hocus-pocus.

        Two, examine the Bellingcat web site and try to figure out who runs it. I tried the about page and it was blank. The site consists of badly supported anti-Russian "reports"-no "investigation" aimed in any other direction.

        We are the propagandists: The real story about how The New York Times and the White House has turned truth in the Ukraine on its head
        By Patrick L. Smith
        http://www.salon.com/2015/06/03/we_are_the_propagandists_the_real_story_about_how_the_new_york_times_and_the_white_house_has_turned_truth_in_the_ukraine_on_its_head/

        Peter Loeb, June 23, 2015 at 11:36 am
          THANKS TO R PARRY…AGAIN!

          With no substantive points to add to your article I can only mourn that I wish I had written it myself.

          In addition to NYT, NPR has taken the same line with proofs of Russian evil and in the same spirit as the NYT totally fails to address any other points such as the coup, the increasing US bases and so forth. And all in the name of their so called "ballanced", "objective" journalism.

          (This was on NPR's national radio broadcast for "All Things Considered" which might be renamed "Not Very Much Considered". I felt like screaming except that on topics I
          care about deeply I have come to expect this kind of reporting from NPR).

          --Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

        Abe, June 22, 2015 at 11:22 pm
        now, finally, Ukraine's Constitutional Court is faced with the shocking predicament of Ukraine's own President, who won his post as a result of this coup, requesting them to "acknowledge" that it was a coup, much as the founder of the "private CIA" firm Stratfor had even called it, "the most blatant coup in history."

        Ukraine's Pres. Poroshenko Says Overthrow of Yanukovych Was a Coup
        By Eric Zuesse
        http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/ukraines-pres-poroshenko-says-overthrow-of-yanukovych-was-a-coup.html

        abbybwood, June 23, 2015 at 2:51 am
        And take note how Nuland got Saakashvili appointed as head of Odessa:

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/30/ukraine-appoints-georgia-ex-president-mikheil-saakashvili-governor-of-odessa

        The ex-president of Georgia and a criminal who was holed up in NYC prior to taking off for Ukraine:

        http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/mikheil_saakashvili/index.html

        Let's see, we also got an American citizen to be the new "Foreign Minister" in Ukraine.

        The New York Times has lost ALL credibility.

        JA, June 23, 2015 at 2:57 am
        It is not just English language media. In Sweden, both the main national dailies, Dagens Nyheter and Svenska Dagbladet run with the same propaganda about Russian aggression and Putin's expansionist plans. Both are also stridently calling for Sweden to join NATO, damning 200 years of Swedish neutrality and in a belligerant tone of faux outrage at anyone who suggests this is not a good idea as it would further antagonise relationships across the Baltic, 'how dare Putin (aks Hitler II) interfere in Swedish politics'.

        As Russia is strengthening its naval port defences in Kaliningrad, probably also a NATO target like Crimea, the US/NATO must be licking its lips at taking over the Swedish naval base at Karlskrona, pretty much opposite Kaliningrad on the Baltic.

        Abe

          June 23, 2015 at 2:19 pm

          On June 13, NATO conducted a preliminary amphibious landing exercise at Ravlunda, Sweden as part of BALTOPS 2015.

          Video of the Ravlunda landing includes aerial support by two B-52 bombers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq9HHQ22jW4 (see minutes 26:34 – 27:40)

          On June 17, Swedish troops participated in the major landing exercise at Ustka, Poland, 300 kilometers east of Kaliningrad oblast.

          On June 18, in an interview with the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, Viktor Tatarintsev, Russian ambassador to Sweden, criticized the "aggressive propaganda campaign" by Swedish media.

          "Russia is often described as an attacker who only thinks of conducting wars and threatening others. But I can guarantee that Sweden, which is an alliance-free nation, is not part of any military plans by Russian authorities. Sweden is not a target for our armed troops," he said.

          However, he underlined that "consequences" if Sweden were to abandon its alliance neutrality and join NATO.

          "I don't think it will become relevant in the near future, even though there has been a certain swing in public opinion. But if it happens there will be counter measures. Putin pointed out that there will be consequences, that Russia will have to resort to a response of the military kind and re-orientate our troops and missiles. The country that joins NATO needs to be aware of the risks it is exposing itself to" he said.

          A ballyhooed October 2014 weekend survey conducted by pollsters Novus for TV4, Sweden's largest commercial television channel, showed 37% of Swedes were in favor of joining NATO with 36% of Swedes against. This was the first time that more Swedes have favored joining the alliance than not.

        Stef, June 23, 2015 at 4:36 am

        I was in Ukraine for 18 months before and after the overthrow of Yanukovych. The reason why he was overthrown is simple . . . people were upset at the corruption and string of broken promises. Many people believe a shift toward Europe will force the government to make structural economic reforms that will reduce corruption and improve efficiency and competitiveness. One main reason SOME people in the east are pro-Russian is because of the strong economic ties with Russia; Russia is the only country that will buy Ukrainian goods because they are of better quality in many cases (and less expensive) than Russian produced products.

        Varenik

          June 23, 2015 at 4:38 pm

          You might be glossing over the fact that most of them are ethnically Russian, born on land of their ancestors that did not belong to Ukraine until Lenin gave it. AND that they know what western Ukrainians are capable of. And that those western Ukrainians were the the stormtroopers that, with the help of US, violently overthrew the elected government. And that the austerity that will come, imposed by IMF and European Bank along with de-industrialization of Ukraine will make any and all imaginable "abuse" by Russia pale in comparison.

          Just a few of reality bites you chose to skip over. Unless those 18 months in Ukraine were in employ of some "freedom and democracy" promoting NGO's.

        Helge

          June 23, 2015 at 5:23 pm

          If Yanukovich was corrupt then it would appear likely that all those working as ministers for his government were corrupt as well, wouldn't you agree? No have a look who was Ukraine's minister of economy from December 2012 until February 2014? So what has changed then since Feb. 2014? Obviously, absolutely nothing, and if then, only for the worse because the current regime appears more repressive than Yanukovich ever was.

        Joe Wallace

          June 23, 2015 at 10:04 pm

          If Ukrainian goods "are of better quality in many cases (and less expensive) than Russian produced products," why would Russia be "the only country that will buy them?"

        Drew

          June 24, 2015 at 2:46 am

          Steph- so the 5 Billion the US spent on Maiden had nothing to do with it? How about the propaganda? Prior attempts at color revolution? The paramilitaries? A deal was brokered to let the president stand a little longer with a new election around the corner. After this, the protesters (a minority in Ukraine, by the way) appeared content & started home. It was at this point that paramilitaries kicked in & the US officials did nothing to stop it, nor invalidate the coup. It does not seem that you understand what is going on, here,

        Dahoit

          June 24, 2015 at 10:46 am

          Yeah, my toaster has made in Ukraine. Sheesh. The only products Ukraine sells are weapons, from factories probably left over from the SU. The Russians seem to have rockets and many other weapons that are modern and formidable, and effective, so they must make some good stuff, eh?

        Bianca

          June 24, 2015 at 5:42 pm

          You are mixing up the reasons for protest and the reasons for overthrow of elected president. There is no doubt that the economy was bad, and people had reasons to be unhappy. But the protests - no matter how large, are still representing a tiny portion of the country's population. Kiev had already had a pro-Western revolution, "Orange" as it was called.

          Yet, the country fell apart during the rule of pro-western politicians, and Yanukovich inherited the mess. The reason for coup was external intelligence meddling, busing in thousands of openly and proudly Nazi groups from the Western Ukraine, primarily from Lvov. And the key reason for coup was the false agreement that the foreign ministers of Germany, France and Poland struck between the President and the "opposition". The President agreed to elections, and to withdraw police from the streets. The Europeans barely left the airport, when the armed coup perpetrators started shooting into police and protesters. They pushed in with iron bars and Molotov coctails into Rada, and blocked those parliamentarians that tried to flee - forcing them to stay inside and "vote". They went immediately to the homes of politicians, president and other leaders of the regime, and killed many in the process. The President fled. In Rada, the vote was forced that appointed the new government, and the old one was disbanded. All of this evidence is recorded - including violence against delegates of Yanukovic party that were forced to vote for the coup. Thousands upon thousands of recorded evidence exists of the violence against Russians, Jews, Bulgarians, Poles, Hungarians, Romanians and Tatars. Yet, all it was cleaned up for the Western audience, and even Jewish leadership in US declared that Jews are not threatened in Ukraine. Thousands have however, fled the country. OPEN and RECORDED debate was held on what to do with the Russian population in Ukraine. "Yatz's" boss, Yulia Tymoshenko recommended "nuking them", while more practical Right Sector Leadership, and the leadership of Svoboda (nowdays in deep hiding, getting ready to be transformed into legitimate party of the right) recommended giving authority to local military commanders to round up all prominent Russians - businessmen, lawyers, doctors, teachers, engineers - and killing them WITHOUT requiring a prior approval from the authorities. Tymoshenko, being the head of a large political party with presence throughout Ukraine, offered her offices for such initiative. Now, which one of the options is West subscribing to? Looks like it could be both: first they declare Russian population "terrorists", then launch indiscriminate bombing campaign against their cities and villages. The "nuking" option may be needed in the end, as the "response" to "Russian aggression". Even though US Congress prevented arms to go to neo-Nazis - it is merely a shell game. Training centers and arming is happening in Lvov region. That is where the core Nazi elements are. US is thus training Nazis in order to create "National Guard". Why is this "Guard" needed when Ukraine has military? Because US and West do not trust military - they are unfortunately still guided by professional military training and code of conduct. What is needed is army of head-choppers and people-burners, those that will have no emotional barriers to committing heinous crimes. This is why Georgian Saakashvili has been put in charge of Odessa - as this is a region full of Russians and other "non loyal" minorities. Besides Odessa, such "punitive" squads will be dispatched to: Zaporozye, Kharkov, Kherson, Dnepropetrovsk, and Mikolayev.

          Just because people are unhappy with their lives, it does not entitle them to change government by force, and to trash institutions upon which ordinary people rely in their daily lives. Such "revolutions' usually bring scum to power, and the suffering of people is invariably greater. We have to stop believing in revolutions, supporting them, and recognizing their ill gains. Political process may be slow, but it is up to people to organize and build political parties that will do better job. I hope that if ever any revolutionary comes to my streets that my country will do everything in its power to destroy them. As much as I do not approve of many things in politics, I am - like most people, and I am sure majority of Ukrainians, grateful for the order that allows us to lead normal life and our children to grow up in peace. No revolution is worth one child's tear.

        Brad Owen, June 23, 2015 at 5:38 am

        This is all completely Wall Street/City-of-London vs. BRICS. The City and the Street are on the verge of bankruptcy. Greece has until the end of June to make an impossible payment for a fraudulent debt, and The Western Empire's own financial shenanigans have "checkmated" them. BRICS is the obvious alternative for World development & progress, which has driven The Western Empire MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction…"if we can't reign, nobody will"). I've read where powerful, institutional forces are pushing back against this madness…it's going to be a long, dreadfully hot, summer.

        Tom, June 23, 2015 at 5:47 am

        Here are the facts on the last 100 years of ukrainian and russians relations. Ukraine was conquered and incorporated into the russian empire in the late 1700's. After the Russian revolution, soviet troops made sure a puppet government was established and exterminated any opposition creating the soviet republic of Ukraine. In the 30's accused Ukraine farmers of stealing food supplies and not distributing through Moscow. Took all their food for a few years and created a man made famine that killed 6 million Ukrainians. Skipping the war atrocities stuff in ww2, which russians do not call ww2 bevause the were allies with hitler for the first part. They then expanded ukraines border into poland, deported all the polish creating a ukrainian west and encouraged russian migration to the east and made russian compulsory everywhere. Fast forward to now. The russians invade ukraine openly and anex crimea. They deny invading the other parts for now but are doing it anyway. They blame all the other soviet block coutries which they forcibly occupied for 50 years as being under some duress from the west to join them. Geopolitical theories might be true, and newspapers can be biased, but the ukraines arent russias brothers. And if they are they need to flee the domestic violence and get a step family.

        Anonymous

          June 23, 2015 at 7:47 am

          You may want to submit this to the NY Times for publishing as it conspicuously lacks any mention of the US engineering the 2014 coup as well as the fact that NATO has repeatedly violated the agreements that ended the Cold War.

          Seems that Russia learned its lessons from the Cold War while the US never stopped trying to "win" the original Cold War by overthrowing anyone that puts their own interests and sovereignty in front of the Wests neocon/banking cabal just as the Ukraine did before the 2014 US engineered coup.

        Joe, June 23, 2015 at 9:09 am

          Why this nonsense about "russians invade ukraine openly and anex crimea"? We all know that this is propaganda for which zero evidence has emerged. If you have an historical point it is lost in this plain attempt to deceive. There often are historical trends which may continue, but causes in the present must be argued: it is careless to assert that there is such a thing as "the russians" over such a long period.

          Factional grievances are solved only by recognizing the legitimate interests and rights of all factions, not by looking for devils and refusing to see faults on other sides. This balance is clear in the Putin remarks. Opposition requires good reasoning and evidence.

        Zerge

          June 23, 2015 at 9:45 am

          You really should try to learn history more ant stop tear facts from a context. For example, Ukraine didn't actually exist like a state before 1918. By centuries modern Ukraine's territories were included into Lithuania, Poland, Moldavia, Hungary. Russian Empire not the only one here, you know.

          About famine just wiki's quote: "The Soviet famine of 1932–33 affected the major grain-producing areas of the Soviet Union, leading to the deaths of millions in those areas and severe food insecurity throughout the USSR. These areas included Ukraine, Northern Caucasus, Volga Region and Kazakhstan, the South Urals, and West Siberia". I don't really understand why famine in Ukraine more tragic and more terrible than famine in Mordovia or Ural.

          By the way, new family doesn't rush to hug and love new step kid. More likely it enjoys watching kid's suicide.

        Ptaha, June 23, 2015 at 11:03 am

          Your post is sadly funny – such a crazy interpretation on Russian- Ukrainian history. Are you really "Tom" or you "Tom from west Ukraine"? Who occupied Ukraine in 1700????!!!!!! Ukraine was straggling to survive from Polish and Turkish aggression and asked Russia to take Ukraine as a part of Russia in order to be protected. Under Polish-Turkish occupation they were not allowed to speak Ukrainian language and get married without permission. When it comes to that " cry" about Ukrainian farmers who died without food that was taken forcefully or were sent away from home, why you do not mention that the same situation was over all Soviet Union? How about Povolzh'e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921 ? Who "forcefully" occupied other Soviet Union Republics?.All of them were in Russian borders before 1917. What about England who occupied Ireland and Scotland or US occupied Texas and so on? One more thing – we are brothers and sisters and it is not your business to decide identification of our ethnicity. We all have mixed blood and we do not deny any part of it.

        Abe

          June 23, 2015 at 12:00 pm

          "Skipping the war atrocities stuff" is a popular pastime in Ukraine. Unless, of course, one is enthusiastically commemorating the 1941 liberation of Lviv by the "heroic" Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), the 1943 liberation of Volhynia and Eastern Galicia by the "heroic" Ukrainian insurgent Army (UPA), the 1944 exploits of the "heroic" Waffen-SS Galicia Division, or the 1945 exploits of the "heroic" Ukrainian National Army (UNA).

        Abe

        June 23, 2015 at 12:38 pm

        Not to mention the 2014 exploits of the "heroic" Ukrainian territorial defense battalions and special police battalions. In November 2014, all 37 volunteer battalions to be integrated into Ukraine's regular forces, thus they were officially inducted into the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Minister of Internal Affairs and National Guard of Ukraine as National Guard battalions.

        We'll just skip the "heroic" exploits of Azov, Aidar, and Tornado battalions.

        A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat, eh? Know what I mean? Say no more.

        Abe

          June 23, 2015 at 1:03 pm

          "Geopolitical theories might be true, and newspapers can be biased, but the ukraines arent russias [sic] brothers. And if they are they need to flee the domestic violence and get a step family."

          Sure, just like in 1941, Ukraine can get a Nazi step family (NATO) and reenact the "Battle of the European SS".

          'Cause crazy uncle Adolf's got this great plan for Ukraine's future https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Generalplan_Ost

        Oleg

          June 23, 2015 at 2:56 pm

          Dear Tom, you probably meant to leave your comment at a different site (like Euromaidan, Mirotvorec, etc). Here you're facing a different kind of audience. It does not take a rocket scientist to go to the wiki and find that you wrote blatant lies. E.g. that Bohdan Khmelniskiy asked for Russian protection and Tsar's favours in 1654 after he had been annihilated by the Poles. And it went on from there. For instance, Stalin gave parts of Poland, Romania and Czechoslovakia to Ukraine, Khruschev donated Crimea, etc. such that Ukraine actually has grown a lot under the Soviet rule.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ukraine#/media/File:Ukraine-growth.png
          Not to mention that many USSR leaders were Ukranian.

        Drew

          June 24, 2015 at 3:06 am

          Tom- your knowledge of history is lacking, somewhat. Might I point out that the eastern portion of what you call Ukraine historically belongs to Russia? That Ukraine has been more of a middle ground and borderland between for East & West Europe for centuries, continually being carved up & never really becoming a nation until recently. While I do not approve of Stalin's modernization programs in Ukraine and purges & other acts of violence, you leave out the growth of the OUN-B, the nazi-like nazi collaborators who were trained by both British & Germany to attack Russia/Soviets. Then there is the genocide the Ukranian nationalists participated in and with such a ferocity, the Nazis were ashamed….post-WWII: Bandera OUN to the US, largely working in CIA and Washington….1991& on: back to Ukraine to help foment a break from Rusdia & color revolution….,

          Odessa- Putin was in his legal rights to bring a force that size, where the port is controlled by Russia. Moreover, repeated poling by independent sources reveal 90+% of Crimeans residents want to be part of Ukraine…. Condortium and other award winning independent outlets have already turned the "Russia invasion" mythology of its head.
          "Ukrainian's aren't Russia's brothers" …sorry, but at least half of Ukraine would disagree, especially those fighting for agency in Donbass. You really can't peddle that stuff here.

        Bianca

          June 24, 2015 at 6:14 pm

          This creative "history" will do well for New York Times - it is so biased and untrue, that it will take pages to get the lies covered. As for your concluding thought - that Ukrainians need another family, you may have a point. It is very important that a country grows up. Ukraine has been on a crossroads of many battles, and was source of slaves for hundreds of years before Russia put an end to this lucrative "business". Those that hunted slaves and those that then sold them making hefty profits - until today feel some sort of superiority over those Slavs. Ukraine must grow up, and what it does not kill it, will make it stronger. Its people will go through horrendous pains as the new relations will take all they can carry out of the country, and what cannot be carried, will be destroyed. But it must be so. Some will discover that they are Russians after all, while others will gravitate to the world that they were most familiar with - such as Galicia gravitating to Poland. What this country called for a long time is an amicable divorce. Now, it will happen anyway, but after much suffering.

          As you chose to start your twisted history full of lies and innuendos in 1700 - you may have mentioned that Kiev was capital of Russia before Mongol invasion, and it is because of the invasion of Mongols and Tatars that the capital was moved to Moscow.

          Also, West has not shown itself to be CAPABLE of offering any path, any successful economic model for all the countries they happen to bestow their "love" upon. There is no country in Eastern Europe that is successful, contrary to propaganda. Most are in fact in horrible shape, and its population fled to other countries in search of jobs or just to save themselves from bank imposed slavery. Check out Baltic countries, as an example. Countries like Poland are tired as well - the theme of the latest elections was "we look good on paper". That is what Europe is - good on paper. Most countries of the former Eastern block are now economically depressed, their education and health care decimated. Life in countries like Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Moldavia, etc. is well below their former socialist existence. Yet, they MUST implement "reforms" that harm them, they must fulfill all the orders from their European masters, yet year after year they are poorer. Masses od emigrants are flooding Europe - from the regions were Western wars destroyed entire countries, Middle East, Central and North Africa, and now from poor European countries. Greece has not caused its own misery - no matter what White West has to say about it. Loans have been forced down their throats for "reforms", that nobody ever knew how exactly will those "reforms" work. The banks just wanted politicians to take loans, White West companies were in line to get the money for various "needs", and in the end, instead of punishing the greedy bankers that had no business giving loans to feather western companies pockets - all the loans have been magically transferred to Greek taxpayer, and if they do not pay, to European taxpayer - as the utterly incompetent EU Bank and politically motivated IMF managed to fool the European public. Ukraine is quite welcome to this mess - for as long as they remember not to blame Russia. People must be allowed to make their mistakes. And if some regions of Ukraine are not eager to go there, why force them? After all - what is wrong with some competition. Let pro-Russian regions stay to trade with Russia, and pro-Western go to EU, and build their fortune there.

        Abe

        June 23, 2015 at 1:19 pm

        Shout, shout…

        shout out his name!

        Putin!

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vvvPZd6_D8

        Mulegino1

        June 24, 2015 at 4:18 pm

        As far as those so called "Neo -Nazi" battalions are concerned, they appear to be criminal gangs who have adopted Waffen S.S. insignia as their symbols.
        And, judging by whose side they are fighting on, they appear to be quite kosher "Nazis" indeed.

        Abe

          June 23, 2015 at 3:57 pm

          One of Cass Sunstein's cognitive infiltration trolls assigned to Consortium News takes a break from porn surfing to chime in. Gotta keep earning that guv'mint paycheck.

          Mulegino1

          June 24, 2015 at 4:14 pm

          It is quite perceptive of you to say so – that is indeed what is really at play here.
          The BRICS are a direct threat to Atlanticist Zionist financial hegemony in the same way that National Socialist Germany was.

          Long before Germany invaded Poland, the war parties in Britain and the F.D.R. administration had decided that the German nation had to be destroyed; the issue of currency backed only by the productive power of physical labor – much like Lincoln's "Greenbacks" – was a huge blow against the central banks, and the barter trade – the exchange of German industrial goods in exchange for raw materials – was a potential fatal blow to the hegemony of Wall St. and the City of London. A "Barter Bloc" of nations including the Soviet Union, Iran, Turkey and much of Latin America would have obviated the need for an international reserve currency.

          We're seeing much the same situation here. The difference, of course, is that Putin has time and space on his side, not to mention the world's largest nuclear arsenal.

        Abbybwood

        June 23, 2015 at 1:49 pm

        U.S. is ratcheting up the rhetoric now with talk of Putin being Hitler and the times now feeling like the 1930's:

        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/unite-against-moscow-aggression-us-nuclear-missile-commander-says-vladimir-putins-actions-echo-those-of-nazi-germany-in-the-1930s-10337983.html

        Time for Robert Parry to get his journalist friends together (Scheer, Hedges etc.) for a little "show and tell" at the National Press Club.

        This is all getting waaaayyy out of hand.

        Saner heads must prevail and simply "writing" about all this isn't cutting it.

        Abbybwood

        ptaha

        June 23, 2015 at 2:28 pm

        Proud father teaches his daughter to "cut Russians" and after that slogan she says: Sieg Heil

        http://news-front.info/2015/06/23/ya-budu-rezat-rusnyu-papa-uchit-dochku-zigovat-i-rezat-russkix/

        Is there no fascism in Ukraine?

        Ptaha

        June 23, 2015 at 2:37 pm

        Small mistake – not her father – her brother. There is his personal "page" on some sort of Russian "Facebook": https://vk.com/slava_banderi

        Caf

        June 23, 2015 at 3:19 pm

        It is singularly amazing me, the degree to which the Times has descended into sheer propaganda. Even during the run-up to the Iraq War, which was an absolute low point in Times' history, the editorial board was not as over-the-top propagandistic as it is today. As it stands now, the Times really has no credibility on Russia or Ukraine, nothing published on these matters by the Times can really be taken seriously.

        dahoit

          June 24, 2015 at 10:52 am

          They and our puppeticians have gotten everything wrong about everything,and still spew their swill with no pushback.Revolting!

        F. G. Sanford

        June 23, 2015 at 4:04 pm

        Propaganda can hide the means and the motives. It can obfuscate the ideology that informs the strategy. It can parade a figurehead and disguise the prime movers. It can deflect attention from incompetent blunders and lionize the perpetrators. But in the end, it cannot hide utter failure. Every thinking General Officer – and despite the best efforts of military indoctrination there are always a few – is by now having grave doubts. We have seen purges of late based on dubious charges. Experts have been replaced by political hacks, and resignations have been tendered out of a clear blue sky. Months ago, there was talk of a 5,000 strong "rapid reaction force" in the Baltics. Then, it was upped to 10,000. Now, we are hearing of prepositioned war materiel, and a force of 40,000. In terms of a conventional force deterrent, this is laughable. A real conventional threat from Russia would require a counterforce of 10,000 tanks and 250,000 troops. Nobody is tossing around those numbers, but there must be a few realistic analysts who realize they are accurate. So…what's the game afoot? In the absence of defections from the current lunatic cabal, it's hard to know for sure. But it certainly seems likely that there must be some dissenters. Hollywood versions of reality aside, there were on the order of 27 plots against Hitler, and Admiral Canaris's was among the least ambitious. (I believe some are still classified.) It is not difficult to imagine that there is currently a crisis of loyalty in the halls of power. In order to generate propaganda effectively, one must also have a grasp of the truth. Even among sycophants, complete reversal of the truth is sometimes abhorrent. In this 'Alice in Wonderland' reality, it is tempting to speculate that the plan is to "lose" with as small a force as possible in order to create a new strategic reality. If it goes wrong, there's always the 'nuclear option'. Propaganda will not be able to hide that.

        Abe

        June 23, 2015 at 5:22 pm

        The reality today is that the NSA operates a global surveillance apparatus undreamed of even by Abwehr chief Admiral Canaris' rival, SS-Obergruppenführer Heydrich of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt.

        Even without a Führer oath, the Empire of Chaos is no less prepared to battle all "enemies of the Reich", both foreign and domestic.

        After the 193 Dutch airline passengers, surely no one will mind if the Empire sacrifices a few hundred Lithuanians and Estonians on the altar of "collective security". Heck, why not throw in a few Swedes. Europe will remain snug as a bug beneath its "Iron Dome" without the need for American troops, sure as hot summer and hotter autumn is followed by nuclear winter.

        Abe

        June 23, 2015 at 6:55 pm

        Reinhard Heydrich also was the coordinator of the Endlösung der Judenfrage (the Final Solution of the Jewish Question) which meant the systematic extermination of the Jews living in the European countries occupied by the Third Reich during the Second World War.

        The plans for the Final Solution were outlined by Heydrich at the Wannsee Conference in January 1942. Later in 1942, Heydrich was assassinated by British-trained Czechoslovak agents in Prague in Operation Anthropoid.

        Heydrich's death led to a wave of merciless reprisals by German SS troops, including the destruction of the villages of Lidice and Ležáky, and the killing of civilians.

        In January 1943, Himmler delegated the office to SS-Obergruppenführer and General of Police Dr. Ernst Kaltenbrunner, who headed the RSHA for the rest of World War II.

        During the The International Military Tribunal at Nuremburg, Kaltenbrunner argued in his defense that his position as RSHA chief existed only in title. He claimed that all decrees and legal documents which bore his signature were "rubber-stamped" and filed by his adjutants.

        Kaltenbrunner maintained that SS-Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler, as his superior, was the person actually culpable for the atrocities committed during his tenure as chief of the RSHA.

        The IMT noted that Kaltenbrunner was a keen functionary in matters involving the sphere of the RSHA's intelligence network, but the evidence also showed that Kaltenbrunner was an active authority and participant in many instances of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

        The IMT found Kaltenbrunner not guilty of crimes against peace. However, Kaltenbrunner was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and sentenced him to death by hanging.

        Abe

          June 23, 2015 at 7:29 pm

          Interpol, the International Criminal Police Organization, was originally founded in 1923 as the International Criminal Police Commission (ICPC). Its headquarters were in Vienna.

          Following Anschluss, the invasion and forced incorporation of Austria in 1938, the organization fell under the control of Nazi Germany. Its headquarters were eventually moved to Berlin in 1942.

          Between 1938 and 1945, the organization's presidents included Reinhard Heydrich and Ernst Kaltenbrunner. All were generals in the SS, and Kaltenbrunner was the highest ranking SS officer executed after the Nuremberg Trials.

          After the end of World War II in 1945, the organization was revived as Interpol by officials from Belgium, France, Scandinavia and the United Kingdom. The new Interpol headquarters were established in France.

          Until the 1980s, Interpol did not intervene in the prosecution of Nazi war criminals in accordance with Article 3 of its Charter, which prohibited intervention in "political" matters.

        Helge

        June 23, 2015 at 5:16 pm

        The NYT writes: "If he is not careful, Mr. Putin may end up facing exactly what he has railed against - a NATO more firmly parked on Russia's borders - not because the alliance wanted to go in that direction, but because Russian behavior left it little choice." Not because the Alliance wanted to go in that direction???? Well, how did Russia "provoke" NATO expansion then in the last 15 years? How then? Usually the NYT and others make the claim that any free country is free to join whatever alliance it wants to, on a sudden Poland, Latvia etc. have been driven in NATO by Russian threats? Which threats? How has the Russian sphere of influence then expanded in the last 20 years? And the US had to place the missiles officially aimed at Iran in such a way that they also aim at Russia? And now after the Iranian agreement there is not even remotely any suggestion that perhaps they are redundant and could be removed? How is the Kremlin to understand that? There is obviously something the NYT knows which we don't know….

          ltr

          June 23, 2015 at 6:14 pm

          Terrific comment.

        abbybwood

        June 23, 2015 at 6:48 pm

        "U.S. to E.U.: Sanctions Are For Suckers!":

        http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42225.htm

        Abe

          June 23, 2015 at 7:09 pm

          quoting the article:

          The unprecedented militarisation of international relations and the standoff with Russia has proven to be an absolute boon for Washington's military-industrial complex. To be sure, the Americans are not defending Europe and the other NATO members out of chivalry.

          Each new expenditure by NATO states – under the impetus of an alleged "threat of Russian expansion" – is a boost for sales of US-made fighter jets, missiles, tanks, warships and much else.

        george mcglynn

        June 23, 2015 at 7:14 pm

        Excellent analysis of the blatant ideological nonsense and misinformation that is coming from the editorial page of the Times. Their foreign desk has been pedaling the same lies from the beginning of the orchestrated coup, by the U.S., in the Ukraine.

        George McGlynn

        Abe

        June 24, 2015 at 1:25 am

        Kiev is still a coup that has not really consolidated its power. The people trust this government less than the former. They know they were sold a bill of goods. Most are powerless but not all, like Kiev's Deputy Minister of Defense, Major-General Alexander Kolomiets who defected to Donbass this week. He has this to say:

        "The potential of the Ukrainian army is at a very low level. From a moral point of view, all the generals and officers who understand that the government's actions are criminal, don't want to fight. Only volunteers from nationalist troops are fighting. In the near future the Armed forces of Ukraine will be rocked by uprisings. Officers do not understand the commands to kill civilians. We will see it sometime in the fall. Everything will change very soon."

        While Kiev plays its waiting game, it is somewhat tied to that of the US and NATO, where the 6,000-man ready reaction force could be increase to 40,000 at the NATO conference next week. Four divisions is a major offensive move. Much of this force is headed to the Baltic States who have made a huge strategic blunder by offering themselves up for Western cannon fodder. The citizens there need some new and better leadership, and quickly, like most of the rest of us do.

        Moscow is also buying time to complete its military modernization and to complete building with China and India the Eurasian integrated economic and military defensive Great Wall of Asia that will be able to defend itself via mutually assured destruction. Yes, the Western leaders are taking us backwards to that situation.

        The Western Coup in Ukraine May Self Destruct Yet
        By Jim Dean
        http://journal-neo.org/2015/06/24/the-western-coup-in-ukraine-may-self-destruct-yet/

        abbybwood

        June 24, 2015 at 4:07 am

        Apparently New York Times staffers are too busy pulling pranks regarding mass shootings and mass death events to bother doing serious, hard-hitting and objective journalism:

        http://rt.com/usa/269233-nyt-joke-mass-killings/

        Mark Thomason

        June 24, 2015 at 2:53 pm

        "there was no coup in Ukraine in 2014, no U.S.-driven "regime change," no provocation"

        And anyone who reminds readers of reality is called wild names, "Putinbot" or "comrade" and the like. It is no different from the treatment of any critics of Israeli right wing policy being called anti-semites or self-hating. This has grown so obnoxious in the NYT comments that it has become a large proportion of comments.

        [Jun 24, 2015] M of A - So The Spy Services Are The Real Internet Trolls

        Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept provides new material from the Snowden stash.

        The British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) includes a "Joint Threat Research and Intelligence Group" which "provides most of GCHQ's cyber effects and online HUMINT capability. It currently lies at the leading edge of cyber influence practice and expertise." In 2011 the JTRIG had 120 people on its staff.

        Here are some of its methods, used in support of British policies like for regime change in Syria and Zimbabwe:

        All of JTRIG's operations are conducted using cyber technology. Staff described a range of methods/techniques that have been used to-date for conducting effects operations. These included:
        • Uploading YouTube videos containing "persuasive" communications (to discredit, promote distrust, dissuade, deter, delay or disrupt)
        • Setting up Facebook groups, forums, blogs and Twitter accounts that encourage and monitor discussion on a topic (to discredit, promote distrust, dissuade, deter, delay or disrupt)
        • Establishing online aliases/personalities who support the communications or messages in YouTube videos, Facebook groups, forums, blogs etc
        • Establishing online aliases/personalities who support other aliases
        • Sending spoof e-mails and text messages from a fake person or mimicking a real person (to discredit, promote distrust, dissuade, deceive, deter, delay or disrupt)
        • Providing spoof online resources such as magazines and books that provide inaccurate information (to disrupt, delay, deceive, discredit, promote distrust, dissuade, deter or denigrate/degrade)
        • Providing online access to uncensored material (to disrupt)
        • Sending instant messages to specific individuals giving them instructions for accessing uncensored websites
        • Setting up spoof trade sites (or sellers) that may take a customer's money and/or send customers degraded or spoof products (to deny, disrupt, degrade/denigrate, delay, deceive, discredit, dissuade or deter)
        • Interrupting (i.e., filtering, deleting, creating or modifying) communications between real customers and traders (to deny, disrupt, delay, deceive, dissuade or deter)
        • Taking over control of online websites (to deny, disrupt, discredit or delay)
        • Denial of telephone and computer service (to deny, delay or disrupt)
        • Hosting targets' online communications/websites for collecting SIGINT (to disrupt, delay, deter or deny)
        • Contacting host websites asking them to remove material (to deny, disrupt, delay, dissuade or deter)

        It is unlikely that the British GHCQ is the only secret service using these tactics. Other government as well as private interests can be assumed to use similar means.

        To "deny, disrupt, degrade/denigrate, delay, deceive, discredit, dissuade or deter" is exactly what Internet trolls are doing in the comment sections of blogs and news sites. Usually though on a smaller scale than the GHCQ and alike. The more these services grow and their methods proliferate the less possible will it become to have reasonable online discussions.

        Posted by b at 10:56 AM | Comments (42)

        [Jun 22, 2015] The Boomerang Effect: Sanctions on Russia Hit German Economy Hard

        nationalinterest.org
        Moscow Exile, June 22, 2015 at 10:36 am
        Hasn't even registered on European economies.

        Können Sie Deutsch?

        Sanktionen kosten Europa bis zu 100 Milliarden Euro, Freitag, 19.06.2015, 10:09

        Russlands Wirtschaftskrise hat verheerende Folgen für Europa. Zu diesem Ergebnis kommt eine Studie aus Österreich. Besonders betroffen ist Deutschland. Die Krise könnte das Land mittelfristig eine halbe Million Arbeitsplätze und Milliarden Euro an Wertschöpfung kosten.
        Die Wirtschaftskrise in Russland hat weitaus schlimmere Konsequenzen für die Länder der Europäischen Union (EU) und die Schweiz als bislang erwartet. Nach einer Berechnung des Österreichischen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (Wifo), die der europäischen Zeitungsallianz "Lena" exklusiv vorliegt, sind europaweit weit mehr als zwei Millionen Arbeitsplätze und rund 100 Milliarden Euro an Wertschöpfung in Gefahr.

        Moscow Exile, June 22, 2015 at 10:44 am
        The Boomerang Effect: Sanctions on Russia Hit German Economy Hard – Der Spiegel, July 21, 2014
        Moscow Exile, June 22, 2015 at 11:32 am
        No, it's not what I maintain, it's what these people report is happening:

        German businesses suffer fallout as Russia sanctions bite (Financial Times)

        http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/9a620f0c-73fc-11e4-82a6-00144feabdc0.img

        German Businesses Urge Halt on Sanctions Against Russia – Wall Street Journal

        In most countries, it would be highly unusual for corporate executives to inject themselves into geopolitics and matters of national security with the forcefulness that a number of German business leaders have. But many of Germany's largest companies have substantial Russian operations, built in some cases over decades, and worry that tough economic sanctions would rob them of a key growth market when their home market-Europe-is stagnant.

        Germany's economy hit by trade sanctions on Russia – FT

        The sanctions being placed on Russia by Europe are having a negative impact on the bloc, experts have said.

        European countries have implemented a series of trade embargoes as a punishment for Russia's moves to annex Crimea and for its ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

        Rowan Dartington Signature's Guy Stephens said the eurozone had been "rife" with weak economic data and one of the biggest concerns was Germany because of its relationship with Russia.

        "Sanctions against key trading partner Russia, coupled with declining demand from China, have begun to take their toll on Europe's largest economy," he said.

        "Business confidence is also waning and GDP growth for next year has been downgraded to just 0.8 per cent, well below the government's forecast of 1.3 per cent. All in all, the decline of Europe's powerhouse could just turn out to be the ammunition that European Central Bank president Mario Draghi needs to begin a prolonged quantitative-easing campaign."

        Michael Hartnett, chief investment strategist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said Europe's share of global profits had "collapsed".

        "And complicating the immediate path of liquidity and corporate earnings in Europe is the ongoing collapse in the Russian rouble," he said.

        [Jun 22, 2015] The Russian Pipeline Waltz

        Jun 22, 2015 | naked capitalism
        Gaylord June 20, 2015 at 3:47 am

        Does anybody know what Russia's plans are to try to prevent runaway climate change? Or is Russia's government oblivious to the catastrophic effects of continued greenhouse gas emissions? Their aggressive plans for oil drilling in the Arctic indicate the latter.

        Barry Fay June 20, 2015 at 6:33 am

        "Or is Russia's government oblivious to the catastrophic effects of continued greenhouse gas emissions?" Sounds like a typical cheap shot against Russia to me. The country most oblivious to the catastrophic effects, and one of the two the biggest contributors (with China), is the good ole USA. Russian is at 6%, USA at 20%! Your propaganda driven prejudice is showing!

        Macon Richardsonn June 20, 2015 at 7:35 am

        Thank you Barry Fay! Well said.

        Nick June 20, 2015 at 9:06 am

        With Russia's utter dependence upon oil and gas, plus lack of FDI, they have no alternative but to drill baby drill. Eventual regime change may increase their long term prospects.

        Gio Bruno June 20, 2015 at 12:48 pm

        Careful now. This could encourage blow-back from Barry Fay.

        Let me just say that Russia is not a static society (education is prized). They can, and likely will, create a more diversified/un-stratified economy going forward. As for regime change, that's an habitual fantasy of folks who read only MSM propaganda. Putin, despite the grandstanding of American representatives (98% return rate) has the support of 80% of the Russian population. Russians are not stupid (See USA for comparison.)

        Steve H. June 20, 2015 at 9:21 am

        http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/06/naomi-oreskes-the-hoax-of-climate-change-denial.html#comment-2458611

        Externality June 20, 2015 at 12:28 pm

        1. Russian- – unlike some Western nations – has submitted a detailed carbon-reduction plan to the upcoming climate conference. http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/russia-submits-its-climate-action-plan-ahead-of-2015-paris-agreement/

        2. At a time when China and parts of Eastern Europe remain dependent on highly polluting coal-fired power plants, Germany is returning to coal following its phase-out of nuclear power, cash-strapped EU countries are phasing out renewable energy subsidies, and many Eastern European nuclear plants are overdue for retirement, natural gas remains a necessary – and environmentally friendly – energy alternative. The only question then is where the gas to come from. The UK's oil and gas industry is in terminal decline, large-scale imports from North America and the Middle East are a decade or more away, and efforts to promote fracking-related gas production in Europe has failed for a variety of reasons. To borrow a favorite line of the neo-liberals, "there is no alternative" (TINA) to Russian gas.

        3. Since the end of the Cold War, the West has aggressively used the WTO, investor-state dispute tribunals, sanctions, propaganda campaigns, and "regime change" to punish resource-exporting nations who limit, or attempt to limit, exports for environmental reasons. To the WTO, for example, environmental laws in countries outside of Western Europe, the US, and Canada are illegal "non-tariff trade barriers." Russian attempts to protect its old growth forests against timber exporters and Chinese attempts to limit the environmentally disastrous (and often illegal) mining of rare earth ores were both struck down by the WTO at the request of the West. If Russia were to limit oil and gas exports for environmental reasons, the resulting legal, political, and military confrontation with the West would dwarf the Cuban missile crisis.

        Rex June 20, 2015 at 1:33 pm

        Burning any hydrocarbon produces carbon dioxide, so natural gas is not "environmentally friendly." There is clear evidence, too, that natural gas exploration and production release huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere. EPA has proposed rules on that for producers (late and weak, of course). Methane in atmosphere is over 20X as damaging as CO.

        Russian scientists contribute much to Climate Mayhem knowledge, especially in the rapidly changing arctic and on the threat of methane release.

        Russian Academy of Sciences, Far Eastern Branch, Pacific Oceanological Institute, 43 Baltiiskaya Street, Vladivostok 690041, Russia
        Natalia Shakhova, Igor Semiletov, Anatoly Salyuk, Denis Kosmach & Denis Chernykh

        Russian Academy of Sciences, Far Eastern Branch, Institute of Chemistry, 159, 100-Let Vladivostok Prospect, Vladivostok 690022, Russia
        Valentin Sergienko

        To name a few.

        One wonders if Russian climate scientists are censored and hounded as much as are U.S. and U.K. researchers, especially in the US government (USGS, NOAA, NASA, etc.). Persecution and censorship of US scientists is above McCarthey-esque proportions today.

        Ian June 20, 2015 at 8:37 pm

        What about thorium reactors. I am aware that at least China is investing in the technology.

        Lune June 20, 2015 at 3:08 pm

        Just like the War on Drugs is most successful when it focuses on reducing demand (drug users) rather than fighting/bombing the suppliers (Mexico, Colombia, etc), the War on greenhouse gases is best fought by reducing demand. If the Europeans find a way to no longer need so much natgas, then Russia wouldn't be selling it to them. Otherwise, someone else will sell it to them regardless.

        That doesn't completely exonerate Russia, of course, and given their history with the Aral Sea, I'm not sure that they would put environmental concerns very high on their list of priorities (certainly not higher than their economic security). But right now, the problem with greenhouse gases is on the other end of all these pipelines.

        Otter June 20, 2015 at 8:15 am

        The abandonment of South Stream was not much of a surprise to anybody with even a passing interest in the energy politics.

        Brussels and Washington were both adamant that it would never pass through Bulgaria.
        I suppose some people were surprised at how quickly negotiations progressed with Turkey. Possibly there is some quid pro quo regarding Iranian and Kurdish hydrocarbons.

        Serbia and Hungary are anxious for access. The Austrians are even talking money. Greece of course needs gas and transit fees. Italia, Slovakia, Czech would welcome shares. The only problem is some people have suddenly taken an interest in organizing a colour revolution in Makedonia.

        Jackrabbit June 20, 2015 at 1:03 pm

        I questioned the author's perspective as soon as I saw this (in the second sentence) :

        Six months ago Russian President Vladimir Putin surprised the energy world by dismissing the long-prepared South Stream project in favour of Turkish Stream.

        Russia re-routed South Stream to Turkey (now called "TurkStream") because Bulgaria rejected South Stream under pressure from US/EU. OIFVet, a frequent commentator at NC, has written loads of good and inciteful comments with respect to this farce (he is Bulgarian).

        The author refers to a "Russian Waltz" which casts aspersions on Russian intentions. Their intentions are clear. To by-pass a Ukraine that is hostile to Russia. Period. Their efforts to do so are being blocked (first by pressuring Bulgaria, now with a color revolution in Macedonia). Russia's 'waltz' partner is the EU which created the rule that pipeline ownership must be independent of supplier. This rule has dubious value when applied to large suppliers like Russia/Gazprom.

        The author artfully guides us to three possibilities but ignores the most logical and intuitive one. Russia is likely to be taking this move now to hedge against the developing brinkmanship whereby Russia is blamed for causing European suffering by refusing to transit gas through Ukraine – despite the US/EU's irresponsible blocking of South Stream / Turk Stream as a delivery platform.

        =

        I believe that one must be very careful about sources when dealing with issues that are sensitive to the US/EU establishment.

        Brugel is nominally an independent think tank but it is governed by, led by, and staffed with establishment figures and technocrats. From their annual report:

        The idea to set up an independent European think tank devoted to international economics stemmed from discussions involving economists, policymakers and private practitioners from many European countries. The initiative subsequently found support from 12 EU governments and 17 leading European corporations, who committed to the project's initial funding base and participated in the election of its first Board in December 2004. Operations started in 2005 and today Bruegel counts 18 EU governments, 33 corporations and 10 institutions
        among its members.

        It is difficult to trust "experts" that have a vested interest in culling favor with the establishment. This article proves that such skepticism is very much warranted.

        David in NYC June 20, 2015 at 1:13 pm

        Putin's plan, to maintain a chokehold of the distribution of gas, mimics John Rockefeller's strategy for Standard Oil to control the distribution of oil in the late 19th century.

        susan the other June 20, 2015 at 1:14 pm

        Syria has really taken a hit for Russia. Until the conflict there is resolved the the Saudis/Arab natgas cannot build their pipeline. And by the time it is resolved Russia will have already established its network. It looks like this leaves the Saudis and other MidEast natural gas suppliers at the mercy of China and India. The BRICS.

        Raj June 20, 2015 at 7:50 pm

        You already know this, but Israel wants to send the gas production from the Levantine Basin to the Europe market and Assad stands in the way for the time being. Once Assad is toppled and a new puppet regime is put in place, I think we'll see the construction of the pipeline through Syria. Qatar & Saudi Arabia will connect through the same artery to reach the Europe market…and then Russia finds itself with competition. This is the key for the West to gain greater control of the Russian economy, and eventually profit from Russia's resources. So, in the short term (~10 yrs), Russia may have its infrastructure in place (whether via Nord, Turkish or South stream), but in the long term (~20+ yrs), we'll see Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar enter the Europe market and Russia will no longer be the only game in town. We think we're seeing the squeeze put on Russia now, but it will only get worse with time. The West looks at Russia's resources and sees dollar signs.

        Gerard Pierce June 20, 2015 at 5:29 pm

        In the current political situation, there should be a natural alliance between Russia and Greece, but it can't be a declared alliance – that leads to retaliation that neither one wants to deal with right now.

        A covert alliance with Russia could put Greece in a position to obtain finance through China. Without any overt declarations, the European countries might figure out "on their own" that continued sanctions against Russia are counter-productive.

        Even in default, if Greece can maintain any kind of economy, the wily Varoufakis gets to sit back and smile while the EU ministers try to explain to southern Europe why their policies are necessary and correct.

        The US gets to continue with its unprofitable wars in the mid-East while trying to avoid major embarrassment from the fascists in DonBass. The major problem for the Russians is watching as Russians in Ukraine are ethnically cleansed.

        If the Russians can avoid a military response all that is needed is someone to maintain the body count. The overall death count would probably be a lot less than a military response.

        Susan Pizzo June 20, 2015 at 8:49 pm

        An MOU with Greece has been signed, providing significant investment funds, a route around Ukraine, and a potential clinker in the Russian sanction vote on Monday. Further complications for debt negotiations? Greece is also reportedly "drawing up a default plan, which would see the country institute capital controls and nationalize its banking industry" (ibtimes). It ain't over till it's over…

        http://www.ibtimes.com/greece-russia-reach-preliminary-gas-pipeline-deal-greek-debt-woes-continue-1976077

        http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/19/news/greece-russia-gas-deal/index.html

        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-18/russia-greece-ink-pipeline-deal-gazprom-boosts-ukraine-bypass

        NATO "two-track" policy toward Russia

        Fern , June 22, 2015 at 2:02 pm

        In the light of today's announcement from NATO head-honcho Stoltenberg that the Rapid Response Force parked in eastern Europe might reach 40,000 troops instead of the original number of 4,000,(and you wouldn't want that guy estimating numbers for catering a party would you?) this article dating from 1996 is well worth reading. Its focus is NATO's involvement in Bosnia and the factors underpinning its out-of-area missions. Its author has subsequently died but he was remarkably prescient about what was, at the time of writing, the shape of things to come. It's long and heavy on fact but worth sticking with. The emphasis is mine.

        NATO had never carried out a formal study on the enlargement of the alliance until quite recently, when the Working Group on NATO Enlargement issued its report. No doubt there were internal classified studies, but nothing is known of their content to outsiders.

        Despite the lack of clear analysis, however, the engines for moving things forward were working hard from late 1991. At the end of that year, NATO created the North Atlantic Cooperation Council. NATO member nations then invited 9 Central and East European countries to join the NACC in order to begin fostering cooperation between the NATO powers and former members of the Warsaw Pact.

        This was a fìrst effort to offer something to East European countries wishing to join NATO itself. The NACC, however, did not really satisfy the demands of those countries, and in the beginning of 1994 the US launched the idea of a Partnership for Peace. The PFP offered nations wishing to join NATO the possibility of co-operating in various NATO activities, including training exercises and peacekeeping. More than 20 countries, including Russia, are now participating in the PFP.

        Many of these countries wish eventually to join NATO. Russia obviously will not. join. It believes that NATO should not be moving eastwards. According to the Center for Defense Infromation in Washington, a respected independent research center on military affairs, Russia is participating in the PFP "to avoid being shut out of the European security structure altogether."

        The movement toward the enlargement of NATO has therefore been steadily gathering momentum. The creation of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council was more or less an expression of sympathy and openness toward those aspiring to NATO membership. But it did not carry things very far. The creation of the Partnership for Peace was more concrete. It actually involved former Warsaw Pact members in NATO itself.

        It also began a "two-track" policy toward Russia, in which Russia was given a more or less empty relationship with NATO simply to allay its concerns about NATO expanslon.

        http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-is-nato-in-yugoslavia/21008

        [Jun 22, 2015] Russia does not accept the jurisdiction of Hague arbitration court

        yalensis June 21, 2015 at 12:50 pm

        Putin says that Russia does not accept the jurisdiction of Hague arbitration court, which ruled in favor of Khodorkovsky:

        Putin suggested that part of Russia's legal strategy will be to deny the jurisdiction of the international arbitration court in The Hague that last year awarded shareholders of the defunct Yukos oil company $50 billion in damages because Russia in 2004 illegally dismantled the company and auctioned off its assets.

        The French and Belgian asset freezes are aimed at enforcing that court judgement.

        "The Hague Court is competent to decide on such cases only in respect of those countries that are signatories of the European Energy Charter," Putin said.

        "Russia has not ratified this charter, so we do not recognize the jurisdiction of this court."

        Hence, Khodorkovsky is not going to see $50 billion dollars of Russian taxpayer money pass into his slimy pockets. Not even one dollar, I would hope.

        [Jun 22, 2015] Newsflash, America Ukraine Cannot Afford a War with Russia

        Jun 22, 2015 | The National Interest

        Historically, great powers-including the United States, as a cursory look at its history demonstrates-have resisted their rivals' attempts to extend influence into areas deemed vital for national security and standing. But this observation cuts no ice with those who regard Moscow's behavior as nothing more than an amalgam of mendacity and Machtpolitik.

        They dismiss the proposition that Russia might have been unsettled by the prospect of a Ukraine integrated into the EU. The EU, they point out, is an economic entity, not an alliance, and the Kremlin knows this full well. Hence, its supposed apprehension about the strategic consequences of Kyiv's alignment with the EU is bogus-another instance of Putinist propaganda-and those who give it credence are either misinformed or dupes. Besides, they say, Ukraine has no chance of joining the EU anytime soon.

        That the EU, by virtue of its Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP), has a military element-no matter how inchoate-seems to have gone unnoticed by this group. The same goes for the near-total overlap in membership between the EU and NATO.

        Those who believe that Russia alone bears the blame for the Ukraine crisis insist that NATO had no plans to bring Ukraine into its ranks in the run-up to the 2014 crisis and that Moscow's apprehensions on this score amount to little more than propaganda.

        But back in the early 1990s, the chances that Romania, Bulgaria and the Baltic trio would join both coalitions seemed remote, and Ukraine's membership in NATO was in fact under discussion during the tenure of President Leonid Kuchma. These, it seems, are inconvenient facts to be forgotten because only lies emanate from the Kremlin.

        Russia certainly sought, in multiple ways, to shape Ukraine's internal and external policies-and well before Putin came on the scene, by the way. Yet it did not attempt to annex Crimea or to sponsor secessionist statelets in Ukraine's east prior to 2014. On February 21 of that year, the Kremlin teamed up with the EU to help forge a February 21, 2014 political settlement between Yanukovych and the opposition that called for forming a national unity government, pruning the powers of the presidency (by reverting to the 2004 constitution) and holding early (not later than December) presidential elections.

        To be fair, there are, on the other side of the Ukraine debate, those who have also succumbed to hyperbolic simplemindedness. For example, the insistence that the conflagration in Ukraine stems from NATO's expansion pure and simple represents a classic example of the single-factor fallacy. The contention that Ukraine's own politics are fascist in a fashion or that anti-Semitism represents a rising trend in Ukrainian society is no less inaccurate, and anyone who has spent time recently in various parts of Ukraine and met its officials (in Kyiv and the outlying areas), leaders of civic organizations, journalists and academics can attest that it is baseless. As all countries do, Ukraine has its extremists, but they are scarcely the prime movers of its politics and remain a fringe element. While there are sound reasons not to flood Ukraine with American weaponry, the supposed extremism of Ukrainian politics is not among them.

        As a sop to those who have pushed for arming Ukraine, the Obama administration has begun training Ukraine's National Guard-regrouped private militias that, at least in an administrative, if not substantive, sense are overseen by the defense and interior ministries. (Canada and Britain are also providing training.) The White House has also allocated some $118 million for "nonlethal" equipment to bolster Ukraine's defenses.

        Meanwhile, the creaky Minsk II ceasefire could well collapse. Shelling across the line of control remains routine. Moreover, the Kyiv leadership and the Donbas separatists both have reason to torpedo Minsk II-the former to force Obama's hand, the latter to prevent Putin from abandoning them for a deal with the West that lifts economic sanctions on Russia.

        [Jun 22, 2015] Carter -- We will stand up against Russia

        "..."Carter was a supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as well as an advocate of preventive wars against North Korea and Iran.[40][41][42] Carter is considering deploying ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe that could pre-emptively destroy the Russian weapons" ( Virtually guaranteeing a full scale nuke exchange)."
        "...Ash Carter -- Another psychopath at the helm of the American ship of state…!!!!!"
        Northern Star, June 22, 2015 at 3:12 pm
        http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/06/u-s-to-stop-russia-from-recreating-soviet-era-control/

        "The United States does not want to make Russia an enemy. It is not seeking to have another Cold War or a hot battle with the Russian government. However, the United States will not allow Moscow to re-create a Soviet-era control in Europe, according to Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

        During his speech in Berlin on Monday, Carter said, "We do not seek a cold, let alone a hot war with Russia. We do not seek to make Russia an enemy. But make no mistake; we will defend our allies, the rules-based international order, and the positive future it affords us."

        Carter added, "We will stand up against Russia's actions and their attempts to re-establish as Soviet Era sphere of influence."

        (From Wiki):

        "Carter was a supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as well as an advocate of preventive wars against North Korea and Iran.[40][41][42] Carter is considering deploying ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe that could pre-emptively destroy the Russian weapons" ( Virtually guaranteeing a full scale nuke exchange).

        Another psychopath at the helm of the American ship of state…!!!!!

        [Jun 22, 2015] EU extends sanctions against Russia as Ukraine conflict rumbles on

        "... Cui bono?"
        "...And Russia? I think it will still be there in a few years, with its resources and markets, its new-found anger against Western hypocrisy and new-found pride.
        Great job, Madames Nuland and Merkel, and above all the esteemed Nobel Peace Price winner, you have delivered, you will be rewarded."
        Jun 22, 2015 | The Guardian

        Beckow 22 Jun 2015 20:26

        Extending sanctions

        • without a discussion
        • simply means that EU doesn't know what to do next. What will happen?
        • Ukraine will either collapse economically in a default, or EU will have to spend literally tens of billions annually to keep it minimally stable
        • Russia will turn its economy to other regions (China, Turkey, Latin America,...) slowly freezing out EU exporters and farmers
        • EU will lose Russian market at a cost of roughly 1% of its GNP and a few hundred billions in sales
        • not fatal, but also not good given very slow EU economic growth
        • In 3-4 years Russian gas, oil, minerals, raw materials will mostly be sold east and south, with EU either paying a lot more to Russia or switching to more costly alternatives; again probably costing a few % points of potential growth
        • Ukrainians will be very, very angry
        • they got screwed by the crisis and it will take them a generation to recover; there will be more refugees, more instability, more bloodshed
        • US will sell more arms through Nato
        • a lot more.

        The winners are US and its arms industry, comprador bourgeois in Kiev who will move West and will be well compensated, and China, Turkey, etc... who will gain huge business benefits in Russia.

        The losers will be EU economy, but above all the Ukrainian common people.

        And Russia? I think it will still be there in a few years, with its resources and markets, its new-found anger against Western hypocrisy and new-found pride.

        Great job, Madames Nuland and Merkel, and above all the esteemed Nobel Peace Price winner, you have delivered, you will be rewarded.


        HauptmannGurski sashasmirnoff 22 Jun 2015 21:28

        Good post. I would like to add that the cut-off (from some international financial markets) is the best thing that could have happened to Russia. It is always better to do things with your own resources, even if that means a slower pace.

        Russia is spared the fate of Greece where the loan sharks pushed the money onto them and now what? They only have to follow what the IMF and the EU tells them - and everything will be roses in Greece?

        If the West is happy with the experiences in Argentina, Greece, and Ukraine (in the making) that's their problem.

        Russia is spared the temptation to take the easy way out by accepting a loan and waking up with fleas.

        HollyOldDog ID5589788 22 Jun 2015 21:25

        All this is in the past just like Poland attacking Russia with the help of the Cossaks ( until the Cossaks switched sides - they were only regarded as useful barbarians by the Poles).
        Now the Barbarian hordes ( butchers of the American 1st People's ) are resident in the USA and are trying to subjugate the Planet as their plaything. This Horde nation is trying to use the same strategy as the Old Polish empire by employing local European citizens to act as their Cannon Fodder against those who oppose them - like the Cossaks the new cannon fodder will turn against their masters. WE are waiting....

        HauptmannGurski Chiselbeard 22 Jun 2015 21:20

        Depends on the money. Ukraine needs a lot of money for many years to keep her afloat and that does not include modern (NATO compatible) weaponry which, like in Greece, would probably have to be supplied on credit. I have read the figure of 2 billion $ annually for about 20 years, but of course these things are not easy to verify. The debt forgiveness for Ukraine has not been going well; their Finance Minister (what's her name) has been travelling for weeks/months for new money and simultaneous debt cancellation - with zero result. Soros has urged the EU to provide the money.

        When the money runs out, loyalties fade. Having said that, the activities of the rebels in E Ukraine are sheer lunacy. If they want to speak Russian maybe they should go to Russia. Why Russia is bothered with such a capricious people like the Ukrainians is really strange. It won't be that long until they can disconnect the gas pipe and be rid of this and other issues.

        HollyOldDog ID5589788 22 Jun 2015 21:01

        You are an idiot, Putin has nothing to gain by the USA selling more arms to the EU. I am happy to see that more senior Ukrainian officers joining the East Ukraine seperatists movement, junior officers will follow and probably taking their loyal men with them. Eventually only the most extreme Right Wing extremists will be left. What will happen then, will NATO forces attack and how would the world view this development? America, NATO and their puppets in the EU barely have a brain cell between them.

        sashasmirnoff Omniscience 22 Jun 2015 20:59

        Motivation! (necessity being the mother of invention, all that stuff)
        I take no pleasure in conflict, adversarial positions, and I'm sure I'm in the vast majority. I hope (for the first time in recorded history) that one day the so-called democratic process will prevail, and that the aspirations of people rather than business interests will guide the relationship between States. Isn't idealism quaint?

        Chiselbeard centerline 22 Jun 2015 20:46

        You will note that the Russian economy is in recession. You will also note that, prior to their involvement in Ukraine, this was not the case. You can try to distract from the real damage resulting from Russia's aggression, but it sounds to me like a recent convict claiming "now I have time to catch up on my reading".

        sashasmirnoff -> LiberalinCalif 22 Jun 2015 20:42

        I see that the majority of anti-Russia posts are penned by (you guessed it) ...dumb-asses. If you could think clearly for a moment, you'd see that sanctions are actually a great impetus for diversifying the economy. Bankruptcy? I think that might be Ukraine, and your ilk will be holding the bag!

        Any rain yet?

        centerline 22 Jun 2015 20:34

        I see Ukraine officials and military officers are starting to defect to the other side. Soon the trickle will become a flood and that will be the end of the US government in Kiev.

        Humans creating sixth great extinction of animal species, say scientists

        "...There's no way creative thinking and awareness can help unless humankind pulls together - cooperates. Given that those of a certain political persuasion (particularly in the U.S. but increasingly in Australia and everywhere else) have used a divide-and-conquer strategy, enlisting irrational members of all description, it is difficult to see us responding in a way proportionate to the crisis."

        Study reveals rate of extinction for species in the 20th century has been up to 100 times higher than would have been normal without human impact

        ... ... ...

        Previous studies have warned that the impact of humans taking land for buildings, farming and timber has been to make species extinct at speeds unprecedented in Earth's 4.5bn-year history.

        Walsunda hmmm606 21 Jun 2015 22:49

        "Africa especially being by far the fastest growing region population wise."

        At 28 people per square kilometre, has a long way to go to catch up with Eurasia with 84 people per square kilometre. Where do you live?

        Jeff Young -> SvenNorheim 20 Jun 2015 20:04

        Agree Sven and one other thing. There's no way creative thinking and awareness can help unless humankind pulls together - cooperates. Given that those of a certain political persuasion (particularly in the U.S. but increasingly in Australia and everywhere else) have used a divide-and-conquer strategy, enlisting irrational members of all description, it is difficult to see us responding in a way proportionate to the crisis.

        HelgiDu -> timotei 20 Jun 2015 13:04

        Losing the climate of the polar regions redraws the biodiversity of the regions. Polar bears are one species. The nutrient rich waters of the cool polar summer support many, many more species all along the food chain (up to - and including- us).

        The collapse of the Grand Banks off Canada could be surpassed (but with differing underlying reasons).

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_northwest_cod_fishery

        [Jun 22, 2015] Some interesting stuff on the far-right in Ukraine

        jeremn, June 22, 2015 at 2:19 am
        Some interesting stuff on the far-right in Ukraine:

        http://defendinghistory.com/category/ukraine

        Including this article on Bandera:

        http://defendinghistory.com/distorted-nationalist-history-ukraine/65887

        "Ultranationalist and revolutionary Ukrainians like Bandera dreamt in the 1930s of becoming leaders of fascist states like Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. The Ukrainian equivalent to duce and Führer was vozhd' or providnyk. In the late 1930s and early 1940s the generation born around 1910 took the initiative and continued elaborating Ukrainian fascism on their own. They invented the Ukrainian fascist salute "Glory to Ukraine!" while answering "Glory to the Heroes!"; wanted to take care of the "Ukrainian race" and claimed that Ukraine needed a fascist state without national minorities – in particular without Jews, Poles and Russians. They wanted to be a part of the new fascist Europe like Ante Pavelić's Croatia or Josef Tiso's Slovakia. Bandera was supposed to become the leader of a Ukrainian fascist state after Ievhen Konovalets' was assassinated in 1938 in Rotterdam and his follower Adrii Melnyk was considered inappropriate for the position."

        European values (of 1941)!

        [Jun 19, 2015] Confiscation of Russian state property in West has hidden goals

        Jun 19, 2015 | vz.ru

        No matter how successful would be the attempts to seize Russian property in Belgium, it is clear that begins a new stage of Western attack on Russia. The state arrested during the war, but we are in a state of geopolitical conflict. The excuse now selected for arrest, completely unimportant to block Russia will use any reasons.

        Dismantle the legal niceties of what happened in Belgium and in France, but for trees it is important to see the forest. The problem is not that, most likely, the current attempt of arrest of property of Russia on the claim of Yukos, based on last year's decision of the arbitration court in the Hague, will not be successful, but more important is that the topic of confiscation of Russian property in the West has moved from the theoretical to the practical.


        "The attempted arrest of the Russian property pursued a number of important goals"

        The coincidence of this event with the launch of the St. Petersburg economic forum by accident, but more than symbolic. While the political and business elite of most European countries are looking for ways of combining Atlantic solidarity and national interests, that is, sanctions against Russia and preserving relations with her, supranational, Atlantic forces are at work on the widening gap between Europe and Moscow, creating new obstacles to save their relationship.

        Another piece of information that appeared simultaneously with Belgian history, gives an idea about the next steps to isolate Russia from Europe – New York Times talks about the contents of the new package of sanctions against Moscow, agreed by the EU and the USA. It will be adopted much faster previous, report sources – in the case of the Ukrainian separatists by Moscow and the rebel advance into Ukraine". Considering that the continuing civil war in Ukraine is, unfortunately, only a matter of time, we can say that these sanctions will inevitably be introduced against Russia.

        The contents of the new package is known in General terms, but it is impressive – the sanctions "can lead to restriction of export of fuel from Russia", "Russian banks will lose the opportunity to conduct a number of international financial transactions", and "some businesses will not be able to participate in transactions abroad." And in the case of "serious breaches" will be imposed tough financial sanctions, including the shutdown of a number of Russian banks from the SWIFT system. In addition, the U.S. insists on the adoption of restrictive measures against foreign subsidiaries of Russian companies, and also against new sectors of the economy (including against the mining industry and mechanical engineering). Restrictions in the energy sector include sanctions against businesses engaged in the exploration for gas or the production and commissioning of equipment for production and transportation of shale oil, reports RBC with reference to AP.

        But if new sanctions require still agreeing on the level of heads of governments of all European countries and the USA will not be so easy to achieve that even in case of resumption of war in Ukraine measures, similar to the arrest of the Russian property in Belgium, do not require such extensive work. Enough to use a few European countries – and the effect will be huge. Moreover, the attempted arrest of the Russian property pursue several objectives.

        • First, of course, to exert psychological pressure on the Kremlin – Atlanticists still do not exclude that the increased pressure on Russia will lead to changes in our Ukrainian politics, to put it simply, to the fact that Moscow will agree to atlantisal of Ukraine. The fact that it is impossible in principle for Russia, I understand not all supporters of the isolation of our country. And if so to press – maybe it will be last drop, after which Putin will decide that enough is enough: such considerations seem delusional, but actually exist in Atlantic elite.
        • Secondly, the threat of arrest jeopardizes any economic ties between Europe and Russia – both existing and future. What contracts, what supplies (in both directions), if tomorrow in Holland or Germany would be arrested accounts or products paid by Russia or from Russia. What then accounts will be unlocked, and the property is released, not a comforting thought – who would want to risk, to bear the loss and nervous? The claim of Yukos – a convenient excuse to arrest in France, Germany, not to mention the UK or the USA. It's like a minefield, you never know, pass it or not – it is important to make any Western businessman to be afraid to even step on it. And to remove it from Russian, and so it is of limited sanctions.
        • Thirdly, it is an attempt to provoke Russia to retaliate. That is, for the arrest or even the confiscation of the property of those Western countries which will decide on the arrest of the Russian property. This would be a major step towards the ultimate isolation of Russia from Europe – and it is clear that Moscow is well aware. But while it would be assumed that until when will the first real case of arrest of the Russian property with counter no need to hurry in order not to be consumed.

        You can, of course, wonder, and a large Western business that wants to work with Russia, how his interests? Did he not will to protest against the attempt to deprive him of favorable contacts and profits? It is not only national business from individual European countries, but also the largest supranational corporations, like BP, have large interests in Russia.

        The answer is very simple – in the era of globalization, as indeed in any other, is not ruled by big money, and not even the lust for profit, and the elite of geopolitics, people who have strategic power, those who are planning for a long time, and doing it from generation to generation. The Atlanticists, the backbone of the supranational Western elites, understand the seriousness of the challenge posed by Russia of their global project. Yes, now Russia is still weak in order again, as a century ago, to become an alternative to them, but have the audacity to stifle in the Bud – that's why none of "having the right" by and large does not care about the profits, lost on the Russian direction of any Bank or Corporation.

        After all, if now not to return Russia to the bullpen, then the losses will be much greater – the changed geopolitical situation will inevitably lead to loss of control of the commodity and money flows, and hence to financial losses. And what is money in comparison with the power, the more global. Especially in the West know Russia must be very careful.

        Many in the West are very sorry that we failed to strangle the Communist project in the Bud, during the civil war – and then had 70 years to suffer. With the current "Putin's Russia" they don't want a repeat of those mistakes. Intervention is not possible now, but the economic war will gain momentum. In war as in war you have to be ready for anything.

        [Jun 19, 2015] Resistance of suvereign state or rebellion of a vassal of the USA

        tertiaroma.livejournal.com
        Article of P. Akopova contains interesting thought, You need to read it fully to appreciate them.

        The goal of the West disclosed correctly, but can the Russian Federation in the current form confront a new "crusade"?

        After all, if the Russian elite has positioned the West as the enemy, as it in reality is to the Russian state, bothe the current contnt and the vector of the Russian economy would be quite different. In a condition, which would at least make the economic and financial arsenal of the West less effective.

        But in reality Russian ruling nomenclature suffering from pro-Western mentality tried to srengthen their defences indiscriminatly in all directions, including to the military (while the main blow that are coming are financial), and to increase the patriotism of the population by the projection of the President as an indepencent political figure fighting dictat of the West. While in reality Putin is the politician who underestimated the antagonism of the West and after first negative raction from the West fell into what can be called the "Ukrainian prostration"?

        If so, then there are only two ways out of this situation: either the delivery of the fiefdom to ht eUSA as a king, or the transformation of a fiefdom in the sovereign state.

        [Jun 19, 2015] Angry Russia Will Respond In Kind To Europes Asset Seizures

        Looks like checkmate for Putin from the USA geopolitical chess players...
        .
        "...New cold war. Only this time it's the West that is banging the heel of its shoe on the podium and screaming incoherently."
        Jun 19, 2015 | Zero Hedge

        On Thursday, nearly 50 Belgian companies were told to disclose their Russian state assets, setting the stage for the seizure of Russian property in connection with the disputed $50 billion Yukos verdict.

        In short, Russia was required to submit a plan for a €1.6 billion payment by June 15 pursuant to the 2014 arbitration court decision which found in favor of Yukos shareholders who the ECHR ruled were treated unfairly when Moscow seized the company amid allegations of fraud and other crimes. Russia appealed the ruling and lost.

        Because Russia does not look set to comply, Belgium is effectively moving to enforce the ruling itself. Austria and France also moved to freeze Russian assets on Thursday.

        It now appears the timing of the asset freezes was designed to stir controversy in St. Petersburg where Russia is hosting an annual business forum (described by some as a "Russian Davos) and where Greece is executing the first stages of the dreaded 'Russian pivot.'

        Now, Russia looks set to retaliate, threatening to freeze Belgian, Austrian, and French assets until such a time as the countries' "illegal" actions are reversed. RT has more:

        Moscow will take reciprocal action in response to the seizure of its foreign assets, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned.

        "Our response would be in kind. This is inevitable. This is the only way of acting in international affairs," he told RBK-TV in an intervew.

        Lavrov was commenting on the seizure in Belgium and France of Russian state-owned assets. The arrest were made on request of beneficiaries of the now-defunct oil giant Yukos, who were awarded damages from Russia by an arbitration court in The Hague. Russia is in the process of challenging the ruling.

        The minister added that his priority in this situation now is to unfreeze the accounts of the Russian Embassy in Belgium.

        The freezing of diplomats' accounts "absolutely goes against the Vienna accords on foreign relations that guarantee the immunity of diplomatic assets, real estate and corresponding things. Belgian foreign ministry officials are indicating to us that they were not aware of it," Lavrov said. "We don't accept these explanations."

        And here's FT with the opposing viewpoint...

        Tim Osborne, director of GML, the former Yukos holding company, told the Financial Times he was aware of the French and Belgian moves but could not confirm exactly what had been frozen.

        The assets had been "attached" to GML's claim to get the Yukos ruling enforced, to ensure they could not be moved abroad before legal hearings expected within the next year.

        "We still have to convince a legal court [in these countries] that our arbitration award should be recognised as the equivalent of a judgment in their court, so they can enforce it," he said.

        "We remain confident that we will win, and that we will collect if not all, then a substantial part, of the award - but it will take time."

        Mr Osborne said GML had started similar steps to get the UK and US to recognise the arbitration panel award but other countries had different asset seizure rules.

        Andrei Belousov, an economic aide to Vladimir Putin, Russian president, told the St Petersburg forum that the country planned to appeal against the award. "We are concerned. We expect a number of countries to take similar measures," he said.

        ...and here's a bit more from Bloomberg (note the bit about holding Russian reserves outside of US and EU assets):

        Russia is bracing for more foreign asset seizures in a clash over the defunct Yukos Oil Co. after France and Belgium began enforcing a $50 billion damages award.

        The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled last July that Russia is liable to pay almost half of the $103 billion plus interest sought by GML Ltd., a holding company belonging to four former owners who don't include Khodorkovsky.

        Russia's appeal of the decision may be heard in November, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov told reporters, while Ulyukayev ruled out paying the damages. Lawyers and government agencies are studying the Belgian ruling, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.

        While the asset freezes are unlikely to affect the Bank of Russia's international reserves, keeping the cash pile outside of U.S. or EU assets is under consideration, Siluanov said. "No such decision has been taken so far, we believe that we can keep the existing structure for now," he said.

        The Yukos plaintiffs are targeting Russian government assets in France and Belgium that aren't protected by diplomatic immunity in a process that could take years to resolve, GML Director Tim Osborne said by phone from London.

        "We are not in this for a Pyrrhic victory," he said. "We haven't ruled out other jurisdictions, but they will be more difficult" because of local laws on asset seizure.

        Given the timing (see above) and given the situation in Ukraine and Moscow's rapidly deteriorating 'relationship' (if you can call it that) with Washington and NATO, one cannot help but wonder if Europe is set to use the Yukos case as yet another tool for applying political pressure to the Kremlin. After all, the stage is already set for stepped up economic sanctions and the EU has filed anti-trust charges against Gazprom (even as the energy giant inked an MOU in St. Petersburg on Thursday to double the capacity of what is effectively a Ukraine bypass line). Needless to say, if GML is successful at convincing the US and/or the UK to enforce the ECHR ruling via similar confiscations, things could get very interesting, very quickly.

        NoDebt

        New cold war. Only this time it's the West that is banging the heel of its shoe on the podium and screaming incoherently.

        Latina Lover

        The western banksters are getting increasingly desperate. Stealing Russia's assets in Europe via a EU kangaroo court will further increase Putins support, as even more Russians realize they are at war with the USSA/EU.

        The actions was launched to piss on Putin at the Russian Economic Forum, but also to distract the sheeple from the Grexit.

        froze25

        Bilderberg just finished up, the bankster troops have their marching orders. Let the games begin. I would stock up on canned goods and water quickly. Ammo too.

        Truthseeker2

        Anglo-American Axis Wages Financial/Economic War Against Russia

        froze25
        This really does suck, economic war almost always proceeds a shooting one.
        eclectic syncretist
        One has to wonder if the banksters have completely forgotten how vilified thier brethen have been historically. Do they really suppose that they can use media control and propaganda to hide all the crimes they are committing to try and retain and expand their power?
        Latina Lover
        Stealing Russia's assets is a desperate move to prop up the failing central bankster ponzi system. Without new assets, the ponzi scheme will collapse.

        Savyindallas

        They have no choice. They have pretty much looted and stolen all there is to steal from their own people.


        the phantom

        After the Hague judgement, Putin's close advisor said," There is a war coming in Europe, do you think this matters?"

        Latina Lover

        The USSA and her EU puppet are already at war with Russia. Sanctions are an act of war.

        Savyindallas

        They have no choice. They have pretty much looted and stolen all there is to steal from their own people.


        Save_America1st

        Then WWIII has really already started...started back in 2008 maybe??? But what's going to happen after WWIII?

        Remember what Einstein said?:
        "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
        He may have been one war off...we now know WWIII is a financial/economic/currency war. Looks like the West is going to lose it badly, too.

        If we're driven into WWIV after that with full on nukes and everything else, then WWV (5) will be fought with sticks and stones...if there's even a world left after that.

        Man Who Was Thursday

        Anyone read the Vienna Convention on Foreign Relations? The freezing "diplomats' accounts" is prohibited but "State assets" is not explicity prohibited.

        Maybe they did freeze diplomat's accounts and spin it to "State assets".

        Fri, 06/19/2015 - 09:54 | 6213669 Brazen Heist

        Even a 15 year old can see this was a politicized move made in distaste. So far I see its the Western governments that are the offensive ones, the ones losing control, the ones having a go and playing with fire...they are desperate for conflict....Russia, China just react defensively to this shit-slinging, and get lambasted by the "free" press for standing up to the shit show narrative most sheeple are expected to swallow.

        Fri, 06/19/2015 - 10:15 | 6213743 Savyindallas

        As can be seen here on ZH, more and more people in the West are siding with Russia, as we see the insanity of Western governments that are acting against the best interests of their own people. Here in America we are saddled with tens of trillions of debt that eventually must be repaid -all for the benefit of billionaire Oligarchs who have been looting this country. Same goes for Europe. And what is the Oligarchs solution? -massive third world immigration to balkanize the western nations in their strategy of divide and conqu -and the establishment of a Police State to control the civil unrest which is to come. .

        Augustus

        The western banksters are getting increasingly desperate. Stealing Russia's assets in Europe via a EU kangaroo court will further increase Putins support, as even more Russians realize they are at war with the USSA/EU. The actions was launched to piss on Putin at the Russian Economic Forum, but also to distract the sheeple from the Grexit.

        More of the same horse shit from a Moscow based Puutie Paid Puppy.

        If Puutie wants to respond in kind, he will first need to get an international court to rule in his favor.

        That seems unlikely as the thieving communist has screwed international investors time after time and time again. It is not stealing from Russia when the different countries take action to enforce a court ruling awarding compensation for the takings of this kleptocrat totalitarian. His screaming about havving to pay for what he has stolen is the normal response of a thief facing consequences. Russia is the land of kangaroo courts with all major rulings being dictated by Moscow. It is the land where defense attorneys are jailed and left to die without medical care.

        All crooks squeal like pigs when apprehended. Puutie is following the normal pattern.

        Stumpy4516

        From Latina: "The western banksters are getting increasingly desperate"

        Replace confident with desperate. Maybe overconfident. The firm slaps across Putin's face have gotten more frequent and more obvious. This is occuring because Russia has been unwilling to take a stand since Cuba. The only credit I will give Russia is that they supported the Viet's and even piloted some of their jets. Other than that Russia has been bullied and pushed around, Russia has not only allowed it's allies to be destroyed but has assisted in their destruction.

        The lack of action and the actions of cooperation tend to indicate there is a Russian elite that has mixed loyalties. Including Putin.

        tmosley

        I wonder how much French, Belgian, and Dutch money is in Russia? Probably more than $51.5 billion, I would think.

        youngman

        I would think there are far more Russian assets in the Western world than there is Western assets in Russia...anyone with money in Russia...takes it out...Putin has to many times just taken your assets...this oil company is just one example....let alone the Corrupt government employees will take you assets until you pay them off....So i think the west wins this fight...

        This is one big reason Russia is still a third world country..all of the wealth leaves....if they were encouraged to reinvest i Russia..it would be a much better country....more jobs and better quality of life

        TahoeBilly2012

        Yea but when the SHTF the only thing that counts is water, food and oil, of which Russia has PLENTY and Europe and the US are missing a few items, unless the US is hiding oil discoveries, which we may be.

        samjam7

        Check out this link that's where you can see that there is way more European investment in Russia than vice versa. This shows you FDI stock originating from the EU-27 to various countries when looking at 'outward' and looking at 'inward' you see what other countries have invested in the EU-27. It is in billions of Euros.

        http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/4/48/Top_10_cou...

        Impoverished Ps...

        This is a dollar war, the power of the almighty $ is being challenged by the BRICS and the $ regime will ALWAYS retaliate.

        [Jun 18, 2015] Russia promises tit for tat punishment against Belgium, if the latter carries through with its threats

        "... the problem here is that the West has already claimed use of the national security get out clause to put sanctions on Russia in the first place, which Russia can of course claim too."

        Jun 18, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

        Fern, June 18, 2015 at 6:09 am

        Following on from the posts on page 1 of this thread concerning Russian assets in Belgium being seized on behalf of those poor Yukos shareholders, money has also been frozen in French banks. This is nothing more than outright theft – quite shocking. Western values in action.

        ThatJ, June 18, 2015 at 6:59 am

        Khodorkovsky is a Rothschild protégé:

        But there was more. Khodorkovsky built some impressive ties in the West. With his new billions in effect stolen from the Russian people, he made some powerful friends. He set up a foundation modeled on US billionaire George Soros' Open Society, calling it the Open Russia Foundation. He invited two powerful Westerners to its board-Henry Kissinger and Jacob Lord Rothschild.

        Khodorkovsky, Soros, Kissinger and Rothschild are all God's Chosen People.

        During the ensuing Russian state prosecution of Yukos, it came to light that Khodorkovsky had also secretly made a contract with London's Lord Rothschild not merely to support Russian culture via the Open Russia Foundation of Khodorkovsky. In the event of his possible arrest (Khodorkovsky evidently knew he was playing a high-risk game trying to create a coup against Putin) the 40% share of his Yukos stocks would pass into the hands of Lord Rothschild.

        http://www.voltairenet.org/article168007.html

        Russia is playing with fire and considering the players in question she will most likely get burnt. The central role played by the Rothschilds in the banking sector, that most parasitic but profitable business, for the last two centuries is well known. They are an energic bunch and their agents of influence are everywhere. Orders can be given from the above - starting from the highest ranks - until the "message" reaches the unsuspecting subordinates, which it invariably does. After all, these are the people who bought the elections of an American president who dutifully kept his part of the bargain by granting the Rothschilds & fellow travellers the Federal Reserve that they have long dreamed.

        They have money. They have the proverbial "printing press". Together, they have a bottomless pocket to fund political opponents, NGOs and back them with a servile media. In short, they have a myriad of options to threaten one's political career.

        Terje , June 18, 2015 at 7:15 am

        Looking at the Khodorkovsky Twitter account I see he has a gap between the 11 and 15 of June, coinciding with the Bilderberg meeting in Austria. The rest of the year there is normally at least one post every day. A not unreasonable guess would be that he was at the conference without being announced.

        Fern , June 18, 2015 at 10:10 am

        Terje, great detective work! I suspect you're right – wow, what a future is being planned for Russia.

        marknesop , June 18, 2015 at 11:22 am

        Seconded – that was pretty clever. Doesn't rise to the level of proof, of course, but it is a step away from the pattern and might be more than coincidence. I would not be at all surprised if your guess is accurate.

        karl1haushofer , June 18, 2015 at 1:24 pm

        Russians, read this:
        Rule #1. Don't you put money to western banks.
        Rule #2. Don't buy property from the West.

        Problem solved.

        yalensis, June 18, 2015 at 4:35 pm

        Russia promises tit for tat punishment against Belgium, if the latter carries through with its threats.

        On Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister called Belgium Ambassador Alex Van Meeuwen to the carpet and berated him.
        Russia threatenend to confiscate Belgian property in Russia, in retaliation.

        Meanwhile, France is acting in tandem with Belgium to attack Russia. There were reports that France has gone after the offices of "Russia Today" and the TV channel for RT.

        Analysts say there is plenty of Belgium property in Russia, which could be confiscated in retaliation, and that Belgium could feel significant pain, if they don't back off.

        Ditto goes for French property.

        Furthermore, Article 8, Paragraph #1 of Russian law on foreign investments, foresees the possibility, under exceptional conditions, of nationalising and confiscating property of foreign companies.

        Russia has the ability to freeze foreign accounts and also freeze the flow of profits to the host country, from companies that operate on Russian soil.
        To get the biggest bang for the buck, Russia would focus on companies which have billions of dollars invested in the Russian economy.

        Examples of possible targets:

        Other Belgian companies which invest in Russia includes pharmaceuticals, chocolate, construction, etc.

        French business is even more widespread in Russia, and there is a lot of money at stake.
        For example, the French bank Societe Generale is a main shareholder in Rosbank.

        Other major French companies include Renault and Peugeot-Citroen (automobiles).
        Also Dannon yogurt, L'Oréal cosmetics, and other big names.

        Analysts warn, that the freezing of French assets in Russia could lead to the loss (by the French) of several tens of billions of euros.

        Bring it on, Frenchies….

        et Al, June 19, 2015 at 6:47 am

        euractiv: France, Belgium seize Russian assets to compensate Yukos shareholders
        http://www.euractiv.com/sections/europes-east/france-belgium-seize-russian-assets-compensate-yukos-shareholders-315550

        …In France, accounts in around 40 banks were frozen along with eight or nine buildings, Tim Osborne, executive director of the main shareholder GML, told AFP.

        "It's bank accounts and real estate," Osborne explained…

        …In Belgium, the Russian embassy in Brussels and representative offices at the European Union and NATO headquarters were among those affected, the Russian foreign ministry said….

        …GML's Osborne said that proceedings were "already underway in Britain and the United States and further countries will follow"….

        …Despite not being involved, Khodorkovsky welcomed the move in relation to the Russian assets in Belgium….

        …The Belgian foreign ministry said the seizures had been conducted by bailiffs without the involvement of the Belgian government.

        "It's a legal decision which was executed by bailiffs. We were not informed by the bailiffs' office, we do not intervene," ministry spokesman Hendrik Van de Velde told AFP.

        The Permanent Court of Arbitration declined to comment on the issue…
        ####

        Convenient timing, no? I think the calculus here is that the West sees Russia bending over backwards to accommodate ongoing business and investments in Russia, so any Russian counter action that hits western business assets in Russia would directly affect the business climate and direct investment in Russia. A game of chicken if you will.

        Russia has no choice (ok, well it does) but to hit back, but I think it should hit back very hard and very selectively, particularly the big western corporations that have sunk large captial in to Russia and can weather the impact over the short term. Targeting western corporations that compete with domestic Russian industry would make sense too. You can bet though that the West will quickly go squealing to the WTO – the problem here is that the West has already claimed use of the national security get out clause to put sanctions on Russia in the first place, which Russia can of course claim too.

        The problem here is that the West would argue that this is a purely commercial dispute, even though the court ruled Russia was acting politically. This is short-sighted (aka standard western policy) as it would damage the credibility of the WTO as an global organization that is supposed to be even handed (and one that the West created in its own image to maintain their dominance through globalization). The thing is that it doesn't matter if the West says the WTO is independent and impartial (yup, the Ukraine joined long before Russia was allowed to), but how everyone outside the West thinks it is behaving. That's one big nail in the WTO.

        Over all, it looks like the West's traditional methods of carrot and stick are becoming less and less effective and it is increasingly resorting to more desperate measure that ultimately undermine the West's own carefully crafted system. We see this militarily with NATO and the US generals talking about returning IRBMs and nukes to Europe, politically with 'casting Russia out of the International community', and of course economically in this and other cases. These elites never pay for their failures unfortunately and just quite politics and go in to consultancy for business…

        [Jun 18, 2015]Russia might once again lose

        Jun 17, 2015 | inosmi.ru / Reflex, Czech Republic

        She might exhaust itself, and it will only exacerbate her problems

        The days of the old cold war back.

        ...Despite the fact that Putin constantly talks about how strong the military forces of Russia, and what they can do in the encounter with the West, Russia will once again lose because they can't match the Western power, neither economically, nor scientifically, nor technologicaly. She just does not have enough resources in order to gain strategic advantage. In addition to West Russia should pay attention to the East, because China is arming itself with such a speed that Putin can't dream about.

        ... China has increased its military budget is already $ 216 billion. And Saudi Arabia invested almost the same amount as Moscow (almost 81 billion dollars). And another comparison that should be alerted Russia: if the US 610 billion dollars in weapons is 3.5% of GDP, the Russian 84,5 billion of 4.5% of the GDP of this country. Financial burden for Russian is much more tangible.

        ...the West still has the NATO Alliance. which today it is the main military force of the world, despite the fact that sometimes it seems that NATO members can't agree on some important issues.

        ... ... ...

        Original publication: Rusko svůj souboj se Západem opět nevyhraje, bude uzbrojeno a prohloubí tím své problémy

        Posted: 17/06/2015 16:11

        [Jun 16, 2015] Hillary Clinton ducks questions on trade deals during New Hampshire visit

        Notable quotes:
        "... But, listen, lets review the rules. Heres how it works: the president makes decisions. Hes the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction! ..."
        "... The media is still a bunch of stenographers for the WH and even now the WH candidates. ..."
        "... She was part of the Obama/Biden administration that expanded Afghanistan war, attacked Libya, intervened in Syria and Yemen, relaunched the Iraq war, used Ukraine to provoke Russia and is being provocative with China by interfering in South China Sea. ..."
        "... Lets face it. Wall Street and the military industrial complex control BOTH parties, and are especially bonded with and beholding to Hillary Clinton. ..."
        "... You have to remember that to the financial elites who are backing Republicans - and Obama - middle class means anyone whos in the top 5% of the economic pyramid but hasnt made it into the top 1% because theyre too damned lazy. ..."
        Jun 15, 2015 | The Guardian

        FugitiveColors 15 Jun 2015 23:52

        She can talk til her pantsuit turns blue.
        I have already decided that my ballot will have Bernie Sanders on it one way or another.
        I don't believe her. I don't like her, and I damn sure won't vote for her.
        She is a blue corporate stooge and not much different than a red corporate stooge.
        Bernie is honest and after all of those years in politics, he is not rich.
        You can't say that about a single other candidate.


        libbyliberal -> Timothy Everton 15 Jun 2015 23:47

        Yo, Timothy, Paul Street recently reminded his readers of part of Colbert's speech at the Correspondents' Dinner way back in 2006 (time flies while we're sinking into fascism):

        "But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!"

        Timothy Everton -> enlightenedgirl 15 Jun 2015 22:36

        Sorry Not-so-enlightenedgirl. WE don't elect government officials, and we don't pay them for "not putting the screws to us". They get elected, paid, and influenced by lobbyists for the wealthy one percent, and by the corporations, who both fund their campaigns for future favors rendered. Those with the most funding for the prettiest and most abundant campaign ads are those elected. And yes, they DO put the screws to us, the American public. This woman is more a puppet for those interests than some Republicans.

        Timothy Everton -> libbyliberal 15 Jun 2015 22:11

        "The media is still a bunch of stenographers for the WH and even now the WH candidates."

        Sorry libby, I don't see them crowding around Bernie Sanders, the only viable candidate FOR the AVERAGE American. In fact, I believe he had more "press time" before he became a candidate.

        That is the way it goes here though. Get an honest candidate who speaks her/his mind, and you get no press coverage - way too dangerous for those who actually control our government through lobbyists.


        libbyliberal 15 Jun 2015 21:42

        What is this business about Hillary NOT "taking the bait" of a reporter's questions? Hillary needs to be challenged and not be the one in control with her gobsmackingly well-funded pr info-mercial steamrolling her presidential challenge.

        The media is still a bunch of stenographers for the WH and even now the WH candidates. This is what THEY say their policy is and will be. Not critical thinking of the journalist, no connecting of the dots, to be applied?

        Their talk sure is cheap and seductive. Obama gave us major lessons in that in 2008 and again in 2012. More nicey-nice sounding bull-sh*t that is vague or downright mendacious to the realpolitik agenda.

        Hillary wants to talk about what is convenient and safe for her. Identity politics. Generalized populist feel-good rhetoric. Nothing substantial with the globalized and corporatized trade deals OR the massive violent US-sponsored or direct militarism around the globe.

        Hillary's NYC Four Freedoms Park speech: lack of mention of foreign policy except for some threats on China, Russia, N. Korea and Iran. No mention of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Afghanistan. No mention of drone warfare. No mention of NSA surveillance. No mention of police violence.

        She was part of the Obama/Biden administration that expanded Afghanistan war, attacked Libya, intervened in Syria and Yemen, relaunched the Iraq war, used Ukraine to provoke Russia and is being provocative with China by interfering in South China Sea.

        Hillary skipped addressing the inconvenient and the media and her fan base had no problem with such gobsmacking omissions. Hillary decides that the US citizenry doesn't want to focus on foreign policy and she ramps up vague populist rhetoric like Obama did back in 2008 to convince the citizenry she is their champion even though she personally has amassed over $100 million from her financial elite cronies over the decades and if you think that fortune has no influence on who she is championing there's a bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn you should look into buying.

        Let's face it. Wall Street and the military industrial complex control BOTH parties, and are especially bonded with and beholding to Hillary Clinton.


        Vladimir Makarenko -> enlightenedgirl 15 Jun 2015 19:19

        "diplomacy so badly needed after the disastrous term of Bush and Cheney and their destruction of the Middle East." If anything she extended B & Ch policies by destroying Libya and turning it in a murderous breeding ground for Islamic ultras. She was at helm of arming Syrian "opposition" better known today as ISIS.

        Her record as a Secretary is dismal - line by line no achievements, no solved problems but disaster by disaster.

        talenttruth 15 Jun 2015 18:34

        If the Democratic party nominates the "inevitable" Hillary Clinton, rather than someone real who ACTUALLY represents the middle class, tells the truth and is NOT part of the "corporately bought-and-sold" insider group, then it will be heads-or-tails whether she wins or one of the totally insane, whack-job Republi-saur candidates wins.

        If she keeps on doing what she's been doing, she will LOOK just like those arrogant "insiders" the Republicans claim her to be (despite the fact that they are FAR FAR FAR worse, but much better at lying about that than any Democrat). Hillary is a VERY VERY WEAK candidate, because the huge "middle" of decent Americans is looking for real change, and not -- as well -- a Republican change WAY for the worse.

        This Election is the Democratic Party's to LOSE. Hillary could make that happen (no matter how much worse ANY Republican victor will likely be). What a choice.

        sour_mash -> goatrider 15 Jun 2015 18:09

        "...why doesn't the disgusting American media ask the Republicans who support it to explain themselves too. Why are they so eager to join Obama in destroying the American middle class?"

        After +6 years of the then Republican Party, now known as the Christian Jihad Party or CJP, making Obama a one term president it smells to high heaven that they now agree on this single issue.

        Yes, where are the questions.

        Whitt 15 Jun 2015 18:03

        Because they're not "destroying the American middle class". You have to remember that to the financial elites who are backing Republicans - and Obama - "middle class" means anyone who's in the top 5% of the economic pyramid but hasn't made it into the top 1% because they're too damned lazy.

        [Jun 16, 2015] Jeb Bush's campaign debut: protester showdown met with chants of 'USA'

        Notable quotes:
        "... sandra oconnor is actually on record saying that she would do anything to get bush elected. ..."
        "... All candidates are promising change and yet are funded by those who dont want change. All candidates are promising defeat of ISIS and yet voted for or presided over or agreed with military aggression in the ME and tactics that helped create the instability in Iraq that led to ISIS. All candidates are promising to strengthen the middle classes and yet support tax cuts (benefiting the rich), trade agreements (benefiting the rich), deregulation (benefiting the rich), and are funded by industries that impoverish the working and middle classes and keep wages stagnant. ..."
        "... Most Americans are addicted , with help from the media, to those who like to drag them to wars and fuck their economy for the sake of the rich and powerful. And the sad truth is that there is not much difference between Democrats such as Clinton and the GOP bunch that have announced their presidential intentions. There is no hope as long as big money is involved in choosing leadership for a country that boasts about democracy and democratic values while its institutions are under assault by corrupt rich and powerful. ..."
        "... The right-wing is incredibly stupid if Bush is their nominee. ..."
        "... Bush may speak Spanish and come across as Latino friendly, but the reality is that hes the son of one of the most powerful families in the US. As a conservative Republican, his first priority is to the powerful elite. ..."
        Jun 15, 2015 | The Guardian

        eileen1 -> mabcalif 15 Jun 2015 23:48

        Neither a Bush nor a Clinton. They're both poisonous in different ways.

        eileen1 -> WMDMIA 15 Jun 2015 23:47

        There is no difference between Bush and Obama, except Obama is smarter and more devious.

        redbanana33 -> mabcalif 15 Jun 2015 23:27

        "are you really suggesting we forget this piece of history simply because bush won by corruption and connivance?"

        No, I never said I believed there was corruption and connivance. Those are your words. Your personal opinion. MY words were that if more voters had wanted Gore as their president, he would have won. As it was, he couldn't even carry his home state. Sometimes the truth is hard to face and so we make excuses for what we perceive as injustice, when, in reality, more people just didn't think like you did in that election. But blame the court (bet you can't even clearly state what the case points they were asked to consider, without googling it) and blame the Clintons and even blame poor Ralph for your guy's lack of popularity. If it makes you feel better, go for it. It won't change the past.

        And, speaking of presidents winning by a hair's breadth, shall we talk about how Joe Kennedy bribed his way to electing his son? Hmmmm? Except that even the crook Nixon had enough class to concede rather than drag the country through months of misery like your hero did.

        mabcalif -> redbanana33 15 Jun 2015 22:50

        there have been more than one excellent president who's won that office only by a hair's breadth.

        are you really suggesting we forget this piece of history simply because bush won by corruption and connivance? particularly when the outcome was so disastrous for the country and the world?

        it wasn't a question of being more popular, it's a question of being overwhelmed by the clinton scandal, a brother governor willing to throw the state's votes and by a supreme court that was arrayed against him (sandra o'connor is actually on record saying that she would do anything to get bush elected.) not to mention a quixotic exercise in third party politics with a manifestly inadequate candidate that had no foreign policy experience

        Otuocha11 -> redbanana33 15 Jun 2015 22:43

        Yes some people need to be reminded, especially about the falsification/lies completing the 2009 voter-registration form.

        bishoppeter4 15 Jun 2015 22:39

        Jeb and his father and brother ought to be in jail !

        Otuocha11 -> redbanana33 15 Jun 2015 22:38

        His point is that "No more president with the name BUSH" in the White House. He can change his name to something like Moron or Terrone. Let him drop that name because Americans have NOT and will NOT recover from the regime of the last Bush.

        redbanana33 -> Con Mc Cusker 15 Jun 2015 22:30

        Then (respectfully) the rest of the world needs to grow some balls, get up off their asses, define their vision, and strike out on their own as controllers of their own destinies.

        After that, you'll have the right to criticize my country. Right now you don't have that right. Get off the wagon and help pull it.

        ponderwell -> Peter Ciurczak 15 Jun 2015 22:25

        Politics is about maneuvering to get your own way. In Jebya speak it means whatever will
        lead to power. Hillary sounds trite and poorly staged.

        Jeez, now Trump wants more attention...a big yawn.

        WMDMIA 15 Jun 2015 22:24

        His brother should be in prison for war crimes and crimes against Humanity. Jeb violated election laws to put his brother in office so he is also responsible for turning this nation into a terrorist country.

        ExcaliburDefender -> Zenit2 15 Jun 2015 22:03

        No $hit $herlock, he met his wife when they were both 17, in MEXICO. Jeb has a degree in Latin Studies too.

        Just vote, the Tea Party always does.

        :<)

        ExcaliburDefender 15 Jun 2015 22:01

        Jeb may very well be the most qualified of the GOP, and he can speak intelligently on immigration, if his campaign/RNC would allow it.

        Too bad we don't have other GOPers like Huntsman and even Steve Forbes, yes I enjoyed Forbes being part of the debates in 96, even voted for him in the primary. And not because I thought he would win, but I wanted him to be heard.

        Debates will be interesting, Trump is jumping in for the 4th time.

        #allvotesmatter

        fflambeau 15 Jun 2015 22:00

        The USA presidential campaign looks very much like a world wrestling match (one of those fake ones). Only the wrestlers are more intelligent.

        MisterMeaner 15 Jun 2015 21:59

        Jebya. Whoopty Goddam Doo.

        ponderwell 15 Jun 2015 21:52

        Jebby exclaimed: 'The country is going in the wrong direction'. Omitting the direction W Bush sent the U.S. into with false info. and willful intention to bomb Iraq for the sake of an egotistical purpose.

        And, the insane numerous disasters W sponsored. The incorrigible Bush Clan !

        benluk 15 Jun 2015 21:49

        Jeb Bush, "In this country of ours, most improbable things can happen," Jeb Bush

        But not as improbable as letting another war mongering Bush in the White House.

        gilbertratchet -> BehrHunter 15 Jun 2015 21:42

        Indeed, and it seems that Bush III thinks it's a virtue not a problem:

        "In this country of ours, most improbable things can happen," began Bush. "And that's from the guy who met his first president on the day he was born and his second on the day he was brought home from the hospital..."

        No Jeb, that would be improbable for me. For you it was a normal childhood day. But it's strange you're pushing the "born to rule" angle. I guess it's those highly paid consultants who tell you that you have to own the issue before it defines you.

        Guess what... No amount of spin will change your last name.

        gorianin 15 Jun 2015 21:35

        Jeb Bush already fixed one election. Now he's looking to "fix" the country.

        seasonedsenior 15 Jun 2015 21:29

        Stop calling him Jeb. Sounds folksy and everyman like. His name is John E. Bush. And he's from a family of billionaires. Don't let him pull a what's-her-name in Spokane. He was a rich baby, child, young man, Governor ...on and on and is completely out of touch with the common man.

        He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and his sensibilities are built of money gained off the backs of the workers of this country. He is big oil to his core.

        Caesar Ol 15 Jun 2015 21:27

        Jeb is the dumbest of all the Bushes. Therefore the most dangerous as someone will manipulate him the way that Cheney did with Bush.

        ChelsieGreen 15 Jun 2015 21:27

        Interesting thing is that Bush is old school Republican, spend big, be the power to the world.

        Since his brother/father left office the party moved on, Tea Party may have faded slightly but they are not big spenders, they are small government. Jeb will have trouble making a mark in the early states to be the nominee, he is considered center-right.

        The right wing of the party thinks where they slipped up was not nominating someone right-wing enough, they will portray him as weak on immigration and chew him up.


        Brookstone1 15 Jun 2015 21:11

        America has been wounded badly by the reckless and stupidity of the Republicans under the leadership of G. W. Bush. And now it would be a DEADLY MISTAKE to even ponder about voting Republican again, let alone voting for another Bush! The Bush family has nothing in common with ordinary Americans!

        NO MORE BUSH!!!

        nubwaxer 15 Jun 2015 21:03

        i heard his punchlines about "fixing" america to get us back to free enterprise and freedom. dear jeb, we know what you mean and free enterprise is code for corporatism run wild and repeal of regulations. similarly when you say freedom you mean that for rich white males and right to work laws, union busting, repeal of minimum wage laws, no paid vacation or maternity leave and especially the freedom to go bankrupt, suffer, and die for lack of health care insurance. more like freedumb.

        Xoxarle -> sitarlun 15 Jun 2015 20:33

        All candidates are promising change and yet are funded by those who don't want change.

        All candidates are promising defeat of ISIS and yet voted for or presided over or agreed with military aggression in the ME and tactics that helped create the instability in Iraq that led to ISIS.

        All candidates are promising to strengthen the middle classes and yet support tax cuts (benefiting the rich), trade agreements (benefiting the rich), deregulation (benefiting the rich), and are funded by industries that impoverish the working and middle classes and keep wages stagnant.

        All candidates are promising bipartisanship and yet are part of the dysfunction in DC, pandering to special interests or extreme factions that reject compromise.

        ID6995146 15 Jun 2015 20:33

        Another Saudi hand-holder and arse licker.


        OlavVI -> catch18 15 Jun 2015 20:24

        And he's already got Wolfowitz, one of the worst war mongers (ala Cheney) in US history as an adviser. Probably dreaming up several wars for Halliburton, et al., to rake up billions of $$$$ from the poor (the rich pretty much get off in the US).

        concious 15 Jun 2015 20:20

        USA chant is Nationalism, not Patriotism. Is this John Ellis Bush really going to get votes?

        sitarlun 15 Jun 2015 20:02

        Most Americans are addicted , with help from the media, to those who like to drag them to wars and fuck their economy for the sake of the rich and powerful.

        And the sad truth is that there is not much difference between Democrats such as Clinton and the GOP bunch that have announced their presidential intentions.

        There is no hope as long as big money is involved in choosing leadership for a country that boasts about democracy and democratic values while it's institutions are under assault by corrupt rich and powerful.

        OurPlanet -> briteblonde1 15 Jun 2015 19:34

        He's a great "fixer" Him and his tribe in Florida certainly fixed those chads for his brother's election success in 2000. A truly rich family of oilmen . What could be better? Possibly facing if inaugerated as the GOP nominee to face the possibly successful Democrat nominee Clinton. So the choice of 2016 menu for American election year is 2 Fish that stink. Welcome to the American Plutocracy.

        Sam Ahmed 15 Jun 2015 19:23

        I wonder if the state of Florida will try "Fix" the vote count for Jeb as they did for Georgie. I wonder if the Republicans can "Fix" their own party. You know what, I don't want the Republican party to think I'm bashing them, so I'll request a major tune up for Hillary Clinton too. Smiles all around! =)

        Cyan Eyed 15 Jun 2015 18:48

        A family linked to weapons manufacturers through Harriman.
        A family linked to weapons dealing through Carlyle.
        A family linked to the formation of terrorist networks (including Al Qaeda).
        A family linked to an attempted coup on America.
        The right-wing is incredibly stupid if Bush is their nominee.

        davshev 15 Jun 2015 18:43

        Bush may speak Spanish and come across as Latino friendly, but the reality is that he's the son of one of the most powerful families in the US. As a conservative Republican, his first priority is to the powerful elite.

        [Jun 16, 2015] Hillary Clinton ducks questions on trade deals during New Hampshire visit

        Notable quotes:
        "... But, listen, lets review the rules. Heres how it works: the president makes decisions. Hes the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction! ..."
        "... The media is still a bunch of stenographers for the WH and even now the WH candidates. ..."
        "... She was part of the Obama/Biden administration that expanded Afghanistan war, attacked Libya, intervened in Syria and Yemen, relaunched the Iraq war, used Ukraine to provoke Russia and is being provocative with China by interfering in South China Sea. ..."
        "... Lets face it. Wall Street and the military industrial complex control BOTH parties, and are especially bonded with and beholding to Hillary Clinton. ..."
        "... You have to remember that to the financial elites who are backing Republicans - and Obama - middle class means anyone whos in the top 5% of the economic pyramid but hasnt made it into the top 1% because theyre too damned lazy. ..."
        Jun 15, 2015 | The Guardian

        FugitiveColors 15 Jun 2015 23:52

        She can talk til her pantsuit turns blue.
        I have already decided that my ballot will have Bernie Sanders on it one way or another.
        I don't believe her. I don't like her, and I damn sure won't vote for her.
        She is a blue corporate stooge and not much different than a red corporate stooge.
        Bernie is honest and after all of those years in politics, he is not rich.
        You can't say that about a single other candidate.


        libbyliberal -> Timothy Everton 15 Jun 2015 23:47

        Yo, Timothy, Paul Street recently reminded his readers of part of Colbert's speech at the Correspondents' Dinner way back in 2006 (time flies while we're sinking into fascism):

        "But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!"

        Timothy Everton -> enlightenedgirl 15 Jun 2015 22:36

        Sorry Not-so-enlightenedgirl. WE don't elect government officials, and we don't pay them for "not putting the screws to us". They get elected, paid, and influenced by lobbyists for the wealthy one percent, and by the corporations, who both fund their campaigns for future favors rendered. Those with the most funding for the prettiest and most abundant campaign ads are those elected. And yes, they DO put the screws to us, the American public. This woman is more a puppet for those interests than some Republicans.

        Timothy Everton -> libbyliberal 15 Jun 2015 22:11

        "The media is still a bunch of stenographers for the WH and even now the WH candidates."

        Sorry libby, I don't see them crowding around Bernie Sanders, the only viable candidate FOR the AVERAGE American. In fact, I believe he had more "press time" before he became a candidate.

        That is the way it goes here though. Get an honest candidate who speaks her/his mind, and you get no press coverage - way too dangerous for those who actually control our government through lobbyists.


        libbyliberal 15 Jun 2015 21:42

        What is this business about Hillary NOT "taking the bait" of a reporter's questions? Hillary needs to be challenged and not be the one in control with her gobsmackingly well-funded pr info-mercial steamrolling her presidential challenge.

        The media is still a bunch of stenographers for the WH and even now the WH candidates. This is what THEY say their policy is and will be. Not critical thinking of the journalist, no connecting of the dots, to be applied?

        Their talk sure is cheap and seductive. Obama gave us major lessons in that in 2008 and again in 2012. More nicey-nice sounding bull-sh*t that is vague or downright mendacious to the realpolitik agenda.

        Hillary wants to talk about what is convenient and safe for her. Identity politics. Generalized populist feel-good rhetoric. Nothing substantial with the globalized and corporatized trade deals OR the massive violent US-sponsored or direct militarism around the globe.

        Hillary's NYC Four Freedoms Park speech: lack of mention of foreign policy except for some threats on China, Russia, N. Korea and Iran. No mention of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Afghanistan. No mention of drone warfare. No mention of NSA surveillance. No mention of police violence.

        She was part of the Obama/Biden administration that expanded Afghanistan war, attacked Libya, intervened in Syria and Yemen, relaunched the Iraq war, used Ukraine to provoke Russia and is being provocative with China by interfering in South China Sea.

        Hillary skipped addressing the inconvenient and the media and her fan base had no problem with such gobsmacking omissions. Hillary decides that the US citizenry doesn't want to focus on foreign policy and she ramps up vague populist rhetoric like Obama did back in 2008 to convince the citizenry she is their champion even though she personally has amassed over $100 million from her financial elite cronies over the decades and if you think that fortune has no influence on who she is championing there's a bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn you should look into buying.

        Let's face it. Wall Street and the military industrial complex control BOTH parties, and are especially bonded with and beholding to Hillary Clinton.


        Vladimir Makarenko -> enlightenedgirl 15 Jun 2015 19:19

        "diplomacy so badly needed after the disastrous term of Bush and Cheney and their destruction of the Middle East." If anything she extended B & Ch policies by destroying Libya and turning it in a murderous breeding ground for Islamic ultras. She was at helm of arming Syrian "opposition" better known today as ISIS.

        Her record as a Secretary is dismal - line by line no achievements, no solved problems but disaster by disaster.

        talenttruth 15 Jun 2015 18:34

        If the Democratic party nominates the "inevitable" Hillary Clinton, rather than someone real who ACTUALLY represents the middle class, tells the truth and is NOT part of the "corporately bought-and-sold" insider group, then it will be heads-or-tails whether she wins or one of the totally insane, whack-job Republi-saur candidates wins.

        If she keeps on doing what she's been doing, she will LOOK just like those arrogant "insiders" the Republicans claim her to be (despite the fact that they are FAR FAR FAR worse, but much better at lying about that than any Democrat). Hillary is a VERY VERY WEAK candidate, because the huge "middle" of decent Americans is looking for real change, and not -- as well -- a Republican change WAY for the worse.

        This Election is the Democratic Party's to LOSE. Hillary could make that happen (no matter how much worse ANY Republican victor will likely be). What a choice.

        sour_mash -> goatrider 15 Jun 2015 18:09

        "...why doesn't the disgusting American media ask the Republicans who support it to explain themselves too. Why are they so eager to join Obama in destroying the American middle class?"

        After +6 years of the then Republican Party, now known as the Christian Jihad Party or CJP, making Obama a one term president it smells to high heaven that they now agree on this single issue.

        Yes, where are the questions.

        Whitt 15 Jun 2015 18:03

        Because they're not "destroying the American middle class". You have to remember that to the financial elites who are backing Republicans - and Obama - "middle class" means anyone who's in the top 5% of the economic pyramid but hasn't made it into the top 1% because they're too damned lazy.

        [Jun 16, 2015] Jeb Bush's campaign debut: protester showdown met with chants of 'USA'

        Notable quotes:
        "... sandra oconnor is actually on record saying that she would do anything to get bush elected. ..."
        "... All candidates are promising change and yet are funded by those who dont want change. All candidates are promising defeat of ISIS and yet voted for or presided over or agreed with military aggression in the ME and tactics that helped create the instability in Iraq that led to ISIS. All candidates are promising to strengthen the middle classes and yet support tax cuts (benefiting the rich), trade agreements (benefiting the rich), deregulation (benefiting the rich), and are funded by industries that impoverish the working and middle classes and keep wages stagnant. ..."
        "... Most Americans are addicted , with help from the media, to those who like to drag them to wars and fuck their economy for the sake of the rich and powerful. And the sad truth is that there is not much difference between Democrats such as Clinton and the GOP bunch that have announced their presidential intentions. There is no hope as long as big money is involved in choosing leadership for a country that boasts about democracy and democratic values while its institutions are under assault by corrupt rich and powerful. ..."
        "... The right-wing is incredibly stupid if Bush is their nominee. ..."
        "... Bush may speak Spanish and come across as Latino friendly, but the reality is that hes the son of one of the most powerful families in the US. As a conservative Republican, his first priority is to the powerful elite. ..."
        Jun 15, 2015 | The Guardian

        eileen1 -> mabcalif 15 Jun 2015 23:48

        Neither a Bush nor a Clinton. They're both poisonous in different ways.

        eileen1 -> WMDMIA 15 Jun 2015 23:47

        There is no difference between Bush and Obama, except Obama is smarter and more devious.

        redbanana33 -> mabcalif 15 Jun 2015 23:27

        "are you really suggesting we forget this piece of history simply because bush won by corruption and connivance?"

        No, I never said I believed there was corruption and connivance. Those are your words. Your personal opinion. MY words were that if more voters had wanted Gore as their president, he would have won. As it was, he couldn't even carry his home state. Sometimes the truth is hard to face and so we make excuses for what we perceive as injustice, when, in reality, more people just didn't think like you did in that election. But blame the court (bet you can't even clearly state what the case points they were asked to consider, without googling it) and blame the Clintons and even blame poor Ralph for your guy's lack of popularity. If it makes you feel better, go for it. It won't change the past.

        And, speaking of presidents winning by a hair's breadth, shall we talk about how Joe Kennedy bribed his way to electing his son? Hmmmm? Except that even the crook Nixon had enough class to concede rather than drag the country through months of misery like your hero did.

        mabcalif -> redbanana33 15 Jun 2015 22:50

        there have been more than one excellent president who's won that office only by a hair's breadth.

        are you really suggesting we forget this piece of history simply because bush won by corruption and connivance? particularly when the outcome was so disastrous for the country and the world?

        it wasn't a question of being more popular, it's a question of being overwhelmed by the clinton scandal, a brother governor willing to throw the state's votes and by a supreme court that was arrayed against him (sandra o'connor is actually on record saying that she would do anything to get bush elected.) not to mention a quixotic exercise in third party politics with a manifestly inadequate candidate that had no foreign policy experience

        Otuocha11 -> redbanana33 15 Jun 2015 22:43

        Yes some people need to be reminded, especially about the falsification/lies completing the 2009 voter-registration form.

        bishoppeter4 15 Jun 2015 22:39

        Jeb and his father and brother ought to be in jail !

        Otuocha11 -> redbanana33 15 Jun 2015 22:38

        His point is that "No more president with the name BUSH" in the White House. He can change his name to something like Moron or Terrone. Let him drop that name because Americans have NOT and will NOT recover from the regime of the last Bush.

        redbanana33 -> Con Mc Cusker 15 Jun 2015 22:30

        Then (respectfully) the rest of the world needs to grow some balls, get up off their asses, define their vision, and strike out on their own as controllers of their own destinies.

        After that, you'll have the right to criticize my country. Right now you don't have that right. Get off the wagon and help pull it.

        ponderwell -> Peter Ciurczak 15 Jun 2015 22:25

        Politics is about maneuvering to get your own way. In Jebya speak it means whatever will
        lead to power. Hillary sounds trite and poorly staged.

        Jeez, now Trump wants more attention...a big yawn.

        WMDMIA 15 Jun 2015 22:24

        His brother should be in prison for war crimes and crimes against Humanity. Jeb violated election laws to put his brother in office so he is also responsible for turning this nation into a terrorist country.

        ExcaliburDefender -> Zenit2 15 Jun 2015 22:03

        No $hit $herlock, he met his wife when they were both 17, in MEXICO. Jeb has a degree in Latin Studies too.

        Just vote, the Tea Party always does.

        :<)

        ExcaliburDefender 15 Jun 2015 22:01

        Jeb may very well be the most qualified of the GOP, and he can speak intelligently on immigration, if his campaign/RNC would allow it.

        Too bad we don't have other GOPers like Huntsman and even Steve Forbes, yes I enjoyed Forbes being part of the debates in 96, even voted for him in the primary. And not because I thought he would win, but I wanted him to be heard.

        Debates will be interesting, Trump is jumping in for the 4th time.

        #allvotesmatter

        fflambeau 15 Jun 2015 22:00

        The USA presidential campaign looks very much like a world wrestling match (one of those fake ones). Only the wrestlers are more intelligent.

        MisterMeaner 15 Jun 2015 21:59

        Jebya. Whoopty Goddam Doo.

        ponderwell 15 Jun 2015 21:52

        Jebby exclaimed: 'The country is going in the wrong direction'. Omitting the direction W Bush sent the U.S. into with false info. and willful intention to bomb Iraq for the sake of an egotistical purpose.

        And, the insane numerous disasters W sponsored. The incorrigible Bush Clan !

        benluk 15 Jun 2015 21:49

        Jeb Bush, "In this country of ours, most improbable things can happen," Jeb Bush

        But not as improbable as letting another war mongering Bush in the White House.

        gilbertratchet -> BehrHunter 15 Jun 2015 21:42

        Indeed, and it seems that Bush III thinks it's a virtue not a problem:

        "In this country of ours, most improbable things can happen," began Bush. "And that's from the guy who met his first president on the day he was born and his second on the day he was brought home from the hospital..."

        No Jeb, that would be improbable for me. For you it was a normal childhood day. But it's strange you're pushing the "born to rule" angle. I guess it's those highly paid consultants who tell you that you have to own the issue before it defines you.

        Guess what... No amount of spin will change your last name.

        gorianin 15 Jun 2015 21:35

        Jeb Bush already fixed one election. Now he's looking to "fix" the country.

        seasonedsenior 15 Jun 2015 21:29

        Stop calling him Jeb. Sounds folksy and everyman like. His name is John E. Bush. And he's from a family of billionaires. Don't let him pull a what's-her-name in Spokane. He was a rich baby, child, young man, Governor ...on and on and is completely out of touch with the common man.

        He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and his sensibilities are built of money gained off the backs of the workers of this country. He is big oil to his core.

        Caesar Ol 15 Jun 2015 21:27

        Jeb is the dumbest of all the Bushes. Therefore the most dangerous as someone will manipulate him the way that Cheney did with Bush.

        ChelsieGreen 15 Jun 2015 21:27

        Interesting thing is that Bush is old school Republican, spend big, be the power to the world.

        Since his brother/father left office the party moved on, Tea Party may have faded slightly but they are not big spenders, they are small government. Jeb will have trouble making a mark in the early states to be the nominee, he is considered center-right.

        The right wing of the party thinks where they slipped up was not nominating someone right-wing enough, they will portray him as weak on immigration and chew him up.


        Brookstone1 15 Jun 2015 21:11

        America has been wounded badly by the reckless and stupidity of the Republicans under the leadership of G. W. Bush. And now it would be a DEADLY MISTAKE to even ponder about voting Republican again, let alone voting for another Bush! The Bush family has nothing in common with ordinary Americans!

        NO MORE BUSH!!!

        nubwaxer 15 Jun 2015 21:03

        i heard his punchlines about "fixing" america to get us back to free enterprise and freedom. dear jeb, we know what you mean and free enterprise is code for corporatism run wild and repeal of regulations. similarly when you say freedom you mean that for rich white males and right to work laws, union busting, repeal of minimum wage laws, no paid vacation or maternity leave and especially the freedom to go bankrupt, suffer, and die for lack of health care insurance. more like freedumb.

        Xoxarle -> sitarlun 15 Jun 2015 20:33

        All candidates are promising change and yet are funded by those who don't want change.

        All candidates are promising defeat of ISIS and yet voted for or presided over or agreed with military aggression in the ME and tactics that helped create the instability in Iraq that led to ISIS.

        All candidates are promising to strengthen the middle classes and yet support tax cuts (benefiting the rich), trade agreements (benefiting the rich), deregulation (benefiting the rich), and are funded by industries that impoverish the working and middle classes and keep wages stagnant.

        All candidates are promising bipartisanship and yet are part of the dysfunction in DC, pandering to special interests or extreme factions that reject compromise.

        ID6995146 15 Jun 2015 20:33

        Another Saudi hand-holder and arse licker.


        OlavVI -> catch18 15 Jun 2015 20:24

        And he's already got Wolfowitz, one of the worst war mongers (ala Cheney) in US history as an adviser. Probably dreaming up several wars for Halliburton, et al., to rake up billions of $$$$ from the poor (the rich pretty much get off in the US).

        concious 15 Jun 2015 20:20

        USA chant is Nationalism, not Patriotism. Is this John Ellis Bush really going to get votes?

        sitarlun 15 Jun 2015 20:02

        Most Americans are addicted , with help from the media, to those who like to drag them to wars and fuck their economy for the sake of the rich and powerful.

        And the sad truth is that there is not much difference between Democrats such as Clinton and the GOP bunch that have announced their presidential intentions.

        There is no hope as long as big money is involved in choosing leadership for a country that boasts about democracy and democratic values while it's institutions are under assault by corrupt rich and powerful.

        OurPlanet -> briteblonde1 15 Jun 2015 19:34

        He's a great "fixer" Him and his tribe in Florida certainly fixed those chads for his brother's election success in 2000. A truly rich family of oilmen . What could be better? Possibly facing if inaugerated as the GOP nominee to face the possibly successful Democrat nominee Clinton. So the choice of 2016 menu for American election year is 2 Fish that stink. Welcome to the American Plutocracy.

        Sam Ahmed 15 Jun 2015 19:23

        I wonder if the state of Florida will try "Fix" the vote count for Jeb as they did for Georgie. I wonder if the Republicans can "Fix" their own party. You know what, I don't want the Republican party to think I'm bashing them, so I'll request a major tune up for Hillary Clinton too. Smiles all around! =)

        Cyan Eyed 15 Jun 2015 18:48

        A family linked to weapons manufacturers through Harriman.
        A family linked to weapons dealing through Carlyle.
        A family linked to the formation of terrorist networks (including Al Qaeda).
        A family linked to an attempted coup on America.
        The right-wing is incredibly stupid if Bush is their nominee.

        davshev 15 Jun 2015 18:43

        Bush may speak Spanish and come across as Latino friendly, but the reality is that he's the son of one of the most powerful families in the US. As a conservative Republican, his first priority is to the powerful elite.

        [Jun 15, 2015] Five Reasons the MI6 Story is a Lie

        June 14, 2015 | Craig Murray

        by craig on 10:06 am in Uncategorized

        The Sunday Times has a story claiming that Snowden's revelations have caused danger to MI6 and disrupted their operations. Here are five reasons it is a lie.

        1) The alleged Downing Street source is quoted directly in italics. Yet the schoolboy mistake is made of confusing officers and agents. MI6 is staffed by officers. Their informants are agents. In real life, James Bond would not be a secret agent. He would be an MI6 officer. Those whose knowledge comes from fiction frequently confuse the two. Nobody really working with the intelligence services would do so, as the Sunday Times source does. The story is a lie.

        2) The argument that MI6 officers are at danger of being killed by the Russians or Chinese is a nonsense. No MI6 officer has been killed by the Russians or Chinese for 50 years. The worst that could happen is they would be sent home. Agents' – generally local people, as opposed to MI6 officers – identities would not be revealed in the Snowden documents. Rule No.1 in both the CIA and MI6 is that agents' identities are never, ever written down, neither their names nor a description that would allow them to be identified. I once got very, very severely carpeted for adding an agents' name to my copy of an intelligence report in handwriting, suggesting he was a useless gossip and MI6 should not be wasting their money on bribing him. And that was in post communist Poland, not a high risk situation.

        3) MI6 officers work under diplomatic cover 99% of the time. Their alias is as members of the British Embassy, or other diplomatic status mission. A portion are declared to the host country. The truth is that Embassies of different powers very quickly identify who are the spies in other missions. MI6 have huge dossiers on the members of the Russian security services – I have seen and handled them. The Russians have the same. In past mass expulsions, the British government has expelled 20 or 30 spies from the Russian Embassy in London. The Russians retaliated by expelling the same number of British diplomats from Moscow, all of whom were not spies! As a third of our "diplomats" in Russia are spies, this was not coincidence. This was deliberate to send the message that they knew precisely who the spies were, and they did not fear them.

        4) This anti Snowden non-story – even the Sunday Times admits there is no evidence anybody has been harmed – is timed precisely to coincide with the government's new Snooper's Charter act, enabling the security services to access all our internet activity. Remember that GCHQ already has an archive of 800,000 perfectly innocent British people engaged in sex chats online.

        5) The paper publishing the story is owned by Rupert Murdoch. It is sourced to the people who brought you the dossier on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, every single "fact" in which proved to be a fabrication. Why would you believe the liars now?

        There you have five reasons the story is a lie.

        Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.

        [Jun 15, 2015]Bilderberg 2015: TTIP and a travesty of transparency

        "...This makes perfect sense since the mainstream media gives us no real news. Just the news they are given."
        .
        "..."The way Bilderberg hide is stupid, like naughty children." I would suggest it is more like organised criminals - naughty children tend not to have armed guards and private aircraft, in my experience."
        .
        "...is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."
        .
        "...Western leaders and their media mouthpieces continually brandish the hooray term "Western liberal democratic capitalism" as a stick with which to beat China and Russia."
        .
        "..."The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. " -Franklin D. Roosevelt, "Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Recommendations Relative to the Strengthening and Enforcement of Anti-trust Laws" "
        .
        "...This is no joke kidz. The more we remain ignorant of these globalist oligarch think tanks, the closer we get to a fascist police state. "
        Jun 14, 2015 | The Guardian
        Christopher Mark Wingate 14 Jun 2015 20:17

        Those of us who have actually been in the front lines of government know there is zero accountability, transparency or democracy. I feel ashamed to have ever trusted our western systems of democracy. No wonder there has been disgust at USA Foreign policy.

        DrBill 14 Jun 2015 19:37

        I counted eight attendees from news organizations, ten if you include Google. This makes perfect sense since the mainstream media gives us no real news. Just the news they are given.

        Metreemewall DT48 14 Jun 2015 17:01

        How do you think a mediocre Portuguese politician became Prime-Minister and then, EU Commissioner?

        Celtiberico 14 Jun 2015 15:24

        "The way Bilderberg hide is stupid, like naughty children."

        I would suggest it is more like organised criminals - naughty children tend not to have armed guards and private aircraft, in my experience.

        franklin100 -> Pazoozoo 14 Jun 2015 15:15

        A Britsh MP has a salary of about £85k plus expenses...large corporations have the cash to buy hundreds at a time directly and indirectly with promises of positions once they leave parliament.

        Alienated Electorate -> ChrisRust 14 Jun 2015 15:03

        Both Labour and the Conservatives support the EU, the fee market, and corporate business. Both will therefore back the trade deal.

        Marty Wolf -> kerjrk 14 Jun 2015 14:37

        Bilderberg makes it obvious that the one percent are only about power and money. The hell with what's right for the world of the rest of us. This kind of privilege is a contemptible hangover from the time of "we know best: just be quiet and trust us."

        siff Pazoozoo 14 Jun 2015 14:30

        '' is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. "

        That is why Government attend. Do try to keep up.

        siff 14 Jun 2015 14:14

        A very short article because you can't write about what you don't know about. A secret and sneaky bunch of people having a secret and sneaky meeting about a secret and sneaky trade deal.

        Democracy does not get any better than this.

        And as for 'Transparency International', once you stick the letters 'USA' on the end we know just how much that is worth.

        monsieur_flaneur 14 Jun 2015 12:46

        Western leaders and their media mouthpieces continually brandish the hooray term "Western liberal democratic capitalism" as a stick with which to beat China and Russia. But the only purpose of these erroneously described "trade deals" (TPA, TTIP and TISA) is to permanently remove any democratic obstacles to corporate profit.

        The hypocrisy is glaring and shameless, and nowhere more so than in the silence of those who endlessly fulminate about EU intrusions on UK parliamentary sovereignty.

        DT48 -> Triple750 14 Jun 2015 12:43

        Barroso is there also. I wonder what for?

        DT48 14 Jun 2015 12:31

        Here is the full list of attendees. http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants2015.html

        Including our very own technocrat Chancellor.

        14Juillet 14 Jun 2015 12:05

        This is government of, for and by the rich and powerful in action. Corporate power and profit runs governments all around the globe. This is the essence of fascism as described by FDR.

        Democracy is dead.

        "The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. "

        -Franklin D. Roosevelt, "Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Recommendations Relative to the Strengthening and Enforcement of Anti-trust Laws"

        Walter Alter 14 Jun 2015 11:30

        Google criticisms of the Bilderberg Society, Council on Foreign Relations, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, The Coefficient's Society, Mt. Perelin Society, Club of Rome, The 40's Committee, Cecil Rhodes "Round Table".

        Then put it all in perspective with this YouTube video:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq9yjt_JbWs.

        This is no joke kidz. The more we remain ignorant of these globalist oligarch think tanks, the closer we get to a fascist police state.

        [Jun 15, 2015] Snowden, Putin, Greece It's All The Same Story

        "...In short, the propaganda we should be worried about is not Russia's, it's our own. And it comes from just about every news article we're fed. We're much less than six degrees removed from Orwell."
        .
        "...Western journalists claim that the big lesson they learned from their key role in selling the Iraq War to the public is that it's hideous, corrupt and often dangerous journalism to give anonymity to government officials to let them propagandize the public, then uncritically accept those anonymously voiced claims as Truth. But they've learned no such lesson. That tactic continues to be the staple of how major US and British media outlets "report," especially in the national security area. And journalists who read such reports continue to treat self-serving decrees by unnamed, unseen officials – laundered through their media – as gospel, no matter how dubious are the claims or factually false is the reporting."
        Jun 15, 2015 | Zero Hedge

        Submitted by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

        Through the last decades, as we have been getting ever more occupied trying to be what society tells us is defined as successful, we all missed out on a lot of changes in our world. Or perhaps we should be gentle to ourselves and say we're simply slow to catch up.

        Which is somewhat curious since we've also been getting bombarded with fast increasing amounts of what we're told is information, so you'd think it might have become easier to keep up. It was not.

        While we were busy being busy we for instance were largely oblivious to the fact the US is no longer a beneficial force in the world, and that it doesn't spread democracy or freedom. Now you may argue to what extent that has ever been true, and you should, but the perception was arguably much closer to the truth 70 years ago, at the end of WWII, then it is today.

        Another change we really can't get our heads around is how the media have turned from a source of information to a source of – pre-fabricated – narratives. We'll all say to some extent or another that we know our press feeds us propaganda, but, again arguably, few of us are capable of pinpointing to what extent that is true. Perhaps no big surprise given the overdose of what passes for information, but duly noted.

        So far so good, you're not as smart as you think. Bummer. But still an easy one to deny in the private space of your own head. If you get undressed and stand in front of the mirror, though, maybe not as easy.

        What ails us is, I was going to say perfectly human, but let's stick with just human, and leave perfection alone. What makes us human is that it feels good to be protected, safe, and prosperous. Protected from evil and from hard times, by a military force, by a monetary fund, by a monetary union. It feels so good in fact that we don't notice when what's supposed to keep us safe turns against us.

        But it is what happens, time and again, and, once again arguably, ever more so. What we think the world looks like is increasingly shaped by fiction. Perhaps that means we live in dreamtime. Or nightmare time. Whatever you call it, it's not real. Pinching yourself is not going to help. Reading Orwell might.

        The Sunday Times ran a story today -which the entire world press parroted quasi verbatim- that claimed MI6 had felt compelled to call back some of its operatives from the 'field' because Russia and China had allegedly hacked into the encrypted files Edward Snowden allegedly carried with him to Russia (something Snowden denied on multiple occasions).

        Glenn Greenwald's take down of the whole thing is – for good reasons- far better than I could provide, and it's blistering, it leaves not a single shred of the article. Problem is, the die's been cast, and many more people read the Times and all the media who've reprinted its fiction, than do read Greenwald:

        The Sunday Times' Snowden Story Is Journalism At Its Worst

        Western journalists claim that the big lesson they learned from their key role in selling the Iraq War to the public is that it's hideous, corrupt and often dangerous journalism to give anonymity to government officials to let them propagandize the public, then uncritically accept those anonymously voiced claims as Truth. But they've learned no such lesson. That tactic continues to be the staple of how major US and British media outlets "report," especially in the national security area. And journalists who read such reports continue to treat self-serving decrees by unnamed, unseen officials – laundered through their media – as gospel, no matter how dubious are the claims or factually false is the reporting.

        We now have one of the purest examples of this dynamic. Last night, the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times published their lead front-page Sunday article, headlined "British Spies Betrayed to Russians and Chinese." Just as the conventional media narrative was shifting to pro-Snowden sentiment in the wake of a key court ruling and a new surveillance law, the article claims in the first paragraph that these two adversaries "have cracked the top-secret cache of files stolen by the fugitive US whistleblower Edward Snowden, forcing MI6 to pull agents out of live operations in hostile countries, according to senior officials in Downing Street, the Home Office and the security services."

        Please read Greenwald's piece. It's excellent. Turns out the Times made it all up. At the same time, it's just one example of something much more expansive: the entire world view of the vast majority of Americans and Europeans, and that means you too, is weaved together from a smorgasbord of made-up stories, narratives concocted to make you see what someone else wants you to see.

        Last week, the Pew Research Center did a survey that was centered around the question what 'we' should do if a NATO ally were attacked by Russia. How Pew dare hold such a survey is for most people not even a valid question anymore, since the Putin as bogeyman tale, after a year and change, has taken root in 99% of western brains.

        And so the Pew question, devoid of reality as it may be, appears more legit than the question about why the question is asked in the first place. NATO didn't really like the results of the survey, but enough to thump some more chests. Here's from an otherwise wholly forgettable NY Times piece:

        Poles were most alarmed by Moscow's muscle flexing, with 70% saying that Russia was a major military threat. Germany, a critical American ally in the effort to forge a Ukraine peace settlement, was at the other end of the spectrum. Only 38% of Germans said that Russia was a danger to neighboring countries aside from Ukraine, and only 29% blamed Russia for the violence in Ukraine. Consequently, 58% of Germans do not believe that their country should use force to defend another NATO ally. Just 19% of Germans say NATO weapons should be sent to the Ukrainian government to help it better contend with Russian and separatist attacks.

        Do we need to repeat that Russia didn't attack Ukraine? That if after all this time there is still zero proof for that, perhaps it's time to let go of that idea?

        Over the past week, there have been numerous reports of NATO 'strengthening' its presence in Eastern Europe and the Baltics. Supposedly to deter Russian aggression in the region. For which there is no evidence. But if you ask people if NATO should act if one of its allies were attacked, you put the idea in people's heads that such an attack is a real risk. And that's the whole idea.

        This crazy piece from the Guardian provides a very good example of how the mood is manipulated:

        US And Poland In Talks Over Weapons Deployment In Eastern Europe

        The US and Poland are discussing the deployment of American heavy weapons in eastern Europe in response to Russian expansionism and sabre-rattling in the region in what represents a radical break with post-cold war military planning. The Polish defence ministry said on Sunday that Washington and Warsaw were in negotiations about the permanent stationing of US battle tanks and other heavy weaponry in Poland and other countries in the region as part of NATO's plans to develop rapid deployment "Spearhead" forces aimed at deterring Kremlin attempts to destabilise former Soviet bloc countries now entrenched inside NATO and the EU.

        Warsaw said that a decision whether to station heavy US equipment at warehouses in Poland would be taken soon. NATO's former supreme commander in Europe, American admiral James Stavridis, said the decision marked "a very meaningful policy shift", amid eastern European complaints that western Europe and the US were lukewarm about security guarantees for countries on the frontline with Russia following Vladimir Putin's seizure of parts of Ukraine. "It provides a reasonable level of reassurance to jittery allies, although nothing is as good as troops stationed full time on the ground, of course," the retired admiral told the New York Times.

        NATO has been accused of complacency in recent years. The Russian president's surprise attacks on Ukraine have shocked western military planners into action. An alliance summit in Wales last year agreed quick deployments of NATO forces in Poland and the Baltic states. German mechanised infantry crossed into Poland at the weekend after thousands of NATO forces inaugurated exercises as part of the new buildup in the east. Wary of antagonising Moscow's fears of western "encirclement" and feeding its well-oiled propaganda effort, which regularly asserts that NATO agreed at the end of the cold war not to station forces in the former Warsaw Pact countries, NATO has declined to establish permanent bases in the east.

        It's downright borderline criminally tragic that NATO claims it's building up its presence in the region as a response to Russian actions. What actions? Nothing was going on until 'we' supported a coup in Kiev, installed a puppet government and let them wage war on their own citizens. That war killed a lot of people. And if Kiev has any say in the matter, it ain't over by a long shot. Poroshenko and Yats still want it all back. So does NATO.

        When signing a post-cold war strategic cooperation pact with Russia in 1997, Nato pledged not to station ground forces permanently in eastern Europe "in the current and foreseeable security environment". But that environment has been transformed by Putin's decision to invade and annex parts of Ukraine and the 1997 agreement is now seen as obsolete.

        Meanwhile, Russia re-took Crimea without a single shot being fired. But that is still what the western press calls aggression. Russia doesn't even deem to respond to 'our' innuendo, they feel there's nothing to be gained from that because 'our' stories have been pre-cooked and pre-chewed anyway. Something that we are going to greatly regret.

        There are all these alphabet soup organizations that were once set up with, one last time, arguably, good intentions, and that now invent narratives because A) they can and B) they need a reason to continue to exist. That is true for NATO, which should have been dismantled 25 years ago.

        It's true for the IMF, which was always only a tool for US domination. It's true for the CIA and FBI, which might keep you safe if that was their intent, but which really only function to keep themselves and their narrow group of paymasters safe.

        It's also true for political unions, like the US and EU. Let's leave the former alone for now, though much could be said and written about the gaping distance between what the Founding Fathers once envisioned for the nation and what it has since descended into.

        Still, that is a story for another day. When we can find our way through the web of narratives that holds it upright. Like the threat from Russia, the threat from China, the threat from all the factions in the Middle East the US itself (helped) set up.

        The EU is much younger, though its bureaucrats seem eager to catch up with America in fictitious web weaving. We humans stink at anything supra-national. We can have our societies cooperate, but as soon as we invent 'greater' units to incorporate that cooperation, things run off the rails, the wrong people grab power, and the weaker among us get sacrificed. And that is what's happening once again, entirely predictably, in Greece.

        That Spain's two largest cities, Barcelona and Madrid, have now sworn in far-left female mayors this week will only serve to make things harder for Athens. Brussels is under siege, and it will defend its territory as 'best' it can.

        What might influence matters, and not a little bit, is that Syriza's Audit Commission is poised to make public its findings on June 18, and that they yesterday revealed they have in their possession a 2010 IMF document that allegedly proves that the Fund knew back then, before the first bail-out, that the Memorandum would result in an increase in Greek debt.

        That's potentially incendiary information, because the Memorandum -and the bailout- were aimed specifically at decreasing the debt. That -again, allegedly- none of the EU nations have seen the document at the time -let's see how the spin machine makes that look- doesn't exactly make it any more acceptable.

        Nor of course does the fact that Greece's debt could and should have been restructured, according to the IMF's own people and 'standards', but wasn't until 2012, when the main European banks had been bailed out with what was subsequently shoved onto the shoulders of the Greek population, and had withdrawn their 'assets' from the country, a move that made Greece's position that much harder.

        The narrative being sold through the media in other eurozone nations is that Greece is to blame, that for instance German taxpayers are on the hook for Greek debts, while they're really on the hook for German banks' losing wagers (here's looking at you, Deutsche!). And that is, no matter how you twist it, not the same story. It's again just a narrative.

        Once more, and we've said it many times before, Brussels is toxic -and so is the IMF- and Greece should leave as soon as possible, as should Italy, Spain, Portugal. And we should all resist the spin-induced attempts to demonize Putin, Athens and China any further, and instead focus on the rotten apples in our own basket(s).

        In short, the propaganda we should be worried about is not Russia's, it's our own. And it comes from just about every news article we're fed. We're much less than six degrees removed from Orwell.

        [Jun 14, 2015] Bush and Hawkish Magical Thinking

        Notable quotes:
        "... t's usually not clear what hawks think would have discouraged Russian interference and intervention in Ukraine under the circumstances, but they seem to think that if only the U.S. had somehow been more assertive and more meddlesome there or in some other part of the world that the conflict would not have occurred or would not be as severe as it is. ..."
        Jun 14, 2015 | The American Conservative
        Jeb Bush made a familiar assertion during his visit to Poland:

        Bush seemed to suggest he would endorse a more muscular foreign policy, saying the perception of American retreat from the global stage in recent years had emboldened Russian President Vladimir Putin to commit aggression in Ukraine.

        "When there's doubt, when there's uncertainty, when we pull back, it creates less chance of a more peaceful world," Bush told reporters. "You're seeing the impact of that in Ukraine right now."

        Bush's remarks are what we expect from hawks, but they are useful in showing how they indulge in a sort of magical thinking when it comes to the U.S. role in the world. They take for granted that an activist and meddlesome U.S. foreign policy is stabilizing and contributes to peace and security, and so whenever there is conflict or upheaval somewhere it is attributed to insufficient U.S. meddling or to so-called "retreat." According to this view, the conflict in Ukraine didn't happen because the Ukrainian government was overthrown in an uprising and Russia then illegally seized territory in response, but because the U.S. was perceived to be "retreating" and this "emboldened" Russia. It's usually not clear what hawks think would have discouraged Russian interference and intervention in Ukraine under the circumstances, but they seem to think that if only the U.S. had somehow been more assertive and more meddlesome there or in some other part of the world that the conflict would not have occurred or would not be as severe as it is.

        This both greatly overrates the power and influence that the U.S. has over the events in other parts of the world, and it tries to reduce every foreign crisis or conflict to how it relates to others' perceptions of U.S. "leadership." Hawks always dismiss claims that other states are responding to past and present U.S. actions, but they are absolutely certain that other states' actions are invited by U.S. "inaction" or "retreat," even when the evidence for said "retreat" is completely lacking. The possibility that assertive U.S. actions may have made a conflict more likely or worse than it would otherwise be is simply never admitted. The idea that the U.S. role in the world had little or nothing to do with a conflict seems to be almost inconceivable to them.

        One of the many flaws with this way of looking at the world is that it holds the U.S. most responsible for conflicts that it did not magically prevent while refusing to accept any responsibility for the consequences of things that the U.S. has actually done. Viewing the world this way inevitably fails to take local conditions into account, it ignores the agency of the local actors, and it imagines that the U.S. possesses a degree of control over the rest of the world that it doesn't and can't have. Unsurprisingly, this distorted view of the world reliably produces very poor policy choices.

        [Jun 14, 2015] An Inconvenient Truth The Bush Administration Was a Disaster

        Jun 14, 2015 | The American Conservative

        Most Americans remember the Bush years as a period of expanding government, ruinous war, and economic collapse. They voted for Obama the first time as a repudiation of those developments. Many did so a second time because most Republicans continue to pretend that they never happened.

        [Jun 14, 2015] Bush and Hawkish Magical Thinking

        Notable quotes:
        "... t's usually not clear what hawks think would have discouraged Russian interference and intervention in Ukraine under the circumstances, but they seem to think that if only the U.S. had somehow been more assertive and more meddlesome there or in some other part of the world that the conflict would not have occurred or would not be as severe as it is. ..."
        Jun 14, 2015 | The American Conservative
        Jeb Bush made a familiar assertion during his visit to Poland:

        Bush seemed to suggest he would endorse a more muscular foreign policy, saying the perception of American retreat from the global stage in recent years had emboldened Russian President Vladimir Putin to commit aggression in Ukraine.

        "When there's doubt, when there's uncertainty, when we pull back, it creates less chance of a more peaceful world," Bush told reporters. "You're seeing the impact of that in Ukraine right now."

        Bush's remarks are what we expect from hawks, but they are useful in showing how they indulge in a sort of magical thinking when it comes to the U.S. role in the world. They take for granted that an activist and meddlesome U.S. foreign policy is stabilizing and contributes to peace and security, and so whenever there is conflict or upheaval somewhere it is attributed to insufficient U.S. meddling or to so-called "retreat." According to this view, the conflict in Ukraine didn't happen because the Ukrainian government was overthrown in an uprising and Russia then illegally seized territory in response, but because the U.S. was perceived to be "retreating" and this "emboldened" Russia. It's usually not clear what hawks think would have discouraged Russian interference and intervention in Ukraine under the circumstances, but they seem to think that if only the U.S. had somehow been more assertive and more meddlesome there or in some other part of the world that the conflict would not have occurred or would not be as severe as it is.

        This both greatly overrates the power and influence that the U.S. has over the events in other parts of the world, and it tries to reduce every foreign crisis or conflict to how it relates to others' perceptions of U.S. "leadership." Hawks always dismiss claims that other states are responding to past and present U.S. actions, but they are absolutely certain that other states' actions are invited by U.S. "inaction" or "retreat," even when the evidence for said "retreat" is completely lacking. The possibility that assertive U.S. actions may have made a conflict more likely or worse than it would otherwise be is simply never admitted. The idea that the U.S. role in the world had little or nothing to do with a conflict seems to be almost inconceivable to them.

        One of the many flaws with this way of looking at the world is that it holds the U.S. most responsible for conflicts that it did not magically prevent while refusing to accept any responsibility for the consequences of things that the U.S. has actually done. Viewing the world this way inevitably fails to take local conditions into account, it ignores the agency of the local actors, and it imagines that the U.S. possesses a degree of control over the rest of the world that it doesn't and can't have. Unsurprisingly, this distorted view of the world reliably produces very poor policy choices.

        [Jun 14, 2015] An Inconvenient Truth The Bush Administration Was a Disaster

        Jun 14, 2015 | The American Conservative

        Most Americans remember the Bush years as a period of expanding government, ruinous war, and economic collapse. They voted for Obama the first time as a repudiation of those developments. Many did so a second time because most Republicans continue to pretend that they never happened.

        [Jun 14, 2015]Czech media about G7: why does Putin need this farce

        http://inosmi.ru/overview/20150614/228573906.html#ixzz3d5Y4ajCh

        Discussion G7 summit one of the famous Czech supporters of Russian politics Jiří Vivagel (Jiří Vyvadil)wrote in Parlamentní listy that Vladimir Putin has nothing to do at this meeting

        In his opinion, today the G7 is not longer a group bringing together the most economically powerful countries of the world. Today, the G7 is the neoliberal ideology club of the Western world in its struggle against Russia and its allies which are forming "A Political East".

        Threats, allegations and support for the regime "dangerous lunatics" is all that west currently does. Russia should not participate in this farce, convinced Jiří Vivagel. The fact that Vladimir Putin does not allow himself to drag into the bellicose rhetoric of the West, gives hope that a local conflict will not grow into a global. In conclusion, the article Jiří Vivagel expresses hope that the jingoistic Western politicians from G7 soon runs out of power.

        A diametrically opposite view on the value and message of the G7 expressed on the portal Neviditelný pes (9.6) author under the pseudonym of Aston. In his view, the main purpose of the last meeting of leaders of the G7 countries - again to threaten Russia, including sanctions. Yes, possibly, Western sanctions are not too dangerous to RF, but that's no reason to mitigate or even cancel them.

        [Jun 14, 2015] Snowden files read by Russia and China: five questions for UK government

        The Guardian

        The government has an obligation to respond to the Sunday Times report that MI6 has been forced to pull agents out of live operations in hostile countries

        The Sunday Times produced what at first sight looked like a startling news story: Russia and China had gained access to the cache of top-secret documents leaked by former NSA contractor turned whistleblower Edward Snowden.

        Not only that, but as a result, Britain's overseas intelligence agency, the Secret Intelligence Service, better known as MI6, had been forced "to pull agents out of live operations in hostile countries".

        These are serious allegations and, as such, the government has an obligation to respond openly.

        The story is based on sources including "senior officials in Downing Street, the Home Office and the security services". The BBC said it had also also been briefed anonymously by a senior government official.

        Anonymous sources are an unavoidable part of reporting, but neither Downing Street nor the Home Office should be allowed to hide behind anonymity in this case.

        1. Is it true that Russia and China have gained access to Snowden's top-secret documents? If so, where is the evidence?

        Which cache of documents is the UK government talking about? Snowden has said he handed tens of thousands of leaked documents over to journalists he met in Hong Kong, and that he has not had them in his possession since. Have Russia and China managed to access documents held by one of the journalists or their companies?

        In addition, if agents had to be moved, why? Which Snowden documents allegedly compromised them to the extent they had to be forcibly removed from post?

        2. Why have the White House and the US intelligence agencies not raised this?

        Snowden is wanted by the US on charges under the Espionage Act. The White House, the US intelligence agencies and especially some members of Congress have been desperate to blacken Snowden's reputation. They have gone through his personal life and failed to come up with a single damaging detail.

        If the UK were to have evidence that Russia and China had managed to penetrate his document cache or that agents had been forced to move, London would have shared this with Washington. The White House would have happily briefed this openly, as would any number of Republican – and even Democratic – members of Congress close to the security services. They would not have stinted. It would have been a full-blown press conference.

        Related: UK under pressure to respond to latest Edward Snowden claims

        The debate in the US has become more grownup in recent months, with fewer scare stories and more interest in introducing reforms that will redress the balance between security and privacy, but there are still many in Congress and the intelligence agencies seeking vengeance.

        3. Why have these claims emerged now?

        Most the allegations have been made before in some form, only to fall apart when scrutinised. These include that Snowden was a Chinese spy and, when he ended up in Moscow, that he was a Russian spy or was at least cooperating with them. The US claimed 56 plots had been disrupted as a result of surveillance, but under pressure acknowledged this was untrue.

        The claim about agents being moved was first made in the UK 18 months ago, along with allegations that Snowden had helped terrorists evade surveillance and, as a result, had blood on his hands. Both the US and UK have since acknowledged no one has been harmed.

        So why now? One explanation is that it is partly in response to Thursday's publication of David Anderson's 373-page report on surveillance. David Cameron asked the QC to conduct an independent review and there is much in it for the government and intelligence services to like, primarily about retaining bulk data.

        Anderson is scathing, however, about the existing legal framework for surveillance, describing it as intolerable and undemocratic, and he has proposed that the authority to approve surveillance warrants be transferred from the foreign and home secretaries to the judiciary.

        His proposal, along with another surveillance report out next month from the Royal United Services Institute, mean that there will be continued debate in the UK. There are also European court rulings pending. Web users' increasing use of encryption is another live issue. Above all else though, there is the backlash by internet giants such as Google, which appear to be less prepared to cooperate with the intelligence agencies, at least not those in the UK.

        The issue is not going away and the Sunday Times story may reflect a cack-handed attempt by some within the British security apparatus to try to take control of the narrative.

        4. Why is the Foreign Office not mentioned as a source?

        It seems like a pedantic point, but one that could offer an insight into the manoeuvring inside the higher reaches of government. The Foreign Office is repsonsible for MI6, but the Home Office is quoted in the story. Is it that the Home Office and individuals within the department rather than the Foreign Office are most exercised about the potential transfer of surveillance warrant approval from the home secretary, the proposed scrapping of existing legislation covering surveillance and other potential reforms?

        5. What about the debatable assertions and at least one totally inaccurate point in the Sunday Times piece?

        The Sunday Times says Snowden "fled to seek protection from Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, after mounting one of the largest leaks in US history". In fact he fled Hong Kong bound for Latin America, via Moscow and Cuba. The US revoked his passport, providing Russia with an excuse to hold him in transit.

        The Sunday Times says it is not clear whether Russia and China stole Snowden's data or "whether he voluntarily handed over his secret documents in order to remain at liberty in Hong Kong and Moscow". The latter is not possible if, as Snowden says, he gave all the documents to journalists in Hong Kong in June 2013.

        The Sunday Times also reports that "David Miranda, the boyfriend of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, was seized at Heathrow in 2013 in possession of 58,000 'highly-classified' intelligence documents after visiting Snowden in Moscow".

        This is inaccurate. Miranda had in fact been in Berlin seeing the film-maker Laura Poitras, not in Moscow visiting Snowden. It is not a small point.

        The claim about Miranda having been in Moscow first appeared in the Daily Mail in September under the headline "An intelligence expert's devastating verdict: Leaks by Edward Snowden and the Guardian have put British hostages in even greater peril". It was written by Professor Anthony Glees, the director of the centre for security and intelligence studies at the University of Buckingham, and has never been corrected. Maybe the Sunday Times can do better.

        [Jun 14, 2015]Pew Survey On Ukraine

        Jun 14, 2015 | M of A

        The PEW Research Center has a new opinion survey of several NATO countries and Russia with regards to the Ukraine conflict:

        Publics of key member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) blame Russia for the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Many also see Russia as a military threat to other neighboring states. But few support sending arms to Ukraine. Moreover, at least half of Germans, French and Italians say their country should not use military force to defend a NATO ally if attacked by Russia.

        ... the opinion Ukrainians have about the Nuland installed puppet government:

        Ukrainians give both their president and prime minister negative marks. A plurality disapproves of President Petro Poroshenko's job performance (43%), while just a third approves. A majority (60%) is unhappy with the way Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk is handling his job. Roughly half or more of eastern Ukrainians give Poroshenko (49%) and Yatsenyuk (66%) negative reviews. Western Ukrainians also give Yatsenyuk bad marks (55%) but are divided on Poroshenko (39% approve, 39% disapprove).

        PEW did not survey the people in the federalist held areas in the east. With those included the numbers for the Ukrainian government would be considerably worse. Given that the media in Ukraine are mostly in the hands of pro-western oligarchs these results are really quite bad. There was speculation some time ago that Nuland had planned to replace Poroshenko with the Scientology follower Yatsenyuk but given these numbers there is no longer a chance for such a move.

        Meanwhile the conflict in east Ukraine is flaring up again with Donetsk city again being under daily artillery fire from the Ukrainian government side. The summer in east Ukraine will likely get hot again.

        Selected Skeptical Comments

        Harold | Jun 10, 2015 11:42:00 AM | 1

        Is there any real evidence that Yatsenuk is a Scientologist beyond Wayne Madsen, who is not very believable?

        Oui | Jun 10, 2015 12:06:04 PM | 4

        Piece by Tony Ortega on Scientology and Yats. Yatsenyuk has also been linked to Obama follower Soros.

        Scientology and Soros don't mix, different sets of assets. ;-)

        thepanzer | Jun 10, 2015 1:20:09 PM | 7

        "But a war on Russia could become nuclear and then all bets are off even for those living on the western side of the Atlantic. Did no one tell them?"

        Americans are idiots. Even if someone did tell them I doubt it would register.

        bjorn richter | Jun 10, 2015 3:06:20 PM | 14

        Why are we not told ? Only 3% use of nuclear arsenal will create a global winter. No light, no growth, freezing temperatures. No way to hide. We would all starve or freeze to death. So simple. Check on the information while you are alive.

        Wayoutwest | Jun 10, 2015 3:57:27 PM | 15

        Reading polls is boring but setting off unstable Dynamite is fun and entertaining and surprisingly easy.

        psychohistorian | Jun 10, 2015 4:02:03 PM | 16

        If you are a current oligarch/plutocrat that is connected to family that has been in control of finance for centuries you know what is at stake and are probably willing to go nuclear to maintain the status quo. The oligarchs/plutocrats might even be willing to go nuclear as a first strike measure as the cumulative effects of Fukushima become apparent and retribution pressure starts to build.

        Russia , China and their friends are organizing to stand up to the oligarchs/plutocrats controlling bully America. The kabuki in the Ukraine is part of that stand up.

        The current global oligarchs and plutocrats are not necessarily American. The empire that America represents is the transnational power base of the Western world controlled by private finance which is owned by the oligarchs/plutocrats. Any country that deems itself beholding to the IMF and World Bank are puppets of empire.

        Life is short, eat dessert first. I thought for a while in my life that space exploration could be the growth frontier to keep the capitalist myth going but we seem to be despoiling ourselves and our home in a manner that reeks of extinction.

        Anonymous | Jun 10, 2015 4:05:08 PM | 17

        Must read:

        Western propaganda against Russia
        http://www.thenation.com/article/207689/neo-mccarthyism-and-us-media

        Laguerre | Jun 10, 2015 4:16:11 PM | 18

        You lot have forgotten what it might be like to to be nuked. I posted The "http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1kwz5u_the-war-game-peter-watkins-1965_tv"

        The War Game the other day. But that might be too British for you. I've ordered "Failsafe", more American, but haven't seen it yet. I don't think that "Dr. Strangelove" is ever likely to discourage US nuclear ambitions.

        Fran | Jun 10, 2015 4:26:17 PM | 21

        Scary!

        Obama Supporters Sign Petition to NUKE RUSSIA so America will Stay World's Superpower - YouTube

        Media analyst Mark Dice asked beachgoers in San Diego, California to sign a petition supporting President Obama's supposed plan to launch of preemptive nuclear attack against Russia to help keep the United States of America the world's leading superpower.

        The results are disturbing.

        tom | Jun 10, 2015 4:51:24 PM | 22

        The idea that those poll numbers against intervention would stay the same after a military attack is just silly.

        Support for intervention, more sanctions, political isolation from the west etc, would all rise highly In the polls of the people in such circumstances.

        Most of the people's fear and hate complex would immediately rise, and in the example of the Western people's concern against the Russians generally, they are ready to, if not already, think of Russia as the USSR.

        rufus magister | Jun 10, 2015 10:45:03 PM | 32

        Here's a gob of paste from which no one will learn anything, myself included.

        Some know-nothing college type says Obama Sacrifices Integrity Over Maidan Ukraine. This presumes he had any credibility after letting the banks off before he was even in office.

        You'll have to see for yourself what he says about our Beloved Nobel Laureate, but here's a teaser on Maidan.

        By no stretch of any reasonable imagination can it be considered that the imposition of new leadership in Kyiv was either democratic or constitutional.

        So if there was not a legal transition, what happened?

        If you examine the facts you will find it hard to disagree that a complete constitutional collapse occurred. The president was forced under threat of death to leave the country, and the democratically installed constitution was nullified.

        And what do you know, I didn't cut myself with the scissors! Well, this time, anyway....

        rufus magister | Jun 10, 2015 10:56:01 PM | 33

        Let's see if I can go two for two with the scissors.

        From The Daily Beast via New Cold War, Will Cathcart and Joseph Epstein ask, How many neo-Nazis is the U.S. backing in Ukraine?.

        For the Azov, it's not just a matter of the occasional very confused kid hung up on some twisted variant of the Nazi ideology who wants to enlist.... [T]here is a recurring history of Nazi ideology in the battalion that goes back to its founder, Andriy Biletsky, who pulled together the neo-Nazi group called the Social-National Assembly (SNA) in 2008.

        Last year, Biletsky and the SNA created the Azov Battalion as a volunteer militia. Both the battalion and the SNA sport what is essentially a crude swastika on their logo, although they publically deny that it is a swastika. Some members of the Azov Battalion even wear the swastika symbol against a yellow background as armbands. A significant portion of the Azov Battalion denies, at least publicly, that it has any neo-Nazi or white supremacist beliefs. Instead these members claim that the swastika-ish symbol on their flags and logo is not a swastika but an N and an I combined to mean "national identity."

        This is a hard sell considering the ideology of Biletsky, their founder and military commander. Also, the numerous swastika tattoos of different members and their tendency to go into battle with swastikas or SS insignias on their helmets make it very difficult for other members of the group to plausibly deny any neo-Nazi affiliations.

        This creates a problem for those members of the battalion like Kharkiv who are clearly not neo-Nazis. But it creates a far larger problem for the Ukrainian government, which relies immensely on the group, as one of its most effective fighting forces, to defend the city of Mariupol and 100 kilometers of the front line. Last summer it was the Azov brigade, led by Biletsky, that liberated Mariupol from the Russian-backed separatists. Azov is completely entrenched in the power structure of the country. "We work with all defense systems of the Ukrainian government," Kharkiv says.

        The Ukrainian government isn't the only government that should be concerned. The United States government at this moment is training parts of the Azov Battalion along with other Ukrainian National Guard battalions near the city of Lviv in western Ukraine. This unfortunate reality gives what Kharkiv calls "Putin TV" and the rest of the Kremlin propaganda machine everything it needs to portray the Ukraine government as fascist and the Americans as backing crypto-Nazis

        Oui | Jun 11, 2015 1:00:47 AM | 35
        "Poland's Government in Chaos as Ministers Resign Amid 'Secret Tape' Investigation Leak"

        CIA Man, Former FM Radek Sikorski's Fall from Grace In Poland

        Follow the story here via InsidePoland.com

        rufus magister | Jun 11, 2015 1:25:14 AM | 37
        @rufus magister, 50:

        "Instead these members claim that the swastika-ish symbol on their flags and logo is not a swastika but an N and an I combined to mean 'national identity.'"

        The symbol is a simple bind rune, an old Scandinavian magical glyph. The thing about putting runes together is getting as many meanings into one bind rune as possible.
        Remember whose symbol this is now, and who they took it from. They might go on in public about the N and I, but amongst themselves it is an SS.

        Vintage Red | Jun 11, 2015 1:03:56 AM | 36

        VR at 53 -- The volkisch movement that was a key breeding ground for the Nazis was into runes and pseudo-feudal symbolism and ideology.

        Himmler and the SS were particularly keen on it, with the Wewelsburg Castle facility devoted to their peculiar interpretation.

        Bill | Jun 11, 2015 4:04:23 AM | 40

        The latest attempt at another Maidan resulted in a man who was photographed with John McCain being beaten by 'unknown assailants'. This encapsulates Washington's hypocrisy perfectly.

        http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2228560.html

        Chipnik | Jun 11, 2015 4:33:52 AM | 41 b

        PEW also released a report on USAian various legislative polls through the years, compared to Congressional voting records, and found no statically significant trace from a informatics POV that Congress pays the slightest attention to what USAians say in the polls or at the ballot booth.

        H-1B Hindustanis are flying over the borders by the 787 load, now, taking 98% of new high-tech jobs, and continuing the riff-down of USAian WASPs for Hindustanis, while birthing Ms of future Anchor Babus, leaving USAians in the same boat as the disenfranchised, de-stated Ukrainians.

        And in one year, 13,000,000 Califucian's will be on the road as climate refugees, in search of water, 8a-EBT welfare, fighting those very same Hindustanis for housing, jobs and the green, green grass of home.

        So much for your Hope is Chains.

        Piotr Berman | Jun 11, 2015 8:51:36 AM | 46
        It is a little funny how the opinions that are skeptic toward NATO policies can be dismissed as results of Russian dangerous propaganda machine.

        Pew did not ask if the respondents watched RT, but my bet is that few did, and even fewer as the main news source.

        Western media is dominated by the output of western corporate groups: kind of by definition, if you do not own TV network with wide viewership, you are not a major corporation.

        So if there is a perception that USA is arrogant and untrustworthy, this cannot be explained by Russian propaganda alone, given its relatively minor reach.

        Perhaps, unlikely as it may seem, the perception is grounded in "grains of truth" of various sizes (see http://knsgeo.ukw.edu.pl/wyjazdy/grodek_2009.jpg for an example.

        PhilK | Jun 11, 2015 4:38:20 PM | 52

        There's quite a bit of data online that casts doubt on Pew's alleged non-partisanship.
        The PEW Charitable Trusts were established by the surviving sons and daughters of Joseph N. Pew, founder of the Sun Oil Company, known today as Sunoco. The founding fortune of PEW's trusts came from the often brutal tactics of the early American oil industry. By the end of fiscal year 2008, the total assets of PEW Charitable Trusts had grown to over $5 billion. When your independent public charity corporation is worth over $5 billion, it takes a lot of moxy to call yourself a "non-profit" organization.
        . . .
        PEW also has a history of investing in companies its alleged "principles" are in direct contrast with. For example, PEW has for years made sizable donations to environmentally conscious groups like Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund. In spite of this, one of the seven PEW trusts, Pew Memorial Trusts, contains over $24 million worth of purchased stock in Exxon-Mobil, one of the premier faces of the fracking industry that is destroying eco-systems throughout the US.

        Another member of the PEW trusts, J.N. Pew Jr. Trust, has over $9 million invested in 12 different oil ventures, including Chevron, Marathon Group, and Phillips Petroleum. Unbelievably, the PEW Charitable Trusts formed a joint trust with 6 other "non-profit foundations" that included the Rockefeller Foundation, bringing its total assets to over $21 billion, in order to form the Energy Foundation. The Energy Foundation is the main financial supporter of the most prominent anti-Exxon Mobil activist group, the Texas Fund for Energy and Environmental Education.

        PEW Data On Public Perception Of Intelligence Agencies Is Biased And False

        An apparently right-wing org called "Ron Arnold's Left Tracking Library" seems to thinks that PCT is a devilish left-wing outfit devoted to bringing down capitalism by funding environmental groups:

        A non-profit conglomerate of epic size and ambition, operating many projects, all designed to reduce the power of the for-profit sector and increase government power over all aspects of American life.
        . . .
        Transparency is not a Pew virtue. Even the basic 2008 income and asset information above is so puny compared to the real money behind the organization that it stirs mistrust.
        Pew Charitable Trusts

        This page lists Pew's gifts in year 2001 to environmental organizations. This list can't be cut-and-pasted, so I have manually typed just a few of the ones over a million dollars:

        (2001) Clear the Air Campaign, $4,997,00 (funded through a grant to Pace University)
        (2001) National Forest Planning Public Education, $3,475,000 (funded through a grant to US Public Interest Research Group Education Fund)
        (2001) Farmed Salmon Contaminant Study, $2,530,000 (funded through a grant to Research Foundation of State University of New York)
        (2001) The Columbia and Snake Rivers Campaign, $1,375,000 (funded through a grant to Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition)

        This same Ron Arnold page lists the disclosed assets of some of the trusts with the PCT. This is the list for one them, the Pew Memorial Trust:

        Corporation # of Shares Value (in 2008?)
        Burlington Resources 38,300 $1,934,150
        Coastal Corporation 40,654 $3,590,256
        Exxon Mobil Corporation 97,641 $8,488,664
        Kerr McGee Corp 27,222 $1,822,173
        Occidental Petroleum Corp 159,800 $3,875,150
        MCN Energy Group Inc 69,400 $1,921,513
        Helmerich & Payne Inc. 44,700 $1,961,213
        Occidental Petroleum Corp 295,100 $7,156,175
        Ocean Energy Inc 132,000 $2,293,500
        Pittston Brink's Group 30,800 $612,150
        Swift Energy Co 128,986 $4,853,098
        Vintage Petroleum Inc 41,850 $899,775
        Southern Energy Inc. 37,500 $1,061,719
        Energy East Corp 16,430 $3,234,656
        Burlington Resources 24,725 $1,248,613
        Chevron Corp 9,100 $768,381
        Coastal Corporation 18,800 $1,660,275
        Exxon Mobil Corporation 50,895 $4,424,684
        Kerr McGee Corp 18,150 $1,214,916
        Occidental Petroleum Corp 34,125 $827,531
        Schlumberger Ltd 16,325 $1,304,980
        MCN Energy Group Inc 62,525 $1,731,161
        Chevron Corp 40,600 $3,428,163
        Exxon Mobil Corporation 53,700 $4,668,544
        Schlumberger Ltd 46,600 $3,725,088
        Transocean Sedco Forex 6,800 $2,152,800
        Duke Energy Corp 29,400 $2,506,350
        Burlington Resources 59,550 $3,007,275
        Coastal Corporation 62,300 $6,902,838
        Exxon Mobil Corporation 79,400 $6,902,838
        Kerr McGee Corp 41,950 $2,808,028
        Occidental Petroleum Corp 241,525 $5,856,981
        Duke Energy Corp 31,550 $2,689,638
        MCN Energy Group Inc 10,4200 $2,885,038

        It seems obvious to me that the value of these stocks is far more important to the people running PCT than the values of the enviro orgs that they throw a few million bucks to, and that these donations are not intended to bring down capitalism, but to undercut and to neuter the recipient organizations.

        Noirette | Jun 14, 2015 11:08:24 AM | 61

        One of Pew's functions is to track opinion to inform how well the Media Power is doing. This alerts pols. and others on public sentiment, etc. It keeps away from really serious or revealing questions, on the whole.

        Note in this poll (top part) very innocuous and vague questions are posed, sending economic aid to Ukraine (which is already taking place…) is a kind of no-brainer, economic aid is a 'good thing' for 'poor countries / ppl' and happens all the time.

        Support will be high, all responders want to be decent ppl - though there may be some country differences, they will be meaningless as based on all kinds of 'other' considerations.

        Ukraine joining NATO / EU are hypotheticals, and generally 'positive sounding' and don't inform about attitudes towards Russia or war.

        A little more specific is 'sending arms to Ukraine' (err.. which Ukr? To whom? To what purpose? Too ambiguous…) Here though we might imagine finding some 'meat' as any mention of 'arms' makes ppl consider the question more seriously.

        For the countries listed, one can forget Poland (in a way, 50% for is low?), we see that Spain, Germany, Italy, are not keen (25, 19, 22 % for respectively), which when you substract margin of error plus saying yes to something vague, amounts to very low support. France, on the other hand, at 40% for is a good notch above and creeps very close to joining the 5-eyes (Canada and the US being the only ones in the poll, here at 44 and 46 % for.) Which we knew already, France has turned hyper-atlanticist and the media have done a fantastic job.

        The part on 'should or should not use force to defend allies' within NATO is more interesting, as it shows that public support for NATO pact is barely a majority, and nationalistic attitudes are probably playing a role. Pew thereby sends a message ..

        Note that there will have been few respondents who could actually quote who the NATO countries are, what the pact is, and so forth. So the pollsters and the polled are talking past each other, it is a kind of fake discourse.

        [Jun 14, 2015] UK Said To Withdraw Spies After Russia, China Hack Snowden Encryption, Sunday Times Reports

        Jun 14, 2015 | Zero Hedge

        Following what are now daily reports of evil Russian hackers penetrating AES-encrypted firewalls at the IRS, and just as evil Chinese hackers penetrating "Einstein 3" in the biggest US hack in history which has allegedly exposed every single federal worker's social security number to shadowy forces in Beijing, the message to Americans is clear: be very afraid, because the "evil hackers" are coming, and your friendly, gargantuan, neighborhood US government (which is clearly here to help you) will get even bigger to respond appropriately.

        But don't let any (cyber) crisis go to waste: the porous US security firewall is so bad, Goldman is now pitching cybersecurity stocks in the latest weekly David Kostin sermon. To wit:

        The meteoric rise in cybersecurity incidents involving hacking and data breaches has shined a spotlight on this rapidly growing industry within the Tech sector. Cyberwar and cybercrime are two of the defining geopolitical and business challenges of our time. New revelations occur daily about compromised financial, personal, and national security records. Perpetrators range from global superpowers to rogue nation-states, from foreign crime syndicates to petty local criminals, and from social disrupters to teenage hackers. No government, firm, or person is immune from the risk.

        Because if you can't profit from conventional war, cyberwar will do just as nicely, and as a result Goldman says "investors seeking to benefit from increased security spending should focus on the ISE Cyber Security Index (HXR)."

        The HXR index has outperformed S&P 500 by 19pp YTD (22% vs. 3%). Since 2011, the total return of the index is 123pp higher than the S&P 500 (207% vs. 84%). The relative outperformance of cybersecurity stocks versus S&P 500 matches the surge in the number of exposed records (see Exhibit 2).

        Goldman further notes that "the frequency and seriousness of cyberattacks skyrocketed during 2014. Last year 3,014 data breach incidents occurred worldwide exposing 1.1 billion records, with 97% related to either hacking (83%) or fraud (14%). Both incidents and exposed records jumped by 25% during the last year. The US accounted for 50% of total global incidents and exposed records. Businesses accounted for 53% of all reported incidents followed by government entities at 16%. Exhibit 1 contains a list of selected recent high-profile cyberattacks."

        It is almost as if the US is doing everything in its power to make life for hackers that much easier, or alternatively to make Goldman's long HXR hit its target in the shortest possible time.

        Or perhaps the US is merely giving the impression of a massive onslaught of cyberattacks, one which may well be staged by the biggest cybersecurity infringer, and false flag organizer of them all, the National Security Administration in conjunction with the CIA

        We won't know, however just to make sure that the fear level spread by the Department of "Developed Market" Fear hits panic level promptly, overnight the UK's Sunday Times reported via Reuters, "citing unnamed officials at the office of British Prime Minister David Cameron, the Home Office (interior ministry) and security services" that Britain has pulled out agents from live operations in "hostile countries" after Russia and China cracked top-secret information contained in files leaked by former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.

        MI6 building in London.

        It is unclear how the unknown source at MI6 learned that Russia has hacked the Snowden files, but what is clear is that after the US admitted Snowden's whistleblowing in fact was warranted and even led to the halt of NSA spying on US citizens (replaced since with spying by private telecom corporations not subject to FOIA requests courtesy of the US Freedom Act), it was long overdue to turn up the PR heat on Snowden, who is seen increasingly as a hero on both sides of the Atlantic.

        British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said Snowden had done a huge amount of damage to the West's ability to protect its citizens. "As to the specific allegations this morning, we never comment on operational intelligence matters so I'm not going to talk about what we have or haven't done in order to mitigate the effect of the Snowden revelations, but nobody should be in any doubt that Edward Snowden has caused immense damage," he told Sky News.

        Reading a little further reveals that in the modern world having your spies exposed merely lead to invitations for coffee and chocolates.

        An official at Cameron's office was quoted, however, as saying that there was "no evidence of anyone being harmed." A spokeswoman at Cameron's office declined to comment when contacted by Reuters.

        So Russia and China knew the identities and locations of UK spies but they neither arrested them, nor harmed them in any way. How cultured.

        Meanwhile, the soundbite propganda keeps building:

        A British intelligence source said Snowden had done "incalculable damage". "In some cases the agencies have been forced to intervene and lift their agents from operations to stop them being identified and killed," the source was quoted as saying.

        Needless to say, the timing of this latest "report" is no coincidence. Just like in the US where the NSA seemingly just lost a big battle to the Fourth Amendment, so the UK is poised for a big debate on the manufactured "liberty vs security" debate.

        The revelations about the impact of Snowden on intelligence operations comes days after Britain's terrorism law watchdog said the rules governing the security services' abilities to spy on the public needed to be overhauled. Conservative lawmaker and former minister Andrew Mitchell said the timing of the report was "no accident".

        "There is a big debate going on," he told BBC radio. "We are going to have legislation bought back to parliament (...) about the way in which individual liberty and privacy is invaded in the interest of collective national security.

        "That's a debate we certainly need to have."

        Cameron has promised a swathe of new security measures, including more powers to monitor Briton's communications and online activity in what critics have dubbed a "snoopers' charter".

        And because Britain's terrorism laws reviewer David Anderson said on Thursday the current system was "undemocratic, unnecessary and - in the long run - intolerable" and called for new safeguards, including judges not ministers approving warrants for intrusive surveillance, saying there needed to be a compelling case for any extensions of powers, this is precisely why now was the right time for some more "anonymously-sourced" anti-liberty propaganda.

        So between the IRS and the OPM hacks, not to mention the countless other US hacks and data breaches shown on the top chart, allegedly almost exclusively by Russia and China, which have revealed not only how much US citizens make, spend and save, but the SSN, work and mental history of every Federal worker, the two "isolated" nations now know as much if not more about the US than the US itself.

        If this was even remotely true, then the US would long ago have been in a state of war with both nations.

        casey13

        http://notes.rjgallagher.co.uk/2015/06/sunday-times-snowden-china-russia...

        All in all, for me the Sunday Times story raises more questions than it answers, and more importantly it contains some pretty dubious claims, contradictions, and inaccuracies. The most astonishing thing about it is the total lack of scepticism it shows for these grand government assertions, made behind a veil of anonymity. This sort of credulous regurgitation of government statements is antithetical to good journalism.

        James_Cole

        The sunday times has already deleted one of the claims in the article (without an editors note) because it was so easily proved wrong. Whenever governments are dropping anonymous rumours without any evidence into the media you know they're up to some serious bullshit elsewhere as well, good coverage by zh.

        MonetaryApostate

        Fact A: The government robbed Social Security... (There's nothing left!)

        Supposed Fact B: Hackers compromised Social Security Numbers of Officials...

        suteibu

        Just to be clear, Snowden is not a traitor to the people of the US (or EU).

        However, it is perfectly appropriate for the governments and shadow governments of those nations to consider him a traitor to their interests.

        One man's traitor is another man's freedom fighter.

        Renfield

        <<The New Axis of Evul.>>

        Which is drastically stepping up its propaganda effort to justify aggressively attacking the rest of the world, in an effort to start WW3 and see who makes it out of the bunkers.

        Fuck this evil New World Order.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNHOUrYFj70

        It took a long time to build and set in place, and it sure as hell isn't going to be easy taking it down. They couldn't be any clearer that they have their hand poised over the nuke button, just looking for any excuse to use it. I think they know they've lost, so they've resorted to intimidate the rest of the world into supporting the status quo, by showing just how desperate they are and how far they are willing to go. The USUK government, and its puppet governments in Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan -- are completely insane. Ukraine is acting out just who these people are. They would rather destroy the whole world than not dominate everyone else. The 'West' is run by sociopaths.

        <<It is unclear how the unknown source at MI6 learned that Russia has hacked the Snowden files, but what is clear is that after the US admitted Snowden's whistleblowing in fact was warranted and even led to the halt of NSA spying on US citizens (replaced since with spying by private telecom corporations not subject to FOIA requests courtesy of the US Freedom Act), it was long overdue to turn up the PR heat on Snowden, who is seen increasingly as a hero on both sides of the Atlantic... So Russia and China knew the identities and locations of UK spies but they neither arrested them, nor harmed them in any way. How cultured. Meanwhile, the soundbite propganda keeps building... Needless to say, the timing of this latest "report" is no coincidence. Just like in the US where the NSA seemingly just lost a big battle to the Fourth Amendment, so the UK is poised for a big debate on the manufactured "liberty vs security" debate... So between the IRS and the OPM hacks, not to mention the countless other US hacks and data breaches shown on the top chart, allegedly almost exclusively by Russia and China, which have revealed not only how much US citizens make, spend and save, but the SSN, work and mental history of every Federal worker, the two "isolated" nations now know as much if not more about the US than the US itself. If this was even remotely true, then the US would long ago have been in a state of war with both nations.>

        Bighorn_100b

        USA always looks for a patsy.

        Bravo, Tyler. This is truth very clearly written. It is incredible how the onslaught of propaganda is turning into deluge. I'm glad you have the integrity to call it what it is. Propaganda is also an assault on journalism.

        chunga

        That's true but gov lies so much moar and moar people don't believe any of it.
        The Sunday Times' Snowden Story is Journalism at its Worst - and Filled with Falsehoods
        https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/14/sunday-times-report-snowde...


        This is the very opposite of journalism. Ponder how dumb someone has to be at this point to read an anonymous government accusation, made with zero evidence, and accept it as true.

        (greenwald rants mostly about media sock puppets with this)

        HowdyDoody
        And the US SFM86 files contained details of British spies? Consider this bullshitish.

        foghorn leghorn

        Goldman is looking to make a fast buck off the stupid uninformed public trying to cash in on totalitarianism. If Goldman is running this pump and dump I suggest waiting till the price looks like a hockey stick. As soon as it starts to cave in short the hell out of it but only for one day. Government Sacks is the most crooked bank in the history of the whole entire world from the past up till now. In case you are wondering about the Fed well Gioldman Sachs runs the joint.

        talisman

        "Snowden encryption"???
        Just more US Snowden-bashing propaganda.

        You mean US has not tightened up its encryption since Snowden's whistleblowing two years ago??
        Shame -- ! !....
        Snowden information likely had nothing to do with the latest hacks, but the blame goes on--
        Blaming Snowden a lot simpler than figuring out how to solve the basic problem
        of overwhelming US Homeland Security incompetence

        The other day, Eugene Kaspersky noted:

        "We discovered an advanced attack on our own internal networks. It was complex, stealthy, it exploded several zero-day vulnerabilities, and we're quite confident that there's a nation state behind it."

        The firm dubbed this attack Duqu 2.0, named after a specific series of malware called Duqu, considered to be related to the Stuxnet attack that targeted Iran in 2011.

        It is, of course, now well-known that Stuxnet originated as a Israel/US venture; however this time it would appear that CIA/Mossad may have got a bit overconfident and shot themselves in the foot when they inserted very advanced spyware into Kaspersky's system…

        Kaspersky is not just some simple-minded backward nation state; rather they are the unquestioned world leader in advanced cybersecurity systems, so when they found this malware in their own system, of course they figured it out, and of course got a bit pissed-so, since they are in the business of providing advanced cybersecurity to various nations---they very legitimately passed on the critical encryption information to their clients, and it is not at all inconceivable that some of the clients decided to take the system for a spin and see what it could do….

        And, of course, a bit later at the opportune moment after they let the cat out of the bag, to rub a bit of salt in the wound Kaspersky mentioned: "And the attackers are now back to the drawing board since we exposed their platform to the whole IT security industry. "They've now lost a very expensive technologically-advanced framework they'd been developing for years,"

        an interesting background article:

        https://eugene.kaspersky.com/2011/11/02/the-man-who-found-stuxnet-sergey-ulasen-in-the-spotlight/

        kchrisc

        Am I still the only one that sees this whole Snowden thing as a CIA ruse?

        My favorite is the strategic "leaking" out of information as needed by a Jewish reporter working for a noiZ-media outlet. I have even read Greenwald's book, No Place to Hide, and I'm still not buying it.

        I'm not buying any of it, but then I'd prefer to not ask for a "refund."

        My personal opinion is that the CIA, in their ongoing battle with the Pentagon, penetrated the NSA, then tapped a photogenic young man in their mitts to serve as the "poster boy" for the ensuing "leaks." Once they have the attention of the sheeple, they can then claim anything, as any NSA defense will not be believed.

        Liberty is a demand. Tyranny is submission..

        "They lie about everything. Why would they lie about this?"

        Christ Lucifer

        Either Snowden read the play for some decade to come and took the key pieces of info with him that he keeps secret but those pieces of intel currently allow him to access and control all covert govt surveillance including that adapted due to being compromised, there maybe some grains of truth in this in a cyber dependant organization created in an incorrectly perceived superiority complex. Or maybe his name is synonymous with modern spying, the geek who made good for the people, and his credibility is used to market a large amount of information releases for public digestion. A figurehead if you will. Not to say that some years on, the shockwaves from his actions reverberating around the planet coincide in specific places as various imperatives are displaced by the dissolution of the foundation he cracked, while the public are still only really concerned about their dick pics, which apparently women do not enjoy so much anyway.

        Promoted as a storm in a teacup by those who suffer to the transparency he gave, but it is the woodchips the show the direction of the wind, not the great lumps of timber, and when the standing trees fall it is the woodchips that have shown the truth, such is the way that key figures move the static behemoths of overstated self importance ignorant to the world they create. The hemorrhage has been contained but for some reason it continues to bleed out at a steady rate, slowly washing the veil from the eyes who suffer the belief of attaining prosperity or power through subjecting themselves to the will of others.

        He's good, but was he that good? What else is playing in his favour, or the favour of his identity?

        [Jun 13, 2015] Former secretary of state officially launches presidential campaign, says shell fight for all Americans

        Notable quotes:
        "... Hillary diplomatic accomplishments consist of drone strikes, gunboat diplomacy, wire taps of friends, sucking up with enemies and assassination teams. ..."
        "... Its funny how all you yahoos think that the people decide who is president. If the people really decided that, there wouldnt be just two candidates to vote for. Live on in your political fantasy world. ..."
        "... @jgg0000012 @eightsigma You must have missed the freeloader narrative. ..."
        Jun 13, 2015 | CBS News

        Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton officially launched her 2016 campaign in New York Saturday, laying out a populist policy agenda that she said would fight "for all Americans."

        "I'm running to make our economy work for you and for every American," Clinton told supporters at a midday rally on New York's Roosevelt Island. "I'm not running for some Americans, but for all Americans."

        Standing atop a stage shaped in the likeness of her campaign logo -- a large "H" with an arrow pointing right -- Clinton cited "America's basic bargain" as a guiding principle of her campaign and her personal life: "If you do your part, you ought to be able to get ahead."

        ...Clinton also addressed issues with entering the presidential race at 67 years old.

        ...She made one reference to Vladimir Putin, saying she "stood up to" the Russian leader when she worked to pass a treaty to limit Russian nuclear warheads. But she noticeably avoided any talk of her stance on trade -- an issue that has dominated recent headlines because of congressional Democrats' internal strife on fast-track trade legislation.

        Carltests

        Hillary's message is one of being stuck in the past. Her mother lived through the Great Depression, and evidently had a hard time. Well, most people who lived through the Great Depression had hard times. Living under the impression that life is the way it was now almost 100 years ago is not indicative of anyone I can support.

        She is really hung up women's issues. I know a lot of professional women who are doing quite well and don't seem to carry that sort of baggage. They tend to be good at their career choices and have understood that they only needed empower themselves to succeed, and therefore, they have succeeded. They weren't dependent upon the men in their lives, although they have them, nor were they dependent on the Government to have their success. Among them was one of the best supervisors I ever had, and she never had the hangups Hillary does, plus she was much more competent than Hillary has proved to be.

        Perhaps Hillary's hangups are the result of her philandering, likely abusive husband, Slick Willy. You know, he was always that way. She could have left him at any time and stood on her own. Yet, she stayed in that almost certainly sick relationship. Now she claims she will save all women. Well, I think her actions and her choices in her life demonstrate that she won't.

        puckingpup842

        More Clinton crap of greed corruption is all we would get, and with her ignorance and a finger on the button WWIII as she thinks she is pushing a reset button.

        ..trout.

        I am not a Hillary supporter. But if I have to choose between her and the motley lineup of Republicans, guess she gets my vote by default.

        puckingpup842

        Hillary diplomatic accomplishments consist of drone strikes, gunboat diplomacy, wire taps of friends, sucking up with enemies and assassination teams.

        Buttercup

        @puckingpup842

        Which should make her right at home in the GOP.

        eightsigma

        @puckingpup842 In other words, normal foreign policy leadership.

        WildStarre

        It's funny how all you yahoos think that "the people" decide who is president. If the people really decided that, there wouldn't be just two candidates to vote for. Live on in your political fantasy world.

        WildStarre

        @eightsigma @WildStarre

        They never have. The banks decide who the two candidates will be. And both candidates are in their pocket.

        rykatspop

        And from the far corner of the old GOP, Newt has a plan . . . a contract with America. They can bring that disaster out again.

        Walker and Gingrich. There's a ticket. Neo conservatives and tea baggers unite.

        eightsigma

        GOP Presidential campaign platform:

        "If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

        eightsigma

        @jgg0000012 @eightsigma You must have missed the "freeloader" narrative.

        Slammy Davis, Jr.

        @eightsigma @jgg0000012

        Dayum right on that one! I saw Jon Stewart tear them apart on that one! Epic!

        HiTor15

        We saw a president come in here with all the hoopla and promise of "CHANGE"...what did he do instead? Well he MADE THE ELITE A WHOLE LOT MORE ELITE...the POOR A WHOLE LOT MORE POOR...and HE HAS BROUGHT US ONE SHOT FROM WORLD WAR THREE! That was not a whole lotta change of the kind most people were expecting.....as for hillary? well first she becomes SENATOR OF NEW YORK....then...when she loses her bid for the presidency..she decides she can join the MAN OF CHANGE and become SECRETARY OF STATE..and what did she do there????? ....well I can leave that answer to YOU!

        Its time for a REAL CHANGE....or the only change we're going to get is to die in a NUCLEAR WAR! which will be charged to our credit bill.....before hand...... Just an opinion.....

        KansasCowboy
        The Clinton's have been for sale every since their early days in Arkansas. Put a t-shirt on Bill or Hillary with the sleeves cut out and a pack of smokes on their shoulder and they are right back in the hills..

        eightsigma

        @KansasCowboy Yeah - those Rhodes scholars. There goes the neighborhood
        KansasCowboy

        Elitist hypocrite on steroids... The Lyle Alzado of politics!

        FlMed

        The argument for Clinton in 2016 is that she is the candidate of the only major American political party not run by lunatics.

        There is only one choice for voters who want a president who accepts climate science and rejects voodoo economics, and whose domestic platform would not engineer the largest upward redistribution of resources in American history.

        Even if the relatively sober Jeb Bush wins the nomination, he will have to accommodate himself to his party's barking-mad consensus.

        She is non-crazy America's choice by default. And it is not necessarily an exciting choice for some, but it is an easy one, and a proposition behind which she will command a majority

        californiadreaming
        That's a laugh. Her family is about one of the most dysfunctional families in the public spotlight today!

        Sorry, but she's just borrowing a line from Obama's playbook - tell the voters anything and everything to get their votes, and then ignore them when you get elected.Yes, it might be time for a female president, but Hillary Clinton is not the person to fill those shoes. She has less experience than Obama had. And no - you can't count the 8 years being married to the president as experience!

        The overall problem in 2016 is that no candidate has stepped up that would really fit the role of president - for either party. I've seen the administration of 11 presidents in my lifetimes, and I've never seen such slim pickings as we have in 2016. They are all unknown entities or they are total froot loops. The Republicans have so many candidates that even if they had a viable one, there are too many to choose from.

        skeezix06
        Obama's cabinet selection of CEOs and their assistant water carriers makes Hillary's claim of populism pretty thin. I might have believed it in 2010 but not at this point. I might add that I've given up on my current democratic senator due to an apparent inability to tell Obama "no". That person won'tbe getting my vote next election.

        Everything considered, democrats did nothing to reverse Dumbya's bad policies and little or nothing that looks like actual democratic policies. I'm totally disgusted with the democratic party. Republicans have been forced so far into la-la land by the tea party/libertarians that they aren't an option. The only person running who looks interesting so far is Bernie.

        rzarc101
        @xlucky7x

        Bush Jr. was CEO of one or two small companies that went belly up. Fiorina almost took out HP, a huge company. Romney was a very successful cEO. Running a company and running a government are two different animals. They share some things but not many.
        wfw3536
        Hillary talks about how she is the candidate of today, and how she is fighting for children, and regular folks. Maybe she should tell us how Bill and Hillary could make 130 million dollars in less than six years after being broke in 2008. She tells us she wants to help our economy, well she could help our economy by just giving us her secret of how to make 130 million dollars, or how to play the "pay to play" games and win big. Her comments of fighting against the rich is almost as big a lie as her whopper of being shot at by rebels in Kosovo that Obama exposed in the 2008 campaign. She claims to be a candidate of today, but the truth is if you listen to her speech it is the same old, same old Hillary who is getting very tired to a majority of folks who do not believe she is neither honest of trustworthy.

        erasmus

        @scottpatrick1234

        Give your freakin' head a shake. Every single Republican candidate will have the same or more skeletons in their closet. I've never seen so many corrupt politicians. In fact, your whole political system is corrupt.

        From what I can see, Obama is the only one without skeletons.. Good luck with finding another. This one was a fluke.




        Anyways, GO HILLARY!!!
        RJ.Incognito1974
        @Buttercup @RJ.Incognito1974 You are damned right I'm afraid of a pathological liar and a Federal criminal as POTUS.

        She is also likely to be an agent for the Communist Chinese now too.

        Now that we can assume that the Chinese also have EVERY single email that Hillary Clinton had saved on the hard drive of her private server in her private home during her 4 years as Sec of State and for 2 more years afterward, she is totally compromised. The Chinese can blackmail her into doing ANYTHING they want her to do by threatening to expose her incriminating emails, and you can be sure there are MANY. She deleted 30,000 of them and then had her hard drive scrubbed in the attempt to prevent them from EVER being retrieved. Surprise, surprise, the Chinese have read ALL of them. The Chinese OWN Hillary Clinton's fat A$$.

        wdrousell

        If you don't like Hillary because she is too close to WallSt, then it is obvious you would never vote for a republican.

        eightsigma

        @scottpatrick1234 "Yesterday" means "greed is good".
        Clinton has the moral high ground.

        PlsMKSns

        @scottpatrick1234 Oh. OK. You don't get it?

        Yesterday - segregated army barracks, segregated society, can't vote, can't marry a different race, can't this can't that...you get it yet?
        xlucky7x
        Hillary equals more hate and racism and divisiveness and misogyny and impoverishment and dependency and crime.

        Hillary offers nothing except that will be good for Hillary. She cares about nothing but herself!

        FlMed
        Here are some startling facts:

        In 2012 the final Electoral College results were 332 for Obama and 206 for Romney. If that Mormon had won the battleground states of Florida (29 votes), Ohio (18 votes), and Virginia (13 votes), Obama would still have been reelected but by acloser margin of 272 to 266.

        Now, just because Obama won well over 300 electoral votes does not mean Hillary will repeat that achievement but her chances of doing so look quite good. . The path to 270 is much easier for any Democrat candidate given current and future demographic growth and established voting patterns.

        Hillary may in fact win by an electoral landslide not seen since Reagan's win in 1984 which in todays numbers would be 97% of the electoral college.

        MickeyOne65
        To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "I want to say one thing to the American people - I will not vote for this woman."

        [Jun 13, 2015]The Index Of Evil Whos The Bad Guy Now

        "...Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Lindsey Graham come to mind, along with John McCain, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and all the other clownish warmongers."
        Zero Hedge
        Let us finish our series, "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." We've been looking at how, when everybody's a lawbreaker, it's hard to spot the real criminals. (To catch up, here's Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV.)

        You'll recall that we imagined a conversation between two German soldiers on the Eastern Front in 1943. "Klaus, are we the bad guys here?" one might have asked the other.

        Yesterday, we mentioned a few "bad guys." It was no trouble to find them. Just check the lobby of the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington, D.C.

        But today we move on – beyond the two-bit bullies, chiselers, and zombies – to the really ugly guys. Who are the evil ones?

        It's easy to see evil in dead people. Stalin... Hitler... Pol Pot... people who tortured and killed just to feel good. The jaws of Hell must open especially wide to let them in.

        But who should go to the devil today?

        Counting the Bodies

        It is not for us to say. But we can make some recommendations:

        Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Lindsey Graham come to mind, along with John McCain, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and all the other clownish warmongers.

        Of course, we want to be fair and respectful. Each should definitely get an impartial hearing… and then his own lamppost.

        ... ... ...

        [Jun 12, 2015] IMF to Alexis Tsipras: Do you feel lucky, punk?

        Notable quotes:
        "... Mr Eliot how you dare to call our prime minister a "punk"? Who do you think you are you or other journalist around the world? Why you don't write the truth that the hard working Greeks have lost the 60 % of their income and they can't live with less money. Your article as well as other around the world is called "bulling". ..."
        "... If you had read even the anti-greek newspapers in the last 5 years you would understand that 90% of the "loans" Greece "took" - i.e. had imposed on them - went directly to German, French and Dutch banks. ..."
        "... What I found entertaining, was the statement by Rice, which went "As our managing director has said many times, the IMF never leaves the table," except of course when the entire team gets called back to Washington, and errr... leaves the table... ..."
        "... The IMF is not only about money. They have an ideological mandate too. Now, you may agree with this ideological mandate or not. However, if you do not, then it is best to not borrow money from them! ..."
        "... Did you know that 29 billion (yes - Billion) euros of income tax were not paid by Greek professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc.) in 2009 according to Univ of Chicago researchers? ..."
        "... A very irresponsible and simplistic, really sensationalistic summary. The hallmark of a pseudointellectual, a journalist who has never held a real job and seen how money is made and value is created and lives in the imaginary world of movie one liners and simple messages. ..."
        "... "Mr Schauble is the proponent of a "velvet divorce" for Greece: an orderly exit from the euro and a return to the drachma, with the ECB playing a crucial role in stabilizing the new currency. Germany and other creditors would then step in with a "Marshall Plan" to put the country back on its feet within the EU. What Mr Schauble is not prepared to accept is a breach of contract by Greece on the terms of its previous "Troika" rescue, which he fears would lead to moral hazard and the collapse of fiscal discipline across Southern Europe. He is backed by much of the ruling Christian Democrat party (CDU) and its Bavarian allies (CSU) ..."
        "... Wall Street tactics akin to the ones that fostered subprime mortgages in America have worsened the financial crisis shaking Greece and undermining the euro by enabling European governments to hide their mounting debts. ..."
        Jun 12, 2015 | The Guardian

        Hristos Dagres 12 Jun 2015 11:50

        Basically, the IMF should officially admit their fatal errors in the development of the first MoU that "saved" Greece [well, we all know now that the first plan was nothing more than an attempt to save euro and the French-German banks that was cunningly presented as a token of "European solidarity" - in reality, they didn't give a sh..t about Greece].

        These "errors" were immediately identified by other members of the IMF board, like Brazil, Argentina, China and .... Switzerland, according to the IMF documents presented by WSJ

        [http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/10/07/imf-document-excerpts-disagreements-revealed/ ]

        I believe that Christine should pick up her pieces and crawl back to the table - and this time she should present a plan that will restore the damage done.

        Or else, they should not get a single euro back - and we should start negotiating with the BRICS for a fair plan to restructure our economy.

        MachinePork 12 Jun 2015 11:30

        Make no mistake about it a Greek default is a calamity for the global financial system. Debt on the periphery is in the trillions. It is carried on the books in banks and treasuries at face value only because national administrators understand – with the blessing of the automatons at BIS -- what it would mean if this crap was subjected to a proper stress test or marked-to-market.

        At stake in this battle is the entire global financial system. Should a NATO government summon the cheek to opt out of the prevailing international credit system, issue debt-free capital, invest in its people, grow exports and prove to succeed; the entire compound interest earning, system of rent-making privilege would collapse. My sense is the kingdom of Finance, its banking lords and its lickspittles in policy will never let this happen.

        God bless the Greek people. This is going to get messy. They should be commended for their bravery in the face of endless threats of financial serfdom for intransigence.

        The international debt monkey is a doppelgänger. He looks so inviting at first glance but is more than prepared to reach back and lob a compound interest bearing shit bomb your direction in a bid to save privilege in the global financial zoo.

        Maria Christoulaki 12 Jun 2015 10:43

        Mr Eliot how you dare to call our prime minister a "punk"? Who do you think you are you or other journalist around the world? Why you don't write the truth that the hard working Greeks have lost the 60 % of their income and they can't live with less money. Your article as well as other around the world is called "bulling". What do you think that Greeks are? all these articles except of bulling show a racism against us. You must ask an excuse for this article which offends both our prime minister and the Greek people, who voted him.

        mgtuzairodtiiasn asiancelt 12 Jun 2015 09:08

        It is funny! The German bankers stole your money, and you still believe that all this money went to the Greeks. This money went from the German banks to the German enterprises. Because they gave bribes to win contracts for useless military equipment. For example, Greece bought 4 submarines that doesn't need. Even today, only one has been delivered, because there were major design faults, although the German company has received the money. Regarding the loans of the previous years, do you believe that the total amount of the Greek debt was to expire in just 3 years? Obviously, the gang that rules EU today, gave 240 bn Euros to banks of Germany, France, Netherlands etc, and used Greece as a scapegoat to hide this fraud. Wake up!

        mgtuzairodtiiasn Angkor 12 Jun 2015 08:55

        Firstly, negotiation is not that you agree to what the institutions require. Secondly, you are right. The Greek economy and society have been carried many parasites until now.

        Remember the German companies like Siemens, Ferrostaal, ThyssenKrupp which gave bribes to many politicians and Media owners. Or Hochtief, which still has not paid 500 mn Euros of VAT to the Greek state. It is time to get rid of all this parasites.

        elenits -> Anton Brasschaat 12 Jun 2015 07:57

        "Loans" imposed by IMF against its mandate = Odious debt.

        Greeks shouldering 340 bn of EU, ECB, IMF "loans" to shore up foreign malinvesting banks = Odious debt

        Loans to Greece that were not used by Greeks = Odious debt

        IMF breaking its own rules to loan without debt restructure = Odious debt

        This is without considering ECB acting outside its mandate, i.e. politically, from Feb 2015 by illegally cutting Greece from bond markets and out of QE.

        elenits -> asiancelt 12 Jun 2015 07:49

        If you had read even the anti-greek newspapers in the last 5 years you would understand that 90% of the "loans" Greece "took" - i.e. had imposed on them - went directly to German, French and Dutch banks. The 10% Greece was allowed to keep paid for the interests on these "loans" - topped up with money screwed out of the Greek taxpayers.

        Apropos the IMF they acted illegally against their own rules by lending to a first world country [not a "developing" country] and by accepting a greek program that did not include debt restructure, i.e. the same German, French and Dutch banks having to accept some losses.

        There is no such thing as "risk" anymore for banks, corporations or the 1%. Risk and poverty is only for ordinary people like yourself.

        dawisner -> Constantine Alexander 12 Jun 2015 07:30

        Constantine, as an American expat living in Greece for the past 21 years now (I was married in Thessaloniki in 1988), I, too, have frequently lamented how many armchair experts appear in these chat rooms. I published an e-book last year (Still at Aulis) with a view toward trying to explain to the casual observer how complex the local situation can be, and how worthy and hard-working my Greek peers often are. Keep up the good work.

        seaspan -> Anton Brasschaat 12 Jun 2015 05:50

        French and German banks were generously bailed out of any risk by "taxpayers" from the EU, including Greeks.

        And Greek leverage is honesty: they have a clear understanding of current economic reality, and a better plan to payback their debts to Euro taxpayers. Anyone who says different is suspect as to their interests and intentions.

        It isnt Syriza you should be questioning if you are sincere about your concern for the taxpayer. It is the financial advisers and ideologues backing austerity you should question. Are they merely driven by their egos and reputations as pro austerity hawks? Afraid for their secure positions as Yes Men in financial institutions?

        And anyone in the negotiating process who has loyalties to Russia should be severely scrutinised, since Putin's interests are for a failure in negotiations, for a Grexit, all toward a long term desire of an EU breakup.

        It could come down to questions of treason why there is no negotiated settlement,,, if such a word is applicable to the EU project...

        Constantine Alexander -> Renato Timotheus 12 Jun 2015 05:43

        My life's experiences - including beginning work at 8 years of age; 3 years military service; professional activities including U.S. investment banking, employment development in Eastern Europe (e.g. job creation at a Belarus agricultural production facility which is still thriving), 10 years devoted to my passion for wildlife conservation projects with worthy BirdLife Int'l NGO partners (not as you coyly suggested as a result of "untoward" behaviour); and having a doctor threaten to refuse to perform my father's surgery unless he receives a 10,000 euro cash bribe in addition to his customary doctor's fee and the hospital costs - have shaped my perspective on the factors that contribute to or undermine civil society.

        If Greece exits the euro, the resulting cost of vital goods will soar due to the country's heavy reliance on imports. This will hit the middle class and the poor much harder than the current austerity measures -- most of which have not been implemented by any Greek gov (e.g. opening up business sectors to competition, privatization of debt-ridden public institutions, tax collection which has for decades suffered due to customary and widespread bribery demanded by tax officials, privatization of public assets).

        The long term solution lies in the govt starting to do what most of us have to do - we prioritize spending based on worthiness and needs (food, health, education, etc), keep a reserve for contingencies, and spend in relation to our incoming revenue. But rather than contributing to long term stability and security for the country which benefits everyone's work activities, the society insists upon short term benefits (e.g. public sector hiring for my children, tax evasion) that it clearly cannot afford. The broader issue is not lender's conditions vs. austerity relief, but rather a way of organizing govt and society which, in the Greek model, has gotten way out of hand due to low interest rates for excessive borrowing by a series of governments. We'll see how the story unfolds.

        PyrosT -> Enoch Arden 12 Jun 2015 05:32

        destroyed economy was not an alternative to the IMF "help", it was its result, carefully planned and systematically implemented. It was in a way a remarkable achievement of IMF: to inflict a greater damage to the Soviet economy than WW2, with the help of the local compradors.

        IMF will not do anything about your or anyone elses local corrupt elites or lack of governance. That is not within their mandate or nature.

        If you think that it is possible to convert a centrally planned soviet style (the core of it to boot) to anything resembling a market economy without major disruption.

        Even East Germany, despite the endless billions thrown into it, went through a period of high unemployment and hardships.

        But I guess it is easier to "blame the IMF". Yes the interventions will almost always lower your GDP - for a quite simple reason that the previous GDP is probably bloated with G (government spending) and any significant restructuring always causes some depression. And yes, it typically isn't a "walk in the park". And some measures are probably misguided, inadequate or ineffective.

        But...

        Why does a country asks for the IMF help in the first place? Because it is sporting unsustainable policies? Sometimes it could even correct itself, but having an outside partner makes some policies easier to deploy.

        DANIELDS 12 Jun 2015 05:10

        Yesterday briefing by G.RICE of IMF

        ...Greek pension system is unsustainable. The Greek pension funds receive transfers from the budget of about 10 percent of GDP annually. Now, this compares to the average in the rest of the Euro zone of two-and-a-half percent of GDP. The standard pension in Greece is almost at the same level as in Germany and people, again on the average, retire almost six years earlier in Greece than in Germany. And GDP per capita increase, of course, is less than half that of the German level.......Terrible errors? reported to justify killing policies of troica and imf......Here is Greek butjet.

        http://www.minfin.gr/?q=en/content/state-budget-execution-january-march-2015

        ......For pensions 6,3 billion eur.GDP OF 2014 179 bill euros and for pensions goes ONLY 3.5% OF IT.

        This the big obstacle of negotiations.10% of GDP is 18 billion euros .3.5% is only 5.4 billions.They are killers of a country with false reports.

        Angkor Renato -> Timotheus 12 Jun 2015 04:53

        Renato on your checklist for Greece's solution to its current problems, a few questions:

        1. Default. Well that's a given. It's going to happen anyway whether the Greeks want it to or not.

        2. Secure Russian and Chinese support for the new currency
        How will Greece secure Russian and Chinese support for its new currency? Aren't they going to do a credit check and find out that the Greeks don't honour their loans? They're bound to find out and its pretty unlikely that they'd be silly enough to line themselves up to be stiffed by the Greeks. They are not mugs you know.

        3. Requisition all German and Luxembourg-owned property/assets in Greece in lieu of WWII reparation payments. Why stop at Germany and Luxembourg? Poland was part of Germany (the Governor Generalate) during WWII. As were Austria (the Anschluss), and the Czech Republic and Slovakia (the Munich Agreement). Why not seize all of the property owed by the nationals of those countries as well? It only seems fair. Also Italy had a role in the invasion of Greece in WWII. In fact the Germans would never have invaded but for the Italians botching the job. Shouldn't you be stiffing the Italians as well?

        4. Massive drive to attract British and Russian tourists to a cheaper Greece. A few questions here. First the Russians. Where will their tourists come from given the parlous state of their economy? And why would they go to Greece now that they have lovely Crimea, the Pearl of the Black Sea, back in their hands? Now for the British. What has Greece got that a British tourist would want that Magaluf doesn't have? Don't say culture because Greece has little of it (and the Italians do it better anyway) and British tourists don't want it. If they wanted Greek culture they'd go to the British Museum where it's been sitting for the last 200 years.

        5. Threaten to join the SCO, if NATO starts conspiring for a military coup. Don't you think that the SCO's dialogue partners, Turkey, may have something to say about that? Nothing kind, of course. That would be a bit too much to expect of the Turks when talking about Greek matters.

        zchabj6 -> JimVxxxx 12 Jun 2015 04:37

        The debt jubilee is a very old idea, mentioned in biblical times, but has also had plenty of implementation in medieval and later times where every 10 years or so all debt is wiped out and debt issuing starts again.

        This was essentially to stop debt slavery where one class monopolizes resources and lends it out to others to do work for the asset owners to do nothing but live off of the interest on the loans, which is caustic to society.

        As for no compound interest. It essentially is my own idea, based on say religious texts that ban interest or usury on loans because of the negative debt slavery consequences.

        But the question is, who would then lend to business and people, where is the incentive? So there could be fixed interest on the original sum and no more, unlike today where you pay interest on the intiial sum and the interest on that.

        And if you miss payments and there are delays to paying, interest breeds interest, rather than having a known fixed sum of interest to pay back which is much more just.

        AER and other formulas are really eating up the entire economic structure, it seems to me there is merit to justice and prosperity too from religious texts, they seem to have a lot of experience in unseating entrenched oligarchs.

        REDLAN1 12 Jun 2015 04:29

        What I found entertaining, was the statement by Rice, which went "As our managing director has said many times, the IMF never leaves the table," except of course when the entire team gets called back to Washington, and errr... leaves the table...

        We are meant to presume that this is a negotiating tactic, and that the IMF is Dirty Harry? In the final scene, Dirty Harry goads the perp into going for his gun so that he can legally kill him in self-defence. Although in the first scene where this is used Dirty Harry's gun is empty. So which is it?

        Have they got an empty gun, or are they trying to goad Greece into defaulting, so they can blow them away?

        REDLAN1 -> galava 12 Jun 2015 03:52

        You can do the math yourself for the UK...

        http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_welfare_spending_40.html

        I assume UK public spending on pensions at 8.6% of GDP. This 2% average sounds like nonsense.

        Scipio1 -> Angkor 12 Jun 2015 03:27

        In terms of purchasing power parity China does have the largest economy in the world. The US GDP is roughly $17 trn and China's is roughly $8trn, but a dollar in China goes twice as far as a $ in the US. Moreover China does not have the same debt levels as the US. US public debt is over 100% of GDP. When you count how rich a country is remember to factor in the LIABILITIES as well as the assets. The US is the world's biggest debtor country and China is the biggest creditor.

        The US only enjoys (if this is the right word) its current living standards since it controls the world currency. But this is coming to and end as the BRICS nations are de-dollarizing and setting up their own institutions which circumvent the dollar. Institutions such as the AIIB and the BRICS investment bank.

        The world is changing old chap, and of course the Americans don't like it; their dominant position is under threat which is why they are trying to arrest this development by any means - financial, economic, political and military - at their disposable.

        Hypatia415 -> Quaestio 12 Jun 2015 03:07

        Yes, Greece has been fleeced of so many of its assets. Prescient warnings over time of the world's anarchic banking system wreaking havoc and yet never held to account:
        http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/apr/18/goldman-sachs-regulators-civil-charges
        http://www.alternet.org/economy/how-goldman-sachs-may-provoke-yet-another-major-financial-crisis

        PeregrineSlim 12 Jun 2015 02:47

        Leaving the negotiation table is negotiation.

        The IMF are not going anywhere. They are just negotiating.

        Greece can take heart. They'll do anything for a deal.

        ShiresofEngland 12 Jun 2015 02:35

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11654639/IMF-has-betrayed-its-mission-in-Greece-captive-to-EMU-creditors.html

        This is the real problem. The IMF should never have been involved in the first place. They should stick to their mandate of only ever loaning money where that debt is sustainable.

        For the IMF to walk out that might not be a bad thing, but they should walk out on Merkel and the EU for refusing an OSI, the debt writedown which Greece needs.

        It has always been a solvency issue and not a liquidity issue. Until the Troika accept that then no progress can be made.

        JimVxxxx -> madrupert 12 Jun 2015 02:35

        The IMF is not only about money. They have an ideological mandate too. Now, you may agree with this ideological mandate or not. However, if you do not, then it is best to not borrow money from them!

        The IMF would argue that they do put people before money; by increasing the competitiveness of a country they are ultimately benefiting everyone who lives there.

        JimVxxxx -> zchabj6 12 Jun 2015 02:28

        Some interesting points there... the IMF is a bank, just like any other, with a mandate to encourage free-market policies (as far as I know).

        The ECB are far better positioned to provide tools which would lessen the impact for individual EU countries facing sovereign debt funding issues, however, it is not explicitly mandated to do so.

        I have never come across the term 'debt jubilee' but it sounds fun; perhaps you could explain what it is? Also, how would abolishing compound interest help?

        hermanmitt -> piper909 12 Jun 2015 02:22

        This entire situation is a foreshadowing of what's to come in a world that allows international banking cabals and corporate investors to dictate policies to sovereign states, regardless of the will of the people as expressed in open elections.

        "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" - Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

        This is just the money phase of a process that takes power away from elected government and hands it to a few bankers. The next stage is to hand the management of that power to the few who run the corporations.

        That process is now well under way in the form of TTIP.
        Q: Ever wondered how something this important could be discussed in secret?
        A: Because these elites do not consider ordinary people to be part of the process, so why would they need to consult us.

        Constantine Alexander 12 Jun 2015 02:16

        It is very obvious that many of you who have commented have never lived in Greece. Although I have lived and worked in 5 countries, I was born, raised, served my military service and have returned to work in this country that I have always loved but ... the daily corruption, tax evasion on a massive scale, refusal to honour the terms of ordinary contracts that Greeks willingly sign only to later cherry-pick the terms by which they wish to abide and the inherent sense of always feeling victimized by the rest of the world are not productive features in civil society. Did you know that 29 billion (yes - Billion) euros of income tax were not paid by Greek professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc.) in 2009 according to Univ of Chicago researchers?

        That figure does not include the tax evasion by the rest of (and the majority of) Greek working people. I am disappointed in the educational system that is ranked lowest in the EU and, most of all, in my fellow citizens who cling to this system of daily corruption and bribe-taking but refuse to recognise this behaviour in themselves. Please stop blaming financial creditors who have a right to request loan conditions (just as we have home loan conditions) that the Greeks could have declined. The financial mismanagement in this country is staggering, so, for those of you who criticize the lenders - don't forget there are two sides to every story and you may not be seeing everything that goes on here.

        Renato Timotheus 12 Jun 2015 02:13

        I think the solution for Greece is becoming clearer by the day.
        1. Default.
        2. Secure Russian and Chinese support for the new currency for a period of 2 years or so.
        3. Requisition all German and Luxembourg-owned property/assets in Greece in lieu of WWII reparation payments (yes, Luxembourg was a part of Germany in WWII, so it too owes reparations, and many Luxembourg-registered companies have assets in Greece).
        4. Massive drive to attract British and Russian tourists to a cheaper Greece.
        5. Threaten to join the SCO, if NATO starts conspiring for a military coup.

        eastofthesun -> Faith Puleston 12 Jun 2015 02:07

        it is a country that thinks the EU is a source of income to make up for them not doing their sums at home

        I'm thinking that if lenders have the right to enforce policy decisions, then maybe they ought also to bear a share of responsibility. By which I mean that when the IMF was busy throwing money at Greece's erstwhile administrations it must have been well aware of what was happening with its money (including that bled away into corruption), yet it tolerated it; certainly the IMF had more potential say in Greek policy at the time than the current administration.

        If the politicians of earlier administrations abused their access to EU funding, they did so knowing that it would ultimately not be them to pick up the bill. Like most elected politicians they needed only a short-term perspective. The lenders indulged this when the money was being spent in the first place, now they're cracking down on the people who inherited the debt - not those who ran it up. (Of course, the lenders inherit the debt too.)

        That's the nature of long-term debt. We need to learn that this lending process is dysfunctional - but both parties to the debt are complicit in that. This is why it is incumbent on the lenders to negotiate.

        AlexLeo 12 Jun 2015 01:33

        A very irresponsible and simplistic, really sensationalistic summary. The hallmark of a pseudointellectual, a journalist who has never held a real job and seen how money is made and value is created and lives in the imaginary world of movie one liners and simple messages. Holding a gun to his head - are you speaking to a juvenile delinquent trying to get a message across? Pathetic, Cannot see anyone paying money to read this analysis.


        Chris Hindle 12 Jun 2015 01:23

        IMF to Alexis Tsipras: 'Do you feel lucky, punk?'

        Good to see this 'economist' sitting astride the neutral position

        I thought everyone realised the Greek people are innocent in all this - that the debts were accrued illegally and probably only as little as 5-10% actually benefitted the Greek people - the rest, inevitably, benefitting Greek bent banksters and politicians.
        I wonder if this 'economist' was trained in the dreamworld of neo-classical economics

        To put it clearly - Bollox to the IMF -- People first!

        Notaterrorist 12 Jun 2015 01:00

        The best writing on this subject (not just a regurgitation of "she said, he said" like the above useless piece of "journalism") is by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Daily Telegraph. Below is what he writes today.

        If he is correct, I finally understand Schauble - and to my astonishment agree. Neither Greece nor the Eurozone can function while Greece remains in the Euro. It's time for Grexit and a Marshall Plan.

        "Mr Schauble is the proponent of a "velvet divorce" for Greece: an orderly exit from the euro and a return to the drachma, with the ECB playing a crucial role in stabilizing the new currency. Germany and other creditors would then step in with a "Marshall Plan" to put the country back on its feet within the EU.

        What Mr Schauble is not prepared to accept is a breach of contract by Greece on the terms of its previous "Troika" rescue, which he fears would lead to moral hazard and the collapse of fiscal discipline across Southern Europe. He is backed by much of the ruling Christian Democrat party (CDU) and its Bavarian allies (CSU)

        Mrs Merkel appears to have concluded that "Grexit" is fraught with risk and would inevitably be blamed on Germany, leaving a toxic political and emotional legacy."

        Quaestio -> MikeBenn 11 Jun 2015 23:00

        Why? Because US investment banks were involved in the Greek debt.

        Wall St. Helped to Mask Debt Fueling Europe's Crisis

        By LOUISE STORY, LANDON THOMAS Jr. and NELSON D. SCHWARTZ
        Published: February 13, 2010
        The New York Times

        Wall Street tactics akin to the ones that fostered subprime mortgages in America have worsened the financial crisis shaking Greece and undermining the euro by enabling European governments to hide their mounting debts.

        As worries over Greece rattle world markets, records and interviews show that with Wall Street's help, the nation engaged in a decade-long effort to skirt European debt limits. One deal created by Goldman Sachs helped obscure billions in debt from the budget overseers in Brussels.

        Even as the crisis was nearing the flashpoint, banks were searching for ways to help Greece forestall the day of reckoning. In early November - three months before Athens became the epicenter of global financial anxiety - a team from Goldman Sachs arrived in the ancient city with a very modern proposition for a government struggling to pay its bills, according to two people who were briefed on the meeting.

        The bankers, led by Goldman's president, Gary D. Cohn, held out a financing instrument that would have pushed debt from Greece's health care system far into the future, much as when strapped homeowners take out second mortgages to pay off their credit cards.

        It had worked before. In 2001, just after Greece was admitted to Europe's monetary union, Goldman helped the government quietly borrow billions, people familiar with the transaction said. That deal, hidden from public view because it was treated as a currency trade rather than a loan, helped Athens to meet Europe's deficit rules while continuing to spend beyond its means.

        Athens did not pursue the latest Goldman proposal, but with Greece groaning under the weight of its debts and with its richer neighbors vowing to come to its aid, the deals over the last decade are raising questions about Wall Street's role in the world's latest financial drama.

        As in the American subprime crisis and the implosion of the American International Group, financial derivatives played a role in the run-up of Greek debt. Instruments developed by Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and a wide range of other banks enabled politicians to mask additional borrowing in Greece, Italy and possibly elsewhere.

        In dozens of deals across the Continent, banks provided cash upfront in return for government payments in the future, with those liabilities then left off the books. Greece, for example, traded away the rights to airport fees and lottery proceeds in years to come.

        Critics say that such deals, because they are not recorded as loans, mislead investors and regulators about the depth of a country's liabilities.

        Glen Killoran -> Pomario 11 Jun 2015 22:49

        Based upon what?

        Tourism? Tried that, it allowed the 1950 Greek economy to rocket into the 20's.

        Shipping? Too late, that ship has already sailed.

        Manufacturing, yeah, Greece will be #1, right after Bangladesh, Vietnam and Cambodia.

        Agriculture? Equipment bought with what money, the Drachma? Hmm, that'll be a competitive business model.

        Real-estate? Just how expensive do you think homes will be when the local populace is cash poor, in debt, and has no access to credit? Can you say buyers market? It will be the foreign fire sale buyer that buys low, sells high, not the Greeks.

        And, all of this assumes the Greek economic model is reformed, and that is what the troika is trying to do right?

        Seems to me default is really just the long hard road to reform, if it ever gets there because, there surely no demand for it now.

        Mark Richardson 11 Jun 2015 22:46

        It is kind of difficult for the new Greek government to give the IMF and its other creditors anything in new austerity measures considering that the Greek unemployment rate is over 25% and the youth unemployment rate is 60%. How much more pain would you be willing to force on your own people if you were a new reform leader considering that this entire crisis was caused when the previous conservative Greek government hid and failed to report half of its entire deficit? I don't see a viable future for Greece that includes having to repay the IMF and other major lenders as any more reforms will just drive the jobless rate and their GDP loss rate higher too.

        Basically either the IMF and Germany agree to restructure the Greek debt or Greece will pull-out of the Eurozone, and right after that happens Italy and Spain will be next, which will cause another Great Depression in the major lending countries.

        Andrew Paul -> Wood Pomario 11 Jun 2015 22:16

        There probably won't be a tourism boom if Grexit triggers a global recession when the EU markets spin into chaos. So why can't they collect tax revenues from the wealthy now and clear up all their problems in the first place?

        fflambeau -> Glen Killoran 11 Jun 2015 22:01

        I agree that past Greek governments have made huge mistakes. But the main problem is not in pension funds, as you claim, but in military spending. In the 1980's the Greek government spent 6% of its GDP on military expenditures. That is now about 2% of GDP but that is still the second highest of all NATO countries, second only to America.

        You seem to miss the point that the current Greek government had nothing to do with the mistakes made by former governments and has done a noble job of righting the ship.

        As for your comments about the overly generous nature of Greek pensions, you are off base. Maybe that was the case many years ago, but not in the past couple of years.

        fflambeau 11 Jun 2015 21:42

        Let's compare the "bailouts" that President Obama worked out with huge Wall St. companies and corporations that failed in 2007-2009. They got enormous funding, trillions of dollars, at virtually no interest and no oversight.

        General Motors took $6 billion of its $50 billion bailout and built an automobile manufacturing plant (in Thailand, no less!).

        What did the USA's taxpayers make off the billions of dollars it gave GM, at the time the largest corporation in the world? Nothing. In fact, they LOST money.

        Reuters and Time both report that the US government LOST money, $11.2 billion, by loaning $50 billion to GM. Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/30/us-autos-gm-treasury-idUSBREA3T0MR20140430

        Did the US government put pressure on GM to make them pay back the lost $11.2 billion? Nope.

        So those complaining here about giveaways to a lazy Greek people should look at what is really happening in their countries and what the IMF and other international organizations are really doing.

        AnhTay 11 Jun 2015 19:10

        One possibility is obvious. Greece is prepared to default. They are, quite rationally, waiting to see if they can get a deal with the IMF that would be acceptable as an alternative to default. Even if they cannot, what is the harm in playing out their hand to see if it is possible? There is no point in getting childish about the issue. Negotiations are about business. If Greece chooses to default, so be it. No reason for the IMF to get all gnarly on the point.

        fceska -> Bowhill 11 Jun 2015 19:07

        That's not the only thing that's wrong. The whole article is completely one-sided. This paragraph for instance:

        Up until now, the view in Athens has been that the troika – made up of the IMF, the European Central Bank and the European commission – has been bluffing. The view has been that there is always room for a bit more haggling, always time to cut a better deal that would avoid the need to make the changes to pensions, VAT and collective bargaining being demanded in exchange for fresh financial assistance.

        could be rewritten as:

        Up until now, the troika – made up of the IMF, the European Central Bank and the European commission – has been of the view that Athens has been bluffing. The view has been that there is always room for a bit more arm-twisting, always time to force a tougher deal that would ratify the need to make the changes to pensions, VAT and collective bargaining which they were demanding in exchange for yet more unsustainable financial assistance.


        aretzios -> mariandavid 11 Jun 2015 18:37

        You have it all wrong. You should read the IMF reports. The IMF actually urged the EU to write-off part of the Greek debt. The IMF felt that it was put in a bad situation, brought in by the EU to manage the problem without any of the tools usually allowed in these situations, such as debt write-off and devaluation. In its 2014 report, the IMF stated that the whole "bailout" deal was not to rescue Greece but to rescue the Euro. Now, knowing that it is not going to get any assistance from the EU, it is putting the pressure on Greece to get its funds from there. I think that the IMF feels trapped in a situation that it was not of its making.

        The issue of the pensions is the most galling one. During the 2012 write-down, the EU protected all its assets; the 50 billion euros in Greek bonds held by the ECB were not subject to the write-down. However, all Greek pensions funds were forced (literally forced) to participate. They collected just 17 cents to the Euro (or thereabouts) in the bond exchange. Of course, now the EU claims that there is no money to service the current pensions, thus the pensions need to be reduced! Considering that the average pension is about 600 euros (and living costs in Greece are very much the same as in the UK), one can see how galling this is (and they already have gone down by 40% in the last five years). If you add to this the demanded tax increases, the whole thing almost sounds like a Mafia protection racket.

        Even though the IMF is not "impressed" with the concessions that the Greek government has made thus far, this government would not really survive if it brings this package to the parliament. A good number of its MPs would not vote for it and many of its ministers would resign. The resulting turmoil would only deepen the political crisis.

        At the end, the EU will find a very anti-EU militant country in its southeast corner with more to follow. Not really good for anybody

        [Jun 12, 2015] Germany drops inquiry into claims NSA tapped Angela Merkel's phone by Ewen MacAskill

        I guess it is clear who is the boss: "...When the row was its height, the chancellor said: "The charges are grave and have to be cleared up.""
        "..."Merkel wants to be a good ally again after all the embarrassing things that have happened," he said."
        Jun 12, 2015 | The Guardian
        Germany has closed its investigation into a report that the US National Security Agency had hacked Chancellor Angela Merkel's mobile phone, a move that appears to be aimed at ending transatlantic friction that threatened intelligence cooperation between the two countries.

        US intelligence agencies have been angered by the amount of sensitive information being made public as a result of German investigations into US surveillance after the Edward Snowden revelations two years ago.

        German federal prosecutors announced on Friday that their investigation was being wound down because they had been unable to find evidence that would stand up in court.

        The investigation came after Der Spiegel reported in October 2013 that the NSA had a database containing Merkel's personal phone number. Merkel publicly expressed outrage and dispatched a team of senior German intelligence officers to Washington, supposedly to extract a "no spy" agreement. When the row was its height, the chancellor said: "The charges are grave and have to be cleared up."

        A German federal investigation began last June but the office of the German chief prosecutor, Harald Range, announced on Friday that it did not have an original NSA document proving the NSA spied on Merkel.

        "The documents published in the media so far that come from Edward Snowden also contain no evidence of surveillance of the mobile phone used by the chancellor solid enough for a court,"

        Range's office said. German prosecutors said they saw no prospect of success in continuing to investigate.

        The White House, responding to the Der Spiegel story in 2013, said it was not spying on Merkel at present and nor would it in the future, but refused to say whether it had in the past, which was interpreted by some as an admission of guilt.

        But German prosecutors said:

        "The vague comments by US officials about possible surveillance of the chancellor's mobile telecommunication by a US intelligence service 'not any more' are not enough to describe what happened. The comments, which were viewed in public as a general admission of guilt, do not discharge us from (fulfilling) the burden of proof according to the requirements of criminal procedure."

        The federal prosecutor's office received virtually no cooperation in its investigation from either the NSA or Germany's equivalent, the BND.

        Christoph Scheuermann, UK correspondent for Der Spiegel, said closure of the investigation was about reassuring the US and showing that Germany was going to be more cooperative. "Merkel wants to be a good ally again after all the embarrassing things that have happened," he said.

        While German intelligence has a reputation for being solid on the Middle East, it remains heavily reliant on the US for other parts of the world and may have feared the flow of information from the US could be cut off, Scheuermann said.

        Germany may also be reliant on US cooperation in helping keep tabs on foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq with groups such as Islamic State, which is active on social media. The NSA has better access to US-based internet providers than Germany.

        Related:

        [Jun 12, 2015] The West opens a second front against the Russian elite in Ukraine - Fort Russ

        June 12, 2015 | Pravoye Delo

        Translated by Kristina Rus

        In addition to sanctions, Western-controlled Ukraine increases pressure on the Russian elite, by going after their property.

        We already wrote about the Ukrainian junta making moves primarily, legal, on the seizure of Russian state property in Ukraine - http://pravoe-org.livejournal.com/521470.html
        Perhaps the most serious take over was a pipeline in Western Ukraine of the Russian state corporation "Transneft".

        Now, however, the situation has changed. Ukraine started seizing the property of the Russian oligarchs. The hype just increased in the last few days, especially on June 10 and 11, when it became clear that the Minsk-2 is going down the drain. Basically, the flood gates had opened.

        In the period from June 8 to 11 a process of requisition of property of the Russian oligarchs began in Ukraine. First of all, Oleg Deripaska lost (in favor of the state) the Zaporozhye Aluminum plant, and Viktor Vekselberg, with a combination of pressure from the Prosecutor's office and an armed takeover, is losing the Pobuzhsky Ferronikel plant.

        However, ukies honestly warned about such scenario by the raider №1 in Ukraine - Gennady Korban (a person close to "Benya" Kolomoisky [Korban is former deputy governor of Dnepropetrovsk region - KR], and Korban had the experience of seizing the Russian property in the pre-Maidan era). At the end of May, Korban announced his plan on how to repossess the Russian property:

        "Russian banks on the territory of Ukraine shall be confiscated in the first place. They can affect both the exchange rate and loan servicing and property of state corporations. Today a number of Ukrainian state corporations just service the enemy credits".

        "If these or other capitals, originating from Russia, are related to specific individuals, directly or indirectly involved in the funding or facilitating terrorism, separatism and the war in our country, then, on the basis of this law, their property on mainland Ukraine must be confiscated," - said Korban, and as an example, listed a number of large Ukrainian enterprises, owned by Russian oligarchs:

        • Nikolaev Alumina refinery and ZAlK [Zaporozhye Aluminum plant] of Oleg Deripaska
        • Pobujsky Ferronickel plant of Viktor Vekselberg
        • Coal coke enterprises, the "South" mine and Dnepropetrovsk Petrovsky metallurgical plant, belonging to the group "Evraz"
        • Purchased by VTB group, assets of the Industrial Union of Donbass
        http://dnpr.com.ua/content/korban-potreboval-konfiskovat-rossiyskie-banki-i-sobstvennost-rossiyskih-oligarhov

        Today, the "Cunning Plan of Korban", unlike the CPP [the Cunning Plan of Putin], is being implemented. Actively implemented. Here are the facts:

        First, nationalization

        On June 9, junta has completed the process of "nationalization" of Zaporozhye Aluminium plant: ZALK was adjudged from the holding "RUSAL" of Russian Oleg Deripaska. The controlling stake, which is 68.01% of the total number of shares was credited to the account of the State Property Fund of Ukraine. State raiding by the junta became possible after March 11, when the supreme court upheld the "legitimacy" of demands for the return of shares to the state due to the failure by the investor (Deripaska's holding company) to fulfill obligations (formally, the Russian "AVTOVAZ-Invest" and Cyprus company Velbay Holdings could not settle a debt). The official message of junta Prosecutor General can be found here: http://www.gp.gov.ua/ua/news.html?_m=publications&_c=view&_t=rec&id=157430

        It's also important to note that Korban's gang set its sights on ZALK since the end of last year:

        "In early November, the plant (ZALK) came under the cross-hairs of fighters of battalion "Aidar", the financing of which is connected to the Governor of Dnepropetrovsk region, Igor Kolomoisky. On the night of November 9, 2014 the fighters of Aydar barricaded themselves in the building of Zaporozhzhye Aluminium plant, allegedly "to prevent looting". Zaporozhye police had to aid in liberating the plant from the patriots.

        http://rian.com.ua/analytics/20141113/359497708.html

        But it was too rough, now they decided to maintain the facade of legitimacy.


        Second, revocation of licenses and liquidation


        On June 11, in the afternoon, the National Bank of Ukraine adopted the decision on revocation of the banking license and liquidation of "Energobank", according to the resolution of the board of the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) No. 370, dated June 11.

        http://bank.gov.ua/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=18299746&cat_id=55838

        Formally "Energobank" is owned by a Russian businessman, Anatoly Danilitskiy. Previously, it belonged to the group of oligarch Alexander Lebedev, the one who likes to engage in publishing activity in London. However, two years ago information surfaced, that there is a written obligation of the new owner Anatoly Danilitsky on reissuance of shares of the bank to the "National Reserve Company" (NRK) of Lebedev. Thus, Danilitsky owns "Energobank" nominally, but the real owner is still Alexander Lebedev. Security services of Ukraine considered the bank a financial "wash" of the Russian oligarchs.

        http://sled.net.ua/kievskiy/energobank/kak/moyka/rossiyskogo/oligarkha/2013/06/02 )

        But now the bank is liquidated.

        Third, a take over with a shoot out

        June 11, in the evening. A capture of Pobujsky Ferronickel plant (PFC). This is the only enterprise in Ukraine and the former Soviet Union, producing ferronickel on an industrial scale from poor oxidized nickel ores. Located on the territory of Kirovograd region, on the border with Nikolaev region.

        Here is the sequence of events:

        1. In Golovanevsk district, Kirovograd region, at around 21:00 a group of armed men tried to enter the Pobuzhsky Ferronickel plant, at the moment they were negotiating with the administration, reported the head of the village council of Dolgaya Pristan of the Nikolaev region, Sergey Titarenko (this settlement is adjacent to the Kirovograd region). "About an hour ago armed men tried to enter the Pobuzhsky Ferronickel plant. Our town is a mile from the plant. We could hear shooting. At the moment there is information on negotiations between the invaders and the administration, " said Sergey Titarenko.

        In Pobuzhye, the village head, Sergey Slobodyanyuk explained: "Even this morning the representatives of the prosecutor and tax authorities of Kirovograd region, accompanied by the detachment of police, tried to enter the territory of the enterprise, but only a tax investigator went into the plant. At 9 p.m. about 50 people with guns in black uniforms arrived on buses. They failed to get inside, facing resistance from the staff and the guards. Meanwhile, armed men accompanied the man, who declared that according to the decision of the court, he is the new owner of the Ferronickel plant", - said Sergey Slobodyanyuk. He also added that tomorrow morning, to avoid bloodshed a meeting for the employees, the current administration and the alleged new owner of the enterprise will be held in Pobuzhye House of Culture to determine the fate of the plant.

        http://nikvesti.com/news/incidents/70619

        2. In the evening, at a press conference in Kiev, the CEO of the Pobuzhsky Ferronickel plant, Oleg Bespalov has informed that on June 11, unknown persons were trying to block the products of Pobujsky Ferronickel plant in Kirovograd region, the investor of which is Solway Investment Group:

        "Actions by unknown persons to block the import of a large batch of nickel ore and ferronickel and the prosecutor's office of Kirovograd region conducting simultaneous search actions, we consider as an attempt of illegal seizure of the property of the group"

        Deputy director of the PFC on legal affairs, Rustam Dzhamgurov, in turn added that accusations towards PFC are absurd, because PFC provides processing services and does not produce the product, and added that enforcement proceedings opened against PFC were opened due to a claim of a physical person, who has no relation to the company. Dzhamgurov clarified that this individual has never appeared in court and did not provide explanatory materials on the case:

        "In this case we are talking about an organized judicial arbitrariness and lawlessness ... 72 thousand tonnes of ore and 7 thousand tons of ferronickel were arrested. The company is carrying huge losses."

        http://comments.ua/politics/517228-rukovodstvo-pfk-zayavilo-zahvate.html

        3. The products of PFC are shipped through the port of Ilyichevsk, and there it was detained. (Ilyichevsk - is Odessa region, where Saakashvili is now governor). It is important that on June 8 a scandal was raised claiming the products of PFC are used for defense purposes and are illegally shipped to Russia:

        "Press service (of the port) stated that on Monday, June 8, false information was circulated about the alleged illegal shipment of ferronickel products used in the defense industry, in particular, in the production of alloy steel for armored vehicles. At the port this media campaign to discredit the head of the enterprise, Yury Kruk, was connected to the search for the position of director of the Ilyichevsk Commercial Sea Port, conducted by the Ministry of Infrastructure. On June 8, some online media, indeed, reported that allegedly the arrested batch of 7 thousand tons of ferronickel was being loaded on the ship "Seldonis" at terminal 4 of Pier 18 of the Ilyichevsk port. ... The shipment of ferronickel is allegedly owned by "Bowring Trading", and it was going to be transported to Russia."

        http://www.04868.com.ua/article/851529

        Oh, and by the way, who is watching TV? Is there anything on Russia-24 or the Channel 1 on the an armed seizure of a Ferronickel plant, which essentially belongs to Russian investors? And on the liquidation of a Russian Bank? Nothing? Let's pretend, it's not ours?... Oh, well...

        And more. Such an attack on the property of the Russian oligarchs (Deripaska, and most importantly, Vekselberg, and the attack will likely continue) is going on with the full support of the state - Prosecutor General. Therefore, it is planned. Consequently, it's a part of a master plan. A plan of pressure on their property, in addition to the sanctions of the West against Russia, which were largely intended to cause discontent in the Russian oligarchy. Today, yesterday, the day before yesterday a second front was opened in this direction.

        [Jun 12, 2015] IMF to Alexis Tsipras: Do you feel lucky, punk?

        Notable quotes:
        "... Mr Eliot how you dare to call our prime minister a "punk"? Who do you think you are you or other journalist around the world? Why you don't write the truth that the hard working Greeks have lost the 60 % of their income and they can't live with less money. Your article as well as other around the world is called "bulling". ..."
        "... If you had read even the anti-greek newspapers in the last 5 years you would understand that 90% of the "loans" Greece "took" - i.e. had imposed on them - went directly to German, French and Dutch banks. ..."
        "... What I found entertaining, was the statement by Rice, which went "As our managing director has said many times, the IMF never leaves the table," except of course when the entire team gets called back to Washington, and errr... leaves the table... ..."
        "... The IMF is not only about money. They have an ideological mandate too. Now, you may agree with this ideological mandate or not. However, if you do not, then it is best to not borrow money from them! ..."
        "... Did you know that 29 billion (yes - Billion) euros of income tax were not paid by Greek professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc.) in 2009 according to Univ of Chicago researchers? ..."
        "... A very irresponsible and simplistic, really sensationalistic summary. The hallmark of a pseudointellectual, a journalist who has never held a real job and seen how money is made and value is created and lives in the imaginary world of movie one liners and simple messages. ..."
        "... "Mr Schauble is the proponent of a "velvet divorce" for Greece: an orderly exit from the euro and a return to the drachma, with the ECB playing a crucial role in stabilizing the new currency. Germany and other creditors would then step in with a "Marshall Plan" to put the country back on its feet within the EU. What Mr Schauble is not prepared to accept is a breach of contract by Greece on the terms of its previous "Troika" rescue, which he fears would lead to moral hazard and the collapse of fiscal discipline across Southern Europe. He is backed by much of the ruling Christian Democrat party (CDU) and its Bavarian allies (CSU) ..."
        "... Wall Street tactics akin to the ones that fostered subprime mortgages in America have worsened the financial crisis shaking Greece and undermining the euro by enabling European governments to hide their mounting debts. ..."
        Jun 12, 2015 | The Guardian

        Hristos Dagres 12 Jun 2015 11:50

        Basically, the IMF should officially admit their fatal errors in the development of the first MoU that "saved" Greece [well, we all know now that the first plan was nothing more than an attempt to save euro and the French-German banks that was cunningly presented as a token of "European solidarity" - in reality, they didn't give a sh..t about Greece].

        These "errors" were immediately identified by other members of the IMF board, like Brazil, Argentina, China and .... Switzerland, according to the IMF documents presented by WSJ

        [http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/10/07/imf-document-excerpts-disagreements-revealed/ ]

        I believe that Christine should pick up her pieces and crawl back to the table - and this time she should present a plan that will restore the damage done.

        Or else, they should not get a single euro back - and we should start negotiating with the BRICS for a fair plan to restructure our economy.

        MachinePork 12 Jun 2015 11:30

        Make no mistake about it a Greek default is a calamity for the global financial system. Debt on the periphery is in the trillions. It is carried on the books in banks and treasuries at face value only because national administrators understand – with the blessing of the automatons at BIS -- what it would mean if this crap was subjected to a proper stress test or marked-to-market.

        At stake in this battle is the entire global financial system. Should a NATO government summon the cheek to opt out of the prevailing international credit system, issue debt-free capital, invest in its people, grow exports and prove to succeed; the entire compound interest earning, system of rent-making privilege would collapse. My sense is the kingdom of Finance, its banking lords and its lickspittles in policy will never let this happen.

        God bless the Greek people. This is going to get messy. They should be commended for their bravery in the face of endless threats of financial serfdom for intransigence.

        The international debt monkey is a doppelgänger. He looks so inviting at first glance but is more than prepared to reach back and lob a compound interest bearing shit bomb your direction in a bid to save privilege in the global financial zoo.

        Maria Christoulaki 12 Jun 2015 10:43

        Mr Eliot how you dare to call our prime minister a "punk"? Who do you think you are you or other journalist around the world? Why you don't write the truth that the hard working Greeks have lost the 60 % of their income and they can't live with less money. Your article as well as other around the world is called "bulling". What do you think that Greeks are? all these articles except of bulling show a racism against us. You must ask an excuse for this article which offends both our prime minister and the Greek people, who voted him.

        mgtuzairodtiiasn asiancelt 12 Jun 2015 09:08

        It is funny! The German bankers stole your money, and you still believe that all this money went to the Greeks. This money went from the German banks to the German enterprises. Because they gave bribes to win contracts for useless military equipment. For example, Greece bought 4 submarines that doesn't need. Even today, only one has been delivered, because there were major design faults, although the German company has received the money. Regarding the loans of the previous years, do you believe that the total amount of the Greek debt was to expire in just 3 years? Obviously, the gang that rules EU today, gave 240 bn Euros to banks of Germany, France, Netherlands etc, and used Greece as a scapegoat to hide this fraud. Wake up!

        mgtuzairodtiiasn Angkor 12 Jun 2015 08:55

        Firstly, negotiation is not that you agree to what the institutions require. Secondly, you are right. The Greek economy and society have been carried many parasites until now.

        Remember the German companies like Siemens, Ferrostaal, ThyssenKrupp which gave bribes to many politicians and Media owners. Or Hochtief, which still has not paid 500 mn Euros of VAT to the Greek state. It is time to get rid of all this parasites.

        elenits -> Anton Brasschaat 12 Jun 2015 07:57

        "Loans" imposed by IMF against its mandate = Odious debt.

        Greeks shouldering 340 bn of EU, ECB, IMF "loans" to shore up foreign malinvesting banks = Odious debt

        Loans to Greece that were not used by Greeks = Odious debt

        IMF breaking its own rules to loan without debt restructure = Odious debt

        This is without considering ECB acting outside its mandate, i.e. politically, from Feb 2015 by illegally cutting Greece from bond markets and out of QE.

        elenits -> asiancelt 12 Jun 2015 07:49

        If you had read even the anti-greek newspapers in the last 5 years you would understand that 90% of the "loans" Greece "took" - i.e. had imposed on them - went directly to German, French and Dutch banks. The 10% Greece was allowed to keep paid for the interests on these "loans" - topped up with money screwed out of the Greek taxpayers.

        Apropos the IMF they acted illegally against their own rules by lending to a first world country [not a "developing" country] and by accepting a greek program that did not include debt restructure, i.e. the same German, French and Dutch banks having to accept some losses.

        There is no such thing as "risk" anymore for banks, corporations or the 1%. Risk and poverty is only for ordinary people like yourself.

        dawisner -> Constantine Alexander 12 Jun 2015 07:30

        Constantine, as an American expat living in Greece for the past 21 years now (I was married in Thessaloniki in 1988), I, too, have frequently lamented how many armchair experts appear in these chat rooms. I published an e-book last year (Still at Aulis) with a view toward trying to explain to the casual observer how complex the local situation can be, and how worthy and hard-working my Greek peers often are. Keep up the good work.

        seaspan -> Anton Brasschaat 12 Jun 2015 05:50

        French and German banks were generously bailed out of any risk by "taxpayers" from the EU, including Greeks.

        And Greek leverage is honesty: they have a clear understanding of current economic reality, and a better plan to payback their debts to Euro taxpayers. Anyone who says different is suspect as to their interests and intentions.

        It isnt Syriza you should be questioning if you are sincere about your concern for the taxpayer. It is the financial advisers and ideologues backing austerity you should question. Are they merely driven by their egos and reputations as pro austerity hawks? Afraid for their secure positions as Yes Men in financial institutions?

        And anyone in the negotiating process who has loyalties to Russia should be severely scrutinised, since Putin's interests are for a failure in negotiations, for a Grexit, all toward a long term desire of an EU breakup.

        It could come down to questions of treason why there is no negotiated settlement,,, if such a word is applicable to the EU project...

        Constantine Alexander -> Renato Timotheus 12 Jun 2015 05:43

        My life's experiences - including beginning work at 8 years of age; 3 years military service; professional activities including U.S. investment banking, employment development in Eastern Europe (e.g. job creation at a Belarus agricultural production facility which is still thriving), 10 years devoted to my passion for wildlife conservation projects with worthy BirdLife Int'l NGO partners (not as you coyly suggested as a result of "untoward" behaviour); and having a doctor threaten to refuse to perform my father's surgery unless he receives a 10,000 euro cash bribe in addition to his customary doctor's fee and the hospital costs - have shaped my perspective on the factors that contribute to or undermine civil society.

        If Greece exits the euro, the resulting cost of vital goods will soar due to the country's heavy reliance on imports. This will hit the middle class and the poor much harder than the current austerity measures -- most of which have not been implemented by any Greek gov (e.g. opening up business sectors to competition, privatization of debt-ridden public institutions, tax collection which has for decades suffered due to customary and widespread bribery demanded by tax officials, privatization of public assets).

        The long term solution lies in the govt starting to do what most of us have to do - we prioritize spending based on worthiness and needs (food, health, education, etc), keep a reserve for contingencies, and spend in relation to our incoming revenue. But rather than contributing to long term stability and security for the country which benefits everyone's work activities, the society insists upon short term benefits (e.g. public sector hiring for my children, tax evasion) that it clearly cannot afford. The broader issue is not lender's conditions vs. austerity relief, but rather a way of organizing govt and society which, in the Greek model, has gotten way out of hand due to low interest rates for excessive borrowing by a series of governments. We'll see how the story unfolds.

        PyrosT -> Enoch Arden 12 Jun 2015 05:32

        destroyed economy was not an alternative to the IMF "help", it was its result, carefully planned and systematically implemented. It was in a way a remarkable achievement of IMF: to inflict a greater damage to the Soviet economy than WW2, with the help of the local compradors.

        IMF will not do anything about your or anyone elses local corrupt elites or lack of governance. That is not within their mandate or nature.

        If you think that it is possible to convert a centrally planned soviet style (the core of it to boot) to anything resembling a market economy without major disruption.

        Even East Germany, despite the endless billions thrown into it, went through a period of high unemployment and hardships.

        But I guess it is easier to "blame the IMF". Yes the interventions will almost always lower your GDP - for a quite simple reason that the previous GDP is probably bloated with G (government spending) and any significant restructuring always causes some depression. And yes, it typically isn't a "walk in the park". And some measures are probably misguided, inadequate or ineffective.

        But...

        Why does a country asks for the IMF help in the first place? Because it is sporting unsustainable policies? Sometimes it could even correct itself, but having an outside partner makes some policies easier to deploy.

        DANIELDS 12 Jun 2015 05:10

        Yesterday briefing by G.RICE of IMF

        ...Greek pension system is unsustainable. The Greek pension funds receive transfers from the budget of about 10 percent of GDP annually. Now, this compares to the average in the rest of the Euro zone of two-and-a-half percent of GDP. The standard pension in Greece is almost at the same level as in Germany and people, again on the average, retire almost six years earlier in Greece than in Germany. And GDP per capita increase, of course, is less than half that of the German level.......Terrible errors? reported to justify killing policies of troica and imf......Here is Greek butjet.

        http://www.minfin.gr/?q=en/content/state-budget-execution-january-march-2015

        ......For pensions 6,3 billion eur.GDP OF 2014 179 bill euros and for pensions goes ONLY 3.5% OF IT.

        This the big obstacle of negotiations.10% of GDP is 18 billion euros .3.5% is only 5.4 billions.They are killers of a country with false reports.

        Angkor Renato -> Timotheus 12 Jun 2015 04:53

        Renato on your checklist for Greece's solution to its current problems, a few questions:

        1. Default. Well that's a given. It's going to happen anyway whether the Greeks want it to or not.

        2. Secure Russian and Chinese support for the new currency
        How will Greece secure Russian and Chinese support for its new currency? Aren't they going to do a credit check and find out that the Greeks don't honour their loans? They're bound to find out and its pretty unlikely that they'd be silly enough to line themselves up to be stiffed by the Greeks. They are not mugs you know.

        3. Requisition all German and Luxembourg-owned property/assets in Greece in lieu of WWII reparation payments. Why stop at Germany and Luxembourg? Poland was part of Germany (the Governor Generalate) during WWII. As were Austria (the Anschluss), and the Czech Republic and Slovakia (the Munich Agreement). Why not seize all of the property owed by the nationals of those countries as well? It only seems fair. Also Italy had a role in the invasion of Greece in WWII. In fact the Germans would never have invaded but for the Italians botching the job. Shouldn't you be stiffing the Italians as well?

        4. Massive drive to attract British and Russian tourists to a cheaper Greece. A few questions here. First the Russians. Where will their tourists come from given the parlous state of their economy? And why would they go to Greece now that they have lovely Crimea, the Pearl of the Black Sea, back in their hands? Now for the British. What has Greece got that a British tourist would want that Magaluf doesn't have? Don't say culture because Greece has little of it (and the Italians do it better anyway) and British tourists don't want it. If they wanted Greek culture they'd go to the British Museum where it's been sitting for the last 200 years.

        5. Threaten to join the SCO, if NATO starts conspiring for a military coup. Don't you think that the SCO's dialogue partners, Turkey, may have something to say about that? Nothing kind, of course. That would be a bit too much to expect of the Turks when talking about Greek matters.

        zchabj6 -> JimVxxxx 12 Jun 2015 04:37

        The debt jubilee is a very old idea, mentioned in biblical times, but has also had plenty of implementation in medieval and later times where every 10 years or so all debt is wiped out and debt issuing starts again.

        This was essentially to stop debt slavery where one class monopolizes resources and lends it out to others to do work for the asset owners to do nothing but live off of the interest on the loans, which is caustic to society.

        As for no compound interest. It essentially is my own idea, based on say religious texts that ban interest or usury on loans because of the negative debt slavery consequences.

        But the question is, who would then lend to business and people, where is the incentive? So there could be fixed interest on the original sum and no more, unlike today where you pay interest on the intiial sum and the interest on that.

        And if you miss payments and there are delays to paying, interest breeds interest, rather than having a known fixed sum of interest to pay back which is much more just.

        AER and other formulas are really eating up the entire economic structure, it seems to me there is merit to justice and prosperity too from religious texts, they seem to have a lot of experience in unseating entrenched oligarchs.

        REDLAN1 12 Jun 2015 04:29

        What I found entertaining, was the statement by Rice, which went "As our managing director has said many times, the IMF never leaves the table," except of course when the entire team gets called back to Washington, and errr... leaves the table...

        We are meant to presume that this is a negotiating tactic, and that the IMF is Dirty Harry? In the final scene, Dirty Harry goads the perp into going for his gun so that he can legally kill him in self-defence. Although in the first scene where this is used Dirty Harry's gun is empty. So which is it?

        Have they got an empty gun, or are they trying to goad Greece into defaulting, so they can blow them away?

        REDLAN1 -> galava 12 Jun 2015 03:52

        You can do the math yourself for the UK...

        http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_welfare_spending_40.html

        I assume UK public spending on pensions at 8.6% of GDP. This 2% average sounds like nonsense.

        Scipio1 -> Angkor 12 Jun 2015 03:27

        In terms of purchasing power parity China does have the largest economy in the world. The US GDP is roughly $17 trn and China's is roughly $8trn, but a dollar in China goes twice as far as a $ in the US. Moreover China does not have the same debt levels as the US. US public debt is over 100% of GDP. When you count how rich a country is remember to factor in the LIABILITIES as well as the assets. The US is the world's biggest debtor country and China is the biggest creditor.

        The US only enjoys (if this is the right word) its current living standards since it controls the world currency. But this is coming to and end as the BRICS nations are de-dollarizing and setting up their own institutions which circumvent the dollar. Institutions such as the AIIB and the BRICS investment bank.

        The world is changing old chap, and of course the Americans don't like it; their dominant position is under threat which is why they are trying to arrest this development by any means - financial, economic, political and military - at their disposable.

        Hypatia415 -> Quaestio 12 Jun 2015 03:07

        Yes, Greece has been fleeced of so many of its assets. Prescient warnings over time of the world's anarchic banking system wreaking havoc and yet never held to account:
        http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/apr/18/goldman-sachs-regulators-civil-charges
        http://www.alternet.org/economy/how-goldman-sachs-may-provoke-yet-another-major-financial-crisis

        PeregrineSlim 12 Jun 2015 02:47

        Leaving the negotiation table is negotiation.

        The IMF are not going anywhere. They are just negotiating.

        Greece can take heart. They'll do anything for a deal.

        ShiresofEngland 12 Jun 2015 02:35

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11654639/IMF-has-betrayed-its-mission-in-Greece-captive-to-EMU-creditors.html

        This is the real problem. The IMF should never have been involved in the first place. They should stick to their mandate of only ever loaning money where that debt is sustainable.

        For the IMF to walk out that might not be a bad thing, but they should walk out on Merkel and the EU for refusing an OSI, the debt writedown which Greece needs.

        It has always been a solvency issue and not a liquidity issue. Until the Troika accept that then no progress can be made.

        JimVxxxx -> madrupert 12 Jun 2015 02:35

        The IMF is not only about money. They have an ideological mandate too. Now, you may agree with this ideological mandate or not. However, if you do not, then it is best to not borrow money from them!

        The IMF would argue that they do put people before money; by increasing the competitiveness of a country they are ultimately benefiting everyone who lives there.

        JimVxxxx -> zchabj6 12 Jun 2015 02:28

        Some interesting points there... the IMF is a bank, just like any other, with a mandate to encourage free-market policies (as far as I know).

        The ECB are far better positioned to provide tools which would lessen the impact for individual EU countries facing sovereign debt funding issues, however, it is not explicitly mandated to do so.

        I have never come across the term 'debt jubilee' but it sounds fun; perhaps you could explain what it is? Also, how would abolishing compound interest help?

        hermanmitt -> piper909 12 Jun 2015 02:22

        This entire situation is a foreshadowing of what's to come in a world that allows international banking cabals and corporate investors to dictate policies to sovereign states, regardless of the will of the people as expressed in open elections.

        "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" - Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

        This is just the money phase of a process that takes power away from elected government and hands it to a few bankers. The next stage is to hand the management of that power to the few who run the corporations.

        That process is now well under way in the form of TTIP.
        Q: Ever wondered how something this important could be discussed in secret?
        A: Because these elites do not consider ordinary people to be part of the process, so why would they need to consult us.

        Constantine Alexander 12 Jun 2015 02:16

        It is very obvious that many of you who have commented have never lived in Greece. Although I have lived and worked in 5 countries, I was born, raised, served my military service and have returned to work in this country that I have always loved but ... the daily corruption, tax evasion on a massive scale, refusal to honour the terms of ordinary contracts that Greeks willingly sign only to later cherry-pick the terms by which they wish to abide and the inherent sense of always feeling victimized by the rest of the world are not productive features in civil society. Did you know that 29 billion (yes - Billion) euros of income tax were not paid by Greek professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc.) in 2009 according to Univ of Chicago researchers?

        That figure does not include the tax evasion by the rest of (and the majority of) Greek working people. I am disappointed in the educational system that is ranked lowest in the EU and, most of all, in my fellow citizens who cling to this system of daily corruption and bribe-taking but refuse to recognise this behaviour in themselves. Please stop blaming financial creditors who have a right to request loan conditions (just as we have home loan conditions) that the Greeks could have declined. The financial mismanagement in this country is staggering, so, for those of you who criticize the lenders - don't forget there are two sides to every story and you may not be seeing everything that goes on here.

        Renato Timotheus 12 Jun 2015 02:13

        I think the solution for Greece is becoming clearer by the day.
        1. Default.
        2. Secure Russian and Chinese support for the new currency for a period of 2 years or so.
        3. Requisition all German and Luxembourg-owned property/assets in Greece in lieu of WWII reparation payments (yes, Luxembourg was a part of Germany in WWII, so it too owes reparations, and many Luxembourg-registered companies have assets in Greece).
        4. Massive drive to attract British and Russian tourists to a cheaper Greece.
        5. Threaten to join the SCO, if NATO starts conspiring for a military coup.

        eastofthesun -> Faith Puleston 12 Jun 2015 02:07

        it is a country that thinks the EU is a source of income to make up for them not doing their sums at home

        I'm thinking that if lenders have the right to enforce policy decisions, then maybe they ought also to bear a share of responsibility. By which I mean that when the IMF was busy throwing money at Greece's erstwhile administrations it must have been well aware of what was happening with its money (including that bled away into corruption), yet it tolerated it; certainly the IMF had more potential say in Greek policy at the time than the current administration.

        If the politicians of earlier administrations abused their access to EU funding, they did so knowing that it would ultimately not be them to pick up the bill. Like most elected politicians they needed only a short-term perspective. The lenders indulged this when the money was being spent in the first place, now they're cracking down on the people who inherited the debt - not those who ran it up. (Of course, the lenders inherit the debt too.)

        That's the nature of long-term debt. We need to learn that this lending process is dysfunctional - but both parties to the debt are complicit in that. This is why it is incumbent on the lenders to negotiate.

        AlexLeo 12 Jun 2015 01:33

        A very irresponsible and simplistic, really sensationalistic summary. The hallmark of a pseudointellectual, a journalist who has never held a real job and seen how money is made and value is created and lives in the imaginary world of movie one liners and simple messages. Holding a gun to his head - are you speaking to a juvenile delinquent trying to get a message across? Pathetic, Cannot see anyone paying money to read this analysis.


        Chris Hindle 12 Jun 2015 01:23

        IMF to Alexis Tsipras: 'Do you feel lucky, punk?'

        Good to see this 'economist' sitting astride the neutral position

        I thought everyone realised the Greek people are innocent in all this - that the debts were accrued illegally and probably only as little as 5-10% actually benefitted the Greek people - the rest, inevitably, benefitting Greek bent banksters and politicians.
        I wonder if this 'economist' was trained in the dreamworld of neo-classical economics

        To put it clearly - Bollox to the IMF -- People first!

        Notaterrorist 12 Jun 2015 01:00

        The best writing on this subject (not just a regurgitation of "she said, he said" like the above useless piece of "journalism") is by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Daily Telegraph. Below is what he writes today.

        If he is correct, I finally understand Schauble - and to my astonishment agree. Neither Greece nor the Eurozone can function while Greece remains in the Euro. It's time for Grexit and a Marshall Plan.

        "Mr Schauble is the proponent of a "velvet divorce" for Greece: an orderly exit from the euro and a return to the drachma, with the ECB playing a crucial role in stabilizing the new currency. Germany and other creditors would then step in with a "Marshall Plan" to put the country back on its feet within the EU.

        What Mr Schauble is not prepared to accept is a breach of contract by Greece on the terms of its previous "Troika" rescue, which he fears would lead to moral hazard and the collapse of fiscal discipline across Southern Europe. He is backed by much of the ruling Christian Democrat party (CDU) and its Bavarian allies (CSU)

        Mrs Merkel appears to have concluded that "Grexit" is fraught with risk and would inevitably be blamed on Germany, leaving a toxic political and emotional legacy."

        Quaestio -> MikeBenn 11 Jun 2015 23:00

        Why? Because US investment banks were involved in the Greek debt.

        Wall St. Helped to Mask Debt Fueling Europe's Crisis

        By LOUISE STORY, LANDON THOMAS Jr. and NELSON D. SCHWARTZ
        Published: February 13, 2010
        The New York Times

        Wall Street tactics akin to the ones that fostered subprime mortgages in America have worsened the financial crisis shaking Greece and undermining the euro by enabling European governments to hide their mounting debts.

        As worries over Greece rattle world markets, records and interviews show that with Wall Street's help, the nation engaged in a decade-long effort to skirt European debt limits. One deal created by Goldman Sachs helped obscure billions in debt from the budget overseers in Brussels.

        Even as the crisis was nearing the flashpoint, banks were searching for ways to help Greece forestall the day of reckoning. In early November - three months before Athens became the epicenter of global financial anxiety - a team from Goldman Sachs arrived in the ancient city with a very modern proposition for a government struggling to pay its bills, according to two people who were briefed on the meeting.

        The bankers, led by Goldman's president, Gary D. Cohn, held out a financing instrument that would have pushed debt from Greece's health care system far into the future, much as when strapped homeowners take out second mortgages to pay off their credit cards.

        It had worked before. In 2001, just after Greece was admitted to Europe's monetary union, Goldman helped the government quietly borrow billions, people familiar with the transaction said. That deal, hidden from public view because it was treated as a currency trade rather than a loan, helped Athens to meet Europe's deficit rules while continuing to spend beyond its means.

        Athens did not pursue the latest Goldman proposal, but with Greece groaning under the weight of its debts and with its richer neighbors vowing to come to its aid, the deals over the last decade are raising questions about Wall Street's role in the world's latest financial drama.

        As in the American subprime crisis and the implosion of the American International Group, financial derivatives played a role in the run-up of Greek debt. Instruments developed by Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and a wide range of other banks enabled politicians to mask additional borrowing in Greece, Italy and possibly elsewhere.

        In dozens of deals across the Continent, banks provided cash upfront in return for government payments in the future, with those liabilities then left off the books. Greece, for example, traded away the rights to airport fees and lottery proceeds in years to come.

        Critics say that such deals, because they are not recorded as loans, mislead investors and regulators about the depth of a country's liabilities.

        Glen Killoran -> Pomario 11 Jun 2015 22:49

        Based upon what?

        Tourism? Tried that, it allowed the 1950 Greek economy to rocket into the 20's.

        Shipping? Too late, that ship has already sailed.

        Manufacturing, yeah, Greece will be #1, right after Bangladesh, Vietnam and Cambodia.

        Agriculture? Equipment bought with what money, the Drachma? Hmm, that'll be a competitive business model.

        Real-estate? Just how expensive do you think homes will be when the local populace is cash poor, in debt, and has no access to credit? Can you say buyers market? It will be the foreign fire sale buyer that buys low, sells high, not the Greeks.

        And, all of this assumes the Greek economic model is reformed, and that is what the troika is trying to do right?

        Seems to me default is really just the long hard road to reform, if it ever gets there because, there surely no demand for it now.

        Mark Richardson 11 Jun 2015 22:46

        It is kind of difficult for the new Greek government to give the IMF and its other creditors anything in new austerity measures considering that the Greek unemployment rate is over 25% and the youth unemployment rate is 60%. How much more pain would you be willing to force on your own people if you were a new reform leader considering that this entire crisis was caused when the previous conservative Greek government hid and failed to report half of its entire deficit? I don't see a viable future for Greece that includes having to repay the IMF and other major lenders as any more reforms will just drive the jobless rate and their GDP loss rate higher too.

        Basically either the IMF and Germany agree to restructure the Greek debt or Greece will pull-out of the Eurozone, and right after that happens Italy and Spain will be next, which will cause another Great Depression in the major lending countries.

        Andrew Paul -> Wood Pomario 11 Jun 2015 22:16

        There probably won't be a tourism boom if Grexit triggers a global recession when the EU markets spin into chaos. So why can't they collect tax revenues from the wealthy now and clear up all their problems in the first place?

        fflambeau -> Glen Killoran 11 Jun 2015 22:01

        I agree that past Greek governments have made huge mistakes. But the main problem is not in pension funds, as you claim, but in military spending. In the 1980's the Greek government spent 6% of its GDP on military expenditures. That is now about 2% of GDP but that is still the second highest of all NATO countries, second only to America.

        You seem to miss the point that the current Greek government had nothing to do with the mistakes made by former governments and has done a noble job of righting the ship.

        As for your comments about the overly generous nature of Greek pensions, you are off base. Maybe that was the case many years ago, but not in the past couple of years.

        fflambeau 11 Jun 2015 21:42

        Let's compare the "bailouts" that President Obama worked out with huge Wall St. companies and corporations that failed in 2007-2009. They got enormous funding, trillions of dollars, at virtually no interest and no oversight.

        General Motors took $6 billion of its $50 billion bailout and built an automobile manufacturing plant (in Thailand, no less!).

        What did the USA's taxpayers make off the billions of dollars it gave GM, at the time the largest corporation in the world? Nothing. In fact, they LOST money.

        Reuters and Time both report that the US government LOST money, $11.2 billion, by loaning $50 billion to GM. Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/30/us-autos-gm-treasury-idUSBREA3T0MR20140430

        Did the US government put pressure on GM to make them pay back the lost $11.2 billion? Nope.

        So those complaining here about giveaways to a lazy Greek people should look at what is really happening in their countries and what the IMF and other international organizations are really doing.

        AnhTay 11 Jun 2015 19:10

        One possibility is obvious. Greece is prepared to default. They are, quite rationally, waiting to see if they can get a deal with the IMF that would be acceptable as an alternative to default. Even if they cannot, what is the harm in playing out their hand to see if it is possible? There is no point in getting childish about the issue. Negotiations are about business. If Greece chooses to default, so be it. No reason for the IMF to get all gnarly on the point.

        fceska -> Bowhill 11 Jun 2015 19:07

        That's not the only thing that's wrong. The whole article is completely one-sided. This paragraph for instance:

        Up until now, the view in Athens has been that the troika – made up of the IMF, the European Central Bank and the European commission – has been bluffing. The view has been that there is always room for a bit more haggling, always time to cut a better deal that would avoid the need to make the changes to pensions, VAT and collective bargaining being demanded in exchange for fresh financial assistance.

        could be rewritten as:

        Up until now, the troika – made up of the IMF, the European Central Bank and the European commission – has been of the view that Athens has been bluffing. The view has been that there is always room for a bit more arm-twisting, always time to force a tougher deal that would ratify the need to make the changes to pensions, VAT and collective bargaining which they were demanding in exchange for yet more unsustainable financial assistance.


        aretzios -> mariandavid 11 Jun 2015 18:37

        You have it all wrong. You should read the IMF reports. The IMF actually urged the EU to write-off part of the Greek debt. The IMF felt that it was put in a bad situation, brought in by the EU to manage the problem without any of the tools usually allowed in these situations, such as debt write-off and devaluation. In its 2014 report, the IMF stated that the whole "bailout" deal was not to rescue Greece but to rescue the Euro. Now, knowing that it is not going to get any assistance from the EU, it is putting the pressure on Greece to get its funds from there. I think that the IMF feels trapped in a situation that it was not of its making.

        The issue of the pensions is the most galling one. During the 2012 write-down, the EU protected all its assets; the 50 billion euros in Greek bonds held by the ECB were not subject to the write-down. However, all Greek pensions funds were forced (literally forced) to participate. They collected just 17 cents to the Euro (or thereabouts) in the bond exchange. Of course, now the EU claims that there is no money to service the current pensions, thus the pensions need to be reduced! Considering that the average pension is about 600 euros (and living costs in Greece are very much the same as in the UK), one can see how galling this is (and they already have gone down by 40% in the last five years). If you add to this the demanded tax increases, the whole thing almost sounds like a Mafia protection racket.

        Even though the IMF is not "impressed" with the concessions that the Greek government has made thus far, this government would not really survive if it brings this package to the parliament. A good number of its MPs would not vote for it and many of its ministers would resign. The resulting turmoil would only deepen the political crisis.

        At the end, the EU will find a very anti-EU militant country in its southeast corner with more to follow. Not really good for anybody

        [Jun 12, 2015] The "Nation Interest" erupted with this article several days ago -- Russia and America: Toward a New Détente

        Many within the Russian elite just eat up every morsel of the idea that someone, somewhere in the West wants to treat Russia as an equal. The old convergence meme, along with plenty of time for Italian villas and French wine, women, and song. So it behooves Western operatives to create some stories like that. Sure, it was the EU's fault. Yep. To me, this is more like factions within the Nazis debating what kind of post-war scenario would work for the USSR. How many should be deported to Brazil, how many should be sterilized, that kind of thing. Russia should spend more time on getting rid of the huge and powerful fifth column and improving industrial production, and less time on partnership discussions.
        .
        "...Like you say, for a few glass beads, Putin is supposed to pretend that all is okey-dokey and go back to the era when Russia and America were pretending to fight "terrorism" together. Overlooking the fact that the "terrorists" are all paid for and trained by America."
        Jun 12, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
        Lyttenburgh, June 11, 2015 at 5:22 pm
        The "Nation Interest" erupted with this article several days ago:

        Russia and America: Toward a New Détente

        The "meat" of this long article boils down to the following:

        For this new diplomatic partnership to be effective, both parties must enter into it with a realistic mind-set. That is the first step. The United States has to accept the fact that Russia is a great power and treat it that way. Washington has to be sensitive to Moscow's perspectives and interests, particularly on its borders. The Kremlin has to realize that to receive great-power treatment, it's got to behave far more responsibly and accept responsibility for joint solutions. Putin can't go on trying to dominate and intimidate his neighbors, just as the U.S. president can't be seen as seeking to pull these neighbors out of the Russian orbit.

        Second, both sides have to recognize their very real complementary interests. That's perfectly obvious now when it comes to regional issues, fighting terrorism and nuclear proliferation. There's no denying that there are serious conflicts on Russia's western border or that Russia has clear military superiority there. Russia can cause real turmoil for Europe, which is why both parties have got to understand that the solution lies in diplomatic sensitivity and compromise, rather than fighting. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that the present mutual hostility imperils the interests of both sides.

        How would Détente Plus work in practice?

        First, both sides have to commit to diplomacy at the highest levels. Particularly in the initial years, there would have to be annual presidential summits and semiannual meetings of foreign and defense ministers. Only top-level political leaders can make the decisions required of Détente Plus.

        Second, these joint ventures must be given high visibility. Optics are critical both to reestablish Russia's status as a great power, and for the United States to gain more restrained and cooperative Russian behavior in return. Kremlin leaders are surely realistic enough to see this trade-off and curb themselves. Until this mountaintop diplomacy begins to produce, Western nations are fully justified in sustaining sanctions and continuing to build a more credible military presence eastward.

        Third, Détente Plus has to progress on two fronts: maintaining the basic integrity and independence of countries on Russia's borders while being attentive to Russian interests there; and fashioning joint action on broader issues such as Middle East instability and terrorism.

        Well, what did you expect? Of course, in our time any "meaty" part will turn out to be just "vegetarian" one!

        Our good and knowledgeble Leslie H. Gelb – a "president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, a former columnist for the New York Times, and a former senior State and Defense Department official" – basically suggests, that some shiny glass beads and a great priviledge to be treated like a White Man US of A's equal is sufficient to placate Kremlin's ego, and afterwards Putin (whom our good author blames for all crisises and setbacks that ever happened in the region – hell, he even claims that Putin artificially keeps Azeri-Armenian conflict burning!) will gladly become reasonle and abandon all Russia's foreign interests. Huzzah!

        What this shizofrenic article doesn't answer, however, is some very nasty and down to earth questions:

        1) New "detente+" (ugh!) strategy suggested here presumes that the US must "be sensetive to Moscow's perspectives and interests, particularly on its borders" and "maintaining the basic integrity and independence of countries on Russia's borders".

        2) Then what are good mister Gelb's thought on Crimea? Did he really, honestly presumes that Russia will just hand over a peninsula with 3 mlns of Russian citizens "back" to the Ukraine in the name of "maintaining the basic integrity… of countries on Russia's borders"?

        3) Or maybe mister Gelb suggests that despite the fact that both UkrArmy and the NatzGuard suffered humiliating defeats in the past Russia should allow "just for lulz" the Ukrainian border guards to resume their work in eastern parts of the People Republics?

        4) Did he really think that a couple of glass beads will make Putin look the other way, when NATO pimped-up NatzGuard and whoever they managed to grab during the "5th wave of Mobilization" descends upon People Republics?

        And the icing on the top – well, you gonna laugh! Our good mr. Gelb blames the EU going full Nuland!

        Alas, the European Union has demonstrated the wrong way to proceed in the last two years. It essentially proposed to incorporate the Ukrainian economy into Europe's and leave Russia behind. It pursued a Europe-win/Russia-lose approach rather than the win-win policy argued for here. Obviously Moscow couldn't accept this and turned the competition to its strength - stirring up Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine and sending in Russian arms and men.

        Did I mention the self-delusion of "Murica did no wrong here" exposed on every single page of this article? Well, pardon me – I thought it was self evident!

        P.S. Are there still people interested in hearing some of my accounts about being a soldier in Russian Army? Pavlo?

        marknesop, June 11, 2015 at 9:48 pm
        Yes, that is a thing of beauty – I liked your analogy of the shiny glass beads, like the trade with the Indians in which they gave away furs worth a fortune for cheap baubles. Everything old is new again, because this sort of soul-searching (Russia has been wronged, we must stop treating it like a child) has been done before, and far better, by former U.S. Defense secretary Robert McNamara in "Out of the Cold – New Thinking for American Foreign and Defense Policy in the 21st Century". I've added it to the library – just the picture, I'll add the text tomorrow if I have time – but from memory, Mr. McNamara blamed much of the cold war on America and its intransigence, and lamented the many, many misunderstandings that caused both sides to misinterpret the other's motives. He was quite candid (so far, I just started it) that the USSR behaved exactly as any nation in its position would have done given the same circumstances, that it was only safeguarding its regional interests and was not remotely interested in a war with Europe or with America when it had just lost millions of its people to war and seen its industrial production reduced by something like two-thirds. But even then the west treated the USSR as if it was a naive tribesman who could be bought off with a shiny tin hatchet because he does not recognize what has true value.

        The USA had plenty of opportunity to act on his advice (it was published in 1989) and lead the effort to find common ground. But it was having too much fun making an enemy of the Soviet Union and undercutting every effort it made to develop itself.

        Lyttenburgh, June 11, 2015 at 10:03 pm

        Correct me if I'm dead wrong, Mark, but wasn't one of the reasons for McNamara's dismissal (whatever fanciful term they used doesn't matter) some fears by the glorious administration of LBJ that "Goddamit, we have another Forrestal in the making here! Quick, remove him before he goes nuts completely!" which might somehow have influenced the consequent perception of everything said and written by the former Sec. of Defense McNamara?
        marknesop, June 11, 2015 at 10:21 pm
        That's very possible – I'm afraid my knowledge of his career is woefully incomplete and I mostly remember him as a tricky dissembler in the famous Gulf of Tonkin Incident which lit off America's military participation in the Vietnam War. It was fairly evident from declassified records that McNamara wanted America actively involved in the war rather than just in an advisory capacity, and those records show he withheld advice of military commanders from the President because those commanders argued against overt action until more facts were known. He would later argue that he supported the Vietnam War out of loyalty to administration policy rather than being drunk with power, although his initial management of it suggested he wanted to run it personally. As president of the World Bank, he stated that countries permitting access to birth control would get preferential treatment. Although I agree that countries have to permit that choice, thorny an issue as it is – because plenty of history shows that making a woman bear an unwanted child is not going to force a positive change in her attitude and a subsequent responsible raising of the child – it is not the kind of thing you announce publicly. He was a little erratic, to put it mildly, but he also served as Defense Secretary for 7 years, which I believe is a record.

        It will make more sense when I post a couple of excerpts; his advice on treatment of Russia (which was still the Soviet Union then) was eminently sensible because it argued the Russians only wanted to be treated as equals and for genuine dialogue to take place rather than a quick meeting of the Old Boys Club followed by a group gang-bang of Russia with everyone pointing accusing fingers. But it's easy to say something makes sense when you agree with it, so I'll let readers decide for themselves. There's no arguing that he knew a great deal and that his experience of current events far exceeds ours, by the simple virtue of his having been present at so many high-level planning sessions and gatherings. But his matter-of-fact recounting of historic events such as Churchill's bargaining with Stalin on spheres of influence suggests he had an inquiring mind and a good memory for history, since the famous deal written on a scrap of paper, offering division of influence in various eastern-European countries by percentages (and which Stalin approved with a simple check mark) is not well-known. That was a huge betrayal as well since – for example – the Soviet Union was offered "90% influence" in Romania, and the west set to meddling in it with no delay and now it is a NATO member.

        yalensis, June 12, 2015 at 3:14 am
        From what I have read about McNamara and the Vietnam war:
        McNamara screwed up badly, and knew it. His hubris and hunger for power caused untold destruction of lives and a geo-strategic defeat for America.

        The thing is, that McNamara was that rare type (in his position) who actually had a conscience. He was not a psychopath. He had a logical mind, was eventually able to analyze his own mistakes, and in later life sought redemption by telling the truth.

        An interesting if highly flawed individual. Shakespeare could have written a play about him.

        Paul II, June 11, 2015 at 11:25 pm
        Many within the Russian elite just eat up every morsel of the idea that someone, somewhere in the West wants to treat Russia as an equal. The old convergence meme, along with plenty of time for Italian villas and French wine, women, and song. So it behooves Western operatives to create some stories like that. Sure, it was the EU's fault. Yep. To me, this is more like factions within the Nazis debating what kind of post-war scenario would work for the USSR. How many should be deported to Brazil, how many should be sterilized, that kind of thing. Russia should spend more time on getting rid of the huge and powerful fifth column and improving industrial production, and less time on partnership discussions.
        yalensis, June 12, 2015 at 3:16 am
        Hear hear!
        yalensis, June 12, 2015 at 3:04 am
        Frankly, I would rather see bitter conflict than the kind of "detente" that Gelb is proposing.

        LIke you say, for a few glass beads, Putin is supposed to pretend that all is okey-dokey and go back to the era when Russia and America were pretending to fight "terrorism" together. Overlooking the fact that the "terrorists" are all paid for and trained by America.

        In any case, realistically speaking, Russia and America do not have any interests in common. Not one single one that I can think of. The divorce should be finalized.

        [Jun 11, 2015] Almaz Antey It was an Ukrainian Buk (images and video)

        Jun 03, 2015 | Eurasia Today

        Yesterday, June 2, 2015 the Russian company "Almaz-Antey", who produces the Buk systems held a press conference in which it presented its analysis of the downing of the Malaysian Boeing 777-200, flight MH17 over Donetsk on July 17, 2014.

        The images presented here are photos from slides of the presentation by Almaz-Antey, taken from the blog of Igor Korotchenko. There are over 45 slides, which I urge you to view there, I only present a few of them here.

        ... ... ...

        This damage pattern could not be achieved, if the missile had come from the front, thus "Almaz-Antey" excludes the version propagated by the US and Kiev, that the missile was started from around Snezhnoye.

        .... ... ...

        From other sources, we know, that Zarotchenkoye was at that time under the control of the Ukrainian Army and that they have indeed stationed Buk systems there, as we know from the briefing of the Russian MoD on July 21, 2014 (watch video with English translation – Zarotchenskoye is mentioned around 9:40 with presence of Ukrainian Buk Systems). These are the notorious satellite images, that have been claimed to be faked by several MSM outlets only two days ago.

        [Jun 11, 2015] BUK Manufacturer Almaz-Antey Investigation MH17 was shot down by Ukraine BUK Missile

        RT: According to Almaz-Antey, missile manufacturers, the missile that likely struck the Boeing aircraft, 9M38-M1, was not produced in the Russian Federation since 1999, but they have evidence that the BUK-M1 air defense missile system and accompanying missiles were still deployed with the Ukrainian Armed Forces in 2005. According to their evidence, Ukraine had a total of 991 9M38M1 missiles at the time.
        .
        "...To prove its findings in action, Almaz-Antey proposes a real-life demo reconstruction of the event. The CEO of Almaz also notes that two US satellites were flying above the sector of E. Ukraine in question during MH17 shoot-down; however, to this day US refused to release the footage in its possession."
        .
        "...The Almaz investigation notes that MH17 could have been additionally damaged by the air-to-air missile from the flying nearby Ukrainian attack aircraft SU-25."
        Jun 4, 2015 | tapnewswire.com

        Russian defence contractor and BUK launch system manufacturer Almaz-Antey completed its own investigation into the MH17 downing in Ukraine in July, 2014. Ukraine denied the responsibility for the attack on the civilian plane en route from Amsterdam, the Netherlands, to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, blaming intermittently the Donbass self-defence and Russia. Nearly 300 people died as a result of the tragedy.

        The BUK manufacturer has released the results of its independent investigation, which show that the 9M38-M1 surface-to-air missile from the M1 BUK system was used to shoot down the plane. The missile was produced until the 1990s and Almaz factories discontinued it in 1999. The Almaz-Antey CEO Yan Novikov confirmed that M1 BUK missiles were not delivered to anyone in the 21st century. Moreover, the Russian Army has long retired these older missiles, having been equipped with the new generation weapons. However, M1 is precisely the kind of BUK that is abundant in today's Ukrainian armed forces.

        The Almaz-Antey investigation also confirms that the trajectory of the missile is consistent with the location which at the time of the shoot-down was under Ukrainian (aka, Kiev junta) control. The missile was shot from the neighborhood of the Zaroshchenskoe village, controlled at the time by Kiev. This means that the Donbass self-defence was telling the truth that they had nothing to do with the tragedy.

        Almaz-Antey has passed its findings to the MH17 international investigators. In response, Ukraine continues denying its involvement, putting all the blame on the Donbass self-defence and present leadership of the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics.

        To prove its findings in action, Almaz-Antey proposes a real-life demo reconstruction of the event. The CEO of Almaz also notes that two US satellites were flying above the sector of E. Ukraine in question during MH17 shoot-down; however, to this day US refused to release the footage in its possession.

        The Almaz investigation notes that MH17 could have been additionally damaged by the air-to-air missile from the flying nearby Ukrainian attack aircraft SU-25.

        Western double standards: Almaz-Antey has been under EU and US sanctions since MH17 tragedy, based on Ukraine and USA's accusation that Russia and Donbass self-defence shot down the Malaysian Airlines plane

        See also Russian BUK missile producer vows to prove EU sanctions over MH17 crash unfair - RT News

        Gordon Logan says:

        Odd. How can a surface to air missile group holes round the pilot's seat while making diagonal incisions on the upper side of the left wing that point directly at the pilot's seat?

        [Jun 11, 2015] Malaysia is involved in probe of MH17, says Liow

        Dec 13, 2015 | thestar.com.my
        Malaysian investigators will be involved in the reconstruction of the wreckage of the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 in the Netherlands. Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai said this was because Dutch authorities and other teams needed lots of details about the flight to carry out their investigations on the matter.

        "We know that we are involved in the whole investigation, reconstruction of the aircraft. We'll send our personnel there to assist in the remodelling," he told The Star, although he could not confirm when Malaysian investigators would arrive in the Netherlands for this purpose. Liow was referring to the reconstruction of the MH17 wreckage, which had been brought in from Ukraine over land before arriving at the Gilze-Rijen air force base on Tuesday.

        According to a statement by the Dutch Safety Board – which will be handling the investigations – these were the first pieces of the wreckage which were brought in via two convoys of eight trucks.

        "A designated hangar at the air force base has been cleared especially for the investigation of the wreckage," the statement read.

        Two more convoys were en route to Gilze-Rijen, it added. Liow said the Department of Civil Aviation, Malaysia Airlines, the (Malaysian) police and the Attorney-General would help the Dutch. "They'll be given specific tasks at different committees and all join together, and share the information to get the findings," he said.

        He said all information needed to be shared so that those responsible for the tragedy could be tried in court. Asked why it took a long time for Malaysia to be included in the criminal investigation team, Liow said this was due to "communication".

        "They (the other countries involved in the investigations) had some discussion on that and they could not finalise it until the Prime Minister's (Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak) insistence and they accepted us."

        It was reported that Malaysia was only accepted as part of the MH17 criminal investigation process as of late November. It was previously only part of the technical investigation team.

        On when Malaysian investigators would be allowed back to the crash site for further inspections, Liow looked at a possible post-spring return.

        "We might not be able to enter until after spring, that will be March, April," he said, citing the current winter and hostilities between the Ukrainian government and rebel forces there.

        [Jun 11, 2015] Shards of Truth in MH17 Investigation

        Mar 3, 2015 | The Daily Beast
        Piece by piece, the Dutch-led investigation into the downing of a 777 over Ukraine last summer is focusing on a Russian-made ground-to-air missile.

        GILZE RIJEN, The Netherlands - The investigators looking into the downing of flight MH17 last July over Ukraine say it probably was hit by a Russian-made "Buk missile." They have not drawn any solid conclusions about who fired it, and they are working to exclude the possibility it was shot out of the air by a warplane, as some Russian media claimed.

        As the investigators made clear when they opened up to a press visit, there is now, or eventually will be, enough evidence to assign guilt.

        A huge military hangar here houses the war-torn pieces of what once was a Malaysia Airlines flight bound from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur with 298 people aboard. All of them were killed.

        Inside the lonely dome in an empty military field, families of the victims viewed the debris of the pulverized shell of the Boeing 777. A paper-thin sheet of metal, draped like sculpted cloth, holds the remnants of windows through which tourists once marveled at the landscape below. It seems immensely fragile to be carrying all these lives. (Is this actually what we travel in, so high above the ground?) For some family members this was the last physical reminder of their loved ones.

        "We are looking at forensic evidence, phone tap analyses from the time around the crash, witness accounts and many different scenarios."

        "This part of the wing and the nose of the plane can be touched by relatives of the victims," said Sara Vernooij, spokesperson of the Dutch Safety Board, which heads the investigation into the crash. "Around 500 relatives are expected to visit in the coming days." Family can come to the site until Saturday.

        Many of the parts they will see bear the marks of flames. Some are completely blackened. The shelter smells of burned plastic and kerosene. Big heaps of smaller wreckage are visible in containers. As though echoing the war zone where the tragedy occurred, the sound of military helicopters can be heard in the background.

        One of the three locations where the wreckage is held is used for the 3D reconstruction of the parts vital for the investigation. The press is not allowed in because it is considered an active crime scene. But from a distance some parts of the plane are visible. This is where the cockpit, a part of the left wing and the business-class section are stored. When asked about the pieces left at the crash site in the conflict zone, spokesperson Vernooij says that all the pieces needed for the reconstruction are here. "The left wing is most relevant," she adds.

        The vast majority of victims were Dutch, 196 in all; 42 were Malaysian, 27 Australian, 10 British and 12 other victims came from five other countries. The 11 crew members also died.

        At the scene of the reconstruction the Dutch public prosecutor was resolute: "The investigation is fully ongoing with more than a hundred internationals involved," said chief prosecutor Fred Westerbeke.

        "We are looking at forensic evidence, phone tap analyses from the time around the crash, witness accounts and many different scenarios," he said.

        It was a crisp summer's day when flight MH17 left the airport in The Netherlands bound for Malaysia. Flying high above Ukrainian soil it was shot down without warning by armed forces from the ground and bodies tumbled from the sky like doomsday heralds that sent the Dutch Nation into mourning. Each of the warring parties blamed the other, but the initial indications that the Buk missile was a Russian one fired by the Ukraine rebels supported by Moscow helped galvanize European opinion favoring economic sanctions against the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

        That the MH17 crashed in the middle of a war zone complicated the recovery of the victims' bodies and wreckage. Twelve truckloads of debris eventually were transported from the crash site to The Netherlands after the Ukrainian government handed over the management of the investigation to the Dutch.

        The main question remaining is: Which army launched the fatal rocket? "The most likely scenario is a Buk rocket, but we won't exclude other scenarios," said chief prosecutor Westerbeke. "It has been suggested that the plane may have been shot at from the air but we want to definitely exclude that possibility," he said. "We are making good progress. We hope to find the culprits and I have good faith in that."

        The investigation includes Russian representatives, and the Dutch say they are hoping the final report, due out in October, will be based on consensus. But they said that even if there is a dissenting view about the conclusions, they will still be issued.

        [Jun 11, 2015]Malaysia Will Take Part in Reconstruction of MH17 Wreckage in Netherlands

        13.12.2014 | Sputnik International

        Malaysian Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai announced that his country's investigators will take part in the reconstruction of the downed flight MH17 in the Netherlands.

        US director Oliver Stone urged not to take for granted numerous US media reports accusing Russia of its involvement in the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 © Sputnik/ Andrei Stenin MH17 Wreckage to Be Photographed, Scanned, Categorized: Dutch Safety Board MOSCOW, December 13 (Sputnik) – Malaysian investigators will arrive in the Netherlands to take part in the reconstruction of Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777, which crashed in eastern Ukraine in July, Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai told The Star newspaper Saturday.

        "We know that we are involved in the whole investigation, reconstruction of the aircraft. We'll send our personnel there to assist in the remodelling," the minister said in an interview with news outlet.

        The minister did not specify when exactly the investigators would arrive in the Netherlands.

        Dutch experts begin collecting debris from MH17 crash site in eastern Ukraine Dutch Authorities Turn Down Request for UN Probe Into MH17 Disaster: Agency

        On July 17, Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 crashed in eastern Ukraine while en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, killing all 298 people on board. A preliminary report said it most likely broke up in mid-air after a large number of high-energy objects penetrated the fuselage.

        The wreckage of the downed airliner arrived in the Netherlands on Tuesday. Dutch crash investigators, who have taken charge of the investigation into the incident, hope the reconstruction will reveal what exactly brought the plane down.

        Kiev has accused anti-government militias in eastern Ukraine of shooting the plane down, while local militia leaders say that they do not have weapons capable of striking a jet flying at 32,000 feet.

        [Jun 11, 2015] International Tribunal Looks Like Best Chance For MH17 Justice - Dutch Sources

        The question is why such a haste? Why not wait for the report of Safety board.
        Jun 28, 2015 | ibtimes.com

        After recovering human remains and wreckage, experts from the Joint Investigative Team -- comprising members from Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, the United States and Britain -- returned to the crash site on June 15 to "gather evidence to support or eliminate various scenarios".

        Experts have cited radio intercepts, photo and video material and satellite imagery as evidence that the rebels shot down MH17 with an advanced BUK missile system that was transported from Russian territory shortly before the incident.

        This raises the possibility that Russian nationals could be named in the indictment; the Dutch have not named anyone but say they are looking at all possible avenues of inquiry.

        Russia for its part has put forward a scenario, denied by Kiev, that the airliner was downed by a rocket fired from a Ukrainian fighter jet.

        With relations between Russia and the West at their lowest ebb since the Cold War, Moscow might have little interest in cooperating with any trial held in the West.

        But since an international court would require backing from the U.N. Security Council, Russia would be forced either to acquiesce or to use its veto and risk being seen as the main obstacle to justice in a mass killing of civilians.

        If Moscow refused to back a tribunal, the Netherlands could push for further economic sanctions beyond those already imposed by the European Union and the United States over Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine last year and its support for the rebels, one diplomatic source said. Holding the EU presidency in the first half of 2016 would give The Hague extra leverage.

        Dutch Foreign Minister Bert Koenders met his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov on June 6 for talks about the criminal investigation. "They are not easy discussions because we disagree on a lot of points. But they are discussions we have to have," Koenders said at the time.

        The sources said the Dutch would like the court to be based in the Netherlands, although details of which law would apply and how the suspects would be captured and tried had yet to be worked out.

        The closest analogy might be the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, when Pan Am flight 103 was blown out of the sky over Scotland, killing all 243 people onboard.

        Two Libyan secret service agents were handed over by Libya's late leader Muammar Gaddafi under the pressure of broad economic sanctions. They were put on trial in the Netherlands under Scottish law, and one was convicted.

        [Jun 11, 2015] Press release on talks between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Dutch Foreign Minister Bert Koenders Embassy of the Russian

        A Dutch Safety Board report on the precise cause of the crash is due in October.

        On June 5, Sergey Lavrov held talks with the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bert Koenders, who was in Moscow on a working visit.

        The two ministers discussed current and future Russian-Dutch relations and several international issues such as the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, in particular in view of the fight against international terrorism, as well as the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis.

        Mr Lavrov stressed that Russia has consistently advocated a comprehensive, accurate and independent investigation of the Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash over Ukraine on July 17, 2014 in strict compliance with Security Council Resolution 2166 and the regulations of the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

        [Jun 11, 2015] The Party of Fiscal Responsibility in Action

        "...The neoliberal transformation you are describing has been bipartisan. The Clintons and their people are waist-deep in it too.
        .
        "...The high-government investment, growing middle class postwar economy was also largely bipartisan. Eisenhower invested in infrastructure and education too. The main fault line in 2015 is not Democrats against Republicans. It's the top against the bottom. "
        .
        "... Actually this is the way Bush II was elected as Nader took some Al Gore votes. So in a way this line of action contradict principle of choosing lesser evil. Greens think this is myth http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html but I think this is a real danger. In "winner takes all" system only two parties are viable. And this is by design. This is how US elite controls prols."
        Jun 11, 2015 | Economist's View
        Paul Krugman:
        The Party of Fiscal Responsibility in Action: One of the greatest confidence tricks ever pulled in American politics was the way Republicans managed, for a while anyway, to convince centrists that they were apostles of fiscal responsibility. Paul Ryan presented budgets that combined huge tax cuts for the rich with not quite as huge benefit cuts for the poor, added some magic asterisks - basically deficit-increasing redistribution from the have-nots to the haves, with added fraudulence - and received awards for fiscal responsibility.
        Anyway, at this point we have evidence of what such politicians actually do in office, thanks to the many US states where Republicans control both the governor's office and the legislature. And the result is an epidemic of fiscal crisis, despite a recovering economy. Yes, some Democrat-controlled states are also having problems. But they didn't go around pretending to be the nation's fiscal saviors, and the biggest state controlled by Democrats, California - which was supposed to be a basket case - is in quite good fiscal shape.
        And yes, I think this observation is a lot more important than Marco Rubio's personal financial difficulties, although those are pretty bizarre.

        Posted by on Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 09:58 AM in Economics, Fiscal Policy, Politics | Permalink Comments (45)

        mulp said in reply to Dan Kervick...

        We should promote continued piracy and pollution and pillage and plunder of the earth?

        TPP to set higher standards for all instead of the current race to the bottom is a bad idea?

        Or are you arguing that you want conservatives with Peabody Coal and Exxon to write the TPP??

        I note that GE is now unloading it hedge fund, recently cutting a deal to unload its consumer exploitation (banking) division, and is focusing on manufacturing capital assets, returning to the values GE had before Reagan and their embrace of free lunch economics and their attempt to create wealth without labor.

        For GE, its best they get to sell their products in other nations without the Chinese selling GE counterfeits for less. But perhaps you want Americans unemployed to create more jobs in China?

        Conservative Republicans seem to have three decades of history of destroying American companies that manufacturing in America. Why conservatives argue that we taxpayers should not buy US produced goods because buying goods from Asia and especially China is cheaper.

        Which is why China controls rare earths, for example. Conservatives said Buy American was a bad idea, so multiple industries were killed off to save a percent or two buying from China. That is how conservatives cut deals. Yeah, they work to export low labor taxpayer subsidized ag products, but are loathe to do anything to help the export of high labor cost manufactured goods.

        Clearly you prefer that conservative trade view because you oppose the efforts of Obama to promote US exports of manufactured goods.

        I guess you like the increasing debt of the Republican policies on trade....

        Dan Kervick said in reply to mulp...

        The neoliberal transformation you are describing has been bipartisan. The Clintons and their people are waist-deep in it too.

        The high-government investment, growing middle class postwar economy was also largely bipartisan. Eisenhower invested in infrastructure and education too.

        The main fault line in 2015 is not Democrats against Republicans. It's the top against the bottom.

        JohnH said in reply to Darryl FKA Ron...

        Did Democrats ever hold Republicans accountable for being the fiscally reckless party--cutting taxes on the wealthy and waging war on credit--during the Bush 43 years? No, they could have cared less.

        Democrats are too "reasonable," which essentially means that they at best appease Republicans and at worst aid and abet them.

        And, as Obama did in 2011, when he proposed an austerity budget and then met Republicans half way on their severe austerity budget, I don't expect Obama to raise much of a fuss. He'll pretend to be reasonable, which means caving in advance to Republican demands. Other Democrats will just scurry around, tails between their legs, begging for their masters to fund their election campaigns.

        It's time to vote third party and send a message of disgust.

        likbez said in reply to JohnH...

        It's time to vote third party and send a message of disgust.

        Actually this is the way Bush II was elected as Nader took some Al Gore votes. So in a way this line of action contradict principle of choosing lesser evil. Greens think this is myth
        http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html but I think this is a real danger.

        In "winner takes all" system only two parties are viable. And this is by design. This is how US elite controls prols.

        ilsm said...

        The GOthugs (closet Birchers whose real agenda was kill the New Deal), since 1947 have been out to secure the empire by massive spending on war diverting productivity to kill the New Deal.

        It is not fiscal insanity it is Nero......

        pgl said...

        Christie gets away of reniging on a deal with the public school teachers. They agreed to a lower salary in exchange for better pensions and lard ass decides not fund the pensions so he can get a tax cut for his rich buddies. The teachers sued and the Supreme Court would not reverse this blatant theft:

        http://news.yahoo.com/governor-christie-spotlight-n-j-pension-decision-due-050846519--sector.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma

        BTW - a President Christie would declare war on China. Likely paid
        for by slashing Social Security benefits. If you liked the "leadership" of Dick Cheney - Christie is your guy.

        ilsm said in reply to pgl...

        Subsidized cluster bombs for Saudis to kill Shiites is slashing productivity for war profits to slash SS benefits. Broader scheme been going on for 68 years.

        pgl said in reply to ilsm...

        Lindsey Graham wants to declare war on all of the Middle East. Jeb wants to take on Russia. Wars with everyone!

        pgl said...

        The Republicans have never been for a smaller government or overall tax cuts. What they are for is more military spending by slashing transfer payments (your Social Security benefits) and tax cuts for the rich paid for by tax increases on the working class.

        ilsm said in reply to pgl...

        It is the empire (justifying militarism) for the MNC's benefit and the most expensive ways to secure it in the congress' for profit monopsony, where the sellers buy the buyers from excessive margins.

        Putin has the nerve to tilt with one of the empire's client puppets in Kiev.

        Lord said...

        Republicans are never what they seem. More deadbeats than fiscally responsible, more wasteful than efficient, more corporate kowtowing than small business supporting, more wealth obsequious than growth supporting, more authority than freedom loving, more big legal/police/military government than small, more war mongering than peaceable, more weak than strong. You only have to listen to them to find out what they are not.

        Thomas Hutcheson said...

        "Austerity" is a political tern for mistakenly using (or claiming to use) the level of debt as an argument of the public expenditure function (with a negative sign) rather than following standard public finance criteria: making expenditures whose NPV>0 when discounted by the borrowing rate. (Something similar goes on with taxes. Cutting/raising taxes allows/impedes the private sector from making expenditures with NPV>0.) "Austerity" then is pretty much the polar opposite of "fiscal responsible responsibility."

        "Austerity" is particularly damaging if it means reducing expenditures during a recession – NGDP is below trend -- when borrowing rates tend to be low and many inputs into public expenditures have opportunity costs below prices that will be paid to employ them, which tend to increase the amount of expenditures which meet the NPV>0 criteria. It is the employment of inputs with opportunity cost below their price that can lead to a "multiplier" greater than 1 [Of course if there are expenditures with NPV less than 0 they should be cut recession or no recession, but that still has nothing to do with the debt.]

        States should not engage in "austerity," either, although their borrowing costs will be different (the spread over Federal borrowing may rise as their tax revenues fall) and this will affect the levels of tax and expenditures that are fiscally responsible.

        I think Krugman's gripe with Kansas is that there, tax reductions were sold as self-financing (few economist thought they would be) and when they turned out not to be, expenditures with NPV>0 were reduced. I take it he thinks California got it right.

        reason said...

        It seems to me that one of the defining features of the modern Republican party is hypocrisy. I'm sure it must be in their party constitution somewhere. (Something about public utterances should be ignored in private dealings or such.) As Paul Krugman has pointed out several times, they don't even seem to understand what the word means. (Seeming to think it means that rich, well educated people can't want policies that don't actually help them.) Maybe there is a simple explanation for this phenomenon but I think it is not obvious.

        likbed:

        There are couple of assumptions in this thread that are not realistic if we look at facts on the ground

        1. The Republican Party is really like an old style European far right nationalist party. As such it is on up swing. Broadly serving the interests of the oligarchy but spouting a form of nationalism, which paints America as being in a life and death, struggle with anti-American forces at home and abroad. Nationalism (aka American exceptionalism) has strong social base in the USA fueled by MSM.

        2. The existence of "deep state" is ignored. Since November 22, 1963 Presidential elections mean very little.

        3. IMHO "after Clinton" Dems is actually a party of financial oligarchy and serves as a spoiler to crush any dissent from the left. Very rarely people can defy "the iron law of oligarchy".

        Remember how skillfully Howard Deen was neutralized. http://www.completecampaigns.com/article.asp?articleid=18
        and
        http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/howard-deans-scream-tv-screwed-him/article/2515137

        Does anybody think that similar dirty trick can't be played with Sanders if necessary?

        4. Electoral college and existence of "swing states" amplify the ability to ensure "one dollar one vote" result as votes in most other states are essentially a formality and money can be injected into few critical states to guarantee the necessary result. Also this allows the candidate who got the minority of total vote to win the election.

        5. Myth about intelligent voters. US population is brainwashed to the extent that Soviet leaders can only envy it they were able to see the current situation.

        [Jun 10, 2015] Obama Is Destroying Europe, Dragging It Into A Crusade Against Russia Former French PM, German Banker Admit

        One robin does not make a spring. But still the USA elite behave pretty recklessly in Europe...
        "..."European countries with strong business in Russia, including Finland and Austria, are economically hit very hard. These countries consequently place fewer orders from Germany. Moreover, considering that European corporations will circumvent the sanctions, to create production facilities at the highest efficiency level in Russia, we lose this potential capital stock, which is the basis of our prosperity. Russia wins the capital stock," at the EU's expense, even though the sanctions are targeted against Russia. "
        "..."For the future, Germany and the EU place their economic reliability into question with Russia. The relationship of trust is broken by Germany and the EU. In order to build such confidence, it takes several years. Between signature and delivery are up to five years. ... Siemens is now thrown out from a major project for this reason [i.e., because the requisite predictability has been lost]. Alstom has likewise lost the contract for the railway line from Moscow to Beijing. Consequently, the potential for damage is much more massive than the current figures show, not only for Germany, but for the entire EU.""
        "...The fact is that by the coup in the Ukraine, an oligarchy friendly towards Moscow was replaced by an oligarchy now oriented toward the United States. It's geopolitics, which benefits third forces, but definitely not Germany, not the EU, not Russia, and not Ukraine."
        Jun 10, 2015 | Zero Hedge
        While on the surface the European leaders of G-7 nations are all smiles in their photo-ops next to US president Barack Obama, there is an unmistakable tension and simmering resentment at the US for forcing Europe into America's personal crusades.

        "Today, Europe is not independent… The US is drawing us [the EU] into a crusade against Russia, which contradicts the interests of Europe," said the former French Prime Minister Fillon while the chief economist at Bremer Landesbank adds that as a result of US policies "unmeasurable damage lies in an elevated geopolitical risk situation for the people in the EU."

        * * *

        German Banker: Obama Is Destroying Europe, submitted by investigative historian Eric Zuesse

        Interviewed on June 6th by German Economic News, the chief economist at Bremer Landesbank, Folker Hellmeyer, says that because of Obama's sanctions against Russia, German exports declined year-over-year by 18% in 2014, and by 34% in the first two months of 2015 (no later figures), but he asserts that "The damage is much more comprehensive than these statistics show," because those are only the "primary losses," and there are in addition "secondary effects," which get even worse over time.

        For example:

        "European countries with strong business in Russia, including Finland and Austria, are economically hit very hard. These countries consequently place fewer orders from Germany. Moreover, considering that European corporations will circumvent the sanctions, to create production facilities at the highest efficiency level in Russia, we lose this potential capital stock, which is the basis of our prosperity. Russia wins the capital stock," at the EU's expense, even though the sanctions are targeted against Russia.

        But the nub is this:

        "For the future, Germany and the EU place their economic reliability into question with Russia. The relationship of trust is broken by Germany and the EU. In order to build such confidence, it takes several years. Between signature and delivery are up to five years. ... Siemens is now thrown out from a major project for this reason [i.e., because the requisite predictability has been lost]. Alstom has likewise lost the contract for the railway line from Moscow to Beijing. Consequently, the potential for damage is much more massive than the current figures show, not only for Germany, but for the entire EU."

        Then, he says: "More [projects] still in planning include the axis from Peking to Moscow as part of the Shanghai Corporation and the BRIC countries, the largest growth project in modern history, the construction of the infrastructure of Eurasia, from Moscow to Vladivostok, to Southern China and India. How far the EU and Germany's sanctions-policy regarding Russia figures in these developing-countries' mega-projects will depend upon whether we'll be seen as hostile in other emerging countries than Russia. [NOTE from Eric Zuesse: Obama speaking 28 May 2014 to graduating West Point cadets:

        'Russia's aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China's economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums.'

        His attitude toward developing countries is clear - they are enemies, to be dealt with via the military, not economic partners to advance with us in economic cooperation.] But, obviously, there is a lack that some participants in European politics [and inside the White House!] have in their abilities to think abstractly on our behalf."

        Asked who will be paying the price for this, he says:

        "The measurable damage is loss of growth, in lost wages, losses in contributions to the social system and in tax revenue. This is true for the past 12 months, and it is valid for the years ahead. The people in Germany and the EU will pay the price through lost prosperity and stability. The unmeasurable damage lies in an elevated geopolitical risk situation for the people in the EU."

        Asked about the situation in Ukraine, Hellmeyer says:

        "It is indeed irritating. People who are focused not only on Western 'quality media' are amazed at those media hiding the aggression of Kiev and the discriminatory laws implemented by the Government in Kiev, which constitute a serious challenge to the claim that Western values and democracy are being supported by the West. I believe, to Mr Steinmeier's credit, that he is in fact talking plainly about these matters behind closed doors. The question is whether the behavior of the Atlantic alliance supports Mr. Steinmeier. I refer in this regard especially to Victoria Nuland.

        The fact is that by the coup in the Ukraine, an oligarchy friendly towards Moscow was replaced by an oligarchy now oriented toward the United States. It's geopolitics, which benefits third forces, but definitely not Germany, not the EU, not Russia, and not Ukraine."

        So, he sees U.S. as having gained at the expense of every other country, but especially at Europe's expense.

        Asked about the future, Folker Hellmeyer says:

        "For me, the conflict has already been decided. The axis Moscow-Beijing-BRIC wins. The dominance of the West is through.

        In 1990 those countries accounted for only about 25% of world economic output. Today, they represent 56% of world economic output, and 85% of world population. They control about 70% of the world's foreign exchange reserves. They grow annually by an average of 4% - 5%. Since the United States were not prepared to share power internationally (e.g., by changing the voting-apportionments in the IMF and World Bank), the future rests with those countries themselves, to build in the emerging markets sector on their own financial system. There lies their future. The EU is currently being drawn into the conflict, which the United States caused because she did not share power and want to share. The longer we pursue this [mono-polar, hegemonic, Imperial, supremacist, internationally dictatorial, aggressive] policy in the EU, the higher the price [to Europe will be]."

        He goes on to say:

        "The fact is that the emerging countries emancipate themselves from US control. This is evident in the creation of competitive institutions of the World Bank (AIIB) and the IMF (New Development Bank) by the axis of the emerging countries. This displeases the still prevailing hegemon. The current international hot spots of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, to the Ukraine, are an expression of this, in the background, as a clearly identifiable power-confrontation [between the U.S. and every other country]. If we were there intending to establish democracy and freedom, let's look at the success in achieving those goals. [His implication: it's failure.]"

        German Economic News asks:

        "The contempt with which the US government deals with the Europeans is remarkable, such as the NSA tapping the Chancellor's phone, and Nuland's famous 'Fuck the EU' statement. Have European politicians no self-respect, or are they just too cowardly?"

        Hellmeyer responds: "The person who is a true democrat takes seriously his duties as a politician for the public's well-being, and does not allow his nation's self-determination to be so contemptuously trampled underfoot, such as has followed from that remark. The person who is not a true democrat, has with respect to the above values and canon, severe deficits."

        CLOSE from Zuesse:

        • Why is there not, in Europe, a huge movement to abandon NATO, and to kick out the U.S. military? Whom is the U.S. 'defending' Europeans from, after the Warsaw Pact ended in 1991?
        • Why did not Gorbachev demand that NATO disband when the Warsaw Pact did - simultaneous (instead of one-sided) disbanding of the Cold War, so that there would not become the foundation for international fascism to arise to conquer Russia (first, to surround it by an expanding NATO - and ultimately via TPP & TTIP), in the aftermath?
        • Why is there not considerable public debate about these crucial historical, cultural, and economic, matters?
        • Why is there such deceit, which requires these massive questions to be ignored so long by 'historians'?
        • How is it even possible for the world to move constructively forward, in this environment, of severe censorship, in the media, in academia, and throughout 'the free world'?
        • Why is there no outrage that the Saudi and other Arabic royals fund islamic jihad (so long as it's not in their own countries) but America instead demonizes Russia's leaders, who consistently oppose jihadists and jihadism?
        • Why are America's rulers allied with the top financiers of jihad? Why is that being kept so secret? Why are these injustices tolerated by the public?
        • Who will change this, and how? When will that desperately needed change even start? Will it start soon enough?

        Maybe WW III won't occur, but the damages are already horrible, and they're getting worse. This can go on until the end; and, if it does, that end will make horrible look like heaven, by comparison. It would be worse than anything ever known - and it could happen in and to our generation.

        * * *

        Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.


        And then, here is former French Prime Minister Francois Fillon who told RT that the "US is drawing Europe into crusade against Russia, against our interests"

        The US is drawing European states into a "crusade" against Russia, which goes against Europe's interests, former French Prime Minister Francois Fillon has said. Speaking to French media, he stressed that Europe now is dependent on Washington.

        "Today, Europe is not independent… The US is drawing us [the EU] into a crusade against Russia, which contradicts the interests of Europe," Fillon told the BFMTV channel.

        The ex-French prime minister, who served in Nicolas Sarkozy's government from 2007 till 2012, lashed out at Washington and its policies.

        Washington, Fillon said, pursues "extremely dangerous" policies in the Middle East that the EU and European states have to agree with.

        He accused German intelligence of spying on France "not in the interests of Germany but in the interests of the United States."

        Fillon pointed out that Washington is pressuring Germany to concede to Greece and find a compromise.

        He noted the "American justice system" often interferes with the work of "European justice systems."

        "Europe is not independent," the ex-PM said, calling for "a broad debate on how Europe can regain its independence."

        This, however, would not be possible if Europe goes ahead and signs the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a proposed EU-US treaty, which has drawn much criticism for its secretiveness and lack of accountability.

        "I am definitely against signing this agreement [TTIP] in the form in which it is now," he added.

        [Jun 10, 2015]Pope Francis urged to take tougher stance against Vladimir Putin

        "...A fantastic bit of writing irrelevance based on hearsay and speculation as non important filler to shape opinion. God against Putin is the message, well done Guardian, following orders again, brown nosing in case those nasty GCHQ people will come and threaten you again. "
        .
        "...The headline does not read 'Pontiff Meeting with Putin', which would confirm that Russia is not as isolated as the Guardian would want, but 'Pope Urged to Take Stance against Putin' which confirms the Guardians prejudice on all issues Russian."
        .
        "...Some one clearly earning their Agent of influence bonus."
        .
        "...Since the US has the EU firmly under its heel it's now moving on to bullying the Pope to further the geopolitical goals of American hegemony? No doubt they threatened to sanction the Pope if he doesn't fall into line."
        .
        "...Just another US stupidity. Hasn`t anyone the peace-nobel-prize-drone`s administration how much Yanks are hated in South and Central America? Especially Argentina has suffered a lot because of the US initiated coups and military goverments. ALL juntas, the one here in La Paz as well, were run by the American Embassies. A lot of priests were tortured and killed as well. Hugo Chavez once said, that the only goverment in the Western Hemisphere which doesn`t have to worry about a coup is the one in the USA, because there is no American Embassy in Washington."
        .
        "...Many bureaucrats and politicians in the U.S. want to restart the Cold War with Russia as a means of keeping the bloated U.S. military-industrial budget intact. Pope Francis appears to be an impediment in this effort, as he is talking to everyone with some weird Christian notion about making peace with one's enemies - he must be a communist, right?"
        .
        "...Hopefully, the Pope is intelligent enough to understand that the Ukraine crisis was provoked by the US-backed removal of a democratically elected government. What has happened subsequently in the country is the result of the coup. Moreover, behind the US backing for the coup, is its desire to continue NATO's expansion on Russia's western border. Too many people today are confusing the original action, i.e. the coup, with the reaction!"
        .
        "...The fact that the Pope elected to meet Putin means that he is completely disregarding the ugly and meaningless blather coming from the neocon/neoliberal/neoevangelical/neofascist quarters and is guided by the divine wisdom alone. Clearly, the neoconservatism has lost its global mojo and is now reduced to vile global intrigue and worse."
        .
        "...When is Vatican going to start the process of excommunication of the pious catholic Tony Blair, a self-serving politician that made the UK join the US in the illegal wars in the Middle East? Hundreds of thousands of civilians are dead, including children and pregnant women. Hundreds of thousands became handicapped. Millions are displaced. The western atrocities and politicking in ME have created a monster of ISIS. Where is the voice of Church? Vatican is amazingly lenient towards the war criminal."
        .
        "...Well, whataya want: the Pope gets his daily news and instructions directly from God, while the others get it from the US embassy."
        Jun 10, 2015 | The Guardian

        Elena Hodgson 10 Jun 2015 14:53

        The title of the article is very misleading. "Pope Francis WAS urged (by Hackett -surprise, surprise!) to take tougher stance against Vladimir Putin". I am worried about the fact that the relationship between the US and Russia are back to the hostility level of the pre-Gorbachev era of Cold War, but without the red lines that had been understood between the United States and the USSR. The communication lines are not in place any more either, and any accident could easily escalate into Hot War, and then we are all toast...Nice of Obama to take the Global Warming seriously, but what about the threat of Global Nuclear Annihilation???

        RayJosephCormier Roger Tidy 10 Jun 2015 14:50

        One of the 1st acts of the new Coup Leaders was to pass legislation removing Russian as an Official Language in Ukraine, as it always had been up to that point in the majority Russian speaking Eastern parts of Ukraine closest to Russia.

        I expect other Western Leaders got to the new "appointed President" to have him VETO the legislation. But it was too late to put the genie back in the bottle!

        That singular action by the new Coup Leaders caused the rebellion more than anything else. That happened before Russia re-claimed Crimea before the Americans got control in Ukraine.

        Nolens 10 Jun 2015 14:49

        It's Pope Francis task to be a mediator. He will not be stopped by instructions from whatever corner. It's also important that Orthodox Christians and Catholics (like myself)keep on speaking terms.

        That doesn't mean the Pontiff should not address the situation in the Ukraine and appeal to Russia to seek peace, truth and justice. In my opinion Russia is threatening the sovereignty of the Ukraine and is waging war by proxy but the EU and the US have also share the responsibility for this awful bloody conflict as it acted in a dangerous and irresponsible way by meddling in the internal affairs of the Ukraine by supporting the removal of the elected president.

        Maybe i'm naive but I really would like to see the EU, the Ukraine and Russia sit together and try to make a peace deal. I would prefer a deal where the Crimea is officially handed over to Russia and the Eastern oblasts remains an integral part of the Ukraine with safeguards for the Russian speaking population. The severe issue of the MH17 should also be on the agenda. It must be absolutely clear who was responsible. So, all the crimes committed in the Ukraine by whatever side should be addressed including the downing of flight MH17. Like South-Africa and Northern Ireland a truth and reconciliation commission could clear what was done and by whom. This will also mean that those responsible will be brought to justice but will not serve any jail time as it only would lead to another conflict. A UN force assembled from Asian and South-American nations like Thailand and Brazil could keep the peace.


        TiredOfBS_2015 chulumani 10 Jun 2015 14:41

        Especially Argentina has suffered a lot because of the US initiated coups and military governments.
        --
        Ah, they've moved far beyond that... introduced themselves in Ukraine now.
        Different continent, you know..

        EightEyedSpy nishville 10 Jun 2015 14:37

        My respect for Pope Francis would grow if he ordered the RCC in the US not to claim tax-exempt status on the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in revenue the RCC generates in the US, including by ownership of residential and commercial rental properties.

        Did you know the RCC is one of, if not the, biggest, property owners in NYC?

        Roger Tidy Cedrins 10 Jun 2015 14:36

        Let's not forget that the Ukraine is in crisis now because of AMERICAN interference, i.e. Washington's support for the Kiev coup against a democratically elected government. Without that coup, there would have been no rebellion by the people in the east of the country and no threat to Russia's lawful military presence in Crimea. Russia, with the overwhelming backing of Crimea's predominantly Russian population, had to act to ensure the continuation of Crimea as a base for its fleet and to prevent the further provocative expansion of NATO on its borders. It could all have been so different if, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO had been abolished at the same time as the Warsaw Pact.


        RayJosephCormier Cedrins 10 Jun 2015 14:33

        And the US has overturned Democracies and installed, armed and supported many proxy Dictators. The US has no problems with Dictatorships as long as they are friendly to US Business interests.

        He who is without sin cast the 1st stone applies to Nations and Individuals.

        Since WWII, the US has invaded and bombed only poor, backward, undeveloped, 3rd world Nations.

        In a display of Divine Justice, most often the US ran away with their tails between their legs, not able to get out fast enough. That's why they use remote controlled drones to attack people without indoor plumbing or electricity for the most part. There are still those Americans who maintain the US could "win" if they were more brutal in terrorizing the people, dropping more bombs, Death and Destruction on them. The US is the only Nation to burn people alive in the other, never discussed, nuclear holocaust of WWII.


        ID9492736 Cedrins 10 Jun 2015 14:24

        Who says that Serbia "lost its rights" on its territory and sovereignty? . United Nations Security Council certainly did not (au contraire, UNSC resolution 1244 specifically says otherwise). United Nations General Assembly did not. The International Court of Justice did not. Nobody but Bill and Hillary Clinton said so.

        And how is Serbia's "barbaric" (sic) behavior, which killer some 1,200 islamic terrorists on its own soil any worse than the wholesale slaughter of nearly a million of Iraqi and more than quarter million Aghan civilians?

        There are no brutal tyrants in Serbia. The country is an open, transparent and democratic society and a recognized regional ally of both US and Russia. If you don't believe me, ask the State Department.


        sensitivepirate 10 Jun 2015 14:13

        With regard to Putin, the US wants to destabilize Russia and hopefully move in and grab the vast resources of the RF. The first and major goal is to remove Crimea from Russian control.

        Going back a year and a half, in preparing the program for the overthrow of Yanukovich, the US Dept. of Defense had fully developed plans, timetables, and logistics, and blueprints were drawn up for new US military bases, air fields, and ports in Crimea. These plans were in 'ready mode' and included the immediate cancellation of lease agreements between the RF and Ukraine, and of course it included the immediate removal of the Russian fleet from Crimea.

        The US Dept. of Defense is frustrated that their massive preparations for Crimea could not be immediately implemented. It has lost its strategic plan to build a ready-military force for clandestine incursions into Turkey, Syria, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Belarus, Lebanon, Gaza, etc.. This was the biggest prize in the plan to overthrow the government of Ukraine.

        Everything is on hold until Crimea is extricated from Russia, and the US now is begging Pope Francis to help it in destabilizing Russia.


        Botswana61 Solongmariane 10 Jun 2015 14:11

        Indeed, USA supporting Maggie Thatcher's operation in the Falklands and supplying British troops with the actionable info through its recon sats.

        With Argentina being today a veritable economic basket case.
        [2nd only to Greece]


        MahsaKaerra kowalli 10 Jun 2015 13:59

        Oh that one. Translated as "Kiev holds Russia responsible for the violation of any articles of the European Convention on Human Rights in the area of ​​the ATO".

        Meaning Ukraine isn't going to enforce ECHR decisions on territory over which it has no control.

        If you ask Slovenia to make such decisions on Italian territory you will get the same answer. OMG, Slovenia is quitting the ECHR!!!1!

        foolisholdman 10 Jun 2015 13:43

        Kenneth Hackett, the US ambassador to the Holy See, said the Vatican "could say more about concerns on territorial integrity".

        Another US "statesman" who does not see the irony of what he is saying! Is he blissfully unaware of how many countries the USA has violated the "territorial integrity" of ? Does he want the Pope to criticise all countries that violate other countries' territorial integrity Or does it only apply to Russia?

        Oh! Silly me!! Of course it is all right for The USA to violate other countries' territorial integrity, because they are exceptional !!! How could I forget?

        geedeesee EightEyedSpy

        Well, I've read extensively about the period in question to understand the circumstances as Nazism developed, and though while reading different books I wasn't looking exclusively for the views of the pope of the day, I did have an appreciation of the decline in the relationship between Nazi Germany and the Vatican. Though your comments didn't ring true , I have checked with my books and they've confirmed my understanding.

        Not only did the Pope write several protests against the Nazi regime between 1933 and 1936, he also delivered three papal encyclicals challenging the new creeds: against Italian Fascism Non abbiamo bisogno (1931; 'We do not need (to acquaint you)'); against Nazism "Mit brennender Sorge" (1937; 'With deep concern') and against atheist Communist Divini redemptoris (1937; 'Divine Redeemer'). He also challenged the extremist nationalism of the Action Française movement and anti-Semitism in the United States.

        'Mit brennender SorgeIt' concerned Nazi Germany. It condemned "pantheistic confusion", "neopaganism",and "the so-called myth of race and blood", and the idolising of the State.

        To ensure it had the maximum effect, he had it translated into German and copies smuggled into Nazi Germany so that they be secretly printed and distributed to all the Catholic churches of Germany for reading from the pulpits Catholic parishes on Palm Sunday throughout the country in 1937.

        The Nazis saw it as "a call to battle against the Reich", and Hitler was furious after it happened and "vowed revenge against the Church". Churches were raided across the country and hundreds of priests arrested. The Catholic church were seen as the major resistance and opposition to the nazi regime at the time.

        Over the years until the outbreak of war Catholic resistance stiffened until finally its most eminent spokesman was the Pope himself with his encyclical 'Mit Brennender Sorge' ... of 14 March 1937, read from all German Catholic pulpits... In general terms, therefore, the churches were the only major organisations to offer comparatively early and open resistance: they remained so in later years.

        Extract from 'The History of the German Resistance 1933–1945' by Peter Hoffmann.

        Once again you reveal your tendency to chip-in with your own version of history, disregarding what actually happened, due either to your ignorance or malevolence. In other words, you've been caught out again.

        Michael West Joe King 10 Jun 2015 13:21

        Again, this is another biased comment from you. Are you even from America?

        The U.S. is one of the least religious countries on this planet. In fact, atheism is the fastest growing demographic in the U.S. today.

        More than 20% of Americans have "no faith".

        Here is a Guardian article about the rise of atheism in America.

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/01/atheism-america-religious-right

        Here is another Guardian article about the rapid rise of atheist churches in America.

        As for Fox News, it is not a religious channel. Fox has a weekly libertarian show hosted by John Stossel where he talks about legalizing drugs, prostitution, euthanasia, and polygamy.

        Here is a video of him talking about legalizing brothels -- which is already in sone states.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rPxIWjR3Zg&app=desktop

        Fox's sister channel, FX, airs some of the moat violent & erotic shows on television.

        Fox News is not a religious channel -- not even close.


        kowalli 10 Jun 2015 13:17

        Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjorn Jagland confirmed that he had received notification from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine in Kiev on the retreat from the European Convention on Human Rights.


        robertthebruce2014 10 Jun 2015 13:16

        The Guardian suffering from confirmation bias?

        The headline does not read 'Pontiff Meeting with Putin', which would confirm that Russia is not as isolated as the Guardian would want, but 'Pope Urged to Take Stance against Putin' which confirms the Guardians prejudice on all issues Russian.

        If ever there was a vassal state or satrapy more obedient to its master than Britain is to America someone inform us please. India's Victorian relationship to the British Crown was less submissive than Britain's obedience to American rule today.


        EugeneGur MahsaKaerra 10 Jun 2015 13:10

        You have trouble with memory? I can appropriate recommend medication.
        Borders in Europe changed a lot before Putin had a chance to do anything or even came to the scene. The reunification of Germany did not require border change in your view? The breakup of the Soviet Union is not border change enough for you? The breakup of Yugoslavia? Kosovo rings a bell?

        Crimea is sacred for the Russians, not just Orthodox but for every Russian because of its cultural and historical significance. Ukrainians declared themselves to be not Russians but something quite the opposite. If you must refer to someones statement, please, reproduce it accurately.


        Babeouf 10 Jun 2015 13:10

        How was the US suppose to know the Guardian would make such a big splash over this non event.

        US ambassador, who knows diddly, gives advice to the Pope.

        Yes its a funny story but that is not how the Guardian is playing it. Some one clearly earning their Agent of influence bonus.

        OneTop 10 Jun 2015 13:07

        Since the US has the EU firmly under its heel it's now moving on to bullying the Pope to further the geopolitical goals of American hegemony?

        No doubt they threatened to sanction the Pope if he doesn't fall into line.


        nnedjo 10 Jun 2015 13:03

        Now what? If Pope Francis would now really started to criticize Putin "for the violation of the sovereignty of Ukraine," then everyone would say, "You see, Pope Francis receives orders from the US ambassador to the Vatican!" So, it would seem as if the US ambassador to the Vatican is pontiff, and not that it is Pope Francis himself.

        All in all, it was a very stupid public statement by the US ambassador in Vatican.


        charrette 10 Jun 2015 13:01

        "It shows the ignorance of the pope about the situation in Ukraine."

        Perhaps, on the contrary, it shows that the Pope has done his homework and read, for example, the recent excellent account by Richard Sakwa, Frontline Ukraine : crisis in the borderlands. I recommend it to anyone who thinks the Russian stance is to be merely demonised. Sakwa deals particularly well with decay of diplomatic protocols.


        RayJosephCormier AbsolutelyFapulous 10 Jun 2015 12:55

        No one was killed when the Russian troops, already in Crimea, came out of their barracks, compare to millions killed in US invasions of other Nations so far from the continental US.


        chulumani 10 Jun 2015 12:53

        Just another US stupidity. Hasn`t anyone the peace-nobel-prize-drone`s administration how much Yanks are hated in South and Central America? Especially Argentina has suffered a lot because of the US initiated coups and military goverments. ALL juntas, the one here in La Paz as well, were run by the American Embassies. A lot of priests were tortured and killed as well. Hugo Chavez once said, that the only goverment in the Western Hemisphere which doesn`t have to worry about a coup is the one in the USA, because there is no American Embassy in Washington.

        So this freaky US troll tries to tell the Pope about the right thing to do? The Pope should have told him tell that joker in the White House to stop invading other countries, torturing innocent people, instigating terrible civil wars and financing as well as arming islamic terrorists.

        nnedjo 10 Jun 2015 12:51

        If the US ambassador to the Vatican dares to command the Pope what he has to say to Putin, then imagine what the US ambassador to Ukraine was ordered to their President Yanukovych, before he was deposed by violent coup.

        And then they have the nerve to talk about "respect for the integrity and sovereignty of other countries."


        photosymbiont 10 Jun 2015 12:48

        Many bureaucrats and politicians in the U.S. want to restart the Cold War with Russia as a means of keeping the bloated U.S. military-industrial budget intact.

        Pope Francis appears to be an impediment in this effort, as he is talking to everyone with some weird Christian notion about making peace with one's enemies - he must be a communist, right?

        Roger Tidy 10 Jun 2015 12:47

        Hopefully, the Pope is intelligent enough to understand that the Ukraine crisis was provoked by the US-backed removal of a democratically elected government. What has happened subsequently in the country is the result of the coup. Moreover, behind the US backing for the coup, is its desire to continue NATO's expansion on Russia's western border. Too many people today are confusing the original action, i.e. the coup, with the reaction!

        Albatros18 caliento 10 Jun 2015 12:46

        It is called state visit, and when he does he achieves things. You remember what Abbott said he would do to Putin when he met him? Abbott was shitting his pants. G7? They met, and what did they achieve other than confirming that the EU is being hurt by the anti-Russian sanctions.

        Jeffrey_Harrison jezzam 10 Jun 2015 12:46

        Well, there's Libya; no boots on the ground but we bombed the shit out of them and there's Yemen and Pakistan where we have ongoing drone wars. I'll grant you that Obama has mostly continued the wars of his predecessor but now they're his. I would also point out that the Russian troops that acted in Georgia were not invaders but were there as a peacekeeping force and the Russians in Crimea were there in the Russian base in Sevastopol which was by arrangement with Ukraine. While the US tries to make everybody look the other way, we send troops into Ukraine under the guise of trainers. If we can send troops halfway around the world, why can't Russia send troops across their border?

        AngrySkeptic 10 Jun 2015 12:42

        Kenneth Hackett, the US ambassador to the Holy See, said the Vatican "could say more about concerns on territorial integrity".

        I am always amused by anyone from the New World being serious about "territorial integrity". All of those countries exist because they ignored the territorial integrity of the people who were already living there. It was an American president who decided after WW1 to give a part of Austria to Italy. It was an American president who took Kosovo away from the Serbs. "Territorial integrity" mattered not a jot in the adjustments made after WW2, in Europe as much as in the Middle East. What has this got to do with the Pope, whose main concern is with the spiritual welfare of Catholics?

        TiredOfBS_2015 10 Jun 2015 12:41

        Pope Francis has been encouraged by a top American diplomat to take a tougher stance against Vladimir Putin when he meets the Russian president

        ---
        Wow...
        So US "apparatchik" is patronizing Pope himself now...?
        This is just marvellous..

        So is it really works like this? US fella coming to all EU government officials and Telling them what to do?

        For a moment (long time ago), I've thought we have a representative democracy.
        Apparently, by the actions taken by Brussels recently I can tell – Commission represents USA, not me.

        My opinion is surely ignored.

        Actually nobody even bothers about my opinion. US is dictating how we are living now here, in Europe. Just great.


        secondiceberg Alessandro De Sando 10 Jun 2015 12:27

        When a group of people, geographically, culturally, and political united, decide that they want to pursue self-determination (a stated Western value once upon a time), that does not exactly fit the definition of terrorism. We might call them freedom fighters. By your reckoning, Mandela was a "terrorist".


        ID9492736 jezzam 10 Jun 2015 11:43

        This is not even hypothetically possible. Russian GDP is a fraction if American, roughly one eighth of it (Russian $ 2.1 trillion, American about $17 trillion). For American corruption to be lesser than Russian in absolute terms, American corruption would have to be lesser than 1/8th of what is currently going on in Russia.

        Anyone who has ever done business with an American corporation (be it private or government-owned), or - heavens forbid - the City of New York - knows that such statements belong in science-fiction.


        geedeesee annamarinja 10 Jun 2015 11:42

        "war criminals among the flock. Blair is the prime example."

        And Blair was re-elected in 2005. Popes have to have some contact with leaders of different countries.


        annamarinja Skallior 10 Jun 2015 11:39

        No, he is not. Obama is a clever and loyal servant to the Plutocracy. He is own by the global financial system and he has been doing everything in his power to please the system.


        ID9492736 10 Jun 2015 11:34

        The fact that the Pope elected to meet Putin means that he is completely disregarding the ugly and meaningless blather coming from the neocon/neoliberal/neoevangelical/neofascist quarters and is guided by the divine wisdom alone. Clearly, the neoconservatism has lost its global mojo and is now reduced to vile global intrigue and worse.

        With Pope as brilliant and as likable as this, I could easily become a Catholic myself (well, perhaps for an hour or two). I am concerned, however, that the Vatican bankers and their City of London bosses may not quite like the idea of Pope meeting Putin.

        Habeas Papam, indeed. Bless ya, Frankie!

        annamarinja cherryredguitar 10 Jun 2015 11:31

        When is Vatican going to start the process of excommunication of the pious catholic Tony Blair, a self-serving politician that made the UK join the US in the illegal wars in the Middle East? Hundreds of thousands of civilians are dead, including children and pregnant women. Hundreds of thousands became handicapped. Millions are displaced. The western atrocities and politicking in ME have created a monster of ISIS. Where is the voice of Church? Vatican is amazingly lenient towards the war criminal.


        nobledonkey -> Alderbaran 10 Jun 2015 11:30

        Who cares about Western Liberal Democracy in Russia? That's a purely western conceit.

        The Pope's main concern here is peace and the long efforts to reunite the Catholic and the Orthodox, something much, much more important than silly notions that the Americans are pushing.

        secondiceberg -> jezzam 10 Jun 2015 11:25

        If Putin had the slightest interest in re-establishing control over the former USSR countries, he had a long time to do it, but he turned his attention to rebuilding the country he is president of, with a lot of success until the U.S. recognized it might have to deal with another significant economic entity.

        We are left with the fact that it is the U.S. that now has de facto control over those countries, through its apparent dictatorial power over the E.U. and its military arm, NATO. Maybe it is too simplistic, but if you want to establish who desired control over those countries, it might be well to look had who has control.

        secondiceberg -> jezzam 10 Jun 2015 11:19

        For someone who has no influence, Putin seems to be the constant focus of anguish and attention by politicians and media in the West. Another day, another column, another wild-eyed speech about Putin. Even Forbes once again names him as the most powerful person in the world (albeit after a short introduction denouncing his "sins", with a list of transgressions that must surprise Putin.) As for more positive influence that Putin possesses, you left off Brazil, India, China, South Africa, a number of countries in Latin America, even Greece, Turkey, etc. This positive influence is not gained by Western style bullying, but old-fashioned goodwill negotiation that seeks compromises that recognize the interests of all countries involved.

        Bogdanich 10 Jun 2015 11:18

        The Pope will do no such thing and all this represents is a suggestion by an enormously corrupt US administration about talking points they would like to see included when he speaks before the US Congress in September 2015. Yes that idiot Bonyer invited the pope to speak as cover for inviting Netenyahu against the wishes of the administration and so now they have a problem as they already know what he is likely to say.

        As an aside if you substitute the word "Fuhrer" for "Administration" it makes the point clearer but then you get in trouble with the thought police.


        Profhambone FallenKezef 10 Jun 2015 11:13

        Absolutely! And the Pope should be wary of taking US advice. While our moderate republican President Obama rails at Russia for interfering in the Ukraine (whose democratically elected President was ousted in a US supported coup) we support countries with "great" human rights' records such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, Communist China and Egypt while using drones in Pakistan, Yemen and Iraq.

        Hell, we even lost one to Iran when it flew "accidentally" over the Iraq-Iran border. Intact....

        At one time the USSR was described as "the Evil Empire". The people who pointed and quoted that forgot that there were 3 fingers pointing back at them.....The Pope should remember that.....

        StatusFoe -> Expats10 10 Jun 2015 11:11

        1) Oil and gas reserves off the coast
        2) To kick the Russian Navy out of the most strategic port on the northern side of the Black Sea.
        3) To block planned Russian pipelines under the Black Sea.

        All very plausible for US energy and, by extension, military interests.


        ConradLodziak 10 Jun 2015 10:58

        Being Argentinian the Pope will be very familiar with US ignorance. Furthermore Francis does not need 'advice' from an unqualified lightweight. He is perfectly capable of detecting western propaganda in relation to Ukraine, Russia and Putin.

        The latter has consistently demonstrated a strong stance against US hegemony and EU and eastern European states willingness to tolerate neo-nazism. This stance has won Putin the respect of most of the world. The US should be advised to mind their own business and focus their energies on trying to become a civilised society.


        Joe King 10 Jun 2015 10:40

        As much as that tool Putin deserves an endless waterfall of cold criticism poured over his head -

        In this case, the Pope might also blast America for its newfound Christian fundamentalism that's attacking its poor and marginalised, the wholescale militarisation of the US police into a violent above-the-law force attacking its own people, how America's self-serving overseas wars and tinkering has stirred up all kinds of trouble for Catholics/Christians in those countries, and so on.

        Putin is a puffed-up little thug, so I'd wholeheartedly support the pope in criticising him - just as, to be fair, I'd also want to see him criticising America for the many, many awful things that It has done, and that are happening there.

        Someone might tell the ambassador that the Pope's searing criticism of America would be true fairness and equality before God. (Even if an atheist like me says so.)


        VengefulRevenant -> jezzam 10 Jun 2015 10:32

        Could this change of mind to 97% in favour of joining Russia be due to the fact that the Crimea referendum was organised by the Russian army at gunpoint?

        Or could it have had more to do with the right-wing/neo-fascist coup in Kiev that took place between those polls you cite and the poll, the one where Crimeans officially expressed their desire to leave Ukraine and join Russia? The latter obviously, because their change of mind has subsequently been reflected in every poll taken since, even those conducted by US regime agencies. Crimean support for Russia is genuine.

        Jezzam, you're just making a dick of yourself here. "Forgetting" the US-backed coup is just ridiculous, and nobody honest and informed believes that the people of Crimea want to be part of Ukraine. Nobody.


        Dani Jenkins jezzam 10 Jun 2015 10:31

        Perhaps you could point me towards ANY democracy....

        I see a light over my Greek border, but not equal representation of women in the London and Zuerich elite echelons of the corporate class.

        In case you had not noticed the exodus from the corrupt practice of empires, the wave of feudalism and diseased minds , is heading your way. It looks to me like you have sucked the Hack(ett) job, hook line and sinker.... look too at the article for the Congo and Soco's corruption of said "military" and get back to me with any queeries:-)

        You should be worried about your state, as it seems to me , Vlad has his well under control....you on the other hand NOT....stop closing your eyes to corrupt practices that have corrupted the world today, far more than Putin.... yermelai's comment holds credibility, yours a complete joke.

        I see no sign of democracy whatsoever yet (Iceland excepted)....you are surely a man, well out of Africa!


        chulumani 10 Jun 2015 10:30

        It just beggars belief. The rogue state USA which has been since decades going over this planet with a flame thrower, initiating coups, installed bloody, military regimes, financed and created terrorism and terrorist groups at will and financed civil wars whenever it helped their own agenda, tries now to tell the Pope what to do and what not. After getting ready for a hostile takeover of the FIFA, they seem to aim now for the Vatican as well.

        Not even the Nazis dared that.


        johnbonn 10 Jun 2015 10:27

        This Pope has shown that he can think, speak and act for himself.

        The CIA now wants the Pope to go against the largest Christian country. Isn't geo politics entertaining.

        On the other hand the CIA always goes around the world telling people what to think and what to do. The CIA would even tell God to sanction the RF, so Hunter Biden doesn't lose his job.

        If Pope Francis doesn't listen to the CIA /ambassador, he could be in trouble. Reports of his Vatican enemies are already circulating. Cardinal John Law is the chief of suppressing criminal behavior in all church affairs. He never saw a pedophile he didn't like.

        Now the CIA is streaming anti Russia messages through the Internet into Crimea, to turn Crimeans.

        Russians will never allow Crimea to be occupied by the west.


        RayJosephCormier Alessandro De Sando 10 Jun 2015 10:26

        Does Obama think about the terrorism he is supporting in Syria, half way across the world from the US, but Russia cannot do anything when the US engineers a Coup d'Etat on Russia's border? Such hypocritical, double standard BS will not cultivate a more peaceful world, but the opposite!

        Is it right for Obama to change the regimes in other Nations so far from the US? Iraq was an illegal invasion since the only world body that could have given permission for the invasion, denied the permission. The US setting the example, broke International Law, but demands other Nations follow it or be punished, Israel being the exception.


        geedeesee -> jezzam 10 Jun 2015 10:22

        Not when you look at the survey. 68% had warm attitude towards Russia; only 14% to EU. And only 14% consider themselves Ukrainian; the vast majority Russian/Crimean. No doubt their position shifted further after they witnessed the coup in Kiev.

        Full survey:
        http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/2013%20October%207%20Survey%20of%20Crimean%20Public%20Opinion,%20May%2016-30,%202013.pdf

        laticsfanfromeurope 10 Jun 2015 09:54

        Pope Francesco and Putin-probably the two most wise, intelligent and carismatic leaders on earth!
        They are the defensors of christians, unlike the west, which send weapons to anti-christian terrorist groups, for example in Syria.
        Up the Pope!
        Up Putin!
        Up the Catolics and the Ortodoxs!


        VengefulRevenant 10 Jun 2015 09:11

        The pontiff has chided world leaders for seeking to diminish anti-Christian violence and the topic is likely to be raised on Wednesday.

        Actually the pope would be pleased and grateful if world leaders would take action to "diminish anti-Christian violence."

        The literal meaning of "diminish" - to reduce - overpowers the writer's apparent intended meaning - to discount - creating another absurdity in this rubbish article.


        SHappens 10 Jun 2015 09:02

        What a delirious article. Putin pariah on the world's stage is risible. The World does not resume the US and its poodles. The symptom of a European order, [or] European architecture, which has not found its stability at the end of the cold war has all to do with NATO's aggressive expansion towards Russia's borders.

        Putin and the Pope already shared the same views about Syria thus it is not excluded that they might also have the same view about the fratricide war in Ukraine, brought to you by the US. Unless the next US coup will be to oust the Pope since he doesnt comply with their hegemony's plans and resist to their pressures.

        MaoChengJi -> HollyOldDog 10 Jun 2015 08:57

        Well, whataya want: the Pope gets his daily news and instructions directly from God, while the others get it from the US embassy.

        AnimalFarm2 10 Jun 2015 08:53

        Why? because you don't like Putin? Well I can list a whole load of Americans the Pope should ex-communicate, starting with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice. To name a few!

        philbo 10 Jun 2015 08:52

        "The presidential visit underscores Russia's cosy relationship with Italy at a time when Putin is otherwise being treated as a pariah on the world stage."

        the world stage -- you mean by world the US and its poodles in Europe but that doesn't include China, India, Brasil and all the rest of the countries that don't have a voice on the global stage. As Usual Imperial US has to bully other countries who dare to think differently and it can't bear dissent from some of its allies.


        Justin Thyme 10 Jun 2015 08:47

        A fantastic bit of writing irrelevance based on hearsay and speculation as non important filler to shape opinion. God against Putin is the message, well done Guardian, following orders again, brown nosing in case those nasty GCHQ people will come and threaten you again.

        Andrew Morten was the death knell for investigative journalism in the UK as the unreported is hidden with crap like this. Infotainment sols as information and knowledge.

        VengefulRevenant 10 Jun 2015 08:28

        The presidential visit underscores Russia's cosy relationship with Italy at a time when Putin is otherwise being treated as a pariah on the world stage.

        What an extremely stupid, ignorant thing to write. It's deranged.

        Putin is not a pariah by any objective standard. The only countries treating him as such are the NATO imperialist regimes and a smattering of other US satellites, i.e. a tiny minority of the world's states including an even tinier minority of the world population.

        This is the absurdity of atavistic Eurocentrism in a world that has definitively stopped revolving around the white empires. It smacks of "Heavy Fog in Channel, Continent Cut Off."

        MaoChengJi 10 Jun 2015 08:19

        In February, the pontiff referred to the bloodshed in the Ukrainian conflict as "fratricidal", a comment seen as controversial in Ukraine, where the violence is viewed as a direct consequence of Russian aggression.

        Obviously, the Pope is a separatist and FSB agent. 7 years. Next!

        [Jun 10, 2015] Paul Krugman Fighting the Derp\

        "..."Derp" is a term borrowed from the cartoon "South Park"...: people who keep saying the same thing no matter how much evidence accumulates that it's completely wrong. ..."
        Jun 8, 2015 | Economist's View

        Paul Krugman: Fighting the Derp

        "How can you protect yourself against derpitude?":
        Fighting the Derp, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: When it comes to economics - and other subjects, but I'll focus on what I know best - we live in an age of derp and cheap cynicism. ...

        What am I talking about here? "Derp" is a term borrowed from the cartoon "South Park"...: people who keep saying the same thing no matter how much evidence accumulates that it's completely wrong. ...

        And there's a lot of derp out there. Inflation derp, in particular, has become more or less a required position among Republicans. ... And that tells you why derp abides: it's basically political. ...

        Still, doesn't everyone do this? No... There's also plenty of genuine, honest analysis out there - and you don't have to be a technical expert to tell the difference.

        I've already mentioned one telltale sign of derp: predictions that just keep being repeated no matter how wrong they've been in the past. Another sign is the never-changing policy prescription, like the assertion that slashing tax rates on the wealthy, which you advocate all the time, just so happens to also be the perfect response to a financial crisis nobody expected.

        Yet another is a call for long-term responses to short-term events – for example, a permanent downsizing of government in response to a recession. ...

        So ... how can you ... protect yourself against derpitude? The first line of defense, I'd argue, is to always be suspicious of people telling you what you want to hear.

        Thus, if you're a conservative opposed to a stronger safety net, you should be extra skeptical about claims that health reform is about to crash and burn, especially coming from people who made the same prediction last year and the year before (Obamacare derp runs almost as deep as inflation derp).

        But if you're a liberal who believes that we should reduce inequality, you should similarly be cautious about studies purporting to show that inequality is responsible for many of our economic ills, from slow growth to financial instability. Those studies might be correct - the fact is that there's less derp on America's left than there is on the right - but you nonetheless need to fight the temptation to let political convenience dictate your beliefs.

        Fighting the derp can be hard, not least because it can upset friends who want to be reassured in their beliefs. But you should do it anyway: it's your civic duty.

        anne said...

        http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/i-do-not-think-that-derp-means-what-you-think-it-means/

        June 8, 2015

        I Do Not Think That Derp Means What You Think It Means
        By Paul Krugman

        Continuing on the theme of derp in policy discourse: * Vox coincidentally has a post ** about Hillary Clinton's proposal for automatic voter registration noting that signing up less informed voters isn't necessarily a bad thing, because "informed" voters mainly seem to be informed about the party line. In effect, they know which derp they're supposed to repeat.

        Indeed, regular viewers of Fox are worse at answering simple questions about reality than people who watch no news at all.

        Meanwhile, however, I'm getting a lot of people saying "Oh yeah? You do derp more than anyone!"

        No, I don't. You may believe that I am evil or stupid, or evil andstupid. But derp means something specific: it means always saying the same thing, regardless of circumstances, and regardless of past errors. Declaring that the Federal Reserve's policies are going to cause hyperinflation, year after year, when it keeps not happening is derp. Declaring that we need aggressive fiscal and monetary expansion when the economy is depressed isn't. It's not an invariant claim - in fact, I get accused (stupidly) of some kind of inconsistency because I thought deficits were bad under Bush but good under Obama. And it's not a prediction that has repeatedly proved false.

        What the accusers really mean here is that I keep saying things they dislike and dispute. But that's not derp, that's just disagreement. There's a difference, and only the derpy fail to grasp that difference.

        * http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/opinion/paul-krugman-fighting-the-derp.html

        ** http://www.vox.com/2015/6/8/8740897/informed-voters-may-not-be-better-voters

        Peter K. said in to EMichael... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 09:14 AM
        It's a lefty version of Republican derp. They know Obummer is a centrist sellout, ergo Obamacare is bad.

        I just think the stats speak for themselves and will so increasingly as times go by.

        With inflation and monetary policy, the derp is strong even on the left. It's harder to argue conclusively about macro which is why it's so vulnerable to derp.

        Brian said in to DrDick... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 11:57 AM

        The president who protected the culprits who made the 2008 banking crash is center-left? The president who then protected the felonies of robo-signing is center-left? The president whose policy caused the destruction of half of black American net worth is center-left? The president who prosecuted more whistleblowers more aggressively than any in history is center-left?

        The president who continues to maintain classified state secret status of a trade treaty that he is pushing through Congress is center-left?

        This is not a center-left administration.

        pgl said in to pgl... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 10:27 AM

        Dean Baker on the Deflation Cultists at the NYTimes:

        http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/deflation-nonsense-in-nyt

        It starts with our something our gold bug cultist (JohnH) should read:

        It is amazing how economic reporters continue to repeat nonsense about deflation. As fans of arithmetic and logic everywhere know, deflation is bad for the same reason a lower rate of inflation is bad. It raises the real interest rate at a time when we want a lower real interest rate and it increases the real value of debt when we want to see the real value of debt reduced. (The real interest rate is the nominal interest minus the inflation rate.)

        JohnH said in to pgl... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 10:49 AM
        Well, I finally caught pgl in a lie. He has not read Piketty! If he had read Piketty he would understand what he said about inflation. It's all over the book.

        Piketty said, "inflation in France and Germany averaged 13 and 17 percent a year, respectively, from 1913 to 1950. It was inflation that allowed both countries to embark on reconstruction efforts of the 1950s with a very small burden of public debt," (because they had effectively eliminated the public debt via inflation.)

        Regarding Britain, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the British monarchy chose to borrow without limit to finance wars. "it would take a century of budget surpluses to gradually reduce Britain's debt to under 30 percent of national income in the 1910s."

        During the 20th century "in Britain, things were done differently [from France and Germany:] more slowly and with less passion. Between 1913 and 1950, the average rate of inflation was a little more than 3 percent a year...Britain was fully mobilized to pay for the war effort without undue dependence on the printing press, with the result that by 1950 the country found itself saddled with a colossal debt, more than 200 percent of GDP, even higher than in 1815. Only with the inflation of the 1950s (more than 4 percent a year) and above all of the 1970s (nearly 15 percent a year) did Britain's debt fall to around 50 percent of GDP." This experience helps explain why British politicians are more sensitive to a high structural deficit (5.7% of GDP) than liberal economists, who could care less about such things.

        pgl (and many liberal economists) think that massive debt levels are a free lunch, and that there are no consequences! However, as interest rates, as eventually they must, and governments must roll over debts, debt service impinges on the government budget, necessitating increases in taxes or decreases in investments and services. Alternatively, governments can choose to just inflate away their debts, as France and Germany did, something that liberal economists do not seem to particularly concerned about, despite the adverse impact on significant portions of society.

        JohnH said in to JohnH... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 02:47 PM
        correction: "as interest rates rise, as inevitably they must..."
        JohnH said in to pgl... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 05:58 PM
        And just what did pgl see in Piketty? Surely not that France and Germany used it to wipe out the public debt. And surely not that Britain soldiered 25 years under the burden of its public debt after WWII rather than resorting to inflation.

        I guess pgl conveniently skimmed over a lot of things that he disagreed with, even though this was repeated several times in the book.

        pgl said in to JohnH... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 07:18 PM
        "Only with the inflation of the 1950s (more than 4 percent a year) and above all of the 1970s (nearly 15 percent a year) did Britain's debt fall to around 50 percent of GDP."

        This is funny because you earlier said the UK did not use inflation to lower its public debt. I and Anne noted that its inflation rate since 1955 has been higher than that of France, Germany, and the UK. And Piketty notes it was high too.

        Do make up your mind someday - please. Every one has noticed how much your fact free rants contradict each other. It is getting really embarrassing.

        pgl said in to JohnH... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 06:01 PM
        JohnH has figured out that there was a lot of inflation in Germany between World War I and World War II. Wow! The economic issues for the Weimer Republic have been long discussed. The Treaty of Versailles and its war reparations was the subject of Keynes first important thesis, which has been widely discussed but I guess JohnH missed that discussion and its importance for the Greek situation. It was this issue that the government used as its excuse for excessive monetary growth and the resulting hyperinflation. But that ended and the 1924-1929 Golden Era followed. I guess JohnH missed that too.

        But the real crisis – which is what led to Hitler displacing this regime – was when they listened to gold bug idiots like JohnH, PeterK has reminded us of Brüning's policy of deflation which led to a massive recession. I guess JohnH has chosen to ignore this. But Piketty noted in his book. Funny that JohnH never mentions the disaster that listening to his gold bug stupidity led to.

        JohnH said in to pgl... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 06:24 PM
        pgl still thinks that high public debt is a free lunch...I mean, what could go wrong? The experiences of Germany, France and Britain mean nothing to him.

        Now, pgl, can you tell me exactly why Piketty doesn't like inflation? And can you tell me the only thing that Piketty thinks is worse than inflation?

        Now we'll see if pgl has read Piketty, as he claims.

        Sandwichman said... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 07:21 PM
        "But if you're a liberal who believes that we should reduce inequality, you should similarly be cautious about studies purporting to show that inequality is responsible for many of our economic ills, from slow growth to financial instability."

        Following up on that point, Sandwichman has a comment on Dean Baker's response to Krugman's blog post, "Musings on Inequality and Growth"

        "Inequality, Growth and Leisure"

        http://econospeak.blogspot.ca/2015/06/inequality-growth-and-leisure.html

        In response to musings by Paul Krugman on inequality and growth, Dean Baker asks whether taking more of the benefits in leisure time might skew the appearance of the data. That is to say if the value of leisure wasn't excluded from GDP, those countries that took more leisure -- and, incidentally, are relatively more equal -- would have higher growth rates.

        Ironically, Dean doesn't have the time just now to check that one out. Sandwichman has time but not Dean's virtuosity with data.

        As Krugman argues, "there just isn't a striking, simple relationship between inequality and growth; all the results depend on doing fairly elaborate data massaging..." There isn't a striking result to be had from the data for a good reason. There isn't a single relationship in the underlying reality. The results are also constrained by what questions are being asked.

        The presumptive question seems to be whether inequality is good or bad for growth. Is that the only question worth asking? Is it the best question? Dean framed his question about leisure as a supplement. He remarks, mock apologetically, "there is nothing wrong with taking the benefits of higher productivity in the form of leisure rather than income."

        Wanna bet?

        There must indeed be "something wrong" with taking the benefits of higher productivity as leisure. Otherwise, why would economists echo, decade after decade, the lump-of-labor refrain against the "fallacy" of reducing working time? If there really was nothing wrong with taking the benefits of productivity as leisure, then, hey presto, that boilerplate injunction would be superfluous -- inappropriate, even.

        Are economists ignoring the obvious?

        Sixty years ago, Simon Kuznets -- who won the Sveriges Bank ("Nobel") Prize for his pioneering work in national income accounting -- was puzzled by his finding that for a limited sample of industrially-advanced countries, inequality didn't increase with growth. He was puzzled, in part, because ceteris paribus, "the cumulative effect of such inequality in savings would be the concentration of an increasing proportion of income-yielding assets in the hands of the upper groups." This was the famous inverted "U"-shaped Kuznets curve. Subsequent research by Thomas Piketty has shown the curve to be an anomalous statistical artifact of the periodization and country selection.

        There are a multitude of factors that could explain the Kuznets curve anomaly and it is doubtful that knot could ever be untangled. But let me suggest a factor candidate. The period in which the Kuznets curve prevailed was the period in which the eight-hour day became standardized in the industrially-advanced countries. Instead of looking exclusively at the relationship between growth and inequality, might there not be greater insight gained from investigating the triad of growth, inequality and leisure?

        anne said in to Sandwichman... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 12:15 PM
        http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/krugman-inequality-and-growth

        June 8, 2015

        Krugman, Inequality, and Growth

        Paul Krugman questions * whether there is an existence of positive relationship between equality and growth. He rightly cautions those on the left against being too quick to accept the existence of such a relationship.

        He uses a simple graph showing the relationship between inequality and growth per working age person in the years 1985 to 2007. His takeaway is that there is not much a positive relationship, but there clearly is no negative relationship between equality in growth. In other words, the people who are that we need to have more inequality to support stronger growth have a hard case to make using this simple comparison.

        I would suggest taking the analysis one step further. One big difference between countries over this period is the extent to which they opted to take the benefits from growth in more leisure time. There are large differences in the decline in the length of the average work year across countries.

        Using the OECD data ** (which is not perfect for international comparisons) we find that relatively equal France saw a decline in average work hours of 10.2 percent over this period. Denmark had a decline of 5.3 percent, and West Germany had a drop of 15.9 percent. These would translate into annual increases in GDP per potential work hour of 0.5, 0.2, and 0.8 percentage points, respectively.

        By contrast, in the relatively unequal U.K. the drop in average hours was 4.7 percent, in Canada 3.1 percent, and in the U.S. 2.2 percent. These translates in gains in annual GDP per potential hour worked of 0.2, 0.1, and 0.1 percentage points, respectively.

        Would looking at GDP per potential hour worked strengthen the positive correlation between equality and growth? I don't have time to check that one just now, but a quick eyeballing of the data suggests that it is possible. This still would not be conclusive evidence that equality is good for growth, but it would be interesting. And, it is an important reminder that there is nothing wrong with taking the benefits of higher productivity in the form of leisure rather than income. The planet will thank you for it.

        * http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/musings-on-inequality-and-growth/

        ** https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS

        -- Dean Baker

        anne said in to Sandwichman... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 12:27 PM
        http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/musings-on-inequality-and-growth/

        June 8, 2015

        Musings on Inequality and Growth
        By Paul Krugman

        I've been using the case of research on inequality and growth as an example of an issue where liberals need to be careful not to let wishful thinking drive their conclusions; it would fit perfectly with our world view if inequality were not just a bad thing but also bad for the economy, which is a reason to bend over backwards to avoid accepting that conclusion too easily. But what do we really know?

        Well, there have been a number of studies that seem to find a negative relationship, all based on some kind of international cross-section approach (some with time-series aspects too). So what is my problem? In general, I have doubts about the whole growth regression methodology, which has lots of problems in identifying causation (remember, that's the methodology behind the Reinhart-Rogoff debt-threshold paper). Beyond that, there just isn't a striking, simple relationship between inequality and growth; all the results depend on doing fairly elaborate data massaging, which might be right but might also be teasing out a relationship that isn't really there.

        Let me give you a picture showing what I think we know. It compares inequality with growth; I've made some data choices that others may wish to do differently, so let me explain those details. First, instead of raw Ginis I use the new Gornick-Milanovic numbers * for households without members over 60. Second, I measure growth in real GDP per working-age adult (15-64), because raw GDP per capita is significantly affected by demographic divergence. Third, I look at the period 1985-2007 - essentially, the Great Moderation - because I'm not talking about macroeconomic policy. Oh, and finally I exclude both transition economies (which went from Communist to very poor capitalist circa 1990, and have very different stories) and Ireland, which grew so fast that it's hard to see anything else.

        Here's what I get:

        [Growth in GDP per working-age adult, 1985-2007]

        If you squint, maybe you see a very slight negative relationship here (R-squared of 0.02, if you care), but it's not much. Basically, there isn't much difference in growth rates overall; the low-inequality northern Europeans have a range of outcomes not noticeably different from the high-inequality Anglo-Saxons.

        I might also note that low inequality is no protection against financial crisis - the Nordics had some major ones in the early 1990s. Also Denmark and the Netherlands have very high levels of household debt.

        It's important to realize that the absence of any clear relationship is a big win for progressives: right-wingers always claim that any attempt to reduce inequality will hurt the feelings of job creators and kill growth, but there's not a hint of that problem in the data. But not much evidence that failure to reduce inequality kills growth, either. And I personally am making an effort not to be greedy - not to claim that a drive against inequality, which I view as crucially important for social and political reasons, is also the cure for lots of other things.

        * http://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/Centers/LIS/LIS-Center-Research-Brief-1-2015.pdf?ext=.pdf

        anne said in to Sandwichman... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 12:28 PM
        https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1dLF

        August 4, 2014

        Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland, 1985-2007

        (Percent change)

        anne said in to Sandwichman... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 12:31 PM
        https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1dLH

        August 4, 2014

        Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States, United Kingdom, Germany and France, 1985-2007

        (Percent change)

        anne said in to Sandwichman... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 12:32 PM
        https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1dLL

        August 4, 2014

        Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece, 1985-2007

        (Percent change)

        Dorian Cole said... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 12:32 PM
        There have been a number of studies done on this, including the fact that arguing with "Derps" makes them go to ridiculous logical extremes to justify their beliefs. It's counterproductive to argue with them. I cover this in this article:

        http://onespiritresources.com/articles/influence.php

        Sandwichman said in to Dorian Cole... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 12:27 PM
        Yes, there is no chance of persuading with facts someone whose mind is made up. One would have a better chance with a fence post. The only point to such an argument is for the sake of the spectators -- if there is an undecided audience.
        EMichael said in to Sandwichman... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 12:46 PM

        I much prefer liberal applications of prozac and/or a baseball bat to those people. Far more effective than a fence post. And in the case of the drug they may actually become human.

        EMichael said in to Sandwichman... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 01:15 PM

        Ohh,

        And you can get a better grip on a baseball bat. Bat speed is real important in this area.

        Sandwichman said in to EMichael... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 12:57 PM
        Not to mention the splinters you get from fence posts!
        Sandwichman said in to Dorian Cole... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 01:45 PM

        See also: "Why We Ignore the Obvious: The Psychology of Willful Blindness"

        http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/08/27/willful-blindness-margaret-heffernan

        [Jun 08, 2015] The Attack on Truth By Lee McIntyre

        Jun 08, 2015 | The Chronicle Review

        We have entered an age of willful ignorance

        Reythia > lharasim

        Facts alone do not equal truth. But factual evidence IS what allows us to determine what is "true" or "actual" or "real" and what is not. Which is the entire point of science in particular, and learning in general.

        Secondly, seriously, you're either being immensely picky with your dictionary definitions, or making this author's point about the mindset difference between scientists and liberal arts people.

        Basically, people are welcome to believe whatever they want. If someone wants to believe that trains are angels sent down by God in Heaven to communicate in corporeal form with us, they're welcome to. That's "belief", and if you want to have a philosophical argument about its "truth" to a sincere believer, go ahead. But as a scientist, I'm going to tell you that "truth" is that if that believer walks in front of a fast-moving train, his "belief" that the angel will commune harmlessly with him will be trumped by my "fact" that F = ma. Squish. That's "truth".

        lairdwilcox > lharasim

        ...I am far more comfortable with a notion of "truth" that is subject to revision when new evidence appears or old evidence is successfully refuted. Dogma and ideology, both of which are attempts to simplify reality and to false certainty where this cannot be done, are the enemies of responsible education everywhere.

        What we have done is so thoroughly moralize some points of view, like global warming, race and gender differences among others, to the point where any kind of honest discussion or debate is impossible. Even to suggest that current dogma may be biased or flawed can on savage attacks by people who cannot tolerate dissent.

        C. E. M. Joad, in his The Recovery of Belief (1952) observed:

        "There are those who feel an imperative need to believe, for whom the values of a belief are proportionate, not to its truth, but to its definiteness. Incapable of either admitting the existence of contrary judgments or of suspending their own, they supply the place of knowledge by turning other men's conjectures into dogmas."

        When this kind of moralizing fanaticism occurs you are in a dangerous predicament -- even if you think you have honest criticism of a prevailing idea you become fearful of expressing it because of retaliation. The pages of CHE are full of cases where academics have paid a terrible price for this.

        selfdeflection > lairdwilcox

        There is a significant difference between one's point of view (deliberately not using truth, belief, fact, etc.) AFTER having carefully consumed, reviewed, evaluated and weighed all the relevant evidence for an issue and one's point of view absent that review and analysis. So many conflate those two types of "believers", but they could not be more different and the power of their perspectives should be regarded differently as well.

        alsotps > lharasim

        As I remember the story, someone responded to idealists with their idea that reality was only (note only) a human construct by suggesting they walk off the top floor of a tall building to see what would happen.

        As for the issue here, read Camus, Ortega y Gassett and even better the symbolic interactionists who looked at how people create the meanings with which they make sense out of the world. For political science types, read Quincy Wright's Study Of War in which he looks at the symbolic roots of warring. For literary types, read Joan Dideon's The White Album's first page: "We tell ourselves stories in order to live."

        The point: facts, like objects, are real; how they are interpreted and used is a construction, part individual and part social (and political).

        A quote attributed to George Orwell seems to say it all: "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth in a revolutionary Act."

        Time we become revolutionaries.

        Andrew Norman > kathden

        Bruno Latour had the courage to critically examine the overall thrust of his work in science studies, and admit that it might have actually been a mistake to reflexively assume that any claim to objective knowledge is the real enemy. He now has the courage to admit that the postmodern relativism he long championed is (along with religious dogmatism) an enormous threat to genuine, accountable inquiry. That is the import of McIntyre's quote from Latour, and Kathden would do well to emulate Latour's courage. It is not McIntyre's treatment of the subject, but Kathden's dismissal of it, that is naive.

        Thomas Edward Wictor > Andrew Norman

        Why should we celebrate the "courage" of people who now admit that their incredibly stupid, destructive ideas are incredibly stupid and destructive?

        ... ... ...

        [Jun 07, 2015] I'm so, so tired of political journalists by Beverly Mann

        June 2, 2015 | Angry Bear

        Politico's top article today is titled "Did Elizabeth Warren go too far this time?" But it's subtitled "The Massachusetts senator's attack on Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Mary Jo White causes backlash on Wall Street." The article, which is lengthy, discusses a 13-page letter Warren sent this morning to SEC Chairwoman Mary Jo White, absolutely ripping White for … well, you should read the article, all the way to the end.

        By the end of the article, you'll wonder why somewhere in the middle of it, it says that Warren's influence seems to be on the wane and that the letter probably will hasten the waning. The article has two co-authors, and the headline would not have been written by either of them. So that might be why the article is part details and background, and part what Wall Street and the White House want as the media's take on the letter's contents and fallout. I did a double-take when I read this sentence: "The backlash against Warren was the latest indication that populist firebrand's efforts to push for tougher financial regulation may be losing some momentum."

        The backlash against Warren is from Wall Street, the SEC, Mary Jo White's office, and the CEOs and lobbyists who want the TPP treaty ratified and are selling it as a trade agreement even though, mostly, it's not. Warren (and others) object not to the actual trade provisions but to parts of it that do not concern trade as such. And the SEC rules under Dodd-Frank that Warren angrily says the SEC keeps delaying concern transparency of corporations concerning the CEO's pay as compared to that of the company's ordinary employees, and concern disclosure of the identities of the tax-exempt organizations that receive corporate donations, and the amounts of the donations.

        The public backlash against this has begun, the Politico article says. Just call JPMorgan's corporate offices and lobbying firms. They'll tell ya!

        As for Wall Street's public relations offering on it, the part of it that the article discusses with specificity sounds to me ridiculous:

        "I don't understand Sen. Warren's criticism of White for recusing herself where there is a conflict of interest," said Wayne Abernathy, a top lobbyist for the American Bankers Association, referring to Warren's criticism that White isn't involved in SEC actions when her husband's law firm represents the companies involved. "Is it that she would prefer that the chairman go forward and participate in enforcement cases despite the conflict of interest?"

        No, actually, it's that because her husband is a partner in one of the premier New York law firms that represent the biggest financial institutions against the SEC and Justice Department during investigations and in civil and criminal litigation. And that her recusal means that the SEC is routinely deadlocked about whether to bring charges in such cases because the remaining SEC commissioners are equally divided between Republicans and Democrats. How convenient.

        Relatedly, Roger Cohen has a terrific column today in the New York Times. But you have to read to the end to get the relation.

        [Jun 07, 2015] We are the propagandists The real story about how The New York Times and the White House has turned truth in the Ukraine on it

        "...The Ukraine crisis reminds us that the pathology is not limited to the peculiar dreamers who made policy during the Bush II administration, whose idea of reality was idealist beyond all logic. It is a late-imperial phenomenon that extends across the board. "Unprecedented" is considered a dangerous word in journalism, but it may describe the Obama administration's furious efforts to manufacture a Ukraine narrative and our media's incessant reproduction of all its fallacies."
        Jun 03, 2015 | salon.com

        A sophisticated game of manipulation is afoot over Russia: power, influence and money. U.S. hands are not clean

        A couple of weeks ago, this column guardedly suggested that John Kerry's day-long talks in Sochi with Vladimir Putin and his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, looked like a break in the clouds on numerous questions, primarily the Ukraine crisis. I saw no evidence that President Obama's secretary of state had suddenly developed a sensible, post-imperium foreign strategy consonant with a new era. It was force of circumstance. It was the 21st century doing its work.

        This work will get done, cleanly and peaceably or otherwise.

        Sochi, an unexpected development, suggested the prospect of cleanliness and peace. But events since suggest that otherwise is more likely to prove the case. It is hard to say because it is hard to see, but our policy cliques may be gradually wading into very deep water in Ukraine.

        Ever since the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, reality itself has come to seem up for grabs. Karl Rove, a diabolically competent political infighter but of no discernible intellectual weight, may have been prescient when he told us to forget our pedestrian notions of reality-real live reality. Empires create their own, he said, and we're an empire now.

        The Ukraine crisis reminds us that the pathology is not limited to the peculiar dreamers who made policy during the Bush II administration, whose idea of reality was idealist beyond all logic. It is a late-imperial phenomenon that extends across the board. "Unprecedented" is considered a dangerous word in journalism, but it may describe the Obama administration's furious efforts to manufacture a Ukraine narrative and our media's incessant reproduction of all its fallacies.

        At this point it is only sensible to turn everything that is said or shown in our media upside down and consider it a second time. Who could want to live in a world this much like Orwell's or Huxley's-the one obliterating reality by destroying language, the other by making historical reference a transgression?

        Language and history: As argued several times in this space, these are the weapons we are not supposed to have.

        Ukraine now gives us two fearsome examples of what I mean by inverted reason.

        One, it has been raining reports of Russia's renewed military presence in eastern Ukraine lately. One puts them down and asks, What does Washington have on the story board now, an escalation of American military involvement? A covert op? Let us watch.

        Two, we hear ever-shriller charges that Moscow has mounted a dangerous, security-threatening propaganda campaign to destroy the truth-our truth, we can say. It is nothing short of "the weaponization of information," we are provocatively warned. Let us be on notice: Our truth and our air are now as polluted with propaganda as during the Cold War decades, and the only apparent plan is to make it worse.

        O.K., let us do what sorting can be done.

        Charges that Russia is variously amassing troops and materiel on its border with Ukraine or sending same across said border are nothing new. They are what General Breedlove, the strange-as-Strangelove NATO commander, gets paid to put out. These can be ignored, as most Europeans do.

        But in April a new round of the escalation charges began. Michael Gordon, the New York Times' reliably obliging State Department correspondent, reported in a story with a single named source that Russia was adding soldiers and air defense systems along its border.

        The sources for this were Marie Harf, one of State's spokespeople, and the standard variety of unnamed officials and analysts. Here is how it begins:

        In a sign that the tense crisis in Ukraine could soon escalate, Russia has continued to deploy air defense systems in eastern Ukraine and has built up its forces near the border, American officials said on Wednesday.

        Western officials are not sure if the military moves are preparations for a new Russian-backed offensive that would be intended to help the separatists seize additional territory.

        "Could," "has continued," "not sure," "would be." And this was the lead, where the strongest stuff goes.

        Scrape away the innuendo, and what you are reading in this piece is a whole lot of nothing. The second paragraph, stating what officials are not sure of, was a necessary contortion to get in the phrase "new Russian-backed offensive," which was the point of the piece. As journalism, this is so bad it belongs in a specimen jar.

        Context, the stuff this kind of reporting does its best to keep from readers:

        By mid-April, Washington was still at work trying to subvert the Minsk II ceasefire, an anti-Russian assassination campaign was under way in Kiev and the Poroshenko government, whether or not it approved of the campaign, was proving unable, unwilling or both to implement any of the constitutional revisions to which Minsk II committed it.

        A week before the April 22 report, 300 troops from the 173rd Airborne had arrived to begin training the Ukrainian national guard. The Times piece acknowledged this for the simple reason it was the elephant in the living room, but by heavy-handed implication it dismissed any thought of causality.

        Given the context, I would not be at all surprised to learn that Moscow may have put air defense systems in place. And I am not at all sure what is so worrisome about them. Maybe it is the same reasoning Benjamin Netanyahu applied when Russia recently agreed to supply Iran with air defense technology: It will make it harder for us to attack them, the dangerous Israeli complained.

        Neither am I sure what is so worrisome about Russians training eastern Ukrainian partisans-another charge Harf leveled-if it is supposed to be a mystery why American trainers at the other end of the country prompt alarm in Moscow.

        Onward from April 22 the new theme flowed. On May 17 Kiev claimed that it had captured two uniformed Russian soldiers operating inside Ukraine. On May 21 came reports that European monitors had interviewed the two under unstated conditions and had ascertained they were indeed active-duty infantry. This gave "some credence" to Kiev's claim, the Times noted, although at this point some is far short of enough when Kiev makes these kinds of assertions.

        On May 30-drum roll, please-came the absolute coup de grâce. The Atlantic Council, one of the Washington think tanks-its shtick seems to be some stripe of housebroken neoliberalism-published a report purporting to show that, in the Times' language, "Russia is continuing to defy the West by conducting protracted military operations inside Ukraine."

        Read the report here. It's first sentence: "Russia is at war with Ukraine."

        "Continuing to defy?" "At war with Ukraine?" If you refuse to accept the long, documented record of Moscow's efforts to work toward a negotiated settlement with Europe-and around defiant Americans-and if you call the Ukraine conflict other than a civil war, well, someone is creating your reality for you.

        Details. The Times described "Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin's War in Ukraine" as "an independent report." I imagine Gordon-he seems to do all the blurry stuff these days-had a straight face when he wrote three paragraphs later that John Herbst, one of the Atlantic Council's authors, is a former ambassador to Ukraine.

        I do not know what kind of a face Gordon wore when he reported later on that the Atlantic Council paper rests on research done by Bellingcat.com, "an investigative website." Or when he let Herbst get away with calling Bellingcat, which appears to operate from a third-floor office in Leicester, a city in the English Midlands, "independent researchers."

        I wonder, honestly, if correspondents look sad when they write such things-sad their work has come to this.

        One, Bellingcat did its work using Google, YouTube and other readily available social media technologies, and this we are supposed to think is the cleverest thing under the sun. Are you kidding?

        Manipulating social media "evidence" has been a parlor game in Kiev; Washington; Langley, Virginia, and at NATO since the Ukraine crisis broke open. Look at the graphics included in the presentation. I do not think technical expertise is required to see that these images prove what all others offered as evidence since last year prove: nothing. It looks like the usual hocus-pocus.

        Two, examine the Bellingcat web site and try to figure out who runs it. I tried the about page and it was blank. The site consists of badly supported anti-Russian "reports"-no "investigation" aimed in any other direction.

        I look at this stuff now and think, Well, there may be activity on Russia's borders or inside Ukraine, but maybe not. Those two soldiers may be Russian and may be on active duty, but I cannot draw any conclusion.

        I do not appreciate having to think this way-not as a reader and not as a former newsman. I do not like reading Times editorials, such as Tuesday's, which institutionalizes "Putin's war" and other such tropes, and having to say, Our most powerful newspaper is into the created reality game.

        A few things can be made clear in all this. Straight off the top it is almost certain, despite a logical wariness of presented evidence, that Russia has personnel and weapons deployed along its border and in Ukraine.

        I greatly hope so, and whether they are on duty or otherwise interests me not at all.

        First of all, it is a highly restrained approach to a geopolitical circumstance that Moscow recognizes as dangerous, Washington does not seem to and Kiev emphatically does not. In reversed circumstances, a troubled nation would have long back turned into an open conflict between two nuclear powers. Fig leafs have their place.

        I have written before on the question of spheres of influence: They are to be observed if not honored. Stephen Cohen, the Russianist scholar, prefers "spheres of security," and the phrase makes the point plainly. Russia cannot be expected to abandon its interests as Cohen defines them, and considering what is at issue for Moscow, the response is intelligently measured.

        Equally, Moscow appears to recognize that without any equilibrium between the Russian-tilted east and the Western-tilted west, Ukraine will be a bloodbath. Irresponsible as it has proven, and with little or no control over armed extreme rightist factions, Kiev cannot be allowed even an attempt to resolve this crisis militarily.

        One has to consider how these things are conventionally done. I had a cousin who piloted helicopters in Vietnam long ago. When we spread the conflict to Laos and Cambodia he flew in blue jeans, a T-shirt, sneakers and without dog tags. "If you go down, we don't know you," was the O.D.

        A directly germane case is Angola in the mid-1970s. When the Portuguese were forced to flee the old colony, the CIA began supplying right-wing opportunists in the north and south with weapons, money, and agency personnel. Only in response did Cuba send troops that quickly proved decisive. I remember well all the howls of "aggression"-all of them hypocritical rubbish: American efforts to subvert the movement that still governs Angola peaceably continued for a dozen more years.

        advertisement


        The Times editorial just noted is headlined, "Vladimir Putin Hides the Truth." This is upside-down-ism at its very worst.

        It is not easy to put accounts of the Ukraine crisis side by side to compare them. Think of two bottles of unlabeled wine in a blind taste test. Now read on.

        I do not see how there can be any question that Moscow's take on Ukraine and the larger East-West confrontation is the more coherent. Read or listen to Putin's speeches, notably that delivered at the Valdai Discussion Club, a Davos variant, in Sochi last October. It is historically informed, with a grasp of interests (common and opposing), the nature of the 21st century environment and how best outcomes are to be achieved in it.

        Altogether, Moscow offers a vastly more sophisticated, coherent accounting of the Ukraine crisis than any American official has or ever will. This is for one simple reason: Neither Putin nor Lavrov bears the burden American officials do of having to sell people mythical renderings of how the world works or their place in it.

        Russia's interests are clear and can be stated clearly, to put the point another way. America's-the expansion of opportunity for capital and the projection of power-must always remain shrouded.

        The question of plausibility is a serious imbalance, critical in its implications. In my view it accounts for that probably unprecedented propaganda effort noted earlier. It has ensued apace since Andrew Lack, named in January as America's first chief propaganda officer (CEO of the new Broadcasting Board of Governors), instantly declared information a field of battle. A war of the worldviews, we may call it.

        This war grows feverish as we speak. In the current edition of The Nation, a journalist named James Carden publishes a remarkable piece detailing the extremes now approached. I rank it a must read, and you can find it here.

        Carden's piece is called "The New McCarthyism," and any reader having a look will know well enough why our drift back toward the paranoid style of the 1950s is something we all ought to guard against. A great deal of this column would be banned as "disinformation." Whatever your stripe, I urge you to recognize this as serious.

        The focus here is on a report called "The Menace of Unreality: How the Kremlin Weaponizes Information, Culture and Money." It is written by Peter Pomerantsev and Michael Weiss. It is published by an Internet magazine called The Intepreter, as a special report sponsored by the Institute for Modern Russia.

        Credential problems galore. Weiss is an "expert" on flavors of the month, a main-chancer who sat at the late Christopher Hitchens' feet and inhabited a think tank in London before taking the editor's chair at The Interpreter. Pomersantsev was a TV producer in the most decadent corners of the Russian media circus, wheeling against it all only when he lost out. Now he is a darling of our media, naturally.

        Both, most important, seem to carry water for Michail Khodorkovsky, the oligarchic crook whom Western media, from the Times on down, now lionize as a democrat because he and Putin are enemies. Khodorkovsky funds the Institute for Modern Russia, based in New York. The IMR, in turn, funds The Interpreter.

        Got the fix? Ready to take this report seriously, are we?

        Astonishingly enough, a lot of people are. As Carden reports, Weiss and Pomerantsev cut considerable mustard among the many members of Congress nursing the new Russophobia. Anne Applebaum, the prominent paranoid on all questions Russian; and Geoffrey Pyatt, Obama's coup-cultivating ambassador in Kiev: Many weighty figures stand with these guys.

        Carden lays out his thesis expertly. Putin's weaponization of news makes him more dangerous than any communist ever was, "The Menace of Unreality" asserts, and he must be countered. How? With "an internationally recognized ratings system for disinformation."

        "Media organizations that practice conscious deception should be excluded from the community," Weiss and Pomerantsev write-the community being those of approved thought.

        No, Carden is not kidding.

        It may seem odd, but I credit Weiss and Pomerantsev with one insight. The infection of ideology now debilitates us. Blindness spreads and has to be treated. But there agreement ends, as I consider their report to be among the more extreme cases of the disease so far to show itself.

        You can follow the internal logic, but I would not spend too much time on it because there is none once you exit their bubble. There is only one truth, the argument runs, and it just so happens it is exactly what we think. There is no other way to see things. All is TINA, "there is no alternative."

        It would be easy to dismiss Weiss and Pomerantsev as supercilious hacks, and I do. But not the stance. They say too clumsily and bluntly what is actually the prevalent intellectual frame, a key aspect of the neoliberal stance. TINA, the argument Thatcher made famous, applies to all things.

        To say "The Menace of Unreality" advocates a kind of intellectual protectionism is not strong enough. Their idea comes to the control of information, which is to say the control of the truth. And if you can think of a more efficient way to define the production of propaganda, use the comment box.

        Fighting alleged propaganda with propaganda: This is upside down for you. It is what we get when people make up reality for us.


        Patrick Smith is the author of "Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century." He was the International Herald Tribune's bureau chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from 1985 to 1992. During this time he also wrote "Letter from Tokyo" for the New Yorker. He is the author of four previous books and has contributed frequently to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly, and other publications. Follow him on Twitter, @thefloutist.


        More Patrick L. Smith.

        [Jun 06, 2015] World War III will start with Pentagon bombing of RT – Kusturica

        "...The RT network, Kusturica says, is destroying the "Hollywood-CNN stereotype of the good and bad guys, where blacks, Hispanics, Russians, Serbs are the villains"
        " ...."[US Secretary of State] Kerry and the congressmen are bothered by the fact that RT sends signals that the world is not determined by the inevitability of liberal capitalism, that the US is leading the world into chaos, that Monsanto is not producing healthy food, that Coca-Cola is ideal for cleaning automobile alloys and [is] not for the human stomach, that in Serbia the percentage of people who die from cancer has risen sharply due to the 1999 NATO bombings ... that the fingerprints of the CIA are on the Ukrainian crisis, and that Blackwater fired at the Ukrainian police, and not Maidan activists," the filmmaker wrote. "
        "...CNN in direct transmissions assures that since the 1990s America has been leading humanitarian actions, and not wars, and that its military planes rain angels, not bombs! "
        "...RT will ever more demystify the American Dream and in primetime will reveal the truth hidden for decades from the eyes and hearts of average Americans"
        Jun 06, 2015 | RT News

        ...The RT network, Kusturica says, is destroying the "Hollywood-CNN stereotype of the good and bad guys, where blacks, Hispanics, Russians, Serbs are the villains, and white Americans, wherever you look, are OK!"

        "[US Secretary of State] Kerry and the congressmen are bothered by the fact that RT sends signals that the world is not determined by the inevitability of liberal capitalism, that the US is leading the world into chaos, that Monsanto is not producing healthy food, that Coca-Cola is ideal for cleaning automobile alloys and [is] not for the human stomach, that in Serbia the percentage of people who die from cancer has risen sharply due to the 1999 NATO bombings ... that the fingerprints of the CIA are on the Ukrainian crisis, and that Blackwater fired at the Ukrainian police, and not Maidan activists," the filmmaker wrote.

        ... ... ...

        RT is a real threat to US state propaganda as it reaches Americans "in their own homes, in perfect English, better than they use on CNN." And that is why, according to the director, Washington could get fed up and seek to silence RT by force – much like NATO did to Serbian state TV in April 1999.

        ...CNN, which he considers the flag-bearer of pro-American propaganda: "CNN in direct transmissions assures that since the 1990s America has been leading humanitarian actions, and not wars, and that its military planes rain angels, not bombs!"

        ...Kusturica believes, "RT will ever more demystify the American Dream and in primetime will reveal the truth hidden for decades from the eyes and hearts of average Americans."

        Born in what is today Bosnia-Herzegovina, Emir Kusturica is a 60-year-old Serbian filmmaker, actor and musician. He has won numerous international awards for his films, and was appointed Serbia's ambassador to UNICEF in 2007.

        Read also

        [Jun 05, 2015]What to Be Afraid Of

        "...Some politicians are all fear, all the time. The Cheneys, father Dick and daughter Liz, are deeply, darkly, desperately afraid, and think we should be, too. Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the latest why-not-me candidates for president, seems to live in a hyperbaric chamber of imaginary nightmares. He famously said we needed to send troops to Syria - now! - "before we all get killed back here at home." "
        .
        "...The "fear-industrial complex" fuels increased spending on our military-industrial complex..."
        .
        "..."The fear-industrial complex." Thank you for putting a label on the conservatives' favorite tool. "
        .
        "...Scared people are easy to manipulate. You can point to the "other" as the cause of whatever they're afraid of, thereby dividing what should be allies and encouraging people to vote against their economic interests in order to vote for what they feel is "protecting their way of life". "
        NYTimes.com

        Some time ago, a friend of mine was hit by a bus in New York, one of almost 5,000 pedestrians killed in traffic every year. I also lost a nephew to gun violence - one of more than 11,000 Americans slain by firearms in this country. And I fell out of a tree that I was trying to prune in my backyard. I was O.K. But the guy next to me in the trauma ward was paralyzed from his fall. He was taking down his Christmas lights.

        So it goes. Life is full of risk. Every day brings a minor calculation with the possibility of mortality: cross the street on red, get on a plane, jog in the heat.

        It was encouraging, then, to watch the congressional debate this week over the Patriot Act, and realize that we are learning how to be afraid. At least, we're starting to put the infinitesimal risk of being killed by a terrorist in perspective.

        Though a majority of Americans are still worried about an imminent terrorist attack in this country, the number of people who think such an assault will happen in their home area has dropped to the lowest figure in the post-9/11 period - 16 percent.

        This is a good start. But the fear-industrial complex continues to dominate national priorities. Over the last 14 years, the enormous apparatus that has been built up to combat terrorism - huge structural changes in American society, and a lock-hold on the federal budget - has grown only more outsize and out of proportion to the actual threat.

        You've heard it before, but it bears repeating: You are much more likely to be struck dead by lightning, choke on a chicken bone or drown in the bathtub than be killed by a terrorist. Any number of well-known diseases - cancer, diabetes, the flu - take the lives of far, far more people. Yet, by one estimate, the United States spends $500 million per victim of terrorism, and a piddling $10,000 per cancer death.

        Since the 9/11 attacks, taxpayers have squandered about $1.6 trillion in the so-called global war on terror - which doesn't include money for the feckless Department of Homeland Security.

        Most of us are going to live to the actuarial average of 78, and never experience terrorism as anything other than the energy drink that keeps Wolf Blitzer going in the absence of real news. (This week, he was breathless over an apparent hoax, while "Breaking News: Airline threats not credible" flashed on the screen, contradicting his reason for doing the story.)

        Consider the various threats to life. The sun, for starters. The incidence of melanoma, the most lethal form of skin cancer, has doubled in the last 30 years. More than 9,000 Americans now die every year from this common cancer. I also lost a friend - 30 years old, father of two - to malignant melanoma.

        Cancer is the second leading cause of death, just behind heart disease. Together, they kill more than a million people in this country, followed by respiratory diseases, accidents and strokes. Then comes Alzheimer's, which kills 84,000 Americans a year. And yet, total federal research money on Alzheimer's through the National Institutes of Health was $562 million last year.

        To put that in perspective, we spent almost 20 times that amount - somewhere around $10 billion - on the National Security Agency, the electronic snoops who monitor everyday phone records. For the rough equivalent of funding a breakthrough in Alzheimer's, the government has not prevented a single terrorist attack, according to a 2014 report on the telephone-gathering colossus at the N.S.A.

        People who text and drive are certainly a lethal threat. Every day, nine Americans are killed and 1,153 are injured by distracted drivers, though not all of them are checking their smartphones. If Wolf Blitzer spent a week on each of those victims, the rush of politicians calling for reform would be a stampede.

        Food is a mortal menace. Every year, one in six Americans gets sick, and 3,000 die from food-borne illness. Your burger is a bigger threat than radical Islam.

        You can blame the media, particularly cable news, for misplaced fear and budgets. CNN is the worst. Politicians do whatever they can to get cable time, and complaining about the paltry amount of money given to Parkinson's disease ($139 million a year) will not get you in the "Situation Room."

        Some politicians are all fear, all the time. The Cheneys, father Dick and daughter Liz, are deeply, darkly, desperately afraid, and think we should be, too. Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the latest why-not-me candidates for president, seems to live in a hyperbaric chamber of imaginary nightmares. He famously said we needed to send troops to Syria - now! - "before we all get killed back here at home."

        Don't get me wrong: Radical Islam is a serious threat, a poison on the globe. Hats off to the police in Boston for tracking the latest religiously infected potential killer. But we should put the threat in perspective: This is not World War II. Our entire democracy does not teeter on the outcome.

        So what should you be afraid of? Are you sitting down? Get up - you shouldn't be. Sitting for more than three hours a day can shave life expectancy by two years, through increased risk of heart disease or Type 2 diabetes. "A lot of doctors think sitting is the new cancer," said Tim Cook, the Apple C.E.O.

        It was an overstatement, and he probably meant to compare sitting to smoking, not cancer. But still, the War on Sitting would be welcome, if for no other reason than to give some legitimate fears a chance.

        XY, NYC

        Obviously it is all about the money. The terrorists are the perfect enemy. Infinitely better than the former Soviet Union. Unlike the Soviets, the terrorists pose no real threat; they can't really hurt us; but they can never be defeated. It makes me sick.

        Even the threat of the Soviets was over blown, all the better to divert trillions of dollars to the military industrial complex.

        JO, CO

        FEAR is one of the oldest selling points for tyranny (which, to be clear, is usually voted into office, at least initially). First comes "Be afraid," followed by, "We will protect you" with expanded police powers, from NSA to your local pistol-packin' PD.

        False claims of enemies, from within or without, are a particular hallmark of the right (but not exclusively). When fears are fed, coaxed, and encouraged until they grow up into paranoia, extremism is a common result of irrationality. Remember "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice?"

        Examples abound: Texans who insist everyone has the right -- and, by implication, would all be safer if they exercised the right -- to carry pistols in holsters on their hips while on college campuses, on freeways, in bars, in Walmarts and in church ... did I hear nursery schools on the list? To quote one leading Texas politician repeatedly elected to high state office: "There are three things I advise everyone to do: 1. pack a pistol; 2. Take it out of its holster upon provocation; and 3., well, I can't remember the third thing just now ... but I advise everyone to do it."

        craig geary, redlands, fl

        To hear Dick Cheney, Lindsay Graham and Oops Perry pimp perpetual war is a bad joke. Their qualifications?

        Cheney is a Viet Nam draft dodging coward.

        Graham, the warrior lawyer, able to kill platoons of ISIS with a single writ, will or divorce petition.

        Perry, a literal guy cheerleader, exactly like Reagan, Boy George, Willard Mitty, who hid out in ROTC to expressly avoid Viet Nam, to dodge going to war, exactly like Reagan, Boy George and Willard Mitty.

        The leading cheerleaders for perpetual war. Not one of whom has been in a war. But lusting to play tough guys by sending other people's children to suffer and die at something they are too cowardly to do themselves.

        Despicable human beings.

        Ralph, Wherever

        Thank you Mr. Egan!!! Ten years ago, no one would have dared to write this column. The fact that you can write this tells me that the post 911 hysteria has started to pass.

        Yesterday, Lyndsey Graham asserted that ISIS is a major threat to America. That is an absurd statement designed to exploit the fears of the nation. ISIS has about 31 thousand troops ( consider that Syria has about 300,000 troops ). It only survives in failed states like Iraq, Syria and Libya. Despite it's shocking brutality, ISIS has a very limited ability to launch attacks in America.

        Yet, we will spend Billions of dollars in response to the hysteria. Politicians manipulate public fear for their own advantage. Thank you for sticking a pin in the fear balloon.

        Mary Scott, is a trusted commenter NY 14 hours ago

        The "fear-industrial complex" fuels increased spending on our military-industrial complex, which now claims a whopping 50% of ALL discretionary spending. Keeping Americans in a constant state of fear is also an effective way of diverting their attention from our crumbling infrastructure, income inequality and every other problem that affects the lives of millions of Americans every year.

        Many pundits are predicting the 2016 presidential election will be more about foreign policy than anything else. Expect to be terrorized by the politicians and the MSM in the weeks and months ahead. Fear wins elections and keeps the press/media flush with cash.

        Socrates, Verona, N.J. 12 hours ago

        Fear, paranoia, propaganda and moneyed 'speech' is the entire Republican electoral strategy.

        Without those precious ingredients to disrupt the neurotransmissions of its Republican voter base, no one except the Kochs, Donald Trump, Sheldon Adelson and a few white supremacists would vote Republican.

        The only thing the Republican Party fears is a lack of fear in the American voter.... and the elimination of money as 'speech'.

        JFR, Yardley

        I was in middle school (~50 yrs ago), fond of parroting my father's conservative view of Vietnam (bomb them out of existence) and mocking the timid left when I read an essay pointing out that it was the right that was fearful (or exploited fear) - communism, militant blacks, liberal ideas ... - and the left that was essentially unworried about those threats (they had others, of course). That was an epiphany for me. Evolution has given us the ability to be fearful, but it overdid it - we can be too easily manipulated by our fears, and people, businesses, and governments do so to advantage themselves. If someone tells you to be afraid, you must ask how they themselves benefit.

        ctflyfisher, Danbury, CT

        As a psychotherapist, I couldn't agree with you more. There are some things to fear in our world, but terrorism is among the minor threats. We have much more to fear from how technology is the tail wagging the dog, and not something we decide. We have a rapidly disappearing middle class, an unpredictable path to succeed in being financially independent, an infrastructure that is crumbling all around us, a Congress that is insulated from the American people, and a political process that is about buying votes not democracy.

        Rob Porter, PA 13 hours ago

        "The fear-industrial complex." Thank you for putting a label on the conservatives' favorite tool.

        For decades it was the "commies" we had to fear and overfund an endless war against. Remember how that morphed immediately into the "war on drugs" in the mid-80s when it became clear that the "commies" were even worse at running a country than Republicans? Lots of money funneled into that war. Lots of fear generated. Now the drums beat out their anxious rumble against "terrorism" despite its killing fewer Americans than falling down stairs (1200/yr).

        And I have complete certainty that the Republicans will have a new fear ready to unleash when this one wears out its welcome. I don't know what it will be, but I do know it will keep the money flowing and the herd clumped in a fearful bunch, voting to keep the snarling sheepdogs circling, chasing away phantoms.

        AT, media, pa

        Scared people are easy to manipulate.

        You can point to the "other" as the cause of whatever they're afraid of, thereby dividing what should be allies and encouraging people to vote against their economic interests in order to vote for what they feel is "protecting their way of life". You can come up with highly intrusive and military type programs to "keep people safe" so that those people thank you for taking away their civil liberties. You can pump up ratings with "breaking news" about something, anything that could possibly imperil the public so you can increase your ad rates. You can provide personal protection services and sell survivalist food packages and gold to those who ready themselves for the coming collapse of society- people who will buy $1000 worth of dehydrated soup to keep in their basement but will complain bitterly about having to pay $100 a month to have health insurance.

        Sadly, since so much of the fear merchants' power and money depend on the American public being afraid all the time, there's no incentive to tell people the truth or to educate them as to how to find the truth themselves.

        [Jun 05, 2015]Edward Snowden The World Says No to Surveillance

        "...Metadata revealing the personal associations and interests of ordinary Internet users is still being intercepted and monitored on a scale unprecedented in history: As you read this online, the United States government makes a note."
        .
        "...A democracy cannot abandon it's responsibility to consider the rights and freedom of it's citizens as the highest purpose of law. When an agency assumes to protect with secrets and monitor the very people it has been paid and entrusted, to protect, the contract with the public is broken. Mass surveillance is a tool of the totalitarian state and does not belong in a free society, it's effectiveness is not the issue."
        .
        "...Privacy is something that is often ignored, treated as a right but without having true value. The true value is only appreciated when it has gone.
        The surveillance society has not gone away, indeed, it will only progress as technology becomes more adapt at tracking us, detecting the softest of footprints, both in the real world and online. However, at least we're talking about it now."
        .
        "... Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."
        June 4, 2015 | NYTimes.com

        MOSCOW - TWO years ago today, three journalists and I worked nervously in a Hong Kong hotel room, waiting to see how the world would react to the revelation that the National Security Agency had been making records of nearly every phone call in the United States. In the days that followed, those journalists and others published documents revealing that democratic governments had been monitoring the private activities of ordinary citizens who had done nothing wrong.

        Within days, the United States government responded by bringing charges against me under World War I-era espionage laws. The journalists were advised by lawyers that they risked arrest or subpoena if they returned to the United States. Politicians raced to condemn our efforts as un-American, even treasonous.

        Privately, there were moments when I worried that we might have put our privileged lives at risk for nothing - that the public would react with indifference, or practiced cynicism, to the revelations.

        Never have I been so grateful to have been so wrong.

        Two years on, the difference is profound. In a single month, the N.S.A.'s invasive call-tracking program was declared unlawful by the courts and disowned by Congress. After a White House-appointed oversight board investigation found that this program had not stopped a single terrorist attack, even the president who once defended its propriety and criticized its disclosure has now ordered it terminated.

        This is the power of an informed public.

        Ending the mass surveillance of private phone calls under the Patriot Act is a historic victory for the rights of every citizen, but it is only the latest product of a change in global awareness. Since 2013, institutions across Europe have ruled similar laws and operations illegal and imposed new restrictions on future activities. The United Nations declared mass surveillance an unambiguous violation of human rights. In Latin America, the efforts of citizens in Brazil led to the Marco Civil, an Internet Bill of Rights. Recognizing the critical role of informed citizens in correcting the excesses of government, the Council of Europe called for new laws to protect whistle-blowers.

        Beyond the frontiers of law, progress has come even more quickly. Technologists have worked tirelessly to re-engineer the security of the devices that surround us, along with the language of the Internet itself. Secret flaws in critical infrastructure that had been exploited by governments to facilitate mass surveillance have been detected and corrected. Basic technical safeguards such as encryption - once considered esoteric and unnecessary - are now enabled by default in the products of pioneering companies like Apple, ensuring that even if your phone is stolen, your private life remains private. Such structural technological changes can ensure access to basic privacies beyond borders, insulating ordinary citizens from the arbitrary passage of anti-privacy laws, such as those now descending upon Russia.

        Though we have come a long way, the right to privacy - the foundation of the freedoms enshrined in the United States Bill of Rights - remains under threat. Some of the world's most popular online services have been enlisted as partners in the N.S.A.'s mass surveillance programs, and technology companies are being pressured by governments around the world to work against their customers rather than for them. Billions of cellphone location records are still being intercepted without regard for the guilt or innocence of those affected. We have learned that our government intentionally weakens the fundamental security of the Internet with "back doors" that transform private lives into open books. Metadata revealing the personal associations and interests of ordinary Internet users is still being intercepted and monitored on a scale unprecedented in history: As you read this online, the United States government makes a note.

        Spymasters in Australia, Canada and France have exploited recent tragedies to seek intrusive new powers despite evidence such programs would not have prevented attacks. Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain recently mused, "Do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read?" He soon found his answer, proclaiming that "for too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: As long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone."

        At the turning of the millennium, few imagined that citizens of developed democracies would soon be required to defend the concept of an open society against their own leaders.

        Yet the balance of power is beginning to shift. We are witnessing the emergence of a post-terror generation, one that rejects a worldview defined by a singular tragedy. For the first time since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, we see the outline of a politics that turns away from reaction and fear in favor of resilience and reason. With each court victory, with every change in the law, we demonstrate facts are more convincing than fear. As a society, we rediscover that the value of a right is not in what it hides, but in what it protects.

        Edward J. Snowden, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer and National Security Agency contractor, is a director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation.

        Dan Whittet, New England

        A democracy cannot abandon it's responsibility to consider the rights and freedom of it's citizens as the highest purpose of law. When an agency assumes to protect with secrets and monitor the very people it has been paid and entrusted, to protect, the contract with the public is broken. Mass surveillance is a tool of the totalitarian state and does not belong in a free society, it's effectiveness is not the issue.

        Greg Day, New Zealand

        Privacy is something that is often ignored, treated as a right but without having true value. The true value is only appreciated when it has gone.

        The surveillance society has not gone away, indeed, it will only progress as technology becomes more adapt at tracking us, detecting the softest of footprints, both in the real world and online. However, at least we're talking about it now.

        I'm not sure how the US views you Edward, but I at least consider you have done a service to humanity. Thank you.

        MCS, New York 18 hours ago

        Mr. Snowden, you've been called a man without a country. But you're more accurately a man without a generation. Your generation who voluntarily live their lives tapping senseless bits of information about their self inflated lives onto apps for the world to own. All this while people go to war, people suffer, innocent people are killed, fundamental human dignities are abused. Yet, hardly a blip of a response at all from this anti-activist generation. It is the generation of people in their 40's and 50's that are demanding change.

        The Facebook generation aren't socially nor politically active. They're self absorbed group of anti-intellects in a race to the bottom. In fact, I find it hypocritical that anyone from that generation should be outraged over government intrusion when a mass of them are positively hooked on social media, posting every excruciatingly boring detail of their lives, details that seem to know no boundaries.

        We have a growing problem on our hand, a divide not only between haves and have nots, but secular and religious societies respectively. The admirable beliefs you stand by, beliefs that changed the course of your life, don't offer an answer to what to do about a multiplying population of angry extremists raised in countries that guarantee no freedoms at all for its citizens. They will exploit our demands for privacy to cause great harm one day. A balance in your theories, not extreme suspicion of government is what's needed here.

        Anne Hills, Portland, Maine 14 hours ago

        I'd argue that Snowden's best quote is: "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."

        I feel that the NRA has perhaps been the most effective organization in history at convincing their members that a "slippery slope" is to be feared above all things, and that the loss of even the smallest gun rights for the most worthwhile of reasons, is in fact unacceptable.

        We need their kind of effectiveness in spreading understanding to all Americans who don't get it yet - that there is in fact a dangerous slippery slope when fundamental freedoms are truly lost. Your right to private letters, private conversations is not about hiding criminal acts, it's about preventing people in positions of authority from being able to manipulate you or the person you would elect or the person you have already elected. An all-knowing government has historically been oppressive. Why oh why do people fail to see that it could happen to us? It's the "it happens to others but not me" mentality.

        Thank you so very much Mr. Snowden. Unless President Obama is being threatened by the NSA not to, let's hope that he will pardon Mr. Snowden. I can't think of anyone in American history more deserving due to service to his countrymen.

        Arthur Layton, Mattapoisett, MA 18 hours ago

        The idea that we can live private lives is absurd. If you use a cell phone, someone knows where you are (or have been) and records who you called. If you use a credit card, there is a permanent record of the date, time and location of your purchase. And video cameras are everywhere, from bank lobbies to grocery store, gas stations and office buildings.

        If you want privacy today, stop using your cell phone. Pay cash for your purchases, "unregister" to vote and don't renew your driver's license.


        'Found' letters of love and poetry by Chechen fighters in Syria posted online

        Notable quotes:
        "...- that it's enacting violence as a yearning to return to Islam's most primitive and literal beliefs, an attempt to time travel, per se, to a medieval past, and in so doing, an attempt to excise modernity itself from the world (hence its ferocious attacks on other Muslims who have overwhelmingly abandoned those archaic beliefs and teachings) -- equal parts enlightening and chilling. "
        "...The Soviets were fighting on the side of those Afghans echo wanted to rid their country of such scum. The seppos with their British and Saudi running dogs were the ones who helped these scum win on Afghanistan. They got a thank you on 11/9/01."
        "...ISIL remind me of USA from history books. A lot of people unite under an idea, take over land, wipe history and population to a maximum possible extent in order to create a new nation. Ironically it was US idea to give ISIL (or ISIS) a kick start."
        "...This piece of non-news from Washington's official propaganda machine RFERL comes across as a thinly vieled attempt to humanize and romanticize the brainwashed ISIS terrorists, who according to the piece are now militants - essentially a neutral term). Will RFERL again relabel them "freedom fighters" if they return to wage Jihad in Chechnya? Most definitely I say. The recently leaked DIA documents revealing that the US financed jihadi-crazed extremist groups in Syria, knowing full well the likelihood they would attempt to declare a caliphate, clearly exposes the cynicism of the US in the Middle East and their plan to create chaos in order to maintain hegemony in the region, prevent Iran and the Shia's from gaining strength, and no matter how many lives and destruction it costs - remove Assad so the Qutari gas pipeline can finally be built through Syria to Europe. Sickening"
        "...Yeah, but they need the single evil mastermind responsible for all the evil in the world. They need him in order to scare their rubes, to distract them from real problems, to re-focus their anger. They need Emmanuel Goldstein. Obama bin Laden is dead, so now it's Putin. Obviously he's responsible for ISIS, who else."
        "...Attempting to forge a public perception link between Russia and IS ? The White House press Dept have been doing that for quite a while now. Strange then that IS is basically a gang of US originated, trained, armed, and funded attack dogs?"
        Jun 04, 2015 | The Guardian

        dyst1111 -> StatusFoe 4 Jun 2015 08:39

        As my comment was removed I will post again:

        "ISIS terrorists, who according to the piece are now militants"

        The term "ISIS militant" has been in use for years in British press. Russia Today uses it as well. So your theories are not confirmed by facts. Unless RT is really a part of "Washington's official propaganda machine".

        dyst1111 -> Luminaire 4 Jun 2015 08:33

        USA created ISIS, NATO, Bolsheviks, Hitler etc...but it were the British who created the USA. So it is the Brits' fault really.

        AhBrightWings 4 Jun 2015 07:35

        I've rarely seen a greater need for air quotes. There is no "poetry" to be had here, none; not a line or image quoted here rises to poetry's exacting metrics (oddly, the most moving line was about the stove).

        I do think the author is right to note the similarities to romanticized chivalry. The Atlantic has a superb, recent article about what "Isis wants." I found its main premise -- that it's enacting violence as a yearning to return to Islam's most primitive and literal beliefs, an attempt to time travel, per se, to a medieval past, and in so doing, an attempt to excise modernity itself from the world (hence its ferocious attacks on other Muslims who have overwhelmingly abandoned those archaic beliefs and teachings) -- equal parts enlightening and chilling.

        These written records -- whether propaganda or legitimate letters -- offer glimpses into the mentality that gives rise to these terrible acts, and so have value, but none of the lines quoted rise to poetry in the way the famous Sullivan Ballou Civil War letter does (though, maybe something is lost in translating Arabic to English).

        6i9vern psygone 4 Jun 2015 07:29

        The Soviets were fighting on the side of those Afghans echo wanted to rid their country of such scum.

        The seppos with their British and Saudi running dogs were the ones who helped these scum win on Afghanistan. They got a thank you on 11/9/01.

        6i9vern -> Aritra Gupta 4 Jun 2015 07:23

        The Graun/RFE/Soros have a soft spot for these types. They did a similar piece on the women of one of the Ukrainian Nazi militias.

        HollyOldDog -> Luminaire 4 Jun 2015 07:13

        There is no relationship between Putins Russia and ISIS as its a contradiction in terms as Russia favors its relationship with the Syrian Government. Jordan ( who's representatives now want to lead FIFA - payment for services rendered) trained (with the assistance of the USA) the Syrian militants who became ISIS. There are several fractions within Chechnya, some who oppose the countries leader Kadyrov while the majority support him. A few Chechens were 'bused' from ISIS earlier this year to assassinate Kadyrov but they failed and were mostly wiped out.

        dyst1111 -> InShockAndAwe 4 Jun 2015 05:42

        I know. Just a few examples of this change of tone:

        http://rt.com/news/165044-militants-seize-mosul-iraq/ june 2014
        http://rt.com/news/210315-isis-militants-casualties-kobani/ june 2014 http://rt.com/news/174480-isis-ransack-monastery-iraq/ july 2014
        http://rt.com/news/180712-isis-massacre-village-iraq/ august 2014

        I see RT changed the tone a year ago.

        warehouse_guy 4 Jun 2015 05:39

        ISIL remind me of USA from history books. A lot of people unite under an idea, take over land, wipe history and population to a maximum possible extent in order to create a new nation. Ironically it was US idea to give ISIL (or ISIS) a kick start.

        StatusFoe 4 Jun 2015 04:47

        This piece of non-news from Washington's official propaganda machine RFERL comes across as a thinly vieled attempt to humanise and romanticise the brainwashed ISIS terrorists, who according to the piece are now militants - essentially a neutral term). Will RFERL again relabel them "freedom fighters" if they return to wage Jihad in Chechnya? Most definitetly I say. The recently leaked DIA documents revealing that the US financed jihadi-crazed extremist groups in Syria, knowing full well the likelyhood they would attempt to declare a caliphate, clearly exposes the cynicism of the US in the Middle East and their plan to create chaos in order to maintain hegemony in the region, prevent Iran and the Shia's from gaining strength, and no matter how many lives and destruction it costs - remove Assad so the Qutari gas pipeline can finally be built through Syria to Europe. Sickening...

        normankirk 4 Jun 2015 03:53

        Seems there are chechens and chechens, those who are loyal to Russia and those who would still be doing Beslan type massacres if they could. Incidentally those were always referred to as militants, not terrorists by the US. Chechens who fight in Syria also fight in Ukraine against the eastern Ukrainians. There are two excellent articles in The Intercept about the Chechen Extremists fighting alongside the Ukrainian army.

        Maxstoic -> Corsair1972 4 Jun 2015 03:31

        There once was a Chechen named Sam
        Who listened to his fanatic Imam
        So full of hysteria
        He pissed off to Syria
        And blew himself all over the sands.

        Sam's wife left her home and her kids
        And headed south to pick up the bits
        Of her dead husband's remains
        (Though he had little brains
        His head filled up with myths and shit)

        MaoChengJi -> Chris Hindle 4 Jun 2015 02:54

        Yeah, but they need the single evil mastermind responsible for all the evil in the world. They need him in order to scare their rubes, to distract them from real problems, to re-focus their anger. They need Emmanuel Goldstein. Obama bin Laden is dead, so now it's Putin. Obviously he's responsible for ISIS, who else.

        Chris Hindle 4 Jun 2015 02:17

        Attempting to forge a public perception link between Russia and IS ?
        The White House press Dept have been doing that for quite a while now

        Strange then that IS is basically a gang of US originated, trained, armed, and funded attack dogs?

        [Jun 04, 2015] How to succeed in Iran: lessons from Russia and China by Tehran Bureau correspondent

        Notable quotes:
        "...Money money money, grab grab grab. The opening up of Iran is all about western companies making money and peace may be a fortunate side effect."
        "...But maybe it's just reputation. The USA has been partying in the Middle East for decades, so people there already know who Americans are and what to expect from them. Russians and Chinese are involved too, but ways they use to achieve an agreement are not so... insolent, I'd say."
        "...Against crippling sanctions they've achieved what the vast majority of countries in the region could only have dreamt of"
        "...Resistance against what? Oh, you must mean the Western steam roller that crushes all life in countries that wish to follow their own destiny. Why would Iran want to join the 'Also Rans' who are only allowed the scraps thrown from the Western Oligarch Table?"
        "...I'm not sure why state ownership of certain assets and industries is presented as a bad thing, in Guardian of all places. This is how governments pay for high standard of education, healthcare and strong defence. This is how governments avoid the debt trap and compounded interest charges creeping into the tax bill"
        "...Wow, you must think that the rest of the world is truly as gullible as those in Canada and Australia when the USA once again stirs the shit at the bottom of the West Ukrainian pond."
        "...They also have 81% home ownership as against The US and UK on about 65%. Education is valued and they have a high rate of women accessing tertiary education."
        "...It's this kind: we, the westerners, are the most advanced civilization! The proof: our economies are all privatized, not government-run! The Iranians Russian, and Chinese are still savages! They have a long way to go to achieve our advanced level of civilization! "
        "...US expert don't really understand that state capitalism is not a communist theory. Majority of Asian nations had practiced state capitalism.

        Even British regime do practiced state capitalism till private liberalization been pushed by Margaret Thatcher."

        Jun 04, 2015 | The Guardian

        bcnteacher 4 Jun 2015 08:17

        Money money money, grab grab grab. The opening up of Iran is all about western companies making money and peace may be a fortunate side effect.

        BabyLyon 4 Jun 2015 08:14

        Russia and China are more eastern, than western. It's easier for Iran to communicate with them, I think this may be a reason too.

        But maybe it's just reputation. The USA has been partying in the Middle East for decades, so people there already know who Americans are and what to expect from them. Russians and Chinese are involved too, but ways they use to achieve an agreement are not so... insolent, I'd say.

        abdur razzak 4 Jun 2015 07:38

        Good, more power to them. This is a much more efficient way to use resources for the benefit of the whole population than anything the west ever tried.
        http://www.latestdatabase.com/

        1DrSigmundFraud -> JoePope 4 Jun 2015 07:22

        The US probably won't be doing business there for obvious reasons. Iran wants to protect it's industries if sanctions are lifted for obvious reasons. You only need to look at the UK for reasons as to what happens if you don't while the US for instance now has only 3 levels of classes

        • Poor
        • Extremely poor
        • Extremely wealthy

        Iran does have a healthy middle class one the downtrodden US labor force would die for. Their Oil wealth has been put to good use check out the Tehran Metro for instance

        https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=tehran+metro+images&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=8jJwVYu9GOqt7Aas5IHoBw&ved=0CCQQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=667

        Or their Ski Resorts

        https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ski+resorts+iran+images&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=QTNwVarOC-HC7gbUwYDYCQ&ved=0CCEQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=667

        Top Hotels

        https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=top+hotels+in+iran+images&es_sm=93&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=fDNwVeoNxZruBtLngvgI&ved=0CCAQsAQ

        Education one of the better Middle east countries

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Iran

        Against crippling sanctions they've achieved what the vast majority of countries in the region could only have dreampt of

        normankirk -> LoungeSuite 4 Jun 2015 06:47

        And neo liberalism delivers such a great standard of living for ALL Americans and Brits does it?

        HollyOldDog -> LoungeSuite 4 Jun 2015 06:27

        Resistance against what? Oh, you must mean the Western steam roller that crushes all life in countries that wish to follow their own destiny. Why would Iran want to join the 'Also Rans' who are only allowed the scraps thrown from the Western Oligarch Table?

        MaoChengJi -> LoungeSuite 4 Jun 2015 06:21

        Sort of like in Putin's Russia.

        Yeah, exactly. Like Putin's Russia compared to Yeltsin's Russia. Like China.

        LoungeSuite -> MaoChengJi 4 Jun 2015 06:08

        Neoliberalism will fail soon, but state-controlled economies will survive,

        Sort of like in Putin's Russia. And now in Venezuela. Oh. And the Cuban is a supreme example of socialism. (Gone wrong of course. Somehow, it always goes wrong. Oh! And America is to blame. Standard Guardian discourse).


        HollyOldDog -> Luminaire 4 Jun 2015 06:01

        Swimming against the tide again is your speciality. Plus you just love throwing nonsense around. I have noticed that the Far Right Ukrainian punishers are up to their nasty tricks again just before a G7 meeting.

        Wow, you must think that the rest of the world is truly as gullible as those in Canada and Australia when the USA once again stirs the shit at the bottom of the West Ukrainian pond.

        HollyOldDog -> normankirk 4 Jun 2015 05:48

        It's a pity that successive British Governments were not better disposed to hanging on to British State assets rather than selling off the family jewels.

        JoePope 4 Jun 2015 05:15

        I'm not sure why state ownership of certain assets and industries is presented as a bad thing, in Guardian of all places. This is how governments pay for high standard of education, healthcare and strong defence. This is how governments avoid the debt trap and compounded interest charges creeping into the tax bill -- it is difficult to support the welfare system in any populous country purely through tax collection. One would have to have perfect conditions of natural resources/reserves, high technology, innovation and diversification, favourable geopolitical environment & export ability, stable and predictable population levels AND the lack of short term electioneering and corruption to achieve that. Even then, it is debatable whether private ownership and capital especially foreign capital in the case of strategic assets (energy, defence) is justified or needed.

        Of course a fully centrally planned economy has been proven to be inefficient and uncompetitive when met with open/free markets -- the "greed is good" mantra, profit seeking motive and consumerism trumps the desire to empower and care for the wider population and more worryingly the need to maintain social cohesion, independence and security. Therefore, a balance should be sought through bilateral or regional deals with economies which are at a similar developmental level, to ensure healthy competition exists and drives improvements in labour productivity, product quality and technology.

        This analysis gives some interesting information on Iran but reads as sour grapes and profiteering attempt by western investment funds and corporations. I hope Iranians keep the family jewels in their hands and allow external trade and investment only on terms favorable to their people and their economy.

        normankirk -> MaoChengJi 4 Jun 2015 04:13

        Good shit, I agree. Must be how come they can afford a good public health system, their primary health care network is acclaimed. They also have 81% home ownership as against The US and UK on about 65%. Education is valued and they have a high rate of women accessing tertiary education.

        All of the above is how they have been so resilient in the face of pretty brutal sanctions.

        But of course these days, having national assets is akin to being a dictatorship in the eyes of corporatocracies.

        MaoChengJi Dmitry Berezhnov 4 Jun 2015 03:26

        It's this kind: we, the westerners, are the most advanced civilization! The proof: our economies are all privatized, not government-run! The Iranians Russian, and Chinese are still savages! They have a long way to go to achieve our advanced level of civilization!

        Yes, you can make money trading and making deals with savages, but you need to understand their savagery ways and be careful.

        allowmetosayuarefool 4 Jun 2015 02:50

        US expert don't really understand that state capitalism is not a communist theory. Majority of Asian nations had practiced state capitalism.

        Even British regime do practiced state capitalism till private liberalization been pushed by Margaret Thatcher. Private liberation had its own disadvantages.

        look at HK economic - largely been controlled by few family of tycoon. Today, UK election result had been determined by UK BANKER.

        MaoChengJi 4 Jun 2015 02:42

        The economy in the Islamic republic is still largely state-owned, with much of its 'privatised' capital in the hands of regime-affiliated organizations

        Good, more power to them. This is a much more efficient way to use resources for the benefit of the whole population than anything the west ever tried.

        Neoliberalism will fail soon, but state-controlled economies will survive, if they are isolated enough from the failing neoliberal environment. Sounds like the Iranian economy is, and good for them.

        Dmitry Berezhnov 4 Jun 2015 00:14

        Could not figure what kind of article that is, either:

        - In case we are not going to sign a nuclear deal, please note that there's no democracy and we will have to invade them.

        or:

        - Iran is kind of not bad for investments, look how China and Russia make money on cooperation while we cannot due to sanctions implied by ourself.

        [Jun 03, 2015] US Congress passes surveillance reform in vindication for Edward Snowden

        Jun 02, 2015 | The Guardian

        Joe Stanil -> awoolf14 2 Jun 2015 21:27

        Poor deluded child. You still believe that the POTUS runs the show? He's merely the MC of a long running cabaret act called "US Politics". He reads the script, you applaud - or else!

        SamIamgreeneggsanham 2 Jun 2015 21:27

        So this is great, but what about the man who sacrificed his life so that we could have this information? Surely if this passage is a vindication of his actions, then the conversation needs to move towards allowing him to return to the US (if he wishes to) or at least not make him a wanted criminal...?


        EdChamp -> russmi 2 Jun 2015 21:22

        I guess to most of his supporters this is one instance where "the results justify the means."

        Actually, we don't have to argue that the end justify the means. The end was that we were all aware of what had been kept secret from us, culminating in the failure to renew metadata collection. The means to that was the illegal distribution of classified information. I applaud both the ends and the means, it might have been better if he had not been required to break the law, but in this case, I applaud his doing so.

        He should return home and accept the legal consequences of his actions. Someone who truly felt he or she was in the right would do so.

        Nonsense, but how nice of you to easily volunteer that he give up his freedom. Where is it written that we must be prepared to spend the rest of our lives in prison to make known a secret program, effecting every American, violating the constitution, and subsequently ruled illegal by the courts?


        Joe Stanil -> osprey1957 2 Jun 2015 21:21

        Remind me. Who said "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"? Ah, yes, Dr Johnson.


        Joe Stanil 2 Jun 2015 21:17

        Does anyone honestly believe that passing a little law will stop the NSA from continuing its collection of data? Like, it's against the law to steal, that's why there aren't any thieves. Wake up children. This whole game, starting with Snowden, was a calculated "limited hangout" operation, ie show a bit of naughtiness, get the public used to it, then go back under cover. Now the real spying begins.

        James Saint-Amour 2 Jun 2015 21:06

        Pardon Edward Snowden! He's a patriot just like the Founding Fathers, who were also considered criminals when they stood up for freedom. It's interesting that our government doesn't see that side of the story (but then again, who am I kidding to think they would?)

        Nyarlat -> russmi 2 Jun 2015 21:04

        Snowden is so baaaad!
        The CIA and NSA is soooo trustworthy!
        (Of course they helped Pinochet dispose of Allende and also killed thousands of Vietcong with black ops death squads etc.)

        osprey1957 2 Jun 2015 21:04

        Whatever happens, know that Snowden is, was, and always will be a great patriot. he may be a deluded libertarian...but his patriotism can never be questioned.


        shininhstars122 2 Jun 2015 21:01

        >>>>New Mexico senator Martin Heinrich, another Democrat on the intelligence committee, praised the bill's passage on Tuesday, saying: "Ben Franklin would have been proud of this outcome."

        HAH! What altered universe is the Ben Franklin from that the Senator from the Land of Enchantment is referring to?

        Ben Franklin would have said this sir.

        "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

        Waterdown liberty is what the USA Freedom Act is plain and simple.

        awoolf14 -> TeamAmerica2015 2 Jun 2015 20:58

        Come out of the 1950's for 10 seconds and you might notice that there is no longer any difference whatsoever between the vested interests of either Party other than the window dressing... Wake up.

        russmi 2 Jun 2015 20:54

        Personally I'm tired of Snowdon. He still stole and illegally distributed classified info. I guess to most of his supporters this is one instance where "the results justify the means." But how often do they let others get away with that excuse? He should return home and accept the legal consequences of his actions. Someone who truly felt he or she was in the right would do so.


        awoolf14 2 Jun 2015 20:53

        Its great to know that we're all being 'protected' and are 'safe' in the hands of Obamas exorbitantly expensive "national security professionals."
        .
        ...Professionals like The TSA, who recently failed 95% of a 'Red Team' national airport security infiltration test, including but not limited to failing to notice a team member walking by them, with a fake bomb taped to his back (face-palms).

        Or The NSA, who have just been forced by their own Govornment to shut down a 4 year multi million dollar bulk surveillance program that- er- didn't actually catch any 'terrorists,' because they don't make a point of sending open emails or telephone calls to each other to discuss their evil plans (something an 8 year old could figure out).

        Please, please lets get somebody sane into the White House this time- because the only job these people are doing, is making all of us look like complete fools.

        et_tu_brute -> Oneiricist 2 Jun 2015 20:44

        Yeh... the surveilance worked so well, that they didn't see the 'Boston Bombers' coming. People have every right to question the NSA's self-given right to delve into peoples lives, all without any independent oversight, no checks and balances, no transparency. No wonder people don't trust them.

        et_tu_brute -> BradBenson 2 Jun 2015 20:38

        You are absolutely correct, however the o/p is a member of a tribe that choses to believe Snowden was a traitor, no matter what facts were presented or are revealed by his actions.

        et_tu_brute -> delphinia 2 Jun 2015 20:35

        Yeh, I remember that. Bush & Cheney promoting the looney neo-con cause by creating the fiction of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Now look at the mess left behind by these stupid idiots who were intent on creating a new mess by trading up on the goodwill they received internationally that backed the US in their quest to go into Afghanstan after 9/11.


        et_tu_brute -> MtnClimber 2 Jun 2015 20:29

        There has been no evidence that that ever happened. What did happen though was Snowden leaking embarrassing information which gave cause to his fellow citizens to wake up and smell the flowers, that they were being illegally 'spied upon', collectively, through the bulk collection of telecommunications data, without legal authority to do so.

        Now go back to looking for commies or jihardists lurking around the corner. I guess you are just a simple victim of politicians' rhetoric that promotes 'fear, uncertainty & doubt' within the community, a.k.a. 'The F.U.D. principle'.

        Gary M. Wilson -> Nicholas_Stone 2 Jun 2015 20:28

        THE MAN IN THE ARENA:

        "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
        Theodore Roosevelt

        Posh_Guardianista -> JohnDavidFletcher 2 Jun 2015 20:28

        Do you know who controls them, who governs the use of the data, what happens to it? That's a bigger danger to your freedom than the NSA.

        Key difference being that you can block them. You can't block the NSA surveillance.

        et_tu_brute -> shortcircuit299 2 Jun 2015 20:19

        Unfortunately, I suspect this won't curtail the NSA's nefarious activities, just change the goal posts. No doubt 'Plan B' had already been devised a long while ago and would come into play in such a contingency. The lack of independent oversight and transparency of the activities of the NSA will mean that another 'whistle-blower', if they are game enough, would be needed to come forward to further expose wrong-doing. Most, if not all members of Congress and the Senate still haven't got a clue about any of this, and most never will.

        Leondeinos 2 Jun 2015 20:18

        This so-called reform is very limited: as he "praised" the passage of this bill, Obama said he will "work expeditiously to ensure our national security professionals again have the full set of vital tools they need to continue protecting the country." You bet! That means he'll set the NSA and the other "competent organs" to work on new ways to gobble up even more useless data. He will also continue telling lies, repressing revelation of truth throughout the government, and driving war all over the planet.

        Senators Sanders and Paul are right about the USA Freedumb Act.


        TiredOfTheLies 2 Jun 2015 20:11

        McConnell should be ashamed of himself. The bulk collection of cell phone data was a stalker's candy store, and there are just as many predators on the inside of government as on the outside. The Republicans were well aware of problem agents, some even suspected of abduction, rape, and murder. As if the founding fathers didn't know about rape, and the problem with abusers of all kind having too much information on innocent peoples' lives.

        Search warrants are there for a reason. They leave a paper trail. If the only thing that missing women have in common are search warrants by the same agent or group of agents, then police have the suspect list that they need. When they don't have search warrants, you're likely to find bodies all over the country with no idea of how they got there, which is what the US has now.

        And by the way, that beloved program of theirs was of no use for solving those crimes because criminals are smart enough not to leave phone record evidence. The only people who leave a trail that can be found this way are the innocent (read: victims), and the stupidest criminals on earth.


        redbanana33 2 Jun 2015 20:05

        "US Congress passes surveillance reform in vindication for Edward Snowden"

        Those are the headlines on this Guardian story.

        To vindicate, my dictionary says, means to clear of blame or suspicion.

        Well, then, COME ON HOME, ED!!

        No? You won't? Well,..... why? Then why would the Guardian say you are vindicated by the passage of this stupid half-bill in the U.S. Congress?

        Someday soon, though.

        Sydneyfl -> Nicholas_Stone 2 Jun 2015 19:57

        Traitor to WHAT? Oppression? Spying? Conjured up enemies? The military industrial complex, financed by the bankers, cabal? Hooray for Snowdon!

        MKB1234 2 Jun 2015 19:54

        Mitch "The Party of Smaller Government" McConnell destroying America from the inside.

        Lesm -> Happy Fella 2 Jun 2015 19:51

        No his refusal to do so shows he recognises the complete and utter failure of the US legal system, as is evidenced almost daily by the revelations emerging about the mass torture, incarceration without trial and sometimes death of innocent people whose only sin was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

        Lesm -> Happy Fella 2 Jun 2015 19:51

        No his refusal to do so shows he recognises the complete and utter failure of the US legal system, as is evidenced almost daily by the revelations emerging about the mass torture, incarceration without trial and sometimes death of innocent people whose only sin was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

        Posh_Guardianista -> FoolsDream 2 Jun 2015 19:51

        You should read the entire article.

        NSA "reform" is essentially a reset - existing legislation has passed, reorganisation will now take place and the mass surveillance will still continue as before.

        Make no mistake, PRISM, mass surveillance of the world, XKEYSCORE, widespread backdoors in routers and computer equipment; compulsory sharing of data (whether for security or corporate gain, as with Petronas) with the US Government - will still continue. If you think otherwise, then it is you who is deluded.

        FoolsDream -> JohnDavidFletcher 2 Jun 2015 19:49

        Only if you assume we visit this page unprotected my friend. Besides, the argument of they do it so it's not a problem if the others do it, is a poor argument.

        Lesm 2 Jun 2015 19:48

        It would be nice if all the troglodytes who bagged Snowden for his act of conscience would recognise the courage that he showed in doing so, but that is about as likely to happen as Hell freezing over. These loons, who spend hours every day blogging about the State trying to take away their freedoms have the capacity that Orwell talked about as "doublespeak" and doublethink" where you can hold two completely conflicting ideas in your head at the same time and believe both, as they see Snowden as a traitor for revealing the traducing of the American people by their own government.


        Washington_Irving SteB1 2 Jun 2015 19:44

        Unfortunately, the NPP committee consists of discarded politicians. And when it comes to standing up to Uncle Sam, Norwegian politicians are – as a general rule – a bunch of despicable cowards.

        Snowden was awarded a £12500 freedom of expression prize earlier today (well, yesterday), and the chances of him being allowed to accept it in person in September are virtually non-existent.


        FoolsDream Happy Fella 2 Jun 2015 19:44

        You'd have been great back in the witch-hunting days. "If you drown, you're a witch and we'll burn you. If you live, you're a witch.. and guess what?.. yep, burned."


        kowalli 2 Jun 2015 19:41

        future
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy7FVXERKFE&feature=youtu.be


        JohnDavidFletcher SpeakFreely 2 Jun 2015 19:39

        Know these chaps?

        Audience Science
        Facebook Social Graph
        Google Dynamic Remarketing
        Krux Digital
        NetRatings SiteCensus
        Outbrain
        PointRoll
        ScoreCard Research Beacon
        Twitter Badge

        That's the 9 companies/organisations tracking you on this very page. They will then record where you go next, what you do on this page, the frequency of these visits, what links you click on your emails etc.

        Do you know who controls them, who governs the use of the data, what happens to it? That's a bigger danger to your freedom than the NSA.


        Happy Fella 2 Jun 2015 19:38

        If Mr. Snowden has been, as The Guardian says, "vindicated", will he now be returning to the U.S. to receive whatever apologies, honors and rewards are bestowed on those who have been "vindicated"? Or, alternatively, will he continue to reside in Russia, remaining a fugitive from justice in the U.S.? And, if he chooses to do the latter (which I predict he will do--anybody want to make a bet?), in what sense has he been "vindicated".

        The passage of this legislation doesn't change the fact that Snowden has been charged with multiple violations of U.S. law regarding confidential, secret information, and his refusal to stand trial is powerful evidence that those charges are well-founded.

        awoolf14 2 Jun 2015 19:36

        Re Obama: "work expeditiously to ensure our national security professionals again have the full set of vital tools they need to continue protecting the country".

        - Ah yes, the famous 'National Security Professionals." That would be Star Trek fan Kieth Alexander, who had the command center of the NSA converted into a full scale replica of the bridge of the 'USS Enterprise,' complete with whooshing doors and a Captain Kirk chair for him to sit in, and his 'Mr Spock' James Clapper (oddly unretired) who lied to Congress during the NSA hearings, then absolved himself by saying he'd given the "least untruthful answer."

        - "Professional?' What on earth is Obsms talking about, these people are obviously stark raving bonkers!


        bodicca 2 Jun 2015 19:23

        Orwell lives on! What is this "Freedom" that government intrusion into our lives and activities is protecting? Is it the freedom to work harder and longer than people in other developed countries for less access to advanced education, healthcare and free time than those people?

        Or is it the freedom to pay excessive salaries and benefits beyond our imagination to CEOs of corporations? Or the freedom to exist with a crumbling infrastructure while funds for repairs are diverted? Or the freedom to pay for bribes (er lobbying) for legislators elected by us, so that they will pass laws that oppose the wishes of the people. How long will we tolerate being lied to? Freedom, indeed!

        Jim Mansberger 2 Jun 2015 19:20

        It is the military and intelligence agencies that do not want to drop all criminal charges against Snowden, and rather do the right and just thing, which is to recognize him as a US Government whistleblower and protect him.

        Wharfat9 2 Jun 2015 19:12

        On cutting out the bulk surveillance ...

        This makes one a little uneasy - this, so they say - stopping of bulk data collection. Look here: you got that big ´ol facility out at Bluffdale, Utah. A huge mongramamous caw that can take in all the e-mails, phone this and that and every other thing - including, probably, the kitchen sink - and don´t tell me that they gonna just put all those huge gears and terabytes and fans and flywheels and nobs and buttons and doodlygooks on idle?

        Idle? A ´sweet machine´ like that?

        No way, José.


        Sydneyfl 2 Jun 2015 19:10

        America no longer has a press. Foreigners and Neocons have used the international banksters to finance their buying up of 99% of our newspapers, book publishers, TV content, magazines, radio, etc.,.. and who they didn't buy out ...they try to bribe or muzzle with the threat of job loss. Snowdon had no choice. Remember we are the "huddled masses yearning to BREATHE FREE". We will keep chipping away until we get our God Given country back. Snowdon risked himself to help us do just that. He had no choice!! Some people can't be bought!!


        Dugan222 Edward Frederick Ezell 2 Jun 2015 19:08

        The advantage is that this third party is a NSA front operation. :) Do you know what it means??? Every night, all the data being stored by this company are being transferred and backed up by the NSA. Hehehehehhee......

        The NSA still keeps all the data but the public won't assume the NSA has the data since we are supposed to think that the NSA is no longer storing out phone data..... No one talks about who is running this third party company...


        Edward Frederick Ezell 2 Jun 2015 19:07

        Since users of communications services will be required by the private providers to agree to the recording of their communications, this procedure nicely sidesteps the limitations placed on the government by the Constitution.

        Although it seems quite clever it is in effect a conspiracy between the government and providers to facilitate government violation of the constitution.


        WadeLovell 2 Jun 2015 18:49

        ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer says, "This is the most important surveillance reform bill since 1978, and its passage is an indication that Americans are no longer willing to give the intelligence agencies a blank check." I don't see this as vindication. OTOH, I don't believe it would have passed without the lingering bitter taste of overzealous government and the people like Snowden who helped expose it.


        Dugan222 2 Jun 2015 18:41

        Sigh...I am not convinced. The NSA would go after where the data is. If they are in the hands of the phone company, they would have operatives working there. Worst, the phone company would outsource the data management retention to a third party, NSA front company. Here, on the surface, the NSA may appear to have no connections and responsibilities for storing the phone data. Again, who is policing the phone company. And who is policing this "third party."

        vr13vr 2 Jun 2015 18:08

        Why does the Congress have to name laws with such fanfare? Freedom Act, Patriot Act, and so on? Just to sound self righteous? Or to make sure that whoever does not agree with it could be viewed as a unpatriotic and against freedom?

        Would that be much better, and practical as well, not to over-hype laws but give them reasonable and descriptive names?


        sbabcock 2 Jun 2015 18:07

        Seems to me the difference is the NSA has to actually go to the phone companies and plug in to their server to vacuum up the data instead of having it delivered on a silver platter. Let's face it, there are loop-holes galore in the "Freedom" Act. This is the Senate pretending to do their jobs. "Hey, you pretend to be against this to save face. We'll pretend to pass something that is 'different' and then we'll go on vacation again. People will think we 'do' stuff. Problems solved." But it's simply re-shuffling the paperwork, something the House, headed by the Orange Man, are experts at.

        There's another story here today about FBI planes, registered under fake business identities, using Sting-Ray to scoop up all kinds of phone data from above... so... look over here! so you don't see what's going on over there! smfh

        mcstowy DerekHaines 2 Jun 2015 18:07

        During the McCarthy hearings, the easiest way to come under suspicion was to be "prematurely anti-fascist." You see "good Americans" (meaning the right-wing corporate elite) supported Hitler and Mussolini.

        ID9492736 2 Jun 2015 17:50

        The Most Transparent Administration In American History.

        Even the sponges and mollusks are fainting from too much laughter.

        Barry D. Lauterwasser wardropper 2 Jun 2015 17:29

        It's amazing how a few people, and the internet can make such a difference. Throughout the annals of history, many have sacrificed much, even their lives, for the good of the nation. Like you, I'd like to see him come home and pardoned, but I'm sure his safety would be in jeopardy due to the fanaticals here. Someday, history will hopefully judge these brave souls that came forward to shed light on the things government does under the guise of "security." Time will tell...

        madamefifi 2 Jun 2015 17:11

        Not a week goes by without my thoughts (and I am just an ordinary joe with no political connections whatsoever) turning to Edward Snowden and the gross injustice he has and still is suffering. Please watch Citizenfour if you have not already done so, to understand the full magnitude of this injustice. I hope I will live to see this injustice corrected and hope this is a step forward in an inhumanely long process. Edward Snowden is one of the world's true heroes. I believe he deserves the Nobel peace prize or some other worldwide recognition for his sacrifice but sadly no prizes or freedoms are within my remit and never will be. Mr Snowden, this is all I can do and it might not count for much, but I thank you from the bottom of my heart.


        TrueCopy 2 Jun 2015 16:59

        USA Freedom act is not what it is made to be. It has so many loopholes that makes it essentially irrelevant. For example to get records a subpoena need to be issued, but the subpoena doesn't need to be for one number or one individual, or even a roaming individual, they can issue a subpoena for Verizon and another for AT&T and another for Sprint and T-mobile, and pretty cover everyone. This is pretty much the same as what they were doing, but a little more cumbersome, which can be overcome by a few software applications. Rand Paul wanted to limit the subpoena to an individual living and breathing person or persons, rather than a telecom company which failed. So you know where this is going, the lawyers at NSA can argue because that amendment failed, the intent of congress was to allow them to subpoena phone company records.


        Jbons990 2 Jun 2015 16:36

        Fantastic. The fact that the mass collection of telecommunication data was hidden from the public (and would have remained hidden were it not for a certain whistle blower) just demonstrates that the NSA and GCHQ will never tell us the truth. This shiny new surveillance reform is one giant metaphorical rug, for the NSA to sweep all attention underneath, before proceeding to collect everybody information again. Because that's America. And that's democracy. *cough* Bureaucracy.


        freeandfair tbv954 2 Jun 2015 16:34

        Yep, the CIA were caught hacking into White House computers (about 6 months ago ? ) in order to see the information on torture. Anything happened after they were caught red-handed and lies about being caught under oath?

        Nope. Just business as usual in the self-proclaimed shining city on the hill, the most democratic country on Earth.

        [Jun 02, 2015]The Current Overproduction Crisis And War

        Ian Welsh makes Fourteen Points on the World Economy as the US GDP Drops .7 Percent. He believes that the economy is again turning towards a global recession. This recession comes even as there has not been a real recovery from the last global economic crisis:

        Let me put this another way: The developed world is in depression. It has been in depression since 2007. It never left depression. Within that depression, there is still a business cycle: There are expansions, and recessions, and so on. Better times and worse times.

        The business cycle is again turning down and is doing so sharply. Not only in the U.S. but also in Europe and Asia.

        Every central bank has been throwing money at the local economies but that money finds no productive use. Why would a company invest even at 0% interests when nobody will buy the additional products for a profitable price? How could consumers buy more when wages are stagnant and they are already overburdened with debt taken up in the last expansion cycle? The central banks are pushing on a string while distorting normal market relations. This intensifies the original crisis.

        My believe is that the global crisis we see is one of overproduction, an excess or glut of supplies and on the other side a lack of consumption. The exceptional cheap money created by the central banks makes investment in machines preferable over employment of a human workforce. The result: Manufacturing hub starts work on first zero-labor factory

        Chen predicted that instead of 2,000 workers, the current strength of the workforce, the company will require only 200 to operate software system and backstage management.

        The (Central) bank gave Mr. Chen cheap money and at an interest rate of 0% a complete automation of his company may indeed be profitable. It is unlikely though that he would make the same move at an interest rate of 10%. But on the larger macro economic scale Mr Chen needs to ask this question: "How will the 1,800 laid off workers be able to buy the products my company makes?" Some of the laid off people may find marginal "service" job but the money they will make from those will likely be just enough to keep them alive. And over time flipping burgers will also be automated. And then?

        Karl Marx described such overproduction crises. Their cause is a rising share of an economy's profits going to an ever smaller class of "owners" while the growing class of marginal "workers" gets less and less of the total pie. In the last decades this phenomenon can be observed all over the developed world. The other side of the overproduction crisis is an underconsumption crisis. People can no longer buy for lack of income.

        While a realignment of central bank interest rates to historical averages, say some 6%, would help to slow the negative process it would not solve the current problem. Income inequality and overproduction would still increase though at a lesser pace. The historic imperialist remedy for local overproduction, capturing new markets, is no longer available. Global trade is already high. There is little land left to colonize and to widen the markets for ones products.

        There are then two solutions to such an crisis.

        One is to tackle the underconsumption side and to change the distribution of an economy's profits with a much larger share going to "workers" and a smaller share going to "owners". This could be achieved through higher taxes on "owners" and redistribution by the state but also through empowerment of labor unions and like means. But with governments all over the world more and more captured by the "owners" the chance that this solution will be chosen seem low.

        The other solution for a capitalist society to a crisis of overproduction is the forced destruction of (global) production capabilities through a big war. War also helps to increase control over the people and to get rid of "surplus workers".

        The U.S. was the big economic winner of World War I and II. Production capacities elsewhere got destroyed through the wars and a huge number of global "surplus workers" were killed. For the U.S. the wars were, overall, very profitable. Other countries have distinct different experiences with wars. In likely no other country than the U.S. would one find a major newspaper that arguing that wars make us safer and richer.

        I am therefore concerned that the intensifying crisis of overproduction and its seemingly casual preference for war will, in years to come, push the U.S. into starting a new global cataclysmic conflict.

        Neoconservatives like Victoria Nuland tried to goad Russia and the EU into a big war over Ukraine. The top lobbyist of the military industrial complex, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter is trying to instigate a war between China and its neighbors over some atolls in the South China Sea. The U.S. is at least complicit in the rise of the Islamic State which will leave the Middle East at war for the foreseeable future.

        Are these already, conscious or by chance, attempts by the U.S. to solve the problem of global overproduction in its favor?

        Posted by: [email protected] | Jun 1, 2015 2:05:50 PM | 2

        Marx's early writings, including the Communist Manifesto, did indeed focus on crises of overproduction. But, in Capital, he explained that falling rates of profit are the key dynamic. For a popular blog on these issues, see Michael Roberts:

        https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/

        Of course, there is plenty of debate on these matters within Marxian political economy. The best academic source is the journal, Historical Materialism:

        http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/1569206x

        Posted by: Mike Maloney | Jun 1, 2015 2:38:15 PM | 5

        I think you're right, b. The U.S. will not allow regional hegemons who are not clients let alone a global one to challenge its unipolar world. That's why we're seeing all these wars in various stages -- hot in the Middle East; hot and cold in Ukraine; cold in Southeast Asia. The U.S. prefers smashed failed states to anything remotely challenging its full-spectrum dominance.

        The neoliberal prescription for low growth/no growth is the complete cannibalization of the state. Privatized health care is being exported to Europe, while in the U.S. public education is being devoured by corporations.

        Posted by: VietnamVet | Jun 1, 2015 3:01:36 PM | 7

        Since the subject is blacked out by corporate media, we have to decipher the news to try to figure what is actually happening. The only stimulus acceptable to the elite and their politicians is war. 2,300 Humvees seized by Islamic State. Instead of containment, ship thousands of anti-tank missiles to Baghdad; more money in the pocket of the Military Complex.

        The problem is that it is psychotic. The Islamic State's end game is Mecca. The shutoff of 11% of the world's oil supply will collapse the world economy. Yet, this is not an aberration.

        A civil war was started in Ukraine right on Russia's border; a nuclear power who has said they will use them if there is a shooting war with NATO.

        The Greeks are being pillaged to pay debts that cannot ever be paid back. Unless the debt is written off, the Eurozone will splinter asunder.

        The only description for this is greed. Get rich today; the hell with tomorrow and the rest of mankind.

        Posted by: Mike Maloney | Jun 1, 2015 3:57:03 PM | 9

        The good news is that this U.S.-led neoliberal hegemony (what Tariq Ali calls the "Radical Center") is rapidly losing any popular legitimacy. Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, Sinn Fein in Ireland, SNP in the UK, even Bernie Sanders in the U.S. His first day of campaigning last week in Iowa 700 hundred people showed up to hear him speak, compared to 50 for Martin O'Malley, another corporate shill.

        Sanders is no antiwar crusader, but his basic ideas -- cutting military spending, breaking up the big banks, raising marginal tax rates on the wealthy, creating jobs by investing in infrastructure -- have proven the most popular, at least based on turnout, in Iowa of any candidate, Republican or Democrat, so far.

        Posted by: tom | Jun 1, 2015 4:17:23 PM | 10

        We have to look at the perspective of the class war too, where the corporate and elite class have growing contempt for the lower/middle classes more than they already do. So, how can one grow the economy, when the elite and corporate class are exploiting, growing inequality, and hate for us even more ?

        Posted by: Bill | Jun 1, 2015 5:15:09 PM | 12

        The prime vote holder of the IMF himself states the IMF has "served US National and economic interests" since it's inception, across Latin America, Europe and the world, and that "US Leadership" in the IMF is "critical".

        http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Sobel_Testimony.pdf

        The ideas behind the institutions that came out of Bretton Woods were already in the mind of FDR and Keynes long before the conference. One of FDR's key advisors was James Warburg whose father had funded Hitler as well as the USSR, and founded the Federal Reserve Bank.

        https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_Hitler.pdf
        https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf

        US financiers funded Russian manufactured trucks which went to the North Vietnamese forces, and today BP hold stakes in Russian energy firms while Hilary Clinton sells Russia the US Uranium supply.

        As Major General Smedley Butler said in 1935 "War is a Racket". All that has changed is the quality of the supporting propaganda.

        Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 1, 2015 5:50:10 PM | 16

        I think that it is not "overproduction", but the result of improved transportation, communication and more free trade. What is the advantage of paying wages in USA or Western Europe if you can put all labor consuming operations in China, where there is good infrastructure, or in countries where infrastructure is not as good but the labor much cheaper, like Bangladesh? The answer is that while some advantages do exists, there are less and less frequent. Even automation can be performed elsewhere.

        Historically, in 16-th century The Netherlands were the chief European center of non-agricultural production, international trade and banking, and afterwards there was less and less production, but the country retained for a while its position in trade and banking. That cycle affected northern Italy earlier, and England, later. I think that one part of the solution would be a moderate, and yet effective, policy supportive of domestic production and domestic employment.

        But there is also a bit of overproduction. Average American could perfectly well live in a smaller home, drive a smaller vehicle, buy fewer gadgets etc. with hardly decreasing the quality of life. Those below the average income can be out of luck, but they do not consume much anyway. Additionally, there is an excessive gap between "micro-economic" and "macro-economic" optimum behavior.

        Most American household has so little savings that the suffer a crisis very easily, so it would be better for them to spend less, e.g. by cooking more and eating out less, cutting down impulse buying etc. However, the cut in demand is recessionary on a macro-scale. It would be sensible to have policies that would concentrate not on "growth" but on satisfaction of needs.

        Posted by: PokeTheTruth | Jun 1, 2015 6:11:12 PM | 18

        America is drowning in the sewer of the national political system. There is no candidate or incumbent in Washington, DC who serves the country. These elitists rape our liberties, steal our wealth, entice our grandchildren into killing people in foreign lands and subject the future of the nation to be slaves to the debt masters.

        The American people must exercise the only peaceful option left to restore the federal republic which is rapidly being transformed into a unitary style government like much of Europe. On November 8, 2016, the nation must stay home and not give its consent to continue being abused by the plutocracy of puppets bribed by the global bankers, multinational corporations and foreign state lobbyists.

        Abstinence is not benign as some would believe, it is a very powerful check on government when it becomes so infested with opportunists who pursue their own self-serving aggrandizement through the passage of law and regulation to benefit themselves and their criminal syndicate. Without a democratic mandate the cabal cannot hold power and therefore the legislative function of law making is extinguished. The bureaucracy remains in place until the fiscal budget ends in October of the following year which means social security payments will still be made, Medicare claims will still be processed and other central government functions will continue. During those 10 months, the people must demand from the governors of each of their respective States new elections with candidates who are independent of the two-party dogma that has corrupted Washington, DC.

        An implied vote of 'No Confidence" or "None of the Above" is the only sensible way to end this long running nightmare of tyrannical fascism and nationalism that is destroying the country.

        The motto of new liberty must be, "Dissolve it, start over!"

        Posted by: chuckvw | Jun 1, 2015 7:26:53 PM | 19

        So much for the surplus value of labor... All surplus and no labor... The global capitalist system has become bulimic.

        Posted by: Tom Murphy | Jun 1, 2015 8:59:08 PM | 20

        I remember in school in the early 1980's a teacher said something really disgusting to the class: "want to boost an economy, have a war" (clearly the powers that be have made sure that there propaganda gets fed to the public) another ugly thing a teacher tried to push was the notion that WWII's economic effect was some sort of special boost yet at the same time trying to obscure the basic fact that it was government spending that took us out of the depression so war was not needed at all. A lot of work has gone into pushing the manipulative propaganda which is meant to manipulate and sell the agenda of the powerful.

        How it was presented was "FDR tried the New Deal but it took WWII to get us out of the Great Depression." The framing of it that way is intentionally manipulative in order to obscure the role government spending had in getting us out of the depression and it is phrased that way to sell war.

        Posted by: rufus magister | Jun 1, 2015 9:08:58 PM | 21

        in re 14 --

        Nor did they suffer from overproduction of T-34's,, even though they cut cost and production time in half. But they still had sufficient to defeat Hitler, thank Ford! The Space Station is in trouble if there are shortages of Proton rockets. And the Federation is still enjoying some Union leftovers in education and healthcare, see Lisa Marie White's accounting of why American liberals are wrong about Russia.

        For an artistic take on overproduction in capitalism, see Brave New World. Ending is better than mending!

        Whatever happened to waste not, want not? Just a throwaway line....

        Posted by: Copeland | Jun 1, 2015 9:12:41 PM | 22

        Piotyr Berman @ 16

        I think you're on the right track. Before capitalism ran amok and metastasized into a global zombie, there were guilds. I believe the Netherlands had a rich history of those organizations. These were created to protect the rights and privileges of members (to be sure); but they also preserved and improved the skills, and passed these on through apprenticeship. The obsession in consumerism is about having something brand new, and also relies on planned obsolescence, which needs to produce shoddy goods such as plastic footwear, that will be discarded as junk in a few months. Having things made which are durable enough to go through several cycles of repair, would moderate the overheated production.

        If labor is expunged by automation-crazed corporations; then war or revolution, or even both at once, is possible. The cataclysmic outcome that b sketched out is then possible. Of course it's all very short-sighted; but I once read somewhere that at the onset of the 1930s Great Depression, the capitalists examined the option of reducing working hours for everyone so that workers might still muddle through.

        On closer examination, capitalists calculated that dumping workers into the trash heap would add a few dollars more to the corporate bottom line, and be more agreeable to shareholders.

        Posted by: Lone Wolf | Jun 1, 2015 9:46:47 PM | 23

        @b

        Since you mentioned Karl Marx, the exclusion of a very valid third option, revolutionary war/class struggle, makes itself evident. From the trend we witnessed after WWII, we cannot expect as you correctly noted, a redistribution of wealth out of the greedy and gluttonous transatlantic empire and its minions, since concentration, centralization and consolidation of capital has been the order of the day ever since. The other major trend after WWII has been imperial wars, either by proxy or direct intervention, fought against countries that followed the path to independence from colonial powers by means of revolutionary wars, in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The potential for another period of revolutionary war is real, given the abject misery of the wretched of the earth, which have been left with nothing to lose but their chains. The main obstacle they face is the lack of a scientific tool to interpret their current predicament, and at the same time provide them with a vision of the social paradigm they aspire at, out of the ruins left of their societies. With its inherent limitations given by dogma, Marxism was that tool for Mao, Lumumba, Ben-Bella, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, and many other African, Asian and Latin American leaders who took upon their shoulders to shake their peripheral dependency. Many of them were successful in their revolutionary endeavors, and were able to trace an independent path for their societies, even if burdened with all the problems typical of the "third world." Nevertheless, even before the fall of the Soviet Union, Marx and Marxism were thrown under a pile of dead dogs, even more after the fall, which was attributed to the utter failure of Marxism as a social science.

        Marx and Marxism were part of the "end of history," a thing of the past, a post-Hegelian utopian philosophy whose ultimate results were the creation of dystopian societies…until the crisis of 2007, when suddenly everybody wanted to understand WTF is a cyclical crisis, and why do they happen. Das Kapital became a best seller in Germany and beyond; becoming a model for new works tailored after Marx's statistically saturated magnus opus, e.g. Thomas Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-First Century, " and others. Despite all the intellectually gifted resisters to the empire, and the vast expansion of knowledge of the digital age, no new revolutionary theory has appeared, able to inspire the masses of dispossessed as Marxism did at the turn of the XIX c., one that changed the course of history forever during the XX c.

        It is in this vacuum, a modern epistemological crisis, that the neocons, bastard children of Trotskyism, took ownership of Trotsky's "Theory of Permanent Revolution," and turned it into a counterrevolutionary instrument for their nefarious global domination purposes. Hence revolutions became bastardized, categorized by "colors" or "seasons" according to the whims of the vulgar ruling elites, and lost their power to change societies from the bottom up. This crisis of knowledge of their own socio-economic/political conditions are having a profound effect on the masses worldwide, who in many instances rise up against their oppressors, e.g. Egypt/Arab "Spring," without a leadership, without a clear vision of their goals, without a social agenda that guides their movements, and they end up getting crushed or coopted by the new rulers, toys for the empire games of regime change. These are the "Twitter" and "Facebook" so-called "revolutions," mass movements with no direction, no aim, and no strategy for social change. What kind of society did the Egyptians, Tunisians, et al want? Did they have a program for the society they wanted to build? Was there a clear strategy and tactics to achieve their goals? "Crisis," say Gramsci, that giant of Italian Marxism, "is when the old has not died and the new has not been born." Humanity is now facing an epistemological crisis of galactic proportions, in serious need of a new revolutionary theory that, like Marxism in the XIX/XX c., gives the masses a vision of a future to build with their own hands, and hope there is a better world other than sweat-shops, slavery, toiling without rewards, exploitation, misery, crime, and an ever-growing gap between the ruling elites and the working masses.

        Posted by: Nana2007 | Jun 1, 2015 10:11:44 PM | 24

        There could be a helicopter drop ala Ben Bernanke.

        I like Gail Tverberg on diminishing returns/oversupply.

        I like Andrew Kliman on the declining rate of profit.

        Thanks for connecting the dots on this B.

        Posted by: ruralito | Jun 1, 2015 10:11:54 PM | 25

        @12, Sutton is an ass. He pushes the theory that Communism and Fascism are equally bad and what is needed is some mystical third way: Libertarians with their squirrel rifles hunkerin down behind cotton bales. So Wall St. offered Lenin free cash, and he took it! Well, duh!

        Posted by: Nana2007 | Jun 1, 2015 10:19:49 PM | 26

        The motto of new liberty must be, "Dissolve it, start over!"

        PokeTheTruth@18- I tend to agree, with the caveat that plenty people need to be held accountable.

        Texas might be getting that idea.

        Posted by: rufus magister | Jun 1, 2015 10:44:18 PM | 27

        PB @ 16, Copeland at 22

        Historians of the United Provinces point out that Holland and her allied provinces lacked a sufficient population base to administer and defend the holdings she gained in her revolt against Spain ("The Eighty Years War"). With the loss of revenue, croqetten and circuses became less affordable. The House of Orange were elevated from elected Statholders to Kings, the thinking being a monarchy would better keep the lower classes down than a republic. This environment proved conducive to the spread of revolutionary ideas in the Low Countries after 1789.

        Historian of the later Renaissance attribute the decline of the urban republics to several factors. The prevailing aristocratic values induced merchant families to move their capital from commercial and industrial operations to urban and rural real estate -- especially country tracts that came with patents of nobility. Failing that, you could, like the Medici, subvert the Republic with wealth and buy a title from the Papacy or Holy Roman Emperor. And a more mundane factor -- they ran out of good shipbuilding timber.

        England for her part had a large population. It had plenty of timber -- North America was a shipwright's wet dream, and before this, measures prioritized available timber for maritime uses.

        When elites think protecting domestic markets and workers will add to their bottom line, they will. But if the see money to be made in "outsourcing" and "off-shoring", well, away the factories, jobs, salaries, and purchases from suppliers go.

        England began to lose her superiority in textiles and iron and steel to cheaper American and German production. And these two rivals took advantage of what Gershenkron has called "the advantage of the latecomer." The major industrial expansions of both took place in the Second Industrial Revolution, where steel, chemicals, and electrics were the new driving technologies, and both were leaders in these fields. After a rearguard action up to World War II, they accepted de-industrialization whole-hearted under Thatcher.

        PTT at 18 -- The elite will be totally fine with abstention. Less voters to bribe. Not only will things continue as they were, we'll have to endure fools like David Brooks lecturing us on our lack of civic engagement.

        Go to the polls. If you can't bring yourself to vote for the left(over) parties down the ballot, write in you favorite choice -- "none of the above" will do. And not just for President, do it for all the races. The rightists will bring more of the same, only with more Pharisee-style false piety or boring Ayn Rand novels. Friends don't let friends vote Tea Party.

        Lone Wolf at 23 -- Time permits me only to say -- Gramsci Rules!

        Posted by: meofios | Jun 1, 2015 10:55:26 PM | 28

        I think the over-production we see is caused by zombie companies all around the world, that don't generate any profit, sustained by zero interest rate loans, over produce goods, causing a glut of products, and cause price deflation.

        Posted by: Wayoutwest | Jun 1, 2015 11:58:39 PM | 29

        RM@27

        The 'elites' spend billions of dollars every election cycle to encourage or frighten people into the voting booth. Without that 'consent of the people' their minions have no mandate or legal right to rule over us. Throwing your vote away by voting for or against someone or even writing FU on the ballot is still supporting the corrupt system that they will continue to use to rule and if voting could change anything, it would be illegal.

        This doesn't mean that elections and voting may not someday be useful again but there is no possibility they can now be used to change our corrupt system.

        Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 2, 2015 1:32:21 AM | 30


        Posted by: Wayoutwest | Jun 1, 2015 11:58:39 PM | 29

        I agree with that.
        Lone Wolf @ #23's Gramisci perspective is on the money.

        Russell Brand, my favourite non-revolutionary revolutionary, makes the (laboured) point that a govt elected by less than 50% of eligible voters cannot claim legitimacy.

        But Gramisci was righter than everyone else in pointing out that "Crisis is when the old has not died and the new has not been born."

        It should be obvious to everyone, by now, that Twitter and Facebook "revolutions" aren't revolutions, or journeys, and have no useful or coherent destination.

        Posted by: Chipnik | Jun 2, 2015 7:25:37 AM | 31

        b

        This is the 'atto-fox problem' in biology, addressed by the Lotka-Volterra equation in Brauer, F. and Castillo-Chavez, C., Mathematical Models in Population Biology and Epidemiology, Springer-Verlag, (2000), and many others, the bifurcation relationship allowing two mutually independent steady-state solutions, one with higher predation and lower prey population used to justify higher resource extraction rates, ...but it remains just a theory and requires a rigorous definition of who is the 'prey'.

        Is the prey the poor and downtrodden? No, those are the losers.

        We can all agree the 'prey' is ultimately the energy needed to continue surviving for another day, not the staid pedantic 19thC Marxist 'Das Kapital', but just the 'real' value of evolutionary currency and trade. We've transferred the value of energy into gold, then fiat paper today 1's and 0's, and now there's too many of them. They'really part of a non-viable fractional-reserve usury-based ecosystem that's running out of balance, Koyaanisqatsi.

        The rich prey on the energy developed by the poor through usury and credit, but also, the socialist state preys upon the destitute as a source of $Bs public program, using public tax extraction to generate private wealth in much the same way as usury and credit. More rice tents!!

        If we de-anthropomorphize the Marxist class-struggle dialectic, and the rabbinical Maker-Taker meme, the answer pops right out like a jujube: not overproduction, not QEn, not oligarchs and monopolies, but usury and taxes.

        Wah-lah. Usury. Taxes. Same as it ever was. Que sera, sera.

        Posted by: rufus magister | Jun 2, 2015 8:16:58 AM | 32

        Wayout at 29 --

        The standard line of us reds is that participation in elections is a useful tool for educating the masses and marshaling and mobilizing progressive forces. And that mass action, e.g., the general strike, is the real means of social change.

        Bhagavan Chippy at 31 --

        I'd stick to physics and Eastern mysticism.

        Predation occurs between, not within species. Socialism is about the workers controlling the means of production that they service. Social welfare capitalism bought their birthright for "a mess of pottage" (Gen. 25: 29-34). But austerity is taking that off the table.

        I find the overtones of the "rabbinical meme" and the emphasis on usury and taxes disturbing. See this handy comparative chart; fascism is "Strongly against international financial markets and usury." The Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party is recent spawn of that brood.

        Our own home-grown TeaBaggers don't feel too good about it either.

        You might consider a clarification or restatement of your position.

        Posted by: paulmeli | Jun 2, 2015 8:28:43 AM | 33

        "We've transferred the value of energy into gold, then fiat paper today 1's and 0's, and now there's too many of them"

        Well, there's too much savings (accumulated financial wealth) but not enough spending. We know this because we have too much unemployment. Properly targeted spending cures unemployment.

        Spending is a function mainly of money printing, existing money (previously created) mostly just earns interest and so is parasitic to the system in the net (economic rent), which leads to a paradox.

        In the old days in the U.S. between 1933 and the mid-1960's the top marginal tax rate remained around 90% and then around 70% until Reagan was elected.

        This maintained some sort of balance between money printing and saving. Now, money creation just piles up at the top which creates huge inequalities of power.

        Posted by: geoff29 | Jun 2, 2015 9:24:35 AM | 34

        It's simple to conclude that the "ruling class" and their spokes-people are if not absolutely greedy and mendacious, then at least criminally stupid.

        But I think that's short-sighted. The financial crisis could be resolved in a moment's notice, since money is more or less an "imaginary" construct, especially now that it's just 1s and 0s, as was mentioned. The population is clamoring for "higher wages," but if we here were the small ruling class, we must know that "higher wages" means more mouths to feed from a growing population. Or, it means more disgruntled minions crying for "revolution" carrying pitch forks to the very gates of the gated communities and wilderness tracts where the very wealthy keep themselves concealed, when calamity strikes and food is scarce.

        And the "ruling class" despite their equivocations, surely discusses amongst themselves the growing unsustainability of the ever encroaching environmental calamities, and dwindling resources, etc. What wars are being threatened between great powers, are are not about the resolution of world wide perils in terms of repairing the global over indulgence in carbon based technologies, in fact they seem to be based on increasing their use and further extracting scarce resources and more rapidly burning down the house.

        Intelligent discussions are conducted here at MOA, it would be foolish to conclude that some semblance of intelligent discussions are not also held in the upper rooms and chambers of power, stripped of pretense and falsehood. If so, if one of us were sitting with those chosen few, I'm sure we would come to the conclusion that we were in a serious fix. And our backs are up against the wall. "Austerity" would be pushed to its extremities to decrease productivity and reduce the population through Urie's principle of immiseration.

        Put yourself in the shoes of this ruling class, our primary MO would no doubt be self-preservation from the encroaching revolutions and chaos, and destruction, and a preservation of some kind of status quo. Otherwise, all that we had, were we sitting on the porch overlooking our estate, would be gone.

        If nothing else works like the current financial immiseration to reduce the current state of affairs to a simpler and more manageable system where our ruling class rank and stature in society remained permanent and secure (because really our whole being has been reduced to measuring ourselves by our imagined sense of self-worth determined by our wealth, etc.) but the elimination of so many annoying minions through some kind of controlled burn, like a war, then certainly we would go about that?

        I'm sure nothing pleases these folks more but for us to deride them constantly and poke fun at their ineptitude and call them all sorts of "evil," because that would just be so much more grist for the mill.

        ===

        Posted by: ralphieboy | Jun 2, 2015 10:25:43 AM | 36

        There is a famous anecdote about a General Motors executive showing off their newest automated assembly line to a United Auto Workers Union boss and remarking "Not one of them is a union member!"

        To which the UAW boss replied, "And not one of them is a GM customer, either."

        Posted by: Willy2 | Jun 2, 2015 11:15:49 AM | 40

        There's a lack of demand worldwide because since say 1981 workers/employees have received wage increases below inflation. In that regard workers have seen their purchasing power being reduced for over 30 years. No wonder, households/workers aren't able or willing spend lots of money.

        From 1981 up to 2008 households/workers were willing to increase their debtload. By going deeper into debt those households were able to keep their spending at a reasonable level.

        But since 2008 households are reluctant to go deeper into debt and that has weakened the worldwide economy.

        As long as workers don't get wage increases at or above inflation (levels) or are willing increase their debtloads (again) there's no chance for a economic recovery.

        Posted by: HnH | Jun 2, 2015 11:23:22 AM | 41

        b,

        you normally publish highly insightful analyses and information nuggets that I have trouble finding elsewhere. On this topic, however, you jumped short.

        Yes, we are struggling with overproduction and lack of consumption, but it is important to know where this development comes from. If you look at historical data, then you might realize that the purchasing power of people in the Western World started decreasing at the start of the 80s last century. The *growth* in purchasing power decreased since the 1960s. And debt is a significant, but small, part of it. The average growth in GDP has been consistently shrinking since the 1960s. Can you even remember a time, when the economy in one of the Western countries has been growing by more than 4% YoY? I don't. For Germany you have to go back to before the 70s oil crisis to find two years with a consecutive growth of 4% for more than one year. I wasn't even born then.

        The main problem is this: We have to invest more and more energy to pump the same amount of oil, mine the same amount of ores and produce the same amount of food. And there are more and more people living right now.

        This main problem, the diminishing returns, makes it that people have to spend more and more to afford the basic necessities. Corporations and enterprises react to their diminishing sales by cutting their costs to pay their loans. The easiest way to cutting costs is letting go of workers.

        Since 2008, the crash happened after the crash of the oil price, Western Central Banks needed to keep their interest rates a 0%, because there was no growth. If they are ever crazy enough to raise interest rates, they will be blamed for the worst market crash in human history.

        The reason is that we have reached the limits to growth. There is no more growth to be had for the industrialized civilization. That is over. For good. Unless we find an unlimited energy source that is very, very cheap. None is on the horizon so far.

        Currently, a country can only produce growth, for a very short time, at the expense of others. That too will stop. Then, in a few years at the latest, global GDP will start to shrink. That is when the wars will start in earnest. That is when the killing and dying will start in earnest.

        That killing and dying will not stop, until the world will have found a means to reduce its energy consumption to the physical and geological realities out there. That will take a while, and I have no clue how the world will look like.


        Best wishes,
        HnH

        Posted by: ǝn⇂ɔ | Jun 2, 2015 11:38:36 AM | 43

        Sorry, but I again disagree.

        First of all, the robots in the example are there because there the Chinese labor pool has been growing slower than the economy for years now.

        Secondly, robots need to be made by somebody. They cost lots of money. They have to be maintained and often upgraded. The physical operation of the plant might take 90% less workers, but the remaining workers are paid as much or more as the previous entire work force.

        Thirdly, the production noted in the article isn't for China - at least, not yet. It is for the 1st world. Thus the "replacement" of the worker is a dynamic of cheaper labor elsewhere rather than actual replacement with mechanization.

        As for economics: an entire series of fallacies.

        a) Overproduction. While I will certainly agree that the 1st world can do with less, this is irrelevant. Every labor saving device ever created has ultimately had the labor savings spent on higher standards of living. There is nothing to indicate any change in this dynamic. Thus while we no longer have tens and hundreds of thousands of workers making automobiles, we now have tens and hundreds of thousands of workers doing other things like fracking oil and natural gas, servicing the cars via a nationwide array of repair, refueling, and upkeep (car washes, etc). Equally, we don't drive Model T's anymore. Ford used to be nearly entirely self sufficient outside of the metals - this is no longer true. Ford doesn't make computer chips or any of hundreds of parts in present day Fords.

        b) Labor isn't the problem - consumption is. In terms of overall productivity, Americans as a whole are producing more than ever before. Hours worked has been inching down, but hours of work isn't what dictates the actual output - it is a function of productivity times hours worked, and that product continues to increase overall.

        The primary difference between today and post World War II is that of the economic rewards. Americans who aren't in the managerial class get paid a smaller percentage of the overall production created than ever before. This also has been decreasing for decades.

        Thus the problem isn't one of too much productivity or too much automation - the problem is one where the rich get all the money.

        Posted by: Lone Wolf | Jun 2, 2015 12:08:31 PM | 44

        Right on cue...

        Why America's color revolution strategy of global domination is doomed to fail: the case of Egypt

        Posted by: paulmeli | Jun 2, 2015 12:16:13 PM | 45

        "The main problem is this: We have to invest more and more energy to pump the same amount of oil, mine the same amount of ores and produce the same amount of food."

        This may well be true, but if one looks at the history of spending growth (or more accurately public investment) by the U.S. federal government one will see that spending growth suddenly dropped by 1/3rd in the early 1980's (around the beginning of Ronald Reagan's presidency). This can be observed visually very easily by looking at the FRED series FGEXPND on a log scale…the breakpoint is obvious and so is the one at around 2010.

        U.S. federal spending has averaged 7% since WWII overall…about 9% through 1985 dropping to about 5% thereafter. Since 2010 growth has been an anemic 1.6%.

        It's no wonder GDP growth has been on decline since the 80's, and it's no wonder we are experiencing a slowdown now.

        Posted by: james | Jun 2, 2015 12:34:50 PM | 46

        @43 ǝn⇂ɔ quote.. "Thus the problem isn't one of too much productivity or too much automation - the problem is one where the rich get all the money."

        who is buying the produce ǝn⇂ɔ ?

        Posted by: dh | Jun 2, 2015 12:38:22 PM | 47

        @46 A lot of money goes into remodelling. Look at the proliferation of home improvement stores.

        Posted by: james | Jun 2, 2015 1:22:48 PM | 48

        @47 dh.. the big money is in the mic/fic complex... chump change in most other areas relatively speaking.. i think the big money is coming from gov't spending.. it is a self sustaining vicious circle for everyone.. that's my simplistic rendition of it! who pays for those orange jump suits anyway?

        Posted by: dh | Jun 2, 2015 1:33:19 PM | 49

        @48 Not everybody in the US is in jail or on food stamps. There is a lot of disposable income in the US. People buy new vehicles, improve their homes, upgrade their entertainment systems, send kids to college, go on trips. The trick is to keep interest rates low and keep printing money. So far it seems to be working.

        Posted by: Lone Wolf | Jun 2, 2015 3:09:14 PM | 52

        @geoff29 @34

        And the "ruling class" despite their equivocations, surely discusses amongst themselves the growing unsustainability of the ever encroaching environmental calamities, and dwindling resources, etc.

        I am sure they discuss those and many other subjects under heaven, problem starts with their conclusions. Ever heard of the "smart idiot effect"?

        (...)Buried in the Pew report was a little chart showing the relationship between one's political party affiliation, one's acceptance that humans are causing global warming, and one's level of education. And here's the mind-blowing surprise: For Republicans, having a college degree didn't appear to make one any more open to what scientists have to say. On the contrary, better-educated Republicans were more skeptical of modern climate science than their less educated brethren. Only 19 percent of college-educated Republicans agreed that the planet is warming due to human actions, versus 31 percent of non-college-educated Republicans.

        For Democrats and Independents, the opposite was the case. More education correlated with being more accepting of climate science-among Democrats, dramatically so. The difference in acceptance between more and less educated Democrats was 23 percentage points.

        This was my first encounter with what I now like to call the "smart idiots" effect: The fact that politically sophisticated or knowledgeable people are often more biased, and less persuadable, than the ignorant. It's a reality that generates endless frustration for many scientists-and indeed, for many well-educated, reasonable people.(...)

        I'm sure nothing pleases these folks more but for us to deride them constantly and poke fun at their ineptitude and call them all sorts of "evil," because that would just be so much more grist for the mill.

        Well, their lack of awareness is legendary, and their indifference to their damage on the planet and the suffering of others is their trademark. They might laugh all the way to the bank, in total ignorance of the legacy their greed and possessiveness are leaving in their wake.

        Posted by: Lone Wolf | Jun 2, 2015 3:52:00 PM | 53

        From Cooperation to Competition -
        The Future of U.S.-Russian Relations


        May 2015

        A Report on an Interdisciplinary Wargame conducted by the
        U.S. Army War College

        Carlisle, Pennsylvania

        Posted by: james | Jun 2, 2015 4:04:04 PM | 54


        @49 dh.. i know that but thanks for the reminder..almost zero interest rates is the name of the game and has been for some time.. if people had a different interest rate on their line of credit - the jig would be up.. for now it is 'free money' with anyone silly enough to not 'invest' in the wall st casino, or is in any way pragmatic financially - will watch what money they have devalue quicker then you can say 'quicksand'..and, i am always reminded of the racial divide when i think of the states - food stamps verses big brand new automobiles.. what a weird culture.. canada isn't a lot different in some regards.. it is and it isn't..

        Posted by: okie farmer | Jun 2, 2015 4:13:02 PM | 55

        http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/karl_marx_was_right_20150531
        by Chris Hedges

        Karl Marx exposed the peculiar dynamics of capitalism, or what he called "the bourgeois mode of production." He foresaw that capitalism had built within it the seeds of its own destruction. He knew that reigning ideologies-think neoliberalism-were created to serve the interests of the elites and in particular the economic elites, since "the class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production" and "the ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships … the relationships which make one class the ruling one." He saw that there would come a day when capitalism would exhaust its potential and collapse.
        ~~~
        The final stages of capitalism, Marx wrote, would be marked by developments that are intimately familiar to most of us. Unable to expand and generate profits at past levels, the capitalist system would begin to consume the structures that sustained it. It would prey upon, in the name of austerity, the working class and the poor, driving them ever deeper into debt and poverty and diminishing the capacity of the state to serve the needs of ordinary citizens.
        ~~~
        The corporations that own the media have worked overtime to sell to a bewildered public the fiction that we are enjoying a recovery. Employment figures, through a variety of gimmicks, including erasing those who are unemployed for over a year from unemployment rolls, are a lie, as is nearly every other financial indicator pumped out for public consumption. We live, rather, in the twilight stages of global capitalism, which may be surprisingly more resilient than we expect, but which is ultimately terminal. Marx knew that once the market mechanism became the sole determining factor for the fate of the nation-state, as well as the natural world, both would be demolished. No one knows when this will happen. But that it will happen, perhaps within our lifetime, seems certain.

        "The old is dying, the new struggles to be born, and in the interregnum there are many morbid symptoms," Antonio Gramsci wrote.

        What comes next is up to us.

        Posted by: ToivoS | Jun 2, 2015 8:18:47 PM | 57

        lonewolf #52

        Your comment reminds me of something once said by a retired law professor. "We spend considerable effort looking for bright young students for admittance into law school. Then we spend the next three years beating out their common sense".

        Having been involved in graduate school education during my career that statement also applies to grad student education in English and Social Science departments.

        [Jun 02, 2015]The Delusional World Of Imperial Washington

        Notable quotes:
        .
        "... What is a declining superpower supposed to do in the face of such defiance? This is no small matter. For decades, being a superpower has been the defining characteristic of American identity. The embrace of global supremacy began after World War II when the United States assumed responsibility for resisting Soviet expansionism around the world; it persisted through the Cold War era and only grew after the implosion of the Soviet Union, when the U.S. assumed sole responsibility for combating a whole new array of international threats. As General Colin Powell famously exclaimed in the final days of the Soviet era, "We have to put a shingle outside our door saying, 'Superpower Lives Here,' no matter what the Soviets do, even if they evacuate from Eastern Europe." "
        .
        "...The problem, as many mainstream observers now acknowledge, is that such a strategy aimed at perpetuating U.S. global supremacy at all costs was always destined to result in what Yale historian Paul Kennedy, in his classic book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, unforgettably termed "imperial overstretch." As he presciently wrote in that 1987 study, it would arise from a situation in which "the sum total of the United States' global interests and obligations is… far larger than the country's power to defend all of them simultaneously.""
        .
        dir="ltr">"...But for any of this to happen, American policymakers would first have to abandon the pretense that the United States remains the sole global superpower -- and that may be too bitter a pill for the present American psyche (and for the political aspirations of certain Republican candidates) to swallow. From such denialism, it's already clear, will only come further ill-conceived military adventures abroad and, sooner or later, under far grimmer circumstances, an American reckoning with reality."
        Zero Hedge
        Submitted by Michael Klare via TomDispatch.com,

        Think of this as a little imperial folly update -- and here's the backstory.

        In the years after invading Iraq and disbanding Saddam Hussein's military, the U.S. sunk about $25 billion into "standing up" a new Iraqi army. By June 2014, however, that army, filled with at least 50,000 "ghost soldiers," was only standing in the imaginations of its generals and perhaps Washington. When relatively small numbers of Islamic State (IS) militants swept into northern Iraq, it collapsed, abandoning four cities -- including Mosul, the country's second largest -- and leaving behind enormous stores of U.S. weaponry, ranging from tanks and Humvees to artillery and rifles. In essence, the U.S. was now standing up its future enemy in a style to which it was unaccustomed and, unlike the imploded Iraqi military, the forces of the Islamic State proved quite capable of using that weaponry without a foreign trainer or adviser in sight.

        In response, the Obama administration dispatched thousands of new advisers and trainers and began shipping in piles of new weaponry to re-equip the Iraqi army. It also filled Iraqi skies with U.S. planes armed with their own munitions to destroy, among other things, some of that captured U.S. weaponry. Then it set to work standing up a smaller version of the Iraqi army. Now, skip nearly a year ahead and on a somewhat lesser scale the whole process has just happened again. Less than two weeks ago, Islamic State militants took Ramadi, the capital of Anbar Province. Iraqi army units, including the elite American-trained Golden Division, broke and fled, leaving behind -- you'll undoubtedly be shocked to hear -- yet another huge cache of weaponry and equipment, including tanks, more than 100 Humvees and other vehicles, artillery, and so on.

        The Obama administration reacted in a thoroughly novel way: it immediately began shipping in new stocks of weaponry, starting with 1,000 antitank weapons, so that the reconstituted Iraqi military could take out future "massive suicide vehicle bombs" (some of which, assumedly, will be those captured vehicles from Ramadi). Meanwhile, American planes began roaming the skies over that city, trying to destroy some of the equipment IS militants had captured.

        Notice anything repetitive in all this -- other than another a bonanza for U.S. weapons makers? Logically, it would prove less expensive for the Obama administration to simply arm the Islamic State directly before sending in the air strikes. In any case, what a microcosm of U.S. imperial hubris and folly in the twenty-first century all this training and equipping of the Iraqi military has proved to be. Start with the post-invasion decision of the Bush administration to totally disband Saddam's army and instantly eject hundreds of thousands of unemployed Sunni military men and a full officer corps into the chaos of the "new" Iraq and you have an instant formula for creating a Sunni resistance movement. Then, add in a little extra "training" at Camp Bucca, a U.S. military prison in Iraq, for key unemployed officers, and -- Voilà! -- you've helped set up the petri dish in which the leadership of the Islamic State movement will grow. Multiply such stunning tactical finesse many times over globally and, as TomDispatch regular Michael Klare makes clear today, you have what might be called the folly of the "sole superpower" writ large.

        Delusionary Thinking in Washington

        The Desperate Plight of a Declining Superpower

        Take a look around the world and it's hard not to conclude that the United States is a superpower in decline. Whether in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East, aspiring powers are flexing their muscles, ignoring Washington's dictates, or actively combating them. Russia refuses to curtail its support for armed separatists in Ukraine; China refuses to abandon its base-building endeavors in the South China Sea; Saudi Arabia refuses to endorse the U.S.-brokered nuclear deal with Iran; the Islamic State movement (ISIS) refuses to capitulate in the face of U.S. airpower. What is a declining superpower supposed to do in the face of such defiance?

        This is no small matter. For decades, being a superpower has been the defining characteristic of American identity. The embrace of global supremacy began after World War II when the United States assumed responsibility for resisting Soviet expansionism around the world; it persisted through the Cold War era and only grew after the implosion of the Soviet Union, when the U.S. assumed sole responsibility for combating a whole new array of international threats. As General Colin Powell famously exclaimed in the final days of the Soviet era, "We have to put a shingle outside our door saying, 'Superpower Lives Here,' no matter what the Soviets do, even if they evacuate from Eastern Europe."

        Imperial Overstretch Hits Washington

        Strategically, in the Cold War years, Washington's power brokers assumed that there would always be two superpowers perpetually battling for world dominance. In the wake of the utterly unexpected Soviet collapse, American strategists began to envision a world of just one, of a "sole superpower" (aka Rome on the Potomac). In line with this new outlook, the administration of George H.W. Bush soon adopted a long-range plan intended to preserve that status indefinitely. Known as the Defense Planning Guidance for Fiscal Years 1994-99, it declared: "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union."

        H.W.'s son, then the governor of Texas, articulated a similar vision of a globally encompassing Pax Americana when campaigning for president in 1999. If elected, he told military cadets at the Citadel in Charleston, his top goal would be "to take advantage of a tremendous opportunity -- given few nations in history -- to extend the current peace into the far realm of the future. A chance to project America's peaceful influence not just across the world, but across the years."

        For Bush, of course, "extending the peace" would turn out to mean invading Iraq and igniting a devastating regional conflagration that only continues to grow and spread to this day. Even after it began, he did not doubt -- nor (despite the reputed wisdom offered by hindsight) does he today -- that this was the price that had to be paid for the U.S. to retain its vaunted status as the world's sole superpower.

        The problem, as many mainstream observers now acknowledge, is that such a strategy aimed at perpetuating U.S. global supremacy at all costs was always destined to result in what Yale historian Paul Kennedy, in his classic book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, unforgettably termed "imperial overstretch." As he presciently wrote in that 1987 study, it would arise from a situation in which "the sum total of the United States' global interests and obligations is… far larger than the country's power to defend all of them simultaneously."

        Indeed, Washington finds itself in exactly that dilemma today. What's curious, however, is just how quickly such overstretch engulfed a country that, barely a decade ago, was being hailed as the planet's first "hyperpower," a status even more exalted than superpower. But that was before George W.'s miscalculation in Iraq and other missteps left the U.S. to face a war-ravaged Middle East with an exhausted military and a depleted treasury. At the same time, major and regional powers like China, India, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have been building up their economic and military capabilities and, recognizing the weakness that accompanies imperial overstretch, are beginning to challenge U.S. dominance in many areas of the globe. The Obama administration has been trying, in one fashion or another, to respond in all of those areas -- among them Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and the South China Sea -- but without, it turns out, the capacity to prevail in any of them.

        Nonetheless, despite a range of setbacks, no one in Washington's power elite -- Senators Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders being the exceptions that prove the rule -- seems to have the slightest urge to abandon the role of sole superpower or even to back off it in any significant way. President Obama, who is clearly all too aware of the country's strategic limitations, has been typical in his unwillingness to retreat from such a supremacist vision. "The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation," he told graduating cadets at West Point in May 2014. "That has been true for the century past and it will be true for the century to come."

        How, then, to reconcile the reality of superpower overreach and decline with an unbending commitment to global supremacy?

        The first of two approaches to this conundrum in Washington might be thought of as a high-wire circus act. It involves the constant juggling of America's capabilities and commitments, with its limited resources (largely of a military nature) being rushed relatively fruitlessly from one place to another in response to unfolding crises, even as attempts are made to avoid yet more and deeper entanglements. This, in practice, has been the strategy pursued by the current administration. Call it the Obama Doctrine.

        After concluding, for instance, that China had taken advantage of U.S. entanglement in Iraq and Afghanistan to advance its own strategic interests in Southeast Asia, Obama and his top advisers decided to downgrade the U.S. presence in the Middle East and free up resources for a more robust one in the western Pacific. Announcing this shift in 2011 -- it would first be called a "pivot to Asia" and then a "rebalancing" there -- the president made no secret of the juggling act involved.

        "After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly, in blood and treasure, the United States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia Pacific region," he told members of the Australian Parliament that November. "As we end today's wars, I have directed my national security team to make our presence and mission in the Asia Pacific a top priority. As a result, reductions in U.S. defense spending will not -- I repeat, will not -- come at the expense of the Asia Pacific."

        Then, of course, the new Islamic State launched its offensive in Iraq in June 2014 and the American-trained army there collapsed with the loss of four northern cities. Videoed beheadings of American hostages followed, along with a looming threat to the U.S.-backed regime in Baghdad. Once again, President Obama found himself pivoting -- this time sending thousands of U.S. military advisers back to that country, putting American air power into its skies, and laying the groundwork for another major conflict there.

        Meanwhile, Republican critics of the president, who claim he's doing too little in a losing effort in Iraq (and Syria), have also taken him to task for not doing enough to implement the pivot to Asia. In reality, as his juggling act that satisfies no one continues in Iraq and the Pacific, he's had a hard time finding the wherewithal to effectively confront Vladimir Putin in Ukraine, Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, the various militias fighting for power in fragmenting Libya, and so on.

        The Party of Utter Denialism

        Clearly, in the face of multiplying threats, juggling has not proven to be a viable strategy. Sooner or later, the "balls" will simply go flying and the whole system will threaten to fall apart. But however risky juggling may prove, it is not nearly as dangerous as the other strategic response to superpower decline in Washington: utter denial.

        For those who adhere to this outlook, it's not America's global stature that's eroding, but its will -- that is, its willingness to talk and act tough. If Washington were simply to speak more loudly, so this argument goes, and brandish bigger sticks, all these challenges would simply melt away. Of course, such an approach can only work if you're prepared to back up your threats with actual force, or "hard power," as some like to call it.

        Among the most vocal of those touting this line is Senator John McCain, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a persistent critic of President Obama. "For five years, Americans have been told that 'the tide of war is receding,' that we can pull back from the world at little cost to our interests and values," he typically wrote in March 2014 in a New York Times op-ed. "This has fed a perception that the United States is weak, and to people like Mr. Putin, weakness is provocative." The only way to prevent aggressive behavior by Russia and other adversaries, he stated, is "to restore the credibility of the United States as a world leader." This means, among other things, arming the Ukrainians and anti-Assad Syrians, bolstering the NATO presence in Eastern Europe, combating "the larger strategic challenge that Iran poses," and playing a "more robust" role (think: more "boots" on more ground) in the war against ISIS.

        Above all, of course, it means a willingness to employ military force. "When aggressive rulers or violent fanatics threaten our ideals, our interests, our allies, and us," he declared last November, "what ultimately makes the difference… is the capability, credibility, and global reach of American hard power."

        A similar approach -- in some cases even more bellicose -- is being articulated by the bevy of Republican candidates now in the race for president, Rand Paul again excepted. At a recent "Freedom Summit" in the early primary state of South Carolina, the various contenders sought to out-hard-power each other. Florida Senator Marco Rubio was loudly cheered for promising to make the U.S. "the strongest military power in the world." Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker received a standing ovation for pledging to further escalate the war on international terrorists: "I want a leader who is willing to take the fight to them before they take the fight to us."

        In this overheated environment, the 2016 presidential campaign is certain to be dominated by calls for increased military spending, a tougher stance toward Moscow and Beijing, and an expanded military presence in the Middle East. Whatever her personal views, Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democratic candidate, will be forced to demonstrate her backbone by embracing similar positions. In other words, whoever enters the Oval Office in January 2017 will be expected to wield a far bigger stick on a significantly less stable planet. As a result, despite the last decade and a half of interventionary disasters, we're likely to see an even more interventionist foreign policy with an even greater impulse to use military force.

        However initially gratifying such a stance is likely to prove for John McCain and the growing body of war hawks in Congress, it will undoubtedly prove disastrous in practice. Anyone who believes that the clock can now be turned back to 2002, when U.S. strength was at its zenith and the Iraq invasion had not yet depleted American wealth and vigor, is undoubtedly suffering from delusional thinking. China is far more powerful than it was 13 years ago, Russia has largely recovered from its post-Cold War slump, Iran has replaced the U.S. as the dominant foreign actor in Iraq, and other powers have acquired significantly greater freedom of action in an unsettled world. Under these circumstances, aggressive muscle-flexing in Washington is likely to result only in calamity or humiliation.

        Time to Stop Pretending

        Back, then, to our original question: What is a declining superpower supposed to do in the face of this predicament?

        Anywhere but in Washington, the obvious answer would for it to stop pretending to be what it's not. The first step in any 12-step imperial-overstretch recovery program would involve accepting the fact that American power is limited and global rule an impossible fantasy. Accepted as well would have to be this obvious reality: like it or not, the U.S. shares the planet with a coterie of other major powers -- none as strong as we are, but none so weak as to be intimidated by the threat of U.S. military intervention. Having absorbed a more realistic assessment of American power, Washington would then have to focus on how exactly to cohabit with such powers -- Russia, China, and Iran among them -- and manage its differences with them without igniting yet more disastrous regional firestorms.

        If strategic juggling and massive denial were not so embedded in the political life of this country's "war capital," this would not be an impossibly difficult strategy to pursue, as others have suggested. In 2010, for example, Christopher Layne of the George H.W. Bush School at Texas A&M argued in the American Conservative that the U.S. could no longer sustain its global superpower status and, "rather than having this adjustment forced upon it suddenly by a major crisis… should get ahead of the curve by shifting its position in a gradual, orderly fashion." Layne and others have spelled out what this might entail: fewer military entanglements abroad, a diminishing urge to garrison the planet, reduced military spending, greater reliance on allies, more funds to use at home in rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure of a divided society, and a diminished military footprint in the Middle East.

        But for any of this to happen, American policymakers would first have to abandon the pretense that the United States remains the sole global superpower -- and that may be too bitter a pill for the present American psyche (and for the political aspirations of certain Republican candidates) to swallow. From such denialism, it's already clear, will only come further ill-conceived military adventures abroad and, sooner or later, under far grimmer circumstances, an American reckoning with reality.

        [Jun 02, 2015] Tumbleweed Town: Kiev Post-Gas Transit

        In Western MSM the 17.6% year on year GDP drop in Ukraine is mentioned as a just a number without any context. But during the Great Depression the US GDP contracted "only" 25%. In any given year of that depression it did not drop 17%. Also, in the case of Ukraine, it has already underwent its first Great Depression, which was worse than the US depression during the 1990s. So we are looking at The Second Great Depression in Ukraine. This is the meaning of this 17.6 drop. Ukrainian pensioners are brought by brave Western neocons with the help of local fifth column to the real starvation level. This is an important story and yet Western MSM ignore it much like they ignore now flight MH17. Instead we have overoptimistic "confidence enhancing" forecasts from Moody's, the World Bank, the IMF, and other western agencies. Which are pure political fluff. when in reality we need to state that USA neocons (see Nulandgate) destroyed the Ukraine economics and plunge the country into another Great Depression.
        Ukraine earns around $3 Billion a year from gas transit fees. How is the loss of this income going to impact Ukraine, in view of its medium-term economic forecast?
        Jun 01, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

        Anyone who has not sleepwalked through the gas-price squabble between Russia and Ukraine since the Great Freedom Jubilee known as EuroMaidan is aware that Russia has grown fed up with Ukraine's posturing and loose grip on reality – neither being a quality that is endearing or inspirational of confidence in its reliability as a gas-transit country for Europe. Russia has had projects underway for some time to gradually reduce its reliance on Ukraine as a gas-transit corridor for Russian gas since the stand-off in 2009, in which Ukraine was siphoning off gas intended for Europe for its own use free of charge, while Russia was expected to just make up the difference – Ukraine was confident Russia was without alternatives, since it would not dare shut off Europe's gas. Which it did, of course, initiating a panic and a lasting reputation for Russia as an unreliable energy partner. Nothing much was ever said about Ukraine stealing gas; Europe made a few comments to the effect that there was wrong on both sides, and left it at that, and ever afterward the narrative was that they knew Russia accused Ukraine of stealing gas, but where was the evidence?

        Russia constructed the Nord Stream pipeline, and partially completed South Stream, the two of which together would handle the entirety of gas shipped to Europe, without going through Ukraine. The EU dug in its heels, and went on about how everyone needs rules and Russia would have to abide by the Third Energy Package which said the same company cannot own both the gas and the pipeline, and lots of other twaddle although it simply hands out exemptions to its own suppliers, and Russia canceled South Stream. The EU was jubilant – it had put those Russkies in their place, by God!

        Which brings us, skipping over many other details which are of great import but not germane to the gas situation, to where we are now. Russia has announced it will construct Turkish Stream instead, delivering the same amount forecast for South Stream – 63 BCm – to the Turkish/Greek border. If Europe wants gas, it can build pipeline infrastructure to take it from that point. If not, fine – start busting up Granny's piano for firewood. And none – as of 2019 at the latest but probably around 2017 – will go through Ukraine.

        Ukraine earns around $3 Billion a year from gas transit fees. How is the loss of this income going to impact Ukraine, in view of its medium-term economic forecast?

        As a starting point, it would be hard to envision a more dramatically effective program of economic ruin than what has been done to Ukraine by its western friends. The currency has fallen off a cliff, averaging 7.29 to the U.S. dollar between 2002 and 2015, spiking to a record low value of 33.5 to the dollar in February of 2015 and currently at a ruinous 20.44. Whoever wrote the summary apparently wanted to camouflage the moment of disaster by averaging the value of the hryvnia from 2002 to 2015, because the value declined steadily throughout 2014 and can be traced almost to the minute to the Euromaidan demonstrations, accelerating to a screaming power dive after they turned violent and cratering with the collapse of the Debaltseve cauldron. The stock market has fallen to a quarter of its value in 2008. The most recent GDP Growth Rate is a contraction of 3.8% in the final quarter of 2014 – certainly worsening since then – and annually is a jaw-dropping contraction of 17.6%. Helpfully – I meant that sarcastically – the official unemployment rate has soared to 9.7% over 2013's low of 7.6%, and has been over 9% since the beginning of 2014, while inflation has bulleted its way up to 60.9%. All these are figures the state statistics service will admit to. Meanwhile, its hapless government merrily enacts a debt moratorium, authorizing itself to put a hold on payments to its creditors, even as it doubles "defense spending".

        Anyway, on to the sometimes comical dynamics of the European gas business. I think my favourite is the smirking strut executed by various countries as they claim to be "weaning themselves off of Russian gas" by importing gas from some other European country that is a net importer of Russian gas. Like Poland, for example. Kiev was quite proud of itself when, in 2012, it reduced its imports of Russian gas by taking delivery of gas from RWE in Poland on a trial basis. These imports continued into 2013 – a year in which Poland (which is also "weaning itself off of Russian gas") took 60% of its gas from Russia. They've wised up now, though, and plan to import significantly more gas from Germany…which gets 38% of its gas from Russia. Oh, and they're building an LNG terminal into which they plan to import LNG from Qatar via tankers. More expensive than pipeline gas, of course, which is just good economics by European standards, but at least they can fly a Polish flag on the LNG terminal. You just can't put a price on national pride, can you? And they'll be able – in their dreams – to say goodbye to gas imports someday from that evil undemocratic Stalin dictatorship of Russia in favour of freedom gas from the smiling Qataris, ruled through a constitutional monarchy in which the Emir exercises absolute power and whose heirs come from the male branch of the al-Thani family.

        Meanwhile, Ukraine itself remains the fifth-heaviest consumer of natural gas in Europe, at some 55 BCm annually. Mind you, it should realize significant savings in consumption by the almost-complete loss of its heavy industry sector, most of which is in the east – every cloud has a silver lining, what? But Ukraine's domestic production peaked at 68 BCm forty years back, has been in decline since then and now amounts to about 20 BCm – less than half its current consumption. So in order for Ukraine to wean itself off of Russian gas, it is going to have to either cut its consumption in half or buy reverse-flowed gas from other European countries – using mostly handout money, since it is going to lose $3 Billion off the top of its GDP which is currently contracting at a rate of more than 17% per year. Put that way, it doesn't sound too hopeful, does it? Mind you, the EU is doing its bit to help by insisting on reforms which have doubled the price of gas for household use, even as the currency has shrunk to about a third of its previous value.

        kirill , June 1, 2015 at 7:05 pm

        Good article. It is peculiar how the 17.6% year on year GDP drop in Ukraine is mentioned as a ho-hum statistic without any context. The US GDP contracted 25% during the Great Depression. In any given year of that depression it did not drop almost 18%. Also, in the case of Ukraine, it has already underwent a Great Depression worse than the original during the 1990s and has *not* fully recovered. So we are looking at an epic economic contraction since 1990. This is a big story and yet there is no spotlight on it whatsoever. Instead we have those retarded "forecasts" from Moody's, the World Bank, the IMF, and other western agencies which are pure political fluff.

        On another forum a well informed poster was confused by what year on year meant. As you correctly note in your article it is basically a measure of the relative change in the GDP after one year. The only way Ukraine's GDP could hit those western "forecasts" in 2015 would be if it had a surge of growth in the second half of the year. This ain't gonna happen. In fact the decline will continue into the second quarter and the rate of decline will decline in the second half due to the fact that it is compared to the second half of 2014 which was already in full bore recession. The first quarter of 2015 dropped almost 7% compared to the fourth quarter of 2014. I expect there to be quarter to quarter drops in Ukraine's GDP during all of 2015. This translates into a GDP drop in 2015 of between 20% and 30% depending on how rapidly the collapse slows later this year.

        As for the EU and its racist, delusional hate aimed at Russia. It will reap what it has sown. For some reason some analysts think that if Iran is allowed to ship gas to the EU this will undermine Russia. They are missing the mark. Russia will be happy to have the EU supplied with its gas from the Middle East. Everyone with a clue will see the implications. Russia's own production will decline in the long run as is inevitable and Russia has now the access to the huge Chinese market at a reasonable price. The stooges in Brussels will be remembering the good old days of Russian supply.

        [Jun 02, 2015] The Problem With O'Malley's New-Generation Pitch Elizabeth Warren is 65 and Bernie Sanders is 73

        June 1, 2015 | angrybearblog.com

        Former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley formally declared over the weekend that he will run for the Democratic presidential nomination. In his speech and a subsequent interview with ABC News, he floated several themes: He has executive experience; the presidency is not a "crown" to be passed back and forth among royal families (i.e., the Clintons and the Bushes); and unlike either Jeb or Hillary, he won't be beholden to Wall Street.

        And O'Malley, 52, is also offering a fourth argument, which seems implicitly designed to draw a contrast with the 67-year-old Clinton: It's time for a new generation of leaders.

        Martin O'Malley tests a generational argument against Hillary Clinton, Greg Sargent, Washington Post, today

        Marco Rubio is making the generational argument, too. For Rubio, it's patently ridiculous; his fiscal and regulatory policy proposals and soundbites are circa Reagan era. O'Malley's are decidedly 2015, which is great and is why he may (in my opinion) have an actual chance. But Elizabeth Warren's and Bernie Sanders' are even more so.

        It's clearly not accurate that Warren is unpopular among young people and that Sanders likely will be. I don't think anyone - young, middle-aged, old - cares about Warren's age or which generation she's part of. And though Sanders' age is noted in virtually every news report or commentary about him, and he looks his age, is it really likely that young voters would support him over Sanders because of their age difference? I doubt it.

        O'Malley obviously is trying to target Clinton, not Sanders and certainly not Warren (whose policy positions he has adopted), with the "new generation" tack. But if it refers to age and demographic generation, it makes as much sense as Clinton's I'm-a-woman-and-a-grandmother pitch. Which is to say, none. Clinton obviously is a woman, and everyone knows that she's now a grandmother. Just as everyone can see that O'Malley is relatively youthful.

        And youth is as much a policy statement as is being a woman and a grandmother. Which so to say, it's not.

        If O'Malley has a chance, it's as a stand-in for Warren. And not because he's younger than Warren, but because he's running and she's not. And Warren, 65, indeed is part of a new generation of leadership, because her ideas, her arguments, her responses to Republican rote, are part of a new generation of ideas.

        My advice to O'Malley would be to kill the younger-generation-of-leaders thing and replace it with a new-generation-of-policy argument. He made a good start on that several weeks ago. Bernie Sanders is doing exactly that, but age does matter here in that he will be 75 at the time of the next election. If progressive Democrats think O'Malley would be a true stand-in for Warren and Sanders, despite his own earlier-generation New Democrat pedigree, he could pull out a victory through some combination of his own and ultimately Sanders' delegates.

        But a prerequisite, I think, is an understanding that Sanders is blazing the trail. And that Sanders, and Warren, aren't spring chickens.

        [Jun 01, 2015] Kiev Big Lie on Ending Donbas Conflict in Two Weeks

        Jan 13, 2015 | veteranstoday.com

        Washington runs things in Ukraine. It newest colony. Kiev's illegitimate puppet government serves its interests. Ruthlessly exploiting its people in the process. America wants unchallenged control over Ukraine's entire land mass. As a dagger pointed at Russia's heart.

        Ukraine is a pretext. Regime change in Russia the objective. Gaining another US colony. Eliminating a major rival. Stealing its vast resources. Exploiting its people. Turning them into serfs. Isolating China. Repeating the process against Beijing. Transforming nations into a ruler/serf societies. More unfit to live in than ever. Coups, assassinations, false flags and permanent wars its tactics of choice.

        No nation in world history reflects more pure evil than America. Wrapped in the American flag. People manipulated to believe destructive US policies benefit them. Governments lie about everything. Media scoundrels repeat Big Lies like gospel. No one can possibly understand world events by watching mainstream television. BBC is as bad as Fox News. Owned and operated by Britain's government. Its propaganda bullhorn. So-called US public radio and broadcasting are government and corporate controlled. Qatar's despotic monarchy runs Al Jazeera. The New York Times and other major publications are instruments of state propaganda.

        Try finding a single MSM report explaining Ukraine's coup. Instituted by Washington. Ousting a democratic government. Replacing it with illegitimate fascist thugs. Systematically destroying human and civil rights. Eliminating opposition elements. Prohibiting a free press. Instituting total control over all information disseminated. Attacking independent journalists. Shutting down Russian language print and electronic media. Calling them "security threats." In bed with Western financial interests. At the expense of their own people. At war with them in Donbas. Dirty war. Without mercy. Using chemical and other illegal weapons. Conflict continues daily despite illegitimate/oligarch president Petro Poroshenko's "regime of silence." More on this below.

        On January 12, he lied. Saying war in Donbas will be over in two weeks. Ending it requires "simply fulfill(ing) the Minsk agreements signed in September." Like Hitler declaring peace in Europe before launching WW II.

        Fact check

        Last April, Washington, EU nations, Russia and Ukraine agreed to end violence. Deescalate tensions. Restore peace and stability. Kiev violated the four-party agreement straightaway. Escalated war. Blamed it irresponsibly on Donbas freedom fighters.

        On September 5, Kiev agreed to Minsk protocol provisions. Plus additional ones in a follow-up September 19 memorandum. Calling for ending hostilities. Banning all offensive operations. Withdrawing Kiev troops and foreign mercenaries from conflict areas. Dialoguing for peace, security and stability.

        Fighting never stopped. Shelling continues. Including throughout the holiday period. Into January. Kiev bears full responsibility for naked aggression. Since last April. With Washington's full support and encouragement. Kiev agreements aren't worth the paper they're written on. According to Donetsk People's Republic (DRP) deputy legislative speaker Denis Pushlin:

        Poroshenko's posturing "is pure bluff…He controls nothing in Donbas. Ukraine does not fulfill the Minsk agreements, and this is a fact." "What we are talking about? We see that they are shelling our settlements. Commanders of Ukrainian battalions openly say they are not obeying Poroshenko's orders."

        "How can he fulfill the Minsk agreements then? How can he be so definite about these two weeks?"

        He's a serial liar. Notoriously saying one thing. Doing another. Taking orders from Washington. Wanting Donbas democracy entirely crushed. Fascist rule replacing it. What area freedom fighters won't tolerate. Nor should anyone. On Monday, the Kiev Post headlined "Ukraine seals off roads to Donbas as fighting escalates."

        DPR leader Oleksandr Zakharchenko was quoted saying: "Honestly speaking I'm tired of all these negotiations. People who don't keep their words…well, I don't know." ... "We are ready for any talks. But in case it would be impossible to solve the conflict peacefully, we are ready to fight."

        Kiev intends greater conflict ahead. Stop NATO reported increased Ukraine military spending. During economic crisis conditions. Potential bankruptcy. Ukraine unable to operate without significant financial aid. It plans increasing its armed forces this year. To 250,000. "(A)s well as six mechanized brigades, a mountain infantry regiment, three artillery brigades and two army brigades," said Stop NATO. Why when Ukraine's only enemies are ones it invents. Its own Donbas citizens.

        Russia despite Moscow's all-out efforts for responsible dialogue. Diplomacy. Peaceful conflict resolution. Strict observance of international law. Washington systematically spurns it. So does Ukraine. Stop NATO's Rick Rozoff expressed justifiable concern. Something has to give. East/West confrontation assures trouble. Possible "nuclear war," he warned. On Monday, the reliable Vineyard of the Saker web site headlined "Je suis Ukraine. I fight terror. Yats (Yatsenyuk) is Charlie." Ukraine's "junta…dramatically stepped up shelling of Novorossiya (its Donetsk and Lugansk territories). "(T)ypical terror strikes…randomly aimed at the civilian sectors…(Most) worrisome…is confirmation by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that (Moscow has) intelligence showing (Kiev plans) a full scale assault…"

        On the one hand, extending peace overtures. On the other, intending escalated conflict. Blaming its aggression on Donbas victims. US and rogue NATO partners echo its Big Lies. Media scoundrels repeat them. When anything about Ukraine is reported.

        Propaganda substitutes for hard truths. Readers and viewers are systematically lied to. MSM scoundrels are a machine for the manufacture of Big Lies. It bears repeating. Ignore them. Nothing they report should be believed. Voice of Sevastopol (VoS) is a reliable source of Ukrainian news and information. Kiev's "so-called silent mode (was) accompanied by heavy artillery shelling of settlements of Donbas and active hostilities," it reported. Kiev junta attacks continue. Much like summer fighting. Ignored by media scoundrels. Kiev murdering civilians doesn't matter. Or destroying their homes and other property. Or causing hundreds of thousands to flee for their lives.Seeking safe havens. Many finding them in Russia. An oasis of stability amidst neighboring hostility.

        One of last year's key Maidan demands was ending corruption. Today it's greatly increased, said VoS. "Almost 80% of Ukrainians (say) over the last year…corruption became more spacious."

        On Monday, German, French, Russian and Ukrainian foreign ministers met in Berlin. The so-called Normandy Quartet. Established last June. In Normandy, France. Seeking solutions to Ukrainian crisis conditions. Monday's talks resolved nothing. Nor will future ones. Kiev deplores peace. Washington won't tolerate it. Conflict wasn't initiated to resolve things diplomatically. Fascist regimes don't operate this way.

        Sergey Lavrov said "the political process can be successful only when you start a direct dialogue, in this case between the representatives of the Ukrainian government and the proclaimed DPR and LPR, and they should feel fully involved in the political process as equal partners." Nothing remotely close to this exists. Nor will it ahead. Washington rules apply. Kiev intends crushing Donbas resistance. Wants despotism replacing democracy. Wants human and civil rights eliminated altogether.

        Its dirty war without end continues. Ceasefire is pure fantasy. None whatever exists. Nor will Kiev tolerate one. Short of unconditional surrender. What Donbas freedom fighters won't ever agree to. Nor should they. Freedom is too precious to sacrifice. Kiev blocked seven entry corridors to Donbas. A DPR Foreign Ministry statement accused it of violating fundamental free movement rights. "Additional restrictions…will only exacerbate the catastrophic humanitarian situation that our people have faced," it said.

        Kiev wants Donbas residents isolated. Starved to death. Total MSM silence on what demands headlines. Since April, Kiev committed continued high crimes against peace. They remain ongoing daily. Vauro Senesi is an Italian journalist. On January 1, he headlined "Non è possibile non scorgere un disegno pianificato di pulizia etnica." Senesi toured Lugansk. Impossible not to see ongoing ethnic cleansing, he said. Kiev-instituted slow-motion genocide. Targeting defenseless civilians. "(T)he local population, is being, on a daily basis, killed by battalions of the extreme right in the service of the puppet state of Kiev," said Senesi. "All this in the most absolute silence of the Italian (and other Western) media." "(F)ollowing the United States in this mad rush to the abyss against Russia." Donbas conditions are deplorable. A shell-caused breach in one apartment building reflects similar damage throughout the area. It's "so big you can see the other side of the building. (A) wall burned by fire…A mother lived there with her three kids." "There's nothing left of her or her children. The explosion blew everything to bits." "Grief, pain, fear – maybe all her emotions have been burned, reduced into rubble like the city she continues to live in."

        Pre-war, the area had 25,000 residents. Less than 8,000 remain. Most others fled to Russia. Where else could they be safe? "There is no electricity, no running water. The power plants, the water treatment plants, all destroyed by the bombardment," said Senisi. Artillery fire is constant. Senesi quoted a young man named Roman. Fighting for Donbas freedom. Unsure how much longer war will last. "We want peace," he said. "(B)ut on our bit of land." "Becoming part of Ukraine again is no longer a possibility. The Army of Ukraine has fired on its own people." "There's nothing for us but to resist to the end. Against the Nazis" representing Kiev. "They have swastikas on their uniforms. How is it possible that Europe supports them?" And America. "No Pasaran," said Roman! With raised fist. The salute of Spanish Civil War republicans. Committed to continue fighting.

        Senisi went from Lugansk to Stakanov, Pervomaisk and other areas. Everywhere he went he saw "schools, hospitals, factories, power plants, water pumping stations, all destroyed." "(S)corched earth," he said. Wanting an entire population eliminated. By slaughter or ethnic cleansing. Few people remain in Novosveltovka, he said. An old man took refuge in a basement. For days in the dark without food or water. Hungry dogs are dangerous. They attack people like beasts. Ukraine is Obama's war. LIke ongoing Afghan conflict without end. Iraq war III.

        Libya. Syria. Yemen. Somalia. Partnered with Israel against Palestine. Homeland wars against Blacks, Muslims and other targeted Americans. Wars without mercy. Permanent ones. Continued mass slaughter and destruction. It bears repeating. No nation in world history reflects more pure evil than America. No time more perilous than now. More urgent than ever for resistance. World peace hangs in the balance.

        Stephen Lendman is a writer, syndicated columnist, activist, News TV personality, and radio show host.He currently writes for MoneyNewsNow.com and VeteransToday.com and hosts, since 2007, a progressive radio show at The Progressive Radio News Hour on The Progressive Radio Network.

        Stephen Lendman was born in 1934 in Boston, MA, raised in a modest middle income family, attended public schools, received a Harvard BA in 1956 and a Wharton MBA in 1960. After six years as a marketing research analyst, Lendman became part of a new small family business in 1967, remaining there until retiring in 1999.

        Since then, he has devoted his time to progressive causes, extensive reading, and since summer 2005 writing on vital world and national topics, including war and peace, American imperialism, corporate dominance, political persecutions, and a range of other social, economic and political issues.

        He is also author of the celebrated books "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity" and "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War".

        [May 31, 2015]Why the US is Finally Talking to Russia

        May 31, 2015 | Sputnik International
        So a woman walks into a room… That's how quite a few jokes usually start. In our case, self-appointed Queen of Nulandistan Victoria "F**k the EU" walks into a room in Moscow to talk to Russian deputy foreign ministers Sergei Ryabkov and Grigory Karasin.

        A joke? Oh no; that really happened. Why?

        Let's start with the official reactions. Karasin qualified the talks as "fruitful", while stressing Moscow does not approve of Washington becoming part of the Normandy-style (Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France) negotiations on Ukraine. Not after the relentless demonization not only of the Kremlin but also of Russia as a whole since the Maidan coup.

        Ryabkov, for his part, made it known the current state of the US-Russia relationship remains, well, corrosive.

        It's crucial to remember the Queen of Nulandistan went to Moscow only after meeting with certified Washington vassal President Poroshenko and her own, hand-picked Prime Minister, "Yats"; and that was before accompanying Secretary of State John Kerry on the full regalia State Department trip to Sochi on May 12.

        The Minsk-2 agreement – the actual product of the Normandy-style negotiations – directly involved Berlin and Paris, who finally saw the realpolitik on the wall and were compelled to divert from Washington's monomaniac antagonistic approach.

        Inside the EU, chaos remains on the key subject of sanctions. The Baltics and Poland toe the "Russians are coming!" Cold War 2.0 hysteria line, while the adults in Brussels are represented by Italy, Greece, Spain and Hungary.

        So Germany and France are already in deep trouble keeping the messy EU house in order. At the same time Berlin and Paris know nothing the self-described "Don't Do Stupid Stuff" Obama administration pulls off will mollify Moscow to abandon its precise red lines.

        Watch Those Red Lines

        It's crucial to notice that Crimea does not seem to be on the table anymore; it's a fait accompli. But then there are those U.S. "military trainers" who have been deployed to western Ukraine only for a "six-month mission" (historical reminder; this is how the Vietnam war started). For Moscow, expansion of this "mission" is an absolute red line.

        And then there's the ultimate red line; NATO expansion, which remains unabated in the Baltics, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. That won't stop; it's part of NATO's obsession in solidifying a new Iron Curtain from the Baltics to the Black Sea.

        Thus, beyond all the talking, the next step to watch is whether the Obama administration will really refrain from weaponizing Kiev.

        Ukraine for all practical purposes is now a massively indebted failed state turned into an IMF colony. The EU does not want it – although NATO does. For Moscow, the – ghastly – show will only be over when Ukraine, with or without the people's republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, is neutral, and not part of a NATO strategic threat.

        I have examined here the possibility that the Obama administration's strategic shift towards talking instead of cursing/threatening may signify that the real Masters of the Universe have finally understood the emerging New (Silk) World Order is bound to leave them behind.

        ... ... ...

        Strategy? What Strategy?

        The Dr. Zbig "Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski-style strategy has always been to lure Russia into another Afghanistan in Ukraine, leading to a collapse of the Russian economy with the Big Prize being a Western takeover of Russia's oil and natural gas wealth, and by extension Central Asia's. Ukrainians would be used as cannon fodder, as were Afghans since the 1980s Arab-Afghan jihad.

        Yet the Obama administration overplayed its hand, and realpolitik now spells out the deepening of the Russia-China strategic partnership across the entire Eurasian land mass; Eurasia as a prospective, massive commercial emporium stretching from Beijing to Berlin, or from Shanghai to St. Petersburg and beyond towards Rotterdam and Duisburg.

        Without the exceptionalist obsession of some key Beltway factions, none of the elements of Cold War 2.0 would be in play, as Russia is a natural ally of the US in many fronts. That in itself reveals the state of "strategic thinking" by the current US administration.

        Moscow, anyway, won't be caught off-guard by the current, barely disguised, charm offensive, because Russian intelligence knows that may well veil a "Grand Chessboard"-style tactic of two steps back to regroup for a massive advance later.

        Moreover, nothing has basically changed other than the original, dissuasive Cold War era MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction – doctrine being over.

        The US still retains PGS (Prompt Global Strike) capability. Ukraine is just a detail. The real game-changer will happen when Russia is able to seal its whole territory, via the S-500s, against PGS. That will happen sooner than anyone thinks. And that's why the real Masters of the Universe – via their emissaries – feel compelled to talk.

        The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

        See also

        Western Isolation of Moscow Helps Putin, Opens New Opportunities for Russia

        [May 30, 2015] Rand Paul declares surveillance war and hints at filibuster for NSA reform

        "By collecting all of your records, we're wasting so much money, so much time, and the haystack's so large we can't find the terrorists," Paul said. "I'm for looking at all of the terrorists' records – I just want their name on the warrant and I just want it to be signed by a judge just like the constitution says."
        Spiegel said it is Expired.... And they are a NSA Fish Wrap..... http://m.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/a-1036475.html
        Notable quotes:
        "... With controversial provisions of the Patriot Act scheduled to run out at midnight on Sunday, Paul, the Kentucky senator and Republican presidential hopeful, fielded questions about how he intended to win privacy campaigners a long hoped-for victory. ..."
        "... "I think a lot of people in America agree with me," Paul said, "that your phone records should not be collected by your government, unless they suspect you of a crime and unless they call a judge and unless a warrant has your name on it." ..."
        "... Apparently the real problem is Executive Order 12333, under which almost all of the mass surveillance is "authorized". ..."
        "... By the time someone is a party candidate, they've already been bought off. National write-in. ..."
        "... politicians listen to corporations and shareholders. What corporations dictate, their political lapdogs obediently listens. ..."
        "... Please, tell me that porn sites are involved in this. Cut off Congress's porn access and they will be putty in our hands. ..."
        "... "This is a blackout," read the site to which computers from congressional IP addresses were redirected. "We are blocking your access until you end mass surveillance laws." ..."
        May 29, 2015 | The Guardian

        Rand Paul indicated his intention on Friday to filibuster a surveillance reform bill that he considers insufficient, as privacy advocates felt momentum to tear the heart out of the Bush-era Patriot Act as its Snowden-era expiration date approaches.

        With controversial provisions of the Patriot Act scheduled to run out at midnight on Sunday, Paul, the Kentucky senator and Republican presidential hopeful, fielded questions about how he intended to win privacy campaigners a long hoped-for victory.

        ... ... ...

        "By collecting all of your records, we're wasting so much money, so much time, and the haystack's so large we can't find the terrorists," Paul said. "I'm for looking at all of the terrorists' records – I just want their name on the warrant and I just want it to be signed by a judge just like the constitution says."

        ... ... ...

        "Right now we're having a little bit of a war in Washington," Paul said at the rally on Friday. "It's me versus some of the rest of them – or a lot of the rest of them."

        ... ... ...

        In the middle is a bill that fell three votes shy of a 60-vote threshold. The USA Freedom Act, supported by Obama, junks the NSA's bulk collection of US phone records in exchange for extending the lifespan of the Patriot Act's controversial FBI powers.

        While McConnell, Obama and many Freedom Act supporters describe those powers as crucial, a recent Justice Department report said the expiring "business records" provision has not led to "any major case developments". Another power set to expire, the "roving wiretap" provision, has been linked to abuse in declassified documents; and the third, the "lone wolf" provision, has never been used, the FBI confirmed to the Guardian.

        ... ... ...

        The White House has long backed passage of the USA Freedom Act, calling it the only available mechanism to save the Patriot Act powers ahead of expiration now that the House has recessed until Monday.

        Obama on Friday chastised what he said were "a handful of Senators" standing in the way of passing the USA Freedom Act, who he alleged risked creating an intelligence lapse.

        James Clapper, the director of national intelligence whom Paul has criticized for lying to Congress about surveillance, issued a rare plea to pass a bill he has reluctantly embraced in order to retain Patriot Act powers.

        "At this late date, prompt passage of the USA Freedom Act by the Senate is the best way to minimize any possible disruption of our ability to protect the American people," Clapper said on Friday.

        At the Beacon Drive-in diner in Spartanburg, Paul chastised proponents of the Patriot Act for arguing the law would prevent another 9/11. "Bull!" a woman in the crowd exclaimed, as others groaned at the national security excuse cited by more hawkish lawmakers.

        "I think a lot of people in America agree with me," Paul said, "that your phone records should not be collected by your government, unless they suspect you of a crime and unless they call a judge and unless a warrant has your name on it."

        Multiple polls released this month have found overwhelming public antipathy for government surveillance.

        Still, it remains unclear if the USA Freedom Act has the votes to pass. Senate rules permit Paul to effectively block debate on the bill until expiration. Few who are watching the debate closely felt on Friday that they knew how Sunday's dramatic session would resolve.

        But privacy groups, sensing the prospect of losing one of their most reviled post-9/11 laws, were not in a mood to compromise on Friday.

        "Better to let the Patriot Act sunset and reboot the conversation with a more fulsome debate," said Anthony Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

        See also:

        Trenton Pierce -> phrixus 30 May 2015 21:18

        He opposes indefinite detention in the NDAA, he opposes TPP and the fast track. He opposes the militarization of local police. He opposes the secrecy of the Federal Reserve. He opposes unwarranted civil asset forfeiture. He opposes no-knock home searches. He opposes the failed drug war. He opposes war without congressional approval. What is it about him you don't like?

        Trenton Pierce -> masscraft 30 May 2015 21:14

        Then line up behind Rand. He polls the best against Hilary. The era of big government Republican is over. Realize that or get ready for your Democrat rule.

        Vintage59 -> Nedward Marbletoe 30 May 2015 16:20

        The machine would chew him up and spit him out and he's smart enough to know that.

        ripogenus 30 May 2015 07:47

        Just listened to NPR's On the Media. They did a special podcast just on the patriot act and the consequences if it expires. Apparently the real problem is Executive Order 12333, under which almost all of the mass surveillance is "authorized".

        seasonedsenior 29 May 2015 22:20

        New technology is beginning to equal the playing field somewhat whether it be video of police misconduct or blocking out Congress from 10,000 websites to stop NSA spying. This part of technology is a real positive. There are too many secrets in our democracy-light that should be exposed for the greater good. There is too much concentrated power that needs to be opened up. I am happy to see these changes happening. Keep up the good work.

        AmyInNH cswanson420 29 May 2015 22:12

        By the time someone is a party candidate, they've already been bought off. National write-in.

        Viet Nguyen -> cswanson420 29 May 2015 17:44

        politicians listen to corporations and shareholders. What corporations dictate, their political lapdogs obediently listens.

        Best examples? Retarded laws that discriminate against gay people in states like Indiana. When major corporations such as Wal-Mart and Apple, who only cares about money, condemn such retarded laws with potential boycotts, their political lackeys quickly follow in line.

        I am waiting for another multinational corporation to declare the NSA process detrimental to businesses, and see how many former government supporters of the NSA do a complete 180 degree stance flip.

        EdChamp -> elaine layabout 29 May 2015 17:22

        Please, tell me that porn sites are involved in this. Cut off Congress's porn access and they will be putty in our hands.

        Congratulations! You win the award of the day for that one gleaming guardian comment that truly made me smile.

        Repent House 29 May 2015 16:13

        "This is a blackout," read the site to which computers from congressional IP addresses were redirected. "We are blocking your access until you end mass surveillance laws."

        This is so freekin awesome... mess with the bull you get the horns as I always say! They seem to under estimate the strength, knowledge, tenacity, of the "AMERICAN PEOPLE" This is what we need to do on a wider scale for a number of things wrong! Awesome!

        [May 30, 2015]Dare to say NATO no

        May 27, 2015 | Aftonbladet

        ...Politicians and editors look for opportunities to step up its campaign for the accession to NATO, and in the spring of 2016, the parliament is expected to approve a host-country agreements that make it easier for NATO to with Swedish permission to use our territory as a base for military activities, "including the attack", "in peace, emergencies, crisis and conflict or international tensions".

        Everything appears to be – and sold – as a speedy response to Russian aggression. Sweden and other countries are prepared after the end of the cold war in the belief that European peace was secured. But the president saw in our kindness as a weakness and took the opportunity to obtain tear up a security order that has prevailed for decades.

        The story goes is repeated again and again every day in our media. Vladimir Putin, with the annexation of Crimea and support for separatists in eastern Ukraine have shown "that he does not respect the European order that had been in place since the second world war and statutes that borders cannot be changed by force", writes, for example, the Daily News, in an editorial on January 12.

        Such an argument is a deliberate memory gap. MSM presstitutes push the button "forget" and suddenly a decade of war in the former Yugoslavia erased from the public consciousness.

        We can argue about reasons and circumstances of intervention, but it is undeniable that the USA, NATO and EU countries intervened using military force to redraw the map of the Balkans. The leadership in Moscow has thus set a precedent to cite. Putin reiterates at the conflicts with Georgia and Ukraine, word-for-word the reasons the western powers claimed for the bombing of Serbia and the recognition of cessation of Kosovo.

        But the right to put himself above the principles of the inviolability of borders and non-interference in other countries ' internal affairs is in our official propaganda worldview a privilege reserved for the "international community", which is in reality the United States and its entourage of small and medium-sized European satellites. International law applies to all other states, but not for the United States, NATO and the EU.

        NATO expanded in 1999 their mutual defense obligations to include global dangers such as terrorism and the "disruption of the flow of vital resources", and in 2003, the EU adopted its first security strategy, inspired by the Bush doctrine on the right to preventive war against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction: "With the new threats the first line of defense will often be abroad ... We need to develop a strategic culture that fosters early, rapid, and when necessary, robust intervention."

        It was the doctrine of the first line of defense – not the dreams of peace, who guided the Swedish defense military industrial complex. Territorial defense was abandoned at the end of the 1990s, literally send to the junkyard. What was left was prestigious military projects in industry and the individual units of professional soldiers trained for NATO operations in foreign countries. The restructuring was led by a consulting firm from the united states, closely tied to the Pentagon, the NSA and the CIA The armed forces would prepare for "global action - especially in the continents of the world in which Sweden has a vital economic and/or political interests," the consultants wrote in a secret report.

        "Sweden's role as a regional power in the Baltic sea changed from neutrality to leadership", was said. Now for some reason "koalitionskrigföring and Sweden's ability to operate in collaboration with organizations such as NATO ... get a new and greater significance". This was written in 1998, long before the war in Ukraine.

        When the U.S. interest in the Arctic and the north flank, now rising to the fore the plans. Sweden becomes a bridgehead in the quest to penetrate back to Russia. Gotland will again be anchored, Russian submarines tops the news and B-52 bombers taking over the sky.

        The major powers have never hesitated to tramp the UN-principles, but with the doctrine of the preventive intervention there is nothing left of the respect of all the member states' sovereignty. If NATO considers itself have the right to place a first line of defense in Afghanistan or Libya, then does not Russia the same rights in Ukraine?

        The Russian leadership will see in the western privilege for preemptive interventions a precedent. Europe is sinking into a black hole that draws misfortune of countries and people.

        Several politicians, editors, and the military now proclaim that that we should jump in, leave the last of the neutrality and comply with NATO going directly into the black hole. Multiyear efforts of dragging the country into the the alliance, shall result in the membership.

        We should do the opposite. Pull us out. Keep us away. Say yes to the exclusion.

        It reduces the risk that our own government or the foreign power will drag us into the war. But not only that. Swedish neutrality is also an opening for the people in eastern Europe who are looking for a rescue out of the tug-of-war between the Russian oil and gas barons, domestic oligarchs and western financial oligarchs.

        Being outside zone of US protectorate, we can jointly deal with the social issues.

        More can be read about the NATO mutual försvarsförpliktelser in "The Alliance's Strategic Concept, Approved by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Washington, D. C., 990424".

        The text was written in 1998 is available in the "SAIC: Perspective Study Dominant? Awareness 2020", Final Report, September 2, 1998, For The Swedish High Command, p. 5, 7

        [May 28, 2015] Ukraine financial catastrophe of 2014 2015

        Notable quotes:
        "... According to UN standards a person lives below the poverty line, if one spends life and food less than 5 USD a day, or less than $150 a month . The subsistence minimum in Ukraine today is defined in 1176 UAH, i.e. about 50 dollars a month - less than two dollars a day. ..."
        "... So the Ukrainians in poverty are already close to residents of African countries, which spend an average of 1.25 per day US dollars, was heard on "Radio Liberty". ..."
        "... "What is subsistence? It's not just food, it and public transportation, and household services, and utilities, and clothing. Overlooked in the subsistence minimum medical services and education. If we analyze these factors, we can understand that Ukrainians are below the threshold of absolute poverty," ..."
        "... Today more than 80% of Ukrainians live below the poverty line, the UN data show. In 2012, according to the world organization, only 15% of Ukrainian citizens existed on 5 dollars a day. ..."
        foreignpolicy.com

        According to UN standards a person lives below the poverty line, if one spends life and food less than 5 USD a day, or less than $150 a month . The subsistence minimum in Ukraine today is defined in 1176 UAH, i.e. about 50 dollars a month - less than two dollars a day.

        So the Ukrainians in poverty are already close to residents of African countries, which spend an average of 1.25 per day US dollars, was heard on "Radio Liberty".

        "What is subsistence? It's not just food, it and public transportation, and household services, and utilities, and clothing. Overlooked in the subsistence minimum medical services and education. If we analyze these factors, we can understand that Ukrainians are below the threshold of absolute poverty," stressed Shipko.

        According to the Deputy, the minimum wage in Ukraine at the current exchange rate of the national Bank should be approximately 3750 UAH - the only way the Ukrainians will be able at least get requred $5 a day.

        Today more than 80% of Ukrainians live below the poverty line, the UN data show. In 2012, according to the world organization, only 15% of Ukrainian citizens existed on 5 dollars a day.

        Ukrainian women do not want to bear children through insecurity and inability to pay for the hospital and diaper.

        [May 28, 2015] Neocons The Men of Dementia By William R. Polk

        May 27, 2015 | Consortiumnews
        In the classic novel Don Quixote de la Mancha, the great Spanish writer Cervantes explored the danger of mixing delusions of grandeur with adventurous combat. Yet, today instead of the man of la Mancha, we have the neocons playing the men (and some women) of dementia, as ex-diplomat William R. Polk describes.

        It was over half a century ago that I first read Cervantes' marvelous novel, Don Quixote de la Mancha. I was then studying at the University of Chile, trying to learn Spanish, and Don Quixote was the first novel I remember reading. Or, to be honest, "reading at" because my Spanish was still weak and the text is full of unfamiliar expressions. Also, I was very young and did not know enough about the world to understand fully what Cervantes was saying.

        But he had a remarkable gift of writing on different levels. His tale could be enjoyed as just a good story or more profoundly. So, despite my shortcomings, he caught me in his magical web. A few years later, somewhat better equipped, I dipped into Don Quixote again in a delightful course on satire I was taking as an undergraduate at Harvard.

        Pablo Picasso's 1955 painting of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza.

        So now I have gone back. Or not quite back. Not quite, because I now can put both of those early ventures into a new perspective from experiences I have had and observations I have made over the last half century. I now realize that what Cervantes wrote about his own times could be applied to ours.

        Cervantes was writing about themes that recur often and are particularly apposite today. Indeed, the auguries suggest that they may be virtually a prediction. His "Ingenious Hidalgo Don Quixote" can be read as an amalgam of several of our own "knights errant," and his accounts of his hidalgo's adventures foreshadowed some of the wilder forays into combat of our own warriors.

        A terrifying thought at least to me is that the hints and themes we can read into his story may be played out in the aftermath of the next election. So, laugh with Cervantes - or shudder with me - over a few pages of his fable.

        He begins by anchoring us in place, En un lugar de la Mancha, de cuyo nombre no quiero acordarme ("in a place on the Plain whose name I don't wish to remember"). As I now transpose it to Washington D.C., he might have written, "at little town in Foggy Bottom whose name I don't wish to remember."

        Then he introduces the target of his satire, Don Quixote: no ha much tiempo que vivía un hidalgo de los de lanza en astillero, adarga antigua, rocín flaco y galgo corredor ("not much time has passed since there lived one of those gentlemen of the sort who keeps a lance hanging on the wall, an ancient shield, a bony mare and a greyhound"),

        At this point, one stops. Who in our times might fit such a description? Are there such eccentric would-be warriors holed up in government offices, think tanks or war colleges with the symbols of warfare and the hunt flaunted above their desks?

        A memory pops into my mind: yes, I remember when it was quite fashionable to festoon the walls of offices in the Executive Office Building, the old State and War Departments, of the White House, with the modern equivalents of Quixote's lance. Battle-scarred weapons fashioned by the Vietcong were particularly favored. Some of us even brought our hounds (but not our nags) into our offices.

        But in those far-off days, knights errant were few even in Foggy Bottom. Now, they seem to have multiplied beyond counting. So, could we single out anyone as our Don Quixote? Names of candidates flow past my inner eye. Indeed, even Cervantes puzzled over the name of his hero. He offers several alternatives.

        We might do the same. The character we need to fit his story is an arm-chair warrior who is carried away by his occult reading to the point that he is prepared to embark (or at least to send others to embark) on great (and disastrous) adventures in faraway lands, and whose grip on reality is, like Don Quixote's, to say the least, faulty.

        We have a legion of candidates who fit that bill. So it is hard to pick a single name. Never mind. As Cervantes wrote, the name "matters little for our account; it is enough that the narrative does not depart a single point from the truth." (esto importa poco a nuestro cuento; basta que en la narracíon dél no se salga un punto de la verdad.)

        Being accurate or at least suggestive within reasonable bounds was very important for Cervantes and is also important for us because the tale we - the combination of Cervantes classically and I in modern terms - relate is hard to believe.

        The Land of Neocons

        As I say, many of our great statesmen come to mind, but the richest lode is to be found in the neoconservative movement. Whoa! I pull on the reins of my imagination. Could Cervantes have imagined a Dick Cheney? A Paul Wolfowitz? One of the Kristols? Surely such figures are to be seen only in our times?

        Well, no. Not at all. History provides quite a few ancestors for them. However, as the text of the book makes clear, Cervantes' hidalgo was a complex character who not only read and fantasized but actually himself also went out and fought. Doing both narrows the field rather drastically.

        It is hard to find one of the great statesmen we read about, much less those we know in our times, who both proclaimed policy and themselves went into harm's way. In the "leisure of the theory class," as Veblen has been amended for our times, the armchair was found to be much more comfortable than the helicopter bucket seat. So, Cervantes would have had to invent a combination of something like Paul Wolfowitz and David Petraeus.

        And, of course, he would have transposed Don Quixote's lance, shield, bony mare and greyhound. They don't quite do in our day. So consider our modern Don Quixote trading them in for a fighter-bomber, a Patriot missile system, an aircraft carrier and, although this may be stretching it even for Cervantes, a drone in place of the greyhound.

        Never mind. Don't quibble about the tools of the trade. Cervantes, himself, was less concerned with the artifacts than with the mind of his hero. As he tells us, Don Quixote had read so many romantic tales about the glorious adventures of knights errant that "the poor fellow lost his reason to such an extent that not even Aristotle could have untangled the wild imaginations that he believed, were he to be brought back to life just to do that job." (Con estes razones perdía el pobre caballero el juicio y desvelábase por entendarlas y desestrañarles el sentido que no se sacara ni las entendiera el mesmo Aristóteles, si resucitara para solo ella.)

        To try to understand what all the writings were about and what they told him to do, Don Quixote talked with the learned priest of his village. Just so, our modern Don Quixote, having imbibed and partly understood the neoconservative bizarre view of human affairs, consulted with the High Priest of neoconservatism, Leo Strauss, who held forth in his "village" as the President of the University of Chicago once referred to its department of political science. But, as we shall see, Don Quixote chose a rather better guide than did our policy makers.

        Cervantes was not kind about the writings of such philosophers. He shows his poor hero dazzled by the intricacies and blind alleys of the outpouring of his version of the great myth peddler. Cervantes has his spinner of tales, a man known as Feliciano de Silva, leading his avid but disoriented devoté into a maze with "clarity of the prose and intricacy of reasoning" exemplified by such marvels as "the reason of unreason affects my reason to such a degree that my reason withers away…" (La razón de la sinrazón que a mi rasón se hace, de tal maner, mi razón enflaquence…)

        That is, put rather more prosaically, logic and facts cease to matter. It is the vision of romantic action against demonic forces that give the necessary energy for wild endeavors. Thought becomes a banner to signal the grand campaign. And, as Cervantes said, razón enflaquence…reason withers away.

        Finally, as Cervantes tells us, his Don Quixote became so immersed in such readings that he passed the nights from dusk to dawn and the days from dawn to dusk "until finally the brain dried up and he came to lose his mind. Having filled himself with the fantasies he had read in de Silva's writings, imaginary happenings became actual for him [and] no other interpretation of the world was more real."

        "As a result, having lost his mind, he hit on the strangest plan that had ever occurred to a crazy person anywhere: it came to seem to him appropriate and necessary both to augment his own honor and to serve his republic to make himself a knight errant and take himself around the world with his weapons and on his mount to seek adventures and to put into practice all he had read… becoming a knight errant, going about the world with his arms and mount, seeking adventures, righting every manner of wrong and by putting himself in situations of great peril to make famous his name. The poor fellow imagined himself crowned for his valor, at the very least, with the empire of Trebizond; so with these agreeable thoughts in mind, he immediately set out to put into effect his plan."

        But he faced an immediate obstacle: having decided to venture into the dangerous world, Don Quixote realizes that he must be properly "entitled" - that is, he could not afford to be seen as an outlaw or a war criminal but must be recognized as a person legally or at least officially entitled to engage in combat to overthrow and to kill the wicked.

        So he seeks someone to dub him a knight, which in contemporary terms would give him legitimacy. Just so, the neoconservatives realized that it was not enough simply to proclaim their doctrine in their journals even if that attracted to their cause real warriors who could put it into effect. Rather they must be vested with authority. Even intellectuals, after all, need to be "knighted" if they are to perform acts that when done unofficially or by ordinary citizens are crimes.

        Seeking Authority

        So, after an agonized delay in which he found no proper authority to knight him, Don Quixote comes upon an inn whose keeper emerges to welcome him. To our would-be knight errant the inn is a castle and the keeper is its lord just as our Don Quixote found his authority to be the lord of the White House. Cervantes has his Don Quixote say – and we can be sure that our Wolfowitz-Petraeus spoke similarly - these magic words,

        "My adornments are my arms,

        My leisure is to fight."

        Then, before the proprietor of the house, Don Quixote falls on his knees, saying "I will never raise myself from where I am, Illustrious Lord, until you have given me what I seek, that which will spread your fame and do good to all humanity …. that I may go forth equipped with the necessary credentials as an armed knight such as never before was to be found in the world."

        One can only imagine how the modern bond was forged. However it was done, we know that our modern hero-to-be was welcomed into the "House" by its Great Lord who proceeded to anoint him with the signs of high office. Neither would have been put off by the earlier hero's expectations:

        "Who could doubt that in the coming times, when my glorious deeds emerge in the light of true history … my brave deeds will deserve to be cast in bronze, carved in marble and painted on canvasses to be seen for all time. Ah you! Wise enchanter of the future! Whoever you may be. To you will fall the honor of chronicling my great crusade!"

        He also admonished the future historian not to forget his warhorse.

        And so, in our marvelous age of instant history, it happened as predicted - or requested. It was not long before that very chronicle appeared. Written not about Don Quixote, of course, but about his modern and only partial successor, Paul Wolfowitz, under the title Visionary Intellectual, Policymaker and Strategist. The author was so fulsome that he certainly did not forget the "warhorse," the great weapons of war.

        Back to the Inn/Castle/White House, the keeper/lord/president mentions that although he had not read - he was not noted for his reading– the marvelous accounts that had so affected both the old and the new Don Quixotes, while still a young man he too had wandered the world, seeking adventures.

        In place of Seville, Malaga, Cordoba and Toledo, in the earlier account, read New Haven, Cambridge, Austin and Dallas - and, after a number of shady enterprises, as we are told by Cervantes earlier and by the media in our times, they both had entered their "houses."Castle lords or not, they both were empowered to dub anyone a knight "or at least as much a knight as anyone in the world was." (y tan caballero, que no pudeiese más en el mundo.)

        So empowered, Don Quixote sets out on his first venture, rushing to "regime change" a tyranny. It happened like this:

        As Don Quixote was riding along, he heard moans coming from a forest he was passing. Looking for a cause for which to fight, he exclaimed "I give thanks to Heaven for giving me so soon a means to carry out my calling." With that, he rode into the forest where he saw a "stout rustic" lashing a poor boy. Don Quixote exploded in anger and, thinking that the rustic was a knight, challenged him to a fight. The peasant tried to excuse himself by saying that the boy had been stealing from him and was not protecting his sheep. And "he says I am a miser who does not want to pay him what I owe him."

        Furious, our hero threatens the tyrant with his lance and orders him to pay the boy at once or "if not, by The God, I will make an end to you." (Pagadle luego sín más réplica; si no, por el Dios que nos rige que os concluya y aniquile en este punto. Desatadlo luego.)

        So it happened also that when our modern heroes rode through the deserts of the Middle East, they saw a robust fellow (Iraq) mistreating a little fellow (Kuwait). When our heroes accosted him, the big fellow said that the little fellow was stealing his oil and not helping him protect his flock (the Arab nations) from the advancing Iranians. So Iraq, who had no money "with him" as Cervantes says of the lout Don Quixote encountered, said he could not pay Kuwait what it owed it.

        In Cervantes' tale: the bully said he would take the little boy under his control and promised eventually to pay him the money. The boy was terrified and said that he would never trust the bully. But Don Quixote brushed his worries aside and said that he had given orders, which the peasant would obey. The boy need not worry; all would be well. And, if the peasant did not pay, he, Don Quixote would return and punish him.

        Waiting until the valiant knight was out of sight, the peasant then tied the boy again to the tree and lashed him nearly to death.

        So what happened in the story as it unfolded in our times? Our replacement of the peasant, the dictator of Iraq, consulted with the American ambassador who told him that we really took no position on what happened to the boy, Kuwait. The Americans apparently meant that the Saddam Hussein should be allowed a little "beating" of Kuwait, but not too much.

        Saddam took that to give him permission, a "green light," as America had flashed to another dictator in far-off Indonesia. So he grabbed Kuwait. The Americans were surprised by the ferocity of the attack because they thought he would not take all of the country. That is, not beat the "boy" nearly to death, as Cervantes's rustic set about doing.

        "And in this manner," wrote Cervantes, "the valorous Don Quixote righted the wrong, being very happy that everything turned out so well according to the high ideals of knighthood."

        Wisely, Cervantes had his hero ride happily away. It was not so, as we know, in the modern version. Infuriated that Saddam went too far, the Americans returned to punish him. Then, having announced that they had imposed the high ideals of democracy, literally at the point of the lance, our modern heroes stayed on at the house of the cruel peasant, tore it apart and killed many of his family – and are still there.

        As Cervantes makes clear and as we know from experience not only in Iraq but in a string of other countries, the intervention of the great warrior resulted in the total breakdown of social institutions, security, justice and protection of the weak.

        Cervantes could not have imagined how many times and in how many places his parable would be reenacted! But already, he realized that "regime change" gives birth to chaos and misery.

        When Don Quixote finally got back to his own house, having been severely beaten in another encounter on the way, his friends decided that it would be an act of mercy to demolish the fantasies that had driven him mad and had nearly gotten him killed.

        The great man's housekeeper thought that all that was necessary was to sprinkle Holy Water on the books in his library, but his friends thought that the ridiculous doctrine could be erased only by sterner action. They were too late. He was already infected by the ideas he had imbibed.

        I leave it to the reader to draw the modern parallel. Is it too late for us and our valiant leaders to realize how pernicious are the delusions they have imbed, how many lives they have cost, how much treasure they have wasted? We cannot be sure, but the trends are against us.

        Suffice it to say that the neoconservatives are again plugging their dangerous policies and myopic views of cultures and societies and urging more mummery despite the record of their past malpractice. Behind the buzzwords of counterinsurgency and "nation building," they caused and then justified not only the great harm done to those who stood in their way but also violations of those principles that have guided our democracy.

        Cervantes catches this violation neatly. Since one of the books Don Quixote had been reading was called The Knight of the Cross, Cervantes has the village priest remark that "behind the cross stands the devil." (mas también se suele decir, "tras la cruz está el diablo.) Or, as we might transpose it to modern terms, behind the philosophical musings of Leo Strauss lurk the violent warmongering of the neoconservatives and the justifications for the rise of the "security state."

        These collections were both pernicious, but undoubtedly the results of the impact of Strauss were far worse. They were directly harmful to our liberty and well-being.

        Sancho Panza

        It is here where Cervantes introduces Sancho Panza whom some readers find to be an even more complex character than the great knight himself. Often a man of good sense, sometimes even noble and generous, he was also greedy and inconsistent. He was fair game for Don Quixote, and our wild warrior quickly brought Sancho into his court. Who was he?

        As Cervantes describes him, he was "a working man, living nearby, a good man (if such a title could be given to a poor man) but not very bright; so after inveigling him with (soothing) words and (lavish) promises, he got the poor hick to agree to go with him and serve him as his squire.

        Among other things Don Quixote argued was that he ought to be willing to go along because, if their venture succeeded, they would win some island of which he would become governor. With these promises and others, Sancho Panza, although himself a simple working man, gave up his fields, left his wife and children and signed on as squire."

        It is hard to avoid reading Barack Obama into the character of Sancho. Having listened to the brave words of the neoconservatives, Obama and many members of Jefferson's, Jackson's and Roosevelt's Party of "the common man," the Democrats, readily gave up their customary fields of concern, the well-being of their families and fellow citizens, said goodbye to their long-time partners and rushed off as followers of the new doctrine in pursuit some distant "island" where they could win both laurels and emoluments.

        As they rode along together, Sancho (here the opportunistic Democrat) assured Don Quixote (here the Obama convert to Bush's policies) that "if you give me that island you promised, I will rule it, no matter how big it is."

        But, as I have said, Sancho was a complex figure and another part of his personality – his innate common sense – comes out in the most famous of the great knight's misadventures, the attack on the windmills.

        As Cervantes tells the story, the great knight suddenly sighted some windmills and turning to his newly commissioned acolyte said, "luck has brought us even more than we could have desired; for there you see, Friend Sancho Panza, revealed before you 30 or a few more vicious giants with whom I think to do battle, deprive them of their lives [and] with whose spoils we will begin to enrich ourselves for this is a just war and is a great service to God to drive such vile species from the Earth."

        An astonished Sancho, blurted out, "What giants?"

        "Those you see before you," replied Don Quixote. "those with the long arms…"

        "Look, Your Excellency," Sancho replied, what you see there are not giants, only windmills and what seems to be long arms are just wings to catch the wind and make the millstone turn."

        "It is clear," continued Don Quixote, that you do not understand such matters. Those are giants. And if you are fainthearted, stand aside and say your prayers while I engage them in fierce and unequal battle." With that the valiant knight spurred his horse into battle. [I have condensed the beginning section of Chapter 8.]

        We all have heard the story of what happened next: the windmill's wings caught the knight's lance, pulled him and his horse into the air and smashed them onto the ground. And, as Cervantes tells us, he was particularly grieved over the breaking of his lance.

        To convert Cervantes to our times, imagine, I ask you, that the windmill was the little perceived, simple and otherwise engaged country of Afghanistan. Without much thought of the danger or the cost and no perceived consideration of alternative actions, we charged in and like him were caught in the whirling melee of its fiercely independent people.

        Don Quixote was, of course, mad, but his action was unprecedented; we, in contrast, whether mad or not, had ample warnings from the experiences of the British and the Russians. Both the British and the Russians had lost their armies and their "lances" jousting there. Our Don Quixote, now multiplied by tens of thousands, paid a heavy price both for knowing no history and for having believed the wild dogmas of the neoconservatives.

        Could this painful venture - and all our other escapades in Vietnam, Somalia, Libya (and now perhaps Syria and even Ukraine) have been avoided? An attempt to answer that question takes us back to Sancho Panza. Sancho was a realist and tried to dissuade the knight errant from some of his dementia, but he - like modern Democrats - also sought to profit from the dementia. Recognizing Sancho's venality, Don Quixote promised him a kingdom if he obeyed.

        In our times, the "kingdom" is not a faraway and imaginary island but victory at the polls, promotions and even the forges of "lances." These rewards come about more easily and quicker from sound and fury than from careful and constructive action.

        Cervantes got it right. Don Quixote's flights of madness are addictive. Eventually, even Sancho was converted. And today, as we see almost daily the Obama administration has taken over the major aspects of the neoconservative creed. Looking to a future of the probable choice between a Hilary Clinton and a Jeb Bush, who will have the will to call a halt to madness?

        Cervantes speaks to us all.

        William R. Polk is a veteran foreign policy consultant, author and professor who taught Middle Eastern studies at Harvard. President John F. Kennedy appointed Polk to the State Department's Policy Planning Council where he served during the Cuban Missile Crisis. His books include: Violent Politics: Insurgency and Terrorism; Understanding Iraq; Understanding Iran; Personal History: Living in Interesting Times; Distant Thunder: Reflections on the Dangers of Our Times; and Humpty Dumpty: The Fate of Regime Change.

        [May 28, 2015] The Ron Paul Institute inquires if the CSMR is a U.S. covert operation.

        marknesop, May 28, 2015 at 3:08 pm
        Moscow Exile, I think, posted a comment earlier regarding the Committee of Soldiers Mothers Russia (CSMR), complaining because Russian mothers of soldiers would not talk to them any more and tell them their troubles. He further suggested they were a western-friendly NGO which is less interested in the fair and ethical treatment of Russian military men than in stirring up shit which would play to western propaganda.

        Speaking of western propaganda, here's the Queen of it, or at a very minimum a lady-in -waiting – Anna Nemtsova, always ready to bend over for Uncle Sam. Anna cites the Soldiers Mothers as a crucial mediator between Ukraine and Moscow, as they try to wheedle an admission from Russia that it has ordered active-duty military servicemen to fight in eastern Ukraine. The theory expressed here – that the soldiers confessed to being active-duty Special Forces troops to save them from being killed on the spot – is about to be put to the test, as Sergeant Alexandrov's wife reports that he was actually kicked out of the military last year. The Daily Beast makes as much of a conspiracy story of it as it can. But it is clear she regards the CSMR as allies, and any ally of Anna And The Beast is an ally of western neoconservatism.

        Right on cue, the Ron Paul Institute inquires if the CSMR is a U.S. covert operation. Well, from last year, actually, so not quite right on cue, but you know what I mean. RPI points out that CSMR received $150,000.00 from the National Endowment for Democracy in 2011. Shortly after that NED stopped publishing lists of its grantees, because it was getting too easy to follow the money. So, short answer, the Russian government was perfectly correct to force CSMR to register as a foreign-agent NGO. And perhaps that had much to do with the sudden chill they feel and the reluctance of military Moms to dish dirt to them, perhaps believing they were a genuine advocacy group rather than a propaganda tentacle of the United States Government.

        [May 28, 2015] Ukraine is not, after all, western media's first time at the dance. Press overage of Yugoslavia was also shockingly bad

        Tim Owen ,

        May 28, 2015 at 3:27 pm

        One of the very best Crosstalks. With Richard Sakwa, author of "Frontline Ukraine." (And Alexander Mercouris.)

        Sakwa has done the world an invaluable service by putting his analysis out so quickly. It's a brilliant book.

        Many great insights but I particularly liked:

        – Sakwa's prediction that the press coverage of the Ukraine crisis in the west will be viewed in the future as a catastrophic failure. God I hope so. (As the Jooz say at New Years as a toast: "next year no worse!")
        – he highlights the bizarre fact that the EU – despite it many failures – DID integrate France and Germany to a degree that makes war between them, at least, unthinkable; this was somehow followed up with a complete failure to address the next challenge: making war between Europe and Russia similarly unthinkable. In fact the EU has only made this more likely.

        (We can quibble about the whys of the above but my point is: I've never seen anyone point out that crazy contrast between solving the paramount challenge and then completely failing to identify the secondary one so clearly.)

        Fern , May 28, 2015 at 4:42 pm
        I thought it was a very good Crosstalk and Richard Sakwa was particularly interesting. He seems, however, a little naive. Ukraine is not, after all, western media's first time at the dance. Press overage of Yugoslavia was also shockingly bad and 20 plus years on from the Bosnian wars and 15 years from the bombing of Serbia, has there been any retrospective on what went wrong? Well, there's been books like "Degraded capability – the media and the Kosovo crisis' and great work done by Ed Hermann, David Peterson and others but, by and large, the myths of the destruction of Yugoslavia – greater Serbia etc – remain a fixed narrative. As with Yugoslavia so, I imagine, with Ukraine.

        He also seems to assume western European leaders have genuine freedom of choice and action in determining foreign policy which completely ignores the extent to which the US exercises control over European elites ensuring they act in ways which are actively harmful to their own national interests. Ensuring Europe doesn't pursue an independent foreign policy is a key US goal.

        [May 28, 2015]Moscow's account of Nato expansion is a case of false memory syndrome

        May 24, 2015 | The Guardian

        VladimirM 27 May 2015 09:39

        It's all water under the bridge now whether assurances were made or not. Nato expanded, Russia saw the threat in it and we have arrived to where we are now.

        If this bitter experience is anything to go by, Nato would better stop where it is at the moment and not 'invite' new members, such as Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine.

        From the military point of view, and what well known events have proven, both Georgian and Ukrainian armies (do not know about Moldova) do not meet and unlikely will soon meet requirements needed, from the financial point of view neither Europe nor those countries can afford full-scale refurbishment of their military capabilities. Is it worth pushing any further?

        Cooperation implies communication and dialogue and listening to each other, it's about time, I believe.

        Alexander S -> Botswana61 27 May 2015 08:49

        Can you explain it?

        How come Russia is the second destination country in the World after the US? How about you get the facts straight before commenting?

        Alexander S -> Botswana61 27 May 2015 08:39

        wasn't it pres. Putin who has recently changed Moscow's military doctrine…

        You're wrong. It was Medvedev in 2010. "Prevention of a nuclear conflict, as well as any other military conflict is the most important task of the Russian Federation".

        "Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened".

        Alexander S -> Botswana61 27 May 2015 08:11

        cannot be held responsible for its deeds

        I perfectly understand Russians. You see I've inherited all the property and debts of my grandad. I've paid all his liabilities existed. I continue to execute his contracts. But don't you dare to make me responsible for what that old hag says he did to her in college! I AM his successor but I'm not responsible for his deeds. Period.

        assets a little east of the Urals … not being formally in Europe anymore

        That's exactly what the Treaty says. Anyway it doesn't matter anymore as Russia completely halted its participation in the Treaty.

        Iran has also signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. And?

        And the US of A do anything it can to encumber Iran's peaceful nuclear program.

        Alexander S -> Botswana61 27 May 2015 05:28

        Ukraine never had any nuclear arsenal at the first place, USSR did. The Russian Federation is one and only USSR's successor state. Ukraine was pushed by Russia and US to give back or destroy any nuclear weapon happened to be on its soil after the fall of the Soviet Union.

        And yeah, Ukraine has given up any rights to have a nuclear arsenal by signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty not the "Budapest Memorandum" as some imply.

        Czechlander 26 May 2015 23:47

        None of this chatter matters; let those that clamor for NATO enjoy their imagined security. Of course, by joining NATO, a country like Estonia is at a risk from all NATO potential enemies. Not a wise choice. But never mind. The greatest danger to us all are the risks associated with the undeniable fact that huge swathes of Russia are under foreign occupation because of Bolshevik treason of the Russian people. Let's face it, only Russia was made smaller and weaker within the framework of the Soviet Union by the egregious Bolsheviks; it's easy to figure out how much Bolsheviks "loved" the Russian nation.

        The Russian people resident in the territories fraudulently taken away from Russia have full rights to do anything to change the illegal status quo and return to Russia's bosom. One doesn't have to be an oracle to see that Ukraine is going down the drain, what with all the fascists in its government, the failed economy, the exodus of its young to Russia and the EU, and so on. When the people in the Russian regions under illegal occupation become fed up with their bleak lot within the chauvinist Ukraine, and a standard of living akin to that of the Indian unclean caste, they will be in position to simply and easily say Good Bye to it. There won't be anybody around to take on the unenviable task of stopping them. Nothing I or anyone else says about it here is going to alter one iota of this geopolitically inevitable future.

        AnimalFarm2 26 May 2015 23:08

        What utter rubbish! Guardian was once respected. The author has done very little homework!

        U.S. Secretary of State James Baker told Gorbachev on February 8, 1990 that "NATO's jurisdiction will not shift one inch eastward."

        The next day, German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl told Gorbachev that "naturally NATO could not expand its territory" into East Germany.

        On the same day Germany's Minister for Foreign Affairs Hans-Dietrich Genscher said the following to Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze: "For us, it stands firm: NATO will not expand to the East."

        On this basis the whole article is codswallop!

        The author should retract and apologise!

        MysticMegsy -> Ivan Daraktchiev 26 May 2015 21:46

        "With the collapse of Soviet Union NATO's raison d'être disappeared and it should have disbanded itself exactly the way the Warsaw Pact did"

        Fair point, can't argue with that. Your user name had me worried at first, but you seem to be a rational thinker.

        "Instead, it continues to serve as a vehicle for conducting USA's proxy wars, each part of its 70 years long bellicose campaign for the immense Russian resources."

        Hmmm, are you sure? and which proxy wars (relating specifically to Russian resources) might those be? I could list dozens, but none to do with Russian sovereign territory. In fact most proxy wars I can think of were backed by the US and USSR on opposing sides.

        "There's nothing to discuss here, especialy after US Congress' vote for Resolution 758 on Dec. 4th 2014 thus legalizing the war against Russia - including approval of a preemptive (nuclear) strike."

        OK, it's clear now - you are a paranoid lunatic. You almost had me hoodwinked there for a moment.

        desconocido 26 May 2015 19:51

        The claim that the west gave no guarantees against Nato expanding eastwards may be literally true but is nevertheless misleading. As Clark and Spohr write, "these developments belonged to a future that was not yet in sight".

        Having freed eastern Europe and dissolved the Warsaw Pact, the Soviet leadership trusted that the west would reciprocate by respecting Russian interests, and was repeatedly reassured by western leaders in this respect.

        As a member of the European parliament delegation to the Supreme Soviet in 1989, I witnessed this trust and later the increasing bewilderment of the Soviet/Russian participants in various conferences at the arrogant triumphalism of Nato and even EU speakers. "But I thought communism had lost and we had all won?" complained one.

        Many Soviet leaders responsible for the "miracle of 1990" – like the former Soviet ambassador to Bonn, Valentin Falin – have complained bitterly that Mikhail Gorbachev naively trusted the west and gave away so much for so little.

        So the attitude of the revived Russia of today should not come as a surprise.

        Jakob von Uexkull
        Former MEP, German Greens

        desconocido -> Metronome151 26 May 2015 19:41

        So yes it is just Russian hysteria, wishful thinking and false memory syndrome.

        More to the point is EugeneGur's comment:

        But the memory of Nato's broken promises also matters because it touches on the legitimacy, in Russian eyes, of the international settlement established during the German unification process and the European order that emerged in its wake.

        The west always considers Russia's action in isolation from everything else. The narrative is rather simple, not to say primitive: Russia is inherently bad, aggressive, totalitarian (feel free to add whatever additional derogatory adjectives you can come up with). So, whatever the West does against Russia must be good. The West never considers the impact its own actions have on the Russian perception of the situation and Russian actions. The expansion of NATO were bound to elicit Russia's reaction at some point, regardless whether any promise was made and whether it was binding or not. It doesn't really take a genius to predict what that reaction would be, which is a good thing, because NATO is rather short on geniuses.

        People, you were given a gift, a gift the West did not in the least deserve. The Soviet Union peacefully withdraw from Eastern Europe. Germany, in particular, was given a gift , which was no less than magnificent considering what Germany did in Russia. And how did the West use that gift? It grabbed and grabbed, and grabbed. Finally, it bit off more than it could chew with Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, particularly, Ukraine.

        desconocido -> Chirographer 26 May 2015 19:28

        nobody in NATO, Ukraine, Georgia or Moldova has been planning an attack on Russia.

        Really? What do you call that Georgian attack on the Russian peacekeeping force (don't sneer, official OSCE title) in South Ossetia? And if I was in Russia, looking at NATO's track record, I wouldn't believe for a minute that NATO wasn't planning an attack on me.

        Alexander S -> SonnyTuckson 26 May 2015 19:27

        "The Budapest Memorandum" is a perfect case of false memory syndrome as stated in this article. At no time did anybody, including US and Russia, offer a binding commitment to respect and/or protect Ukrainian borders.

        Nevertheless as Russia stated on many occasions it upholds the international law and supports both the integrity of Ukrainian territory and the right of people of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea to self-determination.

        Ivan Daraktchiev 26 May 2015 17:32

        With the collapse of Soviet Union NATO's raison d'être disappeared and it should have disbanded itself exactly the way the Warsaw Pact did. Instead, it continues to serve as a vehicle for conducting USA's proxy wars, each part of its 70 years long bellicose campaign for the immense Russian resources.

        There's nothing to discuss here, especially after US Congress' vote for Resolution 758 on Dec. 4th 2014 thus legalizing the war against Russia - including approval of a preemptive (nuclear) strike.

        Volkovolk -> silvaback 26 May 2015 17:08

        Bla-bla-bla, russian occupants, agression, occupation... Tell me better how you have an UNA-UNSO ultaright party led by son of UPA leader Shushevich.

        The guy who led the Volin Slaughter and served in SS punitive batallion Nachtigall. How you have this abomination of a party and dare accuse us in anything, Bizarro?)

        MaoChengJi 26 May 2015 15:36

        I must say: the authors of letters you published are too nice to this truly disgusting lying and racist piece.

        Duncan Frame -> psygone 26 May 2015 13:14

        I agree but, you can see US doing almost exactly the same thing with any country that embraces socialism in the Americas. Had Russia extended its hegemony, insofar as it exists these days, there is no doubt the US would use the most effective tools at it's disposal (powerful economic sanctions) to destabilize or otherwise nullify the political power of that country.

        The difference between Russia and the US is that Russia cannot control the economic climate anywhere as near as effectively as the US so it uses more direct methods.

        FromVolga 26 May 2015 13:13

        http://nato.int/docu/speech/1990/s900517a_e.htm

        The Atlantic Alliance and European Security
        in the 1990s

        Extract:
        This will also be true of a united Germany in NATO.
        The very fact that we are ready not to deploy NATO troops
        beyond the territory of the Federal Republic gives
        the Soviet Union firm security guarantees.
        Moreover we could conceive of a transitional period
        during which a reduced number of Soviet forces could
        remain stationed in the present-day GDR.
        This will meet Soviet concerns about not changing
        the overall East-West strategic balance.
        Soviet politicians are wrong to claim that German
        membership of NATO will lead to instability.
        The opposite is true.
        Europe including the Soviet Union would gain stability.
        It would also gain a genuine partner in the West ready to cooperate.

        And could you listen the words of Germany Foreign Minister Genscher in 1990?
        Please use link below at 7:50
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfZmPnJbCkI

        Do you realy think all of these is a case of false memory syndrome ?

        vlad day -> Botswana61 26 May 2015 11:47

        How smart. Really being curious or just used to be noisy? Relax. A year has passed, and so far Russia has not recognized the two Republics. Today, nobody speaks in Chechnya or Dagestan about independence; hope the botswana man's being outdated has an excuse. The problem of these territories was not separatism but terrorism. When Russians and other non-Chechens started leaving Chechnya, big banners appeared in the streets reading "Russians, do not leave, we need slaves and prostitutes". As for independence, poorly educated mountain folk whose best skill was using a gun and explosives, had a special idea of it.

        When told about the need to buy a visa for every crossing the border once independence is established, they would jump: "Why should I?.. I don't want any visa!!!" – "But you have to…" – "No! No visa!"

        I guess the botswana man was already born to the world when Kosovo tragedy started unfolding. Was he asking NATO American guys who were shelling Kosovo and Belgrade (with the words "Still willing to be a Serb?" and "Easter Greetings!" on the shells and rockets) if they were ready, for instance, to grant independence to Texas populated mainly with Mexicans? To all appearance, no.

        BradBenson -> alpamysh 26 May 2015 07:41

        That is insane. Hitler was always hell-bent on expansion to the East for Lebensraum. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact bought time for both countries to prepare for the conflict that both knew was coming. Stalin was always paranoid and, having killed off his officer corps in the 30's, he was well aware that Russia was not prepared for war.

        Unfortunately for Stalin, he began to believe that the treaty would hold, especially since he did not think that the Germans would risk a two-front war again. As a result, he was initially caught off guard and didn't want to believe that the Germans were actually attacking Russia on June 22, 1941. As history has proven, he quickly came to his senses.

        BenAris 26 May 2015 07:40

        there was a promise of no nato expansion:

        On January 31, 1990 West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher publicly declared that there would be "no expansion of NATO territory eastward" after reunification. Two days later, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker met with Genscher to discuss the plan. Although Baker did not publicly [8] endorse Genscher's plan, it served as the basis for subsequent meetings between Baker, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze. During these discussions, Baker repeatedly underlined the informal deal on the table, first telling Shevardnadze that NATO's jurisdiction "would not move eastward" and later offering Gorbachev "assurances that there would be no extension of NATO's current jurisdiction eastward." When Gorbachev argued that "a broadening of the NATO zone" was "not acceptable," Baker replied, "We agree with that." Most explicit was a meeting with Shevardnadze on February 9, in which Baker, according to the declassified State Department transcript, promised "iron-clad guarantees that NATO's jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward." Hammering home the point, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl advanced an identical pledge during meetings in Moscow the next day.

        refn to archive notes on Bakers comments

        http://www.2plus4.de/USA/chronik.php3?date_value=25.02.90&sort=001-000

        the prob was because Soviets didnt explicit accept the terms of this informal offer the US felt justified changing it later and eventually included E Germany in NATO.

        its not clear cut like Putin suggests but there was an offer even if Soviets fluffed the diplomatic close of the deal.

        brianfp -> Polvilho 26 May 2015 07:34

        The double standard I refer to is the attitude, prominent in mainstream media, of tremendous hand-wringing over Russia's actions in Ukraine by the same people who either or laud or ignore much worse acts of aggression or terrorism carried out by the US with far less plausible pretext.

        I disagree with you on the matter of US actions in the region also but that wasn't what I was walking about.

        BradBenson -> SanDiegoGuy 26 May 2015 07:30

        I didn't mention the Czars. What I said above is exactly what happened in Georgia.

        I was living as an expatriate in Germany at the time and the German Newspapers carried daily maps showing the locations of the pipelines and the location of the fighting. They didn't cover any of that in the US.

        Nor did any US Newspaper mention the involvement of the US Military by airlifting the Georgian Afghanistan War Contingent from Afghanistan back home to Georgia virtually over night. Nor did the American News Reports cover the Russian Claims of US Special Forces Involvement and that they found dead black soldiers in Georgian Uniforms. Maybe they were from Atlanta or Resaca.

        In any case, I have provided my sources in my other response to your posts. Therefore, I will not repost them here. Suffice to say, if you feel my sources are flawed, you are always welcome to present your own, which you haven't by the way.


        BradBenson SanDiegoGuy 26 May 2015 07:13

        Well that's all fine and dandy that you have reviewed all of these links and found the arguments, the supporting links in the articles, and the knowledge base of so many different analysts to be flawed. Yet you present an equally flawed history without so much as a supporting source. Whom do you think has made the more cogent argument here?

        As for my comments to AstarSoldier, if he's such a "star soldier" let him speak for himself. To me, there are no "star soldiers" and I don't care about his physical stature. The term "little man" referred to his intellect and was a direct reference to yet another sophomoric comment by someone who doesn't know what he is talking about...sort or like your comment above.

        Here is the history on Georgia. Educate yourself.

        Georgia accused of targeting civilians.
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7692751.stm

        I survived the Georgian war. Here's what I saw.
        http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/1008/p09s02-coop.html

        Revisiting the "Battle of Tskhinvali"
        http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/08/16/revisiting-the-quot-battle-of-tskhinvali-quot/

        The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power
        https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russo_georgian_war_and_balance_power

        Plucky Little Georgia? No, the Cold War Reading Won't Wash
        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/09/georgia.russia1

        Tbilisi Admits Misjudging Russia
        http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0d8beefe-6fad-11dd-986f-0000779fd18c,Authorised=false.html?nclick_check=1&_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F0d8beefe-6fad-11dd-986f-0000779fd18c.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1%26siteedition%3Duk&siteedition=uk&_i_referer=#axzz3a7HUGsQv

        'Poor Little Georgia'–Not!
        http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2008/08/13/poor-little-georgia-not/

        Saakashvili "planned S. Ossetia invasion": ex-minister
        http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/09/14/us-georgia-russia-opposition-idUSLD12378020080914

        Did Saakashvili Lie? The West Begins to Doubt Georgian Leader
        http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/did-saakashvili-lie-the-west-begins-to-doubt-georgian-leader-a-578273.html

        Accounts Undercut Claims by Georgia on Russia War
        http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E5DF1130F934A35752C1A96E9C8B63


        Aleksander Trebunskikh Matthew Reynolds 26 May 2015 05:10

        According to your logic, USA is the biggest empire nowadays and ever been in history, because: "exercise authoritarian control over it's satellite nations" - but, in case you love USA and hate USSR - which doesn't exist for more then 25 years, you wont see this.


        Dmitry Fedotov alpamysh 26 May 2015 05:04

        For the first time in 20 years in the Chernobyl forest appeared bear, and it was captured at the camera. In Chernobyl, for the first time in 20 years. And then there is a war for a year! tanks, jets! bombs! and no photographs of Russian troops in Ukraine. Hows that? Maybe they are not there? Maybe your media epidemic of idiocy? Remember, your media did not show you all the people killed in Iraq. And them there were more than 200,000. Maybe they're lying to you again?


        Botswana61 Kiselev 26 May 2015 04:12

        Sea tranport of bulk is the cheapest one by far. With air transport being the best for perishable goods and merchandize (e.g. machine tools, plane parts, etc.) which have to make it to their final destination literally over night.

        Sorry ,but Trans-Siberian express types of trains belong to XIX century; while gas-guzzling and heavily polluting Diesel-powered, road-clogging 18-wheelers will largely disappear before the end of the next decade.


        Botswana61 Laurence Johnson 26 May 2015 03:52

        'The US is isolated geographically from the core global markets of trade.'

        What a patent nonsence! If you followed the trends you would have noticed that while Europe (currently in recession) is stagnating - the obvious area of a dynamic economic development is PACIFIC RIM!

        The biggest trade association in the world by far is APEC, which includes such countries like Chile, Peru, Costa Rica, Mexico, United States, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, Indonesia, Philippines, Australia and New Zealand, to mention just a few.

        More&more Americans think of themselves as Pacific nation rather than Atlantic one.

        US's business with Pacific Rim countries is brisque and growing fast. So is American export to other APEC member states.

        So nice try, but no cigar.


        Volkovolk AlfredHerring 26 May 2015 03:45

        Yes, that was 70-90% of [all] ordinary people including ukrainians, belarus, kazachs and all other nations with some Batlic and georgian exceptions) What's interesting is that geogians had another exception - Osetian autonomous soviet republic. They - osetians - decided that they wanna stay in USSR and had their autonomous referendum.

        The situation in Ukraine (where 70% of people voted for preserving and 28% againsts) changed for now because, you see, ukrainian leaders decided that's the best way to validate independence of Ukraine is to create artifical hatred towards past in USSR and by extension because of galicial lobby towars Russia and russians-moscals.

        Now this 25 years of propaganda brought fruits and Ukraine is tearing itself apart in civil war.


        SidSpart EugeneGur 26 May 2015 03:21

        don't act surprised by the Russia's reaction and the measures Russia takes to counter what it sees as a threat.

        I am not surprised by Russia's reaction to N.AT.O expansion .

        Even if there was no formal agreement for N.A.T.O not to expand ,it must have been obvious after the collapse of the U.S.S.R that Russians would not want N.A.T.O on their doorstep .

        At the time when the old Warsaw pact countries were joining N.A.T.O I felt it was sending the wrong message to the Russians - basically saying - "We Do Not Trust You " especially the talk about setting up the missiles shield .

        The question is would the people living in those East European which are now members of N.A.T.O feel safer if they had remained non-members in the light of what has happened in the Ukraine ?

        (Even though I think the Ukraine situation is a different case.)

        It is not only Russians who worry about their Security and Safety, after all Latvia and Poland have never occupied Moscow or St Petersburg - but Russians have occupied Warsaw and Riga .


        Laurence Johnson 26 May 2015 02:31

        The problem is simple. The US is isolated geographically from the core global markets of trade. Europe united with Russia and Asia in trade would be a disaster for the US and as such must never happen.

        The bridge between Asia and Europe is Russia and its clear that all options are on the table to prevent that link from becoming a reality. Its simple good business sense on the part of the US to protect its markets, which is Europe.

        Laurence Johnson 26 May 2015 02:31

        The problem is simple. The US is isolated geographically from the core global markets of trade. Europe united with Russia and Asia in trade would be a disaster for the US and as such must never happen.

        The bridge between Asia and Europe is Russia and its clear that all options are on the table to prevent that link from becoming a reality. Its simple good business sense on the part of the US to protect its markets, which is Europe.

        TecchnoExpertThanx 26 May 2015 00:08

        What concerns me is that both the authors Christopher Clark (a Regius Professor of History at Cambridge and the author of The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 ) and Kristina Spohr (a senior lecturer at the London School of Economics and Political Science), carry with them significant title, and responsibility to educate and ultimately influence the next generation of political analysts, historians and policy makers.

        This research and amateurish conclusions, resembles more like an essay written by a first year 'Poly Science' student with a score of 'F'.

        The problem with many of our educators (amongst other things) is laziness.

        Hey, I personally subscribe and listen to LSE (and similar) lectures, debates and PR book releases/reviews... but whether a student or professor, being overexposed to liberal dissidence that are well funded for their 'expert' analysis, will not make you in return an 'Expert', historian, or have you any nearer to understanding fact from fiction.

        Its time to break away from the the bubble that includes free lunches and coffee, supplied by government and non government think tanks, and go out and do some real research and analysis that people can learn and benefit from.

        AssameseGuy87 -> Bangorstu

        I think, after forty years of independence, many of those nations need to start taking some responsibility for themselves.

        Yes, there has to be some progress. For example, in India, there has been a furore over colonial-era laws that remain in practice. There really shouldn't be any excuses as to why these laws remain in place and haven't yet been repealed. But the fact remains the Empire did engage in widespread economic exploitation of the colonies that the successor nations were still reeling under after decades after independence. It's easy for some Britons to ask that question ('What have they been doing these past 50-70 years') but I don't think they can ever imagine the mess the Empire had left some of their erstwhile colonies in (in many cases, after more than a century of rule).

        Most of the British Empire was conquered for somewhat less than a century....

        The bulk of its colonies were acquired in the period from 1815 to 1896 (almost all of them achieved independence after the end of the WW2). One more things needs to be said. In many of these colonies, the formal incorporation of the territory into the British Empire came later; for decades (and in one particular case, up to a century) prior to that, the British were by and large the de facto rulers. Also, some of these colonies were initially British protectorates where the rulers of these states were mere figureheads.

        But we never did - the indigenous languages weren't suppressed and they still survive.

        The British didn't overtly have to; just one interesting policy was that they just preferred those with English education over those with vernacular language education for posts. It was largely due to the efforts of the indigenous people in many places that their languages survive today. In some places, the British favoured one ethno-religious group over the other for consideration for posts. But then, that comes under divide and rule policies implemented by most colonial powers. I would like to say that in many of these places it wasn't all peace and harmony before the colonial-era; there were indeed bloody conflicts. But then rarely were they along ethnic/religious lines. Divide and rule undoubtedly deepened the divisions between ethnic/religious groups in many former colonies.

        And note many of the issues are due to arbitrarily drawn borders which can of course be changed if the countries concerned wish them to be.

        And how exactly do you think we should do that??. I actually do know of a war fought over an arbitrarily drawn border. In that case, the British signed an unequal treaty which incorporated that territory into the British Raj (that was in the early 20th century). After independence, it's successor state inherited the territory. The state from which the British had gained the territory (when it's rule was weak and the might of the British was at their highest) considered that border drawn under an unequal treaty to be illegal. The successor state should just hand over the territory and the people living there, right (after 100 years of rule)??.
        The Empire did good in many cases (very few dispute these). But what irritates people from places which were formerly part of the British Empire is the tendency of some Britons to simply wish away the problems faced by some of it's former colonies ('Oh, they have been independent for 50-70 years, what's stopping them') without understanding the complexity of the problem and dismissing anyone critical of some policies of the Empire as someone having a 'chip on their shoulder'.
        Even worse are of course the shameless, despicable Empire apologists ('Oh, but, but the Spanish were much worse', 'Oh, but, but massacres were the norm back then', 'Oh, but, look at the ones firing the guns'; if only the Nazi war criminals used that last one as an excuse at Nuremberg). Thankfully, you do say this though:

        I didn't say that did I? I said being colonized was a mixed blessing which is somewhat different.

        Btw, It's a very much more complex situation and set of relationships
        Yes, indeed (I agree). The Empire did much good (very few dispute that) and the Empire did much wrong too, many of which have consequences today (and out come all the apologists; I'm not saying you are one though). Many Britons take pride in the Commonwealth (the Army traditions, the language etc) but I sadly doubt many Britons can truly (or more unfortunately, even wish to) understand the negative effects some of the Empire's policies have had on its former colonies.

        hermanmitt -> Matthew Reynolds 25 May 2015 20:20

        If you really want to sustain this notion that the US is this covert empire, then you have to eventually get around to some sort of Phantom Menace conspiracy theory...

        Once there was gold backing the U.S. Dollar. Then there was oil which turned the dollar into the world reserve currency. That and WW11. Now there is nothing backing the dollar, which is now a totally fiat currency backed solely by the U.S. military industrial complex.

        The U.S. has established its Empire through the financial system by creating debt, backed at present by absolutely nothing, except the U.S. Military which needs to be pervasive around the globe in order to maintain that status quo.

        When a country, Iraq, chooses to start selling its oil in Euros, it gets invaded. When a country starts to sell its oil in 'gold backed Dinars', Libya, it gets toppled. When there is a country the U.S. does not wish a direct military confrontation with, Russia, the war footing moves to a proxy, Ukraine, and the war is escalated on a financial front. Russia kicked out the Rothschilds, paid off their interest owed from oil revenues and banned them from returning to Russia. Now, Russia and China trade for oil and gas in local currencies, cutting out the dollar middle-man, and are creating a new global reserve currency based on the Chinese Yuan coupled to a new gold standard. That makes Russia a legitimate target for both a proxy war, via Ukraine, and a financial war, through sanctions. China cannot be directly confronted because China owns too much US debt, which they can call in at any time, and bankrupt the FED. The same pattern of financial aggression applied, until recently, to Iran. However the mood has changed since the U.S. need Iran to help deal with ISIS in the region in order to keep the dollar-based oil flowing.

        The pattern of military and financial aggression is now so blatant it's impossible to hide, and with the rise of the Chinese who have a financial and military pact with Russia, the writing is on the wall for the fall of the dollar, possibly this year. Even the City of London has recognized this and is trading the Yuan in London, with the UK effectively joining the BRICS alliance.

        It's time to start recognising the very obvious pattern that has been clearly revealed over the past decade and a half. The U.S. has buried the world in debt through the Federal Reserve System and is desperately trying to keep itself afloat. It has no real friends left, apart from perhaps Britain, but that is also a bit questionable. Everyone has just done as they are instructed, until recently, but of late, and due to the huge shift in trade and energy supply eastwards, U.S. influence is fast on the wane, and the only thing they have left is the MIC.

        We are witnessing the last desperate gasps for breath of the U.S. Empire, and it could get a lot more dangerous for everyone on this planet as the inevitable day approaches where the, mathematically certain, collapse of the dollar finally occurs.

        Does that go some way to filling in a few of the gaps for you?


        Volkovolk -> Will Hay 25 May 2015 20:17

        You are really ignorant.

        Firstly "soviet invasion" started two weeks after the german. Secondly the goal of this invasion was to put border away to west before inevitable war with Germany. Read about Brest Fortress then understand that before that invasion Brest was on Poland territory. And thirdly to blame Stalin "as much as Hitler" is kinda the same as to blame jews for Holocoust.


        Volkovolk 25 May 2015 19:49

        Oh, and by the way i feel that i shall ask you western people one question. Have you ever wondered what Russians are thinking about Gorbachev, Yeltsin and about nearly all of their decisions? Have you ever wondered what Russians are feeling towards them? Not pro-western sectant Russians and not some successful businessmen who used the opportunity to became oligarchs, but ordinary people? Hint: this emotion has much, much common with despise and hatred.


        vlad day 25 May 2015 18:09

        False logic enveloped into quasi-academic wording.

        "There was no commitment to abstain in future from eastern NATO enlargement". Yes, there was; a western politician who used to communicate with Gorbachev's team over German matters etc., speaking to reporters: "We didn't put it on paper." A girl journalist happily smiled and nodded her little head on those wise words. So, there was a pledge, though not "put on paper". A nice way of cheating.

        "…a mythical sequence of unmediated aggressions whose ultimate purpose was to justify current Russian policy in the Ukraine". And where is a formulation of "Russian policy in Ukraine"?

        Here, I guess, the author's knowledge approximates zero. No Western (and no Ukrainian) reporters in the area of conflict, except for a couple of freelancers, one of which is Graham Phillips, a classical black sheep (white crow, as we put it in Russian) of the highly hypocritical journalist community in Britain.

        Radical Ukrainian nationalists commit violence all over Ukraine (not only in the two "pro-Russian" regions trying to get out of Kiev's deadly grip), killing politicians, bloggers, writers in broad daylight. Every time no investigation follows. "People being tortured and murdered, oh, really?" Who cares.

        The Ukrainian topics have disappeared in the western media except for some half-abstract "academic" contexts like the one above.

        EugeneGur 25 May 2015 16:15

        But the memory of Nato's broken promises also matters because it touches on the legitimacy, in Russian eyes, of the international settlement established during the German unification process and the European order that emerged in its wake.

        The west always considers Russia's action in isolation from everything else. The narrative is rather simple, not to say primitive: Russia is inherently bad, aggressive, totalitarian (feel free to add whatever additional derogatory adjectives you can come up with). So, whatever the West does against Russia must be good. The West never considers the impact its own actions have on the Russian perception of the situation and Russian actions. The expansion of NATO were bound to elicit Russia's reaction at some point, regardless whether any promise was made and whether it was binding or not. It doesn't really take a genius to predict what that reaction would be, which is a good thing, because NATO is rather short on geniuses.

        People, you were given a gift, a gift the West did not in the least deserve. The Soviet Union peacefully withdraw from Eastern Europe. Germany, in particular, was given a gift , which was no less than magnificent considering what Germany did in Russia. And how did the West use that gift? It grabbed and grabbed, and grabbed. Finally, it bit off more than it could chew with Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, particularly, Ukraine. Because, you see, Russia is in a way.

        Here everything goes: Nazis - no problem; civilian deaths - regrettable but for the good cause; political repressions, torture, murders - can happen to the best of us. With Ukraine even that stand by excuse that the country wanted to join NATO doesn't cut it, because a good half of the country wanted nothing to do with NATO, and NATO knows. But who cares? If necessary, we'll organize a coup, buy off the elites, instigate a civil war, destroy the country - do what it takes but we'll drag whatever is left of it into NATO.


        hermanmitt Matthew Reynolds 25 May 2015 15:00

        Thank-you for proving my point.

        Russia currently has a total of 13 military bases, most of which are in fairly close proximity.

        According to a statement Ron Paul, the U.S. currently has 900 military bases stationed in 130 countries around the globe.

        That is a difference of 878


        AGLiakhov 25 May 2015 14:47

        I was a member of various Soviet delegations in these and other talks in the late 80s. I am prepared to sign an affidavit setting out at least 3 occassions when non expansion assurances were given by US and NATO officials of different seniority. I was present when President Bush Sr. Personally promised President Gorbachev that there would be no Eastern expansion. Unfortunately Gorby believed that the world is run by gentlemen and "my word is my bond". He refused to allow us to commit this undertaking to paper. Dear researchers - please research well and maintain your integrity. However I doubt that my comment will be allowed in.

        Bardamux -> Chirographer 25 May 2015 14:08

        As long as Ukraine does not control all of its territory it can not become a member of NATO. Same with Georgia. The Russian action, while illegal and wrong, is quite understandable. They do not want Ukrain/Georgia to become part of a possibly hostile military alliance. Thus they take a small piece of land and prevent these countries from becoming members.

        This would of course be completely unnecessary if the Russians could trust the promises that Ukraine and Georgia will never, ever become members of NATO. But surprise they do not believe this pledge.

        ' pledge not to violate the territorial integrity of Ukraine' - After there was a deal by with the Western-powers to keep Yanukovich in power until new elections. Which was ripped up barely after the ink dried.

        Please try to understand this, right or wrong, Russia might risk nuclear war over Ukraine and Georgia. Much like America risked and threatened this over the Cuban missiles.

        Dmitry Fedotov 25 May 2015 14:00

        Europe and America turned flourishing Libya to hell. The endless civil war, half the population are refugees in their own country. The number of victims is unknown. Democracy level has not increased. You poured into the Iraq more than 300 tons of depleted uranium which is horrendous toxin. children will die from it for generations. You turned Fallujah into radioactive hell. And you call Assad's chemical? All your weapons containing depleted uranium - the chemical.

        Chemical Britain, chemical United States and chemical Europe.

        When you will realize that you are guilty, when you will repent, remember what else do is your fault, understand how much blood on your hands, then you will have the right to judge someone. Now it's just the arguments of a maniac who sagely condemns others and chews human heart same time.


        Bardamux -> Grishnakh 25 May 2015 13:37

        Please learn how to read. I stated many times it was not a binding agreement. It was a promise, not a binding agreement. Still upset the Russians though. Well now Russia knows that it can not trust any promise by the US/NATO. And since it is nearly impossible to make a binding agreement that can not be changed it means they will remain distrustful. And might use force if they feel it is necessary. I.e. Georgia and Ukraine. Perhaps even in the Baltics. Which would be a disaster. Congratulations on making a dunce out of Russia. But do not blame them for their lack of trust now.

        US can block access of countries if they want. Has there ever joined nation without American approval ?


        EugeneGur 25 May 2015 12:36

        Amid recriminations over US and western European interventions in Kosovo, Libya and Syria, the Russian leadership has begun to question the legitimacy of the international agreements on which the current European order is founded.

        Isn't that rather natural? Nobody certainly signed up for that, for the US or, more broadly, the West, single-handedly deciding what is "the European order" or any other "order", for that matter. It may sound naive, and definitely was extremely naive, but at the time of the Germany reunification agreement the Russian leadership and Russian people could not have imagined in their worst nightmares that the West, including Germany, of all countries (!), would instigate a coup in Ukraine, support neo-Nazis, a civil war, killing and starving of civilians. The West, it seems, like Bourbons, have learned nothing and forgot nothing".

        I do hope that the Russian have learned something useful from this development: that the West is never ever to be trusted. If you have to deal with the West at all, get everything in righting three times over, and support that by a good number of judiciously placed military bases.

        sambeckett2 -> Renato Timotheus 25 May 2015 11:56

        Let's imagine, for a moment, that the you and I go out for dinner and we talk about a lot of things, but we don't discuss me having sex with your wife.
        Does that mean that you have acquiesced to me doing it?

        The countries in question are not the 'wife' of Russia - they do not belong to Russia. The break up of the Eastern Bloc was more akin to a divorce. If your wife chooses to sleep with me after that divorce it is none of your business - you do not 'acquiesce' to me doing it because you have no say.

        Not discussing something does not amount to acquiescence to it.

        And it doesn't amount to you having a right to prevent it either.

        When G. says that NATO expansion was not discussed, I think he clearly means it was not even countenanced.

        They did not have a right to 'countenance' it. If Russia did not consider the possibility at the time, that was their misfortune. To quote Gorbachev:

        So don't portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West's finger. If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose. Russia at first did not object.

        the Germans - e.g. Kohl and Genscher -- knew full well that they would never get their precious reunification if there was any hint of a NATO eastward expansion.

        So the implicit and explicit assurances they gave -- the latter in the form of a gentlemanly agreement -- were very real ones.

        in 1990-1, there was no assurances of any kind, except with regards to the GDR. Again, Gorbachev clearly states this, and he also states that the assurances with regards to the GDR were kept. You have not pointed out a single instance in which such assurances were made in 1990-91. Gorbachev clearly states that the matter was not discussed and that the examples you have given relate to to GDR alone.

        how can Russia's current leadership have any trust in Merkel's pronouncements --

        And, as the article suggests, how can anyone trust Russia when they falsely claim they were given assurances about NATO expansion when they weren't? Their own leader at the time affirms this - I cannot see how the sentence "The topic of "NATO expansion" was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years" could be any clearer.

        Without some level of trust between Germany and Russia, we will see increasing tensions between them and in the part of Europe that lies between the two countries.

        That does not give Russia a free pass to claim that something happened when it simply didn't.

        GuardianFearless 25 May 2015 11:23

        Another NATO fairy tale. Don't you think it's doesn't matter now what exactly West thinks about it, all European decisions already were made and nothing can be done now to change the outcome. The more important part what Russia thinks of that events, and what will be the consequences now, just because Russia thinks that there was a betrayal.

        You can try to justify actions that was taken in the past in this case only for your own people, but if you can't convince Russia (and, by the way, the rest of non USA-oriented world), that will not delay or spare consequences. West will have a problem with Russia in future, it's inevitable, and a big one (looks like even nuclear one), because Russia makes reality in the world on her own, that West has to check, so if Russians thinks there was something wrong with NATO actions in 90-th it's totally 100 percent real for the rest of the world. So, author, please check your reality detector, looks like a battery fails in it, and write again!

        EugeneGur 25 May 2015 11:06

        The miracle of 1990 is that one of the greatest transformations of the international system in human history was achieved without war, in a spirit of dialogue and cooperation.

        And then this miracle was used up ill by the West to expand east without any spirit of dialog or cooperation. Even assuming no promises were made, the actions themselves were hardly friendly, and that's precisely how they are perceived in Russia. The usual argument that the Eastern European countries fell over themselves to join NATO is faulty. First, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall a single referendum about joining NATO in any of them, so how the people of these countries felt remains unknown.

        Second, even assuming they were anxious to join NATO, NATO could've predicted the Russian reaction, could it not, if the NATO commanders had any brains at all? You want to please Estonia and annoy Russia - that's what you have achieved.

        So, don't act surprised by the Russia's reaction and the measures Russia takes to counter what it sees as a threat. Regardless of what the Eastern Europe wants, Russia remains within its right to protect itself, and it will. Trying to present it as something totally unreasonable, Russian "paranoia", is the usual deceit tactics the West is so good at. This always amuses me to no end: Russia feeling apprehensive at being encircled by something that represents itself as the strongest military alliance in the wold is paranoia, but the US representing North Korea as existential threat is reality. Fantastic.

        Алексей Кузнецов -> AbsolutelyFapulous 25 May 2015 10:48

        What did NATO do to Russia that is not a product of Russia paranoia?

        1. Yugoslavia
        2. Iraq
        3. Afghanistan
        4. Libya
        5. Syria

        Who's next? What about missile defense system in Europe?

        TecchnoExpertThanx 25 May 2015 10:41

        8

        9

        If the Russians are constantly guilty of 'whataboutism', then unfortunately for us in the west, we are guilty of 'Double Speak' (having this pointed out to us, is commonly referred to as 'whataboutism').
        Whether it is deliberate or not, it is about time we stop using this technique to hide behind our false justifications and need for 'action'.

        Courtesy of our propagators, their media poodles and sock puppets, people actually believe that the 'Ends justify the means' and that the ends is 'Freedom' and the means is 'Democracy Building', and everything in between is 'Good'.
        And sure, we may 'torture some folks', but how dare anyone question intent!!!
        Bin Laden? Why am i not surprised to have read only last week that Bin Laden must be conspiracy theorist because seals found amongst other novels, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man?
        Here are some quotes from a Guardian article in 2004. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/11/iraq.usa

        ....the hallmark of Reagan's presidency was anti-communist cynicism, masked by phoney rhetoric about freedom. In his first press conference as president he used quasi-biblical language to claim that Soviet leaders "reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat". It was one of the most extraordinary cases of the pot calling the kettle black...

        ...In the name of anti-communism everything was possible. Reagan invaded Grenada on the false premise that US students who had been there safely for months were suddenly in danger. Reagan armed thugs to overthrow the government of Nicaragua, even after it won internationally certified free elections in 1984....

        Reagan armed and trained Osama bin Laden and his followers in their Afghan jihad, and authorised the CIA to help to pay for the construction of the very tunnels in Tora Bora in which his one-time ally later successfully hid from US planes. On the grounds that Nelson Mandela's African National Congress was pro-communist, Reagan vetoed US congress bills putting sanctions on the apartheid regime the ANC was fighting.

        His policies towards the Soviet Union were hysterical and counter-productive. He put detente into deep freeze for several years with his insulting label "the evil empire". It led to overblown outrage over the downing by Soviet aircraft of a South Korean airliner that intruded into Russian air space. Moscow's action was inept, but if Reagan had not put the superpowers in collision, the Kremlin might have treated the wayward plane more calmly.

        It further goes onto conclude;


        Reagan's Star Wars project did not bankrupt the Soviet Union into reform, as his admirers claim. In repeated statements as well as his budget allocations Gorbachev made it clear Moscow would not bother to match a dubious weapons system which could not give Washington "first-strike capability" for at least another 15 years, if ever.

        But hey, all this is a distraction. Rather than bickering around 'he said, she said', Ambassador to the .S.S.R. from 1987 to 1991, Jack F. Matlock does an excellent job in readdressing one of Russia's biggest concerns. Now irregardless of a promise or lost in translation, who in their right mind would think that expanding NATO (even if countries BEG to join), would be in the in the best interest for global security??????
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-is-the-bully-the-united-states-has-treated-russia-like-a-loser-since-the-cold-war/2014/03/14/b0868882-aa06-11e3-8599-ce7295b6851c_story.html
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwj8T34v6hM


        Report


        StephenKMack 26may1989 25 May 2015 10:40

        Thank you for your comment. For those of us who came of age during the last Cold War we don't need a 'report' to inform us of the fact that a 'New Cold War' is in full swing! The attacks on those who dissent as 'dupes' and/or as 'paid agents of Putin' hinting at the notion of 'Quislings' are all familiar territory.

        It smacks of the Nixon/McCarren/Mundt/McCarthy political axis of the late forties in America:' a generation of treason' to describe The New Deal! Always the same screeching hysteria, although Mr. Clark in his search for 'reasons', while he carefully diagnosis Russian paranoia, and the self-identification as victim of Western mendacity, tries to mute the tone of that hysteria, by providing plausible historical antecedents, in a carefully massaged exercise in empiricism, and he acquits himself with a kind of confident ease.

        To provide one salient example of the same old faces, the same old rhetoric, from the last 'Cold War', we see Strobe Talbott of Brookings, or RussiaHand as he dubbed himself, one of the architects of the transition of the Soviet Union from command to a 'free market' economy, that required the 'strong medicine' of the 'shock doctrine' to make that transition. That transition led to the rise of The Oligarchs equaling former KGB thugs like your arch-enemy Putin.

        After that ignominious policy failure, hailed by the Western Media as a necessity for the transition to Democracy, that caused untold suffering on the Russian people: the triumph of the misery producing Neo-Liberal Dogma in it's squalid infancy , or nearly that.

        Regards,
        StephenKMackSD

        Кирилл Олейник 25 May 2015 10:26

        After all these events since the bombing of Yugoslavia it is obviously that Gorbachev had made mistake.

        The West is not able to appreciate the concessions, West doesn`t know what means gratitude. And such demagogic articles are just another proof.

        When Soviets had stopped meaningless Cold War the West had dared to call itself the winner. So there is no reason to have a dialogue with the West, because it can understand only the language of strength. Well, this is a good remark, Russians will remember this. If you prefer the language of strength then you`ll have it.

        Don`t cry then.

        Z'ing Sui AbsolutelyFapulous 25 May 2015 10:16

        From what I read, Russians are angry for a number of reasons, here's approximate list
        1. Expansion - "our anti-Western alliance is over, your anti-Russian alliance is growing", the broken promise to Gorby, etc.

        2. Bombing Russia's allies. - Russia had very few of them as it was, and the Serbia thing being done without engaging Russians is something they can't forgive. Destroying Libya and threats to bomb Syria pale in comparison (Russians don't see the distinction between NATO countries and NATO)

        3. "We helped you, you didn't help us" - Russia's provided logistics to NATO in Afghanistan, but they say NATO has never done anything meaningful in return

        4. Training troops that fight Russia - that's something spanning from Soviets fighting in Afghanistan to Georgia, they aren't specific. But training Georgia troops and then having them shell Russian positions in South Ossetia is something that actually seems to have happened

        Alexander Bach Artusov 25 May 2015 10:06

        There was NO written agreement as I understand it.

        True. Russians have never claimed there was a written agreement. They claim that was alluded in spoken words and they believed it as at that time they trusted the West much more than today. Anyway, today they don't use this issue as a justification of everything. They only give it as one example of the West's behaviour. There were many other things later on. So there's no point in focusing on this particular one. The fact is that today Russia has no trust towards the West whatsoever, not only because of the cheats, but mostly because the West continuously refuses to admit any Russia's interests.

        Putin is KGB trained and probably shares some ideas of Russian expansion [ or perhaps not - who knows ? ]

        I don't think so. Putin has given a hint a few times that he treats the ex-USSR splinters as a burden for Russia, so he prefers them to pay for themselves. Crimea is an easily explainable exclusion: 1) it's very Russian (full of Russians) 2) it's very pro-Russian (people there want to be in Russia) 3) it has very high strategic value (having it gives control over the whole Black Sea).

        As per other regions (South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Novorossia), as you see Putin doesn't take them into Russia although he could apparently do so with ease.


        Ieuan Tintenfische 25 May 2015 10:00

        Tintenfische said: "As for Iran, well yes we did invade together with you, but the SHah had declared war on the UK"

        If you're talking about 1941, no the Shah had not declared war on anybody. Iran had declared itself neutral.

        The Brits used as their excuse for invasion that Iran was under Nazi domination and 'full of German advisers'. In turns out that the only Germans in the country were a couple of hundred employees of the German embassy, who had every right to be there.

        The UK occupied the country until 1946.

        Interestingly enough the Shah of 1941 had been supported by the UK in the 1920's when he was no more than a junior army officer and marched on Tehran to overthrow the new Iranian Parliament (There had been an Iranian constitutional revolution which had overthrown the current Shah and set up a democratic parliament).


        Z'ing Sui AbsolutelyFapulous 25 May 2015 09:57

        Would have been a great move 20-25 years ago, when Russians removed their boots from Europe, their people hailed western values and their politicians weren't former KGB. Now, with NATO disregarding Russia for 20 years basically just because Russia was too concerned with not falling apart to do anything about it, and Russians going on a rampage in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, with Putin having almost 90% ratings for opposing NATO, it's just too late.

        Why would they trust NATO after all these years? I sure wouldn't, not until NATO undoes whatever Russians consider NATO's wrongdoings, which is not really possible too.

        Z'ing Sui 25 May 2015 09:46

        Almost every politician who was privy to the process of negotiations with the Russians or had anything to do with foreign policy towards USSR at the time has at least expressed sentiment that Russians would of course not expect NATO expansion and would consider it a hostile move after they've remove their troops from Europe.

        A number of people confirm that the assurances were in fact given to the Russians, and here's a great article that actually relies on the documents of the time, and not on some ww1 history lessons

        http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/opinion/30sarotte.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

        "What would Mr. Gorbachev demand in return? To learn the answer, Mr. Baker and Mr. Kohl journeyed to Moscow within a day of each other. On Feb. 9, 1990, Mr. Baker asked Mr. Gorbachev, "Would you prefer to see a unified Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO's jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position?"

        Mr. Gorbachev, according to Mr. Baker, answered that "any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable." Their meeting ended without any final deals made. Mr. Baker left behind a secret letter, detailing what he had said, for Mr. Kohl in Moscow."
        It seems clear that although Kohl obviously negotiated mostly concerning East Germany's future, Russians were talking about any sort of NATO expansion, into East Germany and otherwise, and Kohl and Baker at the very least, knew it when they made their assurances to the soviets.

        Yes, there was no binding agreement, but Gorby's trust was obviously betrayed. "False memory syndrome" is what authors suffer from. You can't fight Putin's lies with lies of your own.


        PixieFrouFrou Alexander Bach 25 May 2015 09:43

        'In a recent atricle (8 of March 2015) the Guardian writes (see http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/08/nato-is-misquoting-mikhail-gorbachev)'

        The item you quote is a letter to the Guardian from a reader, not an article in the Guardian.


        BradBenson Steely1 25 May 2015 08:43

        Yes indeed. That was an excellent article which, although written six years ago, is more accurate and true to the facts than the above opinion piece.

        These two authors want to blame something that happened at the beginning of the 20th Century for Russian mistrust of the West in the 21st. I would suggest that, if they want to go back that far in history to find a reason for Russian mistrust of the West, they should not overlook the Western MILITARY INTERVENTION in Russia during the civil war, which followed the revolution--to which US Military Units were also dispatched. Perhaps the Russian Memory is better than ours here in the West.


        Ian56789 DHMeyer 25 May 2015 08:24

        The Ukraine economy is in the midst of collapse - GDP fell by 17.6% in Q1.

        This was the highly predictable outcome (as was the civil war) of the US engineered Coup in Kiev.

        The IMF loans will do absolutely nothing to help Ukraine. They will go on bailing out Templeton, Soros and other US hedge funds that hold Ukraine debt (about $23bn in total).

        The IMF loans will go on increasing military spending up from $1.5bn in 2013 to $3.8bn in 2015. A fair amount of it will be used on buying US made weapons (quelle surprise!).

        A billion or so will go in the pockets of Poroshenko, Yatsenuk & other Ukrainian Oligarchs. Yatsenuk is already accused of embezzling $325m.

        The IMF imposed "austerity" will further depress Ukraine's economy. Private fuel bills have increased by 300% and overall inflation is running at something like 60%.

        The EU co-operation agreement was discussed at a meeting in Yalta in September 2013 attended by Bill and Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair, Poroshenko and representatives of the IMF, German and Russian foreign ministries.

        It was later reported that Hillary Clinton had taken an $8m bribe from the host - Ukrainian Oligarch Viktor Pinchuk.


        Susan O'neill alpamysh 25 May 2015 08:22

        What an utterly ridiculous claim. The nazi Kiev regime has outlawed Russian speech, legal representation of Russian speaking peoples and the Lugansk and Donetsk peoples wanted to survive. They are fighting for their lives under an oppressive regime who has promised them suffering beyond belief. They asked to be recognized as a federation, which Putin has acknowledged but the US wants a deal on that "bread basket" land and will support the Kiev war in order to get it. This war is about power to those who have it and can wield it. The only "ideals" are those of the nazi ideology. There is real conviction on the part of the Donbass civilian population. It's called survival.

        It was also later reported (in the Telegraph) that the EU trade agreement up for consideration would cost the Ukraine economy something like $160bn over 10 years, which was the reason that Yanukovich eventually rejected it.

        You should also look into Kolomoyski, Burisma Holdings (Ukraine's largest private fracking company), Hunter Biden (son of VP Joe) and John Kerry's investments in Burisma through the Heinz Family Trusts.


        hermanmitt 25 May 2015 08:06

        Try asking yourself one question:
        How many Russian 'military bases' are there around the globe?

        It perhaps needs to be pointed out that, in reality, there is no such thing as NATO. NATO, as it exists, is merely the European military arm that enforces the current 'western occupation' by the U.S. Empire, which relies exclusively on its Military Industrial Complex to hold the empire together.

        When you look at it in this way, to get the full picture, one needs to add into the mix all the other U.S. military bases around the globe, which tells you that the entire planet is held under a threat of U.S. aggression. It's the reason that U.S. military spending is more than the next 26 countries combined. A strategy first widely employed in the building and maintenance of the British Empire, this is really nothing more than an extension of 'gunboat diplomacy' - a global example of a military backed empire, but done in a more cover way.

        The Russians may, diplomatically, be pointing out some very salient facts, for those of us who prefer the macro, as opposed to micro, view of the geo-political map.

        Anyone who supports the current corrupt and disastrous, heavily Fascist orientated, regime in Kiev is no friend of Ukrainians, nor friends of Europe (or ordinary Americans).

        Putin has repeatedly tried to have civilized discussions with the West and sought to de-escalate the situation at every opportunity. It just hasn't been reported in Western mainstream media - it has been reported in numerous Western alternative media outlets. Just about all of the Western alternative media directly contradicts the false Neocon propaganda pushed in Western Corporate media.


        DHMeyer SHappens 25 May 2015 07:59

        1. Expansion of NATO was the choice of the independent countries which applied to join the organisation. They wouldn't have done so if Russia was indeed a peaceful and helpful neighbour, but sorry, history of the region proves they are not interested in that sort of role.

        2. Do you really believe that Russia wouldn't demand written guarantees "because it would have seemed indecent"? Since when Russian diplomats are sentimental fools and since when Russia is overly concerned with decency?

        Steely1 25 May 2015 07:58

        A real article on the subject: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html

        [May 27, 2015] Ukraine is now problem for both Russian and West, but West managed to score several points against Russia and do it relatively cheaply

        The West scored major geopolitical victory against Russia: As Paul said (see below): "My limited knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do blame Russia. Why not? That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made a mistake."
        Poor Ukrainian citizen. Poor Ukrainian pensioners existing on a $1 a day or less (with exchange rate around 26.5 hrivna per dollar, pension around 900 hrivna is around $1 per day. Some pensioners get less then that ( miserable 1500 hrivna per month considered to be "decent" pension and monthly salary 4000 hrivna is a "good" salary by Ukrainian standards).
        The last thing EU wants is an additional stream of refugees from Ukraine escaping miserable salaries and lack of decently paying jobs and pressure of Ukrainian migrant workers on unqualified job market positions.... So far the main hit for this was not in Western but in Russian job market, but that may change. At the same time making the Ukraine enemy of Russia is a definitive geopolitical victory, achieved with relatively modest financial infusions (USA estimate is 5 billions, the EU is probably a half of that) and indirect support of Western Ukrainian nationalists.
        One year ago there was a hope the Donetsk problem will be solved. Now in 2016 this civil war entered the third year -- Kiev government can't squash unrecognized Donetsk Republic with military force and it does not want to switch to federal state to accommodate their pretty modest demands: initially use of Russian language and reverse of "creeping cultural colonization" of this region by Western Ukraine. Initially the official language question was the one of the most important and Kiev Provisional government rejected Canadian variant of using the same language as its powerful, dominant neighbor and unleashed a civil war (with full blessing of the USA, which pursue "divide and conquer strategy in this region from the moment of dissolution of the USSR). Now after so much bloodshed the positions are hardened... Imagine that the Quebec nationalists came to power in Canada by French supported and financed coup, and instantly outlawed the English language for official usage and in schools and universities.
        Notable quotes:
        "... If you made a list of perhaps ten goals that powerful Western groups may have had in this Ukrainian project, how many have been achieved? ..."
        "... That has surely been largely achieved. ..."
        "... That has largely happened, as the TV says Russia stole the Crimea and is sending terrorists and bandits into the country. Look at all the banditry in the LPR. ..."
        "... Finally, the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western corporations is about to begin. ..."
        "... They surely screwed things up in the Ukraine over the last ten years. ..."
        "... I'm afraid the West would like to start wars in multiple fronts at the same time making it very hard for Russia to respond. ..."
        "... If the West could pull all this through at the same time Russia would be forced to either capitulate on most fronts or start a major war. Russia could not answer to these threats with conventional ways so the options for Russia would be to use nuclear weapons or accept a major geopolitical defeat. ..."
        "... Georgia and Azerbaijan are not likely to cooperate, Ukraine's offensive capability is minimal, the Americans are not any more eager to attack Syria than they were two years ago, and the Islamist threat to Central Asia is presently contained. ..."
        "... It has without doubt caused problems and will affect some Russian military effectiveness in the short term, but no. For example, though some products were actually made in the Ukraine, many of those businesses contracted out the production of components to Russia. ..."
        "... True, but again a very short term achievement. ..."
        "... NATO is not going to do anything apart from make as much noise and fearmaking as possible ..."
        "... The American military industrial complex has screwed itself in a bid to make more money! Their space programs are not exactly brilliant either. ..."
        "... [The transfer of property to Western corporations is] Almost inevitable, but there are several factors at play here. Western investors will have to deliver rather than just asset strip and run; domestic political repercussions will be huge at least in the medium to long term. ..."
        "... Either way it is the West to whom the Ukrainian citizen will pay tribute, for a long long long time. ..."
        "... All Russia needs to do is be fair and reasonable and step in at the right moment. ..."
        "... As to Moscow screwing up the Ukraine over the last ten years, I think that may be a bit harsh. Sometimes the best option is to keep your hand out of the viper's nest and do nothing as much as possible, only intervening when critical. ..."
        "... To be honest, Western foreign policy has rarely been panicked, but is always exploitative. If the opportunity arises, it will jump in having prepared the PPNN to scream that something must be done. ..."
        "... No panic here. Just my opinion that the Kremlin needs to study how the ex-Soviet sphere has played out and deal with things like NGOs and educational, cultural, and media matters. ..."
        "... As for my view that NATO wants to stress Russia, well, I suppose it comes down to your Weltanschauung. I think the US has to take Russia down to some degree, even if it is just smashing Syria. You aren't a superpower if someone can get away with things like grabbing the Crimea without paying a cost. Plus, Russia provides China with protection till China can develop a decent military. So the US has a limited amount of time before locking things up. Call it the Wolfowitz Doctrine if that is your preferred way of looking at it. ..."
        "... If I am right that the US has to tie Russia up, the logical way is to create as many problems on the periphery as possible. ..."
        "... I wouldn't take the problems with certain fighters to mean the US hasn't got great technology in its black projects. ..."
        "... As for Ukrainians losing their anti-Russian religion, well, perhaps. But as long as Russia occupies the Crimea, that could take a long time. My bet is the anti-Russian sentiment will last a lot longer than the Ukraine does. ..."
        "... Regardless of the think tanks, one thing the US can no longer ignore is their pocket. That's where to hit them. Even Osama Bin Laden understood this and was his primary goal to cause the US to over-extend itself politically & financially. ..."
        "... The US want to do more but it can't do it the old expensive way – it has less means but it wants to achieve more. Something has to give. The US has barely started addressing the problem. That's even before we consider the move of some oil trading out of the US dollar. ..."
        "... And what of the growing number of home grown jihadists that all NATO's wars have created? For all their support by western foreign policy to undermine Russia, it's a monster that will bite anyone and is increasingly looking at the West. As others have written before me, does the West want a reliable partner in Russia whilst it is under threat of jihadism or another big problem on their plate they can't quite manage? ..."
        "... Western corporations will only plunder the country if they can get a return on their investment, and except in the case of what they can strip from it – like the black earth – and take away, that does not seem very likely to me. However, I would agree, and have done since some time ago, that the west's biggest success was turning Ukraine and Russia into enemies. ..."
        "... NATO has not quite given up trying to turn Ukraine into a prosperous western democracy within its own orbit, but the enormity of the task and the hidden factors that make it so is beginning to dawn and enthusiasm in Europe is well on the wane, remaining strong only in Washington which does not have to do much of anything but manage. ..."
        "... I think it is clear to Brussels and Washington that Moscow will see Ukraine destroyed and a failed state before it will allow it to be a NATO satellite snuggled up against its southwestern borders. ..."
        "... NATO is running a steady propaganda campaign about Russian aggression, but I don't know how well that is actually selling outside Galicia, while it must be clear to a lot of Ukrainians what a failure the promise of western largesse was. ..."
        "... My limited knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do blame Russia. Why not? That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made a mistake. ..."
        "... My main point in rubbing the west's nose around in it is not that they have conclusively lost, because it is indeed early days to make such a judgement, but that it has not won easily as it bragged it would do. ..."
        "... The west does a poor job of managing expectations generally, and it has done abysmally this time around. It has no intention of curbing oligarchs in Ukraine and little interest beyond lip service in genuine reform in Ukraine. For their part, Europe should proceed cautiously with plans to integrate Ukraine more closely, because it is plain that the interest of Ukraine's oligarchs in such a course is to broaden their opportunities for stealing and increasing their wealth. ..."
        "... There are plenty of opportunities for the west to steal Ukraine blind, but few that involve a product or entity that the west can buy, remove and sell somewhere else. ..."
        "... The Trade Union Building on maidan square was found to be full of the burned remains of Berkut prisoners chained to the batteries and pipes after right sector set the building on fire. The Berkut were burned alive, left to their fate in the very two floors that right sector called their own during the maidan debacle. ..."
        "... The Trade Union Building in Odessa also had people burned alive, the total death toll there was almost 300. The sub basement was a charnel house of corpses including women and children ..."
        "... Over 200 citizens were killed in Mariupol the following weekend, shot down or burned to death in Militsiya HQ. In this incident at least a few of the perpetrators were destroyed in an ambush by Opolchensya as Opelchensya were leaving the city, ordered out as they were too few to defend the berg. ..."
        "... To expand on the documentations a tiny bit, do you think all those artillerists who when captured to a man scream that they did not know they were bombarding and killing thousands of our civilians are believed? Not hardly. They knowingly committed crimes and they will pay for their crimes. ..."
        "... Auslander is living in a denial. The perps of these crimes will never face any punishment because there is nobody to carry out such punishments. Novorossiya is a tiny portion of Ukraine and the rest is ruled by the Kiev thugs. Novorossiya can never reach the criminals there. ..."
        "... Well, in their lifetime anyway. Russia will not invade and Novorossiya is currently limited to defending their land against Kiev attacks unable to even liberate Sloviasnk and Mariupol. And it would be against the nature of Russia (or NAF) to send partizans to kill the perps in Kiev or Lvov. Russians simply do not behave that way nowadays. ..."
        "... I wonder if he has any substantiation for those numbers. Some sources have always said that hundreds more died in the Trade Unions building in Odessa than were ever officially acknowledged, but I don't recall hearing about anyone dying in the Trade Unions building on Maidan, and I thought the death toll in Mariupol was just a few police (not to make it sound like that's nothing) rather than hundreds. And I follow the situation in Ukraine fairly closely – this would not even register on those who get all their news from CNN. ..."
        "... Actually it was my net-acquaintances from Serbia and Bulgaria who were arguing with each other who is more deserving the title of "niggers of Europe". Serbian guy was winning, using the ultimate proof that Tupak is alive in Serbia ..."
        "... The election of Poland's new president spells big problems for Ukraine. The issue is "de-heroization" of OUN-UPA militants whom Ukraine just recently granted the status of the liberators of Europe from fascism. But unlike Komorowski, who forgave the Ukrainian heroes the Volhyn Massacre in which the Banderites slaughtered over 200 thousand Poles, the conservative Duda does not intend to sacrifice his principles. ..."
        "... This is so. A state must have myth and Ukraine has already rejected the Soviet myth. Junk the Bandera myth as well, and what is left? 'Slava Ukraini' hasn't been brilliantly effective in motivating Ukrainians to fight, but would they have done better with a slogan like 'for the preservation of ill-gotten capital!'? ..."
        May 26, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

        Paul, May 25, 2015 at 11:49 pm

        The premise that the West must be losing is a bit simplistic. If you made a list of perhaps ten goals that powerful Western groups may have had in this Ukrainian project, how many have been achieved?
        • For example, one goal was to destroy businesses (and the military-industrial complex) that were oriented towards Russia. That has surely been largely achieved.
        • Another goal was to radicalize the Ukrainian population against Russia. That has largely happened, as the TV says Russia stole the Crimea and is sending terrorists and bandits into the country. Look at all the banditry in the LPR.
        • Another goal was to stress the Russian military with having to respond to too many problems in a short period of time, which may be relevant if and when the West hits on several fronts at once.
        • Finally, the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western corporations is about to begin. Doubt Russia can stop that.

        Not denying that Putin and his circle have survived, and that the Russian economy is in better shape than most expected, but we should try to think long and hard about the pros and cons of the Kremlin's approaches.

        They surely screwed things up in the Ukraine over the last ten years. Approximately zero soft power in a place that it should have been straightforward to create.

        People have been writing novels and articles for a long time about how the West could gin up a war in the Ukraine to start an attack on Russia or otherwise break the establishment in Moscow. It was fairly obvious.

        karl1haushofer, May 26, 2015 at 2:02 am
        I'm afraid the West would like to start wars in multiple fronts at the same time making it very hard for Russia to respond.
        • Kiev would start a major offensive against Donetsk and Lugansk.
        • Transdnistria is currently blockaded by Moldova and Ukraine with no food supplies allowed to pass. Moldovan military operation might follow and Russia would be mostly unable to respond by other means than missile strikes against Moldova – which Russia under extremely cautious Putin would never do.
        • Azerbaijan would launch an offensive against Armenia in Nagarno-Karabakh. Russia lacks common border with Armenia so Russia's options would again be limited.
        • Albanian proxies, supported and trained by the West, would start military and terrorist attacks against Macedonian authorities.
        • NATO would start to bomb Syrian military and capital to oust and kill Assad.
        • Georgia might start another military operation against South Ossetia in parallel with others if it thinks Russia is too preoccupied to respond.
        • NATO-funded and -trained Islamic militants would attack authorities in Central Asian countries like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

        If the West could pull all this through at the same time Russia would be forced to either capitulate on most fronts or start a major war. Russia could not answer to these threats with conventional ways so the options for Russia would be to use nuclear weapons or accept a major geopolitical defeat.

        Pavlo Svolochenko, May 26, 2015 at 2:17 am
        Yes, 'If'.
        • Georgia and Azerbaijan are not likely to cooperate, Ukraine's offensive capability is minimal, the Americans are not any more eager to attack Syria than they were two years ago, and the Islamist threat to Central Asia is presently contained.
        • The Moldovan army is not capable of defeating Transdnistria by itself, so victory would require NATO troops to join in the attack. And if it comes to the point where NATO is willing to directly assault Russian forces, then there's no reason to hold back anyway.
        et Al , May 26, 2015 at 6:12 am
        Here's my take for what it is worth:

        The West plays the short game, so initially it may look like they have achieved much, much like their foreign policy successes at first, which then turn out to be disasters with the West reduced to firefighting.

        1: ..destroy businesses (and the military-industrial complex) that were oriented towards Russia. This has not succeeded. It has without doubt caused problems and will affect some Russian military effectiveness in the short term, but no. For example, though some products were actually made in the Ukraine, many of those businesses contracted out the production of components to Russia.

        2: ..radicalize the Ukrainian population against Russia. True, but again a very short term achievement. Food on plates and jobs don't grow on trees. What we do have is the ones in the middle who gravitated to the traditional Russophobes, aka swing voters, but things are only going to get worse in the Ukraine and the Nazi junta cannot deliver. Those swing voter will swing the other way, not a Russia love in, but a pragmatic middle ground. That is where they started.

        3: Another goal was to stress the Russian military..What evidence is there of this? Apart from quite a number of massive snap military exercises that Russia has pulled off and impressed even the Russo-skeptic military crowd at RUSI and other MIX fronts, it is quite efficient to fly 50 year old Tu-95 bombers around Europe wearing out expensive western military equipment that will need to be replaced much sooner now than later. All those austerity plans that call for holding off on major defense spending in Europe are messed up. Money going in to weapons is money going away from jobs and the economy. Ukraine's rocket cooperation with Brazil is dead (now switched to Russia) and also with other partners. So far the US has not actively banned commercial satellites from being launched from Russian rockets, but the US cannot get its billion dollar spy sats in to space without Russian rocket engines. No-one has yet pulled the plug

        NATO is not going to do anything apart from make as much noise and fearmaking as possible. It's one thing to scream and shout, its another to drop their trousers. It is quite the paper tiger. The USAF is set to rapidly shrink according to their own admission. The F-35 is designed to replace 5 aircraft – hubris or what? The F-15, F16, AV-8B, A-10 & the F-18. It's a pig of an aircraft that will perform those missions worse, in most cases, than those designed in the late 1960s early 1970s. The American military industrial complex has screwed itself in a bid to make more money! Their space programs are not exactly brilliant either.

        4: the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western corporations is about to begin. [The transfer of property to Western corporations is] Almost inevitable, but there are several factors at play here. Western investors will have to deliver rather than just asset strip and run; domestic political repercussions will be huge at least in the medium to long term.

        This is exactly what almost happened to Russia and then look how things turned out. Ukraine is of course a different case and the West will certainly try and manage it to their advantage, but it won't work if it is not for sustained profit. Either way it is the West to whom the Ukrainian citizen will pay tribute, for a long long long time. This is long before we throw any legal questions in to the mix. Whoever is in power now will pay the political price in future sooner or later. All Russia needs to do is be fair and reasonable and step in at the right moment.

        As to Moscow screwing up the Ukraine over the last ten years, I think that may be a bit harsh. Sometimes the best option is to keep your hand out of the viper's nest and do nothing as much as possible, only intervening when critical.

        Part of the problem with western politics and the Pork Pie News Networks of the last 25 years is the we must do something now mentality. Let's put it this way, you go in to hospital for a non-critical undiagnosed condition. Would you a) want to have the tests done and the best course of action chosen with your consent, or b) panic & be rushed to the operating theater so that they can just have a look around?

        To be honest, Western foreign policy has rarely been panicked, but is always exploitative. If the opportunity arises, it will jump in having prepared the PPNN to scream that something must be done.

        In short, as it is written on the cover of the good book, DON'T PANIC!

        Paul, May 26, 2015 at 8:37 am
        No panic here. Just my opinion that the Kremlin needs to study how the ex-Soviet sphere has played out and deal with things like NGOs and educational, cultural, and media matters. The science of mind manipulation has made great progress over the last century. It is a big mistake to just deal on an oligarchic level. Ukrainians have a legitimate gripe that their country is insanely corrupt and they can easily blame Moscow. That being the case, measures needed to be taken. And not creating any semblance of a pro-Russian political or intellectual class was similarly stupid.

        As for my view that NATO wants to stress Russia, well, I suppose it comes down to your Weltanschauung. I think the US has to take Russia down to some degree, even if it is just smashing Syria. You aren't a superpower if someone can get away with things like grabbing the Crimea without paying a cost. Plus, Russia provides China with protection till China can develop a decent military. So the US has a limited amount of time before locking things up. Call it the Wolfowitz Doctrine if that is your preferred way of looking at it.

        If I am right that the US has to tie Russia up, the logical way is to create as many problems on the periphery as possible. Could be Georgia; could be Central Asia; could be Transnistria. What would be your advice to those in US think tanks who are trying to keep domination of the world? What would be a good strategy? And, for what it is worth, I wouldn't take the problems with certain fighters to mean the US hasn't got great technology in its black projects. That is where all the money and technology have gone for the last 30 years. Do you really think the US would struggle to get to the Moon now and did it in 1969? Be serious – all technology is tremendously better today.

        As for Ukrainians losing their anti-Russian religion, well, perhaps. But as long as Russia occupies the Crimea, that could take a long time. My bet is the anti-Russian sentiment will last a lot longer than the Ukraine does.

        et Al, May 26, 2015 at 9:35 am
        Regardless of the think tanks, one thing the US can no longer ignore is their pocket. That's where to hit them. Even Osama Bin Laden understood this and was his primary goal to cause the US to over-extend itself politically & financially.

        The US want to do more but it can't do it the old expensive way – it has less means but it wants to achieve more. Something has to give. The US has barely started addressing the problem. That's even before we consider the move of some oil trading out of the US dollar.

        And what of the growing number of home grown jihadists that all NATO's wars have created? For all their support by western foreign policy to undermine Russia, it's a monster that will bite anyone and is increasingly looking at the West. As others have written before me, does the West want a reliable partner in Russia whilst it is under threat of jihadism or another big problem on their plate they can't quite manage?

        I have no doubt that the US has been trying to tie up Russia, but it is just more frenetic than before, the main planks of NATO enlargement (and weakening) resolved, but the rest has gone a bit wrong. The West is growing increasingly desperate and is trying all sorts of things to undermine Russia, but it could be much, much worse from a sanctions point of view. Level heads in the West understand that trying to pull the rug out completely from under Russia is a massive risk and one they are very careful in making.

        As for their wonder-weapons, the US cannot afford enough of them or make them cheap enough for their allies to buy in sufficient numbers. It is much easier and cheaper to upgrade the sensors and missiles on a SAM system than to design and bring to production standard a brand new wonder-weapon. The old days of easily blinding air-defenses are almost over when you can have a lot of cheap distributed sensors providing the information, passively & actively. The countermeasure is a lot cheaper.

        In al, Money Money Money – and every passing day the US has less to leverage and has to spread it far and wide:

        marknesop, May 26, 2015 at 7:38 am
        Western corporations will only plunder the country if they can get a return on their investment, and except in the case of what they can strip from it – like the black earth – and take away, that does not seem very likely to me. However, I would agree, and have done since some time ago, that the west's biggest success was turning Ukraine and Russia into enemies.

        NATO has not quite given up trying to turn Ukraine into a prosperous western democracy within its own orbit, but the enormity of the task and the hidden factors that make it so is beginning to dawn and enthusiasm in Europe is well on the wane, remaining strong only in Washington which does not have to do much of anything but manage.

        I think it is clear to Brussels and Washington that Moscow will see Ukraine destroyed and a failed state before it will allow it to be a NATO satellite snuggled up against its southwestern borders. The part that NATO is having trouble with is getting Russia to destroy it, so that it will be in the minds of Ukrainians for generations who did this to them.

        NATO is running a steady propaganda campaign about Russian aggression, but I don't know how well that is actually selling outside Galicia, while it must be clear to a lot of Ukrainians what a failure the promise of western largesse was.

        Paul, May 26, 2015 at 8:20 am
        That's all reasonable, though it is hard to believe that there isn't a lot more than just some black earth to expropriate.

        My limited knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do blame Russia. Why not? That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made a mistake.

        marknesop, May 26, 2015 at 10:17 am
        That's true enough, and it appears there has always been a certain amount of hostility to Russia west of the Dneipr, so they perhaps did not need too much coaxing. My main point in rubbing the west's nose around in it is not that they have conclusively lost, because it is indeed early days to make such a judgement, but that it has not won easily as it bragged it would do.

        The country it said it would confidently bat aside in its confident stroll to victory has not only weathered western attempts to crush its economy and put in place safeguards which will hurt western business opportunities in future, it has strengthened a powerful alliance with Asia and garnered considerable international sympathy, which implies increased hostility toward the west. Meanwhile, the country the west bragged it would snatch from Russia's orbit and make a model of a prosperous western democracy is miserable, poor and angry.

        The west does a poor job of managing expectations generally, and it has done abysmally this time around. It has no intention of curbing oligarchs in Ukraine and little interest beyond lip service in genuine reform in Ukraine. For their part, Europe should proceed cautiously with plans to integrate Ukraine more closely, because it is plain that the interest of Ukraine's oligarchs in such a course is to broaden their opportunities for stealing and increasing their wealth.

        There are plenty of opportunities for the west to steal Ukraine blind, but few that involve a product or entity that the west can buy, remove and sell somewhere else. Many such opportunities rely on western interests taking over Ukrainian businesses and asset-stripping them like crazy; however, the main buyer in many cases would be Russia, which has no interest in making western businesses rich, or other western buyers who would have to take over and run a Ukrainian business in a very uncertain environment in which its biggest market is Russia.

        Pavlo Svolochenko, May 26, 2015 at 1:57 am

        A copypaste from Auslander (formelry of MPnet), originally from Saker's blog:

        "This is not the first time such atrocities [the mutilated rebel prisoner] have happened in this conflict and it will not be the last.

        The Trade Union Building on maidan square was found to be full of the burned remains of Berkut prisoners chained to the batteries and pipes after right sector set the building on fire. The Berkut were burned alive, left to their fate in the very two floors that right sector called their own during the maidan debacle.

        The Trade Union Building in Odessa also had people burned alive, the total death toll there was almost 300. The sub basement was a charnel house of corpses including women and children. I know the official death toll and I know the real death toll. We also lost a friend in that atrocity, not in the building but at the far end of the square, beaten to death because he was walking home from work at the wrong place and the wrong time. Why was he beaten to death? He had a speech impediment and when he got nervous he literally could not talk. Since he could not say 'salo yucrane' 5 right sector boys beat him to death in broad daylight.

        Over 200 citizens were killed in Mariupol the following weekend, shot down or burned to death in Militsiya HQ. In this incident at least a few of the perpetrators were destroyed in an ambush by Opolchensya as Opelchensya were leaving the city, ordered out as they were too few to defend the berg.

        The killings of innocents and not so innocents have been ongoing since the beginning and well before the beginning of the conflict that let to what is now Novorossiya. One can not morally justify killing all the UAF because of the acts of a relative few, but you can rest assured that documentations are being kept for all who can be identified as committing either individual or mass atrocities.

        To expand on the documentations a tiny bit, do you think all those artillerists who when captured to a man scream that they did not know they were bombarding and killing thousands of our civilians are believed? Not hardly. They knowingly committed crimes and they will pay for their crimes. Do you think all those 'people' who commit atrocities and then post photos of the atrocities and openly brag about them on social media will walk away unscathed? Again, no hardly. Do you think we don't know who was and is abducting young women and even
        girl children for their use and then killed and discarded them like less than animals? They are known.

        I can go on for reams but you get the idea. These are crimes being committed by a relative few of UAF, and for the record anyone fighting for Ukraine against Novorossiya is a member of UAF, their military unit does not matter. In the end justice will be done, by the law and with due legal process where possible. Where not possible, justice will still be done. Justice, like revenge, is a dish best served cold.

        As for those few of you who are still aghast at the total and deafening silence from USEU over these ongoing atrocities and crimes, I urge you to forget any chance of anything being said about we untermenschen being slaughtered by those civilized denizens of USEU. It is not going to happen so stop complaining about it. Never forget, never forgive, always remember, but don't complain, it's useless."

        karl1haushofer, May 26, 2015 at 2:07 am
        Auslander is living in a denial. The perps of these crimes will never face any punishment because there is nobody to carry out such punishments. Novorossiya is a tiny portion of Ukraine and the rest is ruled by the Kiev thugs. Novorossiya can never reach the criminals there.
        Pavlo Svolochenko, May 26, 2015 at 2:11 am
        Never is a strong word.
        karl1haushofer , May 26, 2015 at 2:22 am
        Well, in their lifetime anyway. Russia will not invade and Novorossiya is currently limited to defending their land against Kiev attacks unable to even liberate Sloviasnk and Mariupol. And it would be against the nature of Russia (or NAF) to send partizans to kill the perps in Kiev or Lvov. Russians simply do not behave that way nowadays.
        kat kan, May 26, 2015 at 4:54 am
        He says "In the end justice will be done, by the law and with due legal process where possible. Where not possible, justice will still be done. Justice, like revenge, is a dish best served cold."

        I do believe various people involved in Odessa have disappeared – or turned up. Dead. Some have had to go to ground. Some have "died" under unbelievable circumstances, but their new name will probably still have the same face. The biggest obstacle will be all this wearing of masks, but with more recent atrocities, where they are garrisoned in the cities for months, they'd be known anyway..

        The spirit of Novorossiya will be expanding (not yet). Things may slowly go back towards normal. But fully normal it can never be, while murderers and torturers walk free by the hundreds. It is going to be a very long headache for Ukraine.

        marknesop , May 26, 2015 at 7:45 am
        I wonder if he has any substantiation for those numbers. Some sources have always said that hundreds more died in the Trade Unions building in Odessa than were ever officially acknowledged, but I don't recall hearing about anyone dying in the Trade Unions building on Maidan, and I thought the death toll in Mariupol was just a few police (not to make it sound like that's nothing) rather than hundreds. And I follow the situation in Ukraine fairly closely – this would not even register on those who get all their news from CNN.
        Moscow Exile, May 26, 2015 at 6:02 am
        From the Brain-Dead Centre of the International Community:

        Some comments:

        • – russians are very friendly people this story is all fake
        • – Yeah! And we'll kill anyone who disagrees!
        • – Russians ARE the blacks of europe. (no offense to russians, blacks, or eurpeans ofc)
        • – The scariest white people are Americans who make fictional Russian accents
        Lyttenburgh, May 26, 2015 at 12:27 pm
        Actually it was my net-acquaintances from Serbia and Bulgaria who were arguing with each other who is more deserving the title of "niggers of Europe". Serbian guy was winning, using the ultimate proof that Tupak is alive in Serbia
        Tim Owen, May 26, 2015 at 2:03 pm
        Yeah that's laughable. On the other hand

        The election of Poland's new president spells big problems for Ukraine. The issue is "de-heroization" of OUN-UPA militants whom Ukraine just recently granted the status of the liberators of Europe from fascism. But unlike Komorowski, who forgave the Ukrainian heroes the Volhyn Massacre in which the Banderites slaughtered over 200 thousand Poles, the conservative Duda does not intend to sacrifice his principles.

        http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2015/05/polands-new-president-demands-ukraine.html

        Of course J Hawk's take is probably on the money. J.Hawk's Comment:

        Not so fast. I'm not so sure that Duda wants to do any of the things described above. One of the major reasons Duda won is the defection of the rural voters, whose average income declined by 14% in 2014 in large measure due to Russian food embargo. Since Duda knows on which side his bread is buttered (no pun intended), deep down he also realizes the importance of that embargo lifting. His UPA criticism may well be only an excuse, a pretext to allow himself to maneuver out of his election campaign pro-Ukraine position while saving face. Because, ultimately, what is the likelihood that the Rada will actually pass a law that "de-heroizes" UPA to a sufficient degree? And even if it does, will Bandera monuments start disappearing from Lvov and other parts of Western Ukraine?

        Pavlo Svolochenko, May 26, 2015 at 2:19 pm
        This is so. A state must have myth and Ukraine has already rejected the Soviet myth. Junk the Bandera myth as well, and what is left? 'Slava Ukraini' hasn't been brilliantly effective in motivating Ukrainians to fight, but would they have done better with a slogan like 'for the preservation of ill-gotten capital!'?

        [May 27, 2015] Andrzej Duda victory in Polish presidential election signals shift to right

        See also Far-right politics in Poland - Wikipedia and 'Polish far-right nationalists serve as instruments of US, EU policy'
        May 27, 2015 | The Guardian

        The changing political mood could signal a return to power of Duda's conservative Law and Justice party in parliamentary elections this autumn. That would cement Poland's turn to the right, create a new dynamic with other European countries and possibly usher in a less welcoming climate for foreign investors.

        Law and Justice presents itself as a protector of those who have not benefited from the capitalist transformation and as a defender of national interests abroad. It is staunchly pro-US, but has a sometimes defiant stance towards other European partners, which has created tensions in the past with the EU and neighbouring Germany.

        Duda says he wants new taxes on the foreign-owned banks and supermarkets to protect Polish interests, suggesting an approach similar to that of Hungary's prime minister, Viktor Orbán. He also wants banks returned to Polish control.

        [May 25, 2015] Andrzej Duda victory in Polish presidential election signals shift to right

        Notable quotes:
        "... The changing political mood could signal a return to power of Duda's conservative Law and Justice party in parliamentary elections this autumn. That would cement Poland's turn to the right, create a new dynamic with other European countries and possibly usher in a less welcoming climate for foreign investors. ..."
        "... Duda says he wants new taxes on the foreign-owned banks and supermarkets to protect Polish interests, suggesting an approach similar to that of Hungary's prime minister, Viktor Orbán. He also wants banks returned to Polish control. ..."
        "... Party supporters have been rejoicing since Duda's apparent victory was announced late on Sunday. They say the party will do much more to help the many Poles who have not benefited from the country's economic growth, those who face low wages and job insecurity despite a quarter of a century of growth. In his campaign speeches, Duda often spoke of the more than 2 million Poles who left in the past decade to seek better economic opportunities abroad. ..."
        www.theguardian.com

        The changing political mood could signal a return to power of Duda's conservative Law and Justice party in parliamentary elections this autumn. That would cement Poland's turn to the right, create a new dynamic with other European countries and possibly usher in a less welcoming climate for foreign investors.

        Law and Justice presents itself as a protector of those who have not benefited from the capitalist transformation and as a defender of national interests abroad. It is staunchly pro-US, but has a sometimes defiant stance towards other European partners, which has created tensions in the past with the EU and neighbouring Germany.

        Duda says he wants new taxes on the foreign-owned banks and supermarkets to protect Polish interests, suggesting an approach similar to that of Hungary's prime minister, Viktor Orbán. He also wants banks returned to Polish control.

        Jacek Kucharczyk, president of the Institute of Public Affairs, an independent thinktank in Warsaw, said Poland's relations with other European powers would now depend on whether Duda sticks to the relatively moderate agenda he campaigned on or embraces his party leader's more combative foreign policy stance.

        "That would be a nightmare scenario for Polish foreign policy, because it would mean getting into conflicts with Germany and anti-EU stunts and aggressive rhetoric towards Russia," Kucharczyk said. "We are in for a bumpy ride. The only question is how bumpy it will be."

        Party supporters have been rejoicing since Duda's apparent victory was announced late on Sunday. They say the party will do much more to help the many Poles who have not benefited from the country's economic growth, those who face low wages and job insecurity despite a quarter of a century of growth. In his campaign speeches, Duda often spoke of the more than 2 million Poles who left in the past decade to seek better economic opportunities abroad.

        [May 24, 2015]Problems he face are becoming less and less managable for the Chocolate King

        tasnimnews.com

        ...Now Poroshenko clearly understands that his country plays virtually no role, neither in the EU nor NATO. Meanwhile, it becomes clear the future of the Eurozone. So far as the state is not able to become an EU member, the prospect of accession to EU and adopting common currency is very elusive. In other words, Western countries have excommunicated Ukraine from all associations to which she had once dreamed of entering.

        The fact is that the West is using Ukraine for their own geostrategic purposes, and the events taking place in this country, created great economic hardships for Ukrainian people, hardships that increase with each day. Flirting by opponents of Yanukovych with the United States, NATO and the European Union caused a protracted crisis in the country, the conflict with Russia, the growth of separatist movements in the East, armed clashes, mass death of Ukrainian citizens and the reduction of GDP. However, Ukraine failed to achieve membership in NATO and the EU. In other words, the cooperation of the Pro-Western Ukrainian politicians with the two organizations turned into a complete fiasco.

        In such conditions Poroshenko should be extremely concerned about his future and the future of his government. It is quite obvious that in the event of any military conflict between Russia and Ukraine NATO command, not having taken any formal obligations in respect of Kiev, will not directly participate. They will only watch the fall of Kiev from the sidelines. By the way, exactly the same thing happened in Georgia in 2008.

        Then Mikhail Saakashvili stated that in the event of a military conflict between Moscow and Tbilisi, NATO members will immediately defend Georgia. During the clashes, the representatives of the Alliance really has condemned Russia's position, however, refrained from starting a direct confrontation with her. In the end, Saakashvili raised the white flag, admitting complete defeat in the Ossetian front.

        If we return to the situation in Ukraine, we can say that now Poroshenko has lost the ability even in the slightest degree to analyze the events occurring in his country. Aggravates the current situation is that the White House and NATO have exploited weak Ukrainian government. The fact that the West is using Ukraine for their own purposes, and the events taking place in this country, created the conditions for Kiev to dteriarate ecomonically and politically with weach day.

        To date, the results of flirting opponents of Yanukovych with the United States, NATO and the European Union caused a protracted crisis in the country, led to the conflict with Russia, the growth of separatist movements in the East, armed clashes, mass death of Ukrainian citizens and the alarming reduction of GDP. However, Ukraine failed to achieve membership in NATO and the EU. The cooperation of the Pro-Western Ukrainian politicians with those two organizations turned into a complete fiasco.

        [May 23, 2015] Ukraines Bloody Civil War No End in Sight

        Notable quotes:
        "... is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to global security. ..."
        Mar 31, 2015 | The National Interest

        The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit to it the day after showed that to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic artillery fire could be heard in the city's centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.


        The mood among many in Donetsk-noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known as the Army of Novorossiya-indicates little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable. Many bitterly complain of Kiev's chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters, the "Anti-Terrorist Operation." Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize them as a whole by grouping the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.

        Interactions with several rebel rank-and-files and a briefing from two rebel officers reveal even less of an appetite for a way back into the Ukrainian fold. As one senior officer put it: "Ukraine is dead. It was killed on May 2 in Odessa." Questions regarding Russian involvement were met with scoffs-though one did admit that "[their] Russian brothers" did provide food supplies to the area.

        ... ... ...

        Interestingly, the rebels seem to have a similar mindset to those U.S. Congressmen who overwhelmingly voted to supply Kiev with lethal military aid last week: that the remilitarization of the conflict is simply inevitable. One rebel commander said that he expects Kiev to launch a new major offensive "within a week" and added, matter-of-factly: "We are ready." And ready, he claims, for the long haul.

        ... ... ...

        Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's) preferred policy choice is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely, that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow increase the number of Russian fatalities to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin-thereby forcing him to back down.

        This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no agency on the part of the rebel fighters or, for that matter, the area's noncombatants. The simple, undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded-via sanctions or via a significant uptick in military casualties - to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the indigenous military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass - despite repeated protestations from Kiev's representatives in Washington - is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to global security.

        James Carden is a contributing editor for The National Interest.

        Igor

        Wow! Who is allowed to publish this article in the Western free press? Who allowed the journalist of National Interest go to Moscow and to Donetsk!? And what about the story about invisible Russian army? :-))) James Carden is real hero! :-))) Western press need 1 year for understanding of simple things...

        Imba > Igor

        Psst, don't scare them with your sarcasm. I'm sure author feels like a pioneer on Wild West, while writing such articles. You can scare him away and we will have to read again dull and boring articles about invasions, annexation, tattered economy, moscovites eating hedgehogs and so on.
        Please respect him ;)

        Dima Lauri > Imba

        I am sure authors who does not accept the version of Washington will be soon labeled by "Putin troll", "Payed KGB agent", "Drunk/Stupid" or whatever verbal distortion.

        folktruther

        a good article for a change. the Ukraine coup engineered by Washington was the worst event of Obama's administration, and may perhaps turn out to be worse that Bush jr's invasion of Iraq. Washington simply wants a war, cold or hot, to disconnect Europe from Russia. hopefully Europe, especially Germany and france, will rebel against Washington policy like they did the Chinese bank, averting a war among nuclear powers. but the issue is currently in doubt.

        [May 23, 2015] Failure of the US coup in Macedonia by Thierry Meyssan

        www.voltairenet.org

        Macedonia has just neutralised an armed group whose sponsors had been under surveillance for at least eight months. By doing so, it has prevented a new attempt at a coup d'État, planned by Washington for the 17th of May.

        The aim was to spread the chaos already infecting Ukraine into Macedonia in order to stall the passage of a Russian gas pipeline to the European Union.

        Voltaire Network | Damascus (Syria) | 23 May 2015

        The Kumanavo affair

        On the 9th of May, 2015, the Macedonian police launched a dawn operation to arrest an armed group which had infiltrated the country and which was suspected of preparing a number of attacks.

        The police evacuated the civilian population before launching the assault.

        The suspects opened fire, which led to a bitter firefight, leaving 14 terrorists and 8 members of the police forces dead. 30 people were taken prisoner. There were a large number of wounded

        Not a terrorist act, but an attempted coup d'État

        The Macedonian police were clearly well-informed before they launched their operation. According to the Minister for the Interior, Ivo Kotevski, the group was preparing a very important operation for the 17th May (the date of the demonstration organised by the Albanophone opposition in Skopje).

        The identification of the suspects has made it possible to determine that they were almost all ex-members of the UÇK (Kosovo Liberation Army) [1].

        The headquarters of the armed group in Kumanovo, after the assault.

        Among them were :
        • Sami Ukshini, known as " Commandant Sokoli ", whose family played a historic rôle in the UÇK.
        • Rijai Bey, ex-bodyguard of Ramush Haradinaj (himself a drug trafficker, military head of the UÇK, then Prime Minister of Kosovo. He was twice condemned for war crimes by the International Penal Tribunal for ex-Yugoslavia, but was acquitted because 9 crucial witnesses were murdered during the trial).
        • Dem Shehu, currently bodyguard for the Albanophone leader and founder of the BDI party, Ali Ahmeti.
        • Mirsad Ndrecaj, known as the " NATO Commandant ", grandson of Malic Ndrecaj, who is commander of the 132nd Brigade of the UÇK.

        The principal leaders of this operation, including Fadil Fejzullahu (killed during the assault), are close to the United States ambassador in Skopje, Paul Wohlers.

        Fadil Fejzullahu, one of the leaders of the armed group, killed during the assault, with his boss, the United States ambassador in Skopje, Paul Wohlers.

        Paul Wohlers is the son of US diplomat Lester Wohlers, who played an important part in Atlantist propaganda, and directed the cinematographic service of the U.S. Information Agency. Paul's brother, Laurence Wohlers, is presently an ambassador in the Central African Republic. Paul Wohlers himself, an ex-Navy pilot, is a specialist in counter-espionage. He was the assistant director of the United States Department of State Operations Center (in other words, the service for the surveillance and protection of diplomats).

        Although Macedonia is not a member of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg was " following " the police operation in Kumanovo.

        To eliminate any doubt about the identity of the operation's sponsors, the General Secretary of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, intervened even before the assault was over - not to declare his condemnation of terrorism and his support for the constitutional government of Macedonia, but to paint a picture of the terrorist group as a legitimate ethnic opposition : " I am following the events in Kumanovo with deep concern. I would like to express my sympathy to the families of those who were killed or wounded. It is important that all political and community leaders work together to restore order and begin a transparent investigation in order to find out what happened. I am calling for everyone to show reserve and avoid any new escalation of violence, in the intersts of the nation and also the whole region. "

        You would have to be blind not to understand.

        When he was the governor of the Stroumitsa region, Zoran Zaev was accused of having favoured the construction of a commercial centre, and arrested for corruption. His party left the Parliament as a show of support for him. Finally, he was pardoned by the President of the Republic, Branko Crvenkovski, who then took leadership of his party. He was elected President of the SDSM in June 2013.

        In January 2015, Macedonia foiled an attempted coup d'état organised for the head of the opposition, the social-democrat Zoran Zaev. Four peole were arrested, and Mr. Zaev had his passport confiscated, while the Atlantist press began its denunciation of an " authoritarian drift by the régime " (sic).

        Zoran Zaev is publicly supported by the embassies of the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and Holland. But the only trace left of this attempted coup d'état indicates the repsponsibility of the US.

        On the 17th May, Zoran Zaev's social-democrat party (SDSM) [2] was supposed to organise a demonstration. It intended to distribute 2,000 masks in order to prevent the police from identifying the terrorists taking part in the march. During the demonstration, the armed group, concealed behind their masks, were supposed to attack several institutions and launch a pseudo-" revolution " comparable to the events in Maidan Square, Kiev.

        This coup d'État was coordinated by Mile Zechevich, an ex-employee of one of George Soros' foundations.

        In order to understand Washington's urgency to overthrow the Macedonian government, we have to go back and look at the gas pipeline war. Because international politics is a huge chess-board on which every move by any piece causes consequences for all the others.

        The gas war

        The gas pipieline Turkish Stream was intended to pass through Turkey, Greece, Macedonia and Serbia in order to supply the European Union with Russian gas. On the initiative of Hungarian President Viktor Orbán, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of each of the countries concerned met on the 7th April in Budapest to coordinate their position facing the United States and the European Union.

        The United States have been attempting to sever communications between Russia and the European Union since 2007. They managed to sabotage the projet South Stream by obliging Bulgaria to cancel its participation, but on the 1st December 2014, to everyone's surprise, Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a new project when he succeeded in convincing his Turkish opposite number, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, to sign an agreement with him, despite the fact that Turkey is a member of NATO [3]. It was agreed that Moscow would deliver gas to Ankara, and that in return, Ankara would deliver gas to the European Union, thus bypassing the anti-Russian embargo by Brussels. On the 18th of April 2015, the new Greek Prime Minister, Alexis Tsípras, gave his agreement that the pipeline could cross his country [4] . As for Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski, he had already conluded discrete negotiations last March [5]. Finally, Serbia, which had been a partner in the South Stream project, indicated to the Russian Minister for Energy Aleksandar Novak, during his reception in Belgrade in April, that Serbia was ready to switch to the Turkish Stream project [6].

        To halt the Russian project, Washington has multiplied its initiatives :
        in Turkey, it is supporting the CHP against President Erdoğan, hoping this will cause him to lose the elections;
        in Greece, on the 8th May, it sent Amos Hochstein, Directeur of the Bureau of Energy Ressources, to demand that the Tsípras government give up its agreement with Gazprom;
        it plans – just in case – to block the route of the pipeline by placing one of its puppets in power in Macedonia;
        and in Serbia, it has restarted the project for the secession of the small piece of territory - Voïvodine - which allows the junction with Hungary [7].

        Last comment, but not the least: Turkish Stream will also supply Hungary and Austria, thus ending the alternative project negotiated by the United States with President Hassan Rohani (against the advice of the Revolutionary Guards) for supplying them with Iranian gas [8].

        Thierry Meyssan

        Translation
        Pete Kimberley

        [May 23, 2015] L. TODD WOOD Russia still angry about Serbia

        The NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia is the genesis of Mr. Putin's power. This article is not meant to comment on the morality or appropriateness of NATO's actions, only the consequences within Russia.
        May 22, 2015 | Washington Times
        L. Todd Wood - - Friday, May 22, 2015

        The West frequently asks itself, "Why is Russian President Vladimir Putin so popular? He has harmed their economy. He has stifled the free press. He has destroyed the political opposition. We don't get it." Anyone asking this question exposes themselves to the criticism of short term thinking and a lack of appreciation, or ignorance, of history, even though the root cause of Mr. Putin's popularity happened only 16 years ago.

        The NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia is the genesis of Mr. Putin's power. This article is not meant to comment on the morality or appropriateness of NATO's actions, only the consequences within Russia. Slobodan Milošević presided over a reign of terror in several of the Yugoslav provinces; that is a fact. He used mass media to delegitimize certain ethnic groups and accused them of fascist tendencies, setting up justification for military action. Sound familiar? He turned a blind eye to genocide, especially in Kosovo, and supported ethnic cleansing of Kosovo for Serbia. He was eventually extradited to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and died in prison of a heart attack before the trial was concluded in 2006. In 1999, NATO initiated a 2-1/2-month-long, high-altitude bombing campaign of Serb military targets in Kosovo in an attempt to halt the Serbian ethnic cleansing and mass killings of non-Serbs in the region.

        However, under President Boris Yeltsin, Russia vehemently opposed NATO's actions. In fact, Russia vetoed approval for NATO intervention at the U.N. Security Council, to no avail. The Kosovo campaign was the first time NATO had acted unilaterally without U.N. approval. Mr. Yeltsin even leaked that he had ordered Russian Strategic Rocket Forces to retarget their missiles against countries that were involved in the NATO bombing of Serb forces in Kosovo.

        "I told NATO, the Americans, the Germans, don't push us towards military action. Otherwise there will be a European war for sure and possibly world war," Mr. Yeltsin barked on Russian state television.

        But alas to Russia, she was humiliated as NATO acted with impunity in a former Soviet satellite state. Russia could do nothing; its military at the time, during the economic upheavals of the 1990s, was too weak. Multiple NATO countries, using more than 1,000 aircraft from bases mainly in Italy and Germany, as well as naval forces, NATO flew 38,000 bombing missions over Kosovo. The Serbian forces were forced to withdraw from the breakaway region. Russians have long memories and they never forgot this. This new assertive alliance, acting on their border in any fashion it desired, unnerved the Kremlin.

        Many times over dinner with Russian friends in Moscow, the conversation inevitably turns to politics and how NATO acted unilaterally on Serbia. The morality of the question aside, that point of view is right.

        Mr. Putin learned from this lesson. When the war in Chechnya flared up, Mr. Putin was quick to take advantage of the situation. He won the war, as well as the second Chechen conflict, brutally and effectively. He understood that Russians want a strong leader, someone who will convey strength to the world and regain Russia's role as a great world power. Mr. Yeltsin's actions to pick Mr. Putin as his predecessor is history.

        Now let's fast-forward to the future, to NATO expanding into Eastern Europe, the Baltics and the Balkan states. This action further humiliated the Russian security establishment and the Russian people in general. The tipping point was the threat of Ukraine joining the alliance and the European Union. Mr. Putin had rebuilt the Russian military and was ready for the opportunity and he seized it, Crimea, or Krim, as the Russians call it.

        In this one well-thought-out and efficient operation, Mr. Putin touched the humiliated soul of the Russian people and they will never forget it. That is why Mr. Putin enjoys 80 percent-plus approval ratings. That is why Russians will forgive and endure any short-term economic hardship Mr. Putin's Ukraine adventures will cost them. That is why Russians will let go of any democratic leanings they had in the past. Democracy was not pleasant for Russia. Russians would much rather have a leader who makes the trains run on time and can stand up to perceived Western aggression. For as they say in Russia, anyone who wants democracy left a long time ago.

        [May 23, 2015] The Original Chechnya Bombers - The CIA, The Saudis And Bin Laden

        Zero Hedge
        Authored by F. William Engdahl via New Eastern Outlook,

        What if Putin is Telling The Truth?

        On April 26 Russia's main national TV station, Rossiya 1, featured President Vladimir Putin in a documentary to the Russian people on the events of the recent period including the annexation of Crimea, the US coup d'etat in Ukraine, and the general state of relations with the United States and the EU. His words were frank. And in the middle of his remarks the Russian former KGB chief dropped a political bombshell that was known by Russian intelligence two decades ago.

        Putin stated bluntly that in his view the West would only be content in having a Russia weak, suffering and begging from the West, something clearly the Russian character is not disposed to. Then a short way into his remarks, the Russian President stated for the first time publicly something that Russian intelligence has known for almost two decades but kept silent until now, most probably in hopes of an era of better normalized Russia-US relations.

        Putin stated that the terror in Chechnya and in the Russian Caucasus in the early 1990's was actively backed by the CIA and western Intelligence services to deliberately weaken Russia. He noted that the Russian FSB foreign intelligence had documentation of the US covert role without giving details.

        What Putin, an intelligence professional of the highest order, only hinted at in his remarks, I have documented in detail from non-Russian sources. The report has enormous implications to reveal to the world the long-standing hidden agenda of influential circles in Washington to destroy Russia as a functioning sovereign state, an agenda which includes the neo-nazi coup d'etat in Ukraine and severe financial sanction warfare against Moscow. The following is drawn on my book, "The Lost Hegemon" to be published soon…

        CIA's Chechen Wars

        Not long after the CIA and Saudi Intelligence-financed Mujahideen had devastated Afghanistan at the end of the 1980's, forcing the exit of the Soviet Army in 1989, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union itself some months later, the CIA began to look at possible places in the collapsing Soviet Union where their trained "Afghan Arabs" could be redeployed to further destabilize Russian influence over the post-Soviet Eurasian space.

        They were called Afghan Arabs because they had been recruited from ultraconservative Wahhabite Sunni Muslims from Saudi Arabia, the Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and elsewhere in the Arab world where the ultra-strict Wahhabite Islam was practiced. They were brought to Afghanistan in the early 1980's by a Saudi CIA recruit who had been sent to Afghanistan named Osama bin Laden.

        With the former Soviet Union in total chaos and disarray, George H.W. Bush's Administration decided to "kick 'em when they're down," a sad error. Washington redeployed their Afghan veteran terrorists to bring chaos and destabilize all of Central Asia, even into the Russian Federation itself, then in a deep and traumatic crisis during the economic collapse of the Yeltsin era.

        In the early 1990s, Dick Cheney's company, Halliburton, had surveyed the offshore oil potentials of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and the entire Caspian Sea Basin. They estimated the region to be "another Saudi Arabia" worth several trillion dollars on today's market. The US and UK were determined to keep that oil bonanza from Russian control by all means. The first target of Washington was to stage a coup in Azerbaijan against elected president Abulfaz Elchibey to install a President more friendly to a US-controlled Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline, "the world's most political pipeline," bringing Baku oil from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey and the Mediterranean.

        At that time, the only existing oil pipeline from Baku was a Soviet era Russian pipeline that ran through the Chechen capital, Grozny, taking Baku oil north via Russia's Dagestan province, and across Chechenya to the Black Sea Russian port of Novorossiysk. The pipeline was the only competition and major obstacle to the very costly alternative route of Washington and the British and US oil majors.

        President Bush Sr. gave his old friends at CIA the mandate to destroy that Russian Chechen pipeline and create such chaos in the Caucasus that no Western or Russian company would consider using the Grozny Russian oil pipeline.

        Graham E. Fuller, an old colleague of Bush and former Deputy Director of the CIA National Council on Intelligence had been a key architect of the CIA Mujahideen strategy. Fuller described the CIA strategy in the Caucasus in the early 1990s: "The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power."6

        The CIA used a dirty tricks veteran, General Richard Secord, for the operation. Secord created a CIA front company, MEGA Oil. Secord had been convicted in the 1980s for his central role in the CIA's Iran-Contra illegal arms and drugs operations.

        In 1991 Secord, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, landed in Baku and set up the CIA front company, MEGA Oil. He was a veteran of the CIA covert opium operations in Laos during the Vietnam War. In Azerbaijan, he setup an airline to secretly fly hundreds of bin Laden's al-Qaeda Mujahideen from Afghanistan into Azerbaijan. By 1993, MEGA Oil had recruited and armed 2,000 Mujahideen, converting Baku into a base for Caucasus-wide Mujahideen terrorist operations.

        General Secord's covert Mujahideen operation in the Caucasus initiated the military coup that toppled elected president Abulfaz Elchibey that year and installed Heydar Aliyev, a more pliable US puppet. A secret Turkish intelligence report leaked to the Sunday Times of London confirmed that "two petrol giants, BP and Amoco, British and American respectively, which together form the AIOC (Azerbaijan International Oil Consortium), are behind the coup d'état."

        Saudi Intelligence head, Turki al-Faisal, arranged that his agent, Osama bin Laden, whom he had sent to Afghanistan at the start of the Afghan war in the early 1980s, would use his Afghan organization Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK) to recruit "Afghan Arabs" for what was rapidly becoming a global Jihad. Bin Laden's mercenaries were used as shock troops by the Pentagon and CIA to coordinate and support Muslim offensives not only Azerbaijan but also in Chechnya and, later, Bosnia.

        Bin Laden brought in another Saudi, Ibn al-Khattab, to become Commander, or Emir of Jihadist Mujahideen in Chechnya (sic!) together with Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev. No matter that Ibn al-Khattab was a Saudi Arab who spoke barely a word of Chechen, let alone, Russian. He knew what Russian soldiers looked like and how to kill them.

        Chechnya then was traditionally a predominantly Sufi society, a mild apolitical branch of Islam. Yet the increasing infiltration of the well-financed and well-trained US-sponsored Mujahideen terrorists preaching Jihad or Holy War against Russians transformed the initially reformist Chechen resistance movement. They spread al-Qaeda's hardline Islamist ideology across the Caucasus. Under Secord's guidance, Mujahideen terrorist operations had also quickly extended into neighboring Dagestan and Chechnya, turning Baku into a shipping point for Afghan heroin to the Chechen mafia.

        From the mid-1990s, bin Laden paid Chechen guerrilla leaders Shamil Basayev and Omar ibn al-Khattab the handsome sum of several million dollars per month, a King's fortune in economically desolate Chechnya in the 1990s, enabling them to sideline the moderate Chechen majority.21 US intelligence remained deeply involved in the Chechen conflict until the end of the 1990s. According to Yossef Bodansky, then Director of the US Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, Washington was actively involved in "yet another anti-Russian jihad, seeking to support and empower the most virulent anti-Western Islamist forces."

        Bodansky revealed the entire CIA Caucasus strategy in detail in his report, stating that US Government officials participated in,

        "a formal meeting in Azerbaijan in December 1999 in which specific programs for the training and equipping of Mujahideen from the Caucasus, Central/South Asia and the Arab world were discussed and agreed upon, culminating in Washington's tacit encouragement of both Muslim allies (mainly Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) and US 'private security companies'. . . to assist the Chechens and their Islamist allies to surge in the spring of 2000 and sustain the ensuing Jihad for a long time…Islamist Jihad in the Caucasus as a way to deprive Russia of a viable pipeline route through spiraling violence and terrorism."

        The most intense phase of the Chechen wars wound down in 2000 only after heavy Russian military action defeated the Islamists. It was a pyrrhic victory, costing a massive toll in human life and destruction of entire cities. The exact death toll from the CIA-instigated Chechen conflict is unknown. Unofficial estimates ranged from 25,000 to 50,000 dead or missing, mostly civilians. Russian casualties were near 11,000 according to the Committee of Soldiers' Mothers.

        The Anglo-American oil majors and the CIA's operatives were happy. They had what they wanted: their Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan oil pipeline, bypassing Russia's Grozny pipeline.

        The Chechen Jihadists, under the Islamic command of Shamil Basayev, continued guerrilla attacks in and outside Chechnya. The CIA had refocused into the Caucasus.

        Basayev's Saudi Connection

        Basayev was a key part of the CIA's Global Jihad. In 1992, he met Saudi terrorist Ibn al-Khattag in Azerbaijan. From Azerbaijan, Ibn al-Khattab brought Basayev to Afghanistan to meet al-Khattab's ally, fellow-Saudi Osama bin Laden. Ibn al-Khattab's role was to recruit Chechen Muslims willing to wage Jihad against Russian forces in Chechnya on behalf of the covert CIA strategy of destabilizing post-Soviet Russia and securing British-US control over Caspian energy.

        Once back in Chechnya, Basayev and al-Khattab created the International Islamic Brigade (IIB) with Saudi Intelligence money, approved by the CIA and coordinated through the liaison of Saudi Washington Ambassador and Bush family intimate Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Bandar, Saudi Washington Ambassador for more than two decades, was so intimate with the Bush family that George W. Bush referred to the playboy Saudi Ambassador as "Bandar Bush," a kind of honorary family member.

        Basayev and al-Khattab imported fighters from the Saudi fanatical Wahhabite strain of Sunni Islam into Chechnya. Ibn al-Khattab commanded what were called the "Arab Mujahideen in Chechnya," his own private army of Arabs, Turks, and other foreign fighters. He was also commissioned to set up paramilitary training camps in the Caucasus Mountains of Chechnya that trained Chechens and Muslims from the North Caucasian Russian republics and from Central Asia.

        The Saudi and CIA-financed Islamic International Brigade was responsible not only for terror in Chechnya. They carried out the October 2002 Moscow Dubrovka Theatre hostage seizure and the gruesome September 2004 Beslan school massacre. In 2010, the UN Security Council published the following report on al-Khattab and Basayev's International Islamic Brigade:

        Islamic International Brigade (IIB) was listed on 4 March 2003. . . as being associated with Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden or the Taliban for "participating in the financing, planning, facilitating, preparing or perpetrating of acts or activities by, in conjunction with, under the name of, on behalf or in support of" Al-Qaida. . . The Islamic International Brigade (IIB) was founded and led by Shamil Salmanovich Basayev (deceased) and is linked to the Riyadus-Salikhin Reconnaissance and Sabotage Battalion of Chechen Martyrs (RSRSBCM). . . and the Special Purpose Islamic Regiment (SPIR). . .

        On the evening of 23 October 2002, members of IIB, RSRSBCM and SPIR operated jointly to seize over 800 hostages at Moscow's Podshipnikov Zavod (Dubrovka) Theater.

        In October 1999, emissaries of Basayev and Al-Khattab traveled to Usama bin Laden's home base in the Afghan province of Kandahar, where Bin Laden agreed to provide substantial military assistance and financial aid, including by making arrangements to send to Chechnya several hundred fighters to fight against Russian troops and perpetrate acts of terrorism. Later that year, Bin Laden sent substantial amounts of money to Basayev, Movsar Barayev (leader of SPIR) and Al-Khattab, which was to be used exclusively for training gunmen, recruiting mercenaries and buying ammunition.

        The Afghan-Caucasus Al Qaeda "terrorist railway," financed by Saudi intelligence, had two goals. One was a Saudi goal to spread fanatical Wahhabite Jihad into the Central Asian region of the former Soviet Union. The second was the CIA's agenda of destabilizing a then-collapsing post-Soviet Russian Federation.

        Beslan

        On September 1, 2004, armed terrorists from Basayev and al-Khattab's IIB took more than 1,100 people as hostages in a siege that included 777 children, and forced them into School Number One (SNO) in Beslan in North Ossetia, the autonomous republic in the North Caucasus of the Russian Federation near to the Georgia border.

        On the third day of the hostage crisis, as explosions were heard inside the school, FSB and other elite Russian troops stormed the building. In the end, at least 334 hostages were killed, including 186 children, with a significant number of people injured and reported missing. It became clear afterward that the Russian forces had handled the intervention poorly.

        The Washington propaganda machine, from Radio Free Europe to The New York Times and CNN, wasted no time demonizing Putin and Russia for their bad handling of the Beslan crisis rather than focus on the links of Basayev to Al Qaeda and Saudi intelligence. That would have brought the world's attention to the intimate relations between the family of then US President George W. Bush and the Saudi billionaire bin Laden family.

        On September 1, 2001, just ten days before the day of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, Saudi Intelligence head US-educated Prince Turki bin Faisal Al Saud, who had directed Saudi Intelligence since 1977, including through the entire Osama bin Laden Mujahideen operation in Afghanistan and into the Caucasus, abruptly and inexplicably resigned, just days after having accepted a new term as intelligence head from his King. He gave no explanation. He was quickly reposted to London, away from Washington.

        The record of the bin Laden-Bush family intimate ties was buried, in fact entirely deleted on "national security" (sic!) grounds in the official US Commission Report on 911. The Saudi background of fourteen of the nineteen alleged 911 terrorists in New York and Washington was also deleted from the US Government's final 911 Commission report, released only in July 2004 by the Bush Administration, almost three years after the events.

        Basayev claimed credit for having sent the terrorists to Beslan. His demands had included the complete independence of Chechnya from Russia, something that would have given Washington and the Pentagon an enormous strategic dagger in the southern underbelly of the Russian Federation.

        By late 2004, in the aftermath of the tragic Beslan drama, President Vladimir Putin reportedly ordered a secret search and destroy mission by Russian intelligence to hunt and kill key leaders of the Caucasus Mujahideen of Basayev. Al-Khattab had been killed in 2002. The Russian security forces soon discovered that most of the Chechen Afghan Arab terrorists had fled. They had gotten safe haven in Turkey, a NATO member; in Azerbaijan, by then almost a NATO Member; or in Germany, a NATO Member; or in Dubai–one of the closest US Allies in the Arab States, and Qatar-another very close US ally. In other words, the Chechen terrorists were given NATO safe haven.

        [May 23, 2015] The Children of the Abyss

        May 20, 2015 | Jesse's Café Américain
        "He shows you how to become as gods. Then he laughs and jokes with you, and gets intimate with you; he takes your hand, and gets his fingers between yours, and grasps them, and then you are his."

        J.H.Newman, The Times of Antichrist

        People do not wake up one day and suddenly decide to become monsters, giving birth to unspeakable horrors.

        And yet throughout history, different peoples have done truly monstrous things. The Americans were pioneers in forced sterilization and state propaganda. The British invented concentration camps, and were masters of predatory colonization. They even turned a large portion of the capital of their Empire into a festering ghetto through the Darwinian economics of neglect. None have clean hands. No one is exceptional.

        What do they have in common? They all take a walk down a long and twisted path, one cold-hearted and 'expedient' decision at a time, shifting responsibility by deflecting the choice for their actions on their leaders.

        There is always some crackpot theory. some law of nature, from scientists or economists to support it. What else could they do? It is always difficult, but necessary.

        They cope with their actions by making their victims the other, objectified, different, marginalized. And what they marginalize they cannot see. What they cannot see, by choice, is easily ignored.

        And so they destroy and they kill, first by neglect and then by more efficient and decisive actions.

        They walk slowly, but almost determinedly, into an abyss of their own creation.

        But they all seem to have one thing in common. First they come for the old, the weak, the disabled, and the different, in a widening circle of scapegoats for their plunder.

        "There is one beautiful sight in the East End, and only one, and it is the children dancing in the street when the organ-grinder goes his round. It is fascinating to watch them, the new-born, the next generation, swaying and stepping, with pretty little mimicries and graceful inventions all their own, with muscles that move swiftly and easily, and bodies that leap airily, weaving rhythms never taught in dancing school.

        I have talked with these children, here, there, and everywhere, and they struck me as being bright as other children, and in many ways even brighter. They have most active little imaginations. Their capacity for projecting themselves into the realm of romance and fantasy is remarkable. A joyous life is romping in their blood. They delight in music, and motion, and colour, and very often they betray a startling beauty of face and form under their filth and rags.

        But there is a Pied Piper of London Town who steals them all away. They disappear. One never sees them again, or anything that suggests them. You may look for them in vain amongst the generation of grown-ups. Here you will find stunted forms, ugly faces, and blunt and stolid minds. Grace, beauty, imagination, all the resiliency of mind and muscle, are gone. Sometimes, however, you may see a woman, not necessarily old, but twisted and deformed out of all womanhood, bloated and drunken, lift her draggled skirts and execute a few grotesque and lumbering steps upon the pavement. It is a hint that she was once one of those children who danced to the organ-grinder. Those grotesque and lumbering steps are all that is left of the promise of childhood. In the befogged recesses of her brain has arisen a fleeting memory that she was once a girl. The crowd closes in. Little girls are dancing beside her, about her, with all the pretty graces she dimly recollects, but can no more than parody with her body. Then she pants for breath, exhausted, and stumbles out through the circle. But the little girls dance on.

        The children of the Ghetto possess all the qualities which make for noble manhood and womanhood; but the Ghetto itself, like an infuriated tigress turning on its young, turns upon and destroys all these qualities, blots out the light and laughter, and moulds those it does not kill into sodden and forlorn creatures, uncouth, degraded, and wretched below the beasts of the field.

        As to the manner in which this is done, I have in previous chapters described it at length; here let Professor Huxley describe it in brief:-

        "Any one who is acquainted with the state of the population of all great industrial centres, whether in this or other countries, is aware that amidst a large and increasing body of that population there reigns supreme . . . that condition which the French call la misere, a word for which I do not think there is any exact English equivalent. It is a condition in which the food, warmth, and clothing which are necessary for the mere maintenance of the functions of the body in their normal state cannot be obtained; in which men, women, and children are forced to crowd into dens wherein decency is abolished, and the most ordinary conditions of healthful existence are impossible of attainment; in which the pleasures within reach are reduced to brutality and drunkenness; in which the pains accumulate at compound interest in the shape of starvation, disease, stunted development, and moral degradation; in which the prospect of even steady and honest industry is a life of unsuccessful battling with hunger, rounded by a pauper's grave."

        In such conditions, the outlook for children is hopeless. They die like flies, and those that survive, survive because they possess excessive vitality and a capacity of adaptation to the degradation with which they are surrounded. They have no home life. In the dens and lairs in which they live they are exposed to all that is obscene and indecent. And as their minds are made rotten, so are their bodies made rotten by bad sanitation, overcrowding, and underfeeding. When a father and mother live with three or four children in a room where the children take turn about in sitting up to drive the rats away from the sleepers, when those children never have enough to eat and are preyed upon and made miserable and weak by swarming vermin, the sort of men and women the survivors will make can readily be imagined."

        Jack London, The People of the Abyss

        [May 23, 2015] Porky and Yats repeatedly state that Russia is an aggressor state, and with the same breath they ask Russia for a discount on further gas supplies, for which Ukraine owes billions

        "...And don't forget folks: Porky and Yats and a host of other shits that are part of the Kiev "government" repeatedly state that Russia is an aggressor state, is at war with the Ukraine and has invaded its eastern territory, where the Russian army presence numbers thousands. And with the same breath they ask Russia for a discount on further gas supplies, for which previously supplied Russian natural gas the Ukraine state owes billions."
        "...Bear in mind, with their continuous shameless mendacity and double talk they may simply be mimicking the behaviour of their mentors, whose blatant hypocrisy has long been evident,"
        Moscow Exile, May 23, 2015 at 6:50 am
        Ukraine asks to extend discount on Russian gas by end of year

        And don't forget folks: Porky and Yats and a host of other shits that are part of the Kiev "government" repeatedly state that Russia is an aggressor state, is at war with the Ukraine and has invaded its eastern territory, where the Russian army presence numbers thousands.

        And with the same breath they ask Russia for a discount on further gas supplies, for which previously supplied Russian natural gas the Ukraine state owes billions.

        Some aggressor!

        Moscow Exile, May 23, 2015 at 6:55 am

        They need a decent English proofreader: "by the end of the year" means a discount extension should be agreed upon before this year ends.

        What the RT headline should is, I suspect: "Ukraine asks to extend discount on Russian gas up to the end of the year", meaning they want their present discount extended up to and including 31 December 2015.

        Moscow Exile, May 23, 2015 at 7:19 am

        Remember the "Are Slavs Stupid" thread of a while back?

        I'm seriously beginning to believe that Ukrainians are, or at least many of their public figures are, in that they consistently make contradictory statements in almost the same breath, which might indicate that they have a very short memory span (surely a sign of being slow witted) or that they are so stupid not to recognize that the clear stupidity of their contradictory statements must surely be recognized by most people who are in possession of a normal intellect.

        Bear in mind, with their continuous shameless mendacity and double talk they may simply be mimicking the behaviour of their mentors, whose blatant hypocrisy has long been evident, e.g. the statement: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal …" was composed by slaveowners almost to a man, in that several of the Founding Fathers of the USA were in possession of hundreds of human beings that were listed in their account books as personal property and worked for them as slaves, namely George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Patrick Henry were all slave-owners. And Hilary Clinton "misspoke" when saying publicly that she had been fired upon by a sniper when arriving at Belgrade airport with her daughter; not forgetting the US lies concerning Iran and Iraq, of course, and the destruction of the USS Maine at Havana; and the role of the US Marine Corps in maintaining "freedom and Democracy" for the benefit of United Fruit and Wall St. in Central and Southern America, as revealed by General Smedly Butler …

        May 23, 2015 at 4:12 am

        Russian Fifth Columnists working with Brown Moses and NATO .

        Apparently the Fifth Columnists have taken to snooping around graveyards, looking for evidence to hand over to NATO, of Russian servicemen dying in Ukraine civil war.

        [May 23, 2015] The video purportedly depicting the hanging of a Novorossiyan militant and his pregnant wife

        marknesop, May 22, 2015 at 5:43 pm
        Re: the video purportedly depicting the hanging of a Novorossiyan militant and his pregnant wife – I have come around to thinking that it is a fake. Please see my comments for explanation, at the original site which reported it, to save me copying and pasting.
        Drutten, May 22, 2015 at 6:17 pm
        Yeah, your comments sound absolutely reasonable and I'm inclined to agree.
        astabada, May 22, 2015 at 7:03 pm
        Mark, I will suspend judgment, but to add to the discussion, the angle at which the body leans from the rope means nothing. For reference, here's a hanged person hanging vertically (Viewer discretion is advised).

        The execution seems botched (intentionally or not) in that they did not allow for enough acceleration to break the neck. Nevertheless it shows the body is hanging vertically.

        Here you see bodies hanging obliquely instead of vertically. No doubts this is another real execution.

        Because I am a physicist, let me comment on the acceleration problem too. A car of mass M_car undergoing an acceleration a_car is subject to a force F = M_car * a_car.
        When the rope goes into tension, the neck is subject to the same force M_car * a_car = F = m_body * a_neck, so the acceleration on the neck is a factor M_car/m_body higher than that you see on the car, so let's say a factor between 10 and 20 higher.

        A final note (for now) is that the place has been clearly used for several executions (real or fake, I don't know).

        marknesop, May 22, 2015 at 8:01 pm
        Thanks for the input! The clip you have included is apparently a real execution, and the behavior is what you would expect in a case of asphyxiation. Little to no movement at first, as the victim is holding his breath for as long as he can; if his arms were not bound his hands would be clawing at the rope. The first time he tries to draw breath and cannot, just as if he drew in water when drowning, the body takes over and fights for life. The slow kicking, drawing the legs up above the waist, is what I would expect to see. In looking at the suspected fake again, the woman's legs are not bound. If the neck was broken there might not be much movement, except for tremors in the extremities that are not bound, as the man does with his legs. However, if his neck was broken he would not hang as he does – what I am talking about, if you look even at the still photo, is that the center of balance for his hanging body appears to be somewhere on his upper back rather than his neck, his body hangs at an angle.

        In the still photo, some of the bodies are bent at the middle or have their legs at an angle – there's no way to know, but I suspect some of these people may have still been alive when the photo was taken, and were struggling. They were likely just standing on something which was kicked or pulled out from under them, so it is likely that all choked to death. But if you look again at the still photo of the supposed militant, he is up nearly as high as he can go without being pulled over the pole, and the rope does not appear to be leading to his neck. In this still photo, also from the Biskupia Gorka executions, the man's body hangs at an oblique angle, but it is plainly because it is swinging. In the case of the alleged Novorossiya militant, he is right up against the pole rather than hanging at the full extent of the rope, and his body is not swinging.

        You can't tell what happens after the vehicle pulls them off the ground, because the clip ends – but in the case of snuff souvenirs, people usually want to capture the death agonies, which leads me to believe all the exciting stuff was over. Then there's the timing; the Kiev regime needs a distraction because it has run into a spot of negative publicity over Porky's recognition of Nazi collaborators as heroes. At the same time, he does not dare rescind the law because it is pandering to his base. However, it is difficult to imagine someone would carry that around on their phone if it was a fake, knowing what would be the likely reaction if it were found. Which leads me to suspect the individual did not know it was there.

        Once again, it could be a real execution, but if so there is a lot of unusual behavior. I certainly believe the fascist Kievan forces capable of it, but there have been a number of fakes which were used by Kiev to say "See? The separatists constantly make up stuff about us to discredit us! Really we are just regular guys". It pays to be suspicious. There is also someone in front of the couple, conspicuously recording the execution on his phone, so the point will not be lost on the finder of the clip. Obviously not the same phone that captured the clip, since it is featured in the video.

        Jen, May 22, 2015 at 8:52 pm
        I finally decided to watch that video of the militias hanging the couple. The two people seem unusually still before the hanging. The bodies don't move much at all after the hanging and I would have expected also that there would be pelvic spasms from both couples. The pregnant woman's body would have started to expel the baby some time after her hanging yet the soldier holds onto her legs and nothing much happens. It reminds me of that fake crucifixion scene we were discussing in the forums before.
        marknesop, May 22, 2015 at 9:16 pm
        Also, the guy off to the side is not even watching. He walks back from the truck as if it is all routine and does not even look at the couple. Either they execute people all the time, or it is something they practiced and practiced.

        I initially thought the clip cut off early, but in fact it runs for some time and after the couple of little kicks from the man, he does not move at all. It seems very unlikely that they would both be dead so quickly. But maybe I am just looking for things wrong.

        astabada, May 22, 2015 at 9:24 pm
        Also, the guy off to the side is not even watching.

        This could be because it is a fake, but it could also be because it is not the first execution. As I have written above, there is clear evidence that the site has been used for several hangings – even though I cannot say whether they were real or fake.

        marknesop , May 22, 2015 at 9:56 pm
        What is the clear evidence that it has been used several times for hangings?
        astabada , May 22, 2015 at 10:20 pm
        On second thought, I am not so sure anymore. Anyway my evidence is:
        – the gallows is remarkably well built for a single execution
        – the horizontal beam has several marks in the section between the two trees, but there are no marks on the section to the left (hard to judge on the short right section)
        – such marks are also present where the ropes are

        So earlier I had concluded that the ropes had been placed in different points of the beam (this would be normal if you were throwing a heavy knot over it, because it is rather hard to hit always the same spot). Then a weight has been tied to the ropes (to generate the needed tension) and finally the ropes have been pulled, thus leaving marks on the beam.

        At the end of the video there is a close-up where the beam is seen better. I'm curious to know whether it's just my imagination shooting a movie from random tree marks.

        marknesop, May 22, 2015 at 10:55 pm
        I agree that it's hard to say. But the "gallows" is just a simple crossbeam, no great engineering skill required to throw it up. Whether the hanging is a fake or whether they do this all the time for real, they would have to practice a couple of times; really all you need to do to hang a person is lift them until their feet are off the ground, but the vehicle takes them in one smooth lift right to the bottom of the crossbeam, but not over it. Practice, and I imagine they have a guide mark for the vehicle driver so he does not overshoot. rope marks in the bark are conceivably from practice. They could move the vehicle forward two feet and those hanged would be just as dead.

        Everybody involved seems very casual, there is no evidence of tension or of anticipation on the part of the captors. The prisoners do not struggle, but stand passively and appear almost relaxed. There's no sound, so no way to tell if anything is said, but that forces observers to rely on body language, and it looks odd.

        The woman's movements bother me, though. That does look real. But she does not draw up her legs at all or kick, and although it does not look like either of their necks were broken (from the lack of change in position of their heads, although admittedly it is hard to tell with a hood on), they seem to die in less time than you could hold your breath.

        kat kan , May 22, 2015 at 10:17 pm
        HUH??? a womb has to do a lot of serious contracting to expel the contents. If she's dead there is no muscular contraction. All the muscles going floppy won't do it. Even bowel and bladder control is not lost immediately; it may be hours.
        yalensis , May 23, 2015 at 3:39 am
        Dear katkan:
        I just saw your comment, only after I had already written mine.
        So bowel/bladder control is not lost necessarily? I did not know that.
        That is one of the things I dread most about dying myself – that I will make a mess that others have to clean up.
        Jen , May 23, 2015 at 5:30 am
        @ Kat Kan: Well I assumed that in this particular situation, the pregnant woman looked as if she was about to have the baby very soon so I thought the body would start to expel the baby with blood supply being cut off to the womb and placenta while the mother was dying. If the woman had been in an earlier stage of pregnancy then things would be different.
        yalensis , May 23, 2015 at 3:34 am
        I didn't watch the video, I am too squeamish and can't bring myself to watch it, in case it is real. Which I have a feeling it is. Just based on the meta-data of how the video was found. There have been quite a lot of examples recently of people leaving trophey photos and vids on their cellphones. It's the modern way. Just think back to 2008 and all the tropheys captured by the Russian army in Gruzia, when they gathered up the cellphones of dead American mercenaries.

        Anyhow, I read all the comments, and I think that one guy makes a good point, that the victims would have lost bowel functions, which happens in real deaths. Although, if the victims were starving and dehydrated, maybe not.

        As for the pregnant woman expelling the baby, I don't think that happens right away.
        I read about an American murder case where a pregnant woman was drowned by her husband. It was only after several days of floating around in the ocean, the gases built up inside her corpse and expelled the foetus from her womb. The foetus floated away and was found by divers, which helped to solve the case. But they believe it didn't happen right away, the foetus stayed inside her womb until the gases built up sufficiently to expel it. Once the victim is dead, she is unable to push it out using her own muscles.
        Sorry for being so graphic…

        kat kan , May 22, 2015 at 8:18 pm
        DPR spokesman said it was found on the dead infiltrator.
        (a) he is lying and it is a DPR fake
        (b) he is saying what he was told but whoever brought the phone was lying, and it was a DPR fake done without the spokesman's knowledge, and not found on the dead body
        (c) it was found on the body but didn't belong to him and the video is fake
        . (i) every infiltrator has such a fake image, in case they're killed/caught with it
        .(ii) only this one had a fake, in the hope he gets killed and the phone found, and they're so lucky that the one carrying the phone gets killed
        .(iii) one of the 2 surviving infiltrators (still being sought) planted the phone on the body before himself running away
        (d) the infiltrator took the video and it's fake (then there should be other copies around, to be released anonymously)
        (e) the infiltrator took the video and it is real, and just bad lock he got killed and the video released

        No previous atrocity video was released by the authorities; they've all shown up anonymously on youtube, so could have been directly from the faker.

        Placing fakes on random soldiers, hoping one gets killed and the phone found, is a very hit and miss method of distributing propaganda that took some considerable work to set up. It can't be placed on hundreds of phones, as if 2 copies are found at once that betrays the fakery.

        The Donbass side has no need of such a fake; the West is not looking and everyone else already knows these guys are very bad and don't need further proof.

        In WW2 the Brits did once send fake documents to the Germans by attaching them to a dead body, to be washed up on a beach, to make it look authentic. But that was an important misdirection of where a big attack was going to happen, not a low-value propaganda film.

        marknesop , May 22, 2015 at 8:37 pm
        Yes, all good points. I initially thought it was real, but a combination of things now makes it seem like a fake to me. If two copies were found it might not necessarily expose it as a fake unless they were identical; so long as they were not obviously from the same vantage point, but of the same execution, one would likely tend to validate the other. However, something I did not think about was the likelihood of such a clip being on someone's phone and them not knowing, probably because I am emphatically not part of the cellphone-geek craze – how likely is that, really? People are browsing through the stuff on their phones all the time. And it is hard to imagine someone would carry around such incriminating evidence willingly, knowing it depicted a faked execution.

        Does it look real to you?

        yalensis , May 23, 2015 at 3:45 am
        Dear Mark:
        Without having watched the video, for which I am too squeamish, I believe that we have to approach this more scientifically, the way katkan does.
        I think asking "Does it look real to you?" is not the right question. We are used to things looking a certain way from watching movies; and sometimes when we see real life it looks fake to us. So that's not the right way to approach this.

        Not in terms of our own knowledge of executions and physics and whatnot, of which most of us have no specialized knowledge; but in terms of the evidence itself and how it is authenticated.

        I think the logical points that katkan raises about the actual way the video was obtained, pretty much convinces, and I think a court of law would accept that it was authentic, just based on those points, and how the vid was found. Regardless of whether we think we know what it looks like to die in this manner.

        Jen , May 23, 2015 at 6:10 am
        Real or not, the question remains as to why this video was placed on the dead soldier's cellphone, and if there was deliberate intent behind the placing. Is the video intended to be screened publicly in Russia with the aim of enraging the public enough to put pressure on Moscow to invade the Donbass region or, if Moscow resists, to start Maidan-style demonstrations against Putin?

        The video seems to be of a piece with the fake crucifixion video: in each, something that is supposedly considered sacred in Russian or East Slavic culture generally (whether it actually is or not) is being violated. In one video, the central tenet of Christianity is being upended and in the second, the sanctity of the family and motherhood is the subject of attack.

        [May 23, 2015]The British presstitutes continue plying their trade for their US pimp

        Moscow Exile, May 22, 2015 at 9:23 pm

        And the British presstitutes continue plying their trade for their US pimp:

        Finland tells 900,000 reservists their roles 'in the event of war'

        In the aftermath of Russia's annexation of Crimea and the invasion of eastern Ukraine, Finland is uniquely vulnerable to any further aggression.

        … In recent months, Russian warplanes have frequently probed Finnish air defences. In April, the Finnish navy resorted to depth-charging a suspected submarine that was detected near the capital, Helsinki.

        [May 22, 2015]Ukraine fears spread of separatist conflict amid hostility towards Kiev

        Notable Quotes: " I have argued all along that Ukraine's best hope is to smartly play EU and Russia against each other. By passionately siding with EU (that doesn't really want them) they are making a strategic blunder. That's what we are observing." ... "Russia didn't start this crisis, it was started by geo-political morons from EU (Sikorski, Bildt) with assistance from Washington neo-cons. Ukrainians will pay a huge price for allowing themselves to act as extras in other people's geo-political games. And they deserve it." ... 'Russia doesn't want Ukraine. They want the US and EU to pay for that bastardly thing they broke. "...
        .
        Usual crowd of Jezzam, havingalarov, botswans61, Metronome151, Robert Looren de Jongare, Alderbaran, alphmysh, BMWAlbert and several other bots including a couple of newcomers ( AbsolutelyFapulou) are on duty today.
        May 22, 2015 | The Guardian

        SouthAsianObserver, 22 May 2015 15:02

        The Guardian kindly needs to first explain why inflation and utility prices have risen in Ukraine, when:

        a) deflation has taken over most of Ukraine's European partners, and indeed much of the world economy; and

        b) utility prices tend to move with oil and gas prices, which are one-half of what they were last year.

        Both inflation and utility prices should therefore be considerably lower, unless someone in the Ukraine Government (or their pals elsewhere) gets to pocket the benefits that should be coming to the Ukrainian people, and moreover load on another bunch of inflation and utility prices.

        Who is pocketing all the money? Once we know that, we may have an inkling of why people in Odessa or Kharkiv are pissed off at the Ukraine Government. Hopefully, The Guardian would do some of its homework. Naughty child.

        Beckow -> Jonathan Stromberg 22 May 2015 14:52

        "EU are for a large variety of reasons a better place to live"

        Sure, I agree. But Ukraine is not in EU. I can equally say that Beverly Hills is a "better place to live", wishes are not reality.

        The GDP loss due to Donbass and Crimea cannot exceed 30% since they were less than 15% of GDP before the crisis. So most of the collapse is due to Kiev's policies, loss of trade with Russia and continued corruption.

        Since 1991 Ukraine has had 5 governments, most leaning west. Yanukovitch rules for 4 years and was the most pro-Russian, yet even he was pissing of Russia, negotiating with EU and IMF, he saw himself as neutral. What made Yanuk different that he represented Donbass industry. But most of the time Ukraine has been ruled by pro-Western governments, some radically so: Yushenko, Tymoshenko.

        You seem to be upset at Russia's policy to protect its own interests and willing to go quite far in getting its way. Well, that's what countries do: US does it all the time. Russia didn't start this crisis, it was started by geo-political morons from EU (Sikorski, Bildt) with assistance from Washington neo-cons.

        Ukrainians will pay a huge price for allowing themselves to act as extras in other people's geo-political games. And they deserve it.

        John Smith -> atozed 22 May 2015 14:25

        The Ukrainian parliament has backed a decree allowing the country to rescind its commitments outlined in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Social Charter.

        Thursday's second reading of the decree was passed by 249 votes in the Verkhovna Rada, 23 more than the minimum required.

        John Smith -> Craig Axon 22 May 2015 13:57

        No, I am a Humanist and a Paifist so I dont believe in any form of violence or discrimination towards anyone or anything.

        If you are what you're claiming how can you support this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTbRfkSOYi0

        This started a war together with the Odessa massacre. That happened in Mariupol a year ago, nazi battalions shooting at unarmed civilians on a Victory Day.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HZlaXOJhHY

        John Smith -> Havingalavrov 22 May 2015 13:05

        Yanukovich took a better deal, presented by Russia.

        A better deal for who ? For Ukrainians ? ha ha ha ha ha ha......

        How things are in Ukraine? Do you know?
        I heard that average wage is 120$, it was 300-400$ under Yanukovich.
        All bills skyrocketed.

        This is from Reuters report:

        But German Chancellor Angela Merkel, herself brought up in Communist East Germany, was clear, telling parliament in Berlin before leaving: "We must not create false expectations."

        EU chief executive Jean-Claude Juncker said "they are not ready, we are not ready", but added "the process is on its way".

        Bummer.

        annamarinja -> jezzam 22 May 2015 12:53

        Has not Ukraine got notoriety recently for the number of political prisoners? There was also a wave of violence and murder against Ukrainian journalists and opposition leaders. Could you enlighten us what was wrong with the murdered journalist Buzina? And how touching of you to mention the "freedom of discrimination" in Ukraine. Perhaps you have some explanation for the parades of neo-Nazis in Ukraine during the celebration of the Day of Victory in WWII and the harassment of the old soldiers that fought that war against the Nazi collaborators...

        EugeneGur -> jezzam 22 May 2015 12:51

        No doubt there are equally heartrending stories on the Kiev side.

        Why don't you tell us one? I seem to have missed the moment when Kiev was fired upon by the Donbass militia.

        Beckow -> Jonathan Stromberg 22 May 2015 12:28

        Ukraine has been independent since 1991, so much for your "clutches". They have had pro-West leaders (Yushenko, Tymoshenko, now Poroshenko) for most of the last 15 years. At what point are they going to be responsible for themselves?

        The economic trouble is only partially caused by Donbass, the rest of Ukraine is not exactly booming. Maybe 30% Donbass?

        Russia is not "Uzbekistan". Actually Ukraine is much, much closer. And so is Bulgaria and Romania. Compare GNP and living standards before sharing your views.

        You seem to be an ideologue disconnected from reality. Get over your biases and do some number crunching....

        sutjeska -> jezzam 22 May 2015 12:27

        You mock Russians for wounded pride, and then move straight into rationalising the Germans murdering their way across Europe for the same? I thought I'd have to scroll further down to find a blatant Nazi apologist. Seems like there's a lot of that going around now.

        The thing is, Russians remember what happened when they tried to join Europe - they got NATO breathing down their neck and their country went into an economic and demographic nosedive that they're only just now recovering from.

        Beckow -> Alderbaran 22 May 2015 12:23

        Yes, it is going Putin's way.

        But it was also predictable and thus easily avoidable. I have argued all along that Ukraine's best hope is to smartly play EU and Russia against each other. By passionately siding with EU (that doesn't really want them) they are making a strategic blunder. That's what we are observing.

        Beckow -> NoOneYouKnowNow 22 May 2015 12:18

        The people in EU are externally represented by their politicians and media - one can only assume that "people" either agree or don't care enough to object.

        I have always said that it takes two to lie: the liars and the ones who agree to be lied to. Lying has consequences, this could get really ugly for all of us.


        Dannycraig007 jezzam 22 May 2015 11:38

        Russia doesn't want Ukraine. They want the US and EU to pay for that bastardly thing they broke. If Russia wanted it they could have easily taken it last year in less than two weeks. The have the best part, Crimea. Those people voted wisely to secede from the new fascist Kiev regime.

        Had they not voted in such a manner it is very likely that they too would have been killed like the 7,000 innocent civilians the Kiev regime bombed in Donbass.

        Beckow -> Alderbaran 22 May 2015 11:37

        "There was no anti-Russian genocide and in general there were few tensions"

        Hmm, they are fighting a bloody civil war. I don't think anybody has called it a "genocide". Yet. But "few tensions"?...how about the massacre of Russians in Odessa? How about bombing Donetsk? What exactly is "tension" in your book? You must live in a rough neighborhood.

        "I feel that my rights are more likely to be respected under European law than under Russian law"

        How is that relevant? My point is that EU needs to respect Russian minorities as much as they respect Catalans, Albanians, etc... If they don't - as they clearly don't - they have no standards, just favorites and enemies. Pretty much any system in history had that, that's tribalism, not human rights.

        midnightschild10 22 May 2015 11:03

        I wonder if the writer forgot about the separatists being burned to death in Odessa, or the bombings of homes, hospitals, and infrastructure in Southeastern Ukraine cities. Perhaps some of the people realized that when Crimea held its referendum to join Russia, and Russia annexed Crimea no one died. Since Nuland spent 5 billion tax paper dollars on Kiev and the West put in Yatsy and Poroshenko over 5,000 have died and counting. Just a few things to mention to balance the article.

        BorninUkraine -> Dannycraig007 22 May 2015 10:44

        Welcome to the club! I voted for Obama twice, and I am ashamed of it. As the saying goes, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me".

        Compared to the blatant lies spewed by Western propaganda, even Soviet newspapers look truthful, and that's saying something. Unfortunately, there is a clear pattern.
        About 90% of official US statements regarding Ukraine in 2014-15 are blatant lies, and the remaining 10% have the facts twisted beyond recognition. Several thousands died, and counting.

        The claims that Iraq had WMDs were blatant lies, and the tube Colin Powell shook at the UN was a fake, containing laundry detergent or something. More than 150 thousand died, and counting.

        Alleged by the US government genocide of Albanians by Serbs in Kosovo, used as a pretext for its occupation by NATO and separation from Serbia, was also a blatant lie, as further investigation established. Several thousands were killed by NATO bombing of Serbia.

        Tonkin incident used by the US government as a pretext for Vietnam war was a lie. More than 2 million Vietnamese were killed by the US troops.

        The statements by US government and media reports about Russian-Georgian war in 2008 were lies. Funnily, on day one the media did not have proper instructions, and reported the reality: Georgia shelled peacekeepers and civilians in Tskhinval, killing quite a few. Then the instructions came and the story was turned around 180 degrees. A couple of years later EU reluctantly "found" that the original story was true, but did not advertise its "findings".

        I can continue this list, but what's the point? Any sensible person knows that you can't believe anything US government says. On the other hand, every person paid by said government will try to prove otherwise to justify his/her/its salary.

        [May 22, 2015] Is It Too Early To Just Call The Game For Putin?

        May 22, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
        marknesop, May 21, 2015 at 10:22 pm
        Oh, dear; violent clashes in Odessa and Kharkov, as The Grauniad admits that those two cities "are deeply divided along political lines, with large numbers opposed to the government in Kiev and in favour of closer ties with Moscow."

        Hostility grows toward Kiev; you don't say. They're coming for your fat ass, Porky. Maybe not tonight – just as well, since you're not there – but soon.

        Of course The Grauniad loyally announces that all the destabilization efforts originate in Russia, and that bombers and partisans who were captured confess that they were paid. The only true patriots, who don't do it for the money, are honest pro-Kiev Ukrainians. I guess you better crank on some more sanctions against Russia, because they obviously still have too much money.

        Meanwhile, in central Kiev, the air is once again perfumed with burning rubber – one of Ukraine's few growth industries – as activists of the "Financial Maidan" protest the plummeting currency and skyrocketing utility costs and lay siege to the Parliament again. The crowd demands Parliament "approves the law on restructuring private loans in foreign currency, which would convert people's debts into national currency at pre-crisis levels." Good luck with that, it sounds like you have a great chance.

        The country is coming apart; it's just a matter of time. And not very much time, by the look of things.

        yalensis, May 22, 2015 at 2:47 am
        The reaction to this Grauniad propaganda was swift and merciless:

        http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/thread/1432279960.html

        Commenters also pointed out that Grauniad knowingly lied just by posting that starting photo (showing allegedly a nasty and violent looking masked "pro-Russian activist" swinging his pistol in front of Odessa Trade Union building). Commenters quickly pointed out the Odessan Chief of Police, whose face can just be discerned peering over the shoulder of the "pro-Russian activist". In other words, the photo shows the opposite of what it purports, and the Grauniad editor knows this perfectly well, but decided to lie, hoping there are some newbies on their forum, who don't know the story.

        PaulR, May 22, 2015 at 5:38 am
        Except that there is some reasonable evidence that the then Chief of Police was in cahoots with the anti-government forces, and the people in the photo are wearing St George ribbons, so one cannot say that the Guardian 'knowingly lied' by posting the photo and caption.
        yalensis, May 22, 2015 at 3:04 pm
        Are you talking about Dmitry Fuchedzi ?
        The patsy whom Anton Herashchenko helped to escape?

        Please don't make me laugh too much.
        The Grauniad author, Howard Amos knows the whole story better than anyone else.
        If he thinks those guys standing around Fuchedzi are "pro-Russians", then let him make that claim. He also has to explain his theory of why Fuchedzi was there, and what he was up to.

        Jen, May 22, 2015 at 5:39 am
        You have to wonder why The Giardia keeps printing propaganda long after commenters have either exposed the lies or migrated to other websites and blogs. The Giardia would be better off turning itself into a British version of the Australian Women's Weekly or UFO Chronicles than continuing to be a front for neofascists while pretending to be something else. New readers probably won't notice much difference.

        [May 22, 2015] Stephen Kinzers The Brothers John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War

        John Foster Dulles Allen Dulles were architects of deep state as a new form of US government.
        May 15, 2015 | Foreign Policy Journal

        Kinzer's The Brothers is an excellent source of information concerning the development of U.S. foreign policy during the Twentieth Century.

        The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret War Stephen Kinzer. St. Martin's Griffin, New York, 2013.

        Stephen Kinzer is a masterful storyteller, creating an historical record that is readily accessible to all levels of readers. Besides writing history-or more importantly, rewriting history correctly-he is able to draw out the personal characteristics of the people involved, creating lively anecdotal stories that carry the reader through the overall narrative.

        His book, The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret War, delves into the personal beliefs and perspectives of the Dulles brothers and those associated with them. From that he creates a picture of the nature of U.S. foreign policy as shaped by and being embodied by the brothers and the various Presidents and other corporate and political wheeler and dealers they interacted with over a span of fifty years:

        "If they were shortsighted, open to violence, and blind to the subtle realities of the world, it was because these qualities help define American foreign policy and the United States itself…..they embodied the national ethos….They were pure products of the United States."

        The historical narrative is clearly presented, the ties to corporations, their employment with powerful law firms, the power they gained within the political system such that after the Second World War they became the two most powerful figures in U.S. politics and foreign affairs. Apart from the basic historical record, the most intriguing aspect is the different natures of the brothers, and the basic similarity that few people gave very much credence to their abilities for deep thought.

        Personalities…

        They came from a relatively rigid Christian upbringing. John Foster retained the dourness of that upbringing through his life, while his younger brother Allen proved to be a dilettante and womanizer. Their concept of freedom

        "was above all economic: a country whose leaders respected private enterprise and welcomed multinational business was a free country."

        The other component of freedom was religion,

        "Countries that encouraged religious devotion, and that were led by men on good terms with Christian clerics, were to them free countries….These two criteria…they conjured an explanation of why they condemned some dictatorships but not others."

        This doctrinaire system of thought did not allow for much in the way of critical thinking skills. Sir Alexander Cadogan, Britain's undersecretary to the Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, "wrote in his diary, "J.F.D. the wooliest type of useless pontificating American….Heaven help us!" Eden himself "considered Foster a narrow minded ideologue…always ready to go on a rampage….Churchill agreed. After one of their meetings he remarked,

        "Foster Dulles is the only case I know of a bull who carries his own china shop around with him."

        It was not just the British. American political scientist Ole Holsti found that Foster dealt with "discrepant information" by "discrediting the source" and "reinterpreting the new information so as to be consistent with his belief system; searching for other information. The advice of subordinates was neither actively sought nor, when tendered, was it often of great weight." Arthur Schlesinger Jr. said that Allen "was a frivolous man" who would "make these decisions which involved people's lives, and never would really think them through."

        …and history

        From a privileged upbringing with many family contacts in both the political and corporate world, the brothers had little trouble maneuvering through the intricacies of the global power structures they encountered. They were steeped in the ethos of pioneers and missionaries," and

        "spent decades promoting the business and strategic interests of the United States….they were vessels of American history."

        That history spans half a century. It starts with the Versailles peace talks and ends only with the death of Foster in 1959 and the senescence and increasing senility of Allen during that same time period. Its major impact occurred after World War II, with John Foster becoming Secretary of State with President Eisenhower, while Allen worked himself into founding leader of the FBI.

        From both these positions, one of great public power (wielded with much secrecy) and the other with great covert power, they steered the course of U.S. history through the early days of the Cold War. Their rabid anti-communism, combining their religious and corporate beliefs, shaped the world as we know it today.

        Kinzer leads the reader through the "Six Monsters", the foreign leaders who became the most public targets of the Eisenhower/Dulles administration: Mossadegh (Iran), Jacabo Arbenz (Guatemala), Ho Chi Minh (Vietnam), Sukarno (Indonesia ), Patrice Lumumba (Congo), and Castro (Cuba). The ongoing repercussions and blowback from these actions continue to shape our world today.

        The last three of these had other impacts. UN Secretary Dag Hammarskjold was involved with Sukarno and Lumumba, and was killed by CIA backed covert action in the Congo. The assassination of John F. Kennedy has several possible claimants, of which his interactions with Sukarno and Castro are the most telling. Significantly, Allen Dulles was appointed to the Warren Commission by President Johnson as it had "some foreign complications, CIA, and other things." Allen "systematically used his influence to keep the commission safely within bounds, the importance of which only he could appreciate."[1]

        Kinzer's The Brothers is an excellent source of information concerning the development of U.S. foreign policy during the Twentieth Century. A reader will develop a much stronger understanding of our current geopolitical crisis with this as a background source. It provides not just the historical data behind the events, but more importantly it examines the mindset of the U.S. administration and the people who are both shaped by it and are shaping it:

        "The story of the Dulles brothers is the story of America. It illuminates and helps explain the modern history of the United States and the world."

        Note

        (1) See The Incubus of Intervention-Conflicting Indonesian Strategies of John F. Kennedy and Allen Dulles. Greg Poulgrain. Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, Selangor, Malaysia. (Click here to read Jim Miles' review of Incubus of Intervention.)

        [May 21, 2015] Militarization Is More Than Tanks Rifles It's a Cultural Disease, Acclimating Citizens To Life In A Police State

        May 21, 2015 | Zero Hedge
        Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

        "If we're training cops as soldiers, giving them equipment like soldiers, dressing them up as soldiers, when are they going to pick up the mentality of soldiers? If you look at the police department, their creed is to protect and to serve. A soldier's mission is to engage his enemy in close combat and kill him. Do we want police officers to have that mentality? Of course not."

        - Arthur Rizer, former civilian police officer and member of the military

        Talk about poor timing. Then again, perhaps it's brilliant timing.

        Only now-after the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security (DHS) and Defense have passed off billions of dollars worth of military equipment to local police forces, after police agencies have been trained in the fine art of war, after SWAT team raids have swelled in number to more than 80,000 a year, after it has become second nature for local police to look and act like soldiers, after communities have become acclimated to the presence of militarized police patrolling their streets, after Americans have been taught compliance at the end of a police gun or taser, after lower income neighborhoods have been transformed into war zones, after hundreds if not thousands of unarmed Americans have lost their lives at the hands of police who shoot first and ask questions later, after a whole generation of young Americans has learned to march in lockstep with the government's dictates-only now does President Obama lift a hand to limit the number of military weapons being passed along to local police departments.

        Not all, mind you, just some.

        Talk about too little, too late.

        Months after the White House defended a federal program that distributed $18 billion worth of military equipment to local police, Obama has announced that he will ban the federal government from providing local police departments with tracked armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft and vehicles, bayonets, grenade launchers, camouflage uniforms and large-caliber firearms.

        Obama also indicated that less heavy-duty equipment (armored vehicles, tactical vehicles, riot gear and specialized firearms and ammunition) will reportedly be subject to more regulations such as local government approval, and police being required to undergo more training and collect data on the equipment's use. Perhaps hoping to sweeten the deal, the Obama administration is also offering $163 million in taxpayer-funded grants to "incentivize police departments to adopt the report's recommendations."

        While this is a grossly overdue first step of sorts, it is nevertheless a first step from an administration that has been utterly complicit in accelerating the transformation of America's police forces into extensions of the military. Indeed, as investigative journalist Radley Balko points out, while the Obama administration has said all the right things about the need to scale back on a battlefield mindset, it has done all the wrong things to perpetuate the problem:

        • distributed equipment designed for use on the battlefield to local police departments,
        • provided private grants to communities to incentivize SWAT team raids,
        • redefined "community policing" to reflect aggressive police tactics and funding a nationwide COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) program that has contributed to dramatic rise in SWAT teams,
        • encouraged the distribution of DHS anti-terror grants and the growth of "contractors that now cater to police agencies looking to cash DHS checks in exchange for battle-grade gear,"
        • ramped up the use of military-style raids to crack down on immigration laws and target "medical marijuana growers, shops, and dispensaries in states that have legalized the drug,"
        • defended as "reasonable" aggressive, militaristic police tactics in cases where police raided a guitar shop in defense of an obscure environmental law, raided a home looking for a woman who had defaulted on her student loans, and terrorized young children during a raid on the wrong house based on a mistaken license plate,
        • and ushered in an era of outright highway robbery in which asset forfeiture laws have been used to swindle Americans out of cash, cars, houses, or other property that government agents can "accuse" of being connected to a crime.

        It remains to be seen whether this overture on Obama's part, coming in the midst of heightened tensions between the nation's police forces and the populace they're supposed to protect, opens the door to actual reform or is merely a political gambit to appease the masses all the while further acclimating the populace to life in a police state.

        Certainly, on its face, it does nothing to ease the misery of the police state that has been foisted upon us. In fact, Obama's belated gesture of concern does little to roll back the deadly menace of overzealous police agencies corrupted by money, power and institutional immunity. And it certainly fails to recognize the terrible toll that has been inflicted on our communities, our fragile ecosystem of a democracy, and our freedoms as a result of the government's determination to bring the war home.

        Will the young black man guilty of nothing more than running away from brutish police officers be any safer in the wake of Obama's edict? It's unlikely.

        Will the old man reaching for his cane have a lesser chance of being shot? It's doubtful.

        Will the little girl asleep under her princess blanket live to see adulthood when a SWAT team crashes through her door? I wouldn't count on it.

        It's a safe bet that our little worlds will be no safer following Obama's pronouncement and the release of his "Task Force on 21st Century Policing" report. In fact, there is a very good chance that life in the American police state will become even more perilous.

        Among the report's 50-page list of recommendations is a call for more police officer boots on the ground, training for police "on the importance of de-escalation of force," and "positive non-enforcement activities" in high-crime communities to promote trust in the police such as sending an ice cream truck across the city.

        Curiously, nowhere in the entire 120-page report is there a mention of the Fourth Amendment, which demands that the government respect citizen privacy and bodily integrity. The Constitution is referenced once, in the Appendix, in relation to Obama's authority as president. And while the word "constitutional" is used 15 times within the body of the report, its use provides little assurance that the Obama administration actually understands the clear prohibitions against government overreach as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

        For instance, in the section of the report on the use of technology and social media, the report notes: "Though all constitutional guidelines must be maintained in the performance of law enforcement duties, the legal framework (warrants, etc.) should continue to protect law enforcement access to data obtained from cell phones, social media, GPS, and other sources, allowing officers to detect, prevent, or respond to crime."

        Translation: as I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the new face of policing in America is about to shift from waging its war on the American people using primarily the weapons of the battlefield to the evermore-sophisticated technology of the battlefield where government surveillance of our everyday activities will be even more invasive.

        This emphasis on technology, surveillance and social media is nothing new. In much the same way the federal government used taxpayer-funded grants to "gift" local police agencies with military weapons and equipment, it is also funding the distribution of technology aimed at making it easier for police to monitor, track and spy on Americans. For instance, license plate readers, stingray devices and fusion centers are all funded by grants from the DHS. Funding for drones at the state and local levels also comes from the federal government, which in turn accesses the data acquired by the drones for its own uses.

        If you're noticing a pattern here, it is one in which the federal government is not merely transforming local police agencies into extensions of itself but is in fact federalizing them, turning them into a national police force that answers not to "we the people" but to the Commander in Chief. Yet the American police force is not supposed to be a branch of the military, nor is it a private security force for the reigning political faction. It is supposed to be an aggregation of the countless local civilian units that exist for a sole purpose: to serve and protect the citizens of each and every American community.

        So where does that leave us?

        There's certainly no harm in embarking on a national dialogue on the dangers of militarized police, but if that's all it amounts to-words that sound good on paper and in the press but do little to actually respect our rights and restore our freedoms-then we're just playing at politics with no intention of actually bringing about reform.

        Despite the Obama Administration's lofty claims of wanting to "ensure that public safety becomes more than the absence of crime, that it must also include the presence of justice," this is the reality we must contend with right now:

        Americans still have no real protection against police abuse. Americans still have no right to self-defense in the face of SWAT teams mistakenly crashing through our doors, or police officers who shoot faster than they can reason. Americans are still no longer innocent until proven guilty. Americans still don't have a right to private property. Americans are still powerless in the face of militarized police. Americans still don't have a right to bodily integrity. Americans still don't have a right to the expectation of privacy. Americans are still being acclimated to a police state through the steady use and sight of military drills domestically, a heavy militarized police presence in public places and in the schools, and a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign aimed at reassuring the public that the police are our "friends." And to top it all off, Americans still can't rely on the courts, Congress or the White House to mete out justice when our rights are violated by police.

        To sum it all up: the problems we're grappling with have been building for more than 40 years. They're not going to go away overnight, and they certainly will not be resolved by a report that instructs the police to simply adopt different tactics to accomplish the same results-i.e., maintain the government's power, control and wealth at all costs.

        This is the sad reality of life in the American police state.

        [May 20, 2015] Russia to take legal moves if Ukraine defaults on $3bn debt - finance minister

        Notable quotes:
        "... "unscrupulous" ..."
        "... "Suspension of debt payments not coordinated with creditors results in a technical default, and in the case of Ukraine, it threatens to undermine Kiev's ability to attract private investment through EU programs," ..."
        "... "It is rather clear that the IMF is assuming that Russia's $3 billion bond is included in this year's $5.2 billion financing from a 'debt operation'," ..."
        May 20, 2015 | RT Business
        Russia will appeal to the International Court of Justice if Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko signs a moratorium on the payment of Ukraine's external debt into law and fails to pay its debt to Russia, said Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov.

        Siluanov said Ukraine was virtually defaulting on its debt, adding that Russia doesn't yet have grounds to lodge any claims. If Kiev fails to pay $75 million in June, Moscow will use its right to appeal to the court, the Minister said.

        The Ukrainian parliament has adopted a law allowing the country not to pay foreign debt to private lenders, saying it needs to protect the ailing economy and people from "unscrupulous" creditors.

        The bill says the $3 billion in Ukrainian Eurobonds purchased by Russia at the end of 2013 are on the list of liabilities subject to a possible payment moratorium.

        Experts agree that Tuesday vote meant a technical default for the country and would impede Ukraine's ability to raise private investment from the EU and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the European Investment Bank (EIB), a European source told TASS on Wednesday.

        "Suspension of debt payments not coordinated with creditors results in a technical default, and in the case of Ukraine, it threatens to undermine Kiev's ability to attract private investment through EU programs," the source said.

        As part of the underpinning of Kiev's bailout plan, the International Monetary Fund said in March that Russia would not receive the $3 billion bond repayment from Ukraine this year.

        IMF is looking for cooperation from creditors to accept a restructuring on Kiev's debt. That includes Russia.

        "It is rather clear that the IMF is assuming that Russia's $3 billion bond is included in this year's $5.2 billion financing from a 'debt operation'," said Charles Blitzer of Blitzer Consulting and a former IMF staff member.

        Read more Ukraine passes bill allowing moratorium on foreign debt payments

        [May 20, 2015] Russia bans undesirable international organisations ahead of 2016 elections

        May 20, 2015 | The Guardian

        Russia's parliament has passed a law banning "undesirable" international organisations, raising fears of a further crackdown on voices critical of the Kremlin.

        According to the legislation, the prosecutor general and foreign ministry can register as undesirable any "foreign or international organisation that presents a threat to the defensive capabilities or security of the state, to the public order, or to the health of the population".

        Blacklisted groups will be forbidden from operating branches or distributing information in Russia and banks will have to notify the prosecutor general and justice ministry of any financial transfers involving them. Although the language of the threat posed was vague, the bill's authors suggested that international NGOs often work in the interests of foreign intelligence agencies.

        [May 20, 2015] How Isis is recruiting migrant workers in Moscow to join the fighting in Syria Discussion by Daniil Turovsky

        Quote: "Soros & Oligarchy Graun now so desperate as to conflate ISIS with Moscow! You could not but marvel at the timing of it - while ISIS is now de facto Saudi military outlet in Yemen, conflating them with Russia is like claiming SNP is a British unity party."
        May 20, 2015 | The Guardian

        Marina Fitzpatrick 6 May 2015 03:20

        It's funny, when Russians were fighting islam ppl in chechenia we all have been told that russians are evil and those poor chechenian terrorists are freedom fighters. I remember they were bombing subway cars and houses in Moscow and we all have been told that it is a great thing they are doing. So why it's suddenly not so great? Wouldn't it be better if all countries would unite to fight ISIS and Boko Haram instead of quarrelling with each other. And after those two horrid groups will have been dealt with everyone can go back to hating each other like normal again.

        Luschnig -> jezzam 6 May 2015 02:39

        You seem to know a lot about the private thoughts of the Kremlin . . . truth is all American presidents are war mongers, it's part of the American DNA that developed from a two century plus genocidal war against the independent countries (nations) that stood between White America and its Empire. Very few Americans, especially politicians, are sane enough to live at peace in a non-American world.

        ID5868758 6 May 2015 01:44

        What's the point of this article? Is it to tell us that the monsters of ISIS have a fertile recruiting ground among the radical Islamic terrorists who hide out in Chechnya? After the massacre in Beslan, I hardly need reminding of the evil residing among the Chechen people, the evil that the US refused to acknowledge as Islamic terrorism because it was the Russian government fighting it, and Saudi Arabia supporting it.

        HauptmannGurski -> caliento 6 May 2015 01:16

        The gas deals go way back to before the EU. We had Russian gas connected in Germany in about 1970. German policies have always had that component that Russia/Soviet Union must not be brought to her knees for fear of millions of refugees/asylum seekers. As we can see in Ukraine, you can change the regime but you can still end up in s#*t.


        hydroxl -> BigBadAmerican 5 May 2015 20:58

        Why are these Chechens waging Jihad in Syria rather than Chechnya?

        I was wondering that too, Syria is a client state of Russia, so for Russia to allow jihadis to join forces trying to overthrow the Syrian government seems odd. My best guess is that Russia has no more ability to stop people from its territory joining the jihadis than the British, Americans, or French.

        The main thing that all four countries should be doing is to never under any circumstances allow them to return.


        Rozina 5 May 2015 20:50

        This whole article by Daniil Turovsky (who works for an anti-Russia media outlet) lacks analysis and in most parts looks as if it was made up of various anecdotes and interviews all woven into something with a very different purpose from what most interviewees might have desired. Plus it is so long that most people would hardly bother reading further than the first few paragraphs of fluff – which I suspect is part of its purpose.

        normankirk -> BigBadAmerican 5 May 2015 20:49

        Russia has suffered plenty from those Chechen extremists.. the Moscow theatre siege, the Beslan school massacre. The Americans described these same Islamic chechen terrorists as "rebels" in Time magazine., the "rebels " later bit them in the bum at Boston.

        Vaska Tumir -> WishesandHorses 5 May 2015 14:07

        Good question, that: who's bankrolling ISIS?

        This very newspaper gave us a very clear hint about that in May 2013 when it informed us that the EU had just rescinded its ban on buying oil from Syria.

        By May 2013, all of the Syrian oil wells and its few refineries were in the hands of Al Nusra (Al Qaeda in Syria) and ISIS/Daesh. This was common knowledge, a matter of public record.

        Thus, at the time the EU allowed its member states to start buying oil from Syria, it did so pressured by those EU countries whose aim was to contribute to the bankrolling of both Al Nusra and ISIS. Since the EU could not have done this without Washington's explicit approval -- most of EU being in NATO -- part of the answer to the question you posed is quite clear, I think.

        We still don't know precisely which EU member states have been financing ISIS and Al Nusra by buying Syrian oil from them only because our press has not gone after the EU to find out and inform us of those specific details.

        Vaska Tumir -> jezzam 5 May 2015 13:57

        A lot of the Nazis were "good Protestants". Hitler has never been excommunicated by the Catholic Church, and only one tiny Protestant church in Germany ever opposed Nazism as an inherently anti-Christian ideology (which it was and is).

        A lot of Nazi collaborationists (Croatia, Slovakia, Latvia, Estonia, Belguim, Denmark, the so-called neutral Sweden, etc.) were either Catholics or Protestants.

        The only branch of Christianity which staunchly resisted and opposed Nazism were the Christian Orthodox Churches. The case of the Orthodox church in Bulgaria is particularly instructive in this respect. Although the state had allied itself with Nazi Germany -- Bulgaria was officially a Nazi ally -- the Orthodox Church protected the country's Jews and forbade the handing over of even one of them to the Nazis.

        vr13vr -> clashcr 5 May 2015 13:17

        Why did you assume that guy meant Turkey? Maybe he meant Italy? Or maybe he didn't know geography and didn't mean anything that just a somewhat cool sounding phrase without much of the meaning.

        vr13vr -> geedeesee 5 May 2015 13:12

        Russia would prefer that the US doesn't create another hot spot, it's just a little too close to Russia. The US has already created enough mess.

        vr13vr 5 May 2015 13:04

        Reading this article, it looks like the dissolution of the former Soviet Union, which we all cheer so happily, wasn't such a great thing after all. It's hard to imagine any of those former Soviet members would have become ISIS recruiting targets and potentially attack targets under the Soviet Union.

        Besides, I need to point out that before the dissolution, there wasn't such a huge economic crisis in those cities, nor there were cruel yet appealing market for migrant workers in Russia.

        vr13vr -> Ilja NB 5 May 2015 13:00

        And back then, in 2000s and earlier, it was the US and the West that started public campaign and tried to hamstring Russia.

        RonBuckley 5 May 2015 12:55

        The reverberations of the collapsed empires of the 20 century will be globally felt long into the 21st 22nd and so on. Now to present, first abroad, exactly what prevents US ally Turkey from cutting off everything that sustains ISIS? Surely a few strings could be pulled by the west to force Turkey to blockade ISIS hellhole to finish it off. But no sir. Now domestically, why not shut mosques, ban Islam and deport Muslims to their beloved Caliphate? Nope again. Why? Any guesses anyone?

        The clue would be understanding the inner workings of the neocon brain on foreign and domestic policies.


        SHappens -> normankirk 5 May 2015 08:59

        Glad you could read the article, anyway it will be aired on tv as below.

        BROTHERS, a documentary film being developed for Germany's broadcaster WDR – Die Story and Autentic, produced by Propellerfilm, broadcast date May 18th, 10pm (MET).

        Jeff1000 -> Ikinmoore 5 May 2015 08:57

        The Iraq war had nothing to do with religion. Neither did the Vietnam war. Both World wars, the Crimean war. The American revolutionary war. The Spanish civil war. The Mexican-American war. The war of 1812. The Greek civil war. The Boer war. The Korean war. The American civil war. Religion hasn't been the main cause of a large-scale conflict in centuries. And even in the small ways "religion" was the given reason - like in Northern Ireland or Israel - the real reasons were poverty, cultural oppression and imperialism.

        The idea that we'd all live in peace if not for religion is a preposterous fiction touted by aggressive atheists like Richard Dawkins. The only cause of war is power, money and Imperial ambitions - the fact the sometimes the people in power use religion as an excuse means nothing.

        nishville -> vorpalblade99 5 May 2015 06:54

        Soros & Oligarchy Graun now so desperate as to conflate ISIS with Moscow!

        You could not but marvel at the timing of it - while ISIS is now de facto Saudi military outlet in Yemen, conflating them with Russia is like claiming SNP is a British unity party.


        Goodthanx -> Jeff1000 5 May 2015 06:44

        I was wondering when ISIS was going to become Russia's fault.

        Ive heard Obama use ISIS and Russia used in the same sentence that many times, i just assumed the leader of ISIS is Putin and Al-Baghdadi is the Russian revanchist, revisionist homophobe, that has invaded the Euro patriots of Ukraine, with ambitions of forming an 'Anti-U2 Caliphate' in Vilnius.

        I should stop listening to the BBC..


        WishesandHorses 5 May 2015 06:28

        The comments to thus article are so ridiculous that I have given up reading them.

        What we should be asking is who is bankrolling isis? If it is the Saudis then we should stop playing silly buggers. How can we be such good friends with the most extremist and dangerous country in the middle east? A good enough reason to drastically decrease our dependence on fossil fuels!

        The young men who join isis are mostly very poor and desperate to prove themselves. They make great cannon fodder. Isis can't be stopped by attacking them. They are just patsies. Follow the money!


        geedeesee 5 May 2015 05:49

        Russia should just let US and UK deal with the problem. Let them foot the bill. Let ISIS get bigger. The more that leave, the better. Russia can sit it out and benefit from the ongoing arms sales to Syria - and soon arms sales to Iran. The West only has a few unresolved conflicts on its hands - Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan. Let them squander more money on intelligence-gathering and drones and interventions. Poland and Lithuania are demanding European countries spend more on defence to protect them anyway. There's lots of lobbying going on in UK as well to increase defence spending.

        Let UK divert funds from the NHS. Let USA divert funds from cities such as Baltimore.

        Corkboard Smith Mike_UK 5 May 2015 05:44

        Thankfully ISIS are not in Africa

        Yes they are, but the name ISIS is specific to Iraq & Syria/al-Sham, so they wouldn't call themselves that.

        where it appears the whole population is getting on boats to come to Europe for work.

        A few thousand out of hundreds of millions. Most of them from a handful of failed states.

        Luckily EU MEPs and left wingers are on top of the ISIS threat and not just jumping on the babies are drowning line!

        At this point you're just rambling incoherently away to yourself so I'll leave you to it

        DIPSET 5 May 2015 05:44

        Hmmmmm.........

        ISIS are also recruiting in America. Using American citizens at that.

        Seattle to be exact is where some of their recruiters are based.

        Channel 4 just did a huge expose on this. And have the wholse sordid, inconveniant truth, on their UK website.


        Goodthanx clashcr 5 May 2015 05:42

        Interesting that the article is copied directly from a publication based in Riga, who's editor does will not disclose who her financial backers are for her venture.

        Since when does a western/anglo saxon newspaper, publish blogs as news from eastern european publications without applying so called western journalistic checks and balances to validate the story?

        Forget it. who was i kidding.


        MaoChengJi QueenElizabeth 5 May 2015 05:31

        Western involvement - idiotic though it is - merely hastened the process.

        No, I disagree. It's not idiotic at all. The American formula was (and still is) based on igniting and aggravating sectarian hatred, steering sectarian troubles. Then siding with one side or the other, offering support, maneuvering.

        Divide and rule, the oldest trick in the book. There is an alternative: national unity of all sects or religions, but it doesn't have a chance when a superpower is working hard deliberately inflaming sectarian tensions.


        Olcan85 -> Kaiama 5 May 2015 05:30

        1 million Tajik immigrants in Russian. 2000-4000 of whom have travelled to Syria. The problem of Islamist radicalisation is clearly been blown out of proportion


        stewfen -> Mike_UK 5 May 2015 05:22

        Actually Russia has done a great deal to counter ISIS. They trained Iraq fighter pilots and supplied them with 80 Sukhoi fighter jet aircraft to fight ISIS. Here is a BBC news link where Nouri Maliki Iraq president thanks Russia for their support and says they were delude by American contracts to sell them F35 fighter jets. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28042302


        Kaiama 5 May 2015 05:10

        I would bet that if Russia cracked down on this migration it would be accused of discriminating against the Tajiks. Central Asia has provided construction labour to Moscow for the last 25 odd years. A great deal of the migration is not legally done and it is easy to see where the attraction of money figures. The real question is where the money comes from. And I doubt that Russia really cares if the Tajiks (or any other Central Asian immigrants disappear off somewhere else).

        normankirk -> jezzam 5 May 2015 04:52

        oh Jezzam, you're such a bore. Hit me with some facts you're all hot air and insult and no substance.

        Yes, I think the US is irrational. how many fronts are they fighting on now?How many unarmed black men are they killing every week?How many people do they incarcerate and execute every year?Drone killing , half the time not even knowing who the victims are. Exceptional?Yeah, exceptionally irrational.

        You harp on about Crimea, how much bloodshed?How many deaths?And despite the privations brought about by sanctions, the Crimeans are still happy to be back in Russia. Puyin this, Putin that as if he's some god, give it a break

        istanbul11 5 May 2015 04:35

        Poverty is the main issue here. People who have no hope for the future being told come and live in Syria promised regular income. Probably they feel being valued and they think that someone realise they exist.

        Economic sanctions on Russia, because of the way they handled Ukraine crisis, does not help. It will make Russia weak to deal with IS. Europe should revise this sanction. If IS gets stronger it will not make big difference in America but it will in Europe as IS is able recruit in Turkey.


        SoiledNappy16 -> 6i9vern 5 May 2015 04:14

        An interesting comment. I also think that The West has little to fear from a resurgent China until China stops sending its brightest to the best universities in the world. Almost entirely the USA and Europe. (But, (gasp!), Israel too.) China cannot develop good universities until it frees its population in the same way that western liberal democracy has freed the peoples of Europe, America and some previous British colonies. (Gasp!). In those WLD, nothing is holy, nothing is above criticism, (Well, maybe Kate's new baby), no limits on offending people either.

        Arab and Muslim countries must reform Islam. There is no other way. Arabs/Muslims must realize that when mankind leaves the Earth for the stars, they will remain on backward Earth. Mankind will pass them by. They will remain planet bound to mould on Earth with their allies on the self-hating morally inverted radical extreme left.


        PlatonKuzin -> Mike_UK 5 May 2015 04:11

        The US, UK, EU do all their best to crash Russia in all respects - sanctions, arms race, info wars etc - not to let it breathe freely and now you ask what Russia is doing to counter ISIS.

        You are a VERY VERY interesting guy, Mike_UK. Your logic is beyond any competition!

        MaoChengJi 5 May 2015 04:09

        ...as for Islamic State, let's be clear: this is a direct result - pure and simple, and easily predictable - of the American and NATO meddling in the Middle East in the last dozen years.

        Iraq, Libya, Syria - all the same simple schema: crushing the secular government, igniting and aggravating sectarian hatred. So, now we have Islamic State, and yes, it's a problem for Russia, and other countries in the region. Less so for the US and Western Europe. Mission accomplished?


        6i9vern -> dropthemchammer 5 May 2015 04:07

        There is a link in my post above, but since I'm always accommodating of those with special needs, here it is again:

        http://www.indexmundi.com/russia/net_migration_rate.html

        rmdashrf -> RobinGoodfellow 5 May 2015 03:50

        Don't get me wrong, having a great dislike is too much of an understatement of what I feel for those IS idiots.

        But indiscriminate attacks on the local population will not improve things. Apart from the fact that those actions are considered war crimes by civilised people.

        Someone civilised, should not stoop to barbaric measures to stop barbarians. That's what created the barbarians in the first place.

        Luschnig 5 May 2015 03:29

        ISIS is recruiting not only in Russia but everywhere where there are Muslims. Thankfully the majority of Muslims in Russia like in other countries turn a deaf ear to the recruiters. But enough, poor and rich, educated and ignorant, are tempted by the promises of the Caliphate that ISIS has become a real danger to most countries.

        Unfortunately the thug president in Washington, instead of wholeheartedly fighting ISIS, is waging a stupid neocon vendetta against Moscow and Damascus therefore weakening the struggle against the Caliphate.

        plasticsurgery -> Mr_Mouse 5 May 2015 03:24

        Who opened up the physical space that IS operate in by fatally undermining the security and infrastructure of Iraq - a major and important regional state?

        Where is the money and logistics coming from to prosecute such high intensity warfare and for what strategic end?

        And this is just the basic obvious stuff - it gets much more complicated than this if you spend some time on the subject - so please - be off with your simplistic nonsense.


        oleteo -> Mr_Mouse 5 May 2015 03:23

        Lybia was a prosperous islamic state. Now there are gangs of terrorists fighting for power.Citizens are trying to rescue themselves in Europe. The state was destructed under the flag of democracy and freedom

        MaoChengJi 5 May 2015 03:19

        Should Russia take a cue from Europe and start drowning immigrants in the sea somewhere?


        6i9vern 5 May 2015 03:08

        Since the fall of the USSR literacy levels in Tajikistan have fallen from around 90% to below 50% - from near European to Indian levels, and heading for Pakistani and, perhaps, Afghan levels.

        It is a rare thing in human history for literate parents to raise illiterate children. It happened when the Western Roman Empire fell, during the Islamic and Mongol conquests of Persia and India. That tells us something of the scale of the catastrophe.


        ID1387159 5 May 2015 02:47

        Why did the Guardian mistranslate the headline of the Paik newspaper in the illustration? It does NOT say 'Nursat Nazarov calls on Tajik religious figure Hoji Mirzo to come to Syria'. The headline says 'Terrorists ask Hoji Mirzo to come to Syria.' The story might have explained more, and the translation might be from the story (too small to read) but it is not the headline.

        normankirk 5 May 2015 01:35

        Maybe now its time for Washington to realise that Russia should be an ally instead of attempting to weaken it and go for regime change. A weakened or worse, destabilised Russia would not be able to deal with extreme elements and control vulnerable borders

        There are also Chechens fighting for the Ukrainian army, 2 recent articles by the Intercept report, veterans of the war against Russia, armed by Kiev and funded by the likes of Kolomoisky.

        These same Chechens have also fought in Syria, according to Marcin Mamon, a reporter for the Intercept who spent time with this group in Ukraine.

        [May 20, 2015]Video raises concerns over Ukraine's treatment of Russian prisoners

        May 20, 2015 | The Guardian

        aLLaguz 20 May 2015 11:48

        Ukraine war is becoming the new Syria ...
        What is it with that part of the world..!? ALL that region is in chaos, from northern Russia-Baltic States, passing from Ukraine, Turkish PKK, to southern Syria - Irak - Palestine - Yemen, even Somalia and Eritrea.... and why ?!
        Why ALL that part of the world is always in conflict ?!?!
        Is it because is the border of East-West sides of the world ?! That's lame...
        Is it because there is SO much money in resources in those parts ?!? That's greed
        Is it because a cultural clash ?! That's lame...
        Is it because goverments bloody and corrupt regimes ?!
        Most important of all, WHEN will it be peace in that part of the world.? What does it take ?! What it needs to be done, we MUST do it ?!
        The world is tired of conflicts in that zone, imagine how the people living there feel, its deperate ..

        childofmine 20 May 2015 11:47

        Is any informed person really surprised by this?

        Sund Fornuft -> Chiselbeard 20 May 2015 11:44

        How about reasoning like this: In the city we have two types of foreigners. Ones that kill us and the other type that kills our killers. Who should go home? Use that math for every city and you will get the right answer. This is how your holly partiotic war looks like in the eyes of the ordinary europeans. This is why you will never become part of Europe in your current mental tune.

        aLLaguz -> TOR2000 20 May 2015 11:34

        What the E.U. is saying is: Where is the decentralization? Where is the commitment? Where are the reforms?"

        So, what i have learned from this is that, in international politics, there is no such thing as a inconditional help ....
        I'll will help you mantain your territory if you help me opening the business from my companies...
        If there were good will, EU, US, etc. will be helping Ukraine with no conditions.
        Violations of POW's are in both sides, and will not finish, as sad as that sounds ...

        anarxist -> careforukraine 20 May 2015 11:33

        This is not a line. Russians can be freely discriminated against. All rules have exceptions, well Human Rights and laws against discriminations do not apply to: 1) Russian citizens, 2) Russian sympathisers, 3) Russian backers, 4) Russian anything.

        careforukraine 20 May 2015 11:28

        Its great that western media are starting to show the true kiev but seriously how many "lines" can kiev cross before the west takes action?
        Poroshenko has proven to be untrustworthy at all times,both to the west and to the people of ukraine.
        Was killing civilians not a line?
        Censoring political beliefs
        Banning languages
        Banning freedom of speech
        Etc etc........
        How many lines can one man cross before he is condemned?


        BunglyPete -> Chiselbeard 20 May 2015 11:20

        As Foreign Policy reports the CIA is in the "killing business" and "effectively answers to no one except the president".

        If these are 'spies' working for the CIA, then they could well be involved in such activities.


        BunglyPete -> Chiselbeard 20 May 2015 11:09

        So there is no possibility that the US could use a person masquerading as an aid worker as a spy? This is completely impossible?

        Why should we trust the US after Iraq and Afghanistan? I'm not saying trust Russia mind you, I don't doubt there are Russian soldiers in the Donbass. This doesn't mean the US are suddenly wholesome and trustworthy though.


        TOR2000 20 May 2015 11:00

        From euphoria to reality: a year after Ukraine remains in political and economic chaos and frustration is brewing. Here are some excerpts from the article in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/world/europe/in-ukraine-corruption-concerns-linger-a-year-after-a-revolution.html):

        "Poroshenko, whether you like him or not, he's not delivering," said Bruce P. Jackson, the president of the Project on Transitional Democracies, an American nonprofit group. "The Ukrainian government is so weak and fragile that it is too weak to do the necessary things to build a unified and independent state."

        The continuing disarray is becoming a source of friction between the Ukrainian government and its European allies, especially Germany and France, whose leaders helped broker the cease-fire and are increasingly frustrated with the slow pace of change.

        "We don't have simply Russian aggression against the victim Ukraine," Mr. Jackson said. "We have a predictably aggressive Russia against an unpredictable and unreliable Ukraine. Ukraine is now seen as not to be trusted. What the E.U. is saying is: Where is the decentralization? Where is the commitment? Where are the reforms?"

        Chiselbeard -> Andrey Andreevich K 20 May 2015 10:57

        Until the separatists or their Russian masters capture US combat forces from battles in eastern Ukraine your argument is baseless. Nobody disputes Russian logistical and intelligence support of the rebels. Allowing "soldiers of fortune" to freely come and go from Russia to combat roles in eastern Ukraine is a different matter entirely. We're the west to match this in earnest we would see this conflict change from a proxy Cold War to a proxy War. If this is a civil war than it should be fought by Ukrainians. If Russian citizens should be allowed to support a side of their choosing then so too should citizens of NATO member states be allowed to participate. And the EU.


        Chiselbeard -> BunglyPete 20 May 2015 10:45

        You seem to be confused Pete. Allow me to endevour to enlighten you. "Spies" are associated with espionage, or the covert acquisition of data. They are typically directed by intelligence agency's like the CIA or Mosad.

        Special forces are elite soldiers, usually hand picked by their superiors from different branches of the armed forces. They are directed by their ministries of defense.

        While, often times, so called "spec' ops" forces are used to achieve goals set out by intelligence services, they are not employed in the collection of data as that is within the purview of the intelligence agency.

        They are different tools for different jobs. The Russians caught inside Ukranian territory were soldiers. They are unrelated to perceived "spies" imbedded within aid organizations. You are connecting dots that aren't on the same page.

        BorninUkraine 20 May 2015 10:44

        Amazing!
        After Ukrainian Nazis burned people alive in Odessa last year, shot civilians en mass in Mariupol last May, murdered thousands of civilians in Donbass by indiscriminate shelling for a year now, tortured thousands of political prisoners (Ukraine has more political prisoners than Soviet Union ever had in Brezhnev period), murdered numerous political opponents and opposition journalists all over the country, the Western media found an instance when Ukraine violated Geneva conventions? It's like blaming A-bomb for damaging a flower in Hiroshima.

        Is there any limit to hypocrisy? Or does anything go, as long as it's paid for?

        anarxist -> Chiselbeard 20 May 2015 10:43

        Wasn't Angela Merkel just in Russia on a visit? Why don't you feel Germany will be first to lift the sanctions?

        Some EU countries have expressed desire to lift sanctions, such as Greece, Italy, Austria, etc... But they are not allowed to. Kerry stated that if EU lift sanctions it would jeopardise the entire concept of sanctions, basically not allowing EU to do this. On the other hand, rules that America imposes on the rest of the world are not necessarily rules they follow themselves. Time will tell, but this is my prediction.

        Simultaneously their government protects a violent dictator in Syria

        Don't believe everything you are being told by the western media. He was branded evil during the colour revolution season in the middle east. He was fighting against islam extremists. This conflict is more related to Saudi Arabia, gas, energy, money, greed - as usual.

        Middle East in general - most countries in the Middle East have better relations with Russia than they do with US. Russia has a lot of influence in this region. As BBC mentions: Ukraine is important, but Iran is more important. US needs Russia to resolve these conflicts.


        Solongmariane -> Chiselbeard 20 May 2015 10:38

        This is an attack of Washington (and NATO), and Moscow counter-attacked. Both, sent their people. What makes Russia more sympathic, it's the fact that most of the East Ukrainians are "Russ" and neighbours. Even some cupid politicians decided to seccede in 1991, a lot of people of these regios still get Russian-feelings.


        anarxist -> BunglyPete 20 May 2015 10:34

        I wonder why this article is not available in BBC English

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/international/2015/05/150518_us_russia_diplomacy_experts

        Дипломатия США-Россия: Украина важна, но Иран важнее

        title roughly translated: Diplomacy USA-Russia: Ukraine is important, but Iran is more important


        Andrey Andreevich K -> Chiselbeard 20 May 2015 10:33

        If Russia is providing troops to the seperatists in eastern Ukraine by simply allowing them an honorable discharge as they cross the border, are they not just as guilty of interference in this "civil war"

        US sends their instructors and arms to Ukraine. Does it mean that US has conflict with DPR and LPR?
        I believe that Russian soldiers should be there in order to control and keep balance. So that neither Ukr forces nor rebels could win. Poroshenko should understand that it's impossible to win by bombing own citizens. He should follow agreements signed in Minsk. And mainly the term concerning federalization of the country and autonomy to East regions


        Chiselbeard 20 May 2015 10:14

        What do want to bet their service "ended" in the last six months. If Russia is providing troops to the seperatists in eastern Ukraine by simply allowing them an honorable discharge as they cross the border, are they not just as guilty of interference in this "civil war". They are trained in combat tactics by Moscow and then turned loose on a neighboring country's military.

        If they had no affiliation to the Russian government whatsoever their sheer numbers alone would be enough to consider them "foreign hostiles". How many Frenchmen do you think could attack members of the German armed forces before serious diplomatic chaos insued? How long could France hide behind the lazy excuse of "we didn't send them"? If Russia wishes the world to believe they aren't a major instigator in this conflict, they need to publicly condemn participation in the fighting by Russian citizens, especially those with recent military experience. Until such time as the Kremlin sees fit to take this minimal step the rift between them and the developed world will widen and the sanctions will only increase.

        anarxist 20 May 2015 10:14

        My prediction: The US press is changing its tactics toward Russia, as they need Russia to solve their problems in the middle east. Europe is now confused, not sure how to interpret these signs. The US will be first to lift its sanctions on Russia, which will follow by Russia lifting sanctions on US. Europe will be slow to react. US will start benefiting economically, while Europe gets stuffed...


        BunglyPete 20 May 2015 10:07

        Nice to see both sides being reported on.

        What has been missed by even Russian media for some reason is this from Bloomberg,

        Kerry Helped Free U.S. 'Spies' Trapped in Ukraine

        The US and the leader of the IRC claim they aren't spies. The problem for me is the leader of IRC is David Miliband, who I don't trust at all.

        The timing is very interesting, as it came just as 2 alleged Russian agents were arrested by Ukrainian services, and just before Kerry made the visit to Sochi. My best guess is some deal was made whereby Putin agreed to not make a scene about the alleged US spies. You would certainly expect this to be a big scoop bannered all over RT and Sputnik, but it isn't.

        I am noticing a change in the way things are being presented. Here is another Bloomberg article from yesterday,

        Nazis Triumph Over Communists in Ukraine

        Whatever you think of the article/statement, it's a clear shift in direction from 'Its all Russia guv'. Good to see.


        MaoChengJi 20 May 2015 10:03

        Ha, RFE/RL goes concern-trolling. Who cares about a stupid video, when neonazi thugs of the pro-Washington regime in Keiv are indiscriminately shelling cities and towns on a daily basis.


        Andrey Andreevich K SHappens 20 May 2015 10:02

        2 prisoners for more than a year of war. That's a prove of Russian army massive invasion

        Babeouf 20 May 2015 10:01

        You see this is the trouble with Ukrainian fictions their plots are predictable. Why not try 'Ukraine captures Russian Colonel' or even Russian General or Putin's brother. All you need is someone lying in a bed claiming to be Colonel Youri Popov from Omsk and it will sell to the West's MSM. Who cares if he is tortured can he twirl his mustache.

        Andrey Andreevich K 20 May 2015 09:58

        Wandering plaster on Yerofeyev's hands
        1) http://kor.ill.in.ua/m/610x385/1626299.jpg
        2) http://kor.ill.in.ua/m/400x253/1625646.jpg

        SHappens 20 May 2015 09:57

        Oh finally. Ukraine needs a closer look at what they are up to. After all the atrocities they already committed which are carefully hidden to the public, it was time for a concern. Impunity has its limits.


        OldStickie 20 May 2015 09:56

        RT has shown their identity documents as policemen from Lugansk. The Kiev militias' use of torture, indiscriminate murder of prisoners and even crucifixion is well documented.

        Виталий Седин 20 May 2015 09:46


        "Video raises concerns over Ukraine's treatment of Russian prisoners"(c)

        Halleluiah! The blind can see the lame can walk!

        [May 19, 2015]The New Lie About Iraq

        May 19, 2015 | The American Conservative
        The newest lie about the Iraq war is that the truth about Iraq was not known before the American attack in 2003. One needs only to search for "lies about Iraq" to see all the many links explaining evidence from before the war started that showed the Bush/Cheney/neoconservative claims to be false.

        That false narrative is important to know because many of the same people are now promoting war with Iran, as they were before with Syria. Republican candidates are also stumbling over the question of whether they would have invaded Iraq because it undermines their present, ongoing promotion of an interventionist foreign policy.

        Take just one example of such a false claim, which even reached Bush's 2003 State of the Union address to Congress: "Saddam has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." It was a lie from the beginning. Bush had been informed that the Department of Energy and State Department intelligence had analyzed the tubes and found them to be useless for a nuclear program, rather being for conventional rockets.

        I was very active in reporting on the lies, writing at the time for Antiwar.com, which every day had articles, news reports, and analyses exposing the misinformation. An article I wrote in 2002, well before the war started, "Eight Washington Lies About Iraq," was at the top of a Google search for lies for 7 years. Even today it explains, with links, many of the lies made.

        Iraq's weaknesses were in fact easy to comprehend after nearly nine years of U.S. economic blockade following the First Gulf War. Iraq had been decimated by American bombing of its electricity, sanitation, irrigation, and transportation systems. Almost every bridge was destroyed. A half-million Iraqi children had died of starvation and disease. It was also subject to United Nations (read American) inspectors going all over the country to verify that it was conforming to earlier UN demands for destruction of its nuclear and chemical warfare facilities.

        All Americans should be reminded again and again that recent wars were based on lies. The First Gulf War was sold to Americans on the basis of the murder of "incubator babies" and an imaginary Iraqi threat to invade Saudi Arabia, including the assertion that satellite photographs showed the Iraqi Army massed on the Saudi border. The "classified" photos never existed. The Kosovo War was based on reports that 100,000 Kosovan Albanians had been murdered by Serbs, so America had to attack so as to stop the mass killing. It was also a lie.

        Today, when all the Republican candidates are being pressured by right-wing media and neoconservative money men to sound (and be) hawkish, Americans should recall how most of Washington's establishment lied to promote past wars. Wars mean billions of dollars for key congressional districts' arms producers, millions of rapt viewers for 24-7 cable news, lots of TV time for think-tank chicken hawks,, new jobs for "contractors," more growth for the "surveillance state." There's also the Israel Lobby and Christian Zionists. All In all that is a pretty formidable force for war.

        All Americans should be aware and suspicious of again being panicked into supporting more wars.

        Jake, May 19, 2015 at 1:43 pm

        I read your article 'Eight Washington Lies About Iraq' when it was first posted. I sent the link to several 'conservative' friends who wanted war, not because they were Christian Zionists (I felt that grouyp was hopeless on the subject), but because they feared what 9/11 meant and knew only what TV news and the hakcs leading the parties told them.

        None of them changed their minds about being for a war to kill Saddam Hussien and remake the Middle East. A couple of them gloated when the victory seemed so easy. Not one of them has told me that I was correct all along.

        The crowd that wants to land trooops in Syria and Iran will tel any lie to get its wish. It knows that the people hodwinked before will tend to flal for another snow job, because they do not want to havce been wrong the first time.


        JohnG, May 19, 2015 at 2:26 pm

        Thank you for this refreshing and to-the-point article, this combination of intelligence, competence, and integrity is why I support TAC. Sadly, when it comes to our foreign policy "elites" (of course, the term is a stretch), precisely the opposite is the case, a stunning combination of stupidity, ignorance, and crookedness wherever one looks.

        May I just add that the lies stretch to before the Kosovo war in the Balkans? The persistent demonizing and periodic bombings of the Serbs (in what are now Croatia and Bosnia) probably ended up giving us Putin in Kremlin and a region that will probably keep exploding in the future. And, by the way, watch out for what is about to happen in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

        I believe that the unique historical opportunity for a more just, democratic, and peaceful world was actually squandered under Bill Clinton, with all the nonsense that was done in the Balkans and the de facto preparation of the confrontation with Iraq (remember Madeleine Albright's famous statement?). George Bush's war was just a continuation, and WMDs just an excuse that the cakewalk crowd thought would be irrelevant/forgotten as soon as the Iraqis started to throw flowers on American tanks.

        The war was a gambit by a political class believing that it could use its powerful military to rule the world by controlling its supply of oil. And, gee, they discovered that it's a pretty big & messy world out there, surprise! They can't rule Afghanistan alone, anyone half-familiar with the history of that region could have told them that. So now we are busy talking about "what we knew" and "based on what we knew" hypothetical nonsense just to cover some dumb, arrogant, and dishonest asses rather than simply firing them all, from the media, State Dept., etc.

        Fran Macadam, May 19, 2015 at 4:16 pm

        On TAC there is much handwringing about the decline of Christian influence in America and the loss of faith generally. President Bush was the poster boy for evangelical Christianity, yet both lied and was manipulated by the unscrupulous, ordering torture and assassination. So the wars turned out badly for average folk, though those allied with Cheney of whatever political stripe profited handsomely. We lose, they win. The neocons are immune to loss of public faith, rather they enjoy full support of donorist elites who buy our democratically unaccountable politicians and get just the wars they continue to want.

        As in Europe after the huge losses of World War I, which almost every church supported, there was a great loss of faith. American churchianity, as Dwight Eisenhower put it, is a thoroughly civil religion that supports state aims. He explained that it was built on faith and it mattered not at all which one it was. When the church allies itself with disreputable state actors, some of them Christians in retrospect so obviously dunderheaded, what evaluation will a disillusioned public make of the church's credibility? It won't be disbelief in the miracles that causes the falling away, but the mendacious and supplicating justifications that had no resemblance whatsoever to "Just War" and were in reality against every teaching of Jesus. Thus the church's prophetic role of speaking truth to power in America died.


        [May 19, 2015]Why Soldiers Lie

        May 18, 2015 | The American Conservative
        Since the year began I have had opportunities to visit several American military units and schools. What I found was encouraging. A growing number of officers and staff NCOs accept the painful fact that we have lost two wars. They know we need to change if we are not to lose more. Finally, they have come to understand that their services' senior leaders, their top generals, do not much care about winning or losing. To them, military defeat is irrelevant because the money keeps flowing. The only war the generals care about is the budget war.

        The senior military leadership is facing a crisis of legitimacy and does not know it. As one Marine officer put it to me, the generals seem divorced from reality, powerless, and risk-averse. The problem is less what they do than what they do not do, namely address the reasons for our defeats. The dissatisfaction with the senior leadership is coming not only from junior officers. I found it now goes up to the ranks of lieutenant colonel and even colonel.

        Nor is the evidence merely anecdotal. The U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute in February published a study by two of its faculty members, Leonard Wong and Stephen J. Gerras, Lying to Ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army Profession. Its conclusion, that many Army officers routinely lie to "the system," is no surprise to anyone who knows our military. (The phenomenon runs across service lines.) What is more interesting is the study's finding as to the cause of institutionalized lying: "the suffocating amount of mandatory requirements imposed upon units and commanders."

        Who imposes this burden? Mostly the generals, who appear neither to know nor to care that they are laying on more training and reporting requirements than there is time to meet. Their only concern is covering their own rears. Unable to do as ordered and unwilling to risk their careers by telling their superiors the truth, officers deal with the problem by lying.

        The study's authors do not mince words:

        The Army as a profession speaks of values, integrity, and honor. The Army as an organization practices zero defects, pencil-whipping, and checking the box. Army leaders are situated between the two identities-parroting the talking points of the latest Army Profession Campaign while placating the Army bureaucracy or civilian overseers by telling them what they want to hear. As a result, Army leaders learn to talk of one world while living in another. A major described the current trend:

        'It's getting to the point where you're almost rewarded for being somebody you're not. That's a dangerous situation especially now as we downsize. We're creating an environment where everything is too rosy because everyone is afraid to paint the true picture. You just wonder when it will break, when it will fall apart.'

        The larger problem, again, is less what the generals do than what they do not do. They preside smugly over a cluster of institutional disasters, like so many Soviet industrial managers-which is what most of them are.

        Angry officers demanding change provide one wing of a potential new military-reform movement, one that might succeed where that of the 1970s and '80s failed. But success requires tying demands for reform to the services' budgets, which is all the senior generals care about. The earlier reform movement got generals interested in Third Generation maneuver warfare because senators and congressmen who voted on the defense budget were talking about it on the House and Senate floors. Whence might come this second arm of a political pincer movement under today's conditions?

        Far more than was true 35 years ago, legislation is now for sale, for the legalized bribes we call "campaign contributions." Business as usual in defense has vast amounts of money to give to members of Congress. Military reform can offer none. That usually means "end of story" on Capitol Hill.

        But there is one possibility. The House now has a number of members who served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Having seen today's military from the inside, some of them will know its weaknesses. They might put loyalty to their former comrades above payoffs. If they were to reach out to those still serving who are tired of losing, they could create the "inside/outside" nexus that made the earlier reform movement powerful for a time.

        Money may still win in the end. If so, our problem will be larger than more lost cabinet wars. A republic whose government is for sale will not be a republic much longer. Or, perhaps, a state.

        William S. Lind is author of the Maneuver Warfare Handbook and director of the American Conservative Center for Public Transportation.

        [May 19, 2015] US Taxpayer On The Hook As Ukraine Prepares Moratorium On Debt Repayments, Increases Military Spending

        Zero Hedge
        It appears, thanks to the generous backing of US taxpayers, Ukraine is about to get its cake and eat it too. On the same day as Ukraine's government unleashes a bill enabling a moratorium on foreign debt repayments - implicitly meaning default "in case of an attack from dishonest lenders" - the defense ministry unveils a plan to increase military spending by 17 billion hryvnia this year statuing that will "make efforts to find possibilities to finance needs" to secure country's defense. Ukraine bonds are tumbling.

        Military Spending is set to surge...

        10 agencies, including Defense Ministry, that oversee defense and law enforcement asked Finance Ministry to increase defense spending by 17b hryvnia this yr, ministry in Kiev says on its website.

        Finance Ministry will "make efforts to find possibilities to finance needs" to secure country's defense.

        Higher spending is needed because of increased army personnel.

        But foreign debtors are set to lose... (as RT reports)

        Ukraine's government has submitted to parliament a bill that allows the introduction of a moratorium on foreign debt payments. The moratorium is to protect the assets of the state and the state sector in case of an "attack" from dishonest lenders.

        "To protect the interests of the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian government today has introduced to the Rada a bill that would give the government the right to suspend payment on Ukraine's external debts and publicly guaranteed debts. In case of an attack from dishonest lenders on Ukraine this moratorium will protect the assets of the state and the state sector," a statement on the Cabinet website said Tuesday.

        The moratorium "will not affect domestic payments and will not affect the stability of the banking system," the UNIAN news agency said citing s source. In also said the moratorium does not include debt to the IMF, the EBRD and other institutional creditors.

        The Cabinet said the moratorium will not affect the bilateral and multilateral obligations of Kiev.

        And Ukraine bonds are tumbling...

        Specifcally (as Bloomberg reports),

        The eastern European nation is seeking permission to hold off on paying coupons, the first of which coming due is a May 21 payment of $33 million on a $1 billion note maturing in November 2016, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Ukraine said cutting its debt burden is a question of justice, according to an e-mailed statement on Tuesday.

        "This is a logical next step to show people they are serious," Dray Simpson, the London-based managing director of emerging markets at Cantor Fitzgerald Europe, said by e-mail on Tuesday. "Up to now there has been a lot of talk and very little action and any confrontations have been won by creditors. If Ukraine are going to reverse that trend they need to be firm."

        Time is running out for the country and its bondholders to reach an agreement as a June 15 International Monetary Fund deadline for the restructuring approaches. Failure to strike a deal puts the next tranche of a $17.5 billion IMF loan at risk for Ukraine as it struggles to keep the economy afloat following a yearlong conflict with pro-Russian separatists in the nation's east.

        STP

        Funny, Nuland actually in Russia!

        http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/18/us-russia-usa-nuland-idUSKBN0O30RQ20150518

        "A visit to Moscow by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland is a sign that relations between Russia and the United States may be improving, the Kremlin said on Monday.

        Nuland's trip comes days after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry discussed the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in the Russian Black Sea resort of Sochi.

        Asked if Nuland's visit was a sign of improving ties, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters: "Yes, when President Putin was meeting with Minister Lavrov and Secretary of State Kerry ... it was mentioned that a closer dialogue ... was needed."

        Nuland, who was holding talks in Moscow with two Russian deputy foreign ministers, has been strongly criticized in Russia in the past over her support for pro-democracy activists in Kiev during mass street protests that toppled Ukraine's pro-Moscow president Viktor Yanukovich in February 2014.

        Nuland was expected to explore ways of bolstering a fragile ceasefire in eastern Ukraine between Ukrainian government forces and pro-Russian separatists and of implementing other aspects of a peace agreement forged in Minsk several months ago.

        Russia blames the crisis in Ukraine on what it sees as heavy-handed meddling by the United States in a region Moscow has traditionally seen as its sphere of influence.

        The West, in turn, accuses Russia of backing the separatists with weapons and troops, charges Moscow denies. More than 6,100 people have been killed in the conflict since April 2014.

        The Ukraine crisis has plunged relations between Russia and the West into their worst crisis since the end of the Cold War, but the United States needs Russian cooperation to tackle a host of other global issues including Iran and the Syrian conflict."

        Maybe she brought some cookies with her too.

        farflungstar
        I bet she feels like a fat stupid cunt with egg on her face. I wonder if the Russians could keep from laughing at her. Another AmeriKan fantasist, operating from the playbook in her head, where reality only intrudes sporadically, usually with the aid of a monster vibrator ya gotta kickstart.

        Looks like a bunch of sissy twats saw the V-Day parade in Moscow and realized the Russians weren't fucking around.

        HowdyDoody
        Yet another source of victimhood for Nudelman.
        Freddie
        Oh this is also Soros, Crown-Krinsky, Bloomturd, the Neo Cons like McCain and Neo Liberals like Schumer.

        The US Govt is totally Z-evil and Z-owed.


        Anglo Hondo

        "moratorium on foreign debt repayments". Is this what Greece should be doing? And why not?

        mog

        It is also holding two Russian ex military who are apparently being brutally tortured.

        It has reneged on Minsk 2.

        It has resumed shelling on Denesk civilans killing anf injuring.

        Where is the outrage in the Western media?

        The west has now lost any moral authority it may ever have had.

        Its a bully, a liar, murderous and thieving, pouring out propaganda and poison.

        That we have sunk to that?

        Most of the third world is better than this.

        Winston of Oceania

        Funny they did not mention quitting the Russian special forces when questioned and are being visited by the Red Cross...

        http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-ukraine-russia-soldiers-captur...

        HowdyDoody

        Russian special forces using a rifle? Sure.

        oudinot

        ZH is behind on this: the US has given up on their Ukranian military adventure.

        http://rinf.com/alt-news/featured/obama-gave-up-on-ukraine-press-simply-...

        Mike Masr

        Thanks to "Fuck the EU" Nuland and Obama's neocon pals, in the Ukraine we have another Iraq and Libya on our hands! This time ISIS hasn't taken over but Banderist Nazi's. And this time we are openly committing US tax dollars to fund the evil fucking jerks.

        On February 22nd, 2014, Euromaidan kicked out not only a democratically-elected president, but a democratically-elected government. It waited three months before holding elections for a new president and 8 months for parliamentary elections. By that time the extremist Dmitry Yarosh Nazi element had already taken a stake way beyond electoral control – neo-Nazi Svoboda Party, despite scoring less than 5% in the parliamentary elections sits in the Ukraine's parliament and regularly sends fighters to the front. The leader of the neo-Nazi terrorist group Pravy Sektor Dmitry Yarosh who polled less than 1% in the presidential election and on Interpol's wanted list is now an official aide to to the Ukrainian military.

        The Ukraine is DEAD and there is absolutely nothing that the US Government can do to change this.

        http://novorossia.today/10-reasons-ukraine-is-dead/

        And, we are now doing a rerun of Ukraine's Maidan in Macedonia to stop Gazprom's Turkish Stream project! More US Tax dollars hard at work!!!

        http://rt.com/op-edge/259541-macedonia-unrest-west-russia-pipeline/


        Freddie

        Donetsk heroes victory parade with Motorola (1:20) and Givi (at 2:09). Zakarchenko was there as well.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwAhyBJiag8

        Compare thesse heroes to NeoCons like McCain who with his dad killed more American sailors on the USS Forrestal and USS Liberty than the Russians ever did. The Russians were the first to arrive on scene to try to save dying sailors on the USS Liberty. McCain's old man and zip LBJ told F4 Phantoms to return to carriers and sailed SLOW to the aid of the USS Liberty hoping all survivors were dead.

        My only complaint with Donetsk (DPR), LPR and Russia - get rid of that Stalin and communist imagery. Stalin was a mass murderer Georgian and stooge along with Lenin. They both worked for the Bolsheviks of the New York City, london and German bankster red sheild zios plus American elites who back ed the commies and nazis for $$$$$ and power.

        oudinot

        Well reasoned Mike Masr, thank you.

        HowdyDoody

        Borislav Bereza, a leader of the Far right neo-nazi Pravi Sektor is Jewish and proud of it.

        http://tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/187217/borislav-bereza

        gcjohns1971

        When Obama said, "Yes we can" he proposed that as an answer to many questions...

        Like "Can we end corporate welfare?", "Can we end foreign wars?", "Can we close Guantanamo and once again respect human rights?"

        Not surprisingly they were all lies.

        Of course, being politicians, there are always the unspoken, yet constant, eternal questions that apply:

        "Can we extinguish your retirement on Hookers and Blow?"

        Yes we can.

        "Can we fool you stupid fuckers one more time with outrageous claims of Nirvana following our election?"

        Yes we can.

        "Can we buy ourselves international money, power, and influence with your children's milk money?"

        Yes we can.

        Winston of Oceania

        Because Russian taxpayers are financing the Russian's slow invasion of Ukraine...

        http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-ukraine-russia-soldiers-captur...

        Mike Masr

        Russia's invasion of the Ukraine is laughable. What about the regime change orchestrated by Washington?

        If I lived in Donetsk and spoke Russian why would I want to be controlled by the illegal, U.S.-funded junta in Kiev, instituted by political organizations given five billion dollars by Washington, as revealed by "fuck the EU" Victoria Nuland.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o

        Ukraine was broke, and political parties and organizations were vastly financed by foreign nations, (US & EU) which then encouraged them to foment a coup.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&x-yt-ts=1422503916...

        The junta in Kiev then illegally deposed the democratic president, and then illegally deposed all of its governors.

        Russia's slow invasion of Ukraine is a joke. It's Russian speaking Ukrainian people in Eastern Ukraine not wanting any part of the Junta in Kiev!

        farflungstar
        It's so laughable. The NPR slurping idiots always seem to forget that convenient fact when they sputter about the USSA being "obligated" by treaty to keep the Ukrainian "territorial integrity" intact.

        Once you violently chase the democratically elected President from office and put on a show election with your puppets who glorify people like Bandera, threaten to nuke the Eastern Moscals and take out Russian as one of the main languages, all bets are off.

        And if Russia REALLY invaded the Ukraine, we would all know about it without MSM gossipy bullshit:

        Top Ten Telltale Signs Russia Has Invaded the Ukraine

        http://cluborlov.blogspot.ru/2014/08/how-can-you-tell-whether-russia-has...

        farflungstar

        Reasonable, considering what the US and her EU pups are doing on the other side. AmeriKan arms and trainers, foreign mercenaries filling out the ranks of Ukrainian army because everyone else is leaving the country to avoid conscription.

        The Ukraine - overhyped and grabby fascist faggots with no economy. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian junta shells civilian areas and where is the LA Times then? One-sided lying MSM pukes. Drugs aplenty to make people think the Ukraine would be allowed to evict the Russian navy from Crimea, or join NATO and threaten Russia from the Black Sea. More Obama-inspired wishful thinking: We do not see things as they are, but how we wish them to be.

        Enjoy your debt colony.

        Youri Carma

        U.S. provides $1 billion in loan guarantees to Ukraine
        18 May 2015, by Greg Robb - Washington (MarketWatch)
        http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-provides-1-billion-in-loan-guarantees-to-ukraine-2015-05-18

        The United States on Monday gave the green light to a new $1 billion loan guarantee agreement for Ukraine.

        In a statement, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said that Ukraine continues along the path of economic reform and that the loan deal is designed to support the war-torn country.

        "Ukraine has taken critical reforms already, and its commitment to making a decisive break with the corruption and stagnation of the past is clear," Lew said.


        Mike Masr

        MORE U.S. MONEY TO FLUSH DOWN THE TOILET

        The Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, are never returning. The ragtag Ukrainian forces using antiquated Soviet hardware haven't taken back any territory since July of 2014, they've only lost a lot of personnel and territory. DPR and LPR forces have consolidated lines, and if there is movement, it will only be to take more of Donbass – currently they have around 1/3 of the region which once produced 80% of all Ukraine's coal, but from which the DPR and LPR do not supply to Ukraine any more, while industrial production in the rest of the former industrial heartland of Donbass has mostly ground to a halt. Ukraine's debt is over $80 billion – soon set to hit $100 billion, and with a sinking GDP. An agreed recent IMF bailout programme of $17.5 billion would only scratch the surface. By conservative estimates Ukraine's economy shrunk by 7.5% in 2014. Estimates for this year range from 6% to over 20%. European governments pledge support, meanwhile European businesses withdraw en mass, hundreds have already left the Ukrainian market, most of the 600 German firms operating in Ukraine are conducting an audit to decide on withdrawing from the market. Russia's trade with the country which was Ukraine's leading export and import parter is understandably decimated, Ukraine's economy is stricken, and will only go down the toilet. 1 Billion in loan guarantees is too little and too late!

        Normal life is almost impossible in Ukraine. Inflation in Ukraine is at a whopping 272%, the hryvnia's value is now less than 40% of what it was. Inflation has skyrocketed, salaries have collapsed, businesses across Ukraine have closed. In short, people don't have any money in Ukraine anymore – sales of new cars are down 67% on the year – production of cars down 96%, 46 banks declared insolvency in the last year.

        As for the eternal thorn in Ukraine's side, corruption, which apparently was so pressing an issue and one of the defining aims of Maidan – is even worse now than it was before.

        Greg Robb - Washington (MarketWatch) story suggests that Jacob Lew must have drank too much of Obama's Kool Aid and released news written by Kiev's government propagandists!!!

        oudinot

        I agree with you Mike but I do think, cynically, that Washington's policy worked out.

        This whole thing started when the Ukraine rejected a free trade deal with the EU. Russia was their best choice for trade for mostly practical reasons as Russia is their biggest trading partner(don't forget the EU wanted the Ukraine to meet EU standards before exporting which meant costly re tooling which the Ukranians couldn't afford but the US and Germany could buy in at 5 cents on the dollar, I mean Hryzinia or whatever)when all hell broke loose.

        Yes, the US putting in the Ukranian political roster and calling the plays from the sidelines where the Ukraine fought two offensivse and are now econmically, politically, morally and militarily defeated.

        Then the US hangs them out to dry.

        Why not?

        The US and its allies demolished the Ukranian economy so that it hurt trade with Russia, got sanctions against Russia which further withered the trade with EU and the US grabbed 33 tons of Ukranian gold reserves that disappeared in the NY and reappeared in Belgium while US left a pile of dung on Putin's doorstep.

        Shit happens.

        Good thing all the Clinton donors traded their US Fiat loans for real stuff

        [May 19, 2015] The Worrying Rise of Anti-China Discourse in the US By Dingding Chen

        May 16, 2015 | The Diplomat

        Forget U.S. patrols in the South China Sea. This is the real threat to U.S.-China relations.

        There is no doubt that U.S.-China relations are entering a new period of tensions given reports that the United States is considering the possibility of sending naval ships and planes to challenge China's sovereignty in the South China Sea. This U.S. move, if realized, is certainly provocative and has the potential to lead to a clash with Chinese ships and planes.

        So far a lot of analysis has focused on the possible motivations behind the U.S. move and the possible consequences thereof for China-U.S. relations and Asian security. Almost all would agree that this move, whether right or wrong, is a risky one and worrying indeed.

        To better understand this particular military move, one has to understand the larger background for all of the current developments in China-U.S. relations. This larger background is the new, rising anti-China discourse in various circles of the United States, including the government, academic, policy, and certainly military spheres. Three types of anti-China discourses stand out.

        • First, there is the new 'China collapse' theory. This theory is not totally new and largely came to the fore after Gordon Chang popularized it in his 2001 book. This new round of 'China collapse' discourse, however, is led by an influential China expert, David Shambaugh of George Washington University. In his March article published in the Wall Street Journal, Shambaugh predicted that the end game of the Chinese Communist Party has already begun. What is most interesting about Shambaugh's new prediction is his past praise of the CCP and China as a resilient power. Later, Shambaugh argued that he was disappointed by a series of CCP moves, particularly under Xi Jinping's leadership. He was expecting a more liberal and democratic China, but he obviously does not think that is possible anymore. Of course, there are other types of 'China collapse' theory, focusing on different aspects of China's pressing problems such as social grievances, environmental pollution, inequality, corruption, and so on.
        • Second, there is lots of talk about China as a regional bully and how China is trying to push the United States out of East Asia. As a big country, it is natural for China to be viewed as a big bully in Asia in the eyes of smaller nations. And China's territorial disputes with some of them certainly do not help. All these concerns on the part of smaller nations are understandable. Although the U.S. has repeatedly emphasized that it maintains a neutral position with regard to the territorial disputes, China does not buy it. And despite China's repeated pledge that it is not trying to push the U.S. out of Asia, the U.S. simply remains unconvinced. This is truly unfortunate - the lack of trust between the two has prevented them from assuming the best of each other. From the U.S. perspective, a growing China and a stable authoritarian regime cannot be a good thing for U.S. leadership in Asia. Many U.S. policymakers simply do not believe that an authoritarian regime can maintain peace and stability; worse, an authoritarian China might be an expansionist power after all.
        • The third and most disturbing new discourse is the 'punishing China' discourse. It comes in various forms. One recent report from the Council of Foreign Relations argues that China needs to be balanced. Perhaps the message is that China, after all, is just another Soviet Union and it is now time for the U.S. to face the reality by firmly balancing China. Otherwise, China will dominate Asia one day. Another more radical report by two right-wing leaning scholars calls for a new 'peaceful evolution' approach to China. These scholars Dan Blumenthal and William Inboden, argue that the U.S. should actively assist those Chinese people who fight for democracy and freedom and in so doing the CCP would be brought down - hence, peace and stability for Asia.

        One can debate how much real policy influence such radical discourses have on U.S. government policy toward China. Judging by recent tough comments by U.S. military officials, things do not look good. Maybe this is indeed a 'tipping point' for China-U.S. relations, after more than 30 years of engagement. Is the U.S. adopting a containment strategy toward China now? One cannot say that with confidence. But if this radical anti-China discourse is allowed to grow, we might enter a new era of containment politics in China-U.S. relations. That, as John Mearsheimer famously put it, is indeed a tragedy in great power politics.

        Liars N. Fools

        I occasionally attend academic conferences in which there are Chinese participants. And usually some if not all of the theories about China -- collapse, Asia for Asians, balancing, punishing-- are discussed. One feature has been free wheeling, transparent discussions by all non-Chinese participants and only rigid presentations by the Chinese.

        My advice to Chinese participants in international conferences is that if you do not want to be laughed at, do not make laughable arguments. "The nine dashed line is a valid assertion of sovereignty because nobody objected when it was published by the Republic of China. There is no need for discussion because it is our territorial sea, reflecting our presence since time immemorial." Puh-leez. Low quality argumentation is low quality argumentation and becomes worse when China acts provocatively on its dubious claim. China makes America a lot more friends when China acts this way and its scholars look like stooges when most are in fact pretty smart people.

        Then there is the ASEAN-related code of conduct in the South China Sea. China agreed to it before, but does not like it now. What is the explanation? From Chinese scholars, one gets prevarication and avoidance. This is hardly a stance that raises China's credibility as a rule abider. What about a multilateral approach to disputed territory? China once said that was OK but now says that all such issues are bilateral only. When parties want to invoke international legal mechanisms, China becomes belligerent and threatening. Does this attitude enhance its reputation as a promoter of the commons or does it paint China as a bully? We are not a bully, says China's hapless conference participants only to then recite a bully's argument of principled core interests.

        Xia > Alexandre Charron-trudel

        Let's not forget that it was the ROC under KMT that introduced the dash lines in South China Sea, and back in the days of Roosevelt proposing the "Four Policemen" it was still 11 dash lines. If the CCP fails to project itself in front of the Chinese public as a power that is capable of defending the Chinese territory that the ROC once held, then it would loose out popularity to the KMT on Taiwan and see its grassroots support base threatened.

        ltlee1 > James Sword

        Actually, the more they know, they more they realize Western democracy is an inferior good. You could ask me for details.

        Mishmael > James Sword

        Oh good.

        "We are right because the people who disagree with us are not capable of being right."

        Ive always suspected Americans of limited argumentative skills, and here is the proof.

        Malaysian Expat > James Sword • a day ago

        Not all of them went abroad get enlightened.

        In fact, the process of self radicalization to Han Chauvinism happens to many overseas born Chinese.

        A Chinese > Alexandre Charron-trudel

        Chinese puts the American hypocrisy into test as every nation with integrity and critical thinking should do by pointing out the obvious of the American fallacies.

        It is shameful that Canadian is flattering American megalomaniac and suppressing the freedom of speech, it demonstrates Canada is a USA lackey that is proud of licking USA's behind by ignoring freedom of speech and democracy, Canada is not trustworthy and a warmonger accomplice,

        The world despise Canada's hypocrisy, and they exclude Canada from UNSC for the last thirty years as punishment; the world should also exclude Canada from any meaningful international forums for good, the world does not need such lackey to pollute the freedom of speech environment that dares to expose the ugly face of the Empire of Chaos and shame it publicly like the Chinese did.


        [May 18, 2015] NYT throws Poroshenko under the bus

        In Ukraine, Corruption Concerns Linger a Year After a Revolution - NYTimes.com

        The country is on the cliff of bankruptcy. A spate of politically motivated killings and mysterious suicides of former government officials has sown fear in the capital. Infighting has begun to splinter the pro-European majority coalition in Parliament. And a constant threat of war lingers along the Russian border.

        A year after the election of Petro O. Poroshenko as president to replace the ousted Viktor F. Yanukovych, and six months after the swearing in of a new legislature, Ukraine remains deeply mired in political and economic chaos.

        "Poroshenko, whether you like him or not, he's not delivering," said Bruce P. Jackson, the president of the Project on Transitional Democracies, an American nonprofit group. "The Ukrainian government is so weak and fragile that it is too weak to do the necessary things to build a unified and independent state."

        Victoria J. Nuland, a senior State Department official, in Kiev, Ukraine, on Saturday. She will be in Moscow for talks Monday.

        Efforts to forge a political settlement between the government in Kiev and Russian-backed separatists who control much of the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk have hit a deadlock over procedural disputes, despite a cease-fire in February calling for decentralization of power and greater local autonomy as the linchpins of a long-term accord.

        [May 18, 2015]Did Uncle Sam buy off the Maidan?

        The question is interesting ;-). The answer of pressitutes from Zeit is pathetic... They definitely know about amount of cash shipped via diplomatic mail during Maydan event and the about the amount of cash confiscated by police from Batkivshchina office during the raid in December 2014. But they prefer do not metion it. This is what pressitution is about. When Jen Psaki is a role mode ;-)
        May 17, 2015 | ZEIT ONLINE

        The United States has spent millions on Ukraine over the past few decades. Where did the money go?

        Read the German version of this article here.

        When someone mentions Ukraine nowadays, Russia automatically springs to mind. What will happen next: Will it be war or peace?

        As soon as Russian President Vladimir Putin moved to attack the eastern Ukrainian port city of Mariupol in an attempt to build a bridge to already annexed Crimea, the West would feel obliged to react. And then it would quickly become apparent that the West is not united.

        It would also bring to the fore another problem that has so far been hidden by the conflict with Russia: The problem between Europe and America. At that point, many in Washington would want to send arms to Ukraine. In Brussels, very few would. In Berlin, no one would. That would give rise to another question: What do the Americans really want in Ukraine?

        A few months ago, the Ukrainians asked the United States for tanks and missile defense systems. They received instead 300 American military advisors, off-road vehicles and night-vision equipment. That was all the help for a country at war. Anyone attempting to measure the gap between the Ukrainian wishes and American response will see that there hasn't been anything more than gestures and symbolism so far. But what does that actually mean?

        To understand the American relationship to Ukraine, it's necessary to go back to the beginning. Back in 1991, President George H. W. Bush traveled to Kiev. The Cold War was over. The Soviet Union still existed, but it was crumbling. The West had won. What now?

        Mr. Bush had no interest in seeing the complete collapse of the Soviet Union. He feared there would no longer be an organizing power in the region. Which is why he appeared before the Ukrainian parliament to warn against the drive for independence and "suicidal nationalism."

        The Ukrainians paid no heed, voting in a December 1991 nationwide referendum – including Crimea – for independence. There was no way Washington could ignore that, so cooperation with Kiev was strengthened.

        The nuclear weapons in Ukraine, in cooperation with Russia, were destroyed. Ukrainian soldiers received training in the United States.

        In the second half of the 1990s, Ukraine had more military cooperation with the United States than with any other country. Not even with Russia. There were dreams of joining NATO, even while Ukraine's Russia-friendly President Viktor Yanukovych was in power. The Russians didn't seem to mind much.

        But such harmony didn't last long. As Ukraine's economic and political reforms stagnated and corruption remained rampant, the Americans slowly lost interest in the country. Only after Mr. Yanukovych, suspected of vote fraud, was kept from ascending to the presidency by the 2004 Orange Revolution did U.S. attention revive.

        In December 2004 Viktor Yushchenko was elected Ukrainian president, guaranteeing closer ties with America, especially since his wife grew up there and had even worked for the U.S. State Department for a time.

        It's then that the theories of U.S. meddling in Ukraine started to gain traction. The British journalist Ian Traynor claimed in the U.K. newspaper The Guardian that the Yushchenko campaign was an American plot, citing as evidence American payments to train election observers and protest groups, as well as American financed polls designed to back up accusations of Mr. Yanukovych's vote fraud.

        Not many believe Mr. Traynor's theory, but one person who does is the respected Professor John Mearsheimer, who teaches political science at the University of Chicago. He says that Washington continues to try to influence Ukraine even a decade after the Orange Revolution. He's convinced that the Maidan protests – eventually responsible for the ousting of Mr. Yanukovych on February 22, 2014 – were several years in the making and backed by American cash. A putsch. "America wanted a change, because it wanted to gain influence over Ukraine," Prof. Mearsheimer says.

        It's at this point that a large sum of money and a telephone call become part of the story.

        Victoria Nuland, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, spoke of $5 billion, or €4.5 billion, for Ukraine in a call to the American ambassador in Kiev on January 28, 2014. That was just a few weeks before Mr. Yanukovych was chased out of the country. Ms. Nuland also spoke of whom from the opposition could join the new government as if she could influence such things. That all came to light after the conversation was tapped and made public – apparently by a Ukrainian intelligence service officer still loyal to Mr. Yanukovych.

        At first glance, $5 billion is a hefty sum of money – but is it hefty enough to buy an entire revolution?

        The money flowed from 1991 to 2014. Most of it from the U.S. State Department, which handles foreign affairs, and its development arm USAID, which was set up by John F. Kennedy. He saw it as successor to the Marshall Plan, which helped rebuild Europe after the Second World War.

        The agency's funds come from the U.S. federal budget. In 2016, USAID will have $22.3 billion to spend worldwide, but it has to stick to the president's foreign policy guidelines. It is therefore a political instrument that is never completely without a political goal in mind. But how will that money be used exactly?

        The Kiev offices of USAID are on the edge of the Ukrainian capital, on the same compound as the U.S. Embassy. It's a gigantic building surrounded by a high fence.

        Ann Marie Yastishock, the deputy regional USAID director, has frequently had to answer questions about the money. "We don't finance revolutions, we support civil society and NGOs," she said. "We financed neither the Orange Revolution nor the Maidan protests in 2014. Those were citizens out there at the Maidan, rising up against their corrupt government."

        USAID became active in Ukraine in 1992 at the behest of the Ukrainian government, just as it did in Russia, Georgia and many other post-Soviet countries. "We thought at the time that we would be here at most 20 years and then everything here would blossom," Ms. Yastishock remembers.


        America has supported many projects with the money since then with the intention of helping strengthen democracy: Anti-corruption groups, election monitoring, parliamentary expertise. Much more money was spent on health projects, environmental projects and economic development.


        But the expenditures have decreased substantially over the years. It was still $195.6 million in 2011, but that had shrunk by 2014 to just $86.1 million. Only in 2015 did that figure rise a little.

        Could such amounts have led to people risking their lives during the long weeks of struggle at Maidan?

        Mr. Putin seems to think so. He sees the foreign money as interference in the domestic affairs of a country. That's why NGOs in Russia that receive money from abroad are now subject to the country's foreign agent law. American NGOs are no longer allowed to operate there. The foundation of the U.S. investor George Soros had to shut down its HIV and methadone projects, helping contribute to Russia's increasing HIV infection rate.

        Mr. Putin, on the other hand, has invested heavily in a number of NGOs meant to increase Russia's influence abroad since the Orange Revolution in 2004. Starting in 2012, $130 million has flown each year into organizations operating in post-Soviet countries and the Balkans, but particularly in Ukraine.


        The overall amount is growing, according to a soon-to-be-released study from the respected London-based think tank Chatham House, which is predominately funded by international corporations. The study shows a huge network in service of Russian interests using fear-mongering and manipulation to influence a country's populace and attempt to bias it against the West. The biggest difference to the American soft power concept is that Russia isn't trying to win anyone over with the attractiveness of its own model, but rather makes use of economic pressure and political intimidation.

        But even someone failing to see a difference between Russian and American influence has to recognize that neither side now has the upper hand and neither is seriously in any position to steer the course of Ukrainian history. The Ukrainians, just as they did when Bush Senior spoke to them, have always decided their own future.

        And it should stay that way, because it could be a highly dangerous scenario if Ukraine became a geostrategic playing field for foreign powers. For example, what would happen if a U.S. president unwilling to ignore Russian provocations, such as a U.S. Republican like John McCain, came to power?

        President Barack Obama thinks differently. He avoids conflicts with Mr. Putin and would prefer to leave the problem with Europe, that is, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

        "Shortly after the annexation of Crimea by Putin there was the policy of not doing anything to provoke the Russians," says Karen Donfried, Mr. Obama's former Europe advisor. A high-ranking advisor in the White House connects the dots: "We can't deal with the Ukraine problem in an isolated fashion, since there are other interests as well. We want to keep open our lines of communication with the Russians on topics such as Syria, Islamic State, Assad or Afghanistan." In other words: Mr. Obama believes he still needs the Russians.

        In Kiev, the co-founder of the independent broadcaster Hromadske TV, which is financed by Ukrainian citizens, as well as donations from E.U. foundations and the Dutch and American embassies, says that it's become harder to get money from the Americans. And that's despite the fact that independent media in Ukraine can only exist with outside help.


        Ukrainian TV channels, all owned by the country's oligarchs, simply can't be trusted. The Americans, however, are hesitant. They want to avoid at all costs any semblance of meddling.

        Back in Washington there are still memories of Russia's war with Georgia in 2008, when relations between the Bush administration and Russia had reached a low point. America had previously lavished Georgia with massive amounts of money and weapons in an attempt to build a strategic bridgehead in the southern Caucasus region. But as Russia marched into Georgia, it wasn't prepared to intervene. Washington's Russian policy lay in tatters.


        A year later, Mr. Obama became president and attempted to restart ties with Russia. From the economy to disarmament, there were many common interests. Karen Donfried says: "We were honestly convinced that Russia had decided to cooperate with the West instead of risking an open military conflict. We were just as surprised by the events on the Maidan as by Putin's reaction to them. We knew, of course, that Russia had reacted sensitively to the NATO expansion. But we never thought that it would react in such a way to an E.U. association agreement."

        Because Mr. Obama wants to avoid an escalation of the conflict, he's continued to speak out against arms shipments. Anyone supplying weapons would simply fuel the logic of an arms race. Mr. Putin wouldn't watch idly, he would send more weapons into eastern Ukraine. That's why Mr. Obama has up until now ignored those in Washington demanding a more hawkish course of action against Russia.


        Ukraine is not an American priority, according to the government advisor, the White House is merely trying to improve the security situation there.

        American interest in Ukraine has ebbed and flowed dramatically over the past quarter century. Sometimes it wanted to help build up the country's democratic society, while other times it wanted to contain its strategic rival Russia. Should the situation escalate anew in the coming months, America will likely change its policy yet again. Barack Obama will then have to again consider sending weapons. His political opponents and some of his political allies will ask him the following question: Should America tolerate such behavior from Mr. Putin?

        And then there will be that problem again between America and Europe.

        Translated by Marc Young

        [May 18, 2015] Open thread for night owls The empire strikes back

        May 17, 2015 | | Daily Kos News

        Hersh's latest is a ten thousand-word piece in the London Review of Books in which he explains that everything the government told you about the killing of Osama bin Laden is a lie. A few of the highlights are: (1) The government of Pakistan knew exactly where Bin Laden was, (2) Saudi Arabia was paying Pakistan to keep Bin Laden in his safe house compound, (3) America found out where Bin Laden was not by tracking an Al Qaeda courier or by torturing people, but because a disgruntled Pakistani intelligence officer wanted to claim the $25 million dollar reward, (4) America was going to make it appear as if Bin Laden had been killed in a drone strike, but switched courses at the last minute after one of the SEAL's helicopters crashed, (5) The American and Pakistani government colluded to lie to the public about how Bin Laden was found and killed.

        Predictably, many in the media have rushed to the government's defense. Hersh's anonymous sources rankle them. The story itself, which is so far removed from the official narrative and implicates corruption at the highest levels of government, has a dreamlike aura. Never mind that the account the government gave has been deteriorating from the start, and the glaring contradictions between the official versions as related by the Pakistani and American governments. Put aside the fact that someone else using different sources reported a version of Hersh's story in 2011, or that NBC, within a day, had already confirmed a key point of Hersh's narrative. If Hersh's critics actually did submerge themselves in a detailed re-reporting of his allegations, the process would subjugate the American ruling class to deeper scrutiny than usual. [...]

        [May 18, 2015] I herewith enter in to evidence the following 'article' by Neuters written with excruciating spin

        et Al, May 17, 2015 at 11:41 am

        I herewith enter in to evidence the following 'article' by Neuters written with excruciating spin.

        Neuters: Analysis – West clings to fraying Ukraine peace deal despite Kiev doubts
        http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/05/17/uk-ukraine-crisis-ceasefire-analysis-idUKKBN0O208T20150517

        Western powers are clinging to a fraying peace deal in Ukraine and forcing Kiev to follow suit, even though Russian President Vladimir Putin shows no sign of wavering and NATO is warning that Moscow may be preparing for a new offensive.

        Western powers are clinging to a fraying peace deal in Ukraine and forcing Kiev to follow suit, even though Russian President Vladimir Putin shows no sign of wavering and NATO is warning that Moscow may be preparing for a new offensive.

        The United States and European Union are still backing the three-month old ceasefire, despite a growing feeling that it is in its death throes, telling Putin that sanctions will remain if he does not honor his promises…

        …SICKLY FROM BIRTH

        While it has been sickly from birth, no-one wants to administer the last rites on the ceasefire….

        …Some commentators detected a softer tone when U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met Putin last week…

        …Any new Russian-backed thrust is likely to focus on the coastal city of Mariupol. If it fell, the rebels might be able to open a land corridor to Crimea, which Russia annexed last year…

        …"The simple reason why the political agenda of Minsk-2 has gone nowhere very fast is that the agenda ratifies Russian strategic gains and therefore runs counter to the national goals set by the Ukrainian government," Christopher Granville, managing director of London-based consultancy Trusted Sources, wrote in a note…

        …It is not in Putin's nature to "blink". He cannot afford to back down on Ukraine as he would lose popularity at home and looking weak is not an option….

        ####

        The article is all over the place. The author fails to ascribe blame on Russia and Putin outright but strongly alludes to it by use of 'anal-ysis' (Volodymyr Fesenko, Christopher Granville and the usual unnamed sources, Grubby Kegs & MakeLove. It's very badly written too. Well done Baron von Balmforth! This article is truly a massive piece of journalistic SHITE! Neuters should be embarrassed.

        So, considering what we have all discussed above, it looks like there has been a shift of some kind and the Pork Pie News Networks are scrambling to catch up.

        Christopher Granville

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Granville

        …He is a former diplomat, having worked in the Political Section of the British Embassy in Moscow from 1995 to 1999, and previously at the Foreign Service of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office between 1990 and 1995.[6] He is a Quondam (former) Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford and graduate of New College, Oxford.[7]…

        Excuse me, but the above screams of SPOOK, recruited at Oxford… It's so cliché!

        [May 17, 2015] Ukraine Recession Deepens as GDP Falls 17.6%

        Poor Ukrainian citizens got back to 90th instead of EU...
        Notable quotes:
        "... and it is a bit too much like the assumptions made by American and EU policy makers who originally thought that sanctions would get the Russian people to blame Putin. ..."
        May 15, 2015 | NASDAQ.com

        The contraction in Ukraine's economy accelerated to 17.6% in the first quarter compared with a year earlier, the State Statistics Service said Friday, hammered by a conflict with Russia-backed separatists in its eastern industrial heartland that has slashed industrial output.

        Gross domestic product for the period slid 6.5% from the final quarter of 2014, the agency said. Ukraine reached a cease-fire deal with the separatists in February that has reduced--but not ended--fighting. Talks over a longer-term political resolution to the conflict have stalled with each side blaming the other.

        The contraction was "a little bit worse than we estimated," according to Olena Bilan, chief economist at Dragon Capital brokerage. She said the economy had also been damaged by shrinking domestic consumption after the country's currency collapsed and inflation shot up. Retail spending was down 31% in March compared with the same month last year, according to Dragon Capital.

        Still, analysts said the contraction in the last quarter is likely to be the worst for the year, as the economy's plunge began last summer as fighting picked up. Ukraine's government has forecast a 5.5% contraction this year, but the World Bank said last month that Ukraine's economy would shrink by 7.5%.

        "In certain sectors are showing that the economy is testing the bottom," said Alexander Valchyshen, head of research at ICU investment firm, citing transportation and agriculture as examples of industries experiencing a turnaround. " Going forward I think the stronger decline we are having in the first quarter, the stronger rebound in the second half of the year, because last year it was the second half of the year when we started registering the collapse."

        See also

        kirill, May 16, 2015 at 6:45 am
        http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/gdp-decline-in-ukraine-accelerates-to-176-percent-in-q1-2015-statistics-388663.html

        So Ukraine's GDP drop in 2015 is likely going to be over 20%. I recall Moody's, etc forecasting a GDP drop of 2% for Ukraine and 6% for Russia. The 2% figure actually is looking more realistic for Russia this year and is total BS if applied to Ukraine.

        PaulR, May 16, 2015 at 9:49 am
        That's quite a fall. Inflation is now almost 61%. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ukraine/inflation-cpi
        kirill, May 16, 2015 at 11:54 am
        These numbers are full on depression ones. The USA's GDP went down 25% during the Great Depression. I see Ukraine going down 30% and Ukraine was not doing so well before this disaster started.
        Hunter, May 16, 2015 at 7:14 am
        Hey all, very interesting discussions.

        Nice article Mark.

        I have an observation though and a question:

        First the observation – you suggest that the EU will come to blame America for the soured relationship with Russia.

        I think that's a little bit too simplified to properly describe what might occur in Europe (I would imagine that only SOME EU members' populations will come to blame America, others will blame Russia for the EU's soured relationship with Russia) and it is a bit too much like the assumptions made by American and EU policy makers who originally thought that sanctions would get the Russian people to blame Putin. Just as how that assumption was faulty, the assumption that the EU will come to blame America could also probably be faulty and likely is given the deepset Russophobia in many parts of Europe.

        ... ... ...

        [May 17, 2015]US Empire: American Exceptionalism Is No Shining City On a Hill

        May 15, 2015 | informationclearinghouse.info

        The concept of American exceptionalism is as old as the United States, and it implies that the country has a qualitative difference from other nations. This notion of being special gives Americans the sense that playing a lead role in world affair is part of their natural historic calling. However there is nothing historically exceptional about this: the Roman empire also viewed itself as a system superior to other nations and, more recently, so did the British and the French empires.

        On the topic of American exceptionalism, which he often called "Americanism", Seymour Martin Lipset noted that "America's ideology can be described in five words: liberty, egalitarism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire. The revolutionary ideology, which became American creed, is liberalism in its eighteenth and nineteenth-century meaning. It departed from conservatism Toryism, statist communitarianism, mercantilism and noblesse-oblige dominant in monarchical state-church formed cultures." Naturally identifying America's system as a unique ideology, just like calling its successful colonial war against Britain a revolution, is a fallacy. For one, America was never based on social equality, as rigid class distinctions always remained through US history.

        In reality, the US has never broken from European social models. American exceptionalism implies a sense of superiority, just like in the case of the British empire, the French empire and the Roman empire. In such imperialist systems, class inequality was never challenged and, as matter of fact, served as cornerstone of the imperial structure. In American history, the only exception to this system based on social inequality was during the post World War II era of the economic "miracle". The period from 1945 to the mid 1970s was characterized by major economic growth, an absence of big economic downturns, and a much higher level of social mobility on a massive scale. This time frame saw a tremendous expansion of higher education: from 2.5 million people to 12 million going to colleges and universities, and this education explosion, naturally, fostered this upward mobility where the American dream became possible for the middle class.

        Regardless of real domestic social progress made in the United States after the birth of the empire in 1945, for the proponents of American exceptionalism - this includes the entire political class - the myth of the US being defined as a "shining city on a hill" has always been a rationale to justify the pursuit of imperialism. For example, when President Barack Obama addressed the nation to justify the US military intervention in Libya, he said that "America is different", as if the US has a special role in history as a force for good. In a speech on US foreign policy, at West Point on May 28, 2014, Obama bluntly stated:

        "In fact, by most measures, America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world. Those who argue otherwise - who suggest that America is in decline or has seen its global leadership slip away are misreading history. Our military has no peer…. I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being."

        In his book, Democracy In America, Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville was lyrical in his propaganda-like adulation of American exceptionalism, defining it almost as divine providence.

        "When the earth was given to men by the Creator, the earth was inexhaustible. But men were weak and ignorant, and when they had learned to take advantage of the treasures which it contained, they already covered its surface and were soon obliged to earn by the sword an asylum for repose and freedom. Just then North America was discovered, as if it had been kept in reserve by the Deity and had risen from beneath the waters of the deluge", wrote de Tocqueville.

        This notion, originated by the French author, and amplified ever since, which defined the US as the "divine gift" of a moral and virtuous land, is a cruel fairy tale. It is mainly convenient to ease up America's profound guilt. After all, the brutal birth of this nation took place under the curse of two cardinal sins: the theft of Native American lands after committing a genocide of their population; and the hideous crime of slavery, with slaves building an immense wealth for the few, in a new feudal system, with their sweat, tears and blood.

        [May 17, 2015] The west is in a poor position to sustain an economic war against Russia

        marknesop.wordpress.com

        ucgsblog, May 16, 2015 at 1:33 am

        Nice Article Mark! I'm just going to leave this here: http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=RUB&to=UAH&view=1Y

        That's a chart showing how the Ruble pwnd the Hryvna. In spite of mismanagement, (at the beginning, it's now fixed,) Ruble's close tie to falling oil prices, anti-Ruble currency speculation, (thanks to all those who speculated when exchange rate was above 1 to 80 from my wallet,) lack of diversification, and deliberate attempts to lower the Ruble from within, (makes sense for exporters,) the Ruble kicked the Hryvna's butt in a contest where the Ruble wasn't even trying.

        Furthermore, a new investor's report was released on Ukraine. Who gets blamed by the US Investing Community:

        1. Poroshenko's inability to fight corruption, (listed as main, i.e. major, reason for not investing)
        2. War in Donetsk and Lugansk
        3. Instability within Ukraine

        No one's buying propaganda that it's all Putin's fault, although Putin might face tough questions as to what Russia's policy in Donetsk and Lugansk is going to be. Still, the number one reason is corruption. Not Putin.

        And let's not forget that IMF Is about to be challenged, so its investment into Ukraine will be limited. I heard rumors about IMF not allowed to help countries at war, (or was it WB,) can someone clarify that?

        "LA Times so excited that it forgot Russia and China agreed to a gas price last winter; saying instead that they had not yet agreed on a price, and that this means bad news for Russia because it is in a weak negotiating position. If it were true that they have not agreed on a price – which it isn't – how would that indicate Russian weakness? Wouldn't they just take whatever they could get, if their position was weak?"

        LA Times' job is not to make sense about Russia. They're doing it rather well.

        "The west is in a poor position to sustain an economic war against Russia, as the Eurozone is experiencing anemic growth – and even that appears to be due to false optimism over Quantitative Easing – while American growth is stagnant for the first quarter;"

        Don't forget Greece. Since the EU cannot sustain Greece and fight Russia, the pro-US leaders of German government, spearheaded by Schauble, are trying to kick Greece out of the EU. Not just the Eurozone, but the EU.

        "How does the west react to losing? I'm glad you asked. Like this. The Daily Mail, which some of my commenters refer to as the Daily Fail, chuckles uproariously at the antics of Russian soldiers attempting to load a tank onto the back of a flatbed truck. On the third attempt, the vehicle ends up too far to the right, and capsizes onto its roof as it falls off the truck. Oh, those Russians! Probably drunk, as usual. Except the vehicle is not a tank, it is a self-propelled howitzer, an artillery piece. The source clearly identifies the operation as depicting a Ukrainian unit, and if you look just behind the three guys watching just as the howitzer falls off the truck, you will see an oil drum with a Ukrainian flag standing in it. The first principle of Gambling For Idiots – when you're losing, double down."

        Nice!

        Also guys, have you heard about the Democratic revolt against Obama on the issue of the Trans Pacific Partnership? Apparently Democrats don't want to completely alienate their base, who knew? Speaking of Congressional approval rating: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx

        marknesop, May 16, 2015 at 8:53 am
        Hi, UCG! Good to hear from you, and what a lot of info in a single comment. As regards the IMF being forbidden from lending to the state in a country embroiled in a civil war – yes, and no. The most authoritative source I saw was John Helmer, who proclaimed that the IMF's lending to Kiev while it was at war with one of its regions was a violation of its charter (Article 1). However, if you look at it you will see it lays out instruction on the IMF's principles and what it must be mindful of when lending – not what it is forbidden to do. Even a halfway-capable lawyer could argue that lending to Kiev with the understanding it would almost certainly divert some or all of the funds to supporting its military campaign violates the spirit of the charter. But since it does not spell out what the IMF may not do, an argument might be made – just off the top of my head – that Kiev felt it necessary to attack the eastern region and subdue it in order to protect its currency, which would surely collapse without access to its main industrial belt, a la paragraph iii: "To promote exchange stability, to maintain orderly exchange arrangements among members, and to avoid competitive exchange depreciation."

        I had not heard about domestic opposition to TPP, but if it is as riddled with advantageous loopholes for Washington to manipulate and control foreign governments as the TTIP with the EU, I devoutly hope it fails.

        On your mention of Greece, it seems your analysis is spot on – I read something just yesterday in which the article was smoothing the way for a Greek exit and telling everyone it would not be really a bad thing at all, as well as a strikingly similar article which paved the way for Scotland to leave the UK without any blame accruing to Dave, saying the same stuff about how it really wouldn't matter too much to the UK at all, there would be niggling little difficulties but they were all surmountable.

        Sounds a far cry from the confident strut about western unity from just a few months back, doesn't it?

        Warren, May 16, 2015 at 3:18 am

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zhovti_Vody

        yalensis, May 16, 2015 at 4:35 am
        Zakharchenko commentary on Porky yesterday signing of the "de-communization" law:

        "When the law mandates that people who hung children to telegraph poles with barbed wire, and who murdered tens of thousands of Poles – that these people must be regarded as heroes… What do you think? Can such a nation have a future? No, it cannot have a future. Only partition and chaos await such a nation. When butchers are declared to be heroes.

        "In Donetsk, we will not allow this. We have our own path, and we are not ashamed of it."

        marknesop, May 16, 2015 at 9:02 am
        Very well said, I think. I was a little iffy on Zakharchenko at first, mostly because I was dazzled by Strelkov's battle tactics – which were amazing for someone many consider to be a nut – but he is daily taking on more and more the appearance of a statesman and leader.
        yalensis, May 16, 2015 at 12:00 pm
        Strelkov is a talented soldier, but Zakharchenko has shown himself to be a statesman as well as soldier.
        Warren, May 16, 2015 at 4:37 am
        Moscow Exile, May 16, 2015 at 4:47 am
        По Крещатику прошло шествие против повышения тарифов ЖКХ

        В центре Киева собрались не менее 5 тысяч человек

        Along the Khreschatyk has passed a protest march against the increase of tariffs on housing and communal services

        In the centre of Kiev have gathered no fewer than 5 thousand people

        On Saturday, May 16, in the centre of the Ukrainian capital a protest march has started.

        At 10 am no fewer than five thousand people with different slogans gathered on the Khreschatyk, which at weekends becomes a pedestrian area.

        The main message of the campaign is a protest against an increase in utility tariffs. At the same time, protesters have posters with a variety of messages: "Yatsenyuk means poverty for the Ukraine" and "For Ukrainians – a Ukrainian government", "Not able to work – go work as a shop assistant at "Roshen" (this slogan is directed at President Poroshenko – ed.)

        People are carrying national flags. The protesters are behaving calmly and are not shouting.

        According to the "Vesti" correspondent, some people are apparently from the regions and arrived by bus early this morning at the metro station "Leo Tolstoy"; some of the protesters are residents of the capital.

        The procession is moving from the Bessarabian Market along the Khreschatyk and on to Europe Square.

        kirill, May 16, 2015 at 6:28 am
        This is the only thing these idiots will respond to. Their personal pocketbook pain. Having their country stolen from them and operated by foreign sponsored lunatic killers is clearly not a problem for them.
        yalensis, May 16, 2015 at 5:10 am
        Very good, but also very lengthy piece on the failure of the shale gas revolution in Ukraine. I only have time for quick summary:

        SUMMARY
        Poland, Great Britain, EU as a whole are disappointed by a wave of news (just reaching them) that the "shale-gas revolution" on the continent has been postponed indefinitely.
        Back to face hard reality that they depend on Russia for their gas needs.

        Europeans had believed American tall tales about the rosy future of shale gas on the continent. However, they just got a dose of reality from Bloomberg this past week. [yalensis: not sure which Bloomberg link they are talking about but it might be this one.]

        For example, British company Cuadrilla Resources has tried and failed for 6 years to open so much as one gas well in Poland. And Poland was supposed to be the European country best endowed with shale gas, so they were supposed to be the poster child.
        But now everybody is bailing out: Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, Total and Marathon OIl have all bailed out of Poland.
        All of this history partially pre-determined Ukraine role as sacrificial lamb. In 2010, Exxon Mobil and Shell obtained licenses to scout for shale gas in Ukraine. In fall of 2012, Shell began drilling in Kharkov region.
        At the same time, Naftogaz began negotiations with American firms. Yanukovych government concluded all kinds of secret deals with foreign companies. Which the piece compares to American Indians selling their natural resources for beads and mirrors.
        These secret deals would have literally given Ukrainian underground mineral resources as private property to these European and American investors. (Point #37.1 in the secret deal with Shell.)
        These deals encoded a type of "eminent domain" situation, which would deed over the land itself to the companies drilling for shale gas. Even if that land belonged to somebody else.

        With these deals, Yanukovych and the Azarov government were willfully serfing Ukraine into bondage to these foreign corporations for the next 55 years. Until the very moment when he fled the country, Yanukovych was completely devoted to his "shale gas" project that would have sold the Ukrainian people into slavery. And the Americans were always there, behind the scenes, this was part of their strategic vision to replace Russian gas with Ukrainian gas, for Europe.
        [yalensis: Azarov also emerges in this piece as a villain, on the same level as Yanukovych.]

        After the Maidan revolution, nothing changed substantially. Some of the same players, and the same oligarchs (such as Sergei Taruta), who formerly accused (rightfully) Yanukovych of betraying the national interest; were now involved in exactly the same deal-making with Western companies.
        In fact, the project now steamed ahead full on steroids, now that America has a pliant puppet government in Kiev.
        As shown by the appearance of Hunter Biden and Burisma Holdings, etc. Along with Hunter, another key figure in Burisma is John Kerry's family friend Devon Archer.

        Then came the civil war in Donbass. The plan was to use heavy artillery and destruction of infrastructure to drive out the native population; once the land was cleared of the pesky humans, then the gas companies could drill to their heart's content, without worrying about people and eminent domain, etc. This was tried and true method, employed by European colonists in America, etc.

        Everything was going as planned, but then in the middle of August (2014), the "gas revolution" suddenly started to collapse of its own volition, and the investors began to bail out. Having wasted billions of dollars on a project that did not bear any fruits. But at least the investors knew not to throw good money in after bad.
        So, they have left.
        But first having destroyed Ukraine and left the country in tatters.

        marknesop, May 16, 2015 at 9:22 am
        Great exposé, Yalensis! Given that the present government in Kiev is so vile, there's always a temptation to exalt Yanukovych, but maybe there's an opportunity here to inspire a bit of sympathy for ordinary Ukrainians who were desperate to have him gone because they believed – quite rightly it seems – that he was a thieving bag of shit. How were they to know that a self-enriching thief (and he couldn't have been too far along with any such plan, because the much-ballyhooed international hunt for his stolen billions has turned up zip) would be replaced by Nazi-worshiping ideologues?

        Poor Ukrainians – they get fucked over by every leadership no matter who they choose. You just have to love democracy, right? Choose Thief A or Thief B.

        I didn't really buy the war as a coherent plan to drive the regional inhabitants fleeing to surrounding countries so as to empty it for exploitation, but it is starting to look more plausible. If true, it was a grotesque failure on two counts; they reckoned without the inhabitants' determination to hold onto their towns even when they were just loose piles of bricks, and there were never enough recoverable resources there to justify such a purely-evil scheme in the first place. There isn't a gallows big enough for all those who deserve to be hung.

        Moscow Exile, May 16, 2015 at 5:33 am
        "As for why the photos are all of men, I am not sure, but I think the movement is mostly about soldiers who fell in battle against the Horde. In any case, that is a valid criticism, IMHO."

        Further to Yalensis' comment quoted above, and posted here because of the narrowing of the thread above:

        Pictures taken by Elena Denisovna whilst participating in the "Immortal Regiment" march, Moscow, May 9, 2015:

        If you look carefully, the portraits of some women are discernible. In fact, in the second of the above photographs, a "fake" participant is proudly holding high a woman's portrait by means of the longest placard handle that I have seen amongst the very, very many pictures of the event.

        Elena Denisovna bore on that day a photograph of her great-great uncle, Aleksandr Stepanovich, who fell in battle in 1942 whilst serving in the Red Army infantry some 58 years before his great-great niece was born.

        My elder daughter, Elena, is immensely proud of the fact that her great-great uncle fell in battle whilst defending his Motherland.

        Kreakly, of course, and other such Russia-hating "progressives", would ridicule such pride that my daughter bears.

        And they would label her a "fake", I presume.

        kirill, May 16, 2015 at 6:33 am
        Since they have photos that have been magnified and put on placards this must have been organized. Since it was organized, it must have been Putin's doing. Therefore this is nothing but artificial propaganda theater.

        The above is the retarded logic I am seeing. It is actually beyond retarded. People who spout it in Russia need to be chased down, beaten severely and then put on the next plane for their promised land in NATO.

        marknesop, May 16, 2015 at 9:32 am
        It is impossible for the western media to disguise the fact that the Parade of the Immortal Regiment was a game-changing event, a physical expression of nationalist pride that should leave the hopes of those who believe they can break Russia's will as ashes in their mouths.

        Sanctions which were intended to make the Russian people suffer so that they would blame their leader and turn against him have failed spectacularly in more ways than one – they have failed because they did not achieve their goal, but that is just the tip of the iceberg.

        They failed because they showed the west to the Russian people as it really is, and buried any hope of an eventual fruitful partnership if Russia would just bend a little more, accept a little less, give up something else. Russia should thank the west for the sanctions regime, because it did more to disarm and render harmless the precious kreakly than any other single action could have done short of war. And in fact the failure of sanctions may prevent the latter.

        [May 17, 2015] Usage of missionaries for promoting color revolution

        kirill, May 16, 2015 at 6:34 am

        It is the Spanish conquista model. The missionaries were the foot soldiers of the invasion. The USA is using the same tricks against Ukrainians. Well, they deserve it.
        Moscow Exile, May 16, 2015 at 7:45 am
        I think the Ukraine has more Baptist congregations than there are in Russia, and there are plenty of them here. I have worked with a few Russian Baptists.

        The Sky Pilot is in the Ukraine, in the "former Soviet Union" as he repeatedly says, and he is at a place where the leaders of Russian ministries have gathered, he says, "to talk about new crises that have taken place within their culture", such as HIV, which is rampant in what the speaker describes as "this Russian culture, predominantly".

        That was in 2008.

        Again from 2008:

        Catch 'em young!

        Warren, May 16, 2015 at 8:58 am
        It makes sense for the US perspective the predominance of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine and Russia is an obstacle to US power. It is no coincidence the strongest support for the West and the most hostile towards Russia, is in Western Ukraine/Galicia. This can be attributed to the fact the people in Western Ukraine/Galicia are overwhelming Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic/Uniate.

        By proselytizing Ukrainians, converting them from Orthodoxy to a Protestant denomination you can undermine and break the bonds Ukrainians have with Russia.

        The next step is to change the Cyrillic alphabet to a Latin Alphabet, this will complete Ukraine Civilisation transformation and pivot from Eastern Orthodoxy to Western Europe.

        Calls for Latinization of Ukrainian Alphabet On 'Civilizational Grounds' Anger Russians

        http://www.interpretermag.com/calls-for-latinization-of-ukrainian-alphabet-on-civilizational-grounds-anger-russians/

        Game plan for the West to permanent conquer Ukraine:

        1. Replace Eastern Orthodoxy with Protestantism and Catholicism.
        2. Replace the Cyrillic alphabet with the Latin alphabet.

        cartman, May 16, 2015 at 9:20 am
        Turchita is also a Baptist. (And Yats is a member of that other cult – Scientology.)

        What evangelicals do cannot conceivably be called Christianity, though. Most worship chaos as a means of bringing about the end times.

        PaulR, May 16, 2015 at 9:46 am
        One of my Soviet room-mates in Minsk took me along to a Baptist service there, though I left before the end because it was very long (though not as long as the interminable Orthodox services). Anyway, the point is that the Baptists have been active in that part of the world for quite a while, even in Soviet times.
        yalensis, May 16, 2015 at 12:05 pm
        Russian diaspora in Western Massachussets area contains a lot of Jehovah's Witnesses.

        They are fairly innocuous, as far as I can see; apolitical, for the most part.
        Since I don't understand religion, I give them a pass.

        Jen, May 16, 2015 at 5:42 pm
        Hmm … I see something in Ukraine adopting the JW religion as its state religion. The Banderites would have to kick out Red Cross as accepting blood transfusions is against the Watchtower principles.
        marknesop, , May 16, 2015 at 1:36 pm
        Yes, I went to an Orthodox christening once for an acquaintance's child. I was completely unprepared for that singsong delivery and wondered what the hell was going on at first, and since I could not understand a word of it, it seemed even longer than it was. Which was long enough that I remarked quietly to my wife that they might just as well segue straight into the infant's wedding. Perhaps even her funeral.

        [May 17, 2015] Telegraph presstitutes are full of it

        And the Telegraph still has this story, no corrections having been made since it appeared on May 7:
        .
        How not to park a tank: Russian soldiers struggle to load armoured vehicle onto truck
        .
        And it's the same place, the same self-propelled howitzer and the same Yukie knobheads as in the clip on the Russian web, which is clearly titled (in Russian): Ukrainian army unsuccessfully loading a self-propelled artillery unit onto a flat-back truck.
        Hunter, May 16, 2015 at 7:14 am

        Hey all, very interesting discussions.

        Nice article Mark.

        I have an observation though and a question:

        First the observation – you suggest that the EU will come to blame America for the soured relationship with Russia.

        I think that's a little bit too simplified to properly describe what might occur in Europe (I would imagine that only SOME EU members' populations will come to blame America, others will blame Russia for the EU's soured relationship with Russia) and it is a bit too much like the assumptions made by American and EU policy makers who originally thought that sanctions would get the Russian people to blame Putin. Just as how that assumption was faulty, the assumption that the EU will come to blame America could also probably be faulty and likely is given the deepset Russophobia in many parts of Europe.

        Secondly the question, With regards to the video (which is on the Telegraph website by the way, not the Daily Fail/Mail) you said that just behind the three guys watching at the moment the artillery piece falls off the truck there is an oil drum with a Ukrainian flag standing in it. At around that moment there are I believe two groups of three guys watching the loading operation. One group closer to the camera man and another group farther away. Is it the group that is farther away that you are referring to? Because the clip ends pretty quickly after the artillery piece topples from the truck and I haven't spotted the oil drum with the flag yet (by the way, how does anyone spot anything in that video? The quality is pretty poor). Is there any possibility of doing a screenshot of the moment you are referring to?

        Moscow Exile,

        The oil drum is further along the road in the upper left distance and beyond three men, who are standing middle-distance, left-centre.

        The blue and yellow Ukraine flag is visible through the foliage of trees that line the road to the left. Locate the oil drum, and above it you will catch glimpses of the flag.

        The flag is visible between 00:00 and 0018, after which time the camera zooms in to the flatbed truck upon which the men are attempting to load a self-propelled howitzer, not a tank..

        Moscow Exile, May 16, 2015 at 8:03 am
        You cannot see the flag on the Telegraph clip.
        marknesop, May 16, 2015 at 10:04 am
        Coincidentally, I'm sure. It's not as if they knew it was there, and edited it out.
        marknesop, May 16, 2015 at 9:58 am
        Hi, Hunter; thanks! Yes, the flag is hard to see even in the best of clips, you can just catch it for a second or two as it flutters, but it is definitely the Ukrainian flag. Sorry I messed up the newspapers, it seems no matter how carefully I research, I always get something wrong. However, I would put the Daily Mail and the Telegraph roughly equal in their penchant for disinformation.

        I see Moscow Exile has provided guidance, and the information comes from his original assessment anyway; the men are also identified as part of a Ukrainian unit in other information which appeared with the clip they used as a source.

        Moscow Exile, May 16, 2015 at 8:38 am
        It's at 00:27 where the flag goes off the shot and where the cameraman's finger can be seen.

        And there are not three men to the left, there are four (I think): one appears from behind of one of the other three.

        Here's the clip as it appears on the Russian web:

        And it says in Russian:

        ВСУ неудачная погрузка САУ на трал ЖЕСТЬ

        ВСУ = Ukraine Armed Forces

        САУ = self-propelled artillery unit

        Drutten May 16, 2015 at 9:04 am
        Yes, that's a Ukrainian flag alright, and the self-propelled gun is a 2S3 Akatsiya conspicuously painted in Ukrainian "ATO" colors at that.
        Moscow Exile, May 16, 2015 at 9:17 am
        And the Telegraph still has this story, no corrections having been made since it appeared on May 7:

        How not to park a tank: Russian soldiers struggle to load armoured vehicle onto truck

        And it's the same place, the same self-propelled howitzer and the same Yukie knobheads as in the clip on the Russian web, which is clearly titled (in Russian): Ukrainian army unsuccessfully loading a self-propelled artillery unit onto a flat-back truck.

        Here's the Telegraph frozen frame from the clip above it, which has the first 20 seconds or so that is on the original removed, during which time the flag can be seen. And, of course, the Russian title of the clip has been removed:

        All of which points out to me, at least, that this is not a gaffe by the Telegraph, where nobody can read, let alone speak Russian: the deceitful bastards knew what they were doing.

        james, May 16, 2015 at 10:20 am
        wonder who will point it out to them and if they ever make a public retraction? i doubt it..tells one all they need to know about the telegraph if so..
        Moscow Exile, May 16, 2015 at 10:29 am
        I checked: no readers' comments.

        I checked when the story first appeared in the DT.

        Drutten, May 16, 2015 at 8:59 am
        Roland Oliphant, the man behind one (or several?) "Russian invasion!" scoops in Ukraine (and who later couldn't back anything up) has apparently authored this fantastic article for the Telegraph:
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11609783/Mapped-Just-how-many-incursions-into-Nato-airspace-has-Russian-military-made.html

        Words fail me… The article purports to show "Russian incursions" into "NATO airspace" and yet all it does is to show a number of Russian exercise flights in international airspace (i.e. no "incursions" whatsoever). It also shows few random submarine-related events, none of which have been proven to be about Russia by anybody (and several are actually entirely unconfirmed, and in a few of them the relevant authorities have actually stressed that no nationality can be determined). Oh, and it shows a few Russian ships transiting international waters off Britain, just like all other navies of the world do.

        The map also contains an outline claiming to show "UK airspace" that is seemingly entirely made-up. It doesn't correspond to actual British airspace, it doesn't correspond to territorial water boundaries, it doesn't even correspond to the extended "exclusive economic zone" (which stretches into international waters and as such is free to sail in for anybody).

        james, May 16, 2015 at 10:22 am
        sustained propaganda war on the part of the telegraph… hopefully someone calls bullshit on their work…
        Moscow Exile, May 16, 2015 at 12:31 pm
        An insight into the mindset of certain Telegraph readers, albeit that several have commented that Oliphant wrote nonsense about "NATO airspace" and that the MoD quietly concedes that no violation by the Russian armed forces of UK/EU – NATO? – territorial waters and/or airspace has taken place, as voiced in this readers's letter:

        What a garbled piece of drivel this article is!

        Suspected incursions into Nato airspace? So Nato have now invaded and own international airspace?

        Not once have any Russian aircraft infringed UK airspace – grudgingly confirmed by the MoD
        .
        The submarine activity. The actual national identity of these submarines is suspected, never ever proven. Sheer speculation to ratchet-up the propaganda.

        If the DT are going to produce these primary school drawings – why not detail Nato flights and submarine activity close to Russian territorial limits.

        General Gerasimov (Chief of the General Staff) recently complained over increased Nato activity around his country – yet this doesn't even get a mention!

        Enter idiot, who responds thus:

        Well presumably the good General is free to complain in the Moscow Times about the NATO activities, and their comment thread is likewise full of people with dodgy Google translate skills, defending the practice and b*tching about ratcheting up propaganda. As is the case here; the DT runs a story, lots of posters dog-pile in and a pleasant few hour of discussion is had by all. What's not to like?

        The blithering ignoramus clearly thinks that the Moscow Times is a Russian newspaper of importance and which enjoys a sizable readership, whereas, in fact, it has no importance whatsoever for Russian society and that the last thing the Russian COGS would do would be to voice in that worthless propaganda rag his concern over any perceived NATO violation of Russian sovereignty.

        Furthermore, the Telegraph dolt seems unaware of the fact that readers' comments to MT stopped quite a while ago. It is interesting, therefore, that he talks of the MT comment thread being "full of people with dodgy Google translate skills" who use MT to spout propaganda for the Empire of Evil.

        Does the idiot really believe that Putinbots write to MT to further the Evil One's cause?

        And these dodgy language skills that the commenter sneeringly accuses his imagined MT Putinbots of and which force the Kremlin trolls to use Google Translate? I take it then that the sneering piece of shit that wrote that Telegraph comment speaks Russian fluently and has no need of dictionaries or machine translation programmes.

        Moscow Exile, May 16, 2015 at 9:05 am
        Can you see the flag?

        kirill, May 16, 2015 at 9:09 am
        There is a double white stripe on the Acatsiya. It is Kiev regime equipment.
        yalensis, May 16, 2015 at 12:16 pm
        The Ukrainian flag is on the left on the oil drum, below the tree, and just to the left of the man.
        I saw this clip before, it is pretty clearly Ukie troops and equipment.
        yalensis, May 16, 2015 at 12:18 pm
        P.S. – even if it were Russian, it wouldn't prove anything, except that some guys are idiots.
        Since it is Ukies, it STILL doesn't prove anything, except that some guys are idiots.
        And that some newspapers are highly dishonest.
        marknesop, May 16, 2015 at 6:18 pm
        It is the latter that is most telling to me, and it suggests they just looked around until they found something in Cyrillic that had people acting stupidly, and punched it out there as Russians fucking up as usual.

        [May 17, 2015] Zuckerberg put Porky and other Ukie nationalists in their place

        yalensis, May 16, 2015 at 12:39 pm

        Sorry, but I cannot leave this Facebook story alone, since it is so satisfying to me that Zuckerberg put Porky and other Ukie nationalists in their place.

        Zuckerberg said that he did some research and found that the Ukrainian posts taken down included elements of ethnic slurs and hate speech towards Russians. Posts with such content are not allowed on Facebook, he said.

        "I think we did the right thing according to our policies, in taking down those posts and I agree that we must not support hate speech," said Zuckerberg.

        I like very much that

        (1) Zuckerberg defended the actions of his staff and did not throw them under the bus to service anti-Russian agenda of Washington. I really respect the guy for doing that.

        (2) that Zuckerberg put Ukrainians in their place: he made it clear they are not special people, he doesn't care if their President appealed to him, he is not impressed by Porky's power; and Ukies don't have the right to post murderous hate speech if other people don't have the same right.

        Having said that, Russia's version of Facebook "V Kontakte", is obviously more loosy-goosy than Zuckerberg's Facebook, since they tolerate just about anything. In fact, they sponsor the page of Vita Zaverukha, with her swastikas galore and photos of murdered Odessans; and comparing the scorched bodies to Kentucky Fried Colorado Beetles, etc etc.

        Having said that, Zuckerberg's Facebook enforces a code of conduct which excludes ethnic hate speech or calls to violence; and it is commendable that they actually enforced those rules even when the targets of the hate speech were the much-despised Russian ethnos.

        yalensis , May 16, 2015 at 12:48 pm
        The comment section to this piece is quite telling:

        "Czech Friend" who is some pro-Banderite troll calls Zuckerberg a kiss-up to totalitarian dictators, and then encourages every "freedom-loving" person to stop using Facebook.

        "puttypants", who is pro-Banderite, pro-Fifth Column, agrees with this, and repeats the slander (as stated in the movie "Social Network") that Zuckerberg is a plagiarist, who stole the Facebook idea from his college friends.

        "Mick Jones" then points out that he has seen examples of the kind of Ukie hate speech which call Russians "Mongols" (as if being a Mongol is a bad thing).

        "Calibra" replies to a comment that was deleted – I read the comment earlier, before it was deleted, I don't remember the exact words, but the person said some mean things and then dropped the ultimate threat: To quit their Facebook account. "Calibra" replies: "O my god, i'm sure Mark [Zuckerberg] will not sleep tonight knowing you left, how could you."

        Russ M. points out how Zuckerberg's nerd brigade laughed their asses off when Porky sent in a question. God, how embarrassing, I would cringe if I were Ukrainian myself…
        Having such a joke for a President. Oh wait! Russians used to have Yeltsin…

        Moscow Exile , May 16, 2015 at 12:58 pm
        At least Yeltsin used to knock back the vodka and take a bite out of a salted gherkin like the true provincial muzhik he was, the bastard, and not sip at Frog cognac and nibble at ladies' chocolate assortments as Porky Porosyonok does.
        Jen , May 16, 2015 at 2:46 pm
        Porky's still head of Roshen, hasn't divested himself of his business investments, so it's his (as he sees it) duty to scoff all the chocolates his fat snout can snuffle out.

        There's another reason for him to indulge in his favourite comfort foods and beverages: he's been caught constructing a new mansion on a plot of land right by a historic district in Kiev which he obtained through an arrangement involving a private company that morphed into a fake housing co-op.

        yalensis, May 16, 2015 at 12:58 pm
        But wait there's more!

        Regarding Ukraine's epic fail on the Facebook front, get this:
        Ukrainian svidomites are so upset by Zuckerberg's comments that they have decided to organize a boycott of Facebook.

        And how, pray tell, have they organized this boycott?
        Why, through social media, naturally.
        And which social media, you might ask?
        Why, on Facebook, of course!

        You can't make this stuff up!

        As the author of this piece notes:

        Svidomites and Logic – 2 things that are completely incompatible, one with the other.

        [May 17, 2015] The Emperor Lies

        If Hersh is right, the SEALs murdered an unarmed and powerless invalid, held by Pakistan, under orders from Obama when they could have brought him to trial. Seymour Hersh essentially stated the Obama Administration's version of the killing of Osama bin Laden was like something out of Wag The Dog -- totally fabricated.
        May 16, 2015 "Information Clearing House"

        Four years ago the late great journalist Alexander Cockburn wrote, "Alas, the actual story of 'our history' is an unrelenting ability to lie about everything, while simultaneously claiming America's superior moral worth."

        It so happens he wrote that sentence in closing a column on President Obama's elaborate story about the Navy SEALs' May 2, 2011, assassination of Osama bin Laden. Cockburn wrote,

        There was scarcely a sentence in the President's Sunday night address, or in the subsequent briefing by John Brennan, his chief counter-terrorism coordinator, that has not been subsequently retracted by CIA director Leon Panetta or the White House press spokesman, Jay Carney, or by various documentary records.

        The official "back story" released Sunday night by Obama is that US intelligence learned of the Abbottabad compound only last August and spent the following months watching the place, following Osama's trusted couriers and concluding that it was highly likely, though not certain, that Osama was there. Cockburn's column was based on reporting that undermined key details of the official narrative. For example:

        This is bunk. The three-storey house has been a well-known feature of Abbottabad. Shaukat Qadir, a well-connected Pakistan Army officer, reported to CounterPunch from Pakistan: "For the record, this house has been under ISI [Pakistani intelligence] surveillance while it was under construction."

        Now renowned investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has published a long article in the London Review of Books, "The Killing of Osama bin Laden," that appears further to demolish Obama's politically motivated tale. Hersh, whose major scoops include the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the torture at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, opens his piece:

        Hersh says that his "major source … is a retired senior intelligence official who was knowledgeable about the initial intelligence about bin Laden's presence in Abbottabad." Use of an unnamed source has provoked criticism of Hersh, but one detects a double standard. Many good scoops have depended on unnamed sources, and Hersh says he confirmed what his major source told him. Often that's the only way to get sensitive information about what the government is up to.

        The article also has set off a firestorm about its particulars, with the administration, other members of the war party, and media cheerleaders dismissing Hersh's "conspiracy theory." But others defend Hersh. The New York Times' Carlotta Gall, author of The Wrong Enemy: America in Afghanistan 2001-2004, while not accepting every detail, writes:

        Among other things, Hersh contends that the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, Pakistan's military-intelligence agency, held Bin Laden prisoner in the Abbottabad compound since 2006, and that "the CIA did not learn of Bin Laden's whereabouts by tracking his couriers, as the White House has claimed since May 2011, but from a former senior Pakistani intelligence officer who betrayed the secret in return for much of the $25 million reward offered by the U.S."

        On this count, my own reporting tracks with Hersh's.

        Gall points out that the existence of the informant has been confirmed by NBC and a newspaper in Pakistan: "This development is hugely important-it is the strongest indication to date that the Pakistani military knew of Bin Laden's whereabouts...."

        Hersh's investigation is also important regarding Saudi Arabia and its connection with bin Laden, who was a Saudi. Is this why bin Laden couldn't be taken alive?

        If Hersh is right, the SEALs murdered an unarmed and powerless invalid, held by Pakistan, under orders from Obama when they could have brought him to trial.

        What's most important is this: if one understands the danger inherent in government secrecy, one must oppose the empire. Politicians can lie about domestic matters, but foreign intervention offers irresistible opportunities for really big lies-the kind that get people killed. Do people still need to be persuaded about that?

        If for no other reason than transparency, the empire must be liquidated.

        [May 17, 2015]U.S. Wakes Up to New (Silk) World Order

        Neocons got what they saw -- teeth of Chinese dragon...
        May 16, 2015 | Information Clearing House
        The real Masters of the Universe in the U.S. are no weathermen, but arguably they're starting to feel which way the wind is blowing.

        History may signal it all started with this week's trip to Sochi, led by their paperboy, Secretary of State John Kerry, who met with Foreign Minister Lavrov and then with President Putin.

        Arguably, a visual reminder clicked the bells for the real Masters of the Universe; the PLA marching in Red Square on Victory Day side by side with the Russian military. Even under the Stalin-Mao alliance Chinese troops did not march in Red Square.

        As a screamer, that rivals the Russian S-500 missile systems. Adults in the Beltway may have done the math and concluded Moscow and Beijing may be on the verge of signing secret military protocols as in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The new game of musical chairs is surely bound to leave Eurasian-obsessed Dr. Zbig "Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski apoplectic.

        And suddenly, instead of relentless demonization and NATO spewing out "Russian aggression!" every ten seconds, we have Kerry saying that respecting Minsk-2 is the only way out in Ukraine, and that he would strongly caution vassal Poroshenko against his bragging on bombing Donetsk airport and environs back into Ukrainian "democracy".

        ... ... ....

        Thus what was really discussed – but not leaked – out of Sochi is how the Obama administration can get some sort of face-saving exit out of the Russian western borderland geopolitical mess it invited on itself in the first place.

        About those missiles…

        Ukraine is a failed state now fully converted into an IMF colony. The EU will never accept it as a member, or pay its astronomic bills. The real action, for both Washington and Moscow, is Iran. Not accidentally, the extremely dodgy Wendy Sherman - who has been the chief U.S. negotiator in the P5+1 nuclear talks - was part of Kerry's entourage. A comprehensive deal with Iran cannot be clinched without Moscow's essential collaboration on everything from the disposal of spent nuclear fuel to the swift end of UN sanctions.

        ... ... ...

        The real Masters of the Universe may have also noted the very close discussions between Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and the deputy chairman of the Central Military Council of China, Gen. Fan Changlong. Russia and China will conduct naval exercises in the Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Japan and will give top priority to their common position regarding U.S. global missile defense.

        There's the not-so-negligible matter of the Pentagon "discovering" China has up to 60 silo-based ICBMs – the CSS-4 – capable of targeting almost the whole U.S., except Florida.

        And last but not least, there's the Russian rollout of the ultra-sophisticated S-500 defensive missile system - which will conclusively protect Russia from a U.S. Prompt Global Strike (PGS). Each S-500 missile can intercept ten ICBMs at speeds up to 15,480 miles an hour, altitudes of 115 miles and horizontal range of 2,174 miles. Moscow insists the system will only be operational in 2017. If Russia is able to rollout 10,000 S-500 missiles, they can intercept 100,000 American ICBMs by the time the U.S. has a new White House tenant.

        [May 17, 2015]Snowden cost US control of 'geopolitical narrative' – former NSA official

        Warren, May 15, 2015 at 2:52 pm

        Snowden cost US control of 'geopolitical narrative' – former NSA official

        http://rt.com/usa/259101-nsa-counsel-snowden-secrets/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=RSS

        marknesop, May 15, 2015 at 6:31 pm
        For one thing, this sounds an awful lot like an official admission that the USA did something wrong rather than Snowden.

        For another, it is important to remember that the "control of the geopolitical narrative" he speaks of was based on lying and secret snooping, and there is no reason to believe the USA would ever have stopped doing it on its own, or taken steps to admit it was doing it, so long as secret intelligence continued to keep them on top.

        [May 17, 2015] Andre Vltchek How to Fight Western Propaganda Information Clearing House - ICH By Andre Vltchek

        May 15, 2015 "Information Clearing House"

        - First they manufacture monstrous lies, and then they tell us that we should be objective!

        Is love objective; is it passion? Are dreams defendable, logically and philosophically?

        When a house is attacked by brigands, when a village is overran by gangsters, when smoke, fire and cries for help are coming from every corner, should we award ourselves with the luxury of time to calculate, analyze and aim at complete logical, ethical, holistic and objective solutions?

        I strongly believe no! We are obliged to fight those who are burning our dwellings, to hit with full force those who are attempting to rape our women, and to confront fire with fire when innocent beings are slaughtered.

        When the most powerful and the most destructive force on earth employs all its persuasive might, utilizing everything from the mainstream media to educational facilities, in order to justify its crimes, when it spreads its poisonous propaganda and lies in order to oppress the world and suppress hope, do we step back and begin endless and detailed work on precise and objective narratives? Or do we confront lies and propaganda with our own narrative, supported by our intuition, passion and dreams for a better world?

        ***

        The Empire lies continuously. It lies in the morning, during the day, in the evening, even at night, when most of the people are sound asleep. It has been doing it for decades and centuries. For grand deceits it relies on countless numbers of propagandists who pose as academics, teaches, journalists and "public intellectuals". Perfection in the art of disinformation has been reached. Western advertising (so much admired and used by the German Nazis) has some common roots with propaganda, although propaganda is much older and "complete".

        It appears that even some leaders of the Empire now believe in most of their fabrications, and most of the citizens certainly do. Otherwise, how could they sleep at night?

        The western propaganda apparatus is enormously efficient and effective. It is also brilliant in how it ensures that its inventions get channeled, distributed, and accepted in all corners of the world. The system through which disinformation spreads, is incredibly complex. Servile local media and academia on all continents work hard to guarantee that only one narrative is allowed to penetrate the brains of billions.

        The results are: intellectual cowardice and ignorance, all over the world, but especially in the West and in its client states.

        ***

        What are we, who oppose the regime, supposed to do?

        First of all, things are not as hopeless as they used to be.

        This is not the morbid unipolar world that we experienced in the early 90's. Now Venezuela, Russia, China, and Iran support large media outlets that are opposed to the Empire. Powerful television stations emerged: RT, Press TV, TeleSUR and CCTV. Huge English language Internet-based magazines and sites in the United States, Canada and Russia are also exposing the lies of the official Western propagandists: Counterpunch, Information Clearing House, Global Research, Veterans News, Strategic Culture, New Eastern Outlook quickly come to mind. And there are hundreds of important sites doing the same in Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Portuguese and French languages.

        The fight is on: the fight for an intellectually multi-polar world. It is a tough, mortal fight! It is a crucial battle, simply because the metastases of the Western propaganda cancer have spread everywhere, contaminated all continents, and even some of the most courageous countries and brains that are earnestly fighting against the Western imperialism and fascism! No one is immune. To be frank, all of us are contaminated.

        Unless we win this battle, by first clearly identifying and proving "their narrative" as fraudulent, and later by offering humanist and compassionate perceptions, we cannot even dream about the revolution, or about any significant changes in arrangement of the world.

        ***

        How do we achieve victory? How do we convince the masses, those billions of people? How do we open their eyes and make them see that the Western regime is dishonest, toxic, poisonous and destructive? Most of humanity is hooked on the Empire's propaganda; that propaganda which is not only spread by mainstream media outlets, but also by pop music, soap operas, social media, advertisement, consumerism, 'fashion trends' and by many other covert means; cultural, religious and media junk that leads to total emotional and intellectual stupor and is administered like some highly addictive narcotic, regularly and persistently.

        Do we counter the tactics and strategy of the destructive and ruthless Empire with our honesty, with research, with telling and writing meticulously investigated facts?

        The Empire perverts facts. It repeats lies through its loudspeakers and tubes. It shouts them thousands and thousands of times, until they sink into the sub conscious of people, penetrate the skin, spread all through their brains.

        Good will, naive honesty, "speaking truth to power", could this change the world and the power itself? I highly doubt it.

        The Empire and its power are illegitimate, and they are criminal. Is there any point of speaking truth to a gangster? Hardly! Truth should be spoken to people, to masses, not to those who are terrorizing the world.

        By talking to villains, by begging them to stop torturing others, we are legitimizing their crimes, and we are acknowledging their power. By trying to appease gangsters, people are putting themselves at their mercy.

        I absolutely refuse to be in such position!

        ***

        To win over billions of people, we have to inspire them, to fire them up. We have to outrage them, embrace them, shame them, make them laugh and make them cry. We have to make sure that they get goose bumps when they see our films, read our books and essays, listen to our speeches.

        We have to detox them, make them feel again, wake up natural instincts in them.

        Simple truth as a detox agent will not work. The poison of our adversaries has sunk too deeply. Most of the people are too lethargic and too immune to simple, quietly stated truths!

        We have tried, and others have tried as well. My acquaintance (but definitely not my comrade) John Perkins, former US apparatchik educated by the State Department, wrote a detailed account of his horrid deeds in Ecuador, Indonesia and elsewhere – "Confession of An Economic Hitman". It is a meticulous, detailed account of how the West destabilizes poor countries, using corruption, money, alcohol, and sex. The book sold millions of copies, worldwide. And yet, nothing changed! It did not trigger a popular revolution in the United States. There were no protests, no demands for regime change in Washington.

        In the recent past, I wrote and published two academic, or at least semi-academic books, packed with great details, quotes and tons of footnotes: one on Indonesia, a country used by the West as a model horror scenario for the rest of the world, after the 1965-US-sponsored military coup. The coup killed 2-3 million people, murdered all intellectualism, and lobotomized the 4th most populous country on earth. The book is called "Indonesia – Archipelago of Fear". The second book, unique because it covers an enormous part of the world – Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia ("Oceania – Neocolonialism, Nukes and Bones"), showed how the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and France, literally divided and destroyed the great South Pacific island cultures and the people. Now classes are being taught using my books, but only a very limited number of people are influenced by the facts exposed in them. The elites in both Indonesia and Oceania made sure that the books are not widely read by the people.

        I have spent years and years compiling facts, researching, investigating. The revolutionary effectiveness of my academic work is – I have to admit – nearly zero.

        It is easy to see the contrast: when I write an essay, a powerfully crafted, emotional essay, demanding justice, accusing the Empire of murder and theft, I get millions of readers on all continents, as well as translations to dozens of languages!

        Why do I write this; why do I share this with my readers? Because we should all be realistic. We have to see, to understand, what people want – what they demand. The people are unhappy and scared. Most of them don't know why. They hate the system, they are lonely, frustrated, they know that they are lied to and exploited. But they cannot define those lies. And academic books, exposing the lies are too complex for them to read since the masses have no time to read thousands of indigestible pages or the necessary education to allow them to understand what they are reading.

        It is our duty to address those people, the majority, otherwise what kind of revolutionaries are we? After all, we are supposed to create for our brothers and sisters, not for a few researchers at the universities, especially when we realize that most of the universities are serving the Empire by regurgitating official nomenclature and supporting demagogues.

        ***

        The Empire speaks, writes and then repeats some outrageous lies, about its benevolence, and exceptionality of its rule, or about the "evils" of the Soviet Union, China, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea or Cuba. This is done daily. In fact it is designed so that almost every human being gets his or her dose of the toxin at least several times a day.

        We feel we have to react – we begin spending years of our lives, meticulously proving, step by step, that the Empire's propaganda is either one big fat lie, or exaggeration, or both. After we compile our arguments, we publish the results in some small publishing house, most likely in the form of a slender book, but almost nobody reads it because of its tiny circulation, and because the findings are usually too complex, too hard to digest, and simply because the facts do not shock anybody, anymore. One million more innocent people were murdered somewhere in Africa, in the Middle East, in Asia; what else is new?

        Researching and trying to tell the truth, fully and honestly, we feel that we are doing great, professional, scientific work. All the while the propagandists of the Empire are dying of laughter watching us! We are representing little danger to them. They are winning effortlessly!

        Why is that? Doesn't the detailed truth matter?

        It does – from the point of higher principles it matters. Ethically it matters. Morally it matters. Philosophically it matters.

        But strategically, when one is engaged in an ideological war, it does not matter that much! The truth yes, always; the truth matters! But simplified, digestible truth, presented powerfully and emotionally!

        When immorality is ravishing the world, when it is charging mercilessly, when innocent millions are dying, what matters is to stop the slaughter, first by identifying the murderous force, then by containing it.

        Language has to be strong, emotions raw.

        When facing murderous hordes, poetry, emotionally charged songs, and patriotic odes have always been more effective than deep academic studies. And so were political novels and films, passionate documentaries, even explicit cartoons and posters.

        Some would ask: "Just because they are lying, should we lie as well?" No! We should try to be as truthful as we can. But our message should be often "abridged", so the billions, not just those selected few, could understand it.

        It does not mean that the quality of our work should suffer. Simplicity is often more difficult to achieve than encyclopedic works with thousands of footnotes.

        Sun Tzu's "Art of War" is short, just a pamphlet, straight to the point. And so is the "Communist Manifesto", and 'J'accuse!"

        Our revolutionary work does not have to be necessarily brief, but it has to be presented in a way that could be understood by many. I am constantly experimenting with the form, while never compromising on substance. My recent book, "Exposing Lies of the Empire" has more than 800 pages, but I made sure that it is packed with fascinating stories, with testimonies of people from all corners of the globe, with colorful description of both victims and tyrants. I don't want my books to collect dust in university libraries. I want them to mobilize people.

        ***

        I truly believe that there is not much time for "objectivity" in any battle, including those ideological ones, especially when these are battles for the survival of humanity!

        The lies of the enemy have to be confronted. They are toxic, monstrous lies!

        Once the destruction stops, millions of innocent men, women and children will cease being sacrificed, and we can return to our complex philosophical concepts, to details and to nuances.

        But before we win our final battles against imperialism, nihilism, fascism, exceptionalism, selfishness and greed, we have to fully and effectively utilize our most powerful weapons: our visions of a better world, our love for humanity, our passion for justice. Our determination and our beliefs have to be presented in a loud, potent, even "dogmatic" manner, our voice should be creative, artistic, powerful!

        The house is on fire, comrades! The entire town is turning to ashes. The entire planet is plundered, devastated, lobotomized.

        We cannot confront bigots with nukes and battleships. But our talents, our muses, and our hearts are here, with us, ready to join the battle.

        Let us outsmart our enemies; let us make sure that the world begins laughing at them! Have you seen them, those pathetic losers, the buffoons – the CEO's? Have you listened to those Prime Ministers and Presidents, those servants of the "market"? Let us convince the masses that their tyrants –the imperialists, the neo-colonialists and all their dogmatic preachers – are nothing more than pitiful, greedy, poisonous fools! Let us discredit them! Let us ridicule them.

        They are robbing and murdering millions. Let us begin by at least pissing on them!

        Let us fight Western propaganda by first exposing those who are really behind it. Let's get personal.

        Let's turn this revolution into something creative, hilarious, truly fun!

        Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest books are: "Exposing Lies Of The Empire" and "Fighting Against Western Imperialism".Discussion with Noam Chomsky: On Western Terrorism. Point of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Oceania – a book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about Indonesia: "Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear". Andre is making films for teleSUR and Press TV. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and the Middle East. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter.

        Par K · 1 day ago

        I have been reading Andre Vltchek's essays and commentaries for a longtime. His honesty,integrity, depth of thought, and articulation id beyond any doubt. Courageous and bold writing like this one need to reach as many people as possible - more exposure - that is what is needed:

        - A compiler of 'Independent News and Editorials:
        The News Scouter: http://newsscouter.com/

        What we need is to bring awareness to masses. We need to promote the truth - the knowledge - let the Information reach the maximum number of people. It is all about knowing the facts.

        The key to bringing in the change - the real change, is to remain informed - well informed. To make the right decision we need all the relevant information, news, and analysis. Be it the economy & finance, politics, or wars, information is the key. But, as we all know, searching out for the needed information is a time consuming task.

        Now, more than ever, in this fast changing world, we need "information" - Fast & Quick - at a single point.

        Here is a source that we have stumbled upon - A new comer that is already gaining momentum and recognition among both the readers and writers alike at a lightening speed:
        The News Scouter.

        "All the 'Must-Read' News Stories, Information and Editorials from around the world - Everything from Global Affairs & Finance to Science & Technology - Updated Regularly - Sorted and Categorized - All in one place."

        Here is the Link to The News Scouter: http://newsscouter.com/


        maninhavana · 1 day ago

        The only decent journalists working in the media today are working for Telesur, RT and those mentioned in the article or as independents who get carried by this indispensible website ICH. The rest are just presstitutes .

        Sarah Rainsford of the BBC is a supreme example and John Simpson one time head of the BBC world service admits to admiring John Pilger and Martha Gelhorn who would most likely despise his lickspittle sellout journalistic efforts. If you read this article and havent sent a donation to ICH what are you thinking?


        Andy Perry · 1 day ago

        If Vltchek wants to build an oppositioin to the self-styled 'West' he should avoid making major concessions to his opponent right from the start.

        What is the term 'West' supposed to mean?
        It is relative, abstract and meaningless and it is intended to be so.

        The 'West' is a BRAND NAME. Its purpose is to control the way you perceive the BRAND.
        If you strip the packaging and the marketing away, the 'West' is the Anglo Saxon Axis- a collection of Germanic countries (under NATO) led by Anglo Saxon America.

        You should consider the fact that Vltchek hasn't been smart enough to figure this simple truth out before you listen to anything further he has to say on the matter...

        Cultural Constituencies: The Anglo Saxon Maidan. https://unitedstatesofeverywhere.wordpress.com/


        RubyRenae · 19 hours ago

        What is this author Vltchek trying to do? Mobilize the people of the Police States of AmeriKKKa? To...overthrow the regime? How, when the populace is acculturated with God, Guns, and Grocery Stores with fully-stocked shelves? Those facts will beat any kind of moral suasion in this wretched nation. The Police State propagandists themselves present the answer: the AmeriKKKans must be defeated in a war to bring peace to the world. AmeriKKKa must be forced into recognition that the Police States has lost legitimacy by a more powerful state (or states). This is all that can be done, if you read their literature on the British Empire.


        Dick · 10 hours ago

        The seven Principles of Propaganda P{art 1 as follows:

        Avoid abstract ideas - appeal to the emotions.

        When we think emotionally, we are more prone to be irrational and less critical in our thinking. I can remember several instances where this has been employed by the US to prepare the public with a justification of their actions. Here are three examples:

        The Invasion of Grenada during the Reagan administration was said to be necessary to rescue American students being held hostage by Grenadian authorities after a coup that overthrew the government and return the previous government. I had a friend in the 82nd airborne division that participated in the rescue. He told me the students said they were hiding in the school to avoid the fighting by the US military, and had never been threatened by any Grenadian authority. Film of the actual rescue broadcast on the mainstream media was faked; the students were never in danger.

        The invasion of Panama in the late 80's was supposedly to capture the dictator Manual Noriega for international crimes related to drugs and weapons. I remember a headline covered by all the media where a Navy lieutenant and his wife were detained by the police. His wife was sexually assaulted while in custody, according to the story. Unfortunately, it never happened. It was intended to get the public emotionally involved to support the action.

        The invasion of Iraq in the early 90's was preceded by a speech in congress by a girl describing the Iraqi army throwing babies out of incubators so the equipment could be transferred to Iraq. It turns out the girl was the daughter of one of the Kuwait's ruling sheiks and the event never occurred. However, it served its purpose by getting the American public involved emotionally supporting the war. It is the most blatant use of propaganda, since it used the US congress to present the story as true. Whom do we trust?

        The greatest emotion in us is fear and fear is used extensively to make us think irrationally. I remember growing up during the cold war having the fear of nuclear war or 'The Russians are coming!' After the cold war without an obvious enemy, it was Al Qaeda even before 911, so we had 'Al Qaeda is coming!' Now we have 'ISIS is coming!' with media blasting us with terrorist fears. Whenever I hear a government promoting an emotional issue or fear mongering, I ignore them knowing there is a hidden Truth behind the issue.

        Constantly repeat just a few ideas. Use stereotyped phrases.

        This could be stated more plainly as 'Keep it simple, stupid!' The most notorious use of this technique recently was the Bush administration. Everyone can remember 'We must fight them over there rather than over here' or my favourite 'They hate us for our freedoms'. Neither of these phrases made any rational sense despite 911. The last thing Muslims in the Middle East care about is American's freedoms, maybe it was all the bombs the US was dropping on them.

        Give only one side of the argument and obscure history.

        Watching mainstream media in the US, you can see all the news is biased to the American view as an example. This is prevalent within Australian commercial media and newspapers giving only a western view, but fortunately, we have the SBS and the ABC that are very good, certainly not perfect, at providing both sides of a story. In addition, any historical perspective is ignored keeping the citizenry focused on the here and now. Can any of you remember any news organisation giving an in depth history of Ukraine or Palestine? I cannot.

        Demonize the enemy or pick out one special "enemy" for special vilification.

        This is obvious in politics where politicians continuously criticise their opponents. Of course, demonization is more productively applied to international figures or nations such as Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Gaddafi in Libya, Assad in Syria, the Taliban and just recently Vladimir Putin over the Ukraine and Crimea. It establishes a negative emotional view of either a nation (i.e. Iran) or a known figure making us again think emotionally, thus irrationally. Certainly some of these groups or individuals were less than benign, but not necessarily demons as depicted in the west.

        Appear humanitarian in work and motivations.

        The US has used this technique often to validate foreign interventions or ongoing conflicts where the term 'Right to Protect' is used for justification. Everyone should remember the many stories about the abuse of women in Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein's supposed brutality to his people. One thing that always amazes me is when the US sends humanitarian aid to a country it is accompanied by the US military. In Haiti some years back the US sent troops with no other country doing so. The recent Ebola outbreak in Africa saw US troops sent to the area. How are troops going to fight a medical outbreak? No doubt, they are there for other reasons.

        Obscure one's economic interests.

        Who among you believes the invasion of Iraq was for weapons of mass destruction? Or the constant threats against Iran are for their nuclear program? Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no one has presented firm evidence Iran intends to produce nuclear weapons. The West has been interfering in the Middle East since the British in the late 19th century. It is all about oil and the control over the resources. In fact, if one researches the cause of wars over the last hundred years, you will always find economics was a major component driving the rush to war for most of them.

        Monopolize the flow of information.

        This mainly entails setting the narrative by which all subsequent events can be based upon or interpreted in such a way as to reinforce the narrative. The narrative does not need to be true; in fact, it can be anything that suits the monopoliser as long as it is based loosely on some event. It is critical to have at least majority control of media and the ability to control the message so the flow of information is consistent with the narrative. In the last few months, I have seen this played out on mainstream media concerning the Ukrainian conflict. One of the most interesting examples of this principle was in the lead up to the Iraqi war in 2003. John Howard, Prime Minister at the time, gave a speech in the Australian parliament justifying the intervention in Iraq on March 18, 2003. Two days later on March 20 Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, gave the same speech word for word to the Canadian parliament. Either Harper is lazy or there was an attempt to control the message in countries supporting the war. What I would like to know is who wrote the speech in the first place. I cannot see two Prime Ministers giving an identical speech to their respective parliaments as a coincidence.

        Jim

        Who have ever been in a war don't wish to go back to such. US media always shows the bombing in the distance. If the American people could see up close the carnage, they would kill every congressman who have voted for any war.

        Again that is the reason to have massive poverty so the poor provide the soldiers with a promise of a free college education as long as you are able to go to school in the evening after duty, but if you are at a relentless illegal war forget about your free education.

        [May 16, 2015]The Making of Hillary Clinton " CounterPunch Tells the Facts, Names the Names

        First in a three-part series.

        Hillary Clinton has always been an old-style Midwestern Republican in the Illinois style; one severely infected with Methodism, unlike the more populist variants from Indiana, Wisconsin and Iowa.

        Her first known political enterprise was in the 1960 presidential election, the squeaker where the state of Illinois notoriously put Kennedy over the top, courtesy of Mayor Daley, Sam Giancana and Judith Exner. Hillary was a Nixon supporter. She took it on herself to probe allegations of vote fraud. From the leafy middle-class suburbs of Chicago's west side, she journeyed to the tenements of the south side, a voter list in her hand. She went to an address recorded as the domicile of hundreds of Democratic voters and duly found an empty lot. She rushed back to campaign headquarters, agog with her discovery, only to be told that Nixon was throwing in the towel.

        The way Hillary Clinton tells it in her Living History (an autobiography convincingly demolished by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta in their Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, an interesting and well researched account ) she went straight from the Nixon camp to the cause of Martin Luther King Jr., and never swerved from that commitment. Not so. Like many Illinois Republicans, she did have a fascination for the Civil Rights movement and spent some time on the south side, mainly in African Methodist churches under the guidance of Don Jones, a teacher at her high school. It was Jones who took her to hear King speak at Chicago's Orchestra Hall and later introduced her to the Civil Rights leader.

        Gerth and Van Natta eschew psychological theorizing, but it seems clear that the dominant influence in Hillary life was her father, a fairly successful, albeit tightwad Welsh draper, supplying Hilton hotels and other chains. From this irritable patriarch Hillary kept secret ­ a marked penchant throughout her life ­ her outings with Jones and her encounter with King. Her public persona was that of a Goldwater Girl. She battled for Goldwater through the 1964 debacle and arrived at Wellesley in the fall of 1965 with enough Goldwaterite ambition to become president of the Young Republicans as a freshman.

        The setting of Hillary's political compass came in the late Sixties. The fraught year of 1968 saw the Goldwater girl getting a high-level internship in the House Republican Conference with Gerald Ford and Melvin Laird, without an ounce of the Goldwater libertarian pizzazz. Hillary says the assassinations of King and Robert Kennedy, plus the war in Vietnam, hit her hard. The impact was not of the intensity that prompted many of her generation to become radicals. She left the suburb of Park Ridge and rushed to Miami to the Republican Convention where she fulfilled a lifelong dream of meeting Frank Sinatra and John Wayne and devoted her energies to saving the Party from her former icon, Nixon, by working for Nelson Rockefeller.

        Nixon triumphed, and Hillary returned to Chicago in time for the Democratic Convention where she paid an afternoon's visit to Grant Park. By now a proclaimed supporter of Gene McCarthy, she was appalled, not by the spectacle of McCarthy's young supporters being beaten senseless by Daley's cops, but by the protesters' tactics, which she concluded were not viable. Like her future husband, Hillary was always concerned with maintaining viability within the system.

        After the convention Hillary embarked on her yearlong senior thesis, on the topic of the Chicago community organizer Saul Alinsky. She has successfully persuaded Wellesley to keep this under lock and key, but Gerth and Van Natta got hold of a copy. So far from being an exaltation of radical organizing, Hillary's assessment of Alinsky was hostile, charging him with excessive radicalism. Her preferential option was to
        KillingTrayvons1seek minor advances within the terms of the system. She did not share these conclusions with Alinsky who had given her generous access during the preparation of her thesis and a job offer thereafter, which she declined.

        What first set Hillary in the national spotlight was her commencement address at Wellesley, the first time any student had been given this opportunity. Dean Acheson's granddaughter insisted to the president of Wellesley that youth be given its say, and the president picked Hillary as youth's tribune. Her somewhat incoherent speech included some flicks at the official commencement speaker, Senator Edward Brooke, the black Massachusetts senator, for failing to mention the Civil Rights movement or the war. Wellesley's president, still fuming at this discourtesy, saw Hillary skinny-dipping in Lake Waban that evening and told a security guard to steal her clothes.

        The militant summer of 1969 saw Hillary cleaning fish in Valdez, Alaska, and in the fall she was at Yale being stalked by Bill Clinton in the library. The first real anti-war protests at Yale came with the shooting of the students at Kent State. Hillary saw the ensuing national student upheaval as, once again, a culpable failure to work within the system. "I advocated engagement, not disruption."

        She finally consented to go on a date with Bill Clinton, and they agreed to visit a Rothko exhibit at the Yale art gallery. At the time of their scheduled rendez-vous with art, the gallery was closed because the museum's workers were on strike. The two had no inhibitions about crossing a picket line. Bill worked as a scab in the museum, doing janitorial work for the morning, getting as reward a free tour with Hillary in the afternoon.

        In the meantime, Hillary was forging long-term alliances with such future stars of the Clinton age as Marian Wright Edelman and her husband Peter, and also with one of the prime political fixers of the Nineties, Vernon Jordan. It was Hillary who introduced Bill to these people, as well as to Senator Fritz Mondale and his staffers.

        If any one person gave Hillary her start in liberal Democratic politics, it was Marian Wright Edelman who took Hillary with her when she started the Children's Defense Fund. The two were inseparable for the next twenty-five years. In her autobiography, published in 2003, Hillary lists the 400 people who have most influenced her. Marion Wright Edelman doesn't make the cut. Neither to forget nor to forgive. Peter Edelman was one of three Clinton appointees at the Department of Health and Human Services who quit when Clinton signed the Welfare reform bill, which was about as far from any "defense" of children as one could possibly imagine.

        Hillary was on Mondale's staff for the summer of '71, investigating worker abuses in the sugarcane plantations of southern Florida, as close to slavery as anywhere in the U.S.A. Life's ironies: Hillary raised not a cheep of protest when one of the prime plantation families, the Fanjuls, called in their chips (laid down in the form of big campaign contributions to Clinton) and insisted that Clinton tell Vice President Gore to abandon his calls for the Everglades to be restored, thus taking water Fanjul was appropriating for his operation.

        From 1971 on, Bill and Hillary were a political couple. In 1972, they went down to Texas and spent some months working for the McGovern campaign, swiftly becoming disillusioned with what they regarded as an exercise in futile ultraliberalism. They planned to rescue the Democratic Party from this fate by the strategy they have followed ever since: the pro-corporate, hawkish neoliberal recipes that have become institutionalized in the Democratic Leadership Council, of which Bill Clinton and Al Gore were founding members.

        In 1973, Bill and Hillary went off on a European vacation, during which they laid out their 20-year project designed to culminate with Bill's election as president. Inflamed with this vision, Bill proposed marriage in front of Wordsworth's cottage in the Lake District. Hillary declined, the first of twelve similar refusals over the next year. Bill went off to Fayetteville, Arkansas, to seek political office. Hillary, for whom Arkansas remained an unappetizing prospect, eagerly accepted, in December '73, majority counsel John Doar's invitation to work for the House committee preparing the impeachment of Richard Nixon. She spent the next months listening to Nixon's tapes. Her main assignment was to prepare an organizational chart of the Nixon White House. It bore an eerie resemblance to the twilit labyrinth of the Clinton White House 18 years later.

        Hillary had an offer to become the in-house counsel of the Children's Defense Fund and seemed set to become a high-flying public interest Washington lawyer. There was one impediment. She failed the D.C. bar exam. She passed the Arkansas bar exam. In August of 1974, she finally moved to Little Rock and married Bill in 1975 at a ceremony presided over by the Rev. Vic Nixon. They honeymooned in Acapulco with her entire family, including her two brothers' girlfriends, all staying in the same suite.

        After Bill was elected governor of Arkansas in 1976, Hillary joined the Rose Law Firm, the first woman partner in an outfit almost as old as the Republic. It was all corporate business, and the firm's prime clients were the state's business heavyweights ­ Tyson Foods, Wal-Mart, Jackson Stevens Investments, Worthen Bank and the timber company Weyerhaeuser, the state's largest landowner.

        Two early cases (of a total of five that Hillary actually tried) charted her course. The first concerned the successful effort of Acorn ­ a public interest group doing community organizing ­ to force the utilities to lower electric rates on residential consumers and raise on industrial users. Hillary represented the utilities in a challenge to this progressive law, the classic right-wing claim, arguing that the measure represented an unconstitutional "taking" of property rights. She carried the day for the utilities.

        The second case found Hillary representing the Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Arkansas in a lawsuit filed by a disabled former employee who had been denied full retirement benefits by the company. In earlier years, Hillary had worked at the Children's Defense Fund on behalf of abused employees and disabled children. Only months earlier, while still a member of the Washington, D.C., public interest community, she had publicly ripped Joseph Califano for becoming the Coca Cola company's public counsel. "You sold us out, you, you sold us out!" she screamed publicly at Califano. Working now for Coca Cola, Hillary prevailed

        [May 15, 2015]Why I Wept at the Russian Parade Information Clearing House

        May 14, 2015 "Information Clearing House"

        Something extraordinary just took place in Russia and it may have moved our disturbed world one major step nearer to peace and away from a looming new world war. Of all unlikely things, what took place was a nationwide remembrance by Russians of the estimated 27 to perhaps 30 million Soviet citizens who never returned alive from World War II. Yet in what can only be described in a spiritual manner, the events of May 9, Victory Day over Nazism, that took place across all Russia, transcended the specific day of memory on the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II in 1945. It was possible to see a spirit emerge from the moving events unlike anything this author has ever witnessed in his life.

        The event was extraordinary in every respect. There was a sense in all participants that they were shaping history in some ineffable way. It was no usual May 9 annual show of Russia's military force. Yes, it featured a parade of Russia's most advanced military hardware, including the awesome new T-14 Armata tanks, S-400 anti-missile systems and advanced Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jets. It was indeed impressive to watch.

        The military part of the events also featured for the first time ever elite soldiers from China's Peoples' Liberation Army marching in formation along with Russian soldiers. That in itself should shivers down the spines of the neoconservative warhawks in the EU and Washington, had they any spines to shiver. The alliance between the two great Eurasian powers-Russia and China-is evolving with stunning speed into a new that will change the economic dynamic of our world from one of debt, depression, and wars to one of rising general prosperity and development if we are good enough to help make it happen.

        During his visit, China's President XI, in addition to his quite visible honoring of the Russian Victory event and its significance for China, met separately with Vladimir Putin and agreed that China's emerging New Silk Road high-speed railway infrastructure great project will be integrated in planning and other respects with Russia's Eurasian Economic Union which now consists of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Armenia with several prospective candidates waiting to join. While it may seem an obvious step, it was not at all certain until now.

        The two great Eurasian countries have now cemented the huge oil and gas deals between them, the trade deals and the military cooperation agreements with a commitment to fully integrate their economic infrastructure. Following his meeting with Xi, Putin told the press, "The integration of the Eurasian Economic Union and Silk Road projects means reaching a new level of partnership and actually implies a common economic space on the continent."

        It's Zbigniew Brzezinski's worst geopolitical nightmare come to fruition. And that, thanks to the stupid, short-sighted geopolitical strategy of Brzezinski and the Washington war faction that made it clear to Beijing and to Moscow their only hope for sovereign development and to be free of the dictates of a Washington-Wall Street Sole Superpower was to build an entire monetary and economic space independent of the dollar world.

        [May 15, 2015] The west talks about a new cold war. For Russians it has already started

        This article is definitely a deviation from the regular NN/TGA crap Guardian runs. While this Guardian pressitute tried to pretend that she is not a regular neocon hawk, the standard "MI5" working set of lies is used. Quote: Look at the people (think tanks) around Masha Gessen en Dawisha. The figure of $70-200 billion also comes from them. " The author failed to stay away from the silly and sometimes cold war era rhetoric. "Empire", "insecurity", "damaged ego," "feeling excluded." That's a stupid thing to say about the nation.
        May 14, 2015 | The Guardian

        The west talks about a new cold war. For Russians it has already started. By continually freezing out the Kremlin, the west is refuelling old resentments ...

        I've been travelling in the heartlands of Russia for 30 years, witnessing everything from the euphoric wishfulness at the fall of communism to prosperity and, more recently, political despair. Yet going there for the first time since the annexation of Crimea, I was still shocked by what I saw.

        I encountered a country braced not for some frozen conflict, nor for proxy war, but for the real thing: all-out war against the west. Never have my friends been more loving – but this time it was the concern of people who were unsure when and how we would meet again.

        It is true that this state of mind has been brought about by the Kremlin's unremitting media campaign of the past year. But I quickly came to understand that most of them share their government's dim view of the west, with its "hollow concepts" of democracy and freedom.

        Since the regime is fixated on the idea of getting its empire back, a major conflict really does seem possible. Russian aircraft and submarines are playing war games around the coasts of Europe. But a plane crossing into Baltic air space could trigger Nato retaliation with conventional arms, which could in turn could spark a pre-emptive nuclear strike by Russia – a strategic response born of a fear of weakness in the face of superior American military power.

        ... ... ...

        How have we drifted into this absurd and dangerous situation? At the end of the cold war the Russians imagined that they would be becoming part of an expanded Europe. Instead, through a combination of triumphalism and ignorance we have played to Russia's ancient fears of exclusion and victimhood.

        The conventional view in the west is that the blame lies with Putin and his kleptocratic regime. According to this narrative, the regime went into attack mode after the oil price collapsed. It distracted attention from its own failure to diversify the economy by lashing out against an external enemy, and launching a brilliant propaganda campaign.

        This version of events, while not untrue, lets the west off the hook far too easily. When the Soviet regime ended, free-market thinking was in the ascendancy in the west. People in positions of authority really did swallow the idea that we were living through "the end of history": that in a unipolar world foreign policy was going to be exclusively about a battle for markets.

        In America and Britain, government support for research on old Soviet bloc countries was slashed. The State Department and Foreign Office disbanded research units that kept politicians informed. Embassies focused on opening up commercial opportunities. Meanwhile, the press, facing its own economic crisis, also cut back on foreign correspondents. The west simply stopped thinking seriously, and in depth, about Russia and its neighbours.

        And yet when it came to defence we did not behave as though we were facing the end of history. Rather than disbanding our cold war defence arrangement, Nato, we reinvented it as an alliance that could be construed only as being arrayed against Russia. We kept expanding it ever eastward, closer to Russia's borders. In response, Russia turned aggressive – first in Georgia, then in Crimea and Ukraine – at this intrusion into its sphere of influence.

        The west dismissed this, saying the concept of spheres of influence belonged to a bygone age. But geography is unchanging, as are the sensibilities created by it. US policy on Cuba in the post-Soviet era has, until now, been founded on precisely this principle. Cuba had long-since ceased to pose a military threat to the US. But it was deemed outrageous that any nation so close to US borders should cleave to a "hostile" ideological allegiance.

        The end of the cold war has not changed history either. History continues to inform identity, as it always has. Take Ukraine: Kiev really is the birthplace of the Russian nation. This matters, just as it still matters that America's founding fathers came from Britain.

        Russia's sense of its identity, poised on the edge of Europe in a borderless landmass, has always been pathologically insecure. Identities are tangled, allegiances split. Take Donbas, for example, at the heart of the conflict area. This is the homeland of the Don Cossacks, whose cavalry regiments famously served Russia's tsars for generations. During the Soviet period, the Cossacks were greatly persecuted for their Tsarist allegiances. But the region was also the birthplace of that icon of Soviet labour, Alexei Stakhanov, who mined 227 tonnes of coal in a single shift. Stakhanov was the poster boy for a heroic generation of Soviet labour, all based in Donbas. In this region of conflicted allegiances, it is hardly surprising that the Kremlin has been fighting its propaganda war with particular intensity here.

        The decision by western leaders to boycott Russia's 70th anniversary victory parade on Saturday might have seemed like common sense in the light of events on Ukraine's border. But it failed to recognize how emotive a concept fascism still is for Russians. Westerners have for years been giggling at 'Allo 'Allo and John Cleese's goosestep, but fascism is no laughing matter in this country. Russians ask me how in Lithuania marches can be permitted that honour Nazi collaborators who murdered 200,000 Jews. How, they ask, can the west welcome into the EU and Nato "ethnocracies" such as Estonia and Latvia that radically discriminate against their Russian subjects.

        The 62% popular support which Vladimir Putin enjoys according to the Levada Centre reflects not only that ancient geographical sense of insecurity Russians feel; not just the unshakeable love Russians feel for their country. It represents wounded pride at the west's apparent determination to treat Russia as the enemy. Continued western sanctions will only fuel his popularity. Because Putin is a merely a symptom of the present crisis. There is more to Russia than Putin, a great deal more.

        ... ... ...

        stonedage 15 May 2015 12:54

        Putin announced that he would take a salary cut of 10% this year; but since estimates of his true, shadowy wealth range between $70bn and $200bn, it is unlikely he'll feel the pinch

        The western press keeps repeating this line with absolutely no proof. If Putin is this rich, why isn't he spending the money? Why isn't his children? It's illogical for someone to hoard this amount of wealth without spending lavishly. Is he trying to pass the money down to his family? The lying western press wants us to believe something so preposterous without offering a single proof, yet they don't write about the corrupt leaders like Bill Clinton, Tony Blair....who are gladly hoarding blood money and pimping it out on young women. Please tell me how the Clinton's went from being a broke ex president to amassing over 200 million within a decade.....Mr. Blair has done the same and I know Obama can't wait to cash in.

        Me109BfG6 15 May 2015 11:35

        "...It is true that this state of m i n d has been brought about by the Kremlin's unremitting media campaign of the past year. But I quickly came to understand that most of them share their government's dim view of the west, with its "hollow concepts" of democracy and freedom..."

        I can see a throng of Russian visitors invading these pages permanently. However, I can't see any reason to do so. The Russians do have a great science that launched the first ever satellite in 1957, the true, real European science that is never reachable to the Anglo-Saxons with their exclusive empiricism as the only principle of science. The Russians are great in culture generally. Schopenhauer suggested once to prove the greatness of a nation by comparing their composers, as their most abstract job is of the greatest value compared. Well, here after finding the names of a certain Mr Purcell along with Mr Britten we would have to make a stop rather than to mention the Beatles who brought up 20 billions of pounds to the British crown.

        Not that in Russia, with a multitude of composers ranging from Scriabin, Prokofiev, and Rakhmaninov up to Shostakovitch and Schnittke in the 20th century only. Now, concluding, just think that a Brit applying his / her 'mind' is not aware of the true sense of this word, which has ever been given by Kant in his "Verstand"= рассудок und "Vernunft"= разум, while an ordinary Russian is also aware of a mere ум. How can such a British "mind" be criticizing, say, the Dialectical Materialism?! - Nothing to mention of the Russian ballet school, also not reachable.

        So, the Russians are great and not reachable, as seen from the outside, alas.

        Dannycraig007 15 May 2015 10:56

        This Reuters article I have linked here shows the US is possibly throwing their Ukrainian Nazis under the bus. http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/05/14/putin-ties-ukraines-government-to-neo-nazis-a-new-law-seems-to-back-him-up/

        This is major.

        1. It's Reuters which is the US lead news organization.
        2. It's Josh Cohen who gets major coverage in the US, he's also one of the main USAID reps.
        3. It clearly points out Putin was right and vindicates him.
        4. It clearly points out the WW2 Ukrainian Insurgent army killed 80,000 Poles.
        5. It talks about the current law to make the Nazi supporters honored.
        6. It points out the Right Sector led Maidan.
        7. It mentions the Ministerial positions of the fascists.
        8. It mentions 'Cyberspace" which mean we are winning this information war.
        9. It points out that the Nazis have been given free reign to commit atrocities.

        All these things have been covered up in the US media until now. This article most likely means that after the meeting in Sochi with Kerry and Lavrov that the US has decided to throw their Nazis under the bus as it is too difficult to hide them any longer and they are proving to be a liability at this point.

        Юля Пашковская -> MentalToo 15 May 2015 10:53

        Sorry. Whose interests are protecting Britain in Afghanistan and Iraq?

        Alexander Ilichev -> MentalToo 15 May 2015 10:49

        Basically this double standards problem and hypocrisy goes a long way before global politics. All countries and men proclaiming their will for good always and really believe this, but when it comes to their needs they will fight for it with low morality and fake moral reasons. Question who of them is self deluded still. If someone from US, UK or Russia believes only in good part of himself he is part of this problem.

        Though comparing Russia and NATO actions from the point of morality for past decades it seems most obviously who is the real aggressor here.

        Alexander Ilichev -> jezzam 15 May 2015 10:35

        And it's not equally illegal. Even not close to that. There are millions of Russian people living in Ukraine and Kiev just started bombing them after they rioted as well as Maidan protest made that 4 months before. Is it ok for you too?

        BTW, if Iraq is considered illegal was your country reprimanded for it like you reprimanding Russia now? Can you sanction yourself maybe?

        Alexander Ilichev -> jezzam 15 May 2015 10:32

        Iraq? How about Serbia, Syria, Lebanon? Is it ok for you? There are hundreds of thousands of dead civilians caused by your government.

        ANd it's not the matter how disastrous was it for Russia, what is matter how is it for local people of Ukraine, Iraq or any other country.

        During Ukraine conflict only 3-5 thousands civilians died and degree of RUssian government involvement in it is still under question as well as it's legitimacy due to there were russian people there dying from Kiev army.

        And USA and UK destroyed whole countries killing more million people with no problems at all. Go to them and tell how they should behave first.

        Jeff1000 -> jezzam 15 May 2015 09:41

        The main ain of the West is to get the basic institutions of democracy installed in all countries; Fair elections, rule of law, independent judiciary, free press.

        You don't honestly believe that, do you?

        Volkovolk -> jezzam 15 May 2015 09:37

        You are either really naive or really ignorant. Or both.

        The main goal of the West is to preserve it's dominance that it get after Gorbachev trew all interests and chivements of USSR in wondow. Economical, politicall. Means to reach this goal are rally simple - to install their system, their values and their ideas as the major ones in the world. To create a system that that it's creator (US) can easily manipulate. For example to use this free press and bla-bla-bla-bla to overtrow governments where and when they feel the need to do so, like it was done on maidan and during so calles Arabian Spring.

        The evidience are overwhelming? Tell that to Greec. The economy of US and Europe os working on basis of expansion, of assimilation of lesser economies. And this is another reason of this cover war of US for spheres of influence.

        No ideas, no idealogy, just pragmatism and need to get benefit for US.

        Alexandra_Aleshina 15 May 2015 09:33

        "all-out war against the west"

        It is absolute baloney! There is no aggression against west in Russia! Yes, Russia is ready for war, but for protection only. Russia does not want it. So please stop to portray Russia as a world aggressor, because it is not so!

        jezzam -> Volkovolk 15 May 2015 09:29

        You say the West's actions are "A cover for secret carving of world in one big sphere of influence. Western and basically US influence."

        The main ain of the West is to get the basic institutions of democracy installed in all countries; Fair elections, rule of law, independent judiciary, free press. True it is in the West's interests to do this, but it is also in the interest of the populations of every country. The evidence is overwhelming that countries with these institutions have populations that are happier, richer and healthier than those without them. The only European country that does not have them now is Russia.

        Volkovolk -> MentalToo 15 May 2015 09:20

        Because NATO near borders of Russia is both danger to russian safety and kinda indulgence for antirussian policy of Lithuania. NATO is offensive war alliance that was created to fight against Soviet Union that was led, basically, by Russia. So NATO is antiRussian alliance from the beginning.

        jezzam -> Alexander Ilichev 15 May 2015 09:18

        Misdeeds by the West do not justify misdeeds by Russia. I assume you are referring to Iraq - generally accepted as illegal and disastrous for the West. Putin's Ukraine invasion was equally illegal and even more disastrous for Russia.

        Volkovolk -> MentalToo 15 May 2015 09:16

        Igor Girkin can mumble all he want because he is not a politician or any influential figure. And why he fortified Slavyansk? Perhaps because of neonazi rampage?

        Putin... send... Girkin? Bwa-ha-ha-ha!!! Oh, you are funny. Girkin came himself because he is kinda glory hound. According to facts.

        Nice and simple would be smashing of ukrainian neo-nazism and no anti-russian propaganda that foolish ukrainian elite decided to use to validate independence of Ukraine. But as we both know it is not nice and not simple, yeah, Bizarro?

        MentalToo -> Volkovolk 15 May 2015 09:15

        They are free to do what is not harming interests of others, more influential and powerful states and of other nations on their territory.
        So because Russia is more powerful than Lithuania, Lithuania was not allowed to join Nato?


        Z'ing Sui -> alpamysh 15 May 2015 07:30

        So you're saying India has more industrial know-how and has a better education level overall that Russia? Again, are you being serious? That Russia doesn't have, say, cheap sneakers and t-shirt industry doesn't mean much in my book, especially when the factories, patents and know-how are more likely to belong to transnational corporations anyway.

        I already said, that I find these commonplace economy arguments (size, diversification) weak. USSR lacked or was hopelessly behind in economy by these metrics, yet it was a superpower that sometimes almost rivaled the US and Europe combined. Russia is no Soviet Union, yet the goal is not to dominate half the world, but simply to be one of about 6 or 8 global powers acting independently in its own region of the world. Seems entirely manageable for Russia.


        John Smith -> Malcolm Ronald Davis 15 May 2015 06:54

        That would not have happened had not Slobodan Milosevic been undertaking a brutal ethnic war against the Kosovars, having already contributed to an equally brutal war against the Bosnian Muslims. I think the 1999 Kosovo conflict is an excellent example of 'Responsibility to Protect' (R2P).

        And how things are there in Langley?

        KLA was on the US list of terrorist organisations 1998. They were killing police, army, postmen and even Albanians with less extremist views from Rugova's party which in any way didn't collaborate with Miloshevich ( they were boycotting the elections). Albanians had education, universities, TV and press in their own language. Miloshevich became famous for his words at Kosovo: "No one can beat you!", replying to Serbs complaining of harassment by Albanian policemans whom were dominant in numbers.

        They have chosen terrorism, like 2001 and again today in Macedonia to make the Great Albania. Are they suppressed in Macedonia today? They are in the government, they had two defence ministers in a former governments, what is wrong now?

        KLA is the US lapdog, they trained them and armed them and what recent events show didn't disarmed them at all after 1999. They had even pretty exotic AMAC 1500 in their possession. And the US will use them anytime when they want to destabilize the region.

        Z'ing Sui -> alpamysh 15 May 2015 06:33

        These speeches about Russia being a third-world hellhole some people on the Internet just love, they're crazy, and they're as easy as a google search or a wikipedia to disprove. I mean you're saying that like in Russia sucks compared to India. Are you actually, really, being serious?

        And when it comes to Russia not having a great chance to be a power in the future because of low population, it's a good argument, a little better than the economic one, but still not decisive. To me it seems obvious that Russia has enough technological, military and political edge to stay a world power for a long while yet.

        oleteo -> Sceptical Walker 15 May 2015 06:18

        Red Army was able to turn the tide as you formulated not after the regrouping further but because they were ready to die for their soil and relatives while a peaceful life continued in European countries.

        This invader came or the other one, some nuisance at last for the most part of Europeans.

        Or can you allege the majority of them didn't live their lives and took the ams in the hands?

        Russians has to be slaves or exterminated and they had no habit to surrender. There is no equality between communism and fascism as no equality between murderer and victim

        Jeff1000 -> alpamysh 15 May 2015 06:10

        You are a racist lunatic, with a strange agenda.

        17 posts on this topic in 90 minutes. That's once every 5.3 minutes. Slower than your usual rate, but hey, it's Friday.


        ijustwant2say -> kraljevic 15 May 2015 04:48

        "That power was Russia."

        Actually, let's be honest, Russia's sacrifice, large though it was, had little to do with freeing Europe. It had everything to do with fighting for Russia's very existence after Hitker reneged on his pact with Stalin and attacked Russia.

        The actual power that had no reason to enter the fray but did - and unlike Russia took no territory afterwards - was the U.S. Russia, and to a lesser extent Britain had no choice but get involved, America CHOSE to put its blood and treasure on the line, And then they left.

        That must be worth something, surely, especially considering how Russia occupied all the territories that became the USSR, substituting one extremist regime Fascism with another Communism.

        And don't forget that without US and UK aid and supplies Russia would not have held Stalingrad.

        As the great man said: those who don't learn from history are likely to repeat it.


        Z'ing Sui -> AnhTay 15 May 2015 03:11

        Come on, world is clearly not multipolar, not yet. But if it ever become one, Russia would be a center of power, if a much smaller one than the US, EU or China. Militarily and politically, there's really no sign that Russia is going away. People saying "~but Russia's economy is so small" should be pointed at the idea of this article I very much agree with. That idea is that economy is not everything.

        Russia could easily be a power on par with India in this new world, and it would almost certainly be much more influential in global affairs than South Korea, which has little chance of ever becoming its own center of power because of closeness to China.

        Kata L -> EmperorWearsNoCloths 15 May 2015 00:26

        that's why you trolls can earn your bag of rubleys

        if you have nothing to say

        The time has come for the United States to formulate and prosecute an integrated, comprehensive, and long-term geostrategy for all of Eurasia. This need arises out of the interaction between two fundamental realities:

        - America is now the only global superpower

        - Eurasia is the globe's central arena.

        Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy.

        by Zbigniew Brzezinski
        Harvard International Review
        Winter 1997/1998

        But, on 31 December 1999, Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned and, according to the Constitution of Russia, Putin became Acting President of the Russian Federation.

        Bob Schmitz -> TecchnoExpertThanx 15 May 2015 00:16

        Look at the people (think tanks) around Masha Gessen en Dawisha. The figure of 70- 200 billion also comes from them.

        Indeed strange that a rather balanced article leans heavily on this incredibly biased source, which obtains half of its info through mindreading of Putins´ head.

        Gessen is probably a must-read for journalists.

        Subhasis Sengupta -> Subhasis Sengupta 14 May 2015 23:43

        the best part is Russia invaded guatemala, changed regime in iraq, libya, vietnam, panama, mexico, syria and US just did afghanistan... when these reporters write, all i can think of is laugh and tell these reporters and the oped writers, do u have a backbone, r u independent thinking, or get well soon buddy.

        Subhasis Sengupta -> Subhasis Sengupta 14 May 2015 23:40

        the US and EU apart from germany and france and austria and 50% of netherlands, finland, needs a war, why the very fast decline of the US economic system coming to an end... war is money, inventory buildup will be sold, new orders will be sold, new gas field will be in private control in ukraine and arctic... and bingo... consumer sentiment will rise so will be the rise of manufacturing... so the US economy grows.... we definitely need a war... and some fools still support that idea...

        Subhasis Sengupta 14 May 2015 23:38

        good to see american british propaganda running at full pace.... oops sorry american british piece of editorial are news... others are propaganda... news for peace and prosperity... peace when u have 350 military bases all over the world surrounding russia and china... prosperity when the 1% owns everything and a divided society is created... freedom of press when only what i say is correct, and even if i dont say the truth and say wrong things what i say is correct... oops i am a russian troll...

        HollyOldDog -> Botswana61 14 May 2015 23:36

        Chechnya was an internal problem. Georgia invaded South Ossetia while it was protected by an UN mandate and killed UN Peacekeepers. As the west dithered Russia drove the Georgians back to their own country. Russia has not invaded Ukraine though there is a Civil War occurring in Ukraine where West Ukraine has repeatedly violated the Minsk2 agreement. The Crimean citizens, after repeated attempts to become independent of Ukraine has voted to rejoin Russia ( Crimea rejoices each day that they are now with Russia - no military attacks from West Ukraine).

        The West Ukrainian government is now so vile that they now punish any descent from their own citizens, with imprisonment or death. Western Powers have now become truly despicable.

        HollyOldDog -> PacificPlasticPatch 14 May 2015 23:11

        Does any Russian trust the actions of Western Powers when they have repeatedly sought to asset strip friends (Ukraine fracking) and foe alike? In Iraq the museums containing the rare antiquities from that country were allowed to be looted while the Oil Ministry building was heavily guarded.

        Why was Iraq invaded since any supposed WMD's were destroyed years previously ( and documented). Best guess is that Iraq stopped having wars with Iran.

        Natalia N -> UncleSam404 14 May 2015 22:19

        Ukraine wanted to become Europe.
        Ukraine has become even poorer.
        People from Ukraine massively move to Russia.
        WTF?

        TecchnoExpertThanx 14 May 2015 21:45

        Alluding to the Donbass region, the author concludes that...

        it is hardly surprising that the Kremlin has been fighting its propaganda war with particular intensity here.

        The moment Poroshenko labelled the entire region terrorists and the military campaign an ATO, cutting of pensions and services right at the start of the campaign and then not to mention both targeted and indiscriminate shelling of civilians.... ANY Kremlin propaganda would just be a waste of money.

        greatwhitehunter -> Botswana61 14 May 2015 21:24

        On the contrary only 20% of the USA,s export earnings are made from physical exports the rest is basically made from clipping the ticket or stealing if you like.

        take Boeing and military out of this and what do you have left.

        As an example the ukraine crisis came about not for the reasons that we read about in the media but because russia china india were in the process of replacing the $ as the worlds trading currency.

        The economy of my country is quite small but we saved billions of dollars every year by making our currency trade-able with the yuan. The continuation of the cold war in effect maintains the USA,s ability to tax the world .


        John Smith -> oresme 14 May 2015 20:04

        Kiev was a Khazar city. It was not founded by Normans, And the Normans is a maybe wrong term, Vikings or Varyags as Russians called them would be more appropriate.
        Russians went there with a Viking leadership and trick them and took the city.
        Recently one historical document was found in Cairo from a late 800's I think, where it was written that the government of Kieb, Khazars called it that way, tried to arrange some ransom money for one of the citizens that was captured.

        All of the names ( local government) were Khazar/Jewish, no Slavic or 'Nordsman'
        names there.

        But Nevertheless, you're correct and there was an astonishing influence of Vikings/Norseman to our civilisation not only in exploring, but also they invented/ reinvented accounting that haven't changed much till or times thousand years after (that was in Sicily).


        John Smith Malcolm -> Ronald Davis 14 May 2015 19:29

        And you're completely lost with that wall of text.

        Russia hasn't invaded anything, they had more than 16.000 soldiers there.
        The parliament of Crimea voted for a referendum and people of Crimea voted to rejoin Russia. The vast majority of Ukrainian soldiers joined the Russian army.

        Is NATO a defensive alliance ? What was NATO defending in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Afghanistan ?

        Nemtsov had zero influence in Russia like the most of the 'liberal' ( read payed from the west) opposition. Zyuganov and Zhirinovsky, those are opposition leaders that people vote for. You wouldn't like to see them in power for sure.

        You can forget about 'Maidan' in Moscow, those few thousands can run around and shout what they like ( I saw Ukrainians last year shouting very offensive words about Putin and nothing happened), that's just a clown parade.

        What aggression in Georgia and Estonia?

        Georgians attacked the peacekeepers, check what OSCE said about that.
        Not to mention who armed and trained Georgians. NATO training is a pure BS. Georgians, Iraqis, Afghani... what they learned from those trainings? Nothing
        Whom was NATO fighting with to have a combat experience to train someone ?
        Iraqi Army in the collapse at the level of the 70s and ill-equipped insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Iraq they burned them with phosphorus and in Afghan have not achieved anything, last week some westerners were captured in a hotel in Kabul. What would that look like if Russians sold them some Strela's to fight against the aviation support ? They would be massacred.

        The best advice would be keep your nose out those places, your governments just brought a destruction, failure and misery wherever they sticked them.


        Bouduain bloomday 14 May 2015 18:56

        Kremlin's constant harping on about Ukranian fascism

        You harp on about "harping on." I suspect it is not the unyielding denial you were seeking from this article. And of course Russia has its fascists. Little nazi's are a world wide plague. In America, they're called patriots; and their political wing is the Tea-baggers.

        A heady mix of ultra conservative Ultras (yobs heavy on idiocy), and fully declared proto-fascists, largely from a relatively small range in western Ukraine, took over neo-liberal origins of the protest and ran Yanukovic out of office. EuroMaiden was not fascist inspired, or organized, but hard core nationalists, fascists, protofascists, ... however you wish to slot the idiots ... took it over, and ended it with bricks, fire, and a good deal of pointed guns.

        Ultra right wing, self-identified fascists - ultimately concentrated in deep west where all the few seats virtually reach back to, - with ties to former brutal "glories" of nasty elements allied not just with Hitler Germany, but Mein Kempf ideology - only took, something, like 7% of the vote during the Poroshenko election. Oddly, they were awarded the most dangerous ministry; internal security.

        Beyond control of security (state police, central intelligence, etc) that tiny representation of fascist Ukraine also has its own politically allied military units - graciously serving under Kiev's command. (Sarcasted emphasis mine). They have two full battalions in the Ukrainian national army, if you can call whatever that is, a national military. Hell, there is an oligarch with his mercenary army badgering Dombass. There is no single Ukrainian military command.

        Ukraine is not a fascist state. It is virtually a failed state; but its large numbers hardly voted fascist. The majority of what's left of Ukraine hardly shares the fascist inspirations of the controlling minority in Rada. My faith, and heart, went out to rational Ukrainians when vast numbers of certain conscripts split the country or simply holed-up with neibours where they couldn't be found; when western Ukrainian mothers burned call-up notices on the road while cameras rolled; or the shear volume of "switched one corrupt oligarch for another" type decent from original neoliberal-liberal EuroMaidan protestors that is suppressed today.

        Poroshenko is no fascist, at least not over the wee share of the Ukraine he splits with Yatsenuk. At worst I peg him a neocon, a dodgy oligarch who is hardly in full control of anything - least not the military. I'd probably place Yats in the fascists' camp, but he's dodged that official declaration so far. Not so with the over-compensated, outright Bandera worshipers who made it into the Rada. They openly promote it.

        The fascist element in this mess is a problem. By no popular authority should they have been given armed wings of the government. They should have been relegated to positions that fit 7% popularity - back behind the friggin back benches!

        The article was measured - almost journalism. A decent read from the regular NN/TGA crap Guardian runs. I did find it bit of a illogical walk about; and certainly par for Guardian editorial positions: a decent whitewash of the whole fascist taint in Kiev. She hardly talked about it ... except it is somehow connected to the prerequisite charge of "propaganda"; and that Russians fear it more then me, and many others like me out here in the west who take it very seriously. Denial seems to be your domain.

        Ukraine needs to shed the stink of fascists and start acting like a responsible state ... a state that will never force Crimea or Dombass back into the fold. Hell ... give Lviv its independence too, and send the viscous fools home. Definitely relegate them to the political hinterlands where they belong. Maybe Ukraine will have a nation they can govern.

        (W)ith no dissenting view allowed in the Russian media to counter, …

        I'm far more concerned with the one line we are getting fed west of Winchester. McCain, Harper, Abbott, Cameron WEST. (Pick one or insert yours into the western MSM mix if they fit).

        vr13vr 14 May 2015 17:58

        It wouldn't be a reasonable article if the author stayed away from the silly and sometimes cold war era rhetoric. "Empire", "insecurity", "damaged ego," "feeling excluded." That's a stupid thing to say about the nation. How about a more straight talk - we don't threaten them and don't try to hurt them and they will not threaten us?

        nnedjo 14 May 2015 17:19

        Since the regime is fixated on the idea of getting its empire back, a major conflict really does seem possible. Russian aircraft and submarines are playing war games around the coasts of Europe. But a plane crossing into Baltic air space could trigger Nato retaliation with conventional arms, which could in turn could spark a pre-emptive nuclear strike by Russia – a strategic response born of a fear of weakness in the face of superior American military power.

        I've read so far all kinds of accusations against Russia, but I have to admit that such outrageous accusation I have not read so far. Thus, the author of this article directly accuses Russia of a possible nuclear war, which practically means the end of civilization, at least as we have known so far.

        However, at the same time it shows how accusations of any kind when it comes to Russia, are completely meaningless.

        So if one day really came to nuclear war, and if humanity ceases to exist, whether it will be important at all who is to blame? Or better said, the big question is whether it will be left at least one man who could blame anyone for that.

        Therefore, if we will not be able to blame Russia after that, then let's to blame in advance. And in that blame should not have a limit, it should go beyond every limits. Even behind a nuclear war, and the end of human history.

        John Smith -> VladPutil 14 May 2015 17:02

        No -the first action was armed Russian special forces "disguised" as little green men took over government building in East Ukraine

        You forgot taking over government buildings in Kiev and earlier in the West Ukraine in January where they took some 1500 AK's ?
        Very selective memory from your side.


        Ruslan Zigangirov -> Sceptical Walker 14 May 2015 16:46

        I hope that does not happen. I hope that Poland will be enough reason not to deploy a missile defense system, which represents a mortal danger to Russia on its territory. The US missile defense system is designed so that the system can manage only the Americans. In fact, Poland will be holding a gun with a remote control aimed at Russia.

        If the Poles are stupid and do it, then the elements of the missile defense system will be destroyed blow tactical missiles or using special forces operations. It will be a lot of screaming and sanctions, but if you think that the US president or the president of France ad war on Russia risking a nuclear attack on its capital for Poland, you are naive.

        Ruslan Zigangirov -> VladPutil 14 May 2015 16:22

        You absolutely do not understand what happened in South Ossetia and Moldova (no Romania). The conflict between South Ossetia and Georgia began in 1918, but since the entry of these territories into the Soviet Union, this conflict has been frozen. When the Soviet Union broke up, Georgia by military force tried to take control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the war began. Russia intervened and stopped the war, the conflict has been frozen. Compliance agreements provide Russian peacekeepers on the border between Georgia and South Ossetia. When Saakashvilli became president of Georgia, he began to seek NATO membership for Georgia. The Americans helped him, they are fully equipped and trained the Georgian army, but there was one problem. For domestic reasons Saakashvilli could not refuse to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Georgia considers the territory of his own. Georgia's accession to NATO with unresolved territorial disputes was impossible.

        In 2008 Saakashvilii launched a military operation to seize South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russian peacekeepers have not missed his army on the border and what he did? He killed them. I do not know what he relied, perhaps he thought that Russia will quietly watch as Saakashvilli killing Russian peacekeepers. Further everyone knows. Russia has destroyed the Georgian army and restore the status quo, Georgia has not been had occupied.

        nnedjo 14 May 2015 15:51

        The conventional view in the west is that the blame lies with Putin and his kleptocratic regime. According to this narrative, the regime went into attack mode after the oil price collapsed. It distracted attention from its own failure to diversify the economy by lashing out against an external enemy, and launching a brilliant propaganda campaign.

        This version of events, while not untrue, lets the west off the hook far too easily.

        This is an obvious nonsense. Joining of Crimea to Russia, as well as demonstrations in the southeast of Ukraine took place in March last year, to immediately afterwards broke out armed conflict. On the other hand, the fall in the price of oil began in June 2014. So how is it possible to claim that what happened earlier was the result of what happened later?

        nnedjo -> Terry Ross 14 May 2015 15:20

        At the time of the Soviet Union, there was the Eastern bloc countries, or the Warsaw Pact. However, all these countries have had strong borders that could not be crossed without a passport, and, at least officially, there are not numerous commissioners, among whom also Enlargement Commissioner. Also, It could not happen that some supranational commission ban any of those countries to establish economic cooperation with third countries or, for example, to ban the already signed agreements on gas pipeline construction.

        And all of this you have now in the European Union.

        Imagine for example, that during the Cold War, Stalin, Khrushchev or Brezhnev, are sending their "Enlargement Commissioner" in one of the Western European countries to check the progress of work on the harmonization of legislation of these countries with the legislation of the countries of the Warsaw Pact.

        So, this is perhaps one drastic comparison, but it helps to get a picture of what is happening in recent years. Some in the West may have recognized that enlargement of the EU is also kind of expansionism, but a kind of "peaceful" and "voluntary" expansionism. However, what kind of "peaceful expansionism" is that, if it is accompanied also by occasional revolutions and even wars.

        Terry Ross 14 May 2015 14:38

        I cannot believe that someone has spent 30 years travelling to Russia and knows so little about its geopolitics. The author makes a point about about Russian expansionism, thus: 'Since the regime is fixated on the idea of getting its empire back' The comment although widely held in the West, has little evidence to support it.

        The Soviet Union dissolved in 1991 and Putin came to power in 2000. During that time, 14 years snce Putin first becoming president and 23 years since the end of the Soviet Union, there has not been a single case of ANY Russian expansionism prior to Crimea last year. The whole argument hinges on Crimea and its referendum.

        Several Western polling companies have tried to demonstrate that the results of that referendum were were not representative of Crimean wishes, but they all failed: Gallup, Pew Research and GfK all reported confirmation of the referendum result with figures ranging from 83% to 93% approval.

        Crimea seceded from Ukraine and sought reunification with Russia. Whatevere the arguments of 'little green men' facilitating such a process, the facts are clear. This was a Crimean choice.

        So that means that there has not been a single case of Russian expansionism after 1991.
        One mast ask then, what is the justification for making a comment such as, ''Since the regime is fixated on the idea of getting its empire back''?

        Autoclave 14 May 2015 14:37

        Who stands to gain by escalating tensions towards WW3? Only 2 years ago, remember the news stories about NATO's very existence being questioned. Then conveniently we see a Western backed overthrow of Kiev by an unelected fascist neo-nazi government. Would this have happened if Ukraine wasn't on the doorstep of Russia, or they weren't the main channel of Russian natural gas into Europe? No. There's big money to be made by expanding NATO and allowing Western companies to get a foothold in the country and control its resources reminiscent of the Halliburton expansion after the Iraq invasion of 2003. Forget the Cold War rhetoric. Follow the money.

        kraljevic -> ijustwant2say 14 May 2015 14:28

        I don't minimize the critical importance of the battle of Britain and the bravery of those who fought in it. It bought much needed breathing space and hope to millions who were becoming resigned to Nazi dominance.Nobody is suggesting otherwise but even Churchill knew it was a holding action that could only be of real benefit to Britain if another major power entered the war.That power was Russia and if the battle of Britain was a down payment towards final victory the balance of the account was paid for almost entirely by Russian blood and sacrifice!

        nnedjo -> EnviroCapitalist 14 May 2015 14:18

        Actually the $5 billion was over 2 decades. The biggest single item is remedial works at the Chernobyl nuclear power station.

        Two decades, of course, and the "Orange Revolution" took place a decade ago. So after another decade, another 'Maidan revolution. "Besides that, Victoria Nuland did not include Chernobyl at all in those $5 billion. She said that these $5 billion has been invested to "support democracy" in Ukraine.

        John Smith -> alpamysh 14 May 2015 14:15

        Ukropithecus nazi at his best. That is their way, bombing schools, hospitals, they don't know how to fight, that would need some brains.

        Kieran Woods -> bovinescatology 14 May 2015 14:14

        Well said Agnes,

        The US / NATO onward march of sanctions, military intervention, coups, support of evil regimes and general creation of misery continues.
        Too bad that Putin, with practically no military bases outside his own soil, unlike the Washington war monger's hundreds, has proved to be a formidable opponent who will never be a push over or puppet.

        JoeCorr -> PacificPlasticPatch 14 May 2015 14:00

        Ukraine is a sovereign nation deciding its own course,

        Nope. The CIA and Victoria Nuland are deciding Ukraine's course. Another example of America blundering around outside its own borers up to it ass in a culture it doesn't understand.

        The EU have the wealth and political talent to put an end to American interference in European affairs. I wish to fuck they'd start to undo Americas mistakes before it's too late.

        elias_ -> geedeesee 14 May 2015 13:55

        Yes. Now 14 months on where are we? EU confirms no more EU expansion for 10 years. With no prospect of EU membership what was the Maidan really for? Ukraine seems to be screwed now. Their economy is toast, massive inflation, civil war, gas transit fees stopping in a few years, Crimea lost, antagonism with their biggest trading partner, Oligarchs still in charge and still stealing....

        Q: Do you think the Ukrainian people are happy with their new leadership? Do you think they are grateful for all the Nuland cookies?

        kraljevic -> alpamysh 14 May 2015 13:48

        The history books say otherwise. The course of the war was decided in the east and Britain and France were reduced to being largely spectators as their fate was being determined along with everybody else by the tenacity and bravery of the Russian Muzhik bringing the Germans to their knees.

        That's not a very palatable outcome for two powers used to being the cornerstone of the European order and it is natural that they both try to bring down the new/old upstart down a peg or two.

        But still their efforts cannot compare with that of Soviet Russia as the German casualty lists testify! As for the climate the Germans were already suffering setbacks and defeats in 1941(as at Yelnya) on a much greater scale than in the west even before the winter set in!

        nnedjo -> PacificPlasticPatch 14 May 2015 13:44

        Interesting your assumption that any embrace between Ukraine and the West is "illegal".

        It is not "any embrace." When someone invests billions of dollars in "training opposition" of a sovereign nation, then for months supports violent demonstrations against the sovereign president of a sovereign nation, and strictly prohibit the sovereign president to disperse the demonstrators who burn tires and erected tents on the square in the capital, and at the end recognize a government that is not recognized by most of the sovereign nation, then I do not see what's legal in all this.
        Imagine that Russia acted in the same way in relation to Ukraine, or, for example, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, ..., and so on to Hungary, Poland or former Czechoslovakia. Would west just watched it idly, and thought that it was all legal?

        nnedjo 14 May 2015 13:19

        Westerners have for years been giggling at 'Allo 'Allo and John Cleese's goosestep, but fascism is no laughing matter in this country.

        In fact, this whole article reminds me of one of the usual scenes from the series "Alo, Alo":

        Every time Mrs. Edith finds her husband Rene embraced by some of the lovely waitress, he said to her something like: "You stupid woman, don't you see I'm helping Michelle to pull out the speck that fell in her eye!"
        :-)))

        So Western narrative when it comes to Russia, mainly reminiscent of the tactics of the culprit caught in the act, that Rene is abundantly practiced in the series "Alo, Alo".

        Illegal embrace between the West and Ukraine, in the West are generally interpreted as a harmless attempt to "remove the speck from eye", while Russia is behaving like a "too jealous wife" who sees everything as bad intentions.

        Beckow -> Corsair1972 14 May 2015 13:05

        "Putin has shadowy wealth of $70bn and $200bn"

        And you know who else does? Hitler.

        RRRRiiight, I stopped reading at that point. If this is an "understanding" article, we are really done here.

        Beckow -> Slo27 14 May 2015 13:02

        "Supporting protesters and occupying a country whose territorial integrity you are formally guaranteeing just cannot be compared"

        How about "helping to overthrow an elected government in Kiev and allowing for self-determination of a majority in Crimea just cannot be compared".

        See, how flexible words can be?

        But I sense that we are done here, words have been misused so much, that there is no point in all this talk. And I do think that Western media has had a major part in this.


        Dimmus -> alpamysh 14 May 2015 12:47

        "Putin STARTED a war in Ukraine--when every responsible leader in Ukraine was trying to resolve things peacefully..."

        1) The war started when anti-Russian actions started and the first move was made not by Russia;

        2) "when every responsible leader in Ukraine" - about which leaders and about which Ukraine do you speak? About those who started to rule without impeachment of the president and supported killing of pro-federalization people?

        Agnes Maria 14 May 2015 12:40

        The Russian regime is not 'fixated on getting its empire back'. It is focused on developing and sustaining a now rapidly progressing system that has been mercilessly interrupted by the EU and US, in what can only be called an affront against civilised society itself and not some kind of containment strategy against Russia. Russia is not going to capitulate, bend over backwards, surrender or otherwise dishonour itself with begging for leniency. The only major regimes hell-bent on expansionism are those of the USA, EU and NATO, and they do this by any means necessary, as evidenced by their calloused ability to function as the enemies of humanity by infiltrating popular movements worldwide with extremist sentiments of every kind, from Islamic to Christian to White Supremacist to outright neo-Nazi. And they do this not for democracy, but for profit and for kicks, like a spoiled child who just figured out that they can manipulate their environment but does not yet have the capacity to consider or care about the consequences of their actions. Leaving ruin in their wake, the West leaves those with eyes to see and ears to hear no choice but to meet them with distrust. Naturally we will prepare for war, hopefully it will not come to war. Those who do not want to submit to the West and its hysterical propaganda-fuelled, veiled expansionist will not hold out hope for logic and reason to prevail and lead to a sensible solution. Nations being most used as weapons against Russia are most heavily infiltrated with this propaganda, which preys and plays on their unresolved historical pain that has not been met with straight, simple compassion from any side. These nations people, for the most part, know only self-victimisation due to this propaganda and so they are dangerous. However, they are virtual slaves, mental and emotional slaves, and that means they need to be freed from this misconstrued thinking. They cannot get over their pain and move on as long as Russia does not care about them, straight from the heart, and it really is that simple. They also cannot stop fearing Russia and giving NATO an excuse to encroach closer on Russia's borders unless Russia actively creates a new bond with them. There is no other way, and it will not go away if ignored. Those nations will not go their own way after being cut loose, like young people going to start their own lives after leaving home. Action to do something about this needs to be taken now, and not put on the back burner or not taken seriously enough. The future is up to Russia, not the mad West that does not even have a clue who and what they are engaging. They do not understand the spirit of Russians any more than they understand their way of thinking and feeling, and yet they purport to deal with them according to what is allegedly appropriate. It is not appropriate to sanction a well developed society full of modern people who are not about to do your bidding. Everyone has work cut out for them in this case, but only those who are friends of humanity, of all nations, actually care to do it right. And even they have procrastinated too long and can afford to lose no more time.

        [May 14, 2015] Will "Vagina Voters" Devour Democracy by James Bovard

        May 14, 2015 | CounterPunch
        ...Spiked Online editor Brendan O'Neill scoffed at the would-be vagina stampede for Hillary at Reason.com:

        "This embrace of the gender card by Clinton and her cronies, this move from thinking with their heads to voting with their vaginas, is being celebrated as a great leap forward.

        It's nothing of the sort. It merely confirms the speedy and terrifying shrinking of the political sphere in recent years, with the abstract being elbowed aside by the emotional, and the old focus on ideas and values now playing a very quiet second fiddle to an obsession with identity."

        Would a female leader likely be less bellicose than recent male presidents? After the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, Hillary Clinton only resumed talking to her husband when she phoned him and urged him in the strongest terms to begin bombing Serbia; the next day, Bill Clinton announced that the United States had a "moral imperative" to stop Serbia's Milosevic. Counterpunch co-founder Alexander Cockburn observed in 1999 in the Los Angeles Times: "It's scarcely surprising that Hillary would have urged President Clinton to drop cluster bombs on the Serbs to defend 'our way of life.' The first lady is a social engineer. She believes in therapeutic policing and the duty of the state to impose such policing. War is more social engineering, 'fixitry' via high explosive, social therapy via cruise missile… As a tough therapeutic cop, she does not shy away from the most abrupt expression of the therapy: the death penalty." In the Obama administration, Hillary, Samantha Powers, and Susan Rice have been among the biggest warmongers – with an unquenchable thirst to bomb Libya, Syria, and other nations.

        What is the male equivalent of "vagina voters"? Dickheads? On the bright side, maybe one of Hillary's zealots will coin a catchy vagina-oriented version of the "hope and change" campaign promise.

        Perhaps the greatest folly of "vagina voting" is the presumption that a candidate's gender is more important than the fact that they are a politician. Politicians have been renowned for deceit for hundreds of years. Hillary, like most of the Republican males in the race, has a long record of brazen deceit. Politicians as a class conspire against the rights and liberties of citizens. And there is no evidence that certain genitalia immunizes a person against Powerlust.

        James Bovard is the author of Public Policy Hooligan, Attention Deficit Democracy, The Bush Betrayal, Terrorism and Tyranny, and other books. More info at www.jimbovard.com; on Twitter @jimbovard

        [May 14, 2015] Lies, Lies, and The Death of Bin Laden by BINOY KAMPMARK

        May 14, 2015 | CounterPunch

        "For a long time people have stopped trusting what comes out about bin Laden from the official mouths."

        – General Asad Durrani, quoted by Seymour Hersh in London Review of Books, Mar 21, 2015

        Seymour Hersh's article in the London Review of Books was meant to precipitate a harsh intake of breathe, and a range of murmurings from press gallery to blogosphere. The more measured would have been less surprised. While the unmasking by Hersh of the White House account of the Navy Seal operation against Osama bin Laden is welcome, it is fitting to note that little regarding accounts of the man's life, be it his vocation as a terrorist, or his ultimate death, could ever be regarded as credible. All that he seemed to touch turned to myth.

        The cult of mendacity has met the cult of the disingenuous, from the time the "War on terror" was declared to the pornographic violence of Zero Dark Thirty, a sort of haloing of the American effort against unmitigated evil that culminated in that fatal night in Abbottabad. This was Gunsmoke with torture, and it proved just as convincing.

        It was fitting, then, that bin Laden would perish in circumstances he lived in: mystery, deception, an Alice in Wonderland variation of hobbled half-truths and discredited accounts. Alexander Cockburn has called this a "volcano of lies," though it just as aptly might be deemed a factory of dissimulation, reconstruction and fantasy. It was a factory that provided a barely plausible cover story over the Navy Seal mission that would end his life.

        The main feature of the entire operation was that Pakistan's two most senior military leaders – chief of the army staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, and director general of ISI, General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, were kept in the dark about it. Our only conclusion is that the White House lied, and did so with some enthusiasm.

        [May 14, 2015] The Manufactured Myth of Bin Laden's Death by MICHAEL BRENNER

        Seymour Hersh's revelations about the systematic mis-representation by the Obama administration of how it brought Osama bin-Laden to bay are causing a stir. Justifiably so. For they puncture the carefully constructed myth of how America revenged itself and renewed itself through this act of righteous justice. Moreover, the unsavory account of chicanery in high places once again spotlights the deceit that now is the hallmark of how our government works.

        A year or so after the event, I wrote a piece about the CIA sponsored film Zero Dark Thirty which has entrenched a cartoon version of this mythic story in the popular American mind. That commentary lays out some of the logical contradictions and false notes in the official story on which the film is based. I am redistributing it, unedited, in the belief that it could help serve as a primer for following the argument that the Hersh reporting has triggered.

        Let me add a few points.

        • A careful reading of the Hersh account makes it pretty clear that his unnamed CIA source was Bank – the former CIA station chief in Islamabad. It's hard to imagine Bank's interest in making up this story. In addition, the "walk-in" was a story that has been circulating in intelligence circles for 4 years. Indeed, it was recounted to me shortly after the OBL killing by a former very high intelligence officer of impeccable credentials who was informed of it by a principal.
        • Hersh has an excellent record as an investigative reporter – notwithstanding one minor slip-up 25 or 30 years ago. He won a Pulitizer Prize for breaking the My Lai story in Vietnam. He also broke the Abu Ghraib story. There clearly is now an orchestrated attempt to discredit him. People like Peter Bergen are trotted out; this is the CNN so-call security specialist who wrote the popular book on the Seals' OBL mission. He swallowed whole what was fed him by the CIA and the White House and now his reputation turns on defending his witting or unwitting role as the purveyor of pulp fiction. This sounds harsh – but this is the harsh true about a nasty business. - MB

        ... ... ....

        Michael Brenner is a Professor of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh.

        [May 14, 2015]War-Crazed Western Propaganda Machine Rages at Its Growing Insignificance

        russia-insider.com

        Atlantic Alliance media apparatus lashing out like a dying demon at the reality of being successfully confronted by the truth

        This article originally appeared at CounterPunch

        In mid-April, hundreds of U.S. paratroopers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade arrived in western Ukraine to provide training for government troops. The UK had already started its troop-training mission there, sending 75 troops to Kiev in March. [1] On April 14, the Canadian government announced that Canada will send 200 soldiers to Kiev, contributing to a military build-up on Russia's doorstep while a fragile truce is in place in eastern Ukraine.

        The Russian Embassy in Ottawa called the decision "counterproductive and deplorable," stating that the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine have "called for enhanced intra-Ukrainian political dialogue," as agreed upon in the Minsk-2 accords in February, and that it would be "much more reasonable to concentrate on diplomacy…" [2]

        That viewpoint is shared by many, especially in Europe where few are eager for a "hot" war in the region. Nor are most people enamoured of the fact that more billions are being spent on a new arms-race, while "austerity" is preached by the 1 Per Cent.

        But in the Anglo-American corridors of power (also called the Atlantic Alliance), such views are seen to be the result of diabolical propaganda spread through the Internet by Russia's "secret army." On April 15, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by Ed Royce (R-Calif.), held a hearing entitled "Confronting Russia's Weaponization of Information," with Royce claiming that Russian propaganda threatens "to destabilize NATO members, impacting our security commitments." [3]

        The Committee heard from three witnesses: Elizabeth Wahl, former anchor for the news agency Russia Today (RT) who gained her moment of fame by resigning on camera in March 2014; Peter Pomerantsev, Senior Fellow at the Legatum Institute (a right-wing UK think-tank); and Helle C. Dale, Senior Fellow for Public Diplomacy at The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing U.S. think-tank. [4] The Foreign Affairs Committee website contains video clips of the first two witnesses – well worth watching if you enjoy Orwellian rhetoric passionately delivered.

        The day before the hearing, in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Royce wrote,

        "Vladimir Putin has a secret army. It's an army of thousands of 'trolls,' TV anchors and others who work day and night spreading anti-American propaganda on the Internet, airwaves and newspapers throughout Russia and the world. Mr. Putin uses these misinformation warriors to destabilize his neighbors and control parts of Ukraine. This force may be more dangerous than any military, because no artillery can stop their lies from spreading and undermining U.S. security interests in Europe." [5]

        In her formal (printed) submission, Ms. Wahl referred to the Internet's "population of paranoid skeptics" and wrote: "The paranoia extends to believing that Western media is not only complicit, but instrumental in ensuring Western dominance."

        Helle C. Dale warned of "a new kind of propaganda, aimed at sowing doubt about anything having to do with the U.S. and the West, and in a number of countries, unsophisticated audiences are eating it up."

        Peter Pomerantsev claimed that Russia's goal is "to trash the information space with so much disinformation so that a conversation based on actual facts would become impossible." He added, "Throughout Europe conspiracy theories are on the rise and in the US trust in the media has declined. The Kremlin may not always have initiated these phenomena, but it is fanning them…Democracies are singularly ill equipped to deal with this type of warfare. For all of its military might, NATO cannot fight an information war. The openness of democracies, the very quality that is meant to make them more competitive than authoritarian models, becomes a vulnerability."

        Chairman Royce called for "clarifying" the mission of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the U.S. federal agency whose networks include Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa), Radio Free Asia, and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (Radio and TV Marti). [6]

        The BBG is apparently in disarray. According to Helle Dale's submission, on March 4, 2015, Andrew Lack, the newly hired CEO of BBG's International Broadcasting, left the position after only six weeks on the job. On April 7, the Director of Voice of America, David Ensor, announced that he was leaving.

        Andrew Lack was formerly the president of NBC News. As Paul Craig Roberts has recently noted, Lack's first official statement as CEO of the BBG

        "compared RT, Russia Today, the Russian-based news agency, with the Islamic State and Boko Haram. In other words, Mr. Lack brands RT as a terrorist organization. The purpose of Andrew Lack's absurd comparison is to strike fear at RT that the news organization will be expelled from US media markets. Andrew Lack's message to RT is: 'lie for us or we are going to expel you from our air waves.' The British already did this to Iran's Press TV. In the United States the attack on Internet independent media is proceeding on several fronts." [7]

        Ironically, however, it's likely that one of the biggest threats (especially in Europe) to Anglo-American media credibility about Ukraine and other issues is coming from a very old-fashioned medium – a book.

        Udo Ulfkotte's bestseller Bought Journalists has been a sensation in Germany since its publication last autumn. The journalist and former editor of one of Germany's largest newspapers, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, revealed that he was for years secretly on the payroll of the CIA and was spinning the news to favour U.S. interests. Moreover he alleges that some major media are nothing more than propaganda outlets for international think-tanks, intelligence agencies, and corporate high-finance.

        "We're talking about puppets on a string," he says, "journalists who write or say whatever their masters tell them to say or write. If you see how the mainstream media is reporting about the Ukraine conflict and if you know what's really going on, you get the picture. The masters in the background are pushing for war with Russia and western journalists are putting on their helmets." [8]

        In another interview, Ulfkotte said: "The German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia. This is a point of no return, and I am going to stand up and say…it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do, and have done in the past, because they are bribed to betray the people not only in Germany, all over Europe." [9]

        With the credibility of the corporate media tanking, Eric Zuesse recently wrote, "Since Germany is central to the Western Alliance – and especially to the American aristocracy's control over the European Union, over the IMF, over the World Bank, and over NATO – such a turn away from the American Government [narrative] threatens the dominance of America's aristocrats (who control our Government). A breakup of America's [Atlantic] 'Alliance' might be in the offing, if Germans continue to turn away from being just America's richest 'banana republic'." [10]

        No wonder the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on April 15 had such urgent rhetoric, especially from Peter Pomerantsev, Senior Fellow at the Legatum Institute – a London-based international think-tank whose motto is "Prosperity Through Revitalizing Capitalism and Democracy" and whose stated mission is "promoting prosperity through individual liberty, free enterprise and entrepreneurship, character and values."

        At the end of March, Conservative London mayor Boris Johnson (named as a potential successor to David Cameron) helped launch the Legatum Institute's "Vision of Capitalism" speakers' series, whose rallying cry is "It's time for friends of capitalism to fight back." [11] The sponsor of the event was the British Private Equity & Venture Capital Association (BVCA), whose membership comprises "more than 500 influential firms, including over 230 private equity and venture capital houses, as well as institutional investors, professional advisers, service providers and international associations." It is not clear whether the BVCA is also sponsoring the Legatum Institute's "Vision of Capitalism" series.

        The Legatum Institute was founded by billionaire Christopher Chandler's Legatum Ltd. – a private investment firm headquartered in Dubai. According to The Legatum Institute's website, its executives and fellows write for an impressive number of major media outlets, including the Washington Post, Slate, the New York Review of Books, Foreign Policy, New Republic, the Daily Telegraph, The Times, the London Review of Books, the Atlantic, and the Financial Times.

        Nonetheless, the Legatum Institute's Peter Pomeranzev told the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs that "Russia has launched an information war against the West – and we are losing."
        Chairperson Ed Royce noted during the hearing that if certain things are repeated over and over, a "conspiracy theory" takes on momentum and a life of its own.

        Pomeranzev said the Kremlin is "pushing out more conspiracy" and he explained, "What is conspiracy – sort of a linguistic sabotage on the infrastructure of reason. I mean you can't have a reality-based discussion when everything becomes conspiracy. In Russia, the whole discourse is conspiracy. Everything is conspiracy." He added, "Our global order is based on reality-based politics. If that reality base is destroyed, then you can't have international institutions, international dialogue." Lying, he said, "makes a reality-based politics impossible" and he called it "a very insidious trend."

        Apparently, Pomeranzev has forgotten that important October 2004 article by Ron Suskind published in the New York Times Magazine during the second war in Iraq (which, like the first, was based on a widely disseminated lie). Suskind quoted one of George W. Bush's aides (probably Karl Rove): "The aide said that guys like me [journalists, writers, historians] were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality…That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do'." [12]

        It's a rather succinct description of Orwellian spin and secrecy in a media-saturated Empire, where discerning the truth becomes ever more difficult.

        That is why people believe someone like Udo Ulfkotte, who is physically ill, says he has only a few years left to live, and told an interviewer, "I am very fearful of a new war in Europe, and I don't like to have this situation again, because war is never coming from itself, there is always people who push for war, and this is not only politicians, it is journalists too…We have betrayed our readers, just to push for war…I don't want this anymore, I'm fed up with this propaganda. We live in a banana republic and not in a democratic country where we have press freedom…" [13]

        Recently, as Mike Whitney has pointed out in CounterPunch (March 10), Germany's newsmagazine Der Spiegel dared to challenge the fabrications of NATO's top commander in Europe, General Philip Breedlove, for spreading "dangerous propaganda" that is misleading the public about Russian "troop advances" and making "flat-out inaccurate statements" about Russian aggression.

        Whitney asks, "Why this sudden willingness to share the truth? It's because they no longer support Washington's policy, that's why. No one in Europe wants the US to arm and train the Ukrainian army. No wants them to deploy 600 paratroopers to Kiev and increase U.S. logistical support. No one wants further escalation, because no wants a war with Russia. It's that simple." [14] Whitney argued that "the real purpose of the Spiegel piece is to warn Washington that EU leaders will not support a policy of military confrontation with Moscow."

        So now we know the reason for the timing of the April 15 U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, "Confronting Russia's Weaponization of Information." Literally while U.S. paratroopers were en route to Kiev, the hawks in Washington (and London) knew it was time to crank up the rhetoric. The three witnesses were most eager to oblige.

        [May 14, 2015] 'Gekaufte Journalisten' The German Book that will Rock the World

        Agenda Daily News & Lifestyle Blog
        'Bought Journalists'

        The best-selling book which has become hugely popular in Germany and talks of bribery, spies and cover-ups could easily be mistaken for a script from a Bourne movie. According to the book's author, ex-journalist Udo Ulfkotte, journalists can be bought to put a specific twist on news stories and that he was taught "to lie, to betray and not to tell the truth to the public".

        Udo Ulfkotte Bought Journalists

        Udo Ulfkotte, author of the book 'Bought Journalists'.

        During his time working as the editor the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of Germany's largest newspapers, Ulfkotte explains how he was secretly paid by the CIA and the German Secret Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst ) to spin particular news stories in a way that was positive for the United States and bad for its enemies.

        European Media

        For most people this will come as a shock but for German journalists, it's not at all surprising: "I think that people who know nothing about the work of the media in Germany and in Europe as a whole, will be shocked. For those who still believe that our media is free and independent, reading this book will certainly be a shock, because it denies everything, what they believe" says Zuerst Oksenrayeter, chief editor of 'Bought Journalists'.

        jollyroger > B2Bthatsme • 4 months ago

        Most Americans will never read this book, in fact only a few will do so. Those who really need to read this book have other things to consider like who's going to win the Stupor Bowl.
        America's news media is run the same way, in fact the CIA controls anybody of any worth inside the U.S. jews media.

        CNN= CIA News network.

        Hope this is soon available on Amazon.

        MrB2B • 5 months ago

        Absolutely shocking!!! Can't believe this has actually happened/continues to happen within a society that continual brands itself as free, liberal and open. Freespeech? I think not!

        [May 13, 2015] How Russias opposition united to finish Nemtsovs report on Ukraine

        May 13, 2015 | The Guardian


        MaoChengJi -> kolf 13 May 2015 10:37

        note was supported by hundreds of thousands - that is not a coup, but a revolution

        Aside from the fact that in a 40 million people nation 'hundreds of thousands' is very far from a majority, it's the protests that were supported by hundreds of thousands.

        Feb 21 Yanuk signs the agreement with the opposition, negotiated and guaranteed by European politicians. Stipulating early elections, amnesties, rollback of some laws, investigations of the police abuses, etc. It was accepted and signed by the opposition, i.e. those representing these hundreds of thousands you're taking about.

        Had this agreement been implemented, everything would've probably worked out somehow.

        Instead, a few ultra-nationalist militants, a fringe, refuse to accept the agreement. They take over the government. And the opposition politicians play along and become figureheads, puppets. And that's what's been going on there since: militant ultra-nationalist fringe is controlling the regime from the inside, and the US and EU from the outside, supplying them with money, weapons, propaganda, and diplomatic support. What a shame.

        Babeouf 13 May 2015 08:57

        Look Kerry went to see Putin to sell off an unwanted collection of Ukrainian Fascists. Apparently the Fascists had disappointed their US owners. And afterwards the invariable accompaniment of the brush off Kerry phoned Kyiv but didn't stop off on his way home. Today Yats is in Paris and the Choc Soldier is in Germany.

        Their survival now depends on Germany and France. So this sad collection of non entities now have to cut a deal with Putin, on Russia's terms. I 'm not surprised that the US public repudiation of the previous US policy of isolating 'Russia' is not noticed by the Guardian.

        As for the Russian opposition their identification with the 'invader at the Gates' has finished them off for a generation at least.

        entirely pro-government now, apart from one radio station Ekho Moskvy, and one TV station Dozhd

        MaoChengJi -> kolf, 13 May 2015 07:01

        That's precisely NOT entirely. Besides, kommersant is a newspaper, not broadcast media. There are plenty of opposition newspapers. Also, when the government is popular, the media, naturally, reflects that - there's nothing sinister about it. And murdering people is a crime, where they are journalists or not.

        it is rather like the soldiers that have to "resign" before they patriotically "volunteer" in Donbass, when instructed to do so - a mere technicality

        Perhaps. But we don't know that. I understand the suspicion, but not the certainty. Strelkov, in particular, gives the impression of very much anti-government character. A right-wing government opponent. Personally, I see absolutely no reason to believe that he was sent or controlled by the RF government. I'd be surprised.

        The violent takeovers in Donbass were carried out initially by small Russian-sponsored groups, with the support of special forces from Russia, who carried out a range of criminal and paramilitary activity including abduction, intimidation, murders, attacks on Ukrainian military bases, and destroying military Ukrainian aircraft on the ground


        This is a bunch of lies. The protests in Donetsk started the next day after the coup, I saw videos. Gubarev became the 'people's governor'. He was arrested - protests became more violent. I watched videos with old ladies blocking roads to stop the regime's troops carriers.

        was installed by the Rada after the previous president fled

        Oh, god. President fleeing and the majority party decimated (their offices burned) is the definition of a coup d'etat. He didn't resign, he didn't die, and he wasn't even impeached - they tried but they didn't have the votes.

        Can anyone in the right mind and not being disingenuous still insist that it wasn't a coup? I don't think so. So, go ahead, have your last word.

        Dmitry Berezhnov -> Botswana61 13 May 2015 04:06

        RFE is US propaganda bullhorn, of course I believe them in anything they say about Russia.

        MaoChengJi -> kolf 13 May 2015 04:05

        even Russian media acknowledges it

        you appear to be under the impression that Russian media are all pro-government. This completely disproves your statement that you "know the difference between propaganda and journalism". A large portion of the Russian media is rabidly anti-government. If you knew the difference between propaganda and journalism, you would've known it.

        All that "clearly" is just your impression, based on anti-Russian propaganda, on the stories you read and believe. What's clear to you isn't clear to others, if they read different stories. In fact, exactly the opposite can be clear to them. It's important for you to understand that your stories are not at all better than their stories.

        Also, "war started by Russian intelligence officers like Strelkov and Borodai" is all wrong, objectively. Strelkov and Borodai are not Russian intelligence officers. The Kiev regime attacked Donbas, Donbas did not attack Kiev. If Kiev acknowledged the referendum, there would've been no war. The important thing to understand here is that the Kiev regime was NOT at that time - without any doubt - a legitimate government, even if you believe that the current government is legitimate (I don't).

        Kiev had a revolution, and then Donetsk had a revolution. Then Kiev attacked Donetsk. It didn't have to, but it did. Blaming this on Russia is disinformation and a manifestation of russophobia.

        lionarslan Botswana61 13 May 2015 03:45

        Mr. Lavrov never denied that there's Russian citizens in Ukraine. Do you know the difference between soldiers (people who signed obligatory military contract and take a vow to serve their country) and volunteers (people who consciously decided to do something or to go somewhere)? People from Russia, Germany, Spain, Netherlands comes to Donbass to fight for freedom of people of Donbass. They volunteered, no one forced them. And that is what Sergey Lavrov "admitted".

        I read that report, that's really science-ficton. All so-called proofs are quotes without context which someone can understand in more than one way. The text itself is clear anti-Putin propaganda. It was really boring to read that text. It's like watching "Glee" only Glee has wonderful songs and some of actors are really good in their play.

        Russian self-named opposition's report is much more boring and have so much realism as tv-series "Glee".

        lionarslan -> freedomcry 13 May 2015 03:21

        Nationalists in Russia was never decent and sober-minded people. In time of Russian empire they were terrorists, in modern Russia they are still the same. Moreover, if you are sentient being you wouldn't support ideas of nationalists in any possible way. Do you forgot what nationalists did in Germany and then in half of the world in last century?

        Agatha_appears -> freedomcry 13 May 2015 01:53

        it is not opposition. This is a group of people who, like Yashin, have never worked, never done anything useful. They found a job paid by the US State Dep-t. Their responsibility is to play against official Russia according to US scenario. They buy luxurious cars, apartments, go to expensive resorts. Their main audience is the western media. There is a small group of Russia haters inside the country who notice them.

        There are nationalists who oppose the Kremlin. They are radicals. Some of them are in prison. They represent larger part of Russian society than so to say "liberals". Their views are similar to Ukranian nazi who are in power in Kiev. Putin tries to maintain balance and does not let them come to power, speak publicly, because nationalism is infection desease ( see what is going on in Ukraine). And Russian nationalism can be as awful as Ukrainian. It is close to fascism.


        Dmitry Berezhnov -> Tepluken
        13 May 2015 01:05

        Funny enough to see fairytales about Savushkina st. Once I have decided to waste some time and watched a video about a "troll lair", well, small office with like 10-12 people there. Do you really call that a HQ of Evil Russain Propaganda Machine?

        Let's just mention that:

        1. UK officially annouced creation of cybersquad with unmentioned budget for delivering a propaganda.

        2. US spending over 1 bln in 2014 for Russian opposition NGO sponssorship and declaring a war on "Russian propaganda" with it's own propaganda via BBG and state controlled media throughour Europe with gazillion bucks budget.

        3. Ukraine creating a Truth Ministry and Ukranian Information Army with up to this very moment over 40 000! volunteers, not mentioning a full-time staff.

        And we do not know about other countries trolls. In my humble opinion, Savushkina with it's 20 people tops looks very very faintly.

        Colin Robinson 13 May 2015 00:31

        Claims about Russian forces covertly entering the Donbas region, even if true, cannot explain the conflict there.

        It would hardly be possible for Russian tanks to move across the border, without being shot at or even photographed, unless the local population had previously rejected the Kiev régime and removed its border guards.

        This is conflict between two constituencies within Ukraine itself, not between a supposedly united Ukraine and a supposedly ambitious president of Russia.


        normankirk -> Botswana61 12 May 2015 23:36

        What do you mean he's just admitted it, he's never denied it. I would be disgusted if no help had been given to eastern Ukrainian civilians, HRW and Amnesty intern. have both recorded use of illegal weapons against civilians by the Ukrainian army.

        If ever there was a reason for humanitarian intervention you need go no further than protecting unarmed civilians from cluster bombs

        MichaPalkin -> bcnteacher 12 May 2015 23:08

        If they had found the slightest evidence it was indeed rebels' BUK, froth-at the mouth anti-Russian hysteria would have been filling the free press for months now. THE FACT IS THEY CAN'T. And since the Dutch keep remarkably quiet about it, what they v. probably have is the evidence to the contrary. When someone from the investigation tried to make the findings public a few weeks ago - he was immediately silenced and fired. This is called cover-up. It shouldn't be that difficult to tell BUK from air-to-air missile really. So this investigation will either go on into the plus infinity or they'll say some evasive bs, no media outlet would ever mention it and that would be the end of it. Ok?

        BorninUkraine -> Chirographer 12 May 2015 22:46

        There is real opposition in Russia. If I lived there, I'd be one of them. But those are the people who do not sell their country to foreign interests, never touch Western money, and therefore are not promoted by Western media owned by the same interests that purchase third-rate opposition figures in Russia.

        To give you a few examples, Eduard Limonov, Boris Kagarlitsky (who even spent some time in jail in Soviet period), and others like them are opposition, but they are not bought and paid for traitors. That's why they are not rich.

        Unlike Nemtsiov, they cannot afford to pay for the abortion of a whore in Switzerland. You are welcome to ask your supervisor to find out who they are.

        BorninUkraine -> nnedjo 12 May 2015 21:45

        The "government" in Kyiv absolutely needs this alleged Russia aggression.

        How else can they explain that they ran into the ground a reasonably decent country so quickly: from solid third world to total shit in a bit over a year.

        If Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk, and Co acknowledge how much they steal and how incompetent they are, their puppeteers might start looking for better puppets, and that would never do.

        BorninUkraine -> Paul Moore 12 May 2015 21:36

        Oh, yes. Military officials in Sweden have already been looking very hard for a Russian submarine. As soon as they achieved what they wanted, an increase in the military budget, they acknowledged that no submarine ever existed.

        Apparently someone in Finland also wants a bigger military budget. How creative, wouldn't you say?

        Sergey A Gimranov 12 May 2015 21:33

        Good science-fiction report. The highlight of the presentation was "We don't have any actual evidence but we know troops were there". I could not believe they said that. Lame and fake! Shocking discovery from the "book" Russian troops were in Crimea on Russian military bases. Oh my God! Standards are lower and lower with each and every article. Where are the reporters? Why they cannot go there and report it? I guess narrative would change drastically.

        Roodan 12 May 2015 20:57

        But I do agree the government in Kiev does not represent the political will of all of its people and hence the civil war. That there is external support for each side in this war form special forces or otherwise be they NATO or Russian that this is not the cause of the war . I do not my self understand the relevance of the article, it states the obvious. Only a regional settlement between the waring parties will end the war. A ettlement in which all of the aspiration of the people in the Ukrainian, have representation perhaps a federation or Union like the EU .

        I don't think there is any value in supporting one side against the other to impose a system of government with out the support of the people . That is a dictatorship and I don't support dictatorships by any military alliance NATO or Russian federation, they result in perpetual war in which only the powerless suffer.

        Chirographer -> Walter Potocki 12 May 2015 20:55

        You seem to very concerned about who paid for the report. Why? That doesn't address the content of the report at all.

        And wouldn't there be more money and a lot safer life for this Yashin character if he'd published a book supporting the government's narrative?

        Walter Potocki 12 May 2015 20:18

        there were never CIA operatives in Ukraine, it is not true that Maiden was a western agencies. Just few masked people gathered on the square with clubs and firearms to have a fun

        Walter Potocki 12 May 2015 20:13

        Hi Tom, did you ask Russian opposition how much this report cost? You did not have to ask who paid, the same sponsored paid for your piece. Nice propaganda.

        nnedjo -> nnedjo 12 May 2015 19:21

        And to add one more thing. If I'd lived in the southeast of Ukraine and if my government would abolish my salary, and, on the other hand, if I would have known that soldiers receive 90,000 rubles per month, that would be an extra motivation for me to join the rebel army. So, in that case there would be no need at all for the arrival of troops from Russia, because the Ukrainian government itself supports the recruitment in the Donbas, in a way that stopped the economic support to the region.

        nnedjo -> Solongmariane 12 May 2015 19:11

        It is ridiculous to speculate about it at all, because it is clear that Russia pays not only all the fighters in the southeast of Ukraine, but also all other citizens. Because how else they would survive, considering that the Ukrainian government has abolished them all salaries and pensions, and closed all the banks, and prevent the use of payment cards.

        Thus, considering that the Ukrainian government itself agreed that someone else should pay these people, or more precisely, that Russia should pay them, then why do they complain about it now?

        ID5868758 12 May 2015 18:26

        You know, we're supposed to buy this narrative that Nemtsov was a credible political threat to Putin. But I remember seeing a video of a Russian TV station catching Nemtsov sneaking out of the side door of the American embassy in Moscow, and he was not a happy camper when he was caught.

        Now, reverse that, and imagine an American politician being caught sneaking out of the side door of the Russian embassy in DC. How much credibility do you suppose that politician would have left with the American public?

        Russians aren't really that different from Americans after all, and Nemtsov was no threat to Putin at all.

        Puttepoju -> Kaiama 12 May 2015 18:06

        Dear Kaiama.

        Russian journalists are clever and wise. They are better than the entire US satellite system. They have "common sense".I like Russia and Russians --- but what I like most -- is to be honest. My best greetings. Puttepoju

        Falloe7 12 May 2015 18:00

        more PROPAGANDA and the media of the West naturally believes it -because they want to believe it if you are in opposition in anything you will make up stories about your opponent just like this past Election there was enough Lies by the parties about each other hoping the voters will believe it (and they did) and the same about Russia. the papers are well known for printing Lies or make up stories

        Kaiama 12 May 2015 17:44

        So how come 10 Russian journalist claim to find something that the entire US satellite system can't find? It comes as no surprise that Russian volunteers have been killed in Ukraine fighting alongside their relatives.

        What is more telling is the 100,000+ Kiev draft evaders and 800,000+ displaced citizens - all in Russia (defected to the enemy? or simply more astute than their government in Kiev?

        Solongmariane 12 May 2015 17:38

        Some bizarre figures, I find ;
        a) 53 bln Rubles is just around 1 Bln $. Isn't ? Not so much money, for a war with 40.000-50.000 fighters.
        b) If the average of wages of 60.000 - 90.000 rubles is correct, It is around an army of 1.500 soldiers during 10 months.
        Are my calculations correct ? Please, check it !

        BorninUkraine -> bcnteacher 12 May 2015 17:32

        I don't have anything except my brains, but that's enough to have a pretty prestigious job in the US.

        Russia apparently has a lot to make self-appointed masters of the Universe in the US hysterical, and their European poodles even more so. Not to mention small-change commenters here paid very little (to match pathetic quality of their comments).
        The three things that immediately come to mind regarding Russia are nukes, natural resources, and fighting spirit. Each of these would be enough to scare the opponents. For example, the opposition in Iraq and Afghanistan only has fighting spirit, and this was sufficient to make NATO retreat with its tail between its legs. Or, in 1940 France had an army at least as strong as Hitler's, but due to lack of fighting spirit it disgracefully surrendered in no time.

        So, I can only express my sincerest condolences to the servants of humiliatingly hysterical masters.

        nnedjo -> Metronome151 12 May 2015 17:22

        Perhaps you are confused with suspicious arrest and detention of a female Ukranian pilot and Estonian security officer by the FSB. Must be he effect of those drugs you refer to.

        Actually, in the event that you mentions use of the drug is excluded because the pilot Savchenko was very defiant during the examination before the cameras, which is why she has acquired the status of a national hero in Ukraine, and in the absence she is elected to parliament.

        It is also interesting that the example of the pilot Savchenko is the first proven case of "a soldier on leave," who fought on the Ukrainian front. Because it is known that she left the regular Ukrainian army to join the volunteer battalion Aidar. So I do not see what is the problem that Russian troops also take leave and go to help the brothers in Ukraine.

        However, Ms. Savchenko has one big problem. If she had been released from the Russian prison now, she would not have anywhere to return because her Aidar battalion was disbanded by the Ukrainian authorities.

        Kiev Claims Is Disbanding Notorious Aidar Volunteer Battalion

        KIEV, March 2, (TASS) - Ukraine's Defense Ministry is disbanding an armed militia group blamed for abuse during recent months of regional conflict, said to be out of control and with a splinter faction planning unrest in the capital...
        The move follows the arrest of former Aidar battalion fighters said by Luhansk regional administration head Gennady Moskal to be preparing transfer of weapons from the Ukraine's restive Donbas region in a bid to promote social upheaval in Kiev.

        "Part of this unit long ago defected from Aidar and was engaged in looting, robbery, racketeering, auto theft and other crimes in regions controlled by the Ukrainian side," Moskal's website said.

        Moskal added that an attempt had been prevented to take an arsenal of weapons from the area of combat operations in Donbas to Kiev. The arms were meant for "destabilizing the situation" in the capital.

        Babeouf 12 May 2015 17:11

        So the opposition united to produce a monster /blockbuster report ,you say , well when there is a report I shall force myself to read it to see what evidence it actually contains. I seen no evidence open source or otherwise just assertions based on claims made by person or persons unknown. This battle over Russian troops is itself a proxy war between the supporters of the US and the rest of the world.

        MichaPalkin -> alpamysh 12 May 2015 17:09

        What's truly outstanding is how lame you are and inept Kiev regime is. And quit blubbering gibberish. It simply kills me how low RFE standards sunk. You're trained very badly, klopets.

        nnedjo -> alpamysh 12 May 2015 16:28

        Gosh, you seem to have a lot of them--and you said all we had to do was just watch ONE
        I am talking here about a group of 10 soldiers who were captured by the Ukrainian Security Service last year.

        Yes, there are several of these videos, and from each of them, it is clear that the soldiers recite a prepared text directly into the camera.

        VladimirM -> SoloLoMejor 12 May 2015 16:28

        He is not, I think. But I did, actually, it is in Russian on the Dozhd website. I had an impression of reading some of the articles here in the Guardian but in Russian. Or even some posters, which is weird. The report is incoherent, includes many topics, just one chapter is about the Russian troops in Donbas. You may read anything here in the Guardian to get some idea of what the report is like. The article "Invisible army…" will do, I think. In my view, the report is utter rubbish and does not live up to expectations.

        nnedjo 12 May 2015 15:56

        As I saw in another article this report mentions the examination of Russian soldiers caught in Ukraine. We all remember this event in the summer of last year. Internet was flooded with videos with "examination" of Russian "prisoners of war" who were actually recited a prepared text that was placed somewhere in front of them and behind the camera. I think it was clear to everyone at the first viewing of the video.

        As an example, look at examination of the imprisoned soldier Alexei Generalov. This guy almost three minutes talking without interruption and without pauses, with a view strictly focused at one point, probably in some text that he reads somewhere on the left side of the camera. In one moment the examiner asks him something, and he looked at him, then to the right side of the camera.

        A particular problem is the fact that these soldiers were arrested somewhere near the border under very suspicious circumstances. According to the official Ukrainian version, that the soldiers also recited in the camera, they were caught about twenty kilometers inside the Ukrainian territory. However, it is very possible that they were in fact kidnapped by Ukrainian special forces on the Russian side of the border.
        You can say that this is my very bold assumption. But, one can easily notice that during examination these soldiers were very disoriented. I would not be surprised if this is the result of a drug that has been deliberately given to captives in order to weaken their will, but I still stand by my first assumption that they were kidnapped.
        For example, another captured soldier to the question of where he is, he replies: "I am now located in Ukraine, the city of Ukraine."

        Thus, it is clear that this soldier has no idea what his exact location, and that he is completely disoriented, although they examined him in a tent (ie in a tent in the "city of Ukraine"), which should be somewhere near the scene of his capture. Here you can watch, from 0:59 onwards of this video:

        Interrogation of Russian Soldier #3 Captured in Ukraine on August 25. English.

        henrihenri 12 May 2015 15:45

        `And he will NEVER risk an open confrontation with the West`.

        Oh, this is the main mistake. The Western politician think that Putin doesn`t attack Ukraine because he`s afraid of the NATO, West, etc. No, he doesn`t. He just grants the West with a good chanceopportunity to go home without shame. Why to fight Ukraine if it sooner or later crawls back? It will, it will due to many objective reasons. No, Putin won`t send troops there until Ukrainians ask him. Russia does not need any war.

        normankirk -> alpamysh 12 May 2015 15:45

        Poroshenko still wants the Donetsk airport. Why are they breaking the ceasefire to try and get it back off the anti-govt fighters?

        Madness to throw so many lives away

        Noes Vencia -> alpamysh 12 May 2015 15:41

        So 140 were given compensation to keep silence and 70 were not?!

        1) Given compensation to keep silence will work in a couple of instance, never in dozens!

        2) For sure it will never work, if then you don't give compensation to others.

        3) Lets do some math; if Ukraine have 200,000 troops of which some 2500 died, at that rate if there are 210 dead Russian soldiers send by Moscow, that means Russia has send 16,800 troops! Trust me, you cannot send 1000 soldiers anywhere without being highly noticeable, the logistics are immense! Let alone 17000!.

        4) What percentage does Kiev says of Russian troops are combating against? Because looking at the media seems that all are Russians. if so, that is a slap on the face to their own army that they cannot win an "army" of 12 times less soldiers with the same weaponry capabilities. If, however Russians are a small portion of the Revels, why 100% of focus on Russians so?

        Again, I do believe Russia has personnel in there, but limited to advising and intelligence gathering. I highly doubt there are troops fighting because 1st, they don't need it (enough supply with the residents) and 2nd it would not have got better outcomes for their own safety or economy.

        I feel sad that Ukrainians felt for antagonizing their biggest trading partner for the dream of UE. EU will not accept Ukraine in decades, enough we have with bankrupt tiny Greece, let alone 10 times bigger corrupted Ukraine. Nor will the French farmers will be happy with Ukrainian ones. Ukraine should had approached EU while maintained trade with Russia and assuring Russia that no NATO membership. That is what Finland choose even though of past severe confrontations with Russia; that pragmatism made of it a prosperous country.

        [May 12, 2015] GOP antics may lead to a 'de-Americanized world'

        10/15/13 | MSNBC

        When there's a global economic crisis, investors from around the world have spent the last several generations doing one thing: they buy U.S. treasuries. The reasoning, of course, is that there is no safer investment, anywhere on the planet, than the United States of America – which has the strongest and largest economy on the planet, and which always pays its bills.

        All of these assumptions, of course, were cultivated over generations, and pre-date the radicalization of the Republican Party.

        But what happens when U.S. treasuries are no longer considered safe, Americans can no longer be counted on to pay its bills, and the nation's most powerful economy chooses to default on purpose? The world starts reevaluating old assumptions, that's what.

        In Britain, Jon Cunliffe, who will become deputy governor of the Bank of England next month, told members of Parliament that banks should be developing contingency plans to deal with an American default if one happens.

        And Chinese leaders called on a "befuddled world to start considering building a de-Americanized world." In a commentary on Sunday, the state-run Chinese news agency Xinhua blamed "cyclical stagnation in Washington" for leaving the dollar-based assets of many nations in jeopardy. It said the "international community is highly agonized."

        I know I've been pushing this thesis in recent weeks, but it's important to remember the unique role the United States plays in global leadership and the extent to which Republican antics in Congress will change the dynamic that's been stable for the better part of the last century.

        No major western power has defaulted since Hitler's Germany, so this week may add some history to the potentially catastrophic economic consequences, and the world is watching closely.

        Indeed, try to imagine explaining this ongoing crisis to a foreign observer who doesn't fully appreciate the nuances of domestic politics. "Yes, we have the largest economy on the planet. Yes, we want to maintain global credibility. Yes, the process of extending our borrowing authority is incredibly easy and could be completed in about 10 minutes. No, some members of our legislative branch have decided they no longer want the United States to honor its obligations and pay for the things they've already bought."

        I suspect global observers would find this truly inexplicable. As it happens, I'd agree with them.

        Ezra Klein added yesterday that to the rest of the world, "the United States looks insane right now."

        They're dealing with real problems that their political systems are struggling to solve. The United States' political system is creating fake problems that it may choose to leave unsolved.

        "The United States was the one bright spot in the world recovery," says OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria. "It was leading the recovery! Leading the creation of jobs! This unfortunate situation with the budget and debt happens at the moment it was looking good." […]

        At best, the United States is slowing its recovery – and that of the rest of the world. At worst, it's going to trigger another global crisis. That's why, Gurria says, his concern isn't that the United States' economy is weak, but that its political system is.

        It's heartbreaking that so much of the world is now laughing at us, not because we have crises we can't solve, but because members of one party – the one that lost the most recent national elections – insist on manufacturing new crises to advance their unpopular agenda.

        To reiterate what we discussed last week, there's a global competition underway for power and influence in the 21st century. Americans have rivals who are playing for keeps. We can either be at the top of our game or we can watch others catch up.

        And it's against this backdrop that House Speaker John Boehner and his Republican colleagues shut down the government, threaten default, fight tooth and nail to strip Americans of their health care benefits, and keep spending levels so low we're kicking children out of Head Start centers while our global competitors invest heavily in education.

        It's as if some have a vision in which we no longer lead and we aim for second place on purpose.

        Great nations can't function the way we're struggling to function now. The United States can either be a 21st-century superpower or it can tolerate Republicans abandoning the governing process and subjecting Americans to a series of self-imposed extortion crises.

        It cannot do both.

        China is talking about "a de-Americanized world." It's time for Republicans to decide whether they intend to help them.

        [May 12, 2015] Merkel-Ferkel yesterday in the Kremlin

        Quote: Thanks for the hour of duelling histories. Made me realise what a great agitprop resource history is for those who would like to "shape" current narratives.
        You have the white-hat / bad-hat lust for an – ideally, ego-stroking – answer multiplied by the my-eyes-glaze-over factor. Result: maximum impact.
        Best, this can all be deployed while seeming judicious and balanced to those not checking "facts-not-mentioned."
        Moscow Exile , May 11, 2015 at 3:02 am

        Merkel-Ferkel yesterday in the Kremlin:

        I have arrived in Moscow today during a difficult situation for German-Russian relations. It was important for me, together with President Putin, on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the end of world war II to honour those who died. I have laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and thus I want to say to the Russian people, that I, as German Chancellor, kneel in front of the millions of victims of a war that was unleashed by Nazi Germany. We shall be constantly aware of the fact that the share of the peoples of the former Soviet Union and Red Army soldiers accounted for the majority of casualties in that war. I remind you that the war in the East was carried out as a brutal race war and a war of extermination, and that it brought untold suffering to millions of people.

        The occasion of the 70th anniversary of the end WWII is on August 15, 2015.

        The occasion of the 70th anniversary of the end of the German-Soviet War was on the day before her arrival in Moscow.

        She could not be in Moscow on 9 May because she had been told not to attend the celebrations.

        Putin should have said to his "partner": Fick dich, Arschloch!
        :-(

        Tim Owen says:

        May 11, 2015 at 3:49 am

        Stalin offered in 1939 to send 1 mln troops to stop Hitler if Britain, France agreed to anti-Nazi pact; they refused http://t.co/46cwbt0x7y

        - exiledonline.com (@exiledonline) May 10, 2015

        "Papers which were kept secret for almost 70 years show that the Soviet Union proposed sending a powerful military force in an effort to entice Britain and France into an anti-Nazi alliance.

        Such an agreement could have changed the course of 20th century history, preventing Hitler's pact with Stalin which gave him free rein to go to war with Germany's other neighbours."

        Pavlo Svolochenko, May 11, 2015 at 4:01 am

        A forlorn hope, since the Ango-French idea of an alliance was that the USSR would do the fighting while the western allies made sympathetic noises and gathered up the spoils afterward.

        Tim Owen, May 11, 2015 at 5:16 am

        Get a load of this: The Body Language of a Liar http://t.co/mtHCnFCNu3

        - Joel Harding (@Joel_Harding) May 11, 2015

        Erika, May 11, 2015 at 6:47 am

        What countries signed treaties with Hitler but they only tell you about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? #Victory70 … Héctor A. on Twitter What countries signed treaties with Hitler but they only tell you about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

        - Héctor A. (@GrinchEtor) May 6, 2015

        marknesop, May 11, 2015 at 9:59 am

        That's a pretty good rundown. A handy list to keep for reference.

        Tim Owen, May 11, 2015 at 9:55 pm

        "Sympathetic noises" is a great phrase. An emotional gesture without any underlying meaning or commitment. It therefore also has a charge of implied violence to it.

        I admire your cynicism.

        Warren, May 11, 2015 at 5:20 am

        Listen to Michael Parenti's lecture on the real causes of WW2:

        http://noliesradio.org/archives/32286

        Warren, May 11, 2015 at 7:56 am

        If you want the official Western version on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact listen to this:

        As Putin defends the Nazi-Soviet pact, here's our podcast interview on "The Devils' Alliance" http://t.co/EesRFkuQQr Matt Lewis on Twitter As Putin defends the Nazi-Soviet pact, here's our podcast interview on The Devils' Alliance http--t. (pic.twitter.com/Q32RMOfl4I)

        - Matt Lewis (@mattklewis) May 11, 2015

        cartman , May 11, 2015 at 9:28 am

        I see the UK is on the list above, making a "Devils' Alliance"

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_potato_(game)

        Moscow Exile, May 11, 2015 at 9:49 am

        The UK made that Naval Treaty with Nazi Germany behind of France's back. The Frogs were none too pleased at the time.

        Max, May 11, 2015 at 3:41 pm

        prima facia nonsense because Stalingrad.

        Tim Owen, May 11, 2015 at 9:46 pm

        Thanks for the hour of duelling histories. Made me realise what a great agitprop resource history is for those who would like to "shape" current narratives.

        You have the white-hat / bad-hat lust for an – ideally, ego-stroking – answer multiplied by the my-eyes-glaze-over factor. Result: maximum impact.

        Best, this can all be deployed while seeming judicious and balanced to those not checking "facts-not-mentioned."

        Warren, May 11, 2015 at 7:49 am

        Neocon Writer Anne Applebaum Covers up the Role West Played in Looting Russia http://t.co/6ekZbQFkdm #ColdWar pic.twitter.com/V4akXBUeIE

        - Russia Insider (@RussiaInsider) May 11, 2015

        astabada, May 11, 2015 at 8:46 pm

        Has an American or British political dissident, opposed to the policies of his own government, ever won a Nobel Prize?

        I don't know whether you can consider Pintor a political dissident. However he certainly did not approve the policies of his own government, as clearly stated in his beautiful Nobel Prize lecture.

        The trick there was the usual one, namely not to silence dissent but to drown it in noise.

        marknesop , May 11, 2015 at 9:46 pm

        Great find; I had never heard of Harold Pinter – shows what an uncultured Philistine I am. The lecture is indeed a thing of beauty, and one paragraph of it may be perfect for my next post, which is in the works. Thanks!!

        [May 12, 2015] Kerry set to meet Putin in first visit to Russia since start of Ukraine crisis

        The problem that West and first of all the USA and Germany face now is that Ukraine is another Greece. To keep it afloat financially requires tremendous and continues investment. 40 billions from IMF is only a start. Economic ties with Russia are destroyed. And without tens of billions of annual aid that means death sentence. Allowing it to fail with shake Western financial system and we do not know how many derivatives were written on Ukrainian debt and who holds them.
        .
        Looks like MentalToo was on duty for this article with support of usual gang. There was even some backlash against "Hillary bots", specifically against alphamysh.
        May 12, 2015 | The Guardian

        Beckow -> StrategicVoice213 11 May 2015 22:26

        By paying a price I clearly meant the very expensive support for Ukraine that EU has to provide, about 40 billion so far. The Ukraine's economy is down about 14% from just three years ago - this is going to get very, very expensive.

        If you want to compare Russia's and EU's losses due to sanctions, they have been very substantial for both. EU has so far lost about 10 billion in exports and in the long run it is not clear who will end up losing more. Russia's GNP will drop by 3% after years of high growth (more than double in 10 years). EU has been largely stagnant and many countries there are still below where they were in '09 (Italy, Spain, ...).

        Finally, militarily all that matters is who has local superiority. Russia has it in eastern Ukraine. You can squirm, hallucinate, cry all you want, there is no f...ing way that Nato can defeat Russia there.

        They know it, thus the coming deal.

        Dannycraig007 -> MentalToo 11 May 2015 21:34

        You would prefer I use the corrupt and obviously biased mainstream Western media as sources I assume, rather than first person video accounts from the victims themselves? Award winning war correspondent and Guardian journalist John Pilger has a few words for you. http://www.discussionist.com/101459708 This is a must watch video about how the Western media operate from a man who was once a part of the establishment here at the Guardian.

        Standupwoman -> Captain_Underpants 11 May 2015 17:08

        Yep. I think my own Pollyanna moment is already beginning to seep away.

        But the stakes are so high! NATO's revival of the 'hotline' has unilaterally put us back on a Cold War footing, and at a time when the Doomsday clock is already set at 3 minutes to midnight. Putin has shown incredible restraint so far, but if the provocations don't stop then I'm genuinely worried about what might happen.

        Bosula -> samanthajsutton 11 May 2015 20:43

        Neither side is very open about what support it provides.

        Russia says openly it doesn't stop volunteers from Russia, often family, cross the border to fight with the East Ukrainians. They are also probably supplying weapons, but we don't really know. And no Russian troops have been captured despite the huge battles. To capture a Russian soldier in a fighting zone would be worth gold in terms of PR value.

        The Eastern Ukrainian are having difficulties training all their volunteers (just too many) with a million refugees, many based in camps in Russia, providing a fertile source of volunteers. The West provides no humanitarian help - a short sighted strategic decision, maybe?

        The US and their allies are also pretty secret about what support they provide - best estimates are around 1,500 advisers, trainers - and 'volunteers' fighting alongside privately funded far right militias and the Ukrainian army.

        The US are not really in a position to take the self- righteous moral high ground in a civil war tens of thousands of kilometres from their home.

        nnedjo -> MentalToo 11 May 2015 20:17

        What little influence US has on events in Ukraine is irrelevant.

        Because of this "little influence" the whole Ukrainian government has become irrelevant. You know, the fact that you do not see the strings that move their limbs does not mean that they are not puppets on the strings. And that guys from Washington hold the ends of the strings, that's probably clear to everyone after the cookies of Victoria Nuland. Or Toria, as poster Dipset called her.:-)))

        Funny guy that Dipset, wonder why he is not here yet.

        Standupwoman 11 May 2015 20:09

        'Although the 300 US trainers are operating in the west of the country'

        Are we really sure of this? Yes, Kiev has predictably denied Russian claims that American troops have been spotted in the Donbass, but the odd thing is that several pro-Kiev supporters have uploaded this footage of American training under the following description:

        In Severodonetsk, Luhansk region instructors from Georgia, Israel and the US carried out military exercises with the soldiers of the special units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine

        Luhansk is in the ATO region - and Severodonetsk is very, very near to the front line.

        geedeesee -> MentalToo 11 May 2015 20:05

        Irrelevant ...?

        Just the CIA advisers, military trainers, $billions of dollars, political cover, a propaganda machine.

        geedeesee -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:59

        Not proper interviews, are they? Just clips of sentences without knowing the question that is being answered. They wrap narrative around the comment. Not one of those nine soldiers admits to fighting in Ukraine, and the claim of written evidence from NGOs is negated towards the end of the article with the caveat that 'Ukraine' wasn't actually mentioned in the NGO's documentary evidence.

        You're easily duped by propaganda.

        Standupwoman -> ID5868758 11 May 2015 19:50

        Understood. If governments had to actually fight the wars they started, the world would be a very different place...


        Dannycraig007 -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:35

        If your still doubtful about what the Kiev regime do to people who post unflattering information online, I present to you them demonstrating firsthand what happens when people step out of line. Graphic warning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXnNDbJ7r0k&feature=youtu.be

        geedeesee -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:31

        "What about the guys in military uniforms with weapons, mortars, mines, grenades, anti-tank weapons..."

        What about them? They're defending themselves - the self-defence activists - after the Kiev regime sent tanks and aircraft to attack the protesters in what they called an Anti-Terror Operation as this example shows (see all four videos)..

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27035196


        Dannycraig007 -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:30

        Your question answers itself, in that the Kiev Regime have been tracking down people who post videos on the internet and in social media that criticize the regime, hence the lack of video out of Slavyansk now.

        Watch this Ukrainian parliamentarian call for the genocide of Ukrainians of ethnic Russian origin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNQ2CVz2Cyk

        Of course, there's also this tidbit from last summer.

        http://slavyangrad.org/2014/08/14/residents-of-slavyansk-have-disappeared-the-town-is-being-re-populated-with-migrants-from-western-ukraine/

        The Residents of Slavyansk have disappeared; the town is being re-populated with migrants from Western Ukraine.
        POSTED BY S. NAYLOR ⋅ AUGUST 14, 2014 ⋅ 27 COMMENTS
        In Slavyansk, occupied by Ukrainian troops, the local residents have practically disappeared. The town is being inundated with migrants speaking in a foreign dialect, who take over the housing of those who left to escape the Ukrainian bombing campaign.

        This is reported by one of very few residents of Slavyansk who, trusting Ukrainian official propaganda, made the decision to return to his native city. The picture that he saw is terrifying. He realized that the information about residents of Slavyansk returning home is nothing but a vile lie.

        "Please, heed our plea! The people have disappeared from Slavyansk!

        "I am a native of Slavyansk, residing here already for twenty-seven years. Or better to say 'I was residing', having left the town three months ago, when it was becoming dangerous to stay. During this time I found refuge with relatives in Odessa. I made a decision to return when all the Ukrainian media started saying that everything in Slavyansk was back to normal, that over sixty percent of residents have come back.

        "In the three months of my absence my apartment remained untouched by shells from the junta's bombardment or by its marauding thugs. I had already started to unpack when I heard the sound of my neighbour's doors opening across the hallway. I thought it must have been my neighbour, Sergey Ivanovich, but then I saw a young man unknown to me. To my question about his identity he replied that he was Sergey Ivanovich's son.


        geedeesee -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:27

        Here's an example:

        Slaviansk: 10 self-defense activists and some 30 unarmed civilians killed

        http://rt.com/news/156584-right-sector-deaths-ukraine/

        Notice in the video some places look pretty deserted.


        nnedjo -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:25

        ... in Slavyansk since it was liberated by Ukrainian forces...
        You mean, liberated like Odessa:
        Occupation of Russian Hero-City Odessa 2014-2015 | Eng Subs
        ,or liberated like Kharkiv
        Kharkiv Welcomes May: Army Patrols, BTRs, Machine guns, etc

        And, speaking of Slavyansk , it is also interesting. In "liberated" Slavyansk it seems that nobody believes "liberators".

        Slavyansk residents trust Putin and not Poroshenko - Ukraine Hromadske TV March 2015


        Bosula -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:10

        Can you tell us how many people have been killed in Slayvansk?

        Dannycraig007 -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:06

        Here's another video for you that proves the Kiev regime are Nazis as it shows them marching through Kiev in uniform holding the Waffen SS Wolfsangel flag and was filmed by Poroshenkos very own Chanel 5 TV outlet.

        The rest of the hour and a half long video is a bloodbath showing them killing hundreds of innocent civilians. Get back to me after you've cleaned your conscience.

        Ukraine Crisis: Death and destruction continues in Eastern Ukraine / [ENG SUB]
        http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b10_1417842060#e1hSYTkJlw3TQgXs.99


        mlubiank -> ID5868758 11 May 2015 19:06

        Is Reuters good enough for you or is that all lies?
        http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/10/us-ukraine-crisis-soldiers-specialreport-idUSKBN0NV06Q20150510


        Dannycraig007 11 May 2015 18:57

        Investors, such as Franklin Templeton and George Soros' Foundation, who planned to make blood money and placed their bets off of the inside information right before the coup back in November 2013, have a combined $7 billion at stake in Ukraine.

        The IMF is trying to convince them to take a haircut on the massive amount and get put on the back burner for the time being, but Russia put it's $3 billion loan in strict terms back in 2012 and has payback priority.

        Those human flesh eating Western sharks want their money. This makes those 1%ers and their IMF vassals very upset as they didn't actually expect to lose money......they thought they were gonna double their billions with the rape of Ukraine. Now it's hard earned.


        Standupwoman ID5868758 11 May 2015 18:41

        I completely understand that. It's a very sensitive subject, and must be far more so for those with personal experience.

        Part of the problem is the difference between what we knew then and what we know now. At the time, as you say, we all thought My-Lai was a 'one-off' by a few bad apples, but now so much material has been declassified a very different picture has emerged.

        BUT there's still a world of difference between 'a lot' and 'all', and we must never allow those war crimes to taint the reputation of the good soldiers, or to belittle what they endured. It is indeed wrong to apply excessively broad brush-strokes, and I want to apologize to you personally, because I think in my post I was guilty of doing just that.


        SoloLoMejor -> geedeesee 11 May 2015 18:40

        Yep all good points and there's definitely some push back from Merkel and Hollande. I just don't think the US can relinquish control of our military or monetary systems as would happen if Europe developed independently and naturally became close to European Russia. This is a superpower making sure that it stays a superpower. That said, this is Europe & Russia, not the under developed middle East so they may not get it all their own way but 6000 lives so far is tolerable collateral damage for them


        Beckow -> Alderbaran 11 May 2015 18:37

        There are 1,000 American, British, Polish and Canadian troops in Ukraine. Officially. Plus endless civilian advisors, agents, private security companies, etc...

        Maybe Russians have more people there, but it is after all on their border.

        "given control of Ukraine's border back to Ukraine, in contravention of the Minsk II agreement"

        No. The Minsk II specifically says that the border will be returned to Kiev control AFTER the Donbass area gets autonomy. Where is the "autonomy"? You can't cherry-pick from an agreement.

        If Nato steps over the line in Ukraine, as they are about to do, the nuclear option will be on the table. It is absolutely horrible, but that's where we are heading. Try to get your head out of your behind to understand what is going on there - it is playing with a huge fire on the border of a nuclear power that said they will not allow Nato missiles 400 km from Moscow. You want to test them?


        nnedjo -> Tattyana 11 May 2015 18:32

        I believe there is no need in any meetings for any further escalation as well.
        That's right, Tattyana, that's exactly what I said. My only criticism was related to Miss Marie Harf, who apparently recited a prepared statement, which aims only to reduce the importance of the visit of John Kerry to Russia.
        By the way, a true pleasure for me is to watch the exchange of opinions between US spokeswoman Marie Harf and her favorite "reporter", Matt Lee, at the State Department press conferences.
        https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Marie+Harf+Matt+Lee

        Standupwoman -> geedeesee 11 May 2015 18:23

        Yes, that all makes good sense - but I still think personal integrity can have an (admittedly tiny) role to play. Carter is a case in point.

        I'm even (don't laugh!) inclined to extend that to Obama. Yes, he's technically responsible for this mess, and he must have supported Nuland and Pyatt in the original coup, but I still think things would be very much worse if either Biden or HRC had been at the helm.

        Obama (like Putin) has hawks screaming at him for being weak, but the fact he's holding out suggests there's a little shred of integrity still there.

        It's not much, but it's all we've got. Sometimes it feels as if the whole world is screaming for war, and in the centre is this little patch of stillness where two men are holding firm against the madness. If anything happens to either Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin then I think we really are sunk.

        geedeesee -> SoloLoMejor 11 May 2015 18:22

        Yes, there clearly is a strategic plan being played out, though I don't think it has gone to plan for the Americans. The release of the Nuland/Hyatt phone call obviously came from Russian intelligence, which was an embarrassment for US. I suspect this is all a prelude to the coming clash for stakes in Arctic oil. There are a number of competing nations but US probably wants to minimise Russian access.

        However, there is a lot of strain within the EU at the moment, and we know the views of EU leaders were disregarded by Nuland last year ("Fvck the EU").

        It's possible the whole thing has gone far enough for EU leaders (see link below to comments identifying reasons) and they're pushing back on US behind the scenes to cool it down now.

        See the original post by Beckow and replies. Link direct to individual comment number:

        http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/11/john-kerry-meet-russian-foreign-minister-talks--ukraine-syria-yemen#comment-51974992


        nnedjo 11 May 2015 18:04

        Although the 300 US trainers are operating in the west of the country, well away from the conflict zone, Russia has questioned their purpose.

        So I do not see how it could be otherwise. Had the US sent their "trainers" in the conflict zone in the east of Ukraine, it is possible that in that case Russia would not complain at all.

        In that case, Russia would also send their "trainers" who would soon be found "in the west of the country [Ukraine], well away from the conflict zone".:-)))


        normankirk -> MaoChengJi 11 May 2015 18:04

        and the German gold still locked up in US vaults


        Popeyes 11 May 2015 17:53

        Once again on Saturday Putin completely outclassed the West, and the decision by Western leaders to stay away in the end showed their total irrelevance.

        Closer ties between China and Russia is Washington's worst nightmare, and a very different new World Order is emerging from the rubble of the post-Cold War period. Today Russia proposed that Greece become the 6th member of a new Development Bank set up by the BRINCS, and with some European leaders desperate to end sanctions things are not going as planned for the empire.


        Dannycraig007 -> Bradtweeters 11 May 2015 17:52

        Oh, I'm an 'authentic' Guardian reader alright. i'm on my 20th account after being constantly banned this past year for posting the truth about Ukraine. And when they bane me again I'll be right back. True Brits don't give up so easily.


        ID5868758 -> Dannycraig007 11 May 2015 17:51

        Well, it's printed in English only, given away free in places like the Metro and coffee houses, so it's not like it's the Russian equivalent of the New York Times, to begin with. My son says it's read mostly by ex-pats in Russia, tourists, that kind of audience, it's certainly not anything that Russians read on a regular basis.

        ID5868758 -> salthouse 11 May 2015 17:45

        Good grief, what fiction. Vladimir Putin's only problem is that he is not Boris Yeltsin, opening the door to the international banks and the multinational corporations to continue their rape of the assets and resources of the Russian people. He is slowly but surely returning Russia to Russians. Contrast that to Ukraine, going in the opposite direction, with the privatization of the assets and resources of the people just beginning, and the predators like Monsanto, Cargill, Chevron, banging at the gate.

        normankirk -> salthouse 11 May 2015 17:44

        Oh I know! its his nature! He can't help it! And vindictively, at home, he's raised the standard of living and life expectancy! the bastard, only a lunatic would do so.And when he walks among the people he's forcing them ... at gunpoint!.... to put on forced smiles you can tell by looking. he.s a maniac! getting Assad to give up his chemical stores! crazy!


        Kaiama -> BMWAlbert 11 May 2015 17:43

        There was some indication that the ships could not be sold without the explicit permission of the Russians - probably because they provided the middle part of the hull and if they were feeling bad have the right to ask for it to be cut out and given back to them.


        nnedjo 11 May 2015 17:42

        "This trip is part of our ongoing effort to maintain direct lines of communication with senior Russian officials and to ensure US views are clearly conveyed," state department spokeswoman Marie Harf said in a written statement.

        I do not see what it was unclear so far in the views of the State Department at the Ukrainian crisis. I mean, if John Kerry is going to Sochi to repeat the usual accusations against Russia, which US officials have said so far, then there's really no need for him to go to Russia only because of this, nor Putin is interested to hear it one more time.
        Thus, rather it will be some other reason behind this visit, about which we can now only guess. And none of us is so naive to believe that the Ukrainian crisis can be resolved without direct negotiations between the United States and Russia. So, either to make a deal, or to enter a further escalation of the military conflict.
        I am inclined to believe that the latter, less predictable solution, is not in anyone's interest.


        Kaiama -> Metronome151 11 May 2015 17:41

        Maybe, but if the US did cut Russia off of SWIFT for instance, the Russians have already said that they would regard it as a declaration of "war". The US might start it but the Russians will definitely finish it.


        MichaPalkin -> salthouse 11 May 2015 17:40

        It finally happened: A REAL nutjob.

        Now why don't you put your money where you mouth is, you pos and go join the fight against Putin yourself um?.. See? Told ya.


        geedeesee -> Standupwoman 11 May 2015 17:31

        On the glimmer of hope, I think you maybe right, though its early days. History books on 20th century show that when there's been a stand-off for sometime an intermediary, or unofficial envoy, is often sent to explore the basis for talks. And the history books also show confidence-building measures are used, such as making an announcement via the media acknowledging part of the grievance of the other side which can use for domestic purposes.

        This happened with the IRA talks, for example, both in 1970s and 1990s. Last week Jimmy Carter visited Putin in Moscow, not on its own remarkable, but what suggested this wasn't an initiative of his own volition was the interview he gave to Voice of America (official US Gov. channel) immediately after the meeting in Moscow - indicating they'd travelled with him.

        The narrative is for the press and the accompanying 45 second video of Carter saying all the right things for the Russians can be used by Russian TV/media in news reports.

        Narrative:
        http://www.voanews.com/content/carter-pleased-with-russia-embrace-of-minsk-agreement/2743389.html

        45 second Carter video:
        http://www.voanews.com/media/video/2743506.html

        You'll be disappointed if you look for integrity with the players at this level, because it doesn't exist. They have their plans and self-interests; integrity doesn't come into it.


        Dannycraig007 -> dmitryfrommoscow 11 May 2015 17:30

        The Moscow Times is actually operated out of Scandinavia and their readership has been dropping due to the obvious anti-Russian propaganda.


        ID5868758 -> Standupwoman 11 May 2015 17:27

        Well, My-Lai was, of course, just a horrific example of evil behavior on the part of a few of our troops, but Kerry came home and, without personal knowledge, painted the entire military with the same broad brush, made up stories, and just so disgraced himself with this nation that he would never have won a Senate seat if he had not run in Massachusetts.

        I still to this day cannot listen to him speak for more than a few minutes at a time, his betrayal of the men who were fighting and dying in the hellhole that was Vietnam will stay with me forever.


        dmitryfrommoscow -> Havingalavrov 11 May 2015 17:26

        The Moscow Times is one of those pro-Washington mouthpieces which, according to the claims by Putin's critics, have been ruthlessly wiped out of the scene.


        SoloLoMejor 11 May 2015 17:15

        I saw the Merkel Putin press conference in full. Merkel fully acknowledged and apologised for the horrors inflicted on the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany, and quite rightly.

        When asked specifically about what she still blamed Russia for with respect to Minsk she became a lot less clear and rambling and very non specific. I couldn't make out what her beef was although I really wanted to know.

        She's going to need some very clear reasons to reinstate EU sanctions on Russia and the phrase Shaun Walker regurgitates in virtually every piece he writes, "mounting evidence" of Russian involvement (but without producing any) won't be enough this time round.


        MichaPalkin -> alpamysh 11 May 2015 17:15

        l though I find your comments stupid, and what is absolutely amazing is that guests such as you have had zero effect on anything.

        Some fascist parties did once praise you and still do, ahem, "purely for the funding you was willing to give". Some grammar problems here eh.

        But this has had no effect on nothing, or the policy of the EU in general.

        One does not even see you loonies demonstrating in the street, shouting "hail" to Poro & Co."

        Poro's only real "western" base of support comes from RFE and probably Guardian. Even Americans begin having their reservations now.

        Period

        Indeed, we may well have all your clownish incompetence to thank for your highly unsuccessful trolling.

        OK, klopets?


        John Smith -> Alderbaran 11 May 2015 17:06

        You can forget about Crimea.

        Nothing will come out from this talks because the US will not let off their 'great prize'
        as the NED head called it. Unfortunately for Ukrainians.

        ID5868758 -> Standupwoman 11 May 2015 16:31

        Standupwoman, I rarely disagree with you, but as an American who lived through Vietnam as the wife of a Marine Corps officer, and the sister of a brother in country as a cryptologist, may I just tell you that John Kerry's actions in front of Congress were not seen by most as heroic at all, not borne of courage and integrity, especially since he had spent only a very short time in country, and had awarded himself 2 or 3 purple hearts, but strangely enough, has no scars of those wounds remaining today. He lied, it was a performance that caused much of America to shun him even today, and that's the truth.

        Igor1980 -> GoodOldBoy1967 11 May 2015 16:29

        I am in Sochi now, a navy ship is patrolling the area of the Residence and many police cars can be seen. It is not surprising . I was surprised by the number of cars with Ukrainian license plates. The hosts say that many Ukrainian citizens moved to the area on the coast with their money.


        Standupwoman -> cabaret1993 11 May 2015 16:22

        I agree. If this were HRC rather than Kerry I'd think we were doomed. Do you remember her hilariously rabble-rousing claim that Putin had no soul - 'He's KGB, it's a given!' - and Putin's dry response? That woman ought never to have been allowed within a hundred miles of foreign affairs, and if she ever becomes President then it'll be time to start stocking up on the potassium iodide...


        Igor1980 -> Beckow 11 May 2015 16:12

        Great and sober analysis. The reality is harsh for both parties and very painful for the USA: the people in the West are not ready to die for the cause of the American dominance.

        It is easy to hate Putin, it is difficult to sacrifice your lives in a war to punish Russia for a little border change in the most unpleasant part of Eastern Europe.


        MaoChengJi -> DogsLivesMatter 11 May 2015 16:11

        state department spokeswoman Marie Harf said in a written statement

        That's just standard bs. What do you expect them to say.


        Standupwoman 11 May 2015 16:06

        Maybe I'm having a Pollyanna moment, but I wonder if there isn't just the littlest, tiniest glimmer of hope in this. The fact the US is prepared to talk to Russia on its own ground is definitely a step in the right direction, and the fact it's John Kerry is even better.

        Because Kerry was once an honest man. Back in 1971 he testified to Congress about American war crimes in Vietnam, and showed the kind of courage and integrity it's almost impossible to mention in the same sentence as 'politician'. He talked openly about the everyday reality of rapes, torture, desecration of the dead, and killing civilians for fun – the American toolbox we're all familiar with in Afghanistan and Iraq, but which in 1971 was genuinely shocking news. Nationalists hated him, but I think he showed genuine American patriotism when he explained: 'We feel that because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it - not the Reds, not redcoats, but the crimes which we're committing are what threaten it – and we have to speak out.'

        OK, he's a politician now, and his words have frequently been used against him to show the hypocrisy of his support for America's current wars, but deep down he's still in some way the same man he was then. He and Lavrov certainly used to have a good relationship until he made that unbelievably stupid remark about Russians 'lying to his face'.

        That kind of populist rudeness plays well with the 'Murica, F*ck yeah!' mob, but grown-up countries tend to choose a calmer, more courteous approach when it comes to negotiations which could lead to the threat of nuclear war. Kerry will need to apologize for that (even if only in private) if he hopes to get in the same room as President Putin.

        But maybe he will. Maybe he'll even confound the words of that Psaki-Manqué Harf and actually listen as well as talk. If he does, and if there's any integrity left in him, then maybe, just maybe, there'll really be a chance of peace.


        PlatonKuzin -> oleteo 11 May 2015 16:03

        The Ukies think that the US and EU do them gifts for granted. And they were very suprised as they knew that, for example, in Poland, an organization named "Restitution of Kresy" was established that in the nearest future will expropriate, from Ukraine, the property belonging to the Poles.

        And more than 100,000 such Poles are now ready to start proceedings to return their property from there.


        Dannycraig007 -> PlatonKuzin 11 May 2015 15:57

        Agreed on the 50,000. I am just citing the US/MSM 'official' number. I have been keeping up with the real numbers also. Petri Krohn has done a great job establishing a proper count of the dead form various events and battles. The majority of those 50,000 dead are Ukrainian conscripts and Kievs Baghdad Bob intentionally played the numbers way down in order to not have to pay dead soldiers families and hide the truth of the war, which the US and EU media simply parroted with no investigation whatsoever. Here's a link to the numbers:

        http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Ukraine_war_casualties

        His site is an amazing geo-political resource. Lots of really interesting MH-17 material there too. http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Special:AllPages


        greatwhitehunter -> MentalToo 11 May 2015 15:55

        The US could have prevented all this by keeping there nose out of Ukraine . In the words of Obama we brokered the change of government in Ukraine.

        Now their are 6000 plus people dead . east of Ukraine destroyed, Crimea gone never to return.

        Only the US could imagine you could get away with this.\


        Beckow -> Alderbaran 11 May 2015 15:54

        Hmmm...don't fool yourself, he meant the Maidan crowd in Kiev. The problem Kiev government has is that as economy gets worse, the large cities like Kharkov, Odessa, etc... will become ungovernable. Except through brute force.

        How do you "join EU" if you have to be suppressing large portion of your population? I am sure EU would love to look the other way, but the cognitive dissonance might get too much, with YouTube, refugees, etc...


        Captain_Underpants 11 May 2015 15:52

        Kerry will offer to swap Ukraine for Assad's head + no S300 missiles to Iran + sanction relief.

        Putin and Lavrov will tell Kerry to stick the offer where the sun don't shine and then it's back to square one.

        Obumbler won't be involved, he's too busy on the golf course, watching the NBA playoffs, and making hollow speeches filled with platitudes about race issues and police violence.

        Meanwhile back in the increasingly irrelevant Euroweenie land, the NSA-compromised Frau Merckel has a desk and a phone and will do as told by her masters

        Dannycraig007 -> DIPSET 11 May 2015 15:47

        I'd still like to see what those US spy satellites saw the day MH-17 was shot down. They first said they had proof Russia did it, then they went quiet, then they relied on social media BS, then they said they had a drunk Ukrainian that made a confession that the rebel put on Ukrainain uniforms, then they stayed quiet. All the while they had ships in the Black Sea monitoring that airspace and they had AWACS flying over Europe.

        They obviously know what really happened but they have chosen no to show that 'evidence'....there can only be one reason.......because it implicates the Kiev regime...and thereby....themselves.


        geedeesee -> MentalToo 11 May 2015 15:42

        "...the army of Ukraine is not at war with "protesters"."

        Yes they are, they called it an Anti-Terror Operation and not war against an army. The facts are against you. Hard luck. ;-)


        Dannycraig007 -> MaoChengJi 11 May 2015 15:40

        Many people have no idea that Merkels father was in the Hitler youth. Sad but true fact. Hence, maybe that partly explains her allegiance to Ukraine.

        Horst Kasner
        Biography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Kasner
        Kasner was born as Horst Kaźmierczak in 1926, the son of a policeman in the Pankow suburb of Berlin, where he was brought up. His father Ludwig Kaźmierczak (born 1896 in Posen, German Empire) - died 1959 in Berlin) was born out of wedlock to Anna Kazmierczak and Ludwik Wojciechowski.[1] Ludwig was mobilised into the German army in 1915 and sent to France, where he was taken prisoner of war and joined the Polish Haller's Army fighting on the side of Entente.[2] Together with the army he returned to Poland to fight in Polish-Ukrainian war and Polish-Soviet war.[3] After Posen had become part of Poland, Ludwig moved with his wife in 1923 to Berlin, where he served as a policeman, and changed his family name to Kasner in 1930.

        Little is known about Horst Kasner's wartime service, and he was held as a prisoner of war at the age of 19. During his high school years he was a member of the Hitler Youth, with the last service position of a troop leader.[citation needed] From 1948 he studied theology, first in Heidelberg then in Hamburg. He married Herlind Jentzsch, an English and Latin teacher, born on 8 July 1928 in Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) as the daughter of Danzig politician Willi Jentzsch, and their daughter Angela was born in 1954.

        PlatonKuzin -> Kaiama 11 May 2015 15:38

        There is another side of this medal: Novorussia said that, if Ukraine violates the ceasefire one more time, the Army of Novorussia will make no stops any longer and will free Kiev.


        Beckow -> MichaPalkin 11 May 2015 15:35

        Threats are simply a part of making deals. When one threatens, there is an implicit understanding of what the alternatives are. It is how countries negotiate.

        Look at it from Russia's point of view: they prefer to deal with useless twats. Putin has been smart to keep all his threats, options and deals to himself. He speaks very diplomatically and applies pressure on the ground. There is a Russian saying: "let the punishment tell" - that's what Russia is doing and it drives the likes of Kerry crazy.

        Unless US escalates into a nuclear confrontation, Russia has the upper hand in the long run. That was obvious from the beginning. So the question is why did Peace Price Winner do this? Why did he start? Is he and people around him that stupid or that desperate? I hope, it is just stupidity.

        "Poro & Co would be applying for the political asylum in the US" - that's going to happen anyway, but I think Canada will take the bulk of them...


        Beckow -> Alderbaran 11 May 2015 15:24

        Let's be clear: Kerry is flying in with a proposal to review with Lavrov. If Russia accepts, Kerry will meet Putin. If not, we will know that sh..t is about to escalate - on both sides.

        Regarding "military involvement": both sides are heavily militarily involved with arms, training, "advisors" of all kinds, intelligence, logistics. And both sides downplay it ("lie", if you prefer). Why is that even an issue? Or "news"?

        It is infantile to discuss it. In a war there is always "military involvement". And this is a war, has been for about a year, this is the way wars are fought now (see Syria, Libya, etc...).

        And yes, of course Putin can change weather. Anyone with enough nukes can.


        BMWAlbert 11 May 2015 15:15

        Looks like India's participation in the Moscow parade is also paralleled by the cutting of 80% of the French fighter order (remembering that the govt. in New Delhi stated several months ago that its confidence in France as a supplier would be related to its vulnerability to political pressuring vis a vis the RU ships that will end-up being scrapped or bought by by a third party, and it might be that said party, if also participating in said parade, might sell in turn to RU for a 'cut'). IDK if this is related, big new orders from India for SU's:

        https://www.ibcworldnews.com/2015/04/20/why-the-brahmos-armed-sukhoi-is-bad-news-for-indias-enemies/

        These cannot be made in Russia, in any event, as Russia is entirely isolated.


        Dannycraig007 11 May 2015 15:09

        The US has really hurt itself with the WW2 remembrance ceremony snub. Russia won't be soon forgetting what the US has been doing in Ukraine and Europe either. After all the 7,000 people killed by the Kiev regime that came to power through the US backed coup were all ethnic Russian Ukrainian civilians. So many lives could have been saved if only the US would have allowed federalization of the obviously ethnically diverse regions of the country.

        For those that missed it, here's link to the amazing WW2 Red Square commemoration concert. It truly was a sight to behold.

        Absolutely Stunning! The Entire Russian "Road To Victory" Concert Spectacle -2015 Epic Masterpiece Rivals Olympic Ceremonies
        Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9c1_1431271822#esjFeSXyZqIlzoY8.99


        SonnyTuckson 11 May 2015 14:15

        Turn Ukraine into a federation. Of a rich pro western part that is member of the EU and a poor pro Russian part that is member of the Eurasian Union.

        In ten years time the East Ukrainians will have had enough of their Russian propaganda-ridden life without a decent standard of living. We will then have another Euromaidan, but this time in Donbass.

        History always discloses propaganda lies. In the end the people of Donbass will understand they have been used by Russia for its geopolitical games. And chose for a prosperous future in Europe as well.


        Beckow -> geedeesee 11 May 2015 14:14

        Yes, there are huge problems.

        But if US accepts a de facto defeat in Ukraine, they are done in many other places too. My guess is that they will try to weasel out of it by offering a deal to Russia:

        - US backs down, Kiev goes back in the box (over time), things quiet down, BUT no victory speeches or remarks by Russia. US has to be able to maintain that they "won".

        It is a disease for insecure people. They fear being seen as losers more than anything else. Thus we might still see the fire-works if Russia refuses to oblige.


        vr13vr 11 May 2015 14:09

        "Unfairly blaming Russia for the crisis in Ukraine, which was actually in the main provoked by the US itself, Obama's administration in 2014 went down the road of ruining bilateral links, announced a policy of 'isolating' our country on the international stage, and demanded support for its confrontational steps from the countries that traditionally follow Washington."

        Why does the press want us feel so amazed about this quote? What part of it isn't true?

        1. US did and does blame Russia for crisis in Ukraine.
        2. US did provoke the crisis.
        3. US did go down the road of ruining bilateral links.
        4. It did announced a policy of "isolation."
        5. And it did demand support for its steps from other countries in Europe.

        Putin actually appears to be a straight talker.


        vr13vr -> caliento 11 May 2015 14:05

        "The first question asked should be... "

        Kerry doesn't get to ask questions as if he were running a deposition. He can talk politely and be nice. Outside of the US police TV show and court drama, nobody in the world allows anyone to speak like this, especially in the diplomatic talks with Russia.


        vr13vr 11 May 2015 14:03

        "Russia believes that the US is meddling in Ukraine..."

        No, it's not just Russia believes. It is a fact. And everyone knows it, not just Russia.


        geedeesee -> Beckow 11 May 2015 13:46

        Add to your list:

        EU unity under considerable strain. Divisive issues on it's plate include Greece and Grexit, UK referendum and possible Brexit, UK Human rights exit, unresolved Eurozone crisis, migrant quotas, all made worse by further US spying revelations and German betrayal of EU businesses to the benefit of US companies.

        Putin now supporting/funding anti-EU parties in Europe.

        MH17 report and voice recorder info, clearly delayed for political reasons, is due this summer.

        Obama administration needs cooperation at UNSC on Iran nuclear deal.

        Putin supplying arms to Iran is giving Obama more problems from Netanyahu.

        If Obama has plans for a last attempt at cracking Israel/palestine then he'll need as much international support as he can muster.

        Russia opening spying and military bases in Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua.


        BunglyPete 11 May 2015 13:46

        Russia has engaged in a rather remarkable period of the most overt and extensive propaganda exercise that I've seen since the very height of the cold war,

        That suggests that it is equivalent to the RFE/RL campaigns of the Cold War.

        The reports they produced in 1984 relating to showing the Ukrainian nationalists in a good light were described by Richard Pipes as "blatant anti-semitic propaganda". Not my words, the words of Richard Pipes.

        These same reports are reprinted today in the Guardian and if you disagree you are a "Putin propagandist". Even though Richard Pipes agrees that it is distasteful propaganda.

        Other activities involved sending millions of balloons across eastern Europe, campaigns in the US to ask for "Truth Dollars" to fund said balloon campaigns, leaflets pretending to come from a fictional resistance organisation intended to militarise citizens against their governments, and much much more. There are many books and articles on the subject.

        Senator Royce said in May 2014, in an instruction to Victoria Nuland at a senate subcommitee hearing, he wants them "producing the stuff they did years ago". Indeed they granted more money than they did during the cold war to BBG campaigns.

        In comparison to the rather pathetic RT, the US campaigns are far more serious in scope and effects.


        madeiranlotuseater 11 May 2015 13:27

        and to ensure US views are clearly conveyed," state department spokeswoman Marie Harf said in a written statement

        In other words, do as the USA says or we shall continue to hound you.

        "Russia has engaged in a rather remarkable period of the most overt and extensive propaganda exercise that I've seen since the very height of the cold war," Kerry said in February. "And they have been persisting in their misrepresentations, lies, whatever you want to call them, about their activities to my face, to the face of others, on many different occasions."

        There speaks the nation that admits to being involved in forcing regime changes all over the world since 1947. To arm twisting and invading Iraq on the basis of a known lie. If Mr Kerry believes he has been lied to he should present his evidence. We can all relax then. But he doesn't. He says to trust him to tell the truth. Why should we. The USA is a massive war machine intent on ruling the world. China and Russia are not interested in being bullied.


        Beckow -> deathbydemocracy 11 May 2015 12:53

        I see that even indirect criticism of the media coverage is not allowed. Interesting, but somehow understandable.


        DIPSET 11 May 2015 12:31

        First when they thought they thought they were "winning" they did not want to talk and instead, instructed their media to do the talking for them.

        Okay.

        Then reality happened hahaha

        As a consequence, we now have all sorts of chatter coming out of Washington and the urgent need to talk to Russia. So now it's......

        Let's "talk" about East Ukraine
        Let's "talk about Iraq
        Let's "talk" about Syria
        Let's "talk" about Yemen
        Let's "talk about Iran
        Lets "talk" about Latin America

        Funny how seeing China and Russia stand next to each other has sharpened some minds across the Atlantic.

        Pity they could not "talk" before Crimea was 'liberated' right in front of the American satellites circling in space lol

        ;-)

        Fascinating times


        Ilja NB 11 May 2015 12:28

        Which mounting evidence ??? I haven't seen a single one provided ?

        **The Russian foreign ministry said: "We continue to underline that we are ready for cooperation with the US on the basis of equality, non-interference in internal affairs, and that Russian interests are taken into account without attempting to exert pressure on us."**

        Of-course USA will never agree with it, since USA wants to put it's nose in everyone's affairs.


        BMWAlbert -> BunglyPete 11 May 2015 11:55

        Mr. Semenchenko is clearly referring to Greater Ukraine here that extends east into the Kuban, including some buffer areas around the mount Elbrus region (intruded upon on this 2008 occasion) to the south, and north to the Middle Don and Upper Donets basins, to include Beograd and steppe lands east of Voronezh.

        Beckow -> miceonparade 11 May 2015 11:40

        Kerry is going to make a deal. Probably surrender after one more chest-beating threat. If Putin doesn't meet him (also possible), we will have a very hot summer in Ukraine. And maybe elsewhere.

        Beckow 11 May 2015 11:34

        Kerry is going for a reason, and it is not to restate US views. The reality is:

        • - Ukraine cannot win the war in its east
        • - Ukraine is going bankrupt
        • - EU has just basically said no to Ukraine in EU for foreseeable future (decades?)
        • - EU denied visa-free access for Ukrainians
        • - the whole f...ing adventure in Kiev is getting really, really expensive
        • - time is on Russia's side, they can sit and watch Kiev collapse or West spending billions to prop it up
        • - EU cannot currently survive without Russia's gas. Russia has deals with China and Turkey, in 3 years EU will be screwed or pay a lot, lot more

        These realities on the ground drive US crazy. They don't like to deal with reality, it is too hard. They prefer the fantasy play world where US is god-like, others are scared and geography, resources and other realities are wished away. Infantile. Stupid. Self-defeating. Russia is actually doing US a favor by bringing them back to the real word.

        I feel sorry for the Ukrainians; they will suffer for years enormously. They rebelled against a miserable life, were used by a few hustlers from Washington, Berlin and a few Polish ultra-nationalists, now they will pay for it all. Those are the wages of naivete...

        emb27516 miceonparade 11 May 2015 11:32

        Yes, especially if they wrestle.

        BunglyPete 11 May 2015 11:32

        "Mr Putin, look at these images provided to our Senator Inhofe, from Mr Semenchenko of Ukraine's official government designation to Washington.

        As you can see, these images from Georgia in 2008 clearly show you invaded Ukraine last year. We feel these images prove the invasion so strongly, Senator Inhofe wrote a bill authorising arms to Ukraine, and we passed this quite easily.

        What, Mr Putin, will you do about this? If you continue to send tanks to Georgia in 2008 then we will assume you have no interest in fulfilling the terms of Minsk accord and will enact necessary measures to ensure the stability of Ukraine."

        alsojusticeseeker Jeremn 11 May 2015 11:27

        "He may be a son of a b..., but he is our son of a b...". Just another typical example of US hypocrisy.

        BMWAlbert 11 May 2015 11:25

        If only his brain were as big as his hair (obviously, not the bald one).

        warehouse_guy 11 May 2015 11:25

        "Western leaders mainly boycotted the parade in protest at Russia's actions in Ukraine."

        Aka people's will in Crimea, and Russian people's will to help Donbass, they are not exactly hiding it there are donation kiosks all over the country almost in every major city. Not on government level though. There are no on duty Russian troops in Ukraine.

        RudolphS 11 May 2015 11:24

        So, Barry is too chickenshit to go to Russia himself?

        Jeremn 11 May 2015 11:19

        Americans should be asking why their government is supporting a Ukrainian governmnet which honours veterans of an insurgency which massacred Poles, Jews and Russians across Ukraine in 1943 and 1944.

        Here they are, members of the UPA-OUN. Rehabilitated by Poroshenko's governmnet. It was an organisation which formed the Nachtigall Battalion, in German service, and tasked with clearing the Lvov ghetto, and which took men from SS auxiliaries (Schutzmannschaft Battalion 201), which cleared Belarus of partisans and Jews.

        Most notoriously, the UPA ran a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Poles in Ukraine, killing some 100,000 of them (mostly women and children).

        So there are the veterans, in Ukraine's parliament. Here's a history of one of their massacres.

        America, you should know.

        Steve Ennever 11 May 2015 11:15

        "The US has placed several rounds of sanctions on Russia over its actions in Ukraine"

        It has indeed. And badgered Europe into sanctioning Russia further. All of which has affected the US little but has been an immense pain economically for it's "allies."
        Strangely though, in 2014, business between the US & Russia actually increased by 7%.

        Honestly, you get taken for a ride as recently as Iraq & Libya & you still don't learn a thing.

        StatusFoe11 May 2015 11:08

        "This trip is part of our ongoing effort to maintain direct lines of communication with senior Russian officials and to ensure US views are clearly conveyed,"

        i.e. "If you don't do what we say and submit to our will there'll be more costs."

        warehouse_guy 11 May 2015 11:00

        "While Washington has pointed to mounting evidence of Russian military involvement in the east of the country."

        Yet unable to provide any concrete evidence for over a year...

        [May 11, 2015] Why Ukraine Still Cant Break Ties With Russian Aggressor State by Simon Shuster

        Already Ukraine is approaching that point. With most of its scarce resources focused on fighting Russia's proxies in the east, Ukraine's leaders have watched their economy fall off a cliff, surviving only by the grace of massive loans from Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund, which approved another $17.5 billion last month to be disbursed over the next four years. But that assistance has not stopped the national currency of Ukraine from losing two-thirds of its value since last winter. In the last three months of 2014, the size of the economy contracted almost 15%, inflation shot up to 40%, and unemployment approached double digits.
        Notable quotes:
        "... "Personally, I do not consider Russia to be an aggressor," he said, looking down at his lap. ..."
        "... Its economy cannot survive, he says, unless trade and cooperation with the "aggressor state" continue, regardless how much Russia has done in the past year to sow conflict in Ukraine. ..."
        "... Already Ukraine is approaching that point. With most of its scarce resources focused on fighting Russia's proxies in the east, Ukraine's leaders have watched their economy fall off a cliff, surviving only by the grace of massive loans from Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund, which approved another $17.5 billion last month to be disbursed over the next four years. But that assistance has not stopped the national currency of Ukraine from losing two-thirds of its value since last winter. In the last three months of 2014, the size of the economy contracted almost 15%, inflation shot up to 40%, and unemployment approached double digits. ..."
        "... About 40% of its orders normally come from Russia, which relies on Turboatom for most of the turbines that run its nuclear power stations. ..."
        "... So for all the aid coming from the state-backed institutions in the U.S. and Europe, Cherkassky says, "those markets haven't exactly met us with open arms." ..."
        Apr 13, 2015 | TIME

        Having survived an assassin's bullet, a revolution and a war, Gennady Kernes now faces a fight over Ukraine's constitution

        One afternoon in late February, Gennady Kernes, the mayor of Kharkov, Ukraine's second largest city, pushed his wheelchair away from the podium at city hall and, with a wince of discomfort, allowed his bodyguards to help him off the stage. The day's session of the city council had lasted several hours, and the mayor's pain medication had begun to wear off. It was clear from the grimace on his face how much he still hurt from the sniper's bullet that nearly killed him last spring. But he collected himself, adjusted his tie and rolled down the aisle to the back of the hall, where the press was waiting to grill him.

        "Gennady Adolfovich," one of the local journalists began, politely addressing the mayor by his name and patronymic. "Do you consider Russia to be an aggressor?" He had seen this loaded question coming. The previous month, Ukraine's parliament had unanimously voted to declare Russia an "aggressor state," moving the two nations closer to a formal state of war after nearly a year of armed conflict. Kernes, long known as a shrewd political survivor, was among the only prominent officials in Ukraine to oppose this decision, even though he knew he could be branded a traitor for it. "Personally, I do not consider Russia to be an aggressor," he said, looking down at his lap.

        It was a sign of his allegiance in the new phase of Ukraine's war. Since February, when a fragile ceasefire began to take hold, the question of the country's survival has turned to a debate over its reconstitution. Under the conditions of the truce, Russia has demanded that Ukraine embrace "federalization," a sweeping set of constitutional reforms that would take power away from the capital and redistribute it to the regions. Ukraine now has to decide how to meet this demand without letting its eastern provinces fall deeper into Russia's grasp.

        The state council charged with making this decision convened for the first time on April 6, and President Petro Poroshenko gave it strict instructions. Some autonomy would have to be granted to the regions, he said, but Russia's idea of federalization was a red line he wouldn't cross. "It is like an infection, a biological weapon, which is being imposed on Ukraine from abroad," the President said. "Its bacteria are trying to infect Ukraine and destroy our unity."

        Kernes sees it differently. His city of 1.4 million people is a sprawling industrial powerhouse, a traditional center of trade and culture whose suburbs touch the Russian border. Its economy cannot survive, he says, unless trade and cooperation with the "aggressor state" continue, regardless how much Russia has done in the past year to sow conflict in Ukraine.

        "That's how the Soviet Union built things," Kernes explains in his office at the mayoralty, which is decorated with an odd collection of gifts and trinkets, such as a stuffed lion, a robotic-looking sculpture of a scorpion, and a statuette of Kernes in the guise of Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union. "That's how our factories were set up back in the day," he continues. "It's a fact of life. And what will we do if Russia, our main customer, stops buying?" To answer his own question, he uses an old provincialism: "It'll be cat soup for all of us then," he said.

        Already Ukraine is approaching that point. With most of its scarce resources focused on fighting Russia's proxies in the east, Ukraine's leaders have watched their economy fall off a cliff, surviving only by the grace of massive loans from Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund, which approved another $17.5 billion last month to be disbursed over the next four years. But that assistance has not stopped the national currency of Ukraine from losing two-thirds of its value since last winter. In the last three months of 2014, the size of the economy contracted almost 15%, inflation shot up to 40%, and unemployment approached double digits.

        But that pain will be just the beginning, says Kernes, unless Ukraine allows its eastern regions to develop economic ties with Russia. As proof he points to the fate of Turboatom, his city's biggest factory, which produces turbines for both Russian and Ukrainian power stations. Its campus takes up more than five square kilometers near the center of Kharkov, like a city within a city, complete with dormitories and bathhouses for its 6,000 employees. On a recent evening, its deputy director, Alexei Cherkassky, was looking over the factory's sales list as though it were a dire medical prognosis. About 40% of its orders normally come from Russia, which relies on Turboatom for most of the turbines that run its nuclear power stations.

        "Unfortunately, all of our major industries are intertwined with Russia in this way," Cherkassky says. "So we shouldn't fool ourselves in thinking we can be independent from Russia. We are totally interdependent." Over the past year, Russia has started cutting back on orders from Turboatom as part of its broader effort to starve Ukraine's economy, and the factory has been forced as a result to cut shifts, scrap overtime and push hundreds of workers into retirement.

        At least in the foreseeable future, it does not have the option of shifting sales to Europe. "Turbines aren't iPhones," says Cherkassky. "You don't switch them out every few months." And the ones produced at Turboatom, like nearly all of Ukraine's heavy industry, still use Soviet means of production that don't meet the needs of most Western countries. So for all the aid coming from the state-backed institutions in the U.S. and Europe, Cherkassky says, "those markets haven't exactly met us with open arms."

        Russia knows this. For decades it has used the Soviet legacy of interdependence as leverage in eastern Ukraine. The idea of its "federalization" derives in part from this reality. For two decades, one of the leading proponents of this vision has been the Russian politician Konstantin Zatulin, who heads the Kremlin-connected institute in charge of integrating the former Soviet space. Since at least 2004, he has been trying to turn southeastern Ukraine into a zone of Russian influence – an effort that got him banned from entering the country between 2006 and 2010.

        His political plan for controlling Ukraine was put on hold last year, as Russia began using military means to achieve the same ends. But the current ceasefire has brought his vision back to the fore. "If Ukraine accepts federalization, we would have no need to tear Ukraine apart," Zatulin says in his office in Moscow, which is cluttered with antique weapons and other military bric-a-brac. Russia could simply build ties with the regions of eastern Ukraine that "share the Russian point of view on all the big issues," he says. "Russia would have its own soloists in the great Ukrainian choir, and they would sing for us. This would be our compromise."

        It is a compromise that Kernes seems prepared to accept, despite everything he has suffered in the past year of political turmoil. Early on in the conflict with Russia, he admits that he flirted with ideas of separatism himself, and he fiercely resisted the revolution that brought Poroshenko's government to power last winter. In one of its first decisions, that government even brought charges against Kernes for allegedly abducting, threatening and torturing supporters of the revolution in Kharkov. After that, recalls Zatulin, the mayor "simply chickened out." Facing a long term in prison, Kernes accepted Ukraine's new leaders and turned his back on the separatist cause, refusing to allow his city to hold a referendum on secession from Ukraine.

        "And you know what I got for that," Kernes says. "I got a bullet." On April 28, while he was exercising near a city park, an unidentified sniper shot Kernes in the back with a high-caliber rifle. The bullet pierced his lung and shredded part of his liver, but it also seemed to shore up his bona fides as a supporter of Ukrainian unity. The state dropped its charges against him soon after, and he was able to return to his post.

        It wasn't the first time he made such an incredible comeback. In 2007, while he was serving as adviser to his friend and predecessor, Mikhail Dobkin, a video of them trying to film a campaign ad was leaked to the press. It contained such a hilarious mix of bumbling incompetence and backalley obscenity that both of their careers seemed sure to be over. Kernes not only survived that scandal but was elected mayor a few years later.

        Now the fight over Ukraine's federalization is shaping up to be his last. In late March, as he continued demanding more autonomy for Ukraine's eastern regions, the state re-opened its case against him for alleged kidnapping and torture, which he has always denied. The charges, he says, are part of a campaign against all politicians in Ukraine who support the restoration of civil ties with Russia. "They don't want to listen to reason," he says.

        But one way or another, the country will still have to let its eastern regions to do business with the enemy next door, "because that's where the money is," Kernes says. No matter how much aid Ukraine gets from the IMF and other Western backers, it will not be enough to keep the factories of Kharkov alive. "They'll just be left to rot without our steady clients in Russia." Never mind that those clients may have other plans for Ukraine in mind.

        [May 11, 2015]Anglo-American Bankers Organized World War II

        May 11, 2015 | Voltaire Network

        To mark the 70th anniversary of the Victory against Nazism, we publish a study of Valentin Katasonov on financing of the NSDAP and the rearmament of the Third Reich. The author deals with new documents that confirm the organization of the Second World War by US and UK Bankers, covered by President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, in the hope of destroying the USSR. This study raises new questions that will be addressed in a future article.

        The war was not unleashed by frenzied Fuhrer who happened to be ruling Germany at the time. WWII is a project created by world oligarchy or Anglo-American "money owners". Using such instruments as the US Federal Reserve System and the Bank of England they started to prepare for the next world conflict of global scale right after WWI. The USSR was the target.

        The Dawes and Young Plans, the creation of Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the Germany's suspension of reparations payments it had to pay according to Paris Peace Treaty and the acquiescence of Russia's former allies in this decision, large-scale foreign investments into the economy of Third Reich, the militarization of German economy and the breaches of Paris Treaty provisions – they all were important milestones on the way of preparing the war.

        There were key figures behind the plot: the Rockefellers, the Morgans, Lord Montagu Norman (the Governor of the Bank of England), Hjalmar Schacht (President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics in the Hitler's government). The strategic plan of Rockefellers and Morgans was to subjugate Europe economically, saturate Germany with foreign investments and credits and make it deliver a crushing blow against the Soviet Russia so that it would be returned into the world capitalist system as a colony.

        Montagu Norman (1871 - 1950) played an important role of go-between to keep up a dialogue between American financial circles and Germany's business leaders. Hjalmar Schacht organized the revival of Germany's defense sector of economy. The operation conducted by "money owners" was covered up by such politicians as Franklin Roosevelt, Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill. In Germany the plans were carried out by Hitler and Hjalmar Schacht. Some historians say Hjalmar Schacht played a more important role than Hitler. Simply Schacht kept away from spotlight.

        The Dawes Plan was an attempt following World War I for the Triple Entente to compromise and collect war reparations debt from Germany. The Dawes Plan (as proposed by the Dawes Committee, chaired by Charles G. Dawes) was an attempt in 1924 to solve the reparations problem, which had bedeviled international politics following World War I and the Treaty of Versailles (France was reluctant to accept it got over 50% of reparations). In 1924-1929 Germany got $2, 5 billion from the United States and $ 1, 5 billion from Great Britain, according to Dawes Plan. In today's prices the sum is huge, it is equal to $1 trillion of US dollars. Hjalmar Schacht played an active role in the implementation of Dawes Plan. In 1929 he summed up the results, saying that in 5 years Germany got more foreign loans that the United States in the 40 years preceding WWI. As a result, in 1929 Germany became the world's second largest industrial nation leaving Great Britain behind.

        In the 1930s the process of feeding Germany with investments and credits continued. The Young Plan was a program for settling German reparations debts after World War I written in 1929 and formally adopted in 1930. It was presented by the committee headed (1929–30) by American industrialist Owen D. Young, creator and ex-first chairman of Radio Corporation of America (RCA), who, at the time, concurrently served at board of trustees of Rockefeller Foundation, and also had been one of representatives involved in previous war reparations restructuring arrangement – Dawes Plan of 1924. According to the plan, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) was created in 1930 to make Germany pay reparations to victors. In reality the money flows went in quite a different direction - from the United States and Great Britain to Germany. The majority of strategically important German companies belonged to American capital or were partly under its control. Some of them belonged to British investors. German oil refinery and coal liquefaction sectors of economy belonged to Standard Oil (the Rockefellers). Farbenindustrie AG, chemical industry major was moved under the control of the Morgan Group. 40% of telephone network and 30% of Focke Wulf shares belonged to American ITT. Radio and AEG, Siemens, Osram electrical industry majors moved under the control of American General Electric. ITT and General Electric were part of the Morgan's empire. At least 100% of the Volkswagen shares belonged to American Ford. By the time Hitler came to power the US financial capital practically controlled all strategically important sectors of German industry: oil refining, synthetic fuel production, chemistry, car building, aviation, electrical engineering, radio industry, and a large part of machine-building (totally 278 companies). The leading German banks - Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, Donat Bank and some others - were under US control.

        ***

        On January 30, 1933 Hitler was named the Chancellor of Germany. Before that his candidacy had been thoroughly studied by American bankers. Hjalmar Schacht went to the United States in the autumn of 1930 to discuss the nomination with American colleagues. The Hitler's appointment was finally approved at a secret meeting of financiers in the United States. He spent the whole 1932 trying to convince the German bankers that Hitler was the right person for the position. He achieved the goal. In mid-November 1932 17 German largest bankers and industrialists sent a letter to President Hindenburg expressing their demand to make Hitler the Chancellor of Germany. The last working meeting of German financiers before the election was held on January 4, 1933 in Kölnat the home of banker Kurt von Schröder. After that the National Socialist Party came to power. As a result, the financial and economic ties of Germany with Anglo-Saxons elevated to a higher level.

        Hitler immediately made an announcement that he refused to pay postwar reparations. It put into doubt the ability of England and France to pay off WWI debts to the United States. Washington did not object to the Hitler's announcement. In May 1933 Hjalmar Schacht paid another visit to the United States. There he met with President Franklin Roosevelt and big bankers to reach a $1 billion credit deal.In June the same year Hjalmar Schacht visited London to hold talks with Montagu Norman. It all went down smoothly. The British agreed to grant a $2 billion loan. The British offered no objections related to the Germany's decision to suspend debt payments.

        Some historians say the American and British bankers were pliant because by 1932 the Soviet Union had fulfilled the 5-year economic development plan to make it achieve new heights as an industrial power. A few thousand enterprises were built, especially in the sector of heavy industry. The dependence of USSR on import of engineering production has greatly dwindled. The chances to strangle the Soviet Union economically were practically reduced to zero. They decided to rely on war and launched the runaway militarization of Germany.

        It was easy for Germany to get American credits. By and large, Hitler came to power in his country at the same time as Franklin Roosevelt took office in the United States. The very same bankers who supported Hitler in 1931 supported Roosevelt at the presidential election. The newly elect President could not but endorse large credits to Germany. By the way, many noticed that there was a big similarity between the Roosevelt's "New Deal Policy" and the economic policy of the German Third Reich. No wonder. The very same people worked out and consulted the both governments at the time. They mainly represented US financial circles.

        The Roosevelt's New Deal soon started to stumble on the way. In 1937 America plunged into the quagmire of economic crisis. In 1939 the US economy operated at 33% of its industrial capacity (it was 19% in the heat of the 1929-1933 crisis).

        Rexford G. Tugwell, an economist who became part of Franklin Roosevelt's first "Brain, a group of Columbia University academics who helped develop policy recommendations leading up to Roosevelt's New Deal,wrote that in 1939 the government failed to reach any success.There was an open seatill the day Hitler invaded Poland.Only the mighty wind of war could dissipate the fog. Any other measures Roosevelt could take were doomed to failure. [1] Only the world war could save the US capitalism. In 1939 the money owners used all leverage at their disposal to put pressure of Hitler and make him unleash a big war in the east.

        ***

        The Bank of International Settlements (BIS) played an important role during the Second World War. It was created as an outpost of American interests in Europe and a link between Anglo-American and German businesses, a kind of offshore zone for cosmopolitan capital providing a shelter from political processes, wars, sanctions and other things. The Bank was created as a public commercial entity, it's immunity from government interference and such things as taxes collection was guaranteed by international agreement signed in the Hague in 1930.

        The bankers of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, who were close to the Morgans, Montagu Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England, German financiers: Hjalmar Schacht (President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics in the Hitler's government), Walther Funk (who later replaced Hjalmar Schacht as President of the Reichsbank) and EmilPuhl – all of them played an important role in the efforts to establish the Bank. The central banks of Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Belgium and some private banks were among the founders. The Federal Bank of New York did its best to establish the BIS, but it was not listed as a founder. The US was represented by the private First National Bank of New York, J.P. Morgan and Company, the First National Bank of Chicago – all parts of the Morgan's empire. Japan was also represented by private banks. In 1931-1932 19 European central banks joined the Bank of International Settlements. Gates W. McGarrah, a banker of Rockefeller's clan, was the first BIS chairman of the board. He was replaced by Leon Fraser, who represented the clan of Morgans. US citizen Thomas H. McKittrick was President of the Bankduring the war years.

        A lot has already been written about the BIS activities serving the interests of Third Reich. The Bank was involved in deals with different countries, including those Germany was at war with. Ever since Pearl Harbor the Bank of International Settlements has been a correspondent bank for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It was under Nazi control during the war years, no matter American Thomas Huntington McKittrick was the Bank's President. Soldiers were dying on the battlefields while the leadership of BIS held meetings in Basel with the bankers of Germany, Japan, Italy, Belgium, Great Britain and the United States. There, in the Swiss offshore zone, it was all peaceful, the representatives of belligerents quietly worked in the atmosphere of mutual understanding.

        Switzerland became the place where gold seized by Germany in different corners of Europe was transported to for storage. In the March of 1938, when Hitler captured Vienna, part of Austrian gold was transferred to BIS vaults. The same thing happened with the gold of Czech National Bank (48 million USD). As the war started, the flows of gold poured into the Bank of International Settlements. Germany got it from concentration camps and as a result of plundering the wealth of occupied countries (including whatever belonged to civilians: jewels, gold crowns, cigarette cases, utensils…). It was called the Nazi Gold. The metal was processed into ingots to be stored in the Bank of International Settlements, Switzerland, or outside Europe. Charles Higham in his Trading With The Enemy: An Expose of The Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949 wrote that during the war Nazi transferred $378 million into the accounts of Bank of International Settlements.

        A few words about the Czech gold. The details surfaced when after the Bank of England's archives were declassified in 2012. [2] In the March of 1939 Germany captured Prague. Nazi demanded $48 million of national gold reserves. They were told that the sum had already been transferred to the Bank of International Settlements. Later it became known that the gold was transferred from Basel to the vaults of Bank of England. Upon the command from Berlin the gold was transferred to the ReichsbankBIS account. Then the Bank of England was involved in transactions done upon the orders of Reichsbank given to the Bank of International settlements. The commands were retransmitted to London. There was collusion between German Reichsbank, the Bank of International Settlements and the Bank of England. In 1939 a scandal broke out in Great Britain because the Bank of England executed the transactions with Czech gold upon the commands coming from Berlin and Basel, not the Czech government. For instance, in the June of 1939, three months before the war between Great Britain and Germany started, the Bank of England helped Germans to get into their accounts the amount of gold equal to 440 thousand pounds sterling and transfer some gold to New York (Germany was sure that in case of German intervention into Poland the United States would not declare war).

        The illegal transactions with Czech gold were implemented with tacit approval of the government of Great Britain which was aware of what was going on. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer Sir John Simon and other top officials did their best to hide the truth, including outright lies (the gold was returned to the lawful owner or had never been transferred to Reichsbank). The recently declassified materials of Bank of England reveal the truth and show that the government officials lied to cover up themselves and the activities of the Bank of England and the Bank of International Settlements. It was easy to coordinate the joint criminal activities because Montagu Norman, the head of Bank of England, served as the chairman of the board of Bank of International Settlements. He never made secret of his sympathy for fascists.

        The Bretton Woods Conference, formally known as the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, was the gathering of 730 delegates from all 44 allied nations at the Mount Washington Hotel situated in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, the United States, to regulate the international monetary and financial order after the conclusion of World War II. The conference was held from 1 to 22 July 1944. All of a sudden the issue of the Bank of International Settlements hit the agenda. It was reported that the bank collaborated with fascist Germany. Leaving many details aside, I'd only mention that with great difficulty (some US delegates opposed the motion) the delegates reached an agreement to close the BIS. The decision of international conference has never been enacted. All the discreditable information related to the BIS wartime activities was classified. Today it helps to falsify the history of the Second World War.

        Finally, a few words about Hjalmar Schacht (1877-1970) who served as President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics in the fascist Germany's government. He was a key figure controlling the economic machine of Third Reich, an extraordinary and plenipotentiaryambassador representing Anglo-American capital in Germany. In 1945 Schacht was tried at Nuremberg to be acquitted on October 1, 1946. He got away with murder. The same way it happened to Hitler. For some unexplained reasons he was not in the 1945 leading wartime criminals list. More to it, Schacht returned to his profession like if nothing happened and founded Schacht GmbH in Düsseldorf. This detail may go unnoticed, though it serves as another testimony to the fact that Anglo-American "money owners" and their plenipotentiary representatives in Germany prepared and, to some extent, influenced the outcome of the Second World War. The "money owners" want to rewrite the history of the war and change its results.

        Valentin Katasonov

        Source
        Strategic Culture Foundation (Russia)

        [1] P.Tugwell, The Democratic Roosevelt, A Biography of Franklin D. Roosevelt, New York, 1957, p 477.

        [2] http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/arch...


        Source : "Anglo-American Money Owners Organized World War II", by Valentin Katasonov, Strategic Culture Foundation (Russia), Voltaire Network, 7 May 2015, www.voltairenet.org/article187508.html

        Valentin Katasonov Professor, Department of Moscow State Institute of International Finance, doctor of economic sciences, corresponding member of the Academy of Economics and Commerce. He was consultant of the United Nations (1991-1993), member of the Advisory Council to the President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) (1993-1996), head of the Department of international monetary relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Russia (2001-11).

        [May 11, 2015] The Choice Before Europe

        May 05, 2015 | Information Clearing House

        Washington continues to drive Europe toward one or the other of the two most likely outcomes of the orchestrated conflict with Russia. Either Europe or some European Union member government will break from Washington over the issue of Russian sanctions, thereby forcing the EU off of the path of conflict with Russia, or Europe will be pushed into military conflict with Russia.

        In June the Russian sanctions expire unless each member government of the EU votes to continue the sanctions. Several governments have spoken against a continuation. For example, the governments of the Czech Republic and Greece have expressed dissatisfaction with the sanctions.

        US Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged growing opposition to the sanctions among some European governments. Employing the three tools of US foreign policy–threats, bribery, and coercion–he warned Europe to renew the sanctions or there would be retribution. We will see in June if Washington's threat has quelled the rebellion.

        Europe has to consider the strength of Washington's threat of retribution against the cost of a continuing and worsening conflict with Russia. This conflict is not in Europe's economic or political interest, and the conflict has the risk of breaking out into war that would destroy Europe.

        Since the end of World War II Europeans have been accustomed to following Washington's lead. For awhile France went her own way, and there were some political parties in Germany and Italy that considered Washington to be as much of a threat to European independence as the Soviet Union. Over time, using money and false flag operations, such as Operation Gladio, Washington marginalized politicians and political parties that did not follow Washington's lead.

        The specter of a military conflict with Russia that Washington is creating could erode Washington's hold over Europe. By hyping a "Russian threat," Washington is hoping to keep Europe under Washington's protective wing. However, the "threat" is being over-hyped to the point that some Europeans have understood that Europe is being driven down a path toward war.

        Belligerent talk from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, from John McCain, from the neoconservatives, and from NATO commander Philip Breedlove is unnerving Europeans. In a recent love-fest between Breedlove and the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by John McCain, Breedlove supported arming the Ukrainian military, the backbone of which appears to be the Nazi militias, with heavy US weapons in order to change "the decision calculus on the ground" and bring an end to the break-away republics that oppose Washington's puppet government in Kiev.

        Breedlove told the Senate committee that his forces were insufficient to withstand Russian aggression and that he needed more forces on Russia's borders in order to "reassure allies."

        Europeans have to decide whether the threat is Russia or Washington. The European press, which Udo Ulfkotte reports in his book, Bought Journalists, consists of CIA assets, has been working hard to convince Europeans that there is a "revanchist Russia" on the prowl that seeks to recover the Soviet Empire. Washington's coup in Ukraine has disappeared. In its place Washington has substituted a "Russian invasion," hyped as Putin's first step in restoring the Soviet empire.

        Just as there is no evidence of the Russian military in Ukraine, there is no evidence of Russian forces threatening Europe or any discussion or advocacy of restoring the Soviet empire among Russian political and military leaders.

        In contrast Washington has the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which is explicitly directed at Russia, and now the Council on Foreign Relations has added China as a target of the Wolfowitz doctrine. http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Tellis_Blackwill.pdf

        The CFR report says that China is a rising power and thereby a threat to US world hegemony. China's rise must be contained so that Washington can remain the boss in the Asian Pacific. What it comes down to is this: China is a threat because China will not prevent its own rise. This makes China a threat to "the International Order." "The International Order," of course, is the order determined by Washington. In other words, just as there must be no Russian sphere of influence, there must be no Chinese sphere of influence. The CFR report calls this keeping the world "free of hegemonic control" except by the US.

        Just as General Breedlove demands more military spending in order to counter "the Russian threat," the CFR wants more military spending in order to counter "the Chinese threat." The report concludes: "Congress should remove sequestration caps and substantially increase the U.S. defense budget."

        Clearly, Washington has no intention of moderating its position as the sole imperial power. In defense of this power, Washington will take the world to nuclear war. Europe can prevent this war by asserting its independence and departing the empire.

        Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.

        [May 11, 2015]CIA leaker Jeffrey Sterling sentenced to 3.5 years in prison for Espionage Act violations

        May 11, 2015 | RT USA

        CIA leaker Jeffrey Sterling sentenced to 3.5 years in prison for Espionage Act violations


        Convicted CIA leaker Jeffrey Sterling was sentenced to 42 months in prison under the Espionage Act. He was found guilty of nine counts of unauthorized disclosure of national defense information about a covert operation and other related charges.

        Sterling was given an additional two years of supervised release after he finishes his time in jail. The government had sought a prison term of more than 20 years for Sterling, but the judge told prosecutors at the sentencing that was too harsh a punishment, according to the New York Times' Matt Apuzzo.

        ... ... ...

        The former CIA officer, who was fired in the early 2000s, was charged under the Espionage Act for disclosing classified information about a mission meant to slow Iran's nuclear program to New York Times reporter James Risen, who then wrote about the CIA's Iranian plot "Operation Merlin" in his 2006 book, 'State of War'. The plan was designed to project a negative image of Iran's nuclear program, learn more about it program and impair its progress. Flawed nuclear weapon schematics were reportedly funneled to the Iranians via a Russian scientist with the codename "Merlin."

        Risen was also critical of Operation Merlin in his book, saying it could have inadvertently helped Iran if they were able to identify what was wrong with the blueprints.

        ... ... ...

        In remarks of his own, US District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema mentioned the punishments meted out against other government whistleblowers, including Gen. David Petraeus, who was sentenced to two years probation for leaking documents to his biographer, a woman who was also his mistress, as well as that of John Kiriakou, Rapalo said.

        [May 10, 2015] Battle Tested, Ukraine Troops Now Get U.S. Basic Training

        May 09, 2015 | NYTimes.com

        YAVORIV, Ukraine - The exercise, one of the most fundamental in the military handbook, came off without a hitch. A soldier carrying a length of rope and a grappling hook ran to within 20 feet or so of a coil of concertina wire and stopped.

        For a moment, he twirled the rope in his hands like a lasso, then threw the hook over the wire, and tugged hard, testing for explosives.

        When nothing happened he signaled two comrades, who ran up and started snipping the wire with cutters.

        Although this was a typical training exercise for raw recruits in an elemental soldierly skill, there was nothing typical about the scene. Far from enlistees, these soldiers were regulars in the Ukrainian National Guard, presumably battle-hardened after months on the front lines in eastern Ukraine. And the trainer was an American military instructor, drilling troops for battle with the United States' former Cold War foe, Russia, and Russian-backed separatists.

        ... ... ...

        The training included simulations of a suspect's detention. Credit Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times

        The course on cutting wire is one of 63 classes of remedial military instruction being provided by 300 United States Army trainers in three consecutive two-month courses.

        Here in western Ukraine, they are far from the fighting, and their job is to instill some basic military know-how in Ukrainian soldiers, who the trainers have discovered are woefully unprepared. The largely unschooled troops are learning such basic skills as how to use an encrypted walkie-talkie; how to break open a door with a sledgehammer and a crowbar; and how to drag a wounded colleague across a field while holding a rifle at the ready.

        ... ... ...

        The United States is also providing advanced courses for military professionals known as forward observers - the ones who call in targets - to improve the accuracy of artillery fire, making it more lethal for the enemy and less so for civilians.

        Photo

        The training also included simulations of a home raid. Credit Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times

        Oleksandr I. Leshchenko, the deputy director for training in the National Guard, was somewhat skeptical about the value of the training, saying that "99 percent" of the men in the course had already been in combat.

        ... ... ...

        American officers described the course work as equivalent to the latter months of basic training in the United States. The courses will train 705 Ukrainian soldiers at a cost of $19 million over six months. The Ukrainian National Guard is rotating from the front what units it can spare for the training. American instructors intend to recommend top performers to serve as trainers within other Ukrainian units, and in this way spread the instruction more broadly.

        ... ... ...

        [May 10, 2015] The New York Times does its government s bidding Here s what you re not being told about US troops in Ukraine

        Notable quotes:
        "... American soldiers in Ukraine, American media not saying much about it. Two facts. ..."
        "... Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia. ..."
        "... Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border? ..."
        "... And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect. ..."
        "... Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this paragraph. Speechless. ..."
        "... Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential. ..."
        "... Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.) ..."
        "... In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that 300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it, there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation, a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed. ..."
        "... The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers." ..."
        "... He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it. ..."
        May 09, 2015 | NYTimes.com

        Reprinted from May 07, 2015 article at Salon.com

        As of mid-April, when a Pentagon flack announced it in Kiev, and as barely reported in American media, U.S. troops are now operating openly in Ukraine.

        Now there is a lead I have long dreaded writing but suspected from the first that one day I would. Do not take a moment to think about this. Take many moments. We all need to. We find ourselves in grave circumstances this spring.

        At first I thought I had written what newspaper people call a double-barreled lead: American soldiers in Ukraine, American media not saying much about it. Two facts.

        Wrong. There is one fact now, and it is this: Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia.

        One cannot predict there will be one. And, of course, right-thinking people hope things will never come to one. In March, President Obama dismissed any such idea as if to suggest it was silly. "They're not interested in a military confrontation with us," Obama said of the Russians-wisely. Then he added, unwisely: "We don't need a war."

        Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border?

        The pose of American innocence, tatty and tiresome in the best of times, is getting dangerous once again.

        The source of worry now is that we do not have an answer to the second question. The project is plain: Advance NATO the rest of the way through Eastern Europe, probably with the intent of eventually destabilizing Moscow. The stooges now installed in Kiev are getting everything ready for the corporations eager to exploit Ukrainian resources and labor.

        And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect.

        In the past there were a few vague mentions of an American military presence in Ukraine that was to be in place by this spring, if I recall correctly. These would have been last autumn. By then, there were also reports, unconfirmed, that some troops and a lot of spooks were already there as advisers but not acknowledged.

        Then in mid-March President Poroshenko introduced a bill authorizing-as required by law-foreign troops to operate on Ukrainian soil. There was revealing detail, according to Russia Insider, a free-standing website in Moscow founded and run by Charles Bausman, an American with an uncanny ability to gather and publish pertinent information.

        "According to the draft law, Ukraine plans three Ukrainian-American command post exercises, Fearless Guardian 2015, Sea Breeze 2015 and Saber Guardian/Rapid Trident 2015," the publication reported, "and two Ukrainian-Polish exercises, Secure Skies 2015, and Law and Order 2015, for this year."

        This is a lot of dry-run maneuvering, if you ask me. Poroshenko's law allows for up to 1,000 American troops to participate in each of these exercises, alongside an equal number of Ukrainian "National Guardsmen," and we will insist on the quotation marks when referring to this gruesome lot, about whom more in a minute.

        Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this paragraph. Speechless.

        It was a month to the day after Poroshenko's bill went to parliament that the Pentagon spokesman in Kiev announced-to a room empty of American correspondents, we are to assume-that troops from the 173rd Airborne were just then arriving to train none other than "National Guardsmen." This training includes "classes in war-fighting functions," as the operations officer, Maj. Jose Mendez, blandly put it at the time.

        The spokesman's number was "about 300," and I never like "about" when these people are describing deployments. This is how it always begins, we will all recall. The American presence in Vietnam began with a handful of advisers who arrived in September 1950. (Remember MAAG, the Military Assistance Advisory Group?)

        Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential.

        I am getting on to apoplectic as to the American media's abject irresponsibility in not covering this stuff adequately. To leave these events unreported is outright lying by omission. Nobody's news judgment can be so bad as to argue this is not a story.

        Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.)

        To cross the "i"s and dot the "t"s, as I prefer to do, the Times did make two mentions of the American troops. One was the day of the announcement, a brief piece on an inside page, datelined Washington. Here we get our code word for this caper: It will be "modest" in every mention.

        The second was in an April 23 story by Michael Gordon, the State Department correspondent. The head was, "Putin Bolsters His Forces Near Ukraine, U.S. Says." Read the thing here.

        The story line is a doozy: Putin-not "the Russians" or "Moscow," of course-is again behaving aggressively by amassing troops-how many, exactly where and how we know is never explained-along his border with Ukraine. Inside his border, that is. This is the story. This is what we mean by aggression these days.

        In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that 300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it, there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation, a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed.

        At this point, I do not see how anyone can stand against the argument-mine for some time-that Putin has shown exemplary restraint in this crisis. In a reversal of roles and hemispheres, Washington would have a lot more than air defense systems and troops of whatever number on the border in question.

        The Times coverage of Ukraine, to continue briefly in this line, starts to remind me of something I.F. Stone once said about the Washington Post: The fun of reading it, the honored man observed, is that you never know where you'll find a page one story.

        In the Times' case, you never know if you will find it at all.

        Have you read much about the wave of political assassinations that erupted in Kiev in mid-April? Worry not. No one else has either-not in American media. Not a word in the Times.

        The number my sources give me, and I cannot confirm it, is a dozen so far-12 to 13 to be precise. On the record, we have 10 who can be named and identified as political allies of Viktor Yanukovych, the president ousted last year, opponents of a drastic rupture in Ukraine's historic relations to Russia, people who favored marking the 70th anniversary of the Soviet defeat of the Nazis-death-deserving idea, this-and critics of the new regime's corruptions and dependence on violent far-right extremists.

        These were all highly visible politicians, parliamentarians and journalists. They have been murdered by small groups of these extremists, according to reports readily available in non-American media. In my read, the killers may have the same semi-official ties to government that the paramilitary death squads in 1970s Argentina-famously recognizable in their Ford Falcons-had with Videla and the colonels.

        The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers."

        Kindly place, Kiev's parliament under this new crowd. Washington must be proud, having backed yet another right-wing, anti-democratic, rights-trampling regime that does what it says.

        And our media must be silent, of course. It can be no other way. Gutless hacks: You bet I am angry.

        * * *

        I end this week's column with a tribute.

        A moment of observance, any kind, for William Pfaff, who died at 86 in Paris late last week. The appreciative obituary by the Times' Marlise Simons is here.

        Pfaff was the most sophisticated foreign affairs commentator of the 20th century's second half and the first 15 years of this one. He was a great influence among colleagues (myself included) and put countless readers in a lot of places in the picture over many decades. He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it.

        Pfaff was a conservative man in some respects, which is not uncommon among America's American critics. In this I put him in the file with Henry Steele Commager, C. Vann Woodward, William Appleman Williams, and among those writing now, Andrew Bacevich. He was not a scholar, as these writers were or are, supporting a point I have long made: Not all intellectuals are scholars, and not all scholars are intellectuals.

        Pfaff's books will live on and I commend them: "Barbarian Sentiments," "The Wrath of Nations," "The Bullet's Song," and his last, "The Irony of Manifest Destiny," are the ones on my shelf.

        Farewell from a friend, Bill.

        Patrick Smith is the author of "Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century." He was the International Herald Tribune's bureau chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from 1985 to 1992. During this time he also wrote "Letter from Tokyo" for the New Yorker. He is the author of four previous books and has contributed frequently to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly, and other publications. Follow him on Twitter, @thefloutist. More Patrick L. Smith.

        [May 10, 2015] Republican presidential hopefuls focus fire on Obama foreign policy

        Pot calling cattle black...
        May 09, 2015 | The Guardian

        libbyliberal -> libbyliberal 9 May 2015 20:01

        Obama/Hillary/Dem apologists, like the corporate media, can't admit that anyone exists to the real liberal left of these tools of the "empire of chaos" -- disaster capitalism is okay with them, profits uber alles.

        So so much of the citizenry -- the voting majority which really is a pathetic minority -- stay penned up as the US sinks into quicksand, and the reins of the country keep getting passed back and forth between the supposed good cop and bad cop parties, and the citizenry is CON-FUSED, which according to Latin origin is "fused with". Obama is a Republican, a far right one in sensibility. Yet crazy Repubs call him liberal. How confusing is that??? How stupid to believe they are right.

        Obama apologists call those more liberal than Obama (so not hard) to be non-liberal and demonize them since they are so ego-desperate to not admit just how betrayed we all have been not only since the highly lying Obama campaign days but when Clinton and his cabal of Ruben and Summers and Hillary and others destroyed consumer protections and handed over control to the corporate class.

        We are hypnotized to think we have only two voting options, and the media underlines this never giving the microphone to those outside of the authoritarians of the two pens. We are hypnotized to think we have to go with the media-beloved sure-winners, when the corruption is so over the top the bewildered herd keeps contributing to the problem and never finding a solution.

        So many non-hypnotized have stopped voting in disgust and despair.

        Jill Stein of Green Party once said that with either Repubs or Dems we are on the Titanic. It may sink a tad faster with the Repubs in charge but it is sinking with the craven Dems as well.

        Bill Ehrhorn Ozymandia 9 May 2015 20:01

        It gives the chickenhawks a chance to act manly. Sitting from away from the battlefield they like to pretend that they're tough

        tupacalypse7 babymamaboy 9 May 2015 20:00

        Religious freedom means calling yourself Christian and practising Islam.

        oh that's a good one!


        sour_mash TheWholeNineYards 9 May 2015 19:55

        A mantle that murdered 4,486 Americans with +30,000 wounded and an untold number of Iraqis dead. $4-$6 trillion spent destabilizing Iraq which was no threat, never attacked America is the GOP calling card.

        (I agree with you, just fine tuned a bit.)


        sour_mash babymamaboy 9 May 2015 19:50

        "We will look for you, we will find you, and we will kill you."

        Religious freedom means calling yourself Christian and practising hypocrisy.


        Michael Q 9 May 2015 19:07

        The republicans are irrelevant. Americans need to stop watching Fox News and not elect these crazy lunatics who will create more wars, more inequality, more neoliberalism, more deregulation, and completely screw the working and middle classes, just like they did under Bush snr and jnr, and Reagan.

        We live in a multi polar world. Latin America is more independent than it has ever been, and IMO Obama has done a good job negotiating with Iran.

        Treat people the way you would like to be treated and there will be peace in the world,

        t bone Michael Q 9 May 2015 19:46

        There's nothing worse than a secret war - the one that your Obama is committed to. He's set the Mideast on fire because he's just as much as a war devil as anyone else.

        He's messed up Egypt, Syria, Libya and Iraq, there's all kinds of heinous murdering and uprisings going on there now. Now he's trying to start a race war here in the United States!

        Congratulations - because you're the only one living in your utopian dream world. Obama (and his minions) has destroyed our U.S. Constitution - irreparably! He's an sobmfr! GD him!

        cromwell2015 9 May 2015 18:43

        listen to the war talk once again. Their talk, their glory, your blood, your death, your dreams .when will they lead like the kings of old and put the uniform on. In your dreams, when will "normal" people wake up and send these people to where they belong. We including Iran all belong to a same race ,its called the human race.

        To add insult to any one with a brain knows your not so lily white when you have gone into and interfered with so many other country's including bombing Iraq back into the stone age. I would finish with you the USA's politicians, you are the people who are the real danger to the world,


        MiniApolis 9 May 2015 17:56

        "Conservatives howled and hooted as Walker, who was criticized by Obama for his lack of foreign policy expertise, went after the administration's nuclear deal with Iran, its handling of terrorism and its relationship with Israel."

        Well.

        And Obama's expertise on foreign policy when he was elected was exactly what? Having a Kenyan father?

        The Republicans are a truly miserable bunch - worse this time around than even before, with the stunning exception of Sarah Palin, who can out-worse anyone.

        But they are absolutely right on Iran, and Obama is absolutely wrong.

        A plague on all of them.


        tupacalypse7 9 May 2015 17:53

        ISIS will be the biggest campaigner for the rightwing in 2016. republicans will paint anyone who doesn't support full-throttled blind aggression against IS as weak and unpatriotic. there will be frothing talk of smashing IS to pieces and bringin 'MERICAN justice to Iraq once again. and once again, no one will talk about what comes after IS because that would require vision, foresight, finesse, community organizing, LISTENING to the native population, listening to women and owning up to true motivations. there is no doubt the US and its allies are fully capable of blowing that part of the earth off the map. congratulations, you are all badasses.

        however, the vicious cycle of self-perpetuating war will continue until the focus is put on the humanitarian endgame of any military aggression and not solely on military aggression. the question that needs to be answered and addressed by any war committee is why did WWI set the perfect stage for WWII? and why did Iraq 2 cause the potential Iraq 3 and IS? the answer to me is a complete lack of finesse and vision centered around an all-male war party with a complete conflict of interest because a world without war is a world without weapons sales.


        ExcaliburDefender ACTANE 9 May 2015 17:50

        Always good to bring up the Obama/Hitler, the nra have been milking that one for decades now too. Who could forget 'ninja Nazi jack booted thugs Fourth Reich' of 1994/1995. After the bombing of Oklahoma City federal building, which killed 168, Bush 41 publicly withdrew from the NRA and trashed La Pierre specifically.

        All your talk is just part of fear mongering, only believed by the bunker dwellers.

        No one believes this any more. ISIS is not coming to the parking lot of Walmart, you don't need an AR15 that hold 100 rounds of ammo.

        The greatest threat to the Tea Party faithful is Type II Diabetes, and they really need to keep their Medicare and ACA coverage. Too many super sized happy meals.

        Profhambone ACTANE 9 May 2015 17:43

        How little you know.....one aspect of Chamberlain signing is that it bought time for GB to begin to re-arm and prepare the industrial base for war making. Germany had a large lead and GB was not prepared to go to war then. Today, it is used as "appeasement" which has a negative connotation.

        An example of appeasement for those who slept through history is the Republican hopefuls for Emperor who pledge any and all things to Israel in order to keep Shelton Adelson happy here in Las Vegas and giving millions and tens of millions of dollars to PAC's friendly to them. "Elect me!!" is the name of the game. It is all about "me", the whole country, it seems these days....


        illegitimato -> Tony Wise 9 May 2015 17:43

        Disingenuous dick -- this isn't about Republican versus Democrat. It's about failed leadership across the board.

        Besides, count the casualties. Dubya killed more people.

        How much does the GOP pay you for this drivel, 50 cents a post? Or do you carry their water for free?


        illegitimato -> Boredwiththeusa 9 May 2015 17:38

        Great, another round of chicken-hawk "leaders" with no combat background, ready to send others' sons and daughters into the carnage. How did that work out last time with Dubya, Cheney, Rummie, et al?

        The new outrage this latest clutch manifests tops even those "Iraqi Freedom" incompetents -- bowing on bended knee to the owner of a Macau casino which uses underage sex slaves, all for his cash.

        Those Predator drones have the wrong targets.

        Robert Greene 9 May 2015 17:23

        "Blackburn instead summed up the general argument candidates have been making at conservative gatherings: if voters do not elect a Republican in 2016, America could very well cease to exist as a global superpower."
        So what we do not need to be a global superpower anymore. What has is got us just MORE FUCKIN' WAR!!


        Tony Dearwester -> saltyandtheman 9 May 2015 17:22

        Oh, like when Hillary says "We have to stop the 1% from running things" as she begs them for money, I mean... "What difference does it make"?


        Steve Troxel -> seehowtheyrun 9 May 2015 17:07

        What will they do when Obama is out of office? Apparently the only ideas they have is the opposite of what Obama is doing. The GOP field this election is a vacuous collection clowns each trying to out noObama the next.

        Steve Troxel -> Pete Street 9 May 2015 17:02

        Well said... I wonder if they guys or their constituency ever read the news. All you have to do get a red meat roar from this crowd is to flap you jaws about bombing someone.

        When asked for specifics they usually reply with something that is already being done... and are evidently unaware of it.


        sour_mash Tony Wise 9 May 2015 16:54

        "your explanation is NOT the historical explanation"

        Damn, I must have missed Bill Clinton calling for a Crusade against an Axis of Evil. And claiming that Saddam Hussein was going to attack the US with WMD'S.


        libbyliberal 9 May 2015 16:23

        Obama is a disgusting warmonger, but not warmonger enuf for the crazy Republicans.

        Here comes the fodder to build Dem "lesser evilism" which means both evil parties get to mass murder.

        A frightened and very low-information and/or conscience-possessing American citizenry has learned from the authoritarians that the only tool in America's tool box for global co-existence is a HAMMER. As well as colossal lies about reality. We live in a spiritually profoundly dark age.

        The US (and cronies) are arming ISIS, using ISIS in some of its wars like in Syria. Israel is covertly helping ISIS. The bullying nations are helping bomb the shit out of the poorest country in the ME. US is providing anti-international law cluster bombs to SA as one of their big helps. Why? Because the big sharks must devour the little fish. Proxy wars against nuclear allies or potential allies of that country, or they pretend they are, all leading to the big nuclear WWIII these insane monsters at the helms of our countries seem committed to.

        The Republican hypocrit neocons who speak of God and war in the same sentences. The Dem hypocrit neolibs who pretend war is humanitarian. Disaster capitalism requires lots of bloodbaths and lemming Americans, especially bloodthirsty and stupid lemming Americans are willing to kill anyone that isn't them.

        The world is a big video wargame to America, and you pick Blue Team or Red Team and then kill, kill, kill.


        Tony Wise Pete Street 9 May 2015 16:06

        "Evidently, these faces have neglected to keep current with the ongoing, successful U.S. project using armed aerial drones and other weapons to find and snuff the Islamic terrorist leadership from the top down the ladder."

        except its not been sucessful, we are still fighting the same war, and are fighting increased numbers, because we keep creating more terrorists then we kill. we are ctually bombing targets without even knowing whos inside (signature strikes) then labeling anyone in the blast radius a terrorist. pakistan, PAKISTAN for goodness sakes, is working with the UN human rights commission to STOP the bombs with new laws governing drone warfare. this war has been going on for over a decade, and is predicted to go on decades longer, with NO tangible results. how do you call it "successful" when the main target of the war on terror wasnt even eliminated with it?


        Pete Street 9 May 2015 16:01

        Thanks for presenting the Chicken Little view of the Republican Party wannabes. Evidently, these faces have neglected to keep current with the ongoing, successful U.S. project using armed aerial drones and other weapons to find and snuff the Islamic terrorist leadership from the top down the ladder.

        Even a news media worker has a better grasp of the activity of this project:

        "Strikes began against Isis fighters in Iraq on 8 August and in Syria on 23 September. Such strikes have now run into the thousands; on Saturday the US military said 28 more had been carried out since Friday."

        The RP faces put themselves in a vulnerable position here when an ordinary voter can easily do enough fact-checking to explode the false view of these faces.

        Thereby, they make themselves easy picking by HRC who would eat their lunch anyhow.

        Meanwhile, cheers and applause from a couple thousand RP right-wingers does not a viable candidacy make.

        If this numbskull approach to vote-seeking continues, then little doubt exists that the RP will remain a rump party controlling state houses and gerrymandered voting districts for political power, but excluded from the White House again for lacking a sensible, moderate platform to appeal to more voters in the middle of the political spectrum.

        From that position of course the RP will have a big target for its political asininity and hostility in the form of HRC as president for 8 years beginning in 2017.

        Tony Wise Ozymandia 9 May 2015 16:00

        obamas more of a warmonger then republicans, and the economy is only better if you are rich.


        Tony Wise Milo Bendech 9 May 2015 15:54

        if the republicans need help,

        "Tanden: '95 percent of the income gains in the last few years have gone to the top 1 percent'"

        Neera Tanden, head of the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning group, argued that the issue not only would work well among the party faithful but beyond.

        "95 percent of the income gains in the last few years have gone to the top 1 percent, That's a fact in the country," Tanden said. "I think this is going to be an issue on both the right and the left."

        source: politifact


        Tony Wise LostintheUS 9 May 2015 15:48

        "There are no worse sources for money than the Koch Bros."

        sachs, jpmporgan, BP, citibank, need i go on?


        Tony Wise -> Zepp 9 May 2015 15:47

        oh, and pakistan, because those bombings are actually illegal in spirit. they are actually working on making it illegal in the letter. the drones are new technology and pakistan is working on legislation governing their use with the UN human rights commission, because we are slaughtering too many innocents.

        you wonder why I keep saying that? its not because im the one supporting the warmongering, bro. end it all, today. imo.


        Tony Wise -> Zepp 9 May 2015 15:44

        so tell us, Tony: which of those countries do YOU think Obama should not have bombed?

        • libya: because the terrorists we left in charge are worse then kadaffy
        • syria, because it was a civil war we had no business getting involved in.
        • iraq, because it should have been over when it was over. obamas own incompetence required us to return and go to war again. when we left, ISIS was a minor, defunct, disbarred, offshoot of al-quida, then they started getting the weapons we were sending to so called "vetted moderates" who turned out to be no such thing. with those, they were able to march back into iraq picking up allies along the way, and take an entire city, and all the war toys left behind when obama withdrew. why would you leave such weapons in the hands of an obviously incompetent, corrupt, army? why would you keep sending them MORE after the pullout?
        • yemen, because we are not world police
        • and afghanstan, because we got bin laden already.

        I didnt know rush limbaugh was antiwar? if hes for war, then your comparison of me to him is just vastly...ridiculous and childish.

        Milo Bendech 9 May 2015 15:43

        Did you ever wonder why Republicans have decided NOT to challenge Obama on the state of the US economy???

        Because any references to the economy under Obama will automatically conjure up comparisons between the current President and the last REPUBLICAN president.
        Just 6 years ago, the US economy was in tatters.

        As the last Republican president prepared to leave the White House...
        6 years ago....As the Last REPUBLICAN was preparing to leave office in early 2009....

        1. the DOW had fallen to 7,949 and
        2. the NASDAQ had plunged to 1500.
        3. The average American with a 401K lost about half of their retirement savings.

        4. Banks and financial institutions many over 100 years old that had survived the Great Depression went belly up: Bear Stearns, Countrywide, Merrill Lynch . AIG. Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Indymac

        5. Housing prices were falling like a rock as the bubble burst.

        6.The unemployment rate was 7.8%...and heading up. In the same month that Bush left office a staggering 818,000 workers lost their
        jobs. . The number of Americans filing for first-time unemployment benefits rose to a 26-year high for the week ended Dec. 20.,2008

        7. The US auto industry was on it's knees. A month before he turned over the The White House to Obama, Bush announced a $17.4 billion taxpayer bailout for GM and Chrysler. "If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy," Bush admitted.

        8. The Bush administration had to borrow 700 billion dollars from the taxpayers to bail out the banks. ""This is a big package because it was a big problem." Bush said ""People are beginning to doubt our system, people were losing confidence ."

        9. In the 4th quarter of 2008...3 weeks before the flickering torch was passed from Republican to Democrat the US economy contracted a whopping 8.9%...the worst in postwar history.

        10. Two months before Obama took office The Conference Board said that its Consumer Confidence Index fell to 38 in October, 2008. The decline marked the index's lowest level since its inception in 1967.

        11. By the end of Republican Bush's stewardship his job approval ratings had plummeted to 25%

        12. In the final month of Bush's term only 7% of Americans were happy with the direction the country was headed, the lowest reading ever measured by Gallup

        How different things are today.

        Elizabeth Thorne 9 May 2015 15:42

        "Iran: enemy. Israel: friend."

        I can't imagine why people compare him to a Neanderthal.

        I have to admit though that giving the loony right a free hand in foreign policy would bring the date the world grows a pair and takes care of the US' anti-social antics much closer. They would destroy the county and most our "allies". Not ENTIRELY bad if you compare that with "liberals" having not one complaint about expanded illegal use of drones by their guy. Look at the choices. The US will continue to maim destroy and kill in the name of short-range interests and goals with disproportionate effect on developing nations until it destroys itself. Look how long it took Rome to fall and look at what happened in the meanwhile. Like a useless structure. Better an implosion than to slowly burn.


        Tony Wise ExcaliburDefender 9 May 2015 15:34

        why are democrats such hypocrites about the kochs? democrats had no problem taking money from the kochs, when it was being offered.

        they did take it, its documented history, as well as their offer to the kochs of special privileges in return for more cash. the kochs said no, and the war was on. your party still takes money from FAR worse sources, like Bp, that wrecked our shore, and banks like sachs and jpmorgan hat wrecked our economy. the kochs, even if you disagree with their political philosophies, at least create jobs here in America, manufacturing things we ALL use. how many jobs does warren buffets unregulated derivatives create?

        I suppose his rail lines, transporting that dirty tar sands oil, creates jobs. this koch stuff just seems so ridiculous given your own parties donors. kochs are what, 56th in political giving? something like that?


        Tony Wise sour_mash 9 May 2015 15:27

        we know why bush bombed iraq"

        Yes, we do. He lied. Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq.

        your explanation is NOT the historical explanation, see 1998 iraq liberation act. signed by bill clinton.


        Michael Miller 9 May 2015 15:20

        The MIC needs to be fed.


        Boredwiththeusa Tony Wise 9 May 2015 15:09

        Bernie Sanders has always acted in accordance with his conscience. He is no sell out. That he made one decision you dislike doesn't affect my admiration for the man in the least, but paints you as a leftist purist who is never satisfied with anything.


        Tony Wise -> Milo Bendech 9 May 2015 15:08

        TARP Vote: Obama Wins, Senate Effectively Approves $350 Billion

        Six Republicans joined with 45 Democrats and one Joe Lieberman to defeat a resolution that would have blocked the release of $350 billion in financial-industry bailout funds Thursday. The Senate action -- or lack of it -- paves the way for the dispersal of the money regardless of any action taken by the House of Representatives.

        The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is structured so that the president has access to the money unless Congress actively prevents its release. Only 42 senators -- seven Democrats, 34 Republicans and one Bernie Sanders -- voted to block the money.


        Taku2 9 May 2015 14:58

        ""We need a commander in chief who will once and for all call it what it is, and that is radical Islamic terrorism," Walker said. "We need a president who will affirm that Israel is our ally and start acting like it."

        These pathetic Republicans shameless has nothing to offer the American people, especially as they do not give a damn about the American poor. So, what do these bourgeois parasites focus on; 'making America Great.'

        And how do these parasites try to achieve this; making war on other nations. For them, America 'being great' means military might. It means spending more on the military, which makes more money for these parasites. It does not mean spending more on maintaining and improving the nation's infrastructure, because the Republicans are only interested in enterprises which makes them lots of money.

        If Walker and Santorum are intellectually deficient and talking shit, what does that make their Republican colleagues who support them?

        [May 10, 2015] Obama s Petulant WWII Snub of Russia by Ray McGovern

        Notable quotes:
        "... Though designed to isolate Russia because it had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d'état in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia's President Vladimir Putin – like the economic sanctions against Russia – is likely to backfire on the U.S. ..."
        "... Obama's boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian alternative narrative. ..."
        "... Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late 2014: "Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'état organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history." ..."
        "... So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country. ..."
        "... Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault." ..."
        "... Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations' concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment's dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad – American exceptionalism. This arrogant concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympic god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians. ..."
        "... Putin added, though, "I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism," adding: "It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal." ..."
        May 09, 2015 | antiwar.com
        President Barack Obama's decision to join other Western leaders in snubbing Russia's weekend celebration of the 70th anniversary of Victory in Europe looks more like pouting than statesmanship, especially in the context of the U.S. mainstream media's recent anti-historical effort to downplay Russia's crucial role in defeating Nazism.

        Though designed to isolate Russia because it had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d'état in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia's President Vladimir Putin – like the economic sanctions against Russia – is likely to backfire on the U.S. and its European allies by strengthening ties between Russia and the emerging Asian giants of China and India.

        Notably, the dignitaries who will show up at this important commemoration include the presidents of China and India, representing a huge chunk of humanity, who came to show respect for the time seven decades ago when the inhumanity of the Nazi regime was defeated – largely by Russia's stanching the advance of Hitler's armies, at a cost of 20 to 30 million lives.

        Obama's boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian alternative narrative. It is difficult to see how Obama and his friends could have come up with a pettier and more gratuitous insult to the Russian people.

        German Chancellor Angela Merkel – caught between Washington's demand to "isolate" Russia over the Ukraine crisis and her country's historic guilt in the slaughter of so many Russians – plans to show up a day late to place a wreath at a memorial for the war dead.

        But Obama, in his childish display of temper, will look rather small to those who know the history of the Allied victory in World War II. If it were not for the Red Army's costly victories against the German invaders, particularly the tide-turning battle at Stalingrad in 1943-1944, the prospects for the later D-Day victory in Normandy in June 1944 and the subsequent defeat of Adolf Hitler would have been much more difficult if not impossible.

        Yet, the current Russia-bashing in Washington and the mainstream U.S. media overrides these historical truths. For instance, a New York Times article by Neil MacFarquhar on Friday begins: "The Russian version of Hitler's defeat emphasizes the enormous, unrivaled sacrifices made by the Soviet people to end World War II " But that's not the "Russian version"; that's the history.

        For its part, the Washington Post chose to run an Associated Press story out of Moscow reporting: "A state-of-the-art Russian tank on Thursday ground to a halt during the final Victory Day rehearsal. After an attempt to tow it failed, the T-14 rolled away under its own steam 15 minutes later." (Subtext: Ha, ha! Russia's newest tank gets stuck on Red Square! Ha, ha!).

        This juvenile approach to pretty much everything that's important - not just U.S.-Russia relations - has now become the rule. From the U.S. government to the major U.S. media, it's as if the "cool kids" line up in matching fashions creating a gauntlet to demean and ridicule whoever the outcast of the day is. And anyone who doesn't go along becomes an additional target of abuse.

        That has been the storyline for the Ukraine crisis throughout 2014 and into 2015. Everyone must agree that Putin provoked all the trouble as part of some Hitler-like ambition to conquer much of eastern Europe and rebuild a Russian empire. If you don't make the obligatory denunciations of "Russian aggression," you are called a "Putin apologist" or "Putin bootlicker."

        Distorting the History

        So, the evidence-based history of the Western-sponsored coup in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, must be forgotten or covered up. Indeed, about a year after the events, the New York Times published a major "investigative" article that ignored all the facts of a U.S.-backed coup in declaring there was no coup.

        The Times didn't even mention the notorious, intercepted phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt in early February 2014 in which Nuland was handpicking the future leaders, including her remark "Yats is the guy," a reference to Arseniy Yatsenyuk who – after the coup – quickly became prime minister. [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine."]

        Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late 2014: "Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'état organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history."

        Beyond simply ignoring facts, the U.S. mainstream media has juggled the time line to make Putin's reaction to the coup – and the threat it posed to the Russian naval base in Crimea – appear to be, instead, evidence of his instigation of the already unfolding conflict.

        For example, in a "we-told-you-so" headline on March 9, the Washington Post declared: "Putin had early plan to annex Crimea." Then, quoting AP, the Post reported that Putin himself had just disclosed "a secret meeting with officials in February 2014 Putin said that after the meeting he told the security chiefs that they would be 'obliged to start working to return Crimea to Russia.' He said the meeting was held Feb. 23, 2014, almost a month before a referendum in Crimea that Moscow has said was the basis for annexing the region."

        So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country.

        Putin also knew from opinion polls that most of the people of Crimea favored reunification with Russia, a reality that was underscored by the March referendum in which some 96 percent voted to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia.

        But there was not one scintilla of reliable evidence that Putin intended to annex Crimea before he felt his hand forced by the putsch in Kiev. The political reality was that no Russian leader could afford to take the risk that Russia's only warm-water naval base might switch to new NATO management. If top U.S. officials did not realize that when they were pushing the coup in early 2014, they know little about Russian strategic concerns – or simply didn't care.

        Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault."

        You did not know that such an article was published? Chalk that up to the fact that the mainstream media pretty much ignored it. Mearsheimer said this was the first time he encountered such widespread media silence on an article of such importance.

        The Sole Indispensable Country

        Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations' concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment's dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad – American exceptionalism. This arrogant concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympic god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians.

        That off-putting point has not been missed by Putin even as he has sought to cooperate with Obama and the United States. On Sept. 11, 2013, a week after Putin bailed Obama out, enabling him to avoid a new war on Syria by persuading Syria to surrender its chemical weapons, Putin wrote in an op-ed published by the New York Times that he appreciated the fact that "My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust."

        Putin added, though, "I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism," adding: "It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."

        More recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov drove home this point in the context of World War II. This week, addressing a meeting to mark the 70th anniversary of Victory in Europe, Lavrov included a pointed warning: "Today as never before it is important not to forget the lessons of that catastrophe and the terrible consequences that spring from faith in one's own exceptionalism."

        The irony is that as the cameras pan the various world leaders in the Red Square reviewing stand on Saturday, Obama's absence will send a message that the United States has little appreciation for the sacrifice of the Russian people in bearing the brunt – and breaking the back – of Hitler's conquering armies. It is as if Obama is saying that the "exceptional" United States didn't need anyone's help to win World War II.

        President Franklin Roosevelt was much wiser, understanding that it took extraordinary teamwork to defeat Nazism in the 1940s, which is why he considered the Soviet Union a most important military ally. President Obama is sending a very different message, a haughty disdain for the kind of global cooperation which succeeded in ridding the world of Adolf Hitler.

        Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.

        [May 10, 2015] The New York Times does its government s bidding Here s what you re not being told about US troops in Ukraine

        Notable quotes:
        "... American soldiers in Ukraine, American media not saying much about it. Two facts. ..."
        "... Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia. ..."
        "... Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border? ..."
        "... And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect. ..."
        "... Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this paragraph. Speechless. ..."
        "... Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential. ..."
        "... Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.) ..."
        "... In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that 300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it, there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation, a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed. ..."
        "... The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers." ..."
        "... He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it. ..."
        May 09, 2015 | NYTimes.com

        Reprinted from May 07, 2015 article at Salon.com

        As of mid-April, when a Pentagon flack announced it in Kiev, and as barely reported in American media, U.S. troops are now operating openly in Ukraine.

        Now there is a lead I have long dreaded writing but suspected from the first that one day I would. Do not take a moment to think about this. Take many moments. We all need to. We find ourselves in grave circumstances this spring.

        At first I thought I had written what newspaper people call a double-barreled lead: American soldiers in Ukraine, American media not saying much about it. Two facts.

        Wrong. There is one fact now, and it is this: Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia.

        One cannot predict there will be one. And, of course, right-thinking people hope things will never come to one. In March, President Obama dismissed any such idea as if to suggest it was silly. "They're not interested in a military confrontation with us," Obama said of the Russians-wisely. Then he added, unwisely: "We don't need a war."

        Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border?

        The pose of American innocence, tatty and tiresome in the best of times, is getting dangerous once again.

        The source of worry now is that we do not have an answer to the second question. The project is plain: Advance NATO the rest of the way through Eastern Europe, probably with the intent of eventually destabilizing Moscow. The stooges now installed in Kiev are getting everything ready for the corporations eager to exploit Ukrainian resources and labor.

        And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect.

        In the past there were a few vague mentions of an American military presence in Ukraine that was to be in place by this spring, if I recall correctly. These would have been last autumn. By then, there were also reports, unconfirmed, that some troops and a lot of spooks were already there as advisers but not acknowledged.

        Then in mid-March President Poroshenko introduced a bill authorizing-as required by law-foreign troops to operate on Ukrainian soil. There was revealing detail, according to Russia Insider, a free-standing website in Moscow founded and run by Charles Bausman, an American with an uncanny ability to gather and publish pertinent information.

        "According to the draft law, Ukraine plans three Ukrainian-American command post exercises, Fearless Guardian 2015, Sea Breeze 2015 and Saber Guardian/Rapid Trident 2015," the publication reported, "and two Ukrainian-Polish exercises, Secure Skies 2015, and Law and Order 2015, for this year."

        This is a lot of dry-run maneuvering, if you ask me. Poroshenko's law allows for up to 1,000 American troops to participate in each of these exercises, alongside an equal number of Ukrainian "National Guardsmen," and we will insist on the quotation marks when referring to this gruesome lot, about whom more in a minute.

        Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this paragraph. Speechless.

        It was a month to the day after Poroshenko's bill went to parliament that the Pentagon spokesman in Kiev announced-to a room empty of American correspondents, we are to assume-that troops from the 173rd Airborne were just then arriving to train none other than "National Guardsmen." This training includes "classes in war-fighting functions," as the operations officer, Maj. Jose Mendez, blandly put it at the time.

        The spokesman's number was "about 300," and I never like "about" when these people are describing deployments. This is how it always begins, we will all recall. The American presence in Vietnam began with a handful of advisers who arrived in September 1950. (Remember MAAG, the Military Assistance Advisory Group?)

        Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential.

        I am getting on to apoplectic as to the American media's abject irresponsibility in not covering this stuff adequately. To leave these events unreported is outright lying by omission. Nobody's news judgment can be so bad as to argue this is not a story.

        Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.)

        To cross the "i"s and dot the "t"s, as I prefer to do, the Times did make two mentions of the American troops. One was the day of the announcement, a brief piece on an inside page, datelined Washington. Here we get our code word for this caper: It will be "modest" in every mention.

        The second was in an April 23 story by Michael Gordon, the State Department correspondent. The head was, "Putin Bolsters His Forces Near Ukraine, U.S. Says." Read the thing here.

        The story line is a doozy: Putin-not "the Russians" or "Moscow," of course-is again behaving aggressively by amassing troops-how many, exactly where and how we know is never explained-along his border with Ukraine. Inside his border, that is. This is the story. This is what we mean by aggression these days.

        In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that 300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it, there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation, a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed.

        At this point, I do not see how anyone can stand against the argument-mine for some time-that Putin has shown exemplary restraint in this crisis. In a reversal of roles and hemispheres, Washington would have a lot more than air defense systems and troops of whatever number on the border in question.

        The Times coverage of Ukraine, to continue briefly in this line, starts to remind me of something I.F. Stone once said about the Washington Post: The fun of reading it, the honored man observed, is that you never know where you'll find a page one story.

        In the Times' case, you never know if you will find it at all.

        Have you read much about the wave of political assassinations that erupted in Kiev in mid-April? Worry not. No one else has either-not in American media. Not a word in the Times.

        The number my sources give me, and I cannot confirm it, is a dozen so far-12 to 13 to be precise. On the record, we have 10 who can be named and identified as political allies of Viktor Yanukovych, the president ousted last year, opponents of a drastic rupture in Ukraine's historic relations to Russia, people who favored marking the 70th anniversary of the Soviet defeat of the Nazis-death-deserving idea, this-and critics of the new regime's corruptions and dependence on violent far-right extremists.

        These were all highly visible politicians, parliamentarians and journalists. They have been murdered by small groups of these extremists, according to reports readily available in non-American media. In my read, the killers may have the same semi-official ties to government that the paramilitary death squads in 1970s Argentina-famously recognizable in their Ford Falcons-had with Videla and the colonels.

        The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers."

        Kindly place, Kiev's parliament under this new crowd. Washington must be proud, having backed yet another right-wing, anti-democratic, rights-trampling regime that does what it says.

        And our media must be silent, of course. It can be no other way. Gutless hacks: You bet I am angry.

        * * *

        I end this week's column with a tribute.

        A moment of observance, any kind, for William Pfaff, who died at 86 in Paris late last week. The appreciative obituary by the Times' Marlise Simons is here.

        Pfaff was the most sophisticated foreign affairs commentator of the 20th century's second half and the first 15 years of this one. He was a great influence among colleagues (myself included) and put countless readers in a lot of places in the picture over many decades. He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it.

        Pfaff was a conservative man in some respects, which is not uncommon among America's American critics. In this I put him in the file with Henry Steele Commager, C. Vann Woodward, William Appleman Williams, and among those writing now, Andrew Bacevich. He was not a scholar, as these writers were or are, supporting a point I have long made: Not all intellectuals are scholars, and not all scholars are intellectuals.

        Pfaff's books will live on and I commend them: "Barbarian Sentiments," "The Wrath of Nations," "The Bullet's Song," and his last, "The Irony of Manifest Destiny," are the ones on my shelf.

        Farewell from a friend, Bill.

        Patrick Smith is the author of "Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century." He was the International Herald Tribune's bureau chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from 1985 to 1992. During this time he also wrote "Letter from Tokyo" for the New Yorker. He is the author of four previous books and has contributed frequently to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly, and other publications. Follow him on Twitter, @thefloutist. More Patrick L. Smith.

        [May 10, 2015] After the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. tried to help Russians

        More correctly Clinton administration vigorously tried to help Russia to became a vassal state...
        April 15, 2015 | antiwar.com
        May 07, 2015 | The Washington Post

        PRESIDENT VLADIMIR Putin recently was interviewed for a fawning Russian television documentary on his decade and a half in power. Putin expressed the view that the West would like Russia to be down at the heels. He said, "I sometimes I get the impression that they love us when they need to send us humanitarian aid. . . . [T]he so-called ruling circles, elites - political and economic - of those countries, they love us when we are impoverished, poor and when we come hat in hand. As soon as we start declaring some interests of our own, they feel that there is some element of geopolitical rivalry."

        Earlier, in March, speaking to leaders of the Federal Security Service, which he once led, Mr. Putin warned that "Western special services continue their attempts at using public, nongovernmental and politicized organizations to pursue their own objectives, primarily to discredit the authorities and destabilize the internal situation in Russia."

        Mr. Putin's remarks reflect a deep-seated paranoia. It would be easy to dismiss this kind of rhetoric as intended for domestic consumption, an attempt to whip up support for his war adventure in Ukraine. In part, it is that. But Mr. Putin's assertion that the West has been acting out of a desire to sunder Russia's power and influence is a willful untruth.

        The fact is that thousands of Americans went to Russia hoping to help its people attain a better life. The American and Western effort over the last 25 years - to which the United States and Europe devoted billions of dollars - was aimed at helping Russia overcome the horrid legacy of Soviet communism, which left the country on its knees in 1991. It was not about conquering Russia but rather about saving it, offering the proven tools of market capitalism and democracy, which were not imposed but welcomed. The United States also spent hundreds of millions of dollars to make Russia safer from loose nukes and joined a fruitful collaboration in outer space. Avid volunteers came to Russia and donated endless hours to imparting the lessons of how to hold jury trials, build a free press, design equity markets, carry out political campaigning and a host of other components of an open, prosperous society. The Americans came for the best of reasons.

        Certainly, the Western effort was flawed. Markets were distorted by crony and oligarchic capitalism; democratic practice often faltered; many Russians genuinely felt a sense of defeat, humiliation and exhaustion. There's much to regret but not the central fact that a generous hand was extended to post-Soviet Russia, offering the best of Western values and know-how. The Russian people benefit from this benevolence even now, and, above Mr. Putin's self-serving hysterics, they ought to hear the truth: The United States did not come to bury you.

        Vatnik, 5/7/2015 2:33 PM EDT [Edited]


        I think, that everyoune in US must to know. As i wrote below

        "we think that Navalny & Co paid by the west. they ususally call themselves "opposiotion", and one of them (Nemtsov) was frieinds with McCain (as i realized after reading McCain twitter, after Nemtsov was killed)."

        "we think that our real opposition are these political parties: CPRF, LDPR. We believe them."

        i write it, because i think, that when we talk that our(russian) opposition is bad and paid from the west, you think that we talk about our politic parties. but it is wrong, we talk about Navalny & Co.

        MeriJ, 5/7/2015 3:08 PM EDT [Edited]

        Thanks. That is a useful clarification. But I still find it odd that you would consider a member of your nation's opposition a traitor or "tool" simply because they have friends in the West.

        Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main difference between people like Navalny versus the CPRF/LDPR is that Navalny thinks the current system is corrupt. Whereas individuals and political parties currently benefiting from the current system think it's fine.

        Those are not the thoughts of a traitor. To get to that conclusion you would need to define the current system and those who currently benefit as being "Russia." Oppose them and you oppose the Motherland.

        But Putin and his new-generation oligarchs and his deputies at the Kremlin are not Russia. They are a bunch of guys who currently run things there.

        Vatnik, 5/7/2015 3:47 PM EDT [Edited]

        "Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main difference between people like Navalny versus the CPRF/LDPR is that Navalny thinks the current system is corrupt."

        CPRF and LPDR know about corruption, and even they think that our non-systemic opposition (Navlny & Co) are traitors. And they (CPRF , LDPR) talk about corruption and another bad things of our gov even in Duma. for example, this is what said the leader of LDPR on one tv show

        "коррупцию создала советская власть, кпсс, единая россия плавно подобрала у нее все инструменты коррупции и сегодня эта страстная болезнь поразила все органы и всю структуру"
        google translated it:
        "Corruption established Soviet power, the Communist Party, United Russia gently picked her all the tools of corruption and now this passionate disease struck all the organs and the whole structure"
        and
        "у вас фракция половина бизнесмены, воры, жулики, грабители, вся остальная половина агенты спецслужб"
        google translated:
        "you have a fraction of a half businessmen, thieves, swindlers, robbers, the rest of the half secret service agents"
        he adressed it to our main politic party in Duma, "United Russia"

        I can find more than one video where he talk about falsifications of elections, right in Duma.

        but these are just examples.

        P.S. oh, and here i found video, specially for you(americans) where our non-systemic opposition visited US Embassy in Moscow in July 4th.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE-54U6V-Bc

        Baranovsly71, 5/7/2015 12:11 PM EDT [Edited]

        BTW, this is not true that "Americans were not in charge". I red memoirs of Eltsyn's ministers (Korzhakov, Burbulis, you can read memoirs of deputy secretary of state of that time Strobe Talbott in English, the same is there), and it's clear that in 90s Russia de facto was American colony.

        For example, ministers in Russian government could not be assigned without US State Department approval. Even Russian TV anchors were instructed by US representatives.

        Skeviz, 5/7/2015 12:05 PM EDT

        MeriJ
        6:42 PM GMT+0300 [Edited]
        Putin has convinced you...


        USA had popularity in Russia in 1990 more than Putin now, but to 1999 when Putin became prime-minister USA had less than 20% approve. It was not Putin who destroyed USA's popularity, reverse your policy created Putin.

        You very often replay this your phrase, but it is lie. Did Putin created NATO, did Putin used Russia's weakness and increased NATO, did Putin bomb Kosovo, did Putin violated agreements that was done after WWII and separated Kosovo from Serbia, did Putin destroyed Russia's democracy in 1996 and in 1993, did Putin paid Chechnya terrorists to kill Russians, did Putin pressure Chechens create Islamic State (prototype of ISIL) in Chechnya, did Putin in any article said that it will be great if terrorists will created their own state (and after that will be do permanent wars against Russia)? NO, you did it before there appeared Putin.

        Skeviz, 5/7/2015 12:14 PM EDT

        MeriJ
        5:48 PM GMT+0300
        Much of the aid they are referring to was not lending but grants to help build civil society -- independent media, health organizations and the like. No strings attached.

        You did not created Russia's civil society, you destroyed it when you created did all what was possible to lure high educated Russians in West countries. You falsified Russia's election in 1996 (and all international observers under pressure of USA supported it). You in 1993 supported Yeltsin's military operation in Moscow. You paid Chechnya terrorists to kill Russians and destabilize Russia's society. Is it civil society???

        "independent media"??? Not, they was created by our oligarchs, not by you, and you payed only for those media who represented USA's point of view as your propaganda did in time Cold War. It was the continuing Cold War, not help.

        " health organizations" ??????????????

        USSR's health organizations was significantly better than USA, and infinity better than current Russia's organizations.

        There was not "and like" we ceased Cold War, we by free will dismantled all "USSR's Empire", we by free will destroyed ideology, we ceased war, but you continued it, you continued the war all last 25 years, and NATO is the best example of it.

        MeriJ, 5/7/2015 12:24 PM EDT

        We lured well-educated Russians to the West? Seriously?

        This is the nature of free markets and open borders. Your response should be to compete to lure them back. Give them something to come home for. Most people long to go home.

        Instead you talk about anyone who doesn't hate the West as if they were traitors. Why would any well-educated Russian ex-pat want to come home now?

        Skeviz, 5/7/2015 12:48 PM EDT

        Seriously. Your government created very comfortable ways for engineers (and for some another categories of USSR's people), to take them on West. You are economist, so I suppose you know the reception: lure good manager from another company, it will increase your power, and it decrease power of your competitor.

        MeriJ, 5/7/2015 12:51 PM EDT [Edited]

        By "seriously?" I didn't mean I disagreed with your facts. I disagree that this was surprising or hostile. That is the nature of open markets -- if you see excellence, you try to recruit it.

        There are only two responses I know of: Close your borders and your markets; or compete more effectively.


        MeriJ, 5/7/2015 12:20 PM EDT

        You are truly incorrect, my friend, and it saddens me that you see it this way.

        The antagonistic relationship you describe is more true at the moment, due to the events of the last year, but not true back in the decades before that. During the Cold War, we were indeed enemies, so such motivations then were a given.

        Skeviz, 5/7/2015 12:24 PM EDT

        Ok, then try to explain, why USA had more 80% [popularity in polls] in Russia in 1990 and less than 20% in 1999. There was not Putin, how can you explain it?

        Volkovolk, 5/7/2015 12:27 PM EDT [Edited]

        He is correct. One can say that Cold War never ended - it just took place for some decades on our land in form of guerilla war. After Gorbachev and Yeltsin abandoned all interests of USSR and Russia you decided to press the advantage and to take Russia of the board [permanently]. Is it so big surprise that we are angry about it?

        Joseph Volgin, 5/7/2015 11:01 AM EDT

        Alert! Attention, danger! Putin trolls get into American journalism:

        "...Or, as a Fred Hiatt of the 1870s might have commented about Native Americans who resisted the well-intentioned Bureau of Indian Affairs and didn't appreciate the gentleness of the U.S. Army or the benevolence of life on the reservations: "Above Sitting Bull's self-serving hysterics, Indians ought to hear the truth: The white man did not come to exterminate you."

        Baranovsly71, 5/7/2015 8:22 AM EDT

        Thank you, but I lived in Russia in 90s and remember very well Americans who started to come at that time - arrogant money-grabbers the only thing they were interested in is how to make money - on everything, from oil to export of Russian children to US. They stole billions from Russians and continue to do so.

        Please, Americans, don't help us - go away and take your democracy with you.

        Bob Bobo, 5/7/2015 7:51 AM EDT

        Russia help? Yes like that Khodorkovsky Yukos submitted on a silver platter Rothschild. It would Americans like it if they can plunder the Russian mineral resources. But when Putin to allow such a persona non grata.

        Larysa Mahal, 5/7/2015 6:30 AM EDT

        The best article for those who do not know history and events in Russia. I think a lot of people feel a tears of emotion when they read this article. Bravo!

        When author quotes Putin's speech "they love us when we are impoverished, poor and when we come hat in hand." he has forgotten to say that after these words Putin thanked all those who helped to Russia in its difficult time. Author has forgotten to give example about free help "devoted billions of dollars". Nothing was free and Russia had to pay if not money then the disadvantages agreements or concessions. But oh well it. Talk about a paranoia. Author calls the leader of the biggest country "paranoid". But this man has stood up Russia from knees during 15 years only. Think about it 15 years only! Author calls "paranoid" the man who are supported by 75 % population in Russia. The man who was addressed Crimea, insisting on joining with Russia. Are all of these people paranoid like Putin?

        Then you can say about President of Poland who sad that the Victory Parade in Moscow is a threaten to all Europe. What is it, paranoia in a cube? But author does not see that because for him to write articles is a work but to know truth is for domestic use only.

        I want to ask everybody to see around and say how many prosperous, beautiful countries in Europe face before a threaten to be section, detached some parts like UK, Italy. But to Russia with her "paranoid" leader want and join huge territories with huge amount of people. Think about it. In last year one man standing in a long queue on the sea crossing from Crimea to Russia sad that they are willing to endure all the inconveniences because the main thing is they are with Russia. Think about it.

        Lucky_Barker, 5/7/2015 5:45 AM EDT [Edited]

        The United States supported the destruction and burning of the parliament in Moscow, the murder of civilians in 1993, the bombing of Grozny in 1994-1995-m, and the killing of civilians in Chechnya. All crimes Yeltsin was American influence and American advices.

        It's very like the oficial America. Manu people call "Yeltsin era" as "Time of Americans" or "Time of Prostitutes".

        Restoration of parliamentary democracy, Mr. Putin did not like top US.
        Putin's war in Chechnya without massive bombing did not like owners of US newspapers and US parties.

        The Chechens believe that the Americans supported Yeltsin genocide Chechen civilians in 1nd Chechen war and strongly resent and hate peace in Chechnya after the 2nd Chechen war.

        Tsarnaev was prepared in US as a terrorist for Syria or Chechnya - but was shot too early.

        We must always remember that Al Qaeda and الدّولة الإسلاميّة at an early stage was the US-Saudi projects.

        Volkovolk, 5/7/2015 5:24 AM EDT [

        What a hipocrisity.
        Your "volunters" with their "proven tools" provoked desolation of russian economy and defolt. The results of their actions were nothing short of economical genocide. The so-called free press you build are just a puppets of yours, instruments of your influence and of your lies. Your advises in building of democracy led to anarchy and to the brink of collapse of Russia. Yes, you tried to bury us. Guess what? You failed. And we will never forgive you.

        Danila Ivanov, 5/7/2015 5:19 AM EDT

        But past wrongs do not matter... now Russia and the USA on the brink of war... the war is already at a distance of 600 kilometers from Moscow, the American puppets killed thousands of ethnic Russians.

        Russia is a nuclear power, such action is suicide. We all have to prevent needless and stupid war... I ask you to help.

        Danila Ivanov, 5/7/2015 4:56 AM EDT

        4) Let the author will call the name of at least one program, which spent a billion dollars... which would have improved the lives of ordinary Russians. At least one program (I don't know, although he lived in Russia at that time). All American billion were used to purchase depreciating assets industry of the USSR ("privatization"), actually looting people.

        5) "Thousands of activists and volunteers" were actually thousands of Yeltsin's advisers... it was on the advice of these advisers was launched economic programme "shock therapy" (economic Holocaust). When Federal employees and the military is not specifically paid a salary (although the money was) ... a few years (to reduce the money supply), the economy was dead, just do not have the money, the base rate of the Central Bank was 2000% (I'm not kidding)... people were hungry... you know what hunger is? I know... The country was falling apart, if not for Putin.
        6) Free press this is the press... which is verbatim from CNN, BBC, Foxnews? What is its "freedom" of this media?

        7) the Oligarchs, corrupt officials... and who brought them to power, who collaborated with them, who gave them money to purchase assets? American corporations...

        P. S. I don't know why the author is lying, but I would never wish the Americans in the US... to experience the poverty and hopelessness... you have experienced the Russians in the 90-ies in Russia, when the US "gave us a hand"...

        Danila Ivanov, 5/7/2015 4:26 AM EDT

        I accuse the author of lying... and paid propaganda.
        1) Russia is satisfied with the U.S. government only when it is weak. In 1993 Boris Yeltsin ordered to shoot from tanks to the Parliament (similar to the U.S. Congress) killed many people-elected deputies, and unarmed people in the square who came to support the deputies, they were killed at close range with machine guns. Hundreds of corpses.... NO ONE representative of the United States, has condemned the event. Nobody. Everything is fine, democracy!!!
        The author of the article is lying. Putin is telling the truth.
        2) Almost all non-governmental organizations of Russia officially get the money of US taxpayers. Their leaders defiantly go to the American Embassy. (in other 196 embassies of the countries of the world don't go)... and declare that their goal is "revolution and overthrow the President." Opposition leaders Russia (Navalny, Nemtsov, Kasparov, Chirikov, Ponomarev) was trained in the U.S. and regularly travel to the USA... (for example ... Imagine the leaders of "Occupy Wall Street" would have officially get money from the Russians, and walked to the Russian Embassy. Presented? ) The author is lying, Putin is not lying.
        3) There is No "military adventure in Ukraine." Lies about "Russian aggression" hides that Ukraine is a civil war and the destruction and arrests of thousands of unarmed ethnic Russians (they inhabit the East of Ukraine)... who disagree with an armed overthrow of the President. Near the border of Russia (31 km) is a major Ukrainian city Kharkiv... it unguarded, why in Kharkov there are no "hordes of Russian troops or the rebels?... If Putin attacked the Ukraine and began a military adventure"?
        The author lied again.

        Owan Skirlan, 5/7/2015 3:20 AM EDT

        Okay, dear Americans, thanks for fish and sort of that, but, really - Make Your Own Buisness! Somethere between US borders, not out

        Brekotin, 5/7/2015 1:07 AM EDT

        Very funny article. Washington PRAVDA!
        to author: please check the graph of GDP in Russia and the United States 1985-2015.
        Clearly shows how redistribute wealth of the USSR was reditributed.

        P.S.: teach macroeconomics and history.

        Andrey Belov, 5/7/2015 12:39 AM EDT

        I by the way I wonder what is so wrong left Russia communism? Developed industry and agriculture, United state, connected in the common economic space, a powerful culture and the arts, advanced science, the successful solution of social problems. And against that you have spent billions to destroy all? Lord you Americans really believe that we should be grateful for assistance in the destruction of our country?

        Skeviz, 5/6/2015 11:48 PM EDT

        "After the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. tried to help Russians"
        Really???
        - USA in 1990 had popularity 80%, but to 1999 (before Putin) USA had popularity 20% in Russia, is it because USA had tried help Russia? (De facto USA did all what was possible to create politician like Putin).
        - USSR had dismissed Warsaw pact by free will (and USSR dismissed USSR by free will), USSR destroyed all what was linked to Cold War, did USA the same? Did USA dismissed NATO?
        - USA used Russia's weakness and increased NATO (now hypocrite Americans say that it was done by will of those countries, interesting enough do they really believe in the BS? USSR could also said that E. Europe's countries became ally of USSR because they was afraid Germany).
        - USA used Russia's weakness and attacked Serbia the Russia's ally (hypocrite Americans said that there was ethnic cleansing, BUT USA killed more men there than Milosevic did, moreover after war created by USA there was new ethnic cleansing and Albanians killed Serbians, why hypocrite Americans closed eyes about it?). In day when USA began war against Kosovo they loss all support that had between youth.
        - USA payed Chechnya terrorists and USA do great media support to Chechnya terrorists (after 11 September 2001 it was ceased but to the time was killed many Russia's humans including children, now hypocrite Americans prefer do not remember which media support they did for creation Islamic State on Russia's south border, it was prototype of ISIL).
        - USA used Russia's weakness and dismissed all agreements that interfere create anti-missile system.
        - USA destroyed Russia's democracy when supported falsification of election 1996 in Russia, because USA was afraid communists in Russia, and preferred support Yeltsin. USA violated election and supported Yeltsin, who had destroying Russia.
        - USA paid for many color revolutions on Russia's borders.

        Skeviz, 5/6/2015 11:59 PM EDT

        • - USA instead to help Russia create new economy preferred create more easy way to emigration high educated Russians in USA and another Europe's countries.
        • - USA separated Kosovo (and destroyed all system of agreements that existed after WWII, now hypocrite Americans try show that it was did in Crimea, but really Russia did nothing that USA had not make in Serbia).
        • - When Putin began pressure Russia's oligarchs to pay salaries and taxes, USA began media war against Putin.

        I could continue the list very long, but I have not time now.
        So all USA's sayings about "trying to help Russia" is hypocrite lie from alpha to omega. All what wanted USA destroy country that they had afraid half century. USA didn't use Russians free will and trying end Cold War, USA continued it and I can suppose it will be great problem for USA in future. Certainly Russia is weak country now, but Russia can give very significant help to China, especially in military question (if China will be need use power, but do not show that they use power).

        Irene Guy, 5/6/2015 9:34 PM EDT

        "For fifty years, our policy was to fence in the Soviet Union while its own internal contradictions undermined it. For thirty years, our policy has been to draw out the People's Republic of China. As a result, the China of today is simply not the Soviet Union of the late 1940s"
        Robert B. Zoellick, Deputy Secretary of State
        Remarks to National Committee on U.S.-China Relations
        New York City
        September 21, 2005"
        Enough said...

        [May 10, 2015] Obama s Petulant WWII Snub of Russia by Ray McGovern

        Notable quotes:
        "... Though designed to isolate Russia because it had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d'état in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia's President Vladimir Putin – like the economic sanctions against Russia – is likely to backfire on the U.S. ..."
        "... Obama's boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian alternative narrative. ..."
        "... Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late 2014: "Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'état organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history." ..."
        "... So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country. ..."
        "... Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault." ..."
        "... Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations' concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment's dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad – American exceptionalism. This arrogant concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympic god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians. ..."
        "... Putin added, though, "I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism," adding: "It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal." ..."
        May 09, 2015 | antiwar.com
        President Barack Obama's decision to join other Western leaders in snubbing Russia's weekend celebration of the 70th anniversary of Victory in Europe looks more like pouting than statesmanship, especially in the context of the U.S. mainstream media's recent anti-historical effort to downplay Russia's crucial role in defeating Nazism.

        Though designed to isolate Russia because it had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d'état in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia's President Vladimir Putin – like the economic sanctions against Russia – is likely to backfire on the U.S. and its European allies by strengthening ties between Russia and the emerging Asian giants of China and India.

        Notably, the dignitaries who will show up at this important commemoration include the presidents of China and India, representing a huge chunk of humanity, who came to show respect for the time seven decades ago when the inhumanity of the Nazi regime was defeated – largely by Russia's stanching the advance of Hitler's armies, at a cost of 20 to 30 million lives.

        Obama's boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian alternative narrative. It is difficult to see how Obama and his friends could have come up with a pettier and more gratuitous insult to the Russian people.

        German Chancellor Angela Merkel – caught between Washington's demand to "isolate" Russia over the Ukraine crisis and her country's historic guilt in the slaughter of so many Russians – plans to show up a day late to place a wreath at a memorial for the war dead.

        But Obama, in his childish display of temper, will look rather small to those who know the history of the Allied victory in World War II. If it were not for the Red Army's costly victories against the German invaders, particularly the tide-turning battle at Stalingrad in 1943-1944, the prospects for the later D-Day victory in Normandy in June 1944 and the subsequent defeat of Adolf Hitler would have been much more difficult if not impossible.

        Yet, the current Russia-bashing in Washington and the mainstream U.S. media overrides these historical truths. For instance, a New York Times article by Neil MacFarquhar on Friday begins: "The Russian version of Hitler's defeat emphasizes the enormous, unrivaled sacrifices made by the Soviet people to end World War II " But that's not the "Russian version"; that's the history.

        For its part, the Washington Post chose to run an Associated Press story out of Moscow reporting: "A state-of-the-art Russian tank on Thursday ground to a halt during the final Victory Day rehearsal. After an attempt to tow it failed, the T-14 rolled away under its own steam 15 minutes later." (Subtext: Ha, ha! Russia's newest tank gets stuck on Red Square! Ha, ha!).

        This juvenile approach to pretty much everything that's important - not just U.S.-Russia relations - has now become the rule. From the U.S. government to the major U.S. media, it's as if the "cool kids" line up in matching fashions creating a gauntlet to demean and ridicule whoever the outcast of the day is. And anyone who doesn't go along becomes an additional target of abuse.

        That has been the storyline for the Ukraine crisis throughout 2014 and into 2015. Everyone must agree that Putin provoked all the trouble as part of some Hitler-like ambition to conquer much of eastern Europe and rebuild a Russian empire. If you don't make the obligatory denunciations of "Russian aggression," you are called a "Putin apologist" or "Putin bootlicker."

        Distorting the History

        So, the evidence-based history of the Western-sponsored coup in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, must be forgotten or covered up. Indeed, about a year after the events, the New York Times published a major "investigative" article that ignored all the facts of a U.S.-backed coup in declaring there was no coup.

        The Times didn't even mention the notorious, intercepted phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt in early February 2014 in which Nuland was handpicking the future leaders, including her remark "Yats is the guy," a reference to Arseniy Yatsenyuk who – after the coup – quickly became prime minister. [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine."]

        Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late 2014: "Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'état organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history."

        Beyond simply ignoring facts, the U.S. mainstream media has juggled the time line to make Putin's reaction to the coup – and the threat it posed to the Russian naval base in Crimea – appear to be, instead, evidence of his instigation of the already unfolding conflict.

        For example, in a "we-told-you-so" headline on March 9, the Washington Post declared: "Putin had early plan to annex Crimea." Then, quoting AP, the Post reported that Putin himself had just disclosed "a secret meeting with officials in February 2014 Putin said that after the meeting he told the security chiefs that they would be 'obliged to start working to return Crimea to Russia.' He said the meeting was held Feb. 23, 2014, almost a month before a referendum in Crimea that Moscow has said was the basis for annexing the region."

        So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country.

        Putin also knew from opinion polls that most of the people of Crimea favored reunification with Russia, a reality that was underscored by the March referendum in which some 96 percent voted to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia.

        But there was not one scintilla of reliable evidence that Putin intended to annex Crimea before he felt his hand forced by the putsch in Kiev. The political reality was that no Russian leader could afford to take the risk that Russia's only warm-water naval base might switch to new NATO management. If top U.S. officials did not realize that when they were pushing the coup in early 2014, they know little about Russian strategic concerns – or simply didn't care.

        Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault."

        You did not know that such an article was published? Chalk that up to the fact that the mainstream media pretty much ignored it. Mearsheimer said this was the first time he encountered such widespread media silence on an article of such importance.

        The Sole Indispensable Country

        Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations' concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment's dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad – American exceptionalism. This arrogant concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympic god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians.

        That off-putting point has not been missed by Putin even as he has sought to cooperate with Obama and the United States. On Sept. 11, 2013, a week after Putin bailed Obama out, enabling him to avoid a new war on Syria by persuading Syria to surrender its chemical weapons, Putin wrote in an op-ed published by the New York Times that he appreciated the fact that "My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust."

        Putin added, though, "I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism," adding: "It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."

        More recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov drove home this point in the context of World War II. This week, addressing a meeting to mark the 70th anniversary of Victory in Europe, Lavrov included a pointed warning: "Today as never before it is important not to forget the lessons of that catastrophe and the terrible consequences that spring from faith in one's own exceptionalism."

        The irony is that as the cameras pan the various world leaders in the Red Square reviewing stand on Saturday, Obama's absence will send a message that the United States has little appreciation for the sacrifice of the Russian people in bearing the brunt – and breaking the back – of Hitler's conquering armies. It is as if Obama is saying that the "exceptional" United States didn't need anyone's help to win World War II.

        President Franklin Roosevelt was much wiser, understanding that it took extraordinary teamwork to defeat Nazism in the 1940s, which is why he considered the Soviet Union a most important military ally. President Obama is sending a very different message, a haughty disdain for the kind of global cooperation which succeeded in ridding the world of Adolf Hitler.

        Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.

        [May 10, 2015] Putin voices grievances as huge parade marks 70th anniversary of victory

        Now we have new forces that push the world to the war much like in 30th of XX century. One of the key problem of modern world is the USA elite attempt to maintain world hegemony. The post WWII security architecture was dismantled by the USA and its allies and after the collapse of the USSR. Instead the regime of unconditional domination of the USA was put in place by Clinton's government. This switch was signified by the attack on Serbia and treatment of Russia (as well as other xUSSR countries) after the dissolution of the USSR. Russia as all other xUSSR countries were mercilessly economically raped, which provided to the USA (and EU) another 10 years of economic expansion and only in 2001 crisis hit again. And it never ended with the second wave of the same crisis coming in 2008 and the third wave being in the wings right now (whether it'll materialize in 2016 or 20120 is an open question). With the current level of world debt and, especially, the USA debt the situation changed, Also the USA economy is smaller in comparison with other world economies then ever before (Germany and Japan economies fully recovered from WWII, and China became a new world economic power). This create a drive against the US hegemony and "dollar regime" (with EU and euro as one such development). Recent US adventures in Iraq, Libya and Syria were met with understandable resistance which due to decline of the US manufacturing base threatens the current US domination in world affairs. Only in Ukraine they managed to secure a victory by using nationalists as a Trojan horse for establishing full hegemony over the country (but at the expense of partitioning the country). Due to those threats and instability of world financial system "audacious oligarchy" that rules the USA is becoming more and more reckless. Neocons continue dominate the State Department and we have a chance of neocon becoming the next US president (not the Clinton., Bush II or Obama were substantially different in this respect). Which provoked rearmament of Russia and armament of China making the world again more dangerous. Putin took a "independence" stand (may be prematurely, failing to wait for the time when Russia would be ready, forced by the events in Ukraine) which now greatly complicates US geopolitical position and expantion of its neoliberal empire (which come to the screeching end in any case because the Earth is a finite size) . Troubles with cheap oil availability ("plato oil" or "end of cheap oil") were just the straw that broke the camel back. And without continues expansion of markets neoliberalism enters deep crisis. Understandably no love left between the US elite and Russia and Ukraine was only a pretext to put Russia "in place". The USA and EU desperately need to acquire the control over Russian energy sector, but with Putin in power this is not possible.
        .
        All is fine in Guardian Russian-Ukrainian forums. Alpamysh, GreatMountainEagle, jezzam, Botswana61, Metronome151 and company perform their usual roles. We have some newcomers such as some1here
        May 10, 2015 | The Guardian

        freedomcry -> some1here 10 May 2015 10:36

        An apologist is not necessarily a supporter. The bottom line is, you're repeating the exact things Hitler's propaganda used to justify the invasion of the USSR which were contradicted both later, in the way the Nazis behaved on occupied territories, and earlier in Mein Kampf where Hitler had laid out quite bluntly the Lebensraum argument for colonising Russia and Ukraine.

        Aneesia 10 May 2015 10:36

        The behavior of the West was childish in this matter. They are looking for a fight to keep their economies growing...and will do all they can to provoke one.....like the spoiled brat in a sandbox. Russia was by far the most mature.


        Abiesalba -> Carly435 10 May 2015 10:33

        And what percentage of Western Europeans are neo-fascists, in your opinion?

        If you define Nazi-fascist ideology for what it really is, namely 'us against them' and 'superior' vs 'inferior' nations, then I think at least 10% of the population, if not more.

        It is now acceptable for parties with such ideologies to even run in elections, e.g. Wilders, Le Pen, Farage etc., and they get rather high support.

        This dangerous 'us and them' ideology has different forms and undertones with respect to the local context. For example, here is Slovenia I would count among such divisive and potentially very dangerous parties the party which won 20% in our 2014 elections (their main target for discrimination are the 'Southerners' = immigrants from other Yugoslav nations).

        I think it is very dangerous that Europe is largely turning a blind eye. They also did not confront neither Hitler, nor Mussolini, and more recently nor Milošević until it was too late.

        Freedom of speech is not unlimited; it is limited by the rights of others. The right of individuals and groups to human dignity and to not be discriminated against on any grounds has a priority over the right to freedom of expression. In other words, hate speech should be unacceptable, yet parties with hate ideologies are making it to European national parliaments and to the EU parliament. Very worrying.

        I suppose that Slovenes are very sensitive to such developments. We have been oppressed by the Austrians/Germans for more than a thousand years. After WWI, Slovenes in Italy were the first nation in Europe to experience the Nazi-fascist terror, so Slovene writers and poets had very early premonitions of a new, even more sinister war coming (which indeed happened - WWII). See for example Srečko Kosovel's poem Ecstasy of Death about the death of western Europe in a sea of scorching blood. Kosovel published this poem in 1925, when he was 21 (and this was 15 years before WWII, and before Hitler rose to power).

        Kosovel died at the age of 21, but he was a true European visionary. He stood for Europe of peace and brotherhood of nations. I suspect he would be horrified by the recent developments in Europe if he were alive today. Maybe he would write the Ecstasy of Death all over again.

        Vladimir Makarenko -> alpamysh 10 May 2015 10:28

        this is what is called "black agitprop" or in a lay man talk - lies.

        Vladimir Makarenko -> Metronome151 10 May 2015 10:27

        Since when you started to be heartbroken about Russian interests?

        CoastalBrake1 -> Abiesalba 10 May 2015 10:24

        "With all due respect to the US, the US role is not even remotely comparable to the sacrifice in the Soviet Union. The Red Army was by far the decisive power in defeating Nazi Germany" No shlt, because the Red Army had no other choice under the thumb of one of the most vicious and ignorant military leaders in history.

        Yes, Russia clearly paid the biggest price for victory, but many of The Red Army casualties were simply a result of their own military strategies and the fact they had way more troops in the first place compared to other allied powers.

        freedomcry -> Carly435 10 May 2015 10:23

        Russians are loath to reflect too deeply on the meanings of that war.

        That is one big filthy lie. I can see how a certain amount of intelligence went into its making: the fact that the Russian predicament during the war was more about survival than almost anyone else's, creates the possibility that the war impressed itself as something that's more about defeating the invader than understanding what had made them into what they were. And once you have that possibility, you go ahead and just blurt out the claim - it being the nature of ubiquitous Russophobia that any judgement of the Russians automatically rings true.

        But seriously, it's so completely false, so diametrically the opposite of how we actually see the war that I'm reeling a little. And I thought I'd heard every insult of Russians out there, from the crudest to the most intricate.

        Vladimir Makarenko -> GreatMountainEagle 10 May 2015 10:22

        Hm all complaints please to greedy sharks which draw the Versaille treaty. As those with brains can see the WWII started the moment it was signed.

        Metronome151 -> Popeyes 10 May 2015 10:22

        Indeed it is a win win situation for China at Russia's expense.

        Botswana61 -> BeatonTheDonis 10 May 2015 10:21

        [stalin]"took the Soviet Union from a devastated agrarian economy to an industrial power that defeated Nazi Germany and was able to compete with the USA and Western Europe."

        Soviet Union has never been able to compete economically, industrially with the Western Europe, let alone the U$A.

        It collapsed not only because it had an insane political system, but also because it had a lunatic economic system which could not produce any quality products (especially consumer goods) for its populace.

        Btw. Putinesque Russia still cannot.

        [have you seen any Russian 4G cell phones, laptops, tablets, supercomputers, video cameras, HDTV large screens, modern-wide-body passenger planes or even attractive passenger cars sold anywhere in the world?]

        alpamysh -> FraidyMan 10 May 2015 10:18

        I think that Merkel's actions, as usual, have been the best.

        Boycotting the military parade sends a clear message.

        And a German chancellor honouring fallen Russians the next day sends one just as powerful...

        Popeyes 10 May 2015 10:17

        I hope the Russia/China agreements and the pacts they have made between themselves work out and just maybe the U.S. will climb back into its box. The alliance between Russia/China is Washington's worst nightmare. Russia with the world's largest land mass, richest natural resources and it would seem the most advanced technology together with China who has the world's largest population, and the largest producer and exporter of manufactured goods.


        bailliegillies ID5868758 10 May 2015 10:15

        We haven't and are fully aware of its consequences. Chamberlain's problem was that Britain was not yet ready to face the might of an emerging Germany. Home Chain was nowhere near ready, nor was Fighter Command, it had plenty of Hurricanes but the Spitfire squadrons were still being formed as was the integrated defence system that the RAF relied on in 1940. Chamberlain and others in government knew that when the war came the main threat that Britain was going to face was from the air. Chamberlain bought the country the time needed to prepare. All the same Munich is not something the country is proud off.

        MyFriendWillPay -> sztubacki 10 May 2015 10:14

        Murdering their own people when they should be killing other people?

        Here is a more human ideal, currently practiced by "you know who"!

        * Get agents provocateur to let off a few bombs to create civilian casualties.

        * Pin the blame on people you want to get rid of.

        * Apply to UN for no-fly zone to protect the civilians.

        * Bomb the shit out of anything that moves anywhere in the country.

        * Fly in local exiles from US with geologists and lawyers to secure mineral rights

        * Conclude regime change

        * Escape ensuing chaos to plan next regime change.

        * Have your President nominated for Nobel Peace Prize!

        Botswana61 -> ijustwant2say 10 May 2015 10:14

        One huge difference between UK and RF.

        UK has reconciled itself to the loss of the (huge) British Empire after WWII;
        never looked back, but moved forward, today being more successul economically than many other EU member states.

        [Modern Turkey has also reconciled itself to the loss of its huge Ottoman Empire]

        But Russia has not. It still dwells in the past, relieves its past 'glories' and yearns for return of times when everybody feared it.

        While still unable to transform itself into a modern, democratic, prosperous country which could have a meaningful, successful future.


        Vladimir Makarenko -> dyst1111 10 May 2015 10:12

        Hm, what is then the point of NATO expansion in the time when Russia was making drastic reduction in its weapons and army size?

        Ukraine coup d'etat? Or should it be called what it is - a highway robbery of Russia's most important trade market?

        Well, Russians successfully made it a EU disaster.

        As to new generations of weapons - Russians do feel better, they know that for sure Western Europe or whoever will not repeat the 1941 mistake.

        kraljevic -> MiltonWiltmellow 10 May 2015 10:10

        The Russian power elites are no more pernicious than the American ones. The supposed anti-red, anti-commie Republicans are now the most vocal defenders of Big Commie himself Lenin's perverse internal borders. Lenin arrived at those borders not through democratic legitimacy but through the "blood" of millions of Russian patriots who wanted to preserve the unity of their nation and fought against his monstrous tyranny.

        Although supposedly ideological enemies the likes of Breedlove and McCain on one side and Lenin and Trotsky on the other are in perfect harmony when it comes to rigging borders so that the Russian people come away with as little as possible and become the big losers!

        The sudden devotion of the American right wing establishment to Lenin's "unitary" Ukraine is motivated purely by the anti-Russian nature of the new Government in Kiev and the damage and shelling and killing it can inflict on the pro-Russian population in the east!

        MyFriendWillPay -> MahsaKaerra 10 May 2015 10:07

        "A series of UN mandates that Russia deemed so threatening that they either voted in favor of the military interventions or didn't bother to express an opinion one way or the other. For all the US's military actions there have been zero Russian vetoes."

        That's because the Yanks are so disingenuous;

        * Get agents provocateur to let off a few bombs to create civilian casualties.
        * Pin the blame on people you want to get rid of.
        * Apply to UN for no-fly zone to protect the civilians.
        * Bomb the shit out of anything that moves anywhere in the country.
        * Fly in local exiles from US with geologists and lawyers to secure mineral rights
        * Conclude regime change
        * Escape ensuing chaos to plan next regime change.
        * Have your President nominated for Nobel Peace Prize!

        Abiesalba -> sztubacki 10 May 2015 10:04

        It was estimated about half a million of American soldiers casualties to conquer Japan.

        The Soviet Union lost about 10 million soldiers and 15 million civilians.

        About 1.6 million German soldiers were killed in WWII, of which 1.1 million in the Eastern (Soviet) front. So out of 10 dead German soldiers, 7 died fighting the Red Army.

        In Europe, 9 in 10 Jews were killed.

        In Poland, 1 in 5 people were killed, many civilians.

        In my country Slovenia, 1 in 10 were killed, many civilians. And about 10% is among the highest national death rates in WWII.

        With all due respect to the US, the US role is not even remotely comparable to the sacrifice in the Soviet Union. The Red Army was by far the decisive power in defeating Nazi Germany.

        And it is highly hypocritical and disrespectful that the 'west' ignored the celebration of the end of WWII in Europe in Moscow.

        Was perhaps the role of the US and the UK in WWII ignored by everybody due to the recent illegal and catastrophic US/UK Iraq invasion? I thought not. There were also no sanctions etc.

        Carly435 -> Nat1978 10 May 2015 10:03

        Though I'm not a fan of what-aboutism, the horrific scale of German war crimes against Russian POWs has never gained the attention it deserves in the West.

        BeatonTheDonis -> alpamysh 10 May 2015 10:00

        Luckily for them he is back "on brand" with his latest book, about two-thirds of which is devoted to the Eastern Front, which Beevor believes redresses the balance of previous histories of the Second World War. "Ninety per cent of all Wehrmacht losses were on the Eastern Front. As far as the Germans were concerned, we were a sideshow. But each country sees the war from its own perspective and memories."

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/11093344/Antony-Beevor-I-deserved-to-fail-history.-I-was-bolshie....html

        WayneB1 10 May 2015 09:53

        Unfortunately the West (i.e., the America and its key European allies) refuse to recognise the realities as far as the Russians are concerned. it was understood - blatantly - that Russia did not want countries on its doorstep, including Ukraine, made members of NATO. Yet the West and Ukraine itself persist.

        As for WWII. It is callous for the everyman Russian to hear that the country's then leaders - by initially siding with the Nazis and also annihilating their own people - were accountable for so many of the losses they suffered. But regardless of any and all of this, the West should have attended this commemoration in full force. Sanctions, snubbings and petty political manoeuvring is not the way to move forward. The West screwed up royally with Ukraine (and Crimea) and should accept and amend the fact that it is an insensitive behemoth guilty of the utmost arrogance and pushing for the 'unipolar world' suggested by Mr. Putin.

        The only thing that will change this is Russia (and other nations) pushing back. Indeed, with the likes of Russia and China establishing relations with South America, it will only be a matter of time that America might find itself the the 'enemy' at its doorsteps.

        sodtheproles -> Vijay Raghavan 10 May 2015 09:47

        How dare you!? How dare you dishonour and disfigure the memory of British and American exploitation of colonised peoples, and, above all, on a day like this!? Don't you realise how lucky they were to be given the chance of dying for democracy, a chance which was simply not open to them in their home countries!? How the very dare you, Mr Raghavan!?

        Eugene Weixel -> Roguing 10 May 2015 09:51

        Had Neville Chamberlain and company not given Czechoslovakia to Hitler and nudged him eastward there would have been no pact between the USSR and Hitler. This pact was a response to the Dr facto Hitler Chamberlain accord.

        kraljevic -> dyst1111 10 May 2015 09:50

        Since the majority of the Balkan peoples are eagerly allowing their territories to be used as forward bases for NATO and American attempts to contain and encircle Russia I wouldn't have wasted a single Russian bullet freeing them from Nazi rule! Many of them schemed with Hitler and took part in the invasion of the Soviet Union with great enthusiasm!They are definitely no angels and since most of them were hostile to the Russian presence and the Americans wouldn't have been in any great hurry to free them if it meant costing them lives there was little reason for the Russians to come to their rescue!

        MyFriendWillPay -> Rudeboy1 10 May 2015 09:43

        If you unscrambled your comment, it would be more readable but just as wrong.

        When the Nazis launched Operation Barbarossa against the Soviet Union (SU) on 22 June 1941, three million German soldiers and almost 700,000 allies of Nazi Germany crossed the border, and their equipment consisted of 600,000 motor vehicles, 3,648 tanks, more than 2.700 planes, and just over 7,000 pieces of artillery.[

        The Nazis expected their blitzkrieg to bring total collapse of the SU within two months, and British Intelligence assessed the timescale as 8 - 10 weeks.

        However, events unfoulded rather differently as, within the first 3 4 weeks of the campaign, Admiral Canaris, head of German Military Intelligence, confided to a German general on the easter front, that everything about the campaign now looked "black". Even Goebells at that time wrote entries in his diary about how bad German progress was in the first month.

        By mid October 1941 - six weeks after the scheduled Nazi victory over the SU - various agencies, from the Swiss Secret Service to the Vatican, predicted that the Nazis would lose the war.

        By the start of December 1941, when the Germans ground to a halt just 20 miles from the Kremlin - exhausted, frozen and with over-extended supply lines - the Soviets prepared to strike. Their offensive began on 5 December and it pushed the Nazis back 60 - 170 miles, whereupon Hitler postponed the assault on Moscow until Spring 1942. Significantly, the success of this Soviet offensive prompted the German Armaments Minister to suggest to Hitler that a negotiated peace might be sought. Hitler was not prepared to negotiate, although his inner circle and Hitler himself, evidently realized that the war was lost.

        The Nazis fought on, hoping to seize the oilfields in the southeast, but this dream ended with the surrender of their army at Stalingrad in early 1942 and the long retreat to Berlin. During the retreat, a new dream emerged as the Nazis hoped to make peace with the western allies, and then turn their combined forceas against the Soviets. However, that was not to be, and the war ended in berlin on 9 May 1945.

        In summary, the Soviets were always going to win this war after Operation Barbarossa failed to crush them during the Summer of 1941. The Nazis had failed to seize Soviet materiel - from food to oil - and, unlike the Soviets, they were not able to go on replacing casualties with high quality manpower. Also, importantly, the Soviets were not merely fighting for freedom as their western allies were doing, they were fighting for their very survival as a people, hence their monumental sacrifices.

        The die for the outcome of this war was cast before the first shipments of material support to the Soviets, welcome as they were, and almost three years before the Normandy landings. But the cost to the SU was enormous: vast destruction of infrastructure, and the loss of fighters and civilians killed at 30 times higher than the combined losses of the British Empire and the United States!

        That is why the western WW2 allies' boycott of the Memorial Parade was churlish.

        Eugene Weixel -> Abiesalba 10 May 2015 09:43

        UZ troops had their way with destitute women in Germany and Italy the price of a candy bar for years.

        Abiesalba -> Carly435 10 May 2015 09:40

        Russians and Russian history textbooks gloss over what was at stake in WWII. For them, it's all about defeating an enemy

        Americans and Britons completely fail to understand the difference between having the territory of your own nation occupied and sending soldiers and/or planes to fight in another country.

        Having the enemy on your doorstep in terrible. And having Nazi-fascists on your doorstep was much worse in Slavic countries than in the occupied western European nations, becuase Hitler, Mussolini and allies waged ethnic cleansing of 'inferior' Slavs. On the other hand, the Aryan people of the occupied western Europe were spared this horror.

        I am from Slovenia, which was brutally occupied in WWII by Germany, Italy and Hungary. For two decades before WWII, Italian fascists pursued ethnic cleansing in western Slovene territory. This ethnic cleansing only intensified in WWII.

        For Slovenes, WWII meant having to choose between fear and courage every day.

        We had a very strong resistance movement, including the guarilla partisan fighters.

        But members of the resistance knew how brutal the revenge of the occupiers against their families and Slovenes can be. When the father joined the partisans, the mother and the children had to go underground. The occupiers frequently shout 10 civilian hostages for every of their soldiers killed by the resistance. They burnt down whole villages on suspicion that they support the partisans. Oh, and the use of the Slovene language was prohibited. And Slovenes were tortured, sent to concentration camps etc.

        In fact, our strong resistance drove the occupiers crazy. Italians encircled the capital of Slovenia, Ljublana, with 35 km of barbed wire and bunkers, hoping that they will defeat the resistance. In essence, they converted Ljubljana to the largest concentration camp in Europe. But people still strongly fought back, including the increasingly strong partisan units.

        The people of the Soviet Union faced a similar dilemma. They fought incredibly heroically for every inch of their homeland. In fact, they largely defeated Nazi Germany themselves. The Eastern Front was the largest military combat in history.

        And while the people of the Soviet Union, Slovenia and other occupied nations fought for their very existence, it seems to me, with all due respect, that the resistance in the occupied western countries was very weak, and often their regimes in effect sided with Germany.

        Now, what would you do if you had the enemy on your doorstep? Would you chose fear or courage?

        It is a tough personal choice and a tough decision for a nation. But under such circumstances, the true spirit of the nation shines through.

        freedomcry -> lizgiag 10 May 2015 09:39

        The anti-Russian feelings you encounter are really the product of decades of anti-Soviet propaganda.

        It's much older than that, I'm afraid. Anti-Soviet propaganda was a continuation of an already well-established prejudice against Russians. And the sad thing is, notwithstanding the West's present obsession with fighting stereotypes and hate speech, many a Westerner nowadays would read Rudyard Kipling's ridiculous The Man Who Was and find it entirely convincing because those are the exact same cardboard Russians with horns and tails that their media and Hollywood keep showing them.

        Laudig 10 May 2015 09:38

        Compare the situation in the Crimea and the situation in Hawaii. The vote was held promptly in Crimea. 3 or 4 generations later in Hawaii. The USG has no moral standing to complain. It is an empire that needs to collapse so the country can exist.

        Vijay Raghavan 10 May 2015 09:38

        I think the President of Russia & President of China being very powerful should ask the exceptional president of America to pay pension dues for war veterans of second world war.They should take this matter up in security council & discuss this promptly.If the British & Americans claim that their values are exceptional then how come they have not paid the pensions for millions of war veterans for 70 years.

        I think the exceptional president should ask his federal printing press to print a little more dollars & send it to all countries who have been paying pensions on their behalf.

        BBC can do like this instead of wasting their time on silly documentaries they should produce documentaries on their war veterans & ask the moral question are they responsible for paying war veterans pensions or not.

        lizgiag -> MiltonWiltmellow 10 May 2015 09:37

        Great rant! But if you take a look at any country's history you will find the same - Britain, Spain, France, Germany - bloody wars instigated everywhere all for the glory of empire & resources.

        Now its the turn of the EU & USA - these empires are re-branded, they no longer call themselves empires, but the outcome is the same - a geo-political land & resource grab!

        Be in NO DOUBT the populace comes way down on the list of concerns - look at what is happening the world over, the middle east is in a mess because of the involvement of the West recently but also for decades past.

        Do not be fooled, the New American Century is upon us...google it!


        freedomcry -> Botswana61 10 May 2015 09:25

        And it probably originates with Nazi propaganda about the advancing barbarous subhuman Russian hordes.

        This is not to be taken as a denial that the Red Army committed any rapes at all. Rather, I'm pointing to the fact that mass rapes are just the sort of thing that specifically Russian soldiers were likely to be accused of, whether they did it or not. And the core of that prejudice still survives more or less intact.

        Vijay Raghavan -> GreatMountainEagle 10 May 2015 09:16

        http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/World-War-II-pensioners-get-pittance-from-government/articleshow/4741980.cms

        http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/World-War-II-veterans-get-only-Rs-1000-pension/articleshow/19923091.cms

        http://www.deccanherald.com/content/102212/govt-directed-reconsider-pension-world.html

        Those who fought for the British only got a middle finger.BBC has been so callous it does not even put in a word to British government to reimburse pension for those who fought for them.....that has been their attitude.

        The total number of people for whom the British government has not paid pension is 1.5MM people for their 2nd world war.Indian governemnt had to pay their pensions & they have been paying with all courts saying it is India's responsibility.The cost per year would be 1.Billion for 60 years we had paid 60Billion dollars that is just your world war 2....add another 30 Billion for your world war 1.I think the Guardian and BBC should write a article about that and ensure British Government promptly repays back 100Billion dollars to India.If we add up Nepal that will also be huge claim on British government.

        We can do a deal like this you can pay 50% for our schools & another 50% for the roads & hospitals.or May be you can give a interest free loan to Nepal for 100 billion against pension amount payable to India as they need that money badly for fixing their country after earth quake.

        Standupwoman -> MentalToo 10 May 2015 09:15

        'Rapes committed by western allies ground troops against German civilians are not, for the very good reason nothing like that happened.'

        That is not true. There is considerable evidence to suggest the majority of rapes were committed by the Red Army (whose own civilian population had suffered in a way ours never had) but the other Allies were guilty of a lot of it too - one estimate quoting a figure of 11,040 for the Americans alone. Don't forget the Australian journalist who accompanied the American army and claimed:

        I know for a fact that many women were raped by white Americans. No action was taken against the culprits. In one sector a report went round that a certain very distinguished army commander made the wisecrack, 'Copulation without conversation does not constitute fraternisation'.

        Rape is always wrong, and even if the Red Army had considerably more provocation than we did, that still doesn't excuse them. But neither does it give us the right to lie about them, or about our own share in the atrocities. Can't we at least show some integrity about that?

        BeatonTheDonis -> ijustwant2say 10 May 2015 09:14

        The history on Churchill's role in the Bengal Famine and Allied torture and murder of German and Japanese POWs is quite recent, so you must be pretty young if you covered it at school.

        You haven't provided any evidence for Putin's revisionism affecting Russian schools. From what Putin has said, it seems he acknowledges Stalin's crimes but places them in the context of the challenges Stalin faced and he compares Stalin to other historical figures whose crimes against humanity haven't seen them completely written off as monsters - Oliver Cromwell, for example.

        Stalin was a murderer who terrified his populace into submission. But he was also in power for 30 years and took the Soviet Union from a devastated agrarian economy to an industrial power that defeated Nazi Germany and was able to compete with the USA and Western Europe. Life expectancy in the USSR when he died had increased to 63 for men and 69 for women.

        After the fall of the USSR, life expectancy for men fell to under 60 - that is the context which sees Putin lauded by many Russians.

        Tattyana -> Carly435 10 May 2015 09:13

        It is easy. We can not find any single point your ideology is ever better.

        You insist our media keep to lie? You think so because YOUR media told you so? I can read both - yours and ours. I can read Ukrainian as well. And I can compare. Can you?

        I can continue, but unlike you I do aware, there are some bad pages in history of every country or people. And I never start to talk with any of Germany people from the point "Do you remember that Hitler killed millions of Russians?"

        Though here is much more truth than in your points which should blow hatred to Russians.

        Abiesalba -> Barkywoof 10 May 2015 09:10

        Was nothing learned from that awful war ?

        Unfortunatelly, not much. Except that it is now not politically correct in western Europe to specifically target the Jews.

        However, it is very popular to specifically target the horrible 'Eastern and Central European' immigrants. The term 'Eastern and Central European' immigrants predominantly means the Slavs.

        According to the Nazi ideology, Slavs were at the very bottom of the race hierarchy, below the Jews. And oppression of 'inferior' Slavs by the 'Aryan' race has more than a thousand years of history. Hitler planned a genocide of Slaves, and the Nazis killed many millions of Slavs due to their 'inferior' ethnicity.

        I find it very disturbing that in the 21st century in nations which Hilter declared to be the Aryan superior race, targeting the Slavs is acceptable. Take Wilders in the Netherlands or Farage in the UK, or neo-Nazis in Austria and neo-fascists in Italy, etc.

        moongibbon Carly435 10 May 2015 09:09

        This is the spectacle presented in the Western media and it's not representative of Russians at all, for whom today is about remembering those who died in WWII to save their country from destruction.

        Lafcadio1944 10 May 2015 09:08

        The Guardian's "coverage" of Russia is pathetic. Anyone could have written this article far from Moscow by just watching TV. It is really disgraceful propagandist "reporting" just throw up some insult and scary warning about evil Putin/Russia and go home - well done.

        There are huge - some even positive - things going on in Russia, China and India which count for a huge % of the global population and China is the 2nd largest economy and has launched one of the biggest global trade initiatives of modern times yet not a word about it.

        The Guardian just regurgitates propaganda about these nations written by the CIA or US State Department it has no reporters in these places and just ignores any positive developments. Thu leaving its readers fearful of the "mysterious" East - purposely.

        Dimmus -> Isanybodyouthere 10 May 2015 09:06

        "like claims to Russian speaking populations being endangered " - everything depends on the point of view of course. Even when pro-Russian people in Ukraine were burned alive they were not endangered from the point of view of anti-Russian nationalists.

        When many russian journalists were killed in Ukraine - it is not much mentioned, it is not interesting.

        When one US journalist killed somewhere - country is bombed and all the media for long time are full of discussions and moaning.

        When pro-Russian people (Ossetians) in Georgia were bombed by heavy artillery by order of Georgian president it was not endangering of those people because the president was a US-friendly president.

        And there are many more examples of western nationalizm. Just believe, that there are many people around the world who are really feel endangered by nationalists, including western nationalism.

        Eugene Weixel -> raffine 10 May 2015 09:06

        Had the West not awarded Czechoslovakia to Hitler and nudged him eastward three never would have been that pact, and many fewer on all sides would have suffered and died.

        teurin_hgada -> GreatMountainEagle 10 May 2015 09:05

        Rotenberg is jew. TimchenKO is ukrainian. Those evil nazi russians!!

        teurin_hgada -> Metronome151 10 May 2015 09:03

        Poland invaded Russia somedays before that. That was revenge. 'Who will come with us with a sword will dye from a sword' very old russian proverb. Chingiskhan, Napoleon, and Hitler knew that. Obobo still dont know

        kraljevic -> sztubacki 10 May 2015 09:02

        Facts speak for themselves Russia emerged the victor in WW2 but its an irony that if anyone sticks up for the Russians they are accused of being a fascist!Many eastern European nations especially western leaning ones look down on Russians as oriental savages and there's no doubt many of them hated their Russian liberators more than they did the Germans even though the latter treated them like scum! That's why the Russians should have stopped when they liberated their own territories and let the Eastern Europeans stew in their in their own juices and liberate themselves.Why should a Russian mother lose her precious son to free a Pole or Czech or Hungarian who hates him with a passion and would stab him in the back first chance he got!

        freedomcry nobblehobble 10 May 2015 08:58

        Like I said: Russian neo-Nazis exist. Your links tell a lot about the level of attention they get from Western media (who happily follow the old trope of "take an issue that's hot in the West and make it look like it's much worse in Russia" - never fails to sell well) than about the actual scale of the problem. Did you even know Tesak is in jail now? Or that Belov (if you even know who that is) is under house arrest?

        Do you know what phrase famously, and ridiculously, landed Konstantin Krylov a conviction for hate speech in 2013? Did you know last year's Russian March was pro-Ukrainian? No? Then leave me alone.

        No; apologise for the paid troll libel, then leave me alone.

        Eugene Weixel -> bumcyk 10 May 2015 08:51

        Russia is being demonized and confronted by the West as though it was the USSR. It is in Russia and some former Soviet republics that the victory over Nazism is unambiguously seen as something positive.

        Barkywoof 10 May 2015 08:58

        There are a bunch of psychos always at the ready on all sides if allowed to take the reins. The Russians did terrible things. The Nazis did terrible things. Then the USA killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese women and children with a new and horrifying weapon.

        I don't think it's a case of 'We Are Good... They are Bad.'
        Was nothing learned from that awful war ?

        teurin_hgada -> Roguing 10 May 2015 08:58

        Half of Europr and Japan were Hitler allies. Ask them. And USSR just signed pact of no attack with Hitler. It is not the same that to be allies

        sodtheproles -> Isanybodyouthere 10 May 2015 08:57

        So what should be done when Russian speaking populations who see themselves as Russian are 'endangered', and that's 'endangered' in the sense of raped, bludgeoned, shot, beaten and burnt to death 'endangered'

        Eugene Weixel -> nonanon1 10 May 2015 08:56

        Good enough reason as Putin underlines the fact that his name is not Manuel Noriega.

        sodtheproles -> ID5868758 10 May 2015 08:53

        It's Shaun of all credibility journalism

        Eugene Weixel -> Koppen616 10 May 2015 08:53

        A necessary show of force, determination and support by the world's largest nation's, and many others as well.

        Vladimir Makarenko -> ChristineH 10 May 2015 08:51

        Hm, "dinosaur era" is marked by destroying countries by choice and then walking away cursing "f*ck, it is again didn't work..."

        Military parade commemorating staggering sacrifice is internal matter of Russia and for Russia, outsiders are welcome to watch and think twice.

        oAEONo -> Nolens 10 May 2015 08:50

        What "well documented fact" are you talking about, can you please give me a link?

        Books by Noam Chomsky would provide you with a huge amount of carefully documented facts. Some are even mentioned on this thread alone. That you missed them up until now simply beggars belief. Makes me wonder if you are interested in facts at all.

        SHappens 10 May 2015 08:50

        "We have seen attempts to create a unipolar world, and we see how forced bloc thinking is becoming more common."

        Because of the attitude of the United States, but also because of the cowardice of European leaders, this May 9, 2015 has confirmed the division of the world in two. It symbolizes the opposition of an "old world", the Atlantic Basin and this new world emerging around Asia, which constantly attracts to itself new countries.

        During his speech in Munich in 2007, Putin talked about a multipolar world. Because even the most powerful and richest country cannot alone ensure the stability of the world. The US project exceeds the US forces. But instead of listening, since this speech there was an acceleration of the US demonization of Putin.

        It is important to break this dynamic of the political blocs to return towards a dynamic of a multipolar world. Beyond the shame and anger we feel for the attitude of the western leaders, beyond the disgust we feel for the insult not only to the Russian people but also to Chinese and Indian people, as well as to all others who came to Moscow on 9 May, we must realize that by calculation or cowardice, Western leaders, by abdicating their natural role, are helping to plunge the world towards a future of wars and conflicts.

        It is a mistake- as we know from Talleyrand - the policy mistakes are worse than crimes.

        Standupwoman , 10 May 2015 08:47
        Are YOU remembering the massacre of Poles at Volhynia and Eastern Galicia by Ukraine's own newly celebrated UPA? Where estimates of the dead vary between 60,000 and 100,000?

        Russia has at least admitted Soviet responsibility for the Katyn massacre - and officially condemned Stalin for it. Ukraine, on the other hand, has just declared Roman Shukhevych a Hero, and prohibited 'disrespect' for the UPA.

        No country should be denied honour for genuinely heroic deeds, no matter what else it's done. As long as that country also admits and is sorry for its crimes, then it is also worthy our respect. Unlike Ukraine under its current regime, Russia merits

        Michael A -> sztubacki 10 May 2015 08:46

        Thank you for sharing MIKHAIL SHISHKIN's honest, candid and insightful words. I share his morality. He is correct in his assumptions and conclusions and he mirrors my felling about the hypocrisy that has shaped too much of my American lifetime.

        The shame of the disintegration of relations between our two spheres is not the goals sought but the myopic way both sides have gone about achieving them.

        Unfortunately the old American saw that our children grow up with, "it matters not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game", is almost inevitably and totally reversed in adulthood to, "it matters whether you win or lose, not how you played the game". The idealism and honesty of youth is replaced with greed and shortsightedness as age creeps in.

        I thank the Russian people for the horrible sacrifices they made on behalf of victory over fascism. I also thank my American, British, French, etc, etc brothers and sisters for the their sacrifice. Sacrifice is to be commended not by degree but by intent. Thank you all.

        Goodthanx -> Metronome151 10 May 2015 08:42

        The number of Poles who died due to Soviet repressions in the period 1939-1941 is estimated as at least 150,000

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_repressions_of_Polish_citizens_(1939%E2%80%9346)

        Ukrainian nationalists[edit]
        Main article: Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia
        Ukrainian nationalists organized massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia during which (according to Grzegorz Motyka) approximately 80,000-100,000 Poles were killed.[5]

        An OUN order from early 1944 stated: "Liquidate all Polish traces. Destroy all walls in the Catholic Church and other Polish prayer houses. Destroy orchards and trees in the courtyards so that there will be no trace that someone lived there... Pay attention to the fact that when something remains that is Polish, then the Poles will have pretensions to our land"

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Poles_from_the_USSR

        And these are now your friends???
        says a lot.

        MiltonWiltmellow kraljevic 10 May 2015 08:41

        Its a sad reflection of today's selfish blinkered and short sighted world that the usual Russophobes and closet Nazis are given so much space and airtime to spread their pernicious ideology which consists of almost exclusively denigrating everything Russian.

        Where are the thundering armies of the Tsar trampling the upstart Napoleon at Borodino?

        Where are the Tsar's great Cossacks rousting quiet villages to pay the Tsar's new taxes during the Balybostock Pogram (1906) while terrified Russians fled into the night, onto the steppes, into the ocean...

        And, as I'm a bit of an ettymologitst, where did the term "pogram" actually originate.

        Where are the murderers of the Tsar's family whose blood spattered the cellar of a small estate? Who was Pavel Medevedev?

        There's one Russian truth. Not this glorious past upon which Putin attempts to rebuild a lost and imperious empire, but a series of killings in the night of the Russian people by those waving saber and lance against defenseless people.

        Exhortations like this this belong in the history books of Germany, Imperial Russia, and many of the religiously motivated wars that has turned Europe's soil a deep, rich crimson from which has arisen -- like a virginal saint roused from slumber-- as kingmakers and various petty tyrants lick their bloody wolf lips.

        Nobility in war is about as common women and children left unmoslested by maurading troops.

        Go badk to your Tolstoy ... or is it your pastiche writer Sholokov? ... to find your vanished glory, because there's little glory in Russian History. It's mostly a history of endurance and suffering.

        Says Kasparov:

        Arguably the world's best chess player ever, Garry Kasparov is on a new mission. He hopes to convince the world that the biggest threat to global unrest is not the Islamic State, al-Qaida or North Korea. Instead it is Vladimir Putin, Russia's president from 2000 to 2008 and then again from 2012 to today. [http://news.yahoo.com/bianna-golodryga-interviews-garry-kasparov-093317385.html]

        mrkhawaja1944 -> Roguing 10 May 2015 08:41

        Ask the Russians they will give you better answer but I am not talking about invaders Russians or no Russians but do you know any country invaded America I know of one and they are very good friends now but give you list of countries invaded and occupied by America and Europe I do not think you can name any country in present days world not invaded by so called western powers.

        But I was taking about Russian who died in millions defending the country not invading other countries.

        Vladimir Makarenko -> Debreceni 10 May 2015 08:36

        Let's make some sorting of apples from oranges: not "Ukrainians" but Western Ukrainians or how they called themselves "Galicians". Galicia never was a part of Russia but divided between Hungary and Poland. Its pro independence movement made alliance with German Nazis in the beginning of 30-ties.

        When Nazis made a call for SS division "Galicia" more than 100,000 volunteered, 27,000 were admitted. Their training was in first turn anti guerilla actions. Their fate was sealed during three days battle of Brody with regular experienced Soviet troops which without particular difficulty eliminated this bunch wannabe warriors. The remnants (about 7,000) escaped and ended up in Italy and after war across the pond, mostly to Canada. (Hence Canada attitude to Russia today).

        This explains why there will be no peace between Donbass and Eastern Ukraine (which was a center of resistance then as it is today) and pro Galician (today) Kiev.

        itsanevolvething 10 May 2015 08:36

        A serious lack of respect and error of judgment by scameron and other western nations to not recognise the sacrifice of the Red Army in WW2 and send representation to this event. There is zero wisdom out there right now..just battle lines being drawn up.

        nnedjo -> Omniscience 10 May 2015 08:33

        Not sure, hope that wouldn't clash with the Victory over Czechoslovakia celebrations.

        Czech President Milos Zeman met with Putin yesterday and, among other things, said the following:
        President of the Czech Republic Miloš Zeman (in Russian):

        Thank you, Mr President.

        You know, politics are like the weather: it cools off and then it gets warmer. A person is happy when it warms up after a cool-down. This is one thing.

        The other is that I have stated several times in public that I am here primarily to pay tribute not only to those soldiers who died on the territory of the Czech Republic, but to all the 20, or some say 27 million Soviet citizens, both soldiers and civilians, who died during the Great Patriotic War. This was the first purpose of my visit.

        Abiesalba -> J00l3z 10 May 2015 08:32

        He would do as well to remember that Stalin consigned a great number of the returning servicemen who had seen the west to death in Gulags. And that Russia exterminated more of her own people than Hitler did in concentration camps. Shmoozing despots says a lot about the nasty party !

        The UK and all other imperial powers would do well to remember how many countries they forcefully occupied and then ruthlessly exploited their hunam and natural resources for centuries, including slavery. The UK and others had colonies well after WWII.

        How many dead people from the activities of these most glorious empires based on Nazi-like ideologies of the 'superior' nation vs the 'inferior' nation?

        And did these most democratic western powers ever pay reparations to their former colonies for the huge damage they have caused?

        johhnybgood 10 May 2015 08:29

        In the US the population knows nothing about the Russian involvement in the war.

        Even in Europe only 13% of the population know the real story. This of course is because the history has been rewritten. If you watched the ceremony in Moscow, you realised just how deep feelings still run throughout the whole population. Few families escaped without loss.

        This is why the West is playing with fire through its NATO encroachment provocation. The West's foreign policy regarding Russia is totally self defeating. Only the politicians are responsible -- the general populations have no desire for war with Russia - quite the reverse, Russia and China represent the future of global trade.

        mrkhawaja1944 10 May 2015 08:18

        Shameful act of revenge by western leaders not people by not attending ceremony in Russia as if their dead were better then Russians who lost millions.

        They did not attend just because they do not like one man happened to be president making excuse of Ukrainian problem but who started it paid demonstrators by CIA known fact like the Arab spring where no flowers bur rubbles pile up in middle east spread to Europe thanks to American freedom loving policies.

        Russians who died in millions deserver to be remembered with respect like the one in western countries who's leaders absence is disgraceful act.

        Abiesalba -> HHeLiBe 10 May 2015 08:12

        Sad that the hallmarks of expansionism and extreme nationalism are now most evident in Russia.

        How about the illegal US/UK Iraq invasion?

        How about the US relationships with its neighbours? A Berlin Wall along its border with Mexico. Decades of embarge against their neighbour Cuba. Cuba is, however, good enough for the US to have its Guantanamo concentration camp there. Oh, and how about racism in the US, and the status of the native Indians.

        The UK financially supported the rise to power of Mussolini and his fascists in Italy who pursued brutal policies of ethnic cleansing of 'inferior' races long before Hitler rose to power in Germany. After WWII, the UK prevented extradition of 1,200 Italian fascists accused of war crimes to Yugoslavia, Greece and Ethiopia. These war criminals were never put to trial, and the UK kept supporting Italian pro-fascist politicians after WWII. The general acceptance of Italian fascism in the UK was also reflected in the English football team Sunderland appointing the Italian extreme Mussolini fan and self-declared fascist Paolo Di Canio as the manager in 2013.

        Meanwhile, Italy keeps denying its WWII atrocities and neo-fascism is very alive. Every year, in Italy people march to celebrate the anniversary of Mussolini's march on Rome, which led to Mussolini's fascist regime taking the power in Italy (video of the march in 2014 here.) The most democratic 'western' states do not protest about it and the western media just avoid this scandal.

        And there is much more. For example, in February 2015 (three months ago), the Italian GOVERNMENT (!) gave medals of honour to 300 Mussolini's fascists, including 6 accused of war crimes.

        And neo-Nazism is alive and well also in Austria. Surely the EU members demanded in 2002 that neo-Nazi Jörg Haider is expelled from the Austrian government. But after that happened, nobody cared about the fact that Haider went on to be the elected (!) governor of the Carinthia region of Austria until 2008 (he was not voted out; he died in a reckless car crash) where he pursued apartheid-like policies against the Slovene minority in Carinthia. Slovenes are Slavs, and according to Nazi and fascist ideology they are an 'inferior' race and should be eradicated. The Slovene minorities in Austria and Italy keep being oppressed and attacked by neo-fascists and neo-Nazis, often also via the attitudes of the Italian and the Austrian governments.

        Germany is the only Nazi-fascist country which fully admitted its war atrocities and apologized for them. Germany is now at least very watchful about neo-Nazis, and is trying to crack down on groups with neo-Nazi and similar ideologies. Even so, neo-Nazism is rising its ugly head also in Germany.

        Many other European states keep denying their involvement in Nazism and fascism. In these states (e.g. Austria, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia, the Netherlands etc. etc.), the state of denial enables Nazi and fascist ideologies to thrive. In Hungary, the neo-fascist Jobbik party won 17% of the votes in the 2010 elections and 20% in 2014. In Slovakia, a neo-Nazi won regional elections in 2013. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders' party is the third largest in the parliament. In the UK, UKIP just got 13% of the votes and is the third largest party by the number of votes.

        Besides, all western European states (including the UK) are collectively in denial about their centuries-long support of Nazi-like ideologies. The imperialistic Nazi-like ideology of 'superior' vs 'inferior' nations/races fuelled centuries of forceful occupation, oppression and exploitation of human and natural resources (including slavery) of many 'inferior' nations around the world.

        Across western Europe, there is rising discrimination against 'Eastern and Central European' immigrants. These unwanted immigrants are largely Slavs. The specific targeting of 'inferior' Slavs has a long history in Europe (over a thousand years) and was also reflected in Hitler's hierarchy of races, where the Slavs were at the very bottom of under-humans (below the Jews). Hitler had plans for extensive genocide of Slavs, and Nazis killed many millions of them (e.g. Poles, Ukarinians).

        In this historical context, I find the specific targeting of 'inferior' Slavs by various xenophobic groups in western Europe rather disturbing. This is nothing but re-painted Nazi-fascist ideology. Notably, such ideology thrives in particular in nations which Hitler declared to be the superior race = Herrenvolk = Aryan race: Germans, British, Irish, Dutch, Northern French, Swedes, Norwegians, Danes etc.

        It seems to me that it would not be acceptable in modern Europe to specifically target the Jews. On the other hand, it is very acceptable to specifically target the Slavs.

        Rudeboy1 -> Batleymuslim 10 May 2015 08:11

        The first rule of war is logistics, logistics , logistics...in that order.

        I don't underestmate the Russians, far from it. It's a realistic view on their real capabilities and re-equipment in recent years. They're running to stay still at present. They have block obsolescence on the horizon for most of their kit and can't afford to replace it at the required levels. The Russian Navy is a case in point, their latest SSN was actually laid down 15 years ago and has yet to enter service. For surface ships they're done for as they either don't have the skills or they no longer have powerplants for them (their marine GT's were all built in the Ukraine).

        The recent excitement over their new armour was a tad over the top. Have a look at them. The Kurganets? Is it as good as a German Puma? Bumerang? Is it really as good as a German Boxer? The Armata is an attempt to try and close the gap to western designs, but it's 25+ years too late. They'll never manage to build 2000 of them, they don't have the funds or the production capabilities.

        The point about the F22 and F35 is still valid. I'm not counting the F35's as they're yet to hit IOC. The West has done all this in an era of declining military spending, with next to no effort.

        In contract the Russians are spending increasing proportions on defence although they have announced some cuts recently). The Russian's simply aren't a military threat, and they know it. The last thing we need is an over-reaction. If the Armata is anything like previous Russian tanks once we get our hands on one we'll find that it was never all that anyway, still it keeps defence spending a little higher I suppose...

        nnedjo -> Bradtweeters 10 May 2015 08:05

        This is not a commemoration of the war dead. The commemoration of the war dead are being made at monuments to war victims. So, this is a celebration of the victory over fascism, and not any commemoration.

        But, anyway, Putin is not a priest, he is a politician, and from politicians are expected on such occasions to give a political message too. Especially, if he complains that there is not enough cooperation in the world. It should be the political agenda of all politicians in the world, and not only of Putin.

        lizgiag -> Natalia Volkova 10 May 2015 08:01

        Privet Natalia! The anti-Russian feelings you encounter are really the product of decades of anti-Soviet propaganda. For decades there was really nothing positive said about the Soviet Union, years and years of negativity (not just about the system but also the people) meant that it is a deeply rooted feeling which was very easy to resurrect in the past few years.

        Whilst this is not new, the more sinister side of this is the re-writing of history, so that the events of World War 2 are re-interpreted to the extent that the Soviet Union is now slowly being seen as the aggressor to fit in with the current narrative for the West's geo-political strategy.

        Frustrating as this is, it makes it even more important that Russia's point of view is put forward even if it seems futile.

        kraljevic 10 May 2015 07:59

        Its a sad reflection of today's selfish blinkered and short sighted world that the usual Russophobes and closet Nazis are given so much space and airtime to spread their pernicious ideology which consists of almost exclusively denigrating everything Russian.

        You could almost see some of them them practicing their Heil Hitler salutes in front of the mirror!

        But however many of them delude themselves into believing that victory was snatched from their grasp by a set of unlucky circumstances rather than relentless Russian resistance then they will continue to try to kid the world that Russia's victory was a fluke!

        The next step is to revive the myth that the SS and their allies stood for humane values and the defence of freedom and European civilization! But none of this relentless drivel will affect the attitude of the majority of people who continue to be inspired by the incredible, unimaginable and superhuman bravery and defiance of the Russian people in a life and death struggle unmatched in the annals of history!

        geedeesee -> airman23 10 May 2015 07:46

        "Crimea belongs to Ukraine"

        Things change, nothing is fixed forever. Scotland may leave the UK. The Declaration of Independence by the Republic of Crimea was in accord with the provisions in the UN Charter.

        Standupwoman -> sztubacki 10 May 2015 07:46

        I don't actually disagree with you about the leadership. Stalin (a Georgian, as you know) was a murderous tyrant in his own right, and the Russian people suffered as much as any other Soviet country under his rule.

        But Victory Day isn't about Stalin, except as a figurehead. It's about the ordinary men and women who fought and died and achieved the most incredible victory the world has ever seen. How could anyone want to take away from that?

        dyst1111 -> Manolo Torres 10 May 2015 07:42

        "Then we have the Royals that attended Nazi parties and married Nazis and even conspired against Britain with the Nazis."

        And what of this? Nothing. They had no power.

        Halifax was sidelined because of his attitude and Churchill made PM.

        Soviet Union worked with the Nazis AFTER the war had broken out. Worked closely on many levels.

        And there is one more aspect - what Britain and France did is regarded today with disdain as cowardly acts. What USSR did is desperately being whitewashed by Russia. So even if they acted more less the same, only Russia thinks it was OK.

        John Smith -> Omniscience 10 May 2015 07:33

        The US companies had some 500 mln$ investments in German war industries.

        Standard Oil, General Motors, General Electric, ITT, Ford...
        IG Farben ( Standard Oil) financed Hitler's rise to power.

        CaptTroyTempest -> Kaikoura 10 May 2015 07:31

        According to Wikileaks, Petro Walzmann (aka Poroschenko) has been in the pockets Washington's pocket since 2006. Probably just a coincidence.

        http://scgnews.com/leaked-documents-ukraines-new-president-works-for-the-us-state-department?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

        juster 10 May 2015 07:25

        Soviets may have won the war but they got pasted in the subsequent PR department.

        I've seen interesting public opinion polls in France that immediately after the war showed 80+% people said mostly SU won the war and 60 year on 80+% people said the US played that role.

        Because SU was branded the empire of evil and the US the force of good and people bought it ignoring the fact there is precious little difference. And still to this day Obama speaks of say the Vietnam war with praising the american troops for their righteous and good fight for freedom in the jungles. Clearly, he's never seen the Winter Soldier. The one from 1972 with testimonies of veterans that was and is de facto censored in the US for 40 years now, not the Cpt. America one.

        Manolo Torres -> Botswana61 10 May 2015 07:24

        Are you joking?!

        In a new international ranking, the United Kingdom ranks first, while the U.S. performs poorly across almost all health metrics.

        According to the world health organization you are second to 36 countries in 2000. Morocco, Singapore and Costa Rica have better healthsystem than you.

        teurin_hgada -> AlfredHerring 10 May 2015 07:21

        Your democrazy is nukong civilians in Japan after theirs capitulation. To kill Vietnam with WMD. Serbia, Syria, Lybia, Iraq.

        Do you know that democracy eas invited in Greece and means slavery. There are citizens in democracy, and there are slaves, which brings prosperity to citizens. We dont want to be slaves of successors of criminals from whole word which made genocide to indeans civilization 300 years ago

        Kaiama 10 May 2015 07:21

        Read and Enjoy (2/2)

        Dear friends,
        We welcome today all our foreign guests while expressing a particular gratitude to the representatives of the countries that fought against Nazism and Japanese militarism.
        Besides the Russian servicemen, parade units of ten other states will march through the Red Square as well. These include soldiers from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Their forefathers fought shoulder to shoulder both at the front and in the rear.
        These also include servicemen from China, which, just like the Soviet Union, lost many millions of people in this war. China was also the main front in the fight against militarism in Asia.
        Indian soldiers fought courageously against the Nazis as well.
        Serbian troops also offered strong and relentless resistance to the fascists.
        Throughout the war our country received strong support from Mongolia.
        These parade ranks include grandsons and great-grandsons of the war generation. The Victory Day is our common holiday. The Great Patriotic War was in fact the battle for the future of the entire humanity.
        Our fathers and grandfathers lived through unbearable sufferings, hardships and losses. They worked till exhaustion, at the limit of human capacity. They fought even unto death. They proved the example of honour and true patriotism.
        We pay tribute to all those who fought to the bitter for every street, every house and every frontier of our Motherland. We bow to those who perished in severe battles near Moscow and Stalingrad, at the Kursk Bulge and on the Dnieper.
        We bow to those who died from famine and cold in the unconquered Leningrad, to those who were tortured to death in concentration camps, in captivity and under occupation.
        We bow in loving memory of sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, grandfathers, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, comrades-in-arms, relatives and friends – all those who never came back from war, all those who are no longer with us.
        A minute of silence is announced.

        Minute of silence.

        Dear veterans,
        You are the main heroes of the Great Victory Day. Your feat predestined peace and decent life for many generations. It made it possible for them to create and move forward fearlessly.
        And today your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren live up to the highest standards that you set. They work for the sake of their country's present and future. They serve their Fatherland with devotion. They respond to complex challenges of the time with honour. They guarantee the successful development, might and prosperity of our Motherland, our Russia!
        Long live the victorious people!
        Happy holiday!
        Congratulations on the Victory Day!
        Hooray!

        Kaiama 10 May 2015 07:20

        Read and Enjoy... (1/2)

        Fellow citizens of Russia,
        Dear veterans,
        Distinguished guests,
        Comrade soldiers and seamen, sergeants and sergeant majors, midshipmen and warrant officers, Comrade officers, generals and admirals,
        I congratulate you all on the 70th Anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War!
        Today, when we mark this sacred anniversary, we once again appreciate the enormous scale of Victory over Nazism. We are proud that it was our fathers and grandfathers who succeeded in prevailing over, smashing and destroying that dark force.
        Hitler's reckless adventure became a tough lesson for the entire world community. At that time, in the 1930s, the enlightened Europe failed to see the deadly threat in the Nazi ideology.
        Today, seventy years later, the history calls again to our wisdom and vigilance. We must not forget that the ideas of racial supremacy and exclusiveness had provoked the bloodiest war ever. The war affected almost 80 percent of the world population. Many European nations were enslaved and occupied.
        The Soviet Union bore the brunt of the enemy's attacks. The elite Nazi forces were brought to bear on it. All their military power was concentrated against it. And all major decisive battles of World War II, in terms of military power and equipment involved, had been waged there.
        And it is no surprise that it was the Red Army that, by taking Berlin in a crushing attack, hit the final blow to Hitler's Germany finishing the war.
        Our entire multi-ethnic nation rose to fight for our Motherland's freedom. Everyone bore the severe burden of the war. Together, our people made an immortal exploit to save the country. They predetermined the outcome of World War II. They liberated European nations from the Nazis.
        Veterans of the Great Patriotic War, wherever they live today, should know that here, in Russia, we highly value their fortitude, courage and dedication to frontline brotherhood.
        Dear friends,
        The Great Victory will always remain a heroic pinnacle in the history of our country. But we also pay tribute to our allies in the anti-Hitler coalition.
        We are grateful to the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the Victory. We are thankful to the anti-fascists of various countries who selflessly fought the enemy as guerrillas and members of the underground resistance, including in Germany itself.
        We remember the historical meeting on the Elbe, and the trust and unity that became our common legacy and an example of unification of peoples – for the sake of peace and stability.
        It is precisely these values that became the foundation of the post-war world order. The United Nations came into existence. And the system of the modern international law has emerged.
        These institutions have proved in practice their effectiveness in resolving disputes and conflicts.
        However, in the last decades, the basic principles of international cooperation have come to be increasingly ignored. These are the principles that have been hard won by mankind as a result of the ordeal of the war.
        We saw attempts to establish a unipolar world. We see the strong-arm block thinking gaining momentum. All that undermines sustainable global development.
        The creation of a system of equal security for all states should become our common task. Such system should be an adequate match to modern threats, and it should rest on a regional and global non-block basis. Only then will we be able to ensure peace and tranquility on the planet.

        Manolo Torres -> dyst1111 10 May 2015 07:19

        Lets see the other side as well then:

        Huge trade, far bigger, just the investment of GM in Nazi Germany was 25% of the total amount their trade with the Soviet Union, if we add Standard Oil and Ford it will probably be already much more, and we are not throwing in the bankers that are the ones that made the most profit.

        Then we have the Royals that attended Nazi parties and married Nazis and even conspired against Britain with the Nazis.

        Then we have France and Britain giving Hitler (and the Polish) parts of Czechoslovakia. Talking about congratulatory letters we know about one from British deputy prime minister:

        "Herr Chancellor, on behalf of the British Government I congratulate you on crushing communism in Germany and standing as a bulwark against Russia" (1a)

        - Lord Halifax then British Deputy Prime Minister (later Foreign Secretary) addressing Adolf Hitler, November 1937.

        Standupwoman 10 May 2015 07:17

        I'm having a hard time believing both the tone of this article and the venom in some of the comments. On Russia's own Victory Day? Really? Are we sunk as low as that?

        The only excuse I can find is that maybe some people simply don't know what this day really represents. This piece in The Hill, for example, actually states:

        The Soviet victory in World War II - also known as the "Great Patriotic War" in Russia - can in terms of mythological importance be compared to D-Day for Americans

        OK, this might be an unusually crass and insensitive writer, but could anybody with even a smattering of education make such a comparison? How could the events of one day in which 2,500 Americans died conceivably equate to the events of four years in which 27 million Soviet citizens were killed - nearly 14 million of them Russian? We know how Americans feel about 9/11, but even if they'd suffered a new 9/11 every day for four years, it would still be less than half what was done to Russia.

        Even the British struggle to comprehend that degree of loss. We too suffered from Nazi attack, we too saw women and children killed in their own homes, we too saw our great cities pulverized and our history smashed - like Coventry Cathedral, for a start. But the German army never set foot here, because we were saved by the English Channel, the best airforce in the world - and the fact that the Russians held out long enough to turn the tide.

        No-one in the West can really imagine what Russia went through, and there isn't space to say it here. Do some reading - or better still, watch the BBC's 'The World at War' and 'Nazis: A Warning from History'. The latter programme even interviews a former German soldier who describes how they treated the 'sub-human Slavs' of their occupied territories - 'We'd kill the children first in front of their mothers, and then the mothers.' Imagine it. Try. Imagine the desperate courage of that defence, at Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad. Look again at the Victory Day footage, and note how young some of the veterans are - because even children took part in the sieges of their homes. At Sevastopol in 2011 I met one woman who'd been throwing Molotov cocktails against German tanks when she was seven years old.

        And they won. The tide was turned before the Americans even joined, and the momentous Battle of Kursk for the first time put the Germans on the run. Yes, we retook France and Italy, but it was the Red Army who drove the Germans back from the East all the way to Berlin. Britain has many victories of which she can be rightfully proud, but none on the scale of that one. No-one has.

        Of course they celebrate it - and so should we. Politics should never be allowed to rewrite history, and I'm utterly ashamed that my country chose this day to insult 27 million dead. God bless Russia, and I hope and pray they can forgive us some day. I'm not sure I ever can.

        Debreceni -> jezzam 10 May 2015 07:11

        What is the connection? There was apartheid in the American South in the 1930s and 1940s. Sill, you do not question or try to trivialize American contribution to the victory over Japan or Nazi Germany.

        The debate about dictatorhip, politial oppresion belong to a different page. You do not go to a funeral to bring up the widow's past.


        AlfredHerring veloboldie 10 May 2015 07:11

        If only Truman listened to Patton,

        Yep, we could have liberated Moscow within 6 months. Easy, just cut off all the lend lease crap and drop the big one on Moscow during that stupid parade of German prisoners that Stalin was watching and the whole thing would have been ripe for free elections. Thanks to the war a 'well regulated militia' was already in place, just would have had to hunt down those NKVD motherfuckers.


        Hants13 sztubacki 10 May 2015 07:10

        How many dictators do you know that are happily united in many multi-polar relationships with like minded nations?

        Over 85% of the people of Russia support their leader and Government and these are a few reasons why:

        Russia was bankrupt in 2000, when Putin first came to power. Since then:

        He sorted out the oligarchs.
        The average Russian lives an additional ten years since 2000.
        There is a rise in the middle class sector.
        Russia is now a creditor nation.
        Christian Orthodox Russia paid off the $45 billion debt of the Communist Soviet Union (including when the Bolsheviks and Lenin overthrew the Russian Empire).
        Russia paid off the $16.5 billion RF debt.
        Russia has the 12th largest currency reserves (around $420,000,000,000)
        Russia has the 5th largest gold reserves and can almost back the ruble with gold, rather than printers and paper.
        Russia has minimal debt (11% GDP Debt)
        Russia has control of her vast wealth of natural resources.

        How is the West, up until 2019 going to pay for Russian gas? Rubles or gold. After that, there are no contract with EU countries and much of the Russian gas will be going to China and no doubt India.

        No wonder Russia loves their President and his cabinet. Can any other Western Nation and the USA say the same?


        Mungobel samanthajsutton 10 May 2015 07:01

        I fully agree that the UK's failure to join in honouring the memory of the millions of Russians and other Soviet citizens who lost their lives in the struggle to resist the Nazi onslaught in WWII was a shaming thing. Worse still, while the Russians and others were preparing to celebrate the hard won end to that war, the UK joined with it's NATO friends in playing US-led war games on Russia's doorstep - as if intent on provoking yet another blood-letting across the globe.


        Reco1234 Hants13 10 May 2015 07:00

        The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.

        -Adolf Hitler: Mein Kampf

        Hmmm, Hitler was a fan of the ideology of Karl Marx........nice one, moron.


        Hants13 MentalToo 10 May 2015 07:00

        You are aware that the Ukrainian Krushchev took Crimea from Russia in 1954?

        Using international law and self determination, the people of Crimea voted to return home to Russia in 2014. Aided by the words of the Ukrainian Presidential Candidates and what they wished to do to the 8,000,000 Russian speaking citizens of Ukraine. Eastern Ukraine did the same, but not to be ruled by Ukraine.

        The argument is explained in the 1970 United Nations Report, Self Determination and Territorial Integrity. In fact NATO used the same argument in their final report, Kosovo in an International Perspective: Self Determination, Territorial Integrity and the NATO Interpretation. Then if you study the foundations of the United Nations Charter, it was based around self determination.

        By the way, Russia leased Sevestopol (which NATO wanted) at a substantial cost and owing to the agreement, they were allowed 25,000 serving members of the military (no specifics on ranks, grades or trades). At the time that the people of Crimea voted to return home to Russia, there were only 20,000 out of the 25,000 little green men in Crimea.

        plumrose799999 10 May 2015 06:59

        The Observer(one of limited vision) is so obsessed with its Putin prodding that it fails to acknowledge Russia's part in winning the war which might not have been won by our side had it not been for the Russian people.

        I don't know whether Putin is as bad as the western media make out but thankfully their is one leader left in the world who is still capable of standing up to the USA and dictorial colonist aspirations.


        Liberator37 10 May 2015 06:57

        Without for a moment endorsing its bloodthirsty liquidation of more helpless civilians than Hitler killed, Eric Margolis has a crackerjack and fact-filled article out today in praise of the Soviet contribution to the WW-II victory. The Western boycott of Putin's celebrations is downright churlish.


        BunglyPete 10 May 2015 06:50

        Lets go back 31 years to 1984.

        RFE/RL was broadcasting into the USSR, what one of the most anti Russian US officials in history, Richard Pipes, called "blatant anti semitic propaganda".

        His concerns, which were echoed by other US officials, were based upon an RFE/RL report that painted the Ukrainian nationalists that fought alongside Hitler in a good light.

        Fast forward to 1984, sorry I mean 2015, and those messages are now reproduced in the Guardian and are enshrined in Ukrainian law and celebrations.

        If Richard Pipes thought it was an issue, can't you see Russia's concern when it leads to the downfall of Ukraine?


        MyFriendWillPay -> Amanda Katie Bromley 10 May 2015 06:48

        It's clear that those who have criticised your comment have done so from a position of ignorance.

        Operation Barbarossa, the German-led Blitzkrieg of 4 million men against the Soviet Union (SU), on 22 June 1941, was expected to bring SU defeat within weeks, which is why the Germans only stockpiled 2 months of supplies for the campaign, and even British Intelligence expected the SU to collapse within 8 - 10 weeks. However, within less than a month, the head of German Military Intelligence, Admiral Canaris, confided to a general on the eastern front that he could only see a "black outlook" for the war in the east. Even Goebells himself noted in diary entries in July 1941 of the allarming lack of progress towards victory.

        By mid October 1941, the previously euphoric Vatican had decided that Germany would lose the war in the east, as had the Swiss Secret Service and other neutral intelligence agencies.

        By the start of December 1941, with German forces less than 20 miles from the Kremlin, their campaign had ground to a halt due to troop exhaustion, the Russian winter and over-extended supply lines. Then, on 5 December 1941, the Soviets launched a massive attack that drove the Germans back 60 - 170 miles. Hitler then ordered the campaign to take Moscow delayed until the following Spring, although he then realised, apparently, that he would lose the war, and that was more than a year before the iconic Soviet victory at Stalingrad.

        Two imprtant points can be drawn from the initial weeks of Operation Barbarossa. Firstly, the US material support in war was going to the German side until it became apparent that they would not win. Most supplies of vital material, such as oil and rubber, came from the US via Spain and Vichy France. For example, 44% of Germany's vital engine oil came from the US in July 1941, and this rose to 94% in September 1941. This means that, important as subsequent western supplies were to the SU's war effort, they started arriving after it was recognised that the SU would defeat Germany and her allies. It was a fundamental issue of resources - manpower as well as materiel - that the SU had, and Germany didn't.

        Secondly, even accepting the destruction of Germany's heavy water facility, if Operation Barbarossa had succeded, Germany would have had four whole years to catch-up the US's possession of a few low-yield atomic bombs in August 1945. Taking Germany's rapid programme for the V1 & V2 rockets in the last months of the war as an example of her capability for technological development, few could seriously doubt her potential to produce the atomic bomb.

        As someone who lost a father in the west and a grandfather in the east - both during WW2 - I try to view history objectively. And, in this case, I regard the boycot by western wartime allies of Russia's celebration of WW2 victory over fascism as very disappointing indeed.

        [May 09, 2015] David Cameron and Conservatives Get Majority in British Election

        Looks like neoliberalism is still alive and kicking the opponents.
        Notable quotes:
        "... Each party releases manifesto's with ideas on how to improve living standards, education policy, foreign affairs, etc. ..."
        "... A great day for the conservative movement, the wealthy, the well connected, business, Ayn Rand and for making war. ..."
        "... austerity, in times of depression, has no capacity to act as a stimulus. ..."
        May 09, 2015 | NYTimes.com

        American in London

        I read in these comments about how this is a harbinger for the next American election - a wave of conservatives all the way to the White House. Let's remember, the British Conservative Party is left of the US Democratic Party in many instances, and could not even begin to run as a conservative party in the US.

        The British Conservative Party is:

        • Pro Choice
        • Pro gay marriage
        • A staunch defender of national health care.

        Any one of these positions would immediately dismiss them for consideration in the US Republican Party.

        GabbyTalks

        The strongest bastion of Canadian conservative politics - the province of Alberta- where the Torys have been in power 44 years consecutively, have just thrown the bums out and voted for the socialist, left wing, tree hugging, New Democratic Party! The candidates were yoga teachers and college students, knitters guild, and so on. People voted for CHANGE more than anything.

        They just got sick of the 1%ers running the joint, and their entitlement attitude, and kow-towing to the corporations and never raising business taxes, just piling it all on the backs of the great unwashed, the middle class. Apparently Britain hasn't reached the breaking point yet. But they will.\

        Lynda, Gulfport, FL 22 hours ago

        The BBC coverage of the election results provided a glimpse of the real contrasts between the US stuck in the two party mold and the British parliamentary system with multiple parties and very old traditions. The "always in campaign mode, overwhelmed by money, carefully handled candidates" system in the US contrasts with the limited in time and money campaigning of the British elections.

        I loved the hand-counting of ballots, the "looney" parties whose candidates wore tall hats and costumes and especially the public line-up of all candidates for the announcement of results that the British system employs. No hiding in hotel rooms and behind spokespeople for British candidates. They lined up with all their opponents and heard the voting results in public. Most candidates then were vigorously questioned by journalists. Party leaders of the losing parties had to overcome their shock and speak up about what they did wrong, why the voters rejected their messages and what they would do to change. The leaders of the losing parties faced the consequences and resigned from party leadership.

        The current mode of US elections is producing dysfunctional government at local, state and national levels. The detailed coverage of the British elections offers a primer on ways our elections could be improved--starting with vigorous questioning of all candidates by actual journalists, limits on campaign money and including the piercing of the PR images of the candidates.

        Ashley, Wayzata, MN 21 hours ago

        It's funny how a lot of US Republicans view this as an overall victory for conservative values. What these individuals fail to understand is that in the UK, the Conservative Party actually consists of sane people with ideas on how to improve their country (whether you agree with them or not is another issue entirely).

        Across the pond, conservatives do not push policy based on personal religious beliefs. As Alistair Campbell, adviser to Tony Blair once stated, "Brits don't do God."

        Can you imagine a conservative not mentioning religion in the US? It would ruin his/her entire campaign. The leader debate in the UK and the overall campaign structures focus on the ISSUES facing the country, rather than frivolous items like a candidate's birth certificate and college records. Each party releases manifesto's with ideas on how to improve living standards, education policy, foreign affairs, etc.

        To any American conservative who thinks that this is truly a victory for US conservative values, I would encourage you to read the Tory Party manifesto; which pushes for 15 additional hours of FREE childcare, an increase in state pension funding , and an additional 8 billion pounds made available to the NHS (what Republicans would refer to as boogeyman socialized medicine).

        Each of these values are inconsistent with the basic tenets of today's US conservatism; which raises the question as to how in the world did our conservatives get so crazy?

        Nick Metrowsky, is a trusted commenter Longmont, Colorado Yesterday

        A great day for the conservative movement, the wealthy, the well connected, business, Ayn Rand and for making war. A bad day for the middle class, the poor, the elderly, eco-friendly, labor unions, workers and those who toil to survive and not have it handed to them.

        At least we know, the Unites States is not the only country which votes against their own interests. See Canada, Australia and New Zealand which all now have conservative governments. With legislatures that are akin to the current US Congress; though not the same gridlock or the extremes.

        If the UK election was sending a message to this side of the pond, then it could be a clean sweep for the GOP next year; unfortunately. The Democrats, if they want to win, better quickly come up with new ideas and candidates that would put a wrench in the GOP works. Else, we will see Paul Ryan's budget plans, and Tea Party plans, be put into full implementation; which will complete this nation's advance to the Industrial Revolution years of the late 19th century. Well, on the bright side, your income taxes will be a flat 15% to pay for US empire building.

        Also, the wealthy won't have an estate tax or capital gains to pay; so wealthy will flood to the masses (sarcasm). As for Medicare, Social Security, Veterans Benefits, Food Stamps, Child Care Credits, mortgage deductions, etc.; you're on your own. Just the way Ayn Rand advocated.

        I hope I can retire without adverse affects, but woe to those under 55.

        Walter Rhett, is a trusted commenter Charleston, SC Yesterday

        Britian's unemployment numbers, its job creation, its double-dipped GNP growth (increasing only after austerity was relaxed) simply don't bear out the narrative, in which the details are overweighed in order to overwhelm the basic principle of economics that Krugman asserts: austerity, in times of depression, has no capacity to act as a stimulus.

        Regarding "printing" money, it's spending money -- increasing demand -- that works to reinvigorate depressed economies, as Europe's individual and collective slow recoveries continuously affirm, as the facts are ignored.

        Putting less gas/petrol in your car will not increase its gas mileage, whether paid by cash or credit.

        Un, PRK Yesterday

        Reading the New York Times explanation of the expected results should remind everyone why nothing you read in this paper is reliable. They got it all wrong. Their analysis was wrong. Their facts were wrong. Their polling was wrong. Their opinions were way off base. It was an example of how opinion driven reporting is not reporting at all.

        [May 09, 2015] Vladimir Putin: US trying to create 'unipolar world' by Damien Gayle

        May 09, 2015 | The Guardian

        Vladimir Putin has used an address commemorating the 70th anniversary of victory over Nazi Germany to accuse the US of attempting to dominate the world.

        Speaking at Moscow's annual Victory Day parade in Red Square, which this year has been boycotted by western leaders over the continuing crisis in Ukraine, the Russian president berated Washington for "attempts to create a unipolar world".

        Putin said despite the importance of international cooperation, "in the past decades we have seen attempts to create a unipolar world". That phrase is often used by Russia to criticise the US for purportedly attempting to dominate world affairs.

        The US president, Barack Obama, has snubbed the festivities, as have the leaders of Russia's other key second world war allies, Britain and France, leaving Putin to mark the day in the company of the leaders of China, Cuba and Venezuela.

        The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has likewise ducked out of attending the parade but will fly to Moscow on Sunday to lay a wreath at the grave of the Unknown Soldier and meet the Russian president.

        As western sanctions on Russia over its actions in Ukraine continue to bite, Moscow has increasingly appeared to pivot away from Europe and focus more on developing relations with China. The Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, will be the most high-profile guests on the podium next to Putin. Other presidents in attendance include India's Pranab Mukherjee, president Abdel Fatah al-Sisi of Egypt, Raúl Castro of Cuba, Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Jacob Zuma of South Africa.

        Russia used the parade to show off its latest military technology, including the Armata tank, in the parade, which included 16,000 troops and a long convoy of weapons dating from the second world war to the present day. Also on show for the first time was a RS-24 Yars ICBM launcher, which Moscow has said described as a response to US and Nato anti-missile systems.

        The celebrations stand in contrast to the festivities a decade ago, when Putin hosted the leaders of the United States, France, Germany, Italy and Japan.

        The Soviet Union lost about 27 million soldiers and civilians in what it calls the "great patriotic war" – more than any other country – and the Red Army's triumph remains an enormous source of national pride.

        On Saturday morning, many Muscovites sported garrison caps and black and orange striped ribbons that have become a symbol of patriotism in recent years. More than 70% of Russians say a close family member was killed or went missing during the war, making Victory Day an emotional symbol of unity for the nation.

        In recent years, victory in what Russians see as a 1941-1945 conflict has been raised to cult status and critics accuse Putin of seeking to co-opt the country's history to boost his personal power.

        The Kremlin has also used second world war narratives to rally support for its current political agenda, for example painting the Ukrainian government as Nazi sympathisers.

        Later in the day around 200,000 people were expected to march through Red Square with portraits of relatives who fought in the war, in a Kremlin-backed campaign dubbed the "immortal regiment".

        The parade will also see more than 100 military planes – including long-range nuclear bombers swoop over Moscow in a spectacular flyby.

        Smaller parades in 25 other cities will involve 25,000 soldiers and even nuclear submarines, according to the defence ministry.

        [May 09, 2015] Why Is the US Failing to Honor Russia's Victory Day Anniversary by Martin Sieff

        May 09, 2015 | The Nation

        Instead of honoring shared sacrifice in the fight against the Nazis, the president has taken another cheap shot at Russia over Ukraine.

        ... ... ...

        These spiteful and petty acts, enthusiastically embraced by American neoliberals and neoconservatives alike, can only further embitter Russians against the West. And the campaign is doomed to fail anyway. It will certainly not "isolate" Russia, which is playing host this weekend to powerful leaders from around the globe, including China, India, Brazil, and South Africa. More than one-third of the total population of the world will be represented at the events.

        A generous acknowledgement of the leading Soviet role in the victory of 1945 should have served as a reminder of how much the United States and the Soviet Union were able to accomplish together in their joint triumph over fascism. And it would have reminded us how vital it is for the two nations to continue to work together as partners in the fight against terrorism, transnational crime, drug trafficking, sexual slavery, climate change and nuclear proliferation.

        To honor this great and solemn anniversary is simply the right thing to do-historically, morally and politically. The total number of Soviet military and civilian deaths, 27.5 million, was more than twice the death toll of all Americans, Britons, Commonwealth, French, and even Germans killed in the war combined. That is why Victory Day remains the most sacred public holiday of the year in Russia, and why it is equally revered in many of the former Soviet republics.

        The Russian people and their allies paid the colossal price in lives and blood that victory in World War II required. To dishonor their memory is disgraceful.

        Read Next: How America misremembers Russia's central role in World War II

        [May 09, 2015] Caught On Tape Stunned Reporter Grills State Department Why Hillary's Breaches Won't Be Investigated

        Looks like Hillary is too big to jail.
        May 08, 2015 | Zero Hedge

        In the past several weeks, not a day has passed without a new scandal surfacing revealing Clinton's lack of judgment whether it involves her abuse of email protocol, or some previously undisclosed financial relation between either Hillary Clinton or the Clinton foundation and an outside donor. The most egregious revelation took place a few days ago when it emerged that the Democratic presidential candidate had breached her agreement with the White House to name all foundation donors during her tenure as secretary of state.

        Specifically, as Reuters reported, Clinton had promised the federal government that the Clinton Foundation and its associated charities would name all donors annually while she was the nation's top diplomat. "She also promised that the charities would let the State Department's ethics office review beforehand any proposed new foreign governments donations."

        In March, the charities confirmed to Reuters for the first time that they had not complied with those pledges for most of Clinton's four years at the State Department.

        The implication is that foreigners banned from donating to U.S. political campaigns could and likely did curry favor with her by giving to the charity that bears her name. The charities accepted new donations from at least six foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state: Switzerland, Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Rwanda, Sweden and Algeria. And, of course, Ukraine.

        The charities never told the State Department about the new and increased donations. In two instances, the charities said this was the result of "oversights"; for the other six, they said those donations were exceptions to the agreement for various reasons.

        The charities also stopped publishing full donor lists from 2010 onwards; the annually updated list omitted donors to the foundation's flagship health initiative.

        But the most shocking development took place yesterday when the US State Department, via spokesman Jeff Rathke, told reporters that while it "regrets" that it did not get to review the new foreign government funding, it does not plan to look into the matter further, spokesman Jeff Rathke said on Thursday.

        "The State Department has not and does not intend to initiate a formal review or to make a retroactive judgment about items that were not submitted during Secretary Clinton's tenure," Rathke told reporters.

        And while the objective, unbiased media would have been up in arms had this gross abuse of government privileges and clear pandering to foreign interests occurred under a Republican candidate, there has been barely a peep from said media as far as Hillary's involvement is concerned.

        One person, however, did speak up: that was AP's Matt Lee who asked why the State Department wouldn't investigate further to determine if the tens of millions of dollars in donations had influenced her, and thus the US State Department's, decisions in the 2011-2013 period.

        Rathke's response: there is no evidence that these donations to the Clinton charities had any effect on Clinton's decisions.

        "We're not going to make a retroactive review on these cases and we will not make a retroactive judgment," he said.

        Of course, the circular logic involved is so twisted even hardened, conflicted government apparatchiks would not fail to recognize that there is no way to make a determination if said previously undisclosed donations had influenced her decisions without a further inquiry, an inquiry the State Department refuses to make because it assumes that it would find nothing.

        Lee quickly noted this told Rathke that "the reason you are not aware of anything is because the building is refusing to go back and look at it to see if there is anything that might raise a flag."

        What followed was 6 minutes of squirming that would make even the most hard-core Clinton supporter blush red with embarrassment at the farce and the corruption evident at every single level of government, especially when certain pre-approved (by Wall Street) candidates are involved.

        The full exchange below.

        https://youtu.be/z-FdKgNLDIk

        Comte de Saint Germain

        With the outcome already decided in favor of Mrs. Clinton in the next presidential elections, this type of nonsense is just focused on keeping entertained the brute and ignorant masses in America. Presidents in the US are selected, NOT elected.

        Anusocracy

        A read for the political season. This, along with the Moral Intuitions Theory, helps explain why libs and cons are libs and cons.

        http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/euhs-esl012406.php

        When it comes to forming opinions and making judgments on hot political issues, partisans of both parties don't let facts get in the way of their decision-making, according to a new Emory University study. The research sheds light on why staunch Democrats and Republicans can hear the same information, but walk away with opposite conclusions.

        The investigators used functional neuroimaging (fMRI) to study a sample of committed Democrats and Republicans during the three months prior to the U.S. Presidential election of 2004. The Democrats and Republicans were given a reasoning task in which they had to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate. During the task, the subjects underwent fMRI to see what parts of their brain were active. What the researchers found was striking.

        "We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," says Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory who led the study. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts." Westen and his colleagues will present their findings at the Annual Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Jan. 28.

        Once partisans had come to completely biased conclusions -- essentially finding ways to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted -- not only did circuits that mediate negative emotions like sadness and disgust turn off, but subjects got a blast of activation in circuits involved in reward -- similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix, Westen explains.

        "None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," says Westen. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

        Dame Ednas Possum

        What's this 'retroactive' bullshit word w.r.t. judgements?

        ALL judgements are on past 'retro' events.

        Investigations could hardly assess and pass judgement on future events...

        For example it's not like the military of a country e.g. The Department of Attack could legitimately invade foreign countries pre-emptively on the basis of what they judge MIGHT happen... oh wait...

        'Retroactive: (especially of legislation) taking effect from a date in the past.'

        Is this muppet suggesting that the laws have changed in the U.S. w.r.t. 'democratically' elected holders of public office using their tax-advantaged registered charity to covertly take payments from private interest groups. I

        s he suggesting that the morals and ethics of any such conflict of interest have been only recently established?

        Absolutely stunning. The audacity of these people is simply breath-taking.

        Real Estate Geek

        No. More than once I've seen that reporter 'call Bullshit.' I think he enjoys the sport of fucking with flacks who're lying right to his face.

        Dame Ednas Possum

        Agreed.

        I think he does extremely well to maintain his composure and repeat his questions diplomatically. The .gov sock puppet shill was like a deer in headlights; too stunned by legitimate questioning to maintain control of the situation. The worthless fool.

        Full credits to the journo.

        cnmcdee

        This is not about Hillary this is about your very lives.

        That flesh bag of feces was knee deep in the killing of Ambassador Stevens who was going to bring down the entire arms shipments to jihadi snack bars.

        Maybe we laudibly find this entertaining but if we let the entire whitehouse make edicts above the law there will be nothing left but the slaughters to come upon the American people by nazis in minority mask

        New Kid

        The AP reporter is controlled opposition. Or he would not have got his foot in the door, Or they would not have let him ask all those questions. AP itself is a red shield organization

        nmewn

        Hear, hear!

        "Bipartisanship" is the Deep States way of compromising BOTH SIDES liberties away. The latest example of this political ruse is the word "gridlock", used by the Deep State (MSM pundits, regulators & pols) to convey some ill-defined crisis building due to governmental inaction.

        I submit the absolute opposite is true, it is they who have created every "crisis" by their own actions, bipartisan or otherwise.

        The debt & deficit is the result of their actions, domestic spying is the result of their actions, the devaluing of the dollar is the result of their actions...one can go right down the list.

        [May 08, 2015] Obamas Real Motive Behind The Iran Deal A Backdoor Channel To Sell Weapons To Saudi Arabia

        Notable quotes:
        "... Cooperation and coordination between China and Russia are needed to maintain the international balance of power and preserve the post-war world order. The participation of the leaders of the two countries in mutual events dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the Victory in World War II indicates that Russia and China, as the largest countries in the world and members of the United Nations, intend to maintain international order. ..."
        May 06, 2015 | Zero Hedge
        For a long time there was confusion about the "quo" to the Saudi Arabian "quid" over its agreement to side with the US on the Iranian "nuclear deal" (which incidentally looks like it will never happen simply due to the Russian and Chinese UN vetoes).

        Then over the weekend we finally got the answer thanks to the the WSJ, which reported that "Gulf States want U.S. assurances and weapons in exchange for supporting Iran nuclear deal."

        The details are quite familiar to anyone who has seen the US Military-Industrial Complex in action: the US pretends to wage an aggressive diplomatic campaign of peace while behind the scenes it is just as actively selling weapons of war.

        Leading Persian Gulf states want major new weapons systems and security guarantees from the White House in exchange for backing a nuclear agreement with Iran, according to U.S. and Arab officials.

        The leaders of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, plan to use a high-stakes meeting with President Barack Obama next week to request additional fighter jets, missile batteries and surveillance equipment.

        They also intend to pressure Mr. Obama for new defense agreements between the U.S. and the Gulf nations that would outline terms and scenarios under which Washington would intervene if they are threatened by Iran, according to these officials.

        The Persian Gulf countries say they need more drones, surveillance equipment and missile-defense systems to combat an Iranian regime they see as committed to becoming the region's dominant power. The Gulf states also want upgraded fighter jets to contain the Iranian challenge, particularly the advanced F-35, known as the Joint Strike Fighter.

        A senior U.S. official played down chances that the administration would agree to sell advanced systems such as the F-35 fighter to those nations-though the planes will be sold to Israel and Turkey-because of concerns within the administration about altering the military balance in the Middle East.v

        There is much more but a question already emerges: why does the "Gulf Cooperation Council" need so many ultramodern weapons to "defend" against an Iran which is supposedly halting its nuclear program and is in the process of showing its allegiance to the west by endorsing a peace process.

        Unless it was all merely a ruse to arm the Middle East from the very beginning?

        And now the "end" is near because when it comes to matters of revenue and profitability for the US Military-Industrial complex, seek and ye shall find. According to Reuters, "Obama is expected to make a renewed U.S. push next week to help Gulf allies create a region-wide defense system to guard against Iranian missiles as he seeks to allay their anxieties over any nuclear deal with Tehran, according to U.S. sources."

        The offer could be accompanied by enhanced security commitments, new arms sales and more joint military exercises, U.S. officials say, as Obama tries to reassure Gulf Arab countries that Washington is not abandoning them.

        Not only is Obama not abandoning "them", but the entire Iran "negotiations" farce increasingly appears to have been produced from the very beginning to give the US a diplomatic loophole with which to arm the biggest oil exporter in the world. Sure enough:

        Gulf Arab neighbors, including key U.S. ally Saudi Arabia, worry that Iran will not be deterred from a nuclear bomb and will be flush with cash from unfrozen assets to fund proxies and expand its influence in countries such as Syria, Yemen and Lebanon.

        U.S. officials with knowledge of the internal discussions concede that Obama is under pressure to calm Arab fears by offering strengthened commitments. "It's a time to see what things might be required to be formalized," a senior U.S. official said.

        All of this should come as a surprise to precisely nobody as the US takes advantage of its waning years as a global hegemon, and seeks to sell US weapons far and wide to the benefit of a select few Raytheon, General Dynamics and Lockheed shareholders.

        And yet something peculiar emerges: in the Reuters piece we read that "Obama is all but certain to stop short of a full security treaty with Saudi Arabia or other Gulf nations as that would require approval by the Republican-controlled Senate and risk stoking tensions with Washington's main Middle East ally Israel."

        Which brings up another interesting regional player: Israel. Because while we now know the real reason for Saudi's complicity in the Iran "nuclear deal", a key middle east player is none other than Israel, which under Netanyahu's control has puffed and huffed against the Iran deal, and yet has done nothing. Why? Here Bloomberg provides some very critical perspective which introduces yet another major player in the global military exports arena.

        Russia.

        Bloomberg has the details:

        Last month, when President Vladimir Putin of Russia announced plans to sell a powerful anti-missile system to Iran before the lifting of international sanctions, Israel was quick to join the U.S. in expressing shock and anger.

        But behind the public announcements is a little-known web of arms negotiations and secret diplomacy. In recent years, Israel and Russia have engaged in a complex dance, with Israel selling drones to Russia while remaining conspicuously neutral toward Ukraine and hoping to stave off Iranian military development. The dance may not be over.

        ...

        One of those issues is Israel's neutrality toward Ukraine, where Russian-backed separatists have waged war over the past year. Israel has held back from selling weapons to the government in Kiev, which is backed by the U.S. and European Union, in the hope of keeping Russia's S-300s away from Iran.... "Israel has come under a lot of pressure for not joining the all-Western consensus on the Ukrainian crisis," said Sarah Feinberg, a research fellow at Tel Aviv's Institute for National Security Studies. "It was a difficult decision for the Israeli government, which was concerned about possible Russian retaliatory moves in the Mideast - such as selling the S-300 to Iran."

        The issue at hand is the delivery of Israeli drones: whether to Ukraine, where such a deal was recently scuttled following internal dissent by opposition within the Israel government, or to Russia, which already has received Israel UAVs.

        Russia expressed interest in buying Israeli drones after coming up against them during the 2008 war with Georgia. In 2010 Russia concluded a deal to purchase 15 of them from IAI, and to set up a joint venture to produce drone technology.

        An Israeli familiar with the matter said the drone deal with Russia carried an unwritten quid pro quo: It would proceed only if the Kremlin suspended its announced S-300 sale to Iran. Now having gotten the Israeli technology, the Israeli said, that promise is no longer a factor in Russian considerations.

        In other words, now that Israel - which is the world's largest exporter of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles - no longer has leverage over Russian military needs as Moscow has long ago reverse-engineered the Israeli technology, Israel may have no choice but to provoke Russia in the middle east.

        "Sending drones or other arms to Ukraine would be an ineffective, even inconsequential Israeli response to Russia selling the S-300s to Iran," said Feinberg. More effective, she said, would be for Israel to lift its political neutrality on the Ukrainian conflict, or take actions in the Middle East against Russian regional allies such as the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria.

        For now however, Israel's full on engagement in Syria (or Iran) appears to have been prevented: "On April 23 Russia did appear to backtrack somewhat on its earlier announcement of the S-300 sale to Iran, with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov telling the Interfax news agency that delivery won't occur soon, and would only happen after political and legal issues were resolved. In his April 16 call-in show on Russian television, Putin acknowledged that Israeli objections had scuttled a potential S-300 sale to another Mideast nation, reportedly Syria."

        To attempt a summary: under the pretext of Iran negotiations for peace, the US is preparing to quietly arm virtually all Gulf states with the latest US military technology, even as Israel has given Russia some of its latest drone technology which means Russia may at any moment proceed to arm Iran and Syria with modern Surface to Air missiles, while Israel is contemplaring retaliation not only against Iran but Syria as well: the country which nearly led to a global proxy war in the mdidle east in the summer of 2013.

        In other words, we have, for the past few years, been on the edge of a razor thin Middle Eastern balance of power equilibrium which prevented any one nation or alliance from garnering an outsized influence of military power.

        All of that is about to change the moment the MIC figurehead known as president Obama greenlights the dispatch of billions of dollars in fighters, drones, missile batteries, and surveillance equipment to Saudi Arabia and its peers, in the process dramatically reshaping the balance of power status quo and almost certainly leading to yet another middle eastern war which will inevitably drag in not only Israel and Russia at least in a proxy capacity, but ultimately, the US as well.

        Just as the US military industrial complex wanted.

        Because as every Keynesian fanatic will tell you: in a world saturated by debt, and where organic growth is no longer possible, there is only one remaining option.

        War.

        * * *

        And just to assure the required outcome, moments ago John Kerry arrived in Riyadh to conclude the deal.

        Kerry arrives in Riyadh #Saudi Arabia.

        pic.twitter.com/2CPIP69Ut0

        - Conflict News (@rConflictNews) May 6, 2015

        Pool Shark

        Why do they need a 'backdoor,' when they've been selling arms to the Saudis through the front door since time began?...

        Skateboarder

        Barry insists there be a backdoor, for uh, personal reasons.

        Looney

        Reggie Love: Did I hear "Backdoor Channel"? ;-)

        weburke

        the real question is how does Israel view it. Netanyahu has not endorsed any of this. I would guess Israel has no friend in Obama and his controllers, and will soon take action of their own.

        What possible gain is it for Israel to have the fucking tyrant insane neighbors get all armed up? hello war.

        Oh regional Indian

        This is very good insight.

        Bastids...

        By the way, India is totally thumbing it's nose at the US led non-coalition of the unwilling in continuing to deal with Iran for all manner of goods and services. Big barter deals, gold payments via Turkey for oil...

        So there is that going on in Iran's Eastern flank. Iran, by the way, was rumored to have a "Perfect Plate" from the US mint via Henry Kissinger (or some spook) and during Shah of Iran time were the world's largest counterfeiters of the USD, only thing, they had a perfect Plate. Obviously CIA controlled.

        All that money, EuroDollars, Petrodollars....black money, drug dollars (Iran is a major heroine transit point).

        Nothing is as it seems...

        Sequence 15 for discerning ears ;-)

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP4NGb8HJbk

        jdtexas

        Simply idiotic war propaganda

        Jumbotron

        Reagan just called from the grave. He wants his Iran Contra back.

        F0ster

        PetroDollar = Defending Saudi Arabia with US military.

        PetroDollar now collpasing thanks to Russia, China, Iran which forces Saudi Arabia to spend their USD's with the MIC to defend themselves.

        Endgame for the PetroDollar system.

        Mike Masr

        The backdoor, wasn't this the aircraft used to covertly bring all the Saudi's back home on 911 when all the other aircraft were grounded?

        TahoeBilly2012

        Anyone with a brain could guess the Iran deal was always a scam of some sort. Why? Well, because everything is a scam from these people and there is no peace, ever, not the goal. It amazes me the rest of the world even engages with the Zionist shitshow called the USA.

        Anunnaki

        President Peace Prize needs MOAR war in the Middle East before he "leaves" office. He is at proxy war (for now) with Russia. That was quite a feat so:

        Why not take on Iran while he is at it. Two birds with one big stone and all that.

        Bill of Rights

        Hmm is this like the Clinton China for Arms deal...Face it folks all US Politicians are scum of the earth, sum are just more scummy than the others.

        Kaiser Sousa

        Cooperation between Russia and China is necessary to maintain the balance of power in the world, China's Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Cheng Guoping said Monday.

        The high-ranking Chinese diplomat said that Russian-Chinese relations had reached a new level of development and the forthcoming visit of Xi Jinping to Moscow would facilitate further cooperation between Beijing and Moscow. The Chinese president will pay a three-day visit to Moscow on May 8-10, attending the Victory Day Parade on May 9 at the invitation of Russian President Vladimir Putin. "Cooperation and coordination between China and Russia are needed to maintain the international balance of power and preserve the post-war world order. The participation of the leaders of the two countries in mutual events dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the Victory in World War II indicates that Russia and China, as the largest countries in the world and members of the United Nations, intend to maintain international order."

        http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150504/1021703550.html#ixzz3ZCuelpFm

        Farmer Joe in Brooklyn

        9/11 exposed the unholy alliance between the US and the Saudis (for anyone with enough intellectual curiosity to seek the truth). This true axis of evil has a symbiotic relationship that knows no moral bounds.

        Nothing new here...

        Monty Burns

        In 9/11 the Saudis provided the finance and the patsies. The event was organized by Mossad and Ziocons in the USA.


        juicy_bananas

        Just in time for next year's SOFEX, bitchez! The war economy has to get paper somehow. Peace Prizes for EVERYBODY!

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL_3Qg-SADY

        g'kar

        2010: "US Congress notified over $60bn arms sale to Saudi Arabia"

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/21/us-congress-notified-arms-s...

        They didn't backdoor that sale. Whatever President Jarret is trying to sell, it isn't to the Saudi's.


        Jacksons Ghost

        Anyone that thinks the House of Saud will go quietly is fooling themselves. We sell them out, how quickly will they pivot towards China and Russia. We abandon The House of Saud, you can guarentee that they will abandon the Dollar. Reserve Status of Dollar is most important to our money printers...

        falak pema

        No amount of US material will save the Sunni Kingdoms from their fate, as the bigger the Military spending becomes the bigger the millstone of its proliferation to its enemies grow.

        Iran will play the same game of attrition, feeding the enemies of their strategic enemy, and guerrilla warfare that Giap and Ho Chi Minh did.

        Remember Vietnam, USA, the cancer of opposition now runs deep in the region on all fronts and it will feed the instability of an ivory towered kingdom like poison ivy wrapping itself around the healthy tree.

        The spiral is now a sign of runaway MIC malinvestment of huge proportions. Those Sauds will never have an army to match their rivals, who are as hungry as the hounds of hell and fed by the kingdom's never-ending and obscurantist fed hubris. Guns didn't save South Vietnam.

        How do you avoid the same blowback that Nam has demonstrated?

        Same corruption, same endgame now being concocted in a region that goes from Paki to deep Africa?

        The kiss of the US MIC is the kiss of death to its allies.

        Saud at the cross roads-- cut and run-- or stay US suppot like Nam.

        g3h

        nyt

        Sale of U.S. Arms Fuels the Wars of Arab States

        http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/world/middleeast/sale-of-us-arms-fuels...

        One World Mafia

        You're leaving out two very important parts of the proxy war situation. Russia forced Syria to give up her chemical weapon defenses which led to the US & its brothers in the Brotherhood of Darkness Gulf Cooperation Council to use their proxy, ISIS, to pounce on Syria.

        Remember what happened with MINSK? The breakaway republics were pressured to give up their gains since September.

        Not very good for the balance of powers. The Brotherhood of Darkness won't need a real WW3 to get what they want.

        RichardParker

        These guys (MIC) are going to make a fucking killing. No pun intended. The whole video is excellent. Here are some highlights;

        [May 08, 2015] The latest political murder: Oleg Kalashnikov, former Parliament Deputy for Party of Regions.

        May 15, 2015 | informationclearinghouse.info
        Apr 16, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

        yalensis, April 16, 2015 at 3:15 am

        Meanwhile, back in Banderaland, more info is coming out about the latest political murder. Oleg Kalashnikov, former Parliament Deputy for Party of Regions.
        .
        According to the VZGLIAD piece, Kalashnikov was organizing and planning to hold some kind of march to celebrate the 70 anniversay Victory Day in Kiev. One of his relatives reported to the press, that he (Oleg) had received death threats in conjunction with these activities. He had also been threatened by SBU types.

        During the time in the Rada (2006-2007) Oleg had made several important political enemies, including Julia Tymoshenko and Anatoly Gritsenko.

        On the eve of his assassination, Kalashnikov wrote a letter to a friend, including the following words:
        "Открытый геноцид инакомыслия, угрозы физического уничтожения и постоянные грязные оскорбления за открытый призыв к празднованию 70-летия Победы в Великой Отечественной войне стали нормой в оккупированной нацистами сегодняшней Украине, – писал Калашников. – Этот "подарок" я получил 13 апреля вместе с очередной порцией угроз и оскорблений", – говорится в письме.

        TRANSLATION
        "The open genocide of dissident thinking, threats of physical extermination, and the constant, dirty insults (directed at my) calls to celebrate the 70th Anniversay or Victory Day in the Great Patriotic War – these have become the norm in today's Ukraine, which is occupied by Nazis," Kalashnikov wrote. "This so-called 'gift" was received by me on 13 April…"
        END OF TRANSLATION

        By "gift" what Oleg meant was that, all of his personal demographic info, including his address, was published in the publication called "Mirotvorets" on April 13. "Mirotvorets" is a "resouce" which publishes all known info about separatists. This resource is under the purview of Anton Gerashchenko, one of the big-shots in the junta government.

        Within a day of his data being published, Oleg Kalashnikov was gunned down and assassinated near his home.

        The piece adds, intriguingly, that this "Mirotvorets" database of separatist info, is supposedly only accessible to Ukrainian Internal Police and SBU. Therefore, the implication is, that this was a government-sanctioned assassination of a political opponent.

        yalensis , April 16, 2015 at 3:34 am
        Continuing with more info from above piece (is a long article):

        Kalashnikov had ended his letter with the following words:
        "Маски сброшены! Нацизм со звериным оскалом жаждет крови, чтобы скрыть свои преступления против многострадального народа современной Украины!" – так заканчивает свое письмо Калашников.

        TRANSLATION
        "The masks are off! Nazism with its beastly grin, is thirsty for blood, and tries to hide its crimes against the long-suffering people of contemporary Ukraine."
        END OF TRANSLATION

        On the eve of his assassination, Kalashnikov's friends begged him to flee the country.
        He said he could not, for 2 reasons: (1) He was an officer in the intelligence services, and (2) he could not in conscience leave his fellow-thinkers behind.

        Political writer Vladimir Kornilov confirms, that Kalashnikov was very worried about all his personal, demographic data being published in "Mirotvorets", which he calls a "stool-pigeon rag".

        A few months ago, back in January, Gerashchenko proudly presented his new plan of tracking political dissidents. In a separate comment, I will translate a bit (if I have time) of Gerashchenko's "presentation" of this totalitarian project for tracking and eliminating dissidents. For now, suffice that the title of Gerashcheno's "oeuvre" is called: "Gifts for Christmas: or Every Creature gets what he deserves".

        Meanwhile Ukrainian totalitarian media are all over this too, the general tone being:
        (1) Kalashnikov was an odious "Regional" who deserved to die; however
        (2) It was probably his Russian "sponsors" who whacked him, maybe because he was about to spill some beans, or something like that….

        Around the murder itself, some strange events:

        Oleg was shot dead with 4 shots.
        Oleg's wife heard the noise and rushed out, as husband was being gunned down.
        She immediately called the police.
        Within minutes, according to her, police from Internal Ministry were on the spot.
        While this was going on, Oleg's daughter-in-law was suddenly mugged; somebody grabbed her purse, right there at the crime scene.

        Pavlo Svolochenko , April 16, 2015 at 3:42 am
        Likely as not the mugger was also the shooter.
        yalensis , April 16, 2015 at 3:46 am
        Here, by the way , is the site Mirotvorets. This is the site where you go if you are Ukrainian and want to denounce your neighbour as a separatist.

        Just skimming through the site, one gets a glimpse into Gerashchenko (aka "Fat Bastard") sick Nazi mind. For example, scroll down a bit to see him bragging about collecting a database of 20,500 "individuals" (with more negative connotation than English equivalent).


        Иначе этих нелюдей назвать не можем, поскольку именно они принесли беду в наш общий дом: изменники родины, сепаратисты, террористы и боевики, наемники российского происхождения, военные преступники из вооруженных сил РФ, а также пособники разных мастей всей этой нечисти.

        TRANSLATION
        We don't know what else to call these in-humans, since they have brought woe into our common home: traitors of the motherland, separatists, terrorists and militants, mercenaries of Russian origin, war criminals from the army of the Russian Federation, and also collaborators of various stripes of all this filth.
        END OF TRANSLATION

        The rest of the site has the same tone: all heavily anti-Russia and in your face, tone is basically that of some loud-mouth mobster bully.
        Which is exactly what Gerashchenko is.

        yalensis, April 16, 2015 at 3:58 am
        Here is Mirotvorets post from March 16, pertaining to Crimean citizens:

        В последнее время к нам неоднократно официально обращаются представители ряда государственных ведомств Украины с просьбой предоставить имеющуюся информацию об изменниках Родины, сепаратистах, пособниках российских оккупантов и боевиках НВФ, проживающих в настоящее время на временно оккупированной территории АР Крым (Украина). Учитывая эти просьбы, а также в полном соответствии с действующим Законодательством Украины, мы решили открыто разместить на сайте Центра "Миротворец" указанную информацию в форматах, удобных для интеграции в любые автоматизированные системы обработки. Данные представлены в формате CSV. С учетом постоянного накопления данных, список периодически будет обновляться. По состоянию на 16 марта 2015 года в Чистилище находится информация о более чем 7500 особей, большую часть из который представляют изменники Родины.

        TRANSLATION
        Recently we have been approached officially by representatives of a series of governmental authorities of Ukraine, with a request to present all the information we have pertaining to traitors of the motherland, separatists, collaborators with Russian occupiers, and fighters in illegal formations who dwell at the current time on the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (Ukraine).
        Taking into account these requests, and also in full accordance with existing legislation of Ukraine, we have decided to place on the "Mirotvorets" site the information indicated, in formats convenient for integration into any automated databases. The data is presented in the .CSV format [yalensis: ASCII text file with comma-separated fields]. Taking into account the continuous accumulation of data, the database will be refreshed periodically. As of 16 March 2015, in our database we have information on more than 7500 individuals, the major portion of whom are traitors to the motherland.
        END OF TRANSLATION

        yalensis: And now, in April, the database is up to 20K traitors.
        All in their comma-delimited traitorous glory.

        Pavlo Svolochenko, April 16, 2015 at 4:05 am
        Writing in Russian of course.
        marknesop , April 16, 2015 at 6:56 am
        "Fighters in illegal formations", Dear God, you could scream. According to the Ukrainian constitution, all formations except for the state military and law enforcement are illegal. But only half-hearted attempts are made to "legalize" the volunteer battalions, which are not even paid by the government, or were not until Benny's bottomless purse flew away with him. And the ever-alert-for-illegal-behavior west which brought you the suggestion that Ukraine could ignore its debt to Russia as "odious debt" says not a word about Kiev's own making up what is legal as it goes along.
        marknesop, April 16, 2015 at 6:52 am
        It's like a caricature of reality, as if someone either not too imaginative or with the brilliant talent for mockery that results in films like "Springtime for Hitler" were making an educational film about the growth of fascism in a fertile society.

        All this, I'm sure, contributes to Brussels' ambition to make a close partner and chum of Ukraine. It certainly displays European values. Of course, you never know how much they know and how much they are just pretending not to know.

        cartman, April 16, 2015 at 8:59 am
        "This is the site where you go if you are Ukrainian and want to denounce your neighbour as a separatist."

        These are European values.

        Does anyone remember the Stalinism for Android app, which allowed people to report and disappear their neighbors from their mobile phones?

        PaulR, April 16, 2015 at 5:40 am
        They seem to have moved on from politicians to journalists: 'Pro-Russian journalist killed in Kiev':
        PaulR, April 16, 2015 at 6:11 am
        More on this. Anton Gerashenko, senior advisor to the Interior Minister, is blaming it on the Russians: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/16/pro-russia-journalist-shot-killed-ukraine-kiev-oles-buzyna
        marknesop, April 16, 2015 at 7:55 am
        "pro-Russia" and "Russia-leaning" and "Kremlin-friendly" are the new "nothing to see here; move along" in Ukrainian discourse. What a name that benighted nation is making for itself! I must confess – somewhat guiltily, because there is nothing funny about the desperate situation of ordinary Ukrainians – that I get a great deal of amusement over the west's continuing hamfisted attempt to portray this hellhole as a brave emerging country stumbling towards democracy. It is nothing of the kind – it is like some sort of college frat party spun out of control in which the most wicked and deviant of the population are allowed to fully indulge their secret fantasies.
        marknesop, April 16, 2015 at 7:01 am
        It seems you can kill just about anyone with impunity in the brave new Ukraine provided you put "pro-Russian" before their occupation. I am becoming steadily more supportive of all Ukraine except the southeast, without any source of income and crazy as a bedbug, going to the EU. They deserve to live cheek by jowl with their project and the result of their meddling.
        PaulR, April 16, 2015 at 6:03 am
        The 'Russian economy returns to growth' headline is actually a little misleading, because although the stock exchange and currency are up, it still seems as though GDP will decline this year. That said, the rise in the ruble will reduce inflation which will allow the Central Bank to cut interest rates, which should permit GDP to start rising again sooner than expected. So not all is rosy, but the Russian economy is looking much more resilient than critics had suggested.
        marknesop, April 16, 2015 at 7:48 am
        Yes, that's true – "stabilized" would have been more accurate. But I believe stability is going to look like growth in today's economic climate; countries that were struggling are going to be desperate, while those who were on shaky ground are going to have an increasingly hard time of it. And that's going to be without a coalition of the most prosperous countries all united in an effort to take them down. Russians have good reason to be more confident, because indeed the sanctions, long-term, are going to have hurt those who imposed them much more than those upon whom they were imposed.

        Is there a video of your TV appearance? I'd like to see it. How did it go?

        et Al, April 16, 2015 at 7:44 am
        What has impressed me is how the bad news about western sanctions was handled. Rather than the usual "There's nothing to see. Move on!.", they explained the potential consequences, the reasons for it and most importantly of all, a reasonable time scale of when it should be over.

        I also strongly suspect that they deliberately overplayed the figures of potential damage to the economy knowing that it would be highly unlikely that the figures would ever play out as such, the flip side being that any performance better than those figures is a victory.

        On the one hand it gives a pyrrhic victory to the Pork Pie News Networks, western politicians and Russophobes for Russia to admit it will be significantly damaged and importantly allows Western states to claim they are taking tough and decisive action against Russia when they have not done so despite having multiple opportunities to do so – a very useful face saving exercise.

        The sanctions could have been much, much worse.

        So both sides get something. The West pretends to slap on draconian sanctions and swing its gigantic pot belly and balls aggressively to its own adoring congregation proving that they are indispensable and exceptional nations that the rest of the world should be modelled on, Russia plays the "I'm sexy and I know it" card to the rest of the world. Everyone is pleased.

        [May 08, 2015] Power The Essence of Corrupt Banking and Politics Is to Grow and Control the Debt

        May 04, 2015 | Jesse's Café Américain

        "Events have satisfied my mind, and I think the minds of the American people, that the mischiefs and dangers which flow from a national [central] bank far over-balance all its advantages. The bold effort the present bank has made to control the Government, the distresses it has wantonly produced, the violence of which it has been the occasion in one of our cities famed for its observance of law and order, are but premonitions of the fate which awaits the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it."

        - Andrew Jackson, Sixth Annual Message, December 1, 1834

        "Another cause of today's instability is that we now have a society in America, Europe and much of the world which is totally dominated by the two elements of sovereignty that are not included in the state structure: control of credit and banking, and the corporation.

        These are free of political controls and social responsibility and have largely monopolized power in Western Civilization and in American society. They are ruthlessly going forward to eliminate land, labor, entrepreneurial-managerial skills, and everything else the economists once told us were the chief elements of production.

        The only element of production they are concerned with is the one they can control: capital."

        - Professor Carroll Quigley, Oscar Iden Lecture Series 3, 1976

        Money is power. And those who control the money, if they have the will for it, can use it as a means to incredible power, to create debt, and to control it, thereby controlling the debtors, both as individuals, as communities, as regions, and whole nations.

        This is the story of global trade deals, the Dollar, and the foul marriage between politics, money, and central banking. The more discretion and secrecy that is granted to those who create money and debt, the more vulnerable is the freedom of the people.

        This is the story of Cyprus, of Greece, and of the Ukraine.

        And there will be more.

        This will to power is as old as Babylon, and as evil as hell.

        "The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations.

        Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

        Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 1966


        "He promises you illumination, he offers you knowledge, science, philosophy, enlargement of mind. He scoffs at times gone by; he scoffs at every institution which reveres them.

        He prompts you what to say, and then listens to you, and praises you, and encourages you. He bids you mount aloft. He shows you how to become as gods.

        Then he laughs and jokes with you, and gets intimate with you; he takes your hand, and gets his fingers between yours, and grasps them, and then you are his."

        John Henry Newman

        Posted by Jesse at 8:03 PM

        Category: audacious oligarchy, central banks, debt slavery, Federal Reserve, financial corruption, modern monetary theory, money corruption, political corruption

        [May 08, 2015] - It's Official The U.S. Collaborates With Al Qaeda

        May 6, 2015 | M of A

        The propaganda against Syria is milking the capture of Idlib city by Jabhat al-Nusra and assorted other Islamist groups. The general tone is "Assad is losing" illogically combined with a demand that the U.S. should now bomb the Syrian government troops. Why would that be necessary if the Syrian government were really losing control?

        A prime example comes via Foreign Policy from Charles Lister, an analyst from Brooking Doha, which is paid with Qatari money but often cooperating with the Obama administration. That headline declares that Assad is losing and the assault on Idlib is lauded in the highest tone. Then the piece admits that this small victory against retreating Syrian troops was only possible because AlQaeda was leading in the assault.

        The piece admits that the U.S. which wants to balance between AlQaeda and the Syrian government forces prolonging the conflict in the hope that both sides will lose, was behind that move:

        The involvement of FSA groups, in fact, reveals how the factions' backers have changed their tune regarding coordination with Islamists. Several commanders involved in leading recent Idlib operations confirmed to this author that the U.S.-led operations room in southern Turkey, which coordinates the provision of lethal and non-lethal support to vetted opposition groups, was instrumental in facilitating their involvement in the operation from early April onwards. That operations room - along with another in Jordan, which covers Syria's south - also appears to have dramatically increased its level of assistance and provision of intelligence to vetted groups in recent weeks.

        Whereas these multinational operations rooms have previously demanded that recipients of military assistance cease direct coordination with groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, recent dynamics in Idlib appear to have demonstrated something different. Not only were weapons shipments increased to the so-called "vetted groups," but the operations room specifically encouraged a closer cooperation with Islamists commanding frontline operations.

        The U.S. led operations room encouraged cooperation between the Islamists of the so called Fee Syrian Army and AlQaeda. A U.S. drone, shot down over Latakia in March, was gathering intelligence for the AlQaeda attack on Idlib. More that 600 TOW U.S. anti-tank missiles have been used against Syrian troops in north Syria. These are part of the 14,000 the Saudis had ordered from the U.S. producer.

        Even if the U.S., as now admitted, would not officially urge its mercenaries to cooperate with Jabhat al-Nusra such cooperation was always obvious to anyone who dared to look:

        In southern Syria [..] factions that vowed to distance themselves from extremists like Jabhat al-Nusra in mid-April were seen cooperating with the group in Deraa only days later.

        The reality is that the directly U.S. supported, equipped and paid "moderate" Fee Syrian Army Jihadi mercenaries are just as hostile to other sects as the AlQaeda derivative Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State. They may not behead those who they declare to be unbelievers but they will kill them just as much.

        While the U.S. is nurturing AlQaeda in Syria, Turkey is taking care of the Islamic State. Tons of Ammonium Sulfate, used to make road side bombs, is "smuggled" from Turkey to the Islamic State under official eyes. Turkish recruiters incite Muslims from the Turkman Uighur people in west China and from Tajikistan to emigrate to the Islamic State. They give away Turkish passports to allow those people to travel to Turkey from where they reach Syria and Iraq. Meanwhile the Saudis bomb everyone and everything in Yemen except the cities and areas captured by AlQaeda in the Arab Peninsula.

        The U.S. and its allies are now in full support of violent Sunni Jihadists throughout the Middle East. At the same time they use the "threat of AlQaeda" to fearmonger and suppress opposition within their countries.

        Charles Lister and the other Brooking propagandists want the U.S. to bomb Syria to bring the Assad government to the table to negotiate. But who is the Syrian government to negotiate with? AlQaeda?

        Who would win should the Syrian government really lose the war or capitulate? The U.S. supported "moderate rebels" Islamist, who could not win against the Syrian government, would then take over and defeat AlQaeda and the Islamic State?

        Who comes up with such phantasies?

        Posted by b on May 6, 2015 at 03:37 AM | Permalink

        lacilir | May 6, 2015 4:06:19 AM | 2

        As Ed Husain stated back in 2012:

        The Syrian rebels would be immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks. By and large, Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective. Feeling abandoned by the West, rebel forces are increasingly demoralized as they square off with the Assad regime's superior weaponry and professional army. Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.
        http://www.cfr.org/syria/al-qaedas-specter-syria/p28782

        The US seems to have fully embraced this reality.

        radiator | May 6, 2015 5:06:01 AM | 4

        To the US and other western governments in that area ;) it probably does not matter too much, who rules "Syria", as long as they don't own any serious military hardware.

        I'm not an expert ;) but looking at the past three years, my conclusion about the goals of the "west" would be: support the local militias just as much that they can destroy as many tanks, helis, air defence and aircraft as possible.

        Ideally, have them use up all the anti-tank weapons we give them, so, when they've "won", they're sitting on rubble with nothing but handguns.

        A second goal, maybe more of the regional enemies, would obviously be to drive out of the "former syrian territory" all non-sunni population. Severe the head of one, have 1000 flee to elsewhere...

        Lone Wolf | May 6, 2015 9:43:48 AM | 8

        Re: @Anonymous@5

        Well, that about does it. The U.S is completely deranged and there's no hope.

        There is always hope. Russia, China, and Iran know they come next in the list if they don't stop Al-Qaeda hydra in Syria/Iraq et al. Russian intelligence has declared ISIS a threat for Russia, the Chinese have been battling the Uighurs for long time now, and now they are being trained by the US to become a fifth-column on their return to China. Iran is in the surroundings, and have been preparing ever since the war with Iraq for a military maelstrom of gigantic proportions.

        Idlib was taken by a coalition of taqfiris renamed "Army of Conquest," the same coalition getting ready to fight Hezbollah in the Qalamoun barrens facing Lebanon, for control of the heights that open to the Bekaa Valley. Shaykh Hassan Nasrallah declared a couple of days ago the battle for Qalamoun has reached high noon, and its start won't be announced.

        On the taking of Idlib he stated any war is a pendulum with battles lost and won, and dismissed the propaganda war b has just denounced as part of the psy-op war. The onslaught suffering by Syria is flabbergasting, with US/Turkey training 15 thousand more taqfiris to throw into the war, the purpose, Nasrallah denounced, is to keep the Axis of Resistance, and in general the Arab war, in a 100 year war.

        What we are seeing now, the dismembering of Iraq, the war of attrition on Syria, the destruction of Libya, the bombing of Yemen, the attack on Lebanon, was planned long ago by the neocons as a strategy for Israel, in a paper called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." It is all there, the rest, like the dismemberment of Iraq, the bombing of Libya, etc., are perks that came as they unfolded the strategy for destruction of the Arab/Muslim world.

        https://web.archive.org/web/20140125123844/http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm">http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm">https://web.archive.org/web/20140125123844/http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

        ToivoS | May 6, 2015 1:39:12 PM | 16
        The most effective resistance against Israel consisted of broad coalitions consisting of Christian, secular and Islamic groups. These were the panArab organizations inspired by Nasser and given substance in the Palestinian resistance by the PLO. Israel knew this was a problem. That is why they supported Hamas in the late 1970s when it first appeared. They quite explicitly supported Hamas in order to undermine the PLO. That has proven very effective in splitting Palestinian resistance into two warring camps centered respectively in Gaza and the West Bank.

        The US has discovered this formula. That is why we continue to support the Islamist groups who are more interested in killing fellow Muslims rather than fighting against Israel. It is quite amazing that Al qaida, ISIS or whatever handle they carry these days has never attacked an Israeli target.

        As we all know Al nusra today in Southern Syria is being actively supported by the Israeli military in the form of medical, "humanitarian" aid and the occasional bombing raid against the Syrian army. US and Israeli support for these terrorist Islamic forces is so transparent that what is puzzling is why this has not been exposed in the western media.

        Editors and reporters must know this stuff and are deliberately avoiding these stories.

        okie farmer | May 6, 2015 2:03:18 PM | 17
        ToivoS, actually Hamas was created by Shin Bet. And you draw a very accurate picture The US has discovered this formula. Yep.
        g_h | May 6, 2015 2:28:26 PM | 18
        @8-@10:

        Doc 1: http://www.dougfeith.com/docs/Clean_Break.pdf

        Doc 2: http://zfacts.com/zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/1996_12_Wurmser_Crumbling_Iraq.pdf

        Andoheb | May 6, 2015 3:15:21 PM | 19
        Wonder if Harry Truman's comment after Hitler invaded Russia in 1941 applies to current US Mideast policies. To paraphrase if the Germans are winning we should help the Russians, if the Russians are winning we should help the Germans. That way let them kill as many as possible
        Lone Wolf | May 6, 2015 3:16:07 PM | 20 @g_h@18@
        Thanks! Those two are key documents to understand the current drive of the aptly baptized "Empire of Chaos" and its minions.
        Zico | May 6, 2015 3:53:36 PM | 21
        The word AL-CIADA's lost it's scary factor in the West.. It's almost become acceptable/mainstream word... These days, Western journos refer to them in different terms, depending on the circumstances and location. How times change!!!
        • In Syria they're referred to as "rebels", "militants","Assad's opponent" and the best one "moderate Islamists".
        • In Iraq, they're referred to as "Sunni rebels", "oppressed Sunni fighters" etc.
        • In Yemen AL_CIADA's knowns as "president" Hadi's forces, "Sunni rebels"

        It gets to to point where you just wonder if these people scripting the "news" must really think the rest of us simpletons are so stupid not to notice the contradictions...

        We now have Western journos doing free propaganda for AL-CIADA :)

        GoraDiva | May 6, 2015 4:02:56 PM | 22
        More NYT propaganda on Syria? Well, it's A. Barnard...

        http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/world/middleeast/syria-chemical-weapons.html

        john | May 6, 2015 4:08:06 PM | 23
        b says:

        Who would win should the Syrian government really lose the war or capitulate? The U.S. supported "moderate rebels" Islamist, who could not win against the Syrian government, would then take over and defeat AlQaeda and the Islamic State?

        Who comes up with such phantasies?

        the guys from General Electric, Honeywell, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumann, etc... and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

        Luca K | May 6, 2015 4:22:13 PM | 24
        Good article by B. The following is nothing new, but adds more to what we already know, i.e, israeli cooperation with al-ciada terrorists.

        Article from 2 days ago. http://www.mintpressnews.com/israel-fuels-the-syrian-crisis-with-aid-to-al-qaida-rebels/205262/

        lysias | May 6, 2015 4:55:30 PM | 25
        Price of oil has been rising. FT: Dollar under pressure as oil keeps rising (subscription required).
        Christoph (German) | May 6, 2015 4:56:51 PM | 26
        Lone Wolf said: "What we are seeing now ... was planned long ago by the neocons as a strategy for Israel, in a paper called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." It is all there, the rest, like the dismemberment of Iraq, the bombing of Libya, etc., are perks that came as they unfolded the strategy for destruction of the Arab/Muslim world."

        It was also contemplated 140 years ago by Pike: "The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other".

        http://www.threeworldwars.com/albert-pike2.htm

        I doubt that this old scheme to eliminate independent cultures will succeed - there is more awareness and heavenly input today than could be envisioned in the 19th century.

        The Inner Circle Large Corporations and the Rise of Business Political Activity in the U.S. and U.K. (978019504033

        This is the essence of neoliberalism" Businessmen Unite! instead of "Proletarians of all countries unite"...
        July 7, 2005 | Amazon.com

        Luc REYNAERT on July 7, 2005

        Businessmen Unite!

        In the US and Great-Britain top officers of large corporations formed in the 1970s a semi-autonomous network which Michael Useem calls the 'Inner Circle'. It is a sort of institutionalized capitalism with a classwide alongside a corporate logic and permits a centralized mobilization of corporate resources.

        This select group of business leaders assume a leading role in the support of political candidates, in consultations with the highest levels of the national administrations, in public defense of the free enterprise system and in the governance of foundations and universities.

        One of its main goals is the promotion of a better political climate for big business through philanthropy (image building via generous support of cultural programs), issue (not product) advertising and political financing.

        The reasons behind the constitution of this 'Inner Circle' were the declining power of the individual companies and declining profitability together with, more specifically in GB, the threat of labor socialism (nationalizations and worker participation in corporate governance) and in the US, government intervention.

        A main issue was also the desire to control the power of the media, which in the US were considered far too liberal.

        The interventions of this 'Inner Circle' were (and are) extremely successful. President R. Reagan and Prime Minister M. Thatcher were partly products of business mobilizations. They lowered taxation, reduced government (except military) spending, lifted controls on business and installed cutbacks on unemployment benefits and welfare.

        On the media front, the influence of corporate America is highly enhanced, directly through media mergers, and indirectly through the high corporate advertising budgets.

        This is an eminent study based on excellent research.

        Highly recommended.

        [May 08, 2015] The Choice Before Europe

        Quote: "Over time, using money and false flag operations, such as Operation Gladio, Washington marginalized politicians and political parties that did not follow Washington's lead."
        The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

        Washington continues to drive Europe toward one or the other of the two most likely outcomes of the orchestrated conflict with Russia. Either Europe or some European Union member government will break from Washington over the issue of Russian sanctions, thereby forcing the EU off of the path of conflict with Russia, or Europe will be pushed into military conflict with Russia.

        In June the Russian sanctions expire unless each member government of the EU votes to continue the sanctions. Several governments have spoken against a continuation. For example, the governments of the Czech Republic and Greece have expressed dissatisfaction with the sanctions.

        US Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged growing opposition to the sanctions among some European governments. Employing the three tools of US foreign policy–threats, bribery, and coercion–he warned Europe to renew the sanctions or there would be retribution. We will see in June if Washington's threat has quelled the rebellion.

        Europe has to consider the strength of Washington's threat of retribution against the cost of a continuing and worsening conflict with Russia. This conflict is not in Europe's economic or political interest, and the conflict has the risk of breaking out into war that would destroy Europe.

        Since the end of World War II Europeans have been accustomed to following Washington's lead. For awhile France went her own way, and there were some political parties in Germany and Italy that considered Washington to be as much of a threat to European independence as the Soviet Union. Over time, using money and false flag operations, such as Operation Gladio, Washington marginalized politicians and political parties that did not follow Washington's lead.

        The specter of a military conflict with Russia that Washington is creating could erode Washington's hold over Europe. By hyping a "Russian threat," Washington is hoping to keep Europe under Washington's protective wing. However, the "threat" is being over-hyped to the point that some Europeans have understood that Europe is being driven down a path toward war.

        Belligerent talk from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, from John McCain, from the neoconservatives, and from NATO commander Philip Breedlove is unnerving Europeans. In a recent love-fest between Breedlove and the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by John McCain, Breedlove supported arming the Ukrainian military, the backbone of which appears to be the Nazi militias, with heavy US weapons in order to change "the decision calculus on the ground" and bring an end to the break-away republics that oppose Washington's puppet government in Kiev.

        Breedlove told the Senate committee that his forces were insufficient to withstand Russian aggression and that he needed more forces on Russia's borders in order to "reassure allies."

        Europeans have to decide whether the threat is Russia or Washington. The European press, which Udo Ulfkotte reports in his book, Bought Journalists, consists of CIA assets, has been working hard to convince Europeans that there is a "revanchist Russia" on the prowl that seeks to recover the Soviet Empire. Washington's coup in Ukraine has disappeared. In its place Washington has substituted a "Russian invasion," hyped as Putin's first step in restoring the Soviet empire.

        Just as there is no evidence of the Russian military in Ukraine, there is no evidence of Russian forces threatening Europe or any discussion or advocacy of restoring the Soviet empire among Russian political and military leaders.

        In contrast Washington has the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which is explicitly directed at Russia, and now the Council on Foreign Relations has added China as a target of the Wolfowitz doctrine.

        The CFR report says that China is a rising power and thereby a threat to US world hegemony. China's rise must be contained so that Washington can remain the boss in the Asian Pacific. What it comes down to is this: China is a threat because China will not prevent its own rise. This makes China a threat to "the International Order." "The International Order," of course, is the order determined by Washington. In other words, just as there must be no Russian sphere of influence, there must be no Chinese sphere of influence. The CFR report calls this keeping the world "free of hegemonic control" except by the US.

        Just as General Breedlove demands more military spending in order to counter "the Russian threat," the CFR wants more military spending in order to counter "the Chinese threat." The report concludes: "Congress should remove sequestration caps and substantially increase the U.S. defense budget."

        Clearly, Washington has no intention of moderating its position as the sole imperial power. In defense of this power, Washington will take the world to nuclear war. Europe can prevent this war by asserting its independence and departing the empire.

        Reprinted with permission from author's website.

        [May 07, 2015] The Illegal Phone-Data Sweeps By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

        May 07, 2015 | NYTimes.com

        There is a lot to praise in the powerful ruling issued by a three-judge federal appeals panel in New York on Thursday, which held that the government's vast, continuing and, until recently, secret sweep of Americans' phone records is illegal.

        But perhaps the most important message the unanimous decision sends is a simple one: Congress could not have intended to approve a program whose true scope almost no one outside the National Security Agency fully comprehended - that is, until Edward Snowden leaked its details to the world.

        In the nearly two years since those revelations shocked America and started a heated debate on the proper balance of privacy and national security, the N.S.A., which conducts the data sweeps, has defended its actions by contending that Congress knew exactly what it was doing when it reauthorized the Patriot Act in 2010 and 2011, after the collection program had begun.

        At issue before the appeals panel was Section 215 of the act, which permits the government to collect information that is "relevant" to terrorism investigations. But the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, at the urging of the N.S.A., has interpreted "relevant" so broadly that it gives the government essentially unlimited power to collect all phone and other types of data.

        In fighting this lawsuit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union immediately after the Snowden leaks, the government argued that Congress was apparently fine with this alarmingly broad interpretation.

        The problem, as Judge Gerard Lynch of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rightly pointed out in his 97-page opinion, is that "it is a far stretch to say that Congress was aware" of what the intelligence court was doing. To the contrary, Judge Lynch wrote, "knowledge of the program was intentionally kept to a minimum, both within Congress and among the public," and there was "no opportunity for broad discussion" about whether the court's interpretation was correct. Allowing the government to define "relevant" so loosely, he said, "would be an unprecedented contraction of the privacy expectations of all Americans."

        It is particularly galling that the government cannot even point to evidence that any terrorist attack has been thwarted by the collection of all this data. But even if it could, the panel said, "we would expect such a momentous decision to be preceded by substantial debate, and expressed in unmistakable language."

        For too long that debate did not happen, nor could it, since the intelligence court operated in near-total secrecy. Now, thanks to Mr. Snowden (who still lives in exile in Russia), the debate is well underway, and not a moment too soon, since Congress is debating reauthorization of Section 215, which is scheduled to expire on June 1.

        Bipartisan bills in both houses would amend the law to cut back on domestic phone-data sweeps, but they do not address bulk collection of overseas calls, which could include information about Americans, and they do not establish an advocate to represent the public's interest before the intelligence court.

        Without such an advocate, Judge Robert Sack wrote in a concurring opinion, the court "may be subject to the understandable suspicion that, hearing only from the government, it is likely to be strongly inclined to rule for the government."

        Unfortunately, even modest reforms face resistance from top Republicans, including the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, who on Thursday called for the law to be renewed without change. In doing so, they ignored a ruling that is the most important rebuke yet of the government's abuses under that law.


        ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 1 hour ago

        We must never forget the government lied to us about spying on Americans before Snowden blew the whistle. Director of Intel James Clapper admitted he lied to the People when he testified under oath the NSA was not collecting data from American's calls. When he lied, Congress knew it, the President knew it and Clapper knew it.

        Snowden exposed the lie and the government immediately indicted him while Obama expressed support for Clapper who lied to the public.

        Why should we ever trust what the government tells us about surveillance programs? Why is James Clapper still receiving a taxpayer's check after lying to us? Why doesn't Pres. Obama get it -- you don't lie and get away with it?

        Oh yah, Pres. Obama knew he was lying when he testified and was hoping he could get away with it.

        Thank you Mr. Snowden for exposing the lies perpetrated on the public. In a just World, Clapper would be indicted and you would be welcomed home as a Patriot. But as you know first hand, we don't live in a just world.

        Thank you Mr. Snowden for exposing the liars for who they are.

        RC, is a trusted commenter MN 2 hours ago

        Good editorial; the unconstitutional surveillance of all domestic communications, not just phone records, should now be addressed.

        Holding the politicians who authorize and support unconstitutional surveillance accountable might help to end the massive wasting of taxpayer dollars on these inefficient activities, which diverts funds from more productive programs that would benefit the security of our country.

        [May 06, 2015] Clinton Cash: errors dog Bill and Hillary exposé – but is there any 'there' there? by Ed Pilkington

        May 05, 2015 | The Guardian

        In an interview with the sympathetic Fox News (owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Harper, the publisher of Clinton Cash) it was put to Schweizer that he hadn't "nailed" his thesis. "It's hard for any author to nail it – one of the strategies of the Clinton camp is to set a bar for me as an author that is impossible to meet," he replied.

        ... ... ...

        Certainly, pundits were warning about the problem of the large sums of money flowing into the Clinton Foundation's coffers even before Hillary Clinton took up her position as Obama's global emissary-in-chief. A month before she became secretary of state, the Washington Post warned in an editorial that her husband's fundraising activities were problematic. "Even if Ms Clinton is not influenced by gifts to her husband's charity, the appearance of conflict is unavoidable."

        Since the foundation was formed in 2001, some $2bn has been donated, mainly in big lump sums. Fully a third of the donors giving more than $1m, and more than a half of those handing over more than $5m, have been foreign governments, corporations or tycoons. (The foundation stresses that such largesse has been put to very good use – fighting obesity around the globe, combating climate change, helping millions of people with HIV/Aids obtain antiretroviral drugs at affordable prices.)

        Schweizer may have made mistakes about aspects of Bill Clinton's fees on the speaker circuit, but one of his main contentions – that the former president's rates skyrocketed after his wife became secretary of state – is correct. Politifact confirmed that since leaving the White House in 2001 and 2013, Bill Clinton made 13 speeches for which he commanded more than $500,000; all but two of those mega-money earners occurred in the period when Hillary was at the State Department.

        Though Schweizer has failed to prove actual corruption in the arrangement – at no point in the book does he produce evidence showing that Bill's exorbitant speaker fees were directly tied to policy concessions from Hillary – he does point to several glaring conflicts of interest. Bill Clinton did accept large speaker fees accumulating to more than $1m from TD Bank, a major shareholder in the Keystone XL pipeline, at precisely the time that the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton within it, was wrestling with the vexed issue of whether to approve it.

        It is also true that large donations to the foundation from the chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer, at around the time of the Russian purchase of the company and while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, were never disclosed to the public. The multimillion sums were channeled through a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation, CGSCI, which did not reveal its individual donors.

        Such awkward collisions between Bill's fundraising activities and Hillary's public service have raised concerns not just among those who might be dismissed as part of a vast rightwing conspiracy. Take Zephyr Teachout, a law professor at Fordham university who has written extensively on political corruption in the US.

        Teachout, who last year stood against Andrew Cuomo for the Democratic party nomination for New York governor, points out that you don't have to be able to prove quid pro quo for alarm bells to ring. "Our whole system of rules is built upon the concept that you must prevent conflicts of interests if you are to resist corruption in its many forms. Conflicts like that can infect us in ways we don't even see."

        Teachout said that the Clintons presented the US political world with a totally new challenge. "We have never had somebody running for president whose spouse – himself a former president – is running around the world raising money in these vast sums."

        ... ... ...

        Though Bill Clinton insisted this week that his charity has done nothing "knowingly inappropriate", that is unlikely to satisfy the skeptics from left or right. They say that a family in which one member is vying for the most powerful office on Earth must avoid straying into even the unintentionally inappropriate.

        In the wake of Clinton Cash, the foundation has admitted that it made mistakes in disclosing some of its contributions. It has also implemented new rules that will see its financial reporting increase from once annually to four times a year, while large donations from foreign governments will be limited in future to six countries including the UK and Germany.

        But with Bill refusing doggedly to give up his speaker engagements – "I gotta pay our bills" – and foreign corporations and super-rich individuals still able to donate to the family charity, it looks like this controversy may run and run. Politically, too, Hillary Clinton is confronted with a potential credibility gap between her appeal to ordinary Americans on the presidential campaign trail and the millions that continue to flow to the foundation.

        "Is she going to be in touch with the needs and dreams of poor America when her spouse and daughter are working with the world's global elite?" said Dave Levinthal of the anti-corruption investigative organization, the Center for Public Integrity. "That's a question she will have to answer, every step of the way."

        mkenney63 5 May 2015 20:39
        It would be nice to know how much Saudi and Chinese money her "Foundation" has taken-in. I can tell you how much Bernie has taken - $0. Bernie, the only truly progressive in the race, raised $1.5 million in one day from ordinary working people like you and me who have the smarts to know who's really in their corner. When I look at Hillary I ask myself, do we really want parasitic people like this running our country? Is there anything she has ever touched that isn't tainted by a lust for money?
        foggy2 gixxerman006 5 May 2015 20:38
        I am in the process of reading the actual book. He does have actual sources for many things but what is missing is the information controlled by that now cleaned off server and the details of just who contributed to them, their foundation, and who hired them for those gold plated speeches. Those names never were made public and now the related tax forms are being "redone." Wonder how long that will take.

        The author was able to get pertinent data from the Canadian tax base information and that is important because some of the heavier hitters are Canadians who needed help in the US and other places to make piles of money on their investments. And many statements made by people are documented as are some cables sent TO the state department.

        AlfredHerring raffine 5 May 2015 20:33

        It's funny that free-market Tea Party Republicans criticize the Clintons

        There's a broad populist streak in the Tea Party. They may be social conservatives and opposed to government telling them they MUST buy health insurance from a private company (that's where it started) but on many issues they're part of the Teddy Roosevelt trust busting and Franklin Roosevelt New Deal traditions.

        [May 03, 2015] US Goes Ballistic Over Ukraine as Both Sides There Wage Peace By William Boardman,

        March 10, 2015 | readersupportednews.org

        US and UK deploy troops to Ukraine, but they're just "advisors"

        American combat troops deployed in Ukraine will soon number in the hundreds, at least, but US officials claim they're there only as "advisors" or "trainers," not as an in-place threat to Russia. Whatever advising or training they may do, they are also an in-place threat to Russia. US officials are also lobbying to arm Ukraine with "defensive" anti-tank rockets and other lethal weapons in hopes of escalating the fighting, maybe even killing some Russians. In other words, American brinksmanship continues to escalate slowly but recklessly on all fronts.

        To the dismay of the Pentagon, the White House war crowd, and the rest of the American bloviating class of chickenhawk hardliners, the warring sides in Ukraine are disengaging and the ceasefire has almost arrived (March 7 was the first day with no casualties). The government in Kievand the would-be governments of the People's Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk have been acting as if they're not hell-bent on mutually assured destruction after all. They've exchanged prisoners. They've agreed to double the number of ceasefire monitors to 1,000. They've pulled back their heavy weapons. Both sides have stopped the random shelling that has caused "heavy civilian tolls of dead and wounded," according to theMarch 2 report from the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights.

        The calmer heads of Europe, in Germany and France particularly, are presently prevailing over the fear-mongered countries closer to Russia who seem bewitched by US enthusiasm to subject Europe to yet another devastating war in which those near-Russia countries would be the first to feel the pain. But for now, most of Europe seems willing to accept the notion that the Russians have a rational view of their reasonable security needs, that the cost of further Russian advances outweighs any rational gain, and that all the mad babbling of bellicose Americans is just unprocessed cold war hysteria amplified by the need to deny decades of imperial defeats.

        What is it with exceptional American irrationalists' love of war?

        Still the manic American willingness to risk war with Russia, including nuclear war – over what, exactly? – keeps spinning out of Washington:

        • Ashton Carter, President Obama's choice as Secretary of Defense, assured senators during his confirmation hearing in February that he would push for more aggressive military action for the rest of Obama's term, that he favors lethal arms for Ukraine, and that he would not be pressured into faster release of innocent prisoners held in Guantanamo.
        • John Kerry, Secretary of State, advocated in early February in favor of sending arms to the Ukraine government. Since April 2014, Kerry has been demonizing Russia, blaming Russia for growing violence in eastern Ukraine even as Kiev militias were attacking the Donetsk and Luhansk separatists, calling them "terrorists." Kerry, the highest ranking American diplomat, recently and publicly accused the Russians of lying to his face.
        • James Clapper, director of national intelligence, has told the Council on Foreign Relations that he wants to give "lethal- defensive weapons" to the Kiev government to "bolster their resolve" and persuade them "that we're with them." Clapper was calling Russia one of the greatest threats to the US as early as 2011.
        • Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, jumped on the arm-Ukraine bandwagon March 3, saying "I think we should absolutely consider lethal aid." (He didn't add that the big danger of non-lethal aid is that it might help people settle differences without killing each other.)
        • Victoria Nuland, formerly security advisor to Dick Cheney, now an assistant secretary of state for European affairs, has long engaged in working for regime change in Russia. Nuland is famous for her "f-k the EU" attitude during the Maidan protests in 2014. On March 4 she became the first US official to call Russian actions in eastern Ukraine "an invasion." She claimed there were hundreds of Russian Tanks in eastern Ukraine, though no credible evidence supports the claim.

        "NATO now exists to manage the risks created by its existence."

        – Richard Sakwa, Frontline Ukraine

        From the Russian perspective, NATO aggression has continued for the past 20 years. Secretary of State James Baker, under the first President Bush, explicitly promised the Russians that NATO would not expand eastward toward Russia. For the next two decades, at the behest of the US, NATO has expanded eastward to Russia's borders and put Ukrainian NATO membership in play. The unceasing madness of "US and NATO aggression in Ukraine" is argued forcefully by attorney Robert Roth in Counterpunch, who notes that US-sponsored sanctions on Russia are already, arguably, acts of war.

        NATO continues to maintain nuclear weapons bases around Russia's periphery while adding more anti-missile missile installations. Anti-missile missiles to intercept Russian missiles are generally understood to be part of the West's nuclear first strike capability.

        Then there's the months-old, expanding Operation Atlantic Resolve, an elaborate US-sponsored NATO show of force deploying thousands of troops to NATO countries that are also Russia's near-neighbors. Beginning in April 2014, Operation Atlantic Resolve started sending troops to Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland) that border Russia. Those troops remain, and Defense News reported that more US saber-rattling is coming:

        The US military's plans to send troops into Romania and Bulgaria as a deterrence to Russian aggression could expand to include Hungary, the Czech Republic and Russia's southern neighbor, Georgia…. by the end of the summer, you could very well see an operation that stretches from the Baltics all the way down to the Black Sea….

        In the Black Sea itself, NATO forces continue to project force through "training exercises" involving the Navies of at least seven nations: US, Canada, Turkey, Germany, Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria. NATO commander Gen. Philip Breedlove complained in late February that Russia had deployed "air defense systems that reach nearly half of the Black Sea" – as if it were surprising that Russia would respond to hostile military activity close to one of its oldest and largest naval bases, Sevastopol, in Crimea. Breedlove admits that NATO naval forces have approached Crimea, provoking Russian naval responses. Breedlove's warmongering reportedly upsets German officials, but they don't object publicly to American lies.

        This pattern of provocation and response is familiar to those who know the Viet-Nam War, when similar US tactics provoked the so-called "Tonkin Gulf incident." That manipulated set of events, deceitfully described by the White House and dishonestly amplified by most American media, was used to gull a credulous and lazy Congress into passing the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, giving the president authority to wage that disastrous, pointless war. Watch for the sequel coming to a Black Sea theatre of war near you.

        Congress is as eager for Ukraine War as it was for Iraq and Viet-Nam

        War mongering has a large, noisy cheering section in Congress. Eleven American lawmakers including House Speaker John Boehner have signeda bi-partisan letter to President Obama demanding in the shrillest tones ("defend against further aggression") that the US ship lethal arms to the Kiev government now. The eleven Congress members (8 predictable Republicans and three veteran, dimwit Democrats) write about Ukraine what they had never had the wit or courage to say about US aggression in Iraq. They assert with grotesque oversimplification and false premises about "the crisis in Ukraine" that:

        It is a grotesque violation of International law, a challenge to the west, and an assault on the international order established at such great cost in the wake of World War II.

        Fatuous warmongering. At the end of World War II, Crimea was indisputably part of Russia (within the USSR) and the anti-Russian military alliance of NATO did not exist, much less had it pushed its existential security threat to the Russian border. You want an all-out, unambiguous assault on international law, look to Iraq and all the "little Iraqs" that the American hegemon executes with impunity and nearly endless destructiveness to peace, order, and culture.

        The weak-kneed Democrats mindlessly signing on to this reflexive Republican rage to kill someone are: Eliot Engel of New York (Westchester County), lawyer – first elected in 1988, he's been a strong supporter of violence in Palestine, Kosovo, and Iraq (voting for the war in 2002); Adam Smith of Washington (Seattle), lawyer – first elected 1997, he's supported violence in Afghanistan and Iraq (voting for the war in 2001) and he sponsored a bill to allow the US government to lie to the people; and Adam Schiff of California (Burbank), lawyer – he's supported violence in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria (voting for the Iraq war in 2002). "Bi-partisanship" is pretty meaningless when the imperial warmaking ideology is monolithic, as in this basic lie also in the Boehner letter:

        We should not wait until Russian troops and their separatist proxies take Mariupol or Kharkiv before we act to bolster the Ukrainian government's ability to deter and defend against further aggression.

        The core of this lie is those "separatist proxies." That's an Orwellian phrase used to turn the roughly 5 million residents of the Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk into un-persons. These 5 million people are predominantly Russian-speaking and ethnic-Russian. They have legitimate, longstanding grievances with Ukrainian-dominated governments in Kiev, especially with the current illegitimate one which is neo-Nazi-tinged and Russo-phobic.

        It is important for these 5 million people seeking self-determination to disappear from the American argument for war sooner rather than later. The American war justifiers require "Russian aggression" as a crediblecasus belli, but the would-be war makers offer no credible evidence to support that propaganda claim ("Remember the Maine!").

        The American news bubble distorts and excludes the world's realities

        The blandly mindless media repetition of the phrase "Russian aggression" is a reliable measure of how much the news reports the government propaganda, at the expense of something like real world complexity. Dissenting voices are few in America's media world, and seldom heard, especially those who ask: "What aggression?"

        Somehow, in the well-washed American collective brain, it's aggression when an oppressed minority declares its independence from its oppressors, the coup-installed Kiev government (and some of its predecessors). But that same scrubbed brain believes it's not aggression when another minority, aligned with foreign interests, carries out a violent overthrow of Ukraine's legitimately elected government.

        Newsweek has demonized Russian president Vladimir Putin for months now, including on a cover with the headline "The Pariah" over a picture showing Putin in dark glasses that seem to reflect two nuclear explosions. (This imagery worked with deceitful perfection in 2002 when President Bush and Condoleezza Rice terrified audiences with the possibility that the "smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud.") Newsweek has even called for regime change in Russia. Newsweek is hardly alone in demonizing Putin without considering the realities of his situation. Others, like CNN, simply resort to calling him "completely mad," even though Russian actions have been largely measured and limited, especially when considered in the context of two decades of western provocation.

        The New York Times got suckered by the Kiev government into running pictures "proving" Russian troops were in Ukraine, when they proved no such thing. This was not an anomaly among American media, according toRobert Parry in Consortium News:

        At pivotal moments in the crisis, such as the Feb. 20, 2014 sniper fire that killed both police and protesters and the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 killing 298 passengers and crew, the U.S. political/media establishment has immediately pinned the blame on Yanukovych, the ethnic Russian rebels who are resisting his ouster, or Putin. Then, when evidence emerged going in the opposite direction – toward "our side" – a studied silence followed, allowing the earlier propaganda to stay in place as part of the preferred storyline.

        When reality intrudes upon propaganda, reality must be discredited

        In a somewhat mocking story about Russia's denunciation of US troops arriving in Ukraine as a threat to Russia security, the Los Angeles Timesgive roughly equal time to a NATO commander denouncing the Russian denunciation. The casual reader who stops halfway through the story is easily left with the impression that the Russians are behaving badly again and maybe sending lethal weapons is a good idea. Only in the last two paragraphs does the Times, quite unusually, report some real things that matter about Ukraine:

        Ukraine, which proclaimed independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 as the communist-ruled federation was collapsing, had pledged to remain nonaligned, and in any case would need years to carry out reforms and assimilation of its armed forces with those of NATO before it could be inducted into the Western defense alliance.

        But since the Russian-backed insurgency began ripping Ukraine apart, Kiev authorities have renounced the nonalignment pledge and set their course for eventual NATO membership.

        The first of these two paragraphs is a partly reasonable explanation of why Russia would feel betrayed by the US and NATO. A nonaligned Ukraine remains an obvious possible alternative to the present conflict ignited by decades of NATO aggression.

        The second paragraph serves as a warning, packaged as a justification based on a lie. The lie is that it's a Russian-backed insurgency that's ripping Ukraine apart, when Ukraine has been ripping itself apart for years, a reality that led to the coup-government in Kiev. The explanation – which is false – is that the insurgency has forced the Kiev government's hand, even though the government took power with EU and NATO links obviously in mind. The warning is that Ukraine may just join NATO as soon as it can.

        Until Americans – and especially American policy makers – face fundamental realities in and about Ukraine, the risk that they will take the rest of us into an unjustified, stupid, and potentially catastrophic war will remain unacceptably high. One of the realities Americans need to face is that the Ukraine government is corrupt, as corrupt an some of the most corrupt governments in the world, and nothing the US has done is likely to change that any time soon. What any war would ultimately be about is: who gets to benefit from that corruption?

        Ukrainians know this and despair as, for example, Lilia Bigeyeva, 55, a violinist and composer did when she told her family's storyfrom Dnipropetrovsk in central Ukraine:

        I was born in Melitopol, raised in Zaporizhzhya, and have spent all of my adult life in Dnipropetrovsk. It hasn't been easy, this past year in Ukraine. The loss of Crimea is a tragedy, the war is a tragedy. And it's far from clear that our government and our people are really prepared to institute rule of law….

        The war is very close to us, here in Dnipropetrovsk. Every day there's bad news. But we continue to play music, my pupils and I. Culture and art, these are the things that have always helped us through frightening times.

        This was published in The Moscow Times on March 6, but it was originally recorded and distributed by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. In other words, there's no excuse, for anyone on any side, to say they didn't know what was happening to the Ukrainian people for the sake of geopolitical greed.

        END NOTE: HOW YOU CAN HELP THE WEST'S WAR EFFORT

        [Craigslist posting, edited, from Orange County, California, March 3, 2015.]

        Ukrainian/Russian Men Needed $19/Hr (Oceanside, CA)

        GTS (Glacier Technology Solutions LLC) – We are military contractors working directly with the US Marine Corps assisting them with their immersive simulation training program.

        Currently, we are looking for role players of Ukrainian and/or Russian ethnicity and language skills. Need MEN ranging 18-65 years of age.

        This is temporary, part time, on-call work based on need and availability.

        At the moment, we are staffing for an upcoming training to take place on: March 29-31, 2015. The scheduled hours will vary from 8-12 hours per working day.

        Compensation is $15.17/hr. plus another $4.02/hr. Health and Welfare benefit for up to 40 hours of work in a workweek. (Overtime rates will be paid if necessary). Register for work at: www.Shiftboard.com/wforce


        William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

        Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

        Activista 2015-03-10 13:22

        rt.com/op-edge/239205-baltic-states-us-military-troops/
        NATO uses 'Russia threat' as excuse to halt defense cuts ...
        these are make up threats to keep profit/militari sm/NATO going ...
        EU does not want to pay 2% GDP to NATO ...
        and US military expenditure and debt is growing ..
        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#mediaviewer/File:Top_ten_military_expenditures_in_$_in_2013.jpg.jpeg

        jdd 2015-03-10 18:52

        You have it backwards. While it may be less disturbing to believe that NATO exists merely to justify military spending, you have missed the point. NATO's was originally created as a military alliance against the Soviet Union, even though the Warsaw Pact was later dissolved, NATO was maintained and expanded to threaten and encircle Russia. Nuland, Carter and other believe that they can cause "regime change" in Russia, or alternatively win a "first strike" victory in a "limited nuclear war." Now, in response to the successful cease-fire, made possible by Putin's cooperation, we have EU Commissioner Juncker calling for an EU army to confront Russia. The response from a prominent Russian parliamentarian :

        "In a nuclear age, extra armies do not provide any additional security. But they surely can play a provocative role...One should presume that a European army is seen as an addendum to NATO...never, even in the darkest days of the Cold War, had anyone dared to make such a proposal." If only it were merely about military spending.

        and continue to provoke the Russians

        lorenbliss 2015-03-11 02:13

        If I did not know better, I would assume there is someone in the State Department channeling Hitler, someone in the Defense Department channeling Goering, someone at Homeland Security channeling Himmler and someone at the head of the media monopoly channeling Goebbels.

        And in their resurrected madness -- exactly as in 1941 -- they are forgetting the lessons the Scythians taught the Persians and the Scythians' Russian descendants taught the Teutonic Knights, the Mongols and Bonaparte, not to mention the lessons Hitler, Goering, Himmler and Goebbels were themselves taught by the Russian "untermenschen."

        Such are the darkest times in our species' history...

        REDPILLED 2015-03-10 17:13

        The 11th COMMANDMENT:

        No nation shall DARE defy the United States and its Puppets by attempting to be truly independent! That right is reserved only for the God-chosen United States.

        wantrealdemocracy 2015-03-10 20:06

        Too bad the "God chosen United States" is not independent. Our nation is under the control of Israel. Israel wants this war against Russia, and all those wars in the Middle East, so that the Christians and Muslims will kill each other leaving Israel the winner. The state of Israel and the Zionists will then control the whole world. That is the 'New World Order' you have heard about.

        arquebus 2015-03-10 17:20

        NATO aggression? When you see NATO tanks rolling across the border in an armed attack against Russia, then come talk to me about aggression. Has not happened and is unlikely to happen.

        What we really have here is Putin and the Russians paranoia and inability to get over the German invasion of 1940...something that happened 75 years ago.

        skeeter 2015-03-10 19:07

        Quoting arquebus:
        NATO aggression? When you see NATO tanks rolling across the border in an armed attack against Russia, then come talk to me about aggression. Has not happened and is unlikely to happen.

        What we really have here is Putin and the Russians paranoia and inability to get over the German invasion of 1940...something that happened 75 years ago.

        Let's get real...the Europeans are threatening to bring Ukraine into NATO, a military alliance established and maintained to challenge the Soviet Union. No Russian leader in his right mind could stand by and let this happen. Imagine if the Soviets had approached Mexico or Canada a few years ago and tried to convince them to join the Warsaw Pact. The Russians paranoid...can you blame them?

        Agricanto 2015-03-10 19:23

        First I read the (very excellent) piece of journalism from people like William Boardman.

        Then I "scroll to the troll" and give the predictable right wing doublethink a thumbs down.

        Then I go to PayPal and give RSN 10bux all the while complaining that trolls don't pay to clog up important discussions on RSN. Penny a word from the troll factory is all I ask.

        Merlin 2015-03-10 21:05

        Agricanto 2015-03-10 19:23

        Spot on and well said!

        jsluka 2015-03-11 00:15

        If Russian troops began to maneuver on the US border, like US troops (NATO) are now doing on the Russian border, the US would go "ballistic." That's called "hypocrisy," by the way.

        MJnevetS 2015-03-13 14:52

        "Russia already did that and invaded killed people and are feeding a false insurgency that is being dubbed freedom fighters .. they even shot down a domestic airliner in the summer flying over that territory over the UKraine from Amsterdam. don't you know the news even on this subject"

        There is a sad lack of facts in these statements. NY Times had to retract the allegations of a 'Russian Invasion', as the evidence proved to be fabricated. The only 'false insurgency' was the coup initiated by the US and with regard to the shooting down of the commercial liner, show me one SINGLE piece of evidence that Russian backed rebels were involved. It was a false flag operation and when people demanded evidence over propaganda, the news story magically disappeared, as the evidence would show that it was a terrorist attack by the Nazis currently in control of Ukraine.

        jdd 2015-03-11 08:15

        When you "see NATO tanks rolling across the border in an armed attack against Russia" it will not be the time to converse with you, but rather then you may kiss your loved ones a final goodbye as that will be the beginning of a war of human extinction, all over within an hour.

        Thank goodness for Putin and s few sane voices in the West who are trying to avoid ever getting to that point while others in the West, such as the Newland gang, seem hell-bent on making it happen.

        Activista 2015-03-11 20:36

        ... see NATO bombers in Libya, Yugoslavia .. US troops in Kosovo US Sending 3,000 Troops To Latvia, Estonia ...
        www.ibtimes.com/ukraine-crisis-us-sending-...
        International Business Times
        2 days ago - An Abrams main battle tank, for U.S. troops deployed in the Baltics as part of NATO's Operation Atlantic Resolve, left the port in Riga, Latvia ....

        Trish42 2015-03-10 18:03

        When will Americans ever get their collective head out of their ass and start looking at the world from others' points of view? We have gotten sucked into the propaganda about Ukraine, never checking other sources or verifying what we "know" to see if there was any evidence that would support our intervention. Sound familiar? We've got to get the war-mongers out of DC!!

        Kev C 2015-03-10 21:19

        Allow me to explain why they won't. Education. The entire system is based on US centric thinking and behaviour. There is limited information available about the rest of the world and what there is is painting the US as the God Given Saviour of humanity. Hell they won the war after all. Single handed. They saved the UKs ass by coming to our rescue didn't they? Not!

        Until the vast majority of Really decent but hypnotized Americans get the real info they will continue to believe what they are told because there isn't really an alternative to the Faux news/MSN bullshit and the pre programmed education system. Its not the peoples fault. The system was rigged long before they were born.

        dsepeczi 2015-03-11 09:38

        Quoting Trish42:
        When will Americans ever get their collective head out of their ass and start looking at the world from others' points of view? We have gotten sucked into the propaganda about Ukraine, never checking other sources or verifying what we "know" to see if there was any evidence that would support our intervention. Sound familiar? We've got to get the war-mongers out of DC!!
        Sadly, I'm starting to believe the answer to your question is ... "Never". If Iraq wasn't a big enough, loud enough, and obvious enough mistake to wake up ALL Americans to the fact that our government lies to us and we should take everything they say with a grain of salt and request that they provide solid proof of their allegations against another nation ... I can't think of any event that will. :(

        pbbrodie 2015-03-11 09:45

        "get warmongers out of Washington."
        Yes, especially the complete idiots who are making insane comments about "limited nuclear war." There is no such thing as limited nuclear war. Once one is exploded, it is all over.

        Johnny 2015-03-10 18:15

        How soon we forget. The U.S. must punish Russia, and, more importantly, divert the attention of Russia from the Middle East, because Russia has supported Syria, which is an obstacle to open war against Iran, because Iran arms Hezbollah, and the last time the Zionists invaded Lebanon, Hezbollah chased them out. Hezbollah is an obstacle to annexation of the whole area by Israel. And now that the Zionists smell the opportunity to induce the U.S. to attack Iran, they are creating another front on which Russia must try to defend itself and its allies. The U.S. Congress is not the only part of the U.S. government that Jewish supremacist banksters have bought, lock, stock, and barrel. (Before some asshole starts to howl about anti-Semitism, let him explain why we should not criticize other proponents of racism, such as white supremacists; Zionism, after all, is merely warmed over Nazism, with a different "chosen" people and different victims.)

        dquandle 2015-03-10 20:05

        In fact, the neo-nazis now in control in the US/NATO supported Ukraine have been blatantly anti-semitic for decades, having supported the Nazis at that time and are even more egregious now.

        "For the first time since 1945, a neo-Nazi, openly anti-Semitic party controls key areas of state power in a European capital. No Western European leader has condemned this revival of fascism in the borderland through which Hitler's invading Nazis took millions of Russian lives. They were supported by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), responsible for the massacre of Jews and Russians they called "vermin". The UPA is the historical inspiration of the present-day Svoboda Party and its fellow-travelli ng Right Sector. Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok has called for a purge of the "Moscow-Jewish mafia" and "other scum", including gays, feminists and those on the political left."

        Taken from

        http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/07/11/on-israel-ukraine-and-truth/

        And these, fully supported and paid for supported by the ostensibly "Jewish" Nuland and Obama's heinous State Department.

        See also e.g.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/the-neo-nazi-question-in_b_4938747.html

        Radscal 2015-03-11 00:24

        In addition to Ms. Nuland and her PNAC founding husband, Robert Kagan, two of the three Democrats cited by Mr. Boardman as signees on the "arm Ukraine" letter are Jewish. In fact, Congressman Engel is of Ukrainian Jewish ancestry.

        As the "protests" in Ukraine grew in late 2013/early 2014, Ukrainian Jewish groups reported skyrocketing cases of anti-Semitic rhetoric and attacks. But those reports were buried by Zionist organizations who insisted that Russia was the real threat to Ukrainian Jews, not the frigging Nazis in Ukraine!

        At first, this sort of thing confused me, before I realized it wasn't a Jew against Jew thing. This is Zionist fascists supporting Nazi fascists.

        Vardoz 2015-03-10 22:23

        Sorry it just boils down to profits and power and any excuse to wage endless war for profits period end of story.

        L.S. 2015-03-10 20:06

        I do not agree with these conclusions. I don't believe that the U.S. and U.K. are invested in military action. Those troops are advisors and instructors. This interpretation is very cynical and pessimistic and I don't buy it.

        My background is International Relations and I am watching the chess pieces on the board and I challenge this interpretation and find it very unhelpful and in itself can be contributing towards War rather than supporting the diplomatic actions towards Peace.

        Merlin 2015-03-10 21:02

        L.S. 2015-03-10 20:06

        So talk to me about the advisors that Eisenhower put in Viet Nam. Then talk to me about Kennedy expanding on their number. Then talk to me about the Viet Nam War.

        You state:

        "My background is International Relations and I am watching the chess pieces on the board and I challenge this interpretation"

        I challenge YOU because either you a not what you claim or you sure did not learn very much.

        Kev C 2015-03-10 21:24

        If you don't see what is happening now then your a lousy chess player. Don't give up though. Practice makes perfect. However beware there are not many nations left that haven't been smeared then bombed by the US and we are running out nations and out of time before the US blow all our asses off the face of the planet for that self serving act of pathetic vanity which will be countersigned in hell with 'Property of The US Military.'

        jsluka 2015-03-11 00:17

        "Advisors and intructors" - Don't be naive. And what happens when some of them get killed? What is the likelihood or statistical probability of escalation after that? This is clearly provocative and dangerous and does absolutely nothing for "peace" or "security" of anyone.

        Radscal 2015-03-11 00:27

        L.S. "...I am watching the chess pieces on the board..."

        Does your use of that analogy imply that you read Ziggy Brzezenski's 1998 book, "The Grand Chessboard," in which he explains why the U.S. must take control of Ukraine as key to controlling Eurasian resources, and ultimately to conquer Russia and China?

        RODNOX 2015-03-11 05:14

        history has shown the USA always has some underhanded agenda--some self serving plan---and often plays BOTH sides of the problem--just to escalate it----WHEN WILL WE STOP THEM ????? THIS IS TRULY THE 1 % IN ACTION--WE--THE PEOPLE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM

        wrknight 2015-03-12 20:47

        Quoting L.S.:
        I do not agree with these conclusions. I don't believe that the U.S. and U.K. are invested in military action. Those troops are advisors and instructors.

        Like the advisors the U.S. sent to South Vietnam in the 1950's.

        Archie1954 2015-03-10 20:16

        Exceptional, indispensable? More like irrational, despicable! What we need is for Putin to call up Obama and tell him point blank that if the US doesn't get the hell out of Ukraine, Russia will make it! If you don't think it can, think again!

        jsluka 2015-03-11 00:20

        I appreciate your emotion here, but that would be really really scary because I imagine the US would respond with even greater belligerance and "justify" it by saying "Putin is threatening us" - even though, ironically, it is the US that is doing all the threatening.

        Vardoz 2015-03-10 21:17

        It's more like war madmen then warmongers and it's all very frightening. Putin is crazy too and we have no right getting involved so that the Fuking military can make profits!!!! Enough!!!!! Our military is out of control with a suicidal war agenda and they don't care about the consequences or the collateral damage. It's just war all around, kick out the jams no matter how many die- they don't give a damn. Seemed like Germany was making some constructive headway and Merkel should tell the US where to go. This is all so dirty and obscene and wrong.

        Radscal 2015-03-11 00:33

        You do know that the U.S. was not even invited to the peace talks, right?

        Similarly, it was EU members, Russia and then-president Yanukovych who signed the agreement with the Maidan Protest leaders on 2/21/14 in which Yanukovych acquiesced to every one of their demands.

        That was when Vickie Nuland's "Fuck the EU" plan went into action and the neo-nazis stormed the government buildings, including the Parliament and drove about 2 dozen Members of Parliament and the President to flee for their lives.

        And that, is why those who followed the events call it a "coup."

        jdd 2015-03-11 07:28

        The ceaae-fire came about because the "Normandy Four" excluded the US and UK, whose participation would have guaranteed failure. Now the efforts of all, but especially that of Putin have led to a fragile peace. The response from a disappointed Victoria Nuland crowd continues to speak of sending arms and "advisors" to Ukraine in order to throw gasoline on the embers.

        dsepeczi 2015-03-11 08:21

        Quoting ericlane:
        Another moronic article. Who do you think was behind the peace deal?
        Ummm. I believe the organizers of that peace deal were Europe, Ukraine and Russia. The US, wisely, was not invited to the table.

        jsluka 2015-03-11 00:13

        Is "US Goes Ballistic" a scary pun here? I.e., as in "nuclear armed ballistic missiles". Also, isn't that how it all started in the Vietnam War - with "advisors"? This is batcrap crazy, but then many people have now begun to realise that US politicians have become homocidally psychotic. It's "back to the future" and return of Dr. Strangelove.

        [email protected] 2015-03-11 06:22

        We have no business in Ukraine, we have no business antagonizing the Russians. We Slavs have been demonized, mocked and denigrated as imbeciles and barbarians by the West for centuries. Stay the hell away from us, already. We don't need to be like you.

        Buddha 2015-03-11 17:10

        "To the dismay of the Pentagon, the White House war crowd, and the rest of the American bloviating class of chickenhawk hardliners, the warring sides in Ukraine are disengaging and the ceasefire has almost arrived (March 7 was the first day with no casualties)."

        John McCain's dick just got limp again. Oh well, there is always ISIS and Iran to try to stoke up WWIII, right Uncle Fester?

        Kootenay Coyote 2015-03-16 10:12

        "Until Americans, and especially American policy maker, face fundamental realities in and about Ukraine….". Or any fundamental realities, for that matter: cf. Global Warming. The nearest thing to reality that's considered is that of the weapon makers & warmongers, & that's pretty meagre.

        [May 03, 2015] Hillary Clinton The International Neocon Warmonger, by Webster G. Tarpley

        April 13, 2015 | voltairenet.org

        As the National Journal reported in 2014, even the pathetically weak anti-war left is not ready to reconcile with Hillary given her warmongering as Secretary of State. And with good reason. Scratching just lightly beneath the surface of Hillary Clinton's career reveals the empirical evidence of her historic support for aggressive interventions around the globe.

        Beginning with Africa, Hillary defended the 1998 cruise missile strike on the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum, destroying the largest producer of cheap medications for treating malaria and tuberculosis and provided over 60% of available medicine in Sudan. In 2006 she supported sending United Nations troops to Darfur with logistical and technical support provided by NATO forces. Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi was outspoken in his condemnation of this intervention, claiming it was not committed out of concern for Sudanese people but "…for oil and for the return of colonialism to the African continent."

        This is the same leader who was murdered in the aftermath of the 2011 NATO bombing of Libya; an attack promoted and facilitated with the eager support of Mrs. Clinton. In an infamous CBS news interview, said regarding this international crime: "We came, we saw, he died." As Time magazine pointed out in 2011, the administration understood removing Qaddafi from power would allow the terrorist cells active in Libya to run rampant in the vacuum left behind. Just last month the New York Times reported that Libya has indeed become a terrorist safe haven and failed state- conducive for exporting radicals through "ratlines" to the conflict against Assad in Syria.

        Hillary made prompt use of the ratlines for conflicts in the Middle East. In the summer of 2012, Clinton privately worked with then CIA director and subversive bonapartist David Petraeus on a proposal for providing arms and training to death squads to be used to topple Syria just as in Libya. This proposal was ultimately struck down by Obama, reported the New York Times in 2013, but constituted one of the earliest attempts at open military support for the Syrian death squads.

        Her voting record on intervening in Afghanistan and Iraq is well known and she also has consistently called for attacking Iran. She even told Fareed Zakaria the State Department was involved "behind the scenes" in Iran's failed 2009 Green Revolution. More recently in Foreign Policy magazine David Rothkopf wrote on the subject of the Lausanne nuclear accord, predicting a "snap-back" in policy by the winner of the 2016 election to the foreign policy in place since the 1980s. The title of this article? "Hillary Clinton is the Real Iran Snap-Back." This makes Hillary the prime suspect for a return to the madcap Iranian policies that routinely threaten the world with a World War 3 scenario.

        Hillary Clinton is not only actively aggressing against Africa and the Middle East. She was one of the loudest proponents against her husband's hesitancy over the bombing of Kosovo, telling Lucina Frank: "I urged him to bomb," even if it was a unilateral action.

        While no Clinton spokesperson responded to a request by the Washington Free Beacon regarding her stance on Ukraine, in paid speeches she mentioned "putting more financial support into the Ukrainian government". When Crimea decided to choose the Russian Federation over Poroshenko's proto-fascist rump state, Hillary anachronistically called President Putin's actions like "what Hitler did in the '30s." As a leader of the bumbled "reset" policy towards Russia, Hillary undoubtedly harbors some animus against Putin and will continue the destabilization project ongoing in Ukraine.

        Not content with engaging in debacles in Eastern Europe, she has vocally argued for a more aggressive response to what she called the "rollback of democratic development and economic openness in parts of Latin America." This indicates her willingness to allow the continuation of CIA sponsored efforts at South American destabilization in the countries of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina and Brazil.

        It is one of the proud prerogatives of the Tax Wall Street Party to push out into the light the Wall Street and foundation-funded Democrats. The final blow to Hillary's clumsy façade comes directly from arch-neocon Robert Kagan. Kagan worked as a foreign policy advisor to Hillary along with his wife, Ukraine madwoman Victoria Nuland, during Hillary's term as Secretary of State. He claimed in the New York Times that his view of American foreign policy is best represented in the "mainstream" by the foreign policy of Hillary Clinton; a foreign policy he obviously manipulated or outright crafted. Kagan stated: "If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue…it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else." What further reason could any sane person need to refute Hillary? A vote for Hillary is a vote for the irrational return to war.

        The "Giant Sucking Sound": Clinton Gave US NAFTA and Other Free Trade Sellouts

        "There is no success story for workers to be found in North America 20 years after NAFTA," states AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka. Unlike other failures of his Presidency, Bill Clinton can not run from NAFTA. It was Vice President Al Gore, not a veto-proof Republican congress, who lobbied to remove trade barriers with low-wage Mexico.

        The record of free trade is clear. Multinational corporations and Wall Street speculators realize incredible profits, wages remain stagnant in the US, poverty persists in the developing world, and the remaining industrial corporations in America and Canada are increasingly owned by Chinese, Indian and other foreign interests.

        America's free trade policy is upside down. Besides Canada, Australia and Korea, most of our "free" trade partners are low-wage sweatshop paradises like Mexico, Chile, Panama, Guatemala, Bahrain and Oman. The US does in fact apply tariffs on most goods and on most nations of origin – rates are set by the US International Trade Commission (USTIC), a quasi-public federal agency.

        Since a German- or Japanese-made automobile would under USITC's schedule be taxed 10% upon importation, Volkswagen and Toyota can circumvent taxation by simply building their auto assembly plants for the US market in Mexico. In Detroit, an auto assembly worker is paid between $14 and $28/hour, ($29,120-$58,240/yr); hard work for modest pay. In Mexico, the rate varies from $2-5/hour.

        In China, all automobile imports regardless of origin are tariffed as high as 25%. This allows the Chinese to attract joint ventures with Volkswagen and Toyota, and to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, "keep the jobs, the cars and the money."

        NAFTA-related job loss is not a question of productivity, currency manipulation, "fair trade," environmental standards, etc. While these issues are not trivial, free trade – as Lincoln's advisor Henry C. Carey proved – is a matter of simple accounting. Can an American family survive on $4,160/year ($2/hr)? If not, cars and their components will be built in Mexico. If we want cars built in the United States, the only solution is a general tariff (import tax) reflecting the difference between those wage standards, like the very tariffs repealed by Bill Clinton.

        In the United States the "runaway shop" under NAFTA and CAFTA has sent trade deficits and unemployment soaring while wages drop relative to the cost of living. Yet Mexico and other "partners" receive no benefit either. Many manufacturing sectors in Mexico pay wages lower than the equivalent sector in China. Mexico is now the world leader in illegal narcotics exportation and weapons importation. The poverty level between 1994 and 2009 remained virtually identical. (52.4% – 52.3%). The shipping of raw materials to Mexico comprise the majority of so called American "exports". The finished products from these exports are assembled and sold back to the United States at slave labor prices.

        Don't expect Hillary to behave differently with the coming "Trans-Pacific Partnership," which seeks to replace an ascendant China with less-developed Vietnam and Malaysia. Vietnam would overtake India-allied Bangladesh in the global apparel trade, and Malaysia has a high-tech manufacturing sector poised to rival China's. With America's manufacturing economy in shambles, the Clinton machine can now be redirected to geopolitical maneuvers.

        Article licensed under Creative Commons

        The articles on Voltaire Network may be freely reproduced provided the source is cited, their integrity is respected and they are not used for commercial purposes (license CC BY-NC-ND).

        [May 03, 2015] Bernie Sanders calls for 'political revolution' against billionaire class

        May 03, 2015 | The Guardian
        marshwren ExcaliburDefender

        As i've written before, it's actually very astute of Sanders to elide around Clinton rather than attack her head-on (best to leave that to the loony Right). All he has to do is present a full-policy spectrum alternative to Clinton's corporatism, neo-con affiliations, elite (glass-ceiling) feminism, support for fracking/KXL, TPP-like trade agreements, etc., and let support his his policies drive his campaign in the positive sense, than to run against Clinton in the negative sense.

        There are serious limits to both how far "left" Clinton can go and how sincere her 'campaign conversion' to progressive policies really is; which will be exposed the moment she starts assembling her campaign managers/speech-writers, economic and foreign policy adviser teams, which will be soon enough. [As Napoleon Bonaparte said, "Never interrupt an opponent when they're making a mistake"] One of the best things Sanders could do here is to start that process himself with a 'shadow cabinet' as surrogate speakers on specific policy areas (eg, getting Robert Reich back in as Labor Sec.). And i'm serene in the confidence that once "democratic socialism" is honestly explained to U.S., there will be far more support for it than you can imagine.


        ExcaliburDefender Dean Hovey 3 May 2015 12:58

        I'll vote for whichever democratic candidate is selected in the general. Don't know who I'll vote for in the primary yet, or if will make a difference when my state has a primary.

        Don't want the bombs dropping in Iran, roll back of the ACA, or NRA rule.

        #allvotesmatter2016


        David Linsell 3 May 2015 12:50

        I think it's terribly sad that one of the few who actually care about social justice & the American working class is almost considered a joke by mainstream America. Come to Europe Bernie, we love you!


        bcarey 3 May 2015 12:10

        Bernie Sanders is exactly correct. He is not afraid to point at the elephant in the room.

        Dean Hovey 3 May 2015 12:07

        I can hear the question now: "Why would you back a loser?"

        Yes, I'm backing Bernie, with my vote and a tiny bit of discretionary income.

        The question begs the question by assuming Bernie Sanders cannot win. It fails to account for the disillusionment over two years of Barack Obama's appeasement of right-wing pols and the strong possibility that Hilary will be the "other Republican" in the presidential race. Hilary, like Obama, can "strap on" progressive talking points, but her Velcro Values will be discarded as soon as she grasps victory.

        So, really, what is there to lose by backing Bernie? A Corporate Democrat is much like a Corporate Republican. Vote for either one, and you've lost--unless you're among the 1%.

        [May 03, 2015] The "Russian aggression" meme really follows in the footsteps of the "WMD" meme.

        marknesop.wordpress.com

        Drutten May 1, 2015 at 2:14 pm

        The "Russian aggression" meme really follows in the footsteps of the "WMD" meme.

        You can easily see how it works, from the invention of a few buzzwords and/or phrases that are then repeated in nauseam, to the obedient media quickly following suit.

        It strikes me as the highest level of irony that all the silly propaganda tactics they continuously and loudly accuse Russia of (and Russia is surely guilty of some of them), they employ themselves – ten fold.

        It's like that ongoing BS about RT, its funding and penetration. All the data's there, and RT is simply dwarfed by its Western analogues, both in terms of finances and scale. Yet they keep raving about it, using bald-faced lies to support their tirades. Likewise, whatever bad journalism RT is guilty of (e.g. distorting events by omission to fit the agenda etc) they're again ten times worse.

        And the big elephant in the room is Ukraine, a country highly relevant in this context as most of these things pertain to that particular crisis. Ukraine where things are so aggressive, oppressive and generally rotten that had it been any other country there'd be talk about some sorely needed B-52's raining democracy bombs over Kiev by now.

        This kind of mindblowing hypocrisy, selective (deceptive) reporting and cynical agitation against whatever the "preferred target" happens to be today is nothing new, of course, but it never ceases to amaze me.

        U.S. Hasn't Helped Kiev's "Endless Dysfunction" by Michael S. Rozeff

        Criticism of Kiev's administration and its war against Donbas likewise strikes some as pro-Russian. This too is a false conclusion. The making of war by any state against breakaway regions or regions seeking autonomy or constitutional changes or secession is anti-libertarian.
        LewRockwell.com

        Balazs Jarabik, who is associated with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and who focuses on Ukraine, has an article titled "Ukraine: The War Must Go On?". It's a pertinent article because both sides are re-arming and both sides are more skilled now at war. Renewed fighting, if serious war breaks out again, will be more devastating than the earlier engagements. It will likely enter new areas and, in the process, undermine Ukraine altogether.

        Jarabik writes "As terrible as it sounds, Kyiv's endless dysfunction is the Kremlin's most powerful ally in the current crisis-a point that is glossed over in Western policy debates on sending lethal aid to Ukraine."

        Critics of the libertarian positions on Ukraine should read and heed what the non-libertarian Jarabik says about Kiev and Ukraine. U.S. and NATO aid, bank financing, training and military advice are not helping Ukrainians. Quite the opposite.

        The libertarian refrain calling for U.S. disengagement from Ukraine (and other of the Empire's venues) strikes some as being either pro-Russian or not anti-Russian enough. This is a false conclusion that doesn't follow from a non-interventionist stance. It only follows from a non-libertarian perspective of supposing that the U.S. should be helping Ukraine achieve independence from Russian pressures. But such so-called help is destroying Ukraine and promises worse to come.

        Criticism of Kiev's administration and its war against Donbas likewise strikes some as pro-Russian. This too is a false conclusion. The making of war by any state against breakaway regions or regions seeking autonomy or constitutional changes or secession is anti-libertarian.

        Both U.S. disengagement from Kiev and criticism of Kiev's war-making are policies that will help, not harm, ordinary Ukrainians. Sons will not be drafted, ill-trained, ill-equipped and sent into unwinnable and destructive wars. The government won't go bankrupt in the process. Huge debts won't be levied on generations of Ukrainians. The currency won't crash, as it has, destroying the wealth of anyone holding it, small savers or holders of debt denominated in that currency. Resources can be put toward peaceful purposes. Similarly, people in Donbas won't face the severe destruction wrought by war. Refugees can come home. People won't be driven from their homes. Population centers, ranging from villages to major cities, won't be shelled.

        The war-making and other related decisions are promoted by the U.S. and NATO. The U.S. is re-arming one side and improving the weaponry. The Russians are re-arming the other side, and that side too will bring in new ways of fighting. The level of destructiveness can only escalate as a consequence of a U.S. and Kiev decision to bring Donbas back into Ukraine by military means.

        Libertarian calls for the U.S. completely out of Ukraine are for the good of Ukrainians themselves, although surely not all of them. This policy doesn't satisfy Ukrainian nationalists who insist on union of west and east, come hell or high water. Hell it may be.

        [May 02, 2015] Any analysis of Russia has to consider the effect of Nato expansion

        Notable quotes:
        "... City University London (and Reuters TV Moscow 1991-93; BBC Moscow 1998-2000 and 2006-09) ..."
        "... Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament ..."
        Apr 22, 2015 | The Guardian

        Russia's president Vladimir Putin. 'One cannot disagree that the admission of the Baltic states, and earlier discussions of the possible accession of Georgia and Ukraine, have been used by Putin's administration to fuel his popularity,' writes James Rodgers.

        Timothy Garton Ash (There is another Russia, 20 April) makes some interesting points, but misses others. While true that some "Putin understanders" do seek to "excuse all" when looking at Russia today, there are also pitfalls in adopting the opposite approach. Nowhere does the article mention Nato expansion. One can agree or disagree as to the wisdom or otherwise of Nato's policies in eastern Europe since 1991. One cannot disagree that the admission of the Baltic states in particular, and earlier discussions of the possible accession of Georgia and Ukraine, have been used by Putin's administration to fuel his popularity.

        James Rodgers

        City University London (and Reuters TV Moscow 1991-93; BBC Moscow 1998-2000 and 2006-09)

        Nato's eastward expansion and the continued development of a US missile defence system in eastern Europe have contributed to heightening tensions in the region. Russian military announcements and actions should be understood in that context, especially considering that at the end of the cold war, the Warsaw pact was disbanded, while Nato increased its membership. A new government should carry out an evaluation of Trident's relevance to current threats in this year's strategic defence and security review, but the alternative doctrine Paul Mason seeks (Russian subs are circling, but what should Britain's nuclear deterrent be?, 20 April) in response to Russian foreign policy must be a commitment to peaceful relations and a process of de-militarization and nuclear disarmament.

        The non-proliferation treaty review conference in May is the opportunity for a new PM to resume relations and revive disarmament negotiations, building on Obama and Putin's successful New Start treaty and setting out a willingness to scrap Trident, alongside a commitment to seeking resolution of conflicts through the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the UN, rather than the cold war relic of Nato.

        Kate Hudson
        General secretary, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

        [May 02, 2015] Any analysis of Russia has to consider the effect of Nato expansion

        Apr 22, 2015 | The Guardian

        Russia's president Vladimir Putin. 'One cannot disagree that the admission of the Baltic states, and earlier discussions of the possible accession of Georgia and Ukraine, have been used by Putin's administration to fuel his popularity,' writes James Rodgers.

        Timothy Garton Ash (There is another Russia, 20 April) makes some interesting points, but misses others. While true that some "Putin understanders" do seek to "excuse all" when looking at Russia today, there are also pitfalls in adopting the opposite approach. Nowhere does the article mention Nato expansion. One can agree or disagree as to the wisdom or otherwise of Nato's policies in eastern Europe since 1991. One cannot disagree that the admission of the Baltic states in particular, and earlier discussions of the possible accession of Georgia and Ukraine, have been used by Putin's administration to fuel his popularity.

        James Rodgers

        City University London (and Reuters TV Moscow 1991-93; BBC Moscow 1998-2000 and 2006-09)

        Nato's eastward expansion and the continued development of a US missile defence system in eastern Europe have contributed to heightening tensions in the region. Russian military announcements and actions should be understood in that context, especially considering that at the end of the cold war, the Warsaw pact was disbanded, while Nato increased its membership. A new government should carry out an evaluation of Trident's relevance to current threats in this year's strategic defence and security review, but the alternative doctrine Paul Mason seeks (Russian subs are circling, but what should Britain's nuclear deterrent be?, 20 April) in response to Russian foreign policy must be a commitment to peaceful relations and a process of de-militarization and nuclear disarmament.

        The non-proliferation treaty review conference in May is the opportunity for a new PM to resume relations and revive disarmament negotiations, building on Obama and Putin's successful New Start treaty and setting out a willingness to scrap Trident, alongside a commitment to seeking resolution of conflicts through the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the UN, rather than the cold war relic of Nato.

        Kate Hudson
        General secretary, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

        [May 02, 2015] US Foreign Policymakers Cannot Be Trusted by Sheldon Richman,

        April 23, 2015 | Antiwar.com

        The megalomaniacs of the Washington power elite actually think they can mold the Middle East to their specifications. No calamity resulting from their clumsy machinations ever causes them to rethink this preposterous conceit.

        Look at some of their more recent handiwork. In 2003, on the basis of shoddy intelligence if not conscious lies, President George W. Bush had the U.S. military overthrow Iraqi dictator (and former ally) Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Muslim whose secular regime discriminated against the Shia majority. With Saddam gone and his Ba'ath party dispersed, the Shiites inevitably assumed power, assisted by American forces that put down a Sunni insurgency and enabled Shiite militias to ethnically cleanse most of the capital, Baghdad. Millions were killed, injured, and displaced.

        Next door, of course, is the Shiite Islamic Republic of Iran, which has been America's bête noir since 1979, when a revolution overthrew the U.S.-backed autocratic shah and militants held American hostages, 26 years after the CIA helped to oust a prime minister and restore the shah to power. Iraq under Saddam had also been Iran's enemy; he launched an eight-year war of aggression against the Islamic Republic in the 1980s, aided by the United States. (Among other assistance, US satellite intelligence helped Saddam wage chemical warfare against the Iranians.) In balance-of-power terms, Saddam was the counterforce that checked Iranian influence. But now Saddam's regime was gone.

        One did not need to be an expert to know that Iran would benefit. Iraq's sectarian Shiite prime minister from 2006 to 2014, Nouri al-Maliki, was favored by Iran, as is his successor, Haider al-Abadi. Even Bush administration's original pick to lead post-Saddam Iraq, Ahmed Chalabi, had long been close to Iran.

        So despite some 30 years of America's cold, covert, cyber, and proxy war against Iran, the Bush administration was indispensable in helping Iran gain greater influence in the Middle East.

        This influence has grown even greater now with the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, which was a predictable consequence of Saddam's overthrow and sectarian Shiite rule, before which there was no Sunni al-Qaeda in Iraq, much less ISIS, its even more virulent offshoot. The Obama administration has assumed the lead in the effort to "degrade and destroy" ISIS, which is officially regarded as a "threat to the homeland," but Obama's method is largely confined to airpower, with only a small force on the ground. Most analysts believe that airpower alone will not suffice. The fight on the ground in Iraq is being handled by that country's Shiite army and an assortment of vengeful Shiite militias, making the Sunnis fearful of sectarian violence and even accepting of the brutal and intolerant ISIS. Who advises these forces? None other than Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani of the Iranian Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution and commander of the Quds Force, a division of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Soleimani reportedly is playing a major role in the current effort to retake Takrit, Saddam's hometown, from ISIS.

        This objectively places the United States on the same side as Iran, but the Obama administration cannot acknowledge this without granting Iran prestige. Indeed, American and Israeli officials worry that the price of defeating ISIS will be a Middle East dominated by Iran as never before.

        Of course, ISIS also controls territory in next-door Syria, which is ruled by Iran's ally Bashar al-Assad, a member of a minority Shiite sect whose regime is embroiled in a civil war. Obama has called for Assad's departure, but Assad is also fighting ISIS (as well as Syria's al-Qaeda franchise), putting him, too, objectively on America's side.

        The question arising from this tangled tale is: What were the American and Israeli advocates of war with Iraq thinking back in 2003? Was their plan to build up Iranian influence in order to justify war and regime change? That would explain why advocates of the Iraq policy are trying to torpedo multilateral talks with Iran over its nonexistent nuclear weapons program. But war with Iran, which is much larger and more populous Iraq, would be a catastrophe.

        In light of all this, should Americans trust their lives and well-being to the arrogant Washington power elite?

        Sheldon Richman is a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, which is based in Oakland, California.

        [May 01, 2015] There was heroism and cruelty on both sides: the truth behind one of Ukraine's deadliest days by Howard Amos in Odessa

        Such an elaborate dance around facts. From comments: "It is so depressing when there is far more information in the comments section than in the article itself. It seems the new editor is keen to continue the traditions of her predecessor." This is one event about which there is quite a lot of information to see how Guardian presstitutes try to bent the truth. See Odessa Massacre of May 2, 2014
        The Guardian

        The emergency calls became increasingly desperate. "When are you coming? It's already burning and there are people inside," a woman told the fire brigade dispatcher. Minutes later, callers started describing how people were jumping from the upper floors. "Have you lost your minds?" one man asked, his voice breaking. "There are women and children in the building!" another man yelled. In one of the most deadly episodes in Ukraine's turbulent 2014 power transition, 48 people were killed and hundreds injured on 2 May last year in the Black Sea port of Odessa.

        Street battles culminated in a fatal fire at Soviet-era building where hundreds of pro-Russia activists were barricaded in.

        VengefulRevenant -> AlfredHerring 1 May 2015 17:24

        The victims are the ones who were raped, shot or burned to death in the massacre.

        The perpetrators are those protected by the NATO-backed regime which has failed to investigate the massacre.

        The apologists are the NATO-aligned media who blame the victims or assign blame equally to the killers and the dead along the lines of, 'There was heroism and cruelty on both sides.'


        normankirk -> Metronome151 1 May 2015 16:52

        Well isn't it wonderful to hear a diversity of views expressed on Russian TV. When all we hear is how all media is controlled by the Kremlin

        Kaiama Danram 1 May 2015 16:48

        So the dead Ukrainian children and women are Kremlin goons too?
        How simple your life must be to allow you to make such simplistic conclusions.

        vr13vr 1 May 2015 16:46

        Some nice whitewashing. Now it's fault of the victims and the heroism of the perpetrators, there hasn't been and there will be no investigation and the word massacre is no longer used. For those of you who still argue it was not a massacre but some mysterious suicide by 48 people who set themselves afire, here is footage again.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxcB0PI4ZLg

        Take a look at some of the pretty revealing moments:
        23 min mark - Ukrainians are entering the building, there was no resistance.
        24:20. A group of Ukrainians go upstairs, there is no fire yet.
        26:20 Some are coming returning. The stairs are being set on fire.
        27:50 A Ukrainian is firing gun at those trying to jump from the building.

        While in the building, Ukrainians were slaughtering people. And it wasn't a fight. Half of the victims were middle-aged. At least 10 of them - women.

        31min - 33min - the victims who got out have their faces and hands disfigured while the rest of their bodies don't have the same injuries. That's what happens if someone splashes fuel over someone's face and light it up. There are pictures of victims with only their heads and hands burned.

        33min - 35min - there were women among those trying to find safety in the building. Some of them are middle-aged. They were not fighters, as the article would imply.

        36min- 37min - Ukrainians were inside the building, setting it on fire and killing those whom they could find, a young woman in this specific frame.

        46min - a person was bludgeoned to death. The room doesn't have marks of fire but the blood is splattered all over the room.

        48min-50min - the same story, Ukrainians were slaughtering their victims.

        1h:00min - Ukrainians are entering the building again, this time from the make shift scaffolding.

        Any attempt to pretend there was a fight rather than a massacre is crazy. Any suggestion that somehow people inside were setting themselves on fire is ludicrous in light of evidence that the Ukis were inside the building. And the fact that Kiev doesn't even see it as murder makes me just angry.


        AbsolutelyFapulous -> PlatonKuzin 1 May 2015 16:43

        Odessa as well as the most Ukraine is a Russian soil.

        Donno why you are commenting here. You even don't seem to be able to read a map.


        BorninUkraine -> RonBuckley 1 May 2015 16:25

        In a way, you are right, it was the US (via Vicky "f… the EU" Nuland and mad John McCain) that pushed Ukraine over the cliff. As usual, the EU "leaders" (Merkel, etc) acted as US lackeys.

        However, equal blame goes to stupid and thieving Ukrainian elites, under whose "leadership" the country was on the edge of that cliff to begin with.

        Current Ukrainian "leaders" keep stealing everything they can, including financial and material aid from the West. What else is new?


        MaoChengJi -> Goodthanx 1 May 2015 16:03

        Yeah. I'm convinced that they should've sent paratroopers and take Kiev right the next day after the coup d'etat; stop this whole unholy mess right then and there. That really would've saved tens of thousands of lives - if not millions, seeing how this thing seems to escalate, leading us to a nuclear war.

        Putin is a pussy, Medvedev got it right in Georgia in 2008. Well, frankly Medvedev is a pussy too. He should've taken Tbilisi, and put Saakashvili on trial.

        To teach the bastards a lesson.

        Instead, now we hear every day 'Russia will not fight Ukraine', 'Russia will not fight Ukraine', and the murdering Nazi bastards get bolder and bolder. What's the point of having all that military hardware if you're afraid to use it. They Yanks would've taken control of the place months ago, look at Grenada.

        RonBuckley -> BorninUkraine 1 May 2015 15:52

        Well said, man. Yes, Ukrainian politics have always been divisive, stupid, thievery and corrupt. That said they had neither brains nor money for a coup. So Ukraine should thank certain external powers for the deep shit it is in now.

        PlatonKuzin -> puttypants 1 May 2015 15:31

        Odessa as well as the most Ukraine is a Russian soil. That's the point. And the state of Ukraine is a temporary occupier of the Russian soil. So people living in Odessa don't have to go to Russian. They are right at their home. This is the state of Ukraine that has stayed on our Russian land for 23 years now. It's time for the quasi-state of Ukraine to leave.

        BorninUkraine -> puttypants 1 May 2015 15:16

        I was born in Lvov in Western Ukraine, I grew up in Lugansk in the East, I have friends and relatives all over, and I know exactly what is going on in Ukraine.

        Ukraine in 1991 was extremely heterogenous. In the area West of Carpatian mountains people speak Hungarian, Romanian, and Rusine (a form of old Russian, spoken in Kievan Rus).

        Galichina and Volynia in the West speak several dialects of Ukrainian. Many in Central Ukraine speak what is considered literary Ukrainian. In the South and East (historic Novorossia) and in Kharkov region (historic Slobozhanschina) the majority speaks "surgik", a mix of pidgin-Ukrainian and pidgin-Russian. Finally, in Crimea people speak Russian, Tatar, and very few speak Ukrainian. Crimea voted AGAINST Ukraine in 1991 referendum and got a chance to run away in 2014, when Ukraine committed suicide.

        If the leaders of Ukraine had any brains and loved their country, they would have followed the example of Switzerland and Singapore, having many official languages. However, all Ukrainian rulers from day one were thieves and idiots. They made Ukrainian the only official language and pushed it everywhere, so that while you could get school education in several languages, all colleges operated only in Ukrainian, putting people who spoke other languages at a disadvantage.

        That idiotic policy started this whole mess, which with a bit of US money, prodding, and now arms became a civil war. Not to mention that Galichina is the place that fought against Russia in WWI (as part of Austro-Hungarian empire, siding with Kaiser) and WWII (siding with Hitler). They supplied the troops that under Hitler's command murdered thousands of civilians in Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, and Slovakia. Bandera, Shuhevich, and veterans of Waffen SS division Galichina, who are considered heroes by current puppets in Kiev, voluntarily served Hitler.

        80% of Ukrainian population hates these Bandera worshippers, so when external forces push them to power, it creates trouble. Personally I hate them for giving a bad name to everything Ukrainian.

        BorninUkraine -> AbsolutelyFapulous 1 May 2015 15:10

        Russia failed to send its troops to Donbass, and Ukrainian army killed thousands of civilians there, including women, children, elderly, and disabled veterans.

        Or is saying things explicitly beyond your pay grade?

        RonBuckley -> AbsolutelyFapulous 1 May 2015 15:06

        To Odessa Kiev sent a few hundred pro-Nazi thugs - 42 died.

        To Donetsk and Luhansk Kiev sent a few thousand pro-Nazi thugs plus the entire Ukrainian army - 6000 died.

        Get it now?

        Goodthanx -> Anette Mor 1 May 2015 15:04

        For me it was the silence... You are right! Seeing what i was seeing, with no commentry to convince me either way.. How could the worlds media be so silent?

        Then with MH, it was the complete opposite!! Immediately and with no investigation, MSM could not shut up about who they thought was responsible!!

        Both fail the logic test miserably. But try explaining common sense to those that haven't any.

        Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:48

        Those protesters were Ukrainian Pro Federalists! Not one Russian amongst them!

        Anette Mor -> Goodthanx 1 May 2015 14:46

        Good for you. It is impossible to hide truth with current state of technology. Only not showning. Any life reporting give the footage adding facts one by one and crwating a true picture eventually. Even this rather bias article contributes to true story because the lie in it sticks out of logic for anybody we is able to think for themselves.

        PlatonKuzin -> ID5868758 1 May 2015 14:42

        Western media are not simply mirror images of the fascist governments they support. Acting the way they do, these media prepare the public for a future war.

        Anette Mor -> vr13vr 1 May 2015 14:41

        It is poinless to try to install fear in these people. Need to look at the history of people's wars in Russia. Since 17 century they were able to resist occupation and unwanted rulers by people war. There wpuld not be a win against Napoleon and Hitler without people rising and forming resistance. Same in Odessa now. Just a matter of time.

        BunglyPete -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:35

        The explanation is very simple. Right Sector had free reign to terrorise pro Russians, so he took action. Kiev choose not to punish Right Sector both then and now. He said this in the same interview you constantly reference.

        Now can you explain why you think it is acceptable for Right Sector to terrorise the Donbass? If Strelkov wasnt allowed to defend them, who was?

        Anette Mor -> Jeff1000 1 May 2015 14:34

        Not sure why you call them pro-Russians. Odessa is multi-national city. These who were massacred are simply local people who disagreed with the violent coup which put to power by the west. Does it make them "pro-russian" and justify thier killing? Surely these who want own country to be coverned by own elected officials could not be pro- another country. If they trust Russian government care for them more then thier own coup, that only says how bad the coup rule is.

        Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:24

        Forget about the Russian government. The idea is justice for the victims and punishment for the perpetrators. Is it the ambition of the UN to be percieved as bias as so called Russuan investigators would be?

        Kaiama -> truk10 1 May 2015 14:22

        FFS there are enough links and analysis to demonstrate that pro-Kiev forces inflicted a massacre of civilians here. I don't see any pro-Ukraine links to additional information but an overwhelming deluge of links supporting the unvoiced version of events.

        ID5868758 1 May 2015 14:18

        Our western media have really become mirror images of the fascist governments they support. By publishing such whitewashing attempts as this, they only enable more such behavior in the future, behavior that leads to the deaths of more innocents, more civilians whose only desire is to live in freedom and peace.

        Kaiama 1 May 2015 14:13

        It is so depressing when there is far more information in the comments section than in the article itself. It seems the new editor is keen to continue the traditions of her predecessor.

        Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:09

        What kind of a teenage girl carries in their backpack petrol, empty bottles, rags and whatever else is required to make Molotov cocktails? What a coincidence... there is a group of them!!
        As for Right Sector? Chartered buses transported Right Sector militia which arrived early in the day. These were the people communicating with police from the start.

        MaoChengJi -> MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 13:51

        Speaking of the media... I've been reading this Odessa news website: http://timer-odessa.net/ , and it has been relatively informative (as much as Ukro-sites can be, these days). And today suddenly it's gone dark: "there is no Web site at this address".

        Does anyone know if it's gone for good? I really hope those who were running it are safe...


        Jean-François Guilbo -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:51

        So you didn't watch the video link in my comment did you?
        If you just take this article for granted to know on which side the Odessa police was, you won't learn much on what happened...
        Seems like the officier on the picture would have been recognised as a colonel from Odessa police, watch this link:

        http://orientalreview.org/2014/05/06/genocide-in-novorossiya-and-swan-song-of-ukrainian-statehood/

        And from these two links, these armed guys not afraid to shoot from the crowd, could have been agents provocateur...

        BorninUkraine -> IrishFred 1 May 2015 13:47

        Are you saying that Bandera, Shuhevich, and veterans of Waffen SS division Galichina never existed? If so, please state it explicitly.

        Are you saying all of the above did not serve Hitler voluntarily? If so, please state it explicitly.
        Are you saying all of the above are not guilty of mass murder and other crimes against humanity? If so, please state it explicitly.

        Are you saying that people who are murdering their opponents, politicians and journalists, are not Nazis? If so, please state it explicitly.

        As to Crimea, if you knew any history, you'd know that it was illegally annexed by Ukraine in 1991. Here is history 101, not necessarily for you, but for those who actually want to know the truth.

        Crimea voted AGAINST Ukraine in 1991 referendum. Ukraine illegally repealed Crimean 1992 constitution and cancelled Crimean autonomy against the wishes of Crimean population in 1994.
        BTW, several Western sources recently confirmed the results of Crimean referendum of 2014.
        Forbes magazine
        http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-after-russia-annexed-crimea-locals-prefer-moscow-to-kiev/

        German polling company GFK
        http://www.gfk.com/ua/Documents/Presentations/GFK_report_FreeCrimea.pdf

        Gallup
        http://www.bbg.gov/wp-content/media/2014/06/Ukraine-slide-deck.pdf

        Russia deployed its troops in Crimea, and nobody was killed there. Russia failed to send its troops to Donbass, and Ukrainian army killed thousands of civilians there, including women, children, elderly, and disabled veterans.

        As many Ukrainians joke now, "Crimeans are traitors: they ran away without us".
        Your next argument?

        Jeff1000 -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 13:45

        Don't display callous and willful ignorance and call it even-handedness. The Guardian's "credible" account offers no sources, agrees with none of the available pictorial or video evidence and is rampant apologism.

        I posted videos - including raw CCTV footage of the starting of the fire, further up the page.

        BunglyPete -> coffeegirl 1 May 2015 13:40

        I saw that guy's post it was fantastic, very well sourced and thorough. The comments on here were a different kettle of fish entirely back then.

        Jeff1000 1 May 2015 13:39

        The attempt to re-package this event as some awful conglomeration of circumstances spurred on by the cruelty of fate is sickening. We reduce the death of at least 50 people down so that calling it a "massacre" becomes needlessly emotive. We casually refer to the pro-Ukrainians as "football fans" to make it seem innocent - when Ukrainian football fans known as "Ultras" are famours for 2 things: Being neo-Nazis, and being violent thugs.

        Look at this video especially: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAEcceedzCU

        It's really very simple - candid videos at the time made it clear.

        1. Pro-Russian groups were attacked by Ukrainian "ultras". They sought shelter in the Trade Union building.

        2. The building was set on fire when the Ultras threw molotovs through the windows. The doors were barred.

        3. People attempting to climb out of the windows were shot at, if they jumped they were beaten as they lay on the ground.

        4. Ukrainian nationalists deliberately blockaded the streets to inhibit the progress of ambulances and fire engines.

        5. The Police pretty much let all this happen.

        It's all in the videos - just go to youtube. Helping Kiev cover its backside is despicable.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKpJ1-ECpPg
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4dJRnI-X8Q
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec0mgpwW6_Y

        BunglyPete

        At entrance to underpass guys with baseball bats are asking passersby: "are you for Odessa or Moscow?" The right answer is Odessa. - @howardamos

        From the Guardian report on May 2 2014, by Howard Amos,

        "The aim is to completely clear Odessa [of pro-Russians]," said Dmitry Rogovsky, another activist from Right Sector

        According to the lady that setup the May 2 Group most victims had blunt trauma, and 30 had gunshot wounds.

        Ah the difference a year makes.

        coffeegirl -> coffeegirl 1 May 2015 13:33

        And more http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/05/ukraine-fatal-clashes-pro-russia-separatists-east#comment-35243539

        coffeegirl 1 May 2015 13:30

        Only a week after The Odessa Massacre an american CiFer, ex-marine, has gathered links, sieved through hours and hours of video - he, practically, has done what the journos were supposed to do, - to prove the Guardian, BBC and the rest were trying hard to whitewash the atrocity. Check his posts: Additional proof that the BBC and the mainstream Western press lied when they said both sides threw the molotov's.

        I looked for 5 hours searching for one video that showed anyone in the building throwing a molotov cocktail as the BBC first reported and the rest of the MSM went along with. I could not find a single one. They claimed a person named Sergei (what are the odds of that) told them a person threw the molotov inside the building and didn't realize the window was closed. This is absolutely ludicrous and an example of the pathetic reporting that passes for "news" these days.

        I did find the video of the third floor fire starting. It is at the following link and runs consecutively. You'll notice at exactly the 2 minute mark the camera zooms in on the window where the fire begins. You'll also notice that at the 2:02 mark you see an additional molotov cocktail just miss the window. This is strong evidence that the window was being targeted by individuals on the ground. Prior to this fire starting there is no other fire on the third floor, therefore this is most likely the cause of the third floor fire and lends credence to the fact that the violent youth below burned those people alive.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9AMjLBIliw#t=125

        Here's a link to the BBC article that quotes a random guy named Sergei and provides no evidence whatsoever to back up their story .http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27275383


        MaoChengJi -> Jeff1000 1 May 2015 13:24

        And not just "Russian state-owned media" - also most of the Russian privately owned media, and most of the world media (and even some of the western media).

        I believe I saw a chinadaily calling it Kristallnacht.

        Jeff1000 1 May 2015 13:16

        Russian state-owned media characterised the day's events as a "massacre" planned by "fascists" in Kiev, a narrative that has gained widespread traction.

        Mostly because it's a pretty fitting description of what happened.

        John Smith -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:15

        No, there are no nazis in Ukraine. All Kremlin lies.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDqk-uvYn4E

        Goodthanx -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:11

        Its not hard truk. Those red armbands that the so called pro Russian provocatores wore? Are actually the same red armbands Right sector militia was wearing during the most violent Maidan clashes. You can identify some of the same protagonists wearing the same armband in both Odesaa and Maidan!

        vr13vr -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:07

        Idiot. Nobody is laughing. Especially when 50 people died. Look at this video and see how Ukrainians entered the supposedly "heavily defended" building. You will see them operating inside, you will see them existing the building after it started burning from inside.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxcB0PI4ZLg

        Look at 23 min mark - they are entering the building with no resistance.
        24:20. A group of Ukrainians go upstairs, there is no fire yet.
        26:20 Some are coming returning. The stairs are being set on fire.
        27:50 A Ukrainian is firing gun at those trying to jump from the building.

        Yes, Ukrainians overrun the building, including the roof. The photographs suggest that people in the building where set afire while still alive.

        You must be an idiot to say someone is laughing at this.

        castorsia -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:02

        No. They burned them. Check the photographic evidence.


        PlatonKuzin -> vr13vr 1 May 2015 12:58

        Armored vehicles and special riot forces were brought today in Odessa to prevent possible unrest there.


        WHYNOPASSWORD12 -> Havingalavrov 1 May 2015 12:56

        Plenty of witnesses point out that these were pro-ukraine provacateurs sent up to stir up trouble. They are wearing the same red armbands worn by a group who started the skirmishes earlier in the town centre. They were part of the group bussed-in under the guise of football supporters.


        MaoChengJi -> truk10 1 May 2015 12:55

        Hi turk10,
        I understand your confusion. Luckily, Mr. Christof Lehmann investigated it all for you. Seek and ye shall find. Use google.

        vr13vr 1 May 2015 12:50

        Sure, Kiev views burning alive almost 50 people as a "victory." They even allowed to install fear in the city. Since then the city is totally subdued, people would be afraid to even discuss the events or think of any peaceful opposition as they are aware of the potential response from Kiev's supporters.

        Nice job Guardian trying to whitewash the events and justify the cold blooded murder by some street fights elsewhere in the city, events that were taking place all over the country those days.

        Jeremn -> oleteo 1 May 2015 12:40

        No greater cynics than western politicians, who certainly don't mourn this heavenly half-hundred, or come to lay flowers at the scene of their death.

        No greater cynic than the Czech envoy, Bartuska, who said:

        "Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within two days they get arms and after that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed men. If they [independence supporters] are quickly resisted, as it was done in Odessa where they were simply burned to death, or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side of the road, everything will be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."

        ID5868758 1 May 2015 12:18

        Another despicable attempt to paint a false equivalency, to assign blame for this massacre, for their own deaths, on those who perished. Take the Molotov cocktail throwing, for instance. I watched the videos of those Molotov cocktails being made, pretty little pro-Ukrainian girls sitting on the ground with their assembly line all set up, smiling as they made those instruments of death and handed them out, now just where did those supplies come from, who thought to bring bottles and rags and fuel to an event if it was innocent in nature?

        And where would those innocent victims chased inside the building get Molotov cocktails to throw from inside the building, when they were interested only in escaping the smoke and flames, saving their own lives? The narrative doesn't match the evidence, but neither does it pass the smell test, pretty SOP for western media reporting on Ukraine.

        StillHaveLinkYouHate -> MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 11:56

        The difference is that Nazis want to murder people for the accident of how they were born. Extreme natinalists will want to murder anybody who does not behave in the perverted way they feel a patriot should.

        That is the difference. Praviy sektor are nazis, incidentally.

        MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 11:55

        Here's another opinion:
        http://darussophile.com/2014/05/massacre-in-odessa/

        It makes the point already made below in this comment thread:

        I invite people to imagine how the British media would have reported this massacre if roles had been reversed and if it had been Maidan supporters who were burnt alive in the Trade Union building with an anti Maidan crowd filmed throwing Molotov cocktails into the building whilst baying for blood outside.

        Indeed.

        GreatCthulhu -> Metronome151 1 May 2015 11:45

        Many of them not locals.

        I thought the article was pretty clear that everyone on both sides were local. I speak, of course s an Irish man who doesn't regard hating Russians/ people who identify with Russia who aren't Russians but live nearby as a default position before beginning any debate.

        There are a small minority of Irish people, living in the Republic (I am not referring to the northern Unionist Community here), who identify with Britain often to the point that they express regret that Ireland ever left the UK. I don't agree with them, but I would not set them on fire in a building. For that matter, it is ARGUABLE (I am not saying whether that argument is right or wrong- just that you could put forward the thesis) that the N.I state-let is something of an Irish Donbass. No justification for Ireland shelling the crap out of it though... at all... that sort of stuff is kind of regarded as savagery here these days.


        MaoChengJi -> truk10 1 May 2015 11:43

        Hi turk10,
        what's wrong with calling them 'nazis'? The guardian piece identifies them as "extreme nationalists", and isn't it the same thing as 'neo-nazis' or 'nazis'?

        Is there some nuance I'm missing here? What would you call them?

        BorninUkraine -> truk10 1 May 2015 11:38

        So you object to calling a spade a spade? Typical pro-US position in Ukrainian crisis. What do you call the insignia of, for example, Azov battalion (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion ). If that's not Nazi insignia, I don't know what is.
        I am simply saying that those who organized Odessa massacre, then Mariupol massacre, then fueled the war in Donbass, including Poroshenko, Turchinov, Yats, etc, are Nazis.

        The simple reason for that conclusion is, as the saying goes, "if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it is a duck". If you prefer Christian version of the same thing, see Mathew 7:16 "you will know them by their fruits".

        To sum it up, if someone behaves like a Nazi, s/he is a Nazi. Is this clear enough?

        EugeneGur 1 May 2015 11:28

        A pro-Russia activist aims a pistol at supporters of the Kiev government during clashes in the streets of Odessa, 2 May 2014.

        How do we know that the guy is pro-Russian? Does the picture show what he is aiming at? Does he have a sign on his forehead burned in saying "I am pro-Russian and I am going to shoot that pro-Ukrainian bastard"? No, he does not. We are expected to assume that because the caption says so - but captions to pictures aren't evidence. Anybody can put any caption to any picture, and it's been done many a time.

        The head of the local pro-Ukraine Maidan self-defence group, Dmitry Gumenyuk, recalled the effect of the homemade grenades. . . they threw a grenade and it exploded under his bullet-proof vest and four nails entered his lungs," he said.

        Such peaceful people - going for a nice in the park walk in bullet-proof vests. They were going to destroy that camp and not on the agreement with the activists in that camp, as Guardian states (complete BS) but violently, which they did. Even if they were attacked, what did women in the camp have to do with it?
        Come on, people, even in the face of such a tragedy, is it so absolutely necessary to hush up the truth all the time?

        BorninUkraine -> caliento 1 May 2015 11:24

        There is a Ukrainian joke. Russians ask:
        - If you believe that Russia annexed Crimea, why don't you fight for it?
        - We aren't that stupid, there are Russian troops there.
        - But you say there are Russian troops in Donbass?
        - That's what we say, but in Crimea there really are Russian troops.

        castorsia 1 May 2015 11:21

        The Guardian continues to misrepresent the Odesa massacre by reporting claims by the official Ukrainian investigation and the Odesa governor created May 2 group that the deadly fire started when both sided were throwing Molotov cocktails. The videos and other evidence showing that the fire started after the Molotov cocktails and tires were thrown by the attackers are deliberately omitted.

        Open question to you all: What would be in the headlines if scores of "Pro-Ukrainian activists " were being burned, hacked, mauled, shot and raperd to death by Donetsk rebels or their supporters?

        BorninUkraine 1 May 2015 11:20

        There are lies, there are blatant lies, and then there are reports of Western media. Sad, but true.

        In this article Howard Amos pretends that he believes that both sides were to blame for the mass murder of anti-fascists by pro-Maidan thugs in Odessa on May 2, 2014. That's like saying that both the Nazis and the inmates of concentration camps were equally guilty.
        This lie is so outrageous, and so far from reality, that it does not even deserve an argument. The readers who want to know the truth can do Google search using "Odessa massacre 2014" and read for themselves.

        The lie that the Guardian repeats after Kyiv "government" looks even less plausible now, as Odessa massacre was followed by the massacre of civilians by Nazi thugs in Mariupol a few days later (change Odessa to Mariupol in your Google search), and the murder of thousands of civilians in Donbass, including women, children, elderly, and disabled veterans, by the Ukrainian army and Nazi battalions.

        I grew up in the USSR, but I have never read a lie so obvious and outrageous in the Soviet media. Congratulations on a new low!

        coffeegirl -> aussiereader4 1 May 2015 11:11

        Sounds like you know little about what happened in Odessa.

        The best compilation of any available material was done on May 8, 2014 by our fellow CiFer US ex-marine griffin alabama:

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/05/ukraine-fatal-clashes-pro-russia-separatists-east#comment-35243539

        EugeneGur -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 11:10

        You like to cite Strelkov, don't you, when it suits your purpose? If he is such an authority for you, why don't you cite everything he says? Among other things, he said that Maidan was not a popular uprising but a pure decoration for the coup organized by the right wing groups and funded by oligarchs together with the foreign agents? You can watch this here
        http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2015/02/must-watch-strelkov-vs-starikov-debate.html

        greatwhitehunter -> caliento 1 May 2015 11:08

        you would no if you followed events the idea of peace keepers was supported by Russia, the separatists and a good many other countries right from the start of the conflict . It was not however supported by the kiev government or the US. Peace keepers were offered to Ukraine right up until 4 days before the Minsk agreement.

        Kiev's solution has always been a military one and still is. There belated cries for peace keepers only came after getting an a*& kicking.

        kiev signed the minsk agreement which requires them to deal with the issues peace keepers would be a way out for them. Usa by their actions does not support the Minsk agreement.

        Poroshenko,s idea of peace keepers was a few kiev friendly states to send weapons and troups to bolster their ranks.

        An offer was made via the UN security council for a peace keeping force that included china and new zealand and poroshenko stated that ukraine didn't needed china and new Zealand's help, as it turned out they did.

        EugeneGur 1 May 2015 10:54

        Oh Guardian, Guardian. Both are to blame, heroism on both sides - in short, they burned themselves. We've heard that before. But then the article goes on and tells you that the movement they for some reason call "pro-Russian", although its not pro-Russia as much as it's anti-fascist, is essentially eliminated, with all leaders in jail or in exile. In contrast,

        None of the pro-Ukraine activists have been put on trial

        Kind of tells you what actually happened, doesn't it?

        Activists from both sides admit that the port city remains divided into two approximately matched camps

        No, they aren't matched. The Odessa residents are mostly anti-Maidan. The city is flooded with newcomers from the western Ukraine, and they the main supporters of Kiev. Otherwise, why would Kiev deploy half of the army to Odessa before the May holidays?

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7firu0g4tU

        Recently Poroshenko who had the temerity to visit Odessa on the anniversary of the city' liberation from occupation was met with shouts "Fascism will not pass".

        So much for "matched camps". Of course, if you put everybody of the opposing view in jail of kill them, you can sort of achieve a "match".

        Elena Hodgson 1 May 2015 10:50

        This was a massacre. Period.

        Hanwell123 1 May 2015 10:48

        Ukraine is a gangster state where if activists aren't arrested then they are shot; 6 prominent figures shot this year alone. No arrests. It's supported to the hilt by the EU who shell out enormous sums to keep it from bankruptcy.

        nnedjo 1 May 2015 08:42

        This is the news from the Ukraine crisis Media Center:

        Odesa, April 27, 2015 – Vitaly Kozhukhar, coordinator of the Self-Defense of Odesa, Varvara Chernoivanenko, a spokesman for the Right Sector of Odesa held a briefing on the topic: "May 2 this year in Odesa. How a single headquarters of the patriotic forces preparing to hold a day of mourning for those killed in the city"...
        Varvara Chernoivanenko said that for all patriots of Ukraine is important that May 2 was peaceful day. Patriotic forces create patrols that will keep order in the area of ​​Cathedral Square, which will host a memorial meeting for all those, who died on 2 May. They will make every effort to ensure peace and order. Already, the city has operational headquarters of the patriotic forces. Their representatives will stop all provocations. At the same time, according to Varvara Chernoivanenko, on their part will not be any aggression.

        Thus, the "patriotic forces", which I suppose are responsible for burning people alive in the building of Trade Unions in Odessa, will now protect those who survived and who should hold the memorial service for their relatives and friends, victims of Odessa massacre. The only question is, from whom they should protect them?
        I mean, this lady from the Right Sector boasts that they organized patrols of its members all over the city. Well, you can bet that in these patrols will be at least some, if not all of those who threw Molotov cocktails at the building of trade unions, and beaten with clubs or even shot at those who tried to escape from the fire. Because, as this article shows, none of them has even been charged, let alone be convicted of that crime.
        So, can we then conclude that the executioners of the victims of the Odessa massacre will now provide protection to those who mourn the victims, which is a paradox of its kind.
        And how these patrols of "patriotic forces" operating in reality, you can watch in this video, which was filmed during the visit of Poroshenko in Odessa, on the day of the celebration of liberation of the city in WWII, 10 April. At the beginning of the film, the guys from "Patriotic patrol" argue with a group of anti-fascists, demanding that they reject one of their flag. And then at one point (0:31 of the video), one of these guys from patrol says:
        "Didn't burn enough of you, eh?"

        MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 07:45

        Ah, of course: both sides are to blame, because before the massacre an extreme nationalist militant died, under circumstanced unknown (shot in self-defense, perhaps? who knows).

        Nice.

        a pro-Ukraine member of the extreme nationalist organisation

        Even nicer: 'pro-Ukraine extreme nationalist'. Pro-Ukraine? Which kind of Ukraine?

        I find that one of the most misleading elements in these west-interpreted stories is "pro-Russian" and "pro-Ukrainian" labels.

        The so-called "pro-Russian" side is, in fact, pro-Ukraine and anti-fascist. Here's a photo (from wikipedia) of some of the people (or their comrades) who were massacred in Odessa a year ago:
        http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/RussianSpringOdessa20140420_08.JPG

        6i9vern 1 May 2015 07:43

        Truth? One doesn't look for truth in the Graun - the house journal of European Post-Democracy.

        The truth will occasionally slip out of one of the Post-Democrats - the Czech diplomat Vaclav Bartuska, for example:

        "Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within two days they get arms and after that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed men. If they are quickly resisted, as it was done in Odessa where they were simply burned to death, or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side of the road, everything will be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."

        The journos of the Graun who want to carry on attending their dinner parties and pretend to be liberal and decent folk have better sense than to state matters truthfully.

        Vladimir Makarenko -> Celtiberico 1 May 2015 06:20

        They took it from Odessa being a symbol of Black Sea and a while ago a Russian poet said: Chernoe More - Vor na Vore.
        Black Sea - a thief by thief.

        normankirk 1 May 2015 06:14

        This is a shameless attempt to whitewash a massacre.There is plenty of evidence on you tube Every one has cell phones which can record events as they unfold. This is why the American police can no longer get away with murder. The European parliament held a hearing in Brussels to hear the Odessa survivors. there was a concerted effort from Maidan activists from Kiev to shut down the survivors testimony. A Europarliament deputy from the Czech republic Miroslav said "This is simply shocking. this is an evidence of fascism not being disappeared from European countries.He blamed Parubiy, co founder of far right Svoboda party and Kolomoisky, paymaster of neo nazi militia for the massacre at Odessa. All this is recorded. Ignorance can no longer be a defence

        ID075732 1 May 2015 05:53

        The US Holocaust Memorial Museum quotes the following, famous text by Pastor Martin Niemoller about the cowardice of intellectuals following the Nazis':

        First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-
        Because I was not a Socialist.
        Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-
        Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
        Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
        Because I was not a Jew.
        Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me.

        It's time for the MSM to realise that the same is happening Ukraine - for which the Odessa massacre is a warning. It's time they stopped playing intellectual games to prop up what is a fascist regime in Kiev.

        BunglyPete 1 May 2015 05:48

        Just in case those involved in the production of this article do read or hear of these comments.. Do you not realise we have Google and Youtube now? You can verify anything within a few keystrokes.

        You do not need to rely on the evil Russian media, you can watch the eyewitness videos yourself.

        I mean this seriously, if you are going to attempt to prove something then at least realise that you will need to go to more lengths to do so. In the context of the greater 'propaganda war', articles like this are nonsensical, as you merely serve to discredit yourself, and encourage people to move to alternative media sources.

        If you want to discredit the Russian narrative then discredit it, don't write things that discredit your own narrative.

        You don't need to bill me for this advice it comes for free.

        SHappens 1 May 2015 04:30

        Many allege that investigators are dragging their feet for political reasons, possibly to cover up high-level complicity.

        At the beginning of the unrest, the most virulent reaction came from supporters of Ukrainian football clubs. But they were soon joined by a well-organized gang of self-defense that came in a column of about 100 people dressed in military fatigues and relatively well equipped.
        Members of the Ukrainian security forces withdrew from the scene allowing the rightwing radicals to block the exits and firebomb the building forcing many to jump from open windows to the pavement below where they died on impact. The few who survived the fall were savagely beaten with clubs and chains by the nearly 300 extremist thugs who had gathered on the street.

        Street fighting thugs don't typically waste their time barricading exits unless it is part of a plan, a plan to create a big-enough incident to change the narrative of what is going on in the country. None of the victims of the tragedy were armed.

        This isn't the first time the US has tried to pull something like this off. In 2006, the Bush administration used a similar tactic in Iraq. That's when Samarra's Golden Dome Mosque was blown up in an effort to change the public's perception of the conflict from an armed struggle against foreign occupation into a civil war.

        So who authorized the attack on Odessa's Trade Unions House? Could it be that the Ukrainian Security Services were supervised by some external mercenaries just like the Oluja blitzkrieg in Croatia back in 1995 when the Croatian National Guard was then supervised and managed by MPRI, an US SMP based in Virginia? Because in Kiev, dozens of specialists from the US CIA and FBI were advising the Ukrainian government helping Kiev end the rebellion in the east of Ukraine and set up a functioning security structure. (report, AFP).

        Whatever and if ever an inquiry succeeds, fact is that the government in Kiev bears direct responsibility, and is complicit in these criminal activities for they allowed extremists and radicals to burn unarmed people alive.

        warehouse_guy 1 May 2015 04:30

        Tatyana Gerasimova also says the case is getting killed off in court, put that on your headline.

        alpykog 1 May 2015 04:30

        Nothing unusual about police, army and terrorists working together. I remember the British army in Belfast actually running joint patrols in broad daylight with Loyalist terrorists through Catholic areas and that was the tip of the iceberg. Try not to feel "holier than thou" when you read this stuff.

        ID075732 1 May 2015 04:23

        Rumours swirl of a higher death toll, the use of poisonous gas and the body of a pregnant woman garrotted by pro-Ukraine fanatics.

        Clearly the author has not watched the footage filmed inside the building after the massacre - this was no "swirling rumour". Clearly the footage wasn't faked either. It showed may murdered victims with burns to their heads and arms with bodies and clothes unscorched, not caused by the actual fire.

        Also those that have studied the many videos available of the unfolding events saw a much more an orchestrated attack on the Trade Union building with fires breaking out in rooms further away from the seat of the original fire. Also two masked figures on the roof before the fire started in the building.

        Reports that the exits were blocked and a number of masked pro-Ukrainians were inside the building not just on the roof, don't figure in this report.

        ploughmanlunch 1 May 2015 03:41

        'While many pro-Ukraine activists helped the rescue effort, others punched, kicked and beat those who fled the burning building. "There was blood and water all over the courtyard," said Elena, who escaped via a fireman's ladder. "They were shouting 'on your knees, on your knees'."

        This sums up, in my opinion, the whole sordid mess that is present Ukraine.

        The majority of ordinary Ukrainians living under the authority of Kiev will broadly agree with their Government, but are civilised and are probably horrified by the violence perpetrated by both sides in the war.

        Unfortunately, however, there is a significant minority of extremist Ukrainian Nationalists that readily resort to violence and intimidation and revile Russian speaking 'separatists' in the Donbas ( and elsewhere ).

        Even more unfortunately, the fanatical far right have a disproportionate influence in the Kiev Parliament and even the Government; a fact conveniently overlooked by the incredibly indulgent Western powers. The present Kiev regime is blatantly anti-democratic and lacks any humanitarian concern for the desperate plight of citizens still living in Donbas, ( unpaid pensions, economic and humanitarian blockade ).

        This crisis still has a long way to go, and I believe has not yet reached it's nadir. A brighter future for all the people of Ukraine will require unbiased and honest involvement of the great powers, East and West.

        Geo kosmopolitenko 1 May 2015 03:22

        Some spin doctors in Washington would sarcastically smile if they ever read this sadly tragic article.

        Kiselev 1 May 2015 03:20

        Symbol of separated Ukrainian society...
        Whatever western Ukrainians told us.

        [May 01, 2015] Anatol Lieven reviews 'The New American Militarism' by Andrew Bacevich · LRB 20 October 2005

        Amazingly insightful review !!!
        The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War by Andrew Bacevich
        Oxford, 270 pp, £16.99, August 2005, ISBN 0 19 517338 4

        A key justification of the Bush administration's purported strategy of 'democratising' the Middle East is the argument that democracies are pacific, and that Muslim democracies will therefore eventually settle down peacefully under the benign hegemony of the US. Yet, as Andrew Bacevich points out in one of the most acute analyses of America to have appeared in recent years, the United States itself is in many ways a militaristic country, and becoming more so:

        at the end of the Cold War, Americans said yes to military power. The scepticism about arms and armies that informed the original Wilsonian vision, indeed, that pervaded the American experiment from its founding, vanished. Political leaders, liberals and conservatives alike, became enamoured with military might.

        The ensuing affair had, and continues to have, a heedless, Gatsby-like aspect, a passion pursued in utter disregard of any consequences that might ensue.

        The president's title of 'commander-in-chief' is used by administration propagandists to suggest, in a way reminiscent of German militarists before 1914 attempting to defend their half-witted kaiser, that any criticism of his record in external affairs comes close to a betrayal of the military and the country. Compared to German and other past militarisms, however, the contemporary American variant is extremely complex, and the forces that have generated it have very diverse origins and widely differing motives:

        The new American militarism is the handiwork of several disparate groups that shared little in common apart from being intent on undoing the purportedly nefarious effects of the 1960s. Military officers intent on rehabilitating their profession; intellectuals fearing that the loss of confidence at home was paving the way for the triumph of totalitarianism abroad; religious leaders dismayed by the collapse of traditional moral standards; strategists wrestling with the implications of a humiliating defeat that had undermined their credibility; politicians on the make; purveyors of pop culture looking to make a buck: as early as 1980, each saw military power as the apparent answer to any number of problems.

        Two other factors have also been critical: the dependence on imported oil is seen as requiring American hegemony over the Middle East; and the Israel lobby has worked assiduously and with extraordinary success to make sure that Israel's enemies are seen by Americans as also being those of the US. And let's not forget the role played by the entrenched interests of the military itself and what Dwight Eisenhower once denounced as the 'military-industrial-academic complex'.

        The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. Jobs and patronage also ensure the support of much of the Congress, which often authorises defence spending on weapons systems the Pentagon doesn't want and hasn't asked for, in order to help some group of senators and congressmen in whose home states these systems are manufactured. To achieve wider support in the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion that certain foreign nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international tension.

        That's not the same, however, as having an actual desire for war, least of all for a major conflict which might ruin the international economy. US ground forces have bitter memories of Vietnam, and no wish to wage an aggressive war: Rumsfeld and his political appointees had to override the objections of the senior generals, in particular those of the army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki, before the attack on Iraq. The navy and air force do not have to fight insurgents in hell-holes like Fallujah, and so naturally have a more relaxed attitude.

        To understand how the Bush administration was able to manipulate the public into supporting the Iraq war one has to look for deeper explanations. They would include the element of messianism embodied in American civic nationalism, with its quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless validity of its own democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest of the world. This leads to a genuine belief that American soldiers can do no real wrong because they are spreading 'freedom'. Also of great importance – at least until the Iraqi insurgency rubbed American noses in the horrors of war – has been the development of an aesthetic that sees war as waged by the US as technological, clean and antiseptic; and thanks to its supremacy in weaponry, painlessly victorious. Victory over the Iraqi army in 2003 led to a new flowering of megalomania in militarist quarters. The amazing Max Boot of the Wall Street Journal – an armchair commentator, not a frontline journalist – declared that the US victory had made 'fabled generals such as Erwin Rommel and Heinz Guderian seem positively incompetent by comparison'. Nor was this kind of talk restricted to Republicans. More than two years into the Iraq quagmire, strategic thinkers from the Democratic establishment were still declaring that 'American military power in today's world is practically unlimited.'

        Important sections of contemporary US popular culture are suffused with the language of militarism. Take Bacevich on the popular novelist Tom Clancy:

        In any Clancy novel, the international order is a dangerous and threatening place, awash with heavily armed and implacably determined enemies who threaten the United States. That Americans have managed to avoid Armageddon is attributable to a single fact: the men and women of America's uniformed military and its intelligence services have thus far managed to avert those threats. The typical Clancy novel is an unabashed tribute to the skill, honour, extraordinary technological aptitude and sheer decency of the nation's defenders. To read Red Storm Rising is to enter a world of 'virtuous men and perfect weapons', as one reviewer noted. 'All the Americans are paragons of courage, endurance and devotion to service and country. Their officers are uniformly competent and occasionally inspired. Men of all ranks are faithful husbands and devoted fathers.' Indeed, in the contract that he signed for the filming of Red October, Clancy stipulated that nothing in the film show the navy in a bad light.

        Such attitudes go beyond simply glorying in violence, military might and technological prowess. They reflect a belief – genuine or assumed – in what the Germans used to call Soldatentum: the pre-eminent value of the military virtues of courage, discipline and sacrifice, and explicitly or implicitly the superiority of these virtues to those of a hedonistic, contemptible and untrustworthy civilian society and political class. In the words of Thomas Friedman, the ostensibly liberal foreign affairs commentator of the ostensibly liberal New York Times, 'we do not deserve these people. They are so much better than the country … they are fighting for.' Such sentiments have a sinister pedigree in modern history.

        In the run-up to the last election, even a general as undistinguished as Wesley Clark could see his past generalship alone as qualifying him for the presidency – and gain the support of leading liberal intellectuals. Not that this was new: the first president was a general and throughout the 19th and 20th centuries both generals and more junior officers ran for the presidency on the strength of their military records. And yet, as Bacevich points out, this does not mean that the uniformed military have real power over policy-making, even in matters of war. General Tommy Franks may have regarded Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, as 'the stupidest fucking guy on the planet', but he took Feith's orders, and those of the civilians standing behind him: Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the president himself. Their combination of militarism and contempt for military advice recalls Clemenceau and Churchill – or Hitler and Stalin.

        Indeed, a portrait of US militarism today could be built around a set of such apparently glaring contradictions: the contradiction, for example, between the military coercion of other nations and the belief in the spreading of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Among most non-Americans, and among many American realists and progressives, the collocation seems inherently ludicrous. But, as Bacevich brings out, it has deep roots in American history. Indeed, the combination is historically coterminous with Western imperialism. Historians of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point of an American rifle as no less morally and intellectually absurd than 'voluntary' conversion to Christianity at the point of a Spanish arquebus.

        Its symbols may be often childish and its methods brutish, but American belief in 'freedom' is a real and living force. This cuts two ways. On the one hand, the adherence of many leading intellectuals in the Democratic Party to a belief in muscular democratisation has had a disastrous effect on the party's ability to put up a strong resistance to the policies of the administration. Bush's messianic language of 'freedom' – supported by the specifically Israeli agenda of Natan Sharansky and his allies in the US – has been all too successful in winning over much of the opposition. On the other hand, the fact that a belief in freedom and democracy lies at the heart of civic nationalism places certain limits on American imperialism – weak no doubt, but nonetheless real. It is not possible for the US, unlike previous empires, to pursue a strategy of absolutely unconstrained Machtpolitik. This has been demonstrated recently in the breach between the Bush administration and the Karimov tyranny in Uzbekistan.

        The most important contradiction, however, is between the near worship of the military in much of American culture and the equally widespread unwillingness of most Americans – elites and masses alike – to serve in the armed forces. If people like Friedman accompanied their stated admiration for the military with a real desire to abandon their contemptible civilian lives and join the armed services, then American power in the world really might be practically unlimited. But as Bacevich notes,

        having thus made plain his personal disdain for crass vulgarity and support for moral rectitude, Friedman in the course of a single paragraph drops the military and moves on to other pursuits. His many readers, meanwhile, having availed themselves of the opportunity to indulge, ever so briefly, in self-loathing, put down their newspapers and themselves move on to other things. Nothing has changed, but columnist and readers alike feel better for the cathartic effect of this oblique, reassuring encounter with an alien world.

        Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to serve, Americans entrust their security to a class of military professionals who see themselves in many respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest of society.

        This combination of a theoretical adulation with a profound desire not to serve is not of course new. It characterised most of British society in the 19th century, when, just as with the US today, the overwhelming rejection of conscription – until 1916 – meant that, appearances to the contrary, British power was far from unlimited. The British Empire could use its technological superiority, small numbers of professional troops and local auxiliaries to conquer backward and impoverished countries in Asia and Africa, but it would not have dreamed of intervening unilaterally in Europe or North America.

        Despite spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined, and despite enjoying overwhelming technological superiority, American military power is actually quite limited. As Iraq – and to a lesser extent Afghanistan – has demonstrated, the US can knock over states, but it cannot suppress the resulting insurgencies, even one based in such a comparatively small population as the Sunni Arabs of Iraq. As for invading and occupying a country the size of Iran, this is coming to seem as unlikely as an invasion of mainland China.

        In other words, when it comes to actually applying military power the US is pretty much where it has been for several decades. Another war of occupation like Iraq would necessitate the restoration of conscription: an idea which, with Vietnam in mind, the military detests, and which politicians are well aware would probably make them unelectable. It is just possible that another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 might lead to a new draft, but that would bring the end of the US military empire several steps closer. Recognising this, the army is beginning to imitate ancient Rome in offering citizenship to foreign mercenaries in return for military service – something that the amazing Boot approves, on the grounds that while it helped destroy the Roman Empire, it took four hundred years to do so.

        Facing these dangers squarely, Bacevich proposes refocusing American strategy away from empire and towards genuine national security. It is a measure of the degree to which imperial thinking now dominates US politics that these moderate and commonsensical proposals would seem nothing short of revolutionary to the average member of the Washington establishment.

        They include a renunciation of messianic dreams of improving the world through military force, except where a solid international consensus exists in support of US action; a recovery by Congress of its power over peace and war, as laid down in the constitution but shamefully surrendered in recent years; the adoption of a strategic doctrine explicitly making war a matter of last resort; and a decision that the military should focus on the defence of the nation, not the projection of US power. As a means of keeping military expenditure in some relationship to actual needs, Bacevich suggests pegging it to the combined annual expenditure of the next ten countries, just as in the 19th century the size of the British navy was pegged to that of the next two largest fleets – it is an index of the budgetary elephantiasis of recent years that this would lead to very considerable spending reductions.

        This book is important not only for the acuteness of its perceptions, but also for the identity of its author. Colonel Bacevich's views on the military, on US strategy and on world affairs were profoundly shaped by his service in Vietnam. His year there 'fell in the conflict's bleak latter stages … long after an odour of failure had begun to envelop the entire enterprise'. The book is dedicated to his brother-in-law, 'a casualty of a misbegotten war'.

        Just as Vietnam shaped his view of how the US and the US military should not intervene in the outside world, so the Cold War in Europe helped define his beliefs about the proper role of the military. For Bacevich and his fellow officers in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s, defending the West from possible Soviet aggression, 'not conquest, regime change, preventive war or imperial policing', was 'the American soldier's true and honourable calling'.

        In terms of cultural and political background, this former soldier remains a self-described Catholic conservative, and intensely patriotic. During the 1990s Bacevich wrote for right-wing journals, and still situates himself culturally on the right:

        As long as we shared in the common cause of denouncing the foolishness and hypocrisies of the Clinton years, my relationship with modern American conservatism remained a mutually agreeable one … But my disenchantment with what passes for mainstream conservatism, embodied in the Bush administration and its groupies, is just about absolute. Fiscal irresponsibility, a buccaneering foreign policy, a disregard for the constitution, the barest lip service as a response to profound moral controversies: these do not qualify as authentically conservative values.

        On this score my views have come to coincide with the critique long offered by the radical left: it is the mainstream itself, the professional liberals as well as the professional conservatives, who define the problem … The Republican and Democratic Parties may not be identical, but they produce nearly identical results.

        Bacevich, in other words, is sceptical of the naive belief that replacing the present administration with a Democrat one would lead to serious changes in the US approach to the world. Formal party allegiances are becoming increasingly irrelevant as far as thinking about foreign and security policy is concerned.

        Bacevich also makes plain the private anger of much of the US uniformed military at the way in which it has been sacrificed, and its institutions damaged, by chickenhawk civilian chauvinists who have taken good care never to see action themselves; and the deep private concern of senior officers that they might be ordered into further wars that would wreck the army altogether. Now, as never before, American progressives have the chance to overcome the knee-jerk hostility to the uniformed military that has characterised the left since Vietnam, and to reach out not only to the soldiers in uniform but also to the social, cultural and regional worlds from which they are drawn. For if the American left is once again to become an effective political force, it must return to some of its own military traditions, founded on the distinguished service of men like George McGovern, on the old idea of the citizen soldier, and on a real identification with that soldier's interests and values. With this in mind, Bacevich calls for moves to bind the military more closely into American society, including compulsory education for all officers at a civilian university, not only at the start of their careers but at intervals throughout them.

        Or to put it another way, the left must fight imperialism in the name of patriotism. Barring a revolutionary and highly unlikely transformation of American mass culture, any political party that wishes to win majority support will have to demonstrate its commitment to the defence of the country. The Bush administration has used the accusation of weakness in security policy to undermine its opponents, and then used this advantage to pursue reckless strategies that have themselves drastically weakened the US. The left needs to heed Bacevich and draw up a tough, realistic and convincing alternative. It will also have to demonstrate its identification with the respectable aspects of military culture. The Bush administration and the US establishment in general may have grossly mismanaged the threats facing us, but the threats are real, and some at least may well need at some stage to be addressed by military force. And any effective military force also requires the backing of a distinctive military ethic embracing loyalty, discipline and a capacity for both sacrifice and ruthlessness.

        In the terrible story of the Bush administration and the Iraq war, one of the most morally disgusting moments took place at a Senate Committee hearing on 29 April 2004, when Paul Wolfowitz – another warmonger who has never served himself – mistook, by a margin of hundreds, how many US soldiers had died in a war for which he was largely responsible. If an official in a Democratic administration had made a public mistake like that, the Republican opposition would have exploited it ruthlessly, unceasingly, to win the next election. The fact that the Democrats completely failed to do this says a great deal about their lack of political will, leadership and capacity to employ a focused strategy.

        Because they are the ones who pay the price for reckless warmongering and geopolitical megalomania, soldiers and veterans of the army and marine corps could become valuable allies in the struggle to curb American imperialism, and return America's relationship with its military to the old limited, rational form. For this to happen, however, the soldiers have to believe that campaigns against the Iraq war, and against current US strategy, are anti-militarist, but not anti-military. We have needed the military desperately on occasions in the past; we will definitely need them again.


        Vol. 27 No. 20 · 20 October 2005 " Anatol Lieven " We do not deserve these people
        pages 11-12 | 3337 words

        Neocons the Echo of German Fascism By Todd E. Pierce

        March 27, 2015 | Consortiumnews

        Exclusive: The "f-word" for "fascist" keeps cropping up in discussing aggressive U.S. and Israeli "exceptionalism," but there's a distinction from the "n-word" for "Nazi." This new form of ignoring international law fits more with an older form of German authoritarianism favored by neocon icon Leo Strauss, says retired JAG Major Todd E. Pierce.

        With the Likud Party electoral victory in Israel, the Republican Party is on a roll, having won two major elections in a row. The first was winning control of the U.S. Congress last fall. The second is the victory by the Republicans' de facto party leader Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel's recent election. As the Israeli Prime Minister puts together a coalition with other parties "in the national camp," as he describes them, meaning the ultra-nationalist parties of Israel, it will be a coalition that today's Republicans would feel right at home in.

        The common thread linking Republicans and Netanyahu's "national camp" is a belief of each in their own country's "exceptionalism," with a consequent right of military intervention wherever and whenever their "Commander in Chief" orders it, as well as the need for oppressive laws to suppress dissent.

        Leo Strauss, an intellectual bridge between Germany's inter-war Conservative Revolutionaries and today's American neoconservatives.

        Leo Strauss, an intellectual bridge between Germany's inter-war Conservative Revolutionaries and today's American neoconservatives.

        William Kristol, neoconservative editor of the Weekly Standard, would agree. Celebrating Netanyahu's victory, Kristol told the New York Times, "It will strengthen the hawkish types in the Republican Party." Kristol added that Netanyahu would win the GOP's nomination, if he could run, because "Republican primary voters are at least as hawkish as the Israeli public."

        The loser in both the Israeli and U.S. elections was the rule of law and real democracy, not the sham democracy presented for public relations purposes in both counties. In both countries today, money controls elections, and as Michael Glennon has written in National Security and Double Government, real power is in the hands of the national security apparatus.

        Benjamin Netanyahu's leadership role in the U.S. Congress was on full display to the world when he accepted House Speaker John Boehner's invitation to address Congress. Showing their eagerness to be part of any political coalition being formed under Netanyahu's leadership, many Congressional Democrats also showed their support by attending the speech.

        It was left to Israeli Uri Avnery to best capture the spirit of Netanyahu's enthusiastic ideological supporters in Congress. Avnery wrote that he was reminded of something when seeing "Row upon row of men in suits (and the occasional woman), jumping up and down, up and down, applauding wildly, shouting approval."

        Where had he heard that type of shouting before? Then it came to him: "It was another parliament in the mid-1930s. The Leader was speaking. Rows upon rows of Reichstag members were listening raptly. Every few minutes they jumped up and shouted their approval."

        He added, "the Congress of the United States of America is no Reichstag. Members wear dark suits, not brown shirts. They do not shout 'Heil' but something unintelligible." Nevertheless, "the sound of the shouting had the same effect. Rather shocking."

        Right-wing Politics in Pre-Nazi Germany

        While Avnery's analogy of how Congress responded to its de facto leader was apt, it isn't necessary to go to the extreme example that he uses to analogize today's right-wing U.S. and Israeli parties and policy to an earlier German precedent. Instead, it is sufficient to note how similar the right-wing parties of Israel and the U.S. of today are to what was known in 1920s Weimar Germany as the Conservative Revolutionary Movement.

        This "movement" did not include the Nazis but instead the Nazis were political competitors with the party which largely represented Conservative Revolutionary ideas: the German National People's Party (DNVP).

        The institution to which the Conservative Revolutionaries saw as best representing German "values," the Reichswehr, the German Army, was also opposed by the Nazis as "competitors" to Ernst Rohm's Brownshirts. But the Conservative Revolutionary Movement, the DNVP, and the German Army could all be characterized as "proto-fascist," if not Fascist. In fact, when the Nazis took over Germany, it was with the support of many of the proto-fascists making up the Conservative Revolutionary Movement, as well as those with the DNVP and the Reichswehr.

        Consequently, many of the Reichstag members that Uri Avnery refers to above as listening raptly and jumping up and shouting their approval of "The Leader" were not Nazis. The Nazis had failed to obtain an absolute majority on their own and needed the votes of the "national camp," primarily the German National People's Party (DNVP), for a Reichstag majority.

        The DNVP members would have been cheering The Leader right alongside Nazi members of the Reichstag. DNVP members also voted along with Nazi members in passing the Enabling Act of 1933, which abolished constitutional liberties and dissolved the Reichstag.

        Not enough has been written on the German Conservative Revolutionary Movement , the DNVP and the Reichswehr because they have too often been seen as victims of the Nazis themselves or, at worst, mere precursors.

        The DNVP was the political party which best represented the viewpoint of the German Conservative Revolutionary Movement. The Reichswehr itself, as described in The Nemesis of Power by John W. Wheeler-Bennett, has been called a "state within a state," much like the intelligence and security services of the U.S. and Israel are today, wielding extraordinary powers.

        The Reichswehr was militaristic and anti-democratic in its purest form and indeed was "fascist" in the term's classic definition of "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization." Mussolini merely modeled much of his hyper-militaristic political movement on the martial values of the Reichswehr.

        German Army officers even had authority to punish civilians for failing to show "proper respect." In its essence, the viewpoint of the DNVP and the Conservative Revolutionaries was virtually identical to today's Republican Party along with those Democrats who align with them on national security issues.

        These groups have in common a worshipful attitude toward the military as best embodying those martial virtues that are central to fascism. Sister parties, though they may all prefer to be seen as "brothers in arms," would be Netanyahu's "national camp" parties.

        German Conservative Revolutionary Movement

        The Conservative Revolutionary Movement began within the German Right after World War I with a number of writers advocating a nationalist ideology but one in keeping with modern times and not restricted by traditional Prussian conservatism.

        It must be noted that Prussian conservatism, standing for militaristic ideas traditional to Prussia, was the antithesis of traditional American conservatism, which professed to stand for upholding the classical liberal ideas of government embedded in the U.S. Constitution.

        Inherent to those U.S. constitutional ideas was antipathy toward militarism and militaristic rule of any sort, though Native Americans have good cause to disagree. (In fact, stories of the American conquest of Native Americans with its solution of placing them on reservations were particularly popular in Germany early in the Twentieth Century including with Adolf Hitler).

        Historians have noted that when the German Army went to war in World War I, the soldiers and officers carried with them "a shared sense of German superiority and the imagined bestiality of the enemy." This was manifested particularly harshly upon the citizens of Belgium in 1914 with the German occupation. Later, after their experience in the trenches, the Reichswehr was nearly as harsh in suppressing domestic dissent in Germany after the war.

        According to Richard Wolin, in The Seduction of Unreason, Ernst Troeltsch, a German Protestant theologian, "realized that in the course of World War I the ethos of Germanocentrism, as embodied in the 'ideas of 1914,' had assumed a heightened stridency." Under the peace of the Versailles Treaty, "instead of muting the idiom of German exceptionalism that Troeltsch viewed with such mistrust, it seemed only to fan its flames."

        This belief in German "exceptionalism" was the common belief of German Conservative Revolutionaries, the DNVP and the Reichswehr. For Republicans of today and those who share their ideological belief, substitute "American" for "German" Exceptionalism and you have the identical ideology.

        "Exceptionalism" in the sense of a nation can be understood in two ways. One is a belief in the nation's superiority to others. The other way is the belief that the "exceptional" nation stands above the law, similar to the claim made by dictators in declaring martial law or a state of emergency. The U.S. and Israel exhibit both forms of this belief.

        German Exceptionalism

        The belief in German Exceptionalism was the starting point, not the ending point, for the Conservative Revolutionaries just as it is with today's Republicans such as Sen. Tom Cotton or Sen. Lindsey Graham. This Exceptionalist ideology gives the nation the right to interfere in other country's internal affairs for whatever reason the "exceptional" country deems necessary, such as desiring more living space for their population, fearing the potential of some future security threat, or even just by denying the "exceptional" country access within its borders - or a "denial of access threat" as the U.S. government terms it.

        The fundamental ideas of the Conservative Revolutionaries have been described as vehement opposition to the Weimar Republic (identifying it with the lost war and the Versailles Treaty) and political "liberalism" (as opposed to Prussia's traditional authoritarianism).

        This "liberalism," which offended the Conservative Revolutionaries, was democracy and individual rights against state power. Instead, the Conservative Revolutionaries envisaged a new reich of enormous strength and unity. They rejected the view that political action should be guided by rational criteria. They idealized violence for its own sake.

        That idealization of violence would have meant "state" violence in the form of military expansionism and suppression of "enemies," domestic and foreign, by right-thinking Germans.

        The Conservative Revolutionaries called for a "primacy of politics" which was to be "a reassertion of an expansion in foreign policy and repression against the trade unions at home." This "primacy of politics" for the Conservative Revolutionaries meant the erasure of a distinction between war and politics.

        Citing Hannah Arendt, Jeffrey Herf, a professor of modern European history, wrote: "The explicit implications of the primacy of politics in the conservative revolution were totalitarian. From now on there were to be no limits to ideological politics. The utilitarian and humanistic considerations of nineteenth-century liberalism were to be abandoned in order to establish a state of constant dynamism and movement." That sounds a lot like the "creative destruction" that neoconservative theorist Michael Ledeen is so fond of.

        Herf wrote in 1984 that Conservative Revolutionaries were characterized as "the intellectual advance guard of the rightist revolution that was to be effected in 1933," which, although contemptuous of Hitler, "did much to pave his road to power."

        Unlike the Nazis, their belief in German superiority was based in historical traditions and ideas, not biological racism. Nevertheless, some saw German Jews as the "enemy" of Germany for being "incompatible with a united nation."

        It is one of the bitterest of ironies that Israel as a "Jewish nation" has adopted similar attitudes toward its Arab citizens. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman recently proclaimed: "Those who are with us deserve everything, but those who are against us deserve to have their heads chopped off with an axe."

        Within Israel, these "Conservative Revolutionary" ideas were manifested in one of their founding political parties, Herut, whose founders came out of the same central European political milieu of interwar Europe and from which Netanyahu's Likud party is descended.

        Ernst Junger

        Author Ernst Junger was the most important contributor to the celebration of war by the Conservative Revolutionaries and was an influence and an enabler of the Nazis coming to power. He serialized his celebration of war and his belief in its "redeeming" qualities in a number of popular books with "war porn" titles such as, in English, The Storm of Steel, The Battle as an Inner Experience, and Fire and Blood.

        The title of a collection of Junger essays in 1930, Krieg und Krieger (War and the Warriors) captures the spirit of America in the Twenty-first Century as much as it did the German spirit in 1930. While members of the U.S. military once went by terms such as soldier, sailor and marine, now they are routinely generically called "Warriors," especially by the highest ranks, a term never before used to describe what were once "citizen soldiers."

        Putting a book with a "Warrior" title out on the shelf in a Barnes and Noble would almost guarantee a best-seller, even when competing with all the U.S. SEALS' reminiscences and American sniper stories. But German philosopher Walter Benjamin understood the meaning of Junger's Krieg und Krieger, explaining it in the appropriately titled Theories of German Fascism.

        Fundamental to Junger's celebration of war was a metaphysical belief in "totale Mobilmachung" or total mobilization to describe the functioning of a society that fully grasps the meaning of war. With World War I, Junger saw the battlefield as the scene of struggle "for life and death," pushing all historical and political considerations aside. But he saw in the war the fact that "in it the genius of war permeated the spirit of progress."

        According to Jeffrey Herf in Reactionary Modernism, Junger saw total mobilization as "a worldwide trend toward state-directed mobilization in which individual freedom would be sacrificed to the demands of authoritarian planning." Welcoming this, Junger believed "that different currents of energy were coalescing into one powerful torrent. The era of total mobilization would bring about an 'unleashing' (Entfesselung) of a nevertheless disciplined life."

        In practical terms, Junger's metaphysical view of war meant that Germany had lost World War I because its economic and technological mobilization had only been partial and not total. He lamented that Germany had been unable to place the "spirit of the age" in the service of nationalism. Consequently, he believed that "bourgeois legality," which placed restrictions on the powers of the authoritarian state, "must be abolished in order to liberate technological advance."

        Today, total mobilization for the U.S. begins with the Republicans' budgeting efforts to strip away funding for domestic civilian uses and shifting it to military and intelligence spending. Army veteran, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, exemplifies this belief in "total mobilization" of society with his calls for dramatically increased military spending and his belief that "We must again show the U.S. is willing and prepared to [get into] a war in the first place" by making clear that potential "aggressors will pay an unspeakable price if they challenge the United States."

        That is the true purpose of Twenty-first Century Republican economics: total mobilization of the economy for war. Just as defeated German generals and the Conservative Revolutionaries believed that Germany lost World War I because their economy and nation was only "partially mobilized," so too did many American Vietnam War-era generals and right-wing politicians believe the same of the Vietnam War. Retired Gen. David Petraeus and today's neoconservatives have made similar arguments about President Barack Obama's failure to sustain the Iraq War. [See, for instance, this fawning Washington Post interview with Petraeus.]

        What all these militarists failed to understand is that, according to Clausewitz, when a war's costs exceed its benefits, the sound strategy is to end the costly war. The Germans failed to understand this in World War II and the Soviet Union in their Afghan War.

        Paradoxically in the Vietnam War, it was the anti-war movement that enhanced U.S. strength by bringing that wasteful war to an end, not the American militarists who would have continued it to a bitter end of economic collapse. We are now seeing a similar debate about whether to continue and expand U.S. military operations across the Middle East.

        Carl Schmitt

        While Ernst Junger was the celebrant and the publicist for total mobilization of society for endless war, including the need for authoritarian government, Carl Schmitt was the ideological theoretician, both legally and politically, who helped bring about the totalitarian and militaristic society. Except when it happened, it came under different ownership than what they had hoped and planned for.

        Contrary to Schmitt's latter-day apologists and/or advocates, who include prominent law professors teaching at Harvard and the University of Chicago, his legal writings weren't about preserving the Weimar Republic against its totalitarian enemies, the Communists and Nazis. Rather, he worked on behalf of a rival fascist faction, members of the German Army General Staff. He acted as a legal adviser to General Kurt von Schleicher, who in turn advised President Paul von Hindenburg, former Chief of the German General Staff during World War I.

        German historian Eberhard Kolb observed, "from the mid-1920s onwards the Army leaders had developed and propagated new social conceptions of a militarist kind, tending towards a fusion of the military and civilian sectors and ultimately a totalitarian military state (Wehrstaat)."

        When General Schleicher helped bring about the political fall of Reichswehr Commander in Chief, General von Seekt, it was a "triumph of the 'modern' faction within the Reichswehr who favored a total war ideology and wanted Germany to become a dictatorship that would wage total war upon the other nations of Europe," according to Kolb.

        When Hitler and the Nazis outmaneuvered the Army politically, Schmitt, as well as most other Conservative Revolutionaries, went over to the Nazis.

        Reading Schmitt gives one a greater understanding of the Conservative Revolutionary's call for a "primacy of politics," explained previously as "a reassertion of an expansion in foreign policy."

        Schmitt said: "A world in which the possibility of war is utterly eliminated, a completely pacified globe, would be a world without the distinction of friend and enemy and hence a world without politics. It is conceivable that such a world might contain many very interesting antitheses and contrasts, competitions and intrigues of every kind, but there would not be a meaningful antithesis whereby men could be required to sacrifice life, authorized to shed blood, and kill other human beings. For the definition of the political, it is here even irrelevant whether such a world without politics is desirable as an ideal situation."

        As evident in this statement, to Schmitt, the norm isn't peace, nor is peace even desirable, but rather perpetual war is the natural and preferable condition.

        This dream of a Martial State is not isolated to German history. A Republican aligned neoconservative, Thomas Sowell, expressed the same longing in 2007 in a National Review article, "Don't Get Weak." Sowell wrote; "When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can't help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup."

        Leo Strauss, Conservative Revolutionaries and Republicans

        Political philosopher Leo Strauss had yearned for the glorious German Conservative Revolution but was despondent when it took the form of the Nazi Third Reich, from which he was excluded because he was Jewish regardless of his fascist ideology.

        He wrote to a German Jewish friend, Karl Loewith: "the fact that the new right-wing Germany does not tolerate us says nothing against the principles of the right. To the contrary: only from the principles of the right, that is from fascist, authoritarian and imperial principles, is it possible with seemliness, that is, without resort to the ludicrous and despicable appeal to the droits imprescriptibles de l'homme [inalienable rights of man] to protest against the shabby abomination."

        Strauss was in agreement politically with Schmitt, and they were close friends.

        Professor Alan Gilbert of Denver University has written: "As a Jew, Strauss was forbidden from following Schmitt and [German philosopher Martin] Heidegger into the Nazi party. 'But he was a man of the Right. Like some other Zionists, those who admired Mussolini for instance, Strauss' principles, as the 1933 letter relates, were 'fascist, authoritarian, imperial.'"

        Strauss was intelligent enough when he arrived in the U.S. to disguise and channel his fascist thought by going back to like-minded "ancient" philosophers and thereby presenting fascism as part of our "western heritage," just as the current neocon classicist Victor Davis Hanson does.

        Needless to say, fascism is built on the belief in a dictator, as was Sparta and the Roman Empire and as propounded by Socrates and Plato, so turning to the thought of ancient philosophers and historians makes a good "cover" for fascist thought.

        Leo Strauss must be seen as the Godfather of the modern Republican Party's political ideology. His legacy continues now through the innumerable "Neoconservative Revolutionary" front groups with cover names frequently invoking "democracy" or "security," such as Sen. Lindsey Graham's "Security Through Strength."

        Typifying the Straussian neoconservative revolutionary whose hunger for military aggression can never be satiated would be former Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams of Iran-Contra fame and practitioner of the "big lie," who returned to government under President George W. Bush to push the Iraq War and is currently promoting a U.S. war against Iran.

        In a classic example of "projection," Abrams writes that "Ideology is the raison d'etre of Iran's regime, legitimating its rule and inspiring its leaders and their supporters. In this sense, it is akin to communist, fascist and Nazi regimes that set out to transform the world." That can as truthfully be said of his own Neoconservative Revolutionary ideology and its adherents.

        That ideology explains Bill Kristol's crowing over Netanyahu's victory and claiming Netanyahu as the Republicans' de facto leader. For years, the U.S. and Israel under Netanyahu have had nearly identical foreign policy approaches though they are at the moment in some disagreement because President Obama has resisted war with Iran while Netanyahu is essentially demanding it.

        But at a deeper level the two countries share a common outlook, calling for continuous military interventionism outside each country's borders with increased exercise of authority by the military and other security services within their borders. This is no accident. It can be traced back to joint right-wing extremist efforts in both countries with American neoconservatives playing key roles.

        The best example of this joint effort was when U.S. neocons joined with the right-wing, Likud-connected Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in 1996 to publish their joint plan for continuous military interventionism in the Mideast in "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," which envisioned "regime change" instead of negotiations. [See Consortiumnews.com's "How Israel Outfoxed U.S. Presidents."]

        While ostensibly written for Netanyahu's political campaign, "A Clean Break" became the blueprint for subsequent war policies advocated by the Project for the New American Century, founded by neocons William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The chief contribution of the American neocons in this strategy was to marshal U.S. military resources to do the heavy lifting in attacking Israel's neighbors beginning with Iraq.

        With these policy preferences goes a belief inside each country's political parties, across the spectrum but particularly on the Right, that Israel and the United States each stand apart from all other nations as "Exceptional." This is continuously repeated to ensure imprinting it in the population's consciousness in the tradition of fascist states through history.

        It is believed today in both the U.S. and Israel, just as the German Conservative Revolutionaries believed it in the 1920s and 1930s of their homeland, Germany, and then carried on by the Nazis until 1945.

        Israeli Herut Party

        The Knesset website describes the original Herut party (1948-1988) as the main opposition party (against the early domination by the Labor Party). Herut was the most right-wing party in the years before the Likud party came into being and absorbed Herut into a coalition. Its expansionist slogan was "To the banks to the Jordan River" and it refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Kingdom of Jordan. Economically, Herut supported private enterprise and a reduction of government intervention.

        In "A Clean Break," the authors were advising Netanyahu to reclaim the belligerent and expansionist principles of the Herut party.

        Herut was founded in 1948 by Menachem Begin, the leader of the right-wing militant group Irgun, which was widely regarded as a terrorist organization responsible for killing Palestinians and cleansing them from land claimed by Israel, including the infamous Deir Yassin massacre.

        Herut's nature as a party and movement was best explained in a critical letter to the New York Times on Dec. 4, 1948, signed by over two dozen prominent Jewish intellectuals including Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt.

        The letter read: "Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the 'Freedom Party' (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.

        "It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine. (…) It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin's political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents. …

        "Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future."

        According to author Joseph Heller, Herut was a one-issue party intent on expanding Israel's borders. That Netanyahu has never set aside Herut's ideology can be gleaned from his book last revised in 2000, A Durable Peace. There, Netanyahu praises Herut's predecessors – the Irgun paramilitary and Lehi, also known as the Stern Gang, a self-declared "terrorist" group. He also marginalizes their Israeli adversary of the time, the Hagana under Israel's primary founder and first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion.

        Regardless of methods used, the Stern Gang was indisputably "fascist," even receiving military training from Fascist Italy. One does not need to speculate as to its ideological influences.

        According to Colin Shindler, writing in Triumph of Military Zionism: Nationalism and the Origins of the Israeli Right, "Stern devotedly believed that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' so he approached Nazi Germany. With German armies at the gates of Palestine, he offered co-operation and an alliance with a new totalitarian Hebrew republic."

        Netanyahu in his recent election campaign would seem to have re-embraced his fascist origins, both with its racism and his declaration that as long as he was prime minister he would block a Palestinian state and would continue building Jewish settlements on what international law recognizes as Palestinian land.

        In other words, maintaining a state of war on the Palestinian people with a military occupation and governing by military rule, while continuing to make further territorial gains with the IDF acting as shock troops for the settlers.

        Why Does This Matter?

        Sun-Tzu famously wrote "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

        When we allow our "Conservative Revolutionaries" (or neoconservative militarists or proto-fascists or whatever term best describes them) to make foreign policy, the United States loses legitimacy in the world as a "rule of law" state. Instead, we present a "fascist" justification for our wars which is blatantly illicit.

        As the American political establishment has become so enamored with war and the "warriors" who fight them, it has become child's play for our militarists to manipulate the U.S. into wars or foreign aggression through promiscuous economic sanctions or inciting and arming foreign groups to destabilize the countries that we target.

        No better example for this can be shown than the role that America's First Family of Militarism, the Kagans, plays in pushing total war mobilization of the U.S. economy and inciting war, at the expense of civilian and domestic needs, as Robert Parry wrote.

        This can be seen with Robert Kagan invoking the martial virtue of "courage" in demanding greater military spending by our elected officials and a greater wealth transfer to the Military Industrial Complex which funds the various war advocacy projects that he and his family are involved with.

        Kagan recently wrote: "Those who propose to lead the United States in the coming years, Republicans and Democrats, need to show what kind of political courage they have, right now, when the crucial budget decisions are being made."

        But as Parry pointed out, showing "courage," "in Kagan's view – is to ladle ever more billions into the Military-Industrial Complex, thus putting money where the Republican mouths are regarding the need to 'defend Ukraine' and resist 'a bad nuclear deal with Iran.'" But Parry noted that if it weren't for Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, Kagan's spouse, the Ukraine crisis might not exist.

        What must certainly be seen as neo-fascist under any system of government but especially under a nominal "constitutional republic" as the U.S. claims to be, is Sen. Lindsey Graham's threat that the first thing he would do if elected President of the United States would be to use the military to detain members of Congress, keeping them in session in Washington, until all so-called "defense cuts" are restored to the budget.

        In Graham's words, "I wouldn't let Congress leave town until we fix this. I would literally use the military to keep them in if I had to. We're not leaving town until we restore these defense cuts."

        And he would have that power according to former Vice President Dick Cheney's "unitary executive theory" of Presidential power, originally formulated by Carl Schmitt and adopted by Republican attorneys and incorporated into government under the Bush-Cheney administration. Sen. Tom Cotton and other Republicans would no doubt support such an abuse of power if it meant increasing military spending.

        But even more dangerous for the U.S. as well as other nations in the world is that one day, our militarists' constant incitement and provocation to war is going to "payoff," and the U.S. will be in a real war with an enemy with nuclear weapons, like the one Victoria Nuland is creating on Russia's border.

        Today's American "Conservative Revolutionary" lust for war was summed up by prominent neoconservative Richard Perle, a co-author of "A Clean Break." Echoing the views on war from Ernst Junger and Carl Schmitt, Perle once explained U.S. strategy in the neoconservative view, according to John Pilger:

        "There will be no stages," he said. "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there . . . If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage a total war, our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

        That goal was the same fantasy professed by German Conservative Revolutionaries and it led directly to a wartime defeat never imagined by Germany before, with all the "collateral damage" along the way that always results from "total war."

        Rather than continuing with this "strategy," driven by our own modern Conservative Revolutionaries and entailing the eventual bankrupting or destruction of the nation, it might be more prudent for Americans to demand that we go back to the original national security strategy of the United States, as expressed by early presidents as avoiding "foreign entanglements" and start abiding by the republican goals expressed by the Preamble to the Constitution:

        "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

        Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions. In the course of that assignment, he researched and reviewed the complete records of military commissions held during the Civil War and stored at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

        image_pdfimage_print

        45 comments for "Neocons: the Echo of German Fascism"
        1. tateishi

          March 27, 2015 at 12:38 pm

          Good article. Often people forget that Germany is a very aggressive war mongers, sending soldiers to many areas, and actually it started Yugoslavian war together with the US. It also has many people who believe that they are Aryans, Hitler's imaginary race, though there are real Aryans peaceful one in the mountains of Iran, etc.

          • Lutz Barz

            March 28, 2015 at 5:23 am

            The Brits and French were far more militarily aggressive than the late comers Germany. The sun never set in British bayonets imposed on peaceful people globally. Over 3 million died in Bengal in the early 40s thanks to British indifference on feeding her own first [though she could source wheat from Canada and Bengal from Australia-this was not done]. Post WW1 into 1919 600+ Germans esp the young and old were dying of starvation courtesy of a British blockade still in place after the armistice. As for terrible Germany invading Belgium the Kaiser never protested about the British occupation of Ireland and it's bloody suppression. Then there is/was Palestine. One could go on. Every country has it's neanderthal conservatives. And Prussia was far more progressive during the early 19th century schooling its citizens and being part of the German Enlightenment. But as we know history is written by those who dominate militarily.

          • Lutz Barz

            March 28, 2015 at 5:24 am

            The Brits and French were far more militarily aggressive than the late comers Germany. The sun never set in British bayonets imposed on peaceful people globally. Over 3 million died in Bengal in the early 40s thanks to British indifference on feeding her own first [though she could source wheat from Canada and Bengal from Australia-this was not done]. Post WW1 into 1919 600+ Germans esp the young and old were dying of starvation courtesy of a British blockade still in place after the armistice. As for terrible Germany invading Belgium the Kaiser never protested about the British occupation of Ireland and it's bloody suppression. Then there is/was Palestine. One could go on. Every country has it's neanderthal conservatives. And Prussia was far more progressive during the early 19th century schooling its citizens and being part of the German Enlightenment. But as we know history is written by those who dominate militarily.

          • Lutz Barz

            March 28, 2015 at 5:24 am

            The Brits and French were far more militarily aggressive than the late comers Germany. The sun never set in British bayonets imposed on peaceful people globally. Over 3 million died in Bengal in the early 40s thanks to British indifference on feeding her own first [though she could source wheat from Canada and Bengal from Australia-this was not done]. Post WW1 into 1919 600+ Germans esp the young and old were dying of starvation courtesy of a British blockade still in place after the armistice. As for terrible Germany invading Belgium the Kaiser never protested about the British occupation of Ireland and it's bloody suppression. Then there is/was Palestine. One could go on. Every country has it's neanderthal conservatives. And Prussia was far more progressive during the early 19th century schooling its citizens and being part of the German Enlightenment. But as we know history is written by those who dominate militarily.

          • Lutz Barz

            March 28, 2015 at 5:25 am

            The Brits and French were far more militarily aggressive than the late comers Germany. The sun never set in British bayonets imposed on peaceful people globally. Over 3 million died in Bengal in the early 40s thanks to British indifference on feeding her own first [though she could source wheat from Canada and Bengal from Australia-this was not done]. Post WW1 into 1919 600+ Germans esp the young and old were dying of starvation courtesy of a British blockade still in place after the armistice. As for terrible Germany invading Belgium the Kaiser never protested about the British occupation of Ireland and it's bloody suppression. Then there is/was Palestine. One could go on. Every country has it's neanderthal conservatives. And Prussia was far more progressive during the early 19th century schooling its citizens and being part of the German Enlightenment. But as we know history is written by those who dominate militarily.

          • Lutz Barz

            March 28, 2015 at 5:25 am

            The Brits and French were far more militarily aggressive than the late comers Germany. The sun never set in British bayonets imposed on peaceful people globally. Over 3 million died in Bengal in the early 40s thanks to British indifference on feeding her own first [though she could source wheat from Canada and Bengal from Australia-this was not done]. Post WW1 into 1919 600+ Germans esp the young and old were dying of starvation courtesy of a British blockade still in place after the armistice. As for terrible Germany invading Belgium the Kaiser never protested about the British occupation of Ireland and it's bloody suppression. Then there is/was Palestine. One could go on. Every country has it's neanderthal conservatives. And Prussia was far more progressive during the early 19th century schooling its citizens and being part of the German Enlightenment. But as we know history is written by those who dominate militarily.

          • Steve

            March 29, 2015 at 11:07 am

            A very strange comment from a presumed Iranian especially. Germany is not aggressive at all since WW2, which was a result of much aggression by several nations starting with Japan and Italy. German soldiers have gone almost nowhere since then, a limited deployment in Afghanistan being the main case. Germany did not start the "Yugoslavian war" at all, which was begun by Serbia attacking Slovenia and Croatia after they voted and declared independence. Aryanism is very rare in Germany today, and far more belligerent language comes out of Iran than Germany, Iran having swapped Aryanism for Islamism to little if any benefit.

            As for the article itself, it makes the common error of imputing excessive influence to a limited era of German militarism, whilst ignoring the far more globally influential records of Western colonial and Communist militaristic imperialism, as well as Italian Fascism which was the more influential model for many amenable to such ideas, with its aggressive colonial and corporatist notions, and successful attainment of power a decade before Hitler's.

          • [email protected]

            March 29, 2015 at 12:14 pm

            Yea, but lesson is that USA is the continuation and revival of nazi ideology carrying its propound ideology of "exceptionalism". The neo conservative hawkish holding the belief that USA has the right to interfere in others countries internal affairs, that USA is above the law, that USA is predestinated by providence to spread its civilization and more others imperialists beliefs.

        2. F. G. Sanford

          March 27, 2015 at 1:20 pm

          Concur. A common slogan of the political opposition in the 1930's was, "Fascism Means War!" It was true then, and it's still true today. The Major speaks the truth. I hope someone is listening.

        3. bobzz

          March 27, 2015 at 1:42 pm

          This piece tracks well with Charles Derber's, Morality Wars: How Empires, the Born Again, and the Politically Correct Do Evil in the Name of Good. Hitler was rabid on the subject of morality (i.e., favored it). He was well received by many professional theologians, and the church generally swung in line. Not enough of the Barmen's Confession. This is another parallel with America and Israel and a major contributor to exceptionalism.

        4. John

          March 27, 2015 at 2:12 pm

          Very true. The relationship of fascism and warmongering was described by Aristotle as the tactics of the tyrant over a democracy: fascist leaders must promote war and internal policing because it is the sole basis of their demand for power: they must create, provoke, or invent foreign enemies to demand power as "protectors" and accuse their opponents of disloyalty. They must appeal to the bully-boys as their militant wing, so they produce pseudo-philosophies of dominance.

          Fascism must at times be clarified in meaning to avoid limitation to specific historical instances, and it should be understood in those instances, but in is actually a very simple and universal attitude. It is nothing but the behavior and propaganda of bully boys. They are selfish, ignorant, hypocritical and malicious youths and abusive husbands and fathers, who glory in their small circle of the intimidated and push everyone around as a principal life skill. Those who extend that circle by operating small businesses, or as military or police officers, create and approve rationalizations of special rights. There is no real "exceptionalism" belief or philosophy of national/religious/ethnic superiority, it is just outright propaganda for bullying. They are quite stupid, and yet quickly pick up the methods of fascism, so it is not worth much analysis.

        5. John

          March 27, 2015 at 2:33 pm

          I should add that the resurgence of fascism and its strength in the US and Israel is due to its association with economic concentrations. In business, the spoils go not to the inventor or ingenious professional as claimed in business propaganda: the spoils go to the bully-boy. Those who rise to the top in the corporate world are not the brilliant professionals or the effective managers who shine at lower levels. The path upwards is limited to those who come out on top wars between groups in collusion, who are without exception scheming bully-boys. There is no other way to the top. Only the methods are different from politics. So only bully-boys have great economic power.

          In the US, economic concentrations did not exist when the Constitution was written, so it provides no protection at all for the institutions of democracy from economic power. Economic powers controlled elections and the press in the 19th century, so there has been no way to even debate the issue, and now that control is almost absolute. Those are the powers obtainable only by bully-boys, the predominant fascists of Nazi Germany and the US, and no doubt Israel. So the US has been loosely controlled by fascism for a long time, and that control is nearly total now. Only the propaganda to rationalize this changes to sell the policies to the intimidated.

        6. Randy

          March 27, 2015 at 2:50 pm

          War is inevitable.. You simply cannot deny this and anyone who does is just dreaming… The world cannot live in some perpetual peace forever, what will happen when oil, water, and even living space runs out? Will you watch your family starve to death while the people over in the next town are eating to their hearts content?

          As much as you want to deny it, Hitler had it right. Peace is only attainable through war, and can only be won for your own people. There cannot be world peace, and the events of today proves it. Hitler and Japan was defeated more than 50 years ago, where is the peace? There will come a day where money will be worthless, the only currency will be strength, only those rich in this currency will survive. How nature intended it to be.

          Hitler knew this, and was preparing his own country, the rest of the world took the Banker path, and look where that led us.

          • Zachary Smith

            March 27, 2015 at 3:08 pm

            The world cannot live in some perpetual peace forever, what will happen when oil, water, and even living space runs out?

            Has it occurred to you that oil is only one of the many energy sources, and that the amount of water on Earth is basically a fixed quantity? Living space? Consider contraception combined with incentives, and disincentives for having babies galore.

            Can't help but notice you didn't mention Global Warming as a gnawing problem. Why?

            Finally, WHY is this site a magnet for the Hitler Fan Club?

            • Randy

              March 27, 2015 at 3:52 pm

              The idea is that resources run out, right? I wasn't going to list everything. There is not a infinite amount of resources in this world, you can continue living in your fairy tale world if you'd like but I will not.

              Even the soil that we grow food in will one day become unusable if it is abused like it is today. Global warming is a result of your delusion of world peace. Nature hits back when you delay and ignore up its rule for to long.. There would be no Global Warming problem i

              • Zachary Smith

                March 27, 2015 at 4:00 pm

                Global warming is a result of your delusion of world peace.

                As I suspected.

                No doubt wind turbines kill the cute birdies.

                And contraception is some sort of sin.

          • John

            March 27, 2015 at 3:36 pm

            Randy, be careful to avoid traps here:
            1. Wars will continue in history, but that is not a justification for doing wrong.
            2. When groups are in conflict, good leadership avoids war because it causes great wrongs. Sometimes it cannot be avoided, usually due to bad leadership. But of course that does not justify unnecessary war.
            3. Peace is not obtained by war. Sometimes it results from a successful defense against wrongful war, sometimes it is only the peace after a wrongful war succeeds. Those who prefer peace want to avoid unnecessary war. They are not afraid of necessary defense.
            4. Those who want to keep the US from unnecessary wars know more about the world's cultures and problems and solutions than those who always think of war as a solution. They know that our security depends upon making friends among a wild variety of cultures at different stages of development. That is done by helping the unfortunate even when we disagree with them, and we can't expect much from them in return. Wars mainly make us enemies, and those who promote wars conceal those failures. That's what this site is about.

          • holycowimeanzebra

            March 27, 2015 at 10:53 pm

            Gee, we couldn't just talk like adults about the importance of having fewer children? War and killing is the only method of human population control?

          • holycowimeanzebra

            March 27, 2015 at 10:54 pm

            Gee, we couldn't just talk like adults about the importance of having fewer children? War and killing is the only method of human population control?

          • zhu bajie

            March 30, 2015 at 1:03 am

            Nonsense. War is caused by fighting.

          • frank scott

            March 30, 2015 at 11:04 pm

            war, slavery and general ignorance are "inevitable" so long as people are mentally enslaved enough to tolerate them…the only thing inevitable about life is death…the rest is all subject to at least some measure of control, whether those are called political, religious or scientific..belief in such nonsense as above guarantees the continued master race-self chosen people-ism the article's writer is trying to contend with, call attention to and end..hitler was right about some things and wrong about most, like obama, bush, clinton, reagan and all other "leaders" of the status quo.

          • frank scott

            March 30, 2015 at 11:17 pm

            death is inevitable but the rest of life is subject to control by concerned, thoughtful and informed humans..war is inevitable only if the opposite type of humans continue and if they do it may be that all of us will lose continuity, fulfilling their dreadfully negative religious belief..the article seems to be at least trying to locate sources for some of the diseased madness that prevails but talk of "inevitable" war is an example of the disease.

        7. Gregory Kruse

          March 27, 2015 at 5:17 pm

          Mr. Pierce appears to be a good example of a person who "knows himself, and knows his enemy", for indeed the Kagans and Cheneys of these times are enemies of the people. Unfortunately, most of the people don't know it yet, and in fact don't know themselves. It is absolutely dumbfounding to hear strains of Fox News coming from the mouths of otherwise seemingly decent and intelligent people who have the facility to think for themselves, but find it easier to parrot a TV station. I rue the fact that history and what served for political education in my youth led me to believe that there were no real enemies of democracy anymore. Reading back now through the history of Europe after the War of 1812 in Russia until WWI, I have come to appreciate the strength of fascist sentiment and passion, and I fairly tremble at the thought of the possible rise of another Otto von Bismark or Adolph Hitler in what we think of as "modern" times. There is only one ray of hope for me and that is the writing of such as Pierce, Parry, and some others scattered about the internet. It isn't clear to me that people will wake up and perceive the path we are on and in dreadful fear force a change of direction, but if not, we will learn again what it is to suffer unimaginable horror.

          • Zachary Smith

            March 27, 2015 at 7:21 pm

            It is absolutely dumbfounding to hear strains of Fox News coming from the mouths of otherwise seemingly decent and intelligent people who have the facility to think for themselves, but find it easier to parrot a TV station.

            Dumbfounding is right!

            Sometime back I was astonished to hear a relative at least as bright as myself (and educated at the same University) tell me that Fox was the ONLY news source which could be trusted. She'd moved from Indiana to the deep South years ago and sort-of "gone native". It was an ordeal to remain calm and use lip-glue.

        8. Theodora Crawford

          March 27, 2015 at 6:56 pm

          Excellent discussion and worth the challenge of a thought-provoking and complex argument about governance and war. Today's environment is frightening with so much negative opinion, an absurd sense of US "exceptionalism" and unthinking faith in the power of war (clinched by a nuclear option as last resort).

          Alas, we have the government we deserve.

        9. Abe

          March 27, 2015 at 7:33 pm

          In 1926, German political theorist Carl Schmitt wrote his most famous paper, "Der Begriff des Politischen" ("The Concept of the Political"), in which he developed his theory of "the political".

          For Schmitt, "the political" is not equal to any other domain, such as the economic, but instead is the most essential to identity. As the essence of politics, "the political" is distinct from party politics.

          According to Schmitt, while churches are predominant in religion or society is predominant in economics, the state is predominant in politics. Yet for Schmitt the political was not an autonomous domain equivalent to the other domains, but rather the existential basis that would determine any other domain should it reach the point of politics (e.g. religion ceases to be merely theological when it makes a clear distinction between the "friend" and the "enemy").

          Schmitt, in perhaps his best-known formulation, bases his conceptual realm of state sovereignty and autonomy upon the distinction between friend and enemy. This distinction is to be determined "existentially," which is to say that the enemy is whoever is "in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible." (Schmitt, 1996, p. 27)

          For Schmitt, such an enemy need not even be based on nationality: so long as the conflict is potentially intense enough to become a violent one between political entities, the actual substance of enmity may be anything.

          Although there have been divergent interpretations concerning Schmitt's work, there is broad agreement that "The Concept of the Political" is an attempt to achieve state unity by defining the content of politics as opposition to the "other" (that is to say, an enemy, a stranger. This applies to any person or entity that represents a serious threat or conflict to one's own interests.) In addition, the prominence of the state stands as a neutral force over potentially fractious civil society, whose various antagonisms must not be allowed to reach the level of the political, lest civil war result.

          Leo Strauss, a political Zionist and follower of Vladimir Jabotinsky, had a position at the Academy of Jewish Research in Berlin. Strauss wrote to Schmitt in 1932 and summarized Schmitt's political theology thus: "[B]ecause man is by nature evil, he therefore needs dominion. But dominion can be established, that is, men can be unified only in a unity against – against other men. Every association of men is necessarily a separation from other men… the political thus understood is not the constitutive principle of the state, of order, but a condition of the state."

          With a letter of recommendation from Schmitt, Strauss received a fellowship from the Rockefeller Foundation to begin work, in France, on a study of Hobbes. Schmitt went on to become a figure of influence in the new Nazi government of Adolf Hitler.

          On 30 January 1933, Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany. The SA and SS led torchlight parades throughout Berlin. Germans who opposed Nazism failed to unite against it, and Hitler soon moved to consolidate absolute power.

          Following the 27 February Reichstag fire, the Nazis began to suspend civil liberties and eliminate political opposition. The Communists were excluded from the Reichstag. At the March 1933 elections, again no single party secured a majority. Hitler required the vote of the Centre Party and Conservatives in the Reichstag to obtain the powers he desired. He called on Reichstag members to vote for the Enabling Act on 24 March 1933.

          Hitler was granted plenary powers "temporarily" by the passage of the Enabling Act. The law gave him the freedom to act without parliamentary consent and even without constitutional limitations.

          Schmitt joined the Nazi Party on 1 May 1933. Within days of joining the party, Schmitt was party to the burning of books by Jewish authors, rejoicing in the burning of "un-German" and "anti-German" material, and calling for a much more extensive purge, to include works by authors influenced by Jewish ideas.[

          In July 1933, Schmitt was appointed State Councillor for Prussia (Preußischer Staatsrat) by Hermann Göring and became the president of the Vereinigung nationalsozialistischer Juristen ("Union of National-Socialist Jurists") in November. He also replaced Hermann Heller as professor at the University of Berlin (a position he held until the end of World War II).

          Schmitt presented his theories as an ideological foundation of the Nazi dictatorship, and a justification of the Führer state with regard to legal philosophy, in particular through the concept of auctoritas. Half a year later, in June 1934, Schmitt was appointed editor-in-chief of the Nazi news organ for lawyers, the Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung ("German Jurists' Journal").

          In July 1934, he published "The Leader Protects the Law (Der Führer schützt das Recht)", a justification of the political murders of the Night of the Long Knives with the authority of Hitler as the "highest form of administrative justice (höchste Form administrativer Justiz)".

          Schmitt presented himself as a radical anti-semite and also was the chairman of a law teachers' convention in Berlin in October 1936, where he demanded that German law be cleansed of the "Jewish spirit (jüdischem Geist)", going so far as to demand that all publications by Jewish scientists should henceforth be marked with a small symbol.

          Nevertheless, in December 1936, the SS publication Das schwarze Korps accused Schmitt of being an opportunist, and called his anti-semitism a mere pretense, citing earlier statements in which he criticized the Nazis' racial theories. After this, Schmitt resigned from his position as "Reichsfachgruppenleiter" (Reich Professional Group Leader), although he retained his post as a professor in Berlin, and his post as "Preußischer Staatsrat".

          After World War II, Schmitt refused every attempt at de-nazification, which effectively barred him from positions in academia. Despite being isolated from the mainstream of the scholarly and political community, he continued his studies especially of international law from the 1950s on.

          In 1962, Schmitt gave lectures in Francoist Spain, two of them giving rise to the publication, the following year, of Theory of the Partisan, in which he qualified the Spanish civil war as a "war of national liberation" against "international Communism."

          Schmitt regarded the partisan as a specific and significant phenomenon that, in the latter half of the twentieth century, indicated the emergence of a new theory of warfare.

          At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the most simple formulation of Schmitt's friend-enemy distinction was enunciated by this intellectual giant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sfNROmn7bc

          In that Schmittian fulmination known as the Bush Doctrine, the "partisan" is transformed into the "terrorist," no longer "internal" but a truly "global" enemy to be destroyed wherever found.

          As further codified by the Obama Doctrine: the decider has the right.

          The world-ordering, planet-appropriating doctrine of American exceptionalism has no space in its Grossraum (great space) concept for a "Eurasia."

          The very enunciation of a "Eurasian" political sphere is a "terrorist" act, and all those associated with such "lunacy" are "enemies" to be annihilated.

        10. John

          March 28, 2015 at 12:50 am

          Junger was not so pro-war when he lost his son in WW11.

        11. John

          March 28, 2015 at 12:50 am

          Junger was not so pro-war when he lost his son in WW11.

        12. Dato

          March 28, 2015 at 6:28 am

          Just as defeated German generals and the Conservative Revolutionaries believed that Germany lost World War I because their economy and nation was only "partially mobilized

          One would like to know wherein lay the premises of such a belief. Indeed, the general staff of the Reich laid out plans and performed actions for a "total war", and the effects, once the war ended, were hard to oversee: Not only were there scant resources and only barely functioning capital infrastructure left after the war, people were actually dying of hunger in the streets (made worse by the entente's continuing blockade even into 1915). Maybe all the information was hard to come back then.

          From "Hindenburg: Icon of German Militarism" by Astore and Showalter, p 40ff:

          The war, Hindenburg noted, had become a colossal Materialschlacht, or material struggle, waged by modern industrial juggernauts. The western front in particular witnessed organized destruction on a scale theretofore thought impossible. Staggered by the sheer wastage of modern war, all combatants sought with varying degrees of success to mobilize their economies. The so-called Hindenburg Program was Germany's concerted attempt to mobilize fully, if somewhat belatedly, for total war. Improving the efficiency of economic mobilization was certainly a worthwhile goal. Hindenburg's, and especially Ludendorff's, key mistake was to presume that an economy could be commanded like an army. The end result was a conflict of effciencies. What was best for the army in the short term was not necessarily best for the long-term health of the economy. Furthermore, as economic means were mobilized to the fullest, the sacrifices required and incurred by modern warfare's destructive industrialism drove Germany, as well as the Entente powers, to inflate strategic goals to justify national sacrifice. Extreme economic mobilization encouraged grandiose political and territorial demands, ruling out opportunities for a compromise peace, which Hindenburg and Ludendorff rejected anyway. Under their leadership, imperial Germany became a machine for waging war and little else. And Hindenburg and Ludendorff emerged as Germany's most committed merchants of death.

          Nothing in Hindenburg's background prepared him for the task of overseeing an economic mobilization. Thus, he left details to the technocrat Ludendorff. Aided by Lieutenant Colonel Max Bauer, Ludendorff embarked on a crash program to centralize and streamline the economy. Fifteen separate district commands in Germany needed centralizing if economic mobilization was to be rationalized; rivalries among federal, state, and local agencies needed to be curtailed. As enacted, the Hindenburg Program sought to maximize war-related production by transforming Germany into a garrison state with a command economy. Coordinating the massive effort was the Kriegsamt, or War Office, headed by General Wilhelm Groener.

          Yet, Ludendorff's insistence on setting unachievable production goals led to serious dislocations in the national economy. Shell production was to be doubled, artillery and machine gun production trebled, all in a matter of months. The German economy, relying largely on its own internal resources, could not bear the strain of striving for production goals unconstrained by economic, material, and manpower realities. The release of hundreds of thousands of skilled workers from military duty back to the factories, which led to short-term increases in the production of armaments, did not solve critical and systemic shortages of labor. Large-scale deportation and impressment of Belgian workers was a stopgap that only further alienated world opinion, notably in the United States. In the aggregate, the high level of autonomy enjoyed by the military contributed to wasteful duplications of effort and patterns of bureaucratization that eventually defied even the Germans' gift for paperwork.

        13. Brad Owen

          March 28, 2015 at 6:36 am

          Excellent article. I still think the Financial Oligarchy, which currently holds the "Imperium" in City-of-London/Wall Street jointly, are the financial enablers of these "Conservative Revolutionaries". One of the main tasks of an Empire is to PREVENT any rival power structure (such as a legitimate Republic taking root within a colony, becoming a powerful nation-state, and becoming most attractive to the other subjugated colonies…the ONLY basis for U.S. "exceptionalism", and our one unforgivable "sin" in the, now covert, British Empire) from arising within its' Realm. The witless conservative revolutionaries are enabled by the Financier/Emperors (think of Grand daddy Prescott; bagman for the NAZIs) PRECISELY because they will lead to "the eventual bankrupting and destruction of the Nation", as Major Pierce says, thus being rid of a dangerous Republic within their Empire. These policies and wars are meant to destroy US, here, in America, and lead us, and the World, FAR AWAY from the wisdom of our Preamble. BTW, Kaiser's Germany, and Dr. Sun Yat Sen, were influenced by "Lincoln's economists" Henry Carey and Friedrich Liszt…the "republican infection" was spread far and wide, after Lincoln's victory in his proxy war with the British and French empires (The Russian Empire, as always, was USA's quiet ally in that war).

        14. Peter Loeb

          March 28, 2015 at 6:45 am

          NAMING NAMES…

          The history of fascism is helpful, It remains that it is a common tendency of liberals/
          progressives to believe in the illusion that one person, one party exchanged for another
          will transform a society (any society).

          As Naseer Aruri documents in his incisive book, DISHONEST BROKER, that the US has collaborated with Zionism for decades, Both US political parties have been complicit. This
          has been the case for 35 years prior to the current Administration and certainly was the
          case going back as far as Harry Truman.(Aruri's brief book was written just prior to
          the election of Obama.)

          Netanyahu's supposed "shock" to Washington is that his blatant racism and opposition to
          the "peaceful negotiations" of two so-called "sovereign" nations made such good PR. One commenter observed that it was like asking the lamb to "negotiate" with the wolf. Aruri
          repeats that the US, which has always supported the oppressor(Israel), could act as"mediator" thus excluding international law altogether. (Aruri blames in equal measure PLO's Arafat who agreed to "occupation by consent" (Aruri).

          Netanyahu blew the US "cover" for just a second. The next Democratic leadership if it is
          Hillary Clinton as President or Chuck Schumer as Democratic leader has never been
          noted for any sympathy for Palestinians aka "the inferior race" (Israelis). Both Clinton and
          Schumer have represented New York State in the US Senate. Both want to elect more members of their party (Democratic) and to use the dollars of wealthy US Jews in accomplishing this.

          The voices of the hundreds of thousands who lose their jobs as disposeable (except in
          campaign rehetoric) have less and less meaning. The very rich are the beneficiaries and they lay off thousands of workers and managers to move to low wage and more compliant
          location with high tech ease.

          From my perspective, the only means to delay this is economic. On the one hand it is
          BDS but on a larger field it is the weakness of the US economy and others of the West.

          Recalling that it was WW II that "solved" the Great Depression and not the ineffective programs of FDR's "New Deal" (See Gabriel Kolko, MAIN CURRENTS IN MODERN AMERICAN
          HISTORY). Todd E. Pierce does not mention the so-called global "revolution" but as the
          French have phrased it "La revolution se mange" (" The revolution eats itself") Everyone
          wants someone else to fight their battles for them at no cost to themselves.

          Pierce does not evaluate the power relationships weakening virtually all governments
          today. Inequality has eaten us up (we have eaten ouselves!).

          -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA USA

        15. muggles

          March 28, 2015 at 1:41 pm

          Extremely good essay today by Todd Pierce. Very impressive scholarship and insight, particularly in the light of his impressive military career.

          Many good comments posted also, despite the inevitable odor of anti Semitism found in some, always the case when "Germany" is part of the topic. "Bankers", etc. Much easier to stereotype than to think.

          Yes, France and Britain were also hyper militaristic in the 19th century, far more than Germany, which of course wasn't united until the very end of that century, which meant that while some German states were quite active militarily in the period (Prussia) it didn't act as a "nation" as it did later in the 20th century.

          France lost most of the militarist ideology after two crushing defeats in the World Wars and post colonial failures. Britain maintained that outlook despite the World Wars but the wars devastated the economic ability and imperial reach which had sustained that view, despite the persistent Churchill worship. Thatcher's defense of the tiny Falklands was merely an almost comic echo of times past. Still, today in many British intellectual circles (if not in actually participating in the armed forces) military worship continues.

          Germany today has now lost most of its taste for war. Instead it leads Europe economically. Butter rather than guns.

          Pierce's essay highlights the sinister influence of Leo Strauss, something that libertarian historian-economist Murray Rothbard warned about several decades ago as well. As Godfather of the neocons, Strauss is the intellectual architect of today's bloodlust American political establishment. His being Jewish was the only thing which kept him from being a full fledged Hitlerite.

          So neocons, many themselves Jewish (though many not) are mere slightly less crazy fascists as were the interwar German nationalists who easily jumped into the Nazi bed when the cult of personality overwhelmed the German rightwing.

          There has long been a cult of war worship, going back to ancient times. The fact that warfare brings death and disease and horrible injury doesn't matter. The fact that it destroys wealth and human prosperity and harmony is ignored. Individuals are crushed to the greater "good" of arms against whatever enemy can be found. Sociopaths and psychopaths use militarism as the path to "greatness."

          That much of the American "right" is in the thrall of the pseudo fascist neocon ideology of Straussian war worship as the path to "security" and "national greatness" should be the red blinking "danger-danger!" light for every thinking American.

          Thanks Mr. Pierce.

        16. Steve Naidamast

          March 28, 2015 at 3:07 pm

          I have not thoroughly read this article but will do so after I print it out.

          However I would like to add that though there were quite a few people in 190s Germany that were proponents of warfare there is a slow but increasing amount of research that is beginning to show that Adolph Hitler was not the war-monger western historians have made him out to be. In addition, after the advent of war in 1939, up through 1941, Hitler was making peace overtures to the west, which Britain continuously ignored and rejected.

          This too was done up through 1915 by Germany in World War I, which Britain also
          ignored.

          As recent research is beginning to show, it was not Germany who was itching for
          war in 1939 but in fact Britain and Poland. And war is what they eventually got and
          very much to Britain's and Poland's demise as the former lost her empire and the latter was
          swallowed up by Soviet Russia.

        17. Coleen Rowley

          March 28, 2015 at 6:26 pm

          Great article showing how history repeats! But most of your points, with the exception of Boehner's invitation to Netanyahu to speak to Congress and more Democrats than Republicans backing Obama's negotiation strategy with Iran, apply as much to the Democrat as Republican Party leadership. I think I even read where Robert Kagan may back Hillary Clinton whilst his fellow PNAC founder William Kristol will back Bush or whatever Republican wins the nomination. The neocon ideology seems to be fully in control of both parties.

          • Bob Van Noy

            March 29, 2015 at 12:09 pm

            Thank you Coleen for your comment. I share your concern that a Clinton/Bush race will be one in the same. I'm desperately hoping we get neither as candidates because it will mean "business as usual".

        18. hisoricus

          March 28, 2015 at 8:29 pm

          One of the most startling things I've found in reading "Nazi propaganda" is their dead-on accurate prediction of America's coming role as a primary threat to world peace, in its rulers' quest for total global domination. The United States was routinely mocked in the German press as the phony "democracy of dollars" controlled by the plutocrats of Wall Street – gosh, how'd they ever get a wacky idea like that, huh?

          Hitler clearly stated in Mein Kampf "we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

          Hitler attempted to rapidly build Germany into a global power that would be capable of fending off the twin threats of capitalist imperialism from the west and totalitarian communism from the east – but these forces were too strong: the "new Germany" never had a chance of survival. Eighty million Germans faced a billion-strong British empire that was determined to destroy all economic rivals, and had centuries of experience in mass murder and destruction in the Third World. Add to this the 320 million people of a communist USSR and a capitalist USA whose elites could agree on only one thing, that Germany's astoundingly successful experiment in national socialism must first be annihilated and then its true character erased from history.

          Today the German government's cruel treatment of Jews – who made up one half of one percent of Germany's population, by the way – is all that most people know of National Socialism, which is rather like remembering America's Founders only as the brutal slaveholders and Indian killers that they were.

          Ask yourself: how is it evenly remotely possible that the second German war could be the only time in our history that our leaders did not lie to us about why we were supposed to hate and butcher a people who had done us no harm?

          • Monster from the Id

            March 28, 2015 at 9:44 pm

            Hoooo boy, the delusion is strong in this one…

        19. richard vajs

          March 29, 2015 at 8:54 am

          One good thing about the "coming together" of the fascist Republican Party and the fascist Israeli Likud Party – it will make for a unified target. As I've heard military drill instructors advise, "You people need to spread out – one hand grenade would get you all!". I look forward to no separation between the two and the tossing of that grenade.

          • Coleen Rowley

            March 29, 2015 at 10:34 am

            First I need to make clear I'm against bombing. Anyone. I'm in the "war is not the answer; war is a crime; war is waste; war is a lie; war is hell camp. I think individuals are justified in valid "self defense" but not the nation-state or ethnic-religious type tribalism that Carl Schmitt apparently referred to as the "political" groupings that justify and benefit from "pre-emptive" wars of aggression. It IS a slippery slope but still we must stick to principles.

            But with that said, the Likud-inspired AIPAC and other Israeli fronts were very much aware of your drill sergeant's advice, Richard. The Israel lobbyists were highly effective in the past, in contrast to other political lobbies (who generally favored one party or the other), simply because they did "spread out" and were able to infiltrate both Republican and Democratic parties (as well as their corresponding "think tanks") so as to better control the whole US government.

            The Boehner invite of Netanyahu, Republican Militarist Senator Cotton's letter and the exposing of AIPAC's forcing of Democratic congresspersons to now oppose their own Party Leader, Obama, in order to launch war on Iran, could be significant in ending that control of both parties by splitting the parties. Bush's former UN Ambassador and top neocon John Bolton's outright and explicit call for bombing Iran in the NYT helps pull off the mask and expose what the neocons are after. Middle of the road Democratic congresspeople, almost all of whom are normally are hard-pressed to not vote and give AIPAC anything it wants, may find it easier to publically explain how they cannot in good conscience vote this one time, for the Israel Lobby and what the terrible new war it wants.

            And my guess is the reason Kristol and Kagan would be splitting their support, if that does materialize, Kristol for Bush and Kagan for Clinton, would be exactly in line with your old drill sergeant's advice.

        20. Solon

          March 29, 2015 at 10:26 pm

          re: "Avnery's analogy of how Congress responded to its de facto leader was apt"

          The analogy could not be less apt.

          The German leaders were in their own nation, addressing the concerns of their own people, concerns including the debasement of their culture, the debasement of their money, high unemployment, challenges in finding food, riots and mob violence incited by Communist and Bolshevic subversives, and chaos in their political system. Promises were made to the German people by their leaders to solve their problems, a plan was laid out and most of the promises were kept: within 4 years, Germans were employed, the economy was revitalized with public works spending, and the people's morale was unified around German cultural values. Several of their international problems were settled without violence, as the people demanded and the NSDAP government promised.

          On the other hand, the leader of a foreign state stood before a representative body in which only 16% of the people have any confidence. He told this body that their leader should not be trusted, and they cheered.
          The representatives of the people pledged their fealty to this leader of a foreign state and promised to send him more taxpayer money to kill more of the people whose lands and homes the foreign state is stealing. None of the concerns of the American people - for jobs, for relief from high food prices, for adequate treatment of 50,000 military persons wounded in wars fought at the behest of the same foreign leader - none of those concerns were addressed by the cheering crowd.

          This author suffers from Hitler Derangement Syndrome: his thinking is so suffused with the relentlessly propagandized notion that Hitler and NSDAP are the embodiment of evil that his analysis is forced and his judgments flawed.

          An assessment of the full panoply of facts and evidence will reveal that it was not Hitler and NSDAP but the forebears of the same man who sought to - and came pretty close to succeeding in subverting the US political system.

          The German people under NSDAP leadership were reclaiming their government and culture, and for that they cheered.

          Their resistance to the ideology that Strauss and his cohort sought to impose on Germans was an affront to the pro to-neocons, and so they organized with warmongering British and manipulative American leaders to destroy Germany and incinerate the German people in what C E Hughes called the first use of weapons of mass destruction as a means of terror against a civilian population.

        21. zhu bajie

          March 30, 2015 at 1:23 am

          The comparison is interesting, but it a comparison between Japanese Militarism and the US permanent war regime would also be enlightening. Neither the US nor Japan have or had a charismatic orator, a Mussolini or a Hitler.

        22. zhu bajie

          March 30, 2015 at 1:58 am

          Re "exceptiohnalism," Lewis' _The American Adam_ should be read. The idea that Americans can do no wrong has been around since the early days of the Republic.

        23. Paul E. "Marbux" Merrell, J.D.

          March 30, 2015 at 12:06 pm

          Re: "It was left to Israeli Uri Avnery to best capture the spirit of Netanyahu's enthusiastic ideological supporters in Congress."

          I disagree with that sentence, albeit it's a judgment call. But I don't think Avnery is even in the running. The best capture of that I've seen is Noy Alooshe's masterful video remix of the event itself. .

        24. hbm

          March 31, 2015 at 3:06 am

          You don't get Nazis without Ashkenazis.

          Why should Neocons be at all surprising?

        25. Rob

          April 2, 2015 at 10:58 am

          I enjoyed the article, but I cannot agree that Netanyahu is the de facto leader of the Republican Party. Rather, he is a prop in the ongoing drama known as "Republicans doing everything in their power to oppose and embarrass President Obama and the Democrats."

          I have long advocated that those public figures who agitate for war should be sent into the battlefield along with all able bodied members of their families. That would quickly put an end to chicken hawk warmongers. The exception would be Charles Krauthammer, who is paralyzed in his lower extremities. That man should be sent into battle in his wheelchair.

        [Apr 28, 2015] Ten Years Later, What Paul Wolfowitz 'Owes to the Country' by James Fallows

        The Atlantic

        Andrew Bacevich has a wonderful essay, in the form of an open letter to Paul Wolfowitz, in the current Harper's. You have to subscribe to read it -- but, hey, you should be subscribing to any publication whose work you value. This essay isolates the particular role Wolfowitz had in the cast of characters that led us to war. As a reminder, they included:

        • Dick Cheney, who was becoming a comic-book churl by this stage of his public life;
        • Colin Powell, the loyal soldier, staffer, and diplomat whose "Powell Doctrine" and entire life's work stood in opposition to the kind of war that he, with misguided loyalty, was to play so central a role in selling;
        • Tony Blair, the crucial ally who added rhetorical polish and international resolve to the case for war;
        • Donald Rumsfeld, with his breezy contempt for those who said the effort would be difficult or long;
        • Paul Bremer, whose sudden, thoughtless dismantling of the Iraqi army proved so disastrous;
        • Condoleezza Rice, miscast in her role as White House national-security advisor;
        • George Tenet, the long-time staffer who cooperated with the "slam-dunk!" intelligence assessment despite serious disagreement within the CIA;
        • and of course George W. Bush himself, whose combination of limited knowledge and strong desire to be "decisive" made him so vulnerable to the argument that the "real" response to the 9/11 attacks should be invading a country that had nothing to do with them.

        But Paul Wolfowitz was in a category of his own because he was the one who provided the highest-concept rationale for the war. As James Galbraith of the University of Texas has put it, "Wolfowitz is the real-life version of Halberstam's caricature of McNamara" [in The Best and the Brightest].

        Bacevich's version of this assessment is to lay out as respectfully as possible the strategic duty that Wolfowitz thought the U.S. would fulfill by invading Iraq. Back before the war began, I did a much more limited version of this assessment as an Atlantic article. As Bacevich puts it now, Wolfowitz was extending precepts from his one-time mentor, Albert Wohlstetter, toward a model of how the United States could maximize stability for itself and others.

        As with the best argumentative essays, Bacevich takes on Wolfowitz in a strong rather than an oversimplified version of his world-view. You have to read the whole thing to get the effect, but here is a brief sample (within fair-use limits):

        With the passing of the Cold War, global hegemony seemed America's for the taking. What others saw as an option you, Paul, saw as something much more: an obligation that the nation needed to seize, for its own good as well as for the world's....

        Although none of the hijackers were Iraqi, within days of 9/11 you were promoting military action against Iraq. Critics have chalked this up to your supposed obsession with Saddam. The criticism is misplaced. The scale of your ambitions was vastly greater.

        In an instant, you grasped that the attacks provided a fresh opportunity to implement Wohlstetter's Precepts, and Iraq offered a made-to-order venue....In Iraq the United States would demonstrate the efficacy of preventive war.... The urgency of invading Iraq stemmed from the need to validate that doctrine before the window of opportunity closed.

        Bacevich explains much more about the Wohlstetter / Wolfowitz grand view. And then he poses the challenge that he says Wolfowitz should now meet:
        One of the questions emerging from the Iraq debacle must be this one: Why did liberation at gunpoint yield results that differed so radically from what the war's advocates had expected? Or, to sharpen the point, How did preventive war undertaken by ostensibly the strongest military in history produce a cataclysm?

        Not one of your colleagues from the Bush Administration possesses the necessary combination of honesty, courage, and wit to answer these questions. If you don't believe me, please sample the tediously self-exculpatory memoirs penned by (or on behalf of) Bush himself, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet, Bremer, Feith, and a small squad of eminently forgettable generals...

        What would Albert [Wohlstetter] do? I never met the man (he died in 1997), but my guess is that he wouldn't flinch from taking on these questions, even if the answers threatened to contradict his own long-held beliefs. Neither should you, Paul. To be sure, whatever you might choose to say, you'll be vilified, as Robert McNamara was vilified when he broke his long silence and admitted that he'd been "wrong, terribly wrong" about Vietnam. But help us learn the lessons of Iraq so that we might extract from it something of value in return for all the sacrifices made there. Forgive me for saying so, but you owe it to your country.

        Anyone who knows Andrew Bacevich's story will understand the edge behind his final sentence. But you don't have to know that to respect the challenge he lays down. I hope Paul Wolfowitz will at some point rise to it.

        For another very valuable assessment of who was right and wrong, when, please see John Judis's piece in The New Republic.

        [Apr 26, 2015] Interventionism Kills: Post-Coup Ukraine One Year Later by Ron Paul

        February 22, 2015 | ronpaulinstitute.org

        It was one year ago last weekend that a violent coup overthrew the legally elected government of Ukraine. That coup was not only supported by US and EU governments -- much of it was actually planned by them. Looking back at the events that led to the overthrow it is clear that without foreign intervention Ukraine would not be in its current, seemingly hopeless situation.

        By the end of 2013, Ukraine's economy was in ruins. The government was desperate for an economic bailout and then-president Yanukovych first looked west to the US and EU before deciding to accept an offer of help from Russia. Residents of south and east Ukraine, who largely speak Russian and trade extensively with Russia were pleased with the decision. West Ukrainians who identify with Poland and Europe began to protest. Ukraine is a deeply divided country and the president came from the eastern region.

        At this point the conflict was just another chapter in Ukraine's difficult post-Soviet history. There was bound to be some discontent over the decision, but if there had been no foreign intervention in support of the protests you would likely not be reading this column today. The problem may well have solved itself in due time rather than escalated into a full-out civil war. But the interventionists in the US and EU won out again, and their interventionist project has been a disaster.

        The protests at the end of 2013 grew more dramatic and violent and soon a steady stream of US and EU politicians were openly participating, as protesters called for the overthrow of the Ukrainian government. Senator John McCain made several visits to Kiev and even addressed the crowd to encourage them.

        Imagine if a foreign leader like Putin or Assad came to Washington to encourage protesters to overthrow the Obama Administration!

        As we soon found out from a leaked telephone call, the US ambassador in Kiev and Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, were making detailed plans for a new government in Kiev after the legal government was overthrown with their assistance.

        The protests continued to grow but finally on February 20th of last year a European delegation brokered a compromise that included early elections and several other concessions from Yanukovych. It appeared disaster had been averted, but suddenly that night some of the most violent groups, which had been close to the US, carried out the coup and Yanukovych fled the country.

        When the east refused to recognize the new government as legitimate and held a referendum to secede from the west, Kiev sent in tanks to force them to submit. Rather than accept the will of those seeking independence from what they viewed as an illegitimate government put in place by foreigners, the Obama administration decided to blame it all on the Russians and began imposing sanctions!

        That war launched by Kiev has lasted until the present, with a ceasefire this month brokered by the Germans and French finally offering some hope for an end to the killing. More than 5,000 have been killed and many of those were civilians bombed in their cities by Kiev.

        What if John McCain had stayed home and worried about his constituents in Arizona instead of non-constituents 6,000 miles away? What if the other US and EU politicians had done the same? What if Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt had focused on actual diplomacy instead of regime change?

        If they had done so, there is a good chance many if not all of those who have been killed in the violence would still be alive today. Interventionism kills.


        Copyright © 2015 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

        [Apr 26, 2015] Who You Gonna Believe – NATO, or Your Lyin' Eyes?

        marknesop.wordpress.com
        My father always told me that what's wrong with lying is that it's an admission of weakness. If you're the strongest, you can afford to tell the truth.

        K.J. Parker

        The western media is abuzz with a new term that seems to be on the lips of every State Department staffer, every western journalist, every compliant NATO puppet and cheerleader abroad, and of course in Kiev, ground zero for Russian hatred on the planet. Hybrid Warfare. This, we are told, is how Russia is managing the battle in the east of Ukraine so that the Ukrainian capital – despite its highly professional, well-equipped and motivated army – cannot work its will on the easterners and bring them to heel as productive and happy contributors to a new European Union state and aspirant to NATO membership.

        It must strike the thinkers among the greater public – and there are some – that "hybrid warfare" is an awfully convenient term which allows the west to prance about and yell that Russia is in the war up to its eyes…without ever having to offer any proof. What? Of course we don't have any pictures, you dolt: it's hybrid warfare, ever hear of it? Well, then – pay attention to current events, try and keep up, and don't be such a Kremlin apologist.

        The big-forehead types do not tell us how Russia can be foiling the Forces of Love and Understanding in Kiev so that they cannot crush the east – through hybrid warfare, naturally, in which their troops remain invisible – but does not take advantage of pivotal decisive defeats like Ilovaisk and Debaltseve to push the eastern salient to the doorstep of Kiev itself. God knows a flock of armored budgies would be as effective at stopping them as the Ukrainian army if they chose to commit their allegedly limitless Russian reserves, and you would think an invisible army would be quite a useful asset. Yet for some reason they choose to fight only when attacked. It would probably not require much of a strategic imagination to proffer a solution whereby the Ukrainian army stopped attacking, and it seems reasonable to conclude that this would result in fewer deaths.

        Now, I had a point when I came in here….Oh, yes. Hybrid warfare. This concept was discussed at length in a clip one of the readers posted (thanks, Warren), which is a recording of a presentation at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington. It is moderated by Paul Schwartz, a Senior Associate in the organization's Russia and Eurasia Program. Mr. Schwartz is well-known in Washington circles, having been employed at various high-level IT positions in the Defense Department, including the F-22 program, and an attorney with international law firm Hogan & Hartson. His guest needs no introduction – co-author of the Clark-Karber Report, purveyor of fake photos of advancing Russian tank columns to the Senate Armed Services Committee and author of research on China's nuclear weapons capability in 2011 that has been referred to alternately as a "goat rodeo" and "lazy and incompetent" which was apparently traced to an article plagiarized by a student from a single posting on a Usenet forum in 1995. Continue reading →

        Warren, April 26, 2015 at 4:35 pm

        kirill, April 26, 2015 at 5:07 pm
        What a retard this Applebaum is. Ok, pinhead, why did Obama call Russia the biggest threat to the USA and the world after ISIS and ebola?

        [Apr 22, 2015] M of A - Ukraine Both Sides Touched By NATO Related Murder Of The Other Side

        Apr 22, 2015 | moonofalabama.org

        The Washington Post's Michael Birnbaum invented a new funny way to equalized victims and perpetrators of serious crimes:

        MOSCOW - A pro-Russian Ukrainian journalist was gunned down in Kiev on Thursday, authorities said, a day after a Ukrainian politician supporting Moscow was found dead.

        The killing of Oles Buzyna, 45, raised fears of a new wave of back-and-forth violence in the streets of Ukraine after a string of unsolved deaths that has touched both sides of the conflict between Ukraine's Western-allied government and pro-Moscow separatists.

        Indeed the "unsolved deaths" "touched both sides" with eleven people on one side getting murdered while the other side covered up these murders as "suicides" and very likely also provided the killers.

        Eight politicians of the Party of Region of former president Yanukovich, ousted in a U.S. inspired coup, were killed as were three journalists un-sympathetic to the now ruling coup government.

        There is some curious connection between some of the recent killings and NATO. As RB at NiqNaq provides (recommended):

        On Apr 14, a profile of Oles' Buzina was added to https://psb4ukr.org/ site (where Ukrainian government encourages people to fink the authorities on the people suspected of separatism); on Apr 15, Oles' Buzina was killed near his home with 4 shots. I (my correspondent – RB) looked up the Web address where they posted Buzina's address, and found that it's hosted on a NATO server.

        The Niqnaq post provides details and screenshots demonstrating the connection to NATO. (A short take is also here.) I was myself researching the issue for MoA when I found that Niqnaq post and I can confirm the findings and add a bit.

        Two names and personal data of persons recently assassinated in Ukraine were posted on a "nationalist" website shortly before those persons were killed. That website, screenshot) screenshot), is headlined:

        "Peacemaker"

        RESEARCH CENTRE FEATURES OF CRIMES AGAINST UKRAINE'S NATIONAL SECURITY, PEACE, SECURITY AND HUMANITY international law
        Information for law enforcement authorities and special services about pro-Russian terrorists, separatists, mercenaries, war criminals, and murderers.

        Next to some news pieces the site carries a list for download with some 7,700 names of "saboteurs" and "terrorists".

        On a first view the name "psb4ukr.org" is anonymously registered through the U.S. company Wild West Domains.

        A "traceroute" command shows that Internet Protocol requests to the server "psb4ukr.org" end in a datacenter in Dallas, Texas at dallas-ipc.com and the IP number 208.115.243.222.

        A "nslookup" command with the input "psb4ukr.org" confirms in its output the registered IP Number to be "208.115.243.222" (screenshot).

        A reverse "nslookup" command with the input "208.115.243.222" provides the output "psb4ukr.nato.int". (screenshot).

        "nato.int" is the Internet domain namespace registered and reserved for NATO. Why is a server for a website which is hunting for dissidents in Ukraine - some of whom have been killed - registered within the NATO Internet namespace?

        After some additional research we find that the non-anonymous registration to "psb4ukr.org" is to one Vladimir Kolesnikov, 98 Lenin St, Velyka Oleksandrivka, Kyiv Oblast, Ukraine.

        Further searching for Vladimir Kolesnikov we find that Mr. Kolesnikov has registered several other websites through Limestone Networks, Inc in Dallas, Texas.

        Some of these website seem to be concerned with crypto payment, teletraining and unrelated stuff. Some others are related to the nasty "nationalist" side of the Ukraine conflict. Operativ.info asks for tip offs about "saboteurs" and "terrorists" and their operations while informnapalm.org is a general "nationalist" news collection.

        There is no hint of any NATO-relation in these other sides. A reverse nslookup like the one that shows a relation like between "psb4ukr.org" and "psb4ukr.nato.int" does not deliver such results for the other website registered to Mr. Kolesnikov.

        One possible explanation for the "psb4ukr.nato.int" lookup result might be that the website was originally build or tested within the NATO namespace and later transferred outside without cleaning up some of the original name references.

        Posted by b on April 17, 2015 at 03:06 PM | Permalink

        james | Apr 17, 2015 5:45:27 PM | 1

        thanks b.. any connection to nato is really riveting if true.. the fact all the people murdered are opposed to the present gang in kiev speaks volumes as well.. i hope some western msm will pick some of this up, but i highly doubt it.. it will be more bs like the wapo is famous for.. spewing propaganda 24/7, these media outlets make the prvada of previous times look like amateurs..

        jfl | Apr 17, 2015 6:33:22 PM | 2

        Excellent work, b. It is true that the MSM sill never publish anything like this ... but it is also true that the 'market' for news has been bifurcated at this point : those who want to know the truth are engaged in the search for it on their own and those who definitely do NOT want to know the truth are reading, viewing the MSM.

        Attending to the MSM has become an act of complicity with the crimes of the empire in itself.

        JerseyJeffersonian | Apr 17, 2015 6:43:55 PM | 3

        So, death squads on the menu?

        Ah, takes me back to those golden times in Iraq, El Salvador...

        Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 17, 2015 11:55:44 PM | 5

        I've come to appreciate the value of the "both sides" meme.

        It's a 24ct guarantee that USrael or one of their "good friends" has been caught perpetrating inexcusable atrocities, upon civilians, which need to be urgently diluted.

        The "Israelis" have turned it into an art form - an absolute necessity given that ALL the victims of the Shitty Little Country's insane anti-Palestinian hubris have been civilians.

        It's quite clever in a cowardly, sneaky, "Israeli" kind of way...

        Fete | Apr 18, 2015 12:41:56 AM | 604/17/2015 19:57

        Russian Spring

        Commenting an appeal of Donbass community to the guarantors of the Minsk agreements, Presidents of Russia and France, Vladimir Putin and François Hollande as well as Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, the Chairman of Peoples Council of Donetsk Republic Andrey Purgin assumed that today's Kiev moves toward Ukrainian Nazism.

        "Mass arrests and intimidation are common. Those who disagree to live with the Ukrainian ethnic nazism are prosecuted. The most active ones are incarcerated", asserted Purgin

        According to him, thousands are jailed for their political convictions.

        "Of course, there are calls to (international) community, to Merkel, Europe to interfer. Unfortunately, those live in framework of different (double) standards and are not going to do anything. Instead, they call to yield to Ukraine, where arrests and burning houses are taking place", added Purgin.

        @b

        Why is a server for a website which is hunting for dissidents in Ukraine - some of whom have been killed - registered within the NATO Internet namespace?

        Russian Defense Minister summed it up very well, at Moscow's annual security conference.

        "The United States and its allies have crossed all possible lines in their drive to bring Kiev into their orbit..."

        http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/16/us-ukraine-crisis-russia-idUSKBN0N70W820150416

        Lone Wolf | Apr 18, 2015 2:05:47 AM | 7

        JerseyJeffersonian@3 is right on target reminding us of the infamous "Death Squads" in El Salvador and Iraq. Targeting of opposition figures by parallel security forces killing not-so anonymously, is an integral part of any regime hell-bent on imposing by force a quasi-fascist form of government.

        The purpose is to inflict terror on a massive scale, a psychological war that aims at paralyzing others from opposing the regime. It is the ABC of any counterinsurgency manual, and it clearly shows the hand of the CIA behind the systematic killing of Yanukovich allies, perceived or real pro-Russian individuals/organizations/regional or city governments, as it happened recently in Kharkov, and a couple of days ago in Odessa.

        This is lustration on a higher level, not just firing from government posts all of those considered "opposition," not enough for the Ukrainian neo-nazis, they have to be physically eliminated. As bastard children of nazi ideologues, they have to follow their German masters in their "purification" of society (lustration from Latin = purification), cleansing it from any elements that could endanger the "purity" of their new fascist dystopia.

        The WaPo, a mouthpiece of Neoconland/Deep State, is an accomplice to murder not only in Ukraine, and has played a crucial role white-washing the crimes of the criminal Kiev junta from day one. Shame on you, Michael Birnbaum, you're justifying the slaughter of innocents just to keep a miserable job writing horseshit, and killing them a second time with your blatant lies.

        CTuttle | Apr 18, 2015 2:23:51 AM | 8

        Aloha, b...! Salon has a great interview with Stephen Cohen... The New York Times "basically rewrites whatever the Kiev authorities say": Stephen F. Cohen on the U.S./Russia/Ukraine history the media won't tell you

        And here's a great article from Jeff Kaye... CIA Intervention in Ukraine Has Been Taking Place for Decades

        james @1
        i hope some western msm will pick some of this up, but i highly doubt it.

        The western msm have picked up on it but to claim that an anti-Kiev oligarch who funded the Party of Regions is killing them off to cover his tracks over that funding.

        Posted by: blowback | Apr 18, 2015 8:41:03 AM | 10

        An organisation called the 'Ukrainian Insurgent Army' has claimed responsibility for the murders of Chechetov, Peklushenko, Miller, Kalashnikov and Buzina.

        https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.en/http/antifashist.com/item/ukrainskaya-povstancheskaya-armiya-vzyala-na-sebya-otvetstvennost-za-rasstrel-buziny-i-kalashnikova.html

        Posted by: Yonatan | Apr 18, 2015 9:29:19 AM | 11

        CTuttle at 8 --

        I second your recommendation. I spotted some short extracts at Russia Insider, and I share their recommendation that you read the whole piece. Here's a small sample, .

        Q: In a historical perspective, do you consider Russia justified?

        Well, I can't think otherwise. I began warning of such a crisis more than 20 years ago, back in the '90s. I've been saying since February of last year [when Viktor Yanukovich was ousted in Kiev] that the 1990s is when everything went wrong between Russia and the United States and Europe. So you need at least that much history, 25 years. But, of course, it begins even earlier....

        Q: I take Kiev's characterization of its war in the eastern sections as an "anti-terrorist campaign" to be one of the most preposterous labels out there right now.

        But, then, why did Washington say OK to it? Washington has a say in this. Without Washington, Kiev would be in bankruptcy court and have no military at all. Why didn't Washington say, "Don't call it anti-terrorist?" Because if you call it "anti-terrorism" you can never have negotiations because you don't negotiate with terrorists, you just kill them, a murderous organization with murderous intent....

        So the United States has been deeply complicit in the destruction of these eastern cities and peoples....

        Ever since the Clinton administration, we've bleated on about the right to protect people who are victims of humanitarian crises. You've got a massive humanitarian crisis in eastern Ukraine.... Where is Samantha Power, the architect of "right to protect?" We have shut our eyes to a humanitarian crisis in which we are deeply complicit. This is what's shameful, whether you like or don't like Putin. It's got nothing to do with Putin. It has to do with the nature of American policy and the nature of Washington-and the nature of the American people, if they tolerate this.

        See also his comments on Yeltsin. Increasing ill and under the thumb of the oligarchs, he cozied up to Washington. Cohen reports that Medvedev, a number of years ago, advised that Zyuganov of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation had actually won the election that gave Yeltsin his final term.

        Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 18, 2015 11:04:39 AM | 12

        Terror in Odessa: mass arrests of protesters: 53 people reported detained at demonstration in support of local autonomy;

        New detentions of peaceful protesters in Odessa: 30 people reported detained at Odessa rally for cultural autonomy and a peaceful solution to the civil conflict: "The People's Council [of Bessarabia] is the grassroots, peaceful initiative."

        So far the People's Council of Bessarabia is looking like an effort to use what legal space seems to exist under current junta law to organize "within the system," while the Odessa People's Republic appears to be extralegal and separatist. But the reality is that there is no legal space within fascism for any opposition to organize:

        Ukrainian Neo-Nazi march in Odessa

        Posted by: Vintage Red | Apr 18, 2015 11:43:21 AM | 13

        jj, lw, bb at 3, 7 & 10 --

        Extrajudicial repression has been a staple of the ruling class since antiquity. See the murder of Tiberius Gracchus in the 2nd. cent. BC. But along with creating "insurgencies" (Nicaragua, Afghanistan) the Amercan Century has really made it one of its art forms. A sort of "Abstract Repressionism;" we're disinclined to think of the human cost, let alone accept responsibility for it.

        Fort Russ has this report that the "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) claimed responsibility for recent murders of regime opponents. Translator K. Rus says it could either be "the far right taking matters into their hands" or an attempt by the regime to distance itself, after posting the "wanted" notice.

        If you want some good fantasy fiction writing, I'd recommend the Kyiv Post's weirdly informative article, Murders of two journalists, ex-lawmaker spook Kyiv. It begins, "The atmosphere was spooky in Kyiv on April 16 as news broke about the murder of a third prominent person in four days." Quite lit'ry, weren't it? It's the Party of Regions, it's the Russian, it's a scheme to disrupt Victory Day.

        It goes on to some highly negative spin about Kalashnikov and Buzina, and finishes with short accounts of rash of "suicides" amongst regime opponents.

        Meanwhile, repression is spreading in Odessa. A mixed group of local Maidan activists, police, and PravSek militiamen detained protesters. They wanted a free trade zone and were unhappy with utility prices and pensions. A clear and present danger. Whereabouts presently unknown. -- VR at 13, just saw yrs. I'll have to ck'out the NeoNazi bit.

        It will be then no suprise that figures close to Poroshenko are arguing for mass internment and deportations for dissenters. The administration itself is advising on how to distort the Second World War for fun and profit. "Current defenders of Ukraine should be considered as successors of the winners over Nazism."

        All one can say is, how bizarre!

        Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 18, 2015 12:20:55 PM | 14

        VR -- well that was depressing. In part 'cause it lead me to what the link called "Drunk With Permissiveness: Nazis Execute Journalist Buzina, Promise New Bloodshed." The page itself is a little more mundane, Ukrainian Insurgent Army Claims Responsibility for Death of Reporter Buzina. It provides further details than the Fort Russ account above.

        It links the rise in violence to the recent proclamation of the collaborators as victors over their fascist patrons, taken as a green light for a bit of the ultra-violence. They promise "a ruthless insurgent battle against the traitors of the Ukrainian regime and Moscow henchmen..." They seem as good as their word. Too bad....

        Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 18, 2015 12:44:54 PM | 15

        Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?

        The Thomas a Becket school of oppo neutralization...

        Posted by: ǝn⇂ɔ | Apr 18, 2015 12:45:23 PM | 16

        Another intresting find..


        1. WHOIS dingbatter.com

        and you will get:

        Admin Name: Ophelia Dingbatter
        Admin Organization:
        Admin Street: Box B 646
        Admin City: Black Diamond
        Admin State/Province: Alberta
        Admin Postal Code: T0L 0H0
        Admin Country: Canada
        Admin Phone: +1.4039337890
        Admin Phone Ext:
        Admin Fax:
        Admin Fax Ext:
        Admin Email: [email protected]
        Registry Tech ID:

        2. Tech Name: Helmut Morscher

        Tech Organization: Webby Inc
        Tech Street: Box 646
        Tech City: Black Diamond
        Tech State/Province: Alberta
        Tech Postal Code: T0L 0H0
        Tech Country: Canada
        Tech Phone: +1.4039337890
        Tech Phone Ext:
        Tech Fax:
        Tech Fax Ext:
        Tech Email: [email protected]
        Name Server: NS.WEBBY.COM


        3.
        Google Helmut Morscher
        https://ca.linkedin.com/in/helmutmorscher

        "International Media Liaison
        Maidan Alliance"

        and
        "International issues advisor
        Maidan web-site"

        Posted by: Anonymous | Apr 18, 2015 12:48:32 PM | 17

        These incidents are so historically familiar. When reading your article b, I couldn't help thinking about Italy and the murders and terrorism that occurred through out the 1950's to 1980's. Incorrectly, many of our contemporaries believe that the Gladio which was created by NATO, the UK and the US is defunct. As revealed by Professor Daneile Ganser, Gladio is a live and well and operates globally. Yes, NATO is the culprit. Just as it was the instrumental culprit that was used as a tool in Kosovo for US interests. As for the monsters in Kiev, Reinhard Gehlen, one of the Nazi architects of the stay-behind-network would be proud.

        Posted by: A.E.W | Apr 18, 2015 1:01:36 PM | 18

        en1c at 15 -- Very droll! It's been renamed "plausible deniability" to suite modern sensibilities.

        vr at 13 -- I followed your link.

        Depressing, in part 'cause I followed this link there, "Drunk With Permissiveness: Nazis Execute Journalist Buzina, Promise New Bloodshed." It provides further details than the Fort Russ item cited at 14. Folks will have to find it on their own, I'm afraid. It wouldn't post my link from Sputnik -- though the link in the preview worked. Others have had that problem.

        "We are unfolding a ruthless insurgent battle against the traitors of the Ukrainian regime and Moscow henchmen...." They claim five murders, including Kalashnikov and Buzina. So they look to be as good as their word. Too bad.

        Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 18, 2015 1:07:53 PM | 19

        @18 Poroshenko will call it Russian propaganda. MSM will just ignore it.

        Posted by: dh | Apr 18, 2015 1:32:55 PM | 20

        Thank you for your links, CTuttle @ 8. I don't know Stephen Cohen very well, but I took a dislike to Katherine his wife way back when the Nation came out so strongly against Ralph Nader as a candidate, and seeing her on Charlie Rose didn't warm me to her either. There are some folk on the 'left' who need to come right out and admit they have been wrong to endorse anti-common-folk principles in the past, due to the damage they have caused by supporting the oligarchs.

        They are taking a page out of Putin's book: he was in government during the Yeltsin era when policies were strongly skewed to get along with US oligarchies and Russia's own. Putin has changed course, no two ways about it, and his people as a consequence love him. I just hope these folk will have the same intention - Katherine, you will have to stop sniping at Ralph if you want us to love you.

        Posted by: juliania | Apr 18, 2015 3:45:28 PM | 21

        The problem of Ukrainian nationalism is that they do not have "democratic template", heroes of the past were hetmans, otamans and fascists. To be patriotic, you have to be bloody minded. So patriots are murdering enemies of the people, and the West gives green light by giving aid and not raising stink. [disclamer: I do not despise patriotism, but like love and religion, it can motivate excesses including murder, mass murder, lies, mass lies and so on, emotional attachment can be a positive force, but as we know, it is not always the case. Below, "patriot" describes the self-assessment.]

        The Newsweek story http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/17/ukraine-plagued-succession-unlikely-suicides-former-ruling-party-320584.html that b found is extremely symptomatic. American patriots in the media are following the official clues how to cover stories from the confusing lands outside our borders. Apparently, in the case of Ukraine, one has to follow explanations of Ukrainian patriots. And the version plied in Newsweek was that an oligarch, Rinat Akhmetov, is ordering murders of his former confidants and benefactors to "remove witnesses", somehow failing to consider the following clues: murders are being covered up by the current authorities, the minister in charge of police is a fascist (according to Guardian, "there is only one fascist in Ukrainian cabinet"), and Akhmetov is not allied with the current authorities.

        Since 1945, members of UPA and related organizations were cooperating with CIA, so when American government want to find reliable familiar faces in Ukraine they will always start with "fascists". In the West (due to the limits of my education, that means USA and UK) one can see somewhat weird disputes if those people are really fascist. In Russia they get "fascist" label automatically, in Poland few would think that "banderowcy" label is any better than "fascist" (for parochial reason, as they murdered ca. 100,000 Poles).

        A mixed blessing is that Obama administration is liberal, which apparently translates into "moderate mayhem", contrasting with much more grandiose approach advocated by GOP and neocons (who can be Democrats and Republicans).

        Posted by: Piotr Berman | Apr 18, 2015 4:45:25 PM | 22

        From article I wrote in 2010:

        In 1976, journalist Peter Watson was at a NATO conference in Oslo, when a U.S. Navy psychologist, Dr. Thomas Narut, from the U.S. Naval Hospital in Naples told Watson and New Jersey psychologist Dr. Alfred Zitani, that the Navy sought men to train as assassins in overseas embassies. The following is from the London Sunday Times, "The soldiers who become killers," September 8, 1974, but reproduced from a conspiracy site, as the original, and most references to it, plentiful even when I first read about it some years ago, are limited now to a few dozen conspiracy sites. The story is also told at some length in Watson's book (out of print), War on the Mind: The Military Uses and Abuses of Psychology, published by Basic Books in 1978.
        [Narut's] naval work involved establishing how to induce servicemen who ma[y] not be naturally inclined to kill, to do so under certain conditions. When pressed afterwards as to what was meant by "combat readiness units," he explained this included men for commando-type operations and – so he said – for insertion into U.S. embassies under cover, ready to kill in those countries should the need arise. Dr. Narut used the word "hitmen" and "assassin" of these men.

        The method, according to Dr. Narut, was to show films specially designed to show people being killed and injured in violent ways. By being acclimated through these films, the men eventually became able to dissociate any feelings from such a situation. Dr. Narut also added that U.S. Naval psychologists specially selected men for these commando tasks, from submarine crews, paratroops, and some were convicted murderers from military prisons. Asked whether he was suggesting that murderers were being released from prisons to become assassins, he replied: "It's happened more than once."

        http://pubrecord.org/law/8527/assassination-court-argues-legal/

        Posted by: Jeffrey Kaye | Apr 18, 2015 5:23:49 PM | 23

        Or how about this:

        "For the first time, U.S. officials acknowledge that in 1965 they systematically compiled comprehensive lists of Communist operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres. As many as 5,000 names were furnished to the Indonesian army, and the Americans later checked off the names of those who had been killed or captured, according to the U.S. officials," Kathy Kadane wrote for South Carolina's Herald-Journal on May 19, 1990. [Kadane's article also appeared in the San Francisco Examiner on May 20, 1990, the Washington Post on May 21, 1990, and the Boston Globe on May 23, 1990.]

        The Indonesian mass murder program was based in part on experiences gleaned by the CIA in the Philippines. "US military advisers of the Joint US Military Advisory Group (JUSMAG) and the CIA station in Manila designed and led the bloody suppression of the nationalist Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan," notes Roland G. Simbulan (Covert Operations and the CIA's Hidden History in the Philippines).

        http://www.infowars.com/cia-assassination-program-revealed-nothing-new-under-the-sun/

        Posted by: Jeffrey Kaye | Apr 18, 2015 5:31:45 PM | 24

        @PB #21:

        In the West (due to the limits of my education, that means USA and UK) one can see somewhat weird disputes if those people are really fascist. In Russia they get "fascist" label automatically, in Poland few would think that "banderowcy" label is any better than "fascist"

        One often hears Novorossiyans and Russians saying that the present Banderites are actually worse than the German Nazis were. I concur with that view.

        As for American attitudes to Ukie fascism, that's not hard to understand. All you have to think about is the US training death squads in Central America. Fascist thugs are a tool of US foreign policy, in the same way that Islamist terrorists are. This is now a commonplace in the progressive blogosphere.

        A mixed blessing is that Obama administration is liberal, which apparently translates into "moderate mayhem"

        I recently ran across an interview witb a Ukrainian political scientist who had to flee to Moscow, in which he said that Europeans are finally cottoning on to the true nature of the Kiev regime, so the US no longer has any reason to restrain the fascists. Hence the recent slew of assassinations and terror. (Sorry, I'm too lazy to dig up the link.)

        Posted by: Demian | Apr 18, 2015 7:29:07 PM | 25

        @24 You are probably thinking of this...

        http://thesaker.is/rostislav-ishchenko-about-the-assassination-of-oles-buzina/

        Poles know what's going on too.

        http://newcoldwar.org/top-polish-military-advisor-completely-withdraws-his-support-of-ukraine-govt/

        Posted by: dh | Apr 18, 2015 7:51:36 PM | 26

        @dh #25:

        Hey, thanks, man. I forgot it was a video. I just remembered it being in Russian, which confused me. Well worth watching, IMO. Americans have no idea of what Russians think.

        To repeat myself, the prevailing Russian view (and with the Internet, the collapse of communism, and Putin's revival of Russia, I think that pretty much all Russians are on the same page except for the 10% or less of the Russians who are "liberals") seems to be that the EU was totally eager to make Ukraine an economic colony of the West, but unlike the US, it does not want war in Ukraine. So the views of the US and the EU on the Ukraine diverge significantly, although net everyone here thinks that. (Of course, Russian policy towards the Ukraine since the coup has been largely predicated on that.)

        And thanks for the second link.

        His change of view is prompted by the law passed by the Ukrainian Parliament on April 9 glorifying World War.
        It was pretty predictable that this would happen eventually. And then it turns out that Poles are saying what Russians have been saying since last May:
        Their savagery was beyond human imagination. Nazi Germany did not come up with what those Ukrainians were doing
        The American public has no idea of this. (In Europe, it's probably only England and the pesky Balts.)

        Posted by: Demian | Apr 18, 2015 9:28:56 PM | 27

        "Poles know what's going on" ... it is more complex than that. The government and more established media took very pro-American and anti-Russian perspective. The main opposition party build its current set of slogans around anti-Russian paranoia. That said, in Communist times the issue of the massacres of Poles in Volhynia and other regions with mixed population was almost hidden by the authorities, but now it is common knowledge, and after the law acknowledging the perpetrator as heroes the critique of the government is increasingly mainstream.

        In particular, the U-turn of Gen. Skrzypczak is related to perceived "slap in the face". Polish president made a speech to Ukrainian parliament with very warm support, and the law that is extremely irritating to Poles was passed "few hours later", and that was duly noted by leftist opposition in the Parliament. That is not insignificant, because there are good chances that the ruling party will be forced into a coalition with those people.

        As nationalists go, Ukrainian ones seem worse than most. The last election were preceded with massive nationwide intimidation campaign and few little massacres. The really have a cult of force and violence, which is reflected in putting boxers in the parliament, and -- surprise, surprise -- getting fist fights in that parliament. The lie compulsively -- recall American senators who got photos taken in Georgia as the proof of Russian columns in Ukraine (see http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Franz_Roubaud._Count_Argutinsky_crossing_the_Caucasian_range._1892.jpg ). They seem to care nothing about the economy, instead, they want to eliminate Communism and Russian language. Poor Ukrainian people seemed to have the choice of hopelessly corrupt and hopelessly insane, so kicking out the previous corrupt lot is not as much of an improvement as Western liberals (and the Russian emigrants who are cited in the mainstream media) perceive.

        Posted by: Piotr Berman | Apr 18, 2015 9:37:20 PM | 28

        @27 Well I should have said 'some' Poles know what's going on. No doubt there is a range of opinion in Poland.

        The BBC mentioned the killings albeit with an anti-Russian spin..

        http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32361718

        Not to worry. Poroshenko has promised a full and thorough investigation.

        Posted by: dh | Apr 18, 2015 9:47:11 PM | 29

        @rufus magister@14

        All one can say is, how bizarre!

        Yup, it's a bizarro world out there. It's a total land of confusion

        Posted by: Lone Wolf | Apr 18, 2015 10:40:38 PM | 30

        dh @25

        Thanks for the link to the Polish military adviser. Links like that, where a guy with impeccable 'pro-West' credentials says the right things about Ukraine, can be used to persuade our 'normal, conventional' friends.

        LET'S DO IT.

        Posted by: fairleft | Apr 19, 2015 12:41:23 AM | 31

        Warmongering by one fucking American NATO commander Lt. Gen. Frederick Ben Hodges , an interview across the western compliant media:

        Europe faces a 'real threat' from Russia, warns US army commander

        Posted by: Oui | Apr 19, 2015 5:57:29 AM | 32

        More, Europe has two enemies Russia and ISIS …

        European Union Army Plan Aims to Protect Continent from Russia, ISIS

        Posted by: Oui | Apr 19, 2015 5:57:59 AM | 33

        About European Union Army: there is a whiff of hilarity there. On one hand, the dangers from ISIS and Russia are both quite remote, so they are not treated seriously. The force being pencilled is about as large as the part of Ukrainian army that was encircled in Debaltsevo (should there be a Wiki entry "Debaltsevo debacle"?). Of course, it makes some sense of practicing coordination of national units so it is not a moronic project, but a very smallish project with very outsized among of debates, announcements, analysis and so on.

        While Europe has few problems defending itself against some putative onslaught, "projecting force" is another matter. The French can do it in Chad, Mali etc., but how large a European Corps should be to make a difference in conflicts between local nationalists of Georgia and Ukraine with Russian-supported internal opponents? It is like trying to defend Paraguay against the forces of Triple Alliance: we could promise economic sanctions on Argentina, Brasil and Uruguay would they invade Paraguay again, but above all, we would urge Paraguay not to pick fights with the neighbors. (Incidentally, currently Paraguay has a "pro-Western" government, and the three former opponents, "anti-Western", so it is a good case study for comparisons.)

        Posted by: Piotr Berman | Apr 19, 2015 9:05:36 AM | 34

        side board

        On : Eight politicians of the Party of Region of former president Yanukovich, ousted in a U.S. inspired coup, were killed as were three journalists un-sympathetic to the now ruling coup government.

        http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/04/16/the-murderers-of-kiev/

        I suspect there are many names of murdered unknown, unlisted.

        Political 'covert' or open, blatant assassinations are unfortunately normal in such situations. Tallying them is arduous, because the murderous impulse is reflected right down into the street, it is not just a State - Power - Corp enterprise.

        Viktor, 33, son of Viktor Yanukovych died in March 2015, in an accident on Lake Baikal. His vehicle, with 6 on board, went through the ice, 5 survived, he died. He was the driver.

        one garbled article, the telegraph

        http://tinyurl.com/ly8csrl

        I'm not advocating he should be added to that list. Abandonment (one article suggested that all scrambled to save themselves thus leaving Viktor with no help..) is part of that…

        Just to say, that lists like this are dodgy and depend on the MSM, snippets from blogs and the like. Viktor Junior might easily have been included, his death is exremely suspicious, etc. Or it might be considered a typical rich son demise due to hubris, stupidity, assumed invicibility forging ahead in a risky 'sport.'

        Posted by: Noirette | Apr 19, 2015 1:05:25 PM | 35

        Lone Wolf at 29 -- "Land of Confusion" is a good call, suits the time now better than it did before. Unfortunately the vid you linked to was not available in my loc. But I happen to have it in my browser history, for anyone that missed their daily dose (or yearly allotment) of Genesis. And let me throw in my favorite early Peter Gabriel track, Here Comes the Flood. The problems of global warming give it a different meaning now than in 80's. Best live version, IMHO. "It'll be those who gave their island to survive...."

        Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 19, 2015 6:07:59 PM | 36

        @rm 35:

        Thanks for the link. I couldn't figure out what the song was from the title. Sorry, but Phil Collins' voice always reminds me of Miami Vice.

        Speaking of people in music videos with fat faces, consider this (which I have probably posted here before):

        Rammstein: America

        I don't think that there's much doubt that the Apollo program was America's pinnacle. (As is the case with other great human achievements, it took a German to make it happen.) Compared to when America made it to the moon, the country is now absolutely pitiful and pathetic, and I think everyone understands that on one level or another.

        I read up on the Apollo program at Wikipedia recently. It really was a mind boggling achievement. Think of the self-confidence those scientists and engineers must have had to work out such a project, when no one had any experience of being in space. No wonder there is a conspiracy theory that it was all a hoax. (Of course, the Russians deserve some credit even here, since it was they who provided the motivation to the Americans to get to the moon.)

        How could America fall so low from such a peak? To hazard a guess, what made the Apollo program possible was the inheritance from the US WW II effort. Not just Werner von Braun, but also central economic planning and the restraint of avarice by a sense of national purpose.

        Perhaps America's fate was sealed when Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard. That made the dollar an international reserve currency that could be printed without limit, removing any pressure from the US to be economically competitive or have a manufacturing base. Thus the current situation, in which the main way that the US interacts with the outside world is by waging one war after another, all to keep the dollar in place.

        And finally, since we're sharing music videos again, here is an 80s antidote to Genesis:

        Flying Lizards: Sex Machine

        Posted by: Demian | Apr 19, 2015 7:35:55 PM | 37

        P. Berman at 33 -- While I've not followed it too closely (I stay busy watching the Banderaists), the problem of the EuroForce is puzzling. It's the kind of rapid reaction force that the French have had for decades with Foreign Legion -- professional interventionists. And as they were volunteers, often foreign, little political cost for use.

        So you'd think in principle it's well with the the organizational and logistical capabilities of the Eurozone. Clearly the problems are political, around domestic sovereignity and foreign entanglement. As well as the one you raise, who will it be used against, and where?

        I'm not sure the Paraguay analogy fits, but I'd have to bone up on that one. I'm glad that we've drawn someone capable of bringing it up, good fit or bad. I always find it hard to think of land-locked Paraguay has having been a power frightful enough to unite its neighbors against it in the late 1800's.

        Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 19, 2015 10:32:16 PM | 39

        The Phoenix Program comes to Ukraine.

        Posted by: guest77 | Apr 20, 2015 8:08:59 PM | 45

        Posted by: Demian | Apr 20, 2015 10:12:19 PM | 48

        And now, for just a minute, anyway, back onto the Ukraine.

        Fort Russ has Vladimir Lepekhin explaining Why the Ukrainian army is doomed to defeat.

        The main source of power of the Ukrainian military machine... is in its reliance on wide array of means of waging war in pursuit of "Ukrainianness".

        This machine is based on lies, cruelty, direct terror, the use of forbidden weapons (I think that if the regime had nuclear weapons it would have used them by now), and the lowest imaginable methods of warmaking, such as the destruction of the civilian population, hostage-taking, torture, and the murder of prisoners of war and opponents....

        It is not especially subordinate to the political leadership, but instead is purposed for, to some extent or another, the destruction of everything that does not fit into the "one state-one nation-one idea" conception.

        The power of the Ukrainian military machine also resides in the fact that it is backed by the entire "civilized world" which is rendering Kiev moral, political, financial, military, and legal support.

        He goes on to note that the Ukrainians have no effective leadership, capable of inspiring the ranks to sacrifice and victory. This is in part due no cohesive, appealing ideology.

        As translator J. Hawk points out about Ukrainian nationalism, "Everyone who's ever adopted it, lost. They did not merely lose badly, they lost ugly, and made the ideology appear even more despicable and monstrous than it was before." Having cut themselves off from the Russian and Soviet past, they're left with Bandera and the OUN-UPA atrocities as models of "Ukrainainness."

        I sadly expect this run of bad luck on the part of the heroes of the Ukraine will continue.

        Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 20, 2015 10:52:01 PM | 50

        @Demian,

        If you're trying for true anonymity, you've already failed because this web site records IP addresses of all who post, unless you've already sought ways to block or falsify your IP address from the very beginning.

        Equally email access has the same problem: irrespective of what information the email provider requires you to give, all a surveillance agency would need would be to access the IP addresses from which a given account is logged into.

        True, the IP address isn't necessarily very accurate - typically in the 3-5 mile range - but additional filtering can narrow that down considerably, especially if traces are then put on said IP address to look for patterns of behavior (times of day a target typically uses the internet, writing/grammar patterns, lists of web sites frequented, etc).

        Posted by: ǝn⇂ɔ | Apr 21, 2015 10:51:54 AM | 53

        @⇂ɔ #53:

        I am not trying for true anonymity. I just don't want my identity to be obvious to any fascist (at this current point in history, the word "fascist" is more or less synonymous with "Ukrainian") idiot who might be reading this blog.

        @ALL:

        If Atlantos were civilized, they would commit harikiri: Bridge Burning: EU to Bring Antitrust Charges against Gazprom http://t.co/8TrQ4LWoze

        - Adalbrand (@Adalbrand) April 21, 2015

        Now, on a lighter note: Kiev junta magic underwear???

        Patriotic Underwear to Increase Morale

        Posted by: Vintage Red | Apr 21, 2015 5:50:44 PM | 56

        All I can say about this, yes, it seems serious. Patriotic underwear to increase morale of the Ukrainian army. So you can't say you weren't briefed on the new dress code.

        On a darker note, here's a very well-made threat for you. Security forces say "Ukrainophobes" ought to "lower their rhetoric to zero". Senior SBU investigator Vasiliy Vovk, speaking officially, said "I think that... when we are practically at war... we should not have people... who are speaking out against Ukraine and against Ukrainianness. I advise them to do it because nothing good will come of it."

        When asked if he could define "Ukrainophobia," Vovk said "No. But we know what we are talking about."

        You might need a laugh after that. With All of Ukraine Blocked by the Gridlock From Successive Russian Invasions, arrangements are being made for overflow parking in Poland and Belarus.

        [April 20, 2015] Another Idiotic Plan to Hurt Russia by MIKE WHITNEY

        April 20, 2015 | CounterPunch

        "The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests…..We must, however, be mindful that…Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States."

        -The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the original version of the Defense Planning Guidance, authored by Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, leaked to the New York Times on March 7, 1992

        "For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia…and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained."

        -THE GRAND CHESSBOARD – American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzezinski, page 30, Basic Books, 1997

        The Laussanne negotiations between Iran and the so called P5+1 group (the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain, and Germany) have nothing to do with nuclear proliferation. They are, in fact, another attempt to weaken and isolate Russia by easing sanctions, thus allowing Iranian gas to replace Russian gas in Europe.

        Laussanne shows that Washington still thinks that the greatest threat to its dominance is the further economic integration of Russia and Europe, a massive two-continent free trade zone from Lisbon to Vladivostok that would eventually dwarf dwindling US GDP while decisively shifting the balance of global power to Asia. To counter that threat, the Obama administration toppled the elected government of Ukraine in a violent coup, launched a speculative attack on the ruble, forced down global oil prices, and is presently arming and training neo-Nazi extremists in the Ukrainian army. Washington has done everything in its power to undermine relations between the EU and Russia risking even nuclear war in its effort to separate the natural trading partners and to strategically situate itself in a location where it can control the flow of vital resources from East to West.

        Laussanne was about strategic priorities not nukes. The Obama administration realizes that if it can't find an alternate source of gas for Europe, then its blockade of Russia will fail and the EU-Russia alliance will grow stronger. And if the EU-Russia alliance grows stronger, then US attempts to extend its tentacles into Asia and become a major player in the world's most prosperous region will also fail leaving Washington to face a dismal future in which the steady erosion of its power and prestige is a near certainty. This is from an article titled "Removing sanctions against Iran to have unfavorable influence on Turkey and Azerbaijan":

        "If Washington removes energy sanctions on Iran…then a new geopolitical configuration will emerge in the region. Connecting with Nabucco will be enough for Iran to fully supply Europe with gas…

        Iran takes the floor with inexhaustible oil and gas reserves and as a key transit country. Iran disposes of the 10% of the reported global oil reserves and is the second country in the world after Russia with its natural gas reserves (15%). The official representatives of Iran do not hide that they strive to enter the European market of oil and gas, as in the olden days. Let's remember that the deputy Minister of Oil in Iran, Ali Majedi, offered to revive project of Nabucco pipeline during his European tour and said that his country is ready to supply gas to Europe through it…

        "Some months earlier the same Ali Majedi reported sensational news: 'two invited European delegations' discussed the potential routes of Iranian gas supply to Europe," the article reads." … It is also noted that the West quite materially reacted to the possibility of the Iranian gas to join Nabucco." (Removing sanctions against Iran to have unfavorable influence on Turkey and Azerbaijan, Panorama)

        So, is this the plan, to provide "energy security" to Europe by replacing Russian gas with Iranian gas?

        It sure looks like it. But that suggests that the sanctions really had nothing to do with Iran's fictitious nuclear weapons program but were merely used to humiliate Iran while keeping as much of its oil and gas offline until western-backed multinationals could get their greasy mitts on it.

        Indeed, that's exactly how the sanctions were used even though the nuclear issue was a transparent fake from the get go. Get a load of this from the New York Times:

        "Recent assessments by American spy agencies are broadly consistent with a 2007 intelligence finding that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program years earlier, according to current and former American officials. The officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed in a 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, and that it remains the consensus view of America's 16 intelligence agencies." (U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb, James Risen, New York Times, February 24, 2012)

        See? The entire US intelligence establishment has been saying the same thing from the onset: No Iranian nukes. Nor has Iran ever been caught diverting nuclear fuel to other purposes. Never. Also, as nuclear weapons physicist, Gordon Prather stated many times before his death, "After almost three years of go-anywhere see-anything interview-anyone inspections, IAEA inspectors have yet to find any indication that Iran has - or ever had - a nuclear weapons program."

        The inspectors were on the ground for three freaking years. They interviewed everyone and went wherever they wanted. They searched every cave and hideaway, every nook and cranny, and they found nothing.

        Get it? No nukes, not now, not ever. Period.

        The case against Iran is built on propaganda, brainwashing and bullshit, in that order. But, still, that doesn't tell us why the US is suddenly changing course. For that, we turn to an article from The Brookings Institute titled "Why the details of the Iran deal don't matter" which sums it up quite well. Here's a clip:

        "At heart, this is a fight over what to do about Iran's challenge to U.S. leadership in the Middle East and the threat that Iranian geopolitical ambitions pose to U.S. allies, particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia. Proponents of the deal believe that the best way for the United States to deal with the Iranian regional challenge is to seek to integrate Iran into the regional order, even while remaining wary of its ambitions. A nuclear deal is an important first step in that regard, but its details matter little because the ultimate goal is to change Iranian intentions rather destroy Iranian capability." (Why the details of the Iran deal don't matter, Brookings)

        Notice how carefully the author avoids mentioning Israel by name although he alludes to "the threat that Iranian geopolitical ambitions pose to U.S. allies". Does he think he's talking to idiots?

        But his point is well taken; the real issue is not "Iranian capability", but "Iran's challenge to U.S. leadership in the Middle East". In other words, the nuclear issue is baloney. What Washington doesn't like is that Iran has an independent foreign policy that conflicts with the US goal of controlling the Middle East. That's what's really going on. Washington wants a compliant Iran that clicks its heals and does what its told.

        The problem is, the strategy hasn't worked and now the US is embroiled in a confrontation with Moscow that is a higher priority than the Middle East project. (The split between US elites on this matter has been interesting to watch, with the Obama-Brzezinski crowd on one side and the McCain-neocon crowd on the other.) This is why the author thinks that easing sanctions and integrating Iran into the predominantly US system would be the preferable remedy for at least the short term.

        Repeat: "The best way for the United States to deal with the Iranian regional challenge is to integrate Iran into the regional order." In other words, if you can't beat 'em, then join 'em. Iran is going to be given enough freedom to fulfill its role within the imperial order, that is, to provide gas to Europe in order to inflict more economic pain on Russia. Isn't that what's going on?

        But what effect will that have on Iran-Russia relations? Will it poison the well and turn one ally against the other?

        Probably not, mainly because the ties between Iran and Russia are growing stronger by the day. Check this out from the Unz Review by Philip Giraldi:

        "Moscow and Tehran are moving towards a de-facto strategic partnership, which can be easily seen by the two groundbreaking announcements from earlier this week. It's now been confirmed by the Russian government that the rumored oil-for-goods program between Russia and Iran is actually a real policy that's already been implemented, showing that Moscow has wasted no time in trying to court the Iranian market after the proto-deal was agreed to a week earlier. Providing goods in exchange for resources is a strategic decision that creates valuable return customers in Iran, who will then be in need of maintenance and spare parts for their products. It's also a sign of deep friendship between the two Caspian neighbors and sets the groundwork for the tentative North-South economic corridor between Russia and India via Iran." (A Shifting Narrative on Iran, Unz Review)

        But here's the glitch: Iran can't just turn on the spigot and start pumping gas to Europe. It doesn't work that way. It's going to take massive pipeline and infrastructure upgrades that could take years to develop. That means there will be plenty of hefty contracts awarded to friends of Tehran –mostly Russian and Chinese–who will perform their tasks without interfering in domestic politics. Check this out from Pepe Escobar:

        "Russia and China are deeply committed to integrating Iran into their Eurasian vision. Iran may finally be admitted as a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) at the upcoming summer summit in Russia. That implies a full-fledged security/commercial/political partnership involving Russia, China, Iran and most Central Asian 'stans'.

        Iran is already a founding member of the Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB); that means financing for an array of New Silk Road-related projects bound to benefit the Iranian economy. AIIB funding will certainly merge with loans and other assistance for infrastructure development related to the Chinese-established Silk Road Fund…" (Russia, China, Iran: In sync, Pepe Escobar, Russia Today)

        Get the picture? Eurasian integration is already done-deal and there's nothing the US can do to stop it.

        Washington needs to rethink its approach. Stop the meddling and antagonism, rebuild relations through trade and mutual trust, and accept the inevitability of imperial decline.

        Asia's star is rising just as America's is setting. Deal with it.

        MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

        [Apr 18, 2015] The New York Times "basically rewrites whatever the Kiev authorities say" Stephen F. Cohen on the U.S.-Russia-Ukraine history

        Quote: "The [crisis now] grew out of Clinton's policies, what I call a "winner take all" American policy toward what was thought to be-but this isn't true-a defeated post-Cold War Russia, leading people in the '90s to think of Russia as in some ways analogous to Germany and Japan after World War II: Russia would decide its internal policies to some extent, and it would be allowed to resume its role as a state in international affairs-but as a junior partner pursuing new American national interests."
        From comments: When one looks at the American empire one must think of it in terms of economics, like the British empire before it. This empire isn't run primarily for military purposes, or for other purposes, but to make money. It is run as a huge project to export money from places with less power to the US. At the end of the cold war the former Soviet Union found itself in the position of having natural resources and being in a subservient position.

        The New York Times "basically rewrites whatever the Kiev authorities say": Stephen F. Cohen on the U.S./Russia/Ukraine history the media won't tell you

        There's an alternative story of Russian relations we're not hearing. Historian Stephen Cohen tells it here

        It is one thing to comment in a column as the Ukrainian crisis grinds on and Washington-senselessly, with no idea of what will come next - destroys relations with Moscow. It is quite another, as a long exchange with Stephen F. Cohen makes clear, to watch as an honorable career's worth of scholarly truths are set aside in favor of unlawful subterfuge, a war fever not much short of Hearst's and what Cohen ranks among the most extravagant expansion of a sphere of influence-NATO's-in history.

        Cohen is a distinguished Russianist by any measure. While professing at Princeton and New York University, he has written of the revolutionary years ("Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution," 1973), the Soviet era ("Rethinking the Soviet Experience," 1985) and, contentiously but movingly and always with a steady eye, the post-Soviet decades ("Failed Crusade: America and the Tragedy of Post-Communist Russia, 2000; "Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives," 2009). "The Victims Return: Survivors of the Gulag After Stalin" (2010) is a singularly humane work, using scholarly method to relate the stories of the former prisoners who walk as ghosts in post-Soviet Russia. "I never actually lost the uneasy feeling of having left work unfinished and obligations unfulfilled," Cohen explains in the opening chapter, "even though fewer and fewer of the victims I knew were still alive."

        If I had to describe the force and value of Cohen's work in a single sentence, it would be this: It is a relentless insistence that we must bring history to bear upon what we see. One would think this an admirable project, but it has landed Cohen in the mother of all intellectual disputes since the U.S.-supported coup in Kiev last year. To say he is now "blackballed" or "blacklisted"-terms Cohen does not like-is too much. Let us leave it that a place may await him among America's many prophets without honor among their own.

        It is hardly surprising that the Ministry of Forgetting, otherwise known as the State Department, would eschew Cohen's perspective on Ukraine and the relationship with Russia: He brings far too much by way of causality and responsibility to the case. But when scholarly colleagues attack him as "Putin's apologist" one grows queasy at the prospect of a return to the McCarthyist period. By now, obedient ideologues in the academy have turned debate into freak show.

        Cohen, who is 76, altogether game and remembers it all, does not think we are back in the 1950s just yet. But he is now enmeshed in a fight with the Association for Slavic, East European and Eurasian Studies, which last autumn rejected a $400,000 grant Cohen proposed with his wife, Katrina vanden Heuvel, because the fellowships to be funded would bear Cohen's name. Believe it, readers, this is us in the early 21st century.

        The interview that follows took place in Cohen's Manhattan apartment some weeks after the cease-fire agreement known as Minsk II was signed in mid-February. It sprawled over several absorbing hours. As I worked with the transcript it became clear that Cohen had given me a valuable document, one making available to readers a concise, accessible, historically informed accounting of "where we are today," as Cohen put it, in Ukraine and in the U.S.-Russia relationship.

        Salon will run it in two parts. This is an edited transcript of the first. Part two follows next week.

        What is your judgment of Russia's involvement in Ukraine? In the current situation, the need is for good history and clear language. In a historical perspective, do you consider Russia justified?

        Well, I can't think otherwise. I began warning of such a crisis more than 20 years ago, back in the '90s. I've been saying since February of last year [when Viktor Yanukovich was ousted in Kiev] that the 1990s is when everything went wrong between Russia and the United States and Europe. So you need at least that much history, 25 years. But, of course, it begins even earlier.

        As I've said for more than a year, we're in a new Cold War. We've been in one, indeed, for more than a decade. My view [for some time] was that the United States either had not ended the previous Cold War, though Moscow had, or had renewed it in Washington. The Russians simply hadn't engaged it until recently because it wasn't affecting them so directly.

        What's happened in Ukraine clearly has plunged us not only into a new or renewed-let historians decide that-Cold War, but one that is probably going to be more dangerous than the preceding one for two or three reasons. The epicenter is not in Berlin this time but in Ukraine, on Russia's borders, within its own civilization: That's dangerous. Over the 40-year history of the old Cold War, rules of behavior and recognition of red lines, in addition to the red hotline, were worked out. Now there are no rules. We see this every day-no rules on either side.

        What galls me the most, there's no significant opposition in the United States to this new Cold War, whereas in the past there was always an opposition. Even in the White House you could find a presidential aide who had a different opinion, certainly in the State Department, certainly in the Congress. The media were open-the New York Times, the Washington Post-to debate. They no longer are. It's one hand clapping in our major newspapers and in our broadcast networks. So that's where we are.

        The Ukraine crisis in historical perspective. Very dangerous ground. You know this better than anyone, I'd've thought.

        This is where I get attacked and assailed. It's an historical judgment. The [crisis now] grew out of Clinton's policies, what I call a "winner take all" American policy toward what was thought to be-but this isn't true-a defeated post-Cold War Russia, leading people in the '90s to think of Russia as in some ways analogous to Germany and Japan after World War II: Russia would decide its internal policies to some extent, and it would be allowed to resume its role as a state in international affairs-but as a junior partner pursuing new American national interests.

        That was the pursuit that Clinton and Strobe Talbott, who's now very upset about the failure of his policy, in the Yeltsin era. That's what they wanted, and thought they were getting, from Boris Yeltsin. You can read Talbott's memoir, "The Russia Hand," and know that all the official talk about eternal friendship and partnership was malarkey. Now it's all gone sour, predictably and for various reasons, and has led us to this situation.

        The problem is that by taking the view, as the American media and political establishment do, that this crisis is entirely the fault of "Putin's aggression," there's no rethinking of American policy over the last 20 years. I have yet to see a single influential person say, "Hey, maybe we did something wrong, maybe we ought to rethink something." That's a recipe for more of the same, of course, and more of the same could mean war with Russia….

        Let me give you one example. It's the hardest thing for the American foreign policy elite and the media elite to cope with.

        Our position is that nobody is entitled to a sphere of influence in the 21st century. Russia wants a sphere of influence in the sense that it doesn't want American military bases in Ukraine or in the Baltics or in Georgia. But what is the expansion of NATO other than the expansion of the American zone or sphere of influence? It's not just military. It's financial, it's economic, it's cultural, it's intermarriage-soldiers, infrastructure. It's probably the most dramatic expansion of a great sphere of influence in such a short time and in peacetime in the history of the world.

        So you have Vice President Biden constantly saying, "Russia wants a sphere of influence and we won't allow it." Well, we are shoving our sphere of influence down Russia's throat, on the assumption that it won't push back. Obviously, the discussion might well begin: "Is Russia entitled to a zone or sphere in its neighborhood free of foreign military bases?" Just that, nothing more. If the answer is yes, NATO expansion should've ended in Eastern Germany, as the Russians were promised. But we've crept closer and closer. Ukraine is about NATO-expansion-no-matter-what. Washington can go on about democracy and sovereignty and all the rest, but it's about that. And we can't re-open this question…. The hypocrisy, or the inability to connect the dots in America, is astonishing.

        The nature of the Kiev regime. Again, there's a lot of fog. So there're two parts to this question. The coup matter and the relationship of the Yatsenyuk government to the State Department-we now have a finance minister in Kiev who's an American citizen, addressing the Council on Foreign Relations here as we speak-and then the relationship of the Kiev regime with the ultra-right.

        It's a central question. I addressed it in a Nation piece last year called "Distorting Russia." One point was that the apologists in the media for the Kiev government as it came to power after Feb. 21, and for the Maidan demonstrations as they turned violent, ignored the role of a small but significant contingent of ultra-nationalists who looked, smelled and sounded like neo-fascists. And for this I was seriously attacked, including by Timothy Snyder at Yale, who is a great fan of Kiev, in the New Republic. I have no idea where he is coming from, or how any professor could make the allegations he did. But the argument was that this neo-fascist theme was Putin's, that what I was saying was an apology for Putin and that the real fascists were in Russia, not in Ukraine.

        Maybe there are fascists in Russia, but we're not backing the Russian government or Russian fascists. The question is, and it's extremely important, "Is there a neo-fascist movement in Ukraine that, regardless of its electoral success, which has not been great, is influencing affairs politically or militarily, and is this something we should be worried about?"

        The answer is 100 percent yes. But admitting this in the United States has gotten a 100 percent no until recently, when, finally, a few newspapers began to cite Kiev's battalions with swastikas on their helmets and tanks. So you've gotten a little more coverage. Foreign journalists, leaving aside Russians, have covered this neo-fascist phenomenon, which is not surprising. It grows out of Ukraine's history. It should be a really important political question for Western policy makers, and I think it is now for the Germans. German intelligence is probably better than American intelligence when it comes to Ukraine-more candid in what it tells the top leadership. Merkel's clearly worried about this.

        It's another example of something you can't discuss in the mainstream media or elsewhere in the American establishment. When you read the testimony of [Assistant Secretary of State] Nuland, this is never mentioned. But what could be more important than the resurgence of a fascist movement on the European continent? I'm not talking about these sappy fascists who run around the streets in Western Europe. I'm talking about guys with a lot of weapons, guys who have done dastardly things and who have killed people. Does that warrant discussion? Well, people said, if they exist they're a tiny minority. My clichéd answer is, "Of course, so was Hitler and so was Lenin at one time." You pay attention and you think about it if you learn anything from history….

        We say we're doing everything we're doing in Ukraine and against Russia, including running the risk of war, for a democratic Ukraine, by which we mean Ukraine under the rule of Kiev. Reasonably, we would ask to what extent Kiev is actually democratic. But correspondents of the Times and the Washington Post regularly file from Kiev and basically re-write whatever the Kiev authorities say while rarely, if ever, asking about democracy in Kiev-governed Ukraine.

        Rewriting handouts. Is that actually so?

        Until recently it was so…. I haven't made this a study, and one could be done in a week by a sophisticated journalist or scholar who knew how to ask questions and had access to information. And I would be willing to wager that it would show that there's less democracy, as reasonably understood, in those areas of Ukraine governed by Kiev today than there was before Yanukovych was overthrown. Now that's a hypothesis, but I think it's a hypothesis the Times and the Post should be exploring.

        I take Kiev's characterization of its war in the eastern sections as an "anti-terrorist campaign" to be one of the most preposterous labels out there right now.

        But, then, why did Washington say OK to it? Washington has a say in this. Without Washington, Kiev would be in bankruptcy court and have no military at all. Why didn't Washington say, "Don't call it anti-terrorist?" Because if you call it "anti-terrorism" you can never have negotiations because you don't negotiate with terrorists, you just kill them, a murderous organization with murderous intent.

        By saying that this is not a civil war, it's just Russian aggression-this omits the human dimension of the entire war, and also the agency of the people who are actually fighting in the east-the hairdressers, the taxi drivers, the former newspaper reporters, the school teachers, the garbage men, the electricians, who are probably 90 percent of those fighting. There are Russians there, from Russia. But Ukraine's army has proved incapable of defeating or even holding off what began as a fairly ragtag, quasi-partisan, ill-equipped, untrained force.

        The horror of this has been Kiev's use of its artillery, mortars and even its airplanes, until recently, to bombard large residential cities, not only Donetsk and Luhansk, but other cities. These are cities of 500,000, I imagine, or 2 million to 3 million. This is against the law. These are war crimes, unless we assume the rebels were bombing their mothers and grandmothers and fathers and sisters. This was Kiev, backed by the United States. So the United States has been deeply complicit in the destruction of these eastern cities and peoples. When Nuland tells Congress there are 5,000 to 6,000 dead, that's the U.N. number. That's just a count of bodies they found in the morgues. Lots of bodies are never found. German intelligence says 50,000.

        Ever since the Clinton administration, we've bleated on about the right to protect people who are victims of humanitarian crises. You've got a massive humanitarian crisis in eastern Ukraine. You've got 1 million people or more who have fled to Russia-this is according to the U.N.-another half a million having fled elsewhere in Ukraine. I don't notice the United States organizing any big humanitarian effort. Where is Samantha Power, the architect of "right to protect?" We have shut our eyes to a humanitarian crisis in which we are deeply complicit. This is what's shameful, whether you like or don't like Putin. It's got nothing to do with Putin. It has to do with the nature of American policy and the nature of Washington-and the nature of the American people, if they tolerate this.

        You've written about the second Minsk accord as the only hope we've got left. Tell me briefly your take on Minsk II and whether there's a chance it will hold.

        The second Minsk Accord has a lot of moving parts. The primary part is the cease-fire and the withdrawal by both sides of heavy artillery. It would appear that this has been significantly accomplished, but the cease-fire is very unstable. The political parts are supposed to come now. Kiev is supposed to pass certain constitutional reforms, giving a certain autonomy to the eastern regions. The eastern regions are supposed to hold new elections that in some way comply with Ukrainian law. If all that happens by December, then the Ukrainian-Russian border will be turned over to the Kiev authorities along with some European monitors. The political parts are going to be the hardest because there is no political support for this in Kiev.

        [President] Poroshenko went to Minsk because he had no choice: Merkel told him he had to sign Minsk II. But Kiev is ultra-nationalist. They want no concessions to the east or to Russia. Getting Minsk II through parliament in Kiev will be very difficult. But the main fact for now is that Minsk II is the last, best choice to avoid a wider war that might well cause a direct war with Russia. [Since this interview the Kiev parliament has passed legislation either contradicting or negating the Minsk II terms.]

        Minsk II was Merkel's initiative with President Hollande of France, and why, at the last minute, she suddenly realized that the situation was different than she thought-desperate-I don't know. And remember, this is a woman with enormous executive responsibilities for the economic crisis of the European Union and Greece. The enemies of Minsk II…

        I think the main enemy is Washington.

        That's right. I wouldn't call them the enemy, but we can't be children about this. Washington controls the IMF. Washington controls NATO. NATO and the IMF are the two agencies that can make war happen on a broader basis in Ukraine and in regard to Russia, or stop it. Whoever is the decider in Washington, if it's Obama, if it's somebody else, now has to make the decision.

        All the enemies of Minsk II speak freely and are quoted in the papers and on the networks as rational people. And yet there's not one dissenting voice from the establishment. Outwardly, it appears to be a very uneven struggle. One hopes that somewhere in dark corridors and dimly-lit rooms in Washington, serious conversations are taking place, but I don't think so. [One March 23, 48 members of Congress did vote against sending weapons to Kiev, a point Cohen commended in an email note.]

        Our post-Soviet politics after 1991, it turns out to be war by other means. The Cold War never ended, in my view. The tactics changed, perhaps the strategy did, too, but there was very little by way of even a pause.

        It's complicated. The main problem today of getting the American political class to think freshly is Putin. They use Putin as the excuse to do whatever they want and not rethink anything. But Putin came much later.

        The historical facts are not convenient to the triumphalist narrative, which says that we defeated the Soviet Union and thereby ended the Cold War, and therefore and therefore. According to Gorbachev, Reagan and Bush, the Cold War ended either in 1988 or 1990. When Reagan left the White House-I think he wrote in his diary in January 1989, "We have ended the Cold War"-so he thought he had ended it with Gorbachev. I was in Moscow when he walked across Red Square in that heat, I think it was July 1988, and somebody shouted to him "President Reagan, is this still the Evil Empire?" And he, in that affable way, said "Oh, no, that was then… everything's changed."

        The Cold War was a structural phenomenon. Just because the president says its over doesn't mean it's over, but then there was Malta in December 1989, when [George H.W.] Bush and Gorbachev said the Cold War was over, and that continued all through the reunification of Germany. Between '88 and '90 we were told repeatedly by the world's leaders that it was over. Jack Matlock, Reagan's ambassador to Russia, has written very well about this, and because he was there as a personal testimony, of how this truly was. So the conflation of the end of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War is an historical mistake.

        Bush then continued to maintain the official line that he had pursued with Gorbachev that there were no losers at the end of the Cold War, everybody had won. Bush maintained that position until the polls showed he was running behind Clinton in his reelection campaign. And then he declared in 1992 that we, and he in particular, had won the Cold War. I saw Gorbachev shortly thereafter. My wife, Katrina vanden Heuvel, and I had been friends with him for several years. He was deeply, deeply hurt, with a sense of betrayal. He's forgiven Bush, being a forgiving man.

        But at that moment, '91 and '92… well, words are words, but as Russians say, words are also deeds. By announcing that we had won the Cold War, Bush set the stage for the Clinton administration's decision to act on an American victory, including the expansion of NATO.

        This history brings us to where we are today.

        What has changed in U.S. policy toward Russia between 1991 and now, and what hasn't?

        I think the history that we know is what I just told you. Behind the scenes, there were clearly discussions going on throughout the '90s, and there were different groups. Big historical decisions, whether we talk about the war in Vietnam, or, a subject that interests me, why slavery and segregation lasted so long in the American South, where I grew up, can never be explained by one factor. Almost always they're multi-factored. But you got, in the 1990s, some people who genuinely believed that this was the moment for an enduring post-Cold War, American-Russian, full-scale strategic partnership and friendship between equals. There were these Romantics, so to speak.

        On this side of the ocean?

        I think there were people who believed in this. Just like there're people who really believe in democracy promotion as a virtuous profession-some of my students have gone into it. They believe in it: It's a good thing. Why not help good countries achieve democracy? The dark side of democracy promotion for them is either not visible or not in their calculation. People are diverse. I don't judge them harshly for their beliefs.

        There were others who were saying Russia will rise again, and we have to make sure that never happens. To do that, we need to strip Russia of Ukraine, in particular. Brzezinski was writing that. At some point during this time he wrote that Russia with Ukraine is a great imperial power, without Ukraine it's a normal country. But there were people in Washington, the same people I heard in private discussions, saying that Russia's down and we're going to keep it down. They were feeding opinion into the Clinton administration, and that clearly helped lead to the NATO expansion.

        They use the excuse that everybody wants to join NATO. How can we deny them the right? It's very simple. People say every country that qualifies has a right to join NATO. No, they do not. NATO is not a junior Chamber of Commerce. It's not a non-selective fraternity or sorority. It's a security organization, and the only criterion for membership should be, "Does a nation enhance the security of the other member countries?" The Ukrainian crisis proves beyond any doubt, being the worst international crisis of our time, that the indiscriminate expansion of NATO has worsened our international security. That's the end of that story. I don't know what they think NATO is. Is it like AARP membership and you get discounts in the form of U.S. defense funds? It's crazy, this argument.

        But then you got these guys who are either Russophobes or eternal Cold Warriors or deep strategic thinkers. You remember when [Paul] Wolfowitz wrote this article saying Russia had to be stripped of any possibility ever to be a great power again? These people were all talking like…

        It goes back to your comparison with Japan in '45.

        The question is why Clinton bought into this. That would then take you to Strobe Talbott. Strobe was a disciple of Isaiah Berlin, who taught that if you want to understand Russia, you have to understand the history, the culture and the civilization. And certainly if you took that view, you never would have done, as George Kennan said in 1996 or 1997, you never would have expanded NATO. I knew George during my 30 years at Princeton. George's social attitudes were deeply alarming, but about Russia he had a very important idea. Russia marches to its own drummer, let it, don't try to intervene or you'll make things worse. Be patient, understand Russian history, the forces in Russia. That was Isaiah Berlin's position. Once, that was Strobe's position. Look at Strobe Talbott today: We have to send in weapons and overthrow Putin and turn Russia around. Now it's all outside agency.

        How did this guy go from A to B?

        Well, they say power corrupts, or at least changes people. He had been Clinton's roommate at Oxford, and he ended up in the White House as a Russia aide, very smart guy. I think Russia disappointed him. One phenomenon among Russia-watchers is that you create an artifice, and that's your Russia. And when it disappoints you, you never forgive Russia. Check out Fred Hiatt at the Washington Post. Fred was writing from Moscow during the '90s that democracy was going to be great. So did most the guys who are now were still in editorial positions. Russia let them down. They can't forgive Russia anymore than they can the ex-wife who cheated on them. They can't think anew. It's a phenomenon, probably not only American, but it's particularly American. You cannot reopen any discussion with these people who bought into Yeltsin's Russia in the 1990s and were certain that though the road was rocky, as they liked to say… "Failed Crusade" is about this. They can't get over it.

        Part of it also had to do with Yeltsin. He was so desperate, not only for American affirmation but for American affection. He was so insecure, as his health declined and he became more and more the captive of the oligarchs, that he wanted to mean as much to Washington as Gorbachev had. He was getting close to virtually giving Washington anything, saying anything, until the Serbian war. Then it dawned on him that Washington had a certain agenda, and the expansion of NATO [was part of it], but by then it was too late, he was a spent force.

        Later, when Dmitri Medvedev was president [2008-12], I think, he told a group of people that Yeltsin hadn't actually won the election, that Gennadi Zyuganov, leader of the Communist Party, had. So assuming that Medvedev wasn't lying and assuming he was in a position to know, all this talk of American support for democracy, when it comes to Russia, at least, is, shall we say, complex.

        Let's go to Putin. What is your view here? What is he trying to accomplish?

        It's impossible to answer briefly or simply. This is a separate university course, this is a book, this is for somebody with a much bigger brain that I have. This really is for historians to judge.

        I wrote an article in, I think, 2012 called the "The Demonization of Putin," arguing that there is very little basis for many of the allegations made against Putin, and that the net result was to make rational analysis in Washington on Russian affairs at home and abroad impossible, because it was all filtered through this demonization. If we didn't stop, I argued, it was only going to get worse to the point where we would become like heroin addicts at fix time, unable to think about anything except our obsession with Putin. We couldn't think about other issues. This has now happened fully. The article was turned down by the New York Times, and an editor I knew at Reuters published it on Reuters.com.

        The history of how this came about [begins] when Putin came to power, promoted by Yeltsin and the people around Yeltsin, who were all connected in Washington. These people in Moscow included Anatoly Chubais, who had overseen the privatizations, had relations with the IMF and had fostered a lot of the corruption. He came to United States to assure us that Putin was a democrat, even though he had been at the KGB.

        When he came to power, both the Times and the Post wrote that Putin was a democrat and, better yet, he was sober, unlike Yeltsin. How we got from 2000 to now, when he's Hitler, Saddam, Stalin, Gaddafi, everybody that we have to get rid of, whom we know killed Boris Nemtsov because from the bridge where Nemtsov was killed [on February 27] you can see the Kremlin…. Well, remember, Sarah Palin could see Russia from Alaska! It's preposterous. But the demonization of Putin has become an institution in America. It is literally a political institution that prevents the kind of discussion that you and I are having.

        Kissinger had the same thought. He wrote, last year, I think, "The demonization of Putin is not a policy. It's an alibi for not having a policy." That's half correct. It's much worse now, because they did have a policy. I think the "policy" growing in some minds was how to get rid of Putin. The question is, "Do they have the capacity to make decisions?" I didn't think so, but now I'm not so sure, because in a lot of what comes out of Washington, including the State Department, the implication is that Putin has to go.

        I asked a question rhetorically several years ago of these regime changers: Have you thought about what would happen in Russia in the event of regime change? If what you say is true, if Putin is the pivot of the whole system, you remove Putin the whole system collapses. Russia has every known weapon of mass destruction in vast quantities. What would be the consequence of that conceit on your part-that we're going to get rid of Putin-for the rest of the world?

        So this Putin phenomenon has to be explained. How did he go from a democrat for sure, now to maybe the worst Russian leader since Ivan the Terrible. How do you explain it? Does that tell us more about Putin or more about us?

        I think his sin is an unacceptable take on, broad-brush terms, Eastern ethos vs. Western ethos, and on narrower terms a rejection of a neoliberal economic regime in the Washington consensus style. Although he's got a lot to answer for, I think, in this respect, he's not an evangelist for what he's doing. What does he face domestically? What's he trying to do?

        Let me tell you just briefly. When I ask Russians, they think the answer is American presidential envy. We've had a lot of unsuccessful presidents lately. Clinton left basically in disgrace, Bush left not beloved for the war that he had got us into and lied about, Obama is before our eyes a shrinking, failing president. And here's Putin, now in his 15th year of growing stature inside Russia.

        And by the way, until recently the preeminent European statesman of his time, no doubt of this. In the 21st century, only Merkel can stand anywhere near him as a European statesman, whether you like what a statesman does or not. This, of course, changes everything. Not to take the famous cop-out, but let history judge. X number of years from now, when we've joined the majority, as Lenin used to say, historians will undoubtedly look back and do the pluses and minuses, and it's going to be a very close call.

        For my short-term take on Putin, he was put in power to save the Yeltsin family from corruption charges, and the first decree he signed upon becoming acting president was to exempt the Yeltsin family from future prosecution. He has honored that, by the way. One of the beefs against Putin in Russia is that he's honorable to his friends and appointees to an extreme; he can't bring himself to fire anybody. He's got this KGB code of honor. I kind of like it. I'd rather that than people stab you in your back….

        I operate under the assumption that no matter how or why people come to power, when in power they begin to ponder what their mission is, what history asks of them. For Putin it was quite clear: The Russian state had collapsed twice in the 20th century. Stop and think what that means. It had collapsed in the 1917 Revolution and the Soviet Union didn't collapse in 1991- it was plucked apart- but then the state collapsed and the result was what Russians call smuta, a time of troubles. It means misery; it means foreign invasion; it means civil war; it means that people fall into poverty. This is the Russia that Putin inherited. Remember, when he came to power in 2000, Russia was on the verge of collapsing for a third time as a result of Yeltsin's policies. The governors were corrupt, were not obeying the law, were not paying taxes, were running criminal fiefdoms in scores of regions. Russia was highly vulnerable, NATO was expanding, Russia had no influence in world affairs.

        Putin comes to power and perceives that his first mission has to be to stop the collapse of the Russian state- which he calls the vertical, because Russia has always been governed from the top down, which has made it ungovernable because it's so big- and, most of all, to make sure it never, ever, ever happens again. In Russian history, the worst thing that can happen to Russia is smuta, when the state collapses. Stop and think: Between 1917 and 1991, it happened twice in the largest territorial country in the world. Is there any precedent for that in history? How a leader could come to power and not see that….

        The second piece of this conversation will run next week.

        Patrick Smith is the author of "Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century." He was the International Herald Tribune's bureau chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from 1985 to 1992. During this time he also wrote "Letter from Tokyo" for the New Yorker. He is the author of four previous books and has contributed frequently to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly, and other publications. Follow him on Twitter, @thefloutist.

        More Patrick L. Smith.

        Americans are like Legos, designed to be manipulated, used, to build structures whose existence is unknown to them. Part of the design is their incapacity to deal with an idea that would threaten the structure of which they are the fundamental element. And so we see in these comments the ingredients of the very plastic from which they are made: deflection, ad hominemism, demonization, etc. By the time they are finished the discussion will be about someone's character, or the exchange of speculative analyses of some historical event that didn't happen. The comments are a reduction in scale of what happens at the level of diplomacy and policy.

        Smith an Cohen know this, and yet they carry on trying to educate and inform against great resistance. They have my respect.

        fizzed

        Since 1990, the US is the only nation that's faught wars against nations not on its border. Only the US has military bases nearly everywhere on earth. Only the US routinely violates nations' sovereignty, and we do so seemingly every week. We've even classified the number of nations we're bombing. And still, our hawks yearn for more. A recent world Gallup poll found that the world views us as the greatest threat to workd peace by a huge margin, Russia was 2nd by over 20 points. If, by some miracle, we've not become insane, it's impossible fo know because we've classified the evidence. Which may be itself evidence for insanity.

        bandeapart

        It's funny how people can't even say "I think Cohen is wrong about this." They have to say he's a "Putin apologist" or "on the Kremlin payroll." They're so offended that anyone could even suggest that Putin in 2015 isn't the contemporary equivalent of Hitler in 1938 that they have to resort to obvious falsehoods. That alone should tell you something: This demonization of Putin isn't about the facts.

        It's also striking how many of the ideologues attacking Cohen, from Cathy Young to Anne Applebaum, are apologists for George W. Bush's illegal war of unprovoked aggression in Iraq.

        (Sorry, posted the fragment below by accident and ran out of time to edit it.)

        Jane Cullen

        @bandeapart

        It's also striking how many of the ideologues attacking Cohen, from Cathy Young to Anne Applebaum, are apologists for George W. Bush's illegal war of unprovoked aggression in Iraq.

        Those warmongers are incapable of learning, even from recent disaster.

        And this is what happens when Obama refused to prosecute Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the other monsters responsible for all of that destruction and death. Had we had the war crimes trials America desperately needed, even the tools on this very thread would have gotten a thorough education, and perhaps even a clue.

        Lora

        @PGrajnert @markwriter @Bitter Scribe It is naive , borderline stupid to think that Washington's aim is to defend the Baltics or former subservient Slavs from a Russian boot. Washington uses fear at home and abroad to reach one ultimate goal: economic gain (a.k.a. profit). Simplification some say, well Washington is not that complex just look who has been in charge in the past 40 years. US policies of late are obnoxiously primitive and transparent, but not to American audience.

        mykry

        Isn't it funny how Cohen thinks 'The New York Times basically rewrites whatever the Kiev authorities say' when he himself seems to shadow and echo the Kremlin narrative ad verbatim. Is Cohen not aware of the lack of independent Russian media portals and echo chambers (domestic and international) that are bought and paid for by the Kremlin? Does Mr. Cohen not see the distortion and disinformation he helps spread? If he does not, then his lack of objectivity makes him simply a Stalinist (or in this case Putinist) apologist. However, if he does, then he is certainly on the Russian payroll---in some form or another---and is no better than the Russian trolls residing in St. Petersburg.

        stuinmich

        @mykry baseless libel.

        jsmith499

        It's really amazing with people like Noam Chomsky become imperialists. Russia invades Chechnya, Georgia, now Ukraine, and it's all OK. So we should have invaded Cuba, or any other country nearby that decides to make a treaty with Russia or China. There are people who think that, but you have to go to some really extreme right wing xenophobic imperialistic new sites to find them. Who would have thought that the likes of Noam Chomsky (and someone like Patrick Smith) would become imperialists? I guess you think NATO is an empire ruled by the Pope or someone? Yeah, NATO is the Holly Roman Empire of neocons, right? Is that really what you think Patrick? It is one thing to be against neoconservatism, it is another to take your dislike of it so far that you become an imperialist, it's like something out of the 17th century.

        jab670

        @jsmith499

        I agree with you.

        Chomsky and Smith strike me as people who if they were Russians, living in Russia, they would be supporting the United States. They are natural dissenters to public opinion. That's a great thing to have, especially when it's well-researched and articulated.

        The problem is that they cannot get past their American-centric views. It's always about what America is doing, to whom, and why. They excuse the actions of other countries as purely reactionary.

        The truth is likely somewhere in between and overlapping with good, bad and survivalist intentions from both sides. And the truth is that with a globalized economy, this fading superpower (United States) and former superpower (Russia) are trying to maintain their polarity in this multipolarized world that no longer needs either of them, and their ideologies, to survive.

        Lora

        @jsmith499 Invading Cuba? You have tried and failed, killing Castro? You have tried and failed. You got your fav. pres. shot for failing so many times to return investments to US mafia. NATO is a tool and it is used by IMF and Washington for one ultimate goal: economic advantage. Your childish arguments reveal how incapable you are at analysis. Read what informed people are writing and grow intellectually by accepting the shades of gray in RL. This is not discussion about baseball.

        Pacific Blue

        What is it about the threat of putting an op-positional military alliance at the doorstep of a potential adversary that the America does not get? Would we tolerate a federation of Soviet alliances to put troops, missiles, armaments, missile defense systems, and nukes in Canada and Mexico aimed primarily at all of the US major cities.

        Please people. Get some sense. Drunken Yeltsin let Bill Clinton humiliate Russia by expanding NATO into countries like Poland and Hungary after the US previously promised Gorbachev that they would not do so. Putin is a different animal.

        He knows that what happened in the Ukraine was engineered by neo-cons. He knows we can't be trusted (thank you Bill Clinton). He saw our attempt to get our fingers into Georgia. Remember John McCain's "We're all Georgians now." He knows that the NATO alliance is waiting to bring the Ukraine into their fold both economically and militarily. He's drawn a red line and said, "No more."

        We'd be wise to heed it and back off. Russia has her back against the wall and it's dangerous for us to keep playing this game of empire with such a country.

        markwriter

        @Pacific Blue I don't think making an argument that the US should back away out of fear of an unstable Russia is the best one to make for the pacifist viewpoint. If that's what this is.

        fizzed

        The argument is not that anyone is unstoppable. Rather, it's that we seem to have forgotten MAD. Russia and the US are the world's only nations capable of destroying the planet in s few hours, We used to know the dangers and the necessary protocals, things we must have forgot to teach our current generation in gradeschool history.

        Even in conventional wars the US hasn't won anything since WW2, but we leave unimaginable misery in our wake and excell at creating enemies with our continuous wars. Can anyone give a rational explanation to US foreign policy since 1995?

        brucewhain

        Are they talking about William Randolph Hearst? Hearst was a pacifist, certainly vis-a-vis Roosevelt's military assistance to Russia starting back in the 30's, and all the subversive influence behind him - and Churchill.

        The point is our State Department - anyone with half a brain - knew from the beginning what Russia's reaction would be if we installed this new (sleazebag) government in Ukraine. It's our inheritance from England's Lower Danube Policy, and it's stupid, criminal, suicidal for both the named combatants.

        Any action to bring about the Ukraine "regime change" of 2014, as with practically all our regime-change-actions over the long haul, including that dispatching Hitler, have been criminally motivated.

        bandeapart

        @brucewhain I think they're referring to Hearst's role in whipping up war fever prior to the Spanish-American War.

        Jane Cullen

        US forces are now operating in Ukraine, not that the MSM cares. The troops real function is to act as a tripwire for war.

        Led by blind Neocons, we are that aggressive, that stupid, that suicidal.

        http://www.stripes.com/news/us-paratroops-convoy-to-western-ukraine-for-training-mission-1.339858

        jab670

        @Jane Cullen

        They are about 800 miles from the eastern front. American troops in Ukraine is a small step of provocation, but you're carelessly misrepresenting the truth.

        Jane Cullen

        @jab670

        So Russian paratroops, in an unstable, civil-warring Mexico, would be "a small step of provocation", eh?

        Nothing to worry about. Nothing at all.

        jab670

        @Jane Cullen @jab670

        Did I say nothing to worry about? Again, you distort the truth. If we are looking to equate things, then the truthful claim is that the are Russian paratroopers on the border of Guatemala, across the entire country from our southern border, who are training Mexicans.

        It's a concern, but I would not be so careless to imply they are near the battlefields, nor would I (unlike you) deny that there are covert American soldiers fighting in Mexico to destabilize, let's say Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez.

        Jack Hughes

        The problem with US foreign relations -- especially with countries perceived as "adversaries" such as Russia and Iran -- is that we neglect to consider their point-of-view.

        Worse, we neglect to consider that they might even have a point-of-view that differs from our own.

        This is usually the result of the idiotic concept of "American exceptionalism" that presupposes that we are always good and that therefore our opponents are, by definition, bad -- instead of simply pursuing what they perceive as rational self-interest.

        This is a childish worldview that guarantees conflict.

        How would we react if the Russians were establishing military ties with Canada and Mexico? Would we react differently than the Iranians if other countries demanded that we eliminate our nuclear industries or be subject to trade embargoes or military action?
        Jane Cullen 2 days ago

        @spriddler

        US and NATO military forces do not belong on Russia's borders, any more than Russian forces belongs on ours.

        Neocon apologists want the US sphere of influence to span the globe, while Russia's sphere has been shrunk to nothing. That's not paranoia, that's recent history.

        Jane Cullen

        @spriddler

        The alleged "wants" of a subset of Ukranians do not come close to justifying the risk of global thermonuclear war.

        But get back to the root of the problem - the US sponsored coup of Feb, 2014, and ongoing US support of Ukrainian neo-Nazis. Because, you cannot explain those things away on the basis of nebulous Ukrainian "wants".

        What explains those things is the Neocons' PNAC agenda (look it up). Jane Cullen

        @markwriter

        https://consortiumnews.com/2014/02/23/neocons-and-the-ukraine-coup/

        markwriter

        @Jane Cullen @markwriter Aha. This is all based on that secretly taped and released (by Russia) conversation between US diplomats. The conversation was about trying to prevent a hero boxer with no expertise from becoming a senior political leader of the uprising, amidst a general tone of trying to catch up to events on the ground, including the UN wanting to step in to mediate as well.

        The US certainly was in favor of what was happening, we can agree upon that. But the uprising and eventual coup was organic and a direct result of the government's violent action and killing of its own citizens.

        To call it US (or UN, for that matter) 'sponsored' is inaccurate and is a deliberate word chosen on purpose to evoke comparisons to other US blunders and the 'neo-cons running amok' narrative, some of which you might be surprised to learn I would agree with.

        I would close with this: although I completely disagree with the "sponsored" designation, bringing up that taped call is relevant for this discussion, kudos.


        ComradeRoger

        @Jane Cullen @spriddler Jane, you lose all credibility when you blather on about a 'coup' inKiev while totally ignoring the actual coups that happened in Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk and Slavyansk at the hands of Russian forces.


        You are just a typical Kremlin propagandist, perhaps even one of the paid ones judging from your posts.

        Jane Cullen

        @ComradeRoger

        Ah hah. I'm a Kremlin propagandist.

        In decades past, the likes of you called antiwar activists pinkos, Reds, commies. A decade ago, anyone opposing the Neocons was called a Saddam apologist.

        I wear your absurd personal attack as a badge of honor.

        Jane Cullen

        @macnic1

        A random Rocky & His Friends ep has more intelligence and insight than Obama's State Dept plus both houses of Congress.

        Lora

        @ComradeRoger How many coups one country can have? Lol.

        Jane Cullen

        @spriddler

        No, the issue is whether we risk GTW in fealty to the PNAC agenda.

        Pacific Blue

        @spriddler @Jane Cullen Well the problem is the Ukrainians want different things. Isn't that what the conflict is all about. First they had an election and then they had a coup. Then they had an election in which the opposition opted out.

        Some Ukrainians want to break away from Ukraine. Besides, you're underestimating the amount of manipulation occurring on both sides of the conflict.

        We have outside forces on both sides meddling in the Ukraine but I'll tell you this. Russia has much more at stake than we do.

        jab670

        @Pacific Blue @spriddler @Jane Cullen

        I need to celebrate your knowledge! You're the first person who understands this break in Ukraine (something Smith and Cohen forget, since neither are Ukrainian scholars).

        However, I will argue they do not want to separate Ukraine, even though the west has historical ties to Poland and Austria-Hungary, and the east and south has ties to Russia (and Turkey).

        90% of Ukrainians, including those in the east, want to stay Ukrainians. If they wanted to be Russians, they could have easily immigrated there long ago (as the second-largest nationality in Russia is Ukrainian).

        In many ways, it's like the old North and South or liberal and conservative views of America. They have their own views of what America is and the will of its people. Perhaps it would have been beneficial to allow the ideological break in America to occur. Similar to the old American North, Russia is far more willing to see the country split than we are.

        It's a difficult question where both sides have some merit. But Russia has shown with its breakaway regions in Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan and now Crimea, they do not take care of them. Maybe it's a complete disregard, maybe its corruption in the government, and maybe it's a poor economy that cannot afford to finance the size of its territory. A problem America has with its own infrastructure across the country.

        Lora

        @spriddler @Jane Cullen Wait a second are we living in the same World? How did you deduced from a small radical Maidan protest helped by US what all Ukranians want? Ukrainians have expressed their will through elections, no not the traveling circus that put Poroshenko in charge the real elections before. Amazing isn't it that a bunch of American ignoramuses proclaim they know what Ukrainians want. (shakes it's head)

        Share Jane Cullen

        @ComradeRoger

        The Neocon aggression in Ukraine is absolutely unprecedented, and Norway is in no way equivalent to Ukraine, sitting as it is next to the heart of Russia, and containing Russia's main port to the Atlantic.

        But I'm sure that you'll be proud of your lobbying for war, those few minutes between the WEA alert on your cell phone, and the end of all you know.

        markwriter

        As best as I can tell, Cohen's arguments are:

        Russia has collapsed twice and almost 3 times in the last 100 years, and is ungovernable except by ruthless central control since any other governing system leads to an immediate threat of the internal disintegration of the country.

        Therefore, the US should have realized it was forbidden from engaging with countries that have suffered due to Russia and are terrified by it, because of Russia's secret feelings that it's falling apart.

        Furthermore, intervening in the Balkans against genocide was a terrible mistake because Serbians share the same church or something with Russia, and it threatened Russia.

        And, according to Cohen, Ukraine was the final straw in this disastrous US policy of trying to pay attention in Europe. The Maidan protests against overwhelming corruption should be completely discredited because it responded in kind when some protesters were killed, and... fascism.

        The conflict in eastern Ukraine is being fought by hero hairdressers and taxi drivers. The efforts by the Ukrainian government to respond are war crimes.

        Merkel, the German leader, is responsible for Greece, and therefore is another misguided leader who dangerously threatens Russia by refusing to push her "Kiev agrees to Minsk II" button that's on her desk. The fact that the agreement has a "II" in its title because the first one a few months ago was untenable within the first day is immaterial.

        Russia is always allowed to disappoint, because Russia. Smart scholars like myself, Stephen Cohen, know this is so, and know how to move on. By the way, I have no idea about Putin except that he's somehow holding his country together, one day at a time, just doing what he has to do.

        Man, that Putin, he's so unknowable and loving to his friends. My god, compare him to Obama who doesn't even know how to circumvent term limit protections! I think he's one of the best, and all my future imaginary historian friends agree with me. You'll see when you can listen to them too.


        Stuart Forrest

        The core problem with this interview, and the many articles making similar points, is that they start from an assumption that the perspectives and feelings of Russians matter more than those of the people living in the nations that used to be in the Warsaw Pact but now are in NATO or would like to be in NATO.

        The people of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, etc. have resisted Russian influence for centuries. For most of that time, they have ruled themselves and associated with western Europe or, in the case of Poland, tried to do so. These ties run deep; for example, their dominant churches have been Roman Catholic; not Eastern Orthodox.

        The same is true for the western half of Ukraine. It is culturally part of western Europe and has been for a very long time.

        Given centuries of conflict with Russia and their natural affinity with the nations of NATO, it is not wrong for western European people to want to belong to NATO. Nor was it wrong for NATO to expand to include these nations after the end of the Warsaw Pact.

        Russia's hurt feelings here, for the most part, are grounded in the loss of its expanded sphere of influence after WWII. There are two ways of viewing this: maybe Russia fears another invasion from the West; or perhaps Russia is upset that it's former client states prefer to associate with their historical allies and patrons. If it is the former, then the USA and NATO need to do more to make it clear that they will not attack Russia. If it is the latter, however, then it is right for the West to disregard Russia's hurt feelings.

        Although there may be a good deal of truth in what Stephen Cohen and Patrick L Smith write regarding the treatment of Russia by the West, and by the USA in particular, their argument largely fails because it does not explain why Russia legitimately fears an invasion from the West. If, indeed, Russia does have such a fear instead of just bemoaning the loss of influence it never legitimately had.

        jab670

        @Stuart Forrest

        A voice of moderate reason! Rather than viewing this as either/or, I'd assume that all the claims about Russia and United States are correct. Russia does feel a loss of influence, Russia does fear a military threat, and Russia does dislike Ukraine's interest in affiliating with the West. United States does want to expand influence, United States does want to remove corruption from Ukraine, and United States does want a strategic location against both Russia and the Middle East. There's also probably a corporate element too, where corporations want to open markets in Ukraine and find the corruption too infringing on this ability to expand, so they lobby western governments to intervene.

        There's also something revealing about Putin's past claim that "Ukraine is not a real country." It's borders and its peoples have been re-drawn and forced to migrate dramatically over the last 100 years. So, it's easy to see how Russia feels claim over Ukraine, especially when one is raised under the Soviet Union as a brotherhood. But, the fact is that Ukraine is now a country in its own right.

        To me, Russia and United States' biggest failings over Ukraine was not foreseeing (or for political reasons, willing choose) potential conflict. Ukraine should have immediately, after banishing Yanukovych, moved to model itself after Canada (who balances French and English backgrounds) and militarily & diplomatically commit to neutrality like Switzerland.

        author0072002

        I am the person with Russian background , who came to the uSA for good in spring of 1990. I am american citizen, I have no Russian citizenship, as, when I immigrated it was required to denounce Soviet citizenship. I am intelligent (two Ph.Ds.) and I am unbiased. So, the truth and, the very obvious one, is that Clinton's policies and what happened further, brought to the world the much heavier than before shape of cold war between two most powerful nuclear country of the world.

        I like Putin, like his understanding of his duties, his role in world's history, and his code of behavior. More important that the overwhelming majority of Russians like him also, as all polls show. I can write a lot of how idiotically I have been treated here, in the USA. But i've been here for 25 years, the treatment has been fully idiotic and very damageable for those, who were treating me this way, and I do not have here enough space to describe even a little bit of this despicable stupidity.

        What I want, nevertheless, to emphasize, is that I completely can't understand how democrats could, currently even think, not even advertise, that Mrs. Clinton, one of main architect of Clinton's time international policies, if not the leading person of them, should become their nominee for 2016 presidential run. This person is heavily responsible for the obvious return and the heavy escalation of the cold war, not mentioning her numerous internal achievements. How is it possible AT ALL to present her as the future nominee, ah?

        nyabingi

        @author0072002 My sentiments exactly. There are American officials and other well-connected people who are obsessed with making Russia another client state in much the same way the Baltic states are now: An outlet for American goods and a source of cheap labor, lax environmental laws and other sorts of exploitation, and outposts for the expansion of American military power (via NATO).

        Putin has always acted to American provocations in a calm, measured manner and I think it drives the American powers-that-be insane. Hillary Clinton was a very hawkish secretary of state and all indications are that she will act similarly if we are unfortunate enough to see her elected president.

        Jane Cullen


        @nyabingi

        The Megathatcher has compared Putin to Hitler, and to Saddam. The woman is a dangerous fool.
        She will push, hard, for war with Russia, if the world hasn't already burned by the time she's elected.

        jab670

        @Jane Cullen @nyabingi

        Finally something we agree on.

        Aranfell

        @Jane Cullen @nyabingi Now, who was it who said "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"? Who STILL wants to bomb Iran? Who opposes diplomatic solutions. Republicans. It's really crazed to think voting for a Republican President is the path to peace with ANYONE.

        jab670

        @Aranfell @Jane Cullen @nyabingi

        Neither mainstream party has offered an acceptable candidate. Maybe I could conceivably take some of the tolerable positions from each of the candidates and create a Frankenstein Republocrat to vote for, but our choices in 2016 make me want to write in Nader.

        Aranfell

        @author0072002 I'm sorry to hear that you've been treated badly in the USA. Even someone who likes the way Putin governs shouldn't be treated badly. But my question for YOU is: why would you vote for someone whose response to other countries not doing what they want is to bomb or invade them?

        Those are your ONLY choices on the Republican side. Don't confuse their admiration for "tough guys" like Putin as any sort of support for Russia. And if you are still being treated badly, why would you vote for a party that brags about being hostile to immigrants?

        RaisingMac

        @Aranfell @author0072002 Where in his post did he endorse any Republicans? He didn't even mention them.

        Aranfell

        @RaisingMac @Aranfell @author0072002 He can't believe the Democrats would nominate Hilary Clinton. But so far as I can tell, EVERY Republican who might be nominated is much more of a war-monger than Hilary, even assuming that his claims about her are correct. That's my point. Does he really think that US policy toward Russia would have been or will be friendlier with a Republican as President? If so, I'd sure be interested in his reasoning.

        RaisingMac

        @author0072002 I am sorry to hear about how you have been treated in the US. You've probably been here long enough by now to realize that Democrats and Republicans really aren't all that different on foreign policy (among other things). The main differences have to do with culture-war.

        Your old USSR was a one-party state; our USSA is a one-and-half-party state. Sad, but that's how it is.

        susan sunflower

        Would that more people felt this way: "" People are diverse. I don't judge them harshly for their beliefs.""

        The elephant in the living room seems to be that we are hell-bent for regime change -- via the usual method that fails time and time again -- economic sanctions, destroying the economy in the belief that "the people" will force him out.

        Didn't work in Iraq, didn't work with Iran, probably won't work in Russian if only because the BRICS will not let it succeed. No one knows who's next. The poorly-thought-through demonization of Putin is reminiscent of our character assassinations of Assad, Hussain, Karzai, Maliki, Kim Jong II, etc. - all "bad men" who we discovered were not actually easy to replace. Too many fingers in too many pies.

        Kyeshinka

        The Times has never gotten it right about Russia. Not once. I can still hear Thomas Friedman telling us that Yeltsin giving trillions in state assets the oligarchs is good for capitalism. Those old Stalin ladies on the street selling packs of Prima cigarettes for a ruble apiece to pay skyrocketing electric bills should just deal with it. They would never, ever vote for someone who promised to put a stop to the whole thing and take on the West.

        Philadelphia Steve

        I do not doubt the lies from Kiev. But using War Criminal Henry Kissinger as a source is about as reliable as using Bill Kristol.

        susan sunflower

        @Philadelphia Steve I think the original quote -- which I cannot find -- was that the problem was that Obama has a "stance" wrt Russia and Putin, but lacked a policy ... which at the time seemed a very good way to describe various gesture-like reactions by Obama to Putin and escalating sanctions on Putin's "inner circle"... very whack-a-mole ...

        Possibly because Obama was cowardly avoiding having a stated policy (see other F.P. situations) or because (my personal guess) serious lack of consensus among his various advisors and advising agencies (see also Syria). It has seemed as if Nuland has prevailed simply by ad hoc actions taken (See Cohen on the Obama/Putin deal struck on the eve of the ouster). Both Susan Rice and Samantha Power are at the top of the best reasons not consider voting for Clinton ... and their silence (and apparent recent low profile generally) on the Ukranian humanitarian crisis (and god knows the Syrian/Iraqi humanitarian crisis.... etc.) is stunning as Cohen brought up. Obama also apparently has a stance on R2P, but not a policy that might force his hand or limit his "flexibility" -- end whack-a-mole -- for something with a goal or end-point, y'know coherent or decisive.

        (see Seumas Milne's recent report on our remote control continuing wars).

        nyabingi

        @PGrajnert He quoted Kissinger in one instance, and you're assuming he's basing his "analysis of history" on that? Quoting someone isn't the same as saying you agree with that person or their actions 100%. Calm down man.

        Adams

        @jab670 @Jane Cullen @battleaxe "Russia is likely encouraging a destabilized/breakaway territory..." Yes, as the US of A encouraged the destabilization and overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine, no?

        "Russian military are operating in eastern Ukraine." Yes, as the US of A is operating overtly and covertly in Ukraine, no?

        ComradeRoger

        @Adams The US military is there at the invitation of the Ukrainian government.

        That would hardly be covert, now would it?

        jab670

        @Adams @jab670 @Jane Cullen @battleaxe

        Why is it with you folks who have to always make it a "Yes, but you..." argument.

        The United States doesn't benefit from destabilization as Russia does. The reason? We don't share a border with Ukraine. We actually need the opposite, which has benefited from the destabilization Russia and separatists have caused in the east.

        Look at political, historical, religious, linguistic, etc. maps of Ukraine and you'll see that with Donetsk and Lugansk's regions' voices being diminished due to violence, and now the exclusion of Crimea, the Ukrainian government is actually more stabile and more pro-western aligned.

        Of course, there are many fractured between pro-western and pro-Ukrainian nationalist factions, but the notion America would want destabilization is no represented by the facts. It IS troubling though. It is America post-Civil War where the South's electoral power was greatly diminished. It is undemocratic. It's a "chicken or the egg" situation until violence stops, which can only happen with granting the east more autonomy, but the Ukrainian government cannot do that at gun point.

        Jane Cullen

        @Adams

        I'm not laughing, I'm mocking.

        Sadly, the reference will be lost on most of the authoritarians who applaud the latest, suicidal Cold War with Russia, because a Democratic State Dept is leading the charge.

        Nicholai

        As a Russian, I should say that Mr. Cohen's understanding of "cause - effect" dependency, in application to present U.S.-RF tensions, is clear and logical.

        Mr.Cohen tries to stay focused on the main confrontation line. Obviously, there are dozens and dozens of issues directly or indirectly related.

        Like "what is the present U.S. representative system and why is it called "democracy?"

        In my view, we have a conflict between the U.S. plutocracy and the Russian national state.

        However. Expanding the discussion to the level of institutions would be too much for this format. So Mr. Cohen is trying to avoid such issues.

        The same way the author doesn't mention the world outside Russia and U.S + 32 U.S.-aligned national states.

        I liked this aspect - staying focused.

        And I will be waiting for Part Two.

        I am truly intrigued how Mr. Cohen is going to assess president Putin.

        Brian Burman

        In the past three days, three opposition figures have been murdered in Kiev, two journalists and one ex-MP. Comparing the total lack of media coverage of these (and a whole wave of "suicides" of opposition figures in the past months) to the front page headline coverage of the Nemtsov murder in Moscow shows the complete double standard of the Western media. The NY Times isn't writing that even if he didn't give the orders, Poreshenko is personally responsible for creating an "atmosphere" in which journalists can be gunned down in the streets. It's much easier to ignore it, because it doesn't fit the media narrative of a democratic, Western-striving Ukraine. It's like only Russia is allowed to be bad in that part of the world. And as Cohen says, that's OUR problem, because the corrupt, oligarch-run Kiev regime is propped up with US tax dollars and EU money in the name of democracy. Meanwhile, Ukraine's parliament passed a law proclaiming the Ukrainian Nazi-collaborators in WWII (who murdered hundreds of thousands of people) to be "freedom-fighters", as Kiev (and the US) continues arming neo-Nazi battalions and sending them to kill Ukrainians. By turning a blind eye, the West is helping foster and nurture, as well as funding these fascist tendencies in Europe, all in the name of Western values. If that's what they lead to, those Western values aren't worth much.

        PGrajnert

        @C_COOK @Frank Knarf You are correct that our US-led system suck. But that does not take away the fact that living under Muscovite rule sucks more. It'd be great for the EU to get our sh-t together and create an alternative... But until that's the case, we have to chose sides. And Patrick and Stephen, cowards who have never lived under the Muscovite boot, are simpleton scumbags for thinking that people should be forced to.

        Jane Cullen


        @PGrajnert

        So those few speaking up against more Neocon war are cowards, and simpleton scumbags.Sounds exactly like the filthy slurs used against those few who stood up to Neocon war against Iraq.

        The immorality of the Neocon warpigs who brought death and dismemberment to Iraq is the same now as then, as is the immorality of their chickenhawk enablers.

        jab670

        @Aranfell @Proteusar

        There's a tremendous abuse of the facts by all media on Ukraine, including Russian, Ukrainian and American media. Cohen offers a good perspective, but it's only a Russian perspective. But the media is failing us because they keep turning to Russian scholars. Would Russia report on the United States by talking to a Mexican scholar? It can tell part of the story, but you never hear Smith or Cohen mention the historic divide in Ukraine between East and West.

        usxpat

        Puleeeze. Enough of the Bull$hit already.

        I know I am probably a conspiracy theorist, but here goes.

        When one looks at the American empire one must think of it in terms of economics, like the British empire before it. This empire isn't run primarily for military purposes, or for other purposes, but to make money. It is run as a huge project to export money from places with less power to the US. At the end of the cold war the former Soviet Union found itself in the position of having natural resources and being in a subservient position.

        Remember Marc Rich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich ? I remember he had many dealing with the Russians. This allowed the US to diminish its dependence on South Africa resources and probably contributed to South Africa's collapse. I suspect that this could happen because Russian governmental leadership supported the Russian oligarchy and gave western businessmen a small cadre of Russian businessmen to negotiate with. I suspect Yeltsen supplied these relatively easy connections and they had the same deal with Putin. And now those Western businessmen would like access to Russian oil. Especially now that the Middle East is going pear shaped thanks to Bush the Junior.

        The American reaction to that time period is best summed up by Jeffery Sachs book which has a chapter on the American intervention in the Russian economy after his success in the Polish economy. That chapter is unsatisfyingly short and goes something like, the Russian economy was way too complex and I failed because it is impossible to understand.

        I think he ran into American/Russian forces that were way more powerful than he, and that they were rushing to the money and ran he and his team over.

        I would be very interested in someone writing more about this time period in Salon. I suspect that these writings would help people understand many of today's attitudes driving politics in the the region, and specifically attitudes driving Putin.

        I also remember vaguely a story about a Russian female banker working for one of the major US banks who was in effect laundering money and how she was caught. I bet she was getting money out for the oligarchs. Her story would also be interesting.

        susan sunflower

        ""The history of how this came about [begins] when Putin came to power, promoted by Yeltsin and the people around Yeltsin, who were all connected in Washington. These people in Moscow included Anatoly Chubais, who had overseen the privatizations, had relations with the IMF and had fostered a lot of the corruption. He came to United States to assure us that Putin was a democrat, even though he had been at the KGB.""

        I was utterly shocked by the PBS/Frontline report stating baldly that "the Kremlin" -- the FSB from Wiki:

        "" The blasts hit Buynaksk on 4 September, Moscow on 9 September and 13 September and Volgodonsk on 16 September. A similar explosive device was found and defused in an apartment block in the Russian city of Ryazan on September 22.[1] The next day then-Prime Minister of Russia Vladimir Putin praised the vigilance of the inhabitants of Ryazan and ordered the air bombing of Grozny, which marked the beginning of the Second Chechen War.[2] A few hours later, three FSB agents who had planted this device were arrested by the local police. The incident was declared to be a training exercise. These events led to allegations that the bombings were a "false flag" attack perpetrated by the FSB in order to legitimize the resumption of military activities in Chechnya and bring Vladimir Putin to power.[4]

        The Russian investigation concluded on the other hand:

        "" The official Russian investigation of the bombings was completed in 2002 and concluded that all the bombings were organized and led by Achemez Gochiyaev, who remains at large, and ordered by Islamist warlords Ibn Al-Khattab and Abu Omar al-Saif, who have been killed. Five other suspects have been killed and six have been convicted by Russian courts on terrorism-related charges.

        Yury Felshtinsky, Alexander Litvinenko, Boris Berezovsky, David Satter, Boris Kagarlitsky, Vladimir Pribylovsky, and the secessionist Chechen authorities claimed that the 1999 bombings were a false flag attack coordinated by the FSB in order to win public support for a new full-scale war in Chechnya, which boosted Prime Minister and former FSB Director Vladimir Putin's popularity, and brought the pro-war Unity Party to the State Duma and Putin to the presidency within a few months. This theory has been criticized byRobert Bruce Ware, Henry Plater-Zyberk, and Simon Saradzhyan.""

        It's pretty shocking to me -- myself having mixed feelings about Chechnya until Beslan (2004) and as I recall at that time there was no suggestion that the apartment bombing and Chechen suppression had been a "false flag" to put Putin into power -- rather that he had shown impressive leadership. ... Wikipedia has even more conspiracies within conspiracies that make 09/11 Truther Movement's main tenets appear boy-scout simple

        Am I remembering wrong? As far as I can tell, there was a drastic sea change -- likely spurred by the death/assassination of

        Alexander Litvinenko, but involving allegations from that camp apparently dating back to 1998.

        {wiki Litinenko: "In 2007, Sergey Dorenko provided The Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal with a complete copy of an interview he conducted in April 1998 for ORT, a television station, with Litvinenko and his fellow employees."" }

        I am at a loss to understand that "honeymoon" period Cohen speaks of in light of what I what I would guess was freely shared intelliegence by Putin's rivals (including the late Mr. Nemtsov --- widely interview in the Frontline prior to his death -- who as I recall lost-out-to Putin -- also back in 1998). It feels like the Russian people don't buy into this false flag conspiracy somehow only gained currency 5-6 years after the event, despite claimed "evidence" almost immediately.

        Putin is getting the Saddam Hussain treatment in which the past cooperation and applause is erased in favor of a damning portrait of a ruthless murderer to rival the Borgias, etc. -- or as Cohen references Ivan the Terrible. As I felt wrt to the Truther movement, It's really "something" to accuse a sitting administration of the deliberate murder of hundreds or thousands of citizens for political gain ... I'm fascinated by the repetition of "Putin's alleged crimes" -- seems so reckless.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings

        susan sunflower

        Oh, and the martyred Litvinenko also claimed Beslan was another false flag ... making him sound like Thierry Meyssan or something ... Unified theory of everything

        wiki Beslan

        "Several hostage-takers, including one of the leaders, Vladimir Khodov had been previously involved in terrorist activities, but released from government custody prior to the attack despite their high profiles. According to a publication in Novaya Gazeta, "the so-called Beslan terrorists were agents of our own special forces – UBOP [Center for Countering Extremism] and FSB."[236] According to FSB defector Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian secret services must have been aware of the plot beforehand, and therefore they themselves must have organised the attack as a false flag operation. He said that the previously arrested terrorists only would have been freed if they were of use to the FSB, and that even in the case that they were freed without being turned into FSB assets, they would be under a strict surveillance regime that would not have allowed them to carry out the Beslan attack unnoticed"

        In for a penny, in for a pound. Looking forward to next week -- Thank you Patrick ...

        The BBC has been ramping up the alarm for the last few days wrt to the imminent entire breakdown of that oh-so-imperfect cease fire which has already exceeded everyone's dire predictions at its inception.

        Hifisnock

        If you've read Cohen before, there won't be any surprises here. He obviously has a valid point in reference to the US overplaying it's hand in the Ukraine and generally with the expansion of NATO. It was clumsy and shortsighted thinking to believe a former (now-semi) superpower wouldn't respond to our attempt at militarizing its borders.

        On the flip side, the author complains about Cohen being branded 'Putin's apologist', but Cohen rarely delves into Putin's failures as a leader. And Cohen's bugle call that were on the edge of a 'more dangerous Cold War' is pure talking-head hyperbole. The world has changed a bit since the last Cold War and most of that change has diminished Russia's ability to project power. Unfortunately, with Putin in charge for the foreseeable future, we are left with tried and true 'containment' as our best policy going forward. Pushing beyond containment just plays into Putin's hands and makes him appear a 'strong' leader at home (and to Fox News).

        susan sunflower

        @Hifisnock Have you factored TPP in your calculations? Between TPP and TIPP, we're doing our damnedest to lock Russia in and out ... and we're actively courting China and India -- Pretty chilly

        wp: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/02/06/trade-partnerships-are-an-opportunity-not-to-be-missed/

        obviously this article thinks both are Tony Tiger grrrreaaaat ... but there's no subtlety

        ""First, Russian aggression is an unpleasant balance of power problem that is unlikely to go away any time soon. TTIP isn't a panacea, but it would strengthen the West's balance of power position. It would help European economies grow, provide more opportunities for European companies to turn from Russia to the United States and enhance the prospects for further trans-Atlantic economic policy coordination. The United States and its European allies need to prepare for more rounds of economic sanctions against Russia in the near term, and they have to build a stronger, more united economic front for the long haul.

        Second, turning to the Pacific, the rise of China is the great balance of power challenge of our time. The TPP isn't a Pacific panacea, but it is an important part of the equation. It would reinforce the United States' position in the region and provide strategic reassurance to the many Asia-Pacific countries that worry about China's rise – that is, everyone except North Korea. It would be a new, strong multilateral accord in a region that very much needs more multilateral frameworks. These would be stability-enhancing developments.""

        RaisingMac

        @susan sunflower @Hifisnock Yes, TPP and TTIP are more or less transparent schemes to lock down Europe and East Asia before they drift into the Russo-Chinese orbit. That's why they both exclude Russia and China.

        [Apr 18, 2015] Vladimir Putin's phone-in with Russia – as it happened

        Difficult time for Hillary bots. Botswana61 even complained: "How come that posters who clearly hate The Guardian and its editorial policy keep coming back to its portal day after day".
        Apr 18, 2015 | The Guardian

        Colin Robinson -> tigi , 18 Apr 2015 17:13

        "He is an evil monster" Calling any human being a "monster" is demonisation.

        popsiq , 18 Apr 2015 17:12

        EUkrainians need to spend less time making fun and more time trying not to destroy their country.

        F*cking yourself is neither productive or fun. If you can get it on video it will sell on the US market.

        John Smith -> Mike_UK , 18 Apr 2015 16:38

        You can continue with you crap but no one with a brain and a little effort to inform himself/herself wouldn't buy it.

        fairandreasonabletoo -> MoonbaseAlpha, 18 Apr 2015 16:23

        What will be funny is when your "military advisers" start coming home in pieces because the Kiev hill billies they are training can't cut it in the field….

        fairandreasonabletoo , 18 Apr 2015 16:18

        Just for some balance you understand…….theres waaaay too much pro (and distorted ) nonsense coming from pro Kiev elements within the Guardian.

        http://slavyangrad.org

        fairandreasonabletoo -> AlfredHerring , 18 Apr 2015 16:14

        These kind of owls perhaps?

        http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/f032_Owl.htm

        Keep smoking the bowl/pipe guy…..my money is on the Kremlin for this gig….

        Enjoy your moon howling……..

        AmounRah -> tigi , 18 Apr 2015 16:02

        Accorddiinnggg tooooooo....??? Oh, that's right. The headlines.

        I love how Putin morphed within the past 2 years.

        I mean there he was...no one knew about him....he didn't bother anyone, he was never a terrorist and there was never Russian aggression....

        Now, all of a sudden, when he is talking about dropping US$ and pushing BRICS, he is a terrorizing nazi Kremlin KGB monster.

        Give me a break.

        Rainmaker21 -> MoonbaseAlpha , 18 Apr 2015 15:49

        Katrina Vanden Heuvel: It's far simplier to demonise Putin than to come up with informed analysis

        Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=44f_1428812523#ftIF0ftW4Wf8bR1w.99

        Rainmaker21 , 18 Apr 2015 15:48

        This video should tell you all you need to know about the lies of the Kiev regime- Video Shows the Beautiful Terrorists the US Financed the Ukrainian Nazi National Guard Battalions To Kill. When you see them you will realize that you have been lied to all along.

        Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c64_1427739018#CbBUfqSPfkXjaibZ.99

        retsdon -> MaoChengJi , 18 Apr 2015 15:22

        ...incidentally, is it normal for the guardian now to cooperate openly with RFE/RL, cold-war propaganda tool of the US government? ..... How long has this been going on?

        Good question. The really big change occurred after MI5 smashed the Guardian's computer hard drives with sledge hammers.

        Nobody from the Guardian was ever charged under Official Secrets legislation, and the Guardian never sought any redress or compensation for the damage.

        It's not rocket science.

        Sarah7 -> MentalToo , 18 Apr 2015 14:56

        Kremlin Troll Army Myth Deconstructed
        http://russia-insider.com/en/whos-trip-trapping-my-bridge-fable-putins-troll-army/5565

        Anyone arguing against stereotyping of Russia, its leader and its policies, who substantiates his or her argument with solid reasoning and historical or contemporary fact, must be paid by the Russian government:

        A few days ago, I was thinking that I might do a post on the bellyaching and caterwauling from the Russophobes about Moscow's supposed army of "paid trolls," who are reimbursed by the Russian government for clogging western comment threads with fallacious arguments and childish insults which detract from – or derail entirely – thoughtful and informative commentary, often ridiculing the post itself in the bargain.

        Read on and follow the links to the related pieces quoted therein for a fuller discussion.

        Kremlin trolls? Actually, there is much less there than meets the eye -- that is, for those still capable of seeing with some degree of clarity.

        nnedjo -> Botswana61 , 18 Apr 2015 14:32

        How come that posters who cleary hate The Guardian and its editorial policy keep coming back to its portal day after day

        Listen, Botswana, who authorized you to be attorney for The Guardian editorial policy. You have enough of your Swahili media in Botswana, so go there to play the role of an attorney.:-)

        Mike_UK -> todaywefight , 18 Apr 2015 14:08

        Odessa = Was that after Russian's invaded Crimea and Luhansk?
        Was that more Russian's chancing their arm at starting civil war in Odessa?
        Who left theie Molotov cocktails on the stairwells of the buiding they were in?

        HollyOldDog -> MichaelMorin , 18 Apr 2015 13:03

        While trying to peer into the mists on misinformation from Kiev, I use this test to verify the truth.

        If it looks like a Duck,swims like a duck and Quacks like a duck then in all probability its a duck

        Or you might prefer the Elephant test but this reserved for legal cases.

        MaoChengJi -> Botswana61, 18 Apr 2015 12:47

        Botswana, dear, you sound agitated and disoriented. Relax, take it easy. There's nothing more important than your health, believe me.

        HollyOldDog -> Botswana61, 18 Apr 2015 12:41

        German and Poland brown coal open cast sites. The Brussels is going to take them to the cleaners over the huge pollution this will cause. Polish farmers are already Upset as the will lose 1000 hectares of their farm land - this is probably why they are going to Brussels to protest. EU countries are no longer free to make their own decisions that have the potential to harm the environment and increase the threat of Global Warming - on this point ' are we not all in it together'.

        nykstys -> uracan , 18 Apr 2015 12:40

        It's not going to happen- Lithuania has no money for that, just about have enough wherewithal to ran charitable APC from 60 and 70.... but from what I hear munitions production ramped up to resupply koshermafia entrenched in Ukraine. Bizarre as French keep saying.:)

        HollyOldDog -> Botswana61, 18 Apr 2015 12:27

        I noticed that 2 bits of your info was incorrect Cuba has been released from the debt it owes to Russia and that Russia is welcome to invest in Cyprus (South), Cyprus (North ) is awaiting confirmation from Turkey.

        [Apr 18, 2015] Brent Scowcroft The Wise Man by Jacob Heilbrunn

        The article brings an important and unanswered question: what is "political realism"?
        It also stresses the fact that the US foreign policy is formed by uncontrolled bureaucrats in high echelons of power, which have interests often opposite to the interests of the US population and pander to the interest to transnational corporations, making the USA a corrupt policemen who enforces of their interests.
        February 25, 2015 | The National Interest
        In 1961, Richard Rovere, a correspondent for the New Yorker, wrote an essay in the American Scholar called "Notes on the Establishment In America." In it he described, with extensive footnotes, a northeastern mandarin class, composed of everyone from John McCloy to John Kenneth Galbraith, that was manipulating the levers of power at the highest levels of government and industry. Rovere wrote:

        The Establishment, as I see it, is not at any level a membership organization, and in the lower reaches it is not organized at all. In the upper reaches, some divisions have achieved a high degree of organization and centralization and, consequently, of exclusiveness and power. The directors of the Council on Foreign Relations, for example, make up a sort of Presidium for that part of the Establishment that seeks to control our destiny as a nation.

        Rovere's spoof occasioned a good deal of comment -- one credulous legislator and member of the John Birch Society even entered it into the Congressional Record as a profound indictment of the establishment's reach and sway -- but perhaps no riposte was more telling than William F. Buckley Jr.'s. It appeared in Harper's Magazine in 1962 and was titled "The Genteel Nightmare of Richard Rovere."

        Buckley, who had devoted much of his early career to attacking the Eisenhower administration and mainstream liberals alike, pounced upon Rovere's study. He said that for all his mock sobriety, Rovere was likely revealing more than he had intended. "The fact of the matter," wrote Buckley, "is that Mr. Rovere's disavowals notwithstanding, there is a thing which, properly understood, might well be called an American Establishment; and the success of Mr. Rovere's essay wholly depends on a sort of nervous apprehension of the correctness of the essential insight."

        Indeed it did. For much of its history, the establishment has operated quietly in the corridors of power. The very idea of an establishment, after all, can seem antithetical to American democracy, a sentiment that was vividly expressed in Senator Joseph McCarthy's description of Secretary of State Dean Acheson as "this pompous diplomat in striped pants, with a phony British accent." The Vietnam War further discredited the establishment in the eyes of the Left and the Right, the former blaming it for being too hawkish and the latter for not being hawkish enough. As the militant rollback doctrines championed by Buckley and his crowd, which had been expressed but never acted upon by the Reagan administration, were put into operation by the neoconservatives during the George W. Bush administration's war in Iraq, the establishment seemed as passé among Republicans as among Democrats.

        More recently, however, the establishment has seen its reputation rise steadily. An entire field of what might be called establishment studies has appeared to depict leading foreign-policy figures from the Cold War, some of whose surviving members (most notably George F. Kennan, who died at the age of 101 in 2005) warned against both NATO expansion and the Iraq War. The volumes include Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas's The Wise Men, Kai Bird's The Chairman, Geoffrey Kabaservice's The Guardians, Godfrey Hodgson's The Colonel and John Lewis Gaddis's George F. Kennan: An American Life. The reason for this steady output about patricians such as Kennan, Acheson, Henry Stimson and Robert Lovett isn't simply a case of nostalgia for a bygone era, though there is certainly some of that. It's because these grandees represent a foreign-policy tradition that retains its relevance-a conception of public service that, as far as possible, seeks to define and defend America's national interests rather than focus on partisan gain.

        ENTER BRENT Scowcroft. In his new biography The Strategist: Brent Scowcroft and the Call of National Security, Bartholomew Sparrow, a professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin, offers a timely reminder of his significance. Few former government officials epitomize the belief in public service better than Scowcroft. As a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant general, a former military assistant to Richard Nixon, and U.S. national-security adviser under Presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush, Scowcroft has become Washington's quintessential wise man.

        Over the past five decades, beginning with his service to Nixon and continuing to the present, Scowcroft has played a central role in promoting an internationalist foreign policy grounded in realist precepts. He stands for the antithesis of a crusading doctrine that goes abroad in search of monsters to destroy. The bluster and braggadocio that characterize many of his detractors are alien to Scowcroft. So as a welter of Republican candidates prepare to seek their party's nomination for the presidency, they would do well to contemplate his legacy. Here are five lessons Scowcroft's career offers.

        The first lesson is a reminder of the importance of character. Born in Ogden, Utah, in 1925 into a Mormon family, Scowcroft has never lost sight of the bedrock values that his parents instilled in him -- tenacity, diligence and self-effacement. This translates into his approach to international relations. He does not think that Washington can successfully hector or even bully other nations into following its lead. Instead, Sparrow notes, "Although he has not stated so explicitly, Scowcroft believes in an indirect pursuit of human rights-human rights as the by-product of public policy and international diplomacy." The most that the United States can do is to engage in quiet diplomacy in order to persuade other governments to respect human dignity. His views seem quite reminiscent of Kennan's: wary of Congress, skeptical of the media and wary of the abrupt mood swings of public opinion. Like Kennan, he is sympathetic to a national-security policy guided by an elite-"a hierarchical approach to leadership," Sparrow astutely notes, "that is characteristic of several of the institutions which Scowcroft has been a part of, such as the Air Force, the Department of Defense, the presidency, and the Mormon Church."

        The second lesson is about what actually constitutes realism. A problem that realists sometimes run into is that they aren't all that realistic. Not Scowcroft. He considers himself to be an "enlightened realist," which is to say that he takes account of practical circumstances as opposed to seeking to force events into a procrustean framework. In short, unlike a number of classical realists, who take a rather simplistic view of international relations by reducing countries to a set of billiard balls that supposedly react predictably to one another, Scowcroft takes a more sophisticated approach. As an Air Force intelligence staff officer who served in Yugoslavia in the mid-1950s, Scowcroft worked under Kennan, who was ambassador to the independent Communist state. Scowcroft, who studied Russian history and Communism, came to the sensible conclusion, not all that different from Kennan's, that Soviet ideology was more an outgrowth of Russian nationalism and geopolitical insecurity than an expression of an unquenchable drive for world domination. Nor was there anything inherent "in the Slavic soul," he said, that stipulated that the Soviet Union expand abroad.

        ... ... ...

        THE THIRD, and related, lesson is to avoid triumphalism in foreign policy and emphasize diplomacy. As national-security adviser to George H. W. Bush, Scowcroft played a central role in crafting America's response to the collapse of the Soviet Union. He had no sentimental attraction to Mikhail Gorbachev, though as Gorbachev's grip on office began to slip, the Bush administration became increasingly worried about the prospect of an abrupt and chaotic Soviet collapse. Overall, upon entering office, Bush was much more cautious in dealing with the Kremlin than the Reagan administration had been during its final years, when it signed sweeping arms-control treaties with the Soviets.

        Some of this caution was rooted in apprehensions about Russian president Boris Yeltsin, whom Scowcroft referred to in private conversations with British prime minister John Major in August 1991 as "an egoist, a demagogue, an opportunist, and a grandstander." Bush came under criticism at the time for reacting too slowly to changes taking place in Russia. Scowcroft, however, worried about the possibility of bloodshed and the command and control of the Soviet nuclear arsenal. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney had a different view. He maintained that the United States should encourage independence movements in the disparate Soviet republics and establish diplomatic relations with them.

        Scowcroft pursued a more nuanced policy. He exploited Soviet decline during the Gulf War. He kept Moscow on board while resisting Soviet diplomatic attempts to obstruct a U.S. attack. But after the formal dissolution of the Soviet empire, Bush conspicuously refused to gloat over its demise. To their immense credit, Bush, Scowcroft and Secretary of State James Baker helped to unify Germany and end the Cold War - all without firing a shot. It's an accomplishment that is only beginning to receive its proper recognition.

        The fourth lesson of Scowcroft's career centers on the paramount goal of maintaining stability in the post–Cold War era. When it came to Iraq, the George H. W. Bush administration deployed a combination of diplomacy and military power to extrude Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991. But it also refrained from entering Baghdad for fear of the unpredictable consequences that might follow. Scowcroft never deviated from this stance, which is why an op-ed under his name appeared on August 15, 2002, in the Wall Street Journal headlined "Don't Attack Saddam." Just as Scowcroft had concluded that the Soviet Union lacked true missionary zeal, so he argued that Saddam Hussein was, at bottom, a "power-hungry survivor" who would not operate in tandem with Al Qaeda. Instead, he wrote that toppling Saddam would "swell the ranks of the terrorists" and might "destabilize Arab regimes in the region." Scowcroft had it right

        [Apr 17, 2015] Will Ukraine Push the US Into War

        As for question "What are the forces that have us "stumbling to war"?" the answer is chick hawks ("liberal interventionalists" which are indistinguishable from neocons) from current administration and military industrial complex.
        Apr 17, 2015 | The American Conservative
        "Could a U.S. response to Russia's action in Ukraine provoke a confrontation that leads to a U.S.-Russia War?" This jolting question is raised by Graham Allison and Dimitri Simes in the cover article of The National Interest.

        The answer the authors give, in "Countdown to War: The Coming U.S. Russia Conflict," is that the odds are shortening on a military collision between the world's largest nuclear powers. The cockpit of the conflict, should it come, will be Ukraine.

        What makes the article timely is the report that Canada will be sending 200 soldiers to western Ukraine to join 800 Americans and 75 Brits on a yearlong assignment to train the Ukrainian army.

        And train that army to fight whom? Pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine whom Vladimir Putin has said will not be crushed, even if it requires Russian intervention. Says Putin, "We won't let it happen."

        What are the forces that have us "stumbling to war"?

        On our side there is President Obama who "enjoys attempting to humiliate Putin" and "repeatedly includes Russia in his list of current scourges alongside the Islamic State and Ebola." Then there is what TNI editor Jacob Heilbrunn calls the "truculent disposition" that has become the "main driver of Republican foreign policy." A "triumphalist camp," redolent of the "cakewalk war" crowd of Bush II, is ascendant and pushing us toward confrontation.

        This American mindset has its mirror image in Moscow.

        "Putin is not the hardest of the hard-liners in Russia," write the authors. "Russia's establishment falls into … a pragmatic camp, which is currently dominant thanks principally to Putin's support, and a hard-line camp" the one Putin adviser calls "the hotheads."

        The hotheads believe the way to respond to U.S. encroachments is to invoke the doctrine of Yuri Andropov, "challenge the main enemy," and brandish nuclear weapons to terrify Europe and split NATO. Russian public opinion is said to be moving toward the hotheads.

        Russian bombers have been intruding into NATO air space. Putin says he was ready to put nuclear forces on alert in the Crimea. Russia's ambassador has warned Copenhagen that if its ships join a NATO missile defense force, Denmark could be targeted with nukes.

        In coming war games, Russia will move Iskander missiles into the Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad on Poland's northern border. "Russia is the only country in the world that is realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash," brays the director of the television network Rossiya Segodnya.

        As of now, the "pragmatists" represented by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov retain the upper hand. They believe Russia can still do business with the United States and Europe. "The 'hotheads' take the opposite view," the authors write, "they argue that NATO is determined to overthrow Putin, force Russia to its knees, and perhaps even dismember the country."

        In Ukraine, Putin has drawn two red lines. He will not permit Ukraine to join NATO. He will not allow the rebels to be crushed.

        Russia hard-liners are confident that should it come to war in Ukraine, Russia would have what Cold War strategists called "escalation dominance." This is what JFK had in the Cuban missile crisis-conventional and nuclear superiority on sea and land, and in the air around Cuba.

        With Ukraine easily accessible to Russian forces by road and rail, sea and air, and Russia's military just over the border while U.S. military might is a continent away, the hard-liners believe Russia would prevail in a war and America would face a choice-accept defeat in Ukraine or escalate to tactical atomic weapons.

        The Russians are talking of resorting to such weapons first.

        The decisive date for Putin to determine which way Russia will go would appear to be this summer. The authors write:

        Putin will attempt to exploit the expiration of EU sanctions, which are scheduled to expire in July. If that fails, however, and the European Union joins the United States in imposing additional economic sanctions such as excluding Moscow from the SWIFT financial clearing system, Putin would be tempted to respond, not by retreating, but by ending all cooperation with the West, and mobilizing his people against a new and 'apocalyptic' threat to 'Mother Russia.'

        As a leading Russian politician told us, 'We stood all alone against Napoleon and against Hitler.'

        As of now, the Minsk II cease-fire of February seems to be holding. The Ukrainian army and pro-Russian rebels have both moved their heavy weapons back from the truce lines, though there have been clashes and casualties.

        But as Ukraine's crisis is unresolved, these questions remain: Will the U.S. train the Ukrainian army and then greenlight an offensive to retake the rebel-held provinces? Would Russia intervene and rout that army? Would the Americans sit by if their Ukrainian trainees were defeated and more Ukrainian land was lost?

        Or would we start up the escalator to a war with Russia that few Europeans, but some Americans and Russians, might welcome today?

        Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Copyright 2015 Creators.com.

        [Apr 17, 2015] China's AIIB Challenge How Should America Respond

        April 17, 2015 | The National Interest

        Elvis

        Highly optimistic of the author to make this recommendation. Now I would recommend the US join the AIIB, yet I also know that is highly unlikely.

        1. First, the US has never joined an international institution that was not founded by the US.
        2. Second, the US would never join an international institution that they could not dominate - in this case since non-Asian member states only get 25% of the vote, it's a given the US could never dominate.
        3. Third, American pride would prevent us since we degenerated the AIIB and pressured others not to join, doing a turnabout would be too much for our political elites.
        4. Fourth, joining may give the impression that the US is accepting the creation of a parallel non-US dominated financial system, which to Washington DC is unacceptable.
        5. Fifth, the GOP is dominated by the Tea Party and they want to reduce US expenditures, including foreign aid and contributing to the AIIB would not go well with them.
        6. Sixth, the neocons of the GOP would likewise pressure said party to resist joining the AIIB.
        Natural Order, April 17, 2015 9:24 PM

        " The Chinese record as a lender to developing nations is spotty at best. Too often it has provided loans to kleptocratic regimes that finance Chinese companies using imported Chinese workers on projects that mainly ship energy and raw materials back to Chinese industry; sometimes bribes grease the way, while the local environment and economy can suffer. Some experts say the Chinese record in Africa, for example, is no better than that of 19th century European colonialists. "

        The author must have "full knowledge that U.S. companies don 't import American labors", and instead hire domestic workers? As I understand it, it is a standard practice, and frankly, show a remarkable lack of self awareness.

        "Governing board members elected from other member states, such as Great Britain and Canada, are expected to ensure those guidelines are followed."

        There is a pretense that China is so bad, but the record shows more that IMF, and WB are really bad for developing countries. Objections to the IMF, and WB are abundant, Getting countries into dollar debts, and forcing them to sell their public assets to foreigners. so why if anything is Western countries be so clean?

        "The claim is nonsense-the bank is not that important, and the United States remains the world's leading economy, most powerful military force, and a central figure in the region; most Asian states want to keep close relations with America...

        All this produced soft diplomacy gains for China at America's expense, undermining the official U.S. policy of tilting Asia's way."

        Author is very conceited. He is not very critical. Why do st***p people make so much assumptions?

        EU pushing Ukraine towards trilateral free trade, with Russia

        et Al, April 16, 2015 at 9:31 am

        euractiv: EU pushing Ukraine towards trilateral free trade, with Russia
        http://www.euractiv.com/sections/europes-east/eu-pushes-ukraine-toward-trilateral-free-trade-including-russia-313816

        Fearing that Russia could retaliate against Ukraine following the entry into force of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) later this year, the European Commission is now pushing Ukraine to agree to a trilateral trade format, including Russia.

        On Wednesday (15 April), a Ukrainian parliamentarian reacted angrily to messagess from EU officials, who said that Ukraine should seek to accommodate its EU free trade agreement with an older arrangement his country had with Russia.

        Ironically, it was Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich who appealed for such an approach two years ago, which was flatly rejected by Brussels…

        …Neighbourhood Commissioner Johannes Hahn backed the main conclusions of the paper in the following terms:

        "The study rightly recognises that integration [for Ukraine] with Russia and EU are not in principle mutually exclusive. The study goes on to suggest that at least partial restoration of links with Russia, and the so-called Eurasian Economic Union will be important to Ukraine's economic recovery, and that Ukraine should diversify its export markets and develop trade relations in many directions."

        The Commissioner said that the EU wasn't looking for an exclusive economic relationship with Ukraine.

        "This is important to be stressed. There is nothing in our new agreement that would stop Ukraine from continuing to export products to Russia. Approximation with EU standards will not prevent Ukraine from trading with Russia," he went on. In his terms, the Association Agreement left Ukraine free to determine its own trade policy.

        "Ukraine already has preferential trade relations with the members of the Eurasian economic union within the framework of the Community of Independent States free trade area. These are perfectly compatible with the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, and there is no reason why they should not be maintained. So the EU-Ukraine bilateral DCFTA does not impose a false choice on Kyiv. Those who say so are wrong or may have their own agenda," Hahn said….
        ####

        More at the link.

        So Brussels admits failure and that it was wrong? No. Brussels has got the message from Germany and others that they will not take over Russia's former subsidy of the Ukraine.

        So there you have it – Brussels wants this unfortunate misunderstanding brushed under the table with the backing of EU states that still want to continue sanctions against Russia. Silence from the US.

        [Apr 17, 2015] Graham Allison on World War I, Ukraine and Realism

        Apr 17, 2015 | The National Interest
        https://youtu.be/hR3HakDTlLo?list=UUgp3Ipjacu00pea4DD1bU_w

        Please Note: The following is a note from The National Interest's Editor, Jacob Heilbrunn.

        Graham Allison, the Douglas Dillon professor of government and Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School and a member of the National Interest's Advisory Council, has enjoyed a long and distinguished career both in academia and government. His accomplishments include his landmark book Essence of Decision, a study of the Cuban missile crisis as well as serving as assistant secretary of defense for policy and plans in the Clinton administration. His approach to realism in foreign policy -- a habit of thought that he calls an "endangered species" -- is grounded in a practical and hardheaded understanding of international affairs. As he notes in this interview, it was Henry Kissinger who profoundly influenced his thinking. Other Harvard professors who helped shape his thinking include Samuel Huntington and Ernest May, both of whom were keen students of history and international relations.

        In his numerous essays and books, Allison focuses on statesmanship -- averting and ending crises. His most recent book, together with Robert D. Blackwill, consists of extended interviews with Lee Kuan Yew, the former leader of Singapore who, as Kissinger puts it in a foreword, is "not only one of the seminal leaders of our period, but also a thinker recognized for his strategic acumen."

        Currently, Allison is completing a book on what he calls the Thucydides Trap -- the moment when an established power is challenged by a rising one, as, for example, Wilhelmine Germany sought to surpass the British empire with calamitous results both for itself and the rest of Europe. Indeed, with a number of contributions to the National Interest web site, Allison has examined the legacy of World War I for contemporary events, asking whether the crisis in Ukraine might, as the Balkans once did, presage a larger and even more sanguinary conflict that could menace the very foundations of the Western world that has existed since the end of World War II. It's an unsettling thought. But then again, Allison is a provocative thinker who is rarely satisfied with what passes for conventional wisdom in Washington, DC or elsewhere.

        In the lively and engaging interview above, he discusses his understanding of how the past may shape the present, the deep impression left upon him by Kissinger, and what lessons World War I and the Cuban missile crisis may offer. Perhaps most provocatively, he dismisses the notion that President Obama has failed in foreign policy, withholding great praise for Obama but also noting that he disagrees with the prescriptions offered by leading neoconservatives. Nuanced, cogent, meditative -- these are all adjectives that might be appropriately applied to Allison, who knows that simple truculence cannot substitute for discerning diplomacy when conducting foreign affairs.

        Articles by Graham Allison

        Vladimir Putin's Dicey Dilemma: Russia Stands at a Fateful Fork in the Road

        Despite the Obama administration's narrative of a Russia that is not a player in global affairs -- Moscow matters. Yet, major challenges remain if the Ukraine crisis remains unresolved.

        Graham Allison Is America on the ISIS Hit List?

        "To whom does ISIS pose the most imminent and even existential threat?"

        Graham Allison Graham Allison on World War I, Ukraine and Realism

        TNI's editor speaks with Harvard's Graham Allison.

        Graham Allison How to Solve the Ukraine Crisis

        "If Ukraine is to have a chance to succeed as a modern nation, it will require a degree of acceptance and cooperation from Russia as well as its Western neighbors."

        Graham Allison Could the Ukraine Crisis Spark a World War?

        We should not forget that in 1914, the possibility that the assassination of an Archduke could produce a world war seemed almost inconceivable.

        Graham Allison Good News From Ukraine: It Doesn't Have Nukes

        Looking back at Kiev's risky, carefully negotiated decision to give up its nuclear weapons after it escaped the Soviet Union.

        Graham Allison A "Belgian Solution" for Ukraine?

        "Given the reality that is Ukraine today, an internationally-recognized neutral state within its current borders would be a victory for all."

        Graham Allison Putin's Olympic Gamble

        A report from Sochi.

        Graham Allison 2014: Good Year for a Great War?

        Prospects for peace seemed to be looking up in 1913, as in 2013. What are the chances we're wrong again?

        Graham Allison An Interview with Graham Allison

        A conversation on the Syria deal, Russia's power, the Iran overtures, and more.

        Graham Allison Lee Kuan Yew, Grand Master of Asia

        Singapore's éminence grise sees China rising and India falling.

        Robert D. Blackwill The Coming Clash Over Iran

        Relations between the United States and Israel may soon be dominated by disagreements about the Islamic Republic.

        Shai Feldman The Three 'Nos' Knows

        In the previous issue of The National Interest, John Mueller argued that the threats from nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism and nuclear war are exagger

        Graham Allison Apocalypse When?

        Graham AllisonJoseph CirincioneWilliam C. PotterJohn Mueller

        Churchill, Not Quite

        With America facing grave threats, the Bush Administration has failed to demonstrate a willingness to establish a hierarchy of priorities.

        Graham AllisonDimitri K. Simes In Brief: Thoughts on National Security

        Graham AllisonIan BremmerHarlan UllmanDerek Chollet Not If, but When: Imagining a Nuclear 9/11

        As unpleasant and as frightening as it may be, the United States must come to grips with the prospect of facing a terrorist strike using nuclear materials--a "nuclear 9/11"--within the coming decade.

        Graham Allison The New Containment

        Forging a U.S.-Russian alliance to prevent nuclear terrorism should be America's top priority in the post-September 11 world; here is a blueprint for one.

        [Apr 16, 2015] Chaos And Hegemony - How US Dollar Imperialism Dominates The World

        Quote: "However, when at the beginning of the 21st century the new economic giants China and India, with their almost inexhaustible hunger for energy, started organizing their own supply, the U.S.-dominated oil regime collapsed. The oil markets henceforth followed the pricing laws for exhaustible goods; oil prices therefore rose drastically and have subsequently been guided by market mechanisms."

        Apr 16, 2015 | Zero Hedge

        Submitted by Mohssen Massarat via CounterPunch.org,

        With last fall's U.S. Congressional elections, the Barack Obama 'era' has entered its final phase. Shortly before coming to power, the new U.S. president had sparked a massive uproar when he proclaimed a new 'Pacific century.' Since then, roughly two years before the end of his term in office, we can see more clearly. First and foremost, the proclamation of an allegedly new orientation towards the Pacific served the purpose to put Europe, and particularly Germany, under pressure so that they fill the allegedly emerging security gap. In reality, however, it is not the Pacific that forms the epicenter of U.S. geostrategic interests, neither – despite the Crimea crisis – is it the 'old (European) world,' but it is still the Middle East. For the latter's fate defines whether American hegemony stands or falls.

        America's interest in this region is as old as the discovery of enormous Mideast oil reserves – albeit not at the moment, as is generally but falsely suggested, because of her own domestic oil supply. Thanks to its immense domestic energy resources, historically the U.S. has since the dawn of the last century been independent from importing oil. And with the current widespread use of fracking technology, it is once again about to become self-sufficient. As the new hegemonic power in the wake of the Second World War, the U.S. quickly realized that it could make rivaling world powers dependent on it by way of controlling the Middle East with its tremendous reserves of oil – the global economy's fuel. Originally, the U.S., together with Saudi Arabia – its main ally in the region – established a global oil supply regime that could provide the West, China, and all BRICS countries with energy security. In this regime, Saudi Arabia arranged for constant overproduction. Thanks to this system that was politically controlled by the U.S., both its Western allies and its rivals enjoyed unimpeded oil supply at low prices – and all this despite great political turbulence raging during the entire second half of the last century. At the same time, the U.S. dollar, pegged to the oil price, acted as the global reserve currency.

        However, when at the beginning of the 21st century the new economic giants China and India, with their almost inexhaustible hunger for energy, started organizing their own supply, the U.S.-dominated oil regime collapsed. The oil markets henceforth followed the pricing laws for exhaustible goods; oil prices therefore rose drastically and have subsequently been guided by market mechanisms.

        The irony of history: Albeit the U.S. has lost the ability to steer the oil price – one of its central political leverages –, it has in another way been able to drastically strengthen its hegemony via the new prices set by the global market. For the high oil prices have multiplied the percentage share of oil trade within global trade, which caused massively higher demand for dollars and U.S. government bonds. As a result, for the foreseeable future the U.S. dollar will thereby remain the indisputable reserve currency.

        It is precisely here that we can identify the actual basis for U.S. dominance: By way of an unlimited creation of the dollar as the globe's reserve currency, the U.S. constitutes the only economy in the world that can finance several mega-projects at once – such as the bailing-out of banks and gigantic defense spending – through public debt and the issuing of government bonds. After the 2008 crash, no other national economy could have managed the banking crisis on its own without suffering any severe consequences. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), whose financial basis is essentially formed by the U.S Treasury's government bonds, provided the U.S. with the required capital. The FDIC is an institution specifically created by the U.S. Congress to promote "stability and public confidence in the nation's financial system." Thereby, in fact, in 2009 the United States successfully nationalized all ailing banks in order to dispose its debt, and subsequently privatized them again. Meanwhile, in the European Union the banking crisis turned into a sovereign debt crisis.

        Nonetheless, the global economic figures for the U.S. are anything but rosy: Its trade balance has witnessed deficits uninterruptedly since 1987, which until 2013 had led to an accumulated deficit of $9,627 billion. This is caused by the fact that the U.S. economy in parts, for a long time now, is no longer competitive vis-à-vis its main competitors – the EU, China, and Japan. Moreover, the fiscal deficit has chronically been on the rise, as result of from drastically growing defense spending. For decades, various U.S. administrations have 'solved' both problems – the trade deficit and concomitantly the constantly rising fiscal deficit – by allocating government bonds and engaging in money creation.

        Technically, both objectives are being realized as follows: In order to conduct current government expenditures, the U.S. Treasury swaps government bonds with the FED in exchange for the latter's freshly printed dollars – in 2013 alone, $1,100 billion were thus brought into circulation. The FED in turn places those government bonds on the world market and thereby continuously channels new capital into the U.S. economy, which provides for the balancing of the trade deficit. The price for this policy of money creation is the gigantic U.S. public debt, which climbed from $6,731 billion in 2003 to $17,556 billion in 2013. In the same time period, the public spending ratio rose from 60% to 108% (in comparison that of the EU 'only' rose from 60% to 87%).

        No surprise then that such an economy suffering from trade as well as budgetary balance deficits has transformed into a consumptive surplus economy – amassing the largest national debt of all time. Between 2001 and 2013 only, these consumption surpluses accounted for a total of $11,550 billion. To put it plainly, per year an average $962.5 billion – capital corresponding with real economic performance – flowed from the rest of the world to the United States, while the latter confined itself to printing new money and bringing it into circulation.

        To make it even more clear: In 2012, the $1,250 billion that flowed into the U.S. made up 7.9% of the country's gross domestic product (GDP). This additional capital stock flowing into the economy also explains why the saving rate in the U.S. had drastically sunk during that period. Americans consumed nearly the totality of the goods and services they produced, while the rest of the world paid for investments allowing the U.S. economy to keep going.

        Essentially, the U.S. has become to resemble Arab rentier states. Instead of oil, the U.S. uses the dollar – the international reserve currency – as leverage for appropriating its global purchasing power. While Saudi Arabia at least exports oil in exchange for other countries' goods and services, the U.S. merely pumps paper into the global cash cycle.

        The dollar as leverage

        Here is the reason why: The significantly largest part of world trade is still being processed in dollars. This is why international demand for dollars is enormous, and is rising in proportion to world trade. Therefore, with the assistance of FED, the U.S. can continuously inject dollars into circulation, thereby financing its trade balance and budgetary deficits (and ultimately its constantly growing government debt). Hence, Nobel economics laureate Roger B. Myerson does not bother too much about U.S. debt: "U.S. debts are in dollars and the U.S. can print dollars. […] We may have inflation. But we are sure we can pay back the debt."

        Yet, contrary to Myerson's contention, in reality the U.S. will never pay back its debt, which has already been clear in the 1970s to U.S. economist Michael Hudson:

        "To the extent that these Treasury IOUs are being built into the world's monetary base they will not have to be repaid, but are to be rolled over indefinitely. This feature is the essence of America's free financial ride, a tax imposed at the entire globe's expense."

        In truth, the U.S. can simply absorb the excess purchasing power that is created all over the world. All of this, however, only works as long as oil is being traded in dollars and the status of the U.S. currency is not being jeopardized by other potential reserve currencies, such as the euro or China's renminbi. After the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1973, almost without anyone noticing, the gold standard got replaced by oil henceforth backing the dollar: oil was increasingly in demand by all countries – except for oil exporters; it is a homogeneous and scarce commodity with rising prices. As such, oil trade as a proportion of world trade continuously rose from 1.7% in 1970 to 6% in 2001, and to 12% in 2011 – resulting in a massively rising demand for dollars. Moreover, the 'oil standard' freed the U.S. from all shackles of the Bretton Woods agreement; it could henceforth accumulate new debt even more uninhibitedly than before.

        The military as instrument

        Yet, ensuring that the global oil trade will be carried out in dollars for decades to come requires a Middle East controlled by the U.S. as complete as possible. This can be done through regime changes wherever necessary in order to nip possible anti-dollar alliances in the bud. In this vein, the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was from the very start targeted towards such a direction, with its willingness to create a 'Greater Middle East' that ought to be subordinated to the U.S. to the greatest possible extent. In PNAC documents there is no mention of creating conditions for peace but instead for wars, for expanding military bases all around the world, for military superiority on land, in water and in the air, for nuclear defense shields in the earth's atmosphere, and above all for further increases in defense spending.

        Over the last decade, the U.S. with its annual defense budget of $500 billion to $800 billion has spent as much on armaments as the rest of the world combined. Any other national economy would have collapsed long ago under such tremendous unproductive spending. Indeed, the arms race during the Cold War did lead to the demise of the Soviet Union. In contrast, after the end of the bloc confrontation U.S. arms spending rose exponentially from $150 billion in 1990 to the astronomic sum of $739 billion in 2011. The share of military expenditure as a proportion of GDP is currently 4% in the U.S., more than twice that of other Western industrialized nations. The opposition, otherwise loudly opposing administration policies of increasing other budget items, refrains from criticizing military spending as a matter of principle, the exception being when an increase in military spending is deemed too low. Nor is this massive military spending subject to any substantial debate in the media or in society at large. But how can these enormous arms expenditures be explained and how are they justified to the people? Ultimately, this is done by the fact that the U.S. also covers its military spending by government debt and printing money. Instead, financing the costs of war via direct taxes would mobilize people against any war. Both World Wars were financed by public debt, not only by European but also all U.S. administrations. Through the continuity of wars, especially since the First World War, the U.S. public debt has continued to grow.

        The de facto monopoly over world money explains how a national economy like that of the U.S., which in many areas is simply not competitive and shows chronic trade balance deficits, can finance not only such mega-projects as the military-industrial complex and various quite expensive wars, but also has a relatively stable financial sector and a currency that attracts magnet-like surplus capital from all over the world.

        A world without order and chaos as opportunity – for the U.S.

        To maintain its hegemony, the U.S. must by all means prevent the emergence of rival powers and impede possible current as well as future threats that could emanate from oil states. The ideal condition for enforcing its own goals at a low cost would be the fragmentation of antagonistic power centers through ethnic and religious strife, civil wars, chaos and deep-seated mistrust in the Middle East – always following the well-known premise of 'divide and rule.' In this way, for decades to come no other power would be able to even consider trading oil in a currency other than dollars. In addition, as all the opponents need petrodollars to purchase weapons, the oil wells gush merrily on – as they currently do in Iraq despite daily acts of terror and chaos paralyzing the country.

        In fact, we are currently experiencing tremendous changes towards such a chaotic state of affairs. Meanwhile, there have been regime changes in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. In all these countries, discord and distrust, tribal conflicts, territorial separations among ethnic lines and mutual terror have been raging – particularly from Sunnis against Shi'ites. However, the regime change project has not ended here. Now, Syria and Iran have been put in crosshairs: U.S. neo-cons have spared no efforts to torpedo the nuclear negotiations with Iran. And Al-Qaeda – officially the main reason for the U.S. 'war on terror' – has in the meanwhile attained unprecedented strength. This prowess provides, in turn, the best basis of legitimacy for the U.S. military-industrial complex.

        The old military-industrial complex

        This way all the strands of 'dollar imperialism' come together: oil, dollars, and the military. The military-industrial complex is the main beneficiary of the 'new American century' of New Wars. Especially in the Middle East both a nuclear and a conventional arms race is taking place, which is increasingly putting the arms race of the 1970s that had led to three Gulf Wars in the shade. While the recycling of petrodollars for weapons has resulted in a dangerous vicious circle which could at any time trigger a conflagration across the whole region, the U.S. defense sector can remain confident: All U.S. administrations, regardless of their political persuasion, will continue with impunity the policy of public debt and thus keep on financing the military budget. Thanks to the rising demand for dollars and the FED's continued money printing (also under the new Board of Governors Chair, Janet Yellen), the U.S. banking system has such extensive money reserves that the politically dangerous U.S. military industry can be easily financed.

        However, 'dollar imperialism' is fundamentally a highly unstable construction, producing absurdities difficult to imagine.

        • On the one hand, it keeps alive a gigantic apparatus of violence in the U.S. – at the expense of (and ultimately financed by) the whole of humanity.
        • On the other, this construction is based on chaos, violence, and civil wars, particularly in the oil-rich regions that may therefore collapse at any time, plunging the world into serious crises.

        In short, what could be more absurd than the fact that money belonging to all of us helps finance an industrial sector whose ultimate survival depends on there never being peace on the planet? Even the NSA scandal – revealed thanks to Edward Snowden – appears in a new, very particular light when seen against the background of the prevailing dollar imperialism. For, of course, this highly unstable construction generates a seemingly limitless greed for the widest possible control of all communication channels, including spying on the heads of all foreign administrations, even those of friendly states. Despite worldwide outrage, in his January 2014 speech, Barack Obama emphasized that "[o]ur intelligence agencies will continue to gather information about the intentions of governments [...] around the world."

        The massive U.S. security apparatus is being legitimized – today as in the past – exclusively on the grounds of national interests. When the NSA was founded in 1952, there was no talk of Al-Qaeda and '9/11,' rather of the benefits and interests of a then aspiring hegemonic power. Today, the NSA is above all concerned with recognizing in due time all the steps and movements in the world that could endanger the current status of the U.S. currency, and nipping them in the bud by any means necessary. It thus functions in the interest of the influential alliance between the military-industrial complex and the U.S. financial sector, which is dependent on such knowledge for its own survival.

        On the other hand, it has become clear that the NSA poses the biggest threat to democracy in the U.S. and in the West as a whole – and in a way in which President Dwight Eisenhower could not even imagine when he warned about the military-industrial complex in his farewell address on January 17, 1961: "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. […] In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."

        Roughly 50 years after Eisenhower's warning, the U.S. has taken a major step 'forward.' This powerful complex has been struggling for its continued existence since the end of the bloc confrontation and has done everything possible to permanently consolidate American hegemony. It is indeed not the case, as was eagerly anticipated, that the world has become safer and more peaceful since 1989. On the contrary, it has become more insecure and warlike – as was the case at the dawn of the last century. This makes it even more urgent that the international community finally – and still perhaps just in time – defends itself against this highly dangerous development.

        The alternative: The global energy transition and the diversification of reserve currencies

        The question of democratizing the global economy by abolishing the U.S. monopoly over world money must definitely be placed on the global political agenda. In the long term, this goal can be most effectively attained by a global energy revolution – away from fossils and towards extensively expanding renewable energies. In the short term, a range of reserve currencies can and ought to be established, which would finally account for the real economic balance of forces.

        One such alternative would also serve the long-term interests of American citizens and would contribute to the U.S. finally offloading the parasitic and ultimately unproductive parts of its economy – namely, the alliance between finance and the military. On the other hand, the example of Barack Obama, who had to move away from nearly all his positive reform initiatives, shows that America on her own and using her own abilities is barely capable of pushing back this all-powerful alliance including the political forces sustaining it.

        This leads to Europe and Asia assuming responsibility: Only a new reserve currency – pushed forward by the EU and China – can help the U.S. leave its previous path of increasing prosperity through imperialist methods, to the benefit of its own immeasurable productive potentials. The BRICS countries' establishment in Brazil in July 2014 of an international development bank and a monetary fund could evolve into a serious competitor to the Bretton Woods system. You could imagine the dollar being no longer the only world currency, and necessarily losing its stability in a lively international competition involving the euro and renminbi. International excess capital would then be withdrawn, to a considerable extent, from the U.S. and invested in the euro or renminbi zone. The previous U.S. policy of public debt by issuing government bonds would stall, and the bipartisan taboo on tackling military spending would lose its validity. In order to reduce chronic budget deficits, U.S. administrations would then have no other choice but to drastically cut the disproportionately high military budget.

        How would such a new situation impact American hegemony? Inside the U.S. there would – finally – emerge a fierce debate over the sense and non-sense of military spending as well as its global military capacities (including over 800 bases) – with the prospect of the U.S. demilitarizing to a level corresponding to its actual economic weight. As such, the U.S. would no longer be the 'only remaining superpower,' but merely one among several world powers. Wholly new global power structures and balances of power would then become conceivable: Asia but also the Middle East, South America, Africa, and even Europe would have real opportunities to come together in cooperative and common-security regional architectures. At the same time, nationalistic and racist resentments and conflicts would strongly lose traction. Perhaps international cooperation would also finally shrink the financial sector to a reasonable level – in so doing also significantly increasing the possibility of an equitable distribution of income.

        In short, we would finally have the prospect of a world with more justice and less financial speculation – a more democratic and peaceful world. Yet, the losers of such a scenario would be the military-industrial complex, the financial sector and its beneficiaries, and above all the neoconservatives. This is why we must expect fierce resistance. However, in the interest of a more just and peaceful world, this fight is nothing less than inevitable.

        [Apr 14, 2015] The Message from the 22 Year Old Suicide at the Nation's Capitol

        Apr 14, 2015 | Jesse's Café Américain

        Suicide is a prohibited form of violence in my own belief, as are all other forms of murder. Therefore I would not hold this type of protest up as an example to anyone.

        However, an even worse offense would be to completely ignore the message which this young man delivered, as most of the mainstream media has done in the US.

        I did not even know what really happened until I read this article below from Wall Street On Parade today. The police and media referred to it as a 'social protest.'

        Before he killed himself, the young man held up a sign that said "Tax the One Percent."

        Perhaps an even more pointed message might be 'shut down the loopholes for the Top .01%.' Those who make their money from wages and ordinary income pay fairly significant taxes.

        However, the uber-rich have so many loopholes and tax avoidance schemes that they often pay much lower percentage than even those in the lowest income levels. The top .01% use the upper middle class as shields for their antics.

        You may read the entire article about this here.

        Rather than one young light be extinguished and quickly overlooked by the powerful, perhaps it would be better if a million people were to march on the Capitol, and effective shut it down in protest this Summer. That might get their attention. Alas, the apathy in the people is pervasive, at least for now.

        Wall Street On Parade

        22-Year Old Commits Suicide at Capitol to Send Congress a Message

        By Pam Martens: April 14, 2015

        At approximately 1:07 p.m. on Saturday afternoon, April 11, during the annual Cherry Blossom Festival celebrating springtime in the Nation's Capitol, a 22-year old man took his own life with a gun on the Capitol grounds with a protest sign taped to his hand. According to the Washington Post, the sign read: "Tax the one percent."

        Yesterday, the Metropolitan Police Department released the young man's name. He was Leo P. Thornton of Lincolnwood, Illinois. Based on what is currently known, the young man had traveled to Washington, D.C. for the express purpose of making a political statement with his sign and then ending his young life.

        The Chicago Tribune reported that "Thornton's parents filed a missing persons report on the morning of April 11 after he never came home from work on April 10, Lincolnwood Deputy Police Chief John Walsh said."

        Those are the tragic facts of the incident itself. But there is a broader tragedy: the vacuous handling of this story by corporate media. The Washington Post headlined the story with this: "Rhythms of Washington Return after Illinois Man's Suicide Outside Capitol." The message he delivered to his Congress – tax the one percent – has yet to be explored by any major news outlet in America in connection with this tragedy.

        Was the message of Leo P. Thornton of Lincolnwood, Illinois a critical piece of information for this Congress to hear at this moment in American history. You're damn right it was. Outside of Wall Street's wealth transfer system, provisions in the U.S. tax code are the second biggest wealth transfer system to the one percent. Together, these two systems have created the greatest income and wealth inequality since the economic collapse in the Great Depression. They threaten a repeat of the 2008 financial collapse because the majority of Americans do not have the wages or savings to support the broader economy...

        [Apr 14, 2015] ​Western ISIS adventurism, Israel behind Hamas - new Assange revelations

        Apr 14, 2015 | RT News
        Julian Assange has given an interview to an Argentinian paper from his Ecuadorian embassy asylum where he spent more than 1,000 days. He spoke about why US meddling in Ukraine led to civil war, how the West helped ISIS and Israel supported Hamas.

        US has long wanted to bring Ukraine to West

        The United States has spent "a lot of time trying to bring Ukraine to the West," the WikiLeaks founder said in an interview to Pagina/12, Argentinian newspaper on Monday.

        "If it cannot be with a NATO membership, at least it becomes independent from Moscow's sphere of influence, to reduce Russian industrial-military complex and its naval bases in Crimea."

        Kiev first step closer to NATO was in December 2014, when President Petro Poroshenko signed a law canceling the Ukraine' non-bloc status and promised to hold a national referendum on NATO accession in the next five to six years.

        In January, Kiev authorities announced that the Ukrainian army would take part in 11 international military drills in 2015 to bolster NATO standards in troops.

        One more attempt of US and Europe to 'bring Ukraine closer to the West' was spending "billions of dollars on the creation of NGOs," said Assange , adding that "through these institutions, the West promised to end corruption in Ukraine."

        ISIS -- result of Western adventurism

        Meddling of Western countries in the Middle East led to creation of the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS), an Islamist group that is currently gaining a massive following across the wider Middle East and Africa, Assange said.

        "The IS is a direct result of the adventurism of the West," Assange said.

        He says the "adventurism" of Western countries has already destroyed the Libyan and Syrian society and now is "destroying Iraq for oil and other geopolitical reasons."

        Many people know that arms are being transported to Syria, that there are attempts to reduce Iranian influence in postwar Iraq by supporting the Sunnis, he said. But "what we don't know is that in recent years in recent years Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey have increased their power and managed to gain certain independence form the US."

        As a result, Washington ceased to be "the only geopolitical actor" pushing developments in the Middle East, believes Assange.

        Israel supported Hamas in its infancy

        The WikiLeaks founder accused Israeli authorities of supporting Hamas group at its early stages in order to divide the Palestinian resistance.

        "Our cables reveal that Israel supported Hamas in its infancy, that Hamas was used as an instrument to divide the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] and the Palestinian resistance," Assange told the paper.

        Assange has been living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London while awaiting safe passage to the Central American country, where he has been granted asylum. Staking out the building, in case the Australian should leave the premises, has already cost British taxpayers a hefty £10 million, according to govwaste.co.uk.

        Assange has not been charged with a crime, but is wanted for questioning in Sweden regarding allegations of sexual misconduct brought against him in 2010.

        An arrest warrant was issued for Assange in 2010 in the of wake sexual assault allegations leveled against him by two Swedish women. He denied the allegations of sexual misconduct and rape and managed to avoid extradition to Sweden by seeking refuge in the embassy in 2012.

        He repeatedly announced that he is ready to answer all questions concerning his sexual assault allegations within the sanctity of the embassy. However, Swedish prosecutors were reluctant to do so until March this year.

        "If Assange gives his consent, the prosecutor will promptly submit a request for legal assistance to the British authorities to further continue the investigation," the Swedish Prosecution Authority said in a statement.

        Assange's Swedish lawyer welcomed the Swedish prosecutors' request to interview Assange in London, but added that the whole process of questioning could take time.

        "We welcome [this] and see it also as a big victory ... for Julian Assange that what we have demanded is finally going to happen," Per Samuelson said.

        Assange supporters fear that if he is deported to Sweden he will likely face espionage charges in America over his role in publishing sensitive, classified US government documents.

        But even if Sweden drops the case, he faces arrest by UK police for jumping the bail granted while the British courts considered a European arrest warrant issued by Stockholm.

        In June 2014, 56 international human rights and free media organizations signed a letter addressed to US Attorney General Eric Holder calling upon the US government to end all criminal investigations into Assange's actions as editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, and to cease harassing the organization for publishing materials in the public interest.

        Read more:

        [Apr 14, 2015] Nuland Ensconced in Neocon Camp Who Believes in Noble Lie

        Mar 5, 2015 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
        RPI Director Daniel McAdams is interviewed on RT. Transcript below; video here.

        Victoria Nuland's anti-Russian rhetoric comes from the neocon camp of US politics, seeking to stir the Ukraine crisis, thrilled by the prospect of defense industry expansion and more arms sales, Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Peace Institute told RT.

        RT: World leaders and international monitors agree the situation in Ukraine is generally improving. Why are we still witnessing aggressive rhetoric from some US officials?

        Daniel McAdams: Because the US does not want peace to break out. The US is determined to see its project through. But unfortunately like all of its regime change projects this one is failing miserably. Victoria Nuland completely disregards the role of the US in starting the conflict in Ukraine. She completely glosses over the fact that the army supported by Kiev has been bombarding Eastern Ukraine, as if these independent fighters in the east are killing themselves and their own people. Victoria Nuland was an aid to Dick Cheney; she is firmly ensconced in the neocon camp. The neocons believe very strongly in lying, the noble lie… They lied us into the war in Iraq; they are lying now about Ukraine. Lying is what the neocons do.

        RT: Nuland listed a lot of hostile actions by Russia without providing any reliable proof. Do you think she can she be challenged on these topics?

        DM: Maybe she is right but the US hasn't provided one piece of proof, except for Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt's Rorschach tests he passes off as a satellite photo. Maybe they are true but we have to present some evidence because we've seen now the neocons have lied us into the war. This is much more serious than the attack on small Iraq. This has the potential for a global nuclear war. So I think they should be held to a higher level of scrutiny. Thus far they have not provided any. We do know however that the US is providing military aid. As the matter of fact this week hundreds of American troops are arriving in Ukraine. Why is that not an escalation? Why is it only an escalation when the opponents of the US government are involved?

        RT: How probable is that the Western nations ship lethal aid to Ukraine?

        DM: It is interesting because Victoria Nuland this week spent some time with Andriy Parubiy, one of the founders of the fascist party in Ukraine and I believe one of the founders of the Joseph Goebbels Institute. She met with him this week and had a photo taken with him. He came back to Ukraine and assured his comrades that the US will provide additional, non-lethal weapons - whatever that means - and felt pretty strongly that they would provide lethal weapons. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey has been urging the US government to provide lethal weapons as has the new US defense secretary [Ashton Carter], both of whom come from the military industrial complex which is thrilled by prospect of a lot more arms to be sold.

        RT: Nuland has said the State Department is in talks with EU leaders for another round of sanctions on Russia. Do you think the EU will agree?

        DM: I think they will be pressured into agreeing. It is interesting that Nuland said that the new Rada, the new Ukrainian parliament, in this first four months has been a hive of activity. I was just watching some videos from the fights in the Ukrainian parliament. So that was one bit of unintentional humor probably in her speech. It looks like a fight club over there.
        Related

        [Apr 14, 2015] Toronto Orchestra Drops Pianist Over Tweets About Ukraine

        Freedom of speech in the USA is a three-card monte. It is granted, according to NYT, only to those who follow the Washington's party line... So what's the difference with the USSR then ? Quote: "Ms. Lisitsa insisted that the only aim of her Twitter feed was "to get the other side of the story heard, the one you never see in the mainstream media - the plight of my people, the good and bad things that were happening in Ukraine." NYT pressititutes were afraid to open comments to this story...
        Quote:" Ms. Lisitsa, who now lives in Paris, said that her use of vulgar illustrations on Twitter was partly inspired by French satire. She said that one of the tweets the orchestra had particularly objected to was a scatological cartoon she had adapted from Charlie Hebdo, the satirical weekly, to illustrate, in crude terms, the idea that the Western media were being fed lies about Russian involvement in Ukraine concocted by Ukrainian intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency."
        Apr 8, 2015 | NYTimes.com

        The Toronto Symphony Orchestra abruptly canceled a performance of Rachmaninoff's Second Piano Concerto on Wednesday after parting ways with a Ukrainian soloist over concerns that her ribald Twitter commentary had crossed the line into "intolerance."

        The orchestra's president, Jeff Melanson, said in a telephone interview that his staff had asked Valentina Lisitsa, the pianist who had been scheduled to perform, to explain dozens of inflammatory tweets in which she used vulgar imagery and language to attack Ukrainian nationalists. Ms. Lisitsa, he said, confirmed that she did write the messages posted on her account under the alias NedoUkraïnka, including one that mockingly compared Ukrainian teachers in traditional dress to African tribesmen.

        Continue reading the main story

        Ukrainian Internet activists, who call Ms. Lisitsa a supporter of Russian-backed separatists, celebrated the orchestra's decision. They also pointed to a number of other tweets in which she seemed to echo Kremlin propaganda that Ukraine has been in the grip of bloodthirsty "Nazis" since protests toppled the pro-Russian president, Viktor F. Yanukovych, last year.

        Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story

        Mr. Melanson said that the orchestra had tried to resolve the matter quietly by finding a replacement for Ms. Lisitsa as pianist late last week and paying her fee, but she went public on Monday, defending her right to use "satire and hyperbole" in online debates over the war in Ukraine. She also asked her fans to speak out against "censorship" by demanding that she be allowed to perform as scheduled.

        Continue reading the main story

        Writing on Facebook, Ms. Lisitsa insisted that the only aim of her Twitter feed was "to get the other side of the story heard, the one you never see in the mainstream media - the plight of my people, the good and bad things that were happening in Ukraine."

        Continue reading the main story

        The pianist attributed the backlash against her to what she called the success of her efforts to expose the suffering caused by Ukrainian government forces and the anti-Russian bias of Western news media reports.

        "I translated news stories from Ukrainian language websites, I translated eyewitness accounts of atrocities," she said. "I became really good in unmasking fakes published by Western media in order to make one side of the civil war look whiter and softer than Easter bunny, and another - as sub-humans, not worthy of mercy, the 'collateral damage.' "

        Continue reading the main story

        Her fans and supporters of the rebel cause in Ukraine responded by flooding the orchestra's Facebook page and Twitter mentions with outrage and heckling the local pianist lined up to replace Ms. Lisitsa, Stewart Goodyear.

        Continue reading the main story

        Writing on Facebook late Tuesday, Mr. Goodyear explained that he had decided to withdraw as a result of the "social media frenzy" surrounding the engagement.

        "Words of bile and hatred were hurled in my direction," he wrote. "Suddenly I was accused of supporting censorship, and bullied into declining this engagement. What started out as one of the happiest moments of my life turned into a shattering display of mob hysteria."

        Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story

        Continue reading the main story

        "With all due respect to the pianist who I was going to replace, one must own one's opinions and words," Mr. Goodyear added. "Her words offended many people who perceived her as pro-violence and anti-love."

        Ms. Lisitsa, a naturalized American citizen who moved to the United States in 1991, just before the collapse of the Soviet Union gave rise to an independent Ukraine, embodies some of the complexity of Ukrainian identity politics. While calling herself "an ethnic Ukrainian," as the daughter of a Ukrainian father and a Russian-Polish mother, she grew up speaking Russian and considers the use of force by the government in Kiev against Russian-backed separatists an outrage. She named her Twitter feed NedoUkraïnka, or SubUkrainian, after reading a disputed translation of comments by the post-revolutionary prime minister in Kiev which suggested that he had referred to Russian-backed rebels as "subhumans."

        Continue reading the main story

        Speaking by telephone from a hotel outside Toronto on Tuesday, Ms. Lisitsa said that she hoped to find a site to perform for her fans, even without the orchestra. As to who, exactly, her accusers were, she said, "I am in the dark." The orchestra, she said, had refused her request to meet with anyone offended by her Twitter commentary in an attempt to defuse the tension.

        Ms. Lisitsa, who now lives in Paris, said that her use of vulgar illustrations on Twitter was partly inspired by French satire. She said that one of the tweets the orchestra had particularly objected to was a scatological cartoon she had adapted from Charlie Hebdo, the satirical weekly, to illustrate, in crude terms, the idea that the Western media were being fed lies about Russian involvement in Ukraine concocted by Ukrainian intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency.

        She also argued that she had been singled out by supporters of the government in Kiev for her role in helping to expose the neo-Nazi sympathies of some of the Ukrainian volunteers fighting Russian-backed separatists. After Elle magazine published a photo spread late last year featuring several young Ukrainian women in camouflage, Ms. Lisitsa discovered that the woman on the title page, Vita Zaverukha, had previously posted images of herself on social media making the Nazi salute and wearing a swastika.

        Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story

        Ms. Lisitsa also suggested that Ukrainian activists had been angered by her impassioned defense of another artist, the Russian soprano Anna Netrebko, who was criticized for expressing sympathy for civilians in Donetsk, a separatist-controlled city in eastern Ukraine.

        In December, Ms. Netrebko donated a million rubles - more than $18,000 - to the opera house in Donetsk, and was photographed handing the check to Oleg Tsarov, a separatist politician, at a news conference in Russia. She then posed for photographs with him while holding a separatist flag.

        Continue reading the main story

        Although the money reportedly made its way to civilians in Donetsk, Ukrainian activists tried, and failed, to persuade the Metropolitan Opera to cancel all future performances by Ms. Netrebko over the donation. In a statement rejecting the request, a representative of the New York opera house wrote that "the Met does not have to be in agreement with the personal views of the artists who perform on its stage."

        Continue reading the main story

        As Ms. Netrebko was being showered with applause after performing in the title role of Tchaikovsky's "Iolanta" in late January, a Ukrainian protester, Roman Torgovitsky, burst onto the Metropolitan stage carrying a placard calling her and the conductor for the performance, Valery Gergiev, "active contributors to Putin's war against Ukraine."

        A Ukrainian protester interrupting applause for Anna Netrebko at the Metropolitan Opera in January.

        [Apr 14, 2015] The New Militarism: Who Profits?

        Quote: "So who is the real enemy? The Russians? No, the real enemy is the taxpayer. The real enemy is the middle class and the productive sectors of the economy. We are the victims of this new runaway military spending. Every dollar or euro spent on a contrived threat is a dollar or euro taken out of the real economy and wasted on military Keynesianism. It is a dollar stolen from a small business owner that will not be invested in innovation, spent on research to combat disease, or even donated to charities that help the needy."
        Apr 12, 2015 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

        Militarism and military spending are everywhere on the rise, as the new Cold War propaganda seems to be paying off. The new "threats" that are being hyped bring big profits to military contractors and the network of think tanks they pay to produce pro-war propaganda.

        Here are just a few examples:

        The German government announced last week that it would purchase 100 more "Leopard" tanks – a 45 percent increase in the country's inventory. Germany had greatly reduced its inventory of tanks as the end of the Cold War meant the end of any threat of a Soviet ground invasion of Europe. The German government now claims these 100 new tanks, which may cost nearly half a billion dollars, are necessary to respond to the new Russian assertiveness in the region. Never mind that Russia has neither invaded nor threatened any country in the region, much less a NATO member country.

        The US Cold War-era nuclear bunker under Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado, which was all but shut down in the 25 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, is being brought back to life. The Pentagon has committed nearly a billion dollars to upgrading the facility to its previous Cold War-level of operations. US defense contractor Raytheon will be the prime beneficiary of this contract. Raytheon is a major financial sponsor of think tanks like the Institute for the Study of War, which continuously churn out pro-war propaganda. I am sure these big contracts are a good return on that investment.

        NATO, which I believe should have been shut down after the Cold War ended, is also getting its own massively expensive upgrade. The Alliance commissioned a new headquarters building in Brussels, Belgium, in 2010, which is supposed to be completed in 2016. The building looks like a hideous claw, and the final cost – if it is ever finished – will be well over one billion dollars. That is more than twice what was originally budgeted. What a boondoggle! Is it any surprise that NATO bureaucrats and generals continuously try to terrify us with tales of the new Russian threat? They need to justify their expansion plans!

        So who is the real enemy? The Russians?

        No, the real enemy is the taxpayer. The real enemy is the middle class and the productive sectors of the economy. We are the victims of this new runaway military spending. Every dollar or euro spent on a contrived threat is a dollar or euro taken out of the real economy and wasted on military Keynesianism. It is a dollar stolen from a small business owner that will not be invested in innovation, spent on research to combat disease, or even donated to charities that help the needy.

        One of the most pervasive and dangerous myths of our time is that military spending benefits an economy. This could not be further from the truth. Such spending benefits a thin layer of well-connected and well-paid elites. It diverts scarce resources from meeting the needs and desires of a population and channels them into manufacturing tools of destruction. The costs may be hidden by the money-printing of the central banks, but they are eventually realized in the steady destruction of a currency.

        The elites are terrified that peace may finally break out, which will be bad for their profits. That is why they are trying to scuttle the Iran deal, nix the Cuba thaw, and drum up a new "Red Scare" coming from Moscow. We must not be fooled into believing their lies.


        Copyright © 2015 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
        Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute Related

        [Apr 14, 2015] Freedom of speech as three card monte

        Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas. Governments restrict speech with varying limitations, the most important of which is the real freedom of speech belongs only to owners of the press. Common limitations on speech are related to activities of three-letter agencies (buying journalists), libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, hate speech, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, public security, public order, public nuisance, campaign finance reform and oppression. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
        But in reality interpretation of freedom of speech interpretation is very country dependent. For example definitions of what libel constitute are different between the USA and GB. And in the USA, the relevant case law is a pretty complex with many exceptions for those who have money.
        There are also common sense restrictions on freedom of speech (To incite actions that would harm others -- like crying fire in overcrowded theater), some are not.
        But again the key issue is that the freedom of speech like freedom of press is mostly limited to those who own the press. That means that freedom of speech is also never awarded to skeptics or outright opponents of the existing regime. They need to fight for it.

        What Does Free Speech Mean

        Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.

        The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:

        "Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech."

        Quiz: Test your First Amendment knowledge (usatoday.com)


        Freedom of speech includes the right:
        • Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
          West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
        • Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war ("Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.").
          Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
        • To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
          Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
        • To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
          Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
        • To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
          Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
        • To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
          Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

        Freedom of speech does not include the right:

        • To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., "[S]hout[ing] 'fire' in a crowded theater.").
          Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
        • To make or distribute obscene materials.
          Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
        • To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
          United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
        • To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
          Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
        • Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
          Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
        • Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
          Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

        [Apr 12, 2015] No Longer Quiet On The Eastern Front (Part 3)

        ...Vaclav Klaus .... stating that Western lies about Russia are 'monstrous'.
        Apr 12, 2015 | Zero Hedge
        Submitted by Kevin Virgil of Emerging Frontiers,

        This is the final installment in a three-part series that explores the ongoing economic standoff in Greece and the Ukrainian civil war, and how these events are converging to launch what will soon become known as the Second Cold War. - By Kevin Virgil, CEO of Emerging Frontiers

        * * * * *

        Writing a short series of articles about geopolitics carries some risks - namely, that current events can unfold faster than I can hit the 'send' button on my next edition. It appears that I am releasing this missive in the nick of time, as the coming days promise more dramatic developments in the Greek economic crisis and, of particular interest, that country's growing closeness with Russia.

        Let us quickly review what has been covered thus far in this series. In part one, we focused on economic tensions between the European Union and Greece, and how the past five years of austerity and hardship may compel the new Greek government to seek stronger ties with Russia. Part two reviewed last year's disintegration of Ukraine, and the chain of events that sparked its ongoing civil war.

        Civil unrest in Kiev. Photo courtesy: The Times of London

        In this final segment, we will attempt to view both of these conflicts from the Russian perspective, and to provide some insight into (if not a defense of) the Greek point of view. I do not consider myself to be a "Kremlinologist", or even an expert on Russian political affairs. That being said, I do believe that I can offer a relatively informed perspective that comes from living in both Athens and Moscow over the past ten years, at times when both countries were facing economic crises. I also believe that mainstream Western media outlets have thoroughly and utterly failed in their duty to provide a balanced perspective on the causes behind the growing chasm between Russia and the West.

        We will begin with a look at the Russian point of view on Ukraine, and then shift our focus back to Greece in an effort to better understand what both Athens and Moscow stand to gain from the perception of closer cooperation against the EU. We will then quickly review other potential flashpoints along the EU's eastern borders, and show how Europe is rapidly losing its appetite for US-led sanctions against Russia. Finally, we will wrap up this adventure tour with an upcoming event that might provide a prophetic glimpse into Russia's future sphere of influence.

        With that in mind, let's get started.

        -----------------

        Any casual watcher of CNN or Sky News is familiar with the Western narrative on Ukraine's last 12 months. Here is a brief summary; for a bit of entertainment, try to imagine Wolf Blitzer's droning voice reading this next paragraph from his teleprompter:

        "The Ukrainian people, yearning for democracy in their troubled land, launched the spontaneous Maidan protests to bring down the evil Yanukovych regime. The people succeeded, but Russian President Vladimir Putin exploited the ensuing chaos by waging a propaganda war in Crimea, and a military offensive in the separatist regions of Donetsk and Lugansk, to take back what Russia lost in the Soviet Union's collapse. And of course, this is only the first step in Putin's grand plan to re-unite the former Soviet Union."

        Contents of the previous paragraph resonate well with the American people, who are strangely comforted whenever their media does its best to scare them out of their wits. Which, distressingly, is a constant and unrelenting process these days; I can't watch the first ten minutes of my local six o'clock news without feeling the impulsive need to pack atropine injectors and distress beacons in my kids' school lunches.

        Now let's look at events from the Russian perspective.

        But first, let's set some ground rules before we take this any further. My intent for this column is neither to defend nor apologize for the Russian government, its foreign policy or its president. To that end, please suppress any indignant references you might want to make regarding the Boris Nemtsov assassination, Sergei Magnitsky, the apartment bombings, Pussy Riot, Sochi's twin toilets, or any other (alleged) Russian transgressions. This is not a nomination essay for the Nobel Peace Prize, but a column about geopolitics.

        With that out of the way, let's move on...

        Ukraine

        It will most likely come as a surprise to Westerners, and particularly Americans, that Russia maintains that it was forced to take action in Ukraine in response to US provocations in Kiev. For the past twenty years Moscow has watched the US attempt to lead NATO expansion into former Soviet satellites such as Ukraine and Georgia, an affront that Russia considers to be a serious threat.

        With regard to Crimea, Moscow maintains that the region - which houses an ethnic Russian majority -- has repeatedly sought annexation from Russia since Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev bequeathed it to Ukraine in 1954. The Crimean regional parliament has voted for and announced independence in 1992, again in 1994, and of course in 2014. Yet Russia has ignored all previous requests for annexation - a fact which has been well-documented - and only took action in 2014 when the Yanukovych government was overthrown amidst credible evidence of foreign (US) influence.

        The Russians maintain that they have also exercised restraint with the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Lugansk in eastern Ukraine. Even though both regions - which also contain significant Russian populations - announced separation from Ukraine in April and May 2014, Moscow has refused to officially recognize the sovereignty or independence of these regions even though many of Russia's political elite are calling for that, and even for the annexation of those regions.

        Russia has always bitterly opposed any Ukrainian bid for membership in NATO. Recall that in the previous segment of this series, we discussed how the US had pushed for accession of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO in 2008, but were rebuffed by European partners - notably France and Germany - who had absolutely no interest in deploying military forces into a possible confrontation with Russia. At the time, tensions between the US and Russia were high (though not nearly as high as they are today) because the Bush administration was planning to emplace interceptor missiles in Poland and an advanced radar system in Poland. Though these weapons were ostensibly installed to address the threat of long-range missile strikes from Iran, the Russian government clearly saw their installation as a direct threat to their security and sovereignty, and warned Kiev that any move to join NATO would be met with Russian missiles targeting Ukraine.

        In a joint Russian-Ukrainian news conference, held in Moscow in 2008, Putin stated that Russia would be forced to respond if Ukraine joined NATO. "Russia could target its missile systems at Ukraine," he said. "Imagine that for a second. It's horrible to say and even horrible to think." That threat certainly gave pause to Ukraine's attempts to court NATO, but even Putin's rhetoric paled in comparison to the sledgehammer that Russia wields over Ukraine and ultimately most of continental Europe - namely, Gazprom. Eighty percent of Russia's natural gas supplies to Western Europe are transported along pipelines through Ukrainian territory, elevating Ukraine to the vaunted and much-desired status of 'energy transit country' with estimated revenues of nearly US$ 2 billion per year (equivalent to 3% of its national budget). Consequently, neither Ukraine nor Western Europe have felt any particular need to poke the Russian bear any further on this issue, and even the US chose to drop plans for its 'missile shield' as part of the Obama administration's much-vaunted (and, plainly by now, failed) "reset" with Russia.

        US diplomat Victoria Nuland, providing snacks to anti-Yanukovych protestors in Kiev. Russian media exploited this image to further portray the US as the aggressor in Ukraine. Source: US Department of State

        The Russian position is that the US has been the aggressor nation in Ukraine from the outset. Russian media outlets have honed in on US attempts to influence and strengthen the Maidan protests and remove Yanukovych from power. They have been particularly effective at painting US diplomatic envoy Victoria Nuland (featured in part two of this series) as the villain and chief architect of American covert influence in Ukraine, in order to insert a more Western-friendly government that has been seduced by the allure of NATO and the West. From their perspective, movements to annex Crimea and deploy military forces in the Donbas region of Ukraine were necessary to stop the Kiev government's offensive against ethnic Russians in those regions.

        From Moscow's perspective, US indignation over its actions in Ukraine is deeply hypocritical. Russian news and propaganda outlets have very effectively portrayed US efforts to establish a missile shield, to implement economic sanctions, and the toppling of the Yanukovych government as a long-term containment strategy designed to limit Russia's influence in eastern Europe. Consequently, anti-American sentiment is higher in Russia today than it has been since the first Cold War. Recent polls indicate that 87% of Russians distrust or carry negative opinions of the United States, and that as many as 62% believe that their country is 'on the right track'.

        Most Russians see little reason to negotiate with, or even engage in dialogue with, the Obama Administration which seems to have little interest in Russia other than to marginalize the country or insult their leader. A quick perusal of recent Western stories on Putin seems to confirm this (examples here, here and here); mainstream newspapers regularly portray Putin as a thuggish buffoon whose grip on power is at risk of collapsing any day now.

        I will point out the obvious here. Love him or hate him, Vladimir Putin has outmaneuvered and outwitted the Obama Administration at nearly every turn since it first occupied the White House in 2009. Whether in Libya (by refusing to support the United Nations coalition that destabilized that country), Syria (forcing the Americans to back down from planned military action, and driving a wedge between the UK and US), his refusal to extradite Edward Snowden, and now in Ukraine where that country has virtually disintegrated, Putin is proving to be the USA's most accomplished adversary on the global geopolitical stage.

        ... ... ...

        Over the past year I have begun to notice an unmistakable trend amongst both politicians and the general public: there are an increasing number of Putin admirers in Europe, and even in the US. This clearly is not attributable to any newfound sympathy or support for Russia, or Putin's geopolitical agenda. Instead, I believe his rising popularity is driven by a grudging admiration that is naturally felt for a strong leader who gets things done and protects the interests of his people. Nigel Farage, a UK politician and prominent Eurosceptic, caused a stir last year when, asked which current world leader he most admired, replied: "As an operator, but not as a human being, I would say Putin."

        Nearly every country in Europe now has at least one political party that is broadly pro-Russian. In Greece's case, Syriza is now in power while Podemos, another left-wing party in Spain, has become a credible threat to Madrid's political establishment even though it was only formed last year. Close ties with Russia are not restricted to socialists; France's National Front is making waves with a far-right nationalist agenda, and its leader Marine Le Pen is an admirer of Putin, stating that "I admire his cool head…because there is a cold war being waged against him by the EU at the behest of [the] United States, which is defending its own interests."

        Even Poland, probably the most hostile country toward Russian influence in the EU, now has a party whose primary stance is the condemnation of Western sanctions against Russia. Zmiana ("change") claims it will win as much as 12% of the popular vote ahead of general Polish elections later this year. It is easy to marginalize such parties as fringe extremists – though some caution might be required here as that is exactly what the Spanish establishment said about Podemos a year ago.

        A quick look at other events on the EU's eastern borders further supports this point of view. Throughout the region, governments are increasingly voicing skepticism on continued sanctions against Russia, and openly doubting US motives and intentions behind their use.

        Let's take a quick tour of some other potential hotspots in the region:

        Hungary

        EU officials are objecting to a recent decision to award a €10 billion contract for construction of two nuclear reactors to Rosatom, the Russian state-owned company. Hungarian President Viktor Orban, formerly an active anti-Soviet dissident in the 1990s, has recently begun to pursue closer relations with Russia. Hungary has stopped short of objecting to EU and US sanctions against Moscow, but was the first EU country to invite Putin for a bilateral summit since Flight MH17 was shot down over Ukraine last year - a disaster for which the West blames Russia, and Russia denies. Until recently Hungary had put the bidding process up for tender, but awarded the contract to Rosatom after Russia offered attractive financing terms for 80% of the project over 21 years. US-Japanese construction giant Westinghouse was previously considered the front-runner and is lobbying aggressively with the EU to be awarded the contract.

        Czech Republic

        Last September Czech President Milos Zeman caused a diplomatic stir when he openly voiced opposition to EU and US sanctions against Russia, referred to the Ukrainian conflict as a "civil war" and refused to denounce Russia's actions in that country. Earlier last year he proclaimed that sanctions against Russia would work no better than those that had been enforced against Cuba for the past fifty years, and called for them to be dropped altogether. His predecessor Vaclav Klaus has gone even further, calling for the EU to be scrapped and stating that Western lies about Russia are 'monstrous'.

        Events in Prague took an even more interesting turn last week when the US Ambassador told Czech television that it would be "awkward" should Zeman attend the upcoming Russian Victory Day celebrations in Moscow as the only head of state from an EU country. (Which is untrue, since both Alexis Tsipras of Greece and Nicos Anastasiades of Cyprus also plan to attend - more on that a bit later). Zeman is not known for his soft-spoken diplomacy, and has now barred the US ambassador from further access to Prague Castle.

        Greece

        Ah, Greece. The country offers so much low-hanging fruit for geopolitical bloggers and late-night comedians that it's impossible to resist talking about it again, even though the entire first installment of this series focused on their ongoing crisis. We seem to be approaching an endgame and a potential 'Grexit'; as of this writing the Greek government has made a €458m (US$ 503m) payment to the IMF that was due on 9 April. However, with another €1.2 billion coming due within the next month it is increasingly difficult to see how Athens can meet both its foreign and domestic obligations.

        Meanwhile, new Greek President Alexis Tsipras has just returned from a visit to Moscow where, on 8 April, he and Putin agreed to "restart and revive" bilateral relations in a calculated move that was surely intended to put the world on notice that their two countries are at least considering a collaboration against their mutual adversary in Brussels.

        ... ... ...

        Over the past few weeks rumors have increased that Greece and Russia may reach some sort of accord that provides the former with critical financial assistance, and the latter with increased leverage against the European Union. The EU is due to debate and vote on continued Russian sanctions in June of this year, and renewal will require a unanimous vote from its 28-member bloc. As already mentioned above, support for continued sanctions is increasingly shaky and both the Greeks and Russians have much to gain by using these much-hyped overtures as leverage against the West.

        It is increasingly clear that Tsipras has little to lose as a 'Grexit', or Greece's exit from the Eurozone, becomes more likely. Regardless of whether an exit is forced or voluntary, the result will almost certainly be a move away from Europe and toward Moscow's sphere of influence. Greece shares an Orthodox religious heritage with Russia and cultural ties are arguably stronger between the two countries than any affiliation that Greece shares with northern Europe. Their increasingly adversarial relationships with the EU will only serve to strengthen that relationship.

        As with Ukraine, when analyzing the Greek financial crisis it is important to contrast the Western narrative with the Greek point of view. It is nearly impossible to defend Greece's fiscal policies since joining the Euro; in hindsight, it was plainly a mistake to admit a country that had no chance of fulfilling the economic guidelines required for admission. However, the EU's strategy to resolve the crisis - to punish its people for the profligacy of its ruling class - is clearly doomed to failure.

        Last week I came across the following column from the Daily Telegraph's Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, which very effectively describes the flaws in the EU's approach toward Greece:

        "IMF minutes from 2010 confirm what Syriza has always argued: the country was already bankrupt and needed debt relief rather than new loans. This was overruled in order to save the euro and to save Europe's banking system at a time when EMU had no defences against contagion"

        Finance minister Yanis Varoufakis rightly calls the EU austerity plan 'a cynical transfer of private losses from the banks' books onto the shoulders of Greece's most vulnerable citizens'...Marc Chandler, from Brown Brothers Harriman, says the liabilities incurred – pushing Greece's debt to 180% of GDP - almost fit the definition of "odious debt" under international law. "The Greek people have not been bailed out. The economy has contracted by a quarter. With deflation, nominal growth has collapsed and continues to contract," he said."

        The Greeks know this. They have been living it for five years, victims of the worst slump endured by any industrial state in 80 years, and worse than European states in the Great Depression. The EMU creditors have yet to acknowledge in any way that Greece was sacrificed to save monetary union in the white heat of the crisis, and therefore that it merits a special duty of care. Once you start to see events through Greek eyes – rather than through the eyes of the north European media and the Brussels press corps - the drama takes on a different character."

        Mr. Evans-Pritchard also points out that no developed country has ever defaulted on a payment to the IMF. Given the arduous path being forced upon Greece by its EU creditors, I believe that the IMF's ratio of 'non-performing loans' (banker-speak for 'default') is about to see an increase.

        ----------------

        The next twelve months are going to be a defining era for the European Union, which is dealing with several crises in parallel - a significant downward move in the euro's value, its potential (and in my opinion, inevitable) eviction of a member country, and a pending decision on whether to further extend Russian sanctions.

        Those first two problems are difficult enough to deal with, but it is the third that may ultimately drive a wedge between the US and the EU. As mentioned in the second part of this series, the US is indifferent to Russian sanctions - trade with Russia comprises less than 0.3% of US GDP. Yet Russia is normally a significant importer of EU agricultural goods - which Moscow banned in response to last year's sanctions. Loss of that market is proving catastrophic to several large European agricultural and industrial companies, leading many politicians - including the Italian foreign minister - to call for an end to sanctions. This transatlantic divergence of economic interests may prove to be the ultimate undoing of America's anti-Russian containment strategy.

        I also believe that another factor may prove to have even more of an impact - namely, America's plummeting reputation in foreign policy circles when it comes to hot air and broken promises. Putting aside its incompetent and capricious foreign policy in the Middle East - immortalized in this Twitter quote - the Obama Administration is making no friends in eastern Europe. Take Ukraine, for example, where US Secretary of State John Kerry pledged to "stand by" the Ukrainian government even though less than half of the aid it promised last year has been delivered. Instead of the aid promised, the Ukrainians received a speech from Kerry with a long list of platitudes and tough talk, but no commitment to action or clarity on when or whether promised aid will actually be delivered.

        ... ... ...

        European governments are increasingly employing 'realpolitik' when it comes to their dealings with America, as evidenced by widespread interest in joining China's new infrastructure investment bank despite strong US lobbying. This new reality is also playing out in eastern Europe, where decision-makers are comparing historical US and NATO commitment against Putin's resolve and track record.

        Given the past year's events, it is perhaps not surprising that Europe's eastern periphery is rapidly becoming more pragmatic in its dealings with Russia.

        ---------------

        The best way to wrap up this series does not involve further analysis of the past. Instead, we should search for indicators that provide any insights for what the future holds with relations between Russia and the West.

        One event worthy of a close look is the upcoming Victory Day celebrations in Moscow, as mentioned earlier. This will be the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, and the Russians - who absorbed more of the burden in defeating the Nazis than any other country - take the event seriously. In past years the event has been well-attended by Western heads of state, to include US President George W. Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. This year, nearly all Western leaders will boycott the event - with the exceptions of Greece, Cyprus and the Czech Republic. Twenty-six other heads of state are reportedly on the confirmed attendee list, to include Indian President Pranab Mukherjee, President Xi Jinping of China, and Kim Jong Un of North Korea. The latter two are particularly interesting in light of Russia's increasing focus toward the opening of new export markets and alliances in North Asia - which as I have previously commented, will see a greater economic transformation in the next twenty years than any other region on Earth. On 9 May, the VIP reviewing stand in Red Square will provide a telling glimpse into Russia's expanding sphere of influence.

        -------------

        Less than three years ago US President Obama mocked his political opponent Mitt Romney for citing Russia as the USA's primary geopolitical threat, stating "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. Because the Cold War has been over for 20 years."

        Politicians are not known for issuing mea culpas, and this particular President is certainly not known for speaking with journalists who ask tough questions - but I would gladly buy a ticket to any studio broadcast today where the interviewer played that sound bite for the President and asked him whether he still believes that to be true.

        Russia certainly has many flaws and weaknesses - some of the world's worst demographic statistics, its "one-trick pony" export economy, and frequent hostility toward foreign investors - but its near-monopoly on natural gas supplies, nuclear arsenal and military force projection capabilities shall ensure that it retains a position of strength relative to the European Union for the foreseeable future.

        If Western leaders want to contain a resurgent Russia and limit the damage of another Cold War, they would be well-advised to drop unhelpful rhetoric, seek an immediate end to anti-Russian sanctions, and adjust economic policies that are pushing periphery EU countries into Moscow's orbit.

        The Middle East's ongoing descent into chaos and China's impending ascendancy to the status of global superpower are just two of the many threats that the US, European Union and Russia all share. Each of these issues should certainly occupy a higher position on their respective agendas than the breakup of Ukraine or the insolvency of Greece. Leaders of all three governments would be well-advised to set aside their differences, or at least to prevent those differences from obstructing cooperation on more important issues. Unlike its predecessor, the Second Cold War will not be bilateral. Today's world is far more chaotic, kinetic and dangerous than it was fifty years ago.

        [Apr 12, 2015] What Russians really think by Kathrin Hille

        Pretty skillful FT propaganda: no facts, no social framework (she never mentions such terms as neoconservatism, neoliberalism, American exeptionalism, Us military adventurism and such ;-). Just hearsay, emotions and complete moral relativism.
        FT.com

        Many in the west see Russia as aggressive and brainwashed. But its citizens have a different view

        Many European politicians fear Moscow is using the anniversary to paper over the deep divisions opened by Russia's involvement in the war in Ukraine. "At a moment when Putin is trying to redraw the map of Europe, how can we stand next to him and celebrate the postwar order on the continent, the very foundations of which he is bent on destroying?" asks a diplomat from a European country whose leader has declined the invitation to Moscow.

        Such accusations are met with bewilderment and indignation in Russia. Yerokhin echoes the sentiments of many when he says it is not Russia but America that is wrecking the postwar world order in a quest to expand its own influence. Since the start of the war in Ukraine, Russians and their foreign friends and acquaintances get sucked into arguments like this every day. When it comes to Russia's relations with Ukraine, other neighbouring countries and the west, they cannot agree on anything - not even the facts.

        For many in the west, the explanation behind this gulf has been simple: lies and propaganda. Russian media have become more bellicose and ideological than they were even in the Soviet era, demonising Ukraine's pro-European Maidan movement and accusing the new government in Kiev of being organised by American spies and backed by fascist gangs.

        ... ... ...

        Many Russians are in just as much shock as the growing rift with the west permeates their daily lives. For Valery Chastnykh, deputy director of the Institute of Russian Language and Culture at Moscow State University, it became deeply personal last year. He had travelled to the UK to assess projects that students in the department of Russian at the University of Leeds had prepared during their year in Moscow.

        Jack Heaton, 20, had chosen to discuss the role of Russia in the unfolding war in eastern Ukraine. In a 10-minute presentation, he said there had been a revolution in Kiev, that Putin was fighting a covert war to destabilise Ukraine and that Moscow's propaganda had fooled the Russian people into believing that a pack of fascists ruled in Kiev.

        Chastnykh disagreed with all of it. "He presented a very biased, very superficial view of our country," he recalls. "He was suggesting that Russia is brainwashed and we don't know any better. This is just not true." Chastnykh said so, right then and there. Both he and Heaton remember the discussion that followed as if war had entered the classroom. "I am not going to call it an attack - that makes it sound quite brutal. But it was. Valery took the pro-Russian side," Heaton says. "Valery and I basically accused each other of being brainwashed."

         . . . 

        Many Russians are deeply troubled by such incidents. They see their country as a deserving member of the global community and remember how hard it was to build these links after the cold war. Irina Orekhova, who has been teaching foreign students Russian at the Pushkin Institute in Moscow since 1976, sees her responsibility as nothing short of a mission. "We are not just teaching a language - we are teaching a culture," she says. "I want to show our students our civilisation, the Russian world. This is my motherland, my great love."

        The current political tension is also hurting young Russians who have built friendships in the west. Olga Petrova, 22, spent a year at a high school in Knoxville, Iowa. She says the west's accusations against Russia in the Ukraine war have left her feeling betrayed. "This conflict is so personal for everyone," she says.

        ... ... ..

        When the Soviet Union broke apart in 1991, it set free a range of widely diverging, often mutually contradictory historical narratives. The history of central and eastern Europe and central Asia had been constricted in a tight ideological corset for more than 70 years. Suddenly newly independent countries could revive their national histories and debate atrocities from the Stalin era. Such discourse became a key pillar of national identity.

        In Russia, things were much more complicated. Russia had been the nucleus from which the Soviet Union was built, its language and culture had dominated the now-defunct communist empire and its people had accounted for the lion's share of the Soviet armed forces. A clean break with the past was impossible. In many cases, the opening of historical archives pitted Russians against their neighbours.

        In the 1990s, during a brief interlude of multi-party politics, Russia started to question its past. But at the same time, political infighting, corruption and financial crises left many with a sense of loss, chaos and confusion. Almost a decade after the end of the Soviet Union, the country was still struggling to find a new identity.

        Putin changed things. Since he came to power 15 years ago, Moscow has closed historical archives, narrowed the spectrum of debate and moved to unify history textbooks. Since the start of his third presidential term in 2012, Putin has identified patriotism and a hero cult as the necessary glue for his disoriented nation. "There is a great work under way now for the patriotic education of the youth," says Nadezhda Malinina, granddaughter of General Mikhail Malinin, Marshall Zhukov's chief of staff, and part of Yerokhin's circle of friends.

        But part of what Russia calls victory and liberation is remembered as invasion and occupation by some of its neighbours. In the run-up to the anniversary on May 9, the worsening stand-off with the west has reignited long-smouldering historical controversies.

        Nowhere are these controversies more tangled than with Ukraine. Russia traces its own statehood back to a federation of Slavic peoples founded in the ninth century in what is now Kiev. In Tsarist-era Russian historiography, Ukraine was called Little Russia, and seen as part of the nation. But from the late 19th century, Ukrainian nationalists started asserting their own identity instead. According to Miller, Ukrainian nationalists tended to cast Russia as a brutal, hegemonic power, while some Russian nationalists described Ukraine as the "illness" of Russia.

        Following the communist revolution, the Bolsheviks abandoned the term Little Russia and fostered the idea of a Ukrainian nation friendly to Russia. Throughout the history of the Soviet Union, any hostility between the two was covered under or hidden by the term "brotherly nations", which Russia continues to use but which has flaked off like a layer of varnish. "In the 1990s, everything that had been there before the Soviet Union came back," Miller says.

        In 2011, he and Georgy Kasyanov, a professor of Ukrainian history from Kiev, published a joint book on how history was being abused on both sides. But Miller sees his work falling apart before his eyes. "Now people are being forced to choose: either feel Russian [and] hostile to Ukraine, or feel Ukrainian [and] hostile to Russia," he says.

        ... ... ...

        Maria Kostetskaya, 21, was born to a Russian mother and a Ukrainian father, and is trying to find her place in this maze. Her father's entire family was deported to the far north of Russia because one uncle had worked as a policeman in Ukraine during the second world war. "He was with the Banderites," says Kostetskaya, using a dismissive Russian term for followers of Stepan Bandera, the Ukrainian nationalist who died in 1959. Bandera's attempts to establish an independent Ukrainian state have made him hugely controversial in Russia. In the current crisis, Moscow has demonised him as a fascist.

        In the same breath as Kostetskaya calls her Ukrainian relatives "Banderites", she says she believes in Russia and Ukraine being brother nations and insists that everything was fine until the change of government in Ukraine last year. "Why are they being so anti-Russian in Kiev now?" she asks. "Why are they worshipping Bandera?"

        [Apr 11, 2015] McFaul asks why Obama has Cuba/Iran success, not Russia. Simonyan - "you"

        Quote: "...they don't call the usa the exceptional nation for nothing… pathetic or bully nation would be better, as we reached that point a long time ago.."
        marknesop.wordpress.com

        Warren , April 11, 2015 at 8:08 am

        Moscow Exile , April 11, 2015 at 8:34 am

        McFaul seems to consider the sanctions continually imposed by the USA and its lackeys against Russia to be of no consequence.

        The thing is about sanctions is that they are deemed as punishment – but by whom and what for and on whose judgement?

        Meeting out judgements from on high – acting as judge, jury and executioner on the assumption that one has the god-given right to do – and directing punishments at particular parties does not lead to the development of cordial relations between the United States and those whom it chooses to chastize.

        james, April 11, 2015 at 9:11 am

        you've articulated it exactly as i see it… chief judge, executioner, jury and etc – with no accountability to any international over sight… they don't call the usa the exceptional nation for nothing… pathetic or bully nation would be better, as we reached that point a long time ago..

        Warren. April 11, 2015 at 10:10 am
        The United States not only has a Manifest Destiny to rule the North American continent but also be a City upon a Hill for the world to marvel and aspire to.

        Russia is a child that needs to be disciplined and taught how to behave.

        Moscow Exile, April 11, 2015 at 1:04 pm
        Exactly! And the words "behave" and "behaviour" are often used in the West when referring to Russian state policies, frequently anthropomorphizing that state as the Evil One, he whom we are obliged to hate and reject as embodiment of all that is contrary to that which USA and its acolyte "International Community" represents.

        Witness, for example, the words of Obama, Kerry and Call-Me-Dave and others in this respect:

        Obama on Russia: 'Behavior That Has No Place In the Community of Nations'

        But the star prize in this respect goes to Motyl:

        Such countries as France and Germany, which have extensive economic relations with Russia, face a difficult moral choice. They must ask themselves whether Putin is evil or evil enough. If they decide his killing spree in eastern Ukraine is neither evil nor evil enough, they must explain - to themselves and to the rest of the world - just why they believe the destruction of Ukrainian, Russian, Malaysian, Dutch and other lives is not a form of evil behavior.

        If, alternatively, Putin's behavior strikes them as evil, they must either act on that conviction, in the manner suggested above, or explain to themselves and the rest of the world just why their enhancing Putin's war-making proclivities is not wrong.

        See: Motyl: Putin, just evil enough

        [Apr 10, 2015] Shadow Government By Bruce Morgan

        October 28, 2014 | Tufts Now

        Elected officials are no longer in charge of our national security-and that is undermining our democracy, says the Fletcher School's Michael Glennon

        "We are clearly on the path to autocracy," says Michael Glennon. "There's no question that if we continue on that path, [the] Congress, the courts and the presidency will ultimately end up . . . as institutional museum pieces." Photo: Kelvin Ma

        Michael Glennon knew of the book, and had cited it in his classes many times, but he had never gotten around to reading the thing from cover to cover. Last year he did, jolted page after page with its illuminating message for our time.

        The book was The English Constitution, an analysis by 19th-century journalist Walter Bagehot that laid bare the dual nature of British governance. It suggested that one part of government was for popular consumption, and another more hidden part was for real, consumed with getting things done in the world. As he read, Glennon, a professor of international law at the Fletcher School, where he also teaches constitutional law, saw distinct parallels with the current American political scene.

        He decided to explore the similarities in a 30-page paper that he sent around to a number of his friends, asking them to validate or refute his argument. As it happens, Glennon's friends were an extraordinarily well-informed bunch, mostly seasoned operatives in the CIA, the U.S. State Department and the military. "Look," he told them. "I'm thinking of writing a book. Tell me if this is wrong." Every single one responded, "What you have here is exactly right."

        Expanded from that original brief paper, Glennon's book National Security and Double Government (Oxford University Press) takes our political system to task, arguing that the people running our government are not our visible elected officials but high-level-and unaccountable-bureaucrats nestled atop government agencies.

        Glennon's informed critique of the American political system comes from a place of deep regard. Glennon says he can remember driving into Washington, D.C., in the late spring of 1973, at the time of the Senate Watergate hearings, straight from law school at the University of Minnesota, to take his first job as assistant legislative counsel to the U.S. Senate. Throughout his 20s, he worked in government, culminating in his position as legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under Sen. Frank Church from 1977 to 1980. Since entering academic life in the early 1980s, Glennon has been a frequent consultant to government agencies of all stripes, as well as a regular commentator on media outlets such as NPR's All Things Considered, the Today show and Nightline.

        In his new book, an inescapable sadness underlies the narrative. "I feel a great sense of loss," Glennon admits. "I devoted my life to these [democratic] institutions, and it's not easy to see how to throw the current trends into reverse." Tufts Now spoke with Glennon recently to learn more of his perspective.

        Tufts Now: You've been both an insider and an outsider with regard to government affairs. What led you to write this book?

        Michael Glennon: I was struck by the strange continuity in national security policy between the Bush administration and the Obama administration. Obama, as a candidate, had been eloquent and forceful in criticizing many aspects of the Bush administration's national security policies, from drone strikes to Guantanamo to surveillance by the National Security Agency-the NSA-to covert operations. Yet as president, it turned out that he made very, very few changes in these policies. So I thought it was useful to explain the reason for that.

        Were you surprised by the continuity?

        I was surprised by the extent of it. I knew fundamentally from my own experience that changing national policies is like trying to change the course of an aircraft carrier. These policies in many ways were set long ago, and the national security bureaucracy tends to favor the status quo. Still, I thought that a president like Obama would, with the political wind in his sails and with so much public and congressional support for what he was criticizing, be more successful in fulfilling his promises.

        You use the phrase "double government," coined by Walter Bagehot in the 1860s. What did he mean by that?

        Walter Bagehot was one of the founders of the Economist magazine. He developed the theory of "double government," which in a nutshell is this. He said Britain had developed two sets of institutions. First came "dignified" institutions, the monarchy and the House of Lords, which were for show and which the public believed ran the government. But in fact, he suggested, this was an illusion.

        These dignified institutions generate legitimacy, but it was a second set of institutions, which he called Britain's "efficient" institutions, that actually ran the government behind the scenes. These institutions were the House of Commons, the Cabinet and the prime minister. This split allowed Britain to move quietly from a monarchy to what Bagehot called a "concealed republic."

        The thesis of my book is that the United States has also drifted into a form of double government, and that we have our own set of "dignified" institutions-Congress, the presidency and the courts. But when it comes to national security policy, these entities have become largely for show. National security policy is now formulated primarily by a second group of officials, namely the several hundred individuals who manage the agencies of the military, intelligence and law enforcement bureaucracy responsible for protecting the nation's security.

        What are some components of this arrangement?

        The NSA, the FBI, the Pentagon and elements of the State Department, certainly; generally speaking, law enforcement, intelligence and the military entities of the government. It's a diverse group, an amorphous group, with no leader and no formal structure, that has come to dominate the formation of American national security policy to the point that Congress, the presidency and the courts all defer to it.

        You call this group the "Trumanite network" in your book. What's the link to Harry Truman?

        It was in Truman's administration that the National Security Act of 1947 was enacted. This established the CIA and the National Security Council and centralized the command of the U.S. military. It was during the Truman administration as well that the National Security Agency [NSA] was set up, in 1952, although that was a secret and didn't come to light for many years thereafter.

        In contrast to the Trumanites you set the "Madisonians." How would you describe them?

        The Madisonian institutions are the three constitutionally established branches of the federal government: Congress, the judiciary and the president. They are perceived by the public as the entities responsible for the formulation of national security policy, but that belief is largely mistaken.

        The idea is driven by regular exceptions. You can always point to specific instances in which, say, the president personally ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden or Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution. But these are exceptions. The norm is that as a general matter, these three branches defer to the Trumanite network, and that's truer all the time.

        So the trend is toward increased power on the Trumanite side of the ledger.

        Correct.

        If that's true, why has there not been a greater outcry from the public, the media-all the observers we have?

        I think the principal reason is that even sophisticated students of government operate under a very serious misunderstanding. They believe that the political system is self-correcting. They believe the framers set up a system of government setting power against power, and ambition against ambition, and that an equilibrium would be reached, and that any abuse of power would be checked, and arbitrary power would be prevented.

        That is correct as far as it goes, but the reality is that's only half the picture. The other half is that Madison and his colleagues believed that for equilibrium to occur, we would have an informed and engaged citizenry. Lacking that, the entire system corrupts, because individuals are elected to office who do not resist encroachments on the power of their branches of government, and the whole equilibrium breaks down.

        What role, if any, have the media played?

        The media have pretty much been enablers. Although there are a handful of investigative journalists who have done a heroic job of uncovering many of the abuses, they are the exception, for a number of reasons. Number one, the media are a business and have a bottom line. It takes a huge amount of money to fund an investigative journalist who goes about finding sources over a period of years. Very few newspapers or television concerns have those sorts of deep pockets.

        Second, access for the press is everything. There is huge incentive to pull punches, and you don't get interviews with top-ranking officials at the NSA or CIA if you're going to offer hard-hitting questions. Look, for example, at the infamous 60 Minutes puff piece on the NSA, a really tragic example of how an otherwise respectable institution can sell its soul and act like an annex of the NSA in order to get some people it wants on the TV screen.

        What is the role of terror in this environment?

        The whole transfer of power from the Madisonian institutions to the Trumanite network has been fueled by a sense of emergency deriving from crisis, deriving from fear. It's fear of terrorism more than anything else that causes the American people to increasingly be willing to dispense with constitutional safeguards to ensure their safety.

        Madison believed that government has two great objects. One object of a constitution is to enable the government to protect the people, specifically from external attacks. The other great object of a constitution is to protect the people from the government. The better able the government is to protect the people from external threats, the greater the threat posed by the government to the people.

        You've been involved with the U.S. government for 40 years. How has your view of government changed?

        Double government was certainly a factor in the 1970s, but it was challenged for the first time thanks to the activism stemming from the civil rights movement, Vietnam and Watergate. As a result, there were individuals in Congress-Democrats and Republicans like William Fulbright, Frank Church, Jacob Javits, Charles Mathias and many others-who were willing to stand up and insist upon adherence to constitutionally ordained principles. That led to a wave of activism and to the enactment of a number of pieces of reform legislation.

        But there is no final victory in Washington. Those reforms have gradually been eaten away and turned aside. I think today we are in many ways right back where we were in the early 1970s. NSA surveillance is an example of that. The Church Committee uncovered something called Operation Shamrock, in which the NSA had assembled a watch list of antiwar and civil rights activists based upon domestic surveillance. Church warned at the time that NSA capabilities were so awesome that if they were ever turned inward on the American people, this nation would cross an abyss from which there is no return. The question is whether we have recently crossed that abyss.

        To what degree are we still a functioning democracy? I'm sure you know that President Jimmy Carter told a German reporter last year that he thought we no longer qualified as a democracy because of our domestic surveillance.

        We are clearly on the path to autocracy, and you can argue about how far we are down that path. But there's no question that if we continue on that path, America's constitutionally established institutions-Congress, the courts and the presidency-will ultimately end up like Britain's House of Lords and monarchy, namely as institutional museum pieces.

        Bruce Morgan can be reached at [email protected].

        [Apr 10, 2015] Robert Reich The rich have bought America's silence by Robert Reich

        Salon.com

        This originally appeared on Robert Reich's blog.

        Not long ago I was asked to speak to a religious congregation about widening inequality. Shortly before I began, the head of the congregation asked that I not advocate raising taxes on the wealthy.

        He said he didn't want to antagonize certain wealthy congregants on whose generosity the congregation depended.

        I had a similar exchange last year with the president of a small college who had invited me to give a lecture that his board of trustees would be attending. "I'd appreciate it if you didn't criticize Wall Street," he said, explaining that several of the trustees were investment bankers.

        It seems to be happening all over.

        A non-profit group devoted to voting rights decides it won't launch a campaign against big money in politics for fear of alienating wealthy donors.

        A Washington think-tank releases a study on inequality that fails to mention the role big corporations and Wall Street have played in weakening the nation's labor and antitrust laws, presumably because the think tank doesn't want to antagonize its corporate and Wall Street donors.

        A major university shapes research and courses around economic topics of interest to its biggest donors, notably avoiding any mention of the increasing power of large corporations and Wall Street on the economy.

        It's bad enough big money is buying off politicians. It's also buying off nonprofits that used to be sources of investigation, information, and social change, from criticizing big money.

        Other sources of funding are drying up. Research grants are waning. Funds for social services of churches and community groups are growing scarce. Legislatures are cutting back university funding. Appropriations for public television, the arts, museums, and libraries are being slashed.

        So what are non-profits to do?

        "There's really no choice," a university dean told me. "We've got to go where the money is."

        And more than at any time since the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century, the money is now in the pockets of big corporations and the super wealthy.

        So the presidents of universities, congregations, and think tanks, other nonprofits are now kissing wealthy posteriors as never before.

        But that money often comes with strings.

        When Comcast, for example, finances a nonprofit like the International Center for Law and Economics, the Center supports Comcast's proposed merger with Time Warner.

        When the Charles Koch Foundation pledges $1.5 million to Florida State University's economics department, it stipulates that a Koch-appointed advisory committee will select professors and undertake annual evaluations.

        The Koch brothers now fund 350 programs at over 250 colleges and universities across America. You can bet that funding doesn't underwrite research on inequality and environmental justice.

        David Koch's $23 million of donations to public television earned him positions on the boards of two prominent public-broadcasting stations. It also guaranteed that a documentary critical of the Kochs didn't air.

        As Ruby Lerner, president and founding director of Creative Capital, a grant making institution for the arts, told the New Yorker's Jane Mayer, "self-censorship" practiced by public television … raises issues about what public television means. They are in the middle of so much funding pressure."

        David Koch has also donated tens of millions of dollars to the American Museum of Natural History in New York and the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, and sits on their boards.

        A few weeks ago dozens of climate scientists and environmental groups asked that museums of science and natural history "cut all ties" with fossil fuel companies and philanthropists like the Koch brothers.

        "When some of the biggest contributors to climate change and funders of misinformation on climate science sponsor exhibitions … they undermine public confidence in the validity of the institutions responsible for transmitting scientific knowledge," their statement said.

        Even though gift agreements by universities, museums, and other nonprofits often bar donors from being involved in decisions about what's investigated or shown, such institutions don't want to bite hands that feed them.

        This isn't a matter of ideology. Wealthy progressives can exert as much quiet influence over the agendas of nonprofits as wealthy conservatives.

        It's a matter of big money influencing what should and should not be investigated, revealed, and discussed – especially when it comes to the tightening nexus between concentrated wealth and political power, and how that power further enhances great wealth.

        Philanthropy is noble. But when it's mostly in the hands of a few super-rich and giant corporations, and is the only game available, it can easily be abused.

        Our democracy is directly threatened when the rich buy off politicians.

        But no less dangerous is the quieter and more insidious buy-off of institutions democracy depends on to research, investigate, expose, and mobilize action against what is occurring.

        Robert Reich, one of the nation's leading experts on work and the economy, is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. Time Magazine has named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written 13 books, including his latest best-seller, "Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future;" "The Work of Nations," which has been translated into 22 languages; and his newest, an e-book, "Beyond Outrage." His syndicated columns, television appearances, and public radio commentaries reach millions of people each week. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, and Chairman of the citizen's group Common Cause. His new movie "Inequality for All" is in Theaters. His widely-read blog can be found at www.robertreich.org.

        Michael Glennon on who REALLY runs the government by Tom Jackson

        Dec 2, 2014 | anduskyregister.com

        My favorite nonfiction book this year is "National Security and Double Government" by Michael J. Glennon, which argues that the president and Congress are largely figureheads in setting U.S. national security policy.

        Glennon's book suggests that U.S. foreign and security policy is formed by "Trumanites," a network of several hundred top bureaucrats. They're named after Harry S. Truman, whose administration saw the passage of the National Security Act of 1947 and the creation of the National Security Agency. The elected officials who are supposed to make the decisions are dubbed "Madisonians," after President James Madison.

        The Madisonians do have power, and they make important decisions. President Barack Obama made the decision to carry out the raid that killed terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, Glennon notes. No one will know whether Al Gore would have invaded Iraq. But Glennon argues that very little in American foreign policy actually changed when Barack Obama replaced George W. Bush at the White House.

        As an example, Glennon's book is quite devastating in describing how prominent Madisonians reacted when James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, was caught lying to Congress about whether it collects data on "millions" of Americans. (Leaks from Edward Snowden revealed that the National Security Agency in fact attempts to collect the phone records of all Americans.) Sen. Dianne Feinstein knew the statement was false and said nothing, Glennon writes. Obama knew or should have known the statement was false and also was silent, "allowing the falsehood to stand for months until leaks publicly revealed the testimony to be false," he writes. "Obama, finally caught by surprise, insisted that he 'welcomed' the debate that ensued, and his administration commenced active efforts to arrest the NSA employee whose disclosures had triggered it." Glennon's heavily-footnoted book then documents the misleading statements Obama made about the matter.

        Glennon is not a campus radical or a conspiracy theorist blogging in his parents' basement. He's professor of international law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University. Before he entered academia, he had a legal career that included a stint as legal counsel for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has written several books, and his opinion pieces have appeared in "The New York Times" and "The Washington Post," among other newspapers. He kindly agreed to take our questions about his new book:

        Sandusky Register: Did the election of President Barack Obama, and the subsequent disappointment of many who thought he would change U.S. national security policy, spur your book, or had you already had it in mind for years?

        Glennon: Both. I had noticed for years that U.S. national security changed little from one administration to the next, but the continuity was so striking mid-way into the Obama administration that I thought it was time to address the question directly. Hence the book.

        Sandusky Register: Your book suggests that elections in the U.S. have little effect on national security policy - most of the decisions are made by a network of several hundred national security bureaucrats, regardless of who occupies the Oval Office or the seats in Congress. Do politicians in Washington privately admit that this is true?

        Glennon: I've spoken with many members of what I call the "Trumanite network" who do acknowledge that reality - it's hard to deny, really, though few will say so publicly - but members of Congress and federal judges have too much at stake to pull back the curtains. As I describe in the book, public deference depends upon the illusion that the public institutions of our government are actually in charge, and their legitimacy would suffer if they were brutally honest about how much power they have transferred to the Trumanites.

        Sandusky Register: Drawing upon "The English Constitution" by Walter Bagehot, you refer to the politicians who are supposed to be in charge as "the Madisonians" (after James Madison) and the national security bureaucrats who actually govern as "the Trumanites" (after Harry Truman's National Security Act of 1947). Is it a misnomer to refer to the Trumanites as a "secret government," as some do?

        Glennon: The Trumanites surely operate in secrecy; most of their work is highly classified because the security threats have to be addressed out of the public eye, for the most part. But the Trumanite network itself exists in plain view, and has been readily visible for some time. So it's a mistake to think of it as a "deep state" or "shadow government" to the extent that those terms imply some nefarious conspiracy. There has been no such thing.

        Sandusky Register: The U.S. Senate just defeated an NSA reform bill, and even supporters admitted it would not have brought major change. Does this fit your book's suggestion that reform from the "Madisonians" is going to be a difficult enterprise?

        Glennon: The bill was mostly cosmetic and would not have addressed the deeper sources of double government. Its defeat can be attributed to a number of factors, one of which surely is the power of the Trumanite network. But in the interest of complete accuracy, it's useful to think of the phenomenon of double government as something like climate change: not every bad storm or hot day is caused directly and exclusively by the dynamic of global warming. The theory of double government merely predicts that, over time, national security policy as a whole will be largely continuous. Individual elements of that policy could change.

        Sandusky Register: I've noticed you haven't been invited to appear on national TV yet, or on NPR's "Fresh Air," although your thesis would seem to be controversial and interesting. Are there institutional reasons why your book isn't getting a huge amount of publicity, or is it just hard to get an academic press book out there?

        Glennon: Some good books never get reviewed and some bad books do. Lots of it just seems to be luck and happenstance. I tried to write it for informed lay readers; time will tell whether they pick it up.

        My other author interviews are archived. Professor Glennon also was interviewed by the Boston Globe. He also appeared on the Scott Horton Show.

        Sandusky Register reporter Tom Jackson reviews and recommends local and national reading opportunities. You can read the other blog posts and follow this blog on Twitter.

        Email him at [email protected]

        Comments

        AJ Oliver

        Tue, 12/02/2014 - 12:40pm

        Tom, thanks. That will go on my reading list - right now I'm into "Why We Lost (in Iraq and Afghanistan)" by Gen. Dan Bolger.
        And for influence on security policy, don't forget the Neo-cons and their Israeli partners.
        We're spending trillions on the military and becoming ever less secure - they are bankrupting the country.

        [Apr 10, 2015] Professor Michael Glennon on the Rise of the American System of Double Government by Michael Glennon

        November 7, 2014 | fletcherforum.org

        Professor Michael Glennon on the Rise of the American System of Double Government

        In his latest book, National Security and Double Government, Professor Michael Glennon challenges common understandings of American government institutions and provides daunting insights into the nature of the U.S. national security apparatus. Glennon claims that the "Trumanite network," consisting of managers of the military, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies, guides and often makes key decisions on U.S. national security policy. He highlights the lack of oversight, accountability, and the mutually beneficial relationship between the public-facing "Madisonian" actors, such as the President and Congress, and this classified "Trumanite" network. The Fletcher Forum Editorial team sat down with Michael Glennon, Professor of International Law at the Fletcher School, to talk about his book and discuss the future of American democracy.

        FLETCHER FORUM: How did your experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and your continued work with the government inform your book?

        GLENNON: When I worked for the Committee I was struck by the large number of Ford administration officials who continued on into the Carter administration. Many of these officials held significant policy-making roles in the realm of national security. I was also struck by the many programs and policies that also carried over from the earlier administration. Most of these related to classified intelligence and law enforcement activities. As a result the public believed that in many areas, things had changed much more than they actually had. What I was observing in closed meetings and in classified documents was not the civics-book model that the public had internalized. The courts, Congress, and even presidential appointees exercised much less influence over national security policy-making than people commonly believed. And the 1976 presidential election had had much less impact than people had expected. So it was pretty clear the data didn't fit the conventional tri-partite, separation-of-powers paradigm, but I wasn't sure what a more accurate paradigm would look like, or even whether there was one.

        FLETCHER FORUM: When did you start thinking about this topic? How did you formulate this thesis and how did we get to this point?

        GLENNON: Two years ago, I was struck again by the strange inalterability of U.S. national security policy. Before winning the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama had campaigned forcefully and eloquently against many elements of the Bush administration's national security policy. Yet rendition, military detention without trial or counsel, drone strikes, NSA surveillance, whistleblower prosecutions, non-prosecution of water-boarders, reliance on the state secrets privilege, covert operations, Guantanamo-you name it, virtually nothing changed. Obviously something more was going on than what the defenders of those policies claimed-which was that all those policies somehow happened to be the most rational response among all competing alternatives. The fact is that each of these policies presents questions on which reasonable people can differ-as indeed Obama himself had, as a Senator and as a candidate for the presidency. The epiphany occurred when I pulled a little book off the shelf and read it in amazement one rainy Sunday afternoon-Walter Bagehot's The English Constitution.

        FLETCHER FORUM: What are some components of this double government in the U.S. today? What are the key institutions and players?

        GLENNON: Bagehot's objective was to explain how the British government operated in the 1860s. He suggested that it had in effect split into two separate sets of institutions. The "dignified" institutions consisted of the monarchy and House of Lords. The British people believed that the dignified institutions ran the government. This belief was essential to foster the legitimacy needed for public deference and obedience. But that belief was an illusion. In fact, the government was run by the "efficient" institutions-the House of Commons, the prime minister, and the cabinet-which operated behind-the-scenes, largely removed from public view. Gradually and quietly, these efficient institutions had moved Britain away from a monarchy to become what Bagehot described as a "concealed republic." My book's thesis is that in the realm of national security, the United States also has unwittingly drifted into a system of double government-but that it is moving in the opposite direction, away from democracy, toward autocracy. With occasional exceptions, the dignified institutions of the judiciary, Congress, and the presidency are all on the road to becoming hollowed-out museum pieces, while the managers of the military, law enforcement, and intelligence community more and more come to dominate national security policy-making.

        FLETCHER FORUM: You identify the pervasive political ignorance on the part of the American public as the root problem, and argue that reform must come from the people. How can this actually work in practice? Is there any hope that change is possible?

        GLENNON: It's a bit simplistic to focus exclusively upon the public's "pervasive civic ignorance" (a term used by former Supreme Court Justice David Souter). As I point out in the book, the American people are anything but stupid. And while it's true that they're not terribly engaged or informed on national security policy, their ignorance is in many ways rational. Americans are very busy people and it doesn't make much sense to expend a lot of effort learning about policies you can't change. So we're in a dilemma: because the dignified institutions can't empower themselves by drawing upon powers that they lack, energy must come from the outside, from the people-yet as the electorate becomes increasingly uninformed and disengaged, the efficient institutions have all the more incentive to go off on their own. It's telling and rather sad that the American public has become so reliant upon the government to come up with solutions to its problems that the public is utterly at loose ends to know where or how to begin to devise its own remedy. Learned Hand was right: liberty "lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it."

        FLETCHER FORUM: Does a lame duck President have a different relationship with the Trumanite Network? If President Obama were to read your book and ask for advice on changing the system, what would you tell him?

        GLENNON: I'd suggest that he demonstrate to the American people that the book's thesis is wrong. He could do that by changing the national security policies that he led the American people to believe would be changed. Among other things: (1) fire officials who lie to Congress and the American people, beginning with John Brennan and James Clapper, (2) appoint a special prosecutor to deal with the CIA's spying on the Senate intelligence committee and Clapper's false statements to it, (3) stop blocking publication of the Senate intelligence committee's torture report, (4) stop invoking the state secrets privilege to obstruct judicial challenges to abusive counter-terrorism activities, (5) halt the bombing of Syria until Congress authorizes it, and (6) stop prosecuting and humiliating whistleblowers who spark public debates he claims to welcome.

        FLETCHER FORUM: Are there any potential 2016 Presidential candidates that could challenge the Trumanite Network?

        GLENNON: No.

        FLETCHER FORUM: Do you have any other recommended reading on this subject?

        GLENNON: The English Constitution, by Walter Bagehot; President Eisenhower's farewell address; The Power Elite, by C. Wright Mills; Why Leaders Lie, by John J. Mearsheimer; The Arrogance of Power, by J. William Fulbright; Top Secret America, by Dana Priest and William M. Arkin; the final report of the Church committee (S. Rep. No. 94-755, 1976); On Democracy, by Robert A. Dahl; The New American Militarism, by Andrew Bacevich; Groupthink, by Irving Janus

        [Apr 10, 2015] Exhumation of fascism by neoliberalism

        Apr 06, 2015 | Izvestia

        ... ... ..

        The term "fascism" was initially defined as a local phenomenon - the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Later, the term changed its meaning and has become synonymous with Nazism (national socialism) of the Third Reich. During 1950-1990-Western political science began to call fascism any repressive regime and introduced the term "totalitarianism". This was done in order to combine Nazism and communism, those two social phenomenon were ideologically polar and has had a different social base despite using similar cruel methods.--[ I do not see much difference in enslavement via Gulag with ensavement via decration of undermench -- NNB] In one case, the the driving force was large industrialists and the middle class, in another - mostly the urban poor and part of intelligencia, especially Jewish intelligencia.

        The theory of binary totalitarianism has no serious scientific status. The term "fascism" has now been returned to its historical meaning. It is a synonym of racism and all of its varieties - crops-racism (the idea of cultural superiority), the social racism (the idea of social inequality as the nature of this division of people into masters and slaves), etc.

        Usually researchers try to distill the signs of fascism. For example, the Italian philosopher Umberto Eco counted 14. But this approach only blurs the subject. The myth of superiority is a key symptom. The rest is optional. Additional definitions are generated by the desire to "attach" to fascism more than that.

        For example, "nationalism". Normal people are proud of their nation and its culture, but do not seek to destroy other peoples. This is the difference between nationalism and Nazism.

        Or "traditionalism". If fascism were based in the traditions of the peoples, then some nations would have dwelt for centuries in the fascist state of fever. Tradition is the enemy of the "voice of blood", and there is no logic of exclusion of other people in traditions, while fascism lives this logic . Not coincidentally, he is associated with the Protestant line in Christianity and its idea of "chosen for salvation". Apart from the idea of exclusiveness, fascism is born with the spirit of renewal, the destruction of the weak and "unnecessary" for the sake of winning power, novelty and rationality. I repeat: tradition is the main enemy of fascism.

        The idea of a strong state accompanies fascism, but does not define it. The Olympics of 1936, "Olympia" by Leni Riefenstahl are symbols of a strong statehood. But Hitler's fascism was not defined by the Olympics, but by the Nuremberg racial laws, summary execution of Slavs, Jews and Gypsies, the plans of the colonization of the Eastern territories.

        Yes, the war of 1941-1945 was the war between two authoritarian States, but only from the German side it was an ethnic war. There were no intentions to carry out the genocide of "inferior Aryans" in minds of Soviet soldiers or Joseph Stalin.

        In Europe in recent decades, it was fashionable to talk about fascism as "a reaction to Bolshevism". Indeed, the growing influence of leftist ideas in Europe in the first half of the twentieth century caused activation of right-wing forces. But the roots of fascism are more ancient then Marxist and Bolshevik. Fascism arose as a justification for colonial expansion. Hitler didn't invent anything new. He just moved to the center of Europe bloody colonialist methods of the British, the French, the Spaniards, and made the destruction of people fast and technically perfect: gas chambers, mass graves. In a way fascism is application of colonial methods to the part of population of the country, internal colonization so to speak.

        The regime of the 1930-ies in Germany is the legitimate child of the European liberal capitalism. But this conclusion is seriously injures European sense of identity. That's why this statement is a strict taboo in the West --[not really, the hypothesis of intrinsic connection of fascism with European (colonial) culture are pretty common --NNB]. But the truth eventually comes out. Authors from European left now more frequently touch this connection and try to develop this hypothesis.

        Today we are witnessing a return to archaization of neoliberal society and slide of neoliberalism into "new barbarism." Hence the reasoning of the European politicians about Ukraine as an "Outpost of civilization". However, the assertion that Russia "does not meet democratic standards", those days unlikely will deceive anyone. Euphemisms is a product of distortion of the language, not political reality. This phrase marks Russia as a "defective" state, inhabited by "inferior" people - "watniks", "colorado bugs". Neo-fascist model within the framework of liberalism is often built by shifting the boundaries of tolerance. To some people tolerance applies, to other - no. The protection of the rights of one group in this case means the destruction of the rights of another.

        Political myth about the deep opposition between liberalism and Nazism have always refuted by independent historians. Today this myth is completely discredited.

        There are obvious interplay and close relationship between the two ideas - fascist and liberal - obviously. They both go back to the idea of natural selection, transferred to human society. In other words, the strongest must survive at the expense of the weakest. this doctrine is often called "Social Darwinism". Indeed, the principle of "preservation of the fittest races", transposed into social sciences, resulted in the adoption of the Nuremberg laws designed to protect the "purity of race and blood" - the "law of the citizen of the Reich" and "Law on the protection of German blood and German honor."

        The return of fascism is a symptom of a certain historical tendencies. To such radical measures economic elites resort only for the postponement of the final world crisis. But in the end it is fascism that might again bring Western societies to the wedge of collapse.

        [Apr 10, 2015] The Toronto Symphony Orchestra Silences Valentina Lisitsa's Music by Olga Luzanova

        Apr 06, 2015 | SLAVYANGRAD.org
        Filed Under Canada, Censorship, Freedom of Speech, Toronto Symphony Orchestra, TSO, Ukrainian Conflict, Velentina Lisitsa

        It is no secret that nowadays many alternative media activists face appalling state-sponsored censorship in many nominally free and democratic Western countries. Now it seems that such censorship has penetrated much deeper than we have come to expect. Art itself, the truest form of free expression, is being silenced.

        Screenshot 2015-04-06 18.30.47


        Valentina Lisitsa is a brilliant musician, a famous virtuoso pianist, also known for publicly expressing her opinion on the Ukrainian conflict through her Twitter account. She is a good friend of the Slavyangrad Team and has kindly translated a number of articles for our publication. Her views are always insightful and she has never made them a secret. We are lucky to have Valentina's first-hand account about dealings with the Toronto Symphony Orchestra ("TSO"), which has decided to cancel her concert because of her political opinions. The TSO's decision to silence Valentina's music because she has exercised her inviolable right to express her beliefs is a message to all artists that the next time it could be them.

        Valentina is Ukrainian. She was born on March 25, 1970, in Kiev. Her family comes from Odessa-her mother is a Russian citizen, and her father was Ukrainian. Valentina graduated from the Lysenko music school and the Tchaikovsky National Music Academy of Ukraine (the Kiev Conservatory). She married Alexey Kuznetsov from Taganrog. In 1991, they represented Ukraine in the Murray Dranoff Two Piano Competition in Miami, Florida, and won the first prize. In 1992 they moved to the USA to study and subsequently decided to remain there. In 2001 they became American citizens. Since last year, Valentina has been living in Paris.

        Valentina is one of the most frequently viewed pianists on YouTube, with over 177,000 subscribers, and she performs all over the world. Now Valentina's concert in Toronto, which was scheduled for April 8 and 9 at the Roy Thomson Hall, has been cancelled for an outrageous reason-her political views. In an email sent to Valentina's agent, the TSO stated: "the Toronto Symphony Orchestra received some messages from ticket buyers and others expressing concern over pianist Valentina Lisitsa's public political statements."

        In its correspondence, the TSO also accused Valentina of nothing less than public incitement of hatred contrary to section 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada and went as far as to insinuate that Valentina, a citizen of the United States, could be barred from entering Canada by the immigration authorities. The TSO attempted to base its charges on Lisitsa's public social media posts, attaching a copy of some of her tweets, along with a brief and exceedingly shallow legal opinion by the TSO's counsel at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP.

        Despite being provided with a substantive legal response on the merits of these allegations, the TSO has since mustered neither a single sentence in support of its accusations, nor a single word of apology. It was only after the legal opinion supplied by Valentina underscored that the TSO could not unilaterally dissolve the contract that the TSO's counsel clarified that all her fees would be paid. To all appearances, the TSO seemed to believe that it could not only silence Valentina's music, but also renege on its contractual obligations and thus walk away from their commitments.

        With the TSO finally making a decision to cancel Valentina's concert at the Roy Thomson Hall in Toronto, Valentina has appealed to her fans and friends on her public Facebook page, today, on April 6. With full support for Valentina's courage and strength, we have excerpted the full text of her appeal below. Valentina Lisitsa has never been one to hide her political views. It is time for the TSO to acknowledge that they can no longer hide their own biases and to stop kowtowing to ferociously reactionary political lobbies.

        – by Olga Luzanova & Gleb Bazov

        Val"Dear fans, DEAR FRIENDS!

        I have a confession to make and a huge favor to ask all of you. I really REALLY need your help now.

        But first, my confession.

        Over the last year I have been leading a double life. There was me-a "celebrity" pianist hopping from concert to concert, all over the world; learning new pieces, meeting fans, recording, chirping about my happiness in upbeat interviews.

        But there was another me: not a musician but a regular human being-a daughter, a mother, a wife. And this human being was watching helplessly how the country of my birth, of my childhood, of my first falling in love-this country was sliding ever faster into the abyss. Children die under bombs, old ladies die of starvation, people burned alive…

        The worst thing that can happen to any country is fratricidal war, people seeing each other, their neighbours as enemies to be eliminated. This is what has befallen my beautiful Ukraine. My heart was bleeding. You all saw on TV screens all over the world a magnificent revolution, the people of Ukraine raising in fury against their corrupt rulers, for a better life. I was so proud of my people! But the ruling class doesn't let go easily. They managed to cunningly channel away the anger, to direct it to other, often imaginary, enemies-and worse, to turn people upon themselves. A year later, we have the same rich people remaining in power, misery and poverty everywhere, dozens of thousands killed, over a million of refugees.

        So, I took to Twitter (how many of you know I have a Twitter account?) under a name "NedoUkraïnka"-a word roughly meaning "Sub-Ukrainian", a stab at Ukrainian Prime Minister who called Russian-speaking southern and eastern Ukrainians "SUBHUMANS"! Yes, I kid you not. In an official written document. I am a subhuman, my husband, my mum…. I mastered Ukrainian language perfectly, far better than a so-called "president" of Ukraine. But I don't speak it to my family, I didn't sing lullabies to my son in Ukrainian, when I sleep I never see the dreams in Ukrainian, when I will be dying my last words will NOT be in Ukrainian…

        Sorry, I got carried away telling you those things… To get back to my story-I took to Twitter in order to get the other side of the story heard, the one you never see in the mainstream media-the plight of my people, the good and bad things that were happening in Ukraine. I translated news stories from Ukrainian language websites, I translated eyewitness accounts of atrocities…. I became really good in unmasking fakes published by Western media in order to make one side of the civil war look whiter and softer than the Easter bunny, and the other-like sub-humans, not worthy of mercy, the "collateral damage".

        To give you just one example: one of my feats was to confront French fashion magazine "Elle" who published a glowing cover story about women in Ukrainian army. After the research I have shown to the magazine in my Twitter posts that the "cover girl" they have chosen to show was in fact a horrible person, open Neo-Nazi, racist, anti-Semite who boasted of murdering civilians for fun! The magazine issued a written public apology.

        I was very proud! But with time my activities attracted a lot of vicious haters. I was a particularly important "target" because of being Ukrainian, thus-a traitor. I thought I knew hate-my playing on YouTube certainly "attracted" a fair share of hate mail. But I was mistaken. Death threats, wishes for my family to die, calling me "paid Kremlin wh*re"… the list goes on and on.

        My haters didn't stop there. Trying, in their own words, to teach me a lesson, they have now attempted to silence me as a musician.
        I am scheduled to play Rachmaninoff Concerto #2 with Toronto Symphony Orchestra this week. Back in December someone in the orchestra top management, likely after pressure from a small but aggressive lobby claiming to represent the Ukrainian community, has made a decision that I should not be allowed to play. I don't even know who my accusers are, I am kept in the dark about it. I was accused of "inciting hatred" on Twitter. As the "proof", ironically enough, they presented to the orchestra my tweets containing, of all things, Charlie Hebdo caricatures depicting lying media!!! We all know what those who can't tolerate free speech did to Charlie Hebdo journalists.

        Now, the orchestra based in one of the freest democratic countries is bending over to the same kind of people, helping them to assassinate me-not as a living person yet , but as a MUSICIAN for sure.

        Yes, Toronto Symphony is going TO PAY ME NOT TO PLAY because I exercised the right to free speech. Yes, they will pay my fee but they are going to announce that I will be unable to play and they already found a substitute. And they even threatened me against saying anything about the cause of the cancellation. Seriously. And I thought things like this only happen in Turkey to Fazil Say?

        Now, the plea.

        Before you decide to help me-If you wish, please take time and read my tweets. You might find some of them offensive-perhaps. Satire and hyperbole are the best literature tools to combat lies. Bear that in mind when reading.

        Here is what I ask you to do for me and in defense of freedom, even if you disagree with me on politics.

        I ask you to raise your voice and tell Toronto Symphony that music can't be silenced. Ask them to let me play. If you want to write something-great! Or just share a photo I made ( sorry, I made it on my phone, nothing fancy). Ask your friends to join in.

        If they do it once, they will do it again and again, until the musicians, artists are intimidated into voluntary censorship. Our future will be bleak if we allow this to happen.

        Please stand with me.

        Here are the links :

        https://www.facebook.com/torontosymphonyorchestra Twitter @TorontoSymphony"

        © Valentina Lisitsa.

        17 thoughts on "The Toronto Symphony Orchestra Silences Valentina Lisitsa's Music"

        1. Bhimself | April 7, 2015, 19:24

          What utter, bloody nonsense. I hope the citizens of Toronto will boycott the TSO in droves. The TSO is supposed to promote art, not politics. I am fully expecting the TSo to now schedule pianist Harper singing – Hey Jude. What crap!

        2. gardenplot | April 7, 2015, 00:37

          Greetings ~

          The decision by the management of the TSO to cancel Valentina Lisitsa's Rachmaninoff concert on political grounds is a ghastly blunder. Surely it will be reflected in declining ticket sales. Following that will come lay-offs and labour struggles.

          I for one will not cock an ear in the direction of this orchestra until the situation is rectified in the interests of fairness and justice.

        3. John Gilberts | April 7, 2015, 04:19

          Bravo Lisitsa! All of Canada's political parties actively support the US-installed regime in Kiev and the powerful ultranationalist lobby the Ukrainian Canadian Congress. Like the pro-Israel lobby which also dominates our politicians in Ottawa, institutions like the TSO, which receive government and corporate funding, are wary of displeasing them.

          Thanks for standing up for truth and justice!

        4. OggJason | April 7, 2015, 06:05

          In German history we had something like "degenerated art" and "degenerated music" during 3rd Reich. Artists had been oppressed because the kind of music did not fit into the NAZI view of culture or they were simply of Jewish descent. Some were killed, others could emigrate. Looking at the names you find composers like Bela Bartok, Hans Eisler, Paul Hindemith, Arnold Schönberg, Igor Stravinsky and more who left Europe to survive.

          Nowadays it is not as easy anymore, oppression is more subtle. But having a kind of employment ban on artists because of their political opinion is the first step into that direction. What will be next? Having the wrong cultural bloodline?

          This cannot be stopped early enough!

        [Apr 10, 2015] Mission Accomplished? ISIS Leaders Are All Ex-Saddam Hussein Army Officers

        Apr 06, 2015 | zerohedge.com
        Thirst Mutilator

        Not really... If you're a typical Chinese or Indian... You hardly ever hear about these fucking clowns...

        The only get 'REPORTAGE' time in Western culture [who are born, bred, & trained sychophants]...

        [Apr 10, 2015] Rahm Emanuel and Rick Perry Hold Public in Bipartisan Contempt by Lambert Strether

        April 7, 2015 | nakedcapitalism.com

        Lambert here: This post is short and sweet. It's worth reminding ourselves that on some axes of evaluation, Republicans and Democrats are far more alike than different.

        By PEU Report. Originally posted on their blog, Private Equity Report.

        Holding the public in contempt is a bipartisan effort. Consider the following stories. The first involves Republican Governor Rick Perry of Texas:

        Information contained in a blistering state audit shows that at least five of the recipients… which got tens of millions of dollars from the fund - never actually submitted formal applications. At issue are at least five recipients of Texas Enterprise Fund money: Vought Aircraft…

        Texas Governor Rick Perry gave Vought, a Carlyle Group affiliate, $35 million for fifteen years. Ten years later it's unclear if Vought provided even one additional new job. Governor Perry's job number is fanciful and the recent audit gives no overall job number. In 2010 Carlyle sold Vought for $1.44 billion but not one penny was returned to Texas taxpayers.

        Chicago's Democratic Mayor Rahm Emanuel is as free with taxpayer money for his political benefactors and purposely evasive about those relationships:

        Emanuel's administration has for weeks blocked the release of correspondence between his administration and one of the Democratic mayor's top donors, Michael Sacks. The administration has also refused to release details about tens of millions of dollars in shadowy no-bid city payments to some of Emanuel's largest campaign contributors.

        Rahm's top donor is a private equity underwriter (PEU):

        The CEO of the Chicago private equity firm Grosvenor, Sacks has been described as Emanuel's closest ally in the private sector, and has been called Emanuel's "go-to guy" and his "top troubleshooter."

        PEU sponsored politicians are above the law:

        Illinois' open records law mandates that communications to and from public officials like Emanuel be made available for public inspection.

        Back to how Rahm rewards his donors:

        …firms that have received tens of millions of dollars' worth of shadowy "direct voucher payments" (DVPs) from the Emanuel administration have given more than $775,000 worth of campaign contributions to the mayor's political organizations.

        Chicago's DVP process is permitted thanks to loopholes in Illinois' procurement law that allow municipal officials to circumvent the traditional contracting process. Unlike standard government contracts, DVP payouts do not require any type of public documentation. Emanuel appointees retain substantial discretionary authority to approve DVPs. The payments are not required to go to the lowest bidder; vendors receiving the payments do not have to list their qualifications and never need to document the services they provide to the city in return for the money. The DVPs appear to have been used for everything from phone service to interest payments to financial firms, but unlike the George W. Bush administration's no-bid contracts, DVP payments do not even require a formal contract, so it is impossible to verify what the money purchased.

        No application, no contract and no accountability. It's our PEU world, where politicians Red and Blue love PEU.

        [Apr 09, 2015] Ukraine The Global Corporate Annexation

        Notable quotes:
        "... 'For Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, It's a Gold Mine of Profits' ..."
        Apr 21, 2014 | Jesse's Café Américain
        "War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it."

        George Orwell

        "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

        A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

        Major General Smedley Butler, USMC

        There is certainly a long established difference between a just war, a defensive war, and a war of adventure or aggression. No one understand this better than those who suffer loss in fighting them.

        Like quite a few people I found myself asking, 'Why the Ukraine? Why the sudden push there, risking conflict with Russia on their own doorstep?' Why are we suddenly risking all to support what was clearly an extra-legal coup d'état?'

        It is telling perhaps that one of the first things that happened after the coup d'état is that all of the Ukraine's gold was on a flight to New York, for the safekeeping by those same people who have managed to misplace a good portion of the German people's gold. It is the most transportable and fungible store of wealth, where the transfer of less portable assets by computerized digits may lag.

        Follow the money...

        GlobalResearch
        Ukraine: The Corporate Annexation
        'For Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, It's a Gold Mine of Profits'
        by JP Sottile

        As the US and EU apply sanctions on Russia over its annexation' of Crimea, JP Sottile reveals the corporate annexation of Ukraine. For Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, there's a gold mine of profits to be made from agri-business and energy exploitation.

        The potential here for agriculture / agribusiness is amazing production here could double Ukraine's agriculture could be a real gold mine.

        On 12th January 2014, a reported 50,000 "pro-Western" Ukrainians descended upon Kiev's Independence Square to protest against the government of President Viktor Yanukovych.

        Stoked in part by an attack on opposition leader Yuriy Lutsenko, the protest marked the beginning of the end of Yanukovych's four year-long government.

        That same day, the Financial Times reported a major deal for US agribusiness titan Cargill.

        Business confidence never faltered

        Despite the turmoil within Ukrainian politics after Yanukovych rejected a major trade deal with the European Union just seven weeks earlier, Cargill was confident enough about the future to fork over $200 million to buy a stake in Ukraine's UkrLandFarming...

        Read the entire report here.

        [Apr 09, 2015] National Security and Double Government by Michael J. Glennon

        Amazon.com

        Mal Warwick on December 22, 2014

        Who makes national security decisions? Not who you think!

        Why does Barack Obama's performance on national security issues in the White House contrast so strongly with his announced intentions as a candidate in 2008? After all, not only has Obama continued most of the Bush policies he decried when he ran for the presidency, he has doubled down on government surveillance, drone strikes, and other critical programs.

        Michael J. Glennon set out to answer this question in his unsettling new book, National Security and Double Government. And he clearly dislikes what he found.

        The answer, Glennon discovered, is that the US government is divided between the three official branches of the government, on the one hand - the "Madisonian" institutions incorporated into the Constitution - and the several hundred unelected officials who do the real work of a constellation of military and intelligence agencies, on the other hand. These officials, called "Trumanites" in Glennon's parlance for having grown out of the national security infrastructure established under Harry Truman, make the real decisions in the area of national security. (To wage the Cold War, Truman created the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Department of Defense, the CIA, the NSA, and the National Security Council.) "The United States has, in short," Glennon writes, "moved beyond a mere imperial presidency to a bifurcated system - a structure of double government - in which even the President now exercises little substantive control over the overall direction of U.S. national security policy. . . . The perception of threat, crisis, and emergency has been the seminal phenomenon that has created and nurtures America's double government." If Al Qaeda hadn't existed, the Trumanite network would have had to create it - and, Glennon seems to imply, might well have done so.

        The Trumanites wield their power with practiced efficiency, using secrecy, exaggerated threats, peer pressure to conform, and the ability to mask the identity of the key decision-maker as their principal tools.

        Michael J. Glennon comes to this task with unexcelled credentials. A professor of international law at Tufts and former legal counsel for the Senate Armed Services Committee, he came face to face on a daily basis with the "Trumanites" he writes about. National Security and Double Government is exhaustively researched and documented: notes constitute two-thirds of this deeply disturbing little book.

        The more I learn about how politics and government actually work - and I've learned a fair amount in my 73 years - the more pessimistic I become about the prospects for democracy in America. In some ways, this book is the most worrisome I've read over the years, because it implies that there is no reason whatsoever to think that things can ever get better. In other words, to borrow a phrase from the Borg on Star Trek, "resistance is futile." That's a helluva takeaway, isn't it?

        On reflection, what comes most vividly to mind is a comment from the late Chalmers Johnson on a conference call in which I participated several years ago. Johnson, formerly a consultant to the CIA and a professor at two campuses of the University of California (Berkeley and later San Diego), was the author of many books, including three that awakened me to many of the issues Michael Glennon examines: Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis. Johnson, who was then nearly 80 and in declining health, was asked by a student what he would recommend for young Americans who want to combat the menace of the military-industrial complex. "Move to Vancouver," he said.

        The mounting evidence notwithstanding, I just hope it hasn't come to that.

        Tom Hunter on November 22, 2014

        Incredible Rosetta Stone book that Explains Why the US Government is Impervious to Change

        This work is of huge importance. It explains the phenomenon that myself and many other informed voters have seen--namely--how the policies of the United States government seem impervious to change no matter the flavor of administration. I found myself baffled and chagrined that President Obama, who I cheerfully voted for twice (and still would prefer over the alternatives) failed to end many of the practices that I abhor, such as the free reign of the NSA, the continual increase in defense budgets and the willingness to keep laws that are clearly against the wishes of the vast majority of Americans, be they Progressives or otherwise.

        This incredible book acts as a Rosetta Stone that explains why nothing ever changes. Highly recommended.

        [Apr 08, 2015] The great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology

        Apr 07, 2015 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com

        "The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology."

        Michael Parenti

        ... ... ...

        The economic establishment and their Federal Reserve are failing, and badly. They are frightened, but do not know what to do, and so they keep doing the same things, over and over.

        Their failures are the direct result of intellectual dishonest and systematic injustice. The credibility trap has them bound to policy failures that somewhat ironically will bring them down.

        They have lied so often that one wonders if they can even understand the truth. They certainly put enough pressure on keeping anyone of note from dissenting against their madness and their lies.

        The only thing exceptional about the West is their exceptional self-delusion about their own goodness and secure position on the moral high ground of history.

        [Apr 07, 2015] How America Became An Oligarchy by Ellen Brown

        Zero Hedge/The Web of Debt blog

        "The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. . . . You have owners."

        - George Carlin, The American Dream

        According to a new study from Princeton University, American democracy no longer exists. Using data from over 1,800 policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page concluded that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of – or even against – the will of the majority of voters. America's political system has transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where power is wielded by wealthy elites.

        "Making the world safe for democracy" was President Woodrow Wilson's rationale for World War I, and it has been used to justify American military intervention ever since. Can we justify sending troops into other countries to spread a political system we cannot maintain at home?

        The Magna Carta, considered the first Bill of Rights in the Western world, established the rights of nobles as against the king. But the doctrine that "all men are created equal" – that all people have "certain inalienable rights," including "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" – is an American original. And those rights, supposedly insured by the Bill of Rights, have the right to vote at their core. We have the right to vote but the voters' collective will no longer prevails.

        In Greece, the left-wing populist Syriza Party came out of nowhere to take the presidential election by storm; and in Spain, the populist Podemos Party appears poised to do the same. But for over a century, no third-party candidate has had any chance of winning a US presidential election. We have a two-party winner-take-all system, in which our choice is between two candidates, both of whom necessarily cater to big money. It takes big money just to put on the mass media campaigns required to win an election involving 240 million people of voting age.

        In state and local elections, third party candidates have sometimes won. In a modest-sized city, candidates can actually influence the vote by going door to door, passing out flyers and bumper stickers, giving local presentations, and getting on local radio and TV. But in a national election, those efforts are easily trumped by the mass media. And local governments too are beholden to big money.

        When governments of any size need to borrow money, the megabanks in a position to supply it can generally dictate the terms. Even in Greece, where the populist Syriza Party managed to prevail in January, the anti-austerity platform of the new government is being throttled by the moneylenders who have the government in a chokehold.

        How did we lose our democracy? Were the Founding Fathers remiss in leaving something out of the Constitution? Or have we simply gotten too big to be governed by majority vote?

        Democracy's Rise and Fall

        The stages of the capture of democracy by big money are traced in a paper called "The Collapse of Democratic Nation States" by theologian and environmentalist Dr. John Cobb. Going back several centuries, he points to the rise of private banking, which usurped the power to create money from governments:

        The influence of money was greatly enhanced by the emergence of private banking. The banks are able to create money and so to lend amounts far in excess of their actual wealth. This control of money-creation . . . has given banks overwhelming control over human affairs. In the United States, Wall Street makes most of the truly important decisions that are directly attributed to Washington.

        Today the vast majority of the money supply in Western countries is created by private bankers. That tradition goes back to the 17th century, when the privately-owned Bank of England, the mother of all central banks, negotiated the right to print England's money after Parliament stripped that power from the Crown. When King William needed money to fight a war, he had to borrow. The government as borrower then became servant of the lender.

        In America, however, the colonists defied the Bank of England and issued their own paper scrip; and they thrived. When King George forbade that practice, the colonists rebelled.

        They won the Revolution but lost the power to create their own money supply, when they opted for gold rather than paper money as their official means of exchange. Gold was in limited supply and was controlled by the bankers, who surreptitiously expanded the money supply by issuing multiple banknotes against a limited supply of gold.

        This was the system euphemistically called "fractional reserve" banking, meaning only a fraction of the gold necessary to back the banks' privately-issued notes was actually held in their vaults. These notes were lent at interest, putting citizens and the government in debt to bankers who created the notes with a printing press. It was something the government could have done itself debt-free, and the American colonies had done with great success until England went to war to stop them.

        President Abraham Lincoln revived the colonists' paper money system when he issued the Treasury notes called "Greenbacks" that helped the Union win the Civil War. But Lincoln was assassinated, and the Greenback issues were discontinued.

        In every presidential election between 1872 and 1896, there was a third national party running on a platform of financial reform. Typically organized under the auspices of labor or farmer organizations, these were parties of the people rather than the banks. They included the Populist Party, the Greenback and Greenback Labor Parties, the Labor Reform Party, the Antimonopolist Party, and the Union Labor Party. They advocated expanding the national currency to meet the needs of trade, reform of the banking system, and democratic control of the financial system.

        The Populist movement of the 1890s represented the last serious challenge to the bankers' monopoly over the right to create the nation's money. According to monetary historian Murray Rothbard, politics after the turn of the century became a struggle between two competing banking giants, the Morgans and the Rockefellers. The parties sometimes changed hands, but the puppeteers pulling the strings were always one of these two big-money players.

        In All the Presidents' Bankers, Nomi Prins names six banking giants and associated banking families that have dominated politics for over a century. No popular third party candidates have a real chance of prevailing, because they have to compete with two entrenched parties funded by these massively powerful Wall Street banks.

        Democracy Succumbs to Globalization

        In an earlier era, notes Dr. Cobb, wealthy landowners were able to control democracies by restricting government participation to the propertied class. When those restrictions were removed, big money controlled elections by other means:

        First, running for office became expensive, so that those who seek office require wealthy sponsors to whom they are then beholden. Second, the great majority of voters have little independent knowledge of those for whom they vote or of the issues to be dealt with. Their judgments are, accordingly, dependent on what they learn from the mass media. These media, in turn, are controlled by moneyed interests.

        Control of the media and financial leverage over elected officials then enabled those other curbs on democracy we know today, including high barriers to ballot placement for third parties and their elimination from presidential debates, vote suppression, registration restrictions, identification laws, voter roll purges, gerrymandering, computer voting, and secrecy in government.

        The final blow to democracy, says Dr. Cobb, was "globalization" – an expanding global market that overrides national interests:

        [T]oday's global economy is fully transnational. The money power is not much interested in boundaries between states and generally works to reduce their influence on markets and investments. . . . Thus transnational corporations inherently work to undermine nation states, whether they are democratic or not.

        The most glaring example today is the secret twelve-country trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. If it goes through, the TPP will dramatically expand the power of multinational corporations to use closed-door tribunals to challenge and supersede domestic laws, including environmental, labor, health and other protections.

        Looking at Alternatives

        Some critics ask whether our system of making decisions by a mass popular vote easily manipulated by the paid-for media is the most effective way of governing on behalf of the people. In an interesting Ted Talk, political scientist Eric Li makes a compelling case for the system of "meritocracy" that has been quite successful in China.

        In America Beyond Capitalism, Prof. Gar Alperovitz argues that the US is simply too big to operate as a democracy at the national level. Excluding Canada and Australia, which have large empty landmasses, the United States is larger geographically than all the other advanced industrial countries of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) combined. He proposes what he calls "The Pluralist Commonwealth": a system anchored in the reconstruction of communities and the democratization of wealth. It involves plural forms of cooperative and common ownership beginning with decentralization and moving to higher levels of regional and national coordination when necessary. He is co-chair along with James Gustav Speth of an initiative called The Next System Project, which seeks to help open a far-ranging discussion of how to move beyond the failing traditional political-economic systems of both left and Right..

        Dr. Alperovitz quotes Prof. Donald Livingston, who asked in 2002:

        What value is there in continuing to prop up a union of this monstrous size? . . . [T]here are ample resources in the American federal tradition to justify states' and local communities' recalling, out of their own sovereignty, powers they have allowed the central government to usurp.

        Taking Back Our Power

        If governments are recalling their sovereign powers, they might start with the power to create money, which was usurped by private interests while the people were asleep at the wheel. State and local governments are not allowed to print their own currencies; but they can own banks, and all depository banks create money when they make loans, as the Bank of England recently acknowledged.

        The federal government could take back the power to create the national money supply by issuing its own Treasury notes as Abraham Lincoln did. Alternatively, it could issue some very large denomination coins as authorized in the Constitution; or it could nationalize the central bank and use quantitative easing to fund infrastructure, education, job creation, and social services, responding to the needs of the people rather than the banks.

        The freedom to vote carries little weight without economic freedom – the freedom to work and to have food, shelter, education, medical care and a decent retirement. President Franklin Roosevelt maintained that we need an Economic Bill of Rights. If our elected representatives were not beholden to the moneylenders, they might be able both to pass such a bill and to come up with the money to fund it.

        [Apr 04, 2015] The majority of Maidan supporters are experiencing severe impoverishment instead of welfare bonanza from EU they expected

        Notable quotes:
        "... The vast majority of the Maidan supporters were expecting some sort of welfare bonanza "when they joined the EU" after signing the association agreement. Instead they are experiencing impoverishment. ..."
        "... I think there is a fair chance it will be the equivalent of an european Afghanistan. ..."
        marknesop.wordpress.com

        kirill, April 3, 2015 at 6:11 am

        Ukraine will be a consolidated fascist state without an economy. Right. It was mentioned elsewhere that the only thing keeping the regime in power is the war. It sure isn't the economy. But eventually the economic decline will break the bubble.

        The vast majority of the Maidan supporters were expecting some sort of welfare bonanza "when they joined the EU" after signing the association agreement. Instead they are experiencing impoverishment.

        So this ridiculous delusion is going to break down. But delusions are very resilient things.

        et Al, April 3, 2015 at 2:49 pm
        I think there is a fair chance it will be the equivalent of an european Afghanistan. In a sense it already is with various oligarchs controlling bits of territory and sort of cooperating in Kiev. Elections are not much more than a Afghan Jirga.

        Still, it is interesting to see Russia play the long game, the latest being a $285 three month gas contract with Kiev. When the Ukraine finally implodes, Russia can clearly point out how it could have pulled the plug at any time it wanted but it didn't because it has the best interests of its closest neighbor in mind. It also sets a benchmark for all the promises from the EU and US to be compared to, the latter far more likely to creatively reinterpret supposedly solid agreements than Russia especially if Kiev doesn't sing from the same hymnbook 200%. It is also a warning to Berlin and the EU – we pull the plug and it's all yours baby!

        marknesop, April 3, 2015 at 3:16 pm
        Yes, the people of Ukraine will never stand for this ridiculous substitution – a goose-stepping Nazi police state in place of the cushy streets-paved-with-gold paradise they were led to expect in exchange for their support for Maidan and the coup. They would probably put up with anything if it meant widespread prosperity, but they are indisputably much worse off now than they were prior to The Great Ukrainian Leap Forward and the trend is remorselessly downward for at least another year – even the IMF forecasts a considerably worse contraction of a further 10% rather than the 6% it forecast earlier. And that's with the most lipstick The New Atlanticist – a relentlessly pro-western publication whose current headlines include Wesley Clark's prediction of a Russian Spring offensive, the manifestly ridiculous contention that "Putin's war against Ukraine" has had the effect of uniting Ukrainians, and Russia's paranoid fantasies about the west representing a threat are all in its head – can put on it. Moreover, there is likely to be zero growth in 2016 as well. That assessment probably assumes certain realities that do not now exist, such as Kiev bringing the east back under its thumb, rather than it slipping further from its control and perhaps even expanding its territory.

        [Apr 04, 2015] Big Brother's Liberal Friends by Henry

        The US elite does not like the message and thus is ready to kill the messenger... See Snowden interview with Katrina van den Heuvel and Stephen F Cohen at the Nation. Another interesting idea is the in the quote of Bruce Wilder: " classification as a mechanism for broadcasting information is exactly right, and a revelation, at least to me."
        October 27, 2014 | Crooked Timber

        I've an article in the new issue of The National Interest looking at various liberal critiques of Snowden and Greenwald, and finding them wanting. CT readers will have seen some of the arguments in earlier form; I think that they're stronger when they are joined together (and certainly they should be better written; it's nice to have the time to write a proper essay). I don't imagine that the various people whom I take on will be happy, but they shouldn't be; they're guilty of some quite wretched writing and thinking. More than anything else, like Corey I'm dismayed at the current low quality of mainstream liberal thinking. A politician wishes for her adversaries to be stupid, that they will make blunders. An intellectual wishes for her adversaries to be brilliant, that they will find the holes in her own arguments and oblige her to remedy them. I aspire towards the latter, not the former, but I'm not getting my wish.

        Over the last fifteen months, the columns and op-ed pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post have bulged with the compressed flatulence of commentators intent on dismissing warnings about encroachments on civil liberties. Indeed, in recent months soi-disant liberal intellectuals such as Sean Wilentz, George Packer and Michael Kinsley have employed the Edward Snowden affair to mount a fresh series of attacks. They claim that Snowden, Glenn Greenwald and those associated with them neither respect democracy nor understand political responsibility.
        These claims rest on willful misreading, quote clipping and the systematic evasion of crucial questions. Yet their problems go deeper than sloppy practice and shoddy logic.

        Rich Puchalsky 10.27.14 at 11:03 pm

        "Yet this does not disconcert much of the liberal media elite. Many writers who used to focus on bashing Bush for his transgressions now direct their energies against those who are sounding alarms about the pervasiveness of the national-security state."

        It's not just the elite. I can't wait for the Lawyers, Guns, and Money get-out-the-vote drive. We'll have to see whether the slogan is "Vote, Stupid Purity Trolls" or "The Lesser Evil Commands". Maybe just two-tone signs labeling their target voters "Dope" and "Deranged".


        Dr. Hilarius 10.27.14 at 11:44 pm

        An excellent analysis and summation.

        Any defense of the national security state requires the proponent to show, at a minimum, that the present apparatus is competent at its task. Having lived through Vietnam, the Gulf Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention many smaller governmental adventures) I see no evidence of competence. Instead, it's repetitive failures of analysis and imagination no matter how much raw intelligence is gathered.

        Nor is there any evidence that existing oversight mechanisms function as intended. Recent revelations about the CIA spying on the Senate should be enough to dispel the idea that leakers have no role to play.

        Kinsley is particularly loathsome. His position is little more than "your betters know best" and that the state's critics are guttersnipes needing to be kicked to the curb. Kinsley doesn't need a coherent position, his goal is to be a spokesman for the better sorts, nothing more.

        Collin Street 10.27.14 at 11:53 pm

        Any defense of the national security state requires the proponent to show, at a minimum, that the present apparatus is competent at its task

        Dunning-Kruger, innit. There are actually pretty good reasons to believe that strategic intelligence-gathering is pretty much pointless (because your strategic limitations and abilities by-definition permeate your society and are thus clearly visible through open sources), so you'd expect in that case that the only people who'd support secret strategic intelligence-gathering would be people who don't have a fucking clue.

        [specifically, I suspect that secret strategic intelligence gathering is particularly attractive to people who lack the ability to discern people's motivations and ability through normal face-to-face channels and the like…

        … which is to say people with empathy problems. Which is something that crops up in other contexts and may help explain certain political tendencies intelligence agencies tend to share.]

        Thornton Hall 10.28.14 at 12:03 am

        This sentence is false and a willful distortion mixing legality and politics to elide the basic fact that the Justice Department has not prosecuted anyone who did not break the law:

        The continued efforts of U.S. prosecutors to redefine the politics of leaking so as to indict journalists as well as their sources suggest that Greenwald had every right to be worried and angry.

        Meanwhile, ever since Mark Felt blew the whistle on a psychopath and the result was the deification of Bob Woodward, the American elite has been utterly confused about the role of journalism in a democracy.

        That your essay mixes Professor Wilentz with the father of #Slatepitch, and an archetypical "even the liberal New Republic…" journalist as if they all had the same job description is part and parcel of this ongoing inability to separate the job of selling newspapers from the job of public intellectual.

        Glenn Greenwald is a "journalist" crank who is simply not in a category that overlaps with Daniel Ellsberg. Snowden is in the same category as Ellsberg, and Packer is right to note that he does not compare particularly well. But then Packer's analysis failed to explain why Snowden needed the judgment and gravitas of Ellsburg. And it was a side point in any case, because Packer's actual thesis was the sublimely stupid point that only "objective" journalism can be trusted to do leaks right.

        The other unfortunate confusion I see in the essay is the mixing of domestic and foreign policy. There is not a single thing about the New Deal that informs opinion about Edward Snowden. Nothing. What does regulating poultry production have to do with killing Iraqis? What does the Civilian Conservation Core have to do with drone strikes in Pakistan? The Four Freedom speech was a pivot from domestic to foreign policy given in 1941. Freedom from Want was the New Deal. Freedom of Speech was about the looming conflict with fascism, not domestic policy.

        Both confusions–the failure to recognize journalists as pawns selling newspapers and the failure to understand that foreign policy and liberalism do not have to be linked–result when the blind spots of the press and the academy overlap. In areas where journalists and the academy provide checks and balances to each other they tend to do well. Edward Snowden represents the apex of the overlap between academic and journalistic obsessions, and so no one is there to say: "Hey, the top freedom concerns of journalists and professors are not synonymous with freedom writ large or with liberalism.

        Daniel Nexon 10.28.14 at 12:48 am

        Liked the piece, even though we probably come down differently on some of the merits.

        I wonder if the explanation isn't simpler. A number of what you term "national security liberals" have served in government and held clearances. Many of them - and here I include myself - took seriously that obligation. And so there's a certain degree of innate discomfort with the whole business of leaks, let alone those that don't seem narrowly tailored. Wikileaks was not. Snowden's leaks included par-for-the-course foreign-intelligence gathering (and this sets aside his escape to Hong Kong and subsequent decision to accept asylum from the Russia Federation).

        I recognize that there's a larger argument that you've made about how the trans-nationalization of intelligence gathering - centered on the US - changes the moral equation for some of these considerations. I don't want to debate that claim here. The point is that you can be a civil-liberties liberal, believe that some of the disclosures have served the public interest, and still feel deeply discomforted with the cast of characters.

        Rich Puchalsky 10.28.14 at 1:07 am

        "still feel deeply discomforted with the cast of characters"

        We need better leakers - leakers who honor their promises not to reveal inside information. Leakers who don't leak.

        Not like that unsavory character, Daniel Ellsberg, who I hear had to see a psychiatrist.

        Barry 10.28.14 at 1:09 am

        " Indeed, in recent months soi-disant liberal intellectuals such as Sean Wilentz, George Packer and Michael Kinsley …"

        Kinsley is a hack who occasionally coins a good term. At 'Even the Liberal' New Republic, he was a biddable wh*re for a vile man, Peretz. At Slate, he took the same attitude, preferring snark to truth, and built it into the foundations.

        Packer is not an intellectual, either. He's a cheerleader for war who has just enough give-a-sh*t to right a book explaining the problems, long after it was clear to others that things had failed.

        I don't know much about Sean Wilentz, except that he's a long time 'cultural editor' at 'Even the Liberal' New Republic under Peretz, which is a strike against him. Heck, it's two strikes.

        BTW, after Watergate, the press did know its role in democracy – the elites are really against it. IIRC, Whatshername the owner of the WaPo actually praised 'responsible journalism' not too long afterwards.


        Sev 10.28.14 at 1:58 am

        #4 From a different era, the NYT story on use of Nazis by US spy agencies:

        "In Connecticut, the C.I.A. used an ex-Nazi guard to study Soviet-bloc postage stamps for hidden meanings."

        A certain skepticism, at least, than and now, seem fully justified.


        Matt 10.28.14 at 2:48 am

        I don't think that even the most transparent, democratic, public decision making process among American citizens can legitimately decide that German or Indian citizens cannot have privacy. If in Bizarro World that makes me illiberal, then I will be illiberal.

        Losing the capability to conduct mass electronic surveillance is akin to losing the capability to make nerve gas or weaponized anthrax spores. It's a good thing no matter who loses the capability, or how loudly hawks cry about the looming Atrocity Gap with rival powers. It would be a better world if Russia and China also suffered massive, embarrassing leaks about their surveillance systems akin to the Snowden leaks. But a world where there's only embarrassing leaks about the USA and allies is better than a world with no leaks at all. Better yet, the same technical and legal adaptations that can make spying by the USA more difficult will also make Americans safer against spying efforts originating from China and Russia. It's upsides all the way down.

        John Quiggin 10.28.14 at 2:57 am

        ""I can see C as justified but not decamping to Hong Kong and Russia.""

        Again, given the fact that the "right" people are immune from prosecution for any crimes they commit in the course of politics (other than sexual indiscretations and individual, as opposed to corporate, financial wrongdoing) this seems like a pretty hypocritical distinction. Those involved in torture, from the actual waterboarders up to Bush and Cheney, don't have to think about fleeing the US – indeed, the only (small) risk they face is in travelling to a jurisdiction where the rule of law applies to them.

        For the wrong people on the other hand, there are no reliable legal protections at all. On recent precedent they could be declared "enemy combatants", held incommunicado, tortured and, at least arguably, executed by military courts. This would require a reversal of stated policy by the Obama Administration, but that's a pretty weak barrier.

        bad Jim 10.28.14 at 4:31 am

        It's far from clear that the massive expansion of surveillance has actually been of any use. The West hasn't faced any strategic threats since the end of the Cold War, and even the Soviet threat was almost certainly less than we feared. Someone once remarked of the intelligence-gathering efforts of that era, "It's difficult to discover the intentions of a state which doesn't know its own intentions."

        We seem to have been surprised by recent developments in the Middle East and by Russian actions in Crimea and Ukraine; more to the point, it's not necessarily clear how we can or should respond. It may be that the massive apparatus in place is unable to acquire the information we desire. It's not clear that better information would actually be useful.


        dsquared 10.28.14 at 4:53 am

        I always thought it would be instructive to compare the views of the "national security liberals" with a test case. What, for example, do they have to say about the other North American government which operates a grisly system of unregulated political prisons in the island of Cuba, but tries to portray itself as progressive because of its (admittedly excellent) record of providing healthcare to the poor?

        William Timberman 10.28.14 at 5:34 am

        I think one point could be made a little more explicitly. Beginning in the late Thirties, without a great deal of serious concern for the possible consequences, the machinery of the social welfare state in the U.S., such as it was, was gradually repurposed to serve the national security state, and from 1947 or so to the present, the pace of that repurposing has rarely slackened. One can argue about how much of it was attributable to intent, and how much to circumstance, how much or how little bad faith it took to complete the conversion, but there's little doubt that it's now largely over and done with, and that the consequences are there to see for anyone who cares to look.

        George Packer may think that the national security state is a perfectly admirable creation, but if so, I'd question whether or not he's really a liberal. By any definition of liberalism I'm aware of, it's odd liberal indeed who doesn't think Edward Snowden ought to be trusted with sensitive information, but doesn't at all mind leaving it in the custody of Keith Alexander.

        maidhc 10.28.14 at 8:03 am

        The CIA produced the Pentagon Papers under orders from LBJ. They produced a document blaming everything on the stupid politicians while the CIA was always right. Unfortunately no one could read it because it was secret. Hence it was leaked to the New York Times.

        Woodward and Bernstein had intelligence backgrounds. The Washington Post was known to have close CIA ties. Everyone involved in Watergate was tied to the CIA and the Bay of Pigs. Nixon was taken down from the right.

        If you look at those Cold War days, almost everything that was considered to be highly secret, the world would have been better off if it had been public knowledge. Major policy decisions on both sides were based on false information provided by intelligence services.

        That is not to say that things that happened back in those days are unimportant now. The career of Stepan Bandera, for example, is tied in very closely with today's headlines.

        J Thomas 10.28.14 at 8:43 am

        #12 Watson Ladd

        I can easily imagine bribing Putin's butler to be an easy and effective way to get good information on both of those, and I can imagine that doing so openly would be catastrophic.

        Whyever would you expect Putin's butler to know either of those?

        But I find this plausible - Putin's butler goes to the secret police and tells them he's had an offer. They say "OK, take the money and tell them this:" and they give him a cover story to tell the spies.

        Continuing the story, a top general's batman does the same thing, but the secret police do not coordinate well enough and he gets a different cover story.

        Another top general's mistress does it and gets a third cover story to tell. The stories do not add up at all.

        So then somebody in the CIA looks at all the conflicting data, and MAKES UP a story which makes sense, concentrating on estimates of capabilities, and estimates about what choices are likely based on internal politics etc.

        The report reaches various people in the military with a need-to-know, who discount it and who make their mostly-mundane decisions about preparation on the basis of path-of-least-resistance. The report may even reach the President, who also discounts it.

        Furthermore, plenty of information that isn't strategic in nature can be very useful. Knowing that in event of war, your fighter planes can outmatch theirs, is useful.

        How would you find that out, except by testing it for real with their real pilots with real training, etc? Base it on the performance claims by US manufacturers versus the potential enemy's manufacturing claims?

        So is knowing that they are planning to invade a country, or are actively collaborating with terrorist organizations.

        The USA makes plans to invade other countries *all the time*. Often we publicly threaten to invade them for a year or more ahead of time, while we slowly build up supply dumps in nearby areas. It usually isn't hard to tell whether a nation is ready to invade some particular other nation. The hard part is predicting whether or when they actually do it. Chances are, they don't know themselves and nobody in the world can accurately predict that until shortly before it happens.

        The USA and Israel actively cooperate with terrorist organizations *all the time*. It doesn't mean that much. Except we can use it for propaganda. "Our enemies actively collaborate with terrorist organizations! Our secret intelligence organizations have proof, but we can't show it to you because that would compromise our sources. Trust us."

        Very little of this is likely to be reported openly, particularly from dictatorships.

        Or from the USA. Or from anybody, really. We all like our surprises.

        J Thomas 10.28.14 at 8:57 am

        #19 Daniel Nexon

        As I suggested above, albeit perhaps opaquely, it is perfectly possible to say "I can see C as potentially justified, but not D… G" and to say "I can see C as justified but not decamping to Hong Kong and Russia."* These strike me as categorically distinct arguments from "Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange aren't the 'right sort of people," even if those advancing that claim invoke some of the same warrants.

        I don't understand this sort of claim. Normally, US citizens have basicly no information about what our expensive secret-creating organizations do. The basic argument is "Trust us. We're doing good, but it would be catastrophic if you knew.".

        Now we have a more-or-less-random samples from Snowden and Manning. So my questions about their personal character center around two themes:

        1. Did they release false data, created by the US government to make cover stories to hide the real stuff that the US government does not want us to know?

        2. Did they release false data, created by some foreign government and intended to discredit the US government?

        3. Are there important discrepancies between them, that might indicate that at least one of them was doctored?

        Apart from those, why are we talking about Snowden or Manning or Greenwald, instead of what we've found out about our government?


        Barry 10.28.14 at 12:04 pm

        Tony Lynch 10.28.14 at 4:30 am

        "The persoanl animosity towards GG from, presumably, people with no personal relationship to GG, is weird. Whence this incessant personalism – not only from Kinsley et. al., but from those who claim more genuine liberal and left convictions? Why does it seem important to approach things by venting this personal animosity?"

        Here are my thoughts:

        1). Most of these elite journalists are leakers of classified information, and guilty of serious felonies. However, they are lapdogs of the establishment, and comparable more to Pravda than a free press. They don't like unauthorized leaks.

        2). All three liberals mentioned eat a lot of right-wing sh*t, for actual liberals. Again, they are lapdogs, who occasionally criticize, but in a limited fashion. Heck, Kinsley played Buchanon's poodle on TV show. They therefore don't like people who actually oppose the establishment, moreso because it shows them up as the frauds that they are.

        lvlld 10.28.14 at 1:17 pm

        @39

        Not quite.

        MacNamara (politician) ordered his staff (Office of the Secretary of Defense) to carry out the study (they got some material from the CIA and State), out of a concern that the whole thing might be a huge mistake on the part of US policymakers – politicians and otherwise – from World World 2 on down. That was July, 1967. He resigned a few months later, the report was completed in late 1968.

        Dan Ellsberg (Rand, ex-OSD) was involved in producing it, and was dismayed by the scale of the official deceptions and thought that yes, this was probably material in the public interest. He leaked it to the Times and the Post, the latter of which's decision to publish on June 18, 1971 was not made in consultation with its city beat reporters, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward.

        Thornton Hall 10.28.14 at 2:15 pm

        So the following points are uncontroverted:

        • Glenn Greenwald is a clown, but this fact has nothing to do with anything.
        • Edward Snowden is a bit dim on how the world works, and this has had consequences good bad and otherwise.
        • When white elites are forced to consider the criminal justice system they are shocked, shocked to find that prosecutors are arbitrary and vindictive assholes.
        • Our vocabulary of politics is hopelessly confused to the point where a political science professor will assert that a fellow professor's support for the New Deal is in conflict with his position on the NSA.
        • Elites insist on confusing the motives and morality of leakers with the motives and morality of journalists.

        J Thomas 10.28.14 at 2:16 pm

        #13 Andrew F

        He claimed that the CIA might hire Chinese gangsters to murder him, or journalists associated with him, among other things. So to say that he has a "teenager's conspiratorial view of the world" is not to speak without some justification.

        This minor point deserves some thought.

        Do you have more access to CIA secrets than Snowden did?

        If not, why do you believe that your understanding of what the CIA might do is better informed than his was?

        Layman 10.28.14 at 2:23 pm

        "I think it is perfectly fair to judge Snowden based on the totality of his actions. Isn't that how we're supposed to judge people? "

        Why judge him at all, in the context of discussing his revelations and what they mean for civil liberties? It's perfectly clear that some people choose to judge Snowden in order to dismiss those revelations. Isn't that the point of the OP? Do you agree that your personal distaste for Snowden is irrelevant to the larger question? And that people who seek to distract from that larger question by focusing on Snowden's character are engaged in hackery?

        Bruce Wilder 10.28.14 at 3:51 pm

        Dan Nexon @ 47

        The apparatus of surveillance and the system of classification are both parts of a vast system of secrecy - aspects of the architecture of the secret state, the deep state.

        I've had a security clearance, and so have some personal acquaintance with the system of classification and what is classified, why it is classified and so on, as well as experience with the effect classification has on people, their behavior and administration. I see people sometimes elaborate the claim that, of course the state must have the capacity to keep some information confidential, which is undoubtedly true, but sidesteps the central issue, which is, what does the system of classification do? what does the secrecy of the deep state do? What is the function of the system of classification?

        From my personal acquaintance, I do not think it can be said that its function is to keep secrets. Real secrets are rarely classified. Information is classified so that it can be communicated, and in the present system operated by the U.S. military and intelligence establishment, broadcast. I suppose, without knowing as an historic fact, that the system of classification originated during WWII as a means to distribute information on a need-to-know basis, but that's not what goes on now. The compartmentalization that the term, classification, implies, is largely absent. That Manning or Snowden could obtain and release the sheer volume of documents that they did - not the particular content of any of them - is the first and capital revelation concerning what the system is, and is not. The system is not keeping confidential information confidential, nor is it keeping secrets; it is broadcasting information.

        The very idea that a system that broadcasts information in a way that allows someone at the level of a Manning or Snowden to accumulate vast numbers of documents has kept any secrets from the secret services of China or Russia is, on its face, absurd. The system revealed by the simple fact of the nature of Snowden's and Manning's breaches is not capable of keeping secrets. Snowden was a contractor at a peripheral location, Manning a soldier of very low rank.

        Rich Puchalsky 10.28.14 at 3:57 pm

        This comment thread is just as disgusting as the comment threads elsewhere, so I'll direct people to what I think is one of the best articles on all this: Bruce Sterling's.
        William Timberman 10.28.14 at 4:00 pm

        Bruce Wilder @ 72

        Fox News for apparatchiks. Brilliant, especially since not even Keith Alexander in his specially-equipped war room had any idea how many apparatchiks there were, nor where they were, nor what they were up to when his panopticon was looking the other way.


        Bruce Wilder 10.28.14 at 4:02 pm

        Rich Puchalsky : If only the government could tell us the real story! Then we'd know that they aren't lying.

        The system of classification is a system of censorship. It creates a system of privileged access to information that permits highly-placed officials to strategically leak information as a means to manipulate the political system.

        It doesn't keep secrets from the enemies of democracy abroad; it creates enemies of democracy at home, placing them in the highest reaches of government.

        J Thomas 10.28.14 at 4:14 pm

        357 Layman

        "I think it is perfectly fair to judge Snowden based on the totality of his actions. Isn't that how we're supposed to judge people? "

        Why judge him at all, in the context of discussing his revelations and what they mean for civil liberties?

        Judging Snowden is a very serious matter for everybody who has a security clearance.

        If you have a clearance, then you have to consider whether or not you ought to do the same thing. On the one hand you swore an oath not to. You would be breaking your word. And you can expect to be punished severely.

        On the other hand, there are the things you know about, that have destroyed American democracy. Do you have an obligation to the public? But then, you probably know that it's already too late and nothing can be done.

        What should you do? In that context, deciding just how wrong Snowden was, is vitally important.

        It's perfectly clear that some people choose to judge Snowden in order to dismiss those revelations.

        Well sure, of course. If it's their job to patch things up, they have to use whatever handle is available.

        But apart from the hacks, every single honest person who has a security clearance has to somehow find a way to justify that he has not done what Snowden did. If Snowden did it incompetently, he might have an obligation to do it better. Or maybe his obligation instead is to the power structure and not to the people.

        Likely by now there is better technology in place to catch people who try to reveal secrets. We can't know how many people have tried to reveal secrets since Snowden, who have failed and disappeared.

        Layman 10.28.14 at 4:15 pm

        Bruce Wilder @ 72

        Bravo! This view of classification as a mechanism for broadcasting information is exactly right, and a revelation, at least to me.

        [Apr 04, 2015] Plutocracy 1.0

        naked capitalism

        By Steve Fraser, co-founder of the American Empire Project and Editor-at-Large of the journal New Labor Forum. He is the author of Every Man a Speculator, A History of Wall Street in American Life, and most recently co-editor of Ruling America: A History of Wealth and Power in a Democracy. This article is excerpted and slightly adapted from The Age of Acquiescence: The Life and Death of American Resistance to Organized Wealth and Power. Originally published at TomDispatch

        The American upper classes did not constitute a seasoned aristocracy, but could only mimic one. They lacked the former's sense of social obligation, of noblesse oblige, of what in the Old World emerged as a politically coherent "Tory socialism" that worked to quiet class antagonisms. But neither did they absorb the democratic ethos that today allows the country's gilded elite to act as if they were just plain folks: a credible enough charade of plutocratic populism. Instead, faced with mass social disaffection, they turned to the "tramp terror" and other innovations in machine-gun technology, to private corporate armies and government militias, to suffrage restrictions, judicial injunctions, and lynchings. Why behave otherwise in dealing with working-class "scum" a community of "mongrel firebugs"?

        One historian has described what went on during the Great Uprising as an "interlocking directorate of railroad executives, military officers, and political officials which constituted the apex of the country's new power elite." After Haymarket, the haute bourgeoisie went into the fort­ building business; Fort Sheridan in Chicago, for example, was erected to defend against "internal insurrection." New York City's armories, which have long since been turned into sites for indoor tennis, concerts, and theatergoing, were originally erected after the 1877 insurrection to deal with the working-class canaille.

        During the anthracite coal strike of 1902, George Baer, president of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad and leader of the mine owners, sent a letter to the press: "The rights and interests of the laboring man will be protected and cared for… not by the labor agitators, but by the Christian men of property to whom God has given control of the property rights of the country." To the Anthracite Coal Commission investigating the uproar, Baer proclaimed, "These men don't suffer. Why hell, half of them don't even speak English."

        Ironically, it was thanks in part to its immersion in bloodshed that the first rudimentary forms of a more sophisticated class consciousness began to appear among this new elite. These would range from Pullman-like Potemkin villages to more practical-minded attempts to reach a modus vivendi with elements of the trade union movement readier to accept the wages system.

        efschumacher April 4, 2015 at 8:25 am

        The nuggets of actual history are useful but Thorstein Veblen skewered them far more deftly.

        MartyH April 4, 2015 at 4:38 pm

        As did Frederic Lundberg in America's 60 Families (1938) somewhat later. Still protected by the "Protect Mickey Mouse Act" (copyright extension to perpetuity) as best I can figure but there are copies around in those subversive Public Libraries and such.

        MyLessThanPrimeBeef April 4, 2015 at 9:57 am

        But neither did they absorb the democratic ethos that today allows the country's gilded elite to act as if they were just plain folks: a credible enough charade of plutocratic populism. Instead, faced with mass social disaffection, they turned to the "tramp terror" and other innovations in machine-gun technology, to private corporate armies and government militias, to suffrage restrictions, judicial injunctions, and lynchings….

        We still see that in play today across the globe.

        Some security states are clumsy and some suave.

        The suave ones say to their ruled, 'Behold them savages. Thou are truly blessed to have me."

        MyLessThanPrimeBeef April 4, 2015 at 10:04 am

        But an opposed instinct, native to capitalism in its purest form, wanted the state kept weak and poor so as not to intrude where it wasn't wanted. Due to this ambivalence, the American state was notoriously undernourished, its bureaucracy kept skimpy, amateurish, and machine-controlled, its executive and administrative reach stunted.

        Thanks to its capture, after the tragic Sack of New Rome by a roaming band of billionaires, the state can now be safely allowed to expand, to be given unlimited money to spend. No more undernourishment, no more skimpiness. Amateurish maybe, as the debate rages eternally whether it's evil intent or just incompetence.

        One word – Peopleism.

        human April 4, 2015 at 10:11 am

        Thank you for this post, Yves. I found it cathartic and rejuvenating, especially with May Day right around the corner.

        As the grandson of an emigrated Menshevik pamphlateer, I have for two generations now understood his reluctance with small government.

        OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL April 4, 2015 at 6:30 pm

        What a sad fact to learn in this post, that May Day originated in the US and is now expunged like some unwelcome Kommissar airbrushed out of a Kremlin lineup. Oh the mere thought of the actual people who do all of the actual work, not the financial leeches, the tax-free corporo-fascist bosses, or the millionaires per capita of Maryland, that those actual people who do *work* should have some kind of identity and voice and actual claim to the social fabric…perish the thought!

        Turning point in my mind was Reagan's stamping out the air traffic controller strike, in the Capital versus Labor battle of course Capital could buy every last possible advantage. Only with the consent of the governed of course…so the very idea that workers have rights needed to be demonized, and how completely successful they have been at that.

        The very word "union" is spat with contempt by the widest possible swath of the populace, with holdover associations from the Red Scare. Mayor Bloomberg knew what to do: arrest 243 people for loitering in the Occupy Park…because he knew everybody was behind him. At the same time Jamie and Lloyd were flying to St. Barts for a really nice confab…when they should have been the ones getting the ankle bracelets.

        Steve H. April 4, 2015 at 11:06 am

        Many things of interest in this post. Let me highlight one of the milder juxtapositions:

        "Eight hours for work, eight hours for rest
        Eight hours for what we will."

        and

        "Work hard, but never work after dinner."

        hemeantwell April 4, 2015 at 11:43 am

        This is particularly useful for the references to alliances between working class and "petty bourgeois" shopkeepers, e.g. the Pittsburgh strike. I'm fairly familiar with the strike history lit and hadn't seen that before.

        In a related vein, Yves has usefully pointed out that the resistance to the TPP has been drawing together sections of the left and right. In my contacts with our Congresscritter, Gwen Graham, I've stressed this point strongly. I think she's basically a hack looking to run for higher office asap but, for someone trying to maintain a seat in a district that went Tea Party in 2010, an anti-TPP position should be a no-brainer.

        susan the other April 4, 2015 at 2:26 pm
        'The Gilded Age' is such an apt moniker. Under its veneer of wealth there was no there there. My all time favorite book on the subject of the struggle for democracy is "Framing America" by Frances Pohl. The first plate is the memorial statue dedicated to those who died in the Haymarket riot. It is extremely beautiful. No need for gilding. There was another horrendous incident in 1913, a mining incident where miners and their families were massacred by the owners of the mines (Colorado I think) which became a rallying cry for NY artists and they produced an exhibit of abstract art in protest at the NY Armory. And then, of course, WW1.

        When civility breaks down in one country it usually spreads. And the threat of socialism was on the horizon. Which is why it is so unbelievable to see the encroachment (really a takeover) of what is yet another gilded age trying to keep power. It's crazy.

        participant-observer-observed April 4, 2015 at 4:00 pm

        While plutocracy puts on its show, its fascism face is taking over-it is not enough to consider the economic elements of plutocracy isolated from its political implications:

        http://www.democracynow.org/2015/4/2/20_years_in_prison_for_miscarrying

        This report shows not only this one case, but the loss of personal sovereignty of pregnant women, and the abusive police state power.

        (Same like Ferguson: going after minorities, women…..who's next?)

        participant-observer-observed April 4, 2015 at 4:13 pm

        There is also a hidden plutocracy-internecine war theme to the misogyny police state story:

        A misogynist police state will never elect Hillary Clinton!

        John April 4, 2015 at 9:10 pm

        Why would any American worker want Hillary the Globalist to be president?

        montanamaven April 4, 2015 at 4:03 pm

        A month ago there was a discussion on Ian Welsh's site about the lack of non-fiction books of depth and original thought. Commenter Jessica had a list of good books that I decided to follow. I read Graeber's "Utopia of Rules" and am now tackling "Karl Marx: A Nineteenth Century Life" by Jonathan Sperber. I am totally taken with it. (And mind you, I've never read or studied Marx. As a theater/film major the closest I got was studying Bertolt Brecht.) Sperber's book puts Marx in the context of his times not through a 20th Century lens. Marx lived in an exciting but turbulent time; the mid-nineteenth century. It was a time of heady ideas and deep philosophical thought. Did God exist? What should replace him? Should nations or "the state" exist? Are "united" states a good idea or bad? Why should Marx's region of the Rhineland be either French or German?

        Well heeled "shop keepers" put money into radical newspapers as share holders or gave great writers like Marx, Engels and Hess "grants" to publish their ideas. Shoe makers and other tradesmen moved from Germany to cities like Paris, Brussels, and London to take up revolutionary causes that had started with the French revolution and spread out. There were cafes, reading rooms, and back of the bar discussions that included factory workers, skilled craftsmen and scholars. Marx committed his life to action although as a scholar and writer not a professional agitator like a Karl Schapper or Giuseppe Mazzini. He did not want to just "interpret the world" as philosophers had done before him, he wanted to change it.

        We did have some heady days in the late Sixties and early Seventies. Revolution was in the air in 1968 like it was in 1848. The anti-globalists have soldiered on and created a great event in 1999. Occupy gave a brief but heady time. It is good to be reminded of the labor clashes and solidarity that existed in the 19th Century amongst workers, farmers, and shop keepers. I am grateful to Yves for pointing out yet another book worth reading. Here at NC, we have a virtual cafe where we can hone our ideas and bicker in true Hegelian style. But after reading this book on Marx, I am determined to get back to the city for more meet ups of NC readers. The Most Holy Order of the Knights and Dames of Capitalism Most Naked dedicated to as much leisure time as we can get our hands on. In an age of acquiescence, drinking does help.

        participant-observer-observed April 4, 2015 at 5:15 pm

        You might enjoy a new book out by a scholar of process studies, called "Organic Marxism"
        http://philipclayton.net/books/organic-marxism/

        [Apr 03, 2015] Were not cattle Kiev protesters throw manure at US embassy

        Apr 03, 2015 | offguardian

        Life News reports:

        About two and a half thousand Ukrainians surrounded the US embassy in Kiev on the first of April. People who disagree with the appointment of foreigners to the Ukrainian government, as well as the intervention of the Americans and Europeans in the public administration of the country, holding banners saying "We are not cattle!" And they made sounds imitating animals.

        Besides the protesters braying and bleating, they were eating cabbage, which was distributed by the organizers of the protest.

        They also kept two-meter carrots with the symbols of the European Union. By the end of the demonstration of dissent Kiev residents pelted the US embassy with manure.

        It is noteworthy that the video from the protest was removed from all the Ukrainian sites and users were blocked. Local journalists hardly covered the event.

        [Apr 03, 2015] U.S. Trained Fascists To Storm Kiev

        Notable quotes:
        "... Enough baksheesh spread around this way, and you have built a nice local tier of warlord support. ..."
        Apr 01, 2015 | M of A

        barrisj | Apr 1, 2015 1:08:35 PM | 8

        It seems as though the Yanks have revived the notion behind "The School of the Americas" era, where American Special Forces operatives would train up various battalions of "security forces", National Guard, "Presidential Guards", whatever, expressly to support Latin American fascistic dictatorships and to keep their respective countries on-side in the "war against Communism" in the Western Hemisphere.

        So, today we have boatloads of Special Forces contingencies in the Middle East, in Africa, in South Asia, and now in Eastern Europe or in the former States of the Soviet Union (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, et al), all with the specific task of supporting autocrats and dictators against their own respective peoples.

        And the gullible US public is being sold this as "advancing the democratic agenda"...so blatant and so pathetic. This to promote US "leadership", and to create proxy military forces to advance US "strategic goals". Blowback, blowback, we don't see no steenkin' blowback!

        rufus magister | Apr 1, 2015 10:23:52 PM | 9

        Alberto at 6

        Germany was both Protestant and Catholic. The Catholic Centre Party opposed the Nazis; I believe you'll find the Lutheran state churches of northern Germany the most accepting of their regime. Lutheran Scandinavia produced generous nos. of collaborators and volunteers for the Waffen-SS "Viking" Division. Bulgaria and Romania both had collaborationist governments drawn from local fascists.

        en1c at 1

        I think they plan on using brute force to keep power. There are several reports at Fort Russ about about a purge and revamping at the SBU.

        Nalivaychenko, its leader, says it's going to be schooled in the Banderaist/OUN school of political repression. And here is a comprehensive guide to their methods.

        Meanwhile, searches at the Ministry of the Interior have begun.

        At Russia Insider, Rostislav Ishchenko argues that War in the East Is the Only Thing Preventing Ukraine Collapse. Which will not be pretty when it happens.

        There is nothing good in store for Ukraine. I think during this year it will sustain a military defeat and the disintegration of its army, another coup and the collapse of what is left of its government agencies, all-out chaos, the total destruction of the economy and the start of subsistence farming for survival.... Survivors will be set back a century in terms of living standards and civilization. This is why foreign intervention to restore law and order to Ukraine after the collapse of Project Ukraine will be inevitable.

        I hope he's exaggerating about that century thing.

        Some good news -- miners near Kharkov are fighting to be paid.

        Fete | Apr 1, 2015 11:39:02 PM | 10

        04/01/2015 23:59

        Russian Spring

        Eduard Basurin, the Deputy Commander in Chief of Donetsk Republic Defense, read out to journalists excerpts of an intelligence obtained plan of Ukrainian special operation, which, in particular designated "special mobile groups to assault key infrastructure objects and crowded places".

        Basurin said that this plan "of a special operation in sector B has been approved by the Ukrainian side and is being implemented". Therefore, the end of March intelligence about sending approximately thirty five Ukrainian subversion-reconnaissance group to areas of Shirokino and Donetsk to arrange provocations under disguise of combatants is confirmed.

        According to the presented documents, the subversives were also tasked with liquidation of Donetsk Republic leaders, spreading panic among locals, opening random mortar and small arms fire from Donetsk and the airport toward settlement Peski, where positions of the Ukrainian forces are installed.

        jfl | Apr 2, 2015 4:27:24 AM | 13

        @9
        The purge going on in Western Ukraine may be the sign that they have given up on war with the East ... that would have been their instruction from the CIA, in that case ... and are preparing to internalize the war. I'm probably quoting J Hawk or K Rus. Everything is so wrong in Ukraine ... and getting daily wronger ... that they desperately need some overarching threat to 'keep everyone's mind off the pain'. The poor, poor Ukrainians.

        I don't think the author at Russia Insider meant that the collapse of the Ukraine would last 100 years, 'just' that the 'lifestyle' of the Ukrainians would be more similar to their lifestyle 100 years ago than to their 21st century fantasies. The ground is the place to build up from. And slowly and thoughtfully, with an appreciation for what is real and what is not, is the way to go.

        It is not only the Ukrainians who will be in this position in the near future. I agree with Mike Maloney@7 ... "how can all this not end up becoming globalized total war?"

        ǝn⇂ɔ | Apr 2, 2015 9:19:48 AM | 16

        "US training" in practice seems more an economic outcome than a military one. Much like sourcing the F35 - US training of indigenous troops presents limitless opportunities for kickbacks, theft, and other means of securing payment for local warlords. Trainers have to be fed, housed, and protected - all activities which generate income. Trainees have to be furnished equipment - which can be stolen and sold. Training itself consumes resources: ammunition, food, etc which also can be stolen and sold.

        Enough baksheesh spread around this way, and you have built a nice local tier of warlord support.

        rufus magister | Apr 2, 2015 11:05:14 PM | 26
        It's Official – All Kiev's Investigations of Maidan Crimes Deadlocked

        "Council of Europe report finds that official Ukrainian investigations into crimes committed during the Maidan protests are a total shambles and are going nowhere."

        Harold | Apr 3, 2015 2:56:26 AM | 28

        As billmon predicted the Ukraine has called Russia's number -- for now: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/02/us-ukraine-crisis-gas-idUSKBN0MT0B420150402
        Richard Steven Hack | Apr 3, 2015 1:44:14 PM | 31

        Obama fully intends to get a war or at least threat of war started in the Ukraine between Russia and NATO in order to boost the military-industrial complex and the US military budget.

        The alleged intent of the Ukraine crisis was to make Ukraine into a NATO base on Russia's borders. But Russia will never stand for that. And it's not certain that everyone in the Beltway was ignorant of that. These people can read the articles that pointed out that Russia would not stand for that.

        But Russia didn't take the bait and invade Ukraine. Instead they merely supported the anti-Kiev forces in the east.

        So Obama has to up the ante. The only way to do that is to support the far-right neo-Nazi forces in the Ukraine and get them to take over the government. This is because Russia will never accept a Nazi-led Ukraine, either.

        The goal is to force Russia to deal militarily directly with Ukraine, thus justifying a NATO threat response, which will boost the Cold war and boost the US and EU military-industrial complex.

        Never forget that Obama is owned and operated by his masters in Chicago who are both Israel-Firsters and stock holders in the military-industrial complex.

        Demian | Apr 3, 2015 2:14:25 PM | 32

        Funny that this isn't showing up on Western news channels:

        offguardian: "We're not cattle": Kiev protesters throw manure at US embassy (with video)

        Note that unlike the EuroMaidan, this protest is peaceful.

        Demian | Apr 3, 2015 5:58:20 PM | 33

        Republicans see Obama as a greater threat to the US than Putin. For once, they are right.
        jfl | Apr 3, 2015 6:11:32 PM | 34

        @31,32
        Looks like the Ukrainians are finally beginning to understand just how badly they have been played. Maybe they will no longer stand for a Nazi-led Ukraine, either?

        I mean ... how have they benefited at all from NAZI rule?

        [Apr 03, 2015] American foreign policy is so screwed up that we're basically fighting ourselves now by Bonnie Kristian

        That's all about neo-imperialism... The USA wants to ensure energy security and extend markets for multinationals by topping any regimes that are not already vassals. So this is a consistent policy. And if some natives are killed for that noble purpose, so be it.
        March 30, 2015 | Rare

        "Let's recap the state of America's commitments in the Middle East," suggests Ross Douthat in his Saturday column at The New York Times:

        Our military is fighting in a tacit alliance with Iranian proxies in Iraq, even as it assists in a campaign against Iranian-backed forces in Yemen. We are formally committed to regime change in Syria, but we're intervening against the regime's Islamist enemies. Our strongest allies, officially, are still Israel and Saudi Arabia, but we're busy alienating them by pushing for détente with Iran. And please don't mention Libya or Al Qaeda - you'll confuse everyone even more.

        Douthat's summary encapsulates the unstable and self-defeating mess that today passes for American foreign policy, a probably inevitable result of more than a decade of misguided interventionism.

        To be sure, as Douthat argues, American meddling in the Middle East could be significantly more extensive, and the region's panoply of brutal insurgent forces and often equally brutal governments could be engaged in conflict on a larger scale.

        But to note that it could be worse is not exactly comforting. Particularly striking is the fact that, in backing Iranian-supported forces in Iraq while opposing them in Yemen, America "has finally figured out how to fight a proxy war against ourselves," as Jon Stewart put it last week in a segment aptly titled, "Wait, whose side are we on again?"

        (One further complicating fact Stewart and Douthat neglect to mention: The rebels we oppose in Yemen themselves oppose al-Qaeda-yes, the same al-Qaeda targeted by

        [Apr 03, 2015] Jeb is more interested in undermining Democratic constituencies than in financial gain

        Apr 02, 2015 | naked capitalism

        shinola, April 2, 2015 at 12:11 pm

        I may not be remembering correctly, but doesn't Jeb Bush have some sort of financial interest in a company that benefits from the charter school movement?

        NotTimothyGeithner, April 2, 2015 at 12:41 pm

        I thought it was Neil off the top of my head, but it is the Bush crime family after all.

        washunate, April 3, 2015 at 8:04 am

        Jeb Bush has been involved with education for a long time, and certainly has some financial interests, but he's actually more of a true believer. The people in it for the money are more around him than Jeb himself.

        If anything, Jeb is more interested in undermining Democratic constituencies (unions, impoverished communities, etc.) than in financial gain.

        Which is a great example of how the Democrats have bean so unbelievably weird on areas like education policy. They have helped create the environment in which traditional Democratic constituents are now abandoning the party in droves. Rahm Emanuel and teachers unions are fighting each other in Chicago instead of fighting together against GOP policies.

        Almost as if that's how national Democrats want things to work…

        Rationalizing Lunacy The Policy Intellectual as Servant of the State

        March 9, 2015 | naked capitalism

        Yves here. Andrew Bacevich excoriates policy intellectuals as "blight on the republic". His case study focuses on the military/surveillance complex but he notes in passing that the first policy intellectuals were in the economic realm. And we are plagued with plenty of malpractice there too.

        by Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations emeritus at Boston University's Pardee School of Global Studies. He is writing a military history of America's War for the Greater Middle East. His most recent book is Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country. Originally published at TomDispatch

        Policy intellectuals - eggheads presuming to instruct the mere mortals who actually run for office - are a blight on the republic. Like some invasive species, they infest present-day Washington, where their presence strangles common sense and has brought to the verge of extinction the simple ability to perceive reality. A benign appearance - well-dressed types testifying before Congress, pontificating in print and on TV, or even filling key positions in the executive branch - belies a malign impact. They are like Asian carp let loose in the Great Lakes.

        It all began innocently enough. Back in 1933, with the country in the throes of the Great Depression, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt first imported a handful of eager academics to join the ranks of his New Deal. An unprecedented economic crisis required some fresh thinking, FDR believed. Whether the contributions of this "Brains Trust" made a positive impact or served to retard economic recovery (or ended up being a wash) remains a subject for debate even today. At the very least, however, the arrival of Adolph Berle, Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell, and others elevated Washington's bourbon-and-cigars social scene. As bona fide members of the intelligentsia, they possessed a sort of cachet.

        Then came World War II, followed in short order by the onset of the Cold War. These events brought to Washington a second wave of deep thinkers, their agenda now focused on "national security." This eminently elastic concept - more properly, "national insecurity" - encompassed just about anything related to preparing for, fighting, or surviving wars, including economics, technology, weapons design, decision-making, the structure of the armed forces, and other matters said to be of vital importance to the nation's survival. National insecurity became, and remains today, the policy world's equivalent of the gift that just keeps on giving.

        People who specialized in thinking about national insecurity came to be known as "defense intellectuals." Pioneers in this endeavor back in the 1950s were as likely to collect their paychecks from think tanks like the prototypical RAND Corporation as from more traditional academic institutions. Their ranks included creepy figures like Herman Kahn, who took pride in "thinking about the unthinkable," and Albert Wohlstetter, who tutored Washington in the complexities of maintaining "the delicate balance of terror."

        In this wonky world, the coin of the realm has been and remains "policy relevance." This means devising products that convey a sense of novelty, while serving chiefly to perpetuate the ongoing enterprise. The ultimate example of a policy-relevant insight is Dr. Strangelove's discovery of a "mineshaft gap" - successor to the "bomber gap" and the "missile gap" that, in the 1950s, had found America allegedly lagging behind the Soviets in weaponry and desperately needing to catch up. Now, with a thermonuclear exchange about to destroy the planet, the United States is once more falling behind, Strangelove claims, this time in digging underground shelters enabling some small proportion of the population to survive.

        In a single, brilliant stroke, Strangelove posits a new raison d'être for the entire national insecurity apparatus, thereby ensuring that the game will continue more or less forever. A sequel to Stanley Kubrick's movie would have shown General "Buck" Turgidson and the other brass huddled in the War Room, developing plans to close the mineshaft gap as if nothing untoward had occurred.

        The Rise of the National Insecurity State

        Yet only in the 1960s, right around the time that Dr. Strangelove first appeared in movie theaters, did policy intellectuals really come into their own. The press now referred to them as "action intellectuals," suggesting energy and impatience. Action intellectuals were thinkers, but also doers, members of a "large and growing body of men who choose to leave their quiet and secure niches on the university campus and involve themselves instead in the perplexing problems that face the nation," as LIFE Magazine put it in 1967. Among the most perplexing of those problems was what to do about Vietnam, just the sort of challenge an action intellectual could sink his teeth into.

        Over the previous century-and-a-half, the United States had gone to war for many reasons, including greed, fear, panic, righteous anger, and legitimate self-defense. On various occasions, each of these, alone or in combination, had prompted Americans to fight. Vietnam marked the first time that the United States went to war, at least in considerable part, in response to a bunch of really dumb ideas floated by ostensibly smart people occupying positions of influence. More surprising still, action intellectuals persisted in waging that war well past the point where it had become self-evident, even to members of Congress, that the cause was a misbegotten one doomed to end in failure.

        In his fine new book American Reckoning: The Vietnam War and Our National Identity, Christian Appy, a historian who teaches at the University of Massachusetts, reminds us of just how dumb those ideas were.

        As Exhibit A, Professor Appy presents McGeorge Bundy, national security adviser first for President John F. Kennedy and then for Lyndon Johnson. Bundy was a product of Groton and Yale, who famously became the youngest-ever dean of Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences, having gained tenure there without even bothering to get a graduate degree.

        For Exhibit B, there is Walt Whitman Rostow, Bundy's successor as national security adviser. Rostow was another Yalie, earning his undergraduate degree there along with a PhD. While taking a break of sorts, he spent two years at Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. As a professor of economic history at MIT, Rostow captured JFK's attention with his modestly subtitled 1960 book The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto, which offered a grand theory of development with ostensibly universal applicability. Kennedy brought Rostow to Washington to test his theories of "modernization" in places like Southeast Asia.

        Finally, as Exhibit C, Appy briefly discusses Professor Samuel P. Huntington's contributions to the Vietnam War. Huntington also attended Yale, before earning his PhD at Harvard and then returning to teach there, becoming one of the most renowned political scientists of the post-World War II era.

        What the three shared in common, apart from a suspect education acquired in New Haven, was an unwavering commitment to the reigning verities of the Cold War. Foremost among those verities was this: that a monolith called Communism, controlled by a small group of fanatic ideologues hidden behind the walls of the Kremlin, posed an existential threat not simply to America and its allies, but to the very idea of freedom itself. The claim came with this essential corollary: the only hope of avoiding such a cataclysmic outcome was for the United States to vigorously resist the Communist threat wherever it reared its ugly head.

        Buy those twin propositions and you accept the imperative of the U.S. preventing the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, a.k.a. North Vietnam, from absorbing the Republic of Vietnam, a.k.a. South Vietnam, into a single unified country; in other words, that South Vietnam was a cause worth fighting and dying for. Bundy, Rostow, and Huntington not only bought that argument hook, line, and sinker, but then exerted themselves mightily to persuade others in Washington to buy it as well.

        Yet even as he was urging the "Americanization" of the Vietnam War in 1965, Bundy already entertained doubts about whether it was winnable. But not to worry: even if the effort ended in failure, he counseled President Johnson, "the policy will be worth it."

        How so? "At a minimum," Bundy wrote, "it will damp down the charge that we did not do all that we could have done, and this charge will be important in many countries, including our own." If the United States ultimately lost South Vietnam, at least Americans would have died trying to prevent that result - and through some perverted logic this, in the estimation of Harvard's youngest-ever dean, was a redeeming prospect. The essential point, Bundy believed, was to prevent others from seeing the United States as a "paper tiger." To avoid a fight, even a losing one, was to forfeit credibility. "Not to have it thought that when we commit ourselves we really mean no major risk" - that was the problem to be avoided at all cost.

        Rostow outdid even Bundy in hawkishness. Apart from his relentless advocacy of coercive bombing to influence North Vietnamese policymakers, Rostow was a chief architect of something called the Strategic Hamlet Program. The idea was to jumpstart the Rostovian process of modernization by forcibly relocating Vietnamese peasants from their ancestral villages into armed camps where the Saigon government would provide security, education, medical care, and agricultural assistance. By winning hearts-and-minds in this manner, the defeat of the communist insurgency was sure to follow, with the people of South Vietnam vaulted into the "age of high mass consumption," where Rostow believed all humankind was destined to end up.

        That was the theory. Reality differed somewhat. Actual Strategic Hamlets were indistinguishable from concentration camps. The government in Saigon proved too weak, too incompetent, and too corrupt to hold up its end of the bargain. Rather than winning hearts-and-minds, the program induced alienation, even as it essentially destabilized peasant society. One result: an increasingly rootless rural population flooded into South Vietnam's cities where there was little work apart from servicing the needs of the ever-growing U.S. military population - hardly the sort of activity conducive to self-sustaining development.

        Yet even when the Vietnam War ended in complete and utter defeat, Rostow still claimed vindication for his theory. "We and the Southeast Asians," he wrote, had used the war years "so well that there wasn't the panic [when Saigon fell] that there would have been if we had failed to intervene." Indeed, regionally Rostow spied plenty of good news, all of it attributable to the American war.

        "Since 1975 there has been a general expansion of trade by the other countries of that region with Japan and the West. In Thailand we have seen the rise of a new class of entrepreneurs. Malaysia and Singapore have become countries of diverse manufactured exports. We can see the emergence of a much thicker layer of technocrats in Indonesia."

        So there you have it. If you want to know what 58,000 Americans (not to mention vastly larger numbers of Vietnamese) died for, it was to encourage entrepreneurship, exports, and the emergence of technocrats elsewhere in Southeast Asia.

        Appy describes Professor Huntington as another action intellectual with an unfailing facility for seeing the upside of catastrophe. In Huntington's view, the internal displacement of South Vietnamese caused by the excessive use of American firepower, along with the failure of Rostow's Strategic Hamlets, was actually good news. It promised, he insisted, to give the Americans an edge over the insurgents.

        The key to final victory, Huntington wrote, was "forced-draft urbanization and modernization which rapidly brings the country in question out of the phase in which a rural revolutionary movement can hope to generate sufficient strength to come to power." By emptying out the countryside, the U.S. could win the war in the cities. "The urban slum, which seems so horrible to middle-class Americans, often becomes for the poor peasant a gateway to a new and better way of life." The language may be a tad antiseptic, but the point is clear enough: the challenges of city life in a state of utter immiseration would miraculously transform those same peasants into go-getters more interested in making a buck than in signing up for social revolution.

        Revisited decades later, claims once made with a straight face by the likes of Bundy, Rostow, and Huntington - action intellectuals of the very first rank - seem beyond preposterous. They insult our intelligence, leaving us to wonder how such judgments or the people who promoted them were ever taken seriously.

        How was it that during Vietnam bad ideas exerted such a perverse influence? Why were those ideas so impervious to challenge? Why, in short, was it so difficult for Americans to recognize bullshit for what it was?

        Creating a Twenty-First-Century Slow-Motion Vietnam

        These questions are by no means of mere historical interest. They are no less relevant when applied to the handiwork of the twenty-first-century version of policy intellectuals, specializing in national insecurity, whose bullshit underpins policies hardly more coherent than those used to justify and prosecute the Vietnam War.

        The present-day successors to Bundy, Rostow, and Huntington subscribe to their own reigning verities. Chief among them is this: that a phenomenon called terrorism or Islamic radicalism, inspired by a small group of fanatic ideologues hidden away in various quarters of the Greater Middle East, poses an existential threat not simply to America and its allies, but - yes, it's still with us - to the very idea of freedom itself. That assertion comes with an essential corollary dusted off and imported from the Cold War: the only hope of avoiding this cataclysmic outcome is for the United States to vigorously resist the terrorist/Islamist threat wherever it rears its ugly head.

        At least since September 11, 2001, and arguably for at least two decades prior to that date, U.S. policymakers have taken these propositions for granted. They have done so at least in part because few of the policy intellectuals specializing in national insecurity have bothered to question them.

        Indeed, those specialists insulate the state from having to address such questions. Think of them as intellectuals devoted to averting genuine intellectual activity. More or less like Herman Kahn and Albert Wohlstetter (or Dr. Strangelove), their function is to perpetuate the ongoing enterprise.

        The fact that the enterprise itself has become utterly amorphous may actually facilitate such efforts. Once widely known as the Global War on Terror, or GWOT, it has been transformed into the War with No Name. A little bit like the famous Supreme Court opinion on pornography: we can't define it, we just know it when we see it, with ISIS the latest manifestation to capture Washington's attention.

        All that we can say for sure about this nameless undertaking is that it continues with no end in sight. It has become a sort of slow-motion Vietnam, stimulating remarkably little honest reflection regarding its course thus far or prospects for the future. If there is an actual Brains Trust at work in Washington, it operates on autopilot. Today, the second- and third-generation bastard offspring of RAND that clutter northwest Washington - the Center for this, the Institute for that - spin their wheels debating latter day equivalents of Strategic Hamlets, with nary a thought given to more fundamental concerns.

        What prompts these observations is Ashton Carter's return to the Pentagon as President Obama's fourth secretary of defense. Carter himself is an action intellectual in the Bundy, Rostow, Huntington mold, having made a career of rotating between positions at Harvard and in "the Building." He, too, is a Yalie and a Rhodes scholar, with a PhD. from Oxford. "Ash" - in Washington, a first-name-only identifier ("Henry," "Zbig," "Hillary") signifies that you have truly arrived - is the author of books and articles galore, including one op-ed co-written with former Secretary of Defense William Perry back in 2006 calling for preventive war against North Korea. Military action "undoubtedly carries risk," he bravely acknowledged at the time. "But the risk of continuing inaction in the face of North Korea's race to threaten this country would be greater" - just the sort of logic periodically trotted out by the likes of Herman Kahn and Albert Wohlstetter.

        As Carter has taken the Pentagon's reins, he also has taken pains to convey the impression of being a big thinker. As one Wall Street Journal headline enthused, "Ash Carter Seeks Fresh Eyes on Global Threats." That multiple global threats exist and that America's defense secretary has a mandate to address each of them are, of course, givens. His predecessor Chuck Hagel (no Yale degree) was a bit of a plodder. By way of contrast, Carter has made clear his intention to shake things up.

        So on his second day in office, for example, he dined with Kenneth Pollack, Michael O'Hanlon, and Robert Kagan, ranking national insecurity intellectuals and old Washington hands one and all. Besides all being employees of the Brookings Institution, the three share the distinction of having supported the Iraq War back in 2003 and calling for redoubling efforts against ISIS today. For assurances that the fundamental orientation of U.S. policy is sound - we just need to try harder - who better to consult than Pollack, O'Hanlon, and Kagan (any Kagan)?

        Was Carter hoping to gain some fresh insight from his dinner companions? Or was he letting Washington's clubby network of fellows, senior fellows, and distinguished fellows know that, on his watch, the prevailing verities of national insecurity would remain sacrosanct? You decide.

        Soon thereafter, Carter's first trip overseas provided another opportunity to signal his intentions. In Kuwait, he convened a war council of senior military and civilian officials to take stock of the campaign against ISIS. In a daring departure from standard practice, the new defense secretary prohibited PowerPoint briefings. One participant described the ensuing event as "a five-hour-long college seminar" - candid and freewheeling. "This is reversing the paradigm," one awed senior Pentagon official remarked. Carter was said to be challenging his subordinates to "look at this problem differently."

        Of course, Carter might have said, "Let's look at a different problem." That, however, was far too radical to contemplate - the equivalent of suggesting back in the 1960s that assumptions landing the United States in Vietnam should be reexamined.

        In any event - and to no one's surprise - the different look did not produce a different conclusion. Instead of reversing the paradigm, Carter affirmed it: the existing U.S. approach to dealing with ISIS is sound, he announced. It only needs a bit of tweaking - just the result to give the Pollacks, O'Hanlons, and Kagans something to write about as they keep up the chatter that substitutes for serious debate.

        Do we really need that chatter? Does it enhance the quality of U.S. policy? If policy/defense/action intellectuals fell silent would America be less secure?

        Let me propose an experiment. Put them on furlough. Not permanently - just until the last of the winter snow finally melts in New England. Send them back to Yale for reeducation. Let's see if we are able to make do without them even for a month or two.

        In the meantime, invite Iraq and Afghanistan War vets to consider how best to deal with ISIS. Turn the op-ed pages of major newspapers over to high school social studies teachers. Book English majors from the Big Ten on the Sunday talk shows. Who knows what tidbits of wisdom might turn up?

        [Apr 02, 2015] Hillary Clinton: foreign policy is her strong suit – but it could be her undoing by Tom McCarthy

        Apr 02, 2015 | The Guardian

        someoneionceknew 2 Apr 2015 20:51

        Hillary Clinton: war mongering is her strong suit – according to media hacks.


        BradBenson Ashok Choudhury 2 Apr 2015 19:04


        Nonsense. Who are the wise? Hillary is a war criminal. She should not be elected for any reason. She should be shipped off to the Hague with Obama, Bush and Cheney.

        BradBenson yesfuture 2 Apr 2015 18:57

        Libya, for one. It's always been about light crude that is used for airplane fuel. Regaining control of Libya's Oil is BP Petroleum's prime project and Hillary supported it.

        BradBenson Elton Johnson 2 Apr 2015 18:52

        Congratulations, you are both wrong. We were occupiers in Iraq and were always going to incite bigger and more violent opposition groups. We should not have gone in. We should have gotten out sooner. We should not be there now.

        BradBenson Michael Seymour 2 Apr 2015 18:49

        This kid is a living, typing example of the way that Americans have been dumbed down over the years. He has no fucking clue as to what we are doing in the world and believes everything he hears on CNN and MSNBC (our so-called 'liberal' media outlets). He can no longer be reeducated.

        He will live in fear that ISIS or some other phony terrorist group will plant a bomb in his toilet and thus suffer from constipation for the rest of his life.


        Paul Moore Alchemist 2 Apr 2015 18:45

        Bush vs. Clinton
        Been there. Done that.


        BradBenson Whitt 2 Apr 2015 18:42

        Well, actually that is no longer possible. Still, should we continue to accept that status quo? We can't overthrow the government, but we could all vote third party. I'll not vote for a Bush or a Clinton in the coming election. If my vote is wasted, so be it. My conscience will be clear and I will no longer vote for a known War Criminal as I did when I voted for Obama the second time around.

        BradBenson Batters56 2 Apr 2015 18:40

        Boy have you got it bass ackwards. We wanted Obama to do the things he promised. Instead, he became a neo-con War Criminal on his first day in office and rejected everything for which he once claimed to have stood.

        Here's the links. Read 'em and weep.

        More information on Obama's Embrace of war, murder, torture and mayhem can be found at the following link.

        http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19622-empire-under-obama-americas-secret-wars-in-over-100-countries-around-the-world

        More information of the influence of the neocons upon Obama can be found at the following link.

        http://consortiumnews.com/2014/06/23/obamas-true-foreign-policy-weakness/

        BradBenson Whitt 2 Apr 2015 18:42

        Well, actually that is no longer possible. Still, should we continue to accept that status quo? We can't overthrow the government, but we could all vote third party. I'll not vote for a Bush or a Clinton in the coming election. If my vote is wasted, so be it. My conscience will be clear and I will no longer vote for a known War Criminal as I did when I voted for Obama the second time around.

        BradBenson Batters56 2 Apr 2015 18:40

        Boy have you got it bass ackwards. We wanted Obama to do the things he promised. Instead, he became a neo-con War Criminal on his first day in office and rejected everything for which he once claimed to have stood.

        Here's the links. Read 'em and weep.

        More information on Obama's Embrace of war, murder, torture and mayhem can be found at the following link.

        http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19622-empire-under-obama-americas-secret-wars-in-over-100-countries-around-the-world

        More information of the influence of the neocons upon Obama can be found at the following link.

        http://consortiumnews.com/2014/06/23/obamas-true-foreign-policy-weakness/

        BradBenson lightstroke 2 Apr 2015 18:36

        Nobody, including Obama. Where have you been for the past six years. Obama makes Bush look like a beginner. Bush started two wars. We now have seven that we know about and are militarily engaged in more than 100 countries.

        The blind eye that you faux lefties turn toward Obama and Hillary is absolutely disgusting and hypocritical. Obama and Hillary are fucking WAR CRIMINALS--just like Bush and Cheney--in fact worse!

        BradBenson diddoit 2 Apr 2015 18:34

        Yes...in the wrong direction. He's beginning to reverse some of his earlier anti-interventionist statements and was one of 47 idiots that signed that letter to Ayatollah Khamenei. I like Rand for a while, strictly because of his 'opposition' to our wars and the domestic spying. Lately, he's back to trying to appeal to Evangelical Nutcases.

        BradBenson Natasha2009 2 Apr 2015 18:30

        Well Natasha, you are correct that US Foreign Policy should be about protecting US Interests--to a point. Where we may disagree is in how that policy has truly not served our best interests and certainly could not be said to have served in the best interests of the US or the Globe in any single respect--not one. When your only foreign policy is war and murder by drone, you are not serving anyone's interests but the arms dealers.

        BradBenson Samuel Burns 2 Apr 2015 18:22

        Our leaders have brought war, torture, murder and mayhem to the planet since the early 90's and have doubled down since 9/11. They are war criminals and the blame is correctly place upon the US. Wake up.

        BradBenson fredimeyer 2 Apr 2015 18:19

        Well I wish you were right, but it's not shaping up that way right now. That being said, she cannot win and we will all be stuck with another fucking Bush.

        I'll be voting third party this year as will every other anti-war progressive.

        BradBenson sour_mash 2 Apr 2015 18:17

        Those ills are now the ills of the Obama Administration and I have pointed this out to you way too often in the past for you not to have gotten it. Obama embraced Bush's War Crimes and made them his own. Quit apologizing and making excuses for this murderous SOB. Here again are the links. Educate yourself.

        More information on Obama's Embrace of war, murder, torture and mayhem can be found at the following link.

        http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19622-empire-under-obama-americas-secret-wars-in-over-100-countries-around-the-world

        More information of the influence of the neocons upon Obama can be found at the following link.

        http://consortiumnews.com/2014/06/23/obamas-true-foreign-policy-weakness/

        macmarco 2 Apr 2015 18:14

        She like Obama are militarists. Obama astounded his progressive supporters with his praise for militarism at Nobel. Hillary lost the primaries by hanging onto the 'Iraq was a just and good intervention'. Even if it was imposed by Bill it was idiotic when even some in the GOP were jumping ship.

        BradBenson Mikhail Lykhin 2 Apr 2015 18:14

        That's just sexist bullshit. She's a well-qualified war criminal and will wage our wars with the same audacity, ferocity and veracity of any man. In fact, she will be more brutal just to prove that women should be allowed to be the War-Criminal-in-Chief more often.

        BradBenson Expatdownunder1 2 Apr 2015 18:11

        Yep, I remember that too. That should have been a wake up call for any faux Democrats that hated Bush's Policies, but loved those same policies under Obama. Now these neo-con converts can't wait for Hillary to break the glass ceiling and become the greatest US War Criminal of all-time. She will never be President. Real lefties will stay home.

        BradBenson toadwarrior 2 Apr 2015 18:07

        It's not a matter of age. It's a matter of faulty policies and a total lack of any morality. I'm 64 and I'd match my intellectual acuity against anyone, young or old. I might not always win, but it wouldn't be because of my age if I lost.

        Hillary is not qualified because she is a war criminal. Period.

        Kikinaskald voxusa 2 Apr 2015 18:03

        It was easier for Clinton to coordinate his politics with Europeans at that time. The US was the measure of everything.

        But yes, I think you are right, Hillary may be moved by an excessive ambition rather than pure ideology. What I fear is that this ambition makes her prone to hard ideological positions and to alliaces with the worst currents of American politics. On the other hand, you are right, as a whole the Democrats may seem to be more reasonable and I, in Europe, probably underestimate the political climate in the country.

        BradBenson Kikinaskald 2 Apr 2015 17:59

        People with money back them and most of the American People have been dumbed down to believe that we are a beacon of freedom and democracy around the world.

        Despite the fact that realistic Americans recognize the truth, we can no longer unseat the shadow government and will just have to wait for the inevitable collapse of the evil empire under its own weight. It will be tough, but the education will be good for the survivors--however difficult.

        voxusa Kikinaskald 2 Apr 2015 17:48

        Point taken.

        But interestingly, there was much less "go-it-alone" foreign policy by Bill Clinton. He coordinated with European allies, for one--for which he was castigated by the Republicans. That sort of foreign policy really took off under Bush--the right-wing is contemptuous of Europe, the UN, and pretty much any other nation.

        I agree with you that she's too hawkish--and that she has made a number of serious mistakes. But I think she's less ideologically driven that driven by her (maybe "pragmatic") ambition.

        But the climate in the US is such that the Republican alternatives are *much* more extreme and aggressive -- they talk about waging war on a daily basis. It's truly terrifying.

        But anyone more "moderate" that Clinton really doesn't stand a chance for the Democrats. The political climate is too extreme and money has totally corrupted our political process--big money is generally (*but not exclusively) interested in "advancing their interests" and "the rest of the world be damned." There really are no good alternatives--it's Clinton or someone like Bush, or even worse someone like Cruz, Christie, or Paul.

        NomChompsky Natasha2009 2 Apr 2015 17:45

        The world is in much worse shape and the U.S. held in much lower esteem since she was Secretary of State.

        Hey.


        BradBenson 2 Apr 2015 17:32

        The people are not dissatisfied with Obama's Foreign Policy because it has somehow been too tepid. They are sick of his embrace of the worst war crimes of the neo-con right as his own and his failure to implement hope and change from the abuses of the Bush/Cheney Administration. To say that Hillary's experience as Secretary of State has given her anything more than experience in WAR CRIMES is an exaggeration if not outright mendacity.

        Obama started with two wars and we now have at least seven. During Obama's Tenure, both he and Hillary were involved in: illegal drone murders; CIA Black Sites (Benghazi was actually about the freeing of illegally held Libyan Nationals from a CIA Black Site Prison); an illegal Coup d'état in the Ukraine, which nearly brought Europe to the brink of war; the overthrow of the Libyan Government, which resulted in a civil war and the rise of ISIS there; the failure of our policies in Syria and Yemen, resulting in major wars throughout the Middle East; the failure of the Arab Spring and the reestablishment of US-backed dictatorial strongmen in numerous Arab Countries. Hillary has promised to be "more aggressive" than her predecessor.

        There is no basis for this woman to be elected and her candidacy will result in the US being saddled with Bush III. Anti-war Progressives WILL NOT vote for another war criminal and will either vote for a third party candidate or stay home.

        More information on Hillary's War Crimes can be found at the following sites.

        http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14401-hillary-clintons-legacy-as-secretary-of-state
        http://radio.foxnews.com/2014/10/29/cornel-west-calls-president-obama-and-hillary-clinton-war-criminals/
        http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/11/18/hillary-the-warmonger/

        More information on Obama's Aggressive Foreign Policies and War Crimes can be found here.

        http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19622-empire-under-obama-americas-secret-wars-in-over-100-countries-around-the-world
        http://consortiumnews.com/2014/06/23/obamas-true-foreign-policy-weakness/

        Matt062 2 Apr 2015 17:28

        We don't call her Killary over here for nothing. There is no need to speculate about the future. We can already see her foreign policy in action in Yemen, where the USA is once again directing another lawless war of aggression.

        Ask the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate how his targeted bombing of what little civilian infrastructure Yemen has? You know, dairy processing, electrical power installations, the usual list of war criminality we have all come to know so well and hate.

        Ana ask how long will it take for mass starvation to kick in with a total naval blockade on a country that must import 100% of its grain?

        normankirk 2 Apr 2015 17:02

        Please, not Hillary. I'm not eligible to vote in American elections, but I do have a stake in staying alive. Hillary has to be a nutcase with her warmongering rhetoric.

        And I'm not encouraged by Ukrainian oligarchs bloating the Clinton foundation with looted money


        Kikinaskald voxusa 2 Apr 2015 16:56

        I meant internationally. At that time nobody dared to oppose the US. Nowadys it's different. China challenges the US, in South America there are left governments and others that claim some independence. In Europe there is skepticism and critic of the American government. Iran made now an agreement on better terms than they had offered in 2003. Russia showed that they would act according to what they think it's their interest against American opposition. The US lost wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq. We have to consider all those failures and mistakes. Hillary Clinton is not the right person for that.


        voxusa Kikinaskald 2 Apr 2015 16:38

        "Bill Clinton could do whatever he wanted without much opposition."?

        You must have missed the government shut-down by the right-wing and the mendacious obstructionism of Newtie Gingrich and his pals


        Kikinaskald 2 Apr 2015 16:21

        I wonder why the electorate keeps people in politics who are clearly unsuitable to be politicians. Many are crazy, are ignorant, are politically corrupt, have no common sense, have no scruples of any kind, are greedy. Why can't people have better choices? Why don't they send such people in retirement and vote for better politicians? Why do such politicians remain eternally in the political arena? Why do people take them seriously?


        CroatianRoger 2 Apr 2015 16:14

        If Clinton or Bush win we are in for more war, only Rand Paul will pull the troops back.
        Apparently this election will cost about $5 billion, disgusting.


        Kikinaskald 2 Apr 2015 16:12

        but who may be guided by a preference for alliance-based negotiations of the kind that informed her husband's presidency

        This doesn't mean very much. Times were completely different. The Soviet Union had just fallen when Bill Clinton was the president and the leadership of the US was not disputed. Today opposition to intervention is much stronger and an agressive politics which didn't function before when conditions were more favourable will not function now.

        Bill Clinton could do whatever he wanted without much opposition. But he didn't seem to be very ideologically guided. He used military and diplomatic power because he had the power to do that, he was moved by custom, and for personal reasons (because of the scandals involving him).

        Obama doesn't seem to be a very determined person, to have very strong convictions. He noticed that his power was limited and decided to take the easiest way. That means that he made mistakes, that he simply followed what Bush had begun without much questioning. But he tried to correct the course in some moments, to repair some mistakes, he took some positive initiatives.

        Hilary Clinton on the other hand lacks some of the few qualities of past presidents while combining their bad qualities. She doesn't seem to be careful like Obama, she isn't so pragmatic as Bill Clinton, she's as ideological as some of the worse politicians in the US, she's as naive as Bush, she's as ignorant as McCain, she doesn't show any kind of moral and intellectual independence and autonomy: she sides with the worst tendencies of politics. The results cannot be good.

        Speculation and discussions about all those cases (Ukraine, Syria and so on) show how insane political talk has become. It's funny, because they are exactly the result of long term faillures, political mistakes and so on. Obama often spoke wrong, but did the right thing in the end. H. Clinton would do the wrong thing in the end. I think that politis is too serious to be in the hand of people like her.

        Expatdownunder1 2 Apr 2015 14:59

        On the 22nd April 2008 Hillary Clinton made the following astonishing comment:"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the President, we will attack Iran," she replied adding, "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them". From that time on, I began to see her as a liability and was confirmed by innumerable speeches made as Secretary of State: speeches which displayed arrogance towards and ignorance of other cultures, together with a contempt for the political process.


        Natasha2009 2 Apr 2015 14:41

        How exactly is foreign policy her strong suit? The world is in much worse shape and the U.S. held in much lower esteem since she was Secretary of State. There is not one area of the world better off now due to her efforts.


        Phil429 lightstroke 2 Apr 2015 13:55

        Obama's strategy of forcing the regional players to sort things out themselves

        This would be the same Obama who started the war on Libya and showered his Al-Qaeda buddies with weapons to terrorise the whole region, would it? The same Obama who tried to support Hosni Mubarak only until his defeat became undeniable, then worked to make sure his replacement would be as close to identical as possible? Whose State Department funded and enabled the Nazis who overthrew the government of Ukraine? Who's been devoted to indefinitely continuing the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq from his first day in office? Whose murder-by-drone campaign has caused vastly more devastation in Yemen and Pakistan than under Gov Bush? Who's turned Honduras into a living hell, tried to sanction the life out of Iran on fraudulent grounds with no authority and faithfully continued enabling every war crime Israel commits on its way to national suicide?
        Anyone who considers that 'leaving others to sort things out' has lost all touch with reality.


        Whitt brighterday 2 Apr 2015 12:48

        "If some nutter like Jeb Bush wins, a major war is just a matter of time." - brighterday
        *
        Actually, in the current crop of Republicans making noises about running, Jeb Bush is the moderate one. Moderate being in a completely relative sense here.


        TONY C 2 Apr 2015 12:08

        A vote for Hillary is a vote for her undying support of the Iraq war. I hope this woman becomes undone at the seams for whatever can be made to stick. She is the same old pedigree of war mongers that both democrats and republicans push to the forefront of amerikkkan politics.


        LowlyPeruser 2 Apr 2015 12:06

        Hillary Clinton supported just about every military aggression in the Middle East (invading Iraq, bombing Syria and Lybia) that was on offer, and when the crap hit the fan (as in Benghazi) she was stupid enough to try to cover it up. Some strong diplomatic skills and wisdom she has, indeed....


        sparafucile2 2 Apr 2015 11:24

        Rand Paul is the only candidate on the horizon who could conceivably end America's disastrous love-affair with the neo-cons and neo-liberals. The thought of Hillary Clinton returning to the White House would be a bit like Cherie Blair returning to No 10.


        DynamicDitherer 2 Apr 2015 11:24

        Americans are being fed the idea that it is time a woman was in charge, like the first black president it is a con.

        Anyone want to know what Hillary Clinton is about simply google "Hilary Clinton on Gadaffi" and it just about sums up US foreign policy REGARDLESS who is in the big chair.

        If people in the UK really want to end the murders and mayhem our? foreign policies wreak around the globe then the only way to stop it is to vote green and be brave enough to usher in a brand new dawn in British politics as this shit has to stop, its only a matter of when, vote for the main parties and we are sending more of our own sons and daughters to go fight the banksters wars which in turn will unleash hell on the civillian populations of whatever country it is.. last time it was Libya, almost Syria... lets not let it happen again and perhaps bring foreign policy to the front of elections... no more war.


        nonfiction 2 Apr 2015 11:02

        She is an old fraud. She's told the world she was the one who brought peace to Northern Ireland, though it was certainly not anything she did that helped there. She told the world how brave she was, when she landed in a supposed danger zone, when in fact she and her daughter had landed to a peaceful welcome by a children's band. She showed no understanding of Palestine or of Israel. Internationally, she hasn't a clue. She's nothing but a grabby property developer. t can't believe even Americans are so easily hood-winked that they'd vote for her.


        wimberlin 2 Apr 2015 10:42

        She is obviously a bellicose bag - there is no doubt about that. However the irony is that this bellicose bag may be better than any wing-nut the Republicans decide to come up with in the next year.

        American politics is all about money anyways - if she can get the really rich behind her, then she will get in.


        Continent 2 Apr 2015 10:39

        Foreign donations to foundation raise major ethical questions for Hillary Clinton ......

        ... Hillary, give the money back. Or don't run. You can't keep the money and run.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/02/18/foreign-donations-to-hillary-clintons-foundation-raise-major-ethical-questions/


        DNAin1953 2 Apr 2015 10:28

        In politics you do not need to be good, you just need to be better than the other choices and win a plurality of the electorate. Discussing someones merits or failings as a leader without contrasting that with the competition is a tiresome waste of time. Clinton is not impressive except in comparison with the lunatics from which her opponent will be choosen. It is this contrast that is the relevant one that should be discussed. Despote her many failings, she is the least bad choice among thoae on offer, by a country mile.


        Continent 2 Apr 2015 10:28

        Hillary Clinton: foreign policy is her strong suit

        25 Mar 2008 ........ Hillary Clinton has conceded that she "did misspeak" about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, blaming tiredness for a dramatic description that was shown to have been significantly exaggerated. .....

        ..... News footage of the event however showed her claims to have been wide of the mark, and reporters who accompanied her stated that there was no sniper fire. Her account was ridiculed by ABC News as "like a scene from Saving Private Ryan".

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582795/Hillary-Clintons-Bosnia-sniper-story-exposed.html


        Seanymoon 2 Apr 2015 09:56

        Madame is a war hawk's war hawk; and few major political figures belong more completely to Wall Street.

        No thanks.

        moncur 2 Apr 2015 09:48

        Family dynasties are a disturbing, newish trend in Western democracies, particularly in USA. The Bushes, the Clintons...
        There is no need to copy North Korea.

        [Apr 02, 2015] Clintons Unveil Official 2016 Hillary Campaign Button

        Apr 02, 2015 | Zero Hedge
        Home

        Clintons Unveil Official 2016 Hillary Campaign Button

        Source: Townhall

        tarpuranus

        Abort is more like it

        OldPhart

        "CTRL"

        Semi-Lady Fascist.

        philipat

        Ctrl.Alt.Del.................

        kaiserhoff

        Time for Hillbilly to "punch out."

        (fighter pilot's eject button, use with caution, spine contracts by one full inch, ouch...)

        TruxtonSpangler

        ALT-F4

        1000 splendid suns

        The Clinton timeline
        http://prorev.com/connex.htm

        Buckaroo Banzai

        "Arkancide" kills emails too -- it's not just for people anymore!

        kaiserhoff

        I already feel Lewinskied.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxD-5z_xHBU

        asiafinancenews

        I'm ready for oligarchy!!!

        / sarc

        Kirk2NCC1701

        You must mean "Cli(n)tocracy".

        Hillary: "I did NOT have sex with that woman!"

        ebworthen

        Ooof! Looks like the Clinton machine may have broken down.

        Guess Wall Street might want Jeb Bush in this time; perpetuate the delusion.

        logicalman

        It will never happen, but if everyone stayed home and played with themselves on election day, it would change America more than voting ever will.

        TheReplacement

        Who here thinks that the POTUS has any control over the CIA?

        Who here thinks that the CIA has any control over the POTUS?

        The man with po...

        The cold war never ended. Russia was pillaged and plundered in the 90s and of course the nukes are still pointing at Russia, the airbases surrounding the West of Russia remain, the missile shield...

        You get the picture.

        Seasmoke

        April's Fool Day is very very hard in 2015

        logicalman

        The world has become so fucking batshit crazy it's hard to spot an April fools joke, even when looking for 'em.

        venturen

        Who said "I am not a crook"!

        Bobportlandor

        sen. Hillary Clinton finally has admitted she was not named for the famous conqueror of Mount Everest, Sir Edmund Hillary.

        http://www.wnd.com/2006/10/38409/

        Why is this lying sack of shit anywhere near WDC?

        Hohum

        Because it's a prerequisite.

        nmewn

        What is it with this lady and buttons?

        She can easily push reset buttons, delete buttons, everyones button...lol...but she can't push simple phone buttons when her "good friend Chris" is under attack with RPG's, mortars & AK's?

        Why, its almost like, she preferred him to die.

        Miss Expectations

        Peregruzka

        Wed, 04/01/2015 - 20:02 | 5950758 Miss Expectations
        Found another button:

        http://www.homebuildinglessons.com/TDBlog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/dua...

        Gold Dog

        Monica Lewinsky's Ex-Boyfriend's Wife for President

        kaiserhoff

        nice.

        How about "Remember the Monica!"

        [Mar 31, 2015] Ukraine s Bloody Civil War No End in Sight

        It is very difficult to access the real situation in Donbass. there is a distinct Russian interference and the US interference in the conflict, so it is better to be viewed as a proxy war between the US and Russia. Somewhat similar to Syrian conflict. Where the Ukraine is just a victim of geopolitical games.
        Mar 31, 2015 | The National Interest

        After spending several days in and around Donetsk last week, I found it hard to escape the conclusion that the second Minsk ceasefire is rapidly unraveling. Nearly continuous artillery shelling and machine-gun fire could be heard for the better part of Thursday morning in the city's Oktyabrskaya neighborhood, not far from the airport, where fighting is said to have continued without surcease.

        The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit to it the day after showed that to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic artillery fire could be heard in the city's centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.

        The mood among many in Donetsk-noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known as the Army of Novorossiya-indicates little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable. Many bitterly complain of Kiev's chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters, the "Anti-Terrorist Operation." Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize them as a whole by grouping the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.

        Interactions with several rebel rank-and-files and a briefing from two rebel officers reveal even less of an appetite for a way back into the Ukrainian fold. As one senior officer put it: "Ukraine is dead. It was killed on May 2 in Odessa." Questions regarding Russian involvement were met with scoffs-though one did admit that "[their] Russian brothers" did provide food supplies to the area.

        This is not to say Russia's support to the rebels is limited to nonlethal aid, just that it was quite obvious that all involved would be loath to admit it. In any event, despite repeated accusations of Russian malfeasance by Washington and Brussels, even the Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, admitted in late January that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian army."

        Interestingly, the rebels seem to have a similar mindset to those U.S. Congressmen who overwhelmingly voted to supply Kiev with lethal military aid last week: that the remilitarization of the conflict is simply inevitable. One rebel commander said that he expects Kiev to launch a new major offensive "within a week" and added, matter-of-factly: "We are ready." And ready, he claims, for the long haul.

        The separatist forces, according to this commander, are prepared to fight for the next five to seven years for "Russky Mir" (which he defined as "Russian culture") to rid all Ukraine of what he called "Nazis" and "fascists." Pressed for details, the commander said he did not wish to impose a "Russian world" on Ukraine, but rather that each province ought to hold a referendum to decide its fate, apparently in a fashion similar to the referendum that was held in Crimea. The commander claimed to have (but did not provide) intelligence showing that over $3 billion of the $5 billion tranche of IMF assistance that recently went to Kiev is being used to shore up its military. In short, it quickly became blindingly clear that these people are in no mood to settle; and the idea that Kiev will emerge victorious anytime soon after the twin military defeats it suffered at Debaltseve and at the Donetsk airport-with or without American lethal aid-borders on the preposterous.

        Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's) preferred policy choice is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely, that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow increase the number of Russian fatalities to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin-thereby forcing him to back down.

        This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no agency on the part of the rebel fighters or, for that matter, the area's noncombatants. The simple, undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded-via sanctions or via a significant uptick in military casualties-to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the indigenous military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass-despite repeated protestations from Kiev's representatives in Washington-is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to global security.

        [Mar 31, 2015] Ukraine s Bloody Civil War No End in Sight

        It is very difficult to access the real situation in Donbass. there is a distinct Russian interference and the US interference in the conflict, so it is better to be viewed as a proxy war between the US and Russia. Somewhat similar to Syrian conflict. Where the Ukraine is just a victim of geopolitical games.
        Mar 31, 2015 | The National Interest

        After spending several days in and around Donetsk last week, I found it hard to escape the conclusion that the second Minsk ceasefire is rapidly unraveling. Nearly continuous artillery shelling and machine-gun fire could be heard for the better part of Thursday morning in the city's Oktyabrskaya neighborhood, not far from the airport, where fighting is said to have continued without surcease.

        The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit to it the day after showed that to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic artillery fire could be heard in the city's centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.

        The mood among many in Donetsk-noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known as the Army of Novorossiya-indicates little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable. Many bitterly complain of Kiev's chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters, the "Anti-Terrorist Operation." Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize them as a whole by grouping the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.

        Interactions with several rebel rank-and-files and a briefing from two rebel officers reveal even less of an appetite for a way back into the Ukrainian fold. As one senior officer put it: "Ukraine is dead. It was killed on May 2 in Odessa." Questions regarding Russian involvement were met with scoffs-though one did admit that "[their] Russian brothers" did provide food supplies to the area.

        This is not to say Russia's support to the rebels is limited to nonlethal aid, just that it was quite obvious that all involved would be loath to admit it. In any event, despite repeated accusations of Russian malfeasance by Washington and Brussels, even the Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, admitted in late January that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian army."

        Interestingly, the rebels seem to have a similar mindset to those U.S. Congressmen who overwhelmingly voted to supply Kiev with lethal military aid last week: that the remilitarization of the conflict is simply inevitable. One rebel commander said that he expects Kiev to launch a new major offensive "within a week" and added, matter-of-factly: "We are ready." And ready, he claims, for the long haul.

        The separatist forces, according to this commander, are prepared to fight for the next five to seven years for "Russky Mir" (which he defined as "Russian culture") to rid all Ukraine of what he called "Nazis" and "fascists." Pressed for details, the commander said he did not wish to impose a "Russian world" on Ukraine, but rather that each province ought to hold a referendum to decide its fate, apparently in a fashion similar to the referendum that was held in Crimea. The commander claimed to have (but did not provide) intelligence showing that over $3 billion of the $5 billion tranche of IMF assistance that recently went to Kiev is being used to shore up its military. In short, it quickly became blindingly clear that these people are in no mood to settle; and the idea that Kiev will emerge victorious anytime soon after the twin military defeats it suffered at Debaltseve and at the Donetsk airport-with or without American lethal aid-borders on the preposterous.

        Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's) preferred policy choice is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely, that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow increase the number of Russian fatalities to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin-thereby forcing him to back down.

        This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no agency on the part of the rebel fighters or, for that matter, the area's noncombatants. The simple, undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded-via sanctions or via a significant uptick in military casualties-to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the indigenous military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass-despite repeated protestations from Kiev's representatives in Washington-is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to global security.

        [Mar 31, 2015] ; The Real Axis of Evil by Justin Raimondo

        Support antiwar.com -- the source of skeptical coverage of the USA foreign policy and the US banking elite mischief.
        Mar 30, 2015 ; | ; Antiwar.com

        Bibi goes ballistic, denounces "Iran-Lausanne-Yemen axis"

        As the deadline for a deal with Iran approaches, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues his very public meltdown – and it gets more revealing every time he opens his mouth.

        At the latest Israeli cabinet meeting Netanyahu reported that his American vassals are all lined up to scotch any agreement:

        "I just came from speaking with the Republican leader in the Senate, Senator [Mitch] McConnell, and over the weekend I spoke with the Democratic leader in the Senate, Senator Harry Reid. I heard from both of them strong and robust bipartisan support for Israel, which is, of course, very important. I expressed to them my deep concern regarding the emerging agreement with Iran in the nuclear talks. This deal, as it appears to be emerging, bears out all of our fears, and even more than that."

        "In Yemen," he averred, "the proxies of Iran are taking over large parts of the country and they are attempting to seize control of the strategic Bab-el-Mandeb strait." Lumping all his enemies into a single sinister amalgam, Bibi went ballistic:

        "After the Beirut-Damascus-Baghdad axis, Iran is conducting a pincer movement to the south to conquer the entire Middle East. The Iran-Lausanne-Yemen axis is very dangerous to humanity, and must be stopped."

        The "Iran-Lausanne-Yemen axis"?

        This is the ultimate expression of the paranoia – the sheer outright craziness – represented not only by the Israeli Prime Minister but by the ultra-nationalists who have come to dominate Israel's political landscape. It is the logical extension of orthodox Zionist ideology, which claims that Jews can only find safety in Israel – because the whole world is plotting against them.

        After all, who is represented in Lausanne? The P5+1: the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany, the world's major powers. In Bibi's fantastic formulation, both the West and the East are aligned with Iran in an "axis of evil" – to utilize Bush speechwriter David Frum's phrase – against the Jewish state.

        ... ... ...

        NOTES IN THE MARGIN

        You can check out my Twitter feed by going here. But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

        I've written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon (ISI Books, 2008).

        You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here.

        [Mar 31, 2015] NYT Publishes Call to Bomb Iran Common Dreams Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

        "These inflammatory articles – these incitements to murder and violation of international law – are considered just normal discussion in the Land of Exceptionalism."
        Mar 30, 2015 | commondreams.org

        If two major newspapers in, say, Russia published major articles openly advocating the unprovoked bombing of a country, say, Israel, the U.S. government and news media would be aflame with denunciations about "aggression," "criminality," "madness," and "behavior not fitting the Twenty-first Century."

        But when the newspapers are American – the New York Times and the Washington Post – and the target country is Iran, no one in the U.S. government and media bats an eye. These inflammatory articles – these incitements to murder and violation of international law – are considered just normal discussion in the Land of Exceptionalism.

        On Thursday, the New York Times printed an op-ed that urged the bombing of Iran as an alternative to reaching a diplomatic agreement that would sharply curtail Iran's nuclear program and ensure that it was used only for peaceful purposes. The Post published a similar "we-must-bomb-Iran" op-ed two weeks ago.

        The Times' article by John Bolton, a neocon scholar from the American Enterprise Institute, was entitled "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran." It followed the Post's op-ed by Joshua Muravchik, formerly at AEI and now a fellow at the neocon-dominated School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins. [For more on that piece, see Consortiumnews.com's "Neocon Admits Plan to Bomb Iran."]

        Both articles called on the United States to mount a sustained bombing campaign against Iran to destroy its nuclear facilities and to promote "regime change" in Tehran. Ironically, these "scholars" rationalized their calls for unprovoked aggression against Iran under the theory that Iran is an aggressive state, although Iran has not invaded another country for centuries.

        [Mar 30, 2015] IRS Scandal Deja Vu Hillary Clintons Email Server Wiped Clean

        Notable quotes:
        "... This appears to have taken place after the first production request had come in, which means that Clinton may well be guilty of destruction of evidence. ..."
        "... it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department." ..."
        "... It is time for the Committee to stop this political charade and instead make these documents public and schedule Secretary Clinton's public testimony now. ..."
        www.zerohedge.com
        Mar 28, 2015 | Zero Hedge

        If, as one claims, one is innocent of i) using a personal email account to send out confidential information and/or to take advantage of one's political position to abuse opponents and ii) deleting said confidential emails against government regulations, what would one do when faced with a government subpoena demand? If one is the IRS' Lois Lerner, one would claim, against subsequently revealed facts, that a hardware error led to a permanent loss of all demanded emails, even though by email protocol definition, said emails are always stored on at least one off-site server. Or, if one is Hillary Clinton, one would just format the entire server.

        This, according to the Hill, is precisely what Hillary Clinton has done as the recent clintonemail.com scandal continues to grow bigger and impair ever more the already frail credibility and decision-making skills of the former first lady and democratic presidential hopeful. According to the head of the House Select Committee on Benghazi says former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has erased all information from the personal email server she used while serving as the nation's top diplomat.

        "We learned today, from her attorney, Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server," Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said in a statement Friday.

        What difference does it make if she deleted all her emails?

        Apparently a lot.

        The key question is when said server formatting took place. This appears to have taken place after the first production request had come in, which means that Clinton may well be guilty of destruction of evidence. He said while it's "not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department."

        What's worse, the evidence destroyed officially is US government property, since it was all created when Clinton was an employee of Uncle Sam.

        Last week, Gowdy sent a letter to Clinton's attorney asking that the email server be turned over to a third party in the hopes that an investigation could recover about 30,000 emails that her team deleted before turning the rest over to the State Department.

        Gowdy said "it is clear Congress will need to speak with the former Secretary about her email arrangement and the decision to permanently delete those emails."

        "Not only was the Secretary the sole arbiter of what was a public record, she also summarily decided to delete all emails from her server, ensuring no one could check behind her analysis in the public interest," Gowdy said.

        Those intent on defending the former Secretary of State, such as the panel's top Democrat, Elijah Cummings may have their work cut out for them but that doesn't stop them from trying: Cummings said the letter the select committee received from Clinton's attorney detailing what happened the server proves she has nothing to hide.

        "This confirms what we all knew - that Secretary Clinton already produced her official records to the State Department, that she did not keep her personal emails, and that the Select Committee has already obtained her emails relating to the attacks in Benghazi," he said in a statement.

        "It is time for the Committee to stop this political charade and instead make these documents public and schedule Secretary Clinton's public testimony now."

        Clinton has maintained that the messages were personal in nature, but Gowdy and other Republicans have raised questions over whether she might have deleted messages that could damage her expected White House run in the process.

        "I have absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the possession of the State Department," Clinton said during a press conference in New York earlier this month.

        Sadly, there is nothing but her word to go by at this moment: a word whose credibility has now been fatally compromised by her recent actions.

        She said she had culled through more than 60,000 emails from her time at State and determined that roughly 30,000 of them were public records that should have been maintained.

        Gowdy said given Clinton's "unprecedented email arrangement with herself and her decision nearly two years after she left office to permanently delete" information, his panel would work with House leadership as it "considers next steps."

        Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Gowdy and other members of the Benghazi panel in the past have hinted that the full House could issues a subpoena for Clinton's server.

        The Hill concludes by treating the population to the next upcoming kangaroo court: House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has suggested his panel could hold hearings over Clinton's use of private email, emphasizing his panel's jurisdiction over violations of the Federal Records Act.

        Will anything change as a result? Of course not, because the real decision-maker has already hedged its bets. Recall Blankfein has already indicated that despite his strong preference for a democrat president, one which would perpetuate the Fed's policies, "he would be fine with either a Bush or Clinton presidency." Which in a country controlled and dominated by lobby interests, and which happens to be the "best democracy that money can buy" is all that matters.

        Au Member

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LihB7ZoGf4c

        All you need to know about this toxic duo right there.

        [Mar 30, 2015] Espionage, Treason, and the Congressional Fifth Column by Justin Raimondo

        Support antiwar.com -- the source of skeptical coverage of the USA foreign policy and the US banking elite mischief.
        Mar 30, 2015 | Antiwar.com

        To be clear: the Israelis penetrated our communications, and used other means – including "informants" presumably inside the U.S. government – to uncover details about the emerging deal with Iran, and then passed this information on, perhaps indirectly, to their congressional fifth column, including presidential aspirants Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul, all of whom then signed on to Sen. Tom Cotton's "open letter" to Tehran.

        If this isn't treason, then the word has no meaning.

        [Mar 30, 2015] Nuland's Mastery of Ukraine Propaganda By Robert Parry

        In other words, many of the "free-market reforms" are aimed at making the hard lives of average Ukrainians even harder – by cutting pensions, removing work protections, forcing people to work into their old age and making them pay more for heat during the winter.
        March 11, 2015 | consortiumnews.com
        Exclusive: In House testimony, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland blamed Russia and ethnic-Russian rebels for last summer's shoot-down of MH-17 over Ukraine, but the U.S. government has not substantiated that charge. So, did Nuland mislead Congress or just play a propaganda game, asks Robert Parry.

        An early skill learned by Official Washington's neoconservatives, when they were cutting their teeth inside the U.S. government in the 1980s, was how to frame their arguments in the most propagandistic way, so anyone who dared to disagree with any aspect of the presentation seemed unpatriotic or crazy.

        During my years at The Associated Press and Newsweek, I dealt with a number of now prominent neocons who were just starting out and mastering these techniques at the knee of top CIA psychological warfare specialist Walter Raymond Jr., who had been transferred to President Ronald Reagan's National Security Council staff where Raymond oversaw inter-agency task forces that pushed Reagan's hard-line agenda in Central America and elsewhere. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Victory of 'Perception Management.'"]

        One of those quick learners was Robert Kagan, who was then a protégé of Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams. Kagan got his first big chance when he became director of the State Department's public diplomacy office for Latin America, a key outlet for Raymond's propaganda schemes.

        Though always personable in his dealings with me, Kagan grew frustrated when I wouldn't swallow the propaganda that I was being fed. At one point, Kagan warned me that I might have to be "controversialized," i.e. targeted for public attack by Reagan's right-wing media allies and anti-journalism attack groups, like Accuracy in Media, a process that did indeed occur.

        Years later, Kagan emerged as one of America's top neocons, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, which opened in 1998 to advocate for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, ultimately gaining the backing of a large swath of the U.S. national security establishment in support of that bloody endeavor.

        Despite the Iraq disaster, Kagan continued to rise in influence, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a columnist at the Washington Post, and someone whose published criticism so alarmed President Barack Obama last year that he invited Kagan to a White House lunch. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Obama's True Foreign Policy Weakness."]

        Kagan's Wife's Coup

        But Kagan is perhaps best known these days as the husband of neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, one of Vice President Dick Cheney's former advisers and a key architect of last year's coup in Ukraine, a "regime change" that toppled an elected president and touched off a civil war, which now has become a proxy fight involving nuclear-armed United States and Russia.

        In an interview last year with the New York Times, Nuland indicated that she shared her husband's criticism of President Obama for his hesitancy to use American power more assertively. Referring to Kagan's public attacks on Obama's more restrained "realist" foreign policy, Nuland said, "suffice to say … that nothing goes out of the house that I don't think is worthy of his talents. Let's put it that way."

        But Nuland also seems to have mastered her husband's skill with propaganda, presenting an extreme version of the situation in Ukraine, such that no one would dare quibble with the details. In prepared testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week, Nuland even slipped in an accusation blaming Russia for the July 17 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 though the U.S. government has not presented any proof.

        Nuland testified, "In eastern Ukraine, Russia and its separatist puppets unleashed unspeakable violence and pillage; MH-17 was shot down."

        Now, it's true that if one parses Nuland's testimony, she's not exactly saying the Russians or the ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine shot down the plane. There is a semi-colon between the "unspeakable violence and pillage" and the passive verb structure "MH-17 was shot down." But anyone seeing her testimony would have understood that the Russians and their "puppets" shot down the plane, killing all 298 people onboard.

        When I submitted a formal query to the State Department asking if Nuland's testimony meant that the U.S. government had developed new evidence that the rebels shot down the plane and that the Russians shared complicity, I received no answer.

        Perhaps significantly or perhaps not, Nuland presented similarly phrased testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday but made no reference to MH-17. So, I submitted a new inquiry asking whether the omission reflected second thoughts by Nuland about making the claim before the House. Again, I have not received a reply.

        However, both of Nuland's appearances place all the blame for the chaos in Ukraine on Russia, including the 6,000 or more deaths. Nuland offered not a single word of self-criticism about how she contributed to these violent events by encouraging last year's coup, nor did she express the slightest concern about the actions of the coup regime in Kiev, including its dispatch of neo-Nazi militias to carry out "anti-terrorist" and "death squad" operations against ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Nuclear War and Clashing Ukraine Narratives."]

        Russia's Fault

        Everything was Russia's fault – or as Nuland phrased it: "This manufactured conflict - controlled by the Kremlin; fueled by Russian tanks and heavy weapons; financed at Russian taxpayers' expense - has cost the lives of more than 6,000 Ukrainians, but also of hundreds of young Russians sent to fight and die there by the Kremlin, in a war their government denies."

        Nuland was doing her husband proud. As every good propagandist knows, you don't present events with any gray areas; your side is always perfect and the other side is the epitome of evil. And, today, Nuland faces almost no risk that some mainstream journalist will dare contradict this black-and-white storyline; they simply parrot it.

        Besides heaping all the blame on the Russians, Nuland cited – in her Senate testimony – some of the new "reforms" that the Kiev authorities have just implemented as they build a "free-market state." She said, "They made tough choices to reduce and cap pension benefits, increase work requirements and phase in a higher retirement age; … they passed laws cutting wasteful gas subsidies."

        In other words, many of the "free-market reforms" are aimed at making the hard lives of average Ukrainians even harder – by cutting pensions, removing work protections, forcing people to work into their old age and making them pay more for heat during the winter.

        Nuland also hailed some of the regime's stated commitments to fighting corruption. But Kiev seems to have simply installed a new cast of bureaucrats looking to enrich themselves. For instance, Ukraine's Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko is an expatriate American who – before becoming an instant Ukrainian citizen last December – ran a U.S. taxpayer-financed investment fund for Ukraine that was drained of money as she engaged in lucrative insider deals, which she has fought to keep secret. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Ukraine's Finance Minister's American 'Values.'"]

        Yet, none of these concerns were mentioned in Nuland's propagandistic testimony to the House and Senate – not that any of the committee members or the mainstream press corps seemed to care that they were being spun and even misled. The hearings were mostly opportunities for members of Congress to engage in chest-beating as they demanded that President Obama send U.S. arms to Ukraine for a hot war with Russia.

        Regarding the MH-17 disaster, one reason that I was inquisitive about Nuland's insinuation in her House testimony that the Russians and the ethnic Russian rebels were responsible was that some U.S. intelligence analysts have reached a contrary conclusion, according to a source briefed on their findings. According to that information, the analysts found no proof that the Russians had delivered a BUK anti-aircraft system to the rebels and concluded that the attack was apparently carried out by a rogue element of the Ukrainian military.

        After I published that account last summer, the Obama administration went silent about the MH-17 shoot-down, letting stand some initial speculation that had blamed the Russians and the rebels. In the nearly eight months since the tragedy, the U.S. government has failed to make public any intelligence information on the crash. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Danger of an MH-17 'Cold Case.'"]

        So, Nuland may have been a bit duplicitous when she phrased her testimony so that anyone hearing it would jump to the conclusion that the Russians and the rebels were to blame. It's true she didn't exactly say so but she surely knew what impression she was leaving.

        In that, Nuland appears to have taken a page from the playbook of her husband's old mentor, Elliott Abrams, who provided misleading testimony to Congress on the Iran-Contra Affair in the 1980s – and even though he was convicted of that offense, Abrams was pardoned by President George H.W. Bush and thus was able to return to government last decade to oversee the selling of the Iraq War.

        Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

        Friend (MakePeaceNotWar), March 11, 2015 at 7:25 pm

        I'm terribly sorry, but I would like to post this small joke from the other side of the ocean. The knowledge of geography and facts shown by representatives of the U.S. State's Department is so overwhelming that one can proudly claim:

        "1 nuland = 100 psakis"

        Thank you for your attention, please don't be insulted.

        PS Jane Psaki and Marie Harf are inventors of the Belarussian sea (Belarus is a landlocked country), Rostov mountains (Rostov region in Russia consists of flatlands only) and the dependence of Russian on European export and gas (it's the opposite in reality). For Europeans it's like saying Grand Hill of America instead of the Great Canyon and Lincolnton instead of Washington.

        PSS Mrs. Nuland claimed that Crimeans are mostly unhappy about joining Russia (well, according to the German GfK survey published in BloombergReview only 4% are unhappy – but it's of course a lie, evil Putin must have put pressur eon GfK to puvlish these data).

        dennis morrisseau, March 11, 2015 at 8:12 pm

        Cookie Nudelman is perhaps beginning to lose some of her chocolate chips?

        2LT Dennis Morrisseau USArmy [armor – Vietnam era] retired.

        xxx, March 11, 2015 at 9:15 pm
        The crash occurred over territory controlled by pro-Russian separatists, during a battle in Donbass, in an area controlled by the Donbass People's Militia. According to American and German intelligence sources, the plane was shot down by pro-Russian separatists using a Buk surface-to-air missile fired from the territory which they controlled. The Russians denied any and all access to the wreckage, contravening standards for investigating civilian aircraft disasters. Evidence from open sources indicated that separatists in Ukraine were in control of a Buk missile launcher on 17 July and transported it from Donetsk to Snizhne.

        Immediately after the crash, a post appeared on the VKontakte social media website attributed to Igor Girkin, leader of the Donbass separatists, claiming responsibility for shooting down an AN-26, but after it became clear that a civilian aircraft had been shot down, the separatists denied any involvement, and the post was taken down. Malaysia said intelligence reports on the downing of MH17 were "pretty conclusive", but more investigation was necessary to be certain that a surface-to-air missile brought down the plane.

        US sources attributed the downing to a missile fired from separatist-controlled territory, with their judgment based on sensors that traced the path of the missile, analysis of shrapnel patterns in the wreckage, voice print analysis of separatists' conversations in which they claimed credit for the strike, as well as photos and other data from social media sites.

        The underlying assumptions of this and other articles by Mr. Parry on this and other questions regarding Russia is that anything the West says is always a lie and anything Putin says is always the truth.

        What absurdity!

        Gregory Kruse, March 11, 2015 at 11:04 pm

        You should apply for a job at the State Department, but I have a few points to question.
        1. The territory held by the "separatists" is so small that it would be impossible to determine that anything occurred "over" that territory.
        2. According to German and US propaganda, the plane was shot down by ….etc.
        3. The Russians denied any and all access to the wreckage, but the US analyzed the shrapnel patterns and there was plenty of pictures and other data from social media.
        4. There were sensors all over the place but there has been no presentation of such data.
        5. Some separatists admitted to downing the plane, proven by "voice print analysis of their conversations".
        6. Parry thinks the West always lies, and Putin always tells the truth. This is called personalization. How about, " the West always lies, but the East always tells the truth". Or, Victoria Nuland always lies, and Putin always tells the truth". None of these ways of saying it are true, but the first one seems less absurd because it is clever propaganda, and that's the point.

        Nick Gibbon, March 12, 2015 at 3:13 am

        If from this article you don't question US sources on, oh, most things these days then pity you.

        Meanwhile here's some proper, rational analysis about MH17:-

        http://cassad-eng.livejournal.com/133434.html

        Joe B, March 12, 2015 at 8:36 am

        Your sources are not credible at all. None of those "analyses" have any value at all, and the suppression of information by the US proves the deception.

        1. "sensors that traced the path of the missile"
        In fact no such evidence was presented or claimed: the whole debate would be different if that existed. The US denied any such photos and presented none. Russia claimed photos showing Ukraine fighter planes near the plane.

        2. "analysis of shrapnel patterns in the wreckage"
        The evidence was concealed, reports were of shrapnel vs. bullets although photos showed bullet-like holes. If a missile it might have just as well have been air-launched. If ground-launched, both sides had SAMs in the area.

        3. voice print analysis of separatists' conversations … from social media sites.

        This evidence is absurdly vague and suspect. If such persons so claimed, it was apparently gossip; we are of course not given the contrary gossip.

        The fact that the USG suppressed the aerial photos, flight recorder data, ATC communications, etc., and accused Russia repeatedly of sending in armored divisions with no evidence whatsoever, proves the intent to deceive We the People by any and all means whatsoever. No USG "evidence" in this matter has any credibility, and those who accept it at face value merely state a lack of concern for truth and justice.

        Joe L, March 12, 2015 at 10:31 am

        Have you read Robert Parry's article "Germans Clear Russia in MH-17 Case" (October 20, 2014)? I believe this article is based on a Der Spiegel article where German Intelligence, the BND, claim that they believe that the "rebels" shot down MH-17 but they did it with a "captured" BUK missile system from a "Ukrainian Military Base"! Also in the article it points out that the German BND dismiss Russian evidence of an SU-25 shoot-down but also that photos provided by the Ukrainian Government of MH-17 "have been manipulated". Also, you are using "evidence" from "social media" as evidence? Well for me, if this truly was shot down by Russia or the "rebels" I am sure that the US would have satellite data since I believe there was a satellite overhead on that day and the US being the largest surveillance apparatus on the planet. With such surveillance power available to the west, why has the investigation of MH-17 devolved to mainly evidence from "social media"?

        By the way, here is the article to Mr. Parry's article.

        Consortium News: "Germans Clear Russia in MH-17 Case" (October 20, 2014):
        https://consortiumnews.com/2014/10/20/germans-clear-russia-in-mh-17-case/

        spktruth200, March 11, 2015 at 10:41 pm

        Russia told the EU that they had a sat image proving Kiev Right Wing Nazis in charge of the Kiev military actually shot down the plane in an effort to blame Russia. Immediately Merkel and Holland made a desperate trip to Moscow to keep them from responding…Notice, not one corporate media has ever brought that issue up again. EU and foreign governments also know who really did 911, and PUTIN threatened to go public on that issue too.

        madeleine, March 12, 2015 at 12:32 am

        thank you for showing how deceitful these neocons really are.

        seems like the US is the new USSR !

        Huley, March 12, 2015 at 1:36 pm

        No, that is totally wrong: The necon-US is getting more and more a HITLER-style regime, a NAZI-regime, mentally sick, preparing and organizing chaos, regime-change, war, ethnic clensing all over the world: "Exceptionalsm", "leader of the world", "to be the first", are nothing but synonyms for conquering the world. The US is getting the most hatetd state in the world.

        The neocons should be eliminated before they take their chance destroying the world.

        Andrew Nichols, March 12, 2015 at 12:43 am

        Nuland is of the Goebbelsian propaganda school where it doesnt matter whether or not what she says is true, it becomes the truth because its repeated enough. I do wonder if she thinks she can survive nuclear war. We live in dark times a pivotal moment where the Empire really is upping the ante. We may not survive it.

        Mary, March 12, 2015 at 1:18 am

        Nuland and her hubby - war pigs.

        Sydney Vilen, March 12, 2015 at 2:08 am

        Why did Hillary Clinton bring Nuland, former adviser to VP Dick Cheney, into the State Department? The answer to this seems very relevant to the next presidential election.
        Bob, March 12, 2015 at 12:48 pm
        I completely agree, the answer to this question may well be the answer to All of our perplexing questions…

        jimbo, March 12, 2015 at 11:49 am

        I have been with Parry and his view that the Russians are the better guys in this conflict but I am being swayed in another direction especially due to a report on Vice which shows how active duty Russian soldiers had been killed in the Ukraine.

        Huley, March 12, 2015 at 1:18 pm

        This rotten mad creature should be brought to justice like the complete bunch of neocon organized criminals and fascists.

        Tom Coombs, March 12, 2015 at 2:24 pm

        Hey Robert keep up the good work. I was checking my bookmarked "Project for New American Century" today (it's been a long time since i visited the site) the website is gone, is there anyway to get an archived copy? I was introducing your website and your books to a friend of mine who is the editor of the "Valley Voice" a bi-weekly paper in the Slocan Valley of British Columbia in Canada. I lent her the four books of yours and was trying to show her the American Century website. Could you e-mail me and let me know how i can get a copy of their manifesto, i consider it the mein kamf of our time…Tom Coombs

        Charron, March 12, 2015 at 2:35 pm

        I saw the testimony Ms. Nuland gave before the Senators of the Foreign Affairs Committee last week on CSpan. After hearing a number of questions and comments by the Senators of the Foreign Relations committee I was extremely depressed. I have never heard such drivel in all my 84 years.

        One Senator wanted assurance that we would install a nuclear missile system in the Ukraine, and I well remember what our reaction was when we learned that Soviet Russia was installing missile systems in Cuba. They were so cocksure and oblivious to reality I felt we were being governed by mad men.

        I mean I came away extremely scared. They were all so unconnected with reality, it was unbelievable, and the Democrat Senators on the committee were as bad as the Republican. They had no understanding of what was going on in the Ukraine! You would think that as Senators they would have some slight understanding but they were all posturing as defenders of freedom and protectors of America from the evil Putin. They were all playing out a role in the morality play that they had created, that had no connection with reality. I mean I am used to baloney from our members of Congress, but this was on another level. Unbelievable!

        [Mar 29, 2015] Netanyahu The Israeli Leader No President Can Stomach

        Mar 29, 2015 | The National Interest
        When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu last spoke to a joint session of Congress back in May 2011, the Israeli leader received a stunning 29 standing ovations, prompting ridicule back home (one prominent Israeli columnist called it a "mark of shame" for the United States).

        But while Netanyahu has long been a darling of Capitol Hill (he'll be only the second foreign leader after Winston Churchill to have addressed a joint session of Congress on three separate occasions), this popularity has never extended across Pennsylvania Ave.

        While all Israeli leaders have clashed with their American counterparts, Netanyahu's confrontations have been especially frequent and often gone beyond mere policy disputes. "It's more than just political differences" one former U.S. diplomat with extensive experience managing the U.S.-Israeli relationship told me.

        Indeed, in speaking with former senior U.S. and Israeli officials, reviewing the memoirs of key participants, and parsing newspaper and magazine accounts, a clear pattern emerges of Netanyahu's policy disagreements with his American counterparts being severely inflamed by Bibi's abrasiveness, whether it's his public remarks or willingness to openly exploit America's domestic politics.

        This dates back to the George H.W. Bush administration when Bibi was deputy foreign minister in the Yitzhak Shamir government. Having spent much of his childhood in the United States, Netanyahu often served as Israel's primary spokesperson to English-language media outlets during this time.

        He took to this role with unusual vigor, rightly seeing it as a chance to quickly ascend the Likud Party ladder. According to one contemporary profile, Netanyahu "did 50 radio and TV interviews in the first three days of the Gulf War." Bibi proved to be a tremendous asset as he excelled in front of the cameras just as cable news was taking off in the United States. A 1991 Associated Press article appropriately called him the "TV-Image Maker for Israel."

        While carving out a high public profile for himself, Bibi's role as spokesperson sometimes got him in trouble. His thirst for the spotlight, for instance, alienated his boss, Foreign Minister David Levy.

        It was Bibi's overzealous rhetoric that alienated many in the George H.W. Bush administration. This was the start of a trend that has continued to this day. In fact, one former senior U.S. official told me that it was like "some of pathology…. Just look at the language used by Netanyahu" in dealing with the Obama administration. Aaron David Miller, the vice president of the Wilson Center who has advised six secretaries of state on Arab-Israeli issues, similarly observes, "Rabin would have never used Holocaust imagery to describe the Iranian nuclear threat. He never would have."

        Bibi began conjuring up Holocaust imagery long before the Iranian nuclear threat emerged, however. Indeed, when the Bush administration called on the Shamir government to halt all Jewish settlements on Arab land, Netanyahu told an Israeli news outlet that, "the meaning of the American demand is to return Israel to the borders of Auschwitz."

        Netanyahu's bombast during this period would also land him in Secretary of State James Baker's doghouse. Specifically, in 1992 the State Department announced that the Palestine Liberation Organization had honored its pledge to renounce terrorism. Netanyahu, who actively opposed Washington's dealings with the PLO, responded by telling reporters, "It is astonishing that a superpower like the United States… is building its policy on a foundation of distortion and lies."

        Baker was so outraged by the accusation that he took the unusual step of banning Netanyahu from the State Department. "His language was unacceptable for a senior diplomat from a friendly country," Baker later wrote in his memoirs. "I promptly banned him from the State Department," (He eventually lifted the ban after speaking with Netanyahu, a U.S. diplomat who worked under Baker during this time told TNI, but said that Baker made it a point to never meet with Netanyahu again inside Foggy Bottom).

        Recommended:

        [Mar 28, 2015] Psaki was very careful to avoid answering questions about what role the US played in the Ukrainian coup, but sometimes her answers were extremely cynical

        Quote: "she apparently forgot how Obama had recently boasted to Congress that because of US sanctions, the Russian economy was in tatters."

        Mar 28, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

        Moscow Exile, March 28, 2015 at 4:07 am

        This is what Psaki says, as I posted 3 days ago after seeing an article about the Dozhd TV interview in Komsomolskaya Pravda:

        I thought Sobchak had fucked off, anyway, because her life is in danger – allegedly: I wish she would.

        Джен Псаки: Смещение Путина не является нашей целью, мы хотим изменить курс России

        Jen Psaki: The ousting of Putin is not our goal: we want to change the direction that Russia is taking

        Extracts and précis:
        -----------------------------------The official U.S. state Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki is soon to go on maternity leave and will quit her post, which has become famous even in distant Russia. But before doing that, on Wednesday night Jen gave an interview with Ksenia Sobchak in a live "Dozhd" transmission.

        Psaki: We cooperate with Russia on many issues, but we have serious disagreements about the Ukraine. About a year ago, Russian separatists invaded the Ukraine, and we had serious differences of opinion about this. We have drawn different conclusions as regards whether this action meets international standards.

        Psaki then said what would happen following the U.S. Congress request that Obama begin arms shipments to the Ukraine:

        Psaki: Congress gives authority for the president to act, but it is up to him to decide whether to take any action. Of course, our goal is to make Russia and Pro-Russian separatists in the Ukraine strictly comply with the Minsk agreement. We are not going to wage a proxy war with Russia, but we are considering different options depending on what is happening. We are only talking about defensive weaponry, but weighing all the facts, we are trying to understand what decision will bring a resolution to the conflict in the Ukraine. There are many other levers: the introduction of new sanctions, negotiations with our external partners. The USA has a lot of options…

        Russia and Pro-Russian separatists have encroached into Ukraine territory. There are Russian troops there, so there are good reasons for what Congress has recommended.

        Asked by Sobchak if she thought Putin was a dictator, Psaki answered:

        It is a pity that he seems to have ignored the economic decline of the country, which is having a direct impact on the Russian people, and is focusing on unlawful interference in Ukrainian affairs. Political leaders in America would be prosecuted if they chose such a path.

        Sobchak: Is the purpose of the US to oust Putin?

        Psaki: No, that is not our goal. Our goal is to stop the illegal invasion by Russia and pro-Russian separatists of Ukrainian territory. This is not about changing the leadership of the country. This should be the choice of the Russian people. But Russia is taking action specifically in Ukrainian matters, and Russia has the opportunity to change its course of action.

        Psaki was very careful to avoid answering questions about what role the US played in the Ukrainian coup, but sometimes her answers were extremely cynical as, for example, in the case of the expulsion of Yanukovych.

        Psaki: We tried to work with Yanukovych, but he left the country. There was chaos, and we are reminded of this today- and with deep regret.

        Sometimes Psaki clearly deviated from the general line of the US leadership. For example, she apparently forgot how Obama had recently boasted to Congress that because of US sanctions, the Russian economy was in tatters. She said:

        "We do not consider Russia as an opponent. We wish you success and prosperity."

        Psaki did a lot of talking about cooperating with Russia – over both achievable and desirable goals. However, the sincerity of her statements did not lend itself to be very much believed.
        -----------------------------------

        End of excerpts and précis.

        kat kan, March 28, 2015 at 4:40 am

        About a year ago, Russian separatists invaded the Ukraine, and we had serious differences of opinion about this. We have drawn different conclusions as regards whether this action meets international standards.

        Hmmm…. good question., What ARE international standards about people living where they live? When does living in your own house turn into an invasion?

        colliemum, March 28, 2015 at 5:29 am

        When someone else wants to have your house?

        [Mar 27, 2015] Obama's Drone Policy Crashes and Burns BY Leonard C. Goodman

        But until we end the partnership between government and corporate power, three things will remain constant: Our foreign policy will be expensive for U.S. taxpayers, profitable for the war contractors and disastrous for everyday people.
        In These Times
        The unraveling of Yemen should be a wake-up call for Obama loyalists. Obama was elected in large part because of his opposition to the disastrous Iraq War and his promise of a smarter Middle East policy, one less reliant on invasion and occupation. Nevertheless, in office, Obama has supported the occupation of Afghanistan and the NATO-led overthrow of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, which led to chaos.

        Still, as Obama explained in a September 2014 foreign policy speech, the centerpiece of his strategy in the Middle East has been a more long-distance approach: "taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines." In other words: air strikes, drones and military aid. He touted the success of this strategy in Yemen and Somalia.

        Indeed, Yemen has been the poster child for Obama's Middle East strategy. Using the U.S. military bases that surround Yemen, we have propped up the corrupt and repressive regimes of President Ali Abdullah Saleh and his successor, Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi (i.e., our "partners on the front lines"). In exchange, they let us incinerate alleged militants. And when we slaughter innocents (like 35 women and children in a 2009 bombing, or 12 members of a wedding party in a 2014 drone strike), our partners help cover up our crimes, even jailing the Yemeni journalist who exposed the U.S. role in the 2009 attack.

        Of course, the cover-up was effective only in the United States, where most of our news comes from corporate sources that almost never challenge official pronouncements about military or CIA missions. The Yemeni people know all too well our criminal acts. Last September, 13-yearold Mohammed Tuaiman al-Jahmi told the Guardian that "he lived in constant fear of the 'death machines' in the sky that had already killed his father and brother" in 2011, as they were out herding the family's camels. In February, Mohammed himself was killed by a U.S. drone.

        The Obama "success story" in Yemen had already come to an end in January, when Houthi rebels took control of the presidential compound in Sanaa, ousting Hadi, his prime minister and his entire cabinet. The motto of the new leaders is "Death to America, death to Israel, curse on the Jews, victory to Islam." On February 10, the State Department confirmed that it had closed the U.S. embassy in Yemen, the third in an Arab country since 2012.

        In truth, Obama's foreign policy is similar to George W. Bush's. The war contractors want to keep the rivers of taxpayer cash flowing into their coffers, while multinational energy firms want the U.S. to keep supporting brutal, undemocratic regimes that keep their boots on the necks of restive citizens who might object to foreign firms exploiting national resources. And as long as our laws permit corrupt ties between corporate interests and politicians, we will continue to see disastrous failure after failure of our foreign policy.

        In February, Obama led a three-day summit on countering violent extremism. The president's remarks at this summit, of course, made no mention of our odious drone policy. No citizens of Yemen or Pakistan were invited to speak about how living with the constant anxiety caused by armed drones buzzing in the sky drives residents to join anti-U.S. terror groups. Nor was there any talk of the blowback caused by the U.S. military bases which garrison the greater Middle East, or of the corrupt, repressive regimes that those U.S. bases support. Instead, leaders of some of those regimes attended the summit.

        Obama did offer empty rhetoric about how we are not at war with Islam. Such words are unlikely to impress Muslims outside the United States, who know that it's Muslims who populate Obama's kill list, who are indefinitely detained at Guantánamo without charges and whose systematic torture by the CIA was swept under the rug by Obama.

        Americans, who are ill-informed about our actions overseas, will hear Obama's empathetic rhetoric and quite rationally conclude that the reason we are losing in places like Yemen, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan is because Obama is too soft. Perhaps our next president will be someone who promises to get tougher on Muslim extremists.

        But until we end the partnership between government and corporate power, three things will remain constant: Our foreign policy will be expensive for U.S. taxpayers, profitable for the war contractors and disastrous for everyday people.

        [Mar 26, 2015] Ukraine pleads for quick restructuring of debts by Larry Elliott

        "I guess at some point last year they made the strategic decision that any credibility amongst those who are well informed could be sacrificed. Very few Westerners (especially in the Anglosohere) will make the effort to find alternative sources, and the rest can easily be gulled." ... "How embarassing for the Guardian; history will not be kind to the complicit, useful idiots who have prostituted their credibility on the altar of propaganda." This neocons who run the show has thrown Ukrainian people into abysmal poverty and horrors of civil war and now want to sell all the assets for pennies on the dollar. Note activity of Psakibots (psigone, jessam, nickpossum, Mike_UK, etc) in comments. Quote: "I notice the Graun finally reported on the Kolomoisky situation. Only a week after he sent his armed gangs to occupy corporate HQs in Kiev. Not bad, not bad at all. I guess it takes time to be sure what the party line is in such delicate situations. Safer to say nothing than the wrong thing."

        Mar 24, 2015 | The Guardian

        Finance minister Natalie Jaresko wants to see debt cut and interest on remainder reduced so Ukraine can move towards stability

        Jeremn -> MartinArvay 26 Mar 2015 09:04

        It is Shock Therapy II. Deregulation. Privatisation ("privatization of everything that can be privatized and we plan to start it this year," she said on 13 March). Selling off assets. Firing staff.

        See the number of staff being sacked from state institutions. 50% from the economic ministry alone. The minister helpfully remarked

        "One can't do anything with old staff."

        OldStickie -> Goodthanx 26 Mar 2015 06:53

        East European oligarchs usually buy themselves Israeli citizenship. There is no extradition from Israel so that is where you go when justice begins to catch up with you.

        sodtheproles Goodthanx 26 Mar 2015 05:47

        Common sense dictates federalisation for the whole of Ukraine. The existing situation benefits only the US, and their arms manufacturers, no one else

        61gvern 25 Mar 2015 21:12

        I notice the Graun finally reported on the Kolomoisky situation.

        Only a week after he sent his armed gangs to occupy corporate HQs in Kiev. Not bad, not bad at all. I guess it takes time to be sure what the party line is in such delicate situations. Safer to say nothing than the wrong thing.

        nnedjo 25 Mar 2015 17:37

        As far as I understand, with Ukraine is happening now something similar with the patient over which performs open-heart surgery. So, while the surgeons do not complete the operation, they must attach a patient to the artificial heart and artificial lungs, otherwise he would have died.

        Similarly, the Ukraine until recently was inextricably linked with Russia's economic and industrial complex. Severing those ties were equally to the separation of man from his heart during surgery. And, IMF now plays the role of an artificial heart, which should maintain the patient's bloodstream until they implanted a new heart to him. How long the operation will last, and whether it will ever be successful, it is obvious that neither the IMF knows himself. Because, as Natali Jaresko said, Ukraine is a very big country, and throughout the EU is currently a major crisis.

        Also, it is not known how the patient (Ukraine) will pay "the cost of the operation" to the IMF, if one day he really healed, and will he ever be able to do so.

        sodtheproles -> Gonzogal 25 Mar 2015 17:12

        I meant for ability to use government to line her own pockets, certainly not for her investment 'skills'

        Jeff1000 25 Mar 2015 17:02

        Prof. Steven Cohen, of Princeton and NYU, calls the Ukraine situation "the worst international crisis since the Cuban Missile Crisis":

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWzHhW_qNiM

        He's probably just a Putin-bot.


        Gonzogal -> sodtheproles 25 Mar 2015 16:22

        That $150 million WNISEF fund handed by Jaresko has lost more than a third of its value since the Ukrainian economy tanked. As she steps into office, Kiev's foreign reserves are down to $10 billion and shrinking, while inflation roars at 22 percent.

        albatros18 -> todaywefight 25 Mar 2015 16:06

        http://tass.ru/en/world/784470

        my sources mostly Russian and Ukrainian news agencies or blogs. There has been occupations and clashes between the regime forces and battalions in Kiev, Dniepr and also in Odessa.

        However my best independent source is Colonel Cassad.

        Gonzogal 25 Mar 2015 15:43

        Some background on Natalie Jaresko:

        Ukraine's new Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko, a former U.S. State Department officer who was granted Ukrainian citizenship only this week, headed a U.S. government-funded investment project for Ukraine that involved substantial insider dealings, including $1 million-plus fees to a management company that she also controlled.

        Jaresko served as president and chief executive officer of Western NIS Enterprise Fund (WNISEF), which was created by the U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S. AID) with $150 million to spur business activity in Ukraine. She also was cofounder and managing partner of Horizon Capital which managed WNISEF's investments at a rate of 2 to 2.5 percent of committed capital, fees exceeding $1 million in recent years, according to WNISEF's 2012 annual report.

        The growth of that insider dealing at the U.S.-taxpayer-funded WNISEF is further underscored by the number of paragraphs committed to listing the "related party transactions," i.e., potential conflicts of interest, between an early annual report from 2003 and the one a decade later.

        In the 2003 report, the "related party transactions" were summed up in two paragraphs, with the major item a $189,700 payment to a struggling computer management company where WNISEF had an investment.

        In the 2012 report, the section on "related party transactions" covered some two pages and included not only the management fees to Jaresko's Horizon Capital ($1,037,603 in 2011 and $1,023,689 in 2012) but also WNISEF's co-investments in projects with the Emerging Europe Growth Fund [EEGF], where Jaresko was founding partner and chief executive officer. Jaresko's Horizon Capital also managed EEGF.

        From 2007 to 2011, WNISEF co-invested $4.25 million with EEGF in Kerameya LLC, a Ukrainian brick manufacturer, and WNISEF sold EEGF 15.63 percent of Moldova's Fincombank for $5 million, the report said. It also listed extensive exchanges of personnel and equipment between WNISEF and Horizon Capital.

        Though it's difficult for an outsider to ascertain the relative merits of these insider deals, they could reflect negatively on Jaresko's role as Ukraine's new finance minister given the country's reputation for corruption and cronyism, a principal argument for the U.S.-backed "regime change" that ousted elected President Viktor Yanukovych last February.

        Read more: https://consortiumnews.com/2014/12/05/ukraines-made-in-usa-finance-minister/

        DerFremde -> Jeff1000 25 Mar 2015 15:02

        That's nothing their president Poroshenko has been on the American payroll since at least 2006.

        Wikileaks Cable 06KIEV1706_a

        frankverismo -> psygone 25 Mar 2015 14:30

        "Russian President Putin's game plan now in Ukraine is to turn it into a failed state as an example to the others in his EurAsian (customs) Union."

        As if Putin and Lavrov need to do anything - it's already a failed state. All thanks to Washington, its NATO stooges and a woefully naive Ukrainian population.

        Jeff1000 -> psygone 25 Mar 2015 13:07

        Ukraine is a disaster - anybody can see that. Your decidedly odd efforts to convince...somebody...that Ukraine is about to turn around and become a healthy economy is, frankly, mad.

        If there isn't another coup, or at least huge unrest in Kiev, by the end of the year it will be a near miracle.

        HollyOldDog -> SHappens 25 Mar 2015 10:38

        The foundations of the bridge between Russia and Crimea are due to go in this spring though the bridge completion could take 2years. Has anyone heard of how the pipelines from Russia to Crimea are progressing - one for gas and the other for water. I think it's best for Crimea to be totally physically seperated from Ukraine for the safety of the Crimean citizens.

        Griffon79 -> nnedjo 25 Mar 2015 10:09

        pretty sure the shadow government in the US has decided to destroy the US - the social compact has been broken - no longer do they act in national interests, but private, commercial ones.

        I give them about a half century before collapse followed by civil war.

        Griffon79 -> UncleSam404 25 Mar 2015 10:05

        Incorrect, but either your juvenile patriotism, or ignorance, or possibly payola prevents you from seeing the absurdness of your position.

        Luckily, the rest of the world as they say is not so dim.

        Griffon79 -> Jonathan Stromberg 25 Mar 2015 10:01

        No, there isnt. This little coup has made that clear to the intellectuals in the West - you know, the ones not in government in journalism, the ones who make the society tick, that our media is at least as, if not more corrupt than any media, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, with the possible exception of North Korea.

        So, I guess the elite thought we would either swallow this, after Syria, Iraq, Libya and countless other misadventures, or that they could retain some credibility after this propaganda assault.

        Wrong on both counts.

        Griffon79 -> Jonathan Stromberg 25 Mar 2015 09:58

        Alleged? ALLEGED? Please.

        Here, from the fine Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/05/ukraine-women-fighting-frontline

        Check out the insignia on the vehicle behind 'anaconda'. Really great people our 'leaders' have elected to ally with eh?

        Just to defend against your next deflection, it is in fact the neonazo simple 1488, as the Guardian, under pressure BTL, was forced to admit.

        I bet some poor staffer got in trouble for that.

        Griffon79 -> Mike_UK 25 Mar 2015 09:55

        Ukraine was not attacking anyone until they had a coup, didnt like resistance in the East, and so sent a bunch of neonazi hooligans and their poorly equipped army to attack civilian populations.

        Facts. Unsubjective ones. You feel me, Guardian?

        Griffon79 -> psygone Mar 2015 09:52

        Yes, and America will be nowhere to be seen. America likes to talk big but when it comes down to the wire, they will sacrifice their 'allies' in a heartbeat.

        Griffon79 -> Mike_UK 25 Mar 2015 09:42

        They weren't Ukrainian nuclear weapons ; they were Russian. The Russians were taking back what they owned. Also, given recent history, its probably a good thing the nutcases in the Ukrainian coup government do not have nukes, n'est pas?

        What do you think happens to the US economy when oil is no longer being traded almost exclusively in US dollars?

        Just curious what the Langley view is.

        Griffon79 -> rogermell1e 25 Mar 2015 09:38

        This point, from the HEAVENS:

        "This is really a victory for Russia, because at one time a substantial part of the intelligentsia had some trust in the western MSM. This has now almost completely evaporated."

        Griffon79 -> Systematic 25 Mar 2015 09:35

        They don't conform to their dishonest narrative, so they wont report on it.
        Right now meetings are being held to determine the best possible way to spin the news for the few dullards who remain supportive in Western nations of the Ukrainian coup government.

        Griffon79 -> TOR2000 25 Mar 2015 09:34

        ah yes but don't expect the vaunted Guardian to report that; they think we are rubes who will swallow their outrageous lies hook line and sinker

        newsflash, kids in short pants, you are the ones killing your creditibility, not us

        johnbonn -> Goodthanx 25 Mar 2015 09:31

        You are on fire today, 'how are you'. Keep it going.

        Griffon79 -> GreatMountainEagle 25 Mar 2015 09:31

        Erm. Ukraine can. Ukraine is like a child that does not understand why her parents wont give her more money after she spends her allowance on candy.

        Only instead of candy, she is spending her money on weapons with which to attack her own (former) citizens.

        Griffon79 -> Demi Boone 25 Mar 2015 09:26

        Its getting bad then since this has been true from the start.

        How embarassing for the Guardian; history will not be kind to the complicit, useful idiots who have prostituted their credibility on the altar of propaganda.

        johnbonn -> retsdon 25 Mar 2015 09:25

        How else was the US going to conduct a regime change. And speaking of thugs and carpet baggers Joe Biden fits in nicely.

        And why would you put the words western and credibility together - - a contradiction in terms.

        Griffon79 -> jezzam 25 Mar 2015 09:19

        "Ukraine will not be allowed to founder by the West whatever "

        HAHAHAHAHAHA

        Are you really that naive? Explains a lot, if you are Ukrainian. Idealists, not realists.

        Griffon79 -> Vladimire_Poutine 25 Mar 2015 09:16

        Well, as a Canadian, I certainly don't support your blatant lies and distortions.

        The misinformation campaign headquartered in Langley has failed, miserably. People are only too aware of how our corrupt governments have connived in order to support a coup. People are only too aware that the coup government is a mashup of neonazi nationalists, corrupt oligarchs and poorly trained and equipped (and led - look at Debaltseve) conscripts who are deserting in droves.

        We are aware the vast majority of the roughly 1 MILLION refugees fled East, to Russia. Not West, to the people trying to kill them. We are aware the vast majority of the killed civilians were killed by the Ukrainian coup government using artillery and that those same forces are being trained and equipped by our subservient governments.

        We are aware Ukraine is a financial black hole that our governments will throw taxpayer dollars into, despite a crumbling domestic economy.

        Oh - on the neonazis, dont even try to deny it. The Guardiane even posted an article about 'women of the revolution' unintentionally exposing their neonazi leanings when they were photogrpahed next to a van showing the brigade insignia of the SS (yes, that SS, WAFFEN SS)

        Long and short, the battle for 'hearts and minds' is long lost. If the US agitates for WWIII to save their bankrupt state, I think the leaders best check their heads are still attached to their shoulders. People are the power, not the banksters and their puppets.

        This conflict has done more to awaken Western citizens to the utter abrogation of our soverignity to US aggression than any of their previous illegal adventures. We dont like what we see.

        sodtheproles -> MaiKey Dee 25 Mar 2015 08:34

        That's why they called shelling their own citizens an anti-terrorist operation. The Americans have a lot to answer for, not least their abuse of the English language. Anyone remember 'collateral damage'?

        MaiKey Dee 25 Mar 2015 08:26

        I thought the IMF was not permitted to lend to countries in a state of civil war

        todaywefight 25 Mar 2015 08:08

        Poroshenko: Ukrainian army among five strongest in Europe

        Yet they have to "orderly" retreat in the middle of the night from Debaltsevo leaving dead and injured behind as well as equipment. Furthermore they keep on begging for more money to arm these army while the population cannot afford to feed itself...

        retsdon 25 Mar 2015 07:56

        As this well-researched article at the Saker makes evident, the Ukrainian leadership is a rat's nest of criminals, thugs, and carpet-baggers. It debases western credibility entirely that we even deal with such people at all, leave alone support and court them. And it dirties the rest of us by association.

        http://thesaker.is/kolomoisky-finishing-ukraine-up/

        ivan2034 -> Drifterrus 25 Mar 2015 07:47

        Victoria Nuland's background is even more telling. Quite frightening in fact.

        todaywefight -> Standupwoman 25 Mar 2015 07:28

        I have taken the liberty to copy your post to a series of documents that I keep since the beginning of this sad episodes...as your comment is one of the very few posts that is solid and deeply relevant, as such it affects ones feelings just as deeply, thank you.

        sodtheproles -> HollyOldDog 25 Mar 2015 07:03

        Robert Parry
        https://consortiumnews.com/2014/12/05/ukraines-made-in-usa-finance-minister/

        SHappens 25 Mar 2015 06:49

        Moody's has downgraded Ukraine's "long-term issuer and government debt ratings to Ca from Caa3" with a "negative" outlook. The ratings agency said in a press release that its move "reflects Moody's expectation that Ukraine's government and external debt levels will remain very high, in spite of the debt restructuring and plans to introduce reforms."
        https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Ukraines-sovereign-ratings-to-Ca-outlook-remains-negative--PR_320764

        Meanwhile:

        Crimea has been experiencing an upsurge in development following its reunification with Russia thanks to the country's investment in the republic. "Crimea has not developed at such a pace as it has in the past year over the past twenty years.

        Unfortunately, the 23-year-long tenure in Ukraine has been the time of regression for Crimea. The Ukrainian government did not invest a single penny into Crimea, at the same time it sucked out all possible resources from here," Polonsky told Sputnik, stressing that Russia "is taking an entirely different route" which is making a "drastic" difference on the peninsula. But even if Crimea residents were told not to expect any investment from the Russian government a year ago, they would have "still made the choice of becoming part of Russia," the minister stressed. The social standards, salaries and the level of medical services in Crimea grew sharply in the past year.

        Standupwoman 25 Mar 2015 06:49

        "Everybody in the free world should be doing more to help Ukraine. This is a country that has given its life for democracy and is protecting Europe from an aggressive neighbour".

        Listen, Ms 'Insider Trading' Jaresco, and I'll tell you what you and your country have actually done to Britain.

        You've damaged our economy by unjust sanctions, and used our taxpayers' money to fund your murderous war on your own people. British citizens are reduced to living off food banks, but you're demanding we divert our spending into NATO defence – to fight an enemy that would never have been a threat if you hadn't interfered in the first place.

        You've released a poison into Europe that will take generations to cure. You've split us in two, revived old racial hatreds, and brought back the spectre of Nazism to the countries that suffered from it most. You've forced us into provocations that have brought us to the very brink of war – and one that threatens to destroy us all.

        You've insulted our war dead by your revision of history. You've hailed Hitler as a liberator, deified those who committed mass murder under the Nazi flag, and defiled monuments to those who resisted him. You've made our war sacrifices worthless, and forced us to stand by while Nazi sympathizers glorify their heroes at the site of our own Cenotaph. You've forced us to insult our war allies by snubbing the May 9th acknowledgement of the millions of Russian dead whose sacrifice enabled our own country to survive. You've dishonoured us all.

        You've taken away our self-respect, and put us for ever on the wrong side of history. You've forced us to condone the destruction of democracy, and made us complicit in war crimes. You've put us in breach of the Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions, the Vienna Conventions for the protection of Embassies, and even made us abandon the presumption of innocence. God knows we didn't have much moral credibility after our colonial past, but you've taken from us every last little shred of decency we had left.

        And now you want us to pay for the privilege?

        No, Ms Jaresco. You can take your begging bowl back to Washington and tell them, 'You broke it – you own it.' Get them to stop the war, bring justice to the innocent, and give freedom to the people of the East. Get them to help those ordinary decent Ukrainians who only wanted the chance of a better life, and were misled by you to their ruin. Get them to rebuild Donbass, give back homes to the 1.5 million displaced people, help and compensate the bereaved families of those 60,000 dead. And when they've done all that, then it'll be time to start thinking about what reparations you can make to us…

        sodtheproles -> Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:49

        Let's hope she's booked her ticket
        http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/Saigon-hubert-van-es.jpg

        Goodthanx -> oleteo 25 Mar 2015 06:43

        Its fantastic isnt it? You couldnt script better characters than a self styled President in rent a Prop Poroshenko, Pre Menstraul Yatsintook, 'Its a miracle i can walk' Tymoshenko.. The list goes on..

        TrueBrit1066 -> Jeff1000 25 Mar 2015 06:42

        Thanks for this. Why does this not surprise me? :)

        oleteo -> Jeff1000 25 Mar 2015 06:37

        I'd wish a success to Ukies but ultranationalism can't be a success

        HollyOldDog -> justTR 25 Mar 2015 06:37

        Except for those countries who refuse to keep filling the pot.

        Sargv_ -> jezzam 25 Mar 2015 06:35

        > The only countries in recent history that have resorted to mass killings of their own people are Russia, China and Cambodia

        USSR was not Russia, not even by a long shot. For starters, Russians were a minority on all levels of early-days soviet state machine, and were, by far, the most oppressed nation during communist rule. Consider the gains and losses for all the nations occupied by bosheviks prior to communist revolution, and after the Soviet collapse.

        It's Russians, Chechens Russian Germans who lost the most, while Georgia - a homeland of Stalin, and Ukraine - a homeland of Kruschev and Brezhnev, gained enormous territories and industries. They lost most of this in just 25 years, but that's anothe story.

        todaywefight -> Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:32

        Sorry I don't see any mention of demonstrations and the army getting ready mate..just give me a link please

        Albatros18 -> todaywefight 25 Mar 2015 06:32

        she is the only candidate who does not scream for war. People, especially his allies, are fed up with Yatsenyuk's foul, nonsense, warmongering language. Let's see who will be the winner of this fight for power.

        todaywefight -> Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:28

        Thank you very much

        oleteo 25 Mar 2015 06:27

        Good girl, good start.

        At the beginning there was the begging for money, now and then there would be an incessant begging to write off.

        Albatros18 -> todaywefight 25 Mar 2015 06:27

        Porkoshenko's website.

        Verbum -> jezzam 25 Mar 2015 06:25

        The US spent 5 billion between 1991 and 2014 on the development of standard democratic institutions in Ukraine

        Is Kolomoisky and his private army one of the 'standard democratic institutions' funded by the US in Ukraine?

        Verbum -> Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:23

        Kolomoisky, Poroshenko, Yats... Is it the 'democracy' the Yanks spent 5 billion dollars on? The dollar doesn't seem to buy much nowadays. And Nuland's cookies to top it all up... All wasted.

        Sargv_ 25 Mar 2015 06:21

        With all that constant 'donate for the good cause' narrative here and there, Ukraine should finally drop the idea of being a sovereign state (as they are clearly suck at this) and register as a World-first 45mln-strong charity organisation instead.

        Goodthanx -> Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:19

        I say let them! The fighters of DPR are looking forward to the resupply!


        Jeff1000 25 Mar 2015 06:18

        Finance minister Natalie Jaresko...

        Interesting notes on the career/life of Ms Jaresko:

        - Born in America, still a US citizen.
        - Not a Ukrainian citizen until 2014, Poroshenko pushed a special law through parliament in order to make her FM.

        - Her dual citizenships are illegal under Ukrainian law (they seem to be OK with it).

        - Held jobs at: The US State Dept, the US Treasury and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

        Just another sign that the USA has absolutely NOTHING to do with the mess in Kiev, and it certainly isn't about grabbing money, influence and/or natural resources.

        Goodthanx -> todaywefight 25 Mar 2015 06:17

        I have never lived there, but a close examination and reading of history plus an attitude that remembers we are talking about human life.. Is enough to convince me to the virtues of this cause.

        ID075732 -> Parangaricurimicuaro 25 Mar 2015 06:16

        But it's no secret where she came from!

        todaywefight -> Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:16

        Apparently he resigned... and Poroshenko accepted his resignation and installed one of his followers to the position.

        Do you have any links to the rest of your post? if that lady becomes the PM Ukraine is gone for all money.

        Sargv_ -> nickpossum 25 Mar 2015 06:15

        > Two simple truths. The West does not want a war with Russia. If Russia attacks the West, it will be destroyed.

        If Russia attacks the West, it'll attack the part it can reach, which is, obviously, the EU.

        So the outcome will be slightly more complicated: Russia attacks The West, EU and Russia are both destroyed, while The Rest of The West grab all the gains (nobody will ever mention that $17tln debt; there'd be no high-end market competition wit US goods - and so on, and so forth).

        There's only one winner in this conflict, no matter how hot it will get: the USoA. Europeans are predefined to the role of economical donor for pro-US Ukraine at best, WW3 cannon fodder at worst.

        todaywefight -> Goodthanx 25 Mar 2015 06:12

        What is sad is that, having lived in the country for many years I feel so sorry for the people, the normal people, not the Gucci, Ferragamo and Zegna brigade the guys wearing $4000 suits wth a black tee shirt, the ones that their idea of being part of parliament is to sit the whole day in Passage, or go to Da vinci fo lunch or go to Mafia for dinner and look important when their chauffeurs open the door of the black mercs a disgusting low life.

        It will never be the same, forces were unleashed last year by Nuland that helped create a generational hatred and the loss of life not to mention the lose of 1/5 of the country and if Poroshenko or anyone else think that the eggs can be unscrambled I can advise them that they do not need the IMF but a bunch of Clinical Psychiatrists

        HollyOldDog vr13vr 25 Mar 2015 06:09

        But it won't last. The Anericans always screwup.

        Sargv_ -> geedeesee 25 Mar 2015 06:06

        > "Jaresko said that, in five years, she wanted to see a Ukraine at peace"

        "In five years I want to be a five years sober." We definitely need an international AA for country-wide hangovers caused by 'we are the people' riots.

        HollyOldDog -> someoneionceknew 25 Mar 2015 06:05

        But the USA fallout is to destroy whatever is left of the Ukraine economy leaving it citizens with far higher food and fuel costs.

        While Russia is finding new friends and markets the World over. Strange how many countries are now learning that if you don't protect your back then expect an USA knife trying to rip your guts out .

        DerFremde -> HollyOldDog 25 Mar 2015 06:05

        wag the dog, Holly, wag the dog

        first law of democratisation, you will open your markets to us in full. nationalised assets will be privatised and you will take out IMF loans to do the 'restructuring' not the so-called investors. this debt will be paid for by the population in due course.

        Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:03

        Kolomoisky sacked by Poroshenko, the former's private army is on alert to attack government buildings, hundreds protest in Kiev asking Yatsenyuk's head, the reports suggest that the finance minister, the Chicago born lady to become PM, the junta still shells Donetsk towns, and what the Americans want: send more weapons. Only continuing conflict would save the Americans' crooks in Kiev in short term.

        todaywefight -> Goodthanx 25 Mar 2015 05:57

        Yes actually I saw one of the interviews, she wants the Russians not to call the debt, she also wants peace and then she turns the switch on and talks like Nuland and proceeds to shit all over Russia, It think the girl will be done like a dinner in no time...

        todaywefight -> jezzam 25 Mar 2015 05:47

        Probably the most important part about your posts is that they are totally disconnected from reality, and, as such we do not really have to even give you the courtesy of an answer.

        todaywefight -> jezzam 25 Mar 2015 05:42

        ...the 2,000,000 to 3,600,000 killed in Vietnam and the millions left without limbs and the destruction of their cities. How about the hundreds of thousands dead in latin america due to the intervention of the US...the exceptional country...the thing is that all these deaths were based on lies invented by your country

        AlexRS -> psygone 25 Mar 2015 05:41

        Don't lie. Russia defaulted only on its internal debt in 1998. Russia cleared Soviet debt by 2006 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2945924/Reborn-Russia-clears-Soviet-debt.html

        todaywefight -> jezzam 25 Mar 2015 05:37

        What exactly do you call the targeted wooden buildings and the firebombing of these buildings by 300 b29s killing an US official "100000" and two days later the bombing of Hyrishima and Nagasaky, the 1,000,000 killed in Ira


        Goodthanx -> Vladimire_Poutine 25 Mar 2015 02:36

        As a Jew myself, i can tell you that Kolomovsky and the likes of him, does not represent me or the greater Ukrainian Jewish community. Referencing a 'dial-a-jew', does not provide validity to your argument, just provides further fuel to the propoganda fire.

        Lastly i believe the question was, 'who do you work for?'

        MSM is full of articles and comments that demonise Putin and Russia. The problem is, there is no where near enough attention and scrutiny brought towards the country that staged a violent coup helped by neo nazis who now control critical ministerial positions in the Rada, declared an ATO on their own civilian population in the east, murdered opposition and intimidate the rest, burn thru international funds and pocket the rest, war crimes..etc

        These are the issues.

        PlatonKuzin 25 Mar 2015 02:04

        Kolomoisky id no longer a governor but the questions remain and the conflict between the oligarchs in Ukraine gains strong momentum. What next?

        todaywefight 25 Mar 2015 01:58

        In 1887, the struggle for control of Hawaii was at its height as David Kalakaua was elected to the Hawaiian throne. King Kalakaua signed a reciprocity treaty with the United States making it possible for sugar to be sold to the U.S. market tax-free, but the haole - or "white" - businessmen were still distrustful of him. They criticized his ties to men they believed to be corrupt, his revival of Hawaiian traditions such as the historic Hula, and construction of the royal Iolani Palace. A scandal involving Kalakaua erupted in the very year he was crowned, and it united his opponents, a party of businessmen under the leadership of Lorrin Thurston. The opposition used the threat of violence to force the Kalakua to accept a new constitution that stripped the monarchy of executive powers and replaced the cabinet with members of the businessmen's party. The new constitution, which effectively disenfranchised most native Hawaiian voters, came to be known as the "Bayonet Constitution" because Kalakaua signed it under duress.

        Replace Nuland for Thurston and there you have a good example of there is no reason for reinventing the wheel.

        irishinrussia -> UncleSam404 25 Mar 2015 01:16

        Russia is not broke by any stretch of the imagination. It has a very low debt to GDP ratio. It still has $360 billion in reserves (even if that figure continues to decline at its current rate - unlikely as the rouble has stabilised - that would still give them almost three years before that money ran out). The budget deficit for last year was very small. This year it is projected to be around 3% (incidentally, about what the US deficit was last year and is projected to be for the next ten years). It continues to run a balance of payments surplus even with lower oil prices. The situation in Russia is certainly not peachy, but it is a far cry from "broke".

        Demi Boone -> Vladimire_Poutine 25 Mar 2015 01:09

        Oh Vlad, take a look at the marches honoring the Ukranian SS that just took place across Ukraine where thousands showed up, or the SS armbands worn by extreme right participants in the Maiden or the Azov Battalion who brags of their SS devotion (but they are quick to denounce the atrocities of WW2) I challenge you to show any article promoting NeoNazi's in Russia. You have obviously not read any Russian History to know the hatred these people have for the idea of the Nazi. Your accusations of Nemstov's murder are pure speculation based on your biased opinion. There were no Nuclear threats made by Russia rather they were saying that all systems were on alert. When a Russian plane flies close to the UK you had better believe they are on the same high alert. With regards to your statement about News credibility most media sources in the US whitewash the news. Did you read anything in any major papers about the people who were run over by Ukranian forces and given permission to "shoot to kill" if the crowd got too out of hand and began to fight back?

        someoneionceknew -> Goodthanx 25 Mar 2015 00:57

        What is it by the way, with her numerous investments in Ukraine and Moldova?

        CIA, buddy. She's a company gal.

        someoneionceknew 25 Mar 2015 00:51

        "The good news is that we have made great progress on stability."

        Words fail me.

        These CIA types certainly can gild a lily when required.


        Jerome Fryer normankirk 25 Mar 2015 00:44

        The Russian economy in GDP terms is expected to have a 5% contraction year on year, then pick up growing. That assumes no favourable changes in oil price, and doesn't factor in Putin's attempts to steer the Russian economy into greater self-sufficiency. Oil is likely to recover, and the attempt to shift / diversify the economy could go either way.

        (At a minimum, they will be replacing as much of Ukraine's former supply of critical components as quickly as possible. Russia have been handing out citizenship papers and jobs like candy to any Ukrainians that were working in the defense related industries. Putin isn't trying to rebuild the USSR, but he is trying to maintain the capabilities of the USSR by drawing critical personnel -- and allegedly machinery -- into Russia.)


        Jerome Fryer -> BorninUkraine 25 Mar 2015 00:33

        It is very sad.

        Western propaganda used to be a lot smarter, presumably because of the 'clash of ideologies' background. Now we are back to the old, pre-Communist threat, standard of "The Kaiser eats babies".

        Most people tend to only 'believe' this nonsense at a superficial level, though. Ask them about the 'reporting' and you'll find that they consider the assertions dubious. Effective propaganda is intended to operate at more of a subliminal / emotional level, and bypass our thinking abilities.

        Jerome Fryer -> pantaraxia 25 Mar 2015 00:25

        He is also president of European Council of Jewish Communities, which probably translates into backing from powerful Jewish interests in the US and Israel.

        That is debatable, and incorrect. See here for why he resigned from the ECJC and started his own "European Jewish Union".

        Kolomoisky is no less divisive than Poroshenko. He is, however, very much an 'old school' Jewish mafia type -- and prone to blatant aggressive behaviour such as the recent takeover of the UkrTransNafta building by his 'private security'.

        Oh, and it appears that Poroshenko has gone with the option to try to arrest Kolomoisky's 'private security', as a start. (Source seems to be RT, though, so about as reliable / unreliable as the BBC.)

        todaywefight -> Vladimire_Poutine 25 Mar 2015 00:17

        Are you from the newly created Ministry of Truth in Kyiv? or "ukraine tomorrow"?
        The former is an oxymoron Truth and Ukraine should never be on the same sentence unless it says Ukraine failed to tell the truth...that is acceptable...

        I dont know Vladimire...in view of the current events and the little fight amongst the Oligarchs...and accusations against Kolomoisky, his partners and his rather strong response, I am not sure who the crazy ones are here.

        HollyOldDog ID075732 25 Mar 2015 00:15

        I could be wrong but I half remember a political cartoon depicting the USA as a Wreaking Ball against some other economy. I will have to check later.

        BorninUkraine rogermell1e 25 Mar 2015 00:04

        Wow! The circus keeps going.

        Poroshenko relieved Kolomoisky of duties of Dniepropetrovsk governor (directive 173/2015).

        In response, Kolomoisky promised to take his battalions from the war zone with LNR/DNR and direct them to take over Kremenchug power plant and the office of Ukrtransgas (Ukrainian "state" company involved in transport of natural gas). Mega-thieves started all-out struggle, revealing the criminal nature of current Ukrainian state for all to see in the process.

        How can Western media report such a piece of evidence directly incriminating the US and EU?

        Old_Donkey 24 Mar 2015 23:53

        Let's hope that Natalie Jaresko's skills as a financier are better than her skills as a diplomat. She's asking Russia to accept a haircut on $3 billion of debt, and Ukraine's situation is so desperate that you can't blame her for trying. But if she wants the Kremlin to "buy into this vision", she will need to learn some manners and show Russia some more respect first. Jaresko presents Ukraine as a country that is "protecting Europe from an aggressive neighbour". No one who wanted to persuade Vladimir Putin to restructure the debt would say that unless they were either very stupid or dutifully repeating State Department propaganda (or both).

        The fundamental problem with the Ukrainian government is that it is incapable of restoring stability to Ukraine and instead seems hell-bent on a continuation of the civil war. The Kiev government remains absolutely opposed to finding a political solution to the problems in Eastern Ukraine and refuses to recognize the authority of the rebel leaders, who, in Donetsk and Lugansk, are clearly "the only game in town". Jaresko's own government is busily wrecking the Minsk 2 agreement and has thereby enormously increased the political risks attached to any new loans. Already, Ukrainian forces have violated the ceasefire by firing on Russian journalists and OSCE observers near Shirokino.

        The purpose of an IMF loan is not to enable a country to rearm or to continue fighting a civil war but to help it to rebuild its financial system. Until we can be confident that Kiev is committed to implementing Minsk 2, all IMF loans to the Kiev government would therefore be irresponsible and offered on a dishonest basis. The IMF is specifically prohibited from offering war loans by its own charter. At the moment, it looks as though Kiev needed Minsk 2 merely for form's sake, so that it could screw some more cash out of Christine Lagarde to pay for a reconquest of the Donbass once spring arrives.

        Madame Lagarde's career has always benefitted from American support, and her eagerness to return the favour is understandable. She knows how the game is played but she also knows that loyalty to a patron has its limits. So if Jaresko and her State Department controllers expect Madame Lagarde to violate the IMF's own rules by continuing to fund Ukraine's neo-Nazi war machine, they may find themselves disappointed. Madame Lagarde still has a reputation to protect but Jaresko lost hers as soon as she joined the criminal regime in Kiev.

        Goodthanx 24 Mar 2015 23:46

        "we are lucky to have the support of the IMF."

        Yes well according to Jaresko's biography which includes very cosey relationship with the IMF, i dont think luck played any hand in it.

        What is it by the way, with her numerous investments in Ukraine and Moldova? Conflict of interest? Or just business as usual?

        http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=70651&privcapId=23915&previousCapId=47577789&previousTitle=Shatkin%2520Arbor,%2520Inc.

        ID075732 24 Mar 2015 23:43

        Jaresko said she could not complain that Ukraine had been ignored while the European Union tried to sort out the problems of Greece.

        It's a joke isn't it?

        Jaresko parachuted in by the US to help shore-up the coup they created financially and think it should have the same status as Greece. Now claiming a similar restructuring package that the EU refused for Tsipras?

        The difference being that Ukraine is not part of the EU, nor part of NATO.

        Jaresko is claiming that Russia is a threat to Europe? We all know Putin's big idea was for more trade integration with Europe that was the actual threat the US didn't want. So they turned Ukraine into a buffer against this happening, although its become more of a punch bag.

        Another wreaking US intervention, we're all wise to this now. And when it's wreaked buy it cheap - great for Amerika's business. A win win for US backed business, a lose lose for the Ukrainian people!

        EugeneGur 24 Mar 2015 23:31

        Well, the oligarch war in Ukraine is intensifying. Kolomoiskyi threatened the head of Naftogas to take his battalions out of the war zone and to occupy the office of Ukrtransgas and Kremenchug power station. Poroshenko just fired Kolomoiskyi from his position of the Governor of Dnepropetrovsk region, which Kolomoiskyi is not about to give up, of course. The Ukrainian parliament, Rada, in the meantime is considering privatization of Privatbank owned by Kolomoiskyi, the move that could crush whatever is left of the Ukrainian financial system. Curiouser and curiouser.

        I do hope that even those people in the West who had no clue before now realize that kind of personages their governments brought to power in Ukraine. Ukraine is in chaos, there is no government to speak of, and all these colorful individuals keep their personal airplanes ready for immediate departure.


        Goodthanx 24 Mar 2015 23:09

        "There is always a risk of a default," she added, noting that several factions in Ukraine's parliament were demanding that the government go down that route.

        In Ukraine, we call it the classic 'Ha Ha..screw you maneuver.'

        twiglette 24 Mar 2015 23:04

        This absurd narrativeve that Ukraine is a beacon of Western democracy! It is a corrupt racist state whose current elite came to power in a U.S. inspired coupe that threw out the elected government that wished to join Russia. It has fought a viscous war against its Russian east. It deserves nothing.


        rogermell1e 24 Mar 2015 23:03

        Looks like Kolomoiskyi has had it. The "Kyiv Post" just ran an article in which they mention that Kolo has (gasp) "connections to organised crime".
        :-D

        Last week they were *very* careful about what they said about Kolomoiskyi to the point of barely reporting the events. But now the rats are fleeing the sinking ship.

        Kolo had better skedaddle before we see yet another mysterious defenestration.

        OneTop 24 Mar 2015 22:58

        Natalie Jaresko wants to see debt cut and interest on remainder reduced so Ukraine can move towards stability

        Jaresko is a US citizen who was appointed by Nuland [Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs] to run the finance ministry of the Ukraine. (the Ukraine granted her citizenship -- to give the appearance of legitimacy).

        The Ukraine is run by very powerful oligarchs who have to date, much more political and real power than the western installed and supported Poroshenko.

        There is no doubt the US / West will continue to support Poroshenko as he desperately needs US support to maintain his position, the more powerful "other" oligarchs with their private armies do not.

        Jaresko is simply parroting US diktat (her paymasters) which is building the narrative that Ukraines' debt to Russia (primarily for energy) be legally declared as odious debt.

        Which means that the Ukraine could stiff Russia for the billions it owes for goods and services already rendered.

        In plain words, Jaresko is a mindless mandarin installed by America in an effort to wrest Ukraine from their evil Russian masters.


        Vaska Tumir Kata L 24 Mar 2015 22:11

        America's Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, has now informed him, in no uncertain terms, that "the law of the jungle" must end in Ukraine.

        Ambassador Pyatt's statements are taken very seriously by Ukrainian Government officials.

        Really?

        They ARE the "law of the jungle" enforcers in Ukraine, as Pyatt knows perfectly well. In this instance, what we have is a situation in which a set of criminals of exactly the same sort as those in power but currently not in the government itself (Kolomoysky and his lot) is stronger than the set of criminals the USA put in power in Kiev. That's what comes from having a foreign policy based on pure banditry.

        ChristopherMyers 24 Mar 2015 22:09

        I realize this may be a very bizarre thought, but the situation here in the Ukraine bears a striking resemblance to the annexation of Hawaii in 1898 by the United States.

        BorninUkraine -> rogermell1e 24 Mar 2015 21:57

        It's not only the media, it is much broader than that. When I left USSR in 1991, most educated people believed BBC, Voice of America, and Western media in general, and had fairly good feelings about the US and Europe.

        When I started reading Russian news sites last year (simply because the Western narrative about Ukrainian crisis made no sense to someone who has friends and relatives all over Ukraine), I was appalled by the level of anti-American and anti-EU feelings. Americans are called almost invariably "pindós" [Cyrillic spelling пиндос], which is a pretty derogative term, the US is called "pindostan", and most people think that Western media lie almost as much as Ukrainian media, which are notorious for ludicrous lies (like the story that Russia used nukes in the fight for Lugansk airport).

        In the USSR I always knew that Soviet media are spewing propaganda, using half-truths and blatant lies. However, compared to current reporting on Ukraine in the Western media, even Soviet papers look truthful. It is very sad.

        pantaraxia 24 Mar 2015 21:45

        It will be fascinating to see which way the US goes with Kolomoisky vs. Poroshenko.

        On the one hand a lot of time and energy has been expended propping up the Poroshenko gov't. In spite of this he is rapidly losing popularity with the populace and may be seen as expendable. A convenient scapegoat for the failed military operation in eastern Ukraine. However another regime change at this point would threaten the country with absolute chaos and would make external financing arrangements problematic to say the least.

        Kolomoisky is hooked into the US state department, via Bursima, the murky gas company where both VP Biden's son and Kerry's stepson(?) are members of its Board. He is also president of European Council of Jewish Communities, which probably translates into backing from powerful Jewish interests in the US and Israel. Kolomoisky and Nuland seem to be kindred spirits both in their advocacy for a military solution as well as their general ziocon tendencies.

        Interesting times indeed.


        whitemangotnodreamin -> normankirk 24 Mar 2015 21:41

        Because they are probably under instructions to support Poroshenko and his side kick no matter what..lest they want their hard drives smashed to smithereens in the carpark as it happened before. They did it with Iraq, Libya, Syria, Torture and Kidnapping, Diego Garcia...all of these glossed over...lately even the "suicide" of 7 party of regions members they reported as 4 and did not open for comments...such is life


        frankverismo -> Chirographer 24 Mar 2015 21:39

        "I don't think anybody really wants to lend or give the Ukraine any money because of the rampant corruption and "mismanagement" referred to in the article."

        I don't think you get how this works. Or you simply don't wish to see the sheer depth of the venality at work. Jaresko has been put there by Washington. The plan is exactly the opposite of granting Ukraine its sovereign independence but rather to put it even further into debt thus putting it completely at the mercy of outside forces. It's already a black hole - and she's asking for the death blow.

        "And the Ukraine's problems didn't start with the war or Yanukovich. While he might have been the biggest crook who ruled the country, he has competition for that title from previous leaders too."

        Correct.

        "Russia's aggression and policy of destabilisation is a huge aggravating factor at present"

        Kindly tell us all about this 'aggression'. Be specific. You are, I assume, aware that Russia has had its Black Sea Fleet stationed in Crimea since the 18th century? What was Russia going to do when a US-backed coup happened on her doorstep? Hand her naval base over to NATO and let Kiev do to Crimea what they've been doing in Donbass? Really? Be honest. What would you have done?

        "Ukraine's failing economy is another anchor, with low oil prices and western sanctions, tied to the feet of a sinking Russia."

        Were the Russian economy remotely similar to the US' this might be so. But it isn't. It has a low debt-to-GDP ratio, an expanding manufacturing base and countries other than Europe and the US perfectly willing to trade with it (and not in US$). The sanctions are certainly an annoyance as is the low oil price but long-term this will only serve to further divorce Russia from the West's sick fiat system - a very healthy thing.

        rogermell1e Systematic 24 Mar 2015 21:34

        "I wonder how long can The Guardian & Co."

        I guess at some point last year they made the strategic decision that any credibility amongst those who are well informed could be sacrificed. Very few Westerners (especially in the Anglosohere) will make the effort to find alternative sources, and the rest can easily be gulled.

        This is really a victory for Russia, because at one time a substantial part of the intelligentsia had some trust in the western MSM. This has now almost completely evaporated.

        TOR2000 24 Mar 2015 21:33

        Kiev continues to violate the ceasefire (OSCE):

        Between 09:40 and 10:40hrs, whilst at an observation point in the eastern outskirts of Sopyne (government-controlled, 15km east of Mariupol, 2.5km west of Shyrokyne) the SMM heard heavy engagement of small arms, machine guns, automatic grenade launchers and mortars, including 70 outgoing 82mm and 120mm mortar shells. The SMM assessed that the fire originated from one kilometre to the east and was directed further east of the SMM's position. An additional ten 82mm mortar shells hit 400m east of the SMM's position, some of which detonated in the air indicating that they were fitted with distance or time delay fuses. Due to the security situation, the SMM relocated to another observation point 4km north-west of Shyrokyne ("DPR"-controlled, 20km east of Mariupol, 102km south of Donetsk). Between 11:33 and 12:06hrs the SMM observed three incoming 82mm mortar shells exploding above Ukrainian Armed Forces positions north of Berdyanske (government-controlled, 18km east of Mariupol). It also heard small arms and light weapons fire as well as ten mortar detonations but was not able to ascertain the direction and calibre.
        The SMM unarmed/unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) monitored both sides of the contact line east of Mariupol. At 17:38hrs, in Shyrokyne the SMM UAV observed outgoing mortar fire from a Ukrainian Armed Forces position.

        The SMM revisited four Ukrainian Armed Forces heavy weapons holding areas, all of which comply with the respective withdrawal lines and remain in situ. All serial numbers are consistent with previous visits. Additionally, the SMM intended to monitor two additional holding areas, but these sites no longer contained any heavy weapons.

        BorninUkraine -> rogermell1e 24 Mar 2015 21:33

        Yes, the competition between two mega-thieves, Kolomoisky and Poroshenko, intensified in the last few days. Considering that the head of SBU (Ukrainian KGB) Nalivaichenko, who is CIA agent and US citizen, took the side of Poroshenko, the US plans to play against Kolomoisky. This does not guarantee Poroshenko win, though: this is about a lot of money to be made on oil, gas, etc, and then on grain that will be paid by farmers in return for credits for gas, diesel, and lubricants they need for planting.

        It is well known (not in the West, I am sure, where people are fed ridiculous lies) that for this amount of money Kolomoisky would kill his own mother, let alone Poroshenko or even US ambassador.

        So buying some popcorn is a good idea.

        whitemangotnodreamin -> Jerome Fryer 24 Mar 2015 21:21

        No prospect to repay 'loans' makes those loans unlikely.

        Precisely, what Jaresko is essentially saying is give us the money but don't ask for it back... Nick is a confused soul...or a purposely confused one.


        whitemangotnodreamin 24 Mar 2015 20:41

        I actually watched one of her interviews on Bloomberg, full of softballs, she seldom if ever answered a question, in particular what would happen if Russia demands payment at the end of the year, and the fact that they are asking creditors to take a rather large haircut. The softest thing about this woman are her teeth, but as we will see being hard does not translate to being tough, hit a brick in the right place and it breaks.

        So let's see who is Natalie Jaresko:

        " A Chicago-born investment banker who received her Ukrainian citizenship in December 2014, she. is Ukraine's finance minister and in total control of Ukrainian financial policy. In the late '80s and early '90s, she just so happened to hold several positions at the US State Department before taking the position of Chief of the Economic Section of the US Embassy in Ukraine. She also managed the USAID-financed Western NIS Enterprise Fund, which kindly provided funds for 'pro-democracy' movements in Belarus, Moldova and, predictably, Ukraine. "

        Ms.Jaresko, is involved in court proceedings, again. This time for breaching US passport laws. She was previously a US State Dept. employee and was granted Ukrainian citizenship so she could take the job.

        She has previously been in court over the misappropriation of US funding through her previous company Horizon Capital. This company just happened to be a partner of Yatsenyuk's pre maidan campaign. The other party in the case is her husband who she has been attempting to silence by court order. She has also so far managed to silence her former husband spilling the beans of some significant loan improprieties.

        But, hey what would one expect of a President who, was secretly palling up to the US's embassy in Kyiv when he was a minister for 3 different administrations in Ukraine, a man whose latest Human resource success was the employment of "Help me or I'll eat my red tie" Saakashvili a man wanted in Georgia who was being kept quietly in the US until now.

        bobby_fisher 24 Mar 2015 20:33

        US citizen, financial shaister and former State Department employee Natalie Jaresko is well positioned as Finance minister of Ukraine to oversee implementation of the H.R. 5859, the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, that among other things gives control to Washington over Ukrainian Energy policies, provides protections to American oil, gas, biotech, financial corporate interests over legitimate interests of Ukrainian people.

        This seals the fate of Ukraine as US colony, instead of an independent state.

        Chirographer 24 Mar 2015 20:32

        I don't think anybody really wants to lend or give the Ukraine any money because of the rampant corruption and "mismanagement" referred to in the article.

        And the Ukraine's problems didn't start with the war or Yanukovich. While he might have been the biggest crook who ruled the country, he has competition for that title from previous leaders too.

        Russia's aggression and policy of destabilisation is a huge aggravating factor at present, but there will have to be real and substantial changes in the way Ukrainians conduct their businesses and government before they're going to get the kind money the finance minister is asking for.

        It does seem fitting though, that given the economic ties between the two countries, Ukraine's failing economy is another anchor, with low oil prices and western sanctions, tied to the feet of a sinking Russia.


        HollyOldDog DerFremde 24 Mar 2015 20:23

        The Russian Steppes? The Ukrainian fracking has not shown commercial quantities of gas/oil. To try the same techniques in East Ukraine would mean closing down the existing coal mines first and even then there is a serious risk of contaminating the fresh water both underground and surface waters. All this with only minor prospects of finding commercial quantities of Fracked oil/gas.

        If the existing cialthey mines in East Ukraine were closed down then where would West Ukraine get its coal of a suitable quality to be used in its coal fired power stations?

        HollyOldDog Manolo Torres 24 Mar 2015 20:11

        And not forgetting the looting of the Iraq museums by any sneak theif who walked through the unguarded doors . Only the Oil Ministry was important to the Americans.


        pantaraxia HollyOldDog 24 Mar 2015 20:09

        The Japanese had been attempting to surrender months before Hiroshima. The back channels went through the USSR with no constructive response from the American side.

        According to a number of analysts there was another reason for dropping the nuclear bombs - to showcase to the USSR and the world the raw power available to the US military. A scare tactic.

        Manolo Torres -> DIPSET 24 Mar 2015 19:30

        That seems indeed a very good book, but one may end up extremely disgusted after reading it. From the review, to give our friends an idea of what Mrs Jaresko might be up to now and why her urgent plead:

        An unprecedented account of life in Baghdad's Green Zone, a walled-off enclave of towering plants, posh villas, and sparkling swimming pools that was the headquarters for the American occupation of Iraq. The Washington Post's former Baghdad bureau chief Rajiv Chandrasekaran takes us with him into the Zone; into a bubble, cut off from wartime realities, where the task of reconstructing a devastated nation competed with the distractions of a Little America-a half-dozen bars stocked with cold beer, a disco where women showed up in hot pants, a movie theater that screened shoot-'em-up films, an all-you-could-eat buffet piled high with pork, a shopping mall that sold pornographic movies, a parking lot filled with shiny new SUVs, and a snappy dry-cleaning service- much of it run by Halliburton

        In the vacuum of postwar planning, Bremer ignores what Iraqis tell him they want or need and instead pursues irrelevant neoconservative solutions-a flat tax, a sell-off of Iraqi government assets, and an end to food rationing. His underlings spend their days drawing up pie-in-the-sky policies, among them a new traffic code and a law protecting microchip designs, instead of rebuilding looted buildings and restoring electricity production.

        Mordantdude 24 Mar 2015 19:14

        Everybody in the free world should be doing more to help Ukraine. This is a country that has given its life for democracy and is protecting Europe from an aggressive neighbour," she said.

        Meanwhile with the little help from "the free world" Ukraine downgraded further into junk by Moody's. Do you need more?

        pantaraxia 24 Mar 2015 19:14

        The whole IMF program is a con job, transferring debt onto the Ukrainian government and its taxpayers (with the inevitable austerity and privatization programs to follow), while leaving the back door wide open to systemic abuse by well-connected oligarchs.

        As for where the IMF money which has been paid into the Ukrainian banks has gone, the report discloses … the banking system faced large foreign currency outflows (US$3.1 billion). Capital controls likely prevented larger outflows, but were not fully effective in stemming them."

        In short, of the $3.2 billion disbursed to the Ukrainian treasury by the IMF at the start of May, $3.1 billion had disappeared offshore by the middle of August.

        The looting continues.

        HollyOldDog -> nickpossum 24 Mar 2015 19:08

        There is a history of the other side of the coin with the actions of the USA. When Japan was on the point of defeat and negociations for Japan's surrender to the USA and its allies were occuring , the USA decided to drop nuclear bombs on Japan. A senior military spokesman from that period gave the reasons why.

        1. To force Japan to surrender more quickley and solely under the terms Givern solely by the USA.

        2. If it saved only ONE DAY of negociations then dropping nuclear bombs on Jalan would be worth it.

        Millions of Japanese citizens died either through the the blasts themselves or by radiation sickness just for the Americans to save ONE DAY of negociations.


        pantaraxia 24 Mar 2015 18:36

        For the sordid backstory on the IMF loan to Ukraine:

        THE IMF IS POSTUREPEDIC, SO IGOR KOLOMOISKY CAN SLEEP WELL AT NIGHT
        http://johnhelmer.net/?p=12944#more-12944

        some excerpts:

        The new loan terms announced by the IMF last week, postpone reform by the commercial banks until well into 2016. In the meantime, the IMF says it will allow about $4 billion of its loan cash to be diverted to the treasuries of the oligarch-owned banks. That is almost one dollar in four of the IMF loan to Ukraine.

        The biggest beneficiary of last year's IMF financing is likely to repeat its good fortune, according to sources close to the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU). This is PrivatBank, controlled by Igor Kolomoisky , governor of Dniepropetrovsk region and financier of several units fighting on Kiev's side in the civil war.

        snip

        …Kolomoisky has been assured by the IMF that he is one of the few Ukrainian taxpayers to be safe from an increase in income tax.

        snip

        The justification for the PrivatBank payout, …
        For collateral, Gontareva (NBU Governor) has accepted a shareholding in the bank, plus an undisclosed number of airplanes owned by Kolomoisky, or by airlines associated with the Privat group. …. They are all bankrupt, and so the asset value is uncertain and the subject of creditor claims pending in several countries

        and the punch line:

        …." A Geneva banker with an office close to Kolomoisky's residence in the city comments: "Not even the Swiss have thought of war financing like this – funding civil war, then taking international loans for compensation, then banking the profit margin in Geneva."


        DIPSET Manolo Torres 24 Mar 2015 18:17

        Be fair, most of that money to rebuild Iraq was stolen by the same homicidal maniacs that destroyed the country in the first place.

        True that.

        You won't find a better tome than this book on the whole debacle and financial corruption the Yanks got into in Iraq.....

        http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Imperial_Life_in_the_Emerald_City.html?id=Tz2LT0gL_pYC&redir_esc=y

        Some juicy bits........

        Because of bureaucratic delays, only 2 percent of the $18.4 billion Supplemental had been spent. Nothing had been expended on construction, health care, sanitation, or the provision of clean water, and more money had been devoted to administration than all projects related to education, human rights, democracy, and governance combined. At the same time, the CPA had managed to dole out almost all of a $20 billion development fund fed by Iraq's oil sales, more than $1.6 billion of which had been used to pay Halliburton, primarily for trucking fuel into Iraq.

        Or this......

        The first guy who was assigned to help rebuild Iraq's health sector was named Skip Burkle. And Skip is physician. He has a Master's degree in public health. He has four postgraduate degrees. He teaches at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. He had worked in Kosovo, in Somalia and in Northern Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War. He also was employed by the U.S. Agency for International Development, and a USAID colleague called him the single most talented post-conflict public health specialist in the U.S. government. But a few weeks after the fall of Saddam's government, Mr. Burkle was informed by an email from a superior at USAID that he was being replaced. He was told that the White House wanted, quote/unquote, "a loyalist" in the job. And I write in the book that Burkle had a wall of degrees, but he didn't have a picture with the President.

        In his place was sent Jim Haveman. Jim Haveman does not have a medical degree. He was a social worker, and he was the former Director of Community Health in the State of Michigan. Prior to his stint in government, he had a little bit of international experience, but it was largely in the context of being a director for International Aid, a faith-based relief organization that promotes Christianity in the developing world in conjunction with development assistance. And prior to that, he headed up a large adoption agency in the State of Michigan that urges pregnant women not to have abortions.

        Well, Haveman showed up, and his view was that, look, Iraq didn't need a huge infusion of money to rebuild its hospitals, even though I and other people who have been to Iraqi hospitals have seen them to be thoroughly decrepit and really, you know, in need of an overhaul, and particularly with the violence that's wracking that country today and the number of injured from insurgent attacks. You would think that really putting resources toward rebuilding emergency rooms would be a top priority.

        Instead, Haveman devoted resources to other projects.

        And now they have moved onto Ukraine.

        Good luck is all i can say......

        Bosula -> Mike_UK 24 Mar 2015 17:56

        Ukraine is a country not a business. The interests of countries are very different from fund mangers, hedge funds, etc.

        Very unusual to bring in a foreigner to a country to run a finance ministry when there are serious legal allegationS about propriety hanging over her head.

        Could you imagine bringing in a Sate Department official to run the finances of the UK?

        Ukraine has a lot of smart people...

        Another Nuland buddy meddling in Ukrainian affairs.


        DIPSET BunglyPete 24 Mar 2015 17:53

        now emblazined with Bransons face in giant ads as testament to the corporate takeover

        Ah yes, the faustian pact and it's tentacles are eating Ukraine up (and soon to spit out an empty husk) right in front of our eyes.

        Remember that American company that brought up all that pure and rich soil and agricultural land in Ukraine ?

        Look what's been happening back at the ranch in Yankee Land......

        After paying an original sum of $2.4 million to reimburse farmers for contaminating their fields with genetically modified wheat that had not even yet been approved for farming, Monsanto has been forced to pay another $350,000 in order to settle a class action lawsuit brought upon by numerous farmers from over seven different states.

        The news comes amid economic struggles for the biotech juggernaut that have resulted in the loss of share value and poor projections for the long term future. In last year's fourth quarter, Monsanto reported a loss of $156 million. And for the multi-billion dollar company, it's not about the monetary figure, but the future of its genetically modified creations that the public just simply isn't buying.

        In the latest legal settlement, we find that Monsanto's new method of simply paying off farmers just isn't going to cut it when it comes to international trade. Following the news that GMO wheat had contaminated nearby wheat supplies, Japan and South Korea suspended a number of wheat orders from the United States - a blow towards the national economy in full thanks to Monsanto.

        http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-hit-with-fine-for-genetically-contaminating-wheat-supply/5438551

        And these are the "friends" Ukraine have placed their trust in since this whole think kicked off last year.

        Who needs enemies, eh ?

        Fascinating times...

        frankverismo -> nnedjo 24 Mar 2015 17:36

        "Why has the United States spent so much money and time so disastrously trying to rebuild occupied nations abroad, while allowing its own infrastructure to crumble untended? Why do we even think of that as "policy"?

        The Wolfowitz Doctrine is a giant boot sworn to crush national self-determination wheresoever on the globe it may be found. If ordinary Americans have to pay the bill, so be it.

        It's not much of a policy - but it's what happens when Washington is taken over by those the White House used to rightly refer to as 'The Crazies'.

        BunglyPete DIPSET 24 Mar 2015 17:30

        9

        10

        It gets better! Pinchuk made donations to the Clinton fund before Maidan, and not only this he was the top contributor.

        Back in September 2013 they all met with Blair, Branson, IMF and more to hash it all out in Yalta at a Pinchuk bash.

        Check vesti-ukr.com a Ukraine news site now emblazined with Bransons face in giant ads as testament to the coporate takeover. Fantastic stuff.

        Reply | Pick

        Report


        nnedjo -> nnedjo 24 Mar 2015 17:27

        Here's another interesting article on the same topic:
        How Not to Reconstruct Iraq, Afghanistan -- or America
        Peter Van Buren

        Some images remain like scars on my memory. One of the last things I saw in Iraq, where I spent a year with the Department of State helping squander some of the $44 billion American taxpayers put up to "reconstruct" that country, were horses living semi-wild among the muck and garbage of Baghdad. ...

        I flew home that same day, a too-rapid change of worlds, to a country in which the schools of my hometown in Ohio could not afford to pay teachers a decent wage. Once great cities were rotting away as certainly as if they were in Iraq, where those horses were scrabbling to get by.

        To this day I'm left pondering these questions: Why has the United States spent so much money and time so disastrously trying to rebuild occupied nations abroad, while allowing its own infrastructure to crumble untended? Why do we even think of that as "policy"?

        Canigou 24 Mar 2015 17:24

        I like the picture at the top of the article-----it shows burning tires, tired and hungry-looking men sitting on makeshift seats and shivering, trash strewn about, some motley men in the background standing about doing nothing, some sinister-looking smoke rising as a backdrop. A bleak, hellish, desperate, post-apocalyptic landscape.

        It seems to be from the Maidan riots of last year, but makes a fitting image for an article about the Ukraine economy of 2015.

        EugeneGur 24 Mar 2015 17:23

        Well, people of Europe, it's time to open up your wallets to pay for the handiwork of your leaders. Ukraine is indeed a large country on the verge of economical collapse marred in a civil war. The present "government" did everything in its power to ruin the economy succeeding quite well. They alienated and then destroyed Donbass responsible for a good part of the country's economic output. They disrupted economic ties with Russia, the main trading partner, so most enterprises have closed or are closing throwing workers out on the streets.

        Give these people more money - and they'll spend some on the war they'll lose, and steal the rest. It is hard to tell whether they are more inept or corrupt - I guess they are just well-rounded individuals combining the highest degree of greed and corruption with utter stupidity/ineptitude and total disregard for their country's interests. One example: Ukraine is short on coal, but the miners in Volyne region, the only coal deposit outside of Donbass, haven't been paid for months and are now on strike. Is that what they mean by "structural reforms", not paying salaries any more?


        HollyOldDog -> UncleSam404 24 Mar 2015 17:23

        Interesting, so you agree with the Ukrainian Oligarts having a right to plunder the assets of Ukraine - Let the People eat cake. Perhaps this attitude that the West has to Ukraine will bolster the undercurrent of discontent within West Ukraine citizens to boot out its current government and Western Freeloaders.

        A French style revolution baring the gillotine is in the cards.


        nnedjo 24 Mar 2015 17:19

        Jaresko said the IMF loan was enough to stabilise the economy but not sufficient to "reorganise and renew" it.

        The intention to "reorganise and renew" Ukraine's economy is very generous indeed. However, before accepting this job, Ms. Jaresko should draw some lessons from previous unsuccessful attempts of the kind:

        The U.S. has spent more reconstructing Iraq and Afghanistan than it did rebuilding Germany after World War II. And it's not done yet.

        Released: January 18, 2013

        The United States has invested more reconstructing Iraq and Afghanistan than it did rebuilding Germany after World War II. $60.45 billion has been spent in Iraq, more than $100 billion in Afghanistan. For comparison, the U.S. spent less than $35 billion in today's dollars in Germany from 1946 through 1952...
        These are reconstruction costs only; the total cost to the U.S. of the Iraq and Afghan conflicts exceeds $1.4 trillion.


        babalua Mike_UK 24 Mar 2015 17:18

        Ukraine is not to be compared to anything, let alone to a company. Parasite living off Russia, EU and everyone else. Should not really be a state. With crooks in power? Not only crooks, but literally scum?! You call it a country and compare it to whatever? Oh, god, wake up. You know , the funnu thing is that this black hole of Europe even wants to compete with Russia. Who are these people from U? Are they taking LSD?


        DIPSET BunglyPete 24 Mar 2015 17:17

        She also recently spoke at the Brookings insitute of which Nulands husband is a key member. Theyre all in it together in one big circle of dodgy deals and kickbacks.

        :-)

        As always, you are spot on Sir.

        I'm sure you have read this but sharing is caring as they say lol..........

        Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan have a great mom-and-pop business going. From the State Department, she generates wars and – from op-ed pages – he demands Congress buy more weapons.

        ......a new Cold War took shape. Prominent neocons, including Nuland's husband Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century which masterminded the Iraq War, hammered home the domestic theme that Obama had shown himself to be "weak," thus inviting Putin's "aggression."

        In May 2014, Kagan published a lengthy essay in The New Republic entitled "Superpowers Don't Get to Retire," in which Kagan castigated Obama for failing to sustain American dominance in the world and demanding a more muscular U.S. posture toward adversaries.

        According to a New York Times article about how the essay took shape and its aftermath, writer Jason Horowitz reported that Kagan and Nuland shared a common world view as well as professional ambitions, with Nuland editing Kagan's articles, including the one tearing down her ostensible boss.

        Though Nuland wouldn't comment specifically on her husband's attack on Obama, she indicated that she held similar views. "But suffice to say," Nuland said, "that nothing goes out of the house that I don't think is worthy of his talents. Let's put it that way."

        Horowitz reported that Obama was so concerned about Kagan's assault that the President revised his commencement speech at West Point to deflect some of the criticism and invited Kagan to lunch at the White House, where one source told me that it was like "a meeting of equals."

        I found this bit even more fascinating......

        And, whenever peace threatens to break out in Ukraine, Nuland jumps in to make sure that the interests of war are protected. Last month, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande hammered out a plan for a cease-fire and a political settlement, known as Minsk-2, prompting Nuland to engage in more behind-the-scenes maneuvering to sabotage the deal.

        In another overheard conversation - in Munich, Germany - Nuland mocked the peace agreement as "Merkel's Moscow thing," according to the German newspaper Bild, citing unnamed sources, likely from the German government which may have bugged the conference room in the luxurious Bayerischer Hof hotel and then leaked the details.

        Picking up on Nuland's contempt for Merkel, another U.S. official called the Minsk-2 deal the Europeans' "Moscow bullshit."

        Nuland suggested that Merkel and Hollande cared only about the practical impact of the Ukraine war on Europe: "They're afraid of damage to their economy, counter-sanctions from Russia." According to the Bild story, Nuland also laid out a strategy for countering Merkel's diplomacy by using strident language to frame the Ukraine crisis.

        "We can fight against the Europeans, we can fight with rhetoric against them," Nuland reportedly said

        https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/

        Yikes!!!

        Europe has got itself entangled in some bullshit it is going to regret for a looooong time.

        Hope them cookies tasted good and were worth it.

        BunglyPete 24 Mar 2015 16:57

        Jaresko is quite possibly the most poorly judged person to be in her position, nevermind make these claims.

        She is not only a US citizen ex State Dept employee who was granted Ukrainian citizenship just to take the job, she is involved in other affairs that seriously question her credibility.

        Firstly she is involved in a lawsuit filed by her ex husband who claims she missappropriated USAID funds through her Ukrainian company Horizon Capital. She had a court injuction taken out to prevent her husband discussing the case.

        Furthermore, Horizon Capital funded Yatsenyuk's Open Ukraine campaign in the years before he came to power.

        The whole idea of the new government was to get rid of corruption and outside influence and move to a new honest and accountable system.

        Now we have a foreigner trying their hardest to push more IMF debt which benefits very few people other than those friendly to Jaresko; which would be, western financial and corporate interests, the main IMF stakeholders and the Yatsenyuk government.

        Ukrainian citizens lose pensions and fight over food in supermarkets as Jaresko is chaffeuered around in the most expensive car her ministry has ever bought.

        She also recently spoke at the Brookings insitute of which Nulands husband is a key member. Theyre all in it together in one big circle of dodgy deals and kickbacks.

        nnedjo -> Mike_UK 24 Mar 2015 16:56

        What the hell was the problem before the Russians invaded that justified armed take over of police stations and tanks being sent into Ukraine.

        The government which the Ukrainian people voted in the previous election was violently overthrown in Kiev, by the people for which the people from the Donbas not only never voted, but in many cases not even know them.

        So, it's very simple. People from Donbas took care to protect their police stations and other government buildings that foreign visitors would not have entered into them.

        frankverismo 24 Mar 2015 16:56

        "Everybody in the free world should be doing more to help Ukraine. This is a country that has given its life for democracy and is protecting Europe from an aggressive neighbour," she said.

        Was a more incorrect statement ever made? The 'democracy' of which she speaks was, sadly, Victoria Nuland's idea of democracy: "the democracy Ukraine deserves".

        Does Ukraine really 'deserve' to be torn apart by warring oligarchs while being used by Washington as a proxy war theatre to bait Russia into a wider conflict? Should the Ukranian people have seen this coming? Probably. Did they ever have much choice in the matter? Little, if any. A bloody tragedy.


        brianboru1014 psygone 24 Mar 2015 16:44

        Russian economy going down the tubes?
        I very much doubt it. They have what the West needs, and lots of it

        The article is about this Ukrainian Foreign Minister, a woman with a begging bowl and really zero to offer the West except a monstrous headache. Too bad Bush's neocon Victoria Nuland (who should have been dismissed by Obama, but wasn't) but was able to poison everything in this particular part of the world with her now famous obscene comment referring to the European Union.[11] After discussing Ukrainian opposition figures Nuland stated that she preferred the United Nations as mediator, instead of the European Union, adding "Fuck the EU,".
        So as a result, the EU will give her zero.

        nnedjo 24 Mar 2015 16:34

        "Everybody in the free world should be doing more to help Ukraine. This is a country that has given its life for democracy and is protecting Europe from an aggressive neighbour," she [Mrs Jaresko] said.

        So, practically until yesterday, in its economic existence Ukraine relied on its "aggressive neighbor." This is what Russian PM Medvedev wrote about it in his article, at the end of last year:

        How Russia supported the Ukrainian economy

        After the collapse of the Soviet Union, all of this (including the gas transport system) went to Ukraine. In addition, Russia took on the entire Soviet debt. Ukraine entered a new era in its history, free of any burden. That is why in 1991 its initial conditions for economic growth were among the best in the post-Soviet space. And that's precisely why the economy of independent Ukraine managed to remain afloat. Until recently, Ukraine was using its past achievements to survive. It continued to rely on cooperation with Russia. And it used our resources.

        Does Mrs. Jaresko thought to this when she said that "Ukraine protects Europe from its aggressive eastern neighbor." Okay, no problem. Aggressive eastern neighbor no longer needs to pumped gas and money to Ukraine with its invasive methods. As of this moment its "less aggressive" Western friends can take on this responsibility. In particular, the country of origin of Mrs. Jaresko, United States, could take care of it. It is also a very big country, and besides, they constantly boast to their economic superiority over Russia.
        Well then, if you wanted, here you go, be our guest!

        SHappens -> Mike_UK 24 Mar 2015 16:26

        It's the same with ISIS supporters and ISIS terrorists, they need each other for their terrorist activities to spread

        Indeed, what we do not hear about is that while we fight the Islamic State, alias ISIS, in Iraq and Syria, Washington and the Caliphate are fighting on the same side in Ukraine.

        Nobody is paying attention to the role played by the Dudayev Battalion, a fighting force of Islamic radicals consisting of Chechens, but also including fighters from the Caucasus and some Ukrainians.

        geedeesee -> Mike_UK 24 Mar 2015 16:24

        "What the hell was the problem before the Russians invaded..."

        If the Russians had invaded it would be a war, whether declarations had been made or not. The Ukraine-Russian War. But there is no war between the two states. Kiev instead calls it an "anti-terror operation". Objective observers like me would call it a civil war.

        Steve Ennever 24 Mar 2015 15:48

        That's American, Natalie - I'm Ukrainian now - Jaresko, right? Strange, even David Cameron had some thoughts on this subject...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEwREymsSNU

        It appears supporting the overthrow of one democratically elected president because you didn't like him & he was corrupt, apparently doesn't remove the corruption.
        But other things should be raising the eyebrows of lenders right now, & Jaresko.

        Power grabs are in play. The Oligarch, Kolomoysky, worth an estimated $6 billion, is currently causing problems for Poroshenko & his fragile presidency.
        http://redpilltimes.com/kolomoysky-calls-for-federalisation-of-ukraine-ukrnafta-building-in-kiev-seized-by-dnepr-1-battalion-us-ambassador-pyatt-warns-kolomoysky/


        normankirk 24 Mar 2015 15:34

        This is a country that has given its life to democracy......

        The major loss of life has been in the Donbass, where its civilians have been killed in the tens of thousands.They are the ones who can be said to have given their lives to democracy.

        Once again "democracy" has been the trojan horse for corporate interests and the Wolfowitz doctrine.

        I hope that one day Ukraine does achieve a true democracy,but it wont be through the efforts of the criminal Nuland-Pyatt crowd.

        DIPSET 24 Mar 2015 15:24

        C'mon Larry, it ain't a plea for "help".

        It's pure, unprincipled, without a sliver of self pride and shame begging.

        Beg for gas
        Beg for coal
        Beg for weapons
        Beg for money
        Beg for EU membership
        Beg for money again
        Beg for cookies
        Beg for a football tournament to be cancelled
        Beg for men to be sent to die in the East

        After they stupidly get the real war and invasion they have been moaning for, watch them *beg for mercy.

        *Shout out to G-Unit for those that know ;-)

        Watch them in the next couple of weeks beg Russia to not call in that 5 Billion loan repayment that is due.

        2015 is going to be one helluva year.....

        brianboru1014 24 Mar 2015 14:58

        Ukraine is protecting Europe from an aggressive neighbor she said with a straight face.
        She says the country had 70 years of Communism, which it had, and 23 years of incomplete reforms.

        She should have said 23 years of thievery because the people of Ukraine didn't see too much benefit. Twenty three years of neo liberalism. That's a very hard sell.

        [Mar 25, 2015] Congress Demands War in Ukraine! by Daniel McAdams

        March 23, 2015 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

        Just weeks after a European-brokered ceasefire greatly reduced the violence in Ukraine, the US House of Representatives today takes a big step toward re-igniting -- and expanding -- the bloody civil war.

        A Resolution, "Calling on the President to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity," stealthily made its way to the House Floor today without having been debated in the relevant House Committees and without even being given a bill number before appearing on the Floor!

        Now titled H. Res. 162, the bill demands that President Obama send lethal military equipment to the US-backed government in Kiev and makes it clear that the weapons are to be used to take military action to return Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine to Kiev's rule.

        Congress wants a war in Ukraine and will not settle for a ceasefire!

        The real world effect of this Resolution must be made clear: The US Congress is giving Kiev the green light to begin a war with Russia, with the implicit guarantee of US backing. This is moral hazard on steroids and could well spark World War III.

        The Resolution conveniently ignores that the current crisis in Ukraine was ignited by the US-backed coup which overthrew the elected government of Viktor Yanukovych. The secession of Crimea and eastern Ukraine were a reaction to the illegal coup engineered by US officials such as Victoria Nuland and Geoff Pyatt. Congress instead acts as if one morning the Russians woke up and decided to invade Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

        There is no mention at all of US backing for the coup -- or even that a coup took place!

        Indeed, a read of the Resolution shows it is revisionism par excellence:

        Whereas the Russian Federation under President Vladimir Putin has engaged in relentless political, economic, and military aggression to subvert the independence and violate the territorial integrity of Ukraine;
        ...

        Whereas Russian aggression against Ukraine is but the most visible and recent manifestation of a revisionist Kremlin strategy to redraw international borders and impose its will on its neighbors, including NATO allies;

        Shamefully, the resolution pins the blame for the thousands killed by Kiev's shelling of civilian centers in eastern Ukraine on Russia:
        Whereas this Russian aggression includes the establishment and control of violent separatist proxies in other areas of Ukraine, including arming them with lethal weapons and other materiel including tanks, artillery, and rockets that have enabled separatist militias to launch and sustain an insurrection that has resulted in over 6,000 dead, 15,000 wounded, and more than a million displaced persons;
        The Resolution goes even further, explicitly calling for the US to support regime change in Russia itself:
        Whereas the United States and its allies need a long-term strategy to expose and challenge Vladimir Putin's corruption and repression at home and his aggression abroad;
        "Expose and challenge" the elected Russian president at home.

        During the Floor debate on the Resolution, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) even compared Russian "action" in Ukraine to Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia, demanding that this time the "Hitler" must be stopped before he goes further!

        Not a single Member of Congress took the Floor to oppose this dangerous Resolution.

        Passage of this Resolution should make it clear that the political leadership of the US will accept nothing short of war with Russia.

        Update: The Resolution passed in the House, 348-48.


        Copyright © 2015 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

        [Mar 25, 2015] Israel Denies WSJ Report It Spies on US-Iran Talks by Jason Ditz,

        March 24, 2015 | Antiwar.com

        Israeli officials are desperately trying to deny the latest reports out of the Wall Street Journal that they conducted a spying campaign against US officials involved in the Iran negotiations with an eye toward feeding that information to US Congressmen to sour the talks.

        Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the reports "utterly false," insisting Israel would never spy on the United States under any circumstance. Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon insisted the report was part of a plot to try to harm US-Israeli ties.

        House Speaker John Boehner (R – OH) insisted he was "shocked and baffled" by the report, and denied that he had been given any intelligence by the Israelis on the talks.

        Sen. Bob Corker (R – TN) also denied any talks, and complained he felt "left out." Sen. Lindsey Graham (R – SC), by contrast, only denied any specific "briefings," but suggested he was given intelligence by Israeli officials, saying only that it was things he'd already known about.

        In the past month, Israel has been repeatedly reported to be trying to sabotage the Iran talks with selective funneling of intelligence to Congress. The Obama Administration was said to have limited briefing access to Israelis over fear anything they told Israel would get leaked to Congress and spun in as negative a light as possible.

        [Mar 25, 2015] Espionage, Treason, and the Congressional Fifth Column by Justin Raimondo

        Justin Raimondo on Israel occupied territory in DC Congress canoodles with Israeli spies to undermine Iran deal
        March 25, 2015 | Antiwar.com

        The spectacle of virtually the entire Senate GOP caucus mobilizing in support of a foreign power in order to drag us into war with Iran has certainly been instructive. Not since the Federalist party plotted with the British during the War of 1812 has an American fifth column been so open about their treason.

        But isn't the "t"-word a bit hyperbolic? After all, don't all Americans, even the worst warmongers among us, have the right to free speech? Those members of Congress were merely expressing their opinion – right?

        Not so fast:

        "Soon after the U.S. and other major powers entered negotiations last year to curtail Iran's nuclear program, senior White House officials learned Israel was spying on the closed-door talks.

        "The spying operation was part of a broader campaign by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government to penetrate the negotiations and then help build a case against the emerging terms of the deal, current and former U.S. officials said. In addition to eavesdropping, Israel acquired information from confidential U.S. briefings, informants and diplomatic contacts in Europe, the officials said.

        "The espionage didn't upset the White House as much as Israel's sharing of inside information with U.S. lawmakers and others to drain support from a high-stakes deal intended to limit Iran's nuclear program, current and former officials said."

        To be clear: the Israelis penetrated our communications, and used other means – including "informants" presumably inside the U.S. government – to uncover details about the emerging deal with Iran, and then passed this information on, perhaps indirectly, to their congressional fifth column, including presidential aspirants Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul, all of whom then signed on to Sen. Tom Cotton's "open letter" to Tehran.

        If this isn't treason, then the word has no meaning.

        Speaker of the House John Boehner, who plotted with Israeli ambassador Ron Dermer behind the President's back to invite Netanyahu to address Congress, said he was "shocked" and "baffled" by the news. Not by the news they spied on us – it's well known that the Jewish state is among the most aggressive foreign adversaries our counterintelligence agencies have to fend off – but "by the fact that there were reports in this press article that information was being passed on from the Israelis to members of Congress. I'm not aware of that at all." What's baffling, however, is Boehner's behavior during this Israeli incursion onto American territory: why did he suddenly decide to go full wingnut and canoodle with the Israelis to bring Bibi to American shores? And how is it the Speaker has so little knowledge of what's going on right under his nose on Capitol Hill?

        "The White House discovered the operation," reports Adam Entous of the Wall Street Journal, "when U.S. intelligence agencies spying on Israel intercepted communications among Israeli officials that carried details the U.S. believed could have come only from access to the confidential talks, officials briefed on the matter said." Those telling details then somehow found their way into conversations between the Israelis (and their American agents) and "U.S. lawmakers and others," accord to the Journal.

        It's one thing to spy, said a top U.S. official, but "it's another thing to steal U.S. secrets and play them back to U.S. legislators to undermine U.S. diplomacy."

        Given the extensive surveillance capabilities of our government, one assumes they have concrete evidence of such "play back." And surely the Israelis knew this, and yet didn't hesitate to engage in such brazen behavior. One can only conclude they wanted to get caught.

        This is the Israeli style: flagrant flouting of diplomatic conventions and norms in order to display their prowess – and their utter contempt for their adversaries, in this case the Obama administration. And not only the Obama administration: for surely the Israelis knew their congressional enablers would be left hanging, at a loss to explain how such information came into their possession. One can almost hear them laughing in Tel Aviv: "Those stupid Americans, how they grovel before us – even as we kick them in the teeth!"

        Relentless Israeli espionage in order to manipulate U.S. policy toward Iran is hardly new. The case of Larry Franklin, formerly a high ranking Pentagon Iran analyst, who handed over top secret information to two employees of AIPAC – who then transmitted it to their Israeli handlers – underscores the lengths Tel Aviv will go to in order to push us into war with Tehran.

        The two AIPAC officials – longtime AIPAC lobbyist Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, a foreign policy analyst for the powerful pro-Israel group – were interested in procuring internal U.S. government documents detailing Washington's evolving stance toward Tehran. At the time there was a vigorous internal debate about whether to launch a preemptive strike against Iran, and the Israelis wanted the inside dope.

        U.S. counterintelligence caught Franklin – a dyed-in-the-wool neocon, who had committed treason for purely ideological motives – red-handed, and confronted him. Faced with a long jail sentence, he agreed to be wired, and the FBI caught Rosen and Weissman on tape, openly celebrating their success in securing vital U.S. secrets on Israel's behalf. Franklin was sentenced to 12 years in prison, but was given time off for cooperating with investigators: Rosen and Weissman fought the charges, and were lionized by the neocon media as "martyrs" to "free speech" (!). The only reason they didn't wind up in the slammer was because they threatened to reveal in court the very secrets they had handed over to Israel: in the face of this blackmail, the government declined to pursue the case – although the charges were never dropped. Rosen slunk off to work for some neocon outfit, and the whole thing was forgotten. Perhaps it's time to recall it.

        Speaking of AIPAC and the FBI: federal agents have raided AIPAC's Washington headquarters on no less than two occasions, looking for evidence of the same sort of collusion with Israeli spy agencies that our congressional solons have apparently engaged in. On December 1, 2004, FBI agents seized the hard drives of Rosen and Weissman at AIPAC's offices, and, as Richard Sale of UPI reported at the time:

        "The FBI also served subpoenas on AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr, Managing Director Richard Fishman, Communications Director Renee Rothstein, and Research Director Raphael Danziger.

        "All are suspected of having acted as 'cut outs' or intermediaries who passed highly sensitive U.S. data from high-level Pentagon and administration officials to Israel, said one former federal law enforcement official."

        Franklin was nabbed when the FBI videotaped him in conversation with Naor Gilon, chief of political affairs at Israel's embassy in Washington, D.C. The feds were observing Gilon as part of a larger investigation into an extensive Israeli spying operation inside the U.S. government. As Sale reported:

        "In 2001, the FBI discovered new, 'massive' Israeli spying operations in the East Coast, including New York and New Jersey, said one former senior U.S. government official. The FBI began intensive surveillance on certain Israeli diplomats and other suspects and was videotaping Naor Gilon, chief of political affairs at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, who was having lunch at a Washington hotel with two lobbyists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobby group. Federal law enforcement officials said they were floored when Franklin came up to their table and sat down."

        U.S. counterintelligence agencies were hot on the trail of a much larger Israeli spying operation, of which the Franklin-Rosen-Weissman team was just the tip of the iceberg. Those "high-level Pentagon and administration officials" who were passing U.S. secrets to Israel were never caught, or at least they were never prosecuted. They are presumably still at large – and perhaps still embedded in the high councils of state.

        Whenever Israel's aggressive spying in the U.S. is uncovered the usual excuse is that countries spy on each other all the time, and this practice is "routine" even among allies. Yet this is nonsense, and especially so in the case of Israel's covert activities in this country. The very real consequences of Israeli espionage on our soil are being felt today, in the present debate over the not-yet-signed U.S. deal with Iran.

        This story goes back to the earlier part of this decade. The U.S. had cracked the Iranian inter-agency code, which gave Washington a vital window into the internal workings of the Tehran regime. Suddenly, however, all went dark. What had happened? The fact that we cracked their code had somehow been leaked to Tehran and the Iranians immediately changed their communications protocols: U.S. intelligence was blinded as to what was going on inside Iran.

        So who was the leaker? Ahmed Chalabi, a neocon favorite with considerable support inside the Bush administration – who, it turned out, had been an Iranian agent all along – was the prime suspect. When Franklin was questioned about this he stopped cooperating with the FBI and secured a prominent lawyer, Plato Chacheris. This led to the raids on AIPAC.

        When the Obama administration came into office the case against the AIPAC defendants was summarily dropped, much to the chagrin of U.S. counterintelligence agencies. These days I'm willing to bet administration officials are quite sorry they let those Israeli big fish – and their American minnows – off the hook.

        So Boehner is "baffled," is he? Perhaps an interview with a couple of U.S. law enforcement officers – preferably conducted under hot lights, with him in a straight-backed chair – would succeed in un-baffling him. I seem to recall a number of people, among them prominent reporters such as Glenn Greenwald, who have been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution for passing classified intelligence along – or receiving it – without authorization. I wonder how many of those Senators who signed the Cotton letter were privy to classified information given to them courtesy of Israeli "briefers," and who then paraded around Washington braying about what a "bad deal" the administration was preparing to sign.

        Do these esteemed solons think they're above the law? Clearly they do. One longs for the day when they realize they aren't – on the wrong side of a set of prison bars.

        NOTES IN THE MARGIN

        You can check out my Twitter feed by going here. But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

        I've written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and ISI Books, 2008).

        You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here.

        Read more by Justin Raimondo

        [Mar 24, 2015] Are NGOs Agents of Subversion by Patrick J. Buchanan

        March 24, 2015 | Antiwar.com

        Though "Bibi" Netanyahu won re-election last week, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will still look into whether the State Department financed a clandestine effort to defeat him.

        Reportedly, State funneled $350,000 to an American NGO called OneVoice, which has an Israeli subsidiary, Victory 15, that collaborated with U.S. operatives to bring Bibi down.

        If we are now secretly pumping cash into the free elections of friendly countries, to dump leaders President Obama dislikes, Americans have a right to know why we are using Cold War tactics against democracies.

        After World War II, my late colleague on CNN's "Crossfire," Tom Braden, delivered CIA cash to democratic parties in Europe imperiled by communist parties financed from Moscow.

        But that was done to combat Stalinism when Western survival was at stake in a Cold War that ended in 1991.

        Hopefully, after looking into OneVoice and V15, the Senate will expand its investigation into a larger question: Is the U.S. using NGOs to subvert regimes around the world? And, if so, who decides which regimes may be subverted?

        What gives these questions urgency is the current crisis that has Moscow moving missiles toward Europe and sending submarines and bombers to probe NATO defenses.

        America contends that Vladimir Putin's annexation of Crimea and backing for pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine is the cause of the gathering storm in Russian-NATO relations.

        Yet Putin's actions in Ukraine were not taken until the overthrow of a democratically elected pro-Russian regime in Kiev, in a coup d'etat in which, Moscow contends, an American hand was clearly visible.

        Not only was John McCain in Kiev's Maidan Square egging on the crowds that drove the regime from power, so, too, was U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland.

        In an intercepted phone call with our ambassador in Kiev, Nuland identified the man we preferred when President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted. "Yats," she called him. And when Yanukovych fled after the Maidan massacre, sure enough, Arseniy Yatsenyuk was in power.

        Nuland also revealed that the U.S. had spent $5 billion since 1991 to bring about the reorientation of Ukraine toward the West.

        Now, bringing Ukraine into the EU and NATO may appear to Nuland & Co. a great leap forward for freedom and progress.

        But to Russia it looks like the subversion of a Slavic nation with which she has had intimate ties for centuries, to bring Ukraine into an economic union and military alliance directed against Moscow.

        And if NATO stumbles into a military clash with Russia, the roots of that conflict will be traceable to the coup in Kiev that Russians believe was the dirty work of the Americans.

        If the U.S. had a role in that coup, the American people should know it and the Senate should find out whether Nuland & Co. used NGOs to reignite a Cold War that Ronald Reagan brought to an end.

        And if we are now using NGOs as fronts for secret operations to dump over regimes, we are putting all NGOs abroad under suspicion and at risk.

        Not in our lifetimes has America been more distrusted and disliked. And among the reasons is that we are seen as constantly carping at governments that do not measure up to our standards of democracy, and endlessly interfering in the internal affairs of nations that do not threaten us.

        In this new era, U.S. foreign policy elites have boasted of the "color-coded" revolutions they helped to foment in Belgrade, Kiev, Tbilisi. In 2003, we helped to overthrow the Georgian regime of Eduard Shevardnadze in a "Rose Revolution" that brought to power Mikheil Saakashvili. And Saakashvili nearly dragged us into a confrontation with Russia in 2008, when he invaded South Ossetia and killed Russian peacekeepers.

        What vital interest of ours was there in that little nation in the Caucasus, the birthplace of Stalin, to justify so great a risk?

        Nor is it Moscow alone that is angered over U.S. interference in its internal affairs and those of its neighbor nations.

        President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt has expelled members of U.S. NGOs. Beijing believes U.S. NGOs were behind the Occupy-Wall-Street-style street blockages in Hong Kong.

        If true, these U.S. actions raise a fundamental question:

        What is the preeminent goal of U.S. foreign policy?

        Is it to protect the vital interests and national security of the Republic? Or do we believe with George W. Bush that, "The survival of liberty" in America "depends on the success of liberty in other lands."

        If it is the latter, then our mission is utopian – and unending.

        For if we believe our liberty is insecure until the whole world is democratic, then we cannot rest until we witness the overthrow of the existing regimes in Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Belarus, most of the Arab and African nations, as well as Venezuela and Cuba.

        And if that is our goal, our Republic will die trying to achieve it.

        Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

        [Mar 24, 2015] Russia besieged by 'hostile forces', warns Vladimir Putin

        FT presstitutes: "Mr Putin accused the west of trying to undermine his regime" It's not that he simply accused. There are undeniable facts, for example sums in hard currency spend to bolster fifth column are published; for example involvement of the West in failed color revolution attempt known as "White Revolution of 2012" is well documented.
        FT.com

        Mr Putin accused the west of trying to undermine his regime. "Attempts by western special services at using social, non-governmental organisations and politicised associations for their goals are continuing without pause, especially to discredit the government and destabilise the internal situation in Russia," he said.

        "And planning is already under way for actions during the upcoming election campaigns in 2016 to 2018."

        Next year, Russia is to elect a new parliament, and Mr Putin's third presidential term ends in 2018. He has not yet announced whether he will run again, but opposition politicians believe he is determined to remain president indefinitely.

        Francheska (Maya) Smith-Johnson, Mar 26, 2015

        The full text of the speech Mr. Putin gave can be found here:

        He made some excellent points that need to be read in a wider context. In that sense my posting of the link complements the FT article.

        Also I fully support Russia's "significant efforts to reconcile the parties and normalize the situation. We have already received and continue receiving thousands, even hundreds of thousands of refugees and are doing all we can to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe." - said Mr. Putin.

        We need to talk more about the casualties of the war and how they can be helped. Our intentions have to be good - that is the only way to prevent more war.

        ThoughtProvoker, Mar 26, 2015

        Mr Putin must be credited with pulling Russia off its knees after Yeltsin and his circle of oligarchs had sucked it dry - but has replaced that circle with a more benevolent kind; yet still a half-criminal circle.

        Mr Putin's observation re hostility from the West towards Russia (read through the FT articles and commentary - it is hardly impartial) and his conclusion that Russia will only be respected if it is strong are correct. Russia's position towards Denmark is not a threat, it is merely a statement of a fact dictated by Russia's defense policy and, once one takes emotion out of it, is a perfectly reasonable stance. Opposition in Russia is a joke - and Mr Nemtsov poses more risk to the presidency now that he is dead than he was alive; even a two-year-old would understand that.

        All this said, Mr Putin and his government are not without their systemic warts.

        Back to my half-criminal circle remark. Russia needs to address its corruption and bureaucracy At the moment anyone who runs a mid-to-large business in Russia have to keep some part of it away from the eyes of the regulators and of the tax office to survive. This fact is well known and accepted by all parties of the 'deal'; and is designed to give the regulators/the tax office/the government an option to put almost any businessman behind bars at will, all it takes is a pretty straightforward fact finding session.

        Favoritism and the mate hood between Mr Putin circles and oligarchs, even those are no longer as ugly as they were under Mr Yeltsin (at least small-to-mid sized businesses can pretty much feel safe now), is another important stumbling block for the economy - and is the main reason why Russian businessmen choose to incorporate off-shore. They do this for the fear of their business being 'raided' by parties who are aligned to those in power.

        On one hand one may interpret this as just a variation on the lobbying theme that is prevalent here in the West and is ugly; yet the fact that it has a much more powerful hold on people suggests that Russia needs a re-think.

        L53, Mar 26, 2015

        @ThoughtProvoker Let's deal with 1/2 of the comment that Russia is correct in that it needs to be respected. Willing to go along with that.
        How is Putin doing in that area? Let's put some of the stupid lies of the last week aside and just measure him by the walk of his talk...

        (I know it is a popular achievement in Russia, but) the annexation of Crimea?
        Invading Ukraine?
        Having MH17 shot down on the Kremlin's watch?

        And you think it is a way to get respect? Honestly?

        No issue with the warts... everybody knows that and more.

        ThoughtProvoker, Mar 26, 2015

        @L53 @ThoughtProvoker Nobody knows who shot down MH17, and nobody ever will as the countries that partake in that investigation all have the power of veto on making its outcomes public. Russia hasn't been invited. In this situation, logic would dictate a couple of things (1) Russia had nothing to gain and everything to loose from shooting down that plane - and they are intelligent enough to understand that, and (2) the investigators suspect that releasing those results may not be in their interest. Things like starting up uprisings and wars and shooting down international carriers happen because those aid either economic or political cause of the perpetrator. Make your own judgement.

        The annexation of Crimea... Well, Western polling agencies have confirmed that 80+ of Crimeans do indeed support unity with Russia. This means that the referendum that Crimea had was real. The people of the land have made the decision which country they want to live in - this is the basic right that people have.

        The question remains as to whether Mr Putin would have forced this annexation even in the absence of Crimeans' support. No one can answer that definitively, but I would doubt that - Crimea is an important piece of land from both strategic and from cultural perspectives to Russia, but it has a much better and bigger port in Novorossisk (I think that's the name of the city?)...

        A brief recourse to history - no one asked Crimeans whether they wanted to join Ukraine; and they have repeatedly voted for greater autonomy/full autonomy from the Ukraine in 1990s; and had to give up under Kiev's economic pressure.

        WendellMurray, Mar 26, 2015

        @ThoughtProvoker All true, but it is the western European countries which could have done much to counter the usual idiocy from the USA government with regard to any material external affairs issue.

        Disappointing. Regardless of the level of kleptocracy that exists in governmental circles in Russia, Russia deserves every bit of cooperation from western countries. It has not received that. It has received the worst, short of outright and direct warfare, although Russia has had to deal with sundry military skirmishes precipitated by the USA government.

        Harold Godwinson, Mar 26, 2015

        @WendellMurray @ThoughtProvoker Excellent post and reply. In my mind, as a Russophile in a cultural sense, I think the EU were correct to embrace Poland and the Baltic States.

        However the case for the southern central European states was always dubious, and was always championed by the likes of the UK to dilute the influence of individual nations within the EU, thereby reducing the influence of the EU centre.

        The EU was fundamentally wrong in the way the it expanded indiscriminately into the east. The EU are now seeing this in a very practical manner with the mainstream parties losing out to anti-immigration parties.

        WendellMurray, Mar 26, 2015

        @Harold Godwinson @WendellMurray @ThoughtProvoker "Russophile in a cultural sense"

        Anyone who knows Russia and Russians knows that there is much to criticise, but Russophilia may extend much further than mere culture. The Russians, as population, have endure untold brutality over the millennia, although unknown what the population was like or did before history.. Although I do not agree with some assumptions made by the excellent historian. Orlando Figes, his "A People's Tragedy" is excellent in depicting the social/environmental conditions that the average Russia lived through around the Russian revolutionary period.

        As my mother-in-law states however, that title is inaccurate with regard to the actual experience of Russians during the period, Stalinist in fact, of Russia/USSR after the revolutionary period. Beware persistent propaganda.

        Njegos, Mar 26, 2015

        @Harold Godwinson @WendellMurray @ThoughtProvoker

        I think that one big problem the EU faces it that its commitments to the Ukraine and its sanctions against Russia are interpreted by disenchanted voters as further proof that the EU is not run for the benefit of its citizens. This, as you observe, is grist to the mill of the anti-EU parties.

        I agree that rapid expansion of the EU towards the south-east was a mistake but vanity trumped economic common sense. Politicians on both sides wanted the kudos from having expanded the EU or having brought their countries "into Europe".

        Anyway, big clubs become fractious and it remains to be seen the longer-lasting effects of the crisis in the Ukraine on internal EU unity and transatlantic relations. I am just glad that it is Germany which is calling the shots on EU "foreign policy" and not the UK.

        ThoughtProvoker, Mar 26, 2015

        @WendellMurray @ThoughtProvoker This is all about money - BIG money; and also about that gold that's still yet to be repatriated back to Germany. How many wars has Russia vs West has fought in the last few centuries? So it is all about an access to Russia's resources. There has never been a true cooperation between Russia and the West; and, somewhat sadly, we are unlikely to see it in our lifetime.

        No one wants to see a strong Russia - superficially, that is perfectly rational stance on part of Europe and on part of the US, as it is designed to yield the highest economic and political rents. It is based on the good old 'hard power' doctrine of the old Anglo Saxon world, a doctrine that enabled England to colonize and profitably exploit a few parts of the world. They should have noticed that this doctrine had began to fail to deliver from the mid 1990s, as those parts of the world became more evolved and gained social conscience... and of course the first symptom of this was the formation of the US in 1700s.

        Today the world has changed - and the emergence of China has really been a disruptive force (what a fashionable word!!) into the global political and socioeconomic landscape. The strengthening of the Russia/China link, which at least in part has emerged as a by-product of animosity that Russia feels from the West, is likely to bring consequences that are contrary to those intended by the West.

        Francheska (Maya) Smith-Johnson, Mar 26, 2015

        @Njegos

        Njegos, this is hard to accept, but your beloved newspaper does not love you back. Do not waste time and emotional energy to put a wrong - right. The purpose of the guidelines is to support a good discussion. The FT will not allow their point of view to loose ground. They own the platform and have the means to impose their way. What is embracing is the quality of the remarks of their proponents. Sit back and enjoy.

        Harold Godwinson, Mar 26, 2015

        @Francheska (Maya) Smith-Johnson @Njegos If you truly believe that why bother posting here? Post on RT and you will find everyone agreeing with you. If you are trying to actually persuade people, best to use an argument that is at least somewhat credible.

        Frankly, trying to establish some sort of indepence equivalence between the media in the West and in Russia is laughable.

        Francheska (Maya) Smith-Johnson, Mar 26, 2015

        @Harold Godwinson

        Yes, Russia does not offend the intelligence of their audience.

        Harold Godwinson, Mar 26, 2015

        @Francheska (Maya) Smith-Johnson @Harold Godwinson What a devastating response - well, you've got me convinced.

        [Mar 24, 2015] Russia Under Attack by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

        Mar 24, 2015 | CounterPunch

        The Return of Dr. Strangelove

        While Washington works assiduously to undermine the Minsk agreement that German chancellor Merkel and French president Hollande achieved in order to halt the military conflict in Ukraine, Washington has sent Victoria Nuland to Armenia to organize a "color revolution" or coup there, has sent Richard Miles as ambassador to Kyrgyzstan to do the same there, and has sent Pamela Spratlen as ambassador to Uzbekistan to purchase that government's allegiance away from Russia. The result would be to break up the Collective Security Treaty Organization and present Russia and China with destabilization where they can least afford it. For details go here.

        Thus, Russia faces the renewal of conflict in Ukraine simultaneously with three more Ukraine-type situations along its Asian border.

        And this is only the beginning of the pressure that Washington is mounting on Russia.

        On March 18 the Secretary General of NATO denounced the peace settlement between Russia and Georgia that ended Georgia's military assault on South Ossetia. The NATO Secretary General said that NATO rejects the settlement because it "hampers ongoing efforts by the international community to strengthen security and stability in the region."

        Look closely at this statement. It defines the "international community" as Washington's NATO puppet states, and it defines strengthening security and stability as removing buffers between Russia and Georgia so that Washington can position military bases in Georgia directly on Russia's border.

        In Poland and the Baltic states Washington and NATO lies about a pending Russian invasion are being used to justify provocative war games on Russia's borders and to build up US forces in NATO military bases on Russia's borders.

        We have crazed US generals on national television calling for "killing Russians."

        The EU leadership has agreed to launch a propaganda war against Russia, broadcasting Washington's lies inside Russia in an effort to undermine the Russian people's support of their government.

        All of this is being done in order to coerce Russia into handing over Crimea and its Black Sea naval base to Washington and accepting vassalage under Washington's suzerainty.

        If Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, and the Taliban would not fold to Washington's threats, why do the fools in Washington think Putin, who holds in his hands the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, will fold?

        European governments, apparently, are incapable of any thought. Washington has set London and the capitals of every European country, as well as every American city, for destruction by Russian nuclear weapons. The stupid Europeans rush to destroy themselves in service to their Washington master.

        Human intelligence has gone missing if after 14 years of US military aggression against eight countries the world does not understand that Washington is lost in arrogance and hubris and imagines itself the ruler of the universe who will tolerate no dissent from its will.

        We know that the American, British, and European media are whores well paid to lie for their master. We know that the NATO commander and secretary general, if not the member countries, are lusting for war. We know that the American Dr. Strangeloves in the Pentagon and armaments industry cannot wait to test their ABMs and new weapons systems in which they always place excessive confidence. We know that the prime minister of Britain is a total cipher. But are the chancellor of Germany and the president of France ready for the destruction of their countries and of Europe? If the EU is of such value, why is the very existence of its populations put at risk in order to bow down and accept leadership from an insane Washington whose megalomania will destroy life on earth?

        Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Roberts' How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format. His latest book is How America Was Lost.

        [Mar 24, 2015] The MSM ignore and blatantly lie about the nature of the regime the West is backing

        Mar 22, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.6com

        Tim Owen, March 22, 2015 at 9:35 am

        This strikes me as very good big picture analysis:

        "So there are two ways by which the current stand-off will play out.

        • The first one, and arguably the less likely one, is that Russia backs down and ultimately, under continued economic pressure, agrees to privatize its national monopolies or even sell them directly to Western firms, and thus become a sort of Saudi Arabia of the North.
        • The second one is that Russia fends off this latest Western encroachment, forcing the West to re-examine the structure of its post-Cold War political economy. With economic expansion no longer on the table, the West will have a choice of rediscovering the benefits of redistributive policies, or embark on exclusionary policies that would have to be backed by a police state."

        http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2015/03/the-end-of-history-third-way-and.html

        cartman, March 22, 2015 at 10:17 am

        If the MSM will ignore and blatantly lie about the nature of the regime the West is backing, then Western governments will take what they have learned from the junta and apply them to their own societies.

        Fern, March 23, 2015 at 6:23 am

        Tim, thanks for posting the 'fortruss' article by J Hawk – a very good analysis. FWIW, my own thoughts are that it is absolutely essential for the EU and the West generally that Crimea does not prosper. i would go so far as to say that, to a large extent, the future of the neo-liberal economic order depends on Crimea becoming an economic disaster zone. For what has happened as a result of its reunification with Russia, almost an accidental bi-product, you might say, is that the world and its wife has the opportunity to watch two different development models in action, literally side by side. In Ukraine, there's the IMF 'austerity' model – privatisation, asset stripping, foreign ownership of key parts of the economy, cutting back the role of the state to the bare minimum, poverty for much of the population etc. In Crimea's there's a different model, one that sees a role for the state as well as private enterprise – much like the mixed economies of the west in the 1970's before the neo-liberals grabbed control – and where's there's genuine job-creating, value-adding investment in infrastructure planned and already happening.

        If Crimea delivers a much higher standard of living for its people than is achieved in Ukraine, then what price neo-liberalism, what lessons might Greece, Spain, Portugal etc learn? Crimea cannot be allowed to succeed, the threat of a good example is too dangerous.

        marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 7:49 am

        An excellent point, Fern, and that might make a good subject for a post in the not-too-distant future.

        Oddlots, March 23, 2015 at 9:10 am

        I think you are dead right. The stakes could barely be higher.

        It's funny, Russian politics kind of reminds me of Canada in the 70s under Trudeau. Before the southern strategy and the radical "government is the problem, not the solution" ideology of Reagan, Thatcher etc. it was still possible in the west to voice a common purpose that roughly mapped onto government initiative. After 30 years of this pro-oligarchy drivel we can barely conceive of a common purpose. The parasite has taken over the host's mind.

        et Al, March 23, 2015 at 9:45 am

        I would quibble with this:

        However, while Globalization was marketed as a win-win proposition for both the global North and South, in reality the developing states have gotten the losing side of the bargain.

        The smaller southern states have been picked off but are fighting back, as we see in Ecuador, Venezuela, Boliva. The 'Developing World' successfully stopped the Doha round of globalization talks because the North wanted full liberalization of their markets at drop of a hat so that they can waltz in and buy anything worthwhile.

        Brazil has refused this, India has (for example its textile and other industries) and Africa was mostly ignored because the North is racist and thinks they have nothing to offer except South Africa and a few northern bits (which is blatantly wrong as China has been the trailblazing investor in Africa with serious money, development and actually building roads, hospitals and infrastructure – followed eventually by Japan, India & the US).

        I think that maybe the North's dismissing of Africa may well be part of its undoing.

        As for the rest of it, I can agree, but I am weary of being presented with such a limited number of outcomes.

        rymlianin, March 23, 2015 at 11:05 am

        Noam Chomsky agrees . Free markets are for the third world, so that 1st world countries can easily get rid of their excess products.

        yalensis, March 22, 2015 at 10:28 am

        Here we go again! At first I thought this item was from a few days ago, but it's from today. Then I thought it was GroundHog Day!

        Because Kolomoisky has done it again, and his guys (maybe not him personally) have invaded a different oil company, this time UkrNafta (not to be confused with UrkTransNafta, which is a different company). Benny's guys have barricaded themselves inside the company HQ, at Nesterovsky Street in Kiev.

        A spokesperson says this siege is a continuation of the story (explained by Jen, in comment above) whereby the rules were changed for what constitutes a quorum among shareholders.

        The Ukrainian government owns (50% + 1) share of UkrNafta. Now, just like the previous case, the government wants to put in its own management, while expelling Benny's henchmen from the big boardroom.

        The article states that Benny must not have listened to Pyatt's warnings.

        [yalensis: I mentioned in comment, above, that Benny is a proud and stubborn man, who listens to nobody.]

        james, March 22, 2015 at 12:35 pm

        thanks for these kolowonky updates… what i find fascinating is a guy being allowed to have a goon squad and parading around ukraine with the goon squad doing these kinds of acts.. what would happen if he had some competition and goon squads started to lock themselves into privatbank locations?

        how do ordinary citizens of ukraine view this guy? there are no parallels in western societies that i am aware of!

        james, March 23, 2015 at 3:49 pm

        article today suggests that my question from earlier is being answered here – http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2015/03/kolomoisky-vs-poroshenko-kiev-junta.html

        2. Poroshenko ordered to disarm all armed guards near the office of "Ukrnafta".

        3. Continuing the theme, Poroshenko said:

        "Territorial defense will obey the clear military vertical of power and no Governor will be allowed to have his own pocket UAF (armed forces of Ukraine).

        see the article for more..

        marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 11:05 pm

        He is setting himself up for a mini civil war in Kiev if he thinks to order Benny to disperse his private army now, because they are loyal to their employer – Benny, who pays them directly, when they know all too clearly they are not going to be allowed to have this much fun roughing up and killing people ever again while getting paid for it – and the time to do it was the second it became known Benny was doing it, because the constitution forbids it and Porky always knew that.

        He let him get away with it because it was useful, and there is no use in his attempting to stand on the law now: funny how when you trample on the law every day and only obey what suits you, how difficult it is to get back to the world of law when you need to. And what else does Porky have but the moral high ground he is attempting to claim? Would the Ukie army obey him if he ordered them to wipe out Benny and his boys? Glad it's not my decision. If you run for it now, Porky, you might avoid being turned into bacon. Yes, I said it. Bacon.

        Moscow Exile, March 24, 2015 at 12:08 am

        Bacon butty, anyone? The heat is on? Breaking: Kolomoysky raids Ukrnafta

        yalensis, March 24, 2015 at 2:29 am

        VZGLIAD is taking online poll as people place their bets on their cock-fight.

        Results so far (of 11609 people voting):
        64.6% think Benny will win the fight
        15.7% think Porky will win.
        19.7% say it will end in draw

        I explained my reasons in above comment, I placed my bets on Porky, and I went ALL IN!
        (or "va bank" as the Russians say!)

        Moscow Exile, March 24, 2015 at 3:03 am

        The Germans also use the expression "Va banque" – sometimes spelt "Vabanque".

        A well known usage of this term allegedly took place during a conversation between Hermann Göring und Adolf Hitler on their hearing of the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3rd, something which they had not expected to happen as a result of the German invasion of Poland two days earlier and had therefore considered that invasion a risk worth taking.

        Apparently, Göring said to Hitler:

        "Wir wollen doch das Vabanque-Spiel lassen", worauf Hitler antwortete: „Ich habe in meinem Leben immer Vabanque gespielt.

        "We should go for broke", whereupon Hitler answered: "I have my whole life always gone for broke".

        It means to play against the bank, to lay all your stakes against what the bank has; if you win, you win big time: if you lose, you lose everything.

        The vulgar expression where I come from is "shit or bust".

        So rephrasing Hermann and Adolf's little exchange above:

        – Well, it looks like it's shit or bust.

        – All my life it's been shit or bust with me.

        Only thing is, Adolf didn't use dirty language.

        And he liked dogs as well.

        And he was a veggie.

        yalensis, March 22, 2015 at 11:00 am

        Roman Bochkala, Ukrainian journalist and patriot.

        1. Four months ago: We must not surrender the airport to the Separatists!"
        2. Two days ago: Ukraine has plunged into poverty .
        TRANSLATION (of piece done by Bochkala on Ukrainian TV)

        The (Ukrainian) people are suffering real poverty. Here is just one sad example:
        Yesterday I happened to be in Zaporozhie. We popped into a deli. Ahead of me in the queue was a young girl and an old woman. And some very basic products on the belt. The girl was purchasing yogurt, some hot dogs, margarine, and eggs. All this came to around 70 or so.
        When she was ready to pay, she studied the receipt, and discovered that the real price was higher than what was marked (on the products). "What you have on the price tags is lower than this," she told the check-out clerk. She said this matter-of-factly, not like she was disputing the price, just complaining about it.

        "We didn't have time to change the price tags. Sorry," the young clerk apologized. I concluded that the young girl had calculated in her head how much she would pay, when selecting her products. In other words, for her this was a serious sum. She doesn't have the option of just buying yogurt, without factoring in the price. Then my attention was turned to the sound of coins clanking.

        The old woman was pouring out of a cellophane (baggie) a small heap of coins, of varying denominations. "That's all I have," she said. "I don't have any more money." The old woman was neatly dressed, but looked hopeless.

        The clerk methodically moved the coins from one heap to another (while counting them). "You need 27.5 but you only have 25," he concluded, counting the money again. It became an issue (for her): what should she put back, the bread, or the flour?

        I took out 200 hryvnas and gave it to the woman. She looked at me, with the look of a dog who has been many times abused and deceived.

        Then she burst out crying.

        And such people are ever more numerous in Ukraine.

        marknesop, March 22, 2015 at 11:39 am

        I don't have the words to tell you how sad that is to me.

        kirill, March 23, 2015 at 6:03 pm

        Not a single squeak about this theme in the whole western media.

        Quite the propaganda chorus the western media is.

        Moscow Exile, March 22, 2015 at 11:16 am

        Igor Mosiychuk heads a meeting in mourning for and dedicated to the victims of the Holodomor.

        kirill, March 22, 2015 at 11:31 am

        I should take this opportunity to point out, once again, that the western Ukraine did not live through Holodmor. All of western Ukraine not just some part of it. But the Donbas did live through Stalin's forced collectivization famines.

        So we have the Nazi allied Bandera vermin using the deaths of people in the Donbas as a pretext to kill people in the Donbas. Sick.

        But they have the following logic: Before the Holodomor the Donbas was populated by virgin ethnic Ukrs. The residents of the Donbas after the famine are all Russian squatters. My relatives believe this SHIT. I need to stop treating them as my relatives.

        Some facts about the Donbas:

        1. There are many Ukrainians living there, which is inconsistent with the genocide claim. Genocides totally remove demographic traces. You can see this in western Ukraine where there are no longer Poles and Jews in regions they previously populated in large numbers.
        2. There are Serbs and Greeks still living in eastern Ukraine. Did Stalin settle them there?
        3. We should ask the current residents of the Donbas who tend to graves going back into the 1800s what they think about the Banderite claims.

        kirill, March 22, 2015 at 11:43 am

        Ignore this BS map in the east. Novorossia was not part of Ukraine until the Soviets.

        marknesop, March 22, 2015 at 11:42 am

        I don't suppose he sees any irony at all in commemorating an event in which people starved to death when he himself displaces roughly as much water as a Buick Skylark.

        kirill, March 22, 2015 at 11:47 am

        To be fair, he likely has a thyroid disorder and insulin resistence. Obesity is not simply due to stuffing your face and it is a fact that thin people can consume more calories than obese people.

        This applies to the insulin resistant who instead of turning glucose into heat (as "normal" people do) turn it into fat. Calorie restriction for insulin resistant metabolism types is guaranteed to fail.

        They need high fat, low carbohydrate type diets.

        Jen, March 22, 2015 at 7:49 pm

        Symptoms of iodine deficiency include obesity, insulin resistance and diabetes. They go together in a vicious circle and teasing out which causes which almost amounts to time-wasting Titanic deckchair rearrangements.

        Max, March 22, 2015 at 9:06 pm

        Not so fast…

        https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/more-on-the-fake-holodomor/

        The 7 million figure was invented after World War 2 by Ukrainian nationalists, many of whom had fought with the Nazis and killed many Jews by participating in the Holocaust. The 7 million figure was invented by these people to be higher than the 6 million Jews killed by Hitler in the Holocaust. In other words, Stalin was worse than Hitler, and Hitler was right to go to war against Judeo-Bolshevism. Get it?

        yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 5:22 pm

        Seven million people? Peanuts!

        More like TWO HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE! Killed by commies, yeh!

        yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 5:32 pm

        Interesting footnote, which I saw in above wiki piece. (To be specific: footnote #12 – the word "Crimea" caught my eye").

        Here is link to footnote:

        So, one year after George W. Bush dedicated the monument, designed to exasperate the Chinese government, then the first anniversary of this exercise in extreme hypocrisy, was held in Crimea, with Tatars playing the role of "victims du jour".

        The event organizers had selected Beethoven's Ninth Symphony as the background music. This well-known symphony is regarded a symbol of both the beginning and the end of Communism in Eastern Europe. In 1918, the top Communist leaders, including Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky, participated in the first anniversary celebrations of the October Revolution by attending a performance at the Bolshoi Theater in Moscow. Seventy-one years later, shortly after the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the American composer and conductor Leonard Bernstein conducted the Ninth Symphony on Christmas Day in West Berlin.

        It was very touching to see more than 20 wreaths lined up in the grassy area adjacent to the Memorial site waiting to be presented at the ceremony. They were in alphabetical order, starting with Afghanistan and ending with Ukraine. (……)

        The Crimean Tatar wreath was presented in the name of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis (Assembly), Simferopol, by the International Committee for Crimea (ICC), Washington, DC. The inscription on one of the ribbons read: "Honoring the memory of more than 200,000 victims of famine, deportation and political repression." I had the honor of presenting the Crimean Tatar wreath in person. We are grateful to the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation for providing a platform where we can link to other people of different national, ethnic, religious or cultural backgrounds, who were victimized by Communist authorities. Together we can support the Foundation and work toward the common goal of educating the public about Communism's crimes against humanity.

        Plus ça change, plus ça la même chose!

        yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 5:37 pm

        P.P.S. – one link leads to another . ICC still exists, and still sobbing about violated Tatars rights. Meanwhile, in reality Tatars have more rights now, in Russian Crimea, than they ever had in Ukie Crimea.

        ICC logo appears to be a Ukie trident flipped upside down and ready to sink into the Black Sea…

        Maybe like a sinking boat?

        yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 5:38 pm

        http://www.iccrimea.org/

        colliemum, March 23, 2015 at 10:29 pm

        It's how things work: once a group of people has become a designated 'victim group', they can do no wrong in the eyes of the MSM and of course their supporters in the West. It doesn't matter if these designated 'victim groups' are in foreign countries or actually living on the soil of a Western country.

        I have no idea how the process of selecting a 'victim group' works. For example, in the UK Pakistani and Bangladeshi muslims are 'victims' – Kurds, who've been persecuted by various Turkish regimes, are not. And it's not about skin colour either, because neither Sikhs nor Hindus are 'victim groups' …

        I think someone ought to do a bit of research into this!

        (Not me – I'm pounding the pavements and doing other electioneering, until May 7th)

        Moscow Exile, March 22, 2015 at 11:57 am

        Referring back to the previous posting concerning Psaki's replacement, Rathke, and Harfe and how Matt Lee tackles these double-talking spokespersons for the State Department:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfEIXy64HL0

        Warren, March 22, 2015 at 2:43 pm

        Published on 22 Mar 2015

        MORE DOCUMENTARIES HERE: http://www.youtube.com/RTDocumentaries/

        Miguel Francis, a Los Angeles film school graduate, travels to Crimea to discover how life there has changed since it was reunited with Russia. He explores the beautiful peninsula's history and cultural heritage, as well as taking in some of Crimea's tourist attractions while talking to locals about their attitudes to becoming Russian citizens.

        Tim Owen, March 22, 2015 at 6:05 pm

        Did he graduate?

        Jen, March 22, 2015 at 5:24 pm

        Miguel Francis Santiago also made a documentary on Donetsk and the Donetsk rebels. From memory, I think he visited the airport with the rebels and talks to Givi.
        http://rtd.rt.com/films/donetsk-an-american-glance/

        davidt, March 22, 2015 at 3:28 pm

        For a change of pace and emphasis, the American University in Moscow website has a nice, and interesting, interview with Charles Bausman, of Russia Insider fame.
        http://us-russia.org/3032-orthodox-american-crowdfunds-a-major-volunteer-media-watchdog-site.html

        I think it's worth reading.

        Warren, March 22, 2015 at 5:40 pm

        With that announcement on #Syria the #UK breaks international law OFFICIALLY & should shut up about #Russia forever. pic.twitter.com/j6oufVHQC0

        - Jason Han (@hanjixin) March 23, 2015

        Warren, March 22, 2015 at 5:53 pm

        EXCLUSIVE: Detained by #SBU, beaten by #RightSector – Story of French businessman in #Ukraine http://t.co/49YFrNd6M5 pic.twitter.com/bNx0Ct5INf

        - Russia Insider (@RussiaInsider) March 21, 2015

        Pavlo Svolochenko, March 22, 2015 at 8:27 pm

        http://ria.ru/world/20150322/1053911387.html

        Benny admits DNR and LNR defacto authorities in Donbass.

        http://www.politnavigator.net/nachinaetsya-kolomojjskijj-potreboval-finansovojj-federalizacii.html

        Benny wants 90% of regions' tax take to stay with regional authorities.

        So much for the champion of edina Ukraina.

        kat kan, March 23, 2015 at 12:07 am

        He'd love them to stay separate. With 90% of taxes? he has a racket worked out already for taking it off them. Whereas they're of a bent to nationalise things they believe were illegally obtained.

        yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 3:07 am

        American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine fires its president , most probably for his "pro-Russian" views.

        Namely, Bernard Casey was outspoken in his views against Maidan as a violent coup, and felt that Crimea should return to Russia.

        KievPost "exposed" Casey; after their expose, he was toast, and then he got fired from his job.

        Casey apparently hails from San Jose California [yalensis: I have been there, it's actually a lovely place, the local inhabitants keep their property in perfect shape, almost obsessively landscaping their yards], anyhow Casey's expertise is small business and start-up companies.

        Nothing in Casey's bio that suggests that he is a rebel, or even anything "ethnic" going on there…

        Maybe he is simply an honorable man who tells the truth as he sees it, and pays the consequences for that?

        kirill, March 23, 2015 at 5:47 am

        He is definitely a heretic. NATO is even going to establish rapid internet reaction forces to stop the spread of Russian false narratives. We are back in the era of the crusades.

        marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 8:05 am

        Because everyone knows the people are too stupid and unwordly to know for themselves that they are being fed bullshit. In fact, NATO's successful transmission of its own narrative depends on it.

        james, March 23, 2015 at 8:46 am

        thanks yalensis.. the kiev post is an interesting american publication, or at least that is what it looks like to me! reading the article on caseys views which were also published in the kiev post confirms the fact he was looking for objectivity in an atmosphere which was opposed to it..i am surprised the kiev post let his thoughts be known!

        http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/chamber-disavows-ex-presidents-remarks-supporting-russias-annexation-of-crimea-384197.html

        yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 4:53 pm

        KievPost has the WORST commenters, bunch of low-IQ, prejudiced Banderite diaspora trash.

        Like this one, for example:

        A commenter called "OlenaG" makes gratuitous attack not only against Mr. Casey but entire San Jose State University, which is actually a component of the California State University system (which is highly respected educational system, even internationally):

        "He received a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering at the San Jose State University and an MBA degree at Santa Clara University."

        Anyone that knows the reputation of San Jose State as a "Party College" (rated by U.S. News and World Report in its annual College ratings) and knows the Political Correctness of Santa Clara County both in California and in South San Francisco Bay would know to not have hired Casey.

        (….)

        Talk about ad hominem attacks! This idiot has no proof whatsoever that Mr. Casey spent his time partying instead of studying electrical engineering; and moreover, the very fact that Mr. Casey joined the Chamber of Commerce probably indicates that he was NOT politically correct at all!

        Pavlo Svolochenko, March 23, 2015 at 5:23 pm

        The worst American university would still compare favourably with the best Ukrainian one, I suspect.

        yalensis, March 24, 2015 at 3:34 am

        Well, Ukraine USED to have good universities, especially in Soviet times.
        Now, I am not so sure…

        yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 3:24 am

        More on Kolomoisky's antics.

        Linked piece is entitled: "Kolomoisky goes va-banque", which is a Russian phrase (actually French), meaning, as Americans would say, in a poker game, "all in".

        In other words, Benny continues to occupy the UkrNafta company offices in Kiev.
        (Not to be confused with the other oil company, UkrTransNafta, which Benny had to cede.)

        To beef up the ranks of his goons, Benny sent his personal battalion "Dnepr-1″. Leaving the war zone of the "Anti-Terrorist Operation", this battalion arrived back in Kiev to seize UkrNafta.

        Benny has explained that his military operation against UkrNafta is necessary to thwart the "raider" attempt by his (Benny's) arch-enemy, Igor Eremeev. Eremeev is a fellow oligarch and also a member of Ukrainian Parliament.

        This exciting event is all happening on Monday, March 23.

        There was a confrontation when one of Porky's allies, the deputy named Mustafu Nayem, attempted to enter the building. Benny's goons would not allow Mustafu inside. Ukrainskaya Pravda reported that Mustafu was beaten up. (see the video)
        Mustafu elucidated on his Facebook that he was roughed up, but not badly beaten.
        According to the description of the video (which I have not had time to watch), Mustafu asked Benny: "What are you doing here, Igor Valeryevich?"
        To which Benny replied: "I came to see a Parliamentary Deputy. And who are you, a journalist or a deputy?"

        Mustafu replied that within 2 months, UkrNafta will be a nationalized company belonging to the state.

        Benny shot back, that this will not happen, because UkrNafta is a private company, and that he himself (=Benny) owns 42% of it.

        And on and on… lots more… but the thrust of the article is that things are getting serious now.

        james, March 23, 2015 at 8:58 am

        yalensis, i am confused by these actions. in most countries where the rule of law supposedly operates, the police would come and evict these squatters… why isn't this happening here? or is this the type of system they have where oligarchs goon squads can do whatever their goon demands they do without any legal ramifications?

        james, March 23, 2015 at 3:51 pm

        2. Poroshenko ordered to disarm all armed guards near the office of "Ukrnafta".

        3. Continuing the theme, Poroshenko said:

        "Territorial defense will obey the clear military vertical of power and no Governor will be allowed to have his own pocket UAF (armed forces of Ukraine).
        http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2015/03/kolomoisky-vs-poroshenko-kiev-junta.html

        Jen, March 23, 2015 at 4:08 pm

        Kolomoisky funds at least five paramilitary battalions including Aidar, Azov, Dnepr-1, Dnepr-2 and Donbass which are part of the National Guard.

        A good proportion of his "goons" are probably members of these battalions. Whatever passes for the police (under Arsen Avakov's authority) in Kiev doesn't have a hope against these people.

        marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 11:10 pm

        Baby, what you said. Hopeless. Run for it, Porky.

        yalensis, March 24, 2015 at 2:05 am

        Are we in the process of placing bets? Because I am still betting on Porky. To be sure, he doesn't have much of an army.

        But he has Geoffrey Pyatt and the American marines behind him. That has to count for something!

        "From the halls of Montezuma, to the walls of UkrNafta…"

        (or something like that)

        colliemum, March 24, 2015 at 2:23 am

        He's also got a squad of UK army 'instructors' …
        ;-)

        Moscow Exile, March 24, 2015 at 2:33 am

        Which side is Yats Rats on? I reckon he's the one that runs the show there: he's Nudelman's boy after all.

        james, March 23, 2015 at 6:29 pm

        more info/subjective angle – http://cassad-eng.livejournal.com/150328.html

        yalensis, March 24, 2015 at 2:08 am

        Yeah, see, Cassad agrees with me. Benny is toast!

        davidt, March 23, 2015 at 5:46 am

        Alastair Crooke has posted two new articles at Conflicts Forum. The first discusses a possible Iran agreement. To quote from the article:

        "Iran has already dropped the dollar as a means of trading. And as the non-dollar economic system expands with a SWIFT financial clearing system already launched, with Central Bank non-dollar currency swaps in place and a putative non-dollar jurisdiction banking system under construction by China and Russia, Iranians are now seeing the alternative, and getting fed up with hanging on the eternal "will they/won't they" lift sanctions hiatus."

        http://www.conflictsforum.org/2015/how-would-an-iran-agreement-impact-on-irans-geo-political-situation/

        davidt, March 23, 2015 at 5:57 am

        The second of Alastair Crooke's posts considers Greece's travails with the EU "system", which he sees as similar to Russia's conflict with the global "system".

        http://www.conflictsforum.org/2015/widening-geo-political-linkages-and-the-middle-east/

        ... ... ....

        Moscow Exile, March 24, 2015 at 12:08 am
        Bacon butty, anyone? The heat is on?

        Breaking: Kolomoysky raids Ukrnafta

        marknesop, March 24, 2015 at 11:15 am

        Kolomoisky is out of control – before any of those too-rich-to-give-a-fuck oligarchs start thinking about an armed takeover, they should consider how their plan meshes with the west's plan. Because if they are in competition rather than harmony, that oligarch will be squashed. And Benny is embarrassing – it was already inconceivable that Ukraine would be accepted for membership in the European Union, the west just wants to use it as a "stone frigate" against Russia, but how much more inconceivable is it now, with Benny's antics? Besides, he did not even make Nuland's "A" list, so obviously the notion of his being the rebel King of Ukraine was never entertained. Nuland wants Yats, who is watching with interest to see who will emerge victorious from this street fight.

        On a totally unrelated subject, I just picked up Mrs. Stooge from the Ferry home; she spoke glowingly of your handsomeness, enviable bearing and manner. Mrs. Exile will have to keep you on a short leash, you lady-killer. For the prizewinners Jen and James, I have acquired perhaps the only set of metal Novorossiyan soldiers in Canada. I haven't seen them yet, the missus just dropped me off at work and headed home without even taking her suitcase out of the car, but I will get about the business of sending them forthwith. I think I will save Strelkov for last or for the 100,00th comment, but once I have a look at them I will describe the others for the winners' choice – Jen first, and then James.

        et Al, March 23, 2015 at 12:16 pm

        RT OpEd: Anti-Russian propaganda is 'unconvincing', because Western narrative is false

        http://rt.com/op-edge/243237-eu-russia-propaganda-counter-war/

        ###

        Neil Clark doesn't mess about and it is not complicated. The West's response to the failure of the general public to swallow hook, line and sinker its bs line on Ukraine is because it is bs an people know it. Their strategy to counter 'Russian propaganda' is nothing more than shouting louder. Now how retarded is that? As I posted from an earlier piece from euractiv, Brussels would like a return on this investment! That's Planet Brussels for you!

        marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 1:38 pm

        In other news, there was no protest in Odessa yesterday, it was all a faked, crappy provocation by a Kremlin-sponsored TV station that provided not only the phony protesters, but phony Right Sektor goons to attack them. Totally phony, from the word "Go". Nothing to see here, return to your homes.

        Moscow Exile, March 23, 2015 at 1:16 pm

        By way of Russia Insider by A. Karlin:

        The Moor Has Done His Duty*

        Freedom! Don't ya'll just love the sound of that word!

        Freedom of speech, freedom of the press! You just cannot get enough of it in the Land of the Free.

        From a comment to the above:

        I even think that Putin, where [sic] he a sane man, could have obtained the return of Crimea peacefully had he not been a psychotic killer.

        Another Internet clinical psychiatrist, I presume.

        * "The Moor has done his duty, the Moor can go" .

        From Schiller's "Die Verschwörung des Fiesco zu Genua" [Fiesco's Conspiracy at Genoa]: Der Mohr hat seine Schuldigkeit getan, der Mohr kann gehen, meaning "once you have served your purpose, you are no longer needed".

        [Mar 24, 2015] The Deep State

        February 28, 2014 | theamericanconservative.com

        Steve Sailer links to this unsettling essay by former career Congressional staffer Mike Lofgren, who says the "deep state" - the Washington-Wall-Street-Silicon-Valley Establishment - is a far greater threat to liberty than you think. The partisan rancor and gridlock in Washington conceals a more fundamental and pervasive agreement. Excerpts:

        Excerpts:

        These are not isolated instances of a contradiction; they have been so pervasive that they tend to be disregarded as background noise. During the time in 2011 when political warfare over the debt ceiling was beginning to paralyze the business of governance in Washington, the United States government somehow summoned the resources to overthrow Muammar Ghaddafi's regime in Libya, and, when the instability created by that coup spilled over into Mali, provide overt and covert assistance to French intervention there. At a time when there was heated debate about continuing meat inspections and civilian air traffic control because of the budget crisis, our government was somehow able to commit $115 million to keeping a civil war going in Syria and to pay at least £100m to the United Kingdom's Government Communications Headquarters to buy influence over and access to that country's intelligence. Since 2007, two bridges carrying interstate highways have collapsed due to inadequate maintenance of infrastructure, one killing 13 people. During that same period of time, the government spent $1.7 billion constructing a building in Utah that is the size of 17 football fields. This mammoth structure is intended to allow the National Security Agency to store a yottabyte of information, the largest numerical designator computer scientists have coined. A yottabyte is equal to 500 quintillion pages of text. They need that much storage to archive every single trace of your electronic life.

        Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an "establishment." All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only the Deep State's protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude.

        More:

        Washington is the most important node of the Deep State that has taken over America, but it is not the only one. Invisible threads of money and ambition connect the town to other nodes. One is Wall Street, which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary marionette theater. Should the politicians forget their lines and threaten the status quo, Wall Street floods the town with cash and lawyers to help the hired hands remember their own best interests. The executives of the financial giants even have de facto criminal immunity. On March 6, 2013, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric Holder stated the following: "I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy." This, from the chief law enforcement officer of a justice system that has practically abolished the constitutional right to trial for poorer defendants charged with certain crimes. It is not too much to say that Wall Street may be the ultimate owner of the Deep State and its strategies, if for no other reason than that it has the money to reward government operatives with a second career that is lucrative beyond the dreams of avarice - certainly beyond the dreams of a salaried government employee. [3]

        The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well trodden highway for the personalities we have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others. Not all the traffic involves persons connected with the purely financial operations of the government: In 2013, General David Petraeus joined KKR (formerly Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) of 9 West 57th Street, New York, a private equity firm with $62.3 billion in assets. KKR specializes in management buyouts and leveraged finance. General Petraeus' expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however, is a known and valued commodity. Unlike Cincinnatus, the military commanders of the Deep State do not take up the plow once they lay down the sword. Petraeus also obtained a sinecure as a non-resident senior fellow at theBelfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course, the preferred bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy.

        Lofgren goes on to say that Silicon Valley is a node of the Deep State too, and that despite the protestations of its chieftains against NSA spying, it's a vital part of the Deep State's apparatus. More:

        The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war on terrorism, the financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy, the rise of a plutocratic social structure and political dysfunction. Washington is the headquarters of the Deep State, and its time in the sun as a rival to Rome, Constantinople or London may be term-limited by its overweening sense of self-importance and its habit, as Winwood Reade said of Rome, to "live upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face."

        Read the whole thing. Steve Sailer says that the Shallow State is a complement to the Deep State. The Shallow State is, I think, another name for what the Neoreactionaries call "The Cathedral," defined thus:

        The Cathedral - The self-organizing consensus of Progressives and Progressive ideology represented by the universities, the media, and the civil service. A term coined by blogger Mencius Moldbug. The Cathedral has no central administrator, but represents a consensus acting as a coherent group that condemns other ideologies as evil. Community writers have enumerated the platform of Progressivism as women's suffrage, prohibition, abolition, federal income tax, democratic election of senators, labor laws, desegregation, popularization of drugs, destruction of traditional sexual norms, ethnic studies courses in colleges, decolonization, and gay marriage. A defining feature of Progressivism is that "you believe that morality has been essentially solved, and all that's left is to work out the details." Reactionaries see Republicans as Progressives, just lagging 10-20 years behind Democrats in their adoption of Progressive norms.

        You don't have to agree with the Neoreactionaries on what they condemn - women's suffrage? desegregation? labor laws? really?? - to acknowledge that they're onto something about the sacred consensus that all Right-Thinking People share. I would love to see a study comparing the press coverage from 9/11 leading up to the Iraq War with press coverage of the gay marriage issue from about 2006 till today. Specifically, I'd be curious to know about how thoroughly the media covered the cases against the policies that the Deep State and the Shallow State decided should prevail. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy here, not at all. I'm only thinking back to how it seemed so obvious to me in 2002 that we should go to war with Iraq, so perfectly clear that the only people who opposed it were fools or villains. The same consensus has emerged around same-sex marriage. I know how overwhelmingly the news media have believed this for some time, such that many American journalists simply cannot conceive that anyone against same-sex marriage is anything other than a fool or a villain. Again, this isn't a conspiracy; it's in the nature of the thing. Lofgren:

        Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

        A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer dead weight of the ordinariness of it all once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the 10,000th time. Government life is typically not some vignette from an Allen Drury novel about intrigue under the Capitol dome. Sitting and staring at the clock on the off-white office wall when it's 11:00 in the evening and you are vowing never, ever to eat another piece of takeout pizza in your life is not an experience that summons the higher literary instincts of a would-be memoirist. After a while, a functionary of the state begins to hear things that, in another context, would be quite remarkable, or at least noteworthy, and yet that simply bounce off one's consciousness like pebbles off steel plate: "You mean the number of terrorist groups we are fighting is classified?" No wonder so few people are whistle-blowers, quite apart from the vicious retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes: Unless one is blessed with imagination and a fine sense of irony, growing immune to the curiousness of one's surroundings is easy. To paraphrase the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, I didn't know all that I knew, at least until I had had a couple of years away from the government to reflect upon it.

        When all you know is the people who surround you in your professional class bubble and your social circles, you can think the whole world agrees with you, or should. It's probably not a coincidence that the American media elite live, work, and socialize in New York and Washington, the two cities that were attacked on 9/11, and whose elites - political, military, financial - were so genuinely traumatized by the events.

        Anyway, that's just a small part of it, about how the elite media manufacture consent. Here's a final quote, one from the Moyers interview with Lofgren:

        BILL MOYERS: If, as you write, the ideology of the Deep State is not democrat or republican, not left or right, what is it?

        MIKE LOFGREN: It's an ideology. I just don't think we've named it. It's a kind of corporatism. Now, the actors in this drama tend to steer clear of social issues. They pretend to be merrily neutral servants of the state, giving the best advice possible on national security or financial matters. But they hold a very deep ideology of the Washington consensus at home, which is deregulation, outsourcing, de-industrialization and financialization. And they believe in American exceptionalism abroad, which is boots on the ground everywhere, it's our right to meddle everywhere in the world. And the result of that is perpetual war.

        This can't last. We'd better hope it can't last. And we'd better hope it unwinds peacefully.

        I, for one, remain glad that so many of us Americans are armed. When the Deep State collapses - and it will one day - it's not going to be a happy time.

        Questions to the room: Is a Gorbachev for the Deep State conceivable? That is, could you foresee a political leader emerging who could unwind the ideology and apparatus of the Deep State, and not only survive, but succeed? Or is it impossible for the Deep State to allow such a figure to thrive? Or is the Deep State, like the Soviet system Gorbachev failed to reform, too entrenched and too far gone to reform itself? If so, what then?

        [Mar 24, 2015] Regime Change America's Failing Weapon Of International Deception

        Zero Hedge
        Authored by Ben Tanosborn,

        For years, Winston Churchill's famous quote, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried," has served as Americans' last word in any political discussion which requires validation of the US government, no matter how corrupt or flawed in its behavior, as the best in the planet, comparatively or by default. Never mind the meaning that Mr. Churchill had intended back in 1947, or how the international political panorama has changed during the past seven decades.

        These remarks were made by Britain's prime minister before the House of Commons a few months before there was a changing of the guards in the "Anglo-Saxon Empire" as the Brits gave away their colonial hegemony in favor of the super-influential economic and military power represented by the United States. And that was symbolically marked by Britain's relinquishing its mandate in Palestine, and the creation of Israel.

        Such reference to democracy in the quote, explicitly defining it as a "government by the people," basically applied to Britain and the United States at the close of World War II; but such condition has deteriorated in the US to the point where the "common people" no longer have a say as to how the nation is run, either directly or through politicians elected with financial support provided by special interests, undoubtedly expecting their loyalty-vote. Yet, while this un-democratization period in our system of government was happening, there were many nations that were adopting a true code of democracy, their citizens having a greater say as to how their countries are governed. Recognizing such occurrence, however, is a seditious sin for an American mind still poisoned by the culture of exceptionalism and false pride in which it has been brainwashed.

        And that's where our empire, or sphere of influence, stands these days… fighting the windmills of the world, giants that we see menacing "American interests," and doing it under the banner of "for democracy and human rights." Such lofty empire aims appear to rationalize an obscene military budget almost twice as large as those of Russia, China, India and United Kingdom combined! Americans, representing less than 5 percent of the world's population, are footing a military bill almost twice as large as that expended by half of the world's population. If that isn't imperialistic and obscene, it's difficult to image what other societal behavior could be more detrimental to peace and harmony in this global village where we all try to co-exist.

        Empires and global powers of the past most often resorted to deposing of antagonistic foreign rulers by invading their countries and installing amicable/subservient puppet rulers. The United States and the United Kingdom, perhaps trying to find refuge, or an excuse, in their democratic tradition, have resorted to regime change "manipulations" to deal with adversary governments-nations. [Bush43's Iraq invasion stands as a critical exception by a mongrel government: half-criminal (Dick Cheney-as mentor), and half-moronic (George W. Bush-as mentee).]

        Regime change has served the United States well throughout much of the Americas from time immemorial; an endless litany of dictators attesting to shameless in-your-face puppetry… manipulations taking the form of sheer military force, or the fear of such force; bribery of those in power, or about to attain power – usually via military coup; or the promise of help from the Giant of the North (US) in improving economic growth, education and health. Kennedy's 1961 Alliance for Progress proved to be more political-PR than an honest, effective effort to help the people in Latin America… such program becoming stale and passé in Washington by decade's end; the focus shifting in a feverish attempt to counter the efforts by Castro's Cuba to awaken the revolutionary spirit of sister republics in Central and South America (Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua…).

        After almost two centuries of political and economic meddling in Latin America under the Monroe Doctrine (1823) banner, much of it involving regime change, the US is finally coming to terms with the reality that its influence has not just waned but disappeared. Not just in nations which may have adopted socialist politics, but other nations as well. US' recent attempt to get other regional republics to label Venezuela (Maduro's leftist government) as a security threat not only met with opposition from the twelve-country Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) but has brought in the end of an era. It's now highly unlikely that secretive efforts by the CIA to effect regime change in Latin America will find support; certainly not the support it had in the past.

        To Washington's despair, similar results, if for other reasons, are happening throughout North Africa and the extended Middle East; certainly not the results the US had hoped for or anticipated from the revolutionary wave in the Arab Spring, now entering its fifth year. It is no longer the flow of oil that keeps Washington committed to a very strong presence in the Middle East. It is America's Siamese relationship with Israel.

        But if regime change is no longer an effective weapon for the US in Latin America or the Middle East, the hope is still high that it might work in Eastern Europe, as America keeps corralling Russian defenses to within a holler of American missilery. Ukraine's year-old regime change is possibly the last hurrah in US-instigated regime changes… and it is still too early to determine its success; the US counting on its front-line European NATO partners to absorb the recoil in terms of both the economy and a confrontational status now replacing prior smooth relations.

        Somehow it is difficult to envision an outcome taking place in Ukraine which would allow the United States a foothold at the very doorsteps of Russia; something totally as inconceivable as if China or Russia were contemplating establishing military bases in Mexico or any part of Central America or the Caribbean.

        The era of using regime change as a weapon of mass deception may have already ended for the United States of America… and hopefully for the entire world.

        Mon, 03/23/2015 - 22:46 | 5920475 JustObserving

        America has always lied itself to war - few believe US lies now. Obama almost lied his way to a war with Syria about sarin:

        Lies: An Abbreviated History of U.S. Presidents Leading Us to War

        8. Vietnam (Kennedy, Johnson, 1964) -- Lies: Johnson said Vietnam attacked our ships in the Gulf of Tonkin in August, 1964.Truth: The US didn't want to lose the southeast Asia region, and its oil and sea lanes, to China. This "attack" was convenient. Kennedy initiated the first major increase in US troops (over 500).

        9. Gulf War (G.H.W. Bush, 1991) -- Lies: To defend Kuwait from Iraq. Truth: Saddam was a threat to Israel, and we wanted his oil and land for bases.

        10. Balkans (Clinton, 1999) -- Lies: Prevent Serb killing of Bosnians. Truth: Get the Chinese out of Eastern Europe (remember the "accidental" bombing of their embassy in Belgrade?) so they could not get control of the oil in the Caspian region and Eastward. Control land for bases such as our huge Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, and for the proposed Trans-Balkan Oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea area to the Albanian port of Valona on the Adriatic Sea.

        11. Afghan (G.W. Bush, 2001) -- Lies: The Taliban were hiding Osama. Truth: To build a gas/oil pipeline from Turkmenistan and other northern 'xxstan' countries to a warm water (all year) port in the Arabian Sea near Karachi (same reason the Russians were there), plus land for bases.

        12. Iraq (G.W. Bush, 2003) -- Lies: Stop use of WMDs -- whoops, bring Democracy, or whatever.Truth: Oil, defense of Israel, land for permanent bases (we were kicked out of Saudi Arabia) to manage the greater Middle East, restore oil sales in USD (Saddam had changed to Euros)

        http://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/13-lies-abbreviated-history-of-us.ht...

        Lies and Consequences in Our Past 15 Wars

        http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/9419-lies-and-consequences-in-our-pas...

        gdogus erectus

        Even articles like this erroneously refer to the US as a democracy. WTF. The programming runs deep.

        "A republic...if you can keep it."

        cornfritter

        Very poorly written article. Better to say that Andy Jackson was about the last bad ass to fight of the banksters and die a natural death, then Salmon Chase and his buddies passed the legal tender laws, and shortly thereafter (or possibly before) London dispatched the Fabian socialists with their patient gradualism. We were firmly back under the yoke of London banking cartel come 1913. And you are correct, a republic is an EXTREMELY limited form of democracy (not truly akin to traditional 51% takes it democratic concepts at all). The elected leader's function was supposed to be to guard the principles of the Constitution and the limited Republic, and history will remember that, despite this cruft of an article.

        In the eyes of many who founded this nation, it was only a stepping stone to a global government, the new Rome - but the new Rome will be the UN with a global bank, and the multinational corporations holding court, and then the end come.

        Then again, I may be wrong.

        negative rates

        What passes for gvt is silly these days, we are a legend in our own minds.

        suteibu

        "Governments would become political churches"

        Like in the Middle East? And you will counter by saying that people are forced to live under those governments and, yet, thousands are freely going there from around the world to join ISIS.

        Otherwise, such a system would work right up until one government church decided there wasn't enough room in the area for competitors (probably within a year, maybe six months). Let the political/religious tribal wars begin.

        anusocracy

        Bankers couldn't be banksters without government.

        Maybe it's the monopoly of force thingy you don't understand.

        |

        [Mar 24, 2015] Why Ron Paul is Right about Ukraine by Dan Sanchez

        Mar 24, 2015 | antiwar.com

        How should libertarians assess the crisis in Ukraine? Some would have us believe that a true commitment to liberty entails (1) glorifying the "Euromaidan revolution" and the government it installed in Kiev, (2) welcoming, excusing, or studiously ignoring US involvement with that revolution and government, and (3) hysterically demonizing Vladimir Putin and his administration for Russia's involvement in the affair. Since Ron Paul refuses to follow this formula or to remain silent on the issue, these "NATO-tarians," as Justin Raimondo refers to them, deride him as an anti-freedom, anti-American, shill for the Kremlin.

        Dr. Paul takes it all in stride of course, having endured the same kind of smears and dishonest rhetorical tricks his entire career. As he surely knows, the price of being a principled anti-interventionist is eternal patience. Still, it must be frustrating. After all he has done to teach Americans about the evils of empire and the bitter fruits of intervention, there are still legions of self-styled libertarians whose non-interventionism seems to go little further than admitting that the Iraq War was "a mistake," and who portray opposition to US hostility against foreign governments as outright support for those governments.

        "Yes, the Iraq War was clearly a mistake, but we have to confront Putin; we can't let Iran 'get nukes;' we've got to save the Yazidis on the mountain; we must crush ISIS, et cetera, et cetera. What are you, a stooge of the Czar/Ayatollah/Caliph?"

        Some of these same libertarians supported Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012, and presumably laughed along with the rest of us when the neocons tried to paint him as "pro-Saddam" for opposing the Iraq War and for debunking the lies and distortions that were used to sell it. Yet, today they do not hesitate to tar Dr. Paul as a "confused Pro-Putin libertarian" over his efforts to oppose US/NATO interventions in Ukraine and against Russia. Such tar has been extruded particularly profusely by an eastern-European-heavy faction of Students for Liberty which might be dubbed "Students for Collective Security."

        It should be obvious that Ron Paul holds no brief for Putin and the Kremlin. Let me inform the smear-artists and their dupes what Ron Paul is trying to do with his statements and articles about Ukraine and Russia. He is not trying to support Putin's government. He is doing what he has always done. He is trying to prevent US intervention. He is trying to stop war.

        Some NATO-tarians have responded to this assertion by asking, "If that is so, why can't he just limit himself to simply stating his principled opposition to intervention? Why must he go beyond that, all the way to reciting Kremlin talking points?"

        First of all, this is one of the most egregious fallacies that Ron Paul's critics regularly trot out: the allegation that, "because A voices agreement with B about statements of fact, then A must be doing so in the service of B."

        To see the fallacy involved clearly, let us draw out the Iraq War comparison a bit more. Before and during that war, in spite of Bush Administration and media propaganda to the contrary, Ron Paul argued that Saddam Hussein did not have a weapons of mass destruction program or ties to Al Qaeda. Saddam argued the same thing. So was Ron Paul just "reciting Baghdad talking points" back then? Was he being a "confused pro-Saddam libertarian"? No. Do you know why Ron Paul was saying the same thing as Saddam? Because it was true. As is widely accepted today, Saddam did nothave a WMD program or ties to Al Qaeda. Is it valorizing Saddam to admit that he told the truth? Again, no; it is simply to abstain from hysterically demonizing him. Of course Saddam was a head of state, and as such, he was a lying murderer. But in this instance, telling the truth happened to serve his interests, which included trying to avoid a war in which he might be overthrown and killed. Ron Paul also told the truth, because he's not a lying murderer, and because he also wanted to prevent such a disastrous war: although of course not for Saddam's sake, but for the sake of avoiding all the catastrophic results that would surely (and did) flow from it.

        Ron Paul had no love for Saddam then or for Putin today, just as, notwithstanding endless smears to the contrary, there was no love nurtured by Murray Rothbard for Khrushchev, Justin Raimondo for Milosevic, Lew Rockwell for Lukashenko, or Jacob Hornberger for Chavez. Rather, it just so happens that, to paraphrase Stephen Colbert, the truth has a well-known anti-war bias. That is the only reason why, when speaking about the same international crises, principled anti-war voices so frequently find themselves in agreement over points of fact with tyrants who want to avoid being attacked. The truth can, in some cases, happen to serve the purposes of both good and evil men. That doesn't stop it from being the truth.

        Similarly, there are a great many true (and intervention-disfavoring) points of fact concerning Ukraine and Russia that are being completely ignored by the media, which instead regurgitates the intervention-favoring propaganda it imbibes directly from Washington, London, and the NATO bureaucracy. These truths are broadcasted, and this propaganda refuted, both by the Kremlin and by Ron Paul. But again this coincidence does not occur because the two are in cahoots. The Kremlin engages in this broadcasting and refuting because it considers avoiding US/NATO intervention to be in its state interest. Ron Paul does so because, again, it is the truth, and because he considers avoiding US/NATO intervention to be moral and in the interest of humanity in general (Americans, Russians, and Ukrainians, included).

        What is this propaganda that Ron Paul labors to refute, along with his Institute for Peace and Prosperity, and like-minded alternative media outlets like Antiwar.com and LewRockwell.com?

        According to the Washington/NATO/Kiev/neocon narrative, a peaceful protest movement emerged in Kiev against an oppressive government, was met with a deadly, unprovoked, and uncompromising crackdown, but ultimately prevailed, causing Ukraine's dictator to flee. A popularly-supported, freedom-loving, self-determination-exemplifying government then emerged. But dastardly Putin horribly invaded and conquered Crimea, and engineered a "terrorist" revolt in the east of the country. Putin is the new Hitler, and if the US and Europe don't confront him now, he will continue his conquests until he has recreated the Soviet Empire and re-erected the Iron Curtain.

        The reality of the situation, which Dr. Paul and only a handful of others strive to represent, is far different.

        First of all, the chief grievance of the protesters was not about domestic oppression; it was over foreign policy and foreign aid. They wanted closer ties with the west, and they were angry that (the duly elected) President Viktor Yanukovych had rejected a European Union Association Agreement over its severe stringency.

        Far from "organic," the movement was heavily subsidized and sponsored by the US government. Before the crisis, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland bragged about the US "investing" $5 billion in "helping" Ukraine become more western-oriented.

        Once the anti-government protests in Kiev were under way, both Nuland and Senator John McCain personally joined the demonstrators in Maidan Square, implicitly promising US support for a pro-western regime change. Nuland even went so far as to pass out cookies, like a sweet little imperial auntie.

        Far from peaceful, the protesters were very violent, and it is not clear which side fired the first gunshot. The Foreign Minister of Estonia, while visiting Kiev, was shown evidence that convinced him that protest leaders had hired snipers to shoot at both sides. And the BBC recently interviewed a Maidan protester who admitted to firing on the police before the conflict had become pitched.

        In fact, the hard core of the Euromaidan movement, and its most violent component, was comprised of Nazis. And no, I don't mean to say "neo-Nazi," which is a term really only appropriate for people who merely glean inspiration from historical Nazis. On the other hand, the torchlight marching fascists that spearheaded the Ukraine coup (chief among them, the Svoboda and Right Sector parties) are part of an unbroken lineal tradition that goes back to Stepan Bandera, the Nazi collaborator who brought the Holocaust to Ukraine. Even a pro-Maidan blogger wrote for The Daily Beast:

        "Of course the role that the Right Sector played in the Euromaidan cannot be underestimated. (…) They were the first to throw Molotov coctails and stones at police and to mount real and well-fortified barricades."

        Maidan protesters bearing armbands with the neo-Nazi wolf's hook symbol

        More fundamentally, what is often forgotten by many libertarians, is that revolutionary street and public square movements like Euromaidan are not "the people," but are comprised of would-be members of and partisans for a new state, every one of which is inherently an engine of violent aggression. What we saw in the clash at Maidan Square was not "Man Vs. State," but "Incoming State vs. Outgoing State."

        Far from being completely intransigent, Yanukovych agreed to early elections and assented to US demands to withdraw the riot police from the square. As soon as he did that, the government buildings were seized. The city hall was then draped with white supremacist banners.

        Far from being supported and appointed popularly and broadly, the new government's backing is highly sectional and heavily foreign. It was installed by a capital city street coup, not a countrywide revolution. In a deeply divided country, it only represented a particularly aggressive component of one side of that divide. Moreover, its top officeholders were handpicked by Nuland, and its installation was presided over by the US Vice President, as was famously revealed in an intercepted and leaked telephone recording.

        And the only thing saving the extravagantly warlike new government from bankruptcy is the unstinting flow of billions of dollars in aid from the US, the EU, and the IMF, as well as "non-lethal" military aid (including drones, armored Humvees, and training) from the US.

        Far from being freedom-loving, top offices are held by an ex-bankster (Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, whom Nuland handpicked when she said "Yats is our guy" in the above recording), a corrupt oligarch (chocolate magnate Petro Poroshenko), and, yes, Nazis (including Andriy Parubiy, until recently the National Security chief, and Oleh Tyahnybok, also mentioned by Nuland in the recording as a key advisor to the new government, and pictured at the top of this article with Nuland and "Yats").

        Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the far-right Svoboda Party, formerly the "Social-National Party." Get it? Social-National: National Socialist?

        Far from being an exemplar of self-determination, the new regime responded to eastern attempts to assert regional autonomy with all-out war, shelling civilian centers (with cluster bombs, even) and killing thousands. Of course Nazis have also played a key role in the war. As the famous journalist Robert Parry wrote:

        "The U.S.-backed Ukrainian government is knowingly sending neo-Nazi paramilitaries into eastern Ukrainian neighborhoods to attack ethnic Russians who are regarded by some of these storm troopers as "Untermenschen" or subhuman, according to Western press reports.

        Recently, one eastern Ukrainian town, Marinka, fell to Ukraine's Azov battalion as it waved the Wolfsangel flag, a symbol used by Adolf Hitler's SS divisions in World War II. The Azov paramilitaries also attacked Donetsk, one of the remaining strongholds of ethnic Russians opposed to the Kiev regime that overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych last February."

        Plagued by failure and desertion in spite of massive western aid, the "pro-freedom" new regime in Kiev has resorted to conscripting its non-rebeling citizens. Meeting stiff draft resistance and opposition to the war, it has jailed a journalist for merely advocating draft-dodging, prepared a law restricting the travel of draft-age citizens, contemplated conscripting women over 20, and passed a law allowing the military to shoot deserters on the spot.

        And the Nazis have also played in key role in the stifling and crushing of internal dissent as well. After the coup, Right Sector began patrolling the streets and squares of Kiev. And in Odessa, Right Sector toughs joined a mob in trapping and burning to death 38 anti-Maidan protesters in the Trades Union House.

        Whatever involvement Moscow has in it, the revolt in the east is far from engineered. People there do not need Russian money and threats to know they had absolutely no say in the regime change in distant Kiev, and that it was executed by their political enemies. Russian-speaking and heavily industrial, it would have suffered grievously, both economically and politically, had it been dragged into a new expressly anti-Russian order. It was made abundantly clear which way the wind was blowing when Tyahybok's Svoboda, as the Christian Science Monitor put it, "pushed through the cancellation of a law that gave equal status to minority languages, such as Russian," even if the cancellation was temporary.

        Far from "terrorists," the rebels are not trying to destabilize or overthrow the government in Kiev, but are seeking to establish autonomy from it. If anything, it is Kiev, with its high civilian death toll, that has been more engaged in terrorism.

        And far from Soviet revanchism, Russian policy has been largely reactive against US aggressiveness. Since Moscow dropped its side of the Cold War by relinquishing its empire, including both the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, the US has taken advantage by progressively expanding NATO, an explicitly anti-Moscow military pact, all the way to Russia's borders: a policy that even Cold War mastermind George Kennan, in 1998, predicted would prove to be tragic. Moscow warned Washington that Russia could not abide a hostile Ukraine, which would be a bridge too far.

        But Washington blithely pushed on to snatch Ukraine anyway. The sheer flippancy of it can be seen most vividly when Gideon Rose, editor of the US foreign policy establishment organ Foreign Affairs (published by the Council on Foreign Relations) went on The Colbert Report in the midst of the crisis and jocularly boasted about how "we want to basically distract Russia" with the shiny Olympic medals it was winning at the Sochi Olympics while getting Ukraine "to flip sides." Colbert aptly characterized this geopolitical strategy as, "Here's a shiny object! We'll just take an entire country away from you," to which Rose enthusiastically responded, "Basically!" (Perhaps to atone for such an embarrassing and pandering display of naïveté and frivolity, Rose later published an excellent article by respected establishment foreign policy expert John Mearsheimer arguing "Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault." Even that old CFR-associated murder-monger Henry Kissinger has urged reconsideration.)

        The takeover included Crimea which is heavily Russian-speaking and has been under effective Russian control since the 18th century. Unsurprisingly, Washington's brilliant "Shiny Object" doctrine failed miserably, and rather than see its only warm-water port pass under the sway of an increasingly antagonistic rival, Russia asserted control over Crimea, doing so without loss of life. Later, following a referendum, Crimea was formally annexed.

        Of course this act was not "libertarian"; hardly anything that a state does is. But it is simply a warmongering distortion to characterize this bloodless foreign policy counter-move as evidence of reckless imperial Russian expansionism, especially when you compare the "invasion" of Crimea with the bloody havoc the US has wreaked upon the Middle East, North Africa, and Southwest Asia for the past 14 years.

        As for whatever meddling Russia is guilty of in eastern Ukraine, let's try to put it in perspective without absolving it. Just imagine what the US would do if Russia had supported a coup in Ottawa that installed an anti-American Canadian government right on our border, and then perpetually re-armed that government as it bombed English-speaking separatists in British Columbia. Compared to what you'd expect to follow that, Russia's response to a US-sponsored, anti-Russian junta bombing Russian speakers right on its border has been positively restrained.

        After all, it is Putin who has been constantly pushing for ceasefires against American militant obduracy and European reluctance, just as, in 2013, it was Putin who successfully pushed for a deal that prevented the US from launching yet another air war, this time against the Syrian government.

        Again, this is not to claim that any foreign intervention on the part of Moscow is at all justified on libertarian grounds, or to argue that Putin is anything more than a lying murderer who happens to be more intelligent and sane than our own lying murderers. It is only to make clear that in this respect too, Russia's involvement in the affair is hardly evidence of grand imperial designs.

        As an aside: Putin's foiling of neocon war aims in Syria (and potential future such foilings) may be the reason that the anti-Russian putsch in Ukraine, and the new Putin-threatening Cold War it engendered, was advanced by Nuland, who is a neocon holdover from the Bush Administration and the wife of leading neocon Robert Kagan, in the first place.

        To think that any country is too big or too dangerous (especially if destabilized) to be targeted by neocons for regime change would be naïve. And to think Putin is too naïve to know this would be equally naïve.


        So much for the Washington/NATO/Kiev/neocon narrative. Now to return to the NATO-tarian objection from above: why must Ron Paul stress these points of fact, especially when they make wicked Putin look better, or at least not-so-wicked? Why can't Dr. Paul merely state his principled opposition to intervention?

        It might make sense for him to do so if that were enough to make a difference. But the thing is, it's not. The sad but inescapable fact is that the American people are not operating under the same moral premises as Ron Paul and other principled libertarians. As such, the public is susceptible to war lies and distortions. And the Washington/NATO/Kiev/neocon narrative about Ukraine and Russia is nothing but a tissue of war lies and distortions.

        As the warmongers are abundantly aware, if Kiev is sufficiently falsely valorized, Washington/NATO sufficiently falsely absolved, and Putin and the eastern separatists sufficiently falsely demonized, then American opinion will provide cover for US intervention, regardless of what principled libertarians say. So the only way to practically stop such intervention is to go beyond statements of principle and to debunk those war lies and distortions; moreover, to debunk them bravely and forthrightly, even if the Kremlin is also trying to debunk them, and even if simple-minded or lying critics will use that parallel to smear you as an agent of a foreign power.

        Besides, if Ron Paul's statements really are part of some ulterior pro-Putin agenda, how could he possibly hope for his efforts to advance such an agenda? He couldn't. He is not writing in or speaking Russian; he has zero effect on Putin's domestic support. The only real effect he has is on opinion and policy in the English-speaking world. So, as it concerns the Ukraine crisis, the only real impact he could hope to have is to dissuade intervention.

        So much for Ron Paul's "ulterior motives." But what about some of his critics? A question actually worth asking is as follows: Why are some of his avowedly libertarian critics, many of whom profess not to favor intervention (or at least studiously avoid talking about that question concretely) so absolutely livid over Ron Paul's challenge to their narrative? Their English-language blasts against Dr. Paul are also not likely to effect Putin's domestic support one way or the other. Their only possible impact is also on US foreign policy. So, why are they so extremely sensitive about the acceptance in America of a narrative that lends itself toward intervention and confrontation? The question answers itself.

        Let me close with a few additional questions.

        Why is it "defending tyranny" for Ron Paul to agree with Putin on points of fact, but not for "libertarians" to hail a government that rose to power in a violent putsch, that welcomes outright Nazis in its ranks, that conscripts its people, and that drops cluster bombs on civilians?

        What exactly is "libertarian" about NATO, which amounts to an hegemonic, dual-hemisphere, nuclear tripwire, species suicide pact?

        What is so secure about a state of "collective security" in which petulant, reckless nationalists in small eastern European countries can drag the whole world into nuclear war over a border dispute?

        And finally, why should a new Cold War be launched, and the risk of nuclear annihilation for all our families and hometowns be heightened over the question of which clique rules a particular river basin on the other side of the world?

        Ron Paul has excellent, solidly libertarian answers to all these questions. Do his critics?


        Also published at Medium.com. Follow Dan Sanchez via Twitter, or TinyLetter.


        Dax

        Wow, what a sad mess the U.S. government is. It's quite frustrating how little say we peons have on what our rulers arbitrarily do to other countries that are no threat to us whatsoever. And these wannabe Ukrainian Nazis...I had no idea they were so powerful in number. Are their attacks on ethnic Russians some sort of "cosmic revenge" for the Soviet Union's starvation of Ukrainians in the 30's? The whole thing is a nightmare. May our leaders burn in hell for the misery they've helped create.

        johndavit66

        Besides, if Ron Paul's statements really are part of some ulterior pro-Putin agenda, how could he possibly hope for his efforts to advance such an agenda? He couldn't. He is not writing in or speaking Russian; he has zero effect on Putin's domestic support. The only real effect he has is on opinion and policy in the English-speaking world. So, as it concerns the Ukraine crisis, the only real impact he could hope to have is to dissuade intervention. Thank for share
        Friv 100000

        Michael

        mind blowingly rational stream of conscious and geo-political conscience! It makes tremendous sense particularly if you feel we have been recently duped into 20 or so highly profitable (for oligarchs and financial institutions) wars. Assuming they are going to have another real war with Russia for fun and neo-con profit, where are they going to live in blissful retirement to spend the loot without getting attacked or dripped-on by glow-in the dark irradiated zombies? Are some wars better not started regardless of the causus belli or opportunity for plunder? Is setting-up a game of nuclear armed chicken with the second most powerful alliance on the planet still a good idea if you were planning to retire and spend time growing rhodos and fishing and playing baseball with your grandchildren?

        Do neo-cons have a we-were-just-kidding plan "B" or are they truly to committed to a global sepuku / samson option if they / we lose? Do neo-cons do anything other than dream big about obliterating evil comic book enemies and ruling the world? Is it too late to invent a drug or make a video game or addictive snuff porn to keep them better occupied? How come all the neo-cons are moving to the USA and no one elsewhere is complaining about a shortage of them?


        Claus Eric Hamle

        It is really like 2+2=4: Deployment of missiles in Eastern Europe (Poland and Romania) leads to Launch On Warning (probably by 2017) and Suicide by accident/mistake. What else can the Russians do to defend themselves ? Will they even announce when they adopt Launch On Warning=Suicide Guaranteed. The crazy Americans asked for it -- The Russians want to be certain that they won't die alone. Stupid, crazy, bloody fools in the Pentagon !!!

        [Mar 24, 2015] The New Brand of Authoritarianism

        March 21, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com

        From Vox EU:

        The new authoritarianism, by Sergei Guriev, Daniel Treisman, Vox EU: The changing dictatorships Dictatorships are not what they used to be. The totalitarian tyrants of the past – such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot – employed terror, indoctrination, and isolation to monopolize power. Although less ideological, many 20th-century military regimes also relied on mass violence to intimidate dissidents. Pinochet's agents, for instance, are thought to have tortured and killed tens of thousands of Chileans (Roht-Arriaza 2005).

        However, in recent decades new types of authoritarianism have emerged that seem better adapted to a world of open borders, global media, and knowledge-based economies. From the Peru of Alberto Fujimori to the Hungary of Viktor Orban, illiberal regimes have managed to consolidate power without fencing off their countries or resorting to mass murder. Some bloody military regimes and totalitarian states remain – such as Syria and North Korea – but the balance has shifted.

        The new autocracies often simulate democracy, holding elections that the incumbents almost always win, bribing and censoring the private press rather than abolishing it, and replacing comprehensive political ideologies with an amorphous resentment of the West (Gandhi 2008, Levitsky and Way 2010). Their leaders often enjoy genuine popularity – at least after eliminating any plausible rivals. State propaganda aims not to 'engineer human souls' but to boost the dictator's ratings. Political opponents are harassed and defamed, charged with fabricated crimes, and encouraged to emigrate, rather than being murdered en masse.

        Dictatorships and information

        In a recent paper, we argue that the distinctive feature of such new dictatorships is a preoccupation with information (Guriev and Treisman 2015). Although they do use violence at times, they maintain power less by terrorizing victims than by manipulating beliefs. Of course, surveillance and propaganda were important to the old-style dictatorships, too. But violence came first. "Words are fine things, but muskets are even better," Mussolini quipped. Compare that to the confession of Fujimori's security chief, Vladimir Montesinos: "The addiction to information is like an addiction to drugs". Killing members of the elite struck Montesinos as foolish: "Remember why Pinochet had his problems. We will not be so clumsy" (McMillan and Zoido 2004).

        We study the logic of a dictatorship in which the leader survives by manipulating information. Our key assumption is that citizens care about effective government and economic prosperity; first and foremost, they want to select a competent rather than incompetent ruler. However, the general public does not know the competence of the ruler; only the dictator himself and members of an 'informed elite' observe this directly. Ordinary citizens make what inferences they can, based on their living standards – which depend in part on the leader's competence – and on messages sent by the state and independent media. The latter carry reports on the leader's quality sent by the informed elite. If a sufficient number of citizens come to believe their ruler is incompetent, they revolt and overthrow him.

        The challenge for an incompetent dictator is, then, to fool the public into thinking he is competent. He chooses from among a repertoire of tools – propaganda, repression of protests, co-optation of the elite, and censorship of their messages. All such tools cost money, which must come from taxing the citizens, depressing their living standards, and indirectly lowering their estimate of the dictator's competence. Hence the trade-off.

        Certain findings emerge from the logic of this game.

        • First, we show how modern autocracies can survive while employing relatively little violence against the public.

        Repression is not necessary if mass beliefs can be manipulated sufficiently. Dictators win a confidence game rather than an armed combat. Indeed, since in our model repression is only used if equilibria based on non-violent methods no longer exist, violence can signal to opposition forces that the regime is vulnerable.

        • Second, since members of the informed elite must coordinate among themselves on whether to sell out to the regime, two alternative equilibria often exist under identical circumstances – one based on a co-opted elite, the other based on a censored private media.

        Since both bribing the elite and censoring the media are ways of preventing the sending of embarrassing messages, they serve as substitutes. Propaganda, by contrast, complements all the other tools.

        Propaganda and a leader's competency

        Why does anyone believe such propaganda? Given the dictator's obvious incentive to lie, this is a perennial puzzle of authoritarian regimes. We offer an answer. We think of propaganda as consisting of claims by the ruler that he is competent. Of course, genuinely competent rulers also make such claims. However, backing them up with convincing evidence is costlier for the incompetent dictators – who have to manufacture such evidence – than for their competent counterparts, who can simply reveal their true characteristics. Since faking the evidence is costly, incompetent dictators sometimes choose to spend their resources on other things. It follows that the public, observing credible claims that the ruler is competent, rationally increases its estimate that he really is.

        Moreover, if incompetent dictators survive, they may over time acquire a reputation for competence, as a result of Bayesian updating by the citizens. Such reputations can withstand temporary economic downturns if these are not too large. This helps to explain why some clearly inept authoritarian leaders nevertheless hold on to power – and even popularity – for extended periods (cf. Hugo Chavez). While a major economic crisis results in their overthrow, more gradual deteriorations may fail to tarnish their reputations significantly.

        A final implication is that regimes that focus on censorship and propaganda may boost relative spending on these as the economy crashes. As Turkey's growth rate fell from 7.8% in 2010 to 0.8% in 2012, the number of journalists in jail increased from four to 49. Declines in press freedom were also witnessed after the Global Crisis in countries such as Hungary and Russia. Conversely, although this may be changing now, in both Singapore and China during the recent decades of rapid growth, the regime's information control strategy shifted from one of more overt intimidation to one that often used economic incentives and legal penalties to encourage self-censorship (Esarey 2005, Rodan 1998).

        The kind of information-based dictatorship we identify is more compatible with a modernized setting than with the rural underpinnings of totalitarianism in Asia or the traditional societies in which monarchs retain legitimacy. Yet, modernization ultimately undermines the informational equilibria on which such dictators rely. As education and information spread to broader segments of the population, it becomes harder to control how this informed elite communicates with the masses. This may be a key mechanism explaining the long-noted tendency for richer countries to open up politically.

        References

        Esarey, A (2005), "Cornering the market: state strategies for controlling China's commercial media", Asian Perspective 29(4): 37-83.

        Gandhi, J (2008), Political Institutions under Dictatorship, New York: Cambridge University Press.

        Guriev, S and D Treisman (2015), "How Modern Dictators Survive: Cooptation, Censorship, Propaganda, and Repression", CEPR Discussion Paper, DP10454.

        Levitsky, S, and L A Way (2010), Competitive authoritarianism: hybrid regimes after the cold war, New York: Cambridge University Press.

        McMillan, J, and P Zoido (2004), "How to subvert democracy: Montesinos in Peru", Journal of Economic Perspectives 18(4): 69-92.

        Rodan, G (1998), "The Internet and political control in Singapore", Political Science Quarterly 113(1): 63-89.

        Roht-Arriaza, N (2005), The Pinochet Effect: Transnational Justice in the Age of Human Rights, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

        Peter K.:

        "A final implication is that regimes that focus on censorship and propaganda may boost relative spending on these as the economy crashes."

        Instead of military Keynesianism, it's "police state" Keynesianism.

        More social spending coupled with more social control.

        ilsm:

        The corporation runs the governors.....

        "Investor State Dispute Settlement" is a new twist where the actions of government, like investor "losses" from shuttering frackers would be compensated by a standing unelected nor appointed by the locals "board" filled with corporate cronies to take sovereignty from governments when foreign investors are denied pillaging "rights".

        "Investor State Dispute Settlement" is why you should oppose TPP fast track.

        The kleptocarcy is well advanced in the US!

        GeorgeK:

        ..."This helps to explain why some clearly inept authoritarian leaders nevertheless hold on to power – and even popularity – for extended periods (cf. Hugo Chavez"...

        Guess your definition of authoritarian leaders depends on who's Ox is being gored. If you were wealthy or upper middle class Chavez was a failure, if you were poor or indigenous he was a savior.

        ..."Chávez maintains that unlike other global financial organizations, the Bank of the South will be managed and funded by the countries of the region with the intention of funding social and economic development without any political conditions on that funding.[262] The project is endorsed by Nobel Prize–winning, former World Bank economist Joseph Stiglitz, who said: "One of the advantages of having a Bank of the South is that it would reflect the perspectives of those in the south," and that "It is a good thing to have competition in most markets, including the market for development lending."[263]"...
        Guess nobody told Stiglitz about Chavez's authoritarian incompetence.

        Julio -> anne...

        Seems clear enough to me. Consider "freedom of the press": the US needs to only be mildly interventionist, since moneyed interests will own the megaphones and censor their own workers; and since the one-sidedness of information is no threat to the regime.

        But in a government attempting left-wing reforms, and where the government is less stable, there is less room for the government to accept the unanimity and hostility of the press; it may need to intervene more strongly to defend itself. Take e.g. Ecuador where Correa has been accused of suppressing press liberties along these very lines.

        anne -> Julio...

        Seems clear enough to me. Consider "freedom of the press": the US needs to only be mildly interventionist, since moneyed interests will own the megaphones and censor their own workers; and since the one-sidedness of information is no threat to the regime....

        [ Thinking further, I realize that the United States is wildly aggressive with governments of countries considered strategic and does not hesitate to use media in those countries when our "needs" do not seem met. I am thinking even of the effort to keep allied governments, even the UK, France and Germany, from agreeing to become members of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank that China has begun. ]

        Peter K. -> GeorgeK...

        "Guess your definition of authoritarian leaders depends on who's Ox is being gored."

        This is how I see it. There are no objective standards.

        Lefties criticize Obama for going after whistle blowers. Snowden is treated as a hero. Then guys like Paine and Kervack defend the behaviro of a Putin or Chavez because the U.S. doesn't like them.

        Peter K. -> Peter K....

        I think a lot of the older left is stuck in a Cold War mind set.

        Opposing America is good because you're opposing multinational capitalism. So they'll provide rhetorical support to any nutjob who opposes the West no matter how badly he mistreats his people.

        Peter K. -> Peter K....

        It's the flipside to the Dick Cheney-Security State rationalizations of torture and police state tactics like warrantless surveillence.

        It's okay if we do it, because they're trying to destroy us.

        The ends justify the means.

        hyperpolarizer -> Peter K....

        I am the older left (born right after WW II). I grew up with the cold war, but -- despite its poisonous legacy (particularly the linking of the domestic labor movement to international communism)-- I have assuredly left it behind.

        In light of the New American Police State, post 9-11, it is clear to me that the United States has undergone a coup d'etat.

        Roger Gathmann -> anne...

        Defending Chavez doesn't seem like a bad thing to do. So, Peter K., do you defend, say, Uribe? Let's see - amended constitution so he could run again - Chavez, check, Uribe check. Associated with paramilitaries, Uribe, check, Chavez, demi-check. Loved by the US, Uribe, check, Chavez, non-check. Funny how chavez figures in these things, and Uribe doesn't.
        https://www.citizen.org/documents/TalkingPointsApril08.pdf

        Peter K. -> Roger Gathmann...

        I never said a thing about Uribe. I said there should be single standards across the board for Uribe, America, Chavez, Putin, China, etc...

        Roger Gathmann -> Peter K....

        Right. Double standard. That is what I am talking about. The double standard that allows US tax dollars to go into supporting a right wing dictator like Uribe. I don't have to piss off. You can piss off. I doubt you will. I certainly won't. It is adolescent gestures like that which make me wonder about your age.

        Are you going to slam the door next and saY I hate you I hate you I hate you?
        You need to get a little pillow that you can mash. Maybe with a hello kitty sewed on it.

        Nietil -> Roger Gathmann...

        I don't see how any of these criteria has anything to do with being an autocrat.

        Autocracy is an answer to the question of the source of legitimacy (democratic, autocratic, or theocratic). It has nothing to do with either the definition of the sovereign space (feudal, racial or national) or with the number of people running the said government (anarchy, monarchy, oligarchy).

        The UK for example was a national and democratic monarchy for a long, long time. Now it's more of a national and democratic oligarchy. And it can still change in the future.

        DrDick -> Peter K....

        I really do not think that is at all accurate. While there are certainly some like that, it is far from the majority. Most of us back Chavez, Morales, or Correa for the policies they have followed in their own countries to the benefit of the great masses of the poor and their refusal to put the interests of international capital ahead of their people.

        Much of that support is also conditional and qualified, for reasons that have been mentioned here. All evaluations of current leaders is conditioned by both past history in the country and region, as well as the available alternatives. By those standards, all of the men I mentioned look pretty good, if far from perfect.

        anne:

        http://www.cepr.org/active/publications/discussion_papers/dp.php?dpno=10454

        March, 2015

        How Modern Dictators Survive: Cooptation, Censorship, Propaganda, and Repression
        By Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman

        We develop an informational theory of dictatorship. Dictators survive not because of their use of force or ideology but because they convince the public--rightly or wrongly--that they are competent. Citizens do not observe the dictator's type but infer it from signals inherent in their living standards, state propaganda, and messages sent by an informed elite via independent media. If citizens conclude the dictator is incompetent, they overthrow him in a revolution. The dictator can invest in making convincing state propaganda, censoring independent media, co-opting the elite, or equipping police to repress attempted uprisings -- but he must finance such spending with taxes that depress the public's living standards. We show that incompetent dictators can survive as long as economic shocks are not too large. Moreover, their reputations for competence may grow over time. Censorship and co-optation of the elite are substitutes, but both are complements of propaganda. Repression of protests is a substitute for all the other techniques. In some equilibria the ruler uses propaganda and co-opts the elite; in others, propaganda is combined with censorship. The multiplicity of equilibria emerges due to coordination failure among members of the elite. We show that repression is used against ordinary citizens only as a last resort when the opportunities to survive through co-optation, censorship, and propaganda are exhausted. In the equilibrium with censorship, difficult economic times prompt higher relative spending on censorship and propaganda. The results illuminate tradeoffs faced by various recent dictatorships.

        [ This is the discussion paper, which I find more coherent than the summary essay. ]

        JayR:

        Wow quite a few countries, maybe even the US with Obama's war on whistle blowers, could fit this articles definition if the authors actually though more about it.

        Roger Gathmann -> Peter K....

        Yes, the people of Greece can vote to leave the Eurozone, just like the people of Crimea can vote to leave the Ukraine, or the people of Kosovo could vote to leave Serbia. There are many ways, though, of looking at soft dictatorship. I think the EU bureaucrats have been busy inventing new ones, with new and ever more onerous chains. To say Greece can vote to leave the EU is like saying the merchant can always defy the mafioso, or the moneylender. It isn't that easy.

        Roger Gathmann:

        and then of course there are the death squads:
        https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/wikileaks-on-colombia-uribe-%E2%80%9Cviews-military-success-in-terms-of-kills%E2%80%9D-army-commander-ospina-tried-to-initimidate-witnesses-to-extrajudicial-executions/ ....

        [Mar 22, 2015] Economist's View 'Controlling the Past'

        March 22, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com

        Simon Wren-Lewis:

        Controlling the past: In his novel 1984 George Orwell wrote: "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." We are not quite in this Orwellian world yet, which means attempts to rewrite history can at least be contested. A few days ago the UK Prime Minister in Brussels said this:

        "When I first came here as prime minister five years ago, Britain and Greece were virtually in the same boat, we had similar sized budget deficits. The reason we are in a different position is we took long-term difficult decisions and we had all of the hard work and effort of the British people. I am determined we do not go backwards."

        In other words if only those lazy Greeks had taken the difficult decisions that the UK took, they too could be like the UK today.

        This is such as travesty of the truth, as well as a huge insult to the Greek people, that it is difficult to know where to begin. ...

        The real travesty ... is in the implication that somehow Greece failed to take the 'difficult decisions' that the UK took. 'Difficult decisions' is code for austerity. A good measure of austerity is the underlying primary balance. According to the OECD, the UK underlying primary balance was -7% in 2009, and it fell to -3.5% in 2014: a fiscal contraction worth 3.5% of GDP. In Greece it was -12.1% in 2009, and was turned into a surplus of 7.6% by 2014: a fiscal contraction worth 19.7% of GDP! So Greece had far more austerity, which is of course why Greek GDP has fallen by 25% over the same period. A far more accurate statement would be that the UK started taking the same 'difficult decisions' as Greece took, albeit in a much milder form, but realized the folly of this and stopped. Greece did not get that choice. And I have not even mentioned the small matter of being in or out of a currency union. ...

        pgl:

        Cameron's fiscal austerity has been awful for the UK but he refuses to admit his incompetence. So he finds an economy doing even worse than the UK - Greece. Why is it doing worse? Because it was forced to have even more fiscal austerity than Cameron choose to impose. But did I not say Cameron refuses to admit austerity was a mistake? So what does he do - accuse Greece of not doing enough austerity. Hey - incompetent political leaders lie a lot.

        Op said in reply to pgl...

        Incompetence

        You idiot

        he's a bald face liar serving the interests of "the city"
        He's a demagogue and a shit faced hog in a clean suit
        Tory politicians should end with a cabinet full of em hanging from a gallows in trafalgar square

        Spluttering about travesty
        Hardly encompasses the grotesque inhumanity of these eight legged monstrosities

        That said

        I blame new labor for all this

        They enabled such idery ghouls to regain power

        pgl said in reply to Op ...

        I see that you flunked pre-K reading comprehension. I said he lied. And he is incompetent too. But do babble on.

        Op said in reply to pgl...

        He is profoundly not incompetent
        He got the results he was after
        He deflected blame wiliest cutting back on the recovery rate

        You need to use words
        as they are customarily used
        Or explicitly define your use
        To you incompetent is just a slur
        Much like shit head

        Peter K. said in reply to Op ...

        I don't have any problem with what Wren-Lewis and pgl have written.

        Cameron says austerity works. It doesn't. That's incompetence. He's also dishonest which makes it worse.

        It's also possible he's lying about wanting to be competent, but why speculate? Why bother?

        What does it matter?

        paine said in reply to Peter K....

        The tory cabinet wanted a slow recovery
        they have little concern about deficits per se

        They use scare tactics

        paine said in reply to Peter K....

        The pm does not give a wit about austerity working

        He wanted a stag

        Cui bono

        Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to pgl...

        Cameron's coalition partner, Nick Clegg of the Liberal Dems, has said Enough With The Austerity already. Not so much that the coalition is threatened,
        y'know, but, please...

        We can end austerity, Clegg tells activists http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/nick-clegg-promises-end-era-8844662

        paine said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...

        Barrys twin

        Fred C. Dobbs said...

        I have read that in recent years, Greece has made much progress, increasing exports, etc.

        Under austerity, they have also laid off a whole lot of guv'mint employees, resulting in 25% unemployed, a LOT of whom would like their jobs back. Would that also be something the Brits dealt with?

        anne said...

        http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=10O8

        January 15, 2015

        Government debt and trade balance as shares of Gross Domestic Product for Greece, 2000-2012

        (Percent)


        http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=10TQ

        January 15, 2015

        Government debt and trade balance as shares of Gross Domestic Product for Greece, 2007-2012

        (Percent)

        http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=11aE

        January 15, 2015

        Government debt and trade balance as shares of Gross Domestic Product for United Kingdom, 2000-2012

        (Percent)


        http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=152R

        January 15, 2015

        Government debt and trade balance as shares of Gross Domestic Product for United Kingdom, 2007-2012

        (Percent)

        anne said in reply to anne...

        Where government debt as a share of GDP for the United Kingdom was 44.8% in 2007, debt as a share of GDP in Greece in 2007 was 120.4%. The trade balance was -2.6% in the UK in 2007 and -6.5% in Greece.

        Where government debt as a share of GDP for the United Kingdom was 97.2% in 2012, debt as a share of GDP in Greece in 2012 was 163.6%. The trade balance was -5.5% in the UK in 2012 and -9.4% in Greece.

        anne said...

        http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=152T

        August 4, 2014

        Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United Kingdom and Greece, 2000-2013

        (Percent change)


        http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=152W

        August 4, 2014

        Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United Kingdom and Greece, 2007-2013

        (Percent change)

        http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=152X

        November 1, 2014

        Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for United
        Kingdom and Greece, 2000-2011


        http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1530

        November 1, 2014

        Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for United
        Kingdom and Greece, 2007-2011

        mulp said...

        "And I have not even mentioned the small matter of being in or out of a currency union. ..."

        Yeo, if Greece were to still be on the drachma, then Greece could simply print infinite drachma to buy all the imports, especially oil, that it needs because in a free market, the buyer dictates to the seller the price and terms in all cases.

        This is a core principle of free lunch economics!

        If housing subsidies and food stamps were eliminated, then the working poor would be able to buy sirloin and prime rib for 10 cents per pound because that is as much as they can afford, but the buyer sets the price and terms for all sellers. If rent subsidies were eliminated, the number of 1200 sq-ft rentals at $200 per month would explode because the working poor renter can dictate the size of the apartment and rent. That's why its called the free market. Market goods are freely available and free in a free market!

        The problem in Greece is that too many people believe in free lunch economics. They consider taxes theft and paying taxes to be stupidity. But worse, international bankers believe in free lunch economics where they can loan other people's money to people who can not afford to repay the loans, but the high debt creates wealth and that will create more debt funded spending which will pay for all the past debt.

        I don't see any wing of economists willing to reject free lunch economics and return to the principles of capitalism that were established by FDR and then promoted by government until the 70s when conservatives sold Americans on pillage and plunder, on free lunch economics.

        And those free lunch economic principles have been sold all over the world, especially to Greece when international bankers told Greece they can borrow and spend to infinite, trust them.

        [Mar 21, 2015] Propaganda Shouldn't Pay by NICK COHEN

        July/August 2014 | standpointmag.co.uk

        Spinner-in-chief: Every tinpot PR now thinks he is Alastair Campbell

        As with Nye Bevan and Conservatives so with me and PR departments: "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for press officers. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." Or as the BBC's economics editor Robert Peston put it in his recent Charles Wheeler lecture, "I have never been in any doubt that PRs are the enemy."

        Let me explain how they are the nearest thing to prostitutes you can find in public life. You might say that biased reporters look more like sex workers, as they try to satisfy their readers' every whim. But there is a small difference. The biased journalist occasionally tells the truth. He might produce propaganda, but his bias or that of his editor will cause him to investigate stories conventional wisdom does not notice. Right-wing journalists uncover truths about corruption in the European Union. Left-wing journalists discover truths about the crimes of Nato armies. They look at scandals others ignore precisely because they do not think like level-headed and respectable members of the mainstream.

        Press officers have no concern with truth. It is not that all of them lie - although many do - rather that truth and falsity are irrelevant to their work. Their sole concern is to defend their employers' interests. That they can manipulate on behalf of central government, local authority and other public bodies is an under-acknowledged scandal. The party in power that wishes to stop public scrutiny, or the NHS trust whose executives wish to maintain their positions, use taxpayer funds to advance their personal or political interests. If anyone else did the same, we would call them thieves.

        It makes no difference who is in office. Conservatives complained about the spin and manipulation of New Labour but they are no different now. Indeed they are playing tricks those of us who lived through the Blair years haven't seen before.

        They withhold information from journalists in the hope of killing a story. If reporters publish nevertheless - as they should - the government tells their editors and anyone else who will listen that they are shoddy hacks who failed to put the other side of the story. An alternative tactic is for press officers to phone up at night, just after an article has appeared online, and try to bamboozle late-duty editors into making changes. I have had the Crown Prosecution Service and the BBC try to pull that one on me. That neither institution is in the political thick of it only goes to show that every dandruff-ridden PR in every backwater office now thinks he is Alastair Campbell.

        Politicians and senior civil servants do not rate state-sponsored propagandists by their ability to tell the public what is done in their name with their money. Like corporate chief executives and celebrities, they judge them by their ability to keep uncomfortable stories out of the press.

        Compare PRs with other despised trades. Journalists have blown the whistle on journalistic malpractice. Bankers have blown the whistle on financial malpractice. But I have never heard of a press officer going straight and coming clean by explaining how his government department or corporation manipulated public opinion.

        Once you could have said that my comparison between press officers and prostitutes was unfair - to prostitutes. Poverty and drug addiction drives women on to the street. Press officers are not heroin addicts or the victims of child abuse. Nor do the equivalent of sex traffickers kidnap media studies graduates and force them to work in "comms". PRs do not do what they do because a cruel world has left them with no alternative to selling their souls, but because they want to.

        But that is no longer quite right. As the web destroys the media's business model, PR is where the jobs are. Students leave university and go straight into PR or hang around newsrooms for a few years on internships and petty payments before giving up and joining the former reporters in PR departments.

        A profound shift in the balance of power is under way, and the advantage lies with those who can buy coverage. You can see it on the screen and in the press. Television royal coverage is run by Buckingham Palace - I always tell foreigners that if they want to know what Britain would look like if it were a dictatorship, they should watch how the BBC reports the monarchy. Travel journalism is advertising in all but name. Press offices give travel "journalists" free holidays and they repay the favour in kind copy. Political coverage is still of a high quality, but the state-funded BBC is always open to attack from the state's spin doctors. Meanwhile most serious news, business and arts journalism remains clean, but Private Eye has reported anger among Daily Telegraph journalists about the advertising department's attempts to influence what they write.

        Such conflicts will grow. The web has made most newspapers imitate most television stations. They give away their content and rely on advertising for an income. At the same time, the web has lowered the price of advertising by making a vast number of new outlets available to advertisers. In his speech, which is worth reading in full online, Peston said: "News that is a disguised advert, or has been tainted by commercial interests, is not worth the name." But the need for money is pushing newspapers into creating more cloaked commercials.

        Without sales revenue or conventional advertising revenue, media marketing departments are offering what they call "native" advertisements: commercials disguised as news features. Peston says BBC executives are thinking of doing the same - though how they could hope to retain public funding if they do is beyond me. Readers may not be aware that the videos they are watching or the stories they are reading are "sponsored content", and that is the point. Manipulation works best when no one realises it is happening. PR departments aren't just influencing or stifling news, but creating it, and passing off advertisements as independent journalism.

        We are heading towards a media future that is not worth having. To avoid it we will need strict controls, backed by criminal sanctions, against the use of public money for propaganda, and a popular revolt against a pestilential trade. A start could be made by journalists. We should refuse to speak to press officers unless we intend to give them the ridicule and contempt they deserve.

        Anonymous

        September 8th, 2014
        8:09 PM

        I don't know whether to laugh or cry and the irony and stupidity of the comparison between PR's and 'sex workers'. This is written by someone who is clearly unable to cast a critical eye on the propaganda campaign which upholds the nasty power structures between men and the women that they demonise in order to exploit. Maybe he can have a decent opinion on propaganda without being aware of how it is saturated into his own understanding of the world but dear God what a way to undermine oneself only a few lines into to a rant against propaganda. Laugh or give up all hope? The predictable defences, outrage and mocking of the other commenters in response to this will probably means hopelessness is the appropriate response.

        Captain Nemo Vero

        July 30th, 2014
        7:07 PM

        Cohen ignores (among so much else) the blithe and cosy relationship between the BBC and Guardian on the one hand and "campaigning organizations" on the other. When Greenpeace claimed what they called "bottom-trawlering" (must be something done on Hampstead Heath; I think they mean "bottom trawling", or dredging) "destroyed 10,000 species", they did so without one shred of scientific evidence. Nonetheless, the story was given a DPS in the Times and The Guardian before the PR department at a fishing industry body forced a retraction.

        The same PR department won an apology from The Times over inaccurate posters in the London underground falsely repeating Daniel Pauly's now-recanted saw that there would be no fish left in the sea by 2048; and so on and so on.

        The liars and whores among journalists (since when is it a "profession" by the way? That implies a barrier to entry, and there is no such thing in journalism)also need exposition, and to ignore this fact is to ignore reality.

        Anon

        July 28th, 2014
        4:07 PM

        Nick makes the good point that the balance of power is changing. There used to be lots of journalists with enough time on their hands to properly research a story. That isn't the case now. It means that an increasing amount of copy is PR-generated. Given the financial travails of most media outlets I can't see that changing. A journalist under pressure to fill his/her publication must be tempted to believe any old guff. There is an answer - the internet. I see very many well-informed blogs. I learn more from them than I do from the BBC or newspapers. It's a shame that so few people read them.

        Countdown2

        July 10th, 2014
        2:07 PM

        Surely Robert Peston doesn't think the output of a future BBC which would have to pay its way by giving advertisers what they want can be any worse than the current outfit which acts like the propaganda wing of the Green Party?

        Richard Whipple

        July 9th, 2014
        6:07 PM

        So, now I have read and digested the article and I see a bunch on my colleagues in this discussion here and I have to ask: WHERE ARE YOUR VOICES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF OUR TRADE (I refuse to demean the term profession)? True press agentry is not the sum total of PR's potential to be a voice in business but how many clients call up a PR agency for a Corporate Conscience. And just where and by whom is this work taught? After three decades work on multiple continents with Fortune 100 companies I am willing to intuit that a good 99% of calls into the name brand PR agencies, which are all controlled by three corporations, are for perception management rather than Corporate Conscience/Governance work.

        *** Press officers have no concern with truth. truth and falsity are irrelevant to their work. ***

        This is spot on. PRSA pays lip service to ethics but without a revocable professional license, the service to the public is meaningless spin. And they do not want to pursue a licensing agenda. Rather they shame whistleblowers (contrary to policy).

        *** They withhold information from journalists in the hope of killing a story. ***

        How we have fallen from the management of information to withholding it altogether. Technically, still information management. Amazing what multitude of sins good phrasing can cover up, no? But let's not stop there. Let's consider what PR did for the tobacco industry or in the case of American Express vs. Edward Safra.

        *** I have never heard of a press officer going straight and coming clean by explaining how his government department or corporation manipulated public opinion. ***

        You would have if you were in PR: Scott McClellan, Edward Bernays, Ivy Lee and others who are/were vilified. My mentor called for licensing and freely admitted his role in black public relations work for everyone: a real gun for hire. He wrote clearly worded books entitled Propaganda and Crystallizing Public Opinion. And that's where I get to the point that this trade will not be a profession – an independent symmetric voice for the public inside institutions to do the kind of work Glenn M. Broom and David M. Dozier detailed in Using Research in Public Relations.

        But there is no money in that kind of Corporate Conscience work when you get crowded out of a market managed by an oligarchy of corporations, DSM IV qualified sociopathic. Better financially to play ball and those university students have debt to pay. http://earthisnotround.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/the-10-companies.jpg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5hEiANG4Uk WHERE ARE OUR FEARLESS VOICES? They are not working for the three corporations that own 90% of the industry.

        andygreencreativity

        July 6th, 2014
        1:07 PM

        Lively stirring up of debate here - and highlights the need for coherent, robust and relevant theory and definitions of what constitutes 'PR' and 'propaganda'. Can I alert you to an independent, not-for-profit global initiative which would help all sides in this debate, called #PRredefined. It currently covers issues such as 'truthiness', 'integrity' and 'values' and 'propaganda' and welcomes your input at wwww.prredefined.org

        wtloild

        July 3rd, 2014
        2:07 PM

        Fantastic piece on an point that doesn't get raised enough. I worked in local govt for 20yrs & the cancerous impact of this spin culture annoyed me throughout. However...I'll make one point in their defence - there are numerous instances where council clients go to the press attacking the authority with their very one-sided story, often a pack of lies, yet because of confidentiality rules, the council is unable to denounce those blatant untruths. I'd suggest that where an individual chooses to share their story, they then waive some right to confidentiality, and the public body can respond with the facts of the case.

        Mary WillowAnonymous

        July 3rd, 2014
        1:07 PM

        The problem is the definition of 'lie' is as difficult to pin down as a definition of 'truth' A witness under oath promises to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth- not simply to tell the 'truth'. PR is just PR speak for propaganda whenever its purpose is to deceive or mislead. If PR people had ever attended a Catholic primary school they would know from their catechism that it is perfectly possible to lie by omission and that St Peter at the pearly gates has no tick box for letting you off on a technicality.

        Anon

        June 27th, 2014
        10:06 AM

        If PRs were named by whoever quotes them the lies would reduce drastically. The anonymity they enjoy is the fuel that allows them to lie.

        Oldster

        June 27th, 2014
        9:06 AM

        'Twas ever thus, as you will recall from John Betjeman's poem "Executive" and Malcolm Muggeridge's description of PR as "organised lying".

        James Matthews

        June 27th, 2014
        8:06 AM

        Prostitutes should sue.

        reluctant_pseudonym

        June 26th, 2014
        5:06 PM

        "I have never heard of a press officer going straight and coming clean by explaining how his government department or corporation manipulated public opinion." => Damian McBride?

        Tim Almond

        June 26th, 2014
        4:06 PM

        "Compare PRs with other despised trades. Journalists have blown the whistle on journalistic malpractice. Bankers have blown the whistle on financial malpractice. But I have never heard of a press officer going straight and coming clean by explaining how his government department or corporation manipulated public opinion." Know what else PRs do? They protect business people from giving a reasonable and honest interview that is twisted into a sensational story that paints them as a villain by pushing certain elements to the fore and omitting certain aspects completely.

        Julian Kavanagh

        June 26th, 2014
        4:06 PM

        I think Nick needs to have more faith in journalists and the democratic nature of information in the internet age. I work for a FTSE100 company as a corporate PR (Julian Kavanagh is a pseudonym, by the way). When I speak to journalists (and I do so most days) I push the company line - of course - but my main job is to help journalists navigate the vast swathes of information and opinion already out there and provide background detail and context (often political) to the news that we're announcing. The point about the Telegraph is interesting. In my experience, the woeful journalism at the Telegraph is a result of Telegraph journalists being chained to their desks providing web content rather than going our and getting stories. I should also add that while my loyalty to the company is clear, the first rule of a good PR is that there are no circumstances under which it is acceptable to lie. If you don't like a question or don't want to compromise yourself, then reach for 'no comment.' If my CEO asked me to lie to a journalist, I would resign. Finally, both Robert Peston and Nick Cohen have given the impression with their diatribes against PR that they are on the side of the angels. They and their fellow journalists are clearly not - journalists have their agendas too. If they were on the side of the angels, would CEOs and other feel there is a need for press officers?

        Harold

        June 26th, 2014
        3:06 PM

        But even worse are the 'journalists' who get a by-line for regurgiating a slightly altered press release.

        [Mar 21, 2015] The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O. Paxton

        After Israeli elections and Ukrainian coup d'état the key question is "to what extent [...] the contemporary right [is] linked to classical fascism". And the picture is complex. As one reviewer of the book Fascism and Neofascism Critical Writings on the Radical Right in Europe noted "contrary to common perception, the Nazi movement was not repressive towards sex. In fact, it sneered at Christian morality much the same way that modern libertines and leftists do, and favored both premarital and extramarital sex. Attempts were made to discredit the Catholic Church by accusing priests in general of being homosexuals (sound familiar?). Much as modern feminists and other humanists, the Nazis accused Christianity of having a dislike for the human body and for showing disrespect towards women. This was supposed to be a carryover of "the Oriental attitude towards women." Similarly hate toward particular ethnic or racial group was never absolute: Among Nazi Germany fascist brass there were notable number of Jews. Also Italian fascism was quite different from German as well as the level of Social Darwinism adopted.
        Neofascism movement share with classic fascism the belief in the necessary of hierarchical (authoritarian) world with the dominant and subordinate groups, as well as ethos of masculine violence. It is deeply rooted in European culture with and as Adorno noted that "totality" is a mode of domination that lies implicit in the Enlightenment drive to de-mythologize the world. In this sense "totalitarism" in not unique to fascism and communism but also is inherent in "consumer capitalism", which, as such, represent a potent background for emerging neofascist groups and movements. Fascist myths were the means of constituting identity and as such not tat different form mass advertizing . That also entails deep similarities of Hollywood and Nazi films. At the same time, new radical right movement and groups are clearly distinct from fascist of the past. While fascism emerged partially as a reaction to brutalities and injustices of WWI, new radical right is in large part the result of unease with the neoliberalism. Several members of Western European far right groups fight in Donbass with Donbass militia as they consider Kiev junta to be Washington puppets promoting its globalization agenda. At the same time several members of white supremacist groups fight with Kiev junta para-military formations (death squads) which openly brandish Nazi symbols.
        Neofascist movements are using "invented historical context" or myths as a powerful means for making sense of human differences and organizing societies. Nationalism, based on however fictive consent of national identity, is powerful mean of organizing the society along of axis of domination and subordination, inclusion and exclusion. Racism and nationalism while not the same things are closely linked together. In a sense any political system that operate on the base of nationality of race is a neofascism in its essence. that includes Israel and Baltic states. In this sense neither the USA nor Russia can be classified as neofascist regimes became they do not adhere to the concept of "ingenious nationality" or white race supremacy. That does not exclude existence of groups that adhere to this mythology.
        It is extremely interesting those football fans, skinheads and hooligans, who often utilized the gesture of rebellition against the society to trigger predictable outrage against the general population were mobilized during EuroMaydan events. Behaviors once deemed antisocial and vandalistic were harnessed in the service of the nationalist discourse and the they served as a part of storm troopers for the coup of February 22, 2014. Ultimately like in Serbia before unruly football hooligans were recruited into paramilitary formations that played important role in civil was in Donbass (like Serbia paramilitary formation in wars of Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo) and committed the most horrendous crimes against civil population. .
        Ukrainian events definitely correlated with disillusionment of the neoliberalism in specific form of crony capitalism of Yanukovich regime. In a way marginalization of extreme right from 1945 to 1991 was more exception the a rule Western societies, especially European, tend to generate powerful extreme right movements. In a few states neofascist have chances of coming to power (Ukraine is actually is not a good example as events here were externally driven).
        Amazon.com

        Panopticonman on May 1, 2004

        Whose Reich Is It Anyway?

        The Marquis de Morés, returning to 1890s Paris after his cattle ranching venture in North Dakota failed, recruited a gang of men from the Parisian cattle yards as muscle for his "national socialism" project -- a term Paxton credits Morés' contemporary Maurice Barres, a French nationalist author, with coining. Morés' project was potent and prophetic: his national socialism was a mixture of anti-capitalism and anti-Semitism. He clothed his men in what must have been the first fascist uniform in Europe -- ten-gallon hats and cowboy garb, frontier clothes he'd taken a shine to in the American West. (Author Paxton suggests the first ever fascist get-up was the KKKs white sheet and pointy hat). Morés killed a French Jewish officer in a duel during the Dreyfus affair and later was killed in the Sahara by his guides during his quest to unite France to Islam to Spain.

        Morés had earlier proclaimed: "Life is valuable only through action. So much the worse if the action is mortal."

        Here assembled together are all of the elements of what Paxton would classify as first stage fascism: "the creation of a movement." Most fascist movements stall in this first stage he notes -- think, for instance, of the skinheads, the American Nazi Party and Posse Comitatus.

        Paxton's other stages are

        1. the rooting of the movement in the political system;
        2. the seizure of power;
        3. the exercise of power; and
        4. the duration of power, during which the regime chooses either radicalization or entropy.

        He notes that although each stage

        "is a prerequisite for the next, nothing requires a fascist movement to complete all of them, or even to move in only one direction. The five stages permit plausible comparison between movements and regimes at equivalent degrees of development. It helps us see that fascism, far from static, was a succession of processes and choices: seeking a following, forming alliances, bidding for power, then exercising it. That is why the conceptual tools that illuminate one stage may not necessarily work equally well for others." pg. 23.

        Paxton also tentatively offers a definition of fascism, but only after tracing the rise of various movements from their beginnings in the 19th century through the present day. Other historians and philosophers, he suggests, have written brilliantly on fascism, but have failed to recognize that their analyses apply to only one stage or another. He also notes that often definitions of fascism are based on fascist writings; he maintains that fascist writings while valuable were often written as justification for the seizure of power, or the attempted seizure, and that what fascists actually did and do is more critical to understanding these movements. Indeed, the language of fascism has changed little since the days of the Marquis De Mores.

        He hesitates in offering both his definition and his analytical stages, saying that he knows by doing so he risks falling into the nominalism of the "bestiary." He demonstrates that this is a common failing of definitions of fascism which are often incomplete or muddled as they typically describe only one or two typically late stages.

        Other historians, for instance, split fascism into Nazism or Italian fascism, avoiding the problem of understanding their common elements by concentrating on their differences, insisting that they are incommensurable. Finally in the last pages, Paxton offers up this fairly comprehensive and useful definition:

        "Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

        Paxton is particularly strong in showing how the circumstances in post WWI Germany and Italy -- the demobilized mobs of young soldiers, sent to war by elites who had no conception of the destruction and suffering they had unleashed upon the younger generation -- were ripe for fascism's appeals. For many, liberalism, conservatism and socialism all seemed equally complicit in the crack-up of Europe in the Great War. Fascism, rising from the ashes, employed the socialistic tools of mass marches, the military techniques of terror learned in the war, and as they gained power, the new tools of mass communication and propaganda developed in the US during WWI.

        Fascists also reacted astutely to public discomfort toward the mass migrations from southern and eastern Europe coming in the wake of political and economic distress in those regions, using that fear to increase their power through scapegoating and its attendant rhetoric of purity.

        Fascism is both charged and blurry word these days, used by both the left and the right to assail their critics and enemies.

        The Nazi remains the evildoer par excellence in popular and political culture, invoked for a thrill of fear or the disciplinary scare or emotional incitement. In this masterful synthesis of writings in politics, history, philosophy and sociology, Paxton untangles the vast literature fascism has generated, establishes some essential ground rules for coming to grips with its many expressions, stages, and manifestations, and clears a space for further, better focused research.

        Although academic in its orientation, it is well and clearly written. Finally, for the reader who is not familiar with modern European history, it is a very useful and informative text as it takes into its scope by necessity much of European and American history over the past one hundred years. Absolutely required reading.

        [Mar 21, 2015] Guest Post How Putin Can Win The Economic War Against The West by Ron Holland

        Zero Hedge

        03/18/2015

        pravda.ru

        ... ... ...

        Some experts believe that the reason of economic crisis in Russia are not the Western sanctions, but decrease in oil price. What do you think?

        While I think it is an organized action by the US and Saudi Arabia, it's success to date in dramatically lowering oil prices has been possible because of the global recession and worldwide drop in demand for oil. The price of oil would have pulled back in any case but the policy has made the downtrend worse and of a longer duration.

        But understand this is a complicated situation not just aimed at Russia as this also dramatically cuts revenue for Iran another nation in opposition to US hegemony. Also Sunni Saudi Arabia rightly fears Shia Iran, as most of the Saudi oil resources are right across the Persian Gulf from Iran including the world's largest, the Ghawer field and most of the 15% Saudi Shite minority population lives in the area where the reserves are located. Remember the Shite/Sunni divide in Islam makes the Israel/Arab conflict pale in comparison and the Saudi Shites are treated quite badly so they and the Saudi oil reserves could become a fertile ground for Iranian actions.

        Is it an organized act by the US and Saudi Arabia? If it is so, then Obama deliberately endangered the shale miracle in the US, didn't he?

        Yes, as I answered in the question above it is an organized act by the US and Saudi Arabia but the leadership of Saudi Arabia jumped both at the chance to close the fracking and shale oil production competition in the United States as well as to put pressure on their arch enemy Iran.

        Also much of the oil production industry votes and supports Republican candidates rather than the Democrats so Obama is not paying a huge political price. Finally although shale oil production is not profitable unless oil is near $100 a barrel, the public had already loaded up on these junk bonds and Wall Street had made their money so it was time to fleece the unsophisticated investors. Regardless of US shale oil production or losses, the opportunity to bring financial pressure against Iran and Russia was worth the cost to the Washington political leadership.

        What is needed for the oil price starting to rise at last? Tyler Durden believes that it is Putin who should surrender Bashar al-Assad, who does not give permission for gas pipeline installation from Qatar to Europe. Do you agree?

        It is too late to surrender Bashar al-Assad and allow the Qatar pipeline as Washington has bigger fish to fry, ie. Russia and Iran the last major energy suppliers outside of US domination and control. Two events have to happen before oil gets expensive again.

        First, the price of oil will rise when the global recession has ended and the world economy picks up again. I believe the recession in China and the rest of the world is just starting and it is related to overhanging amount of government debt and bonds floating around the world. I really don't know how governments and the central banks get us out of the looming debt crisis without wholesale debt repudiation.

        Second, Washington must decide that the disadvantages of artificially low oil prices hurt the US economy more than the intended victims Iran and Russia.

        As for Germany and the EU, Hitler's violent goal of lebensraum for living spaces to farm, trade and grow food for the Reich at the expense of the Russian people has today been modernized to a longing for Russian natural resources ranging from timber, mining to oil and gas in order to benefit Europe and Washington. I believe their goal is economic rather than a military threat and this is just an expansion of an ongoing natural resource grab outside the Middle East as the long-term challenge for world supremacy between Washington & Wall Street VS China and the Asian tigers slowly develop.

        The issuance of unredeemable government debt and bonds are the ultimate control mechanism by the Western interests utilized in order to keep politicians, national leaders and nations in line and march in lockstep to their economic programs. Russia under Putin is not over indebted like almost all other western nations thus allowing Putin to exercise leadership independent of European and Washington demands and this makes Russia in their eyes a threat to the continuation of the fake debt democracy system across the West.

        The ultimate goal is to destabilize Russia by destroying the economy and limiting government revenue and growth by holding oil prices at historically low levels. To do this they must depose Putin, the national leader with the highest poll approval rating in the world and replace him with a compliant quisling type of leadership submissive to western interests as has been done in Ukraine. This goal could be achieved due to Russia's extreme over dependence on energy resource revenue.

        In my view it wasn't the arms race, total failure of Russian communism to benefit the masses nor the inability to compete with the western market economies that overthrew the communist party leadership in the former Soviet Union and the rest of the Warsaw Pact countries. Rather it was the government debt burden of Moscow and it's other eastern European client states that eventually destroyed the Eastern Bloc as political leaders increasingly tried to improve their low standards of living and satisfy consumers through government borrowing from western banks.

        This policy worked for the West and the Soviet style communism is thankfully no more but this is the same policy used today by Washington and in the European Union in order to control the destiny and leadership of what should be independent national governments. As you see with Greece, even in voting democracies where the citizens demand a change, there can be no change because all politicians are subservient to powerful foreign banking interests.

        I would suggest that Washington is indeed acting rationally if their goal is to preserve their power base as well as the support of powerful banking and economic interests. The US Empire has indeed reached it's zenith of power and authority in the world and as America heads downhill as have all major empires in the past. Therefore it is crucial to buy time by attempting to conquer or control energy resources around the world hence why the US is involved across the Middle East and increasingly in the Ukraine and is surrounding Russia and Iran.

        Their goal for Russia, now the ultimate ally of a resurgent China is economic vassalage, territorial dismemberment and the development of "spheres of influence" just like Great Britain did to India and the western countries including Russia did to a weakened China in the 19th century.

        Will Putin go the length of it?

        Well this is a tough question for a non-Russian to comment on. He is the best politician on the planet evidenced by his poll numbers and there is no question he is a patriot and wants the best for his country, the people and of course your powerful oligarchs.

        I love the Washington propaganda always lambasting the evil Russian oligarchs because every country including the United States have their own powerful interests or oligarchs that seek to use government as a tool for their best interests. This is nothing new or sinister as government and politicians everywhere have always operated this way.

        Yes, I believe Putin and Russia will survive this attack on Russian sovereignty and it's over emphasis on energy resource revenue which is a mistake made by Russia not by western interests. This economic war will end in stalemate because Russia cannot be subdued by invasion, history shows us that and the increasing alliance with China and other BRICS will help with better economic growth.

        But I don't consider a standoff as a victory for Putin or Russia. It is just maintaining the status quo with Russia still at risk from western expansionism and the control of your natural resources. Russia is now engaged in an asymmetrical war with the American and European Union primarily over resources and the strategy and tactics really differ between the West and Russia. Washington failed in goading Russia into a military invasion of Ukraine as this could have drawn in other European nations thus further weakening the Russian economy but the economic, currency and financial warfare will continue hopefully short of military action.

        To date Russia only reacts to western sanctions and economic warfare against your energy industry thus there is neither real pain for the west nor any reason for them not to ratchet up the sanctions against individuals, banking and other interests. They are logically attacking your weakest link, the energy and financial sectors and they certainly do not expect a major response from your side. Still dumping Treasury debt by Russia or China would probably be counter productive and both nations would be smart of liquidate US dollar debt in an organized regular fashion during this near term period of tremendous dollar strength. This is probably your last chance to unload US Treasury debt at a profit.

        A defensive war strategy even in an economic war is not a recipe for victory but rather a guarantor of future wars or ultimate defeat. Putin and Russia can win this economic war quite easily if you think and act outside the box so to speak. The West is legitimately attacking your economy at its weakest link, your over dependence on the energy sector hence why low oil prices and the gas pipeline revolution in the Ukraine were smart moves by your energy adversaries.

        Utilize your strengths and western weaknesses in your peaceful economic and financial responses to the challenges they have made to your country. I've spent my entire career in the financial industry and this is not rocket science on how to successfully counter western political moves against you.

        The weakness of the Western banking and economic interests are massive government debt, the end of the dollar as the world reserve currency and nationalism within the EU. There is no way citizens or companies can escape the high taxes, massive debt service costs and the inability of citizens or companies within Europe to escape their high tax, regulatory environment that is killing the economy of Europe in order to defend the primarily German banking interests. Financial privacy and all wealth in Europe are at risk from future bail-ins where depositor's funds are used to pay for excessive bank lending losses. We've already seen it in Cyprus and soon it will happen in Greece and the PIGGS countries.

        To win, you must have other powerful economic interests outside Russia who can benefit and profit from a sovereign independent Russia. The US has destroyed financial privacy and confidentially around the world and no nation can stand up to their powerful threats to other banking interests which means the private wealth of the entire West will eventually be at risk of bank bail-ins, confiscation of retirement funds and confiscatory tax rates when the bond crisis finally hit because there is no secure alternative to protecting honest earned wealth

        As I've written in earlier editorials, Russia can win the financial/energy/economic war only by finding new sources of revenue outside the energy sector and playing on its unique strengths. A low tax rate and friendly regulatory environment to attract European/American industry and money is a start. It appears Russia is now moving to offer economic citizenships and tax advantages in order to attract entrepreneurs as I wrote a couple of months ago and this will help.

        For example, I'm a skier and where can you ski in the winter and enjoy a tropical climate the other 6 months outside of a couple of very expensive locations in Switzerland, Italy and France? You have skiing at Krasnaya Polyana less than an hour from Sochi on the Russian Riviera the site of the 2014 Olympics that could become another Hong Kong with the climate advantages and low taxes and secure banking opportunities. Plus you have a relatively empty Olympic village that could be remodeled into condos and flats for foreign entrepreneurs and investors.

        Finally Russia must get aggressive in the economic war. You can win this economic contest in 24 months, if certain special zones in Russia simply are allowed to copy Swiss banking rules and regulations, as wealth will always flow to secure locations where taxes are low. You know what banking privacy and security did for Switzerland, it made a poor country with few natural resources the wealthiest nation in the world. You will have foreign banks and financial institutions lining up to open offices in Russia if you can guarantee financial privacy to a degree and wealth protection in total.

        This will break the monopoly of West in financial and banking as well as their power to threaten you. The coming bond debacle guarantees this will work as I've written earlier every nation has wealthy interests and their own oligarchs so why not build support for Russia from wealthy foreigners as they transfer a portion of their wealth as taxable income at a very low rate to your nation. This will end the economic war.

        Will there be set peace in Ukraine in the near future? Which role will the US have in it?

        No the Ukraine is caught between competing sides in the East VS West conflict. Sadly it will likely end up like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan as a battleground and non functioning state at least economically and maybe militarily caught between the US and EU verses Russia. Russia will protect the Russian speakers and likely will open a land route to the Crimea and maybe as far west as Odessa thus cutting off the Ukraine from the Black Sea. Still all Russia needs is a Ukraine non-aligned with the West or a member of NATO. The US will continue to promote instability in the Ukraine for the foreseeable future.

        Ron Holland

        Ronald Holland is the author of several books as well as numerous special reports and hundreds of articles on finance, investments, history and politics. He speaks and moderates frequently at financial and free-market conferences and has developed Swiss oriented financial products in the US and Switzerland and his lived and worked in the US, Switzerland and Canada. He was head of a bank trust department, president of an investment firm licensed in 47 states and involved in resort real estate marketing and sales. He consults with a wide range of individuals, corporations and entities.

        [Mar 21, 2015] Presidents, Prime Ministers, Congressmen, Generals, Spooks, Soldiers and Police ADMIT to False Flag Terror by George Washington

        Mar 18, 2015 | Zero Hedge

        There are many documented false flag attacks, where a government carries out a terror attack … and then falsely blames its enemy for political purposes.

        In the following instances, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admit to it, either orally or in writing:

        (1) Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the "Mukden Incident" or the "Manchurian Incident". The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: "Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasions admitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the 'Incident' was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army …." And see this.

        (2) A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.

        (3) Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.

        (4) Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union's Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the "Winter War" against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War.

        (5) The Russian Parliament, current Russian president Putin and former Soviet leader Gorbachev all admit that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940, and then falsely blamed it on the Nazis.

        (6) The British government admits that – between 1946 and 1948 – it bombed 5 ships carrying Jews attempting to flee the Holocaust to seek safety in Palestine, set up a fake group called "Defenders of Arab Palestine", and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings (and see this, this and this).

        (7) Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind "evidence" implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).

        (8) The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.

        (9) The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.

        (10) The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.

        (11) The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people's support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security" (and see this) (Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special. They also allegedly carried out terror attacks in France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK, and other countries.

        False flag attacks carried out pursuant tho this program include – by way of example only:

        (12) In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch "a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]".

        (13) Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.

        (14) As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

        (15) In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States – such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica – and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.

        (16) The U.S. Department of Defense even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: "The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro's subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo."

        (17) The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war.

        (18) A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its "Cointelpro" campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.

        (19) A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: "In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque." In response to the surprised correspondent's incredulous look the general said, "I am giving an example".

        (20) The German government admitted (and see this) that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted "escape tools" on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on.

        (21) A Mossad agent admits that, in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi's compound in Tripoli, Libya which broadcast fake terrorist trasmissions recorded by Mossad, in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.

        (22) The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him "to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident", thus framing the ANC for the bombing.

        (23) An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author).

        (24) The United States Army's 1994 publication Special Forces Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces – updated in 2004 – recommends employing terrorists and using false flag operations to destabilize leftist regimes in Latin America. False flag terrorist attacks were carried out in Latin America and other regions as part of the CIA's "Dirty Wars". And see this.

        (25) Similarly, a CIA "psychological operations" manual prepared by a CIA contractor for the Nicaraguan Contra rebels noted the value of assassinating someone on your own side to create a "martyr" for the cause. The manual was authenticated by the U.S. government. The manual received so much publicity from Associated Press, Washington Post and other news coverage that – during the 1984 presidential debate – President Reagan was confronted with the following question on national television:

        At this moment, we are confronted with the extraordinary story of a CIA guerrilla manual for the anti-Sandinista contras whom we are backing, which advocates not only assassinations of Sandinistas but the hiring of criminals to assassinate the guerrillas we are supporting in order to create martyrs.

        (26) An Indonesian fact-finding team investigated violent riots which occurred in 1998, and determined that "elements of the military had been involved in the riots, some of which were deliberately provoked".

        (27) Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion).

        (28) According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.

        (29) The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings.

        (30) As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the "war on terror".

        (31) Senior police officials in Genoa, Italy admitted that – in July 2001, at the G8 summit in Genoa – planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer, in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters.

        (32) The U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime, that Cheney "probably" had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not 'doing their homework' in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction. Despite previous "lone wolf" claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers. (Many U.S. officials have alleged that 9/11 was a false flag operation by rogue elements of the U.S. government; but such a claim is beyond the scope of this discussion. The key point is that the U.S. falsely blamed it on Iraq, when it knew Iraq had nothing to do with it.).

        (33) Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country.

        (34) Police outside of a 2003 European Union summit in Greece were filmed planting Molotov cocktails on a peaceful protester

        (35) Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having "our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda's ranks, causing operatives to doubt others' identities and to question the validity of communications."

        (36) United Press International reported in June 2005:

        U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

        (37) Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians.

        (38) Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this).

        (39) At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence.

        (40) Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts in 2011 to try to discredit the protesters.

        (41) A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat.

        (42) The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – recently admitted that the Saudi government controls "Chechen" terrorists.

        (43) High-level American sources admitted that the Turkish government – a fellow NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government.

        (44) The Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others. Ukrainian officials admit that the Ukrainian snipers fired on both sides, to create maximum chaos.

        (45) Britain's spy agency has admitted (and see this) that it carries out "digital false flag" attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target.

        (46) U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then "drop" automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants

        (47) Similarly, police frame innocent people for crimes they didn't commit. The practice is so well-known that the New York Times noted in 1981:

        In police jargon, a throwdown is a weapon planted on a victim.

        Newsweek reported in 1999:

        Perez, himself a former [Los Angeles Police Department] cop, was caught stealing eight pounds of cocaine from police evidence lockers. After pleading guilty in September, he bargained for a lighter sentence by telling an appalling story of attempted murder and a "throwdown"–police slang for a weapon planted by cops to make a shooting legally justifiable. Perez said he and his partner, Officer Nino Durden, shot an unarmed 18th Street Gang member named Javier Ovando, then planted a semiautomatic rifle on the unconscious suspect and claimed that Ovando had tried to shoot them during a stakeout.

        Wikipedia notes:

        As part of his plea bargain, Pérez implicated scores of officers from the Rampart Division's anti-gang unit, describing routinely beating gang members, planting evidence on suspects, falsifying reports and covering up unprovoked shootings.

        (As a side note – and while not technically false flag attacks – police have been busted framing innocent people in many other ways, as well.)

        So Common … There's a Name for It

        A former U.S. intelligence officer recently alleged:

        Most terrorists are false flag terrorists or are created by our own security services.

        This might be an exaggeration (and – as shown above – the U.S. isn't the only one to play this terrible game). The point is that it is a very widespread strategy.

        Indeed, this form of deceit is so common that it was given a name hundreds of years ago.

        "False flag terrorism" is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames. Or as Wikipedia defines it:

        False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy's strategy of tension.

        The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship. Because the enemy's flag, instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, was hung, it was called a "false flag" attack.

        Indeed, this concept is so well-accepted that rules of engagement for naval, air and land warfare all prohibit false flag attacks. Specifically, the rules of engagement state that a military force can fly the enemy's flag, imitate their markings, or dress in an enemy's clothes … but that the ruse has to be discarded before attacking.

        Why are the rules of engagement so specific? Obviously, because nations have been using false flag attacks for many centuries. And the rules of engagement are at least trying to limit false flag attacks so that they aren't used as a false justification for war.

        In other words, the rules of engagement themselves are an admission that false flag terrorism is a very common practice.

        Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the danger of false flags:

        "Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death".
        – Adolph Hitler

        "Why of course the people don't want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
        – Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

        "The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened".
        – Josef Stalin

        Reaper

        These false flags depend upon the trust of their underling sheeple in their leaders and media. Trust is an opiate of each nation's sheeple. Yes, fool, your government/king/media lie to you. Terrorist is word designed to elicit an emote from you Emoting prevents thinking. Power corrupts. Government power corrupts. Media power corrupts. Stupidity enslaves.

        "Cui bono" is thinking. Thinking negates blind obeying. There is no virtue, nor honor, nor self-respect in emoting to your leader's stimuli.

        I think; therefore I am. I emote; therefore I'm controlled.

        raywolf

        you missed out the London bombings in 2005, which are riddled with errors, mistakes and evidence of it being organised by military of Britain or perhaps CIA or Israel.... the train the attackers were meant to be on, was cancelled meaning they couldn't even get into London in time to do the bombings... it's all on CCTV and yet the 'official' report just skips over that part....

        George Washington

        There are scores of false flags I didn't address ... I only focused on the ones that were ADMITTED.

        [Mar 21, 2015] Germany riot targets new ECB headquarters in Frankfurt

        Quote: "Organisers were bringing a left-wing alliance of protesters from across Germany and the rest of Europe to voice their anger at the ECB's role in austerity measures in EU member states, most recently Greece. The bank, in charge of managing the euro, is also responsible for framing eurozone policy and, along with the IMF and European Commission is part of a troika which has set conditions for bailouts in Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Cyprus. A spokesman for the Blockupy movement said the troika was responsible for austerity measures which have pushed many into poverty."
        BBC News

        Dozens of people have been hurt and some 350 people arrested as anti-austerity demonstrators clashed with police in the German city of Frankfurt.

        Police cars were set alight and stones were thrown in a protest against the opening of a new base for the European Central Bank (ECB).

        Violence broke out close to the city's Alte Oper concert hall hours before the ECB building's official opening.

        "Blockupy" activists are expected to attend a rally later on Wednesday.

        In earlier disturbances, police in riot gear used water cannon to clear hundreds of anti-capitalist protesters from the streets around the new ECB headquarters.

        Organisers were bringing a left-wing alliance of protesters from across Germany and the rest of Europe to voice their anger at the ECB's role in austerity measures in EU member states, most recently Greece.

        The bank, in charge of managing the euro, is also responsible for framing eurozone policy and, along with the IMF and European Commission is part of a troika which has set conditions for bailouts in Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Cyprus.

        A spokesman for the Blockupy movement said the troika was responsible for austerity measures which have pushed many into poverty.

        Police set up a cordon of barbed wire outside the bank's new 185m (600ft) double-tower skyscraper, next to the River Main.

        But hopes of a peaceful rally were dashed as clashes began early on Wednesday.

        Tyres and rubbish bins were set alight and police responded with water cannon as firefighters complained they were unable to get to the fires to put them out. One fire engine appeared to have had its windscreen broken.

        Activists said many protesters had been hurt by police batons, water cannon and by pepper spray.

        Police said as many as 80 of their officers had been affected by pepper spray or an acidic liquid. Eight suffered injuries from stone-throwing protesters.

        Police spokeswoman Claudia Rogalski spoke of an "aggressive atmosphere" and the Frankfurt force tweeted images of a police van being attacked. They were braced for further violence as increasing numbers of activists arrived for the rally.

        Blockupy accused police of using kettling tactics to cordon off hundreds of protesters and appealed for supporters to press for their release.

        What is Blockupy?

        Europe-wide alliance of left-wing parties, unions and movements Vehemently against austerity polices of European Commission, ECB and IMF First Frankfurt protest attracted thousands in 2012 Activists from Greece's radical left governing party Syriza and Spain's anti-corruption Podemos are joining the rally
        Also includes Germany's Die Linke and Occupy Frankfurt

        Rallying call: "They want capitalism without democracy, we want democracy without capitalism"

        As the number of protesters grew in the streets away from the new ECB building, the bank's president, Mario Draghi, gave a speech marking its inauguration.

        Mr Draghi said that the it "may not be a fair charge" to label the ECB as the main perpetrator of unpopular austerity in Europe.

        "Our action has been aimed precisely at cushioning the shocks suffered by the economy," he said.

        "But as the central bank of the whole euro area, we must listen very carefully to what all our citizens are saying."

        The new headquarters, which had been due to open years earlier, cost an estimated €1.3bn (£930m; $1.4bn) to build and is the new home for thousands of central bankers.

        Blockupy activists said on their website that there was nothing to celebrate about the politics of austerity and increasing poverty.

        [Mar 21, 2015] The NSA's plan: improve cybersecurity by hacking everyone else by Trevor Timm

        The key problem with new NSA toys and methods is that they will be replicated, possible on a better technological level. Then what ?
        Mar 21, 2015 | The Guardian
        The National Security Agency want to be able to hack more people, vacuum up even more of your internet records and have the keys to tech companies' encryption – and, after 18 months of embarrassing inaction from Congress on surveillance reform, the NSA is now lobbying it for more powers, not less.

        NSA director Mike Rogers testified in front of a Senate committee this week, lamenting that the poor ol' NSA just doesn't have the "cyber-offensive" capabilities (read: the ability to hack people) it needs to adequately defend the US. How cyber-attacking countries will help cyber-defense is anybody's guess, but the idea that the NSA is somehow hamstrung is absurd.

        The NSA runs sophisticated hacking operations all over the world. A Washington Post report showed that the NSA carried out 231 "offensive" operations in 2011 - and that number has surely grown since then. That report also revealed that the NSA runs a $652m project that has infected tens of thousands of computers with malware.

        And that was four years ago - it's likely increased significantly. A leaked presidential directive issued in 2012 called for an expanded list of hacking targets all over the world. The NSA spends ten of millions of dollars per year to procure "'software vulnerabilities' from private malware vendors" – i.e., holes in software that will make their hacking much easier. The NSA has even created a system, according to Edward Snowden, that can automatically hack computers overseas that attempt to hack systems in the US.

        Moving further in this direction, Rogers has also called for another new law that would force tech companies to install backdoors into all their encryption. The move has provoked condemnation and scorn from the entire security community - including a very public upbraiding by Yahoo's top security executive - as it would be a disaster for the very cybersecurity that the director says is a top priority.

        And then there is the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (Cisa) the downright awful "cybersecurity" bill passed by the Senate Intelligence Committee last week in complete secrecy that is little more than an excuse to conduct more surveillance. The bill will do little to stop cyberattacks, but it will do a lot to give the NSA even more power to collect Americans' communications from tech companies without any legal process whatsoever. The bill's text was finally released a couple days ago, and, as EFF points out, tucked in the bill were the powers to do the exact type of "offensive" attacks for which Rogers is pining.

        While the NSA tries to throw every conceivable expansion of power against the wall hoping that something sticks, the clock continues to tick on Section 215 of the Patriot Act – the law which the spy agency secretly used to collect every American's phone records. Congress has to re-authorize by vote in June or it will expire, and as Steve Vladick wrote on Just Security this week, there seems to be no high-level negotiations going on between the administration and Congress over reforms to the NSA in the lead-up to the deadline. Perhaps, as usual, the NSA now thinks it can emerge from yet another controversy over its extraordinary powers and still end up receiving more?

        Chad Castellano -> Kevin OConnor 21 Mar 2015 13:58

        Actually it doesn't matter if it is an American phone or computer. The NSA actually has no laws stopping them from doing this to foreign companies. The tens of thousands of computers they hacked in this article are computers outside US jurisdiction. And they have put hardline taps on companies overseas. So right now the only computers or phones with any legal protections are the ones in the U.S. The rest of the world is a legal target for the NSA. Always have been.

        What we need is to disband the NSA and replace it with a 100% transparent agency not made up of megalomaniacs.


        Kevin OConnor 21 Mar 2015 13:46

        After reading this article , you need to ask yourself...
        Anybody want to buy an American computer ?
        How about an American phone ?
        No ?

        Hmm...I see an economic problem here ...

        Mike5000 21 Mar 2015 13:34

        The West has transitioned from democracies and republics to criminal empires run by spook gangs.

        With total information comes total blackmail capability. Lawmakers and judges are puppets.

        Fictional 007 was licensed to kill. Real spook gangs get away with murder, kidnapping, torture, blackmail, commercial espionage, narcotics, and arms trafficking.

        ondelette -> zelazny 21 Mar 2015 12:29

        Do tell. And when did stopping teenagers from joining ISIS become a problem of analyzing vacuumed foreign intelligence data? Do you really want the government to be the party making decisions for teenagers and sorting them out into ones who should be changed and ones who are safe the way they are? Based on surveillance?

        The purpose of the government isn't to act as in loco parentis in place of idiots who don't know what to do with a child once it's not a cute baby anymore.

        thankgodimanatheist -> zelazny 21 Mar 2015 11:41

        You are assuming that the real powers in the world want to stop Daesh (ISIS) and other groups like that.

        What if it is all a drama (a bizarre disgusting TV reality show) to keep us (the 99.9999999%) scared (terrorized) so we allow them to spend more money on arms (including more money for the NSA) and forget about real issues such as the fact that in the USA the net worth of the 6 children of Sam Walton is more than that of 50% of us (while our real incomes goes down every day - for the 95% of us) and in the world 80 people's net worth is more than that of 50% of the world population.

        Be afraid, don't think, be very afraid...
        That's their mantra!

        Gary Paudler 21 Mar 2015 11:18

        Not that surprising, when was the last time the Department of Defense did something that wasn't entirely offensive on some other country's soil?

        mikedow -> Delaware 21 Mar 2015 11:15

        You can left-click on that pop-up and nuke it if you have Adblocker. I had fun with Rusbridger's Coal Divestment Promo, by blasting it.

        Eric Moller 21 Mar 2015 11:02

        Why discuss anything .. The GOP has already shown a willingness to hand the NSA illegal powers under the table so to speak .. and even if the deadline for section 215 of the ( Benedict Arnold Act) expires it's not a problem ..

        One thing Obama and Congress can agree on is the Continuation of our Tax dollars being spent on our Government spying on us .. The People .. They seem to be in lock step on that illegality .. Kinda like the Hitler High step ..


        Quadspect -> zelazny 21 Mar 2015 11:00

        Theoretically, NSA, in all its cyber-omniscience, watched arms smuggling by various governments into countries with factions that wanted to kill each other, watched the increasing justifiable fury at being droned and bombed and politically and economically interfered with that caused formation of terrorist groups --- Hardly an institution bent on protecting the 99 percent. NSA is up to Something Else Other Than National Security.

        zelazny 21 Mar 2015 09:58

        The NSA has learned that despite its ability to vacuum up massive amounts of data, it lacks the intelligence to sort it out and analyze it. Garbage in, garbage out.

        Take for example the inability of the GCHQ or the NSA to stop teenagers, including teen age girls, from attempting, and actually succeeding, in joining ISIS and other groups.

        They may have everyone's information, but they can't sort out the "good" guys from the "bad" guys.

        So instead, they will do what the USA always has done -- attack the innocent to make sure they pose no threat, even if they never would pose a threat.

        robtal 21 Mar 2015 09:40

        Let the NSA do all the hacking they want if your so out of it you put sensitive stuff anywhere on a computor your loss.

        Eccles -> whatdidyouexpect 21 Mar 2015 09:25

        Using the standard US definition of terrorism they have had them for some decades. Using them, for example, to program missile targets, control drones, communicate, and hack fellow UN diplomats.

        And your point is?

        [Mar 20, 2015] Rethinking the National Interest by Condoleezza Rice

        If you compare this with Nuland's recent testimony, it's clear Condoleezza Rice was higher quality diplomat then Victoria Nuland. Both are neocons although Ms. Rise was less supportive of Israel. But true to neocon doctrine when she said "especially because in 2000 we hoped that it was moving closer to us in terms of values." she means neoliberal values (aka "Washington consensus") under which Russia should play the role of vassal of the USA (like all other countries). A colony.
        You should replace "democratization" with "neoliberalization" globally in the text to understand the real interests she defends.
        July 1, 2008 | Foreign Affairs

        Listen to this essay on CFR.org

        What is the national interest? This is a question that I took up in 2000 in these pages. That was a time that we as a nation revealingly called "the post-Cold War era." We knew better where we had been than where we were going. Yet monumental changes were unfolding -- changes that were recognized at the time but whose implications were largely unclear.

        And then came the attacks of September 11, 2001. As in the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United States was swept into a fundamentally different world. We were called to lead with a new urgency and with a new perspective on what constituted threats and what might emerge as opportunities. And as with previous strategic shocks, one can cite elements of both continuity and change in our foreign policy since the attacks of September 11.

        What has not changed is that our relations with traditional and emerging great powers still matter to the successful conduct of policy. Thus, my admonition in 2000 that we should seek to get right the "relationships with the big powers" -- Russia, China, and emerging powers such as India and Brazil -- has consistently guided us. As before, our alliances in the Americas, Europe, and Asia remain the pillars of the international order, and we are now transforming them to meet the challenges of a new era.

        What has changed is, most broadly, how we view the relationship between the dynamics within states and the distribution of power among them. As globalization strengthens some states, it exposes and exacerbates the failings of many others -- those too weak or poorly governed to address challenges within their borders and prevent them from spilling out and destabilizing the international order. In this strategic environment, it is vital to our national security that states be willing and able to meet the full range of their sovereign responsibilities, both beyond their borders and within them. This new reality has led us to some significant changes in our policy. We recognize that democratic state building is now an urgent component of our national interest. And in the broader Middle East, we recognize that freedom and democracy are the only ideas that can, over time, lead to just and lasting stability, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq.

        As in the past, our policy has been sustained not just by our strength but also by our values. The United States has long tried to marry power and principle -- realism and idealism. At times, there have been short-term tensions between them. But we have always known where our long-term interests lie. Thus, the United States has not been neutral about the importance of human rights or the superiority of democracy as a form of government, both in principle and in practice. This uniquely American realism has guided us over the past eight years, and it must guide us over the years to come.

        GREAT POWER, OLD AND NEW

        By necessity, our relationships with Russia and China have been rooted more in common interests than common values. With Russia, we have found common ground, as evidenced by the "strategic framework" agreement that President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed in Sochi in March of this year. Our relationship with Russia has been sorely tested by Moscow's rhetoric, by its tendency to treat its neighbors as lost "spheres of influence," and by its energy policies that have a distinct political tinge. And Russia's internal course has been a source of considerable disappointment, especially because in 2000 we hoped that it was moving closer to us in terms of values.

        Yet it is useful to remember that Russia is not the Soviet Union. It is neither a permanent enemy nor a strategic threat. Russians now enjoy greater opportunity and, yes, personal freedom than at almost any other time in their country's history. But that alone is not the standard to which Russians themselves want to be held. Russia is not just a great power; it is also the land and culture of a great people. And in the twenty-first century, greatness is increasingly defined by the technological and economic development that flows naturally in open and free societies. That is why the full development both of Russia and of our relationship with it still hangs in the balance as the country's internal transformation unfolds.

        The last eight years have also challenged us to deal with rising Chinese influence, something we have no reason to fear if that power is used responsibly. We have stressed to Beijing that with China's full membership in the international community comes responsibilities, whether in the conduct of its economic and trade policy, its approach to energy and the environment, or its policies in the developing world. China's leaders increasingly realize this, and they are moving, albeit slowly, to a more cooperative approach on a range of problems. For instance, on Darfur, after years of unequivocally supporting Khartoum, China endorsed the UN Security Council resolution authorizing the deployment of a hybrid United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force and dispatched an engineering battalion to pave the way for those peacekeepers. China needs to do much more on issues such as Darfur, Burma, and Tibet, but we sustain an active and candid dialogue with China's leaders on these challenges.

        The United States, along with many other countries, remains concerned about China's rapid development of high-tech weapons systems. We understand that as countries develop, they will modernize their armed forces. But China's lack of transparency about its military spending and doctrine and its strategic goals increases mistrust and suspicion. Although Beijing has agreed to take incremental steps to deepen U.S.-Chinese military-to-military exchanges, it needs to move beyond the rhetoric of peaceful intentions toward true engagement in order to reassure the international community.

        Our relationships with Russia and China are complex and characterized simultaneously by competition and cooperation. But in the absence of workable relations with both of these states, diplomatic solutions to many international problems would be elusive. Transnational terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, climate change and instability stemming from poverty and disease -- these are dangers to all successful states, including those that might in another time have been violent rivals. It is incumbent on the United States to find areas of cooperation and strategic agreement with Russia and China, even when there are significant differences.

        Obviously, Russia and China carry special responsibility and weight as fellow permanent members of the UN Security Council, but this has not been the only forum in which we have worked together. Another example has emerged in Northeast Asia with the six-party framework. The North Korean nuclear issue could have led to conflict among the states of Northeast Asia, or to the isolation of the United States, given the varied and vital interests of China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. Instead, it has become an opportunity for cooperation and coordination as the efforts toward verifiable denuclearization proceed. And when North Korea tested a nuclear device last year, the five other parties already were an established coalition and went quickly to the Security Council for a Chapter 7 resolution. That, in turn, put considerable pressure on North Korea to return to the six-party talks and to shut down and begin disabling its Yongbyon reactor. The parties intend to institutionalize these habits of cooperation through the establishment of a Northeast Asian Peace and Security Mechanism -- a first step toward a security forum in the region.

        The importance of strong relations with global players extends to those that are emerging. With those, particularly India and Brazil, the United States has built deeper and broader ties. India stands on the front lines of globalization. This democratic nation promises to become a global power and an ally in shaping an international order rooted in freedom and the rule of law. Brazil's success at using democracy and markets to address centuries of pernicious social inequality has global resonance. Today, India and Brazil look outward as never before, secure in their ability to compete and succeed in the global economy. In both countries, national interests are being redefined as Indians and Brazilians realize their direct stake in a democratic, secure, and open international order -- and their commensurate responsibilities for strengthening it and defending it against the major transnational challenges of our era. We have a vital interest in the success and prosperity of these and other large multiethnic democracies with global reach, such as Indonesia and South Africa. And as these emerging powers change the geopolitical landscape, it will be important that international institutions also change to reflect this reality. This is why President Bush has made clear his support for a reasonable expansion of the UN Security Council.

        SHARED VALUES AND SHARED RESPONSIBILITY

        As important as relations are with Russia and China, it is our work with our allies, those with whom we share values, that is transforming international politics -- for this work presents an opportunity to expand the ranks of well-governed, law-abiding democratic states in our world and to defeat challenges to this vision of international order. Cooperation with our democratic allies, therefore, should not be judged simply by how we relate to one another. It should be judged by the work we do together to defeat terrorism and extremism, meet global challenges, defend human rights and dignity, and support new democracies.

        In the Americas, this has meant strengthening our ties with strategic democracies such as Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, and Chile in order to further the democratic development of our hemisphere. Together, we have supported struggling states, such as Haiti, in locking in their transitions to democracy and security. Together, we are defending ourselves against drug traffickers, criminal gangs, and the few autocratic outliers in our democratic hemisphere. The region still faces challenges, including Cuba's coming transition and the need to support, unequivocally, the Cuban people's right to a democratic future. There is no doubt that centuries-old suspicions of the United States persist in the region. But we have begun to write a new narrative that speaks not only to macroeconomic development and trade but also to the need for democratic leaders to address problems of social justice and inequality.

        I believe that one of the most compelling stories of our time is our relationship with our oldest allies. The goal of a Europe whole, free, and at peace is very close to completion. The United States welcomes a strong, united, and coherent Europe. There is no doubt that the European Union has been a superb anchor for the democratic evolution of eastern Europe after the Cold War. Hopefully, the day will come when Turkey takes its place in the EU.

        Membership in the EU and NATO has been attractive enough to lead countries to make needed reforms and to seek the peaceful resolution of long-standing conflicts with their neighbors. The reverse has been true as well: the new members have transformed these two pillars of the transatlantic relationship. Twelve of the 28 members of NATO are former "captive nations," countries once in the Soviet sphere. The effect of their joining the alliance is felt in a renewed dedication to promoting and protecting democracy. Whether sending troops to Afghanistan or Iraq or fiercely defending the continued expansion of NATO, these states have brought new energy and fervor to the alliance.

        In recent years, the mission and the purpose of the alliance have also been transformed. Indeed, many can remember when NATO viewed the world in two parts: Europe and "out of area," which was basically everywhere else. If someone had said in 2000 that NATO today would be rooting out terrorists in Kandahar, training the security forces of a free Iraq, providing critical support to peacekeepers in Darfur, and moving forward on missile defenses, hopefully in partnership with Russia, who would have believed him? The endurance and resilience of the transatlantic alliance is one reason that I believe Lord Palmerston got it wrong when he said that nations have no permanent allies. The United States does have permanent allies: the nations with whom we share common values.

        Democratization is also deepening across the Asia-Pacific region. This is expanding our circle of allies and advancing the goals we share. Indeed, although many assume that the rise of China will determine the future of Asia, so, too -- and perhaps to an even greater degree -- will the broader rise of an increasingly democratic community of Asian states. This is the defining geopolitical event of the twenty-first century, and the United States is right in the middle of it. We enjoy a strong, democratic alliance with Australia, with key states in Southeast Asia, and with Japan -- an economic giant that is emerging as a "normal" state, capable of working to secure and spread our values both in Asia and beyond. South Korea, too, has become a global partner whose history can boast an inspiring journey from poverty and dictatorship to democracy and prosperity. Finally, the United States has a vital stake in India's rise to global power and prosperity, and relations between the two countries have never been stronger or broader. It will take continued work, but this is a dramatic breakthrough for both our strategic interests and our values.

        It is now possible to speak of emerging democratic allies in Africa as well. Too often, Africa is thought of only as a humanitarian concern or a zone of conflict. But the continent has seen successful transitions to democracy in several states, among them Ghana, Liberia, Mali, and Mozambique. Our administration has worked to help the democratic leaders of these and other states provide for their people -- most of all by attacking the continental scourge of HIV/AIDS in an unprecedented effort of power, imagination, and mercy. We have also been an active partner in resolving conflicts -- from the conclusion of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which ended the civil war between the North and the South in Sudan, to active engagement in the Great Lakes region, to the intervention of a small contingent of U.S. military forces in coordination with the African Union to end the conflict in Liberia. Although conflicts in Darfur, Somalia, and other places tragically remain violent and unresolved, it is worth noting the considerable progress that African states are making on many fronts and the role that the United States has played in supporting African efforts to solve the continent's greatest problems.

        A DEMOCRATIC MODEL OF DEVELOPMENT

        Although the United States' ability to influence strong states is limited, our ability to enhance the peaceful political and economic development of weak and poorly governed states can be considerable. We must be willing to use our power for this purpose -- not only because it is necessary but also because it is right. Too often, promoting democracy and promoting development are thought of as separate goals. In fact, it is increasingly clear that the practices and institutions of democracy are essential to the creation of sustained, broad-based economic development -- and that market-driven development is essential to the consolidation of democracy. Democratic development is a unified political-economic model, and it offers the mix of flexibility and stability that best enables states to seize globalization's opportunities and manage its challenges. And for those who think otherwise: What real alternative worthy of America is there?

        Democratic development is not only an effective path to wealth and power; it is also the best way to ensure that these benefits are shared justly across entire societies, without exclusion, repression, or violence. We saw this recently in Kenya, where democracy enabled civil society, the press, and business leaders to join together to insist on an inclusive political bargain that could stem the country's slide into ethnic cleansing and lay a broader foundation for national reconciliation. In our own hemisphere, democratic development has opened up old, elite-dominated systems to millions on the margins of society. These people are demanding the benefits of citizenship long denied them, and because they are doing so democratically, the real story in our hemisphere since 2001 is not that our neighbors have given up on democracy and open markets; it is that they are broadening our region's consensus in support of democratic development by ensuring that it leads to social justice for the most marginalized citizens.

        The untidiness of democracy has led some to wonder if weak states might not be better off passing through a period of authoritarian capitalism. A few countries have indeed succeeded with this model, and its allure is only heightened when democracy is too slow in delivering or incapable of meeting high expectations for a better life. Yet for every state that embraces authoritarianism and manages to create wealth, there are many, many more that simply make poverty, inequality, and corruption worse. For those that are doing pretty well economically, it is worth asking whether they might be doing even better with a freer system. Ultimately, it is at least an open question whether authoritarian capitalism is itself an indefinitely sustainable model. Is it really possible in the long run for governments to respect their citizen's talents but not their rights? I, for one, doubt it.

        For the United States, promoting democratic development must remain a top priority. Indeed, there is no realistic alternative that we can -- or should -- offer to influence the peaceful evolution of weak and poorly governed states. The real question is not whether to pursue this course but how.

        We first need to recognize that democratic development is always possible but never fast or easy. This is because democracy is really the complex interplay of democratic practices and culture. In the experience of countless nations, ours especially, we see that culture is not destiny. Nations of every culture, race, religion, and level of development have embraced democracy and adapted it to their own circumstances and traditions. No cultural factor has yet been a stumbling block -- not German or Japanese "militarism," not "Asian values," not African "tribalism," not Latin America's alleged fondness for caudillos, not the once-purported preference of eastern Europeans for despotism.

        The fact is, few nations begin the democratic journey with a democratic culture. The vast majority create one over time -- through the hard, daily struggle to make good laws, build democratic institutions, tolerate differences, resolve them peacefully, and share power justly. Unfortunately, it is difficult to grow the habits of democracy in the controlled environment of authoritarianism, to have them ready and in place when tyranny is lifted. The process of democratization is likely to be messy and unsatisfactory, but it is absolutely necessary. Democracy, it is said, cannot be imposed, particularly by a foreign power. This is true but beside the point. It is more likely that tyranny has to be imposed.

        The story today is rarely one of peoples resisting the basics of democracy -- the right to choose those who will govern them and other basic freedoms. It is, instead, about people choosing democratic leaders and then becoming impatient with them and holding them accountable on their duty to deliver a better life. It is strongly in our national interest to help sustain these leaders, support their countries' democratic institutions, and ensure that their new governments are capable of providing for their own security, especially when their nations have experienced crippling conflicts. To do so will require long-term partnerships rooted in mutual responsibility and the integration of all elements of our national power -- political, diplomatic, economic, and, at times, military. We have recently built such partnerships to great effect with countries as different as Colombia, Lebanon, and Liberia. Indeed, a decade ago, Colombia was on the verge of failure. Today, in part because of our long-term partnership with courageous leaders and citizens, Colombia is emerging as a normal nation, with democratic institutions that are defending the country, governing justly, reducing poverty, and contributing to international security.

        We must now build long-term partnerships with other new and fragile democracies, especially Afghanistan. The basics of democracy are taking root in this country after nearly three decades of tyranny, violence, and war. For the first time in their history, Afghans have a government of the people, elected in presidential and parliamentary elections, and guided by a constitution that codifies the rights of all citizens. The challenges in Afghanistan do not stem from a strong enemy. The Taliban offers a political vision that very few Afghans embrace. Rather, they exploit the current limitations of the Afghan government, using violence against civilians and revenues from illegal narcotics to impose their rule. Where the Afghan government, with support from the international community, has been able to provide good governance and economic opportunity, the Taliban is in retreat. The United States and NATO have a vital interest in supporting the emergence of an effective, democratic Afghan state that can defeat the Taliban and deliver "population security" -- addressing basic needs for safety, services, the rule of law, and increased economic opportunity. We share this goal with the Afghan people, who do not want us to leave until we have accomplished our common mission. We can succeed in Afghanistan, but we must be prepared to sustain a partnership with that new democracy for many years to come.

        One of our best tools for supporting states in building democratic institutions and strengthening civil society is our foreign assistance, but we must use it correctly. One of the great advances of the past eight years has been the creation of a bipartisan consensus for the more strategic use of foreign assistance. We have begun to transform our assistance into an incentive for developing states to govern justly, advance economic freedom, and invest in their people. This is the great innovation of the Millennium Challenge Account initiative. More broadly, we are now better aligning our foreign aid with our foreign policy goals -- so as to help developing countries move from war to peace, poverty to prosperity, poor governance to democracy and the rule of law. At the same time, we have launched historic efforts to help remove obstacles to democratic development -- by forgiving old debts, feeding the hungry, expanding access to education, and fighting pandemics such as malaria and HIV/AIDS. Behind all of these efforts is the overwhelming generosity of the American people, who since 2001 have supported the near tripling of the United States' official development assistance worldwide -- doubling it for Latin America and quadrupling it for Africa.

        Ultimately, one of the best ways to support the growth of democratic institutions and civil society is to expand free and fair trade and investment. The very process of implementing a trade agreement or a bilateral investment treaty helps to hasten and consolidate democratic development. Legal and political institutions that can enforce property rights are better able to protect human rights and the rule of law. Independent courts that can resolve commercial disputes can better resolve civil and political disputes. The transparency needed to fight corporate corruption makes it harder for political corruption to go unnoticed and unpunished. A rising middle class also creates new centers of social power for political movements and parties. Trade is a divisive issue in our country right now, but we must not forget that it is essential not only for the health of our domestic economy but also for the success our foreign policy.

        There will always be humanitarian needs, but our goal must be to use the tools of foreign assistance, security cooperation, and trade together to help countries graduate to self-sufficiency. We must insist that these tools be used to promote democratic development. It is in our national interest to do so.

        THE CHANGING MIDDLE EAST

        What about the broader Middle East, the arc of states that stretches from Morocco to Pakistan? The Bush administration's approach to this region has been its most vivid departure from prior policy. But our approach is, in reality, an extension of traditional tenets -- incorporating human rights and the promotion of democratic development into a policy meant to further our national interest. What is exceptional is that the Middle East was treated as an exception for so many decades. U.S. policy there focused almost exclusively on stability. There was little dialogue, certainly not publicly, about the need for democratic change.

        For six decades, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, a basic bargain defined the United States' engagement in the broader Middle East: we supported authoritarian regimes, and they supported our shared interest in regional stability. After September 11, it became increasingly clear that this old bargain had produced false stability. There were virtually no legitimate channels for political expression in the region. But this did not mean that there was no political activity. There was -- in madrasahs and radical mosques. It is no wonder that the best-organized political forces were extremist groups. And it was there, in the shadows, that al Qaeda found the troubled souls to prey on and exploit as its foot soldiers in its millenarian war against the "far enemy."

        One response would have been to fight the terrorists without addressing this underlying cause. Perhaps it would have been possible to manage these suppressed tensions for a while. Indeed, the quest for justice and a new equilibrium on which the nations of the broader Middle East are now embarked is very turbulent. But is it really worse than the situation before? Worse than when Lebanon suffered under the boot of Syrian military occupation? Worse than when the self-appointed rulers of the Palestinians personally pocketed the world's generosity and squandered their best chance for a two-state peace? Worse than when the international community imposed sanctions on innocent Iraqis in order to punish the man who tyrannized them, threatened Iraq's neighbors, and bulldozed 300,000 human beings into unmarked mass graves? Or worse than the decades of oppression and denied opportunity that spawned hopelessness, fed hatreds, and led to the sort of radicalization that brought about the ideology behind the September 11 attacks? Far from being the model of stability that some seem to remember, the Middle East from 1945 on was wracked repeatedly by civil conflicts and cross-border wars. Our current course is certainly difficult, but let us not romanticize the old bargains of the Middle East -- for they yielded neither justice nor stability.

        The president's second inaugural address and my speech at the American University in Cairo in June 2005 have been held up as rhetorical declarations that have faded in the face of hard realities. No one will argue that the goal of democratization and modernization in the broader Middle East lacks ambition, and we who support it fully acknowledge that it will be a difficult, generational task. No one event, and certainly not a speech, will bring it into being. But if America does not set the goal, no one will.

        This goal is made more complicated by the fact that the future of the Middle East is bound up in many of our other vital interests: energy security, nonproliferation, the defense of friends and allies, the resolution of old conflicts, and, most of all, the need for near-term partners in the global struggle against violent Islamist extremism. To state, however, that we must promote either our security interests or our democratic ideals is to present a false choice. Admittedly, our interests and our ideals do come into tension at times in the short term. America is not an NGO and must balance myriad factors in our relations with all countries. But in the long term, our security is best ensured by the success of our ideals: freedom, human rights, open markets, democracy, and the rule of law.

        The leaders and citizens of the broader Middle East are now searching for answers to the fundamental questions of modern state building: What are to be the limits on the state's use of power, both within and beyond its borders? What will be the role of the state in the lives of its citizens and the relationship between religion and politics? How will traditional values and mores be reconciled with the democratic promise of individual rights and liberty, particularly for women and girls? How is religious and ethnic diversity to be accommodated in fragile political institutions when people tend to hold on to traditional associations? The answers to these and other questions can come only from within the Middle East itself. The task for us is to support and shape these difficult processes of change and to help the nations of the region overcome several major challenges to their emergence as modern, democratic states.

        The first challenge is the global ideology of violent Islamist extremism, as embodied by groups, such as al Qaeda, that thoroughly reject the basic tenets of modern politics, seeking instead to topple sovereign states, erase national borders, and restore the imperial structure of the ancient caliphate. To resist this threat, the United States will need friends and allies in the region who are willing and able to take action against the terrorists among them. Ultimately, however, this is more than just a struggle of arms; it is a contest of ideas. Al Qaeda's theory of victory is to hijack the legitimate local and national grievances of Muslim societies and twist them into an ideological narrative of endless struggle against Western, especially U.S., oppression. The good news is that al Qaeda's intolerant ideology can be enforced only through brutality and violence. When people are free to choose, as we have seen in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq's Anbar Province, they reject al Qaeda's ideology and rebel against its control. Our theory of victory, therefore, must be to offer people a democratic path to advance their interests peacefully -- to develop their talents, to redress injustices, and to live in freedom and dignity. In this sense, the fight against terrorism is a kind of global counterinsurgency: the center of gravity is not the enemies we fight but the societies they are trying to radicalize.

        Admittedly, our interests in both promoting democratic development and fighting terrorism and extremism lead to some hard choices, because we do need capable friends in the broader Middle East who can root out terrorists now. These states are often not democratic, so we must balance the tensions between our short-term and our long-term goals. We cannot deny nondemocratic states the security assistance to fight terrorism or defend themselves. At the same time, we must use other points of leverage to promote democracy and hold our friends to account. That means supporting civil society, as we have done through the Forum for the Future and the Middle East Partnership Initiative, and using public and private diplomacy to push our nondemocratic partners to reform. Changes are slowly coming in terms of universal suffrage, more influential parliaments, and education for girls and women. We must continue to advocate for reform and support indigenous agents of change in nondemocratic countries, even as we cooperate with their governments on security.

        An example of how our administration has balanced these concerns is our relationship with Pakistan. Following years of U.S. neglect of that relationship, our administration had to establish a partnership with Pakistan's military government to achieve a common goal after September 11. We did so knowing that our security and that of Pakistan ultimately required a return to civilian and democratic rule. So even as we worked with President Pervez Musharraf to fight terrorists and extremists, we invested more than $3 billion to strengthen Pakistani society -- building schools and health clinics, providing emergency relief after the 2005 earthquake, and supporting political parties and the rule of law. We urged Pakistan's military leaders to put their country on a modern and moderate trajectory, which in some important respects they did. And when this progress was threatened last year by the declaration of emergency rule, we pushed President Musharraf hard to take off his uniform and hold free elections. Although terrorists tried to thwart the return of democracy and tragically killed many innocent people, including former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the Pakistani people dealt extremism a crushing defeat at the polls. This restoration of democracy in Pakistan creates an opportunity for us to build the lasting and broad-based partnership that we have never achieved with this nation, thereby enhancing our security and anchoring the success of our values in a troubled region.

        A second challenge to the emergence of a better Middle East is posed by aggressive states that seek not to peacefully reform the present regional order but to alter it using any form of violence -- assassination, intimidation, terrorism. The question is not whether any particular state should have influence in the region. They all do, and will. The real question is, What kind of influence will these states wield -- and to what ends, constructive or destructive? It is this fundamental and still unresolved question that is at the center of many of the geopolitical challenges in the Middle East today -- whether it is Syria's undermining of Lebanon's sovereignty, Iran's pursuit of a nuclear capability, or both states' support for terrorism.

        Iran poses a particular challenge. The Iranian regime pursues its disruptive policies both through state instruments, such as the Revolutionary Guards and the al Quds force, and through nonstate proxies that extend Iranian power, such as elements of the Mahdi Army in Iraq, Hamas in Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon and around the world. The Iranian regime seeks to subvert states and extend its influence throughout the Persian Gulf region and the broader Middle East. It threatens the state of Israel with extinction and holds implacable hostility toward the United States. And it is destabilizing Iraq, endangering U.S. forces, and killing innocent Iraqis. The United States is responding to these provocations. Clearly, an Iran with a nuclear weapon or even the technology to build one on demand would be a grave threat to international peace and security.

        But there is also another Iran. It is the land of a great culture and a great people, who suffer under repression. The Iranian people deserve to be integrated into the international system, to travel freely and be educated in the best universities. Indeed, the United States has reached out to them with exchanges of sports teams, disaster-relief workers, and artists. By many accounts, the Iranian people are favorably disposed to Americans and to the United States. Our relationship could be different. Should the Iranian government honor the UN Security Council's demands and suspend its uranium enrichment and related activities, the community of nations, including the United States, is prepared to discuss the full range of issues before us. The United States has no permanent enemies.

        Ultimately, the many threats that Iran poses must be seen in a broader context: that of a state fundamentally out of step with the norms and values of the international community. Iran must make a strategic choice -- a choice that we have sought to clarify with our approach -- about how and to what ends it will wield its power and influence: Does it want to continue thwarting the legitimate demands of the world, advancing its interests through violence, and deepening the isolation of its people? Or is it open to a better relationship, one of growing trade and exchange, deepening integration, and peaceful cooperation with its neighbors and the broader international community? Tehran should know that changes in its behavior would meet with changes in ours. But Iran should also know that the United States will defend its friends and its interests vigorously until the day that change comes.

        A third challenge is finding a way to resolve long-standing conflicts, particularly that between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Our administration has put the idea of democratic development at the center of our approach to this conflict, because we came to believe that the Israelis will not achieve the security they deserve in their Jewish state and the Palestinians will not achieve the better life they deserve in a state of their own until there is a Palestinian government capable of exercising its sovereign responsibilities, both to its citizens and to its neighbors. Ultimately, a Palestinian state must be created that can live side by side with Israel in peace and security. This state will be born not just through negotiations to resolve hard issues related to borders, refugees, and the status of Jerusalem but also through the difficult effort to build effective democratic institutions that can fight terrorism and extremism, enforce the rule of law, combat corruption, and create opportunities for the Palestinians to improve their lives. This confers responsibilities on both parties.

        As the experience of the past several years has shown, there is a fundamental disagreement at the heart of Palestinian society -- between those who reject violence and recognize Israel's right to exist and those who do not. The Palestinian people must ultimately make a choice about which future they desire, and it is only democracy that gives them that choice and holds open the possibility of a peaceful way forward to resolve the existential question at the heart of their national life. The United States, Israel, other states in the region, and the international community must do everything in their power to support those Palestinians who would choose a future of peace and compromise. When the two-state solution is finally realized, it will be because of democracy, not despite it.

        This is, indeed, a controversial view, and it speaks to one more challenge that must be resolved if democratic and modern states are to emerge in the broader Middle East: how to deal with nonstate groups whose commitment to democracy, nonviolence, and the rule of law is suspect. Because of the long history of authoritarianism in the region, many of the best-organized political parties are Islamist, and some of them have not renounced violence used in the service of political goals. What should be their role in the democratic process? Will they take power democratically only to subvert the very process that brought them victory? Are elections in the broader Middle East therefore dangerous?

        These questions are not easy. When Hamas won elections in the Palestinian territories, it was widely seen as a failure of policy. But although this victory most certainly complicated affairs in the broader Middle East, in another way it helped to clarify matters. Hamas had significant power before those elections -- largely the power to destroy. After the elections, Hamas also had to face real accountability for its use of power for the first time. This has enabled the Palestinian people, and the international community, to hold Hamas to the same basic standards of responsibility to which all governments should be held. Through its continued unwillingness to behave like a responsible regime rather than a violent movement, Hamas has demonstrated that it is wholly incapable of governing.

        Much attention has been focused on Gaza, which Hamas holds hostage to its incompetent and brutal policies. But in other places, the Palestinians have held Hamas accountable. In the West Bank city of Qalqilya, for instance, where Hamas was elected in 2004, frustrated and fed-up Palestinians voted it out of office in the next election. If there can be a legitimate, effective, and democratic alternative to Hamas (something that Fatah has not yet been), people will likely choose it. This would especially be true if the Palestinians could live a normal life within their own state.

        The participation of armed groups in elections is problematic. But the lesson is not that there should not be elections. Rather, there should be standards, like the ones to which the international community has held Hamas after the fact: you can be a terrorist group or you can be a political party, but you cannot be both. As difficult as this problem is, it cannot be the case that people are denied the right to vote just because the outcome might be unpleasant to us. Although we cannot know whether politics will ultimately deradicalize violent groups, we do know that excluding them from the political process grants them power without responsibility. This is yet another challenge that the leaders and the peoples of the broader Middle East must resolve as the region turns to democratic processes and institutions to resolve differences peacefully and without repression.

        THE TRANSFORMATION OF IRAQ

        Then, of course, there is Iraq, which is perhaps the toughest test of the proposition that democracy can overcome deep divisions and differences. Because Iraq is a microcosm of the region, with its layers of ethnic and sectarian diversity, the Iraqi people's struggle to build a democracy after the fall of Saddam Hussein is shifting the landscape not just of Iraq but of the broader Middle East as well.

        The cost of this war, in lives and treasure, for Americans and Iraqis, has been greater than we ever imagined. This story is still being written, and will be for many years to come. Sanctions and weapons inspections, prewar intelligence and diplomacy, troop levels and postwar planning -- these are all important issues that historians will analyze for decades. But the fundamental question that we can ask and debate now is, Was removing Saddam from power the right decision? I continue to believe that it was.

        After we fought one war against Saddam and then remained in a formal state of hostilities with him for over a decade, our containment policy began to erode. The community of nations was losing its will to enforce containment, and Iraq's ruler was getting increasingly good at exploiting it through programs such as oil-for-food -- indeed, more than we knew at the time. The failure of containment was increasingly evident in the UN Security Council resolutions that were passed and then violated, in our regular clashes in the no-fly zones, and in President Bill Clinton's decision to launch air strikes in 1998 and then join with Congress to make "regime change" our government's official policy in Iraq. If Saddam was not a threat, why did the community of nations keep the Iraqi people under the most brutal sanctions in modern history? In fact, as the Iraq Survey Group showed, Saddam was ready and willing to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction programs as soon as international pressure had dissipated.

        The United States did not overthrow Saddam to democratize the Middle East. It did so to remove a long-standing threat to international security. But the administration was conscious of the goal of democratization in the aftermath of liberation. We discussed the question of whether we should be satisfied with the end of Saddam's rule and the rise of another strongman to replace him. The answer was no, and it was thus avowedly U.S. policy from the outset to try to support the Iraqis in building a democratic Iraq. It is important to remember that we did not overthrow Adolf Hitler to bring democracy to Germany either. But the United States believed that only a democratic Germany could ultimately anchor a lasting peace in Europe.

        The democratization of Iraq and the democratization of the Middle East were thus linked. So, too, was the war on terror linked to Iraq, because our goal after September 11 was to address the deeper malignancies of the Middle East, not just the symptoms of them. It is very hard to imagine how a more just and democratic Middle East could ever have emerged with Saddam still at the center of the region.

        Our effort in Iraq has been extremely arduous. Iraq was a broken state and a broken society under Saddam. We have made mistakes. That is undeniable. The explosion to the surface of long-suppressed grievances has challenged fragile, young democratic institutions. But there is no other decent and peaceful way for the Iraqis to reconcile.

        As Iraq emerges from its difficulties, the impact of its transformation is being felt in the rest of the region. Ultimately, the states of the Middle East need to reform. But they need to reform their relations, too. A strategic realignment is unfolding in the broader Middle East, separating those states that are responsible and accept that the time for violence under the rubric of "resistance" has passed and those that continue to fuel extremism, terrorism, and chaos. Support for moderate Palestinians and a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and for democratic leaders and citizens in Lebanon have focused the energies of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the states of the Persian Gulf. They must come to see that a democratic Iraq can be an ally in resisting extremism in the region. When they invited Iraq to join the ranks of the Gulf Cooperation Council-Plus-Two (Egypt and Jordan), they took an important step in that direction.

        At the same time, these countries look to the United States to stay deeply involved in their troubled region and to counter and deter threats from Iran. The United States now has the weight of its effort very much in the center of the broader Middle East. Our long-term partnerships with Afghanistan and Iraq, to which we must remain deeply committed, our new relationships in Central Asia, and our long-standing partnerships in the Persian Gulf provide a solid geostrategic foundation for the generational work ahead of helping to bring about a better, more democratic, and more prosperous Middle East.

        A UNIQUELY AMERICAN REALISM

        Investing in strong and rising powers as stakeholders in the international order and supporting the democratic development of weak and poorly governed states -- these broad goals for U.S. foreign policy are certainly ambitious, and they raise an obvious question: Is the United States up to the challenge, or, as some fear and assert these days, is the United States a nation in decline?

        We should be confident that the foundation of American power is and will remain strong -- for its source is the dynamism, vigor, and resilience of American society. The United States still possesses the unique ability to assimilate new citizens of every race, religion, and culture into the fabric of our national and economic life. The same values that lead to success in the United States also lead to success in the world: industriousness, innovation, entrepreneurialism. All of these positive habits, and more, are reinforced by our system of education, which leads the world in teaching children not what to think but how to think -- how to address problems critically and solve them creatively.

        Indeed, one challenge to the national interest is to make certain that we can provide quality education to all, especially disadvantaged children. The American ideal is one of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. This is the glue that holds together our multiethnic democracy. If we ever stop believing that what matters is not where you came from but where you are going, we will most certainly lose confidence. And an unconfident America cannot lead. We will turn inward. We will see economic competition, foreign trade and investment, and the complicated world beyond our shores not as challenges to which our nation can rise but as threats that we should avoid. That is why access to education is a critical national security issue.

        We should also be confident that the foundations of the United States' economic power are strong, and will remain so. Even amid financial turbulence and international crises, the U.S. economy has grown more and faster since 2001 than the economy of any other leading industrial nation. The United States remains unquestionably the engine of global economic growth. To remain so, we must find new, more reliable, and more environmentally friendly sources of energy. The industries of the future are in the high-tech fields (including in clean energy), which our nation has led for years and in which we remain on the global cutting edge. Other nations are indeed experiencing amazing and welcome economic growth, but the United States will likely account for the largest share of global GDP for decades to come.

        Even in our government institutions of national security, the foundations of U.S. power are stronger than many assume. Despite our waging two wars and rising to defend ourselves in a new global confrontation, U.S. defense spending today as a percentage of GDP is still well below the average during the Cold War. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have indeed put an enormous strain on our military, and President Bush has proposed to Congress an expansion of our force by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines. The experience of recent years has tested our armed forces, but it has also prepared a new generation of military leaders for stabilization and counterinsurgency missions, of which we will likely face more. This experience has also reinforced the urgent need for a new kind of partnership between our military and civilian institutions. Necessity is the mother of invention, and the provincial reconstruction teams that we deploy in Afghanistan and Iraq are a model of civil-military cooperation for the future.

        In these pages in 2000, I decried the role of the United States, in particular the U.S. military, in nation building. In 2008, it is absolutely clear that we will be involved in nation building for years to come. But it should not be the U.S. military that has to do it. Nor should it be a mission that we take up only after states fail. Rather, civilian institutions such as the new Civilian Response Corps must lead diplomats and development workers in a whole-of-government approach to our national security challenges. We must help weak and poorly functioning states strengthen and reform themselves and thereby prevent their failure in the first place. This will require the transformation and better integration of the United States' institutions of hard power and soft power -- a difficult task and one that our administration has begun. Since 2001, the president has requested and Congress has approved a nearly 54 percent increase in funding for our institutions of diplomacy and development. And this year, the president and I asked Congress to create 1,100 new positions for the State Department and 300 new positions for the U.S. Agency for International Development. Those who follow us must build on this foundation.

        Perhaps of greater concern is not that the United States lacks the capacity for global leadership but that it lacks the will. We Americans engage in foreign policy because we have to, not because we want to, and this is a healthy disposition -- it is that of a republic, not an empire. There have been times in the past eight years when we have had to do new and difficult things -- things that, at times, have tested the resolve and the patience of the American people. Our actions have not always been popular, or even well understood. The exigencies of September 12 and beyond may now seem very far away. But the actions of the United States will for many, many years be driven by the knowledge that we are in an unfair fight: we need to be right one hundred percent of the time; the terrorists, only once. Yet I find that whatever differences we and our allies have had over the last eight years, they still want a confident and engaged United States, because there are few problems in the world that can be resolved without us. We need to recognize that, too.

        Ultimately, however, what will most determine whether the United States can succeed in the twenty-first century is our imagination. It is this feature of the American character that most accounts for our unique role in the world, and it stems from the way that we think about our power and our values. The old dichotomy between realism and idealism has never really applied to the United States, because we do not really accept that our national interest and our universal ideals are at odds. For our nation, it has always been a matter of perspective. Even when our interests and ideals come into tension in the short run, we believe that in the long run they are indivisible.

        This has freed America to imagine that the world can always be better -- not perfect, but better -- than others have consistently thought possible. America imagined that a democratic Germany might one day be the anchor of a Europe whole, free, and at peace. America believed that a democratic Japan might one day be a source of peace in an increasingly free and prosperous Asia. America kept faith with the people of the Baltics that they would be independent and thus brought the day when NATO held a summit in Riga, Latvia. To realize these and other ambitious goals that we have imagined, America has often preferred preponderances of power that favor our values over balances of power that do not. We have dealt with the world as it is, but we have never accepted that we are powerless to change the world. Indeed, we have shown that by marrying American power and American values, we could help friends and allies expand the boundaries of what most thought realistic at the time.

        How to describe this disposition of ours? It is realism, of a sort. But it is more than that -- what I have called our uniquely American realism. This makes us an incredibly impatient nation. We live in the future, not the past. We do not linger over our own history. This has led our nation to make mistakes in the past, and we will surely make more in the future. Still, it is our impatience to improve less-than-ideal situations and to accelerate the pace of change that leads to our most enduring achievements, at home and abroad.

        At the same time, ironically, our uniquely American realism also makes us deeply patient. We understand how long and trying the course of democracy is. We acknowledge our birth defect, a constitution founded on a compromise that reduced my ancestors each to three-fifths of a man. Yet we are healing old wounds and living as one American people, and this shapes our engagement with the world. We support democracy not because we think ourselves perfect but because we know ourselves to be deeply imperfect. This gives us reason to be humble in our own endeavors and patient with the endeavors of others. We know that today's headlines are rarely the same as history's judgments.

        An international order that reflects our values is the best guarantee of our enduring national interest, and America continues to have a unique opportunity to shape this outcome. Indeed, we already see glimpses of this better world. We see it in Kuwaiti women gaining the right to vote, in a provincial council meeting in Kirkuk, and in the improbable sight of the American president standing with democratically elected leaders in front of the flags of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the future state of Palestine. Shaping that world will be the work of a generation, but we have done such work before. And if we remain confident in the power of our values, we can succeed in such work again.

        [Mar 20, 2015] Alexander Lebedev gives up bankrolling Russia's Novaya Gazeta by Roy Greenslade

        Mar 20, 2015 | The Guardian

        Asimpleguest -> Havingalavrov 20 Mar 2015 15:00

        I found more lies and disinformation in the Western news than in the Russian news

        in fact the info found on Itar-Tass, Interfax, Sputnik, RT, russia-insider, etc - can be easily verifiable and is reliable...

        and another positive aspect - they do NOT use vitriolic aggressive hysterical language when writing about Western politicians - their approach is very PROFESSIONAL, polite, and down-to-earth

        the Western media would re-gain their audience if they will start to report HONESTLY from both sides, unbiased...

        after the lies we were fed when the press manipulated people to believe in the justice of US invading Afghanistan and Iraq - nobody in his/her right mind believe anything Western politicians said about Libya, Syria and Ukra

        enough is enough - we are sick of so many lies

        in Ukra the power was taken by the oligarchs after a violent armed coup staged by amer (the vulgar nullity said it clearly in the ''f**k EU'' conversation)

        the democratically elected president was threatened that he will be killed like Qaddafi and run away with his family (Obama recognized that US brokered the gov change in Kiev)

        President Putin - knowing that Crimeans are majority in the favour of being united with Russia and wanting to protect their military naval base in Crimea - helped Crimea to do a referendum to reunite with Russia - then US mafia was outfoxed - they imagined the NATO will easily take over Russia's base

        Biden recognized that US pushed EU to apply anti-Russia sanctions (Obama admitted that US has the habit to twist the arms to make the other countries do want they want)

        Donbass asked for the same rights as Crimea had with Ukraine's border
        criminal illegitimate Kiev gov launched ATO - sending the far-right punitive private battalions to kill Eastern Ukrainians

        Poroshenko promised PEACE and RECONCILIATION during his electoral campaign - after he was elected - he continued killing civilians in the Eastern Ukraine...

        Poroshenko, Yats and their criminal gang in Kiev LOST the moral right to govern the Eastern Ukrainians!

        Виталий Седин -> JohnNewcomb 20 Mar 2015 11:47

        "Estonia - a country that ranks a very high #10 on RSF's World Press Freedom Index 2015."(c)

        ...and where 15% residents do not have basic civil rights.

        Perfect example of Real Democracy (TM) for Russian Bloody Dictatorship (TM).


        ijustwant2say -> Виталий Седин 20 Mar 2015 11:14

        You still name nothing similar in UK/US, I note.

        Are you being serious? Almost every paper or news channel you care to mention in this country has at some stage attacked the government of the day (because governments here change). Just watch Fox News in the US and see what it says about the US President. Watch the Daily Show in the US. Read this newspaper, on which you spend an inordinate amount of time commenting. The Snowden revelations weren't revealed by a Russian newspaper - but by this one and the New York Times. Stop pretending that Russia's, Kremlin controlled media, which has some of the worst press freedoms in the world, is on the same planet as media in the West. In the global press freedoms index, the UK is ranked 34, the US 49 (neither perfect), but Russia comes in at an appalling 152 out of 180 countries . Must make you proud.

        ijustwant2say -> Виталий Седин 20 Mar 2015 10:45

        Here's one unstoppable national-wide source of anti-Putin hysteria: http://www.echo.msk.ru/

        You can only name one, I note. Most papers in this country will happily criticise the actions of the government if they feel it is justifiable. Most regard it as part of their raison d'etre. Don't try and pretend that Russia, which has some of the worst press freedoms in the world, is on the same level as the press over here. I know the press in Russia and I know the press in Europe and the US. The West has some appalling stations (e.g. Fox News) but there is a vast mainstream choice of factually based reporting. Not so much in Russia where most get their news from TV and each of the three major National TV stations are controlled by the Kremlin. How do you think Putin has managed to stay so popular in Russia, while being reviled and distrusted most other places?

        Renfrow -> kolarg 20 Mar 2015 10:07

        I know in Ukraine all the papers are bankrolled by various oligarchs and each one prints information in accordance with their owners' views and/or interests. Sort of like FOX and MSNBC t.v. stations in the U.S.A. piping their own particular outlook in the world events

        Виталий Седин 20 Mar 2015 07:52

        Is there smth. comparable with Novaya Gazeta in UK?

        ID075732 20 Mar 2015 07:45

        Lebedev is basically a thug. A black not a white swan.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxYuHySd0LY

        [Mar 18, 2015] The 'Opportunity Cost' of America's Disastrous Foreign Policy by Vlad Sobell

        Mar 18, 2015 | Russia Insider

        Washington is betraying the best interests of the American people through its current foreign policy... European democracy is threatened by US, not Russian, foreign policy

        The avalanche of commentary since the Ukrainian crisis erupted a year ago has overshadowed any reflections on the immense forgone benefits (technically speaking, the "opportunity cost") of what might have been if Washington had been working for peace and stability instead of war and chaos.

        Imagine the following: After the unraveling of the Communist bloc, Europe, in partnership with the US, had forged a new security system in which Russia was treated as a valued and equal partner – one whose interests were respected. Russia, decimated by a century of wars and Communist imperialism, would doubtless have eagerly reciprocated in kind. Most countries of the former Soviet Union would have then proceeded to build a new Eurasian structure of which Russia would have served as the natural umbrella, given its long-standing interaction with the region's diverse nations and cultures.

        Indeed, as Putin himself had proposed in his visionary October 2011 article, the Eurasian Union could have become one of the pillars of a huge harmonized economic area stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok and based on the EU's single-market rules (acquis communautaire). The rising Far Eastern economic powerhouse, with the world's most populous country, China, at its centre, would have linked up with the world's largest economy (the EU). An enormous Eurasian production and financial bloc would have been created – one that drew primarily on secure supplies of Russian energy and other natural resources. Untold investment opportunities would have opened up in Siberia and Russia's Far East as well as in Central Asia. Hundreds of millions of people in Eurasia and elsewhere would have been lifted out of poverty. And, not least, the EU would have been refashioned as an integral part of the dynamic trans-Eurasian economy (rather than as a German-centred empire, as appears to be the case today), thereby making a major contribution to overcoming the ongoing global economic depression.

        All of this was not to be, however. Why not? First and foremost, because the self-proclaimed "exceptional" power (actually, a mere "outlying island" in the Atlantic, according to the founder of geopolitics, Halford Mackinder) and its dysfunctional "deep-state" officialdom did not want it to be. How could they have permitted such a thing? How could they have allowed other countries to get on with improving the lives of their citizens without being obliged to seek Washington's approval every step of the way?

        European democracy is threatened by US, not Russian, foreign policy

        In order to make sure that they were not side-lined, the US elites had to intervene. The Western propaganda machine started churning out all sorts of nonsense that Putin is a new Hitler who is bent on restoring the Soviet empire and who is bullying Europe, while continuing to bang on about his "increasingly autocratic rule". Deadly attacks by chauvinistic proxies were launched on the Russophone people in South Ossetia, Georgia in 2008 and more recently in Ukraine. And in what is eerily reminiscent of Stalinist "bloc discipline", the EU/NATO nomenclature was ordered to implement the absurd strategy of severing the Russian economy from the EU. For their part, the cowering Eurocrats willingly obliged by imposing sanctions on Russia that, perversely, have had a negative impact on their own economies (but, let it be stressed, not that of the US). No questions raised and no public debate on the wisdom of such a strategy permitted.

        Stuck in an Orwellian nightmare, Europe has to demonstrate its unfailing loyalty to Big Brother and go along with the view that Russia, an intrinsic and valuable part of the European mainstream both historically and culturally, represents universal evil and that the Earth will not be safe until the Federation has been dismembered and Putinism wiped out once and for all.

        This abuse and humiliation of Europe is unparalleled. The continent that gave the world the wonders of the Antiquity, modern democracy, the industrial revolution and what is arguably the greatest tradition of philosophy, fine arts and classical music is being bullied by its oversized offspring. Having self-destructed in two world wars, it has become an easy and even willing prey to an arrogant, ignorant and power-drunk predator that has never experienced the hardships and horrors that Europe has. War and extermination camps are etched into the European DNA. America "knows" about them only from afar – and, not least, from the Hollywood entertainment industry.

        Even more terrifying, intellectually third-rate Washington viceroys such as Victoria Nuland and the freelancing armchair warrior Senator McCain are allowed to play God with our continent. The so-called European "leaders" are colluding with them in plunging Europe into the abyss and thereby risking nuclear confrontation.

        America, too, is a loser

        But this is not just a tragedy for Europe and Eurasia. We are also witnessing the wilful misrule of America and, by default, of the entire West. Indeed, Washington is betraying the best interests of the American people through its current foreign policy. The "democracy-promoters" running Washington's foreign-policy apparatus apparently do not understand that America has nothing to lose and a lot to gain from the Eurasian economic project: the rising tide of global economic welfare would lift everyone's boats, including its own. Why should it matter to Washington if the rising tide comes from other quarters beyond its control?

        Indeed, the damage extends beyond the economy. By aligning with the forces of chaos – such as chauvinistic extremists in Ukraine – Washington and its Euro-vassals are corrupting the moral (and intellectual) core of the West. If it continues to support such forces against Russia, united Europe will lose not only its backbone but its very soul. The moral consequences of this loss will be enormous and could lead to the precipitous erosion of Western democracy.

        The 'autocrats' want to work with the West, not against it

        US and EU leaders believe that the Russian and Chinese "autocrats" are out to destroy the West because the latter hate freedom (as George W. Bush might have put it). And hence, they argue, the autocrats must be stopped in their tracks. The simple truth is that Western leaders are too blinkered to understand that far from desiring to destroy the West, Russia and China want it to prosper so that they can work with it to everyone's benefit. Having enjoyed a privileged position over several centuries and having attained unprecedented prosperity in recent decades, the West simply cannot understand that the rest of humanity has no interest in fomenting the "clash of civilizations" but rather craves peace and stability so that it can finally improve its economic lot.

        Perhaps, however, all is not yet lost. It is still possible that reason – and economic forces – will prevail and force the West to correct the errors of its ways. What we need, perhaps, more than ever is the ability to step out of the box, question our fundamental assumptions (not least about Russia and China) and find the courage to change policies that have proved disastrous. After all, critical thought, dispassionate analysis and the ability to be open to new ideas is what made the West so successful in the past. If we are to thrive once again in the future, we must resurrect these most valuable and unsurpassed assets.

        Vlad Sobell teaches political economy in Prague and Berlin
        Europeans Look On as US Sows Discord on the Continent
        Wed, Nov 2

        Tom Welsh

        What I cannot understand is the naive belief that elected politicians would act in the interests of those whom they represent. Under what other circumstances do we see human beings act with disinterested altruism? So why would a bunch of people who have been ruthlessly selected for selfishness, arrogance, and callousness - a bunch of carefully chosen psychopaths, if you will - behave in that way?

        'My Ph.D. dissertation chairman, who became a high Pentagon official assigned to wind down the Vietnam war, in answer to my question about how Washington gets Europeans to always do what Washington wants replied: "Money, we give them money." "Foreign aid?" I asked. "No, we give the European political leaders bagfuls of money. They are for sale. We bought them. They report to us." Perhaps this explains Tony Blair's $50 million fortune one year out of office'.

        - Paul Craig Roberts

        jabirujoe

        "Washington is betraying the best interests of the American people through its current foreign policy".

        Not only it's foreign policy but it's domestic policy as well. Let's call it for what it really is. The Wall Street/Corporate policy which is the driving force behind behind everything the US does

        Toddrich

        "We, the [CENSORED] people, control America and the Americans know it."
        -- Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of [CENSORED]

        "When we're done with the U.S. it will shrivel up and blow away."

        -- Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of [CENSORED]

        The welfare or future of the American people are not part of the equation.

        Is Putin ill? 'Everything is fine' despite cancelled meetings and old photos

        Looks like Putin has a fly by Guardian things otherwise ;-). I just love the twisted Guardianista thinking that we get on here from time to time....
        The Guardian

        BradBenson -> 14 Mar 2015 10:15

        Well young man, I only talk down to clowns. If you had something reasonable to say in your original comment, you might have avoided being patronized. You reap what you sow.

        The US is no better or worse than the Russia. You get zero news on our TV Media except that which 'unnamed government sources' claim. How is that any different than what the Russian People see? Moreover, YOU don't know what the Russians see or know and can't know it unless you are living in Russia, which you aren't.

        Right now, even as I type, the so-called 'liberal' station, MSNBC, is reporting that Putin hasn't been seen for a week, when, in fact, he was seen live and in person twice this past week and it was reported elsewhere in the European Media. But we have to keep him in the news because he's the current "evil enemy du jour" and until we can come up with some new 'outrage' committed by Putin, this is the best they can do.

        People on the 'All-Israel-all-the-Time' Station, CNN Amerika, have even gone so far as to suggest that Putin's been overthrown by hardliners bent on restoring the borders of the old USSR. Quick! Throw open the siloes. We have to take them out now before these hardliners attack poor innocent Amerika!

        At the commercial break, there will be yet another advertisement for Boeing or Northrup Grumman just to keep us in that Cold War mood until the talking heads come back on. Meanwhile, even though none of us could ever possibly buy a Boeing or Grumman product, 'liberal' MSNBC is bought off with advertising money so that they won't ever criticize the new Cold War. Nor will you ever see a negative story about Boeing or Grumman contract cost overruns, especially not during the coming war with Iran (which has no bomb vs. poor Israel, which has at least 250 bombs).

        Meantime, we are also being told that there is no mass surveillance. Of course not, it's just "bulk collection". I'm sure that you find that reassuring, but I've been around long enough to remember when this would never have been permitted--that is, of course, without a "new pearl harbor" (google it and learn something about PNAC, while you're at it).

        In a country in which:

        1. all of your communications are collected and analyzed;
        2. the regular police forces are now full-scale armed para-military units;
        3. the National Defense Authorization Act permits the President to impose martial law anywhere in the country and to actually house US Military Personnel in our homes as required;
        4. the new Patriot Act permits indefinite incarceration without habeas corpus for American Citizens; and,
        5. people are shot in the streets on a regular basis by uniformed thugs;

        you have no basis whatsoever to claim that life in Amerika is any better than it is in Putin's Russia.

        Finally, young man, I'm 64 and you can call me a "young man" any time you want. At my age, it's a compliment. In the future, should you want to discuss things, dispute something I've said or make a counter-argument to something I've said, as some do, you will be treated with respect. If all you bring is ignorance and snark, rest assured you will be patronized. After all, we have standards here in the threads and I'm not allowed to tell little punks like you to just F-off.

        sheikhoftheprairies Adabsiz1 13 Mar 2015 14:36

        The Gazprom is a sponsor of the `Echo of Moscow`, many newspapers (like `The New Izvestiya`) of the so called liberal opposition. The state-owned corp. supports the opposition! How can it be explained? The Kremlin masochism? Curioser and curioser! Wonderland! Who gonna be Alice?

        Adabsiz1 13 Mar 2015 14:29

        Amazingly, and despite Western sanctions on Russia, not to mention attacks on the person of President Putin ....
        GAZPROM, the largest Russian oil company, is the SOLE sponsors of not only the UEFA Champions League ...... but also FC Schalke 04 (a premiere German club) !!!

        (https://www.gazprom-germania.de/en/sponsorship/sports-sponsorship/fcschalke04.html)

        WOW --

        Do we speak with forked tongues ??

        Cigars -> sheikhoftheprairies 13 Mar 2015 13:27

        The Central Intelligence Agency was created to gather intelligence.

        Collecting intelligence through human sources and by other appropriate means, except that he shall have no police, subpoena, or law enforcement powers or internal security functions;
        Correlating and evaluating intelligence related to the national security and providing appropriate dissemination of such intelligence;
        Providing overall direction for and coordination of the collection of national intelligence outside the United States through human sources by elements of the Intelligence Community authorized to undertake such collection and, in coordination with other departments, agencies, or elements of the United States Government which are authorized to undertake such collection, ensuring that the most effective use is made of resources and that appropriate account is taken of the risks to the United States and those involved in such collection; and
        Performing such other functions and duties related to intelligence affecting the national security as the President or the Director of National

        sheikhoftheprairies -> psygone 13 Mar 2015 13:06

        CNN is a source for the masses. To be more or less informed persons need other sources of information. My choice is the Lloyd List. It writes nothing about policy, only marine industry, yet you can judge the real state of affairs in the international economy, cos maritime transportation is blood of the world`s economy. Even the FT is not very reliable for me. I prefer figures and graphs to the words.

        worried 13 Mar 2015 12:43

        "competent leaders who embraced the western world because they cared more about maximizing the prosperity of their people than stealing their national wealth"

        ....HO HO HO !!

        I just love the twisted Guardianista thinking that we get on here from time to time....NOT.

        Read all about it : ' they cared more about maximizing the prosperity of their people than stealing their national wealth" ....

        Does this win the 2015 Orwellianspeak prize of the year?


        BradBenson -> brendonn 13 Mar 2015 10:52

        Fact are facts. Are you part of the problem or part of the solution? Sounds to me as if you don't have the education or acquired knowledge to dispute what I said. Perhaps you should check out our standing against the rest of the world.

        Since I've traveled all of my life and lived as an expatriate in Germany for ten years, I've had the opportunity to see the differences myself. Since you've never been outside of your trailer park, let alone your state, you will have to go to the net to find out the truth.

        Make that your assignment for today young man and run along.

        HollyOldDog -> romans 13 Mar 2015 10:42

        By manning the Concentration Camps where their extreme brutality was noted by the Gestapo but the Ukrainians cowardice was evident when the Soviet forces discovered the Auschwitz Concentration camp where the Ukrainian guards discarded their uniforms and tried to hide within the prisoners. But they stood out like a sore thumb as they were overweight whereas the true prisoners were 'stick thin' and obviously starving and awaiting their place in the que for the gas chambers.

        jgbg -> huzar30 13 Mar 2015 10:29

        Strongmen always eliminate potential rivals, and surround themselves with competent sycophants.

        Yeah - the Russians could end up with someone weak, like Vladimir Zhirinovsky : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Zhirinovsky

        Be careful what you wish for.

        (Strangely, despite giving the impression of being a complete madman, Zhirinovsky made a fairly accurate prediction on a Ukrainian TV programme in 2006, about what would happen in Ukraine if the nationalists and their far right chums in Svoboda seized power)

        Conniston -> romans 13 Mar 2015 10:27

        Romans, they sure got their revenge at the Treblinka death camp. They were Catholic Christians with a deep hatred of Jews, communists and Orthodox Christians. Just to rub it in the new prime minister was seen with the Pope only a few days after the coup in Kiev. It may be 70 years ago but they still believe in priestcraft. It's a good job they have a saviour-god who is going to forgive all the rotten things they do while on Earth.

        valeronfreza -> Daniel Simkins 13 Mar 2015 10:15

        It creates resonance. But it really stupid. He's a president, a busy guy, he has lots of things to do, which are way more important than making new photos. There are plenty of them, already, he's not a TV serial so people would wait a new portion of him every two days or so. In spite of intensions of medias to turn his life and actions into series.

        HollyOldDog -> Havingalavrov 13 Mar 2015 09:57

        It's probably due to Poroshenko asking for an emergency Asylum due to all the murders of Russian Speaking politicians in West Ukraine but the armed road blocks around Kiev are posing problems for his safe escape plan.

        samlebon23 13 Mar 2015 09:55

        The Cancer Inducing Agency is hard at work.

        StatusFoe -> RealityCheck2014 13 Mar 2015 09:42

        He has not busy working hard with Western nations to secure a mutually beneficial reconciliation

        What was he doing in Minsk a couple of weeks ago then?

        fully integrate Russia into the global economy, promote positive and respectful relationships with foreign markets for Russia's products,

        Under Putin Russia has become a member of the WTO, the Russian Middle Class has grown enormously. Sure, the bureaucracy is still stiffling and huge reforms are still needed to promote SMEs. On the other hand, Putin has stopped the western energy corps from taking over Russia's resources in the way they do in the third world, Nigeria for example. That resistance has irked the US led western corporate cabal and thus the campaign in western MSM to demonize Putin and vilify Russia as a whole.

        Ida Barnes -> Metronome151 13 Mar 2015 09:40

        Huge dollop of whataboutery

        Whataboutery. Newspeak noun: used as a desperate attempt by people with poor reasoning skills to deflect attention from their double standards

        VladimirM -> VladimirM 13 Mar 2015 08:10

        There were two other presidents in Russia. Everybody knew and could see themselves how healthy Yeltsin was. But I can't remember a single story about Medvedev's health during his tenure.

        The youth don't remember Politburo and even Yeltsin's presidency seems to be far away. So it's a bit rich to call it 'scares' and compare it to the early 80s.

        Dr_Delaney 13 Mar 2015 08:01

        One has to understand that Mr Putin has had to defend his nation from the war of economic aggression that a minority of US-connected countries have waged on his country. I say minority because their actions are not supported by the world community - far from it indeed.

        Mr Putin is also working hard on the 2018 World Cup - which is expected to be the bes so far in the competitions history.

        Socraticus -> SHappens 13 Mar 2015 07:46

        Matt Lee is one of the few journalists that consistently challenges the official government narrative and points out their hypocrisy during press briefings. The MSM need many more individuals like him.

        SHappens -> linzter 13 Mar 2015 07:31

        The US would never lie, never do such things, check Psaki's statement:

        As a matter of long-standing policy, the United States does not support political transitions by non-constitutional means."

        The response from reporters may surprise you.

        http://investmentwatchblog.com/journalist-cant-contain-his-laughter-when-white-house-spokesperson-says-the-us-has-a-long-standing-policy-against-backing-coups/

        Dr_Delaney 13 Mar 2015 07:29

        It's Nato that's empire-building, not Putin....Peter Hitchens in The Spectator magazine

        "Two great land powers face each other. One of these powers, Russia, has given up control over 700,000 square miles of valuable territory. The other, the European Union, has gained control over 400,000 of those square miles. Which of these powers is expanding"?

        http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9459602/its-nato-thats-empire-building-not-putin/

        SirHenryRawlins -> tomash76 13 Mar 2015 07:16

        Crimea would have been flattened if the nationalists had invaded. Luckily the people of Crimea acted swiftly and succeeded from Ukraine. Yes, it was all illegal but lives were saved. Western liberal interventionists should have supported Russia.

        Dr_Delaney -> SHappens 13 Mar 2015 07:13

        This is quite true. The western game of denegration of a whole nation has backfired on them.

        They appear NOT to have learnt from past mistakes from history: 1812 (France invaded Russia), 1914 (Germany invaded Russia) and 1942 (Germany again invaded Russia). On each occasion Russia came out stronger.


        SHappens 13 Mar 2015 07:08

        "Something remarkable is taking place in Russia, and it's quite different from what we might expect. Rather than feel humiliated and depressed Russia is undergoing what I would call a kind of renaissance, a rebirth as a nation. This despite or in fact because the West, led by the so-called neo-conservatives in Washington, is trying everything including war on her doorstep in Ukraine, to collapse the Russian economy, humiliate Putin and paint Russians generally as bad. In the process, Russia is discovering positive attributes about her culture, her people, her land that had long been forgotten or suppressed."

        Read more: http://thesaker.is/russias-remarkable-renaissance/

        Putin probably needed a break to look with satisfaction at what the West has achieved so far, and that is nothing constructive for the EU.

        sheikhoftheprairies -> gewillia21 13 Mar 2015 07:03

        Chechnya`s part of the Russian Federation. It was and is. South Ossetia was saved by Russia. Georgians planned their genocide. Ukraine became a victim of the coup d'état like in LA in the 70s. Crimea? Now we see what ordeal this peninsula would undergo if not Russia`s help. Ukraine is a part of the Russian world, Russian populated universe, and therefore the EU and US are wrong when they try to trespass this thin, invisible but real red line. It is not our business. Let the Russian (Ukrainians are the Russian too) do like they can, we should not interfere with their Civil war. `Mad Vlad` is a vocabulary of hongweibings and dazibaos, as to the white overalls they won`t move their fingers until paid for their service. Who will pay them, you? Vlad won`t do it.

        Putin is a great national leader and the best friend of Chechnya, that Muslim republic. Visit Grozny (capital of the republic), it`s a fairy tale in the mountains. Putin built it anew.

        StatusFoe -> SirHenryRawlins 13 Mar 2015 06:37

        Indeed, it's very scarry. Thankfully it's been relatively very quiet in East Ukraine these last few days.... the hawks are surely not happy. And now the US establishment's official mouthpiece, tyhe Washington Post is berating the UK for not spendiing more on defence and not being sifficiently aggressive:

        In the two conflicts that most directly imperil Europe today, Britain has been largely ­invisible.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/behind-tough-british-bark-on-russia-and-islamic-state-is-very-little-bite/2015/03/12/ae63a442-c727-11e4-bea5-b893e7ac3fb3_story.html?hpid=z4

        RoyRoger -> Chirographer 13 Mar 2015 06:29

        7 political imbeciles !!.

        Obama, Kerry, Rasmusseen, Nuland, McCain, Hague & Ashton. The '' hug a, Kiev, fascist'' - lets have a coup d' etat' in a sovereign and democratic country - gang.

        And, Putin, sat back whilst the above mentioned incompetence actions dropped into Putin's and the Russian's lap - Crimea and 20% of Ukraine.

        And now the fucking political imbeciles are planning a war with Russia.

        Socraticus 13 Mar 2015 06:25

        Good lord! Do any of you anti-Putin fanatics ever once bother to investigate the claims presented in the MSM rather than take them as fact at face value?

        A simple cursory check of the Russian Presidential website would have easily dispelled the disinformation being disseminated, as it provides a listing of Putin's various meetings held over the past week and beyond (including photos taken at those meetings and links to the press releases of same).

        Further, those meetings can also be validated via the video coverage of them found on YouTube (including the Women's Day on March 8th), as well as postings made on other governmental websites that pertain to the individuals he met with. Here are just a few of those links so you can see for yourself...

        http://eng.kremlin.ru/news
        http://gov.karelia.ru/gov/index_e.html
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3mbtEZcio0
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBVwq8Xw64

        Conniston 13 Mar 2015 06:25

        Things have become clearer following the 'Yesterday' TV programme that told the harrowing story of the death camp at Treblinka in Poland - March 10th. The guards killing the Jews were Ukrainian. Many Ukrainians joined the German army when they attacked the USSR in June 1941.

        With this in mind we can now begin to understand why the Russians are, rightly or wrongly, calling those in Kiev Nazis.

        Pateric -> GreatMountainEagle 13 Mar 2015 06:24

        Why not, if even after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya....the Westerners believe in their
        "exclusive" democracy as they, obviously, believe in the above 108-124%.

        Vladimire_Poutine 13 Mar 2015 06:23

        Where's Wally? *

        *Wally = common Anglicization of Vladimir.

        sheikhoftheprairies 13 Mar 2015 06:04

        Churchill: `Stalin took over Russia when it had just a plough and left it with nuclear weapons`.

        Putin took over Russia when it had just plights, and now Russia is a liberal, democratic, capitalist country. Its only guilt is it does not want to be anybody`s fool, victim. Putin is a real leader, not just a formal President. I wish him every success. I`d recommend politicians of other countries to follow his example for the sake of their nations.

        [Mar 16, 2015] A Green Light for the American Empire by Ron Paul

        March 14, 2015 | ronpaulinstitute.org

        The American Empire has been long in the making. A green light was given in 1990 to finalize that goal. Dramatic events occurred that year that allowed the promoters of the American Empire to cheer. It also ushered in the current 25-year war to solidify the power necessary to manage a world empire. Most people in the world now recognize this fact and assume that the empire is here to stay for a long time. That remains to be seen.

        Empires come and go. Some pop up quickly and disappear in the same manner. Others take many years to develop and sometimes many years to totally disintegrate. The old empires, like the Greek, Roman, Spanish and many others took many years to build and many years to disappear. The Soviet Empire was one that came rather quickly and dissipated swiftly after a relatively short period of time. The communist ideology took many decades to foment the agitation necessary for the people to tolerate that system.

        Since 1990 the United States has had to fight many battles to convince the world that it was the only military and economic force to contend with. Most people are now convinced and are easily intimidated by our domination worldwide with the use of military force and economic sanctions on which we generously rely. Though on the short term this seems to many, and especially for the neoconservatives, that our power cannot be challenged. What is so often forgotten is that while most countries will yield to our threats and intimidation, along the way many enemies were created.

        The seeds of the American Empire were sown early in our history. Natural resources, river transportation, and geographic location all lent itself to the development of an empire. An attitude of "Manifest Destiny" was something most Americans had no trouble accepting. Although in our early history there were those who believed in a powerful central government, with central banking and foreign intervention, these views were nothing like they are today as a consequence of many years of formalizing the power and determination necessary for us to be the policeman of the world and justify violence as a means for spreading a particular message. Many now endorse the idea that using force to spread American exceptionalism is moral and a force for good. Unfortunately history has shown that even using humanitarian rhetoric as a justification for telling others what to do has never worked.

        Our move toward empire steadily accelerated throughout the 20th century. World War I and World War II were deadly for millions of people in many countries, but in comparison the United States was essentially unscathed. Our economic power and military superiority steadily grew. Coming out of World War II we were able to dictate the terms of the new monetary system at Bretton Woods as well as the makeup of all the international organizations like NATO, the United Nations, and many others. The only thing that stood in America's way between 1945 and 1990 was the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Significant events of 1990 sealed the fate of the Soviet Empire, with United States enjoying a green light that would usher in unchallenged American superiority throughout the world.

        Various names have been given to this war in which we find ourselves and is which considered necessary to maintain the empire. Professor Michael Rozeff calls it the "Great War II" implying that the Great War I began in 1914 and ended in 1990. Others have referred to this ongoing war as "The Long War." I hope that someday we can refer to this war as the "The Last War" in that by the time this war ends the American Empire will end as well. Then the greatness of the experiment in individual liberty in our early history can be resumed and the force of arms can be replaced by persuasion and setting an example of how a free society should operate.

        There are several reasons why 1990 is a significant year in the transition of modern day empires. It was a year that signaled the end of the USSR Empire and the same year the American Empire builders felt vindicated in their efforts to assume the role of the world's sole superpower.

        On February 7, 1990 the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union met and ceded its monopoly political power over its empire. This was followed in a short period of time with the breakup of the Soviet system with 15 of the 17 republics declaring their independence from Moscow. This was not a total surprise considering the fact that the Soviets, in defeat, were forced to leave Afghanistan in February 1989. Also later that year, on November 9, 1989, the Berlin wall fell. Obviously the handwriting was on the wall for the total disintegration of the Soviet system. The fact that the Communist Party's leaders had to concede that they no longer could wield the ominous power that the Communist Party exerted for 73 years was a seminal event. None of this could have been possible without significant policy changes instituted by Mikhail Gorbachev after his assuming power as president in 1985, which included Glasnost and Perestroika-policies that permitted more political openness as well as significant economic reforms. These significant events led up to the Soviet collapse much more so than the conventional argument that it was due to Ronald Reagan's military buildup that forced the Soviets into a de facto "surrender" to the West.

        The other significant event of 1990, and not just a coincidence, was the "green light" message exchanged between April Glaspie and Saddam Hussein on July 25, 1990. Though the details of this encounter have been debated, there is no doubt that the conclusion of it was that Saddam Hussein was convinced that the United States would not object to him using force to deal with a dispute Iraq had with Kuwait. After all, the US had just spent eight years aligning itself with him in his invasion and war with the Iranians. It seemed to him quite logical. What he didn't realize was the significance of the changes in the world powers that were ongoing at that particular time. The Soviets were on their way out and the American Empire was soon to assert its role as the lone super power. The US was anxious to demonstrate its new role.

        When one reads the communications between Washington and Iraq, it was not difficult to believe that a green light had been given to Saddam Hussein to march into Kuwait without US interference. Without this invasion, getting the American people to support a war with Iraq would have been very difficult. Before the war propaganda by the US government and the American media began, few Americans supported President Bush's plans to go to war against an ally that we assisted in its eight-year war against Iran. After several months of propaganda, attitudes changed and President Bush was able to get support from the US Congress, although he argued that that was unnecessary since he had obtained a UN resolution granting him the authority to use his military force to confront Saddam Hussein. The need for Constitutional authority was not discussed.

        US ambassador April Glaspie was rather explicit in her comments to Saddam Hussein: "we have no opinion on Arab – Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." The US State Department had already told Saddam Hussein that Washington had "no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait." It's not difficult interpreting conversations like this as being a green light for the invasion that Hussein was considering. Hussein had a list of grievances regarding the United States, but Glaspie never threatened or hinted about how Washington would react if Hussein took Kuwait. Regardless, whether it was reckless or poor diplomacy, the war commenced. Some have argued that it was deliberate in order to justify the beginning of the United States efforts in rebuilding the Middle East – a high priority for the neoconservatives. Actually whether the invasion by Saddam Hussein into Kuwait was encouraged or permitted by deliberate intentions or by miscalculations, the outcome and the subsequent disaster in Iraq for the next 25 years was a result of continued bad judgment in our dealing with Iraq. That required enforcing our goals with military intervention. The obvious failure of this policy requires no debate.

        On August 1, 1990, one week after this exchange between ambassador Glaspie and Saddam Hussein, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq occurred. Immediately following this attack our State Department made it clear that this invasion would not stand and President Bush would lead a coalition in removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait. On January 17, 1991, that military operation began. The forced evacuation of Iraqi troops from Kuwait was swift and violent, but the war for Iraq had just begun and continues to this day. It also ushered in the climactic struggle for America's efforts to become the official and unchallenged policeman of the world and to secure the American Empire.

        President Bush was not bashful in setting the stage for this clearly defined responsibility to assume this role since the Soviet Empire was on the wane. A very significant foreign policy speech by Bush came on September 11, 1990 entitled, "Toward a New World Order." This was a clear definition of internationalism with United States in charge in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D Roosevelt. In this speech there was a pretense that there would be Russian and United States cooperation in making the world safe for democracy-something that our government now seems totally uninterested in. Following the speech, the New York Times reported that the American left was concerned about this new world order as being nothing more than rationalization for imperial ambitions in the middle 1980s. Obviously the geopolitics of the world had dramatically changed. The green light was given for the American hegemony.

        This arrogant assumption of power to run the world militarily and to punish or reward various countries economically would continue and accelerate, further complicating the financial condition of the United States government. Though it was easy for the United States to push Hussein back into Iraq, subsequent policy was destined to create havoc that has continued up to the present day. The sanctions and the continuous bombing of Iraq were devastating to the infrastructure of that country. As a consequence it's been estimated that over 500,000 Iraqis died in the next decade, many of them being children. Yet there are still many Americans who continue to be mystified as to why "they – Arabs and Muslims – hate us." By the end of 1991, on Christmas Day, the final blow to the Soviet system occurred. On that date Gorbachev resigned and the Soviet flag was lowered for the last time, thus officially ending the Soviet Empire. Many had hoped that there would be "a peace dividend" for us since the Cold War was officially ended. There's no reason that could not have occurred but it would have required us to reject the notion that it was our moral obligation and legal responsibility to deal with every crisis throughout the world. Nevertheless we embarked on that mission and though it continues, it is destined to end badly for our country. The ending of the Soviet Empire was a miraculous event with not one shot being fired. It was a failed system based on a deeply flawed idea and it was destined to fail. Once again this makes the point that the use of military force to mold the world is a deeply flawed policy. We must remember that ideas cannot be stopped by armies and recognize that good ideas must replace bad ones rather than resorting to constant wars.

        It should surprise no one that a policy endorsing the use of force to tell others how to live will only lead to more killing and greater economic suffering for those who engage in this effort, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. Twenty five years have passed since this green light was given for the current war and there's no sign that it will soon end. So far it has only emboldened American political leaders to robustly pursue foreign interventionism with little thought to the tremendous price that is continuously paid.

        During the 1990s there was no precise war recognized. However our military presence around the world especially in the Middle East and to some degree in Africa was quite evident. Even though President George HW Bush did not march into Baghdad, war against the Iraqi people continued. In an effort to try to get the people to rebel against Saddam Hussein, overwhelming sanctions and continuous bombing were designed to get the Iraqi people to rebel and depose Hussein. That did not work. Instead it worked to continue to build hatred toward America for our involvement in the entire region.

        Our secretive influence in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation had its unintended consequences. One was that we were fighting on the side of bin Laden and we all know how that turned out. Also, in an effort to defeat communism, the CIA helped to promote radical Islam in Saudi Arabia. Some argue that this was helpful in defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan. This most likely is not true since communism was doomed to fail anyway, and the cost to us by encouraging radical Islam has come back to haunt us.

        It has been estimated that our policies directed at Iraq during the 1990s caused the death of thousands of Iraqis, many of these coming from the destruction of their infrastructure and creating a public health nightmare. When Madeleine Albright was asked about this on national TV she did not deny it and said that that was a price that had to be paid. And then they wonder why there is so much resentment coming from these countries directed toward United States. Then George Bush Junior invaded Iraq, his justification all based on lies, and another 500,000 Iraqis died. The total deaths have been estimated to represent four percent of the Iraqi population. The green light that was turned on for the Persian Gulf War in 1990 stayed lit and even today the proponents of these totally failed wars claim that the only problem is we didn't send enough troops and we didn't stay long enough. And now it's argued that it's time to send ground troops back in. This is the message that we get from the neoconservatives determined that only armed might can bring peace to the world and that the cost to us financially is not a problem. The proponents never seem to be concerned about the loss of civil liberties, which has continued ever since the declaration of the Global War on Terrorism. And a good case can be made that our national security not only has not been helped, but has been diminished with these years of folly.

        And the true believers in empire never pause. After all the chaos that the US government precipitated in Iraq, conditions continue to deteriorate and now there is strong talk about putting troops on the ground once again. More than 10,000 troops still remain in Afghanistan and conditions there are precarious. Yemen is a mess as is also Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Ukraine - all countries in which we have illegally and irresponsibly engaged ourselves.

        Today the debate in Congress is whether or not to give the President additional authority to use military force. He asked to be able to use military force anyplace anytime around the world without further congressional approval. This is hardly what the Founders intended for how we dealt with going to war with other nations. Some have argued, for Constitutional reasons, that we should declare war against ISIS. That will prove to be difficult since exactly who they are and where they are located and how many there are is unknown. We do know it is estimated that there are around 30,000 members. And yet in the surrounding countries, where the fighting is going on and we are directly involved, millions of Muslims have chosen not to stand up to the ruthless behavior of the ISIS members.

        Since declaring war against ISIS makes no more sense than declaring war against "terrorism," which is a tactic, it won't work. Even at the height of the Cold War, in a time of great danger to the entire world, nobody suggested we declare war against "communism." Islamist extremism is based on strong beliefs, and as evil as these beliefs may be, they must be understood, confronted, and replaced with ideas that all civilized people in the world endorse. But what we must do immediately is to stop providing the incentive for the radicals to recruit new members and prevent American weapons from ending up in the hands of the enemy as a consequence of our failed policies. The incentives of the military-industrial complex along with the philosophy of neoconservatism that pushes us to be in more than 150 countries, must be exposed and refuted. Occupation by a foreign country precipitates hatred and can never be made acceptable by flowery words about their need for American-style "democracy." People who are occupied are always aware of the selfish motivation of the occupiers.

        The announcement by President George HW Bush on September 11, 1990 about the new world order was well received. Prior to that time it was only the "conspiracy theorists" who constantly talked about and speculated about the New World Order. Neoconservative ideas had been around for a long time. They were endorsed by many presidents and in particular Woodrow Wilson with his goal of spreading American goodness and making the "world safe for democracy" – none of which can be achieved by promoting war. In the 1990s the modern day neoconservatives, led by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, enjoyed their growing influence on America's foreign policy. Specifically, in 1997 they established the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) for the specific purpose of promoting an aggressive foreign policy of interventionism designed to promote the American Empire. This policy of intervention was to be presented with "moral clarity." "Clarity" it was, but "moral" is another question. Their goal was to provide a vision and resolve, "to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interest."

        It was not a surprise that admittedly the number one goal for the New World order was to significantly increase military spending and to be prepared to challenge any regime hostile to America's interests. They argued that America had to accept its unique role as the sole superpower for extending international order as long as it served America's interests. Although neoconservatives are thought to have greater influence within the Republican Party, their views have been implemented by the leadership of both Republicans and Democrats. First on PNAC's agenda was to continue the policy designed to undermine Saddam Hussein with the goal of eventually invading Iraq – once they had an event that would galvanize public support for it. Many individuals signed letters as well as the statement of principles and most were identified as Republicans. Interestingly enough, the fourth person on the list of signatories for the statement of principles was Jeb Bush, just as he was planning his first run for governor of Florida. The neoconservatives have been firmly placed in a position of influence in directing America's foreign policy. Though we hear some debate between the two political parties over when and whom to strike, our position of world policeman is accepted by both. Though the rhetoric is different between the two parties, power always remains in the hands of those who believe in promoting the empire.

        The American Empire has arrived, but there's no indication that smooth sailing is ahead. Many questions remain. Will the American people continue to support it? Will the American taxpayer be able to afford it? Will those on the receiving end of our authority tolerate it? All empires eventually end. It's only a matter of time. Since all empires exist at the expense of personal liberty the sooner the American Empire ends the better it will be for those who still strive to keep America a bastion for personal liberty. That is possible, but it won't be achieved gracefully.

        Though the people have a say in the matter, they have to contend with the political and financial power that controls the government and media propaganda. The powerful special interests, who depend on privileges that come from the government, will do whatever is necessary to intimidate the people into believing that it's in their best interest to prop up a system that rewards the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. The nature of fiat money and the privileges provided to the special interests by the Federal Reserve makes it a difficult struggle, but it's something that can be won. Unfortunately there will be economic chaos, more attacks on our civil liberties, and many unfortunate consequences coming from our unwise and dangerous foreign policy of interventionism.

        Since all empires serve the interests of a privileged class, the people who suffer will constantly challenge their existence. The more powerful the empire, the greater is the need for the government to hold it together by propaganda and lies. Truth is the greatest enemy of an abusive empire. Since those in charge are determined to maintain their power, truth is seen as being treasonous. Whistleblowers and truth tellers are seen as unpatriotic and disloyal. This is why as our empire has grown there have been more attacks on those who challenge the conventional wisdom of the propagandists. We have seen it with the current administration in that the president has used the Espionage Act to curtail freedom of the press more than any other recent president. Fortunately we live in an age where information is much more available than when it was controlled by a combination of our government and the three major networks. Nevertheless it's an uphill struggle to convince the people that it is in their best interests to give up on the concept of empire, foreign interventionism, allowing the special interests to dictate foreign policy, and paying the bills with the inflation of the money supply provided by the Federal Reserve. The laws of economics, in time, will bring such a system to an end but it would be nice if it would be ended sooner through logic and persuasion.

        If it's conceded that there was a dramatic change with the green light given by April Glaspie and President Bush in 1990, along with the collapse, almost simultaneously, of the Soviet system, the only question remains is when and who will turn on the red light to end this 25 year war. Sometime it's easier to establish an empire than it is to maintain and pay for it. That is what our current political leaders are in the business of currently doing and it's not going well. It appears that a comparatively small but ruthless non-government entity, ISIS, is playing havoc with our political leaders as well as nearly all the countries in the Middle East. Because there is no clear understanding of what radical Islam is all about -since it is not much about Islam itself - our policies in the Middle East and elsewhere will continue to drain our resources and incite millions more to join those who are resisting our occupations and sanctions. The day will come when we will be forced to give up our role as world policeman and resort to using a little common sense and come home.

        This will only occur when the American people realize that our presence around the world and the maintenance of our empire has nothing to do with defending our Constitution, preserving our liberties, or fulfilling some imaginary obligation on our part to use force to spread American exceptionalism. A thorough look at our economic conditions, our pending bankruptcy, our veterans hospitals, and how we're viewed in the world by most other nations, will compel Americans to see things differently and insist that we bring our troops home – the sooner the better.

        Vocal proponents of the American Empire talk about a moral imperative that requires us to sacrifice ourselves as we try to solve the problems of the world. If there was even a hint this effort was accomplishing something beneficial, it might be more difficult to argue against. But the evidence is crystal-clear that all our efforts only make things worse, both for those we go to teach about democracy and liberty and for the well-being of all Americans who are obligated to pay for this misplaced humanitarian experiment. We must admit that this 25-year war has failed. Nevertheless it's difficult to argue against it when it requires that that we not endorse expanding our military operations to confront the ISIS killers. Arguments against pursuing a war to stop the violence, however, should appeal to common sense. Recognizing that our policies in the Middle East have significantly contributed to the popular support for radical Islam is crucial to dealing with ISIS. More sacrifices by the American people in this effort won't work and should be avoided. If one understands what motivates radical Islam to strike out as it does, the solution would become more evident. Voluntary efforts by individuals to participate in the struggle should not be prohibited. If the solution is not more violence on our part, a consideration must be given to looking at the merits of a noninterventionist foreign policy which does not resort to the killing of hundreds of thousands of individuals who never participated in any aggression against United States - as our policies have done since the green light for empire was given.

        How is this likely to end? The empire will not be ended legislatively or by the sudden embrace of common sense in directing our foreign policy. The course of interventionism overseas and assuming the role of world policeman will remain for the foreseeable future. Still the question remains, how long will that be since we can be certain that the end of the empire will come. Our military might and economic strength is now totally dependent on the confidence that the worldwide financial markets give to the value of the US dollar. In spite of all the reasons that the dollar will eventually be challenged as the world reserve currency, the competition, at present, by other currencies to replace it, is nil. Confidence can be related to objective facts such as how a country runs its fiscal affairs and monetary policy. Economic wealth and military strength also contribute artificial confidence to a currency. Perceptions and subjective reasons are much more difficult to define and anticipate. The day will come when the confidence in the dollar will be greatly diminished worldwide. Under those conditions the tremendous benefits that we in the United States have enjoyed as the issuer of the reserve currency will be reversed. It will become difficult if not impossible for us to afford huge budget deficits as well as very large current account deficits. National debt and foreign debt will serve as a limitation on how long the empire can last. Loss of confidence can come suddenly and overwhelmingly. Under those conditions we will no longer be able to afford our presence overseas nor will we be able to continue to export our inflation and debt to other nations. Then it will require that we pay for our extravagance, and market forces will require that we rein in our support for foreign, corporate, and domestic welfare spending. Hopefully this will not come for a long time, giving us a chance to educate more people as to its serious nature and give them insight into its precise cause. Nevertheless we live in a period of time when we should all consider exactly what is the best road to take to protect ourselves, not only our personal wealth but also to prepare to implement a system based on sound money, limited government, and personal liberty. This is a goal we can achieve. And when we do, America will enjoy greater freedom, more prosperity and a better chance for peace.


        Copyright © 2015 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
        Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

        Related

        [Mar 15, 2015] British security services recruit Russian-language speakers again

        Mar 15, 2015 | The Guardian

        robertinjapan -> ErnestfromClapham 14 Mar 2015 11:14

        Funny you mention that, that bloke you shared an apartment with, did he play up front for Tranmere Rovers, occasionally head the ball in? Anyway I've heard he's operating out of Stamford Bridge these days helping logistics for hotel bookings when Chelsea play away ties in Europe. Rumour round the camp fire has it he got a promotion recently for his efforts in securing excellent booking rates for Chelsea fans in the Clichy-sous-Bois region of Paris. Now to section where you state:

        "We were all rather pleased about the end of the Cold War and it is a crime that it is being restarted over a bit of local trouble in the far corner of Ukraine"

        What makes you think the cold war ever ended? What peace treaty was signed? What new arrangements were agreed upon? Finally, if Russia agreed to the unification of Germany and essentially the rearming of a nation that twice in the twentieth century came close to obliterating Russia. What concessions did the West concede in this so called ending of the cold war?

        grubbedout -> HollyOldDog 15 Mar 2015 14:08

        Starting pay?

        Civil Servant pay isn't all that great, plus the new 'Alpha' pension scheme has all the credibility of supermarket fuel vouchers.

        Me109BfG6 -> Botswana61 15 Mar 2015 00:06

        These lands have traditionally been Russian with the Russian majority of the whole population.
        Now, what would you say if in Germany the Bavarian dialect should be forced as the only 'state language' instead of the standard German? Quite resembling the situation in the Baltics, where they have forced their aborigine languages while prohibiting the Russian: Less science, less culture, less medic, etc,


        Alexandra_Aleshina 14 Mar 2015 04:11

        "Russia's "aggressive behaviour" posed a significant threat to the UK"
        How Russian "aggressive behavior" poses a threat to the UK, please tell me?
        And what is the "Russian aggressive behavior"? Let's only leave aside, these absurd stories about Russian invasion of Ukraine. This lie has already made me pretty tired.


        ambivabloke 14 Mar 2015 00:44

        I started my Russian language degree in 88 when Russian departments were flush with cash. The bottom dropped out of the field with a little help from Gorby (no, not Ronny).

        The CIA was often rumoured to stalk the halls of academe, waiting to pluck students like me who were, unfortunately for the CIA, more interested in Oblomov than Star Wars (Reagan's moronic missile shield).

        Come to think of it that's exactly the demographic Mi6 and the CIA should recruit, Russian/English speakers whose only ideology is an appreciation for the depth and complexity of Russian history and culture.


        HollyOldDog transplendent 13 Mar 2015 21:53

        A Russian speaker from an English University cannot understand the Russian mentality from your stated standpoint. If that is one of the requirements by the British secret services then they can only attract poor quality students.


        HollyOldDog RichWoods 13 Mar 2015 21:42

        Well if the West Ukrainians started to pay off their gas payment debt instead of stealing gas then no warnings need to be made by Russia about possible interrupted gas supplies beyond Russian control.


        Antidyatel 13 Mar 2015 20:47

        Ok.OK. I will send my resume. Obviously my track record on this forum is enough to qualify for this job. Fluent English and Russian and good knowledge of history, including all the disgusting nature of western culture.

        Inhumanoid -> Speenhamland 13 Mar 2015 20:45

        However, these days the net is cast far wider. For a couple of days this week if you entered "Russian language" and "university" into Google's UK search engine, above the results popped a jaunty, paid-for advertisement. "Understand Russian?" it asked. "Help protect the UK." A link took you to MI5's careers website.
        Reading, eh? Who has the time?

        hogsback -> CaptainFlack 13 Mar 2015 20:08

        Erm, there is no tap on the shoulder any more. That's the whole point.
        You can apply for a job at any of the three agencies directly online:
        https://www.mi5.gov.uk/careers/
        https://www.sis.gov.uk/careers.html
        http://www.gchq-careers.co.uk/index.html


        hogsback -> Linguistician 13 Mar 2015 20:04

        No, they recruit from across the entire UK - it's just that if you are recruiting Russian language specialists you are pretty limited in where you can recruit from, but you can guarantee that the students at Durham, Oxford, Bristol, Exeter etc will also have been approached.

        hogsback -> Ilja NB 13 Mar 2015 19:46

        The only ghetto in which Arabic is widely spoken is Mayfair. Are you suggesting all those millionaire Saudis and Emiratis are up to something? (other than annoying the neighbours by revving their Ferraris at 1am).

        RichWoods -> puskascat 13 Mar 2015 19:17

        The CIA running shoulder-launched missiles to the Afghan mujahideen via Peshawar? Remind me how that turned out.

        ApfelD 13 Mar 2015 18:17

        "The war against Russia is an important chapter in the German nation's struggle for existence. It is the old battle of the Germanic against the Slavic people, of the defense of European culture against Muscovite-Asiatic inundation and of the repulse of Jewish Bolshevism. The objective of this battle must be the demolition of present-day Russia and must therefore be conducted with unprecedented severity.

        Every military action must be guided in planning and execution by an iron resolution to exterminate the enemy remorselessy and totally. In particular no adherents of the contemporary Russian Bolshevik system are to be spared"
        1941


        musubi transplendent 13 Mar 2015 17:26

        "I'd rather have Russia as an enemy than a friend. At least you know where you stand." So some people apparently feel a need to demonise others in order "to know where they stand".

        Oh dear, oh dear, there seems to be little hope for humanity.

        ApfelD 13 Mar 2015 16:14

        The cold war managed returns as farce
        Russians are buying our family brilliants, houses, football clubs and yachts
        zillions of Russian speakers are walking around
        the Internet is full of Russians
        we need spies
        LOL


        Linguistician Marc de Berner 13 Mar 2015 15:27

        I don't think they seriously expect them to be able to pass as Russian. I expect a lot of the job revolves around SIGINT these days, just listening and interpreting. The poster also indicates that they expect their linguists to have spent time in the country and/or have cultural knowledge, i.e. not just sat in a classroom having learnt the cases and conjugations.

        Grumpymiddleagedman ID6945587 13 Mar 2015 14:41

        I spent years learning German Russian and Portuguese on the back of government promises about employment opportunities in the early 90's. Never saw a single job I could apply for except translating in some awful agency. Stuff the security services. And Up Russia.

        CaptainFlack 13 Mar 2015 14:26

        I have a background in engineering, and speak Chinese after spending time in the far east when I was younger, but I never got a tap on the shoulder. The most important thing for the security services, like most of the senior military and civil service jobs, is that you come from the "right" schools, because they assume this makes you decent, upright citizens rather than the kind of oikish commonfolk that are the real enemy to them.

        Anette Mor 13 Mar 2015 13:34

        They already killed trade with Russia, now they are killing of the sources for the UK overseas students. Russia (and Kazakhstan) had state budget sponsored kids sent to universities here, forgot about them from next year. It is already impossible to chat in any of the Russian forums in the UK because of no stop pro-Ukrainian abuse. When you force somebody away so badly you eventually make them an enemy.

        Paranoia, abuse, total surveillance - great place to live the UK.

        [Mar 15, 2015] Why our leaders can't be heroes any more by Jonathan Powell

        Note the the author never used the word "neoliberalism" in the article. This is what "identity politic" is about. for example tony Blair essentially sold his party to banksters and was royally remunerated for that. He also served as lapdog for Bush II neoconservative adventures. Personalities serve as a smoke screen to hide issues of attack of banksters on wellbeing of people. And the key task of neoliberal politician is to deceive people. Quote from comments: "Beyond terrible, an irrelevant article. There is simply no point being made, just a slapdash bundle of clichés thrown out in sequence in the vain hope of forming an argument." and another "Mr Powell kindly take my advice and fuck off, give your old china another award for his international legacy, shut up and be grateful you'll never face a criminal investigation for your part in the Iraq war."
        Mar 13, 2015 | The Guardian

        We yearn for politicians to fill the shoes of their all-powerful predecessors. But there are terrible dangers in trying to be superman

        There is a general lament about the Lilliputian nature of our current leaders. Where are the towering figures of the past? Why do we have such uninspiring leaders who can't even eat a bacon sandwich, or resist chillaxing on the job, or, in the case of the Greens, even remember their policies?

        There is, of course, nothing new about this. If you look back at the newspaper columns of the 1960s you will find commentators demanding to know where were the current-day Churchills and Bevans, and in the 1930s they wanted to know where leaders of the stature of Gladstone and Disraeli had gone. It is the familiar syndrome – from which I suffer – that as you get older, policemen look younger and younger.

        Nonetheless it is indisputably true that at the moment there is an unusual lack of strong, charismatic leaders, not just in the UK but in Europe too.

        It has come to something when Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, is the dominant figure in Europe. I admire her quiet and subtle style of leadership, and she towers over her colleagues, but she is scarcely a colossus in the mould of a De Gaulle or even a Kohl. I vividly remember the first time Tony Blair met her, in the new British embassy in Berlin in 2004. Then the leader of the opposition in Germany, the soon-to-be chancellor plonked herself down in front of him and said disarmingly, "I have 10 problems" – and then began to list them, starting with a lack of charisma.

        The dearth of strong leaders is more than just the usual feast and famine – or it wouldn't extend across the west

        ... ... ...

        So maybe we should be careful what we wish for. Maybe strong leaders are not quite as alluring as we think, and we should celebrate the fact that our leaders are just like us. Just because one candidate can't remember his whole speech and the other likes to put his feet up on the job doesn't mean they can't govern. It could be that in the more constrained environment of developed democracies and a globalised economy, we actually want and need leaders in shades of grey rather than the towering figures of the past.


        Dani123 15 Mar 2015 01:09

        I don't want a "Führer", it's good for war and bloodshed only.
        In peaceful times grey technocrat manager are maybe abit color- but also bloodless.

        People from the past would envy us for our oh-so-boring kind of politicians.

        You wish for interesting times with interesting "personalities", well I don't.
        I like my lame and uninteresting times quite well, thank you....

        VelvetRevolutionary 14 Mar 2015 12:44

        Do you want to know why our political "...leaders can't be heroes anymore."? Our 21st century leaders are sorely lacking in human integrity, and they have completely lost their moral compass. That's why.

        dilawar 14 Mar 2015 02:20

        The French political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville, a great observer of man's affairs, while witnessing the birth of democracy in America, thought that the age of democracy will be the age of mediocrity. There will be a dead level plane of achievement in almost every kind of activity. A democratic person, due to various reasons he explains lucidly, does everything in hurry. He is always satisfied with "pretty well" and does not pause for an instance to think what he is doing.

        "His curiosity is at once insatiable and cheaply satisfied; for he cares more to know a great deal quickly than to know anything well: he has no time and but little taste to search things to the bottom". To make matter worse, "men of democracy worship chance, and are much less afraid of death than of difficulty".

        Despite his strong attachment to democracy, Tocqueville took great pains to point out what he thought to be a negative side of democracy: it will be an unheroic age. Tocqueville maintained that there wont be heroes in democratic societies because democracies are inherently incapable of producing them.

        But modern democracies were not able to do without heroes and this was also foreseen by Tocqueville with much misgivings. He believed, rightly or wrongly, that unlike aristocracy, there will not be a proper place for heroes or hero-worshipers in democracies, and when they arose they would sooner or later turn into despots. Modern democracy may or may not do without heroes but they certainly can not do without leaders. And in this modern age, which breeds them in great profusion, the problem is to know what to do with them.

        Democracies are no longer restricted to Europe or United States. They are now in many parts of this world in their own peculiar forms. They have acquired some distinct features of the societies in which they are able to grow. Human societies value heroes or charismatic personalities but some among are always more obsessed with them. These days, people seems to be somewhat tired of their politicians but it is not that people are tired for charisma; it only moves from politics to other area of public life. People reserve their praise and transfer their adulation for movie starts, sadhus and sants, sports-personalities and sometimes, for man of sciences.

        Here in India and neighbourhood, charismatic people from various fields have been using their charisma in politics. Some have been quite successful. NTR missed becoming the prime minister of India, Imran Khan is trying the same in Pakistan. The appeal of charisma, by which I mean the personal quality that secure instant and unquestioned devotions to the leader of his followers, is in decline everywhere. Not only there is no Nehru today, there is no de Gaulle and Winston Churchill. The consideration of this for the prospect of democracy and health of its institutions deserves some serious attention.

        Banditolobster 14 Mar 2015 01:37

        I don't particularly want our leaders to be heroic or devastatingly charismatic, I would settle for them being quietly competent and un corrupt, it amuses me that Merkel gets some stick in this article, she strikes me as a better leader by simply getting on with it, than many other leaders who are trying to summon up shades of Churchill and De Gaulle

        danielarnaut -> StTrevorofIlford 13 Mar 2015 17:17

        Thank you for your interest, though I lived in Britain most of my life I am of Catalan origin so I have always been interested in the ill fortune of some of the men and women who scape the Franco regime on the other side of the Pyrenees, so I started visiting the many concentration camps the Vichy regime built for the republican Spaniards in French soil.

        My neighbour in Newbury told me a weird story of Austrians in Frith Hill, or Frimley, near Camberley in Surrey. I heard of concentration camps for Irish freedom fighters in Shewsbury and Bromyard. I haven't got any information about those apparently in Tipperary and Southend. However, there are lots of information and literature on several concentration camps near Douglas and Peel in the Isle of Man which were built during the II WW.

        The BBC reported about a concentration camp near Leicester, Donnington Hall.
        But the most bizarre discovery I made was this one : I was just driving in the Dordogne (France) in 2010 when I came across a program in France Inter (radio) called " La bas si j'y suis ", I was speechless.

        A British historian was being interviewed about thirty concentration camps where more than two hundred thousand unemployed British guys were deported and put to hard labour, after the 1929 crash; these camps were in use up to 1939 ; that means the period under the labour government of Ramsey MacDonald. The idea was called: a New Deal (does it remind you of Tony's campaign for power?)

        People were forced to go these camps maybe to stop riots in certain cities. If they refused to go to the camps they had their benefit stopped at once. The inmates lived under awful conditions. They were treated like slaves and put to work for ten hours a day, forced to build roads, chop trees and crack stones.

        These were the years previous to the II WW and these concentration camps provided cheap labour before being sent to fight for king and country.

        HolyInsurgent, 13 Mar 2015 23:06

        Jonathan Powell: In part this vacuum is the result of a familiar pattern that normally a strong leader is immediately followed by a weak one. Margaret Thatcher was followed by John Major, Blair by Gordon Brown, Ronald Reagan by George Bush Sr, and so on.

        The theory is obviously meaningless. In each case, which one was the strong leader and which the weak one? Who decides?

        Without a substantial army they cannot take a leading role in world affairs. And as part of Nato and the European Union, their scope for independent foreign policy initiatives is severely limited.

        Considering NATO is America's military branch to enforce its foreign policy, the UK is simply an American client state. There is nothing to stop NATO from being dissolved and the EU pooling its separate countries' militaries as a united force. But of course America won't allow NATO to be dissolved. Why would it?

        No one in Russia would complain that they suffer from weak leaders at the moment.

        The Russian people voted for Putin. The West can think what they like of him, but he was elected.

        In China, with "Papa Xi", the cult of personality has returned virtually to the levels under Mao.

        What does the author suggest be done about it?

        Beyond terrible, an irrelevant article. There is simply no point being made, just a slapdash bundle of clichés thrown out in sequence in the vain hope of forming an argument.

        VarmintRaptScallion 13 Mar 2015 14:11

        I don't think you can get through Michael Sandal's Justice lecture series without acknowledging that the battle between moral principles and moral utilitarianism forces a leader to wade into some pretty grey areas.

        As a society it is probably better that we accept the inevitable corruption that takes hold in leaders and design political systems that take account of this. The concept of heroes and villains is at the heart of propaganda and only serves the status quo.

        Just like the erroneous belief that the current political paradigm is somehow the pinnacle of human evolution.

        BlogAnarchist 13 Mar 2015 13:23

        Got up to here and realised this article was a joke piece.

        In part this vacuum is the result of a familiar pattern that normally a strong leader is immediately followed by a weak one. Margaret Thatcher was followed by John Major, Blair by Gordon Brown, Ronald Reagan by George Bush Sr, and so on. It is very hard for a new strong leader to grow up in the shadow of an existing strong leader. Their successors are nearly always lower-key figures.

        Nathaniel P -> Cape7441 13 Mar 2015 13:21

        I noticed this. Politicians are basically allowed no respite, and their very characters are dissected in the media. It is almost as if they are not allowed to be human. It seems to me that the rivalry is just too strong- while debating and having different views is of course central to democratic politics, politicians should never be spiteful and nasty to rival politicians because they have a different political view- they should even feel comfortable complimenting their rivals' ideas and promises if they feel the need, but this never happens because the rivalry was too strong.

        Apparently, PM Stanley Baldwin used to politely chat to politicians in Parliament buildings, regardless of their party- maybe if this kind of thing was increased, politicians would be followed and seen as 'heroes' as they would be seen as human beings like the rest of us and not participants in slagging matches!

        greyskies 13 Mar 2015 13:15

        A politician should be a hero. They have the power to affect the lives of millions and should feel the weight of that responsibility every day. There are thoughtful and responsible MPs in our current parliament: Rory Stewart, Douglass Carswell, David Davis, Sarah Wollaston, Tom Watson, Margaret Hodge to name a few that I can respect. Unfortunately thoughtful MPs are rarely seen because they feel they should be loyal to their party or because they are rightfully afraid of being misunderstood. We need our MPs to be more heroic and put themselves out there and argue for their visions of the future of the country.

        socialistnotnulabour -> TwigTheWonderKid 13 Mar 2015 13:01

        You don't live in the real world if you think anyone just basing their arguments on evidence.

        I make my arguments based on evidence but I'm not so conceited to believe my beliefs don't have some effect on how I view the evidence.

        Zealots seem to believe they are the ones with the only correct view of evidence and are inflexible to believe anything else despite being shown they have come to the wrong conclusion.

        You should always be open to the fact that your conclusion from the evidence may actually be wrong.

        Even in the scientific world, evidence and facts are not always used in a truthful way.


        Bryced 13 Mar 2015 12:38

        The Labour Party. A man of the stature of Nye Bevin to the likes of puppet Tony B-lair and his collaborators. Yikes. Times have certainly changed. Deep, no deeper than that, endless bloody sigh. Makes you want to weep.

        HumanistLove 13 Mar 2015 12:17

        Accountable, intelligent, promise keeper, not beholden to special interests, consensus oriented, domestic issues as priority, sensitive to the most vulnerable in society...a mensch for, by and of the people.

        I believe a leader's personal life should be respected as private, as we all wish for ourselves.

        kippers 13 Mar 2015 11:42

        The Butler Report into the lack of WMD in Iraq criticised "sofa government". This was a polite way of criticising the way decisions were taken by Tony Blair and a small group of unelected advisors without the knowledge of Cabinet (and sometimes contrary to what had been decided in Cabinet). Jonathan Powell was one of those advisors. His response to that criticism was that this was the way things were done these days.

        Few people want leaders to be heroes. They want accountable government. That would reduce the risk of small groups of people seizing the controls and making erroneous assumptions like "it is an established fact that Iraq has WMD" and "the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan will be short and sharp".

        Krishnamoorthi 13 Mar 2015 11:20

        This a typical syndrome affecting every aspect of capitalist society. Individuals have their limitations and it is the system of government and the state apparatus which makes or unmakes an individual! Even if Churchill was not there there would have been another one to replace him. Giving too much of credit to individuals is just flattery! Individuals like Mandela are products of a wider Picture! To reduce the achievements or failures on a single person is just a simpleminded argument!

        stuartMilan 13 Mar 2015 11:07

        and the Graun stands up for British decency again..?

        Mr Powell kindly take my advice and fuck off, give your old china another award for his international legacy, shut up and be grateful you'll never face a criminal investigation for your part in the Iraq war.

        Ricardo111 13 Mar 2015 10:50

        Competent would be good. And honest. And principled.

        Instead what we have is corrupt, two-faced snake-oil salesmen in posh style.

        As for the "superhero" politicians of the past, they were no such thing: only the ignorant of history and weak of spirit would deify past leaders.

        weematt 13 Mar 2015 10:36

        We do not need leaders.It is silly to expect politicians to be leaders in the class struggle.

        Politicians are elected to run capitalism in the interests of the business class 1-5%. In a representative democracy this is diametrically opposed to the interests of workers 95-99%.

        All the economic clout is with the corporations and landowners, owned by a tiny minority of people, possibly around 5 percent. Owning the means of production allows them to cream off a profit or a surplus for themselves, and they do this by exploiting the rest of us. Their economic power is backed up by political power. The state is there to try and manage the status quo, and protect the interests of those with all the wealth. This doesn't mean that they have control over the economy, though. Market forces fluctuate between growth and slump regardless of what politicians and corporate strategists want.

        This arrangement leads to massive inequalities in wealth, not just within this country, but across the globe. Goods and services only go to those who can afford them, not to those who need them. Those who can't afford the basics risk falling into a lifestyle of poverty it's hard to escape from. Living in an unequal world where everything is rationed creates divisions between us, leading to prejudice and discrimination. Even those of us with a reasonable standard of living never have enough real involvement or sense of ownership in where we work and live.

        To solve the problems in society, we have to change the way society is structured. This means going from our world where the means to produce and distribute wealth are owned by a minority, to one where those resources and facilities are owned by everyone in common. Then, goods would be produced and services would be run directly for anyone who wants them, without the dictates of the economic market. Industries and services would be run just to satisfy people's needs and wants.

        All this could only be achieved by fundamentally changing the way society is organised, a revolution. The kind of revolution we want is one which involves the vast majority of people across the world. Every country now is part of an integrated global economy and class structure. So, people across the world would have to want to change society. The only legitimate and practical way this could be achieved is by organising equally and democratically. This means voluntary, creative work, with decisions and responsibilities agreed through everyone having an equal say. This would mean a much broader and more inclusive use of democracy than we're used to today. Different democratic organisations or procedures would apply in different circumstances. This doesn't mean having leaders or groups with more authority than others.

        "I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition; as it is now the capitalists use your heads and your hands." Eugene Debbs

        mespilus 13 Mar 2015 10:14

        If you are one of the 1%,
        there have been several Supermen in the last 5 years;

        George Osborne has lowered the upper rate of income tax, and given a bountiful tax break to hedge funds.

        Andrew Lansley has made it much easier to divert public funds towards contracted out private health care providers.

        Michael Gove has given away untold wealth by handing over school premises to Academy chains, and diverted local authority destined funds towards 'Free School's.
        Vince Cable sold the Royal Mail for a song, and the share in Eurostar will soon join HS1 in private hands.

        Supermen one & all.

        I'm sure you can add a few more.

        Matthew2012 13 Mar 2015 10:14

        I think that our modern politicians read Nietzsche and decide that they are supermen (ubermensch) not men.

        It matters little to them what we want - if they can get our vote.

        The problem is that they don't think that they need to listen

        ClericPreston 13 Mar 2015 10:09

        Leaders are not leaders of much any more.

        They don't have to be strong, they have to be fair, consistent and honest. The difficulty arises in the 2 dimensional thought that they have to do something big, stamp their mark, start some war or other to be the Big man (or woman in the case of Thatch).

        Cameron will never appear strong because he's obviously a bought man, too many vested interests leaning on him. How can you look up to a person who can be "swayed" so readily for donations and has lied on so many occasions?

        A lot of the day to day business of the country is now run by outsourcing companies, they don't answer to any elected leader, you would think this would allow a leader to develop in a more focused way, but this hasn't materialised, far from Cameron rolling up his sleeves at an appropriate time (rather than an opportunistic moment) and getting on with something for the people he seems to have spent his entire premiership publicising his party and raising funds to further drive that process not just for the last month or two but since the day he took office, 5 years! I don't think that even at the height of Thatcher's time can it be said that so much time has been spent on such things by a PM.

        Our leader, imho, is a Publicity machine first, a Tory second and a PM last. To me that is the wrong way around.

        Caroline Kennedy 13 Mar 2015 10:09

        As we all know, Jonathan Powell is one of Tony Blair's most simpering apologists. He, like many other Blair sycophants, ended up on the board of Save the Children.

        Hence the tainted "Global Legacy Award" for Blair, a man responsible for the deaths, injuries and long term disabilities of literally tens of thousands of children in Iraq, Afghanistan and across areas of the Middle East. Not to mention the number of orphans he has created.

        To compare Tony Blair with any politician other than those we already despise for their despotic rule, such as Robert Mugabe, Emperor Bokassa, Ferdinand Marcos etc is to insult those we admire such as Roosevelt, Kennedy and Mandela.

        Matthew2012 JayEnn 13 Mar 2015 10:09

        or about Gordon Brown being ugly?

        Media influence and vacuums in real substance.

        In WWII no one really cared what Churchill looked like in comparison to his policies.

        When we see so little integrity in our politicians, no accountability, ignoring expert advice and influence of vested interests? How do we judge the difference in our politicians?

        We have issues such as climate change where we are being failed in the most fundamental respect by politicians everywhere. And rather then debate it - we are faced with a 3 party agreement not to discuss it.

        The ideologies have become stale and the centre vote is all that is pursued. So whether you agree with issues or not it is no longer a matter of principles but about getting voted in.

        The UK government is being treated like a middle manager job and we don't see a great deal of proven competence by any of them.

        danielarnaut 13 Mar 2015 09:32

        Quite ingenuously, or lack of knowledge, Churchill is described by most of you as a great war leader. I am surprised people don't remember the famine provoked in southern Asia, the threat of military heavy handed action against the miners, or simple his own declarations admitting adhering to fascism. Without a Furher, Britain could have easily slipped into a dictatorship. And we had all the ingredients such as inflicting fear, massacres, starvation, imposition of twisted rules, concentration camps built even in the north of England for the unemployed and wherever a country fell on the hands of the sacro saint british empire people were forced to change behaviour, culture, language... to embrace the new deal and be civilised. Human loss was considerable. Churchil could have continue this trend.

        excathedra 13 Mar 2015 09:20

        Thatcher wasn't a strong leader, she was a lunatic hell bent on destroying the working class and the social advantages the post war consensus had brought.

        As for leaders I, and I suspect many others, just want honesty, decency and an end to the greed, hubris and vanity projects. If they want war then they ought to be in the front not organising and garnering contacts for future use.

        Wishful thinking I know but the alternatives are not worth continuing with.

        tobymoore 13 Mar 2015 08:57

        Trapped in an economic system which is clearly no longer capable of providing the society that people want, or could have if it we were solely limited by human ingenuity, the main job of our so-called leaders is to "manage expectation", i.e. to tell us what we can't have.

        There is no room left for visions of a better future. In any case, the obsession with leaders is infantile and leaves the door wide open for frauds and demagogues.

        crinklyoldgit 13 Mar 2015 06:56

        This article is hopeless. The issue here is that politicians and their appointees have become able to evade accountability by legal clever stepping . Blair is untouchable, legally speaking, but no one is under illusions about his abuse of privilege. All else is meaningless drivel until we can claw some meaningful accountability into the way affairs are managed, and make those who would abuse their powers think twice.

        Jimcomment 13 Mar 2015 04:50

        The difference with the Press shows the key difference here - international corporations have huge power these days. Politicians whose interests do not align with theirs find that media and funding strategies quickly go against them.

        Right or wrong, previous leaders held firm convictions. Cameron shows very clearly that he has none - he is a PR man with no interest in working as a politician, let alone being PM. But this suits those who wield economic and media power, and so he is financially backed and applauded by much of the Press.

        JonPurrtree 13 Mar 2015 04:23

        I'm not sure Hollande ever was on a pedestal. And if it wasn't for those pesky americans, Strauss-Kahn would have been President, no questions asked about his wandering hands and worse.

        But how on earth did we end up with the likes of Hollande and Milliband2 ?
        I'd be happy with boring yet competant looking people like Darling or Major, but such people seem to have been culled.

        No matter what Russia does, US neo-cons will always go for Cold War

        quote: I think that Der Spiegel article that you mention is accurate, I read it myself, and I think we need to place it within the overall context of the US global policy which is of course to launch these pressures around the world so as to maintain a hegemonic position. And to maintain a hegemonic position the concept is to sort of break-up or reduce the effectiveness of the BRICS countries, and of course to divide Russia from China, and to divide Russia from Europe. It's part of a global strategy and thus we have to discuss US-Russia relationship in the overall context of the US hegemonic global policy.

        Thus the US launched the coup d'état in Ukraine.

        RT Op-Edge

        Dominant neo-conservatives in the US are pursuing a very anti-Russian policy and seem to be hysterical and delusional in it, Dr. Clifford A. Kiracofe, Jr., former Senior Professional Staff Member of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, told RT.

        The US is going to send more non-lethal military aid to Ukraine US Vice President Joe Biden told Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in a phone conversation.

        RT: We've heard from Victoria Nuland and David Cameron last week, both of whom alluded to "keeping the pressure on Russia", including with more sanctions. Why do you think they keep blaming Russia for everything that's happening in Ukraine, and what is your forecast for the future of US-Russia relations?

        Dr. Clifford A. Kiracofe:The tendency here in Washington is just to keep the so-called pressure which means economic sanctions which is a form of economic warfare of course, and also the propaganda this information warfare that's another aspect of the so-called pressure. So this information warfare, economic sanctions are part of the package of so-called tools. I mean we can also see NATO is kind of rattling sabers, etc. So a combination of this is coordinated through Washington, the White House, and State Department with allies in Europe. I think the Europeans appear to me to be getting a little bit tired of too much pressure and may not continue the so-called economic sanctions. I think the Europeans are divided. Some Europeans sort of slavishly want to follow Washington. But on the other hand there are some more sensible people in the EU who seek a more independent policy from Washington and therefore would try for bettering relations with Russia after we get through this crisis. So I think the Europeans are divided among themselves and also from Washington. In terms of Washington and the future of Russian relations, the US will certainly continue the Cold War if you wish…actually it's worse than the Cold War, because it was more stable during the Cold war… But I think Washington will continue along this anti-Russian line and you can see reactions in Congress and commentary from the White House that indicated a continuing hard-line toward Russia.

        RT: Germany's Der Spiegel magazine goes as far as asking whether the Americans are trying to thwart the peace efforts promoted by Germany and its EU partners. What do you think?

        CK: I think that Der Spiegel article that you mention is accurate, I read it myself, and I think we need to place it within the overall context of the US global policy which is of course to launch these pressures around the world so as to maintain a hegemonic position. And to maintain a hegemonic position the concept is to sort of break-up or reduce the effectiveness of the BRICS countries, and of course to divide Russia from China, and to divide Russia from Europe. It's part of a global strategy and thus we have to discuss US-Russia relationship in the overall context of the US hegemonic global policy.

        Thus the US launched the coup d'état in Ukraine. President Obama has already admitted that he indeed was responsible for this so-called power transition. The coup d'état in Ukraine and the destabilization of Central Europe generally is part of this process to go on with the offensive against Russia, to try to block Russian-European relations. Obviously if we want to move to a new type of international system, a more modern type of international relations in terms of a multi-polar world, polycentric world or a pluralist world of course the NATO alliance is obsolete. But the intention of the US in to continue to promote the NATO alliance, to use it against other powers in the world and to impose hegemony. The opposite would be to have the NATO alliance dissolved… the Warsaw Pact of course has dissolved…and to have as Russian side put forward a Common European House, a project to have a common European space where Russians, the EU could cooperatively work together.

        I think the main instrumentality for blocking Russia that Washington is trying to use is this obsolete NATO alliance which is increasingly being strengthened and expanded and aimed at Russia. We have to remember that that most Americans have no idea of the geography: "Ukraine border from Moscow? What are we talking about? 300 miles, something like that?" So these issues of Ukraine and the stability in Eastern and Central Europe are extremely sensitive matters for not only Russia but also for the West Europeans which I think is reflected in the Der Spiegel article, it's reflected in the sentiments of more sophisticated Germans and French and others who have a grasp of the historical context as well. I mean Russia has been a part of Europe for many centuries, how can you isolate Russia from Europe? Of course Russia has an Asian dimension too and an Asian destiny as well. But you cannot isolate Russia historically from Europe - it's a part of Europe. So the US policies, the neo-conservative point of view - which is dominant in Washington - is fundamentally anti-Russian, no matter what Russia will do the neo-cons will always go for a Cold War or worse with respect to Russia.

        RT: Many in the West are calling on Russia to exert more pressure on the rebels in East Ukraine. Do you think the West will be doing the same to the Kiev government, to stop this conflict?

        CK: Yes I do. As I said before more sophisticated thoughtful Europeans are concerned about the US perhaps manipulating NATO or the EU and we do have that call from Ms. Nuland about her attitude to the EU. What we have now in Washington… the psychology, the mindset at the moment is almost hysteria with respect to Russia and a very Cold War sentiment here in Washington. And this is being propelled by the very dominant neo-conservative thinking and advisors throughout the Congress and the executive branch. So in my own view while there are Europeans who would like to see a better relationship with Russia as well as with the US, a more equal relationship with the US… I think Europe is split. It's better for Europe to distance itself at the moment from the US particularly when Washington is so delusional; I've never seen it this delusional before, except for the instance of the Iraq war… It's just this delusion and hysteria in Congress and a very aggressive attitude in the State Department. One would think diplomats would be more diplomatic…

        I believe that the Europeans are somewhat divided: more thoughtful ones are reflecting the dangers of the Ukrainian crisis potentially causing instability in Europe and moving out of Eastern and Central Europe into Western Europe. I think irrespective of some language of some leadership elements in Europe, I think there is well-known voices have been speaking out in favor of trying to get behind this crisis and repair relations with Russia.

        The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

        2ndiceberg yesterday at 18:13

        Benoit ZuccarellI

        You know, something stinks about this whole set up. China has been made wealthy by the West sending all manufacturing

        more...

        Not just neo-con but neo-liberal. Double whammy.

        Enrique at 08:10 the day before yesterday

        The NeoCon Mafia is the worst danger for World stability, worse than their ISIL puppets.

        Remo Gutierrez at 00:26 the day before yesterday

        The US is still trying to push TTIP trade deal with Europe. With Russia out of the picture US corporations figure it will pressure Europe into signing the deal.

        Jonni H. 3 days ago 19:58

        That last comment from "the Word of God" is an uneducated point of view from someone that has probably never been outside there precious USA. People in the US need to understand that there government lies just like every other government. To even make statements like this is totally delusional.

        What's going on in Ukraine is just another bunch of lies from the US Government. I have been there and I have seen what's going on. The media in the US is totally filled with lies about what is really happening. I only feel for the people of Ukraine. They are the real losers in all of this. This is all about controlling the natural resources, nothing more. Civil Wars just make a good cover story!

        The Word of God 3 days ago 19:28

        Russians will always find someone prominent among 330 million Americans with an opinion they like and can use for propaganda. This is because there is every possible opinion about everything among them. Whatever the truth is, Russia's actions are aggressive, hostile, violate treaties it signed, are illegal, and are not acceptable to most Americans and many in Europe. They do warrant a new cold war, a war Russia will lose just the way it lost the last one. It was given a chance to become a civilized nation, a part of the world in the 21st century. Instead its government chose to behave like a 19th century imperial power. When it loses this time, it won't be given a second chance.

        Benoit ZuccarellI 3 days ago 19:11

        You know, something stinks about this whole set up. China has been made wealthy by the West sending all manufacturing jobs there, 70 million of them, so they are not going to double-cross the West. So with no problems with China, what does it matter about Russia.....?

        Its starting to look as if this is all a big charade to induce world-wide 'austerity' on the 99% while the 1% gets rich and the 1% then tells the 99% all about the big bad boogeyman that doesn't even exist.

        Enrique Ferro 3 days ago 18:41

        If the US is thinking to drive a wedge between Russia and China, I think it is going to be a disappointment. Likewise isolating Russia from the BRICS looks like a hard die mission. As for Europe, there is a trend to repent. It has become even a fashion to go to Moscow for talks, the last pilgrim was, yesterday, the Spanish FM, who is not a Podemos Minister, but from the PP government, the same party which had Sr Aznar as its PM!!!

        [Mar 14, 2015] The Coming Chinese Crackup

        Mar 14, 2015 | Zero Hedge
        TheFourthStooge-ing

        Giving the boot to US NGOs like USAID, National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, et al., would make an ideal pressure relief valve.

        YHC-FTSE

        Sounds like one of those articles you see as a prelude to a colour revolution being cooked up in a corner office at Langley to get the public to accept that the chaos they create is real and spontaneous. Funny how these things pop up just after the Chinese deals with Russia, announcing to the world the future implementations of CIPS and the BRICS New Development Bank (Alternative to the IMF & World Bank).

        I think the chinese already got the memo about Operation Gladio B and the shit the CIA sponsored Turks are pulling with the Uighurs. If they don't have contingency plans for a "spontaneous" colour revolution then they're all idiots. I thought the neo-cons would use Japan to start a pivot in the East, but I guess they are going to try the cheap and cheerful propaganda crap they used on HK first.

        These days all you have to do is follow the US State Dept travel itinerary to predict where riots, wars, murders, and terrorists will strike in the next few months.

        reader2010

        From what I read online it seems the student protest in Hong Kong last year was financed and supported by a major foreign power. The Chinese state-controlled media capped the casualty data of a numerous Islamic suicide attacks on civilians and police in Xijiang region (rumor mill saying about 400 people had died since the beginning of 2015). There are credible sources pointing to a major western power that is financing and training those Chinese Islamic militants in the nearby boarding countries.

        Apostate2

        Hmm, 'what you read online". Well perhaps you didn't read that the HK Federation of Students who funded the campaign have opened their books to show no foreign donations or influence. The internet is a dangerous and faulty source without due diligence. And the Xinjiang attacks and response have not been verified, though many reports in the Chinese press. If anyone is training those militants it is the Islamists not your so-called 'west'.

        YHC-FTSE

        You might want to do a bit of due diligence yourself.

        Leaders of the HK occupy movement have been busted. GW did a good expose of them here. The student leader Mr.Wong spent some time as a guest in Macau in 2011 at the invitation of the American Chamber of Commerce. Where did this meeting take place? Venetian Macao owned by the Sands Corp - yep the very one owned SHELDON ADELSON, the American oligarch behind Benjamin Netenyahu. Sometimes I seriously cannot believe these zionists popping up at the centre of every disgusting criminal plot to make this world even more unpleasant than it already is.

        As for the Uighurs, you might want to google "Sibel Edmonds - Operation Gladio B" to verify beyond any doubt that there is a serious concerted effort to foster terrorism in NW China by the CIA Although I don't share her views on Edward Snowden, her research is very thorough and verifiable on the subject of Gladio B.

        Here's a youtube interview to get you started: Sibel Edmonds interview. It was a shocking revelation for me when I first saw it.

        WhyWait

        No doubt the Empire is cooking up a color revolution in China. And we have to ask, what on earth were they doing letting a WSJ reporter into their inside conversations?

        Yet, the elite moving themselves their money and their children out of China is certainly telling us something, and the story of officials and Party members speaking the party line without conviction is eerily familiar.

        Missing from this article is the fact that this all is happening in the context of what is shaping up to be a global economic collapse of historic proportions, which China as a country that has jumped into capitalism with both feet is about to experience full force.

        If China were about to experience a collapse like that of the Soviet Union, the elite would be preparing to inherit it, jockying for their place, looking forward to the great plundering of public resources and the remaining state-owned companies begins. But instead they're fleeing en masse. Evidently they're expecting something else.

        Deng Jiao Peng proposed that China had to undergo capitalist accumulation first, then build socialism. The coming collapse of the world and Chinese economies is just what Marx predicted - and Marx is part of China's state religion. The hard-pressed over-worked and over-exploited millions in China's privately owned factories, and the Communist Party members among them, have that doctrine as part of their legacy. They are by all acounts already in a state of pre-revolutionary ferment and anger, as witnessed by thousands of strikes and protests per year, and they are about to get thrown into a crisis of survival.

        The resulting revolutionary upheaval may make the Cultural Revolution look like a dress rehearsal.

        Foreseeably this will open huge opportunities for the US and Japan to engage in mischief, and will put Russia in a very difficult position with its new strategic partner incapacitated.

        WhyWait

        Elaborating a bit on how I'm framing this:

        China and Russia have both already had profound anti-capitalist revolutions followed by a kind of counterrevolution and a partial restoration of capitalism. In Russia this counterrevolution was marked by the collapse of Communist Party rule. In China it involved a takeover of the leadership of the Communist Party by capitalist kleptocrats and oligarchs. Thus the collapse of Communist Party rule in China, while inevitable, will be of an entirely different character. Without the global collapse of the capitalist economic system it might have devolved into a liberal democratic system more like those of Western Europe. In the present context that is not an option and what we will see instead is a counter-counter-revolution, i.e. a revolution.

        goldhedge

        "The elites getting their kidz out of China" is probably more to do with Chinese Expansionism.

        These will be rich and therefore powerful ppl in their new found homes and still have "some" allegiance to their motherland.

        Its all by design.

        silverlamb

        "A more secure and confident government would not institute such a severe crackdown. It is a symptom of the party leadership's deep anxiety and insecurity"...

        A government that feels safe should not militarize the police and try to control the Internet ... but USA is doing . There are not good countries, only good people and corrupt or weak governments ...

        shovelhead

        Norinco. The PLA's corporate face of the Chinese MIC. They own our West Coast port facilities under various shell co. names.

        I imagine, like any army, that political factions in Govt. can only purge dissident military leaders after carefully assessing that they have a majority in the clique of power that will remain loyal.

        I also imagine that the political /miltary power structure is a fluid balance of interlocking sheres of influence and interests. When it becomes unbalanced in the US, you end up with dead Kennedys.

        reader2010

        China embraced liberal market ideology right after the collapse of the Soviet Union thanks to the propaganda engineered by Wall Street. However, in the Aftermath of 2008 financial meltdown, China finally realized that was purely a bullshit. And particularly after the Pivotal to Asia led by Washington, China was made to understand that Washington sees it as the "rogue state". So they started to engage the West in a different light completely. Getting rid of the 5th column (many of them came to study in the US in the 70s and early 80s) is what Xi has been doing in the name of anti-corruption. That's what's happening in real time, folks.

        Md4

        We cannot predict when Chinese communism will collapse, but it is hard not to conclude that we are witnessing its final phase. The CCP is the world's second-longest ruling regime (behind only North Korea), and no party can rule forever."

        China is in the mess its in mostly because the west, having outsourced much the its middle class wealth producing jobs to the east, is mostly broke, and suffering a dramatic and on-going decline in income with which to consume. While life has never been easy for the mostly poor peasant class of Chinese, they were led to believe an insatiable appetite in the west for the goods once produced there would endlessly enable them to enjoy a rising (even if very modestly by western standards) standard of living.

        When you come from rice paddy, rural and antiquated agrarian poverty for generations, even a shanty town life in the shadow of new and empty high rises and mega factories are a step up. At least you're working, making a steady wage and eating a little meat once in awhile. If this keeps up, you think, you might actually be able to have something for yourself one day...

        But then, that's not how it's all turning out.

        What the idiots, in a bonsai rush to outsource western manufacturing and middle class wealth-producing industries apparently never considered, is, what do workers in an emptied-out west do for income when the old jobs are gone, and how will western spending-dependent economies inheriting those former American industries survive without western spending?

        Eventually, like the west, the east will implode, of course.

        And that's what we're seeing. China is the most visible because it's the largest, most talked about of the beneficiaries of western outsourcing. But it is certainly not the only EM in trouble. What's worse are all of the commodity spin offs heavily dependent on supplying the giant manufacturing engine China became. They, too, are beginning to suck air, as China doesn't need production inputs if the outputs aren't selling much.

        The outputs are seriously declining in demand because western incomes are in serious decline. We're witnessing a global train wreck, with each car beginning to slam into the one ahead of it. Eventually, and because of the state of affairs that bonsai outsourcing set into motion, these cars will derail.

        The world has never been here before. It is clear to me it doesn't know what to do about what is a checkmate. All of the old easy monetary games aren't working because they can't work. If anything, they're making the inevitable collapse just that much tougher to overcome. This cannot be fixed, but it sure as hell can be screwed up more.

        My gut tells me the world will likely fracture into smaller and smaller pieces when the calamity finally takes hold. Human nature more often circles wagons into tighter groups under extreme pressures of disintegration. That may ultimately look like the break up of the Warsaw Pact, or it may look more like the north and south of antebellum America. Much depends upon what any people feel is their best shot at some kind of peaceful prosperity while weathering an unprecedented storm.

        But...the collapse HAS to happen first.

        The world remains checkmated until it does, and there is no way back to before.

        m

        scatha

        What a crap. ZH could do better then re-posting WSJ excretions. Did author ever read anything about China's history or US for that matter? The Chinese Xi guy's just doing what his predecessors were doing for thousands of years namely purging old clique, replacing it with new clique who helped him to power.

        This happens everywhere where there is any REAL change of power. Not in US where the same regime continues for almost 240 years without any change. Not one iota. Nothing, the same British imperial aristocrats with support by courtiers and domestic slaves from Britain colonies like Kenya.

        China is much further from collapsing then these US where hordes of oligarchs escape US to Asia to find shelter for their money and their families before this whole shit collapses, joined there by tens of thousands of US expatriates looking for better life in Asia or even Russia or Europe.

        Thanks to Japanese renewed militarism and fascist leaning government as well as US aggressive behavior vs. Russia average Chinese learn to stick to evil they know. The popularity of so-called communist party but actually nationalist party surged over last 10 years but not due to economics since it raised standard of living for only about 100 millions (8% of population) but because they learned a lesson that they cannot be divided by the West, never again, otherwise they know they'll return to western slavery as it was for several centuries.

        This is Chinese philosophy of life. It hard to believe but vast majority of Chinese are ready to put on gray uniform and jump on a bike dropping all those western useless gadgets at a whim. And if WSJ does not know about it, it does not know anything about China.

        So we have to judge this piece for what it is, pure propaganda, unleashed to prep brain damaged Americans for dying for.. few rocks in the ocean or nothing.

        Free_Spirit

        Unlikely, the instant catastrophic collapse vis USSR was caused by the leaders (drunk yeltsin) choosing to write the nation into history, and wasn't caused by the people. Granted a spineless Gorbachev fataly weakened the system, but what really destroyed the soviet system was lack of reliable food and basic consumer goods supply. Teachers couldn't attend school because they had to queue for food all day. Nor factory workers, whose factories closed for lack of attending workers. Food rrotted in railway sidings because there were no reliable drivers and locos to keep the supply chain going. This above all else was the breakdown of the system. So long as China avoids such a breakdown of supply and basic services, and retains focused leadership the CPP will survive. I don't see any senior CCP leader who rivals Gorby for spinelessness or Yeltsin for drunken stupidity. If we ever do, then it'll be time to talk collapse.

        [Mar 14, 2015] Michael Hudson on the IMF's Tender Ministrations in Ukraine and Greece naked capitalism

        Mar 14, 2015 | nakedcapitalism.com

        This RT interview with Michael Hudson focuses on the appalling state of the Ukraine economy and the role of the IMF, both in its policy-violating rescue package there and on a more general basis. Hudson points out that the IMF was always a vehicle of policy, and is operating as an adjunct to the Pentagon. What is left unsaid is that the IMF loan is being used as an alternative to a Congressional appropriation to fund the government in Kiev against the aspiring breakaway region in the east.

        The section with Hudson starts at 13:45.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLM9PqxxRjQ

        Yves Smith Post author March 14, 2015 at 3:36 pm

        They are not alone. Ukrainians are fleeing the country in record numbers: since February 2014, 600,000 Ukrainians have sought asylum or other forms of legal stay in neighboring countries, and thousands more have moved to the U.S. and the European Union. Others have fled illegally: Poland reported a 100 percent increase in the number of detentions of illegal Ukrainian immigrants last year.

        But the emigrants are not only asylum seekers. They are the Western-leaning intelligentsia, the professional classes with relatives abroad, and the students of the Maidan who first organized protests against former President Viktor Yanukovych's kleptocratic and violent government in November 2013.

        Mark, March 14, 2015 at 5:04 pm

        Interesting long comment at that article by one of the people interviewed for the article..

        part of which was

        "yeah, well, the only thing which they conveniently left out, is that everybody in this article decided to leave long ago before the revolution."

        [Mar 14, 2015] A Review of 'Frontline Ukraine' by Richard Sakwa

        Mar 05, 2015 | hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk

        You might have thought that a serious book on the Ukraine crisis, written by a distinguished academic in good clear English, and published by a reputable house, might have gained quite a bit of attention at a time when that country is at the centre of many people's concerns.

        But some readers here now understand that publishing, and especially the reviewing of books, are not the simple marketplaces of ideas which we would all wish them to be.

        And so, as far as I can discover, this book :

        'Frontline Ukraine : Crisis in the Borderlands , by Richard Sakwa. Published by I.B.Tauris

        …though it came out some months ago, has only been reviewed in one place in Britain, the Guardian newspaper, by Jonathan Steele, the first-rate foreign correspondent whose rigour and enterprise (when we were both stationed in Moscow) quite persuaded me to overlook his former sympathy for the left-wing cause (most notably expressed in a 1977 book 'Socialism with a German Face' about the old East Germany, which seemed to me at the time to be ah, excessively kind).

        Mr Steele's review can be read here

        http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/feb/19/frontline-ukraine-crisis-in-borderlands-richard-sakwa-review-account

        I have said elsewhere that I would myself be happier if the book were more hostile to my position on this conflict. Sometimes I feel that it is almost too good to be true, to have my own conclusions confirmed so powerfully, and I would certainly like to see the book reviewed by a knowledgeable proponent of the NATO neo-conservative position. Why hasn't it been?

        But even so I recommend it to any reader of mine who is remotely interested in disentangling the reality from the knotted nets of propaganda in which it is currently shrouded.

        Like George Friedman's interesting interview in the Moscow newspaper 'Kommersant' ( you can read it here http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/01/20/2561 ) , the book has shifted my own view.

        I have tended to see the *basic* dispute in Ukraine as being yet another outbreak of the old German push into the east, carried out under the new, nice flag of the EU, a liberal, federative empire in which the vassal states are tactfully allowed limited sovereignty as long as they don't challenge the fundamental politico-economic dominance of Germany. I still think this is a strong element in the EU's thrust in this direction.

        But I have tended to neglect another feature of the new Europe, also set out in Adam Tooze's brilliant 'The Deluge' – the firm determination of the USA to mould Europe in its own image (a determination these days expressed mainly through the EU and NATO).

        I should have paid more attention to the famous words 'F*** the EU!' spoken by the USA's Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, in a phone call publicised to the world by (presumably) Russian intelligence. The EU isn't half as enthusiastic about following the old eastern road as is the USA. Indeed, it's a bit of a foot-dragger.

        The driving force in this crisis is the USA, with the EU being reluctantly tugged along behind. And if Mr Friedman is right (and I think he is), the roots of it lie in Russia's decision to obstruct the West's intervention in Syria.

        Perhaps the key to the whole thing (rather dispiriting in that it shows the USA really hasn't learned anything important from the Iraq debacle) is the so-called 'Wolfowitz Doctrine' of 1992, named after the neo-con's neo-con, Paul Wolfowitz, and summed up by Professor Sakwa (p.211) thus: 'The doctrine asserted that the US should prevent "any country from dominating any region of the world that might be a springboard to threaten unipolar and exclusive US dominance"'.

        Note how neatly this meshes with what George Friedman says in his interview.

        Now, there are dozens of fascinating things in Professor Sakwa's book, and my copy is scored with annotations and references. I could spend a week summarising it for you. (By the way, the Professor himself is very familiar with this complex region, and might be expected, thanks to his Polish ancestry, to take a different line. His father was in the Polish Army in 1939, escaped to Hungary in the chaos of defeat, and ended up serving in Anders's Second Corps, fighting with the British Army at El Alamein, Benghazi, Tobruk and then through Italy via Monte Cassino. Then he was in exile during the years of Polish Communism. Like Vaclav Klaus, another critic of current western policy, Professor Sakwa can hardly be dismissed as a naif who doesn't understand about Russia, or accused of being a 'fellow-traveler' or 'useful idiot'.

        He is now concerned at 'how we created yet another crisis' (p xiii) .

        But I would much prefer that you read it for yourself, and so will have to limit my references quite sternly.

        There are good explanations of the undoubted anti-Semitism and Nazi sympathies of some strands in Ukrainian politics. Similar nastiness, by the way, is to be found loose in some of the Baltic States. I mention this n because it justified classifying the whole movement as 'Neo-Nazi', which is obviously false, but because it tells us something very interesting about the nature of nationalism and Russophobia in this part of the world. No serious or fair description of the crisis can ignore it. Yet, in the portrayal of Russia as Mordor, and the Ukraine as Utopia, western media simply leave out almost everything about Ukraine that doesn't appeal to their audiences, the economic near collapse, the Judophobia and Russophobia (the derogatory word 'Moskal', for instance, in common use), the worship of the dubious (this word is very generous, I think) Stepan Bandera by many of the Western ultra-nationalists, the violence against dissenters from the Maidan view ( see http://rt.com/news/ukraine-presidential-candidates-attacked-516/). The survival and continued power of Ukraine's oligarchs after a revolution supposedly aimed at cleaning up the country is also never mentioned. We all know about Viktor Yanukovych;s tasteless mansion, but the book provides some interesting details on President Poroshenko's residence (it looks rather like the White House) , which I have not seen elsewhere.

        The detailed description of how and why the Association Agreement led to such trouble is excellent. I had not realised that, since the Lisbon Treaty, alignment with NATO is an essential part of EU membership (and association) – hence the unavoidable political and military clauses in the agreement.

        So is the filleting of the excuse-making and apologetics of those who still pretend that Yanukovych was lawfully removed from office: the explicit threat of violence from the Maidan, the failure to muster the requisite vote, the presence of armed men during the vote, the failure to follow the constitutional rules (set beside the available lawful deal, overridden by the Maidan, under which Yanukovych would have faced early elections and been forced to make constitutional changes) .

        Then here we have Ms Nuland again, boasting of the $5 billion (eat your heart out, the EU, with your paltry £300 million) http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2013/dec/218804.htm which the USA has 'invested in Ukraine. 'Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We've invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine.

        It's worth noting that in this speech, in December 2013, she still envisages the supposedly intolerable Yanukovych as a possible partner.

        Other points well made are the strange effect of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, which has created the very tension against which it now seeks to reassure border nations, by encouraging them, too, to join, the non-binding nature of the much-trumpeted Budapest memorandum, the lack of coverage of the ghastly events in Odessa, the continuing lack of a proper independent investigation into the Kiev mass shootings in February 2014 .

        Also examined is the Russian fear of losing Sevastopol, an entirely justified fear given that President Yushchenko had chosen to say in Georgia, during the war of August 2008, that Russia's basing rights in the city would end in 2017. The 'disappearance; of the 'Right Sector' and 'Svoboda' vote in recent elections is explained by their transfer to the radical Party led by Oleh Lyashko.

        Professor Sakwa also explores Russia's behaviour in other border disputes , with Norway and China, in which it has been far from aggressive. And he points out that Ukraine's nationalists have made their country's life far more difficult by their rigid nationalist approach to the many citizens of that country who, while viewing themselves as Ukrainian, do not share the history or passions of the ultra-nationalists in the West.

        Likewise he warns simple-minded analysts that the conflict in the East of Ukraine is not desired by Russia's elite, which does not wish to be drawn into another foreign entanglement (all Russian strategists recall the disastrous result of the Afghan intervention). But it may be desired by Russian ultra-nationalists, not necessarily controllable.

        He points out that Russia has not, as it did in Crimea, intervened decisively in Eastern Ukraine to ensure secession. And he suggests that those Russian nationalists are acting in many cases independently of Moscow in the Donetsk and Lugansk areas. Putin seeks to control them and limit them, but fears them as well.

        In general, the book is an intelligent, well-researched and thoughtful attempt to explain the major crisis of our time. Anybody, whatever he or she might think of the issue, would benefit from reading it. It is shocking that it is not better known, and I can only assume that its obscurity, so far is caused by the fact that it does not fit the crude propaganda narrative of the 'Putin is Hitler' viewpoint.

        How odd that we should all have learned so little from the Iraq debacle. This time the 'WMD' are non-existent Russian plans to expand and/or attack the Baltic states. And of course the misrepresentation of both sides in the Ukrainian controversy is necessary for the portrayal of Putin as Hitler and his supporters as Nazis, and opponents of belligerence as Nazi fellow-travellers. The inconvenient fact , that if there are Nazis in this story , they tend to be on the 'good' side must be ignored. Let us hope the hysteria subsides before it carries us into another stupid war.

        March 5, 2015 Comments (54) Categories: Cold War , History , New Cold War , Russia , Ukraine | Permalink

        Comments

        LornaJean | 10 March 2015 at 09:00 AM

        There should be a proper inquiry into who really started this conflict I recall watching on TV as the boxer who was leading the Kiev mob came out of lengthy negotiations with the 3 EU ministers and the crowds booing and erupting The infamous Julia also appeared on the scene. this was of course after only a few hours previously that Obama announced that he had agreement with Putin to have a peaceful resolution and elections in 3 months.

        As I watched the eruption of the mob I Thought this will end badly and at that point the EU should have withdrawn. However the subsequent violence and the removal of the elected leader followed. All interviews with the people in the East and Crimea showed their distrust of the Kiev crowd and it was clear that the oligarchs on the East who had many workers and controlled the manufacturing would not support the East. Putin is a nasty man but to suggest that he deliberately caused this situation is a travesty.Russia with refugees pouring over the border reacted to the situation and who can blame them.? Now a less belligerent and frankly dishonest approach needs to be taken by the EU I can not see that the Kiev regime can ever win the loyalty of the East after this bitter war.the only solution is some sort of autonomous regios that allows the Esst of Ukraine to rule themselves.

        Bill Jones | 10 March 2015 at 01:28 AM

        This made me smile:

        " I would certainly like to see the book reviewed by a knowledgeable proponent of the NATO neo-conservative position. Why hasn't it been? "

        Because to be knowledgeable is not to be a Neo-conservative.

        Mr Rob | 09 March 2015 at 02:45 PM

        @Mike B

        "I haven't responded to your comments on McCain and Nuland because I thought that I had made it clear that I thought external interference from any quarter was undesirable and I accept that there has been such interference from both sides."

        Oh really? You do not remember writing this then?

        "It was Ukrainians, not the EU, who ousted Yanukovych. They should be allowed to deal with their internal disputes and decide their future alliances and associations."

        or this?

        "However, the EU, whatever its faults (and, believe me, it is not my "beloved" EU) did not organise his removal. It was carried out by, and on behalf of, Ukrainians. It was an internal matter and, whatever the faults on either side, should have been left at that."

        And on this thread you had not even mentioned the USA involvement. You have been consistently dishonest by omission. Well, at least you're consistent.

        And now you manage the immortal words

        "I do maintain, though, that the interference of the EU and USA" [well done for mentioning them at last],"which cannot be denied" [but can, it seems, be ignored...] "and which was reflected in Russia's own behaviour cannot be compared with Russia's subsequent blatant military involvement in a sovereign country's internal conflict."

        So on the one hand the EU and the USA have interfered, but on the other it is an "internal conflict".

        Priceless.

        Roy Robinson | 08 March 2015 at 05:48 PM

        @Alan Thomas By my reading of certain facts I deduce there is a de facto alliance between Russia and China. These facts being that Russia trades arms to China but the USA will not trade arms to either. On May 8th Xi Jingping will attend the Victory Day celebrations in Moscow accompanied by his junk yard dog Kim Jong Un of North Korea. No Western leaders as far as I know will be in attendance. De facto alliances such as the one Britain had with France in 1914 are always hard to call because unlike formal ones such as Nato there is nothing in writing. I also suspect that one reason China has not tried to match America in nuclear weapons so far is because Russia already does so. North Korea is also very useful in that it can be used to threaten Japan without China appearing to be the aggressor.

        Mr Rob | 08 March 2015 at 11:16 AM

        @ Mike B

        I see you have ignored my request to answer the questions I posed to Hector (who has also yet to respond) about the US presence at the Maidan. Perhaps you needed to ignore my request in order to write this drivel with a straight face:

        Re Yanukovych: "However, the EU, whatever its faults (and, believe me, it is not my "beloved" EU) did not organise his removal. It was carried out by, and on behalf of, Ukrainians. It was an internal matter and, whatever the faults on either side, should have been left at that."

        Some Ukrainians carried out the WW2 massacre at Khatyn (not Katyn) - does that mean that all Ukrainians are responsible for it, approved of it, or that it was carried out on behalf of Ukrainians? Of course not.

        You have also studiously avoided mention of the presence at the Maidan of US Senator McCain and US Assistant Secretary of State Nuland, and the latter's meetings with the Maidan leaders, co-ordinated with US Ambassador Pyatt.

        You have also somehow omitted to mention Yatseniuk's ("Yats") lightning visit to Washington days after the overthrow of Yanukovych, or the visit of CIA Director Brennan to Kiev.

        And just for the record, I have first-hand oral evidence of people in Minsk, Belarus, being offered money to go to the Maidan - so even that the Maidan crowd was completely Ukrainian is probably untrue.

        You accuse Mr Klimenko of bias, and yet you yourself give and repeat a dishonest account of what is known to have happened at the Maidan.

        Such behaviour has no place in proper debate.

        Ian | 08 March 2015 at 11:04 AM

        To Mike B and others...

        It's all very well to agonize about what Ukrainians may or may not want. We could all weep huge quantities of crocodile tears over Ukraine's thwarted "self determination", but the essential fact is that Ukrainians are not agreed about what they want. Some appear to want closer ties with the EU, some appear to want to maintain the status quo and some appear to want closer ties with the Russian Federation.

        All of which is "interesting" until different factions within Ukraine start calling on their preferred partners to back them up. It seems to me that the US and the EU have contributed more than one would reasonably expect to the discord in Ukraine and silly expectations in a great many Ukrainians. To describe this as "irresponsible" is something of an understatement.

        We are now in a situation where the "preferred partners" might come to blows over the confused and discordant expectations of Ukraine. In such a situation. it would be hard for me to care less about what Ukrainians want especially when some of Ukraine's politicians sound as though they would happily see the world burn if only it ensures "territorial Integrity" for Ukraine.

        It's a very old trick for which "socialists" should be famous. Describe a group as deserving, noble and disadvantaged... and use this supposed circumstance to justify the most ridiculous, regressive and destructive policy the human mind can invent. Of course, with our own "socialists", the all important thing is that they are not only well rewarded with a reputation for being "caring sharing human beings"... but also very well paid for the disasters they inflict on us.

        Edward Klimenko | 08 March 2015 at 10:50 AM

        @MikeB

        'did not organise his removal. It was carried out by, and on behalf of, Ukrainians. It was an internal matter'

        What the EU did was the equivalent of persuading one party in a Mexican stand-off to lower his weapon so that the other can shoot him safely. Yes, the EU most certainly organized Yanukovich's removal - the EU normally takes a dim view of governments established by putsch, but recognized this particular band of putschists almost immediately.

        And why was it not an internal matter when Ukrainian police were attempting to clear Maidan of the lawless occupying mob, but instead a human rights crisis demanding sanctions against everyone from the Prosecutor-General to Yanukovich's barber?

        'You should note, however, that he fled his country on the same day that he announced an agreement with his opponents.'

        You are mistaken, he did not flee the country the day the agreement was made. He left the city of Kiev for Kharkov, his motorcade coming under fire as he did so. As the putsch developed, he called a conference in Kharkov of regional governors still loyal to the rightful president, the participants agreeing to administer their own regions until lawful authority could be reestablished in the rest of the country.

        Two factors brought about the failure of this effort: the first was the success of Valentin Nalivaichenko's takeover of the SBU, and the second was the cowardly betrayal by Kharkov regional governor Mikhail Dobkin and Kharkov city mayor Gennady Kernes, who panicked and fled when they heard that the SBU was after them (both would later cut deals with the Maidan regime for their own survival). Fearing capture by the SBU and feeling unable to trust anybody, Yanukovich then departed for the Crimea.

        You might think this would be safe place for him to make his stand. You would be wrong - the mood in Crimea at the time was one of utter disgust for Yanukovich and the Regions Party on account of their utter failure to defend the state and the people, which only grew after it came to light that the scum Yanukovich had appointed as mayor of Sevastopol had been conspiring to surrender the city to the Right Sector. Crimea wanted out of the Ukraine, and had no interest in helping Yanukovich get his seat back. Out of options, he finally fled to the Russian mainland on or about February 26.

        As for the rest, I'll say it again: the 'Holodomor' is a fiction, an attempt to portray a famine that affected a vast swathe of the USSR as campaign against Ukrainians specifically, when in truth it most heavily affected the non-Ukrainian Donbass region. It is invoked by western Ukrainians whose ancestors did not experience it to justify their racial hatred for eastern Ukrainians whose ancestors did. You ought to be ashamed of spreading such rot, and you should stop trying to frame your own biases as 'objectivity'.

        Grant | 07 March 2015 at 08:32 PM

        I listened to that.

        Everything Peter said was spot on. That other bloke who was challenging you is a dangerous idiot. You pointed out to him that we do not call Chinese regime tyrants, or the Saudis, yet he immediately replies calling Putin a vile tyrant. Totally obvious to what you just told him like he is a brainwashed stuck record.

        NATO is now the armed wing of EU expansion. They intentionally sent Russia that message during the Kosovo war by including the Luftwaffe bombing in previous Russia spheres of influence.

        mikebarnes | 07 March 2015 at 07:13 PM

        @ Edward Klimenko

        If nothing else I like your style . Many contributors here think they know. And a few think you know more than them. I think on this subject you certainly know more than I . Whether your correct is unknown at least by me . But.

        Oh that our snot brained, could have need for the dentistry they so deserve.

        No matter whose in the right here , and I suspect neither are. Its their business and that of the federation they once belonged . Just as northern Island was our business . But Clinton poked his snout in .

        The compromise, killers and bombers running the country might well be repeated with a split country just like the many created since the chaos following WWII.

        Roy Robinson | 07 March 2015 at 05:42 PM

        @Alan Thomas The Eurasian hard men such as Putin, Erdogan , Modi and XI Jinping all seem to understand one another and are doing business together.

        They all lead countries which have been on the receiving of Western aggression over the last few centuries Modern Westerners with their naive PC outlook like to overlook this but the people in those countries have not forgotten from which direction the threat to them has usually come from and the past losses and humiliations which resulted.

        When someone sees themselves as a benefactor to mankind but others see as a thief with a violent history there is always going to be room for a big understanding.

        Alan Thomas | 07 March 2015 at 03:44 PM

        Roy Robinson

        Perhaps, when it comes to China, the 'west' cannot see a solution, in which case hurling - or even simply registering - criticism might be seen as a waste of time and effort. In any case, since when did it make sense to ignore lesser villains simply because one can't take on the bigger ones?

        Steve Jones | 07 March 2015 at 03:11 PM

        I suspect the neocons are now looking at the General Patton play of outsourcing a war against Russia to Germany.

        Germany should leave the EU together with France and the PIGS using the euro as an excuse. Their departure might shake out a few others like Croatia, Hungary and Austria plus a few more. Let the banks fail then go in with Russia and the other BRICS.

        Edward Klimenko | 07 March 2015 at 02:04 PM

        @MikeB

        ' Are you so sure that Ukrainians wanted their now ex-president?'

        Almost twelve and a half million Ukrainians voted for him in 2010, and that is a far better indicator of what Ukrainians wanted than the actions of around ten thousand Nazi terrorists in February 2014.

        ' It was Ukrainians, not the EU, who ousted Yanukovych'

        What a nonsensical and disingenuous remark. Yanukovich was the democratically -elected president(most likely the last that the Ukraine will ever have). EuroMaidan was an assembly of Nazi terrorists and their apologists. Europe used threats and blackmail to prevent Yanukovich from doing his duty and protecting the country from this violent mob. Europe then tricked him into signing a 'peace agreement' and pulling back the police from their positions, allowing the terrorist mob and its sponsors to rampage freely through Kiev and seize the institutions of the state.

        You will probably cite the lack of an immediate militant response to the putsch as proof that Ukrainians wanted this abomination of a government. Well, there we have democracy according to Mike! No need for elections, might makes right and proves the existence of an underlying consensus! Brilliant.

        Let's take your logic a bit further. The rebellion now rules in Donbass, and no armed movement has arisen there to demand the return of the region to Ukrainian rule. Do you accept this as evidence of the people's wish not to be ruled by the Maidan regime? If the rebels break the Ukrainian lines, and take control of the rest of the country, will you shrug and conclude that Ukrainians wanted to be with Russia after all?

        ' , I would prefer people to be aggressive with me by throwing money in my direction, rather than launching rockets,

        Throwing money at the Ukraine enables the Maidan regime to throw rockets at Ukrainian citizens. Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk have no legal authority to rule over anybody, yet your beloved EU insists that these putsch-installed thugs are the government of the Ukraine, and that all Ukrainians must obey them or die.

        ' Nothing the EU has done, though, justifies Russian military intervention in Ukraine'

        Everything the EU has done justifies everything Russia has done, and would justify a good deal more. The European officials who formulated European policy toward the Ukraine in the past year are responsible for the war and for all the crimes of the Maidan regime, and they should all face the death penalty - starting with Ashton.

        Think on this: if not for the Crimea operation, all the depravity that the Ukraine has heaped upon Donetsk would have been visited upon Crimea. You think that Crimeans would have been better off being shelled, shot, raped and tortured by the Ukrainian military? Go and tell them so!

        Just make sure that your health insurance covers reconstructive dentistry first.

        Paul Taylor | 07 March 2015 at 12:00 PM

        Hector. You clearly have no idea about Hitler and Germany in the late 1930s.Germany was just taking back land that was stolen in June 1919. Hitler had mass support from the Germanic people in those parts and in some areas such as parts of Austria he was even more popular than he was in Germany itself.

        It was madness that we went to war against Germany,we should have remained neutral like Spain or Switzerland and let Hitler defeat Stalin on his own.

        Paulus M | 07 March 2015 at 10:46 AM

        @ kevin 1

        "Personally, I have difficulty with this quote because I don't think facts do change, that's why they are called facts. New information may come to light but the facts though temporarily hidden from view remain constant. But that's just my opinion."

        It all depends on whether the facts/evidence supports the hypothesis. If they don't then no matter how erudite it appears - it's wrong. What our media don't want you to question or look at is who started this conflict. From day one, I've never been in doubt that Washington is the main driver and the EU the junior partner. The Nato alliance acts as a bind and a figleaf. Time and again the facts sindicates that the "west" is an aggressor bloc which tramples over sovereignty and makes a mockery of supposed international law.

        Mr Rob | 07 March 2015 at 10:08 AM

        Are you claiming that prior to the "removal" of Yanukovych

        US Senator McCain did not appear at the Maidan,

        and that US Assistant Secretary of State Nuland did not appear at the Maidan,

        and that she did not hold a series of meetings with its leaders,

        and that she and US Ambassador Pyatt did not co-ordinate these efforts with a clear aim as to who they wanted to see in power (our man "Yats"),

        and that only days after Yanukovych fled,

        Yatseniuk was not shaking hands with US President Obama at the White House

        and that US Director of the CIA Brennan was not in Kiev?

        Do you claim that the US was leaving Ukraine to "sort out it's [sic] own issues"?

        Please do respond rather than lapse into silence, I'd be fascinated to see how you have reached your conclusions in the face of the known facts.

        Kevin 1 | 07 March 2015 at 09:27 AM

        @ Ronnie

        I think you'll find that, in circumstances such as those you describe, PH tends to quote the famous retort attributed to Keynes, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" I'm just surprised that he hasn't done so (yet) in this instance.

        Personally, I have difficulty with this quote because I don't think facts do change, that's why they are called facts. New information may come to light but the facts though temporarily hidden from view remain constant. But that's just my opinion.

        N.Belcher | 07 March 2015 at 01:28 AM

        Dear Mr Hitchens

        In December 2011 The U.S Federal Reserve bailed out European banks to the
        tune of Billions of Dollars.
        It is reported that they tried to keep this bailout a secret at the time.

        Do you think that this , and the latest E.U initiative to have The Ukraine
        are linked ? i.e that it was a condition of the U.S bailout or expected of The
        E.U that they continue to expand into The Ukraine in return for these U.S Dollars?
        Yours N.Belcher.

        Roy Robinson | 07 March 2015 at 01:04 AM

        While the West obsesses about the supposed threat from Putin it seems totally oblivious to the rise of Xi Jinping a Chinese leader who looks like being of the magnitude of Mao.

        He has described himself as the leader of a party wedded to the ideology of Lenin, Stalin and Mao and is concentrating all the power in his own hands.

        There is no Western propaganda campaign against him yet although think about it, ten years ago there wasn't one against Putin.

        Xi has stated that he gets on well with Putin as they have similar personalities.

        Edward Klimenko | 06 March 2015 at 08:44 PM

        'Might there be the slightest chance of Ukrainians' wishes being given some consideration?'

        Capital idea. But you know what the Ukrainians wanted? They wanted Viktor Yanukovich as President and they wanted the Parliament they elected in 2012. What scant regard America and Europe gave their wishes!

        Bob | 06 March 2015 at 06:42 PM

        Ronnie that purported paper was presented in early Feb 2014 well after Maidan was underway, not exactly planned from day one. It was also Kiev at the behest of the US who started the ATO, resorting to violence away from the Franco-German and Russian negotiations.
        I might add the anti Russian propaganda in the media had started well before Sochi started. This was all planned a while back and not by Russia.

        Ian | 06 March 2015 at 03:49 PM

        It does not seem to me there is a "change of mind" or any inconsistency implied in Mr Hitchens's recommendation of Richard Sakwa's book. There may be a slight change of emphasis but it was always understood and mentioned that the US of A was an additional driving force to events in eastern Europe. It does not alter the validity of the view that the EU is "Germany by other means" and that the EU/Germany covets "lebensraum" in the east. So far as I can see, it can only be of academic interest whether the developing crisis is primarily EU or US led.

        Nor has Mr Hitchens ever attempted to exonerate President Putin or Russia, giving more than sufficient emphasis to "Russian interests" and "Russia's perceived sphere of influence" ... to crudely paraphrase. It does not matter if Russia is or is not entitled to these perceptions. That the perceptions exist should be a major consideration in the policy of any other "player" who would prefer a continued, peaceful existence.

        What is important is whether either side can afford to "back down" and which side is "most guilty" with regards creating this crisis. It seems fairly obvious that it is the US and the EU who can best afford to "back off"... and it is the US and the EU whose posturing and behavior have contributed most to the current situation.

        For those who adhere to the "bad Putin"/"Naughty Russia" model, rest assured that the US and the EU are unlikely to give up on this one. They are determined to give the big bad bear a spanking.

        I fear that they have got it badly wrong, seriously misjudged Russia's president and relied to heavily on dated intelligence about Russian capabilities.

        Posted by: Incognito | 06 March 2015 at 12:41 PM

        John,

        I think it's an oversight on PH's part (we're all human, right?) to have placed so much emphasis on Germany in his analysis of the the crisis, and, in so doing to have tacitly downplayed the role of the US. Plainly put Germany-although it is the de facto seat of power in the EU- doesn't have the brass to so flagrantly antagonise Russia without back-up.

        Moreover, if anyone doesn't think the EU is 'briefed' on foreign policy by the US state department, they are living in an alternate reality. America is a continuation of the British Empire by other means.

        Grant | 06 March 2015 at 12:23 PM

        Pat Davers "Indeed, I think that European leaders acted naively in aligning with the US, and were genuinely dismayed at the outcome of their tacit support for the coup in Ukraine"

        I do wish people would study the comments made by the EU leaders when initial proposals for third way consultations with the Russians was proposed, they said things like "the last people we would speak to over this would be the Russians".

        The EU leaders detest everything Russia stands for, as they are enlightened supra nationalists. It was precisely their arrogant and dismissive attitude that led to armed conflict and only after thousands had died did they come to meet Putin in Russia to seek a peace.

        Pat Davers | 06 March 2015 at 11:46 AM

        "Are we witnessing a Hitchens change of mind?"

        I think we are seeing a shift of opinion as to who has the been the main driver behind the Ukraine conflict; it was not so much EU (ie German-led) expansionism as NATO (ie US-led) imperialism that brought us where we are now, as of course many people have been saying all along.

        Indeed, I think that European leaders acted naively in aligning with the US, and were genuinely dismayed at the outcome of their tacit support for the coup in Ukraine, and are probably now regretting their actions. The fact that is was Merkel and Hollande who brokered the Minsk agreement without US involvement would seem to support this.

        Bob | 06 March 2015 at 10:51 AM

        Ronnie you have clearly have never done any scenario planning or read position papers, obviously the Kremlin would have several plans of action for the breakdown of the Ukraine. Regardless of the document's validity, the title is invalid. "Direct interstate relations" cannot exist between Moscow and regions annexed to Russia, the plan is obviously talking about a political breakup of Ukraine, not annexation. Even then though, i dont entirely believe it.

        If Russia's plan was to break up Ukraine into statelets, I see no reason why it still hasn't recognized the independence of LPR and DPR and instead continues to treat them, in both language and action, as regions of Ukraine seeking federalization. A federal and perhaps confederate Ukraine would obviously be to Russia's interest. Complete breakup of Ukraine -maybe but it's difficult to see how.

        Weak.

        Daniel | 06 March 2015 at 07:25 AM

        Dear Peter,

        Thank you for another thought-provoking article. It's nice to have some measured thinking amongst the media-mob's clamour.

        A little off the current topic but I was expecting to see a comment on the recent ACMD report in which the scientist's covering letter states: 'international evidence suggests many popular types of prevention activity are ineffective at changing behaviour, and a small number may even increase the risks for drug use' . Paradoxically, thought not unexpectedly, the report ends up stating the that the solution is more drugs education in schools.. Just thought it may be worth flagging as it reminded me of your previous posts regarding sex education and its supposed 'benefits'.

        S. Coleman | 05 March 2015 at 09:36 PM

        I would not be alone here in welcoming PH's recognition of the importance of the role of the US. I think Brian Meredith also expressed this view.

        Michael Hudson (the American economist) expresses it up pithily: the US is saying to Europe, 'Let's you and Russia fight' and Europe in going along with this invitation is damaging her own vital interests.

        Edward Klimenko | 05 March 2015 at 08:31 PM

        The Ukrainian Parliament has already moved 'Defender of the Fatherland Day' to October 14th - the official founding date of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. If anybody thinks that this is a coincidence, they haven't been paying attention.

        This very Thursday the Parliament of Ukraine reached a milestone - honoring with a minute's silence the memory of UPA genocidaire Roman Shukhevich. I won't bother listing in detail the depravities that Shukhevich organised in his capacity as a UPA commander - suffice it to say that women and children were favourite targets, and blades were generally preferred to bullets - but those not familiar with the subject are encouraged to look it up. In particular, search the name 'Zygmunt Rumel' to find out what comes of trying to negotiate with Ukrainian nationalists.

        The only consolation is that the Maidan project is less a political movement than organised mental illness, and that failure is written in its DNA.

        [Mar 14, 2015] http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/14/hillary-clinton-arkansas-friends

        From comments (BradBenson -> maggie111 14 Mar 2015 11:55) : We should have a woman candidate, but not this one. She is a WAR CRIMINAL who has promised a more aggressive foreign policy than Obama who, by the way, started five new wars to add to Bush's two. You are dangerously naïve.
        Mar 14, 2015 | The Guardian

        foggy2 -> OperatorError 14 Mar 2015 14:13

        I think many Americans come here because usually the level of discussion is quite a bit higher than that found in most US newspapers.

        I come here to read what other people are thinking and try hard to digest what I find because by using that process I can learn and grow.

        Waughchild -> philipf 14 Mar 2015 14:10

        Couldn't agree more. When she said she came under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996, she retracted and said it was a mistake. Mistake!!!!! No, a total BS lie that she was so stupid that she thought she could get away with. She is power hungry like her husband. She doesn't have a feminist bone in her body.

        sfgirl42 14 Mar 2015 14:08

        Remember this?

        "After they were criticized for taking $190,000 worth of china, flatware, rugs, televisions, sofas and other gifts with them when they left (the White House), the Clintons announced last week that they would pay for $86,000 worth of gifts, or nearly half the amount.

        Their latest decision to send back $28,000 in gifts brings to $114,000 the value of items the Clintons have either decided to pay for or return." abc news 2/8/2001

        foggy2 -> Orance 14 Mar 2015 13:50

        I think corporate and bankster money is much more important to them than opinion polls. They can say one thing to appease people but in the end go with the monied interests.

        janvaneck 14 Mar 2015 13:41

        What you Brits do not realize is that Hillary can never prevail in a national election. It has nothing to do with talent, or campaign funds, or staff abilities, or anything else. It has to do with her behavior, which is so disgraceful that a hefty chunk of "democrat" voters will bolt.

        To understand the Hillary-antipathy phenomenon, I offer this little tidbit: Hillary was asked by some University to give a Commencement Address. For 40 minutes of speaking, she demanded a fee of $350,000. She also demanded to be ferried to and fro in a Gulfstream G-5; that is the ultimate top-of-the-line corporate jet, with intercontinental capabilities. She also demanded to be put up in a hotel - not some raggedy 4-star hotel, but only a 5-star hotel - and not is some "room," nor even a "suite," but only the "Presidential Suite." Then she demanded that a staff of courtiers be brought along and paid for, a chunk of these to be ferried out as advance men on First-class tickets (at least, not a private jet!), and then only so many photos were allowed, and so forth.

        The University caved in to this extortion, and hired the jet and the Presidential Suite and paid the outrageous fee. But the problem is that this tab, which all-in likely ran to some $750,000, meant that hundreds of students would not be receiving need scholarships. If you figure that even $2,000 would tip a needy student out of school, she with her arrogance and hubris shut down the education of some 400 students.

        She gets away with this self-absorbed behavior because she is "Hillary," and has figured out how to milk the system to put hefty chunks of coin into her purse. Plus, she confuses the G-5 with being "royalty." And she craves being pseudo-royalty. {Would Kate ever behave like this? No chance; the Princess has real class.] But the voters are wise to this, and they do not like this bad behavior in their leaders. She has so incensed even party stalwarts (not to even mention how Republicans froth at the mouth when anyone says "Hillary!") that she will end up shellacked.

        It reminds me of another badly-behaved politician, a fellow named John Ashcroft. He was running for Senator from Missouri, and as the fates would have it, his opponent was killed in a plane crash some five weeks before the election. There was no time window to put another candidate in there on the ballot, so the voters were faced with the choice of electing Ashcroft or a dead man. The voters chose the dead man - anybody but Ashcroft. Humiliated, he was awarded a Cabinet Post as a consolation prize (and went on to do a lot of damage, just as Hillary did in the State Department).

        Personally, I would vote for any identifiable road-kill carcass - skunk, gopher, opossum, whatever - before I would elect Hillary. Welcome to America, where we elect the dead. It is the ultimate "none of the above" voting line.

        Lucymarie 14 Mar 2015 13:38

        Hilary Clinton is such a hawk, that I offer the following version of the nursery rhyme:

        Pillory Hillary, mock,
        Our troops land on the dock.
        Our troops strike out,
        Throughout we're cursed,
        Pillory Hillary, mock.

        foggy2 -> BradBenson 14 Mar 2015 13:35

        I'm a woman and would like to at some point see a female candidate but I don't think it should come about strictly based on gender. The right woman will appear and this may or may not be the election. But nowhere is it written that a female president is going to be any better than a male.

        geronimo -> rustybeancake 14 Mar 2015 13:30


        Why do you think this only comes up as an issue for female candidates?

        I think that observation is plainly and simply wrong, however often Hillary claims that any attacks on her are 'because she's a women'. Disingenuous self-serving claptrap.

        Where should I start the list of male politicians with the same sociopathy? Well, for the sake of provocation let's take another opportunistic self-serving martyr and Grauniad darling in the news, Boris Nemtsov...

        http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n06/keith-gessen/remembering-boris-nemtsov?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3706&utm_content=ukrw_nonsubs&hq_e=el&hq_m=3661873&hq_l=11&hq_v=6833aad56c

        http://pando.com/2015/03/02/boris-nemtsov-death-of-a-russian-liberal/

        philipf 14 Mar 2015 13:43

        No matter how many words are written to try and humanise these people they are clearly sociopaths. Clinton, like her husband, is utterly shameless and without scruples. She is warmongering, lying scumbag without any genuine qualities.


        MBDifani 14 Mar 2015 12:50

        Hillary Clinton made a headline when she gave an address at Wellesley College in 1969 regarding the 'Nam war which I protested too at UC San Diego. I was in the army for five yrs. half of which was in W. Germany as a flight operations Sp5 at two helicopter bases. Our protest was not aimed at the trigger pullers, but the four star brass and civilian hawks such as Pres. LBJ and McNamara in the Pentagon. I am not for her as president...Jim Webb and Martin O'Malley in '16...not Joe Biden. Back in 2008 stand up comic Lewis Black ranted and raved about Clinton in the race vs. Obama. He wanted her to get out of the race, it's time for Barack Obama...on and on. Much applause from the audience.

        boscovee 14 Mar 2015 12:48

        Ah, the money must be finding the right pockets, this article is nothing but propaganda to foist this woman on the people, read the Clinton chronicles of ask the people of Arkansas about the Clinton's.

        george1la 14 Mar 2015 12:39

        This is exactly the personality type we do not need anymore. This is self destruction if she is elected. How about some sensible people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who are for the people not corporations and billionaires as the Clinton's have proven, by their actions, to be with Fascist inclinations as does Obama when looking at not what they say, but what they do. Are we more free and safe? Do you have more or less privacy? Is the world safer? Why is the U.S. backing Nazi Fascists in the Ukraine?

        WHO ARE WE REALLY AND WHO ARE THE LEADERS WE ELECT?

        hertsman 14 Mar 2015 12:39

        Why does this article not address the outright, provable lies she told when she ran against Obama and she was aggrandising her time in the White House ;

        1) Her claim to have landed at Sarajevo, dodging sniper-fire
        2) Her claim to have been instrumental in the Irish Peace process

        Appalling liar. Impossible to trust her a e-mail controversy shows.

        pwatson mizdarlin 14 Mar 2015 12:39

        She's just another ambitious careerist who voted for war

        chiefwiley -> Guruwho 14 Mar 2015 12:38

        There will be a constant stream of sycophantic articles laying the base, together with stinging, downright nasty articles on each and every opponent, questioning why they are not in jail. She will be shown as holding her own against terrible accusations, while Republicans will be portrayed as denying, deflecting, and deceiving. Even potential Democratic opponents will be measured and found wanting.

        It's all nonsense, of course, but the template is "history in the making," and history must be served. So they lower the bar for her and raise it for anybody else. She blatantly ignores public records and FOIA regulations --- no big deal. Christie, on the other hand, personally created a traffic jam and should be in jail for it.

        Put on the popcorn and get out the pompoms. In the Guardian, it's Hillary Time!

        flatulenceodor67 -> J.K. Stevens 14 Mar 2015 12:33

        "She was on a secured server and has already confirmed that security was not breached."

        What an ASININE statement believing a compulsive/corrupt KNOWN LIAR! I guess it takes one to know one.


        geronimo -> MurkyFogsFutureLogs 14 Mar 2015 12:31

        Indeed...

        Under the retiring editor, all politics seems to have been reduced to 'identity' politics. Forget about class, war, class war and so on... If it can't be reduced to Hillary's gender or Putin's, er... transcendental evil... then it's barely worth a comment above the line.

        As I've said before, for the Guardian 'the personal is the political' - or rather, for the Guardian as for Hillary, the political reduces to the personal.

        A marriage made, not so much in heaven, but somewhere in political-fashionista North London.

        Scuppie -> outsiderwithinsight 14 Mar 2015 12:18

        I've heard that Elizabeth Warren's IQ is somewhat greater than that of a cherry stone clam. Anyone who would willingly sign up as a US presidential candidate cannot be very high in the brain-power pecking order. Political party has nothing to do with it.

        xxxaaaxxx -> outsiderwithinsight 14 Mar 2015 12:17

        She hasn't much experience and lied about her background to get a place at Harvard. We had an inexperienced young politician in Obama and that has not worked out so well. Just because someone is a women does not mean they need to be elected. BTW I am a women but there has to be more qualifications then sex to get the job.

        consciouslyinformed -> outsiderwithinsight 14 Mar 2015 12:14

        Elizabeth Warren, has stated she is heavily invested in her current position, about which, she has great passion and rewards of her personal productivity, and recognises that the presidency is not the "goal," of one who knows what her current position provides her and the citizens of her state.

        Spanawaygal -> J.K. Stevens 14 Mar 2015 12:12

        She's not a computer tech and hasn't got a clue as to whether security was breached. If the hackers can invade gov't websites (wikileaks) and major corporations, it's not only possible but very likely that her security was breached.

        Roberta -> Hudlow Crewman 14 Mar 2015 12:06

        There is a political term that drives me crazy, "flip-flopped," Do we really prefer politicians who say, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up?' Or do we prefer someone who can review the facts of an issue and find that their own view is wrong and untenable? I change my mind in view of facts. Do we want thinkers of primitive robots? I say primitive, because even computers can re-analyze. Further, I understand that many Evangelicals have changed stance on Israel-Palestine.

        BradBenson -> maggie111 14 Mar 2015 11:55

        We should have a woman candidate, but not this one. She is a WAR CRIMINAL who has promised a more aggressive foreign policy than Obama who, by the way, started five new wars to add to Bush's two. You are dangerously naïve.

        [Mar 14, 2015] The women fighting on the frontline in Ukraine

        The Guardian is now hand-in-hand with "new east network." A somewhat disreputable amalgam of George Soros, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, National Endowment for Democracy and Radio Free Europe.
        It's hard to imagine anything it promotes is reliable, unbiased or credible. Best to read it with a sense of humour.
        Mar 06, 2015 | The Guardian

        CalvinTucker -> LesiaUkrainka 7 Mar 2015 13:30

        The ladies in the story use the word 'Nazi' about themselves. They paint the insignia on their vans. And you think they are "amazing" and "brave".

        musolen -> LesiaUkrainka 7 Mar 2015 09:17

        That's utter rubbish.

        If the West stopped playing global politics for financial gain and had the dignity to stick to pre agreed treaties regarding the expansion of NATO to Russian borders then peace would still be in Ukraine.

        This conflict was started by agitation of Neo-cons like Jon McCain 15 months ago and was a deliberate policy to destabilise the country. As has been successfully achieved. Just like it was in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc. It's the same policy. It's a war for profit
        .

        This, like every other war is not about the people, democracy or the good of the people. It's about power and money.

        CalvinTucker -> mikiencolor 7 Mar 2015 07:59

        They're not promoting them for goodness sake, they are simply recording their views for the benefit of readers.

        Following the storm of protest here, the Guardian has now folded and changed the caption from:

        'Anaconda says she is well treated by the men in her battalion, but is hoping that the war will end soon.'

        To a caption that closely resembles my suggestion: 'Anaconda alongside a van displaying the neo-Nazi symbol 1488. The volunteer brigade is known for its far-right links.'

        Bosula -> Kapusta 7 Mar 2015 02:58

        Yes. Don't you agree this symbolism on these Ukrainian uniforms is important?

        As for Russians there troopers maybe in East Ukraine. Most would appear to be volunteers but I don't know. No proof. if the Ukies could catch a Russian soldier posted to East Ukraine alive they would be worth their weight in gold in terms of publicity.

        The point is any army that wears fascist symbols is a worry - don't you think, seriously?

        jonsid -> RudolphS 6 Mar 2015 12:20

        The Guardian is now hand-in-hand with "new east network." A somewhat disreputable amalgam of George Soros, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, National Endowment for Democracy and Radio Free Europe.
        It's hard to imagine anything it promotes is reliable, unbiased or credible. Best to read it with a sense of humour.

        [Mar 13, 2015] Ukraine or the Rebels Who Won in Minsk The National Interest Blog by Nicolai N. Petro

        Rebels got a temporary pause from shelling and destruction of infrastructure. Everything else while Turchinov and Co sits in Kiev is wishful thinking. They are hell-bent on military victory.
        Notable quotes:
        "... Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk , Interior Minister Arsen Avakov , and the former speaker, now head of the National Security and Defense Party, Oleksandr Turchinov , are on record as committed to military victory in Donbass. ..."
        "... This concession by Kiev allowed the negotiations to proceed without getting bogged down in disputes over territory which, in any case, are supposed to be resolved by the Law on "Temporary status of local self-administration in certain regions of Donetsk and Luhansk oblast," commonly referred to as the Law on Special Status. ..."
        "... after full implementation of the peace plan.--[ which will never happen while turchinov an co sit in Kiev] ..."
        "... whether the sides are actually willing to withdraw to their respective demarcation lines. ..."
        "... broader question of President Poroshenko's ability to deliver on the promised constitutional reforms, ..."
        "... There is intense political infighting within the current parliamentary coalition and, at this point, it is hard to imagine a majority in the Rada agreeing to designate which territories fall within the Law of Special Status, and therefore where local elections under Ukrainian law ought to be held. Point Four of the "Package of Measures," however, stipulates that this must be done within thirty days, and this will be the first real test of the political feasibility of these accords. ..."
        "... Past evidence suggests that it will not. ..."
        "... n the willingness of the members of the Trilateral Contact Group to put direct pressure on their respective constituencies (the EU and United States on Kiev; Russia on Donbass) to abide by the political and economic portions of this agreement. ..."
        Feb 13, 2015 | nationalinterest.org
        Comparing the "Package of Measures to Ensure the Implementation of the Minsk Accords" to the Protocol Document submitted by the representatives of the Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples Republics, it is readily apparent that the document signed on February 12 is largely based on the rebels' proposals.

        The only omission worth noting is the absence of any mention of ending the military campaign in the East, which is referred to by Kiev as the Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO). This is understandable, since it is highly unlikely that such a measure could pass in the Ukrainian parliament, where several influential political actors, including Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk, Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, and the former speaker, now head of the National Security and Defense Party, Oleksandr Turchinov, are on record as committed to military victory in Donbass.

        The most significant rebel achievement was getting Kiev to recognize a second de facto demarcation of force line, and a withdrawal of forces to the maximum line of separation of forces, which will now be between 70 and 140 kilometers. This concession by Kiev allowed the negotiations to proceed without getting bogged down in disputes over territory which, in any case, are supposed to be resolved by the Law on "Temporary status of local self-administration in certain regions of Donetsk and Luhansk oblast," commonly referred to as the Law on Special Status.

        Yet, it should be noted that the proposals presented by the rebels in their Protocol Document made a number of significant concessions to Kiev at the very outset. Among these:

        • No mention of federalism or autonomy. The rebels even used Poroshenko's own term-"deep decentralization"-to define regional self -government.
        • No mention of language, cultural, or religious rights;
        • Specific dates for the withdrawal of forces, passage of the Law on Special Status, and passage of an amnesty law. These laws have already been passed by the parliament, just not signed into law and implemented;
        • The holding of internationally monitored local elections under Ukrainian law , specifically the Law on Special Status;
        • OSCE monitoring of border between Ukraine and Russia now under rebel control, after full implementation of the peace plan.--[ which will never happen while turchinov an co sit in Kiev]

        It so happens that language rights, a key issue in this conflict, were added into the notes in the Package of Measures, but they were already mentioned in the Law on Special Status.

        Thus, one might say that, while the latest accords follow the blueprint laid out by the rebels, that blueprint was already quite favorable to Kiev. Angela Merkel suggests that this was due, at least in part, to Putin's pressure on the rebels.

        The most vexing issue that now remains is whether the sides are actually willing to withdraw to their respective demarcation lines. Power abhors a vacuum, and, frankly, it is surprising that some sort of external peacekeeping forces were not a part of this agreement. Their absence is clearly a weak point, since the implementation of the original Minks accords broke down almost immediately because of the unwillingness of the parties to disengage.

        Second, there is the broader question of President Poroshenko's ability to deliver on the promised constitutional reforms, which involve decentralization and special status for these regions. In fact, his foreign minister already appears to be walking away from this crucial commitment.

        There is intense political infighting within the current parliamentary coalition and, at this point, it is hard to imagine a majority in the Rada agreeing to designate which territories fall within the Law of Special Status, and therefore where local elections under Ukrainian law ought to be held. Point Four of the "Package of Measures," however, stipulates that this must be done within thirty days, and this will be the first real test of the political feasibility of these accords.

        Will this new agreement prove to be the long awaited road map to peace in Ukraine? Past evidence suggests that it will not. The willingness of the conflicting parties-Kiev and Donbass-to reach a settlement is still absent. The key to success lies, first, in placing a peacekeeping buffer force on the ground between the two armies; and second, in the willingness of the members of the Trilateral Contact Group to put direct pressure on their respective constituencies (the EU and United States on Kiev; Russia on Donbass) to abide by the political and economic portions of this agreement.

        [Mar 13, 2015] Ukraine or the Rebels Who Won in Minsk The National Interest Blog by Nicolai N. Petro

        Rebels got a temporary pause from shelling and destruction of infrastructure. Everything else while Turchinov and Co sits in Kiev is wishful thinking. They are hell-bent on military victory.
        Notable quotes:
        "... Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk , Interior Minister Arsen Avakov , and the former speaker, now head of the National Security and Defense Party, Oleksandr Turchinov , are on record as committed to military victory in Donbass. ..."
        "... This concession by Kiev allowed the negotiations to proceed without getting bogged down in disputes over territory which, in any case, are supposed to be resolved by the Law on "Temporary status of local self-administration in certain regions of Donetsk and Luhansk oblast," commonly referred to as the Law on Special Status. ..."
        "... after full implementation of the peace plan.--[ which will never happen while turchinov an co sit in Kiev] ..."
        "... whether the sides are actually willing to withdraw to their respective demarcation lines. ..."
        "... broader question of President Poroshenko's ability to deliver on the promised constitutional reforms, ..."
        "... There is intense political infighting within the current parliamentary coalition and, at this point, it is hard to imagine a majority in the Rada agreeing to designate which territories fall within the Law of Special Status, and therefore where local elections under Ukrainian law ought to be held. Point Four of the "Package of Measures," however, stipulates that this must be done within thirty days, and this will be the first real test of the political feasibility of these accords. ..."
        "... Past evidence suggests that it will not. ..."
        "... n the willingness of the members of the Trilateral Contact Group to put direct pressure on their respective constituencies (the EU and United States on Kiev; Russia on Donbass) to abide by the political and economic portions of this agreement. ..."
        Feb 13, 2015 | nationalinterest.org
        Comparing the "Package of Measures to Ensure the Implementation of the Minsk Accords" to the Protocol Document submitted by the representatives of the Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples Republics, it is readily apparent that the document signed on February 12 is largely based on the rebels' proposals.

        The only omission worth noting is the absence of any mention of ending the military campaign in the East, which is referred to by Kiev as the Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO). This is understandable, since it is highly unlikely that such a measure could pass in the Ukrainian parliament, where several influential political actors, including Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk, Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, and the former speaker, now head of the National Security and Defense Party, Oleksandr Turchinov, are on record as committed to military victory in Donbass.

        The most significant rebel achievement was getting Kiev to recognize a second de facto demarcation of force line, and a withdrawal of forces to the maximum line of separation of forces, which will now be between 70 and 140 kilometers. This concession by Kiev allowed the negotiations to proceed without getting bogged down in disputes over territory which, in any case, are supposed to be resolved by the Law on "Temporary status of local self-administration in certain regions of Donetsk and Luhansk oblast," commonly referred to as the Law on Special Status.

        Yet, it should be noted that the proposals presented by the rebels in their Protocol Document made a number of significant concessions to Kiev at the very outset. Among these:

        • No mention of federalism or autonomy. The rebels even used Poroshenko's own term-"deep decentralization"-to define regional self -government.
        • No mention of language, cultural, or religious rights;
        • Specific dates for the withdrawal of forces, passage of the Law on Special Status, and passage of an amnesty law. These laws have already been passed by the parliament, just not signed into law and implemented;
        • The holding of internationally monitored local elections under Ukrainian law , specifically the Law on Special Status;
        • OSCE monitoring of border between Ukraine and Russia now under rebel control, after full implementation of the peace plan.--[ which will never happen while turchinov an co sit in Kiev]

        It so happens that language rights, a key issue in this conflict, were added into the notes in the Package of Measures, but they were already mentioned in the Law on Special Status.

        Thus, one might say that, while the latest accords follow the blueprint laid out by the rebels, that blueprint was already quite favorable to Kiev. Angela Merkel suggests that this was due, at least in part, to Putin's pressure on the rebels.

        The most vexing issue that now remains is whether the sides are actually willing to withdraw to their respective demarcation lines. Power abhors a vacuum, and, frankly, it is surprising that some sort of external peacekeeping forces were not a part of this agreement. Their absence is clearly a weak point, since the implementation of the original Minks accords broke down almost immediately because of the unwillingness of the parties to disengage.

        Second, there is the broader question of President Poroshenko's ability to deliver on the promised constitutional reforms, which involve decentralization and special status for these regions. In fact, his foreign minister already appears to be walking away from this crucial commitment.

        There is intense political infighting within the current parliamentary coalition and, at this point, it is hard to imagine a majority in the Rada agreeing to designate which territories fall within the Law of Special Status, and therefore where local elections under Ukrainian law ought to be held. Point Four of the "Package of Measures," however, stipulates that this must be done within thirty days, and this will be the first real test of the political feasibility of these accords.

        Will this new agreement prove to be the long awaited road map to peace in Ukraine? Past evidence suggests that it will not. The willingness of the conflicting parties-Kiev and Donbass-to reach a settlement is still absent. The key to success lies, first, in placing a peacekeeping buffer force on the ground between the two armies; and second, in the willingness of the members of the Trilateral Contact Group to put direct pressure on their respective constituencies (the EU and United States on Kiev; Russia on Donbass) to abide by the political and economic portions of this agreement.

        [Mar 13, 2015] Europe's Desperate Hail Mary to Save Ukraine by Nikolas K. Gvosdev

        February 13, 2015 | The National Interest
        Left unaddressed in the Minsk talks, of course, are U.S. proposals to begin training and equipping Ukrainian government forces. The United States did not take part in the Minsk process, and while the cease-fire may be cautiously welcomed, it will not diminish the momentum, particularly on Capitol Hill, for shipping arms to Ukraine. The separatists cannot be unmindful of the Croatian precedent, where a long-term program to strengthen the Croatian military facilitated the operation that destroyed the Serbian separatist entity in eastern Croatia. Already some separatists are grumbling that Ukraine is not committed to a settlement, but will use the time to strengthen its forces and go back on the offensive later this year. Those suspicions, in turn, may cause them to be less than thorough in their own observation of the agreement's provisions. The Germans and the French hope that the accord will cause Washington to put its plans on hold.

        And what does Vladimir Putin hope to gain? All the reports suggest that Putin put enormous pressure on the separatists to accept the deal. In turn, he may be expecting that once the cease-fire takes hold, the Europeans will move on sanctions relief. But if that is not forthcoming, what will be his continuing commitment to the agreement? Also left unaddressed are Russian demands for the "neutralization" of Ukraine. The deal as currently structured would not give the eastern regions veto power over Ukraine's foreign policy.

        The Minsk deal appears to be the last hope for any sort of a political settlement. If this agreement breaks down-and it has many vulnerabilities-there will not be a fourth attempt. We will see if all sides have the political will to make it work.

        Nikolas Gvosdev, a professor of national security studies and a contributing editor at The National Interest, is co-author of Russian Foreign Policy: Vectors, Sectors and Interests (CQ Press, 2013). The views expressed here are his own.

        Image: Wikimedia Commons/Mstyslav Chernov/CC by-sa 3.0

        [Mar 13, 2015] The Most Outlandish Empire Semantics

        Looks like the US elite decided that it's time for regime change in Venezuela
        Mar 13, 2015 | moonofalabama.org

        The government of the Unites States (GDP US$ 16,768,100 million) declares that the situation in Venezuela (GDP US$ 371,339 million):

        ... constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States

        This, the White House says, requires to:

        ... declare a national emergency to deal with that threat

        "Why," ask the Venezuelans, including the U.S. sponsored opposition, "do you think we are an unusual and extraordinary threat which requires you to declare a national emergency?

        "We do not believe for a moment that you are an unusual and extraordinary threat which requires us to declare a national emergency", is the answer:

        Officials in Washington said that declaring Venezuela a national security threat was largely a formality.

        "A formality?" ask Venezuelans. "Why is it a formality to see us as an unusual and extraordinary threat to your national security? That does not make sense. What's next? Will it be a simply a formality to kill us?"

        "It is formality needed to be able to sanction some of your government officials," an anonymous U.S. senior official explains. "To do so the law requires that we declare you to be an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security which requires us to declare a national emergency."

        "But we ain't no such threat. You yourself says so. So why would you sanction our officials when you yourself say that there is no real basis for this? On what legal grounds are you acting? Why these sanctions?"

        "Because the the situation in Venezuela ... constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States which requires us to declare a national emergency to deal with that threat."

        "That is like declaring war on us. That does not make sense".

        "Well, it's just a formality."

        ---

        On might have hoped that the above would be the "most outlandish" nonsense the U.S. government could produce. But that is not yet the case.

        The Venezuelan President Maduro responded in the National Assembly:

        "The aggression and the threat of the government of the United States is the greatest threat that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, our country, has ever received," he said to applause, [...] "Let's close ranks like a single fist of men and women. We want peace."

        He spoke of past American military interventions in Latin America and warned that the United States was preparing an invasion and a naval blockade of Venezuela.

        "For human rights, they are preparing to invade us," he said, ...

        During the last 125 years the U.S. intervened in South America at least 56 times through military or intelligence operations. This ever intervening country is the same country that just declared Venezuela to be an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States that requires to declare a national emergency.

        It is certainly not outlandish for Maduro to believe that such a declaration will be followed by one of those continued interventions. Especially not when disguised U.S. officials travel around Venezuela and distribute money to opposition parties. Maduro is not alone in seeing the threat of another U.S. intervention. All South American nations have condemned the U.S. declaration and even pro-American opposition politicians in Venezuela were outraged about it.

        But for the ever anonymous U.S. officials it is the victim of their outlandish exaggerations that doth protest too much:

        "It's remarkable that the [Venezuelan] government can say the most outlandish things about the U.S. government - what is this, the 16th or 17th coup attempt that we're doing? And now we're invading?" the official said. "The shelf life of all of these accusations is what, a day or two? Even the dullest of media consumers is going to see that there is no invasion."

        Noting the U.S. doublespeak in this whole affair it advise to be very careful in believing that "there is no invasion" claim.

        Posted by b on March 12, 2015 at 11:01 AM | Permalink

        nmb | Mar 12, 2015 11:31:02 AM | 1

        Venezuela: A plan for coup d'état and assassination of Maduro

        Wayoutwest | Mar 12, 2015 12:09:23 PM | 2

        I doubt the US is going to be invading or blockading Venezuela any time soon. This asinine proclamation was necessary for the increased sanctions the US has imposed and it is definitely a ratcheting-up of pressure and intimidation. It also appears to be designed to cause the Maduro government to overreact and institute decisions that can be demonized as harsh and undemocratic.

        I hope the people of Venezuela and the other progressive countries of SA are ready and willing to really confront these aggressive US moves.

        Dan | Mar 12, 2015 12:20:15 PM | 3

        The current government of Venezuela is a clear threat to the financial interests of the oligarchs who control the US government.

        Wayoutwest | Mar 12, 2015 1:26:51 PM | 11

        For me the most interesting part of the US proclamation was not the National Security threat but the claim of a threat to US Foreign Policy. This illustrates the power of the Bolivarian Revolution to sever much of SA from US dominance and the level of US Ruling Class fear because of their diminishing power and influence worldwide.

        Some Guy | Mar 12, 2015 3:02:11 PM | 16

        Ah yes. The old tried and true "making the economy scream" in preparation for a coup ploy. Venezuela has held out so far but I have confidence in The Empire®. Their psychopathic persistence should be able to turn that country into what Guatemala, El Salvador and Colombia are--a chamber of fucking horrors.
        Piotr Berman | Mar 12, 2015 3:50:30 PM | 17
        As a geography Nazi, I would insists that the list that was linked showed only four cases of interventions in South America. Indeed, interventions in Central America and Caribbean are dime a dozen, and probably the count was partial, South America is more distant and the countries are a bit too large for open interventions. Diplomacy was almost always friendly to non-leftist military regimes or death squads, but a direct engagement like coordination of the attempt to depose Chavez by military means were rare.

        For some reason, it is almost 15 years that Jihad was declared in USA against Venezuela, and formal fatwa proclaimed on TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DykgMyTjWU4 (this video was from 2009, when Rev. Robertson wonder why Chavez was not assassinated yet). Since USA is a democracy, and the people are Christian, it is a duty of the government to follow the will of the Christian folks and at least attempt to execute fatwas of Christian clerics. However, I do not know enough about Robertson's Christianity to figure out how the fatwa came about.

        diogenes | Mar 12, 2015 4:04:41 PM | 19
        According to a link from the website of TeleSUR, a Venezuelan television station, on Feb. 28, 2015 an employee of NED (ie American agent) travelled to Venezuela for a secret meeting with opposition figures (ie bought and paid for greedy foreign stooges) to settle an argument about the distribution of millions of dollars previously contributed by NED.

        The agent used a forged or stolen passport in a false name, and disguised her appearance to match with the photo in the passport; and travelled to the meeting in a vehicle with forged or stolen plates.

        This agent, whose real name is Sarah Kornblith, a few months previously had written an article in NED's "scholarly journal" denouncing the Chavez and Maduro regimes and also:

        "lauding the political arrangement that existed in Venezuela before Chavez. Known as the Punto Fijo Pact, under that system, two traditional parties would alternate in power, deliberately excluding the voices of Venezuela's poor majority."

        You mean like Democrats and Republicans? You can't make this stuff up!

        http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/NED-Official-Meets-With-Venezuelan-Opposition-Figures-20150312-0007.html

        lysias | Mar 12, 2015 5:43:03 PM | 22

        I'm just now reading a book about Gen. Vernon Walters, Der Drahtzieher: Vernon Walters -- Ein Geheimdienstgeneral des Kalten Krieges, by Klaus Eichner and Ernst Langrock, which details all the coups and secret chicanery that general was involved in, both in Latin America and in Europe.

        Posted by: ToivoS | Mar 12, 2015 11:40:14 PM | 29

        In 2002 I thought Chavez was toast. Given the last century of US intervention in South America it seemed obvious that Chavez would be over thrown by the US. But then the war in Iraq went very badly. The US was was distracted and had to focus its energy on the Iraq war. Chavez was spared the focus of US imperialism. For some time I thought the silver lining in the failed US war in Iraq was that it distracted our interests away from South America. This permitted a number of Latin American countries to drift away from US influence, not just Venezuela but also Bolivia and Nicaragua and some of the other countries elected left wing governments.

        The US has spent the last century trying to prevent governments arising that actually represent all of the people and not just the upper middle classes that are eager to please US corporations. I think what we are seeing today is that the US is now refocusing on South America and are willing to devote resources towards removing those governments that have arisen that attempt to represent the poor and not just the bourgeois elements. This has been happening over the last few years. In Obama's first few years he threw his support (behind the scenes as it developed) behind the Honduran upper classes that removed the popularly elected government of Manunel Zelaya.

        In any case, I think the Manuela government in Venezuela is going to be deposed through US intervention and next will be the government in Bolivia. And there is little that the rest of world can do to stop it. After all, the Monroe Doctrine has given the US that right and there is no outside force that can stop us unless they are willing to engage in nuclear war.

        However, the more the US flexes its muscle in Latin America, the less effective it will be in pushing its policies in Ukraine and towards the 'pivot to Asia' that was supposed to be one of Obama's signature policies. And this is not to mention Obama's efforts for more war in Iraq and Syria. So to the extent that Venezuela might suffer today other parts of the world will be provided some respite from US attention. The US is thoroughly over committed.

        [Mar 12, 2015] Eurosceptics playing into Vladimir Putin's hands, says Labour

        Mar 12, 2015 | The Guardian

        ID5868758 12 Mar 2015 00:49

        I often wonder what the Middle East would look like today had the advice of that "evil Putin" been followed by the "exceptional Americans" and their allies. He was opposed to the war in Iraq. He was opposed to the attacks on Ghaddafi and Liibya, but overruled by Medvedev, who was president at the time. And of course he was against the US and their obsessive campaign against secular Assad and Syria.

        But somehow we are supposed to believe that this man is the danger in the world, that everything would be fine and dandy if we could just get rid of Putin? Please.

        Me109BfG6 11 Mar 2015 19:58

        Stop better the mad house of s.c. "Ukraine". Until you can't find it on a map, you can't argue anything. I personally know a brigade of house constructors of 6 persons, of which 2 are Ukrainians and who have procured their passports somewhere is the Baltics for money. Now, do realize how you would once have to notice those 45 M Ukrainians standing on all street crossings in the UK and in the EU as well while beggaring. Yes, do realize that instead of any abstract demagogy and propaganda insulting Russia and Putin along with all the Russians in the s.c. "Ukraine". Stop the Nazis over there instead. The West Ukraine will elong to the Poland. The East Ukraine will belong to Russia or remain independent in order to speak freely Russian instead of that South Russian dialect called "Ukrainian" which is spoken - to the Forbes - by some 17% of the whole population in Ukraine only.

        T_Wallet 11 Mar 2015 18:46

        This article is nonsense. If there was no such thing as NATO then maybe it would have a credible point.

        The EU is about as Democratic as Russia. Both want, like US and China, to extend their spheres of influence. Empires by other names.

        JoseArmando0 -> psygone 11 Mar 2015 01:24

        Money money money only thing yanks understand cant take it with you in the end anyway poetic justice

        HARPhilby -> jezzam 11 Mar 2015 16:04

        Rockefeller and JP Morgan financed hitler in 1929, 1931 and 1933. Read free pamphlet HITLER'S SECRET BACKERS by Sidney Warberg which came out in Holland in 1933 and was suppressed after 4 days.

        http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/Warburg_Hitler's%20Secret%20Backers.pdf

        vr13vr -> Damocles59 11 Mar 2015 14:31

        UN chapter or not, but not everything in life is done according to legal interpretations. It's shouldn't be about bunch of lawyers arguing about legalese, it's about 10 million people. Why does UN chapter give more rights to 1.5 million people in Lithuania than to 10 million people in Donbass and South Ukraine?

        It's about principles, not about legalese.

        irishmand -> psygone 11 Mar 2015 11:11

        The largest trading partners of both China and India: the EU and the US.

        But not the exclusive partners. India and China will continue to trade with everybody. They are making honest money and don't care about US ambitions for world domination and its bad habit of toppling governments.

        Don't take me wrong, I don't hate americans. The most of you are just brain washed regular citizens. It is not your fault, except for what you allowed your government to do with your school system. But I also see the extremism is growing in american society and that is the result of people being told about how exceptional they are comparing to the rest of the world. Germans started the same way in 30's...

        anewdawn 11 Mar 2015 10:19

        Listen to the Victoria Nuland tapes.
        Other evidence that the Ukraine is a US military coup

        And more from the Guardian.

        Russian aggression from the Blairites is about as believeable as Iraqs weapons of mass distraction.
        I am a Labour supporter - I feel ashamed of them. They should be kicked out just like militant was - and for much better reasons - lies and war criminality. The Libdems and Tories are no better.

        Ross Vassilev -> jezzam 11 Mar 2015 09:56

        Jezzam, you're either an idiot or a liar. NO ONE in the US wants a war with Russia except the neo-cons in Washington. And the dismembering of Serbia is proof that not all countries are entitled to territorial integrity, including Ukraine.

        Ross Vassilev jezzam 11 Mar 2015 09:52

        At least Russia is only invading neighboring countries. There's hardly a country in the world the US hasn't bombed or invaded.


        Калинин Юрий Bosula 11 Mar 2015 09:22

        The guys there always need somebody to blame. They have to justify their existence by pointing their fingers to an enemy. The enemy unites the nation and you can sell to this nation all kind of junk as a needed stuff to fight this enemy.

        People love to believe is some mystic junk - invisible Russian threat, coup theory of communists in Moscow against Washington DC, etc.


        igoraki Sceptical Walker 11 Mar 2015 08:14

        Would like to recommend you a book to read, "L'Europe est morte à Pristina" by Jacques Hogard.You can learn a lot about all the good West and NATO did on Kosova and also you will see how the Albanians treated Serbs once our army retreated from Kosova.


        madeiranlotuseater jezzam 11 Mar 2015 08:03

        I am NOT a Kremlin supporter. The corruption sponsored by the state at home in Russia is appalling.
        That is not my point. The USA has intervened in countless countries since the end of WW2. The problems in Ukraine are of the USA's making. It hasn't gone well for you. Europe (apart from Desperate Dave) doesn't want to use your hawkish methods to achieve a solution. How lovely of you to believe that you can have a war in our back yard. People such as Merkel and Hollande almost certainly did not get it okayed by your lot. More probably they told you how is was going to be, so get used to it.

        America believes that killing people is the answer to find peace. It isn't.


        Babeouf 11 Mar 2015 07:26

        Well who would have guessed it the the Labour Party doesn't recognize US imperialism anywhere on planet earth. And if Labour form a government and the US/Iran negotiations fail they will happily join the next US coalition of the Shilling. On the substantive point apparently the I.MF won't loan Ukraine the billions of Euros unless the truce holds together. Now that really does help Vlad'the West is led by US sycophants and outright morons' Putin. But so has the entire US coup in Ukraine. There certainly is some Russian agent helping to formulate US State Department policy.


        Orangutango 11 Mar 2015 07:14

        It is utterly incoherent for our prime minister to call for tougher European action against President Putin in one breath and then threaten to leave the EU in the next. Security is the unspoken dimension of this European debate.

        "This is no time for democratic nations to consider breaking from their allies. While Eurosceptics crave the breaking of ties to the EU, the security situation demands common action and resolve."


        The Origin of the 'New Cold War'


        http://rinf.com/alt-news/featured/origin-new-cold-war/

        Eric Zuesse


        decaston 11 Mar 2015 04:57

        Euroscepticism (sometimes Euroscepticism or Anti-EUism) is the body of criticism of the European Union (EU), and opposition to the process of political European integration, existing throughout the political spectrum.
        A survey in 2012, conducted by TNS Opinion and Social on behalf of the European Commission, showed that, for the European Union overall, those who think that their country's interests are looked after well in the EU are now in a minority (42%) About 31% of EU citizens tend to trust the European Union as an institution, and about 60% do not tend to trust it. Trust in the EU has fallen from a high of 57% in 2007 to 31% in 2012, while trust in national governments has fallen from 43% in 2007 to 28% in 2012.
        Trust in the EU is lowest in the United Kingdom (16% trust, 75% distrust)

        Spain is ranked the second most distrustful of the European Union, making it one of the three most Eurosceptic countries in the EU, along with the UK and Greece. 72 per cent of the Spanish people do not trust the EU, comparing to only 23% that trust this Union.
        Portugal is the 8th most eurosceptic country in the European Union (not counting with Croatia) as shown by the "The Continent-wide rise of Euroscepticism", with 58% of the people tending not to trust the EU, behind Greece (81%), Spain (72%), UK (75%), Cyprus (64%), Sweden (62%), Czech Republic (60%) and Germany (59%).[57] The Eurosceptic parties currently hold 24 out of 230 seats in the parliament. The Euroscepticism of the left wing prevails in Portugal.
        The Irish people voted no to initial referendums on both the Nice and Lisbon Treaties. There were second referendums held on both of these issues, and it was then, following renegotiations that the votes were swayed in favour of the respective 'Yes' campaigns.
        In relation to both the Nice and Lisbon treaties, the decision to force second referendums has been the subject of much scrutiny and widespread criticism. It is claimed that rejection of the Irish peoples decision to vote no stands testament to the European Union's lack of regard for democracy and lack of regard for the right of people of nation states to decide their futures.
        In Italy The Five Star Movement (M5S), an 25.5% of vote in the 2013 general election, becoming the largest anti-establishment and Eurosceptic party in Europe. The party also in 2013 the party was particularly strong in Sicily, Liguria and Marche, where it gained more than 30% of the vote.
        In France in the European Parliament election, 2014, the National Front won the elections with 24.85% of the vote, a swing of 18.55%, winning 24 seats, up from 3 previously.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euroscepticism


        Ilja NB Tom20000 11 Mar 2015 03:32

        You can't even clean up your own mess ( Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, former Yougoslavia ).


        Parangaricurimicuaro PlatonKuzin 11 Mar 2015 03:28

        Victoria Nuland is looking for a way out for her and her politics (save face). She realizes that Europe is not happy with the way that the State Department hijacked the whole Ukrainian crisis


        Budanevey 11 Mar 2015 03:22

        The emergence of Redneck Labour is one of the genuine mysteries of our politics that historians will one day ponder, a Party that adopted American Sub Prime finance, State Department Foreign Policy, neo-liberal corporatism, neo-con wars, NSA total surveillance, waterboarding, secret prisons, secret justice, indefinite detention, Anglophobia, TTIP and a de facto Eurodollar, and now the fear tactics of Commies and Terrorists everywhere to keep us servile to the interests of Washington and their agenda for an expanding US empire via a cloned United States of Europe, fears that were similarly misused during the Cold War when the American umbrella was first being used to envelop us.

        Didn't Labour learn anything from WW2 when we went to war to protect Polish independence, only to have Washington give it to Stalin, along with the rest of Eastern Europe, and then surrender our own commonwealth and independence to Washington's creature in Brussels? Who is pulling the strings when we see demands for the UK to subordinate its interests to EU expansion in the East, just as we see northern Eurozone interests being compromised to keep hold of southern Europe - Washington.

        The largest country on Earth, Russia, has long been a sub prime performer because of its own extreme history of imperialism and arbitrary government, which makes it an investors' nightmare and a paradise for corporate, criminal and political gangsterism preying on its long-suffering people and their unfortunate neighbours. The Yeltsin Privatisation era following the White Revolution compounded the problem by making new oligarchies and dubious billionaires, leading to the latest twist in Putinism.

        The answer to these differing examples and extremes of imperialism is not to join in new imperialisms, but to re-assert the value of honesty and accountability in business, government, the rule of law, and international relations. Redneck Labour has completely lost the plot.

        madeiranlotuseater 11 Mar 2015 03:21

        Soap Box Dave really believes he can hold onto power by scaring Europe into believing there is a threat from Russia. Past UK Premiers have done well with wars, Maggie, John and Tony all got re-elected. But Dave pitched for free flights on Air Force One and sucking up to POTUS whilst many of us felt that the whole game plan in Ukraine was of the CIA making. Poke the Bear enough and you will get a response. Germany and France saw through this and quickly side lined Davy and Kerry. Result: Dave, at a stroke, has reduced Britain's influence in the world to little more than not a lot.

        elias_ 11 Mar 2015 02:19

        All organisations are judged on the results of their actions. In the court of world opinion we can apply this logic to states. So let's see:
        1. Iraq. We lied, killed a million people and now it is haven for Isis.
        2. Libya. Far far worse now than under gadafi.
        3. Syria. We wanted war but putin stopped it.
        4. Egypt. Worse now than when we intervened.
        5. Ukraine. Supporting neocon Victoria f*** the EU nuland doing violent regime change on Russia's borders and expecting Russia to sit idly by. Yes the protests were about oligarchy but then got hijacked by hired goons without which power would have transitioned peacefully.

        Q. Is it any wonder we are losing credibility outside the west? Especially as many of these actions went without UN approval.


        Peter Schmidt UncleSam404 11 Mar 2015 02:14

        There is no British 'foreign policy'. They do as the US says.


        irishmand jezzam 11 Mar 2015 02:13

        Proof that Putin planned to annex Crimea and invade E Ukraine before Yanukovych was deposed.

        Who said it is truth, it is propaganda, I don't believe a word of this bull.... The western media lied so many times, there is no credibility.


        irishmand SystemD 11 Mar 2015 02:10

        One might ask you for proof of CIA plots, except that there is none. Are you prepared to provide the same standard of proof of your allegations that you demand of others?

        One might. We got Crimea, that's right. And Russia is helping the rebels. Well, US is helping the nazies in Kiev, so to make the chances equal...
        Now, CIA What was CIA director doing when he was secretly visiting Ukraine? A vacation... And those CIA operatives in Kiev Speigel wrote about? A vacation...


        Калинин Юрий jezzam 11 Mar 2015 01:48

        Putin sending his troops to Ukraine? Then you know way much more then CIA, MI-5, Mossad, etc all together. Finally all these countries do not have to spent billions on the intelligence since you alone do all the job and have all the possible evidences to present to the world.

        By the way yesterday the Russian troops used secret space waves on the drivers in Ukraine so 2 of British old APC's are out of service and in a ditch outside the road. This is the proof of the Russian regular army and thousands of dead Russian soldiers as well as billions of wounded in the Russian hospitals. Russia sends trains to Donetsk to take out all of them and OSCE at the border crossing station inspect them together with the Ukranian customs. Those, that have no chances to escape are captured by the Ukranian army and been exchanged for the Ukranian soldiers in front of hundreds of journalists. Anyway, Russian army is the most invisible army in the world.


        Goodthanx 11 Mar 2015 01:20

        According to McFadden, are we to presume that like NATO, one of the EU functions was/is the 'containment' of Russia?

        A sign of EU immaturity is that member countries cant voice independent views and questions of sovereignty, without the scaremongers reducing their arguments to todays bogey man, Putin.


        irishmand jezzam 10 Mar 2015 23:43

        What you say is entirely true, To Kremlin supporters though, facts don't have any objective reality. They believe that facts are simply tools in the propaganda campaign. Thus in their eyes inventing "facts" is perfectly OK. They believe that the West does it as well - the depth of cynicism in Russia is hard to fathom.

        What facts were invented?
        ultra right coup in Kiev supported by US
        bombardments of Donbass civilians by Kiev
        relentless russophobic campaign in US and EU
        Nuland saying F...the EU
        Nazi elements in the Ukranian government
        Crime voting to join Russia


        BorninUkraine irishmand 10 Mar 2015 23:36

        The objective of current US propaganda campaign is to prevent EU and Russia from cooperating to the point of creating a credible US competitor. As you could have noticed, this BS for European consumption works admirably: Europe just lost its last chance of becoming something of consequence.


        irishmand MentalToo 10 Mar 2015 22:50

        It is only an expense to Russia preventing other urgent investments to improve living conditions of the people in Russia. Russian leaders urgently needs to realize cooperation based on mutual respect of both sovereignty of nations as well as civil rights of individuals is the only way to improve relations to Europeans countries. Trying to use military force either directly or by coercion harms Russia more than anything. Russia is not in a competition to win over it neighbor states. Russia's mission is to win over it's own past through gaining trust of it's neighbors by peaceful cooperation.

        It is a declaration of good will, which, unfortunately, is not supported by any actions in reality.
        What have US/EU did recently:

        • organized a coup in Ukraine,
        • imposed sanctions,
        • unleashed shameless wild russophobic propaganda campaign in the media,
        • issued countless insults about Russians and their President.

        Where is the mutual respect you are talking so much about? Where is your freedom of speech?
        How can Russians trust you when you behave like bunch of liars and bullies, threatening to destroy Russia and celebrating every time something bad happens in Russia?
        To get respect from Russia you have to show your respect too.
        What saved Russia from american/NATO invasion? The very same army and the nuclear weapons. If it wouldn't be for them, americans would attack 6-8 months ago.
        So, before you start teaching Russia manners turn around and look in the mirror of your society. You are not a democracy anymore. You became a bunch of power drunk, profit greedy warmongers who only understand "I want" and ready to sacrifice other people's lives in other countries for your personal well being.

        [Mar 12, 2015] This Is a Declaration of War by Bruce K. Gagnon

        March 12, 2015 | informationclearinghouse

        At times I feel completely overwhelmed by the current US-NATO military operations aimed at Russia. It's growing rapidly - one can't help but wonder if the recent 'victory' of the self-defensive forces in eastern Ukraine wasn't allowed by Washington and Kiev as a way to get public opinion behind the already well established plans for even more NATO escalation.

        It's all just far too neat and tidy to be seen otherwise. This is not a conspiracy but a well designed military plan to take down Moscow. They are playing with fire. In some respects the 'project' is now impossible to stop. The question for the moment is how long will this attack on Russia go on and what level of conflict will result? Will it go nuclear? If so the world is fucked.

        The Pentagon role now is to send legions of NATO trainers into Ukraine to "push Kiev's [reluctant] troops forward" in order to "deter Russian aggression." It's a long term military operation that is going to be exceedingly expensive. It's got to be sold to the American people and folks throughout Europe. In order to make this public relations campaign successful the perpetrators have to flip the switch - turn the story ass backwards - blame the other side for doing what US-NATO are in fact doing.

        The source of the aggression is quite clear to me. US-NATO are all over Russia's border. I learned today that the current right-wing Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves grew up in New Jersey and went to Columbia University. It's funny how the US is able to continually put their agents into office in key nations around the world.

        Go back to post WW II and note how fascist Syngman Rhee lived in the US and was then put in power in South Korea to ensure Washington's control. Recall the many fascist dictators that the US repeatedly put in place in Vietnam, Iran, Indonesia and throughout Latin America and the African continent. It's called good corporate planning.

        More recently in 2008 we saw Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili (also trained in the US at George Washington University) launch an attack on Russian speaking republics South Ossetia and Abkhazia along Russia's border. Russia responded to the Georgian military strike against the people there by counter-attacking Georgia. The fighting took place in the strategically important Transcaucasia region which borders the Middle East.

        I'll never forget watching the first US politician to arrive in Georgia after the 2008 shooting war subsided. It was then Sen. Joe Biden who made that visit, just months before being selected as Obama's running mate. Biden came back slinging much anti-Russian rhetoric and most importantly threatened Russia with dire consequences if it did not do as instructed by Washington and Brussels. Biden of course also led the effort in the Senate to send more weapons and US military 'trainers' to Georgia. So this is all a familiar story.

        Just this morning NPR (National Public Radio) had an interview with a Russian woman who 'fingered' Putin as the one who called for the killing of Boris Nemtsov this past weekend in Moscow. It's all so damn convenient - the pieces just keep tumbling into place as the case is made for war with Russia in order to contain the 'evil Putin'. Can you see Manuel Noriega (Panama), Saddam Hussein (Iraq), and Muammar Qaddafi (Libya) all over again? It's a tried and true twisting of the truth in order to set up supposed 'obstacles' for take down. It's always sold though as the mighty super-moral US swooping in to protect 'freedom and democracy'. Walt Disney couldn't have done this any better.

        The US-NATO expansion of the conflict in Ukraine is indeed a declaration of war against Russia. And from what I can make out the Russian people see the writing on the wall - they can hear the train coming. Sadly the American people have no clue what is going on nor do most of those in Europe.

        This project has been set up with criminal precision. After all the CIA and the Pentagon have had alot of practice over the years. This is what Washington does best.

        Bruce Gagnon is coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. He offers his own reflections on organizing and the state of America's declining empire. http://space4peace.blogspot.ca/

        [Mar 12, 2015] Victoria Nuland Knowingly Deceives Senate, Displays Ardent Support For Fascist Junta by Andrew W. Griffin

        In Robert Parry words "Nuland offered not a single word of self-criticism about how she contributed to these violent events by encouraging last year's coup, "
        Mar 12, 2015 | themillenniumreport.com

        Neocon Nuland spins wild tales for Senate Foreign Relations Committee; plays into fascist hands

        OKLAHOMA CITY – Neoconservative warmonger Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland, America's Assistant Secretary of State, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – with a straight face – that Crimeans are "suffering a reign of terror" under the control of the Russians.

        Nuland, who makes a living deceiving lawmakers and anyone else who crosses her path, told the committee this week: "Today Crimea remains under illegal occupation and human-rights abuses are the norm, not the exception, for many at-risk groups there."

        The "at-risk groups," Nuland said, included Crimean Tatars, Ukrainians who refuse to surrender their passports, gays and lesbians, journalists and "others," according to an AFP report.

        Additionally, Nuland, an apologist for the pro-Nazi Svoboda and Right Sector fascists who are the actual ones leading a reign of terror against innocents in eastern Ukraine, said pro-Russian separatists in the those areas of Lugansk and Donetsk "unleashed unspeakable violence and pillage."

        However, the exact opposite is true.

        Sputnik News, a Russian news outlet, offered a tongue-in-cheek article today headlined "Life 'Under a Reign of Terror': What Nuland Doesn't Want You To See," countered each statement from Nuland with recent photographs of the beautiful Black Sea coast, including a fantastic photo of a "sand sculpture" celebrating the 70th anniversary of the February 1945 Yalta Conference (aka Crimea or Argonaut Conference) with the Big Three – Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin and Franklin D. Roosevelt – there in Crimea, which was a part of the Soviet Union, and a traditional vacation spot for the czars and later for other Russian leaders and workers. (As historian Webster Griffin Tarpley has reported, Roosevelt was assassinated shortly after the conference and Truman – who replaced pro-Soviet, peace-seeking VP Henry Wallace – leading to the kick off of the Cold War).

        A year after Crimea became part of Russia once again, "82-percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only four-percent spoke out against it," reports Sputnik News.

        Additionally, despite Nuland's denunciations, 51-percent of Crimeans "reported that their well-being had improved in the past year" and that Crimean retirees "have started receiving much higher Russian pensions."

        And believe it or not, as Nuland claims that Moscow is salting the earth of Ukraine, Sputnik News reports that the Crimean peninsula will "receive 47 billion rubles (equivalent to $705 million in US dollars), or 75 percent of its budget, from Russia." The news report notes that when Crimea was under Ukrainian control they never financed Crimea at anything near that level.

        And yet the US/Kiev axis continues to deny they are behind the crimes in the Donbass region, while claiming those aforementioned thuggish Ukrainian Nazis (friends of John McCain's, of course) are liberating democrats. And it certainly doesn't help that the Obama administration is infested with Nuland-esque neocons and raving Russophobes, particularly as NATO ramps up military maneuvers in the Black Sea and the US sends 600 paratroopers to Ukraine to train that country's fascist army. Russia, meanwhile, has flatly stated that any efforts to threaten Russia's security, bad things will start to happen. Are we seeing a new Cold War or are we rapidly heading to a hot war?

        And let's not forget, Ms. Nuland, that your Ukrainian "freedom fighters" – namely one crazed Ukrainian MP named Yuriy Bereza brazenly promised – on Ukrainian national television – to "burn down Crimea, with all of its residents if needed." It starts to make sense that the Crimeans are far happier under Russian rule.

        And as Webster Griffin Tarpley stated on World Crisis Radio this week, Victoria Nuland is an "embarrassment" to the United States and our anti-fascist traditions. He added that Nuland is "crude, scurrilous, ignorant and boiling over with venom." #ImpeachNuland.

        German Historian Tells Poroshenko 'Be Careful of American Support'

        Sputnik International

        German professor of history Michael Pesek wrote an open letter to Petro Poroshenko, in which he advised the Ukrainian President not to expect a long-lasting friendship with the United States, as the White House could change its attitude towards him in the blink of an eye when political trends shift Washington.

        German historian Michael Pesek wrote an open letter to Petro Poroshenko, in which he told the Ukrainian president not to get too cozy with the White House, warning him that being a close ally of the United States might not be the beginning of a long-lasting friendship.

        "You should be warned that this might not be the beginning of a long-living love affair that inevitably ends with an account full of dollars, an army equipped with the finest stuff ever produced to kill your enemies," said Pesek, who teaches courses in history and political science at the University of Hamburg and Free University of Berlin.

        Pesek went on to compare Poroshenko with other dictators, who were puppets of the United States in the past, but then became the enemies of the White House after the tides shifted in Washington.

        In particular, the historian reminded Poroshenko of Saddam Hussein, who was Washington's close ally in the Middle East during the 1980s. However, after Cold War ended and the Americans changed their views on the Middle East, Hussein was useful as an enemy rather than as a friend. The rest is history: the former dictator was captured sitting in a hole and soon hanged in the dark of the night.

        Pesek also talked about Mobuto Sese Seko, the long-standing former ruler of the Congo, and Manuel Noriega of Panama who were both initially supported by the United States when its interests were at stake, but were quickly disposed of when US political trends changed their direction.

        "Lesson learned? You can kill as much as enemies of the US as possible, you can sell your natural resources, but it will not shield you, when the storm from Washington takes another direction," Pesek said.

        On a final note, the German historian told Poroshenko that at the end of the day he will always be an outsider in the United States, "a useful idiot in your best days" and a "burden" when the White House changes its priorities or loses its interest.

        "As a former apparatchik you will never know if your conversion to a democrat and capitalist is taken seriously by your American allies. You will be under suspicion as all the other converted ex-terrorists, ex-Marxists, ex-dictators, who bow to the American flag." – concluded Pesek.

        See also:

        [Mar 12, 2015] NATO Lies and Provocations by MIKE WHITNEY

        Mar 12, 2015 | CounterPunch

        ... ... ...

        While it's easy to get swept up in the Spiegel's narrative of a rabid militarist dragging Europe closer to World War 3, the storyline is intentionally misleading. As anyone who's been following the Ukraine fiasco for the last year knows, there's nothing particularly unusual about Breedlove's distortions. Secretary of State John Kerry has made similar claims numerous times as have many others in the major media. The lies about "Russian aggression" are the rule, not the exception. So why has the Spiegel decided to selectively target Breedlove who is no more deceitful than anyone else? What's really going on here?

        Clearly, the Spiegel is doing Merkel's work, that is, undermining the credibility of Washington's chief commander in Europe in order to discourage further escalation of the conflict in Ukraine. But while Merkel wants to humiliate Breedlove to show that Germany will not sit on its hands while Washington plunges the region into the abyss; she has also shown considerable restraint in limiting her attack to the General while sparing Kerry and Obama any embarrassment. This is quite an accomplishment given that –as we said earlier–virtually everyone in the political establishment and the media have been lying nonstop about every aspect of the conflict. Merkel doesn't want to discredit these others just yet, although the Spiegel piece infers that she has the power to do so if the "bad behavior" persists.

        The Spiegel article is part of a one-two punch designed to force Washington to change its confrontational approach. The second jab appeared late Sunday afternoon when EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker announced that Europe needed to field its own army. Here's the story from Reuters:

        "The European Union needs its own army to face up to Russia and other threats as well as restore the bloc's foreign policy standing around the world, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker told a German newspaper on Sunday…

        "With its own army, Europe could react more credibly to the threat to peace in a member state or in a neighboring state.

        "One wouldn't have a European army to deploy it immediately. But a common European army would convey a clear message to Russia that we are serious about defending our European values." (Juncker calls for EU army, says would deter Russia, Reuters)

        Can you see what's going on? On the one hand, the Spiegel delivers a hammer-blow to the credibility of NATO's top officer and on the other, the President of the EU Commission blindsides US powerbrokers by announcing a plan to create an independent EU fighting force that will render NATO redundant. These are big developments that have undoubtedly left the Obama troupe reeling. This is a full-blown assault on NATO's role as the primary guarantor of EU regional security. Maybe the European people are gullible enough to accept Junker's absurd claim that an EU army will "send an important message to the world", but you can be damn sure that no one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue believes that nonsense. The move is clearly designed to send a message to Washington that Europe is fed up with NATO and wants a change. That means it's "shape up or ship out time" for Breedlove and his ilk.

        Ironically, these developments align Merkel with Putin's view of things as stated in his famous Munich speech in 2007 when he said:

        "I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security. And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue … The United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way … And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this - no one feels safe." (Russian President Vladimir Putin, 43rd Munich Security Conference, 2007)

        How can the US possibly cast itself as "steward of the global security system", when its interventions have left a trail of decimated failed states from the southernmost border of Somalia to the northern tip of Ukraine, a chaotic swathe of smoldering ruin and agonizing human suffering that rivals the depredations of the Third Reich.

        Europe's security requirements cannot be met by a belligerent, warmongering US-controlled entity that acts solely in Washington's interests. At present, NATO gets 75% of its funding from the US, which is why the alliance is less interested in peacemaking and security than it is in internationalizing its imperial war of aggression across the planet. Prior to the crisis in Ukraine, European leaders didn't see the danger of this idiotic arrangement (even though interventions in Serbia, Libya and Afghanistan should have brought them to their senses) But now that NATO's recklessness could vaporize Europe in a nuclear firestorm, leaders like Merkel and Hollande are starting to change their tune. Keep in mind, the ideal scenario for the US would be a limited war that levels large parts of the European and Asian continents, thus restoring the US to its post WW2 heyday when the "rubblized" world was Washington's oyster. That would be just fine for genocidal maniacs and armchair warriors who rule the globe from the safety of their well-stocked DC bunkers. But for Europe, this is definitely not a winning strategy. Europe doesn't want a war, and it certainly doesn't want to be used as cannon fodder for the greater glory of the dystopian NWO.

        Putin advisor, Sergei Glazyev, figured out what Washington was up to long before Kiev launched its wretched "anti terrorism" campaign against federalist rebels in the East. Here's how he summed it up:

        "The main task the American puppet masters have set for the (Kiev) junta is to draw Russia into a full-scale war with Ukraine. It is for this purpose that all of these heinous crimes are committed – to force Russia to send troops to Ukraine to protect the civilian population…

        The bankruptcy of the US financial system, which is unable to service its foreign debt, the lack of investments to finance a breakthrough to a new technological order and to maintain America's competitiveness, and the potential defeat in the geopolitical competition with China.

        To resolve these problems, Americans need a new world war." (Sergei Glazyev)

        Bingo. The steadily-declining empire, whose share of global GDP continues to shrivel with every passing year, has wanted a war from the get go. That's the only way that the US can reverse its precipitous economic slide and preserve its lofty spot as the world's only superpower. Fortunately, EU leaders are beginning to pull their heads out of the sand long enough to grasp what's going on and change their behavior accordingly.

        It's worth noting, that no one in the Merkel administration or anyone else for that matter, has publicly challenged the allegations in the Spiegel article. Why is that, do you think?

        Doesn't their silence suggest that they knew all along that all the anti-Putin propaganda hullabaloo was pure bunkum; that "evil" Putin didn't send tanks and soldiers across the border into Ukraine, that Putin didn't shoot down Malaysian Airline 17, that Putin didn't have a political opponent gunned down gangland style just a few hundred yards from the Kremlin? Isn't that what their silence really says?

        Of course, it does. The reason no one in power has spoken out is because –as the Spiegel cynically admits–"A mixture of political argumentation and military propaganda is necessary."

        "Propaganda is necessary"?

        Whoa. Now there's an admission you're not going to see in the media too often. But it's the truth, isn't it? The Euro-leaders have been going along with the lies to keep the public in line. In other words, it's a healthy dose of perception management for the sheeple, but the unvarnished truth for our revered overlords. Sounds about right. Only now these ame elites have decided to share the facts with the lumpen masses. But, why? Why this sudden willingness to share the truth?

        It's because they no longer support Washington's policy, that's why. No one in Europe wants the US to arm and train the Ukrainian army. No one wants them to deploy 600 paratroopers to Kiev and increase US logistical support. No one wants further escalation, because no one wants a war with Russia. It's that simple.

        For the first time, EU leaders, particularly Merkel, understand that the United States' strategic objectives (the pivot to Asia) do not align with those of the EU, in fact, Washington's geopolitical ambitions pose a serious threat to Europe's security. Regrettably, it's not enough for Merkel to simply understand what is going on. She needs to huddle with her EU colleagues and take positive steps to derail Washington's plan now, otherwise the US will continue its incitements and false flags until Putin is forced to respond. Once that happens, a broader and, perhaps, catastrophic conflagration will be unavoidable.

        MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

        [Mar 12, 2015] US to send Ukraine small drones and armoured Humvees

        Mar 11, 2015 | The Guardian
        BloodOnTheWattle -> psygone 11 Mar 2015 23:39

        Does that history include the army of the Taliban by the USA..try to see some of the pics in which bonsay Bush was hosting the murderers...you may continue dancing on the head of a pin, precious and defend the indefensible all you want

        irishmand ShanghaiGuy 11 Mar 2015 23:22

        And vice versa remember komrade... Putin likes to remind the world not to mess with a nuclear state... indeed very good advice, some that paranoid sociopath to also consider

        Don't call me comrade, I am not your friend. Paranoid sociopaths are in US government and they are not going anywhere.

        BloodOnTheWattle psygone 11 Mar 2015 23:13

        oh dear...now I have seen revisionism but you take the cake psy you really do...you come here and spout all this bullshit and, like your country does with the world you expect people to believe you...not many do any more...

        irishmand BloodOnTheWattle 11 Mar 2015 23:12

        I was just looking at BBC news... it is interesting, apparently the Iran/Iraq coalition are pushing back ISIS from Tikrit. The people in the liberated suburbs are coming on the streets to welcome these fighters. Conversely I never witnessed that when it came to the US's invasions...or for that matter the welcoming of Ukrainian soldiers in East Ukraine.

        It is a good news indeed. The danger now US may pump more money into ISIS.

        BorninUkraine SirHenryRawlins 11 Mar 2015 22:59

        You are mistaken, censor.net.ua is not a conspiracy site. It is the Ukrainian site best known for ludicrously inaccurate claims (less polite word is "lies"), like the use of Russia of nuclear weapons in the battle for Lugansk airport. Most Russians say that it's much funnier than Comedy Club.

        BloodOnTheWattle BlackStork 11 Mar 2015 22:56

        What awaits you? is to make peace with the East and whatever the results are to live with them as brothers and sisters and to give them a saying in their fate as citizens, lest you want generations of hatred and wars

        BloodOnTheWattle BlackStork 11 Mar 2015 22:54

        Just a comment from a citizen, I also notice that you omitted 8 million citizens, that says a lot. Be that as it may:

        "I, as a native of Feodosia will answer you:

        I remember 1992 very well, 1st Crimean referendum, when Crimea revolted and wanted to sail to Russia and how a state of emergency was introduced, and Berkut was brought from Western Ukraine on armored personnel carriers. As they stood at each intersection with Kalashnikov's and put anyone face first in the dust, whom they didn't like. How they pulled over cars and threw on the pavement all the contents of the trunks, tore the covers from doors and ripped the seats. Why? Just because. For fun.

        How they dispersed the march to Simferopol in defense of the First President of Crimea, Meshkov, firing from automatic weapons above the heads. How the Russian officers left with tears in their eyes, who did not want to live under Ukraine. Remember how they forced to wear [Ukrainian national shirts] on the first day of school, and forced our children to learn [Ukrainian language]. How they shut off Russian TV channels and planted their corrupt appointees. How they cut a hundred year-old rosary in the Botanical garden and built villas for Kiev bozos, and made gates to the garden to walk their dogs.

        And how did we suddenly become traitors? How can you betray the occupiers? From occupiers one can only be freed. And about God and Karma, this is what's happening now. My ancestors who shed blood for Crimea and Sevastopol, would not allow for the treacherous Ukry to sell my native Crimea to pin doses [Americans] for their base.

        WE WILL STARVE, AS LONG AS WE ARE WITHOUT YOU!!!"

        BorninUkraine moncur 11 Mar 2015 22:45

        Donbass people are defending their land, the troops Kiev sent are intruders, and they suffer typical fate of intruders: inglorious defeat or death, both deserved for mass slaughter of Donbass civilians.
        That's exactly why Donbass people fight willingly, unlike forcibly conscripted Ukrainian solders looking for any opportunity to run away.

        I have first-hand knowledge of that, as I grew up in Lugansk and have friends and relatives in Donbass.

        irishmand -> GreatMountainEagle 11 Mar 2015 22:43

        Russians love coke and McDonalds

        Not everybody and not everything. I don't like McDonalds, but I like coke. Some people don't like either of them. There are a lot of local food chains and drinks in Russia now. No need to drink coke and eat McDonalds all the time.

        irishmand -> ContraryToDogma 11 Mar 2015 22:40

        If the risk was understood everyone would be shaking from fear. This is not a game.

        Exactly, but US and UK don't care. They just want to sell weapons and make money. Business as usual...

        irishmand Trader -> SeerStrategy 11 Mar 2015 22:38

        "Take over the world" - naive communistic talk, US just supporting new democracy and market capitalism that finally has a chance to be build in Ukraine instead of state managed economy...

        Like Iraq, Libya and Afganistan. Yea, smashing success...

        BloodOnTheWattle -> GreatMountainEagle 11 Mar 2015 22:34

        Actually, yes these drones could do that and demonstrate how your heroes have bombarded their own citizens and secondly they can send some proof of a russian invasion something which thus far have failed to do...As per usual your contributions are based on insults and try to blanket humiliate Russians and or ethnic Russians who are federalists who are fighting against the coup aided and abetted by the west...now go back and stick your head under the pillow or whatever you do.

        ShanghaiGuy irishmand 11 Mar 2015 22:30

        and vice versa remember komrade... Putin likes to remind the world not to mess with a nuclear state... indeed very good advice, some that paranoid sociopath to also consider

        ShanghaiGuy ContraryToDogma 11 Mar 2015 22:17

        if it walks like a putinbot, talks like a putinbot then maybe it is a putinbot...
        we do tend to be up to our arses here with Pro kremlinites and apologists.
        at laest the early shills with their Anglo sounding names have either pissed off or become more sophisticated.

        BloodOnTheWattle psygone 11 Mar 2015 22:13

        Well you would say that wouldn't you but you must remember that your "exceptional; force for good nation" has spent 93% of its existence in wars... To go to Afghanistan the Russians did not use any false flags as the US did with the Tonkin Bay. Incidentally you lot are slow learners the same guys you armed to fight Russia are fighting you today, similar to Libya, and Syria. Essentially the poster is right you are comedy hour and ameteur hour at that.

        BloodOnTheWattle paiduputinbot 11 Mar 2015 22:02

        That is such an inane comment. There is a cease fire and it appears to be working. Frankly although I am anti US I dont see any issues with Humvees and drones on the contrary. See? apparently they have sent drones before and even these have no discovered columns of Russian tanks.

        Ukraine is an Independent country and thy can purchase weapons from whomever they want. Then again, they can complain if the Russians put 100,000 close to the border?

        BloodOnTheWattle Trader SeerStrategy 11 Mar 2015 21:57

        "market capitalism" ? you mean like Lyibia or what happened in latin america for 40 years? you mean a market based on bail outs to pay fund managers while people live in austerity compounded by a 34.5 % inflation rate in Feb 2015 and an implied inflation of 272% the highest in the world? You mean a market economy in which budgets are passed without readings and when VH's members want to discuss said budgt are essentially barred from commenting of punched in the face? is this what you want for this wonderful country?

        ContraryToDogma Trader SeerStrategy 11 Mar 2015 21:53

        Pardon me but the US has a very well developed state managed economy of its own and market capitalism is just a myth. Oligarchs run all these countries and they would never risk a true free market subject to catastrophic economic crashes. It's not as simple or as black and white as you believe.

        ContraryToDogma 11 Mar 2015 21:38

        A kid's cap gun in an Old West Six Gun revolver style will be awarded to the first loony commenter to use the "Putinbot" moniker. Any takers?

        ContraryToDogma 11 Mar 2015 21:31

        Putin denies arming rebels, Obama denies arming and fomenting fake revolutions pushed by corporate & arms dealer interests. Tit for tat. Would the US enjoy Russian meddling in Mexico or Canada? Not likely. Let's grow up about who is provoking whom and stop trying to take over the world. The days of empire and war are obsolete except for armchair warriors and lunatics who lust for nuclear war and nuclear winters who dream of bomb shelters with shelves of canned food and bottled water.

        Bud Peart 11 Mar 2015 21:26

        US vice-president Joe Biden told Ukraine's president on Wednesday the US will send more aid to the country, which US officials said will include small drones and armored Humvees.

        Are these for protecting Hunter Biden's gas interests in Ukraine?

        Either way any weapons the US send Russia will send more to the separatists, the only result will be more deaths and instability. But I guess that was the aim for the state department the whole time.

        How is Ukraine paying for this? IMF loans for weapons? Great way to spend money.

        irishmand kolf 11 Mar 2015 21:25

        As I'm sure you're aware that is a very long way from even approaching an answer to the question. Both sides in this conflict have claimed a great many things on their respective TV outlets without sufficient evidence, made claims that have never been independently verified or which have later turned out to be completely false.

        Great points. I am just enjoying how the roles have switched after the rebels started presenting the evidence of the west supplying arms to the Ukis army. Now the west is signing the song "do you have any evidence?". I am glad to see the west demonstrating once more the lack of honesty and readiness to lie. I don't ask you to believe me, but for myself, I've seen enough to believe ukies used NATO weapons.

        1) Has anyone backed up this claim, apart from the separatists and their Russian backers?
        2) For example, did they submit this to any international monitoring body (eg OSCE in the area - which contains Russian as well as western observers so they should have no problem with that) for independent assessment?

        No, I couldn't find any OSCE reports. OSCE is leaning towards Ukrainian side in this conflict. They may or may not be reporting 100% honestly.

        3) Are the weapons in question merely of a type used by NATO but also used by others or available on the arms market (as the wording of the claim"typical NATO firearms" suggests), or of a type used exclusively by NATO (which has not actually been claimed, as far as I can tell)? This is very important, if the claim is of direct NATO supply or involvement.
        4) Would it be possible for Russia be able to source such items and supply them to the separatists for the purposes of a propagandist press conference? Is there evidence of where they were collected, again is this verifiable by people not connected to the separatists themselves? The coincidence of timing with Putin's claim that NATO were involved is quite significant here.

        They are just standard NATO weapons, not the weapons exclusively used by NATO. Ukies themselves could have sold the weapons to rebels or the weapons could have been captured.

        irishmand toadvine 11 Mar 2015 21:05

        Even when peace agreement WAS achieved and largely held, Americans still send arms to UKR. The only goal of that?? If you have brains it's easy to see it

        Americans just need to get rid of obsolete weapons.

        irishmand moncur 11 Mar 2015 21:01

        "DPR" + "LPR" = Russian forces. Easy.

        That's just trolling. Do you have any thoughts?
        Reply | Pick

        kolf nnedjo 11 Mar 2015 20:37

        For this I have no comment because I do not have access to the details of the investigation. Let's wait until the investigation is completed, and then, if it would be even a trial, to comment on it.

        Link to the ongoing UK public inquiry is here. Most details of the investigation are already in the public domai, so you do have access to them:
        https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org">https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/">https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/

        Obviously there isn't going to be a trial because the chief suspect Andrey Lugovoi is immune from extradition and has been rewarded for his, ahem, business trip to London with a seat in the State Duma. It's a strange condition you're attaching - that it can only be discussed after a trial has taken place, i.e. never?

        [Mar 12, 2015] Who is Aleksandr Dugin

        Mar 12, 2015 | Crooked Timber

        bob mcmanus 03.10.15 at 8:24 pm

        Oh my, an interesting day of posts on Crooked Timber! Is there a link to the Vinyard of the Saker in there somewhere?

        "(hence he sometimes goes so far as cast Sunni extremists as if they were allies of the West)"; "Sunnis aligned with the West, it would seem"

        Out liberal-capitalist-rationalist-pluralist allies in Saudi Arabia, I presume.

        Looking more like war everyday.

        Hidari 03.10.15 at 8:32 pm

        As regards the Ukraine (and many other countries round the world), I have noticed that even (or especially) to liberals who are prepared to admit, in a highly abstract way, that the United States is an imperial power, there is a distinct unwillingness to think through what that means, and what it implies about the way the US will probably behave, in most situations.

        It may be true (or it may not) that Putin is 'reasserting' Russian imperial ambitions, but when did the US ever unassert its own?

        Cian 03.10.15 at 8:33 pm

        While I dislike Putin immensely, yeah the Ukraine government pretty much was asking for it. First of all they stoked ethnic tensions needlessly. An ethnicity that happens to be the same as their powerful neighbor. Then when this resulted in moves towards secession – rather than defusing it politically, they attacked them with the army.

        So yeah, Putin might be an opportunist (though one in this case who's being pushed from multiple segments of the Russian elite – it's not entirely clear who's driving) – but who gave them an opportunity, then presented it in such a way that Russian public/elite opinion meant that he really had no option but to take it.

        Harold 03.10.15 at 8:44 pm

        Hmm. What it means to be an imperialist? Let us turn to wikipedia to find out:

        The Grand Chessboard

        The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives is one of the major works of Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski graduated with a PhD from Harvard University in 1953 and became Professor of American Foreign Policy at Johns Hopkins University before becoming the United States National Security Advisor during 1977-1981 under the administration of President Jimmy Carter.

        Regarding the landmass of Eurasia as the center of global power, Brzezinski sets out to formulate a Eurasian geostrategy for the United States. In particular, he writes, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger should emerge capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America's global pre-eminence.

        Much of his analysis is concerned with geo-strategy in Central Asia, focusing on the exercise of power on the Eurasian landmass in a post-Soviet environment. In his chapter, dedicated to what he refers to as the "Global Balkans", Brzezinski makes use of Halford J. Mackinder's 1904 Heartland Theory [Also known as the Geographical Pivot Theory of History.]

        §See also
        American imperialism
        Geopolitics
        Geostrategy in Central Asia
        The Great Game
        Zbigniew Brzezinski
        *****
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
        The Geographical Pivot of History
        EXCERPTS:
        The Geographical Pivot of History, sometimes simply as The Pivot of History is a geo-strategic theory, also known as Heartland Theory.

        "The Geographical Pivot of History" was an article submitted by Halford John Mackinder in 1904 to the Royal Geographical Society that advanced his Heartland Theory. In this article, Mackinder extended the scope of geopolitical analysis to encompass the entire globe.
        **********
        Influence of the theory on foreign and military policy

        In Germany up to 1945
        Some influential Germans, such as Karl Haushofer both before and during the Third Reich, found this theory compatible with their desire to control Mitteleuropa and to take Ukraine. The intention to take the latter was indicated by the slogan Drang nach Osten, or "drive to the east".

        In the Western powers
        Mackinder identified the geopolitical nightmare that was to haunt the world's two sea powers during the first half of the twentieth century - Great Britain and later on the United States. The nightmare was that if Germany or Russia were allowed to control East Europe then this could lead to the domination of the Eurasian land mass by one of these two powers as a prelude to mastery of the world.

        Jeff Martin 03.10.15 at 9:47 pm

        But then it turns out to be an excavated piece of Dissent anti-communism adapted to the enemy of liberalism of the day. Meh.

        There must always be a reason to avoid confronting the fact of the American Empire, to spoon with it for just a little while longer. If that reason cannot be an actual geopolitical threat, a marginal intellectual figure will do, provided his oeuvre can be conflated with the strategic doctrine of a nation-state. Look, I think it's simple: some on the Left are terrified of going back to the Seventies, when the Right, and the media, demonized them as unpatriotic and anti-American; hence they try to confabulate ways of being both progressive and indirectly supportive of the American Empire, which is rather unprogressive. But whatever.

        Harold 03.10.15 at 10:25 pm

        Q OP, "Why would any sane person want to do it all over again…"

        A. There's a lot of money to be made in the short run.

        http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2015/02/27/kredite-aus-steuergeldern-saatgut-konzerne-kaufen-land-in-der-ukraine/

        Excerpt: Seed producers have a strong interest in Ukrainian lands (Google translated):

        Ukraine is one of the promising growth markets for seed producers Monsanto and DuPont. It is feared that Monsanto has exerted great pressure on the authorities in Ukraine to enforce its demands for an expansion of biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Last year, Monsanto has invested 140 million to increase the potential for future production. "

        German companies are also benefiting this Ukrainian land grab.:

        Examples of German companies that profit from land grabbing in Eastern Europe include AGRARIUS AG, founded in 2007 and headquartered in Bad Homburg, which "offers investment in farmland" and "services related to the purchase of land"; Hamburg-based German agricultural CEE GmbH lures investors with returns of 100 percent from the "most attractive agricultural market in the world"; and KTG Agrar SE, also based in Hamburg, advertises organic products that promise to yield "much higher profit margins".

        Multinational and national companies receive financial, development, and EU subsidies, enabling agricultural corporations to build in Ukraine for ten years, and more for the production of rape seed oil, due to the EU's growing demand for biofuels. About 90 percent of rape seed is exported to the EU and processed there. The German Federal Government reports that the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) awarded 2,014 loans to a total of 131 Ukrainian and 55 international agroholdings.

        The German Federal government did not specifically respond to the Left Party's question as to whether DuPont and Monsanto would receive KfW loans for its operations in Ukraine. The government's response states:

        "The publication of information on lending by the KfW bank group involves trade and business secrets of the undertakings concerned. The public response to the question of whether and to what extent a company finances its business activities, and over which type of loan generally serves to give competitors information not only about the financial resources of a company, but also about its strategy and positioning in the market. "

        [Mar 12, 2015] Britain should arm Ukraine, says Tory donor by Alexander Temerko

        Probably Alexander Temerko want to get a cut from the contracts for arms delivery... From comments: "Just another piece from New East Network. Owned and run by G Soros, the NED and Radio Free Europe. All looking to make big dollars from Russia and Eastern Europe."
        Mar 11, 2015 | The Guardian

        Former Ukrainian businessman argues that Cameron and Obama should send weapons and ammunition to support the government in Kiev

        See also:

        Vatslav Rente

        So, so... another real gentleman (understood as, man wanted by the General Prosecutor's office of Russia accused of embezzling in 2002, 19.7% of the company's shares "Eniseineftegaz" by deception and forgery, his extradition demand since 2005) Say, I understood everything correctly: Mr Temerko "worked" in Russia, fled to the UK but is very concerned for arms deliveries to Ukraine - Ukrainian patriot? - without a doubt!

        NormanHo

        I have no objection to this oligarch funding Ukraine ... But why does this paper give him space to air these crazy prejudices? Come on Guardian, stop giving these idiots the oxygen of publicity

        sodtheproles

        Just because the Guardian has argued cogently for support for, and the supply of arms to, Kiev, this should not be taken to mean that the Guardian in any way supports or approves of the Nazis who fight for Kiev with arms supplied by the West, nor should the fact that it finds itself on the side of Ukrainian businessmen who have bought political influence with our government by making large donations to the Tory party in any way blemish its credentials as Britain's leading centre left, liberal, progressive, right on newspaper, still less that it has casually abandoned the principles for which this country fought a man named Hitler some 75 years ago, and any suggestion to the contrary will justifiably be deleted as not abiding by community standards.

        We rely on the intelligence of our readership to understand that the use of symbols such as the Swastika and the Wolfsangel, or the number 1488, by Galician punisher battalions is entirely due to the fact that many Aidar and Azov fighters are in fact postgraduate students of semiotics, on sabbatical from the University of Lviv's Linguistics Faculty, undertaking important research funded by the European Research Council in the field, and this therefore sometimes involves the use of the symbols in question, meaning that any resemblance they may have with fascists, neo fascists, Nazis or white supremacists is entirely coincidental.

        EugeneGur

        The US, as ever, will have to assume the lead. With Barack Obama's second term ending next year he will not want to be remembered as the president who allowed Putin to have it all his own way. He should send weapons and ammunition to Kiev.

        Sure, why not. It's all about not letting Putin have his own way. Nothing else matters but the pissing match with Putin. The whole country down the drain, presumably the country the individual writing this garbage is from - one country more or less, who cares, but Putin must be shown his place at all costs.

        Ukraine essentially has no economy to speak of: its industry output dropped 45-60%, its currency is no longer convertible into anything worth more than toilet paper, its gold and currency reserves a distant memory, its oligarchs are fighting (literally) for the remaining sources or income such as grain export - Ukraine is a dead man walking. But what none of it matters - Putin, evil Putin must be reined in.

        NATO, congratulations, you did it! Russia just definitively ended its participation in the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. Other treaties and agreements controlling armed forces are under revision as well. The reason given by Russia: If they consider us enemies (right next to Ebola and ISIS - remember?) then it is ridiculous to pretend it's business as usual. Hard to disagree. Is that what you want, citizens of Europe? You are willing to burn in the nuclear inferno all of us together, so Obama could finally prove that his dick is longer than Putin's?

        FrancesSmith EugeneGur

        a fine summing up of the neo-con philosophy at the end there.

        Bosula

        This article by this Tory businessman is a typical neo con warmongering piece. It fails to look at Ukraine and what is causing this war of succession that is tearing the country apart. Instead of discussing the problems with Ukraine and its identity this businessman just shouts Russophobia repeatedly. He simply does not address the genuine grievance of East Ukrainians.

        This Tory article stands in sharp contrast to Professor Sakwa's considered article from a few days ago that tries to explain why Ukraine has so many internal national issues - and why the country is fighting. The Professor's approach provides a useful platform to understand Ukraine and to develop reponses that might actually help resolve what is going on in Ukraine.

        Supporting a typical US approach of going into war with all guns blazing on all fronts won't solve this crisis. Haven't we already learnt this from over a million civilians killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc over the past decade? I guess Tory businessman and donors to the party are slow learners?

        PlatonKuzin Bosula

        They are not slow learners. They are cynics that know well what they do.

        -> LondonIrish999 , 12 Mar 2015 11:33

        US says there is a a Russian invasion underway.

        You really have to listen hard to what these US warmongers and their Ukraine stooges actually say. If the US had evidence that the Russians had invaded you can be sure they would show it. They are trying hard enough and yet cannot show anything.

        So they come up with vague but threatening words like a Russian invasion is underway. What exactly does that mean? Just look at the shithole they have conspired to turn Syria into.

        onsid, 12 Mar 2015 10:07

        Just another piece from New East Network. Owned and run by G Soros, the NED and Radio Free Europe. All looking to make big dollars from Russia and Eastern Europe.

        helenmia, 12 Mar 2015 10:05

        What do ordinary, non-millionaire, non-Conservative Party donating, non-expat Ukrainians want? Probably not to go into a war with Russia, I guess?

        sodtheproles -> Inna V, 12 Mar 2015 10:02

        Maybe they actually are separatists. Is it really so difficult for you to understand that some people might not want to be burnt alive by hordes of goose-stepping Galicians?

        Havingalavrov John Smith, 12 Mar 2015 10:00

        Don't you think that the Separatists are firing from a safe distance? How about the Russian artillery firing across the border from Russia.

        As for the Ukrainian forces up against a Russian ( lets not pretend they are not involved ), I don't see what choice they have but to do the same.

        Saying that, I have said over and over, that from a military perspective, Ukraine's military tactics won't work. They should pull back and defend the places where they can and reign in their militias. They will not win over support from those area's and play into the Russian led Separatists hands. The separatists deliberately fire grads from behind/in front of apartment blocs and then move. They use the return fire and damage/civilian casualties as propaganda. Not that different from the Taliban.

        Grads can fire KM by the way. Also the Ukrainian military are not trained enough to go in hand to hand against the Russian military machine. Surely you know that.

        Mordantdude LondonIrish999, 12 Mar 2015 09:22

        What aggressor country are you talking about? That one who organized all those coups all around the world and in Ukraine particularly?

        Anna Jaqusheva, 12 Mar 2015 08:48

        That's so funny the whole EU and the USA is talking about arming the Ukraine to fight against the group of separatists. So I'm thinking about 2 possible options:

        • Ether the Ukrainian troops are so incapable of fighting so there's a real need to attract the European aim to solve the internal conflict
        • Or the West is not that interested in the fast ending of the war in Ukraine otherwise soldiers, machines and all the probable technologies would already cover the whole surface of the Ukraine.

        P.S. If I'm not mistaken the warring sides have signed the peace agreement. Why does the Ukraine government need your troops?

        [Mar 11, 2015] U.S. oil production still surging

        Mar 11, 2015 | econbrowser.com | 26 Replies

        The EIA is now reporting that U.S. field production of crude oil averaged almost 8.7 million barrels a day in 2014. That's up 1.2 mb/d from 2013, and is only 0.9 mb/d below the all-time U.S. peak in 1970.

        Production of oil by means of fracturing shale and other tight formations is the main reason. The EIA drilling productivity report estimates that production from the Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara– the main tight oil producing areas– was 1 mb/d higher in 2014 compared to the previous year. I used that estimate to update my graph of U.S. production by source. The tight oil story is pretty dramatic.

        U.S. field production of crude oil, by source, 1860-2014, in millions of barrels per day.  Updated from Hamilton (2014) based on data reported in [1], [2].

        U.S. field production of crude oil, by source, 1860-2014, in millions of barrels per day. Updated from Hamilton (2014) based on data reported in [1], [2].

        And it seems to be continuing. The February drilling report estimates production from those 4 regions will be almost 0.3 mb/d higher this month than it was in December. That's leading to record levels of U.S. inventories.

        Source: EIA.

        Source: EIA.

        How much longer will production keep going up? Much of the new production can't be profitable at current prices, and the number of drilling rigs operating in the tight oil areas has fallen 12% since September.

        Combined oil rig count for Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara, January 2007 to January 2015.  Data source: EIA.

        Combined oil rig count for Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara, January 2007 to January 2015. Data source: EIA.

        That presumably means less than a 12% reduction in production from new wells, for two reasons. First, it is the least promising new prospects that will be cut first. Second, there has been a learning curve improving productivity of new wells.

        Average oil production per rig (in barrels per day) across Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara, January 2007 to January 2015.  Data source: EIA.

        Average oil production per rig (in barrels per day) across Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara, January 2007 to January 2015. Data source: EIA.

        Working against these is the fact that production from existing wells continues to decline. But at the moment, it seems further adjustments on the part of drillers will be necessary in order to bring the supply of oil in balance with the demand.

        This entry was posted on March 8, 2015 by James_Hamilton.

        Selected Skeptical Comments
        Jeffrey J. Brown March 8, 2015 at 10:25 am

        Because of declining production, Mexico no longer has sufficient domestic light, sweet crude oil production to meet the domestic demand from refineries designed to process light crude, so they are going to have to start importing light crude, although they remain a net oil exporter.

        In any case, the Pemex official quoted in the following article had an interesting comment about condensate (which is basically natural gasoline that is not of much use as feedstock for producing distillates like diesel fuel).

        As I have previously noted, in my opinion it is very likely that actual global crude oil production (45 and lower API gravity crude oil) probably peaked in 2005, while global natural gas production and associated liquids–condensate and NGL's–have so far continued to increase.

        And when the EIA refers to "Crude Oil," they define it as actual Crude Oil + Condensate (C+C). Just as we don't know for sure what the Condensate to C+C ratio is for US production, we don't know what the ratio is for US C+C inventories, but in both cases, I suspect that the Condensate to C+C Ratio has increased substantially in recent years.

        In any case, US imports of crude oil remain relatively high, at about 44% of the C+C inputs into refineries. I suspect that refiners continue to import a lot of crude oil, because they have to, in order to get the product output that they need.

        Mexico's Pemex aims to start importing light crude this year (2014)

        http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/28/mexico-pemex-idUKL1N0QX2TL20140828

        Aug 28 (Reuters) – Mexican state-owned oil company Pemex wants to launch light crude oil imports later this year, potentially reaching up to 70,000 barrels per day (bpd) and aimed at boosting refinery output, the head of its commercial arm said.

        The imports would mark an abrupt shift from a decades-old devotion to crude oil self-sufficiency in Mexico, long a major exporter to the United States. It also comes after a sweeping energy sector overhaul which seeks to reverse many years of declining output and export volumes.

        "Our objective is that (crude imports) will begin this year," said Jose Manuel Carrera, chief executive officer of PMI Comercio Internacional, Pemex's oil trading arm. His comments are the strongest signals to date on both the timing and potential volumes of light crude imports to Mexico. . . .

        While U.S. companies Pioneer Natural Resources and Enterprise Products Partners have secured permission to ship a type of ultralight oil known as condensate to foreign buyers, Carrera all but ruled out the possibility.

        "Condensate is not necessarily what Mexico needs. It needs crude," he said.

        Jeffrey J. Brown March 8, 2015 at 10:30 am

        A product yield by gravity chart follows, which explains why Pemex, and other refiners, need crude oil, not condensate. Note the substantial decline in distillate yield, just going from 39 API gravity to 42 API gravity (labeled as "Condensate" on the chart):

        http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/Refineryyields_zps4ad928eb.png

        And a graph showing API gravity versus sulphur content for several grades of global crude oil (note that the chart scale tops out at 40 API gravity):

        http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/APGravityVsSulfurContentforCrudeOils_zpsc28e149c.gif

        Jeffrey J. Brown March 8, 2015 at 1:46 pm

        EIA Forecast for US Crude + Condensate Production by Type

        Note the forecast for the very modest increase in 40 API gravity and lower crude oil production, versus the total increase in US C+C production:

        http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/US%20Crude%20Oil%20Production%20by%20Type_zpsso7lpqgq.png

        2slugbaits March 8, 2015 at 11:12 am

        Second, there has been a learning curve improving productivity of new wells.

        The standard learning curve formulae and learning curve tables that I know and use typically show a very sharp increase initially and then the curves go very flat very quickly.

        rjs March 8, 2015 at 1:29 pm

        so, i've got a question…if oil inventories are at a record high 444.4 million barrels, up 22.2% from the same period a year ago, as your EIA graph shows, then why did we continue to import 7.4 million barrels a day during the last week of February, 89,000 barrels a day more than we imported during the previous week?

        Jeffrey J. Brown March 8, 2015 at 1:49 pm

        Perhaps because the bulk of the increase in US Crude + Condensate production and inventories consists of condensate?

        SPENCER March 9, 2015 at 6:09 am

        We are probably importing more oil because speculators are to bring home and selling stocks that had been held in tankers offshore as a bet on higher prices.

        They have to cut their loses at some point.

        rjs March 9, 2015 at 6:51 am

        i answered my own question above here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/09/1369526/-rig-counts-for-February-and-the-week-just-ended-and-what-are-we-gonna-do-with-all-this-oil
        in a word, contango

        Randall Parker March 8, 2015 at 10:11 pm

        Jeffrey J. Brown, Peak oil has been delayed by technology for extraction of tight oil. The future is uncertain. The doomsters of 10 years ago were excessively pessimist. Care to own up to excessive pessimism? I'm guilty.

        The $100 trillion dollar question: can tight gas extraction be made to work outside USA?

        Jeffrey J. Brown March 9, 2015 at 6:46 am

        To be clarify slightly, in my opinion tight/shale plays have delayed Peak Liquids, while the trillions of dollars spent on global upstream capex since 2005 have just kept us on an undulating plateau of actual crude oil production.

        Note that when we ask for the price of oil, we get the price of actual crude oil (45 and lower API gravity crude), but when we ask for the volume of oil, we get some combination of crude + condensate + NGL + biofuels.

        Following is a chart showing normalized values for global gas, global natural gas liquids (NGL) and global Crude + Condensate (with 2005 values = 100%), through the year 2012 (similar trends for 2013):

        http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/Slide1_zps45f11d98.jpg

        The following chart, posted up the thread, really tells the tale. It shows the EIA's own projection for the composition of US C+C. As noted up the thread, the distillate yield from 40 and higher API gravity liquids drops tremendously, and what refineries need, in order to meet refined product demand, is mostly 40 and lower API gravity crude (as expressed by the Pemex CEO), while the vast majority of the increase in US liquids production is from 40 and higher API gravity liquids.

        http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/US%20Crude%20Oil%20Production%20by%20Type_zpsso7lpqgq.png

        Condensate & NGL are byproducts of natural gas production, and in my opinion the only reasonable interpretation of the available data is that actual global crude oil production (45 and lower API gravity crude oil) effectively peaked in 2005, while global natural gas production and associated liquids, condensate and NGL, have so far continued to increase.

        The end of civilization as we know it March 9, 2015 at 7:44 am

        @ Jeffrey J. Brown

        Great charts!

        They go a long way in explaining why, in many parts of the US, gasoline now sales for more than low-sulfur diesel. Fifteen years ago that never happened.

        I'm no refinery expert, but I believe many, if not most, of the myriad petroleum byproducts we depend upon also come from the lower-gravity crude oils. See, for example, A partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of 6000 items). "One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline," the heading reads. "The rest (over half) is used to make things like:"

        I would add a caveat to your discussion. The decision to send Mexico's low-gravity, high-sulfur Mayan crude to the Gulf Coast for refining also has to do with the high-sulfur content of the crude. It's not all about gravity. Like I said, I'm no refinery expert, but I remember reading that Mexico's current refinery infrastructure lacks the capability to refine high-sulfur crude oils. The Gulf Coast refineries, on the other hand, have a surfeit of this type of refining capability. I do not know how much of the decision to send much of Mexico's low-gravity, high-sulfur Mayan crude to the Gulf Coast has to do with gravity, how much has to do with sulfur content, and how much has to do with other factors, such as US geopolitical exigencies (as is the charge frequently leveled here in Mexico). However, these factors are worth looking into.

        Jeffrey J. Brown March 9, 2015 at 10:43 am

        To clarify slightly, my analysis suggests that gasoline may be in surplus*, relative to distillates like diesel, and the most recent data put the US average retail price for gasoline at $2.46 versus $2.93 for diesel. *Or to be more accurate, refiners don't need any more condensate input.

        I think that the following EIA chart, which shows that US 40+ API gravity C+C liquids increased from 1.4 mbpd in 2011 to an estimated 4.2 mbpd in 2015 (an increase of 2.8 mbpd), versus a projected increase of only about 0.7 mbpd in 40 and lower API gravity crude from 2011 to 2015, really tells the tale, especially when combined with the refinery yield chart that shows that Cat Feed + Distillates drops from about 52% at 39 API gravity to about 20% at 42 API gravity:

        http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/US%20Crude%20Oil%20Production%20by%20Type_zpsso7lpqgq.png

        http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/Refineryyields_zps4ad928eb.png

        40 API and lower crude accounted for 75% of US C+C production in 2011, but the projection was that it would only account for 54% of US C+C production in 2015.

        And as noted elsewhere, it took about half the global rig fleet (targeting oil and gas reservoirs) just to show a projected increase of about 0.5 mbpd in quality crude oil production (40 API gravity and lower) from 2011 to 2014.

        Jeffrey J. Brown March 9, 2015 at 8:25 am

        Re: The $100 trillion dollar question: can tight gas extraction be made to work outside USA?

        In areas where tight/shale plays may be commercially feasible outside the US and Canada, the key question is whether operators in a given play can drill and complete wells fast enough to offset the declines from existing wells and add new production. Early last year, US rigs accounted for about half of the total global rig count, which gives one an idea of the scale of the drilling and completion effort that it would take to replace the output from giant declining global oil and gas fields with the output from high decline rate tight/shale plays.

        It's interesting to look at some regional declines in US oil and gas production, e.g., marketed Louisiana natural gas production (the EIA doesn't have dry processed data by state).

        According to the EIA, the observed simple percentage decline in Louisiana's annual natural gas production from 2012 to 2013 was 20%. This would be the net change in production, after new wells were added. The gross decline rate (from existing wells in 2012) would be even higher. This puts a recent Citi Research estimate in perspective.

        Citi estimates that the gross underlying decline rate for overall US natural gas production is about 24%/year. This would be the estimated year over year decline in production if no new wells were put on line.

        Based on the Citi report, the US would have to replace 100% of current natural gas production in about four years, just to maintain current gas production for four years*.

        *Of course existing production would not decline by about 100% in four years at a 24%/year decline rate, but I am stipulating a "What if" steady state production scenario.

        The end of civilization as we know it March 9, 2015 at 7:04 am

        This is an extremely bad example of reporting. Does it get any worse than this?

        What it does is to take the official spin being evangelized by the EIA and other members of the "drill baby drill" crowd - folks like ExxonMobil's chief executive Rex Tillerson - and faithfully and uncritically parrots it.

        It's the same old boilerplate, for example, that we got a couple of days ago from the Financial Times. In its drive to perpetuate what Michael Klare calls the "Reign of Carbon," the Times sublimely reported that:

        Oil production in the Eagle Ford is not going to fall away any time soon: with the benchmark West Texas Intermediate at about $50 a barrel on Friday, it is profitable to keep pumping from most established wells. On Wednesday, Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil's chief executive, said US shale production would be more resilient than many had expected.

        If the crude price rebounded to $80 or $100, the good times could return.

        Those not enamored of being part of Karl Rove's defactualized "create-your-own-reality" universe, however, might want to go over to the Texas Railroad Commission's Online Research Queries to see what is actually going on in the Eagle Ford shale play.

        Those who do so will make a shocking discovery: Crude oil and condensate production from the Eagle Ford peaked in August 2014 at 356 million barrels (total production for the entire month). By December 2014 it had fallen to 319 million barrels for the month. And this was well before the precipitous decline in the number of drilling rigs operating in the Eagle Ford. In the first week of September 2014, Baker Hughes reports that 202 drilling rigs were actively drilling in the Eagle Ford. That number by the first week of March 2015 had dropped to 149.

        For those skeptical of the future carbon Utopia being touted from inside the Beltway, being spun by the likes of the EIA and Rex Tillerson, IHS has done significant research, and offers a dissident point of view:

        IHS study suggests U.S. oil production to halt by mid-year

        The end of civilization as we know it March 10, 2015 at 9:14 am

        That should read:

        Crude oil and condensate production from the Eagle Ford peaked in August 2014 at 356 35.6 million barrels (total production for the entire month). By December 2014 it had fallen to 319 31.9 million barrels for the month.

        AS March 9, 2015 at 9:12 am

        The End
        Could you repeat your comments is a more succinct way (bullet points?) perhaps without sarcasm. If readers are busy, it is difficult to determine your point without reading all the citations. I am interested in what you have to say, but find it difficult to follow your thread without a lot of clicking.

        The end of civilization as we know it March 9, 2015 at 12:00 pm

        @ AS

        Well I'm not sure that the complexity of the human condition or the universe can be reduced to bullet points. However, I'll give it my best shot:

        • The need to slay the energy vampire (and Russia, Venezuela and Iran at the same time) for fun and profit is great.
        • The US right-wingers have their preferred silver bullet to slay the energy vampire: the US's fabled and highly touted shale gas and oil resource plays. (US left-wingers also have their preferred silver bullet to slay the energy vampire - the envisioned future Green energy Utopia - but that is a topic for a different discussion.)
        • Because the need to slay the energy vampire is so great, there's a lot of lying and wishful thinking going on when it comes to shale gas and oil.
        • As it turns out, the right-winger's silver bullet is a blank. It is little more than a flash in the pan.
        • The Barnett Shale play was the first major US shale play.
        • In 2013, the world was shocked when the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas concluded that the average EUR from the 16,000 wells in the Barnett Shale would be only 1.44 billion cubic feet.
        • This was a time when industry, and those advocating for US full-spectrum dominance, were still touting average EURs from wells in the Barnett at between 2 and 3 bcf per well.
        • When the University of Texas released its study in February 2013, many felt that even it was too optimistic. Jim Fuquay, for instance, asked in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, "But what about producers' estimates of 2 or even 3 bcf?"
        • Fuquay pointed out that at that time, even though many of the Barnett shale wells had already been producing for years, "Only 512 wells in the Barnett Shale, or less than 3 percent, have produced 2 bcf in their lives." He added that "A mere 70 wells, less than 1 percent, have hit 3 bcf or more."
        • As it turns out, the University of Texas study was too optimistic. If one takes a pen and traces actual production from the Barnett Shale for the past four years over the graph of the study's production forecast, what we see is that production for a couple of years exceeded the forecast, but then production went into a steep nosedive and has declined much more rapidly than the researchers had predicted.
        • Average EUR from a Barnett Shale well now looks to be well below 1 bcf, or a half, a third or even less of what producers had hyped.
        • There is a long history of distortions and exaggerations, which find fertile ground with true believers in American exceptionalism and full-spectrum dominance, being perpetrated by shale oil and gas producers.
        • There exists considerable evidence which suggests that these distortions and exaggerations have not stopped, and that they continue unabated to this very day.
        • As I said, the need to believe in a silver bullet to slay the energy vampire, despite all factual evidence to the contrary, is great.
        AS March 9, 2015 at 12:39 pm

        The End

        Thanks for your comments. If I understand you correctly you agree with Jeffrey Brown and I think Professor Hamilton that we are past peak oil and that world oil harvesting is in decline, since the harvesting of tight oil is not going to rescue an energy hungry world. What now then for energy sources?

        Nick G March 10, 2015 at 10:52 am

        Well, personal transportation accounts for the majority of oil consumption.

        Personal transportation is easily done with EVs – a Chevy Volt costs less to own and operate than the average US passenger vehicle, and gets 200MPG. A Nissan Leaf is the lowest cost vehicle on the road.

        EVs can be ramped up pretty quickly – They're 3-4% of sales right now (including hybrids). Production volume could be doubled essentially overnight, and doubled every two years thereafter. In 8 years you could be at 80% of new vehicles, and in another 5 years they'd account for 50% of vehicle miles driven. In another 6 years they'd account for 75% (vehicles less than 6 years old account for 50% of VMT). Ethanol accounts for about 10% of passenger transportation fuel, so a fleet of Chevy Volts could be powered with no oil at all.

        There's a pretty straightforward path forward, if we needed a short term fix to get us through a period of fast depletion, or another oil shock while we were transitioning to EVs. The US could reduce passenger fuel consumption by 50% essentially overnight by raising the average passengers per vehicle from 1.2 to 2.4. Look at Uber, look at smartphones for connectin with people. There are very, very few destinations in the US that no one else is going to. On almost any road, look around: there are other people on the road, going in the same direction.

        With an ad hoc smartphone based system, you could find someone going in your direction almost anywhere. And, even with old-fashioned employer-based systems, about 10% of Americans carpool to work right now.

        Carpooling – the horror.

        Mason Inman March 9, 2015 at 4:42 pm

        Dr. Hamilton-I was curious where you got the data points for offshore oil production statistics during the early years (~1950 to 1980).

        The EIA pages that are cited as the sources of the data appear to only have data separated into on-shore and off-shore going back to 1981. Elsewhere, I've seen EIA data showing this split, going back to 1970, but not any earlier than that.

        James_Hamilton Post author March 9, 2015 at 7:05 pm

        Mason Inman: See Annual Energy Review, Table 5.2.

        Mason Inman March 10, 2015 at 1:27 pm

        Thanks so much! I hadn't seen that data set before.

        Steven Kopits March 10, 2015 at 3:16 pm

        Are we surprised there's corruption and incompetence?

        http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/10/news/economy/world-leaders-salaries/index.html?iid=HP_LN

        Anonymous March 11, 2015 at 4:29 pm

        I wonder if it is possible to do an econometric analysis of fuel prices and actual consumption levels.

        We've seen very modest appreciation in fuel efficiency and less driving in the passenger transportation side considering the near tripling of real costs, i.e, how much households spend on gasoline as a percentage of their income.

        So, at what price point does elasticity of demand really kick in, and can we do any realistic quantitative projection, controlling for such factors as employment levels and necessity costs (those households who have no alternatives but to pay more – they can't don't have any substitutes in transit or can't afford to buy more efficient vehicles) .

        [Mar 10, 2015] The Disintegrating Empire Of Controlled Chaos by Dmitry Orlov

        Mar 10, 2015 | Zero Hedge via Club Orlovb blog,
        The term "chaos" has been popping up a lot lately in the increasingly collapse-prone world in which we find ourselves. Pepe Escobar has even published a book on it. Titled Empire of Chaos, it describes a scenario "where an American] plutocracy progressively projects its own internal disintegration upon the whole world." Escobar's chaos is tailor-made; its purpose is "to prevent an economic integration of Eurasia that would leave the U.S. a non-hegemon, or worse still, an outsider."

        Escobar is not the only one thinking along these lines; here is Vladimir Putin speaking at the Valdai Conference in 2014:

        A unilateral diktat and imposing one's own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.

        Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.

        Indeed, Escobar's chaos doesn't seem to be working too well. Eurasian integration is very much on track, with China and Russia now acting as an economic, military and political unit, and with other Eurasian states eager to play a role. The European Union is, for the moment, being excluded from Eurasia because it is effectively under American occupation, but this state of affairs is unlikely to last due to budgetary problems. (To be precise, we have to say that it is under NATO occupation, but if we dig just a little, we find that NATO is really just the US military with a European façade hammered onto it Potemkin village-style.)

        And so the term "empire" seems rather misplaced. Empires are ambitious undertakings that seek to exert control over their domain, and what sort of an empire is it if its main activity is stepping on the same rake over and over again? A silly one? Then why not just call it "The Silly Empire"? Indeed, there are lots of fun silly imperial activities to choose from. For example: arm and train moderate opposition to a regime you want to overthrow; find out that it isn't moderate at all; try to bomb them into submission and fail at that too.

        Some people raise the criticism that the empire does in fact function because somebody somewhere is profiting from all this chaos. Indeed they are, but taking this as a sign of imperial success is tantamount to regarding getting mugged on the way to the supermarket as a sign of economic success. Success has nothing to do with it, but Escobar's "internal disintegration" does seem apt: the disintegrating empire's internal chaos is leaking out and causing chaos everywhere.

        Still, the US makes every effort to exert control, mainly by exerting pressure on friends and enemies alike, and by demanding unquestioning obedience. Some might call this "controlled chaos."

        But what is "controlled chaos"? How does one control chaos, and is it even possible? Let's delve.

        Chaos Theory

        There is a branch of mathematics called chaos theory. It deals with dynamic systems that exhibit a certain set of behaviors:

        • For any causal relationship that can be observed, tiny differences in initial conditions cause large differences in outcome. The hackneyed example is the "butterfly effect" where the hypothetical flapping of the wings of a butterfly influences the course of a hurricane some weeks later. Or, to pick a more meaningful example, if the stock market were a chaotic system, then investing a million dollars in an index fund might result in a portfolio of about a million dollars a few months later; whereas investing a million and one dollars might result in a portfolio of minus a trillion dollars and change.
        • Unpredictability beyond a short time-period: given finite initial information about a system, its behavior beyond a short period of time becomes impossible to predict. Since information about a real-world system is always finite, being limited by what can be observed and measured, chaotic systems are by their nature unpredictable.
        • Topological mixing: any given region of a chaotic system's phase space will eventually overlap with every other region. Chaotic systems can have several distinct states, but eventually these states will mix. For example, if a certain bank were a chaotic system, with two distinct states-solvent and bankrupt-then these states would eventually mix.

        Mathematicians like to play with models of chaos, which are deterministic and time-invariant: they can run a simulation over and over again with slightly different inputs, and observe the result. But real-world chaotic systems are non-deterministic and non-time-invariant: not only do they produce wildly different outputs based on very slightly different inputs, but they produce different outputs every time. What's more, even if deterministic chaotic systems did exist in nature, they would be indistinguishable from so-called "stochastic" systems-ones that exhibit randomness.

        Control Theory

        Another branch of mathematics deals with ways of controlling dynamic processes. A typical example is a thermostat: it maintains constant temperature by turning a heat source on if the temperature drops below a certain threshold, and off again if it rises above a certain other threshold. (The difference between the two thresholds is called "hysteresis.") Another typical example is the autopilot: it is a device that computes the difference between the programmed course and the actual course (called an "error signal" and applies that error signal to a control mechanism to keep the boat or the plane on course. There are many variations on this theme, but the overall scheme is always the same: measure system output, compare to reference, compute error signal, and apply it as negative feedback to the system.

        In order to apply control theory to a system, that system must obey certain principles. One is the superposition principle: output must be proportional to the input. Left rudder always causes the boat to turn left; more left rudder causes it to boat to turn left faster. Another is time-invariance: the boat reacts to changes in rudder angle the same way every time. These are necessities; but most applications of control theory make an additional assumption of linearity: that changes in system behavior are linearly proportional to changes in control input. Since all real-world systems are non-linear, an effort is usually made to endow them with a relatively linear flat spot in the middle of their useful range. Turn a boat's rudder a little bit, and the boat turns as expected; turn it too far, and it stalls and no longer works.

        Applying control theory to chaotic systems is tricky, because of the issue of "controllability": is it possible to put a system in a particular state by applying particular control signals? In a chaotic system, very small error signals can produce very large differences in system output. Therefore, a chaotic system cannot be controlled. However, an uncontrollable system can sometimes be stabilized and made to cycle around within a particular, useful, or at least non-lethal, part of its phase space. Generally, to stabilize the system, it must be observable: it must be possible to measure the output of the system and use it to issue corrections. However, even an an unobservable system can still be stabilized, by detecting its state periodically and applying a control signal to push it incrementally in the right direction.

        Here is a real-world example. Suppose you are hurtling along a slush-covered highway in a subcompact car with bald summer tires. At some point a very minor perturbation of some sort will transform this controllable system into an uncontrollable one: the car will start spinning. Since it can no longer be steered, it will slide toward the barrier on one side of the highway or the other. It will also become unobservable: with the driver spinning along with the car, it will become impossible to observe the car's trajectory based on short glimpses of the roadway spinning past. Can this situation be stabilized?

        Yes, it turns out that it can be. This is a trick I learned from a jet fighter pilot, which I was then able to apply to the exact scenario I just described. If a jet starts tumbling out of control, the pilot's job is to get it to stop tumbling and to get it back to level flight. This is done by twisting one's head back and forth in rhythm with the spin, catching glimpses of the horizon, and working the yoke, also in rhythm to the spin, to slow it down, and to make the horizon go horizontal.

        In a car, the driver's job is to get the car to stop spinning without hitting the barrier on either side of the highway. This is done by twisting one's head in rhythm to the spin, catching glimpses of the barriers on each side of the road, and working the steering wheel, also in rhythm to get the car to stop spinning while keeping it away from either barrier. If the car is spinning clockwise, then a clockwise twist to the steering wheel will move it forward, a counterclockwise twist will move it backward, and a stomp on the brakes will slow down its forward or backward motion somewhat.

        This is typically the best that can be done in controlling chaos: using small perturbations to keep the system within a certain range of safe, useful states, keeping it out of any number of useless or dangerous ones. But there is one more caveat: such applications of control theory to chaotic systems require finding out the properties of the chaotic system ahead of time. That's rather tricky to do if a system evolves continuously in response to these small perturbations. In situations that involve politics or military matters, applying the same control measure twice is about as effective as telling the same joke twice to the same audience: you become the joke.

        * * *

        The moral of this story should be obvious by now: as with the car on a slush-covered highway, any fool can get it to spin out, but that same fool is then unlikely to have the presence of mind, the skill and the steel nerves to keep it from hitting one of the barriers. Same goes for the would-be builders of an "empire of controlled chaos": sure, they can generate chaos, but controlling it in a manner that allows them to derive some benefit from it is rather out of the question, and even their ability to stabilize it, so that they are not themselves hurt by it, is in grave doubt.

        [Mar 10, 2015] Sheldon Adelson – The Dangerous American Oligarch Behind Benjamin Netanyahu

        Mar 10, 2015 | Zero H4edge
        Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

        "What are we going to negotiate about? What I would say is, 'Listen, you see that desert out there? I want to show you something,'" Adelson said at Yeshiva University. "You pick up your cellphone, and you call somewhere in Nebraska, and you say, 'okay, let it go.' So there's an atomic weapon goes over - ballistic missiles - in the middle of the desert that doesn't hurt a soul."

        Adelson continued: "Then you say, 'See? The next one is in the middle of Tehran.' So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position and continue with your nuclear development.

        – From the Washington Post article: Adelson: Obama Should Fire Nuke to Send Message to Iran

        That a handful of extraordinarily rich and powerful oligarchs as well as mega-corporations have completely hijacked the American political process is hardy news. It's been the key topic of discussion here at Liberty Blitzkrieg and elsewhere for many years (see: New Report from Princeton and Northwestern Proves It: The U.S. is an Oligarchy).

        What makes their control so effective is the use of an army of lobbyists, lawyers, Super PACs and bought and paid for politicians to do their dirty work, thus employing an opaque network of well-heeled minions created to conceal who is really pulling the strings.

        Of all the commentary written about Netanyahu's embarrassing political stunt in front of the U.S. Congress last week, the most important angle was largely overlooked. That is, it sort of represented a coming out party for the American oligarch from behind the curtain.

        Sheldon Adelson, by all accounts a vile and violent sort of the worst kind, has made entirely controlling the Republican party his lifelong achievement. Additionally, and quite significantly to U.S. and Israeli citizens, Mr. Adelson has transformed himself into the puppet-master behind Benjamin Netanyahu. Just so there's no misunderstanding about who Sheldon Adelson is, let's revisit a post from last year titled, Inside the Mind of an Oligarch – Sheldon Adelson Proclaims "I Don't Like Journalism". Here's an excerpt:

        Billionaire casino mogul and conservative donor Sheldon Adelson said Sunday that the Palestinians are a made-up nation which exists solely to attempt to destroy Israel.

        At the conference, which also featured top Democratic funder Haim Saban, Adelson also said Israel would not be able to survive as a democracy: "So Israel won't be a democratic state, so what?" he asked Saban, adding that democracy, after all, is not mentioned in the Torah,and recommended that the country build a "big wall" to protect itself, saying, "I would put up a big wall around my property."

        Saban and Adelson should buy The New York Times together in an effort to bring more "balance" to the newspaper's coverage of Israel and the Middle East, Adelson suggested to wild applause.

        "I don't like journalism," Adelson said, highlighting what he said was the media's insistence on focusing on the empty half of the glass.

        Bill Moyers recently hit the nail on the head when it comes to Sheldon Adelson and his war catalyzing puppet, Benjamin Netanyahu. He writes:

        Everything you need to know about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's address to Congress Tuesday was the presence in the visitor's gallery of one man – Sheldon Adelson.

        The gambling tycoon is the Godfather of the Republican Right. The party's presidential hopefuls line up to kiss his assets, scraping and bowing for his blessing, which when granted is bestowed with his signed checks. Data from both the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics and the Center for Public Integrity show that in the 2012 election cycle, Adelson and his wife Miriam (whose purse achieved metaphoric glory Tuesday when it fell from the gallery and hit a Democratic congressman) contributed $150 million to the GOP and its friends, including $93 million to such plutocracy-friendly super PACs as Karl Rove's American Crossroads, the Congressional Leadership Fund, the Republican Jewish Coalition Victory Fund, Winning Our Future (the pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC) and Restore Our Future (the pro-Mitt Romney super PAC).

        Yet there's no knowing for sure about all of the "dark money" contributed by the Adelsons – so called because it doesn't have to be reported. Like those high-rise, multi-million dollar apartments in New York City purchased by oligarchs whose identity is hidden within perfectly legal shell organizations, dark money lets our politicians conveniently erase fingerprints left by their ink-stained (from signing all those checks) billionaire benefactors.

        Adelson owns the daily Israel Hayom, a leading newspaper, as well as Makor Roshon, the daily newspaper of Israel's Zionist religious right and NRG, a news website. He gives Israel Hayom away for free in order to promote his hardline views – the headline in the paper the day after Obama's re-election was "The US Voted [for] Socialism."

        More important, he uses the paper to bang the drum incessantly for Netanyahu and his right-wing Likud Party, under the reign of which Israel has edged closer and closer to theocracy. As Hebrew University economist Momi Dahan put it: "De facto, the existence of a newspaper like Israel Hayom egregiously violates the law, because [Adelson] actually is providing a candidate with nearly unlimited resources."

        In fact, as Israel's March 17 election approaches, Adelson has increased the press run of Israel Hayom's weekend edition by 70 percent. The paper says it's to increase circulation and advertising, but rival newspaper Ha'aretz reports, "Political sources are convinced the extra copies are less part of a business plan and more one to help Netanyahu's re-election bid." Just like the timing of Netanyahu's "State of the Union" address to Congress this week was merely a coincidence, right? "I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political," Netanyahu told Congress. "That was never my intention." Of course.

        So Netanyahu gets the best of both of Adelson's worlds – his powerful propaganda machine in Israel and his campaign cash here in the United States. Combined, they allow Netanyahu to usurp American foreign policy as he manipulates an obliging US Congress enamored of Adelson's millions, pushing it further to the right on Israel and the Middle East.

        There you have it: Not only is this casino mogul the unofficial head of the Republican Party in America ("he with the gold rules"), he is the uncrowned King of Israel - David with a printing press and checkbook instead of a slingshot and a stone. All of this came to the fore in Netanyahu's speech on Tuesday: the US cannot determine its own policy in the Middle East and the majority in Congress are under the thumb of a foreign power.

        Everything you need to know about Benjamin Netanyahu's address to Congress Tuesday was the presence in the visitor's gallery of that man. We are hostage to his fortune.

        Don't forget the quote at the top where he suggested scaring Iran into submission by threatening to drop a nuke on Tehran. Who's the aggressor again?

        This whole thing takes on a much greater level of significance given Adelson's near total control of the U.S. Republican party, as well as his control over Israel's Prime Minister. The man is not only the 8th richest man in the world, he's also a menace to civilized society, and people need to start paying a lot more attention to him.

        I think the following illustration from Haaretz sums it up best:

        Divine Wind
        Stop firing missiles into our territory.

        Stop sending suicide bombers into our territory.

        Remove from your charter the destruction of Israel.

        It really is that simple.

        Start here, and perhaps we will stop punching you in the face.

        Greenskeeper_Carl
        http://original.antiwar.com/rothbard/2010/03/02/war-guilt-in-the-middle-...

        here you go, people. read this and learn something. Before you start in with your "thats anti-semitic" crap and repeat the same bullshit that any criticism of Isreal is jew hating, keep in mind this was written by Murray Rothbard, a Jew. And, it was written in 1967.

        cornfritter

        Here's a badass summary of these critters... they are trouble, and there are people fighting them - MUST READ

        http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/03/08/the-hidden-history-of-the-incred...

        Peace

        PS - I always liked rothbard - straight talker

        YHC-FTSE

        If you want to see why people equate Israel with ISIS, look no further than the Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman who said that Israeli arabs disloyal to the State of Israel should have their heads chopped off. How about ISIS terrorists being treated in Israeli hospitals to be sent back out to fight again? These Israelis are sick fucks who deserve all the insulting epithets I can muster to describe their actions.

        I cannot for the life of me understand the psychopaths who support Israel. I implore jewish folks to join all of us to voice their displeaure instead of keeping silent about the pernicous evils of zionist nazis who founded and control that terrorist apartheid state of genocidal lunatics.

        [Mar 10, 2015] Frontline Ukraine: How Europe failed to slay the demons of war by Richard Sakwa

        March 10, 2015 | The Guardian

        In an extract from his new book, historian Richard Sakwa argues that the current conflict has its roots in the exclusion of Russia from genuine partnerships since the end of the cold war

        In 2014, history returned to Europe with a vengeance. The crisis over Ukraine brought back not only the spectre but the reality of war, on the 100th anniversary of a conflict that had been spoken of as the war to end all war. The great powers lined up, amid a barrage of propaganda and informational warfare, while many of the smaller powers made their contribution to the festival of irresponsibility.

        This was also the 75th anniversary of the beginning of the second world war, which wreaked so much harm on central and eastern Europe. The fall of the Berlin Wall 25 years earlier and the subsequent end of the cold war had been attended by expectations of a Europe "whole and free".

        These hopes were crushed in 2014, and Europe is now set for a new era of division and confrontation. The Ukrainian crisis was the immediate cause, but this only reflected deeper contradictions in the pattern of post-communist development since 1989. In other words, the European and Ukrainian crises came together to devastating effect.

        The "Ukrainian crisis" refers to profound tensions in the the country's nation and state-building processes since it achieved independence in late 1991, which now threaten the unity of the state itself.

        These are no longer described in classical ideological terms, but, in the Roman manner, through the use of colours. The Orange tendency thinks in terms of a Ukraine that can finally fulfil its destiny as a nation state, officially monolingual, culturally autonomous from other Slavic nations and aligned with "Europe" and the Atlantic security community. This is a type of "monism", because of its emphasis on the singularity of the Ukrainian experience.

        By contrast, Blue has come to symbolise a rather more plural understanding of the challenges facing Ukraine, recognising that the country's various regions have different historical and cultural experiences, and that the modern state needs to acknowledge this diversity in a more capacious constitutional settlement. For the Blues, Ukraine is more of a "state nation", an assemblage of different traditions, but above all one where Russian is recognised as a second state language and economic, social and even security links with Russia are maintained. Of course, the Blue I am talking about is an abstraction, not the blue of former president Viktor Yanukovych's Party of Regions.

        The Blues, no less than the Orangists, have been committed to the idea of a free and united Ukraine, but favour a more comprehensive vision of what it means to be Ukrainian. We also have to include the Gold tendency, the powerful oligarchs who have dominated the country since the 1990s, accompanied by widespread corruption and the decay of public institutions.

        Since independence, there has been no visionary leader to meld these colours to forge a Ukrainian version of the rainbow nation.

        The "Ukraine crisis" also refers to the way that internal tensions have become internationalised to provoke the worst crisis in Europe since the end of the cold war. Some have even compared its gravity with the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. The world at various points stood close to a new conflagration, provoked by desperately overheated rhetoric on all sides.

        The asymmetrical end of the cold war effectively shut Russia out from the European alliance system. The failure to establish a genuinely inclusive and equal security system on the continent imbued European international politics with powerful stress points, which in 2014 produced the international earthquake that we now call the Ukraine crisis.

        There had been plenty of warning signs, with Boris Yeltsin, the Russian Federation's first leader, in December 1994 already talking in terms of a "cold peace". When he came to power in 2000, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin devoted himself to overcoming the asymmetries.

        In Greater Europe there would be no need to choose between Brussels, Washington or Moscow

        The major non-state institution at the heart of the architecture of post-communist Europe, the European Union (EU), exacerbated the tensions rather than resolving them. The EU represents the core of what could be called "Wider Europe" – a Brussels-centric vision that extends into the heartlands of what had once been an alternative great-power system centred on Moscow. The increasing merger of Wider Europe with the Atlantic security system only made things worse.

        Russia and some European leaders proposed not so much an alternative but a complementary vision to the monism of Wider Europe, known as "Greater Europe": a way of bringing together all corners of the continent to create what Mikhail Gorbachev in the final period of the Soviet Union had called the "Common European Home". This is a multipolar and pluralistic concept of Europe, allied with but not the same as the Atlantic community.

        In Greater Europe there would be no need to choose between Brussels, Washington or Moscow. In the absence of the tensions generated by the post-cold war "unsettlement", the peace promised at the end of the cold war would finally arrive. Instead, the double "Ukrainian" and "Ukraine" crises combined with catastrophic consequences.

        For me, this is both personal and political. The cold war division of Europe is the reason I was born and grew up in Britain and not in Poland, but, even before that, war and preparations for war had scarred my family. In the inter-war years my father, an agronomist by profession but like so many of his generation also a reservist in the Polish army, marched up and down between Grodno and Lwów (as it was then called).

        He told of the 25kg he had to carry in his backpack, with all sorts of equipment and survival tools. The area at the time was part of the Second Polish Republic, and for generations had been settled by Poles. These were the kresy, the borderlands of Europe grinding up against the ever-rising power of the Russian empire. With the partition of Poland in the 18th century, Grodno and what is now the western part of Belarus was ceded to Russia, while Lemberg (the German name for Lwów) and the surrounding province of Galicia became part of the Austro-Hungarian empire.

        On gaining independence in 1918, and with Russia and the nascent Ukrainian state in the throes of revolution and civil war, the various armies repeatedly marched back and forth across the region. In the end the Polish state occupied an enormous territory to the east of the Curzon Line.

        These were the lands occupied by Joseph Stalin, following the division of the area according to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of 23 August 1939. Poland was invaded on 1 September and against the overwhelming might of Adolf Hitler's armies the Polish forces fell back, only for the Soviet Union to invade on 17 September.

        My father's unit soon came up against the Soviet forces, and when greeted initially by the Poles as coming to support them against the Germans, they were asked to disarm. My father escaped to Hungary, but many of his reservist comrades were captured, and eventually murdered in Katyn and other killing sites.

        My father subsequently joined the Polish second corps under General Anders, and with the British eighth army fought at El Alamein, Benghazi, Tobruk and then all the way up Italy, spending six months at Monte Cassino. At the end of the war Poland was liberated, but it was not free. Unable to return to their homeland, the family was granted refuge in Britain. In the meantime, the Soviet borders were extended to the west, and Lwów became Lvov.

        These were territories that had never been part of the Russian empire, and when Ukraine gained independence in 1991 they became the source of the distinctive Orange vision of Ukrainian statehood. Today Lvov has become Lviv, while its representation of what it means to be Ukrainian is contested by other regions and communities, notably the Blues, each of which has endured an equally arduous path to become part of the modern Ukrainian state.

        As for the political, being a product of an ideologically and geographically divided Europe, I shared the anticipation at the end of the cold war in 1989–91 that a new and united Europe could finally be built. For a generation the EU helped transcend the logic of conflict in the western part of the continent by binding the traditional antagonists, France and Germany, into a new political community, one that expanded from the founding six that signed the Treaty of Rome in March 1957 to the 28 member states of today.

        The Council of Europe, established in 1949, broadened its activities into the post-communist region, and now encompasses 47 nations and 820 million citizens, as its website proudly proclaims. The European Convention of Human Rights and its additional protocols established a powerful normative framework for the continent, policed by the European Court of Human Rights, based in Strasbourg. Russia in the 1990s actively engaged with the EU, signing a Partnership and Cooperation agreement in 1994, although it only took effect on 30 October 1997 following the first Chechen war, and the next year Russia joined the Council of Europe.

        However, another dynamic was at work, namely the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato). Also established in 1949 to bring together the victorious western allies, now ranged against the Soviet Union in what had become the cold war.

        Nato was not disbanded when the Soviet Union disintegrated and the cold war came to an end. This was the source of the unbalanced end to the cold war, with the eastern part dissolving its alliance system while Nato in the 1990s began a march to the east.

        An East German border guard looks through a hole in the Berlin Wall on 19 November 1989.

        This raised increasing alarm in Russia, and, while notionally granting additional security to its new members, it meant that security in the continent had become divisible. Worse, there was an increasing perception that EU enlargement was almost the automatic precursor to Nato expansion.

        The failure to create a genuinely inclusive and symmetrical post-communist order generated what some call a new cold war

        There was a compelling geopolitical logic embedded in EU enlargement. For example, although many member states had reservations about the readiness of Bulgaria and Romania to join, there was a fear that they could drift off and become western versions of Ukraine. The project of European economic integration, and its associated peace project, effectively merged with the Euro-Atlantic security partnership, a fateful elision that undermined the rationale of both and which in the end provoked the Ukraine crisis.

        The failure to create a genuinely inclusive and symmetrical post-communist political and security order generated what some took to calling a "new cold war", or, more precisely, a "cold peace", which stimulated new resentments and the potential for new conflicts.

        It became increasingly clear that the demons of war in Europe had not been slain. Instead, the Ukraine crisis demonstrates just how fragile international order has become, and how much Europe has to do to achieve the vision that was so loudly proclaimed, when the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989, of a continent united from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

        The Ukraine crisis forces us to rethink European international relations. If Europe is not once again to be divided, there need to be new ideas about what an inclusive and equitable political and security order encompassing the whole continent would look like. In other words, the idea of Greater Europe needs to be endowed with substance and institutional form.

        Unfortunately, it appears that the opposite will happen: old ideas will be revived, the practices of the cold war will, zombie-like, come back to life, and once again there will be a fatal dividing line across Europe that will mar the lives of the generation to come. This is far from inevitable, but to avoid it will require a shift in the mode of political intercourse from exprobration to diplomacy, and from denunciation to dialogue.

        Thus the personal and the political combine, and this book is much an exploration of failed opportunities as it is an account of how we created yet another crisis in European international politics on the anniversaries of the start of two world wars and a moment of hope in 1989. My father's generation suffered war, destruction and displacement, and yet the European civil war that dominated the 20th century still inflames the political imagination of the 21st.

        To order Frontline Ukraine for £15.19 (RRP £18.99), go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846

        Richard Sakwa is professor of Russian and European politics at the University of Kent

        See also:

        • The demonisation of Russia risks paving the way for war | Seumas Milne
        • Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands by Richard Sakwa review – an unrivalled account



        jakartamoscow Bud Peart 10 Mar 2015 10:44

        When an objective article shows up, expect another 3500 anti-Russian article the following two months. SOP.


        DIPSET 10 Mar 2015 10:29

        The asymmetrical end of the cold war effectively shut Russia out from the European alliance system,

        Which only served to accelerate the Russian pivot to China.

        With the Chinese publicly and explicitly in the past week saying that they agree and support Russia's actions in Ukraine, battle lines are being drawn.

        Today brings further confirmation of the rubicon being crossed........

        China's long-awaited international payment system to process cross-border yuan transactions is ready, and may be launched as early as September or October, three sources with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters.

        "The CIPS is ready now and China has selected 20 banks to do the testing, among which 13 banks are Chinese banks and the rest are subsidiaries of foreign banks," one of the sources told the agency.

        For a while China has been exploring methods to cut dependence on the dollar and other hard currencies in international trade, hoping to settle more deals in yuan.

        http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/09/us-china-yuan-payments-exclusive-idUSKBN0M50BV20150309?irpc=932


        Absolutely fascinating times......


        SHappens 10 Mar 2015 10:27

        Now that you are about to become a close ally of the US and a dictator at the same time, you should be warned that this might not be the beginning of a long-living love affair that inevitably ends with an account full of dollars, an army equipped with the finest stuff ever produced to kill your enemies, with the warm feeling of security because your American advisers taught your people how to get rid of your opponents, and with standing ovations at the UN Security Council for whatever you will say against Russians and other foes.

        This is a little history lesson to remind you that the weather in Washington is much more capricious than the continental climate of Eurasia.

        The US certainly won Cold War, but not necessarily their Allies. One of the first to experience that fine difference was Saddam Hussein, Washington's close ally in the Middle East for much of the 1980s. Hussein was a CIA asset to overthrow the Qassim-Regime, which was for the Americans too close to Soviet Union.

        http://original.antiwar.com/michael_pesek/2015/03/06/an-open-letter-to-petro-poroshenko/ . A must read.

        aprescoup 10 Mar 2015 10:22

        The first narrative on Ukraine and Russia that makes sense to me. Why don't the others get it? Obama, Kerry, Nuland, Bildt, Merkel, Hollande? Because they are thick? Or because they don't want to get it?


        irishmand -> Oskar Jaeger 10 Mar 2015 10:17

        Russia has been demonised during the last year, yes, but deservedly so.
        The ruins of Ukraine are the reason.

        Who decides about Russia deserves demonising? The people who can possibly profit from it, because they want to supply more arms?

        foolisholdman -> jasonbirder 10 Mar 2015 10:16

        jasonbirder

        Only after Stalingrad did the US President decide to circumvent the US Congress' specific ban in getting involved in the European War and help the UK

        I'm confused...didn't the US declare war on Germany in December 1941...whereas the German Forces were defeated at Stalingrad in early 1943...over a year later!

        Yes, you are confused. I think you have been deliberately confused. The USA did not declare war on Germany. Germany declared war on the USA.

        So it is not President Rooseveldt whom we have to thank for bringing the USA into the war on the side of democracy and decency but Herr Hitler!


        MoneyCircus Jonathan Stromberg 10 Mar 2015 09:46

        An intelligent and detailed argument shot straight over your head, didn't it.

        In his article Sakwa says that conflict was inevitable (if not over Ukraine, then over some other point) because - primarily - of the failure of countries and blocs to adapt to changing realities.

        It has been clear for 20 years that the EU has forgotten its origins as a way to prevent war and has become a tool of commercial, mercantile and territorial expansion. The phrase "fortress Europe" is a clue.

        I'll add to Sakwa's point - that the centenary of the outbreak of WW1 was not marked by the sort of reflection and self-analysis that many of us expected. And this was for good reason.

        The build up of arms, the great game for resources and the alliances (launching wars of proxy terror against each other) recall the run up to WW1, far more than they do WW2.


        oalexander BunglyPete 10 Mar 2015 09:44

        This is your so-called western freedom of press:

        http://thesaker.is/full-videos-of-the-cnn-and-ard-interviews-with-putin-in-russia-and-with-english-subtitles-updated/

        The rest is lies and half-truths as can be found in the so-called pluralistic western media. There may have been a time in the past, but this has gone a long, long time ago.

        Please also compare Cuba crisis and Kosovo with Nato east expansion and Crimea.

        vr13vr jezzam 10 Mar 2015 12:10

        "This crisis was triggered by Ukraine moving towards EU membership rather than Putins's Eurasian Union. Since EU rules require such things as recognition of the rights of minorities, it is hard to see how this could be any threat towards ethnic Russians in Ukraine."

        From having the EU requirements to the mood on the street, the difference was huge. Whatever the requirements could have been, the mood on the street at the moment wasn't meeting those requirements. That "rather than Putin's Union" further instigated the anti-Russian mood.

        That piled up on top of the fact that those areas never wanted to be part of Ukraine anyway. So you have the areas that were reluctant to be in Ukraine to begin with, coupled with the nationalistically energized mood on the streets elsewhere that would result in West Ukrainian desire to finally make those areas loyal. Even if it is against the EU rules.

        And of course the fact that the government voted for by the East and the South voters was overthrown in violent uprising (for the second time in a decade) didn't give much confidence in the stability either.


        TOR2000 jezzam 10 Mar 2015 11:50

        "The Kremlin then proposed to Brussels that negotiations be conducted between the EU and the Eurasion Union -- directly between the two blocs of power. But European Commission President José Manuel Barroso refused to meet with the leaders of the Eurasion Union, a bloc he considered to be an EU competitor.

        "One country cannot at the same time be a member of a customs union and be in a deep common free-trade area with the European Union," the commission president said on February 25. He said that Kiev had to decide which path it wanted to take. The message was clear: Kiev had to choose either Brussels or Moscow." (Summit of Failure: How the EU Lost Russia over Ukraine http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/war-in-ukraine-a-result-of-misunderstandings-between-europe-and-russia-a-1004706.html)


        John Smith Sceptical Walker 10 Mar 2015 11:47

        As for Libya, it was not a US business as you like to portray it. A large number of states were willingly involved to stop Khadaffi (like Assad) from killing his own people.

        HaHa nice fairy tale )
        Maybe they killed him because he wanted to sell oil in other currencies, and also wanted 160 bn$ from Goldman Sachs and more from other financial institutions back.
        Libya under Gaddafi:
        GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
        * For each family member the state pays $ 1000 grants.
        * Unemployment - $ 730.
        * Salary Nurse - $ 1000.
        * For every newborn is paid $ 7000.
        * The bride and groom given away $ 64,000 to buy an apartment.
        * At the opening of a one-time personal business financial assistance - $ 20,000.
        * Large taxes and extortions are prohibited.
        * Education and medicine are free.
        * Education and training abroad - at the expense of the state.
        * Store chain for large families with symbolic prices of basic foodstuffs.
        * For the sale of products past their expiry date - large fines and detention
        * Part of pharmacies - free
        * For counterfeiting - the death penalty.
        * Rents - none.
        * Fees for electricity for households -none!
        * Sales and use of alcohol is prohibited - prohibition.
        * Loans to buy a car and an apartment - interest free.
        * Real estate services were prohibited.
        * Buying a car up to 50% paid by the state, militia fighters - 65%.
        * Gasoline is cheaper than water. 1 liter - 0,14 $
        -If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
        - A portion of Libyan oil sale is, credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens
        -Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country

        TOR2000 psygone 10 Mar 2015 11:41

        Weren't Shamil Basayev and Al Khattab, the main rebel leaders in Chechnya, trained in CIA-sponsored camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan?


        DIPSET irishmand 10 Mar 2015 11:30

        @irishmand

        You nationality will, justifiably, make you wary but there is no evidence of them "stabbing" your lot in the back. China fully understand that after the Yanks try and crush you, they are next.

        Call it a marriage of conveniance of you must.

        A common enemy (hello America "exceptionalism" lol) has sharpened minds. As the little incident with Hong Kong last year showed, "freedom and democracy" is what they are itching to bring to the Chinese mainland.

        Incidentally, the way they banned the UK officials from entering Hong Kong was hilarious as our MP's were reduced to moaning and whining on twitter that China was not playing fair lol.

        In Lavrov you have a master diplomat who has ridden this redeo before and knows how to deal with the European puppets.

        In Putin you have a man that will never allow Russia to be subjugated. Ever.

        The rest is just semantics as they say......

        2015 is that year, either way

        BorninUkraine -> DIPSET 10 Mar 2015 11:24

        Unipolar world is dead, RIP. Right now, China, India, much of the rest of Asia, and most of Latin America and Africa are happy to let Russia take the flak for standing up to the bully.

        But they know that soon they will have to defend their own interests. That's why they side with Russia not so much because they support its policies, but because it is giving a black eye to the US.

        geedeesee 10 Mar 2015 11:19

        Professor Richard Sakwa can point to history, as if Obama was handed a difficult legacy, but it doesn't justify or mitigate the crisis which erupted in 2014. Obama had the opportunity to shed any past mistakes. Indeed, he recognised this with the "Re-Set' of US-Russian relations soon after taking office.

        The current crisis has its beginnings well within the Obama administration. When, in November 2013, the Yanukovich government and civil-servant advisers decided the Russian offer was better than the EU offer, someone in the Obama administration decided they were going to overturn it. Victoria Nuland's speech the following month at the US/Ukraine Foundation in Washington, in which she revealed US had spent $5 billion, demonstrated their resolve to overrule the government of Ukraine:

        ...it would be a huge shame to see five years' worth of work and preparation go to waste if the AA [EU deal] is not signed in the near future. So it is time to finish the job.

        Time to finish the job! A statement like that has the backing of senior level policy decision. Obama has to have authorised that policy given the impact on Russia. And so it played out. Victoria Nuland, again, caught out choosing the personalities in a new government in January. And then in February there was a coup!

        This crisis begins in the Obama administration and, more specifically, in Obama's second term.


        RudolphS ID075732 10 Mar 2015 11:15

        'Why was Russia excluded from true partnership with Europe after 1989? By the same reasoning why was NATO not disbanded after the fall of the Berlin wall? The reason probably lies in the continued need for the US to maintain control and influence in Europe.'

        Well, the reason is quite simple. As the victor of a 60 year-old cold war (communism vs. capitalism) you're of course temped to capitalize on it. But honest, the West should've known better. They should've gone the way how Germany was treated after WWII: Helping to re-build and intergrate the country within the international community, with as a result that the germans rapidly became the most loyal and valuable ally the West could hope for.


        John Smith Havingalavrov 10 Mar 2015 11:14

        (Reuters) - Western powers should take into consideration Russia's legitimate security concerns over Ukraine, a top Chinese diplomat has said in an unusually frank and open display of support for Moscow's position in the crisis.

        Qu Xing, China's ambassador to Belgium, was quoted by state news agency Xinhua late on Thursday as blaming competition between Russia and the West for the Ukraine crisis, urging Western powers to "abandon the zero-sum mentality" with Russia.

        He said the "nature and root cause" of the crisis was the "game" between Russia and Western powers, including the United States and the European Union.

        He said external intervention by different powers accelerated the crisis and warned that Moscow would feel it was being treated unfairly if the West did not change its approach.

        "The West should abandon the zero-sum mentality, and take the real security concerns of Russia into consideration," Qu was quoted as saying.

        His comments were an unusually public show of understanding from China for the Russian position. China and Russia see eye-to-eye on many international diplomatic issues but Beijing has generally not been so willing to back Russia over Ukraine.

        http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/09/us-china-yuan-payments-exclusive-idUSKBN0M50BV20150309?irpc=932


        irishmand psygone 10 Mar 2015 11:12

        After the collapse of communism, where was Russia's attempt to truly diversify its economy away from the power oligarchs, commodities and oil/gas?

        After the collapse of communism the oligarchs like Khodorkovsky were too busy helping US/EU corporations to plunder Russia. It was the moment Russians lost their trust in US/EU democracy.

        [Mar 10, 2015] Vladimir Putin describes secret meeting when Russia decided to seize Crimea by Agence France-Presse

        Mar 09, 2015 | theguardian.com

        NotRevJimJones

        I should have read the comments before posting mine. The extent of russophobia is mad, like when the pot was being stirred for the invasion of Iraq.

        But then, Putin is the new Hitler, just like Saddam was.

        As my maternal grandmother would have stated, all youse antiputinistas are feckin eejits...

        normankirk -> NotRevJimJones 1h ago

        Apparently you can fool most of the people most of the time
        You'd think theyd learn!

        TOR2000
        A total of 82% of the population of the Crimea fully support Russia's annexation of the peninsula, according to a poll carried out by the GfK Group research institute in Ukraine, Ukrainian online newspaper Ukrainska Pravda reported on Wednesday. Another 11% of respondents said that they rather support the annexation of Crimea, while 4% were against it.
        The poll was conducted on January 16-22, 2015
        http://www.unian.info/politics/1040281-poll-82-of-crimeans-support-annexation.html

        NotRevJimJones -> TOR2000

        Begorrah! Yis talking sense, so the eejits are sure to ignore yer... TOR2000

        Has someone hoped that sanctions would change Russia's behavior? Fire your advisers, Russia's anti-American fever goes beyond the Soviet era's: More than 80 percent of Russians now hold negative views of the United States, according to the independent Levada Center, a number that has more than doubled over the past year and that is by far the highest negative rating since the center started tracking those views in 1988.
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russias-anti-us-sentiment-now-is-even-worse-than-it-was-in-soviet-union/2015/03/08/b7d534c4-c357-11e4-a188-8e4971d37a8d_story.html
        The anger seems different from the fast-receding jolts of the past, observers say, having spread faster and wider.

        The years of perceived humiliations have "led to anti-Americanism at the grass-roots level, which did not exist before," said Vladimir Pozner, a journalist who for decades was a prominent voice of the Soviet Union in the United States. More recently, he has to explain the United States inside Russia. "We don't like the Americans, and it's because they're pushy, they think they're unique and they have had no regard for anyone else."

        NotRevJimJones -> TOR2000, 46m ago

        Justified antiamericanism, no?

        NotRevJimJones, 2h ago

        The military operation was initially kept secret and despite the increasingly obvious actions of unmarked Russian forces on the ground, Moscow insisted that only locals were involved in the upheaval. Later, the Kremlin conceded that it had been behind the power grab.

        This is false. Repeatedly, translations from Russian to English are manipulated to imply emphasis that is not apparent in the original Russian.
        Crimean opolchenie blockaded Ukrainian military installations, with Russian forces ensuring there was no conflagration, and once Crimeans voted for secession, 70% of Ukrainian armed forces in Crimea chose to transfer to Russian authority. All the Kremlin admitted to was the deployment of forces to ensure the peaceful transfer of authority from rejected Kiev, first to Simferopol, and then by referendum, to Moscow.
        Of course this accorded with the wishes of the Kremlin, but to puncture the conspiracy theorists' wild accusations, this transfer of authority happened to concur with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Crimea.

        So, ultimately, we have a populace, Crimeans, who are overwhelmingly Russian, who overwhelmingly want to be part of Russia, who have by plebiscite become part of Russia, and have avoided the carnage of Donbass because, unlike in Donbass, Russian forces were in situ to stop Kiev's punitive attacks.

        And this is a bad thing?

        normankirk -> NotRevJimJones, 1h ago

        Well said.
        NotRevJimJones -> normankirk, 49m ago
        Yet no matter how frequently the obvious is stated, it feels like pissing in the wind...

        luc001, 2h ago

        Ukrainian commies did not take a vote to Annex Crimea from Russia, so none is required to Re-Unite Crimea with Russia.

        Kaiama, 7h ago

        The other side's point of view...via yandex machine translation superior to google.

        According to the Russian President, "the ultimate goal was to give people the opportunity to Express their opinion about how they want to live". "We are the results of the referendum know", - said Vladimir Putin.

        MOSCOW, 9 Mar RIA Novosti. Russian President Vladimir Putin told the details of the events of March last year, when the result of the referendum Crimea was joined to Russia. In the documentary "the Crimea. The way Home", a fragment of which showed the channel "Russia 1", he told me that shortly before the referendum conducted a sociological survey to find out how the idea of returning to the Russian Federation are Crimeans themselves.

        "It turned out that those wishing to join Russia there 75% of the total composition. You understand, was held closed poll, outside the context of a possible accession. It became evident to me that if we get to it, the level or amount of those who would like to this historic event has occurred, will be much higher," said the Russian President.

        "The ultimate goal was to give people the opportunity to Express their opinion about how they want to live.... I thought to myself, if people want, then so be it. It means that they will be there with greater autonomy, with some rights, but as part of the Ukrainian state. So let it be. But if they choose differently, then we can't leave them! We are the results of the referendum know. And we did as you were obliged to do," said Putin.

        Crimea and Sevastopol became the Russian regions after held there in March 2014 referendum in which the majority of residents were in favour of joining the Federation. According to the Treaty of accession, all residents of Crimea are recognized as citizens of Russia, wrote a statement that I want to leave the citizenship of Ukraine. According to the FMS, the disclaimer from Russian citizenship filed only 3 427 people. Just Crimea is home to about 2 million people. Kiev, despite the results of the referendum, still considers the Crimea territory.

        Crimea did not recognize the legitimacy of the new Ukrainian authorities decided to hold a referendum on the future of the region. The vote was held on 16 March 2014. In the Bulletin were made to two questions: "are You for the reunification of the Crimea with Russia on the rights of the subject of the Russian Federation?" and "are You for the restoration of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea in 1992 and over the status of Crimea as part of Ukraine?"

        The majority of voters (96,77%) when appearing in 83.1% of voted for reunification with Russia. The corresponding agreement was signed on 18 March, he was subsequently approved by the state Duma and the Federation Council. They also took the Federal constitutional law on the formation of two new subjects of the Russian Federation - Republic of Crimea and city of Sevastopol. Russian President Vladimir Putin signed both documents. Previously, Putin said that the referendum in Crimea is consistent with international law and the UN Charter.

        [Mar 10, 2015] A Europe-U.S. Divorce Over Ukraine

        Mar 10, 2015 | moonofalabama.org

        The German government finally wakes up, a little bit at least, and recognizes the obvious fact that U.S. neocons want to drag Europe into a war. It is now openly blaming certain circles within the U.S. government and NATO of sabotaging the Minsk ceasefire agreement. Especially offensive is the fantasy talk of U.S. and NATO commander General Breedlove:

        For months, Breedlove has been commenting on Russian activities in eastern Ukraine, speaking of troop advances on the border, the amassing of munitions and alleged columns of Russian tanks. Over and over again, Breedlove's numbers have been significantly higher than those in the possession of America's NATO allies in Europe. As such, he is playing directly into the hands of the hardliners in the US Congress and in NATO.

        The German government is alarmed. Are the Americans trying to thwart European efforts at mediation led by Chancellor Angela Merkel? Sources in the Chancellery have referred to Breedlove's comments as "dangerous propaganda." Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier even found it necessary recently to bring up Breedlove's comments with NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg.

        But Breedlove hasn't been the only source of friction. Europeans have also begun to see others as hindrances in their search for a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict. First and foremost among them is Victoria Nuland, head of European affairs at the US State Department. She and others would like to see Washington deliver arms to Ukraine and are supported by Congressional Republicans as well as many powerful Democrats.

        Indeed, US President Barack Obama seems almost isolated. He has thrown his support behind Merkel's diplomatic efforts for the time being, but he has also done little to quiet those who would seek to increase tensions with Russia and deliver weapons to Ukraine. Sources in Washington say that Breedlove's bellicose comments are first cleared with the White House and the Pentagon. The general, they say, has the role of the "super hawk," whose role is that of increasing the pressure on America's more reserved trans-Atlantic partners.

        The U.S., including Obama, wants to strengthen the U.S. run NATO and thereby its influence in Europe. And Europe, by losing business with Russia and risking war, is supposed to pay for it.

        The German public, despite tons of transatlantic propaganda, has well understood the game and the government can not escape that fact. It has to come back to some decent course and if that means trouble with Washington so be it. The foreign ministers of Germany, France and the U.S. are currently meeting in Paris and Secretary of State Kerry will not like what he will hear:

        In Berlin, top politicians have always considered a common position vis-a-vis Russia as a necessary prerequisite for success in peace efforts. For the time being, that common front is still holding, but the dispute is a fundamental one -- and hinges on the question of whether diplomacy can be successful without the threat of military action. Additionally, the trans-Atlantic partners also have differing goals.

        Whereas the aim of the Franco-German initiative is to stabilize the situation in Ukraine, it is Russia that concerns hawks within the US administration. They want to drive back Moscow's influence in the region and destabilize Putin's power. For them, the dream outcome would be regime change in Moscow.

        Europe has no interest in regime change in Russia. The result would likely be a much worse government and leader then the largely liberal Putin.

        The U.S., the empire of chaos, does not care what happens after a regime change. In the view of U.S. politicians trouble and unrest in the "rest of the world" can only better the (relative) position of the United States. If production capabilities in Europe get destroyed through war the U.S. could revive its export industries.

        It seems that at least some European leaders now understand that they got played by Washington and they are pushing back. A Eurasian economic sphere is in Europe's interest. Will Obama accept their view and turn off the hawks or will he escalate and risk the alliance with Europe? A first sign looks positive. The U.S. called off, on short notice, a plan to train Ukrainian National Guard (i.e. Nazi) forces:

        [O]n Friday, a spokesman for US forces in Europe, confirmed the delay in a statement and said: "The US government would like to see the Minsk agreement fulfilled."

        "The training mission is currently on hold but Army Europe is prepared to carry out the mission if and when our government decides to move forward," the statement said.

        Some Europeans, like the writers in the piece above, still see Obama as a reluctant warrior pushed to war by the hawks in his own government and the Republicans in Congress. But the surge in Afghanistan, the destruction of Libya, the war on Syria and the trouble in Ukraine have all been run by the same propaganda scheme: Obama does not want war, gets pushed and then reluctantly agrees to it. It is a false view. The buck stops at his desk and Nuland as well as General Breedlove and other official hawks concerned about their precious bodily fluids are under Obama's direct command. He can make them shut up or get them fired with a simple 30 second phone call. As he does not do so it is clear that he wants them to talk exactly as they do talk. Obama is the one driving the neocon lane.

        The Europeans should finally get this and distance themselves from that destructive path.

        Posted by b on March 7, 2015 at 01:09 PM | Permalink

        Selected Skeptical Comments

        Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 7, 2015 2:05:22 PM | 1

        Great analysis b.
        Loved this bit...

        The general, they say, has the role of the "super hawk," whose role is that of increasing the pressure on America's more reserved trans-Atlantic partners.

        It's rather insulting to the EU that the dumbass, gutless, Yankees would appoint a war-mongering chicken-hawk called Breedlove to lecture them about The Importance Of Being Ernest - about hating Putin.

        jayc | Mar 7, 2015 2:47:21 PM | 2

        "the dispute is a fundamental one -- and hinges on the question of whether diplomacy can be successful without the threat of military action."

        Insisting that the "threat of military action" always be present during the practice of international diplomacy is a fundamental repudiation of international law as proscribed by the United Nations at the end of WW2. In the current Orwellian situation, the foreign policy hawks (in particularly the Anglo 5 Eyes countries) articulate policy informed by this repudiation while on the other hand insisting that they are motivated by upholding mid-century international law. Here is John Boehner speaking for a bi-partisan Congressional committee quoted today in the Washington Times:

        "It is even more than simply a component of a revisionist Russian strategy to redraw international borders and impose its will on its neighbors,it is a grotesque violation of international law, a challenge to the west and an assault on the international order established at such great cost in the wake of World War II."

        ToivoS | Mar 7, 2015 2:59:09 PM | 3

        When this crisis in Ukraine first broke out last year it made no sense at all for Obama to have let Nuland carry on as she was doing. He could have defused the whole thing simply by firing Nuland or I thought. However, his actions over the past year seem to show that this was his policy as b says here.

        It is hard to understand why He and Kerry have pursued this policy. For sure, as was predictable one year ago it has turned their widely touted 'pivot to asia' into irrelevancy. It has directly forced China and Russia into a stronger alliance. Those are some big prices to pay for our provocations against Russia.

        So why did we do it? I will guess. Putin's 2010 speech proposing a common economic union from Vladivostok to Lisbon must have been seen as a very serious threat by some powerful forces in the US. Fear of losing or at least lessening US hegemony over Europe was probably a major factor in deciding to 'pivot back to Europe'. Our influence there must have seemed much more important than Asia or even the ME. Ukraine provided an opportunity to drive a wedge between Russia and Europe or so US power brokers thought. As a secondary reason, at least one that brought the US military on board with the new policy, is that a new cold war with Russia provided an opportunity to reinvigorate NATO, that has always been a favorite play thing the army and airforce. After the collapse of the Soviet Union it was very difficult to justify NATO's existence.

        It would be ironies of ironies if this crisis now forces Germany to declare its independence and work harder to rebuild relations with Russia and in the process become a major player in the Eurasian Union. This is what Pepe Escobar just suggested this last week is a possibility.

        Laurence | Mar 7, 2015 3:04:18 PM | 4

        Some Europeans, like the writers in the piece above, still see Obama as a reluctant warrior pushed to war by the hawks in his own government and the Republicans in Congress. But ...

        You may be correct. But:

        You haven't established that the evident appearance of `reluctance' is a "false view". In theory, "The buck stops at his desk". The obvious fact that it hasn't, however, is -- at best -- by no means creditable.

        I can hardly wait 'til the `progressive' Twittercrats start calling for Obama to "go nuclear" with Putin. ...

        Colinjames | Mar 7, 2015 3:05:26 PM | 5

        #2, I guess he's taking his cues from Noodles, here's some highlights from her Match 4 address to Foreign Affairs Committee, lifted from Stephen Lendman
        • calledd murdered US-funded, Boris Nemtsov a "freedom fighter, Russian patriot and friend."
        • ...called Ukraine "central to our 25 year Transatlantic quest for a 'Europe whole, free and at peace.'
        • Nuland called US planned and implements year ago Maidan violence using well-trained Nazi thugs "peaceful protest(s) by ordinary Ukrainians."
        • "They braved frigid temperatures, brutal beatings and sniper bullets…Ukraine began to forge a new nation…holding free and fair election…and undertaking deep and comprehensive economic and political reforms."

        Claims-

        • "enhance(d) (Ukrainian) transparency in public procurement, reduce(d) government inefficiency and corruption, (laws) making the banking system more transparent, and measures to improve the climate for business"
        • "it's "building a peaceful, democratic, independent" nation
        • ... Crimea "under illegal occupation"
        • in Eastern Ukraine, Russia and its separatist puppets unleashed unspeakable violence and pillage."
        • "MH17 was shot down. Hundreds of Russian heavy weapons and troops poured across the border, fueling the conflict."
        • "Sixteen Russian uninspected 'humanitarian convoys' entered Ukraine in violation of agreements with the Ukrainian government, the ICRC and the international community."
        • "Donetsk airport was obliterated…Debaltseve, a key rail hub beyond the ceasefire lines, fell to separatist and Russian forces six days after Minsk was signed…"
        • "This is a manufactured conflict controlled by the Kremlin, fueled by Russian tanks and heavy weapons; financed at Russian taxpayers' expense and costing the lives of young Russians…"

        Bizzaro world. Completely upside down from reality. And no I'm not trying to one up you #2! It's just crazy stuff coming out of the mouths of every politician and official and media whore, I've never seen anything like it.

        Wayoutwest | Mar 7, 2015 3:07:24 PM | 6

        Good report, b especially including the fact that this is a bipartisan project led by the Liberal Democrats.

        The European actions especially Germanys may be more or less than they appear to be. I doubt that Germany would or could stand in the way of US demands but they may be facilitating an escape path for the US to use to avoid a more dangerous confrontation with Russia.

        james | Mar 7, 2015 3:25:46 PM | 7

        thanks b.. some good points in your post which i strongly share, this one in particular - The U.S., the empire of chaos, does not care what happens after a regime change. In the view of U.S. politicians trouble and unrest in the "rest of the world" can only better the (relative) position of the United States.

        when does this nightmare called us foreign policy die?

        Piotr Berman | Mar 7, 2015 4:47:47 PM | 8

        "Europe has no interest in regime change in Russia. The result would likely be a much worse government and leader then the largely liberal Putin."

        What is wrong with those two sentences? First, "Europe", a landmass in western Eurasia usually demarcated by the crests of Ural and Caucasus mountain chains and Ural river. The text refers mostly to the governments of France and Germany. Who are "NATO hawks"? Danes and Norwegians, latter day Varangians? Or Latvians and Estonians who would like to have a re-match of Battle on Ice? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_the_Ice_(Lake_Peipus)

        Second, "The result …" This has to be a joke. "Europe" has many headaches with the governments of Greece and Hungary, but can they change them? Actually, in the case of Greece, this sentence could make sense, because in Greece they have a real opportunity of causing a government crisis and getting a more extreme government. But in the case of Russia, it is only a question of having a long-term gain in mutually assured economic destruction, or not.

        Double-talk is bread and butter of diplomacy, but we simple folk can afford to express ourselves more directly. The real problem in arming Ukraine is that the government there is untrustworthy and it would probably use the aid to further neglect the economy and concentrate even more on futile military endeavor, and it could also commit some atrocities as it would be at it. Being "a little bit Nazi" is perfectly fine with Baltic governments and Croatia, plus USA and Canada, could be fine with Hungary but the leader there is constantly on the prowl for good deals and just now got one from Putin, and causes mixed feeling elsewhere.

        So the trillion dollar question for most responsible European leaders is if US is more trustworthy than Poroshenko crew?

        jfl | Mar 7, 2015 5:09:32 PM | 11

        Yes, good analysis. Especially the Empire of Chaos' goal of reimplementing the aftermath of WWII : everyone outside North America flat on their backs and the US the colossus by virtue of still standing. But ...

        ' Will Obama accept their view and turn off the hawks or will he escalate and risk the alliance with Europe? ... Obama is the one driving the neocon lane. '

        Whether it's the neocon line or in the neocon lane, Obama's not driving. Never has been. He was hired to sit behind the wheel of the neoliberal, neocon drone of state, operated by 'pilots' from Langley, the Pentagon, Wall Street - seemingly by all three, via rapid context switch in pseudo-parallel.

        The reason US policy seems to lurch ever more violently toward disaster is because none of the actors actually implementing it by turn are identified. The Nihilist Nobel Peace Prize Laureate gets dunked everytime, hauls himself out of the tank, climbs back up on the stool, makes faces and jeers at the crowd throwing balls at the trip target ... all absurdly trying to effect a change in policy.

        It's just a job ... 2,236 days down, 686 days till payday.

        Mar 7, 2015 5:21:18 PM | 12

        @8,9,10

        Thanks for the analysis with Russia at the center rather than the USA. Catchy restatement of the difference between 'the chicken then the egg' vs 'the egg then the chicken'.

        I'm rooting for Russia, and Putin's been in charge there. Of course, I'm really rooting for my USA, but for my USA to survive the present oligarchy must be defeated : the Chicken's neck must be wrung and its carcasse flung into the stew pot.

        dan of steele | Mar 7, 2015 6:31:13 PM | 13

        it is my opinion that the German government led by Mrs Merkel is a lot more involved in the crisis that is Ukraine than is being discussed in this forum. There was quite a lot of support for Tymoshenko from Merkel including her drive to boycott the Ukraine when Tymoshenko had been imprisoned for embezzlement.

        she was also promoting Vitaly Klitschko for the longest time abruptly ending when Vickie Nuland let it be known that he was not accceptable as a leader of Ukraine.

        The German government has been a very willing stooge of the US in causing or continuing the unrest in Ukraine. That many people in Germany have suffered due to this behavior from sanctions and embargoes on both the European side as well as the Russian side might be a consequence that the German elite decided they could live with rather than simply something forced upon them from the US.

        As far as I can tell, the fecal matter hit the air moving device right after Yanukovich decided to maintain close economic ties with Russia rather than throw in with the EU. EU for all intents and purposes Germany.

        just a thought. ymmv

        JohnH | Mar 7, 2015 7:16:23 PM | 19

        "The U.S., the empire of chaos, does not care what happens after a regime change. In the view of U.S. politicians trouble and unrest in the "rest of the world" can only better the (relative) position of the United States."

        And it does not appear that the US cares what happens to Europe, either. If sanctions on Iran hurt European business, meh. If sanctions on Russia push Europe back into recession...meh.

        Maybe someday Europe will get a clue...

        Benu | Mar 7, 2015 8:02:30 PM | 20

        I felt like I was reading the lyin-ass New York Times. (How do these so-called journalists get ANY work done with all that CIA/StateDept/JSOC cock in their mouth? Inquiring minds want to know. Anyway…)

        Germany is presented like an old grandma, wringing her hands and saying, "Oh, mercy me! Can't we all just get along?" … If it wasn't for that dang Gen. Breedlove…except, well, he's actually right, don't you know, except, OK, he exaggerates a bit. There's LOTS of Russia aggression, and we have proof we won't show you…but not as much as he says. I mean, credibility, and all, right?…And that Vicki Nuland, well, she's bitch we all agree, but she gets things done and sometimes you need to get tough, don't ya know. She "loves Russia" (yeah, I bet…like I love a nice rare steak….sliced sooooo thin.) So…come on, dial it back a little won't you guys over in Langley…?

        This seemed to me like CIA drizzle from Der Spigot!

        A few carefully breaded pieces of True served with a piquant sauce of Lies and a side of Dissembling and Disinformation. One of those articles that is structured like, "yeah, true…BUT!"

        ToivoS @ | 3

        Putin's 2010 speech proposing a common economic union from Vladivostok to Lisbon must have been seen as a very serious threat by some powerful forces in the US.

        So says Mike Whitney in an important post re Nemtsov's assassination over at Counterpunch. I agree with you and him. I wonder what Uncle Ruslan thinks? He must have some ideas, having lived with Graham Fuller for all this those years.

        Colinjames @ 5

        Those excerpts really infuriated me. I have the most terrible desire to bitch slap Vicki Nudelman until she falls down and begs me to stop. I see her face and my hand itches. I need to stop watching Jess Franco movies.

        Wayoutwest @ 6

        The European actions especially Germanys may be more or less than they appear to be. I doubt that Germany would or could stand in the way of US demands but they may be facilitating an escape path for the US to use to avoid a more dangerous confrontation with Russia.

        Ayuh. I agree, with you (see above) --and dan of steele's very excellent and needful post at 13. Germany's in this shit up to their eyeballs. I recall reading in "The Brothers" that after WW2 the CIA just basically took over (and presumably still owns) German intelligence. Took their Nazis in and kept all the spy lines and assets. Gladio was an outgrowth of that, I guess.

        But I don't think the blood-thirsty vampires in the US can dial it back. They are all up in that snatch (to slightly paraphrase a vulgar version of the Petraeus bio's title that actually got shown on US news.)

        Piotr Berman's delightful rants at 18 @ 19

        What interesting ideas and insights you bring to the discussion. If you don't mind saying, are you German? If I was a German citizen I would be very upset and I have read that, like here in the States, this Ukraine shit combined with NSA spying combined with that book about how all the media are CIA assets has caused a crisis of confidence between reasonably-informed citizens and dissembling government, media, military, etc.


        I agree with all the posters here saying that Obama has never had hold of the levers of power. A few, yes. But what with the "tunneling" of political appointees transformed into civil servants at the end of the Bush admin…yeah, no. And that's not the only reason…just one.

        jfl | Mar 7, 2015 8:11:20 PM | 21

        @13

        Certainly Germany is covetous of Russia/the Ukraine. And Merkel, like Obama, knows how to get along by going along with the ones who brung her. Used to be the Russians in East Germany, are now the Americans in West/Unified Germany.

        Both are puppets, 'loyal' to the their puppeteers. The rest of the EU apparat are in the pocket of the US, and dance to the same tune piped to Obama.

        Germany on its own is not capable of subduing Russia, yet hopes to be in position to reap the benefits of the US' destruction of same.

        They're all losers, betting on making a killing, benefiting from their neighbors' collapse. Their neighbors have other ideas ... must have to survive. TIAA.

        Benu | Mar 7, 2015 8:33:21 PM | 22

        jfl @ 21

        Love your vampires and vultures scenario. Tolstoy's Vourdalak or the folkloric Russian
        Волколак or Volkolak is what I've been thinking of late, because I am a Mario Bava kind of gal.

        You know, Russia is one of the few countries NOT 110% indebted to German/London/Wall Street/Brussels banks. Seems to me that definitely has something to do with all this. They've got something to plunder. (Lotta gold. yum!) I bet there's some truth to the assertion that the flaming tire of blame for global economic collapse is being readied for Russia's neck...just in case. We're very close.

        NotTimothyGeithner | Mar 7, 2015 9:02:57 PM | 25

        Demian @ 23

        WTF did Germany THINK was going to come of this?

        But perhaps there is no one Germany. I can only suppose that it must be like it is here in the US...different factions with their own power bases pulling their own levers.

        Benu | Mar 7, 2015 8:48:57 PM | 24

        @24 I think the plan was for a rapid victory in Ukraine and Putin just stomping his feet. Keeping Crimea, the uprisings, and the general thuggery/incompetence in Kiev weren't in the plans. The Chinese didn't defend Russia against accusations about flight #mh17, the Chinese openly scoffed at the West not even giving fools like Kerry the time of day.

        German firms were supposed to win contracts replacing Russian firms not see the SCO grow and face losses from self-imposed sanctions. Merkel and people in her sphere overdid the rhetoric. Voters won't forget a major propaganda change, and Merkel and her ilk know this but can't see how to get out of the mess especially with Kiev in need of European cash.

        PBenu | Mar 7, 2015 9:19:53 PM | 26

        NotTimmeh @ 25

        So, you seem to be saying that this is rather like what WoW maintains...an offering of an exit ramp to the US...because Germany really, really wants off this highway to hell.

        Hideous to think they were all for it when it looked like easy rapings and little to no consequences.

        International finance needs to be dismantled. That's what's behind all this shit. Bankster's wars.

        Helena Cobban | Mar 7, 2015 9:31:25 PM | 27

        The practices of Ms. Nuland (taking cookies out to support the demonstrators during the "Maidan" actions) echoed exactly those of Amb. Robert Ford in Syria. In both cases it was a strange perversion and repudiation of traditional standards of diplomatic practice. It was not just a Nuland aberration.

        And we've seen the outcome, a few years later, in both these war-ravaged countries. God help the people of both countries.

        Pluto | Mar 7, 2015 9:52:56 PM | 28

        @3 ToivoS

        Interesting points you make. I believe what we have here IS the pivot to Asia, - through the backdoor. The US is haunted by the inevitable rise of Eurasia as a superpower. And, the fact is, the "pivot" was unrealistic and a rather silly strategy. China's New Silk Road Economic Belt, both rail and maritime - stretching from Beijing through Russia and across Europe to Madrid (with spurs to India, Iran, the ME and down the African continent) - was a preemptive strike that neutered US aspirations. Even worse, it's already funded.

        Picture the US on the globe: Isolated and alone, separated from the lively Eastern Hemisphere by two vast oceans. Adrift, stewing in its own juices, in desperate need of a world war to elevate it once again out of its economic doom and into super-stardom.

        This is further evidenced by the US desperation over the TPP and TTIF. It has reached a fever pitch, with endless negotiations inside the super-secret US "cone of silence." For the US, these corporate-ruled trade agreements are their last hope for hegemony over global trade, especially now that the Petrodollar is dead. (Another consequence of the Ukraine stupidity.) But, both trade treaties seem to be failing badly (there are anti-TTIF demonstrations throughout Germany today). In any event, China rendered them both irrelevant with APEC and the New Silk Road, which popped into existence the very instant that the US stepped into the Ukraine tar pit. For China, they are done deals. Even Australia and New Zealand have come to their senses and seem to be climbing on board.

        Surely, Europe already knows this. They've seen many empires decline. I suppose its only prudent to string the US along and contain the chaos....

        Demian | Mar 7, 2015 9:58:02 PM | 29

        @Helena Cobban #27:

        God help the people of both countries.

        Well, no one knows whether either one of them will continue to exist, do they? The Kremlin's intention is clearly to keep Ukraine's territory as it is (sans Crimea; that question is closed), but Ukraine is increasingly entering into full-spectrum social collapse, so wha the outcome will be is unpredictable, especially since the Ukraine was an artificial country to begin with, patched together from the territories of other countries.

        As for Syria, I am all for secular states in the Islamic world, like Syria and Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya before the US destroyed them. Our fan of the Islamic State Wayoutwest can say much more about this than I can, but it is possible that states created by Sykes-Picot will disappear, to be replaced by a caliphate. In the larger scheme of things, that would be a good thing because

        (1) even though the caliphate would initially have a regressive form of Islam, once Arabs are in control of their own destiny, they will not fear engaging in reforms;

        (2) a caliphate would create one more pole for the emerging multipolar world.

        NotTimothyGeithner | Mar 7, 2015 10:13:03 PM | 30

        @26 They are giving Obama an out and blame can be heaped on Nuland and Breedlove. Rasmussen didn't make the Der Spiegel article, and he is completely deranged as anyone outside of GOP politics.

        IMHO Obama only responds to extreme embarrassment. Offering him an out won't work without tying Obama and Nuland at the hip.

        It's overlooked, but in 2012 when Obama came out for gay marriage, he cloaked his support in nonsense about state rights but only after his campaign machine had worked against an effort in North Carolina to defeat anti-gay/woman/child referendum. There were political reasons, but there was a growing anger. Biden saw this and just randomly announced Obama's pro gay marriage views. It took three days, but Obama got around to tepidly endorsing a form of gay marriage. Obama only acted because Biden forced his hand. It took almost two weeks after everyone in the U.S. knew Shinseki from the Veteran Affairs Department for Obama to dismiss him when Shinseki should have been fired right away, but Obama only acts when faced with total embarrassment.

        fast freddy | Mar 7, 2015 10:14:08 PM | 31

        Obama is a puppet. Cheney, Kissinger, Negroponte, GHWBush and friends, CIA, Brzezinski, Rockefeller, etc. Deep State pulls his strings. Obama was himself a CIA protege at BIC. There are no pesky principles to contend with.

        And he is not allowed to fire Nuland or any other neocon warmonger.

        Did you see what they did to JFK for stepping out of line?

        @ jfl | 11

        But exactly!

        Obama's not driving. Never has been. He was hired to sit behind the wheel of the neoliberal, neocon drone of state, operated by 'pilots' from Langley, the Pentagon, Wall Street - seemingly by all three, via rapid context switch in pseudo-parallel.

        The reason US policy seems to lurch ever more violently toward disaster is because none of the actors actually implementing it by turn are identified.

        Pluto | Mar 7, 2015 10:45:33 PM | 34

        Although it seems there are two schools of thought about that around here, this has been my assumption from the beginning.


        @3 ToivoS

        Forgot to mention,: You spoke of consequences. That is of particular interest, I believe, and speaks to the destiny of the US as it stumbles about on the world stage, without future awareness.

        It is hard to understand why He and Kerry have pursued this policy. For sure, as was predictable one year ago it has turned their widely touted 'pivot to asia' into irrelevancy. It has directly forced China and Russia into a stronger alliance. Those are some big prices to pay for our provocations against Russia.

        There are more than a few significant unintended consequences that have come in short order as a result of the Ukraine blunder. For example:

        • Certainly killing the Petrodollar is a big one, which was the natural result of pushing China and Russia into the biggest oil/gas deal in world history, specifically written to bypass the dollar.
        • Compelling Gazprom to divert the destination of the South Stream pipeline under the Black Sea from Bulgaria to Turkey, with the distribution hub ending in Greece. So now Turkey and Greece control the fuel coming into West and South Europe. That's quite the geopolitical accomplishment.
        • Pushing Iran into the BRICS. Russian allies are pulling together in many interesting ways these days. US sanctions have become toothless.
        • The oil pricing scheme backfiring on the US economy. I'm of the school that oil overproduction was a direct attack on Russia and the usual suspects: Syria, Iran, and Venezuela. I'm also of the opinion that the US has lost control of OPEC.

        The US is paying a mighty high price for its neocon folly.

        Piotr Berman | Mar 7, 2015 10:55:20 PM | 35

        In response to questions, I used my real name, I am Polish citizen living in USA.

        European elite, including Germany and France, are almost instinctively aligning themselves with American elite, but they take exception to a favorite American trick: penciling a grandiose plan to be paid by EU.

        Russian counter-sanctions fall on Europeans, and it is pointless to quibble if "dollar is dead" -- it is not, but USA will not pay to integrate Turkey and Ukraine with EU, to cite some of the grandiose ideas. German conservatives in particular are notorious bean counters, they generously paid to integrate Eastern Germany, but are much less enthusiastic to have foreign beneficiaries. (In Poland, the consensus is that it is OK to help Ukrainians, provided that it will not cost anything. There is also a minority that hates Ukrainians more than Russians, and younger folks seem not to care at all.)

        As it is, EU duly enacted sanctions on Iran, Syria and Russia, and Merkel is resolute at sending mixed signals, so to some extend there is no "divorce". If anything, they are on the same wavelength as Obama. Recall how Europe resisted joining Bush jr. war in Iraq. "New Europe", including Poland, provided a bunch of little contingents, and that proved to be quite unpopular domestically. Even so, regime change in Libya was accomplished mostly by Europeans, and this is perhaps one of the unique successes in history that has a dearth of claimants. On the heals of that feat, even ever supine Brits rebelled when they had a chance to repeat the success in Syria. The belief that "Americans surely know what they are doing" is eroding even as we scribble. But so far, there is hardly any "European alternative".

        I guess Putin will graciously lift sanctions on Hungarian and Greek produce, Ukraine will get some weapons and training, but not a hell lot -- seriously, what scale of military aid would truly make a difference?

        TikTok | Mar 7, 2015 11:42:48 PM | 36

        Harper has given citizenship to Yatsenyuk in case 'something goes wrong'. Fcuk. http://www.pravda.ru/news/world/formerussr/ukraine/06-03-2015/1251452-yacenyk-0/

        james | Mar 8, 2015 12:02:59 AM | 37

        @35 piotr.. thanks for pointing out euro's role in libya and how nothing is going to change, as i personally believe just like the usa is bought and paid for, so is germany and france.. to suggest there will be much of a fracture is to suggest the international banker mafia don't have these politicians on the same page. i think they do.. whether they get elected again, or the required politicians to do the job of the bankers do - i think they do..

        as for obama being anything other then a rubber stamp - i agree with @31 fast freddy.. step out of line and look what you will get.. it is hard not to be cynical..

        @36 tiktok.. what a pathetic pos we have for a leader here in canada, but like i say about most of these western leaders and to which i include harper - they are all beholden to the same narrow interests that have nothing to do with the common people's interest.. they continue to think we are stupid or worse..

        Demian | Mar 8, 2015 12:04:56 AM | 38

        @Piotr Berman #35:

        so far, there is hardly any "European alternative".

        There does not need to be any European alternative. And the EU is dominated by Germany, the intelligence services of which, as someone here observed recently, are infiltrated by the CIA (although there was a report that Germany is now setting up a branch of its intelligence service independent of USG). The alternative is Russia. It is too late for Europeans to come up with alternatives. (They did that first with Hegel and then with Marx, but neither attempt held.) Europeans just need to realize that since the world is becoming multipolar, they belong in the Eurasian pole, not a contrived Atlanticist one.

        Russia has grave flaws, an Europeans can help Russians fix those, if Europeans make a break with the predatory and anti-human Anglosphere.

        Nana2007 | Mar 8, 2015 12:16:52 AM | 40

        The push back is far too late. The gorgon Nuland and Dr Strangelove himself Zed Breszinski testifying before the mouth breathers of the foreign affairs committee this week continued to ratchet up the rhetoric:
        "I wonder how many people in this room or this very important senatorial committee really anticipated that one day Putin would land military personnel in Crimea and seize it. I think if anybody said that's what he is going to do, he or she would be labeled as a warmonger. He did it. And he got away with it. I think he's also drawing lessons from that. And I'll tell you what my horror, night-dream, is: that one day, I literally mean one day, he just seizes Riga, and Talinn. Latvia and Estonia. It would literally take him one day. There is no way they could resist. And then we will say, how horrible, how shocking, how outrageous, but of course we can't do anything about it. It's happened. We aren't going to assemble a fleet in the Baltic, and then engage in amphibious landings, and then storm ashore, like in Normandy, to take it back. We have to respond in some larger fashion perhaps, but then there will be voices that this will plunge us into a nuclear war

        I'll tell you what Brezinski's real horror night dream is dying before the US attempts a full on takeover of Russia. Whether Germany likes it or not they'll continue to be a pawn in the dark lords 8 dimensional chess game. It's a little late to be thinking twice now that the breadbasket of Europe is a basket case. The hope is that the whooping that's coming to the USSA shakes out the aristocracy that brought it about and sends them fleeing with nothing but their assholes.

        Harold | Mar 8, 2015 3:48:14 AM | 43

        Oddly, Brzezinski himself not too long ago recommended the "Finlandization" of Ukraine. The neo-cons and armaments industry have adopted a cartoonish version of his theories -- which, in any case, hark back to the Geographical Pivot theory dating to 1904! It's become a crude dogma that doesn't even rise to the level of ideology.

        Prosperous Peace | Mar 8, 2015 5:20:41 AM | 44

        Decent analysis but misses two important points:

        1) "Special British-US relationship" - US has been a British colony for at least last 100 years, ie. a muscle-man for the Rothschildes-Jewish-Zionist cabal with its HQ in the City of London, Israel plays a "mad dog" role for them, Canada, Australia, and many other in the Commonwealth have their parts to play too. Because Obama since the evening of his reelection turned against the Crow Corporation, they have been forced to increasingly rely on themselves and other subjects - notice rapidly intensifying British military presence in the Central (Poland, which is situated at the very heart of the continent) and Eastern Europe (Baltic republics), as well as in the ME - Bahrain, police force now on the Turkish-Syrian border. Also British lying propaganda has been very intense, by far the worst in the EU. The neocons, McCain, Soros et al respond to the Rothschildes, always have. The British have been leading the charge recently and you will see more and more of this soon.

        2) Obama's team has been under the threats form the global criminal cabal many times itself. Security breaches at the White House, warnings of assassination, "third force" trying to start a civil war in the US by abusing the police powers and killing the police officers, fake social movements menacing the White House with "marches" like the one of Jewish Adam Kokesh...

        Summing up - it's been the City of London pulling the strings all along and Obama have been in danger of a violent overthrow already for some time.

        somebody | Mar 8, 2015 5:40:49 AM | 45

        RE: Piotr Berman | Mar 7, 2015 10:55:20 PM | 35

        You are right about the issue of paying for grandiose plans.

        Seems though that Europeans are really pissed off.

        Jean Claude Juncker calls for European Army with headquarters in Brussels

        Key sentence

        Juncker wies zugleich auf die organisatorischen und finanziellen Vorteile des Vorhabens hin. So würde es zu einer intensiven Zusammenarbeit bei Entwicklung und Kauf von militärischem Gerät führen und erhebliche Einsparungen bringen.

        Brief translation: Juncker highlighted the organizatorial and financial advantages. Cooperation in the development and procurement of military equipment could be shared and save considerable amounts.

        jfl | Mar 8, 2015 8:13:07 AM | 46

        German official says Saudi Arabia top 'terror exporter' in Mideast
        [Vice President of the German Parliament (Bundestag) Claudia] Roth called Riyadh "the top terror exporter in the Middle East," adding that "a large portion" of extremist militants in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq hail from Saudi Arabia.

        Germany's guidelines on weapons exports make it "crystal clear that deliveries cannot be made to such countries," she stressed.

        "Besides the weapons deals, Germany is also discussing other trade ties with Saudi Arabia," she said. "Pressure could certainly be brought to bear using these."

        The results of a recent survey conducted for German daily Bild have shown that 78 percent of Germans believe Berlin should stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia, while a further 60 percent favor breaking off trade relations all together with the Persian Gulf monarchy due to its human rights violations.

        Great place for the crack to open up/spread from/to Ukraine.

        ǝn⇂ɔ | Mar 8, 2015 10:42:49 AM | 49

        I would note that Merkel working with Timoshenko was more likely a tactical move - one in which Germany would get some leverage vs. Russia regarding natural gas moving through Ukraine as well as benefits within Ukraine.

        This is very different than the American tactic of exaggerating ethnic tensions on order to create a failed state a la Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, ad nauseam. American doesn't necessarily intend to create a failed state - the correct view is that the goal is a puppet regime, but a failed state in someone else's backyard is almost as good...or good enough.

        I'd also note that this is different than the British Empire tactic - the British would also arm "their" rebels, but they would put skin in the game (soldiers on the ground) in order to ensure that they wound up with the correct puppet regime.

        It is still unclear to me whether the American abridgement of Byzantine/Ottoman/British Empire tactics is an evolution or a devolution.

        dh | Mar 8, 2015 11:02:42 AM | 50

        @49 I think America has always attempted to maintain the 'good guy' facade. Since 911 it's been more like 'no more Mr. Niceguy'.

        guest77 | Mar 8, 2015 11:05:10 AM | 51

        If the EU and Russia can edge the United States out of the situation, it is a win/win for everyone except the US, who will have seen $5B and an old Cold War dream go up in smoke.

        If the US can be ejected, it will be the EU and especially the Germans who have gained the most mightily by the Maidan. The partition of Ukraine - getting rid of those parts that did vote more heavily for the Party of Regions and the Communists, leaves the EU with a "Orange", oligarchical Ukraine forever. A Ukrainian horse that the EU can hitch their currently broken cart to, a huge area for Germany to dominate in the heart of Europe - (one of Germany's oldest dreams). It's not something I'd personally wish on the Ukrainian population, but Ukraine becoming a proper EU member would require the suppression of the Nazis who, if they are not, would at least be loud, violent, internal opposition allied with the trouble-making USA, or at worst would try and wage a disruptive terrorist war over Crimea and the East.

        Would this situation be acceptable to Russia? Wins there would be the retention of Crimea with no question as to its return to the rump Ukraine, plus the advantage of having the US out of the Ukraine completely and having caused an EU/US fissure. The status of the East would have to be determined, but it would seem that independence or becoming part of Russia would be the best bets there now that they'd no longer be able to offset the vote of the far west.

        Anyway, that's all details. The real good thing here - for people all over the globe - would be that the war-making US elite would have been ejected from another region where they've been making trouble.

        chalo | Mar 8, 2015 11:26:00 AM | 52

        Ah, the utopian dreams of the unwashable internet junky. Germany will never reject the US. You heard it hear first. LOL

        Scott | Mar 8, 2015 11:42:29 AM | 53

        So far when it comes to any "divide" all I've seen is rhetoric and posturing. Considering the Fourth Reich and it's vassals are owned and controlled by the same puppet-masters I don't see any actual schism happening. Small European countries that actively resist will find a "color" revolution brewing. Large nations who actually push back will be hit with economic warfare. The courage to stand up for their people and stop the lunatics in D.C. doesn't exist in the currant political actors in Europe. I truly hope I'm wrong, but until we see DEEDS instead of mere WORDS...the steady slide toward war will continue.

        rufus magister | Mar 8, 2015 11:43:22 AM | 54

        ...To get back on topic, Russia Insider considers the broader question of the regime's attitudes; the open fascism of the junta is I think at root of much of European unease. Kiev's Drive to Dehumanize East Ukrainians is certainly a key component of that mentality.

        purple | Mar 8, 2015 11:59:18 AM | 55

        All the European leaders are compromised in some way, the NSA probably has everything they have written, said, or done in a database. Merkel looks to have been involved in some shady activities in East Germany if you look closely enough. Don't expect Europe to break from Pax Americana.

        Wayoutwest | Mar 8, 2015 12:24:05 PM | 56

        RM@54

        I think that the unease in Europe about the rise of open fascism is superficial and more a PR concern than true opposition at least among the Ruling Class. So long as fascism serve their purposes and feeds their true agendas but remains obscured it is supported and protected.

        OT again, many of us Oldies experienced music somewhat differently than today where albums or sides of albums were how we enjoyed the performances. Even radio DJs were judged by the way they programmed their shows and we were always in search of the perfect segway.

        Anonymous | Mar 8, 2015 12:40:07 PM | 57

        Divorce? Hardly. EU want an EU army, http://rt.com/news/238797-eu-joint-army-threat/

        Another US puppet idea.

        rufus magister | Mar 8, 2015 12:53:42 PM | 58

        ...On topic -- the fascism by itself is not too great a worry. That they're incompetent and it will cost someone lots of money to fix things more so. Events may not break up "the Allies" now, but with the proper moves and missteps by the varied parties involved.... Someone's planning a few moves ahead, and I don't think it's DC. Sadly, we can't overlook the power of short-sighted deviousness.

        diogenes | Mar 8, 2015 1:20:48 PM | 60

        It looks to me as if the differences between Obama and Merkel on Ukraine are tactical not strategic, viz:

        Merkel doesn't have to deal with the infamous American "bottom line" every 90 days, and this gives her leisure to actually think about what she is doing.

        German voters have a mind of their own and are not compliant stooges like American voters, who only require a few weeks of cheap propaganda to go along with the most crackpot of schemes. The saying "the burned child fears the fire" does not apply in their case.

        The goal from Merkels point of view must be the neoliberal exploitation of Russia - not bringing Ukraine into NATO, which is only useful in an aggressive war against Russia; or for use as a provocation resulting in the removal of Putin.

        Therefore Merkel has no qualms about putting the Western project against Russia on hold until a more opportune time.

        Outraged | Mar 8, 2015 1:25:48 PM | 61

        Hm, excellent article b, as always, though my first thoughts were, 'overly optimistic' ...

        However, upon some reflection and reconsideration, there does seem to be a confluence/pattern of events occurring recently, which may signal that a real 'Newer Great Game' may be afoot, in our currently Unipolar, sole superpower, Empire dominated world.

        The Minsk agreement was done without US involvement, in fact explicitly excluded US involvement, and the subsequent events of the EU players give every indication of having continued in that vein ... ie. Germany and France clearly acting independent of the Empire ... Poroschenko exposed as a powerless puppet, purely a pawn, a mere agent of influence of the US.

        Now there are firm calls for no new sanctions by the EU, 'give Minsk a chance' ...

        The reports re Breedlove/NATO and German governments new 'perspective' re Ukraine/Russia in this thread ... effectively denouncing the Empires warmongering, baseless propaganda, and willingness to have the EU 'go fuck itself' re Russia/Ukraine for no-ones benefit except the US. History, and US geopolitical strategy repeats ...

        Now the EU (President Junckers) calling for the creation of an EU Integrated Army ... with only the UK and France so far having expressed concerns. France has always had a firm view to an independent military, regardless of NATO. UK view is irrelevant as they are merely viewed as the US suborned 'spoiler' in the EU, so again no surprise and no leverage/clout. Reports are Germany support the EU/Junckers proposal ... claims an integrated EU army would be far more effective and significantly less costly, as well as utilizing EU resources for the EU's benefit, not that of the US. Which would be quite true if micro and macro duplication at all levels was reduced by allocating specific functions and roles to relevant EU nations militaries within such a 'truly integrated' force ... for example, German Armored Corps, French Naval/Marine forces, Spanish Airborne/Airmobile, Italian Air Defence, a smaller member state to speciliaze as MPs, etc. The very proposal implicitly and explicitly would result in the dissolution of NATO, which has only ever been a US political-military agency within Europe serving exclusively the US interest. Such a proposal is NOT for the Empires benefit and very far from a trivial event. The Empire appears to have completely missed this coming ...

        Reports the German government has created a new 'independent' offshoot of the BND, ie. a true German Intelligence service (or the seeds of ?) actually serving German National interests, as opposed to the US created and ever since suborned BND since the end of WWII ... is this also happening 'under the radar' in other EU states ?

        Escalation of explicit diplomatic rhetoric calling out the prime US ally and Empire linchpin in the ME, Saudi Arabia, as the major source of terrorism, in the War on Terra ...

        The extensive Snowden revelations, and fallout (latest blatant example - GEMALTO sims), re AUSCANUKUSNZ (Five-Eyes), could probably have led to the actual realization that there is the US and its four privileged 'Vassals', Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and New Zealand, first and foremost actually comprising the 'West' as far as the Empire is concerned, and only then so called 'third tier' pseudo allies, such as Germany, France, etc (which are treated as actual 'potential hostiles' by the five eyes), and then lastly all the rest of the 'Barbarians' in the world ... all the Empires sweet words and false comforts/assurances over the years may have finally come home to roost.

        China and Russia, are clearly progressively entering ever closer into an integrated Political/economic/defence anti Empire bloc at multiple levels ... significant overtures between Egypt and Russia, Russia and Iran ... the BRICS economic and South American economic 'exit' from the domination of the Empires Petrodollar and previous economic/political exploitation/dominance.

        Perhaps the Empire and the five eyes have been so busy attempting to 'collect it all' and endlessly pivot from here to there and back again, whilst playing divide and rule from one nation state to the other, filled to the brim with their own exceptionalism, that they have missed the bigger picture, missed seeing the new 'forest' emerging, having paid far to close attention to their brushfires and all those individual trees ...

        OTOH, however, there would appear to be enough concurrent events occurring quickly enough to envisage the ground moving from under the feet of the Empire and the five eyes ... and in plain view ...

        Peace. Salaam. Shalom.

        Noirette | Mar 8, 2015 2:13:07 PM | 63

        .. it is my opinion that the German government led by Mrs Merkel is a lot more involved in the crisis that is Ukraine than is being discussed in this forum. -- dan of steele at 13.

        You bet. Merkel is an unexamined mover in these stories. (Germany has paid penance and is so cool…not.) Recall the break-up of Yugoslavia, under the radar Germany was the no 1 champion and mover, with the US.

        Merkel has been meddling in Ukraine since forever, due to for a large part to up EU expansionism (Germany is the only country that benefits from the Eurozone, not in an evil or illegit way, all the other countries agreed..), to stretch out again, for more territory, cheap labor, factories run at low labor costs, the well-off in 'satellite' countries and elsewhere buying German products, finance ad loans, and so on. See Poland.

        German expansionism! (Not that France is any better but they have less clout so are wimpy followers.) The Eurozone works like that: lend, give, money to poor 'southern' countries so that they buy your goods, when they stop buying or believing, you cut them off, and look for new markets. Or downscale etc.

        Re. Ukraine, the fantasy was it could join the EU (not considered realistic by any reasoned analysts or actors unless talking about 20 years down the road without war) and Merkel pushed that.

        Cuddled up to the US who had other aims, to make it short, provoke Russia, the whole thing was to be wrapped up with a lot of love-handshakes, as the Coup-Kiev Gvmt. was expected to maintain it's hold on a 'unitary' country which would be, it goes without stating, open to new 'industrialism', 'farming', 'reforms' (open up for foreign capital to make huge profits), and/or from the Nuland-type side, attack Russia by cutting ties, banning trade with Russia (see sanctions), forbidding Russian influence, media, commerce, and pushing for war, etc.

        Donbass ppl objected, rose up, and it turned out that the Ukr. Gvmt could not deliver, - no army that could perform, no will, incompetence, also thieves...

        These completely contradictory aims, of the EU and the US, are now public.

        - one pov there are many others

        Outraged | Mar 8, 2015 2:40:02 PM | 64

        @ Okie Farmer

        Many 'perhaps's and certainly not clear yet what the EU Army proposal truly indicates yet, but Germany is clearly behind and for it ... Ultimately the EU is Germany-France and there are many new possibilities emerging.

        The geopolitical consequences of the reality of the Snowden revelations re the five-eyes conduct/actions/objectives and falsity of supposed alliances for 'mutual' as opposed to exclusive benefit of the Empire at every level may well have triggered recalculations amongst the 'pseudo allies' governments, this may well be the case with Germany, at least.

        Usually very pessimistic, in this instance 'overly optimistic', or momentarily envisioning an alternate possible ?

        Is it really in the EU interests to take a hit for the Empires benefit re Cold War 2.0 or the possibility of WW3 or move towards a less Atlanticist future ?

        ǝn⇂ɔ | Mar 8, 2015 3:21:11 PM | 65

        @dh #50
        With the single exception of the Romans - because they literally ruled everything - every other empire always tries very hard to present the best front.

        The British had their "White Man's Burden", the US had the "American Dream" but which has since been switched with the "War on Terror".

        No doubt because only the least informed believe that old lie anymore.

        Ed Lozano | Mar 8, 2015 3:25:29 PM | 66

        Anonymous #57

        An European Army would be the final act of the divorce from US, since it would be a de facto ending of NATO. No wonder why both US and their major "European" puppet UK radically oppose the idea. NATO's purpose was not only to counter Soviet military, but also to make sure Germany would never "rise again". That purpose is still biding and Germans know it. But under NATO umbrella, there's not much they can do to restore even a glimpse of the military power they had in the past. They "voluntarily" abdicate from developing nuclear weapons and most of their military spending is restricted to defensive air/ground capabilities, instead of means of projecting power such as naval vessels and long-range missiles. However, in an European unified defense system most of these restrictions should be lifted so to allow Germany to fulfill its obligations to the European allies. Most of American military bases would be rendered futile, and it's almost certain that NATO's nuclear silos stationed in Europe would have to be redeployed elsewhere, since an European defense agreement would demand full control of all military assets in European territory. Finally, Eastern Europe would turn to Germany and France instead of US when dealing with Russia, thus bringing more political stability to the region (violent "Maidans" would be less likely in the presence of foreign troops who, unlike Americans, have to answer for their actions when they come back home).

        Needless to say, all these events would be catastrophic for US global domination strategy, since they would lose not only military control over strategic assets in Western Europe, but also major influence in the only part of the European Union they are actually welcome today. But one should remember none of this is new: since its creation European Union was conceived to have its own unified defense system, but this part of the European pact was sabotaged by British and Americans from the beginning. Even French nationalist leader De Gaulle became fond of the idea, but his efforts would be futile while Germany was not reunified and European Union was still a project. And one should notice an unified Europe is still a project today. Eurozone is crumbling, resentment among the periphery is running high and both Germans and French know it. One of the necessary solutions for preserving European Union is a unified defense system, for it would lift the minor associates defense spending burden while allowing the major ones to exert much more effective political influence among them, so to prevent that every economic crisis in those countries become a threat to the stability of the entire bloc itself.

        Noirette #63

        Undoubtedly Germany played a role in Maidan and there's enough evidence of that, but I don't think their objective was to produce a violent divorce between Ukraine and Russia. As far as I know German ambassadors were the major force in bringing to the negotiating table both President Yanukovitch and the opposition groups, who then signed the 21st of February agreement for Constitutional reform and anticipated elections. This agreement was also supported by Russia, and since Germany is the natural interlocutor for Moscow in "European" affairs, I assume the whole thing was arranged by Berlin. Problem is, no one really expected what happened the day after - except of course the Americans who had already decided to sabotage the deal and take it all for themselves, bypassing both Europe and Ukrainian "moderates" (like Yulia Timoshenko) through bribing the major oligarchs and former members of Yanukovitch's cabinet and the use of Right Sector thugs to attack Government buildings and seize power at once.

        Germany won absolutely nothing with this outcome. Sure, Ukraine turned to West, but at what price? Now it's a devastated and bankrupted country with no control over a large portion of its own territory. And guess who will have to pay for their reconstruction? Yes, Germany. Merkel is anything but stupid. She knew from the beginning how Russia would react if threatened in her most sensitive interests. Georgia is not a far off memory for them. So yes, Germans would sure act to topple Yanukovicth if they had the chance, but only in a way "negotiated" with Russia. And that's exactly what they thought they had achieved in February 21st, 2014. Yanukovicth would be turned into a powerless President; there was to be new elections and Merkel's favorite Timoshenko would certainly win; Ukraine would join EU soon; and Russia would have to be satisfied with her Crimea's bases, and nothing more than that. The German plan was going too well, until Vic Nuland decided to f.. the EU once again. And here we are now.

        Anonymous | Mar 8, 2015 3:26:40 PM | 67

        Outraged

        Did you miss that the EU mentioned Russia as the reason why EU wanted a EU army? Again, nothing but a US puppet proposal.

        @63,64

        jfl | Mar 8, 2015 4:20:37 PM | 68

        It seems obvious to me that the EU - Germany - is much better off with Russia, the junior partner, than it is with the USA, the dominant partner.

        Ok... but that's the way Germany sees itself vis a vis Russia and the way the US sees itself vis a vis Germany.

        I guess the only question is on the downside of the switch ... how much pain can the US inflict on Germany thereafter?

        And that's relative to how much pain the US' vicious, one-sided schemes can elicit for Germany (the EU) from the Russians. And that seems, everyday in every way, to be increasing.

        I imagine that if the US does get a real war going with Russia they will have tipped the balance ... everything will then get unfrozen and move really quickly.

        The reality will be apparent before news of it reaches our ears. Supersonically.

        Outraged | Mar 8, 2015 4:25:08 PM | 69

        @ Anonymous

        If the intent is to replace NATO would you declare it or justify it 'falsely' by using the Empires propaganda justifications as a false cover ?

        Again with the US puppet proposal crap, and why would the US want to create such a force when it would undermine nay invalidate NATOs very reason for existence for the last 60 plus years. NATO has been a political-military Trojan within Europe effectively controlled and literally commanded by the US, serving US interests for all that time.

        Respectively, and reluctantly your 'point' suggests you are either naive, a fool or trollish, perhaps. Ed Lozano #66 touches on some relevant history and context if you are not aware of it ...

        Ultimately nations only have and act on thier 'interests'.

        okie farmer | Mar 8, 2015 4:53:54 PM | 70

        Too much optimism in this thread. Heads of NATO, both European and US, have been urging NATO countries to "spend more on defense" - also many US politicians. There is a faction in Germany that have 'dreams' of their own MIC. Ukraine offers the chance to fulfill those dreams, they're pushing hard while they see the chance.

        All but two of NATO members are headed by neoliberal scumbags, Greece and Hungary are the exceptions. France and Germany lead the way. Merkel has always been a neoliberal, Hollande has come to it only slightly reluctantly.

        Neoliberalism is what US and EU have most in common - politically/economically. Very important. I don't think Germany has given up on buying up and privatizing as much of Ukraine as they can; and certainly the US based multinational corps are already buying Ukraine's assets - probably those corps in Europe too.

        Perhaps the Spiegel article is a kind of false flag - or not; nonetheless it airs out what I see as a false resistance meme. Merkel, like Thatcher before her, is a committed neoliberal. THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE!

        Ed Lozano | Mar 8, 2015 5:15:02 PM | 73

        @Anonymous #71

        The fact that the main "cause" for EU Army is the need containing Russia changes nothing on the discussion about EU-US "divorce". Containing Russia has always been the issue of any Western alliance. Problem is, US and EU have major divergences about how to do it. US favors a far more provocative and offensive approach, by positioning military bases, missile shields and naval fleets around Russian border, and encouraging Russia's neighbors to cut their ties with Moscow and join Western partnerships. Europe on the other hand advocate a strictly defensive pact, that respects Russia's interests and influence over its near abroad.

        The main reason for this divergence is quite easy to understand. European leaders know that in the event of war with Russia, the battlefield will be in their own lands. US on the other hand has nothing to risk and much to gain with a conflict between Russia and Europe, unless of course Russia decides to end the World (but for some odd reason that possibility never comes into account for neocons). But again, the divorce between US and EU is quite clear in this case. And I believe it's needless to say Russia would strongly support an European Army proposal, even if it's main purpose was to counter Russian military. For threats should be perceived not by one's alleged purposes, but by the means one employs to achieve those purposes.

        lysias | Mar 8, 2015 5:16:45 PM | 74

        Yes, the powers that be did that to JFK when he stepped out of line. But they must know that, if they did the same thing to Obama, there would be riots all over the country. So Obama has power that JFK never had, but he's too cowardly or opportunistic to use that power.

        Outraged | Mar 8, 2015 5:23:09 PM | 75

        @ jfl

        Agreed, though the US has always been cowardly, has always avoided risking open conflict with first world countries. It far prefers to have others fight it out between or amongst themselves and benefit from picking up the spoils at little cost afterwards. Everyone else is weaker thier economies damaged and the US relevant power enhanced.

        See the Iran-Iraq war, see the US conduct in WWI, profiting handsomely throughout and only entering the conflict at the last moment once Germany was already on her knees and France and UK were crippled. Rinse and repeat in WwII letting the Nazis and Japanese Empire do their worst and handsomely profiting from all sides until they were dragged in on Dec 07 41. The cost exacted from 'helping' the UK was a takeover of their former empire and relegation to junior poodle vassal status. The UK was required to pay every single last dollar owed including interest accrued for Lend Lease during WWII and they only cleared the debt a few years ago.

        The US doesn't want actual war with Russia, however, ongoing conflict both economic and low-medium military in Europe weakens all the europeans at no cost to and for the further benefit of the Five-eyes.

        Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) works, unless miscalculations happen ...

        It would seem the economic cost to Germany and to a lesser extent the rest of the EU regarding Russia is more than acceptable to the US, which ultimately has little skin in the game, for the US its a win-win, though apparently Germany and the EU? may be developing an entire different perspective, again all comes back to national 'interests'. And there appears to be no upside for Europe's interests re 'fuck the EU' ... even the somewhat rabid Poles are questioning the economic cost of Russia baiting re sanctions which are only hurting Russia and EU, US cost/pain=nil.

        Anonymous | Mar 8, 2015 5:28:06 PM | 76

        okie farmer

        You are right, too much naive folks here suddenly. When people say that the EU army will somehow be "defensive" and will go against America's policies its just get too much to even comment further.

        Outraged | Mar 8, 2015 7:21:58 PM | 78

        @ Okie Farmer

        The Military Commander of NATO (Supreme Allied Commander Europe - *barf*) is always a US General Officer and says publicly exactly what he is instructed to say by DC (ie. Breedlove), his counterpart the NATO Secretary-General supposedly speaks for all NATO members however due to the US largely rigging the appointments has most often been little more than a rabid Atlanticist warmonger also receiving his talking points from DC, former Anders Fogh Rasmussen having been one of the worst, and the current Jens Stoltenberg is no better (he's a champion for NATO getting its very own Nukes, yay), hence there isn't much room for other individual members of NATO to even get airtime re issues relative NATO.

        Yes, the US Commander of NATO and the effectively US appointed Secretary-General sockpuppet and lots of US politicians want the Europeans to spend a lot more of their Euros on an expanded NATO military that the US commands, especially if its US armaments, and even more so if that caused the Russians to have to waste more money to further counter/offset a NATO expansion, for the benefit of US interests. Cost/pain to US=nil.

        However, there has been little discernable success because of sustained resistance to this call for some time now by NATO member countries, regardless of the over-the-top US propaganda re Russia and Ukraine, as NATO members have better things to do with those Euros given the state of the EU economy (austerity - public antipathy to military expenditure) since the GFC and the only beneficiary would be the US including indirectly by further weakening the EU economy to further US economic advantage globally. The indications are that even the UK poodle intends to further cutback, not expand, its military budget after the upcoming election.

        The selling points of this possible EU Army apparently being put forward by Junckers/Germany are an EU Commander (ie. Not a US officer, rotating national appointment ?), under EU command serving EU interests, supposedly greater effectiveness/efficiency/reduced duplication, and therefore purportedly costing less Euros overall re current military expenditure (compared to US controlled NATO ?).

        Nah, can't for the life of me see why the UK and US would be adamantly opposed ... *cough*

        ǝn⇂ɔ | Mar 8, 2015 10:07:10 PM | 80

        I would separate German policies in the rest of the EU/world with German policies within their own borders.
        A strong proxy for the presence of neoliberal economic policies is property prices. Nations which undergo a property bubble - are almost always neoliberal. Germany in this respect had pretty much the lowest property price growth of any EU nation.

        Debs is dead | Mar 8, 2015 10:08:00 PM | 81

        If American foreign policy can engineer a war based around the Ukraine where European troops fight russian troops at the same time as a major schism develops in Europe between the 'new Europeans' of the Baltic states, Poland and the Czech republic and the old Europeans of France germany italy and spain, the amerikan empire will have killed two birds with one stone.

        I reckon the European schism won't be splintering along such neat and tidy fault lines if it splinters at all, however.

        While the old school euro politicians may be reluctant to go to war, I am unsure their military leadership shares that view.

        For too long Nato command structures have been trained with an American ethos and a value set likely to see war as being 'a good thing'. The alacrity with which Nato tossed its European defense goal aside to jump into Afghanistan and then encouraged Nato members to deploy to then, despite both deployments being at odds with the wishes of their fellow citizens, ably illustrates the fault line between political and military leadership which successive euro pols have desperately tried to conceal from their voters

        In the immediate post war period the euro governments had little say in the matter but with the occasional exception of france the bulk of european pols have been content to let amerika pick up the training tab for staff officers. With the short term goal orientation typical of elected leaders, most euro pols chose to believe they were getting 'free' training for their military commanders, rather than the truth - that europe was paying vast sums for a military whose commanders would dance the washington jig.

        The short-sightedness of europe's pols has them choking their Greek brothers and sisters while the euro continues to decline yet the US$ arcs ever upwards, and never asking themselves "why are we working so hard to help amerika at the expense of fellow europeans?"

        I have no doubt however much Merkel and co claim to oppose a full on war with Ukraine; instigated at least in part by their own military leaders whose patriotism must be open to question, that in the end they will acquiese to Nuland's strategy.

        Not to do so would rquire vision and personal courage both of these in short supply among euro neo-liberals.

        Especially for Merkel there is an easy out. All she needs to do is to tap into the just below the surface and rarely enunciated beliefs of a substantial number of her fellow citizens - that Germany has the 'right' to expand its influence further east.

        whack | Mar 9, 2015 5:15:16 AM | 85

        @Outraged 78

        What a relief to see finally somebody who gets it. Bravo!

        (Some hasbara trolls here pretend not to, in order to spread fear and disnfo).

        Prosperous Peace | Mar 9, 2015 2:25:19 AM | 84

        I think you give Obongo way too much credit.

        He is "President" yes, but is he really? Or is he just a token face for the McCain´s and the other white House plantation owners to hold up for the 99%, a mere House n*gger?

        Everytime the man open his mouth accompanied as always by his Telepromter or advisors, even then puerile stupidities ansd ridicolous threats comes out. I think he is doing a better characterization of himself than the North Koreans possibly could imagine...

        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-27/north-korea-trolls-obama-compares-us-president-monkey-tropical-jungle

        Anonymous | Mar 9, 2015 6:17:16 AM | 87

        @ Debs is Dead

        The whole purpose of NATO from inception was to undermine and suborn the military command of the NATO members military forces to US control for the benefit of the Empire. To have leverage of those militaries and direct command influence outside of their 'sovereign' governments. To keep Germany 'down'. Many Non-US-UK NATO officers are very aware indeed of what NATO really is, US provided 'training' or not. De Gaulle was well aware of the threat and gave NATO 'the finger' many times.

        Five-eyes military officers are routinely utilized by their intelligence agencies to actively and aggressively cultivate and suborn any military officer who is not Five-eyes. The same process is aggressively pursued by the intelligence agencies against their counterparts amongst their tier three and four pseudo-allies such as Germany, France, Italy, etc. This has been going on for many decades.

        The Chinese learnt this lesson during WWII and under no circumstances allow any officer with Operational/Line command in the PLA to have direct contact with US military counterparts except under very strict circumstances. The PLA has a dedicated corps of officers to conduct such interaction and liasion who will never be given PLA Operational/Line commands in their career as a result. To say the least, this really pisses the US off no end. A PR/Liaison officer in the PLA is of no use as an agent or future agent of influence given such policies, bummer.

        These 'harmless' military-military and intelligence-intelligence interactions have been the very basis/foundation stone of the vast majority of the coups and destabilization operations the US has conducted on every continent since WWII.

        There is the Five-eyes and then every other country on the planet, who are merely given different ratings of 'hostile' or 'enemy' and treated accordingly, regardless of any public utterings re so called 'alliances' and 'partnerships'.

        'Old Europe' has dragged its feet and more many times despite dictats from the US. Latin America provides many examples of where the US polices/actions are ultimately counter-productive, compare its current state to the 60's-70's-80's absolute US dominance.

        Regardless of US Neoliberal politics/virus the serving militaries of NATO as a whole would be bound more tightly to their own communities and individual national interests, should push come to shove, me thinks, given histories lessons.

        IF the EU is to get out from under US domination/control/influence which is more and more counter to its own and europes interests (and many of its individual nations interests), it has to create separation of its intelligence services from the Five-eyes and take back control of its own military commands and agencies. A very big IF indeed ...

        Outraged | Mar 9, 2015 5:38:28 AM | 86

        More proof for the naive folks here:
        http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/03/09/400990/Russia-MP-calls-EU-army-idea-provocative

        [Mar 09, 2015] Boris Nemtsov ally: Islamist speculation over murder 'useful for Kremlin' by Shawn Walker

        They still want to play the war propaganda game. Here we go. Shawn Walker writings. Foreign Office talking points. What not this Illya Yashin (not sure if he was co-leader of Nemtsov's opposition party then), involved with distribution to protesters several millions in West-supplied cash that were discovered at Ksenia Sobchak apartment during Russian color revolution of 2012 ?
        Mar 09, 2015 | The Guardian

        founderchurch

        The NEW Cold War is back with a vengeance. Similar lineup but very different ideologies in conflict. Before you had atheistic communism against religious capitalism, now the roles are reversed. America and England are now resembling the old socialist USSR and Red China, while Russia and China are now increasingly coming to resemble the formerly religious and capitalistic America and England. What irony... OMG one thing is the same, eminent Nuclear War...

        richiep40 -> Jose C. Sandoval

        We will never know who started the fire in Odessa, The Guardian.

        What happened to the open and transparent investigations into the shootings in Maidan, the fire in Odessa and the downing of the Malaysian aircraft I wonder ?

        VladimirM

        "Putin has said he has taken "personal control" of the investigation"

        The phrase has sparked a sort of controversy here, some people are even using it as a proof of conspiracy. It's mainly because they are not aware of what this expression actually means.
        The phrase "взять под личный контроль" in Russian does not mean that Putin is personally in charge of the team of investigators giving orders which line to follow or not, who to charge or arrest or not.

        It simply means that police and security service are informing him regularly about the progress in the investigation, meetings or briefings may be held, reports are being made, etc., etc. The importance of the case is unprecedented, so the people, resources, etc. must be involved, engaged in the same unprecedented scale. The highest level of control is just facilitating all this as well as cooperation and coordination of law-enforcement agencies.
        That's what this eye-catching phrase means.

        Laudig, 2015-03-10,00:16:54

        This is what a political assassination looks like American-style. "After two years of guerrilla warfare, leading Péralte to declare a provisional government in the north of Haiti, Charlemagne Péralte was betrayed by one of his officers, Jean-Baptiste Conzé, who led disguised US Marines Sergeant Herman H. Hanneken (later meritoriously promoted to Second Lieutenant for his exploits) and Corporal William Button into the rebels camp, near Grand-Rivière Du Nord.[1]:215-217" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne_P%C3%A9ralte

        Solongmariane 9 Mar 2015 14:41

        Contrary to JFK & Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Isaac Rabin .!!!! .we get a lot of arrested suspects. It's a conjuration, and with so much complices it will possible to get informations. Objectivily, I don't see why Putin will need to eliminate physically Nemtsov, because he didn't exist before his assassination.

        It was so easy to destroy him politically, with the kind of life he has ( too much women). It's the west who created a anti-Putin heros, for his propaganda..

        Andrew -> Oldtruster

        I think Ramzan Kadyrov said the truth. He illustrated the motivation of the killer. The killer seems a simple-minded person. It was easy to convince him that Nemtsov had outraged the prophet. This have nothing to do with real motives of the murder but we will never get to know them as a man who convinced the killer has died. Investigators are off the trail, case closed.

        susandbs12 9 Mar 2015 14:38

        Rather than speculation we should wait for the results of the investigation to be published.

        The Russia haters are too quick to expect instantaneous results, and jump to preposterous conclusions based on nothing.

        Wait for the investigation to be completed. This constant sniping will not have a positive effect on those who are doubtlessly working very hard to find out what happened and why.

        seaspan -> Standupwoman 9 Mar 2015 15:13

        Nemtsov's allies, the US/CIA, and Kiev.

        Or Muslims...

        The list was rather short for Sherlock, and you cant convict them all. Muslims are the perfect patsie and the crazy fundies can and are indirectly connected to any number of third "western" parties already. So all in all, a good choice. I can just see the conspiracy loons at RT and elsewhere busy connecting the dots, to defend their main man Putin.

        Ciarán Here 9 Mar 2015 14:38

        Boris Nemtsov ALLY and the guardian make fine cocktail Islamist speculation over murder 'useful for Kremlin' ....but not useful for the USA UK EU....

        Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves

        Ciarán Here -> tjmars 9 Mar 2015 14:34

        Yes you spotted it, it is called pointing the finger away from oneself - look over there! No not there in Detroit or Greece for example but there in Russia we need to demonize a enemy to distract the plebs from our mistreatment of them...and to justify our wars against those who simply say no and that we are a sovereign state not a vassal of your greed ...


        aucontraire2 MasonInNY 9 Mar 2015 14:19

        You are not naive if you are from NY. You know that the Putin saga is all a made up story to hide the failures of the west on the international scene.

        The US is a failed leader now because it has failed the world in not providing justice to Palestinians. The world needs a moral leader. Obviously the Chinese aren't interested at becoming the world's moral leader, Russia can't become a moral leader for obvious reasons, Canada was on its way to take the leadership, but the US republicans saw to it by forcing a nutcase called Harper who hides in a closet at the first sound of firecrackers.

        tjmars 9 Mar 2015 14:18

        The Guardian Trusts's new way of keeping privileged access to governmental news is to promote propaganda pieces for the government. The Guardian had to do a 180 after Snowden, so we'll forever more get the likes of subjective opinions of young idealists from a Russian political party that couldn't afford a security detail for its leader.

        I guess with the ceasefire in Ukraine and the arrests of two conspirators so far from Chechnya, they are running out of angles to spread the BS around with.

        How about switching over to the not-so breaking news that globalization is devastating currencies and economies, politics and human rights and resources and environmernts; the monetising and marketing on everything worldwide.

        Why report on the failure of politics and economics in one lousy country, when there's a "failure du jour" everyday caused by globalization.

        Why not cover the wars resulting from it on a daily rotation?

        Who could have predicted that World War 3 would be a protracted economic war that would plunge the world into a neo-Dark Age for hundreds of years?

        The real wars are now suicides where people, who can't stand the stifling boredom of repititous consumer product variations, sign up to commit suicide en mass in a foreign country. That, adversely, is video gaming creating its own reality...

        Standupwoman 9 Mar 2015 14:12

        A predictable approach, but it misses something rather important. If the murder is indeed brought home to the Chechens, then that is very convenient for all the other and much more likely suspects - Nemtsov's allies, the US/CIA, and Kiev. Putin had no motive, but each of those three had much to gain from a Nemtsov assassination, and have been gleefully cashing in ever since.

        If Putin wanted to deflect blame onto someone else, why on earth wouldn't he choose one of those? If Russia is the gangland state so many seem to think, then it would be simple to 'do a Kiev' and stage a 'confession' implicating the CIA, Poroshenko, or anyone it wanted. So why hasn't it?

        Unless of course the investigation is genuine and the Chechens did it after all...

        irishmand -> seaspan 9 Mar 2015 15:06

        It is my understanding that his area of influence and political activity was limited to Moscow, the place Stalin over defended as he correctly surmised it was the brain of the USSR. Yeltsin also understood Moscow as the place to agitate to shake up the national leadership.

        If you want to start a coup, you have to do it in Moscow. Nemtsov was losing his influence in Moscow. He was an member of the local duma in Yaroslavl'.

        therealbillythefish 9 Mar 2015 15:05

        Unfortunately for those on the West and their agents in Russia, the killers have been caught fairly quickly and at least one has already confessed.

        So, better go find something else to scream and shout about.

        irishmand McStep 9 Mar 2015 15:03

        I have no shame. Sorry, I lost it somewhere on my way... Maybe, after reading the western press for a while, I started mimicking them.

        But, in my defense, I only troll the trolls. If somebody wants to have a meaningful discussion I am ready to have it too..

        artdeco McStep 9 Mar 2015 15:02

        Yeah, suspected so (Not that there's anything wrong with being Russian!, to paraphrase Seinfeld) - the frequent absence of the little word the in sentences is a quite reliable "tell"...
        ;)

        seaspan -> 1waldo1 9 Mar 2015 15:00

        Why would he have to be in the "western press" to be considered important by the Kremlin? He was involved in Moscow and was assassinated for his political activity there, not in Chechnya or London. Doesn't Russia have its own independent domestic political dynamic?

        No one else outside that venue should have given a damn about him.

        rodney9 -> UBX525AEZ 9 Mar 2015 14:58

        They even had a snow removal truck come by there to obstruct any potential witnesses at that exact moment of the murder.The snow truck seemed to be slowed down at the point of the murder to provide the killer or killers cover

        You clearly belong to the Gary Kasparov school of en passant criminologists.

        McStep -> crystaltips2 9 Mar 2015 14:55

        mate, there are so many apparatchik trolls on this and other related threads, it's a joke. the laughable thing about them is that most Russians know their media system is woefully centrally controlled and censored, but they actually agree with this because they think the function of news media is to tell the people want they want to hear in order to maintain solidarity in times of trouble.

        in essence, they know, or a part of them knows, that they're talking utter **** but i guess like some poor domestically abused partner it's a case, of, " SHUT UP, WHAT DO YOU KNOW??? HE LOVES ME!!!!!"

        but it's understandable. if your leader is perpetuating generations of the indoctrinated notion that the tsar has every right to pillage the state, murder its people and incite conflict on a whim, then its probably is very difficult to come to terms with the abject sense of shame they should be feeling.

        therealbillythefish

        Unfortunately for those on the West and their agents in Russia, the killers have been caught fairly quickly and at least one has already confessed.

        So, better go find something else to scream and shout about.

        Fromrussia1976 -> therealbillythefish

        Or you'd better to investigate who has downed that plane in the Ukraine... Half a year has left, but no result!

        vr13vr

        We don't know yet all the details and we are not sure what is behind this Chechen link. But no matter what the working hypothesis are and what the results are, this opposition is going to criticize it. That's why he is in anti-government opposition. There is no need to put his doubts into a front page article.

        SonnyTuckson

        Scripted by the Kremlin. Again. Nothing new here. Getting rid of one opponent by blaming another.

        irishmand -> SonnyTuckson

        Scripted by CIA Again. Nothing new here. Stage a murder, blame on somebody else.

        rodney9

        Perhaps it would be more to the point, and better journalism, to elaborate and contexualise the comments made by Nemtsov on Charlie Hebdo, or the German cartoon he published on his facebook side, as well as Nemtsov's personal attack on Kadyrov, rather than blanket denials that it has anything to do with insulting the prophet Mohammed. Fortunately, following a few links here in the comment section makes that all possible. That they are ignored here in the article is evidence once again of poor journalism, it's almost like being told don't bother to go there, it's not worth it, just keep on believing it was Putin. The Guardian published an editorial not so very long ago about " a cynical post-modern media strategy" all those Kremlin controlled channels manipulating the truth for daring to suggest 5 (sic) lines of enquiry, and how truth itself was "vanishing" in a flurry of what they called "weaponised relativism". CCTV cameras were conspicuously inoperative, some bigots speculated that a snow plough had been strategically sent in (Gary Kasparov) to mask the actual footage of the moment of the killing.

        We realise that this must be very disppointing for all those who wanted this to be a sure fire mafia hit in a "mafia state" carried out by a mafia boss, rather than an act of Islamic terrorism from fanatics that we have recently seen elsewhere in Paris and Copenhagen.

        We shouldn't forget that hundreds of thousands demonstrated in Chechnya against Charlie Hebdo, finding it all very provocative. I will probably watch France 24, that news channel might not be so hostile to looking at the real connections and Nemtsov's comments in depth rather than denials by an English newspaper.

        Simon311 -> rodney9

        Well the Guardian and others who have spent months telling us that the Russian media is not worth reading and watching, now quotes the Russian media when it agrees with thier view.

        This is almost mental illness in its inconsistency.

        Ludicrous - the Russian media is always wrong, until it says someting we like, then it is completely right.

        MentalToo

        Saw this headline at TASS:

        First suspects in Nemtsov murder identified - Federal Security Service

        Surprisingly it turned out the suspects was not FSB after all, but some of Kadyrov's lunatics arrested by FSB. Who could have guessed that.

        It seems they have found some, who are even more crazy than he is.

        daltonbernard

        ...some of Nemtsov's associates ... do not believe fanatics acting alone could have shot someone dead so close to the Kremlin.

        I mean, that's just dumb. It's not hard to shoot somebody. I don't see how the proximity to the Kremlin makes it any more difficult. You just ... do it. It takes all of a second or two to pull a trigger a few times. Unless the Russians have installed some kind of electromagnetic field around the Kremlin that magically stops guns from firing. But the article doesn't say they have, so I'm at a loss as to how "some of Nemtsov's associates" could be so irrational.

        seaspan -> daltonbernard

        Rumour's are flying in Moscow, and lazy journalists will report whatever they hear without putting it into a more understandable context or making better sense of it. What I've heard that makes more sense is that a Chechen fanatic muslim "motive" doesn't make any sense, even though someone from there could have been hired to kill Nemtsov -- the important point is that the motive remains open and officially obscured...

        Simon311 -> Havingalavrov

        Howd o you know

        a) He was a "complete professional"?

        b) Criminals make mistakes all the time

        c) You appear to be beleieving Russian media which you have said is full of lies.

        So self contradictory pompous rubbish.

        Yes you do not like Putin - got it.

        BunglyPete

        Make of this what you will but this seems to be the official line so don't expect much else

        In 2007 Boris Nemtsov gave an interview to the magazine "Expert", in which he stated that all the measures of President Vladimir Putin are aimed at increasing the birth rate, primarily in the regions populated by Muslims, and it is "extremely dangerous for the future of Russia". After that Nemtsov was accused by well-known representatives of the Muslim world of Islamophobia.

        In January 2015, the year after the execution of cartoonists from the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, the politician in his blog on the website of "Echo of Moscow" had justified the actions of the cartoonists, and wrote that "Islam is stuck in the middle ages", and called recent events the "Islamic Inquisition".

        A few days later, Nemtsov said that "Everyone is tired of Kadyrov's threats", and "it is time to arrest him". This happened after the head of Chechnya said very unflattering things about the opposition leader Mikhail Khodorkovsky and journalist Alexey Venediktov because of their support for the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo.

        Zaur Dadaev decided that Boris Nemtsov offended Muslims, and out of a false sense of patriotism and defense of religion decided to punish the politician

        http://www.rosbalt.ru/moscow/2015/03/08/1375743.html

        Simon311 -> BunglyPete

        The US, Russia and Germany - you can't beat any of them for producing weird types.

        Simon311 -> RedTelecaster

        Whatever a "Putinbot" may be. SOunds like a new word for "commie" as it was used 40 years ago.

        Renfrow

        Reading the posts here it is clear to me that people that blamed Putin for this will continue to do so regardless of what evidence to the contrary is presented simply because it suits their agenda.

        FrancesSmith -> RedTelecaster

        go on help the neocons destroy eastern europe. do nuland and breedlove pay you are or do you do it for free?

        but in truth you just reveal the ugliness that lies at the heart of the demonisation of putin, and repel people. keep it up..................

        midnightschild10

        It's the silly season again. The Obama administration is demanding a thorough investigation of Nemtsov' s death. They don't want a whitewash. The US certainly knows a whitewash when it sees one. Our Justicell Department looked high and low in the White House and couldn't find one banker or CEO to hold responsible for the housing crises. ( They all hang out on Wall Street.) Given a second chance to do their job, they couldn't find any military/industrial contractor who committed fraud in either not building incinerators on US bases in Iraq and Afghanistan or built them but they could not be used because of shoddy workmanship. ( Should have asked soldiers returning home with respiratory problems due to trash pits.) And finally the DOJ was unable to find anyone responsible for the torture and rendition programs ( could have found Cheyney on Fox News continuing to do interviews.)

        So it shouldn't be too difficult for Russia to do a better job investigating the death of Nemtsov, since the US has set the bar so low.

        irgun777

        Shaun Walker writes about " Islamic speculation convenient for Kremlin '

        One of the suspects blow himself in traditional Islamic suicide tradition, others were charged in court hiding their faces from reporters. This is where Mr Walker, the speculation stops.

        [Mar 08, 2015] Russia's Most Notorious Hitman Claims Nemtsov's Killers Were Amateurs

        Mar 08, 2015 | Sputnik International
        Boris Nemtsov's killing last week was probably not a political assassination, as it was carried out by amateurs, said former professional assassin Alexei Sherstobitov.

        Gunmen who killed Russian politician Boris Nemtsov last week in central Moscow were amateurs and the pattern of the murder indicates that it was carried out unprofessionally, former hitman Alexei Sherstobitov, currently serving a prison term for 12 assassinations, told Russian news site Gazeta.

        Every hitman, first and foremost, is concerned about one thing – how to carry out an assassination with the least amount of risk of being exposed. The most logical choice for a killer would have been to shoot the victim from as far as possible. In Nemtsov's case, given where the killing took place, the simplest way to execute the assassination would have been to drive along the street, on which the victim was walking, park the car and wait until he approached.

        Once he was at a shooting distance, the shooter should have slightly opened the car's window, shot the victim and escaped without putting himself at the risk of exposure. Even an average shooter should be able to hit a person's head at the distance between 15 and 25 meters. The fact that Nemtsov's killers made six shots, while only hitting him four times, at a close distance shows their unprofessionalism, Sherstobitov told Gazeta.

        "A professional shooter, who often uses his weapon, is unlikely to fire this many shots," said the former assassin. One of two shots are usually enough.

        Sherstobitov said the killing reminded him of incidents that frequently occurred during the 1990s, when gang members accidentally came across someone from a rival gang in a public place. In situations like that, killings were often carried out on short notice, without much preparation.

        Those, who spotted a member or members from a rival gang, made a phone call and killers would soon arrive, take positions near the victims' car or outside of a restaurant, where their victims were. Assassinations like this were often ill-organized, chaotic and took place in public places, Sherstobitov explained.

        The former hitman concluded that Nemtsov's killing was likely a non-political assassination.

        "In my opinion, this [Nemtsov] is not a politician who could really influence something. Many people had already forgotten about him," Sherstobitov said, adding that there are more important and influential politicians out there to assassinate, if one really wanted to cause a real political chaos in the country.

        The killing of Nemtsov was not even carried out professionally, the former hitman said, ruling out the political version of the last week assassination.

        Sherstobitov was a member of one of Moscow's organized crime groups during the 1990s, when he became known as one of Russia's most notorious assassins. In 2008, he was found guilty of assassinating 12 people and currently serving a 23-year prison term.

        [Mar 08, 2015] US Hawks Undermine Berlin's Peace Efforts in Ukraine - German Newspaper

        Mar 08, 2015 | Sputnik International

        The civil war in Ukraine has exposed a fundamental rift between the US and Europe in terms of vision and goals for the region, as powerful US hardliners are working tirelessly to escalate the crisis with a broader agenda in mind, Der Spiegel news magazine said.

        US hawks, including the likes of Victoria Nuland, the head of European affairs at the US State Department, and General Philip Breedlove, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe, are seeking to destabilize Russia and undermine its influence. To that end they are trying to heighten tensions between the West and Russia over Ukraine, undermining peace efforts led by Germany and France. Although the US president currently supports the European initiative, he has "done little to quiet those who would seek to increase tensions with Russia and deliver weapons to Ukraine," Der Spiegel said.

        A relatively calm situation in Ukraine's eastern regions following the latest Minsk agreements does not play into the hands of US hawks. So instead of being cautiously optimistic that the ceasefire holds, General Breedlove warned in late February that the situation "is getting worse every day."

        These and many other remarks made by the top NATO European commander with regard to Russia's alleged involvement in the Ukrainian crisis "stunned" and "alarmed" German leaders, since these claims are often not supported by the data provided by Germany's foreign intelligence agency BND, the news magazine said.

        General Breedlove "repeatedly made inexact, contradictory or even flat-out inaccurate statements," Der Spiegel pointed out. However, he refused to revise them telling the media outlet that "it is normal that not everyone agrees with the assessments that I provide."

        Berlin is concerned that Breedlove's stance "could harm the West's credibility," Der Spiegel said. Consequently, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier is determined to discuss the issue with his American counterpart John Kerry to rule out any possible misinterpretations in the future. However, on Saturday, Steinmeier downplayed the US-German differences highlighted in Der Spiegel's article by emphasizing that German officials "have no interest in any dispute emerging from this."

        Indeed, German authorities "have always considered a common position vis-a-vis Russia as a necessary prerequisite for success in peace efforts. For the time being, that common front is still holding, but the dispute [between Germany and the US] is a fundamental one - and hinges on the question of whether diplomacy can be successful without the threat of military action," Der Spiegel said.

        Moreover, while Germany and France seek to stabilize situation in Ukraine, US hardliners seem to have a different goal in mind. "For them, the dream outcome would be regime change in Moscow," the magazine said.

        See also:

        [Mar 08, 2015] Clinton email domain shows effort for security and obscurity, say experts

        Notable quotes:
        "... Doesn't the FBI, NSA, or some part of Homeland Security vet what government agencies are doing with their computer security? ..."
        "... And how could Obama not know about this, unless he never exchanged e-mail with Hillary, which seems unlikely. ..."
        "... I also wonder why Kerry would not question the absence of Clinton's correspondence when he took office? Doesn't he, as the successor, have to establish a historical record? Wouldn't her communications be part of that process? ..."
        "... The main focus of the controversy comes because she could have deleted any emails she wanted to. ..."
        "... Funny, we're back to paper as the only secure way to communicate anything (as in Roman Polanski's The Ghost). ..."
        "... Despite the fact that digital record keeping continues to advance, the record keeping requirements go back to the early 50's and there is simply no reason that she should now be in possession of these records instead of either the State Department or the National Archives. ..."
        "... The fact that she has criminally violated at least a dozen US Federal laws has nothing to do with the fact that she is lower than pond scum. God help us if she gets elected to POTUS! ..."
        "... Her dishonesty and corruption already have been well documented for many decades, and she has proven that despite all her "image makeovers", she is the same untrustworthy person we always knew she was. ..."
        "... It is not her decision to create her own web accounts to avoid public scrutiny. This is exactly what is wrong with Washington. No accountability or transparency. ..."
        "... Bottom line if official State Department business was being routed through a personal email system she needs to go down for it. I work a mundane middle class job as a data analyst and my employer would be furious and fire me instantly if I routed work related emails and attachments through my personal email so why should Hillary get off the hook? ..."
        "... The fact that the email traffic isn't encrypted makes this strictly amateur hour. ..."
        "... The fact that the email isn't immediately controlled and discoverable by the govt is appalling enough. The fact it's apparently secured using small business standards just makes it worse. ..."
        "... Was there any footnotes or exceptions noted concerning use of a private email server ? If not, then we should get our money back from auditing contractor. If they didn't discover and report it as an exception, then they should be barred from federal contracting for gross incompetence or complicity in this deception. ..."
        "... "Dick Cheney in a pantsuit" is gonna live forever, or at least as long as she remains in the public arena ..."
        "... Not having encryption (google smtps), which is easily determined if the mail server is still running, is a very bad sign. ..."
        "... If Clinton is using Internap right now, that should be the subject of ridicule, not praise. ..."
        "... People lost their jobs when Hillary was in charge over there for doing the EXACT SAME THING. ..."
        "... The ruling elite plays by their own rules. ..."
        "... Actually, the rules were there before. ..."
        "... It is the Department's general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized AIS, which has the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information. ..."
        Mar 08, 2015 | The Guardian

        captainjohnsmith 2015-03-07 18:06:55

        Questions, questions. Doesn't the FBI, NSA, or some part of Homeland Security vet what government agencies are doing with their computer security? Wouldn't that have turned up Hillary's private scheme? And how could Obama not know about this, unless he never exchanged e-mail with Hillary, which seems unlikely.

        kgb999again -> BeckyP

        Hillary Clinton was not serving as a politician. She was serving as a high official in a non-elected office of the U.S. Government. She is required by law to maintain accessible records within the government of every meeting and communication she conducted - for both accountability and historic legacy reasons.

        If she wanted to behave as a politician, she shouldn't have accepted the role of Secretary of State.

        macktan894

        The basic question is still: why would she do such a thing? Why would she insist that all her email and that of her principal staff be handled by this private server?

        And I guess I would also wonder how this could go undetected and unscrutinized for so long? Why would not anyone receiving email from the Clinton people wonder why they were getting email from an account that was non government in its address?

        I also wonder why Kerry would not question the absence of Clinton's correspondence when he took office? Doesn't he, as the successor, have to establish a historical record? Wouldn't her communications be part of that process?

        I recall when Obama won the nomination in 2008, he had a meeting with Clinton re her appt to sec of state. He was surprised when she turned up with a "contract" that listed items she needed him to agree to if she were to join his administration. Was this server business in that contract?

        Why do I have these questions but reporters do not?

        thegradycole -> macktan894

        Why does anybody do it? Jeb Bush used a personal server while he was governor of Florida and then handed over 275,000 emails, of course just like Clinton he didn't release those that he determined were of a personal nature. Kerry is the first SOS to use the official .gov server.

        The main focus of the controversy comes because she could have deleted any emails she wanted to. But I always thought that nothing could really be deleted. If they have the server don't they have everything?

        This whole thing better be more than the usual it-looks-bad-but-we-can't-find-anything. It gets to the point where the appearance of impropriety becomes a conspiracy, they add "gate" to it and it has a life of its own. If there's something there let's see it. Scott Walker and Chris Christie have similar problems as their emails are part of criminal investigations.

        Funny, we're back to paper as the only secure way to communicate anything (as in Roman Polanski's The Ghost).

        BradBenson -> chiefwiley 8 Mar 2015 06:48

        Well yes, in theory. In actual practice Freedom of Information Requests were always treated with disdain by the agencies. Since I left Government in 1999, it has gotten much worse.

        You are absolutely correct that she should not be mixing official and private business or the servers, which carry them. All of her official correspondence should have been retained in a Government Server.

        Despite the fact that digital record keeping continues to advance, the record keeping requirements go back to the early 50's and there is simply no reason that she should now be in possession of these records instead of either the State Department or the National Archives.

        FloodZilla 8 Mar 2015 06:43

        The fact that she has criminally violated at least a dozen US Federal laws has nothing to do with the fact that she is lower than pond scum. God help us if she gets elected to POTUS!

        Anne Vincent 8 Mar 2015 03:19

        If she was too insecure to utilize the US Government's own computer system, then she is too insecure to reside in the White House or to work as a US Government official. She needs to "move on".

        Her dishonesty and corruption already have been well documented for many decades, and she has proven that despite all her "image makeovers", she is the same untrustworthy person we always knew she was.

        David Egan 7 Mar 2015 22:34

        Mayer added that speculation that Clinton had created a "homebrew" internet system was "plainly inaccurate", at least when talking about the current configuration of the service.

        Newsflash!!! Hillary had no business, legal or otherwise, to create her own network!!

        This way she has total control over the e-mails that she wants to make public.... GET IT.....??

        David Egan -> anthonylaino 7 Mar 2015 22:28

        I agree!!! The elitist one percent have made billions and knowingly sent tens of thousands of people to their deaths, just for a buck (ok, well, lots of bucks) and to further their jack boot on the throat of the average citizen from any country...

        Financial Bondage For Everyone!!!!

        Zooni_Bubba 7 Mar 2015 20:58

        Maybe Clinton had security and maybe she didn't. It is not her decision to create her own web accounts to avoid public scrutiny. This is exactly what is wrong with Washington. No accountability or transparency. When someone under investigation gets to decide what to supply, they not the authorities control the evidence.

        Stephen_Sean 7 Mar 2015 20:25

        Bottom line if official State Department business was being routed through a personal email system she needs to go down for it. I work a mundane middle class job as a data analyst and my employer would be furious and fire me instantly if I routed work related emails and attachments through my personal email so why should Hillary get off the hook?

        Dems better start looking for an alternative. Hillary isn't the one you want answering the phone at 3am.

        Trixr -> Miles Long 7 Mar 2015 19:54

        From a technical point of view, saying it's a 'high security' system is cobblers. Anti malware is the LEAST you can do for email security in a corporate system. Having a domain registered in one location and traffic coming from another means absolutely nothing in these days of shared hosting and dynamically-provisioned server farms. No-one puts their personal details on a WHOIS these days. I don't, and I just have a dinky little personal domain.

        The fact that the email traffic isn't encrypted makes this strictly amateur hour.

        The fact that the email isn't immediately controlled and discoverable by the govt is appalling enough. The fact it's apparently secured using small business standards just makes it worse.

        And this 'expert' is an idiot, or not giving the full story.

        John Hemphill -> imipak 7 Mar 2015 19:12

        Just curious if know by chance, how did the State Department do in their last couple ot FISMA audits ?

        Was there any footnotes or exceptions noted concerning use of a private email server ? If not, then we should get our money back from auditing contractor. If they didn't discover and report it as an exception, then they should be barred from federal contracting for gross incompetence or complicity in this deception.

        ElmerFuddJr -> MakeBeerNotWar 7 Mar 2015 18:37

        "Dick Cheney in a pantsuit" is gonna live forever, or at least as long as she remains in the public arena.!.

        MakeBeerNotWar -> ElmerFuddJr 7 Mar 2015 18:48

        - yes but one risks the label of misogynist by her many followers. Cheney is a true psychopath tho and Clinton could reach being one thus why the Dems who really care about our country need to find an alternate candidate so HRC will not be given the chance to start another idiotic fraud war that benefits Wall $t, I$rael and the MIC.

        GuardianIsBiased127

        What a bunch of liberal spin by ABC. I've run mail servers for 20 years. Scanning for viruses etc is trivial and every email provider does it. Not having encryption (google smtps), which is easily determined if the mail server is still running, is a very bad sign.

        macktan894 -> GuardianIsBiased127

        Agree. Saying that her system scanned for viruses and was therefore "secure" is a laugh. My computer scans for viruses, too, as do most computers. We all know that does not equate with topnotch security. I also use an Apple. Still, the NSA or any other cyberterrorist can easily hijack my computer if that's the goal.

        ludaludaluda

        "internap" is not a good company by any measure -- my company has been a client for years.

        If Clinton is using Internap right now, that should be the subject of ridicule, not praise.

        bbuckley

        Look, let's be clear. People lost their jobs when Hillary was in charge over there for doing the EXACT SAME THING.

        Where's the email that has Hillary wanting these poor people being brought back to work. Hillary has in the past spoken of the danger of using a private domain.

        This is once again the rules don't apply to Clintons. And I'm going to tell Ya all something: the investigators will be going to gmail, or yahoo, or whoever, and making 100% sure they get it all. I truly do not care for this woman. I find her to be a shifty giant egoed elitist. However, I'm not ready to yell guilty. Decency and fair play require that I see the pudding before I declare the truth. But, she damn well knew the rules, so why hide the emails? It won't be a mystery lover, that's for sure. She didn't want them seen, there's gotta be a reason for that.

        Danish5666

        The ruling elite plays by their own rules.

        Kelly Kearns -> Miles Long

        Actually, the rules were there before.

        12 FAM 544.2 Automated Information System (AIS)
        Processing and Transmission
        (CT:DS-117; 11-04-2005)

        November 4, 2005 above.

        http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88404.pdf

        Kelly Kearns -> imipak

        "12 FAM 544.3 Electronic Transmission Via the Internet
        (CT:DS-117; 11-04-2005)
        a. It is the Department's general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized AIS, which has the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information. The Department's authorized telework solution(s) are designed in a manner that meet these requirements and are not considered end points outside of the Department's management control. "

        http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88404.pdf

        [Mar 07, 2015] Russian Opposition Putin Did NOT Assassinate Opposition Leader

        Notable quotes:
        "... U.S. media is quick to blame Putin for the assassination of opposition leader Boris Nemtsov. ..."
        "... This is a classic sacrificial lamb, textbook case. Good job Americans, good job Nazis, good job liberals. I dont know who of them did this. But it was done beautifully. ..."
        "... Even the U.S. governments Voice of America states – in an article entitled Could Nemtsov Threaten Putin in Death as in Life? – that Putin loses much more than he gains by the assassination: ..."
        March 1, 2015 | WashingtonsBlog

        U.S. media is quick to blame Putin for the assassination of opposition leader Boris Nemtsov.

        But Itina Khakamada – a top ally of Nemtsov in the opposition – said the killing was "clearly not in Putin's interest. It's aimed at rocking the situation."

        Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev agrees.

        Mikhail Delyagin – a top advisor to Nemtsov for a year and a half – said that Putin didn't do it, and compared it to the shoot down of Malaysian Flight 17 over Ukraine:

        The fact is obvious: this is a Malaysian Boeing, shot down by the Nazis at the walls of the Kremlin.

        ***

        This is a classic sacrificial lamb, textbook case. Good job Americans, good job Nazis, good job liberals. I don't know who of them did this. But it was done beautifully.

        ***

        We have to be prepared that Ukraine will be brought to Russia a lot faster then I thought just recently.

        Before I thought that we are safe from Maidan until November, now it is clear that Maidan may be lit up already in the spring. The sacrificial lamb has been slaughtered.

        Even the U.S. government's Voice of America states – in an article entitled "Could Nemtsov Threaten Putin in Death as in Life?" – that Putin loses much more than he gains by the assassination:

        With the murder of Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov, gunned down on a Moscow street, the fiercest critic of President Vladimir Putin has been removed from the political stage. But it remains to be seen whether, in death as in life, Nemtsov will remain a threat to Putin's rule.

        Already, city authorities have approved a mass march for up to 50,000 people in central Moscow on Sunday. The march, expected to be far larger than the scheduled protest rally it replaces, will provide a powerful platform for Kremlin critics who suspect a government hand in Nemtsov's death.

        Even officials in Putin's government seem to sense the danger that the former first deputy prime minister's martyrdom might pose, hinting darkly that Friday night's drive-by shooting may have been an deliberate "provocation" ahead of the planned weekend rally.

        Dr_NOS

        Apparently Jen Psaki is pregnant. Let's blame Putin for this

        [Mar 07, 2015] Washington's Cloned Female Warmongers By Finian Cunningham

        What is it about America's women diplomats? They seem so hard and cloned - bereft of any humanity or intelligence. Smear Campaigns, Bullying, Flattery ... All set of tricks of female sociopaths...
        February 09, 2014 | Information Clearing House

        What is it about America's women diplomats? They seem so hard and cloned - bereft of any humanity or intelligence. Presumably, these women are supposed to represent social advance for the female gender. But, far from displaying female independence, they are just a pathetic copy of the worst traits in American male politicians - aggressive, arrogant and completely arrant in their views.

        Take Victoria Nuland - the US Assistant Secretary of State - who was caught using obscene language in a phone call about the European Union and the political affairs of Ukraine. In her previous posting as a spokeswoman for the US State Department, Nuland had the demeanor of a robotic matron with a swivel eye.

        Now in her new role of covertly rallying anti-government protesters in Ukraine, Nuland has emerged to sound like a bubblegum-chewing Mafia doll. In her leaked private conversation with the US ambassador to Kiev, the American female diplomat is heard laying down in imperious tones how a new government in Ukraine should be constituted. Nuland talks about "gluing together" a sovereign country as if it is a mere plaything, and she stipulates which members of the US-backed street rabble in Kiev should or should not be included in any Washington-approved new government in the former Soviet republic.

        We don't know who actually tapped and leaked Nuland's private call to the US ambassador in Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt. It could have been the Ukrainian or Russian secret services, but, regardless, it was an inspired move to reveal it. For the disclosure, which has been posted on the internet, lays bare the subversive meddling agenda of Washington in Ukrainian internal affairs. Up to now, the Americans have been piously pretending that their involvement is one of a bystander supporting democracy from afar.

        But, thanks to the Nuland's foul-mouthed indiscretion, the truth is out. Washington, from her own admission, is acting like an agent provocateur in Ukraine's political turmoil. That is an illegal breach of international rules of sovereignty. Nuland finishes her phone call like a gangster ordering a hit on a rival, referring to incompetent European interference in Ukraine with disdain - "F...k the EU."

        What we are witnessing here is the real, ugly face of American government and its uncouth contempt for international law and norms.

        Next up is Wendy Sherman, the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, who is also Washington's top negotiator in the P5+1 nuclear talks with Iran. Sherman is another flinty-eyed female specimen of the American political class, who, like Nuland, seems to have a block of ice for a heart and a frozen Popsicle for a brain.

        Again, like Nuland, Sherman aims to excel in her political career by sounding even more macho, morose and moronic than her male American peers.

        Last week, Sherman was giving testimony before the US Senate foreign affairs committee on the upcoming negotiations with Iran over the interim nuclear agreement. The panel was chaired by the warmongering Democrat Senator Robert Menendez, who wants to immediately ramp up more sanctions on Iran, as well as back the Israeli regime in any preemptive military strike on the Islamic Republic.

        Sherman's performance was a craven display of someone who has been brainwashed to mouth a mantra of falsehoods with no apparent ability to think for herself. It's scary that such people comprise the government of the most nuclear-armed-and-dangerous state in the world.

        Programmed Sherman accused Iran of harboring ambitions to build nuclear weapons. "We share the same goal [as the warmonger Menendez] to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." And she went on to repeat threadbare, risible allegations that Iran is supporting international terrorism. That is a disturbing indication of the low level of political intelligence possessed by the US chief negotiator.

        "Iran also continues to arm and train militants in Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Bahrain. And Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah continue," asserted Sherman without citing an iota of proof and instead relying on a stale-old propaganda narrative.

        The number three in the US State Department went on to say of the interim nuclear deal with Iran: "What is also important to understand is that we remain in control over whether to accept the terms of a final deal or not. We have made it clear to Iran that, if it fails to live up to its commitments, or if we are unable to reach agreement on a comprehensive solution, we would ask the Congress to ramp up new sanctions."

        Remember that Sherman and her State Department boss John Kerry are considered "soft on Iran" by the likes of Menendez, John McCain, Lyndsey Graham, Mark Kirk, and the other political psychopaths in Washington. So, we can tell from Sherman's callous words and mean-minded logic that the scope for genuine rapprochement between the US and Iran is extremely limited.

        Sherman finished her performance before the Senate panel with the obligatory illegal threat of war that Washington continually issues against Iran: "We retain all options to ensure that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon."

        In the goldfish-bowl environment of Washington politics, perhaps such female officials are to be even more feared. The uniform monopoly of America's political class is dictated by militarism – weapons manufacturers, oil companies and Zionist lobbyists. The only way to "succeed" in this cesspool is to be even more aggressive and imperialist than your peers.

        Nuland and Sherman illustrate the cold-hearted logic at work in American robotic politics: it's a system programmed for imperialism and war, and it doesn't matter whether the officials are Democrat, Republic, male or female. They are all clones of a war criminal state.

        Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in journalism.

        This article was originally published at Press TV

        [Mar 07, 2015] Germany Has Had Enough With US Neocons: Berlin "Stunned" At US Desire For War In Ukraine

        Nuland somewhat reminds Madeleine Albright. Both are so fund of bulling their opponents, that probably might be classified as female psychopaths... As one commenters noted "I take it that "hard-charging" is an American euphemism for foul of mouth and coarse of temperament?"
        Mar 07, 2015 | zerohedge.com

        While Russia's envoy to NATO notes that statements by the deputy head of NATO testify to the fact that the leaders of the bloc want to intervene in Russia's internal politics, and are "dreaming of Russian Maidan," Washington has a bigger problem... Germany. As Der Spiegel reports, while US President Obama 'supports' Chancellor Merkel's efforts at finding a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis, hawks in Washington seem determined to torpedo Berlin's approach. And NATO's top commander in Europe hasn't been helping either with sources in the Chancellery have referred to Breedlove's comments as "dangerous propaganda."

        ... ... ...

        And as Der Spiegel reports, The Germans are not happy.

        ... ... ...

        Nuland Diplomacy

        Nuland, who is seen as a possible secretary of state should the Republicans win back the White House in next year's presidential election, is an important voice in US policy concerning Ukraine and Russia. She has never sought to hide her emotional bond to Russia, even saying "I love Russia." Her grandparents immigrated to the US from Bessarabia, which belonged to the Russian empire at the time. Nuland speaks Russian fluently.

        She is also very direct. She can be very keen and entertaining, but has been known to take on an undiplomatic tone -- and has not always been wrong to do so. Mykola Asarov, who was prime minister under toppled Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, recalls that Nuland basically blackmailed Yanukovych in order to prevent greater bloodshed in Kiev during the Maidan protests. "No violence against the protesters or you'll fall," Nuland told him according to Asarov. She also, he said, threatened tough economic and political sanctions against both Ukraine and the country's leaders. According to Asarov, Nuland said that, were violence used against the protesters on Maidan Square, information about the money he and his cronies had taken out of the country would be made public.

        Nuland has also been open -- at least internally -- about her contempt for European weakness and is famous for having said "Fuck the EU" during the initial days of the Ukraine crisis in February of 2014. Her husband, the neo-conservative Robert Kagan, is, after all, the originator of the idea that Americans are from Mars and Europeans, unwilling as they are to realize that true security depends on military power, are from Venus.

        When it comes to the goal of delivering weapons to Ukraine, Nuland and Breedlove work hand-in-hand. On the first day of the Munich Security Conference, the two gathered the US delegation behind closed doors to discuss their strategy for breaking Europe's resistance to arming Ukraine.

        On the seventh floor of the Bayerischer Hof hotel in the heart of Munich, it was Nuland who began coaching. "While talking to the Europeans this weekend, you need to make the case that Russia is putting in more and more offensive stuff while we want to help the Ukrainians defend against these systems," Nuland said. "It is defensive in nature although some of it has lethality."

        Jurassic

        general Breedwar or Breedhatred? Hes war maniac!

        cossack55

        Typical wingnut general. Notice you don't hear the grunts talkin' shit. Gotta go. Dr. Strangelove is about to start.

        XqWretch

        Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

        Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

        Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

        bania

        Breedlove? Heading up an army? Can't make this stuff up!!!

        Took Red Pill

        "Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine." We all are!

        chunga

        Hmmm...Nudelman and Kagan aren't from Mars or Venus are they?

        Urban Redneck

        Frau Ferkel is just a muppet cocktease, and so is the "concern". It's nothing but political cover for the political whores. If they were seriously alarmed, they would simply revoke General Ripper's diplomatic credentials and issue an arrest warrant for the psychopath.

        Lumberjack

        Read this:

        The Obscenely Easy Exile of Idi Amin

        https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/164/28440.html

        On a reporting trip to Saudi Arabia seven years ago, I went to Idi Amin's house. I had heard that Mr. Amin, the former Ugandan dictator who died last weekend at the age of 78, was living in Jidda, the Red Sea port, and I wanted to see for myself. Was it possible that a man who, in the 1970's, had ordered the deaths of 300,000 of his countrymen, raped and robbed his nation into endless misery and admitted to having eaten human flesh was whiling away his time as a guest of the Saudi government?

        It was. There, in a spacious villa behind a white gate, Mr. Amin made his home with a half-dozen of his 30 or so children. He was not there the day I rang (a son said he was out of town), but locals said he could often be seen pushing his cart along the frozen food section of the supermarket, being massaged at the health club, praying at the mosque. He had long ago abandoned his British-style military uniform for the white robe of the Saudi man, but as an African measuring 6-foot-3 and nearly 300 pounds, he did not exactly blend in.

        A former Sudanese colonel who worked as a manager at the local supermarket said, "People greet him and say, `Hello, Mr. President.' " Why? Wasn't he a savage dictator?

        "Oh yes" he used to eat people," the manager replied, laughing. "But this is our nature. We forget."

        But what would prompt the Saudi government to play host to such a man?

        The answer, when the question was posed to Saudi officials, was an excursion into the desert habits of hospitality, and Mr. Amin's conversion to Islam. His support for the Arab boycott of Israel in the 1970's certainly also endeared him to his hosts.

        During the nearly quarter-century of his soft exile, no nation tried to bring Mr. Amin to justice. A few years ago, after Spain's government went after Chile's former dictator, Augusto Pinochet, Human Rights Watch did bring up Mr. Amin's case to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, but to no avail. Under international law, any nation, including Saudi Arabia, could have and should have prosecuted Mr. Amin.

        But, as Reed Brody, special counsel for prosecutions at Human Rights Watch, says, "If you kill one person, you go to jail; if you kill 20, you go to an institution for the insane; if you kill 20,000, you get political asylum." Mr. Brody keeps a melancholy map on his wall of other tyrants gone free: Alfredo Stroessner, dictator of Paraguay, lives in Brazil; Haiti's Raoúl Cedras is in Panama; Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia is in Zimbabwe; Hissí¨ne Habré of Chad lives in Senegal. Today there is the International Criminal Court, which can bring a future Amin to justice, although the United States is among 100 countries that have shortsightedly declined to participate in the court.

        I was sorry not to have had a chance to talk to Mr. Amin directly. But those who did speak with him suggest that I missed little. An Italian journalist, Riccardo Orizio, asked him in 1999 whether he felt remorse. No, Mr. Amin replied, only nostalgia. Six years earlier, a British writer, Tom Stacey, saw him. At one point, Mr. Amin pulled from his pocket a paraphrase of Psalm 22 and commented: "Remember we are special to God. He sees a beauty in us few see."

        Harbanger

        "The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist LEFT to the camp of American conservatism."

        -Straight from the definition for the morons that don't know how to do research..

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

        August

        I continue to believe that the US goal in the Ukraine is to distract and bedevil Russia merely by expending a few billion zio-dollars, and thousands of Ukrainian lives, both of which are truly dirt cheap in Washington's calculus. This is to be followed by the USA's ultimately just walking away, leaving a broken Ukraine for its neighbors, chiefly Russia, to reconstruct.

        Every now and then, though, some US spokes-toady makes statements that imply that the USA actually wants a major war... with Russia. I hope and pray that this is merely Grand Chessboard Theatre, but I am starting to have doubts. For a taste of the motivational fare now offered to US "conservatives", you might want to take a look at the recently posted anit-Russia piece posted at National Review, which openly calls for regime change in Moscow. It's a well-written polemic which makes some sense... provided that you accept that Washington and Brussels are citadels of freedom and human rights, Russians are ignorant, drunken blockheads, and Putin is evil incarnate.

        sunaJ

        "I continue to believe that the US goal in the Ukraine is to distract and bedevil Russia merely by expending a few billion zio-dollars,"

        In your estimation is the second part of this Kansas City Shuffle being Syria and pipelines to Europe, or are they also symptoms of some greater neocon fear, ie. Russian oil dominance in a petrodollar world?

        Jack Burton

        Breedlove is talking his book. His glory and promotions would increase and his power would expand the more he can talk the NATO into war. Breedlove will be secure in the command bunker, and like the Iraq war command, be fully secure while his men faced possible death and mutilation.

        The text book for this is Yugoslavia. Europe had brokered a few peace deals, but the USA stepped in and undercut them all with lies and flase intelligence, leading to several bloody wars. Right now Washington seeks the Yugoslavia solution, a long bloody war.

        Ignatius

        "According to Asarov, Nuland said that, were violence used against the protesters on Maidan Square, information about the money he and his cronies had taken out of the country would be made public."

        Did Nuland also say that about Occupy to the Obummer administation?

        Escrava Isaura

        Ohh Boy.

        The US military industrial complex doesn't care about European press, or America press, for that matter. US military industrial complex doesn't' even care who the President is.

        Do you think the US military complex cares if the US government bails out lots of big lemons-banks, insurance, auto makers, airlines, and food stamps to the working poor? No, they could care less, because US military industrial complex is immune to budget constraints and they are the biggest supporters of failing industries and projects.

        Do you think that the US military complex cares for what industries the analysts and brokers at an investment firms such as JP Morgan, Goldman, or Rothschild's picks as winners for government contracts or a stock market bubble? Hell no, because they are the biggest winners.

        So, the Germans are stunned about NATO? Are you kidding me?

        Germany and NATO are branches of the US military industrial complex.

        johngaltfla

        Obama is a Neocon?

        Who'dathunkit!??!!?

        In reality, the world is sick of this bullshit. I'm sick of it. Rand Paul's approach is 1000% correct; quit meddling!

        Germany is correct to object to this because if we get involved in the Ukraine with Poland then Russia will be outside of Berlin with several brigades of tanks in days. The US nor NATO are ready for a major multi-front conflict unless they use nukes.

        Which wouldn't be all that bad because some of the US cities we would lose are a major part of the economic drag and societal/political problems we have at this time....

        Never mind. Fire away boys.

        krage_man

        The instutute of US presidency is shockingly weak.

        Basically, very little can Obama do if all career burocrats continue doing what they always doing.

        Obama is not able to get control of the goverment staff which demonstrate how weak leader he is and how unimportant any political office change is for foregn policy.

        Dems or Reps - no matter who is there will always be criminal actions on the world scine.

        sunaJ

        Germany needs to wake up NOW to the fact that this country is commanded by psychopathic, warmongering neocons, mitigated only by a willfully cluless and gutless president. NATO will prove a deathtrap for Germany.

        max2205

        Don't expect a lot of help from the old axis countries, Germany Italy Japan......neutered

        Questan1913

        Good point...but let's elaborate further: The US wrote the constitutions of Japan and Germany after the end of WWll. It also continues to occupy, militarily, both countries with approximately 50,000 military personnel in each and a huge naval presence in Japan.

        Neither conquered country has been able to recover a shred of its former sovereignty for 70 years! They are vassal states subject to the most ruthless hegemonic power since the Roman empire.

        ebworthen

        If Germany were really concerned about NATO they'd kick the U.S. Armed Forces out.

        This is political banter; the Germans need Russian NatGas and are playing both sides.

        They have guilt over the death of 20+ million Russians in WWII, but Russia is en export market - and they don't want their Eastern flank open.

        Just like Greece; they feel bad about WWII, but they want a downtrodden island to vacation on too.

        And Neocons? Both the Left and the Right are war happy pumpers of the M.I.C. here in the U.S.A.

        nope-1004

        Dude.... it's US hegemony at risk here. Pipelines and what not. Read up, pull your head out of the sand, and watch US foreign policy implode on itself. After all, WTF is the US meddling in Europe for anyway? Why are they there? What does the Ukraine have that the US or Russia needs?

        It's all about energy and how it flows to customers. The US has the most to lose, which is why they created the coup to overthrow the previously elected government in Ukraine.

        They are, without question, the most hypocritical government to ever grace God's green earth. They say one thing publicly and do the opposite in practice. And it appears they've got you sucked in too.

        malek

        Two points:

        1. The headline to me seems to indicate the path for the usual whitewash towards the "Democrats": currently a few US Neocons came to head the "Democratic" party like wolves in sheep clothing, but overall the leftists still hold the moral highground!

        2. It is curious German magazine Der Spiegel doesn't mention it's own role in this, posting a headline STOP PUTIN NOW on it's frontpage after MH-17 had been shot down.

        JustObserving

        The Nobel Prize Winner and the Neocons have always wanted to put Russia in its place and the destabilization of Ukraine was the starting point. It was payback for Putin protecting Assad and granting asylum to Snowden. USA wants Russia on its knees and complete full spectrum domination with no one to question US hegemony and infinite spying. Unfortunately Putin stands in the way and he must be demonized and destroyed.
        Victoria Nuland Lied to US Congress about Phantom Russian Hoards in Ukraine

        On March 4, Nuland addressed House Foreign Affairs Committee members.

        She called murdered US-funded, Boris Nemtsov a "freedom fighter, Russian patriot and friend."

        She absurdly called Ukraine "central to our 25 year Transatlantic quest for a 'Europe whole, free and at peace.' "

        Fact: Washington wants Ukraine used as a dagger against Russia's heartland – with menacing US bases on its borders threatening is sovereign independence.

        Nuland called US planned and implements year ago Maidan violence using well-trained Nazi thugs "peaceful protest(s) by ordinary Ukrainians."

        "They braved frigid temperatures, brutal beatings and sniper bullets…Ukraine began to forge a new nation…holding free and fair election…and undertaking deep and comprehensive economic and political reforms."

        Fact: US-deposed President Viktor Yanukovych's police showed remarkable restraint.

        Fact: Washington-supported Nazi thugs bore full responsibility for beatings, sniper killings and other violence.

        Fact: Ukrainian parliamentary and presidential elections were farcical – with no legitimacy whatever.

        Fact: So-called economic reforms involve crushing hardships on already impoverished Ukrainians in return for loan-shark-of-last-resort IMF blood money.

        Fact: No responsible political reforms exist. None are planned. It bears repeating. Ukraine is a US-installed fascist dictatorship.

        http://www.globalresearch.ca/victoria-nuland-lied-to-us-congress-about-p...

        The Neocons have killed millions in Iraq and got away scot-free:


        US Sponsored Genocide Against Iraq 1990-2012. Killed 3.3 Million, Including 750,000 Children

        http://www.globalresearch.ca/victoria-nuland-lied-to-us-congress-about-p...

        Ignatius

        The basis of neocon philosophy is a LIE, that if you don't have a real enemy just make shit up.

        How then can one "debate" a neocon with anything other than a baseball bat?

        Their starting point is that neocons will lie if they have to and probably also just for the fun of it.

        Psychopaths.

        JustObserving

        The Nobel Prize Winner has bombed 7 Muslim countries, destabilized Ukraine, attempted a coup in Venezuela, lied about sarin use in Syria to almost start a war, assassinated US citizens without a trial, regularly drones women and children and wedding parties and yet is the most admired man in the world in a Gallup poll in 2014. I would cry at humanity's stupidity, cruelty and corruption but I prefer to laugh. You love your lying war criminals then you will get lot more war.

        yogibear

        Meet Neocon "Doughnut Dolly" Victoria Nuland

        http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2013/12/18/meet-neocon-doughnut-do...

        Nuland's career has been one of ensuring that the underpinnings of the Cold War never completely died out in Europe. Her State Department career began as the chief of staff to President Bill Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State and close friend, Strobe Talbott. It was under Talbott that Nuland helped completely fracture Yugoslavia and ensured that the U.S. slanted against the interests of Russia's ally, Serbia.

        markar

        Angie needs to end her triangulating charade and choose sides. Keeping a foot in the Russian door while appeasing her Neocon masters in the West won't work much longer. She knows Obama is a spineless puppet who won't back her and Ukraine is a failed state run riot by neo Nazi thugs and oligarchs.

        What's it going to be Angie, an act of heroism or taking Germany down with the Western ship?

        lesterbegood

        Angie like Obama, Nuland, et al, is another political puppet/spokesperson for the power behind the money.

        Winston Churchill

        Which means her puppet masters are changing horses mid race.

        No honor amongst thieves and/or psychopaths.

        HowdyDoody

        I wonder what on earth the CIA/NSA has on her that keeps her putting the interests of the US above her own country.

        Wile-E-Coyote

        Come on Germany tell the USA to fuck right off............................. won't happen.

        css1971

        35 US military bases in Germany say you are absolutely correct.

        Son of Loki

        Simply look at the quality of our State dept -- Nuland, etc -- The average IQ and emotional intelligence there has to be at an all-time low.

        Gone are the days when you had brillant statespeople in the state dept who were thoroughly versed in history, politics, economics and debate.

        yogibear

        "Gone are the days when you had brillant statespeople in the state dept who were thorougly versed in history, politics, economics and debate."

        People are used to dumb and dumber DC. It matches the rest of the country.

        Stumpy4516

        The statespeople may have been more intelligent at one time but their actions (covert murders, regime change, wars, etc.) have always been the same.

        [Mar 07, 2015] Meet the Big Wallets Pushing Obama Towards a New Cold War By Christian Stork

        February 25, 2015 | Alternet
        As for those in the K Street elite pushing Uncle Sam to confront the bear, it isn't hard to see what they have to gain. There's a familiar ring to the U.S. calls to arm Ukraine's post-coup government. That's because the same big-money players who stand to benefit from belligerent relations with Russia haven't forgotten a favorite Cold War tune.

        President Obama has said that he won't rule out arming Ukraine if a recent truce, which has all but evaporated, fails like its predecessor. His comments echoed the advice of a report issued a week prior by three prominent U.S. think tanks: the Brookings Institute, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the Atlantic Council. The report advocated sending $1 billion worth of "defensive" military assistance to Kiev's pro-Western government.

        If followed, those recommendations would bring the U.S. and Russia the closest to conflict since the heyday of the Cold War. Russia has said that it would "respond asymmetrically against Washington or its allies on other fronts" if the U.S. supplies weapons to Kiev.

        The powers with the most skin in the game -- France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine -- struck a deal on Feb. 12, which outlines the terms for a ceasefire between Kiev and the pro-Russian, breakaway provinces in eastern Ukraine. It envisages a withdrawal of heavy weaponry followed by local elections and constitutional reform by the end of 2015, granting more autonomy to the eastern regions.

        But not all is quiet on the eastern front. The truce appears to be headed the route of a nearly identical compromise in September, which broke down immediately afterward.

        Moscow's national security interests are clear. Washington's are less so, unless you look at the bottom lines of defense contractors.

        As for those in the K Street elite pushing Uncle Sam to confront the bear, it isn't hard to see what they have to gain. Just take a look below at the blow-by-blow history of their Beltway-bandit benefactors:

        No Reds Means Seeing Red

        Following the end of the Cold War, defense cuts had presented bottom-line problems for America's military producers. The weapons dealers were told that they had to massively restructure or go bust.

        Luckily, carrots were offered. Norm Augustine, a former undersecretary of the Army, advised Defense Secretary William Perry to cover the costs of the industry mergers. Augustine was then the CEO of Martin Marietta -- soon to become the head of Lockheed Martin, thanks to the subsidies.

        Augustine was also chairman of a Pentagon advisory council on arms-export policy. In that capacity, he was able to secure yet more subsidy guarantees for NATO-compatible weapons sales to former Warsaw Pact countries.

        But in order to buy the types of expensive weapons that would stabilize the industry's books, those countries had to enter into an alliance with the U.S. And some members of Congress were still wary of shelling out money to expand a military alliance that had, on its face, no rationale to exist.

        Enter the NATO Expansion Squad

        Enter the U.S. Committee to Expand NATO. Formed in 1996, the Committee wined and dined elected officials to secure their support for NATO enlargement. Meanwhile, Lockheed buttressed its efforts by spending $1.58 million in federal contributions for the 1996 campaign cycle.

        The Committee's founder and neocon chairman, Bruce Jackson, was so principled in his desire to see freedom around the globe that he didn't even take a salary. He didn't have to; he was a vice president at Lockheed Martin.

        By Clinton's second term, everyone was on board. Ron Asmus, a former RAND Corporation analyst and the "intellectual progenitor" of NATO expansion (who would later co-chair the Committee to Expand NATO), ended what was left of the policy debate in the State Department. He worked with Clinton's diplomatic point man on Eastern Europe, Strobe Talbott.

        Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were all in NATO come 1999. The Baltic States would soon follow. By 2003, those initial inductees had arranged deals to buy just short of $5 billion in fighter jets from Lockheed.

        Bruce Jackson began running a new outfit in 2002. It was called the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.

        (36 F-16s are currently slated for delivery to Iraq at an estimated $3 billion.)

        Rivers of Cash

        Brookings is Washington's oldest think tank. For most of its existence, its research was funded by a large endowment and no-strings-attached grants. But all of that changed when Strobe Talbott took the reins.

        Strobe Talbott, President

        Talbott sought to bolster Brookings' coffers with aggressive corporate fundraising. He took it from annual revenues of $32 million in 2003 to $100 million by 2013. Though always corporate-friendly, Brookings has become little more than a pay-to-play research hub under Talbott's reign.

        Among the many corporate donors to Brookings are Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Northrup Grumman, Lockheed Martin and cyber-defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton.

        David M. Rubenstein, Co-Chairman of Board of Trustees

        Rubenstein is co-founder and co-CEO at the Carlyle Group, a massive private equity firm. Among the companies in which Carlyle has a controlling stake in is Booz Allen Hamilton -- a military and intelligence IT firm that is currently active in Ukraine.

        Booz, which both sells to and operates within the U.S. military and intelligence apparatus, counts four former Carlyle executives among its directors. Ronald Sanders, a vice president at Booz, serves on the faculty of Brookings.

        Atlanticists

        The Atlantic Council was formed in 1961 as a "consolidation of the U.S. citizen groups supporting" NATO, according to its website.

        Stephen Hadley, Director

        A former national security advisor for George W. Bush, Hadley doubles as a director for Raytheon. He was also the driving force behind the creation of the U.S. Committee on NATO, on whose board he sat, and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.

        Prior to joining the Bush White House, Hadley was a lawyer for Shea & Gardner, whose clients included Lockheed Martin.

        James Cartwright, Director

        A retired general and former vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, James Cartwright has an active work life. He's "an advisor to defense and intelligence contractor TASC, defense consulting firm Accenture, and Enlightenment Capital, a private equity firm with defense investments," according to the Public Accountability Initiative. He's also on the board of Raytheon, which earned him $124,000 in 2012.

        Other notables include:

        Nicholas Burns – former diplomat and current senior counselor at The Cohen Group, which advises Lockheed Martin, among other defense companies

        James A. Baker III – Bush 41 Secretary of State and partner at law firm Baker Botts. Clients include a slew of defense companies

        Thomas R. Pickering – former senior vice president for Boeing

        Chi-town Chickenhawks

        Founded in 1922, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs has since served as the premier voice of Midwest business leaders in American foreign policy. Jeb Bush recently made his "I am my own man" speech, outlining his foreign policy priorities, to the council:

        Lester Crown, Chairman

        The chair of Henry Crown & Co., the investment firm that handles the fortune started by his father, Henry Crown. Henry put the "dynamic" in General Dynamics, helping to turn it into the world's largest weapons manufacturer by the time Lester became its chairman in 1986. The defense behemoth remains the single largest source of the family's treasure; they're currently the 35th richest clan in America. General Dynamics produces all of the equipment types proposed for transfer to Ukraine in the think-tank report.

        Ivo Daalder, President

        A co-author of the report, Daalder is a former diplomat and staffer on Clinton's National Security Council. He later served on the Hart-Rudman Commission from 1998-2001. It was chartered by Defense Secretary William Cohen -- later to become a Lockheed consultant -- and tasked with outlining the major shifts in national security strategy for the 21st century. Among its commissioners was none other than Norm Augustine.

        The commission concluded that the Department of Defense and intelligence community should drastically reduce their infrastructure costs by outsourcing and privatizing key functions, especially in the field of information technology.

        The main beneficiaries have been America's major defense contractors: Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, Boeing, Booz Allen Hamilton and Lester Crown's outfit, General Dynamics.

        General Dynamics' revenue tripled between 2000 and 2010 as it acquired at least 11 smaller firms that specialized in exactly the sort of services recommended for outsourcing. Roughly one-third of GD's overall revenue in 2013, the same year that Daalder was appointed president of the Council by Crown, came from its Information Systems and Technology division.

        So even without a Cold War Bear to fuel spending, the re-imagining of that old foe is oiling the revolving door between the government and defense contractors.

        [Mar 07, 2015] CIA Urged Rebels to Assassinate Their Own In Order to Create "Martyrs" by George Washington

        03/03/2015 | zerohedge.com

        A CIA "psychological operations" manual prepared by a CIA contractor for the Nicaraguan Contra rebels noted the value of assassinating someone on your own side to create a "martyr" for the cause.

        The manual was authenticated by the U.S. government.

        The manual received so much publicity from Associated Press, Washington Post and other media that – during the 1984 presidential debate – President Reagan was confronted with the following question on national television:

        At this moment, we are confronted with the extraordinary story of a CIA guerrilla manual for the anti-Sandinista contras whom we are backing, which advocates not only assassinations of Sandinistas but the hiring of criminals to assassinate the guerrillas we are supporting in order to create martyrs.

        Indeed, this is just one of scores of admitted false flag attacks by governments all over the world.

        P.S. We're SURE this has nothing to do with this completely unrelated story:

        Russian Opposition: Putin Did NOT Assassinate Opposition Leader

        Budd aka Sidewinder

        George, much respect but the Lincoln quotes have got to go

        Son of Captain Nemo
        CIA Urged Rebels to Assassinate Their Own In Order to Create "Martyrs"

        Owned and managed by the same "LLC" that gave us the Patrot Act(s) and the NDAA and 4 going on 5 wars of choice!!!!

        Whole lotta 9/11 love!

        VWAndy

        This killing of guys on your team practically guaranties the leader of a revolution will be a psyco killer too. A win win deal.

        It would work best if they kill the centrist/moderates. Right out of the commie handbook.

        JoJoJo

        Dont forget the Kerry Committee in 1985 where Sen Kerry fawned over dictators who promised they were not Communists - before they allied with communist Soviet Union.

        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1219935/posts

        Radical Marijuana

        Thanks for trying to stay on top of these kinds of stories, George Washington! More and more, it is practically impossible for any individual to keep up ... I appreciate articles that have organized a presentation of crucial information that one could review!

        SoilMyselfRotten

        Would love to know how Reagan answered that one

        shovelhead

        Thank Dog we have the CIA

        Imagine the trouble they could cause if we had an organization that was competent?

        peanuts

        This revelation feels like nothing compared to the other shit that was in that manual, along with all the training that was done at the School of the Americas at Ft. Bening, Georgia to carry out what was in the manual down in Nicaraqua in the 80's.

        dexter_morgan

        OK, lets look at these alleged terrorists. What the hell is it they want anyways?

        If their goal is to eliminate Israel as megalomaniac nuttyyahoo wants us to believe - THEN WHY THE FUCK DO THEY ATTACK AND KILL EVERYBODY BUT ISRAELI'S????????

        If it's global redistribution of wealth, then WHY DON"T THEY ATTACK THE ROTHSCHILDS, MEMBERS OF THE BILDERBERGERS, DAVOS ATTENDEES, BANKSTERS IN GENERAL, etc.

        Seriously, either they are the stupidest fucking people in the world, or they are playing someone elses game for fucks sake.

        amanfromMars

        If their goal is to eliminate Israel as megalomaniac nuttyyahoo wants us to believe - THEN WHY THE FUCK DO THEY ATTACK AND KILL EVERYBODY BUT ISRAELI'S????????

        If it's global redistribution of wealth, then WHY DON"T THEY ATTACK THE ROTHSCHILDS, MEMBERS OF THE BILDERBERGERS, DAVOS ATTENDEES, BANKSTERS IN GENERAL, etc.

        Seriously, either they are the stupidest fucking people in the world, or they are playing someone elses game for fucks sake. ...... dexter_morgan

        Possibly, and therefore quite probably, an active work in progress, d_m, and something to look forward to in the near future as intelligence takes over from stupidity?

        WTFRLY

        New Anonymous op as White House still ignores murder of American reporter Serena Shim in Turkey

        UN Chief: Israel may have purposely targeted UN base in Lebanon, killing Spanish soldier – VIDEO

        Reaper

        Trust in his government masters is the enslaving opiate of the patriotic fool. The greater his government lies, the more the patriotic fool emotes.

        Reptil

        This is interesting: Former advisor to Nemtsov, Mikhail Delyagin comment.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eACsWwJgoa0

        Rollo57

        An even more interesting question; "How did they manage to make those 'T'-Shirts so quickly?

        http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2015/03/were-props-and-slogans-for-nemtsovs....

        In less than 24 hours, a four colour shirt complete with logo's in Ukrainian and Russian?

        Obaminator

        Yeah, GW can go live somewhere else and see if he can write stuff like this from all the GREAT countries he likes to defend...like Russia, and see how far he gets.

        Not only that, but his quotation isnt even a Question, it was a STATEMENT.

        Doooooooh

        btdt

        no need to wait!

        habara are standing by!

        -------------

        glad to see your operation now has harbara version 3.4 so you can post at the top.

        [Mar 07, 2015] The killing of my friend Boris Nemtsov must signal the death of appeasement by Garry Kasparov

        This man can do anything for money. What a low-lifer. Looks like talent in chess does not extend to other human qualities. Of cause NED/IRI money does not smell, and that means its quite natural for Gary Kasparov to become a buddy of neocons. From comments: "The constant attacks on Putin from the MSM, are an indicator of just how desperate the elite are to instigate some form of rebellion against him in Russia -- hence the Nemtsov assassination. "

        March 6, 2015 | The Guardian

        ID4534229

        Kasparov, you should be ashamed of yourself. A shill of the west, much like Klitchko. Are you really complaining about Russia when you share a platform with Saakashvili ? A man who is wanted back home for corruption? You are a useful idiot, like Klitchko and like Saakashvili. The only difference between you and the criminal and corrupt billionaires expelled from Russia is that you don't have the money.

        Why do these "Russian" dissenters, once they leave their country, immediately end up in US Senate hearings and with US politicians who would love to see Russia reduced to a mess? Have you no shame?

        caotama 6 Mar 2015 17:47

        "Yesterday I was in Washington DC, speaking to a US Senate subcommittee about how and why the Russian dictator must be stopped". So you are buddies with the neocons? Case closed.

        "Nearly every head in the room nodded in agreement as I and other invitees – such as the former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili..." Isn't that discredited IMF puppet on some wanted list?

        "Russian forces nearly reached Tbilisi before they turned back". Why did they turn back, Gaz?

        irishmand -> Treabhar Mac Oireabaird 6 Mar 2015 17:31

        If you don't like the West, why are you staying here?

        I don't like what americans did to the west. The democracy we heard so much about is being dismantled quickly. The school education is ruined. University education is becoming less and less affordable. Medical system in US is almost the genocide of poor. The media are lying on industrial basis. The moods in the society are pro war, people want blood. I am trying to fight it explaining that the west is walking towards abyss but you don't want to listen. Many people call me a Kremlyn troll. I don't care, but it demonstrates the points I just made.

        BMWAlbert

        Meanwhile in Odessa, far from the front lines, all is tranquil...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HacQe4GYIY#t=138

        MarVas

        The "More than 100,000 people rallied to mourn Boris in Moscow" line links to a page that says "Police put numbers at 7,000, while those involved said the protest drew 50,000."

        After the event police adjusted their numbers to 21,000 but apparently it is not worth mentioning.
        Even if provided by promoters' numbers are correct, it's still less than 0.5% of Moscow population.
        Is it a good reason to openly lie?

        HollyOldDog -> MarVas

        Strange how foreign newspapers always try to clutch at invisable straws. Protestors usually overestimate their numbers but the police on viewing airborne video have the advantage when estimating crowd numbers.

        There was supposed to be a protest march in a city in Siberia where the protestors informed the police that thousands would turn up but only 12 were present on the day. The Police could be still searching for someone to pay for the extra police overtime for the non event.

        PlatonKuzin

        "Boris Nemtsov's whole career was not aimed at helping Russia, but at the interests of foreign states," said Nikolai Starikov, one of Anti-Maidan's leaders. "Boris Nemtsov is the first victim of the Maidan in Russia… He was killed by his American curators."

        I also think so.

        Obfusgator

        Anti-negotiator Kasparov sounds like your proto-typical war and conflict addicted general, always ready to sacrifice millions of chess piece lives. He should stick to what he does best (playing games) and let his anger at Putin's Russia subside.

        We're all seeing bloody red at the moment Garry, but aren't you sick of war? You could have mentioned in your article the US funded coup in the Ukraine that led to Russia moving to protect assets there and you omitted important details regarding the increasing encirclement of Russia by US/NATO forces.

        In case you haven't noticed, when the US sticks its nose into rival countries' business (sanctions first closely followed by militarily assistance) things get out of control.

        We don't need that playing out again, now do we?

        Russia's problems are hers to sort out.

        notEvenNibling -> Obfusgator

        Ukraines problems are "hers" to sort out.

        Obfusgator -> notEvenNibling

        Ukraine's US coup problem.

        Parangaricurimicuaro

        Do you remember Iraks Ahmed Chalabi? The guy that pushed for the war? Kasparov is the 2015 version

        Russia will always be my country, but it is difficult to imagine returning while Putin is still in the Kremlin.

        EugeneGur

        No, it aren't, my friend. Russia isn't you country - you betrayed it, you are openly inviting foreign powers to attack it. Just because you say "Putin" instead of "Russia", you think it makes a difference? Assuming the policy of "isolation and condemnation" is successful, do you think Putin will suffer or do you even suspect that ordinary Russians will feel the pain? Do you care?

        This is a good article showing very clearly what kind of "opposition" this is. For the life of me, I cannot imaging an opposition of any kind, say, in the US or any European country, inviting foreign countries to start a war against the homeland and surviving. But it's perfectly fine in Russia. He is downright pleading with the West: don't be afraid, you won't have to defeat the entire Russian army or start WWIII. Just "inflict enough damage". The man is disgusting. He is also lying. It would be necessary to defeat the entire Russia, if it comes to that. Russia is not populated only by Karparovs.

        The opposition movement that Boris and I believed in, and that Boris died for, should be openly supported, the way the west once championed the Soviet dissidents.

        So, the "opposition" is a Western-paid performer, a.k.a. a whore.

        Ronald Reagan told those of us behind the iron curtain that he knew it was our leaders, not us, who were his adversaries.

        I do believe that. Personally, Garry did very well as did Nemtsov. But the rest of Russia did turn out to be Reagan's adversary, at least, it was treated as such.

        I do hope you Westerners understand now and believe us when we say that this 'opposition" has absolutely no influence in Russia, and most people have nothing but contempt for them. You are wasting your money paying them.

        PeregrineSlim

        "Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts…The United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way….And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this - no one feels safe." Vladimir Putin, Munich 2007

        willpodmore

        The Minsk peace agreement's terms included 'Withdrawal of all foreign armed groups, weapons and mercenaries from Ukrainian territory'. In direct violation of the agreement, the US government announced in late February that it would send 300 troops to Ukraine to help train Ukraine's forces, and Prime Minister David Cameron announced on 24 February that 75 British troops would also be sent to help train Ukraine's forces.

        AlexUspen

        Kasparov: "More than 100,000 people rallied to mourn Boris in Moscow last Sunday, a number that gives the lie..."

        Well, it really does.

        The link gets you to a Guardian story, putting the number of rally participants somewhere between 7,000 and 50,000. The 100K figure is repeated in the picture caption… This is some very strange math.

        PeregrineSlim

        The opposition in Russia will go nowhere as long as they function as errand boys for the american empire.

        MyDogLikesPorridge

        With Nemtsov gone, Kasparov and his ilk will be again trying to sell Navalny as the next saviour of Russia. Below is an excerpt from an article published in May/2011. It is both frighteningly relevant and prescient of events to come.

        "But the following interview was much more interesting. It's with The New Times, a Russian magazine... Navalny says "I think that the power in Russia will change not by an election process; they can elect whoever they like in March of 2012, but everything will be finished by April", and then clarifies – "by something like a Tunis scenario". Answering the question "Do you expect the wave from the bottom", he says – "No, I don't wait for it, I'm organizing it. We don't know when it will happen, but it's within our power to bring it closer. The current Russian authorities are thieves and swindlers. We must fight against them, exert pressure on them, create problems for them, and involve more and more people in creating problems. This pressure can be of different kinds – from simple negotiations to mobs on the streets that drag civil servants from their cabinets and hang them. And the faster authorities realize that and start negotiating, the less plausible the violent scenario becomes. I don't think that any political technologies or twitter can make people come out on the streets and chase away thieves and swindlers, so normal people could take over." (emphasis mine) .

        Well… first of all, let's just recall that every state has the right to defend its constitutional system by force, and such citadels of democracy as the UK and the US have no qualms about invoking it. Secondly, the Russian criminal code has the article "Violent takeover of power or violent retention of power", punishable by from 12 to 20 years in prison. And I don't remember anything in the Constitution that says that hanging of government officials is a legitimized feature of a democratic process. The code also has the article "Calls to extremist actions". But let's leave that aside for a moment.

        Navalny clearly states that he's working towards a typical colour revolution. First, I don't know what can be more undemocratic than a handful of raucous people changing power by riots and violence, simply because they don't like the government, the outcome of some election or any other quality. The opinion of the rest of the people is commonly ignored. It's also usually accompanied by tens or hundreds of corpses. Second, a common misconception is that power is transferred from bad authoritarian groups to "the people". That's a brazen lie; power simply gets transferred from one group to another, and the benefactor is well-known beforehand. Did anyone doubt that Yuschenko would become president when the Orange revolution succeeded? Or Saakashvili in Georgia? Third, and this is the most important point – there have been plenty of such revolutions. Has a single country benefited from it? Saakashvili's more and more authoritarian rule and the unleashed war are something that the Georgians dreamed of in 2003? Yuschenko's rating lying in the gutter is what the Ukranians stood in Maidan Square for? The deposing of Bakiev in 2010 by yet another revolution was worth launching the first one in 2005? Navalny suggests that "normal people will take over". Needless to say, that one statement will inspire laughter in any politologist worth his salt. Will these "normal people" spontaneously inherit another law framework and its institutions? Obviously, no. Then we have to take their word that after they come into power, these mysteriously benevolent "normal people" will start to limit their own authoritiy in favour of common people. Please remind me; how often has that happened in history? But OK, let's be believers for a while, so let's assume that they really are that incorruptible. In order to improve governance, the state should have better institutions and laws, so after the coup someone will have to write them. But what's stopping "normal people" from drafting them now, even promoting them? Maybe the current power will adopt them, so there will be no need for a revolution! And finally, who will determine the suitability of these people? Navalny?

        I sincerely hope that this whole interview is just idle thoughts, and Navalny doesn't vest any serious meaning in them. But alas, evidence suggests the contrary. All the traditional components are present – branding authorities as hopelessly corrupt and despotic, the government's consummate demonization and alienation; praise from abroad of one group, presenting them as progressives; the preparing of key people in the West. It's also useful to attach to the big picture the recent interview of Kasparov, in which he repeats Vice-President Joe Biden's threat that if Putin should be reelected in 2012, the US will topple him with a colour revolution.

        PeregrineSlim

        The Washington War Party is shipping off its troops to the Ukraine in the coming week in defiance of the Minsk agreement.

        sensitivepirate

        It is not about right or wrong, because in this case there are wrongs on both sides.

        Here we see the United States located on the other side of the world, standing up for its interests and investments in owning and controlling Ukrainian oil, gas, coal, manufacturing, transportation, strategic location, and agricultural resources in a country without any Americans.

        Here we see Russia standing up for Russians.

        Be careful what you wish for. With Russia, your ideals may never be realized.

        henrihenri -> sensitivepirate

        We live in world deprived of ideals. Money!
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkRIbUT6u7Q&feature=player_detailpage

        therealbillythefish

        "with the belief that the days of changing Europe's borders by force"

        The Serbs of Kosovo were disabused of that belief by NATO.

        therealbillythefish Sceptical Walker

        The KLA started a campaign of murder and were suppressed with much less brutality than the yanks showed in places like Fallujah.

        NATO handed Kosovo to the human organ traffickers of the KLA with the result that non-Albanians have been driven out and the economy is a basket case with thoussnds of Kosovans attempting to claim asylum in the EU every month.

        johnbonn

        Sanctions are not appeasement, so what is he talking about. Kiev has already done its best to destroy the east where ethnic Russians live.

        If he wants something stronger, don't worry. The UK and the US are preparing for the invasion by restarting the civil war.
        The Guardian does not report that the largest oil companies in the west have paid large amounts of money to Ukraine for the rights to drill off the Crimean coast.

        These companies can't get their money back, so the west must invade.

        McCain and Kerry and Cameron will insure that he and Europe will soon get their war with Russia. Sadly this will bring a major realignment of the middle east to this major war.

        frombrussels

        ....Elephants NEVER forget, they say ......People however are the worst "forgetters"!.....

        The Ukraine mess and all its horrible consequences started when Nuland b*tch and CIA decided to orchestrate a coup against a democratically elected, yet pro russian president, as a consequence of which Putin took back HIS Crimea and people in E Ukraine decided they wanted to belong to Russia ......

        It s as easy as that....let s make it complicated though, to justify deliverance of lethal weapons to Ukraine by "godfather" USA !

        amcalabrese2

        Or maybe we (the US in particular and the West in general) needs to realize that this is not our war. Is Russia really a threat to the us? Russia is not the Soviet Union. Unlike the days of the USSR, there are no armies of people in the west willing to do the party's bidding. Those days the Soviets were a deep threat to us. Had the Soviets won, freedom would have been extinguished. And the Soviets could have won. The Russians are having trouble paying their state employees.

        nnedjo

        Given that we are talking about a chess genius, and with regard to this very eloquent text that he wrote now, Garry Kasparov, without a doubt, is an extremely capable man. That is why it is a very pity that such a man has not found the right way to help his country. As I already said, this text of Kasparov is really very eloquently written, but besides that, it's full of nonsense. That a man of such intelligence can write so many things contrary to common sense, can only be explained by his blind hatred against Putin's Russia.

        But, for now, I will mention only one of the nonsense that Garry Kasparov wrote here.
        He says, "police state is very good at keeping the monopoly of violence for themselves, and given that prominent opposition politician was killed in the immediate vicinity of the Kremlin, the chances that this occurred without any involvement of Russian security services is vanishingly small."

        So, if the goal was to remove a vocal critic of the Kremlin, why was it necessary to do so near the very Kremlin? Does the state that holds the monopoly of violence could not do it in any other, less significant place. I do not see any sense in it, that the security services killed prominent opposition leaders at also prominent places, and not in some other places.

        Especially those security services who are trying to maintain a monopoly of violence, as they are also trying to maintain the illusion of safety in the country, even when it is not like that. So, for Kasparov probably would not look anything absurd, even that Boris Nemtsov was killed at the same time when Putin and his entourage crossed the Red Square, and that the bullets that are missed Nemtsov whizzed around Putin's head. Or, perhaps Putin's involvement in the murder would be even more apparent for Kasparov that Nemtsov was killed in the lobby of Putin's office, and there would be no wonder that the Russian security services have not thought of it first.

        I will repeat once again. In addition to being the chess genius Garry Kasparov is obviously a very talented writer. However, if he intends to devote to such a profession even more, I would recommend him not to write crime stories, but of another type, or from some other genre.

        SalmanShaheen

        It seems unlikely Putin had Nemtsov killed. What would he have to gain?

        dropthemchammer -> SalmanShaheen

        It would send a message to other around him.
        If the sanctions are starting to bite and people close to Putin muttering then this action would get them to hold their tongues.

        Oskar Jaeger -> SalmanShaheen

        No man, no problem (J V Stalin).

        henrihenri -> Oskar Jaeger

        There was a man, true, but there wasn`t a problem.

        FrancesSmith

        I'm wondering. Here in the UK we could do with a better opposition, and we could also do with a better electoral system, and the ownership of the press is a serious issue, and the current government has appointed its close associates to run the BBC. And what about the way our political parties are funded, corrupt or what?

        But what if there was some rich UK chess player went to the USA and started writing articles in the foreign press asking them to intervene and remove our elected government.

        ok, we haven't invaded anywhere recently, and we haven't had an opposition leader shot dead, no need really they can't get past the tory press.

        But just imagine how you would feel, putin demonisers, if there was someone from the UK talking about our government like this, and asking for intervention, and trying to impose a new government on us that has minimal support in the country.

        ApfelD

        The opposition movement that Boris and I believed in, and that Boris died for, should be openly supported

        Kasparov makes me laugh
        He is asking for the open support from the US
        It's like Alex Salmond will ask Putin about the missile strike on London

        PSmd

        For all Kasparov's ideals for liberal transparency and a capitalist economy, what our press seems to not emphasise is that the Communists are the big opposition in Russia. They are the ones kept out possibly by United Russia, certainly by Yeltsin. They are big in towns and cities, among pensioners. In fact, theire following is a bit like UKIP, they recognise the grimmer past, but the certainties that came before the deracinatiing effects of globalisation.

        BunglyPete

        Its worrying just how easily history can be rewritten.

        This BBC report titled Georgia 'started unjustifiable war' says

        The shelling of Tskhinvali (the South Ossetian capital) by the Georgian armed forces during the night of 7 to 8 August 2008 marked the beginning of the large-scale armed conflict in Georgia," the report says.
        It adds later: "There is the question of whether [this] use of force... was justifiable under international law. It was not."
        It also says Georgia's claim that there had been a large-scale Russian military incursion into South Ossetia before the outbreak of war could not be "sufficiently substantiated", though it said there was evidence of a lower-level military build-up.

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8281990.stm

        Now it does go on to say that Russia's response was over the top and illegal too, but the key point is it began with Saakashvili, Kasparov's ally, shelling a city.

        Now we are told the conflict was provoked by Putin, is proof of his imperialistic plans, and that Saakashvili is a person we should take seriously.

        If you want to do so I won't stop you, but to do so is foolish given the evidence against the Georgian regime from 2008.

        Renfrow

        Wow. Gary had turned into quite a radical. This article is definitely designed for the far right western audience. No wonder his support in Russia is close to 0.

        aprescoup

        Navalny is the first Russian opposition figure of any stature. Kasparov lost his credibility amongst Russians by becoming an obvious lackey of the West. Nemtsov never had any credibility amongst Russians because he could never clean himself of the tarnish of being associated with the Yeltsin years.

        Navalny has an altogether different stature, and does have credibility with Russians, but probably only in the Moscow region. Navalny does not lick Western arses as much as Kasparov and Nemtsov because he knows what arse-licking of Westerners will do to his credibility amongst Russians.

        In an October 2014 interview with Ekho Moskvy, Navalny said that he would not return Crimea to Ukraine if he were to become the President of Russia but that a "normal referendum" should be held in Crimea to decide what country the peninsula belongs to. Interestingly the West does not listen to the only Russian opposition figure with any proven credibility amongst Russians, hence Western policy-making towards Russia is becoming ad-hoc and ineffective.

        MacCosham -> aprescoup

        No, Zyuganov is the first opposition figure in Russia. The fact that he is not a US government stooge does not change this.

        FrancesSmith -> MacCosham

        But he's a communist! I just have a feeling, though I may be wrong, that these right wing neocons in the US wouldn't want to see Zyuganov replace Putin.

        Though they should perhaps be a little careful what they wish for as according to wikipedia Boris Nemstov and others said after the 1996 election that the communists should have won.

        http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2107565,00.html

        geedeesee -> Germaan

        "The fact is that Putin unleashed war against Ukraine..."

        Except it was Kiev regime which sent tanks over to Donbass to attack the separatists, and we saw the people come out and plead with the tank crews not to attack them. Then the Kiev regime sent aircraft to bomb the civilians - bombing their own people! Putin didn't tell the Kiev regime to send tanks and military aircraft to deal with civilians. The Kiev regime called it an anti-terror operation.

        elias_ -> richard1

        AFAIK the ruskies didn't invade georgia in 2008. Georgians attacked and killed numerous russian soldiers operating under UN mandate. In response russians gave the georgian military (partly trained by nato) a jolly good spanking before going back to where they were before.

        aprescoup

        Mexico's human rights crisis is even worse than Russia's, but no one in the West cares. The real reason Putin is so disliked by the West is not because Russians suffer under Putin, but because Russia under Putin (unlike Russia under Yeltsin) no longer takes orders from Washington. China's human rights crisis is also worse than Russia's, and again no one in the West cares, because everyone in the West knows that China is more powerful than the US, and that China will never take its orders from Washington. What particularly upsets Washington is that the US is losing its soft-power: the US has no soft power over China, no soft power over Russia under Putin, and no soft power over Israel under Netanyahu.

        ID5868758

        Is Kasparov's support in Russia 5%, or.5%?

        MacCosham -> ID5868758

        0.05%

        JohnMc2015

        I respect Mr Kasparov as an outstanding chess master very much, but his biting a cop in 2012 tells me that a chess player's skill has nothing to do with a serious opposition leader's decent behaviour who really could lead people. Even if such leader finds appropriate words, there appears to be some doubts concerning his adequacy in a critical situation. An opposition leader is supposed to be a cool cucumber.

        PeregrineSlim

        Kasparov seems to have lost sight of the fact that the chess board is in Ukraine and he is a long way from being able to move any pieces.

        BloodOnTheWattle -> PeregrineSlim

        he is still upset at Deep Blue...he cried rivers over the loss. so you must forgive him.

        ID5868758

        What the hell is the matter with the US Senate, hosting such a fringe politician from Russia, and one calling for the overthrow of the elected leader of a sovereign nation? Despicable behavior from the "land of the free", apparently you're "free" only if your opinion is in line with that of the US, otherwise we will make sure we help you change your mind.

        StatusFoe ID5868758

        What the hell is the matter with the US Senate

        What do you mean? He's the US establishment's man in Russia, a Carrier of the Flame and honoured Bilderberger.

        ApfelD Magyar2lips

        let us nuke Hungary and Russia and that's all
        wait a minute
        and Azerbaijan
        and Iran
        and Ukraine (the most corrupted country according to Graun)
        and Saudi Arabia (for gay rights)
        and North Korea
        and Switzerland+Lichtenstein (for the tax avoidance schemes)
        and France (Madonna said that they looks like Nazis)
        and Germany (they don't speak English)

        BloodOnTheWattle ApfelD

        and Germany (they don't speak English)

        most germans do..but lets nuke 'em all the same...the bastards tried to talk to Putin about peace...peace imagine that Merkel escaped our firewall..

        geedeesee

        Russians are questioning events:

        "Since the current US ambassador arrived in Russia, they killed Nemtsov, while he was in Georgia they killed Zhvaniya, and in Ukraine-Gongadze. Coincidence?"

        Each of the three was a prominent opposition figure, and in each case his death had led to political upheaval. To quote Ian Fleming, "once is a happenstance, twice--a coincidence, three times--enemy action."

        dmitryfrommoscow

        Garri, why didn't you address the U.S. Congress with philippics in the 1990's when the oligarchs who propped up Yeltsin were pumping tens of billions of dollars out of Russia every month? When millions of your fellow-countrymen had to live from hand to mouth because the economy was totally divested of funds and lay dysfunctional? When people were dying at hospitals because there was nothing except aspirin there? When selling a bunch of homegrown dill or parsley at a local market was a matter of life and death for innumerable babushkas on a vast space from Vladivostok to the Baltic shores? Give us an answer...

        aprescoup

        As long as Russian opposition figures are arse-lickers of the West, cosying up with MPs, MEPs and Congress members, they will not mobilise Russians against Sistema Putin. The struggle between the West and Russia is between the West's idea of a Post-Westphalian order and Russia's (and China's and Israel's) preference for staying put with the Westphalian order that has been around since 1648. Anyone who does not understand the difference between a political Westphalian order (based around nation-States) and a technocratic Post-Westphalian order (based around technocratic organizations, eg Swift for finance payments, BIS for banking regulation, ICANN for Internet), and the consequences of the West's attempt to change its imperial control over the world from a Westphalian Empire to a Post-Westphalian Empire, is a fool. Ironically, it may have been the USSR that launched Post-Westphalianism with Comintern (Third International, 1919-1943).

        willpodmore

        Kasparov is another warmonger. NATO continues its march to the east. NATO aims to seize control of Ukraine, to complete the hostile glacis to Russia's west. The US government considered it had exclusive rights to run Ukraine: senior US diplomat Richard Holbrooke absurdly declared that Ukraine was part of 'our core zone of security'.

        The US government is pursuing Zbigniew Brzezinski's strategy of trying to draw Russia into a 'prolonged and costly' war in Ukraine. Brzezinski had used this strategy in the 1980s, when he armed Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan as part of a proxy war against the Soviet Union. The US government aimed to do to Russia via Ukraine what it did to the Soviet Union via Afghanistan. Ukraine would become another wasteland of death and destruction, with the constant risk of a wider war, and Russia would descend into chaos.

        US Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, the head of both the US European Command and NATO in Europe, insisted that we could not 'preclude out of hand the possibility of the military option' in Ukraine. At the Munich Security Conference, Republican senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham poured scorn on European negotiations with President Vladimir Putin. McCain summed up Merkel's speech at Munich, which included a statement of opposition to arming Ukraine, with one word: 'foolishness'. He added, "I can assure you that [Putin] will not stop until he has to pay a much higher price."

        Vadym Prystaiko, Ukraine's Deputy Foreign Minister, has called for 'full scale war' with Russia. Military spokesman Andriy Lysenko stated, "there is no ceasefire, and so there is no precondition for a pull-back of heavy weapons." Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh announced that his private army and the Azov Battalion would ignore the agreement and fight on.

        PeregrineSlim

        As Milne points out, the West is already in the process of violating the Minsk agreement:

        But it's certainly grist to the mill of those pushing military confrontation with Russia. Hundreds of US troops are arriving in Ukraine this week to bolster the Kiev regime's war with Russian-backed rebels in the east. Not to be outdone, Britain is sending 75 military advisers of its own. As 20th-century history shows, the dispatch of military advisers is often how disastrous escalations start. They are also a direct violation of last month's Minsk agreement, negotiated with France and Germany, that has at least achieved a temporary ceasefire and some pull-back of heavy weapons. Article 10 requires the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Ukraine.

        ApfelD -> StatusFoe

        it's difficult to understand why Russians don't like Kasparov

        StatusFoe -> ApfelD

        He certainly can come accross as an arrogant prick.

        MacCosham -> richard1

        What bollocks. Putin is not coming close to anyone. What is happening is that anti-establishment parties in Europe, whether left-wing (Die Linke, Podemos, Syriza), centrist (Five Stars) or right wing (FN, Fidesz) are following public opinion which sees that the establishment parties (socialists and conservatives) are puppets of US-based big money.

        guster86

        "I will continue to do whatever I can to draw support to the cause of returning Russia to the path of democracy."

        Possibly sacrifice a few pawns.

        dropthemchammer -> guster86

        You say this after Putin had his opposition assassinated lol

        Simon311 -> dropthemchammer

        Did he? You have certain knowledge of this? Cause Global warming too did he.

        jonno61

        Kasparov has absolutely not credibility on this matter. Why the Guardian choose to publish his propaganda is beyond me ?

        RobHardy -> jonno61

        Fits into a general pattern of propaganda propagation by the Guardian in the last few years, probably much longer. no shortage of fellow travelers for the US management of Vichy Britain.

        altergeist

        "But we must cease to be surprised by the violence and hatred emanating from Russia today if we are to combat it successfully."

        I am ceaselessly amazed by the near-complete unity in the chorous of anti-Russia/Putin propaganda.

        " prominent critic of the regime,"

        With roughly 5% popular support, and quite widely reviled for his part in the Yeltsin era pillage of Russia, when male life expectancy fell about 10 years in just 10 years - a spectacular collapse in living standards. 'Prominent' indeed. And certainly hardly a plausible electoral threat, his prominence and influence is largely hyped to western audiences. One could easily argue he was worth more to western sponsors dead than alive, while Putin had very little to gain from his murder, since it would be eagerly and predictably be blamed upon him... as we have seen: Many western media outlets were ready with their accusations.

        "such as the former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili - discussed the global danger presented by Putin's increasingly belligerent regime."

        Says the belligerent in the recent, if brief, South Ossetian military adventure.

        " cite the official statements of a dictatorship "

        An elected dictator. Whatever next!?

        Look I'm not saying Putin didn't do it, nor that I don't think he's capable of murdering his opponents, nor that I don't think he has murdered any in the past, but even the Russian opposition has quite broadly said it doesn't think he's responsible, that this is a 'provocation.' But shall we wait for some evidence to be in this time? It's all starting to smack a bit of MH17, Assad's chemical weapons, Iraq's WMDs, 45 minutes etc... Accusations without evidence, or bare-faced lies. It certainly does fit with a pattern of CIA led destabilization but then again, maybe Putin has used that plausibility as a cover. Who knows!?

        What I do know is that this wholly unnecessary, largely western provoked West-East showdown is easily and singularly the most potentially dangerous geopolitical situation of my lifetime. Fascinating, but terrifying. Can't the US and Russian leadership just realise that they have a lot in common (democratic deficit, corrupted oligarchic rule, surveillance state, a long history of brutality) and get along?!

        Socraticus

        How much credence can be given to any of Kasparov's claims when he grossly exaggerates that "more than 100,00 people rallied to mourn Boris in Moscow last Sunday"?

        According to the Guardian, the "Police put numbers at 7,000, while those involved said the protest drew 50,000".

        Meanwhile, in other international publications the figure has been cited to be closer to 21,000 and "not tens of thousands as reported by some media outlets", further elaborating that "The reason why official estimates are closer to the real numbers is because all demonstrators had to pass through metal detectors before joining the march and were registered by computers".

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/mar/01/boris-nemtsov-marchers-moscow-honour-murdered-opposition-politician-live-updates)

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/mar/01/boris-nemtsov-marchers-moscow-honour-murdered-opposition-politician-live-updates#block-54f305cde4b011581586e731

        http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/03/simple-murder-boris-nemtsov-150302081839658.html

        uracan

        Kasparov really is an idiot.

        If Putin for whatever reason is deposed, does he really think the traitorous liberals will get into power.

        It is the communists with their 20% of the vote that will gain the most.

        It will take decades for the liberals to regain any credibility amongst the Russian general population.

        CharlesBradlaugh

        I'm on the left of politics and view the USA's imperialism with disdain and fear, but I agree 100% with this article, you have to be blind not to see that Putin is a dangerous adventurer who will undertake any aggression that will bolster his position.

        SirHenryRawlins -> CharlesBradlaugh

        I don't believe for one second you are on the left. You view the USA's imperialism with disdain and fear, US meddling in Ukraine, the backing of government that took power after the coup, and then say Putin is the adventurer and the aggressor.

        Gooddoggy -> CharlesBradlaugh

        Absolutely true, I am still sickened by Milnes atrocious view that Putin Imperialism is somehow acceptable whereas US Imperialism is not....clearly any sane and decent human being knows that both are unacceptable and need to be fought against with the tools of liberal social justice and liberal left democratic values.

        johhnybgood

        More propaganda. The constant attacks on Putin from the MSM, are an indicator of just how desperate the elite are to instigate some form of rebellion against him in Russia - hence the Nemtsov assassination. However, my reading of the situation is, that the general public across Europe are not buying the rhetoric. It seems that people are becoming far more discerning in their analysis of the propaganda headlines -such as "Russian forces invade Ukraine", with no supporting evidence. The PTB are losing the information war; the genie is out of the bottle, and cannot be put back. At last people's BS meters are now on full alert.

        Time for the MSM to start some independent reporting, especially where Russia is concerned.

        aprescoup

        Kasparov, you completely overestimate the influence that the West, even with its all-powerful dollar refinancing sanctions and quasi-monopolies on advanced technologies, can have on nudging Russians, both oligarchs and ordinary voters, into overthrowing Sistema Putin. If pathetically weak North Korea can continue to defy the West in the ways it does, then don't you think it more likely that a Russia isolated by further sanctions will become more like North Korea? Get real: Putin will not be pushed out of power by sanctions.

        It is time for the West to ignore the Russian opposition: not because the opposition is wrong to condemn Putin as a dictator, but because the Russian opposition completely underestimates the total power that Sistema Putin already has, and the absolute impotence of the West to undermine that total power. The likes of Kasparov, Nemtsov and Navalny are fools: they have underestimated what they are up against, and they are paying for that underestimation with their lives, alternatively with exile or house arrest and an accompanying fear of assassination.

        henrihenri

        Garry Kasparov was afraid of attending Nemtsov`s funeral under the pretext of being killed in Russia. As he explained he was nit ready to buy one-way ticket! Wow! Now every single leader of opposition says, I`m next! It is so ridiculous that even `The Ekho Moskvy`, their radio, laughed at this trend of theirs for a while. The matter, however, is none needs them. It`s just their coquetry. As to Mr. Kasparov none remembers him in his fatherland. Too many new, much younger and more handsome male stars!

        ID5868758

        Same propaganda, different mouthpiece. And don't you find it ironic, Kasparov complaining about "Putin's oligarchs", when he himself is in league with the all the oligarchs who escaped Russia with their stolen billions, and now fight from places like London and Tel Aviv for a return of Russia to the "good old days" of Boris Yeltsin, when the assets and resources of the Russian people were being sold off to the banks and the multinational corporations for pennies on the dollar.

        Junkets

        For a start, the assumption that Putin was behind Nemtsov's murder still remains to be proved. Jumping to conclusions based on political agendas is not the way a good investigator would go about things. After a bit of light from Seumas, didn't you just know that the Guardian would revert to type.

        Appeasement suggests Nazis. Are there concentration camps in Russia? Is Putin engaged in a process of mass-extermination? I remember when Saddam Hussein was compared to Hitler and Tony Blair was praised for his 'Churchillian' qualities. The hyperbole is all getting a bit too transparent.

        Keep on banging the war-drums, Graun, you might just get what you are looking for.

        FOHP46

        Mr Kasparov and Mr Saakashvili..wow! what a tandem, poor sods! Was it not Mr Saakashvili who started a war with Russia in 2008 when his army killed some Russian peace keepers? Is he not wanted for crimes in his country of origin Georgia? Nevertheless, he now lives in Boston, USA, the land of the free. Unbelievable.

        underbussen

        What a terrible article. Sorry but what the hell has happened to journalism these days? Why is "Putins Russia" responsible of this murder? This is like saying "Obamas America" is responsible for all the police shootings in the USA - clearly ridiculous. This article has Putin tried, drawn and quartered before the investigations even get really started. This is NOT journalism, this is propaganda. Shame on you Guardian.

        dropthemchammer Evgeny Petrov

        its quite easy to outsiders but the RUssian people have little access to free media

        Simon311 dropthemchammer

        You mean Rupert Murdoch? Lucky them

        Continent

        Yesterday I was in Washington DC, speaking to a US Senate subcommittee about how and why the Russian dictator must be stopped. Nearly every head in the room nodded in agreement as I and other invitees – such as the former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili – discussed the global danger presented by Putin's increasingly belligerent regime.

        global danger ... how shocking. I haven't realized it. I has been thinking that ISIL and its terror acts, the violant instability in Afghanistan and North Africa (especially in Lybia), the wars in Iraq and Syria, the atrocities in Nigeria and Sudan, Ebola and the aftermath left on the economic and society of Liberia were the global dangers we would have to deal with.

        Rialbynot

        Kasparov: "Yesterday I was in Washington DC, speaking to a US Senate subcommittee about how and why the Russian dictator must be stopped. Nearly every head in the room nodded in agreement as I and other invitees – such as the former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili – discussed the global danger presented by Putin's increasingly belligerent regime."

        Groupthink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

        RobHardy richard1

        Has Britain ever been substantially different? We have Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind happily willing to sell their access to Chinese businesses. Media almost entirely controlled by corporate influences. Parliament and Civil Service increasingly manned by corporate lobbyists and loan staff. Our defence policy just a subdepartment of Pentagon policy making, GCHQ an outstation of the NSA.

        Yes, we are different, there is the possibility of democracy in Russia, but nothing but a empty sham illusion of democracy in this country.

        UnclePatsy -> dropthemchammer

        Let's first agree on a definition for "invade". Possible definitions may include:
        1. To enter by force in order to conquer
        2. To move into
        3. To infest or overrun.
        4. To attack; to infringe; to encroach on; to violate.

        I see civil internal strife within Novorussia and Kievan Ukraine aggravated by external forces, but not an outright invasion by NATO or Russia. Crimea was ceded to Ukraine SSR as a province along with Novorussia only in 1954 by Nikita Khrushchev.

        uracan -> jezzam

        Don't you realize that what Putin is doing will consign Russia to poverty for a decade at least.

        This is just wishful thinking.

        Moreover Putin has destroyed any respect for Russia in the world

        If your world consist of US/UK and assorted lackeys.

        There is a bigger world out there than just the West and now that Russia has used the sanctions as an opportunity to do its own pivot to the cash , growing economies of the East, the future of Russia looks a whole lot better than the debt overburdened, decaying economies of the West.

        cherryredguitar

        The problem with the way that America has continually meddled in countries around the world for at least the last century is that every opposition leader in every country that America doesn't like starts looking like a neocon stooge. Because that's how the neocons work. It's their fault, not mine, that I think that way.

        Ilja NB

        Kasparov is a worthless peace of trash, he traveled all around the world on expense of Russian state, and then he suddenly decided he wanted to become a big shot politician, but instead of coming with some idea's that would benefit the country he only was bashing Mr. Putin while Mr. Putin was putting Russia on it's feet.

        Pedro Garcia

        That seems to be a law of life: you are good for one thing, you are bad for another. Kasparov is a despicable man, however a genius in chess. Just reading what he wrote, make me despise him. You don't like Putin, fine, but do you have to run into the US, too?

        Nemtsov as a Politician was null for many years, Putin didn't need to do anything to him, because he didn't represented any threat: his popularity was less than 1%. Nobody, even in Russia, knew who he was till he was shot dead. Politkovskaya was shot dead on Putin's birthday, Nemtsov shot dead aside the Kremlim, don't you see it? The killer is desperately trying to point out Putin. This are not bread crumbs this are the whole chain of bakeries pointing at Putin.

        This has happened before: Nisman in Argentina, to get rid of President Kirchner Party just before the elections, the killing of Hariri in Lebanon to blame Syria.

        Look who is profiting from it and you'll find who's to blame.

        Johhny Efex

        With the end of the USSR the 'free west' had a golden opportunity to disband NATO. This would have given breathing-space for other democratic forms to develop naturally in all sorts of places, including Russia. But instead the USA thought they would go for broke with Full Spectrum Dominance and other ridiculous utopian plans like PNAC to 'install' democracy around the world. Too paranoid and power-hungry to relax their suffocating grip one tiny bit. This is one of the unfortunate consequences.

        dropthemchammer Johhny Efex

        "Full Spectrum Dominance"? NATO is a defense organisation. why disband it when USSR died. there were and are other threats around the world.

        cherryredguitar dropthemchammer

        NATO is a defense organisation


        So why are Nato military generals continually making aggressive comments about Ukraine, which is not a member of Nato? Why is Nato defending non-member states? Because it is an expansionist organisation.

        The original poster is right - Nato should have been disbanded at the end of cold war.


        SASOVIET Johhny Efex

        The North American Terrorist Organisation (NATO) has a new role since fall of USSR:
        1. Terrorize Russians by annoying presence in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland
        2. Gang up against third world countries to remove leaders that doesn't support US foreign policy like Ukraine, Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc...

        Old_Donkey

        Mr Kasparov's views can be compared to the open letter which descendants of the white emigration published in France.

        The white emigres declare their "Solidarity with Russia during the Ukrainian Crisis". They also object to the way in which "Russia has been accused of every kind of crime, without any proof, it is judged to be guilty a priori, whereas other countries benefit from a particularly disgusting leniency, in particular, where human rights are concerned."

        The emigres go on to protest against "the calumnies which day after day are heaped on modern-day Russia, its leaders and its President, who have been subjected to sanctions and vilified in defiance of all common sense."

        The descendants of the white emigration are prepared to give a KGB Colonel the benefit of the doubt. So why can't Garry Kasparov? At this point, no one can prove whether Boris Nemtsov died for the Russian opposition movement or not. The law is no respecter of persons and everyone should be treated as innocent until proven guilty, even the President of the Russian Federation.

        http://www.russkymost.net/spip.php?article70&lang=fr
        http://stanislavs.org/descendants-of-the-white-emigration-against-russophobia-in-western-msm/

        Standupwoman

        This is very sad. We must make allowances for the fact that Kasparov was brought up in the old USSR and is clearly unable to shake off that way of thinking, but he must have had a good mind once, and it's hard not to wonder if he mightn't be ill.

        His arguments are frighteningly bad. First he claims Putin is a murderer on the sole ground that a lot of US senators and a discredited war criminal (Saakashvili) agree with him - the kind of argument we would expect from the lowest CiF troll. It's absolutely true that there have been politically-motivated and gangland style murders in Russia, but I have no idea if Putin was responsible for any of them - and neither can Mr Kasparov. What we do know is that if the West had even the slightest shred of evidence against him they'd have plastered it over the media long ago.

        Then he starts rewriting history. After the initial rush of 'blame Putin' in 2008, even the EU was forced to admit that Georgia was not only the aggressor but also responsible for serious war crimes. A good piece in the Guardian gives links to much of this, including some excellent reporting by the BBC. Kasparov is basing his entire argument on a history of 'Russian aggression' which never happened.

        Then worst of all, he sweeps away any concept of fairness and justice. Putin has no motive for killing Nemtsov, he had every motive for not doing so, and there is not the slightest evidence against him - but to even mention these things (as the BBC does) is to be Putin's 'defence lawyer'. There is no need for the presumption of innocence, no need for evidence and a trial, and finally no need even for 'investigation'. Putin is guilty because Kasparov says so, and anyone who disagrees is a Kremlin troll.

        This is frightening on many levels, but not least for where it leads. The sub-headline echoes the hate-filled argument that the only thing that matters now is making Putin look like a loser - and it is precisely for that argument that people are dying. The conflict in Ukraine could stop tomorrow, but the US can't allow anything that suggests Putin has 'won'. Crimea could be resolved instantly by a second, properly monitored referendum, but (as the Lords Report pointed out) this would imply we were 'condoning' Putin. People must go on suffering and dying for as long as it takes - just to ensure the US doesn't lose face.

        That's chilling. In a world where people care about both Russians and Ukrainians, it isn't even sane. So yes, to hear someone like Kasparov come out with this dribbling hate-rant is very sad indeed.

        BunglyPete -> Standupwoman

        Very well written as usual sir/m'am :)

        I don't get why its such a big deal if Putin 'wins' either. If the case against him is so strong, even if pulling out the UAF leaves swathes of Ukraine in Russian control, you can sort it out through the UN later.

        The primary goal has to be the end of violence, not the removal of Putin.

        VladimirM

        It has never occured to me how aggressive [neo]liberals may be, how radical and prone to violence they are. Peacemongering efforts of hawks of peace, whose hatred is so blind that they are not fussy about the means to pursue their agenda, will lead to chaos rather than to prosperity of Russia. They are ready to attack BBC presenters if they are on their way, they are close to calling names when it comes to the EU leaders not living up to liberal expectations when dealing with Russia.


        "I will continue to do whatever I can to draw support to the cause of returning Russia to the path of democracy. "

        You are too agressive, tov. Kasparov. I don't like it. Please, make revolutions somewhere else. For example somewhere you live in, there are problems over there no doubt.

        If you really want to do something, start a charity to help children of Donbass instead of begging for weapons. That would be a decent move.

        SHappens

        Despite all attempts by Kasparov to revive Nemtsov through mouthpiece for the US/NATO, it will not change the fact that on a political point of view Nemtsov was a nobody. Sure he didnt deserve to die but we must ask whom this crime profits.

        It is obvious that Putin has been the target of this attack, together with all of Russia and, being the target, it is highly unlikely that he has been the author of this assassination.

        So now we have Kasparov going for his propaganda by calling Putin a dictator, and Russia a dictatorship, and advocating a full war to defeat the Russian army. Seems that Kasparov didn't learn anything during in glory years as a chess player because that is not a good strategy, this is a loosing strategy for him and the West, Europe in particular, and Ukraine with certainty.

        Nemtsov's death will fall in oblivion in a few months, that is, he will return where he came from. Nobody at least in the West knew this guy before the media rant. He was not even popular in Russia except for the 3%. Nothing to worry the Kremlin.

        ElmerFuddJr

        Astoundingly poor quality commentary in this thread. Y'all sound like American Republicans, or Bibi defenders...utterly incapable of dealing with complex subjects which, given that blood is being shed, require a modicum of understanding of world history these last 40 years (at least) and a bit of nuance here and there...

        Viktor Gofman ElmerFuddJr

        Serious commentary is for a serious article. Kasparov's article is a circus... So there is a circus in the thread as a result.

        PeregrineSlim

        Engagement with Russia has never been tried.

        Since the fall of the Soviet Union the policy has been to drive NATO tanks to the Russian border.

        American democracy is in a death spiral due to its militarism.

        And America is hindering the peaceful and democratic development of other countries due to its interference in their domestic politics.

        MacCosham

        It is telling how Putin, who has got where he is by competitive elections is described as a "dictator" while president Mikheil Saakashvili who:

        • -Got his presidency by overthrowing the previous, democratically elected, government.
        • -Ran a sham election where he got 95% of the vote (no joke)
        • -Killed his main political opponent ("gas poisoning")
        • -Got kicked out as soon as real elections were held

        is described as a former "president"

        [Mar 07, 2015] Russia detains two men in Boris Nemtsov murder inquiry by Chis Johnston

        Note: Guardian did not risked to open comments for this article. Should somebody put a tattoo on Chis Johnston right arm with the words "Cue Bono", the classic Roman approach to such crimes. Why Putin on peak of his popularity would decided to eliminate political cadaver by converting him into real, much more dangerous cadaver. But there are two parties who can benefit from this killing. As the guy who with Chubais and his friends from Harvard sold Russia assets, he incite such level of hate in Russia that even 1% of votes (that means strictly Moscow fifth column of neoliberal globalization) are way too much for him. Why Chris Johnson is so shy to name them is understandable and despicable. Even presstitutes should sometimes behave... Also analogies with Politkovskaya killing and Litvinenko killing are way to obvious to ignore. The USA now try to fight off the challenge that Putin version of state capitalism and Chinese version of "neoliberalism within communist dogma" present and rising tide of nationalism in Europe, which threatens the fundamental postulates of neoliberalism and the USA role as Kremlin of neoliberalism (if we consider this neoliberal globalization as replay of Communist International ideas on a new level). Ukrainian nationalists, while reasonably good at destruction of the economy, proved to be incapable to rule the country and face financial default. They can resort to desperate means to postpone the day of reckoning. Russian newspaper Vzglyad noted that version of the involvement of Chechens fighting in the Ukraine was one of the most plausible. "Izvestia" citing law enforcement sources reported that the organizer of the assassination could be the Ukrainian security services, and assassins - Chechen militants from the so-called battalion named Dzhokhar Dudayev, which fights in Ukraine against DND and LNR.
        .
        By the way, the commander of this detachment Adam Osmayev was previous held as defendant in the case of the preparation of the assassination of President Vladimir Putin. Perhaps the plan was to discredit the Russian government and destabilize the political situation in the country.
        Mar 07, 2015 | The Guardian

        Russian authorities have detained two men in connection with the murder of the opposition leader Boris Nemtsov.

        The pair were named as Anzor Gubashev and Zaur Dadayev, both from the North Caucasus, a volatile region of southern Russia plagued by insurgency.

        Nemtsov was deputy prime minister in the 1990s in the government of Boris Yeltsin.

        ... ... ...

        Putin has called the killing a "provocation", vowing that everything would be done to convict those who committed a "vile and cynical murder".

        [Mar 05, 2015] The demonisation of Russia risks paving the way for war by Seumas Milne

        Lebensraum was the ideology behind Drang Nach Ost. This EU expension is just more modern version of the same. This describes what EU/Nato is currently up to.
        Mar 05, 2015 | The Guardian

        yoron_ -> AlanC 5 Mar 2015 18:36

        "The U.S. and Russia keep hundreds of missiles armed with thousands of nuclear warheads on high-alert, ready to launch with only a few minutes warning. High-alert status permits the launch a retaliatory nuclear strike before the arrival of a perceived nuclear attack.

        Early Warning Systems (EWS), high-alert nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, and nuclear command and control systems, all working together, provide the U.S. and Russia the capability to Launch-on-Warning.

        When Early Warning Systems warn of an impending nuclear attack, then decisions have to be made very quickly because the flight times of the missiles are very short. 30 minutes or less are required for a nuclear-armed land-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) to travel between the U.S. and Russia and vice versa; 15 minutes or less for a Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) to reach its target.

        Thus, once the attack is detected, evaluated and passed up the chain of command, the U.S. and Russian president would have at most 12 minutes to make the decision to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike before the arrival of the perceived attack.

        In the event an attack is believed to be real, the president must decide whether or not to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike before the arrival of the perceived attack is confirmed by nuclear detonations. To launch a retaliatory nuclear strike based only upon electronic information derived from Early Warning Systems is to Launch-on-Warning. If the perceived warning turns out to be false but a retaliatory nuclear strike has already been launched, then accidental nuclear war will have occurred.

        The US and Russia are the only two nations believed to have the capacity to carry out Launch-on-Warning (they both have nuclear C3I systems connected to their nuclear weapon systems which enable them to carry out LoW). "

        Arthur_Pendragon 5 Mar 2015 18:46

        There isn't any invasion of Ukraine. There hasn't been an invasion. And there never will be an invasion.

        The Crimea incident wasn't an invasion or annexation at all. It was the will of the people - a popular uprising just like the one in Kiev. Self-determination is a right according to the UN. Well, that right was upheld on March 16th 2014.

        The problems in East Ukraine, also, are connected with a popular uprising of the peoples who live there. They have been attacked by their own government and many civilians have died because Kiev and its western backers did not have the balls to give those people what they initially and peacefully requested - a referendum.

        The people of Crimea have acted in the true spirit of democracy. The people of Donetsk and Lugansk have acted within the true spirit of democracy. The only party that didnt act within this spirit was Kiev. There was no vote to remove Yanakovych. There was no vote to join Europe.

        The west has turned black into white again.

        codeinesunrise -> Skalla 5 Mar 2015 18:41

        Your arrogance betrays your historical ignorance. These 'old powers' that you refer to largely have the Marshall Plan to thank for their economic prosperity - an injection of money that dwarfs current EU investment (and that's what it is, investment - many European companies benefit from these contracts) in Eastern Europe.

        It is important to also remember that a lot of the 'wealth' these countries created often came at the expense of its colonies, which it raped mercilessly. At least our 'poor little' Eastern European countries don't have this shameful legacy upon our conscience.

        You would also do well to remember that Britain itself was bailed out by the IMF in 1976 when it was little better than a failed state. Have a little humility, nothing is more embarrassing than misplaced, fatuous triumphalism.

        str8shtr -> Dzomba 5 Mar 2015 20:00

        1. And of course NATO couldn't say "Sorry, we already have an important agreement, we can not include countries from Warsaw pact"? And wasn't it told to Hungary and others that joining NATO is the shortest way to become a part of EU and west?

        I wonder about complains of Russian invasion after WWII. So u preferred to be under Nazi Germans and soviet solders paid their lives in vain? Or Russian troops had to go home leaving everything for US? Yes, you suffered from soviet framework and communist system, but it wasn't only Russian framework, it was soviet. You couldn't choose any other ideology except communist? So nobody in Ussr could. Everyone was equal in that)) In soviet Russia the regime was much more strict then in Warsaw pact countries. In east European countries national languages were taught, they had their own party (communist, of course), their own leaders (communist of course), constitution (communist) etc and the union invested a lot in recovering after the war and developing it economies. It doesn't look like a devastating invasion.

        2. Everything is on the contrary. The problem was that Russia did not give a damn about Ukraine after the fall of communism, coz it had it's own huge problems till 2001. Meanwhile Ukrainian nationalism was rising. Communists invented country "Ukraine" in the beginning of the 20th century and started nationalism there, but during USSR existed it was under control. Also US started to invest in changing Ukrainian loyalty to anti-Russian in early 90s, same as in east Europe ("red invasion", "you were their slaves", "they used you", "you suffered enough" and so on), it was a bit more difficult then in east Europe but time and nationalism of west Ukraine helped them much.

        3. Yanukovich was a weak president. He was trying to balance between EU/US, Russia and ukranian billioners interests trying to trade the best conditions for his country (for his family first of all). He played to much in that game.

        4. I didnt read the text of the Minsk agreement, but if the advisers have ranks and are a part of military forces don't they are a military help?..

        gnorblitz 5 Mar 2015 19:58

        This is the ultimate fantasy for these threads. The Right and the Left actually spilling blood over ideology instead of the typers here on Guardian Commentary spitting bile at one another. No matter what camp you're in or who you think is the good guy, war is always murder. And the people in this region are the ones suffering. The rest of you are just ghouls, looking on and stroking your political peckers.

        BloodOnTheWattle Strangest 5 Mar 2015 19:56

        I am not sure actually, you make it sound like President Obama is more than a match for President Putin. I mean, he has sanctioned the killing of 5000 people by killer drones during the last 4 years, created havoc in Ukraine, cheerlead and assisted NATO in what is today a cauldron of terrorism in Lybia, picked the wrong guys (yet again in Syria), institutionalized, torture and kidnapping and arm twisting of nations by not acting on the perpetrators of these criminal acts.

        So there you have it apparently Obama makes Putin look like a choir boy.


        irishmand sikaniska 5 Mar 2015 19:42

        The demonization of Russia risks paving way for a credible military defence capability in Europe.

        Which will be a waist of money and will only help to US MIC. Russia is not going to attack any of the european countries. It doesn't need it.

        geedeesee psygone 5 Mar 2015 19:50

        It speaks volumes when you keep dodging these opportunities to show the Russian Army invaded Ukraine. :-)

        irishmand LesiaUkrainka 5 Mar 2015 19:37

        Moscow's ambitions are an obvious threat to the whole world because the Kremlin's aggressive tactics may not be limited to just Ukraine. If the EU and NATO fail to stand up to Putin's invasion of Ukraine, later Russia will very possibly turn against the Baltic states and/or Moldova.

        Why are you not working hard to bring the Ukrainian economy back from ruins? You should be doing that instead of trying to create more hatred and fear in people. Or you only good at jumping?

        geedeesee LiamIrl 5 Mar 2015 19:47

        Ha ha - the protesters were nowhere that many. The Guardian said about 30,000. The more thuggish the protestors became, the smaller the crowd. The ultra-nationalist thugs appeared to number about 5000. But as I said, it's called a Coup when a government is overthrown violently by a small group. The democratic way is through elections, which were scheduled for later in the year.

        irishmand LesiaUkrainka 5 Mar 2015 19:45

        The Russian plan is clear. They will seize more of Ukraine and depose the government in Kiev if not checked in time. Only the swift and immediate action of the West to train and equip the Ukrainian army can stop Putin's strategy to deconstruct the trans-Atlantic architecture, to deconstruct the post-cold war order. Like a cancer, Putin and his elites, must be cut out.

        1. How are you going "check" Russia?
        2. Russia already had a chance to take over Ukraine and didn't do it. I don't see why it will decide to do it in the future.
        3. Train ukis so they could kill more people and more efficiently?You want more blood? More dead bodies?


        geedeesee -> Kamil Piwko 5 Mar 2015 19:16

        Of course, we watched many reports of Ukraine Army defecting and joining separatists. Kiev lost many military barracks, depots and arsenals. We know Ukraine Armed Forces totalled around 220,000 men (and maybe some women). The head of the Ukraine Navy went over. Elite forces went over. We read the reports; we saw the TV. Over and over again it happened. We know all this. Just type "Ukraine Army defects" into Google or your search engine. Also type in "Ukraine Army defectors" for more. This is why anti-democratic Kiev Regime of ultra-nationalists passed new draconian law to shoot soldiers who do not obey orders

        BUT - you have replied to a call for evidence showing and proving this huge Russian Army has invaded Ukraine, and yet you don't take the opportunity to reply with the evidence. Instead you tell us what is already known.

        Rossiya 5 Mar 2015 16:25

        What a wonderful and truthful article. Surprised it was published in so anti-Russia country/times/hysteria.

        Every evening the meteorologists remind us how the bad weather always comes from Siberia, it never comes from Scandinavia or North Pole for instance...

        Simply the Anglo-Saxons are born with 'hate Russia' genes unfortunately.
        Perhaps it is right time to press Reset button and return to the Stone Age (?!)

        yoron_ -> AXWE08 5 Mar 2015 17:15

        AXWE. There are no clean hands in this. It's about geopolitical power and who will exploit what. Putins Russia is definitely no cleaner than USA, both though are superpowers, both have nuclear missiles, some of them modernised recently, directed at Stockholm some minutes away, with one of those superpowers calling itself democratic, making its moves at another continent.

        No clean hands, and those that will lose to this stupidity are firstly Europeans, secondly Americans.

        Pavel Prokofiev -> Roguing 5 Mar 2015 17:13

        Ukraine was a colony of Russia?? What?? So, Russia was ruled by Georgian Stalin, by Ukraininan Khrushev and Brezhnev from Moldau, i.e. people from colonies?

        We will discuss you question once a person of indian origin will become a king of the UK.

        ID1439675 -> Evgeny Skorobogatko 5 Mar 2015 17:12

        But yeah, the few instructors of another country is a major violation.

        Although it's hard to disagree with much of what you have to say, you are incorrect on this point. The presence of British and US instructors does not violate the Minsk2 package of measures for two reasons. First, by virtue of the Budapest memorandum the US and the UK are both guarantors of Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty. That means, amongst other things, they are obliged to provide whatever support is deemed necessary to restore Ukrainian territorial integrity when it is adjudged to have been breached. Although not parties to the Minsk2 agreement it could be argued that by sending instructors the US and British are violating the UNSC resolutuon which amongst other things urged all parties to observe the Minsk2 package. However, a UNSC resolution cannot override an existing treaty obligation or agreement unless the resolution specifically allows for that. Secondly, were this matter taken before a court for adjudication the most likely judgement would be that the Minsk2 reference to the removal of foreign troops relates primarily to the disputed area and to Ukraine's demand during the agreement's formulation that Russian troops leave Ukrainian territory. It was never intended to refer to instructors from other countries invited in by the Ukrainian government to train its troops in areas well away from the line of contact and the disputed area.

        Of course all this a moot point since neither the Russian Federation nor its proxies have fulfilled their obligations since the agreement was signed. Minsk2 is a convenient fiction for all but those who are still being killed, maimed and made homeless by the fighting. Those who believe otherwise should consult the OSCE sitreps and the Ukrainian casualty announcements (which are anyway widely believe to be understating the true figure). The hardcore fighting will resume when the Russian proxy army has reorganised its forces in preparation for the next part of its offensive - the capture of Mariupol, further territorial gains in the Donbas region and the capture of Kharkiv.

        Evgeny Skorobogatko -> Pavel Prokofiev 5 Mar 2015 17:12

        1) You changed topic from neo-nazis to something else. You lost.
        To your other topic of anti-Russia rhetoric - what kind of rhetoric would you expect vis-a-vis an invading nation? Pro-invasion? The rest is unclear and unsubstantiated narrative that I can hardly understand. Can you try to first at least make a statement before you try to prove it?
        2) Agreed, and Putin is one of those enemies, he's a dictator.
        3) If only were you able to quote an article from the Minsk-2 agreement that allowed killing the army inside the self-defined encirclement past the start date.
        4) both statements flat out lies. Prove them. Some of the many politicians participating in Maidan (incl. Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk) got a lot of popular vote in the coming general elections. Also, no one is forcing Ukraine into NATO (even if Ukraine wholeheartedly wanted that, it's like a ~10-year journey)
        4') Another lie, no one is marching into any cities which haven't been invaded by the Russian army, special forces and paramilitary fighters.
        5) See 4'. Didn't get the rest of the post re. population growth, not relevant to Russian invasion
        6) Thanks for sharing your dreams.

        wheresmewashboard -> Smileyosborne12 5 Mar 2015 17:05

        Russians generally have such confidence in Putin that they believe that however difficult the problems may be that their president will find a way to overcome them.

        I don't doubt that this is true, but the point that I was making is that if the Russian economy ends up suffering terribly due to the sanctions, both as they are now and how they may increase, then it is inconceivable that over time the Russian people wouldn't start to think that there are other options.

        The admiration for Putin is mostly as a result of the fact that he brought stability to Russia. The force of his personality is not to be taken for granted I admit, but it is relatively superficial compared to the stability he and Medvedev have brought. If, however, this stability is lost, and Russia enters a protracted period of economic slump, or potentially worse, then his approval ratings, over time will surely begin to collapse. This has happened in every example of economic calamity within a democracy in history. Admittedly, it may take longer in Russia than in most Western countries, but to think that the Russian people will continue to support Putin regardless of the depths of economic hardship and for how long it goes on for is naive, to say the least. Russian people may well be stoical, but they are not masochists.

        The potential problem from Putin's point of view, is that his actions in Ukraine are isolating him and therefore his country. The SEC rules the world of financial regulation, like it or not. No foreign banks / financial institutions will deal with Russian banks or businesses whilst they remain persona non grata with the SEC. Russia's reserves will see them right for a while longer but not forever. The new structure of the world financial system places a lot of power in the hands of American regulators, and this will cause all manner of problems for those who are blacklisted. Russia cannot hope to win in an economic battle with America.

        Ukraine is a regional dispute in America's eyes. They are probably not likely to get involved in a proxy war with Russia. The damage they can do to Putin economically is enough.

        Pavel Prokofiev -> Evgeny Skorobogatko 5 Mar 2015 16:48

        To 1) What for Svoboda is needed, if Yatzenyk and Poroshenko have taken its role with "Heil Ukraine!" and full anti-Russian rhetoric. Who would vote for Tyagnibok if they see that he is not tolerated by the Europe and U? If Europe and US would make clear that they do not support violence of nazi on Maidan - there would be no nazi coup. If Europe and US would not support killings of civilians there would be civil war. Even Venediktov warned Ukrainians that "tituschkas" and "policemen" are also citizens and have rights and own views, but very well educated journalists ignored and ignore this. One can got an impression that such journalists represent the common view, but the truth is that they are in a minority. The truth is that the durty work including fighting with Kalashnikovs is done by other type of people. It is possible to ignore the reality for some time, but one day there will be a hard confrontation with it.

        2) Murder of Nemtsov benefits only enemies of Russia.

        3) Debaltsevo is just one of the cases of confrontation with reality. Poroshenko believed that there was no encirclement - reality proved to be different.

        4) NATO expansion is ok, but why to use nationalistic minority (who could not get even 5% of votes) to make a coup and force a country into NATO?

        4') Poroshenko promised that there would be no civil war and any fighting would end within hour after his election - same lies as all stories and policy itself in the current Ukraine. Uncontrolled bataillons are marching into your city - your action? This what people in Eastern Ukraine were doing. Trying to protect themselves from uncontrolled Nazi battalions.

        5) Military solution?? Russia will pay high price? But it is the population in Eastern Ukraine, who disagree with Kyiw policy - they are the driving force. If do not want that some Nazi battalions are marching on their streets, you want to force them at any price? The question is, what price will then pay the Ukrainian people on both sides of the conflict, to make Russia to pay high price? This is the main question. The result will be the following: by birthrates Ukraine with 40 million people is now on the same level as Somalia with population of 10 million. During Soviet times each year almost one million people were born in Ukraine, now it is about 400 thousand. 60 years ago population of Ukraine was equal to population of Nigeria or Pakistan (was 1 to 1). Today in Nigeria or Parkistan each year are born 10 to 20 times more children. In Nigeria alone are born more children than in entire EU+Ukraine. At the end of the day we have now Ukraine and Russian and Europe with 30% population of pensioners, and in other countries we see for 40 years now non-stop demographic revolution. Western values against family values? Do you see, who will be the winner? Certainly not Russians, Ukrainians or Europeans.

        6) Neutrality? No Neutrality but united and mutualy beneficial block from Roca to Dezhnev.

        MysticMegsy -> Tonterias 5 Mar 2015 16:33

        US bases are a relic of the cold war - they are of absolutely no strategic importance now - how could they be without tanks?

        Both the US and Russia will have a large number of SLBMs parked off the coast of the other's country, so whining about bases and NATO encroachment in Europe is irrelevant. NATO and Russia could wipe out each other's cities regardless of how many bases they have, no matter how close to the other's border.
        This argument that Putin 'feels threatened' by Ukraine joining the EU is a total smokescreen to justify his own expansionist agenda (to secure power at home), when the real danger lurks under the Barents Sea regardless.

        nnedjo -> richard1 5 Mar 2015 16:28

        Ukraine didn't want to be a part of Putin's Eurasian Union which triggered Russian invasion Russian Eurasian Union is a non starter without Ukraine, and Putin knows it.

        Read what former Ukrainian prime minister says on this subject:

        Top EU officials, rather than Russia, threatened Ukraine with a coup d'état if Kiev refused to sign an association agreement in 2013, Nikolay Azarov, Ukraine's former prime minister, said.

        "I've never heard neither Putin nor Medvedev saying that if you sign an agreement with the EU, you'll have a different government. But I've heard [EU Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighborhood Policy, Stefan] Fule, repeatedly saying that if you don't sign then the other government will sign it," Azarov said at the presentation of his book 'Ukraine at a crossroads. Prime Minister's notes' in Moscow.

        EugeneGur 5 Mar 2015 16:27

        The great writer Anton Chekhov wrote a short story "A letter to a learned neighbor ". The story has a personage whose favorite argument was: "It cannot be because it can never be". A lot of people commenting here strongly remind me of that personage. No amount of evidence or logic can possibly convince them of anything they prefer not to see.
        Example:
        Crimea referendum was under the gunpoint. You can point them to multiple perfectly anti-Russian sources showing that Crimeans voted not only willingly but happily - not, it was annexation, referendum illegal (because we say so), Crimea is occupied, and so on.

        One question. If Crimea is occupied, and the population was forced to vote to join Russia, how come the West sanctions Crimea? Just recently the US said Crimea will be under sanctions until it returns to Ukraine. Does it make any sense to punish occupied people for something they had no control over?

        I don't think even the US is that stupid. I think they know perfectly well that Crimea is heavily pro-Russian; they knew it before the referendum, after the referendum, and they know it now. They are punishing Crimeans precisely for that: for their desire to reunite with Russia, a.k.a. self-determination. A round of applause for our "democratic leader of the free world", please.


        OldStickie Wolfsz 5 Mar 2015 16:16

        Lebensraum was a component of Drang Nach Ost which describes what Nato is currently up to.

        BorninUkraine -> richard1 5 Mar 2015 16:14

        Because it's not Russians, it's the people of Donbass fighting for their freedom.

        Before you ask, I grew up in Lugansk, I have lots of friends and relatives in Donbass. Every one of them knows that their cities are shelled and women and children are routinely killed by Kiev Nazis.

        BunglyPete

        A letter published from a NATO representative in the Guardian today disputes this articles assertions about NATO expansion

        In an interview published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta on 15 October 2014, former Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev said: "The topic of 'Nato expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years." As the man to whom the promise is said to have been given, his words carry weight.

        This conviently misses out the rest of the interview

        Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO's military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker's statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and Genscher talked about it.

        "Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. ...

        "The decision for the US and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed."

        http://m.rbth.co.uk/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html

        While there was no written agreement the implication was that the US wouldnt take advantage,

        Matlock recalled that Baker began his argument saying something like, "Assuming there is no expansion of NATO jurisdiction to the East, not one inch, what would you prefer, a Germany embedded in NATO, or one that can go independently in any direction it chooses." [emphasis added]

        The implication was that Germany might just opt to acquire nuclear weapons, were it not anchored in NATO. Gorbachev answered that he took Baker's argument seriously, and wasted little time in agreeing to the deal.

        Ambassador Matlock, one of the most widely respected experts on Russia, told me "the language used was absolute, and the entire negotiation was in the framework of a general agreement that there would be no use of force by the Soviets and no 'taking advantage' by the U.S."

        https://consortiumnews.com/2014/05/15/how-nato-jabs-russia-on-ukraine/

        Barry Klinger

        I agree that there's been a lot of knee-jerk propaganda against Russia, and that NATO should not have expanded into the former USSR, and that arming Ukraine is probably a bad idea. But...

        Last spring President Putin said that the "green men" in unmarked green uniforms were not Russian soldiers. Then a few weeks later he admitted that they were. Now he says Russia is not helping Ukraine... except for some volunteers going on their own initiative. Press reports of Russian hardware rolling into Ukraine, circumstantial evidence of war-fighting capability surprising for a revolt that just started months ago... Balance of forces have consistently looked to be in rebels favor, especially if they have Russia literally at their back. So who is more likely to be breaking the cease-fire, the ones who stand to gain or the ones who stand to lose?

        To me, all this points to Russian aggression to shrink the independence of neighboring countries, independence that the US foolishly encouraged to be too aggressive. It looks like Russia started and continues to stoke the war in Eastern Ukraine, which is not a minor offense compared to any complicity US had in unrest in Kiev last year.

        PlatonKuzin -> Barry Klinger

        I guess that the most appropriate answer to all the questions you have raised in your post are the words said more than 130 years ago by genious German politician Otto von Bismarck. They refer to the economic relations with Russia but the general principles stated there are universal and absolutely every word in it is of great significance. Please, read carefully what he said:

        Do not expect that once taken advantage of Russia's weakness, you will receive dividends forever. Russians always come for their money. And when they come – they will not rely on the Jesuit agreement you signed, that supposedly justify your actions. They are not worth the paper it is written. Therefore, with the Russians you should use fair play or no play.

        Erik Lyng

        Thank you. Is about time someone actually talked about this.

        BorninUkraine -> Erik Lyng

        Yes, it's the first sensible and balanced comment from the Guardian staff in a long time. It shows that not everyone in the media is blind (or paid enough to play blind). Thank you, Seumas Milne!

        PlatonKuzin

        I hope that shifting to a more balanced coverage of developments in Ukraine and Russia is caused both by the author's commitment to truth and change of the editorial policy in favor of truth.

        PlatonKuzin

        This is the first article written by a Western author in which he bona fide tries to provide the audience with a balanced and unbiased view on what happens in Ukraine, Russia and relations between Russia and the West. Bravo, Mr. Milne. For the first time ever I personally agree with major author's conclusions and ideas. A rare case for me with respect to the Guardian publications.

        EugeneGur

        Russia had been compliant with the West for far too long. And look where it got it? The fault line was, of course, the bombing of Yugoslavia. That was the first time Yeltsin opened his mouth and objected to anything the West did. Overnight he was transformed in the Western press from the glorious Russian leader into incompetent drunkard, which he undoubtedly was. Russians have been weary of NATO ever since.

        That NATO operation is justified by many that it stopped genocide. Pardon me, but NATO killed people in Belgrade that weren't engaged in any genocide. It's like targeting civilians in a war or killing hostages. Both could be quite effective in a military or terrorist operation. But we wouldn't condone them, would we?

        Correct me if I am wrong, but I can't recall a single defensive operation by NATO, although plenty of offensive ones. Beauty is as beauty does, isn't it?

        Demi Boone

        Putin is merely reacting to NATO expansionism that began with the Administration of Bill Clinton in 1993. He broke the promise of George Bush (I) who said he would not encroach on the boarders of Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union by bringing Poland into NATO and arming them with missiles.

        Then Clinton began talking about bringing in other countries as well as Ukraine. This was all done seeking little or no advice from experienced High ranking US Foreign Policy advisers and after it was done he received much criticism for doing it because it infuriated and alienated Russia's Western oriented politicians.

        if NATO pushes into Ukraine then Putin will push back

        this is what has been occurring (simmering) since the time of Clinton what the US is trying to tell the world is

        if Putin pushes into Ukraine then NATO will push back

        they are two completely different arguments......research the topic historically.

        irishmand -> richard1

        He's alienated Ukraine, EU and USA and strengthened NATO, meanwhile unleashing strong nationalist forces in Russia. He cannot win in Ukraine and if he's seen to loose Ukraine, in the Russian mind, (inevitable) these forces are going to "come for him" and his billions.

        US/EU alienated Russia by sponsoring a nazi driven coup in Kiev and unleashing a wild russophobic propaganda campaign.

        bokhar

        Peace in Russia (see Nemtsov murder on the Kremlin steps), Ukraine and its neighbouring countries will only occur when the zombies who enable Putin and his cronies are woken from their slumber and realize how much Putin has stolen from the Russian state and how many innocent people he has killed (including many Russians - see Donbass, Moscow apartment bombings, Georgia).

        SEUMUS WAKE UP! If you care about Russia and its future you should recognize that Putin is bad for Russia - he has done nothing but suppress and kill political opposition, independent media, all the while maintaining an ever tightening noose around the necks of ordinary Russian citizens.

        EugeneGur -> bokhar

        Somehow, ordinary Russia citizens disagree with this appraisal - but, of course, you know better, being an enlightened European as opposed to them zombies. Do you people even read what you've written before you post or does it come straight from the heart?

        irishmand -> bokhar

        Peace in Russia (see Nemtsov murder on the Kremlin steps), Ukraine and its neighbouring countries will only occur when the zombies who enable Putin and his cronies are woken from their slumber and realize how much Putin has stolen from the Russian state and how many innocent people he has killed (including many Russians - see Donbass, Moscow apartment bombings, Georgia).

        How much? Give us numbers and maybe we will believe you. Or maybe we won't. Look how many people US/EU killed, are they sorry?

        NaMorris

        But we want war. It's our not so secret desire. We want to live, not watch, our favorite action and war movies. In war everyone can be a hero. In war there are only good and evil, nothing in between, no middle men. War is blissful simplicity. This is why we pave the way for war.

        Eaglesson

        Victoria Nuland just few days ago smiling shaking hands with Andriy Parubiy the same founder of Ukrainian Social National Party and also the founder of Joseph Goebbels Institute. The white supremacist was invited in US and he came back with promises that Pentagon will supply them with weapons very soon (as he declared)
        Some people have no shame!!

        SirHenryRawlins -> Eaglesson

        Nuland is a neoconservative. Birds of a feather Parubiy and Nuland.

        Danish5666 -> Hucker

        "have a right as independent countries to choose who they see as their friends"

        Russia is rank dilettantes when compared to the US. Covert United States foreign regime
        change actions:

        1949 Syrian coup d'état
        1953 Iranian coup d'état
        1954 Guatemalan coup d'état
        1959 Tibetan uprising
        1961 Cuba, Bay of Pigs Invasion
        1963 South Vietnamese coup
        1964 Brazilian coup d'état
        1973 Chilean coup d'état
        1976 Argentine coup d'état
        1979–89 Afghanistan, Operation Cyclone
        1980 Turkish coup d'état
        1981–87 Nicaragua, Contras
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

        Smileyosborne12

        Come ON the red arrows! I am an unashamed supporter of Vladimir Putin.

        When one realises the severe problems,financial,military,politically,ecumenically and territorially the man faced when he took over I have a lot of time for him.Firstly he was preceded by a succession of Premiers who generally in succession just served to weaken the country.

        Lenin,Stalin,Khruschev,Pavlov, Kosygin and the drunken megalomaniac Yeltsin, left Russia as weak as at any time in its modern history. Putin gave up the Muslim states which had weakened Russia since the days of Stalin and finally came to an understanding with Ramzan Kadyrov of Chechnya the most militant of them all. In spite of the best attempts of the UN,Nato, President Obama,Angela Merkel,David Cameron and Francois Hollande to ruffle and destabilise him he has almost twice the approval rating of any of them and survived a litany of attempts to tie him to murders of his "opponents" without any concrete evidence brought against him. Pretty good record I would suggest.

        willpodmore

        Matthew Parris wrote in The Times ('It's time we washed our hands of Ukraine', 28 February, p. 21) "Ukraine? With an inward groan, I write again what I wrote about Saddam's Iraq, about Gaddafi's Libya and about Assad's Syria. Intervention almost always makes things worse."

        adoeli -> no_ref

        Gas disputes are resolved in an international court of arbitration. Head of the Energy Commission of the European Union recognized the guilt of Ukraine in non-payment of supplies. Kiev just doesn't it, till won't come the Z-day. Russia itself depends on the supply of gas through Ukraine. The pipe goes through Ukraine to Europe. Moscow concerns about the reputation of the honest supplier. Moscow's role as an unscrupulous suppliers is profitable for US. Ukraine, that had become a puppet of the United States, is capable for any provocation. Moscow was glad to be rid of such an intermediary that it did in fact, has planned a new gas pipeline project with Turkey. Now are you happy? Neither Ukraine nor Bulgaria nor the other will depend on Russian gas supplies. What are the problems?

        SHappens -> jezzam

        Russia did not make a fuss on all those Eastern countries joining NATO even if, of course, it might not pleased them. The red line was passed with Ukraine. Crimea in particular.

        In the past deals were made, promises were made, tacit agreements if you will and everybody was coping. But when the US decided to come and play in Russia's backyard with the intend to literally rob Ukraine to threat Russia, well Putin said stop. Now the US dont want to listen thus the assault on everything Russian through the conciliatory mass media.

        If you think about it all objectively you can only agree that without the US meddling, Ukraine would have sorted its differences already.

        ToddPalant -> Andrew Baldwin

        Fight for reform? With the dissolution of the USSR Yeltsin had a tabula rasa. They could start from the beginning by founding a truly democratic Russia. Unfortunately Mr. Nemtsov presided, along with other western proteges, over the looting of the Russian public wealth, virtually delivering it in the hands of the "chosen" few. Nemtsov although pro western, was no reformer. In his later years he was, to put it simplistically, a repeater of Mrs. Nuland's and her husband's aggressive narrative (the "f**k soft politics, bring in the troops" kinna thingy )

        jezzam -> SHappens

        No. I still don't get it. If Russia did not make a fuss about all the other countries joining NATO, why make a fuss about Ukraine?

        What does your statement that the US "intend to literally rob Ukraine to threat Russia," mean? In what way were the US intending to rob Ukraine? In what way would this have threatened Russia?

        "without the US meddling, Ukraine would have sorted its differences already". I find it hard to agree with this statement as it is again difficult to understand. Do you mean that by now Putin would have imposed his will?

        SHappens -> jezzam

        I'll try to make it short, you know I can be prolific.

        Crimea base lease, Fuck the EU coup using Maiden revolt, installation of a government chosen by her in Kiev.

        Rob resources, gas Biden, cereals Monsanto, install NATO, control Russia and why not annihilate it + cheap human labour flooding in Germany and the EU for a more low leverage of EU wages.

        By now there would have been the regular vote as planned in May 2014.

        gnorblitz

        This is Kiev and Moscow using centuries old blood feuds and nationalist fervor in a struggle over territory and its concomitant resources, infrastructure, tax revenue and political power. Washington is fueling it in order to widen its sphere of influence in the region, sell arms, entrench political back home and further contain Russia politically and economically. All three governments have the blood of the people in the region on their hands.

        gnorblitz -> gnorblitz

        That should read entrenching political support back home. Since the Second World War, standing up to Russia is guaranteed political currency in the U.S.

        ToddPalant -> gnorblitz

        If it were simply an isolated power play on the part of the US, although atrocious, it would not be as threatening as it is now. It seems like a culmination of a plan hatched in the late 40's.

        It also looks like an act of desperation as the US having lost its economic "power house" status relies solely on its still impressive war machine, certainly a policy that has an expiry date.

        When the dollar loses its reserve currency status, the US will have reached the point of no return. All three have blood on their hands, true. But the instigator, the accessory before the fact, is draped in stars and stripes

        EugeneGur

        A reasonable article in the Guardian? Sounds like an oxymoron. Someone must be sick on the editorial board to allow this.

        The alternative is a negotiated settlement which guarantees Ukraine's neutrality, pluralism and regional autonomy. It may well be too late for that.

        This was an alternative more than a year ago but it is no longer on the table. Under no circumstances Donbass will be a part of the present day Ukraine no matter how many sanctions are applied to Russia. Besides, the US wants a conflict with Russia, which means Kiev will fight on. What the US will do when Kiev gets its ass kicked for the third time, which will undoubtedly happen, I don't know. But everything they've done so far is bringing us all closer to the real possibility of a war.

        jezzam -> EugeneGur

        If what you say is true, it is obvious what will happen. E. Ukraine will effectively become part of Russia. Russia and its ill-gotten gains will be isolated culturally and economically and left to stew in their own juice. Is it worth it just to grab a useless piece of devastated territory?

        EugeneGur -> jezzam

        What I always admire is the "humanitarian" zeal of out western friends. They lecture us relentlessly on human right, European values, etc, but when it come to opposing Russia, all humanitarian concerns disappear like the smoke they really are.

        This "useless piece of devastated territory" is populated by 8 millions of human beings, and it wasn't devastated by itself but by our Ukrainian brothers that claimed for some mysterious reason that land for itself. Russia didn't grab anything - Russia is helping these people to survive. Got something against it?

        StanislavCh -> jezzam

        Russia and its ill-gotten gains will be isolated culturally and economically

        It's the most amazing part of Western narrative. Isolated from whom ? The whole world wants to cooperate with Russia , does it and will continue. If US and EU do not - fine, nobody cares , just piss off, but it's so ridiculous to call it isolation!

        bananasandsocks

        There was no democratic outcome ebcause there was no democratic vote.

        There was a vote. And objective evidence from polling indicates that Crimeans overwhelmingly consider it free and fair. So there is democratic confirmation of its validity.

        No option to vote for the status quo.

        According to objective data, Crimeans don't care.

        No independent oversight of vote counting.

        According to objective data, Crimeans don't care.

        No campaigning allowed for the Ukrainian side.

        According to objective data, Crimeans don't care.

        Voters intimidated by masked armed thugs.

        Nonsense. But according to objective data, Crimeans don't care.

        Roguing -> bananasandsocks

        Do non-Russian populations currently living in Russia have the right to transfer sovereignty of their territory from Moscow to another state?

        [Mar 05, 2015] Nuland ensconced in neocon camp who believes in noble lie

        From comments: "Neo-con" is a polite term for "Neo-Nazi". They are all Nazi sympathizers - Nueland, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Kagan, Kristol, Abrams, Woolsey, Armitage, Zoellick, Bennett, as well as the Bush family - and all should be tried, convicted and hung as such for their crimes against humanity. But even they take their orders from the central bankers who own the Federal Reserve, IMF, and ECB.
        Mar 05, 2015 | rt.com

        Victoria Nuland's anti-Russian rhetoric comes from the neocon camp of US politics, seeking to stir the Ukraine crisis, thrilled by the prospect of defense industry expansion and more arms sales, Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Peace Institute told RT.

        RT: World leaders and international monitors agree the situation in Ukraine is generally improving. Why are we still witnessing aggressive rhetoric from some US officials?

        Daniel McAdams: Because the US does not want peace to break out. The US is determined to see its project through. But unfortunately like all of its regime change projects this one is failing miserably. Victoria Nuland completely disregards the role of the US in starting the conflict in Ukraine. She completely glosses over the fact that the army supported by Kiev has been bombarding Eastern Ukraine, as if these independent fighters in the east are killing themselves and their own people. Victoria Nuland was an aid to Dick Cheney; she is firmly ensconced in the neocon camp. The neocons believe very strongly in lying, the noble lie… They lied us into the war in Iraq; they are lying now about Ukraine. Lying is what the neocons do.

        RT: Nuland listed a lot of hostile actions by Russia without providing any reliable proof. Do you think she can she be challenged on these topics?

        DM: Maybe she is right but the US hasn't provided one piece of proof, except for Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt's Rorschach tests he passes off as a satellite photo. Maybe they are true but we have to present some evidence because we've seen now the neocons have lied us into the war. This is much more serious than the attack on small Iraq. This has the potential for a global nuclear war. So I think they should be held to a higher level of scrutiny. Thus far they have not provided any. We do know however that the US is providing military aid. As the matter of fact this week hundreds of American troops are arriving in Ukraine. Why is that not an escalation? Why is it only an escalation when the opponents of the US government are involved?

        RT: How probable is that the Western nations ship lethal aid to Ukraine?

        DM: It is interesting because Victoria Nuland this week spent some time with Andriy Parubiy, one of the founders of the fascist party in Ukraine and I believe one of the founders of the Joseph Goebbels Institute. She met with him this week and had a photo taken with him. He came back to Ukraine and assured his comrades that the US will provide additional, non-lethal weapons - whatever that means - and felt pretty strongly that they would provide lethal weapons. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey has been urging the US government to provide lethal weapons as has the new US defense secretary [Ashton Carter], both of whom come from the military industrial complex which is thrilled by prospect of a lot more arms to be sold.

        RT: Nuland has said the State Department is in talks with EU leaders for another round of sanctions on Russia. Do you think the EU will agree?

        DM: I think they will be pressured into agreeing. It is interesting that Nuland said that the new Rada, the new Ukrainian parliament, in this first four months has been a hive of activity. I was just watching some videos from the fights in the Ukrainian parliament. So that was one bit of unintentional humor probably in her speech. It looks like a fight club over there.

        Daniel McAdams is Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. He served as foreign affairs advisor to US Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) for 12 years.

        Frank Wolstencroft

        Victoria Nuland was appointed as an assistant US Secretary of State by none other than Killary Klinton.

        Armand Geddon

        Tony Blair

        May be europe should start financing mexico to retrieve its stolen land from the us. Texas , california & new mexico.more...

        There no need. Obama and our corrupt Congress have already opened the border for the illegals to just walk right in and take it!

        "Neo-con" is a polite term for "Neo-Nazi". They are all Nazi sympathizers - Nueland, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Kagan, Kristol, Abrams, Woolsey, Armitage, Zoellick, Bennett, as well as the Bush family - and all should be tried, convicted and hung as such for their crimes against humanity. But even they take their orders from the central bankers who own the Federal Reserve, IMF, and ECB.

        ifigeniaa

        She is responsible for the thousands of death in eastern Ukraine.

        Tony Blair

        May be europe should start financing mexico to retrieve its stolen land from the us.Texas , california & new mexico. These jews in the white house like victoria newlandberg, john kerrberg & the rest of them look like ugly vultures sitting on the branches of a dead tree.

        Brigitte Meier

        Nulands lies are only a very complicated way of saying that the US policy in Ukraine failed. It was based on the assumption that the Ukraine army would make short shrift with the rebels. When that didn't work there really wasn't any plan B. That all what Nuland says is lies is already confirmed with the false photos Kiev sent to the US Congress of Russian tanks - which turned out to have been photographed in Georgia. "Who cares, its the only picture we've got of them Russian tanks". Good enough to admit under cover that Kiev lost the war and with it the US lost its policy goal. Russia isn't faltering despite the sanctions. Putin has a 86% positive rating. And Kiev is bankrupt and really can't move anymore. Time for the US to think of getting Ukraine's riches and split until more neo-Nazis can be trained in Poland to destabilize both the EU and Ukraine which hopefully will then be enough to throw Russia into turmoil too.

        Nuland was funny: the destruction caused by the rebels in Donbas - not the destruction caused by the Ukraine army who attacked Donbas! The rebels destroyed the airport - but the Ukraine army did most of the destruction to make the airport unusable for the rebels. Now they have to go fight for Mariupol - I'm sure the Ukraine army wants to destroy the port there too so as not to leave it for use by the rebels. And Nuland can then describe it all again in inversions. What she was really saying is that the Ukraine army caused abhorrent devastation, specifically of residential areas - in the winter - to prevent the population of Donbas from staying in the Donbas. Clearly, an action of ethnic cleansing as the Israelis do in Palestine. it is also clear that the Congress understood that and is dismayed. It destroys the image of the US as the great bringer of democracy and freedom - especially with the bankruptcy, the cut in payments on all levels and hyperinflation of 272%. Genuine freedom to starve. And Kerry still wants to believe that the problem is just that the US isn't spending enough on PR! Does he really think that the Russians will look at US PR rather than at the reality in Donbas and Kiev? Why would any Russian still believe in the positive intentions and influence of the US? At best, people will make fun of the US ingenuity to invent PR.

        [Mar 05, 2015] We are guilty by the mere fact that they want to eat by Anatoly Wasserman

        This article written before Russian Presidential election of 2012 proved to be prophetic...
        Feb 20, 2012 | smena.ru

        Legendary scholar telling our readers why for the USA is very profitable to destabilize the situation in Russia

        The famous scholar Anatoly Wasserman, considered by many to be the most intelligent person in Russia. When the great Onotole, as he was nicknamed Internet users, involved in intellectual games, it seems that he knows everything. The Wasserman - diploma in physics, for many years he worked as a programmer, but now he defines his occupation as "political consultant". However, he stated that he does not advise individuals for a long time, now he just publicly expresses his views on Russian politics.

        The opposition showed its incompetence

        Q: Anatoly Alexandrovich whether Russia today faces the threat of the "orange revolution"? Is it possible we have a repetition of what happened in Ukraine or in Georgia?

        A: Possible. And for a very simple reason. Because the Russian government is quite democratic. The technology of color revolutions was described in the quite popular book "From dictatorship to democracy". by an Evangelist of "color revolutions" Gene Sharp. Although in reality, the recipes contained in this book are, on the contrary, directly on conversion of the country from democracy to dictatorship. Because the dictatorship simply will not allow to use these recipes. But for the authorities who respond to the opinion of the people, it is easy to convince that the people wants "regime change". We all know that, for example, the recent attempt in Belarus attempt to carry out a coup using color revolution templates failed. But now this is a new situation when those strategies became well known and, in my opinion, it does not indicate the non-democratic nature of the Lukashenka regime, but simply the fact that Belarusian authorities were well aware of the template and possible price Belarussian people will pay in case of success... Hope that the Russian government is not only democratic, but also sensible. It is important not to confuse the artificial paid protestors created using Sharp's recipes e and the real will of the people...

        Q: If they are artificial paid protestors created using recipes by Sharp, why our so called non-systemic opposition, managed to conduct large meetings - such as the meeting on Bolotnaya square and Sakharov Avenue in Moscow?

        A: Yes, paradoxically, they were able to. Paradoxically because our opposition is led by former Yeltsin functionaries, people, who already convincingly had proven their incompetence during those days, when they were in power. By the way, the main players in the "orange" color revolution in Ukraine, too, belong to this category. They try to mobilize supporters to overthrow the current regime, as the backdoor path to power, which they can not get by legitimate, democratic means via elections. And they can rely of Western financial and organizational support. That's why such a practice has become quite popular and reasonably successful. Western support is the key.

        Q: You said "I do not exclude high-profile crimes". Will we have a new wave of protests or, on the contrary, it will gradually fade? Does the opposition, in your opinion, prepared any surprises?

        A: After the March 4 presidential election the meeting activity will probably rise. I do not exclude that at this time there could be the high-profile crimes - like the murder on 7 October 2006 journalist Anna Stepanovna Mazepa, better known by the name of the husband as Politkovskaya. She was killed on the birthday of Putin, as a kind of hidden message, a "birthday present" so to speak. Today in the opposition movement there a lot of people whose death will provide the anti-state movement powerful advertising. I would name, for example, Boris Nemtsov. And I would seriously recommend to him either to go abroad or to seek shelter in one of the domestic prison several days before the elections. Better a few days to spend in prison, than to be in the grave... There are a lot of "spent" politicians in the opposition, people who as dead are more useful for the opposition then alive... But even if high-profile crimes will not materialize, I think the organizers of rallies will still try to find some new moves for the mobilization of the masses, even acting outside the recipes be Gene Sharp. There are some "very creative" people in opposition, no doubt about that.

        But at the same time, the opposition is so heterogeneous, its leaders so much hate each other that I wonder how they still manage to meet on the same square...

        Yes, the leaders of the protest movement are bitterly fighting among themselves and in the near future will not discontinue those internal fights. But this is the usual state of our (and not only our) opposition movement. Nothing new here. and that will not suppress the protest activity of ordinary citizens. Mass consciousness rarely see apparent contradictions in the behavior of their idols. There are General laws of mass psychology: the crowd at the meeting is behaving stupider than the stupidest person among the participants of the meeting.

        [Mar 04, 2015] Russia's actions in Ukraine conflict an 'invasion', says US official US news by Alan Yuhas

        The United States elite no longer bothers about limiting the conflict after color revolution and avioding civil war. It puts its cards on the table without fear and doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critics inside or outside the country, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant. It also has its own bleating little lamb tagging behind it on a leash, the pathetic and supine Great Britain. (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html.)
        Quote: "Let's be clear; "US interests" aren't the interests of the American people, either. They're the interests of military careerists and contractors hoping to profit from yet another conflict. "
        Mar 04, 2015 | The Guardian

        Comment by Victoria Nusland, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, might be the first time a senior official has used the term publicly

        piper909 -> Bud Peart 4 Mar 2015 22:08

        Mineral resources, industrial development, lots of fertile cropland, and proximity to the Black Sea and Near East are all reasons enough for the Ukraine to be a prize for any conqueror, from the days when it was the breadbasket of the Athenian Empire to the Second World War when Hitler's lust for it caused him to overreach his armies' capacities in 1941 and 1942 (and probably saved Moscow and/or Leningrad from capture).

        Now it's the Americans and NATO who want to control this territory, and complete the encirclement of Russia.

        piper909 4 Mar 2015 22:00

        This woman is an utter fraud. She's been actively promoting an agenda to orchestrate and control the entire Ukrainian revolution and aftermath. She is a paid tool of the not-so-secret US neo-con policy of encircling Russia with NATO puppets and doing anything possible to weaken Russia's ability to block American hegemonic interests or to court European allies. She has absolutely no credibility in this matter as any kind of spokesperson except as a known agent of the US state dept. and CIA if her tongue were any more forked it could be laid on the table next to a knife and spoon.

        irishmand 4 Mar 2015 21:55

        This is what Russians feel about all this (english subtitles available):
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T65SwzHAbes

        AlexPeace 4 Mar 2015 21:52

        Russia set troops, Russia sent troops... Where are then Russian POWs? Ukraine failed to produce a single one for the entire year! All proofs of Russian involvement are coming from Facebook and other similar sources.

        US claimed that they have proofs, but would not show them because they are secret... How good is that? But still repeating their mantras-good only for complete f..wits

        Chirographer -> Bob Vavich 4 Mar 2015 21:51

        What about the Israeli PM speaking against Obama's policy in the US Congress? Should he have been arrested too?

        annamarinja -> irgun777 4 Mar 2015 21:30

        Would not it be better for humanity if Mrs. Nuland-Kagan were a bartender? Unfortunately for many, she pretends to be a diplomat, a person of knowledge and wisdom, whereas she is just a bad-mouth and a half-wit with poor manners and aggressive personality.

        Aris Tsihlis -> greven 4 Mar 2015 21:19

        Greven That's an extremely far stretch comparing Putin to Hitler! Me personally I haven't forgotten how things played out it started with a coup d'état sponsored by the US government!

        And if I look at the map NATO is on Putin doorstep not the other way around! Stop trying to spin the facts I heard the conversations the witch above was having on who they were going to place in charge! Sell it to somebody else I ain't buying your narrative of the story!

        BorninUkraine -> Metronome151 4 Mar 2015 21:18

        Ukrainian joke.
        Russians asks:
        - If you believe that Russia annexed Crimea, why don't you fight for it?
        - We aren't that stupid, there is Russian army there.
        - But you say there is Russian army in Donbass?
        - That's what we say, but in Crimea there really is Russian army.

        BorninUkraine -> DoyleSaylor 4 Mar 2015 21:08

        You are wrong, this was a success, although incomplete (NATO won't have a naval base in Crimea). The US stirred up s..t in Ukraine to force Europe to act against its interests and join the "sanctions". So, the US hit two birds, Russia and EU competitors, with one stone. If anyone was and still is dumb, it's Europeans following US orders.

        bagart -> Old_Donkey 4 Mar 2015 20:57

        Angela Merkel and this joker Hollande brokered only increased bloodletting and for a year opened Ukrainian border for Russia, like declaring inability of Ukraine to govern.

        This was scam not peace brokering. For what purpose border was left to be controlled by Russia, if Russia is officially not engaged in conflict?

        Aris Tsihlis -> bagart 4 Mar 2015 20:52

        The Russians are not in the Ukraine! Russia volunteers probably but there are a lot of other volunteers from other countries also! Serbs, Greeks of Ukrainian origin etc.etc.

        And do me a favor stop being a Neo-con apologist!

        Bud Peart 4 Mar 2015 20:46

        Yes Russia has sent troops and militias into Ukraine to support Eastern Ukrainians. I don't think many realistically deny this. Does it constitute and invasion? Probably yes.

        Does the Ukrainian government's 'anti terror' operation constitute ethnic cleansing and war crimes? Probably yes.

        Does Nuland's direct material support for the overthrow of an elected government in Ukraine constitute a coup? Probably Yes.

        Does the Ukrainian government use Neo Nazi militias including foreign fighters from Poland and Croatia in its ethnic cleansing. Probably yes.

        It would be nice if the 'liberal left' trendies at the Guardian could for once quit their pro establishment dribble and start providing objective analysis. This crisis has the potential to ignite a nuclear war and we need to start analyzing it without emoting Luke Harding style hysteria.


        Cynndara -> Aris Tsihlis 4 Mar 2015 20:36

        Let's be clear; "US interests" aren't the interests of the American people, either. They're the interests of military careerists and contractors hoping to profit from yet another conflict.

        Playing nuclear chicken is in nobody's interests, and people like Nuland who think they can continuously poke at Putin WITHOUT raising the possibility of nuclear war are arrogant idiots, the kind who always think they're too smart to make a mistake until they do. And people die from it.

        The NSA can add this comment to my copious file. Let me know when you're coming over, boys in black, and I'll bake a Devil's Food cake.

        [Mar 04, 2015] Were the props and slogans for Nemtsov's memorial march prepared before or after his death

        From comments: "The "Propaganda Kills" slogan is especially interesting because, well, whom exactly has propaganda killed?"
        March 2, 2015 | Fort Russ

        March 2, 2015
        El Murid
        Translated by Kristina Rus
        ... ... ...

        A t-shirt with quality four-color print and the words in the Ukrainian language. March on March 1st. The murder took place almost at midnight on February 28. A little more then 24 hours before this photo.

        That is, someone choking on tears, had to on February 28 run to order a batch of these t-shirts, and prudently - a batch in the Ukrainian language. He had to do a layout, divided by colors, to make the t-shirt, pick it up from the shop and organize the distribution to the right people - you will not hand out such an expensive item to random people. Ukrainian for Ukrainians, Russian for non-Ukrainians.

        At the same time to place an order for standard pictures of the deceased, to make a large number of the same posters. While some of the posters (again typographic quality) was created on the basis of slogans suggested on the evening of February 28 (i.e., a half a day before the March), suggested by Khodorkovsky's "Open Russia" on Twitter:

        ... ... ...

        I wonder, were these t-shirts and all these posters ordered exactly on February 28 or before? So to speak, during his lifetime?

        Kristina Rus: This entire circus looks like a part of one big production, were the picture is the goal and media is a part of the act

        J.Hawk

        The "Propaganda Kills" slogan is especially interesting because, well, whom exactly has propaganda killed? Had Nemtsov lived, that slogan would have looked totally out of place, and the Boris/Fight one like a product of an ego trip.

        Oh, and there's no mention of Ukraine in any of these slogans, even though the whole event was billed as an march against Russia's "invasion" of Ukraine! It's as if Nemtsov was the last one to find out what the March 1 event was really going to be about him. Everyone else knew.

        kolokol

        A genuine screen print would take too much time, however with modern machines, for instance plastisol printing or even inkjet heat transfers, it can be done. Still, considering the posters and everything else combined it does seem like a well oiled production. Haven't we seen this elsewhere with obscure flags suddenly appearing en masse, identical slogans in English, etc.

        Nexusfast123

        As an external observer the whole thing to me comes across as a paid for rent a crowd and set-up which obviously included the assassination. In such a short space of time to slick, too rapid and too well organised to be a purely a spontaneous response.

        JahbJoan

        I made exactly the point in the above article two days ago on a post under another story about the march. These products (the shirts, the posters, all the identical flags, the banner carried in the front of the march) were all professionally done and, in the mass, would have been quite expensive. So the questions are: who paid for them and how'd they get them out there so fast (unless they knew ahead of time that he was going to be killed)! I wonder, whenever I see these "spontaneous" marches, where the get (i.e. who pays for) all the expensive trappings.

        AMHants > JahbJoan

        It normally leads back to Soros and no doubt his new buddy Kolomoisky lent a helping hand?

        A Simple Guest

        this was my first thought: a meeting with A LOT of Nemtsov pret-a-porter banners and Tshirts

        I think the Russian opposition has a great industry of banners and Tshirts, and a great amount of money to produce them personalized when needed :)

        very well prepared... in advance!

        KM

        I have also been thinking about the flower bouquets after Maidan in Kiev. We all know how much a big bouquet of imported flowers costs in the middle of the winter. People of Ukraine were not rich before Maidan either. But looking at the pictures we can see thousands of bouquets of imported flowers packed in plastic, all exactly the same. It would have cost many, many thousands of euro/dollar. And not a single "simple" flower och twig or anything a poor person could offer. Who paid for all these imported flowers -- and so quickly, only a few hours after the killing stopped....

        Forever

        They did know. They are masters at lying, and these props prove the lies.

        skuppers

        They MUST have been made in The West and shipped to Moscow before-hand because, you know, "Russia doesn't make anything..."

        [Mar 02, 2015] Whodunnit?

        From comments "Live by the sword, die by the sword. Nemtsov oversaw Russia's transition to a lawless, wild west where tens of millions suffered and died from crime, drugs, depression and privation - and now he met the same fate he helped condemn so many to during the 1990s. The same fate he was actively working to condemn tens of millions more to."
        Mar 02, 2015 | Moon of Alabama

        So someone killed Boris Nemtsov while the 56 year old man walked with his 22 year old Ukrainian "model" on a bridge in Moscow. There is some CCTV coverage of the crime scene.

        As vice-premier under Boris Yeltsin Nemtsov was at least partially responsible for the mafiazation of the Russian economy. Everyone but some oligarchs and the "western" neoliberals was happy when he and the Yeltsin gang had to leave.

        After he was kicked out and until yesterday Nemtsov was a very minor opposition politician polling at some 1%. The communists, the real opposition party in Russia, poll at about 20%. No one in the government had reason to care about or fear Nemtsov.

        The former Soviet president Gorbachov points to those who will gain from Nemtsov's death:

        Asked if he thought anti-Russian forces abroad might exploit the crime in pursuit of their own ends, he argued this would definitely happen.

        "Of course, certain forces will try to take advantage of this crime for their own ends - all of them are thinking how to get rid of Putin, aren't they? But I don't think, after all, that the West will go as far as that, that it will use that crime to attain its own purposes. However, that was unquestionably the goal of the criminals who murdered Boris," he said.

        "Crimes of this kind are taken on by executors who are hard to find. All efforts must be made to find the criminals," the ex-president said.

        Gorbachov still uses rose colored glasses when locking at the "west". The "west" would never use a crime to attain its purpose? That is laughable naive.

        And what about all those legitimate and popular opposition politicians currently getting suicided in Ukraine?

        So whodunnit?

        Someone with relations to the "model"? Someone hurt in the gangster "privatizations" executed under Nemtsov's rule? Some Ukrainian oligarch interested in creating more schism between the "west" and Russia? Some "western" government plotting the destabilization of Russia?

        Your guess is as good as mine.

        Posted by b on March 1, 2015 at 08:41 AM | Permalink

        ALAN | Mar 1, 2015 9:25:21 AM | 3

        LaRouche Says the Murder of Russian Opposition Leader Nemtsov "Smells Like Nuland"
        https://larouchepac.com/20150301/larouche-says-murder-russian-opposition-leader-nemtsov-smells-nuland

        somebody | Mar 1, 2015 9:33:09 AM | 5

        Nemtsov's complicated Romantic life

        Nemtsov considered asking for political asylum in 2012

        Putin in 2012 - Opposition is looking to turn someone into "involuntary martyr"
        coming across in body language across as absolute villain.

        x | Mar 1, 2015 9:33:25 AM | 6

        Who pulled the trigger, or who paid to have it pulled?

        My bet, it was a little pay back to Putin (by proxy) from Kiev ... which means a combo of underworld murk and politically convenient 'fact' on the ground to distract msm from the US arms sales thru the ME -- which means Soros, McCain, and the DC 'cookie' Gang et al.

        Who pulled the trigger? One the best money can buy obviously -- Mossad would be in the top list of the usual suspects.

        He was obviously a man who liked to access all areas... photo

        Harry | Mar 1, 2015 9:54:27 AM | 10

        I dont believe in coincidences, hence timing points to a political hit. I'm quite sure Russia will eventually find who did it, but it will be just a man-for-hire, real masterminds will remain unknown, we just can make an educated guess - look who benefits the most. As well as history of those potential culprits.

        Scott | Mar 1, 2015 10:24:30 AM | 11

        OK here's my take on it before I read the latest updates. Nemtsovs murder was either because of a personal grudge or it was a sponsored false flag. You can combine the two as well. What bothers me is again, the timing and location. My gut tells me that tends to exclude the strictly personal. Would you whack a guy 200 yds. from the White House? I wouldn't. So I look at the symbolism and perhaps red herrings.

        I see a stolen car with Ingush plates. A subtle warning of trouble in the Caucus? I see the creation of a martyr and shrine in Red Square. Message? Look what we can do on your doorstep Putin.

        Why Nemtsov? Minor player who has value as a martyr but not as a "leader". He was a spent force trying to remain relevant. This clears the way for Navalny to step up. Whether it was a professional hit? A pro can make it appear any way he wishes.

        So before I start to ramble...I think timing, location, messages sent, and who benefits. Who did it? It could be the result of a personal grudge instigated by shadowy figures who promise protection to the shooter, who could be anywhere including a landfill by now. This was a bit too convenient and bold to be strictly personal. So...for what it's worth...that's my thinking as of right now.

        AMomyMous | Mar 1, 2015 10:33:07 AM | 12

        As Raisa Gorbachev allegedly said: Youth is a mistake that is soon over.

        But not soon enough for Mikhail, perhaps, because his vision still appears rosy and not clouded by reality or cataract.

        Or maybe he is just speaking in diplomat-ese for public consumption- language wasted on a neanderthal opponent that uses all levers on the force gauge.

        Gorbachev was urged by China's wiser leaders not to glasnost before perestroika.
        The circumstances of USSR at that time were critical then. But had Gorbachev not succumbed to naivete and the Western forked tongue, the night would not have been as long and desperate for post-Soviet Russia.

        The collapse of Red Moscow turned Washington's cross-hairs on the Balkans and West Asia, ie, Iraq - a narrow time frame that gave China to complete Stage A of its spectacular rise.

        The next level is a bit harder to reach, with the West whipping up the fog of war, from Ukraine to the Asian seas.

        Putin and Xi Jinping are now helmsmen on the same boat.

        denk | Mar 1, 2015 10:34:45 AM | 14

        here's the long ans....

        *Boris Nemtsov's last appeal
        Boris Nemtsov, Putin's vocal critic and opposition leader, was murdered late Feb. 27 in Moscow in what is said to be a contract hit by his Kremlin adversary.

        Here is Boris Nemtsov's last story he wrote in Facebook:

        "Putin annexed Crimea while giving away Siberia to Chinese* [1]

        +nemtsov is a fierce critics of putin,
        +he parrots the zwo meme of *yellow peril gonna overrun russia*,
        a typical divide n conquer ploy in fukus playbook.
        http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/03/where-do-borders-need-to-be-redrawn/why-china-will-reclaim-siberia

        this smells like another zwo smear job on putin, right after the mh17 ff.
        by martyrising nemtsov, it boost the image of putin the *ruthless dictator who silence his critics* in the western sheeples mindset , [see the moron at (2)]

        it also serves to subvert putin's supporters base, many of whom might be led to believe that *putin the traitor who give siberia to the chinese* silence nemtsov for *blowing the whistle*

        here's the no brainer ans....
        zwo rule 1
        *who else but the UsualSuspects ?*


        [1]
        http://zik.ua/en/news/2015/02/28/boris_nemtsovs_last_appeal_568549

        Noirette | Mar 1, 2015 10:39:06 AM | 15

        He is now a person who becomes famous after death. I had only heard of him vaguely a few times and paid no attention. OK, as a Kreminologist I suck, yes.

        He was not an important person, or not in any public way in years past, imagining that murdering him would achieve any political objectives, either national within Russia or world-wide, is completely loony, be it from Putin's side, the liberal-oppo-Russian side, or the West, including Israel.

        Focussing on him shows only that the media has sway and shunts the debate onto trivia, pointed to individuals, away from finance and geo-politics.

        In a previous post, I argued that the first causes of these street shooting deaths should be top of the line: from being a thief, a traitor to one's group, in deep financial trouble, to stealing a woman, even mistaken identity, etc.

        ben | Mar 1, 2015 10:59:07 AM | 19

        "What would The West have to gain from this assassination? "

        One has only to tune in to America's MSCM ( Main Stream Corporate Media), and the headline "News" programs, to answer that question.

        Pat Bateman | Mar 1, 2015 11:34:17 AM | 22

        If I had spent months fighting in East Ukraine for "New Russia", having seen what I'd seen, done what I done, and returned to find this guy bumping his gums on the radio rubbishing my fallen comrades and my beloved President, I'd have no qualms about putting a bullet in his back either.

        But then again, isn't the image of a dead political opponent lying on a bridge overlooked by the Kremlin a bit rich? I mean, short of a dagger lodged between his shoulder blades with the inscription "if found, please return to Mr Putin", I can't think of a more over-egged attempt at trying to implicate the Government. And on the night before an opposition rally Nemtsov hoped to lead. I mean, come on.

        Surely even an enraged nationalist would not have missed this.

        ohmyheck | Mar 1, 2015 11:35:57 AM | 23

        Fort Rus is all over this. They have translated conversations from a wiretap. Wonder where they got those? Anyway, heeeeeeeere's Boris:

        http://fortruss.blogspot.de/2015/02/nemtsov-wire-taps-how-to-organize.html

        And everything else: http://fortruss.blogspot.de/

        guest77 | Mar 1, 2015 12:05:08 PM | 25

        Live by the sword, die by the sword. Nemtsov oversaw Russia's transition to a lawless, wild west where tens of millions suffered and died from crime, drugs, depression and privation - and now he met the same fate he helped condemn so many to during the 1990s. The same fate he was actively working to condemn tens of millions more to.

        B makes a great point. Nemtsov, like Navalny, are only "opposition figures" in the mind of their boosters inside the Beltway. Neither are well loved. Neither have the best interests for Russia in mind - Navalny would like to split the country on ethnic lines, Nemtsov would have like to sent it back to the 1990s dark ages. Both are intent on delivering Russia over to the west - whole, or in bite-sized pieces.

        The New York Observer has an interesting piece entitled "Slain Russian's Complicated Romantic Life May Be Key to the Case". Nemtsov comes off accurately as a foul-mouthed, oversexed Bill Clinton³ (though, I have to say, Nemtsov at least has better taste). The man had three beautiful wives, yet was still out trying to score with 19 year olds. Good for him - though one gets the distinct impression that maybe he has more interest in power for the sake of the young women it attracts than anything else (I don't know if anyone has searched the Epstein/Clinton flight manifests for his name, but it would probably be wise). In any case, this is not the kind of behavior Russians like to see in their leaders, any more than Americans would accept it in theirs.

        I suppose we might look at his young Ukrainian girlfriend (worth a peek anyway). She had just arrived from Kiev and is now missing so cannot be questioned by police. Did she lead him to his death? Killing off their own supporters to score political points certainly is the MO of Right Sektor, Yats, and that beast Nuland - that we do know.

        Though there are many open questions, yet we get these kinds of headlines we see in the Western media:


        • Boris Nemtsov Exposed Putin's Corruption-And Paid With His Life
        • Boris Nemtsov's murder is another dark sign for Russia
        • 'They shot Nemtsov. He is dead.' Fierce Putin critic reportedly gunned down in Moscow

        guest77 | Mar 1, 2015 12:15:24 PM | 28

        It's all propaganda coming from the US and the US is at war with Russia. So nothing more needs to be said. They don't know what happened- though their trolls like are working double time to capitalize on his death, here and in Russia. The American people will no more be allowed to know the truth about this incident anymore than we were told the facts about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

        Lies and propaganda is the order of the day. To expect anything less from the United States at this point would be like expecting the sun to suddenly rise at midnight.

        In my reading, I have found it amazing the distinct muted response by the USSR to the deaths of JFK, Malcolm X, MLK, and RFK. These were all events that the Soviets could have capitalized on wildly but did not.

        And of course we should consider the high caliber of those men - especially of Martin Luther King - compared with Nemtsov. MLK's murder set off an insurrection that spanned the country. No doubt the US would like to see the same thing - but it won't happen. Few love Nemtsov and he certainly did not love Russia.

        I noticed CNN couldn't resist doing a little "product placement" as the odious Wolf Blitzer brought up Nemtsov's CNN interview with Anthony Bourdain.

        ben | Mar 1, 2015 12:17:14 PM | 29

        guest77 @ 25:

        "Lies and propaganda is the order of the day. To expect anything less from the United States at this point would be like expecting the sun to suddenly rise at midnight."

        Excellent post, and summation.

        NotTimothyGeithner | Mar 1, 2015 12:21:25 PM | 31

        @22 Wanting a particular outcome can cloud judgement, and even a "Russian nationalist" or a hold over communist might be expected to be hailed as a hero for offing the servants of international bankers.

        Given the set up, the location might have been picked as a known location where a hooker from Kiev could bring her John with a way for the gunmen to get away. If they chose an apartment or hotel, they run the risk of construction or trucks unloading in alleys. The Kremlin is an open area. It's accessible which means there are people at any time of day, and that means the police can't tear through the roads or even shut down raids just to get one car despite what movies try to teach us. The Los Angeles police "chases" last so long because they are clearing the roads.

        In the aftermath of the Boston marathon, everyone saw a person with a package, and the two were only nabbed because one shot a random cop in a spot where blending in might not be possible.

        Personally, I believe the CIA/Kiev element was involved which is why the description of "opposition leader" was out there so early. With no evidence or more than anyone else, I could come up with a rationale explanation as to why a Putin ally might be behind the operation. An ally might think Putin is still wavering between Europe and Eurasia and needs to be forced into an irrevocable separation and knowing the western media the murder might do the trick.

        Alberto | Mar 1, 2015 2:40:15 PM | 45

        When the Ukraine putsch offensive starts in March it will be a short lived Charlie Foxtrot*.

        Let me ask you this Question. What do John Kerry, Joe Biden, Brzezinski and quite possibly Kissinger have in common? I believe they are all either Jesuit trained or actual Jesuits. ALL WWII Fascist States were Roman Catholic. The Kiev putsch junta bears all the trappings of Roman Catholic savagery, assassination of opponents, displays of pseudo crucifix insignia, crude assassination of opponents and Fascist military trappings.

        The Church of Rome is the antithesis of the Constitution of the United States of America.


        *Cluster F*#K

        Just my opinion. I could be right.

        guest77 | Mar 1, 2015 3:49:10 PM | 49

        Meanwhile, in Ukraine: Lvov KPU Cadre Rostislav Vasilko in Kiev: "They Drove Needles under My Fingernails, Beat Me with Clubs"

        But no matter that. He's not a neo-liberal US ass kisser so who cares, right?

        PeteCaroll | Mar 1, 2015 3:53:12 PM | 51

        http://thepeninsulaqatar.com/news/international/324295/ally-of-ousted-ukraine-leader-found-dead-in-apparent-suicide

        Kiev--Ukrainian police on Saturday said a leading ally of former president Viktor Yanukovych was found dead after falling from his 17th storey Kiev flat in an apparent suicide.

        Former lawmaker Mykhaylo Chechetov -- one of the most prominent politicians during Kremlin-backed Yanukovych's time in power -- was facing criminal charges for abuse of power over attempts to crush protests that eventually toppled his former boss.

        Investigators said that Chechetov, 61, was found dead late Friday in front of his home after apparently throwing himself from his apartment window.

        Piotr Berman | Mar 1, 2015 3:56:35 PM | 52

        I think that Demian read the same comment in Russkaya Vesna as I did. Slightly bizarre, seemingly written in "been there, done that". Like, "when we were putting together a hit squad, we would insist on a control shot". However, the killer was not a novice, he pumped six shots without slightest hesitation. However, only four shots hit the torso, and the killer sloppily made no control shot once the body hit the pavement. One interpretation is that the hit man did not care too much if Nemtsov would survive or not, and that is consistent with some scenarios, like "mess up Russian politics" or "stop him from messing with this girl".

        The location of the hit was very brazen, police was there in less than 2 minutes. That points to authorities, but the sloppy style does not. My first girlfriend and her friend were in a shooting club, if you train, a carefully aimed shot hits a man's eye from 80 feet (for 10, you must have mostly 10s to be competitive), and quickly aimed shot hits a spot on the torso with the size of a fist (10) or somewhat larger (9). A person trained for inter-collegiate competitions or special forces would not miss a shot.

        My impression was that while Putin is not a "model democrat", he has a certain style of dispatching his opponents that does not involve killing. Lower level criminal organizations may have local political ties, and inconvenient people may get shot. If someone would cross certain Kadyrov in a bad way, a gold-plated pistol would be dropped by a hit man (after the hit), that guy is definitely special.

        Alberto | Mar 1, 2015 5:55:13 PM | 57

        "These chinks in the Freemason brick wall are spreading and the City of London is becoming increasingly desperate."

        ALAN comment 46 ...

        What about this?

        "
        It speaks to the globalist agenda of a one-world-economic system and a one-world-government and how it is being achieved. I remind you that the House of Rothschild has been the "Fiduciary" agent for the Vatican's money-lending activities since back to around 1823. The Vatican and the Rothschild's have been interlocked ever since. The Rothschild's are the bankers for the Vatican. The Vatican is the headquarters of the old Holy Roman Empire. The sitting pope is the 'Pontifex Maximus', the office of the last Caesar of the old Roman Empire."

        AND THIS ...

        "The Bank of England and Vatican split the take 40/60; 40% to the Bank of England and 60% to the Vatican."

        source - http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/sep2014/pastorbob913-10.htm

        Google search 'Vatican 60% City of London 40%

        https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Vatican+60%25+City+of+London+40%25

        Ulster | Mar 1, 2015 7:13:29 PM | 58

        I can imagine "b" writing about the death of Trotsky in 1940. It would go something like this:

        So someone killed Leon Trotsky in Mexico. Whodunnit?

        Trotsky was a marginal politician. No one would vote for him in the USSR. It would be ridiculous to call him "opposition". He posed no threat to Stalin.

        Also, Stalin would not gain anything from it. The public image of USSR would only suffer from this provocation.

        (Oh, I know Trotsky received numerous death threats from Kremlin, but it's irrelevant here, they were just talking)

        Also, if NKVD wanted to kill Trotsky, can you imagine them using an... ice axe? Why would the most sophisticated secret service in the world use an ice axe?

        And can you imagine a person called Ramon Mercader to be a Soviet agent? Did you notice that his name is an anagram to Acme Armor Nerd?

        Mexico is far from the USSR. And USA is close to Mexico.

        So, whodunnit? Your guess is as good as mine.

        Lone Wolf | Mar 1, 2015 8:41:32 PM | 62

        @Ulster@58

        I can imagine "b" writing about the death of Trotsky in 1940. It would go something like this:

        I am flabbergasted at your utter lack of historical perspective. How can you compare a larger-than-life historical figure such as Trotsky, to this Russian neo-liberal loser whose greatest achievement in life was to be deputy minister to a depraved drunk, appointed to manage the massive theft of Russia's energy sector? Boris Nemtsov compared to Lev Davidovich Trotsky, leader of the 1905/1917 revolutions, commander of the glorious Red Army, who defeated the US/Eurostan-supported White Armies and secured the existence of Russia, surrounded as it was on all sides by the same old same old bastards who are going at it again. Whatever opinion anyone has of Trotsky, his contribution to the survival of Russia is undeniable, and comparing him to a political whore is not only blatantly disgraceful, it is the ultimate show of historical ignorance.

        Demian | Mar 1, 2015 9:09:51 PM | 63

        @Lone Wolf #62:

        Lev Davidovich Trotsky, leader of the 1905/1917 revolutions, commander of the glorious Red Army, who defeated the US/Eurostan-supported White Armies

        A year ago, I probably would have been upset by that. But not anymore. We are all reconciled now.

        @ALL:

        I'm back to my original view that this was a US false flag. As Tony Carlucci points out, the timing was suspicious: a color revolution style protest was planned for today. The reason the hit was not professionally done is that the US is now so out of its depth in Russia that it can't even find a decent hit man.

        Speaking of hit men, this is what the real ones are like. This is one of my favorite trailers. (I usually avoid trailers altogether.)

        Get Carter music trailer

        And lest anyone has forgotten, The Human League in their epochal Dare did a cover of this.

        Demian | Mar 1, 2015 10:18:57 PM | 68

        @jfl #67:

        Are 80% of the Russian people still behind their government?

        I can't remember where I read this, I believe it was an opinion piece in a British newspaper, but most Russians now believe that the US has declared war against Russia. Under such circumstances, the "liberal opposition" has no chances. I am not even bothering to read about this demonstration, to find out how many people showed up.

        If the hit on Nemtsov really was ordered by the CIA, that indicates that the US foreign policy elite has no understanding of Russia. The State Department has this model of color revolutions. Since they have worked in Arab countries and in ex-Soviet ones, the State Department figures that they can work in Russia, too. So it keeps on trying. It just can't let go, like a nasty dog that has bitten your leg. But Russia is not like those countries. Russians have a memory of the USSR being a superpower and a rival of the US. Thus, this idea of coming to the "American side" simply is no longer appealing to Russians (with the exception of a small corrupt or brainwashed "liberal" minority), as it still is to Poles and Ukrainians, for example. China is like Russia in this respect, so it's not as if Russia is special.

        The Western press says that Victoria Nuland is fluent in Russian. I somehow doubt that. She shows no understanding of the country, which I think a person would have just by virtue of knowing the language.

        Vintage Red | Mar 1, 2015 11:50:39 PM | 72

        jfl asked @ 65/67:

        "Will there be anti-anti-government follow-up, of any size? ... Better, I should say a pro-government follow-up?"

        Even better--from Fort Russ:

        The "Russian Maidan" turns into a "Rally of the Patriots"

        Lone Wolf | Mar 2, 2015 12:37:06 AM | 73

        Fort Russ question from Vintage Red link (thanks for the breaking news!): Was Nemtsov's murder fruitless?

        Not at all, not at all. Ukinazis will now begin to understand they are Russia's enemy, and that's no joke for anybody.

        Odessa Massacre organizer comes to Moscow to "pay his respects" to Nemtsov, gets arrested

        Demian | Mar 2, 2015 1:01:48 AM | 75

        A Russian blogger writes that the hit is part of the US project to remove Putin from power. Destabilizing Russia by means of the Ukraine has not worked.

        Google translation

        Thirdeye | Mar 2, 2015 2:55:24 AM | 80

        I'm guessing associates of Nemtsov who felt they had been wronged, taking advantage of the timing to make the hit look like a political hit. A vigilante hit from the Duginite nationalist fringe isn't out of the question either. IMO the hit was carried out in a manner too unprofessional and risky to be the work of true cloak-and-dagger professionals. It wasn't too long ago that oligarchs used Mafiya goons to do their dirty work, and the Nemtsov hit seems to fall within that M.O. Nowadays, that sort of thing is one of the side jobs of the volunteer battalions in Ukraine.

        Nemtsov was a hustler and a swindler who probably made a list of enemies as long as your arm. His association with the opposition reeked of opportunism - a gambit to revive a fading political career. He acccepted grants for "opposition research" then treated himself to lavish, whoremongering vacations in Dubai. His funders, including Kiev, had nothing to show for their largesse. And we haven't even considered the possible enemies gained in shady business "deals."

        Young Anna may just be a very lucky innocent bystander, or she may have been part of the setup. She seems to be having memory problems. Her lawyer from Kiev seems nervous.

        [Mar 01, 2015] US Pushes For Escalation, Arms Kiev By Laundering Weapons Through Abu Dhabi

        Notable quotes:
        "... Vadym Prystaiko, who until last fall was Ukraine's ambassador to Canada, says the world must not be afraid of joining Ukraine in the fight against a nuclear power. ..."
        "... The U.S. will now disguise its arms-to-Kiev program by laundering it through its sponsored Middle East dictatorships: ..."
        "... The United Arab Emirates is not known as arms producer. But it buys lots of U.S. weapons. It will now forward those to Ukraine while the U.S. will claim that it does not arm Ukraine. Who do they think will believe them? ..."
        "... Not a peep from Merkel - her only disagreements with the Nobel Peace Prize winner about Ukraine are purely tactical. ..."
        "... Basically, Germany was to spearhead the EU's expansion to Ukraine, while the US role was to facilitate Ukraine's inclusion in Nato. ..."
        Mar 01, 2015 | moonofalabama.org

        The U.S. is circumventing its own proclaimed policy of not delivering weapons to Ukraine and is thereby, despite urgent misgivings from its European allies, increasing the chance of a wider catastrophic war in Europe.

        The Ukrainian coup president Poroshenko went to an international arms exhibition in Dubai. There he met the U.S. chief military weapon salesman.

        ABU DHABI – Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is expected to meet with U.S. defense companies Tuesday during a major arms exhibition here even though the American government has not cleared the firms to sell Kiev lethal weapons.

        Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's acquisition executive is scheduled to meet with a Ukrainian delegation Monday evening, however Poroshenko is not expected to be there. Kendall, in an interview, said he will be bringing a message of support from the United States.

        "I expect the conversation will be about their needs," Kendall told Defense One a few hours before the meeting. "We're limited at this point in time in terms of what we're able to provide them, but where we can be supportive, we want to be."

        Poroshenko, urged on by his neocon U.S. sponsors, wants total war with Russia. Porosheko's deputy foreign minister, currently on a visit in Canada, relayed the message:

        Ukraine's deputy foreign minister says he is preparing for "full-scale war" against Russia and wants Canada to help by supplying lethal weapons and the training to use them.

        Vadym Prystaiko, who until last fall was Ukraine's ambassador to Canada, says the world must not be afraid of joining Ukraine in the fight against a nuclear power.

        In the mind of these folks waging a "full-scale war" against a nuclear superpower like Russia is nothing to be afraid of. These are truly lunatics.

        Russia says that U.S. weapons delivered to Ukraine would create real trouble. They mean it. To hint how Russia would counter such a move it just offered a spiced up S-300 missile defense system to Iran:

        Sergei Chemezov, chief executive of the Russian defense corporation Rostec, said Tehran is considering its offer to sell an Antey-2500 anti-ballistic air defense system,

        The Antey-2500 is a mobile surface-to-air missile system that offers enhanced combat capabilities, including the destruction of aircraft and ballistic missiles at a range of about 1,500 miles, according to its manufacturer, Almaz-Antey.

        The system was developed from a less advanced version -- the 1980s-generation S-300V system -- which has a 125-mile range. A 2007 contract to supply the S-300 system to Iran was canceled in 2010, after the U.S. and Israel lobbied against it, ...

        Such a system in Iran would, in case of a conflict, endanger every U.S. airplane in the Middle East.

        But that threat did not deter the U.S. As the U.S. arms dealer in Abu Dhabi said: "where we can be supportive, we want to be". The U.S. will now disguise its arms-to-Kiev program by laundering it through its sponsored Middle East dictatorships:

        Christopher Miller ‏@ChristopherJM

        Poroshenko, UAE agree on "delivery of certain types of armaments and military hardware to #Ukraine."

        The United Arab Emirates is not known as arms producer. But it buys lots of U.S. weapons. It will now forward those to Ukraine while the U.S. will claim that it does not arm Ukraine. Who do they think will believe them?

        This is again a dangerous escalation of the conflict in Ukraine by U.S. machinations. It comes at the same moment that Russia, France, Germany and Ukraine meet in Paris to push for faster implementation of the Minsk 2 accord for a ceasefire and for a political solution of the civil war in Ukraine:

        On Monday spokesman for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry Yevhen Perebyinis said that during their Paris meeting, the foursome of foreign ministers will focus on the implementation of the Minsk agreements and withdrawal of heavy artillery in Donbas.

        The Ukrainian government has said that it will not withdraw its artillery as long as there are still skirmishes around a few flashpoints along the ceasefire line. In Shirokyne east of Mariupol the government aligned neo-nazi battalion Azov continues to attack the federalists. The Ukrainian propaganda claims that the federalists plan an immediate attack on Mariupol. That is nonsense and the federalist have denied any plans for further fighting. Unlike the Ukrainian government the federalist started to pull back their artillery and will continue to do so.

        The Ukrainian government is breaking the Minsk 2 agreement by not pulling back its heavy artillery from the ceasefire line. The U.S. is arming the Ukrainian army and will soon train its volunteer neo-nazi "national guard" forces.

        The major European powers, Germany, France and Russia, try to tame the conflict down. The U.S. and its poodles in Kiev continue to poor oil into the fire. If the Europeans do not succeed in pushing back against Washington the Ukraine with burn and Europe with it.

        In Further Escalation U.S. Delivery Of Weapons To Kiev Will Be Laundered Through Abu Dhabi

        Posted by b at 10:20 AM | Comments (53)

        Lone Wolf | Feb 24, 2015 11:20:39 AM | 1

        @b

        Thanks for a very good summary of the whole guacamole.

        Another reason not to withdraw the artillery, being also used by Kerry to crank up the "let's-give-weapons-to-Ukraine" line, is the mopping of the Debaltsevo pocket, which Ukraine & Co. decided to ignore from the beginning, to use it now as a justification not to fulfill Minsk 2.0. The false-flag attack in Kharkov was a prelude of the up and coming internal repression, which will drown in torture, suffering and blood the little resistance there is to the continuation of the war and the IV Mobilization.

        Whoever said that foreign policy is only an extension of domestic policy?

        gersen | Feb 24, 2015 12:24:12 PM | 3

        RE: Lone Wolf | Feb 24, 2015 11:20:39 AM | 1

        I commented about a week ago that the ceasefire might hold if both sides in Ukraine pulled back their artillery - unless Obama acted to sabotage it. Now he has done so - not withstanding the withdrawal of federalist ordinance - by offering to rearm the gun-crazy fascists of the Ukrainian gov't, with not even a fig leaf of "plausible deniability" to cover his assets.

        Not a peep from Merkel - her only disagreements with the Nobel Peace Prize winner about Ukraine are purely tactical.

        As for Poroshenko, he doubtless has a helicopter gassed and ready, and a nice little hidey hole in Switzerland all prepared, and conveniently close to his billions. That's why he sent his family out of the country, because when he has to get out - he has to get out fast.

        shargash | Feb 24, 2015 12:29:18 PM | 4

        Re: (2) IhaveLittleToAdd

        Like most criminal organizations, the US tries to take very good care of its agents that do what they're told and to be very brutal to those who don't. For examples of the former, check out all the South American criminals living in Miami as well as the perhaps more relevant example of Mikheil Saakashvili, who is strutting around Ukraine rather than being on trial in Georgia. For examples of the latter, check out Noriega, Saddam, or Bin Ladin.

        While I suspect Porky is wondering how he got himself into this mess, I don't think he has much choice but to stick it out to the end. At least his family will be well taken care of.

        sleepy | Feb 24, 2015 2:08:47 PM | 10

        Re: IHaveLittleToAdd no. 2

        Re: shargash no. 4

        I have read recently in an article on another blog that in 2012 Poroshenko was being politically groomed for his future role by Germany's Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung institute, a think-tank wing of Merkel's Christian Democrats, as was Vitali Klitschko the present mayor of Kiev in 2011.

        Basically, Germany was to spearhead the EU's expansion to Ukraine, while the US role was to facilitate Ukraine's inclusion in Nato.

        http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/02/greece-dead-man-walking-2.html

        Lone Wolf | Feb 24, 2015 3:19:08 PM | 14

        @sid_finster@5

        "Ukraine will go to war in late March"--Zakharchenko


        ..."We are beginning the withdrawal of heavy equipment, while Ukraine is bringing it up from Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk. Seems to be there will be a provocation. Ukraine will go to war in late March or Early April. Ukraine needs war," Zakharchenko said during a Monday briefing.


        J.Hawk's Comment: ...Because, to my mind, there seems to be a pattern of Ukrainian conflict activity: it is most likely to escalate when it just received foreign financial aid, and is the most likely to seek peace just as it needs another tranche...

        sid_finster | Feb 24, 2015 8:42:45 PM | 22

        $350m is not going to buy you many US weapons, especially as Parashka's contract is for $2.4 billion, less delivery, middlemen, financing, etc..

        The IMF is another source, but that money hasn't arrived yet, and there are a lot of conditions attached. That's why the Fund is the lender of last resort.

        Since arms are invariably sold subject to strict limits on resales, I suspect that either:
        1. The sale is for domestic Ukrainian consumption, i.e Parashka's attempt to look like he is doing something;
        Or
        2.The US is secretly financing the sale, directly or indirectly. Such financing may be in the form of "we promise to aid your ISIS friends, or look the other way, if you 'sell' Ukraine these weapons and take a lenient attitude regarding repayment."

        Lone Wolf | Feb 24, 2015 9:20:09 PM | 23

        @Alberto@11

        This is not because they disagree with his politics, but because Saakashvili is wanted on a multitude of criminal charges.

        "Criminal charges?" Bingo! He fits the credentials for the job as Porky's "adviser." In reality, Saakashvili, a CIA crooked rat, is the CIA man in Ukraine, overseeing the entire anti-Russian effort, weapons needs, false-flag operations, internal repression, Ukinazi death squads, intel gathering and coordination, etc. Georgia's complaint to Ukraine was more of a wink to Saakashvili's newly found job, a show for domestic consumption, otherwise, Interpol would be looking for him, wouldn't it?

        ProsperousPeace | Feb 24, 2015 9:37:53 PM | 24

        Re: Isaakashvili sudden involvement with the "Ukrainian government": Kiev Snipers: Mystery Solved

        It was reported several weeks ago in Interpress News that four of the snipers in Kiev were in fact Georgian nationals. The source for this story was Georgian General Tristan Tsitelashvili (Titelashvili), who later confirmed this in an interview with Rossiya TV.

        Tsitelashvili claimed that at least four of the snipers shooting at people in Maidan Square were under the command of former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili, who is doing his best to destabilize his own country, and others if necessary, to find a way back into power.

        Piotr Berman | Feb 24, 2015 11:28:51 PM | 25

        How long did Saakashvili's war with Russia last? 48 hours? 72 hours? Good advisor to have.

        Posted by: Crest | Feb 24, 2015 8:34:15 PM | 20

        According to Wikipedia, the war started on Aug 8, minutes after midnight, and it definitely lasted at least 4 days. On fifth day, Georgians left a key city, Gori, and Russians entered on sixth day. On the other hand, the war was lost within 24 hours. The only chance of victory for heavily outnumbered Georgia was to surprise the Russians and Ossetians and take control of the only tunnel between South Ossetia and the Russian Federation (North Ossetia), which they did not. Thus Russian could retake all territory gained by Georgia on day one within two days, rather than a week. Georgia concentrated almost all forces against Ossetian, leaving the second border with good roads, with Abkhasia, practically undefended. Thus the only way to score a victory lasting more than one day was to risk loosing big majority of Georgian military in a cauldron -- Georgian forces in Ossetian mountain valleys would have Russian forces behind them, as only police checkpoints were delaying Russian advance from Abkhasia, (posting detours, issuing tickets for parking violations, violation of weight limits on bridges for tanks etc.???).

        As a history buff, I have hard time finding a strategic plan of equal stupidity. To give the creator of that plan a key advising position seems suicidal. An anti-Russian Georgian owns a large (??? impressive web site) newspaper in Kiev.

        Demian | Feb 25, 2015 3:02:07 AM | 28

        Foreign Affairs poll of experts about whether the US should arm Ukraine:

        4 strongly agree
        5 agree
        0 are neutral [they're experts, after all]
        8 disagree
        10 strongly disagree

        brian | Feb 26, 2015 4:59:48 AM | 52

        You can read the whole article for free if you register. You get two free articles per month. FA should be of interest to MoA readers.

        By George Galloway. a great discussion about the Russian_Western struggle; its history and recent development.;
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNaSGdYxm8M

        guest77 | Feb 26, 2015 1:47:24 PM | 53

        @52 Thanks for the Galloway show. His al Mayadeen show has always been difficult for me to find - and it is considerably better, I feel, than both Sputnik and Comment (which are fine shows themselves).

        [Mar 01, 2015] The second level, more expensive, starts at $1500 for an evening -- or how Nemtsov rolled

        Neoliberal playboy with criminal connections who controlled some part of the flow of money to the opposition.
        Jan 25, 2012 | Fort Russ

        Nemtsov took a vacation with a new escort-virgin, and was photographed by unknown operators in all the private places. Apparently the travel company which he used sold him out.

        Nemtsov did not part with the 25-year-old woman even for a minute. The hot sand of the Persian Gulf only warmed up his sexual activism. Political activism did not grow cold, either.

        Nemtsov had time to count his supporters' donations. Hundreds of Russian citizens voluntarily transferred money to his electronic account over a period of two months, to help the fighter for justice publish his oppositionist research.

        Nemtsov collected 320 thousand rubles, just enough for a week in a chic room for two in the Zabele Saray hotel.

        "It is a new, luxurious VIP hotel, built on a palm island," according to a tourist agency employee. "There is everything necessary for a good rest at Zabele Saray! The room resembles sultan's apartments, only the freshest cuisine: there are 16 restaurants for even the most demanding of tastes. The hotel was built specially for the elite, the top floor hosts families of the sheikhs themselves. Only the best, believe me."

        The 52-year-old leader of the PARNAS took with him for a serious spin on the UAE beaches the faithful companion of his recent adventures, Anastasiya Ognyeva. Hotel staff whispered: "He is an important politician from the '90s", but neither the staff nor the long-time guests saw any extraordinary behavior.

        The pair practically never left their heavenly nest, having grown weary of hanging out with Russian tourists-that's the electorate, after all. They ordered meals to their room: the most sophisticated Japanese dishes and the local seafood. They had breakfast around dinnertime, and they observed the sunset from the balcony.

        A night in the royal de-luxe apartments of the hotel located on the Jumeira Palm island with a view on the ocean costs over 50 thousand dollars. Even though half a million is small change for Nemtsov, he and his red-headed companion nevertheless received a discount for their romantic journey.

        Of course his last official wife was not invited along, but was instead left in frozen Moscow. Nemtsov also did not have the blessing from the parents of his lover Anastasiya Ognyeva.

        "What gave you the idea that my daughter is hanging out with Nemtsov?!" Nastya's mom was surprised. "We know nothing about her life, she does not live with us."

        Nevertheless, Nemtsov already boasted to his numerous past wives about his w young girl.

        "I am very happy for him, he looks happy next to her," told Life News one of Nemtsov's wives, Ekaterina Odintsova. "He showed me her photos, she's good-looking. He told me something about her, but we have many other topics to discuss."

        Of course they have other topics: Nemtsov and the journalist Odintsova had two children together.

        Life News learned where lovebirds like Nemtsov obtain their madams.

        The Russian democracy promoter's muse first made herself known through the Escortmodeli agency, when Nemtsov was looking for a VIP-girl to accompany him to Israel. It seems that fortune, in the person of a wealthy revolutionary, smiled on Nastya: she has grandparents in Israel. In other words, one can find a companion with the preferred nationality, visa, and level of education.

        "The well developed talents of our VIP-girls can ensure not only relaxation," promises the web site, where the Redhead was on the honor roll prior to her acquaintance with the politician.

        One can even find a companion at the escort service with a beauty title, provided you have money.

        "Prices depend on the girl's level, starting price is a $1000," explains the agency's manager Aleksandra. "The second level, more expensive, starts at $1500 for an evening."

        It's clear that the provincial girl conquered not only Moscow, but also the heart of a Muscovite political leader.

        After his vacation with a lover on the Persian Gulf coast, Nemtsov returned to work-his battle for justice, since everyone knows that his electorate cannot avail itself of such a vacation.

        J.Hawk's Comment:

        I mean, Russian "opposition" certainly has it tough these days. When will the persecution stop? The poor guy could afford only one week in Dubai...

        On a more serious note, these "escort services" are pretty much part of the shadow economy since prostitution is illegal in Russia. However, if you have dealings with such agencies, you are also dealing, however indirectly, with organized crime. Assuming that Anna "actress-model" Duritskaya belonged to the same category of companion (which appears rather likely--Nemtsov seems to have had a thing for 20-somethings...), it's not implausible that somebody took offense to Nemtsov "spoiling the goods", so to speak, because how much money will a pregnant "escort" fetch? It's also yet to be explained who paid for Duritskaya's Switzerland abortion.

        [Mar 01, 2015] Russia's opposition: who is left to take on Vladimir Putin? by Shaun Walker

        The Guardian rather weirdly lists Igor Strelkov as one of the 'opposition figureheads'. As one commneter noted: " But it's hardly a serious survey or analysis. It's just a tossed-off random list, comprising nationalists, celebrity game players and wealthy robber barons, none of whom seem to have any real support in Russia. It's no more a parade of the brave, decent and worth saluting - as if it's any business of Brits or Americans anyway - or relevant than a list comprising Nick Griffin, Russell Brand, Nigel Farage, Noel Edmonds and Bez would be in respect of this country."
        Mar 01, 2015 | The Guardian

        Pavel Prokofiev -> AlexSurname 1 Mar 2015 20:50

        This is only partially correct. Mr Nemtsov was and to some extent remained part of the systemic opposition. Yesterday there were several demonstrations in Moscow, including communist's demonstration demanding resignation of the goverment (7 thousand participants). There were more than 50 thousand participants in the Nemtsov mourning march.

        Generally, Russians are shocked that it is possible to scream on the streets of Ukraine "Heil Ukrain! etc", that it is possible to bomb Lugansk and Donetsk and Western press and politicians are supporting this! Real shock.

        It is also correct to say that Russian state and official press are presenting opposition and supporters of Maidan, which after use of "Heil Ukrain!" will never be accepted in Russia and after Odessa and bombings of peaceful cities will be rather hated.

        chemicalscum -> R. Ben Madison 1 Mar 2015 20:04

        Novorossiya = Sudetenland.

        The analogy holds insomuch that the German Nazis invaded the Sudetenland. While the Kiev Nazi government invaded the South East of the Ukraine after the people had risen up against the US backed and organized coup government that had violently overthrown the legally elected president and the government of the country.

        If you don't believe that the Ukraine is now under a Nazi dictatorship look for example at the "Volunteer" Azov brigade with all its Nazi symbols and remember the Odessa massacre. Look at the current suppression of free speech in the Junta controlled areas.

        Towards the de-Nazification of the the Ukraine. There are Novorossiyan news videos on youtube that start showing a militia tank with "To Lvov" on its side. They are fighting again the battles of seventy years ago again.

        They have dug trenches where there grandfathers did and buried their dead in the tombs of Saur Mogila under the shattered remains of the Soviet war memorial. The sooner the tanks reach Lvov the better. The sooner we will nip in the bud the US sponsored re-introduction of Nazism into Europe the better.

        dumbwit 1 Mar 2015 20:21

        The more relevant question would be, what happens to Russia post Putin ? He is untouchable at the moment and has no real opposition.

        As if a billionaire living in exile is someone the people will respond to. Navalny is acceptable to Putin because he is not a threat. They lock him up now and then and play games with him but it changes nothing. The only popular, charismatic leader with resources in Russia is Putin.

        The only hope for real change is after Putin and that could be interesting times for Russia but also could be a long wait. Russians also seem to prefer the devil they know.

        AlexSurname 1 Mar 2015 19:20

        Russian "non systemic" opposition got greatly radicalized over years of failures to get political power. They have no hope to win popular support, their support base only diminishes year after year. They used to manage 100k rallies 3 years ago, which is absolute top they can ever hope. Yesterday they only managed 25k.

        Years of frustration made them hateful to their own country and people. Which is not helping with getting popular support at all. This vicious circle of hate, frustration and failure is the best picture of this "opposition".

        chemicalscum Socraticus 1 Mar 2015 19:20

        Sergei Udaltsov: Only 23% know who he is and of those <1% trust him, while 8% don't.

        Why no mention of either Vladimir Zhirinovsky or Gennady Zyuganov

        Udaltsov acted as Zhuganov's campaign manager at the last presidential election. After the election rumour had it that he was not prepared to stand again for president and was planning to put the Communist Party of the Russian Federation support behind Udalsov at the next presidential election. The combination of a young charismatic leader attracting youth with the solid voting numbers of elderly CP-RF supporters would put him in with a winning chance.

        This was why Putin had him framed. The liberal Atlanticist 5th column is hopefully doomed to failure. If Putin sells out Novorossiya he is toast. There are a lot of armed detachments of Left Communists, National Bolsheviks and pan-Slavic Nationalists in the liberated areas of the Ukraine who would be gunning for him.

        Boris Kagarlitsky puts Putin's position as being similar to Tsar Nicolas in 1915, we wait for 2017. Personally I think that if that if he breaks with neo-liberalism and adopts the economic Eurasian policies of his advisor Sergei Glazyev with capital controls he stands a chance of survival providing, he can keep the oligarchs under control and is able to maintain social programs. The future isn't written.

        Joseph Rozen 1 Mar 2015 19:04

        Russia's opposition: who is left to take on Vladimir Putin?

        Are we to understand that the ex-Yeltsin neo-liberal, who played a major role in the systematic corporate asset-strip of the Russian economy, its infrastructure and manufacturing base, and who was scoring 1% in recent opinion polls was position to take on Putin and the current leadership.

        I suspect that Guardian's talking heads and narrative makers will find the vast majority of Russians a tad too savvy to fall for the Yeltsin's nightmarish shock therapy, plunder and mass pauperisation....

        Smileyosborne12 -> domeus 1 Mar 2015 18:46

        domeus,you appear to have been absent from the earth on some other planet during the whole of the 1990s when Boris Yeltsin in his usual drunken haze brought a once strong, secure Russia to its knees! Are you trying your damnedest to rewrite history?

        Another point. You are extremely presumptuous to believe that every poster on here is part of your "We" as liberals. In Russia as well as the UK there are some very serious doubts in many quarters as to the sense and safety of being "liberal", it is mostly used by those who have a worrisome hidden agenda. It certainly hasn't worked in Russia even under Gorbachev and wont work in the future.

        Colin Robinson -> Hektor Uranga 1 Mar 2015 18:25

        You seem to think the Russian government is guilty not only of suppressing political opposition, but also of allowing the wrong sort of opposition to emerge...

        I doubt that any political platform would be illegal in the US itself, where the First Amendment operates... On the other hand, US has often worked in other countries to ban platforms it didn't like, e.g. the communist and socialist parties in Chile...

        I'm aware that open use of Nazi symbols in banned in Germany. This hasn't stopped the German government from backing the Banderist régime in Ukraine, which today has armed men with SS insignia patrolling Mariupol.

        Socraticus 1 Mar 2015 18:06

        It's rather curious to see that of the 5 individuals cited, 2 of them aren't even officially recognized as opposition leaders (Khodorkovsky and Strelkov), while the remaining 3 are conveniently pro-western in their politics, as too was Boris Nemtsov (as well as Khodorkovsky).

        As can be seen by a poll taken in January last year, none of them hold any major influence in Russian politics (though all, with the exception of Strelkov, want to overthrow Putin)...

        • Garry Kasparov: Only 28% know who he is and of those, only 1% trust him while 7% don't.
        • Alexei Navalny: Only 32% know who he is and of those only 3% trust him while 10% don't.
        • Sergei Udaltsov: Only 23% know who he is and of those <1% trust him, while 8% don't.
        • Nemtsov himself ranked at 45% as being a recognizable name with a trust factor of 1% versus 17% of distrust.

        Why no mention of either Vladimir Zhirinovsky or Gennady Zyuganov who are both well known with stats of 68% (with a trust factor of 12% vs 19%) and 62% (with a trust factor of 17% vs 11% respectively)? Is it perhaps because they are not pro-western in their politics and therefore disinclined to become puppets to the U.S.?

        http://www.microsofttranslator.com/BV.aspx?ref=IE8Activity&a=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.levada.ru%2F07-02-2014%2Fuznavaemost-oppozitsionnykh-politikov

        AlexSurname -> R. Ben Madison 1 Mar 2015 19:08

        "Jew question" in Russia is way overblown by western propaganda and is not really a part of political agenda of even most radical nationalists.

        Putin is praised not for standing against something, but for standing for the Russian interests.

        MACLANE 1 Mar 2015 17:44

        Whoever wants to take on Putin, must know better, how to undo Yeltsin's oligarch-creations, of which Nemtsov, inspired by Thatcher, was participant and complicit. As long as there remain a majority of Russians to be lifted out of poverty, with traditional believes even, neocon-inspired well to do bourgeois liberals with LGBT exuberance must wait; first things first. We must place enlightened humanism before bourgeois cultural arrogance.

        AlfredHerring

        Thanks for the survey Guardian. It seems there are some very brave and good people in Russia. Let's hope they keep breathing and walking free.

        NedHH AlfredHerring

        But it's hardly a serious survey or analysis. It's just a tossed-off random list, comprising nationalists, celebrity game players and wealthy robber barons, none of whom seem to have any real support in Russia.

        It's no more a parade of the brave, decent and worth saluting - as if it's any business of Brits or Americans anyway - or relevant than a list comprising Nick Griffin, Russell Brand, Nigel Farage, Noel Edmonds and Bez would be in respect of this country.

        Ilja NB

        **Mikhail Khodorkovsky**

        The guardian just hit beyond rockbottom for even naming this criminal.

        JohnNewcomb

        Interesting perspective from Nikolay Petrov and Michael McFaul about Russia's "managed democracy":
        Managed democracy controls society while providing the appearance of democracy. Its main characteristics are as follows:
        1. A strong presidency and weak institutions
        2. State control of the media
        3. Control over elections allows elites to legitimize their decisions
        4. Visible short-term effectiveness and long-term inefficiency
        The result is an "unstable stability" based on the president's personality. He is actually a hostage of the system.
        The Essence of Putin's Managed Democracy

        Canigou -> JohnNewcomb

        This sounds uncomfortably close to a description of U.S. politics.

        Canigou

        This article bemoans the lack of electable leaders among the "beleaguered liberal opposition" in Russia.

        Americans should be able to relate to that. The possible liberal candidates for President are Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren (who says she won't run) and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (a socialist who is too old and not well known, and has no chance whatever).

        That leaves U.S. voters with a choice between Hillary Clinton------ a faux-liberal friend of Wall Street, big corporations, oil companies, defense contractors, and a jingoistic foreign policy to support the American empire-----and a group of neocon radical Republican warmongers committed to dismantling the remnants of the modern welfare state.

        The left-wing opposition is more than beleaguered, it is screwed, I'd say more so in the U.S. than in Russia.

        yanburgh -> Canigou

        At least in the US nowadays you don't get shot if you're a critic of the current regime.

        Bosula -> yanburgh

        It is just that the rest of the US is armed and shooting at each other. More homocides and gun related deaths that any other country. Somethings not right there.

        GriseldaLamington -> yanburgh

        Unless you're Malcolm X, or MLK, or any number of members of the BPP. Actually, the USA has developed a new technique of killing people who might be critics of the regime by incinerating them (and anyone else who happens to be in the vicinity) by remote control.

        CefimarPark

        Presumably only the suicidal or terminally ill who have little to lose.
        Perhaps it may begin to dawn on people who could not understand the lack of active resistance against Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Gadafi or indeed any other despot, just how simple it can be to stifle opposition once you have absolute power. A few strategic, high profile hits are usually quite effective.

        PlatonKuzin -> CefimarPark

        Once, I said to my US opponent: "Saddam Hussein, a bloody dictator killed (presumably) about 40,000 people within 30 years of his dictatorship. You, Americans, for the sake of your domocracy and the rule of law, have killed in Iraq about 500,000 people within 10 years only. And a human life, as known, is the highest value on this earth. So, maybe it is much much better for Iraq to have Saddam rather than your bloody democracy in power? This way, much more people will stay alive in Iraq." My American opponent stood fully silent, not knowing what to answer.

        [Feb 28, 2015] How western media form narrative

        [Feb 28, 2015] This has all the hallmarks of an incipient foreign-orchestrated color revolution.

        Feb 28, 2015 | facebook.com/tolyanchik

        Anatoly Karlin

        This has all the hallmarks of an incipient foreign-orchestrated color revolution. Whether it's Khodorkovsky, the SBU, or some Western intelligence service behind this - that's the order of likelihood I would estimate - one can't help but admire the organizer for a wetjob well done.

        In life, Nemtsov was a half-forgotten political mediocrity; in death, he has become a martyr for the liberal/Maidanite wing. The opposition is already saying it will carry out an unsanctioned march in the city center. Odds are good that in the coming days, the usual playbook of protest encampments, provocations to incite violent police reactions, and covert Western pressure on oligarchic and political factions to defect will come into play.

        Putin must not waver, and crush any such stunts immediately. The potential consequences of inaction and appeasement are too grim to even contemplate.

        [Feb 28, 2015] Breaking news FALSE FLAG IN MOSCOW!

        Feb 28, 2015 | The Vineyard of the Saker
        Daniel Rich February 28, 2015
        @ Kat Kan,

        Don't forget that those who think of Mr. Putin as a true statesman have become part of a 'cult' according to 'those in the know'…

        Also, how to stop a killer, when no crime has been committed yet? Russia; damned if you do, damned if you don't.

        Personally, I would have sit back and watch the unfolding of this misadventure [the same way it's happening]. Much of the western world is waking up and slowly begins to realize to what warmongering tune they're actually marching. The internet and fast social networking prevents a lot of BS from maturing.

        Unfortunately, not everyone is tuned in to the other side of la-la-land's MSM stations.

        Patrick Walker February 28, 2015

        About social media being somehow able to curtail false information is rather startling.

        Seems to me social media is the festering cesspool lies and disinformation actually start from.

        karlof1 February 27, 2015
        He was walking with a Ukrainian woman according to RT's report. Given the gravity of Roberts's two Moscow presentations, something had to happen. Plus, the primary propaganda line was unraveling, so something had to rekindle it. RT's report's comments are flooded with Putin-bashers.

        Sawsee February 27, 2015

        This reminds me of Litvinenko, another naive idiot who thought he was running to refuge when, in fact, he was running right into the arms of his murderer (berezovsky, in my opinion). When are these useful idiots going to understand that in the eyes of an intelligence agency, if you're willing to betray your country then, in the eyes foreign intelligence, you're expendable human waste...

        Jag Pop February 27, 2015

        Copy-cat murder.

        In Argentina the prosecutor Nisman was murdered. He was a pusher of empty charges and (Google: Wikileaks cables Nisman) was controlled by a foreign power via the US Embassy. His murder elevated him and his charges.

        Now something very similar has happened in Russia.

        Lysander February 27, 2015

        Alas this will work exactly as the Empire needs it to: it will make it very difficult for Merkel, Holande or any other Euro clown to deal with Putin and will weaken opposition to arming the Ukies. Most of the west will believe it and it does not matter if the rest of the world does not. The US has to keep Europe under its control at any and all costs.

        Anyway, it seems agents of the west are very disposable. Poroshenko take note.

        Balance Swing February 28, 2015

        Lysander,

        I don't think this will have any impact on continental European politicians, as for the Brit establishment, they don't count for anything anymore: they're treated with disdain and irrelevance on both sides of the Atlantic (there's only so much butt-licking a poodle can do before even the most beastial of master's gets bored and bemused).

        With respect to the MSM trying to create a mountain out of a molehill, they won't get any traction either: the audience in the Anglosaxon world has been too dumbed down and apathetic for this kind of thing to matter (too bad for the imbecile social engineers here who dialed up the stupidity level a little too high).

        I think one should also not underestimate the stupidity of the Ukrainian Junta mafia, this is the kind of inept cluster-f*ck of desperation that they specialize in when they don't get what they want. I'm going to be mildly amused at just how small the crowds will be on March 1st.

        Alexandre February 28, 2015

        I agree. How to deal with this 'assassin' now??? Really two birds with a stone.

        Red Ryder February 28, 2015

        White House demands a thorough investigation!

        Why not? It was one of their agents shot by two of their gunmen. They have a stake in the crime.

        Anonymous February 28, 2015
        Dear The Saker,

        Sputnik's version of events he had just done a radio show about the March:

        http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150228/1018865497.html

        @Tamonten – you may have a point…….

        Rgds,

        Veritas

        вот так February 28, 2015

        What worries me most is that the Russian security services did not see this one coming and let it happen. This is a major failure for the FSB which will now have a lot at stake to find out who did it.

        In my opinion, they probably didn't see it coming because it was a Jewish mafia/Mossad hit. It is much more difficult to follow all the Jewish mafia shenanigans than it is western intelligence ops. The Jewish mafia are still the most ubiquitous operators in Russia and far more integrated in the Russian "system", despite efforts to root the scum out since Putin's people replaced the Israeli-American Yeltsin quislings. Given the extent of zionist penetration into Russia during Yeltsin times, they are still the main conduit for western fascist ops in Russia, and will be, unless the Russians do a major purge.

        I expect them to find a fall-guy, a patsy, who will have no provable contacts with any western services and who, ideally, might even have some contacts with the Russian services (like Andrei Lugovoi).

        I don't.

        There are folks in Langley tonight who got a promotion.

        Tel Aviv.

        dissy February 28, 2015

        Nemtsov was walking with a female acquaintance, a Ukrainian citizen, when a vehicle drove up and unidentified assailants shot him dead. The woman wasn't hurt.

        http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_RUSSIA_OPPOSITION_LEADER_KILLED?SECTION=HOME&SITE=AP&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

        I guess a whore from Kiev (24)he is 55.

        She probably sent a text msg to these guys, to give them the 'green light' to come and shoot. This 'lady' is alive, very strange no?

        I also believe that the other one Navalny was more prudent, and did everything not to be present on their March/rally.Very clever…

        It may also be a clear message to all fith column agents, stay away from US provocations backed otherwise…

        I saw that Putin announced a 10 pct decrease in salary for his staff this friday the timing is a bit stupid, could have wait till next week. (nothing to do with the false flag just to notice)

        It could also be a CIA/MOSSAD/MI6 one of the three of two of them, to have a casus belli and hope that Putin will react as a crazy by for example, invading Ukraine or whatever stupidity.

        It is too 'big' to be true as we say in french. I'm not even sure that people in the West will buy it, nobody knows this politician, and nobody cares about RF opposition being liberal or not.

        Only the usual suspects(Kerry,Oblabla,Mc Cain Nuland and co will react in their usual way).

        But the FSB should better be prepared for Sunday for ANY possible real false flag…

        Or maybe the West wants that Putin cancels the rally just to say after, Putin is a dictator etc ..

        I don't know.

        Not surprised as it was 'too calm" to be true lately. Porochoco and the US clique needs to re start the war at any price.

        YATS says today that the war will last for three years. How does he know?

        Taffycat February 28, 2015

        Well, well, Wikepedia has been adjusted accordingly,

        "This page was last modified on 28 February 2015, at 00:13.

        " to read …"Close to midnight on 27 February 2015 in Moscow, Nemtsov was shot four times in the back as he was walking near the Kremlin with a female companion. He was crossing the Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge when "several people" got out of a white car and shot him in the back, according to the Russian media.[3][31] The BBC reported: "In his last tweet, Mr Nemtsov sent out an appeal for Russia's divided opposition to unite at an anti-war march he was planning for Sunday" quoting him as saying "If you support stopping Russia's war with Ukraine, if you support stopping Putin's aggression, come to the Spring March in Maryino on 1 March".[32] On 10 February he had told Russia's Sobesednik news website: "I'm afraid Putin will kill me"; news agencies reported a Kremlin spokesman saying that the killing had been condemned by Mr Putin.[32]

        The dupes are right on this, over to you Vlad.

        Peter February 28, 2015

        > It will be exactly the same as for MH-17: Putin the Murderer!!!

        Over 600 Putin dunit posts in the Guardian in the first hour. Comments rubbishing the mindless mob are getting blocked.
        MSM has their script and their orders on this one.
        The path to war?

        Medievil February 28, 2015

        The Beautiful Truth about Minsk II & The Debaltsevo Debacle

        By: Joaquin Flores

        http://syncreticstudies.com/2015/02/19/the-beautiful-truth-about-minsk-ii-the-debaltsevo-debacle/#more-1727

        dissy February 28, 2015

        At least, if still necessary porko knows how it will end up for him, the day he will not be needed anymore by the US, same for Yats and all the clique.

        the Pug February 28, 2015

        Prominent Twitter tweeter BradCabana, who is a retired Canadian officer, refutes Stratfor's predictions of Russis'a imminent downfall: Brief, and worth reading.
        http://rocksolidpolitics.blogspot.ca/2015/02/why-stratfor-is-wrong-on-uss-future.html?spref=tw

        Eva martincek February 28, 2015

        argentina's Kirschner dealing with the same shit…..it is such an obvious provocation that I am sick and tired of being the sic and tired……

        ENOUGH of the terror caused by all tactics from fucking land of free…..neocons

        Wait a minute! February 28, 2015

        Speaking of traitors that have outlived their usefulness to the Kiev Junta and to the psychopaths in the Dept of State.

        If I were Sakashvili, I'd be real worried right now! That drugged out idiot is hanging out with the Ukrainian mafia right now and is being plied with local whores and surplus smack from the Kolonmoisky crowd. He reminds me of a lamb being fattened up for market. If the tie chewing lunatic has any sense of self preservation he'd get out town as soon as possible.

        NZ Watcher February 28, 2015

        Yes – I think you are exactly right
        His ego is bigger enough for him to be led all the way to the slaughter chamber !!

        Joy February 28, 2015

        "Porochoco and the US clique needs to re start the war at any price. YATS says today that the war will last for three years. How does he know?"

        Basically, the (world) war MUST continue until one of the two possible outcomes. Either the AZs eliminate all rivals or the USD dies as a reserve currency. Note that the AZs do not even need to win. Losing the war works just as well as an excuse for the inevitable collapse. I am sure the AZ puppet masters have plenty of hard assets to ensure they will continue to be players in whatever system follows the dollar collapse.

        zoks February 28, 2015

        Check this out, Wiki page is already updated, blaming on Putin
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Nemtsov

        CanSpeccy February 28, 2015

        … an outspoken critic of Vladimir Putin. He was murdered less than 200 metres from the Moscow Kremlin walls and Red Square

        Wow. Putin must have seen Nemtsov walking by and got so mad at the sight that he nipped out of the Kremlin clutching his trusty KGB revolver and shot him in person.

        Red Ryder February 28, 2015

        Saker,

        You always think the FSB should know and prevent everything. No agency can do that.

        They cannot operate like Felix Derzinski or Marcus Wolf.

        And those guys couldn't control everything.

        The US + Britain + Israel is a huge enemy.

        Russia, the Putin Russia, is really only a few years old. We can't expect perfection.

        They would be a bit more effective if he was totally ruthless. He's not and they are not either.

        This might have come down in the last 12 hours before the hit. How would they have prevented it?

        When the blood dries, what has been lost?

        They threw shit. Ultimately, it shows how hopeless their project is.

        вот так February 28, 2015

        False flags are not only useful for promoting policy, they can draw attention away from it, as well. This weekend will be an ideal time to step up other zionazi aggressions besides that against Russia. Such as a provocation by the nazis in the Ukraine against Novorossia or Transneistria. An Israeli or American attack on Syria/Lebanon. Moves against Venezuela, Iran, Thailand or any of the other countries Israel-America want to recolonize.

        metamars February 28, 2015

        Possible false flag rationale:

        West plans big hit on Russian economy (such as banning Russian from SWIFT), and wants to psychologically freeze Russian leadership from giving a rational response.

        The Western baddies may want Russia to preferably under-respond, though they may settle for an over-response (especially nutty McCain/Nuland types).

        The above, I should emphasize, is speculation….

        Also, let's not forget that Putin's obsession with Sochi security (thanks for nothing, Bandar Bush) may have distracted him from intervening in Ukraine in a way that would have preserved Yanukovych. (I read or heard something to this effect, very recently. Maybe here: http://scotthorton.org/interviews/2015/02/17/21715-christian-stork/ ; I don't really remember where.)

        The Western baddies maybe hoping for a repeat of this particular error on the part of Putin.

        If so, Putin obsessing over the investigation would be exactly the wrong move.

        Blue February 28, 2015

        Maybe not a false flag originally, although it will be exploited as such, since he most likely had any number of enemies who could have done it. But false flag is a good bet.

        As for Putin being behind it, he was no real threat, and this would be a way too stupid to counter a threat even if he was one - certainly nothing Putin would do. Further, if he had done it there would likely already be a patsy set up to take the blame and cover tracks, as the US always does.

        Honk February 28, 2015

        D'accord.

        Maybe it's even a mix: A jealous rival or ex-lover received a bunch of dollars (certainly not hryvnias) and a gun, and perhaps a hint that "tonight he'll be in that part of Moscow".

        No matter the actual crime, it's obvious how it'll get exploited by the West. The timing though is just too perfect. A martyr is just what the doctor orders in cases where rallies don't promise huge participation.

        T1 February 28, 2015

        Reminds me of the Paul Tatum murder in '96. I was a few meters away from him in the Kiev Metro station when he was gunned down. The wiki details are wrong, I tried to make corrections but that was a waste of effort. I don't know why wiki insists that he was wearing a bullitproof vest when I know that he wasn't. I considered doing cpr on him but one could tell the he was blead out a few minutes after being shot numerous times in the back by .22 rounds. I shoud have kept some of the stray rounds that were sprayed off the walls of the station but I dutifully turned them over to the cops (who could not have cared less.)

        Anonymous February 28, 2015

        and anti-russian racist orgy is in full force in the guardian…

        вот так February 28, 2015

        The Guardian is a zionist Jewish exclusive club, of course there will an anti-Russian hate orgy there, it's "homebase" for a substantial portion of the worldwide web sayanim network Israel operates.

        The fast response of Israel's web sayanim network confirms Israeli involvement in the murder. In fact, it confirms the Israelis planned it and carried it out.

        Kat Kan February 28, 2015

        Bok Tak look down a bit, Larchmonter has a long post which lists everyone visibly involved. Tel Aviv is not there. I don't see them either. The simplicity and directness of this is not beyond the capacity even of Kiev. … who have offered to send saboteurs into Russia. And they have EUSA advisers.

        Anonymous February 28, 2015

        This is amazing. Picture perfect spot to suggest martyrdom at the hands of Power. On the foreground the bodybag, and then Saint Basil's cathedral / Red Square shining right behind, calling all the attention to itself. This WAS planned, the spot was chosen for this precise effect.

        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-5A9ecXEAAoEC6.png

        Katherine February 28, 2015

        Thanks for the photo. It is like a movie set. Cannot be an accident that he was guided to or somehow just happened to stumble onto this stageset with the dramatic stagey backdrop that of all structures in Russia or Moscow, every idiot immediately recognizes. That's why this spot was chosen. Sure suggests that it was "staged" for a cinematic or good photo op effect . And if this is the locale for the march, then we can probably expect a big kitschy "photo-op" heap of flowers and dolls a la Princess Diana (nothing against Princess Di, but her death did sort of start a fad for this kind of maudlin memorializing).

        Katherine

        seemorerocks February 28, 2015

        Comments from Dmitry Babich on RT

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4g-qAE9fuo

        Anonymous February 28, 2015

        IMO the more false flags like this one or the murder of the Argentine judge will serve as a wake up call for those collaborators. They should ask themselves when they will be the target. Their lives are of no value of their "boss".

        Kat Kan February 28, 2015

        Now THIS is weird.

        "Co-chair of the RPR-PARNAS party Mikhail Kasyanov announced early Saturday that the march was cancelled because of Nemtsov's death.

        http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150228/1018865497.html#ixzz3T01GeEiY
        "
        So they're not making a Je Suis thing of it. But cancelling the march.

        Isn't killing someone a drastic way to over up you were not going to have anyone turn up anyway? or do they hope for bigger turnout at a memorial type of march?

        Mike February 28, 2015

        They felt that initial plans and visuals for the march were too joyful under circumstances; it was cancelled as a spontaneous emotional reaction. They were about to go to central Moscow close to the murder scene, on individual basis, in commemoration, but eventually agreed with the city authorities that a march through central Moscow will take place. So there is a march on 1 March still, but now with a memorial agenda and a central Moscow location. All that is largely spontaneous and emotional.

        Gareth February 28, 2015

        Nemtsov has been messing around in Ukraine dating back to the Orange Revolution. Who knows what type of gangsters he was involved with. In forming an alliance with the Russian ultra-right, he added an additional group of volatile and dangerous characters into the mix. The fact that Nemtsov was shot practically in front of the Kremlin is an obvious message, showing the lengths to which opponents of Russia are willing to go to destabilize the country. The killing was carried out in such a way as to provide the maximum embarrassment to Putin, while generating the most propaganda value. The killing would have been contracted through a cutout or a double-cutout, so the only question is who the patsy will be.

        [Feb 28, 2015] Putin threatens to cut gas to Ukraine as showdowns shift to economy

        Feb 25, 2015 | The Washington Post

        ...Putin's warning raised new troubles for Ukraine's economy, which is on the verge of collapse. Among the problems: dangerously low reserves of foreign currency needed to pay for the critical natural gas supplies.

        Putin also said that any cutoff could also hit Europe, raising the prospect that the continent could again face shortages with warmer weather still months away.

        Ukraine is a vital throughway for Russian gas deliveries to Western Europe. Russia has in the past cut off gas to nations with which it was having geopolitical disputes, although it has always denied using energy as a weapon.

        The tough line by Russia underscores its growing tensions with the West during the nearly 11-month uprising in eastern Ukraine by pro-Moscow rebels.

        Ukraine's Western-backed government and its allies claim Russia has sent troops and weapons to aid the separatists in Europe's bloodiest conflict since the Balkan wars of the 1990s.

        Russia strongly denies the charges but has been a key political voice for the rebels - with significant influence over their adherence to a cease-fire pact reached earlier this month.

        "We hope that things won't get as far as these extreme measures and that the gas supply won't be interrupted," Putin said Wednesday. "But this doesn't depend on us alone. It depends on the financial discipline of our Ukrainian partners."

        "Naturally this might create a certain threat for gas transit to Europe," he added.

        The energy dispute stems in part from gas supplies to territories of eastern Ukraine held by pro-Russian rebels.

        Rebel leaders say that they have been cut off by Kiev, although Ukrainian government authorities deny it. Russia, in turn, has started to deliver energy directly to the breakaway territories, and it is charging Ukraine for the service.

        The cutoff of gas to eastern Ukraine, Putin said, "smells of genocide" given the bleak conditions there.

        Russia says that Ukraine has paid for only three to four more days of delivery.

        The new tussling over gas came on the first day in several weeks in which no Ukrainian soldiers were killed on the front lines, a military spokesman said. Rebel leaders also said that the conflict had largely quieted.

        Both sides agreed to a cease-fire starting Feb. 15, but in the days that followed, fighting grew fiercer near the crucial Ukrainian-held railway hub of Debaltseve. Kiev surrendered the town last week in a chaotic retreat.

        Nearly 5,800 people have died in the fighting, according to U.N. estimates, and more than 1 million people have been displaced from their homes.

        As the violence has calmed, Ukraine's economic problems have worsened.

        Ukraine's currency has been shedding value against the dollar, and policymakers in recent days have imposed strict limits on foreign currency transactions in the hopes of stanching the losses. A weakened currency makes everything from energy to weapons to food more expensive for the Ukrainian government and its citizens.

        The currency has lost more than 40 percent of its value this month alone.

        Ukrainian policymakers say they need up to $40 billion in assistance. And although Western nations have promised aid, it has been slow in coming, a stark signal to Ukraine that it may be largely on its own against its far more powerful neighbor.

        Ukrainian Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko said Wednesday that the heads of the International Monetary Fund would meet March 11 to decide whether to approve new loans to the troubled country. But that suggests Ukraine will be left to scrape by until then, and possibly longer.

        Russia has sought to exploit splits in the Western response to the conflict, and on Wednesday Putin met in Moscow with Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades to sign cooperation agreements that again highlighted European disunity.

        Cyprus, an European Union member, has long been a Russian banking haven, and it took Russian financial support during its 2013 financial crisis. Anastasiades has opposed further E.U. sanctions against Russia even as others in Europe are raising the prospect of more.

        The Russian and Cypriot foreign ministers on Wednesday signed an agreement to allow Russian naval ships to dock at Cypriot ports. The deal was a stark sign of the differences of opinion in Europe about how to handle Russia, since other Western nations have boycotted any military cooperation with Russia

        ... ... ...

        Michael Birnbaum is The Post's Moscow bureau chief. He previously served as the Berlin correspondent and an education reporter.

        [Feb 28, 2015] Russia Robbed of a Brave, Authentic and Distinctive Voice Against Endemic Russian Corruption

        Comments are from Zero Hedge
        Feb 28, 2015 | The Guardian

        HowdyDoody

        Luke Harding is MI6. The Guardian is a Zionist controlled propaganda outlet.

        Quinvarius

        Ukraine makes me laugh. Everything is always about them and the millions of invisible Russian paratroopers and armored divisions invading their country. Once again they come up with some unproven claims about evidence.

        What is really fkd up is almost everyone immediately thought the US did it as soon as Kerry opened his mouth. The Obama administration has zero credibility and a track record of foolish moves. They really are the number one assumed culprits.

        geotrader

        Did Obama say "transparent"? Wonder which definition he's referring to.

        JR

        "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is the latest commandment top officials continue breaking with their direct inference that Putin is responsible for Nemtsov's murder. The American public, of course, has for years encouraged politicians to lie about and attack their opponents.

        America has clearly lost the high ground for morality that it once had and it is now even government policy to break God's commandments; supporting atheism in school, work and community as free speech on religious themes is outlawed.

        "Thou shalt not kill" went by the boards long ago. And the American president is now authorized to murder anyone he chooses. Most of the other Ten Commandments are broken with U.S. official policy: "Not steal (ask the Fed who gets the billions in private property it steals from Americans everyday); "Don't commit adultery (all legal ramifications removed)," "Do keep the Sabbath Holy (just another day for commerce and pleasures)," "Honor thy father and thy mother (the State assumes the responsibility of your parents)," "Don't take God's name in vain ('Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!'"

        Check the newsstands, watch television, read a book, listen to the teacher…you have to admit the Ten Commandments officially are ruled out-of-date in America. The trouble is, so is morality. You have seen its decline in your community and in its place the rise of pornography, abortion, euthanasia, rape and murder, pedophilia, and of course, divorce and court-ordered destruction of the sanctity of marriage (with the sanctioning of homosexual marriages with the right of adoption of babies and children).

        How dare, then, the American president, the secretary of state, and all the rest condemn Russia for her sins when America 2015 is the leading moral cesspool of the world?

        The Stalinists may no longer control Russia, but their Bolshevik operatives are highly placed in American life and culture, fulfilling Stalin's goal to corrupt America morally as one means of conquering her.

        KGB boss Lavrenti Beria was thinking of Stalin's goal when he addressed a visiting delegation of American Communists (Bolsheviks) : "Degradation and conquest are companions. By attacking the character and morals … by bringing about, through contamination of youth, a general degraded feeling, command of the populace is facilitated to a very marked degree. By perverting the institutions of a nation and bringing about a general degradation … a population can be brought psychologically to heel."

        Knowing this and to preserve the power of its own nation, "Britian's Daily Mail reports China banned TV and movie scenes of adultery or one-night stands. Depictions of rape, masturbation, prostitution, and necrophilia must also be cut. 'The move has sparked fears that the regulations means audiences in China will have very few television dramas or films to watch.' Next, China should outlaw abortion, sodomy, and contraception" –James G. Bruen, JR., Culture Wars.

        Son of Captain Nemo

        When you know even members within the hierarchy of the tribe are fair game because the "shit" is flying in every direction and at the end of the day it's every shylock for himself!...

        Would not doubt whatsoever that Nemtsov was probably sacrificed by the Soros/Kolomoisky/Rothschilds LLC to promote a World War!!!

        Zerohedge fan

        **************NEWS******************

        Ukrainian army turns against Ukrainian goverment

        (Russian only)

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFQO-waFJBQ

        They say, they are ready to go on Kiev

        Phuk u

        ZF those boys werent very happy to be there and very critical of Poroshenko

        but all four of them to go on to Kiev ? Cmon

        forputin

        Video of killing Nemtsov at Kremlin:

        http://youtu.be/jqFdS332BQg

        Volkodav

        good post

        search with English subs when available, for ZH audience

        Chuck Knoblauch

        How long has the CIA hit order on Putin been outstanding?

        DutchBoy2015

        Shall we discuss Michael Hastings? and there are many more

        Anunnaki

        COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT

        How about Obumfuck deal with corruption in his own miserable country before he starts pointing middle fingers

        I hope Putin obliterates The 5th column traitors once and for all.

        Putin has been like Gandhi to resist the urge those fockers Obama and Kerry

        Droning isn't enough. Shooting down Asian planes isn't enough. Now casual assaination of manufactured martyrs

        Even Bush wasn't that craven

        Circle of DNA

        Well the corruption in the US is legal – it is called lobbying, and bribes called donations or contributions…

        Fix It Again Timmy

        Putin is also behind the Lincoln assassination, the Lindberg baby kidnapping, the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa and he even knows what happened to Amelia Earhart ....Hey, Putin is a leader that particular part of the world needs and is lucky to have - it's that simple..

        Anunnaki

        I am 100% Sure it was Pol Pot Shenko and Yat the Rat. Ukrainians are only any good when it comes to shooting unarmed people in the back.

        MrSteve

        Anunnaki the Uk(r)annian, showing your self-loathing here?? Anagrams suggest you are a Ukie :)

        If you can't say something nice about somebody, then you shouldn't say anything at all.

        nowhereman

        What the western media translate as provocation, in Russian it also means "false Flag"

        http://thesaker.is/nemtsov-murder-putin-warned-about-exactly-this-type-o...

        messystateofaffairs

        Putins not stupid. If he needed the politically insignificant color revolutionary Russian traitor dead it would have been done more appropriately. I think the lying, cheating, murdering, theiving, scheming, blood sucking members of satans brood had more use for him dead than alive. Watch their little helpers, yourself included, jump all over this. And we all know Putin is in Ukraine doing what needs to be done in the way it needs to be done, get used to it.

        Cui bono

        [Feb 28, 2015] Putin Spokesman Says Nemtsov Murder Was 100% Provocation

        Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says the Nemtsov murder was "100% provocation... It looks like a contract killing."
        Feb 28, 2015 | Zero Hedge

        Just a few short hours after the terrible murder of Russian opposition politician and outspoken Putin critic Boris Nemtsov, US' John Kerry was quick to condemn the actions of the "reformer" and demand Russia's "expeditious investigation," and President Obama has since issued a statement "admiring [Nemtsov's] struggle against corruption." The undertone was clear - 'Putin did it'. Furthermore, President Poroshenko has claimed that Nemtsov was on the verge of "exposing direct Russian links to the Ukraine conflict." As many realise the futility of trying to determine whether it is a Russian act, a CIA act meant to look like a Russian act, or a Russian act meant to look like a CIA act, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says the Nemtsov murder was "100% provocation... It looks like a contract killing."

        As RT reports,

        Opposition politician Boris Nemtsov died in the center of Moscow after he was shot at four times. A number of leading figures from all sides of political spectrum called his murder a "provocation".

        Boris Nemtsov, a veteran opposition figure in Russia, was gunned down in a drive-by attack in central Moscow on Friday night. The murder triggered worldwide condemnation and calls to bring the killers to justice.

        Russian Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov explains...

        ....

        As The Telegraph reports, President Poroshenko has stated that Nemtsov planned to reveal Russian links to the Ukraine conflict...

        Iryna Baliacheva, a Russian political migrant living in Ukraine told reporters Putin was to blame for the murder.

        "Putin opened Pandora's box and released dangerous powers: non-acceptance of a different opinion (from his), representatives of the opposition were called traitors, while we (Ukrainians) are considered US Department of State agents.

        "And now people who believed in Russia's television lies may also believe that some robbers killed him, but I think that this was organised by Putin in order for him to stay in power."

        The gathering in Kiev came as Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, said on Saturday Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtsov was murdered because he planned to disclose evidence of Russia's involvement in Ukraine's separatist conflict.

        Poroshenko paid tribute to Nemtsov, who was shot dead late on Friday, and said the fierce critic of President Vladimir Putin had told him a couple of weeks ago that he had proof of Russia's role in the Ukraine crisis and would reveal it.

        "Boris Nemtsov, a big friend of Ukraine and big patriot of Russia has been killed. He was like a bridge connecting Ukraine and Russia, he built the kind of relations between our countries that I would like to see," said Poroshenko.

        "To me Nemtsov is a symbol of a Russian citizen that connects (Ukraine and Russia) and sincerely respects Ukraine."

        "Boris had declared that he would provide the clear evidence of Russian Armed forces' participation in (the war) in Ukraine.

        "Somebody was afraid of this, Boris wasn't afraid. Killers and executors were afraid."

        * * *

        Secretary Kerry: February 2015 " Murder of Boris Nemtsov

        I am shocked and saddened to learn of the brutal murder of former Russian Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov in central Moscow. Boris Nemtsov committed his life to a more democratic, prosperous, open Russia, and to strong relationships between Russia and its neighbors and partners, including the United States. He served his country in many roles – in the federal government, in the parliament, as Governor of Nizhniy Novgorod, and as a political leader and activist. In every post, he sought to reform and open Russia, and to empower the Russian people to have a greater say in the life of their country. His absence will be deeply felt in Russia and around the world. The United States urges the Russian authorities to act expeditiously to investigate and bring to justice those responsible. Our thoughts are with the Russian people and with Mr. Nemtsov's family and friends as we mourn his loss.

        Statement by the President on the Murder of Boris Nemtsov

        The United States condemns the brutal murder of Boris Nemtsov, and we call upon the Russian government to conduct a prompt, impartial, and transparent investigation into the circumstances of his murder and ensure that those responsible for this vicious killing are brought to justice. Nemtsov was a tireless advocate for his country, seeking for his fellow Russian citizens the rights to which all people are entitled. I admired Nemtsov's courageous dedication to the struggle against corruption in Russia and appreciated his willingness to share his candid views with me when we met in Moscow in 2009. We offer our sincere condolences to Boris Efimovich's family, and to the Russian people, who have lost one of the most dedicated and eloquent defenders of their rights.

        It appears - no matter who or what was responsible - we're back at near-Cold War levels of hostility between the USA and Russia.

        Donatan

        Putin 2012 - Opposition is looking to turn someone into "involuntary martyr"

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69Qwju5nJ-w&feature=youtu.be

        Abitdodgie

        If that had been in America it would of been ruled suicide.

        nope-1004

        John Kerry is "shocked". lmao. Eric Holder is this times 1,000.

        I love how Boris' Wiki profile was updated within minutes of his death. Now if that's not a planned event by those "evil terrorists".

        The west is salivating at the desperation to start war and the false flag attempts are predicatable.

        Bunch of hyporcrites. The propaganda is immense.

        COSMOS

        Shootings like this did wonders in Maidan. We all know the CIA playbook. Folks in Moscow better be careful walking around the city. The CIA is funneling killers into Moscow via this guy

        http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/06/24/ukraine-jewish-billionaires-batalli...

        Interesting that our friend was walking with a Ukrainian woman when he got killed. Maybe she brought him to a designated hit area.

        Pinto Currency
        Putin's popularity is running 80% in the polls.

        You don't shoot your political opponent in that situation.

        strannick

        The danger of being a CIA asset is they eventually make you a martyr for their cause.

        Manthong

        "Putin Spokesman Says Nemtsov Murder Was "100% Provocation""

        Latina Lover

        This hit has the hallmarks of the typical CIA color revolution aka Gene Sharp tactics. Why, for example, does the USSA care about the murder of a Russian has been politician in Russia? Isn't this an internal matter of the Russian State?

        Imagine Putin calling upon the US to investigate the murder of Paul Wellstone, Senator....as if Russia should care.

        This provocation won't work in Russia because the Russians, unlike the Americans, better understand deep state politics. Unfortunately, it is another opportunity for the USSA controlled media to rubbish Putin.

        This hit shows weakness, the smell of desperation and failure, since the Ukraine CIA coup is unravelling before our very eyes.

        The USSA State Department and EU poodles must be insanely desperate to destabilize Putin by resorting to such an obvious false flag. I'll bet conditions are worse in the Ukraine, and EU than we are told. After all, wasn't it an EU president who said that when things get serious, you have to lie?

        Crazed Weevil

        "Poroshenko paid tribute to Nemtsov, who was shot dead late on Friday, and said the fierce critic of President Vladimir Putin had told him a couple of weeks ago that he had proof of Russia's role in the Ukraine crisis and would reveal it."

        Huh? We live in an age of almost instantaneous communication to nearly everyone on Earth and he doesn't release his 'proof' despite having it for a couple of weeks?

        Anusocracy

        If I had to bet on it I would go with a Ukrainian op green lighted by the US.

        disabledvet

        "Oh, shoot. I left the computer in the car."

        Russians have really hot police spokeswomen after you are murdered too.

        Took Red Pill

        FALSE FLAG IN MOSCOW

        http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.ca/2015/02/breaking-news-false-flag-in-mos...

        jbvtme

        is it true nemtsov and vickie nuland were seen taking a selfie moments before the shots were fired?

        Thirst Mutilator

        they were dancing on top of a van.

        toys for tits

        Isn't Putin's MO for dissidents to imprison them?

        I seem to remember that billionaire oil guy. I think he likes to see them humbled.

        CCanuck

        Weevil,

        Why does Porkoshenko need proof?

        It is well known that Russia has invaded Ukraine five, six ,seven times already. There are satilite images, youtube videos, and the word of trolls to prove Putin shot down that Malaysian airliner and invaded Ukraine riding on the back of a bear, shirtless, shooting Madian women and children.

        What more could this guy have shown?

        Thirst Mutilator

        he was about to release fotos of the mass graves of 6,000,000 puppies killed.

        Anusocracy

        Make it kittens and you've got a deal.

        Max Steel

        Let me enlighten you about Nemstov : https://www.facebook.com/anna.almarusa/posts/10200379181758271

        look for both photos .

        In 1998 Nemstov had a 8 year old girlfirend . Another rapist and child molester among politicians . His present gf who recently had an abortion in Switzerland (Nemtsov's child by the way) and came for a dinner with Nemtsov . Nemtsov had oficially 3 mothers of his children, why is there nothing about them in the press?

        His private life is his own business, not ours though


        Mr Nemtsov was a spent force – he had a real following in the 1990s, where he was briefly a major player. Unlike Navalny, who is opportunistic, smart and frankly dangerous, Nemtsov's following was largely limited to foreign journalists and a small group of Russian liberals.

        Had the Kremlin wanted him out of the way there were other ways – especially in Moscow. A car crash. An (induced) heart attack. Poisons. Why do a public hit within sight of St. Basel's Cathedral on Red Square so as to provide a public feast for the foreign press picture editors?

        The timing is equally suspicious. Perfectly timed to draw maximum attention to the upcoming opposition March which had risked falling flat. The March itself is no conceivable threat to Mr Putin – who now enjoys the sort of popularity common to wartime leaders in any country – but it is the best shot the West has, knowing thatany political murder in Moscow will be systematically attributed to the Kremlin by the tame Western press – whether of a Putin opponent (Politkovskaya) or a fervent supporter (Paul Klebnikov, Forbes). By some odd coincidence, several of these killings took place immediately before President Putin was to address some particularly high-profile international meeting.The fact that this horrific murder is most beneficial to the anti-Russian factions does not, of course, prove that Washington was in any way involved. It suggests it - which is a very different matter altogether…

        There is another – less conspiratorial – theory. The Kiev regime – openly supported by Mr Nemtsov and his followers - is genuinely very unpopular in Russia. Live television coverage of the savage bombardment of Lugansk and Donetsk has evoked some strong passions.

        There is a hardline, nationalist faction, and Russia can be a violent place. It is entirely possible that someone decided to take revenge for the people of Novorossiya, answering one barbaric crime with another.
        There is only one certainty: this murder will be exploited by the Western press which will largely not even bother to formally attribute it to the Kremlin – but simply do a quick montage – Red Square, Putin opponent lying dead. It's an easy sell.

        Lea

        "Mr Nemtsov was a spent force"

        Yes, and that's why he went. He ran 1% in the polls, not more, against a 86%-strong Putin. He was no-one in the Russian political scene anymore.


        So he served America one last time.

        Navalny is supposedly "smart" and "dangerous", but as it becomes harder and harder to hide he's a crook, he's on his way to become another spent force. If I were him, I'd take off to some place where America's alphabet soup agencies couldn't find me, to protect my skin.

        Karaio

        Obummer could destabilize Putin ....

        In the USA!

        Kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!

        Putin has 85% approval of the Russian way, they think Putin is being "loose", which should have sent bullet in Ukraine.

        Neither Lula in Brazil had so much support ....

        Anyone out there ever read "Club-Orlov" ?:

        http://cluborlov.blogspot.com.br/2015/01/peculiarities-of-russian-nation...

        "You guys want a war, you will have a war ...."

        Very interesting reading about how the Russians think and act.

        You have 140 million people wanting to give change to the West abuses, only Putin has patience to endure the slaps in the face.

        Get ready, the shit will grab soon.

        hehe.

        August

        >>>I'll bet conditions are worse in the Ukraine, and EU than we are told.

        For an update on the Ukrainian economy, the following article (Russian source, in English) is a pretty harrowing depiction:

        http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.co.nz/search/label/Ukrainian%20national%20...

        gallistic

        "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is just a statistic"

        -Misattributed to Josef Stalin

        Paveway IV

        "...The danger of being a CIA asset is they eventually make you a martyr for their cause..."

        That's why those bastards murdered Spock! He knew too much.


        Of course it was.

        Unfortunately, one aspect of being in the psychopath murderer/facilitator/enabler class is that there is little to no conscience or empathy, so we will likely never know who really did the dirty deed.

        Son of Loki

        "People are often more shocked over the death of one person, as opposed to the murder of 1 million."

        ... or something like that.

        COSMOS

        Certainly the thousands of dead women and children shelled by Kiev in Donbass did not elicit such outrage from the western media and politicians.

        gallistic

        "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is just a statistic"

        -Misattributed to Josef Stalin

        Paveway IV

        "...The danger of being a CIA asset is they eventually make you a martyr for their cause..."

        That's why those bastards murdered Spock! He knew too much.

        LLAP [sniff]

        nmewn

        "I've never...felt...so...alive!" - William Shatner (Spocks CIA handler)

        HowdyDoody

        World leaders silent over mass murder and ethnic cleansing by Nazis in East Ukraine.

        The value of the western leaders is clearly marked by these positions.


        [Feb 28, 2015] World leaders condemn murder of Russian politician Boris Nemtsov by Shaun Walker & Chris Johnston

        Why Guardian presstitutes are so afraid to ask "Cue Bono" question, the key question in any crime investigation? It might going to be the second MH17 shooting coverage.
        Feb 28, 2015 | The Guardian

        BenjamintheDonkey

        Always, always ask yourself Cui Bono, to whose benefit-who benefits from this horrendous murder so close to the Kremlin. To those who think it is not the much maligned Vladimir Putin. For with all of the bad Western press that he has been getting lately, brought about by his opposition to the Western backed coup in the Ukraine, why would he have anyone killed in such a theatrical fashion ,a fashion designed to horrify right minded people and turn them even further against Russia and the Russian President.

        If someone, in power, with any sense wished to have someone killed they would have it done surreptitious, quietly, without any fuss: perhaps a car crash in a tunnel, or a suicide as in the case of Dr David Kelly, a death that could not be associated with the powers that be- unless like me you are untrusting and cynical.

        So again who benefits? It has been suggested that he had offended some Nationalists, another suggestion pointed to some Muslim group or other but to commit murder in a fashion that enables groups hostile to Russia to suggest that Putin may have been involved, nay to accuse him ,suggests to me that, unless lesser personal motives are involved, that we should look to the Ukraine and beyond for the perpetrators of this provocative outrage.

        MoneyCircus -> tanyushka

        Americans and British won't understand this.

        I've seen the security around Putin and it's something to behold when he arrives. (I was at the Central Bank of Russia at the time).

        But otherwise you feel free walking around the city in a way you never would in Washington or London.

        Fact: I can walk up to the Duma and knock on the door. I can wander through the gates of the Kremlin, sidle up to a security guard and ask where I buy tickets. I have no gun shoved in my face and no fear of being wrestled to the ground.

        Michael -> Bluth raffine

        Actually. what you mean is it's not a theory if it's a fact. Which is quite true. But currently it's not a fact. Because there's no evidence. You have just jumped to a conclusion that fits in with your world view.

        What am I? I'm a western guy who deplores the one-sided presentation of world events in the western media, and who has been galvanised from his usual depressive torpor to comment on the new spate of Russophobia out of a fear that this latest warmongering venture could get out of hand and spark a major global conflagration.

        Canigou -> Theethou

        Is America a former democratic society?

        ILikePolls
        Its not completely inconceivable that Nemtsov has made a few enemies over his views on Ukraine, and that a group has acted independently of Putin and killed him, but the CIA theory is just bonkers I think (on this occasion)..................

        http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/op-ed/why-does-putin-wage-war-on-ukraine-362884.html

        he wrote that

        robrabbit , link
        In the video, the US Ambassador Mr.Tefft has called Nemtsov "a great Russian patriot" which is really far from truth.

        In fact, Nemtsov was a pro-western political activist, a Moscow liberal type, acting on his own without wide public support in Russia.

        Adabsiz1

        You must admit that there has been an "orchestrated" and consistent attack on Russia's president for the past EIGHT or so months, even before the Crimea episode !

        Amazingly, not to say ironic, GAZPROM is still the main sponsor of UEFA's Champions League despite the so-called "sanctions" ....

        The UEFA message is "We like the colour of your money, thank you very much" !

        Kaspersky is another story !!

        When will the Western media stop using words like "Oligarch" and "Regime" etc. ??

        We don't say "the Cameron regime" or call Gran Schapps an "oligarch" ...

        We call OUR "oligarchs" CEOs instead !!

        Farcical !

        Albatros18 lynxruf

        if he had proof he would have given to his comrades or to US embassy in Moscow. It is a clear CIA job, as the Americans sacrificed their boy for a greater cause. Snowden's existence in Russia still hurts Washington.

        salexandra2014 djw215

        I truly understand the laugh or never stop crying part even though our circumstances are different. I actually do not mind the cold here in Russia as long as it stays at -2 C or above. Colder than that and I as yet must learn to acclimate. It happens more quickly than I expected though. And most of the russians around me wish the ponds would stay frozen! We want to go ice skating which is possible everywhere here unlike in the west.

        Esmerelda Kerr

        So many possible reasons and people who would want to kill this man. RIP. You did your best.

        However, the "condemnation" of the Western Elites is now even more meaningless than it may have been if the aggressive tactics used to alienate Putin had not become the preferred approach. The Chinese as an example of lack of PC and democracy has never been treated with the scorn and arrogance which Russia has reaped due to refusing the same two conditions. Western governments work with leaders of countries who have no respect for their populations but continue to try and encourage small advances. What has happened to the relations with Russia is a danger to world peace and will most probably encourage rogue behavior NOT discourage it.

        Ro Ma -> LetsBeClear

        There are problems all over the world. Russia is just one country. It just a country. The biggest problem is the US's World Dominance Mania.

        The West applies its vested interests philosophy over the little people of the world within the western Empire and outside the Empire. Collateral damage, support of Nazis or extremist Islam, false flags, cannon fodder, divide and rule, and Orwellian speech are all allowed and practiced to fullest extent to further the interests of the Western Empire. The West Empire continues on its march to destroy the world in quest for World Dominance. The West is destroying millions of peoples lives throughout the world in the Empire and outside the Empire. Austerity is one example how it is destroying the little people in the Empire. Outside the Empire what I mentioned above.

        What ever happened to the middle east? Destroying whole countries for the US's MIC world Dominance mania. Libya to Afghanistan has been destroyed in the past 23 years of the lone wolf World Dominance of the US's MIC. The middle east is destroyed completely, so the US's MIC looked around. Gee, the Ukraine. Divide and conquer. Another place to destroy and conquer. Sent the American singing group Biden, Nuland and McCain to sing about War and Misunderstanding. Poof, the magic Chaos Dragon appears and civil war. Hopefully Europeans will wake up and say NO. We will not allow this destruction pattern on our continent.

        ID075732 28 Feb 2015 11:26

        Strange how jingoism works.

        80 plus innocent civilians are murdered in the Odessa Pogrom and virtually not a squeak from western MSM.

        A old politician out with his young Ukrainian lover murdered in Moscow and the world leaders all react.

        Jesus, something is wrong with western democracy.

        Spiffey -> tanyushka 28 Feb 2015 11:26

        Yes of course, putins Russia have never assassinated any opponents. Oh wait, what about litvinenko or Anna Politkovskaya?

        One thing I notice about putin supporters - they love putin above all and every Russian opponent is a corrupt western traitor.

        The rest of the democratic world has opposition parties, different leaders and different points of view, people with different loyalties.

        But not putin fans, they would have you believe there can't be a credible Russian dissident ever, not a one, they are all corrupt.

        dralion -> tanyushka 28 Feb 2015 11:26

        And completely delusional.

        The Americans probably could have Putin dead by now if they really wanted. Don't you know that the kremlin is filled with their "sleepy" agents who can be activated at anytime. On top of that the klingons are ready to invade mother russia with one phone call to the mothership.... OOPS still thinking about spock's world....

        Lenthelurker -> mrbaker11 28 Feb 2015 11:26

        Disagreeing with your President doesn't make you a traitor - it makes you a citizen of a free society...ahh, there we are then...

        ucasavi -> Comrade666 28 Feb 2015 11:25

        "he caused trouble for Putin"

        You are kidding me, right?

        ILikePolls 28 Feb 2015 11:25

        I see the bacchanalia of conspiracy theories goes on. Who is winning CIA or FSB?

        coldwarsubvet 28 Feb 2015 11:25

        So now its the CIA who killed him? The Kremlin either needs to get better security or the Russian propaganda is 19th century

        tanyushka -> Comrade666 28 Feb 2015 11:25

        he didn't cause any problems to Putin, who has 85% approval rating in Russia, more than any other leaders in the world...

        Putin even warned that something like this could happen...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69Qwju5nJ-w

        lynxruf 28 Feb 2015 11:24

        With the time zone advantage, the disciplined disinformatchiks rise early and blow smoke in comment threads on every bit of news out of Russia. And so they blame the CIA, or Obama, or Islamic terrorists, or Maidan, or Fifth/Six/Seventh Column, or the mice in my cellar. They tell us to look everywhere but at Russia.

        Sehome 28 Feb 2015 11:24

        Putin would gain nothing from this crime ; he is riding high in polls, is supported with renewed patriotism by the Russian population, is admired for his achievement at Minsk 2 and his ability to outfox the USA.

        Only the Americans stood to gain from this killing, to throw Putin off his stride, as the US tries to restore the level of War in Ukraine.

        Of course, plenty of ordinary Russian politicals could have wanted Nemtsev to die, but the US Embassy, headed by a Russia-Hater and overseeing a mob of CIA apparatchiks and trained killers, could have pulled this off - just Murder-By -Hire. No American hand actually on the trigger.

        outsiderwithinsight -> geedeesee 28 Feb 2015 11:24

        Nope many were cynical with regards to WMD Russians believe the west was behind the assassination and that's all that matters to the kremlin of course the russian state also knows that people in the west will rush 2 put forward the conspiracy against Putin theory all in all a good days work from the kremlin's point of view

        Solar Do Inglês -> Despertaferro 28 Feb 2015 11:23

        You still haven't actually responded to the, yes, verifiably true points about Iraq never being secular, Bush not reducing Iraq to rubble, the vast majority of deaths in Iraq being down to Islamists and or their proxies and that people in the Middle East have free will.

        You state these are anything but plain,y true. Which ones are false and why?

        davidncldl -> Alan Jones 28 Feb 2015 11:23

        Alan Jones said of President Putin:

        (I refuse to add a deferential arse licking Mr)
        Tut-tut Mr Jones. The honorific "Mr" is simple British good manners, British Values really. It is never considered to be "arse licking". Perhaps you need to learn some good manners? Mr Putin is a great Russian leader and this is acknowledged by even those who betrayed the Russian people in the past. Take the kindly-but-bumbling Mikhail Gorbachev, for example, in his recent book he has to eat humble pie when he says

        "...he had known and been impressed by Putin before the latter became president and that he Gorbachev had made many mistakes because he had operated on the assumption that he had everything under control..."

        It seems that the push by the US/EU superpower for a "hot war" with Russia has started in earnest and that the anti-Russian agents operating inside Russian borders will kill to cause maximum confusion and to try to undermine the loyalty of the people.

        MoneyCircus 28 Feb 2015 11:23

        I'm sure a lot of you will laugh when I post from Infowars but this article by Tony Cartalucci is actually one of the most insightful that I've read -

        Of course, it demands that you are honest with yourself about U.S. policy in places like Panama as well as Georgia and Ukraine. If your eye's aren't open, nothing's gonna make sense.

        http://www.infowars.com/russia-us-backed-opposition-leader-gunned-down-in-moscow/

        dannykeighobadi -> hatstan 28 Feb 2015 11:22

        Why not? We live in such a confused and unexplainable world anyway. it could have easily been an agent, while everyone will be staring at Putin. Or at least, that's what the Western Media will portray it as. Nothing but weak propaganda.

        midnightschild10 28 Feb 2015 11:22

        It is unfortunate that Mr. Nemtsov lost his life. All violent deaths are tragic. I wonder if the world leaders condemn the over 30,000 Americans shot to death by fellow Americans each year. We reach the same number of those killed on 9/11 every six weeks throughout the year. Perhaps Holder could provide the names of those shot to death to the world news organizations, since all lives are precious to somebody. The same could be done for the Palestinians and Ukrainians and victims of Boko Harem and ISIS. African nations could also submit the names of warring tribesmen. Egypt could add the names of the Muslim Brotherhood as well. Perhaps the world leaders could meet to discuss this issue as well. For each victim, families and friends are left to grieve.

        michealvernon -> tanyushka 28 Feb 2015 11:22

        Putin is popular because Russians have been brainwashed by his propaganda machine. Not very different from North Koreans who are mesmerized by Kim junior and who consider him to be God incarnate.

        Epivore -> Alexandra_Aleshina 28 Feb 2015 11:22

        All of the opposition in Russia is weak. And he was walking alone in probably the most policed location in Moscow; when I went to see St Basil's years ago, there was a highly visible police presence in the entire area and CCTV cameras (visible ones) on every building, entrance and high point. I'm sure it's even more secure now, so why wouldn't he feel (relatively safe.)

        Comrade666 -> geedeesee 28 Feb 2015 11:22

        PutinBot answer? get lost

        pointersAREpointless -> knight802 28 Feb 2015 11:22

        race-hating, gay-bashing, bully-boy society

        Where is your evidence for any of that.

        In fact, only show me evidence of an event that has not also happened the USA.

        Like the Winter Olympics that were held in Mormon country Salt Lake City. Because Mormons are very tolerant of gays aren't they.

        WardwarkOwner -> EmperorTrejanus 28 Feb 2015 11:20

        Yeah lets get it on!!! We are all in the right and Putin and Russia must be guilty. We don't need to base decisions that could lead to nuclear war on evidence!

        Can't wait to see the world end in a nuclear in a global nuclear winter and snowball earth or die before from a nuclear blast or radiation sickness.

        What a total idiot you are.

        mrbaker11 -> knight802 28 Feb 2015 11:20

        Yes, and the added fear factor, as reinforced quite clearly by Peskov's remarkably clear message, which is, quite frankly an incredible, blatant threat

        UnsleepingMind 28 Feb 2015 11:20

        'Moscow city authorities meanwhile have given permission to Russian opposition leaders to hold a march to commemorate Nemtsov after they canceled a planned protest rally due to the murder. The Sunday rally will cross the Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge where the politician was shot dead.'

        I say: God damn that vile, anti-democratic state known as Russia! How dare it allow people to march in the streets! This isn't the totalitarian image of Russia that I'm used to (thanks to the 24-7 drip, drip, drip of anti-Russian propaganda from the corporate media)! No, I'm used to 'Putin is a gangster', 'Russia is backward', 'Putin is a warmonger', 'Go Pussy Riot', 'I *heart* Navalny', etc., etc. And now I just don't know what to think.

        Comrade666 -> tanyushka 28 Feb 2015 11:20

        Yes yes it was Americans who did it, they wanted him dead because he caused trouble for Putin, smart thinking right off RT

        brokenbritan -> Michael Bluth 28 Feb 2015 11:20

        your economy is down the toilet, your life expectancy is f... all, your birth rate is a minus . your best brains are going to the USA .

        russia will be an empty country in 50 years.

        no one cares what you think. go and drink some more vodka from your bath.

        eastnorfirestarter -> knight802 28 Feb 2015 11:20

        Political threats are conditions on the ground as they freshly apply. Not from early internet days of young mentored men who will mature to be quite different.

        sasha19 -> tanyushka 28 Feb 2015 11:19

        And Putin was hired by and worked with Yeltsin....

        supergroovegod -> SHappens 28 Feb 2015 11:19

        Government and taxpayers rarely share interests. You're starting to get somewhere, but you still have failed to tell me how the UK benefits. By supporting the US against our own interest in the EU? What? Anyway, no one said Russia is going to invade Europe apart from you just there, and the thing with arms and MH17, well, everyone suspects, clearly even you, but there has been no direct accusation, and other things keep happening and shifting the focus. "Facts is that NATO expanded towards Russia breaking all promises" - this isn't really a fact though, is it? What "all promises"?

        The UK has a dark history in the same way that every country has, with many bright and great things to recommend it like every country has. Our colonial past is not a part of our current psyche in the same way that the Soviet period characterises part of the current Russian psyche, it's a matter of time and living memory.

        Now then, are you going to answer my question with real, tangible benefits, or shall we keep dancing?

        Comrade666 , ink

        Isn't it just amazing this could happen a stone throw away from the Kremlin? with all the security, cameras and secret police roaming the streets. Something smells like dead fish, and my hope for the Russian people is that it puts more doubt on the Putin reign and that it puts even more pressure on his corrupt government

        tanyushka Comrade666

        obviously you have never been in Moscow... there's not such heavy security there... the Kremlin is a public square full of people most of the day, where even a so called performance artist can nail his testicles to the pavement... i bet there are many times more security services & stuff like that around the White House in Washington...

        tanyushka

        i am not going to speak evil of a murder victim, at least not now, although it should suffice to say that he was Yeltsin's Deputy Prime Minister... i only want to say the obvious: Putin has nothing to win with this murder...

        Nemtsov wasn't even a popular figure of the opposition, Putin is right now at the highest point of his popularity in Russia & the murder is committed at steps of the Kremlin, automatically turning the spot into a place of pilgrimage, ideal for a new Maidan organized by the American Secret Services to overthrow the Russian Government & replace it by a puppet like Yeltsin was...

        LetsBeClear

        Obama calls for "prompt, impartial and transparent" investigation – in the 136th (of 175) most corrupt country on the planet? Good luck with that.

        ContraryToDogma -> LetsBeClear

        Yes it's like asking Obama to prosecute Wall Street or Bush-Cheney war criminals eh? Just move on, don't look back. Pot calling the kettle black.

        ContraryToDogma

        The US frenzy of Putin demonization is so pathetic. Like the US needs another enemy and another war? Capitalism has been deformed so badly that instead of just making money they want endless wars to steal resources. Let's have some in-depth reporting instead of these silly hit pieces.

        Alexandra_Aleshina

        Everything what happened looks like a painfully obvious provocation, Nemtsov was a very weak opposition. It made no sense to kill him. This death allowed to turn the weak opposition in Martyr and a symbol of opposition.

        Moreover, it looks very illogical. He made a loud statement that he feared for his life, but was walking alone with a young girl in the middle of the night . What did they do there at this hour?!

        SonnyTuckson

        Funny to see how all these Putin lovers here shout that the USA did it. Putin lovers blame everything bad on the USA - their automatic and predictable reflex - but that is nonsense. Sprung from a huge Russian inferiority complex towards the prosperous Land of the free.

        Why don't they understand that Russia is a non-entitiy for the US? To the USA Russia is just a regional European power with nukes and an economy in tatters.

        For Europe, Russia as a neighbour and gas provider may be more relevant, but to the USA Russia is a far away irrelevant maffia state.

        Xenkar -> SonnyTuckson

        I like the fact that you mention nukes casually!

        GameOverManGameOver -> SonnyTuckson

        So why don't you keep your noses out of it's business then?

        [Feb 28, 2015] To launch a color revolution the sacral victim is not enough

        If to start a color revolution was so simple, the "Maydan" would regularly happen in all countries of the world, and the election would have been abolished as unnecessary. If all we need for starting another "Maydan" is just a "sacred victim" that would be extremely easy to accomplish. And now Boris Nemtsov was declared such a victim. Will the events now flow this way? No. For a "color revolution" or the "Arab spring" is necessary not only and not so much the victim. It still needs the population which is tired of and distrustful to the authorities, lack of prospects, the decomposition of the elites in the country and strong presence of Western MSM, NGO and intelligence services in the country. They also need a well prepared, financed and trained core, the passionate group of young people (far right nationalists are perfect canon fodder ), willing to risk their life for the cause. They also need noninterference of the army and carefully orchestrated paralysis of law enforcement agencies (or bribing the key figures and/or infiltration of them by CIA and friends as was the case in Kiev), as well as several other factors that simplify the task (Yanukovich was essentially "on the hook" by Americans, as his and his son capitals were abroad). "Sacred victim" in this list, while helpful at certain stages to ignite or sustain the protests, is far from the first place.
        Feb 28, 2015 | vzglyad.ru

        Among supporters (and even some opponents) of the "Maydan" color revolution in Moscow there are people who believe that "now we're going to do as they - and we, too, will succeed." For the "Maydan" style color revolution supposedly needed "sacred victim": and now we have such a "sacral victim". But for a "color revolution" or the "Arab spring" is necessary not only and not so much the "sacral victim".

        Death on the bridge

        With a difference of a few hours in Moscow and Kiev have been two deaths. In Moscow on the bridge opposite the Kremlin was shot and killed the member of the Yaroslavl regional Duma Boris Nemtsov. In Kiev jumped out of the window a prominent figure of the Party of regions Mykhailo Chechetov, which the new government was accused of abuse of power. This strange suicide of members of the "old regime" reminds us events that occurred after the last victory of the Maydan in 2005. For example, a strange suicide using two shots to his own head of the ex-interior Minister Yuriy Kravchenko. The cause of his death, by the way, was announced by the current head of the Ukrainian Security Council Oleksandr Turchynov, who in 2005 was the head of Ukrainian Security Services (SBU).

        Unlike those strange suicides, in the case of Boris Nemtsov, there is are clear circumstances of his murder and witnesses of the event. And for whatever reason it was done it looks like a political assassination. Because even if you kill politicians on domestic or economic reasons, even if he died after overheating with sauna or on his head accidentally drops a brick, still his death will have political consequences and it will be tried to be used iether by government or the forces oppositional to government.

        I want to believe that the investigation will find out why Nemtsov was killed and who did that. Two similar political murder, the murders of Sergei Yushenkov and Galina Starovoitova had been solved, the first completely, the second in part. In the case of Sergei Yushenkov Mikhail Codenew ordered the killing wanting to intercept the Yushenkov the leadership of the party "Liberal Russia". The contractor now serves his jail term. In the case of Galina Starovoitova, the contractor was also found quite quickly, and in April 2014 Duma Deputy Mikhail Glushchenko confessed, but the court hearing still are ahead.

        Also were found and convicted killers of lawyer Stanislav Markelov and journalist Anastasia Baburova.

        So there is hope that the killer Boris Nemtsov, unlike murderers Vladislav Listyev, will be found and punished.

        To put forward plausible versions and comment on them is a matter of investigation. The current range of version voiced in media is really extremely broad - from "the help" by the Ukrainian security services in the organization of the Moscow Maydan to "act of vengeance" of someone who returned from the Donbass militia. In the Yaroslavl region for a time a member of the Parliament Nemtsov also managed to amass a lot of enemies, and some of them could "hurry up" and try to solve all problems at once. Investigators have information that the German authorities know that he received threats in connection with his position regarding the execution of the staff of the magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris. And even private life connected version though unlikely, cannot be ruled out. Again, this is not essential from a policy perspective.

        On February 10, "Interlocutor" published an interview with Boris Nemtsov, in which he among other things mentioned that his 87-year-old mother (that's who is suffering the loss the most now) expressed the fear that Putin can kill him "because of the his political activities".

        Most likely, the killer of this interview was read. Because the murder was definitely a highly symbolic and highly provocative political act, as were the place and time under the walls of the Kremlin, on the eve of this year's first mass opposition rally.

        So far Western politicians are not jumping to assign the blame, including Senator John McCain, one of the first to respond to the incident. McCain, by the way, worried about the safety of Boris Nemtsov in 2013: "I'm a little concerned about the personal safety of Boris Nemtsov. Of course, I told him that something must happen."

        ... ... ...

        Among supporters of the "Maydan in Moscow" there are some people who think that "Now the events start to flow like in Kiev - and we, too, will succeed."

        If to start a color revolution was so simple, the "Maydan" would regularly happen in all countries of the world, and the election would have been abolished as unnecessary. If all we need for starting another "Maydan" is just a "sacred victim" that would be extremely easy to accomplish. And now Boris Nemtsov was declared such a victim. Will the events now flow this way? No. For a "color revolution" or the "Arab spring" is necessary not only and not so much the victim. It still needs the population which is tired of and distrustful to the authorities, lack of prospects, the decomposition of the elites in the country and strong presence of Western MSM, NGO and intelligence services in the country. They also need a well prepared, financed and trained core, the passionate group of young people (far right nationalists are perfect canon fodder ), willing to risk their life for the cause. They also need noninterference of the army and carefully orchestrated paralysis of law enforcement agencies (or bribing the key figures and/or infiltration of them by CIA and friends as was the case in Kiev), as well as several other factors that simplify the task (Yanukovich was essentially "on the hook" by Americans, as his and his son capitals were abroad). "Sacred victim" in this list, while helpful at certain stages to ignite or sustain the protests, is far from the first place.

        That means that in the current circumstances the death of Boris Nemtsov can't become the ignition point for the new Russian color revolution (Moscow Maydan), even if someone in the West might passionately desire to use it this way...

        The attack on Russia or back in the 60s

        Regardless of whether you killed a staunch supporter of the current government or the opposition the murder of a politician is stronger blow to the legitimacy of power. And the murder of the opposition figure is more so than the murder of an official or a Pro-government deputy.

        And we need quicly solve this murder, not because after the assassination of the opposition, Western leaders are lining up with condolences and demand to punish the perpetrators. No. Simply because a strong state should be able to provide security to all its citizens and will never stoop to power persecute their unarmed opponents. The country where killings of famous people - politicians, businessmen, cultural figures - remain unsolved is a weak country. And the citizens in this country will view the government accordingly.

        In connection with the murder Nemtsov many people start to mention Yeltsin's period anarchy and lawlessness in 90th, but there is another, less obvious, but quite appropriate to the occasion analogy. The USA in 1960th. In less than five years in the USA were killed President John F. Kennedy, his brother Robert, militant fighter for the rights of black people Malcolm X, peaceful fighter for the rights of blacks, Martin Luther King and some less well-known politicians.

        In those years, the US experienced a difficult period because of the Vietnam war, ending the economic boom of the 1950s, mass involvement of youth in escapist movement. The state was weak and politicians were killed. But out people detached from reality could spoke in those circumstances about the collapse of American States and the urgent need to organize a revolution.

        The last echo of this weakness was the murder of John Lennon in 1980 and the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan in 1981. After this "landmark murders" and attempts on politicians life came to full stop, and former hippies graduated from their universities, have started to be engaged in politics and very quickly converted from the pacifists to the "hawks".

        Russia now is also experiencing is not the easiest historical period. Therefore, efforts of those who want to check the country's strength and at the same time to solve some personal issues are intensified.

        The murder of Boris Nemtsov is a challenge to the law-enforcement system, it is a challenge to the authorities, it is a challenge to the whole of Russia. So it should be solved.

        Political life and political death

        Many commentators on both sides say that it is denigrating to use the death of Boris Nemtsov for political purposes. It is not so. Yes, PR on spilled blood is one of the worst things invented by human civilization. But the tragic death of a politician always is not only death. It is a political event. Therefore, the desire of like-minded people from opposition to get PR points from Nemtsov death, aas well as desire of the government to avoid RP-losses is quite natural. It has always been, and always will be, as long as on the Earth live people and politicians. So the efforts should be made on eliminating those RP benefits and solving the crime is the best way to do so. There should be unsolved political assassinations in this country and on Earth in general.

        [Feb 27, 2015] The EU's plan for an energy union would call Vladimir Putin's bluff by Natalie Nougayrède

        Neocon cause is lost cause. No amount of propaganda can change this fact. This pressitute sings Anglo-American official tune with a little bit too much zeal... Even for Guardian pressitute... From comments: "A military empire (US + EU + NATO) with an hegemonic agenda which conquers territories either peacefully (the 28 EU countries) or violently when there is resistance by destabilization leading to war (Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Mali, Central Africa, Palestine and now Ukraine) or overthrow elected governments (Ukraine, Latin America), or both in total disregard of international law. "
        Feb 27, 2015 | theguardian.com

        ... ... ...

        It's easy to understand why the proponents of an EU energy union would use slightly grandiose language to sell their ideas. They have cast this plan as the "most ambitious European energy project since the Coal and Steel Community" of the 1950s. After all, energy solidarity is what Europe was all about at the start. Having France and Germany share their coal and steel was seen, in the words of Robert Schuman, one of the founders of the European project, as the best way to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible". Peace and prosperity were to flow from regional integration.

        Last year, war broke out in the country (Ukraine) through which most of Russia's energy exports transit on their way to many of our homes. A key feature of Putin's Ukraine strategy has been to make sure this country of transit would never quite escape Moscow's domination – and that Gazprom would never lose the possibility of directly controlling Ukraine's gas pipelines to Europe.

        The Brussels commission is right to push for a new union. Energy should be, along with freedom of movement for people, goods and services, a key dimension of the EU. It would help in dealing with Russia's behaviour as well as in tackling climate change. It is of huge strategic importance. Yet it has not happened – so far – because it is so difficult to build politically, and it will be expensive.

        Energy is run nationally – not at EU level – at present. Key countries, especially the UK, France and Germany, have their own views on how energy policy should be run, and they are all different. The UK has a deregulated market, many private players, and no dependency on Gazprom. France is highly centralised, with a handful of , state-controlled big players and 75% of electricity generated by nuclear power (which is anathema to the Germans). Germany dislikes nuclear energy and wants to get rid of it, preferring to burn coal if they run out of gas or renewables. And they have had historically good relations with Gazprom. Poland burns a lot of coal (it prefers that to Russian gas), but Poles also want to look for shale gas. They don't worry that much about greenhouse gases. The list goes on.

        There is a disorderly patchwork of energy policies across Europe. But questions that have been important for years need to be re-addressed. It is too late to settle scores over who wrecked Europe's previous chances of setting up a common energy policy. But Germany does have a special responsibility here. Its large and powerful energy companies, E.ON and RWE, were the first in the early 2000s to carve out long-term contracts with Gazprom without much consultation with European partners. Later, Germany unilaterally signed up to Russia's North Stream pipeline which the Baltic states and Poland could only perceive as an attempt to pressure them geopolitically.

        The new EU plan doesn't aim to dismantle such realities but is pragmatic enough to try to deal with some of Europe's obvious weaknesses. Because energy has been mostly a domestic issue there are very few, interconnecting pipelines and grids. The plan is to build more. This would allow compensation for energy cut offs – such as the ones that Russia created in 2006 and 2009, causing thousands of eastern European homes to be left without heating for weeks.

        Another idea is to diversify energy supplies by working on a southern gas corridor linking Europe to Turkey and Central Asia, or by setting up liquified natural gas hubs in northern Europe that could act as back-up in case of another gas crisis with Russia.

        The complexities are numerous. Some energy business insiders point out that negotiating with a Central Asian country such as Turkmenistan is like landing on another planet. One told me about a meeting with 30 Turkmen government officials sitting immobile behind long tables in the Hall of the Peoples of Turkmenistan's capital, who didn't say a word but just stared. Turkmenistan is a big gas producer whose operatives have been known to sell the same quantity of gas several times over to various buyers (Russians, Chinese, etc).

        ... ... ...

        Bosula -> Fencewalker , 27 Feb 2015 21:39

        How am I an obvious Putinbot because I'm critical of neo cons and journalists who trot out one article after another on the same themes? Follow what this smiley faced right winger writes and you'll see.

        These journalists should be criticised and that is the purpose of free speech and posting on this site.

        Just because you disagree with my posts doesn't make me a Putin bot.

        My family connections are with Ukraine - not Russia.

        irishmand -> JamesPl , 27 Feb 2015 21:31

        "I can't blame you for demanding Putin that pays you in a hard currency! Thanks to him, a rouble isn't worth using as toilet-paper, now.
        A user name 'Irishmand' who only comments on Russian issues and always with a pro-Kremlin view - you know that Astroturf always looks fake, right?"
        1. I am in Canada. Hence, Canadian Dollars.
        2. Read my profile. It explains a lot.
        3. Yes, I love Russia and I like Putin. What is wrong with it? I see the western media lies. Your media became a shame of this "free democratic" society.

        sparrow10 -> joem , 27 Feb 2015 20:36

        I also think the US is desperately trying to 'take out' sources of energy not under their control: for instance Russia and Venezuela.

        We don't have sanctions on Russia because of trouble with Russia, we have trouble with Russia in order to have sanctions. Who do the sanctions hurt? Russia and the EU. Who do sanctions help and not hurt? The US. Cui Bono.

        I see Joem, talking to yourself, is that because no-one else will listen.

        Paul Greenwood , 27 Feb 2015 20:31

        Britain should pay for Ukraine's gas by imposing VAT on newspapers. It seems unfair that Naftogaz should have to pay for gas when it is a natural resource. Britain gets gas free from Qatar shipped in charity tankers so people in Britain do not have energy costs, it is only fair that the EU guarantee free gas EU-wide and that energy be a free good in Greece as well as Britain.

        Bosula jezzam, 27 Feb 2015 19:00

        The US has no issues talking with many right wing undemocratic regimes. I don't follow your point.

        Since WW2 the US have meddled in, waged war against or directly overturned popular and democratically elected countries in 69 UN member nations.

        Bosula -> omasta, 27 Feb 2015 18:49

        I've attending many Holodomor commemorations, but why I stopped going was that many other Ukrainians did not like hearing that millions of other Soviet citizens from across the Union were also starved and sent to Siberia. At this time a few million Russians also starved. With a Ukrainian family I agree the Ukrainians were affected the most, but you should recognise the millions of other Soviets including Russian people who also starved. The problem is that acknowledging Stalin's plans were not just against Ukraine weakens some of the propaganda that has kept into Holodomor.

        Another point - not sure how this is relevant to greed and corruption in Ukraine by the Oligarchs, stealing Russian gas and not paying bills?

        irishmand -> Polvilho, 27 Feb 2015 18:37

        What do YOU know about Chechnya, my little far right ultra-nationalist buddy?
        Also, why do you pretend to be Irish?


        I was born in Russia lived there until 2004. I lived in Moscow when Chechens were blowing up residential buildings, buses and subway stations there. I lived in Moscow when Nordost happened. My farther was a high rank police officer, I also worked in the force myself. I worked in the office in Moscow and when Chechens didn't like something in the contract two Mercedeses full of Chechens with AK's came to the office. Chechen criminal group is one of the strongest in Moscow.
        I know people who went to that war. It was a war, yes. It was horrible, yes. This war was going on for 300 years, with more or less intensity.

        Bosula , 27 Feb 2015 18:29

        Why does this neo con reporter not raise any questions about our Saudi oil friends and their support for Islamic extremism not to mention involvement in 9/11?

        It is a pity is that the US State Department will give her another briefing this week and then we will receive another of her anti Russian sermons.

        Any bets on her next topic?

        Perhaps a critique of the EU for its diplomatic focus on East Ukraine rather than taking a hardline arming Kiev to the hilt, even sending in NATO troops.

        Maybe her briefing by the State Department is still to blacken, demonise and soften up the public about everything Russia being awful and a threat.

        irishmand -> Polvilho, 27 Feb 2015 18:25

        Also, classy display of chauvinistic nationalism just to prove how "not a fascist" you are.
        Heads up, your lot have shot Nemtsov, in a typically cowardly dick move.

        1. I don't anything chauvinistic nationalism in what I said
        2. There is a principal in Russia: when you speak about a dead person you either say goods things or nothing. I don't think Putin decided to eliminate Nemtsov, he was not a threat to him. It might have been a business issue.

        irishmand -> Polvilho , 27 Feb 2015 18:22

        No you didn't, unless you're over 80.
        Also, why are you pretending to be Irish?

        1. My grandfather died in the war.
        2. I am not, please see my profile. It is just a nickname. I love Cranberries.

        irishmand -> LinneaBorealis, 27 Feb 2015 18:19

        It is a geographic fact that Russia EU/Europe a neighbours but you are totally deluded if you believe EU wants to be partners with a Russia that throws its military power about, bullies and threatens, annexes parts of a neighbouring country. Can't you see what damage Russia has done to itself bringing war and distruction to Ukraine? EU wants to co-operate as equal partners, not being bossed about, lied and dictated to.

        You put too much blame on Russia. Turn around and look at US/EU who installed a fascist regime in Kiev.

        Russia also wants to deal with the partners it can trust. But after what happened in Kiev, who will trust US/EU, only a madman. US/EU clearly demonstrated that the only way they deal with anybody is everybody has to accept US/EU's point of view, otherwise he is hitler, fascist and dictator. US/EU is also ready to lie through thier teeth to get what they want. Is it a democracy?

        Bosula -> Tikibarwarrior, 27 Feb 2015 18:17

        And he doesn't appear to have any links with Ukraine so my guess is he is working in some paid capacity for one of the US agencies that undertake this soft propaganda role ( there are many so it is not obvious which one it might be).

        irishmand -> Rudeboy1, 27 Feb 2015 18:10

        Putin can't afford to cut the gas off. Russia is completely reliant on gas exports. LNG shipping cannot replace pipelines efficiently. Any Russian moves to decrease reliance on supplying Europe dovetail roughly with how long Europe would take to be weaned off Russian gas.

        1. Russia can't afford not to supply gas.
        2. Europe cannot afford not to buy gas.
        3. US wants to sell shale gas in Europe.
        4. Hence, Maidan... US problem solved

        It would take Europe 3-5 years to find an alternative for Russian gas. It will allow Russia to build pipes and LNG terminals to re-direct gas flow to Asia. Everybody is happy.

        irishmand -> dropthemchammer, 27 Feb 2015 18:03

        For those saying Russia has not used gas as a weapon :
        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-crisis-putin-will-cut-gas-to-europe-unless-russia-is-paid-by-the-end-of-the-week-10071475.html

        Yes, the whole theory here is the western media are saying truth, when they are not. So, all you links are just reference to another lie.

        Tikibarwarrior -> maureen mcmillan , 27 Feb 2015 18:03

        I'm in the same boat as you Maureen. I voted for Obama twice but this past year I had my eyes opened. I never thought I would see what I have seen on video in regards to Ukraine.....and I never thought I'd see the US back murderous neo-Nazi fascists. It is has been a truly horrifying, eye opening year.

        mikedow -> ID5868758, 27 Feb 2015 18:01

        This operation has been underway for decades. It's probably been in the planning stage ever since Western Europe made the gas deal with Russia in the beginning. Carter and Reagan both didn't like it back then.

        irishmand -> Gangoffour, 27 Feb 2015 17:59

        The Indians are tiny customers in comparison to the EU. Regardless, there are closer suppliers who easily undercut Gazprom on price.

        1. 1.1B people it is definitely smaller market than EU one, no doubt.
        2. Who is closer and cheaper supplier for India?

        Polvilho -> irishmand, 27 Feb 2015 17:58

        What do YOU know about Chechnya, my little far right ultra-nationalist buddy?

        Also, why do you pretend to be Irish?

        irishmand -> jezzam, 27 Feb 2015 17:57

        Russia has lost the West as a market at a time when there is a glut of oil. It is now set to become China's cut-price gas station. I understand the deal with China was at such a low price that Russia will actually lose money on the deal. Another triumph for Putin's foreign policy. China will be a much worse master for Russia than the West would have been.

        1. Have you seen the contract between Russia and China.
        2. Europe partially lost Russian market. Few people in sane mind will trade with you and trust you after what US/EU did.

        irishmand -> dropthemchammer, 27 Feb 2015 17:55

        My point is that number is not bigger then the 30% of europes gas meaning Russia will be out of pocket.

        You should try it, so far it was only empty words.

        Tikibarwarrior -> omasta, 27 Feb 2015 17:55

        New Ukraine, deserves the criticism. They are a failed fascist state (that is economically imploding due to mismangement and corruption) that has spent the last year bombing it's own citizens and killing over 10,000 of those citizens. Don't embarrass yourself.

        Chirographer -> ID5868758, 27 Feb 2015 17:53

        It's called a business decision. Based on a net profit. Even more than common sense, it's arithmetic.

        Common sense comes under attack when political calculations are put into the equation.

        irishmand -> dropthemchammer, 27 Feb 2015 17:53

        all the pipes have the option to flow from other directions.

        1. What direction?
        2. How much the gas flown from another direction costs?
        3. If Russia is so bad, you should stop dealing with Russia completely. Close your borders to Russians and break all the existing ties.

        ID5868758 -> mikedow, 27 Feb 2015 17:50

        And the US Congress votes to give Obama another $500 million tax payer dollars to arm and train those "moderate rebels" he's been arming and raining since the beginning of the phony "civil war" in Syria.

        Tikibarwarrior -> psygone, 27 Feb 2015 17:50

        Psygone, why should you care if they break ties, you've campaigned against Russia at the Guardian for the entire past year?

        irishmand -> jezzam , 27 Feb 2015 17:49

        "You miss the point. The EU is not unwilling to buy oil from Russia because it is a fascist dictatorship, but because it is an unreliable supplier. Other suppliers do not threaten to cut off supplies to further foreign policy aims."
        1. Please provide the examples of Russia being "fascist dictatorship"
        2. Please provide examples of Russia being "an unreliable supplier".

        irishmand -> dropthemchammer, 27 Feb 2015 17:47

        None of them have invaded their neighbors.

        No they didn't. They had and have corruption, civil wars and genocide, but it is irrelevant, because their governments are loyal to US/EU. So, they are goods guys.

        Don Scott, 27 Feb 2015 17:45

        Maybe the US should have thought about the consequences of undertaking a coup in Ukraine and installing an anti-Russian government there.

        irishmand -> dropthemchammer, 27 Feb 2015 17:43

        He will not be in power next year. there is a general feeling that he will not win elections. THus he is not a dictator.

        You are rrght, he is not, he is a brainless puppet. The puppeteers are not visible. In one year they will install another puppet. It is what's called "illusion of democracy". You an elect a president, but he or she is of no importance and in reality don't make any decisions.

        Polvilho -> irishmand, 27 Feb 2015 17:41

        Also, classy display of chauvinistic nationalism just to prove how "not a fascist" you are.

        Heads up, your lot have shot Nemtsov, in a typically cowardly dick move.

        irishmand -> Polvilho, 27 Feb 2015 17:33

        "What, you fascists? I'm not surprised."
        Another snappy answer.
        We Russians, who standing united with other nations of USSR stopped german fascists and their ukrainian friends Bandera and Shukhevich. The Germans have learnt their lesson, but ukranians have not. Now ukranians fascists are back for another lesson, which is being taught to them as we speak.

        irishmand -> Alderbaran, 27 Feb 2015 17:26

        1. Exactly, this is what I was talking about: "Kievan Rus' begins with the rule (882–912) of Prince Oleg, who extended his control from Novgorod south along the Dnieper river valley..."

        2. I would be stupid to argue that there is full blown democracy in Russia. However, Inet is not filtered, there are some opposition newspapers, TV channels and radio stations. You can also install a satellite dish and watch whatever you want. The only thing they will come on you very hard and quickly for is if you start calling for the change of government by force. But nobody in Russia will support this topic seeing what happened to Ukraine after Maidan. Nobody wants Maidan in Russia.

        Also the meaning of the gay regulation law was twisted in the western media. The only thing it prohibits is promotion of gay values in public, which, I am sorry, I support.

        irishmand -> Polvilho, 27 Feb 2015 17:12

        Wow, snappy answer. You have no idea about manners, do you? Well, it is typical. It is how I see people of your kind.

        1) You first, twinkle.
        If it is my choice, then I say there is no funding and arming.

        2) Russian fascists. In Ukraine. Lots of them. Hard to miss. One was Prime Minsister of the DPR before Zakharchenko, who's attitude towards Jews suggests he is also a fascist, despite not being Russian.
        Again, no proof, empty words. No value.

        3) You're right, Russia is clearly not financing the FN and other fascist parties. They must just all support Putin because they see in him a man after their own heart.

        We love Putin. He finally slapped on the face people like you. You are pissed off, of course, but if you keep messing around, he will slap you more.

        Gil Matos-Sequí -> psygone 27 Feb 2015 09:21

        It is too early to say what the results of the suit will be. I think the suit has as much if not more to influence the power of the EU over it's constituent members in negotiating gas prices and contracts. Russia does not stand to loose much in negotiating one price for a huge block as opposed to smaller contracts. This will affect the price of course but it will most likely mean that smaller countries end up paying significantly more than they are paying. As far as the accusations about over pricing by Gazprom, it is ridiculous. The price of Gas is tied to the price of oil and each contract devises a formula relative to the specifics of the deal. Gazprom already envisages itself selling gas to Europe from gas hub via Turkey and Turkey already envisages itself a the major gas hub and transit point for Europe, wether it be gas from Russia, or Azerbaijan, or Turkmenistan, or wherever. This lawsuit will have very limited bearing on geopolitics or real-politik over which the EU frankly has little influence.

        RVictor -> caliento 27 Feb 2015 09:18

        former Chancellor Schroeder

        It is due to Schroeder Germany has now uninterpretable gas supply through the Nord Stream.

        RVictor -> elti97 27 Feb 2015 09:16

        Solar energy, for example, already accounts for 6% of German electricity

        Wow! 6%! Amazing! Especially in winter time on north parts of Germany - solar energy will for sure cover heating needs!

        AtMyAge 27 Feb 2015 09:11

        A key feature of Putin's Ukraine strategy has been to make sure this country of transit would never quite escape Moscow's domination – and that Gazprom would never lose the possibility of directly controlling Ukraine's gas pipelines to Europe.

        OH come on! This is a key feature of the EU's policy - to force Russia to transit gas across Ukraine in order to force Russia to supply Ukraine at below market rates or face losing the EU market.

        Russia has been doing EVERYTHING possible to bypass Ukraine and supply Europe by other routes - but the EU keeps blocking it. Russia fires up the south stream pipeline project and Brussels bullies Bulgaria to stop work on, so Russia announces an alternative route via Turkey, but again the EU refuses to commit to making the connections.

        In short, the EU is using energy policy to attempt to bully Russia - not the other way around.

        Asking to be paid for supplying gas is NOT bullying nor using energy as a weapon. Its called business. When you go to work, you expect to be paid at the end of the week/month the salary that you were promised not insulted and accused of bullying when the money you are owed is not paid and you are reluctant to continue to work for nothing...

        Simon311 -> psygone 27 Feb 2015 08:58

        "It's strategically important to see Gazprom lose its market share in the world's richest and largest trading bloc."

        Is it? Does it make strategic sense to mix economics for a recovering economy with power politics?

        Does it make strategic sense to provoke a nuclear power?

        Tikibarwarrior -> Jeremn 27 Feb 2015 08:55

        The EU is in the process of falling apart due to the misguided policies implemented in Ukraine. This article is past tense. It may have made sense previously but the Greeks are on the edge of leaving due to the huge austerity/ECB rip offs. What people need to understand is that Russia isn't the enemy of the European people. The real problem in Europe is the increasing poverty and growth of right wing extremism/neo-nazism due to crippling austerity policies conducted by the ECB/IMF/EU vassal leaders. The goal for the 1% has been to keep the publics eye on the left hand while it moves the money into their right hands.

        Like the US bailout of 2007, the take a massive chunk of change from 'we the people', they then distribute that money to the banks and the 1%ers who run those banks. They loan it out and put countries into debt slavery. I recommend watching the film "The International" (with Clive Barker) to fully understand how this is done. It is a form of money laundering. The money doesn't trickle down after they create a bailout like the recent EU 500 billion euro self award. The debt is passed on to the public who pay it back ten fold over time. The countries, like Greece, are then trapped and held in debt slavery to the banker 1%. The EU vassals continue the cycle and send in their resource/utility extractors to buy up the assets of the countries, such as what is now going on in Ukraine.

        The US destabilized it, then the EU/IMF give it massive loans it can't pay back, then the big corps/hedge funds come in and buy up all the assets/utilities/farming and fracking land. After the rape is complete the people are stuck in poverty, such as Greece is.

        Look at Spain. Look at the UK these days. Germany has 12% of the population in poverty, but you will never hear this from the compliant, vassal media whose job it is to keep the people in the dark and never address the real root cause of the problem, the greedy 1% who rule us all.

        For the EU, Russia is the least of your worries. Energy independence isn't the problem, sovereign nations and human independence is. The EU needs to break apart so people can be free again.

        Simon311 -> psygone 27 Feb 2015 08:55

        What a ridiculous remark. The last thing the EU needs is a trade war and a hostile stand off with Russia,

        SHappens -> Havingalavrov 27 Feb 2015 08:40

        There is a quiz about Russia on this site you should take.

        I suppose we could say pretty much the same about the EU:

        A single party (bipartisanship hides identical policies) that monopolizes power and denies opponents access to the power.

        Leadership either unelected or elected in "rigged" elections, all deeply discredited in the eyes of people who no longer have any confidence in them as they are almost all at worst crooks or puppets, and, at best, incompetent and uneducated technocrats who have lost touch with reality.

        Elected leaders (parliamentarians), co-opted (EU Commission) appointed (senior) and selected (CAC 40) all from the same "aristocracy" which repeats itself and that has nothing to envy to the one that had generated the Party in the USSR.

        So unpopular leaders that they can not meet the true population. All press conferences and all "errands" of the rulers out of their bunkered palaces are all staged with "extras and accessories" mounted with the complicity of subsidized state media.

        Paralysis of 'governance', incapable of reforming itself as it is mired in its heaviness, its incompetence, corruption, immorality and privileges apparently attempting to binge themselves as much as possible before everything collapses.

        More separation of powers, but almost complete collusion between the executive, legislative, judicial, media, financial and thus criminalization and corruption powers, all accompanied by impunity.

        A military empire (US + EU + NATO) with an hegemonic agenda which conquers territories either peacefully (the 28 EU countries) or violently when there is resistance by destabilization leading to war (Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Mali, Central Africa, Palestine and now Ukraine) or overthrow elected governments (Ukraine, Latin America), or both in total disregard of international law.

        Media propaganda lying as they breathe and producing "evidence" sometimes even gross, to deceive and manipulate the public. With less and less success, which promises the collapse of the system.

        The demonization of past victims (Serbs, Libyans, Afghans, Iraqis, etc.), present (Syrians, Ukrainians Autonomist, Palestinians, etc.) and desired (Russians).

        Laws that dictate the story (Law memorial) with imprisonment to those who question the "official version." Liberal laws and laws drafts to prohibit meetings or shows that displease the "device" as well as control the Internet.

        The witch hunt of dissidents, even the most peaceful, who are sometimes forced to flee Russia for having told the truth; this country has in fact become a heaven for dissidents of our system as we welcome former dissidents of the USSR.

        Hatred of religion: slander and defamation attacks of all kinds against two religions in particular, Catholic and Muslim, seen as hotbeds of resistance to the proposed overhaul of liberal-libertarian society pursued by the regime.

        The militarization of riot police used to repress peaceful demonstrations and dissenting, discredit the protesters by provocation under false flags.

        The attack by the army of its own people (Ukraine for example).

        Laxity towards real criminals protected by a corrupt "elite" and towards troublemakers.

        Introduction of a "police of thought" (the equivalent of Soviet political commissioners) to give the power and the means to various groups and pro-system associations to denounce, discredit, sue and even physically attack dissidents.

        Mass spying (NSA-Stasi) and encouraging denunciation.

        And unlike the USSR this time, many things were completely free (health, culture, education, etc.) and where there was no unemployment, destruction of social rights and workers' rights in Europe.

        Back in the USSR.

        [Feb 27, 2015] Ukraine: UK and EU 'badly misread' Russia

        British neocons start realizing the size of the damage Ukrainian coup d'état inflicted of GB & EU... But they still follow the US like an obedient poodle... And it is funny that the color revolution staged by the West in Ukraine they call "plans for closer relations with Ukraine"
        bbc.com

        The UK and the EU have been accused of a "catastrophic misreading" of the mood in the Kremlin in the run-up to the crisis in Ukraine. The House of Lords EU committee claimed Europe "sleepwalked" into the crisis.

        The EU had not realized the depth of Russian hostility to its plans for closer relations with Ukraine, it said.

        ... ... ...

        Sir Andrew Wood, former British ambassador to Russia, agreed with the report's assessment, calling the situation a "dangerous moment" because Russia's frustrations could overspill into other areas, with increasing pressure on Baltic states.

        ... ... ...

        Poroshenko bruised by army retreat

        [Feb 27, 2015]Do Not Be Afraid

        "Fear not, little flock, for your Father delights to give you welcome into His Kingdom."

        Luke 12:32

        "We are slow to master the great truth that even now Christ is, as it were, walking among us, and by His hand, or eye, or voice, bidding us to follow Him. We do not understand that His call is a thing that takes place now. We think it took place in the Apostles' days, but we do not believe in it; we do not look for it in our own case.

        God beholds you. He calls you by your name. He sees you and understands you as He made you. He knows what is in you, all your peculiar feelings and thoughts, your dispositions and likings, your strengths and your weaknesses. He views you in your day of rejoicing and in your day of sorrow. He sympathizes in your hopes and your temptations. He interests Himself in all your anxieties and remembrances, all the risings and fallings of your spirit.

        He encompasses you round and bears you in His arms. He notes your very countenance, whether smiling or in tears. He looks tenderly upon you. He hears your voice, the beating of your heart, and your very breathing. You do not love yourself better than He loves you. You cannot shrink from pain more than He dislikes your bearing it; and if He puts it on you, it is as you would put it on yourself, if you would be wise, for a greater good afterwards.

        There is an inward world, which none see but those who belong to it. There is an inward world into which they enter who come to Christ, though to men in general they seem as before. If they drank of Christ's cup it is not with them as in time past. They came for a blessing, and they have found a work.

        To their surprise, as time goes on, they find that their lot is changed. They find that in one shape or another adversity happens to them. If they refuse to afflict themselves, God afflicts them.

        God has created me to do Him some definite service; He has committed some work to me which He has not committed to another. I have my mission -- I may never know it in this life but I shall be told it in the next.

        I am a link in a chain, a bond of connection between persons. He has not created me for naught.

        I shall do good, I shall do His work. I shall be an angel of peace, a preacher of truth in my own place while not intending it if I do but keep His commandments.

        Therefore I will trust Him. Whatever I am, I can never be thrown away. If I am in sickness, my sickness may serve Him; in perplexity, my perplexity may serve Him. If I am in sorrow, my sorrow may serve Him.

        He does nothing in vain. He knows what He is about.

        He may take away my friends. He may throw me among strangers. He may make me feel desolate, make my spirits sink, hide my future from me -- still He knows what He is about.

        Let us feel what we really are--sinners attempting great things. Let us simply obey God's will, whatever may come. He can turn all things to our eternal good. Easter day is preceded by the forty days of Lent, to show us that they only who sow in tears shall reap in joy.

        The more we do, the more shall we trust in Christ; and that surely is no morose doctrine, that leads us to soothe our selfish restlessness, and forget our fears, in the vision of the Incarnate Son of God.

        May the Lord support us all the day long, till the shades lengthen, and the evening comes, and the busy world is hushed, and the fever of life is over, and our work is done.

        Then in His mercy may He give us safe lodging, and a holy rest, and peace at last."

        John Henry Newman

        [Feb 27, 2015] World Press Freedom Index: US is 49th. Yay Us!

        You may click on the chart below, or you may click on this link to the article and a very large, interactive chart with access to data, methodology, etc.

        The US was 49th, as compared to 46th in 2014.

        The UK was 34th, France was 38th, Spain was 33rd, Australia was 25th, Germany was 12th, and Canada was 8th.

        Japan was 61st, just behind South Korea at 60th. Hong Kong was 70th.

        Russia was 152nd and China was 176th, and N. Korea was 179th.


        'US spends millions on overseas propaganda, but no one is buying it'

        People are tired of US interventionism; they're tired of US exceptionalism; they're tired of the US bombing their country – if you're a Somali, you don't care about listening to a radio broadcast from the US, you just wish the US would stop bombing you.
        February 26, 2015 | RT Op-Edge

        Despite the US' bottomless PR budget to influence overseas, people are not attracted by what's on offer as they are tired of US interventionism, exceptionalism, and the bombing of their countries, Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute told RT.

        US Secretary of the State, John Kerry, said he is concerned the US is falling behind when it comes to putting out information. He stressed that RT's influence is growing worldwide and the US doesn't have"an equivalent that can be heard in Russian." Claiming that RT has huge costs he asked for money to be provided for the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) in the US. RT's budget for 2015 is $220 million while the budget of the BBG is $721 million. Kerry also heaped praise on the appointment of Andrew Lack as a head of BBG who recently put RT into the same context as ISIS and Boko Haram.

        RT: John Kerry insinuated the US is losing the public relations war with Russia. What do you make of that?

        Daniel McAdams: The numbers speak louder than words: $700 and some million versus $200 and some, maybe up to $300 million for RT. I think the problem the US has is they have an unlimited advertising budget, but the product they're selling is not very attractive overseas. People are tired of US interventionism; they're tired of US exceptionalism; they're tired of the US bombing their country – if you're a Somali, you don't care about listening to a radio broadcast from the US, you just wish the US would stop bombing you.

        But I'll say one thing: the BBG budget is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how the US government influences media overseas. There's probably another $100 million in direct support to so-called 'independent news publications' overseas, and these are all different newspapers and broadcasting outfits that tow the US line that aren't directly US-related.

        There are also various programs within the US government. There is a program that brought over about a thousand journalists from overseas to come train in the US; this is one of the State Department projects. And just one bureau of the State Department has by their account 86 media programs overseas. Even the $700 million figure… is just a tip of the iceberg on how much the US spends to influence the media overseas. And, sorry, the effect is not very good.

        RT: Given what you've just said, do you think there will be people in the US government that might disagree with John Kerry?

        DM: Yes, then there is a solution- you got to double the money. They want to double the money to sell something that nobody is buying - that is the problem. The problem is the policy, not the PR that tries to sell the policy. In that hilarious clip from Victoria Nuland, she says: "Oh, RT is just a tiny audience and we have a great wonderful diversity in the media in the US." Sorry, that is not the case. I'm personally not a fan of any government-funded media, but the fact of the matter is that the so-called private media in the US marches lockstep in line with the White House and the State Department, there is no diversity in the mainstream media. So she is just absolutely wrong in what she says.

        RT: What's the reason do you think that RT is getting so much attention amongst the US government officials at the moment?

        DM: You have alternative people like The Ron Paul Institute on your program… The fact that you have diverse and interesting shows, you challenge the paradigm, and people are interested in that. People are tuning out of new news in the US at record levels - they don't watch TV news, they don't take newspapers. It's all boring; they all say the same things. When something comes along the alternative media is a different story in the US and it is growing by leaps and bounds. People that are offering a different perspective - Americans are increasingly finding it very attractive.

        RT: Do you think that there is any significance in the timing of Mr. Kerry's remarks?

        DM: I think he is always looking at a way to poke Russia, and he is also looking for a way to get more money, there is never enough money for these things. That is all about spending the money and influencing things overseas.

        Read more: For propaganda & 'democracy promotion': State Dept seeks budget to counter RT

        william SMITH
        The US administration can save its money if; it respects the sovereignty of other nations, ceases embarking on imperialist adventurism and engages in fair and reasonable commerce with the rest of the world. So easy for everyone else to do, whats their excuse for being anti-social?
        tom hollingsworth
        Here are the plain facts: The American media is basically jewish. 90% of the news and entertainment that Americans read or watch is filtered through six or seven jewsh-owned and managed companies or corporations:

        NBC/Universal Studios is owned by the Jew,Brian Roberts.
        CBS/MTV/Paramount Pictures/Viacom is owned by the Jew, Murray Rothstein (akaSumner Redstone).
        ABC/Disney is run by the Jew, Robert Iger, who is Chairman & CEO.
        CNN/Time Magazine is primarily owned by the Jew, Aviv Nevo, with the Jew, Jeff Zucker, as president.
        FOX News/Wall Street Journal/New York Post/20th Century Fox is owned by the Jew, Rupert Murdoch, whose mother Elisabeth Joy Greene, was a Jew. (Jews trace their racial identity from their mother.)
        The New York Times is owned by the Jewish Sulzberger family, the major influence behind Columbia University. Arthur Sulzberger Jr is current Chairman of The NY Times. Numerous Newspapers & Magazinesthroughout North America are owned by the Jewish Newhouse family.
        Some of us Americans don't care to have jewish billionaires deciding what we should or should not watch and read. Some of us Americans flee to alternative news sources like RT. RT is probably not totally jew-free either. Were it otherwise, the likes of Larry King would not be syndicated on RT. Am I "antisemitic" for simply stating the truth? Whatever, so be it!

        JB
        It is much easier to defend thruth than lies
        lusangola
        no one is buying american propaganda? don't worry...they will twist your harm(and neck) untill you "believe" :)
        Peekaboo
        Matt Day

        RT lovers are brain dead

        go back and live in your run down country, corrupted by your own leaders over the years!!!!

        queing for potatoes for christ sake!!!!!

        u tosser

        That's the best you can do? Did Kerry pay you to say that? Go back upstairs sweetie and tell you mommie you need a cookie and milk so you can relax.
        John

        Pooter

        Independently owned

        Who are you fooling ? Have you checked who is behind Murdoch and who are his friends ? Independent ? No

        John
        Branislav

        World loves RT billions of viewers that why Kerry is concerned!!!

        US and its puppet all around the world are now feeling it. You can no longer fool us with your distorted news. Can you tell us what happened the report of MH17 ?

        It's taking you so long to prove Russia was involved why ?

        John
        Branislav

        World loves RT billions of viewers that why Kerry is concerned!!!

        You are laughing at RT because you never thought a media could do better than your CNN,I used to watch it daily from Wolf Blitzer to Amanpour, all lies, Now thank God we have RT
        Pooter 46 minutes ago
        Branislav

        its been proven and its fact that fox cnn and nbc spend the most money on propaganda for example lookat youself you brainwashed tool!!!more...

        Proven by who? Fox and NBC are independently owned. What ru talking about?

        [Feb 26, 2015] When they do not give us an answer of reasonable question "who did it" for so long, this is an answer

        salatau.livejournal.com

        The propaganda blitz of the Western MSM and politicians about Malaysian Boeing flight MN 17 produced the desired effect and then faded. Officially result will be ready in a year, but in reality they will try to postpone them forever. Then somewhere in the 10th page of some newspapers will appears a vague message that investigators had finished his work and came to the final conclusion... Of course, the final verdict depends on the political circumstances. If junta survives, that's one thing. if not that's another.

        But this silence screams that it was done on purpose.

        [Feb 25, 2015] Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands by Richard Sakwa review – an unrivalled account

        Notable quotes:
        "... It also requires an acceptance of bilingualism, mutual tolerance of different traditions, and devolution of power to the regions. ..."
        "... the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych last year brought the triumph of the monist view, held most strongly in western Ukraine, whose leaders were determined this time to ensure the winner takes all. ..."
        "... "fateful geographical paradox: that Nato exists to manage the risks created by its existence". ..."
        "... Nato's role has been, in part, to maintain US primacy over Europe's foreign policy. ..."
        "... Last year's "Fuck the EU" comment by Victoria Nuland, Obama's neocon assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, was the pithiest expression of this. ..."
        "... Sakwa writes with barely suppressed anger of Europe's failure, arguing that instead of a vision embracing the whole continent, the EU has become little more than the civilian wing of the Atlantic alliance. ..."
        "... Frontline Ukraine highlights several points that have become almost taboo in western accounts: the civilian casualties in eastern Ukraine caused by Ukrainian army shelling, the physical assaults on leftwing candidates in last year's election and the failure to complete investigations of last February's sniper activity in Kiev (much of it thought to have been by anti-Yanukovych fighters) or of the Odessa massacre in which dozens of anti-Kiev protesters were burnt alive in a building set on fire by nationalists or clubbed to death when they jumped from windows. ..."
        "... A very well documented report and yet anti Russian thinking pervades relentlessly against the true facts as they are available. ..."
        "... I'm impressed by what Sakwa says about the "monist" versus "pluralist" models of Ukrainian statehood. Indeed the recent "anti terrorist operations" can be seen as failed attempts by the monists to impose their model by force on the south and east. ..."
        "... There is a conspiracy of silence in Washington and Kiev about the true nature of the Neo Nazis operating as regular units within the Ukrainian army. ..."
        "... As in the endless accusations of being a "Putinbot" if you have the temerity to challenge the MSM script. ..."
        "... I have a strong suspicion that the demonising of Putin is at least in part a method to draw attention away from US (and maybe Israeli) warmongering of the last decades, so I hope this book will give a fairly balanced account of what's really taking place in Crimea and Ukraine. Also I suspect that the CIA is, true to form, stirring up the Ukrainians so to destabilise Russian influence. ..."
        Feb 19, 2015 | The Guardian

        When Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Ukraine's prime minister, told a German TV station recently that the Soviet Union invaded Germany, was this just blind ignorance? Or a kind of perverted wishful thinking? If the USSR really was the aggressor in 1941, it would suit Yatsenyuk's narrative of current geopolitics in which Russia is once again the only side that merits blame.

        When Grzegorz Schetyna, Poland's deputy foreign minister, said Ukrainians liberated Auschwitz, did he not know that the Red Army was a multinational force in which Ukrainians certainly played a role but the bulk of the troops were Russian? Or was he looking for a new way to provoke the Kremlin?

        Faced with these irresponsible distortions, and they are replicated in a hundred other prejudiced comments about Russian behaviour from western politicians as well as their eastern European colleagues, it is a relief to find a book on the Ukrainian conflict that is cool, balanced, and well sourced. Richard Sakwa makes repeated criticisms of Russian tactics and strategy, but he avoids lazy Putin-bashing and locates the origins of the Ukrainian conflict in a quarter-century of mistakes since the cold war ended. In his view, three long-simmering crises have boiled over to produce the violence that is engulfing eastern Ukraine.

        The first is the tension between two different models of Ukrainian statehood.

        • One is what he calls the "monist" view, which asserts that the country is an autochthonous cultural and political unity and that the challenge of independence since 1991 has been to strengthen the Ukrainian language, repudiate the tsarist and Soviet imperial legacies, reduce the political weight of Russian-speakers and move the country away from Russia towards "Europe".
        • The alternative "pluralist" view emphasises the different historical and cultural experiences of Ukraine's various regions and argues that building a modern democratic post-Soviet Ukrainian state is not just a matter of good governance and rule of law at the centre. It also requires an acceptance of bilingualism, mutual tolerance of different traditions, and devolution of power to the regions.

        More than any other change of government in Kiev since 1991, the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych last year brought the triumph of the monist view, held most strongly in western Ukraine, whose leaders were determined this time to ensure the winner takes all.

        The second crisis arises from the internationalisation of the struggle inside Ukraine which turned it into a geopolitical tug of war. Sakwa argues that this stems from the asymmetrical end of the cold war which shut Russia out of the European alliance system. While Mikhail Gorbachev and millions of other Russians saw the end of the cold war as a shared victory which might lead to the building of a "common European home", most western leaders saw Russia as a defeated nation whose interests could be brushed aside, and which must accept US hegemony in the new single-superpower world order or face isolation. Instead of dismantling Nato, the cold-war alliance was strengthened and expanded in spite of repeated warnings from western experts on Russia that this would create new tensions. Long before Putin came to power, Yeltsin had urged the west not to move Nato eastwards.

        Even today at this late stage, a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status, would bring instant de-escalation and make a lasting ceasefire possible in eastern Ukraine.

        The hawks in the Clinton administration ignored all this, Bush abandoned the anti-ballistic missile treaty and put rockets close to Russia's borders, and now a decade later, after Russia's angry reaction to provocations in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine today, we have what Sakwa rightly calls a "fateful geographical paradox: that Nato exists to manage the risks created by its existence".

        The third crisis, also linked to the Nato issue, is the European Union's failure to stay true to the conflict resolution imperative that had been its original impetus. After 1989 there was much talk of the arrival of the "hour of Europe". Just as the need for Franco-German reconciliation inspired the EU's foundation, many hoped the cold war's end would lead to a broader east-west reconciliation across the old Iron Curtain. But the prospect of greater European independence worried key decision-makers in Washington, and Nato's role has been, in part, to maintain US primacy over Europe's foreign policy. From Bosnia in 1992 to Ukraine today, the last two decades have seen repeated occasions where US officials pleaded, half-sincerely, for a greater European role in handling geopolitical crises in Europe while simultaneously denigrating and sidelining Europe's efforts. Last year's "Fuck the EU" comment by Victoria Nuland, Obama's neocon assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, was the pithiest expression of this.

        Sakwa writes with barely suppressed anger of Europe's failure, arguing that instead of a vision embracing the whole continent, the EU has become little more than the civilian wing of the Atlantic alliance.

        Within the framework of these three crises, Sakwa gives the best analysis yet in book form of events on the ground in eastern Ukraine as well as in Kiev, Washington, Brussels and Moscow. He covers the disputes between the "resolvers" (who want a negotiated solution) and the "war party" in each capital.

        He describes the rows over sanctions that have split European leaders, and points out how Ukraine's president, Petro Poroshenko, is under constant pressure from Nuland's favourite Ukrainian, the more militant Yatsenyuk, to rely on military force.

        As for Putin, Sakwa sees him not so much as the driver of the crisis but as a regulator of factional interests and a temporiser who has to balance pressure from more rightwing Russian nationalists as well as from the insurgents in Ukraine, who get weapons and help from Russia but are not the Kremlin's puppets.

        Frontline Ukraine highlights several points that have become almost taboo in western accounts: the civilian casualties in eastern Ukraine caused by Ukrainian army shelling, the physical assaults on leftwing candidates in last year's election and the failure to complete investigations of last February's sniper activity in Kiev (much of it thought to have been by anti-Yanukovych fighters) or of the Odessa massacre in which dozens of anti-Kiev protesters were burnt alive in a building set on fire by nationalists or clubbed to death when they jumped from windows.

        The most disturbing novelty of the Ukrainian crisis is the way Putin and other Russian leaders are routinely demonised. At the height of the cold war when the dispute between Moscow and the west was far more dangerous, backed as it was by the danger of nuclear catastrophe, Brezhnev and Andropov were never treated to such public insults by western commentators and politicians.

        Equally alarming, though not new, is the one-sided nature of western political, media and thinktank coverage. The spectre of senator Joseph McCarthy stalks the stage, marginalising those who offer a balanced analysis of why we have got to where we are and what compromises could save us. I hope Sakwa's book does not itself become a victim, condemned as insufficiently anti-Russian to be reviewed.

        • Jonathan Steele is a former Guardian Moscow correspondent, and author of Eternal Russia: Yeltsin, Gorbachev and the Mirage of Democracy. To order Frontline Ukraine for £15.19 (RRP £18.99), go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846

        Susan O'neill -> Steve Ennever 25 Feb 2015 07:11
        It must have because I remember that Moscow requested a special meeting of the UN security council in accordance with a treaty in Geneva. This was an attempt to negate the need for intervention in a foreign state by Russia (which would have delighted the US). Furthermore, both sides of the horror were armed to the teeth. Some perspective would be nice.
        Susan O'neill -> willpodmore 25 Feb 2015 06:47
        A very well documented report and yet anti Russian thinking pervades relentlessly against the true facts as they are available.

        Until Britain decides to distance itself from the US anti Russian thinking (that means criticism of the McCarthy era) we will still be looking to root out "Reds under the beds" and routing anything(or anyone) who might seem to be pro-Russian. Thanks for the contribution.

        AenimaUK -> jezzam 25 Feb 2015 05:12
        I thought Ukraine was already unaligned before this crisis started.

        Yes, before the undemocratic, right-wing, NATO-backed coup, it was.

        It is true that NATO is totally dominated by the US - but this is because they spend considerably more on defence than the rest of NATO put together. To this extent, European foreign policy is dominated by the US - this is entirely Europe's own choice and fault though.

        So your alternative is that the EU up its defence spending to match the absurd permanent war-economy levels of the US? And will the resources for that come from tax increases or public service cuts to match the US? Wasn't the point about the end of the Cold War that it was supposed to be the 'end' of the 'war'? Of course, those in charge of the US military-industrial complex and their chums in the DoD failed to get that memo (or rather, read it, decided it would threaten their economic and geo-political imperialism, and shredded it).

        willpodmore -> MiaPia2015 25 Feb 2015 04:24

        Not true MiaPia - Leading scholars of Russian history have refuted the claim that the famine was an act of genocide.

        Terry Martin concluded, "The famine was not an intentional act of genocide specifically targeting the Ukrainian nation." David Shearer noted, "Although the famine hit Ukraine hard, it was not, as some historians argue, a purposefully genocidal policy against Ukrainians. no evidence has surfaced to suggest that the famine was planned, and it affected broad segments of the Russian and other non-Ukrainian populations both in Ukraine and in Russia." Diane Koenker and Ronald Bachman agreed, "the documents included here or published elsewhere do not yet support the claim that the famine was deliberately produced by confiscating the harvest, or that it was directed especially against the peasants of Ukraine." Barbara Green also agreed, "Unlike the Holocaust, the Great Famine was not an intentional act of genocide." Steven Katz commented, "What makes the Ukrainian case non-genocidal, and what makes it different from the Holocaust, is the fact that the majority of Ukrainian children survived and, still more, that they were permitted to survive." Adam Ulam agreed too, writing, "Stalin and his closest collaborators had not willed the famine."
        Tauger explained, "The evidence that I have published and other evidence, including recent Ukrainian document collections, show that the famine developed out of a shortage and pervaded the Soviet Union, and that the regime organized a massive program of rationing and relief in towns and in villages, including in Ukraine, but simply did not have enough food. This is why the Soviet famine, an immense crisis and tragedy of the Soviet economy, was not in the same category as the Nazis' mass murders, which had no agricultural or other economic basis." He summed up, "Ukraine received more in food supplies during the famine crisis than it exported to other republics. Soviet authorities made substantial concessions to Ukraine in response to an undeniable natural disaster and transferred resources from Russia to Ukraine for food relief and agricultural recovery."

        Hans Blumenfeld pointed out that famine also struck the Russian regions of Lower Volga and North Caucasus: "This disproves the 'fact' of anti-Ukrainian genocide parallel to Hitler's anti-semitic holocaust. To anyone familiar with the Soviet Union's desperate manpower shortage in those years, the notion that its rulers would deliberately reduce that scarce resource is absurd Up to the 1950s the most frequently quoted figure was two million [famine victims]. Only after it had been established that Hitler's holocaust had claimed six million victims, did anti-Soviet propaganda feel it necessary to top that figure by substituting the fantastic figure of seven to ten million "

        Ellman concluded, "What recent research has found in the archives is not a conscious policy of genocide against Ukraine."

        Vaska Tumir -> Vladimir Boronenko 24 Feb 2015 21:23

        I beg to differ: there was nothing the matter with the Budapest Memorandum of Agreement of 1994 which guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Unfortunately, in November 2013, the EU decided to violate the terms of the Budapest Memo by presenting the then government of Ukraine with an economic ultimatum (something expressly forbidden by Article 3 of that international document several EU countries were signatories to).

        Had the EU honoured the terms of the Budapest Memo and had it agreed to the trilateral economic deliberations both Ukraine and Russia were asking for, nothing of the subsequent mess and the slaughter Kiev's brought to Donbass would have happened.

        The situation can still be rectified by recognizing the new Donetsk and Lugansk Republics as parts of a federal state, along the lines of Switzerland, say, thus preserving Ukraine as a country. Such a solution to the chaos NATO and the EU have brought about would be part of what Jonathan Steele suggests by saying that "a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status, would bring instant de-escalation and make a lasting ceasefire possible in eastern Ukraine".

        HollyOldDog Ecolophant 24 Feb 2015 17:44

        America does not have a language of its own, it is more correctly called a Dialect of English.

        HollyOldDog Dreikaiserbund 24 Feb 2015 17:33

        Russian invasion? What invasion? It's just a myth created by the incompetent.

        Colin Robinson 24 Feb 2015 17:04

        I'm impressed by what Sakwa says about the "monist" versus "pluralist" models of Ukrainian statehood. Indeed the recent "anti terrorist operations" can be seen as failed attempts by the monists to impose their model by force on the south and east.

        If the terms "monist" and "pluralist" come to be used more widely in discussion about the conflict, the world may begin to get more of a handle on what has been happening.

        Kalkriese -> senya 24 Feb 2015 14:38

        And you mean no-one on the US/Ukrainian side is not lying ?

        There is a conspiracy of silence in Washington and Kiev about the true nature of the Neo Nazis operating as regular units within the Ukrainian army.

        Putin is merely playing back by their rules and the fact he is successful in reclaiming Crimea is the cause of all the sour grapes emanating from Kiev.

        Kalkriese -> jezzam 24 Feb 2015 14:30

        "His last thesis - that the east-west reconciliation between Europe and Russia was somehow scuppered by the US and NATO is very hard to follow, or swallow."

        Are you really so naive ? Or just disingenuous ?

        Kalkriese -> prostak 24 Feb 2015 14:26

        "Russian troops have been proven many times"
        Really? By whom ? Where?
        Let's have some proof...

        StopPretending -> MiaPia2015 24 Feb 2015 14:08

        there was no 'Ukraine' state until Stalin created it. Perhaps that was the problem?

        MiaPia2015 24 Feb 2015 13:31

        Steele's analysis, and Sakwas book have one fatal flaw. The origins of this crisis did not start in 1991 with the end of the cold war, but rather its end allowed tensions that had been simmering since the Holodomor of the 1930s when millions of ethnic Ukrainians were starved to death by Stalin in an orchestrated genocide that then allowed ethnic Russians to move into Ukrainian territory. The desire to have an independent, Ukraine-speaking nation have always been there and are no different from the desire of any other country. What we have now is almost an exact repeat of what happened then.

        Steve -> Ennever 22 Feb 2015 19:57

        An interesting article indeed.

        The Odessa massacre if nothing else was evidence of the MSM's bias on this subject.

        50+ people being burnt alive for expressing their opinions seems a choice topic for our "je suis charlie" fanatic press. And yet we heard.... crickets - because it didn't suit their "we support Kiev" agenda.

        But Odessa wasn't the only atrocity in May 2014. The victory parade in Mariupol, May 9th. The National Guard arrive, possibly expecting a town full of Russian terrorists, but find civilians celebrating, understandably irate at the intrusion of military hardware and troops, who then open fire on them anyway.

        Did this get reported in the west?

        jezzam 22 Feb 2015 14:49

        A serious commentator like Steele putting Russia's case is much needed. His comments about Yatsenyuk do not add much that is new though. Yatsenyuk is very anti-Russian - this was already known. His popularity has in fact been much boosted by anti- Russian feelings in Ukraine induced by Putin's military agression. His party is now the largest in the Ukraine parliament.

        Steele's discussion of the Monist and pluralist views is all very well, but he does not discuss the kleptocratic view favoured by Putin and Yanukovych. The main cause of the revolution in Kiev was not the conflict between Monist and pluralist views, but the massive corruption and subversion of democracy in Ukraine, modelled on that of Russia. In Russia the ruling elite cream more than 30% of state income into their own pockets by corrupt practices. Yanukovych had established the same system in Ukraine. He was also well on the way to corrupting the judiciary. He had already locked up his main political opponent on a trumped up charge - again following the Putin model of government.

        Steeles's solution of "a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status" sounds good. Is this to be imposed on Ukraine though? What does it mean? I thought Ukraine was already unaligned before this crisis started. They already had guarantees of their territorial integrity from Russia, the US and UK as well. Fat lot of good that has done them.

        His last thesis - that the east-west reconciliation between Europe and Russia was somehow scuppered by the US and NATO is very hard to follow, or swallow. It is true that NATO is totally dominated by the US - but this is because they spend considerably more on defence than the rest of NATO put together. To this extent, European foreign policy is dominated by the US - this is entirely Europe's own choice and fault though.

        As to Steele's claim that Putin is being demonised, insults between countries are not productive and leaders should be treated with respect by other countries. However it is difficult to treat with respect someone who does not keep his word and lies to your face, particularly when these lies are so transparent. Brezhnev and Andropov never did this - at least not so blatantly.

        tiojo 22 Feb 2015 12:50

        "......that Nato exists to manage the risks created by its existence".

        Now if only the Guardian's current journalists would read this book we might get some decent coverage of events in Ukraine and Russia.

        Marilyn -> Justice 21 Feb 2015 22:37

        My only argument would be the assessment of blame re the snipers - 3 studies have shown them to be from 'the new coalition' and not old gov't, which is in line with the telephone call of Catherine Ashton and Urmas Paet,

        Standupwoman 21 Feb 2015 21:02

        Excellent, balanced article, and I really have to buy this book. I only wonder why the Guardian hasn't included this on its 'Ukraine' page for 19th February...

        GuyCybershy -> sbmfc 21 Feb 2015 17:06

        Especially in the US the public needs every issue distilled to good vs. evil. Anything more complex and they will reject it. This is the result of decades of "divide and conquer" politics.

        Vladimir Boronenko 21 Feb 2015 08:21

        "Even today at this late stage, a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status, would bring instant de-escalation and make a lasting ceasefire possible in eastern Ukraine." No it wouldn't. It is nothing but wishful thinking and delusion all over again. Ukraine had had that status already, and only scrapped it in December by a constitutional Parliament vote exactly because it showed its complete uselessness and impotence at the face of real-life threats. Just like the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 guaranteeing security of Ukraine, with one of the guarantors attacking and the other two looking on, although, if one was to stick to the letter of the Memo, of course, they are not bound to be involved unless its a nuclear threat.

        Johnlockett 20 Feb 2015 19:21

        Excellent article. Very balance and very near to the truth. Thank you
        John Lockett

        Statingobvious 20 Feb 2015 14:28

        An exceptionally unbiased piece where otherwise Russia and Putin bashing (& twisting of facts & outright lying) is the rule.

        mike42 20 Feb 2015 10:04

        "The most disturbing novelty of the Ukrainian crisis is the way Putin and other Russian leaders are routinely demonised. At the height of the cold war when the dispute between Moscow and the west was far more dangerous, backed as it was by the danger of nuclear catastrophe, Brezhnev and Andropov were never treated to such public insults by western commentators and politicians."

        Need more be said?

        Dreikaiserbund Les Mills 20 Feb 2015 09:14

        Challenging the 'MSM script' does not make you a Putinbot. Deriding anyone who supports Ukrainian sovereignty, who is opposed to the Russian invasion and trumpeting Vladimir as a great and wise leader - that is what makes you a Putinbot.

        EnriqueFerro -> theshonny 19 Feb 2015 19:57

        Thank you for the info on 'The War Against Putin' by M.S. King. I'll look for it, because even if it is pro-Putin, it is nonetheless interesting in order to check the rabid and massive anti-Putin and Russia-hating disease spreading out there.

        EnriqueFerro -> Mari5064 19 Feb 2015 19:53

        Mari, I'm afraid you read too many tabloids.

        EnriqueFerro 19 Feb 2015 19:51

        This is an excellent book, of which I'm finishing its reading now; it can be read avidly, because it says the truth, in a dispassionate and academic narrative, far from the typically stupid accounts in the Western media and in the mouths of our gullible and ignorant politicians. Read it and learn a lot about Ukraine, Russia, the EU, and the US/NATO.
        Usually interesting books which don't follow the official record are not displayed in the mass bookshops such as Floyds or Waterstones (to name two of the more serious in the UK). It is a way of censorship, to make it difficult for the public to find critical stuff. I found a lone copy well hidden in the history section at WS. A miracle! I took it quickly, and wonder if it was replaced!!!

        Les Mills -> leafbinder 19 Feb 2015 19:34

        As in the endless accusations of being a "Putinbot" if you have the temerity to challenge the MSM script. Incidentally, I'm surprised that this article has only a handful of comments. I came here via a link on Google news so I can only assume that the Guardian have it hidden away on their site, which definitely fits the anti-Russian agenda.

        leafbinder 19 Feb 2015 17:37

        By far THE best analysis of what sounds like a most insightful book. The reviewer has done us all a great service, since without it we would have never heard about the book from any other "NATO-Western" source. Even worse, the author of the book would be accused of not being "real" as is often the accusation when a comment appears that does not swallow Western propaganda line-hook-and-sinker.

        John Hansen 19 Feb 2015 14:31

        Jonathan Steele:

        Superb analysis of a significant book.

        :-)

        theshonny 19 Feb 2015 13:15

        Bought 'The War Against Putin' by M.S. King a short while ago, and found it going so much pro-Putin that it lost its impact. So now I hope for a more balanced account.

        I have a strong suspicion that the demonising of Putin is at least in part a method to draw attention away from US (and maybe Israeli) warmongering of the last decades, so I hope this book will give a fairly balanced account of what's really taking place in Crimea and Ukraine.

        Also I suspect that the CIA is, true to form, stirring up the Ukrainians so to destabilise Russian influence.

        sbmfc 19 Feb 2015 07:31

        I think the demonisation of Putin stems from the influence of Hollywood narratives in our societal perception.

        The idea of the villain is so commonplace that is widely assumed that anyone with a different agenda to ones own is perceived to be attempting to working directly against our own personal interests rather than in aid of their own different and completely independent interests.

        Essentially everything has been so dumbed down that only a good/evil narrative can be comprehended and the labels are only fit one way. The facts themselves are irrelevant.

        AnyFictionalName 19 Feb 2015 05:50

        When PM Yatsenyuk said:

        I don't want Ukrainian youths (i.e. those who consider their native language to be Ukrainian or Russian) to learn the Russian language, I want them to learn the English language.

        Is that kind of racism, inferiority complex or just sheer stupidity?

        [Feb 24, 2015] UK Journalist Calls Out Fraud on Readers in Coverage of HSBC

        Notable quotes:
        "... Even television spokesmodels and serial liars are considered credentialed journalists in good standing as long as they remain within the well defined bounds of the corporatist credibility trap. ..."
        "... JP Morgan Tops New List of Risky Banks ..."
        "... ying and yang ..."
        Feb 24, 2015 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com

        "An editorial operation that is clearly influenced by advertising is classic appeasement. Once a very powerful body know they can exert influence they know they can come back and threaten you. It totally changes the relationship you have with them. You know that even if you are robust you won't be supported and will be undermined...

        The coverage of HSBC in Britain's Daily Telegraph is a fraud on its readers. If major newspapers allow corporations to influence their content for fear of losing advertising revenue, democracy itself is in peril."

        A 'principled resignation' is a phenomenon somewhat unfamiliar to US readers. Rarely does a public figure or a politician resign because they is something they won't do to get along. They resign because they get caught doing something that is so repugnant to public sentiment that they are finished, at least for a while. We have a marvelous way of excusing and ignoring behavior in the selected elite that would shame a garbageman into changing their name and moving.

        And so a decline in journalistic standards is not as great of an issue in the States, because the major media was captured by a handful of corporations in the 1990's, in part thanks to Bill Clinton's change in ownership rules.

        So one might ask, what standards? What were the standards that allowed the lies that have led to war, that covered up mass spying and torture, and that allowed one of the greatest thefts of the public trust in history to occur in the 'bank bailouts,' with a coordinated suppression of any meaningful protest?

        In the recent World Press Freedom Index, the US ranked 49th, in same tier as Romania, El Salvador, and Niger.

        Their standards have long been so low that journalist may be more of a hollow title on a business card than a calling to a profession with time-honored standards.

        In the States, journalistic independence and integrity were some years ago led down a blind alley, and quietly strangled.

        The capture of key institutions of democracy are already well underway or in place. Where this leads, one cannot say. But it does not bode well.

        Even television spokesmodels and serial liars are considered 'credentialed journalists' in good standing as long as they remain within the well defined bounds of the corporatist credibility trap.

        Related: JP Morgan Tops New List of Risky Banks

        Why I Have Resigned From the Telegraph

        Peter Osborne

        17 February 2015

        ...With the collapse in standards has come a most sinister development. It has long been axiomatic in quality British journalism that the advertising department and editorial should be kept rigorously apart. There is a great deal of evidence that, at the Telegraph, this distinction has collapsed...

        This brings me to a second and even more important point that bears not just on the fate of one newspaper but on public life as a whole. A free press is essential to a healthy democracy. There is a purpose to journalism, and it is not just to entertain. It is not to pander to political power, big corporations and rich men. Newspapers have what amounts in the end to a constitutional duty to tell their readers the truth.

        It is not only the Telegraph that is at fault here. The past few years have seen the rise of shadowy executives who determine what truths can and what truths can't be conveyed across the mainstream media. The criminality of News International newspapers during the phone hacking years was a particularly grotesque example of this wholly malign phenomenon. All the newspaper groups, bar the magnificent exception of the Guardian, maintained a culture of omerta around phone-hacking, even if (like the Telegraph) they had not themselves been involved. One of the consequences of this conspiracy of silence was the appointment of Andy Coulson, who has since been jailed and now faces further charges of perjury, as director of communications in 10 Downing Street...

        This was the pivotal moment. From the start of 2013 onwards stories critical of HSBC were discouraged. HSBC suspended its advertising with the Telegraph. Its account, I have been told by an extremely well informed insider, was extremely valuable. HSBC, as one former Telegraph executive told me, is "the advertiser you literally cannot afford to offend". HSBC today refused to comment when I asked whether the bank's decision to stop advertising with the Telegraph was connected in any way with the paper's investigation into the Jersey accounts.

        Read the entire article at OpenDemocracy here.

        Here are some selections from financial television. I do not mean to pick on CNBC. Bloomberg and Fox are certainly no better, and in many ways probably worse.

        And the mainstream media now pretty much follows the same patterns on its high gloss coverage whether it be on television or in print.

        But if you watch the shows on Sunday morning where very serious people come to discuss important public and foreign policy issues of war and peace, basic freedoms, the economy, what you find is a pre-sorted selection of talking heads hurling the latest ying and yang of corporatist spin at each other, with the occasional honest individual, never to be invited again, who is harangued by the network 'journalist.'

        [Feb 24, 2015] UK Journalist Calls Out Fraud on Readers in Coverage of HSBC

        Notable quotes:
        "... Even television spokesmodels and serial liars are considered credentialed journalists in good standing as long as they remain within the well defined bounds of the corporatist credibility trap. ..."
        "... JP Morgan Tops New List of Risky Banks ..."
        "... ying and yang ..."
        Feb 24, 2015 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com

        "An editorial operation that is clearly influenced by advertising is classic appeasement. Once a very powerful body know they can exert influence they know they can come back and threaten you. It totally changes the relationship you have with them. You know that even if you are robust you won't be supported and will be undermined...

        The coverage of HSBC in Britain's Daily Telegraph is a fraud on its readers. If major newspapers allow corporations to influence their content for fear of losing advertising revenue, democracy itself is in peril."

        A 'principled resignation' is a phenomenon somewhat unfamiliar to US readers. Rarely does a public figure or a politician resign because they is something they won't do to get along. They resign because they get caught doing something that is so repugnant to public sentiment that they are finished, at least for a while. We have a marvelous way of excusing and ignoring behavior in the selected elite that would shame a garbageman into changing their name and moving.

        And so a decline in journalistic standards is not as great of an issue in the States, because the major media was captured by a handful of corporations in the 1990's, in part thanks to Bill Clinton's change in ownership rules.

        So one might ask, what standards? What were the standards that allowed the lies that have led to war, that covered up mass spying and torture, and that allowed one of the greatest thefts of the public trust in history to occur in the 'bank bailouts,' with a coordinated suppression of any meaningful protest?

        In the recent World Press Freedom Index, the US ranked 49th, in same tier as Romania, El Salvador, and Niger.

        Their standards have long been so low that journalist may be more of a hollow title on a business card than a calling to a profession with time-honored standards.

        In the States, journalistic independence and integrity were some years ago led down a blind alley, and quietly strangled.

        The capture of key institutions of democracy are already well underway or in place. Where this leads, one cannot say. But it does not bode well.

        Even television spokesmodels and serial liars are considered 'credentialed journalists' in good standing as long as they remain within the well defined bounds of the corporatist credibility trap.

        Related: JP Morgan Tops New List of Risky Banks

        Why I Have Resigned From the Telegraph

        Peter Osborne

        17 February 2015

        ...With the collapse in standards has come a most sinister development. It has long been axiomatic in quality British journalism that the advertising department and editorial should be kept rigorously apart. There is a great deal of evidence that, at the Telegraph, this distinction has collapsed...

        This brings me to a second and even more important point that bears not just on the fate of one newspaper but on public life as a whole. A free press is essential to a healthy democracy. There is a purpose to journalism, and it is not just to entertain. It is not to pander to political power, big corporations and rich men. Newspapers have what amounts in the end to a constitutional duty to tell their readers the truth.

        It is not only the Telegraph that is at fault here. The past few years have seen the rise of shadowy executives who determine what truths can and what truths can't be conveyed across the mainstream media. The criminality of News International newspapers during the phone hacking years was a particularly grotesque example of this wholly malign phenomenon. All the newspaper groups, bar the magnificent exception of the Guardian, maintained a culture of omerta around phone-hacking, even if (like the Telegraph) they had not themselves been involved. One of the consequences of this conspiracy of silence was the appointment of Andy Coulson, who has since been jailed and now faces further charges of perjury, as director of communications in 10 Downing Street...

        This was the pivotal moment. From the start of 2013 onwards stories critical of HSBC were discouraged. HSBC suspended its advertising with the Telegraph. Its account, I have been told by an extremely well informed insider, was extremely valuable. HSBC, as one former Telegraph executive told me, is "the advertiser you literally cannot afford to offend". HSBC today refused to comment when I asked whether the bank's decision to stop advertising with the Telegraph was connected in any way with the paper's investigation into the Jersey accounts.

        Read the entire article at OpenDemocracy here.

        Here are some selections from financial television. I do not mean to pick on CNBC. Bloomberg and Fox are certainly no better, and in many ways probably worse.

        And the mainstream media now pretty much follows the same patterns on its high gloss coverage whether it be on television or in print.

        But if you watch the shows on Sunday morning where very serious people come to discuss important public and foreign policy issues of war and peace, basic freedoms, the economy, what you find is a pre-sorted selection of talking heads hurling the latest ying and yang of corporatist spin at each other, with the occasional honest individual, never to be invited again, who is harangued by the network 'journalist.'

        [Feb 24, 2015] Pictures From a Currency War, With Narrative

        'Color revolutions' were becoming popular, as one country after another was falling into chaos, the kind that produces fire sales in productive assets and the elimination of inconvenient local rivals to power.
        Feb 18, 2015 | Jesse's Café Américain

        I have noticed lately that the spinmeisters are now latching on to the term 'currency war,' but are trying to deflect it merely to an intensification of the beggar thy neighbor strategy of devaluing your currency to subsidize exports and penalize imports.

        This has been going on for a long time, most notably by the Asian Tigers, led by Japan and then perfected by China. But make no mistake, the real heart of this process is in an Anglo-American banking/industrial cartel that intends to beggar everybody.

        The multinational corporations went along with it. They were its great lobbyists, and their wealthy scions the founders of think tanks to provide it a rationale and respectability.

        Walmart wrote a chapter in the new gospel of greed as a means of undermining wages and the American working class by insisting, as far back as the 1990's and the Clinton era, that suppliers start offshoring to China. And servile politicians opened the doors wide, and turned a blind eye to abuses that are still coming home to roost.

        Part of the arrangement was a quid pro quo. The multinationals, who successfully staged a financial coup d'état in the States and Western Europe, were to extend the reach of their strong dollar policy and europression via foreign direct investments in resources rich overseas nations and foreign markets in order to consolidate their power into the non-democratic world.

        But China and Russia balked at their end of the presumed bargain. They realized that opening their own doors to dollar exploitation, and allowing the economic hitmen to come in and pick up assets on the cheap, would lead to eventual political unrest, encirclement, and their own loss of power.

        'Color revolutions' were becoming popular, as one country after another was falling into chaos, the kind that produces fire sales in productive assets and the elimination of inconvenient local rivals to power. And in Europe, the powers that be created a Eurozone structure that any decent economist would know was unsustainable, and destined to create an unstable situation of few winners and many big losers.

        And so a consortium of nations began to resist. Some called them the BRICS. They became alarmed, and then convinced, that allowing a single nation or group of multinationals to control the world's reserve currency was like a Ponzi scheme that could only continue on until its acquired the whip hand of power everywhere.

        They started to speak up in international monetary organizations, long dominated by the Anglo-American banking and industrial cartels. They demanded the establishment of a new monetary standard for international trade that was broadly based, to replace the failed Bretton Woods Agreement that had continuing on as the ad hoc dollar hegemony known as Bretton Woods II after Nixon arbitrarily broke the formal agreement with the closing of the gold window in 1971.

        And so we see a new phenomenon today, in which the long term selling of gold to control its price, resulting in the post-Bretton Woods bear market that lasted over twenty years, has given way to net gold buying by the world's central banks, and in increasing size. And the creation of a paper gold market in parallel, through which the West seeks to control the price and supply of gold, to maintain their financial operation while they more aggressively pursue nation recycling and repurposing, draconian trade deals that supplant domestic governance, and when that fails, through internal insurgencies and at times, overt military action.

        Simultaneously, there are a proliferation of bilateral trade deals in which currency arrangements are being made between countries, and even among small regional groups of nations, to conduct their business outside of the US Dollar system. They are even building up their own financial networks and infrastructure in response to increasingly aggressive use of sanctions and other forms of economic pressure.

        The US and UK, like China and Russia, are not immune to concerns about domestic unrest. A strong dollar policy and the support for a policy of offshoring to increase corporate profits are wreaking havoc on one of the world's greatest popular economic achievements: the US middle class.

        Increasingly concerned, the governments are cracking down on any sparks of domestic dissent, targeting leaders, vilifying and suppressing minorities, and increasing the surveillance of its own people. They are weaponizing the domestic police forces, and establishing the 'legal means' by which control can be maintained in the face of increasing misery and discontent at home.

        It is not a pretty picture. It is an old story of greed and deceit, of empire and world conquest, of the desolating sacrilege of betraying those who have fought for freedom and civil rights to cash in for their own selfish gains.

        Will this end in a new gold standard, as this article A New Gold Standard in the Making, which is the source of these graphs suggests? I surely do not know, and still do not think so.

        If you have been following the thought process here, going back before even the establishment of this blog to 2000, I have felt that the most likely course will be the establishment of a new unit of international currency, similar to but not the same as the SDR, with a far broader composition of currencies and commodities included, so that no single group would be able to control it for their own purposes.

        Stagflation is no natural phenomenon. It is the act of man in a policy intervention or policy error par excellence. Until OPEC was able to trigger a stagflation through their use of an oil embargo and price cartel in the 1970's in the favorable conditions created by economic rot introduced by years of discretionary, aggressive war in Southeast Asia and the ensuing debts, most economists thought it to be impossible, and certainly not a 'natural' outcome.

        I think that domestic reform will be coming, and this is necessary because no new monetary standard is going to repair a system that has failed from within due to corruption and systemic injustice.

        Old systems, even when they finally turn to visible abuse as they decline, can fail for a very long time, seemingly unbeatable, until they finally collapse from within. This is how it was for the fall of the old Soviet Union, and this is how it may be for the Anglo-American cartel and their attendant nations like Germany and Japan.

        It is still possible that Russia and China could make a deal with the Anglo-Americans and establish a tri-partite world government, with their own spheres of control and interest. As you may recall this was the way George Orwell saw it in 1984. I have been watching for that possible development based on my own research on the growth of international capital markets and flows since 1990 at least. People bring this up and so I wish to address it now, once and for all. I am aware of the possible deeper significance of these developments from an eschatological perspective. But recall that even the great apostle, who was 'lifted up to the third heaven,' was mistaken in his estimation of it, thinking it a phenomenon of his own time. It is a mistake of vanity to go too far in such arcane and difficult subjects, in pursuit of sick thrills that only serve to distract us from our call to the work of the day, and the practical task of finding sanctity and salvation in the world.

        How we will react to this individually is critical for our own long term survival as spiritual beings regardless, since we all face our own ends individually. Of this we can be sure. We are told that most will give in, despairing at the increase in wickedness, and seek for power and riches of their own beyond all reason and grace. And it requires no end time to see this happening through all ages.

        Change is coming. It may be a new arrangement that brings with it the blessing of reform, transparency and justice through peaceful evolution. It may be delayed and more difficult. What cannot be sustained will not continue.

        This will end. But perhaps not very well. To a great extent that is up to us, unless we stand by and do nothing. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." But what shall I to do? Begin with yourself, despising only the fear and the evil in you. Do as you have been instructed by the two great commandments, which have been implanted as a seed in your heart.

        You are called. You choose the answer.

        [Feb 24, 2015] Another example of Western hypocrisy!

        Feb 23, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

        Moscow Exile, February 23, 2015 at 11:31 am

        Another example of Western hypocrisy!

        I had completely forgotten about this fact and was only reminded of it whilst browsing through comments on Saker about 10 minutes ago:

        Ukraine Facing Civil War: Lviv Declares Independence from Yanukovich Rule

        That was exactly 1 year and 4 days ago – before the "Kremlin backed" provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk started talking of secession.

        A few hours after declaring their independence from the Ukraine, Galitsian "protesters seized the prosecutor's office in central Lviv and forced a surrender by interior ministry police [and] the executive committee of the region council – also called the People's Rada – claimed control over the region".

        And what did the West have to say about this?

        What did "Gosh" Ashton think?

        Sweet fuck all!

        Furthermore, this was the time when the Galitsians also began seizing government arsenals in the heartland of Banderastan, that place which Porky calls the "foundation of the Ukrainian nation".

        Before they Galitsians were sure that Yanukovich would collapse, the Banderites of Lvov province declared their independence from the Ukraine. However, now that they hold total power, according to Porky they are all of a sudden the embodiment of "united Ukraine", a "country" from which they had decided to secede.

        Here's a tweet that a German Nazi resident of Lvov gleefully posted after his Galitsian shit-wit chums had seized artillery from a government arsenal after having declared the independence of the Lvov province in February 2014:

        Imagine the reaction of Western presstitutes, Kerry, Merkel, the EU, Call-Me-Dave et al if a picture had been posted last February of a similar scene on the streets of Donetsk. They would have screamed in unison: "Russian artillery!!!"

        Check out Theiner'stweets at @noclad if you feel so inclined.

        (Have a good supply of vomit bags near at hand.)

        [Feb 24, 2015] Ukraine crisis: Fears grow that vital port of Mariupol is Moscow's next target following Kharkiv blast

        The article is a waste of time, but the comments are well worth a read.

        ... ...

        [Feb 24, 2015] An excerpt from Vaclav Klaus's testimony to that House of Lords

        Tim Owen, February 22, 2015 at 6:59 pm
        Czech's strike again!

        If this is not the best bit of good sense coming out of a politician's mouth in recent memory I don't know what is. An excerpt from Vaclav Klaus's testimony to that House of Lords:

        "'I am also no a prioristic advocate or defender of Russia or Mr Putin due to our communist experience. I am the last one to be motivated to speak positively about that country. However, our life with communism taught us something. Since then, I have always tried to oppose lies and manipulative propaganda, which I see in this case just now. '

        'Moreover, in April in our commentary on the situation in Ukraine we stated that Ukraine was a heterogeneous, divided country, and that an attempt to forcefully and artificially change its geopolitical orientation would inevitably result in its break-up, if not its destruction. We considered the country too fragile and with too weak an internal coherence to try to make a sudden change. I am sorry to say that it developed according to our expectations. I am afraid that Ukraine was sort of misused. The West suddenly and unexpectedly offered Ukraine early EU affiliation.

        'I am afraid that the West, especially western Europe, has accepted a very simplified interpretation of events in Ukraine. According to the West, the Ukraine crisis has been caused by external Russian aggression. The internal causes of the crisis have been ignored, and so are the evident ethnic, ideological and other divisions in Ukraine.

        'The developments that have taken place since the spring of this year have proved that this approach cannot lead to a solution of the problem. It only deepens the division of the country, increases the tragic costs of its crisis and further destabilises the country. So I do not see that the politicians in Ukraine are looking for a political solution. They do not have any compromise proposals that they could offer to the people of eastern Ukraine to win their confidence. They rely on fighting, on repression and on unrealistic expectations of western economic and military aid.'

        He then adds: ' I cannot see inside the heads of leading Russian politicians but I do not believe that Russia wanted or needed this to happen. My understanding is that Russia was dragged into it. Dragging Russia into the conflict is a way of making Ukraine a permanent hotspot of global tensions and creating permanent instability in a country that deserves, after decades of suffering under communism, a quiet and positive evolution.'

        http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/02/putins-bite-is-worse-than-his-bark-should-we-have-been-surprised.html

        After Putin gets over to these shores and puts the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson and the rest of our "job-creating" oligarchs in their place I would be very happy to receive a Czech as Vice Consul in our harmless little territory.

        Tim Owen says: , February 22, 2015 at 8:08 pm

        Oligarch update:

        http://m.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/02/21/kolomoisky-is-about-to-devour-ukraine.html

        Scorpions in a jar.

        xxx, February 22, 2015 at 8:19 pm

        This is interesting:

        http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/22/60-percent-of-ukrainian-casualties-due-to-friendly-fire-and-incompetence/

        Interesting not for what this British mercenary says – but for the fact that he is open about having been there.
        OK, one swallow does not a summer make, but isn't it remarkable that we now have open admission that there are westerners from NATO countries fighting on the Kiev side.

        kirill, February 22, 2015 at 9:04 pm

        At the same time it sounds like a spew of apologia. As if the rebels have to do nothing and wait for the Ukr forces to off themselves. This fails the smell test. In particular, the role of US and NATO advisers is poofed out of existence. They are there and giving the regime forces as much help as Russia is giving the rebels.

        It really is hard for these clowns to accept they are losing on the front. How could untermenschen possibly do this to them.

        colliemum, February 22, 2015 at 9:26 pm

        What is funny here is that the actual untermenschen are those who're too stupid to avoid blue-on-blue fire and think that throwing molotov cocktails a year ago on the Maidan makes them into proper soldiers …

        [Feb 23, 2015] On the way to war on Russia By Brian Cloughley

        Quote: " This is nonsense, because there is no economic, political or military point in Russia trying to invade the Baltic States or any other country on its borders. There has been no indication of any such move - other than in bizarre statements by such as Mr Herbst and twisted reports in Western news media. It is absurd and intellectually demeaning and deceitful to suggest otherwise, and it is regrettable that someone of the superior intelligence of Mr Herbst could lower himself to say such a thing. But it makes good propaganda.
        Feb 18, 2015 | Asia Times Online

        Since the Soviet collapse - as Moscow had feared - [the NATO] alliance has spread eastward, expanding along a line from Estonia in the north to Romania and Bulgaria in the south. The Kremlin claims it had Western assurances that would not happen. Now, Moscow's only buffers to a complete NATO encirclement on its western border are Finland, Belarus and Ukraine. The Kremlin would not have to be paranoid to look at that map with concern. - Stars and Stripes (US Armed Forces newspaper), February 13, 2015.

        The Minsk Agreement of February 12, 2015, was arranged by the leaders of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine and contained important provisions concerning future treatment of citizens in the Russian-speaking, Russia-cultured eastern districts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts in Ukraine where there has been vicious fighting between separatist forces and government troops supported by militias.

        Most Western media did not report that the accord was signed by the leaders of the provinces (oblasts) of Donetsk and Luhansk as well as representatives of Russia and Ukraine, but the former two matter greatly in implementation of its provisions.

        To the disappointment of much of the West, and especially the United States, it appears that the great majority of the inhabitants of these regions are to be granted much of what they have been seeking (with robust support by Russia), which includes the right to speak and receive education in their birth-language; restitution of pension payments and other central revenue moneys that were stopped by the Kiev government; constitutional reform of Ukraine including "approval of permanent legislation on the special status of particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk"; and free local elections in the oblasts.

        The way to peace will not be easy but the substance of the accord will go far to convincing the people of the eastern oblasts that they will not in future be treated as second-class citizens. They will be permitted an appropriate degree of decision-making in their regions, and if there is goodwill on the part of the Kiev government there is reason to believe that fair governance could apply. A major problem, however, is the attitude of the United States and Britain concerning Russia and Ukraine.

        Neither the US nor the UK was privy to discussions between participants in the Minsk talks except through technical intercept by their intelligence agencies and more intimate but necessarily partial description by Kiev's President Petro Poroshenko, whose subordinates reported through US and British conduits.

        London and Washington were excluded from negotiations because neither wishes a solution that could be agreeable to Russia and the Russian-cultured regions of east Ukraine.

        Both are uncompromisingly intent on humiliating Moscow, and although Britain is verging on irrelevance in world affairs except as a decayed and limited associate of the US in whatever martial venture may be embarked upon by Washington, the US Congress and White House are for once in agreement and are determined to destroy Russia's economy and topple its president and are being provocatively challenging in pursuit of that aim.

        There hasn't been such deliberate squaring-up politically and militarily since the height of the last Cold War. President Barack Obama's speeches about Russia and President Vladimir Putin have been bellicose, abusive and personally insolent to the point of immature mindlessness. He does not realize that his contempt and threats will not be forgiven by the Russian people who, it is only too often overlooked, are proud of being Russian and understandably resent being insulted.

        Obama claimed last year that the US "is and will remain the one indispensable nation in the world", which was regarded with mild derision by many nations; but now Russians are realizing what he meant by his chest-pounding, because America has fostered the Ukraine mess in attempting to justify its stance of uncompromising aggression against them.

        But Ukraine has nothing to do with the United States. It is on the border of Russia, not the US. It is not a member of NATO. It is not a member of the European Union. It has no defense or political treaty of any sort with the US. It is 5,000 miles - 8,000 kilometers - from Washington to Kiev and it is doubtful if more than a handful of members of Congress could find Ukraine on a map.

        In March 2014, the province of Crimea declared itself to be separate from Ukraine. There was a referendum on sovereignty by its 2.4 million inhabitants. The Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe was asked to monitor and report on the referendum, but refused to do so. Both referendum and declaration were strongly condemned by the United States.

        Some 60% of the inhabitants of Crimea are Russian-speaking, Russian-cultured and Russian-educated, and they voted to rejoin Russia from which they had been separated by the diktat of Soviet chairman Nikita Khrushchev - a Ukrainian. It would be strange if they did not wish to accede to a country that welcomes their kinship and is economically benevolent concerning their future.

        Russia's support for the people of eastern Ukraine - and there is indubitably a great deal of assistance, both political and military, similar to that of the US-NATO alliance for the people of the breakaway Kosovo region of Serbia in 2008 - is based on the fact that the great majority of people there are Russian-speaking, Russian-cultured and discriminated against by the Ukrainian government, just as Kosovans were persecuted by Serbs.

        So it is not surprising that the majority of inhabitants of the eastern areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts want to "dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another" and be granted a large degree of autonomy - or even join Russia. The US refuses to admit that they might have even the slightest justification for their case.

        There has been a US-led media campaign attempting to persuade the public, in the words of John Herbst, former US ambassador to Ukraine, that President Putin's "provocations against the Baltic states, against Kazakhstan, indicate his goals are greater than Ukraine. If we don't stop Mr Putin in Ukraine we may be dealing with him in Estonia."

        This is nonsense, because there is no economic, political or military point in Russia trying to invade the Baltic States or any other country on its borders. There has been no indication of any such move - other than in bizarre statements by such as Mr Herbst and twisted reports in Western news media. It is absurd and intellectually demeaning and deceitful to suggest otherwise, and it is regrettable that someone of the superior intelligence of Mr Herbst could lower himself to say such a thing.

        But it makes good propaganda.

        In similar vein, President Putin's statement to Ukraine's President Poroshenko that "If I wanted, in two days I could have Russian troops not only in Kiev, but also in Riga, Vilnius, Tallinn, Warsaw and Bucharest" was reported by Britain's Daily Telegraph as "President Vladimir Putin privately threatened to invade Poland, Romania and the Baltic states" - which was malicious misrepresentation of what he said.

        Putin was making the point that Russia's armed forces could easily have taken successful military action against neighboring countries had they been ordered to do so - but he has no intention of doing anything so rash and stupid. What he and the Russian people want is justice and political choice for the ethnically Russian people in eastern Ukraine, as well as increasing bilaterally lucrative trade arrangements with adjoining countries. It would be insane for Moscow to hazard commercial links with any of its neighbors. Washington, on the other hand, is trying to break them.

        Following the Minsk agreement, Canada, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States, (together with France and Germany, the Group of Seven) mildly welcomed it - for of course they had no public alternative - but took the opportunity, according to the White House, to "again condemn Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea which is in violation of international law".

        It appears that the US-stimulated nations of the G-7 demand that Crimea, with its 60% ethnic Russian population, should be in some fashion taken over by the Kiev government against the will of the majority of the people of that longtime Russian region.

        This would satisfy the aim of the US-NATO alliance, which wished and still wishes Ukraine to become a member of that organization, joining those already positioned on Russia's border. For US-NATO, the problem, now, is that the massive seaport at Sevastopol is independent of Kiev and will therefore be denied to US-NATO as a base from which to dominate the Black Sea.

        The US-led anti-Russia alliance continues to extend its influence along Russia's borders, and it is obvious that no matter what happens in Ukraine's eastern oblasts there will be continuing confrontation with Russia, led by Washington.

        Mikhail Gorbachev - the man whose empathy with president Ronald Reagan so helped to end the first Cold War - observed about the stance of US-NATO that "I cannot be sure that the [new] Cold War will not bring about a 'hot' one. I'm afraid they might take the risk."

        Given the intemperate and increasingly confrontational posture of the US and some of its NATO alliance supporters, the risk seems high. They are hazarding the lives of us all.

        Brian Cloughley is a former soldier who writes on military and political affairs, mainly concerning the sub-continent. The fourth edition of his book A History of the Pakistan Army was published last year.

        /neocons.shtml matches

        (Copyright 2015 Brian Cloughley)

        [Feb 23, 2015] Ukraine: UK and EU 'badly misread' Russia

        British neocons start realizing the size of the damage Ukrainian coup d'état inflicted of EU... But they still follow the US like an obedient poodle...
        Feb 20, 2015 | bbc.com

        The UK and the EU have been accused of a "catastrophic misreading" of the mood in the Kremlin in the run-up to the crisis in Ukraine.

        The House of Lords EU committee claimed Europe "sleepwalked" into the crisis.

        The EU had not realised the depth of Russian hostility to its plans for closer relations with Ukraine, it said.

        ... ... ...

        Mr Hollande said: "With the [German] Chancellor we have never stopped speaking since the [September 2014] Minsk agreements and we are more convinced than ever that they must be applied - all the agreements, nothing but the agreements."

        ... ... ...

        Elsewhere, shelling was reported in several parts of eastern Ukraine on Thursday, including around the rebel-held city of Donetsk.

        ... ... ...

        Sir Andrew Wood, former British ambassador to Russia, agreed with the report's assessment, calling the situation a "dangerous moment" because Russia's frustrations could overspill into other areas, with increasing pressure on Baltic states.

        ... ... ...

        It said both leaders had agreed European member states must review the EU's response to the crisis, and should make clear to Russia that pro-Russian rebels must abide by the ceasefire.

        The European Council is made up of the heads of the 28 EU member states and it sets the EU's overall political direction and priorities.

        The US has also said it is "deeply troubled" by reports of continued fighting in eastern Ukraine.

        The streets of Debaltseve were mostly deserted as we entered the city for the first time since intense fighting ended.

        Those civilians still holed up in the city, who have been without water, gas and electricity since early January, were slowly emerging from shelters to see what was left of their homes.

        But there were more rebels than civilians, with convoys of victorious separatists returning from the recent clashes.

        Evidence of the fighting was littered across the roads and we spotted the bodies of two Ukrainian solders that had been lying in the cold for three days.

        Poroshenko bruised by army retreat

        [Feb 22, 2015] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68RErgHOzN8

        One year of the EuroMaidan coup d'état. From comments: "This video should be remembered with the US PNAC: Project for the New American Century; the original Wolfowitz doctrine"

        tony p

        +Martin John

        Having a Russian wife and family in Russia indeed allows me see this crisis from two positions. I know first hand what's happening there, my government is a shameful lapdog of US hegemony. What you have posted is 99% fact, I'll let the 1% go because nothing is 100%.

        Paul Meyer

        MOST USEFUL INFORMATION, so the deal brokered by Germany, France and Poland did NOT MEET the U.S. requirements!

        THAT"S Why it had to be done via coup de' etat!

        obyvatel

        Stop blaming the "Western World". The countries of the West have long ceased functioning as democracies. Western politics is run by media mind-control, plutocratic government, and money monopoly.

        Medicine, science, education, agriculture, and trade have all been turned into the servants of plutocracy.

        Truth is, we live under dictatorship. The spirit and much of the personnel of the dictatorship has been provided by the Jewish cult. 

        BigSmartArmed

        That is absolutely true, with one small clarification - Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA, all have laws that allow ownership of weapons. Even though anti-gun legislation is repeatedly pushed through legal systems, and people just surrender their rights, tens of million of people are still armed and have a choice of NOT to accepting totalitarianism, to reject consumerism and plutocracy.

        All people have to do is say no, and stand firm. That's all it is. When the jackboots come, then it'll be a choice of submission to slavery, or fighting for freedom.

        That's the choice East Ukrainians have made, and they didn't have weapons to begin with, they just stood firm against literal Nazis, that were trained, armed and paid for by the same bastards that are busy disarming the Western population to completely push it into total compliance.

        Ukraine is a perfect example for what is planned for the West; surrender to the NWO and complete compliance with dictatorship, or fight against it. 

        Ralph London

        5 hours ago

        Well done Martin, thanks for posting this. This is another nail in the HELL coffins of the US Government, poroSHITko, yats, and the others.

        This video should be remembered with the US PNAC: Project for the New American Century; the original wolfowitz doctrine;

        Mearsheimer's article titled Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault at: www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault

        'Although the full extent of US involvement has not yet come to light, it is clear that Washington backed the coup.

        Nuland [wife of Robert Kagan - co-founder of PNAC] and Republican Senator John McCain participated in antigovernment demonstrations, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Ukraine, proclaimed after Yanukovych's toppling that it was "a day for the history books."

        As a leaked telephone recording revealed, Nuland had advocated regime change and wanted the Ukrainian politician Arseniy Yatsenyuk to become prime minister in the new government, which he did.'

        And obummer's quote mention in the video, but in print: 'and Yanukovych then fleeing after we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine' - http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/02/01/pres-obama-on-fareed-zakaria-gps-cnn-exclusive/.

        Also a good contextual read is the former US Marine General Smedley Butler's short but excellent booklet: War is a Racket'.

        [Feb 22, 2015] Propaganda and Disinformation How the CIA Manufactures History By Victor Marchetti

        In the eyes of posterity it will inevitably seem that, in safeguarding our freedom, we destroyed it. The vast clandestine apparatus we built up to prove our enemies' resources and intentions only served in the end to confuse our own purposes; that practice of deceiving others for the good of the state led infallibly to our deceiving ourselves; and that vast army of clandestine personnel built up to execute these purposes were soon caught up in the web of their own sick fantasies, with disastrous consequences for them and us.

        -- Malcom Muggeridge, May 1966

        That, in a nutshell, sums up what the CIA has accomplished over the years through its various clandestine propaganda and disinformation programs. It has unwittingly and, often, deliberately deceived itself -- and the American taxpayer. The CIA is a master at distorting history -- even creating its own version of history to suit its institutional and operational purposes. It can do this largely because of two great advantages it possesses. One is the excessively secret environment in which it operates, and the other is that it is essentially a private instrument of the presidency.

        The real reason for the official secrecy, in most instances, is not to keep the opposition (the CIA's euphemistic term for the enemy) from knowing what is going on; the enemy usually does know. The basic reason for governmental secrecy is to keep you, the American public, from knowing -- for you, too, are considered the opposition, or enemy -- so that you cannot interfere. When the public does not know what the government or the CIA is doing, it cannot voice its approval or disapproval of their actions. In fact, they can even lie to your about what they are doing or have done, and you will not know it.

        As for the second advantage, despite frequent suggestion that the CIA is a rogue elephant, the truth is that the agency functions at the direction of and in response to the office of the president. All of its major clandestine operations are carried out with the direct approval of or on direct orders from the White House. The CIA is a secret tool of the president -- every president. And every president since Truman has lied to the American people in order to protect the agency. When lies have failed, it has been the duty of the CIA to take the blame for the president, thus protecting him. This is known in the business as "plausible denial."

        The CIA, functioning as a secret instrument of the U.S. government and the presidency, has long misused and abused history and continues to do so. I first became concerned about this historical distortion in 1957, when I was a young officer in the Clandestine Services of the CIA.

        One night, after work, I was walking down Constitution Avenue with a fellow officer, who previously had been a reporter for United Press.

        "How are they ever going to know," he asked.

        "Who? How is 'who' ever going to know what?" I asked.

        "How are the American people ever going to know what the truth is? How are they going to know what the truth is about what we are doing and have done over the years?" he said. "We operate in secrecy, we deal in deception and disinformation, and then we burn our files. How will the historians ever be able to learn the complete truth about what we've done in these various operations, these operations that have had such a major impact on so many important events in history?"

        I couldn't answer him, then. And I can't answer him now. I don't know how the American people will ever really know the truth about the many things that the CIA has been involved in. Or how they will ever know the truth about the great historical events of our times. The government is continually writing and rewriting history -- often with the CIA's help -- to suit its own purposes. Here is a current example.

        Just last month in Moscow, there was a meeting, a very strange meeting. Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara met with former Soviet foreign minister Andrei Gromyko and a member of the Cuban Politburo. These three men, along with lesser former officials of their governments, has all been involved in the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, and they had gathered intheSoviet capital to discuss what has really occurred in that monumental crisis, which almost led to World War III.

        Since I, too, had been personally involved in that crisis, I took some interest in the news reports coming out of Moscow concerning the doings of this rather odd gathering of former officials. Much to my surprise, I learned that Robert McNamara was saying that neither he nor the U.S. intelligence community realized there actually had been some 40,000 Soviet troops in Cuba in the autumn of 1962. The former defense chief of the Kennedy administration was also saying that he and the U.S. government did not realize that the few dozen medium and intermediate range missiles the Soviets had tried to sneak into Cuba were actually armed with nuclear warheads and ready to be fired at targets in the U.S.

        Furthermore, he was claiming that the U.S. did not understand that this huge military build-up by the Soviets had been carried out to protect Cuba and to prevent the U.S. from attacking the island's Communist regime. He added, for good measure, that he was surprised to learn from the talks in Moscow that the Soviets and Cubans thought the U.S. had plans to bring down the government of Fidel Castro through the use of force. According to McNamara, the entire Cuban missile crisis was a dangerous misunderstanding that came about because of the lack of communication among the governments involved in the near catastrophe.

        Well, when I heard what McNamara and the band were playing in Moscow, I said to myself, "Either McNamara is getting a little dotty in his old age and doesn't remember what really happened during the Cuban missile crisis -- or there's some other reason for this." Well, it soon became apparent that McNamara was not senile. What, then, is the reason for these curious -and false -- "admissions" in Moscow? The reason is that the United States and the Soviet Union have decided to become friends again, and Washington wants to set the stage for rapprochement with Castro's Cuba.

        It has evidently been decided by the powers that be in the U.S. to have a little meeting in Moscow and tell the world that we were all mixed up about Cuba and we didn't know what was going on there in 1962, because we weren't communicating well with the Soviets at the time. Thus, the American people would see how close to war we had come, how we should communicate more with the Soviets, and how they weren't really very bad guys after all. For that matter neither were Fidel and his gang. Therefore, it would follow that we should in a few months from now get on with disarmament and whatever else is necessary to bring about the new internationalism that is forming between east and west. At the same time, we should begin rebuilding the bridge to Cuba, too.

        But to create the proper atmosphere for the coming rapproachement with Moscow and, later, Cuba, it was necessary to scare the American public and the world into thinking that the crisis of October 1962 was worse than it really was. To do that, McNamara, Gromyko, et al. were playing a little game -- their own distorted brand of historical revisionism. They were rewriting history to suit the present purposes of their governments.

        Now, I thought, what if I were a reporter. Would I be able to see through this little charade that was going on in Moscow? Probably not. I began studying the "knowlegeable" syndicated colunmists. They were writing things like, "... My God, we never did understand what the Soviets were up to in Cuba. Yes, we better do something about this." What McNamara and friends were saying in Moscow was now becoming fact. It's becoming fact that we, the U.S. government, did not really know what was going on during the missile crisis. That is a lie.

        If there was ever a time when the CIA in the United States intelligence community and the United States Armed Forces really cooperated and coordinated their efforts with each other, it was during the Cuban missile crisis. The Cuban missile crisis is probably one of the few examples -- perhaps the only one -- of when intelligence really worked the way it was supposed to work in a crisis situation.

        I was there at the time, and I was deeply involved in this historical event. A colleague and friend of mine, Tack, my assistant at the time, and I were the original "crate-ologists"-which was an arcane little intelligence art that we had developed. We had learned through a variety of tricks of the trade, and some of our own making, to be able to distinguish what was in certain crates on Soviet merchant ships as they went into Cuba, into Indonesia into Egypt, Syria,and other places.We could tell if a crate contained a MIG-21,or an IL-28, or a SAM-2 missile.

        We did this in such an amateurish way that we dared not tell anyone our methods. While the National Photographic and Interpretation Center employed 1,200 people in its office in downtown Washington, using state-of-the-art equipment to analyze aerial and satellite photography, Tack and I would sit in our office, feet up on the desk, using a beat-up old ruler to measure photos taken from U.S. submarines. I'd measure a crate on the deck of the Soviet freighter, say about three quarters of an inch in the photograph.

        "Tack, do you think they could fit a Mig-21 in there?" He'd thumb through an old Air Force manual and say, "Mig-21, fuselage length 25 feet." "Well?" "Take the tail off, and we can fit it in." "Okay, let's call it a Mig-21."

        We were pretty good at this. We had other aids to identification of course. We were able to learn when the Soviets were preparing shipments and from which ports they were sailing. We knew which personnel were involved, and the ships' destinations. Thus we could alert the navy, which sometimes conducted overflights, sometimes tracked them with a submarine.

        We had an attaché in Istanbul row out in the middle of the night with a Turk whom he'd hired, looking for three things in a Soviet freighter: its deck cargo, how high it was riding in the water, and its name.

        By these and other sensitive we were able to learn, in the summer of 1962, that the Soviets were carrying out an unprecedented arms build-up in Cuba. While some of the other agencies, namely the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, didn't agree with us, CIA director John McCone was able to get president John Kennedy to authorize more intelligence overflights. The over flights revealed that the Soviets were building

        SAM (Surface-to-Air Missiles) launching sites to protect the build-up. Further overflights revealed the construction of launching sites for Soviet MRBMs (Medium Range Ballistic Missiles) capable of carrying nuclear warheads to most cities in the United States.

        We know exactly how many there were. where they were, and that they had not yet been armed, because the warheads hadn't arrived yet.

        Thus McNamara is lying when he claims that the Soviet missiles in Cuba were armed and ready for launch against the United States. On the contrary, we were watching the ships which carried the warheads; American ships enforcing the blockade which President Kennedy had ordered boarded a Romanian ship (which we knew carried no arms), and the Russian ships bringing the nuclear warheads turned around in mid-ocean and went home.

        It is also quite untrue that there were forty thousand Soviet troops in Cuba. We knew that there were only ten thousand of them, because we had developed a simple but effective way of counting them.

        The Soviets had sent their troops over on passenger liners to disguise the military buildup. Some genius back in Moscow must have then said: "But these guys need to wear civilian clothes; let's put sport shirts on them." But someone at the department store said: We've only got two kinds." So half the troops wore one kind, half of them the other. They weren't very hard to spot.

        Then, too, Soviet soldiers are a lot like our own. As soon as the first group got established, the colonel sent them out to paint some rocks white and then paint the name of the unit, 44th Field Artillery Battalion or whatever, on the rocks. All we had to do was take a picture of it from one of our U-2s. So it was easy to establish a Soviet troop strength of far below 40,000. Thus, McNamara is agreeing to a second lie.

        The big lie, however, is that the Soviet Union came into Cuba to protect the Cubans. That was a secondary, or bonus, consideration. The primary reason for the build-up was that the Soviets at the time were so far behind us in nuclear strike capability that Khruschev figured he could make a quantum leap by suddenly putting in 48 missiles that could strike every city in America except Seattle, Washington.

        Nor did we come as close to war as many think, because Khruschev knew he was caught. His missiles weren't armed, and he hadn't the troops to protect them. Kennedy knew this, so he was able to say: "take them out." And Khruschev had to say yes.

        I must admit that at the time I was a little concerned, and so was my buddy Tack. We were manning the war room around the clock, catching four hours of sleep and then going back on duty. My wife had the station wagon loaded with blankets and provisions, and Tack's wife was standing by on alert. If either of them got a phone call with a certain word in it, they were to take our children and drive to my home town in the anthracite region of northeastern Pennsylvania. We figured they'd be safe there: if you've ever seen the coal region with its strip mines you would think it had already been bombed and we were hoping the Soviets would look at it that way too.

        Last month's conference in Moscow is an example of how history is being rewritten. Any historian who relies on what he reads in the newspapers, on the statements from McNamara and the Russians and the Cubans will not be learning the truth. The CIA has manufactured history in a number of ways over the years not only through its propaganda and disinformation but through the cover stories it uses for their operations, and the cover-ups when an operation falls through Then there is "plausible deniability," which protects the president.

        All these techniques have one thing in common, and depend on one thing: secrecy. Secrecy is maintained not to keep the opposition - the CIA's euphemistic term for the enemy -- from knowing what's going on, because the enemy usually does know. Secrecy exists to keep you, the American public, from knowing what is going on, because in many ways you are the real enemy.

        If the public were aware of what the CIA is doing, it might say: "We don't like what you're doing -- stop it!," or You're not doing a good job -- stop it!" The public might ask for an accounting for the money being spent and the risks being taken.

        Thus secrecy is absolutely vital to the CIA. Secrecy covers not only operations in progress, but continues after the operations, particularly if the operations have been botched. Then they have to be covered up with more lies, which the public, of course, can't recognize as lies, allowing the CIA to tell the public whatever it wishes.

        Presidents love this. Every president, no matter what he has said before getting into office, has been delighted to learn that the CIA is his own private tool. The presidents have leapt at the opportunity to keep Congress and the public in the dark about their employment of the agency.

        This is what was at the basis of my book, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. I had come to the conclusion, as a member of the CIA, that many of our policies and practices were not in the best interests of the United States. but were in fact counterproductive, and that if the American people were aware of this they would not tolerate it.

        I resigned from the CIA in 1969, at a time when we were deeply involved in Vietnam. And how did we get into Vietnam on a large scale? How did President Lyndon Johnson get a blank check from Congress? It was through the Gulf of Tonkin incident The American people were told by President Johnson that North Vietnamese motor torpedo boats had come after two American destroyers on the night of August 4, 1964. This was confirmed by the intelligence community.

        The fact of the matter is that while torpedo boats came out and looked at the U.S. destroyers, which were well out in international waters, they never fired on them. They made threatening maneuvers, they snarled a bit, but they never fired. It was dark and getting darker. Our sailors thought they might have seen something, but there were no hits, no reports of anything whizzing by.

        That was the way it was reported back: a bit of a scrape, but no weapons fire and no attempt to fire. Our ships had not been in danger. But with the help of the intelligence community President Johnson took that report and announced that we had been attacked. He went to Congress and asked for and received his blank check, and Congress went along. Everyone knows the rest of the story: we got into Vietnam up to our eyeballs.

        Every president prizes secrecy and fights for it. And so did President Nixon, in my case. When I came to the conclusion that the American people needed to know more about the CIA and what it was up to, I decided to go to Capitol Hill and talk to the senators on the intelligence oversight subcommittee. I found out that Senator John Stennis, at that time head of the subcommittee, hadn't conducted a meeting in over a year, so the other senators were completely ignorant as to what the CIA was doing. Senators William Fulbright and Stuart Symington would tell Stennis, "Let's have a meeting," but he was ignoring them. The other senators wrote Stennis a letter urging him to at least hear what I had to say in a secret executive session, but he continued to ignore them.

        Then I would meet Fulbright -- at the barber shop. He was afraid to met me in his office. I would meet with Symington at his home. I would meet with senators at cocktail parties, as if by chance. But still they couldn't get Stennis to convene the intelligence subcommittee.

        Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania told me he had learned more about the workings of the intelligence community in one afternoon of conversation with me than in six years of work on the intelligence subcommittee. That didn't surprise me, because I, several years before, had done the budget for CIA director Richard Helms. It was feared that the Senate appropriations subcommittee might have some hard questions about the growing cost of technical espionage programs. Director Helms had evidently been through this before, however.

        As Helms put it, he and the CIA's head of science and technology, Albert (Bud) Wheelon, staged a "magic lantern show" for the committee, complete with color slides and demonstrations of the CIA's most advance spy gadgets: a camera hidden in a tobacco pouch, a radio transmitter concealed in some false teeth, a tape recorder in a cigarette case, and so on. One or two hard questions were deflected by Senator Russell of Georgia, who chaired the committee and was a strong supporter of the agency. There were, of course, no slides or hi-tech hardware to exhibit the programs the CIA wanted to conceal from Congress, and the budget sailed through the subcommittee intact.

        What I learned in my dealings with Congressmen, in the CIA and after leaving, was that the men who wanted to change the situation didn't have the power, while those who had the power didn't want any change. With Congress a hopeless case, and the White House already in the know and well satisfied to let the CIA continue to operate in secrecy, I decided to talk to the press. I gave my first interview to U.S. News and World Report, and that started the ball rolling. Soon I was in touch with publishers in New York, talking about doing a book.

        I soon got a telephone call from Admiral Rufus Taylor, who had been my boss in the agency, but by that time had retired. He told me to meet him at a motel in the Virginia suburbs, across the Potomac from Washington. My suspicions aroused by the remoteness of the room from the office, I was greeted by Admiral Taylor, who had thoughtfully brought along a large supply of liquor: a bottle of scotch, a bottle of bourbon, a bottle of vodka, a bottle of gin ... "I couldn't remember what you liked," he told me, "so I brought one of everything."

        I began to make noise: flushing the toilet, washing my hands, turning on the television. Admiral Taylor was right behind me, turning everything off. I kept making noise, jingling the ice in my glass and so on, until the admiral sat down. There was a table with a lamp on it between the admiral's chair and the one which he now told me to sit down on. He looked at me with a little twinkle in his eye: the lamp was bugged, of course.

        We talked, and Admiral Taylor told me the CIA was worried about what I might write in my book. He proposed a deal: I was to give no more interviews, write no more articles, and to stay away from Capitol Hill. I could write my book, and then let him and other retired senior officers look it over, and they would advise me and the agency. After that the CIA and I could resolve our differences. I told him, "Fair enough." We had a drink on it, and went out to dinner. That was our deal

        What I didn't know was that a few nights later John Erlichman and Richard Nixon would be sitting in the White House discussing my book. There is a tape of their discussion, "President Nixon, John Ehrlichman, 45 minutes, subject Victor Marchetti," which is still sealed: I can't get it. Ehrlichman told me through contacts that if I listened to the tape I would learn exactly what happened to me and why.

        Whatever the details of their conversation were, the president of the United States had decided I should not publish my book. I was to be the first writer in American history to be served with an official censorship order served by a court of the United States, because President Nixon did not want to be embarrassed, nor did he want the CIA to be investigated and reformed: that would have hampered his ability to use it for his own purposes. A few days later, on April 18, 1972, I received a federal injunction restraining me from revealing any "intelligence information." After more than a year of court battles, CIA and the Cult of Intelligence was published. The courts allowed the CIA to censor it in advance, and as a result the book appeared with more than a hundred holes for CIA-ordered deletions. Later editions show previously deleted words and lines, which the court ordered the CIA to restore in boldface or italics. The book is therefore difficult to read, indeed something of a curiosity piece. And of course all the information which was ordered cut out ended up leaking to the public anyway.

        All this was done to help the CIA suppress and distort history, and to enable presidents to do the same. Presidents like Harry Truman, who claimed falsely that "I never had any thought when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak-and-dagger operations," but who willingly employed the agency to carry out clandestine espionage and covert intervention in the affairs of other countries. Or Dwight Eisenhower, who denied that we were attempting to overthrow Sukarno in Indonesia, when we were, and was embarrassed when he tried to deny the CIA's U-2 overflights and was shown up by Khruschev at Paris in 1960. John F. Kennedy, as everyone knows by now, employed the CIA in several attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro. We used everyone from Mafia hoods to Castro's mistress, Marita Lorenz (who was supposed to poison the dictator with pills concealed in her cold cream -- the pills melted). I have no doubt that if we could have killed Castro, the U.S. would have gone in.

        There was a fairly widespread belief that one reason Kennedy was assassinated was because he was going to get us out of Vietnam. Don't you believe it He was the CIA's kind of president, rough, tough, and gung-ho. Under Kennedy we became involved in Vietnam in a serious way, not so much militarily as through covert action. It is a fact that the United States engineered the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem, South Vietnam's premier, and Ngo Dinh Nhu, his powerful brother. A cable was sent out to the ambassador which said, "If Lou Conein goofs up [Lucien Conein was a key CIA operative in Saigon], it's his responsibility." So when E. Howard Hunt faked these memos and cables when he was working for the "plumbers" on behalf of President Nixon (and against the Democrats), he knew what he was doing. That was his defense, that he wasn't really forging or inventing anything. "Stuff like that really existed, but I couldn't find it," he said. Of course Hunt couldn't find it by that time the original documents were gone. But Hunt knew what he was doing.

        President Nixon's obsession with secrecy led to the end of his presidency, of course. As indicated earlier, Nixon was determined to suppress my book. On several occasions after his resignation, Nixon has been asked what he meant when he said that the CIA would help him cover up the Watergate tapes, because "they owed him one." He has responded, "I was talking about Marchetti," in other words the efforts (still secret) to prevent The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence from being published.

        Another instance of the Nixon administrations' attempts to suppress history is the ongoing attempt to cover up the details of the administration's "tilt" toward Pakistan in its conflict with India in the early 1970's. Although the basic facts soon emerged, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh's account of the affair in his unflattering book on Henry Kissinger revealed that Morarji Desai, an important Indian political leader who later became Prime Minister, was a CIA agent. Kissinger spurred Desai to sue Hersh, and the case is still dragging on today, seven years later. I know what the truth is; Hersh knows as well, but as a conscientious journalist refused to reveal his sources. Here historical truth is caught between official secrecy and Hersh's loyalty to his informants; nevertheless, I have a great deal of admiration for Hersh for his firm stand.

        It is a fact that a good many foreign leaders, including those often seen as "neutral" or even hostile to the United States, have been secretly on the CIA's payroll. For instance, when Jimmy Carter came into office, he claimed he was going to reform the CIA. No sooner than was he in the White House, they decided to test him: the news that Jordan's King Hussein had been paid by the CIA was leaked. President Carter was outraged, because now it was his CIA. His efforts to deny the relationship were defeated by Hussein's nonchalant frankness. He told the press, "Yes, I took the money. I used it for my intelligence service. And that's all I'm going to say on that subject."

        There were a lot of other national leaders in Hussein's category. As I revealed for the first time in my book, Joseph Mobutu, a corporal in the Belgian forces in the Congo before its independence, went on the CIA payroll. That is why he rules Zaire today. The CIA paid the late Jomo Kenyatta, ruler of Kenya, fifty or a hundred thousand dollars a year, which he'd spend on drink and women. Therefore we ended up paying Kenyatta twice as much, telling him: "This is for you and this is for your party."

        The CIA has funded individuals and movements across the political spectrum in West Germany. A prime example is Willy Brandt, former chancellor of the Federal Republic, who received much CIA support when he was mayor of West Berlin. Axel Springer, the Christian Democratic-minded press and publishing magnate, who pointed the finger at Brandt for working with CIA, was also a CIA asset, who used his publications to spread CIA propaganda and disinformation. It was a case of the pot calling the kettle black: I knew his case officer quite welL

        This is the way the CIA sees its mission, the job it was created to do. The CIA is supposed to be involved with everyone, not merely the Christian Democrats or the Social Democrats. The agency is supposed to have its fingers in every pie, including the Communist one, so that they can all be manipulated in whichever way the U.S. government desires.

        An obvious area of disinformation and deception exists in our relationship with a nation often represented as our closest ally, Israel. I have often been asked about the relationship between the CIA and its Israeli counterpart, the Mossad. The CIA maintains some kind of liaison with virtually every foreign intelligence agency, including the KGB. These relationships vary from case to case, but our relationship with the Mossad was always a peculiar one.

        When I was in the agency, the Mossad was generally not trusted. There was an unwritten rule that no Jews could work on Israeli or near Eastern matters; it was felt that they could not be totally objective.. There was a split in the agency, however, and Israel was not included in the normal area division, the Near Eastern Division. Instead it was handled as a special account in counterintelligence. The man who handled that account, James Jesus Angleton, was extremely close to the Israelis. I believe that through Angleton the Israelis learned a lot more than they should have and exercised a lot more influence on our activities than they should have.

        For his trouble, James Angleton, who died last year, was honored by the Israelis, in the way that the Israelis customarily honor their Gentile helpers. They decided to plant a whole forest for Angleton in the Judean hills, and they put up a handsome plaque in several languages, lionizing Angleton as a great friend of Israel, on a nearby rock. Israeli's intelligence chiefs, past and present, attended the dedication ceremony. Later on, a television reporter of my acquaintance sought out Angleton's memorial during an assignment in Israel. After some difficulty, he was able to locate it, but something seemed odd about it. On closer inspection, Angleton's plaque turned out to be made, not of bronze, but of cardboard. Nor was the setting particularly flattering to Israel's late benefactor: the trees and plaque were at the edge of a garbage dump. My friend's British cameraman put it best "This guy sold out his country for the bloody Israelis, and this is the way they pay him back!"

        The CIA has distorted history in other ways than by outright coverups and suppression of the truth. One method was to produce its own books. For instance, one of its top agents in the Soviet Union was Colonel Oleg Penkovsky. Penkovsky was eventually captured and executed. But the CIA was unwilling to let it go at that The agency decided to write a book, which it published in 1965, called The Penkovsky Papers. This was purported to be drawn from a diary that Penkovsky had kept, a diary in which Penkovsky revealed numerous espionage coups calculated to embarrass the Soviets and build up the CIA.

        Spies do not keep diaries, of course, and the Soviets were not likely to believe the exaggerated claims made for Penkovsky and the CIA in The Penkovsky Papers. Who was taken in? The American public, of course. More than once people have come up to me after a lecture and shown me the book as if it were gospel. I've told them, "I know the man who wrote it." "You knew Penkovsky?" they invariably ask, and I tell them, "No, I didn't know Penkovsky. But I know the man who wrote the book."

        Not just ordinary citizens were taken in by the Penkovsky deception, either. Senator Milton Young of North Dakota, who served on the CIA oversight subcommittee, said in a 1971 Senate debate on cutting the inteligence budget:

        And if you want to read something very interesting and authoritative where intelligence is concerned, read The Penkovsky Papers ... this is a very interesting story, on why the intelligence we had in Cuba was so important to us, and on what the Russians were thinking and just how far they would go.

        Perhaps the most startling example ot the ClA's manipulation of the publishing world is the case of Khrushchev Remembers. Khrushchev is still widely believed to have been the author. He is supposed to have dashed it off one summer and then said to himself, "Where will I get this published? Ah! Time-Life!" The tapes reached Time-Life, we all read it, and we told ourselves, "Isn't that interesting."

        A little thought should be sufficient to dispel the notion that the KGB would allow Khrushchev to sit in his dacha dictating tape after tape with no interference. He certainly dictated tapes, but the tapes were censored and edited by the KGB, and then a deal was struck between the U.S. and the USSR, after it was decided, at the highest level, that such a book would be mutually beneficial. Brezhnev could use against some of the resistance he was encountering from Stalinist hardliners, and Nixon could use it to increase support for detente.

        The CIA and the KGB cooperated in carrying out the operation. The tapes were given to the Time bureau in Moscow. Strobe Talbot, who appears on television frequently today and is Time's bureau chief in Washington, brought the tapes back with him. I was present in an apartment in which he hid them for a couple of days. The tapes were then translated and a manuscript developed. During this period Time refused to let people who had known Khrushchev personally, including White House staff members, listen to the tapes.

        Knowledgeable people began to tell me. "I don't believe this." "There's something mighty fishy here." When they read what Khrushchev was supposedly saying, they were even more incredulous. But the book came out, Khrushchev Remembers, accompanied by a massive publicity campaign. It was a great propaganda accomplishment for the CIA and the KGB.

        I touched on Khrushchev Remembers in my book. I did not go into any great detail, merely devoting several tentative paragraphs to the affair. Just before my book was published Time was considering doing a two-page spread on me until they learned of my expressed reservations on the trustworthiness of Khrushchev Remembers. I began to get phone calls from Talbot and Jerry Schaechter, then Time's bureau chief in Washington, telling me I should take out the offending passages.

        I had written, correctly, that before publication Strobe Talbot had taken the bound transcripts of the Khruschhev tapes back to Moscow, via Helsinki, so that the KGB could make one final review of them. I told Schaechter and Talbot that if they came to me, looked me in the eye, and told me I had the facts wrong, I would take out the section on Khruschhev Remembers. Neither of them ever came by, the paragraphs stayed in my book, and in any event Time went ahead with the two-page spread anyway.

        As I pointed out in the preface to The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence in 1974, democratic governments fighting totalitarian enemies run the risk of imitating their methods and thereby destroying democracy. By suppressing historical fact, and by manufacturing historical fiction, the CIA, with its obsessive secrecy and its vast resources, has posed a particular threat to the right of Americans to be informed for the present and future by an objective knowledge of the past. As long as the CIA continues to manipulate history, historians of its activities must be Revisionist if we are to know the truth about the agency's activities, past and present.


        From The Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1989 (Vol. 9, No. 3), pages 305- 320.
        This paper was first presented at the Ninth IHR Conference, Feb. 1989, in Huntington Beach, California.


        About the Author

        For 14 years Victor Marchetti worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, where he rose to be executive assistant to the deputy director.

        He joined the CIA in 1955, working as a specialist on the USSR. He soon became a leading CIA expert on Third World aid, with a focus on USSR military supplies to Cuba. In 1966 Marchetti was promoted to the office of special assistant to the Chief of Planning, Programming, and Budgeting.

        After becoming disillusioned with the CIA's policies and practices, Marchetti resigned in 1969. He wrote a novel, The Rope Dancer (1971, that was critical of the CIA. He is also the author – with John D. Marks – of the book The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, published in 1973. Before its publication, the CIA demanded the removal of 399 passages, but Marchetti stood firm and only 168 passages were censored. This was the first book the US federal government ever tried to censor before publication through court action. The publisher (Alfred A. Knopf) chose to issue it with blanks for censored passages and with boldface type for passages that were challenged but later uncensored.

        [Feb 20, 2015] U.S. Should Stay Out Of The Russo-Ukrainian Quarrel: Why The Conflict In Ukraine Isn't America's Business, Part I

        Feb 20, 2015 | forbes.com

        ...The conflict could go on for a long time, with Kiev and Moscow locked in a small hot war and the U.S. and Russia stuck in a larger Cold War lite. An extended confrontation would be in no one's interest, especially America's.

        The U.S. has made a habit of promiscuously meddling around the world. The results rarely have been pretty. Thousands of Americans have been killed, tens of thousands have been wounded, hundreds of thousands of foreigners have died, and a multitude of international furies have been loosed.

        At least none of these conflicts involved a real military power. In contrast, advocates of confrontation with Russia over Ukraine want to challenge a nation armed with nuclear weapons and an improving conventional military, steeped in nationalist convictions, rooted in historic traditions, and ruled by a tough authoritarian. No one should assume that in a military showdown the Kremlin would yield to Washington or that war with Moscow would be a cakewalk.

        Yet Ukraine's most fervent advocates assume that any American who fails to believe that, say, inaugurating global nuclear war to save their distant ethnic homeland is a Putin troll, Russian agent, friend of dictators, proto-communist fellow traveler, or even worse. Of course, Ukrainian nationalists are not alone in their conclusion that anyone who disagrees with them is not only wrong but evil. That's Washington politics today.

        However, the issues of the Russo-Ukraine conflict are complex with no obvious solution. People of good faith and basic intelligence can disagree about both facts and solutions. In fact, there is at least a Baker's Dozen of good reasons for America to stay out of today's messy, tragic, and bloody conflict involving Ukraine and Russia. The first six are reason enough: Ukraine isn't important geographically; Russia matters more than Ukraine to America; blame is widely shared for Ukraine's travails; Washington never guaranteed Ukraine's security; Vladimir Putin is not Hitler and Russia is not Nazi Germany (or Stalin's Soviet Union); and there's no genocide...

        After 16 years since "liberation" Kocovans free the country out of economic despair.

        The USA got a military base. Everything else is not important. NATO also bombed Serbia into stone age just for the fun of it. And nobody of Serbs prisoners of war organ snatchers was convicted.

        Thousands flee economic despair in Kosovo for EU countries, welcome or not
        Sixteen years after the war in Kosovo sent hundreds of thousands of refugees streaming across the border, another exodus is underway here.
        Instead of fleeing conflict, Kosovars are now seeking to escape unemployment, and despair. They are leaving by the tens of thousands, making their way illegally into European Union countries to look for a better future.
        Just a trickle until September, the number of migrants suddenly surged last fall, spurred by word of mouth. At least 26,000 Kosovars migrated to EU member states in 2014, and more than 18,000 more have already made the trip since the beginning of this year...

        Lack of opportunity leads to mass exodus from Kosovo
        In recent months, tens of thousands have fled Kosovo, the youngest European state. Poverty and a lack of prospects at home are just two reasons why they're leaving.
        "Why should I stay here?" asks Fitim S., who has three children, ages 10, 8 and 3. Until a few months ago, he received 80 euros a month in benefits. But even that has been cut now, as he owns a house and others do not.
        "We've been told that we can claim asylum in Germany," Fitim says, adding that he would like to stay in Kosovo if he could find work paying "around 200 euros ($230) a month." But, things being as they are, all five of them are packed up and ready to get on the bus to Germany.
        ...They go as far as Subotica, a small town near the Serbia-Hungary border. It's a Schengen border, which most Kosovars then cross on foot with the help of corrupt police officers and traffickers who charge 200 euros per head.
        If they get caught by Hungarian police, they claim asylum in Hungary. But they'd rather make it all the way to Germany, Austria or Scandinavia.
        'They leave'
        Kosovo has not seen this many people leave the country since the war in 1999. There are no official numbers, but government sources say up to 30,000 have fled Kosovo in the past two months. Some diplomats in Pristina, however, think 50,000 is a more realistic figure - some media outlets claim it's even more.
        Many schools have seen the effects: Teachers have been let go as more than 5,200 students have left. The streets and restaurants in Pristina, normally full of life, are also emptier than usual.
        For a country with just 1.8 million people, this mass exodus poses a problem. "Kosovars don't believe in political parties, parliament or the government anymore," sociologist Artan Muhaxhiri told DW. "So, first chance they get, they leave."
        Kosovo is one of the poorest countries in Europe, with unemployment at 45 percent and more than 34 percent of people living in poverty, meaning on less than 1.42 euros a day. About 18 percent even live on just 94 cents a day. But there are also some middle class Kosovars giving up fairly well-paid jobs to leave the country illegally...

        [Feb 20, 2015] Out of facts Stick to cats Examiner's pitiful attempt at dissing RT

        Kettle calling pot black...
        Feb 20, 2015 | RT Op-Edge
        For an investigative reporter, the Examiner's Julia Davis seems to lack one basic professional skill: fact checking. Or perhaps it's a lack of attention to detail that sees her repeatedly ignoring simple facts, particularly where RT is involved.

        First, Davis slams Newsweek for "parrot[ing] RT's false narrative" and misreporting on a new Ukrainian law by erroneously stating that commanders can use force against servicemen who drink alcohol while on duty (in fact the law imposes administrative punishment for alcohol consumption). There's one problem with that 'line' though – never does the RT story in question say such a thing. In fact, RT's story doesn't discuss any kind of punishment for alcohol consumption at all.

        But facts are clearly irrelevant for Davis when she is set on bashing RT. She is incensed by yet another "blatant lie disseminated by RT" – that, according to the aforementioned law, "deserters will be shot on sight." Except that this statement ALSO never appeared in RT's article.

        This is what RT wrote: "The new article 22(1) added to the charter regulating service in the armed forces of Ukraine states that commanders 'have the right to personally use physical force, special means and weapons when in combat' against soldiers who commit 'criminal acts'." That statement agrees with the letter of the law.

        In her exposé Davis seems to fail to do the one thing that separates a ruthless truth-seeking reporter from an angry blogger with an inflated sense of self-worth. That trait is the ability to accept one's mistakes – whereas Newsweek editors have conceded the fact that they misread the law, neither Davis nor the Examiner responded in kind when RT pointed out their fact fails.

        [Feb 20, 2015] Poroshenko blames Russian official for Maidan snipers

        Yes, sure. And how about "cue bono" principle applied to such crimes? Of course, all the investigations of Maidan (see To whom EuroMaidan Sharp-shooters belong?) shooting should be discarded after such a compulsive truth teller Poroshenko voiced his version; and sure Odessa Massacre of May 2, 2014 is also was a Russian plot. Not to say about killing unarmed civilians in Mariupol and then killing woman and children and intentionally destroying critical civilian infrastructure in Donbass. Those evil Russians... and what about Malaysian flight MH17? Also Russians?
        Feb 20, 2015 | DW.DE

        During commemoration ceremonies for the victims of the Maidan massacre, Ukrainian President Viktor Poroshenko said on Friday there was strong evidence that the shooting last year had been organized by Russian intelligence.

        "Just a few days ago, the head of state security told me that, in questioning, special forces operatives gave evidence that the Russian presidential aide Vladislav Surkov led the organization of groups of foreign snipers on the Maidan," Poroshenko said, according to his website.

        He said there was proof, which included recorded telephone calls between then President Viktor Yanukovych and representatives from Moscow.

        Poroshenko made the comments while meeting with relatives of some of the more than 100 people who were shot dead over a three-day period a year ago during protests on Kyiv's Independence Square, known as Maidan, against Moscow-backed Yanukovych, who then fled to Russia.

        It is not exactly known who opened fire a year ago on crowds of people protesting against the pro-Russian government. Supporters of the movement said Ukrainian security forces had begun shooting on the protest camp, which had been set up at Maidan in November 2013.

        Details of investigations into the shootings have not been made public. There is, however, speculation, that Yanukovych may have given the order to shoot in order to disperse the crowds and squelch the protest movement. Another theory is that the escalation was initiated by the opposition to exact a shift of power in the government.

        Since the massacre, Russia has annexed the Crimean Peninsula, and there has been an ongoing armed conflict in the east of Ukraine that has killed at least 5,600 people to date. Leaders in Kyiv, the EU and the US have accused Moscow of providing military support to the separatist fighters.

        [Feb 20, 2015] Kyiv′s lost war for ″the hearts and minds″ of eastern Ukrainians Europe

        I think it is fair to say that judging from DW coverage Germany is a vassal of the USA that is not allow to pursue national interests, and DW is a fully-controlled (as in under the iron heel) subsidiary of Voice of America. May be even to the right of VA in the direction of neocons.
        Feb 20, 2015 | DW.DE

        One year ago, Ukraine saw a transition of power in the wake of rioting in the streets. At the time, Russian media instilled fear and contributed to laying the groundwork for the current war in eastern Ukraine.

        "The situation in Ukraine is such that we could just as well talk about the end of statehood there." Anchor Dmitry Kiselyov lowered the thumb of his right hand, and the gesture was intended to show that Ukraine was doomed. That was the beginning of the "Vesti nedeli" (News of the Week) broadcast on Sunday evening, February 23, 2014, shown on Russian state broadcaster Rossija-1. "If a state can't guarantee the safety of its citizens, this state does in fact not exist," said Kiselyov, with what came across as a ghoulish smile.

        Ukraine had quite likely crossed the border to civil war, the prominent Russian journalist added. More blood was going to flow. From today's point of view, Kiselyov was right in this respect. The war between pro-Russian separatists in the eastern Ukrainian areas of Donetsk and Luhansk and the Ukrainian army has already claimed the lives of thousands of people. However, this war fought with guns and tanks did not begin in the eastern Ukrainian steppes but on a different battlefield. It was a "war for the hearts and minds" of the people - and how they would interpret and construe what was unfolding.

        One year ago, at the end of February 2014, the pro-Western Maidan movement - named after Kyiv's independence square - celebrated a victory. The fate of pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych would be decided in four days. Following months of protests, violence escalated in Kyiv on February 18.

        Dozens of activists were killed in the wake of a police crackdown, under circumstances which remain unclear to this day. On February 21, foreign ministers from three EU countries, including Germany, managed to negotiate a deal between the opposition and the president. In the evening, Yanukovych made an unexpected escape, surfacing in Russia later on.

        In February 2014, Russian TV broadcasts could be viewed throughout the whole of Ukraine. According to opinion polls, they were even the most important source of information for those residing in the east of the country. "Russian media started to report on Ukraine's division long before the Maidan and eastern Ukraine incidents," Diana Duzyk, managing director of the Kyiv-based non-governmental organization "Telekrytyka" (Television Criticism), told DW. Ukraine had ignored this for a long time.

        The February revolution in Kyiv was seen by many eastern Ukrainians through the eyes of Russian TV: It was a coup orchestrated by the West and executed by Ukrainian ultra-nationalists. "There was a poisoning influence by both pro-Russian media in Ukraine and media from Russia in Ukraine," Andreas Umland, Senior Research Fellow at the Kyiv-based Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation, told DW. "Among other things, this rhetoric helped build the foundations for support of separatism in Crimea and in the Donetsk region," he added.

        This is confirmed by Volodymyr Kipen, a sociologist from Donetsk, who lives in Kyiv today. The influence of Russian media in eastern Ukraine had "over a long period of time" laid "the groundwork for acceptance" of the current Russian intervention in the region, Kipen told DW.

        Blending facts and fiction

        Yet in their Ukraine coverage, Russian journalists often confound facts and fiction. Kiselyov, for instance, said in his programs that the new rulers in Kyiv intended to treat the use of the Russian language as a criminal offense. This, however, was a lie and a hoax.

        In addition, it was claimed that Ukrainian right-wing extremists posed a deadly threat to eastern Ukrainians. But it remains a fact that there were no "retaliation campaigns" carried out by Ukrainian right-wing extremists, as announced by Russian media.

        Andreas Umland accused Russian media of distorting reality: While extreme right-wing groups such as the "Right-wing Sector" were present at the Maidan protests, their importance had been "blown out of proportion." At any rate, in early presidential and parliamentary elections Ukrainian nationalists merely achieved low single-digit results.

        Kyiv's dilemma

        Obviously, the seeds of suspicion fell on fertile ground in eastern Ukraine. According to an opinion poll conducted by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) on behalf of "Dzerkalo Tyzhnia" weekly, in April 2014 around 70 percent of the population in the Donetsk area saw the transition of power in Kyiv as a coup instigated by the West. In the Luhansk region the corresponding figure was 61 percent. Almost one in five residents was prepared to embrace Russian soldiers.

        The new Ukrainian government acknowledged the danger. At the end of March 2014, a court in Kyiv outlawed broadcasts of four Russian TV stations in Ukraine, including Kiselyov's Rossija-1. Many others remained. Not until September - six months after the beginning of the conflict in eastern Ukraine - did a media surveillance authority ban a total of 15 Russian stations. Duzyk points to a dilemma: "We try to be democratic, and we are facing a very difficult decision - between freedom of expression and information security." She believes switching off the Russian channels was the right thing to do: "They are no mass media - they are a means of propaganda."

        But Kyiv responded too late, Duzyk adds. Pro-Russian separatists quickly disconnected Ukrainian stations and activated Russian ones. "When the separatists assumed control of the remaining television towers, it dawned on me that Ukraine's informational influence in the region was approaching zero," sociologist Kipen says. By early summer of 2014 at the latest, it was clear to him that Ukraine had probably lost the "fight for the hearts and minds" of many eastern Ukrainians.

        [Feb 20, 2015] Guardian Slams Telegraph Suggesting HSBC Coverage Was Biased Due To Owners' £250 MM Loan From Bank

        Quote: "A wave of truth seams to be moving in. Let hope this increase in truth become a secular bull move." ... "Crap, where am I gonna get reliable American news?"
        Feb 20, 2015 | Zero Hedge

        The past 48 hours have become a free-for-all flame war involving the titans of British media, including the BBC, the Guardian, the Times and, the paper that started it all, the Telegraph. Several hours ago, the first (of many) skeletons in the closet busted loose and is suddenly threatening to expose some of the dirtiest laundry of UK high society.

        Two days ago, we wrote about the dramatic resignation of The Telegraph's chief political commentator, Peter Oborne, who quit accusing the newspaper of a "fraud on its readers" over its coverage, or rather lack thereof, of the HSBC money-laundering and tax evasion scandals. In a blistering attack on the paper's management and owners, the Barclays brothers, Sir David and Sir Frederick, Oborne claimed the paper deliberately suppressed stories about the banking group in order to keep its valuable advertising account. He said it was a "most sinister development" at the paper, where he claimed the traditional distinction between the advertising and editorial department had collapsed."

        Oborne claimed that HSBC had suspended its advertising with the Telegraph after it ran an investigation in November 2012 based on leaked details of personal accounts held with HSBC in Jersey. He also claims that reporters were ordered to destroy all emails, reports and documents related to the HSBC investigation. "This was the pivotal moment," Oborne wrote.

        A few hours ago, The Telegraph responded with its own blistering retort, saying that it "makes no apology for the way in which it has covered the HSBC group and the allegations of wrongdoing by its Swiss subsidiary." It then promptly changes the topic and deviates away from the facts with what is an ideological ad hominem against those who cast the "allegations that have been so enthusiastically promoted by the BBC, the Guardian and their ideological soulmates in the Labour Party."

        The Telegraph continues:

        We have covered this matter as we do all others, according to our editorial judgment and informed by our values. Foremost among those values is a belief in free enterprise and free markets.

        We are proud to be the champion of British business and enterprise. In an age of cheap populism and corrosive cynicism about wealth-creating businesses, we have defended British industries including the financial services industry that accounts for almost a tenth of the UK economy, sustains two million jobs and provides around one in every eight pounds the Exchequer raises in tax.

        It gets better as the editorial author is eager to engage in a flame war with its biggest competitors thereby once again diverting from the topic at hand:

        We will take no lectures about journalism from the likes of the BBC, the Guardian or the Times. Those media outlets that are this week sniping about our coverage of HSBC were similarly dismissive in 2009 when we began to reveal details of MPs' expenses claims, a fact that speaks volumes about their judgment and partiality.

        And the dramatic crescendo of the conclusion:

        Given the importance we attach to that bond with our readers, we are today going further. We are drawing up guidelines that will define clearly and openly how our editorial and commercial staff will co-operate in an increasingly competitive media industry, particularly in digital publishing, an area whose journalistic and commercial importance can only grow.

        We believe that this step makes us different from our rivals in the British media industry. Or rather, even more different. For The Daily Telegraph and its owner, Telegraph Media Group, are significantly unlike other media organisations involved in this debate. Unlike the BBC, we receive no support from taxpayers. Unlike the Guardian, we are not cushioned from commercial reality by a generously-endowed charitable trust. Unlike the Times, we receive no subsidy from tabloid stablemates. Unlike all three of those, we must generate a profit in order to remain in business and provide our readers with the world-class journalism they expect and deserve. Despite the ever-growing pressures on the media industry, we do produce that profit and, as a direct result, that journalism.

        A profit... and perhaps the occasional loan from a conflicted party in question.

        Because the ink had not even dried on the emotional monologue, when none other than the abovementioned Guardian "cushioned from commercial reality by a generously-endowed charitable trust" or whatever, appears to have discovered the reason for the Telegraph's editorial intervention on the topic. In "Telegraph owners' £250m HSBC loan raises fresh questions over coverage", we learn that "the owners of the Daily Telegraph secured a £250m loan from HSBC for a struggling corner of their business empire shortly before the newspaper's reporters were allegedly "discouraged" from running articles critical of the bank, the Guardian has learned."

        As they say: "Oops."

        Where this is headed is clear from the onset: "The timing of the loan deal for Yodel, a loss-making parcel delivery firm owned by the Barclay brothers, raises fresh questions over the influence of commercial considerations on the Telegraph's editorial coverage of HSBC. The deal was completed on 14 December 2012, company documents show. The paper's former chief political commentator Peter Oborne alleged this week that there was a sea-change in its editorial treatment of the bank from early 2013. "

        The documents show that Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay had to formally give a personal financial guarantee as additional security for the loan facility.

        ... ... ...

        Yodel refinanced in mid-December 2012 with Europe's biggest bank. As security, the bank took a charge over almost all the Yodel business - meaning the bank could take control of the parcel delivery group should the latter breach its borrowing commitments.

        The new HSBC loan was used to repay previous borrowings from Lloyds Banking Group. The Yodel business made a loss of £112m for the year to 30 June 2013. Yodel filings show an outstanding amount of £242m was due on the HSBC loan at the end of June 2013 and there are no filings since then suggesting the debt has been repaid.

        When the Barclay family was contacted by the Guardian, declined to comment on the loan, but a source close to the family dismissed suggestions that the Telegraph's coverage could have been influenced by a loan from HSBC. The source also pointed out that the family's businesses had borrowings with many other banks.

        Which begs the question: how many of those "other banks" also advertise on the Telegraph, and how many "world-class journalism" exposes on said banks which the Telegraph's readers "expect and deserve" have been provided in the area of digital publishing, an area whose, as the Telegraph op-ed noted, "journalistic and commercial importance can only grow." Well, maybe if not journalistic then certainly commercial.

        That said, the Telegraph was spot on about one thing: it is "an age of cheap populism and corrosive cynicism about wealth-creating businesses."

        TeethVillage88s

        Here is the Rest of the Story for those surfing in from the Internet:

        HSBC Bank Secret Origins To Laundering The World's Drug Money Zero Hedge

        Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is mulling attaching his Audit the Fed legislation to a vote to raise the debt ceiling, Paul spokesman Brian Darling told The Hill.

        Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has introduced Audit the Fed legislation in the House, where it is expected to easily pass.

        It's unclear whether the measure would be able to survive in the new-GOP controlled Senate, as Paul would need to pick up Democratic support to overcome a filibuster.

        Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) - each viewed as top progressives on the Senate Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction on the bill - have come out against the bill.

        Paul's bill has 31 co-sponsors, with just one Democrat: Sen. Mazie Hirono (Hawaii).

        Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) has said that he will have a hearing on Audit the Fed.

        Paul held a rally on the issue in Des Moines, Iowa, earlier this month and he has fundraised on it, too. Paul's father, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), was an early supporter of the legislation.

        ThroxxOfVron

        "the financial services industry that accounts for almost a tenth of the UK economy, sustains two million jobs and provides around one in every eight pounds the Exchequer raises in tax. "

        "Notice the parasites always bring up taxes, as if taxation were the moral high ground. "

        The financial services industry does not generate production, it only generates inflations, or manages speculations or transactions:

        1. It creates money through lending it into existance or rehypothecating collateral assets privately amongst it's member institutions. Inflation.

        OR

        2. Collects monetary rents by charging interest and fees from businesses and other productive sectors of the economy.

        OR

        3. Charges tolls for clearing transactions much as a toll highway between every economic transaction/destination.

        OR

        4. Garners hush monies for creating and maintaining tax avaoidance schemes and shell accounts for dubious businesses and high net worth individuals that are specifically seeking to avoid paying the prevailing rates that would apply to them.

        ...That these inflations, interest charges and rents and tolls -and high net worth tax avoidance schemes- should amount to 10% or more of the economy shows just how pernicious and parasitic the whole financial regime has become...

        Fíréan

        HSBC subprime mortage business gets forgotten too ; the bank purchased USA Household International back in 2003 , were later warned and sued for predatory lending practices.

        Plenty of articles can be found on the internet covering all aspects of this and other irregular activities of Europe's, London based, largest bank.

        The HSBC Watch, from Inner City Press - Fair Finance Watch


        zeropain

        A wave of truth seams to be moving in. Let hope this increase in truth become a secular bull move.

        Taffy Lewis

        Crap, where am I gonna get reliable American news?

        booboo

        this could get ugly

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SwNXQMoNps

        overmedicatedundersexed

        the family says"we borrow from lots of banks" well of course you do dear.

        assistedliving

        it's London. Need i say more?

        TeethVillage88s

        And given what we know, what is so sacred to Londoners about Money, Markets, Ethos, Laws, and Royal Decrees.

        AMERICAN AND BRITISH spies hacked into the internal computer network of the largest manufacturer of SIM cards in the world, stealing encryption keys used to protect the privacy of cellphone communications across the globe, according to top-secret documents provided to The Intercept by National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden.

        The hack was perpetrated by a joint unit consisting of operatives from the NSA and its British counterpart Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ. The breach, detailed in a secret 2010 GCHQ document, gave the surveillance agencies the potential to secretly monitor a large portion of the world's cellular communications, including both voice and data.

        old naughty

        the laundry of UK high society, dirtiest, yup...

        from East India Company to present days.

        Yen Cross

        Effen Pedofiles. Tyler, after reading how the drug cartels were formed, I've little respect for the British.

        AlaricBalth

        Technically the twins are not British. They are tax dodgers claiming residence in Monaco.

        The Guardian has stated that the brothers are tax exiles, and although they reside, at least some of the time, in Monaco (giving Avenue de Grande Bretagne, Monte Carlo as their address) they operate their businesses from an office in the United Kingdom. When asked if he was a tax exile, Sir Frederick stated that he lived abroad for health reasons. The corporate tax arrangements of the Ritz Hotel, which was purchased and refurbished by the brothers in 1995, was the subject of a December 2012 investigation by BBC's Panorama current affairs television programme.

        The hotel has paid no corporation tax in the UK by legally claiming reliefs for 17 years.

        Just another layer of slime to their already tainted veneer.

        [Feb 19, 2015] Defeated Ukrainians take the 'road of life' on their retreat from Debaltseve

        Feb 19, 2015 | Telegraph

        Ted Crilly

        I'm afraid this thread has been taken over by the US servicemen (albeit REMFs) whose contribution to the effort is sitting at a computer all day insulting Putin and Russia
        The Guardian exposed the trend last March - and recently readers will recall the British Army has established a similar team of dorks to saturate social media ( and threads like this) with their ill-informed garbage

        Best to just ignore the idiots

        solaquapure

        We are witnessing the death throes of Russia. Russia is bankrupt totally and the longer the price of oil stays below $80 the more agony is piled onto Putin and Russia.

        Putin is already emulating Adolph Hitler and the German Nazis but it will get him nowhere.
        The Russian people will wake up to the reallity of this evil little man who has set Russia on a path that can never succeed.

        The Russian people have been betrayed by a succession of evil leaders from Stalin who killed 50 million of his own countrymen to this little psycho.

        When he is history the west will welcome the people of Russia to the world community where they can walk among friends with head up in a new age of prosperity.

        Ted Crilly > solaquapure

        Have you been living in a bubble for the past year?

        After the US/EU fomented coup, the US installed (and were overheard planning ) a neo-Nazi government in Kiev. There first decree was to ban the Russian language

        The peoples of the East (Russian speakers) held a referendum and voted overwhelmingly to have nothing whatever to do with the illegal Kiev Nazi government

        The neo-Nazis mobilised the Ukraine Army against the East and began a programme of ethic cleansing. Casualty figures vary, but civilian casualties are in the many thousands and well in excess of 1 million have been evacuated to Russia.

        Russia has supplied support and aid to the peoples of East Ukraine and were I 20 years younger, I would have been there myself.

        Have we all forgotten what the German Nazis did to Europe? - yet here we are - overtly supporting a Nazi thug government because America is terrified of Russian economic growth and military power

        Oh by the way - even as we speak, the US are stirring up Japan against China because guess what ? China threatens the US dollar even more than Russia

        Des > Ted Crilly

        your last sentence is not correct, its far deeper than that.

        swindonukipper

        The question is Ukraine is neither in the EU or Nato and thousands of miles from the US CIA , so why are any of these organizations having any involvement at all in Ukraine ?

        Why are they interfering in matters which they should have zero involvement in ?

        Why are they trying to influence events inside Ukraine ?

        Why have they overthrown a democratically elected government ?

        Nato = North American Terrorist Organisation

        John Macassey

        Poroshenko may well think a little more carefully and listed to cooler and clearer heads. Surely the people of the Donbas have made clear their intentions to be free and autonomous from the dodgy Kiev regime. It is time for Poroshenko to stop calling the people terrorists and begging for US aid and negotiate sincerely rather than try to subdue the Donbas with tanks and violence.

        German state television suddenly finds Neo Nazis in the ranks of the Ukrainian army - English subtitles

        [Feb 18, 2015] Excuse Me; Is This the Bus to Wonderland?

        Feb 18, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

        PaulR, February 18, 2015 at 6:56 am

        Latest Economist cover here: http://www.economist.com/printedition/covers/2015-02-12/ap-e-eu-la-me-na-uk
        marknesop, February 18, 2015 at 8:09 am
        That's pretty funny, and one hell of a case of projection. The west imposes sanctions on Russia for something it didn't do, and then any reaction other than adopting the fetal position is "making war on the west".
        PaulR, February 18, 2015 at 6:58 am
        And on a different subject, the following tweet by the Independent's Ollie Carroll amused me: 'Returning soldiers message: "Putin is a dick and Poroshenko is his used condom".' https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status/568006163104702464

        marknesop, February 18, 2015 at 1:25 pm

        Poroshenko has lost control of what is known as "battle rhythm"; a pre-planned series of events executed in compliance with a plan which was made to allow for all possible known eventualities. He is now 100% reactive and unable to impose his own decision-making on the course of events, and likewise unable to arrest or change their progress. He and the Ukrainian state are now merely riders on the tiger they have unleashed.

        But he also has to worry about a second front opening closer to home, as Yarosh and his pals in the fascist battalions take out their fury on him for being incapable of delivering the promised victory – how did that Ukrainian Victory Day parade in Crimea go? I must have missed it. The population of rump Ukraine must also be beginning to realize they have been lied to from the word "Go", and that only ruin yawns ahead for them rather than a march through gilded streets to a place at the EU table.

        [Feb 18, 2015] She is simply beautiful - our Jen!

        Google translation...
        February 14, 2015 | ramst11.livejournal.com

        What a refined, almost classic level of suprcifial nonsense.

        During the briefing, the official U.S. state Department spokesman Jen Psaki commented on the speech of the President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro, who accused Washington in the preparation of a coup in his country.

        "These latest allegations as all the previous ones, ridiculous. The U.S. as a long-standing principle of its policy do not support the change of political power by unconstitutional means. The transition should be democratic, constitutional, peaceful and legal," said Psaki.

        The Reuters correspondent Matt Lee said, "Wait, what kind of long-standing principle you say? Anyway, in relation to South and Latin America in General it is not a long-standing practice."

        "It is my point of view, Matt, without going into history," retorted Psaki.

        The TASS correspondent Andrey Shitov entered the discussion by remarking: "the Change of government in the beginning of last year in Ukraine and subsequent events were unconstitutional, but you have supported them."

        In response Psaki went on the offensive:

        "This is ludicrous. And does not correspond to historical facts. I don't think I makes sense to go into the story, but since you gave me this opportunity, as you know, former leader of the Ukrainian left on their own".

        Should we just laugh, or those people really believe thier own propaganda ?

        [Feb 18, 2015] The West's Dilema After Debaltseve What To Do About Poroshenko

        Feb 18, 2015 | moonofalabama.org

        Despite the best that has been done by everyone - the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of Our servants of the State, and the devoted service of Our one hundred million people - the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.
        Emperor Hirohito acknowledging Japan's defeat

        The Ukrainian puppet president Poroshenko should have delivered a similar speech. Indeed the war situation in Ukraine has developed not necessarily to his governments advantage. But the speech Proshenko gave (see below) was even more delusional than Hirohito's whitewashing.

        Harry | Feb 18, 2015 11:37:55 AM | 3

        Parasha (suitable Russian word) is just repeating what US is telling him, and since US never cared about their or their puppets truthfulness, why would US need to arrange coup now? (Not like US lost any sleep with Al Qaedas glorification as righteous freedom fighters -> demonization -> glorification -> demonization etc. etc).

        If Parasha outlives his usefulness - sure, soft coup (or even hard one) is very much possible, but I dont think we are there yet. Yatseniuk wouldnt be any different in Parasho's position, except even weaker - Parasha at least has his oligarch-gangster style influence too.

        Benu | Feb 18, 2015 11:47:24 AM | 4

        Ha. Poroshenko and his Our Ukraine have been "assets" for some time now, as demonstrated by cables exposed on wikileaks. There have been reports that his family has been airlifted to the US. Like so many others -- Gulen(PA) and Sakaashvili(NY) come immed to mind -- he will soon have a nice house in Northern Virginia, is my cynical guess.

        Willy2 | Feb 18, 2015 12:50:00 PM | 7

        Don't count on "western" media to bring out the ugly truth regarding Debaltsevo. At least, not from the US media. My TV station brings pictures of ukrainian troops leaving the city in an "orderly manner", no signs of panic, etc. Poroshenko stated on TV, there was an "orderly retreat". Sure.

        I think the US won't stop arming the Ukraine because a number of people are jockying for positions if/when Hillary Clinton will get elected.

        Quote:
        "The most compelling explanation of why the Obama administration seemed to be shifting towards a more hawkish policy (arming the Kiev government now) is that key players in the administration have begun maneuvering for jobs in a future Hillary Clinton administration. Reflexive (but not shrill) hawkishness a necessary form of careerism in the foreign policy bureaucracy set. As an explanation for important events, it's a close cousin to Hannah Arendt's observation that Eichman was a banal and mediocre figure. Personally, I would prefer that the Chomskyite monopoly capitalism explanation was more credible."

        Source:
        http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-ambitions-driving-the-ukraine-consensus

        The article gives a number of good reasons wht the US won't back down. And it's all domestic policy related. They don't care if 1000s of Iraqi, Afghan or other people die. The people in DC want war for other reasons.

        Jackrabbit | Feb 18, 2015 2:38:51 PM | 16

        @b: I'm not sure that US is at odds with Poroshenko. The seeming cluelessness may have been intentional/purposeful.

        US/Western leaders and media are protraying rebel action against the Debaltseve pocket as a breach of Minsk 2.0.

        For example: Ukraine crisis: US warns Russia as UN backs ceasefire deal

        . . . Russian President Vladimir Putin urged Ukraine's troops there to surrender. [Putin's direct involvement - a big 'win' for US/West propaganda which depicts Putin as the evil, unbalanced mastermind]
        . . .
        After speaking to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, Mr Biden said he "strongly condemned the violation of the ceasefire by separatist forces acting in concert with Russian forces, in and around the town of Debaltseve".He added: "If Russia continues to violate the Minsk agreements... the costs to Russia will rise."

        Mr Poroshenko described rebel attempts to take the town as a "cynical attack" on the ceasefire.

        Demian | Feb 18, 2015 3:19:36 PM | 17

        @Jackrabbit #16:

        The BBC is a notorious propaganda outlet. It always blames Russia for everything, as does Biden. Interestingly, Obama dooesn't seem to have commented on Debaltsevo.

        The Buzzfeed story somebody linked to at #14 is much more balanced.

        Piotr Berman | Feb 18, 2015 3:43:19 PM | 18

        BBC is not that bad if you read the news like denizens of late Warsaw Pact read their news. SURELY, the entire blame is on the Russian side and so-called rebels and ... but still, still ...

        So there is an interview with one of the peaceful protesters at the time of Maidan, whom someone gave a choice of two firearms, he picked one, and later made some shot at the police "without killing anyone". Furiously making logical deductions, BBC journalists concluded that at least some shots were from the side of protesters, so initial reports should be amended with that new knowledge.

        There is also a blog (I did not find it today) informing that SURELY the Russian version that the "junta of Kiev" is run by fascists is false, but NEVERTHELESS, some fascists ARE there. ONLY one (unnamed) ministry is controlled by fascists, and a well known fascists was recently nominated as the city commander of police in Kiev. And out of twenty or so volunteer battalions only one or two are fascist. It is left to the reader to conclude that the unnamed ministry is Interior, as this ministry is responsible for police. So perhaps it is true that it is only one ministry of many, but it has control of police, and a large part of armed forces. Imagine a fascist in charge of 35 thousands of New York City finest, recruiting fascists to command them, and using donations of friendly and patriotic business folks to equip them with such indispensable tools of law enforcers like multiple missile launchers. And going around the country pulling down monuments to Jefferson Davis and beating up folks (if the latter are lucky, you can be burned alive on a bad day).

        And BBC also informed about grave recent sanctions issued by EU against key persons engaged in the rebellion, including an aged crooner from Donetsk, Iosif Kobzon (who apparently has a substantial following among 50+ public in the region, his specialty seems to be romantic tango, but indeed, he also sings more martial songs like very timely "Bloody snow"). I admit that while I remain a proud citizen of EU, my pride is somewhat dented.

        ToivoS | Feb 18, 2015 4:43:17 PM | 23

        Hirohito's statement of acknowledging defeat in 1945 was a masterful statement. It helped save his office. It seems obvious that the Ukrainian Junta forces had suffered a horrific defeat at Debaltsevo two weeks ago, Poroshenko's statement today may actually save his office. He is feeding pablum to his followers. The Ukrainian troops there fought valiantly. They were overwhelmed by Russian aggression. Today, they withdraw intact with honor in the face of superior forces. All Ukrainian patriots realize that they, alone, cannot withstand the Russian superpower.

        This retreat will be accepted by the Ukrainian nationalists as part of a gallant but failed effort to stop Putin's aggression against western civilization. Today their job is to convince the public's of western nations that they have been abandoned by the appeasement politicians in Europe and inside the Obama administration. This defeat will be blamed on those officials that sold out the heroic Ukrainians in the Minsk 2 deal. What we are seeing right now is an effort to create another stab in the back myth. Most fools in Central and Western Ukraine will grab onto that myth with gusto. That certainly will be easier for them to believe than to accept their fantasies of Ukrainian nationalism are nothing more than, well, fantasies.

        I guess for those us in the US and western Europe is whether or not these fantasies take root in our political cultures. Hopefully not. Politically it seems that the best we can hope for is that a clear majority of people in the west are not interested in going into WWIII over Ukraine. Even if many of them believe the bullshit coming out of Kiev.

        Jackrabbit | Feb 18, 2015 4:57:54 PM | 24

        @Demian and others...

        I didn't point to the BBC article as a news source but as illustration of how Debaltseve was being used by US/Western propaganda.

        Short(er) version: rebel action at Debaltseve is being called a breach of Minsk 2.0, and fingers are being pointed at Putin.

        This leads to the question of whether Poroshenko (in concert with others) hoped to use rebel action in Debaltseve for propaganda purposes. If Poroshenko's stubborn ignorance during Minsk 2.0 negotiations (even when others tried to explain it to him) was intentional 'gaming' - which was likely approved by other 'partners' - that would imply that the US/Obama is not as frustrated with Poroshenko as b suggests in his post.

        Demian | Feb 18, 2015 5:35:16 PM | 28

        @TovioS #23:

        A Russian Russian blog reports that the Ukie blogosphere quickly became skeptical of Poroshenko's account of what went on at Debaltsevo. And judging by comments to a Youtube video of a Ukie report about Ukie "volunteer" battalion leaders forming their own general staff (something disastrous for the UAF, since, unlike the NAF, they have failed at creating a unified command), Ukie nationalists are inclined to blame Ukie generals for the Debaltsevo disaster,

        I think Western publics are tired of Ukraine. No Ukrainian fantasies will take root in the West.

        Alexander Mercouris wrote a very interesting piece in which he analyzes Der Spiegel's long article about Merkel's negotiations in Berlin and Minsk. According to Der Spiegel, Merk initiated the negotiations, because she was afraid that the NAF would get routed in Debaltsevo. Of course, that happened anyway, because Poroshenko kept on denying that the Debaltsevo cauldron existed, so Debaltsevo could not be mentioned in the written Minsk 2 agreement.

        Mercouris also speculates that Putin got just about everything out of Merkel that he wanted, including Ukieland staying out of NATO and the EU, although that agreement is verbal. Mercouris makes much of the fact that advisers were not present at the meeting between Merkel, Holland, and Putin, which suggests that secrecy was a major concern. Keeping secrets from whom, one may ask.

        @Jackrabbit #24:

        I don't think that letting your armed forces get routed is good for propaganda purposes.

        Demian | Feb 18, 2015 5:59:59 PM | 30

        P.S. The comments to Mercouris' piece at Russia Insider are also worth reading, especially the first one, which says in part:

        the majority owner of Der Spiegel (Jakob Augstein) has his weekly column inside the Magazine as well as on Spiegel Online. In the same week his column made it clear to all readers that Merkel has lost on two major fronts: Greece and Ukraine. Der Spiegel (in its opinion section) considers Merkel to be a failure and a tragedy for Germany and for Europe. No praise to be seen anywhere!

        However, it is clear to me now, that "official" Germany has changed its position altogether in the Ukraine question. It became clear to me when on Sunday night at 9:45pm in Günther Jauch's ARD talk (Germany's foremost prime time political talk show) the representative of the German Government (Norbert Röttgen) presented a very differntiated picture to the viewing public. Not one negative word on President Putin. Lots of criticism on the Kiew Government.Present where also the Ukrainian Ambassador to Berlin as well as the Russian Ambassador to Berlin. Whenever the Ukrainian Ambassador was allowed to give his side of the story, the Russian Ambassador was given ample time to rebutt and put across his point of view. Unheard of, in the past Months.

        The German online media and printed press has largely abstained from overt Putin bashing since end of last week. Suddenly Putin is no longer a villain, but a partner one can negotiate with. Obviously this is not a straight line, but it is quite clear: German media is in retreat, together with the Ukrainian Army, one might say.

        fairleft | Feb 18, 2015 8:08:00 PM | 33

        CNN reports from Debaltsevo, shows abandoned armor and lots of abandoned artillery rounds. One federalist smiles: "On to Kiev and then Berlin. Merkel can make us tea." Small miracle, the CNN reporter _does_ report that he is joking.

        [Feb 18, 2015] A Bloody Retreat From Debaltseve as Ukrainian Forces Suddenly Withdraw

        Feb 18, 2015 | NYTimes.com

        Amid heavy fighting, Ukrainian soldiers were ordered to retreat from the strategic town of Debaltseve, where they had been surrounded by Russian-backed rebels.
        Publish Date February 18, 2015.

        By midday on Wednesday, limping and exhausted soldiers were showing up on the Ukrainian side of the front lines in the conflict, describing a harrowing ordeal that began with a surprise 1 a.m. order to retreat.

        "Many trucks left, and only a few arrived," said one soldier, who offered only his rank (sergeant) and his given name (Volodomyr) as he knelt on the sidewalk smoking. "A third of us made it, at most," the soldier said.

        Others said that a majority, at least, of the soldiers who set off from the town in a column of about 100 trucks had managed to escape the encirclement, many of them straggling out on foot after their vehicles were blown up.

        The order to retreat was kept secret until the last minute, and soldiers were told to prepare in 10 minutes and pile into the beds of troop transport trucks, according to Albert Sardaryen, a 22-year-old medic who made the journey.

        The trucks lined up on the edge of town, Mr. Sardaryen said, while tanks and tracked vehicles formed lines on either side of the truck convoy to try to shield the soldiers. The column drove through farm fields rather than use a main road that had been mined, and the trucks kept their headlights off to make them harder to spot.

        The column came under attack almost immediately, he said, and trucks started breaking down and colliding in the dark. By dawn, the column was strung out on the plain and taking fire from all sides.

        "They were shooting with tanks, rocket propelled grenades and sniper rifles," and firing at the disintegrating column with rockets, he said. Dead and wounded soldiers were left on the snowy fields because there were too many of them to carry once the trucks were hit.

        "We stabilized them, applied tourniquets, gave them pain killers and tried to put them in a place with better cover," Mr. Sardaryen said of the wounded. Later, a Ukrainian unit from outside the encirclement drove in to try to retrieve the wounded, he said.

        Mr. Sardaryen said he ran on foot for the final four miles or so. Many of the soldiers who made it out also did so on foot, though some trucks made it all the way through, he said.

        Oleksandr I. Bogunov, an army private, said the order came to carry only what would be useful for the fight on the way out, and leave all other ammunition and weaponry behind.

        Porco Rosso
        1 hour ago
        Average Ukrainians are now far more scared of the Kiev junta fascists that are now in power and who are nowadays literally masters of life...

        Mr. Poroshenko's order came after the separatists boasted of controlling the town on Tuesday, and after President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia suggested at a news conference in Hungary that Ukraine should accept its defeat at Debaltseve by the separatist forces, whom he described as "underdogs." Russia is widely believed to be actively supporting the separatists.

        Andriy Lysenko, a spokesman for the Ukrainian national security and defense council, confirmed the retreat from Debaltseve on at a briefing Wednesday afternoon in Kiev, the capital. He said the pullout was nearly completed.

        Porco Rosso, Chicago 1 hour ago

        Average Ukrainians are now far more scared of the Kiev junta fascists that are now in power and who are nowadays literally masters of life and death in the rest of the Ukraine than of the separatists in the east. Next thing to expect, will be upraise of the Ukrainians against the Right Sector fascists that currently control army and police and the rest of Kiev Junta oligarchs that have been hoping to rip off EU or US budgets by perpetuating this war that except DC neocons nobody wants.

        Maiklas, Lithuania 1 hour ago

        How could the Minsk agreement have neglected to specify in detail what to do about the pocket of Ukrainian troops in Debaltseve? Merkel, Hollande, Poroshenko, and Putin need to meet again, but this time with representatives also from the DPR and the Right Sector.

        In any case, never forget that this started as an illegal coup of a democratic government, facilitated by neocons McCain, Nuland, and Obama.

        Wendell Murray, Kennett Square PA USA 1 hour ago

        No surprise. The Ukrainian army conscripts have no desire on average to be killed or to kill their fellow Ukrainians. The locals are fighting for their lives. Forget the nonsensical "Russian-backed separatists" moniker applied to the locals in USA and western European mainstream media outlets.

        They are local citizens fighting the fascist government in Kiev that overthrew - with prior USA governmental connivance and immediate post-coup support - the elected government a year ago. The propaganda on all this from the NYTimes and other theoretically neutral media outlets, not to mention the onslaught of disgusting nonsense from the USA government and its factota in so-called "think tanks is reprehensible.

        Tony Borrelli, Suburban Philly 2 hours ago

        It's rapidly becoming time for the USA (and the supportive US Media) to acknowledge that the USA/UK/EU agenda was behind the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Ukraine, that the new government is a right wing tainted oligarchy, and that the resolve of the Russians is to NOT allow this faction to continue to surround them. In many ways the USA behaves like a doctor who refuses to acknowledge that his treatment failed and the patient is dying. We have had many adventures in Latin America, Europe and the Middle East where our tactics to create a sphere of influence have succeeded. This, like Cuba, is not going to be one of them. The Soviet Union is dead. The resolve of the Russian people who lost 20 million people defending the Motherland is not. This is where the European populace is going to tell their governments "enough of tweaking Russia's nose on behalf of the USA & UK".

        mervyn, nyc 1 hour ago

        You got be kidding me. This is the exact attitude to get us into the bind. The State Department was using thugs from Kiev to overthrow the government, and pushed Rebels to the boarder until last fall. The rebels then regrouped and came back with Russian armors. Live to fight another day? There will be no other days. If Putin uses full force of Russian Army like in Georgia, he can take Kiev in 2 weeks.

        NYReader, NY 2 hours ago

        How come every single place US and the allies get involved in becomes a terrible mess? You name it: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Egypt, Yemen, etc. One failure and one miscalculation after another. And please don't pass this off as George Bush, as Obama is now a war president also.

        The United States has refused to recognize Russia's traditional interests in Ukraine. Apparently there is the Monroe Doctrine to protect our interests in the Western Hampshire, but Russia gets the same old cold war policy of a "ring of steel". We have recruited Nato membership among the former Eastern Block, tried to surround Russia with missiles, and shamelessly interfered with Ukrainian domestic politics - all of them failures.

        The mess that the neocons have created in Ukraine is splitting that country apart and may lead to a global confrontation. President Obama should resist the call for arming the coup leaders in Kiev and should join Germany and France for a negotiated settlement in Ukraine that will bring peace to the country and to Europe. The warmongers should be told to calm down or volunteer to go and fight as partisans. They should leave the rest of America alone.

        Varenik, Boston 2 hours ago

        Maybe it would not end up like this if Poroshenko had not thrown the neo-nazi brigades against the mostly, ethnically, Russians protesting the coup in Kiev which in itself was an insult to those who grew up with memories of what was done to them during WWII. The real memories, not the hazy western interpretations where US had saved the day. The US media kept almost complete silence about the bombardment of Donetsk with scores of civilians dying in process, same way nobody is reminding Americans how this was US orchestrated and financed coup, and the same way everybody is keeping mum on the huge neo-nazi undercurrent in Ukraine. One is left to wonder as to where Kerry's idealism has gone...

        Clark M. Shanahan, Oak Park, Illinois 10 hours ago

        There are enough sour grapes on this page to go around.

        Maidan understood, before taking over, that the people of SE Ukraine were not on board. The US, not understanding that some people do not necessarily view our "free enterprise/market system" as the greatest thing since sliced bread, was convinced that the southeast would "reluctantly go along"..

        (That's just one more example how our 'experts' don't have the faintest clue.)

        How Porochenko thought he could resolve things by simply bombing a sizable minority, to come around, was ham-fisted, if not, outright criminal.

        David, Chicago 11 hours ago

        The Minsk agreement had the fatal flaw that its negotiation excluded one of the two sides in Ukraine's civil war. By excluding the separatist rebels, the negotiators were able to gloss over the key point of whether Debaltseve was located in rebel-controlled territory or government-controlled territory. This may seem like a trivial point, but the accord called for both sides to withdraw behind their front lines. How is this possible if one of the sides has forces implanted in a besieged pocket deep within territory controlled by the other side? The separatist rebels reasonably asserted that the Ukrainian troops garrisoned in Debaltseve should withdrawn to behind the front line of territory controlled by the Ukrainian army.

        The Ukrainian army, urged on by its Western allies, insisted on not giving up this strategically important salient in the enemy's territory. Russia's much maligned president insisted on this rather obvious sticking point, this anomaly that the accord didn't address, but in the end he capitulated to the rest and allowed the point to remain unresolved.

        Minsk was a textbook example of how not to negotiate a truce. It made no logical sense and practically guaranteed continued fighting for control of Debaltseve. On the positive side, now that Ukrainian troops have been defeated there, the other front lines between the two sides appear to be recognized by both sides and therefore are relatively quiet.

        So not all hope is lost for the truce.

        Dan Elson, London 9 hours ago

        I grew up in Europe during the coldest period of the "cold war" living in fear of Russian (or Soviet) aggression which was very real at the time.

        Reading the papers today though I am not entirely convinced that Putin is the new "Hitler" and can only "be put in his place" through military force at any cost as many suggest. Russia is a dwarf compared to America in terms of military power and presence abroad. Put9;s entire war loans 2006.

        In this conflict I can understand that Russia wants to keep Ukraine out of NATO in the same way as America would not have wanted Canada to join the Warsaw Pact in the 80's but naturally I don't sympathise with their methods for achieving this goal. It would be ill advised though to believe that there is a military solution to the problem.

        Thanks to Stalin's madness with famine and deportations Ukraine today is one of the most complex places to be found. Politics span from extreme Fascism to old Communism with nearly 20% of the population being Russian. Instead of trying to govern something like that they should just divide the country peacefully like Czechoslovakia did without bringing NATO into the equation.

        jdd, New York, NY 11 hours ago

        There was no rebel offensive, they simply held their ground. At Minsk, Putin tried to warn Poroshenko that his forces were surrounded and should surrender, but he wanted none of that. He should have listened to that advice as now the survivors and the Nazi battalions ("Right Sector") are talking coup.

        S.D. Keith, Birmingham, AL 9 hours ago

        And so Putin incrementally again decreases the footprint of Western hegemony. Make no mistake. Ukraine is a proxy for the ages-old power struggle between Eastern and Western Europe. The West seemed ascendant, until recently. Now Putin appears to have poked and prodded until he discovered the West's latent weakness--after sixty years of relative peace, it can't stomach the idea of another Continental bloodbath. Those that won't fight always lose to those that will.

        The West, including of course Western Europe's overseer and protector, the US, has very few options short of deploying ground forces to help Ukraine, and Putin knows it won't deploy ground forces to help Ukraine. So the Russian Empire will reconstitute that portion of the Soviet Union lost in the Cold War.

        The only question is who's next?

        Olga, Brooklyn 10 hours ago

        There was indeed a violation of Minsk agreements in Debaltsevo: however it was from Ukranian side, who for several days delayed the cease-fire and removal of the troops/heavy weaponry. Debaltsevo is part of rebel-controlled zone according to Minsk agreement, and there is no way the 'rebels' can cease fire while being under attach and while agreements are violated. The twisted interpretation of the of the situation by Ukraine and the west is to be expected.

        It is unfortunate that the real leader emerging in the ukraine is Zakharchenko, while Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk, etc continue to play games and discredit themselves. Understandable, right now Urkaine has a weaker hand, and bidding for time (and money) is useful for it -- but the continues propaganda and falsification of events are becoming a constant there.

        Nowhere in NYtimes does one read about misrepresentation of history, that is recently very popular in the Ukraine; about severe restrictions on freedom of speech and information (as russian news sources are banned, as russian journalists are not allowed in the Ukraine) -- if this were happening in other 'good' european countries or, g. forbid, Russia, it would an outrage.

        George, Germany 9 hours ago

        Gotta love the Americans. Their answer to everything is more war, more weapons. You people will not be satisfied until there are rivers of blood in Ukraine.

        Putin will never back down. If he does he will be no longer Russian president. Get this in your heads.

        dogsecrets, GA 10 hours ago

        Good just give the Russian what they want a land bridge to Crimea

        This war did not have to happen the Stupid European and American thinking that Russian would stand by while Ukraine join the EU, just look at how we acted when Cuba was getting close to Russia and we still treat Cuba like crap 50 years later, Wake up Ukraine and Ukrainian people are not worth fighting for.

        R36, New York 6 hours ago

        I do blame Obama because he has allowed the situation to get out of hand. He could have said,

        "Just as we Americans were fighting for our freedom from the British, the rebels in east Ukraine are fighting for their freedom from Poroshenko and his regime in Kiev. Just as France helped us against the British, Russia is helping the rebels against Kiev.

        "It is foolish to risk world war to prevent the people from the Donblass to have their freedom."

        He could have said that and pressured Poroshenko to allow autonomy or federalization. Then we could have had peace and the 8000 Ukrainian troops in Debaltseve would still be alive.

        Before he went to Minsk, Poroshenko said explicitly that he was not interested in compromise and he rejected federalization.

        He has reaped what he sowed. And Ukraine has reaped what America sowed.

        Phil, Brentwood 7 hours ago

        Have ANY revolutions since the "Arab Spring" turned out well? Egypt is no better off, Syria is a killing field and Libya is a catastrophe. Sadly, Ukraine is following this pattern. The overthrow of their elected president has led to bloodshed and loss of control of the eastern portion of their country. Lesson: before you jump in a dark hole, figure out what's at the bottom.

        Under the circumstances, the escape of the Ukrainian troops from Debaltseve is the best outcome possible. It is considerably better than having them surrender.

        [Feb 17, 2015] Libya Lies – Rape as a Weapon of War – Made in the USA? by Felicity Arbuthnot

        February 17th, 2015 | dissidentvoice.org

        It's really 19th century behavior in the 21st century, you just don't invade another country on phony pretexts in order to assert your interests.
        - Secretary of State, John Kerry, "Meet the Press", March 2, 2014

        Various professional psychology sites state succinctly: "Projection is a defense mechanism which involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people."

        Further: "Projection tends to come to the fore in normal people at times of crisis, personal or political, but is more commonly found in the neurotic or psychotic – in personalities functioning at a primitive level as in narcissistic

        (Full article …)

        The Dirty Little Secret of Network News by CLANCY SIGAL

        (This column is written in honor of Gary Webb formerly of the San Jose Mercury News who exposed the CIA connection in smuggling drugs into LA's African American community. For some reporting errors he was hung out to dry by his publisher and most of the Establishment media like the LATimes, Washington Post and NY Times. He committed suicide.)

        ... ... ...

        Heaven knows there was enough muck to rake. It was, and today often is, a rare judge or alderman who doesn't end up in the clink. Of the 100 or so people to serve as a Chicago alderman in the last four decades, 31 of them have been convicted of corruption. And let's not even speak of the past governor Blagojevich who became the fourth of the past seven Illinois governors to be convicted of a felony.

        Thus, I grew up in a headline hunting, scandalmongering, "irresponsible" tabloidish journalistic culture.

        I first became a working journalist in London's Fleet Street which in many ways resembled Old Timey Chicago's graft, alcoholism and pursuit of trivial sleaze.

        Given this history, I'm hardly one to sit in judgment on journalistic "ethical lapses". But there really is a world of difference between a sleek superstar like Brian Williams and a stone-cold reporter like Bob Simon.

        On TV's 60 Minutes Simon reported without performing. (His last story, on Ebola, will appear this Sunday.) Brian Williams is cut from a different cloth. (See actor William Hurt in Broadcast News.) Williams adored, and got addicted to, the ego-Botox of celebrity. NBC pushed him absurdly hard as their Peacock Network brand, and paid him $10 million a year to shine on viewers with whatever is the opposite of real news. With his jut jaw, easy delivery and delight in telling fish stories to David Letterman on late nite TV shows, he is almost as much a victim of an anti-news system as its exploiter.

        As an "embedded" war reporter in Iraq he broke an honest reporter's first moral rule to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable". He praised the invasion as "the cleanest war in all of military history" in tune with elite journalism's prevailing lies at the time.

        Celebrity journalism usually stinks on TV...

        Clancy Sigal is a screenwriter and novelist. His latest book is Hemingway Lives. Sigal and Doris Lessing lived together in London for several years.

        [Feb 17, 2015] The analogy between Yugoslavia and the Ukraine by Stephen Karganović

        February 15, 2015 | Czech Free Press
        Russian experts analyzed in detail the similarities in the methods and strategies used by the western coalition in connection with the Ukrainian crisis that has spawned and has exacerbated into brutal civil war. The same actors used those strategies developed in the 90's create the fertile soil for a brutal civil war which resulted in the destruction of the former Yugoslavia, are The reasons for such in-depth research are legion. First of all, if your not very imaginative or too arrogant enemy repeatedly acts according to the same template, knowing it provides you with a significant strategic advantage. It allows you to some extent to predict his actions and propose effective countermeasures.

        Although chutzpa of western strategists undoubtedly allow to counter their schemes more effectively, however, it is very important carefully analyze the key similarities and differences in two different situation so that you are not fighting the last war. Here are key elements of the color revolution template:

        1. The ethnic and religious fragmentation. The starting point of any color revolution is Identification of the usable social tensions and their systematic aggravation so that that at the end they can serve as a detonator of the planned crisis. This means mutual divide constitutive of the community, with an emphasis on what sets them apart, and at the same time reducing the weight of what they have in common.

          In Yugoslavia this strategy began be carried out long before the visible signs of the crisis, forming of new ethnic identities (Muslim, Montenegrin and Macedonian) was financed and supported as well as separatist aspirations were systematically encouragement and refined in the context of the existing ones (especially among the Croats and Slovenians). The Ukrainian identity is also an artificial construction, which is defined not positively, but primarily in a hate of all Russians, as a militant negation of all Russian culture and language. In Ukraine, as before, in Yugoslavia, existing religious cleft between the Catholics and the Orthodox part of the country was also successfully used to increase, deepen and sharpen the existing animosity.

        2. Deceptive by promise higher standard of living and creation of various material temptations to support the politically desired behavior.

          In the former Yugoslavia, where there was by the end of the 80. years of a decent standard of living, has been used in the prospects for an even better life, which would have followed the dissolution of the socialist state, as a bait to encourage separatist tendencies. Yugoslavia Catholic west was promised to increase the well-being to the level of Germany, when they decide to separate and commit to the "civilizational choice" (nearly identical phrase was used in the context of Ukraine) in favor of the integration with EU. Muslims in Bosnia and in Kosovo were promised great benefit from close connection to the rich Islamic countries. In Ukraine the EuroMaidan events were triggered by the illusion of rapid inclusion into the European union as associated ability to travel to the Western countries without visa and dramatic raise of standard of living.

          The majority of the population in western and central Ukraine, who have responded positively to these fake prospects of improving their standard of living and totally failed to realize gravity of the real economic and social transition, and more importantly, didn't realize the existence of the strong "no new members" trend in the EU. As a result they were forced to act on the basis of completely unfounded assumptions.

        3. Control of MSM in the target countries for the purpose of influencing the perception and behavior of the masses.

          The penetration of western influences in the media space in the former Yugoslavia, the pioneer of which was Soros, started immediately as soon as the political liberalization at the end of the 80th allow it. From the early 90's. years, when the conflict was the feeded mainly from abroad and did not yet became self sustained, a big part of the local media in all of the Yugoslav republics fall under the direct control of the western owners. A similar transfer of MSM into western hands occurred in Ukraine during the last two decades, where before EuroMaidan all the major MSM including TV channels were under the firm control of the controlled by the west oligarchs such as Poroshenko and kolomyski. all of them simultaneously Promoted the almost uniform and factually incorrect narrative about the benefits that would come from a political alliance EU and NATO and the EU, and total alienation from Russia.

        4. As in Ukraine, as in Yugoslavia, there was a certain core of the population, which proved to be resistant to brainwashing and continues to hold its own narrative. It was politically marginalized.

          While those people Radically reject these false ideas, which were designed to guarantee the acceptance of the new political arrangement under the iron heel of the West. In Ukraine, it was the Russian speaking east, in Yugoslavia the Serbs.

          The rejection of these groups to accept peacefully the loss of their own cultural identity and political autonomy has led in both cases to conflicts. A clear answer is required whether the armed conflict (although he was in principle predictable) also the preplanned and intended consequence of the processes that have been put into operation.

          In the case of Ukraine we can be reasonably doubtful, because of the apparent intention of the new Kiev junta after regime change was to include the country to NATO and the EU under the guidance of a vassal government in Kiev and this goal does not include the political disintegration of the country. EU wanted to eat the whole peace, as a single country.

          In the case of Yugoslavia, it can be argued that the conflict leading in the Serbian military defeat was clearly part of the plan. It is possible, however, that was originally expected that the campaign will be much faster and more successful. As it turned out, by the fact that the instigators of the Yugoslav crisis reviews are written by free rein to their Croatian and Muslim protecting, perhaps inadvertently, created a clear existential threat to the Serbs, who were scattered throughout the territory of the former Yugoslavia, which greatly cemented their resistance and prolong the conflict longer than originally expected.

          In addition, it could lead to further unintentional result: a serious challenge to the Yeltsin's alliance with the West (although Russia played a role of Western vassal in this case). It has come to a critical stage in the time of the Kosovo war. The result was the rise of Putin and his political vision as a response to the war.

          Whether it was the original intention of the Ukraine anything (was probably only about the direction of cultural fragmentation while maintaining the overall political integrity of the country, albeit with a much more reliable western component, which would put to the untrusted east of the country into submission), it seems that failed as soon as it was when Kiev junta used brute force. As pointed out by informed analysts, power compromise between Kiev and Russian speaking east, which was possible two or three months ago [the article was written in September 2014, nb], is no longer possible because of the suffering and destruction Kiev junta has caused. The situation is evolving rapidly, while the regions that are culturally focused mainly on Russia, more and more refuse to have anything to do with Kiev, irrespective of the details of the proposed arrangement, if any. In this sense, today in Ukraine are getting a strong analogy with the spirit of the resistance, which was typical for Bosnian and Croatian Serbs during the Yugoslav conflict.

          One can imagine that if the West backed junta in both of the cases from the beginning took a more subtle and a more flexible attitude towards the Serbian and the Russian population, whose political role they want to diminish, it could proceed much more effectively, and might even prevent the radicalization of the opposition. And could it be truly successful, because in both cases, it was junta not the rebels, who, at least initially, intend to resort to violence.

        5. The west uses the most despicable social strata and dirty methods to achieve their goals. there are a number of documents that can shed light on the diabolic pact of the West with Iran (Iran-Contra) and other usage of more or less fundamentalist Islamic actors in order to strengthen the local Muslim forces in Bosnia, which was in line with the interests of NATO and the EU and the fight for control of the whole country.

          The participation of certain elements of the European far right in the war on the side of the right-center regime in Croatia was encouraged. A similar pattern can be observed in the Middle east, where the radical Islamic faction become a means to undermine the secular regimes, which were regarded as hostile to the West.

          In Ukraine there was a contract with the devil clearly included some of the most egregious of the local fascist forces, literally remnants and direct ascendants of forces that collaborated with Nazi during WW2. Their task was to provide a storm troopers for seizing power, and stage the coup d'état after which the West supported oligarchs and politicians in Kiev took power consolidate pro western neoliberal government. It seems that in both in Yugoslavian the Ukrainian case the key idea was :

          "Now we are going to use them for the removal of our main opponent and them we will deal with neofascists later."

          The probability that monsters which the West created at some point can refuse to obey their Western masters, was not taken into consideration. The post-war spread of radical Islam in Bosnia, where it previously never existed, and the consolidation of a strong fascist groundswell in Croatia is enough proof of this effect. In terms of the Nazi-inspired movements and armed formations in Ukraine, it seems that there is no clear plan as for how to bring them back to obedience once a conflict is over and they, presumably, outlived their usefullness for the west.

          Those tools, which the West amorally used to achieve their objectives, sow the Dragon teeth of the long-term instability as there is a distinct tendency of such forces to get out of control of their creators and even turn against them as happened with radical Wahhabism Islam.

          For Russia, the Ukraine is a serious problems, as those Dragon teeth, which was sown opportunistically by West as a tool for interference , will bear bitter fruits. Undoubtedly, they will prevent integration of Ukraine into the "Russian world", even if we limit to most basic cooperation as understood by the current Russian politicians. In other words Ukraine lost all Russian market.

        6. Covert support of Western puppets, while publicly proclaiming the policy of non-interference, which in practice is demanded only from other parties.

          Another important similarity lies in the fact that in the case of both the crisis of the West has initiated an embargo on the importation of weapons and logistical support to the conflicting parties, but on a regular basis is skirted in favor of their local clients. Rich evidentiary material, which was accumulated after the end of the 90. years, leaves no doubt about the fact that the Bosnian Muslim and Croatian forces in Yugoslavia were supplied by the west with a huge amount of weapons and large amount of training.

          Russia is the target of the process of demonization for not only the military, but even humanitarian aid to rebel regions in Ukraine. Western patrons insist on an almost unlimited right to support their clients, as in Belgrade in the 90's years, and Moscow now have similar privileges denied. Their insistence on a "level playing field" - the cliché which was often used at the time of the Bosnian conflict, turned out not to be what was in fact: it was the naked hypocrisy.

        7. A significant difference: Moscow has a clearly defined political objectives. You could say that one of the main reasons for the failure of the Serbian resistance in Croatia and only partial success in Bosnia was the lack of a clear political vision of both in their own ranks, and in Belgrade, which supported them.

          The Russian analysis of this experience has played an important role in ensuring that Moscow and its allies try to avoid to get into the swamp of the civil war without a clear definition of their goals and means to achieve them. No doubt that president , Putin does not want to imitate Slobodan Milosevic, who delivered a brilliant television speech, which contained a crucial insight about the machinations of his western opponents, but his timing couldn't be worse - it was delivered a few days before his overthrow.

        It seems that the Balkan events led to a more sobering view on the USE and a lot of self-reflection of Russian politicians, and that has double effect. First of all, the Kosovo war and the bombing of Yugoslavia at the end of the 90. years clearly give rise to substantial upheaval that has contributed to the change of Russian leadership. As a result Vladimir Putin became Russian president and his vision now if dominant. However, the negative consequences of the tortuous policy of encouraging their protégés in Bosnia and Croatia, followed by Milosevic, have been for the Russians another huge lesson. This lies in the fact that if someone does not have a wider strategic vision and the ability to put it place, it is better to avoid such a risky and complex entanglements.

        Source: vineyardsaker.blogspot.cz, translation: Charles Hyka

        Taken from the www.kosovoonline.cz

        [Feb 17, 2015] Comparing the Ukraine and Yugoslavia + Open Thread

        The Vineyard of the Saker
        Alien Tech
        Geopolitical Gaslighting, Propaganda & Disinformation

        Gaslighting is a form of mental abuse in which false information is presented with the intent of making a victim doubt his or her own memory, perception and sanity. Instances may range simply from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred, up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim. The term "gaslighting" comes from the 1938 play Gaslight.

        The term is used in clinical and research literature generally it can also be applied in the context of media propaganda.

        A good gaslighter will make all efforts to control the environment of their victim so the lies and manipulations go unchallenged. In the scenario of an abusive relationship this might mean limiting the victim's contact with friends or family (isolation). In a geopolitical context, things like censorship and disinformation are used to control environments.

        The book State of Confusion by Dr. Bryant Welch, (2008) discusses gaslighting in regards to US media and its effects on the American public. Dr. Welch is an American psychologist and attorney who spent half of his 30 year career in Washington DC working for the American Psychological Association.

        He explains that the human mind does not cope well with uncertainty. It will always gravitate towards a reality that feels correct based on our own perceptions but that may not be actual reality. He goes on to explain that it is much easier to gaslight someone who has dealt with some sort of traumatic situation.

        A mind that is already on shaky ground will grasp onto any scenario that seems accurate, as long as it simplifies a confusing situation.

        He also cites instances of smear tactics and negative campaign ads as contributing factors to gaslighting. Even though we (the general public) may feel we are intelligent enough to recognize character assassinations as manipulative – they still have devastating consequences for their victims and lasting subliminal effects on our attitudes towards their targets.

        US media is heavily sanitized. For example, US mainstream media rarely if ever shows dead bodies where in other countries the gory realities of death, destruction and war are shown in broadcast media. We have noticed on the Revolution News facebook page, our US fans are far more sensitive to images showing blood and death.

        There is a fundamental problem with sanitizing media to the point that media consumers never view a realistic representation of events like the aftermath of a drone strike or photos of torture. If those victims are not represented in mainstream media then the public becomes disconnected from the reality of human suffering. If MSM were to give equal airtime to victims, the public might feel empathy and not blindly support when their government starts up a fresh round of drone strikes.

        It has become increasingly more difficult for governments and mainstream media to control news narratives with the advent of social media.

        From a clinical standpoint, usually a gaslighting victim becomes anxious, depressed, confused and demoralized. When gaslighting is done effectively the victim is rendered incapable of logical thinking and relies solely on the gaslighter to dictate what is "real." A properly gaslighted victim feels helpless to rebel against the gaslighter.

        Perhaps the most insidious aspect of gaslighting is that when it is done well, it is so subtle that the victim never knows they have been gaslighted. To an outsider, someone who has been gaslighted might appear slightly crazy and that's exactly the intended result.

        "Political gaslighters have consciously and ruthlessly tried to impose a reality beneficial to their own cause without regard to the long-term psychological effect their behavior has on the individuals they are trying to influence."

        http://revolution-news.com/geopolitical-gaslighting-propaganda-disinformation/

        Anonymous

        The Israeli quisling, Inhofe is upset because he got caught passing fraudulent "evidence" of a Russian invasion of the Ukraine.

        Ай да Костя, ай да сукин сын! (Ai Da Costa, ah yes son of a bitch!)

        http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2047367.html

        ..."The photos that were the basis of preparation of the draft law on the supply of US weapons to Ukraine, were fake.

        US Republican senator was furious to find out that Ukrainian parliament gave him fake pictures as evidence the presence of Russian troops in Ukraine. Employees senator gave these pictures edition The Washington Free Beacon for publication. Readers also immediately noticed something was wrong.
        Later publication reported that the images "raised a number of issues," and this fact is being checked. "Some of the photos of Russian military were made ​​in 2008 during the conflict in Georgia", - admitted to journalists. Other photos were taken years before in other armed conflicts.
        Be that as it may, these images were transferred to a reception Senator Jim Inhofe in December 2014 under the guise of photo chronicle of events in Ukraine. The representative of the senator noted that the photos in the office were in printed form. Inhofe staff contacted Professor Phillip Karber from Georgetown University. Professor said he was willing to confirm the authenticity of pictures and the fact that they were made in the period from 24 August to 5 September 2014 in eastern Ukraine.
        Employees Inhofe took his word and did not bother to verify the origin of images online with a special service. They scanned these photos to the media. "Other sources have also confirmed to us that these images coincide with what is happening in Ukraine," - said the representative office of Senator Donel Harder. Then it turned out that one of the pictures was made ​​Officer Associated Press during the conflict in Georgia in 2008.
        "Members of the Ukrainian Parliament, who gave us these pictures themselves a disservice - Jim Inhofe said. - We thought that we can confidently publish these pictures, because pictures correspond to reporting on events in the region." Senator admitted that he "was furious" to learn that the pictures are not related to Ukraine."

        So, with proof in hand that he was lied to and made a fool of, what does Israel's boitoy, Inhofe, do?

        "But this does not negate the existence of ample evidence that Russia invaded the Ukraine on their T-72 tanks, and the fact that the pro-Russian separatists were killed in cold blood Ukrainians" - hastened to add Inhofe..."

        The pork barreling, trough-feeding Israelo-scum digs the hole deeper.

        вот так

        Yodarik

        The following is from http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.ca

        "I find the world to be full of endlessly fascinating people and things, and books, travel, lectures, essays, and personal conversations are the pathways to them. And the internet is a marvel of convenience for this.

        This fascination with the world and the people in it is very much in the nature of Renaissance Christian Humanism, which sees the things of the world in all their variety, but views little of His creation as inherently profane or evil, including human beings who can be a wonder and a source of grace. It is we who make it so.

        Evil is not a created thing, but the absence of good, a choice of free will. The world is not inherently evil. It inherently is, having no free will of its own Plants and animals are not inherently evil, although the little girl has often put forward an exception to this for spinach and spiders.

        Creation is like a richly provisioned canvas on which we draw our lives, and it naturally shimmers in His light. It is the darkness of our hardened hearts that casts images and shadows in the light.

        So the Christian humanist, in the Renaissance tradition, would agree with Socrates in saying, 'I am a citizen of the world,' but adding and most importantly, 'and nothing is alien to me except sin.' Because it is in sin that we cut the connection between the Incarnate world and its Creator, for it is was in the almost shocking implications of the Incarnation that the world was refreshed and made new, as all things will be made new some day again."

        I though this was worth repeating here. I am a citizen of the world who lives in Canada, we are all brothers and sisters.

        Blessings

        Anonymous

        В ОБСЕ отказались выслушать жителей Луганска после обстрела (In the OSCE refused to listen to the residents of Lugansk after firing)

        http://lifenews.ru/news/149831

        "...The blast wave also damaged the windows of several houses in the Volkov. Residents who do not have time to escape deep into the apartment or fall to the floor during the shelling, injured by shrapnel. Several people who were at the time of artudara on the street, seriously injured, and 40-year-old man died before he could reach the entrance just a few meters.

        Several shells hit the apartment and exploded inside, making part of the premises uninhabitable, and wounding dozens of people and killing two others. In the central streets of Lugansk city dwellers are still unexploded ordnance.

        In place of the night shelling in the morning arrived group of observers from the OSCE. Representatives of international organizations not only refused to talk to journalists and demanded to turn off the camera, but did not listen to civilians, funky nightlife events in the city.

        OSCE staff have long studied the neighborhood, avoiding contact with the residents of the affected areas, but people surrounded a group of observers about their company cars and demanded to fix their evidence and present to the world community..."

        That makes those OSCE scum equally guilty of these war crimes as those who ordered the attack.

        вот так

        know the truth

        The current Ukrainian "parliament", the rada, is a zoo. I was simply dumbfounded to see its members duking it out, fists flying and this it would seem is a regular occurence in the rada.
        I really cannot find the words for such a people, who constantly shout "glory to ukraine" and who seem to consider themselves as being the epitome of "civilization" in Europe and look down their noses on their Slavic brothers in Russia as being somehow "subhuman", unable to get through a session of parliament without it turning into a bar room brawl. What a bunch of psychopathic animals (my apologies to all genuine animals for comparing them with these vermin). The Ukrainian "parliament" consists of nothing but sociopaths and thugs with the IQ of an amoeba, which is why I dont hold out any serious prospects of peace in the near future. The only way for peace and stability to return to Ukraine is for the nest of sociopaths, psychopaths and nazi freaks in Kiev to be burned and cleared out once and for all, and president Putin is well aware of this reality.

        For everyone saying that Putin has sold out the Novorussians I would say that personally I believe president Putin is just playing for time. I think once the BRICS development bank is up and running we are going to see a whole different scenario unfolding. I believe president Putin is due to ratify the BRICS bank at some point later this year (September ?), and after that Im not sure how much longer it will take to become operational, but I do believe things will get very interesting from that point on.

        As the Saker is fond of saying, Russia is ready for war from a purely military perspective but until she can fully protect herself from the wests financial system on which she is currently dependent to some degree president Putin will keep playing for time.

        David Chu

        THE BEST talk on the US War of Genocide against Yugoslavia is given by Michael Parenti in 1999. You can find the video of this talk here: bit.ly/1AbKjKa and in audio only here: bit.ly/1pQWjX2

        I recommend everyone take the time to listen to this most important talk. Extremely insightful information as to the WHY the Yankees do what they have been doing for the past 100 years, especially since WW2. And very very funny too.

        I agree with the Saker that Ukraine is NOT the same as what happened to Yugoslavia for several reasons. However, they are similar in the indiscriminate killing of civilians, especially those civilians on the "wrong side" of the civil war.

        [1] US/NATO cannot bomb Eastern Ukraine like they did in Yugoslavia for obvious reasons (Russia would not stand for ANY US/NATO military involvement in Eastern Ukraine, training of the Kiev Nazis notwithstanding). This factor is extremely important as almost all Yankee wars are waged first and foremost by their air force, using overwhelming bombing and superior technology against basically an un-armed enemy on the ground. Without this ability, the Yankees and their All-Lies are back to square one in fighting wars, i.e, their force-multiplier via air attacks is thereby nullified.

        [2] Russia today is not the Russia of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Back then Yeltsin was basically a Yankee drunk, and his Russia is not Putin's Russia. I believe Russians were shocked by the degree of devastation and destruction inflicted upon Yugoslavia during that Genocidal War. This time around, both the Russian people and their key leadership, i.e. President Putin et al., are seeing the US/NATO for it really is. And acting accordingly.

        [3] The people of Eastern Ukraine have also learned from the devastating history of the destruction of Yugoslavia. Hence, they are not going to lay down their arms and sit at negotiating tables to fritter away their freedom and their lands. They know the score and the history of US/NATO and their fascist puppets.

        I am sure there are many other reasons why Ukraine today is not the same as Yugoslavia of the 1990s. These are three that I could come up with.

        TooLegit2Quit:

        [Argentine's 'regime' change in progress -> update]

        BREAKING NEWS:

        [via ZeroHedge] Argentine President Fernandez Charged In Alleged Cover-Up

        LINK> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-13/argentine-president-fernandex-charged

        -

        More on this:

        Argentina's president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner charged

        "[..] The administration is currently fighting a ferocious media battle on two fronts, seeking to distance itself from any involvement in Nisman's death while simultaneously seeking to undermine the case he built against the president.

        As news of impending charges against Ms Kirchner circulated yesterday morning, her cabinet chief Aníbal Fernández said any such move "would be a measure to destabilise democracy [..]"

        LINK> http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/argentina-s-president-cristina-fernandez-de-kirchner-charged-1.2103339

        -

        Argentine President Kirchner is being formally investigated for alleged cover-up of 1994 bombing

        "Policita has requested to investigate Kirchner and Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman. He will present his findings to judge Daniel Rafecas, the federal magistrate who will decide whether to dismiss it or send it on to trial [..]"

        LINK> http://uk.businessinsider.com/report-president-kirchner-charged-for-alleged-cover-up-of-1994-bombing-2015-2?r=US

        -

        [via SputnikNews] Cristina Fernández de Kirchner denies accusations of a cover up attempt, after a new prosecutor in her case vows to go forward with the investigation

        "After Nisman's death, the president alleged that the prosecutor was killed by forces who tried to remove her from office" [..]

        Under Argentine law, Fernández de Kirchner cannot be prosecuted without being stripped of immunity, but she is leaving office at the end of the year [..]"

        LINK> http://sputniknews.com/world/20150213/1018240040.html#ixzz3ReJmsoH3

        .

        TL2Q
        13 February, 2015 22:13

        CubuCoko:

        For what it's worth, my column at Antiwar.com tomorrow will talk about this very topic. I've also blogged about it yesterday.

        Short version: the West is trying to use the Yugoslavia script, but the Russians have figured it out, and are successfully countering it.
        13 February, 2015 22:39

        Anonymous:

        Only spot I could see to make the following observations.

        The "Wall Street Journal," has 2 lengthy articles on the War in Europe (Ukraine). They, and the other Oligarch mouthpieces (NYT, CNN, MSNBC, Manchester Guardian, BBC, etc.), are energetically discussing the Minsk Cease Fire agreements.

        1. Their first major aim, is to blame the war on the Russian Nation, and their President, Vladimir Putin. The Oligarch authored articles (diatribes), radiate a great fury at their not being able to have their way (with the Russians).

        2. They are also afraid, (despite their domination of the Media) that, one day, the Sheeple might Think, and reject all their prior programming. *The Oligarchs are omnipotent, but not confident. They sweat profusely.

        One link:

        http://www.wsj.com/articles/fighting-rages-in-eastern-ukraine-as-cease-fire-deadline-approaches-1423833402?mod=WSJ_hppMIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

        3. The war against Russia, Russians, the Novorossian Republics, and anyone else who resists the unipolar Anglo/American/Zionist - New World Order (One Ring to Rule them All): This War in Europe, is the central event in the Global Struggle between good and evil. And that is why everything the resisters, such as the Novorossian Militia do, receives the closest attention from the imperialist Oligarchs.

        4. The Imperialist Oligarchs detest Cease Fires, and any other diplomatic niceties. Because... Cease Fires award both sides with legitimacy (one does not enter into agreements with those who have not effectively resisted). The proto-Nazis are foaming at the mouth. Read the Media coverage -(before you have supper). See?

        ... ... ...

        Anonymous:

        Paul Craig Roberts here mentions points of agreement and disagreement with Saker on the Minsk 2 agreement.

        http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/02/13/update-minsk-peace-deal-paul-craig-roberts/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

        Update of Minsk Peace Deal

        In my last column I provided reasons for believing that the deal will fail. I saw a larger downside for Russia and the Donetsk and Luhansk republics because Putin and the break-away provinces will be blamed. English is the world language, and this enables Washington and its presstitutes to control the explanation.

        The Saker and I are in agreement that the provisions of the peace deal are ridiculous and cannot and will not be implemented. However, The Saker sees an advantage for the republics in the provision, if implemented, to remove heavy weapons from the conflict zones. The Saker's viewpoint is worth knowing. Whereas I have stressed that the conflict could be ended by Russia accepting the republics' requests for unification with Russia and that the longer the conflict is drawn out the more the West can demonize Putin and the break-away republics, Saker sees the conflict ending this year with the economic, military, and political collapse of Ukraine. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40979.htm

        Alexander Mercouris makes the point that one positive feature of the Minsk agreement,
        which isn't actually a deal or an agreement, is that Europe is now involved and opposes Washington's plan to escalate the military conflict. He writes that the outcome in Ukraine depends on what the Europeans do, a point with which I concur. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40967.htm

        It is difficult to believe that European governments are not aware that the entire Ukraine crisis is a Washington orchestration. Now that Europeans are beginning to realize the risk and recklessness in Washington's aggressive hostility toward Russia, Europeans might develop an independent foreign policy, as opposed to lining up with Washington, and cast off their vassalage. If this were to happen, Washington's hegemonic aggression would cease to have enablers. The Evil Empire would begin its break-up, and the chances for peace would improve.
        13 February, 2015 23:01

        Anonymous:

        Hi Saker, you mentioned Yugoslavia, and I listened to your podcast, and more than the comparison with the reasons and the tactics of the whole thing during the fighting, I am interested in your opinion on the ever closer edging reality of a splintering Ukraine. The spectacle of an entire nation - however new it is - imploding financially, ideologically and splintering geographically. Of that, I don't think there are that many precedents.

        How did Yugoslavia settle financially? Here we are talking about a nation with a huge mountain of debt; when it splinters I cannot imagine the creditors accepting full and complete default. They will look to unload at least part of the debt onto the nation's 'children'. If you have time, or can point me to some interesting articles, I'd be much obliged.

        Josh

        13 February, 2015 23:06

        Sampanviking:

        The problem with similes, is that they can be taken to far and lose their significance.

        I have raised the example of Yugoslavia in the context of the Ukraine war, but only with respect of one specific detail.

        It is a common refrain from the West and the MSM, that Russia is trying to use military force and subversion to change the national borders of Europe for the first time in 70 years.

        I have countered that this is incorrect and that NATO took this distinction for itself some twenty years ago.

        13 February, 2015 23:34

        matt janovic:

        There are recorded precedent for Zakharchenko's no prisoners threat:
        1943, Patton's speech before Sicily landing. Result: two recorded massacres of Italian prisoners. Without doubt, there were also unrecorded killings.

        From General Patton's Diary:

        "I told Bradley that it was probably an exaggeration, but in any case to tell the Officer to certify that the dead men were snipers or had attempted to escape or something, as it would make a stink in the press and also would make the civilians mad. Anyhow, they are dead, so nothing can be done about it."

        13 February, 2015 23:47

        Anonymous:

        Can you speak of Russia's actions against the Bosnian Serbs: approving the airstrikes, sanctions and the creation of the ICTY kangaroo court, as well as Russian arms merchants selling weapons for the Bosnian Muslims through Slovenia (this is documented in a book by Slovenian journalists/researchers who wrote on Slovenia's big role in illegal arms sales for BiH).

        And a Scottish mercenary, John MacPhee, who fought on the Bosnian Croat side, claimed that one of Croatia's islands was used by Russia to bring in weapons for the war. (I don't remember if they were weapons for Croatia or meant to be for the Bosnian Muslims.)

        Were you aware of large Russian army sales for the Bosnian Muslims through Slovenia? Of course, Russia was just one of dozens of countries violating the UN arms embargo.

        But fact is Russia did do a lot of things to hurt the Serbs and very little to help them in the 1990s.
        14 February, 2015 00:06

        Penelope:

        The main obstacle to China's Silk Road and Russia's development and peace everywhere is the actions of the criminals who control the US govt. A peaceful way of reducing their power is to convert US/UK/EU to only US/UK vs EU/Rus/China.

        The agreement is an official statement in which Germany & France join Russia in trying to impose a ceasefire and lasting peace upon Ukraine. They do this in reaction to the US stated intention to provide weapons and training to the Kiev forces.

        This is diplomacy. There is nothing shameful, farcical or weak in trying to avoid war. For once Hollande & Merkel behave like diplomats.

        After all, the looting can occur more easily w/o the war. And US may have plans to blow the pipeline under cover of the war.

        Even if the agreement is totally unenforced now it may have its uses later-- like when the Novorossiyan forces are closer to Kiev.

        14 February, 2015 00:11

        Anonymous:

        Deceit everywhere. A vast web of deceit. Watch this

        from Independent Media Solidarity -
        "We Need To Talk About Sandy Hook"

        Full video in higher quality

        http://mediasolidarity.com/watch_video.html
        14 February, 2015 01:15

        Anonymous:

        I have to agree with you. Both sides are digging in for the long haul and it will only come to an end with some sort of dissolution of the Ukraine. Though I can't imagine Russia giving up an inch of her historical territory to NATO guns. It can still get very ugly.

        Farflungstar
        Zio Occupied AmeriKa
        14 February, 2015 01:16

        Brian_J:

        I just read a long interview with Dr. Mikhail Kovalenko. He is the man photographed carrying a little girl's dead body which many of us remember from last spring. He continued working as a surgeon until the NAF withdrew from Slavyansk. He makes many interesting observations about the nature of this war and the UAF.

        http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2015/02/slavyansk-surgeon-talks-about-another.html

        Brian

        14 February, 2015 01:18

        Anonymous: 14 February, 2015 01:19

        As a Citizen of Croatia, I can tell, that ongoing comparisons with the war in Yugoslavia, are not accidental. Seems that we are again slowly getting prepared to what "chaos maker" have further in plan for Europe.

        Porosenko will attend presidential inauguration in Croatia, which I see as a ominous sign of possible escalation of tensions between Croats and Serbs. Media is strongly pushing identification of Croatians and Ukrainians. In reality, more people here support Novorussia, and are able to see through media deception. However, Porosenko visit is hardly a coincidence. It's a sign that officials are working hard on potential polarization and destabilization of Balkan regions.

        Some aspects of Ukrainian chaos resembles Yugoslavia, if not in details, but in methodology for sure.

        Yugoslavia seems to serve as a sand box for practicing possible scenarios which to apply on ex USSR territories.

        Some issues have not been clarified since, and they are arising right now.

        Anonymous:

        Vietnam quagmire is perfect for the military industrial complex and their investors. This is what it's all about. Poor Ukrainians.
        14 February, 2015 01:47

        Penelope:

        KAT KAN

        "Fifth Conclusion: Ukraine has no money

        The currency reserves of the National Bank of Ukraine are microscopic, and almost entirely consist of securities which nobody else wants (there are rumors that $6 billion of currency reserves were traded for shares in Lehman Brothers which went bankrupt in 2008), the exporters are not selling their hard currency since they themselves are struggling, and importers cannot obtain hard currency even for critical purchases.

        At the same time Kolomoyskiy is supplying substandard body armor at their weight in gold and is increasing the capital of his own Privat Bank, while at the same time reducing tax obligations to the state.

        Ukraine is bragging that it increased exports this year, forgetting to add that it accomplished that feat by exporting the last of its grain reserves. As to what will happen in the spring and how the people of Ukraine will be fed, it does not seem to concern the government. ---

        http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2014/12/ukraine-plunder-continues.html

        Also, Kat Kan, a Fort Russ article "Ukraine Is No Longer an Agricultural State" says there will be no Spring sowing unless farmers have inputs. I think he mentions lack of fuel and lubricants for farm machinery. Seed is not mentioned.

        However, from my farming background I note that winter wheat would already be in the field and growing. (Requires cold weather & is planted in the Fall) Sometimes animals are permitted to crop the plants in the Spring, without diminishing by much the Summer harvest.

        Have enjoyed your Ukraine updates.
        14 February, 2015 03:36

        mmiriww:

        There are NO independent media in the USA. There are independent reporters. That is because it is so easy to close down a company that does not toe the line. So not only are the media controlled by a few companies, the rest are afraid of being closed down just like there are no secure encrypted web sites in the US because well, the US government wont allow it without having the ability to see the decrypted data. So it is all smoke and mirrors. You cant write and publish what you think as it might offend someone and you cant store what you think or send it to someone in case it might offend someone. All this is far too easy to check out and not conspiracy theories. Unless you still believe it is land of the free where liberty runs amok and naked.

        14 February, 2015 05:13

        Anonymous:

        @Nikko

        here you have a couple of good videos about the war

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waEYQ46gH08
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUuhSGnLvv8
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MklbRPjdIVo (part1)
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpkmPvfXuIo (part 2)
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NgJYi8fA3Y

        here's a German documentary about Kosovo war, I'm not sure if it has english captions (it was only aired once live on German TV, on youtube it's private, name "Laži kao povod za bombardovanje SRJ")
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqePoEZSY8o

        here's a video comparing sarajevo 92-95 with 9/11 attacks:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSYm0QW54ng

        I hope it's a little help ;)

        Best wishes, L
        14 February, 2015 06:43

        David Chu:

        @Penelope "However I don't have a really good link of the Boston Scene. Does anyone have one?"

        This guy David McGowan is amazing (his writing on Laura Canyon will blow your socks off!):

        http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com (see the section on the Boston Marathon Bombings)
        14 February, 2015 07:54

        David Chu:

        The best documentary on the US Genocide War against Yugoslavia is called "The Weight of Chains":

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waEYQ46gH08
        14 February, 2015 08:02

        Kat Kan:

        NAF psyops

        Many soldiers in Debaltseve cauldron getting blanket SMS saying "Guys, I've surrendered, they don't shoot POWs. Better than dying" . Two days ago they were shelling with blank casings full of leaflets encouraging surrender, and a map of how they are truly encircled.
        from Twitter Conflict News @rConflictNews ·

        Video with very faint sound of supposed captured NAF fighter they claimed to be "Gnome" from Givi's team; guy saying he's a cook. captured near Airport, not sure if Givi's lot are there right now. Whoever it is, now they've videod him they'll have o exchange him, in good condition.

        https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1561544364114375
        14 February, 2015 08:29

        Anonymous:

        Great work as always Saker!

        I enjoyed the comments regarding the Yugoslav conflict, especially your thoughts about Srebrenica, however you neglected to mention that information from Muslim sources who mentioned Clinton offering Izetbegovic the option of 'sacrificing say 5,000 Muslims' in Srebrenica and NATO would have reason enough to intervene against the murdering Serbs!

        Together with the commanders conveniently evacuating the enclave months prior to the Serb offensive, thus leaving the UN and the inhabitants to fend for themselves.

        Crimes certainly happened but not the figures brandished around and definitely NOT the 8,000+ figure on the Potocari memorial which Clinton later visited.

        Genocide never happened as civilians were bused to Muslim territory at great expense to Serbs who were suffering under attacks on all fronts, as well as sanctions from Milosevic who closed the borders.

        Fortunately for Russia and the free world, NATO's met its match in Putin who it appears has learnt the lessons of the Kosovo bombings and finally drawn a line in the sand!

        Keep up the great work and thanks for giving us insightful analysis and opinions on the many important events effecting our world today.
        14 February, 2015 09:12

        Anonymous:

        @ Penelope

        There is a link between the Sandyhook psyop and the James Foley "beheading" psyop.

        A girl named Alex Israel was supposed to be an acquaintance of Adam Lanza. Katie Foley was supposed to be the sister of James Foley (I watched the Foley "beheading" video when it came out, and it is totally ridiculous. No beheading of any kind in that video.)

        Both these young women were interviewed once on tv, and soon enough someone picked up on the fact that they look and sound so much alike, they are most likely the same person. There are a number of convincing comparisons based on those interviews

        Katie Foley interview
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QscFSYyzG9w

        Alex Israel interview
        http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=us/2012/12/15/pmt-intv-former-lanza-classmate.cnn

        COMPARISON VIDEOS. The following one is (to me) the most compelling because it includes voice and speech comparisons. Identical.
        Ummmmm Ya Think?
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf4DVaWE2eU

        There are other comparison videos focusing mostly on the face. Here is a compilation of those:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYjrM5VYwRk

        And these are the comments of the guy who runds the Before It's News site, who was blown away when he realized this.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmwhfirp830
        14 February, 2015 12:27

        Anonymous:

        @ Penelope

        (videos below)

        3 security contractors in Boston bombings and 3 police officers in Sandy Hook are the exact same people.

        Also, same kid, exact same picture, who supposedly died in Sandy Hook, died again in Pakistan in a school shooting and had his picture placed on some kind of memorial wall.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt8vLGtsK-E

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt8vLGtsK-E
        14 February, 2015 12:53

        Anonymous:

        @ Penelope

        Check out this company

        IIF Data Solutions, Inc
        Role Player Support Services

        http://www.iifdata.com/core-competencies/role-player-support/

        Their motto is: "Turning Ideas Into Reality"
        14 February, 2015 13:01

        O:
        Still no thoughts from admin here as to whether the site in ca is kosher or a fake set-up.
        http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.ca

        Not even a mention of the above site in your lists Saker,what's going on?If someone spoke of this ,I must have missed it,propaganda everywhere.

        XbNB
        14 February, 2015 15:41

        Nikko:
        To those who replied to me thanks you!!!
        14 February, 2015 21:20

        Anonymous:

        O 14 February, 2015 15:41

        There are many mirrors of Sakers blog. That is how blogspot works.

        Try for example:

        http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.co.uk/

        14 February, 2015 22:18

        Lord_High_Executioner:

        The Srebrenica comments; that's exactly what is indicated by all the evidence. I find that the name "Srebrenica Massacre" is misleading, most prisoner of war shootings occurred outside Zvornik, which is considerably to its north, and was the result of the column of the 28th Division breaking out...

        Milosevic was in a difficult situation because he had no help at all from outside.

        I see the last time that Russia just gave in to the West in these situations as being the overthrow of Aslan Abashidze in Adjaria in 2004 I think... they negotiated his surrender more or less and flight to Moscow.

        That's one reason why Saakashvili attacked Tskhinvali in 2008. They were shocked to see the response. This was it, no more games. The Russian role until then was to help their friends surrender. No more.

        15 February, 2015 01:31

        C:

        Saker,

        Here is the comment I posted to J Paul Roberts' post to ZeroHedge today. We come from very different traditions but you keep touching my heart and I've come to rely on you.

        That conversation with my Congressman I mention at the end - it almost didn't happen, but I heard your words from Podcast 5 in my head speaking to me, and I said "f*** it", and made it happen. - C
        ....................

        Part 1: Paul, you are one of my heroes, a defector from the criminal warfare state who has become a voice of truth, reason - and outrage. There is a level however at which I don't think you quite understand what is going on yet.

        Strategies for defeating the Empire have to involve engaging the people at all levels, building coalitions, exploiting cracks in the Empire's coalitions and isolating its moves one after another. It has to be a long-term game. Putin understands this. Many of the supporters of Novorossia do too.
        Some questions to ask:
        Peace in Ukraine becomes possible when Germany, France and other nations of Europe put NATO in check, break with Washington and insist on it. Does this Minsk deal increase the pressure on those governments to break with Washington's plans to expand the war? We've seen very clear and dramatic signs over the last week of a growing schism.
        Peace in Ukraine comes when the Nazi thug "government" in Kiev collapses and the people of Ukraine take over and hold the criminals responsible. Does this agreement increase the pressure on them? We see a huge popular movement against the draft growing while the crazy right is mobilizing to overthrow the Poroshenko "government". Each defeat on the battlefield is making Ukraine's regular soldiers ever more bitter, and the defeated troops if they are set loose from Debaltsalvo instead of mostly being slaughtered which they know is coming are going to go home looking for blood! And when the Kiev government fails to implement its agreements, if and when they try another offensive, the disgust of the people of Europe will reach new heights.
        In the meantime there is the Greek drama, not unconnected. Putin is maneuvering to give Greece critical support, while helping Greece keep maximum pressure on the European governments to break ranks with the ECB - and holding out the carrot of a Eurasian Alliance and escape from the Empire of the Dollar Bill. For this he has to keep avoiding every move to paint Russia as a determined aggressor, and to patiently but vigorously keep fighting the information war. Many European leaders are too compromised to bite but the people are watching and raising their demands. And even the compromised ones have to be chafing under their humiliation.


        15 February, 2015 02:04

        C:

        Reply to J Paul Roberts on ZeroHedge, Part 2:

        Meanwhile every week that Putin buys with this maneuvering sees another step in the collapse of the Dollar as the world's currency, the growth of bilateral currency agreements, new exposes of the fraudulent nature of the whole dollar-euro system. The US alliances in the Middle East are in tatters. Iraq, Syria and Yemen are not toppled dominoes any more, they're the Tar Babies!

        The global economy is collapsing, as witnessed by the collapse of the Commodities Index and the Baltic Dry Index. China, forced by its collapsing export trade, is about to cast the dollar lose and the rising dollar is putting intense stress on the entire dollar-denominated bond market. Now, the demand for an audit of the US gold reserve is bringing to a head the growing admission by the world's bankers that the gold's not there, and the policy of suppressing the dollar price of gold is on the brink of collapse.

        The world is indeed a very different place from the one last Spring when Putin took his stand. As in the 1960's when the US' advanced plans to wipe out the "communist world" with a nuclear blitz were derailed by growing entanglement in wars along the periphery, the US' troubles are multiplying beyond anything that can be focused on Russia.

        Putin's playing for time, and winning - and the Donetsk Republics need Russia to win. The brave and heroic men and women of the Donetsk are the front line in the battle against fascism and world war. Much is being asked of them, but not too much - no more than they're capable of. They deserve our support in the only way we really can, to speak out for them and demand Washington back down.

        We're not helping them by calling Putin a traitor.

        …………….

        btw I got some facetime with my Congressman last night. I have many pieces of business with him, but I used my two minutes to talk with him not about those but about the Ukraine and the Russian sanctions bills. I feel proud that I did, and sad that I had to. He seem startled that I confronted him bluntly with things he evidently knew to be true but was used to weaseling around. FWIW, I think he heard me.

        Just one conversation between one Congressman and a constituent he counts on, but history is built of the cumulative effect of millions of choices, millions of events. Like the brave defenders of Donetsk hunkered down in the cold, all we can do is play the part that life puts in front of us, and trust that it matters.

        15 February, 2015 02:07

        Anonymous:

        The fact was that the Bosnian Muslim forces in Srebrenica were ordered off their "strong positions all around" the day before.

        They were ordered by their Brigade commanders and the UN, according to a former soldier interviewed in St. Louis, where the U.S. State Department decided to settle many Bosnian Muslims. He and other soldiers, all of an extended family, are interviewed in a book called something like "After the Fall: Srebrenica survivors in St. Louis".

        He is one of three former soldiers from an extended family (they are all brother-in-laws). They all made it to Tuzla. Another brother-in-law went missing during a battle/firefight in the woods where a huge tree branch fell and killed some and caused large panic and confusion.
        Years after the book was published (circa 1999), they did find that he'd died. But he was also a SOLDIER and odds are that he was killed in the running battles between Srebrenica and Tuzla.

        Fact is that the Bosnian Muslim forces were MUCH LARGER than the Serb forces in the area and they would be holding the advantageous "defensive position" if there really was an attack.
        But there was NO FIGHTING when they were suddenly ordered to leave.
        The Serbs only sent in a few hundred - they just drove in the next day.

        The Serbs must have been informed or heard rumors that the army was gone, otherwise it would be suicide for them to attack the much larger, entrenched army.
        Serbs were mainly keeping their lines to prevent raids and attacks from the Bosnian Muslims.

        It was the Srebrenica Muslims who were expanding outward during the first 10 or so months of the war.

        The Serb villages all around Srebrenica had been burnt out in a scorched-earth policy by the Muslim forces.

        It was only when the Bosniaks had over-stretched themselves and the Serbs (who'd been abandoned by the Yugoslav army) organized into a successful fighting forces causing the Bosniak expanse to be halted and then shrunk back, that the UN forces went into Srebrenica.

        The UN only went there when the Serbs were successful - it ignored the brutal killings of Serbs by the Srebrenica Muslim forces in 1992 and 1993.

        Also, the UN left their own positions, which were side-by-side, with the Bosniak positions the day before the fall as well.

        This was when the Bosniak soldier shot and killed the UN Dutch soldier.

        It was during this ARRANGED abandonment of Srebrenica that the Dutch soldier was killed.
        The Serbs weren't to arrive until the next day.

        The UN abandoned all its positions EXCEPT in the north which was where it was arranged for the Bosniak army and men to leave.

        The number of men leaving was estimated around 15,000 by the Bosniak soldiers and is similar to the official UN Srebrenica Report.


        15 February, 2015 02:11

        Anonymous:

        People are asking why there are Problems in the Continental European Union, where most of WW 1 and WW 2 occurred.

        A lack of Considering the Legitimate Interests of all of Europe resulted in these Problems, because there are too Many Puppets of the Evil Anglo-American Puppet Master in the European Union.

        Germany remains an occupied Country by Anglo-America, even though the Soviet Union gave Germany its Independence Decades ago.

        Anglo-America Colonized Germany to Rule Continental Europe for Anglo-America, and Britain pretends to have no say in Europe.

        This way, all Criticisms can be directed at Germany, rather than at Anglo-America, and Britain is Very Discreet with its Dictatorship over Europe, but America is not so Discreet, and we have seen this with Ukraine, whose President is a Billionaire and a Puppet of Anglo-America, and who was installed by a Coup.

        Anglo-America Selects those in Germany who will do their Evil Bidding, and allows Germany to remain Loyal to Hitler's Vision for Europe, which is also Anglo-America's Vision for Europe of another World War, except that this time, Germany enacts Dictatorial Decrees as Anglo-America's Most Senior European Puppet.

        France is a Partner of Anglo-America, because of Canada and the French Empire, and so France does not have their Politicians Volunteer to be Filmed in Acts of Pedophilia to Guarantee that they will be Puppets of Anglo-America.

        Germany has agreed to do Anglo-America's Evil Bidding in Europe after WW 2, and many German Politicians gave their Guarantee to be the lifelong Puppets of Anglo-America, by Voluntarily Agreeing to be Filmed having sex with a child, and this Guarantees that they will be Anglo-America's Puppets, because they do not want to go to jail.

        The European Union was said to have been set up to prevent wars in Europe, and to be a Free Trade Zone at
        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/mar/21/tenquestionsonslobodanmilo , and at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/feb/12/warcrimes.comment .

        The European Union was created Anglo-America to expand NATO for the purpose of WW 3, and to use the European Union to begin another World War in Europe.

        Anglo-America found Traitors who want to be Rich, and who also want WW 3, and so they Volunteered to be Filmed having sex with a child as their Guarantee to be a lifelong Puppet of Anglo-America, and they Obey Anglo-America, because they do not want to go to jail.

        Anglo-American Puppets were given a warning with the Trial of a former Eurozone Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi, who is one of Italy's Richest Person, and was convicted of having sex with a minor, and Some People have said that Berlusconi Technically Committed Pedophilia under the strictest interpretation of Italian Law at http://world.time.com/2013/06/24/silvio-berlusconi-convicted-of-having-sex-with-underage-prostitute-but-will-he-go-to-jail/ .

        Berlusconi was found Guilty in 2013, and we know that Austerity which is a Failed Economic Policy was Imposed on Italy, and some are in Austerity Denial, even though a Professor of Economics and a Nobel Laureate in Economics wrote the News Article Titled: Stiglitz says Greece did not fail; austerity failed at http://www.marketwatch.com/story/stiglitz-says-greece-didnt-fail-austerity-failed-2015-02-03 .

        These Puppets do as they are told by Anglo-America and Germany, and the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 began because America Deliberately would not help a small financial institution, and America assured everyone that it would not matter.

        There are those who think that Anglo-America and Germany knew that is was a Lie, because this was their Evil Plan for Economic Holocaust on Europe, which also includes their Evil Plan to Deliberately Engineer a Civil War in Ukraine and to place Unjustified Sanctions on Innocent Russia, along with opposing the South Stream Project, which would have created Many Jobs.

        A Proper Functional European Union would consider Not Only their own Country, but that of all of Europe.
        15 February, 2015 19:01

        Thomas:

        Dear Saker,

        do you know what happened to the "unwashed brain" blog?

        http://theunwashedbrain.blogspot.de/

        It run two absolutely must-read pieces "kiev's fake picture scam" and "kiev's war on video", and an interesting analysis of the alleged "Slavyansk Crucification", quickly dismissed in our press as Russia Propaganda, but the author - apparently British - concluded that it could have been true, and no evidence suggested otherwise.

        I have also read a fantastic piece "Crimea - the untold story", which was the best recapitulation of the history of Crimea, from the Baptism of Vladimir the Saint in Khersonessos, over the Greek vintage of that town, to Catherina the Great, the Crimean War, and Khrushchev's "gift" to the Ukraine (probably more in the german sense of the word than the english one), up to the referendums held in 1991 (with 94% declaring to be an Autonomous Republic of the - then still existant USSR - rather than an Oblast of the Ukrainian SSR), and 1994, with again over 80% declaring in favour of independence.

        That piece has disappeared completely, and the blog has been inactive for half a year now.

        Maybe there is an innocent explanation to this, but otherwise it seems that bloggers critical to Pro-US forces live constantly in danger. So much for our Western Values!
        15 February, 2015 23:53

        [Feb 15, 2015] The analogy between Yugoslavia and the Ukraine by Stephen Karganović

        Feb 15, 2015 | Czech Free Press

        The similarities in the ways, as it does the western coalition in connection with the Ukrainian crisis that has spawned and has exacerbated into the form of a fierce conflict, and the strategies that the same actors developed in the 90's. years to create the stage for a brutal civil war and provoked the conflict, which resulted in the destruction of the former Yugoslavia, are Russian experts analyzed in detail. The reasons for such a detailed examination is legion. First of all, if your not very imaginative or too arrogant enemy repeatedly acts according to the same schedule, provides you a significant strategic advantage. It allows you to to some extent to predict his actions and propose effective countermeasures.

        Although the loftiness of western strategists undoubtedly lets face their intentions more easily, however, it is important - regardless of how they may be surprising - carefully portray the main similarities and differences in competing situations, we will not fall into the trap of warfare in the old war instead of the current.

        analogy-between-jugoslavii-and-ukraine .

        1. The ethnic and religious fragmentation. Identification of the usable social tensions and their systematic jitření serves as a detonator of the planned crisis. This means mutual divide constitutive of the community, with an emphasis on what sets them apart, and at the same time reducing the weight of what they have in common.

        In Yugoslavia began this process be carried out long before the visible onset of the crisis, when konstruovaly new ethnic identity (muslim, montenegrin and Macedonian) and through the encouragement of separatist aspirations in the context of the existing ones (the Croats and Slovenians). The Ukrainian identity is also an artificial construction, which is defined not positively, but primarily in a militant contrast to the Russians. In Ukraine, as before, in Yugoslavia, is a religious cleft between the catholics and the orthodox busily used to incite the existing animosity.

        2. The creation of deceptive material temptations to support the politically desired behavior.

        In the former Yugoslavia, where there was by the end of the 80. years of a decent standard of living, has been used in the prospects for an even better life, which would have followed the dissolution of the socialist state, as a bait to encourage separatist tendencies. Catholic west Yugoslavia promised to increase the well-being, when you decide and do "civilizational choice" (nearly identical phrase was deleted in the context of Ukraine) in favor of the connection to the neighboring block of the western states. Muslims in Bosnia and in Kosovo, it was promised that will benefit from the links to the rich islamic countries. In Ukraine was again triggered by the illusion of rapid inclusion into the European union. The majority of the population in western and central Ukraine, who have responded positively to these fake prospects, you totally failed to realize the real economic and social situation, and more importantly, didn't realize you even current trends in the EU and to act on the basis of unfounded assumptions.

        3. Control of information flow in the target countries for the purpose of influencing the perception and behavior of the masses.

        The penetration of western influences in the media space in the former Yugoslavia, whose pioneer was Soros, started immediately as soon as the political liberalisation at the end of the 80. years allow. From the early 90's. years, when the conflict was the přikrmován from abroad, has been a big part of the local media in all of the yugoslav republics under the control of the western owners. A similar decline of media sphere occurred in Ukraine during the last two decades, where all the major news media under the firm control of the West supported the oligarchs. Promote the almost uniform and factually incorrect narativ about the benefits that would come from a political alliance with NATO and the EU, and of the alienation of Russia.

        4. As in Ukraine, as in Yugoslavia, there was a certain core of the population, which continues to hold its own narrative. Radically reject these false ideas, which have been encouraged as a prelude to the acceptance of the new political arrangement under the baton of the West. In Ukraine, it was the Russian speaking east, in Yugoslavia the Serbs.

        The rejection of these groups peacefully accept the loss of their own cultural identity and political autonomy has led in both cases to conflicts. A clear answer requires the question of whether an armed conflict (although he was in principle predictable) also the intended consequence of the processes that have been put into operation. In the case of Ukraine about it can be rather doubtful, because of the apparent intention of the podněcovatelů regime change was clear vřazení across the country to block NATO and the EU under the guidance of a subservient government in Kiev and not sheer political fragmentation. In the case of Yugoslavia, it can be argued that the conflict leading in the Serbian military defeat was clearly part of the plan. It is possible, however, that was originally expected that the campaign will be much faster and more successful. As it turned out, by the fact that the instigators of the yugoslav crisis reviews are written by free rein to their Croatian and muslim protecting, perhaps inadvertently, created a clear existential threat to the Serbs, who were scattered throughout the territory of the former Yugoslavia, which greatly project cemented their resistance and prolong the conflict longer than originally expected. In addition, it could lead to further unintentional result: a serious challenge to the Yeltsin's alliance with the West (although Russia played a role less significant partner). It has come to a critical stage in the time of the kosovo war. The result was the rise of Putin and his political vision as a response to the war.

        Whether it was the original intention of the Ukraine anything (was probably only about the direction of cultural fragmentation while maintaining the overall political integrity of the country, albeit with a much more reliable western component, which would put to the untrusted east of the country), it seems that failed as soon as it was when podmaňování used brute force. As pointed out by informed analysts, power compromise between Kiev and ruskojazyčným the east, which was possible before two or three months ago [the article is from September 2014, nb%], is no longer possible because of the suffering and destruction they have caused power chunty. The situation is evolving rapidly, while the regions that are culturally focused mainly on Russia, more and more refuse to have anything to do with Kiev, irrespective of the details of the proposed arrangement were any. In this sense, today in Ukraine are getting a strong analogy with the spirit of the nepoddajného resistance, which powered the bosnian and Croatian Serbs during the yugoslav conflict. One can imagine that if the West backing of the players in both of the cases from the beginning to take a more subtle and a more flexible attitude towards the Serbian and the Russian population, whose dominant like to limit, much more effectively, it would prevent the radicalization of the opposition. And could it be truly successful, because in both cases, not the rebels, at least initially intend to resort to violence.

        5. The west has felt free to make use of the most egregious elements that were up for grabs, as tools to achieve their goals. On the ďábelském pact of the West with Iran (ozvuk Iran-Contra) and other more or less fundamentalist islamic actors in order to strengthen the local muslim forces in Bosnia, which was in line with the interests of NATO and the EU and the fight for control of the whole country, there are a number of documents. To some extent has been tolerated by the participation of certain elements of the european far right in the war on the side of the right-of-center tudjmanovského regime in Croatia. A similar pattern can be observed in the Middle east, where the radical islamic faction become a means to undermine the secular regimes, which were regarded as hostile to the West.

        In Ukraine there was a contract with the devil clearly concluded with some of the most egregious of the local fascist elements, literally relikviemi after the collaboration of the period 2. in world war ii. Their task was to provide a striking power, with the help of which would be the West supported the oligarchs and politicians in Kiev by opponents and consolidate his government. It seems that in the jugoslávském and the Ukrainian case was as follows: "Now we are going to use for the removal of our main opponent and them we will deal with later." The opportunity that was created monsters, which won't get rid of until the end of their usefulness, their creator apparently did not challenge. The post-war uhnízdění of radical islam in Bosnia, where previously never existed, and the consolidation of a strong fascist groundswell in Croatia is proof enough of that. In terms of the nazi-inspired movements and armed formations in Ukraine, it seems that there is no clear plan as to bring them back to obedience, once a conflict is over and they, presumably, will serve its purpose.

        Those tools, which the West amorálně used to achieve their limited objectives, sow the grain of the long-term instability and long-term shows no tendency to remain against their stvořitelům in a subordinate position. For Russia, the Ukraine is a serious task, as the seeds of evil, which was sown oportunistickým interference of the West, bear bitter fruit. Undoubtedly, this will undermine the full integration of Ukraine into it and nejvolněji pojatého of the "Russian world", how he accounted for the current Russian politics.

        6. Podloudná support minions of the West, while publicly proclaiming the policy of non-interference, which is in practice required only after the others.

        Another important similarity lies in the fact that in the case of both the crisis of the West has initiated an embargo on the importation of weapons and logistical support to the válčícím parties, but on a regular basis is skirted in favor of their local clients. Rich evidentiary material, which was nashromážděn until after the end of the 90. years, leaves no doubt about the fact that the bosnian-muslim and Croatian forces in Yugoslavia were granted a huge amount of weapons and training.

        Russia is the target of the process of demonization for increasing not only the military, but even humanitarian aid to russia-jazyčným regions in Ukraine. Western patrons insist on an almost unlimited right to support their clients, while Belgrade in the 90's. years, and Moscow now have similar privileges denied. Their insistence on a "level playing field" [level playing field] - which was the phrase that is often used at the time of the bosnian conflict, turned out not to be what was in fact: the naked hypocrisy.

        7. A significant difference: Moscow has a clearly defined political objectives. You could say that one of the main reasons for the failure of the Serbian resistance in Croatia and only partial success in Bosnia was the lack of a clear political vision of how in our own ranks, and in Belgrade, which is supported.

        The Russian analysis of this experience has played an important role in ensuring that Moscow and its východoukrajinští allies neuvíznou in the conflict without a clear definition of its goals and means to achieve them. No doubt that president , Putin does not want to imitate Slobodan Milosevic, who delivered a brilliant television speech, which contained a crucial insight about the machinations of his western opponents, but his timing couldn't be worse - was meant to only a few days before his overthrow.

        It seems that the balkan events led to a sobering and self-reflection of Russian policy, and that in a double respect. First of all, the Kosovo war and the bombing of Yugoslavia at the end of the 90. years clearly give rise to substantial upheaval that has contributed to the change of leadership, which was taken by Vladimir Putin and his vision to the fore. However, the negative consequences of the tortuous policy of encouraging their protégés in Bosnia and Croatia, followed by Milosevic, have been for the Russians another huge lesson. This lies in the fact that if someone does not have a wider strategic vision and the ability of it to take place, it is better to avoid such a risky and complex entanglement completely avoided.

        Source: vineyardsaker.blogspot.cz, translation: Charles Hyka

        Taken from the www.kosovoonline.cz

        M of A - Ukraine - The Ceasefire Stalemates

        Merkel, who was the godmother of EuroMaidan and the force behind new Drang nach Osten, is nominated for Nobel peace price. That's rich.
        JohnH | Feb 16, 2015 10:30:15 AM | 9

        To what purpose are the Ukies in the cauldron fighting? Pat Lang cites reports that suggest that there may be NATO troops in there, perhaps even American ones. Surrender and revelation of this would be concrete evidence of the NATO role in Ukraine and run counter to US propaganda.

        Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 16, 2015 10:58:42 AM | 14

        Re: JohnH | Feb 16, 2015 10:30:15 AM | 9

        Bullseye! Love that!
        Who would ever imagine that the dumb, cowardly, amoral Yankees would accuse Putin of doing what they, themselves, have been doing since Day 1?

        b | Feb 16, 2015 11:22:15 AM | 16

        @IhaveLittleToAdd

        B, can you give an account of why the separatists have been so effective to this point? Are they more tactically proficient, are they receiving better arms, is a defensive posture more advantageous, or is it will and motivation (or have I watched too many movies?).

        Remember that the federalists were actually loosing at one point. They were stretched too thin and had do give up Sloviansk and retreat into their inland. At that time they were fewer in numbers but also had nearly no artillery and no electronic-warfare or anti-artillery radar capabilities.

        Those were provided by the Russian "second-hand shop" for military equipment and additional men were recruited. After that both sides had about the same quality level of equipment though the federalists were still fewer in number. They made that up by being better motivated and by local leaders taking the initiative instead of waiting for orders. Those are the two factors that I see as decisive.

        The Ukrainian government army has little motivation and is riddled with illusions at the top. It has slow decision making processes and long ways for orders to come down to the troops. It is also corrupt.

        The fascist fighting groups have some motivation but no real knowledge of the military art. They fight isolated and without the artillery and logistic backup such fighting needs.

        The federalist are fighting on their own ground, within a friendly population and with the motivation to keep their home areas free of Kiev fascists. They remember what happened in Odessa and do not want that to happen to themselves and their brethren.
        They have good communication, short command ways and are allowed to take local initiatives. They now also have excellent artillery support that can deliver on demand. They are still less in number and have less tanks and other heavy equipment but they have enough to win even against superior numbers with fewer losses than their enemies incure.

        ben | Feb 16, 2015 11:27:54 AM | 17

        @ b:

        "Someone other than the Europeans is telling Poroshenko, the Ukrainian president, to sacrifice those troops and to keep the fighting going.

        "One wonders to what purpose."

        Easy one b, to hopefully, further weaken Russia. Mega business hates competition. The Empire and their minions ( US/NATO, Israel, et al), require it.

        dh | Feb 16, 2015 11:34:33 AM | 18

        @14 It's predictable. If the UAF trapped in the pocket are all killed NAF gets accused of brutally massacring defenceless enemy etc....i.e. warcrimes.

        xxx

        Just as in Georgia military affairs are handled by the neo-conned who require their General grade officers to be ideologically malleable and politically fascist. Military victory is not required. Just perpetual war that ensures profitable MIC futures. 2008 Goergia '5 day war' made Saakashvili a neo-con darling. Check out this Tufts University puff piece ...

        http://fletcher.tufts.edu/News-and-Media/2014/01/15/Saakashvili-First-Senior-Statesman

        Now check out this google search 'mikheil saakashvili criminal charges' ...

        https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=mikheil+saakashvili+criminal+charges

        Alberto | Feb 16, 2015 12:41:21 PM | 20

        Andriy Paribiy was the co-founder (along with Oleh Tyahnybok) of the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine, which the CIA had persuaded to change its name to "Freedom" or "Svoboda" in order not to offend Westerners with its origin as a native Ukrainian version of Hitler's National Socialist Party of Germany. Polonskaya said:

        Interesting video attached to this piece ...

        http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/evidence-connection-ukrainian-coup-crimeas-breakaway/

        ALSO THIS FROM ABOVE LINK ...

        "However, the United States Government, and its allies, claim that the overthrow of Yanukovych was legal and that the reunification of Crimea with Russia was not, and also that the ethnic cleansing against the residents in the Donbass region of the former Ukraine is legal and that the military assistance that Russia is providing to enable those residents to defend themselves from being exterminated is not. The United States Government, and its Ukrainian Government, call that extermination-program Ukraine's "Anti Terrorist Operation," and the United States is sending Ukraine weapons to carry it out."

        SAME AS IT EVER WAS

        Fran | Feb 16, 2015 1:00:41 PM | 22Does anyone know more about this? For quite a while RT in German has a breaking news tag, but only the German one, not the other languages:

        Poroschenkos Familie aus Kiew geflohen – Hintergrund: Ultimatum des Rechten Sektors wegen Kessel von Debaltsevo | RT Deutsch

        Nach Berichten mehrerer ukrainischer und russischer Zeitungen, hat die gesamte Familie des ukrainischen Präsidenten Petro Poroschenko die Ukraine verlassen. Hintergrund soll ein Ultimatum des Rechten Sektors an Poroschenko sein, dass ihm das "gleiche Schicksal ereilen wird wie Gaddafi", wenn sich nicht bis zum 23. Februar die Lage im Kessel von Debaltsevo für die ukrainischen Kämpfer verbessert hat. Derzeit befinden sich über 6.000 ukrainische Soldaten und Freiwilligenverbände in dem Kessel.

        Saying that Porochenko's family fled Kiev because of the ultimatum from the right sector, that he will suffer the same fate as Gaddhafi, if he does not improve the situation for ukrainian fighter by the 23 of February.

        P.S. the breaking news tag is now gone, but the page is still there.

        @1 @33

        Russia seems on track. I believe China has a similar system in place. All they need do is join them.

        As regards the opening question ...

        International finance as war


        The Ukraine-IMF debt negotiation shows is why finance has become the preferred mode of geopolitical warfare. Its objectives are the same as war: appropriation of land, raw materials (Ukraine's gas rights in the Black Sea) and infrastructure (for rent-extracting opportunities) as well as the purchase of banks.

        The IMF has begun to look like an office situated in the Pentagon, renting a branch office on Wall Street from Democratic Party headquarters, with the rent paid by Soros. His funds are drawing up a list of assets that he and his colleagues would like to buy from Ukrainian oligarchs and the government they control. The buyout payments for partnership with the oligarchs will not stay in Ukraine, but will be moved quickly to London, Switzerland and New York. The Ukrainian economy will lose the national patrimony with which it emerged from the Soviet Union in 1991, still deeply in debt (mainly to its own oligarchs operating out of offshore banking centers).


        The plan is to destroy Ukraine, thus devalue the assets the TNCs want to buy, and then buy them.

        Any existing laws prohibiting the delivery of the national patrimony to TNC vultures will be repealed on the way out the door by the Ukrainian oligarchs with the IMF money - repayment for 'investors' in Ukrainian bonds that were used to wage the civil war that crashed the sticker prices on the Ukraine's formerly 'inalienable' national assets.

        Posted by: jfl | Feb 16, 2015 6:37:27 PM | 39

        @ 29, @ 31

        Custer probably had the worst record of anyone who graduated from West Point. He graduated last in his class, and had he received one more demerit he wouldn't have graduated at all. Immediately after his graduation the army threw him in jail. Lee had the best record ever at West Point, not a single demerit during his years there, and graduated first in his class.

        In four years Custer went from lieutenant to major general and his cavalry blocked Lee's retreat at Appomattox. Lee had no choice but to surrender and offered Custer his sword. Custer replied he was not of the appropriate rank to accept the sword and had Lee wait with his forces in place while Custer sent to Grant for instructions.

        Just what you're saying, Not Timothy. A case of the best student being pwned by the worst.

        Posted by: Ken Nari | Feb 16, 2015 7:06:29 PM | 40

        16.02.2015 Ukrainian crisis news. War in Ukraine, Donbass, Kiev, Minsk, Russia, France, Germany ~ 1:45

        German members of parliament have nominated Angela Merkel for the Nobel Peace Prize. Her efforts to achieve peace in the Ukraine through the signing of a second ceasefire deal last week in Minsk was dubbed a huge success by members of her Christian Democratic Party. And then another huge success of Chancellor Angela Merkel was shown by anonynmous Germany. We totally agree with hactivists : a skinhead girl is the best way to start a career for a Chancellor who will support a NAZI Kiev government.

        A match made in ... Norway? Barack the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate slash Drone Assassin Obama and Angela the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Nominee slash OUN Godmother Merkel?
        Thinking in terms of 'the US' opposing the interests of 'Europe' kind of gets the whole thing wrong. There's a group of elite bankers in NYC, London and the ECB. They want to maximize their and their clients' income, and have a universal, passionate and idiotic (Keynes disproved it in the 1920s) ideological belief that austerity gets them there. They and their allied MICs finance the media and mainstream politicians allowed in their post-democratic countries, so they get the foreign policy they want. That foreign policy is to put as much of the world as possible under IMF, i.e., Western banker, rule.

        Because of the involvement of the MICs and other complicating things like crazed neocons, all the members of the team don't entirely get along, get cold feet sometimes, but it's still a single team working to take over, degrade or destroy countries outside of its control. Victoria Nuland appears to be the boss ...

        Posted by: fairleft | Feb 16, 2015 7:25:22 PM | 42

        F@42

        I agree with most of what you write but other than Nuland the remainder of the team leading US aggression are Liberal Interventionists and R2P worshipers who think they have a better more palatable nostrum to sugarcoat their bitter pill and drive US hegemony.

        Posted by: Wayoutwest | Feb 16, 2015 7:34:43 PM | 43

        @43 I was just kidding about Nuland but forgot to add a smiley face. But, she's as good a representative of the nasty side of world domination as I can find.

        That new Michael Hudson almost exactly accords with my perspective, right down to the post-democratic details in the US (the two parties will agree not to discuss their neo-con imperialism, which they entirely agree on). Except that Hudson is overly optimistic about 'Europe' breaking with the US/UK because he doesn't seem to get the importance of the contradiction between Europe's actual interests and what the European elite thinks its interests are. The latter is that forcing more and more of the world into the IMF's orbit is critical, and when the IMF gets control to impose austerity and create massive debt that MUST be repaid to the West's big banks.

        Of course austerity in reality is not in any country's or region's interest, but elites believe in it -- passionately, dogmatically, ridiculing and ostracizing anyone (look where the brilliant Michael Hudson is forced to work) who disagrees.

        Maybe the elites are right. They can't explicitly be against it, but general prosperity implies taking a lot more from the richest 10-20% and distributing that wealth to the bottom 80%. That would not only be good on its own, but it would generate excellent economic growth in even mature economies. However, obviously, it would put a very un-smiley face on the newly heavily taxed economic elites.

        Posted by: fairleft | Feb 16, 2015 8:08:50 PM | 44

        jfl@39-

        Thanks for posting that Michael Hudson link-great article. A mafia bust out, perfected in Latin America, brought to Detroit et al for domestic consumption, now ready for fast track and permanent enshrinement in the TTIP.

        Posted by: Nana2007 | Feb 16, 2015 8:18:34 PM | 45

        Nill Nilsen refuses to believe reality, like his father, and his father's father. It's a family tradition.

        OT: love this blog

        /lurk

        Posted by: DickVanstone | Feb 16, 2015 8:35:01 PM | 46

        @40 As a disclaimer, West Point for its first 50 years was run by three professors. You could get a demerit for disagreeing, and I imagine West Point is better run but still its a place that attracts a certain type which is the main problem for the military or police. I'm growing convinced a lottery based national service might be preferable to the current system in the U.S.

        Grant only was a last second addition to his West Point class. I don't think he even applied. His father, the owner of a small tannery, learned the local cadet couldn't go at the last minute and asked the congressman who lived relatively nearby to nominate Grant. The Congressman didn't want the slot to be empty, so Hiram Grant left home only to learn the army records indicated his name was Ulysses. When Grant protested, the army told Grant that he was wrong. Ulysses was the name of the original cadet he replaced.

        Posted by: NotTimothyGeithner | Feb 16, 2015 9:01:44 PM | 47

        Kiev seems not to understand that it is about to lose at least a quarter of its usable front line troops in that cauldron. But the incompetence of Ukrainian leadership knows no bounds.

        This is the major malfunction of all fascists. They cannot understand that their enemies are just as good as them - if not generally better. The German Nazis did the same all those years ago, and now the Ukrainian Nazis are replaying the saga - this time, of course, as farce.

        Posted by: guest77 | Feb 16, 2015 9:06:53 PM | 48

        Over at Fort Russ, Yurasumy asks Is Poroshenko Sacrificing the Neo-Nazi Battalions?. Volunteer formations are involved in all three hot-spots (Debaltsevo, Shirikino outside of Mariupol, and Schastye). "Once again it seems that Kiev has nothing against getting rid of such supporters, as all the subunits mentioned are in opposition to official Kiev policies."

        Yurasumy adds, "I should note that OSCE and official Kiev are trying to avoid paying attention to Shirokino, mentioning only Debaltsevo, as if that was the only threat to the ceasefire." The more recent trouble in Schastye, however, was apparently acknowledged.

        Hawk, the translator, is less sure of the author and motivation. "This is a plausible argument, but it implies that the volunteer battalions are too stupid to understand they are being set up to fail. The other possibility is that they are actually trying to destroy the ceasefire and force the UAF to resume fighting, possibly even trigger a more widespread NATO intervention." In any case, the "stab in the back" sets up nicely, Hawk observes.

        Seems like Minsk-2 will be observed about as well as Minsk-1. I saw, I believe on the BBC (Mrs. M had it on), a segment comparing Debaltsevo to the Airport at Donetsk, from which they were reporting.

        Posted by: rufus magister | Feb 16, 2015 9:21:17 PM | 49

        The whole frantic process, described in the Spiegel article, was an attempt to stave off a war-changing defeat using pressure on Putin. It is doubtful that anyone else was privy to what Putin knew - that the encirclement of the Debaltseve pocket had been complete since the preceding Monday. Freezing the front lines in place had no value for UAF with the encirclement complete. Their only chance to benefit from the was if somehow, some way, they could reopen the road to Artemivsk between the agreement and the ceasefire deadline. Of course the road was turned into one big kill zone against dug-in troops with big firepower. IMO it's politically impossible for Porky to accept the loss of Debaltseve. Word is getting out within Ukraine that the pocket is closed, with the demand that it be rescued. The Right Sector has given Porky an ultimatum over Debaltseve (Fran #22). How could Kiev possibly explain that it hasn't the means and that Debaltseve itself is being captured? Any attempt to mount a relief would be a death knell for Minsk 2.0 and and military suicide. But Porky's only other option seems to be to get out of Dodge.

        Posted by: Thirdeye | Feb 16, 2015 9:35:29 PM | 50

        I think that Poroshenko has to understand what is going on. He may be naive in military terms, but his record in business suggests that he is not stupid. However, there is plenty of ultras in Kiev, and if he is not sufficiently "patriotic", he may not survive the experience, at the very least, in political terms. The game seems to be to claim that the conditions of the ceasefire entail the control of the road to Debaltsevo in hands of UAF, and any attempts to stop them from using that road are a violation that should lead to a punishment for Russia. The fact that a "reasonable person" is obliged to describe the situation as it should be than as it is (lest he/she be branded an extremist, a traitor, pathological fatherland hater), rather is perfectly known in USA, and nobody had to explain that trick to Ukrainians.

        The official Ukrainian versions of the situations are quite curious. I read that "there are no rebels, but simply Russian troops", then that "there are 900 Russian troops in the area of Debaltsevo". So it takes 900 Russians to surround 5-8 thousands Ukrainians? Indeed, I have read bitter complaints that the enemy was "much better trained that it would be possible for the rebels". Decent rebels should be armed with flintlock rifles and sabres, and not able to use even those properly. How good training should Ukrainian soldiers have? They do have superior numbers, and roughly equivalent weapons. Mobilization of 200 to 500 thousand troops should not be a problem. Then they can be sent to action after several weeks of training or after one year. Obviously, the current government did not have a full year, and of the troops Ukraine had at the time of the coup, most probably rebelled or deserted.

        Posted by: Piotr Berman | Feb 16, 2015 9:35:44 PM | 51

        Maybe the fascist bloc in Kiev has been told that the cavalry will come, once Poroshenko has been eliminated. Maybe the ceasefire is not a ceasefire because Merkel and Hollande have sucker-punched Putin; and thus the mystery of premature sanctions on Russia is explained. Maybe the 2nd Minsk agreement was sabotaged from its inception.

        And speaking of premature, can it be true that Merkel's name is being circulated already, for a Nobel Peace Prize? If she were to be so honored, that would indeed make the stench of death, that covers some winners of that award, much more palpable.

        Mike Whitney has questioned whether the dramatic diplomacy of Merkel and Hollande, tearing off for Moscow, really had peace in mind, at all. And he made this assertion in the early going, before evidence of a debacle was visible.

        And then, to make the whole taste of this bad theater that much more bitter, there was Sarkozy,-- who in the name of French interests, not so long ago, was found sniffing Obama's ass. At that time, he was preoccupied (with the alpha dog) dismembering Libya. He comes forward in this present crisis, proclaiming that Russia and Europe form a common civilization (or words to that effect). What is one to make of a pal like that?

        Posted by: Copeland | Feb 16, 2015 9:35:45 PM | 52

        Correction to Thirdeye #50

        "Their only chance to benefit from the ceasefire.....

        Here's an English-subbed clip of Zacharchenko talking to the captured troops (and trying not to smile).

        Posted by: Thirdeye | Feb 16, 2015 9:47:29 PM | 53

        "They made that up by being better motivated and by local leaders taking the initiative instead of waiting for orders. Those are the two factors that I see as decisive."

        Posted by: b | Feb 16, 2015 11:22:15 AM | 16

        The Command & Control-obsessed US pseudo-military would NEVER agree to encouraging initiative. One only need read the Field Manual on Counter-Insurgency written by General David Petraeus, to understand why it is so pathetically incompetent. The anticipation of Glory almost always trumps common sense.

        There are some dis-eases for which hardware cannot compensate. And the US Military suffers from all of them...

        Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 16, 2015 9:52:56 PM | 54

        #rufus magister, Thirdeye:

        FWIW, in my opinion, Minsk 2 is inconsequential. The Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics need to comprise all of the corresponding territory of the regions of the former Ukraine, and they will. Whether the Crimea gets a land bridge to Russia is another matter. That remains to be seen. Clearly, Novorossiya is a viable state; Ukraine is not. The main questions remaining are how the Ukraine will fall apart and how much of its territory will end up in Novorossiya. Also, whether the US will blow up the world to spite Russia.

        The Russian view is that all of this has happened before and will happen again. What makes American neocons think that they can succeed where Poland, France, and Germany failed is their stupidity, ignorance, and chauvinism.

        Posted by: Demian | Feb 16, 2015 10:59:31 PM | 55

        @Hoarsewhisperer #54

        For all the valid criticisms of US military doctrine, that's not one of them. Problem-solving initiative and ability to respond to developing situations were key strengths that American soldiers had in WWII.

        We're definitely seeing a different kind of "Russian" than the ones who compensated for their shortcomings by sheer numbers and disregard of near-certain death in WWII. Among the NAF are a lot of veterans of the Afghan and Chechen wars. It seems they're using the lessons that were taught to them by the Mujahadeen and Chechen guerrillas.

        Posted by: Thirdeye | Feb 16, 2015 11:03:56 PM | 56

        @ Demian #55

        I agree that it is inconsequential. The only way it would have been consequential would have been if it allowed UAF to support and replenish its troops at Debaltseve, but that was a vain hope.

        If I were to place a bet, it would be that the loss of the force at Debaltseve will be the crisis that drives Porky from power and shatters the coalition that has been in power since the coup. This could end up being a multi-directional civil war everywhere but in the NAF controlled areas.

        Posted by: Thirdeye | Feb 16, 2015 11:18:56 PM | 57

        Russian Spring

        02/17/2015-05:16

        Combatant "Podpol" ("Cellar") reports heavy combat near Logvinovo; a column of Ukrainian troops tries to break into Debal`tsevo.

        "The fight is for Nizhnee Lozovoye (Low Lozovoye) (lies just north of Logvinovo on the same route to Debal`tsevo). Before the attack the settlement was under Novorossian forces. The column was detected before their first strike; but there is no communication, and how the combat develops is unknown.

        Day before yesterday, they attepted a breach through Kalinovka (adjacent to Logvinovo west), but were busted – significant losses from words of locals.

        Now they probe a juncture beween Donetsk and Lugansk Republics in a hope of weak coordination".


        Russian Spring

        02/16/2015-23:55

        Cossack's National Guard informs that the units of CNG and other units of the Novorossia army are wrapping up clearing Debal`tsevo off the Ukrainian occupants.

        "In the cource of operation, practically whole city is retaken".


        Russian Spring

        02/16/2015-23:40

        Ukrainian military journalist Aleksandr Rudomanov reports that as of 19:30 in the center of Shirokino (under Mariupol`) joint forces of marines and a battalion of 79th brigade wage a furious battle with Donetsk Republic army.

        Posted by: Fete | Feb 16, 2015 11:56:12 PM | 58

        Posted by: Thirdeye | Feb 16, 2015 11:03:56 PM | 56

        I suppose cherry-picking convenient timelines and conflating old ones with contemporary ones is as good a way as any to kick the legs out from under one's own argument. You haven't bothered to read (or find) Petraeus' ridiculous FM have you?

        Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 17, 2015 12:07:17 AM | 59

        @ 22, 51, and 52,

        I like to Imagine I wake up one day and read about a press conference in Moscow with Putin and Poroshenko, having escaped with Russian assistance a Neo Nazi death squad, telling all the details about MH17. Not very likely I know but I'm curious how it would play out. Much more likely Porky will be butchered precisely because such a thing might happen. He can then be a martyr victim of a "KGB" assassination. Anyone recall the Yushchenko 'poisoning?'

        Posted by: Lysander | Feb 17, 2015 12:26:53 AM | 60

        @Hoarsewhisperer #59

        There's a lot more to US military doctrine than Petraeus' FM. Part of the training of combat units to this day consists of problem solving exercises to develop initiative at the combat unit level. It didn't used to be. It was recognized as a value by analysis of battle performance under different conditions, conventions of command and control, etc. The balance of command and initiative has been studied to death. When the US military screws up, it tends to screw up closer to the top level. There are numerous examples of the abilities of combat units in battle saving the day when the brass hats were doing something stupid.

        Posted by: Thirdeye | Feb 17, 2015 12:33:19 AM | 61

        @56 The World War II Army was led by veterans of World War I or at least had their experience, had motivations to win, and was filled not with professional soldiers but citizen soldiers. Most soldiers in that army didn't want a glowing recommendation from an officer as much as winning and going home. If they though an officer was a problem, higher ups heard about it. Today, soldiers keep quiet for fear of not being team players. In Vietnam when winning wasn't as relevant because helicopters could always be called in, officers tended to die in mysterious circumstances.

        I'm not contending an individual officer might not be wonderful or even that the army teaches good ideas, but necessity is the mother of invention. Winning was important in World War II, and even then, the U.S. didn't win every battle or every hill.

        Posted by: NotTimothyGeithner | Feb 17, 2015 12:44:16 AM | 62

        There is an unconfirmed report Poroshenko family have left Ukraine.

        http://robinwestenra.blogspot.ca/2015/02/breaking-poroshenkos-family-flee-kiev.html?spref=tw

        Posted by: TikTok | Feb 17, 2015 1:06:55 AM | 63

        @63 tiktok. i saw that over at ks.. obviously if they can fly out the shah or iran, they can find a way to get porky out too!! is it that time of the day when yats comes in? don't want all those cookies to go to waste ya know!

        Posted by: james | Feb 17, 2015 1:31:50 AM | 64

        There's a lot more to US military doctrine than Petraeus' FM.
        Posted by: Thirdeye | Feb 17, 2015 12:33:19 AM | 61

        That is undoubtedly true. However, it blatantly reflects US military doctrine i.e. it reeks of an author telling his 'market' exactly what they wanted to hear. You really should find it and at least skim it. It contradicts itself in ways which would make it unacceptable to non hide bound recipients. But they LOVED it. It made him a sort of in-house folk hero.

        Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 17, 2015 1:43:41 AM | 65

        Posted by: Piotr Berman | Feb 16, 2015 9:35:44 PM | 51

        If you are more cynical then it has got another aspect. Politicians certainly do not want these troops come back to Kiew after a lost civil war.

        The problem is the mindset that makes people not surrender or negotiate when there is still time but the outcome is clear. So that they can save lives.

        The only one to give a press conference after the Minsk negotiations was Putin and he talked about Debaltseve. Merkel and Hollande were absolutely tight lipped.

        This is an - anonymous :-) - Der Spiegel's take - which is the German way to leak stuff. It is not necessarily true. But this is the version Germany wants to be known.

        Poroshenko, too, seemed to prefer a delayed cease-fire -- apparently not fully understanding the situation facing his military. The Europeans were trying to protect the Ukrainians from themselves. ... The world must hope that the government troops trapped in Debaltseve really do lay down their weapons and don't try to fight their way free. The world must hope that free elections are held in the separatist areas and that the elected politicians negotiate a fair autonomy agreement with Kiev, one that re-establishes Ukraine's unity.

        Do Ukrainian soldiers in Debaltseve know that they are supposed to lay down arms?

        Posted by: somebody | Feb 17, 2015 2:08:03 AM | 66

        This is the New York Times on the same issue.

        The status of this stretch of potholed asphalt has become a sticking point in the cease-fire and threatens to unravel the deal. The separatists say their control of the road means they have the Ukrainians surrounded. President Petro O. Poroshenko of Ukraine has denied their claim, because conceding the point would force him either to negotiate for the release of the trapped soldiers or resume fighting to extricate them.

        It is completely immoral.

        Posted by: somebody | Feb 17, 2015 2:14:49 AM | 67

        Latest Western headline, now everywhere -- Ukraine rebels say they cannot 'morally' stop fighting government troops" -- is designed to ridicule the separatists, to make readers think "Hey honey, them crazy Putin rebels think fighting is moral!" Unmentioned is that both sides are responsible for 'stopping fighting'. The Donbass forces would stop fighting if the Ukraine troops stopped fighting. They're also happy to let the Ukraine troops escape, as long as they leave behind their weapons.

        Posted by: fairleft | Feb 17, 2015 2:35:49 AM | 68

        Posted by: fairleft | Feb 17, 2015 2:35:49 AM | 68

        The issue is that Ukraine wants to keep Debaltseve which is an important crossroads.

        Posted by: somebody | Feb 17, 2015 2:39:19 AM | 69

        @somebody #69:

        Ukraine wants to keep Debaltseve

        It's interesting that you say "Ukraine", as opposed to "Kiev" or "the junta". I resisted the Saker's calling the enemy "Ukrainians" for a while, but I now think that that position is correct, and you seem to agree.

        This means that the Ukrainian project is finished. Ukraine losing a civil war against a region that has only about 20% of its population is pitiful. What that shows is that the idea of a Ukrainian nation is just a fantasy and does not lead to concrete results.

        The whole American project to turn Ukrainians against Russia, culminating in a coup and a civil war, was ill advised from the start. Clearly, US policy makers lack an adequate understanding of the region. What is most puzzling to me at the moment is that Merkel keeps on siding with the Empire, even though it's becoming increasingly clear that the Empire will lose this battle.

        Not even the fallback plan of creating chaos on Russia's doorstep will work. Ukrainian nationalism will eventually burn itself out, although that might take years of misery to happen.

        Posted by: Demian | Feb 17, 2015 3:37:28 AM | 70

        39

        On that note, Monsanto has leased vast tracts of Ukraine farmland for GMO crop production, since Ukraine is not part of EU sanctions against GMOs, and it's right in the heartland of foodstuffs demand, as for example, Greece used to be the biggest EU supplier, then Turkey.

        Monsantos farmland leases, ...which, come on, have you ever bought vast tracts of prime ag property? It doesn't happen overnight, but over months, years ... those Monsanto leases (with it, massive push of herbicide and pesticide sales into the 'soon to be EU') were signed IMMEDIATELY AFTER the Maidan Coup by dual-citizen Israeli 'chocolate billionaire'.

        Monsanto is majority-owned by the Rothschilds, they say, certainly that was its founding. But it's not about the Kabbala or Luciferianism, nor about GMOs or resource destruction, it's about metastasizing an eternal DEBT, which can only be repaid Interest-Only FOREVER.

        And that, I would submit, is the significance of Ukraine. Not sactioning the RU, but subverting the EU. The only thing that stands between the EU ending up like USA, is sands in the hourglass. The only thing that stands between EU and open-air death camp euthanasia, is a BOYCOTT.

        They're already auctioning off UK seniors to the lowest bidder, the cheapest unlicensed healthcare (sic) providers of the smegma class. There are 100,000,000 USA'ians who are jobless and/or homeless today, rents are rapidly spiking with the influx of strong US$ foreign speculator R/E investments, and the US Congress of a Thousand Years is pushing three bills to cut all FY2015 health and human services by -8%.

        Live, Work, Die ... Arbeit Macht Frei!

        Posted by: ChipNikh | Feb 17, 2015 3:56:26 AM | 71

        that time of the day when yats comes in? don't want all those cookies to go to waste ya know!

        No wastage, since that was always their plan, Porosh. being merely a stopgap stooge, to be discarded once he'd served his purpose.

        The issue is that Ukraine wants to keep Debaltseve which is an important crossroads.

        Debaltsevo in itself is not actually that important to the junta. It was seen as the key fracture point for the chisel to separate Lugansk & Dontesk at the time the UAF were making serious inroads (fall of Sloviansk, downing of airliner, etc.). Now it's simply the deepest point they happen to have reached at that time, that they haven't yet relinquished. A bit symbolic, but not important, the railway junction notwithstanding.

        Posted by: Petra | Feb 17, 2015 3:59:28 AM | 72

        Posted by: Demian | Feb 17, 2015 3:37:28 AM | 70

        Without the interests of the oligarchs in a new round of privatisation and Ukraine's debt which creditors don't want to write off, this would go the way of Yugoslavia fast. I don't think Kyiv has much authority outside of Kyiv. At least if this is to be believed.

        Western States and Ukrainian oligarchs have a financial interest in keeping Ukraine intact. Therefore Merkel's moronic negotiation to keep Ukraine's "territorial integrity" when Kyiv and presumably NATO enlargement hawks want a border "to Russia" defended by NATO.

        Posted by: somebody | Feb 17, 2015 4:38:17 AM | 73

        Russian Spring is reporting a battle underway at the Police station (UAF HQ) and the railway station in the heart of Debaltseve, and mass surrender of UAF forces. Ukrainian TSN/TCH news also admits the location of battle. Once Debaltseve falls, the defense of the whole northern part of the pocket is unhinged.

        Posted by: Thirdeye | Feb 17, 2015 5:05:47 AM | 74

        @Petra #72

        Debaltseve had a strike force gathered for a move to Sakhartsk to isolate Donetsk. But once their attacks stalled and they started losing ground in late January, the strategic reason for being there was lost.

        Posted by: Thirdeye | Feb 17, 2015 5:14:17 AM | 75

        Posted by: Thirdeye | Feb 17, 2015 5:14:17 AM | 75

        The fight is for Donetsk and Luhansk to be economically viable - or not. It is the crossing of MO3 and MO4 not just rail. You need the town for all kind of transport to the Russian border and between Donetsk and Luhansk.
        There is also seems to be fighting around Mariupol.

        Posted by: somebody | Feb 17, 2015 5:48:48 AM | 76

        Reports that Debaltsewe been taken by rebels according to media/news. Ceasefire ended obviously, apparently broken by both. Not a good situation.

        Posted by: Anonymous_test | Feb 17, 2015 8:42:13 AM | 77

        As long as there are people on both sides who see no interest in a peaceful settlement, there will be no ceasefire, much less a truce.

        Posted by: ralphieboy | Feb 17, 2015 8:43:21 AM | 78

        Demian at 30. Roughly, yes. But recall that when Strelkov was winning (in fact the Ukr. Gvmt. has sort of lost this 'war' three times by now!) he was pulled back, away, presumably (Strelkov has gone further than hinting in the last interview I saw, though he of course has his own view, considerations, justifications) by Putin aka factions in the Russian PTB. Putin participating in Minsk 2.0 is of the same nature. He knew it was a somewhat empty, useless, diplomatic exercise but went along. He did not say, this is a genocidal, supremely ugly, highly inflammable, dangerous situation, it is crunch time, ppl, get real. Maybe he had some spirit of optimism, or attempts at conciliation, playing the game for positive outcomes, etc. who knows.

        Putin has done more, according to some, to hinder Novorossia than to help. My perception is rather that he is treading a fine line between blocking, preventing escalation with the W and defending countrymen. See also when Minsk 2.0 took place - a huge cauldron. Poof! A cease-fire, the only outcome that was projected or could be agreed upon.

        Chip at 71. What happens when the banks bleed out of the trading floor (where they already control pretty well everything) and in cahoots with major corporations take direct control of natural assets such as forests, oil fields, mineral resources - mining, water (not some lame capos who want to make the peons pay their last pennies.) Direct control as in ownership, by buying up rights, not just to land (which raises eyebrows and opposition) but also to transport, funding, delivery of needed materials, energy to run everything, etc. ?

        Posted by: Noirette | Feb 17, 2015 9:49:12 AM | 79

        Good Gawd, Ukrainian battalion commander-turned-MP vows to retake Crimea by "burning everyone if need be." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQp8hRlnmmU

        Posted by: TikTok | Feb 17, 2015 10:07:15 AM | 80

        Noirette: "What happens when the banks....?"

        eventually they devour one another and the last one standing implodes.

        before that happens - full spectrum ugliness.

        Helps a bit to think of H. sapens sapiens as an ontological hoax.

        Posted by: rjj | Feb 17, 2015 10:28:01 AM | 81

        AT at 77 -- I was just on the Kyiv Post, they have this short item. Kyiv verifying reports on militants taking control of Debaltseve.

        Items at Fort Russ & Russia Insider on Debaltsevo suggest continued fighting, but there is some lag time on those sites. There may of course be pockets of resistance, even if most of the town has fallen.

        Reaction will now be key. Does Wash. affect to call this a violation, scrap Minsk-2, and push Poroshenko on with the war and/or out of power? Or politely tsk, tsk, and move on to it's next imbroglio? I lean towards the former. Novorossiya might have been set up. The ambiguity about the pocket was troubling from the start.

        Posted by: rufus magister | Feb 17, 2015 10:52:40 AM | 82

        Reality is a problem

        BBC reporter on air at Donetsk airport ruins claiming there is outgoing fire nearly gets hit.

        Posted by: somebody | Feb 17, 2015 10:55:37 AM | 83

        @rufus magister #82:

        Items at Fort Russ & Russia Insider on Debaltsevo suggest continued fighting, but there is some lag time on those sites. There may of course be pockets of resistance, even if most of the town has fallen.

        Col. Cassad in the original Russian reports that the junta has refused safe passage of its forces out of Debaltsevo. Thus they will gradually be destroyed.

        Пропаганда усиленно и на скорую руку лепит очередной миф про "украинский Сталинград" под Дебальцево, который закончится так же бессмысленно и кроваво, как и предыдущий про "киборгов". Люди гибнут за пропагандистские фантомы.

        The propaganda is strongly going on about one more myth of a "Ukrainian Stalingrad" around Debaltsevo, which will end just as senselessly and bloodily as the previous one about the "cyborgs". People are perishing for propagandistic phantoms.

        Posted by: Demian | Feb 17, 2015 11:37:46 AM | 84

        FortRuss:Russkiy Malchik:
        Thus and only thus: Novorossia is Ukraine without Bandera

        I basically said the same in a previous post. Ukraine as a brand is finished. It will be a rump, and most of it will be replaced by a free Novorossiya. That was not the Kremlin's plan, but things are heading that way. The decadent Europeans, not to mention the clueless Americans, will have to deal with this.

        Posted by: Demian | Feb 17, 2015 11:55:25 AM | 85

        The role of American soldiers in World Wars I and II is highly exaggerated.
        In World War I, US casualties (killed) - less than 120K vs. a population of 99M - nothing to sneeze at, but nothing whatsoever compared with 700K Brits killed (vs. 45M population) or 1.3M French killed (vs. 40M population).
        Equally, in World War II, there were roughly 200K US killed in Europe. Germany alone lost 1.4M in the Eastern Front (and 3.4M wounded). In comparison the Germany lost 170K killed between Italy, the Western Front, and the Home front.
        Was the US participation on both World War I and II vital? Absolutely. But the influence was primarily financial/economic as opposed to military. Once Germany had exhausted itself fighting France and UK in World War I, and Russia in World War II, the US was able to enter and tip the exhausted balance in a manner beneficial to US interests.

        Posted by: ǝn⇂ɔ | Feb 17, 2015 12:04:38 PM | 86

        #Russia has requested an emergency meeting of the #UNSC on #Ukraine, today 3pm NY Time

        Lysenko statement postponed @TheCReporter: In about 30min, there will be an "Urgent statement on the situation on the ATO zone". #Ukraine

        Posted by: TikTok | Feb 17, 2015 12:45:54 PM | 87

        One of the best analyst on Russian/Novorussia is Joaquin Flores. His colleague Kristina kharlova aka Kristina Russ at Fort Russ. Joaquin Flores can be found in Fort Russ and elsewhere. Below Joaquin Flores mentioned Kristina at "57.50" in an interviews with "Red Ice Radio"

        http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2014/12/RIR-141219.php

        and more here

        https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5WdALk2_ZNRTN8uFY-adsDaQ2XeRKJgV

        and here

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTBhPLU5lPo

        Forewarn most Joaquin Flores interviewed over an hour, this interviewed over two hours and 2nd two-hr you need to signed up.

        Joaquin Flores: "..an American expatriate living in Belgrade. He is a full-time analyst at the Center for Syncretic Studies, a public geostrategic think-tank, where his work centers on Eastern European, Eurasian, and Middle East affairs. Flores is particularly adept at analyzing the psychology of the propaganda wars and cutting through the noise of 'information overload.' He also serves as the Europe-wide coordinator for New Resistance, a US based revolutionary movement. In the first hour, Joaquin explains the impetus for the founding of the Center for Syncretic Studies, formed in 2013 as platform from which to view the various social and ideological movements that exist today with a broad lens.

        Posted by: Jack Smith | Feb 17, 2015 1:09:25 PM | 88

        Now we talk (politics)

        Slovakia to hold Ukraine peace conference in March

        Slovakia will host a peace conference on the Ukraine crisis in March, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said on a radio talk show on Saturday.

        His government has been approached by the German Social Democrats with a proposal to organize a peace conference (on Ukraine) in Slovakia, according to local news agency TASR.

        "It's going to concern top-level officials from Social Democratic parties. I'm glad that we've received such an offer, and I'm glad that the peace conference will take place indeed, in Kosice in early March," TASR cited Fico as saying.

        Yes. I have always wondered about the territorial integrity of Czechoslovakia.

        Posted by: somebody | Feb 17, 2015 1:14:34 PM | 89

        Poroshenko President and members of Parliament have taken their families abroad ...

        Article is in Russian. I do not have the facilities to translate whole article. Just did a Google translate on the headline ...

        https://versia.ru/prezident-i-deputaty-rady-vyvezli-svoi-semi-za-granicu


        Looks like the rats are deserting a sinking ship?

        Posted by: Alberto | Feb 17, 2015 1:19:11 PM | 90

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR3ruZ-6ZYc

        My gawd, look at the bags under his eyes. Calling rebels 'terrorists'.

        Posted by: TikTok | Feb 17, 2015 1:19:27 PM | 91

        [Feb 15, 2015] Ilargi Ukraine – Trapped in Narrative naked capitalism by Raúl Ilargi Meijer

        February 15, 2015 | nakedcapitalism.com

        Raúl Ilargi Meijer, editor-in-chief of The Automatic Earth. Originally published at Automatic Earth

        ... ... ...

        ... we are trapped in narratives spun by those who see a profit in spreading these narratives. And who have a solid grip on what gets spun and what is not.

        ... ... ...

        ...I suggest you read for example 2014: The Year Propaganda Came Of Age. And then realize that the age of innocence is gone. That 'I didn't know' no longer counts for anything. That 'I'm just trying to make a living' only goes so far. That your life is not only about you.

        February 12 seems to have been a busy day. There had been a 16 hour – largely overnight – meeting in Minsk attended by Merkel, Hollande, Petroshenko and Putin. Why Putin was asked to attend – ostensibly representing the Donbass 'rebels' – is up for questioning, but he was there. The rebels themselves were not.

        Not long after the cease-fire was announced, perhaps even prior to it, US Senator Jim Inhofe released photos, which he claimed prove Russian troops are in Ukraine. These were subsequently found to be fake. Like every other single 'proof' has been found wanting.

        Think about that for a second, another second: it's been a year since Maidan, since Yanukovich was chased out, and still not one piece of 'evidence' has been made to stick. Not one. While the US have the most advanced spy technology ever seen on the planet, it has not been able to produce one piece of information, for a whole year, to prove its assertions that Russia provides weapons to the 'rebels', sends soldiers to fight in the Donbass, or has anything to do with shooting down a plane. Not one single piece of evidence.

        And then comes Inhofe. Who's a bigwig, and whose claims may well sway Senate votes towards sending US arms to Kiev:

        Inhofe Releases 'Exclusive' Deathly Images To Free Beacon That Are Not

        Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) released photographs Thursday of what he says is confirmed Russian military action against Ukraine. He gave them "exclusively" to the Washington Free Beacon. Except there's just one problem - some of the photographs given to WFB from the 80-year-old senator date back to 2008 from the AP and aren't exclusive at all.

        The photos are fake. Completely fake. Just like all the other evidence presented over the past year. There is nothing that proves any Russian involvement. And if there were anything, you bet your behind they would trump it all over Fox and CNN until the cows had come home and left again for greener pastures. The US is attempting to start a war out of nothing, and for nothing, just because a group of deluded people think they can, and need to, conquer the largest nation on earth for their own advantage.

        At roughly the same time Senator Inhofe tried to peddle his fake pictures, Ukraine ultranationalist leader Dmitry Yarosh, of the Right Sector, proclaimed he wouldn't honor the Minsk deal.

        Ukraine Right Sector Leader Rejects Peace Deal, Vows 'To Continue War'

        Ukraine's Right Sector leader Dmitry Yarosh said his radical movement rejects the Minsk peace deal and that their paramilitary units in eastern Ukraine will continue "active fighting" according to their "own plans." The notorious ultranationalist leader published a statement on his Facebook page Friday, saying that his radical Right Sector movement doesn't recognize the peace deal, signed by the so-called 'contact group' on Thursday and agreed upon by Ukraine, France, Germany and Russia after epic 16-hour talks. Yarosh claimed that any agreement with the eastern militia, whom he calls "terrorists," has no legal force.

        Not only did Yarosh, who now says he wants to keep on fighting, play a pivotal part in the Maidan movement, and was heavily supported by the US and EU, this same man who ignores the agreement his own president signed, is a member of the Ukraine Parliament. And he's on Interpol's wanted list too. Yarosh, an acknowledged neo nazi, fights on 'our' side, and if if people like John McCain get their way, he'll soon be provided with heavy US armory.

        Not to be outdone, NATO has this:

        Nato Head Says Alliance Has Data On Russian Military Presence In Ukraine

        NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg claims that the intelligence service of the alliance has some documented data of Russian military presence in eastern Ukraine. Stoltenberg announced it on air of the Kommersant FM radio. According to Stoltenberg, the militias of eastern Ukraine wouldn't have been able to achieve the success they are demonstrating without Russia's support. He said that NATO receives data on Russian military presence in Ukraine from the intelligence services, journalists and other sources but presented no concrete facts.

        Moscow has repeatedly denied alleged presence of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in late January that those accusing Russia of sending troops and weapons to the conflict-torn south-eastern Ukraine need to substantiate their accusations with proof. "We hear a lot about the flow of Russian troops and arms," Lavrov said speaking at his annual news conference. "And every time I respond that if one speaks with such certainty, than one should present some facts. However, no one is either capable or willing to present the facts."

        Again, if they has any such data, it would be plastered over every news paper and every TV screen in the western world, and likely beyond. But, turns out, Stoltenberg is as reliable as Senator Inhofe and the rest of them are:

        OSCE Chief Saw No Russian Troops In Ukraine's East

        Lamberto Zannier, secretary general of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), told a forum on OSCE's project coordination in Ukraine he could not confirm the movement or the presence of Russian forces there…

        To top off the madness, apparently yesterday, one day after the Minsk cease-fire accord, the EU announced new anti-Russian sanctions for Monday:

        New Anti-Russia Sanctions to Enter Into Force Monday

        Maja Kocijancic, European Commission's spokesperson for foreign affairs, confirmed Friday that the EU will add 19 individuals, including five Russians, and nine entities to the list of sanctions over Ukraine on February 16. The statement was made a day after Russian President Vladimir Putin, together with the leaders of Germany, France and Ukraine, brokered a new deal on the crisis reconciliation in Minsk. "The political decision of additional listings has been taken on January 29. The [EU] Foreign Affairs Council on Monday adopted a legal act so it made it fulfilled this political commitment and has set to give the diplomatic efforts a chance that entering into force will happen on February 16, which is this coming Monday," Kocijancic said.

        The European Union, the United States and other countries have imposed several rounds of sanctions against Russia over its alleged role in the Ukrainian conflict. The restrictions target the country's defense, energy and finance sectors, as well as a number of individuals. Moscow has repeatedly stressed that it is not militarily involved in Ukraine's internal affairs. Following the Minsk talks, EU leaders convened for an informal meeting but a new-wave of anti-Russia sanctions was not on the agenda, European Council President Donald Tusk announced. Meanwhile European leaders agreed that the implementation of Thursday's deal will become a touchstone for further relations with Russia.

        That doesn't make any sense at all, to declare new sanctions when you've just signed a deal. That smacks of less than honorable intentions.

        Ultra right wing military hothead Yarosh, honorable member of the Ukraine parliament, states he will not abide by what his own superior signed, while the ink he signed it with was still fresh. Which means the Kiev government, and by extension the US and EU, can claim it wasn't them who violated the accord, but it will be violated regardless. And then when the rebels, alternatively labeled pro-Russian or Russian-led, defend themselves against the Right Sector, the west will have its narrative to declare war on Russia.

        And that will not turn out well for us, for you and me. There's nothing there that will benefit us. The lives of our children will be sacrificed on the altar of a few handfuls of crazed psychopaths. Unless we stop them. It would seem there's not much time left.

        Read more:

        Fíréan, February 15, 2015 at 12:25 pm

        "Trapped in Narrative" blog posting is at this URL :
        http://www.theautomaticearth.com/2015/02/trapped-in-a-narrative/

        The "Bunch of Criminals", though an interesting read, is another article not the one quoted here at Naked Capitalism.
        http://www.theautomaticearth.com/2015/01/bunch-of-criminals/

        Doug Terpstra, February 15, 2015 at 7:37 am

        Honorable intentions? How Victorian! The concept of honor itself, whether national honor or personal honor, is a result of integrity. This present reality has no integrity in the uppermost class of people, and hence not in government, religion, industry or academia. Intentions are the intentions of pirates: rape, pillage, plunder.

        Western Civilization would be a good thing, Gandhi said. Truer words were never spoken.

        Doug Terpstra, February 15, 2015 at 10:39 am

        Absence of honor and integrity seems to have trickled down. No matter how obvious the repeated dishonesty, no matter how insulting the propaganda, the population swallows it. That's the pain Ilargi feels. Even after taped evidence of the US-sponsored coup; after numerous claims of a Russian invasion with bogus evidence; after seven months of dead silence on the shootdown of MH17, and now laughable photo evidence from a US senator of a new invasion, the American people are acquiescent. Germany once again, and the US are in league with Nazis to provoke WW3 and the American and German people are passive collaborators … again. We seem to be helplessy trapped in one of hisory's most vicious rhymes, about to wage another bankers' war to end all wars.

        Crazy Horse, February 15, 2015 at 11:08 am

        Not long ago I was delivering a sailboat from Newport to Bermuda. Crew on board were successful attorneys from New York who happened to be Jewish. My statement that Americans were just as capable as Germans of looking the other way while atrocities were being committed by their country was met with extreme outrage-–.

        Delusion is the opium of the people.

        Doug Terpstra, February 15, 2015 at 12:32 pm

        Incisive truth evokes bitter denial in those most convicted. How dare you? But just imagine if you'd noted Israel's concentration camps and the IDF's uncanny resemblance to the Gestapo; you'd have walked the plank for sure.

        It's a weird paradox that those professing devotion to truth and justice are able to most thoroughly delude themselves. The narcotic love of money is the root of it, as it is in Greece and Ukraine.

        Pepsi, February 15, 2015 at 9:33 am

        The easiest indicator that Russia has not invaded Ukraine is that the war is still going on. I've followed the conflict pretty closely and it seems that aside from scattered Russian personnel 'advising' the way American special forces always seem to be 'advising,' the Russian support for the rebels has been in the form of plain trucks and ammunition.

        Once the Donbas is an autonomous zone, a Ukrainian attack could provoke a Georgia attack on South Ossetia style overwhelming response. Then we could have all the photos of 'invading Russian tanks' we wanted.

        JEHR, February 15, 2015 at 9:52 am

        Well, and what do you make of our PM who is just bursting with warmongering rhetoric: He wants to bomb in Iraq AND give money and perhaps weapons to Ukraine. I know what he is doing: he is appealing to the Ukrainian vote in Canada (where there are more than 1 million of Ukrainian descent); and he is presenting himself to Canadians as the "saviour" of the people by attacking our perceived "enemies."

        What a crock! He perceives himself as Our Great and Glorious Leader when he is merely a mealy-mouthed ideologue. There has never been a more despicable, untrustworthy and disloyal leader in Canadian history. I hope I am being blunt enough.

        NotTimothyGeithner , February 15, 2015 at 12:30 pm

        Expect it to get worse as the shale industry's malaise continues. There is an election in nine months after all.

        Jackrabbit, February 15, 2015 at 10:44 am

        "The Narrative"

        A circle-jerking elite production.
        Directed by Corporate Media.
        Starring: Grandstanding Politicians

        Don't miss the ahistorical hysteria fueled by cherry-picked info and fear-mongering.

        You'll laugh, you'll cry (a lot) – you'll pay through the nose.

        In-the-tank critics agree: Trust us, there Is No Alternative (TINA).

        tgs, February 15, 2015 at 10:57 am

        And that will not turn out well for us, for you and me. There's nothing there that will benefit us. The lives of our children will be sacrificed on the altar of a few handfuls of crazed psychopaths. Unless we stop them. It would seem there's not much time left.

        I agree. But, 'stop them'. How? This piece at the nation cites a recent poll showing 71% support for Obama's neo-con foreign policy among Democrats. The author argues that Democrats, in the main, view Obama's foreign policy as restrained.

        It is clear that there is a full-court press for continuing to up the ante with Russia. I just don't see any sector with sufficient power to resist the march towards WWIII.

        NotTimothyGeithner , February 15, 2015 at 11:28 am

        The poll is skewed because self-identified Democrats are in decline and two many of the pro-Obama respondents make up his positions and attribute Obama's hideous nature to outside forces.

        Doug Terpstra , February 15, 2015 at 12:51 pm

        Agreed. Ignorance and acquiescence seem to be getting worse, and the eerie Obama phenomenon is pivotal.

        The man possesses almost metaphysical hypnotic power over a large enough number of people, including the rabid right in a twisted way, that a real awakening of consciousness seems extremely remote.

        It's as if the Revelation of Bible prophecy is now being fulfilled in real time, but the Beast and anti-Christ are shockingly unexpected.

        Integer Owl ,February 15, 2015 at 4:49 pm
        Obama's Use of Hidden Hypnotic Techniques in his Speeches

        I found this document when I was looking around the net. It make's some interesting points, seems to be well-researched, and may account for some of the phenomenon you note. I'd be interested to hear what anyone who has a look thinks.

        Susan, February 15, 2015 at 12:31 pm

        "the real value of a conflict, the true value is in the debt that it creates – you control the debt you control everything" http://youtu.be/1lSKu1WkA6U

        And since we are clear that Obama et al are best buds with the debt mongers, I can't imagine how we untangle this narrative. Did we not speak to say, jail the bankers who blew up global finance? That didn't work. Did we not plead for a "public option?" Did we not protest the administration's biggest fleecing, which they call the "foreclosure crisis?"

        So far, it's debt mongers still holding the reins. The rest of us? Heads down, bowing and scraping. The next big kabuki will be lesser weevilists insisting that Hilary is better than Jeb. Heaven help us!

        I found it interesting to hear Varoufakis in a talk on his modest proposal say there will not be war in Europe, as in another "war to end this depression." It was an older talk. And if there isn't to be a big power play in Europe (Ukraine spillover), why has Germany insisted on arms sales to Greece? Are they arming them for the conflict? Who's directing this play in which we're all extras?

        Lexington, February 15, 2015 at 2:02 pm

        Think about that for a second, another second: it's been a year since Maidan, since Yanukovich was chased out, and still not one piece of 'evidence' has been made to stick. Not one. While the US have the most advanced spy technology ever seen on the planet, it has not been able to produce one piece of information, for a whole year, to prove its assertions that Russia provides weapons to the 'rebels', sends soldiers to fight in the Donbass, or has anything to do with shooting down a plane. Not one single piece of evidence.

        Given that the outright invasion and annexation of Ukrainian territory in violation of its treaty obligations isn't sufficient to satisfy Ilargi of Putin's intentions can we just stipulate that there is no standard of proof that could conceivably cause him to question is ideological commitments and call it a day?

        Rote repetition of the tenets of the faith appears to be all that people like Ilargi have left to contribute to the conversation and that isn't getting us anywhere.

        Integer Owl -> Lexington , February 15, 2015 at 5:32 pm

        I really have to doubt the sincerity of posts like these. The situation in Crimea has been covered ad nauseum on this site, with Russia's actions being non-violent and favoured by the Crimean residents.

        Short version of the story: Russia held a long-term (indefinite?) lease from Ukraine there, using it as their only warm water Navy port, and the illegitimate, US-installed 'government' threatened the stability of this agreement.

        I expect that had there ever been any doubt regarding this arrangement, Russia would never have allowed Ukraine to have the territory to begin with.

        Kyle, February 15, 2015 at 6:31 pm

        "Unless we stop them."

        Puhleeze. Let's just stop with the Loony Tune suggestions.

        Until the political psychopaths that currently make up the corporate cheering section that we call our government are run out of office, that's just not going to happen. Otherwise, they're going to follow the dictates of their corporate masters who are just as loony thinking they'll come out the other end of a nuclear war smelling like roses.

        [Feb 15, 2015] Ron Paul: Ukraine Coup Planned By Nato And EU

        Ron Paul: "The Ukraine coup was planned by NATO and EU... The best thing we can do for Ukraine is get the foreigners out." Quote from comments: "That is where anyone who does not believe that USA, EU and NATO are totally responsible for the violent mess Ukraine has become."
        Feb 15, 2015 | zerohedge.com

        As Ron Paul recently exclaimed, the war propagandists are very active and are winning over the support of many unsuspecting American citizens. So we thought the followingg 90 seconds of 'pure Paul' would provide a refreshingly different perspective as he explains, "I'm not pro-Russia, I'm not pro-Putin, I'm pro-facts."

        "The Ukraine coup was planned by NATO and EU... The best thing we can do for Ukraine is get the foreigners out."

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G93SlyJIQSg

        As Ron Paul previously concluded:

        Our government has no more credibility in telling us the truth about the facts that require us to expand our military presence in this region than Brian Williams.

        Constant war propaganda has proven too often to be our nemesis in supporting constant war promoted by the neoconservatives and the military industrial complex.

        ...

        The only way that Congress can be persuaded to back off with our dangerous interventionism, whether it's in the Middle East or Ukraine, is for the American people to speak out clearly in opposition.

        ekm1

        Where are the facts Mr Ron Paul?

        Ron Paul is making up stuff in order to sell products to disciples.

        Coup in Ukraine was staged by Putin via Yanukovych. Yanuk did not camapaign on joing eurasian union.

        Joining eurasian union was a coup d'etat by Putin and Yanukovych.

        What happened was the counter coup, which yes, was urged by USA and nato

        cigarEngineer

        EKM1, how is the air conditioning at US Misinformation Warfare Headquarters? Do you get paid weekly or bi-weekly? Then again, at $15/hr, who cares, right...

        Ignatius

        Lying for a living. Don't he know that politics pays better? Maybe he's just packin' his resume.

        Winston Churchill

        EKM just graduated to my do not bother to read comment list.

        Maybe PPT really stands for Piss Poor Trolls.

        Calmyourself

        British Battalion 77 peter puffers have arrived.. EKM, which barracks you out of? I am sure you will tell us next multiculturism is strengthing Britain..

        Jack Burton

        Winston, I don't know if you have noticed, but over the last few months the State Department Internet posters have moved away from ZH. Perhaps they consider us a lost cause. But some months back they were still very active here, posting sometimes dozens of State Department talking points, but winning no converts. As of late, they have withdrawn to troll more mainstream blogs and News Paper comments sections.

        The one benefit of the Ukraine Coup and civil war has been the western media exposing it'self like never before as one channel propaganda. Never before has media told so many demonstrable lies in so short a time. The transparent lies have begun to catch many people's attention. The script they read from is not at all clever or well thought out. The script is terribly transparent, and so easily proved to be lies.

        So, will this new war propaganda win? So far I say it's 75 yes, 25% no. So many Americans just lap up the lies without trying to get the real story. Fools have been

        TungstenBars

        "The one benefit of the Ukraine Coup and civil war has been the western media exposing it'self like never before as one channel propaganda."

        I agree 100% with this; more and more people are seeing the US state sponsored propaganda for what it is.

        In regards to "So, will this new war propaganda win?":

        I stated here before that the secondary objective of modern state sponsored propaganda in the west is to gain popular support, but the main objective is to send out the "offical accepted version of world events", meaning that it does not matter if 99% of Americans do not believe it. So long as America does not erupt in a civil war, what the state sponsored media says stands and nothing else matters and will be ignored. Anyone asking questions or causing trouble will be pointed to or judged based on that propaganda as if it was truth. Pretty much 1984.

        angel_of_joy

        He's from Toronto... the navel of the Universe (in their own opinion). Their view of the world is somewhat distorted, and "potted"...

        TungstenBars

        The state-sponsored anti-russian propaganda in Canada is in overdrive. Harper has gone full retard and traitor to appease to certain foreign interests.

        Most people don't believe the nonsense whatsoever. EKM, I don't get why he is so special as to actually believe it. He speaks for no-one.

        Jack Burton

        Canada just happened to be where the allies shipped the Ukrainian Nazis and SS veterans after World War II. The allies knew their strong anti communist and anti Russia bent, so figured to save as many as possible to form the useful agents they and their families now are. Harper is feeding those Western Ukrainian trolls and they in turn help ramp up public opinion into fever pitch.

        I am sick of this shit. My response to every person who repeats the lies, I will tell them that it is "their duty to go to this war in person, I will not accpet bullshit lies and then people asking others to due the fighting!" Put up or shut up assholes!

        Why does the west feed this war fever, and why the coup in the first place? War allows the public to be stripped of tax revenues, it allows national security to trump privacy and freedom, and it allows politicians to claim a patriotic mandate to rule us. Plus corporate profits and stocks are off the charts money makers.

        Spitzer

        This is true. They are scattered all over alberta and Sk. I met one recently that was bragging about cross burnings in Provost. Provost is a nazi ukranian KKK town

        Latina Lover

        Quoting Jack Burton:

        "I am sick of this shit. My response to every person who repeats the lies, I will tell them that it is "their duty to go to this war in person, I will not accpet bullshit lies and then people asking others to due the fighting!" Put up or shut up assholes!"

        I couldn't have said better myself. As a former grunt who saw some action when I was young and very stupid, any idiot advocating violence against others should put their money where their mouth is and lead by example.

        Instead we have this hypocrite drone army, spewing endless BS to induce others to die for their shabby causes, cowards hiding behind keyboards. To hell with all of them!

        schadenfreude

        http://www.kas.de/ukraine/en/publications/21063/

        This is from Konrad-Adenauer Stiftung a NOG from Germany. So this mght be propaganda or not. In fact there never were real elections Ukraine ever. Lawful was not one government there.

        giovanni_f

        Konrad-Adenauer-Siftung is anything but an unbiased organisation. Actually it is a transatlantic networking group in the business to spread neocon messages in Germany. The page you refer to does not contain ANY actual, proven issue but just the general out-of-the-air claim that the elections didn't meet demoratic standards.

        Try harder, Neocon troll.

        El Vaquero

        Are you claiming that Ron Paul was wrong when he said that we had a recording of the assistant US secretary of state and the US ambassador to Ukraine discussing who is going to take power in Ukraine BEFORE the coup in Ukraine?

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIvRljAaNgg


        ekm1

        Nuland did the right thing. It prepared the counter coup against Putin's coup

        El Vaquero

        Yes, Nuland took part in starting a civil war that has killed innocent people. That is obviously the right thing. Civil war is good for the people, or didn't people realize that?

        JESUS! FUCK!

        EU-Ukraine-Russia trade deals are NONE OF OUR FUCKING BUSINESS!

        BlindMonkey

        so the Nazi Ukies could have gone about their protests by peaceful means but Nazis gonna Nazi and tortured, burned, raped and stole their merry way across the countryside. Even the Ukies have had enough of their shit and have tried to pull them back at various times just to see the Nazis flex and storm the buildings of their own gov.

        As I write this I am wondering what ahit are you trying to pull? You don't seem to be a satire artist like MDB. Paid troll? Maybe. I don't see how anyone can objectively read the news and come to the same conclusions as you.

        El Vaquero

        That is some seriously fucked up reasoning. The US did the right thing by kicking off something that was inevetable and accomplished nothing except putting the US and Russia closer to war, which, BTW would go nuclear. You call that the right thing?

        You're fucking nuts. This should be none of the US's fucking business. I'm sick of sending our soldiers over to die for somebody else's cause. Why don't you Eastern Europeans solve your own fucking problems?

        ekm1

        USA is now the business of world police. Becoming a soldier is the safest way of employment.

        World security is USA's export now. There is no other way, for now.

        Soldiers know very well they will end up in interventions, but they like the money and the thrill of it.

        Nobody forces young people to enroll. The money and the thrill entice them to

        El Vaquero

        So you want the USA to solve your problems? Being globo-cop is proving to be an unethical gig for the US, and should stop.

        And have you ever heard a US soldier talk about how they were defending the US in our interventionist wars? I have. They actually believe it. Young people don't know what they are signing up for, and often they fail to realize what they have done after they are finished.

        So, again, why can't you Eastern Euroopeans solve your own fucking problems? You know that the US is not going to be able to backstop you forever. What then?

        ekm1

        Yes. I've spoken with many. Most love it being in the military, absolutely love it

        El Vaquero

        Gee, that must explain the excessively high suicide rate amongst US vets.

        ThroxxOfVron

        "Most love it being in the military, absolutely love it "

        I believe it. Oh, the gory glory. Oh, the rush of being tough and exerting power.

        ...& dumb women love a douche with a paycheck in a tidy uniform.

        angel_of_joy

        That love generally stops suddenly when they come to suffer the consequences of their choice (i.e. the possibility of getting maimed or dying in combat).

        The military is a wonderful (state supported and encouraged) vehicle for crass freeloading, until a war happens. Then, a soldier's personal ROI becomes dramatically (even terminally, for many) NEGATIVE !

        The_Prisoner

        Course they do. They're sociopaths like you to whom only personal gain, even at the cost of murdering others whom just want to live their lives is justified.

        g speed

        A lot of these kids just do what their parents want them to do---very sad---kids come home with no legs and look at dad and ask why?

        green888

        Dispute resolution ? Kill someone is your only way- look at your films, entertainment; there is a bad guy and then the "good guy" kills him. It has all become part of your psyche, as ultimately any of your disputes has to be resolved in this way; but the resentment you leave behind has a price.

        If you complain about others, you should go home and conduct a self examination.

        RichardParker

        EKM1:

        You want to know what your masters think of the military?

        POS Kissinger actually told the truth for once when he explained how ""Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy."

        JustUsChickensHere

        Somebody seems to have hacked the ekm1 account. He was always sort of necon, but never this blatantly wacko before.

        El Vaquero

        He's Eastern European. I suspect that some deep cultural hatred of the Russians going back a century or 5 has something to do with it. I want nothing to do with that tribal mentality bullshit when it comes to a potential US-Russia confrontation because I don't want to see mushroom clouds over Kirtland AFB with my own eyes. Call me crazy for that.

        TheFourthStooge-ing

        He's Albanian, which makes him half Latvian, half Polack, and half Bulgoslovenakian.

        OpenThePodBayDoorHAL

        WTF you fascist, the world does not want or need American storm troopers telling them how to run their lives for the benefit of America. History is a story of lesser powers uniting to oppose tyranny and eventually winning, this will be no different. Get the fuck back in your cave deep in exceptionalist Anglo-American fantasy land and leave the rest of the world the fuck alone.

        reload

        @EKM

        'world security'

        Right: let's have a little stock take shall we of those recent lucky nations receiving the security export.

        • Iraq
        • Libya
        • Egypt
        • Yemen
        • Ukraine
        • Somalia

        Notice the trend? All places of great insecurity due to US led attempts to insert or maintain puppet client governments whose purpose is to loot their host countries.

        You used to make sense on some issues, even when you were needlessly cryptic you were thought provoking. Hell, you even called for oil to trade with a $40 handle even though your reasoning was off, it Has happened.

        You have lost the plot tonight.

        Libertarian777

        because... Putin wants to rule a basket case? that's why he started a civil war?

        I haven't heard any logical arguments for why Putin would want to take over the Ukraine. Next I'll hear he wants to take over Greece. For what purpose? Cos he wants their monuments? Or does he like their national debt and 30 hour workweek?

        The Russians are saying they are intervening to protect Russian people. The West claims Russia is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union.

        On the other hand the west is trying to expand NATO up to Russia's border (think of it as a 'western union').

        So even if Putin wants to recreate the USSR, why is it 'bad' when he wants to do it, but 'OK' when the west wants to do it? What is the distinction? Let me guess... human rights? Well the USA with a population of 330 million has MORE people incarcerated than CHINA with 1.2 BILLION people. (4x). Where's the 'human rights'?

        How many countries has Russia invaded. I'll even give you Crimea, so Crimea and Georgia.. that's 2.

        How many countries has the USA invaded... Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia.

        I can't follow the logic.

        LocalBoy

        NATO / IMF controlling Ukraine, along with Sevastopol, is instant suicide for Russia.
        Their choice was give in or fight. War became inevitable when NATO expanded toward Russia -

        It is well known that Russia will not give up Sevastopol, will not give up Ukraine to a foreign military alliance.

        lasvegaspersona

        'Nuland did the right thing'...sure...unless you believe in that whole 'democracy' thingy.

        An elected government was overthrown in violent protests that it appears the US organized and aided.

        This was done because NATO was displeased that the Ukes were not willing to move closer to the EU.

        NATO has shamelessly disregarded the agreements made way back when Gorby was in charge. They have place missiles in Poland fer-cryin-out loud.

        I think if I were Putin (and Russia) I'd be worried.

        chinoslims

        That's a bingo!!

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5pESPQpXxE

        will ling

        ah, nuland, mccrazy, kristol, et al , are "just soft" war criminals.

        ebworthen

        Oh ekm 1, puhleease! Yanukovych was elected by the people of Ukraine.

        How is an elected leader ousted by pro a EU Maidan which is supported by: the EU, NATO, our State Department, and meddling U.S. Senators - a coup by Putin?

        What is it you are smoking to make you believe such a thing?

        El Vaquero

        Observable facts do not matter to the narrative. Most will not look at them anyway. Putin could be the most evil sonofabitch the world has ever seen, and that still would not justify our destabilizing Ukraine.

        Element

        You realize Ukraine was totally broke well before any of this? Deeply in debt, big bills to pay, pooched economy? That sound stable to you?

        The reason Yanukovych was trying to obtain an association with the EU at all was because Ukraine was so broke and desperate for a new sugar daddy.

        And Yanukovych definitely would have gone that way too, if the IMF had not tried to fuck Ukraine so badly that Yanukovych was forced to walk away as it was national financial suicide to accept the terms Legarde wanted to inflict.

        The real source of the instability was Ukraine's own mess.

        What came next was just the rush to get the best bits of the carcass.

        So who was doing, or rather had already done, the destabilizing of the country?

        El Vaquero

        Yes, Ukraine was a corrupt broke mess. Why the fuck were our politicians over there? Why were they acting as though they knew that "Yats" was going to be the new PM? Why the fuck was John Brennan over there? What fucking business is it of ours?

        Miffed Microbio...

        The time will end for us as Global Cop as it always has in history. This is assured. However, only after millions have died during the posturing. And those who have played this role have never risen to that status again.

        This country will pay, including the innocents who were against the whole thing in the first place. We just get to watch while others distract themselves with amusements and trinkets.

        It is not our business now nor ever was. Why Ron Paul wasnt elected just blows my mind. That was our last hope for redemption.

        Miffed

        chinoslims

        It's not global cop. It's global robbery.

        El Vaquero

        Haven't you been paying attention to policing in the US lately? Civil asset forefitures plus shooting people because they dared to turn their back on the police while holding a plastic spoon means that cops and robbers are often one in the same.

        TheFourthStooge-ing

        The term you're looking for is protection racket.

        Element

        Nicely said, I see you have no trouble coming to terms with it, must be trauma ward experience kicking in.

        Miffed Microbiologist

        I accept the reality of it but this is no means a personal relief of my own responcibilities as a participant nor is it an escape into futility of action. Yes, if omnipotent, I would end this fast but since I am woefully lacking in such power I must content myself to personal and local rebellion. I hope others will join me at some point but it is always unwise to count on others.

        Americans have become slothful and content in their status in the world. It is ending now but few truly perceive it being subtle at this stage. When one is unconcerned about the atrocities this country is perpetuating on its own citizens or those in other nations, be it overt attacks or political maneuvering, then ones humanity is lost. I am not sure if it can be truly recovered. We brand our leaders as psychopathic but we should examine our own hearts as well.

        Yes, the inward trauma ward is not very pleasant. ;-)

        Miffed

        Element

        You don't really need a lesson on how geopolitics is played do you? I'll give you credit and presume you don't. But you better start to get real about this ElV, it isn't going to go away via wishes and idealism.

        It is real, and it is ugly, and it is about survival, or else not, and you do have to accept that it's happening and face it as it is, not how you would wish it to be.

        And that's all the slack I'm ever cut you on this topic.

        El Vaquero

        Serious question: Do you support a war with Russia? Because that is a very real danger with the kind of geopolitics being played today.

        Element

        Of course not.

        That said, it appears one key Russian does support war with NATO, given actions speak louder than words. It won't take long to find out if Putin is effectively suicidal. I think he's certainly become erratic over the past year, and made unexpectedly bad choices and extraordinary mistakes. I've been amazed by how badly he's done. So if this goes pear-shaped his recent judgement and decision-making under pressure doesn't inspire confidence.

        There's a moderate to reasonably good chance we're stuffed.

        The_Prisoner

        That's very magnanimous of you.

        You must have patience with us peons. Not all of us went to Duntroon and had the honor of serving the Empire.

        Thanks again, milord.

        Calmyourself

        Yanukovych pivoted to Russia for a saving loan and then what happened when he did not take money from EU bankers to prolong their party, that's right Nuland showed up to kick his ass out.. Get with the everlasting gobstopper of debt program or get "destabilized"

        Volkodav

        Yanuk was only thief, not open murderer... He also Ukrainian, not outsider alien passport gang

        Hefar lesser heavy handed than the "Red" mafia now in Kiev..who prove themselves killers.

        schadenfreude

        With all the propaganda dished out to the people it's difficult to know who staged what. But at least there are some facts, where eyerybody can draw conclusions.

        • French, German and Polish foreign ministers negotiated a deal with Yanukovich to have elections in September 2014. In the evening after this deal people on Maidan Sq. got shot. This caused the putsch against the government.
        • So the trigger was the shooting on Maidan Sq. which was never really investigated.
        • All actions afterwards was reaction and counter-reaction by the involved parties.
        • Nulands phone call is fact as well. This is an evidence of US involvement. Whether they initiated the shootings or Yanukovichs people for me is not proven, but likely. Why should Yanukovich do this, a couple of hours after he signed a deal with EU?

        Chupacabra-322

        Let's also not forget Criminal Psychopath / Sociopath Nuland's 5 Billion Dollar Fascist investment

        Victoria Nuland - Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs

        US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Nuland said: "Since the declaration of Ukrainian independence in 1991, the United States supported the Ukrainians in the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government - all that is necessary to achieve the objectives of Ukraine's European. We have invested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals. " Nuland said the United States will continue to "promote Ukraine to the future it deserves."

        HowdyDoody

        Not to mention the repeated strange coincidence that the Nazi violence ramps up after visits from major US/CIA gov actors.

        geno-econ

        Nuland has admitted publicaly that State Dept has spent $ 5 Billion influencing Kiev regime change over last several years. Granted much of this was in form of encouraging ex-patriots here in States, propaganda directed towards Ukrainian citizens and aide money. Only people in government know how much was allocated for actual arms but everyone knows the activities of Neocons in Washington.

        The point is the US encourages regime change and recently has had a dismal record of failure and huge wasteful spending.

        Just look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Georgia, Yeman and now Ukraine. Ron Paul is correct.

        nailgunnin4you

        Joining eurasian union was a coup d'etat by Putin and Yanukovych.

        I think coup d'état is a little strong here, which American talking head has you recycling this verbal diarrhoea? Only a war-mongering murrican would say establishing a better trade deal for your country is a coup d'état.

        Yanuk did not camapaign on joing eurasian union.

        So, in your bubble, a country's leader can only establish trade deals/policies/legislature et cetera that he campaigned on, and anything else he did not take to a previous election is a coup d'état even if it is a simple trade deal benefitting the people?

        You're not this stupid, please stop.

        JustObserving
        Ron Paul: Ukraine Coup Planned By Nato And EU

        Of course. Maidan terrorists were trained months before in Poland:

        Ukraine: Poland trained putchists two months in advance

        http://www.voltairenet.org/article183373.html

        And now USA and Ukraine are destroying the new ceasefire:

        US and Ukrainian officials seek to torpedo Minsk cease-fire agreement

        http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/02/14/ukra-f14.html

        q99x2

        If the NWO is successful in killing Ukranian's it won't be long before they start killing Americans. Globalists are traitors against all nations.

        Element

        Great sentiments and rhetoric, not much else, as what he's calling for is the end of US involvement in NATO. OK, what then?

        US forces have to leave Europe ... completely, the lot. But Europe is most definitely not going to butt-out of the changing of borders in Ukraine using Russian force and support.

        He seems to want to ignore that Russia is in fact attacking Ukraine, has stolen its navy, has taken Crimea, and has tried to carve off more and more of Eastern Ukraine, even in the past couple of days.

        "I'm pro-facts."

        OK, but are you also prepared to accept the implications and imperatives that those facts, Ron?

        SMC

        OK, what then?

        PEACE

        Element

        Peace since WWII involved the "balance of terror" of MAD. It is a BALANCE of forces and strategy and position.

        Change the balance radically and the strategic game changes radically, i.e. not-peace. And it happens in multiple locations.

        rejected

        Fact: Crimea was 'gifted' to Ukraine in the 1950's by crazy Khrushchev without a plebiscite.

        Fact: Crimea voted for reunification when given the chance.

        Fact: Ukraine only owned the Sevastopol Navel base by the graciousness of Russia.Russia even paid for a lease.

        Fact: The Ukrainian Navy was allowed to exit Sevastopol after the reunification vote. Why would Russia want their junk?

        Fact: Sevastopol would never have been given up by Russia regardless of the reunification vote just as the USSA refuses to leave Guantanamo.

        Fact: Russia has given Ukraine control of all the borders including the break away provinces with the new Minsk agreement.

        Fact: You are full of shit.

        Element

        Fact: Crimea is the UN recognized Sovereign territory of Ukraine in law.

        Fact: Crimea being Ukrainian territory is recognized by the overwhelming majority of countries on Earth.

        Deal with it.

        angel_of_joy

        UN does not recognize the Kosovo entity, but it still exists. UN din't sanction the entire war against Serbia, but it still took place.

        Reality is different than UN's view of the world, and the realities on the ground in Ukraine are changing as we speak. Deal with it !

        rejected

        Fact: The UN is not a sovereign state.

        Fact: The UN is funded mainly by the U.S

        Fact: The UN has no authority to recognize any state.

        Fact: The UN 'supposedly' supports self determination by it's very charter.

        Fact: You are still full of shit.

        Element

        Chancellor Merkel: (a few days ago)
        "One particular priority was given to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia this morning. We stand up for the same principles of inviolability of territorial integrity. For somebody who comes from Europe, I can only say if we give up this principle of territorial integrity of countries, then we will not be able to maintain the peaceful order of Europe that we've been able to achieve. This is not just any old point, it's an essential, a crucial point, and we have to stand by it. And Russia has violated the territorial integrity of Ukraine in two respects: in Crimea, and also in Donetsk and Luhansk.

        So we are called upon now to come up with solutions, but not in the sense of a mediator, but we also stand up for the interests of the European peaceful order. And this is what the French President and I have been trying to do over the past few days. We're going to continue those efforts.

        And I'm very grateful that throughout the Ukraine crisis, we have been in very, very close contact with the United States of America and Europe on sanctions, on diplomatic initiatives. And this is going to be continued. And I think that's, indeed, one of the most important messages we can send to Russia, and need to send to Russia.

        We continue to pursue a diplomatic solution, although we have suffered a lot of setbacks. These days we will see whether all sides are ready and willing to come to a negotiated settlement. I've always said I don't see a military solution to this conflict, but we have to put all our efforts in bringing about a diplomatic solution. ..."

        i.e. Europe doesn't want the US to leave, and Washington does not want the US to leave either.

        SO THE USA IS NOT LEAVING EUROPE

        Get it?

        Both consider this to be in their vital interests.

        So these also are the facts of the situation, and you can try to ignore these facts, because you do not like them, you do not like the ugliness of geopolitics, but that changes nothing about geopolitics.

        All I'm doing here is pointing that out.

        So cry a river of tears if you think it changes anything, or that if merely I changed my mind, it would make you less pissy and aggrieved.

        But those facts of this situation, will remain.

        That's where Ron Paul, and people like you, have your heads rammed firmly up your butts, screaming to mother to make it all go away.

        And I understand (perfectly) why you would want the world to be different than it is, but it simply isn't going to be.

        Now seriously, grow up and try to cope with that, rhetorical fantasies don't help.

        Volkodav

        bored. Chancellor Merkel sang differently about Kosovo.

        Victory_Garden

        "Both consider this to be in their vital interests."

        Good sir, who's interests? Certainly you do not refer to the average American.

        From this heart, how does the extreme waste of manpower and money and MIC profit pumping for moar bankster profits become a "vital interest" to we, the average Americans? How is that "in their vital interest" to the rest of the world? All the warmongering for profits, world domination, and population elimination is NOT interesting, or in the better "interests" of America and the world's people at all.

        How can you justify the out right blatant murder of innocents, women, and children for the moneygod? Whose really vitally interested in that? Constant never ending warmongering in foreign lands is NOT the choice of real truth following Americans at all, nor in their best interests. It is ONLY for evil zionist/luciferian/sataninc interests and NO covering up that FACT will change this truth.

        Darn, never thought about disagree with you before, for your truth really lit the Way for many here once ago.

        From this perspective, if they were to go after the evil bankster empire of chaotic dust in Europe, THAT would be of "vital interest" to the freedom loving American people. In fact, the world would rejoice if ALL these evil things were rounded up and placed on an island in the middle of the ocean to do what they will. Good riddance say we all! War is of NO vital interest to anyone. It just does not work.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGpwKQo5_Z0

        Ventnor

        Element,

        Yes, but in Ukraine, things are going Putin's way, not yours. He will play his long game and he will prevail.

        It could mean the end of your beloved NATO, which will have no viable purpose if it cannot dragoon Ukraine into its ranks so as to encircle and ultimately destroy Russia.

        It could also mean the end of the the EU, but that appears to be coming apart at the seams anyway.

        You say Europe is dead keen on having the US remain in Europe. That's true of the elite -- largely because Paris and Berlin are terrified of the vacuum that would be created by US withdrawal. Paris knows Germany would have the whip hand; Germany is afraid of being alone at the top.

        Nevertheless, our murderous and immoral Ukraine policy is earning us lots of new enemies among European populations. We are playing with fire. Not sure if we don't know that, or just don't care.

        Element

        Yes, but in Ukraine, things are going Putin's way, not yours.

        • I am not taking a side.
        • I am totally non-partisan.
        • I am pointing out what is going to happen.
        • Not what people want to happen.
        • I am pointing it out to >>95% partisans. You are one of them.

        Partisans usually do not like how things will develop to be stated plainly, as it often goes against the way they want things to develop.

        So partisans then shoot the messenger, rather than take the warning, on its face value.

        Miffed Microbiologist

        Element, I happen to agree with you though it does bother me personally. Sometimes hard facts are unpleasant to truly face and hopes of alternative choices are seductive though not likely relevant in these games of power.

        My only grief is this is being played with a participant that is rotting from within. Given up its manufacturing base. Economically in the crapper and showering many with money just to live day to day. An aging sick population. We see this farce play out everyday. We are being drained dry internally and will soon be unable to fill this role losing our strong foundation. And when it ends, another will assume the role as it always has been throughout history. Can you blame us for wanting an end to this?

        As a small player in this, one who will be likely swept away when the power shifts, I can only watch it unfold. And this gives me no pleasure to admit such a thing.

        Miffed

        YHC-FTSE

        Mrs.M, if you examine his post it's quite easy to see that he is suffering from a condition called, "Fatalism".

        "Fatalism is a philosophical doctrine stressing the subjugation of all events or actions to fate. Fatalism generally refers to any of the following ideas: The view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do."

        His argument that the convolutions of geopolitics are a natural result of survival and therefore beyond the scope of our control or wishful thinking is both wrong and indifferent to the real crimes being committed in our name.

        • We know who is involved in supporting the neo-nazis and zionists in Ukraine: Victoria Nuland of the US State Dept.
        • We know thousands of innocent people have died as a result. We know wholesale looting is taking place by the Israeli oligarchs.
        • We know, from their own words, from the mouth of the current Ukrainian Prime Minister that those who oppose the coup are being threatened with being burnt alive - in fact many Russian language speaking Ukrainians in Odessa and Mariupol have actually been murdered in this way.

        What else could they do but fight against the nutjobs in Kiev and ask for help from Russia? Be burnt alive or become refugees?

        Yet to brush all this aside with glib remarks about geopolitics and national survival with quite insane philosophies on death lacking in any depth of analysis or empathy for the victims of these horrendous crimes is, I think, quite revolting. Yes, control of our fate is an illusion, but we are also the cumulative sum of all of our decisions.

        So, Mrs.M, you keep your compassion alive. Your empathy and reason do you credit in a world full of cold sociopaths. Without such sweet and bitter experiences to guide our moral values in life, life would be very dull and useless indeed.

        YHC-FTSE

        "I am not taking a side.
        I am totally non-partisan."

        For a guy who believes he is non-partisan you sure do have a LOT to say about it for one side.

        "I am pointing out what is going to happen."

        For a guy who thinks he is a realist or pragmatist, you sure are delusional about being able to tell what is going to happen. Newsflash: NOBODY knows the future. Not even you.

        What's wrong with you? There's nothing coherent in your "message" at all - perhaps that's why you're getting junked.

        angel_of_joy

        Americans shouldn't leave, but stay there and keep paying for (and subsidizing with manpower and equipment) the European "security".

        That would be a sure way toward self-destruction of contemporary US, which is already practically bankrupt (and not only from a moral point of view...).

        LocalBoy

        Ukraine's government was functioning under a Constitution. Within the Constitution was allowances for Crimea to remain autonomous. The Ukrainian Constitution was trashed when the overthrow occurred allowing Crimea to vote for independence.

        How can you argue rule of law when the existing government is outside the rule of law while Crimea is within the law ?

        Good point about stealing your Navy - and the fact is there is very little that CAN be done about it. Russia took it and nothing will change that. Destroying Russia to give Crimea back to an illegitimate government will not fly - its all about price discovery. What price CAN be forced on Russia........so far very little.

        What price has the US already paid

        Red Lenin

        Fact: Crimea is the UN recognized Sovereign territory of Ukraine in law.

        Fact: Yugoslavia was recognized by the UN as a sovereign country. It no longer exists.

        Volkodav

        UN is worthless except for fill pockets with US taxpayer $.

        same as your opinion:

        • Crimea seceded
        • Crimea is peaceful
        • Crimea is free

        The_Prisoner

        Now you're fronting. Next thing you'll say Israel is legitimate

        Urban Roman

        "... and has tried to carve off more and more .."

        Really? The Russian Army has been fighting a random bunch of warmed-over nazi skinheads for almost a whole year, and can't manage to take a couple of oblasts west of the Don?

        Whatchoo smokin' over dere? Login or register to post comments

        angel_of_joy

        There was no Ukraine prior to 1991. Contemporary Ukraine is an artificially induced state, created in a moment of maximum weakness of the Russian state. As a result, it has no future, and no amount of US propping will change the facts on the ground. Crimea is populated by Russians in vast majority, who decided they don't want to be rulled by Kiev after the US led coup. More so, the Ukrainian "fleet" was built during USSR so it represents a Russian asset too. Your narrative is as dumb as this entire war... which will end badly for US.

        Volkodav

        Ukraine has never been a sovereign nation.

        Victory_Garden

        Darn Element, what happened to you?

        In the past, you were so spot on about all the fuckyoushima tragedy and offered much light for many who listened intently to your truth. We are grateful for all that light.

        Now, it seems as if you have been co-opted, or banned and someone else is using your handle to put out the same trash the organized criminal lame stream media propagandists are putting out for public consumption. It's ONLY regurgitation of the filthiest yukkity-muck ever.

        We all miss the truth bearing Element and wonder, are you really another dis-informationist? It would be a shame and big loss to find this out, as your great intelligence is needed to combat the evil that has run rampant over the planet for centuries. Is it money or love you quest after, dear One?

        Ask, would you rather have a Ron Paul for president, or the evil illegal usurping alien bushonian bankster puppet we have now? Truly, the puppet soterobama is absolutely the most vile evil and destructive worst president America has ever had.. History will reflect this fact. We may not see another righteous president ever again in America's coming to an end history. Sad to ponder that, eh!

        WE WANT GOD BACK IN AMERICA NOW!

        (Side-swiping truth, God is Love. Period!)

        new game

        hmmm, then silence...

        schadenfreude

        You are correct. All germans I spoke to said, that they should leave Russia with Crimea and the Donbass region.

        You are incorrect, that Ukraine is Russia. It is not. After WWII Stalin made the deal that he could enlarge Russia to the West. So he deported the polish to what was once Germany. This artificial enlargement divides Ukraine and is a rated break point that runs through the country. So both sides have a legitimate claim.

        Victory_Garden

        The latest rant on the GW story.

        Ron Paul WAS America's last chance to remain free from the horridness of the banksteronian evil that runs rampant over the land like diarrhea running out of a goose's arse.

        HowdyDoody

        NATO was created to force the USSR to target two widely separated entities (Europe and continental US) before the time of intercontinental ballistic missiles. This was to keep the USSR focused on Europe. In any envisioned war, Europe and USSR would be destroyed or severely weakened, strengthening the US position.

        steelhead23

        There is but one thing in all of this that is perfectly clear to me. The situation is quite confusing, lying is rampant, and unnecessarily provoking the Russian Bear is about the most dangerous thing anyone could do.

        My preference for U.S. policy is neither isolationism nor militarism. It's diplomacy. Further, the U.S. should abandon its use of economic sanctions against the Bear for his annexation of Crimea because Putin would never leave Crimea, meaning this economic cattle prod will continue to annoy the Bear.

        Instead, the U.S. and NATO should be willing to trade some form of recognition of Russian presence in Crimea for ending the war in eastern Ukraine. I would also hope that Kiev and Washington would be willing to see an autonomous region, perhaps more aligned with Moscow than Kiev and agreement not to place NATO troops or materiel in Ukraine.

        But of course, none of this is likely - everyone is lying and the trust needed for real diplomacy is nil.

        Herdee

        I guess that the CIA Director,Stephen Harper, Victoria Wench Nuland were only in Ukraine for a nice vacation?

        It shows anyone with a grade 2 education how the world still works.

        Bunga Bunga

        We couped some folks.

        655321

        RP gives me the impression he a form of controlled opposition, almost like a pressure release valve, giving people false hope and at same giving people false conclusions on key issues such as 9/11.

        Savyindallas

        You can't take on too many issues. Paul knows 911 was an inside job. His supporters know. Someday he will go public. I don't agree with the way he handles this, just as I don't like the politics of rand paul on many issues. TPTB would have loved RP to come out as a Truther - they would have detroyed him and his credibility as the sheeple just have no idea what is really going on.

        LeftyGoldblatt

        LiveLeak.com

        Ross Kemp Extreme World. Ukraine

        http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=98d_1423931054

        Berspankme

        Watched it. The nazi's are taking over west ukraine. Porkoshenko better watch his back.

        HowdyDoody

        Dmitry Yarosh, the leader of the far right Pravy Sektor group (financed by Kolomoisky) has brought together the remnants of the Nazi volunteer battalions as one entity, under his control. He has also stated that they (again) will not comply with the ceasefire. These will be the shock troops in the next stage of this saga.

        Victory_Garden

        Yup!

        (use subtitles)

        TeaClipper

        This is how they do business in Ukraine parliament, whichever government is in

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9c7HbeKpeM

        gcjohns1971

        If the US were isolationist, a lot of Dead Ukrainians would likely be alive right now.

        With that said, there are plenty of intrigues to go around even the US were somehow frozen.

        There are many powerful entities who have their fingers in the Ukraine. Not the least of them are the Ukrainians themselves, both Eastern and Western variety.

        Neither the West's position, that everyone should account all Ukrainians both East and West to be homogenous, nor the East's position, that the East Ukraine is Russia, and the West Ukraine is an illegitimate province of Poland or LIthuania and therefore unworthy of self rule, is workable.

        Both of those positions lead to dead ends. The Ukrainians are Ukrainians because they are the descendants of those who followed the Kiev 'Rus' (Russians). The Russians are those who followed the Prince of Moscow. All of Russia and part of Ukraine was conquered by the Mongols. The part not conquered are the West Ukrainians. The part conquered are the East Ukrainians...plus many soviet era Russian imports.

        Russia's stake is control of the Black Sea Basin...which will cement Russia as mandatory near monopoly energy supplier to Europe. Europe's stake is to have access to non-Russian energy. The US's and NATO's stake is to prevent the re-arming of Europe by ensuring they have no REASON to re-arm.

        Pick your outcome:

        If Russia gets both Crimea and East Ukrainian land routes to Ukraine, then they decisively control energy to Europe. Europe's choices are then to EITHER a) Trust the US to ensure their economies and access to energy b) Ensure European access to energy themselves - militarily c) Become Russian colonies.

        Russia's choices are: a) Commit Russia to militarily conquering Ukraine and then use the economic benefit of that position to arm themselves for the inevitable world war that will result b) Resign itself to open competition for energy by surrendering either East Ukraine or Crimea.

        The US's choices are: a) Incrementally increase pressure on Russia via economic and/or military means until they allow Europe to have access to non-Russian energy b) Ignore Ukraine with the cost of later involvement in a world war in europe c) Ignore Ukraine and then withdraw from the transatlantic alliance.

        The fact is that the US is over-extended and should not have given Putin a reason for overt involvement. The fact is that Europe is un-prepared to militarily deter Russia from turning them into energy-plantation slaves. The fact is that EUrope is too proud and powerful for Russia as currently composed to force into energy submission simultaneously detering Europe from contesting the matter militarily.

        In the next 20 years there will be a major war in Europe, on the scale of WWII. Russia will be facing all of Western Europe.

        Russia propaganda seems confused about the organization of Power in the West, presenting it as a US-led top-down organization. In fact it is led by powerful European interests who act through governments. This is all highly observable. What did you think the eminence of the CFR was all about? What did you think Bilderberg was for??? When the European governments were decimated after WWII those interests acted through the US government.

        Europe is no longer decimated, and the shift of power from US to European entities has been historic and EASILY observable. What do you think the Eurozone and EU are all about??

        There's a lot of high-time preference going on - on every side of this, as each side too heavily weights the desirability of the fruit they see before them, and overly discounts the later costs of that fruit - both Europe and Russia wanting the Ukrainian fruit for the energy power it gives them, and the US in underestimating the costs of their chosen course to placate Europe via meddling in Ukraine.

        This is not going to end well for anyone in Europe no matter how it plays out. The stakes are too big for too many big powers.

        The US would be better off isolationist, and preparing to re-open ellis island. A lot of war refugees will need a home soon.

        China need only wait to inherit Eurasia from those who plan to foolishly decimate themselves.

        Rusputin

        So that would be a US/NATO/EU coup on a US/NATO/EU coup?

        Isn't one coup normally enough for a few years? The first one lasted 12 months and obviously the backstops weren't placed carefully enough, me thinks the bribery money is running out (has run out)!

        Catullus

        Here's Ron Paul in 2002 asking why the US was meddling with Ukrainian elections...

        http://antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=5688

        Armed Resistance

        Here you go: Victoria Nuland admitting that the US spent $5B to have regime change..

        http://youtu.be/U2fYcHLouXY

        Flybyknight

        Off the wall? That is where anyone who does not believe that USA, EU and NATO are totally responsible for the violent mess Ukraine has become.

        [Feb 14, 2015] The US' Suicidal Strategy On Ukraine by Chris Martenson

        Feb 14, 2015 | Zero Hedge
        Submitted by Chris Martenson via Peak Prosperity

        Ukraine is back in the news cycle and for good reason. The previous cease-fire has broken, fighting is intensifying, and the western-supported and installed leadership in Kiev is losing the campaign. At this point, the West's choice is to either double down and bet even more on a badly failing set of policies, or admit it has lost this round and seek to deescalate the situation.

        ... ... ...

        Dubious Reporting

        It's interesting to contrast foreign reporting with US reporting on the conflict:

        As fighting deepens in eastern Ukraine, casualties rise and truce is all but dead

        Jan 20, 2015

        MOSCOW - Intensifying battles, mounting death tolls and new accusations of Russian interference in eastern Ukraine have marked some of the worst fighting between government troops and pro-Russian separatists since last summer, rendering a months-old cease-fire agreement effectively defunct.

        The two sides have been trading heavy fire at the Donetsk airport, a prize that, though more symbolic than strategic, has been at the center of punishing recent attacks that have reduced much of the facility to rubble. Each side has claimed control of the airport at various points, and militia and army fighters there continued to launch strikes against each other over the past several days.

        The U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt, bolstered Ukraine's accusations Tuesday, saying the United States was alarmed by what he called a Russian-provoked military escalation, coupled with the arrival of large quantities of weaponry from Russian territory, according to the Russian Interfax news service.

        Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin told reporters Tuesday that pro-Russian separatists were "taking advantage" of the military's compliance to seize "very substantial territory - more than 500 square kilometers."

        (Source)

        Let's decode this piece of writing from the Washington Post and provide some essential context that is, regrettably, missing far too often from US media sources when reporting on the Ukraine conflict.

        To begin, there's the assertion once again that Russia has been supplying "large quantities" of weapons to the separatists. While this may or may not be true, not one shred of satellite or other imagery or any other evidence has been provided by the US to support that charge.

        In this day and age it is literally not possible to move large amounts of heavy weaponry across open land without satellites and/or drones taking pictures of them.

        Furthermore, in this case the charges are being levied by one Geoffrey Pyatt, the infamous US ambassador to Ukraine who was caught on tape discussing the imminent coup of then-President Yanukovych. He also famously tweeted out a crudely doctored photo purporting to show that the missile attack on MH-17 came from the separatists -- evidence that was quickly defrauded by the intelligence community.

        Why the Washington Post would report anything from Pyatt as worthy of our serious consideration given his blighted track record so far is a complete mystery to me. It would be like recommending your friend to a doctor you knew had committed gross malpractice multiple times.

        Next, the separatists are not 'taking advantage' of a one-sided lull in the fighting to claim territory. They have been winning battle after battle. What they have taken advantage of is the poor training and lackluster military strategy undertaken by Kiev's forces.

        It should also be noted that the above article presents the status of the conflict an even match. There's no indication that one side is winning or losing.

        This is par for the course with US media reports these days and it's really a disturbing indication that the shoddy journalistic ethics on display during the horrendously mis-reported weapons of mass destructions lies that led to the most recent US attack on Iraq are still with us today.

        It's quite sad, really. Because when it comes to an issue as important as a potential conflict with Russia, the US owes it to itself to get the facts right. The stakes are worthy of that.

        As a final point about the shortcomings of the Washington Post piece above concerns the heavily contested Donetsk airport. Five days prior to the above article's publication, the airport had been clearly reported by other outlets to have already been lost by Kiev forces:

        Russia-backed separatists seize Donetsk airport in Ukraine

        Jan 15, 2015

        Russian-backed separatists announced that they have captured the shattered remains of the Donetsk airport terminal in eastern Ukraine and plan to claw back more territory, further dashing hopes for a lasting peace agreement.

        The airport, on the fringes of the rebel stronghold of Donetsk, has been at the centre of bitter battles since May. Control over it was split between the separatists and Ukrainian forces, who had held onto the main civilian terminal. Reduced to little more than a shell-strewn wreck, the building is of limited strategic importance but has great symbolic value.

        An AP reporter saw a rebel flag hoisted over that building Thursday, although fighting still appeared to be ongoing. Ukraine insisted government troops were holding their positions at the airport.

        (Source)

        Instead of the airport being up for grabs as the WaPo article implies, it has had the rebel flag flying over it as of five days ago. It's clearly in the hands of one side, the separtists'. That's a huge difference, and is just one more example of heavily slanted writing that passes for news in the US these days.

        But leaving the shoddy reporting aside, the main summary here is that the intense fighting in Ukraine has resulting in mounting losses for Kiev.

        All of which provides the context for this week's hurriedly-brokered 'peace summit' that will involve France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine.

        [Feb 14, 2015] Seeking a Multipolar World Inside the Quite Unipolar Informational Medium by Roberto Quaglia

        Quote: "The US also has control over the mainstream news worldwide, the CIA having infiltrated most of the networks which count. German journalist Udo Ulfkotte who worked for Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of the main German newspapers, recently confessed in his best-selling book Gekaufte Journalisten to have been paid by the CIA for years to manipulate news, and that this is quite common in the German media. ... The Nazi-infected junta of Kiev which came to power with a coup was able to bomb and kill their own citizens for months while the western media would always depict them as the good side - while at the same time Putin would be portrayed as the new Hitler for no reality-based reason."
        Feb 14, 2015 | voltairenet.org

        ... ... ...

        The US also has control over the mainstream news worldwide, the CIA having infiltrated most of the networks which count. German journalist Udo Ulfkotte who worked for Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of the main German newspapers, recently confessed in his best-selling book Gekaufte Journalisten to have been paid by the CIA for years to manipulate news, and that this is quite common in the German media. We can safely assume that this is also very common in other countries. This global grip on media allows to the US to dominate the war of perception to an extent that allows them easily to turn white into black in the eyes of the public. It was amazing how the US-controlled European media could twist facts during the recent crises in Ukraine. The Nazi-infected junta of Kiev which came to power with a coup was able to bomb and kill their own citizens for months while the western media would always depict them as the good side - while at the same time Putin would be portrayed as the new Hitler for no reality-based reason.

        To understand to what extent the domination of information is in itself sufficient to shape an effective reality, let's remember this quote of 2004 credited to Karl Rove, at the time George W. Bush's senior advisor, "We're an empire now and, when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

        As if all of this were not enough, most of the information circulating in the world today is processed by computers running US-based operating systems (Microsoft and Apple) while people - including those who oppose the US - communicate with each others via CIA-controlled Facebook, Gmail, and so on.

        It's exactly this close to total monopoly over information which makes the real difference. So even though US economic relevance has been sharply declining in the past decades, its informational relevance has paradoxically been growing. Therefore, countries today aiming to a true multipolar world should revise their priorities and start to seriously compete on the informational field, rather than focus just on economic issues. Power today is all a matter of perception and the US is still the unmatched master of this game. We won't have any truly multipolar world until other players with comparable skills enter the game.

        There are already a few cases of non US-aligned news services with excellent quality and the ambition of a global audience, and the most notable are Russia Today and Iranian Press TV. But that's still barely nothing compared with the ongoing tsunami of US-aligned audio-visual information which streams around the globe 24 hours a day. Russia Today is now planning to develop also channels in French and German. That's progress, but still far from enough.

        The US is not really bothered by countries bypassing it in their businesses, but it starts to get nervous if they use currencies other than dollars for their trades and it really gets mad when important non-aligned news networks appear on the information chessboard. Which sounds quite odd given that freedom of press is a central point of American modern mythology. But any non US-aligned information source is in fact jeopardizing their monopoly of reality. This is why they would need to demonise the competitors and label them as anti-American or worse. However, often non-aligned journalists or news publishers are just an un-American reality, not necessarily anti-American. But in the eyes of US hegemonists, any un-American information is by definition anti-American, since the consistency of their empire relies most of all on their monopoly of the perceived reality. Remember Karl Rove's quote.

        Thus, non US-aligned countries which really aim at a multipolar world have no choice but to learn from their adversary and to act accordingly. Beyond the creation of their own state of the art news networks they should also begin to provide substantial support to independent information in countries where the news is currently US-dominated. Independent journalists, writers and researchers in Western countries today are doing their work merely out of civic passion, often unpaid and at the cost of public mockery, social marginalization and economical struggle. Vilified in their own countries and getting zero help from countries who supposedly are aiming to escape US domination, this is not a good beginning for the end of US Full Spectum Dominance.

        There is and there will never be a truly multipolar world without a truly multipolar range of point of views on the stage. A post-modern empire is more than anything a state of mind. If that state of mind will stay unipolar, so will the world.

        Roberto Quaglia

        Source
        Fars News Agency (Iran)

        [Feb 14, 2015] The useless agreement which everybody wanted

        This is quite a different take on Minsk accords then typical MSM presstitutes promote...
        Feb 14, 2015 | The Vineyard of the Saker
        Fourth, the agreement not even signed by Poroshenko, but by Kuchma on behalf of the Ukraine.

        Fifth, check out this section:

        9. Restoration of full control over the state border of Ukraine by the government throughout the conflict zone, which should begin on the first day after the local elections and be completed after a comprehensive political settlement (local elections in some areas of Donetsk and Lugansk regions on the basis of the Law of Ukraine and constitutional reform) at the end of 2015, subject to paragraph 11 - in consultation and agreement with the representatives of individual areas of Donetsk and Lugansk regions in the framework of the Three-Party Contact Group.
        Do you see what I see? Nevermind that the border is supposed to get back under Kiev's control only after "something" happens, but check out the "something" itself: constitutional reform in consultation and agreement with Novorussian leaders!!!! Does anybody seriously believe that the Rada will participate in anything even remotely looking like this? Liashko? Farion? Tsiagnibok and Iarosh all working together with the "subhuman colorads" from the Donbass to change the Ukrainian Constitution? Of course not!

        So so far, let's sum this up. M2A was:

        1) signed by a person with no authority
        2) on behalf of a junta with no powers
        3) it does not say a word about the main reason for the meeting in Minsk
        4) it contains clearly impossible sections

        How is that for a brilliant text?

        In truth, there is a short section of the document which does contain one realistic elements: a ceasefire followed by a withdrawal of heavy weapons. That's it. The rest is nonsense. See for yourself

        #4: local elections organized by the junta and Novorussians together. Nonsense
        #5: pardons and amnesties. Blanket amnesty for all the war crimes (including MH-17 and Odessa "barbecue"). Disgusting.
        #6: exchange of "all for all". Except that most folks in the junta hands are long dead.
        #7: humanitarian assistance. Empty statement, the assistance is already coming in.
        #8: payment of pensions: the junta does not have the money anyway. Will not happen.
        #9: Constitutional reform. Will not happen
        #10: Withdrawal of all foreign forces. Nonsense: those who are there (NATO countries) will stay, those who are not there (9000 Russian soldiers) cannot "leave" since they are not there to begin with.
        #11: Constitutional reform including the creation of "The creation of people's militia". LOL - apparently, that will be the new name for the Novorussian armed forces.
        #12: Elections if all of the above happens first. Since it ain't, they won't.
        #13: Creation of "working groups". Right. Keep dreaming.

        The fact is that what is the most interesting about M2A is not what it says, but what it does NOT say:

        1) not a word about Debaltsevo
        2) not a word about the junta actually sitting down to negotiate with the Novorussian authorities
        3) not a word about the future status of the Ukraine
        4) not a word about the Ukrainian economy (which is still in free fall)
        5) not a word about any peacekeepers (which are indispensible to make any ceasefire stick)
        6) not even a word about the fact that the Novorussians are not "terrorist" but people seeking national independence. Poroshenko has still not spoken to them directly.

        It is possible that these issues were, in fact, discussed, but that this will not be revealed to the general public. There might be secret clauses to M2A. However, it is at least as likely that these issues were discussed and that no agreement whatsoever was found, hence they were set aside.

        But if nothing really important was decided, why did everybody participate to this exercise? Simple: everybody got something from it (assuming any parts M2A are actually implemented):

        1) The Novorussians:
        a) a stop of the terror attacks by the junta on Novorussian cities.
        b) the recognition of the line of contact
        c) the assurance that Voentorg remains open (control of border)
        d) time to mobilize and train their planned 100'000 extra men
        e) the recognition by all parties (including the Europeans) that they deserve a special status

        2) Poroshenko:
        a) the apparent and symbolic support for world leaders
        b) a stop of the Novorussian advance
        c) a vague hope that junta forces will be allowed to leave the Debaltsevo cauldron
        d) money from the IMF (not nearly enough, but better than none).

        3) Merkel and Hollande:
        a) the illusion of relevance of a EU foreign policy
        b) the (probably misguided) hope to stop the crazy Americans
        c) the hope to an easing of the economic war with Russia (Mistrals?)

        4) Putin:
        a) the right to control the border until the constitutional reforms are made, in other words ad aeternam.
        b) the recognition that without him no solution can be found
        c) the hope for some easing of sanctions

        Everybody got what they wanted and left with a smile on their face. Good for them, but none of that does anything to really settle the conflict or even begin to seek a solution.

        The reality is that nothing at all happened in Minsk, at least nothing of any importance. The Novorussians won the latest battle (yet again) so they came in a position of strength and they got the junta to promise to stop the crazy shelling, and since Debaltsevo was not even mentioned, it looks to me that the junta forces there will be allowed to quietly withdraw as long as they leave their weapons behind. So the Debaltsevo cauldron will be controlled by Novorussia. Putin got political recognition and the hope of at least no more sanctions (remember after Minsk 1 the EU immediately imposed more sanctions on Russia). The Europeans got a little something too, mainly some good PR, and the big loser is most definitely Poroshenko who will now have the highly unenviable task of "selling" M2A to a totally crazy Rada (which, by the way, is currently considering an law proposed by Poroshenko's party to make the denial of the Russian aggression against the Ukraine a criminal offense).

        Conclusion:

        Just like in a chess game, time is a critical factor. M2A gave everybody a little time-out, but the conflict will resume and the only thing which will stop this conflict will be a double collapse of the Ukrainian economy and armed forces which I believe will most probably happen this summer. Until then, the conflict will be more or less frozen, though I will believe in a junta withdrawal of heavy weapons systems only if/when I see it. Also - remember that one can very well fight with tanks, mortars and infantry.

        Nazi Baderastan and Novorussia are two civilizationally different project which cannot and will never coexist under one roof. Yes, for tactical reasons there might be the need to pretend that this is possible, but the reality is that it will not. The only way to keep Novorussia inside the Ukraine is to denazify the latter and until that is done, Novorussia will never really return to the Ukraine. That is a hard fact which nobody in the West is willing to accept. In Kiev, they fully understand that, but their "solution" is to empty Novorussia form Novorussians and to give this much needed Lebensraum to the "Ukr" Master Race of western Ukraine. And that is something which Russia will never allow. Which leaves only two possible outcomes: the EU gives up and the Ukraine is denazified, or the US starts a full-scale war against Russia in a desperate attempt to prevent that outcome.

        Two more things I want to mention here:

        In purely military terms the withdrawal of heavy systems is entirely to the Novorussian advantage. Remember that Kiev used these systems to try to terrorize the Novorussian population while the Novorussians used their artillery to try to suppress the junta's artillery. The Novorussians could never use their artillery to attack because they were liberating their own land and did not want to murder their own civilians. So, in other words, if both sides really withdraw their heavy guns the junta will lose a crucial capability while the Novorussians will lose an almost useless one.

        [Feb 13, 2015] NYT Whites Out Ukraine's Brown Shirts by Robert Parry

        February 11, 2015 | Consortiumnews

        What's particularly egregious about this omission is that the connections between the Azov battalion and Nazism have been well-documented for months and even acknowledged by officials of the Kiev regime, who knowingly sent these and other extremists into the battle because they are the fiercest fighters.

        ... ... ...

        "The fighting for Donetsk has taken on a lethal pattern: The regular army bombards separatist positions from afar, followed by chaotic, violent assaults by some of the half-dozen or so paramilitary groups surrounding Donetsk who are willing to plunge into urban combat," the Times reported.

        "Officials in Kiev say the militias and the army coordinate their actions, but the militias, which count about 7,000 fighters, are angry and, at times, uncontrollable. One known as Azov, which took over the village of Marinka, flies a neo-Nazi symbol resembling a Swastika as its flag." [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT Discovers Ukraine's Neo-Nazis at War."]

        Not a Mistake

        The conservative London Telegraph offered more details about the Azov battalion in an article by correspondent Tom Parfitt, who wrote: "Kiev's use of volunteer paramilitaries to stamp out the Russian-backed Donetsk and Luhansk 'people's republics'… should send a shiver down Europe's spine.

        "Recently formed battalions such as Donbas, Dnipro and Azov, with several thousand men under their command, are officially under the control of the interior ministry but their financing is murky, their training inadequate and their ideology often alarming. The Azov men use the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf's Hook) symbol on their banner and members of the battalion are openly white supremacists, or anti-Semites."

        Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.


        calzone on February 11, 2015 at 5:13 pm said:

        Interestingly, these Nazi Jew-hating thugs have made an alliance of convenience with the Zionists of the US and Israel and are therefore given a free pass by American Jewry, in a very bizarre, self-defeating concession to the neocon imperialist agenda.

        It's difficult to respect those who cry "antisemitism" at the very whiff of a criticism of Israel but turn a blind eye to these ideological descendants of Adolf Hitler. Rather pathetic when you think of it.

        Peter Loeb, February 12, 2015 at 7:41 am said:

        THE ZIONIST ROLE

        Robert Parry's analyses of Ukraine/Russia always demonstrate courage in journalism.

        I would point out only one flaw and agree with "Calzone" above. The role of Israel should always be a part of the context.

        The public statements of the US (and its supporters) decry Russia's erosion of International Law with a fervor that only one guilty of similar acts could know so well. John Mearsheimer makes these points eloquently in a radio debate with Ret. General John Wald (who just incidentally is currently an employee of DELOITTE, a fact which seemed to fluster him when it was brought up).

        While decrying Russia sins nothing iever said on the sins past and present of the State of Israel. (Too numerous to mention here….) Regarding israel's "massive state terror" John Falk) there is only silence.

        af1 on February 12, 2015 at 1:32 am said:

        I don't think you have any ground to criticize those men that choose their beliefs however they like. If Ukraine were to become Nationalist, the Western world would not collapse. There would not be a second Holocaust. So why do you care if there are Nationalists in the Ukraine, fighting for a Nationalist Ukraine?

        J. Longhi on February 12, 2015 at 10:26 am s

        Thanks for this timely reminder. I will do what I can to forward it to those Jewish members of the senate and congress who will be voting on arming the Ukranians, in the hopes that they will be either outraged or embarrassed.

        I suspect that, as in Syria, the official response will be that we (the US) must provide arms to the Ukranians precisely so that they can build up a stronger independent military that will not need to rely on militias (such as AZOV).

        To what degree do the fascist, anti-semitic and nazi sympathies find resonance among the controlling Ukranian elite.

        Nojojo, February 13, 2015 at 9:14 am

        but but but–today's Ukraine leaders are Jewish :^( Why is USA so interested in Ukraine?
        Could it be future homeland for the chosen? Wake up!

        Abe on February 12, 2015 at 12:43 pm

        "This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a "Leader State" is the goal."

        Albert Einstein – Letter to The New York Times. December 4, 1948
        https://ia601400.us.archive.org/17/items/AlbertEinsteinLetterToTheNewYorkTimes.December41948/Einstein_Letter_NYT_4_Dec_1948.pdf

        wolfsangel

        There isn't much doubt about what the Ukraine Nazis mean when they use the symbol – it was used as the insignia of the 34th SS Volunteer Grenadier Division during WW2.

        As for the New York Times, a search of their site turned up only two instances of the word. Oddly enough, one writer was quite blunt.

        Eastern Ukrainians today, especially the older generations, respond to swastikas and wolfsangel runes - Nazi symbols now used by Ukrainian ultranationalists - about as well as African-Americans respond to burning crosses.

        It may or may not be a coincidence that this was the last time the NYT published an editorial by Mr. Lev Golinkin.

        [Feb 12, 2015] BBC send signals - It's not that simple with EuroMaidan snipergate events!

        See also To whom EuroMaidan Sharp-shooters belong?
        Feb 12, 2015 | annbeaker.livejournal.com

        BBC staff now decided to play the role of "daughters of an officer" (NSA financed bots in social networks that assumes this identity and channel State Deportment talking points and trying to discredit opponents pretending that they write from the place of the event) and all the morning very emotionally told us that events on Maidan square was not that simple!

        Really?

        It turns out there are witnesses and facts which suggest that its not now Yanukovich who ordered those snipers to fire, but it was opposition people who were firing at demonstrators. There are even widows who claim that their statements about the death of loved ones were rejected first by junta and then by Fat Pig government.

        Oh, Oh, what an affront! The British have always been shameless whores, you know.

        It seems that the attempts were made, while sluggish, to disown Fat Pig and his camarilla. Let's see how things will develop next week, Washington Obcom did not provide final guidelines on this matter yet.

        [Feb 11, 2015] The Bout Opening – Stick to Checkers, America. Not Up In Here

        See also comments to Ukraine: draft dodgers face jail as Kiev struggles to find new fighters by Shaun Walker
        Notable quotes:
        "... Take a look at this exposure of Grauniad bias: ..."
        "... "We have to twist arms when countries don't do what we need them to" ..."
        "... Ukraine President Poroshenko Threatens Martial Law: http://t.co/YiPgu0yPEY His main target: rising dissent in western Ukraine. ..."
        Feb 11, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

        Moscow Exile , February 11, 2015 at 8:38 am

        Take a look at this exposure of Grauniad bias:

        Luhansk Women Curse Ukrainian Rocket Attack – Guardian Blames "Pro-Russian Rebels"

        patient observer, February 11, 2015 at 9:02 am

        Per:

        http://rt.com/news/231279-obama-foreign-policy-power/

        Our Nobel peace prize wiener says

        "We have to twist arms when countries don't do what we need them to"

        and if arm twisting does not work we will murder your families, embargo food and medicine, destroy your economy, lay waste to a generation of your children, and blacken your name for all history.

        He is truly a stinky turd in the cesspool that is Washington DC. But fear not, Hillary Clinton will be a worthy successor and will out-stink, out-murder and out-destroy Obama.

        Who in America can stop this madness? (rhetorical/trick question, no one can).

        Warren, February 11, 2015 at 6:53 am

        Ukraine President Poroshenko Threatens Martial Law: http://t.co/YiPgu0yPEY His main target: rising dissent in western Ukraine.

        - Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) February 11, 2015

        Moscow Exile , February 11, 2015 at 1:10 am
        Another Walker special:

        Ukraine: draft dodgers face jail as Kiev struggles to find new fighters

        The government has avoided officially declaring a state of war, instead referring to the operations in the east as an anti-terrorism operation, despite clear evidence of Russian military incursion. Part of the reason for this is the fact that Kiev would have trouble securing a much-needed support package from the International Monetary Fund if it was officially at war.

        A series of gruesome videos, sometimes shown on Russian television, has increased the psychological pressure on Ukrainians. One, released last month, showed a rebel commander waving a sword in the faces of bloodied Ukrainian soldiers, slicing off their insignias and forcing the men to eat them.

        Shit! I must have missed that one!

        "A friend of mine told me his friend was down there in the east and they ran into Chechens, who sliced off all their testicles. There were about 100 of them, and the Chechens castrated the lot of them. If I get called up, I think I'll go into hiding. I want a family and kids."

        'Kin' hell!!!!!!!

        karl1haushofer , February 10, 2015 at 11:21 pm

        "It may have escaped your notice, but Putin and Moscow have been calling for a ceasefire all along"

        I have grown to hate the whole word of "ceasefire" during this war. A real ceasefire would be great. But it is not going to happen until Kiev military is fully defeated!

        Another bogus "ceasefire" in Minsk means the following:

        1. Kiev gets to withdraw its men AND WEAPONS out of the Debaltsevo cauldron and the rebels will not be allowed to stop it..
        2. The rebels will not be able to give a big blow to the Kiev military by either annihilating or at least capturing the most competent part of their military in Debaltsevo and their weapons.
        3. The thousands of Kiev troops in Debaltsevo cauldron AND THEIR WEAPONS will be used in the future against Novorossiya.
        4. The shelling of civilians will continue as it was before. The "ceasefire" will not be applied to Kiev side, only to rebels.
        5. NATO will start the training and arming of Kiev troops. Next offensive will start next spring.
        6. The morale of the rebels will take a bit hit. They will realize that their military efforts and success is meaningless as they are not allowed win this war.

        Moscow must not allow Kiev to withdraw its troops and weapons out of that cauldron in any circumstances. That would be a treason against the troops that fought to create that cauldron. And that would be a treason against the whole Novorossiya.

        This war will not end until one side is fully defeated. It will be either Kiev or Novorossiya. Annihilating or capturing the Kiev troops and weapons in Debaltsevo cauldron would be a big military defeat for Kiev.

        marknesop, February 11, 2015 at 8:00 am

        "This war will not end until one side is fully defeated. It will be either Kiev or Novorossiya. Annihilating or capturing the Kiev troops and weapons in Debaltsevo cauldron would be a big military defeat for Kiev."

        On the contrary, the war could continue for many years yet without either side firing a shot, in much the same way the Georgian government never accepted the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and even designated a ministerial position for winning them back into the fold. Disagreement over the borders within Ukraine will keep them out of NATO for the foreseeable future, while their ruined economy will keep them out of the EU. A future government may mend its ties with Russia, but if it does not, Ukraine is doomed to decades of poverty and a steady drain of its population for better prospects. It can thank the west for that, and its own population's extremist element.

        Once again, there is no reason for Putin to become "the most hated man in Novorossiya" if it shakes out as you describe. The rebels must accept the deal on their own behalf, and it is not for Putin to agree to anything; Russia is simply acting as a sort of guarantor, by being part of the agreement but kind of like an honest broker, to ensure the western countries keep their word.

        I agree the Ukrainian forces should not be permitted to withdraw from Debalseve with their weapons, after getting cauldroned for the second time due to their own stupidity, lack of tactical knowledge and poor leadership. but i doubt that will happen, unless the rebels are idiot negotiators, because Semenchenko's battalion had to leave their weapons behind when they were allowed out of the southern cauldron, and it plainly did not teach the Ukies anything. Why would they be allowed to keep their weapons this time? But even if they do not, weapons are not going to be a problem to replace, and you know it.

        [Feb 11, 2015] Poroshenko: Ukraine conflict risks spiralling out of control

        Quote: Ironically (and rather disingenuously), US talking heads, media parrots and politicians in Washington – are still recycling their worn-out sound bites: "Russia is invading the Ukraine", "Moscow is responsible for the destabilization of the Ukraine", and it goes on.

        Military industrial lobbyists like US State Dept. Euro Secretary Victoria Nuland, and US Senator John McCain have played a key role in the Kiev's Nazi renaissance from the beginning – a new low point in international racketeering…

        Feb 11, 2015 |theguardian.com

        Ian56789

        War by media and the triumph of propaganda by John Pilger

        Why has so much journalism succumbed to propaganda? Why are censorship and distortion standard practice? Why is the BBC so often a mouthpiece of rapacious power? Why do the New York Times and the Washington Post deceive their readers?

        Why are young journalists not taught to understand media agendas and to challenge the high claims and low purpose of fake objectivity? And why are they not taught that the essence of so much of what's called the mainstream media is not information, but power?

        These are urgent questions. The world is facing the prospect of major war, perhaps nuclear war - with the United States clearly determined to isolate and provoke Russia and eventually China. This truth is being turned upside down and inside out by journalists, including those who promoted the lies that led to the bloodbath in Iraq in 2003.

        The times we live in are so dangerous and so distorted in public perception that propaganda is no longer, as Edward Bernays called it, an "invisible government". It is the government. It rules directly without fear of contradiction and its principal aim is the conquest of us: our sense of the world, our ability to separate truth from lies.

        The information age is actually a media age. We have war by media; censorship by media; demonology by media; retribution by media; diversion by media - a surreal assembly line of obedient clichés and false assumptions.

        This power to create a new "reality" has building for a long time. Forty-five years ago, a book entitled The Greening of America caused a sensation. On the cover were these words: "There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual."

        I was a correspondent in the United States at the time and recall the overnight elevation to guru status of the author, a young Yale academic, Charles Reich. His message was that truth-telling and political action had failed and only "culture" and introspection could change the world.

        Within a few years, driven by the forces of profit, the cult of "me-ism" had all but overwhelmed our sense of acting together, our sense of social justice and internationalism. Class, gender and race were separated. The personal was the political, and the media was the message.

        Read more at :- http://johnpilger.com/articles/war-by-media-and-the-triumph-of-propaganda

        centerline

        The Minsk talks are about to enter their tenth hour, with the delegations of Germany, France, Russia, and Ukraine still trying to reach a final compromise and come up with a joint resolution. Journalists have been covering the event for almost 12 hours now.

        http://rt.com/news/231327-minsk-peace-talks-updates/

        Pity the guardian doesn't have any journalists.

        Nickel07 -> centerline

        They rely on the arduous task of watching FOX (and it is incredibly arduous) or repeating whatever dribble comes out of the BBC

        Ian56789

        Nato's action plan in Ukraine is right out of Dr Strangelove by John Pilger

        (Extract)

        The genius of Stanley Kubrick's film is that it accurately represents the cold war's lunacy and dangers. Most of the characters are based on real people and real maniacs. There is no equivalent to Strangelove today because popular culture is directed almost entirely at our interior lives, as if identity is the moral zeitgeist and true satire is redundant, yet the dangers are the same. The nuclear clock has remained at five minutes to midnight; the same false flags are hoisted above the same targets by the same "invisible government", as Edward Bernays, the inventor of public relations, described modern propaganda.

        In 1964, the year Dr Strangelove was made, "the missile gap" was the false flag. To build more and bigger nuclear weapons and pursue an undeclared policy of domination, President John F Kennedy approved the CIA's propaganda that the Soviet Union was well ahead of the US in the production of intercontinental ballistic missiles. This filled front pages as the "Russian threat". In fact, the Americans were so far ahead in production of the missiles, the Russians never approached them. The cold war was based largely on this lie.

        Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has ringed Russia with military bases, nuclear warplanes and missiles as part of its Nato enlargement project. Reneging on a US promise to the Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that Nato would not expand "one inch to the east", Nato has all but taken over eastern Europe. In the former Soviet Caucasus, Nato's military build-up is the most extensive since the second world war.

        In February, the US mounted one of its proxy "colour" coups against the elected government of Ukraine; the shock troops were fascists. For the first time since 1945, a pro-Nazi, openly antisemitic party controls key areas of state power in a European capital. No western European leader has condemned this revival of fascism on the border of Russia. Some 30 million Russians died in the invasion of their country by Hitler's Nazis, who were supported by the infamous Ukrainian Insurgent Army (the UPA) which was responsible for numerous Jewish and Polish massacres. The Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists, of which the UPA was the military wing, inspires today's Svoboda party.

        Since Washington's putsch in Kiev – and Moscow's inevitable response in Russian Crimea to protect its Black Sea fleet – the provocation and isolation of Russia have been inverted in the news to the "Russian threat". This is fossilised propaganda. The US air force general who runs Nato forces in Europe – General Philip Breedlove, no less – claimed more than two weeks ago to have pictures showing 40,000 Russian troops "massing" on the border with Ukraine. So did Colin Powell claim to have pictures proving there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What is certain is that Barack Obama's rapacious, reckless coup in Ukraine has ignited a civil war and Vladimir Putin is being lured into a trap.

        Following a 13-year rampage that began in stricken Afghanistan well after Osama bin Laden had fled, then destroyed Iraq beneath a false flag, invented a "nuclear rogue" in Iran, dispatched Libya to a Hobbesian anarchy and backed jihadists in Syria, the US finally has a new cold war to supplement its worldwide campaign of murder and terror by drone.

        Read more at:- http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/17/nato-ukraine-dr-strangelove-china-us

        HisRume

        Lets be clear. Kiev must answer for their crimes when this is settled:

        On June 2nd 2014 a Ukraine jet fighter attacked the central administrative building in Lugansk city killing seven civilians. It was a gross act of state terrorism It was not a military target.

        Immediately the US and the Ukraine UN Representative lied, saying it was a misfiring rebel anti-aircraft manpad device that struck the buildings air con.

        Yet, when the osce investigation pronounced it had been a jet fighter attack, Kiev and Washington still denied it.

        They have still not answered to this war crime - the first terrorist act of this crisis incidentally.

        Lets not forget WHO is responsible for the appalling, criminal deaths in the cities of Donetsk and Lugansk and who started the "terror".

        Hermius

        GreatMountainEagle

        'The one constant here is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, the leader of the free and thinking world who has not changed from the beginning and is to the people of Earth as the North star has been to sailors on the oceans for centuries.'

        This has to be the funniest thing ever posted on here (and saddest for those trapped in the PutinSSR)

        Ian56789 -> GreatMountainEagle

        Why do you get off on being a Goldman Sachs / Neocon troll?

        Ian56789 -> GreatMountainEagle

        Putin currently has an 86% approval rating in Russia. Primarily this is because they were ruled by Goldman Sachs and the US under Yeltsin in the 1990's. Yeltsin caused the collapse of the Russian economy and a 40% drop in people's living standards. Russia was a total mess by the late 1990's.

        Putin enjoys a very high approval rating because they do NOT want to be ruled by Goldman Sachs again and they see Putin as the only guy that can stop it from happening.

        Americans and Europeans haven't done so well living under Goldman Sachs rule for the last circa 15 years either. People's real standards of living in the developed countries has declined significantly.

        richiep40

        Forgetting all the name calling, who started it etc. what I don't get is how anyone can think this will work.

        The only premise where this will be possible is if the West will reign in Kiev's wish to obliterate the East of Ukraine and Russia can persuade the rebels that this is true.

        Without at least some assurances from the West about the safety of the East, the rebels will fight on, even if Putin removed his support (which he won't do if he thinks there will be a bloodbath, it would be political suicide for him).

        You can't ask Russia to get out of the situation if they think the Lunatics in charge of Kiev will do what they want to do.

        NormVan

        The US always attacking Putin. Russia has a functioning, united government of which Putin is one part. When the US decides to attack, the first thing they create is an evil dictator. They can bring freedom to the masses. US freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose.

        Obama having a hissy fit with Putin is childish. Obama got a start working for Henry Kissinger and rumored to work for the CIA.
        If he wants to do something useful he could send Mrs Nuland back to Kiev with some of her delicious cookies

        Goodthanx -> NormVan

        To gain a nomination of Presidency, you are prescreened by the Cia. Meaning, are you willing to be a lacky for the Cia, and the Military industrialists?
        No president has a long future without the support of both. JFK case in point.

        Nickel07

        Once the peace agreement is signed...what are you lot on the dark side going to do just come here and try to push back the tide of the investigations that will surely follow? What are you going to do try to scream Putin is a Nazi like kindergarten kids?

        I think you are about to lose big time and not just in Ukraine, but also by losing the little credibility you still have with some countries as demonstrated by the approach taken by Hollande and Merkel.
        And, to compound it all:

        "the reality of "American leadership" at times entails "twisting the arms" of states which "don't do what we need them to do," and that the US relied on its military strength and other leverage to achieve its goals."

        Translation : We coerce some folk.


        Mulefish

        Why tell us what Poro thinks, Guardian; he always lies, wasting our time and Guardian outdated reporters ink.

        Why tell us what Obama thinks, mass murderer. evil, inadequate, coward, fool, and the cause of all this. He is out of his depth; this is not any of his business; he should butt out He will have to.

        Merkel is just finding her voice and her brains and cutting loose the Yankee Nazi twits.

        The one constant here is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, the leader of the free and thinking world who has not changed from the beginning and is to the people of Earth as the North star has been to sailors on the oceans for centuries.

        Ian56789

        NATO's Nazis: Ethnic Cleansing Their Opposition in East Ukraine
        November 17, 2014

        Nearly one year on from the US-backed faux 'colour revolution' in Maidan Square, the Ukraine has been violently ripped into pieces by the new CIA-backed government in Kiev.

        What began with pro-EU colour mobs and far right-wing neo-Nazi gangs in Kiev, has escalated to ethnic cleansing in the eastern half of the country. The horrors are unspeakable, as detailed in the report below (with video). NATO, led by the US and Britain, are actively backing Kiev's military brutal campaign of collective punishment and ethnic cleansing against Russian-speaking people in the east of that country.

        Ironically (and rather disingenuously), US talking heads, media parrots and politicians in Washington – are still recycling their worn-out sound bites: "Russia is invading the Ukraine", "Moscow is responsible for the destabilization of the Ukraine", and it goes on.

        Military industrial lobbyists like US State Dept. Euro Secretary Victoria Nuland, and US Senator John McCain have played a key role in the Kiev's Nazi renaissance from the beginning – a new low point in international racketeering…

        Read more at:- http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/11/17/natos-nazis-ethnic-cleansing-their-opposition-in-east-ukraine/

        richiep40

        Interesting Newsnight on the Maidan shootings, perhaps it wasn't so black and white.

        The much more devastating ARD (German TV) report (from about a year ago) seems to have been removed from the Internet. It used to be on YouTube.

        The only place I can find it is

        http://potentnews.com/2014/04/29/german-tv-10-4-14-who-were-the-maidan-snipers-ukraine/

        But don't bother ARD has removed the right to broadcast it for 'licencing' reasons.

        For a textual analysis of ARD's report try this, it about two pages down

        http://www.bne.eu/content/story/snipergate-who-ordered-shootings-kyivs-maidan

        Ian56789 richiep40

        The sniper shootings in Maidan

        The sniper fire came from the upper floors and roofs of buildings controlled by the protestors
        (Other pictures show the Berkut Police firing - but they are firing downwards in front of the protestors to try and stop their advance NOT firing at them.)

        The sniper's massacre in Maidan Feb 18th to 20th, that directly led to the Coup in Ukraine:-
        An academic analysis by a Canadian http://www.academia.edu/8776021/The_Snipers_Massacre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine

        Kiev snipers were hired by Maidan leaders - the leaked EU's Ashton phone tape http://rt.com/news/ashton-maidan-snipers-estonia-946/

        Full Videoproof of Maidan snipers killing Ukraine Civilians Shooting From Behind! warning GRAPHIC 18+ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnBa0Uj3Ijw&feature=youtu.be

        ​'No evidence of Berkut police behind mass killing in Kiev' – probe head
        There is no forensic evidence linking the victims of mass killings in Kiev on February 20 with officers from the Berkut police unit, the head of the parliamentary commission investigating the murders told journalists.

        "This will be yet another case, like the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy, which is still being investigated today," Gennady Moskal reported.

        The MP made the statements at a media conference on Tuesday gathered to announce preliminary results of his commission's probe. He assured that despite the Ukrainian General Prosecutor's office having arrested 12 Berkut officers on allegations of committing the mass killings, forensic evidence suggests their innocence.

        He said the bullets that killed people in Kiev on the bloodies day of confrontation between protesters seeking to oust President Viktor Yanukovich and riot police didn't match any of the firearms issued to Berkut's special unit, which, unlike the majority of riot police, was allowed to carry lethal weapons.

        http://rt.com/news/158864-kiev-snipers-not-berkut/

        The man in charge of those controlling the buildings from which the snipers fired was Andrey Parubiy who after the Coup was appointed head of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine.

        Read more at:- http://ian56.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/how-february-coup-in-kiev-was-plotted.html

        Mulefish -> Ian56789

        This was all reported on R.T.V. at the time.

        They had reporters on the ground when this was happening. They showed us the remarkable restraint shown by the Berkut in the face of being in the face of being viciously assailed by infused, probably drug fuelled, certainly Yankee pie and five billion fuelled, Nazi thugs, and the illogical directions from which the sniper bullets came. (~This type of third party sniping is typical Yank false flag trickery. They probably provided the snipers too.)

        They also broadcast the transcript of the Ashton phone call and her goofy, coward, reaction, not taken up, indeed studiously ignored, by the Western so-called press.

        In like vein, Putin offered up his radar records for the downing of MH17, including records of the presence of Ukrainian fighter planes present at the time, an offer not matched by the Kiev Junta or the mouthy U.S. deep in the throes of lying about the incident , all the same, with typical foul mouthedness.

        So easy to fool the common denizens of the West, especially the "exceptional" Yankees and their British government ass lickers.

        richiep40 -> Ian56789

        Thanks for all the info, I wouldn't say I knew all about all the research, but I definitely got the drift.

        I was really just commenting that the BBC Newsnight report was the first time that any of the British Media have come even slightly off message.

        For instance there were some reports from Donetsk on the horrible conditions there and the civilian casualties on BBC Radio this morning, but not once did they mention these were all in the City Centre held by the rebels and the only conceivable people launching the attacks were the Ukrainian forces.

        Now to anyone who takes an interest it is obvious, but for the casual listener who doesn't have an interest, I doubt it.

        coober

        Every government can use the full employment equation:
        Full Employment (FE) = Pension (P) X 1.2 X Money Velocity (MV) X 0.001
        That equation is for all Nations and States.

        A Ukraine Government can immediately tax Murdoch-type tax evaders, etc at 0.001% of money velocity and pay a new 20% State Pension.

        There is absolutely no valid excuse for unemployment in Ukraine. The State Pension can be adjusted lower and the tax rate can be adjusted higher. The pension is to spread the money around to create more small businesses and more jobs. The tiny rate of tax is for High Frequency Traders, Gamblers, Murdoch-types etc. Everyday people will not notice it.

        When Governments and people learn how good this modern tax is, we will be able to use it to replace Income Tax etc. War is obsolete.

        centerline coober

        One small hitch. It is the Murdoch type that make the taxes. They put people in power who will tax the poor so the government can subside the Murdochs.

        Murdoch moved his Australian accounting office offshore a few years ago so the Australian tax office paid Murdoch three quarters of a billion dollars.

        Bud Peart

        "Obama rounded unusually personally on Putin. "He has a foot very much in the Soviet past. That's how he came of age. He ran the KGB,"

        He ran the FSB, is he stupid or was this a planned lie to ratchet up cold war hysteria?

        [Feb 10, 2015] Merkel to meet Obama amid growing US scepticism over Ukraine peace talks

        Notable quotes:
        "... They pushed and pushed without any regard for people they tramped underfoot expecting Russia to fold any day and beg for mercy. ..."
        "... Chechnya - Islamist insurgency like what Iraq is facing. S. Ossetia. - Georgian shelling and invasion of this province designed to get NATO to help out. Instead the Russians deal to the invaders. Sorry mate - your argument is as flaky as the hoary old one of Iran wanting to annihilate Israel based on a mistranslated Ahmedinejad speech (which some historically challenged folks still try and drag up) ..."
        "... When "destabilisation" looks like a western sponsored coup, quacks like a western sponsored coup..... ..."
        "... Putin will be crucified in Russia if he is seen pushing the rebels to accept an agreement against their interests. The bottom line is unless the West gives strong indications that it is prepared to negotiate in good faith, the commodity it so far lacked, nothing will happen. If the West waits much longer, the only subject for negotiations will be an unconditional surrender of the Ukrainian army in Donbass. ..."
        "... One of the latest statements of Angela Merkel was: "We want to establish security in Europe with Russia, not against Russia" (0:20 in this video). Sorry, but to me it does not sound like preparation "for a generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia". ..."
        Feb 10, 2015 | The Guardian

        sodtheproles ID1439675 10 Feb 2015 16:51

        Wrong. The EU and Americans started this when refusing Yanukovich more time to consider the trade deal, and when encouraging the billionaires to send their thugs onto Maidan. Tsarev and many others were aware that a coup was on the menu back in October 2013, when he spoke in the Rada. The EU deal had the support of the billionaires, not least because it offered them the chance to apply on a wider stage the skills they had acquired defrauding the Ukrainian state in the 90s, whereas if Ukraine turned towards the Eurasian Union, they'd have to deal with Putin, who if nothing else a reined in the billionaires.

        caliento 10 Feb 2015 15:52

        Wonder why Putin is welcomed by Turkey, Egypt, Hungary, Greece? It is called respect for a leader who stands behind his position showing no fear. Obama, Merkel, Hollande, Cameron E.U., NATO have no respect. And why should they? Obama's "yellow line" is constantly on display along with the rest of the misfits in Europe. More talks, more "signed" "peace" agreements? More Russian lies? Is this group of misfits just "stuck on stupid"? Putin has uttered another threat....that should be enough for the misfits to surrender & deny reality on the ground & leave Ukraine abandoned once again. I taught Bush was bad but Obama is one for the history books on how not to be a "world leader".

        Yuriy11 -> TeeJayzed Addy 10 Feb 2015 13:12

        And the ally of what Ukraine wish to be the USA? If America considers itself as the guarantor of freedom, democracy and protection of human rights it should support the population of Donbass and Lugansk. The population of these regions of Ukraine wished to have only the rights which are written down in the country Constitution.

        Instead of guaranteeing it these rights, the new management of Ukraine began to bomb and fire at peace cities of Donetsk and Lugansk areas. Instead of solving all problems by negotiations. Also Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk and other steels openly to glorify Banderu - the fascist, the military criminal. The youth has started to use nazi symbolics and nazi slogans.

        Can be the USA wishes to become the ally of new fascists? Judging by statements, Obama about desire to deliver to Ukraine the weapon, very similar, that it is going to support fascist government Poroshenko.

        EugeneGur 10 Feb 2015 10:46

        Merkel is the stiffest opponent of supplying weapons, while holding firm against any other concessions to Putin

        Why no concessions? Is that how negotiations are conducted, without any concessions on one side, with all the concessions on the other? I understand this is the American style. But it should be obvious by now to everybody with half a brain that Putin is not the type to be easily intimidated. He can be negotiated with but not blackmailed. They should've also known before they started this mess that Russia isn't Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia or even Vietnam but a much bigger, nastier and better armed country. Germany, of all countries, should've known that you don't want to piss Russia off, you really don't.

        What I see in all these jerking movements is a bunch of very scared "world leaders" who have no idea what to do next. They pushed and pushed without any regard for people they tramped underfoot expecting Russia to fold any day and beg for mercy. When it didn't happen and looks unlikely to happen, there is no plan B. And, of course, honest in good faith negotiations with Russia are entirely out of the question. They just don't know what it means.

        Angela Merkel and Barack Obama are under pressure to shore up western unity over the Ukraine crisis

        Who cares about your "unity"? We have a pretty good idea what kind of "unity" that is. People are dying over there, and these bunch of cheating clowns are concerned with saving whatever is left of their faces. Disgusting.

        Albert_Jacka_VC 10 Feb 2015 08:53

        As usual, the Russophobes don't get it. But they will!

        This morning NAF scouts spotted NATO tanks inside the encirclement (cauldron) at Debaltseve. According to their information the possibility is strong that up to 25% of the trapped army may be NATO. !

        Shell remnants marked clearly with US identifying numbers from 155mm shells, shot by the Paladin artillery system have been recovered from areas the Ukrainian army have attacked civilian targets.

        If the NATO troops are there - (who else would be running the complicated military equipment?) - Zackharchenko's people may display them to the world.

        Everyone will see that the junta that brought us a non-existent Russian invasion has illegitimate and illegal support from NATO's warmongers!

        This explains both the US and EU fudging a new peace initiative. If NATO troops are taken captive, what then?

        Then they are, by Poro's own admission, war criminals. And their urgers (Kerry, Nuland, Stoltenberg, Rasmussen, and the whole foul rabble, are war criminals too.

        Елена Петрова 9 Feb 2015 21:29

        Powerful Documentary on the People of Donbass and why NATO will be in a Tough Fight Should it Invade the Region

        http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/02/07/powerful-documentary-on-the-people-of-donbass-and-why-nato-will-be-in-a-tough-fight-should-it-invade-the-region/

        And yet another says, "Who started it? Everyone knows who started this. How to put it better? Everything started by America's hallooing. The same sh#t happened with Georgia, and now here in Ukraine."

        Albert_Jacka_VC -> jezzam 9 Feb 2015 21:10

        All your info is wrong. Putin himself advocated Ukraine enter a trading arrangement with BOTH Russia and the EU. The EU would have none of it.

        Or rather, Nuland banned it. The EU had no say. We know what Nuland said.
        The coup was a violent, murderous act, and Yanukovych fled after death threats, because his disarmed Berkut could not protect him.

        As to Putin's actions in Ukraine, you buy the spin in the Western press. that's why you're deluded. Donetzkers fight to stay alive, against Kolomoisky's killers.
        Ukraine is illegal, Nazi, and now defeated. Its currency crashed 15% yesterday. How much today?

        That is why the warmongers are flapping about. No other reason than that their war on Russia via 'Ukraine' is a flop.

        Albert_Jacka_VC -> david wright 9 Feb 2015 20:43

        Ukraine is not a sovereign state. Ukraine is an illegal junta of Nazis who took power by murder, and threatrs of murder. that is why even their Ukrainian citizens will not fight for the junta.

        Listen to the babushka [turn captions on] --

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQjmwVC_Dts

        preventallwarsdotorg 9 Feb 2015 19:40

        From the Obama-Merkel Washington press conference; on Ukraine, Angela Merkel seemed optimistic on the chances of 'diplomacy'. But President Obama seemed so determined in 'seeing-off' President Putin by any means; repeatedly, labelling him 'the aggressor'.

        Does President Obama have a personal problem with President Putin?
        Unfortunately, terrible historic armed conflicts arise for populations from intractable inter-personal disagreements between their antagonistic national political leaders. But while their personal safeties are secured, their populations are destroyed.

        National leaders still can't see that nowadays wars generally have 'un-winnable' and frustrating outcomes for even the best equipped militaries. Yet, with seeming careless abandon, their inclinations to increase arms in wars remain unbridled.

        But why did none of the correspondents at the Press conference press the leaders on their likely expectations for Ukraine, Europe and the world if more arms are sent to Ukraine against Russia!
        If national political leaders would be victims of their sponsored wars, would they be as insistent with such risky, futile and potentially increased destructive recipes?

        Yet, the world still seems as impervious to politicians' handling of war crises!
        Why can't it be more innovative to accept or devise better alternatives to the persistently failed and disastrous politicians' bent for even more wars?!

        Andrew Nichols -> Milton 9 Feb 2015 19:02

        And as for those who say they believe that Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are all that Putin is after, I suggest you look at Russia's interventions in Chechnya and Georgia/S.Ossetia,

        Chechnya - Islamist insurgency like what Iraq is facing. S. Ossetia. - Georgian shelling and invasion of this province designed to get NATO to help out. Instead the Russians deal to the invaders. Sorry mate - your argument is as flaky as the hoary old one of Iran wanting to annihilate Israel based on a mistranslated Ahmedinejad speech (which some historically challenged folks still try and drag up)

        Andrew Nichols Milton 9 Feb 2015 18:57

        "But the west did not send troops or tanks into Ukraine. It didn't attempt political destabilisation." When "destabilisation" looks like a western sponsored coup, quacks like a western sponsored coup.....

        EugeneGur 9 Feb 2015 18:45

        amid growing US scepticism that European peace talks with Russia will succeed in deterring its continued military support for separatists.

        I am pretty sure that Russia supports the rebels militarily to a certain extent although I am not sure how far that support goes. Most of Russia is convinced that it doesn't go far enough. Considering that nobody has been able to prove anything (where are these marvelous American satellites when you need them?), probably, Russian public is right, the support is modest, so it's easy to hide. The West wants Russia to stop supporting the rebels. My question is why would Russia do that? What's in it for Russia?

        You will say the magic word "sanctions". First, Russia is not all that eager about the sanctions to be lifted, because we know they are hurting Europe as much, if not more. Second, Russia doesn't believe the West, and for a good reason. Putin organized the Minsk agreements single-handedly and made the rebels accept it. It was a gift that Putin gave both to the West and to Ukraine, because he convinced the rebel army to stop in the middle of a very successful offensive. By doing so, he risked a lot of his political capital, since everybody in Russia as well as in Donbass hated it and believed it was a mistake, which it turned out to be. What did he get in return? Less than nothing - he got additional sanctions, additional demands, which, I hope proved to him finally that the West is double-dealing and entirely untrustworthy.

        Putin will be crucified in Russia if he is seen pushing the rebels to accept an agreement against their interests. The bottom line is unless the West gives strong indications that it is prepared to negotiate in good faith, the commodity it so far lacked, nothing will happen. If the West waits much longer, the only subject for negotiations will be an unconditional surrender of the Ukrainian army in Donbass.

        Paul Easton 9 Feb 2015 18:30

        Ok now we know what Obama wants. He says he doesn't want to arm Ukraine but as usual he is lying because his new choice for War Secy is in favor. The remaining question is whether European countries will go along with this insanity. European people had better take to the streets en masse if they value their lives.

        Come gather 'round people
        Wherever you roam
        And admit that the waters
        Around you have grown
        And accept it that soon
        You'll be drenched to the bone
        If your time to you
        Is worth savin'
        Then you better start swimmin'
        Or you'll sink like a stone
        For the times they are a-changin'.

        alsojusticeseeker 9 Feb 2015 17:57

        US secretary of state John Kerry said in an interview aired on Sunday. "Hopefully he will come to a point where he realises the damage he is doing is not just to the global order, but he is doing enormous damage to Russia itself."

        So, finally Kerry unveils that they are after ordinary people in Russia, not exclusively after "Putin's close circle" and all that crap.

        PeraIlic jezzam 9 Feb 2015 17:22

        Perhaps if Russia really wants E. Ukraine it should be allowed to take it, with all the consequences this entails, including the economic burden of rebuilding the areas... It seems that these guys from Kiev have similar ideas as you.

        Huge explosion at Donetsk chemical plant, Kiev blames 'dropped cigarette butt' (VIDEO)

        The spokesman for Kiev's Anti-Terrorist Operation said that rebels were at fault for the accident.

        "This was caused by a dropped cigarette butt," Andrey Lysenko told the media on Monday.

        "Accidents often happen in factories where no one is responsible for fire safety. Well, it's chaos, and they are barbarians."

        Not all pro-Kiev officials agreed.

        The Ukrainian military deployed a Smerch (the BM-30 Tornado) multiple rocket system to shell the area in the city, Boris Filatov, former deputy head of the industrial Dnepropetrovsk Region and a member of the Ukrainian parliament (Verkhovna Rada), said on his Facebook page.

        According to Filatov, the men who fired the missiles "do not know what they hit because they were shooting based on coordinates."

        Earlier, Ukrainian far-right politician and paramilitary commander Dmitry Yarosh, who is involved in the Kiev military action in southeastern Ukraine, confirmed on his Facebook page that the explosion was caused by Ukrainian artillery.

        PeraIlic 9 Feb 2015 17:13

        Merkel is the stiffest opponent of supplying weapons, while holding firm against any other concessions to Putin and calculating that the west may need to prepare for a generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia and seeking to build up Ukraine.

        One of the latest statements of Angela Merkel was: "We want to establish security in Europe with Russia, not against Russia" (0:20 in this video). Sorry, but to me it does not sound like preparation "for a generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia".

        [Feb 10, 2015] Merkel to meet Obama amid growing US scepticism over Ukraine peace talks

        Notable quotes:
        "... They pushed and pushed without any regard for people they tramped underfoot expecting Russia to fold any day and beg for mercy. ..."
        "... Chechnya - Islamist insurgency like what Iraq is facing. S. Ossetia. - Georgian shelling and invasion of this province designed to get NATO to help out. Instead the Russians deal to the invaders. Sorry mate - your argument is as flaky as the hoary old one of Iran wanting to annihilate Israel based on a mistranslated Ahmedinejad speech (which some historically challenged folks still try and drag up) ..."
        "... When "destabilisation" looks like a western sponsored coup, quacks like a western sponsored coup..... ..."
        "... Putin will be crucified in Russia if he is seen pushing the rebels to accept an agreement against their interests. The bottom line is unless the West gives strong indications that it is prepared to negotiate in good faith, the commodity it so far lacked, nothing will happen. If the West waits much longer, the only subject for negotiations will be an unconditional surrender of the Ukrainian army in Donbass. ..."
        "... One of the latest statements of Angela Merkel was: "We want to establish security in Europe with Russia, not against Russia" (0:20 in this video). Sorry, but to me it does not sound like preparation "for a generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia". ..."
        Feb 10, 2015 | The Guardian

        sodtheproles ID1439675 10 Feb 2015 16:51

        Wrong. The EU and Americans started this when refusing Yanukovich more time to consider the trade deal, and when encouraging the billionaires to send their thugs onto Maidan. Tsarev and many others were aware that a coup was on the menu back in October 2013, when he spoke in the Rada. The EU deal had the support of the billionaires, not least because it offered them the chance to apply on a wider stage the skills they had acquired defrauding the Ukrainian state in the 90s, whereas if Ukraine turned towards the Eurasian Union, they'd have to deal with Putin, who if nothing else a reined in the billionaires.

        caliento 10 Feb 2015 15:52

        Wonder why Putin is welcomed by Turkey, Egypt, Hungary, Greece? It is called respect for a leader who stands behind his position showing no fear. Obama, Merkel, Hollande, Cameron E.U., NATO have no respect. And why should they? Obama's "yellow line" is constantly on display along with the rest of the misfits in Europe. More talks, more "signed" "peace" agreements? More Russian lies? Is this group of misfits just "stuck on stupid"? Putin has uttered another threat....that should be enough for the misfits to surrender & deny reality on the ground & leave Ukraine abandoned once again. I taught Bush was bad but Obama is one for the history books on how not to be a "world leader".

        Yuriy11 -> TeeJayzed Addy 10 Feb 2015 13:12

        And the ally of what Ukraine wish to be the USA? If America considers itself as the guarantor of freedom, democracy and protection of human rights it should support the population of Donbass and Lugansk. The population of these regions of Ukraine wished to have only the rights which are written down in the country Constitution.

        Instead of guaranteeing it these rights, the new management of Ukraine began to bomb and fire at peace cities of Donetsk and Lugansk areas. Instead of solving all problems by negotiations. Also Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk and other steels openly to glorify Banderu - the fascist, the military criminal. The youth has started to use nazi symbolics and nazi slogans.

        Can be the USA wishes to become the ally of new fascists? Judging by statements, Obama about desire to deliver to Ukraine the weapon, very similar, that it is going to support fascist government Poroshenko.

        EugeneGur 10 Feb 2015 10:46

        Merkel is the stiffest opponent of supplying weapons, while holding firm against any other concessions to Putin

        Why no concessions? Is that how negotiations are conducted, without any concessions on one side, with all the concessions on the other? I understand this is the American style. But it should be obvious by now to everybody with half a brain that Putin is not the type to be easily intimidated. He can be negotiated with but not blackmailed. They should've also known before they started this mess that Russia isn't Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia or even Vietnam but a much bigger, nastier and better armed country. Germany, of all countries, should've known that you don't want to piss Russia off, you really don't.

        What I see in all these jerking movements is a bunch of very scared "world leaders" who have no idea what to do next. They pushed and pushed without any regard for people they tramped underfoot expecting Russia to fold any day and beg for mercy. When it didn't happen and looks unlikely to happen, there is no plan B. And, of course, honest in good faith negotiations with Russia are entirely out of the question. They just don't know what it means.

        Angela Merkel and Barack Obama are under pressure to shore up western unity over the Ukraine crisis

        Who cares about your "unity"? We have a pretty good idea what kind of "unity" that is. People are dying over there, and these bunch of cheating clowns are concerned with saving whatever is left of their faces. Disgusting.

        Albert_Jacka_VC 10 Feb 2015 08:53

        As usual, the Russophobes don't get it. But they will!

        This morning NAF scouts spotted NATO tanks inside the encirclement (cauldron) at Debaltseve. According to their information the possibility is strong that up to 25% of the trapped army may be NATO. !

        Shell remnants marked clearly with US identifying numbers from 155mm shells, shot by the Paladin artillery system have been recovered from areas the Ukrainian army have attacked civilian targets.

        If the NATO troops are there - (who else would be running the complicated military equipment?) - Zackharchenko's people may display them to the world.

        Everyone will see that the junta that brought us a non-existent Russian invasion has illegitimate and illegal support from NATO's warmongers!

        This explains both the US and EU fudging a new peace initiative. If NATO troops are taken captive, what then?

        Then they are, by Poro's own admission, war criminals. And their urgers (Kerry, Nuland, Stoltenberg, Rasmussen, and the whole foul rabble, are war criminals too.

        Елена Петрова 9 Feb 2015 21:29

        Powerful Documentary on the People of Donbass and why NATO will be in a Tough Fight Should it Invade the Region

        http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/02/07/powerful-documentary-on-the-people-of-donbass-and-why-nato-will-be-in-a-tough-fight-should-it-invade-the-region/

        And yet another says, "Who started it? Everyone knows who started this. How to put it better? Everything started by America's hallooing. The same sh#t happened with Georgia, and now here in Ukraine."

        Albert_Jacka_VC -> jezzam 9 Feb 2015 21:10

        All your info is wrong. Putin himself advocated Ukraine enter a trading arrangement with BOTH Russia and the EU. The EU would have none of it.

        Or rather, Nuland banned it. The EU had no say. We know what Nuland said.
        The coup was a violent, murderous act, and Yanukovych fled after death threats, because his disarmed Berkut could not protect him.

        As to Putin's actions in Ukraine, you buy the spin in the Western press. that's why you're deluded. Donetzkers fight to stay alive, against Kolomoisky's killers.
        Ukraine is illegal, Nazi, and now defeated. Its currency crashed 15% yesterday. How much today?

        That is why the warmongers are flapping about. No other reason than that their war on Russia via 'Ukraine' is a flop.

        Albert_Jacka_VC -> david wright 9 Feb 2015 20:43

        Ukraine is not a sovereign state. Ukraine is an illegal junta of Nazis who took power by murder, and threatrs of murder. that is why even their Ukrainian citizens will not fight for the junta.

        Listen to the babushka [turn captions on] --

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQjmwVC_Dts

        preventallwarsdotorg 9 Feb 2015 19:40

        From the Obama-Merkel Washington press conference; on Ukraine, Angela Merkel seemed optimistic on the chances of 'diplomacy'. But President Obama seemed so determined in 'seeing-off' President Putin by any means; repeatedly, labelling him 'the aggressor'.

        Does President Obama have a personal problem with President Putin?
        Unfortunately, terrible historic armed conflicts arise for populations from intractable inter-personal disagreements between their antagonistic national political leaders. But while their personal safeties are secured, their populations are destroyed.

        National leaders still can't see that nowadays wars generally have 'un-winnable' and frustrating outcomes for even the best equipped militaries. Yet, with seeming careless abandon, their inclinations to increase arms in wars remain unbridled.

        But why did none of the correspondents at the Press conference press the leaders on their likely expectations for Ukraine, Europe and the world if more arms are sent to Ukraine against Russia!
        If national political leaders would be victims of their sponsored wars, would they be as insistent with such risky, futile and potentially increased destructive recipes?

        Yet, the world still seems as impervious to politicians' handling of war crises!
        Why can't it be more innovative to accept or devise better alternatives to the persistently failed and disastrous politicians' bent for even more wars?!

        Andrew Nichols -> Milton 9 Feb 2015 19:02

        And as for those who say they believe that Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are all that Putin is after, I suggest you look at Russia's interventions in Chechnya and Georgia/S.Ossetia,

        Chechnya - Islamist insurgency like what Iraq is facing. S. Ossetia. - Georgian shelling and invasion of this province designed to get NATO to help out. Instead the Russians deal to the invaders. Sorry mate - your argument is as flaky as the hoary old one of Iran wanting to annihilate Israel based on a mistranslated Ahmedinejad speech (which some historically challenged folks still try and drag up)

        Andrew Nichols Milton 9 Feb 2015 18:57

        "But the west did not send troops or tanks into Ukraine. It didn't attempt political destabilisation." When "destabilisation" looks like a western sponsored coup, quacks like a western sponsored coup.....

        EugeneGur 9 Feb 2015 18:45

        amid growing US scepticism that European peace talks with Russia will succeed in deterring its continued military support for separatists.

        I am pretty sure that Russia supports the rebels militarily to a certain extent although I am not sure how far that support goes. Most of Russia is convinced that it doesn't go far enough. Considering that nobody has been able to prove anything (where are these marvelous American satellites when you need them?), probably, Russian public is right, the support is modest, so it's easy to hide. The West wants Russia to stop supporting the rebels. My question is why would Russia do that? What's in it for Russia?

        You will say the magic word "sanctions". First, Russia is not all that eager about the sanctions to be lifted, because we know they are hurting Europe as much, if not more. Second, Russia doesn't believe the West, and for a good reason. Putin organized the Minsk agreements single-handedly and made the rebels accept it. It was a gift that Putin gave both to the West and to Ukraine, because he convinced the rebel army to stop in the middle of a very successful offensive. By doing so, he risked a lot of his political capital, since everybody in Russia as well as in Donbass hated it and believed it was a mistake, which it turned out to be. What did he get in return? Less than nothing - he got additional sanctions, additional demands, which, I hope proved to him finally that the West is double-dealing and entirely untrustworthy.

        Putin will be crucified in Russia if he is seen pushing the rebels to accept an agreement against their interests. The bottom line is unless the West gives strong indications that it is prepared to negotiate in good faith, the commodity it so far lacked, nothing will happen. If the West waits much longer, the only subject for negotiations will be an unconditional surrender of the Ukrainian army in Donbass.

        Paul Easton 9 Feb 2015 18:30

        Ok now we know what Obama wants. He says he doesn't want to arm Ukraine but as usual he is lying because his new choice for War Secy is in favor. The remaining question is whether European countries will go along with this insanity. European people had better take to the streets en masse if they value their lives.

        Come gather 'round people
        Wherever you roam
        And admit that the waters
        Around you have grown
        And accept it that soon
        You'll be drenched to the bone
        If your time to you
        Is worth savin'
        Then you better start swimmin'
        Or you'll sink like a stone
        For the times they are a-changin'.

        alsojusticeseeker 9 Feb 2015 17:57

        US secretary of state John Kerry said in an interview aired on Sunday. "Hopefully he will come to a point where he realises the damage he is doing is not just to the global order, but he is doing enormous damage to Russia itself."

        So, finally Kerry unveils that they are after ordinary people in Russia, not exclusively after "Putin's close circle" and all that crap.

        PeraIlic jezzam 9 Feb 2015 17:22

        Perhaps if Russia really wants E. Ukraine it should be allowed to take it, with all the consequences this entails, including the economic burden of rebuilding the areas... It seems that these guys from Kiev have similar ideas as you.

        Huge explosion at Donetsk chemical plant, Kiev blames 'dropped cigarette butt' (VIDEO)

        The spokesman for Kiev's Anti-Terrorist Operation said that rebels were at fault for the accident.

        "This was caused by a dropped cigarette butt," Andrey Lysenko told the media on Monday.

        "Accidents often happen in factories where no one is responsible for fire safety. Well, it's chaos, and they are barbarians."

        Not all pro-Kiev officials agreed.

        The Ukrainian military deployed a Smerch (the BM-30 Tornado) multiple rocket system to shell the area in the city, Boris Filatov, former deputy head of the industrial Dnepropetrovsk Region and a member of the Ukrainian parliament (Verkhovna Rada), said on his Facebook page.

        According to Filatov, the men who fired the missiles "do not know what they hit because they were shooting based on coordinates."

        Earlier, Ukrainian far-right politician and paramilitary commander Dmitry Yarosh, who is involved in the Kiev military action in southeastern Ukraine, confirmed on his Facebook page that the explosion was caused by Ukrainian artillery.

        PeraIlic 9 Feb 2015 17:13

        Merkel is the stiffest opponent of supplying weapons, while holding firm against any other concessions to Putin and calculating that the west may need to prepare for a generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia and seeking to build up Ukraine.

        One of the latest statements of Angela Merkel was: "We want to establish security in Europe with Russia, not against Russia" (0:20 in this video). Sorry, but to me it does not sound like preparation "for a generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia".

        [Feb 10, 2015] Ukraine government criminalized the denial or justification of Russia's aggression against Ukraine

        Systematic

        A new law to likely be approved by the Rada "criminalizes the denial or justification of Russia's aggression against Ukraine" with a fine equivalent to 22 to 44,000 USD for the first offense and up to three years in prison for repeat offenders.

        Meanwhile, while the law is not approved,

        In February 8 in Mariupol a rally was planned against mobilization. On the eve the adviser of Interior Minister Anton Gerashchenko said that everyone who comes there will be arrested, "Everyone who comes to the rally tomorrow against mobilization, will be delayed for several hours for identification and after fingerprinting and photographing until released. Let me remind you that I and my fellow lawmaker Boris Filatov has filed a bill to impose criminal liability for public calls for the failure of mobilization "- he wrote on his page on Facebook. As a result, the action did not take place.

        http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2015/02/10_a_6407945.shtml

        [Feb 09, 2015] The west must talk to Vladimir Putin about Ukraine

        Looks like guardian staff got new different instructions from their MI5 handlers...
        Notable quotes:
        "... Hove, East Sussex ..."
        Feb 09, 2015 | The Guardian

        David Stainwright, Hove, East Sussex

        I have no love for modern capitalist Russia, or for Vladimir Putin, but there are always two sides to a conflict. Regrettably, the Guardian gives credence mainly to the anti-Putin version. In that narrative, the Russian leader is alleged to have violated Ukraine's sovereignty, though no hard evidence is offered. For those who support western Ukraine's criticism of Putin it is salutary to remember that the present government came to power via a coup. Moreover, many of its supporters are self-confessed followers of Nazi ideology.

        For the Guardian, one of Putin's main transgressions has been the annexation of Crimea. But this is dangerous ground for western critics of Putin, as a moment's reflection should remind one that Israel routinely annexes Palestinian land but has never been censured for its action. Turkey, which annexed northern Cyprus, has never been subjected to sanctions. Two wrongs do not make a right, but it is morally shaky ground for western leaders to condemn one country for annexation while condoning it by another power.

        As David Owen has pointed out (26 August 2014), Russian leaders are understandably worried by the eastward march of Nato, threatening its security. If we wish to avoid catastrophe in Europe the west must come to a diplomatic agreement with Russia, however difficult that may be (Report, 8 February). The alternative is unthinkable.

        Tim Dyce, London

        The solution to Ukraine has been floated – and ignored – before. Treat Russia as part of continental and cultural Europe. Field a joint EU peacekeeping force with Russia and Ukraine. Fly all three flags. Enforce and police the Minsk agreement. Leave Crimea for another day. Use an EU Marshall plan to rehabilitate eastern Ukraine. Recognise significant regional autonomy within a unified Ukraine. This is something the UK should lead with France and Germany, rather than waiting for Washington to let us do it.

        Stephen Mennell, Dublin

        David Cameron could play no part in the Moscow talks (Report, theguardian.com, 7 January). Britain is a US puppet state, which for decades has not had a foreign policy separate from that of the US. Since America precipitated the Ukraine crisis by orchestrating the coup in Kiev, it would not be appropriate for Britain to play any part in mediation.

        [Feb 09, 2015] The west must talk to Vladimir Putin about Ukraine

        Looks like guardian staff got new different instructions from their MI5 handlers...
        Notable quotes:
        "... Hove, East Sussex ..."
        Feb 09, 2015 | The Guardian

        David Stainwright, Hove, East Sussex

        I have no love for modern capitalist Russia, or for Vladimir Putin, but there are always two sides to a conflict. Regrettably, the Guardian gives credence mainly to the anti-Putin version. In that narrative, the Russian leader is alleged to have violated Ukraine's sovereignty, though no hard evidence is offered. For those who support western Ukraine's criticism of Putin it is salutary to remember that the present government came to power via a coup. Moreover, many of its supporters are self-confessed followers of Nazi ideology.

        For the Guardian, one of Putin's main transgressions has been the annexation of Crimea. But this is dangerous ground for western critics of Putin, as a moment's reflection should remind one that Israel routinely annexes Palestinian land but has never been censured for its action. Turkey, which annexed northern Cyprus, has never been subjected to sanctions. Two wrongs do not make a right, but it is morally shaky ground for western leaders to condemn one country for annexation while condoning it by another power.

        As David Owen has pointed out (26 August 2014), Russian leaders are understandably worried by the eastward march of Nato, threatening its security. If we wish to avoid catastrophe in Europe the west must come to a diplomatic agreement with Russia, however difficult that may be (Report, 8 February). The alternative is unthinkable.

        Tim Dyce, London

        The solution to Ukraine has been floated – and ignored – before. Treat Russia as part of continental and cultural Europe. Field a joint EU peacekeeping force with Russia and Ukraine. Fly all three flags. Enforce and police the Minsk agreement. Leave Crimea for another day. Use an EU Marshall plan to rehabilitate eastern Ukraine. Recognise significant regional autonomy within a unified Ukraine. This is something the UK should lead with France and Germany, rather than waiting for Washington to let us do it.

        Stephen Mennell, Dublin

        David Cameron could play no part in the Moscow talks (Report, theguardian.com, 7 January). Britain is a US puppet state, which for decades has not had a foreign policy separate from that of the US. Since America precipitated the Ukraine crisis by orchestrating the coup in Kiev, it would not be appropriate for Britain to play any part in mediation.

        [Feb 09, 2015] Vladimir Putin's Egypt visit sends message to US by Patrick Kingsley

        See more selected comments collection and analysis of Guardian articles at In Foreign Events Coverage The Guardian Presstitutes Slip Beyond the Reach of Embarrassment
        Feb 09, 2015 | The Guardian

        stregs101 -> quorkquork 9 Feb 2015 21:37

        good points!

        The commentators on here often sling shit @ russias economy and influence on geopolitics, however when we look at BRICS we can see why the US is becomming increasingly erratic and militarized.

        BRICS currently make up approx 23% of global trade with 43% of the global population. Last year BRICS launched their Development Bank with $100 billion in reserve. The economic analysts say the Development bank will eventually stop trading in US $.

        So that will be 23% of global trade with 43% of the worlds population sitting outside of the US$.

        I think the US is literally shitting BRICS!


        RussBrown -> RussBrown 9 Feb 2015 21:17

        The CIA have done a review of that book and said it is a good thing they control the western media and they need to do it again (because of the war on terror).

        "Why is this important? Because scholars and graduate students will someday follow Wilford's lead. His judicious approach should set the standard for their studies. Second, it matters because some quarters inside and outside government argue today that America needs to replicate the successes of the CIA's covert political action campaign for the Global War on Terror. The Mighty Wurlitzer might not convince them that that's a bad idea, but Wilford's observations should give them pause to consider the risks and unintended consequences of projects that they are unlikely to be be able to control completely."

        https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol52no2/intelligence-in-recent-public-literature-1.html


        RussBrown stregs101 9 Feb 2015 21:14

        21st Century Wire founder was on cross talk recently with others that are trying to call the media out on these things.


        >
        It seems to me that the Intelligence Services have colonised the media. The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America, is a good book to read, it documents boasts from the CIA that they controlled western media and at the press of a button could hear the same tune played all over the western world.

        Really, it is up to Guardian and BBC journalists and broadcasters to take a long hard look at themselves and ask why am I being made to sell war propaganda? the BBC news 24 channel had someone on trying to talk up a war with Russia last night, as I was watching it I was wondering if the BBC News presenter, an intelligent man, would have enough moral fibre to realize he is being used to sell a warmongering narrative? But he didnt, which is why I can no longer pay that organisation anymore money.


        Chirpoevec -> ridibundus 9 Feb 2015 21:09

        the overall death toll now exceeds 5,358 people, with another 12,235 wounded since mid-April last year.

        Buh!.. Compare it to 600+ thousands dead left by Americans in Iraq only, and you will see that casualties of 5 thousands is not such a big price tug for the freedom. Though lamentable, yes.


        HansVonDerHeyde -> George Kombucha 9 Feb 2015 21:08

        Wow , this is the first time i read something like that!
        FSB during the protests!! can you please support your ridiculous assertion?
        Give something like when CIA Director went to Kiev during the Maidan .
        Even German reports show snipers from among the ranks of the opposition, shooting at their own people.
        I guess you are one of those people who believe the MSN without questioning , thinking , searching , investigating.
        There are no neo-Nazi battalions in Ukraine right?

        stregs101 -> RussBrown 9 Feb 2015 21:00

        I agree.

        The people in the 'western' world think their media is 'free', 'unbiased', 'investigated' but in sad reality it is far from any of those things. It is a mega phone for the narrative the govts of the west (primarily US, UK, EU and sadly Australia) want amplified.

        Last week there was an article promoting 'full scale war' in relation to arming kiev. This type of reporting is actually deemed a 'crime against the peace' under Nuremberg.
        By upholding the lies and fabrications of US foreign policy, the mainstream media is complicit in war crimes.
        Without media propaganda, this military agenda under the guise of counter-terrorism would fall flat, collapse like a deck of cards.

        21st Century Wire founder was on cross talk recently with others that are trying to call the media out on these things.

        irgun777 9 Feb 2015 19:48

        "He's making a show of highlighting how he's not isolated,"

        A show ? Tne majority of Egyptians show sympathy to Russia . The tourist industry between the two countries is booming .There are more flights daily between Cairo and Russia than
        with any non Arab country. The bus boys , travel guides , shop keepers study Russian sometimes even before English , German or French . I noticed the same sentiments in Turkey .
        There is a Friendship Moniment at Aswan , the only one in Egypt build for a foreign country.

        Unfortunately , the popular opinion about the US is opposite. In some places you rather
        be a Russian or German tourist. Egypt receives 1.5 billion dollars from US as second larger recipient mostly as Foreign Military Financing - 1.3 billion for 2014.
        Despite that we should not always take Egypt for granted.

        The evidence for Putin's isolation ? Increased trade with China , Turkey , Brazil , projects
        In Finland , now Egypt ?


        Interesting to note that the board members of the major media outlets in america are the very same people who sit on the board of directors for military manufacturing companies.....conflict of interest anyone?

        http://youtu.be/DOqOPaO8efk

        subgeometer -> SiberianNights 9 Feb 2015 20:29

        The slaughter is taking place in the rest of Ukraine. There was a referendum in Crimea. The majority voted to accept the fait accompl.

        Human life doesn't weigh much in the great game calculus of these fossil fuel dinosaurs. But war, and escalatng the war is too economically disruptive for Europe,especially Germany and Russia for it to be in their interests, surely.

        The shrill voices insist that Russia is teetering on the brink as with France and Germany it freezes out the Britain and US to perhaps force a settlement in Ukraine. Doesn't that suggest some desperation a little closer to home

        RussBrown -> seaspan 9 Feb 2015 19:54

        I am not sure how it works with the MSM. What I have noticed over the years, is that in certain times of war or geopolitical maneuvorings, the BBC and Guardian (and others), but especially those two, seem to have some sort of agreement with the Intelligence Services/Foreign Office to write subtle propaganda or lead with a certain narrative. Take for example the BBC headlines yesterday, top story was 15 people killed in Ukraine and calls to arm Kiev against Russian aggression. Now the this was TOP news story, the BBC have totally ignored reporting Ukrainian civilian massacres (over 5000 have died), until they are selling a narrative they want to persuade everyone with, such as that we need to arm Kiev against Russian aggression. This means, the producers or editors at the BBC have agreed with the Security services to allow them to control the media at certain times. Likewise, we see the same in the Guardian, especially at certain times.

        RussBrown 9 Feb 2015 19:19

        Look, the neocons and their EU puppets dreamed of a uni polar world, but that is all it ever was, a neocon dream, it is not going to happen without going to war with Russia so can we all now accept that? Because in not doing so lots of people die needlessly in a very big war.

        [Feb 08, 2015] Ukraine conflict: four-nation peace talks in Minsk aim to end crisis

        Notable quotes:
        "... Oh yes. There is also an issue of mercenaries. It is said that the Ukrainian army encircled in the Debaltsevo cauldron has Western mercenary units that Merkel and Hollande are desperate to evacuate before the extent of the Western involvement in fully revealed. ..."
        "... Lithuania has already admitted it's sending Kiev weapons. Poland likely as well given their stance. And if anyone thinks the US is quietly sitting on the sidelines given stuff such as Contragate in the past, they're almost certainly deluded. ..."
        "... The German intelligence service puts the number of dead in Ukraine at closer to 50 thousand rather than 5 thousand. ..."
        The Guardian

        ID5868758 -> centerline 8 Feb 2015 23:44

        CIA and Americans caught in the cauldron, or whatever they're calling it? That's what some on a German comment thread were saying today.

        EugeneGur -> centerline 8 Feb 2015 23:44

        Oh yes. There is also an issue of mercenaries. It is said that the Ukrainian army encircled in the Debaltsevo cauldron has Western mercenary units that Merkel and Hollande are desperate to evacuate before the extent of the Western involvement in fully revealed.

        TuleCarbonari -> EugeneGur 8 Feb 2015 23:31

        What is special about the East? It is richer in natural resources than the West. Joe Biden's son and other businessmen won't be able to operate in a politically volatile area. It must be pacified somehow.

        Bullybyte -> WiseOldManNo476 8 Feb 2015 23:43

        There will be no war.

        Earth to WiseOldManNo476. You obviously haven't noticed. There already IS a war; it is about to escalate; and the UK will be involved in it right up to its neck.

        The problem being a bully (the US) is that it becomes arrogant and expects its own way all of the time, when someone pushes back, they fold. This isn't Iraq you know.

        And who is pushing back? You?

        Looks like the EU will be choosing the lesser of two evils.

        Yes. Listen to the tough talk by Cameron. Look how the EU ratcheted up their sanctions on Russia only a few days ago. The EU have already chosen the lesser of two reasons.

        BTW, enjoy your collapsing petro dollar and associated hyper inflation coming your way very soon.

        And this will be happening when? After your kids have been killed?

        KrasnoArmejac Roodan 8 Feb 2015 23:20

        no roodan, we should not go to war. it is ukraines fight, not ours. but we should not treat putin like he is a normal politician (or person for that matter). we should not have our newspapers asking questions that have been answered a million times before, just so we could be proud of our political corectness. you know those questions, right? questions like: are those really russians that are fighting the ukranians? it's like answering the question: is the sky blue? over and over and over again. we should not keep satellite images proving russian tanks crossing the border classified, just so mister putin could have a face-saving exit once this is all over with. because my dear roodan, contrary to what your mother (and all mothers for that matter) told you: ignoring the bully will not make him stop punching you. it will just make you a loser-for-life. if you don't trust me ask mister neville chamberlain and his piece of paper

        EugeneGur 8 Feb 2015 23:13

        the latest Franco-German peace initiative . . . was driven by the urgent desire to avoid a new bloodbath in the besieged Ukrainian-held town of Debaltseve

        Really? What is so special about Debaltsevo that makes the European leaders so concerned about its fate? What sets it apart so decisively from Donetsk, Gorlovka, Krasnoarmeisk, Shakhtursk, and a dozen of other Donbass towns that have been pounded by artillery fire for months. Hundreds of civilians died, and the only response from our European friends was deafening silence about the killings and loud accusations against Russia of everything and anything.

        I'll tell you what's special about Debaltsevo. A large number of Ukrainian troops are trapped there, and unless something is done, there are likely end up dead. This means another devastating defeat for the Ukrs, from which they are unlikely to recover. So, Merkel and Hollande rushed (or were dispatched?) to the rescue of their little nazi Ukrainian protegees. One cannot help but feel contempt for such European "leaders" and generally for what Europe turned into under American patronage.

        sbmfc 8 Feb 2015 10:22

        Given the still unfolding disasters in Syria and Libya surely the policy of the west attempting to pick a winner in a local conflict is completely discredited.

        It may be the case that war in Europe suits the American agenda but the EU should only be focused on a peaceful solution. Borders in Europe have always been fluid and it is impossible to see the rebel areas now ever peacefully existing within Ukraine.

        snowdogchampion -> Strummered 8 Feb 2015 10:17

        there ARE English speaking troops that sound AMERICAN Foreign fighters filmed on ground with Kiev army not to mention the CIA agents ;-)

        Kal El -> Eric Hoffmann 8 Feb 2015 10:13

        And where is Kiev getting all its weapons etc from ? Their stuff was 20 year old USSR stuff. Mothballed and rusting.

        Lithuania has already admitted it's sending Kiev weapons. Poland likely as well given their stance. And if anyone thinks the US is quietly sitting on the sidelines given stuff such as Contragate in the past, they're almost certainly deluded.

        NoBodiesFool 8 Feb 2015 10:12

        If peace breaks out what will the poor weapons dealers and their bankster backers do? Someone please think of the poor children of the weapons dealers and the banksters. Also, think of the poor children of the fossil fuel cartels that all of this is really about. They really don't have enough money and they so would like another Bugatti for New Year's. Please, give war a chance - for the children.

        Rialbynot 8 Feb 2015 10:12

        When the German-speaking population in South Tyrol rebelled against Italian rule in the late 1960s, the Italian government initially attempted to put down the rebellion using force.

        However, a campaign of sabotage and bombings by German-speaking separatists led by the SouthTyrolean Liberation Committee continued.

        Finally, the issue was resolved in 1971, when a new treaty was signed and ratified by the Austrian and Italian governments. It stipulated that disputes in South Tyrol would be submitted for settlement to the International Court of Justice in The Hague and that the province would receive greater autonomy within Italy. The new agreement proved broadly satisfactory to the parties involved and the separatist tensions soon eased.

        See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trentino-Alto_Adige/S%C3%BCdtirol

        Europe has a blueprint for resolving the (far more deadly) East Ukraine crisis.

        Asimpleguest -> CaptainBlunder 8 Feb 2015 10:09

        strange - I read otherwise

        ''MOSCOW, December 10. /TASS/. Russian military led by Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces Alexander Lentsov are providing assistance to the Ukrainian south-east conflict sides in reaching compromise for deescalation of tension and troops' pullout, Chief of the Russian General Staff General Valery Gerasimov said on Wednesday.

        The mission was sent at the request of the Chief of the Ukrainian General Staff, Viktor Muzhenko, said Gerasimov.''

        snowdogchampion 8 Feb 2015 10:09

        thanks god! mind that the US warmongers will not be part of the PEACE talks cause they want WAR at our doorstep.. McCain & Co. must be p!ssed off.. hope Merkel's security has been increased, you never know, there might be a CIA agent around

        SHappens 8 Feb 2015 10:08

        Merkel is due to meet Barack Obama, the US president, in Washington on Monday, in a bid to synchronise US and western European positions on Ukraine ahead of the Minsk summit. Or how to make a peaceful initiative go jeopardized. All Putin has to do is sit and wait. And let them EU and US paddle.

        Merkel feels they owe the East Ukrainians to stop the war they promoted and encouraged for months but McCain says that these poor Ukrainians have the right to defend themselves. I suppose he is referring to the East Ukrainians, as they did not attack anybody in Kiev and are indeed defending themselves from undiscriminated shelling from Kiev. Let's hope the Nobel prize will honor it.

        Koninklijk 8 Feb 2015 10:08

        Even if there is no further escalation, these repercussions are going to be felt in Europe for a long time. We'll just have to hope nobody really wants a war in Europe, in the short or long term.

        Kal El 8 Feb 2015 10:05

        The German intelligence service puts the number of dead in Ukraine at closer to 50 thousand rather than 5 thousand.

        Which when you think about is more of a truer number given that Ukraine is currently on its 4TH, yes 4TH mobilisation/conscription wave.

        If the number of dead/injured is what Kiev claims, quite clearly they would NOT need all of these mobilisations in the last year. The current mobilisation even includes women.

        [Feb 08, 2015] Remarks at the Congress of Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia

        Russia revolt against neoliberal empire with the capital is Washington...
        Notable quotes:
        "... There is, however, an attempt to restrain our development by different means, an attempt to freeze the world order that has taken shape in the past decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, with one single leader at its head, who wants to remain an absolute leader, thinking he can do whatever he likes, while others can only do what they are allowed to do and only if it is in this leader's interests. Russia would never agree to such a world order. ..."
        "... Maybe some like it, they want to live in a semi-occupied state, but we will not do it. However, we will not go to war with anyone either, we intend to cooperate with everyone. The attempts made, including through the so-called sanctions, do not make anyone happy in the final count, I believe. They cannot be effective when applied to such a country as ours, though they are doing us certain harm. We have to understand this and enhance our sovereignty, including economic sovereignty. Therefore, I would like to call on you to show understanding of what is going on and to cooperate with the state and the Government. ..."
        [Feb 07, 2015] President of Russia

        PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN:

        ... ... ...

        Finally, about a war waged against this country. Fortunately, there is no war. Let us not pay too much attention to this. There is, however, an attempt to restrain our development by different means, an attempt to freeze the world order that has taken shape in the past decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, with one single leader at its head, who wants to remain an absolute leader, thinking he can do whatever he likes, while others can only do what they are allowed to do and only if it is in this leader's interests. Russia would never agree to such a world order.

        Maybe some like it, they want to live in a semi-occupied state, but we will not do it. However, we will not go to war with anyone either, we intend to cooperate with everyone. The attempts made, including through the so-called sanctions, do not make anyone happy in the final count, I believe. They cannot be effective when applied to such a country as ours, though they are doing us certain harm. We have to understand this and enhance our sovereignty, including economic sovereignty. Therefore, I would like to call on you to show understanding of what is going on and to cooperate with the state and the Government.

        ... ... ...

        Someone also said a 'spectre of recession' is roaming the world. As we all know, it used to be the 'spectre of communism', and now it is a 'spectre of recession'. Representatives of our traditional confessions say it is enough to turn to God and we would not fear any spectres. However, a popular saying tells us that God helps him who helps himself. Therefore, if we work hard and retain a responsible attitude to our job, we will succeed.

        Thank you very much.

        [Feb 07, 2015] Fear of Vladimir Putin grows in EU capitals amid spectre of total war

        theguardian.com

        FranklyMrShandy -> demdike 7 Feb 2015 11:57

        Oh, that sounds like a great solution!

        You may as well bomb Moscow if you do that, because (as the article makes clear) to Putin the two would be equivalent.

        Why the F*** were Obama and Nato so keen to have more pieces on their pie... this really bugs me. Ok, so Ukraine was not "neutral in the right way" and was under heavy Russian influence. And so? It's on Russia's doorstep for f***'s sake! What do you expect!

        If China masterminded a coup in Mexico with the aim of bringing the country into a defense treaty with Beijing ... do you think that Washington would not do everything possible to stop it?

        jeeeeez

        Amazon10 7 Feb 2015 11:43

        What people seem to have forgotten is that Russia is NOT the Soviet Union but a free market state that like all others and wants to protect it's own interests. It is confronted by agressive NATO states that have encroached on territories that they agreed they would not.

        In addition thay have a circle of nuclear based with missiles pointing at them. Ukraine, which was a past soviet state but then became neutral after the fall of the Soviet Union. However the US had other ideas as voiced by their representative to the EU Newland who inadvertently had her plans for the Ukraine exposed. Their intended coup took place despite a democratically elected being in place and a government was installed committed to Western imperialism and expansion of NATO.

        The population of the eastern region rejected this coup and it's nazi composition and found that the only way they could resist the military forced brought upon them by Kiev and it's western supporters was by fighting back. This is where we are at today. I am sure that Russia have aided the east with military weapons and have accept over 1million refugees. There has not been a single piece of evidence to show that Russian forces have involved on Ukraine soil. The aggressive rhetoric from the West towards Russia make the likelihood of war real and could have grave consequences for us all if we allow the real truth to be distorted in order to bring this about. The leaders of Europe must be made aware that we will not let this happen and that our constant aggression towards whoever we disagree with is not an excuse for war

        dylan kerling -> Spockdem 7 Feb 2015 11:42

        his post clearly implied it and if you've seen any of his other posts in other articles you would realize he clearly does seem to look at this situation as a dichotomy of good vs evil, west vs Russia.

        When someone lists some atrocities while only referring to one side and completely ignoring the fact that the other has done all of it only more frequently and with less of a reason I would say he's excusing the west from it.

        Lastly I'm not condoning Russia, I'm pointing out US hypocrisy and the fact that we still hear all this talk of how Russia is doing all these terrible things from our political leaders while completely white washing that we've done the very same time and time again.

        If anyone is a shill is all of you that seem to think it's OK when the west does it but if those evil Russians do anything oh boy are they in trouble.

        LarsNil -> Ram2009 7 Feb 2015 11:41

        "Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is identified in State Department documents as an informant for the U.S. since 2006. The documents describe him as "[o]ur Ukraine (OU) insider Petro Poroshenko." The State Department documents also report that Poroshenko is "tainted by credible corruption allegations."

        The most recent top official to join the Ukrainian government is Natalia A. Jaresko, a long-time State Department official, who went to Ukraine after the U.S.-sponsored Orange Revolution. Jaresko was made a Ukrainian citizen by the president on the same day he appointed her finance minister. William Boardman reports further on Jaresko:

        Natalie Jaresko, is an American citizen who managed a Ukrainian-based, U.S.-created hedge fund that was charged with illegal insider trading. She also managed a CIA fund that supported 'pro-democracy' movements and laundered much of the $5 billion the U.S. spent supporting the Maidan protests that led to the Kiev coup in February 2014. Jaresko is a big fan of austerity for people in troubled economies."

        http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/chomsky_and_kissinger_agree_avoid_historic_tragedy_in_ukraine_20150206

        Vatslav Rente 7 Feb 2015 11:35

        Fakes of the Ukrainian government. The Best.

        September 9, 2014 The head of the National Bank of Ukraine Valeriya Gontareva during a round table in Kiev, said: "200 FSB agents work on loosening the Ukrainian banking system and the hryvnia" :)

        February 5, 2015 "The reasons for the fall of the hryvnia - no," - said the Minister of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine Abramavičius.

        February 4, 2015: $ 1/17 hryvnia, February 7, 2015 $ 1/26 hryvnia.

        February 6, 2015 Former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili on Ukrainian TV channel 24: "spirit of the Ukrainian soldiers the best in the world. If you give them the necessary knowledge, skills and weapons, they will be able to capture the whole of Russia "

        Damn sclerosis. Apparently he forgot how as Russia routed the Georgian army for 4 days.

        Let me remind you, this man was considered for the post of head of the Anti-Corruption Committee of Ukraine. In Georgia, he declared a national search in. The Prosecutor's Office indicted in absentia Saakashvili of abuse of power, embezzlement of budget funds, the attempt to seize other people's property. The investigation is conducted from 25 October 2013, and during this period were collected 80 volumes of evidence, questioned nearly 100 witnesses.

        2013 Yatsenyuk in an interview with Ukrainian TV: "In the Ukrainian authorities are amateurs!" Prime Ministers of Ukraine Azarov, Foreign exchange reserves of more than 22 billion dollars, the rate of $ 1 / 8.5 hryvnia.
        Now Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, gold and currency reserves of $ 6 billion, the rate of $ 1/26 hryvnia.

        Davos January 21, 2015 President of Ukraine Poroshenko: "In my country there are more than 9000 troops from the Russian Federation, 500 tanks, heavy artillery and armored vehicles."
        Wow, it's strange that the separatists have not yet reached the border with Poland :)

        February 7, 2015 security conference in Munich. Showing the passport of Russian citizens and military tickets Poroshenko said: "What you still need more facts, evidence of the presence of Russian troops in Ukraine?"
        Ok, but the soldiers of the Russian Army during the service do not have passports, only military ID. But of course when traveling to Ukraine they are given a complete set, in case of capture. Ha ha ha :)

        The Mayor Of Kiev, Vitali Klitschko. At a meeting with Ukrainian soldiers: "they Say that there is no body armor, but it is physical protection. The main armor for each of you, is have a mother, wife, children... Social standards - this is the armor. When everyone knows that if something happens, his family will receive good compensation and will not have to beg" :) Uh... good consolation for the soldiers...

        You do not cast doubt on the adequacy of the new government of Ukraine? I think that these clowns, already tired most of the Ukrainians.

        cherryredguitar Yubin Underok 7 Feb 2015 11:16

        Here is why: Russia has an army of online shills.

        Of course, those nice trustworthy people at GCHQ and Langley wouldn't do stuff like that, would they?

        [Feb 07, 2015] Putin and Ukraine leader to hold phone talks after inconclusive end to summit

        Notable quotes:
        "... Moscow is not satisfied with the attempts to restrain the development of Russia and to preserve the unipolar world. ..."
        "... there are really an attempt to keep our development by a variety of means, ..."
        "... To stay in the belief that he can do all, while others can be something that only permuted by him and only in his best interest, "- said the head of state. ..."
        "... If someone likes it, wants to live in the condition of half occupation -- but we will not do this. ..."
        Feb 06, 2015 | The Guardian

        1waldo1 7 Feb 2015 10:05

        To stop the spreading of this increasingly dangerous conflict, there is a solution, that is in the interest of all affected:

        The USA should butt out. It's that simple. This is a European 'problem' (instigated by and foisted upon by the Americans) and will be solved by Europe and Europe alone.

        "The German chancellor said she wanted to secure peace in Europe with Russia and not against it." Wise words.

        Paul Feeney Spiffey 7 Feb 2015 10:00

        NATO is a One trick pony..and it's only one trick is War. NATO should have been dismantled when the old Soviet Union broke up. Instead, it's been taken over by the USA to aid its geopolitical S&P 500 agenda. If anyone should be in front of a War crime tribunal, it's not Lavrov but Obama for 3000 Pakistani people DRONED or Bush & Blair for one million Iraq's in the name of WMD's, if the 'Report' into it ever sees the light of day. International Diplomacy is the answer to Ukraine not more WAR....

        Regnom 7 Feb 2015 09:29

        Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking on Saturday at the Munich Security Conference, said that the actions of Washington and its allies have undermined the structure of European security. "The construction of European security, which is based on the UN Charter and the Helsinki principles, has long been undermined the actions of the US and its allies," - he said. Russian Foreign Minister also stressed that in any difficult situation, Washington is trying to accuse Moscow. "In every difficult situation our American colleagues are trying to" throw a switch" to Russia", - he said. As an example of his words Lavrov led to "revive the recent talks on a treaty on intermediate- and shorter-range missiles."

        According to him, now there is a "culmination" of course conducted by the West to retain its dominance in the world: "We believe that there is a culmination held during the last quarter of a century the course of our Western colleagues to maintain any means of its dominance in world affairs, to capture geopolitical space in Europe."

        Regnom 7 Feb 2015 09:21

        Putin today:

        "Moscow is not satisfied with the attempts to restrain the development of Russia and to preserve the unipolar world.

        "War, thank God, is not happens. But there are really an attempt to keep our development by a variety of means, there are an attempt to "freeze" the world order led by one undisputed leader, who wants to stay as such. To stay in the belief that he can do all, while others can be something that only permuted by him and only in his best interest, "- said the head of state.

        "Such a world order will never satisfied Russia," - he added. "If someone likes it, wants to live in the condition of half occupation -- but we will not do this. At the same time, we are not going to war with anyone and we are going to work with everyone"- said Putin.

        snowdogchampion -> snowdogchampion 7 Feb 2015 09:08

        here Merkel's speech (1hr) https://www.securityconference.de/en/media-library/video/single/statement-and-discussion-with-dr-angela-merkel/

        and Lavrov (45min) https://www.securityconference.de/en/media-library/video/single/statement-and-discussion-with-sergey-lavrov-1/

        and more

        [Feb 07, 2015] Merkel downbeat as world awaits Putin's response to latest Ukraine peace plan by Julian Borger in Munich

        Feb 07, 2015 | The Guardian


        Nickel07 Tepluken 7 Feb 2015 23:15

        of course it is a mafia state no different than the US...but you guys are the ones screaming your titties off about wonderful Yats is , you put the pusillanimous bastard in power...

        centerline Tepluken 7 Feb 2015 23:14

        international isolation

        Explain international. I know the US believes it is the centre of the universe but the majority of people on earth do not agree. (I guess I should explain to a dumb as dogshit yank) A majority is over 50%.

        centerline hdc hadeze 7 Feb 2015 23:10

        Schwarzenegger and Stallone are pretty tough blokes too. I see those flowers were fund raising for the hard done by Israel so the could blast a few more UN schools.

        John Smith 7 Feb 2015 23:07

        The Russians should connect via land to Crimea, push 100km past THAT, and THEN have a buffer zone. That would allow a end to this. Anything less and the CIA will just ramp up Ukrainian arms for a year or two until they have the means to attack again.

        Ukraine and it's quasi-fascist nationalists cannot be trusted, emboldened by American money, they REALLY cannot be trusted. I say that as a patriotic American.

        Friend4you 7 Feb 2015 23:04

        I agree with you John Smith , this war criminal John McCain is like Dracula , he lives on blood , this sick man used to travel to Egypt and meet the Muslim Brotherhood , supply them with money to destabilize Egypt . Wherever there are troubles you will find this blood thirsty man.

        MaxBoson Laurence Johnson 7 Feb 2015 23:01

        Motivated by your post, I checked the Web and found a Wiki piece on the Minsk Agreement. According a map there, the airport is smack dab on the red line designated as the "insurgent line of control". Since the Ukrainian forces were supposed to remain outside a 15km buffer zone, the question is why their attacks on the airport went unreported in Western media. This is a really bizarre situation; comments are now a better source of information the article being commented on.

        John Smith 7 Feb 2015 22:56

        I've had endless support pounding the New York Times every time it runs another lying anti-Putin, anti-Russia op-ed. We have the usual large block of idiot American Neocons who simply rise to any bait to throw hate at the supposed badguy Russian leader. But we also have endless numbers of smart people who watched this mess go down, and know better than to join the Neocon dopes in a let's-arm-Ukraine hatefest.

        If one guy is the King of Neocon Idiots it's Sen John McCain. The old war criminal is a one man disaster on foreign policy. Thank the mythical Christ the asshole was defeated by the idiot Obama.

        centerline Outfit17 7 Feb 2015 22:56

        Democracy is good if it votes for the US. IF the majority vote against the US then that is dictatorship. (democracy is defined as pro US voting)

        [Feb 07, 2015] Putin and Ukraine leader to hold phone talks after inconclusive end to summit

        Notable quotes:
        "... Moscow is not satisfied with the attempts to restrain the development of Russia and to preserve the unipolar world. ..."
        "... there are really an attempt to keep our development by a variety of means, ..."
        "... To stay in the belief that he can do all, while others can be something that only permuted by him and only in his best interest, "- said the head of state. ..."
        "... If someone likes it, wants to live in the condition of half occupation -- but we will not do this. ..."
        Feb 06, 2015 | The Guardian

        1waldo1 7 Feb 2015 10:05

        To stop the spreading of this increasingly dangerous conflict, there is a solution, that is in the interest of all affected:

        The USA should butt out. It's that simple. This is a European 'problem' (instigated by and foisted upon by the Americans) and will be solved by Europe and Europe alone.

        "The German chancellor said she wanted to secure peace in Europe with Russia and not against it." Wise words.

        Paul Feeney Spiffey 7 Feb 2015 10:00

        NATO is a One trick pony..and it's only one trick is War. NATO should have been dismantled when the old Soviet Union broke up. Instead, it's been taken over by the USA to aid its geopolitical S&P 500 agenda. If anyone should be in front of a War crime tribunal, it's not Lavrov but Obama for 3000 Pakistani people DRONED or Bush & Blair for one million Iraq's in the name of WMD's, if the 'Report' into it ever sees the light of day. International Diplomacy is the answer to Ukraine not more WAR....

        Regnom 7 Feb 2015 09:29

        Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking on Saturday at the Munich Security Conference, said that the actions of Washington and its allies have undermined the structure of European security. "The construction of European security, which is based on the UN Charter and the Helsinki principles, has long been undermined the actions of the US and its allies," - he said. Russian Foreign Minister also stressed that in any difficult situation, Washington is trying to accuse Moscow. "In every difficult situation our American colleagues are trying to" throw a switch" to Russia", - he said. As an example of his words Lavrov led to "revive the recent talks on a treaty on intermediate- and shorter-range missiles."

        According to him, now there is a "culmination" of course conducted by the West to retain its dominance in the world: "We believe that there is a culmination held during the last quarter of a century the course of our Western colleagues to maintain any means of its dominance in world affairs, to capture geopolitical space in Europe."

        Regnom 7 Feb 2015 09:21

        Putin today:

        "Moscow is not satisfied with the attempts to restrain the development of Russia and to preserve the unipolar world.

        "War, thank God, is not happens. But there are really an attempt to keep our development by a variety of means, there are an attempt to "freeze" the world order led by one undisputed leader, who wants to stay as such. To stay in the belief that he can do all, while others can be something that only permuted by him and only in his best interest, "- said the head of state.

        "Such a world order will never satisfied Russia," - he added. "If someone likes it, wants to live in the condition of half occupation -- but we will not do this. At the same time, we are not going to war with anyone and we are going to work with everyone"- said Putin.

        snowdogchampion -> snowdogchampion 7 Feb 2015 09:08

        here Merkel's speech (1hr) https://www.securityconference.de/en/media-library/video/single/statement-and-discussion-with-dr-angela-merkel/

        and Lavrov (45min) https://www.securityconference.de/en/media-library/video/single/statement-and-discussion-with-sergey-lavrov-1/

        and more

        [Feb 07, 2015] Merkel downbeat as world awaits Putin's response to latest Ukraine peace plan by Julian Borger in Munich

        Feb 07, 2015 | The Guardian


        Nickel07 Tepluken 7 Feb 2015 23:15

        of course it is a mafia state no different than the US...but you guys are the ones screaming your titties off about wonderful Yats is , you put the pusillanimous bastard in power...

        centerline Tepluken 7 Feb 2015 23:14

        international isolation

        Explain international. I know the US believes it is the centre of the universe but the majority of people on earth do not agree. (I guess I should explain to a dumb as dogshit yank) A majority is over 50%.

        centerline hdc hadeze 7 Feb 2015 23:10

        Schwarzenegger and Stallone are pretty tough blokes too. I see those flowers were fund raising for the hard done by Israel so the could blast a few more UN schools.

        John Smith 7 Feb 2015 23:07

        The Russians should connect via land to Crimea, push 100km past THAT, and THEN have a buffer zone. That would allow a end to this. Anything less and the CIA will just ramp up Ukrainian arms for a year or two until they have the means to attack again.

        Ukraine and it's quasi-fascist nationalists cannot be trusted, emboldened by American money, they REALLY cannot be trusted. I say that as a patriotic American.

        Friend4you 7 Feb 2015 23:04

        I agree with you John Smith , this war criminal John McCain is like Dracula , he lives on blood , this sick man used to travel to Egypt and meet the Muslim Brotherhood , supply them with money to destabilize Egypt . Wherever there are troubles you will find this blood thirsty man.

        MaxBoson Laurence Johnson 7 Feb 2015 23:01

        Motivated by your post, I checked the Web and found a Wiki piece on the Minsk Agreement. According a map there, the airport is smack dab on the red line designated as the "insurgent line of control". Since the Ukrainian forces were supposed to remain outside a 15km buffer zone, the question is why their attacks on the airport went unreported in Western media. This is a really bizarre situation; comments are now a better source of information the article being commented on.

        John Smith 7 Feb 2015 22:56

        I've had endless support pounding the New York Times every time it runs another lying anti-Putin, anti-Russia op-ed. We have the usual large block of idiot American Neocons who simply rise to any bait to throw hate at the supposed badguy Russian leader. But we also have endless numbers of smart people who watched this mess go down, and know better than to join the Neocon dopes in a let's-arm-Ukraine hatefest.

        If one guy is the King of Neocon Idiots it's Sen John McCain. The old war criminal is a one man disaster on foreign policy. Thank the mythical Christ the asshole was defeated by the idiot Obama.

        centerline Outfit17 7 Feb 2015 22:56

        Democracy is good if it votes for the US. IF the majority vote against the US then that is dictatorship. (democracy is defined as pro US voting)

        [Feb 06, 2015] Merkel and Hollande to present Ukraine peace plan to Putin

        Those who are responsible for soaking Donbass in blood will not stop. They need to be stopped by force. Ukrainian citizens have become either consumable or brainwashed. And for Western Ukrainians, the core supported of Yatsenyuk & Poroshenko clan (forme junta that now is integrated into Porosheko government) the war is far from their territory. People are dying there in Debaltsevo and Uglegorsk, Donetsk and Luhansk, while the military and mercenaries are trying to prove their side of the story through shelling of infrastructure and killing citizens. Donbass meetings and referendums were a result EuroMaidan, and emergence of separatst are direct result of absurd actions of the new Ukrainian government, which turn their county into a death factory for the sake of enforcing on the country Western Ukranian brand of nationalism. Those who are living in peace and whose relatives are protected from conscption are demanding the continuation of the war the most loudly. They nurture and inspire her, feeding infernal demons. They created a diabolical request to victims. and they got them: woman, children, eldery, like in any civil war. But they now infected with their bloodthirsty bacillus and can't stop. So people like Yatsenyuk and Turchinov need to be stopped first, removed from this current position and sent to the Hague court before we can talk about peace. And let's don;t forget that the blood of victims of Odessa massacre in also on them. We are talking about repetion of civil war in Spain here with their 200 thousand victims. Looks like Europeans learned nothing from two world war and as soon the the generation the fought the war is in graved a new war is immediately started.
        Notable quotes:
        "... Seems the US is not happy at loosing year on year its percentage of global GDP and is aggressively trying to protect its satrapies or even enlarge them. ..."
        theguardian.com

        Laurence Johnson -> Agatha_appears 6 Feb 2015 15:51

        There are two proxies in the West. Poroshenko is clearly the EU"s man in Ukraine, and Yatsenyuk is very clearly the US's man in Ukraine.

        Whatever Merkel and Hollande come up with for a peace plan, you can guarantee that Yatsenyuk will derail it as soon as possible.

        For Yats, only the supply of weapons, and many more billions of handouts and debt forgiveness will do. In the world for Yats, the war must go on.

        hodgeey nino45 6 Feb 2015 15:27

        I think most people who write here are compassionate; there are few people who have not been touched by tragedy and they learn to be both sympathetic and empathetic, but hesitate to show it.

        Having worked with Russians in Russia I can tell you we are not very different.

        nino45 ID1439675 6 Feb 2015 15:19

        Thank you for your concern, maybe I said it in a wrong way.. my English is not that good. I wanted to express the feeling our elders here have when watching the news. Many people have friends and relatives there, so it is very hard on them. I just wanted to say that ordinary Russian people show compassion in many ways, well not writing comments here in English, but calling their relatives and sending them packages...


        JCDavis -> ID1439675 6 Feb 2015 14:45

        If the US has advisors and a CIA office in Kiev they are there by invitation

        It's the other way around. The CIA invited the present government -- traitors all -- to join in their coup.

        JCDavis -> Agatha_appears 6 Feb 2015 13:58

        You are badly misreading the situation. Ukraine is pawn in a geopolitical struggle for world empire. It will be sacrificed in an instant if it suits the purposes of any of these people. Except Yats, the CIA's pick for the coup, a traitor who will be sacrificed in any case. Who could trust such a person?

        Agatha_appears 6 Feb 2015 13:48

        Let them negogiate peace. Merkel wants peace, Hollande needs peace, Putin desperately is seeking peace. Poroshenko is reasonable and negogiable. But imbecile Yatzenuk is non-negogiable. Let us pray that tkhe talks end with peaceful project.

        JCDavis -> harryphilby 6 Feb 2015 13:23

        The Yanks don't do peace.

        This is true. Obama is Cheney's blackmailed puppet, and Cheney was the only neocon in Bush's criminal administration who actually wanted to fight Russia. He is quite mad, and he is the most powerful man in the world. Bad combination.

        Euphobia1 6 Feb 2015 13:21

        One problem is the history of the Ukraine which except for very short periods has always been part of Russia. Only an accident of fate made Ukraine a country and many of its citizens feel Russian and still want to be part of Russia.

        Russia never invaded the Ukraine because it didn't have to as it was Russia. It would be like say East Anglia becoming a separate state in UK just because a politician who lived there thought it might be nice and then finding itself a sovereign state. Khrushchev did this for the Ukraine when he was the boss. Khrushchev never thought the Soviet Union would break up and Ukraine become a separate country for only the second time in it's history.

        When the Soviet Union collapsed the USA treated it so badly. Instead of embracing it when it asked to join the EU Russia was rejected and the West has been encroaching on to it's borders ever since. No wonder Russia is fearful. The USA likes to fight wars in other people's countries. Good for business.

        Russia is big powerful and proud country. Ukraine used to be the major part of it and many living there may still want to be part of it too. The West should wake up and start seeking solutions fast. War is not an answer.


        Justthefactsman 6 Feb 2015 13:20

        Anybody seen pictures that confirm that Russian Federation troops are in the Eastern Ukraine ?

        With todays satellite technology it is almost possible to recognise a packet of cigarettes, how come we haven't seen any satellite images of these massive troop movements ?

        What has happened about the inquiry that is supposed to be investigating the shooting down of the Malayan airliner? Why is the progress not being reported.?

        Shit, it those crafty nasty Russians who are holding up the investigation. How? By asking to see the whole truth about the situation, and we wouldn't want to embarrass the coup inheritors in Kiev by revealing the truth, would we ?

        TrueCopy -> Eric Hoffmann 6 Feb 2015 13:17

        Dude there is no military solution to the mess. The most effective forces on the ground on the Ukraine regime side are Ukrainian "volunteer" paramilitary forces, who are coming from the western part of Ukraine, no one is talking giving them weapons, although Poland has been supporting them for a while. The Ukrainian army isn't going to fight any better no matter what they get. The best thing US can provide them is satellite intelligence, that is already doing. Russia isn't directly involved, but even if the invade Ukraine, there is not much we can do, it is better to just cut a deal and move on.

        JCDavis 6 Feb 2015 13:14

        So Hollande and Merkel and threatening Putin with early membership of Ukraine in NATO, completing Obama's new iron curtain earlier rather than later. Thus this stupid ploy will fail and Congress will throw gas on the fire (boneheads that they are) and Russia will move in with real troops and take all of southern Ukraine. This seems inevitable. Ukraine's goose was cooked when Ukrainian traitors conspired with the CIA Only the carving up is not complete.


        zchabj6 6 Feb 2015 13:13

        It is in the US strategic interest to have a war on Russia's border indefinitely as they already had a part in in Chechnya and Georgia. Georgia is now part of NATO so it worked quite well for the US despite the unnecessary loss of life, not that any nation cares anymore it seems.

        It is not in the interest of Russia, Eurozone, EU or any European state .

        Hence the Russian organized Minsk peace process and some belated EU help to make it happen while the US considers prolonging the war through weapons transfers as they have done and continue in Syria, another Iran/Russia ally.

        Seems the US is not happy at loosing year on year its percentage of global GDP and is aggressively trying to protect its satrapies or even enlarge them.

        [Feb 05, 2015] Merkel and Hollande to fly to Moscow in new effort to resolve Ukraine crisis by Shaun Walker in Kiev, Ian Traynor in Brussels, Dan Roberts in Washington and Alec Luhn in Moscow

        Notable quotes:
        "... is the most wasteful abuser of the world's scarce resources, ..."
        "... I have been to Croatia and Serbia I was in Vukovar a few years ago. It was truly horrendous. Yugoslavia was destabilized by the US government and that no one can deny. The UN had no chance against heavily armed Serbs and Croats to stop the chaos. US are doing the same in Ukraine. Well it is not the USA people its the 0.00001% of the USA, ..."
        "... The EU also has a similar problem, they need another country to leech off every few years to keep the EURO going. The moment countries start to drop out or the EU fails to find more victims to feed off, the EURO along with the EU will collapse. ..."
        "... General - the BBC is state-funded. Do you refuse to believe a word it says? But why is funding from a state less likely to produce balanced journalism than funding from the five or six billionaires who own almost all the world's media? Especially when those billionaires effectively control the state apparatus anyway. ..."
        "... I'm not condoning Russia's recent actions, but the American people and politicians seem incapable of "walking a mile in the other man's shoes". The USA has attempted to encircle Russia with armed NATO members - what do you think our reaction would be if Mexico and the Caribbean contained hostile troops and missiles aimed at us? I think we know the answer to that from the Cuban missile crisis. ..."
        "... The fundamental question Is, what brought Ukraine into this mess? It is the expansion of NATO to the backyards of Russia. It happened at a time when Russia was weak and was still struggling to recover from the collapse of the Soviet system upon which their life and economy was built. And what was the goal of the US to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia? The US policy of domination of the world. It is this policy that poses the greatest danger to the security of the world since the fall of the bipolar world in the early 90s. The world, especially the Europe is facing a critical choice at this point of time in history. Europe has to set itself free of the US bondage or stay a mute spectator to the aggressive and intolerant policies of the conservative hard liners in the US, that would multiply the conflicts across the globe. Today, these hard liners in the US pose the greatest threat to the stability and overall growth of the people of this planet. ..."
        "... Ethnic cleansing, though always popular with ultra-nationalists, is not the only way forward. Let the people decide. Not Kerry, not Merkel, not Putin, not Hollande, not Poroshenko not Yatzenyuk. Public votes. ..."
        "... Absolutely. And when are we going to here the truth about that damn plane crash?? ..."
        "... CNN is a joke, it should be called "CORRUPTED NEWS NETWORK". The sort of trash they report is what feeds all the Obama Drones, after all, they need their fuel from some where. ..."
        "... The thing Rand missed was the "government" is run by the same 1% that she praises as the "job creators". ..."
        "... They are playing the same "game" that sociopathic kings have played since the beginning of time. Why the "rest of us" allow ourselves to be governed by sociopaths remains a mystery. ..."
        "... That would be heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction. What if Russia had taken a similar stand over the 'territorial integrity of Serbia' during the Kosovo affair? Aren't the situations analogous? ..."
        "... I'm more and more disappointed with Merkel. ..."
        "... It does however look as if the Hawks want to re-arm Ukraine so that they don't have to pay! This is on a par with shooting the debt collector when he comes to your house. ..."
        "... I am sorry to say that the antics of western politicians are starting to resemble a virility contest and I would like this to cease forthwith as there are other far more serious problems to deal with. ..."
        "... Georgia had announced their withdrawal from the 'Coalition of the Billing' in Afghanistan and the Bushies conveniently airlifted their entire combat contingent back home almost overnight. ..."
        "... The US worked to stir up trouble for the democratically elected Ukrainian Government, under Yushchenko, despite the wishes of its EU Partners. At the time, US State Department Neo-Con Victoria Nuland was notoriously quoted as saying "F*ck the EU!" ..."
        "... Educate yourself please. This information is readily available. ..."
        Feb 05, 2015 | The Guardian


        Soul_Side -> Dick Harrison 5 Feb 2015 20:16

        Dick Harrison

        Better than being a russian proxy state, look how advanced America is

        Advanced? A nation that can't, or won't, provide adequate healthcare for its own citizens, has more than 40million living souls dependent on food stamps, that has the greatest income-disparity on the planet, is the most wasteful abuser of the world's scarce resources, trades the most weapons in the world, spends the most on war in the world, and imprisons the highest proportion of its citizens of all the countries in the world.

        You could be forgiven for not wanting to buy into all that.

        thomas142 -> ID9187603 5 Feb 2015 20:15

        I have been to Croatia and Serbia I was in Vukovar a few years ago. It was truly horrendous. Yugoslavia was destabilized by the US government and that no one can deny. The UN had no chance against heavily armed Serbs and Croats to stop the chaos. US are doing the same in Ukraine. Well it is not the USA people its the 0.00001% of the USA,

        AlienLifeForce Dugan222 5 Feb 2015 20:13

        The problem is the US depends on war to keep the USD going just like they need the petrodollar, without them the USD will be like a drop of water in the desert.

        The EU also has a similar problem, they need another country to leech off every few years to keep the EURO going. The moment countries start to drop out or the EU fails to find more victims to feed off, the EURO along with the EU will collapse.

        Remember Germany relies very much on export, which is why the EU increasing pressure to expand. Merkel has not been looking her self recently, what with everything in Greece going wrong and now Ukraine has gone to plan, things don't look too good for the USD and the EURO.

        Caroline Louise Generalken 5 Feb 2015 20:11

        General - the BBC is state-funded. Do you refuse to believe a word it says? But why is funding from a state less likely to produce balanced journalism than funding from the five or six billionaires who own almost all the world's media? Especially when those billionaires effectively control the state apparatus anyway.

        NigelRG 5 Feb 2015 20:09

        I'm not condoning Russia's recent actions, but the American people and politicians seem incapable of "walking a mile in the other man's shoes". The USA has attempted to encircle Russia with armed NATO members - what do you think our reaction would be if Mexico and the Caribbean contained hostile troops and missiles aimed at us? I think we know the answer to that from the Cuban missile crisis.

        nadodi 5 Feb 2015 20:07

        The fundamental question Is, what brought Ukraine into this mess? It is the expansion of NATO to the backyards of Russia. It happened at a time when Russia was weak and was still struggling to recover from the collapse of the Soviet system upon which their life and economy was built. And what was the goal of the US to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia? The US policy of domination of the world. It is this policy that poses the greatest danger to the security of the world since the fall of the bipolar world in the early 90s. The world, especially the Europe is facing a critical choice at this point of time in history. Europe has to set itself free of the US bondage or stay a mute spectator to the aggressive and intolerant policies of the conservative hard liners in the US, that would multiply the conflicts across the globe. Today, these hard liners in the US pose the greatest threat to the stability and overall growth of the people of this planet.

        desconocido Dick Harrison 5 Feb 2015 20:04

        I think it's a question of first or second language and also of cultural identity. And also of course noticing that you are being shafted by west ukrainian nazis.

        Davo3333 laSaya 5 Feb 2015 20:03

        Because the land they are living on has been Russian land for centuries. So Crimea is Russian and should never have been part of Ukraine at all after the Soviet Union split up and Eastern and Southern Ukraine are also Russian but the first step for those regions would be to form new independent countries which could then decide whether they wished to rejoin Russia or remain independent. The Ukrainians live in West Ukraine and it is them who should move into their own areas and leave Eastern and Southern Ukraine alone. And another thing the population of Russia has been increasing in the last few years , not decreasing as you have stated.

        Soul_Side laSaya 5 Feb 2015 20:01

        laSaya said:

        Why don't those Russian speaker just hop in a bus and journey to Russia. The Russian landmass is big enough to take those Russia lovers in.

        Let me understand this point of view exactly, you think they should leave their homes, livelihoods, their aged, disabled and infirm relatives too weak to travel, their land, their places of birth, their local culture and local identity and just move somewhere else because their neighbour seeks to dominate them? Would you?

        Ethnic cleansing, though always popular with ultra-nationalists, is not the only way forward. Let the people decide. Not Kerry, not Merkel, not Putin, not Hollande, not Poroshenko not Yatzenyuk. Public votes.

        angdavies 5 Feb 2015 19:56

        Ahhh.. I love the smell of proxy war in the morning!

        Just let Putin save some face. Any Ukrainian who loves her country should back any peace talks up to the hilt, otherwise there'll be no Ukraine worth living in if the US starts to pump in the weapons. That will kick-off full scale Russian nationalist jihadism - a war that cannot be won.

        AlienLifeForce -> Seriatim 5 Feb 2015 19:56

        Absolutely. And when are we going to here the truth about that damn plane crash??

        Strange you should ask, when I last looked, the US had decided that the findings of the investigation should remain classified. If there was any evidence to point the finger at Russia, don't you think they would have used it?

        glit00 -> senya 5 Feb 2015 19:50

        courtesy of google translate:

        Commander (Chief) under the extraordinary period, including a state of martial law or a battle, in order to arrest a soldier who commits an act that falls within the elements of a crime related to disobedience, resistance or threats boss, violence, unauthorized leaving the fighting positions and designated areas of deployment units (units) in the areas of combat missions, shall have the right to apply measures of physical restraint without causing damage to the health of military and special funds sufficient to stop illegal actions.

        In a battle commander (chief) can use weapons or give orders to subordinates of their application, unless otherwise impossible to stop the unauthorized retreat or other similar actions, while not causing the death of soldier.

        If circumstances permit, the commander (chief) before use of physical effects, special tools or weapons should give voice warning, shot up or by other means notify the person against whom he may apply such measures

        suzi 5 Feb 2015 19:38

        suspicions that Putin is seeking to split Europe and America

        He need hardly bother when the US itself is doing such a good job in that direction!

        cycokan -> thomas142 5 Feb 2015 19:36

        While I agree, that US foreign policy is often very, let's say, adventurous, I do not see them as idiots.

        Trying to force Germany or France and most, if not all other European countries into an open war with Russia would be the end of NATO and the end of any American sphere of influence in Europe, because, I can assure you, at least the German populace would simply never join such an adventure.

        AlienLifeForce Haynonnynonny 5 Feb 2015 19:40

        CNN is a joke, it should be called "CORRUPTED NEWS NETWORK". The sort of trash they report is what feeds all the Obama Drones, after all, they need their fuel from some where.

        AlienLifeForce -> MentalToo 5 Feb 2015 19:35

        Putin thinks that by making Merkel and Hollande come to him, he is the greater man.

        Putin did not make them come to him, Merkel and Hollande are going because if they have any sense, they will try and repair relations between Europe and Russia as well when an agreement can be made.

        He has basically created this war because the people of Ukraine dared to reject him.

        The US created the problems in Ukraine and if the people of Ukraine rejected Putin, why are large numbers of them heading towards the Russian boarder?

        he has disregarded everything from international law, human rights, human lives, basic humanity including been the source to numerous war crimes and crimes towards humanity.

        If anything this fits the description of the US more then Russia, especially when we look at the last 20 - 30 years. Russia has done everything that was agreed when the cold war ended and has since established good working relations world wide with out wars and conflicts.

        He claims it was because Russia was threatened and needed protection. But Russia wasn't.

        Again, Russia kept to the agreements made after the cold war ended, the US never did and has continued to move NATO ever closer to the Russian boarders. How does this represent good business relations from the west and why should Russia accept this to begin with.

        All this was simply because his ego was hurt.


        It is just as well Putin is not the sort of person you describe, because we would all be ash by now.

        If anything is "poor", its you with your lack of understanding and ignorance.

        KauaiJohnnie sasha19 5 Feb 2015 13:57

        Of course if Putin did nothing there wouldn't be a conflict. But NATO was pushing on Russia's borders in violation of the agreements made with Gorbachev 30 years ago. What possible benefit is that to you and me?

        Likewise, the deployment of Star Wars, which hasn't been shown to work but has cost billions (and billions) in Europe is hardly for protection against Iranian missiles.

        This is just to demonstrate the strength of the USA military. And for what purpose? In "Atlas Shrugged" why did the government want to build a bigger bomb? To threaten anyone and everyone who wouldn't bow to the government wishes. The thing Rand missed was the "government" is run by the same 1% that she praises as the "job creators".

        They are playing the same "game" that sociopathic kings have played since the beginning of time. Why the "rest of us" allow ourselves to be governed by sociopaths remains a mystery.

        roundthings 5 Feb 2015 13:55

        "We will make a new proposal to solve the conflict which will be based on Ukraine's territorial integrity."

        That would be heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction. What if Russia had taken a similar stand over the 'territorial integrity of Serbia' during the Kosovo affair? Aren't the situations analogous?

        Sure, Putin has been out of order. He deserves a smack. But the price of doing so is too high. These politician boneheads are dragging us into a war - a stupid war, an unnecessary war.

        I'm more and more disappointed with Merkel. Her first strike was the panicked flight out of nuclear. No 2 was not recognizing that, yes the Greeks need to be made to lift their game, maybe take on a few of Schaeuble's tax collectors; but mindless squeezing of the bloke on the Athenian street is in no-one's interest. Could her failure to see sense on Ukraine be strike no 3?

        Joe Bloggs 5 Feb 2015 13:55

        Phew! I just like to say Not In My Name as it looks to me as if Hawks are milking the situation for all it is worth so that they can have a go at Russia. As far as I know the land in dispute is populated by Russian speakers who make up 95% of the population. There was also a referendum which had a landslide result showing that almost everyone wanted to be allied with Russia.

        Of course the Hawks claimed that the result was invalid! IMHO it is really a problem caused by boundary disputes that came about when the USSR ceased to exist.

        I propose the same solution that was used by the British Raj in India in 1947, what could be simpler? As to Russia compensating the Ukraine, allegedly Ukraine owes Russia an astronomical amount in unpaid gas bills. It does however look as if the Hawks want to re-arm Ukraine so that they don't have to pay! This is on a par with shooting the debt collector when he comes to your house.

        I am sorry to say that the antics of western politicians are starting to resemble a virility contest and I would like this to cease forthwith as there are other far more serious problems to deal with.

        Spaceguy1 -> One sasha19 5 Feb 2015 13:54

        Naah, Zerohedge is predominantly a financial blog. Plenty of their articles are actually spot on. I use Zerohedge just as another source of information filtering out some of their conspiracies. Besides the article in Zerohedge just copied what the Russian news agency reported here; http://tass.ru/en/russia/775419

        Canajin -> ID8787761 5 Feb 2015 13:53

        They should also return Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Samoa, and Hawaii to their people. Not to mention Guam, Marianas, etc.

        BradBenson -> Gene428 5 Feb 2015 13:52

        Where do you get your information? We are the ones who have been constantly kicking the Russian Bear in the ass. Here are the facts.

        In regard to Georgia

        The Georgian Invasion of the neutral provinces of Ossetia and Abkhazia was completely orchestrated by the Bushies, while Putin was attending the previous Olympic Games in China.

        Georgia had announced their withdrawal from the 'Coalition of the Billing' in Afghanistan and the Bushies conveniently airlifted their entire combat contingent back home almost overnight. They were then immediately deployed to attack the neutral provinces. The whole thing was an attempt to seize key Russian controlled oil pipelines from the Caucasus to the Black Sea.

        Then, as now, Putin was forced to react to aggression on his borders. He flew home, issued an ultimatum and then sent in the Russian Army to clean out the Georgian Invaders, chasing them all the way back to Tbilisi until their CIA installed President begged the world for help. Not surprisingly, none came, but John McCain was able to proudly proclaim, "We are all Georgians today".

        During the after battle clean-up, it was reported that there were a number of black soldiers among the dead Georgians. Those Georgians were most likely from Atlanta, Resaca and Augusta.

        In regard to the Crimea

        The presence of Russian ground forces and the only warm water ports for the Russian Navy made the Crimea a de facto Russian Territory. When the illegal coup d'état was pulled off in the Maidan, Putin and the Russian Military secured their bases on the Black Sea and in the Crimea.

        Why should the neo-Nazis in Kiev, or their CIA backed puppet-masters have thought that the Russians would allow this territory to be illegally seized as was the rest of the Ukraine? When coup d'état's occur, borders can change unexpectedly. The people of the Crimea overwhelmingly support the presence of the Russians.

        In regard to the coup d'état in Kiev

        The US worked to stir up trouble for the democratically elected Ukrainian Government, under Yushchenko, despite the wishes of its EU Partners. At the time, US State Department Neo-Con Victoria Nuland was notoriously quoted as saying "F*ck the EU!"

        However, during the rest of that famous 4 minute telephone call, Ms. Nuland was recorded as she outlined who the US wanted in the new Ukrainian Government--the one that would replace the existing government after it was overthrown. This happened despite the fact that Ukrainian Elections for a new President were already scheduled roughly two months hence. Then, against the wishes of its reluctant EU Partners, the US stage-managed the illegal coup d'état in Kiev using neo-Nazis as their vanguard in the streets.

        Educate yourself please. This information is readily available.

        ID5868758 -> ID8787761 5 Feb 2015 13:45

        "Russia invaded Georgia." A perfect example of a western lie, that has been repeated over and over again, so many times that the lie has become the "truth".

        [Feb 05, 2015] How Kremlin TV Covers America and Why It Matters by Lincoln Mitchell

        Another signal from 2015 about forthcoming clump down on RT. RT is Russian propaganda site, but that does not exclude them providing high quality critical coverage of US and European events. In any case RT is preferable to BBC, although comparing two can get you at higher level of understanding, than watching just one
        Notable quotes:
        "... simply to portray an image of the US as a deeply flawed country with a corrupt and ineffective political system, ..."
        "... at least as legitimate a representation of the realities of the U.S. and of American politics than, for example, Fox News, and generally offers considerably more depth than what is offered by how ABC, CBS or NBC present the news. ..."
        "... Lincoln Mitchell is national political correspondent at the Observer. Follow him on Twitter ..."
        Feb 03, 2015 | Observer

        At first glance, Lee Camp, Thom Hartmann and Larry King don't seem to have a lot in common. Mr. Camp is a comedian who seeks to fuse progressive politics with humor. He is perhaps best known for his "Moment of Clarity" rants, where he colorfully, and occasionally profanely, analyzes an issue from the news. Mr. Hartmann is a progressive radio host, author and pundit who has written numerous books, articles and blogs. Larry King is legendary talk show host and erstwhile Little League coach. He has interviewed presidents, actors, musicians and even Oprah.

        All three of these media personalities, however, share a link to RT (formerly Russia Today), the English-language arm of the Russian government's media operation. In less diplomatic terms, it is a Kremlin propaganda machine. RT's coverage of Russia, the conflict in Ukraine and other issues having direct bearing on Moscow's role in the world, include headlines that sound like they could have been written by Russian President Vladimir Putin himself. Mother Russia is portrayed as a force for only good and peace in the world. It's anchors and "reporters" have enthusiasm for euphemisms such as "stabilizing force" ("invading army") and "humanitarian aid" ("military intervention"). RT's coverage of Russian politics is heavy-handed, unsubtle and, in the U.S., not particularly effective. Despite RT's best efforts to gin up sympathy for Russia in the current Ukraine conflict, most mainstream politicians and media outlets continue to compete with each other to see who can demonize Putin most.

        RT's coverage of the U.S., however, is different. While it certainly has an political agenda, one that is not of the left or the right, but simply to portray an image of the US as a deeply flawed country with a corrupt and ineffective political system, RT covers news, and offers perspectives that are not often seen American broadcast television. RT touts itself as offering a "second opinion," through its American media campaign, described by Ronn Torossian recently here at the Observer. RT is certainly neither objective or balanced, but it is at least as legitimate a representation of the realities of the U.S. and of American politics than, for example, Fox News, and generally offers considerably more depth than what is offered by how ABC, CBS or NBC present the news.

        Recent RT headlines such as "Police Brutality Activists Angry Obama Glossed Over Ferguson 'Events' in SOTU" and "Majority of America's Public School Children are Living in Poverty," span a reasonably broad ideological range, but seek to consistently to portray the U.S. in a negative light. These are also stories that much of the media overlooks. This approach, and similar language can also be found in RT America's busy Twitter feed. If RT were funded through advertising or the largesse of a quirky American billionaire and only covered domestic politics here in the U.S., it would be viewed by many as a useful component of a diverse media environment. For these reasons, RT is now the most watched foreign news outlet in the U.S., with an audience that is estimated to be 6.5 times as large as its closest rival, Al Jazeera America.

        In addition to its news coverage, RT has also become a clearinghouse for the opinions of American dissidents, including those on the far left like Noam Chomsky, the far, if twisted, right like Pat Buchanan, and increasingly fringe Libertarians like Ron Paul. While opinions like these are provocative, unpopular and often a little wacky, RT gives American audiences access to ideas and opinions that are considerably beyond the narrow bandwidth in which most debate in the media usually occurs. Clearly, these opinions are more extreme than the more genial progressive politics of Mr. Camp or Mr. Hartmann or of the generally politically neutral work of Mr. King, but taken as a whole, RT provides a very broad range of political outlooks.

        Somebody who only watched RT would have an image of the U.S. as a place of radical economic inequality, widespread civil unrest, corrupt politicians, racial animus and a collapsing economy, committed to expanding its global influence through military might. Of course, somebody who watched only Fox News, would understand the U.S. to be a country that is in the throws of a socialist takeover where an oppressed minority of white, heavily Christian citizens, are now losing the country that was given to them by the almighty, to hordes of illegal immigrants, non-whites, homosexuals and atheists. Both Fox and RT are propaganda organs espousing very biased views of American politics. The major difference may be that Fox represents one extreme of the domestic political spectrum while RT is the propaganda arm of a foreign government. While RT draws more viewers than other foreign news networks like CCTV from China, Al Jazeera America or even the BBC, its viewership is dwarfed by major American news stations like Fox; RT America has 194,000 Twitter followers compared with Fox News has 4.83 million Twitter followers.

        But dismissing RT's coverage as simply a Russian propaganda, however, is a mistake. The insights of people like Mr. Camp and Mr. Hartmann, while not universally agreed upon, certainly resonate with many Americans. It is significant that it is only on a Moscow-funded station that voices like those can be heard, reflecting how the major media outlets still only present a relatively narrow range of views on most topics. Second, providing a critical and resonant portrayal of American politics to American viewers will eventually make those viewers more open to RT's dubious presentation of foreign affairs and Russian politics. The Kremlin hopes that the same people who watch RT's US programming and wonder why stories about, for example, why the US is classifying information about aid to Afghanistan, will soon begin to question why so few voices on American media are critical of the Ukrainian government.

        Consider RT's coverage of American politics as a bait and switch, from critical insight about the US to dishonest propaganda regarding Russia.

        Lincoln Mitchell is national political correspondent at the Observer. Follow him on Twitter

        Alfred Cossi Chodaton

        RT does nothing different from what major media outlets do.

        Ilya Nesterovich

        Lie, lie and lie. That's all. RT show different opinion from official, and, of course, USA doesn't like it.

        Mstislav Pavlov

        In Russia there is no need for propaganda. Your media better than any propaganda. Kremlin even do not need anything :)

        [Feb 05, 2015] Merkel and Hollande to fly to Moscow in new effort to resolve Ukraine crisis by Shaun Walker in Kiev, Ian Traynor in Brussels, Dan Roberts in Washington and Alec Luhn in Moscow

        Notable quotes:
        "... is the most wasteful abuser of the world's scarce resources, ..."
        "... I have been to Croatia and Serbia I was in Vukovar a few years ago. It was truly horrendous. Yugoslavia was destabilized by the US government and that no one can deny. The UN had no chance against heavily armed Serbs and Croats to stop the chaos. US are doing the same in Ukraine. Well it is not the USA people its the 0.00001% of the USA, ..."
        "... The EU also has a similar problem, they need another country to leech off every few years to keep the EURO going. The moment countries start to drop out or the EU fails to find more victims to feed off, the EURO along with the EU will collapse. ..."
        "... General - the BBC is state-funded. Do you refuse to believe a word it says? But why is funding from a state less likely to produce balanced journalism than funding from the five or six billionaires who own almost all the world's media? Especially when those billionaires effectively control the state apparatus anyway. ..."
        "... I'm not condoning Russia's recent actions, but the American people and politicians seem incapable of "walking a mile in the other man's shoes". The USA has attempted to encircle Russia with armed NATO members - what do you think our reaction would be if Mexico and the Caribbean contained hostile troops and missiles aimed at us? I think we know the answer to that from the Cuban missile crisis. ..."
        "... The fundamental question Is, what brought Ukraine into this mess? It is the expansion of NATO to the backyards of Russia. It happened at a time when Russia was weak and was still struggling to recover from the collapse of the Soviet system upon which their life and economy was built. And what was the goal of the US to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia? The US policy of domination of the world. It is this policy that poses the greatest danger to the security of the world since the fall of the bipolar world in the early 90s. The world, especially the Europe is facing a critical choice at this point of time in history. Europe has to set itself free of the US bondage or stay a mute spectator to the aggressive and intolerant policies of the conservative hard liners in the US, that would multiply the conflicts across the globe. Today, these hard liners in the US pose the greatest threat to the stability and overall growth of the people of this planet. ..."
        "... Ethnic cleansing, though always popular with ultra-nationalists, is not the only way forward. Let the people decide. Not Kerry, not Merkel, not Putin, not Hollande, not Poroshenko not Yatzenyuk. Public votes. ..."
        "... Absolutely. And when are we going to here the truth about that damn plane crash?? ..."
        "... CNN is a joke, it should be called "CORRUPTED NEWS NETWORK". The sort of trash they report is what feeds all the Obama Drones, after all, they need their fuel from some where. ..."
        "... The thing Rand missed was the "government" is run by the same 1% that she praises as the "job creators". ..."
        "... They are playing the same "game" that sociopathic kings have played since the beginning of time. Why the "rest of us" allow ourselves to be governed by sociopaths remains a mystery. ..."
        "... That would be heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction. What if Russia had taken a similar stand over the 'territorial integrity of Serbia' during the Kosovo affair? Aren't the situations analogous? ..."
        "... I'm more and more disappointed with Merkel. ..."
        "... It does however look as if the Hawks want to re-arm Ukraine so that they don't have to pay! This is on a par with shooting the debt collector when he comes to your house. ..."
        "... I am sorry to say that the antics of western politicians are starting to resemble a virility contest and I would like this to cease forthwith as there are other far more serious problems to deal with. ..."
        "... Georgia had announced their withdrawal from the 'Coalition of the Billing' in Afghanistan and the Bushies conveniently airlifted their entire combat contingent back home almost overnight. ..."
        "... The US worked to stir up trouble for the democratically elected Ukrainian Government, under Yushchenko, despite the wishes of its EU Partners. At the time, US State Department Neo-Con Victoria Nuland was notoriously quoted as saying "F*ck the EU!" ..."
        "... Educate yourself please. This information is readily available. ..."
        Feb 05, 2015 | The Guardian


        Soul_Side -> Dick Harrison 5 Feb 2015 20:16

        Dick Harrison

        Better than being a russian proxy state, look how advanced America is

        Advanced? A nation that can't, or won't, provide adequate healthcare for its own citizens, has more than 40million living souls dependent on food stamps, that has the greatest income-disparity on the planet, is the most wasteful abuser of the world's scarce resources, trades the most weapons in the world, spends the most on war in the world, and imprisons the highest proportion of its citizens of all the countries in the world.

        You could be forgiven for not wanting to buy into all that.

        thomas142 -> ID9187603 5 Feb 2015 20:15

        I have been to Croatia and Serbia I was in Vukovar a few years ago. It was truly horrendous. Yugoslavia was destabilized by the US government and that no one can deny. The UN had no chance against heavily armed Serbs and Croats to stop the chaos. US are doing the same in Ukraine. Well it is not the USA people its the 0.00001% of the USA,

        AlienLifeForce Dugan222 5 Feb 2015 20:13

        The problem is the US depends on war to keep the USD going just like they need the petrodollar, without them the USD will be like a drop of water in the desert.

        The EU also has a similar problem, they need another country to leech off every few years to keep the EURO going. The moment countries start to drop out or the EU fails to find more victims to feed off, the EURO along with the EU will collapse.

        Remember Germany relies very much on export, which is why the EU increasing pressure to expand. Merkel has not been looking her self recently, what with everything in Greece going wrong and now Ukraine has gone to plan, things don't look too good for the USD and the EURO.

        Caroline Louise Generalken 5 Feb 2015 20:11

        General - the BBC is state-funded. Do you refuse to believe a word it says? But why is funding from a state less likely to produce balanced journalism than funding from the five or six billionaires who own almost all the world's media? Especially when those billionaires effectively control the state apparatus anyway.

        NigelRG 5 Feb 2015 20:09

        I'm not condoning Russia's recent actions, but the American people and politicians seem incapable of "walking a mile in the other man's shoes". The USA has attempted to encircle Russia with armed NATO members - what do you think our reaction would be if Mexico and the Caribbean contained hostile troops and missiles aimed at us? I think we know the answer to that from the Cuban missile crisis.

        nadodi 5 Feb 2015 20:07

        The fundamental question Is, what brought Ukraine into this mess? It is the expansion of NATO to the backyards of Russia. It happened at a time when Russia was weak and was still struggling to recover from the collapse of the Soviet system upon which their life and economy was built. And what was the goal of the US to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia? The US policy of domination of the world. It is this policy that poses the greatest danger to the security of the world since the fall of the bipolar world in the early 90s. The world, especially the Europe is facing a critical choice at this point of time in history. Europe has to set itself free of the US bondage or stay a mute spectator to the aggressive and intolerant policies of the conservative hard liners in the US, that would multiply the conflicts across the globe. Today, these hard liners in the US pose the greatest threat to the stability and overall growth of the people of this planet.

        desconocido Dick Harrison 5 Feb 2015 20:04

        I think it's a question of first or second language and also of cultural identity. And also of course noticing that you are being shafted by west ukrainian nazis.

        Davo3333 laSaya 5 Feb 2015 20:03

        Because the land they are living on has been Russian land for centuries. So Crimea is Russian and should never have been part of Ukraine at all after the Soviet Union split up and Eastern and Southern Ukraine are also Russian but the first step for those regions would be to form new independent countries which could then decide whether they wished to rejoin Russia or remain independent. The Ukrainians live in West Ukraine and it is them who should move into their own areas and leave Eastern and Southern Ukraine alone. And another thing the population of Russia has been increasing in the last few years , not decreasing as you have stated.

        Soul_Side laSaya 5 Feb 2015 20:01

        laSaya said:

        Why don't those Russian speaker just hop in a bus and journey to Russia. The Russian landmass is big enough to take those Russia lovers in.

        Let me understand this point of view exactly, you think they should leave their homes, livelihoods, their aged, disabled and infirm relatives too weak to travel, their land, their places of birth, their local culture and local identity and just move somewhere else because their neighbour seeks to dominate them? Would you?

        Ethnic cleansing, though always popular with ultra-nationalists, is not the only way forward. Let the people decide. Not Kerry, not Merkel, not Putin, not Hollande, not Poroshenko not Yatzenyuk. Public votes.

        angdavies 5 Feb 2015 19:56

        Ahhh.. I love the smell of proxy war in the morning!

        Just let Putin save some face. Any Ukrainian who loves her country should back any peace talks up to the hilt, otherwise there'll be no Ukraine worth living in if the US starts to pump in the weapons. That will kick-off full scale Russian nationalist jihadism - a war that cannot be won.

        AlienLifeForce -> Seriatim 5 Feb 2015 19:56

        Absolutely. And when are we going to here the truth about that damn plane crash??

        Strange you should ask, when I last looked, the US had decided that the findings of the investigation should remain classified. If there was any evidence to point the finger at Russia, don't you think they would have used it?

        glit00 -> senya 5 Feb 2015 19:50

        courtesy of google translate:

        Commander (Chief) under the extraordinary period, including a state of martial law or a battle, in order to arrest a soldier who commits an act that falls within the elements of a crime related to disobedience, resistance or threats boss, violence, unauthorized leaving the fighting positions and designated areas of deployment units (units) in the areas of combat missions, shall have the right to apply measures of physical restraint without causing damage to the health of military and special funds sufficient to stop illegal actions.

        In a battle commander (chief) can use weapons or give orders to subordinates of their application, unless otherwise impossible to stop the unauthorized retreat or other similar actions, while not causing the death of soldier.

        If circumstances permit, the commander (chief) before use of physical effects, special tools or weapons should give voice warning, shot up or by other means notify the person against whom he may apply such measures

        suzi 5 Feb 2015 19:38

        suspicions that Putin is seeking to split Europe and America

        He need hardly bother when the US itself is doing such a good job in that direction!

        cycokan -> thomas142 5 Feb 2015 19:36

        While I agree, that US foreign policy is often very, let's say, adventurous, I do not see them as idiots.

        Trying to force Germany or France and most, if not all other European countries into an open war with Russia would be the end of NATO and the end of any American sphere of influence in Europe, because, I can assure you, at least the German populace would simply never join such an adventure.

        AlienLifeForce Haynonnynonny 5 Feb 2015 19:40

        CNN is a joke, it should be called "CORRUPTED NEWS NETWORK". The sort of trash they report is what feeds all the Obama Drones, after all, they need their fuel from some where.

        AlienLifeForce -> MentalToo 5 Feb 2015 19:35

        Putin thinks that by making Merkel and Hollande come to him, he is the greater man.

        Putin did not make them come to him, Merkel and Hollande are going because if they have any sense, they will try and repair relations between Europe and Russia as well when an agreement can be made.

        He has basically created this war because the people of Ukraine dared to reject him.

        The US created the problems in Ukraine and if the people of Ukraine rejected Putin, why are large numbers of them heading towards the Russian boarder?

        he has disregarded everything from international law, human rights, human lives, basic humanity including been the source to numerous war crimes and crimes towards humanity.

        If anything this fits the description of the US more then Russia, especially when we look at the last 20 - 30 years. Russia has done everything that was agreed when the cold war ended and has since established good working relations world wide with out wars and conflicts.

        He claims it was because Russia was threatened and needed protection. But Russia wasn't.

        Again, Russia kept to the agreements made after the cold war ended, the US never did and has continued to move NATO ever closer to the Russian boarders. How does this represent good business relations from the west and why should Russia accept this to begin with.

        All this was simply because his ego was hurt.


        It is just as well Putin is not the sort of person you describe, because we would all be ash by now.

        If anything is "poor", its you with your lack of understanding and ignorance.

        KauaiJohnnie sasha19 5 Feb 2015 13:57

        Of course if Putin did nothing there wouldn't be a conflict. But NATO was pushing on Russia's borders in violation of the agreements made with Gorbachev 30 years ago. What possible benefit is that to you and me?

        Likewise, the deployment of Star Wars, which hasn't been shown to work but has cost billions (and billions) in Europe is hardly for protection against Iranian missiles.

        This is just to demonstrate the strength of the USA military. And for what purpose? In "Atlas Shrugged" why did the government want to build a bigger bomb? To threaten anyone and everyone who wouldn't bow to the government wishes. The thing Rand missed was the "government" is run by the same 1% that she praises as the "job creators".

        They are playing the same "game" that sociopathic kings have played since the beginning of time. Why the "rest of us" allow ourselves to be governed by sociopaths remains a mystery.

        roundthings 5 Feb 2015 13:55

        "We will make a new proposal to solve the conflict which will be based on Ukraine's territorial integrity."

        That would be heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction. What if Russia had taken a similar stand over the 'territorial integrity of Serbia' during the Kosovo affair? Aren't the situations analogous?

        Sure, Putin has been out of order. He deserves a smack. But the price of doing so is too high. These politician boneheads are dragging us into a war - a stupid war, an unnecessary war.

        I'm more and more disappointed with Merkel. Her first strike was the panicked flight out of nuclear. No 2 was not recognizing that, yes the Greeks need to be made to lift their game, maybe take on a few of Schaeuble's tax collectors; but mindless squeezing of the bloke on the Athenian street is in no-one's interest. Could her failure to see sense on Ukraine be strike no 3?

        Joe Bloggs 5 Feb 2015 13:55

        Phew! I just like to say Not In My Name as it looks to me as if Hawks are milking the situation for all it is worth so that they can have a go at Russia. As far as I know the land in dispute is populated by Russian speakers who make up 95% of the population. There was also a referendum which had a landslide result showing that almost everyone wanted to be allied with Russia.

        Of course the Hawks claimed that the result was invalid! IMHO it is really a problem caused by boundary disputes that came about when the USSR ceased to exist.

        I propose the same solution that was used by the British Raj in India in 1947, what could be simpler? As to Russia compensating the Ukraine, allegedly Ukraine owes Russia an astronomical amount in unpaid gas bills. It does however look as if the Hawks want to re-arm Ukraine so that they don't have to pay! This is on a par with shooting the debt collector when he comes to your house.

        I am sorry to say that the antics of western politicians are starting to resemble a virility contest and I would like this to cease forthwith as there are other far more serious problems to deal with.

        Spaceguy1 -> One sasha19 5 Feb 2015 13:54

        Naah, Zerohedge is predominantly a financial blog. Plenty of their articles are actually spot on. I use Zerohedge just as another source of information filtering out some of their conspiracies. Besides the article in Zerohedge just copied what the Russian news agency reported here; http://tass.ru/en/russia/775419

        Canajin -> ID8787761 5 Feb 2015 13:53

        They should also return Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Samoa, and Hawaii to their people. Not to mention Guam, Marianas, etc.

        BradBenson -> Gene428 5 Feb 2015 13:52

        Where do you get your information? We are the ones who have been constantly kicking the Russian Bear in the ass. Here are the facts.

        In regard to Georgia

        The Georgian Invasion of the neutral provinces of Ossetia and Abkhazia was completely orchestrated by the Bushies, while Putin was attending the previous Olympic Games in China.

        Georgia had announced their withdrawal from the 'Coalition of the Billing' in Afghanistan and the Bushies conveniently airlifted their entire combat contingent back home almost overnight. They were then immediately deployed to attack the neutral provinces. The whole thing was an attempt to seize key Russian controlled oil pipelines from the Caucasus to the Black Sea.

        Then, as now, Putin was forced to react to aggression on his borders. He flew home, issued an ultimatum and then sent in the Russian Army to clean out the Georgian Invaders, chasing them all the way back to Tbilisi until their CIA installed President begged the world for help. Not surprisingly, none came, but John McCain was able to proudly proclaim, "We are all Georgians today".

        During the after battle clean-up, it was reported that there were a number of black soldiers among the dead Georgians. Those Georgians were most likely from Atlanta, Resaca and Augusta.

        In regard to the Crimea

        The presence of Russian ground forces and the only warm water ports for the Russian Navy made the Crimea a de facto Russian Territory. When the illegal coup d'état was pulled off in the Maidan, Putin and the Russian Military secured their bases on the Black Sea and in the Crimea.

        Why should the neo-Nazis in Kiev, or their CIA backed puppet-masters have thought that the Russians would allow this territory to be illegally seized as was the rest of the Ukraine? When coup d'état's occur, borders can change unexpectedly. The people of the Crimea overwhelmingly support the presence of the Russians.

        In regard to the coup d'état in Kiev

        The US worked to stir up trouble for the democratically elected Ukrainian Government, under Yushchenko, despite the wishes of its EU Partners. At the time, US State Department Neo-Con Victoria Nuland was notoriously quoted as saying "F*ck the EU!"

        However, during the rest of that famous 4 minute telephone call, Ms. Nuland was recorded as she outlined who the US wanted in the new Ukrainian Government--the one that would replace the existing government after it was overthrown. This happened despite the fact that Ukrainian Elections for a new President were already scheduled roughly two months hence. Then, against the wishes of its reluctant EU Partners, the US stage-managed the illegal coup d'état in Kiev using neo-Nazis as their vanguard in the streets.

        Educate yourself please. This information is readily available.

        ID5868758 -> ID8787761 5 Feb 2015 13:45

        "Russia invaded Georgia." A perfect example of a western lie, that has been repeated over and over again, so many times that the lie has become the "truth".

        [Feb 04, 2015] Donetsk hit by shells as violence intensifies in Ukraine – video

        Note the headline " Donetsk hit by shells as violence intensifies in Ukraine". No one is responsible for shelling. It was just hit. Compare this with headlines about supposed "separatists" shellings.
        theguardian.com

        At least three people were killed in a series of shellings in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk on Wednesday that pro-Russian separatists said were Uragan missiles fired by Ukrainian forces. Earlier, the Ukrainian military said two of its soldiers had been killed and 18 wounded in fighting against pro-Russian separatists in the previous 24 hours

        [Feb 04, 2015] Q A: Should US send lethal military assistance to Ukraine?

        Feb 03, 2015 | The Guardian

        AlienLifeForce -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 22:29

        Ukrainian Government: "No Russian Troops Are Fighting Against Us"
        Posted on January 30, 2015 by Eric Zuesse.

        Ukraine's top general is contradicting allegations by the Obama Administration and by his own Ukrainian Government, by saying that no Russian troops are fighting against the Ukrainian Government's forces in the formerly Ukrainian, but now separatist, area, where the Ukrainian civil war is being waged.

        The Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, is saying, in that news-report, which is dated on Thursday January 29th, that the only Russian citizens who are fighting in the contested region, are residents in that region, or of Ukraine, and also some Russian citizens (and this does not deny that perhaps some of other countries' citizens are fighting there, inasmuch as American mercenaries have already been noted to have been participating on the Ukrainian Government's side), who "are members of illegal armed groups," meaning fighters who are not paid by any government, but instead are just "individual citizens" (as opposed to foreign-government-paid ones). General Muzhenko also says, emphatically, that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian army."

        In other words: He is explicitly and clearly denying the very basis for the EU's sanctions against Russia, and for the U.S.'s sanctions against Russia: all of the sanctions against Russia are based on the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting against "the regular units of the Russian army" - i.e., against the Russian-Government-controlled-and-trained fighting forces.

        The allegation to the effect that Ukraine is instead fighting against "regular units of the Russian army" is the allegation that Vladimir Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is the entire basis for the economic sanctions that are in force against Russia.

        Those sanctions should therefore be immediately removed, with apology, and with compensation being paid to all individuals who have been suffering them; and it is therefore incumbent upon the Russian Government to pursue, through all legally available channels, restitution, plus damages, against the perpetrators of that dangerous fraud - and the news reports have already made clear precisely whom those persons are, who have asserted, as public officials, what can only be considered to be major libel.

        Otherwise, Ukraine's top general should be fired, for asserting what he has just asserted.

        If what General Muzhenko says is true, then he is a hero for having risked his entire career by having gone public with this courageous statement. And, if what he says is false, then he has no place heading Ukraine's military.

        http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/01/ukrainian-government-russian-troops-fighting-us.html

        USCricketer 3 Feb 2015 22:06

        While there is no doubt about covert US military aid already going to Ukraine it'll be another foolhardy step for Mr. Obama, or for the Republicans now in control, to overtly jump into the Ukrainian mess. One 'unintended consequence' of raising such stakes would be Russia coming out openly in support of Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, which will be extremely bad news for Israel and the US Jewish American lobby.

        Did somebody say that Obama and the Republicans are regretting the 'unintended consequences' in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, in Yemen ??

        And they now want to open another front in Ukraine?

        Where will the money for this yet another foolhardy endeavor come from ?

        Ah, No..I forgot the news that Mr. Obama is setting up a brand new dollar printing press to pay for his Ukraine adventure to-be..


        greatwhitehunter -> EugeneGur 3 Feb 2015 21:14

        the beating kiev took proir to the ceasefire was requested by poroshenko. The separatists targeted the azov battalion . poroshenko new he couldnt have a ceasefire until the asov battalion was taken down a peg or two. kiev is not a united force.

        poroshenko is more likely to side with the east than the far right in the long term. The real civil war has yet to start.

        PeraIlic -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 20:13

        i want russia to take their soldiers and weapons back from ukraine and stop invading a spovreign country quite simple. then war will be over meanwhile you advocate further bloodshed all the time with no regard for ukrainians

        I think it's better Poroshenko to return his army to the west, where they came from, and miners from Donbas that he left alone to dig coal as before.


        EugeneGur -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 19:12

        I hope Russia did equip them enough to kick the Ukrs out of Donbass for good. It is intolerable to watch day after day as unarmed people are deliberately targeted and killed and do nothing. Finally, the Russian government came to its senses realizing that without a decisive military victory by the Donbass fighters there won't be any peace in Ukraine.

        [Feb 04, 2015] Q A: Should US send lethal military assistance to Ukraine?

        Feb 03, 2015 | The Guardian

        AlienLifeForce -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 22:29

        Ukrainian Government: "No Russian Troops Are Fighting Against Us"
        Posted on January 30, 2015 by Eric Zuesse.

        Ukraine's top general is contradicting allegations by the Obama Administration and by his own Ukrainian Government, by saying that no Russian troops are fighting against the Ukrainian Government's forces in the formerly Ukrainian, but now separatist, area, where the Ukrainian civil war is being waged.

        The Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, is saying, in that news-report, which is dated on Thursday January 29th, that the only Russian citizens who are fighting in the contested region, are residents in that region, or of Ukraine, and also some Russian citizens (and this does not deny that perhaps some of other countries' citizens are fighting there, inasmuch as American mercenaries have already been noted to have been participating on the Ukrainian Government's side), who "are members of illegal armed groups," meaning fighters who are not paid by any government, but instead are just "individual citizens" (as opposed to foreign-government-paid ones). General Muzhenko also says, emphatically, that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian army."

        In other words: He is explicitly and clearly denying the very basis for the EU's sanctions against Russia, and for the U.S.'s sanctions against Russia: all of the sanctions against Russia are based on the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting against "the regular units of the Russian army" - i.e., against the Russian-Government-controlled-and-trained fighting forces.

        The allegation to the effect that Ukraine is instead fighting against "regular units of the Russian army" is the allegation that Vladimir Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is the entire basis for the economic sanctions that are in force against Russia.

        Those sanctions should therefore be immediately removed, with apology, and with compensation being paid to all individuals who have been suffering them; and it is therefore incumbent upon the Russian Government to pursue, through all legally available channels, restitution, plus damages, against the perpetrators of that dangerous fraud - and the news reports have already made clear precisely whom those persons are, who have asserted, as public officials, what can only be considered to be major libel.

        Otherwise, Ukraine's top general should be fired, for asserting what he has just asserted.

        If what General Muzhenko says is true, then he is a hero for having risked his entire career by having gone public with this courageous statement. And, if what he says is false, then he has no place heading Ukraine's military.

        http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/01/ukrainian-government-russian-troops-fighting-us.html

        USCricketer 3 Feb 2015 22:06

        While there is no doubt about covert US military aid already going to Ukraine it'll be another foolhardy step for Mr. Obama, or for the Republicans now in control, to overtly jump into the Ukrainian mess. One 'unintended consequence' of raising such stakes would be Russia coming out openly in support of Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, which will be extremely bad news for Israel and the US Jewish American lobby.

        Did somebody say that Obama and the Republicans are regretting the 'unintended consequences' in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, in Yemen ??

        And they now want to open another front in Ukraine?

        Where will the money for this yet another foolhardy endeavor come from ?

        Ah, No..I forgot the news that Mr. Obama is setting up a brand new dollar printing press to pay for his Ukraine adventure to-be..


        greatwhitehunter -> EugeneGur 3 Feb 2015 21:14

        the beating kiev took proir to the ceasefire was requested by poroshenko. The separatists targeted the azov battalion . poroshenko new he couldnt have a ceasefire until the asov battalion was taken down a peg or two. kiev is not a united force.

        poroshenko is more likely to side with the east than the far right in the long term. The real civil war has yet to start.

        PeraIlic -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 20:13

        i want russia to take their soldiers and weapons back from ukraine and stop invading a spovreign country quite simple. then war will be over meanwhile you advocate further bloodshed all the time with no regard for ukrainians

        I think it's better Poroshenko to return his army to the west, where they came from, and miners from Donbas that he left alone to dig coal as before.


        EugeneGur -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 19:12

        I hope Russia did equip them enough to kick the Ukrs out of Donbass for good. It is intolerable to watch day after day as unarmed people are deliberately targeted and killed and do nothing. Finally, the Russian government came to its senses realizing that without a decisive military victory by the Donbass fighters there won't be any peace in Ukraine.

        [Feb 02, 2015] Ukraine crisis: Kiev hopes talks will go ahead despite renewed violence

        So after killing several hundred thousand Iraqis the USA want to kill several hundred thousand Ukrainians to further imperial ambitions of neocon elite... Now we have the situation that that reminds me Spanish civil war.
        Notable quotes:
        "... it would take far more than these two and a few russians to instigate a civil war in Ukraine. ..."
        Feb 01, 2015 | The Guardian

        The recent upsurge in violence has alarmed Ukraine's western allies, with US secretary of state John Kerry announcing plans to express his support for the nation during talks in Kiev on Thursday with Poroshenko and prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk.


        fedupwiththeliesalso -> maninBATHTUB 2 Feb 2015 05:48

        The situation is far more complex than that.

        it would take far more than these two and a few russians to instigate a civil war in Ukraine. The Ukrainian government were never attacked by anyone in the east or russia. But it attacked Easterners. To say this is a Russians instigated situation is untrue.

        IvanMills 1 Feb 2015 22:48

        Kiev launched a civil war against its citizens in the east. Kiev's military is bombing cities killing civilians and destroying property.

        What do the US and the EU have to do with another country's internal conflict.


        AlienLifeForce Oskar Jaeger 1 Feb 2015 19:58

        Yes, its rediculous that thousands of civilians have been killed while the EU & US turn their backs and blame Russia for an invasion they cant even prove. Must be hard for the US to explain with all those drones they have?


        AlienLifeForce Oskar Jaeger 1 Feb 2015 19:29

        There is no doubt that the events that have taken place in Ukraine have been very interesting, and like I have pointed out before, I have always been curious as to why there has not been any real news coverage on the ground from the western media since the government was overthrown. Because of this you end up looking for further information through the web, like most sensible people do. I can honestly say I have followed this story from the start and like I said, when you have interest in something, you want to know everything about it. What has surprised me the most, is that I have not been able to find any evidence to support the Russian invasion. Instaed I have found out about Tech Camp, Black Water and all the other reasons you can think of that support the interest of the EU & US, very interesting.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2576490/Are-Blackwater-active-Ukraine-Videos-spark-talk-U-S-mercenary-outfit-deployed-Donetsk.html

        AlienLifeForce

        The Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, is saying, in that news-report, which is dated on Thursday January 29th, that the only Russian citizens who are fighting in the contested region, are residents in that region, or of Ukraine, and also some Russian citizens (and this does not deny that perhaps some of other countries' citizens are fighting there, inasmuch as American mercenaries have already been noted to have been participating on the Ukrainian Government's side), who "are members of illegal armed groups," meaning fighters who are not paid by any government, but instead are just "individual citizens" (as opposed to foreign-government-paid ones). General Muzhenko also says, emphatically, that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian army."

        In other words: He is explicitly and clearly denying the very basis for the EU's sanctions against Russia, and for the U.S.'s sanctions against Russia: all of the sanctions against Russia are based on the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting against "the regular units of the Russian army" - i.e., against the Russian-Government-controlled-and-trained fighting forces.

        The allegation to the effect that Ukraine is instead fighting against "regular units of the Russian army" is the allegation that Vladimir Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is the entire basis for the economic sanctions that are in force against Russia.

        Those sanctions should therefore be immediately removed, with apology, and with compensation being paid to all individuals who have been suffering them; and it is therefore incumbent upon the Russian Government to pursue, through all legally available channels, restitution, plus damages, against the perpetrators of that dangerous fraud - and the news reports have already made clear precisely whom those persons are, who have asserted, as public officials, what can only be considered to be major libel.

        AlienLifeForce

        Ukranian general admitted junta targeted purposely civilians and perfirmed genocide just to get Russia involved in conflict but failed.

        http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/01/ukrainian-government-russian-troops-fighting-us.html


        fedupwiththeliesalso -> jezzam 1 Feb 2015 17:52

        "democracy, justice, freedom of speech, increased happiness, health, prosperity"

        What does America know of any of those things? They only apply if you can afford it.

        Joao Silva 1 Feb 2015 17:19

        The result that came out the ballots in Greece are a signal to the other opposition leaders in Europe. A unanimous decision to sanction Russia over Ukraine turned out to change the regime in Greece. Unanimous is stupidity. Spain is going to be the next. I have no bets on the third, forth ones.

        So it seems that to confront EU's hardness on Russia can change the mind of voters across Europe. after all, it is only a USA/UK/France/Germany/Poland, Ukraine(Big 6) war. The others countries will get nothing but losses on their fragile economies. But they had been, until Greece's voters changed it, being like sheep heading to the slaughterhouse following the command of the Big 6.

        LinkMeyer maninBATHTUB 1 Feb 2015 15:57

        "
        The best weapon against a psychopath is to let them destroy themselves."
        How long will it take you?

        GardenShedFever Metronome151 1 Feb 2015 15:46

        I have read this unsupported accusation against Russia many times, yet when the facts on the ground are ascertained, it is Kiev that sent its tanks against its own people in Donetsk and Luhansk. Those East Ukrainians, as Crimeans before them, rejected Kiev's violence, violence fomented in Lviv, Kiev, and further afield, Brussels and Washington. They have looked to Russia for help once the shells began to rain down on them. Russia's response has been less than requested, but has halted at least some of Kiev's murderous rampage. At the least, it has restricted Kiev's air support for its mercenerary brigades. For that, the people of East Ukraine will be forever thankful.

        [Feb 02, 2015] Ukraine crisis: Kiev hopes talks will go ahead despite renewed violence

        So after killing several hundred thousand Iraqis the USA want to kill several hundred thousand Ukrainians to further imperial ambitions of neocon elite... Now we have the situation that that reminds me Spanish civil war.
        Notable quotes:
        "... it would take far more than these two and a few russians to instigate a civil war in Ukraine. ..."
        Feb 01, 2015 | The Guardian

        The recent upsurge in violence has alarmed Ukraine's western allies, with US secretary of state John Kerry announcing plans to express his support for the nation during talks in Kiev on Thursday with Poroshenko and prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk.


        fedupwiththeliesalso -> maninBATHTUB 2 Feb 2015 05:48

        The situation is far more complex than that.

        it would take far more than these two and a few russians to instigate a civil war in Ukraine. The Ukrainian government were never attacked by anyone in the east or russia. But it attacked Easterners. To say this is a Russians instigated situation is untrue.

        IvanMills 1 Feb 2015 22:48

        Kiev launched a civil war against its citizens in the east. Kiev's military is bombing cities killing civilians and destroying property.

        What do the US and the EU have to do with another country's internal conflict.


        AlienLifeForce Oskar Jaeger 1 Feb 2015 19:58

        Yes, its rediculous that thousands of civilians have been killed while the EU & US turn their backs and blame Russia for an invasion they cant even prove. Must be hard for the US to explain with all those drones they have?


        AlienLifeForce Oskar Jaeger 1 Feb 2015 19:29

        There is no doubt that the events that have taken place in Ukraine have been very interesting, and like I have pointed out before, I have always been curious as to why there has not been any real news coverage on the ground from the western media since the government was overthrown. Because of this you end up looking for further information through the web, like most sensible people do. I can honestly say I have followed this story from the start and like I said, when you have interest in something, you want to know everything about it. What has surprised me the most, is that I have not been able to find any evidence to support the Russian invasion. Instaed I have found out about Tech Camp, Black Water and all the other reasons you can think of that support the interest of the EU & US, very interesting.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2576490/Are-Blackwater-active-Ukraine-Videos-spark-talk-U-S-mercenary-outfit-deployed-Donetsk.html

        AlienLifeForce

        The Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, is saying, in that news-report, which is dated on Thursday January 29th, that the only Russian citizens who are fighting in the contested region, are residents in that region, or of Ukraine, and also some Russian citizens (and this does not deny that perhaps some of other countries' citizens are fighting there, inasmuch as American mercenaries have already been noted to have been participating on the Ukrainian Government's side), who "are members of illegal armed groups," meaning fighters who are not paid by any government, but instead are just "individual citizens" (as opposed to foreign-government-paid ones). General Muzhenko also says, emphatically, that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian army."

        In other words: He is explicitly and clearly denying the very basis for the EU's sanctions against Russia, and for the U.S.'s sanctions against Russia: all of the sanctions against Russia are based on the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting against "the regular units of the Russian army" - i.e., against the Russian-Government-controlled-and-trained fighting forces.

        The allegation to the effect that Ukraine is instead fighting against "regular units of the Russian army" is the allegation that Vladimir Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is the entire basis for the economic sanctions that are in force against Russia.

        Those sanctions should therefore be immediately removed, with apology, and with compensation being paid to all individuals who have been suffering them; and it is therefore incumbent upon the Russian Government to pursue, through all legally available channels, restitution, plus damages, against the perpetrators of that dangerous fraud - and the news reports have already made clear precisely whom those persons are, who have asserted, as public officials, what can only be considered to be major libel.

        AlienLifeForce

        Ukranian general admitted junta targeted purposely civilians and perfirmed genocide just to get Russia involved in conflict but failed.

        http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/01/ukrainian-government-russian-troops-fighting-us.html


        fedupwiththeliesalso -> jezzam 1 Feb 2015 17:52

        "democracy, justice, freedom of speech, increased happiness, health, prosperity"

        What does America know of any of those things? They only apply if you can afford it.

        Joao Silva 1 Feb 2015 17:19

        The result that came out the ballots in Greece are a signal to the other opposition leaders in Europe. A unanimous decision to sanction Russia over Ukraine turned out to change the regime in Greece. Unanimous is stupidity. Spain is going to be the next. I have no bets on the third, forth ones.

        So it seems that to confront EU's hardness on Russia can change the mind of voters across Europe. after all, it is only a USA/UK/France/Germany/Poland, Ukraine(Big 6) war. The others countries will get nothing but losses on their fragile economies. But they had been, until Greece's voters changed it, being like sheep heading to the slaughterhouse following the command of the Big 6.

        LinkMeyer maninBATHTUB 1 Feb 2015 15:57

        "
        The best weapon against a psychopath is to let them destroy themselves."
        How long will it take you?

        GardenShedFever Metronome151 1 Feb 2015 15:46

        I have read this unsupported accusation against Russia many times, yet when the facts on the ground are ascertained, it is Kiev that sent its tanks against its own people in Donetsk and Luhansk. Those East Ukrainians, as Crimeans before them, rejected Kiev's violence, violence fomented in Lviv, Kiev, and further afield, Brussels and Washington. They have looked to Russia for help once the shells began to rain down on them. Russia's response has been less than requested, but has halted at least some of Kiev's murderous rampage. At the least, it has restricted Kiev's air support for its mercenerary brigades. For that, the people of East Ukraine will be forever thankful.

        [Feb 01, 2015] US considers providing arms to Ukraine as rebels step up attacks, says report

        It does not make much sense to read or quote that article: a typical propaganda peace... From comments:
        "The Guardian, not alone among the western MSM, that has been incredibly biased in reporting on what is happening in Ukraine. It would be reasonable to expect less blatantly biased reporting from The Guardian, and it amazes me that day after day it faithfully repeats the propaganda from the US etal as though it is fact-based news ... in many cases, especially, for example, when reporting on the shelling of towns (e.g. Mariupol) it reports shelling by the Kiev 'government' as being shelling by the Novorussians - why do this?
        and
        "Typical propaganda comment. In your opinion peace will not be reach until Russia bends over to Uncle Sam and say yes sir no sir three bags full sir? I don't think it's in their nature. Whole world knows current PM of Ukraine is appointed by US foreign office. Do a bit of research it helps with facts"
        Notable quotes:
        "... Doesn't he realize that the only time when Poroshenko talks about cease fire is when he is under pressure from the rebels. ..."
        "... Couldn't Obama mind his own business for once? ..."
        "... Ukraine is a failed state. It has ceased to exist as anything but the frontline for US geopolitical machinations. ..."
        "... I am sure they don't want to be enslaved to the CIA either. ..."
        Feb 01, 2015 | The Guardian

        TG Asch, everybody's closet neoliberal and neocon, blah-piece today is simply warmongering dressed-up as journalism - equating Putin to Milosevic simply illustrates his lack of current or historical knowledge and understanding. Asch was and is in fact a propagandist, not a journalist.

        There is a wealth of much more accurate and nuanced information on what has and is happening in the Ukraine available in the public domain. It seems that the people working for The Guardian (and the BBC) are choosing to ignore this and stick to the White House's and Downing Street's disinformation handouts" ...

        For The Guardian to be posting pieces advocating more war - as Asch does - is simply irresponsible in the current circumstances, especially when it is impossible to find any alternate views being given any space at all - not equal space, any space - by The Guardian. Balance, Fairness, Judgment, Independence - these all seem to have gone out the window when it comes to the Ukraine and The Guardian has placed itself on the side of the warmongers.

        Why is the Guardian doing this?

        Selected Skeptical Comments

        vr13vr 1 Feb 2015 22:29

        Looks like Obama's goal is to maintain the conflict there indefinitely. Doesn't he realize that the only time when Poroshenko talks about cease fire is when he is under pressure from the rebels. If you give him more weapons, and if you embolden him, he will not be talking about truce.

        This conflict will just go on, and that's what Obama seems to prefer.

        edwardrice peacefulmilitant 1 Feb 2015 22:29

        Putin has ''pushed'' Obama? Couldn't Obama mind his own business for once?

        What has a deeply corrupt bankrupt dysfunctional country 1000s of miles from the US got to do with the Obama? Why should the US tax payer fund another foreign war?

        What right does the US have to trample over the heads of 500 million Europeans and escalate a civil war in Europe!

        scruffythejanitor 1 Feb 2015 22:28

        I really don't see much American enthusiasm to be involved in Ukraine- it seems more like they can't extricate themselves from it. Nations seem to behave like nations. The US is committed to supporting Europe and condemning russian aggression in annexing Ukraine, as any large country would when one country violates another's sovereignty. You don't get to violate another country's borders, officially.

        Russia persistently cries foul whenever the US publicly interferes with another nation's affairs, such as in Iraq, the presumption being that each country does not clandestinely interfere in it's own way. The crocodile tears over US violations of sovereignty looked a lot more convincing ten years ago than they do today.

        ID1011951 1 Feb 2015 22:28

        The Guardian, not alone among the western MSM, that has been incredibly biased in reporting on what is happening in Ukraine. It would be reasonable to expect less blatantly biased reporting from The Guardian, and it amazes me that day after day it faithfully repeats the propaganda from the US etal as though it is fact-based news ... in many cases, especially, for example, when reporting on the shelling of towns (e.g. Mariupol) it reports shelling by the Kiev 'government' as being shelling by the Novorussians - why do this?

        TG Asch, everybody's closet neoliberal and neocon, blah-piece today is simply warmongering dressed-up as journalism - equating Putin to Milosevic simply illustrates his lack of current or historical knowledge and understanding. Asch was and is in fact a propagandist, not a journalist.

        There is a wealth of much more accurate and nuanced information on what has and is happening in the Ukraine available in the public domain. It seems that the people working for The Guardian (and the BBC) are choosing to ignore this and stick to the White House's and Downing Street's disinformation handouts ...

        For The Guardian to be posting pieces advocating more war - as Asch does - is simply irresponsible in the current circumstances, especially when it is impossible to find any alternate views being given any space at all - not equal space, any space - by The Guardian. Balance, Fairness, Judgment, Independence - these all seem to have gone out the window when it comes to the Ukraine and The Guardian has placed itself on the side of the warmongers.

        Why is the Guardian doing this?

        Dugan222 1 Feb 2015 22:07

        Great....my disgust is beyond words. In all the peace talks, there were not a single American representative present. When comes to arming Ukraine, America is already taking the lead and making unilateral decisions even without the EU consent. Yeah, leading from behind when comes to peace. Taking a leadership role when comes to starting a war. America is greatest. I guess Russia will do the same openly and officially. Ukrainian crisis will become a proxy war for the West to bring back the Cold War.

        Both the Russian backed separatists and American backed Ukrainians will murder and kill each others...until a demarcation line is drawn somewhere in Kiev. Wondering who would build the Kiev Wall first. The East, the Russian side, or the West, American side?? Ha...the Kiev Wall.... Is not America's problem since the conflict is thousands of miles away.

        BTW, Ukraine has been received arms through various Nato members already. And there are reports of US mercenaries on the ground as well. Obviously, the Obama administration wants to make it official. For Putin, he does not really need to make it official though.

        GardenShedFever -> David Dalton Lytle Jr. 1 Feb 2015 22:06

        I'm English, but I think you are American.

        And film of weapons caches captured from the cyborgs that include brand new, advanced weapons not issued to the Ukraine military (but, of course, the cyborgs are Kolomoisky's merceneries, supported by McCain et al) demonstrates the US finger in the Kiev pie.

        GardenShedFever HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 22:02

        Poroshenko was "elected" on the lowest turnout in Ukraine's history, with vast swathes of Ukraine boycotting the election, opposition parties banned, opposition politicians abused, assaulted, and disappeared.

        There is no democracy in Ukraine. Its sovereignty disappeared with the US sponsored coup that toppled Yanukovych.

        HollyOldDog HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 22:00

        Since when? The West Ukraine army never put into practice the last MINSK Agreement. The shelling on East Ukraine never stopped.

        GardenShedFever HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 21:57

        Good enough to know that, with a boycott of elections in the south and east of Ukraine, there is not even a semblance of democracy there, as the people are neither represented in Kiev, nor do they want to.

        Ukraine is a failed state. It has ceased to exist as anything but the frontline for US geopolitical machinations.

        When the EU made a last ditch agreement with Yanukovych, to introduce early elections, what was the US response?

        "Fuck the EU" said Victoria Nuland. That tells you all you need to know.


        MediaWatchDog ID6674371 1 Feb 2015 21:56

        Typical propaganda comment. In your opinion peace will not be reach until Russia bends over to Uncle Sam and say yes sir no sir three bags full sir? I don't think it's in their nature. Whole world knows current PM of Ukraine is appointed by US forigen office. Do a bit of research it helps with facts

        Parangaricurimicuaro 1 Feb 2015 21:54

        This new development only shows how badly Kiev is losing.

        MediaWatchDog 1 Feb 2015 21:51

        German Chancellor Angela Markels mobile phone is/was tapped by US president and her plan for peaceful and democratic settlement of Ukraine was fu**ed by US forigen deputy secretary Victoria Nuland.

        Now CIA is in full command arming extremists, again!

        MediaWatchDog -> Kavi Mazumdar 1 Feb 2015 21:45

        Scotland style referendum? Scaremongering and ganging up on voters by big businesses and Westminster politicians? F that it will hard to keep Victoria Nuland types out, CIA is way too powerful than Westminster. Why not have a proper referendum, not like Crimea or Scotland!

        MediaWatchDog -> randomguyfromoz 1 Feb 2015 21:42

        Ethic Russians don't want to be part of Russia in your opinion? You are probably right, I am sure they don't want to be enslaved to the CIA either.

        Zwoman48 1 Feb 2015 21:41

        The U.S. instigated and supported the coup in Ukraine and is thinking of arming the fascists. All you need to know, everyone.

        MediaWatchDog 1 Feb 2015 21:40

        Fact 1. Victoria Nuland topple old regime and appointed Yats as nations PM, fuc**d EU plan of democratic transional government.

        Fact 2. Since then head of CIA and other top level US officials have actively involved on Ukraine.

        Fact 3. Now they are considering providing weapons.

        Thanks to the US Empire for successfully opening up new cold war at European borders.

        Hoon -> Ai Ooi 1 Feb 2015 21:34

        Someone has to pay for this. The UK had just finish paying USA for their debts from the 1st World War! What about the 2nd? And now Ukrain! & Middle East. This will bankrupt the EU for sure!

        Zwoman48 HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 21:44

        Bollocks! That's the absolute lie the western media wants you to swallow. Oh. I see you HAVE.

        HHeLiBe -> Kavi Mazumdar 1 Feb 2015 21:32

        How about Pakistan invades Kashmir with special forces, causes so much disturbance all the Indians flee for their lives, and then forces a referendum on those who remain?

        TommyGuardianReader , Feb 1, 2015 21:31

        Given that comments have prematurely been closed on yesterday's Guardian "Comment is Free" article, in which a salesman masquerading as a journalist spins the line that "sometimes only guns can stop guns",

        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/01/putin-stopped-ukraine-military-support-russian-propaganda

        It's worth reflecting that guns can stop gunners and civilians (see Martin Place), but they cannot stop guns. Whether it's Tokyo or Dallas, Texas, guns, munitions and drones are big money.

        During the First World War the British government continued to pay Krupp's of Essen royalties for some of their gun patents. It was probably insider traders linked to Krupp's of Essen who dobbed in Sir Roger Casement's naive attempts to get German arms to Irish independence fighters in order to try to avert the long-planned Imperial utility World War.

        He was a bit like the David Kelly of his day, in that he got in the way of the machine.

        By the way, on an unrelated matter, isn't all this noise about Russia and Putin distracting us from the Chilcott Inquiry, and the roles of Bush, Cheney and Putin in the Coalition Of The Willing?

        As Don Henderson wrote in his song "Was War For Those Who Want It":

        "The men who build the planes and make the tanks
        Are neutral and get payment in Swiss francs
        While the rich on both sides prosper the poor will kill the poor
        Was war for those who want it, they would want an end to war."


        Maria Meri 1 Feb 2015 21:30

        Can anybody name one year after the 2nd WW whn the US hadn't been policing somewhr - war indeed seems to form it's economic base (commies said this ages ago)

        GardenShedFever 1 Feb 2015 21:21

        Considering the weapons caches captured by the rebels after dislodging Ukraine's "cyborgs" from Donetsk airport, the US has been arming Kiev's forces for some time. Advanced US weapons are not routine equipment for the Ukraine military, are they?
        It is no surprise the USA is clamouring to escalate this civil war. They began it, and they expected a near bloodless coup, like the Orange Revolution. Their problem this time, however, was they backed and funded far-right Ukrainian Nationalists who are despised in the South and East, and although the Maidan protests had sympathy, the commandeering of those protests by Right Sektor and Svoboda has alienated vast swathes of the Ukrainian populace. The rejection of the Kiev coup was overt, and the coup leaders' response to that rejection horrifying. No matter how much western media have tried to brush it under the carpet, the mass murder in Odessa last May polarised opinion. Those with Russian sympathies realised they were targets, and so the kick-back happened. In Donetsk and Luhansk, this mayterialised as mass support for declarations of independence, in Kharkhiv more subtle, partisan resistance, but the fact is irrefutable. Kiev only rules via terror.

        And now that terror is to be overtly supported by Washington. Honesty, at least and at last. The warmongers have their war.

        Zogz 1 Feb 2015 21:21

        Only a matte of time till the US arms Kiev. They have been itching to do it since they organized the coup. The "military advisors" are already on the ground some suggest they are working with the Kiev troops. Whist such war mongery is not unusal for the US, I cannot help bu be suprised with EU reactions. Allowing the US to escalate tensions on the border of Europe is foolhardy in the extreme. All it wll do is make Europe more dependent on the US, more insecure, and more at risk. A win win for the US, but for Europe?

        AstheticTheory 1 Feb 2015 21:08

        So America has revealed its open secret: it intervened to secure the government in Ukraine it wanted and now it is prepared to escalate its defence of its new possession

        [Feb 01, 2015] Putin must be stopped. And sometimes only guns can stop guns

        If west make Yats, Turchinov, Poroshenko, Kolomysky, Avakov and Co Persona non grata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in EU and USA and the USA annul green-card/citizenship for crimes committed the war would stop in one day. They don't want to do that, so that means that they want the continuation of the war. From comments: 'From the increasingly hysterical pronouncements form Garton Ash, Bildt and other luminaries of Post-Democratic Europe it seems they are getting nervous about their gravy train hitting the buffers."
        Notable quotes:
        "... The same country (Germany) caused Yugoslavia to be destroyed ..."
        Feb 01, 2015 | The Guardian

        CityCalledNain 1 Feb 2015 16:54

        From the increasingly hysterical pronouncements form Garton Ash, Bildt and other luminaries of Post-Democratic Europe it seems they are getting nervous about their gravy train hitting the buffers.

        Grexit, Brexit, Spexit .....

        This all spells trouble for people who live high on the hog off the largesse of EU NGO funds.


        Kyrin Bekuloff -> Lesia Menchynska 1 Feb 2015 16:54

        Yeah, I actually understand both Russian and Ukrainian, and I can tell you with complete confidence that the Ukrainian side is full of nutheads. The latest thing they claimed is that they destroyed a Russian Armata tank. (yet they haven't even been built yet)

        Miriam Bergholz 1 Feb 2015 16:53

        "We need to counter this propaganda not with lies of our own but with reliable information and a scrupulously presented array of different views. No one is better placed to do this than the BBC."

        I couldn't stop laughing!

        Even better: "The US may have the best drones in the world, and Germany the best machine tools, but Britain has the best international broadcaster." As in: the US kills better, Germany makes the best machines (do you refer to guns or spades?), and the UK broadcast the best news on what? Invasion of Iraq, Lybia, etc.etc. torture, Chilcot inquire? What? Oh yes, the need to confront Russia at all cost.

        Though I recorded the fact that the BBC actually at some point reported on the neo-nazi batallion in East Ukraine, issue that Russian and other media did report from the very beginning. I suppose that now that apparently the batallion have been dispersed, (though they said that they will continue fighting) it will start (again) the demonization of Putin. What is the move now? Convince us on the necessity to send NATO troops to replace them?

        The corporate media have been competing in informing with half lies and half truth, very easy to catch, so, how can you convince somebody? There is a lot of very good alternative media in the US, Europe, and Asia. If established papers like the Guardian wants to keep their readers should start doing what they are supposed to do: tell the truth but nothing but the truth, and please not more crap about Putin, it is very boring, though I recognize it was kind of funny the Independent telling that Putin is a psychopath. You should read the comments, very enlightening. I asked whether they had the pressure from the government to start again this crude demonization. The Guardian as well? It is a very good sync because there are at the least four European news telling more or less the same with some different dramatics!

        Anyway, why the stress? Is it because the results of the Greece election and some of their statements regarding Russia? or it is that NATO really wants a war with Russia and you are trying to convince us that it is a very good idea? Or is it that the alternative media is gaining the field? All three?


        halduell 1 Feb 2015 16:52

        And again, who "has deployed heavy military equipment, energy-supply blackmail, cyber-attack, propaganda by sophisticated, well-funded broadcasters, covert operations and agents of influence in EU capitals"?

        Through the looking glass here with a monstrous piece of yellow journalism in which up is down, back is front and the phenomenon of projection is apparent in every sentence.
        Rubbish, Mr Ash. Pure rubbish.


        micktravis1968 1 Feb 2015 16:52

        Btw I wonder if James Harding, the head of BBC News, is any relation to Luke Harding, the Graun correspondent whose Kiev-Junta -friendly dispatches from East Ukraine are reminiscent of the sort of reports the Volkischer Beobachter correspondents used to send from places like Guernica.


        whitja01 1 Feb 2015 16:48

        Apparently, Obama just admitted on CNN to the US being involved in 'brokering power-transition' in Ukraine, i.e. regime change. So now we have not only Nuland's word, but that of the US president himself.

        So who is the war-monger, TGA? Who is the greater danger to world peace, Russia or the US?


        RoyRoger 1 Feb 2015 16:46

        Putin must be stopped.

        Mr. Timothy Garton Ash !!!.

        Why did we not hear you shout: Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton ''must be stopped!!?

        '' Must be stopped '' entering a sovereign democratic country that was less then 12 months from their general election.

        Why did we not hear you shout ''must be stopped'' from giving sustenance to a bunch of, Kiev, Molotov cocktail throwing police murdering (39 dead and 139 injured) coup d' etat' neo Nazis; thugs.

        Mr. Timothy Garton Ash, blame, Putin, and the Russian people for all manner of things across the world if you wish and the suggestion that, Putin, eats four babies for breakfasts every monning.

        But one thing I know; the blame for the troubles in, Ukraine, rests with the Corporate corrupt White House and NATO. The Ukraine is their self-made crisis and it will, very soon, bite the bastards on the arse.

        These incompetent fuckers, Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton, will go down in history as the creators of the biggest political and economical blunder in history.

        Come on !!, Mr. Timothy Garton Ash, fess-up, you know in your heart that Putin and the Russian people did not create the coup d' etat' in, Kiev.

        If these five political imbeciles, Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton, had not gone swanning around the, Maidan Square in, Kiev, we would't be in the mess we are now. This is NATO's and the Corporate corrupt White House fucking political disaster.

        And the bill is going to be dropped in the laps of the Europeans.

        We must never forget: Ukraine is not part of the European Union nor is it a member of NATO. So what the fuck are we doing sticking our fucking noses in a sovereign democratic country without a mandate from our Parliament?


        herditbefore 1 Feb 2015 16:44

        The situation in the Ukraine is the same as was the case in Cyprus. There was a government that wanted to take Cyprus into a union with Greece, the north mostly Turkish speakers opposed this and Turkey stood by their kith and kin.

        In the Ukraine there is a government which wants to go into a union with the EU and the eastern ethnic Russians oppose this.

        There as been a cease fire in Cyprus for about 40 years, not ideal but it does not stop the mainly Greek Cypriots from joining the EU or getting on with life, the same thing could happen with the eastern Ukraine if they think they will be happier outside of the EU let them.

        The grass is not always better on the other side and living is not just about Mercedes and BMWs.


        Klashii 1 Feb 2015 16:44

        As a direct result of the kind of garbage TGA is advocating here, millions have already died in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere this century. And how could we forget Vietnam in the last century when the US tried to bring 'democracy' to those that weren't in the slightest bit interested in having it.

        When will the West wake up and realize that not everyone wants 'democracy'shoved down their throats - especially American 'democracy'.


        rodmclaughlin 1 Feb 2015 16:43

        "Ukraine urgently needs military support". Go to hell. For NATO to give military support to Kiev would be a dangerous escalation. A cornered bear is a dangerous animal. The author is effectively asking people in the NATO countries to risk their lives for Kiev. Interfering in the nations located on the tank practice ground between Moscow and Berlin always ends in tears.

        NikLot 1 Feb 2015 16:41

        "German chancellor Angela Merkel and foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier have been right to keep trying diplomacy, but even they concluded in mid-January that it wasn't worth going to meet Putin in Kazakhstan."

        Why should anyone care what Herr and Frau think on the subject!? They essentially torpedoed any jaw-jaw, giving preference to the alternative - it is Ukrainian and Russian blood after all.

        The same country (Germany) caused Yugoslavia to be destroyed, the moment they got reunited, with Britain and France staying shamefully quiet. The Helsinki final document was torn to shreds with that.

        [Feb 01, 2015] Putin must be stopped. And sometimes only guns can stop guns

        If west make Yats, Turchinov, Poroshenko, Kolomysky, Avakov and Co Persona non grata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in EU and USA and the USA annul green-card/citizenship for crimes committed the war would stop in one day. They don't want to do that, so that means that they want the continuation of the war. From comments: 'From the increasingly hysterical pronouncements form Garton Ash, Bildt and other luminaries of Post-Democratic Europe it seems they are getting nervous about their gravy train hitting the buffers."
        Notable quotes:
        "... The same country (Germany) caused Yugoslavia to be destroyed ..."
        Feb 01, 2015 | The Guardian

        CityCalledNain 1 Feb 2015 16:54

        From the increasingly hysterical pronouncements form Garton Ash, Bildt and other luminaries of Post-Democratic Europe it seems they are getting nervous about their gravy train hitting the buffers.

        Grexit, Brexit, Spexit .....

        This all spells trouble for people who live high on the hog off the largesse of EU NGO funds.


        Kyrin Bekuloff -> Lesia Menchynska 1 Feb 2015 16:54

        Yeah, I actually understand both Russian and Ukrainian, and I can tell you with complete confidence that the Ukrainian side is full of nutheads. The latest thing they claimed is that they destroyed a Russian Armata tank. (yet they haven't even been built yet)

        Miriam Bergholz 1 Feb 2015 16:53

        "We need to counter this propaganda not with lies of our own but with reliable information and a scrupulously presented array of different views. No one is better placed to do this than the BBC."

        I couldn't stop laughing!

        Even better: "The US may have the best drones in the world, and Germany the best machine tools, but Britain has the best international broadcaster." As in: the US kills better, Germany makes the best machines (do you refer to guns or spades?), and the UK broadcast the best news on what? Invasion of Iraq, Lybia, etc.etc. torture, Chilcot inquire? What? Oh yes, the need to confront Russia at all cost.

        Though I recorded the fact that the BBC actually at some point reported on the neo-nazi batallion in East Ukraine, issue that Russian and other media did report from the very beginning. I suppose that now that apparently the batallion have been dispersed, (though they said that they will continue fighting) it will start (again) the demonization of Putin. What is the move now? Convince us on the necessity to send NATO troops to replace them?

        The corporate media have been competing in informing with half lies and half truth, very easy to catch, so, how can you convince somebody? There is a lot of very good alternative media in the US, Europe, and Asia. If established papers like the Guardian wants to keep their readers should start doing what they are supposed to do: tell the truth but nothing but the truth, and please not more crap about Putin, it is very boring, though I recognize it was kind of funny the Independent telling that Putin is a psychopath. You should read the comments, very enlightening. I asked whether they had the pressure from the government to start again this crude demonization. The Guardian as well? It is a very good sync because there are at the least four European news telling more or less the same with some different dramatics!

        Anyway, why the stress? Is it because the results of the Greece election and some of their statements regarding Russia? or it is that NATO really wants a war with Russia and you are trying to convince us that it is a very good idea? Or is it that the alternative media is gaining the field? All three?


        halduell 1 Feb 2015 16:52

        And again, who "has deployed heavy military equipment, energy-supply blackmail, cyber-attack, propaganda by sophisticated, well-funded broadcasters, covert operations and agents of influence in EU capitals"?

        Through the looking glass here with a monstrous piece of yellow journalism in which up is down, back is front and the phenomenon of projection is apparent in every sentence.
        Rubbish, Mr Ash. Pure rubbish.


        micktravis1968 1 Feb 2015 16:52

        Btw I wonder if James Harding, the head of BBC News, is any relation to Luke Harding, the Graun correspondent whose Kiev-Junta -friendly dispatches from East Ukraine are reminiscent of the sort of reports the Volkischer Beobachter correspondents used to send from places like Guernica.


        whitja01 1 Feb 2015 16:48

        Apparently, Obama just admitted on CNN to the US being involved in 'brokering power-transition' in Ukraine, i.e. regime change. So now we have not only Nuland's word, but that of the US president himself.

        So who is the war-monger, TGA? Who is the greater danger to world peace, Russia or the US?


        RoyRoger 1 Feb 2015 16:46

        Putin must be stopped.

        Mr. Timothy Garton Ash !!!.

        Why did we not hear you shout: Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton ''must be stopped!!?

        '' Must be stopped '' entering a sovereign democratic country that was less then 12 months from their general election.

        Why did we not hear you shout ''must be stopped'' from giving sustenance to a bunch of, Kiev, Molotov cocktail throwing police murdering (39 dead and 139 injured) coup d' etat' neo Nazis; thugs.

        Mr. Timothy Garton Ash, blame, Putin, and the Russian people for all manner of things across the world if you wish and the suggestion that, Putin, eats four babies for breakfasts every monning.

        But one thing I know; the blame for the troubles in, Ukraine, rests with the Corporate corrupt White House and NATO. The Ukraine is their self-made crisis and it will, very soon, bite the bastards on the arse.

        These incompetent fuckers, Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton, will go down in history as the creators of the biggest political and economical blunder in history.

        Come on !!, Mr. Timothy Garton Ash, fess-up, you know in your heart that Putin and the Russian people did not create the coup d' etat' in, Kiev.

        If these five political imbeciles, Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton, had not gone swanning around the, Maidan Square in, Kiev, we would't be in the mess we are now. This is NATO's and the Corporate corrupt White House fucking political disaster.

        And the bill is going to be dropped in the laps of the Europeans.

        We must never forget: Ukraine is not part of the European Union nor is it a member of NATO. So what the fuck are we doing sticking our fucking noses in a sovereign democratic country without a mandate from our Parliament?


        herditbefore 1 Feb 2015 16:44

        The situation in the Ukraine is the same as was the case in Cyprus. There was a government that wanted to take Cyprus into a union with Greece, the north mostly Turkish speakers opposed this and Turkey stood by their kith and kin.

        In the Ukraine there is a government which wants to go into a union with the EU and the eastern ethnic Russians oppose this.

        There as been a cease fire in Cyprus for about 40 years, not ideal but it does not stop the mainly Greek Cypriots from joining the EU or getting on with life, the same thing could happen with the eastern Ukraine if they think they will be happier outside of the EU let them.

        The grass is not always better on the other side and living is not just about Mercedes and BMWs.


        Klashii 1 Feb 2015 16:44

        As a direct result of the kind of garbage TGA is advocating here, millions have already died in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere this century. And how could we forget Vietnam in the last century when the US tried to bring 'democracy' to those that weren't in the slightest bit interested in having it.

        When will the West wake up and realize that not everyone wants 'democracy'shoved down their throats - especially American 'democracy'.


        rodmclaughlin 1 Feb 2015 16:43

        "Ukraine urgently needs military support". Go to hell. For NATO to give military support to Kiev would be a dangerous escalation. A cornered bear is a dangerous animal. The author is effectively asking people in the NATO countries to risk their lives for Kiev. Interfering in the nations located on the tank practice ground between Moscow and Berlin always ends in tears.

        NikLot 1 Feb 2015 16:41

        "German chancellor Angela Merkel and foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier have been right to keep trying diplomacy, but even they concluded in mid-January that it wasn't worth going to meet Putin in Kazakhstan."

        Why should anyone care what Herr and Frau think on the subject!? They essentially torpedoed any jaw-jaw, giving preference to the alternative - it is Ukrainian and Russian blood after all.

        The same country (Germany) caused Yugoslavia to be destroyed, the moment they got reunited, with Britain and France staying shamefully quiet. The Helsinki final document was torn to shreds with that.

        [Feb 01, 2015] US considers providing arms to Ukraine as rebels step up attacks, says report

        It does not make much sense to read or quote that article: a typical propaganda peace... From comments:
        "The Guardian, not alone among the western MSM, that has been incredibly biased in reporting on what is happening in Ukraine. It would be reasonable to expect less blatantly biased reporting from The Guardian, and it amazes me that day after day it faithfully repeats the propaganda from the US etal as though it is fact-based news ... in many cases, especially, for example, when reporting on the shelling of towns (e.g. Mariupol) it reports shelling by the Kiev 'government' as being shelling by the Novorussians - why do this?
        and
        "Typical propaganda comment. In your opinion peace will not be reach until Russia bends over to Uncle Sam and say yes sir no sir three bags full sir? I don't think it's in their nature. Whole world knows current PM of Ukraine is appointed by US foreign office. Do a bit of research it helps with facts"
        Notable quotes:
        "... Doesn't he realize that the only time when Poroshenko talks about cease fire is when he is under pressure from the rebels. ..."
        "... Couldn't Obama mind his own business for once? ..."
        "... Ukraine is a failed state. It has ceased to exist as anything but the frontline for US geopolitical machinations. ..."
        "... I am sure they don't want to be enslaved to the CIA either. ..."
        Feb 01, 2015 | The Guardian

        TG Asch, everybody's closet neoliberal and neocon, blah-piece today is simply warmongering dressed-up as journalism - equating Putin to Milosevic simply illustrates his lack of current or historical knowledge and understanding. Asch was and is in fact a propagandist, not a journalist.

        There is a wealth of much more accurate and nuanced information on what has and is happening in the Ukraine available in the public domain. It seems that the people working for The Guardian (and the BBC) are choosing to ignore this and stick to the White House's and Downing Street's disinformation handouts" ...

        For The Guardian to be posting pieces advocating more war - as Asch does - is simply irresponsible in the current circumstances, especially when it is impossible to find any alternate views being given any space at all - not equal space, any space - by The Guardian. Balance, Fairness, Judgment, Independence - these all seem to have gone out the window when it comes to the Ukraine and The Guardian has placed itself on the side of the warmongers.

        Why is the Guardian doing this?

        Selected Skeptical Comments

        vr13vr 1 Feb 2015 22:29

        Looks like Obama's goal is to maintain the conflict there indefinitely. Doesn't he realize that the only time when Poroshenko talks about cease fire is when he is under pressure from the rebels. If you give him more weapons, and if you embolden him, he will not be talking about truce.

        This conflict will just go on, and that's what Obama seems to prefer.

        edwardrice peacefulmilitant 1 Feb 2015 22:29

        Putin has ''pushed'' Obama? Couldn't Obama mind his own business for once?

        What has a deeply corrupt bankrupt dysfunctional country 1000s of miles from the US got to do with the Obama? Why should the US tax payer fund another foreign war?

        What right does the US have to trample over the heads of 500 million Europeans and escalate a civil war in Europe!

        scruffythejanitor 1 Feb 2015 22:28

        I really don't see much American enthusiasm to be involved in Ukraine- it seems more like they can't extricate themselves from it. Nations seem to behave like nations. The US is committed to supporting Europe and condemning russian aggression in annexing Ukraine, as any large country would when one country violates another's sovereignty. You don't get to violate another country's borders, officially.

        Russia persistently cries foul whenever the US publicly interferes with another nation's affairs, such as in Iraq, the presumption being that each country does not clandestinely interfere in it's own way. The crocodile tears over US violations of sovereignty looked a lot more convincing ten years ago than they do today.

        ID1011951 1 Feb 2015 22:28

        The Guardian, not alone among the western MSM, that has been incredibly biased in reporting on what is happening in Ukraine. It would be reasonable to expect less blatantly biased reporting from The Guardian, and it amazes me that day after day it faithfully repeats the propaganda from the US etal as though it is fact-based news ... in many cases, especially, for example, when reporting on the shelling of towns (e.g. Mariupol) it reports shelling by the Kiev 'government' as being shelling by the Novorussians - why do this?

        TG Asch, everybody's closet neoliberal and neocon, blah-piece today is simply warmongering dressed-up as journalism - equating Putin to Milosevic simply illustrates his lack of current or historical knowledge and understanding. Asch was and is in fact a propagandist, not a journalist.

        There is a wealth of much more accurate and nuanced information on what has and is happening in the Ukraine available in the public domain. It seems that the people working for The Guardian (and the BBC) are choosing to ignore this and stick to the White House's and Downing Street's disinformation handouts ...

        For The Guardian to be posting pieces advocating more war - as Asch does - is simply irresponsible in the current circumstances, especially when it is impossible to find any alternate views being given any space at all - not equal space, any space - by The Guardian. Balance, Fairness, Judgment, Independence - these all seem to have gone out the window when it comes to the Ukraine and The Guardian has placed itself on the side of the warmongers.

        Why is the Guardian doing this?

        Dugan222 1 Feb 2015 22:07

        Great....my disgust is beyond words. In all the peace talks, there were not a single American representative present. When comes to arming Ukraine, America is already taking the lead and making unilateral decisions even without the EU consent. Yeah, leading from behind when comes to peace. Taking a leadership role when comes to starting a war. America is greatest. I guess Russia will do the same openly and officially. Ukrainian crisis will become a proxy war for the West to bring back the Cold War.

        Both the Russian backed separatists and American backed Ukrainians will murder and kill each others...until a demarcation line is drawn somewhere in Kiev. Wondering who would build the Kiev Wall first. The East, the Russian side, or the West, American side?? Ha...the Kiev Wall.... Is not America's problem since the conflict is thousands of miles away.

        BTW, Ukraine has been received arms through various Nato members already. And there are reports of US mercenaries on the ground as well. Obviously, the Obama administration wants to make it official. For Putin, he does not really need to make it official though.

        GardenShedFever -> David Dalton Lytle Jr. 1 Feb 2015 22:06

        I'm English, but I think you are American.

        And film of weapons caches captured from the cyborgs that include brand new, advanced weapons not issued to the Ukraine military (but, of course, the cyborgs are Kolomoisky's merceneries, supported by McCain et al) demonstrates the US finger in the Kiev pie.

        GardenShedFever HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 22:02

        Poroshenko was "elected" on the lowest turnout in Ukraine's history, with vast swathes of Ukraine boycotting the election, opposition parties banned, opposition politicians abused, assaulted, and disappeared.

        There is no democracy in Ukraine. Its sovereignty disappeared with the US sponsored coup that toppled Yanukovych.

        HollyOldDog HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 22:00

        Since when? The West Ukraine army never put into practice the last MINSK Agreement. The shelling on East Ukraine never stopped.

        GardenShedFever HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 21:57

        Good enough to know that, with a boycott of elections in the south and east of Ukraine, there is not even a semblance of democracy there, as the people are neither represented in Kiev, nor do they want to.

        Ukraine is a failed state. It has ceased to exist as anything but the frontline for US geopolitical machinations.

        When the EU made a last ditch agreement with Yanukovych, to introduce early elections, what was the US response?

        "Fuck the EU" said Victoria Nuland. That tells you all you need to know.


        MediaWatchDog ID6674371 1 Feb 2015 21:56

        Typical propaganda comment. In your opinion peace will not be reach until Russia bends over to Uncle Sam and say yes sir no sir three bags full sir? I don't think it's in their nature. Whole world knows current PM of Ukraine is appointed by US forigen office. Do a bit of research it helps with facts

        Parangaricurimicuaro 1 Feb 2015 21:54

        This new development only shows how badly Kiev is losing.

        MediaWatchDog 1 Feb 2015 21:51

        German Chancellor Angela Markels mobile phone is/was tapped by US president and her plan for peaceful and democratic settlement of Ukraine was fu**ed by US forigen deputy secretary Victoria Nuland.

        Now CIA is in full command arming extremists, again!

        MediaWatchDog -> Kavi Mazumdar 1 Feb 2015 21:45

        Scotland style referendum? Scaremongering and ganging up on voters by big businesses and Westminster politicians? F that it will hard to keep Victoria Nuland types out, CIA is way too powerful than Westminster. Why not have a proper referendum, not like Crimea or Scotland!

        MediaWatchDog -> randomguyfromoz 1 Feb 2015 21:42

        Ethic Russians don't want to be part of Russia in your opinion? You are probably right, I am sure they don't want to be enslaved to the CIA either.

        Zwoman48 1 Feb 2015 21:41

        The U.S. instigated and supported the coup in Ukraine and is thinking of arming the fascists. All you need to know, everyone.

        MediaWatchDog 1 Feb 2015 21:40

        Fact 1. Victoria Nuland topple old regime and appointed Yats as nations PM, fuc**d EU plan of democratic transional government.

        Fact 2. Since then head of CIA and other top level US officials have actively involved on Ukraine.

        Fact 3. Now they are considering providing weapons.

        Thanks to the US Empire for successfully opening up new cold war at European borders.

        Hoon -> Ai Ooi 1 Feb 2015 21:34

        Someone has to pay for this. The UK had just finish paying USA for their debts from the 1st World War! What about the 2nd? And now Ukrain! & Middle East. This will bankrupt the EU for sure!

        Zwoman48 HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 21:44

        Bollocks! That's the absolute lie the western media wants you to swallow. Oh. I see you HAVE.

        HHeLiBe -> Kavi Mazumdar 1 Feb 2015 21:32

        How about Pakistan invades Kashmir with special forces, causes so much disturbance all the Indians flee for their lives, and then forces a referendum on those who remain?

        TommyGuardianReader , Feb 1, 2015 21:31

        Given that comments have prematurely been closed on yesterday's Guardian "Comment is Free" article, in which a salesman masquerading as a journalist spins the line that "sometimes only guns can stop guns",

        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/01/putin-stopped-ukraine-military-support-russian-propaganda

        It's worth reflecting that guns can stop gunners and civilians (see Martin Place), but they cannot stop guns. Whether it's Tokyo or Dallas, Texas, guns, munitions and drones are big money.

        During the First World War the British government continued to pay Krupp's of Essen royalties for some of their gun patents. It was probably insider traders linked to Krupp's of Essen who dobbed in Sir Roger Casement's naive attempts to get German arms to Irish independence fighters in order to try to avert the long-planned Imperial utility World War.

        He was a bit like the David Kelly of his day, in that he got in the way of the machine.

        By the way, on an unrelated matter, isn't all this noise about Russia and Putin distracting us from the Chilcott Inquiry, and the roles of Bush, Cheney and Putin in the Coalition Of The Willing?

        As Don Henderson wrote in his song "Was War For Those Who Want It":

        "The men who build the planes and make the tanks
        Are neutral and get payment in Swiss francs
        While the rich on both sides prosper the poor will kill the poor
        Was war for those who want it, they would want an end to war."


        Maria Meri 1 Feb 2015 21:30

        Can anybody name one year after the 2nd WW whn the US hadn't been policing somewhr - war indeed seems to form it's economic base (commies said this ages ago)

        GardenShedFever 1 Feb 2015 21:21

        Considering the weapons caches captured by the rebels after dislodging Ukraine's "cyborgs" from Donetsk airport, the US has been arming Kiev's forces for some time. Advanced US weapons are not routine equipment for the Ukraine military, are they?
        It is no surprise the USA is clamouring to escalate this civil war. They began it, and they expected a near bloodless coup, like the Orange Revolution. Their problem this time, however, was they backed and funded far-right Ukrainian Nationalists who are despised in the South and East, and although the Maidan protests had sympathy, the commandeering of those protests by Right Sektor and Svoboda has alienated vast swathes of the Ukrainian populace. The rejection of the Kiev coup was overt, and the coup leaders' response to that rejection horrifying. No matter how much western media have tried to brush it under the carpet, the mass murder in Odessa last May polarised opinion. Those with Russian sympathies realised they were targets, and so the kick-back happened. In Donetsk and Luhansk, this mayterialised as mass support for declarations of independence, in Kharkhiv more subtle, partisan resistance, but the fact is irrefutable. Kiev only rules via terror.

        And now that terror is to be overtly supported by Washington. Honesty, at least and at last. The warmongers have their war.

        Zogz 1 Feb 2015 21:21

        Only a matte of time till the US arms Kiev. They have been itching to do it since they organized the coup. The "military advisors" are already on the ground some suggest they are working with the Kiev troops. Whist such war mongery is not unusal for the US, I cannot help bu be suprised with EU reactions. Allowing the US to escalate tensions on the border of Europe is foolhardy in the extreme. All it wll do is make Europe more dependent on the US, more insecure, and more at risk. A win win for the US, but for Europe?

        AstheticTheory 1 Feb 2015 21:08

        So America has revealed its open secret: it intervened to secure the government in Ukraine it wanted and now it is prepared to escalate its defence of its new possession

        [Jan 31, 2015] Why Russia and Poland are feuding over Auschwitz

        Jan 22, 2015 | The Globe and Mail

        THE RADIO INTERVIEW

        The latest flareup started Wednesday when the Polish Foreign Minister gave an interview on the national broadcaster, Polskie Radio.

        Mr. Schetyna, who has a master's degree in history, was asked if Poland was being petty in not inviting Mr. Putin, considering that Russia was the successor of the Soviet Union and that it was the Red Army that opened the gates of Auschwitz.

        Mr. Schetyna interjected that the camp was "liberated by the First Ukrainian Front and Ukrainians," he said. "Ukrainian soldiers … opened the gates of the camp."

        THE UKRAINIAN FRONT

        As both Polish and Russian media quickly noted, the First Ukrainian Front was an army group of the Red Army. It assumed that name because it was one of several army groups that had fought through Ukraine as the Red Army pushed back German troops.

        Not only were the liberators of Auschwitz Soviet, thousands of victims also came from the Soviet Union.

        Before it became an extermination centre, Auschwitz started in the spring of 1940 as a concentration camp for Polish political prisoners. The following year, the Germans began sending Soviet prisoners of war to the camp.

        According to the museum, between 1.1 million and 1.3 million victims died at Auschwitz – including more than one million Jews, between 70,000 to 150,000 Poles, and 15,000 Soviet prisoners of war.

        Hours after Mr. Schetyna's remarks, Marcin Wojciechowski, the press spokesman for the Polish foreign ministry, posted conciliatory words on Twitter.

        "All the nations of the USSR have the right to be proud of the victory over fascism and the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau [concentration] camp," he wrote.

        With a report from Renata D'Aliesio

        [Jan 30, 2015] Ukraine Through the Fog of the Presstitutes by Paul Craig Roberts

        Mar 06, 2014 | CounterPunch

        Gerald Celente calls the Western media "presstitutes," an ingenuous term that I often use. Presstitutes sell themselves to Washington for access and government sources and to keep their jobs. Ever since the corrupt Clinton regime permitted the concentration of the US media, there has been no journalistic independence in the United States except for some Internet sites.

        Glenn Greenwald points out the independence that RT, a Russian media organization, permits Abby Martin who denounced Russia's alleged invasion of Ukraine, compared to the fates of Phil Donahue (MSNBC) and Peter Arnett (NBC), both of whom were fired for expressing opposition to the Bush regime's illegal attack on Iraq. The fact that Donahue had NBC's highest rated program did not give him journalistic independence. Anyone who speaks the truth in the American print or TV media or on NPR is immediately fired.

        Russia's RT seems actually to believe and observe the values that Americans profess but do not honor.

        I agree with Greenwald. You can read his article here. Greenwald is entirely admirable. He has intelligence, integrity, and courage. He is one of the brave to whom my just published book, How America Was Lost, is dedicated. As for RT's Abby Martin, I admire her and have been a guest on her program a number of times.

        My criticism of Greenwald and Martin has nothing to do with their integrity or their character. I doubt the claims that Abby Martin grandstanded on "Russia's invasion of Ukraine" in order to boost her chances of moving into the more lucrative "mainstream media." My point is quite different. Even Abby Martin and Greenwald, both of whom bring us much light, cannot fully escape Western propaganda.

        For example, Martin's denunciation of Russia for "invading" Ukraine is based on Western propaganda that Russia sent 16,000 troops to occupy Crimea. The fact of the matter is that those 16,000 Russian troops have been in Crimea since the 1990s. Under the Russian-Ukrainian agreement, Russia has the right to base 25,000 troops in Crimea.

        Apparently, neither Abby Martin nor Glenn Greenwald, two intelligent and aware people, knew this fact. Washington's propaganda is so pervasive that two of our best reporters were victimized by it.

        As I have written several times in my columns, Washington organized the coup in Ukraine in order to promote its world hegemony by capturing Ukraine for NATO and putting US missile bases on Russia's border in order to degrade Russia's nuclear deterrent and force Russia to accept Washington's hegemony.

        Russia has done nothing but respond in a very low-key way to a major strategic threat orchestrated by Washington.

        It is not only Martin and Greenwald who have fallen under Washington's propaganda.

        They are joined by Patrick J. Buchanan. Pat's column calling on readers to "resist the war party on Crimea" opens with Washington's propagandistic claim: "With Vladimir Putin's dispatch of Russian Troops into Crimea."

        No such dispatch has occurred. Putin has been granted authority by the Russian Duma to send troops to Ukraine, but Putin has stated publicly that sending troops would be a last resort to protect Crimean Russians from invasions by the ultra-nationalist neo-nazis who stole Washington's coup and established themselves as the power in Kiev and western Ukraine.

        So, here we have three of the smartest and most independent journalists of our time, and all three are under the impression created by Western propaganda that Russia has invaded Ukraine.

        It appears that the power of Washington's propaganda is so great that not even the best and most independent journalists can escape its influence.

        What chance does truth have when Abby Martin gets kudos from Glenn Greenwald for denouncing Russia for an alleged "invasion" that has not taken place, and when independent Pat Buchanan opens his column dissenting from the blame-Russia-crowd by accepting that an invasion has taken place?

        The entire story that the presstitutes have told about the Ukraine is a propaganda production. The presstitutes told us that the deposed president, Viktor Yanukovych, ordered snipers to shoot protesters. On the basis of these false reports, Washington's stooges, who comprise the existing non-government in Kiev, have issued arrest orders for Yanukovych and intend for him to be tried in an international court. In an intercepted telephone call between EU foreign affairs minister Catherine Ashton and Etonian foreign affairs minister Urmas Paet who had just returned from Kiev, Paet reports: "There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition." Paet goes on to report that "all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides . . . and it's really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don't want to investigate what exactly happened." Ashton, absorbed with EU plans to guide reforms in Ukraine and to prepare the way for the IMF to gain control over economic policy, was not particularly pleased to hear Paet's report that the killings were an orchestrated provocation. You can listen to the conversation between Paet and Ashton here: http://rt.com/news/ashton-maidan-snipers-estonia-946/

        What has happened in Ukraine is that Washington plotted against and overthrew an elected legitimate government and then lost control to neo-nazis who are threatening the large Russian population in southern and eastern Ukraine, provinces that formerly were part of Russia. These threatened Russians have appealed for Russia's help, and just like the Russians in South Ossetia, they will receive Russia's help.

        The Obama regime and its presstitutes will continue to lie about everything.

        Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book The Failure of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Roberts' How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format.

        [Jan 30, 2015] Ukraine Through the Fog of the Presstitutes by Paul Craig Roberts

        Mar 06, 2014 | CounterPunch

        Gerald Celente calls the Western media "presstitutes," an ingenuous term that I often use. Presstitutes sell themselves to Washington for access and government sources and to keep their jobs. Ever since the corrupt Clinton regime permitted the concentration of the US media, there has been no journalistic independence in the United States except for some Internet sites.

        Glenn Greenwald points out the independence that RT, a Russian media organization, permits Abby Martin who denounced Russia's alleged invasion of Ukraine, compared to the fates of Phil Donahue (MSNBC) and Peter Arnett (NBC), both of whom were fired for expressing opposition to the Bush regime's illegal attack on Iraq. The fact that Donahue had NBC's highest rated program did not give him journalistic independence. Anyone who speaks the truth in the American print or TV media or on NPR is immediately fired.

        Russia's RT seems actually to believe and observe the values that Americans profess but do not honor.

        I agree with Greenwald. You can read his article here. Greenwald is entirely admirable. He has intelligence, integrity, and courage. He is one of the brave to whom my just published book, How America Was Lost, is dedicated. As for RT's Abby Martin, I admire her and have been a guest on her program a number of times.

        My criticism of Greenwald and Martin has nothing to do with their integrity or their character. I doubt the claims that Abby Martin grandstanded on "Russia's invasion of Ukraine" in order to boost her chances of moving into the more lucrative "mainstream media." My point is quite different. Even Abby Martin and Greenwald, both of whom bring us much light, cannot fully escape Western propaganda.

        For example, Martin's denunciation of Russia for "invading" Ukraine is based on Western propaganda that Russia sent 16,000 troops to occupy Crimea. The fact of the matter is that those 16,000 Russian troops have been in Crimea since the 1990s. Under the Russian-Ukrainian agreement, Russia has the right to base 25,000 troops in Crimea.

        Apparently, neither Abby Martin nor Glenn Greenwald, two intelligent and aware people, knew this fact. Washington's propaganda is so pervasive that two of our best reporters were victimized by it.

        As I have written several times in my columns, Washington organized the coup in Ukraine in order to promote its world hegemony by capturing Ukraine for NATO and putting US missile bases on Russia's border in order to degrade Russia's nuclear deterrent and force Russia to accept Washington's hegemony.

        Russia has done nothing but respond in a very low-key way to a major strategic threat orchestrated by Washington.

        It is not only Martin and Greenwald who have fallen under Washington's propaganda.

        They are joined by Patrick J. Buchanan. Pat's column calling on readers to "resist the war party on Crimea" opens with Washington's propagandistic claim: "With Vladimir Putin's dispatch of Russian Troops into Crimea."

        No such dispatch has occurred. Putin has been granted authority by the Russian Duma to send troops to Ukraine, but Putin has stated publicly that sending troops would be a last resort to protect Crimean Russians from invasions by the ultra-nationalist neo-nazis who stole Washington's coup and established themselves as the power in Kiev and western Ukraine.

        So, here we have three of the smartest and most independent journalists of our time, and all three are under the impression created by Western propaganda that Russia has invaded Ukraine.

        It appears that the power of Washington's propaganda is so great that not even the best and most independent journalists can escape its influence.

        What chance does truth have when Abby Martin gets kudos from Glenn Greenwald for denouncing Russia for an alleged "invasion" that has not taken place, and when independent Pat Buchanan opens his column dissenting from the blame-Russia-crowd by accepting that an invasion has taken place?

        The entire story that the presstitutes have told about the Ukraine is a propaganda production. The presstitutes told us that the deposed president, Viktor Yanukovych, ordered snipers to shoot protesters. On the basis of these false reports, Washington's stooges, who comprise the existing non-government in Kiev, have issued arrest orders for Yanukovych and intend for him to be tried in an international court. In an intercepted telephone call between EU foreign affairs minister Catherine Ashton and Etonian foreign affairs minister Urmas Paet who had just returned from Kiev, Paet reports: "There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition." Paet goes on to report that "all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides . . . and it's really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don't want to investigate what exactly happened." Ashton, absorbed with EU plans to guide reforms in Ukraine and to prepare the way for the IMF to gain control over economic policy, was not particularly pleased to hear Paet's report that the killings were an orchestrated provocation. You can listen to the conversation between Paet and Ashton here: http://rt.com/news/ashton-maidan-snipers-estonia-946/

        What has happened in Ukraine is that Washington plotted against and overthrew an elected legitimate government and then lost control to neo-nazis who are threatening the large Russian population in southern and eastern Ukraine, provinces that formerly were part of Russia. These threatened Russians have appealed for Russia's help, and just like the Russians in South Ossetia, they will receive Russia's help.

        The Obama regime and its presstitutes will continue to lie about everything.

        Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book The Failure of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Roberts' How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format.

        [Jan 30, 2015] Thinking About the New Greek Crisis

        Note that those presstitutes call election victory of Syriza a crisis... And neo-nazy junta coup d'état in Kiev in February of the last year was called "victory of democracy".
        Jan 29, 2015 | NYTimes.com

        Cm, London, UK link

        As DGB commented, what unites Syriza and the Independent Greeks is their longstanding hatred of the west (especially the US, and now Germany) and their admiration of the Soviet Union, and now Putin.

        I follow the German press closely (I am part German), and I believe that Tsipras's immediate challenge to Merkel on the issue of EU sanctions on Russia will make Germany even less willing to compromise and more willing to take a chance on a Greek exit from the Euro.

        True, the EU is divided on the issue of sanctions against Russia, with some governments more willing to pay an economic price to support Ukraine (eg Germany, Poland) and others less willing (eg Slovakia, Italy). But with the new Greek coalition, we have the first EU government which is outspokenly pro-Putin, and this makes a difference.

        As recently as September, the foreign affairs spokesman for Syriza (Costas Isychos) praised the Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine for their "impressive counter-attacks." This rhetoric was toned down for the election but on his first day in office, Tsipras threatened to blow up the EU sanctions - just days after the shelling of Mariupol.

        ... ... ...

        [Jan 30, 2015] There Is No Reality Anymore...

        Zero Hedge
        Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/29/2015 18:15 -0500

        Submitted by Thad Beversdorf via First Rebuttal blog,

        "I'd Like to Change the World, but I Don't Know How So I'll Leave it Up to You"

        What a great lyric that is from the late 60′s, early 70′s English band '10 Years After'. I believe this describes that uneasy feeling of discontent that sits deep in the stomach, beneath the day to day exteriors, of so many people today. The world is like a black hole in that it seems to be getting smaller and smaller as the years go by but also heavier and heavier with each passing day.

        When I was a teenager and my friends and I were taking reality obscuring substances, one of my buddies (this means you Nichol) would stop us at certain points throughout the night for a reality check. This was just a few moments where we'd all gather our senses to make sure the world was still right and then we'd venture back into obscurity. I feel that reality is an old world term. There is no reality anymore. With advances in technology came unending possibilities of if you can dream it 'they' can make it so. The ubiquitous flow of information ensures that the truth is always available but never known with certainty. It means there is no such thing as a reality check. It's like that dream inside a dream inside a dream. Which reality is real anymore? How deep does the rabbit hole go?

        We are raised with pretty standard ideals of what the world is meant to be but these ideals seem to take place only in the movies. It must be incredibly difficult for our young people to reconcile the two worlds, I know it is for me. That which they learn as a child and that which they find has replaced it as a young adult. Our 'leaders' our despicable arrogant and egotistical fools who pretend we elect them because we don't see them for what they are. But we elect them because we feel we have no choice. We know what we want the world to be. We know what it should look and feel like. And we know it is not the world in which we live today. "I know I'd like to change the world but I don't know how and so I'll leave it up to you". And so we continue to move forward down this path each step uneasy as though something ungood is lurking just around the next corner.

        We are able to put that feeling out of our minds for the most part but our subconscious is always aware that things are off. We have all kinds of self help books and new – new age theories that attempt to make sense of it all and explain why we just aren't happy the way we envision happy should be. Perhaps the only reality is the reality that the world isn't what we had hoped it would be and we don't know how to make that right. I'd love to say that if we just stand up and do the right thing, act from our hearts and have good intentions that it could change the world. But quite honestly there are ill-ententioned people that are constructing this new world in which we sub-exist. It is 'them' and us but they'd never say it that way. Certainly though their intention is not for us to co-exist along side them.

        But so we carry on and we, move forward, to the best of our abilities. We accept the good with the bad and acknowledge that everything is a trade off. We believe that if we go to college we stand a better chance in life and so we borrow our first 10 years of post college wages to get an edge over the next guy who is doing the same. When we get out of school we know that it is time to buckle down and get serious. We put our 'lives' on hold in order to focus on the future with the idea that one day we will be sitting on the porch with the person we love, the one we put on hold for all those years and we will then enjoy our life's work then.

        But then we get further in debt because we need a sleeker car and we need a bigger house but it's ok because we can just work a little more. And then the kids come and as far as we got to know them they are great, I think. But it's ok because they just finished college and now they've moved back in as the job market is tough out there and so we're paying off their student loans. Eventually they get away and begin their life's journey and they take their debt with them. And then we realize, god I'm almost 60. But it feels great because that means soon I'll be there on the porch getting to know the one I love again and life will be grand at that point.

        But then we turn 65 and we realize all those policies that were implemented by all those 'well-intentioned' decisions makers have actually left us with very little. And we say it's ok because we'd be bored anyway just sitting on the porch. And so we take a job waving at people in Walmart but feel like OMG how did I get here. But the shift ends and we go home anxious to spend time with the one we love because although it's a terrible thought we are aware we're both getting long in the tooth. And so we arrive home only to realize the one we love is now sick and that it's too late for our days sitting on the porch getting to know each other again. We do everything we can but we cannot afford to help that person who stood quietly behind us all those years as healthcare costs are unrealistically out of touch with 'reality'. And then it hits us that despite taking all the 'right' steps to ensure we have a great life we failed to ever really be happy, to really love and to really accept love. And then it really hits us, this world provides but one shot.

        Well then that feeling of uneasy discontent that shadowed us when we were young is now an intense pain in our heart. And we look out at the world and we ask ourselves how could this have happened? I did everything 'they' told me I was supposed to do, I did everything 'right'! And it becomes clear that life was a chance to change the world, but we didn't know how and so we left it up to….

        [Jan 29, 2015] America's Greatest Affliction The Presstitute Media

        June 2, 2013 | PaulCraigRoberts.org

        When Gerald Celente branded the American media "presstitutes," he got it right. The US print and TV media (and NPR) whore for Washington and the corporations. Reporting the real news is their last concern. The presstitutes are a Ministry of Propaganda and Coverup. This is true of the entire Western media, a collection of bought-and-paid-for whores.

        It seems that every day I witness a dozen or more examples. Take May 31 for example.
        The presstitutes report that US Secretary of State John Kerry and his German counterpart are working on Russia to convince that country to be a "party to peace" in Syria by not supplying the Syrian government, whose country has been invaded, with arms. Kerry and the Israelis especially do not want Russia to deliver the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system to Syria.

        This was the extent of the presstitutes' report. The presstitutes made no mention of the fact that the invasion of Syria by al-Qaeda affiliated radical Muslims was organized and equipped by Washington via its proxies in the region, such as Saudia Arabia and the oil emirates. Americans sufficiently stupid to rely on the presstitute media do not know that it is not Syrians who want to overthrow their government, but Washington, Israel, and radical Islamists who object to Syria's secular non-confrontational government.

        One might think that the US media would wonder why Washington prefers to have al-Qaeda governing Syria than a non-confrontational secular government. But such a question is off-limits for the US media.

        Israel, unlike Washington which so far hides behind proxies, has actually openly committed war crimes as defined by the Nuremberg trials of Nazis by initiating unprovoked aggression against Syria by militarily attacking the country.

        In reporting Kerry's pressure on Putin, presstitutes made no mention that the Washington-backed attempted overthrow of the Syrian government has run into difficulty, causing president obama to ask the Pentagon to come up with a no-fly plan, which means according to the Libya precedent NATO or US air attacks on Syrian government forces. As the S-300 missiles are a defensive weapon, obama's plan to send in Western or Israeli air forces to attack the Syrian army is why Kerry is pressuring Russia not to honor its contract to deliver to Syria the S-300 missiles, which can knock US, NATO, and Israeli aircraft out of the sky.

        Those who believed that Kerry could have made a difference as president must be disillusioned to see what a warmongering whore he is. In america marketing is everything; truth is nothing.

        The real news story is that Washington is trying to convince Putin to acquiesce to
        Washington's overthrow of the Syrian government so that Russia can be evicted from its only naval base in the Mediterranean Sea, thus making it Washington's sea, Washington's Mare Nostrum. The american pressitutes put all the onus on the Russian government for not helping Washington to overthrow the Syrian government in order that Washington has another victory over Russia and can start next on Iran.

        William Hague, who serves, with Washington's approval, as British foreign secretary to the shame of a once proud nation, made this clear when he declared: "We want a solution without Assad. We do not accept the stay of Assad." This is amazing hypocrisy, because the Syrian government is more respectful of human rights than Washington and London.

        While Kerry was trying to con Putin, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said that the obama administration's immediate priority was removing Assad from power. http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/302773-white-house-no-role-for-assad-in-transitional-government So for the US and UK, "peace" means the overthrow of the Syrian government by force.

        Why isn't the United Nations protesting? The answer is that the countries and their UN representatives have been purchased by Washington. Money talks. Integrity and justice don't. Integrity and justice are poverty-inflicted. The UN belongs to the evil empire. Washington owns it. The american Empire has the money. It pays for the headlines and for the budget that lets the UN delegates enjoy New York City,

        In the world today, integrity is worthless, but money is valuable, and Washington has the money because, as the dollar is the world reserve currency, it can be printed in sufficient quantities to purchase every country's government, including our own. One year out of office and Tony Blair was worth $35 million. Look at the amazing Clinton riches. According to news report, $3.2 million was spent on Chelsea's wedding. http://www.goingwedding.com/news_detail.asp?newsid=67

        Hague said that the UK and France "seek to end the ban on arming Syrian rebels." Hague did not explain how the invasion force was armed if there is a ban against arming it. But Hague did tell us who the invading force is: "the Syrian National Coalition," which consists of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt (still the American puppet), the United States, Britain, France, Turkey, Germany and Italy. Obviously, the talk about a "Syrian rebellion" is pure BS. Syria is confronted with an attempted overthrow of its government by the US and its puppet states. Kerry is trying to convince Putin to let Washington overthrow Syria.

        As if this wasn't enough, also on May 31, I listened to e.j. dionne and david brooks on National Public Radio discuss the state of the obama presidency. Both were protective of "our president." Neither would dare say: "the military-security complex's president," "Wall Street's president," "the Israel Lobby's president," "Monsanto's president," "the mining and fracking president." obama is "our president."

        Both brooks and dionne agreed that the media had got rid of the Benghazi issue and that the IRS persecution of Tea Party members was under the media's control and was not a threat to obama. david brooks did acknowledge that there were economic problems ignored and no new ideas. However, the blatant fact that under obama the US is in a constitutional crisis, well described by Dr. Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35134.htm was not mentioned by NPR's pundits, who define correct thoughts for the NPR audience, people too busy to pay attention.

        In america today, the executive branch in explicit violation of the US Constitution detains indefinitely or murders any US citizen alleged without proof by an unaccountable member of the executive branch to be in any way associated with the broad but undefined term, "terrorism," even innocently as a donor to hungry or ill Palestinian children. The executive branch clearly violates the US Constitution and US statutory laws against torture and spying on citizens without warrants. Congress does not impeach the president for his obvious crimes, and the Federal Judiciary enables them.

        President Nixon was driven from office because he lied about when he learned of a burglary for which he was not responsible. President Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives for lying about a sexual affair with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.

        President george w. bush took america to wars based on obvious lies, and so did president obama. Both administrations are guilty of war crimes and almost every possible infraction of constitutional and international law. Yet, no presstitute member of the media would dare mention impeachment, and the House would never bring the charge.

        There is no doubt whatsoever that in the 21st century presidents, their lawyers, Justice (sic) Department officials, and CIA and black-op operatives have broken law after law, and there is no accountability. For the presstitutes, this is a non-issue. "Rule of law, Constitution? We don't need no stinking rule of law or Constitution."

        For the presstitutes, the bought-and-paid for-whores for evil, the issues are obama's stable poll numbers; teenage girls arrested for fighting at a kindergarten graduation ceremony; "Microsoft's Bill Gates extended his lead over Mexico's Carlos Slim as the world's richest person," "the $14 million-dollar girl: Beyonce rakes it in."

        Constitutional crisis? What is that? I mean, really, look at Beyonce's legs. Didn't you hear, the dollar rose today?

        The presstitutes have not investigated any important issue. Not 9/11. Not the accumulation of unaccountable power in the executive branch. Not the demise of the Bill of Rights. Not the Boston Marathon bombing. Not the endless and unexplained wars against Muslims who have not attacked the US.

        The Boston Marathon saga reached new levels of absurdity with the FBI's murder of Ibragim Todashev, who was being pressured to admit to various associated crimes. The presstitutes first reported that Todashev was armed. It was a gun, then a knife, then after the presstitutes duly reported the false information planted on them, which for the insouciance american public was sufficient to explain Toashev's murder, the FBI admitted that the victim was unarmed.

        Nevertheless, he was shot seven times, one to the back of the head. His father wants to know why the FBI assassinated his son, but the presstitutes could not care less. Don't expect any answer from the american press and TV media or from NPR, an organization that pretends to be a "listener station" but is financed by corporate contributions.

        How's Todashev's murder for Gestapo justice? Where is the difference? A bullet in the back of the head. And america is the shining light on the hill, the font of freedom and democracy brought to the world courtesy of the military/security complex out of the barrel of guns and hellfire missiles from drones. And relentless propaganda in the schools, universities, and media.

        Washington certainly learned from Mao and Pol Pot. You kill them into submission.

        But you will never hear about it from the presstitutes.

        [Jan 28, 2015] Ukraine at war: 'People feel abandoned'

        Those brazen propagandists from Guardian now resort to postmodernism: "The fighting has intensified dramatically since last week". In reality this is indiscriminate shelling of Donetsk, one million city by Kiev army. Ukrainian army is shelling one million city in the center of Europe and nobody in Western capitals gives a f*ck.
        Notable quotes:
        "... Until recently, I also thought as you. But recently it became known fact that it was the Maidan smokescreen. Matter was not addressed in the Maidan. The question was decided in quiet rooms. Maidan does not put pressure on decision-making. (This issue was resolved in Washington) ..."
        "... To me, the conflict is all about the the Galicians wanting to eradicate Russian civic identity. The Galicians have been like that from the start. In that respect, they are kind of like fanatics. ..."
        "... It seems Russain Orthodox commanders did not take well the Scientologist from Lviv (Yats) and the Baptist with strong connections with the PL govt. (Turch.). ..."
        "... The Ukrainian army is attacking its own people in the south east using indiscriminate shelling. The rebels have been defending for almost a year ..."
        "... The reality is that most Ukrainians are not motivated to fight for Kiev. The Ukrainian people want peace. Only the Galician ideologically driven hard cores are willing to do combat, and their morale is falling fast because of their endless defeats. ..."
        "... Ukrainian military casualties are roughly 3,500 killed in action, and another 9,000 wounded. That is shocking. Kiev is trying to hide the magnitude of the disaster from its own people, but Ukrainian citizens are becoming aware of the horrible battle losses. Entire villages in Ukraine are reportedly ignoring Kiev's draft notices. ..."
        Jan 28, 2015 | The Guardian

        The fighting has intensified dramatically since last week and the situation here is deteriorating rapidly. In the past five days, there has been heavy fighting. We hear the constant boom of shelling and crackle of shooting.

        More than 70 houses are reported to have been damaged or destroyed in the last week, and several hospitals have been damaged since the fighting began in the summer. In recent days, a building of a psychiatric institution that we're supporting was destroyed by shelling.

        It's getting more complicated to get into the areas caught in the conflict. Last week the checkpoints to cross into the rebel-controlled areas were closed and no one has been allowed to pass.

        Medical supply lines have been cut and little medicine is getting through, as has been the case for months. When Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) started working here in May, we focused on supplying hospitals on the frontline with kits to treat war injuries. Obviously, when you're in a conflict zone, the frontline is where the people are being seriously injured and killed.

        After months of stress on the health system, it is clear that the conflict is having an impact on the whole population of the area. Basic healthcare, maternity care, treatment of chronic diseases; everything is affected.

        ... ... ...


        Mij Swerdna shakesomeaction 28 Jan 2015 18:56

        More like Kiev won't let Donbas decide it's own destiny. It is not they who have gone to the west to kill. More like the other way around.


        Mij Swerdna alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 18:04

        Everyone here is responsible for their own actions. The side you are against is not responsible for what both sides do. People like you are devoid of compassion until hardships that you regard with indifference are visited on you and yours.

        And then it's people like you who cry and whine the loudest.

        Mij Swerdna -> alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 17:57

        What are talking about? They did those things at Maidan- but that was okay because you sympathize with neo-Nazis. Hypocrite.

        Mij Swerdna -> vr13vr 28 Jan 2015 16:07

        And the Holodomor did not take place anywhere near the ones who go on about it the most. It happened in eastern Ukraine and southern Russia.

        Mij Swerdna -> Pomario 28 Jan 2015 15:33

        Your imagination seems to go to any lengths to make Russia a villain. You are motivated by hatred (bigotry, the stupid kind).

        Mij Swerdna -> firstgeordie 28 Jan 2015 15:26

        Very bigoted of you. Actually, they are more apt to sacrifice. I wouldn't confuse that virtue with a lack of respect for life because that very lack is more than rampant in the west except that there is a growing tendency on the part of the west to arrange for "lesser" peoples to serve as cannon fodder.

        Mij Swerdna -> Pomario 28 Jan 2015 15:14

        Not quite. What he was worried about was the massive propaganda blitz that would have resulted if Russia had opted to honor the Donbas referendum and annexed it. As it turns out, he needn't have. They were going to do what they were going to do to Russia regardless. They should have saved Donbas because those incompetent cowards in the west would not have challenged them militarily if they were part of Russia. There would be wailing and gnashing of teeth to be sure- but no destroyed infrastructure and no thousands of dead civilians and refugees.

        The real aggressors in this conflict are the people who want to exterminate the people of Donbas. I am judging by actions mind you, not the lawyer like gibberish used to justify those actions. If it walks like a duck...

        buttonbasher81 Robobenito 28 Jan 2015 14:51

        Again you haven't actually stated what is meant by support, all you use are conjecture and conspiracy by reffering back to bad things the US has done in the past. All the thousands of people marching on the streets were all CIA operatives were they? Sounds about as believeable as putins Russian soldiers being in the East of Ukraine on holiday to me. And don't trot out that 5bn line, its been stated again and again that was spent over a number of years in the Ukraine and moreover some of which would have gone to Yanukovychs Government. You going to argue the US paid him to overthrow himself?


        Mij Swerdna Jeremn 28 Jan 2015 08:43


        They are inhuman. Kiev is ideologically driven by Lviv, Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk and Volyn (with US blessing).These oblasts had the highest voter turnout and were solidly in Yat's corner. The fact that the actual far right parties did not do well in elections means nothing. They are hiding behind Yats.


        Kolo07 -> EddieGrey1967USA 28 Jan 2015 04:25

        Until recently, I also thought as you.

        But recently it became known fact that it was the Maidan smokescreen.

        Matter was not addressed in the Maidan. The question was decided in quiet rooms.

        Maidan does not put pressure on decision-making. (This issue was resolved in Washington)


        EddieGrey1967USA BMWAlbert 27 Jan 2015 21:58

        You are probably correct about the numbers of troops involved in Crimea. Thanks for the more accurate info. Still, your figures aren't too far out of line with mine.

        I agree with your final comment about Donbas and a national unity government. It is quite interesting to consider what might have followed if the Euromaidan crew had been smart enough to reach out immediately to Donbass last February. Indeed, if they had included Donbass powerbrokers from the early days, they might have held the country together.

        However, to include Donbass powerbrokers in Euromaidan, the new government would have needed to distance itself from the Galician ultranationalists. Do you think that could have happened in theory? My guess is that it couldn't have happened, now that I think about it. I say that because the Galicians were -- and continue to be -- a powerhouse behind the entire Euromaidan revolt, in addition to shaping the government that followed.

        To me, the conflict is all about the the Galicians wanting to eradicate Russian civic identity. The Galicians have been like that from the start. In that respect, they are kind of like fanatics.

        EddieGrey1967USA -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 21:52

        There's a big difference between Serbia and Ukraine, though. That's because the USA is backing the nationalists in Kiev, essentially encouraging them to pursue the dream of an enlarged Ukraine, or a Greater Ukraine (fighting war to keep colonies in Donbass, etc.). By contrast, the USA was opposing Milosevic's efforts to create a Greater Serbia.

        So, even after Yatsenyuk, Poroshenko, Lysenko, Parubiy, etc. are defeated and overthrown, they will never face war crimes tribunals. That's because they will have American protection.

        The only exception to this situation is if the Russians actually capture Yats, Poroshenko, Parubiy etc. and charge them with war crimes. However I don't think this will happen. Most likely Yats & Co will escape west before that ever happens.

        You make a very interesting point about Ukraine being divided on the issue of joining the EU and Russia. In that sense, post war Ukraine could resemble post-Milosevic Serbia. I agree.


        BMWAlbert -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 19:51

        Eddue, the Krim figures I have read state that there were 18,000 (maybe 2500 is paper strength, NOT the real strength).

        Of these 18K I believe about one third (circa 6000) stayed with UA army and were allowed to leave.

        Of the 12000 UA Army troops remaining, only half actually joined the RU Army. 6000 thus chose a 'middle way'. That 12000 total may be aligned with the 13000 figure you cite (?).

        It might be noted that the whole of the semi-autonomous province might not have been lost at all had commanders of the UA Army reserve forces actually acted in March 2014 (as ordered) to secure the isthmus. They did not move. It seems Russain Orthodox commanders did not take well the Scientologist from Lviv (Yats) and the Baptist with strong connections with the PL govt. (Turch.).

        Different people have different views on which North American and EU countries might have had influence over these important initial choices for PM and President at a time when UA needed a national unity govt. NOT a single cabinet post was chosen from Donbas. Not smart.


        EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 18:12

        What will become of Ukraine, when this is all over?

        When a nation is defeated in war, all of its people undergo psychological shock. The country questions its self-worth, and it experiments with changes in politics, culture, and social issues. Defeated nations do this as they come to terms with the realization that they have failed the ultimate test.

        These periods of anguished, inward self-reflection on a national scale are especially true for countries that are defeated and conquered. We saw this in France after 1817, during the so-called La Belle Epoque. Something similar happened in Prussia after 1806, and in Germany after 1918 and 1945.

        Ukraine will not only suffer defeat, but it may also lose its independence. How will this generation of young Ukrainians -- the so called Euromaidan Generation -- react to this national trauma? Everything that they have been raised to believe about themselves and their country will have been proven to be false...mythological. Just one big lie.

        Young Ukrainians, after this war, will totally lose respect for the leaders movements like Euromaidan. These young people will question their own values and beliefs. Like the Germans after 1945, Ukrainians, I think, will then work hard to create a new and honest society for themselves. They will renounce ultranationalism, and they will advocate the virtues of peace and political stability.

        That is when Ukraine's true moment of glory will occur. Defeated, conquered...true....but repentant, wise, and progressive. Ukrainians will then be celebrated worldwide for their maturity and commitment to peace, just like the West Germans after 1945.

        EddieGrey1967USA -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 18:02

        You are wrong. The rebel army is large and strong, particularly since so many Donbass men are now enlisting. Read yesterday's article in DB written by Kyiv Post writer/hack/propagandist James Miller and his colleague, Michael Weiss. They confirm this.

        ID8787761 -> alpamysh 27 Jan 2015 15:12

        Not true. US or UK solider caught on camera in Mariopul:
        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-25/out-my-face-please-why-are-us-soldiers-mariupol

        The general is far from alone.

        Actually you're not getting it old boy. The Ukrainian army is attacking its own people in the south east using indiscriminate shelling. The rebels have been defending for almost a year. And you plucked that 9000 number from thin air. Without tangible evidence your statement of 9000 people is meaningless.

        EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 15:11

        What surprises me especially is that Western news suppresses information about the severity of Ukrainian military defeats. The Western media has been doing this from the very beginning.

        For example, in Crimea last March, 13,000 Ukrainian troops defected to the Russians immediately. That is out of a total of 25,000 Ukrainian soldiers stationed in Crimea at the time. Only a few Western media sources reported the shocking truth about these Ukrainian defections.

        The reality is that most Ukrainians are not motivated to fight for Kiev. The Ukrainian people want peace. Only the Galician ideologically driven hard cores are willing to do combat, and their morale is falling fast because of their endless defeats.

        At this point in time, I would imagine that the Galician troops must feel overawed and frightened at the prospect of doing combat with the pro-Russian rebels. Does the Ukrainian military even have medical psychiatric support to treat the combat trauma suffered by these troops?

        What will happen after the war, when these defeated and traumatized soldiers -- many suffering from combat induced psychosis -- return home to Galicia? It's upsetting to realize the things that might happen.

        But Kiev started this war....the Donbass people didn't start it.

        EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 15:05

        Ukraine is facing total disaster now, kind of like a sinking ship. It's economy is destroyed, and it is losing a war so badly that all of Ukraine may eventually be conquered by the rebels.

        Ukrainian military casualties are roughly 3,500 killed in action, and another 9,000 wounded. That is shocking. Kiev is trying to hide the magnitude of the disaster from its own people, but Ukrainian citizens are becoming aware of the horrible battle losses. Entire villages in Ukraine are reportedly ignoring Kiev's draft notices.

        For historicians, social scientists, and economists, Ukraine is a classic case of a nation in defeat. The experts are observing Ukraine closely as it disintegrates.

        All of this would have been avoided if only the Euromaidan government consisted of reasonable people.

        [Jan 28, 2015] Doubt everything – Ukrainian students warning to Russian counterparts

        Guardian reprints RFE aka Radio F*ck Europe. Well done Guardian. Saves money. From comments: "Rubbish. The most dangerous squirrel-brains are perched at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and at the State Dept. building not far away. It was they who inflamed the Kiev putsch and now may be wondering if the Pandora's box they opened is tough to control."
        Notable quotes:
        "... as well as the electromagnetic spectrum and information space ..."
        Jan 28, 2015 | The Guardian

        axiomparadigm -> MrBepec 28 Jan 2015 19:59

        A pity I had to ask a Russian speaking friend to tell me the ist of it and he said there are cries for Bandeira... So it is a right wing nazi supporting rally.

        Walter Potocki 28 Jan 2015 19:47

        Take a cooky from Nuland and march to eastern front, empire will give you a postmortem medal.

        Sehome -> alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 19:42

        Rubbish. The most dangerous squirrel-brains are perchjed at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and at the State Dept. building not far away. It was they who inflamed the Kiev putsch and now may be wondering if the Pandora's box they opened is tough to control.

        yataki -> yataki 28 Jan 2015 19:30

        ...and they are saying that Yanukovich was a 'dictator'. Oh, excuse me, no matter how corrupted he was, he was a democratically elected president legally recognized by the international community. Even Vic Nuland admitted that. You people could have voted him out of the office, but you preferred an armed coup. You can disagree with me, but to me and many people around the world, it was clearly a violent coup led by the far-right. There was nothing heroic about it.

        yataki 28 Jan 2015 19:17

        "Check what you hear, doubt what you see."
        I suggest these bright young people should first check what they hear from their own government, and seriously doubt what they see. One should never stop checking and doubting his/her own government. There is nothing wrong about that.
        Would be interested to see Russian students' answer to that sort of cheap propaganda.

        BunglyPete 28 Jan 2015 18:26

        If and when the truth behind this gets out the fallout could be massive.

        US, EU and many top western officials on board, an entirely complicit media, and we are talking about actual nazis actually killing civilians on the doorstep of actual Europe, and looking at war with Russia.

        If if it gets enough attention this could cause a big impact across the globe. Interesting times.

        centerline 28 Jan 2015 18:23

        The video goes on to counter claims from Russian-state media that the Euromaidan protests in Kiev were a US funded coup.

        Full Spectrum Dominance. Part of the US military doctrine.

        Full spectrum dominance includes the physical battlespace; air, surface and sub-surface as well as the electromagnetic spectrum and information space. Control implies that freedom of opposition force assets to exploit the battlespace is wholly constrained.

        https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Full-spectrum_dominance.html

        unended 28 Jan 2015 18:18

        From the article:

        It also accuses pro-Russian separatists of forcing many in Crimea "at gunpoint" to vote in favour of joining Russia.

        From the Pew Research Center:

        Crimean residents are almost universally positive toward Russia. At least nine-in-ten have confidence in Putin (93%) and say Russia is playing a positive role in Crimea (92%). Confidence in Obama is almost negligible at 4%, and just 2% think the U.S. is having a good influence on the way things are going on the Crimean peninsula. . . .

        For their part, Crimeans seem content with their annexation by Russia. Overwhelming majorities say the March 16th referendum was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%).p> http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/08/despite-concerns-about-governance-ukrainians-want-to-remain-one-country/

        I wonder what would make these western Ukrainian students think that about Crimea? Could it have something to do with having been subjected to "rampant propaganda"?

        Manolo Torres 28 Jan 2015 17:57

        And from where did this students get this idea? Perhaps From their own ministry of truth?

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/19/-sp-ukraine-new-ministry-truth-undermines-battle-for-democracy

        Was it a US initiative?

        Ukraine freedom support act.
        Expanded Broadcasting in Former Soviet Republics:
        Mandates the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors to submit a plan and cost estimate to increase Russian-language broadcasting into countries of the former Soviet Union funded by the United States in order to counter Russian propaganda

        Is it perhaps just another youtube video operation, produced by neoconservatives in the NED and the US State department?, in the style of the "I am an Ukrainian?" Perhaps it was made by the same RFE/RL, whose origins we all know?

        I wonder if this students would be as "receptive" as this citizens in Kiev, when a woman from Luhansk was trying to tell them about her experience with airstrikes on June the 2nd.

        Judge by yourselves, it seems to me that the Ukrainian students should be addressing themselves.

        jonsid 28 Jan 2015 17:46

        And the smearing starts. First shot by Radio Fuck Europe.

        New Greek Government Has Deep, Long-Standing Ties With Russian Eurasianist Dugin

        A five year old could write the script....

        http://www.rferl.org/content/greek-syriza-deep-ties-russian-eurasianist-dugin/26818523.html

        1waldo1 28 Jan 2015 17:30

        And these very attractive and innocent-looking students did this all on their own. Not a word of encouragement from the new Ministry of Propaganda or whatever it's called in Kiev.
        And how did the video reach the Guardian so quickly?

        [Jan 28, 2015] Doubt everything – Ukrainian students warning to Russian counterparts

        Guardian reprints RFE aka Radio F*ck Europe. Well done Guardian. Saves money. From comments: "Rubbish. The most dangerous squirrel-brains are perched at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and at the State Dept. building not far away. It was they who inflamed the Kiev putsch and now may be wondering if the Pandora's box they opened is tough to control."
        Notable quotes:
        "... as well as the electromagnetic spectrum and information space ..."
        Jan 28, 2015 | The Guardian

        axiomparadigm -> MrBepec 28 Jan 2015 19:59

        A pity I had to ask a Russian speaking friend to tell me the ist of it and he said there are cries for Bandeira... So it is a right wing nazi supporting rally.

        Walter Potocki 28 Jan 2015 19:47

        Take a cooky from Nuland and march to eastern front, empire will give you a postmortem medal.

        Sehome -> alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 19:42

        Rubbish. The most dangerous squirrel-brains are perchjed at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and at the State Dept. building not far away. It was they who inflamed the Kiev putsch and now may be wondering if the Pandora's box they opened is tough to control.

        yataki -> yataki 28 Jan 2015 19:30

        ...and they are saying that Yanukovich was a 'dictator'. Oh, excuse me, no matter how corrupted he was, he was a democratically elected president legally recognized by the international community. Even Vic Nuland admitted that. You people could have voted him out of the office, but you preferred an armed coup. You can disagree with me, but to me and many people around the world, it was clearly a violent coup led by the far-right. There was nothing heroic about it.

        yataki 28 Jan 2015 19:17

        "Check what you hear, doubt what you see."
        I suggest these bright young people should first check what they hear from their own government, and seriously doubt what they see. One should never stop checking and doubting his/her own government. There is nothing wrong about that.
        Would be interested to see Russian students' answer to that sort of cheap propaganda.

        BunglyPete 28 Jan 2015 18:26

        If and when the truth behind this gets out the fallout could be massive.

        US, EU and many top western officials on board, an entirely complicit media, and we are talking about actual nazis actually killing civilians on the doorstep of actual Europe, and looking at war with Russia.

        If if it gets enough attention this could cause a big impact across the globe. Interesting times.

        centerline 28 Jan 2015 18:23

        The video goes on to counter claims from Russian-state media that the Euromaidan protests in Kiev were a US funded coup.

        Full Spectrum Dominance. Part of the US military doctrine.

        Full spectrum dominance includes the physical battlespace; air, surface and sub-surface as well as the electromagnetic spectrum and information space. Control implies that freedom of opposition force assets to exploit the battlespace is wholly constrained.

        https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Full-spectrum_dominance.html

        unended 28 Jan 2015 18:18

        From the article:

        It also accuses pro-Russian separatists of forcing many in Crimea "at gunpoint" to vote in favour of joining Russia.

        From the Pew Research Center:

        Crimean residents are almost universally positive toward Russia. At least nine-in-ten have confidence in Putin (93%) and say Russia is playing a positive role in Crimea (92%). Confidence in Obama is almost negligible at 4%, and just 2% think the U.S. is having a good influence on the way things are going on the Crimean peninsula. . . .

        For their part, Crimeans seem content with their annexation by Russia. Overwhelming majorities say the March 16th referendum was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%).p> http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/08/despite-concerns-about-governance-ukrainians-want-to-remain-one-country/

        I wonder what would make these western Ukrainian students think that about Crimea? Could it have something to do with having been subjected to "rampant propaganda"?

        Manolo Torres 28 Jan 2015 17:57

        And from where did this students get this idea? Perhaps From their own ministry of truth?

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/19/-sp-ukraine-new-ministry-truth-undermines-battle-for-democracy

        Was it a US initiative?

        Ukraine freedom support act.
        Expanded Broadcasting in Former Soviet Republics:
        Mandates the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors to submit a plan and cost estimate to increase Russian-language broadcasting into countries of the former Soviet Union funded by the United States in order to counter Russian propaganda

        Is it perhaps just another youtube video operation, produced by neoconservatives in the NED and the US State department?, in the style of the "I am an Ukrainian?" Perhaps it was made by the same RFE/RL, whose origins we all know?

        I wonder if this students would be as "receptive" as this citizens in Kiev, when a woman from Luhansk was trying to tell them about her experience with airstrikes on June the 2nd.

        Judge by yourselves, it seems to me that the Ukrainian students should be addressing themselves.

        jonsid 28 Jan 2015 17:46

        And the smearing starts. First shot by Radio Fuck Europe.

        New Greek Government Has Deep, Long-Standing Ties With Russian Eurasianist Dugin

        A five year old could write the script....

        http://www.rferl.org/content/greek-syriza-deep-ties-russian-eurasianist-dugin/26818523.html

        1waldo1 28 Jan 2015 17:30

        And these very attractive and innocent-looking students did this all on their own. Not a word of encouragement from the new Ministry of Propaganda or whatever it's called in Kiev.
        And how did the video reach the Guardian so quickly?

        [Jan 28, 2015] Ukraine at war: 'People feel abandoned'

        Those brazen propagandists from Guardian now resort to postmodernism: "The fighting has intensified dramatically since last week". In reality this is indiscriminate shelling of Donetsk, one million city by Kiev army. Ukrainian army is shelling one million city in the center of Europe and nobody in Western capitals gives a f*ck.
        Notable quotes:
        "... Until recently, I also thought as you. But recently it became known fact that it was the Maidan smokescreen. Matter was not addressed in the Maidan. The question was decided in quiet rooms. Maidan does not put pressure on decision-making. (This issue was resolved in Washington) ..."
        "... To me, the conflict is all about the the Galicians wanting to eradicate Russian civic identity. The Galicians have been like that from the start. In that respect, they are kind of like fanatics. ..."
        "... It seems Russain Orthodox commanders did not take well the Scientologist from Lviv (Yats) and the Baptist with strong connections with the PL govt. (Turch.). ..."
        "... The Ukrainian army is attacking its own people in the south east using indiscriminate shelling. The rebels have been defending for almost a year ..."
        "... The reality is that most Ukrainians are not motivated to fight for Kiev. The Ukrainian people want peace. Only the Galician ideologically driven hard cores are willing to do combat, and their morale is falling fast because of their endless defeats. ..."
        "... Ukrainian military casualties are roughly 3,500 killed in action, and another 9,000 wounded. That is shocking. Kiev is trying to hide the magnitude of the disaster from its own people, but Ukrainian citizens are becoming aware of the horrible battle losses. Entire villages in Ukraine are reportedly ignoring Kiev's draft notices. ..."
        Jan 28, 2015 | The Guardian

        The fighting has intensified dramatically since last week and the situation here is deteriorating rapidly. In the past five days, there has been heavy fighting. We hear the constant boom of shelling and crackle of shooting.

        More than 70 houses are reported to have been damaged or destroyed in the last week, and several hospitals have been damaged since the fighting began in the summer. In recent days, a building of a psychiatric institution that we're supporting was destroyed by shelling.

        It's getting more complicated to get into the areas caught in the conflict. Last week the checkpoints to cross into the rebel-controlled areas were closed and no one has been allowed to pass.

        Medical supply lines have been cut and little medicine is getting through, as has been the case for months. When Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) started working here in May, we focused on supplying hospitals on the frontline with kits to treat war injuries. Obviously, when you're in a conflict zone, the frontline is where the people are being seriously injured and killed.

        After months of stress on the health system, it is clear that the conflict is having an impact on the whole population of the area. Basic healthcare, maternity care, treatment of chronic diseases; everything is affected.

        ... ... ...


        Mij Swerdna shakesomeaction 28 Jan 2015 18:56

        More like Kiev won't let Donbas decide it's own destiny. It is not they who have gone to the west to kill. More like the other way around.


        Mij Swerdna alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 18:04

        Everyone here is responsible for their own actions. The side you are against is not responsible for what both sides do. People like you are devoid of compassion until hardships that you regard with indifference are visited on you and yours.

        And then it's people like you who cry and whine the loudest.

        Mij Swerdna -> alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 17:57

        What are talking about? They did those things at Maidan- but that was okay because you sympathize with neo-Nazis. Hypocrite.

        Mij Swerdna -> vr13vr 28 Jan 2015 16:07

        And the Holodomor did not take place anywhere near the ones who go on about it the most. It happened in eastern Ukraine and southern Russia.

        Mij Swerdna -> Pomario 28 Jan 2015 15:33

        Your imagination seems to go to any lengths to make Russia a villain. You are motivated by hatred (bigotry, the stupid kind).

        Mij Swerdna -> firstgeordie 28 Jan 2015 15:26

        Very bigoted of you. Actually, they are more apt to sacrifice. I wouldn't confuse that virtue with a lack of respect for life because that very lack is more than rampant in the west except that there is a growing tendency on the part of the west to arrange for "lesser" peoples to serve as cannon fodder.

        Mij Swerdna -> Pomario 28 Jan 2015 15:14

        Not quite. What he was worried about was the massive propaganda blitz that would have resulted if Russia had opted to honor the Donbas referendum and annexed it. As it turns out, he needn't have. They were going to do what they were going to do to Russia regardless. They should have saved Donbas because those incompetent cowards in the west would not have challenged them militarily if they were part of Russia. There would be wailing and gnashing of teeth to be sure- but no destroyed infrastructure and no thousands of dead civilians and refugees.

        The real aggressors in this conflict are the people who want to exterminate the people of Donbas. I am judging by actions mind you, not the lawyer like gibberish used to justify those actions. If it walks like a duck...

        buttonbasher81 Robobenito 28 Jan 2015 14:51

        Again you haven't actually stated what is meant by support, all you use are conjecture and conspiracy by reffering back to bad things the US has done in the past. All the thousands of people marching on the streets were all CIA operatives were they? Sounds about as believeable as putins Russian soldiers being in the East of Ukraine on holiday to me. And don't trot out that 5bn line, its been stated again and again that was spent over a number of years in the Ukraine and moreover some of which would have gone to Yanukovychs Government. You going to argue the US paid him to overthrow himself?


        Mij Swerdna Jeremn 28 Jan 2015 08:43


        They are inhuman. Kiev is ideologically driven by Lviv, Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk and Volyn (with US blessing).These oblasts had the highest voter turnout and were solidly in Yat's corner. The fact that the actual far right parties did not do well in elections means nothing. They are hiding behind Yats.


        Kolo07 -> EddieGrey1967USA 28 Jan 2015 04:25

        Until recently, I also thought as you.

        But recently it became known fact that it was the Maidan smokescreen.

        Matter was not addressed in the Maidan. The question was decided in quiet rooms.

        Maidan does not put pressure on decision-making. (This issue was resolved in Washington)


        EddieGrey1967USA BMWAlbert 27 Jan 2015 21:58

        You are probably correct about the numbers of troops involved in Crimea. Thanks for the more accurate info. Still, your figures aren't too far out of line with mine.

        I agree with your final comment about Donbas and a national unity government. It is quite interesting to consider what might have followed if the Euromaidan crew had been smart enough to reach out immediately to Donbass last February. Indeed, if they had included Donbass powerbrokers from the early days, they might have held the country together.

        However, to include Donbass powerbrokers in Euromaidan, the new government would have needed to distance itself from the Galician ultranationalists. Do you think that could have happened in theory? My guess is that it couldn't have happened, now that I think about it. I say that because the Galicians were -- and continue to be -- a powerhouse behind the entire Euromaidan revolt, in addition to shaping the government that followed.

        To me, the conflict is all about the the Galicians wanting to eradicate Russian civic identity. The Galicians have been like that from the start. In that respect, they are kind of like fanatics.

        EddieGrey1967USA -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 21:52

        There's a big difference between Serbia and Ukraine, though. That's because the USA is backing the nationalists in Kiev, essentially encouraging them to pursue the dream of an enlarged Ukraine, or a Greater Ukraine (fighting war to keep colonies in Donbass, etc.). By contrast, the USA was opposing Milosevic's efforts to create a Greater Serbia.

        So, even after Yatsenyuk, Poroshenko, Lysenko, Parubiy, etc. are defeated and overthrown, they will never face war crimes tribunals. That's because they will have American protection.

        The only exception to this situation is if the Russians actually capture Yats, Poroshenko, Parubiy etc. and charge them with war crimes. However I don't think this will happen. Most likely Yats & Co will escape west before that ever happens.

        You make a very interesting point about Ukraine being divided on the issue of joining the EU and Russia. In that sense, post war Ukraine could resemble post-Milosevic Serbia. I agree.


        BMWAlbert -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 19:51

        Eddue, the Krim figures I have read state that there were 18,000 (maybe 2500 is paper strength, NOT the real strength).

        Of these 18K I believe about one third (circa 6000) stayed with UA army and were allowed to leave.

        Of the 12000 UA Army troops remaining, only half actually joined the RU Army. 6000 thus chose a 'middle way'. That 12000 total may be aligned with the 13000 figure you cite (?).

        It might be noted that the whole of the semi-autonomous province might not have been lost at all had commanders of the UA Army reserve forces actually acted in March 2014 (as ordered) to secure the isthmus. They did not move. It seems Russain Orthodox commanders did not take well the Scientologist from Lviv (Yats) and the Baptist with strong connections with the PL govt. (Turch.).

        Different people have different views on which North American and EU countries might have had influence over these important initial choices for PM and President at a time when UA needed a national unity govt. NOT a single cabinet post was chosen from Donbas. Not smart.


        EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 18:12

        What will become of Ukraine, when this is all over?

        When a nation is defeated in war, all of its people undergo psychological shock. The country questions its self-worth, and it experiments with changes in politics, culture, and social issues. Defeated nations do this as they come to terms with the realization that they have failed the ultimate test.

        These periods of anguished, inward self-reflection on a national scale are especially true for countries that are defeated and conquered. We saw this in France after 1817, during the so-called La Belle Epoque. Something similar happened in Prussia after 1806, and in Germany after 1918 and 1945.

        Ukraine will not only suffer defeat, but it may also lose its independence. How will this generation of young Ukrainians -- the so called Euromaidan Generation -- react to this national trauma? Everything that they have been raised to believe about themselves and their country will have been proven to be false...mythological. Just one big lie.

        Young Ukrainians, after this war, will totally lose respect for the leaders movements like Euromaidan. These young people will question their own values and beliefs. Like the Germans after 1945, Ukrainians, I think, will then work hard to create a new and honest society for themselves. They will renounce ultranationalism, and they will advocate the virtues of peace and political stability.

        That is when Ukraine's true moment of glory will occur. Defeated, conquered...true....but repentant, wise, and progressive. Ukrainians will then be celebrated worldwide for their maturity and commitment to peace, just like the West Germans after 1945.

        EddieGrey1967USA -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 18:02

        You are wrong. The rebel army is large and strong, particularly since so many Donbass men are now enlisting. Read yesterday's article in DB written by Kyiv Post writer/hack/propagandist James Miller and his colleague, Michael Weiss. They confirm this.

        ID8787761 -> alpamysh 27 Jan 2015 15:12

        Not true. US or UK solider caught on camera in Mariopul:
        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-25/out-my-face-please-why-are-us-soldiers-mariupol

        The general is far from alone.

        Actually you're not getting it old boy. The Ukrainian army is attacking its own people in the south east using indiscriminate shelling. The rebels have been defending for almost a year. And you plucked that 9000 number from thin air. Without tangible evidence your statement of 9000 people is meaningless.

        EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 15:11

        What surprises me especially is that Western news suppresses information about the severity of Ukrainian military defeats. The Western media has been doing this from the very beginning.

        For example, in Crimea last March, 13,000 Ukrainian troops defected to the Russians immediately. That is out of a total of 25,000 Ukrainian soldiers stationed in Crimea at the time. Only a few Western media sources reported the shocking truth about these Ukrainian defections.

        The reality is that most Ukrainians are not motivated to fight for Kiev. The Ukrainian people want peace. Only the Galician ideologically driven hard cores are willing to do combat, and their morale is falling fast because of their endless defeats.

        At this point in time, I would imagine that the Galician troops must feel overawed and frightened at the prospect of doing combat with the pro-Russian rebels. Does the Ukrainian military even have medical psychiatric support to treat the combat trauma suffered by these troops?

        What will happen after the war, when these defeated and traumatized soldiers -- many suffering from combat induced psychosis -- return home to Galicia? It's upsetting to realize the things that might happen.

        But Kiev started this war....the Donbass people didn't start it.

        EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 15:05

        Ukraine is facing total disaster now, kind of like a sinking ship. It's economy is destroyed, and it is losing a war so badly that all of Ukraine may eventually be conquered by the rebels.

        Ukrainian military casualties are roughly 3,500 killed in action, and another 9,000 wounded. That is shocking. Kiev is trying to hide the magnitude of the disaster from its own people, but Ukrainian citizens are becoming aware of the horrible battle losses. Entire villages in Ukraine are reportedly ignoring Kiev's draft notices.

        For historicians, social scientists, and economists, Ukraine is a classic case of a nation in defeat. The experts are observing Ukraine closely as it disintegrates.

        All of this would have been avoided if only the Euromaidan government consisted of reasonable people.

        [Jan 26, 2015] Syriza Wins and the NYT and WSJ Coverage Competes for Mendacity By William K. Black

        Previously you can expect MSM to provide some basic facts about foreign events correctly. Now everything is distorted, facts. opinions, places and events... It's like a world in some computer game that has only superficial connection to reality.
        January 25, 2015 | neweconomicperspectives.org

        The Wall Street Journal and the New York Time's eurozone reporters, who share the same unshakable devotion to TINA and austerity as the Murdochized WSJ news staff have been thrown into a panic by Syriza's electoral successes in Greece.

        Both papers are freaked out, as are the Germans, about the potential for Greece to spark a wave of rejections of the troika's infliction of austerity in a manner similar to how the infliction of self-destructive austerity programs pursuant to the Washington Consensus' demands led to the "lost decade" and the democratic election of what is now over a dozen Latin American candidates running on anti-austerity platforms. The Washington Consensus was drafted and named by an economist at Pete Peterson's International Institute. Peterson is a Wall Street billionaire whose mission is causing debt and deficit hysteria and plugging the joys of austerity and unraveling the safety nets. His greatest goal is privatizing Social Security – producing hundreds of billions in additional fees for Wall Street.

        The NYT predicted that:

        "A Syriza victory would lift the hopes of euroskeptic parties elsewhere in Europe, especially in Spain, where the left-leaning, anti-austerity Podemos party, not yet a year old, is already drawing 20 percent support in national opinion polls. The leader of Podemos, Pablo Iglesias, joined Mr. Tsipras this week during Syriza's final campaign rally."

        The WSJ makes a similar point to explain the significance of Syriza's electoral success.

        "A Syriza victory would also be closely watched by other antiausterity parties in Europe-on the left and the right-that have been gaining ground in the past year. In Europe-wide parliamentary elections last spring, voters fed up with years of cutbacks, rising unemployment and a shrinking social state, strongly backed new and fringe antiestablishment parties such as France's National Front and Spain's newly created Podemos party in a reaction to Europe's old guard."

        Pete Peterson Brings Latin America's Lost Decade to Europe

        The NYT responded by citing quoting as its one non-partisan economic commentator on Syriza's win – a Peterson institute economist! Yes, the people that crafted the Washington Consensus and claimed U.S. fiscal stimulus would produce hyper-inflation and who praised Germany's austerity policies were presented by the NYT as the impartial experts on austerity – with no explanation of any of this history.

        "'[Alexis Tsipras, Syriza's leader] is campaigning on change and the end of austerity,' said Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, who argues that Mr. Tsipras must move toward a more centrist stance if he hopes to revive the economy and keep Greece solvent.

        'If he can pull that off, that will be the best possible outcome for Greece and for Europe, because it would show that these protest movements ultimately recognize reality, which is that they are in the euro, and they have to play by the rules,' he added."

        The NYT did not bother to explain what the Peterson economist meant by the phrase "they have to play by the rules." He means that Greece must continue to follow draconian austerity under the eurozone's oxymoronic "Stability and Growth Pact" that has caused massive instability and crippled growth because it requires the economic malpractice of responding to a Great Recession by forcing Greece, Spain, and Italy into Great Depressions. As I have explained many times, Greece's current Great Depression is more severe and long-lasting than its Great Depression 80 years ago. Under the plan the troika successfully extorted prior Greek leaders to adopt he will be forced to further tighten the austerity screws for at least another five years. When the Peterson economist says that he hopes Tsipras "move[s] toward a more centrist stance" he means he hopes Tsirpras betrays all of his campaign promises and adopts austerity.

        The NYT Thinks its Redemptive for Poor Greeks to Suffer

        But it gets better, for Peterson's economist says that if Syriza betrays the promises it made to the people of Greece and instead embraces austerity it will "revive the economy and keep Greece solvent." Austerity has forced Greece into a Great Depression – the opposite of "reviv[ing] the economy." A sovereign government is not a corporation and doesn't (and can't) use GAAP accounting. It is not "insolvent" because it has debts. It that is the definition, then austerity has not and will not make Greece "solvent."

        The Peterson economist then ends on an even worse note. He implicitly defines "reality" as requiring brutal austerity. He excludes fiscal stimulus, even though – as Paul Krugman (and many folks like us have tried to explain for many years – the great majority of economists think responding to a Great Recession with austerity constitutes economic malpractice.

        The NYT also throws in its near constant meme that the Greeks aren't mature and ready to "sacrifice" enough to get better. They still believe in the medical myth that you need to bleed a patient to help him recover. Embracing austerity constitutes pointless masochism that delays rather than speeds recovery from a Great Recession – suffering inflicted primarily on the poor and the sick, but the NYT loves to blame poor Greeks.

        "Continuing economic weakness has stirred a populist backlash as more voters grow fed up with policies that demand sacrifice."

        Opposing austerity is not immoral, weak, or "populist." It is good economics and humane – a win-win.

        The WSJ Claims Austerity Helped the Greeks Economy (by ignoring the Great Depression)

        The WSJ doesn't need one of Peterson's economists to match the NYT's mendacity. In the midst of a purported news story (not an opinion piece) the WSJ states the following as if it were undisputed fact.

        Since first seeking a bailout in 2010, Greece has undertaken a broad sweep of economic overhauls and cutbacks that have helped mend its public finances and nudged the economy back to growth following six years of deep recession. Those cutbacks have come at a cost: Some 25% of Greeks remain jobless, while a quarter of households live close to the poverty line.

        It is a clumsy attempt at mendacity given that the facts in the second sentence render risible the fiction foisted in the first sentence. Austerity has not "nudged the economy back to growth following six years of deep recession." Austerity threw an economy in a deep recession into a gratuitous Great Depression. But for austerity, Greece could have begun a robust recovery four years ago.

        There are at the time I write this two WSJ articles about the Greek election and the second one also has a clunker that is unintentionally hilarious.

        And if Syriza refuses to meet those terms: Will Merkel blink?

        No. German leaders fear that funding a Greece that refuses to reform would be the death knell of the eurozone. Other debtor countries could conclude that they could blackmail Berlin, refuse to cut their deficits or overhaul their economies, and still get German taxpayers' money.

        Where to start?

        • The horribly designed euro, a design Germany insisted on, austerity, which Germany insisted on, and a horribly designed ECB, which Germany insisted on, will be the "death knell of the eurozone" if Prime Minister Merkel continues those policies.
        • Germany has repeatedly used the troika, the bond vigilantes, and the desperation of peoples in crisis to "blackmail" nations throughout the eurozone – and German politicians have then proceeded to mock and excoriate the Greeks when they succumbed to that blackmail.
        • The economic policies Syriza supports are economically sensible – they will speed the eurozone's recovery and eventually be highly beneficial to the German people
        • The economic policies Merkel has blackmailed the eurozone leaders into inflicting on their own peoples constitute economic malpractice. They slow the recovery and cause immense human misery that serves no purpose.
        • Troubled debt renegotiations occur thousands of times every day because we learned hundreds of years ago that once a debtor has been pushed to the point of default with no prospect for relief it makes sense to let the debtor make a fresh start
        • The ECB can shoehorn the euro into becoming a quasi-sovereign currency for the eurozone if the concern is "German taxpayers." The German courts might try to block it, but if the alternative is a new, even deeper crisis they may allow the ECB to do what needs to be done. The ECB has repeatedly had to evolve beyond its original German design in order to prevent the eurozone's collapse.

        [Jan 24, 2015] A typical pattern of behaviour of western MSM in Ukraine civil war coverage

        Looks like cold War Ii started and propaganda is in full swing. Propaganda is generally an appeal to emotion, not intellect. There are four conditions for a message to be considered propaganda. Propaganda involves the intention to persuade and deceive. Propaganda is sent on behalf of a state, organization, or cause. It is distributed to a significant group of people. Finally, propaganda is a struggle for mind of people (as the term brainwashing implies).
        Notable quotes:
        "... The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when it can be blamed on the rebels. ..."
        Jan 24, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

        karl1haushofer , January 24, 2015 at 7:34 am

        Western MSM is having a field day over the Mariupol GRAD attack that killed civilians and was supposedly done by the rebels. The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when it can be blamed on the rebels.

        Finnish MSM is in a full propaganda swing. They are ignoring the shelling in Gorlovka that has killed many civilians but are reporting the Mariupol shelling with big headlines. And they are once again censoring the user comments with a heavy hand that try to point of the media hypocrisy.

        [Jan 24, 2015] A typical pattern of behaviour of western MSM in Ukraine civil war coverage

        Looks like cold War Ii started and propaganda is in full swing. Propaganda is generally an appeal to emotion, not intellect. There are four conditions for a message to be considered propaganda. Propaganda involves the intention to persuade and deceive. Propaganda is sent on behalf of a state, organization, or cause. It is distributed to a significant group of people. Finally, propaganda is a struggle for mind of people (as the term brainwashing implies).
        Notable quotes:
        "... The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when it can be blamed on the rebels. ..."
        Jan 24, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

        karl1haushofer , January 24, 2015 at 7:34 am

        Western MSM is having a field day over the Mariupol GRAD attack that killed civilians and was supposedly done by the rebels. The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when it can be blamed on the rebels.

        Finnish MSM is in a full propaganda swing. They are ignoring the shelling in Gorlovka that has killed many civilians but are reporting the Mariupol shelling with big headlines. And they are once again censoring the user comments with a heavy hand that try to point of the media hypocrisy.

        [Jan 24, 2015] OPINION - the Monster came for his Creator by Darya Mitina

        vz.ru

        France reports about the prevention of another terrorist attack, and it is possible that he also has Islamic footprint. Those developments French authorities are trying to explain within the topic of freedom of speech and insult religious feelings, but we must not forget that France has made a tremendous contribution to the strengthening of radical Islamists. Primarily by its participation in the Syrian war.

        An interesting coincidence: the day before the tragedy with the execution of cartoonists French President Francois Hollande, speaking on radio France Inter, expressed regret that the French did not invaded Syria in 2013, when " the chemical weapons there were used," In the same program, answering the question whether France will cooperate with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the fight against ISIL, Hollande said that it is better to avoid such relationships.

        "The presidents Sarkozy and Hollande literally forced the French diplomatic corps and intelligence to falsify data, which served as a justification for the overthrow of Assad"

        However, not all will find such a coincidence revealing. Because of the abundance of people willing to take responsibility for the terrorist act, the world community still has doubts about the chief culprit. The ownership of extremists now is loudly disputed al-Qaeda and separated from it the Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). We still do not know about the results of the investigation yet, and any of them can be the perpetrator, but we should think about how the powerful organization which was able to capture half of Iraq and a third of Syria emerged and why there is a French footprint in this whole story.

        The reason of the active participation of France in the current events related to repartitioning of the Middle East is clear - with the collapse of the world colonial system collapsed so-called "Sykes - Picot" framework, which in the beginning of XX century defined spheres of influence of Western powers in the region. In recent years, Paris put tremendous efforts in restoring its presence on the African continent: it was due the initiative of France that Libya was practically wiped off the face of the earth. As a result of direct French military intervention occurred coups and began a bloody war in Côte D'ivoire and Mali. No less aggressive French government behaves in the Syria and Lebanon, which its traditionally considered its own colonies. Volume were written about the role the United States and other Western powers in creation and nurturing long-term growth of terrorist organizations like al-Qaida, but it is difficult not to note the special role of France in those events, especially its role in the incitement of the current civil conflict in Syria. The tragedy that spawned ISIL in the form in which we now know it.

        With the coming to power of the younger Assad France tried to restore its influence in the country, proposing to the Syrian government reform package. A key innovation was the re-equipment of the Syrian army, reducing its number, rejection of military-technical cooperation with Russia and China and the shift towards France of all programs of the acquisition of military equipment. The French plan had been developed with the involvement of closely associated with the Saudi elite and personally Jacques Chirac Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, It was rejected by Assad, A move that predetermined the further anti-Syrian strategy of the French authorities. Another worry for French was the desire of Damascus toward the establishment of closer economic relations with Turkey, In general, the death sentence to the government of Bashar al-Assad was signed much earlier than the beginning of the so-called "Arab spring".

        Analyst STRATFOR Scott Stewart called France "the most consistent supporter of tough measures against Syria from all European countries".

        Over the centuries the methods, in fact, has not changed - still the same game on the contradictions of ethnic and religious minorities. Hoping to regain lost positions in independent and secular Syrian Republic Paris creates simulacra - prototypes neo-colonial administration, privacy for this runaway Syrian officials and saturating money and weapons dummy patterns émigré opposition. It is no coincidence that in Paris found refuge the richest man in Syria, the oligarch and former Vice President Abdel Halim Khaddam, cherishing the dream of return to spit on the grave of Bashar al-Assad" (back in 2006, he announced the creation of "the Syrian government in exile").

        It was in Paris with the help of French secret service defected the son of a former defense Minister, commander of the elite 10th brigade of the Republican guard General Manaf Tlass, publicly, through the media, thanking the government of France for the organization of his escape. Paris is now the center of attraction Syrian losers - including the new political alignment of clowns calling themselves the National coalition of Syrian revolutionary and opposition forces (NCSROF). It is not surprising that France became the first state to officially recognize this "government in exile" and organized a public fundraising for the organization in the "liberated from Assad" (read: occupied by insurgents) areas. And again, it was France at the beginning of the Syrian revolt initiated the creation of the so-called "group of friends of Syria", and de facto anti-Syrian coalition consisting of 11 countries (UAE, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Italy, Germany, France, Egypt, USA and UK), which today plays first fiddle in the conflict. For any couple of years by the efforts of this coalition was established mobilization structure which was capable to destabilize the situation in Syria and ultimately maintain a full-fledged civil war.

        France is also the initiator and the lobbyist of all anti-Syrian resolutions in the UN security Council. Several attempts to legitimize intervention in Syria through the security Council faced a Russian veto, which, however, did not prevent the Western powers (especially the US and the same France) to provide both overt and covert support to Syrian anti-government groups. After France took on the post of the Chairman, the Paris several times brokered the sending of the UN observer mission in Syria. In addition, in June 2012, Hollande said about the need for tougher sanctions against the Syrian authorities including the use of military force, and the head of the French Foreign Affairs Minister Laurent Fabius called on to create over the Republic no-fly zone based on Libyan model, calling the Syrian government "clique killers" and accusing Russia (followed by U.S. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton) in supplying Damascus weapons.

        The basis for military intervention by the French President tried to make a massacre in al-Houla, blaming the Syrian army, but then that failed it has found a new, long-running fake pretext for intervention based on supposed use by Damascus of chemical weapons. Swinging this agenda and using support of London, Paris began to push the subject of the abolition of the European embargo on arms supplies to Syrian rebels. Under France pressure at the end of February 2013, the EU Council soften the embargo, allowing to put in SAR "non-lethal goods", including armored vehicles, body armor, communications equipment and night vision devices. A little later, without waiting for a harmonized EU decision to lift the restrictions, Paris announced the readiness of their own, regardless of the position of other EU member States to arm Syrian insurgents by restoring the balance of forces in the conflict between the regime of Bashar al-Assad and the opposition. "It is our duty to help the coalition and the Free Syrian army in all possible ways," said Hollande.

        Messages Syrian rebels on regular destruction of government aircraft testify about the possession of modern air defenses (formally, they are not offensive but defensive weapons and are not covered by sanctions ), and military experts clarify: we are talking about the French Mistral MANPADS. Delivery militants communications, protected from interception, the French authorities have acknowledged before, from the very beginning of the crisis. Here it is worth remembering that in the case of Libya Paris have violated the UN security Council resolution banning supply of weapons. And in the recently published book, the ideologist of the French neo-colonialism Bernard Henri levy directly says that the first list of required weapons, the defector - General Abdul Fatah Younis handed personally to President Sarkozy on the first day of their meeting at the Elysee Palace.

        In may 2014 Laurent Fabius said in Washington on 14 cases of alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria since October 2013 (including chemical attack in Eastern Guta and the village of Kafr Zeta in the province of Hama), attributing them all, without exception, the Syrian army. But at the same time expressed regret that the United States is not launched in August 2013 rocket attacks on government facilities, because it would change many things." In parallel, France tried to push through the UN security Council a draft resolution transmitting the case about the situation with the civil war in Syria to the international criminal court "to deal with war crimes and crimes against humanity". And as you can guess the accused party is only the government.

        After a chemical attack near Damascus, which looked like a rough, but very timely provocation, France was the only European state, which unconditionally supported of the USA and have expressed a willingness to undertake military intervention without a UN mandate, even after a supposed ally, the UK said "no" to this initiative in the Parliament.

        In an exclusive interview with the French newspaper Le Monde, August 20, 2014 French President for the first time recognized directly in supplying terrorists with weapons:

        "Who told you that we are not supplying weapons to the rebels, that is, the democratic opposition? The international community bears a great responsibility for what is happening in Syria. If two years ago steps were taken to organize the transfer of power, we wouldn't have gotten ISIL. If a year ago the world powers react to the use of Bashar al-Assad, chemical weapons, we would not need to make a terrible choice between a dictator and a terrorist. The rebels deserve our active support."

        According to available all of the same Le Monde, the supply of arms was carried out secretly and included machine guns of 12.7 mm caliber, grenade launchers, armor, night vision goggles and communications. Formally, the assistance was directed rebel detachments which were members of the "free Syrian army", however, soon after the start of delivery, according to the French side, the fighters of the Islamic front looted armories of FSA on the Syrian-Turkish border. However, this has not affected the readiness of Paris to arm Syrian anti-government forces and forth. "We must not weaken the support that we had these rebels is the only one who shares democratic sentiments," said the President in August 2014.

        In published recently, but has already become a sensation book journalists Georges Malbrunot and Christian Secno "Road to Damascus: the black dossier Franco-Syrian relations" describes how the presidents Sarkozy and Hollande literally forced the French diplomatic corps and intelligence to falsify data, which served as a justification for the overthrow of Assad. In particular, information about the use of government forces of Syria's chemical weapons was falsified. On the direct orders of Hollande's special adviser of the Ministry of defense Jean-Yves Le Drian was "editing" database of the main intelligence Directorate and the General staff of France about the chemical attack in the area of Guta. This sarin attack gave rise to large-scale propaganda campaign in the press that accompanied the efforts of the French authorities to lobby through the UN authorization for use of military force.

        One of the heroes of the book, former French Ambassador to Syria Eric Chevallier warned the Elysee Palace about what is the consequence of the underestimation of the strength of positions of the Syrian government in their own country: "the Assad Regime will not fall, its position is strong, people will not turn away from him." But then foreign Minister Alain Juppe directly said to the French Ambassador in Damascus: "We don't care about your information it uninteresting. Bashar Assad must go, and he will go".

        It is extremely significant that the efforts made by France to overthrow the legitimate government in Syria are far greater than the measures taken by the West against the spread on the Middle East militants of the Islamic state, whose crimes against humanity, unlike the mythical crimes of the Syrian President, today the world is watching live. Apparently, because the enemy of my enemy may not be exactly friend, but certainly is a valuable ally.

        While we share the grief with French society, I am reminded about the words of the Minister of internal Affairs of France Manuel Valls that hundreds of Islamists with French passports today fighting in Mali, Yemen, Somalia and Syria. It is naive to assume that, in gross violation of international law in favor of the right forces, initiating several coups at the same time, cherishing and nurturing terrorist ulcers around the world, it is possible to insure its own citizens from tragic incidents like the recent terrorist attack in the staff of the satirical magazine.

        The trouble is not only that captured now by ISIL Syrian (and Iraq) territories have a highest concentration of animal cruelty on Earth (which includes is the reported execution of 13 teenagers for watching football game). The trouble is that this hotbed of Islamic extremism is spreading and has already reached other continents. ISIL very professional campaigning on the Internet and attracts new movement supporters as well as promote radicalization peaceful followers of Islam.

        ISIL now is a training camp for European Muslims, from which they are returning to the EU as "dogs of war". ISIL is a continuous source of violence. ISIL is now a real force, the brand name. and it's by-and-large due to French efforts.

        The movement would not be what it now is without weapons and logistical support from its allies, including France, and the Libyan opposition. They allow it which became a real force, which the West (and especially France) carefully nurtured.

        In other words ISIL is the Golem that has returned to hunt its Creator, who naively decided, that it can be controlled.

        [Jan 24, 2015] One typical pattern of behaviour of western presstitutes in Ukraine civil war coverage

        Looks like cold War Ii started and propaganda is in full swing. Propaganda is generally an appeal to emotion, not intellect. There are four conditions for a message to be considered propaganda. Propaganda involves the intention to persuade and deceive. Propaganda is sent on behalf of a state, organization, or cause. It is distributed to a significant group of people. Finally, propaganda is a struggle for mind of people (as the term brainwashing implies).

        karl1haushofer , January 24, 2015 at 7:34 am

        Western MSM is having a field day over the Mariupol GRAD attack that killed civilians and was supposedly done by the rebels. The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when it can be blamed on the rebels.

        Finnish MSM is in a full propaganda swing. They are ignoring the shelling in Gorlovka that has killed many civilians but are reporting the Mariupol shelling with big headlines. And they are once again censoring the user comments with a heavy hand that try to point of the media hypocrisy.

        [Jan 24, 2015] This Great Democratizer Kerry

        Compare

        [Jan 22, 2015] Donetsk trolleybus explosion blows Ukraine peace negotiations apart by Shaun Walker

        Notable quotes:
        "... Shaun, maybe you can explain why a few days ago the Graun/Observer printed nonsensical stories about the Ukrainian army's victory at the S.S. Prokofiev airport? ..."
        "... You never wondered why there are 300 articles on US/UK mainstream articles, *explicitly* targeted to and titled after Putin, did you? ..."
        The Guardian

        CityCalledNain 22 Jan 2015 17:33

        Shaun, maybe you can explain why a few days ago the Graun/Observer printed nonsensical stories about the Ukrainian army's victory at the S.S. Prokofiev airport?

        After the fiasco of the Graun/BBC trumpeting Ukrainian's supposed victory just before they were crushed at Ilovaisk you should have learned your lesson.

        But, once again you have made yourselves look like idiots, and once again Russian and Novorossiyan news sources have been proved to be accurate


        Vermithrax -> ShermanPotter 23 Jan 2015 07:38

        In my youth the USSR stood at the West German border with a 13-1 tank superiority. Then they were a threat. Now they are hundreds of miles further east with a fraction of the forces at their disposal. They are being used as a convenient bogeyman for policies that do not benefit Europe one jot. They have all the oil and gas Europe needs without the fundamentalist religion. In many ways now they are a natural ally, especially as the alternative is that China will benefit from it.

        I suppose there will always be some Grima Wormtongue's who think being America's fawning client state is a good idea.

        unclesmurf ijustwant2say 22 Jan 2015 17:32

        Putin, is being attacked by the same mechanism that has been attacking governments around the globe for the last seventy years. The one described here:

        http://williamblum.org/books/americas-deadliest-export

        And of course the do not care *at all* about Putin. What they care about, is that how they may get their hands on the huge natural resources of the vast slab of the planet called Russia. You see, Putin, the bad guy, is keeping everything PUBLIC, with the earnings of everything, oil, gas, weapons, going to the Russian state and nor to the bank accounts of very few, insanely rich individuals.

        But I assume you are ok with the UK privatizing British Aerospace, and having now to pay a huge surcharge to the shareholders of QinetiQ. Simply to buy the *same* weapons, designed by the *same* engineers and built by the *same* technicians. But No: "We HAVE to privatize it".

        I also assume you are ok with the trains here in the UK being a complete ripoff, because they are of course private, even if it is the government who pays for the track and even if it they private rail companies are subsidized (as if the huge ticket prices were not sufficient) by the Government, to the tune of BILLIONS annually.

        But No: "We have to privatize it".

        You never wondered why there are 300 articles on US/UK mainstream articles, *explicitly* targeted to and titled after Putin, did you?

        thingreen -> edwardrice 22 Jan 2015 17:28

        Interesting, though that working 'class' people make up bulk of soldiers is not exactly a startling revelation in any war - if you looked at the casualty lists for our anti-terrorist operations against the freedom fighters of PIRA you'd see a similar make up of people who I suspect many here would consider as dupes and economic conscripts.

        Simon311 Damocles59 23 Jan 2015 07:31

        How are they "so-called" rebels?

        It is clear these areas are beyond Kiev' s control and it is time to acknowledge this.

        And If Abkhazia and Ossetia are "basket cases" why are they not asking to join the wonderful nation of Georgia?

        Simon311 Robert Looren de Jong 23 Jan 2015 07:29

        Whatever it is clear that the people in these regions are not going to be reconciled to the Kiev Government.

        Time to recognise this and end the fighting.

        wombat123 -> Custodis 23 Jan 2015 07:26

        The people labeled "rebels" started off by refusing to recognize the leaders of the coup as a lawful government, which in fact, they were not under the Ukrainian constitution. These people included most of the police officers in eastern Ukraine. The killing started when the supporters of the coup came east and attacked those refusing to accept the coup so the fighting did not start with a rebellion as the term is normally understood.

        It is perverse to label those who oppose the violent overthrow of lawful authority as "rebels". It was clear that most people in the east thought the coup was a criminal act and its leaders were not the lawful government. It is quite clear that it was the supporters of the coup who are the aggressors and they came east and attacked people who did not accept the coup as lawful.

        Some of the first combat started when supporters of the coup started attacking police in the east. Were the police officers "rebels" for opposing the armed overthrow of their country's constitutional order and elected government? "Rebel" does not seem like an honest term for someone in that situation.

        DCarter -> Gaz0007 23 Jan 2015 07:06

        The USSR collapsed largely because it's people, particularly in the non-Russian republics, desired the same rights and freedoms as people in Western Europe and North America...all of whom managed to maintain those freedoms throughout the Cold War by forming a military alliance called NATO.

        In retrospect though those freedoms were illusory, or at best transient, and all we did was to trade domination by a party apparatus for domination by a corporate oligarchy. And it is in those corporate interests that NATO now acts, not in the interests of the people if Eastern Europe or Western Europe or even North America.

        Solongmariane -> Spiffey 23 Jan 2015 07:01

        DNR is getting experienced with the ceasefires from KIEV. It's just asking a time-out to recuoerate losses, to send re-inforcements, and to get new weapons. It was so at 6 sept, and 19 dec. Not again, such time out.

        SHappens 23 Jan 2015 06:42

        The main pro-Russian rebel leader in eastern Ukraine says his troops are on the offensive and he does not want truce talks with Kiev anymore.

        At lest this has he merit to be clear. No more hypocrisy as Kiev never intended to respect any ceasefire but used this time to regroup.

        On the other hands, when you read this below, the dice are loaded and the US goals is war against Russia whatever on the ground. This is a dialogue of the deaf.

        ---

        "This tactic of avoiding questions about what the Ukrainian government is doing by pointing to Russia is becoming increasingly obvious," the journalist said.

        Here is an excerpt from the briefing:

        Gayane Chichakyan: Do the actions of the Ukrainian government comply with the Minsk agreement?

        Jen Psaki: In general Russia has illegally – and Russian-backed separatists have illegally – come into Ukraine, including Donetsk. Ukraine has a responsibility and an absolute right to defend itself. We certainly expect both sides to abide by the Minsk agreements. We have not seen that happen, we've seen a lot of talk, not a lot of backup from the Russian side.

        GC: I am specifically asking about the actions of the Ukrainian government. Can you give a more definitive answer, whether or not they comply with the Minsk agreements?

        JP: You are not talking about a specific incident, I think I'll leave it at what I said.

        GC: With the Minsk agreement, do they comply? You pass a judgment that Russia is not complying with the agreement, can you assess whether Ukraine is complying?

        JP: I listed a range of specific ways Russia is not complying.

        GC: Under the agreement sides must avoid deploying and using heavy artillery. Isn't it what the Ukrainian government is doing right now?

        JP: First of all, let's start again with the fact that Russia has illegally intervened in Ukraine and come into a country that was a sovereign country. So I am not sure that you are proposing that a sovereign country doesn't have the right to defend themselves.

        GC:I am asking specifically about the actions of the Ukrainian government, you are veering off.

        JP: I think we are going to leave it at that.

        [Jan 21, 2015] Listening to Lavrov and remembering the Crusaders

        What we have here is the clash between the once dominant Machiavellian school, symbolized by Henry Kissinger, and the now dominant neoconservative school, symbolized by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and thrust into dominance by George W. Bush (Bush II) and Barak Obama. I actually find the old Machiavelli school preferable. We didn't have to endure the insufferable hypocrisy of how the USA is fighting in Ukraine to "spread democracy."
        Jan 21, 2015 | vineyardsaker.blogspot.com

        I was just listening to Lavrov's reaction to the latest grandstanding nonsense spewed yesterday by Obama. Lavrov mentioned that it is rather clear that the USA refuse to be even the "first amongst equals". I had to smile.

        Lavrov was referring to the notion of primus inter pares which means just that, "first amongst equals", and which was the primacy of honor the entire Christian world was willing to grant Patriarch of Rome because, at the time, Rome was the capital of the Empire. But then, just as now, being just the "first amongst equals" was not good enough for the leader of the West which already wanted to subjugate all the other Patriarchates (Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople), soon thereafter, the entire planet (spiritually via the Dictatus papae and secularly via the Treaty of Tordesillas).

        Apparently nothing has changed in over 1000 years. The leader of the "Western World" still wants to be the Pontifex Maximus of the entire planet and the leaders of the East as still resisting him.

        The Saker

        PS: I forgot to add: and the Latins still want us, people from the East, to shut up, stop reminding them of their historical record - now they want to pretend like we are brothers. Yeah, brothers like Cain and Abel I suppose - Russia today sure "feels the love", no doubt here. You are only kidding yourselves...

        [Jan 21, 2015] Russia condemns US for wanting to 'dominate the world' after State of the Union

        "Yesterday's speech by President Obama shows that at the centre of the [US's] philosophy is only one thing: 'We are number one and everyone else has to recognise that' … It shows that the United States wants all the same to dominate the world and not merely be first among equals."
        January 21, 2015 | theguardian.com

        Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov accuses Obama of taking 'course of confrontation' over remarks in speech aimed at Russia

        Russia has hit back at Barack Obama's State of the Union speech, saying that it showed the US believes it is "number one" and seeks world domination.

        The US president said his country was upholding "the principle that bigger nations can't bully the small" by opposing what he called Russian aggression and supporting democracy in Ukraine.

        "The Americans have taken the course of confrontation and do not assess their own steps critically at all," the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, told a news conference on Wednesday.

        "Yesterday's speech by President Obama shows that at the centre of the [US's] philosophy is only one thing: 'We are number one and everyone else has to recognise that' … It shows that the United States wants all the same to dominate the world and not merely be first among equals."

        This phase would pass, Lavrov said, but added that it would take time for US thinking on foreign policy to become less aggressive. "I would prefer all countries to adopt the philosophy of cooperation, not diktat," he said.

        Relations between Russia and the US have sunk to their lowest level since the end of the cold war, mainly because of Moscow's confrontation with the west over the crisis in Ukraine, during which western nations have imposed sanctions on Russia.

        Lavrov said ties between Moscow and Washington had deteriorated in 2014 and called for cooperation, including on Iran and Syria.

        Washington and the west believe Moscow is the driving force behind a rebellion by pro-Russian separatists in east Ukraine and provides them with arms and troops. Russia denies this.

        Lavrov drew a parallel between the Maidan protests in Kiev that culminated in the overthrow last year of Moscow-backed Viktor Yanukoych as president and the violence in the US town of Ferguson over a court decision that fuelled racial tensions.

        He quoted Obama as saying that destroying property while rioting was criminal and should be prosecuted. "No one in the west said anything similar about what was happening on the Maidan. No one. And buildings and people were set ablaze," he said, accusing the west of reverting to double standards.

        [Jan 21, 2015] Lavrov on Obama speech Efforts to isolate Russia will fail

        RT News
        Attempts at isolating Russia will not work, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said at a press conference on the outcome of 2014.

        "We hear from our Western partners that Russia has to be isolated," Lavrov said. "Specifically, Barack Obama has just repeated that. These attempts won't be effective. Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Russia will never resort to self-isolation."

        The minister said Moscow is calling on Washington to resume cooperation that was thwarted last year. "Relations between Moscow and Washington significantly deteriorated in 2014. We call for resuming effective cooperation at a bilateral and international level. But dialogue is only possible if based on equality and respect for each other's interests," he said.

        Cutting ties with NATO was not Russia's choice, according to Lavrov.

        "NATO followed the US in its drive for confrontation. NATO made an absolutely politicized decision to halt civil and military cooperation. Almost all projects have been frozen," Lavrov said. Moscow "will not allow a new Cold War," he added.

        Commenting on US President Barack Obama's State of the Union Speech, Lavrov said it showed Washington wanted to dominate the world and required all the rest to acknowledge their superiority.

        "Americans are absolutely non-critical in assessing their own steps, and yesterday's speech by Obama shows that the core of their philosophy is: 'we are number one'. And all the rest should accept that."

        Lavrov described US "aggressive" foreign policy as "outdated."

        No proof of Russian military in southeastern Ukraine

        Lavrov has denied allegations of a Russian military presence in southeastern Ukraine, calling on those who believe the opposite to prove their point. "I say it every time: if you are so sure in stating that, confirm it with facts. But no one can or wants to provide them," he said.

        Lavrov said he would try to negotiate an immediate ceasefire in eastern Ukraine at talks in Berlin due to take place later in the day. The foreign ministers of Ukraine, Germany and France are expected to be present.

        He said it was now vital to withdraw heavy artillery from the line separating militia-held territories from those under Kiev's control. The move would prevent civilian casualties. "Russia has already persuaded the self-defense fighters to withdraw heavy artillery," he said. "Now the Ukrainian authorities should do their bit."

        Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is, according to Lavrov, ready to discuss the peace plan offered by President Putin on January 15, despite earlier reports of its rejection.

        READ MORE: Poroshenko rejected Putin's artillery withdrawal plan, began assault – Kremlin

        "Judging by the reaction of President Poroshenko, we feel he's ready to discuss it, but raises certain questions, some of those quite technical. They can all be agreed upon equitably."

        In response, Poroshenko says that Kiev is committed to adhering to the Minsk agreement. The Ukrainian president also says that his country wants to see an end to the conflict in eastern Ukraine by "removing heavy artillery" and "starting a political process."

        "We will do everything possible to turn the situation around to follow the Minsk agreement. This is very simple. The Minsk agreement is a peaceful option," the Ukrainian president said, as reported by RIA Novosti.

        Recent days have seen an escalation of violence in eastern Ukraine. Government troops launched a massive assault on militia-held areas, in accordance with a presidential order.

        Residential areas have come under fire with reports of several civilian casualties.

        A hospital in Donetsk was severely damaged on Monday, when at least two shells struck it.

        Human rights groups have called on both sides to protect civilians in conflict zones.

        Amnesty International called on militias not launch operations from populated areas, and demanded that Kiev stops its indiscriminate shelling of residential blocks.

        [Jan 20, 2015] The Guardian View of war in Ukraine maintain the pressure on Russia

        Notable quotes:
        "... DNR reports can't be taken at face value, though. They're biased. To me, DNR reports are only good if they are backed up by AP or Reuters info, or if they're associated by twitter announcements from people near the battle zone who are known not to be trolls (i.e., people who are reasonably objective). ..."
        "... "The artillery and aviation overwhelm the city with their shells, and then we're going to clean-up operation, it is normal procedure in this war." ..."
        Jan 20, 2015 | The Guardian

        EdwardGreen1968 -> IngAzazello 20 Jan 2015 19:04

        Putin wants Donbass to remain in Ukraine as a self-governing part of the country. Obviously he's hoping to maximize Russian influence in Ukraine by operating through the Donbass's future leaders. For Putin, such an arrangement will work like a Trojan Horse strategy.

        For the obvious reasons, Kiev isn't happy with Putin's aims. That's understandable. What's reprehensible about Kiev, however, is that it won't simply cut Donbass loose and end the war. After all, we're talking about millions of people in east Ukraine who don't want to be part of Ukraine anymore. Kiev has no good reason for fighting over this.

        Kiev could solve two problems at once by allowing Ukraine to divided. Think about it.

        EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015 18:57

        That could very well happen, but Poroshenko will be replaced by Yatsenyuk and the pro-war party. Those ultranationalists and far rightists are the ones pressuring Poroshenko to somehow "win" the war. Poroshenko's position becomes more and more insecure every time the Ukrainian army's inferiority in combat is demonstrated.

        The only light at the end of the tunnel here, I think, is that the pro-war party is drawing most of its support from the far western provinces of Ukraine. That's the only region that's really hyped up for war. I don't think the rest of Ukraine is really willing to tolerate the agony of ongoing combat. So, when the far western provinces burn out on war, politicians will emerge in Kiev who are ready for peace. But how long will it take to get to that point?

        EdwardGreen1968 wombat123 20 Jan 2015 18:45

        Wombat: I agree with you completely. My greatest fear is that, because of domestic political weakness, Poroshenko won't bite the bullet and make peace.

        From there, Western foreign policy hawks will keep enabling Kiev to go back into battle -- to get destroyed again -- for no good reason.

        EugeneGur -> sasha19 20 Jan 2015 18:38

        Cargo 200 reports are all false?

        They likely are. Some have been proven to be false. Most are repetitions of the same statements from the same sources. Some of these reports claim that there are as many as 15,000 Russian soldiers fighting in Donbass. Have you ever asked yourself a question how come that not a single one has ever been killed or captured to be shown to the world to be positively identified as an active member of the Russian army? All we have is some unlabeled graves that could belong to anybody, some unknown people making claims that cannot be verified. Everything I've seen coming from Donbass shows that there are no Russian soldiers there only volunteers, but that nobody denies.

        Colin Robinson 20 Jan 2015 18:34

        Use of SS insignia by the Azov Battalion is blatant enough to have been noticed by the BBC. They are nazis, self-proclaimed... but after all (some say) they're just one little section of a broader nationalist movement... If the majority of Kiev's enforcers do not wear such blatant fascist gear, why worry?

        Thing is, fascists have historically used a range of symbols, not all of German origin. The National Front in Britain is a militant, ultra-nationalist movement with a history of marching behind the Union Jack... While SS logos are a serious provocation in themselves, what people wear is in the end less important that what they do.

        The nationalistic movement currently dominant in Kiev has a record of lethal violence - the riot police set alight by petrol bombs in Maidan, the mass lynching in Odessa on May 2, the shooting of civilians from armoured vehicles in Mariupol on May 9... Maybe behaviour like this should have been enough to set alarm bells ringing around the world, with or without SS insignia?

        wombat123 20 Jan 2015 18:13

        Putin already chose peace. It is the leaders of the coup and their NATO backers who chose violence and civil war instead of elections. As a consequence, there is no government that is legitimate under Ukraine's constitution or in the eyes of all regions of the country.

        Just as it was the NATO-backed leaders of the coup that overthrew the elected government through violence and civil war, it is they who are massively violating the ceasefire agreement with large scale shelling of civilians in eastern cities. They would not have done this without a green light and support from NATO. NATO is not just supporting a renewal of the civil war but serious war crimes as well.

        MaxBoson -> moncur 20 Jan 2015 17:42

        At the time the exodus took place, TV was full of pictures of highways filled with Serbs in endless ten-wide columns fleeing Croatia. Some say they left out of fear, some that they were driven out; regardless of the details, it boils down to an expulsion. In any event, it is beyond dispute that the Serbs left and that there were around 300,000 of them. This event has been called the largest ethnic-cleansing of the entire Balkan tragedy.

        EugeneGur -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015 17:28

        We all wish for that but I am not sure it's realistic. At least, to stop the destruction of the cities would be great. Gorlovka is devastated and Donetsk is in a bad shape.

        The info is from

        http://rusvesna.su/

        They've proven to be reasonably reliable before.


        Manolo Torres -> sasha19 20 Jan 2015 17:19

        Can you quote those articles, because other more compelling evidence like Russian prisoners of war or Russian death soldiers (remember when we were told that the Ukranians obliterated all those tanks?) in Ukraine simply doesn´t exist, and it is indeed very difficult to believe that there has been none when there are supposed to be thousands of official Russian forces deployed.

        At the same time the Russian army is apparently a very though place to be, in 2000 more than 1000 Russian soldiers died as "non combatants" , in 2007 around 450. I have my doubts that, for example, the people that run the comittee of mothers of Russian soldiers, and associations of that sort, that received huge amounts of money from US agencies, are not doing some dirty work convincing the families that their sons were indeed killed in Ukraine.

        A link to Khodorkovsky´s foundation, compiling a list from a dubious facebook group, will not do.

        Wu Bravo -> MarcelFromage 20 Jan 2015 17:12

        I read from different sources, because I think herewith I might have a more objective view, description from different perspectives and angles. And even by doing this I never state, I have obtained the only and the very truth. Of course not. Education is the answer, my dear friend. If you do a research, it is obligatory to look at different sources, even though you might disagree with them. So do I, my dear, friend. I do not bother myself, I educate myself and I am trying to be objective, thus relying on FACTS and not on bullshit and not fact-based comments. I disagree with this article but I did not told that my opinion is the only possible truth. However, in comparison to you, my remarks were fact based and to the point, in your case your remarks may be treated as personnel but not fact-based and not to the point. like baby: "may be you are right, but your haircut is awful :). Sorry my friend, if I have offended you by this, it was never my intention, and I will be ready to discuss this issues with you if you provide some facts, I have not noticed

        unended 20 Jan 2015 17:11

        Indeed, it takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Russian propaganda, to even attempt to deny that Russia's armed forces have been deeply engaged in backing the rebel separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk, and making sure Ukraine's sovereignty over its internationally recognised territory is not restored.

        Am I reading the Wall Street Journal opinion page?

        Here's one to try on

        It takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Guardian propaganda, to even attempt to deny that the US and EU have been deeply engaged in backing the rebel fascists of Lviv, and making sure Ukraine's democracy is not restored.

        Manolo Torres -> MarcelFromage, 20 Jan 2015
        Of course, I always do. Here you have it, but next time try doing your own research.

        Kiev MOHYLA school of journalism, partners:

        Rinat Akhmetov Foundation for Development of Ukraine and the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy are pleased to announce the launch of the 2nd year of the Digital Media for Universities Project.

        If you go all the way down to that webpage you find:

        © 2007 Kyiv-Mohyla School of Journalism
        Design: Yuri Panin. Programming: Bogdan Tokovenko. Powered by ExpressionEngine.
        The web site is created with an assistance from the U.S. Department of State through the Educational Partnership Program.

        BBC: Ukrainian tycoon Rinat Akhmetov confronts rebellion

        Separatist leaders have threatened to "nationalise" Mr Akhmetov's assets.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rinat_Akhmetov

        As of April 2014, he was listed as the 101st richest man in the world with an estimated net worth of US 11.6 billion.[5] T here have been claims Akhmetov has been involved in organized crime.

        EdwardGreen1968 -> EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015
        There is a real possibility of encircling the 24th brigade of the Ukrainian army unless they withdraw.

        Wow! That is dramatic. Where are you getting this info? Let's hope it's true.

        The idea is to push the Ukrainian army as far away from the main cities as possible, so they wouldn't be able to fire at them even from far range artillery.

        To be honest, it would be much better for everyone if the rebels execute a complete encirclement of the Ukrainian army. If that's accomplished, Kiev will not be able to play games any longer with fake peace talks, lobbing shells at Donetsk civilians, etc.

        Something decisive like Stalingrad or Dien Bin Phu. That's the kind of victory that will finally end this war.

        EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015 16:48

        The latest - the rebels are gaining pretty well along the entire front. In LPR, the took blockpost 31 and attacking blockpost 29. There is a real possibility of encircling the 24th brigade of the Ukrainian army unless they withdraw. In DPR, rebels took Peski near airpost. Peski, together with Avdeevka, were the towns from which the Ukrainian army fired at Donetsk during the entire period of so called "cease-fire". The idea is to push the Ukrainian army as far away from the main cities as possible, so they wouldn't be able to fire at them even from far range artillery.

        Elena Hodgson -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015

        Edward, people are dying! The sooner this war ends, the less civilians are killed and maimed! Yats with his war speeches is a Rabid Rabbit!

        EdwardGreen1968 -> ID6741142 20 Jan 2015

        A final aside/ note: If, though it will not, the Kievan forces did 'win' the war on the ground what do you think will happen to the people who are caught up in this? Do you think that having been labelled 'terrorists' they will be allowed to sleep easy when the guns stop? What will happen to the women as the invaders arrive? Wake up or this does not have a happy ending!

        That's the reality that Western media reporters and editors are not allowed to talk about. They'll lose their jobs if they do.

        Either way, that horrifying outcome you describe will only happen if Moscow caves in under economic pressure. Kiev can't get to that position militarily. Based on battlefield news, Kiev is destined to lose every single battle, and very badly at that.

        EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015 16:28

        What I meant is that the Ukrainian army is being forced back in combat, but that it's probably succeeding in making an organized retreat. That means that the Ukrainians take casualties, lose ground, but reestablish defensive lines slightly to the west. That is an indecisive victory for the pro-Russian rebels.

        On the other hand, if there were reports that the Ukrainian lines were broken, and that their units were getting encircled (put in kettles) -- just like at Ilovaisk -- then it would be a decisive victory for the rebels.

        It's hard to tell what's really happening based on the reports. The good thing about a decisive outcome -- if it ever happens -- is that it may lead directly to peace (which is what I really want to see).

        EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015

        DNR reports can't be taken at face value, though. They're biased. To me, DNR reports are only good if they are backed up by AP or Reuters info, or if they're associated by twitter announcements from people near the battle zone who are known not to be trolls (i.e., people who are reasonably objective).

        Either way, the proliferation of data during these past few hours suggests the Ukrainians are being backed down at multiple points on the front.

        ID6741142 20 Jan 2015 16:19

        What saddens me in reading so many threads is the real victims of this conflict, the innocent citizens of East Ukraine are, with the odd exception, being ignored. Too many of you seem to want to score political points, trading 'fact's' that none of you will even give time for consideration since they are obviously propaganda, whichever 'side' you support. It is pointless.

        Yet people are dying and a lot more will unless the focus changes, not just on here but in the political world towards actually caring about the people.

        A couple of you deserve commendation as you have recognised this. Also you recognised that BOTH sides have played games.

        Russia does have a regime that has extreme views on many issues. It is willing to exert it power to stop the growth of western influence on its doorstep. And it does have a strong, biased propaganda machine - I know I have Russian friends living in Russia.

        However the West did play a hand in the change of Gov't. It knew that there were strong far-right groups involved in that overthrow & it knows they are exerting a higher level of influence than they should in the current conflict. The West does not have a good track record of backing the 'right' groups.

        Meanwhile, people who did not want a war, die in their homes.

        There is hypocrisy on BOTH sides.

        When it is over there will almost certainly be war crimes that will come to light on both sides.
        Is that why the media is not as high a presence as might be expected?

        You rant about the shelling as if that is the only weapon used against the citizens of the Eastern Ukraine. What about the stopping of aid lorries from the west by the pro-Kiev units - under the control of RW-nationalist leaders?

        Hearts & Minds - that is what wins all civil conflicts, and more importantly underpins any chance to repair the serious damage done to 'trust'. The people in the East will believe Russia more because it is not shooting at them AND more importantly it's aid is getting through. (Yes I know it convoys also have weapons etc hidden but we play those 'games too when it suits.) The West is slow to learn this lesson. It has failed time and again in its middle eastern, conflicts to get this right, it thinks guns not grain, missile not milk & water, even though these cost far less to provide.

        The ONLY solution, whatever anyone may say, is, as already stated, for Ukraine to become, for the foreseeable future, a totally neutral state in which the rights of all citizens/cultures are protected (not just Russian & other ethnic minorities but also cultural sub groups (i.e. LGBT)).

        This may not be what the ordinary Ukrainians want.Not the oligarchs who drove the Kiev changes because they would make more money in the EU!, who rule in this corrupt country (yes corrupt that has been part of he EU's demands to sort it out), What the people really want is not as clear as some might think , and do they actually have the facts to work it out? If we can't be sure about the value of being in the EU in GB, with our so called 'open/ democratic' media what chance do the ordinary Ukrainians have?

        But if getting the country working and people cared for is the true aim of all 'outside influential states' then that 'sacrifice' is worth it to bring peace, and the chance to build a balanced state and economy. It will NEED both Russian and EU/USA support otherwise it will be almost impossible to achieve especially with the war damage to be sorted!

        But while the politicians behave like too many of you on here, with partisan fervour, nationalistic pride etc and blinkered bar room vision, then the people who live in this potentially beautiful and culturally rich nation will continue to die.

        Come on Guardian stop focusing on the politics - we have heard it all before & it is not changing anybody's opinion. Be brave. Lead the field and get the world to know just what price is being paid by the old and young, and agitate for the peace that must happen now, before a humanitarian disaster overtakes it all, and not when nationalistic pride allows it to.

        A final aside/ note: If, though it will not, the Kievan forces did 'win' the war on the ground what do you think will happen to the people who are caught up in this? Do you think that having been labelled 'terrorists' they will be allowed to sleep easy when the guns stop? What will happen to the women as the invaders arrive? Wake up or this does not have a happy ending!

        JezNorth noshtgchq 20 Jan 2015 16:18

        Could be dangerous , these loonies could start another masive false flag - Maidan snipers , MH-17 , buss etc .

        Do you really think this helps your cause or just makes you come off as an crass insta-mod.

        PeraIlic -> Expats10 20 Jan 2015 16:17

        To fight from civilian areas when you have a choice is cowardice.

        What kind of choice are you talking about when the Ukrainian army was practically came to the suburbs of Lugansk and Donetsk. Almost until yesterday, they were bombing the cities from their airports, is not it?

        Ukrainian commander of the attack on Ilovaisk testified before the cameras, "The artillery and aviation overwhelm the city with their shells, and then we're going to clean-up operation, it is normal procedure in this war."

        If you do not believe me, I can very easily find the URL address of the video, just for you.


        Kolobok07 -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015 16:17

        No, the Ukrainian army has resisted ...

        But there are reports of the capture of 39 and 41 checkpoints and attack extended to other positions.
        Pesky and Avdeyevka not completely stripped from the Ukrainian military.


        EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015 16:15

        Indeed, it takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Russian propaganda, to even attempt to deny that Russia's armed forces have been deeply engaged in backing the rebel separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk

        I confess I have that twisted conspiratorial mindset - I do not for a second believe that Russian army is involved in the Donbass fighting. Not only not a shed of evidence has ever been produced, not a single soldiers captured (apart from those unfortunate 10 soldiers that wandered into Ukraine and did not fire a single shot) or a body shown, nothing.
        I do not doubt that Russia supports Donbass, and it should. These are our people that refuse to recognized an illegal "government" imposed on them by foreign powers as a result of a coup, and they appealed to Russia for help. Why shouldn't Russia help? Because the West says so? Furthermore, these people came under attack by the Kiev junta and are fighting for their freedom and their lives. The only fault I can find with the Russian government's behavior is that it doesn't do enough. Nevertheless, they are winning. Junta miscalculated yet again, and the only thing it is capable of is killing civilians.

        graduated reduction in sanctions in return for Russian concessions and cooperation in Ukraine and elsewhere has been set aside

        Why should Russia give concessions in Ukraine and cooperate in killing our people in Donbass? Why should Russia cooperate in supporting what it considers to be a government based on nazi ideology in Ukraine? Give me one good reason.

        For that matter, why should Europe do that? Feeling nostalgic about nazism?

        [Jan 20, 2015] The Guardian View of war in Ukraine maintain the pressure on Russia

        Notable quotes:
        "... DNR reports can't be taken at face value, though. They're biased. To me, DNR reports are only good if they are backed up by AP or Reuters info, or if they're associated by twitter announcements from people near the battle zone who are known not to be trolls (i.e., people who are reasonably objective). ..."
        "... "The artillery and aviation overwhelm the city with their shells, and then we're going to clean-up operation, it is normal procedure in this war." ..."
        Jan 20, 2015 | The Guardian

        EdwardGreen1968 -> IngAzazello 20 Jan 2015 19:04

        Putin wants Donbass to remain in Ukraine as a self-governing part of the country. Obviously he's hoping to maximize Russian influence in Ukraine by operating through the Donbass's future leaders. For Putin, such an arrangement will work like a Trojan Horse strategy.

        For the obvious reasons, Kiev isn't happy with Putin's aims. That's understandable. What's reprehensible about Kiev, however, is that it won't simply cut Donbass loose and end the war. After all, we're talking about millions of people in east Ukraine who don't want to be part of Ukraine anymore. Kiev has no good reason for fighting over this.

        Kiev could solve two problems at once by allowing Ukraine to divided. Think about it.

        EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015 18:57

        That could very well happen, but Poroshenko will be replaced by Yatsenyuk and the pro-war party. Those ultranationalists and far rightists are the ones pressuring Poroshenko to somehow "win" the war. Poroshenko's position becomes more and more insecure every time the Ukrainian army's inferiority in combat is demonstrated.

        The only light at the end of the tunnel here, I think, is that the pro-war party is drawing most of its support from the far western provinces of Ukraine. That's the only region that's really hyped up for war. I don't think the rest of Ukraine is really willing to tolerate the agony of ongoing combat. So, when the far western provinces burn out on war, politicians will emerge in Kiev who are ready for peace. But how long will it take to get to that point?

        EdwardGreen1968 wombat123 20 Jan 2015 18:45

        Wombat: I agree with you completely. My greatest fear is that, because of domestic political weakness, Poroshenko won't bite the bullet and make peace.

        From there, Western foreign policy hawks will keep enabling Kiev to go back into battle -- to get destroyed again -- for no good reason.

        EugeneGur -> sasha19 20 Jan 2015 18:38

        Cargo 200 reports are all false?

        They likely are. Some have been proven to be false. Most are repetitions of the same statements from the same sources. Some of these reports claim that there are as many as 15,000 Russian soldiers fighting in Donbass. Have you ever asked yourself a question how come that not a single one has ever been killed or captured to be shown to the world to be positively identified as an active member of the Russian army? All we have is some unlabeled graves that could belong to anybody, some unknown people making claims that cannot be verified. Everything I've seen coming from Donbass shows that there are no Russian soldiers there only volunteers, but that nobody denies.

        Colin Robinson 20 Jan 2015 18:34

        Use of SS insignia by the Azov Battalion is blatant enough to have been noticed by the BBC. They are nazis, self-proclaimed... but after all (some say) they're just one little section of a broader nationalist movement... If the majority of Kiev's enforcers do not wear such blatant fascist gear, why worry?

        Thing is, fascists have historically used a range of symbols, not all of German origin. The National Front in Britain is a militant, ultra-nationalist movement with a history of marching behind the Union Jack... While SS logos are a serious provocation in themselves, what people wear is in the end less important that what they do.

        The nationalistic movement currently dominant in Kiev has a record of lethal violence - the riot police set alight by petrol bombs in Maidan, the mass lynching in Odessa on May 2, the shooting of civilians from armoured vehicles in Mariupol on May 9... Maybe behaviour like this should have been enough to set alarm bells ringing around the world, with or without SS insignia?

        wombat123 20 Jan 2015 18:13

        Putin already chose peace. It is the leaders of the coup and their NATO backers who chose violence and civil war instead of elections. As a consequence, there is no government that is legitimate under Ukraine's constitution or in the eyes of all regions of the country.

        Just as it was the NATO-backed leaders of the coup that overthrew the elected government through violence and civil war, it is they who are massively violating the ceasefire agreement with large scale shelling of civilians in eastern cities. They would not have done this without a green light and support from NATO. NATO is not just supporting a renewal of the civil war but serious war crimes as well.

        MaxBoson -> moncur 20 Jan 2015 17:42

        At the time the exodus took place, TV was full of pictures of highways filled with Serbs in endless ten-wide columns fleeing Croatia. Some say they left out of fear, some that they were driven out; regardless of the details, it boils down to an expulsion. In any event, it is beyond dispute that the Serbs left and that there were around 300,000 of them. This event has been called the largest ethnic-cleansing of the entire Balkan tragedy.

        EugeneGur -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015 17:28

        We all wish for that but I am not sure it's realistic. At least, to stop the destruction of the cities would be great. Gorlovka is devastated and Donetsk is in a bad shape.

        The info is from

        http://rusvesna.su/

        They've proven to be reasonably reliable before.


        Manolo Torres -> sasha19 20 Jan 2015 17:19

        Can you quote those articles, because other more compelling evidence like Russian prisoners of war or Russian death soldiers (remember when we were told that the Ukranians obliterated all those tanks?) in Ukraine simply doesn´t exist, and it is indeed very difficult to believe that there has been none when there are supposed to be thousands of official Russian forces deployed.

        At the same time the Russian army is apparently a very though place to be, in 2000 more than 1000 Russian soldiers died as "non combatants" , in 2007 around 450. I have my doubts that, for example, the people that run the comittee of mothers of Russian soldiers, and associations of that sort, that received huge amounts of money from US agencies, are not doing some dirty work convincing the families that their sons were indeed killed in Ukraine.

        A link to Khodorkovsky´s foundation, compiling a list from a dubious facebook group, will not do.

        Wu Bravo -> MarcelFromage 20 Jan 2015 17:12

        I read from different sources, because I think herewith I might have a more objective view, description from different perspectives and angles. And even by doing this I never state, I have obtained the only and the very truth. Of course not. Education is the answer, my dear friend. If you do a research, it is obligatory to look at different sources, even though you might disagree with them. So do I, my dear, friend. I do not bother myself, I educate myself and I am trying to be objective, thus relying on FACTS and not on bullshit and not fact-based comments. I disagree with this article but I did not told that my opinion is the only possible truth. However, in comparison to you, my remarks were fact based and to the point, in your case your remarks may be treated as personnel but not fact-based and not to the point. like baby: "may be you are right, but your haircut is awful :). Sorry my friend, if I have offended you by this, it was never my intention, and I will be ready to discuss this issues with you if you provide some facts, I have not noticed

        unended 20 Jan 2015 17:11

        Indeed, it takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Russian propaganda, to even attempt to deny that Russia's armed forces have been deeply engaged in backing the rebel separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk, and making sure Ukraine's sovereignty over its internationally recognised territory is not restored.

        Am I reading the Wall Street Journal opinion page?

        Here's one to try on

        It takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Guardian propaganda, to even attempt to deny that the US and EU have been deeply engaged in backing the rebel fascists of Lviv, and making sure Ukraine's democracy is not restored.

        Manolo Torres -> MarcelFromage, 20 Jan 2015
        Of course, I always do. Here you have it, but next time try doing your own research.

        Kiev MOHYLA school of journalism, partners:

        Rinat Akhmetov Foundation for Development of Ukraine and the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy are pleased to announce the launch of the 2nd year of the Digital Media for Universities Project.

        If you go all the way down to that webpage you find:

        © 2007 Kyiv-Mohyla School of Journalism
        Design: Yuri Panin. Programming: Bogdan Tokovenko. Powered by ExpressionEngine.
        The web site is created with an assistance from the U.S. Department of State through the Educational Partnership Program.

        BBC: Ukrainian tycoon Rinat Akhmetov confronts rebellion

        Separatist leaders have threatened to "nationalise" Mr Akhmetov's assets.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rinat_Akhmetov

        As of April 2014, he was listed as the 101st richest man in the world with an estimated net worth of US 11.6 billion.[5] T here have been claims Akhmetov has been involved in organized crime.

        EdwardGreen1968 -> EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015
        There is a real possibility of encircling the 24th brigade of the Ukrainian army unless they withdraw.

        Wow! That is dramatic. Where are you getting this info? Let's hope it's true.

        The idea is to push the Ukrainian army as far away from the main cities as possible, so they wouldn't be able to fire at them even from far range artillery.

        To be honest, it would be much better for everyone if the rebels execute a complete encirclement of the Ukrainian army. If that's accomplished, Kiev will not be able to play games any longer with fake peace talks, lobbing shells at Donetsk civilians, etc.

        Something decisive like Stalingrad or Dien Bin Phu. That's the kind of victory that will finally end this war.

        EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015 16:48

        The latest - the rebels are gaining pretty well along the entire front. In LPR, the took blockpost 31 and attacking blockpost 29. There is a real possibility of encircling the 24th brigade of the Ukrainian army unless they withdraw. In DPR, rebels took Peski near airpost. Peski, together with Avdeevka, were the towns from which the Ukrainian army fired at Donetsk during the entire period of so called "cease-fire". The idea is to push the Ukrainian army as far away from the main cities as possible, so they wouldn't be able to fire at them even from far range artillery.

        Elena Hodgson -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015

        Edward, people are dying! The sooner this war ends, the less civilians are killed and maimed! Yats with his war speeches is a Rabid Rabbit!

        EdwardGreen1968 -> ID6741142 20 Jan 2015

        A final aside/ note: If, though it will not, the Kievan forces did 'win' the war on the ground what do you think will happen to the people who are caught up in this? Do you think that having been labelled 'terrorists' they will be allowed to sleep easy when the guns stop? What will happen to the women as the invaders arrive? Wake up or this does not have a happy ending!

        That's the reality that Western media reporters and editors are not allowed to talk about. They'll lose their jobs if they do.

        Either way, that horrifying outcome you describe will only happen if Moscow caves in under economic pressure. Kiev can't get to that position militarily. Based on battlefield news, Kiev is destined to lose every single battle, and very badly at that.

        EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015 16:28

        What I meant is that the Ukrainian army is being forced back in combat, but that it's probably succeeding in making an organized retreat. That means that the Ukrainians take casualties, lose ground, but reestablish defensive lines slightly to the west. That is an indecisive victory for the pro-Russian rebels.

        On the other hand, if there were reports that the Ukrainian lines were broken, and that their units were getting encircled (put in kettles) -- just like at Ilovaisk -- then it would be a decisive victory for the rebels.

        It's hard to tell what's really happening based on the reports. The good thing about a decisive outcome -- if it ever happens -- is that it may lead directly to peace (which is what I really want to see).

        EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015

        DNR reports can't be taken at face value, though. They're biased. To me, DNR reports are only good if they are backed up by AP or Reuters info, or if they're associated by twitter announcements from people near the battle zone who are known not to be trolls (i.e., people who are reasonably objective).

        Either way, the proliferation of data during these past few hours suggests the Ukrainians are being backed down at multiple points on the front.

        ID6741142 20 Jan 2015 16:19

        What saddens me in reading so many threads is the real victims of this conflict, the innocent citizens of East Ukraine are, with the odd exception, being ignored. Too many of you seem to want to score political points, trading 'fact's' that none of you will even give time for consideration since they are obviously propaganda, whichever 'side' you support. It is pointless.

        Yet people are dying and a lot more will unless the focus changes, not just on here but in the political world towards actually caring about the people.

        A couple of you deserve commendation as you have recognised this. Also you recognised that BOTH sides have played games.

        Russia does have a regime that has extreme views on many issues. It is willing to exert it power to stop the growth of western influence on its doorstep. And it does have a strong, biased propaganda machine - I know I have Russian friends living in Russia.

        However the West did play a hand in the change of Gov't. It knew that there were strong far-right groups involved in that overthrow & it knows they are exerting a higher level of influence than they should in the current conflict. The West does not have a good track record of backing the 'right' groups.

        Meanwhile, people who did not want a war, die in their homes.

        There is hypocrisy on BOTH sides.

        When it is over there will almost certainly be war crimes that will come to light on both sides.
        Is that why the media is not as high a presence as might be expected?

        You rant about the shelling as if that is the only weapon used against the citizens of the Eastern Ukraine. What about the stopping of aid lorries from the west by the pro-Kiev units - under the control of RW-nationalist leaders?

        Hearts & Minds - that is what wins all civil conflicts, and more importantly underpins any chance to repair the serious damage done to 'trust'. The people in the East will believe Russia more because it is not shooting at them AND more importantly it's aid is getting through. (Yes I know it convoys also have weapons etc hidden but we play those 'games too when it suits.) The West is slow to learn this lesson. It has failed time and again in its middle eastern, conflicts to get this right, it thinks guns not grain, missile not milk & water, even though these cost far less to provide.

        The ONLY solution, whatever anyone may say, is, as already stated, for Ukraine to become, for the foreseeable future, a totally neutral state in which the rights of all citizens/cultures are protected (not just Russian & other ethnic minorities but also cultural sub groups (i.e. LGBT)).

        This may not be what the ordinary Ukrainians want.Not the oligarchs who drove the Kiev changes because they would make more money in the EU!, who rule in this corrupt country (yes corrupt that has been part of he EU's demands to sort it out), What the people really want is not as clear as some might think , and do they actually have the facts to work it out? If we can't be sure about the value of being in the EU in GB, with our so called 'open/ democratic' media what chance do the ordinary Ukrainians have?

        But if getting the country working and people cared for is the true aim of all 'outside influential states' then that 'sacrifice' is worth it to bring peace, and the chance to build a balanced state and economy. It will NEED both Russian and EU/USA support otherwise it will be almost impossible to achieve especially with the war damage to be sorted!

        But while the politicians behave like too many of you on here, with partisan fervour, nationalistic pride etc and blinkered bar room vision, then the people who live in this potentially beautiful and culturally rich nation will continue to die.

        Come on Guardian stop focusing on the politics - we have heard it all before & it is not changing anybody's opinion. Be brave. Lead the field and get the world to know just what price is being paid by the old and young, and agitate for the peace that must happen now, before a humanitarian disaster overtakes it all, and not when nationalistic pride allows it to.

        A final aside/ note: If, though it will not, the Kievan forces did 'win' the war on the ground what do you think will happen to the people who are caught up in this? Do you think that having been labelled 'terrorists' they will be allowed to sleep easy when the guns stop? What will happen to the women as the invaders arrive? Wake up or this does not have a happy ending!

        JezNorth noshtgchq 20 Jan 2015 16:18

        Could be dangerous , these loonies could start another masive false flag - Maidan snipers , MH-17 , buss etc .

        Do you really think this helps your cause or just makes you come off as an crass insta-mod.

        PeraIlic -> Expats10 20 Jan 2015 16:17

        To fight from civilian areas when you have a choice is cowardice.

        What kind of choice are you talking about when the Ukrainian army was practically came to the suburbs of Lugansk and Donetsk. Almost until yesterday, they were bombing the cities from their airports, is not it?

        Ukrainian commander of the attack on Ilovaisk testified before the cameras, "The artillery and aviation overwhelm the city with their shells, and then we're going to clean-up operation, it is normal procedure in this war."

        If you do not believe me, I can very easily find the URL address of the video, just for you.


        Kolobok07 -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015 16:17

        No, the Ukrainian army has resisted ...

        But there are reports of the capture of 39 and 41 checkpoints and attack extended to other positions.
        Pesky and Avdeyevka not completely stripped from the Ukrainian military.


        EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015 16:15

        Indeed, it takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Russian propaganda, to even attempt to deny that Russia's armed forces have been deeply engaged in backing the rebel separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk

        I confess I have that twisted conspiratorial mindset - I do not for a second believe that Russian army is involved in the Donbass fighting. Not only not a shed of evidence has ever been produced, not a single soldiers captured (apart from those unfortunate 10 soldiers that wandered into Ukraine and did not fire a single shot) or a body shown, nothing.
        I do not doubt that Russia supports Donbass, and it should. These are our people that refuse to recognized an illegal "government" imposed on them by foreign powers as a result of a coup, and they appealed to Russia for help. Why shouldn't Russia help? Because the West says so? Furthermore, these people came under attack by the Kiev junta and are fighting for their freedom and their lives. The only fault I can find with the Russian government's behavior is that it doesn't do enough. Nevertheless, they are winning. Junta miscalculated yet again, and the only thing it is capable of is killing civilians.

        graduated reduction in sanctions in return for Russian concessions and cooperation in Ukraine and elsewhere has been set aside

        Why should Russia give concessions in Ukraine and cooperate in killing our people in Donbass? Why should Russia cooperate in supporting what it considers to be a government based on nazi ideology in Ukraine? Give me one good reason.

        For that matter, why should Europe do that? Feeling nostalgic about nazism?

        [Jan 20, 2015] Why Should Charlie Hebdo Deaths Mean More Than Those in E.Ukraine? by Nebojsa Malic

        Echo of 9/11: "using the pretext of the attacks in Paris, the US and British governments pushed for expanding their already extensive surveillance of the general public"
        January 19, 2015 | ronpaulinstitute.org

        The Western public justly condemns the murders at Charlie Hebdo, but continues to behave as if Kiev's terror victims in Donetsk are "subhuman."

        On January 7, masked terrorists massacred the staff of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo in downtown Paris, killing ten. Two police officers (one of them a French Muslim, Ahmed Merabet) were also gunned down in the attack, while five more innocents lost their lives during a subsequent hostage standoff at a Parisian kosher store. Three male suspects were killed by the police, while their female accomplice is reported to have fled to ISIS-held parts of Syria. The attack was allegedly a reprisal for the magazine's cartoon covers, condemned as "blasphemous" for mocking Islam and its prophet, Mohammed.

        Meanwhile, in eastern Ukraine, forces loyal to the NATO-backed government in Kiev renewed the terror-bombing of civilians in Donetsk, killing and maiming indiscriminately. While the slain French cartoonists were declared martyrs on the altar of free speech in a social media campaign under the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie (I am Charlie), a similar Twitter campaign to raise awareness of civilian deaths in Donbass (#IamVanya) was soon hijacked by Russophobic propaganda.

        Part of the problem is that free speech is demonstratively not a sacred value in the West. The same general public in Europe or the United States that is proclaiming #JeSuisCharlie today, has in recent years organized increasingly frequent public witch hunts in the name of political correctness, targeting individuals whose words or deeds had somehow "offended", from scientists who dared mention IQ (or wear "sexist" shirts) to celebrities and video game producers. In 2009, Charlie Hebdo sacked its cartoonist Maurice Sinet (now 80); over one allegedly "anti-Semitic" cartoon. And France has arrested dozens of people, including the comedian Dieudonné, on charges of "hate speech" in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

        Meanwhile, using the pretext of the attacks in Paris, the US and British governments pushed for expanding their already extensive surveillance of the general public. This despite the fact that the alleged attackers on Charlie Hebdo were known terrorists and under constant surveillance, but were able to carry out the massacre unhindered.

        There was further hypocrisy at the march for solidarity held on Sunday, January 11. While more than a million French marched peacefully through Paris to honor the slain, some forty world leaders supposedly led the way. However, raw footage shows them marching separately for a photo-op, separated from the "common folk" by quite a distance and heavy police protection.

        Though US pundits have been the loudest in calling for another "war on terror," American officials were nowhere to be seen on the Sunday march. Only the US Ambassador attended the event, while President Obama, Vice President Biden, or even top diplomat John Kerry was conspicuously absent. The highest-ranking US official in Paris was Attorney General Eric Holder, who had announced his resignation in September 2014.

        The leaders that did attend weren't above using the march for their own political purposes. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to the march, even though the French government asked him not to. Turkey's Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu also attended, but as soon as he returned, President Recep Erdogan publicly declared the massacre a French false-flag operation, for which the mayor of the Turkish capital Ankara, Melih Gokcek, blamed the Israeli Mossad.

        Perhaps the most hypocritical of all was the Kiev junta, whose leader, Petro Poroshenko, hastened to Paris to claim he too was a victim of "terrorism", even as his forces restarted the terror shelling of civilians in dissenting Donetsk. Poroshenko paraded before the cameras, dutifully made accusations of yet another "Russian invasion," again accused Russia of being behind the downing of flight MH17, and begged for money from the West to bail out his bankrupt government, and fund another military expedition against the civilians of Donetsk and Lugansk.

        While Poroshenko was pretending his heart bled for French cartoonists, the civilians targeted for extermination by his government were bleeding literally: dozens, including children, have been killed in renewed shelling of Donetsk by Kiev's military that weekend. Among them was a boy of eight named Vanya, who lost his legs, a hand and an eye (Warning: graphic imagery) to Kiev's "humanitarian" bombs. When critics of the junta's campaign of artillery terrorism posted news of this on Twitter with the hashtag "#IamVanya" (#Яваня) – Russophobic trolls quickly responded with displays of hatred.

        Hypocrisy is the order of the day in the West. Frenchmen and other "NATO-sphere" subjects are supposed to simultaneously champion free speech and crack down on "offensive" speech; profess love of Islam and endless tolerance, while their governments sponsor Islamic terrorists in places like Libya, Syria, Iraq or the Balkans; and protest the murder of innocents while backing Kiev's regime doing precisely that, in the name of - you guessed it - "fighting terrorism."

        Of course, NATO's puppets in Kiev have the perfectly "rational" explanation why it's different when they kill: their victims are "subhumans," as US-backed PM Arseny Yatsenyuk once put it. The same man, during his visit to Germany just a day after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, claimed that Russia had "invaded Ukraine and Germany" in WW2. His German hosts, normally sensitive to pro-Nazi rhetoric, chose to remain silent.

        Reprinted with permission from RT.

        Related

        [Jan 20, 2015] The Guardian View of war in Ukraine maintain the pressure on Russia

        Jan 20, 2015 | The Guardian

        EdwardGreen1968 -> IngAzazello 20 Jan 2015 19:04

        Putin wants Donbass to remain in Ukraine as a self-governing part of the country. Obviously he's hoping to maximize Russian influence in Ukraine by operating through the Donbass's future leaders. For Putin, such an arrangement will work like a Trojan Horse strategy.

        For the obvious reasons, Kiev isn't happy with Putin's aims. That's understandable. What's reprehensible about Kiev, however, is that it won't simply cut Donbass loose and end the war. After all, we're talking about millions of people in east Ukraine who don't want to be part of Ukraine anymore. Kiev has no good reason for fighting over this.

        Kiev could solve two problems at once by allowing Ukraine to divided. Think about it.

        EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015 18:57

        That could very well happen, but Poroshenko will be replaced by Yatsenyuk and the pro-war party. Those ultranationalists and far rightists are the ones pressuring Poroshenko to somehow "win" the war. Poroshenko's position becomes more and more insecure every time the Ukrainian army's inferiority in combat is demonstrated.

        The only light at the end of the tunnel here, I think, is that the pro-war party is drawing most of its support from the far western provinces of Ukraine. That's the only region that's really hyped up for war. I don't think the rest of Ukraine is really willing to tolerate the agony of ongoing combat. So, when the far western provinces burn out on war, politicians will emerge in Kiev who are ready for peace. But how long will it take to get to that point?

        EdwardGreen1968 wombat123 20 Jan 2015 18:45

        Wombat: I agree with you completely. My greatest fear is that, because of domestic political weakness, Poroshenko won't bite the bullet and make peace.

        From there, Western foreign policy hawks will keep enabling Kiev to go back into battle -- to get destroyed again -- for no good reason.

        EugeneGur -> sasha19 20 Jan 2015 18:38

        Cargo 200 reports are all false?

        They likely are. Some have been proven to be false. Most are repetitions of the same statements from the same sources. Some of these reports claim that there are as many as 15,000 Russian soldiers fighting in Donbass. Have you ever asked yourself a question how come that not a single one has ever been killed or captured to be shown to the world to be positively identified as an active member of the Russian army? All we have is some unlabeled graves that could belong to anybody, some unknown people making claims that cannot be verified. Everything I've seen coming from Donbass shows that there are no Russian soldiers there only volunteers, but that nobody denies.

        Colin Robinson 20 Jan 2015 18:34

        Use of SS insignia by the Azov Battalion is blatant enough to have been noticed by the BBC. They are nazis, self-proclaimed... but after all (some say) they're just one little section of a broader nationalist movement... If the majority of Kiev's enforcers do not wear such blatant fascist gear, why worry?

        Thing is, fascists have historically used a range of symbols, not all of German origin. The National Front in Britain is a militant, ultra-nationalist movement with a history of marching behind the Union Jack... While SS logos are a serious provocation in themselves, what people wear is in the end less important that what they do.

        The nationalistic movement currently dominant in Kiev has a record of lethal violence - the riot police set alight by petrol bombs in Maidan, the mass lynching in Odessa on May 2, the shooting of civilians from armoured vehicles in Mariupol on May 9... Maybe behaviour like this should have been enough to set alarm bells ringing around the world, with or without SS insignia?

        wombat123 20 Jan 2015 18:13

        Putin already chose peace. It is the leaders of the coup and their NATO backers who chose violence and civil war instead of elections. As a consequence, there is no government that is legitimate under Ukraine's constitution or in the eyes of all regions of the country.

        Just as it was the NATO-backed leaders of the coup that overthrew the elected government through violence and civil war, it is they who are massively violating the ceasefire agreement with large scale shelling of civilians in eastern cities. They would not have done this without a green light and support from NATO. NATO is not just supporting a renewal of the civil war but serious war crimes as well.

        MaxBoson -> moncur 20 Jan 2015 17:42

        At the time the exodus took place, TV was full of pictures of highways filled with Serbs in endless ten-wide columns fleeing Croatia. Some say they left out of fear, some that they were driven out; regardless of the details, it boils down to an expulsion. In any event, it is beyond dispute that the Serbs left and that there were around 300,000 of them. This event has been called the largest ethnic-cleansing of the entire Balkan tragedy.


        EugeneGur -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015 17:28

        We all wish for that but I am not sure it's realistic. At least, to stop the destruction of the cities would be great. Gorlovka is devastated and Donetsk is in a bad shape.

        The info is from

        http://rusvesna.su/

        They've proven to be reasonably reliable before.


        Manolo Torres -> sasha19 20 Jan 2015 17:19

        Can you quote those articles, because other more compelling evidence like Russian prisoners of war or Russian death soldiers (remember when we were told that the Ukranians obliterated all those tanks?) in Ukraine simply doesn´t exist, and it is indeed very difficult to believe that there has been none when there are supposed to be thousands of official Russian forces deployed.

        At the same time the Russian army is apparently a very though place to be, in 2000 more than 1000 Russian soldiers died as "non combatants" , in 2007 around 450. I have my doubts that, for example, the people that run the comittee of mothers of Russian soldiers, and associations of that sort, that received huge amounts of money from US agencies, are not doing some dirty work convincing the families that their sons were indeed killed in Ukraine.

        A link to Khodorkovsky´s foundation, compiling a list from a dubious facebook group, will not do.

        Wu Bravo -> MarcelFromage 20 Jan 2015 17:12

        I read from different sources, because I think herewith I might have a more objective view, description from different perspectives and angles. And even by doing this I never state, I have obtained the only and the very truth. Of course not. Education is the answer, my dear friend. If you do a research, it is obligatory to look at different sources, even though you might disagree with them. So do I, my dear, friend. I do not bother myself, I educate myself and I am trying to be objective, thus relying on FACTS and not on bullshit and not fact-based comments. I disagree with this article but I did not told that my opinion is the only possible truth. However, in comparison to you, my remarks were fact based and to the point, in your case your remarks may be treated as personnel but not fact-based and not to the point. like baby: "may be you are right, but your haircut is awful :). Sorry my friend, if I have offended you by this, it was never my intention, and I will be ready to discuss this issues with you if you provide some facts, I have not noticed

        unended 20 Jan 2015 17:11

        Indeed, it takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Russian propaganda, to even attempt to deny that Russia's armed forces have been deeply engaged in backing the rebel separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk, and making sure Ukraine's sovereignty over its internationally recognised territory is not restored.

        Am I reading the Wall Street Journal opinion page?

        Here's one to try on

        It takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Guardian propaganda, to even attempt to deny that the US and EU have been deeply engaged in backing the rebel fascists of Lviv, and making sure Ukraine's democracy is not restored.

        Manolo Torres -> MarcelFromage, 20 Jan 2015
        Of course, I always do. Here you have it, but next time try doing your own research.

        Kiev MOHYLA school of journalism, partners:

        Rinat Akhmetov Foundation for Development of Ukraine and the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy are pleased to announce the launch of the 2nd year of the Digital Media for Universities Project.

        If you go all the way down to that webpage you find:

        © 2007 Kyiv-Mohyla School of Journalism
        Design: Yuri Panin. Programming: Bogdan Tokovenko. Powered by ExpressionEngine.
        The web site is created with an assistance from the U.S. Department of State through the Educational Partnership Program.

        BBC: Ukrainian tycoon Rinat Akhmetov confronts rebellion

        Separatist leaders have threatened to "nationalise" Mr Akhmetov's assets.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rinat_Akhmetov

        As of April 2014, he was listed as the 101st richest man in the world with an estimated net worth of US 11.6 billion.[5] T here have been claims Akhmetov has been involved in organized crime.

        EdwardGreen1968 -> EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015
        There is a real possibility of encircling the 24th brigade of the Ukrainian army unless they withdraw.

        Wow! That is dramatic. Where are you getting this info? Let's hope it's true.

        The idea is to push the Ukrainian army as far away from the main cities as possible, so they wouldn't be able to fire at them even from far range artillery.

        To be honest, it would be much better for everyone if the rebels execute a complete encirclement of the Ukrainian army. If that's accomplished, Kiev will not be able to play games any longer with fake peace talks, lobbing shells at Donetsk civilians, etc.

        Something decisive like Stalingrad or Dien Bin Phu. That's the kind of victory that will finally end this war.

        EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015 16:48

        The latest - the rebels are gaining pretty well along the entire front. In LPR, the took blockpost 31 and attacking blockpost 29. There is a real possibility of encircling the 24th brigade of the Ukrainian army unless they withdraw. In DPR, rebels took Peski near airpost. Peski, together with Avdeevka, were the towns from which the Ukrainian army fired at Donetsk during the entire period of so called "cease-fire". The idea is to push the Ukrainian army as far away from the main cities as possible, so they wouldn't be able to fire at them even from far range artillery.

        Elena Hodgson -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015

        Edward, people are dying! The sooner this war ends, the less civilians are killed and maimed! Yats with his war speeches is a Rabid Rabbit!

        EdwardGreen1968 -> ID6741142 20 Jan 2015

        A final aside/ note: If, though it will not, the Kievan forces did 'win' the war on the ground what do you think will happen to the people who are caught up in this? Do you think that having been labelled 'terrorists' they will be allowed to sleep easy when the guns stop? What will happen to the women as the invaders arrive? Wake up or this does not have a happy ending!

        That's the reality that Western media reporters and editors are not allowed to talk about. They'll lose their jobs if they do.

        Either way, that horrifying outcome you describe will only happen if Moscow caves in under economic pressure. Kiev can't get to that position militarily. Based on battlefield news, Kiev is destined to lose every single battle, and very badly at that.

        EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015 16:28

        What I meant is that the Ukrainian army is being forced back in combat, but that it's probably succeeding in making an organized retreat. That means that the Ukrainians take casualties, lose ground, but reestablish defensive lines slightly to the west. That is an indecisive victory for the pro-Russian rebels.

        On the other hand, if there were reports that the Ukrainian lines were broken, and that their units were getting encircled (put in kettles) -- just like at Ilovaisk -- then it would be a decisive victory for the rebels.

        It's hard to tell what's really happening based on the reports. The good thing about a decisive outcome -- if it ever happens -- is that it may lead directly to peace (which is what I really want to see).

        EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015

        DNR reports can't be taken at face value, though. They're biased. To me, DNR reports are only good if they are backed up by AP or Reuters info, or if they're associated by twitter announcements from people near the battle zone who are known not to be trolls (i.e., people who are reasonably objective).

        Either way, the proliferation of data during these past few hours suggests the Ukrainians are being backed down at multiple points on the front.

        ID6741142 20 Jan 2015 16:19

        What saddens me in reading so many threads is the real victims of this conflict, the innocent citizens of East Ukraine are, with the odd exception, being ignored. Too many of you seem to want to score political points, trading 'fact's' that none of you will even give time for consideration since they are obviously propaganda, whichever 'side' you support. It is pointless.

        Yet people are dying and a lot more will unless the focus changes, not just on here but in the political world towards actually caring about the people.

        A couple of you deserve commendation as you have recognised this. Also you recognised that BOTH sides have played games.

        Russia does have a regime that has extreme views on many issues. It is willing to exert it power to stop the growth of western influence on its doorstep. And it does have a strong, biased propaganda machine - I know I have Russian friends living in Russia.

        However the West did play a hand in the change of Gov't. It knew that there were strong far-right groups involved in that overthrow & it knows they are exerting a higher level of influence than they should in the current conflict. The West does not have a good track record of backing the 'right' groups.

        Meanwhile, people who did not want a war, die in their homes.

        There is hypocrisy on BOTH sides.

        When it is over there will almost certainly be war crimes that will come to light on both sides.
        Is that why the media is not as high a presence as might be expected?

        You rant about the shelling as if that is the only weapon used against the citizens of the Eastern Ukraine. What about the stopping of aid lorries from the west by the pro-Kiev units - under the control of RW-nationalist leaders?

        Hearts & Minds - that is what wins all civil conflicts, and more importantly underpins any chance to repair the serious damage done to 'trust'. The people in the East will believe Russia more because it is not shooting at them AND more importantly it's aid is getting through. (Yes I know it convoys also have weapons etc hidden but we play those 'games too when it suits.) The West is slow to learn this lesson. It has failed time and again in its middle eastern, conflicts to get this right, it thinks guns not grain, missile not milk & water, even though these cost far less to provide.

        The ONLY solution, whatever anyone may say, is, as already stated, for Ukraine to become, for the foreseeable future, a totally neutral state in which the rights of all citizens/cultures are protected (not just Russian & other ethnic minorities but also cultural sub groups (i.e. LGBT)).

        This may not be what the ordinary Ukrainians want.Not the oligarchs who drove the Kiev changes because they would make more money in the EU!, who rule in this corrupt country (yes corrupt that has been part of he EU's demands to sort it out), What the people really want is not as clear as some might think , and do they actually have the facts to work it out? If we can't be sure about the value of being in the EU in GB, with our so called 'open/ democratic' media what chance do the ordinary Ukrainians have?

        But if getting the country working and people cared for is the true aim of all 'outside influential states' then that 'sacrifice' is worth it to bring peace, and the chance to build a balanced state and economy. It will NEED both Russian and EU/USA support otherwise it will be almost impossible to achieve especially with the war damage to be sorted!

        But while the politicians behave like too many of you on here, with partisan fervour, nationalistic pride etc and blinkered bar room vision, then the people who live in this potentially beautiful and culturally rich nation will continue to die.

        Come on Guardian stop focusing on the politics - we have heard it all before & it is not changing anybody's opinion. Be brave. Lead the field and get the world to know just what price is being paid by the old and young, and agitate for the peace that must happen now, before a humanitarian disaster overtakes it all, and not when nationalistic pride allows it to.

        A final aside/ note: If, though it will not, the Kievan forces did 'win' the war on the ground what do you think will happen to the people who are caught up in this? Do you think that having been labelled 'terrorists' they will be allowed to sleep easy when the guns stop? What will happen to the women as the invaders arrive? Wake up or this does not have a happy ending!

        JezNorth noshtgchq 20 Jan 2015 16:18

        Could be dangerous , these loonies could start another masive false flag - Maidan snipers , MH-17 , buss etc .

        Do you really think this helps your cause or just makes you come off as an crass insta-mod.

        PeraIlic -> Expats10 20 Jan 2015 16:17

        To fight from civilian areas when you have a choice is cowardice.

        What kind of choice are you talking about when the Ukrainian army was practically came to the suburbs of Lugansk and Donetsk. Almost until yesterday, they were bombing the cities from their airports, is not it?

        Ukrainian commander of the attack on Ilovaisk testified before the cameras, "The artillery and aviation overwhelm the city with their shells, and then we're going to clean-up operation, it is normal procedure in this war."

        If you do not believe me, I can very easily find the URL address of the video, just for you.


        Kolobok07 -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015 16:17

        No, the Ukrainian army has resisted ...

        But there are reports of the capture of 39 and 41 checkpoints and attack extended to other positions.
        Pesky and Avdeyevka not completely stripped from the Ukrainian military.


        EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015 16:15

        Indeed, it takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Russian propaganda, to even attempt to deny that Russia's armed forces have been deeply engaged in backing the rebel separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk

        I confess I have that twisted conspiratorial mindset - I do not for a second believe that Russian army is involved in the Donbass fighting. Not only not a shed of evidence has ever been produced, not a single soldiers captured (apart from those unfortunate 10 soldiers that wandered into Ukraine and did not fire a single shot) or a body shown, nothing.
        I do not doubt that Russia supports Donbass, and it should. These are our people that refuse to recognized an illegal "government" imposed on them by foreign powers as a result of a coup, and they appealed to Russia for help. Why shouldn't Russia help? Because the West says so? Furthermore, these people came under attack by the Kiev junta and are fighting for their freedom and their lives. The only fault I can find with the Russian government's behavior is that it doesn't do enough. Nevertheless, they are winning. Junta miscalculated yet again, and the only thing it is capable of is killing civilians.

        graduated reduction in sanctions in return for Russian concessions and cooperation in Ukraine and elsewhere has been set aside

        Why should Russia give concessions in Ukraine and cooperate in killing our people in Donbass? Why should Russia cooperate in supporting what it considers to be a government based on nazi ideology in Ukraine? Give me one good reason.

        For that matter, why should Europe do that? Feeling nostalgic about nazism?

        Facebook Removing Pak Actor Hamza Abbasi's Status About Paris Attack a Mistake Caravan Daily

        When asked by one profile Angelic Munni what Zuckerberg has to say about his network's deletion of Hamza's post, Mark Zuckerberg responded: "I don't think this should have been blocked. Our team might have made a mistake. Justin, can you look into this?"

        In the response, Zuckerberg tagged Justin Osofsky, whose Facebook profile identifies him as Vice President of Global Operations and Media Partnerships for Facebook. The CEO's comment has so far got over 950 'likes'.

        Osofsky later commented on the thread and apologised. "As Mark mentioned, we made a mistake in taking this down. We try to do our best, but sometimes make mistakes. We apologize for this error, and hope that the author will re-post it as we are not able to restore it from our end. Thanks for bringing it to our attention."

        Hamza posted a screenshot of the deleted post on Sunday along with Facebook's notification that said they had removed it since it violated the social networking website's community standards.

        The actor, who is vocal on social media about his views related to social issues, politics, culture, and religion had condemned the killings at Paris' Charlie Hebdo office last week and said, "even my blood boils when someone insults my Prophet (Peace be Upon Him) but that does not give individuals the right to kill".

        Speaking to Dawn.com, Hamza relates how it all came about. "I had been trying to log into my Facebook for a couple of hours and it wasn't accepting the password. I genuinely thought it had been hacked but then I got an email from Facebook saying that my account had been temporarily blocked and my status had been deleted and this was the first of three warnings. That really made me angry so I took the screen grab and posted it as soon as I had access to my account."

        He adds, "I post so many controversial things on my Facebook, I believe in voicing my opinion. It's just funny that their selective freedom of speech caused them to delete only this particular post of all things."

        On learning that Mark Zuckerberg had responded and called it a mistake, he said, "I'm glad that it has gotten back to him and that it's brought attention to exactly what I was trying to convey in my post. Freedom of expression that is not universal is not really freedom, is it?

        Elaborating on what his post was about, the young actor said, "It's not fair that when we say things that go against the West, we are branded as racists or intolerant. One is allowed to disagree, one is allowed to criticise but we must not make fun of exemplary/religious figures. I can make fun of Gandhi but that doesn't mean I will. It's wrong and unnecessary. It's important to address such issues and convey our message in the most civilized manner possible. When you stoop to a level of derogatory insults, there is a possibility of some backlash from a community of over two billion people."

        Internet rights groups in Pakistan had slammed Facebook 'double standards' on Monday, a day after Pakistani actor and director Hamza Ali Abbasi Sunday said the network deactivated his profile and removed a post in which he had called on the West to rethink its definition of 'freedom of expression'.

        "This is beyond ridiculous," Sana Saleem of Bolo Bhi tells Dawn. "I don't understand what this double standard is."

        Saleem, whose organisation advocates digital security and privacy, said the social network was guilty of hypocrisy. "Facebook removes pictures of a woman breastfeeding, but they won't, for instance, remove images of child pornography," she said, citing the example of Facebook's refusal to take down a page promoting child prostitution despite repeated complaints.

        "What are the standards for Facebook when it comes to removing content? How does it work? Is it automated? If so, it's completely flawed," says Saleem. "If it's a team reviewing content, it is flawed."

        "This is very worrying because Facebook now owns Intsagram and Whatsapp. If the same policies are applied across the board, that will be the death of freedom of expression," she adds.

        Shahzad Ahmad of NGO Bytes for All says, "In cases of ambiguity, Bytes for All urges Facebook to err on the sideof freedom of expression rather than censorship, and only block those accounts and posts which directly and intentionally call for violence in an actionable manner.

        He adds however, "Having said this, we do not endorse the contents of Hamza Ali Abbasi's post. Rather we believe that criticisin, questioning, or even insulting, any individual or ideology does come under freedom of expression, even if it is offensive to many, so long as it is does not directly and intentionally incite violence."

        The incident comes just days after Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg stressed on the company's commitment to freedom of speech, and pointed out that a 'extremist in Pakistan' had tried to have him sentenced to death for refusing to ban content about Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him). In the January 9 post, he had said, "I won't let that happen on Facebook. I'm committed to building a service where you can speak freely without fear of violence." – dawn.com

        [Jan 19, 2015] They were never there: Russia's silence for families of troops killed in Ukraine by Alec Luhn

        From comments: "With all the respect for the dead and their families, if this is the number of Russian soldiers dead, damn good they are, I take my hat, what an army, almost invisible and extremely professional. "
        The Guardian

        freedomcry iangio 19 Jan 2015 19:42

        I still don't see what Putin is getting out of his Novrossya rampage.

        Bingo. He's getting nothing, and that's why he's so dovish and reluctant to commit. It's just one of those instances where he can't ignore the fact that he's got a people to answer to. We all want a free Novorossia and a Crimea that's reunited with the rest of us and forever safe from Ukrainian petty imperialism.

        We don't need Putin or the television to tell us that. On the contrary, it's because of the Russian people that Putin, however hard he might try to be his usual neither-here-nor-there self, can't afford to not have a bottom line in this.

        Tom20000 Eye Spy 19 Jan 2015 19:45

        I don't think you understand what free speech is. The guardian is a private organisation with no obligation to show all comments.

        Georgethedog 19 Jan 2015 19:52

        "During a meeting with the president, Krivenko even handed Putin a list of about 100 soldiers killed in eastern Ukraine"

        With all the respect for the dead and their families, if this is the number of Russian soldiers dead, damn good they are, I take my hat, what an army, almost invisible and extremely professional.

        Good Luck Kiev Junta!

        Vignola1964 -> Tom20000 19 Jan 2015 19:31

        There is much I do not know about this and other conflicts taking place around the world at the moment, but we can all feel the sinister hands behind the scenes, driving ordinary people into hostilities. There are no innocents anywhere.

        In my opinion, the 1% profit from the other 1% constantly at conflict at any one time. The more the merrier as far as they are concerned. For me this is evil.

        kowalli -> Tom20000 19 Jan 2015 19:16

        It must be embarrassing for the general public.

        ??? general public just think why west can't give any real proof, but give us bunch of lies. You really think that this 7 guys can do anything?
        You didn't even tell us results of mh17 Boeing or why ukrainians are shelling civilians like USA in Iraq.
        West just copypasting what USA tell them and think that they are exceptional people.

        RicardoFloresMagon -> vr13vr 19 Jan 2015 19:14

        Whether the claims have any merit or not, just the existence of all those groups who file petitions and challenge authorities suggests there is much more democracy in Russia than it is in the US. I can't even imagine similar organizations in the US criticizing and pressuring Obama's administration or questioning military commanders whether the death of their sons in Iraq was justified.

        InternationalANSWER
        United for Peace and Justice
        Iraq Veterans Against the War
        Code Pink
        Not in Our Name
        GI Rights Network
        and a few more...
        ... not to mention millions protested the war before it even started in every major city.

        JanZamoyski -> iangio 19 Jan 2015 19:11

        A nice leverage to control an escaped satellite state. Either by constant war which will bleed Ukraine and damage it chances of joining EU / NATO or by planting an autonomous, hostile region which MPs are going to paralyse the Ukrainian parliament. Like they need more fist fights...

        Christine Cannon -> Alexander Sokolov 19 Jan 2015 19:11

        So why are these young boys killing their neighbors. what is in it for them. Death

        psygone -> Vignola1964 19 Jan 2015 19:10

        "UK observers" is a little bit different than "deployments of HM Special Forces"

        Popeyes 19 Jan 2015 19:04

        This is nothing more than a proxy war between the West and Russia, and as Russia supports and arms Donbass, Washington has been supplying Kiev with weapons including stingers, anti-tank missiles, anti-armor weapons and other heavy weapons, as are many NATO countries.

        Poroschenko has just signed a decree that mobilizes up to 50,000 "healthy men and women" aged 25 to 60 to the frontlines in Eastern Ukraine... just how does that sit with the E.U? The U.S wanted a full scale war when this all started last year and it seems nothing has changed.

        JanZamoyski -> cheburawka 19 Jan 2015 19:03

        The same silly argument yet again. Kremlin isn't interested in occupying Ukraine. Putin is too smart for that.

        This isn't Chechnya with its 1 million population, but a much bigger country with 45 million population. Despite some sympathetic population, many Ukrainians would react with hostilities to such occupation. This would mean long bloody and expensive conflict Putin doesn't want to pay for.

        Chechnya despite it size was hell for Russia and Putin who was PM during second Chechnyy war realises Ukrainian occupation would be the end of him.

        In the end in Chechnya Putin found some locals to fight his war for him and that's what happened to some extent in Crimea and Donbass.
        The overblown issue of ethnic Russian population being oppressed was a joke, but with some external military help it doesn't matter now.
        Thanks to 5000+ dead in this conflict is fuelling itself and all Putin has to do is feed the flame with equipment, ammo and some "volunteers" if necessary.

        FFS this "war" has been on for seven months now. Where do you think the rebels are getting their money, ammo and vehicles from ? From babushkas donations and not existing pensions ?

        This region needs regular humanitarian food conveys but somehow has never ending supply of military vehicles and ammo. Stop trolling or open your eyes.

        Anette Mor 19 Jan 2015 19:03

        260 russian nationals secretly killed in east ukraine? Out of 5000? Totally looks like an invasion to me. There are at least half a million with Russian passports permanently living or visiting close family. Time to stop writing this useless none stories and start contributing to finishing that war.

        cherryredguitar -> False_Face 19 Jan 2015 19:42

        You haven't got a bit of evidence that there is some sort of American conspiracy here.

        I've got a documented American admission that they funded these Russian Soldiers Mothers groups.
        Now you may think that it's entirely a coincidence that the Russian Soldiers Mothers groups are saying exactly what the Americans who fund them would want them to say, but some of us are a tad more cynical, made that way by the lies of the warmongers.

        tanyushka -> iangio 19 Jan 2015 19:39

        Actually, Kiev was the first capital of Russia & the first royal dinasty, the Ruriks, lived there & then moved to Moscow... once in Moscow came the time of Romanovs, but much later...

        do you suggest Russia should also claim Kiev since it was its first capital?

        Putin has only said he's going to seek re-election, which is perfectly legal... why shouldn't he if he is a popular president? do you suggest Russia should change its Constitution to please its enemies?

        about economic ruin... well, that was Boris the drunkard, the favourite of the West, & oligarchs like Khodorkovsky, Brezovsky, etc. Never Heard of the Wild, Wild East?

        Putin brought order and control & the economy has been doing great so far... check your info instead of repeating lies...

        onu labu -> MacCosham 19 Jan 2015 19:39

        Note that hundred of military personnel die every year in Russia from various causes.

        noted.

        Vignola1964 -> psygone 19 Jan 2015 19:38

        It might not occur to you but special forces operatives tend to know potential adversaries quite well. They know how they are trained, might even have worked alongside them. They are professional. Hague was not. He should never alluded to any official or unofficial UK presence in Maidan. The fact that he did was worse than poor form..it endangered those same observer's lives. Were Hague to utter the words that would deny you your rejoinder to my point, even you would question his sanity.

        Eye Spy -> Robert Looren de Jong 19 Jan 2015 19:34

        are you for real.

        So the people of Crimea were all forced to go and vote at gunpoint and all these Russian guns at the heads of the voters were airbrushed out of the images that were beamed into our homes...well I never

        that means that there were thousands of Crimeans who were shot and buried because they decided to take the bullet....oh my gosh

        that means when the Americans roll in to liberate the captive Crimean' they are going to be met with flowers being thrown at their feet and they will discover mass graves....sounds like Iraq.

        You are fanciful but I can be just as inventive.

        Scipio1 19 Jan 2015 19:34

        I see the Guardian has published a photograph of the latest friend of freedom and democracy - Yatsenuik - who was part of the corrupt Orange regime of Yuschenko and Tymoshenko, 2004-2010, and who also recently accused the USSR of invading Ukraine and Germany after 1941. Does this mean something I wonder?

        As for Russian troops being in eastern Ukraine, well this seems probable. However, this is quite different from an invasion. An invasion would involve tens of thousands with air support and taking of towns and large areas of land.

        Clearly this has not and will not happen. Principally because no-one wants to take on a basket case like Ukraine. Russian troops are probably present but this is to ensure that their kith and kin in the Don Bas are not ethnically cleansed and murdered by Russophobic neo-Nazi outfits like the Azov Battalion, the Aidar Battalion, Pravy Sector (whoops, I mean the National Guard of course) whose multiple atrocities in the East have been blacked out by the western media, even the trendy faux media like ....

        It is difficult to work out exactly what the Kiev regime is trying to do in its anti-terror operation. Obviously not trying to win hearts and minds in the east by systematic bombardment and wiping out the infrastructure (very much in the style of the IDF - the hasbara doctrine). One would have thought that the massive despoliation of the most productive region of the Ukraine was against their national interests. It would have been a bit like the British during their long war against the IRA shelling Cross Maglen or West Belfast.

        But of course there is no genuine government in Ukraine, this insofar as Yatsenuik, Poroshenko and Kolomoisky are simply carrying out the orders the US Ambassador in Kiev. The US simply wants to keep the pot boiling and making maximum chaos of Russia's western borders. Yes, the US will fight to every last Ukrainian.

        Oh, and by the way there are plenty of foreign troops in West Ukraine, including Poles, US advisers, international fascist and neo-Nazi groups like the above mentioned Azov Battalion. And arms are also pouring in from NATO.

        Did the EUSA-NATO juggernaut, in their relentless push eastwards, think they could prompt yet another colour revolution in a country that had democratically voted in Yanukovich who wanted to maintain a non-aligned status. Russian reaction was very predictable to what they considered to be a massive provocation, and yet regime change was pursued a l'outrance by the US and its vassal states in Europe. And of course the regime change in Ukraine was to be followed by regime change in Russia.

        So who exactly are the aggressors here? Who is the genuine threat to world peace? Well of course it depends who you ask. But outside the Anglosphere the answer of the majority of the world's population is resounding. The great rogue state is .....

        kowalli 19 Jan 2015 19:33

        Western guys are funny - they keep talking about anything, but when they are asked about facts - they can give you anything except of more lies...

        [Jan 16, 2015] Don't worry. The authorities will quickly explain to you what "freedom of speech" means but putting you in jail, if you uttered something stupid by Olga Tukhanina

        vz.ru

        Neoliberal Empire is so close in spirit to late USSR that closeness of event strikes everybody. As in cult soviet satirical film "Kin-DZA-DZA: "You now find yourselves in cells, because you say things without thinking, and think about things that you should not think at all". If Kafka were alive, these days he would have definitely died again. The only thing unclear whether from laughing or from envy. Although it can be both.

        "No respectable publication in the citadel of the free world reprinted the cartoons"

        The Associated Press reported from Paris that after the most massive in the history of mankind demonstrations in defense of freedom of speech, 54 people were arrested for wrong words which supposedly demonstrate hate and support of terrorism. Then the arrests continued, and now the number of arrested exceeded sixty people.

        Among them is the famous comedian Dieudonne Mbala Mbala. The funny thing is that this comic was ideologically close ally of cartoonists from Charlie Hebdo . It now looks as if cartoonists, who were perished were Communists, they would be so left to the Chairman of Communist Party of Russia Gennady Zyuganov, that he on their background looks like obnoxious right-wing conservative.

        The absurdity of what is happening, when in support of freedom of speech government can immediately arrest the person just saying something politically incorrect, and put him in jail for six months, it has become evident even for selected Russian neoliberals. They, however, try to ignore the obvious concern by saying that those events happened in backward France, and that's why Obama did not fly to the largest demonstration of the freedom of speed in world history.

        However, in the citadel of the free world, where freedom of speech is protected by a separate amendment to the Constitution, for some reason no respectable publication reprinted the cartoons.

        Talking about large multinationals, it's funny that on the English version of the Apple website, for example, there were no words in support of the victims, but on the French page sacramental Je suis Charlie was hanging. Looks like variant of support of Freedom of expression with severely restricted export channels

        Within the neoliberal worlds almost nobody is supposed by those inconsistencies. They explain that freedom of speech includes the freedom to criticize and make fun of all religions. And believers must bow their heads and endure. But hate speech is a completely different matter; it is about inciting hatred and ethnic strife. and you can be jailed for such an action.

        Let's try to give a Russian example of such a behaviour. It looks like this: when satirist Shenderovich rhetorically asks the priest why he did not learned anything from the events of the twenties, this is a freedom of speech. But when the Shenderovich asked why Jews learned nothing from events of 30th, this is hate speech and anti-Semitism. Here Article 282 of Russian Criminal codex might be applicable.

        For a normal person it is extremely difficult to understand nuances of interpretation of the subtle difference between "free speech" and "hate speech" in the neoliberal world. But neoliberals suck the right interpretation with their genetically modified neoliberal milk. Such an interpretation looks as following "Freedom only for the free men, and all the barbarians mouth should better be shut".

        For anybody who lived in Brezhnev's USSR it looks like ideological poles of modern world just reversed and West happily adopted the model used in the USSR 40 years ago. Now we can understand why the US and Western European citizens were so stunned by absurdity of Soviet propaganda and millions of people who on May 1 come to street to march for Freedom of people from exploitation, against oppression and for personal liberties including the Freedom of expression. Under the strict guidance of the party and government and watchful eyes of KGB.

        There were also a lot of talk about the "freedom of expression" in late USSR, and you really can criticize decadent West as much as you can, but openly criticizing Soviet regime could sometimes get you a jail term for anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda. However, I will make a special reservation: the Soviet Union was my homeland. and despite all the shortcomings and broken economic model life for ordinary people in late USSR was very good. We have had something that today can be found nowhere - there was no unemployment, no homeless children, no crime, and for children especially it was a great environment to grow up with state provided free education (including university education) and medicine.

        However, I repeat, to Western public Communist rituals looked f*cking ridiculous. But at the same time Soviet people have perfect understanding of of this situation and nobody took them seriously; everybody felt that the system was completely rotten from inside and that communist ideology is no longer viable. In the 70s the Soviet ideology lost any hold of people minds. Ideology of Neoliberal Empire in Europe is still relatively new and smell with flesh layer of "free markets" utopia paint and new level of neoliberal hypocrisy after the events of 2008. It still hold minds of a lot of Western European lemmings.

        It's pretty telling that Neoliberal Empire strikes former citizens of the USSR as ideological reincarnation of "Brezhnev USSR" in all its rotten ideological glory and absurdity. But it's still relatively clean on the streets of Western capitals (but not New York). And infrastructure is still relatively in order. And people have rather high standard of living. But the real situation with the "freedom of expression" is exactly like in the cult Soviet satirical film "Kin-DZA-DZA": "You now find yourselves in cells, because you say things without thinking, and think about things that you should not think at all". And it is this parade of hypocrisy that we observe right now. There are powerful and corrupt guys who define in what cases "Freedom of expression" is applicable and when it is not. And you need to obey. Or...

        But, of course, what Russian people living under authoritarianism can understand in Western European events. Those savages in work robes as neoliberal journalists from "Echo of Moscow" would characterize us. And after such a characterization, the journalist from "Echo of Moscow" will go to have one or two Americano, and is not afraid of being arrested and jailed for some time for inciting hatred and enmity. He is serving the right boss, for the right convertible currency, so why should he/she? Exactly like in "Kin-DZA-DZA". In other words, not everybody can pretend that "We are Charlie" in this neoliberal world. Only selected few.

        [Jan 16, 2015] Russians are concerned with the possibility of organizing Maidan in their country by Western intelligence and internal neoliberal fifth column

        Looks like color revolutions became less effective in xUSSR space as more and more people started to understand the mechanics and financial source of "pro-democracy" (aka pro-Washington) protesters. BTW what a skillful and shameless presstitute is this Shaun Walker
        The Guardian

        Patriotic group formed to defend Russia against pro-democracy protesters by Shaun Walker

        The group, which calls itself anti-Maidan, said on Thursday it would fight any attempts to bring Russians on to the streets to protest against the government. Its name is a reference to the Maidan protests in Kiev last year that eventually led to the toppling of former Ukraine president Viktor Yanukovych.

        "All street movements and colour revolutions lead to blood. Women, children and old people suffer first," said Dmitry Sablin, previously a long-standing MP from President Vladimir Putin's United Russia party, who recently became a senator in Russia's upper house of parliament.

        "It is not acceptable for the minority to force its will upon the majority, as happened in Ukraine," he added. "Under the slogan of fighting for democracy there is instead total fear, total propaganda, and no freedom."

        jgbg -> RunLukeRun, 16 Jan 2015 06:36

        BINGO....well done. You've got Neo Nazi's, US Aid, CIA infiltrators, indiscriminate slaughter and Nazi battalions....all in just 8 sentences. great job

        I guess these are exactly the sort of people who will enrich the EU:

        Nazis on the march in Kiev this month

        Would you like to claim that the Azov and Aidar battalions aren't a bunch of Nazis?

        Here's a Guardian article about Azov.

        The State Department funding of NGOs in Ukraine "promoting the right kind of democracy" to the tune of $5 billion is a matter of record, courtesy of "Fuck the EU" Nuland.

        As for CIA involvement, the director of the CIA has visited Ukraine at least twice in 2014 - once under a false identity. If the head of the equivalent Russian organisation had made similar visits, that would be a problem, no?

        TuleCarbonari -> garethgj 16 Jan 2015 06:21

        Yes, he should leave Syria to paid mercenaries. Do you really want us to believe you still don't know those fighters in Syria are George Soros' militias? Come on man, go get yourself informed.

        jgbg -> Strummered 16 Jan 2015 06:19

        You can't campaign for greater democracy, it's dangerous, it's far too democratic.

        The USA cannot pay people to campaign in Russia to have the right kind of democracy i.e. someone acceptable to the US government at the helm.

        Instead of funding anti-government NGOs in other countries, perhaps the USA should first spend the money fixing the huge inequalities and other problems in their own country.

        jgbg -> Glenn J. Hill 16 Jan 2015 06:12

        What???? Have you been smoking?? Sorry but your Putin Thugs are NOT funded by my country.

        I think he is referring the the NGOs which have spent large sums of money on "promoting democracy" in Georgia and Ukraine. Many of these are funded by the National Endowment for Democracy and the US State Department. Some have funding from organisations which are in turn, funded by George Soros. These organisations were seen to back the Rose Revolution in Georgia and both revolutions in Ukraine. Georgia ended up with a president who worked as a lawyer in a US firm linked to the right wing of the Republican Party. Ukraine has a prime minister who was brought up in the USA and a president whom a US ambassador to Ukraine described as "our insider" (in a US Embassy cable leaked by Wikileaks).

        The funding of similar organisations in Russia (e.g. Soldiers' Mothers) has been exposed since a law was brought in, requiring foreign funded NGOs to register and publish annual accounts.

        Just because some Russians are paranoid about US interference, that doesn't mean they are wrong.

        Anette Mor -> Hektor Uranga 16 Jan 2015 06:09

        He was let out to form a party and take part in Moscow mayor election. He got respectable 20%. But shown no platform other than anti- corruption. There is anti-corruption hysteria in Russia already. People asked for positive agenda. He got none. The party base disintegrated. The court against him was because there was a case filed. I can agree the state might found this timely. But we cannot blaim on Russian state absence of positive position in Navalny him self. He is reactive on current issues but got zero vision. Russia is a merit based society. They look for brilliance in the leader. He is just a different caliber. Can contribute but not lead. His best way is to choose a district and stand for a parliament seat. The state already shown his is welcomed to enter big politics. Just need to stop lookibg to abroad for scripts. The list of names for US sanction was taking from his and his mates lists. After such exposure he lost any groups with many Russians.

        Anette Mor -> notoriousANDinfamous 16 Jan 2015 05:50

        I do not disregard positive side of democracy or negative side of dictatorship. I just offer a different scale. Put value of every human life above any ideology. The west is full of aggressive radicals from animal activists and greens to extremist gays and atheists. There is a need to downgrade some concepts and upgrade other, so yhe measures are universal. Bombing for democracy is equaly bad as bombing for personal power.

        Anette Mor -> gilstra 16 Jan 2015 05:41

        This is really not Guardian problem. They got every right to choose anti-Russian rant as the main topic. The problem is the balance. Nobody watching it and the media as a whole distorting the picture. Double standards are not good too. RT to stay permitted in the UK was told to interrupt every person they interview expressing directly opposite view. Might be OK with some theoretical conversation. But how you going to interrupt mother who just most a child by argument in favor of the killer? The regulator said BBC is out of their reach. But guardian should not be. Yet every material is one sided.

        Asimpleguest -> romans

        International Observer

        ''The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs''

        PeraIlic

        "Decisions should be made in Moscow and not in Washington or Brussels," said Nikolai Starikov, a nationalist writer and marginal politician.

        Never mind that he's marginal politician. This man really knows how to express himself briefly:

        An Interview with Popular Russian Author and Politician Nikolai Starikov

        Those defending NATO expansion say that those countries wanted to be part of NATO.

        Okay. But Cuba also wanted to house Soviet missiles voluntarily.
        If America did not object to Russian missiles in Cuba, would you support Ukraine joining NATO?

        That would be a great trust-building measure on their part, and Russia would feel that America is a friend.

        imperfetto

        This article contains unacceptable, apparently carefully wrapped up, distorsions of what is happening in Russia. A piece of journalism which tell us something about the level of propaganda that most mainstream media in our 'free' west have set up in the attempt to organise yet another coup, this time under the thick walls of the Kremlin. This newspaper seem to pursue this goal, as it shows to have taken sides: stand by NATO and of course the British interests. If this implies misguiding the readers on what is taking place in Russia\Ukraine or elsewhere (Syria for example) well...that's too bad, the answer would be. Goals justify the means...so forget about honesty, fair play and truthfullness. If it needs to be a war (we have decided so, because it is convenient) then... lies are not lies...but clever tools that we are allowed to use in order to destroy our enemy.

        The patriots are most probably a neurotic sort of reaction to what most Russians now perceive to be an attempt from NSA, CIA...and more in general of the US/EU geo-political strategies (much more of the US, of course, as the EU and Britain simply follow the instructions) to dismantle the present Russian system (the political establishment first and then the ARMY).

        The idea is to create an internal turmoil through some pretexts (gay, feminism, scandals...etc.) in the hope that a growing movement of protesters may finally shake up the 'palace' and foster the conditions for a coupe to take place. Then the right people will occupy the key chairs. Who are these subdued figures to be? They would be corrupted oligarchs, allowing the US to guide, control the Russian public life (haven't we noticed that three important ministers in Kiev are AMERICAN citizens!)

        But, from what I understand, Russia is a democratic country. Its leader has been elected by the voters. Contrary to what is happening here in the west (where all media seem to the have joined the club of the one-way-thinking against Russia), some important media of that country do have a chance to criticize Putin and his policies. That's right, in a democratic republic. But, instead, the attempt to enact another Maidan, that is a FASCIST assault to the DUMA, would require a due response.

        Thus, perhaps we could without any Patriots of the sort, that may feed the pernicious attention of western media. There should merely be the enforcement of the law:

        a minority can express their opinion, as long as they do not attempt to overthrow the parliament, which is an expression of Russian people.

        VladimirM

        "The 'orange beast' is sharpening its teeth and looking to Russia," said The Surgeon, whose real name is Alexander Zaldostanov.

        Actually, he used a Russian word "зверек", not "зверь". The latter can be rendered as "beast" but what he said was closer to "rodent", a small animal. So, using this word he just stressed his contemptious attitude rather than a degree of threat.

        Kondratiev

        There is at least anecdotal evidence that Maiden protestors were paid - see: http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-and-eu-are-paying-ukrainian-rioters-and-protesters/5369316 .

        Bosula

        These patriotic groups do seem extreme, but probably less extreme and odd than many of the current Ukrainian crop of politicians. Here is an article from the New York Observer that will get you up to speed....

        The New York Observer:The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs

        Robert Sandlin -> GreenKnighht

        Did you forget the people in charge of the Ukraine then were Ukrainian communists.That many of the deaths were also ethnic Russian-Ukrainians.And the ones making policy in the USSR as a whole,in that period were mostly not ethnic-Russians.The leader was Georgian,his secret police chief and many of their enforcers were Jewish-Soviets.And his closest helpers were also mostly non-ethnic Russians.Recruited from all the important ethnic groups in the USSR,including many Ukrainians.It is a canard of the Wests to blame Russia for the famine that also killed many Russians.I'm sick of hearing the bs from the West over that tragic time trying to stir Russophobia.

        seventh

        Well, you know a government is seriously in the shit when it has to employ biker gangs to defend it.

        Robert Sandlin -> seventh

        Really? The government doesn't employ them. Defending the government is the job of the police and military. These civilian volunteers are only helping to show traitors in the pay of Westerners that the common people won't tolerate treason like happened in Ukraine, to strike Russia.Good for them,that should let potential 5th columnists know their bs isn't wanted in Russia.

        Bulagen

        I watch here in full swing manipulation of public opinion of Europeans, who imagines that they have "democracy" and "freedom of speech". All opinions, alternative General line, aimed at all discredit Russia in the eyes of the population of Europe ruthlessly removed the wording that Putin bots hinder communication "civilized public." And I am even more convinced that all this hysteria about "the problems of democracy in Russia" is nothing more than an attempt to sell Denyen horse (the so-called democratic values) to modern Trojans (Russians).

        jezzam -> Bulagen

        All the wealthiest, healthiest and happiest societies adhere to "so-called democratic values". They would also greatly benefit the Russian people. Putin opposes these values purely because they would threaten his power.

        sashasmirnoff -> jezzam

        The "wealthiest, healthiest and happiest societies"? That is description of whom?

        I will generalize here - if by those you mean the "West" you are mistaken. The vast majority of it's populace are carrying a huge burden of personal debt - it is the bank that owns their houses and new autos. There is a tiny stratum that indeed is wildly wealthy, frequently referred to as the 1%, but in fact is much less numerous.

        The West is generally regarded as being the least healthy society, largely due to horrifying diet, sedentary lifestyle, and considerable stress due to (amongst other things) the aforementioned struggle to not drown in huge personal debt.

        I'm not certain as to how you qualify or quantify "happiness", but the West is also experiencing a mental health crisis, manifested in aberrant behaviour, wild consumption of pharmaceuticals to treat or drown out depression, suicide, high rates of incarceration etc. All symptoms of a deeply unhappy and unhealthy society.

        One more thing - the supposed wealth and happiness of the West is predicated on the poverty and misery of those the West colonizes and exploits. The last thing on Earth the West would like to see is the extension of "democratic values" to those unfortunates. That would totally ruin the World Order.

        Robert Sandlin -> kawarthan

        Well the Ukrainians have the corner on Black and Brown shirts.So those colors are already taken.Blue,Red,White,maybe those?

        Paultoo -> Robert Sandlin

        Looking at the picture of that "patriotic" Russian biker it seems that Ukraine don´t have the corner on black shirts!

        WardwarkOwner

        Why do these uprisings/ internal conflicts seem to happen to energy producing countries or those that are on major oil/gas pipeline routes far more often than other countries?

        Jackblob -> WardwarkOwner

        I don't see any uprising in Canada, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, China, Mexico, the UAE, Iran, Norway, Qatar, etc.

        So what exactly is your point?

        Petros -> Sotrep Jackblob

        Well there is problem in Sudan Iraq Syria Libya Nigeria . you have conflicts made up by USA to change governments and get raw materials . so ward is right . you just pretending to be blind . in mexico ppl dying pretty much each day from corrupt people .

        PullingTheStrings

        If you scrap off the BS from this article they do have a point, because it has been a popular tactic of a certain country to change another countries government *Cough* America *Cough* by organising protests/riots within a target country

        if that doesnt work they escalate that to fire fights and if that doesn't work they move onto say Downing a aeroplane and very quickly claiming its the other side fault without having any evidence or claim they have WMD's well anything to try to take the moral high ground on the situation even thou they caused the situation usual for selfish, arrogant and greedy reasons.

        Jackblob -> PullingTheStrings

        For some reason I do not trust you to discern the BS from the truth since your entire comment is an act of deflection.

        The truth is most Russians are very poor, more poor than the people of India. This latest economic turmoil will make it even worse. Meanwhile, Putin and a handful of his cronies hold all the wealth. He proved he did not care about his people when he sent the FSB to bomb Moscow apartment buildings to start a war in Chechnya and ultimately to cancel elections.

        Now Putin sees the potential for widespread protests and he is preparing to confront any protests with violent vigilante groups like those seen in other repressive countries.

        Bob Vavich -> Jackblob

        Wow, this is quite an assertion that Russians are poorer than Indians. I have been to India and I have been to Russia and I don't like using anecdotes to make a point. I can tell you that I have never seen as much poverty as in India. I can also tell you that when I drove through the low income neighborhood of Detroit or Houston, I felt like I was in a post apocalyptic world. Burned out and boarded up houses. Loitering and crime ridden streets. I can go on and on about social injustice. Regardless your comments are even more slanted than the assertion you are making about "Pulling the Strings".

        Jackblob -> Bob Vavich

        I was just as surprised to learn that Indians earn more than Russians. My source for that info comes from PBS's latest broadcast of Frontline entitled "Putin's Way".

        Also, I doubt you've visited many small and lesser known cities in Russia. It's as if the Soviet Union had just collapsed and they were forgotten. Worse, actually.

        Hamdog

        Weren't the Maidan protests anti-democracy since they used violence to remove a democratically elected leader? Just another anti-ruskie hit piece from the Guardian.

        We in the West love democracy, assuming you vote for the right person.

        In the US you only get 2 choices - it may be twice as many as you get with a dictatorship but it's hardly democracy.

        E1ouise -> Hamdog

        Yanukovych was voted out of office by the *elected parliment* after he fled to Russia. Why don't you know this yet?

        secondiceberg -> E1ouise

        Excuse me, he was forced out of the country at gunpoint before the opposition "voted him out" the next day.

        Bosula -> secondiceberg

        Yes. That is correct. And armed Maidan thugs (Svoboda and Right Sector) stood around the Rada with weapons while the vote taken.

        Also the 'election' of the coup government was unconstitutional under article 111 of the Ukraine's own Constitution (Goggle - check for yourself). This is an undisputed and uncomfortable 'fact' which the US and the EU never mention (never) when drawn on the issue.

        Sourcrowd

        The soviet union didn't go through some kind of denazification akin to Germany after it disintegrated. Russia today looks more and more like Germany after WWI - full of self pity and blaming everyone but themselves for their own failures.

        Down2dirt -> Sourcrowd

        I would like to hear more about that denazification of Germany and how did that go.

        Since the day one the West and the GDR used nazis for their laboratories, clandestine and civil services...State owned museums still refuse to give back artwork to their rightful owners that were robbed during 1930-45.

        I don' t condone Putin's and Russia polity (one of the most neoliberal countries), but you appear to be clueless about this particular subject and don' t know what you are talking about.

        Bosula -> Sourcrowd

        Are you thinking about Ukraine here, maybe?

        Bosula

        A more interesting story would have been the similarities between this anti maidan group in Russia and Maidan in Kiev.

        Both have have their military arm, are dangerous and violent, and both very nationalistic and right wing. Both appear to have strong links to politicians as well.

        Such an analysis might show that Russian and Ukrainian nationalist groups have more in common than they would like to believe.

        TuleCarbonari -> Bosula

        A very important difference is the Russians are defending their elected government. The Ukrainians were hired by the West to promote a coup d'etat against an elected government, this against the will of the majority in Ukraine and only 3 months from general election in the country. The coup was indeed a way of stopping the elections.

        Flinryan

        Oh I see Russia has re-entered the media cross hairs in a timely fashion. I wonder what's going to happen in the coming weeks.

        MarcelFromage -> Flinryan

        I wonder what's going to happen in the coming weeks.

        Nothing new - the Russian Federation will continue its illegal occupation of Crimea and continue to bring death and destruction to eastern Ukraine. And generally be a pain for the rest of the international community.

        secondiceberg -> MarcelFromage

        And the US will continue to murder innocent civilians in the Middle East, Northern Africa and wherever else it wants to plant its bloody army boots. And will also continue to use its NGO's and CIA to foment colour revolutions in other countries, as it did in Ukraine. Kiev had its revolution. Eastern Ukraine is having its revolution. Tit for Tat.

        Velska

        CIF seems flooded by Putin's sock puppets, i.e. mindless robots who just repeat statements favouring pro-Putinist dictatorship.

        To be sure, there's much to hope for in the US democracy, where bribery is legal. I'm not sure whether bribery in Russia is a legal requirement or just a fact of life. But certainly Russia is far from democratic, has actually never been.

        Bosula -> Velska

        You can take your sock off now and wipe your hands clean.

        secondiceberg -> Velska

        What kind of democracy is the US when you have a federal agency spying on everything you do and say? Do you think they are just going to sit on what information they think they get?

        What will you do when they come knocking at your door, abduct you for some silly comment you made, and then rendition you to another country so that you will not be able to claim any legal rights? Let Russia look after itself in the face of "war-footing" threats from the U.S.

        Fight for social justice and freedom in your own country.

        cichonio

        "All street movements and colour revolutions lead to blood. Women, children and old people suffer first,"

        That's why they are ready to use weapons and violence against a foe who hasn't really been seen yet.

        Also,

        "Decisions should be made in Moscow and not in Washington or Brussels,"

        I think decisions about Ukraine should be made in Kiev.

        Bosula -> cichonio

        Yes. Decisions should be made in Kiev, but why are they being made in Washington then? How much does this compromise Kiev as its agenda is very different from the agenda the US have with Russia. Ukraine is weakened daily with its civil war and the killing its own people, but this conflict benefits the US as further weakens and places Russia in a new cold war type environment.

        Why are key government ministries in Ukraine (like Finance) headed by overseas nationals. Utterly bizarre.

        secondiceberg -> cichonio

        So do I, by the legally elected government that was illegally deposed at gunpoint. Ukraine actually has two presidents. Only one of them is legal and it is not Poroshenko.

        Bob Vavich -> cichonio

        Yes, if they are taken by all Ukrainians and not a minority. Potroshenko was elected with a turnout of 46%. Of this he scored say over half, hardly a majority. More likely, the right wing Western Galicia came out to vote and the Russian speaking were discouraged. What would one expect when the new government first decree is to eliminate Russian as a second official language. Mind you a language spoken by the majority. Makes you think? Maybe. Probably not.

        SHappens

        "Personally I am a fan of the civilised, democratic intelligent way of deciding conflicts, but if we need to take up weapons then of course I will be ready," said Yulia Bereznikova, the ultimate fighting champion.

        This quite illustrates Russians way of doing. Smart, open to dialogue and patient but dont mess with them for too long. Once on their horses nothing will stop them.

        They are ready to fight against the anti Russian sentiment injected from outside citing Ukraine and Navalny-Soros, not against democracy.

        "It is not acceptable for the minority to force its will upon the majority, as happened in Ukraine," he added. "Under the slogan of fighting for democracy there is instead total fear, total propaganda, and no freedom."

        ploughmanlunch

        After witnessing what happened during Maidan, and subsequently to Ukraine, I understand some Russians reluctance to see a similar scenario played out in Russia.
        That being said, I am also wary of vigilantism.

        FlangeTube

        "Pro-democracy" protests? They have democracy. They have an elected leader with a high approval rating. Stop trying twisting language, these people are not "pro-democracy" they are anti-Putin. That, as much as this paper tries to sell the idea, is not the same thing.

        Drumming up odd-balls to defend the elected government in Russia is all well and good, but I would think the other 75% (the ones who like Putin, and aren't in biker gangs) should get a say too.

        As for the anti-Maidan quotes - of course that was organised. Nuland said so, for crying out loud. Kerry and others were there, Brennan was there. Of course the Western powers were partly involved. And it wasn't peaceful protests, it was violence directed against elected officials, throwing Molotov cocktails at policemen. It culminated in the burning alive of 40+ people in Odessa.

        Sergei Konyushenko

        Btw, Shaun is always very best at finding the most important issues to raise?

        FallenKezef

        It's an interesting point, what happened in the Ukraine was an undemocratic coup which was justified after the fact by an election once the previous incumbent was safely exiled.

        Had that happened to a pro-western government we'd be crying foul. But because it happened to a pro-Russian government it's ok.

        I don't blame Russians for wanting to avoid a repeat in their own country.

        Spaceguy1 One

        The Crimea referendum "15% for" myth - Human rights investigations

        The idea that only 15% of Crimeans voted to join Russia is speeding around the internet after an article was published in Forbes magazine written by Professor Paul Roderick Gregory.

        Professor Gregory has, dishonestly, arrived at his 15% figure by taking the minimum figure for Crimea for both turnout and for voters for union, calling them the maximum, and then ignoring Sevastopol. He has also pretended the report is based on the "real results," when it seems to be little more than the imprecise estimates of a small working group who were apparently against the idea of the referendum in the first place.

        It appears that Professor Gregory is intent on deceiving his readers about the vote in Crimea and its legitimacy, probably as part of the widespread campaign to deny the people of Crimea their legitimate rights to self-determination and to demonize Russia in the process.

        http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/05/06/the-crimea-referendum-15-percent-for-myth/

        vr13vr

        This is not an unexpected result. EU and US governments are going out of way to stir people's opinion in the former Soviet republics. And they also set the precedent of conducting at least two "revolutions" by street violence in Ukraine and a dozen - elsewhere. There are obviously people in Russia who believe the changes have to be by discussion and voting not by street disturbance and stone throwing.

        Beckow

        Reduced to facts in the article, a group in Russia said that they will come out and protest in the streets if there are anti-government demonstrations. They said that their side also needs to be represented, since the protesters don't represent the majority.

        That's all. What is so "undemocratic" about that? Or can only pro-Western people ever demonstrate? In a democracy a biker with a tatoo is equal to an urbane lawyer with Western connections. That's the way democracies should work.

        About funding for Maidan protesters "for which there is no evidence". This is an interesting point. There were students from Lviv who said they were given "college credit" for being at Maidan. And how exactly have tens of thousands of mostly young men lived on streets in Kiev with food and clothes (even some weapons) with no support?

        Isn't that a bit of circumstantial evidence that "somebody" supported them. I guess in this case we need to see the invoices, is that always the case or just when Russia issues are involved?

        rezevici

        Very sad news from Russia. If Putin or the government doesn't condemn this project of the "patriots", if he and government doesn't react against announcement of civilian militia's plan to use violence, I'll truly turn to observe Putin as a tsar.

        The ethics of Russians will be on display.

        Anette Mor -> rezevici

        There are specific politicians who rejected participation in normal political process but chosen street riots instead. The door to politics is open, they can form parties and take part in elections. but then there is a need for a clear political and economical platform and patience to win over the votes. These people refuse to do so, They just want street riots. Several years public watch these groups and simply had enough. There is some edgy opposition which attracts minority but they play fair. Nobody against them protecting and demonstrating even when the call for revolutionary means for getting power, like communists or national-socialists. But these who got no program other than violent riots as such are not opposition. They still have an agenda which they cannot openly display. So they attract public by spreading slander and rising tension. Nothing anti-democratic in forming a group of people who confront these actions. They are just another group taking part in very complex process.

        PeraIlic

        by Shaun Walker: "Maidan in Kiev did not appear just like that. Everyone was paid, everyone was paid to be there, was paid for every stone that was thrown, for every bottle thrown," said Sablin, echoing a frequently repeated Russian claim for which there is no evidence.

        There is evidence, but also recognition from US officials. That at least is not a secret anymore.

        Is the US training and funding the Ukraine opposition? Nuland herself claimed in December that the US had spent $5 billion since the 1990s on "democratization" programs in Ukraine. On what would she like us to believe the money had been spent?

        We know that the US State Department invests heavily -- more than $100 million from 2008-2012 alone -- on international "Internet freedom" activities. This includes heavy State Department funding, for example, to the New Americas Foundation's...

        ...Commotion Project (sometimes referred to as the "Internet in a Suitcase"). This is an initiative from the New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative to build a mobile mesh network that can literally be carried around in a suitcase, to allow activists to continue to communicate even when a government tries to shut down the Internet, as happened in several Arab Spring countries during the recent uprisings.

        Indeed, Shaun! On what would you like us to believe so much money had been spent?

        RandolphHearst -> PeraIlic,

        You antipathy against the author speaks volumes about the contents of his article.

        susandbs12 , link

        All of this stems from the stupid EU meddling in Ukraine.

        We shouldn't get involved in the EUs regime change agenda. Time to leave the EU.

        And also time for us to not get involved in any wars.

        daffyddw

        Thank you, thank you all, you wonderful putin-bots. I haven't enjoyed a thread so much in ages. Bless you all, little brothers.

        susandbs12 -> daffyddw

        Putinbot = someone who has a different opinion to you.

        Presumably you want a totalitarian state where only your views are legitimate.

        Grow up and stop being childish and just accept that there are people who hold different views from you, so what?

        LaAsotChayim

        Pro democracy protests?? Would that be same protests that Kiev had where Neo-nazis burned unarmed police officers alive, or the ones in Syria when terrorists (now formed ISIS) where killing Government troops? Are these the pro-democracy protests (all financed via "US aid" implemented by CIA infiltrators) that the Guardian wants us to care about?

        How about the reporting on the indiscriminate slaughter of Eastern Ukrainians by Kiev's government troops and Nazi battalions?? Hey, guardian??!!

        Anette Mor -> Strummered

        Democracy is overrated. It does not automatically ensure equality for minorities. In Russia with its 100 nationalities and all world religions simple straight forward majority rule does not bring any good.

        A safety net is required. Benevolent dictator is one of the forms for such safety net. Putin fits well as he is fair and gained trust from all faith, nationalities and social groups. There are other mechanisms in Russia to ensure equality. Many of them came from USSR including low chamber of Russian parliament called Nationalities chamber. representation there is disproportional to the number of population but reflecting minorities voice - one sit per nation, no matter how big or small.

        The system of different national administrative units for large and small and smallest nationalities depending how much of autonomic administration each can afford to manage. People in the West should stop preaching democracy. It is nothing but dictatorship of majority. That is why Middle East lost all its tolerance. Majority rules, minorities are suppressed.

        kowalli -> Glenn J. Hill

        US has a separate line in the budget to pay for such "democratic" protests

        kowalli -> Glenn J. Hill

        U.S. Embassy Grants Program. The U.S. Embassy Grants Program announces a competition for Russian non-governmental organizations to carry out specific projects.

        http://moscow.usembassy.gov/democracy.html

        and this is only one of them, many more in budget.

        MartinArvay

        pro-democracy protesters?

        like ISIL, Right Sector, UÇK?

        They are right

        [Jan 16, 2015] Legendary Cartoonist Robert Crumb on the Massacre in Paris

        "I just read this recently that they were actually being subsidized, especially after that 2011 bombing, they got subsidized by some bigger publication." So they were not an independent publication. But by which publication they were subsidized? See also Charlie Hebdo - more questions then answers
        Jan 14, 2015 | New York Observer

        ... Is there anything in the US in our history that comes anywhere near this tradition – the Hebdo tradition? If so, what would it be?

        Underground comics, back in the 70s. But today, I don't think there's anything like that now in the US. The thing about Charlie Hebdo is that it started in 1969. The gang of guys that worked for that magazine, they just kept at that for decades. Those guys are fairly old, you know, older guys most of them. There wasn't a whole lot of, you know, 20- somethings or 30-somethings in that group. The cartoonists are mostly older guys.

        There is lots of critique of the left also. They say the left is hypocritical, bullshitters and opportunists, and all that. But generally I would say there's a leftish sympathy in Charlie Hebdo. But they just came out with that every week. Every week. And people would just look at it and laugh, "Oh, you know those guys, those crazy guys. They're outrageous."

        They had offices and staff – they seemed to have reasonable funding…

        Yeah, I just read this recently that they were actually being subsidized, especially after that 2011 bombing, they got subsidized by some bigger publication. Some mainstream successful thing. It was like an old institution on the radical end of things, you know. Yeah, it doesn't exist in the US, there's nothing like that. It just went on for so long, you know. And it's gonna still go on, they're going to keep it going.

        [Jan 15, 2015] The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs by By Mikhail Klikushin

        OK. First WashPost. Now Observer. So much for State Department propaganda efforts...
        Jan 14, 2015 | observer.com

        Prominent Ukrainian MP denounces Obama's weakness, calls him a 'shot-down pilot'

        By Mikhail Klikushin | 01/14/15 8:05am

        There were times in Ukraine's recent history when even the country's military brass were kneeling before the U.S. Literally. In June 2013, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Tefft received the saber of the Ukrainian Cossack in the city of Kherson from a kneeling Ukrainian high-rank military official. Mr. Tefft nowadays is serving the country as an Ambassador to Russia where no such honors are even imaginable.

        But that was then - a previous regime.

        On the surface, today's Ukraine is much more favorably disposed toward everything Western and everything American because of the exciting wind of transformations that swept through the Ukrainian political landscape last year. Its political culture looks modern, attractive, refined and European. For example, at the end of last year a new law was passed that allowed former citizens of other countries to participate in Ukrainian politics and even the government, in case they denounce their former citizenships. The reason given was the fight with notorious Ukrainian corruption. Apparently, in a country of more than 40 million people, Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk (called "Rabbit" by his citizens) couldn't find a dozen or so native-born yet not corrupt professionals for his government.

        Now three former foreigners-ex-American Natalia Yaresko (Minister for Finance), ex-Lithuanian Aivaras Abromavičius (Minister For Economy and Trade) and ex-Georgian Alexander Kvitashvili (Minister for Public Health)-are firmly established in their new cabinets. They are just the beginning. They gave up their U.S. and European passports with only two benefits in return: a $200-a-month salary and the chance to build a prosperous new Ukraine.

        In a strange twist of fate, the Ukrainian ministers during their meetings now have to speak hated Russian - former foreigners do not speak Ukrainian well enough and locals do not speak English at the level necessary for complicated discussions on how to save a Ukraine economy that is disappearing before their eyes.

        The problems they are facing are overwhelming. The new minister for economy, Mr. Abromavičius, knows that the country is in fact bankrupt. "To expect that we are going to produce real as opposed to declarative incentive programs is unrealistic," he declared. In other words, the new Ukrainian budget is nothing but a piece of paper. But without this piece of paper there will be no new money from the European Bank and the IMF.

        The first steps he has taken so far are controversial.

        On January 5, the new minister for economy appointed former Estonian Jaanika Merilo - a young dark-haired beauty-as his advisor on foreign investments, improvement of business climate in Ukraine, coordination of international programs and so on. Directly after her appointment, the young lady put online not her resume or a program for Ukrainian financial stabilization but a series of candid shots that display her long legs, plump lips and prominent cleavage. In some shots, she places a knife to her lips a la Angelina Jolie and sits on the chair a la Sharon Stone.

        Ms. Merilo, too, forfeited her European passport in the hope of a better future for her new Motherland.

        By law, double citizenship is not permitted for a Ukrainian governmental official, but, as often happens in Ukraine, for some there is always another way around. The governor of Zaporozhe region, oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, for example, has three citizenships.

        As exhilarating winds of change swept through the Ukrainian government, Western newspapers giddily reported the fact that after the last elections for the first time in decades there would be no Communists in the Ukrainian Parliament. But that means all possible organized opposition to the current president and prime minister is gone.

        Instead, the new Rada has a big group of parliamentarians of very uncertain political loyalties and even dubious mental state-former warlords and street activists who distinguished themselves during street fights and tire burnings.

        These government rookies are sometimes turning to strange ways of self-promotion, now within the walls of the Parliament.

        One new face in the Rada-leader of the Right Sector ultra-nationalist party and former warlord Dmytro Yarosh-admitted in a January interview with Ukrainian TV that he caresses a real hand grenade in his pocket while inside the Rada. Because he is MP, the security personnel has no right to check his pockets. They just ask if he has anything dangerous on his person and he says no. The reason to have a hand grenade on his body is that there are too many enemies of Ukraine within the MP crowding him during the voting process. He is not afraid, of course. But when the time comes, he will use this grenade and with a bit of luck he will take a lot of them with him if he dies.

        Ukrainian MPs Yuri Beryoza and Andrei Levus, also former warlords and members of radical parties, became notorious last December after publicly applauding the terrorist attack in the Russian city of Grozny-an attack in which 14 policemen were killed. "On our eastern borders our brothers are coming out from under Russia's power. It's normal. These are the allies of Ukraine," said Mr. Beryoza. This is the same fellow who had earlier promised that the Ukrainian army would soon take Moscow. Andrei Levus proposed Russia withdraw all of her "punishers" from the "People's Republic of Ichkeria" (i.e. Chechnya) immediately.

        Another former warlord, former member of social-national party and today's Ukrainian MP Igor Mosiychuk said to the journalists that Ukraine, "being in the state of war, must stimulate the opening of the second front in the Caucuses, in Middle Asia" against Russia. In the scandalous video, which has been viewed 2.5 million times, he unloaded an assault rifle into the portrait of the Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov ranting, "Ramzan, you have sent your dogs, traitors into our land. We have been killing them here and we will come after you. We will come after you to Grozny. We will help our brothers to free Ichkeria from such dogs like you. Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the free Ichkeria!"

        Despite this bravado, the personal security for all three MPs had to be increased-at high cost to the cash-starved country-after the Chechen leader promised to bring them to justice in Russia for incitement of terrorism.

        [Jan 15, 2015] The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs by By Mikhail Klikushin

        OK. First WashPost. Now Observer. So much for State Department propaganda efforts...
        Jan 14, 2015 | observer.com

        Prominent Ukrainian MP denounces Obama's weakness, calls him a 'shot-down pilot'

        By Mikhail Klikushin | 01/14/15 8:05am

        There were times in Ukraine's recent history when even the country's military brass were kneeling before the U.S. Literally. In June 2013, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Tefft received the saber of the Ukrainian Cossack in the city of Kherson from a kneeling Ukrainian high-rank military official. Mr. Tefft nowadays is serving the country as an Ambassador to Russia where no such honors are even imaginable.

        But that was then - a previous regime.

        On the surface, today's Ukraine is much more favorably disposed toward everything Western and everything American because of the exciting wind of transformations that swept through the Ukrainian political landscape last year. Its political culture looks modern, attractive, refined and European. For example, at the end of last year a new law was passed that allowed former citizens of other countries to participate in Ukrainian politics and even the government, in case they denounce their former citizenships. The reason given was the fight with notorious Ukrainian corruption. Apparently, in a country of more than 40 million people, Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk (called "Rabbit" by his citizens) couldn't find a dozen or so native-born yet not corrupt professionals for his government.

        Now three former foreigners-ex-American Natalia Yaresko (Minister for Finance), ex-Lithuanian Aivaras Abromavičius (Minister For Economy and Trade) and ex-Georgian Alexander Kvitashvili (Minister for Public Health)-are firmly established in their new cabinets. They are just the beginning. They gave up their U.S. and European passports with only two benefits in return: a $200-a-month salary and the chance to build a prosperous new Ukraine.

        In a strange twist of fate, the Ukrainian ministers during their meetings now have to speak hated Russian - former foreigners do not speak Ukrainian well enough and locals do not speak English at the level necessary for complicated discussions on how to save a Ukraine economy that is disappearing before their eyes.

        The problems they are facing are overwhelming. The new minister for economy, Mr. Abromavičius, knows that the country is in fact bankrupt. "To expect that we are going to produce real as opposed to declarative incentive programs is unrealistic," he declared. In other words, the new Ukrainian budget is nothing but a piece of paper. But without this piece of paper there will be no new money from the European Bank and the IMF.

        The first steps he has taken so far are controversial.

        On January 5, the new minister for economy appointed former Estonian Jaanika Merilo - a young dark-haired beauty-as his advisor on foreign investments, improvement of business climate in Ukraine, coordination of international programs and so on. Directly after her appointment, the young lady put online not her resume or a program for Ukrainian financial stabilization but a series of candid shots that display her long legs, plump lips and prominent cleavage. In some shots, she places a knife to her lips a la Angelina Jolie and sits on the chair a la Sharon Stone.

        Ms. Merilo, too, forfeited her European passport in the hope of a better future for her new Motherland.

        By law, double citizenship is not permitted for a Ukrainian governmental official, but, as often happens in Ukraine, for some there is always another way around. The governor of Zaporozhe region, oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, for example, has three citizenships.

        As exhilarating winds of change swept through the Ukrainian government, Western newspapers giddily reported the fact that after the last elections for the first time in decades there would be no Communists in the Ukrainian Parliament. But that means all possible organized opposition to the current president and prime minister is gone.

        Instead, the new Rada has a big group of parliamentarians of very uncertain political loyalties and even dubious mental state-former warlords and street activists who distinguished themselves during street fights and tire burnings.

        These government rookies are sometimes turning to strange ways of self-promotion, now within the walls of the Parliament.

        One new face in the Rada-leader of the Right Sector ultra-nationalist party and former warlord Dmytro Yarosh-admitted in a January interview with Ukrainian TV that he caresses a real hand grenade in his pocket while inside the Rada. Because he is MP, the security personnel has no right to check his pockets. They just ask if he has anything dangerous on his person and he says no. The reason to have a hand grenade on his body is that there are too many enemies of Ukraine within the MP crowding him during the voting process. He is not afraid, of course. But when the time comes, he will use this grenade and with a bit of luck he will take a lot of them with him if he dies.

        Ukrainian MPs Yuri Beryoza and Andrei Levus, also former warlords and members of radical parties, became notorious last December after publicly applauding the terrorist attack in the Russian city of Grozny-an attack in which 14 policemen were killed. "On our eastern borders our brothers are coming out from under Russia's power. It's normal. These are the allies of Ukraine," said Mr. Beryoza. This is the same fellow who had earlier promised that the Ukrainian army would soon take Moscow. Andrei Levus proposed Russia withdraw all of her "punishers" from the "People's Republic of Ichkeria" (i.e. Chechnya) immediately.

        Another former warlord, former member of social-national party and today's Ukrainian MP Igor Mosiychuk said to the journalists that Ukraine, "being in the state of war, must stimulate the opening of the second front in the Caucuses, in Middle Asia" against Russia. In the scandalous video, which has been viewed 2.5 million times, he unloaded an assault rifle into the portrait of the Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov ranting, "Ramzan, you have sent your dogs, traitors into our land. We have been killing them here and we will come after you. We will come after you to Grozny. We will help our brothers to free Ichkeria from such dogs like you. Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the free Ichkeria!"

        Despite this bravado, the personal security for all three MPs had to be increased-at high cost to the cash-starved country-after the Chechen leader promised to bring them to justice in Russia for incitement of terrorism.

        [Jan 14, 2015] The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs By Mikhail Klikushin

        Rada deputy Anton Gerashchenko, who also serves as an advisor to Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, called US president Barack Obama a 'political midget' or 'dwarf,' a 'shot-down pilot' and says that Obama is in 'ostrich position.'

        While it may be tempting to dismiss these words as the ravings of former warlords who have been traumatized by war, worrisome shifts of the political mindset have been appearing in the mainstream of the Ukrainian political establishment.

        Anton Geraschenko is the poster boy of the next generation of Ukrainian politicians. He holds an important position as the advisor to the minister for internal affairs, executing the role of the Ministry's spokesman. This 36-year-old, well-educated member of the Parliament is a familiar face on TV, and a darling of the nation's political talk shows. He is well-spoken and gives elaborate interviews on every political subject to all major Ukrainian newspapers.

        Last Friday, while on his trip to the U.S., Mr. Gerashchenko published two controversial posts on his Facebook page, which could be considered very revealing from the perspective of the changing mood in the Ukrainian political class toward the United States.

        In the first, Mr. Gerashchenko praised a George Soros article in which the 84-year-old financier is "flying high" like an eagle "over the pettiness of Obama and other political dwarfs." Mr. Gerashchenko blamed Mr. Obama and other "political dwarfs" for not realizing that "Putin's actions towards Ukraine are the tectonic shifts in the world history, much bigger in scale than those that were the results of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington." According to Mr. Gerashchenko, George Soros lost all hope that "Barack Obama will give a chance to the people of the United States to give large-scale economical assistance to the people of Ukraine, not the miserable hand-outs that have been ten times less than the help that was given to Iraq or Afghanistan." Mr. Gerashchenko vented his frustration at Mr. Obama for not giving Ukraine money on the scale of the Marshall Plan or the aid packages that were given to rebuild Japan after WWII or South Korea after the Korean War.

        Prominent Ukrainian lawmaker Anton Gerashchenko's Facebook posts have created a stir, downplaying Sept. 11 and lobbing insults at President Obama.

        According to his post, Mr. Gerashchenko believes that the United States has the obligation to give to the Ukraine enough money so the people of "occupied Crimea and Donbass in a maximum of three or five years would dig tunnels and destroy walls and barbed-wire fences, bursting into the territory of prosperous Free Ukraine … looking for jobs, social assistance, high quality of living – as a counterweight to the Mordor which the Russian Federation will definitely have become" ('total catastrophe') under the leadership of "Putler." ("Putler" being 'Putin' and 'Hitler' combined into one word-a popular new term among Ukraine's new political class.)

        The Facebook post by the young Ukrainian politician created an uproar in both Ukraine and Russia-but Western media preferred to look the other way.

        Inspired by his sudden notoriety, Mr. Gerashchenko posted one more rant on the same subject later on the same day in which he elaborated his ideas even farther.

        "Yes, Obama is a political dwarf because it looks like he does not grasp the full scale the consequences of Putin's capture of Crimea. Because last spring and in the beginning of last summer Obama took the 'ostrich's position' and preferred not to see the Putin's aggression on the continental part of the Ukraine. In the U.S.A., Barack Obama for his indecisive actions and lost positions in foreign politics is called 'lame duck' which is analogous to our expression 'shot-down pilot'. And this name is well deserved. Barack Obama will never be put in the same row with such great U.S. Presidents as Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan. And even with Bill Clinton …"

        In his second post Mr. Gerashchenko went on to say that he was expressing not only his own feelings but the attitude of a significant part of the Ukrainian population, "which considers Obama's actions unworthy of the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, the one that made Ukraine give up its nuclear status … Instead of decisive actions, from March on we have seen nothing but declarations that the White House is 'very concerned,' expresses its concerns' and also 'deeply worried' by the situation in our country."

        By Mr. Gerashchenko's light, President Putin's entire operation in Crimea and Donbass was possible only because Mr. Putin knew that Mr. Obama would never risk any strong moves to stop him. According to this star of Ukrainian politics, America gave "only" $1 billion to Ukraine but Mr. Gerashchenko and the like view this as a pittance. Instead, they want a big slice of the hundreds of billions that the U.S. has spent on war from 2001-2014 in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.

        These revealing and troubling posts were deleted within hours on the same day they appeared. Deleted or not, Mr. Gerashchenko, as well as some significant number of Ukrainian politicians, rant at Mr. Obama for not doing what George Soros wants him to do - immediately spend $50 billion of U.S. and E.U. taxpayers' money on building an immediate paradise in Ukraine. George Soros' motives could be pragmatic, of course. Some evil tongues have been saying that the financier's arguments for the bailout of a falling Ukrainian economy by the U.S. and European taxpayers have roots not in his love for freedom around the world. They say that he has a lot of the Ukrainian government's bonds in his portfolio and in the case of Ukraine's national default he will lose billions.

        Ironically, the biggest winner of a significant and prompt infusion of Western money into Ukraine would be the hated "Putler." Just last week, Russia, strapped for cash itself as the ruble plummets, started to spread rumors that it is considering demanding early repayment of its $3 billion 2014 loan to Ukraine because the conditions of the loan demand such a step in the event that the national debt of Ukraine exceeds 60 percent of its GDP. By now the national debt of Ukraine is around 70 percent of its GDP and the prognosis is that by the end of this year it will be around 90 percent of its GDP. If any significant amount of money is given to Ukraine, Russia will immediately start sucking out a big part of it as Ukrainian gas and other energy bills will finally be paid on time … to Russia.

        Mr. Gerashchenko's scandalous FB posts are gone, but the questions raised by them still remain. Will the Ukrainian political class turn away from the U.S. and the West if the generosity of the U.S. taxpayers does not match the nebulous expectations of the reformers in the Ukrainian government? Are the Ukrainians ready to rely mostly on themselves on the long and painful journey of building their own independent nation? Amid all the reform talk and the importing of attractive foreign "advisors," one cannot but wonder if it's nothing more than camouflage for the same old Ukrainian game-to convince the world to give, as Mr. Gerashchenko's first Facebook post put it, just one more "large-scale economical assistance."

        [Jan 11, 2015] Ukraine's forgotten city destroyed by war by Oleg Orlov for Echo Moskvy

        Notable quotes:
        "... The East Ukrainians won't get any sympathy from Cameron or Merkel as none of their citizens are dying - only pieces on a chess board to them. ..."
        Jan 07, 2014 | The Guardian

        Mr. Russian, Jan 8, 2015 20:50

        I see the Guardian rhetoric has changed, as well as rhetoric of our usual guests from NSA.
        Does that mean that Ukrainian government would finally get a push to end the war?

        PeraIlic -> psygone, 8 Jan 2015 15:35

        That's right - Putin's 12 point cease fire plan makes the Russians 100 percent responsible for its success or failure.

        What kind of twisted logic? One who has proposed a draft of the agreement, he is 100% responsible for its fulfillment, and not those who have signed it???

        For the fulfillment of any agreement are obliged all its signatories, it is old rule, which is still in force, and always will be so. As a reminder, the protocol was signed in Minsk by:

        Swiss diplomat and OSCE representative Heidi Tagliavini
        Former president of Ukraine and Ukrainian representative Leonid Kuchma
        Russian Ambassador to Ukraine and Russian representative Mikhail Zurabov
        DPR and LPR leaders

        Ralphinengland 9 Jan 2015 18:36

        £2.13 million was given by the UK to ECHO (EU) & CERF (UN) - and who knows where THAT ended up. Considering eastern Ukraine had a population of approx 8 million, less people who fled, then £3.53 million for say 7 million people IF - I repeat IF - that money ever got anywhere near the Donbas, is FIFTY pence per person!!!

        HollyOldDog -> Dunscore 9 Jan 2015 16:26

        The East Ukrainians won't get any sympathy from Cameron or Merkel as none of their citizens are dying - only pieces on a chess board to them. They are a bloodless pair.

        Anette Mor -> psygone 8 Jan 2015 11:59

        You are joking. "Russian refusal or inability"? Donbas is still being bombed daily. All infrastructure destroyed several times over. Yet they got better electricity and gas supply than main Ukraine.

        The war has to stop first for proper recovery to start. The war is on full blow. Help people to survive is the only reasonable expectation for now.

        [Jan 11, 2015] Ukraine's forgotten city destroyed by war by Oleg Orlov for Echo Moskvy

        Notable quotes:
        "... The East Ukrainians won't get any sympathy from Cameron or Merkel as none of their citizens are dying - only pieces on a chess board to them. ..."
        Jan 07, 2014 | The Guardian

        Mr. Russian, Jan 8, 2015 20:50

        I see the Guardian rhetoric has changed, as well as rhetoric of our usual guests from NSA.
        Does that mean that Ukrainian government would finally get a push to end the war?

        PeraIlic -> psygone, 8 Jan 2015 15:35

        That's right - Putin's 12 point cease fire plan makes the Russians 100 percent responsible for its success or failure.

        What kind of twisted logic? One who has proposed a draft of the agreement, he is 100% responsible for its fulfillment, and not those who have signed it???

        For the fulfillment of any agreement are obliged all its signatories, it is old rule, which is still in force, and always will be so. As a reminder, the protocol was signed in Minsk by:

        Swiss diplomat and OSCE representative Heidi Tagliavini
        Former president of Ukraine and Ukrainian representative Leonid Kuchma
        Russian Ambassador to Ukraine and Russian representative Mikhail Zurabov
        DPR and LPR leaders

        Ralphinengland 9 Jan 2015 18:36

        £2.13 million was given by the UK to ECHO (EU) & CERF (UN) - and who knows where THAT ended up. Considering eastern Ukraine had a population of approx 8 million, less people who fled, then £3.53 million for say 7 million people IF - I repeat IF - that money ever got anywhere near the Donbas, is FIFTY pence per person!!!

        HollyOldDog -> Dunscore 9 Jan 2015 16:26

        The East Ukrainians won't get any sympathy from Cameron or Merkel as none of their citizens are dying - only pieces on a chess board to them. They are a bloodless pair.

        Anette Mor -> psygone 8 Jan 2015 11:59

        You are joking. "Russian refusal or inability"? Donbas is still being bombed daily. All infrastructure destroyed several times over. Yet they got better electricity and gas supply than main Ukraine.

        The war has to stop first for proper recovery to start. The war is on full blow. Help people to survive is the only reasonable expectation for now.

        [Jan 09, 2015] Latvia proposes 'alternative' to Russian TV propaganda

        Jan 07, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
        et Al , January 8, 2015 at 1:29 pm

        euractiv: Latvia proposes 'alternative' to Russian TV propaganda

        http://www.euractiv.com/sections/global-europe/latvia-proposes-alternative-russian-tv-propaganda-311109

        Latvia, which took over the rotating Presidency of the Council of the EU on 1 January, intends to launch a Russian-language TV channel to counter Kremlin propaganda, with EU support, a high ranking government official told journalists in Riga

        Some 40% of Latvians are native Russian speakers and regularly watch several Russian TV channels, including RBK Ren TV, RTR Planeta, NTV Mir .

        Makarovs regretted that the majority of Russian channels broadcasting for Latvia were registered in the UK and in Sweden, and that the regulators of those countries paid no attention to the content and put no pressure whatsoever on the broadcaster. He also argued that the procedure should be that if a media is targeted toward a specific country, it should be registered in that particular country .
        ###

        Firstly, the Balt states announced at various times over the last year or so that they would ban or block Russian channels. But they can't. They are EU member states, so this whole alternative programs is an actually an admission of defeat.

        Secondly, if Russian propaganda is so absurd and unbelievable, then why would alternative programing be necessary? It is cognitive dissonance par excellence!

        What is fairly clear is that the Pork Pie News Networks of 'Europe' and the US are facing much more skepticism than ever before, mostly through incompetence and simply repeating the same old tropes and propganda tactics they have been using for over twenty years now. It doesn't fool anyone any more.

        As for Latvia's presidency of the EU, it is little more than spokesstate since the rotating Presidency was gutted a few years ago to make it much more efficient (i.e cheaper). With small countries, yes they choose certain aspects that they wish to promote for their six months of fame, but the logistics and heavy lifting is usually done (sponsored) by a larger EU state like UK, Nl, DE, Fr etc..). It's not that much different to Mogherini's job as spokeshole for the European External Action Service, aka the EU's foreign minister (and Katherine 'Gosh!' Ashton before her). They don't make policy, just vocalized the lowest common denominator position of 28 EU member states.

        [Jan 09, 2015] Right Sector leader Yarosh brought a hand grenade with him to the Parliament session

        Warren January 8, 2015 at 7:43 am

        Ярош пригрозил взорвать гранату на заседании Верховной Рады

        В беседе с журналистами Ярош заявил, что придет на очередное заседание Верховной Рады с гранатой в кармане. Он добавил, что чувствует себя спокойнее рядом с некоторыми депутатами, имея при себе оружие.

        "Для меня пребывание там, тем более, в одном зале с откровенными врагами Украины - это дискомфорт, - заявил лидер украинских националистов. - Не, ну у меня есть граната, я ее брошу в крайнем случае. Серьезно, с собой ношу. Они не имеют права обыскивать нас, народных депутатов. Охрана спрашивает, есть ли у меня с собой оружие, а я отвечаю, что нет и прохожу".

        http://info-patriot.com/novosti/politika/yarosh-prigrozil-vzorvat-granatu-na-zasedanii-verhovnoy-rady.html

        Southern Cross, January 8, 2015 at 11:10 am
        If he'd only do it he'd be a hero to both sides.

        But alas, a guy who let Arsen Avakov call him a lying blowhard on Facebook doesn't have the guts.

        marknesop, January 8, 2015 at 12:42 pm
        Sure sounds like a democracy to me. The old Rada under Yanukovych certainly did not have those freedoms. And what is bringing a grenade to a legislative session if it is not an expression of freedom? Threatening to use it is just a natural extension of that freedom – how are you supposed to influence decision-making if they know you won't use it?

        [Jan 07, 2015] Int'l anti-ISIS brigade Westerners flock to fight for Kurds

        RT News

        Total2199

        "Russian volunteers going to Ukraine to assist the local militias in battles against Kiev's troops shelling Donetsk and Lugansk are considered a form of a military invasion on the orders of the Russian government. But Americans and Britons fighting in Syria against the enemy of their governments are not."

        Meet a Hypocrisy at it's best....

        ukrus

        Good point. They also refer to "friendly" rulers as government and the second they don't like somebody in power in some country it immediately labeled as "regime". It's like copy-paste thing for years. They don't even change strategies when overthrowing other legit government and installing their puppets. They think people are sheep and they must be right.

        Tres Salinas

        Blatant hypocrisy quote!"" Russian volunteers going to Ukraine to assist the local militias in battles against Kiev's troops shelling Donetsk and Lugansk are considered a form of a military invasion on the orders of the Russian government. But Americans and Britons fighting in Syria against the enemy of their governments are not.....HA!

        Claudia

        You are right, but that is how the propaganda machine is working. There are Russian volunteers to who want to help the separatists, but because the third Reich must be realized the EU want to confiscate the former soviet countries to.

        [Jan 07, 2015] 4 in 10 Americans erroneously believe US found active WMDs in Iraq – survey

        Looks like pretty toxic mixture of propaganda conformism and groupthink exists in the USA...
        January 07, 2015 | RT USA

        A new survey has found that 42 percent of respondents believe that US forces found active weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, when, in fact, no such WMDs – the major rationale in the push for war – were recovered.

        The national survey, conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind, indicated that Republicans were far more likely to believe WMDs were found following the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, justification for which was fostered by claims made by the George W. Bush administration that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent nuclear threat.

        Fifty-one percent of Republicans said it was "probably" or "definitely" true that an active WMD program was revealed following the US invasion, while 32 percent of surveyed Democrats said the same.

        PublicMind noted that the discovery of degraded chemical weapons in Iraq – likely leftover materials from a program that ended in the early 1990s – might explain some confusion. The presence of these weapons was first reported in October 2014.

        "People who think we did the right thing in invading Iraq seem to be revising their memories to retroactively justify the invasion," said Dan Cassino, director of experimental research for the poll. "This sort of motivated reasoning is pretty common: when people want to believe something, they'll twist the facts to fit it."

        The respondents' chosen news sources also seemed to indicate whether they believed WMDs were found.

        Fifty-two percent of individuals who said they get their news from Fox said the discovery of WMDs in Iraq was "probably" or "definitely" true. MSNBC watchers were least likely to believe this, with 14 percent agreeing.

        The survey also probed respondents' belief in President Barack Obama's US citizenship. Nineteen percent of respondents said it is "definitely" or "probably" true that Obama is not a legal citizen of the US, while 34 percent of Republicans and 30 percent of Fox News adherents believed the same.

        The survey found that higher levels of political knowledge translated to a less likelihood that respondents would hold false beliefs about WMDs or Obama's citizenship.

        Respondents were asked three questions to determine this knowledge: Which party currently controls the House of Representatives? What are the three branches of government? Name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

        PubicMind reported that one-third of respondents answered none of the questions correctly, while 26 percent got one right, 27 percent got two right, and 13 percent got all three right.

        Higher levels of political knowledge, based on the answers to those questions, corresponded with lower levels of belief in WMDs in Iraq or Obama's non-citizenship.

        Twenty-one percent of those who got none of the three questions correct believed Obama is "definitely" or "probably" not a US citizen, and 46 percent of them said that active WMDs were found in Iraq. Among those who got all three questions correct, the percentages were 13 and 20 percent, respectively.

        "It's tempting to believe that people have these beliefs because they just don't know better," said Cassino. "But statements like these are about what people want to believe, and no amount of education is going to trump that."

        The poll included 964 respondents contacted by both landline telephones and cell phones from December 8 through December 15, 2014. The survey has a margin of error of +/- three percentage points.

        [Jan 05, 2015] US and Russia in danger of returning to era of nuclear rivalry by Julian Borger

        Sign of emergence of this anti-Russian witch hunt from 2015...
        Notable quotes:
        "... This is just US propaganda to get the increased military spending through congress. ..."
        Jan 01, 2015 | The Guardian
        A widening rift between Moscow and Washington over cruise missiles and increasingly daring patrols by nuclear-capable Russian submarines threatens to end an era of arms control and bring back a dangerous rivalry between the world's two dominant nuclear arsenals.

        Tensions have been taken to a new level by US threats of retaliatory action for Russian development of a new cruise missile. Washington alleges it violates one of the key arms control treaties of the cold war, and has raised the prospect of redeploying its own cruise missiles in Europe after a 23-year absence.

        On Boxing Day, in one of the more visible signs of the unease, the US military launched the first of two experimental "blimps" over Washington. The system, known as JLENS, is designed to detect incoming cruise missiles. The North American Aerospace Command (Norad) did not specify the nature of the threat, but the deployment comes nine months after the Norad commander, General Charles Jacoby, admitted the Pentagon faced "some significant challenges" in countering cruise missiles, referring in particular to the threat of Russian attack submarines.

        Those submarines, which have been making forays across the Atlantic, routinely carry nuclear-capable cruise missiles. In the light of aggressive rhetoric from Moscow and the expiry of treaty-based restrictions, there is uncertainty over whether those missiles are now carrying nuclear warheads.

        The rise in tension comes at a time when the arms control efforts of the post-cold-war era are losing momentum. The number of strategic nuclear warheads deployed by the US and Russia actually increased last year, and both countries are spending many billions of dollars a year modernising their arsenals. Against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine and a failing economy, Vladimir Putin is putting increasing emphasis on nuclear weapons as guarantors and symbols of Russian influence. In a speech primarily about the Ukrainian conflict last summer, Putin pointedly referred to his country's nuclear arsenal and declared other countries "should understand it's best not to mess with us".

        The Russian press has taken up the gung-ho tone. Pravda, the former mouthpiece of the Soviet regime, published an article in November titled "Russian prepares a nuclear surprise for Nato", which boasted of Russian superiority over the west, particularly in tactical nuclear weapons.

        "The Americans are well aware of this," the commentary said. "They were convinced before that Russia would never rise again. Now it's too late."

        Some of the heightened rhetoric appears to be bluster. The new version of the Russian military doctrine, published on 25 December, left its policy on nuclear weapons unchanged from four years earlier. They are to be used only in the event of an attack using weapons of mass destruction or a conventional weapon onslaught which "would put in danger the very existence of the state". It did not envisage a pre-emptive strike, as some in the military had proposed.

        However, the new aggressive tone coincides with an extensive upgrading of Russia's nuclear weapons, reflecting Moscow's renewed determination to keep pace with the US arsenal. It will involve a substantial increase in the number of warheads loaded on submarines, as a result of the development of the multi-warhead Bulava sea-launched ballistic missile.

        The modernisation also involves new or revived delivery systems. Last month Russia announced it would re-introduce nuclear missile trains, allowing intercontinental ballistic missiles to be moved about the country by rail so they would be harder to target.

        There is also mounting western anxiety over Russian marketing abroad of a cruise missile called the Club-K, which can be concealed, complete with launcher, inside an innocuous-looking shipping container until the moment it is fired.

        However, the development that has most alarmed Washington is Russian testing of a medium-range cruise missile which the Obama administration claims is a clear violation of the 1987 intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) treaty, the agreement that brought to an end the dangerous standoff between US and Russian cruise missiles in Europe. By hugging the contours of the Earth, cruise missiles can evade radar defences and hit strategic targets with little or no notice, raising fears on both sides of surprise pre-emptive attacks.

        At a contentious congressional hearing on 10 December, Republicans criticised two of the administration's leading arms control negotiators, Rose Gottemoeller of the State Department and Brian McKeon of the Pentagon, for not responding earlier to the alleged Russian violation and for continuing to observe the INF treaty.

        Gottemoeller said she had raised US concerns over the new missile "about a dozen times" with her counterparts in Moscow and Obama had written to Putin on the matter. She said the new Russian cruise missile – which she did not identify but is reported to be the Iskander-K with a reach in the banned 500-5,500km range – appeared to be ready for deployment.

        The Russians have denied the existence of the missile and have responded with counter-allegations about American infringements of the INF treaty that Washington rejects.

        McKeon said the Pentagon was looking at a variety of military responses to the Russian missile, including the deployment of an American equivalent weapon.

        "We have a broad range of options, some of which would be compliant with the INF treaty, some of which would not be, that we would be able to recommend to our leadership if it decided to go down that path," McKeon said. He later added: "We don't have ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe now, obviously, because they are prohibited by the treaty but that would obviously be one option to explore."

        Reintroducing cruise missiles into Europe would be politically fraught and divisive, but the Republican majority in Congress is pushing for a much more robust American response to the Russian missile.

        The US military has also been rattled by the resurgence of the Russian submarine fleet. Moscow is building new generations of giant ballistic missile submarines, known as "boomers", and attack submarines that are equal or superior to their US counterparts in performance and stealth. From a low point in 2002, when the Russian navy managed to send out no underwater patrols at all, it is steadily rebounding and reasserting its global reach.

        There have been sporadic reports in the US press about Russian submarines reaching the American east coast, which have been denied by the US military. But last year Jacoby, the head of Norad and the US northern command at the time, admitted concerns about being able to counter new Russian investment in cruise missile technology and advanced submarines.

        "They have just begun production of a new class of quiet nuclear submarines specifically designed to deliver cruise missiles," Jacoby told Congress.

        Peter Roberts, who retired from the Royal Navy a year ago after serving as a commanding officer and senior UK liaison officer with the US navy and intelligence services, said the transatlantic forays by Akula-class Russian attack submarines had become a routine event, at least once or twice a year.

        "The Russians usually put out a sortie with an Akula or an Akula II around Christmas It normally stops off Scotland, and then through the Bay of Biscay and out over the Atlantic. It will have nuclear-capable missiles on it," he said.

        Roberts, who is now senior research fellow for sea power and maritime studies at the Royal United Services Institute, said the appearance of a periscope off the western coast of Scotland, which triggered a Nato submarine hunt last month, was a sign of the latest such Russian foray.

        He said the Russian attack submarine was most likely heading for the US coast. "They go across to eastern seaboard, usually to watch the carrier battle groups work up [go on exercises].

        "It's something the Americans have been trying to brush off but there is increasing concern about the American ability to track these subs. Their own anti-sub skills have declined, while we have all been focused on landlocked operations, in Afghanistan and so on."

        The Akula is being superseded by an even stealthier submarine, the Yasen. Both are multipurpose: hunter-killers designed to track and destroy enemy submarine and carrier battle groups. Both are also armed with land-attack cruise missiles, currently the Granat, capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

        On any given sortie, Roberts said, "it is completely unknown whether they are nuclear-tipped".

        A Russian media report described the Akula as carrying Granat missiles with 200-kilotonne warheads, but the reliability of the report is hard to gauge.

        The US and Russia removed cruise missiles from their submarines after the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction treaty (Start), but that expired at the end of 2009. Its successor, New Start, signed by Obama and the then Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, in 2010 does not include any such limitation, nor does it even allow for continued exchange of information about cruise missile numbers.

        Pavel Podvig, a senior research fellow at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research and the leading independent analyst of Russian nuclear forces, said: "The bottom line is that we don't know, but it's safe to say that it's quite possible that Russian subs carry nuclear SLCMs [submarine-launched cruise missiles].

        Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control expert at the Monterey Institute of International Studies and founding publisher of ArmsControlWonk.com, believes the JLENS blimps are primarily a response to a Russian move to start rearming attack submarines with nuclear weapons.

        "For a long time, the Russians have been saying they would do this and now it looks like they have," Lewis said. He added that the fact that data exchange on cruise missiles was allowed to expire under the New Start treaty is a major failing that has increased uncertainty.

        The Russian emphasis on cruise missiles is in line with Putin's strategy of "de-escalation", which involves countering Nato's overwhelming conventional superiority with the threat of a limited nuclear strike that would inflict "tailored damage" on an adversary.

        Lewis argues that Putin's accentuation of Russia's nuclear capabilities is aimed at giving him room for manoeuvre in Ukraine and possibly other neighbouring states.

        "The real reason he talks about how great they are is he saying: 'I'm going to go ahead and invade Ukraine and you're going to look the other way. As long as I don't call it an invasion, you're going to look at my nuclear weapons and say I don't want to push this,'" he said.

        With both the US and Russia modernising their arsenals and Russia investing increasing importance its nuclear deterrent, Hans Kristensen, the director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said we are facing a period of "deepening military competition".

        He added: "It will bring very little added security, but a lot more nervous people on both sides."

        InvisibleOISA -> Ethelunready 4 Jan 2015 23:53

        Just how many warheads have the Iranians lofted towards Europe in the past quarter century? Anyhow, the Yanqui ABM system is a pathetic blunderbuss. But extremely profitable for Boeing.

        For instance:

        US ABM test failure mars $1bn N. Korea defense plan
        06.07.2013 10:03

        A $214-million test launch of the only US defense against long-range ballistic missile attacks failed to hit its target over the Pacific Ocean, according to the Missile Defense Agency. There have been no successful interceptor tests since 2008.

        InvisibleOISA 4 Jan 2015 23:41

        Hey Julian. What a wussy propaganda piece. How about a few facts to put things in perspective.

        "All told, over the next decade, according to the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, the United States plans to spend $355 billion on the maintenance and modernization of its nuclear enterprise,[3] an increase of $142 billion from the $213 billion the Obama administration projected in 2011.[4] According to available information, it appears that the nuclear enterprise will cost at least $1 trillion over the next 30 years.[5]

        Beyond these upgrades of existing weapons, work is under way to design new weapons to replace the current ones. The Navy is designing a new class of 12 SSBNs, the Air Force is examining whether to build a mobile ICBM or extend the service life of the existing Minuteman III, and the Air Force has begun development of a new, stealthy long-range bomber and a new nuclear-capable tactical fighter-bomber. Production of a new guided "standoff" nuclear bomb, which would be able to glide toward a target over a distance, is under way, and the Air Force is developing a new long-range nuclear cruise missile to replace the current one."

        And what about NATO, the u$a poodle.

        NATO

        "The new B61-12 is scheduled for deployment in Europe around 2020. At first, the guided bomb, which has a modest standoff capability, will be backfitted onto existing F-15E, F-16, and Tornado NATO aircraft. From around 2024, nuclear-capable F-35A stealthy fighter-bombers are to be deployed in Europe and gradually take over the nuclear strike role from the F-16 and Tornado aircraft."

        Source: Arms Control Association

        VikingHiking -> Rudeboy1 4 Jan 2015 23:25

        To sum up the results of the lend-lease program as a whole, the Soviet Union received, over the war years, 21,795 planes, 12,056 tanks, 4,158 armored personnel carriers, 7,570 tractor trucks, 8,000 antiaircraft and 5,000 antitank guns, 132,000 machine-guns, 472 million artillery shells, 9,351 transceivers customized to Soviet-made fighter planes, 2.8 million tons of petroleum products, 102 ocean-going dry cargo vessels, 29 tankers, 23 sea tugboats and icebreakers, 433 combat ships and gunboats, as well as mobile bridges, railroad equipment, aircraft radar equipment, and many other items."

        "Imperialist Powers paid for the blood of Soviet soldiers with limited supplies of obsolete weapons, canned food and other war materiel which amounted to about 4% of total Soviet production during WarII".

        During Cold War all traces of Lend Lease and after UNRRA help were meticulously sanitized and removed; photos of soviet soldiers riding Shermans, Universal Carriers or manning AAA guns were excluded from books and never appeared in magazines.

        Five eights of the total German War effort was expended on the Russian front.

        So it was a combination of allied arms and resources which kaputed the Nazi's, namely
        1) The Russian Army
        2) THE American Air Force
        3) The British Navy and Merchant Marine
        4) Hitler's Stupidity

        Beckow -> StrategicVoice213 4 Jan 2015 23:03

        Are you done with your boasting? By the way, you forgot Hollywood and GMO foods.

        Leaving aside the one-side nature of your list (internet or web were also invented in CERN by a European team), technology or business are not the same as intelligence.

        Most Americans simply don't understand the world, its history, other cultures, don't see others as having independent existence with other choices. They don't get it because they are isolated and frankly quite lazy intellectually. Thus the infamous "we won WW2 in Normandy" boast and similar bizarre claims.

        Are other often similar? Yes, absolutely. But most of the others have no ability to provoke a nuclear Armageddon, so their ignorance is annoying, but not fatal. The article was about the worsening US-Russia confrontation and how it may end (or end everything). The fact that US has actively started and provoked this confrontation in the last few years, mostly out of blissful ignorance and endless selfishness. Thus we get "defensive missiles against Iran on Russia's border", coups in Ukraine, endless demonizations...well, I think you get the picture. If you don't, see the original post

        irgun777 4 Jan 2015 22:59

        " increasingly daring patrols by nuclear-capable Russian submarines "

        What motivates the Cry Wolf tune of this article ?
        Don't we also conduct nuclear and nuclear capable submarine patrols ? Even our allies
        and friends operate routinely " nuclear capable submarines "

        Our military budget alone is 10 times the Russian , we have over 600 military bases around
        the world , some around Russia. We still continue to use heavy , nuclear capable bombers
        for patrol , something Russia stopped doing after the Cold War. Russia did not
        support and financed a coup in our neighbors . Something Ron Paul and Kissinger warned us
        not to do.


        Georgeaussie 4 Jan 2015 22:55

        This is just US propaganda to get the increased military spending through congress. I think its interesting that Americans believe their military personal are defending there country when the United States is usually the aggressor. And that is my view,. And as for people saying Russian bots and Korean bots(which i don't know if they exist) you are sounding just as bad as them, every country has propaganda and everyone has a right to believe what they want, wether its western media or eastern media. People on here don't need people like you with you extreme biases, yes have an opinion, but don't put other peoples opinion down because you think your right, collectively there is no right or wrong, do you know whats going on around closed doors in your govt? Well sorry you probably know less then you think, i like to read different media reports and its interesting, do you "obama bots" know that Russia is helping look for the black box of the air asia flight? I just thought it was interesting not reading that in my "western media" reports over the weeks. So comment and tell me if you honestly think "western bot" are correct and "eastern bots" aren't b/c i would like too know how there i a right and and wrong. In my OPINION there isn't if anything you are both wrong.


        Veritas Vicnit 5 Jan 2015 00:05

        p1. 'Russian General: We Are At War'

        "Gen. Leonid Ivashov... issued a sharp warning about the nature of the strategic crisis unfolding in Ukraine: "Apparently they [US and EU officials] have dedicated themselves, and continue to do so, to deeply and thoroughly studying the doctrine of Dr. Goebbels. . . They present everything backwards from reality. It is one of the formulas which Nazi propaganda employed most successfully: . . . They accuse the party that is defending itself, of aggression. What is happening in Ukraine and Syria is a project of the West, a new type of war: ... wars today begin with psychological and information warfare operations. . . under the cover of information commotion, U.S. ships are entering the Black Sea, that is, near Ukraine. They are sending marines, and they have also begun to deploy more tanks in Europe. . . We see that on the heels of the disinformation operation a land-sea, and possibly air operation is being prepared." (Russian General: 'We Are At War', February 22, 2014)

        "what David Petraeus has done for counter-insurgency warfare, Stuart Levey [later David Cohen] has done for economic warfare" [Sen. Joe Lieberman]

        Russian military sources have disclosed their recognition that offensive operations (economic warfare, proxy warfare, regime change operations, etc.) are active as is the mobilisation of military architecture.

        MattTruth 5 Jan 2015 00:05

        Russia is not a threat to USA. The elite of USA just need a war and need it soon.

        afewpiecesofsilver -> Continent 5 Jan 2015 00:00

        That's exactly why the US/NATO is trying to 'wedge' Ukraine into their EU. Then they can develop military bases in traditionally, socially, culturally, verbally Russian Ukraine, right on Russia's border....After the well known, publicized and continuous international bullying and abuse of Russia and Putin over the last couple of years, and now the recent undermining of it's oil economy by US and NATO, anyone who is condemning Putin and Russia obviously can't read.

        moosejaw12999 5 Jan 2015 00:00

        Might give a few minute warning on cruise missiles but will do nothing against drones will it Barry ? When you start a game , you should think for a minute where it might end . Americas worst enemy is always her own disgruntled people . Drones will be the new weapon of choice in Americas upcoming civil war .

        Ross Kramer 4 Jan 2015 23:58

        "Russia is a regional power" - Obama said last year. Yeah, sure. Just by looking at the map I can see it is twice bigger than the US in territory. Its tails touches Alaska and its head lays on the border with Germany. How on Earth the biggest country in the world with the nuclear arsenal equal to that of the US can be "just a regional power"?

        [Jan 02, 2015] 2014: The Year Propaganda Came Of Age by Raúl Ilargi Meijer

        Dec 27, 2014 | ronpaulinstitute.org

        From just about as early in my life as I can remember, growing up as a child in Holland, there were stories about World War II, and not just about Anne Frank and the huge amounts of people who, like her, had been dragged off to camps in eastern Europe never to come back, but also about the thousands who had risked their lives to hide Jewish and other refugees, and the scores who had been executed for doing so, often betrayed by their own neighbors.

        And then there were those who had risked their lives in equally courageous ways to get news out to people, putting out newspapers and radio broadcasts just so there would be a version of events out there that was real, and not just what the Germans wanted one to believe. This happened in all Nazi - and Nazi friendly - occupied European nations.

        The courage of these people is hard to gauge for us today, and I'm convinced there's no way to say whom amongst us would show that kind of bravery if we were put to the test. I certainly wouldn't be sure about myself.

        Still, without wanting to put myself anywhere near the level of those very real heroes - please don't get me wrong about that - that's not what I mean, I was thinking about them with regards to what is happening in our media today. I've mentioned before that I don't think Joseph Goebbels had anything on US and European media today.

        That propaganda as a strategic and political instrument has been refined to a huge extent over the past 70-odd years since Goebbels first picked up on Freud's lessons on how to influence the unconscious mind, and the "mass-mind," as a way to "steer" an entire people, not just as a means to make them buy detergent. These days, the media can make people believe just about anything, and they have the added benefit that they can pose as friends of the people, not the enemy.

        But there is a reason why such a large "industry" has developed on the web with people writing articles that don't say what the mass media say. That reason is, obviously, first and foremost that not everybody believes whatever they are told. The problem is equally obvious: not nearly enough people are being reached to make a true difference, and to question the official narratives.

        I have no claim to fame outside of the appreciation I get from, first, my readers and, second, from my colleagues and peers. I get a lot of both, and I thank you for that, but this certainly is not about me. If anything, it's about trying to live up to the desire for truth in the face of odds squarely stacked against it, and against the people I try to reach out to. Trying to do just 0.1 percent of what the WWII underground press was about.

        A few days ago, I wrote in About That Interview :

        The FBI claims they are certain the hackers are North Korean, but they have provided no proof of that claim. We have to trust them on their beautiful blue eyes. I think if anything defines 2014 for me, it's the advent of incessant claims for which no proof - apparently - needs to be provided. Everything related to Ukraine over the past year carries that trait. The year of 'beautiful blue eyes', in other words. Never no proof, you just have to believe what your government says.
        And that truly defines 2014 for me. A level of propaganda I don't recognize, and I don't think I've ever seen before. 2014 has for me been the year of utter nonsense. To wit, it just finished in fine form with a 5 percent US GDP growth number, just to name one example. Really, guys? 5 percent? Really? With all the numbers presented lately, the negative Thanksgiving sales data - minus 11 percent from what I remember - the so-so at best Christmas store numbers to date, shrinking durable goods in November and all? Plus 5 percent?

        It really doesn't matter what I say, does it? You have enough people believing ridiculous numbers like that to make it worth your while. After all, that's all that counts. It's a democracy, isn't it? If a majority believes something, it becomes true. If you can get more than 50 percent of people to believe whatever you say, that's case closed.

        With well over 90 million working age Americans counted as being out of the labor force, and with 43 million on food stamps, you can still present a 5 percent GDP growth number, if only you can get a sufficiently large number of people to believe. And you do, I'll give you that. As far as the media goes, we have achieved the change we can believe in. We may not have that change, but we sure do believe we have, don't we? And isn't that what counts? Are congratulations in order?

        Well, not where I'm at, they're not. I should do a shout out to the likes of Zero Hedge, Yves Smith, David Stockman, Wolf Richter, Mish, Steve Keen, Jim Kunstler, and so many others, we're a solid crowd by now even if we're neglected, and please don't feel left out if you're not in that list, I know who you are. The problem is, we're all completely neglected by the mass media, even though there are a ton of very sharp minds in this "finance blogosphere." And perhaps we should make it a point to break through that ridiculous black-out in 2015.

        2014, in my eyes, has been the year of propaganda outdoing even its own very purpose, and succeeding too. We are supposed to be living in a time of the best educated people in the history of mankind, and everyone thinks (s)he's mighty smart, but precious few have even an inkling of a clue of what transpires in the world they live in. Talk about a lost generation. Or two.

        We really need to question the value of higher education, if all we get for it is a generation of people so easily duped by utter blubber. What do they teach people at our universities these days? Certainly not to think for themselves, that much is clear. And then what is the use? Why spend all that time raising an entire generation of highly educated pawns, sheep, and robots? I can think of some people liking that, but for society as a whole, it's devastating if that's all higher education is.

        And if you would like to raise doubts here, the very existence of finance blogosphere I mentioned before is proof that we indeed have raised a generation of sheep. If we had functioning media, there'd be no need for that blogosphere. We are the people who keep on pointing out where the mass media fail, let alone the politicians, simply by being there and being supported to the extent we are by the few people who escape the sheep mentality.

        But that's not nearly enough. Journalists, reporters, whatever they call themselves, working for Bloomberg, Reuters, CNBC, etc. should at the very least quote Zero Hedge on a daily basis, and Mish, and Steve, and Yves, and perhaps even me - though it's fine if they continue to ignore me, as long as they give the rest their rightful place.

        There are many people in the blogosphere who are many times smarter than the people who write for the mass media, and that's a very simple and hardly disputable fact that needs to be recognized. When you read something in your paper or at your online news provider, it should be second nature to ask yourself: but what would Tyler Durden say, or the Automatic Earth, or Naked Capitalism, or David Stockman?

        But we're nowhere near that, are we? We've been fooled with economic stats for years, not just in the US, not even just in the west, but all over, they all grabbed on to the potential of providing people with numbers that have little to do with reality, but that simply feel good. Or even just look good.

        Still, boy, have we been, and are being, fooled. Then again, most of you wouldn't know, would you? We people tend to discount the future, to see today as more important than tomorrow, and in the same manner we find our children's future much less important than our own. Because that feels good too. If we are comfy right now, screw them. Not that we'd ever put it into those terms.

        But you know, that's really all old hack by now. 2014 brought us a whole other class of nonsense. And we swallowed it all hook line and entire sinker.

        2014 gave us Ukraine. And you just try and find anyone today who doesn't think Vladimir Putin is and was the evil genius mind behind the whole thing, including the 4500+ people who died there over the past 10 months. Why is it so hard to anyone who doubts that narrative? Because our media told us Putin is the bogeyman. And "we" never asked for any proof. That is, except for those of us in that same blogosphere.

        Meanwhile, round after round of sanctions against Russia have been set up and activated by EU and US, causing hardship for both Russian people and European businesses. But why, what exactly is Putin allegedly guilty of?

        The US/EU installed a government in Kiev in February (yeah, yap about it), which is still in place, with a bunch of US citizens recently added for good measure - and for profit. The chocolate prince president was indeed elected months later, but the prime minister - "Yats" - was handpicked by America, and is still, amazingly, in place. That's the same government that had it own army murder thousands of its own citizens, and not a thing has been resolved so far.

        The whole thing came to a head when MH17 was shot down over the summer. That too was blamed on Putin. Or was it? Well, not directly, nobody said Putin ordered that plane to be shot. Nor did anyone say Russia shot it. There is the accusation that Russian speaking Ukrainian "rebels" did it, but proof for that was never provided in the six months since the incident. And there must be a "best before" date in there somewhere.

        Is it possible the "rebels" did it? We can't exclude it, but that's for the same reason we can't exclude the option that little green Martians did it: we don't know. But even then, even if they did, there's the question whether that would have been on purpose. Which seems really stretching it: nothing they want would be served by shooting down a plane full of European, Malaysian and Australian holiday goers.

        But here we are: no proof and layer upon layer of sanctions. And nary a voice is raised in the west. If one is, it's to denounce the Russians as bloodthirsty barbarians. Even though there is no proof they did anything other than protecting what they see as their own people. Something we all would do too, no questions asked.

        Ukraine defines 2014 as the year western propaganda came into its own. Not just fictional stories about an economic recovery anymore, no, we had our politico-media establishment ram an entire new cold war down our throats. And we swallowed it whole. We may have had a million more years of higher education than our parents and grandparents, but we sure don't seem to have gotten any smarter than them.

        There is a lot of information out there, written by people inspired by things other than monetary incentives or job security or anything like that -people who simply want to get information out that your trusted media won't give you anymore than Goebbels' media did in occupied Europe in the 1940s. And you don't even have to risk your lives to access that information. All you have to do is to get off your couch.

        The Automatic Earth is but a small part of a very valuable and fast growing resource that warrants a lot more attention than it's been receiving to date. A reported 5 percent US GDP growth print is one reason why, the entire Ukraine fantasy story is another. The blogosphere is full of functioning neurons, which is more than you can say for your papers and online MSM.

        As far as media is concerned, 2014 has been downright scary in its distortion of reality. Let's try and move 2015 a little bit closer towards what's actually happening.

        Reprinted with permission from The Automatic Earth.

        [Jan 02, 2015] North Korea-Sony Story Shows How Eagerly U.S. Media Still Regurgitate Government Claims by Glenn Greenwald

        ...At this point - eleven years after the run-up to the Iraq War and 50 years after the Gulf of Tonkin fraud - any minimally sentient American knows full well that their government lies frequently. Any journalist understands full well that assuming government claims to be true, with no evidence, is the primary means by which U.S. media outlets become tools of government propaganda. U.S. journalists don't engage in this behavior because they haven't yet realized this. To the contrary, they engage in this behavior precisely because they do realize this: because that is what they aspire to be. If you know how journalistically corrupt it is for large media outlets to uncritically disseminate evidence-free official claims, they know it, too. Calling on them to stop doing that wrongly assumes that they seek to comport with their ostensible mission of serving as watchdogs over power. That's their brand, not their aspiration or function. Many of them benefit in all sorts of ways by dutifully performing this role. Others are True Believers: hard-core nationalists and tribalists who see their "journalism" as a means of nobly advancing the interests of the state and corporate officials whom they admire and serve. At this point, journalists who mindlessly repeat government claims like this are guilty of many things; ignorance of what they are doing is definitely not one of them.
        The Intercept

        The identity of the Sony hackers is still unknown. President Obama, in a December 19 press conference, announced: "We can confirm that North Korea engaged in this attack." He then vowed: "We will respond. . . . We cannot have a society in which some dictator some place can start imposing censorship here in the United States."

        The U.S. Government's campaign to blame North Korea actually began two days earlier, when The New York Times as usual corruptly granted anonymity to "senior administration officials" to disseminate their inflammatory claims with no accountability. These hidden "American officials" used the Paper of Record to announce that they "have concluded that North Korea was 'centrally involved' in the hacking of Sony Pictures computers." With virtually no skepticism about the official accusation, reporters David Sanger and Nicole Perlroth deemed the incident a "cyberterrorism attack" and devoted the bulk of the article to examining the retaliatory actions the government could take against the North Koreans.

        The same day, The Washington Post granted anonymity to officials in order to print this:

        Other than noting in passing, deep down in the story, that North Korea denied responsibility, not a shred of skepticism was included by Post reporters Drew Harwell and Ellen Nakashima. Like the NYT, the Post devoted most of its discussion to the "retaliation" available to the U.S.

        The NYT and Post engaged in this stenography in the face of of-smart-people-think-north-korea-didnt-hack-sony-1672899940">loudly noting how sparse and unconvincing was the available evidence against North Korea. Kim Zetter in Wired - literally moments before the NYT laundered the accusation via anonymous officials - proclaimed the evidence of North Korea's involvement "flimsy." About the U.S. government's accusation in the NYT, she wisely wrote: "they have provided no evidence to support this and without knowing even what agency the officials belong to, it's difficult to know what to make of the claim. And we should point out that intelligence agencies and government officials have jumped to hasty conclusions or misled the public in the past because it was politically expedient."

        Numerous cyber experts subsequently echoed the same sentiments. Bruce Schneier wrote: "I am deeply skeptical of the FBI's announcement on Friday that North Korea was behind last month's Sony hack. The agency's evidence is tenuous, and I have a hard time believing it." The day before Obama's press conference, long-time expert Marc Rogers detailed his reasons for viewing the North Korea theory as "unlikely"; after Obama's definitive accusation, he comprehensively reviewed the disclosed evidence and was even more assertive: "there is NOTHING here that directly implicates the North Koreans" (emphasis in original) and "the evidence is flimsy and speculative at best."

        Yet none of this expert skepticism made its way into countless media accounts of the Sony hack. Time and again, many journalists mindlessly regurgitated the U.S. Government's accusation against North Korea without a shred of doubt, blindly assuming it to be true, and then discussing, often demanding, strong retaliation. Coverage of the episode was largely driven by the long-standing, central tenet of the establishment U.S. media: government assertions are to be treated as Truth.

        The day after Obama's press conference, CNN's Fredricka Whitfeld discussed Sony's decision not to show The Interview and wondered: "how does this empower or further embolden North Korea that, OK, this hacking thing works. Maybe there's something else up the sleeves of the North Korean government." In response, her "expert" guest, the genuinely crazed and discredited Gordon Chang, demanded: "President Obama wisely talks about proportional response, but what we need is an effective response, because what North Korea did in this particular case really goes to the core of American democracy."

        Even worse was an indescribably slavish report on the day of Obama's press conference from CNN's Chief National Security Correspondent Jim Sciutto. One has to watch the segment to appreciate the full scope of its mindlessness. He not only assumed the accusations true but purported to detail – complete with technical-looking maps and other graphics – how "the rogue nation" sent "investigators on a worldwide chase," but "still, the NSA and FBI were able to track the attack back to North Korea and its government." He explained: "Now that the country behind those damaging keystrokes has been identified, the administration is looking at how to respond."

        MSNBC announced North Korea's culpability on Al Sharpton's program, where the host breathlessly touted NBC's "breaking news" that the hackers were "acting on orders from North Koreans." Sharpton convened a panel that included the cable host Touré, who lamented that "that Kim Jong-un suddenly has veto power over what goes into American theaters." He explained that he finds this really bad: "I don't like that. I don't like negotiating with terrorists. I don't like giving into terrorists."

        Bloomberg TV called upon former Obama Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, who said without any challenge that "this is not the first time that North Korea has threatened Americans." Blair demanded that "the type of response we should make I think should be able to deny the North Koreans the ability to use the Western financial system, telecommunications and system to basically steal money, threaten our systems." The network's on-air host, Matt Miller, strongly insinuated – based on absolutely nothing – that China was an accomplice: "I simply can't imagine how the North Koreans pull off something like this by themselves. . . . I feel like maybe some larger, huge neighbor of North Korean may give them help in this kind of thing."

        Unsurprisingly, the most egregious (and darkly amusing) "report" came from Vox's supremely error-plagued and government-loyal national security reporter Max Fisher. Writing on the day of Obama's press conference, he not only announced that "evidence that North Korea was responsible for the massive Sony hack is mounting," but also smugly lectured everyone that "North Korea's decision to hack Sony is being widely misconstrued as an expression of either the country's insanity or of its outrage over The Interview." The article was accompanied by a typically patronizing video, narrated by Fisher and set to scary music and photos, and the text of the article purported to "explain" to everyone the real reason North Korea did this. As Deadspin's Kevin Draper put it yesterday (emphasis in original):

        Here is Vox's foreign policy guy laying out an article titled, "Here's the real reason North Korea hacked Sony. It has nothing to do with The Interview." Never mind the tone (and headline) of utter certainty in the face of numerous computer security experts extremely skeptical of the government's story that North Korea hacked Sony. . . . Vox's foreign policy guy thinks he can explain the reason the notoriously opaque North Korean regime conducted a hack they may well not have actually conducted!

        This government-subservient reporting was not universal; there were some noble exceptions. On the day of Obama's press conference, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow hosted Xeni Jardin in a segment which repeatedly questioned the evidence of North Korea's involvement. The network's Chris Hayes early on did the same. The Guardian published a video interview with a cyber expert casting doubt on the government's case. The Daily Beast published an article by Rogers expressly arguing that "all the evidence leads me to believe that the great Sony Pictures hack of 2014 is far more likely to be the work of one disgruntled employee facing a pink slip." He concluded: "I am no fan of the North Korean regime. However I believe that calling out a foreign nation over a cybercrime of this magnitude should never have been undertaken on such weak evidence."

        Earlier this week, the NYT's Public Editor, Margaret Sullivan, chided the paper's original article on the Sony hack, noting – with understatement – that "there's little skepticism in this article." Sullivan added that the paper's granting of anonymity to administration officials to make the accusation yet again violated the paper's own supposed policy on anonymity, a policy touted by the paper as a redress for the debacle over its laundering of false claims about Iraqi WMDs from anonymous officials.

        But - especially after that first NYT article, and even more so after Obama's press conference - the overwhelming narrative disseminated by the U.S. media was clear: North Korea was responsible for the hack, because the government said it was.

        That kind of reflexive embrace of government claims is journalistically inexcusable in all cases, for reasons that should be self-evident. But in this case, it's truly dangerous.

        It was predictable in the extreme that – even beyond the familiar neocon war-lovers – the accusation against North Korea would be exploited to justify yet more acts of U.S. aggression. In one typical example, the Boston Globe quoted George Mason University School of Law assistant dean Richard Kelsey calling the cyber-attack an "act of war," one "requiring an aggressive response from the United States." He added: "This is a new battlefield, and the North Koreans have just fired the first flare." The paper's own writer, Hiawatha Bray, explained that "hackers allegedly backed by the impoverished, backward nation of North Korea have terrorized one of the world's richest corporation" and approvingly cited Newt Gingrich as saying: "With the Sony collapse America has lost its first cyberwar."

        Days after President Obama vowed to retaliate, North Korea's internet service was repeatedly disrupted. While there is no conclusive evidence of responsibility, North Korea blamed the U.S., while State Department spokesperson Marie Harf smirked as she responded to a question about U.S. responsibility: "We aren't going to discuss publicly the operational details of possible response options, or comment in any way – except to say that as we implement our responses, some will be seen, some may not be seen."

        North Korean involvement in the Sony hack is possible, but very, very far from established. But most U.S. media discussions treated the accusation as fact, predictably resulting in this polling data from CNN last week (emphasis added):

        The U.S. public does think that the incidents which led to that decision were acts of terrorism on the part of North Korea and nearly three-quarters of all Americans say that North Korea is a serious threat to the U.S. That puts North Korea at the very top of the public's threat list - only Iran comes close. . . . Three-quarters of the public call for increased economic sanctions against North Korea. Roughly as many say that country is a very serious or moderately serious threat to the U.S.

        It's tempting to say that the U.S. media should have learned by now not to uncritically disseminate government claims, particularly when those claims can serve as a pretext for U.S. aggression. But to say that, at this point, almost gives them too little credit. It assumes that they want to improve, but just haven't yet come to understand what they're doing wrong.

        But that's deeply implausible. At this point - eleven years after the run-up to the Iraq War and 50 years after the Gulf of Tonkin fraud - any minimally sentient American knows full well that their government lies frequently. Any journalist understands full well that assuming government claims to be true, with no evidence, is the primary means by which U.S. media outlets become tools of government propaganda.

        U.S. journalists don't engage in this behavior because they haven't yet realized this. To the contrary, they engage in this behavior precisely because they do realize this: because that is what they aspire to be. If you know how journalistically corrupt it is for large media outlets to uncritically disseminate evidence-free official claims, they know it, too. Calling on them to stop doing that wrongly assumes that they seek to comport with their ostensible mission of serving as watchdogs over power. That's their brand, not their aspiration or function.

        Many of them benefit in all sorts of ways by dutifully performing this role. Others are True Believers: hard-core nationalists and tribalists who see their "journalism" as a means of nobly advancing the interests of the state and corporate officials whom they admire and serve. At this point, journalists who mindlessly repeat government claims like this are guilty of many things; ignorance of what they are doing is definitely not one of them.

        Email the author: [email protected]

        Softpanorama Media Skeptic Bulletin, 2014

        Recommended Links

        Google matched content

        Softpanorama Recommended

        Top articles

        Oldies But Goodies

        [Oct 12, 2016] NSA whistleblower says DNC hack was not done by Russia, but by US intelligence

        [Jul 11, 2016] 5 Reasons The Comey Hearing Was The Worst Education In Criminal Justice The American Public Has Ever Had by Seth Abramson

        [Jul 06, 2016] FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook by Andrew C. McCarthy

        [Jan 09, 2016] Allen Dulles and modern neocons

        [Dec 31, 2017] Is [neo]Liberalism a Dying Faith by Pat Buchanan

        [Dec 31, 2017] What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater

        [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies

        [Dec 31, 2017] Is [neo]Liberalism a Dying Faith by Pat Buchanan

        [Dec 28, 2017] How CrowdStrike placed malware in DNC hacked servers by Alex Christoforou

        [Dec 28, 2017] Regime Change Comes Home: The CIA s Overt Threats against Trump by James Petras

        [Dec 28, 2017] From Snowden To Russia-gate - The CIA And The Media

        [Dec 28, 2017] On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.

        [Dec 27, 2017] Mueller investigation can be viewed as an attempt to avoid going after Clinton and hide the fact that a corrupted intelligence service worked to derail Sanders

        [Dec 27, 2017] Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than a witch hunt

        [Dec 23, 2017] Russiagate as bait and switch maneuver

        [Dec 22, 2017] Beyond Cynicism America Fumbles Towards Kafka s Castle by James Howard Kunstler

        [Dec 22, 2017] When Sanity Fails - The Mindset of the Ideological Drone by The Saker

        [Dec 21, 2017] The RussiaGate Witch-Hunt Stockman Names Names In The Deep State's Insurance Policy by David Stockman

        [Dec 19, 2017] Do not Underestimate the Power of Microfoundations

        [Dec 18, 2017] The Scary Void Inside Russia-gate by Stephen F. Cohen

        [Dec 16, 2017] The U.S. Is Not A Democracy, It Never Was by Gabriel Rockhill

        [Dec 15, 2017] Rise and Decline of the Welfare State, by James Petras

        [Dec 14, 2017] With the 2018 midterms on the horizon, Moscow proposed a sweeping noninterference agreement with the United States. The Trump administration said no

        [Dec 14, 2017] Was Peter Strzok the principal FBI liaison to CIA Director John Brennan?

        [Dec 14, 2017] The Foundering Russia-gate 'Scandal' Consortiumnews

        [Dec 14, 2017] The 1970's was in many ways the watershed decade for the neoliberal transformation of the American economy and society

        [Dec 13, 2017] All the signs in the Russia probe point to Jared Kushner. Who next?

        [Dec 12, 2017] When a weaker neoliberal state fights the dominant neoliberal state, the center of neoliberal empire, it faces economic sanctions and can t retaliate using principle eye for eye

        [Dec 12, 2017] Bad Moon Rising, by Philip Giraldi - The Unz Review

        [Dec 12, 2017] We are all just hapless passengers on the Neocon Titanic, unable to influence what is playing out on the bridge

        [Dec 11, 2017] How Russia-gate Met the Magnitsky Myth by Robert Parry

        [Dec 10, 2017] blamePutin continues to be the media s dominant hashtag. Vladimir Putin finally confesses his entire responsibility for everything bad that has ever happened since the beginning of time

        [Dec 10, 2017] When Washington Cheered the Jihadists Consortiumnews

        [Dec 10, 2017] Russia-gate s Reach into Journalism by Dennis J Bernstein

        [Dec 09, 2017] Hyping the Russian Threat to Undermine Free Speech by Max Blumenthal

        [Dec 05, 2017] Controlling speculation in world financial markets Progressive Christians Uniting by Gordon K Douglass

        [Dec 03, 2017] Stephen Kotkin How Vladimir Putin Rules

        [Dec 03, 2017] Another Democratic party betrayal of their former voters. but what you can expect from the party of Bill Clinton?

        [Dec 03, 2017] Islamic Mindset Akin to Bolshevism by Srdja Trifkovic

        [Nov 29, 2017] The Russian Question by Niall Ferguson

        [Dec 02, 2017] The New Cold War and the Death of the Discourse by Justin Raimondo

        [Dec 01, 2017] Neocon Chaos Promotion in the Mideast

        [Dec 01, 2017] JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy by L. Fletcher Prouty, Oliver Stone, Jesse Ventura

        [Nov 30, 2017] Heritage Foundation + the War Industry What a Pair by Paul Gottfried

        [Nov 30, 2017] Money Imperialism by Michael Hudson

        [Nov 29, 2017] Secular Stagnation: The Time for One-Armed Policy is Over

        [Nov 29, 2017] Michael Hudson: The Wall Street Economy is Draining the Real Economy

        [Nov 29, 2017] Positive Feedback Loops, Financial Instability, The Blind Spot Of Policymakers

        [Nov 29, 2017] Attack on Sanders Economic Plan By Former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisors Irresponsible

        [Nov 28, 2017] The Duplicitous Superpower by Ted Galen Carpenter

        [Nov 30, 2017] Heritage Foundation + the War Industry What a Pair by Paul Gottfried

        [Nov 08, 2017] Learning to Love McCarthyism by Robert Parry

        [Dec 03, 2017] Stephen Kotkin How Vladimir Putin Rules

        [Nov 08, 2017] The Plot to Scapegoat Russia How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Putin by Dan Kovalik

        [Dec 03, 2017] Stephen Kotkin How Vladimir Putin Rules

        [Nov 08, 2017] The Plot to Scapegoat Russia How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Putin by Dan Kovalik

        [Nov 05, 2017] China and the US Rational Planning and Lumpen Capitalism by James Petras

        [Nov 04, 2017] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Leads US President Trump to War with Iran by Prof. James Petras

        [Nov 04, 2017] Who's Afraid of Corporate COINTELPRO by C. J. Hopkins

        [Oct 31, 2017] Above All - The Junta Expands Its Claim To Power

        [Oct 29, 2017] Whose Bright Idea Was RussiaGate by Paul Craig Roberts

        [Oct 29, 2017] In Shocking, Viral Interview, Qatar Confesses Secrets Behind Syrian War

        [Oct 31, 2017] Here is What I Saw at the Valdai Club Conference by Anatol Lieven

        [Oct 31, 2017] Here is What I Saw at the Valdai Club Conference by Anatol Lieven

        [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies

        [Oct 28, 2017] Former CIA Officer 'Russiagate' Was Manufactured By The Clinton Campaign by Philip Giraldi

        [Dec 31, 2017] Is [neo]Liberalism a Dying Faith by Pat Buchanan

        [Oct 25, 2017] Mutual Assured Destruction by Philip M. Giraldi

        [Oct 25, 2017] Tomorrow Belongs to the Corporatocracy by C.J. Hopkins

        [Oct 17, 2017] The Victory of Perception Management by Robert Parry

        [Apr 21, 2019] John Brennan's Police State USA

        [Oct 16, 2017] Governing is complicated as laws and policies affect a diverse spectrum of people and situations. The average person, in my experience, is not inclined to spend the time necessary to understand good laws/policy in a complex society. The one safety check on mob rule is that most people don't become politically active until their situation is relatively dire

        [Oct 13, 2017] Sympathy for the Corporatocracy by C. J. Hopkins

        [Oct 11, 2017] Russia witch hunt is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working class

        [Oct 13, 2017] Sympathy for the Corporatocracy by C. J. Hopkins

        [Oct 10, 2017] The US Economy: Explaining Stagnation and Why It Will Persist by Thomas I. Palley

        [Oct 09, 2017] Dennis Kucinich We Must Challenge the Two-Party Duopoly Committed to War by Adam Dick

        [Oct 09, 2017] US Missile Defense Not as Effective As We Think by Scott Ritter

        [Oct 09, 2017] After Nine Months, Only Stale Crumbs in Russia Inquiry by Scott Ritter

        [Oct 09, 2017] Autopilot Wars by Andrew J. Bacevich

        [Oct 08, 2017] Financialization: theoretical analysis and historical perspectives by Costas Lapavitsas

        [Oct 07, 2017] Finances hold on our everyday life must be broken by Costas Lapavitsas

        [Oct 06, 2017] Prof. Philip Mirowski keynote for Life and Debt conference

        [Oct 04, 2017] Trump, Syriza Brexit prove voting is only small part of the battle by Neil Clark

        [Oct 03, 2017] The Vietnam Nightmare -- Again by Eric Margolis

        [Oct 03, 2017] Russian Ads On Facebook A Click-Bait Campaign

        [Oct 09, 2017] Dennis Kucinich We Must Challenge the Two-Party Duopoly Committed to War by Adam Dick

        [Feb 26, 2019] THE CRISIS OF NEOLIBERALISM by Julie A. Wilson

        [Oct 04, 2017] Trump, Syriza Brexit prove voting is only small part of the battle by Neil Clark

        [Oct 01, 2017] Neoliberal economic policies in the United States The impact of globalisation on a `Northern country by Kim Scipes

        [Sep 30, 2017] Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart. Is Skepticism Permissible Yet by Glenn Greenwald

        [Sep 27, 2017] Come You Masters of War by Matthew Harwood

        [Sep 26, 2017] US-Saudi Alliance Fragments the Middle East (2-2) by RANIA KHALEK

        [Sep 26, 2017] Is Foreign Propaganda Even Effective by Leon Hadar

        [Sep 25, 2017] I am presently reading the book JFK and the Unspeakable by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed

        [Sep 25, 2017] Free market as a neoliberal myth, the cornerstone of neoliberalism as a secular religion

        [Sep 24, 2017] How Sony, Obama, Seth Rogen and the CIA Secretly Planned to Force Regime Change in North Korea by Tim Shorrock

        [Sep 24, 2017] Mark Ames When Mother Jones Was Investigated for Spreading Kremlin Disinformation by Mark Ames

        [Sep 23, 2017] The Exit Strategy of Empire by Wendy McElro

        [Sep 23, 2017] Welcome to 1984 Big Brother Google Now Watching Your Every Political Move

        [Sep 20, 2017] The Politics of Military Ascendancy by James Petras

        [Sep 23, 2017] The Exit Strategy of Empire by Wendy McElro

        [Sep 19, 2017] Neoliberalism: the deep story that lies beneath Donald Trumps triumph: How a ruthless network of super-rich ideologues killed choice and destroyed people's faith in politics by George Monbiot

        [Sep 19, 2017] Trump behaviour at UN and Nixon's "madman gambit" against Soviets

        [Sep 18, 2017] Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish partnerships with military contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.

        [Sep 18, 2017] How The Military Defeated Trumps Insurgency

        [Sep 18, 2017] Looks like Trump initially has a four point platform that was anti-neoliberal in its essence: non-interventionism, no to neoliberal globalization, no to outsourcing of jobs, and no to multiculturism. All were betrayed very soon

        [Sep 18, 2017] Its always bizarre who easily neoliberals turn into hawkish and warmongering jerks

        [Sep 18, 2017] The NYT's Yellow Journalism on Russia by Rober Parry

        [Sep 17, 2017] The So-called Russian Hack of the DNC Does Not Make Sense by Publius Tacitus

        [Sep 17, 2017] Fear of deviation from political correctness is a powerful thing and such zeitgeist pervades America to an extent that people fear independent thought for concern that they will be deterred from upward employment mobility

        [Sep 17, 2017] Empire Idiots by Linh Dinh

        [Sep 16, 2017] Empire of Capital by George Monbiot

        [Sep 13, 2017] A despot in disguise: one mans mission to rip up democracy by George Monbiot

        [Sep 11, 2017] Neo-classical economics as a new flat earth cult

        [Sep 11, 2017] The only countervailing force, unions, were deliberately destroyed. Neoliberalism needs to atomize work force to function properly and destroys any solidarity among workers. Unions are anathema for neoliberalism, because they prevent isolation and suppression of workers.

        [Sep 11, 2017] Around 1970 corporate managers and professionals realized that they shared the same education, background and interests with capital owners and realigned themselves, abandoning working class and a large part of lower middle class (small business owners)

        [Sep 05, 2017] Is the World Slouching Toward a Grave Systemic Crisis by Philip Zelikow

        [Sep 19, 2017] Neoliberalism: the deep story that lies beneath Donald Trumps triumph: How a ruthless network of super-rich ideologues killed choice and destroyed people's faith in politics by George Monbiot

        [Sep 19, 2017] The Glaring Omissions in Trumps U.N. Speech by Daniel Larison

        [Sep 19, 2017] Neoliberalism: the idea that swallowed the world by Stephen Metcalf

        [Sep 11, 2017] Around 1970 corporate managers and professionals realized that they shared the same education, background and interests with capital owners and realigned themselves, abandoning working class and a large part of lower middle class (small business owners)

        [Aug 30, 2017] The President of Belgian Magistrates - Neoliberalism is a form of Fascism by Manuela Cadelli

        [Aug 27, 2017] Manipulated minorities represent a major danger for democratic states>

        [Aug 25, 2017] Some analogies of current events in the USA and Mao cultural revolution: In China when the Mao mythology was threatened the Red Guard raised holy hell and lives were ruined

        [Aug 30, 2017] Weather Underground Members Speak Out on the Media, Imperialism and Solidarity in the Age of Trump

        [Aug 30, 2017] Weather Underground Members Speak Out on the Media, Imperialism and Solidarity in the Age of Trump

        [Feb 04, 2019] Trump s Revised and Rereleased Foreign Policy: The World Policeman is Back

        [Aug 09, 2017] Force Multipliers and 21st Century Imperial Warfare Practice and Propaganda by Maximilian C. Forte

        [Aug 08, 2017] The Tale of the Brothers Awan by Philip Giraldi

        [Jul 30, 2017] the Ukrainingate emerging from the evidence on Hillary campaign sounds like a criminal conspiracy of foreign state against Trump

        [Jul 30, 2017] Fascism Is Possible Not in Spite of [neo]Liberal Capitalism, but Because of It by Earchiel Johnson

        [Jul 29, 2017] Ray McGovern The Deep State Assault on Elected Government Must Be Stopped

        [Jul 28, 2017] Perhaps Trump asked Sessions to fire Mueller and Sessions refused?

        [Jul 26, 2017] US Provocation and North Korea Pretext for War with China by James Petras

        [Jul 25, 2017] Oligarchs Succeed! Only the People Suffer! by James Petras

        [Jul 25, 2017] The Coup against Trump and His Military – Wall Street Defense by James Petras

        [Dec 31, 2017] Anti-Populism Ideology of the Ruling Class by James Petras

        [Jul 25, 2017] The Coup against Trump and His Military – Wall Street Defense by James Petras

        [Dec 31, 2017] Anti-Populism Ideology of the Ruling Class by James Petras

        [Jul 25, 2017] Oligarchs Succeed! Only the People Suffer! by James Petras

        [Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills

        [Jul 13, 2017] Progressive Democrats Resist and Submit, Retreat and Surrender by James Petras

        [Jul 12, 2017] Stephen Cohens Remarks on Tucker Carlson Last Night Were Extraordinary

        [Jul 06, 2017] The Great Power Shift A Russia-China Alliance by Ray McGovern

        [Jul 06, 2017] The Great Power Shift A Russia-China Alliance by Ray McGovern

        [Jul 01, 2017] MUST SEE video explains the entire 17 Intelligence Agencies Russian hacking lie

        [Jun 30, 2017] Elections Absenteeism, Boycotts and the Class Struggle by James Petras

        [Jun 30, 2017] Elections Absenteeism, Boycotts and the Class Struggle by James Petras

        [Jun 24, 2017] The Criminal Laws of Counterinsurgency by Todd E. Pierce

        [Jun 26, 2017] The Soft Coup Under Way In Washington by David Stockman

        [Jun 24, 2017] The United States and Iran Two Tracks to Establish Hegemony by James Petras

        [Jun 24, 2017] The Saudi-Qatar spat - the reconciliation offer to be refused>. Qater will move closer to Turkey

        [Jun 17, 2017] The Collapsing Social Contract by Gaius Publius

        [Jun 15, 2017] Comeys Lies of Omission by Mike Whitney

        [Jun 24, 2017] The Criminal Laws of Counterinsurgency by Todd E. Pierce

        [Nov 08, 2017] The Plot to Scapegoat Russia How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Putin by Dan Kovalik

        [Apr 02, 2018] Russophobia Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy by A. Tsygankov

        [May 23, 2017] Trumped-up claims against Trump by Ray McGovern

        [May 23, 2017] Are they really out to get Trump by Philip Girald

        [May 21, 2017] What Obsessing About Trump Causes Us To Miss by Andrew Bacevich

        [May 21, 2017] WhateverGate -- The Crazed Quest To Find Some Reason (Any Reason!) To Dump Trump by John Derbyshire

        [May 21, 2017] Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff

        [May 20, 2017] Invasion of the Putin-Nazis by C.J. Hopkins

        [May 08, 2017] Karl Polanyi for President by Patrick Iber and Mike Konczal

        [Dec 31, 2017] Truth-Killing as a Meta-Issue

        [Dec 31, 2017] Truth-Killing as a Meta-Issue

        [May 03, 2017] Has Pope Francis just cast the first vote in the US presidential race?

        [May 01, 2017] Trump: A Resisters Guide by Wesley Yang

        [Apr 18, 2017] Atomization of workforce as a part of atomization of society under neoliberalism

        [Feb 19, 2017] The deep state is running scared!

        [Jan 16, 2017] Gaius Publius Who is Blackmailing the President Why Arent Democrats Upset About It by Gaius Publius,

        [Dec 30, 2018] RussiaGate In Review with Aaron Mate - Unreasoned Fear is Neoliberalism's Response to the Credibility Gap

        [Dec 29, 2018] NATO Partisans Started a New Cold War With Russia -

        [Dec 29, 2018] -Election Meddling- Enters Bizarro World As MSM Ignores Democrat-Linked -Russian Bot- Scheme -

        [Dec 25, 2018] The destiny of the USA is now tied to the destiny of neoliberalism (much like the USSR and Bolshevism)

        [Dec 24, 2018] Income inequality happens by design. We cant fix it by tweaking capitalism

        [Dec 22, 2018] We can be actually confident not just that the journalists in the MSM are on the payroll but that the invoices and accounts for their bribes are carefully preserved.

        [Dec 22, 2018] British Security Service Infiltration, the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for Statecraft by Craig Murray

        [Dec 22, 2018] If Truth Cannot Prevail Over Material Agendas We Are Doomed by Paul Craig Roberts

        [Dec 21, 2018] Virtually no one in neoliberal MSM is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing this matter

        [Dec 16, 2018] The 'Integrity Initiative' - A Military Intelligence Operation, Disguised As Charity, To Create The Russian Threat

        [Dec 16, 2018] Neoliberalism has had its day. So what happens next (The death of neoliberalism and the crisis in western politics) by Martin Jacques

        [Dec 14, 2018] MI6, along with elements of the CIA, was behind the Steele Dossier. Representatives of John Brennan met in London to discus before the go ahead was given

        [Dec 14, 2018] Vetting NYT materials by CIA reflects full-scale cooperation – a virtual merger – between our the government and the neoliberal MSM

        [Dec 14, 2018] The dirty propaganda games NYT play

        [Dec 14, 2018] Neoliberalism has spawned a financial elite who hold governments to ransom by Deborah Orr

        [Dec 10, 2018] One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et al actually did

        [Dec 09, 2018] Neoliberalism is more like modern feudalism - an authoritarian system where the lords (bankers, energy companies and their large and inefficient attendant bureaucracies), keep us peasants in thrall through life long debt-slavery simply to buy a house or exploit us as a captured market in the case of the energy sector.

        [Feb 10, 2019] Neoliberalism is dead. Now let's repair our democratic institutions by Richard Denniss

        [Dec 09, 2018] Die Weltwoche Weltwoche Online – www.weltwoche.ch Tucker Carlson Trump is not capable Die Weltwoche, Ausgabe 49-2018

        [Dec 08, 2018] Neocons Sabotage Trump s Trade Talks - Huawei CFO Taken Hostage To Blackmail China

        [Dec 08, 2018] Internet as a perfect tool of inverted totalitarism: it stimulates atomizatin of individuals, creates authomatic 24x7 surveillance over population, suppresses solidarity by exceggerating non-essential differences and allow more insidious brainwashing of the population

        [Dec 08, 2018] Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games

        [Dec 07, 2018] Brexit Theresa May Goes Greek! by Brett Redmayne

        [Dec 05, 2018] Beleaguered British Prime Minister Theresa May is wailing loudly against a Trump threat to reveal classified documents relating to Russiagate by Philip Giraldi

        [Dec 03, 2018] Neoliberalism is a modern curse. Everything about it is bad and until we're free of it, it will only ever keep trying to turn us into indentured labourers. It's acolytes are required to blind themselves to logic and reason to such a degree they resemble Scientologists or Jehovah's Witnesses more than people with any sort of coherent political ideology, because that's what neoliberalism actually is... a cult of the rich, for the rich, by the rich... and it's followers in the general population are nothing but moron familiars hoping one day to be made a fully fledged bastard.

        [Dec 02, 2018] Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski Wins 2018 Sam Adams Award by Ray McGovern

        [Dec 02, 2018] Muller investigation has all the appearance of an investigation looking for a crime

        [Dec 01, 2018] Whataboutism charge is a change of a thought crime, a dirty US propaganda trick. In reality truth can be understood only in the historica context

        [Dec 01, 2018] Congress' Screwed-Up Foreign Policy Priorities by Daniel Larison

        [Nov 30, 2018] US Warlords now and at the tome Miill's Poer Elite was published

        [Nov 27, 2018] 'Highly likely' that Magnitsky was poisoned by toxic chemicals on Bill Browder's orders

        [Nov 27, 2018] The political fraud of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal"

        [Nov 27, 2018] American capitalism could afford to make concessions assiciated with The New Deal because of its economic dominance. The past forty years have been characterized by the continued decline of American capitalism on a world stage relative to its major rivals. The ruling class has responded to this crisis with a neoliberal counterrevolution to claw back all gains won by workers. This policy has been carried out under both Democratic and Republican administrations and with the assistance of the trade unions.

        [Nov 27, 2018] US Foreign Policy Has No Policy by Philip Giraldi

        [Nov 27, 2018] terms that carry with them implicit moral connotations. Investment implies an action, even a sacrifice, undertaken for a better future. It evokes a future positive outcome. Another words that reinforces neoliberal rationality is "growth", Modernization and

        [Nov 27, 2018] The Argentinian military coup, like those in Guatemala, Honduras, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia and Nicaragua, was sponsored by the US to protect and further its interests during the Cold War. By the 1970s neoliberalism was very much part of the menu; paramilitary governments were actively encouraged to practice neoliberal politics; neoliberalism was at this stage, what communism was to the Soviet Union

        [Nov 25, 2018] Let s recap what Obama s coup in Ukraine has led to shall we?

        [Nov 24, 2018] Anonymous Exposes UK-Led Psyop To Battle Russian Propaganda

        [Nov 24, 2018] British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns

        [Nov 24, 2018] MI6 Scrambling To Stop Trump From Releasing Classified Docs In Russia Probe

        [Nov 24, 2018] When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots psyops, you tend to come up with plots for psyops . The word entrapment comes to mind. Probably self-serving also.

        [Nov 23, 2018] Sitting on corruption hill

        [Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Zionist Political Power

        [Nov 10, 2018] US Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan Killed 500,000 by Jason Ditz

        [Nov 07, 2018] America's Vote of No Confidence in Trump by Daniel Larison

        [Nov 14, 2018] Is Orwell overrated and Huxley undertated?

        [Nov 14, 2018] Nationalism vs partiotism

        [Nov 12, 2018] The Democratic Party long ago earned the designation graveyard of social protest movements, and for good reason

        [Nov 12, 2018] The Best Way To Honor War Veterans Is To Stop Creating Them by Caitlin Johnstone

        [Nov 12, 2018] Obama s CIA Secretly Intercepted Congressional Communications About Whistleblowers

        [Nov 12, 2018] Protecting Americans from foreign influence, smells with COINTELPRO. Structural witch-hunt effect like during the McCarthy era is designed to supress decent to neoliberal oligarcy by Andre Damon and Joseph Kishore

        [Nov 09, 2018] Khashoggi Was No Critic of Saudi Regime

        [Nov 09, 2018] Globalism Vs Nationalism in Trump's America by Joe Quinn

        [Nov 07, 2018] There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard.

        [Sep 09, 2018] DNC Papadopoulos s UK contact may be dead

        [Nov 05, 2018] Bertram Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer

        [Nov 03, 2018] Kunstler The Midterm Endgame Democrats' Perpetual Hysteria

        [Oct 25, 2018] DNC Emails--A Seth Attack Not a Russian Hack by Publius Tacitus

        [Oct 25, 2018] Putin jokes with Bolton: Did the eagle eaten all the olives

        [Oct 23, 2018] Leaving aside what President Obama knew about Russiagate allegations against Donald Trump and when he knew it, the question arises as to whether these operations were ordered by President Putin and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) or were rogue operations unknown in advance by the leaders and perhaps even directed against them

        [Oct 22, 2018] Cherchez la femme

        [Oct 20, 2018] I am most encouraged by the apparent Putin's realisation that the First Strike is possible now if not even likely. If the Russians expect an attack they are much less likely to be totally surprised, as usual. In fact, never in history was such attack by the West more likely than now, for various reasons which would take a while to explain.

        [Oct 20, 2018] Cloak and Dagger by Israel Shamir

        [Oct 18, 2018] Donald Trump's Foreign Policy Goes Neocon by Robert W. Merry

        [Oct 16, 2018] Donald Trump's Foreign Policy Goes Neocon

        [Oct 09, 2018] NYT Claims Trump Campaign (Almost) Colluded With Israeli Spies

        [Oct 08, 2018] Hacking and Propaganda by Marcus Ranum

        [Oct 04, 2018] Brett Kavanaugh's 'revenge' theory spotlights past with Clintons by Lisa Mascaro

        [Oct 02, 2018] I m puzzled why CIA is so against Kavanaugh?

        [Sep 29, 2018] The Schizophrenic Deep State is a Symptom, Not the Disease by Charles Hugh Smith

        [Sep 29, 2018] Trump Surrenders to the Iron Law of Oligarchy by Dan Sanchez

        [Sep 27, 2018] The power elites goal is to change its appearance to look like something new and innovative to stay ahead of an electorate who are increasingly skeptical of the neoliberalism and globalism that enrich the elite at their expense.

        [Sep 27, 2018] Hiding in Plain Sight Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us

        [Sep 25, 2018] The entire documentary "The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire" by Michael Oswald is worth watching as an introduction to the corruption in the global finance industry.

        [Sep 24, 2018] Given Trumps kneeling to the British Skripal poisoning 'hate russia' hoax I suspect there is no chance he will go after Christopher Steele or any of the senior demoncrat conspirers no matter how much he would love to sucker punch Theresa May and her nasty colleagues.

        [Sep 23, 2018] UK Begged Trump Not To Declassify Russia Docs; Cited Grave Concerns Over Steele Involvement

        [Sep 21, 2018] One party state: Trump's 'Opposition' Supports All His Evil Agendas While Attacking Fake Nonsence by Caitlin Johnstone

        [Sep 16, 2018] Looks like the key players in Steele dossier were CIA assets

        [Sep 16, 2018] Perils of Ineptitude by Andrew Levin

        [Sep 16, 2018] I m delighted we can see the true face of American exceptionalism on display everyday. The last thing I want to see is back to normal.

        [Sep 15, 2018] Why the US Seeks to Hem in Russia, China and Iran by Patrick Lawrence

        [Sep 15, 2018] BBC is skanky state propaganda

        [Sep 14, 2018] European media writing pro-US stories under CIA pressure - German journo

        [Sep 14, 2018] English Translation of Udo Ulfkotte s Bought Journalists Suppressed

        [Sep 14, 2018] The book Journalists for Hire How the CIA Buys the News Dr. Udo Ulfkotte was "privished"

        [Sep 11, 2018] Is Donald Trump Going to Do the Syria Backflip by Publius Tacitus

        [Sep 11, 2018] If you believe Trump is trying to remove neocons(Deep State) from the government, explain Bolton and many other Deep State denizens Trump has appointed

        [Sep 07, 2018] New York Times Undermining Peace Efforts by Sowing Suspicion by Diana Johnstone

        [Sep 07, 2018] Sarah Huckabee Sanders has a legitimate request to neoliberal MSM - Stop Bugging Me About The New York Times' Trump Op-Ed

        [Sep 02, 2018] Open letter to President Trump concerning the consequences of 11 September 2001 by Thierry Meyssan

        [Sep 02, 2018] Bill Browder (of Magnitsky fame) broke all these rules while pillaging Russia.

        [Aug 18, 2018] Pentagon Whistleblower Demoted After Exposing Millions Paid To FBI Spy Halper, Clinton Crony

        [Aug 08, 2018] Christopher Steele, FBI s Confidential Human Source by Publius Tacitus

        [Aug 17, 2018] What if Russiagate is the New WMDs

        [Aug 24, 2018] The priorities of the deep state and its public face the MSM

        [Aug 22, 2018] The US financial sector has manifestly failed at allocating capital properly and is filled with rent seeking by Anatoly Karlin

        [Aug 22, 2018] The CIA Owns the US and European Media by Paul Craig Roberts

        [Aug 22, 2018] Facebook Kills "Inauthentic" Foreign News Accounts - US Propaganda Stays Alive

        [Aug 19, 2018] End of "classic neoliberalism": to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare.

        [Aug 18, 2018] Corporate Media the Enemy of the People by Paul Street

        [Aug 18, 2018] I blame Brennan for MH 17 crash in Ukraine.

        [Aug 17, 2018] What if Russiagate is the New WMDs

        [Aug 14, 2018] I think one of Mueller s deeply embedded character flaw is that once he decides on burying someone he becomes possessed

        [Aug 14, 2018] US Intelligence Community is Tearing the Country Apart from the Inside by Dmitry Orlov

        [Aug 13, 2018] Imperialism Is Alive and Kicking A Marxist Analysis of Neoliberal Capitalism by C.J. Polychroniou

        [Aug 11, 2018] President Trump the most important achivement

        [Aug 10, 2018] On Contact: Casino Capitalism with Natasha Dow Schull

        [Aug 08, 2018] Ten Bombshell Revelations From Seymour Hersh's New Autobiography

        [Aug 08, 2018] Neoliberal Newspeak: Notes on the new planetary vulgate by Bourdieu and Wacquant

        [Aug 05, 2018] Cooper was equally as unhinged as Boot: Neoliberal MSM is a real 1984 remake.

        [Aug 05, 2018] How identity politics makes the Left lose its collective identity by Tomasz Pierscionek

        [Jul 31, 2018] Is not the Awan affair a grave insult to the US "Intelligence Community?

        [Jul 28, 2018] American Society Would Collapse If It Were not For These 8 Myths by Lee Camp

        [Jul 20, 2018] Doubting The Intelligence Of The Intelligence Community by Ilana Mercer

        [Mar 18, 2019] Doublethink and Newspeak Do We Have a Choice by Greg Guma

        [Jul 23, 2018] The Prophecy of Orwell's 1984. Totalitarian Control and the Entertainment Culture that Takes Over by Edward Curtin

        [Jul 23, 2018] Chickens with Their Heads Cut Off, Coming Home to Roost. The "Treason Narrative" by Helen Buyniski

        [Jul 22, 2018] Tucker Carlson SLAMS Intelligence Community On Russia

        [Jul 20, 2018] So many (ex-) MI6 operators (Steele, Tait, etc) involved in the story. It is interesting that the media don t question the intense involvement of the British in all this. And of course, the British haven t been laggards in adding fuel to the fire by the whole novichok hoax

        [Jul 20, 2018] What exactly is fake news caucus99percent

        [Jul 20, 2018] Doubting The Intelligence Of The Intelligence Community by Ilana Mercer

        [Jul 20, 2018] Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace With Russia by Paul Craig Roberts

        [Jul 17, 2018] I think there is much more to the comment made by Putin regarding Bill Browder and his money flows into the DNC and Clinton campaign. That would explain why the DNC didn t hand the servers over to the FBI after being hacked.

        [Jul 16, 2018] Putin Claims U.S. Intelligence Agents Funneled $400K To Clinton Campaign Zero Hedge

        [Jul 13, 2018] False flag operation covering DNC leaks now involves Mueller and his team

        [Jul 15, 2018] What Mueller won t find by Bob In Portland

        [Jul 16, 2018] Five Things That Would Make The CIA-CNN Russia Narrative More Believable

        [Jul 16, 2018] Why the Media is Desperate to Reclaim its Gatekeeper Status for News Zero Hedge Zero Hedge

        [Jul 15, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis HILLARY CLINTON S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT RUSSIA! FBI Agent Ignored Evide

        [Jul 15, 2018] Peter Strzok Ignored Evidence Of Clinton Server Breach

        [Jul 15, 2018] Something Rotten About the DOJ Indictment of the GRU by Publius Tacitus

        [Jul 15, 2018] As if the Donald did not sanctioned to death the Russians on every possible level. How is this different from Mueller's and comp witch hunt against the Russians?

        [Jul 03, 2018] When you see some really successful financial speculator like Soros or (or much smaller scale) Browder, search for links with intelligence services to explain the success or at least a part of it related to xUSSR space , LA and similar regions

        [Jul 05, 2018] Britain's Most Censored Stories (Non-Military)

        [Jul 03, 2018] Russia has a lot of information about Lybia that could dig a political grave for Hillary. They did not release it

        [Jul 03, 2018] Musings II The "Intelligence Community," "Russian Interference," and Due Diligence

        [Jul 03, 2018] When you see some really successful financial speculator like Soros or (or much smaller scale) Browder, search for links with intelligence services to explain the success or at least a part of it related to xUSSR space , LA and similar regions

        [Jun 25, 2018] The review of A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey by Michael J. Thompson

        [Jun 21, 2018] The neoliberal agenda is agreed and enacted by BOTH parties:

        [Jun 19, 2018] How The Last Superpower Was Unchained by Tom Engelhardt

        [Jun 17, 2018] Mattis Putin Is Trying To Undermine America s Moral Authority by Caitlin Johnstone

        [Jun 17, 2018] the dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia

        [Jun 17, 2018] The Necessity of a Trump-Putin Summit by Stephen F. Cohen

        [Jun 14, 2018] Problem with US and British MSM control of narrative

        [Jun 09, 2018] Still Waiting for Evidence of a Russian Hack by Ray McGovern

        [Jun 06, 2018] Neoliberal language allows to cut wages by packaging neoliberal oligarchy preferences as national interests

        [Jun 13, 2018] Sanction Trump not Bourbon

        [Jun 13, 2018] How False Flag Operations Are Carried Out Today by Philip M. GIRALDI

        [Jun 12, 2018] The real reason for which 'information apocalypse' terrifies the mainstream media

        [Jun 09, 2018] Spooks Spooking Themselves by Daniel Lazare

        [Jun 06, 2018] Why Foreign Policy Realism Isn't Enough by William S. Smith

        [May 31, 2018] Journalists and academics expose UK's criminal actions in the Middle East by Julie Hyland

        [May 30, 2018] How Media Amnesia Has Trapped Us in a Neoliberal Groundhog Day

        [May 29, 2018] Guccifer 2.0's American Fingerprints Reveal An Operation Made In The USA by Elizabeth Lea Vos

        [May 24, 2018] Most probably Veselnitskaya was a false flag operation to entrap Trump campaign played by British intelligence

        [May 27, 2018] America's Fifth Column Will Destroy Russia by Paul Craig Roberts

        [May 27, 2018] Northwestern University roundtable discusses regime change in Russia Defend Democracy Press

        [May 24, 2018] Most probably Veselnitskaya was a false flag operation to entrap Trump campaign played by British intelligence

        [May 24, 2018] The diversion of Russia Gate is a continuation of former diversions such as the Tea Party which was invented by the banksters to turn public anger over the big banking collapse and the resulting recession into a movement to gain more deregulation for tax breaks for the wealthy

        [May 23, 2018] Mueller role as a hatchet man is now firmly established. Rosenstein key role in applointing Mueller without any evidence became also more clear with time. Was he coerced or did it voluntarily is unclear by Lambert Strether

        [May 23, 2018] If the Trump-Russia set up began in spring 2016 or earlier, presumably it was undertaken on the assumption that HRC would win the election. (I say "presumably" because you never can tell..) If so, then the operation would have been an MI6 / Ukrainian / CIA coordinated op intended to frame Putin, not Trump

        [May 22, 2018] Cat fight within the US elite getting more intense

        [May 04, 2018] Media Use Disinformation To Accuse Russia Of Spreading Such by b

        [May 09, 2018] Trotskyist Delusions, by Diana Johnstone

        [May 03, 2018] Mueller's questions to Trump more those of a prosecuting attorney than of an impartial investigator by Alexander Mercouris

        [May 03, 2018] Skripal case British confirm they have no suspect; Yulia Skripal vanishes, no word of Sergey Skripal by Alexander Mercouris

        [May 03, 2018] Despite all the propaganda, all the hysterical headlines, all the blatantly biased coverage, the British haven't bought it

        [May 03, 2018] The 'Libya model' Trump's top bloodthirsty neocon indirectly admits that N. Korea will be invaded and destroyed as soon as it gives up its nukes by system failure

        [Apr 30, 2018] Neoliberalization of the US Democratic Party is irreversible: It is still controlled by Clinton gang even after Hillary debacle

        [Apr 24, 2018] The Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice

        [Apr 27, 2018] A Most Sordid Profession by Fred Reed

        [Apr 24, 2018] Class and how they use words to hide reality

        [Apr 24, 2018] America's Men Without Chests by Paul Grenier

        [Apr 23, 2018] Neoliberals are statists, much like Trotskyites are

        [Apr 21, 2018] Amazingly BBC newsnight just started preparing viewers for the possibility that there was no sarin attack, and the missile strikes might just have been for show

        [Apr 21, 2018] It s a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria.

        [Apr 23, 2018] The Tony Blair Rule: The Truth Takes 15 Years to Come Out, Skripal Countdown Starts Now - Simonyan

        [Apr 22, 2018] The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite

        [Apr 21, 2018] On the Criminal Referral of Comey, Clinton et al by Ray McGovern

        [Apr 21, 2018] It s a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria.

        [Apr 20, 2018] Stench of hypocrisy British 'war on terror' strategic ties with radical Islam by John Wight

        [Apr 15, 2018] The Trump Regime Is Insane by Paul Craig Roberts

        [Apr 16, 2018] British Propaganda and Disinformation An Imperial and Colonial Tradition by Wayne MADSEN

        [Apr 11, 2018] Female neocon warmongers from Fox look like plastered brick walls – heartless and brainless.

        [Apr 09, 2018] When Military Leaders Have Reckless Disregard for the Truth by Bruce Fein

        [Apr 03, 2018] This Washington Post Headline Is Fake News

        [Apr 02, 2018] Russophobia Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy by A. Tsygankov

        [Apr 01, 2018] Big American Money, Not Russia, Put Trump in the White House: Reflections on a Recent Report by Paul Street

        [Apr 01, 2018] Does the average user care if s/he is micro-targetted by political advertisements based on what they already believe?

        [Mar 24, 2018] Assange Suggests British Government Was Involved In Plot To Bring Down Trump by Steve Watson

        [Mar 31, 2018] FBI Director Mueller testified to Congress that Saddam Hussein was responsible for anthrax attack! That was Mueller's role in selling the "intelligence" to invade Iraq.

        [Mar 31, 2018] RFK and Nixon immediately understood the assassination was a CIA-led wet-works operation since they chaired the assassination committees themselves in the past

        [Mar 31, 2018] RFK and Nixon immediately understood the assassination was a CIA-led wet-works operation since they chaired the assassination committees themselves in the past

        [Mar 30, 2018] The Death Of The Liberal World Order by Leonid Savin

        [Mar 29, 2018] Giving Up the Ghost of Objective Journalism by Telly Davidson

        [Mar 27, 2018] The Stormy Daniels scandal Political warfare in Washington hits a new low by Patrick Martin

        [Mar 28, 2018] Deep State and False Flag Attacks

        [Mar 27, 2018] Indian Punchline - Reflections on foreign affairs by M K Bhadrakumar

        [Mar 27, 2018] Let's Investigate John Brennan, by Philip Giraldi

        [Mar 27, 2018] Perfidious Albion The Fatally Wounded British Beast Lashes Out by Barbara Boyd

        [Mar 25, 2018] A truly historical month for the future of our planet by The Saker

        [Mar 25, 2018] Cambridge Analytica Scandal Rockets to Watergate Proportions and Beyond by Adam Garrie

        [Mar 24, 2018] Why the UK, the EU and the US Gang-Up on Russia by James Petras

        [Mar 24, 2018] Did Trump cut a deal on the collusion charge by Mike Whitney

        [Mar 23, 2018] Inglorious end of career of neocon McMaster

        [Mar 22, 2018] If it's correct, the Brits made a very nasty error that shows the true nature of their establishment.

        [Mar 22, 2018] Military at CNN

        [Mar 22, 2018] Vladimir Putin: nonsense to think Russia would poison spy in UK

        [Mar 21, 2018] Former CIA Chief Brennan Running Scared by Ray McGovern

        [Mar 13, 2018] The CIA takeover of the Democratic Party by Patrick Martin

        [Mar 21, 2018] Washington's Invasion of Iraq at Fifteen

        [Mar 21, 2018] Whataboutism Is A Nonsensical Propaganda Term Used To Defend The Failed Status Quo by Mike Krieger

        [Mar 21, 2018] How They Sold the Iraq War by Jeffrey St. Clair

        [Mar 18, 2018] Powerful intelligence agencies are incompatible with any forms of democracy including the democracy for top one precent. The only possible form of government in this situation is inverted totalitarism

        [Mar 16, 2018] Corbyn Calls for Evidence in Escalating Poison Row

        [Mar 16, 2018] NATO to display common front in Skripal case

        [Mar 16, 2018] The French philosopher Alain Soral is quite right when he says that modern "journalists are either unemployed or prostitutes"

        [Mar 16, 2018] Are We Living Under a Military Coup ?

        [Mar 16, 2018] Will the State Department Become a Subsidiary of the CIA

        [Mar 14, 2018] Russian UN anvoy> alleged the Salisbury attack was a false-flag attack, possibly by the UK itself, intended to harm Russia s reputation by Julian Borger

        [Mar 14, 2018] UNSC holds urgent meeting over Salisbury attack

        [Mar 14, 2018] Jefferson Morley on the CIA and Mossad Tradeoffs in the Formation of the US-Israel Strategic Relationship

        [Mar 12, 2018] There is no democracy without economic democracy by Jason Hirthler

        [Mar 12, 2018] Colonizing the Western Mind using think tanks

        [Mar 12, 2018] State Department's War on Political Dissent

        [Mar 10, 2018] Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko s death.

        [Mar 10, 2018] There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this

        [Mar 11, 2018] Washington s Century-long War on Russia by Mike Whitney

        [Mar 11, 2018] Reality Check: The Guardian Restarts Push for Regime Change in Russia by Kit

        [Mar 11, 2018] I often think that, a the machinery of surveillance and repression becomes so well oiled and refined, the ruling oligarchs will soon stop even paying lip service to 'American workers', or the "American middle class" and go full authoritarian

        [Mar 08, 2018] Mueller determines the US foreign policy toward Russia; The Intel Community Lies About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus

        [Mar 10, 2018] Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in Obama policy and HRC campaign long before any Steele s Dossier. This was a program ofunleashing cold War II

        [Mar 08, 2018] We don t have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn t found it yet! is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes without evidence (there s that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found

        [Mar 08, 2018] In recent years, there has been ample evidence that US policy-makers and, equally important, mainstream media commentators do not bother to read what Putin says, or at least not more than snatches from click-bait wire-service reports.

        [Mar 08, 2018] Given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence

        [Mar 08, 2018] A key piece of evidence pointing to 'Guccifer 2.0' being a fake personality created by the conspirators in their attempt to disguise the fact that the materials from the DNC published by 'WikiLeaks' were obtained by a leak rather than a hack had to do with the involvement of the former GCHQ person Matt Tait.

        [Mar 08, 2018] Mueller determines the US foreign policy toward Russia; The Intel Community Lies About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus

        [Mar 06, 2018] Is MSNBC Now the Most Dangerous Warmonger Network by Norman Solomon

        [Mar 06, 2018] The U.S. Returns to 'Great Power Competition,' With a Dangerous New Edge

        [Mar 06, 2018] The current anti-Russian sentiment in the West as hysterical. But this hysteria is concentrated at the top level of media elite and neocons. Behind it is no deep sense of unity or national resolve. In fact we see the reverse - most Western countries are deeply divided within themselves due to the crisis of neolineralism.

        [Mar 04, 2018] Generals who now are running the USA foreign policy represents a great danger. These men seem incapable of rising above the Russophobia that grew in the atmosphere of the Cold War. They yearn for world hegemony for the US and to see Russia and to a lesser extent China and Iran as obstacles to that dominion for the "city on a hill

        [Mar 03, 2018] Top NYT Editor 'We NYT supports and follows the "national security" line (whatever that means)

        [Mar 02, 2018] The main reason much of the highest echelons of American power are united against Trump might be that they're terrified that -- unlike Obama -- he's a really bad salesman for the US led neoliberal empire. This threatens the continuance of their well oiled and exceedingly corrupt gravy train

        [Mar 02, 2018] Fatal Delusions of Western Man by Pat Buchanan

        [Mar 02, 2018] Contradictions In Seth Rich Murder Continue To Challenge Hacking Narrative

        [Feb 28, 2018] Perjury traps to manufacture indictments to pressure people to testify against others is a new tool of justice in a surveillance state

        [Feb 26, 2018] Democrat Memo Lays Egg by Publius Tacitus

        [Feb 26, 2018] Why one war when we can heve two! by Eric Margolis

        [Feb 25, 2018] Democracies are political systems in which the real ruling elites hide behind an utterly fake appearance of people power

        [Feb 25, 2018] Russia would not do anything nearing the level of self-harm inflicted by the US elites.

        [Mar 06, 2019] American Meddling in the Ukraine by Publius Tacitus

        [Apr 17, 2019] Deep State and the FBI Federal Blackmail Investigation

        [Feb 23, 2018] NSA Genius Debunks Russiagate Once For All

        [Feb 22, 2018] Bill Binney explodes the rile of 17 agances security assessment memo in launching the Russia witch-hunt

        [Feb 20, 2018] For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia

        [Feb 20, 2018] Russophobia is a futile bid to conceal US, European demise by Finian Cunningham

        [Feb 19, 2018] Nunes FBI and DOJ Perps Could Be Put on Trial by Ray McGovern

        [Feb 19, 2018] The Russiagate Intelligence Wars What We Do and Don't Know

        [Feb 19, 2018] Russian Meddling Was a Drop in an Ocean of American-made Discord by AMANDA TAUB and MAX FISHER

        [Feb 18, 2018] This dangerous escalation of tensions with Russia is extremely lucrative for the war profiteers, the retired generals intelligence members who prostitute themselves as media pundits, the members of Congress who get $$$ from the war profiteers, and the corporate media which thrives on links to the war profiteers as well as on war reporting

        [Feb 16, 2018] A Dangerous Turn in U.S. Foreign Policy

        [Feb 16, 2018] The Deep Staters care first and foremost about themselves.

        [Feb 12, 2018] I am wondering why it is that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing

        [Feb 15, 2018] Trump's War on the Deep State by Conrad Black

        [Feb 14, 2018] Recused Judge in Flynn Prosecution Served on FISA Court

        [Feb 14, 2018] The Anti-Trump Coup by Michael S. Rozeff

        [Feb 14, 2018] A Russian Trump by Israel Shamir

        [Feb 12, 2018] The Age of Lunacy: The Doomsday Machine

        [Feb 12, 2018] Too many sport disciplines, too much cheating, too much money and too many politics involved in the Olympic

        [Feb 12, 2018] Ike's Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex Is Alive and Very Well by William J. Astore

        [Feb 11, 2018] How Russiagate fiasco destroys Kremlin moderates, accelerating danger for a hot war

        [Feb 10, 2018] The generals are not Borgists. They are something worse ...

        [Feb 10, 2018] More on neoliberal newspeak of US propaganda machine

        [Feb 09, 2018] Professor Stephen F. Cohen Rethinking Putin – A critical reading, by The Saker - The Unz Review

        [Feb 08, 2018] Control of narrative means that creation of the simplistic picture in which the complexities of the world are elided in favor of 'good guys' vs. 'bad guys' dichotomy

        [Jan 30, 2018] Washington Reaches New Heights of Insanity with the "Kremlin Report" by Paul Craig Roberts

        [Jan 30, 2018] The Unseen Wars of America the Empire The American Conservative

        [Jan 28, 2018] Russiagate Isn t About Trump, And It Isn t Even Ultimately About Russia by Caitlyn Johnstone

        [Jan 28, 2018] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Russiagate Isn't About Trump, And It Isn't Even Ultimately About Russia by Caitlyn Johnstone

        [Jan 27, 2018] The Rich Also Cry by Israel Shamir

        [Jan 27, 2018] As of January 2018 Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey, is starting to look like something Trump should have done sooner.

        [Jan 27, 2018] In a Trump Hunt, Beware the Perjury Trap by Pat Buchanan

        [Jan 27, 2018] Mainstream Media and Imperial Power

        [Jan 26, 2018] Warns The Russiagate Stakes Are Extreme by Paul Craig Roberts

        [Jan 25, 2018] Russiagate as Kafka 2.0

        [Jan 24, 2018] Whistleblower Confirms Secret Society Meetings Between FBI And DOJ To Undermine Trump

        [Jan 24, 2018] Brazen Plot To Exonerate Hillary Clinton And Frame Trump Unraveling, Says Former Fed Prosecutor

        [Jan 22, 2018] The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear compromised

        [Jan 22, 2018] Pentagon Unveils Strategy for Military Confrontation With Russia and China by Bill Van Auken

        [Jan 22, 2018] Clapper may have been the one behind using British intelligence to spy on Trump.

        [Jan 22, 2018] The Associated Press is reporting that the Department of Justice has given congressional investigators additional text messages between FBI investigator Peter Strzok and his girlfriend Lisa Page. The FBI also told investigators that five months worth of text messages, between December 2016 and May 2017, are unavailable because of a technical glitch

        [Jan 22, 2018] How Michael Wolff duped the White House into giving him access to Trump's aides by Allahpundit

        [Jan 22, 2018] EPIC: CNN Host GOES OFF On Anti-Trump Michael Wolff for what he did on Live Tv

        [Jan 20, 2018] What Is The Democratic Party ? by Lambert Strether

        [Jan 19, 2018] #ReleaseTheMemo Extensive FISA abuse memo could destroy the entire Mueller Russia investigation by Alex Christoforou

        [Jan 19, 2018] No Foreign Bases Challenging the Footprint of US Empire by Kevin B. Zeese and Margaret Flowers

        [Jan 17, 2018] Neoconning the Trump White House by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

        [Jan 16, 2018] The Russia Explainer

        [Jan 15, 2018] CIA had an agent at a newspaper in every world capital at least since 1977

        [Jan 14, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis The Trump Dossier Timeline, A Democrat Disaster Looming by Publius Tacitus

        [Jan 14, 2018] Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart -- Say Hello to Fancy Bear

        [Jan 13, 2018] The FBI Hand Behind Russia-gate by Ray McGovern

        [Jan 08, 2018] Someone Spoofed Michael Wolff s Book About Trump And It s Comedy Gold

        [Jan 06, 2018] Russia-gate Breeds Establishment McCarthyism by Robert Parry

        [Dec 31, 2017] What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater

        [Dec 31, 2017] Where's the Collusion

        [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies

        [Jan 02, 2018] The Still-Missing Evidence of Russia-gate by Dennis J. Bernstein

        [Jan 02, 2018] Some investigators ask a sensible question: "It is likely that all the Russians involved in the attempt to influence the 2016 election were lying, scheming, Kremlin-linked, Putin-backed enemies of America except the Russians who talked to Christopher Steele?"

        [Jan 02, 2018] Neocon warmongers should be treated as rapists by Andrew J. Bacevich

        [Jan 02, 2018] What We Don t Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking by Jackson Lears

        [Jan 02, 2018] Jill Stein in the Cross-hairs by Mike Whitney

        [Jan 02, 2018] Who Is the Real Enemy by Philip Giraldi

        [Jan 02, 2018] American exceptionalism extracts a price from common citizens

        [Jan 02, 2018] The Idolatry of the Donald

        [Dec 31, 2017] Brainwashing as a key component of the US social system by Paul Craig Roberts

        [Feb 13, 2019] MoA - Russiagate Is Finished

        [Feb 13, 2019] Making Globalism Great Again by C.J. Hopkins

        [Feb 13, 2019] Stephen Cohen on War with Russia and Soviet-style Censorship in the US by Russell Mokhiber

        [Feb 10, 2019] Pussy John Bolton and His Codpiece Mustache by Fred Reed

        [Feb 10, 2019] Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Exposes the Problem of Dark Money in Politics NowThis - YouTube

        [Feb 09, 2019] Did The Department Of Justice Protect Brenda Snipes From Prosecution For Ballot Destruction by Elizabeth Lea Vos

        [Feb 08, 2019] To understand Steele and the five eyes involvement in the Russia hoax you need to go to the library

        [Feb 04, 2019] Trump s Revised and Rereleased Foreign Policy: The World Policeman is Back

        [Feb 02, 2019] Michael Hudson Trump s Brilliant Strategy to Dismember US Dollar Hegemony by Michael Hudson

        [Feb 02, 2019] According to the recipes devised by Reagan: why the methods which successfully destroyed the USSR do not work with modern Russia? by Alexey Makurin

        [Jan 29, 2019] After hiring Abrams the next logical step would be hiring Hillary or Wolfowitz. WTF Is Trump Thinking

        [Jan 29, 2019] These 2020 hopefuls are courting Wall Street. Don t be fooled by their progressive veneer by Bhaskar Sunkara

        [Jan 29, 2019] The Language of Neoliberal Education by Henry Giroux

        [Jan 29, 2019] Guardian became D>eep State Guardian

        [Jan 29, 2019] The Religious Fanaticism of Silicon Valley Elites by Paul Ingrassia

        [Jan 26, 2019] Can the current US neoliberal/neoconservative elite be considered suicidal?

        [Jan 24, 2019] No One Said Rich People Were Very Sharp Davos Tries to Combat Populism by Dean Baker

        [Jan 22, 2019] War with Russia From Putin Ukraine to Trump Russiagate

        [Jan 22, 2019] The French Anti-Neoliberal Revolution. On the conditions for its success by Dimitris Konstantakopoulos

        [Jan 21, 2019] Beyond BuzzFeed The 10 Worst, Most Embarrassing US Media Failures On The Trump-Russia Story by Glenn Greenwald

        [Jan 20, 2019] Doctor, nurse, Chief Nursing Officer of the Army, whatever.

        [Jan 19, 2019] According to Wolin, domestic and foreign affairs goals are each important and on parallel tracks

        [Jan 15, 2019] Apparently, the FBI, and not the CIA, are the real government.

        [Jan 14, 2019] Nanci Pelosi and company at the helm of the the ship the Imperial USA

        [Jan 13, 2019] As FBI Ramped Up Witch Hunt When Trump Fired Comey, Strzok Admitted Collusion Investigation A Joke

        [Jan 13, 2019] Tucker Carlson Routs Conservatism Inc. On Unrestrained Capitalism -- And Immigration by Washington Watcher

        [Jan 13, 2019] There is no free market! It's all crooked by financial oligarchy!

        [Jan 12, 2019] Tucker Carlson Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But for everyone else, it's infuriating Fox News

        [Jan 12, 2019] Tucker Carlson has sparked the most interesting debate in conservative politics by Jane Coaston

        [Jan 11, 2019] New Documents Reveal a Covert British Military-Intelligence Smear Machine Meddling In American Politics by Mark Ames

        [Jan 11, 2019] Facts does not matter in the current propoganda environment, the narrative is everything

        [Jan 11, 2019] Blowback from the neoliberal policy is coming

        [Jan 08, 2019] Shock Files- What Role Did Integrity Initiative Play in Sergei Skripal Affair- - Sputnik International

        [Jan 08, 2019] Skripal spin doctors- Documents link UK govt-funded Integrity Initiative to anti-Russia narrative

        [Jan 08, 2019] Rewriting Economic Thought - Michael Hudson

        [Jan 08, 2019] The Financial Sector Is the Greatest Parasite in Human History by Ben Strubel

        [Jan 08, 2019] No, wealth isn t created at the top. It is merely devoured there by Rutger Bregman

        [Jan 07, 2019] The 1920's were marked by a credit expansion, a significant growth in consumer debt, the creation of asset bubbles, and the proliferation of financial instruments and leveraged investments. Now we have exactly the same trends

        [Jan 06, 2019] British elite fantasy of again ruling the world (with American and Zionist aid) has led to a series of catastrophic blunders and overreaches in both foreign and domestic policies.

        [Jan 04, 2019] Veteran NBC-MSNBC Journalist Blasts Network in Resignation

        [Jan 02, 2019] Russian bots - How An Anti-Russian Lobby Creates Fake News

        [Jan 02, 2019] The Only Meddling "Russian Bots" Were Actually Democrat-Led "Experts" by Mac Slavo

        [Jan 02, 2019] Did Mueller Patched Together Much of His Indictment from 2015 Radio Free Europe Article ?

        [Jan 02, 2019] That madness of the US neocons comes from having no behavioural limits, no references outside of groupthink, and manipulating the language. Simply put, you don't know anymore what's what outside of the narrative your group pushes. The manipulators ends up caught in their lies.

        Sites



        Etc

        Society

        Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

        Quotes

        War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotesSomerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose BierceBernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

        Bulletin:

        Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

        History:

        Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOSProgramming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC developmentScripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

        Classic books:

        The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-MonthHow to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

        Most popular humor pages:

        Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

        The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D


        Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

        FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

        This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

        You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site

        Disclaimer:

        The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

        Last modified: March, 12, 2020